Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1981-10-12 Special MinutesOctober 12, 1981 7:00 P.M. TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL City Hall SPECIAL MEETING Council Chambers M I N U T E S CALL TO ORDER Council President Van Dusen called the Special Zoning Meeting of the Tukwila City Council to order at 7:35 P.M. ROLL CALL OF L. C. BOHRER, MABEL J. HARRIS, DORIS E. PHELPS, GARY L. VAN DUSEN. COUNCIL MEMBERS DISCUSSION Resolution of H. Nelsen zoning South 158th St. Fred Satterstrom, Planning, stated the Planning Commission had proposed that the area between the railroad tracks be a holding zoning until improvements were made so it could be attached to an industrial area. The present zoning is M -1 and it is proposed to be R -A. Helen Nelsen, audience, said the strip between the railroad tracks has been used commercially off and on since the area was annexed in 1957. Since 1975 she has entered into a long term lease for parking with storage facilities and there are plans for future expansion. Zoning it R -A would be difficult to work with. The area is blacktopped and considerable expense has gone into it to make it a parking lot. She said they were happy to have it developed. It is the only R -A zone except for parts and a strip in the north part. They have two isolated commercial properties that will be put into nonconforming use. It is unlikely for R -A zoning. Letters were submitted to the City Council with this request early in the zoning discussions. This zoning would make other businesses such as Renton Auction from Riverview farms to 158th nonconforming. It was all zoned M -1 and it was developed according to that zoning. From 158th South it is C -2 which puts everything there nonconforming. West Valley High- way is a speedway. There is not enough property along there to accommodate C -2. There have been proposals to build a hotel there. They have told the Planning Department they can live with a C -2 or M -1 zoning. Next to the proposed hotel property she has 4 acres with little frontage and there would not be any frontage for C -2 zoning. There is a lot of depth but little frontage. She said they hope to develop a 4 acre tract across the street. The original homestead is located there. She would like to keep it all in the present zoning of M -l. She said she could not see what benefits would occur to the City by changing it to R -A. Longacres is located within the Renton City limits. Councilman Bohrer said when he was going through the draft of the environmental impact statement there was an analysis on areas where the zoning was changed. It says that parking is compatible there and would not be nonconforming. He wanted this clarified so the impact would be known. Fred Satterstrom, Planning, said the draft EIS is erroneous. Staff disagreed withthe EIS and the parking lot would be nonconfor- ming. The Planning Commission reviewed this and felt the parking lot was advantageous to Longacres. They thought it would be an allowed use in R -A. An interpretation of the R -A zoning would mean that you could have a parking lot as a principal use. It has since been determined that it is not an allowed use in R -A and the parking lot would be a nonconforming use. Councilman Bohrer said the other property mentioned says it is compatible with the C -2 zoning. Fred Satterstrom, Planning, said they felt the auction is allowable in C -2 zoning. If, through the auction enterprise, wholesaling is done and there is storage of material, then there might be a change of mind. Councilman Bohrer said it was his understanding from his talk with Mr. Losey that the warehousing he does on the site is totally in support of the auction itself and what he would call wholesaling is not a part of the operation. He said his understanding is that the sales are to the public from this point and his warehousing supports the barn. TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL ZONING MEETING October 12, 1981 Page 2 DISCUSSION Contd. 3 y6 s Res. of H. Nelsen Mr. Losey, Auction Barn, said they have dealers who come 800 miles zoning S. 158th St. to buy antiques. These are to be resold. About 30% of the contd. business is wholesaling to dealers from all over. They are retailing from their store. They are buying merchandise at an auction, reselling it and paying no sales tax. About 30% of their business is wholesale business. Brad Collins, Planning Director, said what is being said is that the City will have to review which buyers pay sales tax and which buyers do not. Mr. Losey said that was right. He said they had a catalog of their resale numbers. Mr. Collins said he assumed that percentage fluctuated from auction to auction. Mr. Losey said that was right. Mr. Collins said at one point they might have a large volume of buyers who are wholesalers and a large number who are retailers. Mr. Losey said some weeks it is 60% who are wholesalers and another week it is 30 Council President Van Dusen asked what would be the difference in zoning for retail or wholesale? Mr. Collins, Planning Director, said wholesale use is in M -1 zoning and retail is in C -2. He said if it helps any the City Attorney is trying to answer this question on the Grantree furniture operation, trying to determine the difference between retail versus warehousing. When the opinion is received it may throw light on this question regarding the auction barn. At this point in time the information is that it is C -2 use and we would have to do considerable investigation to find out whether or not it is M -1 or C -2 use, when both operations are going on. you can Councilman Harris said /perform C -2 use in M -1 zone, but you cannot have M -1 use in a C -2 zone, since it is a pyramiding usage. Councilman Bohrer said he had noted in his notes that Mr. Satterstrom remarked that C -2 use allowed up to 50% wholesaling operation. Brad Collins said if 50% or greater of the business were in one area that would be considered to be the principal use. The volume of sales activity and square footage would be taken into consideration. Mr. Losey, audience, said he has had auctions that were strictly all dealers and no private sales and sales tax has not been collected. Mr. Collins said if he did that most of the time it would be considered the major use. The City Attorney is researching this matter. The incidental uses would have to be considered. He did not have a clear -cut answer. MOVED BY HARRIS, SECONDED BY PHELPS, THAT THE AREA UNDER CONSIDERA- TION REMAIN M -1. audience, Ross Templin, /said he was puzzled as to why the area should be downzoned. At each end of the parking lot there is an open space that does not belong to Miss Nelsen. This might be acquired and if so it could not be used for parking if the zoning is changed. They have quotations on the construction of a mini warehouse. It would come under M -1 usage. They are thinking of other projects. It seems logical to leave it zoned as it is. *MOTION CARRIED. Councilman Bohrer asked for a clarification of the area designated by the motion. Mr. Collins said it would be Parcels No. 72 and 73 in the draft EIS. Councilman Phelps said since Council is considering R -A zoning in the M -1 strip east of the West Valley Highway is the strip designated R -A on the Burlington Northern piece accessible? Mr. Satterstrom said it is not accessible, currently there are no roads to the area. TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL ZONING MEETING October 12, 1981 Page 3 Clarification of Interurban Zoning Action of the Council on 10 -5 -81. Fred Satterstrom, Planning Department, said during the Council review of Interurban zoning on October 5, 1981 a motion of intent to zone the west side of Interurban Avenue from I -5 to I -405 as C -2 (regional retail) was passed. Later during Council discussion it was mentioned that the limits of C -2 zoning would be from the edge of the right -of -way to the base of the slope. Several conflicts occur with a literal application of the Council's recommended C -2 zoning on the west side of Interurban Avenue. First, it does not recognize the Planning Commission's recommended commercial boundary line. Second, it does not acknowledge two recent rezones granted by the Council, the Schneider /Nilsen and Moody rezones. The Planning Department has made a second map for Council considera- tion, illustrating the west side of Interurban Avenue between I -5 and I -405 as C -2, with the western zone boundary following the Planning Commission's recommended C -1 boundary with the addition of the Schneider /Nilsen and Moody properties which reflect recent Council actions. They asked that Council indicate their intent. Council President Van Dusen said by the Council Motion they are then creating some problems for some property owners by splitting property lines. He said he noted that some of them went right through buildings, and down by 58th some of the lots are split. Mr. Satterstrom said it leaves parcels of property virtually undevelopable. Councilman Phelps said the little parcel of R -3 that is currently zoned C -2, is that a direct rezone? Mr. Satterstrom said no, it is the upper bench of the property that the Planning Commission felt was more associated with the upper property. It is where the two or three four- plexes are located. Cris Crumbaugh, audience, said he represented Metro Land Company which is also owned by Mario Segale. They have some property south of Councilman Harris's property on the west side. He said he would request that this not be considered at this time until he has a chance to bring in some maps and have them during the discussion. He said his opinion as to where the toe -of- the -slope is and the map's opinion are two different things. One of the proposed maps does not have it to the toe -of- the slope, it has it single family residential all of the way to the right -of -way for Interurban in that area, if he is reading the map correctly. The present zoning has it going 200 feet back. He thought single family was not appropriate on Interurban. Part of that hillside has slid down so the natural toe -of- the -slope is not necessarily near the roadway. Schneider /Nilsen rezone has gone back up the slope a little in that area. He did not know the definition of toe -of- the slope, whether it is the gradual incline or steep or what percentage is toe -of- the slope, but if theirs has gone back he would like it considered for that piece of property. He did not know the intent, but he would like to be prepared to talk about it. Brad Collins, Director of Planning, said the map on the right does not conform to the toe -of- the slope, it conforms to the Planning Commission's original C -1 recommendation. They took into consideration the toe -of the -slope and they took into consideration existing zoning and based on that they drew the lines. Mr. Satterstrom, Planning, said the Planning Department looked at Mr. Crumbaugh's letter and they knew that this proposal would be affecting Metro's land and consequently they took a look at the letter that was submitted to the Planning Commission showing the property with relation to, at that time, the Planning Commission's zoning. It is two parcels there that are shown with no red on them. In other words, the toe -of- the -slope is very close to the road there. Metro has two lots there and the southernmost boundary of their property is the bottom of the red on the top. Therefore, in the red there is drawn at 150 feet in depth and he showed Mr. Crumbaugh the line on the map. He said 150' seemed to correspond with several of the lot depths up there. The lot depths seem to be either 150' and then they are 300 or 395 or something like TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL ZONING MEETING October 12, 1981 Page 4 Clarification of Interurban Zoning Action of the Council on 10 -5 -81 contd. 3y67 that. The maps that have been scaled off appear to be closer to 150' than 200'. As you get to the south they seem to elongate. Councilman Bohrer said the proposal over here on the west side is to encompass two things: the Planning Commission recommendation, and second, show the Planning Commission recommendation plus recent Council rezones. The intent along the west side was to show the Planning Commission's action and the recommendation of the Council, basically unchanged. Mr. Satterstrom said except that it goes from C -1 to C -2. Councilman Bohrer asked Mr. Crumbaugh with that understanding does he have any problems with the Planning Commission recommenda- tion? Mr. Crumbaugh said he did, that property along there is very narrow and hard to develop. The Schneider /Nilsen rezone is going back on some of the contours on the hill. For setback purposes you should be allowed to use some of that hillside, because it is so narrow. You are trying, by drawing that line, to show the toe -of- the slope, his comment would be that it should not be used for criteria because those lots are so deep that maybe some of the setback can be on the hillside and some of the landscaping could be on the hillside because those lots are disadvantaged because the hill comes close to the road. By C -2 designation we are increasing the setback so to make more usable land it should be a little bit deeper, than just the straight toe -of- the -slope and consideration should be given to that. Cutting the toe -of- the -slope is different. Brad Collins, Planning Director, said he did not know the accuracy of the maps, but the map on the right in the area in question shows a greater depth of C -2 than the map on the left which shows the toe -of- the slope, so his assumption is that you are given greater depth beyond the toe -of- the slope. Mr. Crumbaugh, audience, said he did not have his maps here. Councilman Bohrer said in this particular area this zone shows read back to 50 feet in most of the area and 75 feet here (indicating the map). Most of the land down there was elevation 25 or 30. His recollection was that when the City rezoned this piece for Schneider /Nilsen the rezone was done to look like this but there were some other restrictions on the property as he re- called. It said the development should not go above the toe -of -the -slope and the elevation was defined. He said he remembered something similar on the Moody property. There were restrictions there, too. Mr. Crumbaugh said he was not talking about cutting into the toe -of- the slope, but using it for setback purposes. Mr. McNamara tends to build up the slope with his property, with commercial down below and multi- family above. He is utilizing the slope area in his development. The slopes are quite steep there. Fred Satterstrom, Planning, said there is also another provision in the zoning ordinance, although it has never been talked about very much, but especially in cases where zoning lines are drawn and they bisect lots and divide them into two different types under single ownership, divide them into two different types of use categories, on page 22 and 23 of the proposed code there is some relief given to property owners in cases where the property is perhaps not deep enough to be developed under one of the zoning categories, subsection 7 on line 7 authorizes the Board of Adjustment to approve an additional 50' of that lot to be used for such a use, in cases where the property is split by zoning categories. Councilman Phelps said that was the case with the Schneider /Nilsen property, the western part was zoned for high -rise multi family and the eastern part was a commercial zone. Mr. Satterstrom said that was right. Mr. Satterstrom said this would, rather than going through a rezone for an additional 10 -30 feet on the same property, authorize the Board to grant by a special exception the right to utilize a portion of that property up to 50', no more, for a use that would be zoned on either part of the property. TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL ZONING MEETING October 12, 1981 Page 5 Clarification of Cris Crumbaugh, audience, said that being the case he would not Interurban Zoning Action question it further if that flexibility is given in the code. of Council on 10 -5 -81 contd. The strip of property near the lift station was discussed. It was noted there is a mini -park around it. Mr. Satterstrom said if the Council is not comfortable withe R -1 zoning they should propose something where the implication would be that the access be from Inteurban Avenue rather than from above. Councilman Bohrer said he had a few more questions. He had a problem with single family coming down to Interurban. His recollection when the Council was considering the Campanella request was that there be multi family on the upper part and commercial down by the street. Fred Satterstrom said the Campanella request was a waiver to allow multi family or office to be built, it was not a rezone. It was always C -2 zoning. The argument was over where the line would go for the multiple family on the top of the slope for the medium density and then the line dividing that from the lower bench which would house the higher density structure. The Planning Commission, when proposing the R -3 there,felt that portion of the property constituted part of the upper bench. Above the rockery and just beyond that there is a bench of property that comes out above Interurban and when it meets the right -of -way the Planning Commission felt it was better accessed from above. The Planning Commission proposal is more of a compromise with the topography and property lines than it is a strict application of a contour line. Councilman Harris said Mr. Campanella's develop- ment would not be feasible with it zoned R -3 right down to Interurban because he plans to put office along the street and multiple dwellings above. Mr. Satterstrom said the majority of the Campanella property ends u{ in red down below as indicated on the map. It is a single property and split by different zonings. The majority of the property could end up in commercial zoning and allow him to develop office buildings down below as well as the multiple family above. Councilman Harris said as she recalled he had his office buildings running into the brown portion shown on the map. He would have to revise his plans. Mr. Satterstrom said if he ran more than 50' into it he would have to. He would be able to utilize about one -half of the brown area. Council President Van Dusen said staff wanted the Council to give them clarification. If Council wants to change either of the maps significantly another meeting should be held. Councilman Bohrer said his interpretation on this when it was considered by Council was to word it as toe -of- the slope. To make it clear he felt a motion was in order. MOVED BY BOHRER, SECONDED BY PHELPS, THAT FOR STAFF DIRECTION COUNCIL ACCEPT THE MAP WITH THE CLARIFICATION THAT IT IS C -2 ALL OF THE WAY ALONG IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION FOR THE ZONING FOR THE WEST SIDE OF INTERURBAN. MOVED BY HARRIS, SECONDED BY PHELPS, TO AMEND THE MOTION TO INCLUDE THE PORTION OF R -3 AS C -2 IN A STRAIGHT LINE ON THE FRONTAGE ALL OF THE WAY TO THE CITY LIMITS. Councilman Bohrer said the multiple family would not have been compatible with what he wanted to do from the outset. The rezone should have been an issue when it came before the Council. Councilman Harris said it was not a rezone, there was no rezone, it was that way to start with and therefore he had his office buildings down in the C -2 and the other up above in the R -3. Councilman Bohrer said his recollection was that the whole project was office along Interurban. Councilman Harris said the C -2 ran all the way along Interurban. Councilman Phelps said if Mr. Campanella has to go back to the Board of Adjustment to place his office buildings within 50' of R -3 when the Council has already granted the waiver does not seem practical. TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL ZONING MEETING October 12, 1981 Page 6 Clarification of Interurban Zoning Action of Council on 10 -5 -81 contd. Chap. 18.12 Add -a- Rental Units in single family zones. Sec. 18.30.040 (2) C -2 zone Conditional Uses. (Increased residential density in commercial zone districts.) *P10TION CARRIED. *.10TION CARRIED, AS AMENDED. 3 Lf4 9 Councilman Bohrer said he did not want to send him back to the Board of Adjustment and neither does he want Council bogged down it trying to set up propety lines. The issue should come back at a later time. If the zoning is not compatible with a piece of property it should come back for a detailed resolution. Councilmar Harris said Council should follow the line where the original one was located. She said she would feel badly to have the gentleman come back again when he has been to Council so many times. He has been told to go ahead and get financing. Councilman Bohrer said the point where the line is drawn may not be where it was in the waiver that was processed. The intent is to put it where it was in the waiver process. Councilman Harris said when this issue came up before the Puget Sound Council of Governments they commented that this is a way to add additional housing. In Seattle there are approximately 132,000 single family units. Of these, about one eighth would be contemplating the add -a- rental unit. Of those, about one -third would be able to afford the remodeling. The most they could forsee who would be doing this would be about 1,300. If you take Tukwila and use the same rationale, we might have five who would consider this as feasible. There is a possibility Tukwila might have more older homes than Seattle. In looking through the analysis prepared by Planning staff and their recommendation it would have to be the larger homes of 2,000 square feet or more, probably two story, it would have to be someone who could afford to do the remodeling. They would have to be willing to divide and have someone else living in their house. She could not forsee many more than ten at the most. She did not see where it would create a traffic jam and more people in a neighborhood considering those who originally lived in a large house that is now frequently occupied by one or two people that was originally built for a family of six or seven. This does not seem to be anything the City would have to worry about. Councilman Bohrer said he knew a couple of places where this already exists. One place is not 2,000 square feet and it has two units in it. If they are large houses that is alright. We should develop some restrictions that are applicable to Tukwila. Councilman Harris said she was aware that some have already been done. When it is an older home and done this way you are going to have old wiring that has not been tested or examined. Life may be endangered. If the City allows it we could control the size. A person would have to have a permit. Council President Van Dusen said each Council Member has some restrictions they would like to put into this. Maybe this portion should be tabled and returned to at a later date. It is an issue of home sharing and renting and it might be a good thing to have. Councilman Bohrer said he would suggest Council give Staff some direction. He though home sharing approach is independent of the zoning code. Brad Collins, Planning Director, said that is correct. MOVED BY BOHRER, SECONDED BY HARRIS, THAT STAFF BE DIRECTED TO PREPARE A ZONING CHANGE THAT CORRESPONDS TO ALTERNATIVE A AND THIS DISCUSSION AND TRY TO GET IT INTO THE ZONING CODE. MOTION CARRIED. Fred Satterstrom, Planning, said when Council originally reviewed the provisions of the C -2 zone there was some discussion about allowing an increased residential density in the commercial zones, believing they would be somewhat removed from the single family neighborhoods and perhaps located in the areas where the streets would be sufficient to carry the additional traffic. Staff has put together some different alternatives and a recommenda tion allowing for an increase in the residential bonus through TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL ZONING MEETING October 12, 1981 Page 7 Sec. 18.30.040 (2) C -2 zone Conditional Uses. (Increased residential density in commercial zone districts.) cond.. 3V the PMUD process. That would apply to several different districts. Centrally, they have analyzed three different appro- aches. The first would be one way to allow an increased residentia density in commercial zones would be to reduce the minimum area requirements per unit for each of the zone districts in the proposed zoning ordinance. Therefore, the proposed RMH district now is one unit for every 1,500 sq. ft. which would allow for 29 units in RMH zoning. If that were changed to 1,000 or 750 sq. ft. that would increase the number of residential units allowed in the C -2 zone and it would amount to density allowed in the C -2 zone to 43 and 58 units per acre respectively. Another alternative approach in allowing a density bonus would be through the PMUD procedures and in those procedures the, as proposed in 18.48, Planning Commission and City Council would be authorized to allow a density increase of 20 units so if someone proposing a residential development in C -2 district at RMH density they would be able to increase over the basic density of 29 units approxi- mately 6 more units resulting in about 35 units per acre. One strategy in which to allow the greater density then would be to allow a 50% or 100% density increase. Under (C) another way would be to just create an additional zone district allowing for an increase in density. Basically what they have proposed in the staff recommendation is to allow the bonus density to be given through the PMUD Procedure, that affords the Planning Commission and the City Council a more detailed review of any proposal that would come up under that type of a provision. It would give you more approval authority if you did not feel that type of a density was authorized. We have said that either a 50% or 100% density bonus could be allowed. On Page 4 of the analysis specific language, for example, in the PMUD procedures under Section 18.48.080 subsection (2) of providing that the Planning Commission may recommend and the City Council may authorize a dwelling unit density in planned mixed use developments of not more than 20% greater than that permitted by the underlying zoning in the P -0, C -1, M -1, and M -2 districts; provided, however, that a dwelling unit density of not more than 100% greater than that permitted by the underlying zoning may be authorized in the C -2 C -P, and C -M districts. Mr. Satterstrom said there are a couple of arguments. For instance the P -0 and C -1 districts would be closer to the single family neighborhoods and perhaps you would not want the increased density there and the M -1 and M -2 districts would be principally used for industrial uses and perhaps Council would not want to concentrate residential units in those zones. Instead we have recommended up to a 100 that would allow up to 58 units in the C -2, C -P, and C -M districts, double that allowed in the RMH zone. These districts will probably be closer to the services and closer to the heart of City and perhaps more removed from the heavier industrial uses. He said the report was put together in April or May and consequently it precedes the date of review of some later issues, primarily height. It said under Staff Recommendations on Page 3, that the hypothetical building configuration seems to fit into the "building envelope" permitted by the proposed height and yard standards of Chapter 18.50 in Draft 4. Since those have been revised there woul be no problem whatsoever of the residential being permitted in thos districts since the height limits have been changed upward to allow taller structures. Going back to Page 4, under Part 2, Section 18.48.090, "Where residential development is part of the Planned Mixed Use Development proposal, recreation space required pursuant to Chapter 18.52 may be provided on -site or, a fee in lieu of the provision of recreation space may be paid to the City, the proceeds of which may be used to acquire recreation opportunities in the general vicinity of the PMUD. The amount of said fee shall be determined by the Council at the time of the PMUD approval." Basically, what Staff concluded was that the additional residential units, if full advantage was taken, of the increase in density would probably render the subject site very unuseable as far as recreational space. It would make that type of requirement almost obsolete on site unless there was a very large site to begin with o some sort of a natural amenity that was either on the site or could TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL ZONING MEETING October 12, 1981 Page 8 Sec. 18.30.040 (2) C -2 zone Conditional Uses, (Increased residential density in commercial zone districts.) cont. be provided on the site. This would give the developer the opportunity to pay a fee so perhaps through a collection of fees recreational opportunities could be purchased near the area. In Part 3, "Add language to 18.48.010 Purpose, that would encourage provisions of structured rather than surface parking, such provision would help to facilitate pedestrian movement between uses." Rather than ending up with residential units, kind of in a sea of asphalt, here the encouragement would be to structure the parking and get buildings closer to one another so as to facilitate pedestrian movement rather than auto movement. This could be said for commercial buildings as well. Councilman Bohrer asked what height limits were set south of I -405? Mr. Satterstrom said as proposed in 18.50 after it has been revised there essentially is no maximum height limit but it is to be approved by the Planning Commission. The basic height limit varies by district. In the C -M district it is 35', in the M -1 it is 45', in the C -P it is 75' basic limit. You can be granted exceptions. Councilman Bohrer asked if the Council did not establish maximum limits south of I -405? Mr. Satterstrom said south of I -405 in the C -2 it is unlimited. North of I -5 it is up to 115' and in the Interurban Corridor the basic height limit applies. Councilman Harris said most of C -2 is in the Interurban Corridor. Mr. Satterstrom said there is a lot of it along Southcenter Parkway, Segale property at Strander and Andover Park West; there are several other properties still at the intersection of 405 and Interurban to the south and north. There is no C -M east of the river. Councilman Bohrer said Council had some discussion on this subject at the time consideration was given to the height limits south of I -405. He said he guessed he did not remember Council had removed the height limits down there. He said he was not sure it was appropriate, but something greater than 115' is appropriate. He said he wondered if these numbers and examples that are being talked about really are not more compatible with limits like 115' than what other developments might be. In his mind if you have an office tower here that is 200' tall and limit a residential tower beside it to 115' it does not make sense. The kind of bonuses we are talking about would make the final buildings compatible between what the height of an office building might be versus a residential building. There are two distinct areas in the City; one separated south of I -405 which is a large area to be developed and north of I -405 where we generally have strip areas in the C -2 area which are very narrow. He said Councilman Hill has stated upon several occasions he feels we might be driving in a canyon along Interurban if we allow the buildings there to get too tall and he agreed with the concern. South of I -405 his concern was much less. Is there a way of putting this in terms of height limitations of the zones of the areas of the City as the height has been done so far, instead of putting it on the density basis? Fred Satterstrom, Planning, said in partial response the added language that Staff has would not allow the applicant to go any higher than the established height limit to provide for the increa- sed density. For example, if someone north of 405 in the Interurban Corridor applied for a PMUD to increase a residential unit density they would have to do that within the basic height limit of the C -2 district in the Interurban Corridor. They would not be allowed to go any higher than the basic height limit. South of 405 they could use the additional height to provide build- ing for that increased density. PMUD procedures do not allow a variance of a height limit where one might apply. For example in the Interurban Corridor the height limit would have to be 35 -45 feet depending on the district. The statement on page 3 about "recall that height exceptions may be authorized in C -2 and C -P up to 115'" should have been stricken from the staff report. It was written prior to the Council final resolution of Section 18.50. It now varies according to the geographic area of the City. We know that height exceptions do not apply to the Interurban Corridor. No language modification would have to be made in Part 1 of the Staff Report because it was never their TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL ZONING MEETING October 12, 1981 Page 9 Sec. 18.30.040 (2) C -2 zone Conditional Uses, (Increased residential density in commercial zone districts.) contd. intention to have Council modify height limit in order to allow the residential density. That would be within the confines of the restrictions on the underlying zoning. If it were south of 405 certainly an exception to the height limit could be applied for in conjunction with the PMUD. But only there, not north of 405 in the Corridor. Councilman Bohrer said even if such an exception were applied for it would take a further zoning action to make it legal because there is nothing there now that says you could do that. Is that correct? Mr. Satterstrom said they could apply for a height exception in the context of a planned mixed use development. That action only requires a Planning Commission approval. If you are going up to 115' or beyond it still requires just Planning Commission approval. Therefore, they could request a Planned Mixed Use Development, request a 50% increase in residential density, say they wanted 40 units per acre or 43 units per acre, go to Planning Commission, receive authorization up to 120' and come to Council with their PMUD request and, having already received their height exception, by the time they came to Council the height would be determined. That would not take a zone change, it would just take a request and application to the Planning Commission. Francis North, audience, asked if she could have a clarification of the definition is north of I -5 included in the statement when you talk about north of I -405? Mr. Satterstrom said he was talking about the basic height limitations as applied to the Interurban Corridor. Anything north of I -5 interchange is allowed to go up to 115' according to the proposed ordinance. Councilman Bohrer said generally he wanted to accept Staff recommendation but he wanted to afford the option if someone wants to build a residential tower in the commercial /industrial area they can build it as high as you can build an office building. He said he was not comfortable leaping into that with out any controls. There should be some Council approval on that. Council President Van Dusen asked Cris Crumbaugh if, on any of their proposed developments in the industrial area there are plans for residential towers or would they be add -ons? Cris Crumbaugh said yes, there might be such plans. Mr. Crumbaugh said the Chartwell people at one time had plans for such a building. Brad Collins, Planning Director, said some exception could be given to the percent of density. Density is directly related to the number of units you can put on a site. The higher you go up the greater the density. We had limited it to 100% because that was limited to 115'. It would not take a lot of imagination to say that under certain circumstances you could exceed and go to 200% of the density and have a residential tower. Councilman Harris said she saw no problem with that if it is placed in the right place. She said she would hate to have some- one buy something, zone it C -2 in the rim of the residential district and then put up a tower on a small piece of property. We have been trying to curtail and keep residential area in a semi -rural state as much as possible, limiting the number of units per acre and with the needed open space and recreational facilities to keep it from being wall -to -wall towers. If there were a definite spot where this could be done she would have no problems with it. Brad Collins, Director of Planning, said one of the reasons they separated the 20% was at the time the C -2, C -P, and C -M were primarily located south of I -405. Cris Crumbaugh, audience, said they are evaluating between C -2 and C -P and they may be coming back to ask to have some property rezoned. TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL ZONING MEETING October 12, 1981 Page 10 Sec. 18.30.040 (2) C -2 zone Conditional Uses, (Increased residential density in commercial zone districts.) contd. RECESS 9:20 9:45 P.M. 3 t/ 73 Councilman Bohrer said some limits were set on what might be allowed in PMUD. It says the Planning Commission may recommend and the Council may authorize density bonuses. Brad Collins said in going through the PMUD process they could seek those bonuses. The City would not necessarily have to grant them. They would be trading off some other benefit for those particular bonuses. Councilman Bohrer said he would like to do soemthing there that would suggest that Council is amenable to such a thing south of I -405. If you leave it out you depend on someone's imagination to create it. If we put it in we have gone on record as being willing to consider it. He would like to devise a way for it to be implemented. Perhaps we should add another provided area south of I -405 in some fashion. Mr. Satterstrom said this could be an incentive to get residential in the Interurban area, not necessarily at the expense of increased height limits, but there are two or three sites in the Corridor that may lend themselves to residential development and if there is some incentive that the City can give to encourage residential there this might provide part of it. He said he was not advoca- ting increasing the height. He said he still thought that increased residential density could be provided in lower profile structures, maybe with partial structured parking. Councilman Bohrer said you might be able to provide some additional amenities if you trade off height for site coverage. Mr. Satterstrom said that was right but that would entail taller height limits in the Interurban area. He said he did not necessarily want to deal with that issue. For example, the Fiorito property, although it has never been proposed for multiple family and may not be, if the office developments go through it has some amenities and may attract residential development as well as the two parcels that were suggested for C -2 zoning on the east side along the river. They may lend themselves for residential development more than some other uses. Cris Crumbaugh, audience, said he would encourage wording that would encourage that type of development down there in the industrial. Councilman Bohrer said Council could adopt the staff recommenda- tion but with additional qualification under Sec. 1 that deals with areas south of I -405 and allow higher residential struc- tures there. Brad Collins suggested it read: "Provided, however, that density can exceed 100% greater than permitted by the underlying zoning south of I- 405." Should it be restricted to the zoning district south of I -405? Should we include any zoning districts in that south of I -405 such as C -P or C -M? Or do we want to say south of 405 and east of I -5? Councilman Bohrer said that was his intent. He said he did not propose to add any business zones in that area. We did not on the original height discussion. Brad Collins said instead of saying south of 405 and east of I -5 we could relate it to those areas that are referenced in Section 18.50 and subject to special height exceptions. Councilman Bohrer asked if he had to add subject to Council approval or is that clear on it? Brad Collins said it is clear. MOVED BY BOHRER, SECONDED BY HARRIS, THAT COUNCIL ACCEPT THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION PLUS THE ADDITIONAL EXCEPTION THAT PLANNING DIRECTOR BRAD COLLINS OUTLINED, THE FINAL WORDING WOULD BE IN THE AREA WHERE COUNCIL ALLOWED THE HEIGHT EXCEPTIONS BEFORE. MOTION CARRIED. MOVED BY HARRIS, SECONDED BY PHELPS, THAT COUNCIL RECESS FOR FIVE MINUTES. MOTION CARRIED. The zoning meeting was called back to order with Council Members present as previously listed. TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL ZONING MEETING October 12, 1981 Page 11 Sec. 18.44 Mean High Water Mark. Fred Satterstrom, Planning, said during review of the proposed shoreline regulations the Council expressed concern over the definition of "mean high water mark" as used in Sec. 18.44.110. According to existing and proposed shoreline regulations, struc- tures and certain site improvements are required to setback from the mean high water line. The definition of the mean high water mark or line as established in the shoreline master plan appeared to be vague and indeterminable, according to the City Council. Instead,the Council expressed a desire to establish a line along the water's edge which would be easily interpreted or "surveyable." It was suggested that Planning research other municipalities' defintions of mean high water mark and devise a definition which would tie into the release rate of river -flow in the Green Duwamish. The Planning staff obtained and reviewed the defintions of "mean" or "ordinary high water mark" as used by other jurisdictions along the Green Duwamish River, Auburn, Kent, Renton, Seattle, and King County. All jurisdictions define mean high water in substantially the same language as Tukwila. That is the mark on lakes, streams, and tidal water which can be found by examining the beds and banks and ascertaining where the presence and action of waters are so common and visual, and so long continued in ordinary years, as to mark upon the soil a character distinct from that of the abutting upland, in respect to vegetation. In any area where the ordinary high water mark cannot be found, it shall be the line of the mean high water mark. This language and that used in the master pro -ram definitions of other Green River jurisdictions, essentially echoes the language suggested in the State Shoreline Management Act. As far as the Green River is concerned, this line or mark is difficult, if not impossible, to detect with accuracy. The Green is a regulated river, controlled by releases at H.Hanson Dam. Its flow is not natural and the vegetation along its banks has been dramatically altered over the years by channel, dike, and riverbank improve- ments. In addition, seasonal inundation of streamside vegetation makes it impossible to visually determine the ordinary high water line during fall or winter. Discussions with other juris- dictions revealed that some utilize a definition of the "top of the bank" as the mark from which setbacks are measured. Several city officials admitted that the top of the bank was sometimes difficult to ascertain, especially on sites where the riverbank rose gradually from the channel with no discernable bank or crest. Staff has previously investigated definition of mean high water with state, county, and federal agencies. In conjunction with an ad hoc committee investigation of the Nilson office development in late 1980, the Public Works Director contacted several agencies for their input on this question. The results indicated that the definition varies between agencies, but the Corps of Engineers defines mean high water as 12,000 cfs discharge at Auburn while King County Hydraulics defines it as 9,000 cfs at Auburn. While the definitions of the Corps and King County Hydraulics differ in total flow volumes, their definitions have the advantage of being measurable or predictable. That is, for a river flow of 12,000 cfs at Auburn, the elevation of the water surface on any location in Tukwila is chartable. In fact, maps and dia- grams are available from the Corps of Engineers which trace the elevation of river flows at various discharges across a map of the Green River's course. For any specific river bank location, it is possible to determine the level of the river's surface for a flow of 9,000 or 12,000 cfs at Auburn. In order to compare the discharge elevations of Green River waters (at 9,000 and 12,000 cfs) with the "ordinary" or "mean high water marks" of approved shoreline substantial development permits in the City, the Planning staff compiled Map 1 and an overlay shown in the study. Map 1 shows a sampling of approved shoreline permits indicating the elevation from which setbacks from mean high water were measured. The elevation varies from site to site, generally increasing as one moves upstream. The overlay shows the mean discharge elevations in the Green River TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL ZONING MEETING October 12, 1981 Page 12 Sec. 18.44 Mean High Water Mark contd. for a 9,000 cfs flow at Auburn. By comparing the overlay elevation with the mean high water elevation identified in the various shoreline permit, one can determine whether the identified development has set back from the appropriate contour elevation. In all cases except one (the Nilson office building), shoreline developments conform to at least the minimum elevation of the river at 9,000 cfs. To determine the impact of a 12,000 cfs profile, one should raise each elevation indicated on the overlay by 4 to 5 feet. As a consequence, approximately half of the developments would have utilized a lower elevation from which their 40 or 50 foot setback would have been measured and, therefore would be nonconforming. Mr. Satterstrom said the staff recommendation is that discharge profiles of 9,000 and 12,000 cfs in the Green River are chartable, predictable, and "surveyable." As a result, tying the definition of "ordinary" or "mean high water mark" to a discharge rate in the river is preferable to the ambiguous and sometimes arbitrary definition which presently exists. Because most existing development conforms to the elevations indicated for a discharge rate of 9,000 cfs, the Planning Department recommends that the Council adopt this criterion. They suggest a possible modification to the proposed ordinance as follows, under Definitions: 18.06.465 Mean high water mark. The elevation of the surface of Green River waters when the discharge rate at Auburn is 9,000 cfs, and as determined by maps on file with the City Clerk. Cris Crumbaugh, audience said he thought the definition was governed by state law. He thought the City Attorney should see what the state law says in this regard, whether or not the City can alter the definition. Brad Collins, Planning Director, said the state law has passed and the City has been told that it indicated that because it is a controlled river that definition cannot be determined in its application to the Green River. That is why Staff is trying to get a definition other than that in the state law. MOVED BY PHELPS, SECONDED BY HARRIS, THAT THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION OF 9,000 CFS BE INCORPORATED INTO THE ZONING CODE AS THE DEFINITION OF MEAN HIGH WATER MARK. Councilman Bohrer said sometime the mean high water mark ought to go up or our Shoreline setback go back. There are places in the City where the combination of these two means that there is no public access to the water. One example is the northern boundary of the City where there is a road put into the river zone. You can either walk down the road and meet with cars or you can fall off the bank into the river. You do not have any alternative. It is an access road to the development up there, at the top of the river bank. It is a subject he would like to come back to when Council goes through the code again. The goal of providing access to the river bank along the entire extent is one the Council should adopt and keep in mind. There are other ways of doing it than setting this. He said he did not know which makes the least property nonconforming. He said protecting the river zone is a great economic value to the businesses in the City as well as all of the people here. Innumerable people have told him how they enjoy going down Christensen Trail because the buildings are set back and you have access to the river. We do not want the buildings or the roads to be too close to the river bank. *MOTION CARRIED. ADJOURNMENT Council President Van Duse adjourned the meeting, stating the 10:10 P.M. next zoning discussion meeting ld be held on October 19, 1981. Gary/L.-Van Duseh, Council President j Norma booher, Recording Secretary