HomeMy WebLinkAboutSEPA E01-012 - CITY OF TUKWILA - CHECKLIST FOR 15 ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS:ZONING CODE
AMENDMENTS
CITY -WIDE
E01 -012
•
City of Tukwila
Steven M. Mullet, Mayor
Department of Community Development Steve Lancaster, Director
STAFF REPORT
TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION
Prepared May 16, 2001
HEARING DATE: June 28, 2001
NOTIFICATION: Notice of Public Hearing will be published in the newspaper June 14
Notice of Public Hearing mailed to Internet Data Centers and
Pawnbrokers in the City of Tukwila June 11, 2001
FILE NUMBERS: L01 -032 Zoning Code Amendments
E01 -012 SEPA Determination
REQUEST: Hold a public hearing and make recommendations to the City Council
about 15 proposed Zoning Code amendments.
LOCATION: Some amendments affect specific zones while others are city wide
SEPA
DETERMINATION: Pending
RECOMMENDATION: Approval
STAFF: Nora Gierloff, Associate Planner
ATTACHMENTS: A. Floor Area Ratio and Lot Coverage Diagrams
B. Portland Zoning Code Standards for Residential Facades
C. Shipping /Storage Container Sizes
D. Figure 18 -4
E. Amended Figure 18 -4
F. Report on New Standards for Residential Streets in Portland, OR
G. Staff's SEPA Determination Memo
Page 1
6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 0 Tukwila, Washington 98188 0 Phone: 206 - 431 -3670 0 Fax: 206 - 431 -3665
BACKGROUND
Staff grouped 16 proposed amendments to the Zoning Code together on topics ranging from
minor housekeeping or clarification to policy decisions about allowed uses and development
standards. Staffs suggested changes along with other options were presented to the Community
Affairs and Parks Committee for consideration on February 27th, 2001 and April 10, 2001.
The Committee accepted Staff's recommendation on all items except L Add a parking standard
for internet data centers. Their recommendation to the COW on L was to continue to set case by
case parking requirements based on a parking study provided by the developer and reviewed by
the Public Works Department as is our current practice.
The package was then presented to the City Council Committee of the Whole on April 23, 2001.
They concurred with the CAP's recommendations on all items except K. Add internet data
centers as allowed or conditional uses in specified zones. The COW chose the option that would
allow internet data centers in RC and TUC in addition to the C/LI, LI, HI, MIC /L, MIC/H and
TVS Zones that Staff had proposed and CAP had endorsed.
PROPOSED CHANGES
Following are the 15 remaining code amendments. Each has an explanation of the reasoning
behind the change followed by the strikeout/underline code language that reflects the COW's
preferred option. The Planning Commission is asked to review the proposed changes and accept
them as proposed (Option 1) or recommend to the Council that the proposal be modified (Option
2).
A. Change the Floor Area Ratio limitation in LDR to a lot coverage standard
The current LDR development standards limit the total floor area of all structures on a lot to 50%
of the lot area (TMC 18.10.060). While this is not much of an issue for larger lots it can severely
constrain the development of smaller, legally non - conforming lots in areas such as Allentown. A
typical 3,000 square foot lot there would be limited to 1,500 square feet of structure including the
house as well as garages, sheds, basements and covered porches.
An alternative to the current floor area ratio (FAR) regulation would be to limit lot coverage
instead. A lot coverage standard of 50% would still preserve half the lot as yards, while allowing
additional living space on a second or third story of the house that would not be counted in the
formula. See Attachment A for a diagram of the difference between floor area ratio and lot
coverage.
Following are the code revisions that would be required to implement this change:
18.06.515 Lot coverage. "Lot coverage" means the area of the surface of the subject property
covered by all structures _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . ivided by the total
site area.
C:\Nora's _Files \CODEAMND\ZoneAmendPC.DOC
Page 2
• •
The term "lot coverage" is not used in the TMC so changing the definition will not cause any
problems.
18.06.330 Floor area ratio.
"Floor area ratio" means the total floor area of a building(s) on a site, exclusive of any specific
exceptions, divided by the total site area.
The floor area ratio definition would be kept in the code because the RCC Zone also has a 50%
FAR limitation.
18.10.060 Basic development standards. Development within the LDR district shall conform
to the following listed and referenced standards:
LDR BASIC DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
Lot area, minimum 6,500 sq. ft.
Average lot width (min. 20 ft. street 50 feet
frontage width), minimum
Floor Lot coverage for all structures 50% maximum
18.20.080 Basic development standards. Development within the Residential Commercial
Center district shall conform to the following listed and referenced standards:
RCC BASIC DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
Lot area, minimum 5,000 sq. ft.
Lot area per unit (multi - family), minimum 3,000 sq. ft. �
Floor area ratio for all structures 50% maximum
The Council briefly discussed the option of changing the RCC standard to lot coverage instead of
FAR. The development standards of the two zones are very similar and it might encourage
mixed use development if residential uses could be built on the second and third stories without
taking square footage away from the ground floor commercial area.
Options:
1. Recommend that the Council make the above changes to the definitions and LDR
Zone
2. Recommend changes to the proposal
a) Choose a lot coverage limitation other than 50%
b) Also change the standard in RCC to lot coverage rather than FAR
c) Other changes
B. Eliminate increased setbacks for the second story of structures in LDR
The current LDR development standards require that the first story' of a house be set back 20 feet
from the front property line and the second story be set back 30 feet (TMC 18.10.060). The
C:\Nora's _Files \CODEAMND\ZoneAmendPC.DOC
Page 3
• •
setbacks for the second front are 10 feet for the first floor and 15 for the second. This staggered
setback requirement often results in a protruding garage and encourages a streetscape of garage
doors. By having a single front yard setback builders are more likely to integrate the garage with
the front of the house, making it less prominent. Staffs proposal is to have a 20 foot setback for
the front and 10 foot setback for the second front in LDR, with no increase for the second story.
Porches would still be allowed to be setback 15 feet from the front property line.
During their discussion the Council wanted to know what other options were available for
control of the design of single family houses. Portland has implemented code changes to
encourage entries to face the street and reduce the prominence of garage doors on the streetscape.
See Attachment B for Portland's code provisions.
Following are the code revisions that would be required to implement this change:
18.10.060 Basic development standards. Development within the LDR district shall conform
to the following listed and referenced standards:
LDR BASIC DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
Lot area, minimum 6,500 sq. ft.
Average lot width (min. 20 ft. street
frontage width), minimum 50 feet
Floor area ratio for all structures 50% maximum
Setbacks to yards (minimum):
Front, 1st floor 20 feet
Front, 2nd floor 30 feet
Front, decks or porches 15 feet
Second front, 1st floor 10 feet
Second front, 2nd floor 15 feet
#�# Sides 5 feet
Rear 10 feet
Options:
1. Recommend that the Council make the above changes to LDR setbacks
2. Recommend changes to the proposal
a) Change the required setbacks
b) Add design controls for LDR similar to Portland's code
c) Other changes
C. Prohibit the use of cargo containers as storage sheds in residential zones
The City has received a number of inquiries from residents and businesses about the possibility
of using cargo containers as storage sheds or accessory buildings. These containers are not
compatible with residential character due to their size (generally 20 or 40 long by 8 feet wide)
and industrial appearance (rectangular boxes made of corrugated metal). See Attachment C for
examples of standard sizes.
C: \Nora's _Files \CODEAMND\ZoneAmendPC.DOC Page 4
The Council recommended banning them from the MUO Zone as well as the LDR, MDR, and
HDR Zones that Staff had proposed. However, they also raised the issue that some schools in
Tukwila (located in LDR Zoning) store emergency supplies in this type of container. The schools
lack other storage space and may be called upon to provide shelter in the case of a natural
disaster, so it does serve a public need to station emergency supplies at that location.
To implement the change the accessory use sections of the four zones would be amended as
follows:
X. Greenhouses (noncommercial) and storage sheds not exceeding 1,000 square feet in area.
Cargo or shipping containers are not allowed as accessory structures on residential lots.
Options:
1. Recommend that the Council make the above change to the LDR, MDR, HDR and
MUO Zones
2. Recommend changes to the proposal
a) Ban the containers in additional zones
b) Ban the containers in LDR only
c) Other changes
D. Add additional detail to landscape plan requirements
The Zoning Code section that sets out the requirements for landscape plan submittal would read
as follows under the proposed revision:
TMC 18.52.050 Landscape Plan Requirements
A. A Washington State licensed landscape architect shall prepare and stamp the landscape plans in
accordance with the standards herein. Detailed plans for landscaping and screening shall be
submitted with plans for building and site improvements. Included in the plans shall be the type,
quantity, spacing and location of plants and materials, typical planting details, and the location of
irrigation systems.
These two items are typically included in landscape plans and are necessary for Staff to fully
evaluate the landscape design.
Options:
1. Recommend that the Council make the above changes to the landscape requirements
2. Recommend changes to the proposal
a) Add additional items
b) Other changes
C: \Nora's _Files \CODEAMND\ZoneAmendPC.DOC Page 5
E. Revise the Zoning Code definition of building height to match the Washington State
Building Code
The current definition of building height listed at 18.06.100 does not give clear guidance for
determining the height of buildings on sloping sites. The Washington State Building Code
method is widely used and applicable to a wide variety of site conditions.
TMC 18.06.100 Building Height.
"Building height" means the vertical distance measured from the average elevation of the proposed
finished grade around the building to the highest point of a flat roof and to the mean height between
eaves and ridge of a pitched. roof.
Washington State Building Code Height Definition
1. The height of a stepped or terraced building shall be the maximum height of any segment of .
the building as stated below.
MAXIMUM HEIGHT OF BUILDING IS 28 FT. 0 SEGMENT 1.
MAXIMUM NUMBER OF STORIES IS 3 0 SEGMENTS 1 AND 2.
SEGMENT 2
HEIGHT = 24 FT.
THREE STORIES
SEGMENT 1
HEIGHT = 28 FT.
THREE STORIES'
SEGMENT 3
HEIGHT = 18 FT.
TWO STORIES
8FT.
8 FT
8 Ft
2 FT.
WALL
5 FT.
WAL
I
WALL
T
1OFT.
10 FT.
wm
5 FT
1. The height of a non - terraced building shall be the vertical distance above a reference point
measured to:
a. the highest point of the coping of a flat roof; or
b. the deck line of a mansard roof; or
c. the average height of the highest gable of a pitched or hipped roof.
The reference point shall be selected by using the following diagrams, whichever yields a greater
height of building:
C:\Nora's _Files \CODEAMND\ZoneAmendPC.DOC Page 6
HEIGHT OF
BUILDING
5Fr.
5 FT
CASE I
For SI: t foot = 304.3 mm.
y LESS THAN
10 FT.
—
I
HEIGHT OF
BUILDING
DATUM
5FT.
10 FT.
5 FT.
1
CASE II
DETERMINATION OF BUILDING HEIGHT IN FEET (mm)
Under the proposed change the definition of building height would read as follows:
MORE THAN
— 10 FT.
TMC 18.06.100 Building Height.
"Building height" means the height of a building as calculated by the method in the Washington State
Building Code
> ehed -ree€
Options:
1. Recommend that the Council make the above changes
2. Recommend changes to the proposal
F. Revise the Zoning Code definition of story to match the Washington State Building Code
The current Zoning Code definition of story differs from the definition in the Washington State
Building Code in a few key standards. This causes confusion and misunderstandings with
applicants when they apply for a building permit and are told that they need to remove a story to
comply with the number of stories allowed by their zone. This would not affect the LDR, TUC,
HI, MIC/H or TVS Zones as they have specific height limits regardless of the number of stories.
Under the proposed changes the definition of story would read as follows:
TMC 18.06.790 Story.
"Story" means that portion of a building included between the upper surface of any floor and the upper
surface of the floor next above, except that the topmost story shall be that portion of a building included
between the upper surface of the topmost floor and the ceiling or roof above. If the finished floor level
directly above a basement is more than twe six feet above grade for more than 2950% of the total
perimeter or is twelve feet above grade as defined at any point, such basement shall be considered as a
story.
C:\Nora's _Files \CODEAMND\ZoneAmendPC.DOC Page 7
Options:
1. Recommend that the Council make the above changes
2. Recommend changes to the proposal
a) Select different cutoff standards (4 feet above grade or 35% of perimeter)
b) Other changes
G. Delete High Tech as a Use Category
High tech uses are listed as permitted in eleven of Tukwila's zones as follows:
XX. High tech uses including research and development, light assembling, repair or storage of
electronic equipment, instruments, or biotechnology with at least 35% office.
This phrasing is ambiguous and has led to confusion by applicants as to what is intended by the
category. Is light assembling allowed for any product or only electronic equipment? Are each of
these uses required to have at least 35% office or only biotechnology? Staff suggests that we
delete the high tech category from MUO, 0, NCC, RC, RCM, TUC, C/LI, LI, HI, MIC /H and
TVS as it has been deleted from MIC /L because the underlying uses of office, computer software
development, electronics repair, light manufacturing, medical laboratories and warehouse storage
are called out specifically in the various zones. While a high tech office use would be
appropriate in the MUO or 0 zones, light manufacturing would not so the overly broad nature of
the high tech category could result in the establishment of incompatible uses.
Zone
MUO 0 NCC RC RCM TUC C /LI LI
Use
HI MIC / TVS
Office
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X **
X
Computer Software Development
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Fix -it, radio or television repair
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Light Manufacturing (electronics)
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Medical and Dental Laboratories
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Warehouse Storage
X*
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
* Only in conjunction with wholesale or retail sales offices
** Only in conjunction with another permitted use
Options:
1. Recommend that the Council make the above changes
2. Recommend changes to the high tech use definition instead of deletion
H. Correct Figure 18 -4 Location and Measurement of Yards on Lots
The diagram in the Zoning Code that displays how yards are determined is incorrect (see
Attachment D). It should be corrected to accurately show the "second front" condition for corner
lots (see Attachment E).
C: \Nora's _Files \CODEAMND\ZoneAmendPC.DOC Page 8
Options:
1. Recommend that the Council make the above changes to the diagram
2. Recommend other changes to the diagram
I. Add Pawnbrokers as allowed or conditional uses in specified Zones
Pawnbrokers are not addressed in Tukwila's Zoning Code and therefore are currently allowed in
any zone that permits retail sales. However, pawnbrokers are distinct from other retail uses
because they offer loans in exchange for personal property and therefore should be called out as a
separate use and specified as allowed or conditional.
Two pawnbrokers are currently in operation in the City, both in the NCC Zone. This use is not
compatible with the intent of the Neighborhood Commercial Center Zone because it serves a
specialized, regional need not an everyday community need. The COW recommended adding
pawnbrokers to the list of permitted uses in TUC, C /LI, LI, HI and TVS and conditional uses in
RC and RCM Zones.
Options:
1. Recommend that the Council make the above changes to add pawnbrokers to the list
of permitted and conditional uses
2. Recommend changes to the proposal
a) Select different zones to list pawnbrokers as allowed or conditional uses
b) Other changes
J. Add a definition for Pawnbrokers
If the Planning Commission elects to recommend adding pawnbrokers to the listed uses in the
Zoning Code the term "pawnbroker" should be defined. Pawnbrokers are distinguished from
second hand dealers such as Goodwill by the fact that they offer loans in exchange for goods.
To implement the proposed change the following definition would be added to the Zoning Code:
18.06.XXX Pawnbroker.
"Pawnbroker" is an establishment engaged in the buying or selling of new or secondhand
merchandise and offering loans in exchange for personal property.
Options.
1. Recommend that the Council make the above change to add a definition for
pawnbroker
2. Recommend changes to the definition
C: \Nora's _Files \CODEAMND\ZoneAmendPC.DOC Page 9
K. Add Internet Data Centers as allowed or conditional uses in specified Zones
Tukwila is seeing the rapid development of internet data centers by such companies as Exodus,
Globix, AboveNet, Zama Networks, Qwest, HostPro, Verio and Netstream. We have
administratively determined that although this use is not called out in the Zoning Code it will be
allowed in zones that allow high tech, warehouse storage and telephone exchanges. Given the
proliferation and impacts of this new type of use it should be recognized in Tukwila's Zoning
Code.
Though the use itself, climate - controlled warehouse space for computers with minimal support
and security staff, has few direct impacts the HVAC units and emergency power generators can
create high noise levels. For efficiency and security the buildings generally have large floor
plates with minimal windows or modulation. The use is most appropriate for, and has primarily
occurred in industrial zones. However we are seeing interest in locating these uses in
commercial zones such as the TUC.
The Council wanted to pursue the option of adding internet data centers to the list of permitted
uses in the RC, TUC, C /LI, LI, HI, MIC /L, MIC /H and TVS Zones.
Options:
1. Recommend that the Council make the above changes to add internet data centers to
the permitted uses
2. Recommend changes to the proposal
a) Select different zones to list internet data centers as permitted or conditional uses
b) Other changes
The Council did not want to pursue this amendment. Staff will continue to administratively set a
parking requirement for each business based on a parking study provided by the applicant.
M. Add a definition for Internet Data Centers
If the CAP Committee elects to add internet data centers to the listed uses in the Zoning Code the
term "internet data center" should be defined in the Code. The following addition would be
required:
18.06.XXX Internet Data Center.
"Internet data center" means a secure, climate controlled facility with emergency backup power
that contains a large number of computer switches and servers (usually Web servers) for one
or more companies.
Options:
1. Recommend that the Council make the above change to add the definition
C: \Nora's _Files \CODEAMND\ZoneAmendPC.DOC Page 10
• •
2. Recommend changes to the definition
N. Amend the Subdivision Standard for Turnarounds
During the rewrite of the Subdivision Code in 1998 the City Council approved a cul -de -sac
turnaround standard for single family that was smaller than the standard for multi - family and
commercial developments. The Fire Department has stated that since their fire engine requires
the same turning radius regardless of the use of the site there should only be one standard. They
request that the development standards in the Subdivision Code be amended to show only one
turnaround requirement for a 92 foot diameter right -of -way with 81 feet of paving. They think
that it is unwise to allow the sidewalk area to be used as part of the turning radius because a fully
loaded truck can damage sidewalks and crush utility boxes and vaults.
To balance the increased amount of paved surface required by the 81 foot standard Staff is
recommending that a 20 foot landscape island be required in the center of the cul -de -sac. The
Fire Department has determined that this would not interfere with the turning radius of their fire
engines, though it may be damaged by the ladder truck.
Under the proposed changes the road standard table in the Subdivision Code would be amended
as follows:
Type of Street
Right -of-
Way
Roadway
Pavement
Principal Arterial
80 -100 feet
48 -84 feet
Minor Arterial
60 -80 feet
36 -64 feet
Collector Arterial
60 -80 feet
24 -48 feet
Access Road
50 -60 feet
28 -36 feet
Cul -De -Sac
Roadway
40 feet
26 feet
80 4eet `
604e
Turnaround i ,
se ereial)
92 feet (dia.)
81 feet (dia.) with
20 foot (dia.)
landscape island
Alley
20 feet
15 feet
Private Access Roads
Residential
20 feet
20 feet
Commercial
40 feet
28 feet
During its review of these amendments the Council asked for additional information on how
other jurisdictions implement Traditional Neighborhood Development goals which include
reducing street widths to calm traffic and create more livable streets. Attachment F contains a
City of Portland report that explores the balance between the needs of emergency vehicles and
residents and makes recommendations for residential pavement and right -of -way widths. Our
access road standards are not much different than Portland's, though they allow parking on both
sides of the street for that width. Portland's residential cul -de -sac standard calls for an 80 foot R-
O-W and 70 feet of paving.
C: Nora's _Files \CODEAMND\ZoneAmendPC.DOC
Page 11
Options:
1. Recommend that the Council make the above change
2. Recommend changes to the standard
0. Remove the fee for Street Vacations from the Zoning Code
The auditor has requested that we remove the fee for street vacations from the schedule in the
Application Fees Chapter of the Zoning Code (18.88). DCD does not accept applications or
collect fees for street vacations so they should not be listed in the Zoning Code. Vacations are a
Public Works responsibility and the logical place to list the fee amount would be in the Street
and Alley Vacation Procedure chapter (11.60). Public Works is currently updating the Vacation
Procedure Chapter and will insert the fee amount.
18.88.010 Application fees.
The following fees shall be paid by any applicant for a land use permit at the same time that
said application is filed with the City:
Type of Application Fee
Comprehensive plan amendment $700.00
Conditional use permit (CUP) 850.00
Design review (BAR) 900.00
Planned Residential Development(PRD) 800.00 plus 100.00 /acre
Reclassification (rezone) 700.00
Shoreline substantial development permit 550.00
Short Plat/Binding Site Improvement Plan 200.00
Street vacation 40,00
Unclassified use permit (UUP) 850.00
Variance 600.00
Boundary line adjustments 50.00
Special review (parking /sign deviation, etc.) 200.00
Zoning Code Amendment
Preliminary Plat
Final Plat
700.00
800.00 plus 75.00 per lot
400.00 plus 25.00 per lot
Application for renewals of any land use permit, provided such renewals are specifically
authorized, shall pay the same fee required for the land use permit being renewed.
Options:
1. Recommend that the Council make the above change
2. Decline to change the fee schedule
P. Change the Zoning Code to allow structures over the right -of -way
Currently the Tukwila Zoning Code does not allow for structures to be built over street right -of-
way similar to the Convention Center or the Nordstrom skybridge in Seattle. The proposed code
C:\Nora's _Files \CODEAMND\ZoneAmendPC.DOC Page 12
•
change would provide a process for developers to request waivers from the setback provisions of
the code. This process would not be exempt the development from SEPA, design review,
building permit or the need to negotiate air rights from the agency with jurisdiction over the R-
OW.
18.50.0XX Structures over R -O -W
A developer who controls parcels on both sides of a public right-of-way may request approval to
bridge the street with a structure as a Type 2 special permission decision. Only the width of the
building that extends across the street is exempt from setbacks, the remainder of the building
must meet them. The developer must also obtain air rights and comply with all other relevant
codes including the Washington State Building Code.
Options:
1. Recommend that the Council make the above change
2. Recommend changes to the proposal
a) Require a conditional use permit instead of Director's approval
b) Other changes
REQUESTED ACTION
Hold a public hearing on June 28th to consider the proposed changes and make a recommendation
to the City Council on each of the above proposals.
C:\Nora's _Files \CODEAMND\ZoneAmendPC.DOC Page 13
Floor Area Ratio:
Total square footage of all structures on site
Total lot area
For example a .5 FAR would allow a 3000 square foot lot in Allentown to have a
maximum of 1500 square feet of structures. That could be a 1,500 sf single story house
or a house with two 750 sf storys.
FAR: Entire lot area:..:,;
la: let _erea ::1 /4lat• area
Lot Coverage:
Footprint of all structures on site
Total lot area
For example a .5 lot coverage ratio would allow a 3000 sf lot in Allentown to have a
1,500 sf single story house or a 3000 sf two story house.
The following buildings would all have a .5 lot coverage.
Attachment A
City of Portland, Oregon Zoning Code Standards for Residential Facades
33.110.230 Main Entrances in R10 through R2.5 Zones
A. Purpose. These standards:
• Together with the street- facing facade and garage standards, ensure that there is a physical and
visual connection between the living area of the residence and the street;
• Enhance public safety for residents and visitors and provide opportunities for community
interaction;
• Ensure that the pedestrian entrance is visible or clearly identifiable from the street by its
orientation or articulation; and
• Ensure that pedestrians can easily find the main entrance, and so establish how to enter the
residence.
B. Where these standards apply. The standards of this section apply to houses, attached houses,
manufactured homes, and duplexes in the R10 through R2.5 zones. Where a proposal is for an
alteration or addition to existing development, the standards of this section apply only to the
portion being altered or added. Development on flag lots or on lots that slope up or down from
the street with an average slope of 20 percent or more is exempt from these standards. In addition,
subdivisions and PUDs that received preliminary plan approval between September 9, 1990, and
September 9, 1995, are exempt from these standards.
C. Location. At least one main entrance for each structure must:
1. Be within 8 feet of the longest street - facing wall of the dwelling unit; and
2. Either:
a. Face the street. See Figure 110 -4;
b. Be at an angle of up to 45 degrees from the street; or
c. Open onto a porch. See Figure 110 -5. The porch must:
(1) Be at least 25 square feet in area;
(2) Have at least one entrance facing the street; and
(3) Have a roof that is:
• No more than 12 feet above the floor of the porch; and
• At least 30 percent solid. This standard may be met by having 30
percent of the porch area covered with a solid roof, or by having
the entire area covered with a trellis or other open material if no
more than 70 percent of the area of the material is open.
33.110.232 Street - Facing Facades in R10 through R2.5 Zones
A. Purpose. This standard:
• Together with the main entrance and garage standards, ensures that there is a visual connection
between the living area of the residence and the street;
• Enhances public safety by allowing people to survey their neighborhood from inside their
residences; and
• Provides a more pleasant pedestrian environment by preventing large expanses of blank facades
along streets.
Attachment B
• . •
B. Where this standard applies. The standard of this section applies to houses, attached houses,
manufactured homes, and duplexes in the R10 through R2.5 zones. Where a proposal is for an
alteration or addition to existing development, the standard applies only to the portion being
altered or added. Development on flag lots or on lots which slope up or down from the street with
an average slope of 20 percent or more are exempt from this standard. In addition, subdivisions
and PUDs that received preliminary plan approval between September 9, 1990, and September 9,
1995, are exempt from this standard.
C. The standard. At least 15 percent of the area of each facade that faces a street lot line must be
windows or main entrance doors. Windows in garage doors do not count toward meeting this
standard, but windows in garage walls do count toward meeting this standard. To count toward
meeting this standard, a door must be at the main entrance and facing a street lot line.
Figure 110 -4
Main Entrance Facing the Street
Figure 110 -5
Main Entrance Opening onto a Porch
GARAGE
DWELLING.
UNIT
Malin
c}nxraixa
longest
0treet.facin.g :>wII W
ofdwe(iing.. unit
.
Front lot II no
L emm ems essow mm ms.enioikm®m4s,m1111sa NMI lei
Siclewraik
1 Maxirnum
5 TRE E T
,STREET
TRS
cDNrAMo`y
TRS CONTAINERS
PO Box 188, 301 E Essex Avenel, Avenel NJ 07001 0188 USA
TEL: 732 636 3300 FAX: 732 750 1642
Email :trscontainers@worldnet.att.net, Website:www.trscontainers.com
NEW 20 FT AND 40 FT LONG ISO SHIPPING /STORAGE CONTAINERS
AVAILABLE FOR SALE. LEASE & MODIFICATIONS
40' HIGHCUBE
STANDARD 40' CONTAINER
20' HIGHCUBE
STANDARD 20' CONTAINER
External Dimensions:
Internal Dimensions:
Tare Weight:
Max Gross Weight:
Cubic Capacity:
External Dimensions:
Internal Dimensions:
Tare Weight:
Max Gross Weight:
Cubic Capacity:
40'L X 8'W X 9'6" H
39'5 "L X 7'8 "W X 8'10 "H
8545 lbs.
62,700 lbs.
2690 cu ft
40'L X 8'W X 8'6" H
39'5 "L X 7'8 "W X 7'10 "H
7780 lbs.
62,700 lbs.
2389 cu ft
*Aluminum specifications are similar, however, they have 4
foot high internal plywood lining.
External Dimensions: 20'L X 8'W X 9'6" H
Internal Dimensions: 19'4 "L X 7'8 "W X 8'10 "H
Tare Weight: 5360 lbs.
Max Gross Weight: 67,200 lbs.
Cubic Capacity: 1321 cu ft
External Dimensions:
Internal Dimensions:
Tare Weight:
Max Gross Weight:
Cubic Capacity:
20'L X 8'W X 8'6" H
19'4 "L X 7'8 "W X 7'10 "H
4980 lbs.
67,200 lbs.
1170 cu ft
The majority of TRS' new containers are constructed of Corten steel to help prevent
corrosion and damages. The boxes are equipped with corrugated steel panels and roof.
All 20ft containers have forklift pockets to keep handling damages to a minimum.
*Please keep in mind that internal measurements may vary slightly.
Attachment C
•
Location and Measurement of Yards on Lots
Rear
V/ /// Side
Front
Second Front
—.Lot Lines
- — — - Yard Measurment Lines
City of Tukwila
Location and Measurment
Yards on Lots
Figure 18-4
Attachment D
• Location and Measurement of Yards on Lots
Attachment E
Local Street Improvements
•
Local
Street
Improvements
• .Page -1 of 8
REPORT ON
NEW STANDARDS
FOR
RESIDENTIAL STREETS IN
PORTLAND OREGON
Terrance L. Bray, P.E.
Karen Carlson Rabiner, P.E.
Transportation Engineering & Development
October 18, 1991
(Revised August 1, 1994)
Introduction
Development
Recommended
Standards
Standards
INTRODUCTION
Over the past ninety years, it has been Portland's policy to
provide maintenance services on only those local streets built
to City standards. Those standards were developed to ensure
that streets accepted for City maintenance . meet necessary
safety and durability requirements.
Streets in new subdivisions and other raw land developments
are built to city standards at the expense of the developers,
who then pass the cost along to new home buyers.
Construction of City streets in existing neighborhoods has
been accomplished through the city- managed Local
Improvement District program, with the costs being assessed
upon the adjacent, benefiting properties. Of the approximately.
1200 miles of local streets in Portland, virtually all were
improved through these two approaches.
In Portland today, only about 80 miles of public rights -of -way
used as neighborhood streets remain unimproved. Many of the
residents of these neighborhoods feel that the City offers too
few improvement options, that the street standards are
excessive, and that streets built to these standards are too
costly. Added to those concerns is growing public
dissatisfaction with high traffic speeds and volumes on streets
already improved to city standards. Street drainage, erosion
control and water pollution issues have emerged in the
Tualatin River Basin, and are a growing concern across the
city.
In 1988, a citizens committee was created to look at and search
for solutions to the problems associated with unimproved
neighborhood streets. Through a committee, a consultant was
http: / /www. trans. ci. portland.or.us /PDOT_ SERVICES /local_street improvements.htr Attachment F
Local Street Improvements
• •
retained to "brainstorm" new solutions to traditional
neighborhood street problems. At the suggestion of the
consultant, the committee recommended that the City develop
new standards for City - maintained residential streets.
In May 1990, the City began development of new standards
for City - maintained residential streets. This report summarizes
the development of those new residential street standards. The
standards were adopted by the Portland City Council on July
31, 1991.
DEVELOPMENT OF STANDARDS
1. Allow additional street
4. Allow mountable curbs to
width variations
be used in turnaround areas
2. Allow right -of -way widths
5. Reduce minimum required
to coincide with street widths
separated sidewalk width to
3. Allow reduced dead -end
four feet
street turnaround sizes
In a report prepared by the consulting firm of Cogan Sharpe
Cogan, it was recommended that City staff "...begin the effort
to establish a performance evaluation approach to determine
appropriate street improvement standards, while remaining
acceptable for maintenance."
Within the body of literature pertaining to the role of the
neighborhood street and its impact on the surrounding
environment, the 1980 Bucks County, Pennsylvania
publication, Performance Streets, reflected a new and
substantially different view of the purposes of the various
elements of residential street design. That document states:
• "Whether street standards were intuitively based or
adapted from highway design, what seemed to have
been overlooked was that local residential streets are
part and parcel of the neighborhood they serve. People
live on them. It would seem desirable, therefore, not
solely to move traffic safely and efficiently, but to see
that the needs of people for a residential neighborhood
that is quiet, safe, pleasant, convenient and sociable are
met as well."
In 1990, the National Association of Home Builders, the
Urban Land Institute, and the American Society of Civil
Engineers joined to publish another milestone in urban street
design, Residential Streets, which advocates:
• Designing to minimize traffic volumes and speeds in
residential areas
• Properly scaled streets
• Streets planned to avoid excessive stormwater runoff
• Streets which can serve as meeting places and centers
of community activity
Page 2 of 8
http: / /www.trans.ci.portland.or.us/PDOT_ SERVICES /local_street improvements.htm 5/4/2001
Local Street Improvements
• •
The philosophies espoused in both documents are clearly
shared by many Portlanders. The challenge was to find a way
to bring them to reality in Portland. The citizens committee's
recommendation to develop performance standards was the
beginning.
The City retained a consultant to research the existing
standards of several other communities for purposes of
comparison, and then to propose new performance -based
standards in an interim report. Transportation could then
evaluate and refine those standards, secure public comment,
and modify them as needed, before final City Council approval
of implementation.
In March 1991, the consultant completed the required interim
report. Below are the consultant's key suggestions, followed
by Transportation's recommendations.
1. Allow additional street width variations.
• Response: Transportation concurs with this
recommendation. The City's existing neighoborhood
street standards are designed primarily as a traffic
facility comprised of two travel lanes, plus either two
parking lanes, one parking lane, or no parking, yielding
widths of 32, 28, or 20 feet, respectively. Transportation
proposes (a) reducing the current 32 -foot standard to 26
feet, and (b) reducing the current 28 -foot standard to 20
feet.
The problems of high speeds and through, non -
neighborhood traffic have been the source of continuing
complaints from throughout the community. Streets
designed to existing standards accommodate higher
travel speeds. By virtue of the appearance of the 28 or
32 -foot streets as wide, inviting thoroughfares, they may
also be used as a short-cut by non - neighborhood traffic.
In addition to being considered costly to construct, the
existing standards produce excessive stormwater runoff,
require wide rights -of -way, are wasteful of natural
resources, and demand clearing of many trees and other
vegetation.
An approach which reduces all of these problems, and
one advocated in the publication Residential Streets, is
building narrower streets with only a single travel lane.
These "queuing streets ", intended for two -way traffic,
are comprised of a single traffic lane and a parking lane
on one or both sides. When two vehicles meet on a
queuing street, one of the vehicles must yield by pulling
over into a vacant segment of the adjacent parking lane.
(Of interest is the fact that many of the City's older local
streets range from 18 to 28 feet wide and, as such, are
queuing streets.)
Page 3 of 8
http: / /www. trans. ci. portland.or.us /PDOT_ SERVICES /local_street improvements.htm 5/4/2001
Local Street Improvements
• •
Acceptable operation of a queuing street occurs only
where there are occasional breaks in the curbside
parking approximately forty feet in length to permit the
yielding vehicle to pull over. These breaks are ordinarily
available where ample off - street parking for residents is
available, and where on- street parking by residents or
guests is only occasional. Breaks in parking are also
provided by individual driveways, combinations of
driveways, and intersections. These conditions are
commonly satisfied in areas Comprehensive Plan Single
Dwelling Residential Zoned, R5 (5000 square feet per
dwelling unit) through RF (2 acres per dwelling unit). In
more densely -zoned areas, queuing streets may be
inappropriate because of inadequate off - street parking
capacity, or because of differing emergency response
requirements.
The City currently requires all streets in new
subdivisions to be built to accommodate on- street
parking. The City requires through streets to be 32
feet wide, which permits two travel lanes plus on- street
parking on both sides of the street. For either cul -de-
sacs, or streets serving 30 or fewer dwellings, or one-
way streets, the required dimension is 28 feet, which
permits two travel lanes and a parking lane on one side
only. It is proposed that through streets be built with a
single travel lane with parking on one or both sides, for
widths of 20 or 26 feet, respectively. It is also
recommended that the decision to provide a street with
two -side versus one -side parking be at the discretion of
the developer of the subdivision or of the property
owners funding construction of the street.
The proposal to reduce the widths of through streets
differs from that for cul -de -sacs, where it is proposed
that the 20 and 26 -foot widths be permitted to be
further reduced to 18 and 24 feet, respectively. The two
foot reduction, termed the "cul -de -sac compromise ",
would be constructed only if requested by those funding
the street improvement. Although the additional two -
foot reduction in travel lane width reduces impervious
surfaces and saves natural resources, it also further
reduces the ease of operation between adjacent parked
and moving vehicles. Because a cul -de -sac serves only
those who are directly accessed by it, the two -foot
reduction may be a desirable element for those residing
on the street.
Because the site of a fire emergency can be accessed
from either direction on a through street, the Portland
Fire Bureau has endorsed the proposed reduced street
widths for through streets, but cul -de -sac streets present
a problem for fire fighting operations. Hydrants are
normally located at the intersection, and the first fire
apparatus responding to an emergency pauses to connect
its hoses to that hydrant. The truck then moves up the
Page 4 of 8
http: / /www.trans.ci.portland.or.us /PDOT_ SERVICES /local_street_improvements.htm 5/4/2001
Local Street Improvements
•
street, with the hose being drawn out from the rear,
"snaking" out over the lane. If the street is narrow
enough for only a single travel lane, such as with a
queuing street, the second apparatus would have to drive
over the charged hoses, risking greater damage or injury.
Instead, on "short" cul -de -sacs, the second vehicle will
park at the intersection and needed equipment can be
carried to the scene by the firefighters.
On longer cul -de -sac streets, fire fighting capabilities
may be seriously compromised if all equipment must be
hand - carried to the emergency scene from the second or
third apparatus. In addition, long, tightly curved, narrow
cul -de -sacs with on -street parking may be physically
inaccessible to fire apparatus. For that reason, except
with the Fire Bureau Chief's approval of measures
designed to facilitate fire protection capabilities, it is
proposed that newly - platted cul -de -sacs greater than 300
feet in length be built as a "fire lane ", with two
unobstructed travel lanes and, if needed, additional
parking lanes.
It is proposed that curbs be required, except where
unsuitable or inappropriate, on all through streets. Curbs
are used on City streets to: a) facilitate sidewalk
construction; b) confine vehicles to the roadway; c)
control on- street parking; d) protect adjacent
landscaping; e) channel street drainage; and f)
accommodate roof drains. Circumstances under which
curbs may be omitted may include, for example, where
roadside drainage swales are necessary for water quality
control purposes, or where City- adopted neighborhood
plans provide the framework and rationale for uncurbed
"lane" treatments.
2. Allow right -of -way widths to coincide with street widths.
• Response: Transportation concurs with this
recommendation, and proposes reducing the right -of-
way widths required for queuing streets in Plan Single
Dwelling Residential Zones R7, R10, R20 and RF.
Retain sufficient right -of -way width in zone R5 to
accommodate the potential of sidewalk/planting strip
construction on both sides of the street.
Dedication of rights -of -way greatly in excess of those
needed to accommodate specific street widths is costly
and unreasonable. Proposed right -of -way widths are
shown on Page 8. These reduced widths permit greater
utilization of privately developable land, while
maintaining sufficient space for utility installations and
sidewalks.
3. Allow reduced dead -end street turnaround sizes.
• Response: Transportation concurs with this
Page 5 of 8
http: / /www.trans.ci.portland.or.us /PDOT_ SERVICES /local_street_improvements.htm 5/4/2001
Local Street Improvements Page 6 of 8 •
recommendation, and oses ro adoption of a reduced
P P P
diameter of 70 feet for all newly - platted dead -end
streets.
The current standard diameter of all dead -end street
turnarounds is 90 feet, and was originally_developed to
allow the largest fire apparatus to turn around without
requiring a backing maneuver. According to Residential
Streets, "vehicle types that rarely use the street should
not be a determining factor in the design. When weighed
against the disadvantages of an extensive paved area -
poor aesthetics, higher maintenance and installation
costs, increased stormwater runoff, and the significant
limits that large dimensional requirements place on
sound land planning - the minor inconvenience
experienced by some drivers in reversing direction is not
an important consideration." Bucks County's
Performance Streets states, "Cul -de -sac turnarounds
should be designed no larger than necessary to permit
free turning of the largest service vehicles regularly
serving the neighborhood."
4. Allow mountable curbs to be used in turnaround areas.
• Response: Transportation concurs with this
recommendation.
Once homes are built on the property adjacent to a cul-
de -sac, the majority of the curb line within the cul -de-
sac is occupied by driveways. Permitting mountable
curb to be constructed at the time of initial construction
of the cul -de -sac will preclude the need to tear out and
replace the curbing with driveway approaches.
Mountable curbs are not permitted elsewhere because
they: a) permit and may encourage easy vehicular access
to the front yard area of a residence, in conflict with City
planning regulations; and b) permit easy vehicular
access to the sidewalk area, which can cause sidewalk
damage for which the property owner is liable.
5. Reduce minimum required separated sidewalk width to
four feet.
• Response: Transportation concurs with this
recommendation, but only in Comprehensive Plan
Single Dwelling Zones R7, R10, R20, and RF.
The current minimum required width of a sidewalk in a
residential area is five feet. Where a sidewalk is built
adjacent to the curb without an intervening planting
strip, pedestrians are forced to share the sidewalk with
utility poles, signs, mail boxes, etc. A five -foot width is
needed to provide space for pedestrian use around those
obstacles. Where a sidewalk is built separate from the
curb, the sidewalk is not similarly obstructed, and a
four -foot width is sufficient for low volume pedestrian
http: / /www.trans.ci.portland.or.us/PDOT_ SERVICES /local_street_improvements.htm 5/4/2001
Local Street Improvements
Legal
usage found in low density areas R7 through RF.
RECOMMENDED STANDARDS:
•
A. In Comprehensive Plan Single Dwelling Zone R5 only:
1. Through street:
a. Park two sides
(1) R/W = 50'; street width = 26'
b. Park one side
(1) R/W = 40'; street width = 20'
2. Newly- platted dead -end street less than or equal to 300
feet in length:
a. Park two sides
(1) R/W = 40'; street width = 26' (or 24')
b. Park one side
(1) R/W = 35'; street width = 20' (or 18')
3. Newly- platted dead -end street more than 300 feet in
length:
a. Park two sides
(1) R/W = 40'; street width = 28'
b. Park one side
(1) R/W = 35'; street width = 20'
4. Minimum sidewalk width = 5 feet
5. Curb return radius = 30 feet
B. In Comprehensive Plan Single Dwelling Zones R7, R10,
R20, RF:
1. Through street width:
a. Park two sides
(1) R/W = 40'; street width = 26'
b. Park one side
(1) R/W = 35'; street width = 20'
2. Newly- platted dead -end street less than or equal to 300
feet in length:
a. Park two sides
(1) R/W = 40'; street width = 26' (or 24')
b. Park one side
(1) R/W = 35'; street width = 20' (or 18')
*3. Newly- platted dead -end street more than 300 feet in
length:
a. Park one side
(1) R/W = 40'; street width = 28'
b. No parking
(1) R/W =35'; street width =20'
4. Sidewalk widths:
a. In combination with curb = 5 feet
b. Separated from curb = 4 feet
5. Curb return radius = 30 feet
* Unless queuing street approved by Chief of Fire
Bureau.
C. Turnaround diameter:
R/W dia. = 80 feet
Paved dia = 70 feet
Page 7 of 8
http: / /www.trans.ci.portland.or.us/PDOT_ SERVICES /local_street_improvements.htm 5/4/2001
Local Street Improvements
Legal
•
City of Portland • OTllce or lransportatlon
Page 8 of 8
http:/ /www.trans.ci.portland.or.us/PDOT_ SERVICES /local_street_improvements.htm 5/4/2001
Dept. Of Community Development
City. of Tukwila
. AFFIDAVIT OF DISTRIBUTION
I, 244.4k.„ e.,h5c4 HEREBY DECLARE THAT:
Notice of Public Hearing
Determination of Non - Significance
Notice of Public Meeting
Mitigated Determination of Non -
Si.gnificance
Board of Adjustment Agenda Pkt
.Determination of Significance & Scoping
Notice
j
Q_ 4LAADPIC
Board of Appeals Agenda Pkt
Person requesting mailing:
Notice of Action
rQ
Planning Commission Agenda Pkt
Official Notice
Short Subdivision Agenda
Notice of Application
Shoreline Mgmt Permit
Notice of Application for Shoreline Mgmt
Permit
_
_
FAX To Seattle Times
Classifieds
Mail: Gail Muller Classifieds
PO Box 70 - Seattle WA 98111
Other'
�, v1 0
1t.
Was mailed to each of the addresses listed on this a day of rAlLin the
year 2001.
U
P:GINAWYNETTA/FORMS /AFFIDAVIT -MAIL 02/09/012:17 PM
Project Name: i TuLtuti■ 10,
Project Number: 0'1 £ ( R 6)(-1C)
Mailer's Signature:
j
Q_ 4LAADPIC
Person requesting mailing:
N.I n.J2k ` Z J
rQ
U
P:GINAWYNETTA/FORMS /AFFIDAVIT -MAIL 02/09/012:17 PM
CITY OF TUKWILA
DETERMINATION OF NONSIGNIFICANCE (DNS')-
DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL:
CHECKLIST FOR 15 ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS:
1 CHANGE THE FAR LIMITATION TO LOT COVERAGE IN LDR
2 ELIMINATE INCREASED SETBACKS FOR 2ND FLOOR LDR
3 NO CARGO CONTAINERS IN.-RESTDENTIAL -AND :MUU ZONES
4 ADD ADDITIONAL DETAIL TO:"LANDSCAPE -PLAN REQQt..
ADOPT BUILDING C't►DE='DEFINITION OF HEIGHT' _.
6 ADOPT BUILDING: CODE DEFINITION OF STORY
7 DELETE HIGH-TECH AS _A USE CATEGORY
8 CORRECT FIGURE 1.8 -4 LOCATION OF YARDS
9 ADD PAWNBROKERS-'AS ALLOWED /CONDITI "ONAL USES
10 ADD INTERNET DATA CENTERS AS ALLOWED USES -..
11 ADD A DEFINITION OF INTERNET DATA CENTERS-
12 AMEND THE SUBDIVISION STANDARDS FOR TURNAROUNDS
13 MOVE THE FEE FORZSTREET.VACATIONS FROM ZONING
CODE TO STREET VACAT4ON'SE.CTI'ON
14 CHANGE THE ZONING CODE J'O: ALLOW STRUCTURES OVER
THE RIGHT OF WAY`�""
15 ADD A DEFINTION FOR-PAWNBROKERS
PROPONENT: CITY OF TUKWILA DCD
LOCATION OF PROPOAL, INCLUDING STREET ADDRESS. IF ANY
ADDRESS:
PARCEL NO:
SEC /TWN /RNG:
LEAD AGENCY:
6200 SOUTHCENTER BL
359700- 0282
NON - PROJECT
CITY OF TUKWILA FILE NO: E01-012
The City has determined tha the proposal.does not have a probable
significant adverse 'i that. mpact`on the environment. An environmental
impact statement: (EI.S).,_is_ notired under RCW _43.21c.030(2) (c) .
This decision was made after review of a completed' environmental
checklist and other informatton in, file with the lead agency. This
information is availab -1e to-the public on-re-quest. •
kk*k•k k *:k kk* kk* kkk k kk* k kk *k.4.4 * *.k*kkkk k k:kk k:kkk ** k.kk;k ** k k ** h *k:k:k t• *; #:k:k;k * *** *.k:k•k
ST
This determination is -final and =:i�� ned this L_ -- day n
y of "`AY
200j_.
Lvzfo
Steve Lancaster Responsible Official
-City of Tukwila. (206) 431 -3670
6300 Southcenter Boulevard
Tukwila, WA 98188
Copies of the Procedures fcr SEPA appeals are available with the
Department of Community Development.
•
City of Tultwg
•
Steven M. Mullet, Mayor
Department of Community Development Steve Lancaster, Director
MEMORANDUM
TO: Jack Pace, Planning Manager Y ��
FROM: Nora Gierloff, Associate Planner''"
RE: Code Amendment SEPA
DATE: May 21, 2001
Project File: E01 -012
Associated File: LO1 -032
Applicant: City of Tukwila
Project Location: This is a non - project proposal, however some of the changes are limited to
certain zones and others would have city -wide effects.
Attachments: A. SEPA Checklist
B. Staff Report to Planning Commission
Project Description:
A set of 15 proposed amendments to the Zoning Code on topics ranging from minor
housekeeping or clarification to policy decisions about allowed uses and development standards.
Agencies With Jurisdiction:
Washington State Department of Ecology
Summary of Primary Impacts:
1. Earth - This is a non - project proposal. The change from a floor area ratio to a lot coverage
standard could potentially increase the amount of impervious surface in the LDR zone. The
increase in paved diameter required for residential cul -de -sacs could also increase impervious
surface, though that is lessened by the required landscape island.
2. Air - This is a non - project proposal and no air impacts are expected.
6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 0 Tukwila, Washington 98188 0 Phone: 206 - 431 -3670 0 Fax: 206 - 431 -3665
•
3. Water — This is a non - project proposal and does not affect Tukwila's adoption of the standards
in the King County Surface Water Design Manual.
4. Plants - This is a non - project proposal. Amendment D would add additional detail to
Tukwila's landscape plan requirements.
5. Animals — The proposed amendments will affect areas along the Green River shoreline, habitat
of the endangered Chinook salmon. However, no changes to Tukwila's Shoreline Regulations
are proposed.
6. Energy and Natural Resources - This is a non - project proposal and should not affect energy
usage.
7. Environmental Health - Internet data centers have backup power generators and HVAC
equipment that can be noisy. The proposed amendments do not change the fact that these
facilities are being built in Tukwila, they only formalize the zones in which they are permitted.
Tukwila would continue to enforce its Noise Ordinance to control auditory impacts.
8. Land and Shoreline Use - The amendments would affect parcels with sensitive areas but would
not change the Sensitive Area Ordinance or Shoreline Regulations. The two existing
pawnbrokers in Tukwila would be made non - conforming by amendment I. This will help to
preserve the desired neighborhood commercial character along Tukwila International Boulevard.
9. Housing - The proposal will not result in a change to the housing supply. Amendments A and B
would allow for somewhat larger single family houses to be built, and would have their most
visible impact on small non - conforming infill lots .
10. Aesthetics - The proposed amendments would not affect design review or screening
requirements so no aesthetic impacts are expected.
11. Light and Glare - This is a non - project proposal and no impacts are expected.
12. Recreation - The proposal will not affect recreational facilities.
13. Historical and Cultural Preservation - The proposed amendments should not have any impacts
on historic or cultural sites.
14. Transportation - No transportation related impacts are expected from the amendments.
15. Public Services - This is a non - project proposal and no impacts are expected.
16. Utilities - Internet data centers are high electricity users. However the proposed amendments
do not change the fact that these facilities are being built in Tukwila, they only formalize the
zones in which they are permitted.
Recommended Threshold Determination:
Determination of non - significance.
City of Tukwila
List of Proposed Zoning Code Amendments
A. Change the Floor Area Ratio limitation in LDR to a lot coverage standard
B. Eliminate increased setbacks for the second story of structures in LDR
C. Prohibit the use of cargo containers as storage sheds in residential zones
D. Add additional detail to landscape plan requirements
E. Revise the Zoning Code definition of building height to match the Washington State
Building Code
F. Revise the Zoning Code definition of story to match the Washington State Building
Code
G. Delete High Tech as a Use Category
H. Correct Figure 18 -4 Location and Measurement of Yards on Lots
I. Add Pawnbrokers as allowed or conditional uses in specified Zones
J. Add a definition for Pawnbrokers
K. Add Internet Data Centers as allowed or conditional uses in specified Zones
L. Add a parking standard for Internet Data Centers (Council elected not to pursue this
amendment)
M. Add a definition for Internet Data Centers
N. Amend the Subdivision Standard for Turnarounds
0. Remove the fee for Street Vacations from the Zoning Code
P. Change the Zoning Code to allow structures over the right -of -way
Co 1 rol No.
Epic File No. - O /— Ol Z
Fee: Receipt No.
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
A. BACKGROUND
1. Name of proposed project, if applicable:
Zoning Code Amendments
2. Name of applicant:
City of Tukwila.
3. Address and phone number of applicant and contact person:
Nora Gierloff, Associate Planner
6300 Southcenter Blvd.
Tukwila, WA 98188
(206) 433 -7141
4. Date checklist prepared:
May 10, 2001
5. Agency requesting checklist:
City of Tukwila.
6. Proposed timing or schedule (including phasing, if applicable):
2/13/2001 Presented Amendments to Council Committee (CAP)
4/10/2001 Back to CAP to discuss turnaround issue
4/23/2001 Presented forwarded amendments to COW
6/28/2001 Planning Commission public hearing and recommendation
7/16/2001 City Council public hearing
7. Do you have any plans for future additions, expansion, or further activity related to or
connected with this proposal? If yes, explain.
No, adoption by the City Council will be the final action.
8. List any environmental information you know about that has been prepared, or will be
prepared, directly related to this proposal.
None.
Page 1
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLLT •
9. Do you know whether applications are pending for governmental approvals of other
proposals directly affecting the property covered by your proposal? If yes, explain.
Residential building permits for parcels in the LDR Zone would be affected by amendments A and
B which change allowable building area and setbacks. All building permits would be affected by
amendments E and F, new definitions of building height and story. Residential short plats would
be affected by amendment N, the change in standards for cul -de -sacs.
10. List any government approvals or permits that will be needed for your proposal.
In order to take affect these code changes will have to be adopted by the Tukwila City Council at a
public hearing.
11. Give brief, complete description of your proposal, including the proposed uses and the size of
the project and site. There are several questions later in this checklist that ask you to
describe certain aspects of your proposal. You do not need to repeat those answers on this
page. Section E requires a complete description of the objectives and alternates of your
proposal and should not be summarized here.
The proposal contains 15 amendments to the Zoning Code:
A. Change the Floor Area Ratio limitation in LDR to a lot coverage standard
B. Eliminate increased setbacks for the second story of structures in LDR
C. Prohibit the use of cargo containers as storage sheds in residential zones
D. Add additional detail to landscape plan requirements
E. Revise the Zoning Code definition of building height to match the Washington State Building Code
F. Revise the Zoning Code definition of story to match the Washington State Building Code
G. Delete High Tech as a Use Category
H. Correct Figure 18 -4 Location and Measurement of Yards on Lots
I. Add Pawnbrokers as allowed or conditional uses in specified Zones
J. Add a definition for Pawnbrokers
K. Add Internet Data Centers as allowed or conditional uses in specified Zones
M. Add a definition for Internet Data Centers
The Council decided not to pursue this amendment)
Page 2
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKL T
•
N. Amend the Subdivision Standard for Turnarounds
O. Remove the fee for Street Vacations from the Zoning Code
P. Change the Zoning Code to allow structures over the right -of -way
See attached staff report for a more complete description of each of the proposed changes.
12. Location of the proposal. Give sufficient information for a person to understand the precise
location of your proposed project, including a street address, if any, and section, township,
and range, if known. If a proposal would occur over a range of area, provide the range or
boundaries of the site(s). Provide a legal description, site plan, vicinity map, and topographic
map, if reasonably available. While you should submit any plans required by the agency,
you are not required to duplicate maps or detailed plans submitted with any permit
applications related to this checklist.
This is a non - project proposal, however some of the changes are limited to certain zones and others
would have city -wide effects.
13. Does the proposal lie within an area designated on the City's Comprehensive Land Use
Policy Plan Map as environmentally sensitive?
This is a non - project proposal and does not directly affect any sensitive area regulations.
B. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS
1. Earth
a. General description of the site (circle one): Flat, rolling, hilly, steep slopes, mountainous,
other:
This is a non - project proposal.
b. What is the steepest slope on the site (approximate percent slope)?
This is a non - project proposal.
c. What general types of soils are found on the site (for example, clay, sand, gravel, peat,
muck)? If you know the classification of agricultural soils, specify them and note any
prime farmland.
This is a non - project proposal.
d. Are there surface indications or history of unstable soils in the immediate vicinity? If so,
describe.
This is a non - project proposal.
Page 3
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECI ST
e. Describe the purpose, type, and approximate quantities of any filling or grading proposed.
Indicate source of fill.
This is a non - project proposal.
f. Could erosion occur as a result of clearing, construction, or use? If so, generally describe.
This is a non - project proposal.
g.
About what percent of the site will be covered with impervious surfaces after project
construction (for example, asphalt or buildings)?
This is a non - project proposal. The change from a floor area ratio to a lot coverage standard
could potentially increase the amount of impervious surface in the LDR zone. The increase
in paved diameter required for residential cul -de -sacs could also increase impervious surface,
though that is lessened by the landscape island.
h. Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion, or other impacts to the earth, if any:
This is a non - project proposal and would not affect erosion control regulations.
2. Air
a. What types of emissions to the air would result from the proposal (Le., dust, automobile
odors, industrial wood smoke) during construction and when the project is completed? If
any, generally describe and give approximate quantities if known.
This is a non - project proposal.
b. Are there any off -site sources of emissions or odor that may affect your proposal? If so,
generally describe.
This is a non - project proposal.
c. Proposed measures to reduce or control emissions or other impacts to air, if any:
This is a non - project proposal.
3. Water
a. Surface:
1) Is there any surface water body on or in the immediate vicinity of the site (including year -
round and seasonal streams, saltwater, lakes, ponds, wetlands)? If yes, describe type and
provide names. If appropriate, state what stream or river it flows into.
This is a non - project proposal and would not affect any sensitive area regulations.
2) Will the project require any work over, in, or adjacent to (within 200 feet) the described
waters? If yes, please describe and attach available plans.
This is a non - project proposal.
Page 4
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKL T
3) Estimate the amount of fill and dredge material that would be placed in or removed from
surface water or wetlands and indicate the area of the site that would be affected.
Indicate the source of fill material.
This is a non - project proposal.
4) Will the proposal require surface water withdrawals or diversions? Give general
description, purpose, and approximate quantities, if known.
This is a non - project proposal.
5) Does the proposal lie within a 100 year floodplain? If so, note location on the site plan.
This is a non - project proposal.
6) Does the proposal involve any discharges of waste materials to surface waters? If so,
describe the type of waste and anticipated volume of discharge.
This is a non - project proposal.
b. Ground:
1) Will ground water be withdrawn, or will water be discharged to ground water? Give
general description, purpose, and approximate quantities, if known.
This is a non - project proposal and does not affect ground water regulations.
2) Describe waste materials that will be discharged into the ground from septic tanks or
other sources, if any (for example: Domestic sewage; industrial, containing the
following chemicals...; agricultural; etc.) Describe the general size of the system,
the number of such systems, the number of houses to be served (f applicable), or the
number of animals or humans the system(s) are expected to serve.
This is a non - project proposal.
c. Water Runoff (including storm water):
1) Describe the source of runoff (including storm water) and method of collection and
disposal, if any (include quantities, if known). Where will this water flow? Will this
water flow into other waters? If so, describe.
This is a non - project proposal and does not affect stormwater regulations. The change
from a floor area ratio to a lot coverage standard could potentially increase the amount
of impervious surface in the LDR zone. The increase in paved diameter required for
residential cul -de -sacs could also increase impervious surface, though that is lessened
by the landscape island.
2) Could waste materials enter ground or surface waters? If so, generally describe.
Page 5
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLLT
This is a non - project proposal.
•
d. Proposed measures to reduce or control surface, ground, and runoff water impacts, if any:
This is a non - project proposal and does not affect Tukwila's adoption of the standards in the
King County Surface Water Design Manual.
4. Plants
a. Check or circle types of vegetation found on the site:
b. What kind and amount of vegetation will be removed or altered?
This is a non - project proposal.
c. List threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site.
This is a non - project proposal.
d. Proposed landscaping, use of native plants, or other measures to preserve or enhance
vegetation on the site, if any:
This is a non - project proposal. Amendment D would add additional detail to Tukwila's
landscape plan requirements.
5. Animals
a. Circle any birds or animals which have been observed on or near the site or are known to
be on or near the site:
Birds: .
Mammals:
Fish:
Other:
b. List any threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site.
The proposed amendments will affect areas along the Green River shoreline, habitat of the
endangered Chinook salmon. However, no changes to Tukwila's Shoreline Regulations are
proposed.
Page 6
deciduous tree: alder, maple, aspen, other
evergreen tree: fir, cedar, pine, other
shrubs
grass
pasture
crop or grain
wet soil plants: cattail, buttercup, bulrush, skunk cabbage, other
water plants: water lily, eel grass, milfoil, other
other types of vegetation
b. What kind and amount of vegetation will be removed or altered?
This is a non - project proposal.
c. List threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site.
This is a non - project proposal.
d. Proposed landscaping, use of native plants, or other measures to preserve or enhance
vegetation on the site, if any:
This is a non - project proposal. Amendment D would add additional detail to Tukwila's
landscape plan requirements.
5. Animals
a. Circle any birds or animals which have been observed on or near the site or are known to
be on or near the site:
Birds: .
Mammals:
Fish:
Other:
b. List any threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site.
The proposed amendments will affect areas along the Green River shoreline, habitat of the
endangered Chinook salmon. However, no changes to Tukwila's Shoreline Regulations are
proposed.
Page 6
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
•
c. Is the site part of a migration route? If so, explain.
Tukwila is located within the Pacific Flyway and contains salmon bearing watercourses.
d. Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife, if any:
This is a non - project proposal and does not affect Tukwila's Sensitive Areas Regulations.
6. Energy and Natural Resources
a. What kinds of energy (electric, natural gas, oil, wood stove, solar) will be used to meet the
completed project's energy needs? Describe whether it will be used for heating,
manufacturing, etc.
This is a non - project proposal.
b. Would your project affect the potential use of solar energy by adjacent properties? If so,
generally describe.
The change from a floor area ratio to a lot coverage standard could potentially increase the
envelope of structures in the LDR zone, which could affect the amount of sunlight reaching
neighboring lots.
c. What kinds of energy conservation features are included in the plans of this
proposal? List other proposed measures to reduce or control energy impacts, if any:
This is a non - project proposal and should not affect energy usage.
7. Environmental Health
a. Are there any environmental health hazards, including exposure to toxic chemicals, risk of
fire and explosion, spill, or hazardous waste, that could occur as a result of this proposal?
If so, describe.
This is a non - project proposal.
1) Describe special emergency services that might be required.
Structures constructed over the right -of -way per amendment P might require different
fire fighting techniques than conventional structures.
2) Proposed measures to reduce or control environmental health hazards, if any:
None.
b. Noise
1) What types of noise exist in the area which may affect your project (for example:
traffic, equipment, operation, other)?
Page 7
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
Nothing other than the general traffic and construction noise found throughout
Tukwila.
2) What types and levels of noise would be created by or associated with the project on
a short -term or long -term basis (for example: traffic, construction, operation,
other)? Indicate what hours noise would come from the site.
Internet data centers have backup power generators and HVAC equipment that can be
noisy. The proposed amendments do not change the fact that these facilities are being
built in Tukwila, they only formalize the zones in which they are permitted. Tukwila
would continue to enforce its Noise Ordinance to control auditory impacts.
3) Proposed measures to reduce or control noise impacts, if any:
Continued enforcement of Tukwila's Noise Ordinance.
8. Land and Shoreline Use
a. What is the current use of the site and adjacent properties?
This is a non - project proposal.
b. Has the site been used for agriculture? If so, describe.
This is a non - project proposal.
c. Describe any structures on the site.
This is a non - project proposal.
d. Will any structures be demolished? If so, what?
This is a non - project proposal.
e. What is the current zoning classification of the site?
All of Tukwila's zones are affected by at least one of the proposed amendments.
f What is the current comprehensive plan designation of the site?
All of Tukwila's comprehensive plan designations are affected by at least one of the
proposed amendments.
g.
If applicable, what is the current shoreline master program designation of the site?
All of Tukwila's shoreline is classified as urban.
h. Has any part of the site been classified as an "environmentally sensitive" area? If so,
specify.
Page 8
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
The amendments would affect parcels with sensitive areas but would not change the
Sensitive Area Ordinance.
i. Approximately how many people would reside or work in the completed project?
This is a non - project proposal.
j. Approximately how many people would the completed project displace?
This is a non - project proposal.
k. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement impacts, if any:
This is a non - project proposal.
L Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is compatible with existing and projected land
uses and plans, if any:
The two existing pawnbrokers in Tukwila would be made non - conforming by amendment I.
This will help to preserve the desired neighborhood commercial character along Tukwila
International Boulevard.
9. Housing
a. Approximately how many units would be provided, if any? Indicate whether high, middle,
or low - income housing?
The proposed amendments will not affect the number of housing units that can be built in
Tukwila.
b. Approximately how many units, if any, would be eliminated? Indicate whether high,
middle, or low - income housing.
The proposed amendments will not require that any housing units be demolished.
c. Proposed measures to reduce or control housing impacts, if any:
Amendments A and B would allow for somewhat larger single family houses to be built, and
would have their most visible impact on small non - conforming infill lots.
10. Aesthetics
a. What is the tallest height of any proposed structure(s), not including antennas; what is the
principal exterior building material(s) proposed?
This is a non - project proposal.
b. What views in the immediate vicinity would be altered or obstructed?
This is a non - project proposal.
Page 9
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIS•
T •
c. Proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic impacts, if any:
The proposed amendments would not affect design review or screening requirements so no
aesthetic impacts are expected.
11. Light and Glare
a. What type of light or glare will the proposal produce? What time of day would it mainly
occur?
This is a non - project proposal.
b. Could light or glare from the finished project be a safety hazard or interfere with views?
This is a non - project proposal.
c. What existing off -site sources of light or glare may affect your proposal?
This is a non - project proposal.
d. Proposed measures to reduce or control light and glare impacts, if any:
No impacts are expected.
12. Recreation
a. What designed and informal recreational opportunities are in the immediate vicinity?
Tukwila has an extensive network of parks and trails and an active community center.
b. Would the proposed project displace any existing recreational uses? If so, describe.
No.
c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts on recreation, including recreation
opportunities to be provided by the project or applicant, if any:
None expected.
13. Historic and Cultural Preservation
a. Are there any places or objects listed on, or proposed for, national, state, or local
preservation registers known to be on or next to the site? If so, generally describe.
No.
b. Generally describe any landmarks or evidence of historic, archaeological, scientific, or
cultural importance known to be on or next to the site.
This is a non - project action. However within the City the James Nelsen house is on the
Washington State Register of Historic Places and there are archeological sites adjacent to the
Green River.
Page 10
•
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST •
c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts, if any:
The proposed amendments should not have any impacts on historic or cultural sites.
14. Transportation
a. Identify public streets and highways serving the site, and describe proposed access to the
existing street system. Show on site plans, if any.
Tukwila is served by Interstate 5, Interstate 405 and State Route 99 in addition to a local
street network.
b. Is the site currently served by public transit? If not, what is the approximate distance to the
nearest transit stop?
Tukwila is served by Metro bus routes and Sounder Commuter Rail.
c. How many parking spaces would the completed project have? How many would
the project eliminate?
This is a non - project proposal.
d. Will the proposal require any new roads or streets, or improvements to existing roads or
streets, not including driveways? If so, generally describe (indicate whether public or
private).
No.
e. Will the project use (or occur in the immediate vicinity of) water, rail, or air
transportation? If so, generally describe.
Railroad tracks run through Tukwila but should not be affected by the proposed amendments.
f How many vehicular trips per day would be generated by the completed project? If known,
indicate when peak volumes would occur.
This is a non - project proposal.
g. Proposed measures to reduce or control transportation impacts, if any:
No transportation related impacts are expected from the amendments.
15. Public Services
a. Would the project result in an increased need for public services (for example: fire
protection, police protection, health care, schools, other)? If so, generally describe.
No.
b. Proposed measures to reduce or control direct impacts on public services, if any.
Page 11
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKL!T
None expected.
16. Utilities
•
a. Circle utilities currently available at the site: electricity, natural gas, water, refuse service,
telephone, sanitary sewer, septic system, other.
All of those are available in Tukwila.
b. Describe the utilities that are proposed for the project, the utility providing the service, and
the general construction activities on the site or in the immediate vicinity which might be
needed.
This is a non - project proposal.
C. SIGNATURE
The above answers are true and complete to the best of my knowledge. I understand that the lead agency
is relying on them to make its decision.
Signature:
Date Submitted:
D. SUPPLEMENTAL SHEET FOR NON PROJECT ACTIONS
(Do not use this sheet for project actions)
Because these questions are very general, it may be helpful to read them in conjunction with the list of
the elements of the environment.
When answering these questions, be aware of the extent the proposal, or the types of activities likely to
result form the proposal, would affect the item at a greater intensity or at a faster rate than in the
proposal were not implemented. Respond briefly and in general terms.
1. How would the proposal be likely to increase discharge to water; emissions to air;
production, storage, or release of toxic or hazardous substances; or production of noise?
The proposed amendments would not affect the production of environmental pollutants.
Proposed measures to avoid or reduce such increases are:
Continued enforcement of Tukwila's surface water regulations, hazardous materials regulations
and Noise Ordinance.
2. How would the proposal be likely to affect plants, animals, fish or marine life?
The proposed amendments would not affect plant or animal life.
Page 12
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST •
Proposed measures to protect or conserve plants, animals, fish or marine life are:
Continued enforcement of Tukwila's sensitive area and shoreline regulations.
3. How would the proposal be likely to deplete energy or natural resources?
Internet data centers are high electricity users. However the proposed amendments do not change
the fact that these facilities are being built in Tukwila, they only formalize the zones in which they
are permitted.
Proposed measures to protect or conserve energy and natural resources are:
Continued enforcement of the energy code through building permit review.
4. How would the proposal be likely to use or affect environmentally sensitive areas or areas
designated (or eligible or under study) for government protection; such as parks, wilderness,
wild and scenic rivers, threatened or endangered species habitat, historic or cultural sites,
wetlands, floodplains, or prime farmlands?
The proposed amendments will affect areas along the Green River shoreline, habitat of the
endangered Chinook salmon. However, no changes to Tukwila's Shoreline or Sensitive Areas
Regulations are proposed. Amendment D would add additional detail to Tukwila's landscape plan
requirements.
Proposed measures to protect such resources or to avoid or reduce impacts are:
None needed.
5. How would the proposal be likely to affect land and shoreline use, including whether it
would allow or encourage land or shoreline uses incomplatible with existing plans?
Only three of the proposed amendments would affect allowable land uses. Amendment G would
delete "High Tech" as a use category because it is redundant. The underlying uses of office,
computer software development, electronics repair, light manufacturing, medical laboratories and
warehouse storage are called out specifically in the various zones. Amendment I would add
pawnbrokers as a distinct category and disallow them in the Neighborhood Commercial Zone
because they serve a regional commercial need. Amendment K would add internet data centers to
the list of permitted uses in regional commercial and industrial zones. These facilities are already
being built in these zones through code interpretations but this amendment would formalize their
status.
Proposed measures to avoid or reduce shoreline and land use impacts are:
These amendments would clarify the permitted uses under the Zoning Code and are not expected
to have any adverse impacts.
Page 13
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
6. How would the proposal be likely to increase demands on transportation or public services
and utilities?
The proposed amendments should not have any effect on transportation or public services. Internet
data centers are high electricity users, but the use is merely being formalized by the amendment as
they have already been built in the City.
Proposed measures to reduce or respond to such demand(s) are:
The internet infrastructure companies are working directly with the power companies to secure
adequate electrical service.
7. Identify, if possible, whether the proposal may conflict with local, state, or federal laws or
requirements for the protection of the environment.
No such conflicts are known or expected.
F. SUPPLEMENTAL SHEET FOR ALL PROJECT AND NON PROJECT PROPOSALS
The objectives and the alternative means of reaching the objectives for a proposal will be helpful in
reviewing the foregoing items of the Environmental Checklist. This information provides a general
overall perspective of the proposed action in the context of the environmental information provided and
the submitted plans, documents, supportive information, studies, etc.
1. What are the objectives of the proposal?
Each code amendment is intended to solve an existing code problem, clarify the intent of the code
or resolve an inconsistency between the code and current practice.
2. What are the alternative means of accomplishing these objectives?
The Council was presented with alternative options such as modifying the zones where uses were
to be allowed or removed, or variations on the proposed standards. See the attached staff report.
The Council's preferred option will be presented to the Planning Commission for their
recommendation.
3. Please compare the alternative means and indicate the preferred course of action:
The Planning Commission will make a recommendation to the City Council on each of the
proposed amendments under consideration and the Council will make a final policy decision.
4. Does the proposal conflict with policies of the Tukwila Comprehensive Land Use Policy
Plan?
No.
5. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce the conflict(s) are:
Page 14
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
•
None anticipated.
Page 15