Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1981-12-07 Special Minutes - Zoning Ordinance Public HearingCity Hall December 7, 1981 TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL 7:00 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING PROPOSED ZONING ORDINANCE M I N U T E S CALL TO ORDER In the absence of Council President Van Dusen, Chairman Saul called the Public Hearing to order at 7:06 P.M. ROLL CALL OF COUNCIL L. C. BOHRER, MABEL J. HARRIS, DORIS E. PHELPS, DANIEL J. SAUL. MEMBERS Zoning Code Section: 18.44 Shoreline. Brad Collins, Planning Department Director, said this is the second Public Hearing regarding the proposed zoning ordinance. Tonight's hearing will be on Section 18.44, Shoreline Zone. People wishing to speak will be taken in the order that they have signed up at the door. The adoption procedures will be discussed at the Committee of the Whole Meeting on December 8, 1981. Two letters received from John L. Barnes and George M. Kropinski will be entered in the record of the hearing. Harold Hill, 8910 SE 54th, Mercer Island, said he was speaking on the Shoreline portion of the new code regarding the Grantree Furniture Company site at Interurban and I -5. The requirements of the new code are different than that required when the building was constructed. He had a Shorelines Management Permit issued on July 7, 1972, having met all of the requirements of the City and State and having waited the necessary time for public input. There was no public objection at the time and the permit went through in the shortest time required. The new code would make the building location and some of the appurtenances that were constructed non conforming. The setback from the mean high water level, which he was not sure what it would be at this point in the river because it does vary for the location of the river, so it is possible they are back far enough. If it is elevation 5 he is probably back far enough; if it is elevation 10 he is probably not back far enough. At the time the building was built the require- ment was a 20' minimum. They have for the most part 30' of set- back. There are things along there, such as a roadway. They have landscaping on both sides of the roadway. He was not sure that it requires landscaping on both sides. At the time it required a 15' roadway for access for maintenance along the river. The requirement for a 40 or 50' setback apparently contemplates a dike or levy with long slopes. He thought it was a 3 to 1 slope which means that if there had to be a 10' high dike it would mean that the bank protection would be 30'. He has a vertical bulkhead so he only uses up one foot or whatever the size of the piling is in a vertical plane so, therefore, the code does not address or has not considered the fact that some other form of bank protectioi for erosion control is possible other than the riprap. It is quite well landscaped. There are quite a few large trees, that they were were not interested in putting in that close to the bulkhead. The trees could cause movement and damage to the bulk- head. It could be a problem. We do need some form of a "grand- father" clause to allow existing structures to exist as they are and to have modifications in the event that a change in their usage is contemplated or necessary because of movement of the present occupant or otherwise. He said he needed some direction from Council to let them continue to exist. Most of the other points that he might bring up have already been discussed. He said he was under the impression that the code would follow the Shorelines Management guidelines a little closer than they do. It seems to be a little more restrictive than the State Shore- lines Management Act requirement. At the time of the building it was the only guideline they had. Council Chairman Saul asked when the Shoreline Management Act was passed. Brad Collins, Director of Planning, said it was passed in 1974 after the building permit had been issued. Councilman Harris asked Mr. Hill if there is anything else that is non conforming except the bulkhead? Mr. Hill said the roadway is supposed to be back 30 to 40' also and the roadway is 5 or 6' from the line. He said he was not sure whether or not the land- scaping was adequate. They have willow trees, plant, ivies and groundcovers. TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL PUBLIC HEARING PROPOSED ZONING ORDINANCE December 7, 1981 Page 2 3s�7 Cris Crumbaugh, P. 0. Box 88050, Tukwila, said in the code it talks about access roads. It says that access roads shall be no closer or a minimum of 40' from the mean high water line. This was discussed when the Council was going over this matter and specifically reviewing this section. One thing that was mentioned by the Council was that fire lanes could be in that area, although it was not specifically written in, it was the intent. Another thing they have within 40' on the Segale property, at least, are dike access roads. He would like some kind of wording put in that states somewhere in the code that it allows fire lanes and dike protection roads to be within that 40'. The reason this is specifically requested is that even though the Council may think that is allowed, when we have an administrative person interpreting and applying this code there should be specific language of that intent, if that is the intent. The other thing is that the code differs significantly from the existing Shorelines Regulation in a respect that is significant. In the existing regulations they allow a process whereby if there are unique circumstances with a project that you can come up for a special review and the specific requirements of the use regulations can be varied after a review of the project if the City feels that the project is a good one and variance will not hurt the purposes and intent of the Shoreline Master Program. That is found on Page 7.2 of the existing program. Maybe some- thing like this could be inserted in the present code. As it stands now the code is going to be administered by the Planning Director. If someone does not like what he does, the only place he can go is down to the Shorelines Hearing Board in Olympia. Maybe a way to look at this is to have an appeal procedure to the Council on our own Code in case there is some sort of dissatisfac- tion on the interpretation of the Planning Director. That would allow for the applicant to have such a procedure and also for the City to have such a procedure, or a citizen or whomever is aggrieved by a decision. That way it could be kept in Tukwila be- fore it goes to Olympia. This is the present Shorelines Code: "When in the opinion of the property owner or Planning staff conditions relating to a development are such that literal inter- pretation of the foregoing regulations will not permit reasonably effective use of the property with due consideration for environ- mental concerns or that a development plan permitted by the same foregoing regulations is deemed likely to create an undesirable or harmful use in conflict with the goals and policies of this program, a public hearing shall be held before the Planning Commission following the procedures and fee schedules in Chapter 18.92 of the T.M.C. Following the public hearing the Planning Commission may make such specific rulings and restrictions of the development that will further the goals and policies of the program yet permit orderly and reasonable development of the owner' property provided, however, such rulings and restrictions are subject to review by the Department of Ecology." That is a provision in the present Shorelines Code and he would like the Cour cil to consider when they are reviewing these matters. That could be to the City Council rather than the Planning Commission. The City Council has been quite activist in the Shoreline permits and they may want a method where they can review some of these things. He said he liked the idea that the staff does review and approve the permits because that is basically an administrative matter. We may have some unique circumstances. As Mr. Hill brought up, non conforming uses in the Shorelines zone have a point. The way the code is drafted at this time as he understands it, the regular non conforming use provisions of the code would apply to shorelines as well as the other provisions so there is a place in the code that takes care of non conforming uses. In the present code it states that when a building is destroyed at least 75% then you have to redo the building according to the new code. In the proposed code it is only 50% so there is a 25% change there from the existing code. Councilman Phelps said in her note on the zoning code on the appeal to the Council on Sec. 18.44.090, the matter was referred to the City Attorney. She asked if the City Attorney had made comment on it. h1r. Collins, Planning Director, said a reply had not been received from the City Attorney. All of these items will be discussed with him on December 14, 1981. TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL PUBLIC HEARING PROPOSED ZONING ORDINANCE December 7, 1981 Page 3 3 530 Andy Padvorac, Puget Power, Bellevue, said he had comment to make on the Shorelines section. On Page 77 the Section discusses what uses are allowed in the river environment. He said he would like to add to Paragraph (1), a section (i) which would facilitate Puget in meeting the mandate to supply electrical energy. They have facilities that have high energy that are still above ground systems. Section (i) should be added both under paragraph (1) on page 77 and paragraph (2) on page 78. He suggested the Section (i) read: "electric utility facilities and appertenances including but not limited to right -of -way, underground, and over- head lines and associated poles and towers." As far as he knew there are no easements that are allowed in that area, whether they be underground or overhead. He requested it be added to allow flexibility for system expansion for the future. COUNCIL PRESIDENT VAN DUSEN ARRIVED AT THE MEETING AT 7:40 P.M. Mr. Padvorac said the next item would be on page 79, Section 3(e), which reads: "Utility easements where necessary shall be landscaped with ivy, groundover or natural grass cover." He said he previously brought up the question as to whom is responsible for the landscaping of the utility easement? He stated he would like a statement added to Section (3) (e) that the property owners shall bear the expense of installation, maintenance, repair, or replacement of the landscaping. Councilman Harris asked if he was saying if Puget Power has an easement through a piece of property that has been landscaped by the property owner, Puget Power comes in and digs it up then the property owner shall have to bear the cost of replacing it. Mr. Padvorac said that situation is handled in the easement wording. His intent was not that the property owner would have to repair damage caused by Puget Power. His intent was that where they have easements now, with the wording as it is, it is possible Puget Power would be held accountable and responsible to landscape that area. Most utility easements say Puget will have ingress and egress for maintenance of their equipment. Some of the easements say that should they come in, they will restore the property to what it was before. Chairman Saul said they have no easements on the river in Tukwila. Mr. Padvorac said that is taken care of back in the Section on Page 77 that does not allow easements and which he asked to be included so easements would be there. He would like to protect his company so they would have flexibility in the future. Mr. Padvorac said on Page 79, under Specific Use Regulations, Section 18.44.114 (1) (a), "Structures not to exceed 35' in height," again for the Talbot O'Brien line that they have just south of Longacres that comes through the City area, those towers are anywhere from 60 to 150' tall and should that line be modified to come close to the river he would request that this Section (a) be changed as follows: "Structures not to exceed 35' in height except as allowed in Section 18.44.11, Paragraph (1) Section (d), which is just below where it states utilities, and he would aks a change in utilities to state "including but not limited to electrical transmission line, poles, and towers greater than 35' in height." In referring to Page 80, paragraph (c), Item (ii) it says in NOTE that a chan link fence shall be slatted and planted with ivy or other trailing vine. He said he understood it would be possible in this shoreline area to have a substation. It is their own security measure to have a 7' chain link fence with 1' of barbed wire above to keep people out. Putting ivy or a trailing vine on this fence would defeat the purpose of having the chain link fence and barb wire because it would assist people in climbing the fence to get into the substation. This would be a safety hazard and with someone else's property it would be a problem. He requested that NOTE be expanded to say "except where a safety hazard would result." TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL PUBLIC HEARING PROPOSED ZONING ORDINANCE December 7, 1981 Page 4 353/ Gerry Knudson, 6421 South 143rd Place, Tukwila, said he had two proposals for Council consideration. The first one affects a piece of property he has and the second one involves many property owners along Interurban Corridor. His property is on the cul -de -sac on 58th. In May he asked for a change in land use from present R -1 -9600 to R -1 -7200. At the time he pointed out that the area is now served by sewer main, there is water avail- able and he di'P eel the slope of the hill would prevent it from becoming 7200. At the meeting there was a motion passed, stating that any lot served by sewer could be a maximum of 7200 sq. ft. There was also a motion that his Lot 40 be revised to 7200 sq. ft. There was a recess and when he returned he found the motion was stricken and it was going to be sent to staff for review. The reason for his request is that he plans to build his home on the piece of property and although he can get three 9600 lots, that is not his intent. He would like to have one lot larger for his own home. Consequently, it might mean the other two lots might not be able to be approved as 9600. He said he understood Council intent is to provide as many single family dwellings as they possibly can. If they are limited to 9600' this might not be possible in this area. That might have been a criteria before the sewers were in. His second proposal regards property on Interurban Avenue between I -5 and I -405, referred to as Interurban Corridor. The area has been designed a Special Review District. He said he was against a Special Review District. There are other areas to the north along Interurban and to the south that are not desig- nated Special Review Districts. He made a suggestion that the Review Committee be made up of at least two members of the Corridor. The Council at that time felt such a Committee would be "stacking the deck." They voted against such a recommendation. He has since contacted the City of Seattle where they have three Special Review Districts: Pike Place Market, Denny Regrade, and Pioneer Square. He talked to the Staff Chairman for Pike Place Market and he submitted a list of people who comprise the Special Review Committees. On the Pike Place Market it is comprised of two architects, two people in allied arts, two friends of the market, two residents of the area, two property owners and two merchants. The Pioneer Square is comprised of two merchants, two property owners, a historian, and two people at large. They did not get into the Denny Regrade committee. He was assured that with this type of a spread it pretty well covers everyone's interest and they were able to give good direction to the City of Seattle. The people on the Corridor have worked hard trying to work with the City of Tukwila and they would like some kind of representation if the Council wants a Special Review District. He hoped Council would consider having the people directly involved in the implementation of this district when this choice is made. Joel Benoliel, 5950 Sixth Avenue South, Seattle, representing the Jack Benaroya Company, said he had two non shoreline issues on the proposed code. On Page 54 on the principally permitted uses in C -2 district, Nos.18 and 22, hotels and motels, were added in the draft and they do not appear in the prior draft. When you go to Page 57 where it describes principally permitted uses in the C -P planned business center district it provides for all of the C -2 uses plus hotels and motels which is redundant. It would not be needed in Paragraph (2). On Page 121, Chapter 18.56, on off street parking, he discovered and discussed with staff something that is inadvertent, but could be significant. The parking requirement that is listed on Page 121 for shopping centers is 5.5 for each 1,000 sq. ft. of gross leasable floor area. In general, the pattern of this parking ordinance is to carry over from the existing code the type of parking requirement that we have today and it is not the intent except on some specific exceptions. The trend is not to increase the parking requirements. He thought it would be clear that the 5.5 or where it is taken from is in the existing C -P zone where that is the requirement. Outside the C -P zone in the existing code, the code has been interpreted to require different types of parking depending on the use. For example, industrial TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL PUBLIC HEARING PROPOSED ZONING ORDINANCE December 7, 1981 Page 5 35 3c buildings 1 for every 1,000 sq. ft., Page 120, 2.5 for each 1,000 sq. ft. for business and commercial that is the same as the existing code. Where we run into a problem is that because we have added a definition for the first time that did not exist previously, a shopping center mall (planned) which is Section 18.06.680 on Page 19. In C -2 there is a permitted shopping center mall which is less than 300,000 sq. ft. of gross leasable area. Now, we have by definition a shopping center mall permitted outright of a certain size in a C -2 zone and over 300,000 sq. ft. could only be in a C -P zone. He thought the intent, Page 121, to call out 5.5 for each 1,000 sq. ft. of gross leasable area should be in a C -P zone. He thought the intent, Page 121, to call out 5.5 for each 1,000 sq. ft. of gross leasable area should be only for shopping centers in the C -P zone. If we do not, then we are going to have a situation such as he is concerned about where we have a shopping center in a C -2 zone and even a mall which would be permitted under this proposed code which could be a smaller type mall, up to 300,000 sq. ft., but you could see one that would be smaller than that but by design opens on a commor concourse which would meet the definition. You would have to have the Southcenter type parking of 5.5 per 1,000 gross leasable floor area. He said he did not think that was the intent, yet that would be the result. He recommended that it be specified that the shopping centers talked about on Page 121 that require the 5.5 be as it is in the existing code, namely only in a C -P zone. If we get into C -2 then it goes as any other business and commercial building on Page 120, 2.5 for each 1,000. If you want to specify a smaller type shopping center and do it on a gross leasable floor area basis he suggested 3.5 rather than 5.5 if it is outside the C -P zone. The simplest thing to do is just say that if you are outside the C -P zone then it goes according to the other parking requirements for that type of use which would be business and commercial building, 2.5 per 1,000 sq. ft. Marc Bateman, representing Al Sanft and Bernice Sanft who own property along Interurban Corridor, along Mall Avenue just south of 144th. The property is currently zoned M -1. The proposed ordinance would make it C -2. The property to the north which abut! is zoned in the proposed ordinance M -1. The property between them and the street to the south is the Village Green. His clients are upset about the zoning. There does not seem to be any reason why there should be a distinction between the property to the north and their property. When the City needed to put in a sewer system the Sanfts worked with the City to make sure the lines were put in; when the City needed an easement over property in the area the Sanfts worked with the City. Now the City is cutting the heart out of their property value. They are upset. There is a street that separates the property to the south of them and the Village Green. The area to the north is a large segment of M -1 zoning and there appears to be no reason why that same designation should not apply to the property to the south. It is t tax guest that the City reconsider the designation of the San 'fro C -2 to M -1. There should be plenty of checks as to use under the Special Review District. P1r. Bateman located the property on the wall map. Mr. Harold Hill, audience, said he was not aware of the require- ment for a mall or a center that Joe Benoliel pointed out. It would affect his property at the Grantee site if he had to put in more than one tenant to occupy the building. On the permit they have 34 parking stalls in a 23,000' building which is part of the problem of going to C -2. If they went to C -2 and also had the requirement to meet the shopping center parking of 5.1 per 1,000 they would be shot down. He urged his property be left M -1, which it has always been. Gary Huff, representing Southcenter, said his first point would be on building height, 18.06.120, the definition. He said he raised the question when definitions were first discussed about how the Bon building at Southcenter fits into that definition. He dis- tributed drawings to the Council and said the drawing shows 73 for the height of the Bon building, measured from lower level on north up to the roof of the building. When this issue was brought TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL PUBLIC HEARING PROPOSED ZONING ORDINANCE December 7, 1981 Page 6 3s33 up they were concerned as to whether or not the Bon came within the 75' limitation. The City's response was that as far as the City measures it, it is a 75' building and not to worry about it. When the language in Section 18.06.120 is read they are not so sure about it. There is another height shown as 95' from the lower level to the top of the parapet. They see two ways of handling this so the Bon is not nonconforming. One would be to make clear that mechanical rooms are excluded in determining building height or to raise the height limit in the C -P zone to 95'. The potential problem if mechanical rooms are excluded is it might have another interpretation if another staff looks at the layout. They would like clarification and action taken to make sure this does not become a nonconforming building. The seond point has to do with definition of gross leasable floor area (Section 18.06.330, Page 14). He said the last line should read: "or attic spaces, malls, and loading docks." Loading docks do not promote sales and should be eliminated. On Page 117, Plate 1, regarding off street parking dimensions, this plate is borrowed from Seattle ordinance and used by Tukwila for some time. The thing not borrowed accurately is the diagram in the lower right hand corner that shows what each of these measurements or dis- tances are. Their concern has to do with the "F" distance that is shown, the distance between the center line of each parking bay. If you look at the next page in the drawings he furnished Council you can see in the general parking layout they have a distance between lines of parking of 48'. The next page shows generally their layout with more detail and the next page is the equivalent of Table 1 of the Seattle ordinance. The Council can see the difference there in the diagram that they have as opposed to the diagram we have. The "F" distance as shown in the proposed Tukwila ordinance does not account for the overlapping of parking when you have it at an angle. You can see on the Seattle ordinance the "F Prime Distance" is average of the centerline between the overlapped spaces. It does not seem to be an important matter at first, except if they go by the diagram shown in the proposed Tukwila code, ignoring the average that results from the overlapping, it makes a difference in a parking lot of any size. They would like the diagram from the Seattle ordinance, the applicable part, to be inserted here. They would like the "F Prime" distance added in. The last page of the drawings he distributed has to do with handicapper parking requirements. Previously this was discussed about how much parking in a parking lot the size of Southcenter was really used by the handicapped and how much was necessary. They want to provide more than adequate parking for handicapped but they have run into a situation of diminishing returns. This would be not only for them but for anyone else planning a parking lot of any size. It makes sense for the first thousand spaces of parking to provide parking on the proposed basis of 1 handicapped lot per 100 spaces. The larger the lot the less use it gets. He said they have graphed out an example of how a sliding scale parking requirement for the handicapped might work, for each additional so many spaces there is a lesser amount of handicapped parking that is required. This seems a reasonable approach. Another thing that concerns them is the curb cut definition. This has been discussed with the Planning Department and despite the attempt to distinguish between access roads such as are intended to be defined in Southcenter, he thought they could come up with better language. They will submit their recommendation to the Planning Dept. Cris Crumbaugh, representing Segale Company, said in checking Section 18.96.020 (Page 168) it says that all interpretations of the code shall be made by the Planning Director. Any aggrieved person can petition the Board of Adjustment for a final determination. He requested that it be changed to the City Council. It is the intent of the City Council that is being interpreted. It was referred to the City Attorney and does not appear to have been changed. He requested the change to have a grievance of the staff interpretation go directly to the City Council with no stops through the Planning Commission. TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL PUBLIC HEARING PROPOSED ZONING ORDINANCE December 7, 1981 Page 7 In Section 18.96.110 it states that violation of the code is a misde- meanor. It is redundant. There is a portion of the T.M.C. that provides for violation of the civil sections of the code. It says every day of a violation shall be a separate offense. If you are in violation for two weeks you have 14 counts of violations against you. Mr. Benoliel's comments on the parking lot would have a significant problem if it were interpreted differently from the way he is inter- preting it. Parkway Plaza is based on a lower parking requirement than the C -P zone requirement. He said he agreed with Mr. Benoliel's comments and he hoped Council looked favorably upon his interpretation of the code. Andy Padvorac, Puget Power, said he would like to retract the request made last week regarding substations being a permitted use in planned residential development. In talking to staff it was determined that the permitting process to get a substation would be quicker as the draft proposes. Mr. Padvorac said on Page 111, Section 18.52.040, regarding utility easements and the landscaping. He proposed the wording be: "The property owner shall bear the expense of installation, maintenance, and repair, or replacement of the landscaping and /or treatment." In the wording it might make the paragraph clearer: "Utility easements and other similar areas between property lines..." He suggested "between" be replaced by the phrase "adjacent to." Further in the sentence "property lines and curbing" he suggested before "curbing" that "and /or" be added. On the "low growing evergreens," he suggested the ordinance state how tall the plants should be, 18" to 3'. He would suggest 5' to get a wide selection of plants that could be used. Joanne Davis, 5906 So. 144th, Tukwila, said she generally protested adoption of Draft No. 5 of the proposed zoning code because it is difficult to read and understand and has unaddressed financial impact. She said Page 154, Section 18.70.050 (2) Nonconforming structures, was discussed by Cris Crumbaugh. She was disturbed that 50% of replacement cost at time of destruction was too little. She was concerned that it is in the judgment of the City Building Official. She asked where the appeal might be if you disagreed. This would likel, affect insurance rates. She thought it was the intent of Council on sethack issue for R -1 to reflect as the existing ordinance states. She did not see that in the draft. Is the setback from the edge of the property or the middle of the street? She preferred the middle of the street as the existing ordinance states. CHAIRMAN SAUL DECLARED THE PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED AT 8:40 P.M. Brad Collins, Director of Planning, said the City Attorney is meeting with staff to review the propose zoning ordinance. He will prepare a statement to be presented at the meeting on December 14, 1981 The completed document could be presented to the Council on December 28 or 29, 1981. The original schedule called for December 21, 1981. A meeting will be held on December 14 and 21, 1981. The zoning ordinance shoul• e passed befo7 end of the year. Ch'1 rman Daniel Saul Recording Secretary Norma Booher 353y