Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1981-03-16 Committee of the Whole MinutesMarch 16, 1981 7:00 P.M. CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL OF COUNCIL MEMBERS OLD BUSINESS Cedarwood Habitat Waiver Application. Sunwood Project. TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING M I N U T E S City Hall Council Chambers Council President Van Dusen called the Committee of the Whole Meeting to order at 8:4n p.m. LIONEL C. BOHRER, MABEL J. HARRIS, GEORGE D. HILL, DORIS E. PHELPS, DANIEL J. SAUL, Council President GARY L. VAN DUSFN. Council President Van Dusen said the applicant, Mr. Campanella, has requested his waiver application not be considered at this time. In place of that discussion, the Sunwood project will be discussed. Council President Van Dusen said Don Dally, developer of Sunwood, has met all of the conditions of Phase II as requested by Council. Mark Caughey, Acting Planning Director, said the Council had requested Mr. Dally to prepare an inventory of trees on Phase II site, showing which trees would be saved and which would be removed. Mr. Dally has complied with the request. The inventory is introduced and made a matter of record at this meeting. It was submitted in a timely manner. The City Council members looked at the inventory chart. Councilman Bohrer said the development we are going to see will take all of the trees off the top of the hill. It will be bare. This will happen because the buildings are being sited where the trees were. The time to consider this was when the Council approved the project four years ago. We need to plan ahead or we get what we bargain for. Councilman Phelps asked if the developers were required to submit landscaping plans? Mark Caughey, Acting Planning Director, said it is a requirement for restoration. Councilman Harris asked if the plans have been through the Planning Commission? Mr. Dally said they have been approved by the Planning Commission. Inquiry on the Council President Van Dusen asked what the Council would like to status of Sign Code. do with the sign code. Several letters have been received requesting some action. It has been requested that we extend the present sign code to take into account the economical effect it would have on businesses that are concerned. There are threats of law suits. The general request is to review the present ordinance and make it more palatable to business. Councilman Phelps asked about the scope of authority? She said Mr. Dick Goe had requested a citizen's committee address the matter of the sign ordinance with a projected meeting date of April 16, 1981. Council President Van Dusen said the citizen's committee is going to look at the present sign ordinance. As a member of the Board of Adjustment, he gets most of the letters about the present sign code. Mayor Todd said the City needs either a new sign code or an extension of the present. There are many concerns about what will happen when the enforcement date begins. Jan Wiesner, Chamber of Commerce, said it might be a good idea to extend the date and then review the sign code with both the City and the business people offering input. Councilman Phelps said at one time consideration was given to the possibility of an ad hoc committee composed of staff, businesses, etc. Maybe there are industry standards that should be known. Mayor Todd suggested extending the present sign ordinance until such time as a Planning Director is hired so his input can be consi dered. Al Pieper, Building Official, asked that the Council repeal Ordinance No. 1175 (present sign ordinance). TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING MINUTES March 16, 1981 Page 2 OLD BUSINESS Contd. Inquiry on the status of Sign Code contd. 3/ Councilman Bohrer said part of the problem we had in 1980 was the fact that a piece meal change was made. It appears that is what is being asked for again, a piece meal change. Last year we extended it with the anticipation that within three months we would have a new sign code. We have just the same piece meal attempt. This calls for a comprehensive approach. The City has had the sign code since 1973. A number of businesses have complied with it and some have nonconforming signs. The longer we try to piece meal it the longer the problem exists. We seem to be in a rut and just talk about it. Al Pieper, Building Official, said he specifically asked the Council for suggestions, whether they wanted to amend, revise or what the present sign ordinance. He said he did not receive any directions. He said if they want a new code he did not want to come to them with a piece meal revision. He said he was not inclined to do anything with the code until the Council tells him what they want. If a new code is wanted, one can be drafted. Before Ordinance No. 1175 was passed he said he did not have any trouble with the sign code. The Planning Commission recommendation for staff to put in ordinance form was not adopted. Ordinance No. 1175 cannot be enforced. When businesses come in with their attorneys they laugh at the ordinance. He asked that the sign ordinance be repealed. Councilman Harris asked Mr. Pieper to specify the portion of the sign code that is unenforcible. Mr. Pieper said Paragraph 7 (A) which relates to signs on faces of buildings is an example. The word "faces" is plural and could mean anything. You can have one sign on each street that the building faces. The implication is that you can have more than one sign when the building faces two streets. The percentage chart in Ordinance No. 1175 is an improvement. He said he spends a lot of time working with the ordinance. Councilman Borher said much of the language of Ordinance No. 1175 that the Council is to repeal is the same as in the original ordinance. MOVED BY BOHRER, SECONDED BY HILL, THAT THE PROCESS BE GIVEN TO THE NEW PLANNING DIRECTOR, THAT IT BE A COMPLETE PROCESS, THAT THERE BE SOME INVOLVEMENT TO BE DEFINED BY THAT INDIVIDUAL WHEN HE COMES ON BOARD OF THE CITY STAFF, THE COUNCIL AND THE BUSINESS COMMUNITY IN ESTABLISHING A NEW SIGN CODE. Council President Van Dusen said he was afraid the Council is going to have to be careful about what they are loading onto the new Planning Director. We have some really capable candidates and it is intended that he be involved with the new zoning ordinance. Councilman Phelps said she was not really concerned about loading the Planning Director with work because he has a capable staff that will work with him to resolve the problems. Mr. Pieper said the Planning Director, he was sure, would be schooled in the planning field. The sign code is a regulatory code and if there are revisions made it should be worked on by people who are familiar With regulatory problems. That is the problem he has with the sign code. The sign code itself is a good code, except from a regulatory point of view it is hard to regulate. It is ambiguous and a few things like that. He said he did not want to step on any toes, but at the time the sign code was adopted about 8 years ago, one of the problems that we had with it is that it is quite obvious that the people who came up with the ideas, and formerly the sign code, were not familiar with regulatory procedures so he would say that the Planning Director and /or the Finance Director and /or the Public Works Director is not the place to put the sign code for revision. It should be kept in a regulatory agency. TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING MINUTES March 16, 1981 Page 3 OLD BUSINESS Contd. Inquiry on the status of Sign Code contd. NEW BUSINESS Shimatsu Rezone request on Southcenter Parkway to change classifi- cation from R -1 to C -2. Councilman Bohrer said the intent of his motion was that it be assigned in the Planning Department and he surely would not exclude the Building Official from participating in that process. In the new organization, with the Planning Director as his direct super- visor, he thought that would be appropriate. MOVED BY HARRIS, SECONDED BY HILL, TO AMEND THE MOTION TO INCLUDE THE EXTENSION OF THE PRESENT ORDINANCE NO. 1175 FOR ONE YEAR OR PENDING REVISION TO THE EXISTING SIGN CODE AND IT BE ON THE AGENDA OF THE APRIL 6, 1981 REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING. MOTION CARRIED. *MOTION CARRIED, AS AMENDED. Council President Van Dusen asked City Attorney Larry Hard to draw up an extension to Ordinance No. 1175. Mark Caughey, Acting Planning Director, said the Planning Commission considered the subject rezone request at their February meeting. The rezone request is motivated by the applicant's wish to develop a fast food franchise restaurant with a drive -up window on the site (Wendy's Hamburgers). The restaurant project will require more extensive environmental investigation before it is presented to the BAR. The action recommended by the Planning Commission is only on the rezone legislation at this time. Mr. Caughey referred to the area on a chart, stating the westerly 25 feet of the rezone area (above elevation 25 feet) is extremely steep and wooded. The remainder of the site is relatively flat and marshy and rests three to five feet below adjoining street level. During the Planning Commission review, staff proposed that the rezone boundary be designated at the toe -of -slope (approximate elevation 25 feet) in recognition of the Comprehensive Plan environmental policy to discourage development on slopes exceeding 20 The Commission chose to impose the following stipulations: (1) Placement of fill material allowed to the westerly toe -of -slope as it now exists without cutting off said slope, and that the finished grade of the project be consistent with that of the adjoining property to the south; (2) Any project proposed on this site subsequent to City Council approval of the subject rezone action shall require BAR review of site, architec- ture and landscaping details prior to issuance of building permits. Mr. Caughey said Staff is not certain that the Commission's proposed stipulation affords adequate protection of the slope area, which is designated on the Comprehensive Plan as an area of environmental sensitivity. It is suggested that the condition be reworded to establish the toe -of -slope as the rezone's western boundary. Staff recommends that the Council approve reclassification from R -1 -7.2 to C -2 of the Shimatsu property as described, subject to the following stipulations, and that the City Attorney be instructed to prepare the appropriate documents to effect said rezone action: (1) The westerly limit of the rezone area shall be revised so as to terminate at or before the toe -of -slope as said toe -of -slope elevation existed on February 26, 1981; (2) Any project proposed on this site subsequent to Council approval of the subject rezone action shall require BAR approval of site, architecture and landscaping details prior to issuance of building permits. Council President Van Dusen asked about a late comer's fee on the LID. Mr. Caughey said Mrs. Shimatsu said it was all paid. TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING MINUTES March 16, 1981 Page 4 NEW BUSINESS Contd. Shimatsu Rezone request on Southcenter Parkway to change classific- cation from R -1 to C -2 contd. Proposal for review of the prop. Zoning Ord. (Draft #4). 3 9 Councilman Bohrer said the street elevation is between 21 and 22 inches so if you take this and grade it back it would still be 3 feet below the toe -of- the slope. Mr. Caughey said the applicant intends to fill and run it back. Jim Paul, architect for Wendy's, said he was not representing the owner of the property. He said there have been many expenses involved such as a test report on the property near toe -of- the slope. He said they want to stabilize the hill by putting 3 feet of fill all of the way back to the 30 foot line. He said it is his understanding that this is one of the last pieces of property available in Tukwila and it has become very expensive. The City will be taking a great deal of income away from the applicant if the rezone is granted just to the toe -of- the slope. Mrs. Shimatsu pays taxes on all of the property. There are trees in the upper left hand corner of the property. Mr. Paul said Mrs. Shimatsu is losing about one -third of her property, it is unbuildable. MOVED BY BOHRER, SECONDED BY SAUL, THAT AN ORDINANCE BE DRAWN UP INCORPORATING THE STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS AND REZONE OF THE SHIMATSU PROPERTY AND IT BE ON THE AGENDA OF APRIL 6, 1981 REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING. MOTION CARRIED. Council President Van Dusen said he had proposed four actions the Council might take in their review of the proposed Zoning Ordinance. Proposal 1: Table discussion of zoning ordinance until new Planning Director is confirmed, allow him to adjust to his new position and make input into the zoning issue. Proposal 2: Use approximately two hours of each Committee of the Whole Meeting in discussing the zoning ordinance. The problem with this proposal is that most Committee of the Whole Meetings have a long agenda and it would be difficult to add two hours to each meeting. Proposal 3: Devote whole meeting night to discussing (1) Residential Text, (2) Business Text, (3) Special Provisions, (4) Map, (5) Conduct a Public Hearing. This would be 'hard i schedule on regular Committee of the Whole nights. These meetings would have to be special meeting nights. Proposal 4: Using Committee of the Whole meeting or special meeting nights discuss subjects as referred to in Proposals 2 and 3, and address: (1) Planning Commission recommendations; (2) Issues brought up at the informational Public Hearing of March 9, 1981; (3) Other issues /concerns not identified at the hearing of March 9, 1981 but which emerge as a result of on -going discussions. Councilman Saul said the Council will start meeting on Tuesday nights rather than Monday nights in May. He said he would suggest that a meeting be held on Monday nights to discuss the zoning ordinance and then use what time might be available on Tuesday night at the Committee of the Whole meeting. Councilman Bohrer said he did not want to wait until May to start discussing the zoning ordinance. He suggested the Council start the discussion by having a meeting on the fifty Monday of March. Council President Van Dusen said several Council members would be on a trip to Japan on that date and he doubted a quorum would be present on March 30. Councilman Phelps suggested the adoption of Proposal 2 and eliminate a meeting on March 30, 1981. TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING MINUTES March 16, 1981 Page 5 NEW BUSINESS Contd. Proposal for review of the prop. Zoning Ord. (Draft #4) contd. Quiet Claim to property next to Riverside Inn. ADJOURNMENT 10:15 P.M. Council President Van Dusen said the agenda for the Committee of the Whole meetings is quite full and it would be hard to devote much time to discussion of the zoning ordinance. Councilman Hill suggested the Council discuss the zoning ordinance on Tuesday nights in a special meeting until the Council starts meeting on Tuesday night and then the Council meet on Monday night and use whatever time might be available at the Committee of the Whole Meetings. Councilman Phelps said Court is held in the Council Chambers on Tuesday nights. Councilman Van Dusen said the Council may have to find another location for the zoning ordinance discussions. A possibility might be the use of the school, where there would be room for the public to be accommodated when the residential area is discussed. He said the Council will use Monday and Tuesday nights for the discussions of the zoning ordinance and start at the meeting of April 13, 1981. City Attorney Hard said he had received a letter from Mr. Parker, attorney, proposing that the City join in a complaint for a quiet title to property the City owns next to the Riverside. He said he would advise the Council as to the advisability of participating. MOVED BY HILL, SECONDED BY SAUL, THAT THE COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING ADJOURN. MOTION CARRIED. Counc`i President Gary L. Van Dusen Norma Booher, Recording Secretary