Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1981-06-29 Special MinutesJune 29, 1981 7:00 P.M. CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL OF COUNCIL MEMBERS DISCUSSION Zoning Map, McMicken Heights. TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL City Hall SPECIAL MEETING Council Chambers M I N U T E S In the absence of Council President Van Dusen, Councilman Saul called the Special Meeting of the Tukwila City Council to order. L. C. BOHRER, DORIS PHELPS, Chairman DANIEL J. SAUL. .2 7F Brad Collins, Director of Planning, said on June 8, 1981 the City Council requested the Planning Department staff to prepare an analysis of the Comprehensive Land Use plan policies as they relate to the McMicken Heights subarea. The analysis was to include a discussion of how similar issues were resolved in other areas of the Comprehensive Plan Map. Mr. Collins said the McMicken Heights study area is bounded by SR 518 on the north, I -5 on the east, and the City limits of Tukwila on the west and south boundaries. The study focuses primarily on the lower portion of the hillside below South 160th and Slade Way. In September 1977 the Council adopted a comprehensive land use plan which encompassed the McMicken Heights area. The Comprehen- sive Plan Map prescribed single family residential land use for the entire McMicken area, exclusive of areas designated as public parkland. The single- family residential designation on the plan map conflicted with the multiple family zoning on several land parcels lying along the northeasterly facing slopes north of So. 160th Street and Slade Way. Ordinance No. 1035 required waivers from the Council for land use actions which were consistent with zoning regulations but conflicted with the Comprehensive Land Use Plan. Mr. Collins said since the adoption of the Comprehensive Plan in 1977 four waiver requests have been processed by the Council. The first waiver request was filed by J. W. Anderson on 3.1 acres of land located in the northwest corner of the intersection of 53rd Avenue South and South 160th Street. The proposal involved 98 units on land zoned RMH. Due to environmental constraints, the waiver application was denied in May 1978. The second, third, and fourth waiver applications involve the same property and applicant, 2.7 acres of RMH zoned land owned by E. F. McNamara, situated on the east side of 43rd Avenue South near its intersection with South 158th Street. The first waiver involved 33 multi- family units with a density of 12.2 units per acre. For environmental and land use reasons, the waiver was denied in May 1979. The second McNamara waiver request was filed in September 1980 and involved 54 condominium units in a revised site plan configuration with an overall density of 20 units per acre. For reasons similar to the first application, the second request was denied. A third waiver application on the McNamara property was filed in April 1981. Nearly identical to the second application in terms of density and site layout, this application is still pending before the City Council. The McMicken Heights area lies along the eastern edge of a glacial plateau which overlooks the Green River flood plain. The slope rises rapidly from the valley floor to a gently undulating upland bench. Undeveloped land and single family homes on large lots generally characterize the steep perimeter slopes while the plateau is more densely developed with single family homes on suburban -sized lots. The City owns an 11 -acre park near the crest of McMicken Heights in the north part of the study area. On -site specific soils investigations have been completed on proposed development sites in the McMicken Heights area. They have generally shown that with certain engineering modifications, slopes in the area may be stabilized in order to accommodate development. No investigation has been conducted or authorized by the City itself in order to verify the subsurface geologic or drainage information. TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING June 29, 1981 Page 2 DISCUSSION Contd. Zoning Map, McMicken Heights contd. 3� 77 Without an objective analysis of slope stability throughout the McMicken area, it is impossible for staff to evaluate this factor as it influences proposed land use. The analysis of planning policy for the McMicken Heights area is specifically not based on an assumption that the slopes are or are not stable. Our conclusion regarding slope stability is that any development in McMicken Heights area must demonstrate that slopes can be stabilized to accommodate that development, whether it is single family dwellings or multiple- family structures. The General Goals of the Comprehensive Land Use Policy Plan are: (1) Preserve the pleasantness and integrity of viable single family areas. (2) While protecting the single- family areas of Tukwila, provide adequate room for multiple dwellings. (3) Assure an adequate and diversified housing supply within the residential community. Some policies that apply to the McMicken Heights area which form a framework for crucial policy discussion are: Minimize the incompatibilities between different types of residential uses. There are incompatibilities between single and multiple family developments and the reduction of these conflicts should be encouraged through proper planning. Use natural features, like topography, to separate incompatible land uses from the residential uses. Slopes, or the difference in elevation between two areas, can be utilized to separate dissimilar land uses. Though two or more different uses may be located relatively close to each other, the difference in elevation may contribute to one's sense of separation and to a sense of protection and compatibility. Multiple- family developments should be located functionally convenient to a primary or secondary arterial street where traffic generated by these uses does not pass through single- family residential areas. Traffic which is generated by high- density residential development has an adverse impact on the livability of low- density neighborhoods if such traffic is channeled into or through these areas. It is generally desirable to locate multiple family developments along arterial streets where tenants may conveniently access major roads and thereby avoid single family districts. In the McMicken Heights subarea, Klickitat Drive provides arterial access to abutting properties. However, to the extent that traffic generated by multiple family development would travel westerly along South 160th Street to use services provided along Military Road or Highway 99, this policy may be diminished,particularily in areas lying outside the City. Discourage development in areas where slopes are known to be unstable. In areas where the stability of slopes is questionable, allow development only after a qualified professional can demonstrate that slopes will be stable even after site modifica- tions. While slope gradient constrains design alternatives of most development, slope stability ultimately determines whether the development is possible and safe. Since slopes in the Tukwila area are generally composed of a variety of geologic substrata, the relative slope stability varies. Certain slopes are more or less susceptible to sliding than others. This policy encourages professional analysis of slope stability in areas where general indicators point up possible sliding hazards. In McMicken Heights, the generalized maps have indicated potential problems with slope stability. Slope stability will have to be demonstrated irrespective of the type of development proposed. The natural environment policies are: Recognize the aesthetic, environmental, and use benefits of vegetation and promote its retention and installation; maintain the wooded character of the steep slopes and upland plateau, and encourage the use of vegeta- tion in slope stabilization; discourage disturbance of vegetation TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING June 29, 1981 Page 3 DISCUSSION Contd. Zoning Map, when not in conjunction with the actual deveopment of property; McMicken Heights contd. recognize the advantages and opportunities afforded by the topography and plan its use accordingly; discourage development of slopes in excess of 20 percent; preserve the views of hillside residents; preserve and promote the quality of natural landform; preserve the views of hillside residents; preserve and promote the quality of natural landform; discourage filling, grading, or excavations of land when not in conjuntion with actual development of the land; recognize the characteristics of local geology and consider them in the land use planning process. Residence policies are: protect all viable residential neighborhoods from intrusions by incompatible land uses; utilize open spaces, such as parks and playfields, to separate incompatible land uses from the residential areas; prohibit spot zoning in established residential neighborhoods; provide for medium density "transition areas" between high and low density residential areas; encourage the use of vegetative or fence -like screens adjacent to freeways and along noisy use district to protect residential areas from high noise levels; assure a diversified supply of housing in the planning area; encourage housing developments which provide a diversity of housing types; encourage the development of owner occupied multiple-family residential units; encourage the use of noise insulation materials in the construction of residential structures in areas which are seriously impacted by freeway or aircraft noise. Policies of the natural environment encourage a sensitive, responsible approach to the planning and development of land. Development is encouraged to recognize the natural constraints of the environment, such as steep slopes and to respond accor- dingly. While intensive development is generally discouraged in environmentally sensitive areas, it is not prohibited. Policies also encourage recognition of the amenities of the area and discourage the indiscriminate or unnecessary destruction of them, such as clearing wooded sites without any development proposal. Environmental opportunities such as topography are encouraged to be used as an aid in the land use planning process. Policies of the residence element are aimed at the protection, enhancement, and livability of residential areas. Protection from incompatible land uses and "transitions" between dissimilar use areas are encouraged. These "transitions" may be either natural or man -made. The residence element also promotes an adequate and diversified supply of housing, including single family residences, duplexes, and high- density multiple- family structures, renter or owner occupied. Mr. Collins said staff has identified three generalized approaches to zoning for the McMicken Heights area: (1) Rezone area for single and multiple family development, with "transition" density areas between. This alternative contemplates a medium to high density residential classification (R -2 or R -4) on the lower slopes near the edge of the single family area; and a low density (R -1) classification encompassing the single family neighborhood on the plateau. (2) Rezone the entire area to R -1 (single family residential) in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan Map. This alternative would propose the entire subarea for single family residential development. Variations in the minimum lot sizes of the single- family zones could be established according to natural constraints and other considerations. (3) Retain the existing zoning pattern, with R -1 on plateau and R -4 and RMH along perimeter slopes. This alternative would be similar to the existing zoning pattern on McMicken Heights. High- density multiple family devel- opment would be scheduled for the slopes leading up 53rd Avenue with single family zoning on the plateau above South 160th Street. TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING June 29, 1981 Page 4 DISCUSSION Contd. 3.2 aQ/ Zoning Map, Mr. Collins said no clear zoning map recommendation can be McMicken Heights contd. made without making additional policy decisions. Three policy decisions which appear to be most helpful in arriving at land use decision for McMicken Heights are: (1) Whether or not the neighborhood protection of the established single- family area on the top of "1cMicken Heights is sufficiently insured by topographic definition and arterial access; (2) Whether or not housing opportunities and economics are foreclosed by an R -1 designation for the lower portion of McMicken Heights; (3) Whether or not development decisions /actions have already committed multi- family developments which could become non- conforming and perhaps blighting influences. The conclusions of the Planning Department regarding these three policy- decisions are essentially affirmative and may be seen as favoring a residential transition zoning approach. The judgment needed for the first choice is the easiest, since the topographic definition is fairly evident and enhanced by park and street public right -of -ways. The second judgment may be less arguable in regard to opportunities but housing economics cannot be reduced to simple choices without considerable feasibility analysis and pro forma review. Nonetheless, development of single- family housing under pre- vailing market conditions would be difficult and result in housing units priced probably well above the existing houses in the neighborhood and in comparable areas. Furthermore, continued speculation on land in the lower portion of the hillside, particularly along Klickitat and 53rd Avenue South may subject it to greater economic pressures from intrusion by non residential uses. Judgment on the final policy decision is not only the most difficult but also legally inappropriate, since litigation is still in progress. Regardless of the legal decisions, a transition zoning alternative may be more workable in accom- plishing the implementation of the Comprehensive Plan policies. Mr. Collins said staff felt the report followed the Comprehensive Plan directive to preserve the single- family on the plateau. Councilman Bohrer asked about the two benches that the slopes tended to complement. Brad Collins, Director of Planning, pointed out the two benches on the map and described how the two benches were formed. Brad Collins, Director of Planning, explained the inventory of R -3 lands in Tukwila, comparing current zoning with draft No. 4 zoning. Dick Goe, 5112 South 163rd Place, Tukwila, said a lot of things have been covered in the report prepared by the Planning staff. The inventory of R -3 lands in Tukwila is complicated. He said an inventory on R -1 lands should be covered. The staff recommendation seems to head toward transition zoning. Mr. Goe said Dennis Robertson had some interesting information that had been prepared by the Weyerhaeuser Company. He said he had no recollection that RP•1H zoning was ever recommended by the Planning staff to the Planning Commission. Density as high as R -3 or R -4 has been recommended. The transition zoning does create a buffer. There are two buffers with the freeways and there is no need for more. Letting in R -3 and R -4 zoning is all that is needed to encourage development on the hillside. The desires of the people who live on the hill in McMicken Heights is that the area be developed into single- family. This has been discussed before. He said although he thought he understood the concept of the Planning Department he could not go along with the heavy density. That is the thing that encourages the amount of people that would be going up and down the hill. TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING June 29, 1981 Page 5 DISCUSSION Contd. Zoning Map, Any increase in heavy population will add to the transportation. McMicken Heights contd.In making any decisions, you have to know the land is stable. He said it appeared the report had been hastily done. The subject involves a lot of work and staff has been working against a deadline. Extra time might add something beneficial to the report. If nothing further is added, then he thought there would be no change in the thinking of the people living on the hill. Any change would be an encrouchment and detrimental to the neighbor- hood. John Barnes, 15814 53th Avenue South, Tukwila, said he thought the report was a good one and has used the facts that are available. The transit density plan is good and solves the problem. There are many people to be pleased. Richard Kirsop, Chairman of the Planning Commission, said he has tried to be neutral in this area. There are a couple of points he wanted to clarify. One is that special development considera- tion on slopes beyond 20% does not mean there is some moratorium on development on that site. It identifies those areas that property should be watched and building and grading plans closely checked before a permit is granted. He said he did not think we should equate special development consideration with undevelop- able at all. He said he agreed that in fairness to the property owners who have had multiple family zoning on the property since annexation to the City of Tukwila, some sort of multiple development should be continued in the least sensitive portions of the area. He said he agreed with those who wanted to keep the traffic on 160th at a minimum. Councilman Bohrer said the Planning Commission recommended a plan to the Council that it was single family. Richard Kirsop said it was a split decision by the Commission and was not one that he necessarily favored. The decision was the majority decision of the Planning Commission at that time. Ethel Cole, 16030 51st Avenue South, Tukwila, said a lot of the area in McMicken Heights is designated 20 She said she owns a section of land with her house on the west side. The east side of it is more than 20 in fact it practically stands on its head. Nothing could be done about that hill. The soil is quite sandy. The last earthquake caused a crack with the sandy soil above the clay. Below the sand is blue clay that slides. There is a spring just past her property that runs all of the way around. On the north side of 160th you would have to be a mountain goat to get up the side of the hill. Most of that is a lot more than a 20% grade. It would have to be cut down. It might be possible to get an R -2 in there, but nothing more. Brad Collins, Director of Planning, said the areas identified were over 25 They were identified as extremely steep areas. Ernie Orata, audience, said when hearings were being held on the Comprehensive Plan the people wanted the McMicken Heights to remain R -1. He said all of the people up there would like it to remain R -1. There have been many meetings on this and always the people have said it should remain R -1 in designation. Councilman Bohrer said he found the report to be unbalanced because it was from a developer's viewpoint. There was no data about traffic counts. The discussion of the soils and whether or not they are stable has been ignored. Previous requests for soils reports are absent. In looking at the map he said he was hard pressed to find anything that looks like the referenced bench that Mr. Collins has referred to. Most of the land is steep. If large buildings were put there you would see major disruption in the land. Behind City Hall there was a disruption of the land. There is a swath through the entire top of the hill. There has been mention of using multi family development along Klickitat as a buffer. It is not clear from what we are going to buffer it. There is no high density over there. At the present time there is nothing to buffer from. The adding of multiple- family TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING June 29, 1981 Page 6 DISCUSSION Contd. Zoning Map, McMicken Heights contd. RECESS 8:55 9:05 P.M. to the area will not limit the amount of multi family. It will grow and spread into the area designated as single family. Councilman Bohrer said in discussing the differences in approach to the development of McMicken Heights and Tukwila Hill, they have similar problems according to the report. There are two major differences, one is that the Tukwila Hill has a lot of multi- family development. There is none on McMicken Heights. Second, there is no slide history on Tukwila hill, but there is a well known slide history on McMicken Heights. He said in his opinion he has not seen anything that tells how these uncertainties can be taken care of. Councilman Bohrer said the three policies recommended by Staff are not complete. He asked if the City needs additional multi- family zoning beyond what has been designated and what has been recommended by the Planning Commission? If so, is T1cflicken Heights the appropriate place for it? He said he would point out that since the City has cascade zoning that anything that is zoned above R -3 or R -4 has the potential of developing to that use. So when you say we have exhausted or drawn down by 50% the areas that exist in the City for R -3 or R -4 uses that does not really account for the structure of the zoning code that is being dealt with. There might also be the consideration of another policy decision will zoning the area in McMicken Heights for multi family adjacent to R -1 be in effect a buffer or will it serve the opposite end. Homes on the hillside might be more expensive than some of the neighboring homes. Is there anything wrong with that? Councilman Phelps said the Council is considering everyone's opinion and input in coming up with a zoning ordinance. We must listen to the citizens and also the opinions of the property owners, the engineers and other consultants that we have, and the professional staff that we have. We have to use the tools that are available for the Council to reach a decision. Among them are the Comprehensive Land Use Plan and the Staff Report. She said the Staff Report is a tool for her to use in making her decision. She said she favored, and it was clear in the split vote the Council had in asking for this type of a report, for a multi- family as a possibility in the McMicken Heights area. She said she favored the alternative that permits transitional zoning. She said the sub -area of McMicken Heights is appropriate for multi family residential use. We have to look into the future on this property. She said she supported Alternative 1 in concept as a policy decision, taking into consideration the special development factors as each proposal is reviewed. They have to be reviewed on a one -by -one basis, and probably always will have to be. She said she did not support the non residental business or commercial uses in the sub -area, therefore, the R -4 designation is not appropriate. The R -3 designation which allows maximum of 15 units per acre is adequate for density and it would allow planned residential development on a minimum of 1 acre sites for some flexibility within these areas. Chairman Saul said discussion on McMicken Heights would continue on July 13, 1981. Chairman Saul called a recess of ten minutes. The Special Meeting was called back to order by Chairman Saul, with Council Members present as previously listed. Chapter 18.52, Landscape Fred Satterstrom, Planner, said in Section 18.52.020 (1) the Recreation Space column entitled "Planter Width (In Feet)" should be deleted. Requirements. Pge. 93. Chris Crumbaugh, audience, suggested that this discussion take place after setbacks have been discussed. If you have a front yard requirement and you propose that 15 feet be landscape, they have a couple of buildings that will not fit the 15 foot front yard landscaping requirement. He asked if the sidewalk is considered part of the landscaping? A lot of places have the public access TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING June 29, 1981 Page 7 Chapter 18.52, Landscape Recreation Space Re- quitement. Pge. 93, contd. landscaped. He said he did not like the hard and fast rule of 15 feet. If a more creative way of writing this could be done, it would give more flexibility, which would be desirable. Councilman Saul said he liked the defintion statement of feet. If it is not stated uniformly it causes problems and time. Chris Crumbaugh said if you have a flexibile rule that allows flexibility and trade -offs, it is preferable. He said in the future they would not be building the same developments that they have in the past. People are looking for space they can use. The planter idea is meant for a particular type of development. He said they cannot afford to give all of this space to plantings. Councilman Bohrer said the development is a private development so within that development you have more flexibility than simply living by the code. You can do some of these things as a PUD. The streets are private streets so you have some of the flexibility you are asking for even though you do want to develop the streets to City standards. Councilman Phelps said she agreed with Mr. Crumbaugh's philosophy in that the landscaping is tying up the use of the property and the zoning that is attached to it. In your commercial and retail areas that are more accessible to the the general public so the landscaping does serve as a barrier to traffic circulation, the parking lot and building. In the office and industrial uses those areas are less public than Southcenter Shopping Center, for example, and it might be more appropriate to assign a percentage of the area of the land as landscaping in order to provide some usable recrea- tion area for the employees of the buildings, the tenants of the buildings because they are the ones who are going to be using the areas that are landscaped. It should be usable area. Chris Crumbaugh, audience, said in Seattle they have a plaza -type requirement for height. It is proportion of your lot coverage and worked in the formula is how much open space or plaza you have down below. This would make it more habitable for people. He said he would like flexibility built into the landscaping re- quirement. Councilman Saul suggested that staff look into Seattle's plaza type requirements and percentage. Chris Crumbaugh, audience, said the City may have to make a distinc- tion between industrial and office buildings. The different types of buildings have different people- requirements. In the industrial buildings, some of them are built up to the sideyard requirement. We have to maintain a distance between the buildings because of the fire code, but to say it has to be 5 feet from the building line puts us in a non conforming status on some of the buildings. There is a non- conforming section in the back that deals with this and it will be discussed when we get to that part. Richard Kirsop, Chairman of the Planning Commission, said on the C -M District the 15 feet were put in when they were talking about eliminating the BAR in the C -M District. The second is that with the previous 10 feet minimum on landscaping in the C -M district which varied depending on the zones, if you take a 10 foot strip without a sidewalk and put a 5 foot sidewalk in then you end up with 5 feet of landscaping and that seems skinny. We are inclined to say if you put a sidewalk on your own property in the 15 feet landscaping you would count the sidewalk as landscaping. That was an informal decision, but a practical one. Fred Satterstrom, Planner, said the chart was made up so there would be hard and fast guidelines that developers would follow. The approval of the BAR is required for all landscape plans in the C -P zone. TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING June 29, 1981 Page 8 Chapter 18.52, Landscape This section could be expanded to encompass other districts as Recreation Space Re- well, if that is the way the Council wanted to work it. In defense quirement. Page 93, of the front yard landscaping requirement, which is the most impor- contd. tant landscaping in the City because it is the one that we most see when we drive down the street. If it were not landscaped we would all come down here and start rethinking the landscaping guide- lines. The specific number of feet may be in contention. Maybe it should be reduced in some districts and increased in others, and in some stay the same. There has been a lot of talk about the artesians. Most of the buildings that we deal with have a parking lot in front of them that needs to be screened. In the future we may see a different type of building here in the City. Some of the requirements are not here for that reason. Councilman Saul said he liked the second sentence on Page 94 where it says: "The BAR may modify all minimum width requirements according to scale of the property upon request of the applicant." Councilman Phelps said the quality of development in Tukwila has been set. It should continue in that manner as property values increase. Councilman Bohrer said he would like some flexibility in some instances. Most of the buildings have a parking lot in front of them. We are apt to see a change in the next few years. Brad Collins, Director of Planning, said staff is concerned about having hard and fast rules that are identified on Page 93. At the same time, using these rules we can come up with an area percentage and that BAR or some other mechanism could be used to review a creative design for the same amount of landscaping but not necessarily tied to the setback kind of concern. This addresses the concern of Mr. Satterstrom and Councilman Bohrer that these are the things that are required and there is no relief from them unless BAR is convinced that your particular project deserves relief. Councilman Saul said if landscaping is not required then no one is going to put it in. You need controls that say the same thing. Fred Satterstrom, Planner, said in the R -1 zone he had said land- scaping was not required, but the Planning Commission said what was good enough for multiple family was good enough for single family. Landscaping in R -1 could end up being a hardship when the home is not built or occupied on an immediate basis. We may end up trying to enforce something; landscaping requirements were not invented for R -1 districts because R -1 districts end up being 50 to 75% landscaping anyway. This section would have anyone proposing to construct single- family dwelling submit a land- scaping plan and that plan would have to be approved by the City Planning Department and it would have to be installed within a year of the building permit being issued for that home. Rarely do you see landscaping requirements for single family homes. Councilman Phelps asked why landscaping was considered for a single family residence if you have a 30 feet setback and 15 feet of that has to be landscaped. Is green grass to the street land- scaping or do you have to have live plant material. What about the driveway? If you have a circular driveway in front of your house, what does that do to your landscaping requirements within 30 feet? Mr. Satterstrom said you would not landscape' your driveway, but this requirement would say that at least 15 feet of that front yard would have to be landscaped. Probably the whole front yard outside of your driveway is going to end up being landscaped. Richard Kirsop, audience, said he thought it might be a valid point to require that every single family dwelling maintain a landscaped front yard. Councilman Phelps said there is a section of the code that covers nuisances, such as unsightly blackberry vines and grass that is four feet tall. 3 a g� TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING June 29, 1981 Page 9 Chap. 18.52, Special Chris Crumbaugh, audience, said there is a provision in the existing Landscape requirements. zoning code which requires some landscaping in particular areas. 18.52.030. This was somewhat patterned after that. He said he would like an analysis of that compared to this, but additionally if you are going to have this at all, taking 18.52.030 (1) (b) for example, When an office use occurs across the street from a single family use district that should say "office use district" and the same thing applies to (c) and (d), because then you are dealing with a situation of who builds first. If you have when an industrial use occurs first, take (d) for instance, (d) says, Industrial use occurs adjacent to an office use district, so now we impose a P -0 which is near an industrial zone, the industrial zone is made non conforming because the P -0 district was put near it. That should say "An industrial use district occurs adjacent to an office use district," if it says it at all. He said he questioned that because it was still going to be non conforming. Here you are saying when a use occurs across the street from a district you are dealing with situations of a race of who builds first. You have a couple of sensitive areas and that is when you have single family near industrial or commercial, there should be greater landscaping requirements. When you are talking about industrial next to an office or commercial next to an office or industrial he did not think this was necessary. You have to pick out the situations where you really want to protect the neighbor from some bad thing and state it. Councilman Saul said the requirements do not vary too much in King County. If you have a whole block that is zoned multiple use, if you build there and there is single family residence in there, even though it is zoned for multiple use, your requirements are greater than when he tears down that building and builds his, because he is still living there single family, even though they are both zoned identical, the setbacks are entirely different because of single- family still existing. Councilman Saul said he did not know how to deal with Section 18.52.030 (1) (d) which says: "Industrial use occurs adjacent to an office use distirct." Brad Collins, Director of Planning, because of the transition of the C -M zoning, Item (d) may occur very frequently in that allowed industrial uses are starting to occur down there in the industrial area. What triggers or what the impact of nonconformance is he was not sure. If an office goes in to the space that used to be occupied by an industrial use, does the adjacent industrial use now have to go out and increase their landscaping by 25% or if the industrial use changes in some nature does it then have to comply? This will require interpretation. Chris Crumbaugh, audience, said they have a corner on the southwest intersection of South 180th and Southcenter Parkway where the McCann rezones occurred. Next to that is a use that is a combination of warehouse and commercial. The warehouse would be considered industrial under the present code. If they developed that property as P -0, which would be an office use district next to an industrial use, what would be the interpretation? Councilman Saul said there is no way they would be penalized 25% be- cause they are building next to a warehouse. Councilman Bohrer said he was not sure the whole section serves a useful purpose, as he understands it. For instance, (a) Multiple family residences occur across the street from a single family use district, what are we going to do? We are going to increase the front yard landscaping by 25 That is 3' 9 or a minimum of 5'. You are going to take a sidewalk out of that same piece. What remains for the landscape buffer has gone from 8 or 9' to that plus another 5'. Maybe you can see the difference. A sideyard that is 5' and you are going to increase that by 11/4, is that going to be worthwhile? Councilman Saul said it appears that the less property you have, the less building you can do. Councilman Bohrer said he thought there were other methods of doing the screening, rather than landscaping require a solid fence or something. TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING June 29, 1981 Page 10 18.52.050 Chap. 18.52, Special Richard Kirsop, Chairman of the Planning Commission, said he did Landscape requirements, not think this would present a burden on many places. 18.52.030 contd. Chris Crumbaugh, audience, suggested that Section 18.52.030 (1) (d) be deleted. Councilman Saul said he thought the deletion should be discussed and considered by the entire Council. Councilman Bohrer said he shared Mr. Kirsop's opinion that it would not present a problem in most cases. Fred Satterstrom, Planner, said there has been a Planning Commission change or revision in 18.52.050 (Parking lot landscape requirements). Line 3 of Page 96, the words "parking lot" have been deleted and the word "site" has been substituted. On Page 95, Section 18.52.040 (1) (b) (All landscaping within twenty five (25) feet of an intersection shall not exceed two feet in height) has been deleted. Gary Huff, Southcenter, said in talking with Fred Satteratrom and some of the other staff members it is their understanding that the way the 5% minimum figure was arrived at was to go down to Southcenter and use that standard in measuring as to what they thought to be the interior parking lot requirements. That calculation came out to be 5 He said that is fine with them. The only concern is how the City treats excess perimeter landscaping. It is Mr. Satterstrom'5 interpretation, and his also, but it is unclear in this, where you have a situation such as they have when in parts of the perimeter landscaping it exceeds by quite a bit the minimum that is required. They have 30' where we would only have to have 15' in some places. They meet this 5% requirement, and he said he thought the figure was arrived at by including the excess perimeter landscaping and the calculation it gets to this 5% figure. In reading this section he thought this was subject to interpretation. To avoid any future hassles, he asked that a sentence be added to basically state that excess perimeter landscaping may be used to satisfy this parking lot landscape requirement. Councilman Saul said that sounded fair enough. Mr. Huff said this would make it so it would not be left up to interpretation. Councilman Bohrer said the code establishes a minimum requirement. Councilman Saul said this could be put to the vote of the Council. Chris Crumbaugh, audience, said he thought this requirement would be unnecessary and overly burdensome. He said they have very large parking lots for an industrial building with no interior landscaping in the interior such a proposed. All of their industrial buildings do not have the landscaping in the parking areas. We have some on the front part of the buildings. We do not have growing areas out in the parking lot. This will interfere with the maneuvering of trucks. Councilman Bohrer said the word "may" has been used. Fred Satterstron said there is an escape clause in Section 18.70. Chris Crumbaugh, audience, said the parking lot area will be diminished by 5% by this requirements. The cost of property is great. ADJOURNMENT The Tukwila City Counct Special Meeting was recessed, to be 10:15 P.M. co d on July 6, 11981` Interurban Avenue will be discussed. Da ii�el J. Saul, Chaim n Nokma Booher, Recording Secretary