Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1981-08-03 Special MinutesAugust 3, 1981 TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL 7:00 P.M. SPECIAL MEETING CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL OF COUNCIL MEMBERS DISCUSSION Proposed changes to Sec 18 50 Chapter 18.52. MINUTES City Hall Council Chambers Council President Van Dusen called the Special Meeting of the Tukwila City Council to order at 7:15 P.M. L. C. BOHRER, GEORGE D. HILL, DORIS E. PHELPS, Council President GARY L. VAN DUSEN. Fred Satterstrom, Planning, said Planning Staff has revised Chapter 18.50 of the proposed zoning code to reflect the language and matrix modifications that have taken place as a result of the Zoning Meetings. Mr. Satterstrom said in Section 18.50.040 (1) and (2) staff has proposed slightly revised language to address the safety and aesthetic concerns expressed by Council regarding obstructions of vision across the front yard. Councilman Hill read Section 18.50.040 (2) which states: "In any required front yard, no fence or wall shall be permitted which materially prevents vision across such yard above the height of 30 inches, and no hedge or other vegetation shall be permitted which materially prevents vision across such yard between the heights of 30 inches and 10 feet," and said he would not want to cut 72 feet off the pine tree in his front yard. Mr. Satterstrom said the previous wording of this section said "materially impedes" and this says "materially prevents." He said this would not prevent a few trees in the front yard because they would not prevent vision across the front yard. If the trees completely blocked off the vision they would be "materially "rreventing vision and they would not be allowed. If there were several trees or a certain amount of vegetation that impeded but did not prevent vision across the entire front yard that would be permitted. Councilman Hill said a lot of trees or vegetation on a corner lot could be dangerous and we have a lot of dangerous corners in the City. Mr. Satterstrom said if the Council feels safety is the only thing they want to protect for vision on a corner then Section 18.50.040(2) could be left out. MOVED BY HILL, SECONDED BY BOHRER, THAT SECTION 18.50.040 (2) BE DELETED. Councilman Phelps said it was her suggestion that specific numbers of inches be omitted. *MOTION CARRIED, WITH PHELPS VOTING NO. Fred Satterstrom, Planner, said Planter Width should be deleted from the table on Page 93. Councilman Hill said Section 18.50.030 says: "The required landscape areas, as shown in Section 18.52.020 above shall be increased by a minimum of twenty -five (25) or fifty (50) percent or by construction of a decorative fence or solid planting screen, to be approved by the Planning Department, along the applicable front, side and /or rear property line(s) in the following circumstances," and then the circum- stances are listed. Mr. Satterstrom said this would apply where one district may be across the street from an incompatible or dissimilar zone, and he cited examples. This would not happen very often. Ann Nichols, representing the Segale Company, said in Section 18.52.030 (1) if the word "district" is put in the sentence reads: "Industrial use district occurs adjacent to an office use district." The word "district" should be put in (a), (b), (c), (d). Mr. Satterstrom said that is implied but it would be wise to add the word "district." TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING August 3, 1981 Page 2 DISCUSSION Contd. Chapter 18.52.030. X3,34 Council President Van Dusen said the Council agreed that the word "district" should be inserted in the appropriate places in Section 18.52.030. Ann Nichols, audience, said the table on Page 93 should show "0" in the Side Yard Landscape column in the M -1 and M -2 districts. She suggested that in the same table the front yard landscaping be 10' rather than 15' in the M -1 and M -2 districts. If the street is widened you could take 5' from the 15' landscaping and the property would still conform. Constance Proctor, representing Southcenter, said at times in South center they have less than 15' front yard. They have some concerns about not being in compliance. Section 18.70.090 would alleviate this problem. She request 10' front yard landscape requirement. Councilman Phelps said her philosophy on setbacks, recreation space, and landscaping is one of public area versus non public areas. In the public areas the commercial zones and the office buildings that are more frequented by the public should be more attractive, have more landscaping, and more requirements than an industrial building. MOVED BY HILL, SECONDED BY PHELPS, THAT STAFF BE DIRECTED TO ELIMINATE THE SIDE YARD LANDSCAPE REQUIREMENT IN M -1 AND M -2 BECAUSE THE SIDE YARD WAS ELIMINATED. MOTION CARRIED, WITH BOHRER VOTING NO. Councilman Hill said he would like a definition of sideyard landscaping in the C -P district. Does that include the sidewalk ordinance where we ask for an 8' sidewalk? Do they have to have 15' of landscaping in addition to the 8' sidewalk? Mr. Satterstrom said this situation has come up and staff has interpreted that the sidewalk is part of the landscape area. The smaller the landscape area becomes then the more percentage the sidewalk can take out of it. This interpretation may come up again when sidewalks are put in on Andover Park East and West. Councilman Hill said one of the things that has made Andover Park and Southcenter stand out has been the landscaping. Fred Satterstrom, Planner, said Section 18.70.090 deals with nonconfor- mance. Whenever a building expands on property, rather than require them to conform to that table the Planning Commission decided to allow them to have at least the option to come before the Board of Architectural Review and propose a plan which would "substantially conform to the requirements of this code." The BAR could modify the strict standard imposed by the ordinance when in their judgment the existing and proposed landscaping and screening materials together will adequately screen or buffer possible uses and incompatibilities and other criteria. The gist of their concern was that in a case where a building might be expanding and the landscaping might be fairly scant that the BAR could require additional plantings or bufferings to try to materially conform with the intent of that section. Therefore, even in existing landscape areas they would not have to be the width that would be provided for in that table. No landscape area would become nonconforming. Chapter 18.70 is rather long. Fred Satterstrom, Planner, said he does not support the landscape requirements in R -1 district. The Planning Commission felt that what was good for multiple- family should be good for single- family. He felt this could be a hardship on single family residences to submit a landscape plan and have it approved and then try to enforce it. He personally felt that landscaping requirements do not have to be written to protect single family residences against one another. Any single family lot generally has a majority of the premises in landscaping. MOVED BY BOHRER, SECONDED BY PHELPS, THAT LANDSCAPE REQUIREMENTS IN R -1 BE DELETED. MOTION CARRIED. TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING August 3, 1981 Page 3 DISCUSSION Contd. Council President Van Dusen agreed to the deletion. 3 �3 Section 18.52.060 Fred Satterstrom, Planner, said the last sentence of Section 18.52.060 should be deleted. It addresses sprinkling in the R -1 district. Section 18.52.030 Councilman Hill asked if this additional landscaping would be (2) (b) required, for instance, on Interurban Avenue where the Tukwila Grocery is located. The way this is worded that could be necessary even though there is an 80' bank right behind it. Councilman Phelps said nature has already provided a screen. Mr. Satterstrom said it seems this is a classic case for a variance. Councilman Phelps said the expense of a variance seems a hardship when there is a natural barrier. 18.52.030 (1) Councilman Phelps said in 18.52.030 (1) 25% should be sufficient without the addition of (2) which is 50 Ann Nichols, representing Segale Company, suggested that it be worded so it says a natural barrier is sufficient. Councilman Bohrer said we would then have to determine what is a natural barrier. MOVED BY PHELPS, SECONDED BY HILL, THAT THE WORDING IN LINE 22, PAGE 94, BE AMENDED TO 25 Councilman Bohrer said this has been discussed before and Mr. Kirsop, Planning Commission, said he thought the requirement was not a serious burden in most cases. *MOTION FAILED, WITH HILL AND BOHRER VOTING NO; PHELPS AND VAN DUSEN VOTING YES. Ann Nichols, audience, referred to Line 20, Page 94, and said that is not necessary as they are not incompatible uses where industrial use districts occur adjacent to an office use district. Fred Satterstrom, Planner, said as a general principle, the architects would prefer a buffer between an office use and industrial use. There is a situation on the map where an industrial district would abut a P -0 zone. Generally the architects and site planners like to provide some sort of a landscaping or distance buffer between a strict pure office building and a strict pure industrial building. In Segale Business Park there is a little bit more general landscaping around some of the buildings that are more office in nature than there are in some of the industrial buildings, although there may be some office uses. Councilman Phelps asked what happens in a situation where you have a mixed -use development and you have residential on the same development with office and commercial use? Unless it was a P -0 zone the situation, where you would have to buffer it with additional landscaping, would not arise. Councilman Phelps asked if any of this would have any effect on Campanella's project, for example? Mr. Satterstrom said Campanella is building in C -1. Councilman Phelps said she was referring to 18.52.030 (2) (b). You have a R -4 on top and commercial on the bottom. There again there is a natural buffer. Councilman Bohrer said that is not the only one that exists, there is a current one that exists just north of 58th and Interurban. Councilman Hill said all of them seem to have a good buffer right behind them. Bruce Solly, audience, asked if it is intended that the lower use has to set back from the higher use? If you have an industrial use and a single family use comes around does the single- family have to increase the requirement? If that is not the intent, then (1) (d) should come out. That would be Lines 20 and 21 on Page 94. Councilman Hill said if a multiple family residence occurs across the street from a single family use district, which one gets the setback? The higher or the lower or both? Then again if multiple family use occurs adjacent to a single family use district who gets the 50% increase, both of them? TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING August 3, 1981 Page 4 DISCUSSION Contd. 18.52.030 (1) contd. Councilman Hill said that is not too clear. Ann Nichols, audience, said (1) (d) says "adjacent to" while all of the rest in (1) say "across the street" and (2) (c) says "across the street" while all of the rest in (2) say "adjacent to." Mr. Solly, audience, said another question he has is there may be some situations like this if you consider adjoining property in King County or somewhere else. What about the westerly side of 51st Avenue? There are some uses up there that are being converted to apartment and multi- family and office type uses, that are in King County. If this is intended to apply to just Tukwila uses any problem we would have goes away. Councilman Hill said in Mr. Solly's case where all of their problems are in a certain area, does it apply to him when the adjacent property or property across the street is in the County? If the County changes their zoning how would it affect him? Mr. Satterstrom said he would suspect that it would affect him. If the zoning across the street were single or multiple family residential, the Planning Department would take that into consideration as the zoning across the street. The fact that it would be in a separate jurisdiction would not make that much difference. Except, that you might also look at King County who has a designation on its intended use or its planned use for most pieces of property. If it were planned for something other than multiple family that would be taken into consideration. If it were zone( multiple family with a planned zoning for multiple- family then you would take that into consideration as if it were in the City. He said that is how he would interpret it. Councilman Bohrer said that is a proper interpretation. He asked Mr Satterstrom about the plan that Councilman Hill was discussing. Do the increases apply to one or both and if it is one, which one, and how do we know that? Mr. Satterstrom said the way in which it was proposed was that the first use mentioned buffered itself against the second use mentioned, but we were not going to enforce it vice versa. In other words, multiple- family residences as they might be developed across the street from a single family use district would have to provide the additional landscaping but not vice versa. If an office use occurred adjacent to an industrial use it would not have to buffer itself against the higher use. The office use also has a side yard requirement, and also has a side yard landscaping requirement. Most of them have been dropped for the M -1 and M -2 zones so that requirement then becomes even more necessary. Councilman Hill said as an example, if a commercial use occurs adjacent to multiple family use district, if the commercial goes in first and the land next to it is put in apartments, when the commercial went in they would have had to put in additional landscaping when the multiple goes in they would not. Is that the way it is interpreted? Mr. Satterstrom said that is correct. Generally the lesser use is going to put in some kind of a buffer anyway. The requirement is on the higher use, the more intensive use, the use with the incompatibility. Mr. Solly said Item (d) should come out then. Adjacent means side by side. Councilman Hill said it could be rear to rear. Mr. Solly said there is no rear yard requirement in C -M, M -1 and M -2. Councilman Phelps asked if this would create many nonconformance problems? Mr. Satterstrom said he was sure there would be and one of the areas might be along Interurban Avenue, if buildings expanded. Council President Van Dusen said it was the consensus of the Council to leave Section 18.52.030 (1) (d) in. Section 18.52.040 Council President Van Dusen said he would suggest the addition of 18.52.040 (4) stating railroad tracks may be covered with balast rocks. Councilman Phelps asked if rights -of -way are subject to landscaping? Mr. Satterstrom said they are not, this deals with private property TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING August 3, 1981 Page 5 DISCUSSION Contd. Sec. 18.52.040 contd. Sec. 18.52.050 3365 or developable property. The Planning Commission took out (1) (b). They felt that (1) (a) covered it and (b) might do away with certain intersection plantings that they knew of that they felt did not obstruct view. Councilman Bohrer said Lines 10 and 11 on Page 95 should be added to Line 9 so it reads: (1) Visibility: The landscape shall not obstruct view from or into the driveway, sidewalk or street. Fred Satterstrom, Planner, said the Planning Commission changed Line 3, Page 96, to read: "...or combination thereof, distributed throughout the site O y`YjOA J�." Mr. Solly, audience, said he felt every building in Southcenter Industrial Park and Segale Industrial Park would not meet this require- ment. He did not agree that a parking lot of over 50 stalls has to be barren. They have a parking lot of almost 100 in Southcenter office parking; they have a rockery about 25' in height so it is not barren. When you go to B.A.R. someone in B.A.R. is going to say you have a big 300 car parking lot, break it up with landscaping. Anyone would do that anyway. In a lot of instances this can be a waste of land and dollars. It can also create, if it is not used properly, some physical problems in the parking lot. Since there are so many controls this should be removed. Councilman Hill said if there are parking medians it keeps cars moving in a straight line in the parking lot, rather than zigzagging across the parking lot. Ann Nichols said the medians get into high cost and the bumps collect litter and it takes longer to sweep. It creates more problems than it solves. Constance Proctor, Southcenter Industrial, said Southcenter meets the 5% requirement. They interpret that it meets the 5% due to excess perameter. It seems that perameter landscaping could be used to meet the landscape requirement. Councilman Phelps said Southcenter exceeds the 5% landscaping requirement. Mr. Satterstrom said it is not a policy right now, at least it has not been implemented at the B.A.R. as a policy. They have been relatively silent in light of the fact that the existing zoning ordinancE is silent on this issue of parking lot landscaping. They have in the case of Benaroya, Benaroya proposed this and it was spurred by the Benaroya office building in that originally there was plenty of perameter landscaping but generally very little within the parking lot itself. The B.A.R. did not develop or administer it as a policy but with respect to this building required some landscaping within the park- ing lot to break it up once you came off the street and were within the office parking area. The idea then was to try to break it up with some landscaping and soften it. The effect in the site plan has been a positive one. The 5% landscaping here is to try to derive some sort of policy. Councilman Phelps said most developments in the City have at least 50 parking stalls and if Bruce Morgan's building is an example that is not a significant development that requires additional consideration for landscaping over and above what is already required. Mr. Solly said we do not have that requirement now. Yet B.A.R. says they want us to do this. We did it. There was enough control there so that new office buildings are landscaped with the extra requirements. There is so much control here, but to arbitrarily say "let's do it" and require it creates what he thought was a whole bunch of nonconform- ing situations even though later in the text it waives the nonconforming requirement for landscaping. It can be required. It is needless and a waste of money and probably time to require it. He said he would like to request it be removed. TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING August 3, 1981 Page 6 DISCUSSION Contd. 18.52.050 Councilman Bohrer said adding the requirement gives the B.A.R. something contd. solid to do instead of something they might be able to require which has not been official. We have been through the issue about landscaping in the parking area several times and yet he saw nothing in this section that says you have to have landscaped dividers in the parking lots. He believed the change that was pointed out which was distributed through- out the site, not parking lot, was specifically added to resolve that particular point. You are asking us to throw away something based on a problem that is nonexistent. Sec. 18.52.060 .;36C Mr. Solly, audience, said if you do this landscaping within the site, the logical place to do it is at the end of a parking stall where you have the radius turn. Councilman Phelps asked how this would apply to a combination of structured parking and level ground parking if you had a development with 75 parking stalls and 50 of them were under the building, or you had loading facilities that could possibly be behind and under the building. Councilman Hill said a plan has been presented where the whole underside would be parking. Mr. Satterstrom said with the struc- tured parking,it becomes a structure, not a parking lot. Here we are talking about surface parking areas. Ann Nichols, audience, said when you take another 5% land area out of a development and place it in landscaping you automatically reduce the size of the building because the parking requirements do not fit. It is taking land that is not earning money for the City. It is expensive. You have the setbacks and landscaping on the sides and front. Mr. Solly, audience, said in his buildings at Fairwood they have islands and most of the time they are a maintenance problem. Ninety percent of the time they look awful. We have the same problem in Tukwila where we have driveways in the industrial area that are narrow and the trucks break off the curbs. It takes two weeks to get a curb back in. It is hand work to pick up debris that collects around the dividers. MOVED BY HILL, SECONDED BY PHELPS, THAT SECTION 18.52.050 BE DELETED. Councilman Phelps said she thought the purpose of a parking lot was to park cars and the purpose of landscaping is to screen buildings. Councilman Bohrer said it is hard to evaluate the aesthetic development. It is of definite value and it is one of the reasons we have been succesE ful in Tukwila. It seems when you say it is 5% of total parking area it is relatively a minimum requirement. Mr. Solly, audience, said if you landscape you have to have a curb around the planting. Autos bump into it and break it. Without the landscape requirement you would not have to have the half -moon put in at the end of the parking stalls. Mr. Satterstrom said the B.A.R. would like to see the half -moon put in. *MOTION PASSED, WITH BOHRER VOTING NO. Fred Satterstrom, Planner, said the last sentence of this section should be deleted as it refers to sprinkling system requirement in the R -1 district and landscaping in the R -1 district has been deleted. Sec. 18.52.070 Fred Satterstrom, Planner, said there has to be a mixture of active and passive type recreation space requirement. ADJOURNMENT MOVED BY HILL, SECONDED BY PS, THAT THE TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL 9:15 P.M. SPECIAL u E lG»!.OUR Gary`C. Van Dusen, Coun l`1residdfit CaL0 Nor?rra Booher, Recording Secretary RRIED.