Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1982-02-16 Committee of the Whole Minutes - Zoning Ordinance ReviewFebruary 16, 1982 7:00 P.M. CALL TO ORDER COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT OFFICIALS PRESENT #13, Proposed Zoning on property at So. 144th 59th Ave. So. (R -4 to R -1) #14, proposed zoning on property at 52nd Ave. So. and So. 152nd (RMH to R -3) #11, proposed zoning in McMicken Hts.area TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE Zoning Ordinance Review M I N U T E S *MOTION FAILED WITH HILL AND PHELPS VOTING YES. Tukwila City Hall Council Chambers Council President Bohrer called the zoning ordinance review meeting to order at 7:45 P.M. He noted that all of the issues on the agenda have been considered by Council before. GEORGE D. HILL, LIONEL C. BOHRER, Council President, DORIS PHELPS, JOE DUFFIE, EDGAR D. BAUCH MAYOR TODD; LAWRENCE E. HARD, City Attorney; BRAD COLLINS, Planning Director; FRED SATTERSTROM, Planner; CAROLYN BERRY, Planner; MAXINE ANDERSON, City Clerk. DISCUSSION From Planning Department Memorandum dated 2/10/82, Zoning Map Issues Mr. Walter Kassner, owner, said his property is Block 13, Lots 7 8 Hillman's Seattle Garden Tracts. The property is owned by a family corporation and affects them all. They have had the property for over 80 years. They feel the property should not be down zoned to R -1. It has been zoned R -4 for many years. It is on a back street where there is little traffic. The land is suitable for condominiums. MOVED BY HILL, SECONDED BY PHELPS, THAT LOTS NO. 7 AND 8 BE CLASSIFIED R -3 LEAVING LOTS NO. 5 AND 6 AS R -1.* Councilman Bauch said that there was a lot of work put in on the Comprehensive Plan and it has been in effect for about four years. There has also been a lot of time spent on the proposed zoning map. Now we are being asked for last minute changes. It should stay the way it is proposed. Councilman Hill reminded Council that this document is not "cast in con- crete;" it can be changed. Council President Bohrer noted that the Comprehensive Plan shows this property and the Hillcrest Apartment site as Single Family. Mr. Ken Beyers, owner, said when he purchased the property, it was zoned single family. Since then, the SPEEA development has been completed. Mr. Beyers said he has installed water and sewer to his property and has had blue prints drawn for a small compact 8 plex with covered parking. This project will enhance the quality of the area. The property owners around him agree that down zoning is doing them all an injustice. Mr. Satterstrom said the adjoining County property to the north is zoned RS 7200 with the potential of RM 2400 (medium density). MOVED BY HILL, SECONDED BY DUFFIE, THAT THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION BE CHANGED TO R -4* Mr. Collins clarified that it is all of the R -3 area, not just Mr. Beyers property. *MOTION CARRIED WITH BOHRER AND BAUCH VOTING NO. Mr. John Lacon, representing owners of property in McMicken Heights, explained that, because of the rising cost of single family homes, many jurisdictions are contemplating rezones of low density single family to multi family to accommodate today's needs. In Tukwila the reverse is being suggested. Other factors to consider are the noise and pollution from the freeway; they would render the property useless for single family development. The existing topography forms a natural buffer from the existing single family homes. Highrise offices could be constructed and still not be seen. The current residents fear change, which is natural, but growth means change and change is not without its problems. The prime function of Council is to work to accommodate change and not to attempt to eliminate it. TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL, C.O.W., ZONING REVIEW February 16, 1982 Page 2 DISCUSSION Cont. #11, proposed zoning in McMicken Heights area (cont.) #10, proposed zoning on property at 15814 51st Ave. So. (RMH to R -1) #12, proposed zoning on property at So. 160th Slade Way Mr. Dick Goe, 5112 So. 163rd P1., said he lives across the street from a piece of property that Mr. Lacon says wouldn't be seen from the existing homes -not true. If the hillside is developed under the R -4 zone, it would be possible to build 484 apartment units. The City already has 70% of the residential dwelling units in attached housing. We have already accommodated change. These people purchased the property to make a profit, and no one can guarantee any of them that they are going to win on the gamble. The citizens in the area have presented petitions to Council saying they do not favor any development beyond single family homes. Councilman Bauch stated if this property is allowed to develop into multi family units, people across the street will request a change in zoning and the multi will continue to move on up the hill. Councilman Hill said that no developer in the 22 acres has come to Council with a proposal to protect the R -1 property. This could be done by stepping the density from R -4 on the lower area to R -2 at the top. MOVED BY BAUCH, SECONDED BY DUFFIE, THAT COUNCIL HEAR THE TESTIMONY ON ITEMS 10 AND 12 AND RESERVE THE FINAL VOTE UNTIL A FULL COUNCIL IS PRESENT.* Mr. Collins commented that staff needs direction on what desig- nation to show on the maps until such time as the discussion is completed. At the present, the area is identified as R -1 and will be shown as that if there is no further Council action. *MOTION CARRIED WITH BOHRER VOTING NO. '36o Mr. John Barnes, 15814 51st Ave. So., said Council has a letter he submitted concerning his property. They were annexed to the City with the agreement that they would have the RMH zoning; now, the plan has been changed. He has lived there since 1946 and hasn't updated his residence because of zoning. They are bordered on the west and south by the City Park, on the north by the free- way and to the east is a freeway. They are adequately buffered from the rest of the area. Soils tests have been taken and are on file and a noise study was made and indicated the area was more suitable for high density than for single family. Some of the opponents to the zoning moved into the area knowing the multi zoning was there. Mr. Goe, speaking again, said the area has been designated as one of the highest earthquake potential zones in the state. Soils engineers did not tell you this. Also, an underground lake has been found further up the hillside. Again, some 100 people have petitioned opposing the multiple zoning designation for this area. Mr. Lacon, speaking again, said this property, if rezoned to single family, would not be developable at all. The highest and best use of this property is possibly office structures. There is a fall of 40 to 60 feet in various areas. Depending on the height of the buildings, they could be totally buffered from the single family housing. People would not purchase property for a home adjacent to the freeway. Mr. Dick Goe, again speaking in opposition to multiple zoning, said that single family homes would look directly onto any development across Slade Way. Development of Lots 23, 24, 25 and 26 into other than single family would be an incursion into the existing residential area. The buffers for this area must be establihsed as I -5 and I -405. TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL, C.O.W., ZONING REVIEW February 16, 1982 Page 3 DISCUSSION Cont. #12, proposed zoning Councilman Bauch said that lots 23, 24, 25 and 26 could be very on property at So. difficult to develop. The hillside is actually sliding. Someone 160th Slade Way would sue the City for allowing development on this property. (cont.) Councilman Duffie's request to recon- sider Item #13 TEXT ISSUES #1, Section 18.40.010 18. 42.010, Pages 63 67 #2, Section 18.50.020 #3, Section 18.50.020 Council President Bohrer said these three issues will be con- sidered again when a full Council is present. Councilman Duffie noted a misunderstanding on his vote on Item #13. MOVED BY DUFFIE, SECONDED BY PHELPS, THAT COUNCIL RECONSIDER ITEM NO. 13. MOTION CARRIED WITH BOHRER AND BAUCH VOTING NO. MOVED BY BAUCH, SECONDED BY HILL, THAT THIS ITEM BE FORWARDED UNTIL A FULL COUNCIL IS PRESENT. MOTION CARRIED. Council President Bohrer said that this item will be represented on the zoning map as it is currently proposed. RECESS: 9:00 p.m. -9:05 p.m. Council President Bohrer called the meeting back to order with the five Council Members present. Staff recommends that "visual pollution" be added to the purpose statements. MOVED BY BAUCH, SECONDED BY DUFFIE, THAT "VISUAL POLLUTION" BE ADDED ALONG WITH "POLLUTION, NOISE, VIBRATION, GLARE AND ODOR. Councilman Phelps asked who is going to define and measure visual pollution. The term could be defined arbitrarily. It would be appropriate for the sign code. *MOTION FAILED. Question has been raised by Mrs. Joanne Davis as to the appropriateness of the proposed frontyard setback requirement in the R -1 district. Mr. Collins said that the proposed set- back of 30 feet does not present any significant hardship to anyone that is not already in a non conforming status. MOVED BY PHELPS, SECONDED BY HILL, THAT COUNCIL MOVE ON TO ITEM #3. MOTION CARRIED. Councilman Harris had previously questioned the appropriate- ness of the proposed 10 foot sideyard requirement in the C -2 district. Mr. Collins explained that the purpose of the 10 foot setback was to provide a consistent requirement regardless of where the C -2 district was located. Councilman Bauch said part of his concern was that 10 feet is not wide enough to allow parking in the rear. Mr. Collins said the driveway issue would be resolved in the building permit process. Councilman Bauch explained that if a wider driveway was required the building still had to have a 10 foot setback on the other side, thus requiring reduced building size. This would prevent use of a common wall by two developers. Mr. Cris Crumbaugh, audience, commented that this would prevent the ability of having stores all in a row. MOVED BY HILL, SECONDED BY DUFFIE, THAT COUNCIL MOVE ON TO ITEM #4. MOTION CARRIED WITH PHELPS VOTING NO. #4, Section Mr. Crumbaugh noted that the authorization of building height 18.50.030, Page 100 exceptions by the Board of Architectural Review needed to be clarified prior to adoption. He requested that they be allowed TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL, C.O.W., ZONING REVIEW February 16, 1882 Page 4 TEXT ISSUES Cont. #4, Section 18.50.030, Page 100 (cont.) So. of I -405 and east of I -5 No. of I -518 and west of I -5 No. of I -5 and east of Interurban #5a, Section 18.56.050 (2) #5b, Section 18.56.040 (2) to build to 115 feet south of I -405 and east of I -5 without Architectural Review of the building height. Above 115 feet it becomes a discretionary act. MOVED BY PHELPS, SECONDED BY HILL, THAT THE AREA SOUTH OF I -405 AND EAST OF I -5 BE ALLOWED A BUILDING HEIGHT UP TO 115 FEET WITHOUT BOARD OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW ON THE HEIGHT.* Council President Bohrer clarified that Planning Commission review would be required for height exceptions above the 115 feet. *MOTION CARRIED MOVED BY HILL, SECONDED BY PHELPS, THAT THE AREA NORTH OF I -518 AND WEST OF I -5 BE HANDLED IN THE SAME MANNER AS THE AREA PRE- VIOUSLY DISCUSSED.* Councilman Bauch commented that buildings of this height would block the view of people in the County. Council President Bohrer said buildings at that height would be out of character with the rest of the area. *MOTION FAILED. MOVED BY HILL, SECONDED BY PHELPS, THAT THE AREA NORTH OF I -518 AND WEST OF I -5 BE ALLOWED BUILDING HEIGHTS UP TO 115 FEET WITH BOARD OF ARCHITECTURAL DISCRETION. MOTION CARRIED WITH BOHRER VOTING NO. MOVED BY PHELPS, SECONDED BY HILL, THAT THE EXISTING DESIGNATION REMAIN FOR THE AREA NORTH OF I -5 AND EAST OF INTERURBAN. MOTION CARRIED WITH BOHRER VOTING NO. MOVED BY PHELPS, SECONDED BY DUFFIE THAT 18.50.030 REMAIN THE SAME AND THAT 18.50.040 BE AMENDED TO INDICATE AN OUTRIGHT APPROVAL OF HEIGHTS UP TO 115 FEET IN THE AREA SOUTH OF I -405 AND EAST OF I -5 AND HEIGHTS ABOVE 115 FEET REQUIRE PLANNING COMMISSION REVIEW. MOTION CARRIED. Staff distributed detailed parking information taken from the International Council of Shopping Centers Study. Mr. Collins said this language would be entered into Chapter 18.56 under Shopping Center (Mall), Planned. MOVED BY DUFFIE, SECONDED BY PHELPS, THAT COUNCIL ACCEPT THIS DOCUMENT FOR SHOPPING CENTER PARKING (MALL), PLANNED.* Council President Bohrer commented that he thought parking ratio calculated by actual use would be better. When the use changes, the ratio would change. *MOTION CARRIED WITH BOHRER VOTING NO. Mr. Norman Seethoff, Southcenter Shopping Center, explained that the diagram for off street parking is not consistent with the text. He diagrammed the problem and asked to have the drawing changed before the document is adopted. MOVED BY HILL, SECONDED BY DUFFIE, THAT THE NEW DIAGRAM BE SUBSTITUTED IN THE ILLUSTRATION WITHOUT THE F PRIME DIMENSIONS DRAWN IN. MOTION CARRIED. .3b3 TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL, C.O.W. ZONING REVIEW February 16, 1982 Page 5 TEXT ISSUES Cont. #6, Section 18.96.080/ 18.96.110 #7, Regulation of adult motion picture theaters #8, Section 18.80/18.84 #9, Section 18.96 Mr. A. O'Dell ADJOURNMENT: 10:57 P.M. Mr. Collins said that this item has been resolved to the satisfaction of the City Attorney. MOVED BY HILL, SECONDED BY PHELPS, THAT COUNCIL MOVE ON TO ITEM #7. MOTION CARRIED. MOVED BY BAUCH, SECONDED BY PHELPS, THAT THE TWO NEW SECTIONS ON REGULATION OF ADULT MOTION PICTURE THEATERS FROM THE MEMO OF FEBRUARY 5 BE ADOPTED.* Council President Bohrer asked Mr. Collins to research, with the City Attorney, if it is legal to prohibit drive in adult motion picture theaters. *MOTION CARRIED. Item #8 has been dropped. MOVED BY HILL, SECONDED BY DUFFIE, THAT COUNCIL MOVE ON TO ITEM #9. MOTION CARRIED. MOVED BY PHELPS, SECONDED BY HILL, THAT THERE BE ONE SINGLE APPEALS DESIGNATION IN THE ORDINANCE EXCLUDING APPEALS FROM THE SHORELINE PROVISIONS OF THE ZONING CODE.* Mr. Satterstrom noted that on February 1 the appeals of administrative interpretation would be appealed to the Board of Adjustment. Appeals from the Planning Commission would go to the City Council. Councilman Phelps said the intent is to put the appeals procedure, whether it applies to appeals to the Board of Adjustment or the City Council in one place in the ordinance, not at the end of each section. *MOTION CARRIED. Mr. Collins explained that next Tuesday the ordinance will be on the agenda. Any modifications Council wishes to make will be done then. The completed ordinance will go to the next regular meeting for adoption. Mr. Aden O'De11,14040 Interurban Ave. So., said he thought Council had discussed 75 feet in height for the M -1 zone; now he finds it is 35 feet. This is really restrictive. He asked if there could be a height exception under the review process to give the property more flexibility. Mr. Collins clarified that in the C -2 area the height limitation would be 45 feet. Under the special Interurban Review District criteria, it could be expanded 10 feet in each of the zones. MOVED BY HILL, SECONDED BY PHELPS, THAT THE COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE ADJOURN. MOTION CARRIED. v Council President Bohrer t CtiL(� -c am_: Ci t`y Clerk 360'4