Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1981-07-20 Special MinutesJuly 20, 1981 7:00 P.M. CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL OF COUNCIL MEMBERS Zoning Ordinance, Draft No. 4 Section 18.50.030. Section 18.50.035. TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING M I N U T E S 333 City Hall Council Chambers Council President Van Dusen called the Special Zoning Meeting of the Tukwila City Council to order. L. C. BOHRER, MABEL J. HARRIS, GEORGE D. HILL, J. REID JOHANSON, DANIEL J. SAUL, Council President GARY L. VAN DUSEN. Council President Van Dusen said he had two letters to be entered in the record. One from Ross A. Tunnell, Jr., dated July 16, 1981, representing Miss Helen Nelsen, landowner of property on either side of Longacres Way, requesting it remain classified as M -1. The other letter from Miss Helen Nelsen dated June 29, 1981 requesting that her property remain classified as M -1; also attached was Miss Nelsen's letter dated November 15, 1979 on the same subject. Brad Collins, Director of Planning, said there were still a number of items that have asked for language changes and issues are not involved, such as correcting the Shoreline section, defining the mean high water mark and other details. They will be brought to the Council as they are developed. The schedule for July runs through next week and we should complete the administrative and supplemental then. It is hoped to resolve the issues and get closer to concluding the review sessions. The meeting on July 27, 1981 will deal with that issue rather than as scheduled on August 3. The earliest we will get to Interurban Avenue discussion will be August 10. A tentative schedule will be put together for August with a conclusion sometime in August. Council President Van Dusen said Section 18.50.030 has been approved. Council President Van Dusen asked if the second paragraph of Section 18.50.030 is necessary. It refers to applications for structures exceeding 100' being submitted to the FAA for an advisory report. Brad Collins, Director of Planning, said the FAA has requested something like that be in the wording but it is not required. He said it would be useful to have it so Planning will know which buildings have to be reviewed by FAA. Brad Collins, Director of Planning, said the criteria differed slightly from what was proposed by the Planning Commission in Draft No. 4. A number of people expressed concern and interest in the previous sessions and discussed with Planning some of the review criteria and suggested alternative language. They felt it was compatible with what the Planning Commission proposed. Councilman Harris expressed concern about (1) (e): "Compatibility of the style, color, materials, and articulation of the building and site with surrounding development." She said this would be an imposition on the builder. Cris Crumbaugh, audience, said he agreed with the comments of Councilman Harris about (1) (e). He did not know how the Planning Commission could handle the exceptions and deal with the criteria. The builder should have some flexibility. Item (4) is a change from the Planning Commission recommendation and Item (5) is not understandable as to meaning. When you are spending $100,000 to $200,000 on architectural fees you want to be able to tell the architect what to do. We need to know how to deal with this ordinance Jack Link, Tri -Land Corporation, said things have been brought out that are vague in understanding. If you look at the first part it says the Planning Commission "shall utilize," it doesn't say they "may." They also say the building design urban form. In reviewing the proposed project the Planning Commission "will" review. This is why it is important to leave out the vagueness. If they are not agreed when they go in how can we expect the Planning Commission to act intelligently these things are brought to them? They should be able to say to the developer, you have to do this, it does not say they are suggestions. If that is the intent then it should be worded so. You are locking them in individually with each specific thing. That needs to be addressed when considering the criteria. TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING July 20, 1981 Page 2 Section 18.50.035, contd. 3333 Councilman Saul said (1) (e) and also (d) which deals with the effects of the project on users of the site, such as exposure to wind and rain, need clarification. Brad Collins, Director of Planning, said he was not sure of the logic for these. The Planning Commission was identifying projects having an effect on the users of the site. It does not list perfor- mance standards. It does not state degrees of exposure. It gave the Planning Commission some direction as to some of the things they should be concerned with as they reviewed tall buildings. If we had no criteria for exceptions, then the question would be what is the Planning Commission reviewing when they decide on a project having a height exception. What is it they are supposed to be concerned about These are the things they identified as things they could relate to and did not pass on a specific requirement to the developer because they were prepared to identify those performance standards for each building. Councilman Johanson said he interprets the criteria basically as Mr. Collins has, that these would be things the Planning Commission should look at for compatibility. If it is not necessary because of the Building codes and if you hire an architect, the building will be designed perfectly and there is no reason to go before the Planning Commission. But that is required. We should allow them some direction and it has been suggested. He said solar energy should be available to properties. He agreed with Item (4) regarding energy. Councilman Saul said he agreed on solar energy. Things are changing in solar development as technology increases. If you are going to have exposure to wind and rain and you do not know what you are looking for there is no need to have it in there. Also, the compat- ibility of style, color, materials, and articulation of the building with surrounding development affects all buildings, not just high -rise buildings. Councilman Hill said regarding Item (4), if you have someone put in solar panels on the roof, you could not build a building over one story high until you were 50 yards away and then up to 100 yards away you would not be able to put in one over two stories because you would shade the building. Council President Van Dusen said if you have shading, how much shading is allowed. Councilman Harris said we are going to start losing our setbacks, rear yards, backyards, front yards and with the requirements of solar there will be a lot of restrictions. MOVED BY HARRIS, SECONDED BY SAUL, THAT ITEM (1) (e) BE ELIMINATED.* Councilman Bohrer asked who attended the Planning Commission meetings when this was discussed. Mr. Collins said he was not on the staff when it was discussed but Caroline Berry, Planner, and Fred Satterstrom, Planner, attended the meeting. *MOTION FAILED, WITH HARRIS AND SAUL VOTING YES. Mayor Todd said he was concerned with Item (4) from the standpoint of a present building using solar energy and the strength they would have in keeping buildings from being built on either side of them. He said it should be left out. Councilman Bohrer said if a person invests in solar energy he should not have any rights? Mayor Todd said it would give a person a lot of strength in being able to prevent any buildings taller than his from being built on either side of him. Mr. Collins said that is the reason the word "right" was taken out. The Planning Commission at the time of development would consider the strength and use common judgment in making a decision. TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING July 20, 1981 Page 3 Section 18.50.035 contd. 3 3 3 5 Councilman Bohrer asked if there is development litigation on this subject? Mr. Collins said he thought there was but he doubted it was very well developed at this point. It will have to go through a series of court tests before it can be clearly defined. The draft does not take on the ultimate legal challenge. It recognizes the concerns but it does not pioneer performance standards in the area. Cris Crumbaugh, audience, asked at what point do we know what is being required? He asked if anyone has built anything with solar in the City; if they have did they know what the zoning code said at the time? Our zoning code has allowed buildings up to 300' for some time. He said he did not know how to be responsive to it. It is a charge by the Council to the Planning Commission to make sure that the building is responsive to solar access of adjacent proper- ties. What is the person next door to do? If a person says he has a right to solar access and you cannot build this high building, is that going to stop the building? That could happen as it now stands. We have had a long standing rules that says how high a building can be. Larry Hard, City Attorney, said he did not know the current status of anything like this. He said he suspected there would be suits as solar energy is utilized. Council President Van Dusen asked if right would be established by being there first? If a person builds and uses solar and someone wants to come in and build a 300' building next to him, it seems the first has established right to the solar energy. Under this criteria, the BAR would tell them they would have to revise their height limitation. If he has developed and is not using solar, can he say in the future he might want to put up some solar panels therefore controlling the next building? Larry Hard, City Attorney, said the state of law is that a person does not have unlimited access to solar power. If the City were to require people when building to utilize solar panels for heating or impose duty on a person to use it, then the City would have vested rights. We are not there yet. You are grappling with an issue that is pretty much in the foreground. Cris Crumbaugh, audience, said a large building can be more energy responsive than a smaller building. That is the point of solar energy, to be energy responsive. A large climate controlled building is much more efficient, more energy -wise than small buildings, even with solar power. That is another things to be looked at. Larry Hard, City Attorney, said the thought is to encourage the use of energy. The Council may want to put in something that will encourage the use of the conservation of energy. Councilman Bohrer said he could see Mr. Crumbaugh's concern. He is concerned about the phrase "be responsible to adjacent property." In Section (1) it says the Planning Commission will review, it does not necessarily place a responsibility on the developer. In (4) we do not know what it is he has to be respon- sive to. Some mention of energy is appropriate but it does not say how the Planning Commission has to respond. MOVED BY BOHRER, SECONDED BY SAUL, THAT COUNCIL STRIKE THE PHRASE "BE RESPONSIVE TO" AND SUBSTITUTE "THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT SHALL BE REVIEWED FOR SOLAR ACCESS OF ADJACENT PROPERTIES." MOTION CARRIED. Councilman Bohrer said he would like to go back to (d) and have staff discuss it. Brad Collins, Director of Planning, said he was not familiar with San Francisco so he could not draw that analogy, but an example might be that the older tall building in Seattle appeared to have the plazas on the north side. The effect on the users of the site was that nobody used the plazas because they were on the cold shaded side of the building. So, to the extent that a building comes in that does not consider how the building users may relate to some of the features of the building, the Planning Commission could TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING July 20, 1981 Page 4 Section 18.50.035 contd. 33 35 make suggestions. In the City of Seattle they now require that most buildings with plazas have them on the south side. There may be other types of effects that are specific to a given site. The users of a site may find it more convenient to protect them against certain elements better than others. If the prevailing wind and rain is coming from the south, entrance to the building placed on another side of the building may create a better effect, using the structure to minimize exposure to the people coming into the building. It was not meant to be specific. We know we have wind and rain problems; it is something the Planning Commission can use as they become more familiar with tall buildings. Caroline Berry, Planner, said the Planning Commission had in mind the protection of the user of the building. Councilman Hill said Council is trying to be experts on something that any architect would take into consideration when designing a building. Councilman Harris asked the meaning of Item No. 5? Mr. Collins said the City, in terms of granting the height exception which was viewed as an extra density or intensity of use, felt that in giving that to the developer they could in some way return the benefit to the community by having an incidental spin -off type of benefit that was not normally required for the developer to do. They were granted special exception and the developer in return ought to identify what kind of extra community benefit may be provided. It seems to be open as to what it is. A normal trade -off may be to contribute in some way to the development of the park area down in the central commercial district. This would be an extreme example. It may be a smaller type related to transportation, in other words participate in a city operated mini -bus service, provide passes to residents, employees. It would be something that goes beyond what the ordin- ance required the developer to do when he builds on a site. It is left open and the developer seems to be concerned about it. Councilman Harris said it sounds like a bribe. MOVED BY HARRIS, SECONDED BY SAUL, THAT ITEM NO. (5) BE ELIMINATED.* Councilman Bohrer said earlier the Seattle plaza ordinance was discussed. It seems that is one of the thoughts that might have been involved here. Another thought is that this is perhaps one of the areas where all of us who have an underlying feeling of what the City of Tukwila ought to, or might, look like in 10 -20 years. We do not all think alike on the issue. The staff has proposed that we have a study on urban form to set down some general guidelines as to what the City might look like. It is not known if we can find an agency to do such a study and give us guidance on that, but even if it is a review as to what some current trends are to stimulate some Council thinking it might be worthwhile and useful in determining what a community benefit might be. He said he viewed Seattle's plaza ordinance as an attempt with a tall building to get some community benefit that goes along with the benefit to the developer in having a higher density. Mr. Collins said if a builder puts in a plaza it should be open and accessible to the public even though it is on private property. It is a benefit that is not required. The developer is providing recreational space to the general public. It does not say that specifically; it leaves that authority with the Planning Commission. It leaves the responsibility of determining that with the developer. The developer will suggest something that demon- strates community benefit. It could be sponsoring a ball team or future park or transportation plans. Councilman Bohrer said there is a broader basis for interpreting it. A very tall structure is going to impact a lot of the surrounding community. There should be a way of alleviating that impact. It might not be a ball team or contributing to a park that may be one -half mile away, but something like one of the accessory uses that goes along with a plaza, such as an art gallery, or a theatre, or something else that the City does not have that might be able to be used. As we continue and the energy problems get worse you will see people staying closer to home. We need to be conscious of the environment and make it TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING July 20, 1981 Page 5 3334 Section 18.50.035 livable. It would not necessarily be just for the people who work contd. in the building, but for the people who live in the community. Cris Crumbaugh, audience, said how about increasing taxes, benefits of energy savings are benefits from a large building. How about benefits from having people work where they live and live where they work? There are other benefits from having a large building. A tall building is a benefit to the community. *MOTION FAILED, WITH JOHANSON, BOHRER, AND HILL VOTING NO; HARRIS, SAUL, AND VAN DUSEN VOTING YES. Councilman Bohrer said he would like to talk about Item 7, seismic stability. The current proposed map puts us down on the flat areas of the City in all but one case, the one in west Tukwila has some slope. We have had many discussions about stability of several of the slopes and he thought this should be broadened to include slope stability. MOVED BY BOHRER, SECONDED BY SAUL, THAT ITEM NO. 7 READ: "SEISMIC AND SLOPE STABILITY. THE DEVELOPER SHALL SUBMIT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION A REPORT PREPARED BY A QUALIFIED ENGINEER OR GEOTECHNICIAN WHICH DETAILS THE PROPOSED STRUCTURES SEISMIC AND SLOPE STABILITY. SUCH REPORT SHALL OUTLINE THE EFFECTS, WHICH MAY BE CAUSED BY SEISMIC DISTURBANCE AS WELL AS ANY MITIGATING MEASURES OF BUILDING CONSTRUCTION. MOTION CARRIED. Councilman Bohrer said when Council talked about the subject last week he thought Council agreed, with respect to Section 18.50.030 and 18.50.035, to refer to the map and leave out the reference to the zones. MOVED BY BOHRER, SECONDED BY JOHANSON, THAT THE REFERENCE TO ZONES IN TITLE AND TEXT OF SECTIONS 18.50.030 AND 18.50.035 BE DELETED. MOTION CARRIED. Mr. Collins suggested wording be changed to: "Building heights in the areas of the City as designated on Map may exceed 115' by special exception of the Planning Commission." Council agreed to the rearrangement of words. Cris Crumbaugh, audience, said No. 11 should be changed so it reads height overlay "areas" rather than "zones." The Council agreed to this change. Cris Crumbaugh, audience, said he was still concerned about Item 5, Community benefit. He would like to know the requirements of the Planning Commission. Councilman Bohrer said he understood the concern. The Planning Commission will not say you have to put in a civic center to benefit the people of Tukwila. If a developer comes in and says he will do something to benefit the City it will be equitable. It will be a benefit to developer as well as to the City. Joanne Davis, audience, said the statement is too broad. It should be narrowed down. It should say whether the benefit should be on -site or where. Councilman Johanson said he did not see it as a specific requirement but as a benefit to the developer. Councilman Harris said since it is not specific she is against it. The present Planning Commission members might not be there and another Planning Commission might take advantage of it. It should be specific. RECESS MOVED BY HILL, SECONDED BY SAUL, THAT THE TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL 8:25 8:35 P.M. RECESS FOR FIVE MINUTES. MOTION CARRIED. The City of Tukwila Special fleeting was called back to order by Council President Van Dusen, with Council Members present as previously listed. TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL PMEETING July 20, 1981 Page 6 Audience Comment Council President Van Dusen said Gene Oliver, audience, would like on zoning. to make a comment regarding zoning. Gene Oliver, representing Robert Aldright, said he was not completely off the topic but he did have a couple of things to point out to Council, but they do not seem to fit neatly into the specific niches that are being considered. In going through the ComprehensivE Plan and all of the specific items that Council is struggling with, he requested they keep in mind that there are some areas where the Comprehensive Plan may not in fact be effective. Specifically, an area that has been called the Park Terrace area or technically Lot 28 of the Interurban Addition is covered by what they call a contract zone, or zoned by agreement made in the past. That property presently has a zoning status and it has some restrictions that other property with that zoning status does not have. That was worked out in the past between individual land owners and the Council recorded consideration on both sides and the property owners feel it is a very enforcable contract. The contract specifies in legal language the zoning that runs with the land. He said he was not present to give legal advice but to make sure the Council understood the owners position in this regardless of what the Comprehensive Plan does. He wished to speak about the zoning. Any of the requirements that might be seen to change what is in that contract cannot unilaterally be done by the Council. As the Council goes through these items they should keep in mind that there may be contractual agreements with individual pieces of property within the area. He said he would be happy to answer questions. Councilman Saul said he did not see how a contract between two people had anything to do with the Council. Councilman Hill said the contract is between a person and the City. Councilman Harris said the contract reads that certain stipulations must be followed as long as the zoning that was given to it remains there, but it does not say that the zoning cannot be changed. Mr. Oliver said he read the contract differently. There are two or three places in the contract that can be read as to how long the contract is enforcable and a couple of them are ambiguous but it definitely is the position of the owner that the contract is enforcable. Similar situations have come up in other jurisdictions in the State where the City Council did find that the contract was enforcable. Certain things have been given up on both sides and there is language in the contract that says it cannot be unilaterally abrogated by either side. That is what they would see in an attempt to change contract by zoning because the Council is a party to the contract. Councilman Bohrer asked how the contract binds the City? 3337 Mr. Oliver said the contract says in consideration for a lawsuit which had been filed to force a zoning change, and in consideration for the property owner agreeing to do certain things with regard to setbacks, fencing and other matters, sewage treatment, the owner agreed to do certain things which he would not have been obli- gated to do in that zone. The owner is then allowed to have that zoning on the property. That is the gist of the contract. It is his understanding that the Council will consider more explicitly some applications that have been made at this point. Regardless of the outcome of that his intent is to make sure the Council understands the owner's position, that the contract, regardless of what happens with zoning changes, is still enforcable. Council President Van Dusen said the City Attorney would issue a memorandum on the subject. City Attorney Hard said if he is talking about a particular contract he would look at it. It is an important question and it is possible that with certain parcels, while they may have certain zoning, it does not remain inviable forever. The mere existence of a contract does not mean it cannot be rezoned by a Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Oliver asked that if a meeting is devoted to this subject or it becomes an agenda item that the people who are contract holders be notified of it. Larry Hard, City Attorney, said every property owner affected by the TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING July 20, 1981 Page 7 Audience Comment on zoning contd. Chapter 18.50. Comprehensive Plan was notified by legal notice and it was published in the newspaper. Council President Van Dusen said Height, Setback, and Area Regulations would be the next consideration by the Council. 3.9 3, Councilman Harris asked what on the chart had been changed? Caroline Berry, Planner, said the intent was to put into one chapter all of the regulations for front and rear yards. In the existing code you have to flip through and find the regulations. In the discussion you will compare the two different charts on pages 77 and 78 of the EIS. In the existing zoning code when you calculate the front and side yards it is computed according to surrounding districts and street setbacks. The Planning Commission proposal was to set specific numbers of feet for each zoning district. In some cases it may mean there will be a reduction. They are trying to make it easier to administer and easier for a developer to come in and know what his requirements will be when he proposes to build. Caroline Berry, Planner, said in comparing the R -A area it is currently 40' in the front yard and 40' now. The side yard is proposed to increase to 6' where currently it is calculated between 4'and 8'. The rear yard stays the same. The maximum height would decrease 5'. In the single- family residential district, there is a base front yard of 30'. You calculate it from the centerline of the street and the minimum depth is 25% of the lot, not to exceed 30'. In the existing code the front yard setback may vary. The Planning Commission would like all setbacks to be the same. Brad Collins, Director of Planning, said one of the questions raised the first time the chart was looked at was how many properties would not be set back 30'. Most of the lots were greater than 120' in depth, so with a few exceptions where the lots are faced in effect to the long side of the rectangular of the lot to the street, those would be the exceptions. It would seem that they are covered under the exceptions to the setback requirements. Under the set- back requirements you can adjust if other people on the block are not built back 30'. The exceptions are fairly small and they occur mostly on the same street. If you take a street like 59th, some of the lots are not 120' depth. The alternative to using the 30' setback would be to go to the existing definition which is 25% of the maximum lot depth, and then define it. Council President Van Dusen said when one -third of your lot is unbuildable and you are going to use that as criteria, how far are you going to be setback? You are still not going to be able to meet it. Our topography here is the problem. Joanne Davis, audience, said somewhere in the code it gives you only 6 months to rebuild. If you lose more than 50% of your home by fire you would have to have a variance and then you would have only six months to rebuild. Councilman Saul said he liked the existing code. Mr. Collins said the proposed language would make it so everybody would be able to figure out their setbacks. Jack Link, audience, said under the proposed code the setback is determined from the lot line. Is that what is making everything nonconforming? Where are you going to put the setback from, maybe that is something that needs to be addressed. Is it going to be from the centerline or from the edge of the right -of -way? The interpretation in the new zoning ordinance is the lot line is the edge of the right -of -way. Brad Collins said that is not totally accurate. It says in C -M the minimum setback from all publicly used rights -of -way shall be adequate to provide a park -like atmos- phere at least 50'. He said as he reads it that means 50' back from the edge of the public right -of -way, not from the centerline of the public right -of -way. The public right -of -way was in reference to the residential setback for R -1. That says the building line must be 55' from centerline of street. That means TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING July 20, 1981 Page 8 Chapter 18.50 contd. 3337 at a minimum it must be at least 55' from the centerline of the street. If you have a 40' street, that is 20' of street and perhaps 35' of property line, but it also indicates that the minimum depth of 25% of the lot not to exceed 30' is required. You end up having 3 different tests for trying to figure out where that setback ought to occur. It has to be at least 25% back of the depth of the lot, it need not be more than 30' and it has to be at least 55' from centerline of the street as he reads the ordinance. When you get through making all of those calculations, it would seem in most instances you are either going to be 30', depending on the width of the street at that point, or greater. That is where the confusion arises. That is just one of the ways of measuring. Councilman Saul asked why the centerline of the street cannot be applied to the new setbacks? Mr. Collins said the effort was to make it easier to interpret. Generally speaking, 30' would be required. There will be instances where that is not the case, either because of topography or where one needs to get a variance. He said he understood there was a clause in the new code which indicated that if everyone built on a certain street and they were only set back 25' and you have one lot and want to build on that lot, you have to build 30' back. He said it is his understanding that the law as proposed would give him a waiver and use the average setback for that block. He would be able to go with the 25' setback. He said he would assume that the same clause, and he said he was not able to find it, would permit those housing units built on that street with a 25' setback to conform to the existing zone. That was his understanding, and why the 30' would not be a hardship. Councilman Hill said you have a block with 10 houses on it and 3 of them are setback 20' and the rest are set at 35'. The one with the lot to build on would have to seek a variance. The 3 houses already built there would have to come in for a variance if they wanted to rebuild after a fire. Mr. Collins said that is perhaps correct. Under the present zone they would probably suffer the same hardship. Councilman Bohrer said before the Council can proceed further on the front yards we need to find the clause that Mr. Collins is referring to and understand it. Mr. Collins said he did not write the document and it is hard to find his reference. His suggestion is that there are two questions: (1) the question of what the appropriate setbacks are, and (2) how do you deal with nonconformance? To a certain extent you can deal with them separately. He said he agreed that we should avoid creating nonconformance. On the other hand, the intention of the setbacks was to specifically identify a larger buildable area on any given lot and therefore make it easier to build. The intent was to standardize how you calculate those things. His assumption is that there is a clause that deals with nonconformance. If there is not a clause there are two remedies: (1) invent the clause under nonconformance section or (2) readjust all of the yards so it meets what the development has been for the past 80 years in Tukwila. He said his feeling was that the Planning Commission wrestled with this and came to the former conclusion, that is to go ahead and establish some consistent setbacks that provided for greater flexibility and development of a buildable area on a lot and would have other remedies for nonconformance for existing structures. Councilman Saul asked how many houses are in Tukwila? Mr. Collins said about 550 houses. Council President Van Dusen asked if Fred Satterstrom, Planner, would be able to be present at the next Zoning Meeting. Mr. Collins said he would be present. Mr. Collins said the Staff does not have a problem in trying to calculate setbacks using the old process. Part of the thing staff wants to do for nonconformance is try to respond to the specific questions that have been asked regarding nonconforming structures TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING July 20, 1981 Page 9 Chapter 18.50 contd. ADJOURNMENT 9:35 P.M. and uses where they occur. Council President Van Dusen said he would like to see a random sample taken and see if there is a significant violation of nonconformance. Joanne Davis, audience, said why not take the entire City and see how many houses are nonconforming? In having a setback that far back we are limiting the person who wants to utilize their lot. Maybe a person wants more backyard than front yard. He should not be penalized. Councilman Saul said in last Monday night's meeting on McMicken Heights it was reported that 19 houses were going up in that area. The requirements to build 19 houses are very strict in Tukwila right now. Brad Collins, Director of Planning, said the City did do a survey and the lots that represented 120' depth or more would be required under the old zoning ordinance to be a depth of 30' at least. The assumption was that they would be no less nonconforming now than they were under the old ordinance. It reviewed the the average lot depth to be 30'. Mr. Collins said Mr. Satterstrom would be here for the discussion next week. MOVED BY HILL, SECONDED BY SAUL, THAT THE SPECIAL ZONING MEETING BE ADJOURNED. MOTION CARRIED. nar 1. an Dusen, Council President Norma Booher, Recording Secretary 3 3 yo