City of Burien
BURIEN PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
February 26, 2002
6:30 to 9:00 p.m.
City Council Chambers
MINUTES
Planning Commission Members Present: Robert Pierce, chair; Gerald Robison; Len Boscarine; Mickey Conlin; Jon Newton; Robert Simpson-Clark; Kirsti Weaver; Bruce White
Absent: Douglas Rahn
Others Present: Scott Greenberg, Community Development director, David Johanson, senior planner; Gerry Lindsay, recording secretary
Commissioner Simpson-Clark called the meeting to order at 6:36 p.m. and presided until the arrival of Chair Pierce. Upon the call of the roll, all commissioners were present with the exception of Commissioner Weaver, who arrived at 6:39 p.m.; Chair Pierce, who arrived at 6:40 p.m.; and Commissioner Robison, who arrived at 6:44 p.m.
Agenda Confirmation
Motion to approve the agenda as printed was made by Commissioner Boscarine. Second was by Commissioner Conlin and the motion carried unanimously.
Approval of Minutes
Motion to approve the minutes as submitted was made by Commissioner Newton. Second was by Commissioner Boscarine and the motion carried unanimously.
Public Comment - None
A. Discussion of Proposed Zoning Code Amendments to BMC Chapters 18.30 and 18.35
Scott Greenberg, Community Development director, reminded the commissioners the City is in the midst of an ongoing effort to move all of BMC Title 18, the interim zoning code, to Title 19, the new zoning code. Title 18 was adopted when the City incorporated in 1993 and for the most part reflected the King County zoning code. Once the Comprehensive Plan was adopted in 1997 several issues settled out which were related to the plan, and work began on development of a new code.
Chapters 18.30 and 18.35 consist of details regarding how things are to be measured and miscellaneous standards such as fence heights. The proposal is to fold them into the new code in a miscellaneous standards chapter, Chapter 19.17. Most of the proposed changes are non-substantive and related to formatting. There are, however, five substantive issues to be addressed.
Mr. Greenberg said the first issue relates to building over a property line. He explained that the current code has language that waives the setback requirements for buildings that are built over a property line. Most such buildings were constructed before the zoning codes were established, or were mistakenly built over a property line. Under Title 18 a waiver of all setbacks is allowed, which is an incorrect way of dealing with the situation. The way such matters are resolved is through a lot line adjustment, or through lot merger where there is common ownership of both lots. The proposal is to incorporate that approach.
The commissioners were informed that the second issue deals with retaining walls and rockeries located within setbacks. The proposal is to allow retaining walls and rockeries that are retaining a cut to be located anywhere within the setback area. Where a property involves fill, the recommendation is to allow retaining walls and rockeries within the setback if certain conditions are met. The basic condition is that the retaining wall or rockery must be no more than 18 inches high measured from bottom to top. If they exceed 18 inches in height, encroachment into a back or side yard setback will be allowed up to 18 inches, or five feet into a front yard setback. Mr. Greenberg explained that the numbers are the same as those applying to the construction and location of decks and patios.
Commissioners Robison and Conlin disagreed with the notion of allowing retaining walls and rockeries to encroach only five feet into a front yard setback, which in most residential areas is 20 feet. Commissioner Robison suggested it made no sense to require 15 feet of space in front of the structure. Commissioner Conlin concurred, noting that retaining walls are used extensively in places like West Seattle, and generally speaking they start right behind the sidewalk. Commissioner Robison added that in many instances the walls are built right on the property line.
Commissioner Robison commented that where a retaining wall or rockery exists between two properties, the blank area between the structure and the neighboring property will be of no use to the person who owns the structure, nor to the neighboring property owner since he does not own it. Maintenance of the space will become an issue. Mr. Greenberg countered that without the setback there will be no way for the property owner to get around the structure to maintain it, except by entering the neighboring property.
Answering a question asked by Commissioner Simpson-Clark, Mr. Greenberg said the reasoning behind setbacks in general is to allow for light, air, and space between properties and structures. It also allows room to conduct maintenance. Safety also is an issue with respect to fires. Commissioner Simpson-Clark suggested that if the purpose is primarily safety, the best place for a rockery or retaining wall might be right on the property line.
Commissioner Robison noted that houses are not generally constructed right on top of retaining walls, so with a setback for the wall plus a setback for the house, quite a lot of land is lost for no real benefit.
Commissioner Simpson-Clark suggested that if two adjacent property owners are in agreement about the location of a retaining wall or rockery, the City should not force an artificial separation. Mr. Greenberg said the City fields a fair number of complaints from property owners concerned about what a neighbor is doing. Fences and retaining walls are high on the list of items generating the complaints. Commissioner Simpson-Clark believed there should be an exception allowed in the code where there is a formally filed mutual covenant between two property owners. Mr. Greenberg said that could be a possibility.
Commissioner Robison held that concerns about the locating of retaining walls on property lines might best be addressed in the permitting process. Mr. Greenberg indicated that walls less than four feet high do not need permits.
Commissioner Boscarine said he would like to see rockeries encouraged by not including language that is too restrictive.
Commissioner Conlin commented that good rockeries and retaining walls improve not only the property owner’s property but that of the neighbor’s as well. He suggested allowing the structures anywhere on a property. Commissioner Simpson-Clark agreed, but thought that any structure greater than four feet high located within a setback area should be covenanted.
Mr. Greenberg said he would bring some suggestions to the next meeting for further review.
Mr. Greenberg said the third issue had to do with not allowing existing mobile home parks to expand. He noted that there are only four such parks in the City, two of which are in the Northeast Special Planning Area and are slated for buyout by the Port of Seattle. There currently is a section in the code that talks about mobile home park expansion, and the proposal is to not allow for it. The two parks that are likely to remain in the City are located in an area that is surrounded by existing development and critical areas, making the possibility of expansion very limited.
Mr. Greenberg said the fourth substantive issue had to do with requiring a relocation plan for closure of mobile home parks. The Comprehensive Plan already calls for such plans, and the code revision would simply carry out that direction. Most cities require a mobile home park owner to provide residents with relocation options when a park closes. Most residents of mobile home parks are of low-income status.
Commissioner Robison commented that in most instances residents of mobile home parks own their home but rent the space from the park owner. When a park is shut down, they are unable to move their home to another site, often lose the house and, absent sufficient income to rent an apartment, end up in public housing.
Mr. Greenberg explained the requirement does not mean the mobile home park owner will have to actually relocate the residents, only provide information about relocation.
Commissioner Robison asked if the City disallows the development of mobile home parks. Mr. Greenberg answered that in 1999 when the new use zone charts were approved, mobile home parks were not included.
Commissioner Conlin stressed the need to permit housing of all types in the City so that residents of all income levels can find housing. He suggested that mobile home parks should not be disallowed in the City. Commissioner Robison concurred, adding that not allowing them is elitist and shortsighted.
Chairperson Pierce commented that there are a number of mobile homes located on lots in the City. Mr. Greenberg noted that mobile homes are permitted in the City, but not mobile home parks. Commissioner Simpson-Clark added that land prices alone will keep mobile home parks from being developed in the City. Commissioner Robison agreed but suggested that from a symbolic point of view the City should not essentially say it is too good for mobile home parks and prevent them by code. He suggested leaving the standard in the code. Mr. Greenberg said he would have to look at the language to make sure it works and would bring some options to the next study session.
The fifth substantive issue dealt with fences. Mr. Greenberg explained that currently fences up to six feet high are allowed within the setback. Fences greater than six feet high must meet all setback requirements, and if greater than eight feet high, a building permit is required. Measuring fence height on level lots is not a problem. However, where fences are constructed on a slope the requirement is that every board can be no longer than six feet high, which results in a fence that is parallel to the slope.
Mr. Greenberg said some residents have asked to be allowed to build fences that stair step on a slope. He said one approach to that would be to permit the squared sections of fence provided the average height of any section is no more than six feet. Furthermore, the tallest dimension could be no more than eight feet without triggering a building permit, and the width of the fence sections should be no more than six feet to eight feet.
Commissioner Robison suggested that the code should not have to include a width requirement for the horizontal fence sections. Given that no part of the fence can be more than eight feet high, the slope will dictate the width of each section.
David Johanson, senior planner, suggested that by not specifying a section width, someone could build a fence on a flat property that is eight feet high at one end and four feet high at the other end, leaving the average at six feet. Commissioner Newton allowed that while such a fence may not look right, a property owner should be permitted to build it that way. Commissioner Weaver said such a fence could allow for better sight lines at the road edge, while still providing for some buffering between houses.
Commissioner Simpson-Clark observed that requiring the top of a fence to be horizontally level would force a fence on a slope to be stair-stepped. Commissioner Newton held that any fence under eight feet in height should be permitted, regardless of style. Mr. Greenberg noted that with a building permit, fences can be built up to the height allowed for any structure in the zone, but it must meet all setback requirements.
Chairperson Pierce expressed his desire to see fences in front yards be allowed at no more than four feet high. No other Commissioner agreed with him.
Commissioner Robison suggested that the language proposed by staff was adequate to address the issues, and the others concurred.
Commissioner Simpson-Clark asked why hedges are not included as fences. Mr. Greenberg explained that the City does not want to carry the responsibility of enforcing the height of hedges as they grow. Sight distance issues are handled through another code section.
Chairperson Pierce left the meeting and Commissioner Robison assumed the chair.
Mr. Greenberg raised the issue of fences in conjunction with, either on or near, retaining walls in setback areas. He said the proposal was to permit the maximum height of a fence on or within three feet of the top of a bulkhead, rockery or retaining wall, to be no more than six feet high, provided that the combined height of the fence and the retaining wall is no more than nine feet high. Under the proposal, a seven-foot-high fence could not be constructed on top of a retaining wall that is seven feet high. For safety purposes, a 42-inch fence would be allowed on top of a seven-foot rockery or retaining wall. The idea is to limit the overall height of barriers between properties which might tend to limit light and the like.
Commissioner Conlin noted that a property that has a level backyard created with fill supported by a retaining wall should be allowed a six-foot fence just like anyone else. Mr. Greenberg said the proposal would allow for that provided the fence is set back three feet from the edge of the retaining wall. Commissioner Boscarine suggested that the three-foot area between the fence and the retaining wall would too often be used to store things the neighboring property owner would have to look at.
Mr. Greenberg observed that under the current regulations a fence would not be permitted at all on top of a seven-foot retaining wall, because the code allows only a six-foot fence measured from the bottom of the retaining wall. Of course, where a building code were to require such a fence for safety, that would override the prohibition set by the zoning code. However, the fence would have to be open work, such as a chain link fence.
Commissioner Simpson-Clark commented that if a seven-foot retaining wall would have to be covenanted, the fence could be covered in the same agreement. Mr. Greenberg agreed one approach could be to require a covenant for fences above a certain height on a side or back property line. Commissioner Simpson-Clark felt that limit should be the minimum required for safety. He also felt a retaining wall of a height that requires a permit also should require a covenant agreement.
Commissioner Newton proposed allowing a six-foot fence on top of retaining walls, provided that anything greater than six feet high as measured from the bottom of the retaining wall would need to be open work.
There was agreement that retaining walls requiring a building permit also should require a covenant with the adjacent neighbors, and that fences or structures located outside a setback area should not require a covenant agreement.
Commissioner Robison asked if the posts of a fence also must fall within the overall height limit. Mr. Greenberg suggested that they do not, given that they often include caps or ornamentation.
Returning to the issue of buildings constructed over property lines, Commissioner Robison suggested that nothing at all should be required provided both lots are under one ownership. Mr. Greenberg said the section primarily applies to existing buildings; the City does not permit buildings to be constructed over property lines. Even where two lots are under one ownership, because there are two legal lots involved, the setback restrictions must be met.
Commissioner Simpson-Clark asked what the procedure would be if a home were built right up to the property line and nothing at all built on the adjacent lot. Mr. Johanson said if the structure were legally nonconforming, the adjacent lot would have to meet the setbacks for the zoning. However, the building code carries its own separation requirements, and if they are more restrictive, they would apply. Provided the building and other code requirements are met, a structure could be built on both lots. Mr. Greenberg added that if the owner of two adjacent lots with a building that straddled the line between them were to seek a building permit to construct an addition to the house, the permit would not be granted under the building code requirements.
With respect to requiring a topographic map for properties of 15 percent or greater slope, Commissioner Simpson-Clark suggested that as written the 15-foot contours would not be sufficient; there would be only two contour lines on a lot of 100 feet depth. It would be better to require the contour interval to be either one, two or five feet, whichever is closer to being 10 percent of the total elevation relief of the lot. Another approach would be to require a survey of the four points of the rectangle that encloses the building for the purpose of determining the height of a building. Mr. Greenberg said the problem with that approach is that the map is called for when a permit is applied for, and sometimes as a result of the review process the location of the house on the site changes. With the topographic map in hand, it is an easy matter to simply reposition the building. Mr. Greenberg said the language could be revised to read something like “On lots with a slope of 15 percent or greater, or when a structure is proposed within two feet of the height limit, the director may require a topographic map….” There was general agreement in favor of taking that approach.
Commissioner Simpson-Clark commented that the system used for averaging the four points of buildings puts developments on steep slopes at odds with the requirement for a minimum footprint. In effect the method of measurement forces an architect to create a design with a footprint much larger than the minimum. It would be better to word it so that the director has the discretion of moving to the average of the upslope elevation rather than the average of all four sides if necessary to comply with minimizing the footprint. Mr. Johanson suggested that the checks and balances at work in the current system work well. Closing one loophole might open another, such as additional height on a small footprint that would in fact block someone’s view.
Commissioner Robison called attention to the requirement for 5,000 square feet of recreational space outdoors and noted that 390 square feet is required per house. Unless there is an exception to allow smaller recreational areas for smaller subdivisions, the language forces anyone creating less than about 12 lots to either pay the fee in lieu or set aside much more property than 390 square feet per house. Mr. Greenberg agreed the language should be revised.
Commissioner Robison said it was not clear whether or not the recreational space requirement could be met by dedicating trail right-of-way to the City. He suggested that should be an option.
With regard to the requirement to provide a street, roadway or parking area frontage along 10 to 50 percent of the recreation space perimeter, Commissioner Robison commented that the Comprehensive Plan is clear in speaking about neighborhood parks and the intent to not have people drive their cars to parks and the like. He thought the provision would restrict the ability to provide a recreational area that might otherwise be suitable but which does not have at least 10 percent of its perimeter on a street. The requirement should simply call for access.
Commissioner Robison said the language is not clear as to whether or not the outdoor recreation space has to be open to the public and dedicated to the City. He also noted that if a trail section is not dedicated to the City, the property owner is responsible for maintaining it. He proposed the City should not have the ability to refuse to accept a trail section, thus forcing a property owner to maintain it if it is open for public use. Mr. Greenberg presumed that the outdoor recreation space did not have to be made public, though if in the form of a trail they are generally assumed to be open to the public. He said he would verify that and report back at the next meeting.
Mr. Greenberg announced that the additional Comprehensive Plan amendment requests received were accepted by the Council and placed on the docket.
Motion to adjourn was made by Commissioner Boscarine and was seconded by Commissioner Newton. Commissioner Robison adjourned the meeting at 8:31 p.m.
Approved
/s/ Robert Pierce, chair
Planning Commission
/s/ Scott Greenberg, director
Community Development Department