Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1981-05-11 Special MinutesMay 11, 1981 7:00 P.M. CALL TO ORDER COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT OFFICIALS IN ATTENDANCE DISCUSSION Chapter 18.46 PRD-- Planned Resi- dential Development (continued) Page 74 Page 76 Page 81 Page 82 Page 84, Chapter 18.48 Planned Mixed -Use Dev. *MOTION CARRIED. NO. TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING M I N U T E S Fred Satterstrom, Planner, noted that 18.48 still allows a Residential Density bonus to be granted subject to the same procedures in these districts. .319y Tukwila City Hall Council Chambers The Special Meeting of the Tukwila City Council, to discuss the proposed City of Tukwila Zoning Code (Draft 4), was called back to order after being recessed on May 4, 1981 by Council President Van Dusen. MABEL J. HARRIS, GEORGE D. HILL, J. REID JOHANSON, DANIEL J. SAUL, GARY L. VAN DUSEN, Council President. MAYOR TODD; BRADLEY COLLINS, Planning Director; FRED SATTERSTROM, Planner; CAROLYN BERRY, Planner; MAXINE ANDERSON, City Clerk. Council President Van Dusen announced that the zoning map will be reviewed next Monday night, then Council will pick up where they leave off tonight if there is time. Discussion continued from May 4, 1981, on the following motion: MOVED BY HILL, SECONDED BY PHELPS, TO ELIMINATE LINES 11, 12, AND 13 FROM PAGE 74.* Mr. Satterstrom called Council's attention to page 76, lines 7 12, where a density bonus can be authorized not more than twenty (20) percent greater than permitted by the underlying zoning. This would add an additional 4 or 5 units on RMH density. The 20% is taken from King County's PUD Ordinance. Chris Crumbaugh, audience, line 16, time limitation, an applicant may want to complete one sky- scraper before proceeding with another. This section says you have to file for a building permit within twelve months of the date it was approved by the City Council. Mr. Crumbaugh said a developer may want to phase his project. Council President Van Dusen said the intent is if they don't start the development at all. He suggested rewording to an application for the initial building permit. MOVED BY HILL, SECONDED BY SAUL, THAT COUNCIL ADD THE WORDS "THE INITIAL" AFTER THE WORD "FOR" IN LINE 16 AND ALSO LINE 21. MOTION CARRIED. Chris Crumbaugh, audience, asked about (4) sureties required for staging. He said this must be addressing a residential situation; how would you put sureties on other buildings. Mr. Satterstrom explained that this covers improvements required as a condition of the PRD or PMUD such as an extension of a road or extension of utilities. Councilman Harris said this is for developments like Sunwood. Each development could be individual. Without a surety bond, a developer might not finish his project. The bond is to assure completion of a project. Councilman Saul said he felt you need definitions of what you want bonded. There is nothing wrong with bonding landscaping. Councilman Harris said she felt the completion of a development needs to be bonded. MOVED BY HILL, SECONDED BY SAUL, THAT LINE 12 BE AMENDED BY ADDING "FOR LANDSCAPING AND PUBLIC WORKS IMPROVEMENTS" AFTER "SURETIES SHALL BE REQUIRED." MOTION CARRIED WITH HARRIS VOTING Mr. Satterstrom explained that the purpose of the Planned Mixed Use Developments is to encourage imaginative site and building design. It provides for consolidation of a number of land use application permits into a single process. He called attention TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL, COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE May 11, 1981 Page 2 DISCUSSION Cont. Page 84, Chapter 18.48 Planned Mixed -Use Dev. (cont.) Page 86 Page 87 to .020, the permitted districts. The site acreage minimum is increased to 3 acres and the location must be within 500 feet of a major, secondary or collector arterial street. As in the PRD, the minimum lot size and the setback requirements can be waived by the Planning Commission and City Council, how- ever, parking must remain the same. On Page 86 the building height exceptions have been changed from 60 feet to 75 feet in C -M, M -1 and M -2 and the 110 is changed to 115 in the C -2 and C -P zones. There is an open space requirement of 10 The procedures for PMUD are essentially the same as the PRD, although some of the criteria for granting a PMUD are different from the PRD. Councilman Van Dusen asked why the M -2 zone was not included in the permitted districts. Mr. Satterstrom said they didn't think a Planned Mixed Use Development was appropriate for an M -2. Chris Crumbaugh, audience, said this section would work very well for their development. He said he would like to see this allowed in the M -2. MOVED BY HARRIS, SECONDED BY SAUL, THAT "M -2 HEAVY INDUSTRY" BE ADDED TO 18.48.020, PERMITTED DISTRICTS.* Councilman Hill asked why we need the M -2 if we modify the M -1 slightly. *MOTION CARRIED WITH HILL VOTING NO. MOVED BY SAUL, SECONDED BY HARRIS, THAT "M -2 DISTRICT 29.0" BE ADDED TO 18.48.080, DENSITY STANDARDS. MOTION CARRIED WITH HILL VOTING NO. Chris Crumbaugh, audience, suggested that paragraph "(4) Building height exception" be eliminated because it is des- cribed in the next chapter. MOVED BY SAUL, SECONDED BY HILL, THAT PARAGRAPH (4) BE ELIMINATED AND CHANGE LINE 10 TO READ: (4) BUILDING HEIGHTS PER CHAPTER 18.50. MOTION CARRIED. Mayor Todd asked what the term "community" means on line 5, page 87. Mr. Satterstrom said it probably would refer to any residential development that might occur or any commercial development that might allow use by others or neighboring commer- cial users, and site -users would be anyone frequenting the uses built on the site. It is not meant necessarily to always be open to the public. Chris Crumbaugh said he felt some flexibility should be allowed to vary the side and front yards and the landscaping in those areas in providing the 10 percent referred to on line 4. Under paragraph (2) you can't do this because it says the setbacks will remain the same and also that the landscaping requirements are the same. He sited the purpose in the first sentence of the Chapter which is to allow greater flexibility in utilization of the land. Mr. Kirsop, Chairman of the Planning Commission, said the para- graph is saying, at the outer boundaries of the property, you have to have at least as much setback as you would if you set the buildings on the site without the planned unit concept. You don't want to get yourself into the spot where someone can crowd a corner of a lot so that it would intrude on the neighbor. MOVED BY VAN DUSEN, SECONDED BY SAUL, THAT "IN NO EVENT SHALL SUCH" BE OMITTED FROM LINE 21 AND AMEND LINE 22 TO READ: THE PERIMETER SETBACK SHALL NOT BE LESS THAN 20 FEET EXCEPT BY WAIVER FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION.* TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL, COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE May 11, 1981 Page 3 DISCUSSION Cont. Page 87 (continued) RECESS: 9:25 P.M.- 9:40 P.M. Page 88, Chapter 18.50 Height, Setback, Area Regulations Mr. Satterstrom said the theory under a Planned Unit Development Ordinance is to allow increased density within the PMUD; it would require a little more acreage than what a normal site might be. The idea behind that is to allow the increased density within the PMUD to ensure that the increase does not adversely affect sur- rounding properties. The perimeter setback of 20 feet is repeated in the PMUD as well as the PRD. What you do within the boundaries beyond the 20 foot setback is the business of the Planning Commission and the City Council. The 20 feet is there to ensure there is some buffer. It was purposely put in here not to be waived. *MOTION CARRIED WITH HILL AND JOHANSON VOTING NO. Council declared a ten minute recess. Mr. Satterstrom explained that all of the height, setback and area regulations for all of the zone districts have been con- solidated in Chapter 18.50. The proposed requirements are shown on page 89. The primary changes in the height, setback and area regulations were reviewed by Mr. Satterstrom. He explained to Council that the Planning Commission,at one of their last meetings, changed the 110 feet on line 19 to 115 feet and the 60 feet on line 20 to 75 feet as the height exception in areas located south of Interstate 405 depending on the zone. Mr. Satterstrom illus- trated, with slides, how this would impact the City. Basically, it reduces the overall height exception that can be granted, but then it distributes the height into other areas of the City. Councilman Van Dusen asked why the difference in the two height exceptions. Mr. Satterstrom explained it was the intention to concentrate most of the intensity in the northern part of the Commercial /Industrial District around the Southcenter, Chartwell and Segale sites and along Southcenter Parkway. Theoretically, this is for best access to the freeway network. Councilman Van Dusen asked if we can allow height limitations in C -2 and C -P, why not allow the same in M -1, M -2 and C -M. Councilman Harris said M -1 is the zone of most use and the most expensive property; you should be able to put the higher buildings here. Mayor Todd commented that the higher buildings are being proposed for the area that already has traffic congestion. MOVED BY JOHANSON, SECONDED BY HILL, THAT THE OMITTED SECTION OF LINE 17 BE REINSTATED TO READ: IN THAT AREA OF THE CITY LOCATED SOUTH OF INTERSTATE 405.* Bruce Solly, Southcenter Commerce Center, said he has property north of 405 that is bordered on the east by I -5, on the north by their own existing office buildings, on the south by South center Boulevard, currently in the RMH zone; they can go 260 feet. At the present, they have a building planned that is higher than 45 feet. He asked if the intent of the motion was to also in- clude north of 518. Councilman Johanson said he did not want to see developments along Interurban the same height as those south of I -405. Mr. Solly asked to have a clarification of the boundary included in the motion. Councilman Johanson said he is concerned about the Inter- urban Area. Councilman Hill suggested I -405 east of I -5. Francis North said she represents the Codiga property which lies north of I -405. She hoped the height limitations could be extended to their property. Their property and the Strander property, because of the topography, is in a spot where it will not spoil the visibility of any close buildings. Councilman Saul asked to have the aerial map available for the next meeting for reference. TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL, COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE May 11, 1981 Page 4 DISCUSSION Continued Page 88, Chapter 18.50 Height, Setback Area Regulations (cont.) ADJOURNMENT: 10:15 P.M. Councilman Van Dusen said that next Monday is review of the zoning map. If there is time, discussion will continue on the height, setback and area regulations. Mayor Todd suggested the Council consider a standard height limitation for any one given zone with no exceptions -none allowed. You can build below the maximum but not higher. Do not allow appeals to that decision. Mr. Kirsop suggested the Planning Commission be the body to determine if there will be a significant impact on adjacent property owners by a realistic height limit. They are moving the height maximum back from the 300 feet, authorized in the current code to a more realistic figure. It is just as proper to build a tall building in the north end of the town as it is in the south end of town given similar characteristics of the property. They can keep obtrusive type developments from bothering the residential property on the hill. He suggested Council vote against the motion. *SECOND WITHDRAWN BY HILL, MOTION WITHDRAWN BY JOHANSON. Councilman Johanson said he has withdrawn his motion with the hopes that Council will continue discussion on this at the next meeting. Council President Van Dusen said this is where we will start. MOVED BY SAUL, SECONDED BY HILL, THAT THE SPECIAL MEETING OF THE TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL ADJOURN. MOTION CARRIED. Ci tS' Clerk `3a o c