Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1981-05-18 Special MinutesMay 18, 1981 7:00 P.M. CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL OF COUNCIL MEMBERS OFFICIALS IN ATTENDANCE DISCUSSION Prop. Zoning Map Changes North of I -5 405. TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING 11 I N U T E S City Hall Council Chambers The Tukwila City Council Special Meeting was called to order by Chairman Dan Saul in the absence of Council President Van Dusen at 7:03 P.M. L. C. BOHRER, MABEL J. HARRIS. GEORGE D. HILL, J. REID JOHANSON, DORIS E. PHELPS, DANIEL J. SAUL. Mayor Todd, Director of Planning Brad Collins, Planners Caroline Berry and Fred Satterstrom. Fred Satterstrom, Planner, presented slides of the zoning pattern and showed some of the cbanges that may affect certain properties in certain ways. The Comprehensive Plan map was done in 1977. This general policy integrates into the present zoning map. The map is meant to change with the times. There are agricultural and single family districts. Most of the single family residence area is in McMicken Heights and atop the Tukwila hill. The green area on the map is parks and agricultural area. The multi- family district is mainly the south slope of Tukwila hill; the basic pattern is that the C -1 district is the interior portion of Interurban Avenue; the P -0 district applies along Southcenter Boulevard and along 178th to the two bench areas and the west side of I -5; the commercial zone is C -2 and C -P. The industrial district, C -M, basically remains the same; the M -1 zone is located near I -405. M -2 district is to the south and in Segale Industrial Park. Public parks would be allowed in the R -1 and R -A districts. Councilman Saul said the first discussion would take in the area north of I -5 and 405. Francis North, North Bend, said she was representing the Codina property. The area is No. 1 on the Figure 7 drawing of the proposed zoning map changes. The property has been changed from M -1 to R -A. This is a down zone. When the property was annexed to the City in 1957 all of the Codina holdings were brought into the City at that time. Some of the property was west of the river and some was east of the river. Whether that land becomes part of a park is not sure at this time. She said it is in the lap of the Burlington Northern Railroad. She pointed out that there are two residences on the property and she is concerned that if something should happen to those houses (fire) that under the park zone they could not be repaired. She asked that the Council consider returning this property to the M -1 zone that it previously had. Councilman Bohrer asked if the site has been purchased by King County? Ms. North said 4 acres were purchased in the vicinity, and there are 8 acres in the parcel. Councilman Bohrer said it appears that there have been rezones. The north part is being rezoned from M -1 to R -1 and the south from M -1 to R -A. Mr. Satterstrom said that is correct. Councilman Phelps said if the zone were left R -A even though the City does not develop it for some time would it be nonconforming? Mr. Satterstrom said the agricultural would be nonconforming. It would have to be C -1 or C -2 to conform. Ms. North said she would like to ask why the Council is down zoning from M -1 the privately owned land. She said they planned to do something with it commercially when it was annexed into the City. Mr. Satterstrom said the comprehensive plan shows it as green in that area. There are no sewage facilities in the area. TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING May 18, 1981 Page 2 DISCUSSION Contd. Prop. Zoning Map Changes contd. North of I -5 405 contd. Property between I -5 405. Councilman Saul asked if it had been thought that the entire area was owned by King County. Mr. Satterstrom said that was the original thought, but then it was found that there are two single family homes on the property, and just four acres were purchased by King County. He said they had tried to show a line between the R -A and the R -1 -72 area. Councilman Bohrer said the issue then seems to be the correct use of the property is not compatible with R -1 or R -A zoning. Mr. Satterstrom said the nonconforming section would apply to the structures. The present use could not be expanded. They can continue in their current use. Any expansions would have to be approved by the Board of Adjustment. MOVED BY BOHRER, SECONDED BY SAUL, THAT THE COUNCIL CONFIRM THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION FOR PARCEL 1 AS SHOWN ON THE PROPOSED ZONING MAP. Councilman Bohrer said it is his understanding that King County owns the south part, the north part is 4 acres surrounded by parks and river and R -1 zoning. As R1 -1 it would be introducing a small 4 acre piece of light manufacturing into an area that would not be alike the rest of the property. Basically, the neighbors are single family, but whether or not it remains single family it is difficult to say. *I10TION CARRIED, WITH HARRIS AND PHELPS VOTING NO. Harvey Locke, audience, said he was speaking about Parcel No. 19 currently zoned C -2. The proposed plan shows it as C -1. This would reduce the commercial flexibility and the incentive for the businesses to expand and locate there. The down zone is not desirable. The down zoning is a negative impact, resulting in lower property values and a reduced commercial flexibility. He said he would like to see the Interurban Corridor stay as it is presently zoned. This area should be a focal area and the down zoning is restrictive. It should be given flexibility in its commercial usage. This down zoning does not achieve that. There will be no incentive to rehabilitate the Interurban Corridor if it is down zoned. If it is supposed to be a commercial focus you are losing that objective by this down zoning. Councilman Saul asked the Planning Commission reasoning for C -1 zoning along that area. Mr. Satterstrom said the Planning Commis- sion approach to Interurban has been on an area basis rather than business by business. C -2 zoning is near the intersection with C -1 or commercial zoning located on the interior property. The reasoning is that the C -1 zoning allows certain uses which it was felt were not compatible with the upland residential type of use. C -1 allows office, retail, and certain auto commercial use. Other uses in C -2 were not thought to be compatible the bowling alleys, billiards, for instance. Although the Interurban plan has not been adopted, the Planning Commission thought of it as a pedestrian type of property rather than auto oriented. The C -1 is thought to be more pedestrian type along the west and east side of Interurban. Much of the C -1 zoning has been deleted from Maule Avenue area. Councilman Hill said he did not understand the reasoning of local business along a four -lane highway. He said he does not walk from his home down to Interurban and across the street. The speed is posted at 40 miles per hour but the autos are going pretty fast. He said he could not see where that street would be attractive to residential -type businesses. If people did walk down there it would not be enough to support a business. It has to be automobile- oriented type of businesses. Councilman Harris said along Maule Avenue there would not be room to have any business there. Across the street there would be P1 -1 zoning along a busy street. We have cardrooms and taverns there. TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING May 18, 1981 Page 3 DISCUSSION Contd. Prop. Zoning Map Changes Contd. Property between I -5 and 405 contd. Councilman Bohrer said he disagreed that this zoning would have a negative impact. He said the plans for Interurban Corridor have been that we create the feeling that we are achieving a consistency of use. Right now we have truck terminals, office buildings, card rooms, and the river itself. There is a balanced benefit to the property owners to allow the area to develop. The uses should be attractive to the area, whether it is C -1 or C -2. There are not a large number of uses in C -2 that you cannot put in C -1. C -2 is large scale development and there is not the room on the west side for large development. Councilman Phelps said rather than consider the one piece of property, if the Council has a philosophy of property development along Interurban maybe we should consider it all along Interurban. Councilman Hill asked what is the difference between C -1 and C -2 zoning? Fred Satterstrom said all of the conditional uses of C -1 should be allowed in the C -2 zone or allowed conditionally in the C -2. Councilman Phelps said she noted in the area of I -5 just south of 56th on the west side of Interurban there is C -1 and C -2 adjacent to each other. She said she did not see the reasoning in having them side by side. Councilman Bohrer said there is a street between them. Councilman Phelps said the idea of having an Interurban Corridor plan is appealing and having neighborhood stores is nice, but the reality of it is that if Boeing or Longacres shut down they go out of business. They depend on the traffic for business and not the people on the hill who would walk down to shop. There seems to be a conflict as to the reality of it. Chris Crumbaugh, representing Segale Company, said P1r. Segale has a piece of property on Interurban that has been down zoned from C -1 to C -2 and R -4 to R -1. He wondered why it is down zoned from C -1 other than to keep it consistent. He said he did not see the reasoning for it. It is a corridor serving the people going up and down the street. Councilman Bohrer said the Council has been through the subject of what to do with Interurban Corridor about six times. The time has come for the Council to make up their minds and do it. He said he understood the concern about the business being subject to the traffic. The zoning code will require the parking be adequate to serve the traffic going by on the street. We are trying to create an area that is attractive and hold more people to the area. We want to attract the people to the area, the golf course, and Fort Dent. That was the concept. The pedestrian- oriented aspect was discussed to some extent. We have said we do need sidewalks. If there are no sidewalks, the people will walk through the landscaping. We have to think what would be desirable today. In the Interurban Corridor study we decided to think about this. In the Community Affairs Committee we said we wanted people- oriented businesses that would try to make use of the amenities. This area is not developing rapidly. The why is that there is nothing there to attract them. MOVED BY BOHRER, SECONDED BY SAUL, THAT THE CITY COUNCIL REAFFIRM THE C -1 DESIGNATION ON PARCEL 19 AND THE THREE PARCELS NEAR I -5 INTERCHANGE DESIGNATED C -2 BE DESIGNATED C -l. Fred Satterstrom, Planner, said if the businesses wish to expand they can get a conditional use permit. It would have to go through the Planning Commission review. The C -1 zoning will allow the cocktail lounges with conditional use permit. The furniture store would be nonconforming under C -1. Councilman Phelps said if the Council continues with this trend and it remains C -1 what other places would be nonconforming? TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING May 18, 1981 Page 4 DISCUSSION Contd. Prop. Zoning Map Mr. Satterstrom said places such as taverns, cocktail lounges, Changes contd. motorcycle repair shops would be nonconforming in C -1. Property between I -5 and 405 contd. Louise Strander, audience, said she wondered if this meets all of the requirements of down zoning? She asked if there has been a legal opinion on this. Brad Collins, Director of Planning, said the City is not adopting the zoning ordinance at this time. This is a work meeting and the reason for voting gives the audience the thinking of the Council at this time. If down zoning is being done and the zoning map is changed, this is not the process that is followed. There will be a map showing the property changes and all of the changes will be handled in one process. Without a legal opinion we cannot give a better explanation. Councilman Johanson said it was his understanding that the motions just show intent of the Council until final adoption. Mr. Collins said the Council is just showing intent. Councilman Hill said this is not an official meeting where final action is taken and the motions made this night show intent of Council. Councilman Hill said the motion is considering just four pieces of property. Are all of the rest of the properties along there zoned C -1? Mr. Satterstrom said on the west side of Interurban it is C -1. Councilman Bohrer said that is the intent of his motion, the proposed map shows C -1 except these properties. *MOTION WITHDRAWN, WITH APPROVAL OF SECOND. MOVED BY BOHRER, SECONDED BY SAUL, THAT THE COUNCIL CONFIRM THE C -1 ZONING ON PARCEL 19. Councilman Bohrer said the Council is indicating what they intend to do when the zoning ordinance comes before the Council. *MOTION CARRIED, WITH HILL AND PHELPS VOTING NO AND HARRIS ABSTANING FROM VOTE DUE TO A CONFLICT OF INTEREST. *MOTION WITHDRAWN, WITH APPROVAL OF SECOND. Jerry Knudson, audience, said his property between 57th and 58th is zoned R -1 -96. It is on a hill and he wondered if this is the reason for the R -1 -96 designation. He said he has constructed sewer lines from the south end of 58th, 350 feet inward and into the center of his land. He would like to have it designated R -1 -72, the reason being that sewer and water are available to the area. Mr. Satterstrom said the policy has been not to upzone any single family property unless specific request were made. Mr. Knudson said he owns an acre and would like to subdivide into three lots. MOVED BY HILL, SECONDED BY PHELPS, TO REVISE THE THINKING ON THE MAP SO THAT ANY LOT THAT IS ON SEWER OR SERVED BY SEWER WOULD BE A MAXIMUM OF 7200 SQUARE FEET. Mr. Knudson said the property to the south is R -1 -72 and up the hill it is zoned MH density and the property to the north is mainly R -1 -72. MOVED BY HILL, SECONDED BY SAUL, THAT THE AREA BETWEEN 58TH AND 57TH, LOT 40, BE REVISED TO 7200 SQUARE FOOT LOTS RATHER THAN 9600 SQUARE FOOT LOTS. TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING May 18, 1981 Page 5 DISCUSSION Contd. Prop. Zoning Map Councilman Bohrer said on the draft map the property to the south Changes contd. is indicated as R -1 -12 and that is more or less what the property around has been; part of that bank is quite steep. Mr. Knudson Property between I -5 and says he has one acre, it should be possible to build three homes 405 contd. on 9600 square foot lots on an acre and still leave 14,000 square feet for streets if his goal is 3 houses on the lot. 11r. Knudson said he would have to give 15' x 185 190' to the City and when he bought the property he had to give some back so he does not have a full acre. There would still be the require- ments to put in the roads. He said he had thought he would like one lot larger than the others and not confine himself to each lot being 7200 square feet. It is also hillside. If he took one -half of the property for himself and then had two lots at 7200 square feet there would be too many restrictions. *MOTION CARRIED, WITH BOHRER AND JOHANSON VOTING NO. RECESS MOVED BY HILL, SECONDED BY JOHANSON, THAT THE TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL 9:25 9:35 P.M. SPECIAL MEETING RECESS FOR TEN MINUTES. MOTION CARRIED. The meeting was called back to order by Chairman Saul, with Council Members present as previously listed. MOVED BY BOHRER, SECONDED BY SAUL, THAT THE THREE PARCELS NEAR I -5 INTERCHANGE DESIGNATED C -2 BE DESIGNATED C -1. Brad Collins, Director of Planning, said it seems it would be wise to send this back to staff to be reviewed, particularly since the property owners are not present to discuss the property. Without the City Attorney here it is difficult to decide the legal rules. He said he thought the City Attorney should be in attendance when specific property is discussed. Councilman Bohrer said he was willing to accept Mr. Collin's recommendation, and have the information brought back to the Council. *MOTION WITHDRAWN, WITH APPROVAL OF SECOND. Mr. Collins said the matter just discussed would be sent back to staff and legal advice from the City Attorney would be obtained. Councilman Harris said this entire zoning ordinance would come up for a public hearing. Mr. Collins said we are in a review session and any action taken here cannot be construed as a change in zoning. Councilman Hill said we are here to gather information from the audience and get their input. MOVED BY BOHRER, SECONDED BY SAUL, THAT STAFF REVIEW CHANGING THESE THREE PARCELS FROM C -2 TO C -1. MOTION CARRIED, WITH HILL AND PHELPS VOTING NO. MOVED BY JOHANSON, SECONDED BY HARRIS, THAT THE PREVIOUS MOTION BE REFERRED TO STAFF AND THE INFORMATION BROUGHT BACK TO THE COUNCIL. MOTION CARRIED, WITH PHELPS VOTING NO. Councilman Harris said in reference to the C -1 property along Interurban to Maule Avenue, that is worthless. There is not any property along there to develop. It should be M -1. MOVED BY HARRIS, SECONDED BY BOHRER, THAT THE PROPERTY EAST OF INTERURBAN TO THE RIVER BE C -1 AND IT BE REFERRED TO STAFF. Jerry Knudson, audience, said there were a number of businessmen along the Interurban Corridor who came up with a good proposal. They were thinking in line with the fact that Interurban Avenue have a buffering effect; there are a variety of businesses, trucking, machine shops, etc. There was a concrete factory which is now replaced by a candy manufacturer. Anything designated as manufac- turing is manufacturing and there are a number of businesses that fall into that category. There is not a lot you can do with C -l. Landscaping and parking will act as a buffer. TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING May 18, 1981 Page 6 DISCUSSION Contd. Prop. Zoning Map Changes contd. ADJOURNMENT 10:10 P.M. Councilman Bohrer said the proposal was to down zone to C -1 so it would be a buffer. P1r. Knudson said it was the proposal of the business men to have a corridor strip and it was supposed to be a buffer from M -1 zoning to the corridor. The strip itself would be a buffer. *MOTION CARRIED, WITH PHELPS AND HILL VOTING NO. Milton Young, audience, said the buffer zone shown as C -1 was as a buffer for the residents on the hill. At the time they agreed they were hurting the people on the west side of Interurban. He said he believed if it were brought up to a vote with the property owners and the people on the corridor we would find they would go back and ask for C -2 zoning. As far as the height restriction, we now have the elevated heights. He said he does not agree with the heights allowed in the C -2 section. The residents above are entitled to the view that they have. Councilman Phelps asked if it is designated as a buffer, could it be zoned R -A? Would there be parking requirements? Mr. Satterstrom said he would advise against the R -A zoning because of the commercial nature of the property. Chairman Saul said the next zoning discussion would take place on June 1, 1981. MOVED BY BOHRER, SECONDED BY HILL, THAT THE TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL SP MEETING ADJOURL MOTION CARRIED. Chairman Daniel aul Norma Booher, Recording Secretary