Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1982-03-02 Committee of the Whole Minutes - Zoning Ordinance ReviewMarch 2, 1982 7:00 P.M. CALL TO ORDER COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT OFFICIALS PRESENT DISCUSSION From Height limits in Interurban Ave. area TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE Zoning Ordinance Review M I N U T E S 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 but the last two issues from the memo of February 19, 1982 have been dis- cussed and those are height limits in the Interurban area and the Omnibus appeals clause. GEORGE D. HILL, LIONEL C. BOHRER, Council President, MABEL J. HARRIS, JOE DUFFIE, EDGAR D. BAUCH. MAYOR TODD; LAWRENCE E. HARD, City Attorney; FRED SATTERSTROM, Planner; MARK CAUGHEY, Planner; MAXINE ANDERSON, City Clerk. Planning Department Memorandum dated 2/19/82, Text Issues Mr. Aden O'Dell, 14040 Interurban Ave. So., noted that he had addressed Council on this issue two weeks ago. He again re- quested that Council consider changing the height limit from 45 feet to 75 feet in the Interurban Avenue area. In the future development of the property, additional height would encourage the destruction of old buildings. It makes it more economically feasible to accomplish. Mr. Paul Haggard, audience, endorsed what Mr. O'Dell stated. He asked why some parts of Tukwila are allowed 115 feet. The 75 feet in their area is justifiable. Mr. Cris Crumbaugh, audience, said maybe something greater than 45 feet could be allowed under a special review district. This would encourage a better type of development as long as the citizens are protected. Councilman Hill stated that there should be no tall buildings allowed adjacent to Interurban. It would be possible to allow 75 foot buildings back at least 100 to 150 feet. MOVED BY HILL, SECONDED BY DUFFIE, THAT COUNCIL ALLOW A 75 FOOT MAXIMUM HEIGHT IN THE M -1 AREA ON INTERURBAN AVENUE NO CLOSER THAT 100 FEET FROM THE PRESENT EASTERLY MARGIN OF THE STREET AND SUBJECT TO BOARD OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW.* Councilman Bohrer clarified the motion. It is all of the M -1 area east of Interurban that is affected by this motion, and it is 100 feet from the easterly edge of the street, not the center line. Attorney Hard asked if the motion allows up to 75 feet outright or only after review of the height by the Board of Architectural Review. Council President Bohrer clarified that this increases the leeway of the Board to go from 10 feet to 30 feet. Attorney Hard said it is subject to the Interurban Special Review Board because of the location. Councilman Bauch said he is not in favor of the motion. Nothing has been presented that makes this desirable except that some people in the area want it. There would be a better chance of making more money. For the past three or four years, the Planning Commission has studied this and nothing new has been presented to warrant making any changes. Council President Bohrer said that during the initial dis- cussion on Interurban, several alternatives were discussed. He favored zoning the area C -2 because the current M -1 zoning on part of that area is an inhibitor to development not something that fosters development. There is nothing in this motion that protects the City from having highrise uses in some of the M -1. Some of these uses would be undesirable if permitted to go to 75 feet. This is not in line with the goals the Council established for this area. TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL, C.O.W., ZONING REVIEW March 2, 1982 Page 2 DISCUSSION From Planning Department Memorandum dated 2/19/82, Text Issues Height limits in Interurban Ave. area (cont.) Omnibus appeals clause 18.70.050 Para (2) Councilman Hill said he was trying to get a height limitation that would be compatible or even compete with those in the south end. This was an attempt to upgrade the area. Councilman Harris noted that the M -1 zoning is not enhanceable to higher buildings. Mr. O'Dell said that the existing properties were left con- forming, but through the Special Review District, it would make it tough for anything in the way of manufacturing to occur in future development. All the M -1 does is allow the property owners to remain in conformance with the zoning on what they are doing at the present. MOVED BY HARRIS, SECONDED BY HILL, THAT THE MOTION BE AMENDED TO MAKE IT READ "AN ADDITIONAL 30 FEET OF BUILDING HEIGHT OVER THE BASIC STANDARD. Council President Bohrer recapped the motion. It says in an area in the M -1 District which is 100 feet east of Interurban Avenue, the Board of Architectural Review may allow height in- creases of 30 feet. The code provides that in the C -2 areas of Interurban, the B.A.R. can allow a 10 foot height exception. *MOTION CARRIED. *MOTION CARRIED TO APPROVE THE MOTION AS AMENDED. BOHRER AND BAUCH VOTED NO. At the suggestion of the City Council, staff has consolidated the various appeal procedures in the proposed zoning ordinance into a single chapter Chapter 18.90. 18.90.010 18.90.020 18.90.030 18.90.040 Appeals from decisions or interpretations of the Planning Director. Appeals from decisions of the Planning Commission. Appeals from decisions of the Board of Adjustment. Appeals from decisions of the City Council. Attorney Hard suggested that 18.90.010 be amended to read "Any person aggrieved by any interpretation of this title by the Planning Director...." Attorney Hard also noted that 18.90.010 does not contain a time limit. It might be desirable to put some kind of time limit on it. Council President Bohrer noted that a ten day period is already in the other sections. MOVED BY BAUCH, SECONDED BY HILL, THAT THE PROPOSED APPEALS CHAPTER 18.90 BE SUBSTITUTED FOR THE APPROPRIATE SECTIONS OF THE TEXT.* MOVED BY HARRIS, SECONDED BY DUFFIE, THAT "BY THE PLANNING DIRECTOR" BE ADDED AFTER "THIS TITLE" TO THE FIRST LINE OF 18.90.010 AND THAT "WITHIN TEN (10) DAYS" BE ADDED AFTER "BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT" IN THE SECOND LINE OF THE SAME SECTION. MOTION CARRIED. *MOTION CARRIED TO ADOPT THE MOTION AS AMENDED. MOVED BY BAUCH, SECONDED BY HARRIS, THAT THE NEW SECTION (2) BE SUBSTITUTED FOR 18.70.050 (2). (2) SHOULD SUCH STRUCTURE BE DESTROYED BY ANY MEANS TO AN EXTENT OF MORE THAN 50 PERCENT OF ITS REPLACEMENT COST AT TIME OF DESTRUCTION, IN THE JUDGMENT OF THE CITY'S BUILDING OFFICIAL, IT SHALL NOT BE RECONSTRUCTED EXCEPT IN CONFORMITY WITH PROVISIONS OF THIS TITLE, EXCEPT THAT IN THE R -1 ZONE STRUCTURES THAT ARE 361 TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL, C.O.W., ZONING REVIEW March 2, 1982 Page 3 DISCUSSION From Planning Department Memorandum dated 2/19/82, Text Issues 18.70.050 Para (2) (cont.) 18.44.110 Para (7) 18.50.025 Line 3 4 Kassner /View- crest Apt. sites NON- CONFORMING IN REGARD TO YARD SETBACKS, BUT WERE IN CONFORMANCE AT THE TIME OF CONSTRUCTION, MAY BE RECONSTRUCTED TO THE ORIGINAL DIMENSION AND LOCATION ON THE LOT. MOTION CARRIED. MOVED BY BAUCH, SECONDED BY HILL, THAT THE WORD "SHOULD" BE SUBSTITUTED FOR "SHALL" IN SECTION 18.44.110 (7).* Wildlife habitat in and along the river should be protected. *MOTION CARRIED. MOVED BY BAUCH, SECONDED BY HARRIS, THAT "LOCATED SOUTH OF INTERSTATE 405" BE DELETED FROM LINE 3, PAGE 100 (DRAFT 6).* MOVED BY HARRIS, SECONDED BY DUFFIE, THAT THE MOTION BE AMENDED TO READ "SOUTH OF I -405 AND EAST OF I -5." MOTION CARRIED. *MOTION CARRIED. Waivers Councilman Bauch said in the past there have been some contract Rezones rezones and waivers that placed some stringent requirements on projects. Attorney Hard has assured him that these contracts are over and above the requirements of the new zoning code. Attorney Hard said that conditions granted under a rezone, the contract remains in force; however, there may have been some conditions that were placed on the land which, for one reason or another, will be impossible to complete; then there may not be a binding contract. This would be very unlikely. Mean High Mr. Cris Crumbaugh said Council changed the definition of Water Mark Mean High Water Mark and he explained the problem that has Draft 6, Page 177 arisen because of it. The 9,000 CFS line has changed the Ordinary High Water Mark to almost flood stage. He suggested that wording be included to allow them to build a plaza level access to the dike. This would enhance the shoreline zone. He offered to come back next week with sug- gested wording. Staff revisions The Planning staff has reviewed Draft #6 and has noted a num- ber of typographical and /or editorial mistakes as well as more substantive editorial correctives. Mr. Satterstrom asked Council to review and concur with these changes. At the Council meeting of February 23, the proposed zoning for the W.W. Kassner and Viewcrest Apartment properties was changed from R -1 -7.2 to R -3. The current zoning of both properties is R -4. After analyzing the existing unit density of the Viewcrest, it was found to be nearly double that permitted under R -3 zoning. While View crest's density exceeds that of the proposed R -3 zone,Section 18.70.050 (5) protects existing residential complexes from non- conformity caused by adoption of new density standards. However, that section is unclear as to whether "density provisions" also include bulk /use considerations. The bulk limitation of the R -3 is 4 units. It is not clear if they could rebuild to the original bulk and dimensions. Mr. Satterstrom recommended Council either change the zoning to R -4 or RMH or modify the language in 18.70.050 to clarify that the density non conformance also applies to bulk non conformance. Mrs. Joanne Davis, audience, noted that she is across the street from the Kassner property. When the property was rezoned, it was with the knowledge that it would stay below the crest of the hill. The impact of traffic to the R -1 area generated by the apartments was a surprise. To zone Mr. Kassner's property TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL, C.O.W., ZONING REVIEW March 2, 1982 Page 4 DISCUSSION From Planning Department Memorandum dated 2/19/82, Text Issues Kassner /View- crest Apt. sites (cont.) ADJOURNMENT 9:55 P.M. will further impact the single family area. The existing code says that this is undesirable. There could also be an impact on improper drainage and create a slide potential. If there is not a hold on development in this area, Council is putting a stamp of approval on the whole hillside to be apartments. MOVED BY BAUCH, SECONDED BY HILL, THAT THE COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE ADJOURN.* Council President Bohrer said that the zoning ordinance will be placed on the agenda for next week's meeting. *MOTION CARRIED. ouncil President Bohrer City Cferk