HomeMy WebLinkAboutCAP 2007-04-10 COMPLETE AGENDA PACKET 1
Distribution: V. Jessop
City of Tukwila P. Carter K. Matej
V. Griffin S. Kerslake
Community Affairs and P. Linder S. Lancaster
Parks Committee D. Robertson T oth
Mayor Mullet C. O'Flaherty
Pam Linder, Chair R. Berry J. Pace
i E. Boykan D. Speck
Pam Carter J. Cantu R. Still
Dennis Robertson B. Fletcher S. Whiting
K. Fuhrer N. Gierloff
CC File (cover)
AGENDA
Tuesday, April 10, 2007,
Conference Room #3; 5 PM
ITEM ACTION TO BE TAKEN Page
1. PRESENTATION(S)
2. BUSINESS AGENDA
a. Expanding Seattle Southside brand to include a. Information only. Pg.
regional economic development;
Derek Speck, Economic Development
Administrator
b. Tukwila Pond Water Quality Consultant b. Forward to 4/23 C.O.W. and Pg.
Contract 5/7 Regular Meeting.
Sandra Whiting, Urban Environmentalist
Pg.
c. Code Amendments: c. Refer to Planning
SEPA Commission for
Townhouse recommendation.
Housekeeping
Nora Gierloff, Planning Supervisor
3. ANNOUNCEMENTS
4. MISCELLANEOUS
Next Scheduled Meeting: Tuesday, April 24, 2007
The City of Tukwila strives to accommodate those with disabilities.
Please contact the City Clerk's Office at 206 433 -1800 for assistance.
City of Tukwila
Steven M. Mullet, Mayor
Office of the Mayor
6200 Southcenter Boulevard
Tukwila, WA 98188
www.ci.tu1...wila.\Va.us
TO:
Mayor
Community Affairs and Parks Committee
Finance and Safety Committee
FROM:
Economic Development Administrator
DATE:
April 5, 2007
SUBJECT:
Expansion of Seattle Southside Brand to Include Regional Economic Development
ISSUE
Whether to allow the Southwest King County Economic Development Initiative (SKCEDI) to use
the Seattle Southside brand identity for regional economic development marketing.
BACKGROUND
The cities of Burien, Des Moines, SeaTac, and Tukwila have teamed up with the Port of Seattle,
King County, and Highline Community College as the Southwest King County Economic
Development Initiative (SKCEDI) to build the economy of Southwest King County.
As one of its projects, SKCEDI is going to do some coordinated marketing to attract business and
development to Southwest King County. This marketing will probably involve some printed
marketing materials, a website, and some presentations and tours of our area. It will significantly
improve the marketing effort to have a consistent identity and SKCEDI has asked to use Seattle
Southside's brand.
For the past five years, the Seattle Souths ide brand has been used successfully to attract tourists
from outside our state for the purpose of increasing overnight visitors to increase tourism dollars
spent in Southwest King County communities.
DISCUSSION
Under Katherine Kertzman's direction, Seattle Southside has built a strong and very positive brand
identity. With the right approach and management, expanding this brand to include regional
economic development will be very positive for attracting tourists, businesses, and development. If
this expansion moves forward, Seattle Southside will retain the rights to approve how the brand is
used to ensure the quality of the brand is protected.
Ms. Kertzman has expressed strong support for this expansion and on April 4, 2007 the Tukwila
Lodging Tax Advisory Committee unanimously approved extending the brand to economic
development. There is no additional budget request for this item.
RECOMMENDATION
This item is for discussion only. Council action is not required.
City of Tukwila
Steven M. Mullet, Mayor
Department of Community Development
Steve Lancaster, Director
INFORMATION MEMO
To:
From:
Date:
Subject:
Mayor Mullet Y LlL ~
Steve Lancaster, Director, DCD y-
March 28,2007
Tukwila Pond 'Vater Quality Consultant Recommendation
Project Number 03-PKIO
ISSUE
Approval of Tetra Tech, Inc. to carry out a detailed feasibility study and design for
improving water quality in Tukwila Pond.
BACKGROUND
The City carried out a planning process in 2006 with the Council, Parks Board, Planning
Commission and staff to identify goals for Tukvvila Pond as an enhanced urban amenity,
centerpiece for the Tukwila Urban Center Plan, and wildlife conservation area (see the
attached, approved concept plan). In addition to enhancing Tukwila Pond for public and
wildlife use, one of the areas of concern is the need to improve \vater quality and reduce
potentially harmful algal blooms in the summer. A very preliminary screening study was
carried out in 2006 to identify potential methods and technologies that could be used to
improve water quality in the pond. This preliminary study identified the need for
additional information and more detailed feasibility study, including water quality
monitoring. The DCD urban environmentalist has been conducting ongoing water
quality monitoring since September with the support of the Fire Department. This
proposed consultant contract is to conduct the detailed feasibility study and design. It
will also provide cost estimates for construction.
The work under this contract will be carried out concurrently with the Tukwila Pond Trail
and Boardwalk contract being managed by Parks and Recreation to take the Tukwila
Pond Conceptual Design to the 55% design level. The water quality consultant and the
landscape architect consultant will be coordinating on design issues that relate to water
quality (such as survey data and floating dock design).
S.Whiting, h:\Tukwila Pond Plan\Water Quality Contract\InfomemoCAP.doc
3/30/07
6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 . Tukwila, Washington 98188 · Phone: 206-431-3670 · Fax: 206-431-3665
ANALYSIS
A Request for Proposal was prepared by staff and sent out to five firms that were short-
listed from the current consultant roster due to their qualifications in the area of lake
management and water quality engineering. The five firms were:
. ESA-Adolfson Associates
. Envirovision, Inc.
. Herrera Environmental
. Parametrix
. Tetra Tech, Inc.
Two proposals were submitted in response to the RFP and were reviewed by a committee
made up of DCD and Public Works staff. The committee judged the best technical
proposal to be that of Tetra Tech.
Tetra Tech is familiar with Tukwila Pond, as the firm carried out water quality
monitoring in 1995 in conjunction with the development of Tukwila Pond Park. Tetra
Tech also conducted the screening analysis in 2006. The finn has highly qualified and
experienced staff in lake management issues and understands the need to develop low-
maintenance and economic alternatives. Therefore, Tetra Tech is recommended for this
project.
The projected schedule for the project is May through December of2007, but it is
expected that preliminary design and costs estimates for implementation will be available
in the fall.
RECOMMENDATION
The total budget in the 2007 CIP for Tukwila Pond is $280,000, the bulk of which is
being used for the landscape design of the Conceptual Plan. Of that amount, staff is
requesting that $73,186.00 be approved for this water quality feasibility study and design
contract. Staff recommends approval and referral to the COW ofthe consultant
agreement with Tetra Tech, Inc. for professional feasibility and design services for
improving water quality in Tukwila Pond.
Attachments: Tukwila Pond Conceptual Plan
Consultant Agreement
S.\Vhiting, h:\Tukwila Pond Plan\Water Quality Contract\InfomemoCAP.doc
3/30/07
Tukwila Pond 'Vater Quality Consultant Recommendation
Project Number 03-PKIO
Design Diagram
CONSULTANT AGREEMENT FOR
LAKE MANAGEMENT EVALUATION AND DESIGN SERVICES
TillS AGREEMENT is entered into between the City of Tukwila, Washington, herein-after referred
to as "the City", and Tetra Tech, Inc., hereinafter referred to as "the Consultant", in consideration of
the mutual benefits, terms, and conditions hereinafter specified.
1. Project Designation. The Consultant is retained by the City to perform lake management
feasibility study and design services in connection with the project titled Tukwila Pond
Water Quality Imorovements.
2. Scope of Services. The Consultant agrees to perform the services, identified on Exhibit "A"
attached hereto, including the provision of all labor, materials, equipment and supplies.
3. Time for Performance. Work under this contract shall commence upon the giving of written
notice by the City to the Consultant to proceed. The Consultant shall perform all services and
provide all work product required pursuant to this Agreement within 240 calendar days from
the date written notice is given to proceed, unless an extension of such time is granted in
writing by the City.
4. Payment. The Consultant shall be paid by the City for completed work and for services
rendered under this Agreement as follows:
A. Payment for the work provided by the Consultant shall be made as provided on Exhibit
"B" attached hereto, provided that the total amount of payment to the Consultant shall not
exceed $73,186.00 without express written modification of the Agreement signed by the
City.
B. The Consultant may submit vouchers to the City once per month during the progress of
the work for partial payment for that portion of the project completed to date. Such
vouchers will be checked by the City and, upon approval thereof, payment shall be made
to the Consultant in the amount approved.
C. Final payment of any balance due the Consultant of the total contract price earned will be
made promptly upon its ascertainment and verification by the City after the completion of
the work under this Agreement and its acceptance by the City.
D. Payment is provided in this section shall be full compensation for work performed,
services rendered, and for all materials, supplies, equipment and incidentals necessary to
complete the work.
E. The Consultant's records and accounts pertaining to this Agreement are to be kept
available for inspection by representatives of the City and state for a period of three (3)
years after final payments. Copies shall be made available upon request.
5. Ownership and Use of Documents. All documents, drawings, specifications and other
materials produced by the Consultant in connection v.rith the services rendered under this
Agreement shall be the property of the City whether the project for which they are made is
executed or not. The Consultant shall be permitted to retain copies, including reproducible
copies, of drawings and specifications for information, reference and use in connection with
the Consultant's endeavors. The Consultant shall not be responsible for any use of the said
documents, drawings, specifications or other materials by the City on any proj ect other than
the project specified in this Agreement.
6. Compliance with Laws. The Consultant shall, in performing the services contemplated by
this Agreement, faithfully observe and comply with all federal, state, and local laws,
ordinances and regulations, applicable to the services to be rendered under this Agreement.
7. Indemnification. The Consultant shall indemnify, defend and hold harmless the City, its
officers, agents and employees, from and against any and all claims, losses or liability,
including attorney's fees, arising from injury or death to persons or damage to property
occasioned by any act, omission or failure of the Consultant, its officers, agents and
employees, in performing the work required by this Agr~ement. With respect to the perform-
ance of this Agreement and as to claims against the City, its officers, agents and employees,
the Consultant expressly waives its immunity under Title 51 of the Revised Code of
Washington, the Industrial Insurance Act, for injuries to its employees, and agrees that the
obligation to indemnify, defend and hold harmless provided for in this paragraph extends to
any claim brought by or on behalf of any employee of the Consultant. This waiver is mutually
negotiated by the parties. This paragraph shall not apply to any damage resulting from the
sole negligence of the City, its agents and employees. To the extent any of the damages
referenced by this paragraph were caused by or resulted from the concurrent negligence of the
City, its agents or employees, this obligation to indemnify, defend and hold harmless is valid
and enforceable only to the extent of the negligence of the Consultant, its officers, agents and
employees.
8. Insurance. The Consultant shall secure and maintain in force throughout the duration of this
contract comprehensive general liability insurance, with a minimum coverage of $500,000 per
occurrence and $1,000,000 aggregate for personal injury; and $500,000 per occurrence/
aggregate for property damage, and professional liability insurance in the amount of
$1,000,000.
Said general liability policy shall name the City of Tukwila as an additional named insured
and shall include a provision prohibiting cancellation of said policy except upon thirty (30)
days prior written notice to the City. Certificates of coverage as required by this section shall
be delivered to the City within fifteen (15) days of execution of this Agreement.
9. Independent Contractor. The Consultant and the City agree that the Consultant is an inde-
pendent contractor with respect to the services provided pursuant to this Agreement. Nothing
in this Agreement shall be considered to create the relationship of employer and employee
2
between the parties hereto. Neither the Consultant nor any employee of the Consultant shall
be entitled to any benefits accorded City employees by virtue of the services provided under
this Agreement. The City shall not be responsible for withholding or otherwise deducting
federal income tax or social security or for contributing to the state industrial insurance
program, othenvise assuming the duties of an employer with respect to the Consultant, or any
employee of the Consultant.
10. Covenant Against Contingent Fees. The Consultant warrants that he has not employed or
retained any company or person, other than a bonafide employee working solely for the
Consultant, to solicit or secure this contract, and that he has not paid or agreed to pay any
company or person, other than a bonafide employee working solely for the Consultant, any
fee, commission, percentage, brokerage fee, gifts, or any other consideration contingent upon
or resulting from the award or making of this contract. For breach or violation of this warrant,
the City shall have the right to annul this contract without liability, or in its discretion to
deduct from the contract price or consideration, or otherwise recover, the full amount of such
fee, commission, percentage, brokerage fee, gift, or contingent fee.
11. Discrimination Prohibited. The Consultant, with regard to the work performed by it under
this Agreement, will not discriminate on the grounds of race, color, national origin, religion,
creed, age, sex or the presence of any physical or sensory handicap in the selection and
retention of employees or procurement of materials or supplies.
12. Assignment. The Consultant shall not sublet or assign any of the services covered by this
Agreement without the express written consent of the City.
13. Non-Waiver. Waiver by the City of any provision of this Agreement or any time limitation
provided for in this Agreement shall not constitute a waiver of any other provision.
14. Termination.
A. The City reserves the right to terminate this Agreement at any time by giving ten (10)
days written notice to the Consultant.
B. In the event of the death of a member, partner or officer of the Consultant, or any of its
supervisory personnel assigned to the project, the surviving members of the Consultant
hereby agree to complete the work under the terms of this Agreement, if requested to do
so by the City. This section shall not be a bar to renegotiations of this Agreement
between surviving members of the Consultant and the City, if the City so chooses.
15. Attorneys Fees and Costs. In the event either party shall bring suit against the other to
enforce any provision of this Agreement, the prevailing party in such suit shall be entitled to
recover its costs, including reasonable attorney's fees, incurred in such suit from the losing
party .
3
16. Notices. Notices to the City of Tukwila shall be sent to the following address:
City Clerk
City of Tukwila
6200 Southcenter Boulevard
Tukwila, WA 98188
Notices to Consultant shall be sent to the following address:
Tetra Tech. Inc.
1420 5th Avenue. Suite 550
Seattle. WA 981801
17. Integrated Agreement. This Agreement, together with attachments or addenda, represents
the entire and integrated Agreement between the City and the Consultant and supersedes all
prior negotiations, representations, or agreements written or oral. This Agreement may be
amended only by written instrument signed by both the City and the Consultant.
day of
. 2007
DATED this
CITY OF TUKWILA
CONSULTANT
By:
Steven M. Mullet, Mayor
Printed Name:
Title:
Attest! Authenticated:
Approved as to Form:
Jane E. Cantu, CMC, City Clerk
/R~z:s~~~-- ~
Office of the City Attorney
4
EXHIBIT A
Scope of Work
Lake Management Services for Tukwila Pond
City of TukwiIa
Tetra Tech, Inc.
1420 Fifth Avenue, Suite 550
Seattle, WA 98101
206.728.9655
March 22, 2007
The following is a brief description of the scope of work to be performed by Tetra Tech (Tt) in support of
the City of Tukwila's efforts to improve the environmental condition of Tukwila Pond.
Task I Data Review. Tt will review existing data provide by the City and identify data gaps. The City
will also provide Tt infrastructure drawing of information as requested for Tt feasibility study of
alternatives. It is assumed that Pond inflows and outflows will be monitored by the City for quantity as
well as Pond level in order to determine a water budget. Phosphorus content of inflows and groundwater
will also be determined in samples collected by City personnel.
Task 2 Conceptual Phosphorus Model. Tt will construct a simple conceptual mass balance model using
the water and phosphorus budgets with chlorophyll prediction to illustrate the probably importance and
magnitude of internal versus external loading seasonally and to estimate relative impact of alternative
implementation.
Task 3 Stormwater Recommendations. Tt will make Stormwater management recommendations,
treatment of external phosphorus sources will be considered with respect to their relative magnitude of
effect on the Pond seasonally relative to cost. These best management practices will be sustainable
biofiltration or infiltration type systems.
Task 4 SW Pond Planting Plan. Tt will provide a southwest pond planting plan. The key to identifying
the plants that will successfully establish in this section of the pond is based on developing an
understanding of the sediment and inundation cycle, which Tt will do through direct observation and City
input.
Task 5 Feasibility Study. Tt will conduct a feasibility/design study analysis, a preliminary assessment of
the causes for the pond's poor quality relative to type and prospects for in-pond quality control activities
to be included in this analysis include circulation, hydroponic docks, P-inactivation, and dilution. This
assessment and estimates of environmental benefits will be further refined with additional data during the
study.
Task 6 Design and Cost Estimate. Based on the results of the feasibility analysis Tt will design in-lake
activities. Tt will provide preliminary and final design drawings, specifications and costs for installing
recommended techniques.
Task 7 Operation and Maintenance Plan. Tt will produce an operation and maintenance plan, with
guidance for maintenance of recommended control activities based on technology and team experience.
Task 8 Monitoring Plan. Tt will recommend an ongoing pond monitoring plan for adaptive management
uses in future years.
Task 9 Contingency Plan. Tt will design a emergency contingency plan to take effect if implemented
control measure fails to meet expectations in a given year. For example, if an algal bloom develops after
the hydroponic docks are established an alum treatment will be planned and may be employed as a
contingency measure.
Tasks 10 Permit Support. Tt will assist the City by identifying required permits and by preparing permit
application materials.
Task 11 Meetings. Tt will prepare for and attend three meetings with City Staff to discuss fmdings and
recommended activities and design specifics.
Task 12 Project Management. Tt project management will be conducted for team coordination and direct
communication with City staff, product quality assurance and control will be conducted as well as
monthly invoicing under this task.
EXHIBIT B
Budget Estimate
Lake Management Services for Tukwila Pond
City of Tukwila
Tetra Tech, Inc.
1420 Fifth Avenue, Suite 550
Seattle, W A 98101
206.728.9655
March 22, 2001
T kwil P d L k M
s
B dE'
u a on a e anagement emces u Iget stimate
Task Labor, ODCs Budget
hours $
PM PE Eng limo Env Sci
$172/hr $ 126/hr $110/hr $80/hr $80/hr
1 Data Review 4 8 4 8 4 $50 $3,506
2 Conceptual P Model 8 8 16 $50 $3,706
3 Stormwater 4 8 $50 $1,746
Recommendations
4 SW Planting Plan 4 12 $50 $1,698
5 Feasibility Study 20 32 48 24 32 $500 $18,812
6 Design and Cost 24 48 60 16 32 $500 $21,836
Estimate
70 & MPlan 2 8 8 $50 $1,914
8 Monitorinl! Plan 2 2 8 $50 $1,034
9 Contingency Plan 8 8 4 4 $50 $3,004
10 Permitting Support 4 16 16 16 $50 $4,278
11 City Staff Meetings 12 12 12 $250 $6,786
Proiect Management 28 $50 $4,866
Total Project Costs 120 116 136 78 144 $1,700 $73,186
INFORMATION MEMORANDUM
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
Mayor Mullet
Community Affairs and Parks Committee
Steve Lancaster, DCD Director XA ,~
April 4, 2007 0-
Code Amendment - SEP A
To:
ISSUE
Should the SEP A process and thresholds be streamlined to eliminate review or shorten
timelines for smaller projects when environmental impacts are unlikely?
BACKGROUND
The State Environmental Policy Act (SEP A) requires that a standard checklist be filled
out by a project proponent to identify the environmental impacts of certain actions.
Actions include grading, dredging, paving, construction or demolition of buildings, and
adoption or revision of most plans, policies or regulations by a government agency. The
intent is to identify environmental impacts that would otherwise "fall through the cracks"
and provide a mechanism for public review and mitigation.
Jurisdictions have flexibility in setting the thresholds that trigger SEP A review up to the
maximum level allowed by the State.
Type of Action Tukwila's Maximum Proposed
Threshold Threshold Thresholds
Residential 4 dwelling units 20 dwelling units 9 dwelling units
Construction
CommerciallIndustrial 4,000 sf and 20 12,000 sf and 40 12,000 sf and 40
Construction parking spaces parking spaces parking spaces
Parking Lots 40 parking spaces 40 parking spaces 40 parking spaces
Landfills or 500 cubic yards 500 cubic yards 500 cubic yards
Excavations
Jurisdictions can also take advantage of an optional SEP A process that allows them to
identify projects where significant adverse environmental impacts are unlikely and
combine the comment period on that determination with the notice of application
comment period for the underlying permit.
NG
Q:\CODEAMND\4-lOCAP _SEP A.DOC
Page 1
04/04/20071:41:00 PM
ANALYSIS
Tukwila has a comprehensive set of regulations to control negative impacts in the
follO\ving areas:
1. Traffic
2. Sensitive Areas (wetlands, watercourses, slopes, liquefaction areas, coal mine
hazards)
3. Shorelines
4. Stormwater
5. Sewer and Water Concurrency
6. Design Review.
Because these standards are already in place we do not often have to rely on SEP A to
impose mitigation conditions. Raising the threshold for number of new dwelling units to
10 would match the threshold for subdivision review. Raising the threshold for new
buildings in commercial/industrial zones to 12,000 sf and 40 parking spaces would
streamline review of smaller projects. As an example the Claim jumper restaurant is
approximately 12,000 sf.
Very few development proposals require a full environmental impact statement (ElS) to
analyze impacts and develop mitigation measures. For the vast majority of development
in Tukwila the City issues either a determination of non-significance (DNS) or a
mitigated determination of non-significance (MDNS) after review of the SEP A checklist.
The City is authorized under WAC 197-11-355 to make this determination early in the
review process and combine the SEP A comment period with that of the underlying
permit, saving about two weeks of processing time.
PROPOSAL
Raise the flexible thresholds for residential, commercial and industrial new construction
as shown on the table above. Take advantage ofthe optional DNS process that allows for
concurrent SEP A and project comment periods.
RECOMMENDATION
Forward the proposal to the Planning Commission for a public hearing and development
of specific code amendments.
NG
Q:\CODEAMND\4-10CAP _ SEP A.DOC
Page 2
04/04/20071:41:00 PM
To:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
INFORMATION MEMORANDUM
Mayor Mullet
Community Affairs and Parks Committee
Steve Lancaster, DCD Director ~ ~
April 4, 2007
Zoning Code Amendment - Townhouse
ISSUES
Should the Zoning Code be changed to allow for development of fee simple townhomes?
Due to lot size and setback requirements only condominiums or apartments are allowed in
our multi-family zones, though they could be built in townhouse form.
Because townhouses are also typically significantly larger than stacked apartments or
condominiums unless the bulk and coverage requirements in the current code were
changed fewer townhouse units could be built on a given site.
BACKGROUND
DCD has periodically been approached by developers interested in building townhomes.
They think that there is a stronger market for this type of housing in fee simple ownership
on individual lots rather than as a condominium. While our codes allow for townhomes to
be built if they are owned as condominiums, the insurance requirements for condominiums
make many small projects unfeasible. The Council may be interested in expanding the
range of O"\\'nership multi-family options available in Tukwila.
ANALYSIS
Due to Tukwila's prevailing pattern of narrow, deep lots in most infill situations
townhouses would be perpendicular to the street, rather than the traditional row house with
stoops along the street and alley access behind. Below is an example of a typical market
driven design for an 80' x 240' infilllot in Tukwil~.
-,f----
J
. ~1i;~: ',;~'~r.T:~~"~.'''''j;r;r''~'.r~;t;~~,.t;'tki'".L>.>'i'J;1.1
f1
t:r
1:,;1:::~,~.L..- "
"-
-;.~
~-,
NG
Q:\Townhouses\4-10CAP _TO\\TIhouse.DOC
Page 1
04/04/2007 1 :40:00 PI...!
The development standards in Tukwila's multi-family zones are based on a garden
apartment model with communal open space. Many of these standards would be in
conflict with the townhouse building type. The following areas of the Zoning Code would
require amendments in order to allow for construction of townhouses with private yards on
individual platted lots.
. Minimum Lot Area Though the Medium Density Residential (MDR) Zone allows
for one unit per 3,000 sf of lot area there is a minimum lot size of 8,000 sf.
Similarly in High Density Residential (HDR) one unit is allowed for every 2,000 sf
oflot area but the minimum lot size is 9,600 sf. Townhomes can be developed at
these densities, but the minimum lot size requirements would need to be eliminated
or applied to the project as a whole rather than the individual house lots.
. Average Lot Width The minimum lot width of 60 feet required in the MDR and
HDR zones would need to be eliminated or applied to the project as a whole. Most
townhouse lots are between 15 and 25 feet in width and 80 to 100 feet in depth.
. Setbacks The side setbacks would need to be eliminated for interior units and
while a minimum separation between tovmhouse buildings should be required the
40 feet required by code (20' on either side of the property line for the 2nd and 3rd
story) is excessive.
. Landscape The side yard landscape requirement would need to be eliminated for
interior units though there should be some landscape requirement between
buildings.
In addition modifications to the following areas of the code would allow for a development
pattern and density closer to what is being built elsewhere. If we did not change these bulk
and coverage requirements the market might continue to favor apartment development.
. Setbacks The front, second front side and rear setbacks in MDR and HDR all
increase for second and third floors. Since townhomes are almost always two to
four stories in height these tiered setbacks may make development difficult on
small lots even ifthey were applied to the project as a whole.
. Landscape There would need to be some flexibility with the front, second front,
side and rear landscape requirements even if they were applied to the site as a
whole, rather than each individual lot.
. Development Coverage The development coverage limitation of 50% in MDR and
HDR requires that half ofthe property be kept as landscape, pedestrian or recreation
area. That would be difficult to meet at zoned densities with the typical townhouse
development pattern given the parking and fire access requirements. A building
footprint limitation, similar that in the LDR zone, would be workable.
. Recreation Space The MDR and HDR zones require 400 square feet of recreation
space per unit with a 1,000 sq foot minimum. The space per unit may be feasible as
a combination of yards and balconies, however the restriction that setback areas
NG
Q:\TO\\11houses\4-10CAP _ Townhouse.DOC
Page 2
04/0412007 1 :40:00 PM
may not count toward this total (TMC 18.52.060) would not. Since to"rnhomes
function more like single family residences than apartment or condominium
complexes the requirement for communal children's play areas would not be
appropriate.
PROPOSAL
Subdivision
One approach for how to handle this type of development is to treat to\\rnhouse and cottage
projects similarly to a binding site plan. This would apply lot size, lot width, setback and
landscape standards to the original "parent" parcel rather than the "unit" lots that contain
the individual townhomes. This would result in the same treatment adjacent to the
neighboring properties while allowing a different ovmership pattern.
Other than that change both the short plat and subdivision platting process could follow the
standard procedure with preliminary approval, infrastructure construction, fmal approval
and then building permit. Some cities allow the buildings to be constructed prior to final
approval along with the rest of the site improvements so that the lot lines can be drawn
accurately through the existing common walls. If the buildings are constructed after the
plat sometimes field conditions require boundary line adjustments to meet the as built
conditions.
Design Review
The multi-family Design Review Criteria in the Zoning Code will work for townhouse
development. The optional Multi-Family Design Guidelines booklet has some sections
that would not be applicable, such as the child play area guidelines.
Staff proposes that projects following the short subdivision process (up to 9 lots) be subject
to administrative design review and projects requiring a subdivision be subject to public
hearing design review.
Other Standards
In addition modifications to the following bulk and coverage requirements would allow for
a more market driven development pattern and density closer to what is achievable for
stacked apartment/condominiums.
. Setbacks
Even if the setback requirements were only applied to the parent lot the tiered
setbacks in the MDR and HDR zones have been identified by developers as
difficult for townhouse development. Unlike an apartment building where a
smaller unit could be substituted to create a larger setback on the second or third
floor, a townhouse may only be 20 feet wide so an additional 1 0' of setback would
compromise the usability of that floor. Also to\\rnhouses would typically only have
bedrooms on the third level, unlike apartment buildings, so they may be less
intrusive on neighbors.
NG
Q:\Townhouses\4-1 o CAP _ Townhouse.DOC
Page 3
04/04/2007 1 :40:00 PM
. Development Coverage
It is not possible to achieve zoned density with a typical townhouse product under
the 50% impervious surface limitation. Townhouses are typically twice as large as
an average apartment usually with 2 to 3 bedrooms and a garage. A 50-60%
building footprint limitation is common in other jurisdictions.
. Recreation Space
Other codes require between 200 and 300 square feet of recreation space per unit
with some granting 2 for 1 credit for balconies and patios. In addition setback areas
that are part of private open space for an individual unit should be allowed to count
toward the recreation space requirement. Since the small private yards are
generally fenced some thought should be given to limiting the height of fences,
especially along street frontages.
RECOMMENDATION
Forward the proposal to the Planning Commission for a public hearing.
NG
Q:\Townhouses\4-1 OCAP _ TO\\11house.DOC
Page 4
04/04/2007 1 :40:00 PM
INFORMATION 1\1 E 1\1 0 RAN DUM
TO: Mayor Mullet
Community Affairs and Parks Committee
FROM: Steve Lancaster, DCD Director ~
DATE: April 4, 2007
SUBJECT: Code Amendments - Housekeeping
BACKGROU1\TD
Staff has grouped four amendments to the Zoning Code together for consideration. The topics
range from minor housekeeping or clarification to policy decisions about allowed uses and
development standards. Each proposed amendment has a brief explanation followed by a list of
options. Staff's recommended option is in bold.
PROPOSED AME1\TDME1\1TS
A. Permit Processing Housekeeping
There are a few decisions called out in the body of the Zoning Code that are not listed in the table
at TMC 18.104.010 Classification of Project Permit Applications.
Add to the Type 2 Decisions section:
18.52.020 Special Permission landscape approvals
18.16.080, 18.22.080, 18.24.080 Waiver of certain setback and landscape standards in the
Commercial Redevelopment Area
18.50.130 Structures over public R-O-W
18.56.140 Variance from Parking Standards less than 10%
Add to the Type 4 Decisions section:
18.16.080, 18.22.080, 18.24.080 Waiver of certain setback and landscape standards in the
Commercial Redevelopment Area
Options:
1. Address these housekeeping items at a different time
2. Forward the corrections to the PC
Q:\CODEAMND\2007 AmendCAP.DOC
Page 1
B. Limitation on Additions to Homes that Do Not meet Setbacks
TMC 18.70.040 (6) allows "single family structures in single or multiple family zone districts,
which have legally non-conforming building setbacks, shall be allowed to expand along the
existing building line(s) if the existing distance from the nearest point of the structure to the
property line is not reduced." This provision has been used in ways that significantly increase the
area of non-conformity and impact upon the neighboring property.
Staff suggests that such expansions be limited to the ground floor and the area of the new
intrusion into the setback not exceed 50% of the area of the current intrusion.
Options:
1. Decline to consider the proposal
2. Forward the language change to the PC
3. Recommend changes to the proposal before forwarding it to the PC
a) Allow two or three story additions within the setback
b) Select a different percentage of increase
c) Other changes
C. Retaining Wall Setbacks
There are several different standards for whether retaining walls can be located in required
setbacks which leads to confusion and in some cases unusable yards. The Zoning Code defines
yard as:
18.06.945 Yard
"Yard" means a required open space unoccupied and unobstructed by any structure or portion of a
structure from 30 inches above the general ground level of the graded lot upward.
Structure is defmed as:
18.06.800 Structure
"Structure" means a combination of materials constructed and erected permanently on the ground or
attached to something having a permanent location on the ground, but excluding all forms of vehicles
even though immobilized. Not included are residential fences, retaining walls less than three feet in
height, rockeries and similar improvements of minor character.
The building code allows most rockeries and retaining walls up to 4' high without a permit,
which many people assume is the trigger for meeting setbacks. Rockeries are rarely allowed to
retain more than 4 feet of earth. While the intent may have been to prevent a neighbor from
having to look at a tall retaining wall on the property line it sometimes has the effect of creating a
yard that is unmaintained and unusable to the property O\vner because of the grade separation.
These rules do not provide for the situations where a retaining wall is perpendicular to a property
Q:\CODEAMND\2007 AmendCAP.DOC
Page 2
line across two or more lots or alongside a driveway when the garage is built into the basement of
a house on a hillside.
Staff suggests that retaining walls and rockeries with up to 4 feet of exposed face be allowed in
yards to match building code requirements. This could be increased in special circumstances if
the property in question is on the lower side of the retaining wall, if the wall benefits the lots on
both sides of the property line or if the wall is needed due to R-O-W improvements.
Options:
1. Retain the existing definitions
2. Fonvard the proposal to change the definition of structure and add additional
language to the PC
3. Recommend changes to the proposal before forwarding it to the PC
a) Make additional distinctions between rockeries and retaining walls
b) Other changes
D. Administrative Variance for Lot Size
The minimum lot size in Low Density Residential, Tukwila's single family zone, is 6,500 sf.
There are areas of the City that were platted prior to current zoning regulations with 3,000 sf lots.
This means that a property owner would have to aggregate five or more lots totaling 15,000 sf in
order to subdivide. Staff proposes to create an administrative variance to the DCD Director for
reductions in lot size of up to 500sfper lot for up to two lots to streamline the process for lots
that are just under the threshold for subdivision. Requests for greater reductions would still
require a public hearing before the Hearing Examiner. Proposed criteria for this variance
include:
1) The current or past property owner has not reduced the area of the lot in question by BLA,
short plat or sale of adjacent lots under common ownership after the effective date of Ord.
2097.
2) The new lots would be able to meet all other development standards including setbacks,
lot width, maximum building footprint and parking.
3) Lots that have received a reduction in size through the PRD process are not eligible for
further reductions through this variance process.
4) The variance is compatible with and meets the spirit ofthe comprehensive plan and will
not adversely affect the character of the neighborhood and the rights of the neighboring
property owners.
5) The variance permitted is the minimum variance necessary.
6) The variance is necessary to relieve a material hardship which cannot be relieved by any
other means.
7) The granting of the variance will not cause a substantial detrimental effect to the public
interest.
Q:\CODEAMND\2007 AmendCAP.DOC
Page 3
Options:
1) Decline to consider these changes
2) Fonvard the proposal to create an administrative variance for lot size to the
PC
3) Recommend changes to the proposal before forwarding it to the PC
a) Allow a variance of up to 10%
b) Other changes
REQUESTED ACTION
Select an alternative for each of the above proposals and either forward the proposal to the
Planning Commission for consideration, decline to consider the change or hold it back for further
refmement.
Q:\CODEAM1\.'D\2007 AmendCAP .DOC
Page 4