Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOW 2012-04-23 Item 4B - Attachments A-FAttachment A tarty or Tukwila Planning Commission Planning Commission (PC) Minutes Date: January 26, 2012 Time: 6:30 PM Location: City Hall Council Chambers Present: Brooke Alford, Chair; Thomas McLeod, Vice Chair; Commissioners, Louise Strander, David Shumate, and Jeri Frangello- Anderson Arrived: Commissioner, Mike Hansen arrived at 6:35 PM Absent: Commissioner, Aaron Hundtofte Staff: Nora Gierloff, Deputy DCD Director, Minnie Dhaliwal, Planning Supervisor, and Wynetta Bivens, Planning Commission Secretary Chair Alford opened the public hearing at 6:30 PM. Minutes: Commissioner McLeod made a motion to adopt the December 15, 2011 minutes. Commissioner Strander noted one correction and seconded the motion. The motion was unanimously approved. Correction: Commissioner Jeri Frangello- Anderson, was absent at the 12/15/11 meeting. PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING CASE NUMBER: L12 -001 APPLICANT: City of Tukwila REQUEST: A series of proposed housekeeping code amendments ranging from code clarification to policy decisions about allowed uses and development standards. LOCATION:. City wide Minnie Dhaliwal, Planning Supervisor, Department of Community Development presented the staff report. She gave a brief overview on the proposed code amendments. Similar housekeeping code amendments were last updated in 2009.The current meeting and legislative approval process was explained. Also, background and history was provided on the proposed code amendments, discussion followed PROPOSED CHANGES: Site Specific Rezones The State law requires only one public hearing for quasi-judicial site specific rezones, which typically also involve changes to the Comprehensive Plan map, as the Zoning and Comprehensive Plan maps are identical in Tukwila. However, the City is currently holding two public hearings and several Council Committee meetings. The city attorney has advised that the process needs to be changed to meet the State law. Therefore, staff is asking the Planning Commission to make a decision between Option 1 Option 2b as drafted in the 1/27/12 PC packet. Staff is recommending option 1. There was extensive discussion on the proposed options, and potential revisions to the proposed language. Page 1 of 4 113 PC Hearing Minutes January 26, 2012 ACTION: Option 1 Staff was asked to provide the Commission with more information and clarification on what the role of the Commissioners is pertaining to giving, gathering, and sharing information in a public meeting, and whether option 1 will involve making a recommendation to the City Council by the Planning Commission. Single Family Designs Standards Entered into the record was a public comment letter by Sandra Kruzie, Tukwila resident, that was received on January 26, 2012, and it was handed out to the Commissioners at the public hearing., In 2004, the Zoning Code was amended requiring the same design standards for homes built on site and manufactured homes. In response to a citizen complaint staff briefed the Community Affairs and Parks Committee (CAP) in October 2011, regarding different options of regulating the bulk and size of single family dwelling units. This was in response to a complaint regarding houses being built that are too large in their neighborhood. The committee gave staff directions to amend the method of calculating building height on sloping lots. Recently, another Tukwila resident raised an issue with the City Council regarding the current design standards, which prevent the replacement of a single -wide manufactured home with a much better manufactured home, as it did not meet some design standards. The current standards require all homes to have a minimum roof pitch of 5:12 and the front door to face the street. After discussion on this issue, the PC approved Option 1: ACTION: Amend the Single Family Design Standards to allow the replacement of a single wide mobile home with a newer and larger manufactured home, a one -time allowance. Staff will draft some qualifying language addressing what the community is gaining from allowing this waiver. PUBLIC TESTIMONY: Gary Singh, Developer, expressed concern with changing the building height rules that have been in effect for a very long time. He said the City has slopes, which will dramatically change the size of the houses with the new method of calculating building heights. Mr. Singh asked if Attachment G could be looked into. He talked about building height comparisons of the surrounding cities: Kent, Renton, and Burien, stating they allow 35 ft. structure heights and Tukwila is 5 ft. lower than the other three cities. He said that he wonders why Tukwila wants to lower the building heights more. He said he thinks that the 30 ft limit is great but if it is changed, it's going to create a lot of complications. Mr. Singh said if someone can build a bigger house, he wonders why it is not allowed. Staff noted that in 2007, the City Building Official looked at the referenced Attachment G. Explanation was given on Tukwila and the methods of calculating building height by surrounding cities. Commissioner Alford stated that Tukwila does have homes that are built out of scale, and that they distract from the community. She said efforts should be made to respond to the land and the surrounding community. Staff walked through the proposed changes listed in Attachment F and Attachment I. The PC discussed and approved. staffs proposed recommendations with the following changes: 114 Page 2 of 4 PC Hearing Minutes January 26, 2012 Attachment F; Page 2: Correct the name of the park to Duwamish Hill Preserve. Page 5: Building Height, add the word "at" to state that the different grade planes be of intervals at least 15 feet. Page 6: Add the phrase "or its successor" after Department of Early Learning. Page 8: Landscape Plan Requirements section, add the following clarifying language "dead or dying trees as determined by a certified arborist" Page 8: Loading Space Requirement section Eliminate this section Page 9: Filing of Plans section, change the word "restriping" to "reconfiguring with some thresholds, such as adding new spaces, changes to landscaping islands and fire lanes. Discussion of the proposed changes related to manufacturing uses listed under Attachment I followed. The discussion focused on the following use that is permitted in C/LI zone, "Manufacturing, processing and/or assembling of electrical or mechanical equipment, vehicles and machines including, but not limited to, heavy and light machinery, tools, airplanes, boats or other transportation vehicles and equipment Commissioner Alford asked, "Why are manufacturing uses that have significant potential for causing environmental pollution, such as noise, smoke, and dust, permitted in the Commercial Light Industrial (C/LI) area." She said, "It doesn't seem appropriate for the zone. Ms. Dhaliwal stated that she looked into this matter further to understand what the category means, where it is allowed, and what the legislative intent was when it was adopted in 1995. She said it is a permitted use in C/LI, HI, MIC/L, MIC/H zones, and is a conditional use in TVS. It is likely that it was permitted due to some existing business. It is a broad category and the scale of products being manufactured could be small or big under this zone. Ms. Dhaliwal stated if the other Commissioners felt this was an issue that they could consider the following options: 1. Recommendation that the vehicle, auto and boat manufacturing be moved to a Conditional Use in C/LI. If this option is selected then there should be a provision that before it goes to the City Council there is additional notice provided to the property owners of this zone informing them of the options. This would allow property owners a chance to weigh in at the City Council public hearing. 2. Leave as staff has written. 3. No change at this time, and look at it more comprehensively later. She said in the past there was some sensitivity to making decisions that caused existing businesses to become non conforming, and that should be taken into consideration, and proper notice be given before making any changes that exceed the purview of housekeeping code amendments. Nora Gierloff, Deputy DCD Director, commented that the mildest approach with the least impact would be Page 3 of 4 115 PC Hearing Minutes January 26, 2012 to make it a Conditional Use, which would allow some additional control for new uses but it would not make any existing uses non conforming. Ms. Dhaliwal said that if the Commission wants to make a recommendation to the City Council, then she suggests notifying the property owners in the C/LI zone, and holding a public hearing on the proposed change. Commissioner Alford asked for the other Commissioners opinion on the issue. Discussion on this issue continued during deliberation. There were no additional comments. The public hearing was closed. The PC deliberated. At the next meeting, staff will provide the PC with a memo of the requested information on the Site Specific Rezones, Option 1, with an attached ordinance of all of the other proposed changes. The PC will complete deliberation on the revised ordinance, and then make a recommendation to forward to the City Council. The Commission took a vote regarding notifying property owners that the PC would be holding a public hearing to change vehicle and boat manufacturing to a Conditional Use in the C/LI. Four Commissioners were in favor, Commissioners Strander and Hansen were opposed. CONTINUANCE: The hearing will be continued to February 23, 2012, at which time staff will return with more specific ordinance language. Staff will also send out a notice to the property owners in the C/LI on the prpsosed changes to manufacturing uses and inform them of the public hearing continuance on February 23 DIRECTOR'S REPORT: Anthony Ritch, Regional Senior Vice President, Westfield, is tentatively scheduled to attend the February 23 meeting and provide an update on the mall. Work continues on the TUC Plan, staff is not certain it will be ready to bring back to the PC in February. A training opportunity was shared with the PC, if interested they can contact Nora, or Evie Boykan, Tukwila Human Services Program Manager to RSVP. Greater Youth Involvement, community outreach,- Staff said they are unable to take on this project at this time, and asked if anyone would be interested in taking on this project, and developing a proposal to be submitted to the Mayor. Nora asked to be notified if anyone is interested. Staff inquired whether the link to review their PC packet on laserfiche electronically is sufficient, or whether they would also prefer to have a packet mailed to them. Submitted By: Wynetta Bivens Planning Commission Secretary Adjourned: 9:22 PM Adopted: 02/23/12 116 Page 4 of 4 City o f Tukwila Planning Commission Planning Commission (PC) Minutes Date: February 23, 2012 Time: 6:30 PM Location: City Hall Council Chambers Present: Brooke Alford, Chair; Commissioners, Louise Strander, Mike Hansen, David Shumate, Aaron Hundtofte, and Jeri Frangello- Anderson Absent: Vice Chair, Thomas McLeod Staff: Nora Gierloff, Deputy DCD Director, Minnie Dhaliwal, Planning Supervisor, and Wynetta Bivens, Planning Commission Secretary Chair Alford opened the public hearing at 6:30 PM. Minutes: Commissioner Strander made a motion to adopt the January 26, 2012 Planning Commission minutes. Commissioner Hansen seconded the motion. The motion was unanimously approved. SPECIAL PRESENTATION: Antony Ritch, Regional Senior Vice President, Development, Westfield Shopping Mall, gave a presentation regarding the mall's vision at the request of the Planning Commission. Mr. Ritch expressed their pride in being a true partner and investing in the community. He said that it is through the shared visions and partnerships that they are able to achieve the best results for the community, customers, retailers, and investors. Recently, Southcenter won a "gold" award for the mall expansion. Mr. Ritch said the award is a very prestigious award in the industry, and was a real compliment to the City, and the team, for the remodel accomplishment, which was achieved under the City's current planning codes. Westfield became in involved with the TUC Plan in 2002, and is interested in continuing to work with staff on the revised draft TUC Plan. They have some concerns with the original TUC Draft, which they have discussed with staff. They feel that the proposed development regulations are not economically viable for developers. Concern was expressed with the way the code was written in the previous draft. And also with the following language, `the shopping industry shift is away from internal focused malls to more open air malls', Westfield felt the previous draft Plan was far too prescriptive, and could be an issue for redeveloping the assets with a very specific form of development. A Canadian pension fund investor has purchased the largest ever real estate investment with Westfield for a 45 percent stake of Southcenter and a number of other development assets. Mr. Ritch said they look forward to continuing to invest in Southcenter and being part of the next evolution of Tukwila. Mr. Ritch said they do not want to discourage investors. He stated that they share the vision for the Southcenter region to become more diversified with residential and office uses. They want to work with the City, but they need assurance that the infrastructure is in place. Public transportation, the roads, and connectivity are extremely important. However, they can't continue to invest if there is a risk that retailers and investors are going to go elsewhere due to better planning environments in which they can work, and this is a major concern. Mr. Ritch said that Westfield looks forward to receiving the next draft of the Plan and participating in conversations. He said the results of the Southcenter remodel have been fantastic, and they are very proud to say that Southcenter is extremely strong and has come through the recession in a very solid fashion, and they think that the product is truly world class. Commissioner Hansen, said that he concurs with many of the things Mr. Ritch said, and he believes it's the right direction for the TUC Plan. Mr. Hansen said Westfield is the engineer for Southcenter, moving forward. He said Page 1 of 5 117 PC Hearing Minutes February 23, 2012 transportation will be critical to how people continue to move through the TUC and have the good planning development that everyone wants to have. He also thanked Westfield for being part of the community and commended them on doing a great job. Commissioner Hundtofte asked what in particular is still outstanding. for Westfield with the second draft. Mr. Ritch answered that they provided a very detailed list of concerns in the original draft and they have not received any new information on which to comment. Once they receive new information, they will put together detailed comments. He also said that they would be happy to come back and discuss their comments. Additional comments from the PC The Commissioners thanked Mr. Ritch for the presentation, congratulated Westfield on winning the gold award, and expressed their appreciation for having Westfield in the City. Commissioner Alford asked if Westfield had a 10, 20, or 50 year plan for a vision for this property in their organization for the future. Commissioner Alford also asked if Westfield could potentially see having residential housing above the mall one day. Mr. Ritch said they face a challenge having plans that are as far out as 10 -50 years. He said that five years out is even difficult to predict with all of the changes that happen and they are constantly adjusting their plans. He said they want to continue to diversify the assets, keep open communication with the community and retailers, and evolve plans from there. He said the most important thing to do is to keep investing. Regarding housing above the mall, Mr. Ritch said what drives the ability to do mixed use is a lot of the infrastructure. He said it's very site specific and it depends on the timing and the demand Commission Shumate expressed concern regarding the price of gas continuing to rise in the next few years and the impact it's going to have on people who normally drive to the mall. He said he hopes there will be a contingency plan on getting people from the train station, light rail, or the bus, to the mall. Mr. Ritch stated they are very adept at working with cities to integrate public transportation, and would be more than willing to work with the City on this issue. PLANNING COMIVIISSION PUBLIC HEARING 1/26/12 CONTINUANCE: Chair Alford swore in those wishing to provide public testimony. CASE NUMBER: L12 -001 APPLICANT: City of Tukwila REQUEST: A series of proposed housekeeping code amendments ranging from code clarification to policy decisions about allowed uses and development standards. LOCATION: City wide Minnie Dhaliwal, Planning Supervisor, Department of Community Development, explained that at the 1/26/12 public hearing it was proposed to add sub headings to the manufacturing uses that are allowed in the various zones including those allowed in the Commercial and Light Industrial (C/LI) zone. The discussion focused on one of the permitted uses listed as manufacturing of tools, vehicles, and machinery, and whether it should continue to be listed as a permitted use or changed to a conditional use. Since the 1/26/12 public hearing, staff has notified all of the property owners of the C/LI zone that the Planning Commission is reviewing this particular use. Staff received three comment letters on this issue, which were provided to the Commissioners. Staff noted that the C/LI zone is spread out throughout the city and only a small portion of the overall area is adjacent to residential areas. Commissioner Strander disclosed that she informed Nora Gierloff that she owns property in the C/LI. Ms. Page 2 of 5 118 PC Hearing Minutes February 23, 2012 Gierloff thanked Ms. Strander for disclosing the information and stated that it is fine for her to participate in the public hearing for the Citywide zoning change. TESTIMONY: Paul Sheehan said he has owned a family business in Tukwila for 35 years. He expressed concern with a comment made pertaining to whether manufacturing uses were zoned appropriately. He said he is hoping the City is not taking the approach that they do not want any manufacturing uses in the area. Mr. Sheehan said that they like it in Tukwila and want to stay. Rick Bellin, Vice President, CFO for Harnish Group, and subsidiary companies, NC Machinery and NC Power System, said that he is very alarmed there is consideration for a Conditional Use. He said they work with light and heavy machinery including total rebuilds of tractors, and the proposed zoning change would affect them tremendously. He said it would harm a long term resident that's been in Tukwila for over 40 years, who generates high sales taxes for the City. He said they have never created any type of environmental issue. And he strongly urges that the zoning is not revised. In response to a question from Commissioner Alford, he said a Conditional Use would put a limitation on the use of their property. Robin Sweiger, business owner, said that she doesn't see where this environmental impact issue has come from. She said that she is incredibly worried about the zone being changed. She said all of the businesses in the area work together and that the area has been cleaned up. Gary Singh, Developer, discussed the issues addressed in the comment letter he submitted. He said that there is a language interpretation issue for one of the TMC codes. Mr. Singh is proposing a different method of calculation for the Maximum Building Footprint (TMC 18.10.057). Mr. Singh spoke in support of a proposal to allow the Director of Community Development to approve a 10% allowable variance. (staff clarified that the building footprint issue was not discussed at the 1/26/12 public hearing but was discussed at the Community Affairs and Parks Committee meeting in October 2011) Mr. Singh urged the Planning Commission to consider his requests. Bruce MacVeigh, Civil Engineer, said he has worked on several projects with Mr. Singh. He spoke in support of Mr. Singh's proposed method of calculation for Maximum Building Footprint and spoke favorably of the homes Mr. Singh builds. Mike Overbeck, Tukwila property owner of a proposed 31 unit townhomes development, said that he is very passionate about being proactive and helping the city. He spoke in support of developers like Gary being able to invest in the City. He said he hopes there is a way to resolve Mr. Singh's issues and move forward. He commented that other municipalities would find a way to make this work. Mr. Overbeck said that he wants to continue to participate in bringing businesses, people, and developers into Tukwila. Louie Sanft, Tukwila property owner, said he has several properties that are zoned C/LI. He said that he has a new project he is developing along Interurban Ave that could possibly be affected by changing the zoning, as well as some other existing properties. He said this change seems random and that he has not heard of any reasons why the changes need to occur. Environmentally, he said that the Department of Ecology is really good at watching businesses, as well as King County Industrial Waste Water Division, and the City of Tukwila Fire Department. He said that he doesn't think changing the uses of businesses that are law abiding, following the rules, and doing everything appropriately, would be fair to landlords. He also said a Conditional Use could limit businesses from opening new businesses and some businesses may move to a different city. Mr. Sanft requested the manufacturing use is not changed to a Conditional Use because it would be discouraging to future businesses that may want to move here. There were no additional comments. The public hearing was closed. The Planning Commission deliberated. Page 3 of 5 119 PC Hearing Minutes February 23, 2012 Commissioner Shumate asked what the Conditional Use entails and how it would involve property owners. He also asked whether staff notified the affected residents surrounding the C/LI of the public hearing. Staff responded that they only notified the property owners in the C/LI, and that the standard notice was published in the newspaper. Ms. Dhaliwal explained that Conditional Uses require an additional review process for a use to be approved. It involves a hearing, notifying all property owners within 500 ft. of the property, staff making a recommendation to the Hearing Examiner, the Hearing Examiner preparing the finding and facts, and making a decision on the proposal. There is criteria in the code for a Conditional Use for which the applicant will need to submit reports and justify that it is not an impact to the area. New construction structures over 1,500 sq. ft. must go through Design Review, which is approved administratively for up to 10,000 sq. ft. For structures, over 10,00 sq. ft. there is a hearing process. In addition, structures larger than 12,000 sq. ft. must go through the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA). Design Review and SEPA are already in the code and may be triggered for new development. Permitted uses do not require land use approval, they require a business license, and they may need a building permit for construction inside the building. Commissioner Hundtofte asked what was driving the proposed Conditional Use amendment. He also asked for some clarification regarding mixed uses in the NCC, and said if the amendment is approved Conditional Use should apply to the NCC also, because it is lighter than C/LI. Commissioner Alford stated that she raised the proposed Conditional Use amendment for manufacturing, based on language in the basic housekeeping standards. She said there was one classification that would have significant impacts in the C/LI, and she inquired whether it was appropriately zoned. She commented that she doesn't think that businesses should be penalized but that the community should have input regarding what is going on in their environment. Co Stander said there are long term existing businesses that have been a part of the community; and that she personally would be reluctant to put any sort of Conditional Use on their previously zoned activity. Commissioner Hansen concurred with Commissioner Strander. He said that he votes in favor of leaving things the way they are. Commissioner Hundtofte asked if the proximity to the water could be governed by the Shoreline Master Plan and if other overlays, rather than just zoning, could cover it. Ms. Dhaliwal said that the properties that abut the river would apply for new construction or the uses section of the SUP. In addition to the local agencies, there are regional bodies such as the Department of Ecology that would regulate clean air emissions. Under the Conditional Use criteria, in addition to the hearing, there would be documentation on what other overlays cover for regulations. Commissioner Alford asked if all of the other agencies and the current codes would protect AllenTown residents from redevelopment in the area from heavy Industry and impacts from noise, vibration, dust, etc. Ms. Dhaliwal. said that for any new development that triggers SEPA, there would be a review done for impacts to the environment. Also, an Environmental Impact Statement will need to be prepared to address the impacts for projects that have a significant impact. COMMISSIONER HANSEN MADE A MOTION TO RETAIN THE LANGUAGE IN ATTACHMENT `I' FOR MANUFACTURING USES IN THE C/LI WITH NO CHANGE. COMMISSIONER STRANDER SECONDED THE MOTION. COMMISSIONER ALFORD CALLED FOR A ROLL CALL VOTE. COMMISSION SHUMATE OPPOSED. THE MOTION PASSED 5 -1. Page 4 of 5 120 PC Hearing Minutes February 23, 2012 Commissioner Alford expressed a concern with having permitted uses causing impacts; she said she hopes this issue can be addressed by a more comprehensive look in the future. There was discussion on Mr. Singh's proposal to change the building footprint calculations. Staff noted that this change could only be implemented if the policy is changed for the way single family houses are regulated. It was the consensus of the Commissioners to retain the current building footprint calculations. Quasi- Judicial Rezone Staff returned with clarifying information as requested by the PC at the 1/26/12 on their role pertaining to the quasi-judicial rezone process. The decision was to keep this item as a Type 5 decision unless Council delegates the authority to the PC for them to hear as a Type 4 decision. COMMISSIONER HANSEN MADE A MOTION FOR TWO OPTIONS FOR THE PUBLIC HEARING PROCESS FOR SITE SPECIFIC REZONES: OPTION 1: STAFF HOLD ONE INFORMATIONAL PUBLIC MEETING PRIOR TO TYPE FIVE DECISIONS GOING TO CITY COUNCIL (PLANNING COMMISSION ATTENDANCE OPTIONAL); THEN CITY COUNCIL HOLD A PUBLIC HEARING AND MAKE A FINAL DECISION. OPTION 2: IF COUNCIL PREFERS, THE PLANNING COMMISSION HOLD THE PUBLIC HEARING AND FORWARD THEIR RECOMMENDATION TO THE CITY COUNCIL; THEN CITY COUNCIL HOLD A CLOSED RECORD PUBLIC HEARING AND MAKE A FINAL DECISION. COMMISSIONER STRANDER SECONDED THE MOTION. The decision was to keep this item as a Type 5 decision (Option 1) unless Council delegates the authority to the PC for them to hear as a Type 4 decision (Option 2). ALL WERE IN FAVOR. Other Reauested Housekeenine Chanees The remaining list of proposed housekeeping amendments, including the changes requested by the Planning Commission at the January meeting are listed in the draft Ordinance. COMMISSIONER SHUMATE MADE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE DRAFT ORDINANCE WITH AMENDED RECOMMENDATIONS. THE ORDINANCE WILL BE FORWARDED TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR THEIR FINAL RECOMMENDATION. COMMISSIONER HANSEN SECONDED THE MOTION. ALL WERE IN FAVOR. DIRECTOR'S REPORT: Sign Code housekeeping items: Nora stated that there were not provisions in the Sign Code for signs to appear on gas station canopies staff is proposing to add some modest signage allowance for gas station canopies; Staff is proposing changes to the Sign Code that will streamline the permit process and allow businesses to amend their existing sign permit without being charged a fee. Staff will present changes to the CAP on 3/12/12, since they are very minor non policy oriented changes they are going to request for approve without returning to PC with the proposed changes. Staff contacted Nate Robinson in Tukwila Parks and Recreation regarding a youth outreach group attending a PC meeting and the PC using this as an opportunity to do some community outreach with the youth. Nate works with the Tukwila high school group of teens on college prep and community service. If there is an interest for Nora to pursue this, please let her know. Submitted By: Wynetta Bivens Planning Commission Secretary Adjourned: 8:40 PM Adopted: 03/22/12 Page 5 of 5 121 122 a o to 3 a s a 'u E p a) o o O U o Y U U a) Y YO a) M O W O a) L 7` fd Q a) U o E 3 o E s �n c U O tin y s 4' a) p a) N -O a) O O L C .N a) a E s O O iif a) m C L U N N U O v U N U W w EO co E 'a L 7` N 7 N O U Q C O L c 3 co o a°0i C a c u u L c Q w a) Y w E O p Y a) U N p 0 0 X 0 Ln v cv C o E cu o s O v O •v 'u� Z E a) 'O fC 3 U d0 -0 Mo p O 0 U C O U S1 C Q a) a) d0 a c ti Q u O N- E E a) a, a) E is C E C o Y C- N H 41 C 'u u a) p !6 L N C C y Q N O_ of CL 4 c N~ O- U ro Q C0 C co t O •o O 0 7 fOa c E o v a° ro c C s E° E C N o a u m Y N O Q L .0 C O C O> V O Y O s C 3 E �s y U s a) 3 C dA Q V) L O C d as L fn c c c R U a Y p a) C Q Y a) d0 CL a c E E O a C o N U E E E ct p U Y s c 1 m E a) N a) N O N a) M C Y GO O_ 'O a) 4r on to O C ,n O Q 0 On cO6 U L U N C E C v a 3 (n Co s v c s o f p E o N C C a) O E U a) y C w aJ fB U C a) Q Y d s v E E o n U a a�i n M s O o U> Q M� C v o0 Q C M m C. ate+ c� v d a s O 4 cj Y c C y a a� n n 3 E E� v L -C 3 O E U d E a; M j O d a) QO S a) rA b0 U 'n U¢ N E C E C.. L E a) a! O s v W E -O o v p T o s m U a) CL m CL E CL N E 0) s 3 c° a) v co a) ri U-0 O N° O C t E n N U N L Y w p C of O O a) U y "a C tiA dO Y U C N U ca 4-1 (U O C E E 0 C O CJ 3 4 C ca -a a E N ca Q CO CO n m= U u a a ao c ao _0 Y. t- 4. CR O L L M s a) O p 3 10 U C ti0 C C N C Y a) M m e g a)> u= a ca Q) O a) _0 a) Y u m E 0 O C N 1 (6 O N O d Y N° 3 C C Q 7 C: p N O U O N O U O N E C C' C C O N� U U s 0 0 0 O O C CL •L a) s -a Y U to U U ca E a) E O a a� i o s E E E C Ear "4uu Q� a� m 124 Attachment C City of Tukwila Jim Haggerton, Mayor INFORMATIONAL MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT ISSUE Mayor Haggerton Community Affairs and Parks Committee Jack Pace, Department of Community Development Director October 5, 2011 Low Density Residential Zone Development Standards Should the City change residential development standards such as height, setbacks or building footprint to increase the compatibility of infill development with existing structures? BACKGROUND This issue was reviewed by the City Council in 2007, when the Council asked staff to review the way building height was calculated after receiving complaints about a new house that the neighbors felt was out of scale with the surrounding development. The Community Affairs and Parks Committee reviewed the issue and asked staff to look at increasing the rear yard setbacks. Based on the research at that time it was determined that there was no easy fix to regulating the compatibility of infill development and just increasing the setback would not have prevented the house in question to be built. However it was decided to review the height issue with an overall look at the single family standards. An overall look at the policies for residential neighborhoods is usually done as part of the Comprehensive Plan update. At this time Tukwila is mandated by State Law to update its Comprehensive Plan by 2015. The resident who raised this issue in 2007 has asked that this issue be revisited. Staff has prepared some options for the Committee to review in order to address this issue. DISCUSSION There are a number of ways that the bulk or the building envelope of a structure can be regulated, such as building height, lot coverage, setbacks, and in some jurisdictions floor area ratio (FAR). The current development standards in the LDR zone that regulate single family development are listed in Attachment A. Also, Attachment B is the comparison of common development standards of the neighboring jurisdictions. Different development standards that apply to a single family home are discussed below along with some options for revising the standard in order to address the compatibility of infill housing with the existing homes. Building Height Building height is only one element of the development regulations that controls the bulk or the building envelope of a structure. At this time the building height is calculated by the method laid out in the Washington State Building Code. It is measured from the grade plane, which is the average of the finished ground level adjoining the exterior walls of the structure. On a sloping lot the height of the structure on one side can be more than the maximum height allowed on a flat lot. Attachment B discusses the alternate ways of calculating the building height on a sloping lot. One option is to MD 10-5-11 WA2011 Info Memos Council \SingleFamDevStandards.doc 125 INFORMATIONAL MEMO Page 2 establish the grade plane from the lowest ground level around the building. Another option is to allow the grade plane to be stepped to allow the structures to better respond to the topography of sloping sites. Either of these options will result in slightly lowering the maximum height of a structure on a sloping lot. In the case of the house that sparked this discussion changing the building height measuring point from average grade plane to lowest elevation would have lowered the house by about five feet. It would not necessarily prevent the construction of a third story. Setbacks Increasing the side and rear setback distance for the second and third story of a house would be another way to reduce the impact of a house on the adjacent properties. The current LDR setbacks are 20' in the front, 10' on the second front (for corner lots), 5' on the sides and 10' in the rear. Tiered side and rear setbacks that increase by 5' per story would modulate the side elevations of the houses and reduce their bulk. The increases could have the effect of limiting the development potential of smaller or oddly shaped lots and preclude the use of stock plans by developers_ Another option instead of a tiered setback is to increase the rear and side yard setbacks for the entire structure and have an even larger setback for a three story house. Under this option the rear yard setback in LDR for all houses could be increased to 15 feet and to 25 feet if the house has a third story (with a possible exception for alley accessed garages or accessory structures). The house that triggered this discussion is set back 5 to T from one side, 8' from the other and 65' in the back. Building Footprint The LDR zone (TMC 18.10.057) currently limits the footprint of all of the structures on a site to roughly 35% (the percentage decreases as the lot size increases). The building size can be maximized by building that footprint straight up three stories. For substandard sized lots (under 6,500 sf) there is no percentage limit, only the required structure setbacks. There have been some concerns expressed with the formula in the code. Also, there have been some concerns that the formula penalizes development on larger lots or encourages square footage to be added as another story instead of expansion of the footprint. One option may be to allow administrative approval to allow variances up to 10% of the building footprint if certain standards are met such as compatibility in scale with the adjoining homes; modulation of the facade; and /or larger than required setbacks are provided. Floor Area Ratio (FAR) Tukwila does not currently have FAR standard, which is expressed as the total square footage of the building(s) divided by the square footage of the lot. This links the size of the building to the size of the lot regardless of the number of stories. So you can choose to have a larger single story structure or a taller structure with a smaller footprint. Common single family residential FARs range from .45 to .65, which would limit a house on a 6,500 sf lot to between 2,925 and 4,225 sf. Tukwila's Comprehensive Plan suggests a maximum FAR of .5 not including the basement area (CP 7.6.4). The house that triggered this discussion was on a 13,500 sf lot and had a FAR of .34. One option in lieu of having a building footprint standard is to have a graduated FAR standard similar to the building footprint standard, where the percentage decreases as the lot size increases. CONCLUSION Tukwila's single family house regulations are similar to those of nearby, similarly situated communities as seen in the table in Attachment B. The common challenges with infill development are compatibility of the size /bulk with the existing homes; the street layout and orientation of the homes where not all homes face the public street; and the architecture /style of the new homes. MD 2 10 -5 -2011 WA2011 Info Memos- counciNSingleFamDevStandards .doc 126 INFORMATIONAL MEMO Page 3 As part of the Comprehensive Plan update the City of Tukwila will review the policies in the residential neighborhoods chapter. The policies related to neighborhood quality; density requirements; accessory dwelling units; street layout and sidewalk requirements; orientation of the home; accessory structures and other broader policies will be reviewed and discussed as part of that process. However if the Committee decides to review development standards such as building height, setbacks, building footprint and floor area ratio at this time then staff has laid out some options to consider for further discussion. OPTIONS If the Community Affairs and Parks Committee would like to review the development standards in the LDR zone then listed below are some options: 1) Change the Zoning Code to require a different method of calculating the building height on sloping lots; 2) Amend the standards that regulate bulk by: a) Increasing the rear yard setback in LDR for all houses from 10 to 15 feet and to 25 feet if the house has a third story (with a possible exception for alley accessed garages or accessory structures); and /or b) Choose either i) or ii) listed below: i) Allow administrative approval to allow variances up to 10% of the building footprint standard if certain standards are met such as compatibility in scale with the adjoining homes; modulation of the fagade; and /or larger than required setbacks are provided; or ii) Adopt a graduated FAR standard similar to the building footprint standard, where the percentage decreases as the lot size increases. 3) No Action. RECOMMENDATION The options listed above under #1 and #2 will result in slightly reducing the size and the bulk of the homes that could be built in Tukwila. However none of the changes to the building standards would make a significant difference in the bulk of the house that was the source of the neighborhood complaint. Staff recommends that at a minimum the method of calculating building height on sloping lots be revised. If the Committee wishes to look at options 1 and 2, staff recommends that this item be forwarded to the Planning Commission for further review. Staff would bring back the Planning Commission's recommendation to the City Council for final action. ATTACHMENTS Attachment A: Tukwila's Single Family Development Standards Attachment B: Comparison of development standards of the neighboring jurisdictions Attachment C: Methods of calculating building height MD 3 10 -5 -2011 WA2011 Info Memos- CounciRSingleFamDevStandards .doc 127 Development Standards in the Low Density Residential (LDR) Zone Minimum lot size Average Lot Width (minimum) Setbacks: Front I Front, decks or porches Second Front I Sides I Rearl Height Parking 6500 sq. ft. 50 feet 20 feet 15 feet 10 feet 5 feet 10 feet 30 feet maximum and is measured per Washington State Building Code (from the average grade plane to the mid -point of the highest roof) Two spaces for each dwelling unit up to 3 bedrooms and then one additional space for every two bedrooms in excess of 3 bedrooms in a dwelling unit. In addition to the standards listed above the following sections regulate accessory dwelling units, building footprint and the design of the dwelling units: 18.10.030 Accessory dwelling units Accessory dwelling units are permitted in LDR zone, provided the following criteria are met: a. minimum lot of 7,200 square feet; b. accessory dwelling unit is no more than 33% of the square footage of the primary residence and a maximum of 1,000 square feet, whichever is less; c. one of the residences is the primary residence of a person who owns at least 50% of the property, d. dwelling unit is incorporated into the primary detached single family residence, not a separate unit, so that both units appear to be of the same design as if constructed at the same time; e. minimum of three parking spaces on the property with units less than 600 square feet, and a minimum of four spaces for units over 600 square feet; and f. the units are not sold as condominiums. 18.10.057 Maximum Building Footprint The maximum total footprint of all residential structures located on a lot in the Low Density Residential District shall be limited to 35% of the lot area, provided: 1. The maximum footprint is reduced by 0.125% for each 100 square feet of lot area in excess of 6,500 square feet and less than 19,000 square feet; 2. The maximum footprint shall be 4,000 square feet for lots between 19,000 square feet and 32,670 square feet; 3. The maximum footprint shall be 5,000 square feet for lots between 32,760 square feet and 43,560 square feet; 4. The maximum footprint shall be 6,000 square feet for lots over 43,560 square feet; and 5. For lots less than 6,500 square feet in size, the maximum total footprint shall be the area defined by the application of the standard setback requirements set forth in the applicable Basic Development Standards, up to a maximum of 2,275square feet. 128 18.50.050 Single Family Dwelling Design Standards All new single family dwellings, except those that are part of an approved Housing Options Demonstration Program, constructed under building permits submitted to the City after August 19, 2005, must: 1. be set upon a permanent foundation, with the space from the bottom of the home to the ground enclosed by concrete or an approved concrete product that can be either load bearing or decorative; 2. if a manufactured home, be comprised of at least two fully enclosed parallel sections, each of not less than 12 feet wide by 36 feet long; 3. be thermally equivalent to the State's energy code; 4. have exterior siding that is residential in appearance including, but not limited to, wood clapboards, shingles or shakes, brick, conventional vinyl siding, fiber- cement siding, wood- composite panels, aluminum siding or similar materials. Materials such as smooth, ribbed or corrugated metal or plastic panels are not acceptable; 5. have the front door facing the front or second front yard, if the lot is at least 40 feet wide; and 6. have a roofing material that is residential in appearance including, but not limited to, wood shakes or shingles, standing seam metal, asphalt composition shingles or tile, with a minimum roof pitch of 5:12. 18.50.055 Single Family Design Standard Exceptions The design standards required at 18.50.050 (5) and (6) may be modified by the DCD Director as a Type 2 Special Permission decision. 1. The criteria for approval of a roof pitch flatter than 5:12 are as follows: a. The proposed roof pitch is consistent with the style of the house (for example modem, southwestern); b. If a flat roof is proposed, the top of the parapet may not exceed 25 feet in height; c. If a sloped roof is proposed, it must have at least 24 -inch eaves; and d. The house exhibits a high degree of design quality, including a mix of exterior materials, detailing, articulation and modulation. 2. The criteria for approval of a house with a front door that faces the side or rear yard are as follows: a. The topography of the lot is such that pedestrian access is safer or more convenient from the side or rear yard; b. The house will be set back at least twice the minimum front yard setback; c. The entrance is oriented to take advantage of a site condition such as a significant view; or d. The entry feature is integral to a unique architectural design. 129 Below is a table listing single family development standards in nearby jurisdictions Building Envefope i��1ru"]triG a tICCGHT i p s y .Tr 4 Fl Rear 10' Impervious Surface N{AMMUM LOTir_O ERAGf i i Kent Jurisdiction Standard Tukwila stry/35' 30' to roof Max. Height mid -point Min. Lot 60', 70' 50',60' Area 6,500 Lot Width 50' 15', 20' 35%(2,275) 10' at 6,500 sf, garage 20' setbacks only limit Max. Lot below 6,500 Coverage sf Setbacks: 20' Front 20' Second Front 10' Side 5' Rear 10' Impervious Surface N{AMMUM LOTir_O ERAGf i i Kent Renton 2.5 stry/35' 2 stry/35' 2 stry /30' 7,600 8,000 4,500 45% 60', 70' 50',60' 50' Corner Corner SeaTac Burien 30' 35' 5,000 to 15,000 7,200 50' 5' 25' 20' 15' 5' 70% 60% Seattle 30'+ 5' for roof 5,000 None 35% or 1,000+ 15% (1,750) for lots under 5,000 sf 20' 10' 5' Smaller of 25' or 20% lot depth WE Greater Greater of 2,500sf of 2,500sf 45% or 35% or 35% 35% 35% 15', 20' 10' 30' garage 20' 20' 15', 20' 10' 20' garage 20' 15' Total, 5' S min. 5' 5' 5' 5' 25' 20' 15' 5' 70% 60% Seattle 30'+ 5' for roof 5,000 None 35% or 1,000+ 15% (1,750) for lots under 5,000 sf 20' 10' 5' Smaller of 25' or 20% lot depth WE Methods of Calculating Building Height Building Height is defined in the Zoning Code (TMC 18.06.100) as: "Building height" means the height of a building as calculated by the method in the Washington State Building Code. The Washington State Building. Code defines Building Height and the Grade Plane as: Building Height: The vertical distance from grade plane to the average height of the highest roof surface. Grade Plane: A reference plane representing the average of the finished ground level adjoining the building at all exterior walls. Where the finished ground level slopes away from the exterior walls, the reference plane shall be established by the lowest points within the area between the building and the lot line or, where the lot line is more than 6 ft (1829 mm) from the building between the structure and a point 6 ft (1829 mm) from the building. t, Height Limit Actual Grade Average Grade 131 In case of a sloping lot the height is measured from the average grade plane and the visual impact of a structure can be different if it was on a flat lot. This is particularly of importance in residential zones where the compatibility of existing and new homes becomes an issue. In order to address sloping lots the City Council has options to amend the building height definition as follows: "Building height" means the height of a building as calculated by the method in the Washington State Building Code, except if the slope of the subject property is 15% or more and the subject property is zoned residential then building height shall be calculated by either option a) or option b) listed below: a) The grade plane shall be established from the lowest finished grade or lowest existing grade (whichever is lower) adjoining the building at any exterior wail; or Height Limit Actual Grade is greater than 15% Lowest Grade 132 b) In order to allow the structures to better respond to the topography of sloping sites a structure will be allowed to adjust the points at which height is measured. This may be accomplished by establishing separate grade planes at intervals of least 15 feet for different sections of the structure. Height Limit I 1s' is' i_ Section 2 Section 1 'i 15' Section 3 F_ Average Grade or Lowest Grade foreach section s Additionally, the city may require a topographic survey from a licensed land surveyor when the existing grade will be disturbed to accomplish the construction or when the final height of the new structure in the area where grade is being disturbed is within 2 feet of the allowed height limit for the structure as measured above the existing or finished grade. 133 City of Tukwila Community Affairs and Parks Committee COMMUNITY AFFAIRS AND PARKS COMMITTEE Meeting Minutes October 10, 2011 5 :00 p.m.; Conference Room #3 PRESENT Councilmembers: Verna Seal, Chair; Joe Duffie and De'Sean Quinn Staff: Derek Speck, Peggy McCarthy, Brandon Miles, Minnie Dhahwal, Jack Pace and Kimberly Matej Guests: Sandra Kruize CALL TO ORDER: Committee Chair Seal called the meeting to order at 5:02 p.m. I. PRESENTATIONS -No presentations. H. BUSINESS AGENDA A. Crisis Diversion Facilities: Ordinance Repeal and Ammendment Staff is seeking Council approval to repeal Ordinance No. 2332 regarding the location of Crisis Diversion (CDF) and Crisis Diversion Interim Facilities (CDIS) within the City of Tukwila. This repeal is being requested as a result of a decision made by the King County Superior Court on September 16, 2011, which overturned a previous decision by the Central Puget Sound Growth Management Board (Board). Ordinance No. 2332 expanded the location of the above facilities in response to the Board's assertion that a previous ordinance (No. 2287) did not comply with the provisions of the Growth Management Act. Since Superior Court has reversed the Board's decision, the City is now able to repeal Ordinance No. 2332, and revert back to original Ordinance No. 2287. In addition to the repeal, staff is requesting an amendment to Ordinance No. 2287, which would include a revised definition of CDF /CDIS facilities to be consistent with State legislation. This revised definition was included in Ordinance No. 2332. A public hearing will be scheduled on this item for the October 24 COW. UNANIMOUS APPROVAL. FORWARD TO OCTOBER 24 COW FOR DISCUSSION AND PUBLIC HEARING. B. Low Densitv Residential Zone Development Standards Staff is seeking Committee direction on how to proceed with policy standards relative to low density residential zone development. This item originally came forward to Council in 2007 in response to concerns regarding development of residential infill that did not appear to be compatible with existing structures. Concerns regarding such infill were not completely addressed at the time, and staff is now seeking policy direction from the Committee regarding such standards. After discussion, the Committee Members determined that it is in the best interest of the community for staff to review the calculations for building height in regards to infill and existing structures while balancing the needs of the community without discouraging development. This item will move forward to the Planning Commission for review and work as appropriate and return to Committee and Council with a recommendation. The Committee suggested that other issues such as setbacks, lot sizes and variances in regards to low density residential development be looked at during the Comprehensive Plan review process. FORWARD TO PLANNING COMMISSION FOR REVIEW AND RECOMMENDATION. III. MISCELLANEOUS Meeting adjourned at 5:33 p.m. Next meeting: Monday, October 24, 2011— 5:00 p.m. Conference Room #3 a Committee Chair Approval Mi fes b KAM. 134 C/) E ca cd cri CO 0 o .0 3: C;) E 0 5 q Q5 "N' a Z 15'a 0 0 I L-1 I i L i A I 0 f t I I L i /T1 U-- I L T�- L- I r+ -1 1 11P A �I� dcl II ,�I �1 I �I. 9 I l f 1 1 I� e i 1 135 I p with M obile Horses I C a 1 Not Including Mobile Home Parks) l� Attachment F 139 Mrs, Attachment F 141 uli9u9,q l i I' Attachment F 143