Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1981-06-15 Special MinutesJune 15, 1981 TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL 7:00 P.M. SPECIAL MEETING CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL OF COUNCIL MEMBERS DISCUSSION Report on Interurban Avenue Study. Section 18.50.040, Yard regulations. M I N U T E S ,3 .2‘ City Hall Council Chambers The Tukwila City Council Special Meeting was called to order by Council President Van Dusen at 9:30 p.m. L. C. BOHRER, J. REID JOHANSON, GEORGE D. HILL, DANIEL J. SAUL, Council President GARY L. VAN DUSEN. Brad Collins, Director of Planning, stated the Staff Report on Interurban Avenue has been distributed. It will be discussed on June 22, 1981. Mr. Collins said the discussion on Section 18.50.030 has not been completed. Discussion on that section will continue after the Interurban Avenue and McMicken Heights discussion. It is likely discussion can continue on June 29, 1981. Councilman Bohrer asked about the McMicken Heights report that was requested. Mr. Collins said the Planning Department was not requested to distribute it to others. The report will be given to the Council members so they can review it at least two days prior to the discussion. Councilman Johanson referred to Paragraph (2) of Section 18.50.040, Yard regulations, where it states in the required front yard no fence or wall shall be permitted which materially impedes vision across such yard above the height of 30 inches, and no hedge or other vegetation shall be permitted which materially impedes vision across such yard between the heights of 30 inches and 10 feet. Chris Crumbaugh, audience, asked if the height of 30 inches should be taken literally? Councilman Hill said his own yard has a 2Z foot fence and two trees, one about 12 feet and one 30 feet, in the front yard. Fred Satterstrom, Planner, said he thought the section referred to vegetation where the crown or trunk of the tree may impede vision. The section is meant to keep fences and masses of vege- tation low so it would not impede vision. Councilman Hill referred to the landscaping at Peoples Bank where you cannot see to turn left. If you are in a large car you can see, but if you are in a small car or truck you cannot see. Fred Satterstrom, Planner, said the intent of the language was to keep front yards open and to describe tall fences where they would act as structures rather than fences. Chris Crumbaugh, audience, said he could see merit in having the Board of Architectural Review look at intersections for visibility. He suggested that Section 18.50.040 (2) be rewritten so it deals with clear visibility. There are places where you want vegetation to act as a screen. Councilman Bohrer said he thought you could have a fence as high as a person wanted as long as it did not exceed 6 feet. Council President Van Dusen said he thought different language should be used in paragraph (2). He said perhaps this would be something that the BAR regulates. Councilman Bohrer said this matter needs further discussion so staff can be aware of Council wants. Council President Van Dusen said it may be that there should be separate requirements for commercial and residential areas. TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING June 15, 1981 Page 2 DISCUSSION Contd. .2 3 Section 18.50.040, Chris Crumbaugh, audience, said he would hate to see fences Yard regulations contd. contolled so rigidly. Most industrial landscaping is approved by BAR. In the residential area it is not controlled, because people want to use their own creativity. Brad Collins, Director of Planning, said it seems the intent is a question of safety. He said staff would do research on the wording so it will clearly spell out that the reference is to safety. Councilman Bohrer said as he looks at Section 18.50.040 (Yard regulations), the first part refers to limited visibility and the deletion of part (2) would be further complication. Council needs to discuss whether or not the concern is safety or privacy. Council President Van Dusen said the Police Department would like to have open areas. Fred Satterstrom, Planner, said Staff would like to know the concerns of the Council. If it is safety and privacy, staff can address both of these subjects. He said he had talked with the Police Department about this and they want to prevent visual hazards. Mr. Collins said his suggestion is that there be a trade off between privacy and safety. If it becomes a question of conflicting interest, safety should be the primary concern. MOVED BY SAUL, SECONDED BY BOHRER, THAT LINES 12 16, PAGE 91, SECTION 18.50.040 (2), BE REMOVED. Mr. Collins said if Lines 12 16 are deleted then "hedges or other vegetation" should be added to Section 18.50.040 (1) and there should be other clarifying information. Chris Crumbaugh, audience, said if paragraph (2) is taken out, the BAR would have a lot of reviewing in the commercial area. Mr. Collins said the enforcement of this code would be vested in the police chief. He would determine the safety factor. He would have to notify property owners that a hedge, etc., would have to be removed. *MOTION FAILED, WITH SAUL VOTING YES. MOVED BY HILL, SECONDED BY SAUL, THAT STAFF RESEARCH AND COME BACK TO THE COUNCIL WITH A RECOMMENDATION AS TO HOW TO PROVIDE SAFETY FIRST AND PRIVACY SECOND. MOTION CARRIED. Council President Van Dusen, referring to the matrix opposite Page 88 of the proposed Zoning Code, said the single family districts would be addressed first. He asked, with respect to the setbacks, how many single family residences would be nonconforming? Fred Satterstrom, Planner, said an estimate had not been made, it was his thought that it would be a minority. He said there is not an increase in the front yard setbacks. There is a small increase in the side yard setback and a relaxation of the rear yard setback. This would allow the building to be set back further and allow more building area toward the rear. He said there had been opposition to this expressed at the Planning Commission and City Council hearings. From the public response it seems they would prefer to have front and not back yard relaxation. Council President Van Dusen said the requirement that he could think of would be if you had a string of houses, like 58th Street, and there are two empty lots there and all of the houses line up. Are you going to have one house moved back from all of them or are you going to require him to be in line with everybody else? TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING June 15, 1981 Page 3 DISCUSSION Contd. Section 18.50.040, Yard regulations contd. Mr. Satterstrom said under the existing ordinance the person could apply for an exception. Under Chapter 18.60 there are a number of exceptions which are provided. It is not a variance pro- cedure. They could get a relaxation of the front yard requirement because of the prevailing yard pattern on that street. Chris Crumbaugh, audience, said in the industrial area there are some problems. It seems the code should look to the future, some of the buildable lots are going to be hard lots to build on and there should be some procedure for some sort of review of setbacks on lots in the residential area to change the setbacks as circumstances may dictate. These will be difficult lots and it is letting the Board of Adjustment design the City. Fred Satterstrom, Planner, said either one of two things should happen. One, you go to a requirement that most everyone meets and that would likely be the requirement that is in the existing code 25% of the lot depth, the same for the rear and 10% for the side. Councilman Saul asked if that would be harder for the Building Official to figure? Would it be easier to say 25 feet front, 5 side, and whatever you want for the back. Mr. Satterstrom said the other alternative would be to go to a minimum number of feet, say 20 or 25 feet, that could be applied uniformly. If the figure were 20% he said he was sure there would be very few homes that would be nonconforming. He said he would suggest, and he agreed with Chris Crumbaugh, that a lot of the lots that are left in the City have been more undesirable than others as they may be more difficult to build on. There is a clause in the existing ordinance that speaks to the issue of waiving the residential districts modification of the front yard requirements where, if a majority of homes on the same block are built closer to the front yard, the remaining lot on that street does not necessarily have to go to a required setback on that street. It can setback appropriately to the pre- vailing or average number of feet that its neighbor sets back. Councilman Saul said he would like to find a definite setback and go by it. Council President Van Dusen asked why there is a setback? Fred Satterstrom, Planner, said the setback is for the penetration of light and air. It provides for an orderly development. It provides assurance to other people who develop in the City that there are adequate provisions. Council President Van Dusen said this discussion would continue to next week. The Special Meeting was adjourned at 10:15 p.m. 2 Counci P'res'deht Gary L. an Dusen No ma Booher, Recording Secretary