City of Burien
BURIEN PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
February 8, 2005
7:00 p.m.
City Council Chambers
MINUTES
Planning Commission Members Present:
Robert Simpson-Clark, Jim Clingan, Rebecca McInteer, Jon Newton, Janet Shull, and Barbara Williams
Absent:
Michael Sumner
Others Present:
David Johanson, senior planner
Chair Simpson-Clark called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Upon the call of the roll all commissioners were present with the exception of Commissioner McInteer, who arrived at 7:10 p.m.; and Commissioner Sumner, who was excused.
Agenda Confirmation
Motion to approve the agenda as printed was made by Commissioner Newton. Second was by Commissioner Williams and the motion carried unanimously.
Public Comment
Mr. Anthony Crabtree, 21039 109th Place SE, Apt. #404, Kent
Mr. Crabtree said he works for Liberty Tax Service in Burien, a business that depends heavily on visibility to customers and also on aggressive marketing. The business has found that the most effective way to attract customers is through the use of folding A-frame signs. Such signs, however, are now prohibited by city ordinance. Businesses in Burien need to be allowed to use every strategy they can to attract customers. Liberty Tax Service operates a very seasonal business, one which begins in early January and ends abruptly on April 15. Fully 99 percent of all business is conducted during that narrow timeframe. The company has a growing number of Spanish-speaking clients reflecting the changing demographics in Burien. The use of portable A-frame signs should be permitted given that they are a most useful tool for reaching customers. One approach would be to grant an exception for seasonal businesses. If such an exception cannot be granted, the sign ordinance which prohibits the use of A-frame signs should be repealed. A-frame signs are not in any way offensive in appearance.
Chair Simpson-Clark commented that Discover Burien is working on a similar proposal. He suggested to Mr. Crabtree that he should contact that organization to indicate support for their position.
Approval of Minutes
A. January 25, 2005
Motion to approve the minutes as submitted was made by Commissioner Williams. Second was by Commissioner Newton and the motion carried unanimously.
Old Business
A. Demolition Standards
Motion to recommend to the City Council approval of Ordinance No. 427 as presented was made by Commissioner Newton. Second was by Commissioner Williams.
David Johanson, senior planner, said the proposed ordinance outlines the details presented to and discussed by the commission on January 25. If approved by the council, the end result will be an amendment to the International Building Code.
The commissioners were informed that the language of Section 15.10.200.6 was revised following the January 25 commission meeting. Likewise, Section 15.10.200.9 was revised by adding a reference to “approved vegetation.”
Mr. Johanson said the City Council is slated to conduct a public hearing on February 14 and is scheduled to take action on March 7.
Answering a question asked by Commissioner Newton, Mr. Johanson allowed that Section 15.10.200.7 could be revised by adding a reference to best management practices. He allowed that in most cases it is not an issue.
Chair Simpson-Clark asked how quickly demolition permits are issued by the city. Mr. Johanson said there are certain steps that must be taken in order to obtain a permit. Once all the information is in hand, the permit can be issued in a matter of days.
Chair Simpson-Clark suggested that rather than requiring all demolition activities to be completed within 30 days of the issuance of a permit, it would be better to require the activities to be wrapped up within 30 days of starting the demolition. That would allow time for lining up contractors and other site preparation. Mr. Johanson agreed to make the change in Section 15.10.200.3.
Mr. Johanson said the cost of permits is based on the value of the work to be done. For a demolition project costing $10,000, the permit fee would be around $300.
Commissioner McInteer asked if the term “best management practices” is defined in Burien code. Mr. Johanson said they are defined in the Surface Water Design Manual, which is adopted through the Burien Municipal Code.
Commissioner McInteer called attention to the second sentence of Section 5.10.200.5 and suggested that as written the phrase “unless otherwise approved by the city” could be interpreted to be in reference to “except in the public right-of-way” or the removal of “all foundations and or related materials.” Mr. Johanson said the intent is to include language that would allow the city to permit something to be left in place. It was agreed to have the phrase “unless otherwise approved by the city” lead off the second sentence.
Answering a question asked by Commissioner McInteer, Mr. Johanson explained that Section 15.10.200.11 calls for temporary fencing to be put up to protect pedestrians and others from demolition activities on a site. Such fences, however, are not attractive and should be removed once demolition is completed, unless there is a compelling safety reason for having permanent fencing.
Chair Simpson-Clark suggested that if permanent fencing is necessary, or just desired by the property owner, its installation should comply with all of the city’s fencing requirements. Approved permanent fencing should be allowed.
Commissioner Newton concurred, suggesting that once all known hazards are removed during demolition, the property should have the same rights and obligations of any other property in the city. If a property owner desires to put up a fence that complies with all city codes, they should be allowed to do so.
Mr. Johanson agreed that the second sentence of Section 15.10.200.11 could be revised to read “Permanent fencing may be required if the building official determines the site contains features that could be considered a hazard, such as steep terrain.”
Chair Simpson-Clark suggested that Section 15.10.200.6 should be written to say vacant lots shall be filled and graded in such a manner as to provide for natural drainage. That would satisfy the intent of grading back to something natural. Mr. Johanson held that the section as written implies that there will not be a lot of confusion on the point.
Mr. Johanson reviewed the proposed changes:
Section 15.10.200.3: “…within 30 days of the commencement of demolition activity.”
Section 15.10.200.5: “Unless otherwise approved by the city, all manmade or processed surfaces….”
Section 15.10.200.7: Add reference to best management practices.
Section 15.10.200.11: “Permanent fencing may be required if the building official determines the site contains features that could be considered a hazard, such as steep terrain.”
The motion to approve the ordinance as submitted and revised carried unanimously.
**BREAK**
New Business
A. Zoning Code Amendments Chapter 18.30
– Development Standards: Density and Dimensions
Mr. Johanson commented that when Burien incorporated it adopted an interim zoning code, Chapter 18, that in essence was the King County zoning code. Once the Comprehensive Plan was completed, the city started work on writing its own zoning code, Chapter 19. The zoning code work is Priority 2 on the work plan.
Mr. Johanson called attention to the staff recommendation and highlighted the fact that some additional formatting is needed. Before final approval staff also will verify the definitions. The density and dimensions standards have been around for a long time and are generally accepted and expected.
Commissioner Shull recalled the issue of how building height is measured had been raised in the past. Mr. Johanson said the issue had come up in the past and was tied to commercial development on sloping lots. The vast majority of the city’s commercially zoned areas do not have slopes, so the issue is not widespread; it was first raised in conjunction with the hospital site. Within the last decade, there have been only a couple of instances where the measurement approach was brought into question and generally has not been an issue.
Commissioner McInteer asked if the proposed approach for measuring building height will meet the needs of the city as it develops over the next 15 to 20 years. Chair Simpson-Clark said there used to be under King County something of an exception allowed for steeply sloped lots. The building height limits were established in the first place in part to preserve views; where steep slopes are concerned the primary issue is how far a particular building will project above surrounding properties, and the exception in part allowed for increased building height further down the slope. Another benefit of the provision was the encouragement of a minimum footprint on steep slopes. For large buildings on steep slopes, the current approach can cause some problems. However, allowing the director some discretion should be adequate.
Commissioner Newton observed that most of the sloped properties facing the water in the western part of Burien were developed with height restrictions that essentially kept all homes to a single story. Everyone in the community was able to have and maintain a good view. That generation of homeowners, however, is now giving way to a second generation of homeowners, many of whom see that more building height is permitted and who conclude that going up will improve their view; in many cases those decisions are made without regard to the impact on neighboring properties. Unless the code addresses view preservation specifically, cases such as those will continue to arise over time.
Mr. Johanson commented that view preservation is a much different subject from building height. The problem is and always has been how to preserve views in a fair and reasonable manner. He recommended steering clear of the view preservation discussion. The commissioners concurred.
Commissioner Williams noted that she had previously submitted a suggestion with regard to the language of Section 19.17.120.1.b.
Mr. Johanson said Section 19.17.130 exceptions to the height limits reference the personal wireless facilities chapter. He noted that the first sentence of the staff recommendation for the section was inadvertently added and should be struck.
Answering a question asked by Commissioner McInteer, Mr. Johanson explained the concept of clustering as used in Section 19.17.150.1. He noted that clustering applies generally but not exclusively to single family developments where there are critical areas. He allowed that the dedication of rights-of-way areas in multifamily developments can negatively affect the overall unit count; he agreed to look into clarifying the section.
Chair Simpson-Clark asked if the definition of submerged lands as used in Section 19.17.150.4 is sufficient to exclude minor wetlands. Mr. Johanson said the definition refers to any land at or below the ordinary high water mark. He allowed he does not know if ordinary high water mark applies to wetlands and promised to research the issue.
Chair Simpson-Clark asked staff to clarify the paragraph following Section 19.17.170.3. Mr. Johanson said it is a carryover from the King County code and indicated that he would have to conduct some research before answering whether or not the section is even needed. He allowed that he has never seen a situation where the provisions of the paragraph have come into play.
Commissioner Clingan asked if there is a definition of “substantially improved” as used in Section 19.17.190.1. Mr. Johanson allowed that the term is defined in the definitions section.
Commissioner Williams called attention to Section 19.17.120.1.d and pointed out that “…of the building the façade…” should read “…of the building façade….”
Chair Simpson-Clark referred to Section 19.17.230.6 and suggested that the limit of 18 inches is unreasonably restrictive. Mr. Johanson said he reviewed all the interpretations that have been done for the city in crafting the section.
Commissioner Shull noted that the appropriate interpretation reads “The retaining wall may be any height in the setback if it is retaining a cut into the natural grade.” She said if those words were captured in the proposed ordinance it would address the issue raised by Chair Simpson-Clark.
Mr. Johanson said the interpretation indicates that a retaining wall already in place will be permitted, but nothing can be added to it to hold back additional fill. He agreed that Section 19.17.230.6 should be written to reflect the interpretation. A retaining wall is a structure, and the code does not allow any structure within a setback. The proposed section is needed to allow retaining walls to be sited within a setback.
It was agreed to schedule the public hearing, discussion and recommendation on the density and dimensions development standards to occur at the same meeting.
Mr. Johanson agreed to make the revisions as outlined.
Director’s Report
Mr. Johanson reported that earlier in the day Community Development Director Scott Greenberg attended the King County Council Growth Management and Unincorporated Areas Committee as part of the process to designate Burien as an urban center. The committee offered some very positive comments and the recommendation was made to forward the matter on to the full King County Council. The next step will be a public hearing in March before the King County Council, followed by possible approval and a 90-day ratification process.
Mr. Johanson distributed to the commissioners copies of the council work program goals and priorities that were approved by the council on February 7.
Adjournment
Motion to adjourn was made by Commissioner Newton. Second was by Commissioner Shull and the motion carried unanimously.
Chair Simpson-Clark adjourned the meeting at 9:02 p.m.
Approved:
/s/ Robert Simpson-Clark, chair
Planning Commission
/s/ Scott Greenberg, director
Community Development Department