Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1981-10-19 Special Minutes - Zoning ReviewOctober 19, 1981 7:00 P.M. CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL OF COUNCIL MEMBERS Sec. 18.44.090, Shoreline Zone Permit Authority. TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL City Hall ZONING MEETING Council Chambers MI N U T E S 39 PI Chairman Saul called the Zoning Meeting of the Tukwila City Council to order in the absence of Council President Van Dusen. L. C. BOHRER, MABEL J. HARRIS, DORIS E. PHELPS, DANIEL J. SAUL. Fred Satterstrom, Planning, said during the review of the shoreline zone, the Council expressed dissatisfaction with the proposed review and approval procedures for shoreline permits in Section 18.44.090 of Draft 4. This alternative would have established the Planning Commission as the permit issuing authority, with the Planning Director acting pursuant to and in compliance with their decision. There was suggestion that the shoreline permit process be an administrative responsibility, with the Planning Commission acting in an advisory capacity, if at all. The staff has three alternative review and approval procedures for shoreline permits. All of them retain permit issuing authority in the Planning Director. (1) Public hearing before the Planning Commission is required for all shoreline permit applications; Planning Director issues /denies permit. Using this alternative, all permit applications would follow the same procedure and scheduling of public hearing is routine and predictable. However, because some shoreline permit applications may be fairly routine in nature, a significant amount of staff and applicant time may be expended on matters with little gain or benefit. (2) Public hearing is scheduled each time a request for hearing is received prior to specified deadline; Planning Director issue /denies permit. Using this procedure, only those shoreline permit applications which receive critical comments are brought to the hearing forum. The disadvantage of alternative (1) is relieved. This alternative, however, opens the door to abuse of obstruction in that possible delays caused by late filings of protest could prolong the review process of permit applications. (3) Public hearing is scheduled when, in the opinion of the Planning Director, there is sufficient reason to warrant additional public input; Director issues /denies permit. With the Planning Director able to use discretion in reviewing public comments or requests for hearing, the potential for obstruction and delay is minimized. This alternative may be potentially the most cost effective. It also makes the Director susceptible to criticism due to discretionary nature of procedure. Mr. Satterstrom said the staff feels that the advantages of alternative (3) offset any of its potential disadvantages, and suggest the following wording to implement this approach: 18.44.090 Review of application. The Planning Director shall have the authority to review and approve, approve with modifications, or deny all shoreline management permit applications. At the discretion of the Planning Director, a public hearing may be scheduled before the Planning Commission when either a request for public hearing has been filed with the City during the local review period of the subject permit applications, or, the Director determines that there is sufficient reason to open the review process to further public input. In approving, approving with modifications, or denying a shoreline management permit application, the Planning Director shall use the guidance provided in the goals and policies of the City's Shoreline Master Program as well as the additional requirements of this chapter and related references. Councilman Bohrer asked why there should be a change from that in the draft. Brad Collins, Planning Director, said the matter was brought about by Cris Crumbaugh for the Segale Company. He said it would be added work for the Planning Commission. If some alternatives were provided that appeared to use the time of the entities more effectively it would be desirable. TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL ZONING MEETING October 19, 1981 Page 2 Sec. 18.44.090, Shoreline Zone Permit Authority contd. Sec. 18.44.110, Shoreline Zone Environment Manage- ment. 3y Cris Crumbaugh, audience, said under the present Shoreline Permit procedure the permits are issued by the Planning Director. This revision shows it as the Planning Commission. This is really an administrative procedure. This should be left with staff. It might be necessary to have a public hearing. Brad Collins, Planning Director, said the reason there is a hearing process with the Planning Commission as opposed to the Planning Director holding his own hearing process is that if he goes to make a decision on it, it seems there should be a hearing process rather than as an independent body who conducts the hearing and he would be one of the people who was a participant in the process and would get information from the process rather than trying to make a decision via the hearing process itself. He said he thought Cris Crumbaugh is correct in that in most instances it does not require a discret- ionary action, it requires an administrative action which is dictated by the Shoreline Master Plan and the R.C.W. As such, it is most properly conducted by an administrator of the City. Councilman Phelps said if an applicant requested a hearing at this time under the present code how would it be resolved? Brad Collins, Planning Director, said he would formally hold the hearing. He would have to publicize it and he would conduct the hearing. Since we have a Planning Commission that meets regularly and has an agenda, in the event of a public hearing it would be a fairly easy thing for them to accomplish through the Planning Commission. They did not have to set up a special notification and a special meeting and go through a number of procedures. Cris Crumbaugh, audience, said the Shoreline Act was set up to insure protection of the shoreline. It can be a political football. If it is put in the hands of the Planning Commission it would be a public hearing every time. There might be times when you would need it. Fred Satterstrom, Planning, said all property owners within 300 feet are notified of any action that is going to affect the shoreline. Councilman Harris said the shoreline is sticky and too many times a developer is happy to overlook it and if necessary to build over it. Cris Crumbaugh, audience, said a public hearing can always be requested. Councilman Harris said she would like to have some built -in guides to be used. She was concerned about the river and wanted to make sure it is protected. Brad Collins, Planning Director, said it would seem that the only safeguard the Council would have is confidence in the staff. Staff felt Alternative (C) was the best alternative. There is not any safe- guard as to mistakes on the part of the staff. MOVED BY BOHRER, SECONDED BY PHELPS, THAT COUNCIL ACCEPT STAFF RECOMMENDATION OF ALTERNATIVE C WITH THEIR SUGGESTED WORDING. MOTION CARRIED. Fred Satterstrom, Planning, said during review of the shoreline zone the Council expressed dissatisfaction with the organization of the subsections regarding shoreline management environments. The Planning staff has reviewed the Council's concerns regarding the organization of the shoreline management environments and recommends restructuring the sections: 18.44.110 Shoreline management environment: Within the (S) on their distance from the mean high water line they are as follows: River Environment: The area between the mean high water mark and the low impact environment, having the most environmentally protective land use regulations. Low Environment: The area between the river environment and 100' from the shoreline having environmentally protective land use regulations. TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL ZONING MEETING October 19, 1981 Page 3 Sect. 18.44.110, Shoreline Zone Environment Manage- ment contd. 3 `+g3 High Impact Environment: The area between 100' and 200' from the shoreline having the least environmentally protective land use regulations. It is intended that this area be aesthetically and architecturally oriented to the low impact environment. 18.44.112 Specific shoreline regulations: River environment. The river environment may consist of either a 40' or 50' management zone, distinguished by applicable use and mangement guidelines. (1) The River Environment shall consist of 50', as measured on a horizon- tal plane, from the mean high water mark and shall contain no uses other than the following shoreline uses: (a) Access roads, parking, or storage areas, edges of which shall be a minimum of 40' from the mean high water line, not to exceed 24' in width. (b) Public and /or private foot paths or trails. (c) Recreation facilities such as benches, table, viewpoints, overlooks, etc. (d) Recreation structures such as picnic shelters not to exceed 15' in height. (e) Support facilities for pollution control such as runoff ponds and filter systems, provided they are on or below grade. (f) Information and direction signs conforming to the underlying zoning district. (g) Diking for flood control purposes. (h) Road, rail- road, and footbridges. (2) The River Environment shall consist of 40' as measured on a horizontal plane, from the mean high water mark and shall contain no uses other than: (a) Public and /or private foot paths or trails. (b) Recreation facilities such as benches, tables, viewpoints, overlooks, etc. (c) Recreation structures such as picnic shelters not to exceed 15' in height. (d) Support facilities for pollution control such as runoff ponds and filter systems, provided they are on or below grade. (e) information and direction signs conforming to the underlying zoning district. (f) Diking for flood control purposes. (g) Public roads, provided adequate public access is m aintained adjacent the river shoreline. (h) Road, railroad, and footbridges. (3) River Environment uses shall conform to the following standards: (a) Access roads shall be located no closer than 40' to the mean high water mark. (b) The centerline of railroad lead tracks shall be located no closer than 40' to the mean high water mark. (c) The River Environment shall be landscaped with suitable plant material consistent with flood control measures, as follows: Large hardy shade trees at maximum of 30' on center such as maple, alder, poplar, cottonwood, sycamore, willow, oak, beech, walnut, ash, and birch. Other species may be used with the approval of the Planning Commission. At least one of the following: Live groundcover at a maximum of 18" on center; Natural grass; Addition to the existing natural vegetation where appropriate. (d) Other facilities such as pumps, pipes, etc., shall be suitably screened with hardy plant material. (e) Utility easements where necessary shall be landscaped with live groundcover or natural grass cover. (f) A landscape plan shall be submitted to and approved by the Planning Commission prior to issuance of a shoreline permit. 18.44.114 Specific Use Regulations: Low Impact Environment. (1) Use regulations. The Low Impact Environment shall contain no uses other than those allowed in the River Environment and the following: (a) Structures not to exceed 35' in height. (b) Parking /loading and storage facilities adequately screened or landscaped. (c) Railroad lead and spur trackage or public or private roads. (d) Utilities. (e) Signs not to exceed regulations of the underlying zoning district sign code. (2) Low Impact Environment shall conform to the following standards: (a) Structures shall be sited and appropriately landscaped in accordance with underlying zoning regu- lations. (b) Access roads shall be located no closer than 10' to buildings, spur tracks or parking /loading and storage facilities and the effective setback area shall be suitably landscaped. This shall not prohibit ingress and egress points between an access road and the described facilities. (c) Where access roads exist, parking, loading and storage facilities shall be appropriately screened from the river with: A solid evergreen screen of a minimum 6' height, or decorative fence 6' high. (NOTE: Chain link fence shall be slatted and planted with ivy or other trailing vine.), or large hardy shade trees as per requirements for access roads, or earth berms at a minimum of 4' high suitably planted with live groundcover or natural grass. (d) Lead trackage shall be no closer than 15' to parking/ loading and storage facilities, and shall be suitably landscaped. 18.44.116 Specific Use Regulations: High Impact Environment. (1) All uses allowed in the underlying zoning district shall be allowed in the High Impact Environment. (2) High Impact Environment uses TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL ZONING MEETING October 19, 1981 Page 4 Sect. 18.44.110, Shoreline Zone Environment Manage- ment contd. 39 ?Lj shall conform to all regulations of the underlying zoning district and the general use regulations and policies of the Master Program. Councilman Phelps said in Section 18.44.112, Section 3, paragraph (b), regarding construction on the river bank for flood control purposes she had a change in wording in her notes from the meeting. Fred Satterstrom, Planning, said he had the same note and in Section 18.44.112 (3) (c) the wording: "The river environment shall be landscaped with suitable plant material" should precede the wording. The wording he had is: "Where the river bank has been reconstructed for flood control purposes shall be landscaped with suitable plant material consistent with flood control measures," and large fruit trees should be added on Line 10, page 70. He said the minutes of the meeting would be used when Draft No. 5 is typed so Council changes can be reflected in the draft. Councilman Bohrer asked how close a road could be to the edge in Section 18.44.112 (1) (a)? P1r. Collins said it should be a minimum of 40' from the mean high water mark. Cris Crumbaugh, audience, said there are roads presently closer than 24'. Councilman Bohrer said that does not protect a person who may be walking along the bank if the road is closer to the bank. Councilman Harris said when King County purchased 40' along the river they put the road in. Councilman Bohrer said there are some isolated areas along the river that has not been built up. Some of the best river front is not controlled by the City but by the Andover Industrial Council and the setbacks are far back from the river, a greater distance than that required by the City. Brad Collins, Planning Director, asked if Council wants Section 18.44.112 (1) (a) to read: "Access roads, parking, or storage areas, closest edge of which shall be a minimum of 40' from the mean high water line." Councilman Bohrer said yes, that was the intent. Brad Collins, Planning Director, said he would assume that dike roads would be items such as (2) (g), it is not repeated in (1), but if there is a public road you do not have the option, or it is not taken into consideration. This point needs to be clarified, whether it is to be interpreted if there is a public road that a private access road is either not permitted or we should include (2) (g) in th (1) section as well so it would become (1) (h) and (1) (h) would become (1) (i). Fred Satterstrom, Planning, said Alternative 2 could be interpreted as an incentive to dedicate roadways. Councilman Bohrer said he would suggest modifying (1) (a) and delete (2) (g). MOVED BY BOHRER, SECONDED BY HARRIS, THAT COUNCIL TAKE SECTION 18.14.122 (1) (a) AND AFTER THE WORD "AREAS" INSERT "CLOSEST EDGE" AND AFTER "WATER LINE" PUT IN A PERIOD AND DELETE "NOT TO EXCEED 24 FEET IN WIDTH," AND IN THE SAME SECTION PARAGRAPH (2) (G) SHOULD BE DELETED. MOTION CARRIED. Sec. 18.56.040 Fred Satterstrom, Planning, said during the review of the proposed General Requirements parking regulations (Chapter 18.56) the Council requested staff to (Parking regulations). research requirements for parking structures and bring proposed wordin to the Council. The main concerns were parking area dimensions, number of compact stalls, grade and turning path widths with regard to proposed Section 18.56.040 General requirements. At present Tukwila has one building where accessory parking is contained wholly within the structure. With land values rising, the probability of such structures being built in the future becomes greater. Land values in Seattle have for many years dictated a need for parking structures. The City of Seattle Department of Con- struction and Land Use addresses parking structures in their zoning code. Seattle's code requires parking structures to meet the same layout regulations as surface parking areas, except in the case of parking garages where vehicles are parked by attendants. The TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL ZONING MEETING October 19, 1981 Page 5 Sec. 18.56.040 General Requirements (Parking regulations) contd. City of Seattle parking area dimensions are the same as those contained in Plate 1 of Section 18.56.040 of the proposed zoning ordinance. The staff recommendation is that discussions with Seattle planners have revealed that they feel the parking standards outlined in Plate 1 are reasonable and provide for public safety, while they do not unduly burden the design of parking sturctures. Staff recommends the Council adopt the following wording for Section 18.56.040 (2): (2) Minimum parking area dimensions for surface and structured parking facilities shall be as provided in Plate 1. In addition, to address the issue of slope within parking areas, staff urges Council to reword Section 18.56.040 (3) as follows: (3) Parking area and parking area entrance and exit slopes: The slope of off street parking areas shall not exceed 5 The slope of entrance and exit driveways providing access to streets for off street parking areas and internal driveway aisles without parking stalls shall not exceed 15 MOVED BY PHELPS, SECONDED BY BOHRER, THAT THE WORDING FOR SECTION 18.56.040 (2) AND (3) RECOMMENDED BY STAFF BE INCLUDED IN SECTION 18.56.040. MOTION CARRIED. Sec. 18.56.040 (1) and Fred Satterstrom, Planning, said during the Council review of the (2), General Require- proposed zoning ordinance on August 17, 1981 the Council requested ments (parking lots) staff to bring back alternative wording for Section 18.56.040 (1) (a) located off premises. "Parking lots not located on the premises or within 500' from the principal use shall be considered a conditional use." The main concerns were location, definition of parking lot as opposed to parking stall, B.A.R. approval and conditional use permit requirement. Alternative approaches would be: The present zoning code addresses off premise parking areas for business and industrial uses. Chapter 18.56.170 Business or commercial buildings reads: "Such parking space shall be provided on the premises or within 1000' on property zoned for business or industrial purposes or approved by the Board of Adjustment." The Planning Commission, during their review of the proposed zoning code, expressed concern for distance and function of the design of parking lots in relationship to the principal use. They felt the City should review parking plans to insure pedestrian safety, adequate lighting, interelationship of the parking lot to the building, and convenience of the parking lot to the building. For these reasons they recommended to the Council that the distance of the parking area to the building be reduced from 1000' to 500' and that the applicant obtain a conditional use permit for such parking facilities. Further, any off premise parking area, irrespective of its distance from the principal use, would also be required to obtain a conditional use permit. The purpose of review in this latter case is to ensure that off premise parking for one use does not create parking problems for neighboring properties and uses. Three considerations are important to this section: (1) distance of parking area from principal use, (2) on- premise versus off premise parking, and (3) the purpose of review by the City. On -site parking located near the buildings it serves generally creates no special problems. However, distance or off premise parking areas introduce some special design problems which, if not properly handled, may adversely affect neighboring properties and the public safety and welfare. For instance, on- premise parking located a considerable distance from the principal use (1,000') may present potential threats to personal and property safety, pedestrian circulation, and user convenience. Since these problems would generally only affect the subject property, design review by the BAR may mitigate these potential hazards. Off- premise parking areas introduce special problems of their own, problems which may commonly "spill over" onto neighboring properties. Off- premise parking may inadver- tently lead to unauthorized temporary parking on adjacent properties usually by site users who find the neighboring property more convenient than distance off premise parking. In order to notify and involve neighboring property owners in the review process, a public hearing in conjunction with a conditional use permit may be appropriate. Staff recommended the following wording be incorporated into Section 18.56.040 (1): (a) Any on- premise parking area which contains TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL ZONING MEETING October 19, 1981 Page 6 Sec. 18.56.040 (1) parking stalls located more than 1,000' from the principal use (2), Gen. Requirements shall shall require BAR approval for the entire parking lot. (b) (parking lots) located Off- premise parking areas shall require a conditional use permit, off premises contd. issued pursuant to the requirements and procedures of Chapter 18.64. Sec. 18.56.040 (10) Parking Regulations (Commercial truck storage in resi- dential zone). Sec. 18.84.025 Cri- teria for Granting Rezones (Rezone criteria). 3426 COUNCIL PRESIDENT VAN DUSEN ARRIVED AT THE MEETING AT 8:15 P.M. Gary Huff, representing Southcenter Shopping Center, said they have some language they would like inserted in Section 18.56.040 (1) (b). Cris Crumbaugh, representing Segale Company, said he was confused as to what the City is trying to do about this. The question is what is off premise parking? He said he did not see why a person would have to go through a conditional use permit process. Brad Collins, Planning Director, said the reason was to insure that parking lots would continue to be used for that purpose. The wording that has been suggested by Gary Huff required there be a legal document running with the land. Brad Collins, Planning Director, said we might have a property that is manufacturing and they want to convert to office space so they go off -site and sign a lease for 5 10 years to use the space as parking. The City approves the office space with the parking and then the parking lot becomes too valuable to keep for parking and it is sold and leaves the building without a parking lot. If there is a legal binding document running with the land this problem would not exist. The wording suggested by Gary Huff is: 18.56.040 (1) (b) "Off- premise parking areas shall be provided through a deed, easement, or other legal binding agreement running with the land, the term of which shall be at least as long as the reasonable life of the premises served thereby, or shall require a conditional use permit issued pursuant to the requirements and procedures of Chapter 18.64, whichever the applicant desires." Cris Crumbaugh, audience, suggested the form of the sentence be approved by the City Attorney. MOVED BY HARRIS, SECONDED BY SAUL, THAT COUNCIL ACCEPT STAFF RECOMMENDATION WITH WORDING IN SECTION 18.56.040 (1) (B) ALTERED AS DISCUSSED. MOTION CARRIED. Fred Satterstrom, Planning, said Council requested staff to bring an explanation of 18.56.040 (10) to City Council. The section refers to commercial trucks stored in areas zoned for residential use. The staff recommendation is that large commercial trucks and machinery are generally not considered to be compatible with residential neighborhoods; they are noisy, unsightly and difficult to manuever where small children may be playing. It is the feeling of staff that trucks over 8,000 pounds gross weight, machinery, bulldozers or similar construction equipment should not be stored in areas zoned for residential use. Councilman Bohrer suggested that the words "or parked" be inserted after the word "stored" in the third line of the first paragraph. He said there are semi trucks parked on streets in Tukwila for a week end. MOVED BY BOHRER, SECONDED BY HARRIS, THAT THE WORDS "OR PARKING" BE ADDED TO SECTION 18.56.040 (10) AFTER THE WORD "STORED" IN THE THIRD LINE OF THE PARAGRAPH. MOTION CARRIED. Fred Satterstrom, Planningisaid during Council review of criteria for granting zoning map reclassifications, a motion was made to refer Section 18.84.025 back to staff for clarification. Council expressed concern over criteria (3) which requires an applicant to show an additional need for the type of zoning being requested in order for the rezone to be granted. Staff suggests that the introduction, subsections (1) and (2) are fairly general and easy to administer. Subsection (3) could be easier understood if the term "additional need" were better defined. TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL ZONING MEETING October 19, 1981 Page 7 Sec. 18.84.025 Cri- teria for Granting Rezones (Rezone criteria) contd. Interurban Special Review Criteria. 34g7 The intent of the subsection is if the property being proposed for reclassification is not shown to be an "appropriate use" according to the Comprehensive Land Use Policy Plan Map then the applicant is obligated to demonstrate how the request will best achieve ful- fillment of the community values and goals. The staff recommends the following revised wording for subsection (3): "The applicant shall provide evidence to the City Council's satisfaction when the request is not in agreement with the Comprehen- sive Land Use Policy Plan Map that an additional need for this type of land classification for which the application has been filed. Councilman Phelps said every rezone request has provided the policy statement from the Comprehensive Plan that supports the development. We have a review of it by Staff as to which land issues are supported. Council President Van Dusen said he thought this section was not needed; the Council did not need to get into the reasons. Councilman Bohrer said it does say the applicant should provide evidence to the Council's satisfaction when the request is not in agreement with the Comprehensive Land Use Policy Plan Map. MOVED BY BOHRER, SECONDED BY HARRIS, THAT COUNCIL ACCEPT THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION, AND SECTION 18.84.025 (3) READ: "THE APPLICANT SHALL PROVIDE EVIDENCE TO THE CITY COUNCIL'S SATISFACTION WHEN THE REQUEST IS NOT IN AGREEMENT WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE POLICY PLAN MAP THAT AN ADDITIONAL NEED FOR REQUESTED NEED FOR LAND CLASSIFICATION FOR WHICH THE APPLICATION HAS BEEN FILED." MOTION CARRIED. Fred Satterstrom, Planning, said several conflicts occur with a literal application of the City 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 acknwoedge two recent rezones granted by the Council, the Schneider /Nilsen and Moody rezones. Planning staff has made a second map for Council consideration, illustrating the west side of Interurban Avenue between I -5 and 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. MOVED BY BOHRER, SECONDED BY PHELPS, THAT IN SECTION 18.60.065 (1), SEVENTH LINE AFTER THE WORDS "COMPATIBLE USES" INSERT "AND TO RECOGNIZE AND TO CAPITLIZE ON THE BENEFITS TO THE AREA OF THE AMENITIES INCLUDING THE GREEN RIVER AND NEARBY RECREATION FACILITIES, TO ENCOURAGE DEVELOPMENT OF MORE PEOPLE ORIENTED USES, TO PROVIDE FOR DEVELOPMENT INCENTIVES THAT WILL HELP TO SPUR GROWTH, THE CITY SHALL REQUIRE..." Jerry Knudson, audience, said he did not understand what the preference is along the river bank. Are we going to say this is public right -of -way? Councilman Bohrer said this was not intended to address areas along the river bank only. It applies to the entire area. *MOTION CARRIED. Councilman Bohrer referred to Page 4 of the memorandum, guidelines for BAR in review of proposed development in Interurban area. In guideline (a) he suggested the wording be: "Proposed development design should be sensitive to the natural amenities of the area and public access to them." Councilman Bohrer suggested in Part 4 (c) that the words "relocation of" be substituted for "reduction in" relating to the standard landscaping requirements. TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL ZONING MEETING October 19, 1981 Page 8 Interurban Special Jerry Knudson, audience, said if you are going to give 40' of land Review Criteria he would like to think the City is going to work with the property contd. owners and the landscaping should be 20 maybe the setbacks and landscaping could be traded. There should be trade -offs. Councilman Harris said a developer could take all of the landscaping and put it in one place and it would be like a park. MOVED BY BOHRER, SECONDED BY PHELPS, THAT 18.60.065 (4) (c) READ: "THE B.A.R. MAY AUTHORIZE (1) A RELOCATION OF, OR (2) A REDUCTION BY A FACTOR OF UP TO 20 PER CENT IN THE STANDARD LANDSCAPING REQUIREMENTS OF THE APPLICABLE ZONE DISTRICT WHEN, IN ITS JUDGMENT, THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT CONFORMS TO ONE OR MORE OF THE FOLLOWING GUIDELINES." Richard Rambler, audience, said he would suggest for purposes of review only that two property owners be added to the Board of Architectural Review. The two property owners would be appointed by the Mayor. He said he had a problem with the word "detract" in 18.60.065 (3) (b). He suggested it read: "Proposed development and use of private property have due regard for the use and enjoyment of public recreational areas and facilities." Dick Kirsop, Chairman of the Planning Commission, said he thought two property owners on the Board would not present any problem. *MOTION CARRIED. MOVED BY BOHRER, SECONDED BY PHELPS, THAT SECTION 18.60.065 (3) (b) READ: "PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT AND USE OF PRIVATE PROPERTY SHOULD DEMONSTRATE DUE REGARD FOR THE USE AND ENJOYMENT OF PUBLIC RECREATIONA AREAS AND FACILITIES." MOTION CARRIED. Councilman Bohrer said he liked the staff recommendation for making this process part of the BAR. Making another partial review board is not an appropriate thing to do. It would not add to the process. Residents and businessmen who are part of the Interurban Corridor are frequently serving on it. It adds an unnecessary level to BAR. Councilman Harris said BAR needs an impartial board to regulate it. When personalities are involved you get a little too close to it. When your own property is involved you are prone to get hysterical about the process. The BAR can take input from the public. Jerry Knudson, audience, said this is a special area. No other area in Tukwila has this special connotation. This would be BAR review. The two property owners would not be making the decisions. There are 7 members now. The Interurban area would like to have two of their own people representing them in making a decision that will have an effect on them. In the past there have been some members from the area on the Planning Commission. They would like to be sure they are represented. Councilman Phelps said she had no objection to them on the review. The additional input would make the final decision easier. Councilman Bohrer said the BAR is comprised of citizens from broad areas of the City. In this case you are asking people who are in the area to make a decision that will affect them. He thought it would multiply a conflict of interest issue. How could someone from the area make a decision on a matter and not say he has a conflict of interest. MOVED BY BOHRER, SECONDED BY HARRIS, THAT COUNCIL ADOPT SECTION 18.60.065 AS MODIFIED TO THIS POINT. MOVED BY PHELPS, NO SECOND, TO AMEND THE MOTION AND ADD TO SECTION 2 OF 18.60.065 TWO MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE FROM THE AREA. MOTION FAILED, FOR LACK OF A SECOND. *MOTION CARRIED, WITH PHELPS VOTING NO. TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL ZONING MEETING October 19, 1981 COUNCILMAN SAUL LEFT THE MEETING AT 9:10 P.M. Page 9 Chapter 18.96, Administration Enforcement. 18.96.040 Performance Bond. 18.96.060 .070, Change in Use Record of certifica- tes issued. 18.96.050, Amount of bond, or equivalent. 18.96.100,.110, .120 Violations penalty other legal actions. 18.06.305, Definitions ADJOURNMENT 10:15 P.M. 314 Y9 Cris Crumbaugh, audience, referred to Section 18.96.020 and said the Council should interpret the documents they have adopted. It should not be left to the Board of Adjustment to interpret. It should be appealable to the Council, not the Board of Adjustment. Brad Collins, Director of Planning, said he was not opposed to having it appealed to the City Council. MOVED BY PHELPS, SECONDED BY HARRIS, THAT THE PERSON MAY PRESENT TO THE CITY COUNCIL A PETITION REQUESTING REVIEW OF AN INTERPRETATION.' Fred Satterstrom, Planning, said he thought it would not be legal for the Council to interpret their own documents. Discussions with City Attorney have led him to believe this. It should be appealed to the Board of Adjustment for interpretation. *MOTION FAILED, WITH VAN DUSEN AND BOHRER VOTING NO; HARRIS AND PHELPS VOTING YES. Brad Collins, Planning Director, said this is an issue they will give to the City Attorney. Cris Crumbaugh, audience, asked if Line 22 on Page 143 could be reviewed. He said the one year period should be extended. MOVED BY HARRIS, SECONDED BY PHELPS, THAT LINES 22, 23, AND 24 ON PAGE 143 READ: "IF THE CONDITIONS ARE NOT SATISFIED WITHIN ONE YEAR FROM THE DATE OF THE DEADLINE SPECIFIED IN THE TEMPORARY OCCUPANCY PERMIT, OR LONGER BY APPROVAL OF THE CITY COUNCIL." MOTION CARRIED. Cris Crumbaugh, audience, said these two sections sound like every time you get a new occupant the owner has to come in and get a new permit. Brad Collins, Planning Director, said this refers to when there is a change in underlying zone use. He said he would refer the use of the word "use" in Sections 18.96.060 and 18.96.070 to the City Attorney for his opinion. Councilman Bohrer referred to Lines 4 through 8 on page 144 and said a zero should be added to each of the dollar amounts. MOVED BY HARRIS, SECONDED BY PHELPS, THAT A ZERO BE ADDED TO EACH OF THE DOLLAR AMOUNTS IN LINES 5 THROUGH 8. MOTION CARRIED. Cris Crumbaugh, audience, asked why there should be a violations section. The City has civil action to enforce action. MOVED BY PHELPS, SECONDED BY HARRIS, THAT SECTIONS 18.96.100, 18.96.110 and 18.96.120 BE REFERRED TO THE CITY ATTORNEY FOR INTERPRETATION. MOTION CARRIED. Gary Huff, audience, said he had suggested Section 18.06.305 be added on Page 11. It would define gross leaseable floor area. MOVED BY HARRIS, SECONDED BY PHELPS, THAT SECTION 18.06.305 GROSS LEASEABLE LOOR AREA BE ADDED ON PAGE 11 AND IT READ: "THAT PART OF THE FLOOR AREA OF ANY STRUCTURE WHICH IS ACTUALLY USED FROM TIME TO TIME FOR THE PURPOSE OF RETAIL SALES OR OTHER COMMERCIAL PURPOSES, WHETHER SUCH BE ACTUAL SALES AREA, DISPLAY AREA, WALKWAYS OR STORAGE AREA THIS DEFINITION SHALL EXCLUDE SUCH AREAS AS BASEMENT NOT USED FOR STORAGE SPACE, ELEVATOR SHAFTS AND STAIRWELLS AT EACH FLOOR, MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT ROOMS OR ATTIC SPACES, AND WALLS." MOTION CARRIED. Council President Van Dusen declared the Zoning Meeting adjourned. C Gary`1lansen Nor'tBooher, Recording Secretary