Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1981-07-13 Special MinutesJuly 13, 1981 7:00 P.M. TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE Special Meeting M I N U T E S 3/(3 Tukwila City Hall Council Chambers FLAG SALUTE AND The Special Meeting of the Tukwila City Council, to continue CALL TO ORDER their discussion on the proposed zoning ordinance, was called to order by Council President Van Dusen. ROLL CALL OF LIONEL C. BOHRER, GEORGE D. HILL, J. REID JOHANSON, DORIS E. COUNCIL MEMBERS PHELPS, DANIEL J. SAUL, GARY L. VAN DUSEN, Council President. OFFICIALS IN BRAD COLLINS, Planning Director; CAROLINE BERRY, Planner; ATTENDANCE MAXINE ANDERSON, City Clerk; LAWRENCE E. HARD, City Attorney. DISCUSSION McMicken Heights Council President Van Dusen accepted a petition concerning the Area proposed zoning ordinance signed by residents of McMicken Heights. The petition reads as follows: "We the residents of McMicken Heights strongly urge the City Council of Tukwila not to destroy our community by making last minute changes in the TUKWILA ZONING CODE -DRAFT #4 and the COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLAN. McMicken Heights has remained, until now, a single family dwelling residential neighborhood with, as a result, family stability, a healthy environment for our children, and very little crime. We therefore appeal to you: please preserve our neighborhood!" Mrs. Elanor McLester, 5118 South 164th, asked if reference to McMicken Heights meant just the area in Tukwila. Councilman Van Dusen said yes, just the zoning within the City Limits. Brad Collins, Planning Director, said the report that was prepared by staff was at the request of Council. The staff report looked at alternatives to the Comprehensive Plan and found that the primary directive was to preserve the established single family development at the top of the hill. In reviewing the policies to accomplish this, there were several things that needed to be considered. The three policy decisions which seem to be most helpful in arriving at land use decisions for Mc- Micken Heights are: (1) Whether or not the neighborhood pro- tection of the established single family area on the top is sufficiently insured by topographic definitions 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. At the end of the meeting of the 29th there was some discussion about specifying a Transition Density Zoning classification in that area. The primary concern in specifying any Transition Density Zoning is making a policy judgment about what classi- fication will encourage property owners on both the upper and the lower portions of the hill to mutually secure their respec- tive investments. Mrs. McLester asked if staff has visited the area and talked to the residents before they arrived at their assessment as to what they would recommend be done with the zoning in the area. Were our interests taken into consideration. I served on the basic committee for residential comprehensive planning. That was about five years ago and there has been no change in the feelings of the residents in that time. We have not been asked for further input. Mr. Dennis Robertson, 16038 48th Ave. South, submitted a petition that was passed the Saturday before Easter against the changes made by King County to their Comprehensive Plan. The new staff members in King County came up with revisions that seem to favor the developers. They gathered 580 signatures to let them know TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL, COW SPECIAL MEETING July 13, 1981 Page 2 DISCUSSION Cont. McMicken Heights Area (cont.) how the people felt. Each page says "I am opposed to more air motels, apartments and condos in the McMicken Heights area. I strongly oppose the Highline Area Zoning Panel's recommendation "East Issue #20." King County is paralleling Tukwila's process. The people are strongly opposed to the new recommendations. Mr. Collins said that staff chose not to make a recommendation in this zoning matter in the staff report without some policy judgments on some other things. Councilman Bohre.r said he, then, must also misunderstand the conclusions of the staff report. Page 8 of the report says "The conclusions of the Planning Department regarding these three policy decisions are essentially affirmative." The policy decisions all favor multi family in McMicken Heights. Is this not staff's con- clusion? Mr. Collins explained staff's conclusion starts out by saying "no clear zoning map recommendations can be derived without making additional policy- decisions." It then outlines the policy decisions to be made. It goes on to say the decisions have to be made by the Council. Councilman Saul said that the people are disturbed because new things are surfacing that have not surfaced before. Transition zoning has never been discussed; five multi family plateau areas are shown on a map that no one has seen before, and the R -1 area is not even shown on the map. These three things have people upset because, for ten years, they have been talking against multi family in the McMicken Heights area. They want #2, Rezone the entire area to R -1 in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan Map. Mr. Robertson made the strong recommendation that the area be zoned R -l. Noise should not be considered a factor. They are building single family homes along Military Road; this area is not a blighted area. The City of Tukwila needs more active people. On an average, people in single family homes tend to participate far more in community affairs than those living in condominiums or apartments. Tukwila needs more participation. This is the last large area in the City for R -1 type housing. There is a demand for single family homes and eventually the interest rates will be lowered to meet the this demand. When this was first started, we were told it was a people's plan. They got to have a say in it. In the past, we have made our feelings known. Now, staff put in a Transition Zone that looks like a developer's dream. Ninety seven percent of the people that live on that hill are not behind any idea like that. Mrs. Mildred Heppenstall, 53rd Ave. South, said she concurs with everything Mr. Robertson said. The road situation has to be faced -Slade Way, 54th, 53rd, etc. I would hate to see apart- ments in that area. Where would you put the traffic. They would not all use Klickitat. Also, where are children going to walk? The roads haven't been built for apartment houses. We know the hazards of our roads, we are careful when we drive them. Mr. Robert Crain, 5105 South 163rd P1., said he wanted to support what his neighbors have said. They are dismayed that this came up at the last minute. They have worked hard for several years to let Council and the City know their position. Don't give us a transition /buffer zone between us and something that is fairly undesireable like a freeway and put something in there that is totally unacceptable to us, like multi dwellings and apartments. Mr. Barrett Boswell, 16002 48th Ave. South, agreed with neigh- bors that the traffic situation is an untenable thing. Traffic really rolls down South 160th. He is indebted to Tukwila for TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL, COW SPECIAL MEETING July 13, 1981 Page 3 DISCUSSION Cont. McMicken Heights Area (cont.) acquiring the property on 160th as park property, keeping it from the high density type of development. He encouraged Council to retain the single residence quality of the McMicken Heights area- it is essential. Mr. Ed Scrivner, 5201 South 164th, said that in 1972 they researched to find where the best communities were before buying their home. They chose the McMicken Heights area, and it has been an ideal place to raise a family. They have good neighbors and receive the kind of services from Tukwila that makes one feel comfortable. They want the community to remain a single residence community. They choose to remain in Tukwila because of the type of neighborhood it is. Mr. Thomas Lawrence, 16010 51st Ave. South, said he has read the staff report and finds parts of it unintelligible. The report refers to protecting the single family district on the plateau. This approach does not effectively buffer the R -1 area along Klicki- tat Drive. Mr. Lawrence noted lines in the report that concerned him. He is concerned about developing multi family on the lower area. This type of development will not protect the single family area. They are going to create many problems for those living at the top of the hill. If Council really had their best interest at heart, they would recognize that the best protection for the single family residence is the green belt surrounding them. Mrs. McLester explained that the group is here tonight in their on -going effort to protect their neighborhood against the onslaught of apartment development. It is not the first time they have been here. Every other area in the City has been subject to the develop- ment of multi family units. They protest this effort to force apart- ment development on this last area of Tukwila that is a totally single family residential area. If Tukwila needs more apartment developments, there are areas that have already been spoiled where they can go. Transient population does not add to the quality of neighborhood life. John G. Mr. /Barnes said he has driven South 160th many times and looked to the north. You can not see, because of the trees, the area that is being discussed as multi family. In 1957, City officials proposed that his area be annexed to Tukwila and be zoned RMH. The people in the area agreed on the annexation. He moved to that area because it was quiet and was a good place to raise a family. Later on, the state took part of his property for freeway. Still later, Mr. Alberti proposed to build apartments in the area. The citizens petitioned against this development. Mr. Alberti filed a lawsuit and a short while later the City bought his property for a park. Mr. Barns said he was glad because it buffered his property to the west and south. Then came the Comprehensive Plan. The Planning Commission recommended R -1.20 for his property. That night at the Planning Commission meet- ing of May 15, 1980, there were only 3 members there. One of these had signed a petition to keep multiple dwellings out of that area and the husband of another had also signed the petition. These Planning Commission members shouldn't have had a vote -but they did. The third member voted against the R -1.20 zoning. Now, why doesn't the City buy my property. These people talk about what they are going to lose if the multiple zoning is left, they don't think what it is going to cost me if the property is down zoned. Transition zoning is the answer. I don't feel I have been treated fairly. I'm buffered on two sides, my zoning isn't going to affect anyone in McMicken Heights. Maybe I should be allowed to withdraw from the City of Tukwila. I'm looking for justice and that is what I would like to see. Mr. Leo Sowinski, 16050 51st Avenue South, said he wanted to clarify when is a residential zone not a residential zone. Map #2 shows Brookvale Addition; Map #4 shows that is has 9 homes, all single family. This is the area we are advocating for R -3 and R -4. This is inconsistent. This is located on the north slope. There is a TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL, COW SPECIAL MEETING July 13, 1981 Page 4 DISCUSSION Cont. McMicken Heights Area (cont.) flume on Klickitat at about 51st Avenue that pours out thousands of gallons of water per day. How can we support apartment houses with this condition. The hill is going to slide one of these days. There is a similar condition on the east side of 53rd. Resolving this problem can't be done by putting multiple family homes here. 53rd Avenue is the only access to this area, and Klickitat is a very busy street. Some traffic would be diverted up 160th. Mr. Sowinski said he does not feel there should be multiple family homes in this area. Mr.,Barnes said the catch basin was installed by the State to catch the drainage from upper McMicken Heights. Councilman Saul said the culvert, that was installed to last twenty years, only lasted fourteen. There is a lot of water going down the hill. Mrs. Ann Crain, 5105 South 163rd, said they have lived there seven- teen years and have been fighting rezones since that time. This isn't something we have just started opposing; we have been opposed to it ever since we've lived there. Mr. Dick Goe, 5112 South 163rd P1., said that, like others, he did not get the same impression from the wording, the content or the conclusions from the staff report that Mr. Collins gave. This is all council has had to look at. The multi family zone is not necessary on that hill, it is not necessary in the City. The City already has 70% of its residents, or more, living in multi family units. When the policy goals were developed, it was to ensure a broad opportunity for various types of residential dwellings. With over 70% of our residents in multi family, we have already swung too far. We have cut down on the area for single family residents. The argument that we need more apartments for the people that work in Tukwila doesn't carry. We are a bedroom community to a lot of work areas. Development of the 11 acres proposed to be developed in multiple family units could generate 800 to 1,000 vehicular trips per day. It has only one through access to the west. Slade Way is not a reasonable access. These people are going to use the 160th Street access because it is not as congested and the conveniences are there. The staff report did not discuss the soils conditions. The King County General Development Guide shows the hillside south of 518 to be a Class 3 seismic hazard area. Mr..Goe read the King County definition for Class 3 landslide hazard areas. This des- cribes the entire hillside. He read the definition of the Class 3 seismic area. This also describes the McMicken hillside. King County has identified that entire hillside as falling within these categories. Council has the opportunity here to correct a wrong. The City doesn't need the greater density on the McMicken hillside. This would cause a greater imbalance than now exists between the residential single family, multi family mix. To do anything other than vote for single family dwellings in the McMicken area would be deleterious and in the worst interests of the City. Mr. Barnes explained that Miss Nelsen and the Naylors were the major land holders in his area. They are the ones that annexed to the City and included his property against his objections. The original zoning map identified his property as RMH. His retirement has been based around this piece of property. Now, the City is going to take it away from him. A newspaper article stated that this area is going to be the hub of the population of Puget Sound. The people on the hill aren't going to give up any- thing. Mrs. Ethelmae Cole, 16030 51st Ave. South, said the City changed the size requirements for her lots and she had to split up two other lots to meet these requirements. TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL, COW SPECIAL MEETING July 13, 1981 Page 5 DISCUSSION Cont. McMicken Heights Area (cont.) Zoning Code (Draft #4) 18.50.030 Mr. Lawrence said that Council has to make the choice as to which side they will support -maybe a dozen people versus 130 signatures on the petition. It is a moral choice. MOVED BY SAUL, SECONDED BY JOHANSON, THAT COUNCIL FOLLOW THE COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLAN MAP AND DESIGNATE MCMICKEN HEIGHTS ALL R -1.* ROLL CALL VOTE: SAUL YES HILL NO VAN DUSEN YES BOHRER YES JOHANSON YES PHELPS NO *MOTION CARRIED: 4 YES, 2 NO. Councilman Bohrer asked the audience how many live in Tukwila. It appeared that well over half of the people acknowledged they did. RECESS: 8:40 P.M.- Council declared a five minute break. 9:00 P.M. Council President Van Dusen called the meeting back to order. Mr. Collins said there is a question as to whether staff, in their recommendation, had excluded certain zones, particularly the Industrial zones from the .035 category. Staff has provided Council with alternative language to the first report. Staff chose to add P -0 for discussion. Cris Crumbaugh said Council voted to allow exceptions to height in certain zones above 115 feet. What areas would have this ex- ception--P-0, C -2, C -P, M -1 and M -2. The next question Council was going to discuss was in what areas of the City were these zones going to be allowed. MOVED BY PHELPS, SECONDED BY HILL, THAT THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF P -0 BE REMOVED FROM 18.50.035.* Councilman Phelps said that height exceptions should be related to zoning classifications rather than geographic areas of the City. If there is a concern with heighth designation in C -2 areas, the special zoning district might resolve that problem. Councilman Bohrer said the Professional Office was intended to be low buildings for dentists, doctors, etc. The criteria staff pre- pared seems to be more related to geographic areas than to zoning districts. Consequently, it would be more appropriate to limit things by geographic area than zoning district. We need to make a decision one way or the other. By geographic area is a lot simpler way of doing it. Mr. Collins noted that the area west of I -5 and north of 518 that was proposed for C -2 would be the only multi family area that would qualify for the exceptional height if it was done by area. *MOTION FAILED. MOVED BY BOHRER, SECONDED BY SAUL, THAT COUNCIL ESTABLISH THE HEIGHT LIMITATIONS, AS YET TO BE DETERMINED, BY ESTABLISHING THEM ON A GEOGRAPHIC BASIS AS OPPOSED TO A ZONING DISTRICT BASIS.* Cris Crumbaugh said they have property located in the M -2 zone and the C -2 zone south of 405. The present code allows up to 300 feet south of 405. He requested that any designation Council makes include this area with this height allowance. There are some height exceptions in RMH and in CM already in the code. TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL, COW SPECIAL MEETING June 13, 1981 Page 6 DISCUSSION Cont. Zoning Code (Draft #4) 18.50.030 (cont.) Mrs. Louise Strander, 15000 57th Ave. South, said that an aerial map would show the optimum height of the Codiga Bridge. Certainly, an existing structure would set some sort of a height minimum for their area. Mr. Collins noted that, for areas north of I -405, the F.A.A. has recommended structures over 100 feet be submitted to them for advisory reports. The F.A.A. wants to know about any structure in the City over 200 feet. Cris Crumbaugh said that Council has voted twice before on height and now have a new proposal before them. This is causing con- fusion. If we are going back to the beginning how about raising the 115 foot level to 135 feet. This is more appropriate. The City of Seattle defines high rise building as anything over 75 feet above the lowest level of Fire Department vehicle access. Chief Crawley says their Fire Department access is up to 60 feet, 75 feet above that would be 135 feet. Are we going back to the beginning every time someone brings up a different suggestion. What is Council going to do? There are people that think their area has been decided that are not here to speak on this tonight. Councilman Bohrer said his proposal was to go back to square one and try to solve the philosophical issue on how to make the regulation first and then move on to the details. Mr. Crumbaugh asked Council to please be aware of the people that are not here to speak. *MOTION CARRIED. Mayor Todd said that he doesn't believe zoning height use classi- fications can differ in any one zone and be fair to all property owners under that particular zone. Allowing height by geographic designation cannot possibly be fair to all parties. MOVED BY BOHRER, SECONDED BY SAUL, THAT THE STAFF, PLANNING DEPART- MENT, AND THE CITY ATTORNEY RESEARCH THE ISSUE WHETHER IT IS APPRO- PRIATE TO DESIGNATE HEIGHT BY GEOGRAPHIC DESIGNATION AS OPPOSED TO DESIGNATING HEIGHT RELATED TO SPECIFIC USE DISTRICTS.* Mayor Todd restated that he does not think it fair to all property owners in any one given zone to have height limitations designated by geographic area. *MOTION CARRIED WITH HILL VOTING NO. Councilman Bohrer explained that his motion is independent of any- thing in the staff report. In 18.50.030 you refer to specific geographic designations -more detailed than appear now or a specific map that is referenced under that section. Councilman Saul said that Council already discussed areas a, b, and d and approved them. MOVED BY JOHANSON, SECONDED BY SAUL, THAT COUNCIL EXCLUDE AREA C.* (Area C as shown on map submitted to Council with updated report) Mr. Collins explained that height is measured from the average grade of the construction site. He noted that every project, 100 to 200 feet hight, north of I -405 should be forwarded to F.A.A. for an advisory report. *MOTION CARRIED. Councilman Bohrer asked to discuss the Fostoria area. The pro- posal was to limit the height here to that of an existing structure. This area would be more carefully considered by the F.A.A. than areas lying further south. He proposed Council consider two height TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL, COW SPECIAL MEETING July 13, 1981 ?age 7 )ISCUSSION Cont. Koning Code (Draft #4) 18.50.030 (cont.) ADJOURNMENT 10:15 P.M. limitations; one for the Fostoria area and one for the other areas. This area is subject to some different considerations. Mr. Collins said that 10,000 feet from the end of the Boeing Field runway is approximately the north City limits. Any building taller than 100 feet at that point should be submitted to F.A.A. For each 100 feet from that point, you can go up one foot. Mr. Crumbaugh said the F.A.A. only wants an advisory report. MOVED BY BOHRER, SECONDED BY SAUL, THAT COUNCIL SET THE HEIGHT LIMIT OF 115 FEET MAXIMUM IN THE FOSTORIA AREA.* Councilman Hill said the reason height limits were set along Interurban was to prevent cement walls down both sides. Wouldn't this apply there? If you're going to allow 115 feet, the setback should be greater to keep tall buildings back from Interurban. Mr. Crumbaugh clarified that 115 feet would be allowed with B.A.R. review but the exception would not be allowed to go above that. Council President Van Dusen agreed this is the intent of the motion. Mayor Todd voiced his objection to this because it is not fair. *MOTION. CARRIED WITH HILL AND PHELPS VOTING NO. Councilman Bohrer said 18.50.030 needs to be reworded to reference to the map designations as opposed to the zone districts. Mr. Collins clarified that .030 needs to include map designations to supplement the wording that is there and remove Item C. Then, a and c would be eliminated from .035. Both sections would include a reference to the map designation. Mayor Todd asked if this action forecloses an appeal to the Board of Adjustment. Council seemed to feel they could file their re- quest if it was logical. Mr. Knudson asked what the height restrictions are between I -5 and I -405 along Interurban. Council President Van Dusen referenced to the chart on Page 89, 35 or 45 feet depending on the zoning. Mr. Knudson commented that on both ends they are allowed 115 feet. Council President Van Dusen said they are subject to B.A.R., it is not automatic. Mr. Crumbaugh noted that 115 feet is allowed with B.A.R. review and the special exception is with Planning Commission approval. Councilman Bohrer said that in neither case is it allowed outright. in the first case, it is allowed with BAR review and in the second case with Planning Commission review. Mayor Todd asked if the Interurban Avenue Corridor is limited to 45 feet with no exceptions. Council President Van Dusen said that is the way he understands it. Mrs.Strander commented that they need maps displayed for reference during these discussions. Councilman Phelps commented on her objection on the last motion on restricting height to 115 feet in the Foster area. In .035, para- graph 8, the F.A.A. report is covered. If there was a building farther south on the Fosteria property that had a proposed height of 125 -150 feet, it may be allowed under F.A.A. with no problem but Council has imposed a limitation of 115 feet. MOVED BY SAUL, SECONDED BY HILL, THAT THE COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING ADJOURN. MOTION C'RRI r; 1 0v'L'