Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1981-08-31 Special MinutesCity Hall August 31, 1981 TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL 7:00 P.M. SPECIAL MEETING Council Chambers M I N U T E S CALL TO ORDER Council President Van Dusen called the Special Meeting of the Tukwila City Council to order at 7:07 P.M. ROLL CALL OF L. C. BOHRER, GEORGE D. HILL, DORIS E. PHELPS, DAN J. SAUL, COUNCIL MEMBERS Council President GARY L. VAN DUSEN. DISCUSSION Chapter 18.60, Brad Collins, Planning Director, suggested that the wording in Board of Architectural Section 18.60.040 be as follows: 18.60.040 Scope of Authority. Review. The Board of Architectural Review shall review and approve proposed development plans for the following described land use actions: 1. Development any part of which is within 200 feet of the Green River and which requires a substantial development permit; 2. Commercial development in excess of 10,000 gross square feet of building space in the RMH, P -0, and C -1 districts of the City; 3. Development of multiple- family complexes in excess of 12 dwelling units in the R -2, R -3, R -4, RMH, P -0, and C -1 districts of the City; 4. Development of buildings that exceed the basic height limits of Chapter 18.50; 5. Proposed development which, as a condition of approval of any rezone or other land use action of the City Council or, as a condition of the responsible official's decision pursuant to the State Environmental Policy Act, is referred to the B.A.R. for design review. This proposed language would replace references to B.A.R. review requirements listed in each zone district, commonly referenced under Subsection .070 or .080 headings. Councilman Phelps asked how this would relate to the changes that have been made in the draft? Brad Collins, Planning Director, said if the Council agrees, staff will go back and take it out of .070 and .080. MOVED BY SAUL, SECONDED BY PHELPS, THAT THE CHANGE TO SECTION 18.60.040 RECOMMENDED BY STAFF BE USED INSTEAD OF THE PRESENT WORDING. Councilman Bohrer said he was struggling with the differences between the recommendations and the wording for the ordinance. Under zonal in the recommendation it says R -2, R -3, R -4, RMH, P -0, and C -1 zones north of I -405 and east of I -5. Mr. Collins said in the earlier memo the discussion is talking about some alternatives and using them as examples. If you pull out zonal, for example, and just use zonal perhaps that is one of the things Council would want to do. They do not relate directly to Items 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 where those items are combined. In fact, they take information from all three of those categories, zonal, dimensional and locational, and combine them for commercial developments, or combine them for multi- family complexes or combine them for projects that actually one does not deal with either zonal or dimensional but just deals with locational. Likewise, Item 4 does not deal with locational or zonal, it just deals with dimensional. Items 2 and 3 combine all those three criteria and then suggest that location wise it can be anywhere in the City for either of those two items. Zonal wise it is only certain districts that differ between 2 and 3 and dimension wise it puts 10,000 square feet on one and 13 units or greater on the other. It mixes and matches those concerns. When you get down to the actual recommended language Staff chose to go through and come up with their own combination of those criteria. They felt that covered major issues that presumably would be facing the City and Council would want B.A.R. to focus in on this and those that were not covered could be covered by Item 5. Councilman Bohrer said Staff has limited the review of the development! surrounding the Tukwila hill in the recommendation that has been made and it is more general to multiple- family districts any place. It is now apparently unrelated to any relationship to the hill. Mr. Collins said yes and no. It is correct in terms of where those zones are located, they are all located in the area north of I -405 and south of I -5. There is some P -0 located outside of that area. There are some small areas of RMH located outside of those areas. The C -2 areas would have to fall under Category 5. TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING August 31, 1981 Page 2 DISCUSSION Contd. Chapter 18.60, Board of Councilman Bohrer said the other questions are the applicability of Architectural Review any one of these would trigger B.A.R. Mr. Collins said that was contd correct. Two of the sites Grantree and the area by Fort Dent- would be requiring that because they are within 200' of the river. V.I.P.s site and the Solly site would be the only ones that would be covered under Category 5. Councilman Bohrer said the other question was the concern that the general current applicability of B.A.R. would be too great and cause too much work. He asked if Staff has an estimate? Mr. Collins said what it essentially does is take most of the design decisions that are south of 405 and require that they be applied only if Items 4 or 5 goes into effect. Item 1, Item 4, and 5 would trigger the items below. What it would do is take the routine McCann office building or McCann Building No. 574 out of the design review process. It would also take most of those developments that were generally not controversial buildings that tend to be in the areas that are adjacent to the transition zones between residential and commercial uses. Areas of significant size that did not exceed basic height requirements probably are less likely to be controver- sial south of 405 and may not require design review. Originally, the Planning Commission had taken out C -M zoning which covers much of that area and C -P zoning which covers a large remainder of that area from the design B.A.R. The primary reason was because they felt many of those design decisions had been made and they were doing a lot of routine analysis. In those areas where it still is desired then presumably Item 5 will still provide the Council and Administration the flexibility to request that. In terms of an estimate he would say that most of the development right now is occurring with greater regularity south of 405 than it is north of 405. It is a question of what areas or what priorities Council feels require the most concern. Fred Satterstrom, Planner, said any structure that would be within 200' of the Green River would require B.A.R. Councilman Phelps asked about the landscape requirements in Section 18.52.020? Mr. Collins said it would be up to the Council. It would be a question of going back and doing the housekeeping. This can be resolved in the unresolved issues. They can possibly be kept in without creating too much impact. Councilman Bohrer asked under what conditions would Mr. Collins trigger B.A.R. as a SEPA official? Mr. Collins said the primary concern there was that City have a forum for looking at community values that may arise on any given shoreline Management Permit and also on SEPA. B.A.R. would perhaps give a process reviewing those if City were not going through an EIS process. In those areas where there was some concern on environment that City were not proceeding under EIS that B.A.R. review would be used to make sure that was the appropriate direction to go. That was staff's primary concern, to have another mechanism other than EIS and the required hearings for that to resolve some of the community's input. On those issues where the main issue in the environment may be designed, even if there was an EIS required, we would still go through B.A.R. process and try and come up with the resolution in additional mitigating measures in those design elements or concerns. Councilman Bohrer asked if size triggers the process? Mr. Collins said only in regards to height. The basic height limit is 45' as shown on Table 1, Page 89, Section 18.50. Mr. Collins said if the Council identified Interurban as a Special Review District that action would place it under B.A.R. Councilman Phelps said she could not think of anything that would be as sensitive as Interurban and the single family zone areas abutting some of the other zones. TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING August 31, 1981 Page 3 DISCUSSION Contd. 3z/1/ Chap. 18.60, Board of MOVED BY BOHRER, SECONDED BY SAUL, THAT ITEM 6 BE ADDED TO Architectural Review 18.60.040 SCOPE OF AUTHORITY, AND IT STATE: "DEVELOPMENTS NORTH contd. OF I -405 AND SOUTH OF I -5 SHALL BE SUBJECT TO B.A.R., EXCLUDING R -1 DISTRICTS. MOTION CARRIED. *MOTION CARRIED, AS AMENDED. The Council determined Section 18.60.050 would be accepted as proposed. Cris Crumbaugh, audience, said in Section 18.60.030 the word "deny" should be deleted, as the Board would approve or approve with conditions. Councilman Bohrer said there might be a condition that would be so bad it would not meet the criteria and it would be sent back and a request made for redesign. It was destermined to leave Section 18.60.030 as presented. MOVED BY SAUL, THAT LINES 28, 29, AND 30, PAGE 108 READ: THE BOARD SHALL HAVE THE ABILITY TO APPROVE OR APPROVE WITH CONDITIONS ALL PLANS SUBMITTED TO IT USING CRITERIA IN SECTION 18.60.060. MOTION FAILED, FOR LACK OF A SECOND. Cris Crumbaugh, audience, referred to Section 18.60.070 (4), Page 113, and asked what criteria will be used? Councilman Bohrer said an appeal may be made to the City Council in Section 18.60.090. MOVED BY BOHRER, SECONDED BY SAUL, THAT THE FIRST SENTENCE IN SECTION 18.60.070 (4), PAGE 113, STATE: "THE BOARD MAY DENY THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT PLANS IF THEY DO NOT SATISFY THE DESIGN CRITERIA OF SECTION 18.60.060. MOTION CARRIED. MOVED BY PHELPS, SECONDED BY SAUL, THAT LINE 30, PAGE 113, SECTION 18.60.090 READ: "....PLANS ARE IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF.." MOTION CARRIED. RECESS Council President Van Dusen called for a five minute recess. 8:20 8:30 P.M. The meeting was called back to order by Council President Van Dusen with Council Members present as previously listed. Discussion on Section 18.60.060, Review Criteria, followed. Cris Crumbaugh, audience, said 18.60.060 (A) (3) and 18.60.060 (D) (2) mean the same thing. MOVED BY SAUL, SECONDED BY PHELPS, THAT SECTION 18.60.060 (A) (3), PAGE 109, LINE 26, HAVE THE WORDS "AND ADJOINING BUILDINGS" DELETED. MOTION CARRIED, WITH HILL VOTING NO. Cris Crumbaugh suggested that Section 18.60.060 (C) (1), Page 110, Line 15 read: "Where existing topographic patterns contribute to beauty and utility of a development, they should be recognized and preserved." MOVED BY BOHRER, SECONDED BY SAUL, THAT SECTION 18.60.060 (C) (1), PAGE 110, LINE 15, READ "..BE RECOGNIZED AND PRESERVED." MOTION CARRIED,WITH HILL VOTING NO. Cris Crumbaugh, audience, suggested that Section 18.60.060 (D) (2), Page 111, be deleted. MOVED BY SAUL, SECONDED BY HILL, THAT SECTION 18.60.060 (0) (2), PAGE 111, BE DELETED. Councilman Bohrer said he would like staff to respond to this and provide information as to whether or not there is a reason to keep this section in the zoning code. Brad Collins, Planning Director, said the appropriate scale and harmony can only be judged by community design. Most design professionals will be able to tell if a building is not propor- tionate. It is a thing that changes. Community values change. Permanent neighborhood development is in the eyes of the community. TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING August 31, 1981 Page 4 DISCUSSION Contd. Chap. 18.60, Board of Councilman Bohrer said he was going to vote to leave it in Architectural Review on the basis that if the concern were only about building heights contd. in the commercial industrial district he would say throw it out, but when you start thinking about all of the other things and all of the other areas that the B.A.R. applies to, he thought it should be left in. ADJOURNMENT 9:05 P.M. *MOTION FAILED. MOVED BY HILL, SECONDED BY SAUL, THAT SECTION 18.60.060 (E) BE DELETED. Brad Collins, Planning Director, said we are in the sign code revision process now. When you lift the variance restrictions on the sign code then the Planning Commission or the B.A.R. will need some guidelines as to how large a sign they should approve, bases, and what type of lighting might be used. If Section 18.60.060 (E) is eliminated he was not sure what would happen when the Planning Commission or B.A.R. is asked to look at a variance from the sign code when they are asked to waive they will basically be on their own to decide what size, what number, what type of lighting should occur and there would be no directions for them to make a decision on. The only other item that responds to signs is the sign code itself and where that stops this supposedly would give the Planning Commission some direction. *MOTION CARRIED, WITH SAUL AND PHELPS VOTING NO. City Council approved Section 18.60.060 (F) as presented. Cris Crumbaugh, audience, said in Section 18.60.909 an amendment has been made but there is one other thing he would like to have considered. He said it should be made clear that the Council can eliminate any conditions imposed by the Planning Commission or make new conditions of their own in the appeal process. It is not clear in the present ordinance as it states the Council may then order issuance of a building permit or it may withhold issuance. MOVED BY BOHRER, SECONDED BY SAUL, THAT SECTION 18.60.090, LINE 28, PAGE 113, LAST SENTENCE SHOULD READ: "THE COUNCIL MAY WITHHOLD ISSUANCE OF THE BUILDING PERMIT IF NOT SATISFIED THAT PROPOSED PLANS ARE IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THE ZONING CODE, OR MAY MODIFY THE CONDITIONS ON THE PROPOSAL AND THEN ORDER ISSUANCE OF A BUILDING PERMIT. MOTION CARRIED. MOVED BY HILL, SECONDED ,,BY SAUL, THAT THE SPECIAL ZONING MEETING ADJOURN. MOTION CARRIED. Gary L. Dusen, Council President C2 0_,0-0‘2A) Nom Booher, Recording Secretary