Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1981-07-06 Special MinutesJuly 6, 1981 7:00 P.M. CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL OF COUNCIL MEMBERS DISCUSSION Interurban Avenue City Hall Council Chambers TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING M I N U T E S Council President Van Dusen called the Special Meeting of the Tukwila City Council to order at 7:12 p.m. L. C. BOHRER, MABEL J. HARRIS, J. REID JOHANSON, DORIS E. PHELPS, DANIEL J. SAUL, Council President GARY L. VAN DUSEN. Council President Van Dusen said the Council would continue review of the proposed Zoning Ordinance (Draft No. 4) as outlined on the review agenda, even though Council members may be absent due to vacation schedules. Council President Van Dusen said the Planning Commission recommenda- tion is C -1 on the west side of Interurban and M -1 on the east side of Maule Avenue. An alternate suggestion from the audience is that we continue the present zoning. Brad Collins, Director of Planning, said the staff report dated June 15, 1981 incorporates the language that was suggested at the June 8, 1981 meeting regarding increased height. That would apply to Interurban Avenue as well as other areas of the City that are zoned C -2 to M -2. There was some discussion in the June 8 meeting of four areas of the City relative to increased height under Chapter 18.50.030. The staff report recommends that the exceptions or the increases in height be applied on a uniform zone classifica- tion basis rather than on the four areas. This would enter into the Interurban Avenue discussion. The staff recommendation does differ somewhat from what the Council discussed that evening; they have included Interurban Avenue as part of the increased height area in their recommendation rather than excluding it. It was excluded in the discussion. The height limitations or increases in height exceptions and limitations would not be applied to Interurban Avenue. That discussion is in the June 8, 1981 minutes of the meeting. Council President Van Dusen asked if it is left as it is or what was suggested at the June 8 meeting, what would be the height limitation on Interurban? Mr. Collins said it would be 45' in the M -1 and 35' in the C -1 zone. Council President Van Dusen said there was discussion about the FAA regulations that would affect that area. Brad Collins said the information they have from FAA was that it would not affect the 35' or 45', but it would affect the 115' in certain parts of the corridor. Council President Van Dusen said Mr. Collins is suggesting that whatever Council sets the height at, it be uniform throughout the City. Mr. Collins said for that particular classification, from C -2 to M -2. The audience may want to do height first before dis- cussing Interurban Avenue. There is a chance we may not get through height discussion at this meeting. MOVED BY SAUL, SECONDED BY HARRIS, THAT COUNCIL CONCUR WITH THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION ON INTERURBAN AVENUE, EXCEPT FOR HEIGHT WHICH WILL BE CONSIDERED AT A LATER DATE. Brad Collins said the Planning Commission recommendation is C -1 on the west side of Interurban, a combination of R -A for the golf course and Fort Dent, and M -1 on the east side of Maule Avenue, and C -2 at the interchange nodes down by I -405 and I -5 in the study areas. This was the recommendation of the staff analysis of non- conforming uses in looking at the possibility of extending C -1 zoning. Councilman Harris said this would make the restaurant and the cock- tail lounge at the golf course nonconforming under R -A. Mr. Collins said he thought the C -1 zone curves around and covers that. He said his understanding is that the nonconformance clauses in the back of the book covers that as a conditional use. If an existing use be- came nonconforming or became a conditional use under a change in zoning it would automatically be considered conforming and receive a conditional use. This is covered in Chapter 18.70. TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING July 6, 1981 Page 2 Interurban Ave. contd. They would not be able to enlarge, but they would be "grand fathered" in under conditional use. If they wanted to remodel or enlarge the clubhouse they would have to go through the condi- tional use requirement. When the analysis was done they consi- dered those uses to, in effect, conform. The only nonconforming uses under the Planning Commission recommendation would be the motorcycle shop on the west side with a C -2 use as opposed to a C -1 use and Alco Metals on the east which is a M -2 use rather than M -1 use. Both of these would not be conditional uses in the C -1 or M -1 zone. They would be nonconforming uses. Unless you go to the present zoning which is C -2 on the west side, and change the zoning on the east side to M -2, you would always have these two uses nonconforming. Councilman Harris said it has been her goal to limit the number of businesses and houses that are nonconforming. A goodly share of Tukwila is already built and there may be a few places that have accidentally crept in that are nonconforming and they may continue to be nonconforming. She said she was trying to see how C -1 would be that much better than C -2. Brad Collins, Director of Planning, said C -2 would make them less nonconforming. They would not have to apply for conditional use permits. Councilman Harris asked what the City would be gaining in the C -1 zone above the C -2? Fred Satterstrom, Planner, said the Planning Commission, in trying to get hold of certain uses along Interur- ban, primarily on the west side of Interurban where residential properties abut commercial zoning, was trying to get a handle on the uses affecting the residential zoning the most and those were some of the uses they made conditional, such as drive -in establishments and cocktail lounges, where the potential for incom• patibility was the greatest. While these uses are conditional and the Planning Commission proposed them for conditional uses in C -1, they are also viewed legally as permitted uses. It is not that the Planning Commission said they do not want these uses, what they were saying is that before you go in or before you expand these are the things the City wants to review for its effect on the residential property. On the east side of Inter- urban that does not become a problem. Councilman Phelps said on the east side of Interurban this strip is zoned C -1. Mr. Collins said the area between Interurban and Maule Avenue is zoned C -1, it is proposed as C -1. Mr. Satterstrom said he has stated in other meetings that the Planning Commission looked at the types of uses that were allowed in C -2 zoning but presently were not in existence along Interurban and considered there were certain uses in the C -2 zoning that they did not want to see occur along Interurban on either the east or west side, such as billiard rooms and bowling alleys. Councilman Phelps said considering the strip on the east side of Interurban between Maule Avenue and Interurban, would not the width and depth of those parcels dictate more the use of the property than the C -1 or C -2 designation? They are not large enough for a bowling alley. Mr. Satterstrom said originally the Planning Commission had proposed some C -1 zoning east of Maule Avenue. It was a compr- omise as to what they wanted to achieve and what was recommended to the Council in light of some public comments. Originally, it did include some larger pieces of property on the east side of Maule Avenue. Councilman Bohrer said a lot of time was spent by Council in talking to businessmen and getting input. Councilman Harris has said she has no desire to make large parts of the City non- conforming. He said he thought no one on the Council wanted to do that. The Council has had a continuing interest, especially on the west side of Interurban, to try to recognize an opportunity TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING July 6, 1981 Page 3 Interurban Ave. contd. to do something with the entire area. The City has taken a number of steps; they have control of the street itself because we did not like the way the State was handling the street, we had a study done on the Interurban Corridor to try to find some opportunity and the City funded the study. After the study was done the Council and several committees spent time thinking about it and the best use. Minds have changed from the time the Comprehensive Plan was done when we had a couple of different alternatives and it has switched at the last moment through the present time. A lot of alternatives have been con- sidered. The last time the matter was in the Community Affairs Committee it was their recommendation that we try to do something that would preserve a people -focus because of the amenity of the river and the potential for using that. For the undeveloped properties down there, they are a business opportunity, but they do face the problem that many of the uses down there are not people- oriented and people do not view them as such so other uses on those properties are less likely to continue with those existing developments there. That was part of what inspired the Council's interest in looking at a total C -1 alternative. He said he went through the area the other day and, in general, it has not changed in 10 years although there have been some new developments and they are excellent. The bulk of the area has not changed. That has been a major concern of the Council. We have seen major changes elsewhere in the City but this area has not changed. The question now is are we to forego all interest in trying to preserve the opportunity of the amenity in that area or are we going to try to preserve part of it? He said his feeling is that there may be a middle ground between what has been considered before and the three proposals or alternatives from the staff report. He said he noted there were substantial portions of the area currently vacant or in single family usage. These are concentrated in two areas. The one is south of the intersection of 58th (west side) and Interurban. There are properties of some substantial acreage in that neighborhood. The other area is immediately north from the Village Green and to some extent along the river front and in some parts extends up to 143rd Avenue. He said he would like to see a fourth alternative added to the staff report which would look at those areas that are currently single- family and vacant. Instead of going to C -1, look at something less than M -1, maybe C -M. The change to '1 -1 adds a lot of uses that are not compatible with people orientation. Something like C -M introduces a more park -like atmosphere that would eliminate some of that and preserve much of the flexibility of use with the exclusion of some of the uses that are currently going into M -1. It is an interim ground between all C -1 and a M -1 proposal. It does afford some protection to areas that are currently undeveloped or, since they are single- family, are awaiting development from the areas that are already developed in more intensive uses. It also has a potential of leaving those uses which are already there and in places essentially undisturbed in a conforming status as opposed to a nonconforming status. He said he would like to see that considered as a fourth alternative. Councilman Saul said it seems from what he has heard and from what the people have said down there that no matter how much we try or anybody tries to make it a people- oriented area it still is a throughfare from one freeway to another. We can try to legislate a 10 mile speed limit to make it a type of situation where people go and shop, such as at Leavenworth. He said his feeling is that the people who own property there do not share the views of Councilman Bohrer. They feel it is a way through the City from one point to another and not a place to stop. He said he shared those feelings. Unless speed bumps are put in there will be no way to stop the flow of traffic through Interurban Councilman Phelps said it has the potential of being both. The improvements proposed in the Interurban Corridor study with sidewalks set back from the highway, with trails, and the golf course it can be developed by both types of users. TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING July 6, 1981 Page 4 Interurban Ave. contd. Councilman Harris said the C -M is almost M -1 and there are only three uses down there that would be nonconforming. They are already nonconforming or accessory uses in the present M -1. The C -M would make a more park -like area. If you have driven around the State you see reduced speed through a business district, The City has not tried for this reduced speed along Interurban, we have kept it at 40 m.p.h. If you have nothing to look at you go through fast. *MOTION FAILED, WITH SAUL VOTING YES. MOVED BY BOHRER, SECONDED BY HARRIS, THAT STAFF BE DIRECTED TO REVISE THEIR STAFF REPORT ON INTERURBAN AVENUE TO LOOK AT AN ALTERNATIVE WHICH IS BASICALLY THE PLANNING COMMISSION APPROACH BUT WITH THE CHANGES IN THE AREA FROM 58TH SOUTH TO BASICALLY 149TH SOUTH THAT VACANT AREAS AND SINGLE FAMILY AREAS INSOFAR AS POSSIBLE BE DESIGNATED AT SOME USE OTHER THAN M -1, PERHAPS A C -M USE, AND ANALYZE THAT, GIVING COUNCIL THE RATIONALE FOR ASSIGNING THEIR WEIGHTINGS IN THE ALTERNATIVE MATRIX. Councilman Phelps asked if the remaining area would still be designated C -1 as proposed by the Planning Commission? Councilman Bohrer said it would be designated C -1, or in the case of those areas that are currently in use east of Maule Avenue remain M -1. Mayor Todd said if this motion is passed it will be spot zoning. Milton Young, Southcentral Construction Company, said he has property on 143rd Place. The property was purchased from an elderly lady prior to any zoning redoes. She had agreed to give a deed release so a large building could be built on the property. She died before they got the deed release. They tried to borrow money to pay off and put up the building. Her son would not give a deed release. He said he came to City Hall, but at that time there was a moratorium placed upon building down there except office building. In order to keep the property looking presentable to the City he tried to maintain the front of it to look like a single- family residence. It is shown on the map proposed by the Council as single family. They have split his property in half. The property is being used as M -2, even though it appears to be a single- family dwelling in the front. It is Parcel No. 66. *MOTION FAILED, WITH SAUL, VAN DUSEN, AND PHELPS VOTING NO, HARRIS,BOHRER, AND JOHANSON VOTING YES. MOVED BY PHELPS, SECONDED BY BOHRER, THAT STAFF CONSIDER AS ALTERNATIVE 5 THE ENTIRE AREA SOUTH OF 58TH ON THE EAST SIDE OF INTERURBAN TO I -405 AS C -P1 AND PREPARE A REPORT ON THIS ALTERNA- TIVE. Councilman Phelps said the truck terminals that exist there are already a conditional use under the existing zoning and would also be under the C -M zoning, so nothing changes there. Brad Collins, Director of Planning, said there might be some trouble with it becoming nonconforming with respect to setbacks and parking requirements. Fred Satterstrom, Planning, said 11 -1 has 25' setback in the front yard and the C -M has 15'. Councilman Phelps said that is under new construction. She asked if existing uses would be "grandfathered" in under a zoning change? Fred Satterstrom, Planner, said under the proposed regulations, and even under the existing regulations, any structure that would be nonconforming due to setbacks would be a nonconforming struc- ture but that does not mean that it would not be able to be expanded. What it means is that any expansion would then have to conform with the new front, rear, and side regulations. This will be considered in Section 18.70. Councilman Phelps said she wanted to see the impact on all of the area down there, not just the residential and undeveloped portions. TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING July 6, 1981 Page 5 Interurban Ave. contd. MOVED BY BOHRER, SECONDED BY JOHANSON, TO AMEND THE MOTION AND DIRECT STAFF TO CONSIDER AS ALTERNATIVE 6, WHICH IS BASICALLY THE PLANNING COMMISSION APPRAOCH, BUT WITH THE CHANGES IN THE AREA FROM 58TH SOUTH TO 149TH THE VACANT AREAS AND SINGLE FAMILY AREAS INSOFAR AS POSSIBLE BE DESIGNATED AT SOME USE LOWER THAN P1 -1, PERHAPS C -M USE, ANALYZE THAT AND GIVE COUNCIL THE RATIONALE FOR THEIR WEIGHTINGS ON THE ALTERNATIVE MATRIX. MOTION CARRIED. Fred Satterstrom, Planning, said the C -P1 designation would not make any other uses nonconforming. Brad Collins, Director of Planning, said it does make contractor's storage yards and sales of heavy equipment nonconforming. Harvey Locke, 14225 Interurban Avenue, Tukwila, said he was wondering if there isn't a better solution rather than having the Council direct staff to make another report, study it, then have it come back to Council to be tossed around with audience partici- pation, then it goes back with another directive to staff to make another study and come back to Council. It is irritating to come to Council meetings time after time and see proposals bounced back and forth. If the Council is directing staff to make a study on this why isn't the staff directed to get information from the people on Interurban as resource material rather than just going back to their office with some figures and then coming back to Council? He proposed that if they are going to study something they need to get input from the people who have property and have businesses on Interurban. They need more input. Councilman Johanson said the City has to have some controls on what is being built and that is what they are trying to consider. Harvey Locke, 14225 Interurban Avenue, Tukwila, said the people on the Council who are making the decisions need to contact the people on Interurban and get their opinion. The people have been waiting for the proposal for four years. Councilman Bohrer said the seven people on the Council meet several times a month and have done a lot of work on the zoning ordinance. It is a very important decision to make for a number of people in that zone and Council is conscientiously trying to make the best decision they can. He said the staff does try to make use of the information they have and if they are in error about information they are using concerning any piece of property, they are amenable to an update. There seems to be an associa- tion of property owners who oppose any change. He suggested that P1r. Locke prepare a proposal to the Council that recognizes some of the concerns of the Council. Mr. Locke said they would accept that proposal if they are given a reasonable amount of time. He said his contention is that he has waited four years for this proposal; it is unacceptable to the businessmen on Interurban. He said he was sure they could come up with something. Aden O'Dell, 14040 Interurban Avenue, Tukwila, said maybe an alternative to what is going on is a proposal that Mr. Van Dusen put before the Council but has not been discussed. It would be Staff Proposal Number One under that discussion because it does answer the questions that have come up from the Council members. As you listen to the concerns of the Council, Proposal One does answer all of the concerns. It does allow the existing uses, as Mr. Bohrer's proposal indicates, to stay there but it takes all of the property that is down there and puts it under BAR or City Council approval and the emphasis on the whole proposal is on design and that is what Council is concerned about. That answers the concerns of the businessmen also. He said he would like to see it discussed. It does what the Council is trying to do and that is improve appearances. It gives the Council that control. Councilman Phelps said the motion that Council made tonight to make the property C -M zoning was in response to comments received from the property owners at the last meeting. The Council is trying to build in flexibility to allow as many existing uses as possible as well as develop pedestrian and traffic- oriented uses along that strip. TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING July 6, 1981 Page 6 7'3 Interurban Ave. contd. Mr. O'Dell said it makes the total front of his property non- conforming under the C -M usage. Under the staff proposal (1) it does not make anyone nonconforming. It gives Council the right to establish appearance and the aesthetics of the area. That is what Council is trying to control. It answers both sides of the issue. Fred Satterstrom, Planner, said for people who like definitions, there is a text book definition on special districts on the last page of the memorandum. Basically, a special review district is an area in which the City feels there is a special need or a special purpose in establishing a special review, an additional review procedure for it. The City of Seattle has implemented the special review district in Pioneer Square as a historical district and the International District to have that local community review its developmentproposals to make it a little more locally oriented. In the memorandum he sketched out that there are two basic approaches to the designation of a special review district. The first is that there would be a special review district. An area would be geographically defined on a zoning map or in a text as a special district with underlying zoning also shown on the zoning map. Therefore, the use of the property would be basically determined by the underlying zoning. The design of the development would go through either the BAR or City Council. The second approach is where a special review district is desig- nated and there is no underlying zoning indicated. The approach would allow irtually any use that might be allowed in the City, but all proposed development would go through the special review procedure through BAR or a different alternative. This alter- native would be similar, like the present M -2 zoning, where a very wide range of zoning or types of land uses are allowed with BAR approval. It would be similar to that type of procedure. In talking with the City Attorney about the second alternative, it was his advice that the second one might be open to attack but as long as the Council set out specific objectives and review criteria for that development it would lessen the susceptibility of being challenged on the basis of being arbitrary and capricious. Mr. Sattersom said whatever alternative the Council chooses, or if they decided upon the special review district, they should specify specific criteria and purposes for the district. If the Interurban area is designated as a special review district then the Council should be sure and enunciate the purposes; the reasoning why that area should be treated differently from other areas of the City. If that purpose can be accommodated by using regular zoning provisions, such as designating it M -1 with BAR approval, then perhaps a special review district chapter should be in the ordinance. If there is some purpose in addition to that beyond the design criteria then perhaps a design review district with a specific set of criteria would be desirable. Council President Van Dusen said because of the Interurban Corridor Study the Council did want a special area, trying to put in some designs and criteria and this is what started him thinking about this. He said he was thinking in terms of a compromise that the City allow the present zoning there. Then, with the Council's considerations as to how they wanted to develop, they could put in the criteria. The owners would still have their zoning on it, but as they developed they would have to meet a review, either through Council or BAR, which would put another step in the process. In some cases it could be more restrictive. We would have to be careful with this. f1r. Pual Haggard, 14000 Interurban Avenue South, Tukwila, said as a suggestion to the Number One stipulation in the staff memo- randum dated 6 July 1981, and recognizing the fact that our judicial system is so overburdened and the delays that are going through court due to too many cases, he would like to eliminate in the third line the word "either" and "or City Council" thereby eliminating this potential for the delay in getting an answer to a problem. On the C -M proposal, what is the setback require- ment that has been considered? Council President Van Dusen said that has not been addressed as yet. Mr. Haggard said he could understand Mr. Locke's antagonism. We are all trying to do a job for the best of the community. TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING July 6, 1981 Page 7 Interurban Ave. contd. RECESS 8:40 8 :50 P.M. Chapter 18.50 Height, Setback, and Area Regulations, Page 88 of Draft No. 4. *MOTION CARRIED, AS AMENDED, WITH SAUL AND VAN DUSEN VOTING NO. Brad Collins, Director of Planning, said before height is discussed a schedule for brining this information on Interurban Avenue to Council should be discussed. It took two weeks to do the first report. He said it would take at least two weeks to do this one. Mayor Todd said he was going to insist that Mr. Collins personally interview each property owner involved in this motion and get their input. He said it would take some time. Councilman Saul said that sound unreasonable. Mayor Todd said, in his opinion, each property owner is going to lose at least one -half of his property value if this downzone occurs. He said everyone should be aware of that, if they are not already. He said the City should listen to what the property owners have to say. Councilman Harris said nothing is going to be decided finally in these work meetings. Mayor Todd said one day they will wake up and find it has been passed. Councilman Phelps said she thought il we can get around the front yard setbacks and some of the other problems that exist in the differences between the zoning classi- fications, a C -M zoning would allow the property owners more flexi- bility with their property than an M -1, C -2, or C -1 designation. Mayor Todd said that may be the opinion of the property owners, but we need to find out. Councilman Bohrer said he thought Mayor Todd had instituted the potential of throwing a major roadblock into the zoning ordinance. He wondered if he intended to offer this same potential to every property owner in the City. If we go back to that it will add years to the zoning ordinance. Mayor Todd said the City has been on this for four years and there was no need to jump into anything. He said there should be a one -to -one basis on this zoning. Councilman Bohrer said he would suggest that we ask the City Attor- ney to review this process and if possible it be brought to the Council consideration whether the Council chooses to have it done or not. He said he saw it as a major extension to the time that may be required to get the zoning ordinance complete. He said Council is close to settling this particular suggestion in a way that will not be of impact on many of the property owners down there but still preserve much of what Council sees. He said he saw the Mayor's action as a major attempt to delay any imple- mentation of the zoning ordinance. He asked that this matter be referred to the City Attorney and brought back to Council for Council review and policy determination by the Council. Council President Van Dusen said it is Councilman Bohrer's intent that the City Attorney address the problem of the Mayor asking staff to interview everybody involved. Councilman Bohrer said that was his intent and whether such a decision is appropriate where the Council may review and issue a policy recommendation. Brad Collins, Director of Planning, said this will take beyond the scheduled review dates. Council President Van Dusen declared a ten minutes recess. The Special Meeting was called back to order by Council President Van Dusen, with Council members present as previously listed. Council President Van Dusen said on June 8, 1981 the Council made some changes on Page 88 in Section 18.50.030 and asked Staff to make some changes and look into the wording. Staff has made a report on this and Brad Collins, Director of Planning, will go over the report. Brad Collins, Director of Planning, said the report is lengthy, but it can be condensed into several small concerns. The first is that with the exception of the FAA advisory height recommenda- TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING July 6, 1981 Page 8 Chap. 18.50 Height, Setback, and Area Regulations, Page 88 of Draft No. 4 contd. tions or limitations for the Boeing airfield flight pattern, none of the factors that were analyzed tell you whether or not it should be 115' or 300' or any other exact figure. It suggests that they provide some framework for discussion of review criteria under an exception process, 18.50.030. The first three pages of the report are there to provide information for language that is in Section 18.50.030. The second part of the report, starting on Page 4, deals with alternative approaches. The approaches they tried to identify are: (a) what staff thoughtCouncil had requested, and there are some areas that require further interpretation which has been provided; (b) the Planning Commission recommendation; (c) is essentially the same as (a) except it does not require BAR review other than may be identified in other parts of the zoning code; (d) no height limitation at all. Proposed high -rise structures would undergo the same building permit procedures as low -rise structures; no special permission would be required. The staff recommendation looked at the recommendation based on the June 8 minutes. There are two or three exceptions that Planning elaborated on or provided for extra consideration. The first would be in the discussion of that meeting it did not specify what the BAR review would entail regarding height. The first assumption that was made, and there was some discrepancy in Planning staff as to what was the most appropriate, that Planning Commission acting as a Board ofArchitectural Review would be authorized to look at height as part of the design criteria so we would have the wording "may authorize" with the notion they may not authorize the full 115' but they may authorize only 70' in some instances as a design concern. After some discussion it was altered to read that the authorization of the building height up to 115' in the C -2, C -P, C -M, M -1 and M -2 districts shall be made by the Planning Commission acting as a Board of Architectural Review pursuant to the criteria and procedures in Chapter 18.60. His interpretationof that is that the question of building heights is not a design consideration but rather would be up to the prop- erty owner in the proposal to decide how high he was requesting his building up to 115' pursuant to the design criteria in Chapter 18.60. They did not alter thecri er a in Chapter 18.60. The second part goes on to describe under 18.50.035, which is a new section, what the special exception to the 115' would be. The primary difference in the direction was the notion that the Planning Commission would review and authorize height beyond 115'. They talked about limiting that to C -2 and C -P zoning classifica- tions, intensive commercial uses, where this exception could be granted as opposed to all of the commercial and industrial uses and to a certain extent he thought the reasoning was they felt that zoning classifications ought to uniformly apply. In the Council's discussions there were four areas that were specified: the area north of I -5, the area west of I -5, the area south of I -405 and between I -5 and I -405. Of those, three areas were included in these exceptions and one area was not. The Planning staff agreed among themselves that it was much more difficult to relate to than uniformity between zoning classifications. As a result staff recommendation according to zoning classifications as opposed to specific areas of the City. The only other thing that could be added at this point would be that one of the reasons Planning felt that intensive commercial uses should be in the area5 where exception is being granted and was related primarily to the argument that higher buildings themselves become an urban view and urban vista and to the extent that those are generally clustered it presents more of a form that becomes attractive and makes some sense rather than a hodge podge of buildings as they may spread up here and there. He said he thought it was fair to say that staff differed in the recommendations from those three areas that were considered and discussed in the Council on June 8 and applied it more to zoning classifications rather than some areas that are M -1 being allowed to have height and other areas that are P1 -1 not being allowed to have the height exception; where some areas of C -2 could go beyond 115' and other areas of C -2 not being allowed beyond 115'. The last statement we suggested that Council, if they elect to either restrict or broaden the height those changes could be accommodated rather easily. We could go TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING July 6, 1981 Page 9 Chap. 18.50 Height, Set- back to the four areas, it was just difficult for us to administer back, and Area Regulations, or it seemed it would be more difficult to administer under those Page 88 of Draft No. 4, circumstances. They are trying to identify uniform application contd. of zoning classifications as the more appropriate of the methods for deciding which areas were included and which areas were not. Council President Van Dusen said then basically Interurban was the only area that was left out. Mr. Collins said that was correct, the area between I -5 and I -405 along Interurban Avenue was excluded. Council President Van Dusen said then Planning is suggesting we should be uniform. Mr. Collins said that is a staff suggestion and it was fairly unanimous that it is easier to apply those height process alternatives to one specific zone as opposed to south of I -405 and north of I -405. It gets hard to administer that fairly and effectively. Councilman Harris said she wanted to speak against that for two reasons. First, we have two central single- family residential areas in Tukwila. One is McMicken Heights and the other is the hill in central Tukwila. Those are the places where the people live and would not like high -rise building in their backyard. McMicken Heights is fairly well taken care of because they are isolated, but on the Tukwila Hill there are certain areas around it where high -rise buildings,would not interrupt the view. It would not be like a sore sticking out. There are certain areas that lend themselves to high -rise, like freeway entrances or exits. That is where the amenities for the freeway are located. There are few spaces north of I -405 where high -rise would not be objectionable. If you have all of them in the C -2 district or other districts and a single building jumpting up it would ruin the area. Council looked strongly at the cretain areas and they would not be that hard to administer because they are certain pockets. There are reasons why Council segregated the areas where the high -rises could be north of I -405. Brad Collins, Director of Planning, said he was not suggesting they were not hard to identify, what he suggested was that they might be harder to defind in that it is easier to zone according to classification than it is to separate out certain areas and carry on the same kind of zoning classification. What might be easier is to develop, for example, a C -3 or something like that where if you apply C -3 to being the high -rise zone then perhaps you could apply that to certain areas that you are willing to allow height to go in. He said his problem is that when you have a C -2 zone such as one that is north of I -405 and one that is south of I -405 it gets hard to explain to property owners how that is differentiated in the minds of the decision that was made between north of I -405 and south of I -405, when the properties may exhibit almost identical characteristics. In the case I am looking at, if you look at the topography of the hillside north of I -405, currently there are no residential viewing out in that direction. A building on that site in C -2 would not obstruct anyone. He said he had taken a quick look at it and not calcu- lated all of the things you would need to do as an urban designer in making that determination. He said he was an urban planner, not an urban designer. It is easier to decide that the intensively zoned areas are C -2 or C -3 or some other classification and those areas are the appropriate areas for high -rise type buildings. There is a distinction made in the recommendation of the staff report between mid -rise buildings, which would be to 115', and high -rise buildings which are over 115'. That is the distinction the staff has tried to make where they differed from the initial instructions or the June 8 minutes. Councilman Bohrer said it seems that it is perfectly easy and definable to have the sort of limit we had before which could say a major building height on the valley floor north of I -405 is 20' and south of I -405 is 200'. Therefore, it seems easy to administer. Whether it is definsible or not is another issue. He pointed out one instance the Council had been through on a couple of uses along Interurban which is directly in front of a set of four -story apartments called the Terrace Apartments. They are basically built about elevation 50 75', since they are four story the upper floors may go up to the 100' elevation, perhaps TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING July 6, 1981 Page 10 97 Chap. 18.50 Height, Set- as much as 125'. Now you come down on the valley floor right in back, and Area Regulations, front of those where elevation is 25' and allow a 115' building Page 88, Draft No. 4 to go in. It is then as high as the highest apartment in the contd. Terrace Apartments. The major amenity the apartments have, which is a view of the golf course, could be completely blocked. The staff report points out that residential elevations throughout the City in general on the north side of the hill go down to lower elevations than do those on the south side and the view is primar- ily the river which is a downward view in elevation. It seems that the tall building height would be very restrictive. If you go to the south side of the hill the same multi family residences are built at higher elevations and the view is basically horizontal or upward toward Mount Rainier. There is some valley view. In taking view as an example, high -rise would seem far less objection- able and it would seem a clearly defined difference between the two areas that would justify the difference in the height limita- tion. He said he would like to ask Mr. Collins a question, is it possible to designate location of high -rise as an overlay, not as a zone? Mr. Collins said it would be as in a special review dis- trict designation. Councilman Bohrer said a special review dis- trict or a comprehensive plan with special development considera- tion. Maybe this is a special development benefit. Mr. Collins said it would be possible. Fred Satterstrom, Planner, said basically it already is that in the existing ordinance, by that split that was mentioned. In 18.60.03E in the existing ordinance it says south of 405 building height can go to this. It is in the narrative, but he would think that even a note on a zoning map could accomplish that, as far as an overlay on the zoning map. We have an overlay for the Shoreline zone. A different type of pattern could be put on the zoning map to indicate those areas where different height limits might apply, but sooner or later it may be rather confusing if we have a lot of different overlays. It can be accomplished. Cris Crumbaugh, audience, said there was a Council vote on June 18 that basically directed certain things and one of them concerned him in the staff report as it is a change from that directive. He said he was not against rediscussing things, but there is an area, under the proposed 18.50.035 under Staff Recommendation, where it states that building height in the C -2 and C -P districts may exceed 115' by special exception. By impli- cation what is left off there is in the M -1, M -2, and C -M districts He said as he understood the staff recommendation, in 18.50.030 it states 115' outright and that you just go through design review under BAR in the zones listed. Then there is a recommendation under 18.50.035 that in the C -2 and C -P they can go above 115' upon a review process, a special exception process, and these things are listed on the next page or two. He said as he under- stood the Council motion on the 18th it was directed that in addi- tion to the areas listed here that M -2 would be included in the area that would be allowed to go over 115'. This is a great concern to him because right now they are working on ideas for buildings above 115' in the M -2 zone. He said he did not see justification in the staff report for excluding M -2. He said he saw discussion in the staff report about certain considerations but there seems to be nothing directed at why not in M -2 zone other than something called urban design. He said he was prepared to talk about urban design, if it is wanted. He said there has not been any justification given for leaving out M -2 and he liked the idea of going back to what staff was originally directed to do and that was to draw up an ordinance according to the desires of Council in their motion on the 8th. He said he would like that point to be discussed and also discuss the items on pages 6 and 7 of the staff report which has a special exception process for abovE 115'. Councilman Bohrer said this has brought up two issues that are rather tied together. In Section 18.50.035 does it really mean C -1 and C -2 districts or C -1 and C -2 uses? Staff has mentioned developing concepts in an M -2 zone that are greater than 115', but are they M -2 uses or are they some other use in terms of fitting in one of the other categories? He said he was trying to think of the last time he saw a 20 story steel plant. He said TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING July 6 198( Page 11 Chap. 18.50 Height, Set what manufacturing uses lend themselves to multi story? What back, and Area Regulations, variety of uses need a great height? Page 88, Draft No. 4 contd. Cris Crumbaugh, audience, said it doesn't say uses, it says districts. Councilman Bohrer has said if it said uses he would object to it. Mr. Crumbaugh said he would because in the C -2 and C -P uses are shopping centers and retail. There are some office uses that go into C -2 and C -P but in the cascading zoning you have to be pretty specific when you talk about those uses. What is a C -2 use? It is not defined in the code. The C -2 use is a compulation of cascading uses, uses which are lower zones that come into that zone plus the uses that are specifically allowed in the C -2 zone. He said he would not be comfortable with that unless he knew exactly the terms that are being used and how they are defined. The concern is more toward office buildings, retail buildings and things like that. He was sure terms could be worked out and that is what they want to do. Francis North, Box 441, North Bend, said she was interested in the height issue. She said she had not seen the staff report. The Codiga property is north of I -5. The subject of appearance to nearby residential areas has been brought up, if there were a lot of high -rise buildings for them to view. In that particular area there are no Tukwila residents nearby. Riverton is to the west, Burlington Northern to the east. She said she did not see any objection to having high -rise in that area and she hoped Council would consider that. She asked if she understood that M -1 was left out. Council President Van Dusen said there might be a problem down Interurban Corridor with FAA regulations. Ms. North asked if that is a real concern or can permission be granted? Fred Satterstrom, Planner, said he recommended that someone from FAA come out and talk about it. He said FAA had recommended that any building application that exceeded 100' be given to them for an advisory report. Ms. North said that was understandable. She said they would like to consider higher than 115' if it can be cleared with FAA. Some day it will be developed, the property is on the river, there is going to be a lot of setbacks there, they will have to give up a lot of property and she said she was sure the City was not going to adjust some building permit to give up that river bank and they should not as it is an amenity. You do give up a lot of property with the Shoreline Management law. Councilman Harris said when she suggested that area last time as well as the pockets that could conform to the high -rise she was not aware of the FAA requirements. That is something like the Shoreline Management that the City will have to conform to. William Wanamaker, Jr., representing William Boeing, Tri -Line Corporation and Trans Western, said he had the same concerns as Mr. Crumbaugh and also the question of C -M as well as M -1 in addition to M -2, coupled with C -2 and C -P under 18.50.035. He saic it was disconcerting to come to the meeting expecting to review language based upon direction of the Council on June 18 and find basically a revision. He encouraged Council to view 115' across all five of the districts with the capability of 300' or higher by the special review process through all of those districts He wanted to point out that the criteria set forth following this has not been reviewed by him, but it is extraordinarily broad in its objective. Mr. Bruce Solly, Solly Development Company, Tukwila, said he would like to suggest that Section 18.50.035 of the Staff Recommendation be modified to read: "Building height exception greater than 115'. Building heights for the P -0, C -2 and C -P uses may exceed 115' by special exception of the Planning Commission." In Section 18.50.030 it should read: "Height ����T1 in the C -2, C -P, C -M, M-1, and M -2 zones. AgOOt WMOOi Of Building height up to 115' in the C -2, C -P, C -M, M -1, and M -2 districts shall be allowed and the Planning Commission act as a Board of Architec- tural Review pursuant to the criteria and procedures specified in Chapter 18.60." TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING July 6, 1981 Page 12 Chap. 18.50 Height, Set- Cris Crumbaugh, audience, said he had no problem with Mr. Solly's back, and Area Regulations, suggestions. He was afraid of the word "uses" because it is not Page 88, Draft No. 4 the "uses" it is the structures. He is trying to say no one wants contd. high industrial smoke stacks on buildings. We are thinking about offices and retail and that sort of thing. We are talking about a lot of things when we say "uses." It could mean structures and he felt uncomfortable with the word "uses." If you want to say "Building heights in the districts may exceed..." and then go on to say "industrial structures shall not be allowed to do this" would not present a problem to him. With the cost of buildings we are talking about a lot of money and a lot is at stake for the City and everyone else. He said he was arguing words. Councilman Johanson said one of the reasons he wanted to discuss this is that it is not clear to him that the intentions that he thought happened at the Council table at that meeting did not happen and he was concerned about the area between I -5 and I -405. Mr. Crumbaugh said that is what he is saying. There may be some areas at freeway interchanges that can be discussed if that is what Council wants to do. Council President Van Dusen said his question to Mr. Crumbaugh is if instead of saying C -2 and C -P uses or districts he would be satisfied if it said C -2, C -P, C -M, M -1, M -2 districts? Mr. Crumbaugh said that was right and if you wanted to take away some- thing, specifically say what you do not want instead of somehow trying to do it halfway by changing the wording. If there is something you want to not allow, say what it is. Councilman Johanson said in 18.50.035 we are talking about exceptions. The use of the word "exceptions" seems to clarify it to him. Mr. Crumbaugh said if we could all define what we mean by the term C -2, C -P and office use, we could sit for two hours defining it. It is subject to different interpretations by different people. Does that mean all uses that cascade into those zones? Does that mean all of the uses specifically allowed in those zones? He said he could bring up all sorts of questions which will come up when someone makes an application that does not exactly fit what we all thought the defintion to be. Councilman Phelps said she agreed with Mr. Crumbaugh on the use of the word "uses." She said it was not going to be clear when it came to enforcing the code if the exception to the code is written this way. Not only that, but the use of the building will change frequently as one owner or one tenant moves in or out of the building. The structure is always going to be there, the structure will be the same. For awhile zoning classifications will be easily identified and will remain the same, more so than the use of a building. Typing it to a use is more transitory than is needed. Mr. Solly, audience, said maybe it should say "structure" instead. It is a detail. Councilman Johanson said how can he be concerned under this code about what a person is doing in that office in the form of a business? What is the problem? The structure was designed under this concept. Councilman Harris said she wondered why any building in C -2 would need to be higher than 115'. Council President Van Dusen said the question is do we want to allow an exception to 115' and if we do where do we want to allow it? Mr. Solly, audience, said he thought the idea was to eliminate the 300' smoke stack and the insertion of the word "uses" would solve a lot of the problems. It may not be exactly the right word but the intent of it solves a lot of problems. As far as the uses he could see a commercial use on top of an office build- ing. The word "uses" may not be exactly right. TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING July 6, 1981 Page 13 Chapt. 18.50 Height, Set- Jan Weisner, Chamber of Commerce, said you do not build a "use" back, and Area Regulations, you build a "building." Page 88, Draft No. 4 contd. Cris Crumbaugh, audience, said "uses" is how you use a building and "district' is a land use area location. What we are talking about in this section is location of this height exception and that is why he hesitated to do that. If there is a problem that we want to take care of like a high smoke stack, let's take care of it. Let us put in some specific words to deal with it. Let's go back and talk about the areas where we are going to allow this to occur, what zones are we going to allow this to occur. If there are some zones or some special areas that are zoned in M -1 that you want to eliminateheight then you go back to another provision and you say "but for this area." It can be dealt with, let us be specific and put down specifics. His recommendation, and he said he was talking for his interests, is to allow it in M -2. That is pretty definable where you have M -2 zoning. Mr. Locke would like to see it on his property, M -1 south of I -405. There may be others in other areas. Ms. North has talked about it. We went through this at the last Council meeting and defined some areas. If there is another area that someone wants, or staff feels there is another area that has to be discussed or allowed we should talk about it and get it decided. He said he felt that a decision had been made about their area and now it was a game of words. Councilman Harris said she agreed with Mr. Crumbaugh. The cascading usage that is allowed in C -M, M -1, M -2 you can build just about anything you want up to the very height of the biggest and best use, so if you have a piece of property that is zoned M -1 and you want to build a hotel you cannot go up that high under this provision right now. If you have a piece of M -2 property and you want to build a high -rise office building on it, you are not allowed. The usage here says you can do it but the height restriction says you cannot. It sort of knocks our theory of cascading usage because you cannot use it for anything except up to 115'. Brad Collins, Director of Planning, said what they are trying to say is that what the staff recommended tried to agree with every- thing that Mr. Crumbaugh, Mr. Solly and Councilman Bohrer said and that is what they are dealing with. We are dealing with areas. They looked at the areas that are most intensively zoned for high -rise type of areas. They felt that those areas are the intensive commercial use areas which go more to the uses of office, residential, complexes, whether they are commercial com- plexes or public sports arena type complexes or things like that. They are trying to suggest that by combining district with use, all they did is cascade out the industrial type of uses by saying that when Mr. Segale or Mr. Crumbaugh come in to do a high -rise office building or high -rise residential structure or something like that the only thing they need to do is decide that instead of being an M -2 zone they want to be a C -2 or C -P zone. The point is that staff wrestled with the language question and tried to come up with specific language, they could not agree and ended up to the point where they said C -2 and C -P and that in certain areas that are zoned in the City for more intensive uses such as industrial if they care to go into a more intensive use such as high -rise buildings they ought to be looking at the type of uses that are allowed in the C -2 and C -P that are also excluded in the M -1, M -2 and actually the C -M type of areas. We are not looking at high -rise warehouses, etc., in those zones. He said he tended to agree with Mr. Crumbaugh on this that if the intent is to not be concerned about urban form, if the intent is to look at building height exceptions up to the sky in all of the intensively zoned areas of the City then the simple thing to do is to add C -2 to those lits or add C -M and M -1 and M -2 to the lists. You have accomplished what you want to do. Staff felt that allowing M -2 uses to go up as high as they wanted was not an appropriate thing. To allow land that is now M -2 to go up to a more intensive use was appropriate but the step that they needed to take was to commit that area to a C -2 or C -P type of activity, that was fairly simple to do. He did not know that it would be that controversial. It is conceivable that the possibility of rezoning M -2 to C -2 would create a problem but he was not aware of that. TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING July 6, 1981 Page 14 Chapt. 18.50 Height, Set- That is the concern that staff wrestled with and instead of gettinc back, and Area Regulations, into semantics of uses versus districts we combined it into a Page 88, Draft No. 4 rather simplistic recommendation. Staff felt it accommodated contd. those concerns. Councilman Phelps said as she looked back on notes from the meetinc it was discussed that 18.50.030 does conform with what the Council discussed about allowing outright height to 115' with architectural review. Also, the height exception would be granted in those same zone classifications with the procedure and not to limit the height exception only to C -2, C -P designation. Maybe Mr. Segale has a unique problem in that they have lots of property to develop in a diversified way, where there may be commercial, office, maybe manufacturing all on the same piece of property under one ownership. The highest and best use would be an M -2 zone. MOVED BY HARRIS, SECONDED BY PHELPS, THAT IN SECTION 18.50.030 THE CHANGES SUGGESTED BY BRUCE SOLLY BE MADE AND IN SECTION 18.50.035 ALL FIVE DISTRICTS BE INCLUDED AND OFFICE, PROFESSIONAL BE PUT IN AND ALSO "DISTRICT." Councilman Bohrer said according to what has been said an office building would be allowed unlimited height use in a C -2 zone along Interurban Avenue? Council President Van Dusen said the area will be addressed next. Councilman Bohrer said there are two parts of the problem, one is what areas are you to allow it in and what are the types of things. Council President Van Dusen said the areas would be settled next. Councilman Bohrer said he would like to settle them together, because they are inseparably linked. Cris Crumbaugh, audience, said there are two distinct different things, (1) in what zones are they allowed, and (2) the areas. If there are people who want it in other areas and staff thinks it should be allowed in another area and not allowed in some, that has to be discussed. Maybe it is appropriate to add it in other areas. He said he would say pick the zones and then pick the exclusions from those zones if you have specific areas you do not want. Councilman Phelps said in the zones that are covered as part of the paragraph dealing with exceptions they would be C -2, C -M, C -P, M -1 and M -2. *P10TION PASSED, WITH BOHRER AND JOHANSON VOTING NO. Council President Van Dusen said area would be considered and next time it is discussed it will be the criteria. Staff recommendatior is that we do these two things in all areas. Councilman Saul said in the discussion he heard they did not want it in all areas. Councilman Harris said she wanted to go by the Council recommenda- tion of the June 8 meeting which was to exclude Interurban. Brad Collins, Director of Planning, said as he recalled the areas from here (using a map) to here was being excluded on the Interurban Corridor. The minutes did not include areas that were excluded exactly, they included areas that were included by Council. Council included the area north of I -5 and east of Interurban Avenue that was in the M -1 section. Council excluded the 405 interchange that was north of I -405, the entrance to Fort Dent park, they included all of the area south of I -405 and east of I -5 and included the area west of I -5 and north of I -405 which is the Bruce Solly Development or those areas that were C -2 through M -2. He assumed that meant that all other areas that are C -2 or M- 2,principally the areas between Fort Dent park and the north city limits,are excluded. Councilman Harris said the north portion was included along Interurban down to the I -5 exit. TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING July 6, 1981 Page 15 Chap. 18.50 Height, Set- MOVED BY HARRIS, THAT COUNCIL RECONFIRM THE AREA TALKED ABOUT back, and Area Regulations, ON PAGE 6 OF THE MINUTES OF THE JUNE 8, 1981 MEETING. MOTION Page 88, Draft No. 4 FAILED, FOR LACK OF A SECOND TO THE MOTION. contd. Frank Todd, speaking as a citizen of the City, said he wanted to point out that Draft 4 on the page preceeding Page 99 in the large white area, his position is in referring to the elevation specifically the 200' elevation which is the one marked and easiest to follow, if you consider that elevation and consider the position the Council is taking regarding the disallowing or allowing as the case may be, certain elevations to be different in the same zone, you will find that it really does not make sense to allow a 300' building south of I -405 if you do not do the same thing east of the hill. The hill is just as high on the east side and higher than it is on the south slope. Therefore, the land area south of I -405 is more visible from the south face of the hill up to the 200' line than it is looking to the east from the same 200' line on the east side of the Tukwila hill. He said it is a discriminatory position to take when you do not allow the same height east of the hill that you are allowing or proposing to allow south of the hill. ADJOURNMENT MOVED BY BOHRER, SECONDED BY JOHANSON, THAT THE SPECIAL MEETING 10:15 P.M. ADJOURN. MOTION CARRIED, WITH HARRIS VOTING NO. �J- Gar,"l Van "Duren, Council President No a Booher, Recording Secretary