Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1981-09-28 Committee of the Whole MinutesSeptember 28, 1981 7:00 P.M. CALL TO ORDER COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT OFFICIALS DISCUSSION Chapter 18.70 Nonconforming Lots, Structures Uses (Page 126) CITY OF TUKWILA COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE M I N U T E S Tukwila City Hall Council Chambers Council President Van Dusen called the Tukwila City Council Committee of the Whole Meeting to order. Meeting called to continue review of the proposed zoning ordinance. DANIEL J. SAUL, GEORGE D. HILL, LIONEL C. BOHRER, DORIS E. PHELPS. GARY VAN DUSEN, Council President. MAYOR TODD; BRAD COLLINS, Planning Director; FRED SATTERSTROM, Planner; MAXINE ANDERSON, City Clerk. 3y37 Fred Satterstrom, City Planner, reviewed the memorandum con- cerning proposed nonconforming use regulations dated September 21, 1981. The memorandum explains the regulations as they ap- pear in 18.70 and explains what the regulations attempt to achieve. He explained that the regulations allow nonconforming uses to continue but not to expand. Nonconforming structures would be allowed to be expanded, but only in a manner which would not in- crease the degree of nonconformity. Multi- family residential structures are treated specially. If one should burn down, and it is nonconforming due to density type criteria (too many units for the zoning) they can rebuild to their original dimensions. According to a review, five areas will become nonconforming upon adoption of the zoning map. They are: 1. Codiga landscape sales (Parcel #1, DEIS) 2. Industrial warehouse (Parcel #1, DEIS) 3. Motorcycle repair (Parcel #19, DEIS) 4. Linden Lea Lodge (Parcel #28, DEIS) 5. Viewcrest Apartments (Parcel #24, DEIS) These businesses would not be allowed to expand under the pro- posed zoning. A sixth use, Longacres parking on South 158th St. may become nonconforming if the R.A. zoning is adopted. In the R -1 zones, the proposed sideyard and rearyard regulations are either the same or less than the existing regulations. Therefore, no additional single family dwellings will become non- conforming based on these. The proposed front yard regulation differs somewhat from the existing regulations. The existing regulation is based on a distance from the center line of the street. The proposed ordinnace requires a 30 foot setback measured from the front property line. These houses lying along a sixty foot wide street would be affected by this change. An inventory shows 4 lots that are less than 120 feet deep on 60 foot rights -of -way. Of these four, one is undeveloped; one has the dwelling unit located more than 30 feet from the roadway; and the other two have dwelling units with less than a 30 foot set- back. In the multi family zone, there are 13 complexes. They will not all conform to the proposed density requirements (unit per lot area). There is a new regulation in this ordinance that residential structures in single or multi family zones will not be termed nonconforming due to the density provisions. The front yard regulations that are proposed are 5 to 10 feet. This is greater than the existing requirements. In the Commercial Zones the proposed setback in the C -1 and C -2 zone differs signi- ficantly from the existing regulations. The proposed zoning would require a 20 foot front, 10 foot side and 10 foot rear yard set- back. Most developments conform to the front and rear yard set- backs but the 10 foot sideyard requirement could make some in C -1 zone nonconforming. This would occur mostly along Interurban Avenue. In the Industrial Districts the C -M zone restrictions are similar and should cause no adverse impact. The proposed front yard requirements in the M -1 and M -2 differ from the existing code. It requires a 25 foot front yard setback. In parking lot areas, where the development is less than 100% expansion, just the new parking area would have to conform. Anything over the doubling would require that the whole parking area conform. TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL, C.O.W. September 28, 1981 Page 2 DISCUSSION Cont. Chapter 18.70 Nonconforming Lots, Structures Uses (Page 126) (cont.) 18.70.010 18.70.020 18.70.030 18.70.040 Paragraph (3) Page 128 Also, any change in use, alteration or expansion of a structure would require conformance to the proposed landscape standards. This, however, could be altered by the Board of Architectural Review. 3 43 Mr. Bob Losey, Renton Auction, noted that he has a Renton address and phone number, pays taxes to the Renton School District, is on a private water system and on a private road. He said he sees no reason for the City to change his zoning to retail because: 1. They are on a private road. 2. They have traffic problems from the racetrack. 3. They adjoin the City of Renton boundary and that zoning is light industry. There is no benefit to changing the zoning. Leave it as it stands. I have been through nonconforming zoning before, and it is a headache. If you are going to rezone it, why don't you correct the mailing addresses, the school taxes, etc. Working with a non- conforming designation is really a hardship. You cannot borrow money from the bank on nonconforming property. Councilman Bohrer asked if the auction is currently nonconforming. Mr. Satterstrom said it is not now nonconforming nor would it be under C -2 regu- lations. Mr. Losey said it would be if it is changed because he wholesales, retails and warehouses. About 75% of his space is warehouse. There is 21,000 square feet in the building with 7,000 square feet being used for retail sales. Miss Helen Nelsen noted that the auction retails only one day a week. It looks like this change is spot zoning. Mr. Collins noted that this should be discussed when the zoning map is considered on October 12. (No Change) Councilman Bohrer questioned line 26 and 27. The problem is trying to define what actual construction is. It was decided to let the City Attorney define this. (No Change) Councilman Hill said he has problems with lines 22 and 23. If a business closes and for one reason or another, cannot open within 12 months, it could never be reopened. This looks like an undue hardship. Mr. Collins said this was to set a reasonable time limit. The old zoning ordinance sets 24 months instead of 12. Chris Crumbaugh, audience, said there was a lot of concern about this at the Planning Commission Public Hearings. The existing code of 24 months is better. Mayor Todd said the 24 months hasn't been troublesome so why change it. Because of the economic situation, it could cause a hardship on the property owner. Councilman Bohrer did not agree it would be a hardship. Council- man Phelps said leave it as it is. MOVED BY SAUL, SECONDED BY HILL, TO CHANGE LINE 23 TO READ 24 MONTHS. MOTION CARRIED WITH BOHRER AND PHELPS VOTING NO. Councilman Bohrer noted Paragraph (5) on Page 128, Line 5. It provides that the Board of Adjustment, upon review, may change one nonconforming use to another providing they find the proposed use is equally appropriate or more appropriate. If we are trying to discourage nonconforming uses, why should we allow an exchange of one for another. MOVED BY BOHRER, SECONDED BY SAUL, THAT "EQUALLY APPROPRIATE OR" BE DELETED FROM LINE 5. MOTION CARRIED WITH HILL VOTING NO. TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL, C.O.W. September 28, 1981 Page 3 DISCUSSION Cont. 18.70.040 Page 127 18.70.050 Page 129 18.07.070 Page 130 Councilman Bohrer questioned the confusion between Nonconforming uses of land and /or structures and Nonconforming structures. Mr. Satterstrom explained that in .040 they are talking about use in a building and in .050 they are talking about nonconforming structures (within a particular use district). Councilman Bohrer questioned if "of land and /or structures" was deleted from .040 would it change the interpretation? Mr. Collins felt that, other than the fact that there maybe harsher treatment of nonconforming structures in this Chapter than in .050, there probably is not a significant difference. MOVED BY BOHRER, SECONDED BY SAUL, THAT "OF LAND AND /OR STRUCTURES" BE DELETED FROM 18.70.040. MOTION CARRIED WITH PHELPS VOTING NO. Councilman Bohrer noted that, with the deletion, line 25 should read "such use is located." MOVED BY HILL, SECONDED BY SAUL, THAT TWELVE CONSECUTIVE MONTHS BE CHANGED TO TWENTY -FOUR IN LINES 7 AND 12, PAGE 129. MOTION CARRIED WITH BOHRER AND PHELPS VOTING NO. Councilman Bohrer questioned the meaning of lines 19 and 20, page 129. Discussion followed. MOVED BY BOHRER, SECONDED BY SAUL, THAT EVERYTHING AFTER "EXPANDED" BE DELETED FROM LINE 19.* Mr. Collins suggested that the words "enlarged or expanded" in line 19 be changed to "changed." This would make it more clear. ROLL CALL VOTE: SAUL NO HILL NO BOHRER YES PHELPS NO *MOTION FAILED. MOVED BY BOHRER, SECONDED BY HILL, THAT THE WORD "CHANGED" BE SUBSTITUTED FOR "ENLARGED OR EXPANDED" IN LINE 19. MOTION CARRIED WITH BOHRER VOTING NO. 18.07.060 Mr. Collins said the rationale here is that if you're going to make more than 25% of the replacement value of a building, it should be made to conform. Mayor Todd questioned who is going to police this when electrical and plumbing permits are issued by other agencies. This could encourage owners to let repairs go. Mr. Collins said this istalking about buildings that are in such a dilapidated condition that ordinary repair in any 12 month period exceeds 25% of the current replacement value. What this is saying is that if a building is in such a condition, it should be made conforming or be torn down. 9:00 P.M. Councilman Van Dusen left the meeting and Councilman Saul became presiding officer. Mr. Losey asked who puts the value on a building. Mr. Collins said the replacement value is based on the square footage cost of replacing certain types of buildings. The Building Official will make the calculations. MOVED BY BOHRER, SECONDED BY PHELPS, THAT LINE 26 BE CHANGED BY DELETING EVERYTHING AFTER THE WORD "BUILDING." MOTION CARRIED. MOVED BY PHELPS, SECONDED BY SAUL, THAT LINE 2 BE CHANGED BY DELETING "UPON ORDER OF SUCH OFFICIAL" AND ADD "ORDER OF" AFTER "UNSAFE BY" IN LINE 1. MOTION CARRIED. 31/37 TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL, C.O.W. September 28, 1981 Page 4 DISCUSSION Cont. 18.70.080 Page 130 18.07.090 Page 130 18.70.100 Page 131 9:30 p.m. 18.72.030 Page 133 18.72.040 Page 133 Mr. Gary Huff, attorney representing Southcenter, offered Council a suggested revision for this section. He said the intent of .080 has to do with all the provisions of 18.56. Things that were required by 18.56 would not have to be complied with unless there was a doubling of size. They are concerned about the language on line 9. The draft, present to Council, is a clarification of the existing language to make clear the fact that other owners and themselves would not have to comply with 18.56 unless they doubled the size of the parking lot. yyo MOVED BY BOHRER, SECONDED BY HILL, THAT COUNCIL SUBSTITUTE THE NEW SECTION 18.70.080 FOR THE DRAFT 4 TEXT. MOTION CARRIED; 18.70.080 Nonconforming parking lots. Adoption of the pro- visions of Chapter 18.56 contained in this ordinance shall not be construed to require a change in any aspect of a structure or facility covered thereunder, including without limitation parking lot layout, loading space requirements and curb cuts, for any structure or facility which existed on the date of adoption of this code. If a change of use takes place, or an addition is proposed, which requires an increase in the parking area by an increment less than 100 percent, the requirements of Chapter 18.56 shall be complied with for the additional parking area. If a change of use takes place, or an addition is proposed, which requires an increase in the parking area by an increment greater than 100 percent, the requirements of Chapter 18.56 shall be complied with for the entire parking area. Mr. Satterstrom suggested, based on the change just made, that lines 22 and 23 be changed to read "The adoption of the provisions of Chapter 18.52 shall not be...." Council agreed to this change. Councilman Bohrer noted that, starting on line 14, the text should read "the use may not be allowed or the buildings enlarged without first obtaining a Conditional Use Permit." Council agreed to the change. Council took a five minute break. Councilman Harris arrived at the meeting. Chapter 18.72 Mr. Satterstrom explained that part of the requirements in Variances, Page 132 Chapter 18.72 are state mandated. Councilman Bohrer noted that this chapter does not begin with a statement of purpose. MOVED BY BOHRER, SECONDED BY PHELPS THAT (1) THE TITLE OF THIS SECTION BE APPLIED TO THE SENTENCE THAT STARTS ON LINE 18, 'A VARIANCE (2) A NEW SECTION 18.72.010 TITLED "PURPOSE" BE INSTALLED WHICH BEGINS "IT IS THE PURPOSE OF THIS CHAPTER" AND THEN CONTINUES WITH THE FIRST PHRASE IN THE CURRENT 18.72.010 "TO AUTHORIZE.... (3) ALL OF THE NUMBERING BECOMES ONE HIGHER. MOTION CARRIED. Councilman Bohrer suggested that the word "without" in line 22 be changed to "after" so that the variance is extended after another public hearing. Mr. Satterstrom said this will intro- duce some new costs to the City. If we are going to require a public hearing, it should be made clear the applicant bears the cost. Councilman Hill questioned why there should have to be a second public hearing. Councilman Bohrer said that after one year, conditions might have changed and it should be heard again. No action taken to make this change. (No Change) TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL, C.O.W. September 28, 1981 Page 5 DISCUSSION Cont. 18.72.050 Page 134 18.72.060 Page 134 18.72.070 Page 134 18.72.080 Page 134 Chapter 18.80 Amendments Page 134 Chapter 18.84 Requests for changes in zoning, page 137 18.84.010 Page 137 18.84.020 Page 137 18.84.025 Page 138 (No Change) MOVED BY HARRIS, SECONDED BY PHELPS, THAT THE WORD "FOLLOWING" BE ADDED TO LINE 12 AFTER THE WORD "APPLICATIONS" AND THE WORD "AT" BE DELETED. MOTION CARRIED. (No Change) (No Change) This chapter has been referred to the City Attorney for review so Council will not review it at this time. Mr. Satterstrom said this chapter is straight out of the existing zoning ordinance except for 18.84.025. Councilman Phelps asked if fees were covered in a separate chapter, and Mr. Satterstrom assured her they were. COUNCIL AGREED TO REMOVE "A ONE- HUNDRED DOLLAR" FROM LINE 22 AND INSERT THE WORD "THE." Councilman Bohrer felt it would have been simpler to have a section that says the Planning Commission shall act, have a public hearing, etc. Councilman Phelps suggested that the paragraph beginning on line 24 be included in the section on "Submission to Planning Commission." MOVED BY PHELPS, SECONDED BY BOHRER, THAT THE TITLE "18.84.020 SUBMISSION TO CITY COUNCIL ACTION" BE MOVED DOWN TO LINE 30. MOTION CARRIED. Cris Crumbaugh, audience, commented that subsection (1) is unclear. First, there are some other legal requirements that it should be in compliance with; like in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan -that is a legal requirement that is required by State Law. The interpretation of the phrase "in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan" is not included. Second, what is the meaning of "shall be conforming with the provisions of this ordinance." The purpose of a rezone is to change what the provisions of the ordinance are on a piece of property. Third, what is meant by "the public interest." In sub section (3) the provision that "an applicant shall provide evidence to the Planning Commission's satisfaction that there is a need for the type of land classification for which the application has been filed" has never been a requirement for a zoning change. Who determines if you need more land of this type? MOVED BY PHELPS, SECONDED BY HILL, THAT SECTION 18.84.025 BE REFERRED TO THE PLANNING STAFF TO CREATE SOME MORE RELEVANT CRITERION.* Councilman Bohrer felt this was not necessary. The criteria are fairly general, but neither are they binding. *MOTION FAILED. Cris Crumbaugh referred to sub section (3) again. How do you justify the need for more land. What evidence would you submit? Mr. Collins said the Comprehensive Plan should address this issue. When you identify what your needs are for land uses in the future, you are supposed to identify what the evidence is 3 TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL, C.O.W. September 28, 1981 Page 6 DISCUSSION Cont. 18.84.025 Page 138 18.84.030, Page 138 18.84.040 Page 138 -139 Chapter 18.88 Application Fees Chapter 18.92 Public Notice of Hearing Meeting on Oct. 5 ADJOURNMENT 10:15 p.m. for certain types of land classifications. If something doesn't conform to the Comprehensive Plan there should be additional evidence. Councilman Harris said the Comprehensive Plan is supposed to show the highest and best use for the land not the need. This is a very important section. MOVED BY HARRIS, SECONDED BY PHELPS, THAT THIS SECTION (.025) BE REFERRED BACK TO STAFF FOR CLEARER WORDING. MOTION CARRIED. (No Change) Cris Crumbaugh noted that Council can change the conditions set by the Planning Commission. Line 3, Page 139, should include "change." MOVED BY PHELPS, SECONDED BY HARRIS, THAT THE WORDS "OR AMENDING" BE ADDED TO LINE 3. MOTION CARRIED. Council agreed that the fee schedule on Page 140 is acceptable. Council agreed that this section is acceptable. Council will start their review next Monday on Chapter 18.96, Public Notice of Hearing. MOVED BY PHELPS, SECONDED BY HARRIS, THAT THE TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE ADJOURN. MOTION CARRIED. Cou Cit cd-l 7 rk