Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPermit L92-0021 - BENNETT ROBERT - SOUTHGATE BUSINESS PARK REZONE / SEPAl92-0021 14004 pacific highway south southgate business park City of Tukwila Department of Community Development January 18, 1994 Ms. Rebecca J. Inman WA DEPT. OF ECOLOGY P.O. Box 47600 Olympia, WA 98504 -7600 RE: SOUTHGATE TRAILER PARK MDNS: File #L92 -0021 Dear Ms. Inman: Thank you for your letter of November 2, 1993, in which you commented on the determination of nonsignificance for the proposed Southgate Trailer Park COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLAN Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Rezone. ZONING CODE AMENDMENT I would like to respond to the comments expressed in your letter. 1. Solid waste: The City's approval of a Comprehensive Plan amendment and rezone for this site does not include any approvals for demolition or construction. At the time demolition is proposed, the applicant will be required to address demolition, hauling and disposal prior to issuance of City permits. 2. Underground storage tanks: The current proposal for a Comprehensive Plan amendment and rezone does not include the adjacent property to the west, which is occupied by an abandoned gasohol station. However, at the time a specific development is proposed for the gasohol site, environmental issues associated with removal of the underground tanks will be addressed through a detailed environmental review. Again, thank you for responding to the Southgate SEPA determination. I hope that this has addressed the SEPA - related concerns raised in your letter. If you have any additional comments or questions, please let me know (431- 3681). Sinc L. R' Beeler Director & SEPA Official cc:,Ann Siegenthaler John W. Rants, Mayor Rick Beeler, Director 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • (206) 431-3670 • Fax (206) 431-3665 January 18, 1994 Dear Ms. Lamb: City of Tukwila Department of Community Development Rick Beeler, Director Ms. Nancy Sandine Lamb 4251 South 139th Street Tukwila, WA 98168 RE: SOUTHGATE TRAILER PARK MDNS: File #L92 -0021 Thank you for your letter of November 3, 1993, in which you commented on the SEPA (State Environmental Protection Act) determination for the proposed Southgate Trailer Park Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Rezone. While you stated that your intent was not to appeal the decision, I would like to respond to your concerns and seek your ideas to make our system more effective in serving the community. 1. Right -of -way dedication: The requirement for right -of -way (ROW) dedication at the time of a Comprehensive Plan amendment /rezone is the first phase in ensuring adequate infrastructure in the future. As you point out, additional studies are needed to evaluate the specific impacts and appropriate mitigation associated with development. That project - specific analysis will occur at the time a specific project is proposed. 2. Socio - economic impacts: Our existing Comprehensive Plan contains policies intended to protect single - family neighborhoods from adverse impacts and to provide for appropriate economic development. How these potential competing policies are to be balanced will be addressed in the Comprehensive Plan amendment process. Your previous comments on the proposal's impact to the neighborhood have been forwarded to the Planning Commission. In the SEPA review of the Southgate proposal, we considered the potential impacts of trailer park resident displacement. No mitigation was required for the following reasons: John W. Rants, Mayor 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • (206) 431-3670 • Faz (206) 431 -3665 Ms. N. Lamb Southgate MDNS, 1/18/94 Page 2 a) Resident displacement can occur independently of a Comprehensive Plan amendment or rezone, and does not automatically follow these land use actions. This is particularly true for the majority of trailer park residents, who rent trailers on a month -to -month basis. b) There are no existing policies, programs or requirements within the City of Tukwila to assist low - income residents with housing relocation. Therefore, we currently have no policies on which to base mitigation requirements. Requiring a trailer park owner to fund relocation programs has been declared unconstitutional by Washington courts. 3. Opportunities for public comment: One of the main functions of SEPA is to provide a framework for public comment. The law specifies the notification process for various types of determinations, which staff followed for the Southgate MDNS. This notification consisted of a notice published in the newspaper and mailed to the Washington Dept. of Ecology, the Washington Dept. of Transportation, Attorney General's Office, and the sewer and water Districts. Beyond that notice, staff mailed the SEPA decision notice to surrounding residents and property owners. We received comments from Ecology regarding proper disposal of construction debris. Yours were the only other comments received. Public input is also an integral part of the Comprehensive Plan amendment and rezone process. Most comments come in the form of testimony at the Planning Commission and City Council public hearings. The opportunity to comment at the first hearing was advertised via mail, the newspaper and posting of the site. As you have observed, residents are often reluctant to express concerns in the potential "trial" atmosphere of a public hearing. However, many residents took advantage of other opportunities for comment. For example, letters from concerned citizens were forwarded to the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission considered these in their review. Staff talked to concerned neighbors, and S inc ick Beeler Director cc: Ann Siegenthaler File Ms. N. Lamb Southgate MDNS, 1/18/94 Page 3 to trailer park residents on the phone and at the site. In addition, staff advertised and held an informational meeting on 12/1/93 to provide residents with another opportunity to ask questions and comment. Forms were made available for citizens to write in comments for the Planning Commission. As you know, three residents attended the meeting. On 11/4/93, at the Tukwila Tomorrow committee meeting, citizens were given an opportunity to discuss Comprehensive Plan designations for the site. The committee discussed alternatives, heard comments from other citizens and made recommendations. This meeting was advertised in the Hazelnut. I agree that meaningful opportunities for citizen input are vital to the public review process. If you see other ways to provide these opportunities which are not mentioned here, I would welcome your suggestions. Again, thank you for responding to the Southgate SEPA determination. I hope that this has addressed the SEPA- related concerns raised in your letter. If you have any additional comments or questions, please let me know (431- 3681). Staff appreciates your interest and involvement in your community. November 3, 1993 Rick Beeler, Tukwila SEPA Official Department of Community Development 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite 100 Tukwila, WA 98188 Dear Rick: Re: Southgate Mobile Home Park MDNS Sincerely, In lieu of a formal appeal, this letter is to serve as comment on your October 20 MDNS. I basically support the mitigation conditions for right -of -way dedication and easements. These, while limited, help underscore the city's obligation to ensure that adequate infrastructure will be put in place by developers. However, a wide conduit between 42nd and Pacific Highway would create additional traffic on essentially residential streets; this would require further mitigation in itself. Unfortunately the applicants haven't seen fit to conduct a traffic study. I intend to submit a much more extensive response to the applications for rezone and comprehensive plan amendment when they are considered by the Planning Commission. Probably the greatest single factor that disappoints me - again - is that citizens have not been given opportunity to have dialog with the DCD and applicants about their concerns. When there is a project with far - reaching effects for many citizens - and the mobile home residents, too, in this case - there is no reason why the DCD shouldn't hold a meeting, perhaps at the applicants' expense, to get some dialog going, enabling each party to hear the other points of view. SEPA does not rule out such a meeting in the MDNS process; however, Tukwila's SEPA could be modified to require it, along with broader notification than 300 feet, long before the final MDNS is issued. Ill be happy to expand on this at a later date. Regarding this particular property, a discussion would have revealed that neighborhood residents are concerned about (among other things) the socio - economic effects for their own property, as well as about the relocation of the people who own or rent the trailers at Southgate. You're naturally aware that this is an environmental impact not considered under MDNS rules, but it is allowed as one of the many EIS scoping factors. I think citizens, especially those who want the best for the city, feel entitled to such input and should be encouraged to do so in a non - hearing setting. I believe staff may have tried to initiate such a meeting with the applicants some time ago. However, if the applicants refused, there's nothing anyone can do now. With revised rules for large -scale proposals (PRDs, major rezones, etc.), the discussion could have been required. Radical changes, such as this proposed up- zoning from R -2 to C -2 in the immediate proximity of single- family, have a "ripple effect" on the community as a whole which needs to be considered in a jurisdiction of this size. We don't deserve a "trial" atmosphere when we try to express our alarm, our concerns, our questions, or even our support for land -use decisions. Again, it is the current citizens of Tukwila who have been left out of the decision - making process. At least in our case, we aren't in this for any profit - making potential. We're in this for the good of the Tukwila quality of life. /1---YV-1//a--744-1 Nancy Sandine Lamb 4251 S. 139th St., Tukwila 98168 RECEIVED NOV -41993 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT' November 2, 1993 Mr. L. Rick Beeler City of Tukwila 6300 Southcenter Blvd Tukwila WA 98188 Dear Mr. Beeler: Solid Waste Underground Storage Tanks Environmental Impact Statement STATE OF WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY P.O. BOX 47600 • Olympia, Washington 98504 -7600 • (206) 459 -6000 Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the determination of nonsignificance for the South Gate Business Park, proposed by Edward parks ( #L92- 00210). We reviewed the environmental checklist and have the following comments. The applicant proposes to demolish an existing structure(s). Item B.7.a of the checklist asks if there are any environmental health hazards that could occur as a result of the proposal. Improper disposal of solid waste, including demolition waste, can result in environmental health hazards. The applicant should • identify the disposal site for the demolition material. In addition, the applicant should be encouraged to pursue mitigating activities such as salvage, reuse, and recycling of the demolition materials. A notice of intent to permanently close tanks must be filed with the Department of Ecology at least 30 days prior to closure. The closure must be completed within 60 days after expiration of the 30 -day notice unless a written request for an extension is approved (Chapter 173 -360 WAC). All firms providing tank- closing services must be licensed by the Department of Ecology. The supervisor on -site during closure must be licensed by passing a state exam. Within 30 days after closing, a permanent closure checklist form must be provided to the Department of Ecology by the company that closed the tanks. A site assessment to determine whether contamination has occurred must be completed by a professionally qualified person registered with the Department of Ecology. The Department of Ecology's minimum requirements for sampling for contamination in the excavation area are outlined in a published guidance document. RECEIVED NOV 4 1993 COMMIJNITY DEVELOPMENT i 1 Mr. L. Rick Beeler November 2, 1993. Page 2. RI:ri 93 -7759 This document, forms, and regulations are available from the Department of Ecology by calling 1- 800 - 826 -7716. Within 30 days after completion of the site assessment, a site assessment checklist and results of the test must be provided to the Department of Ecology by the person that performed the site assessment. If contamination of soil or groundwater is readily visible, or is revealed by sampling, the Department of Ecology must be notified within 24 hours. Call the Regional Office for assistance and information about subsequent cleanup and to identify the type of testing that will be required. Contact Mr. Joe Hickey of the Northwest Regional Office at (206) 649 -7202. The Department of Ecology requires the results of the site assessment be maintained for five years after completion of permanent closure or change -in- service. We recommend that the records be kept in the property file indefinitely for any future property transfers. These records should be maintained by successive owners to fulfill liability requirements under the Washington Model Toxics Act. If storage tanks contain dangerous or hazardous wastes as defined in Chapter 173 -303 WAC, please contact Ecology's Regional Office, Solid and Hazardous Waste Section, for closure requirements. Under the Uniform Fire Code, permits are required for the closure of underground storage tanks. The local official charged with administration of the Code should be contacted regarding the permit requirements. If you have any questions on the comments from our Solid Waste Services Program, please call Peggy Williams at (206) 649 -7034. For questions on the comments made by our Underground Storage Tanks Program, please call Annette Ademasu at (206) 649 -7189. Sincerely, Rebecca J. Inman Environmental Review Section cc: Annette Ademasu, NWRO Janet Thompson, NWRO Peggy Williams,'NWRO April 28, 1993 Mr. Edward L. Parks 13101 SE 240th Street Suite D -104 Kent, WA 98031 SUBJECT: Southgate Business Park, P92 -0028 Dear Mr. Parks: SEPA DETERMINATION COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT /REZONE CHRONOLOGY City of Tukwila 1 John W. Rants, Mayor Department of Community Development Rick Beeler, Director It has been brought to my attention that a more elaborate explanation is necessary regarding the City's processes and procedures pertaining to requests for rezones, comprehensive plan amendments and SEPA determinations and how each relates to the Southgate Business Park proposal. The City Administrator has asked that I provide you with a chronology of events to date on this project. A SEPA Determination is required prior to taking any development proposal to a public hearing. The City must decide, based upon the type of proposal and information contained in the SEPA Checklist (completed by the applicant), whether adverse environmental impacts would result from the development proposal. In order for the City to clearly determine that no significant adverse impacts would result, a trip generation /traffic study was required. The request involved an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan from residential to commercial and a rezone from R -2 to C -2. The City's Comprehensive Plan was adopted in 1982. The City Council also adopted specific decision criteria to be used by the City's planning staff, the Planning Commission and City Council. This criteria is incorporated into the rezone and comprehensive plan amendment applications. The planning staff recognizes that it's in the City's and applicant's best interest to provide a recommendation of support to the Planning Commission and City Council. Because the burden of proof rests with the applicant to demonstrate to the City why approvals should be granted, it is critical that all applications be completed carefully and thoroughly. A meeting was held with Mr. Bennett and Tim Matelich on March 13, 1992. At that meeting, I outlined all deficiencies I had identified during my review of the application material. I stated that a trip generation study would be required which also looked at traffic circulation. I also provided a typewritten handout which listed those portions of the applications which lacked 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • (206) 431 -3670 • Fax (206) 431 -3665 adequate information, clarity and elaboration. The rezone process also requires submittal of a site plan which shows the proposed development and its relationship to surrounding development. Staff raised several issues about the development proposal some of which were addressed in the handout, and much of which was addressed in subsequent letter dated April 29, 1992. In that letter, a May 6 deadline was given to submit revisions to the City. Also attached to that letter was a letter signed by several property owners in the vicinity which identified inadequacies of the reponses contained in the applications and raised questions about the proposal. May 6. Neither revisions to the applications and site plan, nor traffic study were received. Mav 12. Mr. Bennett was again contacted. He indicated that revisions would be delayed because he was waiting for additional information. Specifically, the long term transportation corridor plan for Pacific Highway. He added that METRO's plans were speculative and that he intended to proceed with the project. I requested he submit a letter to that effect. Mav 18. I left a message with Mr. Bennett to return my call. Mav 20. I again contacted the applicant. A different staff person, Janet Bean, had been assigned to the project. I requested a follow -up letter and we discussed the project. I also indicted that a SEPA determination must be made prior to scheduling a hearing, and because additional information had not been received, a SEPA determination could not be made nor a hearing date given. May 22. I received a letter from J. Bean stating revisions would be submitted within 90 days. While I cannot provide dates, several conversations were held with Janet regarding the status of the project. She informed me that her firm was not being paid by Mr. Kim, and thus, had decided that no further work would be conducted on the project. August 17. Letter received from J. Bean (dated August 7, 1992) informing City that her firm was no longer involved in the project due to "complications with our client" and that no revisions would be submitted. August 18. Letter from me to J. Bean providing another deadline of September 4. This letter also included an outline of tasks and the amount of time involved to process the requests once revised information was received. Several attachments were also included: 1. Southgate Business Park (project analysis). This described the distinction between zoning classifications; 2. Application deficiencies which needed to be addressed in the revised applications /site plan; 3. Letter dated March 13 to Mr. Bennett; 4. Letter from property owners dated March 20, 1992; 5. Letter dated April 29 to Mr. Bennett; 6. Letter dated August 7 to me from Janet Bean. This letter was a follow -up to my conversation with Janet Bean, who requested that even though her firm had put the project on hold, that an extension be considered. The City agreed to a final extension to September 4. September 4. Letter from Mr. Kim dated August 31 indicating issues with Mr. Bennett's firm had been 2 resolved and a request to extend the submittal deadline to September 18. September 4. Letter from Mr. Bennett dated September 2 indicating issues with Mr. Kim had been resolved and requested an extension to the deadline. September 14. Letter to Mr. Kim from City informing him that files for the project would be closed because no revisions over a seven -month period had been provided to the City. Mr. Kim was also informed that new applications and fees would be accepted any time. I believe you will agree that the City's planning staff made every reasonable effort to work with and assist the applicant with the process. In addition to the amount of lapsed time, the decision to close this project was also the result of the Department of Community Development's expenditure of an inordinate amount of staff time in assisting the applicant. Due to heavy work load demands, we could not justify further attention to this project. I hope I have answered your questions satisfactorily. Feel free to contact me any time if you have additional questions of if you need additional information. Sincerely, Denni Shefrin Associate Planner cc: John McFarland Rick Beeler Linda Cohen Jack Pace P92 -0028 Files April 12, 1993 Mr. Edward L Parks 13101 SE 240th Street Suite D -104 Kent, WA 98031 Subject: Southgate Business Park Project File No. P92 -0028: L92 -0021 SEPA L92 -0022 Comprehensive Plan Amendment L92 -0023 Rezone Sincerely, Denni Shefrin • Associate Planner L_ City of Tukwila Department of Community Development Rick Beeler, Director cc: Linda Cohen, City Attorney Jack Pace, Senior Planner P92 -0028 Files Enclosures. APR 1 4 1993 coo UN :TY ID EVELOPfv.IENT 0 John W. Rants, Mayor Dear Mr. Parks: In your letter dated April 6, 1993 to Linda Cohen, City Attorney, you requested that the above applications be re- opened. Applications for the rezone, Comprehensive Plan amendment and SEPA Checklist were received by the City on February 10, 1992. Files for this proposal were closed on approximately September 14, 1992. During a seven -month period, and to the best of my recollection, extensive time was spent with Mr. Kim's agent. Through a series of meetings and written correspondence, staff attempted to provide as much assistance and guidance as reasonably possible. Submittal deadlines for revisions were also given to provide some level of certainty to staff for the scheduling of public notices and hearings associated with this project as well as scheduling several other projects. None of the deadlines had been met. The City's position concerning the status of the above applications remains unchanged. As stated in the September 14, 1992 letter, new applications and fees may be submitted any time. 1 might also suggest a pre - application meeting (no fee) with City staff. Pre - application meetings serve to provide an overview of applicable City requirements and policies triggered by the specific proposal. Feel free to contact me at 431 -3663 if you have further questions conceming this matter. 6300 Southcenter.Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • (206) 431 -3670 • Fax (206) 431-3665 September 14, 1992 Mr. Mark C. Kim 14004 Pacific Highway South Seattle, WA 98168 RE: Southgate Business Park Dear Mr. Kim: In your letter dated August 31, 1992, you requested that the City consider extending the September 4 1992 submittal deadline for revisions to the SEPA Checklist, Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Rezone applications. Included with my letter to you dated August 18 were copies of correspondence over a 7- month period. The letters address deficiencies of each application and provide submittal deadlines for application revisions. Because adequate time has been provided for . the preparation and submittal of revisions, and because of the current demands placed upon the planning staff, your request for an extension of time cannot be granted. New applications and fees would be required if you desire to pursue this project proposal. Should you have further questions, I can be reached at 431 -3663. Sincerely, cc: Denni Shefrin City of Tukwila Robert Bennett Jack Pace Ross Haller Rhonda Berry Evelyn Boykan r John W. Rants, Mayor Department of Community Development Rick Beeler, Director 6.300 Snuthcenter Boulevard. Sulte 11100 • Tukwila. Washington 08188 • /206) 431•.1,57(1 • Far. MA) A ?I. /AAs CITY OF TUKWILA MlTlGATE ETERMINATI0N OF N0NSIGNlF\ WCE (MDNS) `.' . )— (Phased Review) DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT & REZONE OF EXISTING TRAILER PARK FROM MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL TO A "COMMERCIAL COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION AND A "REGIONAL COMMERCIAL' (C-2) ZONING DESIGNATION. NO SITE IMPROVEMENTS ARE APPROVED IN THIS ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION. PP0P0NENT: EDWARD PARKS, ES0. LOCATION OF PROPOSAL, "INCLUDING 'STREET ADURESS, IF ADDRESS: ,14004 PACIFIC HY � PARCEL 152304-0008 SEC/TWN/RNG/ -:'SW l5-23-4; BETWEEN S. 140TH, S. ]4]5T STREET & HIGHWAY 99. LEAD AGENCY:. CITY OF TUKWlLA The Cit}!*has determined that the proposal does not nave a probable signifiCant adverse impact on the environment. An environmental . impact statement-(EIS) is not required under RCW 43.21c.O30L2/(c). This decision was made after review of a completed environmental checklist and otAe information on file with the lead agency. This information is avatlable to the public on request. The conditions to this SEPA Determlnatinn are attaCh*d. • This DKSis. issued under I97-11-340(2). Comments must be submitted by . The lead agenoy will not act on this proposal: J5 days from tne date below. L. '�\uk Beeler, Responsible Official City of Tukwila (206) 431-3680 6300 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, WA 98188 FILE NO: L92-0021 Oc.lol»er 20 Date You may appeal this determi.nation to the City Clerk at City Hall, 6200 Southoenter Boulevard, Tukwila, � 4A, 98188 no later than 10 days from the above signature date by writTen'a|peaTstating the has of the appeal for specific factual objections. You may be required to bear some of the e�penses for an appeal. Copies of the procedures for SEPA appeals are available with the City Clerk and Department of Community Development. - . City of Tukwila Department of Community Development Rick Beeler, Director PROJECT: SOUTHGATE TRAILER PARK COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT AND REZONE FILE: #L92 -0021 DATE: October 20, 1993 PROPOSAL: CITY OF TUKWILA MITIGATED DETERMINATION OF NON - SIGNIFICANCE Amend the current Comprehensive Plan designation of Medium- Density Residential to a Commercial designation for a 3.97 -acre site; and rezone the site from an existing zoning designation of R -2 (Two - Family Residential) to a C -2 (Regional Commercial) zoning. LOCATION: 14004 Pacific Highway South, Tukwila, WA (SW 1/4 Section 15, Twn. 23, Rge. 4), King Co. (Existing Southgate Trailer Park) APPLICANT: Bennett PS &E, Inc. P.O. Box 1031 Puyallup, WA 98371 THRESHOLD, DETERMINATION: This is a Mitigated Declaration of Non - Significance ATTACHMENTS: A. Vicinity Map (2/6/92) B. Conceptual Site Plan (1/21/92) C. 'Comprehensive Plan Amendment Application (7/1/93) D. Rezone Application (7/1/93) E. Documents included in Environmental Review Record (see below) 6300 SoLthcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • (206) 431-3670 • Fax (206) 431 John W. Rants, Mayor DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSAL BACKGROUND MDNS Southgate Trailer Park Rezone 10/20/93, Page 2 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW RECORD The environmental review-of-this proposal consisted of an analysis based on the following documents included in the environmental record: • Environmental Checklist prepared by Bennett PS &E, Inc. of Puyallup (1/29/92). • Memo from City Engineer (10/19/93) to DCD regarding street right -of -way standards and potential traffic impacts. • Comments from residents in vicinity (letter 3/20/92). In addition, conditions for mitigation are based upon adopted Tukwila Codes, Comprehensive Plans and SEPA policies (TMC 21.04.270) on file at the City-of Tukwila. The applicant proposes to amend the current Comprehensive Plan designation of Medium- Density Residential to a Commercial designation for a 3.97 -acre site; and rezone the site from an existing zoning designation of R -2 (Two - Family Residential) to a C -2 (Regional Commercial) zoning (See Attachment A). The current R -2 designation of the site allows single family and duplex residences. The proposed C -2 zoning designation is intended for regional commercial uses. Example of such uses include auto - related uses (e.g. parking garage, motel, drive -in, used car sales lot), entertainment uses (e.g. tavern, restaurant, theatre, bowling alley), neighborhood services (shoe repair, grocery, barber), offices, and duplexes. The site is currently occupied by approximately 63 mobile homes in what is known as Southgate Mobile Home Park. It has been a trailer park for nearly 40 years. The site is in a . predominately =:single- family residential neighborhood, with high- density multi - family developments (R -4 and RMH) to the immediate north and south. Adjacent to the west side of the property is a C -2 zone along Pacific Highway South, currently occupied by a gas station (see Attachment Al. A. EARTH B. WATER KEY CHECKLIST ITEMS OTHER APPROVALS REQUIRED • Comprehensive Plan Amendment • Rezone MDNS Southgate Trailer Park Rezone 10/20/93, Page 3 The applicant has submitted a site plan with a commercial ,building .„ofr. ,approximately .:- 12.9 square . feet and 333 parking stalls (see Attachments B, C, and D). However, as the request is for a Comprehensive Plan amendment and rezone, rather than a specific project, no specific site plan or building type is approved in this environmental determination. If the property is re- developed under the current zoning, or under a commercial zoning, specific architectural plans will be required prior to approval of any permits for the site. Additional design issues and environmental impacts will need to be addressed during review of those permits. As no specific improvements are being approved in this request, there will be no disruption of the earth's surface. The site is developed with mostly impervious surfaces, and is relatively flat. Therefore, future development is not likely to have significant impacts on soils or to be constrained by topography. There are no permanent surface water bodies on site. Future development under a different zoning designation may increase storm water runoff and demand on existing stormwater facilities. However, any future project will be required to provide adequate stormwater facilities as part of the development permit process. C. AIR The site is currently developed as a residential use. Future development under a more intensive zone may have air quality impacts. The specific impacts depend upon many project- related factors, and are typically evaluated at the time of a specific development proposal. E. HOUSING F. VISUAL QUALITY MDNS Southgate Trailer Park Rezone 10/20/93, Page 4 D. PLANTS Currently, most of the site is covered by impervious surfaces. However, there are several large trees on site, many 12" in diameter or larger. Any redevelopment of the site is likely to have an impact on this vegetation. Therefore, impacts will need to be addressed in the landscaping and site plans for future development proposals. The site is occupied by approximately 63 mobile homes (trailers). While a rezone in itself would not displace current residents, any re- development of the site would require upgrading to such a degree that all of the residents would be displaced. The rental units have traditionally provided affordable housing for residents with low to moderate incomes. Staff research into availability of affordable housing revealed that 94% of Tukwila's housing stock consists of low and moderate income units. Given this availability of rental units at the low to moderate income level in Tukwila, impacts of the project on housing availability will be minimal. To minimize the effects of relocation, the Mobile Home Landlord- Tenant Act requires that the property owner give written notice to residents of pending trailer park vacation. A one -year notice is required. Currently, the site is occupied by an older mobile home park. Any re- development is likely to change the visual quality of the site. For example, development of non- residential uses will mean a large portion of the site must be dedicated to parking. It is expected that there will be a need for visual buffers between the site and surrounding residential areas. While visual changes due to a rezone can be anticipated, impacts will need to be evaluated on a project- specific basis. Re- development will require Design Review, where specific changes to the visual quality of the site are addressed. In the re- development permit process, improvements to the perimeter of the site, such as sidewalks, landscaping and screening will be required. G. NOISE H. TRANSPORTATION MDNS Southgate Trailer Park Rezone 10/20/93, Page 5 Nile-site is located in ..a . predominately single - family residential area. However, it has multi - family and commercial development on three sides. The proposed rezone would allow more intensive development, which may result in increased noise levels near these adjacent uses. However, noise impacts can vary greatly, depending upon the ultimate use of the site. These potential impacts are typically addressed in a project- specific environmental review. While the traffic impacts of a future re- development are unknown, general traffic issues can be identified. As the number of users increases with development intensity, a rezone from a residential use to a more intensive zone has the potential to create traffic impacts to the area. For example, it is likely that the number of vehicle trips on adjacent streets will increase. This will create a need for increased road capacity and safety improvements, such as sidewalks. The site is bordered by South 140th Street, South 141st Street, and 42nd Avenue South. Based on Tukwila's Functional Arterial Classification System (TMC 9.18), there is insufficient right -of -way along 140th and 141st Streets to meet current standards for road widths. To bring South 140th and South 141st Streets up to the required 60 -foot right -of -way, an additional 30 feet, and an additional 10 feet, respectively, are required as the proportionate share for the subject property. None of the surrounding streets include sidewalks. Under the Tukwila Sidewalk Ordinance (No. 1233), sidewalks must be installed at the time of. development. Additional right - of -way or easement area will be needed to construct sidewalks which meet City specifications. Requiring right -of -way dedication and provisions for future street improvements would address known impacts of the. Comprehensive Plan amendment /rezone. Beyond these basic improvements, the degree to which a Comprehensive Plan amendment /rezone will affect transportation will . depend upon how the site is redeveloped. Based on the traffic impacts of similar sites in the area, it is probable that traffic issues generated by commercial development at the site could be adequately addressed through the environmental review /permit process. Traffic studies will likely be required for any I. UTILITIES CONCLUSIONS CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL a) South 140th Street: and b) South 141st Street: 1. After City Council approval of the Comprehensive Plan amendment and rezone request, the property owner shall dedicate a proportionate share of the additional right -of -way required to bring .adjacent ...streets .up . to standard, as follows: dedicate 30 feet; dedicate 10 feet. MDNS Southgate Trailer Park Rezone 10/20/93, Page 6 re- development of the site. Therefore, traffic studies at this time will not add materially to the analysis of _._. he . _.:,.....amendment /rezone request. Specific impacts and mitigation measures will need to be evaluated at the time a specific project is proposed. Developed in the 1950's, it is likely that utilities currently serving the site are substandard. As part of the environmental review and permitting process, any new development will include upgrade of utilities to current standards to adequately serve the proposed use. The environmental review summarized above indicates no probability of significant adverse environmental impacts from the proposed Comprehensive Plan amendment /rezone. Therefore, it is appropriate to issue a Mitigated Determination of Non - Significance. The main impact of a Comprehensive Plan /rezone which can be identified at this time is the potential for increased traffic on side streets. The proposal could best address this by including dedication of additional right -of -way or easements necessary for future street improvements. Additional environmental review will need to be conducted at such time as a specific development project is proposed. A Mitigated Determination of Non - Significance is recommended, with the following conditions to mitigate potential impacts: ■ MDNS Southgate Trailer Park Rezone 10/20/93, Page 7 ,2 r. '::After:: City: Council approval of the ..Comprehensive Plan amendment and rezone request, the property owner shall provide a 1.5 -foot wide easement around the perimeter of site for future sidewalk improvements. 3. The property owner shall dedicate the above - described right -of -way and easement areas within twelve (12) months of City Council approval of the Comprehensive Plan amendment /rezone. 4. Date checklist prepared: hove ;'. her 2, 1001 -2- ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST Cs' opooti) r,: Con �: 1 No. Epic File No. LIZ-' X .1 Fee44+8T596 Receipt No. *22S ,0° • 77 ,4 2O A. BACKGROUND 1. Name of proposed project, if applicable: Shutt, 2. Name of applicant: Bennett 2•` 74 E., Inc. 3. Address and phone number of applicant and contact person: Pt_r'dllua, l;.A 92372 Poher t A. `?ennett, 720 .as` 5. Agency requesting Checklist: City of Tukwila 6. Proposed timing or schedule (including phasing, if applicable): Comoletion two (7) ve ar.n ft�r �rnv,1 7. Do you have any plans for future additions, expansion, or further activity related to or connected with this proposal? If yes, explain. The completion of the aroposzl will utilize all of the )rooerty and will not a11, ftrttjre .;rr.i ti ons nr m x1rns i nms 8. List any environmental information you know about that has been prepared, or will be prepared, directly related to this proposal. Our submittal will be the only environnentel infarnntinn T an aware of. 9. Do you know whether applications are pending for governmental approvals of other proposals directly affecting the property covered by your proposal? If yes, explain. This parcel of aronmrty is not nandinr any nnvr rnnpn+- -:1 approvals at this time to ny knowlec+ne L1 i l i. ` I . I tt G 1392 ) 10. List any government approvals or permits that will be needed for your proposal. A i l of the City of Tukwila hermits IJi 1 1 7p r ^lit rnr• Planning I_nuineerin, . .!nnin'.. Ili mini p 1 rnn`,� r�+n ran ,r,, ,,i ± .. f . 11 grading, etc. 11. Give brief, complete description of your proposal, including the proposed uses and the size of the project and site. There are several questions later in this checklist that ask you to describe certain aspects of your proposal. You do not need to repeat those answers on this page. Section E requires a complete description of the objectives and alternatives of your proposal and should not be summarized 'mere. The .iro.lect site is to he an office cn,:11. of n +�rnxl'i n) -- 71 - 7e to : 1,:0,000 SF with par<inn to comply with code. An _nnineeri.nr flan will hive the rot nr int and frr cevelonnent. Lanr13canind will he nrovi r r =r1 1 .1n 12. Location of the proposal. Give sufficient information for a person to understand the precise location of your proposed project, including a street address, if any, and section, township, and range, if known. If a proposal would occur over a range of area, provide the range or boundaries of the site(s). Provide a legal description, site plan, vicinity map, and topographic map, if reasonably available. While you should submit any plans required by the agency, you are not required to duplicate maps or detailed plans submitted with any permit applica- tions related to this checklist. The orouosec .3roiect is located in the 5j of '.nnti nn q, 25 Jorth, r,en:.e /. East. !.Ii. Four ( roads sl)rrnunn 7 `ln ',rnnor+ n +hr n r,r - i ';n,i -; 1; +f1 +� ;� to the sn1!tl is r!litn 141 ^f G -T`eat to the east is 42nd AtVe. S. and to the (Jest is Pririfir !1ir.hisa'. South. Also see_ attached ler• f`3 ri.)tinp_, 13. Does the proposal lie within an area designated on the City's Comprehensive Land Use Policy Plan Map as environmentally sensitive? The or000sal does not lie withBn en environ•-entralu sP,L1ai t i vo area as to the City's Comprehensive Land 11s2 Policy Plan 11ni MPLETED BY APPLICV RONMENTAL ELEMENTS h General description of the site (circle rolling, hilly, steep slopes, The site is h "1t. one): Flat, mountainous, other What is the steepest slope on the site (approximate percent slope)? Aa. s looe of 1 . 4 ;; from the South ; to the Horth or.J.)erty line What general types of soils are (for example, clay, sand, gravel, you know the classification of specify them and note any prime farmland. Alderwood Series soils found on the site peat, muck)? If agricultural soils, Are there surface indications or history of unstable soils in the immediate vicinity? If so, describe. o unst:71hle soils are note, on this site or the area of the nroncsed oroect Describe the purpose, type, and approximate quanti- ties of any filling or grading proposed. Indicate source of fill. The site uradinq will he kept to a minimum; 3000 :.Y cf soil estimated wit desinn will be moved. A final en:;ineerinn approved and the earth war., quantity win De ror.iner. Could erosion occur as a r-sult of clearing, construction, or use? If so, generally describe. All site r evolopnent uil he completed wit aoorovec enrineerinr dos'r:ns which will include r_ Temporary Eros on Control P1-n, Store P1-n. The Tr SC'D o an will he field implemented ano inspected a- construction is About what perce of the site ill be covered with impervious surfaces after proje t construction (for example, asphalt or buildings)? The development will enconaass the total -ite; about 75% _ of the .roject will he le't impervious - -4- TO BE CO B. ENVI 1. Eart a . b. c . d. e . f. g. rpperty line e h in Evaluation for Agency Use Only oriip1eted. (If'itrQ 2. Air 3. Water a. Surface: h. Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion, or other impacts to the earth, if any: The development of this site will comply with all or tne City ;ulss, .Reculations and Codes; in this manner the impact of erosion and other impacts will be kept to a niminium a. What types of emissions to the air would result from the proposal (i.e., dust, automobile odors, industrial wood smoke) during construction and when the project is completed? If any, generally describe and give approximate quantities if known. The South Gate 3usiness Park will generate typical emission for a complex or this nature which Pali into accepted To Ti753776. The when completed are orediceble and will not cnange on a long oasis. (see attached) b. Are there any off -site sources of emissions or odor that may affect your proposal? If so, generally describe. No off -site emissions or odors exist that will effect this proposal. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control emissions or other impacts to air, if any: Control emissions and inoacts to air will recuire compliance to existing codes; unich will be enforced by tne t:ity. 1) Is there any surface water body on or in the immediate vicinity of the site (including year - round and seasonal streams, saltwater, lakes, ponds, wetlands)? If yes, describe type and provide names. If appropriate, state what stream or river it flows into. 10 water hods exists on this site or is in the vicinity. Evaluation for Agency Use Only a. Short Term emissions will occur from construction and construction equipment. All of today's equipment must comply with existing codes•aand regulations. stern sewer will oe treated tnroucn an 2) Will the project require any work over, in, or adjacent to (within 200 feet) the described waters? If yes, please describe and attach available plans. a; uater does not exist in the area. 3) Estimate the amount of fill and dredge material that would be placed in or removed from surface water or wetlands and indicate the area of the site that would be affected. Indicate the source of fill material. { +o nr: 4) Will the proposal require surface water withdrawals or diversions? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quan- tities, if known. The Ti proposed oro ;ect will not require any surface uater uithdrawn or any. diversions. The site s saved by City water and snnitary sewer. 5) Does the proposal lie within a 100 -year floodplain? If so, note location on the site plan. The orouoscl does not lie within a 100-veer flood olcin 6) Does the proposal involve any discharges of waste materials to surface waters? If so, describe the type of waste and anticipated volume of discharge. The stor; :i sewer will di ochar.:,e to present r'ur`�oce water. Tne oil /water se:oerotor and the City Standards. Evaluation for Agency Use Only b. Ground: 1) Will ground water be withdrawn, or will water be discharged to ground water? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quan- tities, if known. There ':iil not he any water withdrawn or discnarr,ed since the site is serviced Fey the City Utilities 2) Describe waste materials that will be discharged into the ground from septic tanks or other sour- ces, if any (for example: Domestic sewage; industrial, containing the following chemicals...; agricultural; etc.) Describe the general size of the system, the number of such systems, the number of houses to be served (if applicable), or the number of animals or humans the system(s) are expected to serve. No unsta aroduct will he discharn e i n .n the nrnunc or nroundwater. fits Services nee available c. Water Runoff (including storm water): 1) Describe the source of runoff (including storm water) and method of collection and disposal, if any (include quantities, if known). Where will this water flow? Will this water flow into other waters? If so, describe. There will be n Qi tv eprirnvar' r:tnrn r+rr system constructed on this oroiect site. The volume difference between e:istino (now) and future developed state will be stored and metered out to comply with the Cit_ encineerinci standards. Flow or the new system will follow the existinc water route, which is down hill fromthe site. I'm sure all the storm water from the upper hill on which this.project is located ;low to the valley floor. Evaluation for Agency Use Only 4. Plants 2) Could waste materials enter ground or surface waters? If so, generally describe. The storm•dra naoa'. will not be allowed to enter the around water• the surface water if contained will be placed into a storm Orainase- system h d. Proposed measures to reduce or control surface, ground, and runoff water impacts, if any: Conoly with an approved City Storm dradinege plan and standard construction practices. The impact of the store water system will reduce to a minimd,wm or no impact at all a. Check or circle types of vegetation found on the site: deciduous tree: alder, maple, aspen, other i evergreen tree: `fir, cedar, pine, other ' shrubs grass pasture crop or grain wet soil plants: cattail, buttercup, bullrush, skunk cabbage, other water plants: water lily, eelgrass, milfoil, other other types of vegetation b. What kind and amount of vegetation will be removed or altered? The existing plants have been introduced as landscaping. There will be very little worth saving due to its lack of significance c. List threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. There are no threatened or endangered species to my knowledge on or near the project site. Evaluation for Agency Use Only d. Proposed landscaping, use of native plants, or other measures to preserve or enhance vegetation on the site, if any: A landscaping plan will be designed for the site and approved by the City using naive species of plants, trees and shrubs The plan will be implemented and considered part of the completion of the project. 5. Animals a. Circle any birds and animals which have been observed on or near the site or are known to be on or near the site: birds: hawk, heron, eagle, songbirds, other: mRmmals: deer, bear, elk, beaver, other: other: Dogs and Cats fish: bass, salmon, trout, herring, shellfish, b. List any threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. There are no threatened or endangered species to my knowledge on or near the project site. c. Is the site part of a migration route? If so, explain. The site is not part of a migration route d. Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife, if any: No wildlife exist on or near the site therefore mitigation measures are not required. \; Evaluation for Agency Use Only y5 6. Energy and Natural Resources a. What kinds of energy (electric, natural gas, oil, wood stove, solor) will be used to meet the completed project's energy needs? Describe whether it will be used for heating, manufacturing, etc. The energy source for operateinq the finished development will be electric_ and natural gas. b. Would your project affect the potential use of solar energy by adjacent properties? If so, generally describe. Not to my knowledge c. What kinds of energy conservation features are included in the plans of this proposal? List other proposed measures to reduce or control energy impacts, if any: The new structure will comply with al Cit Count State ener• conservation codes. 7. Environmental Health a. Are there any environmental health hazards, including exposure to toxic chemicals, risk of fire and explosion, spill, or hazardous waste, that could occur as a result of this proposal? If so, describe. The site has an old service station which will be demolished in the proper manner. Tanks will be removed with a state permit and proper paperwork. 1) Describe special emergency services that might be required. There will be no need for special emergency services: all services are in tact at the present time. 2) Proposed measures to reduce or control environ- mental health hazards, if any: All of the City codes will be adhered to as to environmental health hazards. Evaluation for Agency Use Only b. Noise 8. Land and Shoreline Use 1) What types of noise exist in the area which may affect your project (for example: traffic, equipment, operation, other)? _ The existing noise levels are typically, residential which will not affect tag__ the proposed pro 2) What types and levels of noise would be created by or associated with the project on a short - term or a long -term basis (for example: traf- fic, construction, operation, other)? Indicate what hours noise would come from the site. Short Term - are construction equipment Long Term - are typical for a site development of this nature. 3) Proposed measures to reduce or control noise impacts, if any: To control noise levels compliance to Ctiy Ordinances would be required [ a. What is the current use of the site and adjacent properties? The existing use is a moble park with 6S spaces, one (1) ouse and a service station The surrounding uses range from an apartmeat complex, commercial to residentiaj. b. Has the site been used for agriculture? If so, describe. no. c. Describe any structures on the site. Exisitnq home mobile homes and an exisitng service station Evaluation for Agency Use Only d. Will any structures be demolished? If so, what? All structures and mobile homes will be removed or demolished. e. What is the current zoning classification of the site? The zoning is C -2 f. What is the current comprehensive plan designation of the site? The current Comprehensive Plan is law aUlS 1-f.9 re-31 cL6.vi+ 1u ( 3 L0 Yt vvAe r a l g. If applicable, what is the current shoreline master program designation of the site? n / a h. Has any part of the site been classified as an "environmentally sensitive" area? If so, specify. None of the site has been classified as environmentally sensitive 1. Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is com- patible with existing and projected land uses and plans, if any: The proposal will comply with the City Rules for complying with compatability i. Approximately how many people would reside or work in the completed project? There would be appoximately people associated with the completed Project. Approximately how many people would the completed project displace? Approximately 100 people will move from the site prior to beginning construction. k. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement impacts, if any: All of the people involved in renting on t1:111 rea ize they have to make arrangements Eomove. Thepeopple know the site will change and their movign is part of the process. Evaluation for Agency ,Use Only complex 10. Aesthetics 9. Housing a. Approximately how many units would be provided, if any? Indicate whether high, middle, or low- income housing? None would be provided for housing as this is to be a commercialsite for office b. Approximately how many units, if any, would be eli- minated? Indicate whether high, middle, or low - income housing. 6 mobiles would be eliminated. root L„. The renters have been notified that this proposal (,lam will be submitted and they are making arrangements E S) to move. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control housing impacts, if any: The renters have been notified that this proposal will be submitted and they are making arrangements to move. a. What is the tallest height of any proposed structure(s), not including antennas; what is the principal exterior building material(s) proposed? The tallest structure will comply with the building code. b. What views in the immediate vicinity would be altered or obstructed? There are no views from the immediate site location that will be obstructed by this proposal. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic impacts, if any: The City will have the opportunity to provide input and approvals as to gReithitic impacts. Evaluation for Agency Use Only MOIL /vy ' & 12. Recreation 11. Light and Glare a. What type of light or glare will the proposal produce? What time of day would it mainly occur? Typical for this tyke of commercjal Bevel ment \4 b. Could light or glare from the finished project be a safety hazard or interfere with views? NO c. What existing off -site sources of light or glare may affect your proposal? None d. Proposed measures to reduce or control light and glare impacts, if any: Work with the City. produce a lightin_g__plan which is rnmpatahla with the pro'ect. a. What designed and informal recreational oppor- tunities are in the immediate vicinity? There are schools in the area. There will not be any additional recreation for this site. b. Would the proposed project displace any existing recreational uses? If so, describe. No. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts on recreation, including recreation opportunities to be provided by the project or applicant, if any: None will be necessary______.__ Evaluation for Agency Use Only 13. Historic and Cultural Preservation a. Are there any places or objects listed on, or pro- posed for, national, state, or local preservation registers known to be on or next to the site? If so, generally describe. No. b. Generally describe any landmarks or evidence of historic, archaeological, scientific, or cultural importance known to be on or next to the site. None exist to my knowledge .nuK...rnewa. a.r... ✓.r_ tY11.- -v ...r a. a�. ..•.T..._rJ . .ty. .•.. L.' ^.T i!E :':rr1'.4•:;•�n:rII.R �'+'�Yti �.Jr,...re,. _a^: wv c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts, if any: none needed. 14. Transportation a. Identify public streets and highways serving the site, and describe proposed accss to the existing street system. Show on site plans, if any. Pacific Highway (Old 99) has mass transit which borders this site. b. Is the site currently served by public transit? If not, what is the approximate distance to the nearest transit stop? Yes the nearest stop is approximately two (2) blocks away c. How many parking spaces would the completed project have? How many would the project eliminate? There will be 333 parking spaces. provided. Evaluation for Agency Use Only d. Will the proposal require any new roads or streets, or improvements to existing roads or streets, not including driveways? If so, generally describe (indicate whether public or private). Some of the adjacet street may require improvements e. Will the project use (or occur in the immediate vicinity of) water, rail, or air transportation? If so, generally describe. No. 15. Public Services f. How many vehicular trips per day would be generated by the completed project? If known, indicate when peak volumes would occur. There will be approximately vehicular trips per day. Peak volumes will occur between the hours of Proposed measures to reduce or control transpor- tation impacts, if any: Comply with City Codes a. Would the project result in an increased need for public services (for example: fire protection, police protection, health care, schools, other)? If so, generally describe. All public services are in place and may require some upgrading. b. Proposed measures to reduce or control direct impacts on public services, if any. Plans will be engineered to City Criteria which will mitiaqe impacts on City services Evaluation for Agency Use Only 16. Utilities a. C' cl- utilities -ntly availab Signature: Date Submitted: PLEASE CONTINUE TO THE NEXT PAGE. one sane ary sewer se • lc b. Describe the utilities that are proposed for the project, the utility providing the service, and the general construction activities on the site or in the immediate vicinity which might be needed. Most services would entail, co.nn.ecti no to existing services C. Signature The above answers are true and complete to the best of my knowledge. I understand that the lead agency is relying on them to make its decision. 15 Evaluation for Agency Use Only TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICA1, Evaluation for Agency Use Only D. SUPPLEMENTAL SHEET FOR NONPROJECT ACTIONS (do not use this sheet for project actions) Because these questions are very general, it may be helpful to read them in conjunction with the list of the elements of the environment. When answering these questions, be aware of the extent the proposal, or the types of activities likely to result from the proposal, would affect the item at a greater intensity or at a faster rate than if the proposal were not imple- mented. Respond briefly and in general terms. 1. How would the proposal be likely to increase discharge to water; emissions to air; production, storage, or release of toxic or hazardous substances; or production of noise? This proposed project will not impact any existing facility with relation to the discharge of water, emissions to air, production, storage, or release of toxic or hazardous substances. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce such increases are: Comply with all City, County, and State Rules and Regulations relating to these measures. 2. How would the proposal be likely to affect plants, ani- mals, fish, or marine life? There would be a designed landscape plan which would implement plants native to the area. There are no migration paths or animal routes on the site and therefore there is no mitigating plan needed for this. Proposed measures to protect or conserve plants, ani- mals, fish, or marine life are: Design a landscape plan and comply with all City, County, and State Rules, Regulations, and codes. 3. How would the proposal be likely to deplete energy or natural resources? The proposed project would be constructed out of recycled or renewable resources (steel, glass, wood, and petroleum products) Proposed measures to protect or conserve energy and natural resourses are: Use renewable or recyclable resourses. 4. How would the proposal be likely to use or affect environmentally sensitive areas or areas designated (or eligible or under study) for governmental protection; such as parks, wilderness, wild and scenic rivers, threatened or endangered species habitat, historic or cultural sites, wetlands, floodplains, or prime farmlands? The site does not lies on or near any of the above mentioned areas, but would implement all State, County and City Rules , Regulations to comply Proposed measures to protect such resources or to avoid or reduce impacts are: Comply with all rules and regulations of the State, County, and City to mitigate 5. How would the proposal be likely to affect land and shoreline use, inclduing whether it would allow or encourage land or shoreline uses incompatible with existing plans? The project is compatable with the surrounding land uses and since it does not lie near a Shoreline It would not be incompatable Evaluation for Agency Use Only Proposed measures to avoid or reduce shoreline and land use impacts area: None Needed How does the proposal conform to the Tukwila Shoreline Master Plan? N/A 6. How would the proposal be likely to increase demands on transportation or public services and utilities? All utilities and transaortatinn are already in the area and no new Utilities will be required. Proposed measures to reduce or respond to such demand(s) are: Car pooling and using of mass transit w i l l be available and suggested to all people i.inrking in the complex 7. Identify, if possible, whether the proposal may conflict with local, state, or federal laws or requirements for the protection of the environment. The approval oror.ass rines not al 1 ni.i this w-Lt -h.out mitigations. Evaluation for Agency Use Only 8. Does the proposal conflict with policies of the Tukwila Comprehensive Land Use Policy Plan? If so, what poli- cies of the Plan? Not to my knowledge The rezone is a liqitimate process for the proposal to qo through the process of approval Proposed measures to avoid or reduce the conflict(s) are: Comply with the City planning department and all other permit processes needed for the project. Evaluation for Agency Use Only TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICAA. Evaluation for Agency Use Only E. SUPPLEMENTAL SHEET FOR ALL PROJECT AND NON PROJECT PROPOSALS The objectives and the alternative means of reaching the objectives for a proposal will be helpful in reviewing the aforegoing items of the Environmental Checklist. This information provides a general overall perspective of the proposed action in the context of the environmental infor- mation provided and the submitted plans, documents, suppor- tive information, studies, etc. 1. What are the objective(s) of the proposal? To supply needed nffira Gpare in tho area 2. What are the alternative means of accomplishing these objectives? none 3. Please compare the alternative means and indicate the preferred course of action: there are no alternate w n 5 therefore we would like the proposal to mnva through the process 4. Does the proposal conflict with policies of the Tukwila Comprehensive Land Use Policy Plan? If so, what poli- cies of the Plan? The comprehensive plan allows a rezone application to be processed for the requested zoning= Proposed measures to avoid or reduce the conflict(s) are: To go through the City process fnr tha proposed project . The entails Planning engineering. building departments etc. -23- Evaluation for Agency Use Only sl_ Ig?a :� s ` 3 1 2 P ^ 1' S j5IM. 5 117* SI l .y $ ' SITE l €_M S. t9 1l mn. i n =� i -� I ∎4 ". • l{ f r i sl I F. t " • t. ,s ru WI MO nn MOM Ill wao MAll 1 Z: /i0 ..1 ut11 e • 6. 9[ :1CAD maw.: C A.I.o.t. ;Pfl L SW 1/4 9 SE 1/4 SEC. IS, TWP. 23 N., RGE. 4 E, W.M. Bennett PS&E t,Nc. SURVEYORS end ENGINEERS 1.0. h% 10)1 PUYALLUP WA. 91111 IVYALLV NN.)) SEABEE 114)115 1 SCALC.1 5 •200 . 0 50 10 300 VICINITY MAP NTS Lq2 -0021 SOUTH GATE BUISNESS PARK Wsl „1 ;4ni1#�a r ZONING MAP Limos sn I atY oc tuA)rIu .IASN NO 01.7. �P 92 •W2B --- .11.... .1 / ••• "O.91�iT/I 100 12 e• WESTERN., red cedar —100' 130' 1 9' 141 ST. ST. S. ............ ................211 PP M 312. 1 292 + 1 FIRS WESTERN. RED CEDER O SW V4 OF SEC. 15 ,TWP 23 N.,RGE. 4E.,W.M. 540' 266 2,0 Opp eLVE SPRUCE T .. 0 P1 OI PP Bennett JETS &E INC SURVEYORS and ENGINEERS P.O. e00 1211 %TAW!/ WA. 11111 I07421.40 1494211 fLATTU 1121474 295 260 ................. 271 1 2130' ••075 01A0 5C4LE 0 25 5 T0)0L )M SIt. • 177.019 SOS. 117 LAP 0... N OSH 4.111..4T1 .00111 KTSL SAS? R. . . , . /0 9.29 ii +r... SPRl.O 10273 0A4aIC1AL SOUTH 0.11.CIAL M LAST SIVA.R werf 11300* 401101 USTI. 0111107 4113 T ELSINOWS 01. OAS :V111171p SAIMAA CAS 69011 14,411.10111 ■1K.1. K. 1111. -0004 1117. -0016 197104.0079 0071.019 •A• TOTAL 100111 0429 1011.0127 •0 • 44,440.00 02 11011.0100 •4 3011111 1 3U13f ail PIE } 1170 TACOS 111 a 100 • 11..00.00 ST 10� 0 01110 7 171 • 700 • 17.170.00 00 SI MST FLOC. 179 • 100 • 17,100.00 a SIC.. ILO. 171 • 110 • 11.10.00 t1 TMISU /LOOM 174. 110 • 2,7710.00 4I TOTAL MM. It. 1.11.0140 •1 • 94.1.0.00 SF TOIL .004.1 It. OF 911.0140 .A ... •t •114.110.00 41 3]'100 I 3 STORY 111..40.00,1.0 SOUA.t "" • 109 04 1 1..s asalu 1» 17aw 11411010471•0 STALLS 110U11107 1 17A1.11100 570C11 • 4 STALLS 260' 130' 130' ••-100' + 63 SOUTHERLY ELEVATION NTS VICINITY MAP NT5 Lg2-Oo2I 104 w• 9l42c2 VICINITY MAP Bennett PS&E nic. SOUTH GATE BUISNESS PARK SURVEYORS and ENGINEERS ZONING MAP rr r. additional materials 61 4 a /1" D N ED 4/i4 t ► tact r Tukwila City Council - Regular Meeting April 4;,1994 Verbatim Transcript.- Deliberations: Consideration of the Planning Commission's recommendation of conditional approval of the Southgate Trailer Park Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Rezone. Manor Rants: Dennis, why don't you give us a process. Councilmember Dennis Robertson: I would suggest a process very similar to the one we just followed where we look at the criteria that was shown to us as the start of the public hearing. O.K., I'd like to suggest a process where we look at the three - -we go through and discuss in order the three criteria that were shown us for the Comprehensive Land Use Plan and the five criteria, the first five, that were appropriate for changes to the rezone. And after we've discussed the issues amongst ourselves - -since there was a Planning Commission recommendation, I would also suggest that we briefly discuss that after we go through all other criteria or we could discuss it beforehand, and then put a motion on the table. I would suggest, actually, we start with the Planning Commission's recommendation. Councilmember Joan Hernandez: You want to refer us to a certain page number, Dennis? Robertson: Yea, the Planning Commission's recommendation.... Hernandez: O.K., here it is. It's on page 2 of Attachment A. Robertson: Attachment A? Hernandez: Maybe not, maybe not. Rants: Attachment A. Yes, it is -- second page of Attachment A. The Planning Commission recommendation was based on.... Robertson: The adjacent land uses, public testimony, annexation zoning. Their recommendation is Tukwila Tommorow Committee. In reviewing it - -also I'd like to point to Section D and point out, I believe that when the Planning Commission made their recommendation and did the review - -if you look at Page 12 of Section D, which is the Planning Commission's recommendation, the only discussion I could find in their minutes that dealt with the criteria that we told that we were to use as the basis, and that is the basis for this decision, is in the second paragraph here. It says that Mr. Clark said that the rezone criteria numbers 2 and 6 were not germane to the discussion. It said the commission reviewed comp plan criteria number one and discussed the semantics of unforeseen changes. And the majority of the commission members considered it's down zone in `89 to be a mistake. The reason I'm referencing this is I think in reviewing this to make a recommendation to us, that the Planning Commission erred. They didn't follow the decision criteria, all the way through, and point by point, and their minutes, I believe, uphold what I just said. So I have difficulty in placing a great deal of emphasis on their recommendation at this point in time since it wasn't based on a point by point analysis of the decision criteria and the data that was provided them. Then... Councilmember Joyce Craft: Could I just intermit, I'm sorry, I wanted to and I forgot, I wanted to declare that I got a letter at my house maybe everybody else did Hernandez: Um -huh, I think we all did. 1 RECEIVED APR 1 51994 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Craft: OK. Mullet: As soon as I read the part that said- -one part- -I threw it aside. And then Dorothy was so nice to see that all of us got another copy of it. Rants: Staff has received that letter also, from a man and a woman from the Sumara Apartments. Robertson: And also, trying to come up with the process and decision criteria if you look at the verbatim transcripts- -now I'm going to go to the old copy that we were given because that's the one I have my notes written on. My review of the changes didn't show them to be significant to what I'm going to discuss. Anyway, on page three at the bottom, there's a couple of quotes I want to reference. This is from Planning Department, Ann Siegenthaler. At the very bottom, the second to the last line Hernandez: Dennis excuse me, are you referring to the Planning Commission minutes of December 8th? Mullet: No, he's referring to our verbatim minutes on the Robertson: On the bottom, the verbatim? OK everybody on the verbatim? On page three? She says one is there are two separate sets of criteria. You're really looking at two separate proposals. And I believe that's correct. I believe we have to analyze the proposed changes to the comprehensive land use plan as shown on that decision criteria first and then we look at again we go through the review of the five decision criteria's that are relevant for the zoning changes. In the last point- -well, not the last, on page four the top of the - -the first paragraph, the first sentence, the next point that she makes I think is very important to our decision making. She says the second thing to recall about these criteria is that the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the proposal meets the criteria. It's not our responsibility to show where things don't meet the criteria. We equally have to review what the applicant presented. That's basically all I wanted to say about decision making until we start going through the items one by one. Councilmember Allen Ekberg: I would just like to add to that that it's my distinct understanding to how Dennis has portrayed this situation should proceed as well. I also concur with how the Planning Commission did not purse review the three criteria as required for the criteria for zoning and rezoning as well. Rants: You wish to move to the comp plan amendments then? Robertson: I think so, the criteria Rants: "Unforeseen changes and circumstances have occurred in community conditions that justify a comp plan redesignation of the subject property or existing plan policies." Any one wishes to address this one? Robertson: Yea, just a second after I get started here. Mullet: I'il start out while Dennis is finding his stuff there. Rants: All right Steve. 2 Rants: Dennis. Mullet: I don't have the page numbers and what not as I read through the testimony but the jest of it that I dug out was that they perceived these changes that are occurring in the community as being manifested through the growth management plan and several other efforts which are going on in that area to kind of redirect the activity on Hwy. 99. However, all of these plans are in transition especially- -and are quite vague and elusive especially the growth management plan. And I would also like to through in that the existing County zoning at the time of the purchase would not have allowed this current proposal either. The fact that the property was changed zoning at the time of annexation I did not consider to be very pertinent to this discussion. So I gave this a maybe on this criteria on whether they convinced me on this or not. Robertson: On section I, attachment I which is the Staff report to the Planning Commission, dated October 20, 1993. On page four of section I I'd like to- -under point 1 it says again, "unforeseen changes in circumstance have occurred in community conditions that justify a comp plan redesignation of the subject property or existing plan policies." Basically what the applicants response was, the Growth Management Act has been enacted. Well I-- Growth Management Act is something new and is a legislative process, however the City is responding to that with a City wide comprehensive land use plan and zoning process, we're partially through. But those are not unexpected unforeseen circumstances. All jurisdictions go through these kinds of things periodically to list the fact that we're going through a new comprehensive planning and zoning exercise as an unexpected, unforeseen occurrence just doesn't make sense. It is an expected thing and it does occur periodically. I have a very hard time believing that the applicant has shown that there's a unforeseen change or circumstance. Hernandez: Dennis, could I make a comment there? I had that highlighted too because the comment made here was that the comprehensive plan was to provide for anticipated growth over the next 20 years. Well that growth also includes housing, so that's relevant here because were asking - -we're being asked to reconsider a rezoning of something that is zoned partially zoned for housing. So I think that - -I thought that was significant. Rants: Any one else? Allen? Ekberg: On that same note the applicant does state that the Growth Management Act has been enacted and it's the City's responsibility of that act to review a comprehensive plan and zoning map. Until that is done the existing plan and policies are in effect, are those that remain in effect until changes have occurred and legislation policies have been set by ordinance and amend what we currently have on the books. So even though there is a Growth Management Act that portrays the outline for plan for future change, future change is not upon us at this point. Rants: Dennis? Robertson: To add to that, on page 19 on the verbatim transcripts, Ann Siegenthaler said in her summation, "regarding the pre - annexation zoning process..", this is on the bottom of the page, "there were two public information meetings during the time of the proposed annexation zoning and there were three public hearings. Citizens task force, the Planning Commission and Council all were involved in the process of establishing the pre - annexation zoning. And notices of meetings and hearings were sent out to the property owners. So I want to point out that the zoning that occurred during the annexation process was difficult to say that that was unexpected either. The City couldn't have gone through a more 3 elaborate process at that time. I sat on the Council and I remember we went through, at the time of the annexations a great deal of conversation with everybody. Rants: Does anyone else have anything they want to say about Unforeseen Changes in Circumstances? If not we'll move to "Factual Evidence, supports in additional or change public need for the designated property." Hernandez: This is the one that I had a hard time with. I don't really see that much evidence that supports a need for a change in the property designation. Rants: Steve? Mullet: Well I think there is definitely need for a change on that property. Whether it needs to be rezoned is what the question is really about. And I found no factual evidence supporting a rezone to effect that change. I could find no evidence of financial hardship to effect that change or anything else. It wasn't in any of the transcripts that I read. In fact there was very little evidence introduced about financial hardships or that related to this property at all. So basically we have a piece of property that's zoned residential and with a little commercial strip on the highway, and while we have a great deal of public blight going on in that property, for lack of better word, I don't see where that indicates that its not suitable property for residential property. And that's what were being asked to do here, to change it from a residential designation to a commercial designation. Rants: Dennis? Robertson: I agree strongly - -if you remember that what's really in question is not a chunk of land that's on Hwy. 99, it's the private property that it borders, on 42nd Avenue. If you go to page 10 of the verbatim transcript, at that point - -I'm trying to remember who was speaking- -Roger Blaylock, representing the applicant. On page 18 I'm going to quote some points. Here I believe he was talking about criteria number two as near I can tell. Mullet: Which page are you on, 10? Robertson: 10. It says on the start of the second paragraph there, the long one, it says, "the factual evidence supports the needs evidence supports an addition or change of public need for the property designation." While I've looked at the property very closely and thought you know this is the end of a transitional use and the record shows that this was probably put in in the 1950's. Actually it was probably put in the 1940's when one was going strong. It's old it's tired. If you drop down about three lines, he goes on to say, "while Tukwila is no longer just linked to the State of Washington with its international airport nearby, it's linked farther." Drop down another line and he says, "so a new style was envisioned by Mr. Kim that's actually happening in Asia now.... ", he goes on to talk about his plans. Drop down even further- -what I'm doing in reading through this is looking for some factual evidence. He goes on to say, "it's a gateway coming in on Pacific Highway south into Tukwila. And this is going to be your new community focus with the center here, with the school, new library, higher density commercial uses around it. You have the new Larry's Market, you have Bartell's, the whole are is going through a dramatic new evolved transition. It's becoming a heart again for the community which is really nice. But we believe that this is the northern focus of that." The point that I'm trying to make is, except for the last little bit there's nothing factual saying that it's old and it's tired is hardly factual evidence supporting additional or public need. That sounds to me more like an opinion than factual evidence. The last part about it becoming a gateway is true, but that's talking about the property on Hwy. 99 not the property 4 bordering 42nd. I failed - -in reviewing this material I couldn't find anything that approached factual evidence to convince me that additional change public need was needed. That this met that. Rants: Any one else wishes to address factual evidence? We'll move then to number three. Robertson: Wally, can I go back to one point? On page five of the Staff report, attachment I, dealing with this again it is the Staffs report to the Planning Commission but in this document the Staff is detailing the applicants response to questions. In the third paragraph where they talk about office designation the second sentence says, "as a result there are no nearby office uses in Tukwila to serve the residential neighborhood and businesses on Hwy. 99." Then it goes on to say, "based on these observations it's likely then an office would be an economical viable use that it could serve the public need in the area." I fail to see how office areas on 42nd Avenue, and again looking for factual proof that this would support the public needs, I fail to see how office area on 42nd Avenue would support the residential need there. The residential area Hernandez: I'd like to add something to that on that particular page that I had highlighted too. Under commercial designation it says that it's one of the few large parcels remaining and along Hwy. 99 the site has the potential to attract significant high quality redevelopment. However Tukwila already has many areas designated as commercial development. Rants: All right, we'll move on then. "Proposal has been analyzed for effects on existing comprehensive plan policies." Robertson: If we look at again the Staff report to the Planning Commission, dated October 20th on page six. It shows the applicants response to that question, to this criteria as being, "the policies are under review for amendment consistent with GMA. It's our position to rezone to see to it's consistent with GMA." Again, we've been told that GMA is not the relevant issue. What we're dealing with in this request for a comprehensive land use plan change is to the existing comprehensive land use plan, not GMA. So the applicants response again has nothing to do with the issue of the current comprehensive land use plan. Not with what GMA may come out with. Rants: Any further comments on this proposal number three? Steve? Mullet: I have - -well by the applicants own statement in the transcript, they admit that they do not know the use because they do not have a client. And they refer to a chicken and egg kind of thing. So in effect they haven't analyzed what this use would be. That's on page 11 incidentally, the bottom paragraph. And they're actually requesting the zoning change - -I don't know whether they're calling it the chicken or the egg but they want one of them first and so the only the only effects that have been analyzed on this property have been from a negative nature and that whatever they do the trailer park will no longer be there so the problems that it brings will no longer be there. Kind of a back door analysis of- -but it doesn't provide an analysis of the future use that they're asking for the rezoning for. Rants: All right. Robertson: Wally, further elaborating on that point that Steve just made, again on page 11 on the verbatim transcripts the applicant himself says, "the request is not an agreement. When the request is not in agreement with the comprehensive plan the applicant shall provide " - -I think that's, yea this is still Mr. Blaylock, so I'll go back, "the request is not in agreement. When the request is not in agreement with the comprehensive plan, the applicant shall provide evidence to City Council's satisfaction that there is 5 additional need for the request land use classification." Here we run into a little bit of a problem because we don't know what the use will be. I will state that very clearly, we don't know what the use will be and that's what Steve was just saying. It's hard to show that - -if we don't know what the use is going to be whether or not it meets the criteria. Rants: We'll move to the rezone. "User changing of zoning requested will be in conformity with the adopted comprehensive land use policy and the public interest." Robertson: Well if we go to page nine, again of the Staff report section I. The applicant there under applicant's response says, "a request for rezone is also consistent with goals and objectives Growth Management Act" as we said that's not the issue on the table. The Staffs response is, "proposed new C -2 zoning is not in conformance with the comprehensive plan designation." Unless they requested a change but I think clearly its not - -since they have requested a comprehensive land use plan change that would enable the zoning code change - -it's easy to say that the zoning code change is not in conformity with the adopted comprehensive plan use policy plan. Rants: Any one else? Move to item two. "The use or change of zoning requested in the zoning map for the establishment of commercial industrial residential use shall be supported by an architectural site plan showing a proposed development and its relationship to surrounding areas as set forth in the application form." This is where you came with the chicken and the egg. Do you have a form, do you have a use, do you have a plan? Mullet: We had a site plan but all it showed was a buffer and a big blank square empty spot. Rants: You had the site plan here. Mullet: We had this one here which is not Rants: That was listed as an exhibit. Mullet: But was not listed as just an example as what was referred to I believe. Hernandez: I would like to refer to the Staff report to answer that on page 10. And I agree that the applicants request does not include sufficient information to evaluate the relationship of a specific development project in the surrounding area. Robertson: I agree, and referring back to the verbatim transcripts on page 11 when Mr. Blaylock said, "hey we ran into a little bit of a problem because we don't know what the use will be, I will state that very clearly, we don't know what the use will be." How can you without a drawing and an architectural plan for instance, how can you tell where the entrances and exits will be, how big buildings will be, where they fit in. There's no way to even begin to evaluate the impact on surrounding uses. And in this case, surrounding uses are residential at least on three sides. Rants: Further comments? Number three. "When a request is not in agreement with a comp plan the applicants shall provide evidence to City Council satisfaction there is an additional need for the requested land classification." Comments? Hernandez: I just don't see anywhere where we've seen where there is this justification that the criteria asks to be provided. There appears to be ample commercial property on Hwy. 99 that's vacant, some of 6 it. I haven't seen any evidence that there's a shortage of commercial property, or that we really have a demand to create more additional commercial property. Rants: All right. Robertson: OK, again.... Mullet: I would back Joan up on that. Again this - -we do have a request for a rezone. It's basically while we do have a particular use at this property which is not attractive in any way shape or form at this point in time, it still does not - -it's not enough in itself to say that this should move from residential property to commercial property. Robertson: I agree again. Looking at page 11 at the verbatim transcripts where the applicant themselves say that they don't know what the use will be. How can you build a case that there's initial need for the classification and the use when you don't know exactly what the use is going to be? Back again on page 10 of the Staff report to the Planning Commission, applicants response, "GMA requires cities to plan or provide for expansion within the urban growth areas." Well that doesn't have anything to do with this case. But it goes on to say, "the act has been implemented since the City adopted its current comp plan. It is this applicants understanding that the plan is now under review for modification consistent with legislative mandates of the act." I'm not sure what that means but it says, "the Hwy. 99 corridor is a prime candidate for designation for commercial expansion required by the act. Well first off I don't think the act requires commercial expansion anywhere, not in specific terms. If the act did matter. But even more importantly, the property we're dealing with is no on Hwy. 99, it's on 42nd Avenue, it borders 42nd. So I don't think the applicant demonstrated any additional need for request of land classification. Rants: Item four. Mullet: In my opinion the only changes that have occurred in the neighborhood surrounding this piece of property have been for the betterment of a residential area. We have a brand new high school, we have a brand new library going on, these are all things that benefit residential areas primarily. So again I see no evidence presented that would justify changes the zoning on this piece of property. And it's a different issue than getting rid of the trailers that are there and putting up some decent residential housing. Rants: OK, item Robertson: I also agree and would like to point to page 10 of the Staff report again on the bottom. The applicants response again was the Growth Management Act has been enacted. "The increased demand for city social services e.g. places evidence of a deteriorating neighborhood. This property in its present condition is a major contributing factor to that deterioration. The request of rezone will make it economically feasible to renew the site." Well, I don't think anybody questions the fact that there's demand on services by the current use of that property. But the issue isn't the current use. The issue is the zoning and I agree totally with what Steve said. The -- Councilmember Mullet, that it's possible to rebuild something other and reuse that current zoning for something other than the trailer park that's there now. Rants: All right. 7 Craft: Actually I think there were many citizens that spoke out in favor of the rezone. On the Staff report on page 13 under rezone recommendations, actually the Staff had earlier recommended that it be denied, however here on rezone recommendations the Staff did say that if sufficient justification for rezone at a public hearing could be heard that Staff would recommend that the Planning Commission consider alternatives. Part of those alternatives are for office designation along 42nd, C -2 regional commercial designation, the remainder of the site and so on and so forth. It said that if the applicant could justify a commercial designation, Staff recommended further evaluation prior to approval as follows. And there it's recommended as C -2. There were a lot of citizens that actually spoke out in favor of a rezone. Robertson: I think yes, but the basis for the citizens speaking in almost every case was that the current use is onerous and a heavy user of police services and causes fair amount of difficulty of surrounding properties. That's not the zoning's fault, that's the fault of the current use and the way that it's perhaps managed. If you look - -again Staff said, if the applicant could provide sufficient justification at the public hearing. On page 12 of the verbatim transcripts again what I'm doing now is looking for justification for a rezone. And on right at the top there where it says 7 -27. "Significant changes have occurred in character conditions in surrounding neighborhood that justify or otherwise sustain the proposed rezone. This one I can get myself into trouble with the client because I think the use has come to its end, it's age end, it's like a building." He goes on but there's nothing there that factually says anything. It mearly says an opinion that the use has come to its age end like a building. It doesn't say why or what has to occur. There's no argument there there's some opinions. If a- -look at the next paragraph. Again it talks about public health and interest. I think some of the discussion is around the issues that we're really not here to discuss which is correct, the concern over policing and everything else. So the applicant himself even says that concern over policing, that those aren't the issues before us. That's not a basis for a decision. Rants: You're moving into criteria number five, where that becomes part of that criteria. "The proposed rezone is in the best interest of public health and safety." Mullet: Actually I felt number five was like number six and really didn't belong in there. It's more like what we would consider if we were downzoning a piece of property where we would cause a- -where we would change the property value and impose some hardship on an individual property owner. By actions we took as opposed to by actions he took. Which is what we're dealing with here. Robertson: Again, if you look at page 11 of the Staff report under the applicants response, "a proposed rezone would enable a redevelopment of the site reducing if not entirely eliminating the burden presently imposed in the City's public health and safety services." Well that could still be done under current zoning. It doesn't require- -there are as stated elsewhere here there are two other trailer parks in the City that are successful and are not problems to their neighbors. Do not cause substantial police problems or public safety or health. So if there is a problem there it's with how this one is managed or used or the history of it. But it's not a problem with the zoning. Rants: Any further comments? Hernandez: I agree, it's just not indicated anywhere how C -2 zoning is going to improve the neighborhood- -how it's going to serve the neighborhood. Or how it's going to be in the best interest of public health and safety. Robertson: I would like to add one summation that we are in the process of going through a very elaborate comprehensive planning land use process and with the zoning process and the applicant 8 certainly can participate in that, there would be plenty of opportunities in the near future for zoning changes. What I didn't see demonstrated in the public record anywhere here either in the material presented to the Planning Commission or material presented to us at the public hearing. Anything that would meet the decision criteria presented for us to - -that would enable this comprehensive land use plan change or the zoning change. I have a hard time with the hardship question because I believe there is plenty of opportunity for both of those to occur, in fact we have a process underway right now to do comprehensive planning and zoning. That should terminate by State law within the next year or so. Those changes will be considered anyway as a due process. Rants: The issue before the Council at this point is to either uphold the Planning Commission recommendation, or to grant a rezone and continue with that recommendation. Council's pleasure? Robertson: I think we have a third choice, don't we? Rants: You have a third choice? Let's hear it. Robertson: I don't believe we have - -the Planning Commission actually proposed a zoning comprehensive land use plan change. Could I ask the City attorney to reiterate the choices that we have tonight? Linda Cohen: The Planning Commission made a recommendation. It would be helpful to vote on their recommendation but also to go through and have a motion with respect to the comprehensive plan amendment and then a separate motion as to whether or not the rezone criteria were met. So to be safe you can address all three. Robertson: OK, then I would make a motion that we disregard the Planning Commission's recommendation for a comprehensive plan and zoning changes to this site. Mullet: I'll second that for discussion. Robertson: The reason for that is that there is nothing in their record to show that they went through the decision criteria the same way we did and arriving at their recommendation. And without that as a basis I can't find enough - -I'm not sure if it's legal or proper to approve of their recommendation. Rants: The motion then is to overturn the Planning Commission recommendation and leave the property Robertson: I don't think we have to overturn, I think it's just disregarded. It's just a recommendation to us, nothing else. Rants: Disregard that recommendation. Mullet: I would like to add one other thing to that and not making - -I'm not belittling our Planning Commission in any way shape or form. They labored very hard over this from what we can tell from the minutes, from the decision to do this. In the process of coming up with their decision from the testimony we got they came up with the decision that nobody else seemed to like either. It was not a win situation for any of the parties. At that point that's like the final straw for me to disregard that. Rants: I'm trying to state the motion so that everyone understands what were voting on here. 9 Robertson: OK, can I speak, I guess to the motion? The motion is to disregard the Planning Commission's recommendation. I guess I want to be real clear, I'm not faulting the Planning Commission. We had one real advantage they didn't have, we had their record and their material to review, they didn't have anything before it. It's very easy to sit here and build upon someone else - -what someone else has done and critique it. It's a lot of harder when you're doing it the first time through so I'm not faulting them or saying in anyway, we had an advantage that they didn't have. But that still- -the issue is that the decision criteria that we have to follow there is no evidence that they followed it as rigorously as we did. Rants: OK. All right, any further comments, discussion? Ekberg: I'll just add to that that Staff members briefed the Planning Commission on what their requirements were for reviewing this comprehensive plan amendment for rezone request. And it's stated on page two of the Planning Commission minutes dated December 8th by Ann Siegenthaler. As we were briefed earlier last week when we heard it a few weeks ago, they were also briefed to what the criteria is. Rants: Joan? Hernandez: Well I would just like to say that I'm not opposed to this site being redeveloped and I think that the exuberance of the Planning Commission probably leaned that way too. They were probably anxious, as anxious as anyone to have to see this site redevelop and thinking that it would be an improvement. But I really don't feel like they followed the criteria and I- -we're told that the criteria must be really met and it fails the test. I agree with Rants: Joe? Councilmember Joe Duffle: Well I kind of go along with the Planning Department and what they had to say on this. You think that this site really needs to be cleaned up. I don't know how we're going to do it unless we rezone it. If the situation we got here now is going to continue to stay in the shape that it in and unless we rezone it for C -2 this site will continue to do this. I don't think there's nothing in our ordinance to make us, mandate us to make him clean up this site and we've heard from the neighbors and this site is very unaccepted into the neighbors. Ekberg: Can I have a point of clarification? Is there a motion on the table? Rants: There is. Ekberg: So we should be talking to the motion? Rants: Should be talking to the motion, that is disregarding the Planning Commission's recommendations. Duffle: OK now what is the Planning Commission recommendation then, tell me that. Robertson: To rezone or to do a comprehensive land use plan change and to rezone such that there is a line drawn basically through the center of the property north to south approximately that would change that would add to the commercial designation, the commercial area the area designated commercial. And detract some from the area designated residential on 42nd. 10 Rants: That has a little bit of flavor of the way you feel about it, as opposed to what it says. Mullet: Basically Joe, maintained R -2 on 42nd which is duplex and allowed C -2 on 99 for 270 feet. Ekberg: Just to ensure that point's clarified, ifs on page 11 of the December 8th Planning Commission minutes. It states, "Mr. Haggerton moved to amend the comprehensive land use plan for the area under discussion L92 -0022 and L92 -0023 to divide the property approximately in half with the commercial designation adjoining Pacific Highway South and residential along 42nd Avenue South. The first 270 feet adjoining Pac Hwy., Pacific Hwy. South be zoned C -2 and approximately half fronting 42nd Avenue south remain R -2." Mr. Flescher seconded the motion and the motion was unanimously approved. Rants: The motion on the table though is to disregard the Planning Commission's recommendation. Any further Craft: I'd like to speak against the motion. I think that we do have the minutes from the Planning Commission but we don't have verbatim transcripts. When we look at our minutes there's a lot that's lost and I think there's something that happened at the Planning Commission that isn't part of the written public record. I would really like to uphold the Planning Commission's ruling because I think we would all like to see this area redeveloped. Just wanted to say that. Rants: Any further comments? Ekberg: This proceeding for ourselves, and I'd like the attorney to assist me on this, is this called a de novo proceeding? Cohen: Yes. Ekberg: Yes, and can you explain that once again for us? Cohen: Rather than operating just from the record itself, you also took testimony from the applicant and Staff, you received new evidence, that makes it de novo. Ekberg: All right. The point being that we had our own public hearing on this process and both sides of the party spoke to us about this matter. Mullet: I would just briefly like to address Joyce's concern. In that I specifically asked the applicant if they would be able to respond to that type of a split and they said no. And specifically asked all the residents that testified at the meeting if they could respond to that and they said no. And that's why I said it seemed to be a decision, even though it would move forward towards some kind of redevelopment, maybe it wouldn't because it might not be a workable solution. Rants: All right. All in favor of the motion say aye? (Hernandez, Mullet, Robertson, Ekberg, Craft, DeRodas) Those opposed? (Duffle) Well, where do we proceed from here. Robertson: We deal with the comp plan proposed changes and the zoning. Rants: OK. 11 Robertson: OK, well then I'll Rants: Steve you have the microphone there. Mullet: I would make the motion that we disallow the proposal because it does not fit the comp plan criteria. Rants: You're speaking of the comprehensive plan designation? Mullet: Comprehensive plan designation. Under the decision criteria in my opinion possibly the first one might fit but two and three don't and ifs my understanding that they have to fit all three. Robertson: I'll second. Rants: Moved and seconded to - -I almost hate to try and repeat that. Robertson: To deny Rants: To deny the comp plan designation. Hernandez: I would just like to say that we've been told that the burden of proof is on the applicant and I don't feel like that the applicant has demonstrated that the proposal meets the criteria. Rants: All right. Robertson: I share Joan's view. Rants: Is there a second? Mullet: I'll second. Rants: Moved and seconded, discussion. 12 Rants: All in favor say aye? (unanimous) Those opposed? (none). OK, that brings us to the zoning designation. 2887 (could not hear comments) Rants: I wouldn't think so. Is there anything else Cohen: You just need to decide whether or not it meets the rezone criteria. That's the last motion. Robertson: We do have to do it. Rants: We do have to vote on it I guess. Ekberg: I'll make a motion to deny the rezone based on criteria of the clients not being met for the comprehensive plan. Robertson: I'd like to make a friendly amendment that it not only be based upon criteria one, that the denial also based on criteria's two, three, four and five since again, the burden of proof rests on the applicants parts and they did not prove the criteria format. Rants: Is there a second to that amendment? Robertson: The amendment was to add criteria two, three, four and five. Ekberg: I'll second. Rants: Moved and seconded. All in favor say aye? (Hernandez, Mullet, Robertson, Ekberg, Craft, DeRodas) Those opposed? (Duffle) We are back to the original motion, refusal of the zoning designation. Ekberg: I'd like to have the motion read please. Hernandez: Based on the fact that criteria is not being met for a rezone. Ekberg: What the ..(unclear).. says is denial on the rezone based on the comprehensive plan ?? not being met. So when I mean rezone, I mean one through six, one through five. Rants: All in favor say aye? (Hernandez, Mullet, Robertson, Ekberg, DeRodas) Those opposed? (Duffle, Craft). Robertson: Wally, I would like to add that I am not opposed - -and I think in general the Planning Commission and much of the City would like something being done there. We have a process underway right now and we would add that - -I hope that you participate in the comprehensive - -in the process we have underway for changing the comprehensive land use plan and the zoning map and that much of the City would like to see a change. This just wasn't appropriate. 3027 (comments from audience unclear) Rants: Mr. Kim, I'm sorry but I don't think it would be in your best interest to do that right now. Old business. END OF VERBATIM TRANSCRIPT FOR SOUTHGATE PARK REQUEST FOR REZONE, APRIL 4, 1994. 13 Ron, cc: File City of Tuk: wi la John W. Rants, Mayor Department of Community Development Rick Beeler, Director M E M O R A N D U M TO: Ron Cameron, City E FROM: Ann Siegenthaler RE: SOUTHGATE TRAIL R PARK REZONE -- Public Works' comments DATE: October 13, 1993 The Southgate Trailer Park Rezone application has been transferred to me (formerly Denni). I am preparing findings for a staff report and SEPA determination, which will be reviewed by the Planning Commission in a couple of weeks. I can find no comments from Public Works in our project files. Apparently, Denni routed materials to your department, but it doesn't look like we received comments. Could you please have comments pulled from your files and copies sent over? I also need a memo from you to Rick stating why no traffic study is needed for the rezone. I need Public Works' response by Friday, 10/15/93, please. 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • (206) 431 -3670 • Fax (206) 4313665 � MEMORANDUM TO: File: Kim Rezone FROM: Rick Beeler, Responsible Official DATE: September 1, 1993 SUBJECT: SEPA - Traffic Impacts Approximately two weeks ago Ron Cameron, City Engineer, and I discussed whether or not the environmental checklist for this rezone application required supplement by a traffic study. Ron said that he felt such a study was not necessary because he knew the impacts on Highway 99 and 42nd Ave. S. would be very slight. We agreed that a specific development proposal will likely necessitate a traffic study and access study in the environmental checklist. On this basis I am not requiring a traffic study for the rezone application, but am conditioning the SEPA threshold decision on traffic and access studies being performed for any specific development proposal. RECEIVED SEP 1 1993 CUvvt1v1UNITY DEVELOPMENT ILA, Ili ARAI __I t F;11--- ° ct) W ,: %Z 1908 MRK /cc HOUSING.001 City of Tukwila Office of the City Attorney TO: Denni Shefrin DATE: March 23, 1992 MEMORANDUM Michael R. Kenyon, City Attorney FROM: Michael R. Kenyon, City Attorney UV :: ,•; ` '`✓ ;L�:; RE: Housing Relocation Authority Under SEPA 4 ' In conjunction with the Southgate Trailer Park application, you asked me to determine whether any reported Washington cases existed regarding SEPA authority to impose housing mitigation. I was only able to spend about an hour manually researching the issue, and was unsuccessful finding any case or cases directly on point. In reviewing SEPA (RCW 43.21C) and its associated rules (WAC 197 -11), however, a substantial basis exists to impose housing mitigation. The SEPA checklist includes three questions dealing with provision, elimination, and measures to reduce or control housing impacts. WAC 197- 11- 960(D)(9). Further, WAC 197-11 - 444(2)(b)(ii) specifies "housing" as an "element of the environment ". The "built environment" is the elements of the environment as set forth in WAC 197 -11- 444(2), including housing. WAC 197 -11 -718. "Impacts" are effects or consequences of actions and "environmental impacts" are effects upon the elements of the environment listed in WAC 197 -11 -444. WAC 197 -11 -752. "Mitigation" is the avoiding or minimizing of a "impact ". WAC 197 -11 -768. John W. Rants, Mayor The promulgation of the above WACs, including the specific definitions, is authorized at RCW 43.21C.110(1)(f). Accordingly, there are specific statutory and administrative rule bases for housing mitigation. Any housing mitigation measure imposed would be subject to the same types of challenges, defenses, and legal analysis as any other mitigation measure. 6200 Southcenter Boulevard • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • Phone: (206) 43,3-1872 • Fax (206) 433 -1833 COUNCIL AGENDA SYNOPSIS Initials Meeting Date 3 -28 -94 Prepared by Mayor's review Council review ITEM No. CAS Number: Original Agenda Date: 3 -28 -94 Agenda Item Title: SOUTHGATE TRAILER PARK COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT AND REZONE. Original Sponsor: Council Admin. XX Timeline: Sponsor's Summary: A PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S RECOMMENDATION OF CONDITIONAL APPROVAL OF THE SOUTHGATE TRAILER PARK COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT AND REZONE. Recommendations: Sponsor: Committee: Administration: CONSIDER THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S RECOMMENDATION. , s Cost Impact (if known): Fund Source (if known): Meeting Date 3 -28 -94 • r Action Meeting Date 3 -28 -94 Attachments STAFF REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL WITH ATTACHMENTS. '',,. Southgate Comp Plan /Rezone: Attachments A. Memo to Mayor from Rick Beeler (3/21/94). B. Tukwila decision criteria for Comprehensive Plan amendments and rezones. C. Diagram of applicant and Planning Commission recommendations. D. Planning Commission hearing minutes (12/8/93). E. Applicant exhibits submitted at Planning Commission hearing (12/8/93). F. Letter from resident (12/2/93) submitted at Planning Commission hearing. G. Tukwila Tomorrow minutes (11/4/93) submitted at Planning Commission hearing. H. Supplement to Staff Report to Planning Commission (12/2/93), with letters from 2 residents. 1. Staff Report to Planning Commission 10/20/93, with • Revised Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Rezone applications (7/1/93). • Letter of comments from citizens in response to original applications (3/20/92); J. Original Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Rezone .applications (1/92) (attached for reference only). K. Citizen involvement opportunities. L. Mitigated Determination of Non - Significance (10/20/93). TO: City of Tukwila Mayor Rants FROM: Rick Beeler, Director Dept. of Community Development DATE: March 22,1994 RE: Southgate Trailer Park: Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Rezone ( #L92 -0022, #L92 -0023) PROPOSAL: The owner of Southgate Trailer Park, a 3.97 acre site located at 14004 Pacific Highway South, has proposed to change the designations for the site, as follows: A. Comprehensive Plan designation: Medium- Density Residential to Commercial; and B. Zoning designation: R -2 (Two - Family Residential) to C -2 (Regional Commercial). PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: At its December 8, 1994 public hearing, the Planning Commission recommended that the Southgate property have two separate designations, as follows: A. Comprehensive Plan designation: • Commercial/C -2 designation for the first 270 feet adjoining Pacific Highway South; and • a Medium Density Residential/R -2 designation for the remainder of the site along 42nd Avenue South. B. Zoning designation: • C -2 designation for the first 270 feet adjoining Pacific Highway South; and John W Rants, Mayor Department of Community Development Rick Beeler, Director ATTACHMENT A 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • (206) 431-3670 • Fax (206) 431-3665 Southgate Comp Plan Amend/Rezone Page 2 • an R -2 designation for the remainder of the site along 42nd Avenue South. It should be noted that the adjacent property along Pacific Highway South is under the same ownership as the trailer park, but is not included in the proposal. This adjacent property is currently zoned C -2, and is approximately 50 -82 feet deep. Subtracting that property, the Commercial designation for a 270 -foot depth along Pacific Highway South means that 188 -220 feet (vs. 270 feet) of the Southgate trailer park will become Commercial. The Planning Commission recommendation was based upon several factors: 1. Adjacent land uses. Southgate is in a predominately single - family residential neighborhood, which includes nearby high- density multi - family developments (zoned R-4 and RMH). The Planning Commission indicated a desire to buffer residential areas from potential impacts of commercial encroachment. The Planning Commission also cited a need for economically viable commercial property along Highway 99. Economic viability could be furthered by expanding the depth of the existing commercial zone along the Highway. 2. Public testimony at the public hearing. Many citizens expressed concern regarding current conditions on the property (e.g. unkempt condition, criminal activity), and their belief that a change in designation would remedy these conditions. 3. Annexation zoning. The Planning Commission expressed concern that the annexation zoning may have been inappropriate. 4. Recommendations of the Tukwila Tomorrow citizens committee. . As part of its evaluation of Comprehensive Plan and zoning designations for the Highway 99 corridor, the Tukwila Tomorrow committee reviewed the Southgate site on 11/4/93. The committee recommended a Commercial Comprehensive Plan designation for a 200 -foot depth along Highway 99, and a Medium - Density Residential designation for the remainder of the site. (Given the adjacent commercial property is 50 -82 feet deep, the Tukwila tomorrow recommendation represents an actual increase in the commercially - designated area of the site of approximately 118 -150 feet.) A. Comprehensive Plan Amendment: DECISION CRITERIA 1. Unforseen changes in circumstances have occurred in community conditions that justify a Comprehensive Plan redesignation of the subject property or existing plan policies. 2. Factual evidence supports an additional or changed public need for the property designation. 3. Proposal has been analyzed for effects on existing Comprehensive Plan policies. B. Rezone: 1. The use or change in zoning requested shall be in conformity with the adopted Comprehensive Land Use Policy Plan, the provisions of this title (Zoning Code), and the public interest. 2. The use or change in zoning requested in the zoning map or this title for the establishment of commercial, industrial or residential use shall be supported by an architectural site plan showing the proposed development and its relationship to surrounding areas as set forth in the application form. 3. When the request in not in agreement with the Comprehensive Plan, the • applicant shall provide evidence to the City Council's satisfaction that there is an additional need for the requested land classification. 4. Significant changes have occurred in the character, conditions or surrounding neighborhood that justify or otherwise substantiate the proposed rezone. 5. The proposed rezone is in the best interest of public health and safety as compared to the hardship, such as diminution of property value, imposed on the individual property owner. 6. The unimproved subject property is unsuitable for the purpose for which it has been zoned, considered in the context of the length of time the property has remained unimproved and land development in the surrounding area. ATTACHMENT B ATTACHMENT C City of Tukwila John W. Rants, Mayor Department of Community Development PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DECEMBER 8, 1993 Mr. Meryhew called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m. Members present were Messrs. Meryhew, Clark, Haggerton, and Flesher. Representing the staff were Jack Pace, Ann Siegenthaler, and Sylvia Schnug. With regard to the minutes of October 28, 1993, Mr. Haggerton suggested that the wording be changed to read, "Mr. Meryhew said that they have committed the second Wednesday of every month in 1994 to handle the GMA, in addition to their regular meetings." MR. HAGGERTON MOVED TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF OCTOBER 28, 1993 AS AMENDED. MR FLESHER SECONDED THE MOTION AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED. L92 -0022, L92 -0023: Southgate Trailer Park Ann Siegenthaler presented the staff report. She stated that this application was for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Rezone for the Southgate Trailer Park. Since the packet was mailed out there have been additional public comments and a Tukwila Tomorrow Committee meeting in which they discussed alternative designations for the site. Ms. Siegenthaler then handed out the Committee minutes and a letter from a resident to the Planning Commission and the applicant. Mr. Parks, the applicant and attorney for the owner, entered into the record an objection to the material being handed out to the Commission. He stated that he did not know whether the authors of those materials were in attendance at the meeting. This is a quasi-judicial process in which fundamental due process applies and unless the people who sponsored those letters are at the meeting and subject themselves to testimony and cross examination, the applicant objects to the presentation of this material at this time. Mr. Meryhew said that Mr. Parks' objection is noted for the record. Rick Beeler, Director _ Mr. Parks stated that a copy would do them rio good if they did not have the opportunity to cross examine. The same objection applies if the City has held another hearing, or if there has been any meeting at which decisions and recommendations were made outside of the presence of this body, then they would object to that on a constitutional basis that it's outside the (inaudible) process of this group that has been appointed by ordinance as a quasi-judicial body. Since they do not have the opportunity to confront and cross examine the authors of the documents, they formally object and note that objection right here. Ms. Siegenthaler clarified that staff has had one public informational meeting on the project, at which both the. applicant and .the property owner were present. 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 ATTACHMENT D Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 December 8, 1993 Mr. Meryhew asked if the Tukwila Tomorrow minutes were available at that information meeting. Ms. Siegenthaler said they were not available. She continued by saying that the site is located on 42nd Ave. S., just off of Pacific Highway S. It has a Medium Density Residential designation and is bordered by multi -family residential development to the north and to the south, with single - family residential areas beyond that, and single family residences across the street. There is an existing narrow strip of commercially zoned land adjacent to Pacific Highway S. The site is almost four acres in size. One of the criteria for a rezone is that the proposal be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Meeting the Comprehensive Plan criteria is a critical issue in tonight's discussion. First, the proposal must meet the decision criteria for the Comprehensive Plan Amendment. If the proposal does meet the Comprehensive Plan Amendment criteria, the second decision is whether or not the proposal meets the rezone criteria. If the Commission decides that the proposal meets the decision criteria, then the next question is what alternative designation might be appropriate for that site. Three alternatives have been discussed. 1. The Tukwila Tomorrow Committee recommendation 2. The mixed use designation discussed in the staff report, and 3. the applicant's proposal of a commercial designation for the entire site. If another designation is appropriate, depending upon what that designation is and what types of uses might be allowed, the Planning Commission might want to attach some conditions to their approval. Mr. Flesher noted that the handouts did the Commission no good because there was no way they could absorb the information at this late date. Mr. Haggerton asked at whose request were those documents to be handed out. • Ms. Siegenthaler said the Tukwila Tomorrow asked that their recommendation be given to the Commission, and the letter from the resident was not received until after the Commission's packet was mailed. Mr. Edward Parks, the applicant: Mr. Parks introduced Roger Blaylock, consultant for the applicant: Roger Blaylock, Sound Panning Corp. 855 106 Ave. N.E., Suite 203, Bellevue: Mr. Parks asked him to look at this area to review the Comprehensive Plan criteria and the rezone criteria. He is concerned about the site because it is at the end of its usefulness. It's at a stage for redevelopment. The subject site is between 140th and 141st. This is a new neighborhood for the community. There are alot of old commercial buildings that are going through transition. As one comes through the gateway, the first thing that is seen is this subject site. One alternative for this site is to divide it and leave a small strip in front and allow commercial development on the front and develop the back. This is the only example where R -2 buffers a C -2 zone. King County seemed to create a transition of uses cascading down, but here, they abut up each other. Mr. Blaylock handed out two site plans during his presentation. He stated that this site is unique because it is the closest place where Highway 99 meets 42nd. This might be an ideal for a police station. RMH zoning has a height limit of 45 feet. An office designation would add more traffic to 42nd which is what the residents have said that they do not want. Therefore, design the facility away from 42nd. 140th and 141st are are streets. The applicant thinks it is more reasonable to use physical buffers for separation, rather than cascading Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 December 8, 1993 zoning. They would propose using a buffer that does not allow access on 42nd and creates a physical barrier of 30 feet of landscaping, 8 foot high berm, with mature landscaping on it as one of the conditions for development. This site would then become the north anchor for this greater community. It becomes the first potential redevelopment for this area on that side of the street. The height allowed in a C -2 zone is not greater than the RMH or the R-4, therefore, they would not be creating any more height or shadowing. Out of the 63 mobile homes on the site, 5 of them are vacant, 5 of them are owned by people, and the other 53 are owned by Mr. Kim. The City is actively trying to develop a new community focus. Changing the site to C -2, with a specific landscape buffer requirement can provide the opportunity for the first change in that area. They may also consider widening the C -2 area. Mr. Parks: Under the first Comprehensive Plan Amendment criteria: "Unforeseen changes in circumstances have occurred in the community conditions that justify a Comprehensive Plan resdesignation of the subject property or the existing planning policies." At the time the existing Comprehensive Plan was passed, the legislature had not passed the Growth Management Act. It's difficult to specifically address the requirements that are set forth in the application because the Comprehensive Plan, as it existed at the time the application was filed, as well as the planning policies, have been superseded by the Growth Management Act. There have been major changes in the area of Highway 99 where this property is located. There is a very strong likelihood that something will be done with a redevelopment of Highway 99 itself. The second major change in conditions and circumstances was the annexation of this parcel into the City of Tukwila. While in King County, the front portion of the parcel was zoned commercial and the rear portion was zone R -M -1800. Upon annexation into Tukwila, the front was designated C -2 and the rear portion was designated R -2. There is no other place within this annexed portion where R -2 is used as a buffer agsinst commercial. The Comprehensive Plan is in flux and that places a difficulty upon the applicant as well as the City. There have been major changes on Highway 99 designated for improvement, there has been substantial commercial development to the south and to the west of Highway 99, and there is 42nd Ave. to the east which is being up- graded. In looking at the rezone criteria, number 1 requires that "The use or change in zoning requested shall be in conformity with the adopted Comprehensive Land Use Policy Plan, the provisions of this title and the public interest." This particular piece of property has the highest demand on the social services of the City of Tukwila of any property within the corporate limits of Tukwila. There are a lot of police problems there. It is in the public interest to do something with the condition of this property. The citizens would agree that something needs to be done. Through a rezone which will allow commercial development, relief can be given to the City service requirements in the area, the north end of Highway 99 can be cleaned up, and the commercial impact will have a spill-over effect to the commercial areas which abut it and have additional positive impact on the further development of Highway 99. If the City of Tukwila is in earnest about redeveloping Highway 99, it is axiomatic that the where - with -all be placed there for the existing businesses to have the financial incentive to improve. Mr. Parks continued his comments on the decision criteria. He said that with regard to number 6 of the rezone criteria, "The unimproved subject property is unsuitable for the purpose'for which has been zoned, considered in the context of the length of time the property has remained unimproved and land development in the Planning Commission Minutes Page 4 December 8, 1993 surrounding area ". This property has been in existence in its current state since the 1950's. There has been no development on this property and the development around it has been limited at best. When the property was acquired in 1989 by Mr. and Mrs. Kirn, it was acquired prior to its annexation into the City of Tukwila. At that time interest rates generated substantially more than 3.5% that we see today so that the cap rate on the investment created a value of approximately $1.6 million. Today, we do not have the same kind of value in this commercial property that was even there prior to the annexation. When it was brought into the City of Tukwila, there was a down - zoning from RM -1800 to R -2. At that point there is a diminution in the number of available units in R -2. Any time you are trying to up -grade an area, you cannot ignore the financial implications of redevelopment. In an R -2 zone, the economics are such that development or redevelopment of a property is financially not feasible for the foreseeable future because the actual cost attributed to the land for each one of the units makes construction as a residential zone prohibitive. In order to recapture the underlying investment, the only economic alternative is a C -2 zone. The reason for C -2 is that the raw land price for C -2 makes it economically feasible to redevelop. Mr. and Mrs. Kim are asking that a recommendation be made to classify the entire parcel as C -2. Pam Carter, 4115 S. 139 St.: Ms. Carter stated that she agrees with staffs recommendation that the request for a Comp Plan Amendment and Rezone be denied because the applicant has not provided sufficient justification for these changes. The burden of proof is on the applicant. You're not being asked to rezone property on Highway 99, you're being asked to rezone property on 42nd Ave. S. With regard to the applicant's application, he states that he is not sure of the proposed use, yet he is asking for a change in the Comp Plan. The applicant discusses changes he anticipates, yet the question in the application asks for changes that have already occurred in the neighborhood. There haven't been unforeseen changes. What is needed in the neighborhood is to protect and preserve the residential neighborhood. It's not likely that commercial, intruding into residential, would be beneficial. Ms. Carter continued. The applicant argues that the site is ideally suited and will be consistent with future plans and policies for Tukwila. We do not know for sure what those future plans and policies will be. Is the demand for Tul- wila's social services due to the zoning or due to the way the owner operates his business? Other trailer parks do not create this demand on social services. The site plan does not show C -2 in relation to the neighborhood and that is the criteria that the Commission is supposed to use. In the site plan which was submitted, it was not for a commercial use, but for an office building. The applicant says, in item number three of the rezone criteria that this site is a prime candidate for commercial expansion, but he doesn't say why commercial expansion is needed on 42nd. On item number four, Ms. Carter said that she deeply resents the applicant's characterization that her neighborhood is deteriorating. The deterioration has all been on the applicant's property. To characterize her neighborhood as deteriorating because of the way he runs his business is an unfair thing to say. With regard to number five, public health and safety, how does R -2 zoning cause a problem with public health and safety? In conclusion she stated that she is very concerned with having a commercial use in a residential neighborhood. The commercial activity belongs on Highway 99, not 42nd Ave. S. The Tukwila Tomorrow Committee talked about making this a neighborhood commercial on that part of the highway, not regional commercial (C -2). Don Demelling, 14452 Pacific Highway S.: He said that he has been asked by the Mayor's office, in the future, to be part of a Advisory Committee to talk about development of Highway 99. He added that it would be in the best interest of Pacific Highway S. to grant this rezone. Planning Commission Minutes Page 5 December 8, 1993 Laurie Cook, 14020 42 Ave. S.: She stated that she has lived directly across from the trailer court for seven years. They have a home that was built in 1931, and they have put thousands of dollars into their home because they thought this was the place they were going to live for the next 50 -60 years of their lives. The house is now for sale. She strongly urged the Commission to approve the rezone of this property. It is not the right place to be raising a child. She stated that she is tired of calling 911 and seeing what she has seen. Last March there was a homicide in the . neighborhood. This is not the way she wants to live her life or the life she wants for her son. The Ben Carroll Motel is right on 42nd Ave. S. The Motel is not where the police, ambulances or fire trucks go, they go to the trailer parks. Commercial zoning is not going to be the end of that neighborhood, the trailer court is. After the changes were made in July and .the people were evicted that were known to have criminal histories, it has been significantly better. How can they expect the owner to put more money into the trailer court and not raise the rent? She strongly urged the Commission to rezone the property. Dave Fenton, 14201 42 Ave. S.: He highly recommended that the Council take under advisement the rezoning of that property. One of the problems that they have had is damage to cars in his parking lot. Some of the damage has been traced back to the trailer park. Again, he highly recommended rezoning of that property. Dave Hume, 16319 45 Pl. S.: Mr. Hume stated that he has lived in the area approximately three years. He drives past this subject property at least two times per day. He has seen in the past three years, major degradation in the area, typically in appearance, and the pedestrian traffic. The current property owners purchased the property and are now seeking to rezone it for monetary gain. It seems that as a property owner of residential property, maybe he should also ask to be rezoned to C -2 so that he can also make money quickly off of his property. This proposal is not a reasonable request. James Scott, 3515 S. 146 and 14453 Pacific Hwy. S. (business address): He is a real estate broker in the area. He has been in this area for approximately 27 years. This property has been operating as a commercial operation since the 1940's. There was a gas station years ago, and then used cars, a trucking operation, and then in 1962, the Anderson's operated it as a trailer park. Under the guidelines of King County, they had to be commercial to be a trailer park. Under the City of Tukwila's guidelines, the same exists and has. There is not an encroachment of commercial into residential, it is residential encroaching into commercial. Presenting this as residential encroachment is wrong. It is all commercial, always has been, and should always continue. It doesn't matter about the City's plans. Plans are worthless, that's not what counts. What counts is what will grow and what will work. It's not a matter of what we want to do, it's a matter of what has to be. You have to give this man zoning. He had equity when it was zoned C -2. The City had a liability ever since the area was annexed into Tukwila. Get the property back to commercial so the man can have the equity back in his property and get it into something that everyone wants. Ms. Siegenthaler stated that staff has not had a chance to review the material handed out by the applicant at this meeting. She emphasized that it is important to focus on the matter at hand, and that is whether or not the proposal meets the rezone criteria and the Comprehensive Plan Amendment criteria. This is not a design review hearing at which the Planning Commission is reviewing specific site plans for specific projects. Depending upon what the Planning Commission decides tonight, this may come at a later point in time when they actually have a specific project. Planning Commission Minutes Page 6 December 8, 1993 With regard to the existing R -2 Medium Density Residential designation, the applicant alluded to this being an anomaly, perhaps that King County didn't know what they were doing. In fact, the current R -2 designation was decided upon by a citizen's business task force in 1989, after much deliberation on potential impacts to residential neighborhoods. That committee decided that, after citizen input and several public hearings, an R -2, Medium Density Residential designation was appropriate for that site. Mr. Haggerton asked what it was before the annexation. Ms. Siegenthaler said that it was RM -1800, High Density Residential. She continued by saying that the site tends to elicit a lot of concerns regarding code enforcement issues. However, they have not have these kinds of problems at the two other trailer parks in the City. What this means is that code enforcement problems and the drain on social services that the applicant cites, are not inherent to a particular land use. There are other factors that contribute to those code enforcement problems. Mr. Haggerton asked where those other trailer parks are located in relation to the Southgate Trailer Park. Mr. Meryhew noted that they are located within six blocks of this one, but not right on Highway 99. Ms. Siegenthaler said that code enforcement and deterioration of a site are not criteria for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment, nor a rezone. The applicant has raised a lot of interesting points about economic feasibility, about a number of things happening along Highway 99 with Larry's Market and Bartell's. These very issues are being discussed by the citizens through the Vision 99 process and the Tukwila Tomorrow Committee. Therefore, if the GMA and Vision 99 process are critical to the change in the designation for this site, that would suggest that perhaps it makes sense to allow that process to take its course. Allow citizens to comment and evaluate and elect through that legislative process some alternative designation, other than the one that is there now if they feel that is appropriate at that time. Mr. Meryhew asked if the applicant participated in the rezoning sessions during the annexation. Ms. Siegenthaler said she was not sure. Mr. Parks said that 45 days before the annexation, the title to the property changed over to Mr. Kim, therefore, during the pre - annexation, there was a different owner. Jack Pace, Senior Planner, said they used the assessor's addressing and mailing records at the time to do three large mailings to discuss what was being proposed and provide an opportunity to respond. The previous owner was notified. Since the application was a pre - annexation zoning, those hearings and decisions had to be made prior to the vote. Mr. Flesher stated that there was only one pre - annexation meeting that was specifically for the business owners. Anyone who was not a resident of Tukwila, would not have been coming to the normal residential meetings because they would not have been notified. There were only three business owners at their one meeting. James Scott said that when this was annexed in, there was the Ben Carroll Motel next door in RM -1800. That has since been changed to commercial. Planning Commission Minutes Page 7 December 8, 1993 Mr. Parks said that when they were talking about change in conditions and the comprehensive plan, the statement within the application refers to unforeseen changes in circumstances in community conditions. According to the testimony, there have been some very significant changes in the community condition and those have not been positive. The reality is that this is a use which has run its use. When Mr. Kim came to the use, he was expecting to redevelop the use to eliminate the condition that existed. Mr. Kim is a decent, honorable human being and he never intended to be a slum lord. He finds himself in that position. The condition is getting worse and worse. The financial conditions are such that if they are going to improve the community situation and stop further decay, they cannot ignore the economics of the situation. They cannot ignore what is happening around the property, when they are looking at amending the comprehensive plan. Commercial with appropriate buffering along 42nd is commercial on Highway 99 only. They are not asking to include this as part of a parcel that looks anything like residential, that has anything to do with 42nd Ave. to the east. This parcel is logically connected to Highway 99 and not 42nd. For the purposes of developing this property and doing something that will enhance the community and stop the degradation of the community conditions on north Highway 99, they ask that the Commission make a positive recommendation to the City Council for both the amendment to the application and for the rezone request. Mr. Meryhew closed the public hearing at 8:35 pm. and called for a five minute break. Mr. Meryhew called the meeting back to order at 8:40 pm. Mr. Flesher stated that he was sensitive to some of the things that were said tonight. If you have a commercial property, you do need a certain amount of square footage to use and to make use of a commercial zone. Referring to the Tukwila Tomorrow minutes, on page 5 it outlines the need to have depth for commercial property. On page 9, they state that they're not sure they want residential property on Highway 99. He added that perhaps they should pick up with the Tukwila Tomorrow's comments and have a mixed use, and have 200 feet of commercial and transition to R -2. Mr. Clark said that there is a long standing precept in comprehensive planning against spot zoning. This appears to be reversed spot zoning. The citizens probably saw an opportunity to maintain what they viewed as a residential use, but was that an emotional response to see the status quo or a desire to see low income housing. If the decision was based on an informed and educated basis in 1989, Mr. Clark said that he didn't know if that would have been the decision that would have been reached. Mr. Meryhew said that he took part in the Thorndike annexation and staff did attempt to make sure decisions were informed ones. Property owners whose properties bordered the commercial properties on Highway 99, did come in and specifically requested that their properties be zoned residential. There was a strong desire from everybody to keep the property on 42nd as residential. They do not want any increased traffic on that street and they are hoping that the redesign will decrease traffic. Mr. Meryhew added that he was surprised to hear Mrs. Cook indicate that she wanted it to be something other than residential because that is the first resident that he has heard from that didn't want 42nd to be residential. He said that he has not seen any significant unforeseen changes and the neighborhood is not deteriorating. There is only one site that is deteriorating and that is this site. Planning Commission Minutes Page 8 December 8, 1993 Mr. Clark agreed that there are conditions on 42nd that are independent of anything that the applicant may or may not do. He said that he took exception to the applicant's comment that this is a deteriorating neighborhood. In fact, single family residences in that neighborhood are on an improving trend along 42nd. Mr. Haggerton said that this is a troublesome spot as far as zoning goes. This might not be so much as spot zoning as it would be correcting something that started out on the wrong foot. Most of the people who have voiced their opinions are in favor of the change in the comprehensive plan and the rezone. There are other trailer parks in that general area and those people seem to maintain their area fairly well and don't seem to have as high a crime rate. Mr. Clark said that he was not willing to gang up on Mr. Kim. It's not fair to call Mr. Kim a slum lord. He has objectionable tenants, he can't discard them at whim. If Mr. Kim were the owner of a trailer park in another area, we might view him as a very effective and conscientious owner. Mr. Haggerton said that they can't rezone property because of the financial trends or interest rates. Some of that logic is sensitive to the owners, but that is not why he would agree to do it. Mr. Meryhew said that he's not convinced there have been unforeseen changes that justify the change. The only change that he is aware of is the changes that have occurred on the site itself. The changes that he sees occurring in the neighborhood are actually improvements. Mr. Clark said that the down - zoning that occurred in 1989 was probably a mistake. He stated he didn't think R -2 is a reasonable use of the property, and that we shouldn't add pedestrian traffic to the 99 area, due to pedestrian/auto conflicts. Mr. Meryhew said that the R-2 zoning was at the request of the neighborhood at that time, which has been backed up by the Tukwila Tomorrow Committee. Mr. Flesher said that the Tukwila Tomorrow Committee is not recommending that it stay a residential site. They are recommending that the viability of the commercial property be extended by 200 feet in depth. This was probably a bad zoning in the first place. You can't do a lot with the strip that they have been given as commercial area along 99, which makes it not viable, which makes it a taking. We don't want more multi- family development in the area, we want single family and they are not going to move onto Highway 99. They need to move toward some reasonable compromise. Mr. Clark said that when you step back and look at it logically, despite neighbors' desires to see this stay residential, that is not a reasonable use for the property. Mr. Meryhew said that he is still wondering what "unforeseen changes" have taken place. Mr. Clark said that this parcel should not be used as spot transition. 42nd Ave. is the transitional element at this location. As you move further south, 42nd Ave. becomes further removed. This is not a desirable place to live if it is kept as an R -2 zone. It's still going to have primary access off of Pacific Hwy. S. Mr. Haggerton said that he was sensitive to the residents request that 42nd remain residential. This area is just too close to Highway 99 to effectively divide between R -2 and something else because no -one will probably Planning Commission Minutes Page 9 December 8, 1993 . build a home there anyway. There's a precedent along 42nd to convert residential to something other than that, such as the proposed library. It's just in that one area. Mr. Meryhew said that he is reluctant to consider putting commercial property on 42nd Ave. The Tukwila Tomorrow Committee has come up with a recommendation that the first 200 feet be zoned commercial and the back portion be left as R -2. The Tukwila Tomorrow Committee is also the committee looking at the = comprehensive plan prior to the commission looking at it. Therefore, the Commission should give their considerations and deliberation a lot of weight in this decision. Mr. Clark said he that just because he doesn't agree with a residential density, doesn't mean he advocates a commercial zone right up to 42nd. He thinks that picking this one parcel and saying they are going to use it as a buffer doesn't serve any purpose. There is this odd situation of the arc of 99 getting closer'to 42nd Ave. in this spot than it does anywhere else. Mr. Haggerton said that the way to guarantee that something doesn't happen to affect 42nd would be to leave a portion of the property residential. The thing about that type of division is that the portion zoned residential would probably not be used for anything nor maintained properly. Mr. Clark said also you would be forcing a use of property that may not be the best Use. rr Mr. Haggerton said that in most cases they want to adhere to all the effort that has been put into the Tukwila (. Tomorrow Committee and their recommendations, and he didn't feel they were going too far against the grain of their intentions in this particular parcel. Mr. Meryhew said that there are three designation alternatives: 1. Tukwila Tomorrow Committee's recommendation to have the first 200 feet bordering Hwy. 99 commercial and remainder would be residential. • 2. Staff has discussed changing the area bordering 42nd to office and the remainder on Hwy. 99 commercial. 3. The applicant has recommended that the entire site be commercial. Mr. Clark said that the applicant's renderings lead him to believe that they were looking for a three -story office building with adequate parking. He said he thought leaving any of it residential would be a mistake. Mr. Flesher said after the front 200 feet are taken for commercial that leaves approximately two acres which should accommodate a viable project there. Mr. Meryhew asked what the value would be in zoning for office. Mr. Haggerton said that he had mixed emotions about that. If it should be two of anything then itshould be C- 2 and R -2, that way the R -2 along 42nd would be maintained. Then he said he would probably lean towards zoning the entire site C -2. Planning Commission Minutes Page 10 December 8, 1993 Mr. Clark said that there are all kinds of buffers that are far more desirable than the existing use. He indicated he was concerned about the type of commercial use there ; but there can also be all kinds of conditions on allowing a C -2 zone. Mr. Meryhew said that its hard to visualize two types of zoning that would be attractive and have value to the neighborhood. There may not be much difference in the amount of impacts between an office and a commercial designation. Mr. Pace stated that the Council has just passed a moratorium on certain uses in a C -2 zone along Highway 99. These would included such uses as hotels/motels, pool halls, taverns, and dance halls etc. Mr. Haggerton said that he would not be opposed to a R-2/C-2 division. MR FLESHER MOVED THAT .THE REZONE BE GRANTED TO FOLLOW THE GUIDELINES OF THE TUKWILA TOMORROW COMMITTEE, WHICH IS THAT THE FIRST 200 FEET OF THE HIGHWAY SHOULD HAVE A COMMERCIAL DESIGNATION, AND THE REMAINDER OF '1'HE SHE SHOULD HAVE A MEDIUM - RESIDENTIAL DESIGNATION. MR MERYHEW SECONDED THE MOTION. Mr. Clark asked why there was not more commercial and less residential. Mr. Flesher said that he was trying to follow the citizen's comments. A preponderance of the testimony tonight is looking for a rezone. The Tukwila Tomorrow Committee considers the 200 feet a viable commercial site. Mr. Clark asked why they don't just split the property down the middle to make it a more viable piece of commercial property. Mr. Meryhew asked clarification from staff on the exact size of the site. Ms. Siegenthaler said that the engineering drawing in the application is assumed to be the correct drawing, therefore the site measures 540 feet on the south side and 540 plus a 34 foot job on the north side. MESSRS. CLARK AND HAGGERTON VOTED AGAINST THE MOTION AND MESSRS. MERYHEW AND FLESRER VOTED IN FAVOR. OF THE MOTION, THEREFORE A SPLIT DECISION AND THE MOTION DIES. Mr. Haggerton said that he doesn't feel the Tukwila Tomorrow Committee's recommendation fits on this piece of property. Most of the letters from residents aren't opposed to it being zoned differently, they are concerned with the pavement and the drainage when it comes before the Board of Architectural Review. Mr. Meryhew said that he still has a hard time seeing that there has been any "unforeseen change" on property surrounding the site. He agreed that there have been changes on the site, but the rest of the neighborhood has improved. Mr. Clark said that there have been improvements and the current zoning is the biggest road block to improving the subject property. Mr. Meryhew said that there was no question in his mind that a rezone would definitely improve the site. C Planning Commission Minutes Page 11 December 8, 1993 Mr. Clark said that he did not agree that the rezone is a domino effect to the detriment of the neighborhood. It's a mistake to have spot zoned a residential use in what should have been a commercial use, and we should not single out this piece of property as the demarcation line. There are unforeseen changes that were improvements in the area. There is adequate cause for change. Mr. Meryhew said that he could follow the majority in that a change is necessary. In the past, the residents have gone out of their way to make sure that 42nd stays a residential street and that is a big part of what is bothering him about the proposal. Mr. Haggerton said that the portion of the property fronting Pacific Highway South is already zoned C -2. Therefore, having 200 feet from Pacific Highway South zoned commercial would only be changing 150 feet of the portion that is R -2 currently. Mr. Haggerton said that more of it should be C -2 than R -2. Mr. Clark said that he does not want to see retail thee, nor RMH due to impacts. He would like to see the least possible impact for the decision that they arrive at. MR HAGGERTON MOVED TO AMEND THE COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLAN FOR THE AREA UNDER DISCUSSION, L92 -0022 AND L92 -0023, TO DIVIDE THE 'PROPERTY APPROXIMATELY IN HALF WITH A COMMERCIAL DESIGNATION ADJOINING PACIFIC HIGHWAY SOUTH AND RESIDENTIAL ALONG 42 AVE. S., THE FIRST 270 FEET ADJOINING PACIFIC HIGHWAY SOUTH BE ZONED C -2, AND THE APPROXIMATE HALF FRONTING 42ND AVE. SOUTH REMAIN ZONED R -2. MR FLESHER SECONDED THE MOTION AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED. In explaining their motion, Mr. Haggerton said that the majority of the citizens giving testimony are not happy with the current use of that property when it's zoned all R -2. Also, the site may not have been properly zoned when it was annexed from King County into Tukwila, therefore they are correcting that situation. Mr. Meryhew said that one condition he would like to see on the property is that there be some kind of landscaping and fence separating the C -2 area from the R -2 zone. Mr. Clark added that there be no physical through -traffic allowed. Mr. Meryhew added that the landscaping and fencing buffer should be approximately 15 feet in width. Mr. Clark said that the rationale for the two conditions is because they feel it is appropriate to have a buffer and that there ought not be a residential right up next to a commercial without some kind of buffer. Mr. Flesher said that is the rationale for the rezone also. They want the transition buffering. Planning Commission Minutes Page 12 December 8, 1993 Mr. Haggerton said that they also took into consideration the recommendation of the Tukwila Tomorrow Committee. Mr. Clark said that rezone criteria numbers 2 and 6 were not germane to their discussion. The Commission reviewed Comp Plan criteria number 1 and discussed the semantics of "unforeseen changes ". The majority of the Commission members considered the down -zone in 1989 to be a mistake. Mr. Flesher said that there have been positive unforeseen changes and those need to be taken into consideration. DIRECTOR'S REPORT: During the Director's report, Mr. Pace noted that the Council passed a moratorium on taverns, motels/hotels and dance halls in the C -2 areas along Highway 99. They will also be proposing passing another moratorium to cover any areas where the Tukwila Tomorrow Committee has recommended changes that are in conflict with the existing Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Meryhew adjourned the meeting. Prepared By, Sylvia Schnug SOUTHGATE MOBILE 1 . ME PARK - COMPREH: )SIVE PLAN AND ZONE C-2 EXISTING APARTMENTS R-4. ADD 30 FEET RIGHT OF WAY omma» pan \»asovovewwwomnis. » > emneem»» ADD 20 FEET RIGHT OF WAY SOUTH 140 TH STREET FEET 505 FEET 485 FEET ' SINGLE' FAMILY SOUTH 141 ST STREET C-2 MOTEL EXISTING APARTMENTS RMH 1- w w w �n N CITY OF TUKWILA SF ATTACHMENT E SOUTHGATE . MOI . EE HOME PARK - DMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND REZONE IIIINIIII Il rw�w►�irwiw+rirm►�� r ►i tottet VN\ •N\\\\ NN •\ \N\\ \ \NNN\N \NYN• SOUTH 140 TH STREET c• Awo _ADD 30 FEET RIGHT OF WAY 505 FEET CREATION OF A HEAVY 30 FOOT WIDE LANDSCAPED BUFFERWITH 8 FOOT HIGH BERM 485 FEET \\\ N \\• ■•■•■ ADD 20 FEET RIGHT OF WAY EXISTING APARTMENTS MOTEL CITY OF TUKWILA EXISTING APARTMENTS SINGLE FAMILY w w w N Date: • To: From: Re: December 2, 1993 Department of Community Development.and Tukwila Planning Commission Nancy Sandine Lamb, 4251 S. 139th St. Southgate Mobile Home Park Rezone and Comp Plan Amendment RECE NED <.31993 DEVELOPI 3 :3a 7.-77- Ask virtually any resident of Tukwila about Southgate Mobile Home Park, and you'll find that she or he greatly deplores the conditions under which tenants /residents are living, namely the type of environment that shows little, if any, regard for residents' health, safety, or peace -of -mind. The vast majority of Tukwila citizens surely object to the condition of Southgate Mobile Home Park as it is now being "managed". In fact, comments in the Vision Tukwila process were about code enforcement and cleaning up the property, not getting rid of the people who live there, except of course the criminal element. And, as the Staff Report indicates, Southgate has hosted apparent and real criminal activity. Speaking not just for myself, if I may: As investors in our personal homes, as long -time residents, and as citizens truly caring about our city environs, we cannot understand why the owners' decision to speculate on investing in this property did not take into consideration the need to provide a decent environment for the residents of said property while the owners tried to rezone it, redevelop it, and wait for the profits they were counting on. However, whether or not the present conditions are distressing, there is no justification for converting this property from mainly R -2 density to entirely regional commercial. Taking a look at the Growth Management Act argument of the applicants, I agree with the staff's comments that allowing commercial use of the property would not support the Comprehensive Plan policies relating to residential areas, and that a Comp Plan amendment is not appropriate at this time. Neither is a zoning change, given that this property stands in a unique position between commercial, high- density residential, and R -1 homes. The current designations were secured at the council's pre - annexation hearings, having been thoroughly discussed by Foster -area property owners prior to the election in March of 1989. At that time, the acreage was definitely established to be a buffer between higher -level uses and R -1. ATTACHMENT F The owners want C -2 regional commercial designation for the entire block, all the way to 42nd Avenue, an important residential street. The point at which Pacific Highway comes closest to 42nd Avenue encompasses the proposal. Yet Tukwila staff and elected officials have time and again indicated that 42nd is to remain primarily for use of Tukwila residents; that's why, for example, load limits have been established to cut out truck traffic, and why ped paths were installed soon after annexation. Further improvements to 42nd are being designed on the basis of it remaining a residential street. Clearly, C -2 "regional commercial" level development of this site would generate regional level traffic, which would likely have a significant adverse impact to 42nd Avenue and the neighborhoods it serves. To a lesser degree, so would C -1 or.P -O development. There is no guarantee that a future site plan could be configured to develop the site with access only at the extreme west end; the Fire Department may well require access to and from 42nd. R -1 residences are located immediately to the north and east sides of the property, and this is the 'very edge of virtually all single - family housing in Tukwila between Pacific Highway and I -5. Any designation upgrade• would be inconsistent with and intrusive upon a significant area of R -1. Furthermore, in connection with this property, the applicants show no evidence to justify commercial zoning (including office), or even high - density multi - family residential zoning, or change of the comprehensive plan at this time. TMC18.84.030.3 states: "When the request is not in agreement with the Comprehensive Land Use Policy Plan, the applicant shall provide evidence to the City Council's satisfaction that there is an additional need for the requested land classification." There is no proof of additional need along the Pacific Highway corridor for more commercial zoning than already exists. It would put too much pressure on existing single - family owner - occupied housing to convert to rentals, further destabilizing Tukwila's population in general, and destabilizing this neighborhood to be specific. Tukwila Tomorrow recommends community - oriented development here, not regional. Besides the "domino effect" on the status quo (relatively stable single - family housing north, east and then south) , there is far too much uncertainty involved in upgrading from R -2 to C -2. There is too much risk here, because approving a C -2 level could open the door to many undesirable businesses - especially adjacent to R -1 residences - including pool rooms, taverns, nightclubs, more motels, hotels, and liquor stores. Lower classifications of commercial designation also have drawbacks, as the property is situated right in the middle of a residential area. Landscaped buffers would provide .minimal relief from a huge retail • structure or from an all -hours tavern or motel - and such uses won't enhance the neighborhood. Furthermore, the applicants say a "deteriorating neighborhood" justifies upgrading their property's designation. I object. A new high school and new public library proposal hardly constitute "deterioration" of the neighborhood. Aside from the site itself, homes are not showing decay or misuse. If one were to analyze any alleged "deterioration" objectively - perhaps looking at reasons for home sales - one would likely find that a significant component related directly to the trailer park's reputation and unaesthetic condition. In fact, Mr. Parks said so himself at the December 1 meeting. But if the trailer park were to be replaced by commercial development, there would likely still be sales of the homes or conversion of them to rentals rather than owner - occupied homes - but attributable to the increased traffic, noise, etc. associated with businesses. There would be no net improvement to this Tukwila neighborhood's stability, I contend, nor the alleged "deterioration ". (These issues again point out the need to change the notification process with regard to major comprehensive plan changes or residential subdivisions. SEPA doesn't require discussion of proposed changes prior to a determination of significance /nonsignificance; however, a discussion would undoubtedly have proved helpful to both the applicants and to the residents.) The bottom line for me is that opening up this block to commercial use 'would, in effect, open the floodgates of development inappropriate to the needs of Tukwila's residential community - in this particular neighborhood, and as a precedent for encroachment of other commercial development into residential zones along Pacific Highway's corridor. Mr. Parks stated on December 1 that the owners aren't inclined to altruism when it comes to repairing the trailers for existing tenants, yet the applicants expect the City to altruistically give them the benefit of the doubt, to help them out of the alleged "abyss" they've gotten into with their speculative investment. No. It's not up to the City of Tukwila to ensure the applicants maximum profits on their investment: profits would likely come at the expense of the neighborhood, and Tukwila can't afford that. The owners can choose to redevelop in keeping with their medium -level residential designation. And, most importantly, they can manage their property in a much more conscientious way. ATTENDEES Grant Neiss Diane Myers Michael West Max Whisler Cheryl Brown Ann Siegenthaler PACIFIC HIGHWAY Moira: Tonight we will start on. Hwy. 99 which is our first brush with the commercial areas in the City, having left the residential areas. What I will do is run through the findings that we found regarding the 99 corridor, and point' out the maps that we have around the room, so you get a clearer picture as to what is happening on 99. I would like to go over what it is that we are doing and how it relates to the various actions and activities that are occurring on 99 at this point. As you know, there was vision Tukwila and Vision 99 which was an effort on the City's part to compile and get ideas of how the .community feels and what they would like to see on 99. That information was • distributed and was in your packet. This committee had their initial ideas about. 99 which were compiled in the Phase I report. Eventually we will have the 99 road improvement project which will start later on next year. What we need to do tonight is talk about the uses and the type of character that you all would like to see on 99. To define character, I would include what type of improvements, what those improvements would look like, and how a site ought to be .developed. • Then after you do your plan and come up with the goals and policies for this area, the City will be spending money next year on how to implement those goals and policies. That will include some market and financial analysis of this area. If you have looked over the Vision 99 information and some of your own information from Phase I, you will find some conflicts that you will have to deal with and talk about. For instance, more parking in the area versus no on- street TUKWILA TOMORROW November 4, 1993 LAND USE ELEMENT PACIFIC HIGHWAY Bill Holstine Ellen Ryan Connie Hoffman Adele Scott Ron Lamb Moira Bradshaw Steve Lawrence Anna Bernhard Tim Dunn Jack Scott Mark Hinshaw ATTACHMENT G (see page 11, Policy 6) November 4, 1993 Page 2 parking, low level lighting versus more lighting on cross streets, closing roads versus keeping them open, landscape islands versus no landscape islands. This map is a lot -by -lot analysis of land use for the entire City. As I mentioned before, we are moving away from the single family neighborhoods, as identified on the map in yellow, and moving into our commercial areas, identified by red. For analysis and comparison purposes, as you decide what you are doing on 99 you might want to keep in mind the other similar transportation corridors that we have in the City, which at this point staff has identified as Interurban Avenue and Southcenter Boulevard. As a comparison, and to get you thinking a little more about commercial areas in the City I brought in the land use map for the Urban center. This demonstrates the tremendous difference in scale, both in buildings and lot size and composition or frame work of the area. Looking at the aerial map, one thought that comes to mind is the tremendous amount of residential that is attempting to take over this area, as you see by looking at the boundaries of the commercial area. We have a definite commercial corridor, transitioning to multi - family, medium and higher density, some low density abutting the commercial in some areas, and significant cores of open space or public facilities. I wanted you to consider the other types of commercial designations. Right now we have one commercial designation in our comprehensive plan, although as you went through the. residential section we came up with a category of neighborhood commercial. There are pockets of commercial which are occurring throughout the City. For example, at the interchange of I -5 and Southcenter Boulevard, and at 144th and 51st. There are three different types of commercial areas, the little isolated pieces, more linear pieces, then the pods of commercial. The other significant impression in going through and studying this area, is the effect of the topography along 99. At the north end you are starting at the valley floor. It moves up and along the valley wall and there is a strong sense of traveling up with a lot of vegetation then a startling arrival when you get to the .plateau. All of a sudden you are out in the open and up on top. The plateau basically extends from 1-5 all the way over to Puget Sound. The topographic conditions of this corridor are a significant factor to consider as you are making your decisions about how to plan for this area. I have also included SeaTac's plans for the area. I hope you had a chance to look at that. They have a very distinct version from what I see the Tukwila community going towards. What you hope to see in the Southcenter area, they 'see occurring in November 4, 1993 • Page 3 their 99 core, from SR 518 south. In their planning and mapping they are putting emphasis on the designated area around the airport. They •are proceeding ahead with a $600,000 design study for 99. It will probably be a seven lane section with a planted median. I talked to the planning director and he said they would like to have a personal rapid transit system. The service area for that would be around the hotel core across from the airport, at least initially. In terms of economics and market, just to highlight again and go over what the economist found in a preliminary review, the surrounding census tracks show that we are on the low end of the demand side for a neighborhood commercial area. The area closest to 518 has the most chances for redevelopment because of access and the depth of the lots and ideal frontage. In terms of the different market segments, regional retail would have more a chance. The office market tends to be very saturated, and tends to be attracted to areas where they look good. Do you want to ask some questions at this time before we move onto some of the conclusions and recommendations? Question: I have a question about the reference to the seven lane section in SeaTac, and how that will effect Tukwila. And also, you mentioned they were talking about doing a median, how would the seven lanes fit in there? Moira: The, seventh lane would be a turn lane pocket. I talked with the planning director, and he thought the natural transition point from that to what Tukwila would want would be at SR 518. • It would possibly be farther south at 176th. There will be a design report issued next week which will go to their committee for review. Question: Is it supposed to be a State project? Moira: I am sure it is embraced by both agencies. Comment: The State DOT is the one that presented the concept to our citizens. Moira: As I mentioned in the report, the State a couple years ago did a route development plan. It showed a cross section .of seven lanes. Five foot sidewalks, and curbs; and if sufficient right -of -way, six foot sidewalks. Question: Is there a significant difference in the level of service within SeaTac on 99 and the amount of traffic? November 4, 1993 Page 4 Moira: I honestly don't know what the traffic volumes are down around 188th. One thing that the planning director mentioned, was that within certain areas, they already have 'eight lanes right now. Question: Are there any plans to redo the interchange of Hwy 99 and SR 518? 'There are not • off and on ramps for each direction. Moira: I have not seen any plans by the State to reconfigure that interchange. Question: How far north do they plan to extending this? Moira: SeaTac has jurisdiction over the right -of -way from their southern city limits to 152nd 'I doubt they would be adverse to considering something different at 518 or at a place further south. Question: What sort of time line do they have for construction? Moira: I am not sure when their construction will begin. I am sure their design plan will be completed soon, but I don't know how long it will take their council to approve the design and project. We need to focus on the land use then we can focus on transportation. We have a goal, does anybody have any suggestions for changes? Pacific Highway Goal: To make the 99 corridor an attractive, safe and profitable place to do business, shop, work and live. It will become a positive influence on the residential community and reflect a strong sense of pride of the property owners and businesses of the area and its surroundings. To mitigate the transportation impacts associated with the road's ability to connect the region, extensive use of amenities, sufficient transit service and appropriate siting and design of uses, including the road itself shall be used. Moira: If there are no suggestions at this time, lets go . ahead and talk about the . land use concept that was developed and why it was developed. (map shown) One of the major factors and impressions that you get as you travel down 99 or a like corridor any where else in the U.S., is the sort of constant, unrelenting, unchanging sameness of a typical commercial corridor. Parking lots, signs and small detached buildings. What is being suggested here is to try and create a focal point for the corridor to create some change and distinction as you travel along. As you look at what is going on in Tukwila, 144th is certainly a prominent location. There is a bend in the road and also there is a rise in the topography. It is an area that is distinct from the other areas visually and picks up major uses that are occurring November 4, 1993 Page 5 there. This was suggested in the Phase I report as a place to have a focal point. As part of that concept, is the idea of anchoring and playing up the cross street connection, the connection with the neighborhood, and having special paving and landscaping treatments. Not only focusing on the north south improvements, but picking up the east west, so you collect and expand this focus and improvement. Question: 99 is basically a transportation corridor. Do you see that changing? Moira: Do I don't see it changing. The only thing we have recommended is a east west connection north of 154th. The problem with 128th, is that it gets you to 99 but it doesn't get you any further. Comment: I wasn't thinking of it as much as a east west connection, but as a way to get traffic to 99 from some of the residential areas such as down by 137th. Moira: There are some environmental constraints there, a ravine, a wetland and a water course. The community will have to make a decision whether they are willing to make that trade off. That is why you don't see a policy here that says that. Look at alternatives and weigh the cost to the community of relocating . or destroying the environmental amenities. The policy could read that an east west connection should be done in order to get that east west traffic off existing local access roads. Comment: The benefits of punching 128th through far offset the negatives. Moira: Maybe we can .talk about that when we get to the section on projects. Comment: Can we step back a moment to the land use section around 144th? The land use section you are talking about there is very narrow. Unless there are . changes made to the properties behind that or along 144th, we are talking about a very small area to be changed. Right now most of those businesses do not' have off - street parking. Moira: You are specifically speaking of the area between 42nd and 37th? Comment: If I were to establish a business I wouldn't look anywhere between. 42nd to Military. If you are going to establish a business area there, then perhaps a lot of that property should be rezoned to something else. The corridor just isn't wide enough in the commercial aspect, and there is too much residential immediately behind it. They are restricted in their parking because of all the houses. Moira: Are you suggesting on- street as well as off - street parking? November 4, 1993 Page 6 Comment: No, I do not recommend on- street parking. Moira: There are benefits and costs to having on- street parking. Some of the benefits would support some of your other goals. On- street parking will slow down traffic, it also would provide a separation for the pedestrian on the sidewalk. You have 100 feet of right -of -way that you will not be able to use which is owned by the general public. One of the comments that the economic consultant had about on- street parking is that in essence, it expands the lots behind it because it could provide that required parking. Off- street parking tends to turn the street environment over to moving traffic rather than a pedestrian environment. Comment: .Lynnwood has the same size highway that we have here. There is a lot of traffic going through there, and there is no on- street parking. Moira: •I suggest that we move through the discussion of the land use then into the standards. Policy 1: Allow a diverse mix of uses including residential, retail, service, light manufacturing, office, recreation and ,community facilities along the corridor with the following emphasis. Moira: This •lists everything from service, residential, office, recreation and light manufacturing. One of the things that this community had talked about was high tech businesses and incubator business sites. That's why the light manufacturing was left in there. There would have to be some sort of performance standards and some restrictions that would presumedly . come up later. But in essence, you would leave that open for further discretion. The next policies deal with the neighborhood center concept, between 139th and 148th. This is where we have suggested the neighborhood commercial which would be a change from the existing regional commercial. That would be a limitation to certain types of uses that would normally, occur in general commercial zones. No motels, no auto sales; the 'types of uses that require large amounts of space and that serve people outside a neighborhood radius. Agreement on. policy 1. Policy 2: Create, through public and private project design and regulation, a recognizable, compact, pedestrian- oriented neighborhood center between S. 1 39th St., and S. 148th St. . November 4, 1993 Moira: The idea in a neighborhood commercial area is to have uses in a smaller scale. Larry's Market is 53,000 square feet which is at the top end of a neighborhood commercial use. Page 7 Comment: There is a whole string of auto related businesses. They become non- conforming, and new ones would not be allowed. It limits the amount of change they can make to the businesses. The idea is to phase them out. Agreement on policy 2. Policy 3: Create incentives for housing behind and above commercial frontages. Commercial spaces along the street shall buffer living spaces behind. Comment: I notice quite a bit of that in Vision' 99. It says there were no buildings higher than two stories, and on another page it said three stories, and on page 33 it was talking about building heights but none of it agreed, it was all conflicting. Moira: The Vision 99 came before these recommendations. What has happened is that the community members have made those comments about two or three story buildings. Our professional recommendation is that you allow three story and in some cases four story in this area. The main .issue here is to encourage redevelopment and to create a focal point and a difference between what is happing south and north. One way to do that is through building height. The single family and multi- family zones that back up to this corridor, _ allow 35 foot high structures and in some cases 45 foot high structures. What is being proposed is nothing different than what exists in code around the edges. Even though we have one story single family dwellings that were built in 1940, you will see that the new types of single family structures that we are getting, are indeed much larger than that. The question that could be discussed is, do • we regulate what is out there or what is allowed to be out there in the future with our single family 30 foot height limit. The height of three and four stories is what is existing in terms of permitted height. Question: What types of housing do you end up with over the tops of these stores? Are they suitable family living type houses? Moira: Mark has done a lot of research into housing in the region, so why don't I ask him to talk about this issue. Mark: You have to realize that the demographics of the region have been changing quite dramatically over the past few years. The four biggest growth segments of the population are singles, single parent households, seniors and starter families .(younger couple). Whether you like that or not, that is the fact. They already account for 60% in this region. Those are precisely the type of people November 4, 1993 Page that cannot afford, do not want, or prefer to live in •something other than a single family household. The challenge is, how do we provide decent, affordable, pleasant comfortable home like places for those population groups, where they can have a range of choices within close proximity to services and retail space. What we have suggested is that there be multiple family housing around the edges, so people have a variety of choices. On the height issue, you have to look at it from another perspective. That is, the value of land is based on access to it and visibility of it. Usually that's why you see land along major streets set at a higher value. Because its value is higher you have to get more yield from it. What you would be saying from two story is really just one story. Nobody is going to do that, that extra increment isn't providing enough. There needs to be enough incentive or inducement for people to get that additional yield because when you start mixing uses together it triggers requirements in the building code for fire separation and then you get into elevatoring, sprinklering, etc. You have to get a greater yield to pay for that. In my judgement it would have to be • at least •three •stories for someone to feel there was enough inducement to build. We . are not suggesting a .four story beyond this greater village center. Once you get beyond that you drop back down to the low rise. I think people are worried, when they talk. about three or. four story buildings, that it .will start happening everywhere. Comment: In my mind . 1 can't see any quality development in one story built above a store. Mark: Right, but with two, you can start putting internal amenities in and create an inducement to develop. • Comment: Many cities in Europe have the concept of small retail with residential above. Mark: With the higher yield, then it begin s to justify putting the parking in the structure. Moira: • The concept here is to encourage housing above the commercial space. Question: Would you allow commercial on two floors? Moira: You could have office on the second floor. There is actually a good view looking at the Cascade range. That makes it more attractive for residential. You would be more likely to have residential on that side of the highway. November 4, 1993 Page 9 ; Question: Are you saying that you are providing the incentive of the extra height with the understanding that at least part of that height will be residential? Moira: In essence, there would be an underlying height, 30 feet, and we would create incentives such as reducing the amount of required parking, because presumedly there would be some sharing between the commercial use and the residential night time parking. Comment: I thought what you were saying was to allow three or four stories as opposed to two or three, to encourage a split use. And that your incentive was to do that as opposed to having three stories of commercial. You don't want to encourage that. Moira: That is not likely to occur, most commercial is one story. If there's a market it could potentially occur with offices above commercial. • Question: Is that what you are talking about with three or four stories? Are you saying that if you go three or four stories, the top story is going to be residential, or are you saying that you would allow three or four stories regardless of the use? Moira: I would say that you would allow three stories, as is currently allowed, and that you would try to create incentives to get it. The incentives would be created for the residential. You wouldn't necessarily have incentives to have a three . story commercial office use. Comment: What I think is being potentially suggested is . a zoning system that would • be structured in a way that would give people a choice. If they just wanted to do a commercial building, all they would get would be two stories. If they wanted to mix in residential they could get the additional two. Mark: If you truly want mixed use you may have to do that. If you don't, the land then will be valued as office and you will never see any residential. Question: Are you opposed to three .or four story office buildings? Comment: I think that is out of character with the area. Moira: Under Standards we could specify that a three or four story height would be a mix and anything else would be limited. Comment: As was mentioned earlier, Europe has these sort of residential areas above stores. I don't know that I would want to have an apartment on Hwy 99. November 4, 1993 Page 10 Comment: We have ad us to say that we woul Comment: You would se surprised how many people do want that, particularly those who are limited transp irtation .wise. ressed that issue a number of times and it's presumptuous of n't live there, there are people that will. Moira: Is there any more discussion about this height issue, restricting a single use commercial to a lo er level than one that is a residential /commercial mix? Is that concept something that you would recommend? Yes. Agreement on policy 3. Policy 4: Enforce the amortization 'of adult entertainment uses along the commercial /residential ections of the corridor. Question: What does hat mean? Moira: It means th .t we have a section of our code that says currently there is a 90 day limit on how ong you can be in place after we pass an ordinance that says that you are no longer permitted. We passed further restrictions on . adult entertainment uses . after these uses were in place. We have a section in that ordinance that says, if you are made non - conforming by this ordinance, you have to get out in 90 days and relocate. Normally we allow non - conforming uses to continue as long as they don't enlarge, but in this particular instance, we have made a special provision. Question: Why are th Question: Does that i still there? Moira: Because it hasn't been enforced. Does anybody object to the City requiring adult entertainment to be moved out of commercial zones in • the City? elude adult video stores? Moira: Unfortunately adult video stores were the legal problem in the ordinance ruled unconstitutional b the Court. There is not research available to prove that there are criminal and negative impacts associated with the retail outlets. It is only the entertainmen facilities. Comment: I want to now why it isn't being enforced, other than this excuse that we don't want them to move down to Southcenter. November 4, 1993 Comment: The ordinance that was passed has a clause that the court has found to be unconstitutional. The rest of it can be enforced but the administration has not enforced it in fear of a law suit, I believe. Question: If the ordinance has been accepted, what is the problem? Moira: Portions of it has not. Question: The kind of money that those places make, would it be financially feasible for them to move down to the high rent Southcenter area? Comment: I don't know, but I am skeptical, I think they have more than one set of books. Moira: The City had originally zoned it to the heavy industrial areas, and the judge said that is not reasonable, then it was expanded to include the light industrial areas. Question:. Is amortization a legal word that is being used here, or is there something a little more descriptive? Moira: I think that it is the . word that was in the ordinance. Agreement on policy 4. Policy 5: Change the land use designation from general commercial to a mixed -use category for the commercial area between S. 139th St. to S. 148th St. Moira: I haven't provided a map of that area. Right now regional commercial is allowed, and what we are suggesting is neighborhood commercial through here. Question: Can you explain what uses would be in each? Moira: The neighborhood center would be businesses of a smaller scale, less auto oriented uses, that cater to a local market. Agreement on policy 5. Page 11 Policy 6: 'Expand the mixed use category into the low density residential area on 41st Ave. S. and the medium density area between S. 140th St. and S. 141st St. Moira: This talks about expanding beyond the current limits of the commercial designation to include the area along 144th. You have a small single family November 4, 1993 Page 12 residential area off of a cul -de -sac. The cul -de -sac actually provides access out to 99 right now and this area is sort of divorced from any residential neighborhood. We are suggesting the commercial area be expanded back to include both sides of the cul -de -sac. Question: Does it include 41st on the other side, in area 10 in the appendix? Moira: No, this is farther south than area 10. Comment: We didn't talk about the second half of policy 6. I don't think it is good. Moira: Can I recommend some alternatives? This is in the neighborhood center. We are talking about commercial on the first floor and residential above, or else two story. 42nd and 40th are residential streets, until you get down to 164th. I think that the residential frontage should be continued along. 42nd Ave.. This site is very redevelopable because it is all under one ownership. Yet it is limited in terms of its use, and there are really no incentives because of the medium density residential that is here currently. If we were to push the commercial line east and expand the neighborhood center to a line that preserves the residential frontage, then you reinforce your neighborhood center and this could potentially be one of 'first sites to be developed. We ,need to talk about what makes sense for this area. Right now we have a useless piece of commercial area and a large medium density piece of property that already has a development on it. You have a concept that you have discussed and agreed to, now what makes sense in this area on this property? Comment: I am wondering why you expanded his property but you didn't expand any .of the other properties along 99. Ann: The owner has ownership all the way back to 42nd, which is different from many other parcels along that corridor in that area. Comment: In the annexation we wanted to keep the residential' zoning, we wanted to keep the commercial so there was some type of buffer, because everything else is single family. Comment: It is a real critical point, because that is where part of the highway comes closest to 42nd. It is like a door opening to 42nd if you allow commercial to go all the way back on that property. And in fact, currently there are two different zonings on the highway. The back side is medium density residential. I am not sure if that accurately reflects the split on the current zoning though. I think that is what we are asking. Moira: This is a proposal, this is not the existing situation. c November 4, 1993 uestion: When you change zoning, Q middle of a lot? Moira: Yes. . Ann: There is some confusion over this red area as a proposed commer because this is all under one owners entire area as a new designation. that entire area? At that point yo for the site or a mixed use develop the entire site, 2) looking at types and 3) site planning and standards Question: How large is the parcel. Ann: It is 3.97 acres. Comment: I would like to ask wher- other people see a division line on the map, there doesn't seem to be a clear ma ority for having the entire thing to be commercial. Moira: Let me ask Mark to talk about design options for this site. Mark: If you look at the key development. You can have differe the filling in of various forms of d Page 13 do you ever change it where it goes down in the he conceptual drawing. I think you are seeing ial lot. The reason this is colored red is ip so there is an opportunity to look at the he question is, what is an appropriate use for can start talking about different designations ent. There are three steps in this, 1) looking at f uses that might be appropriate across the site, ssues. n the diagram, it basically says infill t. zones within that, it just means to encourage velopment. That isn't suggesting uniform zoning. Moira: This is what has been s ggested in the report for neighborhood commercial at that site. Comment: We want to leave it me.ium density on the 42nd side and commercial on the highway side. Comment: I am hesitating because the land owner is constantly going for the "max" on everything. Currently he is tryin ; to get an upzone and have the entire area commercial. That's why I hesitate g■ ving him this much leeway, he is going to go for the "max ", to build the most that he can. Moira: Let's consider the "max" that you could do under what you are proposing here. What you are proposing is commercial on the ground floor and residential above and an overlay district which is subject to design review. Our standards talk November 4, 1993 Page 14 about appropriate transitioning to adjacent sites. The owner may suggest the "max" but there are a lot of standards that he would have to comply with to get that. Comment: I am concerned that if you put more commercial or first story retail or office on the site, it would bring more traffic down 42nd. Comment: You can do things to discourage traffic from going down 42nd and encourage it to go other directions with speed bumps and a lower speed limit. Comment: If you allow the first floor to be commercial with residential on the upper floors, can someone come in and build only the first floor commercial? Comment: I don't think we can zone based on the current property owner's personality. We need to base our decision on how we want to see that property developed eventually. Comment: That's what we did in the annexation, that's why we zoned it that way. Mark: You can create an incentive zoning with the principle use . as residential, where you are allowed to have some commercial. Once you do the residential then you are allowed to have commercial. Comment: Do you think if you rezone half of it commercial and the back half R- that is enough of an incentive? Mark: A lot of those lots along 99 are so shallow, to get any commercial or any development to happen at all it would have to be deeper. Comment: The neighborhood has no objection to a trailer park being there, they just want the property owner to clean it up. Moira: Let's get back to the issue of the land use concept here. Commercial is appropriate as it fronts on 99 but not on side streets. So is there agreement . that the existing odd and insufficient depth of commercial on 99 should be expanded? Ann: There is general agreement that commercial along 99 is appropriate, you just don't know where to draw the line yet. In concept, residential on the other side along 42nd is the appropriate approach to this. So then the question is, how do you do that? There are a couple of different ways, and perhaps Mark has some other ideas. You could have a particular zoning designation for the whole site, such as a "mixed residential developmen.t ", then define it in such a way that includes the different types of uses like residential and commercial. You can deal with the location of these uses at the site plan stage, or you can draw a zoning line November 4, 1993 Page 15 . somewhere across that site. Either way can be used to keep the impacts from infiltrating and effecting the residential neighborhood. What you need to consider is what is the best approach at this comprehensive planning stage to segregate out those uses and have some control of where those things go? Comment: 1 think this is a very good solution. Moira: I haven't heard anyone disagreeing with commercial frontage. The second issue is, the existing commercial designation is not a sufficient depth and it needs to be expanded back. Is there any disagreement with that finding? Question: What would you consider a sufficient depth? Moira: 200 -300 feet. Currently it is probably not more than 90. Comment: I don't think that economically anyone could afford to go in and just develop the commercial part and leave the back part. Comment: There are two ways of looking at this. One is from the highway side and the other is from 42nd side. The creep of commercial towards 42nd, creates a real sensitivity with the neighbors. Question: How big of an R -2 buffer do you think would be needed between 42nd and commercial, if you look at it from the other angle? Question: From the commercial development along the highway back to 42nd, would that only be residential? Moira: That is the current subject of discussion. Question: Are you, right now, proposing that underneath the multi- family there be allowed light commercial or office or shops or services? Moira: That is currently how the policies are worded. Question: Why don't we just increase the commercial area to 200 feet and have R -2 the rest of the way? Comment: I like the idea of designating the amount of residential area needed .from 42nd back, and then whatever is left 'could be commercial. {� V , • .•J• ti • Moira: I hear you talking about the transportation implication of the site becoming more commercial. This could be addressed in a policy that talks about November 4, 1993 Page 16 avoiding curb cuts for commercial traffic onto the east -west streets. There is that trade off that you would be making between curb cuts on 99 versus side streets. The more curb cuts on 99 the less pedestrian friendly it will be. Is it a worthy tradeoff given your overall goal for the entire area? Ann: Perhaps Mark could help with this question, if we go back to the idea of a 42nd Avenue buffer, how far back do we need to go to get an appropriate buffer to 42nd? How much of an area do you really need there to make that attractive and practical for redevelopment? Question: What is unattractive about medium density residential? Is it not economically feasible to build medium density residential? . Moira: It all depends how much you are getting for. your land now, to some extent. Mark: There does appear to be some magic numbers for commercial to make that work, but I don't think there are similar such numbers for residential. I don't think you need to make the commercial depth any more than 200 feet. If it is increased more than 200 feet, you almost have to go another 200 foot increment. 300 feet is too much for one and not enough for two. Comment: I recommend that we go with 200 feet of commercial along 99, and the rest of the site would be R -2. It is such a prime piece of property, it has access to the library, you can walk to Larry's Market, you can walk to Bartell's. I think it is a prime place for housing. Moira: Is there anyone that disagrees with that? No. So that deals with the second half of policy 6. Ann: For clarification, when you talk about residential on the site, you are talking about medium density, rather than higher density, correct? Comment: Yes, R -2. Agreement on policy 6 to have the site designated Commercial to a depth of 200 feet from Pacific Hwy South, and the rest of the site designated Medium Density Residential, rather than mixed use category suggested in Staff report. Policy 7: Require new . construction rather than conversion to a commercial use within existing residential structures. doing a more detailed market analysis and strategy that talks about timing of • improvements and when redevelopment is to likely occur. I can very easily see someone coming in and putting another tattoo parlor in there. So this policy talks about only allowing commercial uses in commercial buildings and not allowing the conversion of residential to commercial. Any comment on that policy? Agreement on policy 7. Page 17 Moira: We will go onto the next section which deals with the north half of the corridor. The properties are along the valley wall. Policy 8: Maintain the residential character between S. 128th St. and S. 139th St., with a significant component of vegetated hillside. Policy 9: Redesignate the properties from commercial to office, neighborhood mixed use and medium and high density residential. Moira: In order to do this we suggest that some properties be redesignated from commercial to office, neighborhood mixed use and medium and high density residential. You need to look at the appendix to see the sites where those changes are being recommended. Maybe we could start with area 3. It has the mobile home park and the apartments. During the Riverton annexation, a committee decided that the area should be office. We are suggesting that it be high density residential. The density is currently medium density, 11 and 14 units per acre respectively for the two developments. Question: How do you maintain a significant component of vegetated hillside? Moira: With standards and design review. Question: Because that property slopes off in the back, how many units would they be able to build there? Moira: The multi - family standards have requirements for recreation, without doing some site analysis I couldn't really tell you. I do think there will be some significant constraints because of topography. The range of units per acre in a high density is about 18 -20. Is there anyone who thinks it should be anything other than residential? No. Now the decision is medium or high density. Question: Could you show everybody exactly where this is on the map? November 4, 1993 Page 18 Moira: This is just north and west of the open space parcel bought by the City. It drops down into the site. There is no level area adjacent to 99. This is on the east side of the highway. Can we get a show of hands on area 3? It currently is medium density, at 55 units per acre, there is the potential of getting more with a high density up to about 80. How many for high density? 5 Medium density? 5 We will revisit this. Agreement to revisit area 3 at a later date. Moira: Lees go on to area 4. It's a somewhat marginal piece of property, not being used or else being used for storage. This is across the street from Canyon Park. We have suggested that this should be a residential district. One concept if you were to have medium density, would be to have drive in parking with the residential units above, or to have some sort of medium density residential with some sort of retail or office on the ground floor. Comment: I think your recommendation is very appropriate. Moira: What I would recommend, is residential with the ability to have an office or retail component on • the ground floor. Any other suggestions? Agreement to make area 4 medium density residential. Moira: Area 5 is the property on 37th. The access is not off 99, it is off 37th. It didn't seem to be a commercial piece of property, we are suggesting that it be residential. Agreement to make area 5 medium density residential. Moira: Area 6 is the Bernie and Boys site. We have suggested that since these are very small parcels, neighborhood commercial would be more appropriate than regional commercial. Question: The map in the appendix say the lot across on 37th is vacant and unusable now, what is going to make it neighborhood commercial as small as that piece is? Moira: My understanding from the public works department who has been doing a lot of work in this intersection, is that the owner would like to use it for parking. It is currently zoned commercial. Comment: He is already using it for parking. Question: Does neighborhood commercial .include a parking lot? November 4, 1993 . • Page 19 Moira: Yes. Comment: If you take the right -of -way from each street around it, it is a very small lot. Agreement to make area 6 neighborhood commercial. Moira: We can move onto Area 7. The comp plan to the left of the area on the map, is medium density residential. That has just been extended down to 99. I • consider it more clean up than anything else.' The only way to get to this lot is off of 99. Question: Wouldn't it be a good candidate for high density? Moira: It is so small that we feel it should just be made part of the area around it which is R -2. Agreement to make area 7 medium density residential. Policy 10:. Allow a limited amount of neighborhood - oriented retail in residential projects that front on 99. Moira: This is the area from 139th to 128th where you have frontage on 99. You would be allowed, if you so choose, to have some space for retail in medium and high density residential projects. Question: So what is already .zoned single family residential would be allowed to have retail? Moira: No, it is suggested for medium and high density. The retail is for the multi -unit development. Comment: 1• don't think there are any multi -unit developments down there. Moira: If you look at the land use map you can see there is some multi -unit development. Agreement on policy 10. Moira: If we want to keep moving north, we can skip to policy 13. November 4, 1993 Page 20 Policy 13: Expand the light industrial area to S. 128th St. by redesignating commercial sites to light industrial. Moira: In area 8, at 128th there is a commercial district. What is being suggested is to have a light industrial district north on the developable properties, instead of a small piece of commercial, small area of single family, then industrial: John is out of town and could not make the meeting, but he called and expressed his views about this property. He felt that the "existing designations of this property weren't leading anywhere, that they were too small and undevelopable. The commercial properties weren't big enough to develop it commercial. He was in favor of this. recommendation. I personally have a concern because this was just recently looked at and it was recommended to leave it commercial. When you do industrial, you are going to have more of an impact on the vegetation and the land slopes. One way of dealing with that is to have special standards or guidelines that discuss how the light industrial can occur on a sloping piece of property. This issue is going to come up again when we look at the City south of 180th, where we have single family residential property on a hillside overlooking industrial. It is something to keep in mind as you are looking at properties. Comment: Refresh my memory on the difference between light industrial and heavy industrial. Moira: Light industrial has more " to do with the movement and storage of goods and the assembly of pre- manufactured parts. Heavy industrial has more to do with the manufacture of raw goods. Comment: I am wondering about the difference of square footage between light and . heavy industrial. Since the square footage, truck movement etc. doesn't differ between light and heavy, is it just what is being done inside that differs? Moira: My sense is that you could actually get more truck movement in a light industrial than you would in a heavy and that the size of the structures could be smaller. Ann: There are some concerns about the effect of a light industrial designation on surrounding areas. Maybe you could address that. Moira: It would be located downslope from a residential area, and would be above the commercial valley. We are suggesting that the district be expanded to November 4, 1993 Page 21 128th. We see the area as isolated and primarily oriented to 99. You also might want to look at the topography map on page 6b. Question: How much of this portion is unusable? Moira: I can't tell you off hand, I would need to look. If you want me to do that 1 can, and report back at the next meeting. Comment: I kind of like the boundary that 99 gives that light industrial area. Moira: Right now the industrial district in the valley stops east of 99. Question: Isn't most of it owned by Boeing? Moira: The Sabey Corporation I believe. The property is shown with little round dots on the map in the appendix. We should extend the black line to include all that property. Question: Is everything to the east residential? Would there be a buffer between residential and the proposed light • industrial area'? Moira: On the north side it is all owned by Boeing, it is all industrial. The black line at the very south end of .this area runs through King's Diner. That line should extend eastward slightly to the circled black line, so it runs along the property line. Rather than having one small piece of commercial, we propose to make it light industrial similar to the property across the street and the property to the north. In terms of buffer for the property to the south and to the east, there is a steep bank behind acting as a natural buffer. Question: What about that property down below King's Diner? Moira: That is a separate lot and I believe it is owned by the same people that own King's Diner, which is a trust. That is not being suggested for change. Question: If we change that . to light industrial, could they put a "adult" entertainment place there? Moira: Yes they could. Since there are concerns about both sides' of the street why don't we revisit these areas later. Comment: I just don't see how it is buffered. Comment: It is the steep slope. November 4, 1993 Page 22 Agreement to revisit area 8 and area 9. Moira: Area 10 I consider to be somewhat clean-up. This is designated high density. Everything to the north along 41st Ave. S. and to the south of S. 139th .are low density. I thought that at the most this should be medium density to provide a buffer and transition. Agreement for area 10 to be medium density. Comment: 1 would like. to discuss a different area, the area in the valley just east of 99. Moira: You should discuss that with Betty Gully. That was discussed at great length and I think the community agreed and everybody is happy now with the boundary industrial/residential boundary. Next week we will discuss the standards and projects. Remember, next week the meeting will be on Wednesday night, not Thursday, since Thursday is a holiday. Meeting Adjourned. BACKGROUND: Status of Hearing Public Involvement City of Tukwila Department of Community Development Rick Beeler, Director SUPPLEMENT TO STAFF REPORT To Planning Commission Date prepared: December 2, 1993 PROJECT: SOUTHGATE TRAILER PARK COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT AND REZONE ( #L92 -0022, #L92 -0023) HEARING. DATE: Wednesday, December 8, 1993, 7:00 p.m. STAFF: Ann Siegenthaler, Dept. of Community Development ATTACHMENTS: A. Letter from neighborhood resident B. Letter from resident in trailer park The Southgate Comprehensive Plan amendment /rezone proposal was originally scheduled for an October 28, 1993 Planning Commission hearing (see Staff Report dated 10/20/93). At the request of the applicant, the hearing was continued. No additional materials have been submitted. The community was informed of the Southgate proposal in six ways: • Posting notice on the site (both hearings); • Mailing notice to residents /property owners within 300' of site perimeter (both hearings); • Publication of notice in the Seattle Times (both hearings); • Publication of notice in the Hazelnut; • Mailing SEPA decision notice to surrounding residents /property owners; • Informational meeting 12/1/93 with citizen's, applicant & staff; notice of meeting posted and mailed. 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 John W Rants, Mayor ATTACHMENT H Citizen comments have taken the form of phone calls, letters and in- person comments from trailer park residents and surrounding neighbors. Since the time of the original hearing date, staff has received additional citizen input, as follows: • • Letter from neighbor (Attachment A); • Letter from trailer park resident (Attachment B); • Tukwila Tomorrow committee recommendations (see minutes (11/4/93, to be submitted at hearing). As part of Tukwila's Comprehensive Plan update, the Tukwila Tomorrow committee discussed potential designations for land within the Highway 99 corridor on November 4, 1993. The discussion included the Southgate site. The committee voted to retain the current Comprehensive Plan designation of Medium Density Residential along 42nd Avenue, with a Commercial designation of a 200 -foot depth along Pacific Highway South. Citizen concerns regarding the Southgate proposal have centered on the following issues: • Impacts of the proposed Commercial designation, including additional traffic and aesthetics, on surrounding residential areas; Potential displacement of current trailer park residents, including children with special needs; • Adequate maintenance, monitoring and clean-up of the existing trailer park; • Opportunities for public comment. DECISION CR1Th,RIA: Supplement to Planning Commission Staff Report Southgate, 12/2/93 Page 2 Criteria • The Staff Report (10/18/93) lists the decision criteria for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment and rezone. The burden is on the applicant to demonstrate how the proposal meets those criteria. As indicated in the Staff Report, the applicant has not provided sufficient justification for a change in the Comprehensive Plan or zoning designation. If the Southgate proposal is not approved, the applicant will have a future opportunity to request re- designation of the Southgate site. Through the legislative process, the Tukwila Tomorrow Committee, the Planning Commission, and the City Supplement to Planning Commission Staff Report Southgate, 12/2/93 Page 3 Council will be reviewing the Comprehensive Plan in its entirety, and evaluating area -wide changes. At that time, property owners may ask that alternative designations be considered. Recommendations from the Tukwila Tomorrow committee will be forwarded to the Planning Commission in early -mid 1994. As this second review will be through the legislative process, the decision criteria used in the quasi judicial review of the current proposal will not apply. . • Alternatives If the applicant is able to provide new information and justification at the public hearing, the Planning Commission may consider alternative designations for the site. Alternatives which have been previously discussed include: A. Medium Density Residential designation along 42nd Avenue, with a 200 - foot deep Commercial designation along Pacific Highway South (Tukwila Tomorrow committee recommendation); B. Office designation along 42nd Avenue, with a Commercial designation for the remainder of. the site (discussed in Staff Report); or C. Commercial designation for the entire site (applicant's proposal). • If there is justification for a Comprehensive Plan amendment and rezone, the Planning Commission may attach conditions to any approvals. Conditions are typically related to potential impacts of the project. The rationale for any conditions should be included in the Planning Commission findings. Rrt�:. -EV OCT 2 6 1993 CO:vi.«.i.IfY DEVELOPMENT To: City of Tukwila Planning Commission Re: Southgate '.frailer Park Rezone Sincerly 4" C.. OCT. 24, 1993 AT r LJ11ACA1T A - As neighbors of Southgate trailer park, we are concerned about the possible upzone of this piece of property for the following reasons: As a member of the Tukwila brow Co mitee and a participat in Vision Tukwila I feel I represent a wide cross section of residents.on this issue. People are not opposed to the trailer 'park but are opposed to Mr. Kim's management of his property. During his ownership Mr. Kim has let his property deteriorate, basicly becoming a "slum lord ".. We belive he has done this to force ah upzone, so residents and city staff would conclude "anything would be better then whats there ". Neighbors would like to see Mr. Kim clean up and improve condition_ on his property to benifit the residents of the trailer park as.well as add to the surrounding neighborhood. Many of the people who reside at the park can- not come up with the first, last; and damadge deposit required for other housing, but are able to scrape together the $500 rent at the trailer park. Tukwila already has vast amounts of office and commercial space available, why add more in the middle of a single family neighborhood! The need for affordable hot sing is great, especially for affordable senior housing. During the annexation process residents made their desires known by designating it R -2. One reason was as a buffer bet- ween single family residental and Pacific Highway'South. In my work on Tukwila Tommorow updating the comp. plan myself and fellow connitee members saw no reason to change the R -2 designation.. • This property is boardered by single family on two sides and in- cludes a single family home on it's site. It'is only one block north of the library, pool, and two of the schools. It is also within walking dis- tance of Larry's, Eartells,. and the community center. Riverton hospital is also nearby. These are all ar7Aitional reasons it. was designated for housing.. Increased pressure for alternative transportation hakes this an ideal location for some sort Of ..residential or senior citizen housing. In conclusion I'd just like to add a few comments about what a c -2 zoning would do to add alot of traffic to our surface streets. 42nd ave. so..is widely used by school children walking to the grade,jr. high and high schools as well as other foot and bike traffic. The additional trips per day would bring excessive traffic to this street during high use by our children if this upzone is 'allowed. Thank you for your attention in this matter. 11.111 1TII - E C EETV E. OCT 26i993 co m m uN iry • 7 cZ-T s's in 7 22;etej 0 cc— c 1 2 C 66z-(--<L-‘ 1 c t. ci LOzL , / • s ATTA f%Ull *MUT la C5.5) )55 16 -1 5 - 7-D 6 4 4 c7 _43-Pse4120.___ !f,A d 9z-e °7 -61-e Vera Maude Bentley 14005 42n4 Ave. S. Box 50, Seattle, WA 98168 • City of Tukwila John W. Rants, Mayor Department of Community Development Rick Beeler, Director STAFF REPORT TO THY PLANNING COMMISSION COMPREEOENSTVE PLAN AMENDMENT AND REZONE Prepared October 20, 1993 HEARING DATE: October 28, 1993 PROJECT/FIT FF: #L92 -0022, #L92 -0023: Southgate Trailer Park Comprehensive Plan Amendment & Rezone APPLICANT: Edward L. Parks, Esq., 17650 140th Avenue S.E. #B6 -230, Renton, WA 98058 -6814 PROPOSAL: Amend the current Comprehensive Plan designation of a 3.97 -acre site from Medium - Density Residential to Commercial; and rezone the site from an R -2 (Two- Family Residential) zoning designation to a C -2 (Regional Commercial) zone. LOCATION: 14004 Pacific Highway South, Tukwila, WA (SW 1/4 Section 15, Twn. 23, Rge. 4), King Co. (Existing Southgate Trailer Park) COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Medium Density Residential ZONING DISTRICT: R -2 (Two - Family Residential) SEPA DETERMINATION: Mitigated Determination of Non - • Significance STAFF • . RECOMMENDATION: Denial, pending additional information from applicant; with an alternative designation of Office with limited Commercial, if applicant provides justification for change. STAFF:. Ann Siegenthaler, 431 -3670 ATTACHMENTS: A. Vicinity map (2/6/92) B. Conceptual site plan (1/21/92) C. Letter of comments from citizens in response to original applications (3/20/92) (with original 1992 applications attached for reference only) D. Revised applications (7/1/93) • ATTACHMENT I 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • wo Try /Si INFORMATION FINDINGS OF FACT Southgate Comp Plan/Rezone Staff Report 10/20/93, Page 2 The site is currently occupied by approximately 63 mobile homes (trailers) in what is known as Southgate Mobile Home Park. Most of these trailers are owned by the Southgate property owner and rented to the occupants. It has been a trailer park for nearly 40 years. Southgate is in a predominately single - family residential neighborhood, with high- density multi -family developments (R -4 and RMH) to the immediate north and south. Adjacent to the west side of the property is a C -2 zone along Pacific Highway South, currently occupied by a gas station (see Attachment A). • PROJECT DESCRIPTION The applicant proposes to rezone a 3.97 -acre site from an R -2 (Two -Family Residential) zoning designation to a C -2 (Regional Commercial) zoning. This proposed zoning is inconsistent with the current Comprehensive • Plan. One requirement for a rezone is consistency with the Compre- hensive Plan. • Therefore, the applicant is also requesting a Comprehensive Plan Amendment from a Medium - Density Residential designation to a Commercial designation. A conceptual site plan was also submitted with the Comprehensive Plan amendment and rezone requests. The site plan includes a commercial building of approximately 129,000 square feet and 333 parking stalls (see Attachment B). However, the submittal does not include sufficient information to evaluate the . effects of a specific project. It is also not clear that the conceptual site plan meets current code requirements. Consequently, staff recommendations in this report address only the proposed Comprehensive Plan designation and rezone. Any redevelopment of the site will require additional environmental review and Design Review, where a specific site plan, architectural plans, landscaping, and other design issues will be reviewed at a public hearing. BACKGROUND The Southgate site was developed as a trailer park in King County in the 1950's. It came into Tukwila in 1989 as part of the Foster annexation. At the time of annexation, the current Comprehensive Plan and zoning designations were adopted. Southgate Comp Plan/Rezone Staff Report 10/20/93, Page 3 The Tukwila Tomorrow citizens committee is in the process of evaluating Tukwila's Comprehensive Plan and zoning designations. Changes recommended by the committee will be reviewed by the Planning Commission and Council in 1994 and 1995. Requests from individual property owners will be considered during this community -wide evaluation of land use changes. To avoid delaying his project, the applicant has asked that the City review his proposal now. In 1992, the property owner submitted his original requests for a Comprehensive .Plan Amendment, Rezone and Environmental Review. In response, citizens prepared a comment letter (see Attachment C). After City review, additional information was requested from the applicant. Among other items, the City asked for further explanation of how the applicant's proposal met the approval criteria. The applicant has submitted revised applications (see Attachment D). These revised applications are quoted in this report, and are the basis of staff recommendations. DECISION CRITERIA The City is conducting a phased environmental review . of the proposal. A Mitigated Determination of Non - Significance (MDNS) has been . issued for the Comprehensive Plan designation and rezone requests. As a condition of the MDNS, the property owner will be required to dedicate additional street right -of- way. Remaining environmental issues will need to be addressed at the time a specific project is proposed. The Planning Commission will be reviewing two separate requests: A) an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan, and B) a change in the site's zoning. Approval criteria have been established for both of these reviews. The applicant must meet the criteria for a Comprehensive Plan designation before a rezone can .. be approved. The Comprehensive Plan amendment and rezone request are evaluated separately in the staff report. The applicant's response on each application is . given, followed by staff's response. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT REQUEST Washington courts have established criteria to be used by local communities in evaluating requests for changes to their Comprehensive .Plan. The burden is on the applicant to demonstrate that the change meets these criteria. 1. Unforseen changes in circumstances have occurred in community 'conditions that justify a Comprehensive Plan redesignation of the subject property or existing plan policies. Applicant's response: 'The Growth Management Act has been enacted. The city is required to review and modify its Comprehensive Plan to provide for anticipated growth over the next 20 years. This necessitates a reconsideration of all plan policies." Staff's response: In the 1989 Foster annexation, potential Comprehensive Plan and zoning designations for the Southgate site were evaluated by a citizen task force. It was known at the time that the area would see a new high school in the near future, and that present trends toward redevelopment along Highway 99 would continue. The site was annexed with R -2 and Medium Density Residential designations. Since annexation, the Growth Management Act (GMA) has been adopted, and citizens are re- evaluating Tukwila's Comprehensive Plan. However, this citizen review process has not been completed. Development around the site has generally followed the same land use categories established by the County. One area of change has been the deterioration of the site itself. The site has a reputation for its unsightly and often unsanitary • conditions. It also has a history of frequent police calls in response to apparent .and real criminal activity. The..applicant cites this "demand on social services," and "deteriorating neighborhood" as a justification for a rezone (see rezone discussion, below). It is likely that a major change in the site, such as vacation of the trailer park, would have an effect on the vitality of surrounding residential and commercial areas. This could trigger changes in community .conditions which justify a Comprehensive Plan redesignation. 2. Factual evidence supports an additional or changed public need for the property designation. Applicant's response: "See (Items #1) above, see amended responses 1, 3, 4, 5 and 6 to the rezone application." (See Rezone discussion under Item B, below.) Staff's response: Southgate Comp Plan/Rezone Staff Report 10/20/93, Page 4 • Southgate Comp Plan/Rezone Staff Report 10/20/93, Page 5 In preparation for citizen discussion in the Comprehensive Plan update, staff compiled data on housing availability. It was determined that Tukwila has enough area zoned for single- and multi - family dwellings to meet the County's forecasts for future housing needs. Moreover, Tukwila currently has a relatively high percentage of multi -family units, and of affordable housing. Given this availability, there is some evidence that maintaining all areas reserved for Medium - Density Residential may no longer address a public need. If there is a basis for an alternative designation for the site, what alternatives should be considered? The, intent of the original Comprehensive Plan designation was to provide a buffer between Low Density Residential and nearby High Density Residential and Commercial areas. If Medium Density Residential is no longer appropriate, another designation which provides this land use buffer may be'appropriate. Provided that potential impacts are addressed, a more intensive designation could be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and public interest. Staff has evaluated alternatives, and presents them here for Planning Commission discussion. Office designation: The Highway 99 corridor, and the area west of 1 -5, currently have very little land area designated for Office. As a result, there are no nearby office uses in Tukwila to serve the residential neighborhood and businesses on Highway 99. The location of the site and its large size makes it relatively attractive for office development. Based on these observations, it is likely that an office would be an economically viable use, and that it could serve a public need • in the area. An Office designation can also serve as a transition between single family uses and nearby commercial and high density residential uses. With careful .. site planning, an office complex could include a mix of attractive duplexes and some commercial uses (additional public hearing required) which are compatible with the neighborhood and serve a need in the area. Commercial designation: Citizens have identified a need for upgrading the site and the Highway 99 corridor. It is possible that a Commercial designation would provide the impetus for higher quality development in the area. As one of the few large parcels remaining along Highway 99, the site has the potential to attract significant, high quality redevelopment. However, Tukwila already has many areas designated for commercial development: Revitalization might be more easily achieved in these other areas. A Commercial designation has other drawbacks. While it is possible to design commercial development which fits its surroundings, it requires careful site planning and building design to ensure compatibility with residential areas. Given the residential surroundings of the site, the potential impacts of future commercial development may outweigh the public benefits. Combined Office /Commercial designation: A third alternative would be to have Southgate Comp Plan/Rezone Staff Report 10/20/93, Page 6 two designations on the site. This would allow more flexibility in providing a transition between different uses. The potential for very intense uses makes a Commercial designation less appropriate than Office next to residential areas. Yet, commercial is an appropriate use next to Highway 99. An office development can provide benefits to the community with relatively few visual and environmental impacts on residential uses. An Office designation adjacent to residential areas, with a Commercial designation toward Highway 99 could provide a more viable commercial site while minimizing potential future impacts to residential areas. Staff comments on these alternatives are general observations, based on experience with other sites. The burden of demonstrating that there is an additional public need for anything other than Medium Density Residential designation for the site remains with the applicant. 3. Analyze the existing Comprehensive Plan policies and how your proposal affects them. Applicant's response: "See (Items #1, #2). The Plan W and Policies are under review for amendment consistent with GMA. It is our position that rezone to C -2 is consistent with GMA and will be consistent with the plan and policies of the city of Tukwila as adopted and amended in compliance therewith. The Highway 99 corridor is ideally suited for designation as an area of anticipated commercial growth and expansion." Staffs response: The most pertinent Comprehensive Plan policies are noted below. Residential policies: • Limit non - residential traffic in residential areas (p. 46). • Encourage abatement of uses incompatible with residential areas (p.4.6). • Provide transition areas between high and low density residential uses (p. 47). • Encourage pedestrian corridors from residential to commercial areas (p. 50). • Provide diversity of housing types (p. 51). Commerce/Industiy policies: • Encourage the grouping of compatible uses to promote economic . viability (p. 60). • • Allow new commercial areas when compatible with surrounding land Southgate Comp Plan/Rezone Staff Report 10/20/93, Page 7 uses and not detrimental to public welfare (p. 60). • Encourage aesthetic building and site design in working and trading areas (p. 61). • Encourage a diversity of business uses (p. 62). Encourage uses which support retail areas to locate near retail areas (p. 64). • Locate commercial uses convenient to major trafficways (p. 64). • Promote retail activities (p. 65). • Use generally- accepted standards in establishing the location of business areas (p. 65). • Encourage office uses as buffers between residential and other land uses (p. 66). The existing Medium - Density designation meets these policies in that it provides a buffer between single- family areas and higher density housing. However, other designations may also meet provide this. An Office designation could be consistent with policies regarding residential areas, while responding to the Comprehensive Plan's direction regarding commerce. A Commercial designation of the site would be consistent with the existing commercial corridor along Highway 99. It could help the economic vitality of the area. Depending upon the type of commercial uses allowed, and the site layout, a Commercial designation could be designed to be compatible with surrounding low density residential areas. However, this is more difficult to ensure with a Comniercial designation than an Office designation. Another area of concern is the relationship of existing development on site to a possible new Comprehensive Plan designation. A new designation does not require .that the existing trailer park be re- developed. Consequently, conflicts between incompatible uses may be heightened. For example, a Commercial designation (with a subsequent rezone) would allow commercial uses to occur adjacent to, or within, existing mobile homes. Such a scenario would not be consistent with some of the current Comprehensive Plan policies. It has_ the potential to magnify current code enforcement issues on site. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN CONCLUSIONS Based on the above, staff concludes that the applicant has not adequately addressed the criteria for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment at this time. 1. Unforseen changes in community conditions: The applicant's response does not clearly identify the unforseen changes in community conditions which might justify a new Comprehensive Plan designation. Given existing conditions at the site, vacation of the trailer park Southgate Comp Plan/Rezone Staff Report 10/20/93, Page 8 would probably be the most significant change in community conditions. Until a "clean-up" of the site provides the needed incentive for re- investment in the neighborhood, it is not likely that the surrounding area will experience any changes significant enough to justify a Comprehensive Plan amendment. 2. Factual evidence of an additional or changed public need for the property designation: It is possible that the 'public need for a Medium Density Residential designation has diminished. It is also possible that an Office designation, or combined Office /Commercial designation for the site could better serve a public need. However, the applicant has not shown that the requested Commercial designation is needed - -or any designation other than the current one - -is appropriate. 3. Affects on existing Comprehensive Plan policies: While Comprehensive Plan policies encourage economic development, the Plan's residential policies serve to guide this development to appropriate areas: A designation other than Medium Density Residential may satisfy these policies. However, the applicant needs to explain how or if this would be. the case with the proposed Commercial designation. Moreover, a Commercial designation for an existing trailer . park could generate additional conflicts between residential and commercial uses. Until the trailer park is vacated, it is . unlikely that a Comprehensive Plan amendment would be consistent with Comprehensive Plan policies. As the.applicant does not meet all three .criteria for a Comprehensive Plan amendment, staff concludes that an amendment is not appropriate at this time. Vacation of the trailer park could be considered a significant change in the area. Removal of all trailers on the site may generate interest in reinvestment in the neighborhood and a public•need for additional commercial services. COMPREfENSIVE PLAN RECOMMENDATIONS A. Based on the above conclusions, staff cannot recommend approval of the request for a Comprehensive Plan amendment at this time. • B. The applicant may provide additional documentation at the public hearing to support a Comprehensive Plan amendment. This information should include anticipated changes in surrounding land uses and future plans for the trailer park. If the applicant can justify a change, staff suggests that the Planning Commission consider the alternatives listed below. 1. The recommended alternative is as follows: a) Office designation along 42nd Avenue; b) Commercial designation for the remainder of the site; c) With the condition that all mobile homes be removed from the site within twelve (12) months of City Council approval of the designation change. 2. If the applicant can justify a commercial designation, staff recommends ' further evaluation prior to approval, as follows: a) Commercial designation for the entire site; • b) With the condition that the applicant • submit for Board of Architectural Review approval a site plan and architectural drawings which demonstrate that potential significant impacts to residential zones can be addressed; and c) With the condition that all mobile homes be removed from the site within twelve (12) months of City Council approval of the designation change. REZONE REQUEST Southgate Comp Plan/Rezone Staff Report 10/20/93, Page 9 The Zoning Code provides criteria to be used by the Planning Commission and City Council in granting reclassification requests to the zoning map (TMC 18.84.030). These criteria are listed below. • 1. The use or change in zoning requested shall be in conformity with the adopted Comprehensive Land Use Policy Plan, the provisions of this title (Zoning Code), and the public interest. Applicant's response: 'The change in zoning requested is consistent with and promotes General Goals 1, 2, 4 and 6 (of the Comprehensive Plan). (See discussion under Part A, above.) The property in its present use and condition places a• demand on the social services of the city which is totally disproportionate to the services and benefits provided to the city. The requested rezone is also consistent with the goals and the objectives the Growth Management Act (GMA)." Staff's response: The proposed new C -2 zoning is not in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan designation. However, the applicant has 'requested an amendment. As noted in the Comprehensive Plan amendment discussion, the applicant needs to adequately address the criteria for a Comprehensive Plan amendment before a rezone can be approved. Southgate Comp Plan/Rezone Staff Report 10/20/93, Page 10 2. The use or change in zoning requested in the zoning map or this title for the establishment of commercial, industrial or residential use shall be supported by an architectural site plan showing the proposed development and its relationship to surrounding area as set forth in the application form. Applicant's response: "Heretofore submitted." (See Attachment B.) . Staffs response: The applicant's request does not include sufficient information to evaluate the relationship of a specific development project to . the surrounding area. Consequently, •staff recommendations are not based on a specific site plan or building type, but on the proposed zoning and Comprehensive Plan designation. 3. When the request in not in agreement with the Comprehensive Plan, the applicant shall provide evidence to the City Council's satisfaction that there is an additional need for the requested land classification. Applicant's response: "GMA requires cities to plan and provide for expansion within Urban Growth Areas. The act has been implemented since the city adopted its current Comprehensive Plan. It is this applicant's understanding the that plan is now under review for modification consistent with the legislative mandates of the Act. The Highway 99 .corridor is a prime candidate for designation for commercial expansion required by the Act." Staff's response: As explained in the Comprehensive Plan amendment discussion, it is not clear from this application that there is an additional need for another zoning for this site. 4. Significant changes have occurred in the character, conditions or surrounding neighborhood that justify or otherwise substantiate the proposed rezone. Applicant's response: 'The Growth Management Act has been enacted. The increased demand for city social services (e.g. Police) is evidence of a deteriorating neighborhood. This property in its present condition is a major contributing factor to that deterioration. The requested rezone will make it economically feasible to renew the site." Staff's response: Applicant's response: 'The proposed rezone will. enable a redevelopment of the site, reducing, if not entirely eliminating, the burden presently imposed on the city's public health and safety services. Prior to annexation of this property by the city, it was purchased by this owner. At that time the property was zoned RM 1800 by King County. An application for rezone to RM 900 was pending. The price paid by owner, i.e. the value of the property was based on that allowed use. The change to R -2 on annexation made it economically impossible to redevelop the site and eliminate the burden on the city's social and health services." • Southgate Comp Plan/Rezone Staff Report 10/20/93, Page 11 As discussed in the Comprehensive. Plan amendment, it may be appropriate to reconsider the amount of area currently designated for multi - family development. However, it is not clear how additional C -2 zoning might serve the neighborhood. There have been no recent significant land use changes in the vicinity, nor any City permit activity indicating interest in such changes. The existing trailer park may have some relationship to the occurrence of change in the neighborhood. If the site "is a major contributing factor to that deterioration" of the neighborhood, the park may contribute to the lack of interest in redevelopment of the neighborhood. Based upon this, any significant changes are unlikely while the trailer park exists in its present condition. S. The proposed rezone is in the best interest of public health and safety as compared to the hardship, such as diminution of property value, imposed on the individual property owner. Staff's response: A zoning (or Comprehensive Plan) designation in itself does not preclude redevelopment or normal maintenance of a property. There is no evidence that the existing R -2 designation has diminished the property's value. With an existing R -2 designation, the site could be redeveloped with new single - family homes and duplexes. Alternative zoning could have undesirable effects on public health and safety. A G2 zoning designation allows such uses as auto sales lots, motels, nightclubs, and car washes (Zoning Code, TMC Title 18). A C -1 designation allows parking lots and service stations. Such uses can add significant stress to surrounding residential areas. Rather than Regional Commercial, an Office designation would be more in the public interest at this site. 6. The unimproved 'subject property is 'unsuitable for the purpose for which it has .been zoned, considered in the context of the length of Southgate Comp Plan/Rezone Staff Report 10/20/93, Page 12 time the property has remained unimproved and land development in the surrounding area. Applicant's response: "See 5 above. The acquisition cost of the property now zoned R -2 necessitates the development of 'Luxury Duplexes' on the site. Given the nature of the surrounding commercial uses and other development in the general area, this property is unsuitable for that purpose and the existing non - conforming trailer park use will be forced to continue indefinitely." Staff's response: This criterion is intended to address unimproved property. As the property has been improved since at least the 1950's, this criterion is not applicable. REZONE CONCLUSIONS Staff has made the following conclusions regarding the application and the rezone criteria: 1. Conformity with the Comprehensive Plan, the Zoning Code, and the public interest. A zoning designation other than R -2 may be appropriate for this site. As an alternative to residential, an Office zone appears to be the most viable solution. A Regional Commercial zone could be a valid alternative to , consider, provided this includes careful evaluation of potential impacts to adjacent residential areas. The information in this application does not provide enough information to evaluate any of these alternatives. Therefore, staff concludes that a C -2 zoning designation on this site would not meet Criteria #1. 2.• The change is supported by an architectural site plan showing the proposed development and its relationship to surrounding areas. Based on experience with other sites, it is possible to design an office or commercial project which is compatible with surrounding uses. However, the applicant's site plan does not clearly show how a C -2 zoning designation on this site would accomplish this. 3. The applicant has provided evidence of an additional need for the new classification. Southgate's current R -2 Residential zoning may no longer be the best solution for the site or for the community. Given the land use changes in Tukwila, the trend in redevelopment of Highway 99, and the mandates of GMA, it may be appropriate to re- evaluate this designation. However, the applicant has not demonstrated that there is an additional need for a C -2 designation. Southgate Comp Plan/Rezone Staff Report 10/20/93, Page 13 4. Significant changes have occurred in the character conditions or surrounding neighborhood. No significant changes are identified in the application. The only significant change related to this proposal would be the vacation of the trailer park. Until vacation, interest in redevelopment of the neighborhood or need for additional commercial services is unlikely. 5. The proposed rezone is in the best interest of public health and safety vs. diminution of property value. The applicant has not demonstrated that the existing zoning has diminished the property's value. Moreover, the applicant •has not demonstrated that a C -2 zoning would not be detrimental to the public welfare. While alternative zoning may be possible, these would first need to be carefully evaluated for possible impacts t� the public health and safety. 6. The unimproved subject property is unsuitable for the purpose for which it has been zoned: Not applicable, as this site is improved. Given the above criteria, the applicant has not demonstrated sufficient justification for a change in the site's zoning designation. Vacation of the trailer park could be considered a significant change in the area, and could generate a need for additional commercial uses. Evidence of such a change could be provided in two ways: the applicant could vacate the trailer park and re -apply for a rezone request, or the vacation could be required as a condition of rezone approval. REZONE RECOMMENDATIONS A. Based upon the above conclusions, insufficient evidence exists at this time to recommend a new zoning designation for the Southgate site. B. If the applicant can provide sufficient justification for a 'rezone at the public hearing, staff recommends that the Planning Commission consider alternatives below. 1. The recommended alternative is as follows: a) P -O (Office) zoning designation along 42nd Avenue; b) C -2 (Regional Commercial) designation for the remainder of the site; c) With the condition that the boundary be based upon a site plan and architectural drawings approved by the Board of Architectural Review; and d) With the condition that all mobile homes be removed from the site within twelve (12) months of City Council approval of the rezone. 2. If the applicant can justify a commercial designation, staff recommends further evaluation prior to approval, as follows: a) C-2 (Regional Commercial) designation for the entire site; b) With the condition that the applicant submit for Board of Architectural Review approval a site plan and architectural drawings which demonstrate that potential significant impacts to residential zones can be addressed; and c) With the condition that all mobile homes be removed from the • site within twelve (12) months of City Council approval of the rezone. Southgate Comp Plan/Rezone Staff Report 10/20/93, Page 14 AME....ED - COMPREHENSIVE 'LAN AMENDMENT ;. CITY OF TUKWILA -)EPAR TMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOP. MEN•T. `. : '{ _ DE E APPLICATION AFFIDAVIT OF OWNERSHIP 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Tukwila, WA 98188 Telephone: (206) 431 -3680 .Cr ••c ose= PeferenceFiles��'���i•Z 1. BRIEFLY DESCRIBE YOUR PROPOSAL: R P 7 n n from R to C 2. .PROJECT LOCATION: (Give street address or, if vacant, indicate lot(s), block, and sub- division; or tax lot number, access street, and nearest intersection) • 14(104 Pari f.i r Hi ghwa�' Scutth Quarter: SW Section: 15 Township: 23 R ange: 4E (This information may be found on your tax statement) 3. APPLICANT:* Name: Edward L. Parks, Attorney at Law Address: 17650 -140th Ave. SE #B6 -230, Renton , 9 805 8 - 681 4 hon 8 -9975 Signature: a� (,/r-1 Date: d u 1 u 1, 1993 * The applicant is the person whom the staff will contact regarding the application, and to whom all notices and reports shall be sent, unless otherwise stipulated by applicant. 4. PROPERTY Name: Mark D. Kim and Soon S. Kim , his wife OWNER Address: 14004 Pacific Highway South, Tukwila , 98168 Phone: (.1 06 )243 -7003 I /WE,(signature(s)) / Y- 10 ---'''--) swear that I /we are th owner(s) or contract purchaser(s) of the property involved in this application and hat the foregoing statements and answers contained in this • application are true and correct to the best of my /our knowledge and belief. Date: Jul y 1 . 1993 ATTerL AP!T n COMPREHENSIVE PLAN . iENDMENT APPLICATION • Page 2 5. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN Existing: R-2 R e s i d e n t i al DESIGNATION Proposed: C -2 C o m m e r c i al 6. ZONING: Existing: R - 2 Proposed: C - 2 7. USE: Existing: Trailer Park Proposed: he determined 8. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT CRITERIA The burden of proof in demonstrating that the change is appropriate lies solely upon the proponent. Generally, the more dramatic the change, the greater will be the burden of showing that the proposed change meets the criteria by the Zoning Ordinance. The proponent must show in a clear and precise manner why t he amendment application should be granted. The Planning Commission and City Council will review your proposal using the following criteria. You may attach additional sheets and submit other documentation to • support your request. A. Unforeseen changes in circumstances have occurred in community conditions that justify a Comprehensive Plan redesignation of the subject property or existing plan policies. (Examples are Functional road classifications or new or changed City policies /plans.) RESPONSE: The Growth Management Act has been enacted. The city is required to review and modify its Comprehensive Plan to provide for anticipated growth over the next 20 years. This necessitates a recon- sideration of all plan policies. B. Factual evidence supports an additional or changed public need for the proposed designation. • RESPONSE: See BA above, see Amended Responses 1, 3, 4, 5. and 6 to the rezone application. 9. To supplement the above criteria discussion, analyze the Tukwila Comprehensive Plan policies which relate to your proposed Comprehensive Plan amendment. Identify the policies and their page numbers and how your proposal affects them. RESPONSE: See 8. The Plan and Policies are under review for amendment consistent with GMA. It is our position that rezone to C -2 is consistent with GMA and will be consistent with the plan and policies of the city of Tukwila as adopted and amended in com,pllance . therewith. The Highway .99 corridor is ideally suited for designation as an area of anticipate'u commercial growth and expansion. X'�la�X.e X6 5 Site Plan Apparently, in situating the building and parking areas, no attempt has been made to preserve existing mature trees whose existence is • valuable from both an aesthetic and an air- quality standpoint. Landscaping. to preserve these trees would be appropriate. Setbacks including 15 -foot landscaped buffers are mandated by the Zoning Code (18.52.030), yet are not indicated in the developer's site plan. Contrary to the generalities stated about designations of the land lying north, east and south of the property, only a small fraction is commercial; the balance is residential. In our review of the city's Comp Plan and zoning maps, we have also noted that this property lies at the point where Pacific Highway South comes closest to 42nd Avenue, the main north -south residential arterial serving neighborhoods from Riverton through McMicken. There is no precedent, need or justification for bringing highway -type business uses right up to 42nd in an area that is regaining and solidifying its appeal as a single - family neighborhood. In conclusion, while we support the applicant's stated goal of improving the present state of his property, and the developer's assertions that he wishes to provide needed services to the community, we unequivocally oppose the rezone and comprehensive plan changes he has applied for.' Indeed, the applicant has not met the city's requirements of proving that these specific changes are necessary. We trust that Tukwila's procedures in handling these matters will take into consideration not only the residents and property owners who live in the vicinity of the trailer court and the city's needs as a whole, but the citizens of Tukwila who reside on this property, many of whom own their own mobile homes. They, too, are a factor to be included in our city's "vision" and growth management; their future deserves respectful study. Sincerely, 3 J22, 2c„ Lou„„A__ Diane and Ted M 'ers Pam and C.C. +after Ron - d Nancy Lamb 13919 42nd Ave. S. 4115 S. 139th St. 425.1...S... 139th St. M.A R 2 3 1992 PLANNING DPPT. L 1I 1l \?! .111+ 1 • _~ - It 1 +17.% It • ■ . .. • il t - ,A I ?! - ". ''. t L'I l• - , mi. .....• •-• • . .. . - i , , '.- • . . SirE " I 1 111.1 !IV ,,,,.,. • •• ,„ 41, ' i " • . II ..... .11 e. 1,1. 1.11 ...... Mee. •••• 14 0.11.1 ..... .11 e. • •• ...- ..... ' Bennett PS&E It4c. SUIWEYCiR 0 and ENOINEEllS KO. 101 1111 ,WNW MK PPM IVIAALUt 841011 HAIM . 1001•04 . „ ". SOUTH GATE BUISNESS PARK ZONING MAP • ......1, / . / 1•1111 0/00 Af 1AW ! .4 f.A losaw../ S ... •••••••"1.40 • .0, . '. .... frSt .••■•••••••■•••• Pa — . , • ■., Do 1: • MI im ■ 0.1 W. C1 1 • wi ...I, ;lir I IP . , vili— 1 ; ....._ : • ,rjr-- ; 0 3 MIN 3 tt ..A.—. CI i . • if A( 11 I . I t 4 • ' 1 . 1 cl if 11) EY . cs rrkeciseb ... - — A • x•e.c. - -'' 'al Ef :l 417 ic-zgob � ay ; p. `.1 • F , : t c ! -'I 16 i r •In * Qi.• P 4. 0 ... 0 ° 3e. kfryd , 4, • '• .er .,--- e A t • ,... • •DAVIN SW 1/4 Et SE 1/4 SEC.15, TWP. 23 N., RG E. 4 E, W.M. 1 0 00 KO • 1 11011117 011 • y r•a IA • O ' M 190 PRO 140TH ST. S. . S40 ••..� .�._..._...._._.. •� 11�111 rj^j irl 1• s" t Tnf, 07110 D[. H•p1 I11_U1LII - - _ UP' 110' 100 ® • 1' 100 110' 1 • 1 +6'0014. 1101 41.11[00. 110111001 T1,TTT Tl ITrm1 1T fl fill f1i1 �LILUIII1IIILI 1 1 11111 1 111171 TTI I I1 iro_ 1111111111111111 I JJ _ 11LI11 .1.LLLLL1.111_U..1.111J1I..0 l b r N 010• 141ST. ST. S. 1N 1, SW V4 OF SEC. 15 ,TWF? 23 N.,RGE. 4 E, W.M. 041 1,0 I • 141 •• 1 SO T - OM. tt 001 orr ui d z N • Bennett PS8t13 t:c SURVEVOnS lend ENGINEERS 0.0. 100 1111 NI0111l 0•A. 01170111/ 10 0111 001111 111 0,1. •■••4 3 1 11001 K4 C.i.O • Fn.6_•1 :i1J'!JI Ogg 11111111M J pf)11jS 10001. 109 1111 • WOW .♦•.•. "Pt 4. 11.1.1 w •••01.4 • S1 ♦00.0. . +r • . •.... 11111 : ;� r n . • • n ln; 1.11 ! •• •r 101.0 ••••••••• 011; 1Rb4 ,1 rubes •.• 09 ..? •1 ' 111 . I.1 • 11.W.10 n 11.. Il0 • 11.00.0 11 .•1.• IIM I... IM • 11•11•••• Of .111•0•• "IT r1.01r •• .r •. t■w+ 1 0' 111 • 11• • 11. V 111 • I)• • ,,.01..10 .t In • n.. 11.114.n w 61•••• •.•..w14b•01 •. • 41.•N..1.. 0144 ••••• •.•• w .0•11011 •1 • ••• M .• . .••...+n.r • f 1 • . In : w mua 110' 1)0' I - • - 100' -10 =•}•� 100' —� 30./INU1tV CCCV.TIOM • M IS 01001111/ Mfr MIS 0001. f 0001.! Denni Shefrin MAR 2 3 1992 t Department of Community Development _ f 6200 Southcenter Blvd. f Ci �' ' ;•it;:; °: Tukwila, WA 98188 _ f u ° DEN'. Dear Ms. Shefrin: March 20, 1992 1 f • We would like to make you aware of our concerns regarding the proposed redevelopment of the Southgate Trailer Par].{ site. While we have no objection to the owner wishing to improve his property, •we believe that any development needs to occur according to the property's current Comprehensive Plan and zoning designations. We understand that the site's current designation as R -2 would allow for up to 11 residential units per acre. Townhouses would be one type of development that would be appropriate for the portion of the property zoned R -2 (approximately 3 acres). Medium- density zoning was selected by the city as the best use for this property because of its impact on the adjacent single - family neighborhood. We agree that there needs to be a buffer between the commercial activity on Pacific Highway and the residential area along 42nd Avenue South. By asking for a rezone and a change in the Comp Plan, the owner is arguing against the plan of the City . and its concerns for protecting and strengthening the single - family neighborhoods that currently exist. After looking over the owner's applications for an amendment to the Comp Plan and a rezone, and the environmental checklist, we have the following specific comments. • Comp Plan Amendment Application • We feel that the applicant does not show "in a clear and precise manner why the amendment should be granted ". For one thing, if the owner wants to build an office building, why is he asking for a Commercial designation on the Comp Plan? Wouldn't "Office" be more in keeping with his stated plans? B.A. We question his statement that surrounding properties have been upgraded since his property was zoned C -2 and R -2. To what properties is he referring?. And how have they been upgraded? There have been no rezones in the area, and the only new construction has been the replacement of the Foster High School building. wo C.TS% U Ai'r r 2 B.B. He gives no evidence of a change in public need. Instead, he gives a fuzzy, unsubstantiated opinion rather than factual evidence. 9. The Comp Plan was designed to address the best interests of the community. The Comp Plan for this property was designed to encourage redevelopment and was not reflective of the current use at that time. Here is an opportunity to provide factual information, and yet the applicant has given only a general, one - sentence response. Rezone Application Current Zoning -. 5. This application does not specifically state what portion of the property is currently zoned R -2 and what portion is currently C -2. Only the small segment of the site that borders on Pacific Highway South is C -2. 6. We question the statement that it is the city's responsibility to rectify safety problems that have developed because of lax management on the owner's part. Criteria - 1. We do not feel that the requested change in zoning is in accordance with public interest. Public interest calls for Tukwila to have some areas with well - maintained, low -cost housing, not for the destruction and displacement of low- income housing, even though it has not currently been well - maintained. This is a critical parcel that must be dealt with carefully. The current Comp Plan (and zoning designation) aims 'to prevent the encroachment of commercial activity into the residential neighborhood. The change in zoning would work against that goal. 2. It's hard to know what the applicant is saying with this statement. However, we wish to state that access from South 140th, South 141st, and 42nd Avenue South would impact the surrounding residents and the school bus routes. The plan creates the potential for traffic problems on a street that primarily provides neighborhood access. We also note that 42nd Avenue South is used by children to walls to nearby Foster High School, Showalter Middle School, Thorndyke Elementary, Foster Library, and the South Central Pool. It's also a popular route for non - driving seniors and other adults to the grocery store and bus stops. 3. Again, it is difficult to understand this response. Is the applicant saying that it would be disruptive to develop this property as . residential, but not disruptive to . him to develop it as commercial? We assert that a three -story office building is not the only option for this property and that such development does not meet the public interest. 3 4. The application states that nearby properties are being upgraded. We don't know which properties he is referring to. Nearby Foster High School was constructed as a replacement of an .already existing school. As far as we can see, any upgrading is being done within the designated zoning, which is what is taken into account by the existing Comp Plan. 5. There are definite concerns with public health and safety due to years of neglect and lax management. Is the applicant saying that the only way to solve these problems is to change the zoning to commercial? 6. We don't know what to say in response to this statement. Environmental Checklist B. Environmental Elements - 1.d. Earth - There is no evidence presented that any soil testing has been done on this property. It may be useful to know that, during the construction of nearby Foster High School, soil testing showed considerable unsuitable material. 2. Air - Since this proposed project shows parking spaces for 333 vehicles, the increased level of auto emissions will adversely impact the adjacent residences. 3. Water Runoff - It is very unclear what the applicant proposes to do about the surface water runoff, since the site will be "75 %' impervious surface (although the site plan fails to show anything other than solid surfaces). Presently, surface water drains to a nearby environmentally - sensitive creek system (Southgate tributaries). 4. and 5. Plants and Animals - No acknowledgment is made of the hawk, songbirds, squirrels, etc., whose habitats include the existing mature trees on the site and in the vicinity. The existing trees may lack significance to a developer, but not to residents and animals in the neighborhood. 7.b. Environmental Health -Noise - This project would impact the surrounding residential neighborhood with increased noise due to the substantial increase in traffic. Daytime and nighttime traffic presumably could include employees, clientele, delivery trucks, and maintenance personnel. 8. Land and Shoreline Use - a. It appears that less than one -fourth of the total site is currently zoned. C2; the remainder is zoned R2. Across the streets, properties except those fronting on Pacific Highway South are designated residential. j. Observation of activity at the trailer park contradicts the statement that there are only 100.residents. It stands to reason that 4 the average trailer occupancy is higher than the 1.44 persons the applicant's formula indicates. k. Is there evidence supporting this statement? L. This porposal is incompatible with the current Comp Plan of Tukwila. 9. Housing - What attempts will be made by the applicant to find alternative housing for the displaced families? What compensation will there be for those individuals who own the trailers on this site? 10. Aesthetics - A 3 -story building would overshadow existing residences to the north and east and would be incompatible with the heights of all structures in this section of Pacific Highway South. 11. Light 8: Glare - Depending on the materials used for the exterior of the building, there could be significant glare. Since the applicant has not specified proposed building materials as asked for in 10.a., it is difficult to evaluate his response. 12.a. Recreation - Does this insinuate that the business employees will potentially be on recreating on school campuses while classes are being held? Will they contribute to maintenance and upkeep of these facilities? 14. Transportation - The applicant indicates that mass transit borders the site, but there is no clear pedestrian route from Pacific Highway South into the office building. South 140th and South 141st Streets would.need widening to accommodate increased traffic. We note that the response for 14.f. is incomplete. 16. Utilities - No mention is made that some utilities, particularly water, would need to be upgraded. D. Nonproject Actions 1. The project will increase surface water runoff due to the large area of impervious surface. There will also be an increase in car emissions since the project would include over 3 parking spaces. 3. This statement, one generality among many, suggests a possibility that the structure could be built from recycled petroleum products. 4. Runoff from the site would likely impact a nearby, • environmentally - sensitive stream. 5. The project as designed is incompatible with surrounding land uses and would adversely affect the residential neighborhood. 6. Utilities, especially water, will need to be upgraded. Merely suggesting that employees use carpooling and mass transit is a very weak response, offering no real solution. 8. This proposal conflicts with Tulcwila's Comp Plan philosophy of protecting residential neighborhoods from encroachment by business uses. CITY OF TUKWILA t c:: • DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVE26E;MENT 0 te n 1. BRIEFLY DESCRIBE YOUR PROPOSAL: Rezone R t o C PROJECT LOCATION: (Give street address or, if vacant, indicate lot(s), block, and sub- division; or tax lot number, access street, and nearest intersection) 14lf14 Pacific Highway South AMENDEDR[ .-ONE • APPLICATION 6300 Soulhcenler Boulevard, Tukwila, WA 98188 Telephone: (206) 431 -3680 Quarter: • S W Section: 15 Township: 2 3 Range: .4E (This information may be found on your tax statement) 3. APPLICANT:* Name: Edward L. Parks, Attorney at Law Address 755n -140th Ave. SE TB6 -230 Renton 98'058 -6814 Signature: �'�` I J �tir Date: Jul y 1, 1993 * The applicant is the person whom the staff will contact regarding the application, and to whom all notices and reports shall be sent, unless otherwise stipulated by applicant. AFFIDAVIT OF OWNERSHIP 4. PROPERTY Name: Mark n Kim and Soon S. Kim, his wife OWNER • .Address: C I A IP • .. • Phone: (206)243 -7003 I /WE,[signature(s)J d' • / � — Y" swear that I /we are the owner(s) or contract purchaser(s) of the property involved in this application and that the foregoing statements and answers contained in this application are true and correct to the best of my /our knowledge and belief. Date: July 1 , 1993 ATTACHMENT J 5. What is the current zoning of the property? R _ 2 REZONE APPLICATION Page 2 6. What is the size of the property? 3.2 acres 7. What zoning classification is requested? C - 2 8. What is the comprehensive land use map designation? Low Density R e s i d e n t i a l CRITERIA The burden of proof in demonstrating that the change is appropriate lies solely upon the proponent. Generally, the more dramatic the change, the greater will be the burden of showing that the proposed chan is in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan as implemented by the Zoning Ordinance. The proponent must show in a clear and precise manner why the rezoning application should be granted. The Planning Commission and City Council will review your proposal using the following criteria. You may attach additional sheets and submit other documentation to support your rezone application. 1. The use or change in zoning requested shall be in conformity with the adopted compre- hensive land use policy plan, the provisions of this title, and the public interest. RESPONSE: The change in zoning requested is consistent with and promotes General Goal s 1, 2 4 and 6. The property in its present use and con- dition pl aces a demand on .the social services of the city which is totally disproportionate to the services and benefits provided to the .__. city. The reouested rezone is also consistent with the Goals and the 0 . / u • / . • 11" 2 Meuse or change in zoning requested in the zoning map or this title for the establishment of commercial, industrial, or residential use shall be supported by an architectural site plan showing the proposed development and its relationship to surrounding areas as set .: forth in the application form. RESPONSE: • • 3. When the request is not in agreement with the Comprehensive Land Use Policy Plan, the applicant shall provide evidence to the City Council's satisfaction that there is an additional need for the requested land classification. • (go to next page) RESPONSE. GMA requires cities' to plan and provioe for expansion within Urban Growth Areas. The act •has been implemented since• the city aged its current Comprehensive Plan. It is this Applicant's 1 I• • 1( 1 1 1. 1. • . 1 1•. I I. u• • S1 consistent with the 1PgislativP mandates 'of the Art The Highway 99 corridor is a prime candidate for designation for commercial ex- pansion required by the Act. 4. Significant changes have occurred in. the character, conditions or surrounding neighbor- hood that justify or otherwise substantiate the proposed rezone. RESPONSE: The Growth Management Act has been enacted. The increased demand for city social. services (e .q. Police) is evidence of a rietPrinrating nejghhorhnori This prnperty in its present rruditinn is a ma.ior contributing factor•to that deterioration. The reouested rezone will make it economically feasible to renew the site. 5. The proposed rezone is' in the best interest of public health and safety as compared to the hardship, such as diminution of property value, imposed on the individual property owner. RESPONSE: The proposed 'rezone will enable a redevelopment of the site, reducing, if not enti•rely eliminating, the burden presently imposed on the city's public health and safety services. Prior to annexation of this property by the city, it was purchased by this owner. At that time the property was zoned RM 1800 by King County. An applica- tion for .rezone to RM 900 was pending. The price paid by owner, i.e. the value of the property, was based on that allowed use. The change to R -2 on annexation made it economically impossible to redevelop the 6. Tiie nH ro tEt eti6r AeanEiTital 6i t t) Yie ?SS loza ii [ tl ct's KEA i c e . zoned considered in the context of the length of time the property has remained unim- proved and land development in the surrounding area. RESPONSE: See 5 above. The acquisition cost' of the property now' zoned R - 2 necessitates the development of "Luxury Duplexes" on the site. Given the nature of the surrounding commercial uses and other development in the general area, this property is unsuitable for that purpose and the existing non- conforming trailer park use will be forced to. continue indefinitely. CITY OF TUKWILA • • I 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Tukwila, WA 98188 DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY QE _ " 1.: 1 _ : ._._.. `:TAPE( on the subject site. 3. APPLICANT:* Name: 4. PROPERTY Name: OWNER :.COMP :REHENSIV[ PLAN AMENDMENT APPLICATION 1. BRIEFLY DESCRIBE YOUR PROPOSAL: To place office building complex Telephone: (206) 431 -3680 2. PROJECT LOCATION:. (Give street address or, if vacant, indicate lot(s), block, and sub- division; or tax lot number, access street, and nearest intersection) Between South 140th St. and South 141st and . Between South 4',nri Ave. and Pacific Hwy. S. Quarter: SW Section: 15 Township: 23 Range: 0 4 E ' (This information maybe found on your tax statement) Bennett P.S. & E., Inc. Address: 720 East Main /n.o. Box 1031/ Puvalltd, I.IA• 98372 Phone: 838 -3474 / Signature it � 1` Date: I ! 2 A A Z * The applicant is the person whom the staff will contact regarding the application, and to whom all notices and reports shall be sent, unless otherwise stipulated by applicant. AFFIDAVIT OF OWNERSHIP (Mark K. Kim and Soon S. Kim (Husband and Wife) Address: 14004 Pacific Hwy. S., Tukwila, WA 98168 Phone: 243 -7003 I /WE,[signature(s)] ''.? C - j ...--,.---m-- swear that I /we are the owner(s) or con` act purchaser(s) of the property involved in this application and that the foregoing statements and answers contained in this application are true and correct to the best of my /our knowledge and belief. Date:. /- 30 17, COMPREHENSIVE PLAN \MENDMENT APPLICATION Page 2 1-NE 'pia 1�li'� � .: .r,•���it•r`L 5. COMPREHENSIVEPLAN Existing: = Wig= -t-/ Residential and Commercia DESIGNATION Proposed: C o mm e r c i a l 6. ZONING: Existing: n:si t y —R e:s -. Proposed: Commerical C - 7. USE: Existing: Residential Proposed: Commer:icail S. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT CRITERIA The burden of proof in demonstrating that the change is appropriate lies solely upon the .proponent. Generally, the more dramatic the change, the greater will be the burden of showing that the proposed change meets the criteria by the Zoning Ordinance. The proponent must show in a clear and precise manner why t he amendment application should be granted. The Planning Commission and City Council will review your proposal using the following criteria. You may attach additional sheets and submit other documentation to support your request. A. Unforeseen changes in circumstances have occurred in community conditions that 'justify a Comprehensive Plan redesignation of the subject property or existing plan policies. (Examples are Functional road classifications or new or changed City policies /plans.) RESPONSE: Additional uporadino of surroundino properties has led this site to be more in line with the reouested zonino 4 B. Factual evidence supports an additional or changed public need for the proposed • designation_ RESPONSE: The properties on three (3) sides and the maior arterial have made the improvements of the site more in line as a business center: 9. To supplement the above criteria discussion, analyze the Tukwila Comprehensive Plan policies which relate to your proposed Comprehensive Plan amendment. Identify the policies and their page numbers and how your proposal affects them. RESPONSE: Theppresent comprehensive plan dealt only with the existino condition of the property and not with what would be considered the best use of the property. • �' j � •` �.: j is � :1 CITY OF TUKWILA DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT , .:.•. , :. ; �% }FOR °STA USE' OI I. BRIEFLY )DESCRIBE YOUR PROPOSAL: complex on subject site 2. PROJECT LOCATION: (Give street address or, if vacant, indicate lot(s), block, and sub- division; or tax lot number, access street, and nearest intersection) Betwen South 140th St. and South 141st Street and•Between South 42nd AVe. and Pacific Hwy. South. Quarter: SW Section: 15 Township: 23 Range: 4E . (This information may be found on your tax statement) 3. APPLICANT:* Name: Bennett P . S . & E. , Inc. Address: 729 'East Main, Puyallup, WA 98372 P on 838 -3474 Signature: I / _ • Date: 1 °1 �a 2 * The applicant is the person whom the staff will contact regarding the application, and to whom all notices and reports shall be sent, unless otherwise stipulated by applicant. RL__ PPLICAT1ON 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Tukwila, WA 98188 Telephone: (206) 431 -3680 To o1Rne nffire htiilriinn Address: 14004 Pacific. Hwy. S., Tukwila, WA 98168 AFFIDAVIT OF OWNERSHIP 4. PROPERTY Name: Mark 0 Kim and Soon S. Kim (Husband and Wife) OWNER Phone: 243 - 7003 I /WE,[signature(s)1 �--�� swear that I /we are to owner(s) or contract purchaser(s) of the property involved in this application an that the foregoing statements and answers contained in this application are true and correct to the best of my /our knowledge and belief. Date: � 3 0 - REZONE APPLICATION Page 2 5. What is the current zoning of the property?• Lou Density Residential and Commer 6. What is the size of the property? 3.97 Acres 7. What zoning classification is requested? Commercial C -� 8. What is the comprehensive land use map designation properties potential. CRITERIA Low Density Residential The burden of proof in demonstrating that the change is appropriate lies solely upon the proponent. Generally, the more dramatic the change, the greater will be the burden of showing that the proposed change is in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan as implemented by the Zoning Ordinance. The proponent must show in a clear and precise manner why the rezoning application should be granted. The Planning Commission and City Council will review your proposal using the following criteria. You may attach additional sheets and submit other documentation to support your rezone application. 1. The use or change in zoning requested shall be in conformity with the adopted compre- hensive land,use policy plan, the provisions of this title, and the public interest. RESPONSE: The surrounding properties are developed into commercial ventures frontino on Old 99 (Par:ifir: Hi;iy. S.) An uoorade in this property use to commercial zonino will allow the owner to provide services more in line with the 2. The use or change in zoning requested in the zoning map or this title for the establishment of commercial, industrial, or residential use .shall be supported by an architectural site plan showing the proposed development and its relationship to surrounding areas as set forth in the application form. RESPONSE: The attached. :desion provides a foot print review showisq access to'be from'streets South 140th and South 141st. and not the busy arterial Pacific Hwy S. (Old 99) This 'effort along cuts potential traffic hazards involving altercations to access the property. Also controllino the on -site infrastructure_ will he made considerable easier. 3. When the request is not in agreement with the Comprehensive Land Use Policy Plan, the applicant shall provide evidence to the City Council's satisfaction that there is an additional need for the requested land classification. • (go to next page) .- .... ... - 6 11 ..1 . • RESPONSE: Page 3 The present use of the land does not respbnd to the needs CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT At several points in the review process, citizens were notified of the opportunity to comment on the Southgate proposal, as follows: • SEPA environmental decision published in the newspaper, and mailed to residents within 300 feet of the project. • Public informational meeting, advertised via posting of the site and mailing. • Tukwila Tomorrow committee meeting to 'discuss designations for the Highway 99 corridor, advertised through the Hazelnut. • Staff discussions with concerned neighbors and trailer park residents on the phone and at the site.. • Planning Commission hearing (original and rescheduled) advertised via mail, the newspaper and posting of the site. Citizen comments are .noted in the staff reports to the Planning Commission, and Planning Commission hearing minutes. ATTACHMENT K • DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: CITY OF TUKWILA MITIGATEC• TERMINATION OF NONSIGNIFI') CE (MDNS) (Phased Review) COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT & REZON OF EXISTING TRAILER PARE. FROM MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL TCr'A "COMMERCIAL" COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION AND A "REGIONAL COMMERCIAL" (C -2) ZONING DESIGNATION. No SITE IMPROVEMENTS ARE APPROVED IN THIS ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION. PROPONENT. ECWARD PAR..I rESO �- •. ' .. " ,� '� �- LOCATION O F r // ., --'- -- `. u �` �;..', ' PROPOSAL , - ANCLUDING :STREE ADDRESS A IFtiANY >� , + i !fin -•r'e , v. `. .` t. �. i•. .. '` !.•.�. ADDRESS: .1%r )'40 � S � .` � .�; f' � `'' O 4 4 , P'A C I F I'�; H Y S '` �;; PARCEL NO'�f;'rl'52304•= 0 , r r• E o r.. e. e "` " i* �ti ` SEC!TWNIRNGfsp'SW� 1'•5 -23 -4; BETWEEN LS 140T °S .,. 141ST .'STREE•T'& HIGHWAY 99. LEAD AGE.NC;Y: h CITY ( 0F T111.41.IL; FILE Nt:' "L9 2 -0021 . The C ty� h . e j r o'p s i det�er•nri�.ri d tl»•t the p'r:o•pc. a 1 ,does not have a •: probab'l e''. sighiticarit adverse;' impact -:on An env ironmenta1 statement!' (EI• .� �;isrnot re.qu•i.red under RCW;•43...2).c• 030(2) (c) Tliis. decisioi :was made after" review -. of a: completed `en_vironrnental .checklist • and ot1 .f ir�forinration on -- -1 , 1 1e w,1th th? :l'ead••agency. Thi. : :�. iif: tion '�_ is avail ~ abl e. , to.- • th'e' : :ic- on`,,r eque_t 'The:_cond-itions to tEPA•'" Determ1,na ion_are �''�� \� z '�_ �+•" ' ` : :•: -•-`- -: l �., \ i =__• r • tv.)1 Li I \.J� t 1 e .. \• \ .r^... 1 i1'i =1 issued ur:der 19 11 - '2.) � 34U :Comire.nt T li i S D . must be submitted by NQv x_4�,_:„. The l ea.d∎•age•rt�y wi 1 1�'-not act r. t h i'3 2. • propo.:,a'1,.';f •1'5•�idays from the date be.lo W./%. ``'�.- -' Mj . `` �,' �,. r i 1 . 1 ‘ . ..... i ... , ; r 4 ..."P'1.1 : d. Oc t.S�b _r' :2D,_119.3._ ; r.• ' . L. n1ck Be'e;.l:er•, Res'po,nsi`b.le Otticial' Date (.1 '' City of T' wi-j:a 4:(206) 4311 -3680 - c. ' 6300 Southcen.te� Bou` c 4 -, � c. Tul :wi la, WA `981`63 -, ,.:. • "lam`'?`: r. t . '•rC;. I" j - You may appeal this d e e r..rSnati o n :- to C -le k;:'a City Hall, 6200 � 'l at' !r Sou thcenter Boulevard, Tuk'w 1;a;-- __W�9.5 _.1.88.;: io , than 10 days front the above s i gnature date by wr i tt:e.ra_ 37[5ea1 ; :s_t.a :€7:.1tig the bas i _ of the appea 1 for specific tactual objections. Yuii may be required to bear some of the expenses for an appeal. Copies of the procedures for SEPA appeals are available with the City Clerk and Department of Community Development. ATTACHMENT L FILE: DATE: PROPOSAL: #L92 -0021 October 20, 1993 APPLICANT:' Bennett PS &E, Inc. P.O. Box 1031 Puyallup, WA 98371 City of Tukwila John W. Rants, Mayor Department of Community Development Rick Beeler, Director -- ' :�•_. �Ty... NtO.. l��vri' 1. 1.. :..�0i�ae�77A'��+.�^.ICiI... -- .. .... CITY OF TURWILA ' MITIGATED DETERMINATION OF NON - SIGNIFICANCE PROJECT: SOUTHGATE TRAILER PARR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT AND REZONE Amend the current Comprehensive Plan designation of Medium- Density Residential to a Commercial .designation for a 3.97 -acre site; and rezone the site from an existing zoning designation of R -2 (Two - Family Residential) to. a C -2 (Regional Commercial) zoning. LOCATION: 14004 Pacific Highway South, Tukwila, WA (SW 1/4 Section 15, Twn. 23, Rge. 4), King Co. (Existing Southgate Trailer Park')" THRESHOLD DETERMINATION: This is a Mitigated Declaration of Non - Significance ATTACHMENTS: A. Vicinity Map (2/6/92). B. Conceptual Site Plan (1/21/92) • .C. - .- Comprehensive - . Application (7/1/93) D.• Rezone Application (7/1/93) E. Documents included in Environmental Review ' Record (see below) 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • (206) 431-3670 • Fax [206) 431-3665 DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSAL • BACKGROUND MDNS Southgate Trailer Park Rezone 10/20/93, Page 2 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW RECORD _- .. •• -- The•. environmental - .review -of -this proposal consisted of an • analysis based on the following documents included in the environmental record: • Environmental Checklist prepared by Bennett PS &E, Inc. of Puyallup (1/29/92). • Memo from City Engineer (10/19/93) to DCD regarding street right -of -way standards and potential traffic impacts. • Comments from residents in vicinity (letter 3/20/92). In addition, conditions' for mitigation are based upon adopted Tukwila Codes, Comprehensive Plans and. SEPA policies (TMC 21.04.270) on file at the City of Tukwila. The applicant proposes to amend the current Comprehensive Plan *designation of Medium- Density Residential to a Commercial designation for a 3.97 -acre site;.and•rezone the site from an existing zoning designation of R -2 (Two - Family Residential) to a C -2 . (Regional Commercial) zoning (See Attachment A). The current R -2 designation of the site allows single family and duplex residences. The proposed C -2 zoning designation is intended for regional commercial uses.. Example of such uses- include auto - related uses (e.g. parking garage, motel, drive-in, used car sales lot), entertainment uses (e.g. tavern, restaurant, theatre, bowling alley), neighborhood services (shoe repair, grocery, barber), offices, and duplexes. The site is currently-occupied by approximately 63 mobile homes in what is known as Southgate Mobile Home Park. It has been a trailer park for nearly 40 years. The site is : • . •�• <:-in . • • -- a,•• .. •predominately: - , •:single- •family residential neighborhood, with high - density multi - family developments (R -4 and RMH) to the immediate north and south. Adjacent to the west side of the property is a C -2 zone along Pacific Highway South, currently occupied by a gas station (see Attachment A). NDNS Southgate Trailer Park Rezone 10/20/93, Page 3 The applicant has submitted a site plan with a• commercial building ....of _..approximated y.,,;.129_,.0 0 0. _ s quare... f eet and 333 parking stalls (see Attachments B, C, and D). However, as the request is for a Comprehensive Plan amendment and rezone, rather than a specific project, no specific site plan or building type is approved in this environmental determination. If the property is re- developed under the current zoning, or under" a commercial zoning, specific architectural plans will be required prior to approval of any permits for the site. Additional design issues and environmental impacts will need to be addressed during review of those permits. OTHER APPROVALS REQUIRED Comprehensive Plan Amendment • Rezone KEY CHECKLIST ITEMS A. EARTH '• _ As no specific improvements are being approved in this request, there will be no disruption of the earth's surface. The site is developed with mostly impervious surfaces, and is relatively flat. Therefore, future development is not likely to have significant impacts on soils or to be constrained by topography. B. WATER There are no permanent surface water bodies on site. Future development under a different zoning designation may increase storm water runoff and demand' on existing stormwater facilities. However, any future project will be required to provide adequate stormwater facilities as part of the development permit process. C. AIR The site is currently developed as a residential use. Future development under a more intensive zone may have air quality impacts. The specific impacts depend upon many project- related factors, and are typically evaluated at the time of a specific development proposal. D. PLANTS Currently, most of the site is covered by impervious surfaces. However, there are several large trees on site, many 12n in diameter or larger. Any redevelopment of the site is likely to have an impact on this vegetation. Therefore, impacts will need to be addressed in the landscaping and site plans for future development proposals. E. HOUSING MDNS Southgate Trailer Park Rezone 10/20/93, Page 4 The site -is occupied by approximately 63 mobile homes (trailers). While a rezone in itself would not displace current residents, any. re-development of the site would require upgrading to such a degree that all of the residents would be displaced. The rental units have traditionally provided affordable housing for residents with low to moderate incomes. Staff research into availability of affordable housing revealed that 94% of Tukwila's housing stock consists of low and moderate income units. Given this availability of rental units at the low to moderate income level in Tukwila, impacts of the project on housing availability will be minimal. To minimize the effects of relocation, the Mobile Home Landlord - Tenant Act requires that the property owner give written notice to residents of pending trailer' park vacation. A one -year notice is required. F. VISUAL QUALITY Currently, the site is occupied by an older mobile home park. Any re- development is likely to change the visual quality of the site. For example, development of non- residential uses will mean a large portion of the site must be dedicated to parking. It is expected.that there will be a need for visual buffers between the site and surrounding residential areas.. • While visual changes due to a rezone can'be anticipated, .. ,.._...imp.acts. will .need . to .be. evaluated* on a project- specific basis. Re- development will require Design Review, where specific•changes to the visual quality of the site are addressed. In the re- development permit process, improvements' to the perimeter of the site, such as sidewalks, landscaping and screening will be required. G. NOISE ,site ._.is._., located. Lin ...a ...predominately single-family residential area. However, it has multi - family and commercial development on three sides.. The proposed rezone would allow more intensive development, which may result in increased noise levels near these adjacent uses. However, noise impacts can vary greatly, depending upon .the ultimate use of the site. These potential impacts are typically addressed in a project- specific environmental review. H. TRANSPORTATION MDNS Southgate Trailer Park Rezone 10/20/93, Page 5 While the traffic impacts of a future re- development are unknown, general traffic issues can be identified. As the number of users increases with development intensity, a rezone from a residential use to a more intensive zone has the potential to create traffic impacts to the area. For example, it is likely that the number of vehicle trips on adjacent streets will increase. • This will create a need for increased road capacity and safety improvements, such as sidewalks. The site is•borderedby South 140th Street, South 141st Street, and 42nd Avenue South. Based on Tukwila's Functional Arterial Classification System (TMC 9.18), there is insufficient right -of -way along 140th and 141st Streets to meet current standards for road widths. To bring South 140th and South 141st Streets up to the required 60 -foot right -of -way, an additional 30 feet, and an additional 10 feet, respectively, are required as the proportionate share for the subject property. None of the surrounding streets include sidewalks. Under the Tukwila Sidewalk Ordinance (No. 1233), sidewalks must be installed at the time of development. Additional right - of -way or easement area will be needed to construct sidewalks which meet City specifications. Requiring right -of -way dedication and provisions for future street improvements would address known impacts of the .Comprehensive Plan amendment /rezone. Beyond these basic improvements, the degree to which a Comprehensive Plan amendment /rezone will affect transportation will ..depend. ..upon . how the site is redeveloped. Based on the traffic impacts of similar sites in the area, it is probable that traffic issues generated by commercial development at the site could be adequately addressed through the environmental review /permit process. Traffic studies will likely be required for any • re- development of the site. Therefore, traffic studies at this time will not add materially to the analysis of ....Plan..: ..._amendment /rezone . request. Specific impacts and mitigation measures will need to be evaluated at the time a specific project is proposed. I. UTILITIES Developed in the 1950's, it is likely that utilities currently serving the site are substandard. As part of the environmental review and permitting process, any new development will include upgrade of utilities.to current standards to adequately serve the proposed use. ' CONCLUSIONS The environmental review summarized above indicates. no probability of significant adverse environmental impacts from .the proposed Comprehensive Plan amendment /rezone. Therefore, it is appropriate to issue a Mitigated Determination of Non - Significance. The main impact of a Comprehensive Plan /rezone which can be identified at this time is the potential for increased traffic on side streets. The proposal could best address this by including dedication of additional right -of -way or easements necessary for future street improvements. Additional environmental review will need to .be conducted at such time as a specific development project is proposed. • CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL a) South 140th Street: and South 141st Street: MDNS Southgate Trailer Park Rezone 10/20/93, Page 6 A Mitigated Determination of Non - Significance is recommended, with the following conditions to mitigate . potential impacts: 1. After City Council approval of the•Comprehensive Plan amendment and rezone request, the property owner shall dedicate a proportionate share of the additional right -of -way required to bring . .up . _.to .standard; as follows: dedicate 30 feet; dedicate 10 feet. MDNS Southgate Trailer Park Rezone 10/20/93, Page 7 ..-.. 2• z. kfter •Cityr:Council.,::approva•1 -.of• the .Comprehensive Plan. amendment and rezone request, the property owner shall provide a 1.5 -foot wide easement around the perimeter of site for future sidewalk improvements. 3. The property owner shall dedicate the above - described right -of -way . and easement areas within twelve (12) months of City Council approval of the Comprehensive Plan amendment /rezone. SURVEYORS and ENOINEE110 SW 1/4 B SE 1/4 SEC. 15, TWP. 23 N., RGE. 4 E, W.M. ]3anneUE PS&E INC. SURVEYORS and ENOINEE110 t.0. )O1 1111 MMIV MA. 11111 moats «t«n Mtn. mMl 1 o q IW • vldMRV WP KTt SOUTH GATE BUISNESS PARK ZONING MAP i PROPOSED .•L s; :711 • RE 145 i b G2 a W` • 1 I n 'n Th ' - I O 0 o. . , 54:3uU ».. :,..1.1.5T 11 1. ti ,. .-•T.• c� �_I n,,,.1:. l �n L.: T p.. SW 1/4 8 SE 1/4 SEC. 15, TWP. 23 N., RGE. 4 E., W.M. • I I ..I..1 .n•.1„ a`. - Z� — IJ- u nnn 0 00 100 200 VICINITY MAP NTS Lq2 -Cozy Al, 160 ON .IIIMIII 9Ad . .. �- ; >,ra moss: (AO ur..vlr.CA6 0.' • Bennett PS&E INC. SURVEYORS and ENGINEERS I.O. 101 1171 VIYALLUP VIA .1111 PIYALLV Man SIMILE 111117 SOUTH GATE BUISNESS PARK .1 it CI{I JI r...I..IA no,r,e: n• •r M11I .O. 1 Of RED CEDAR 30 “.11 1 1* 40 RED CEDM/ WO . • - • — •9, • • 392 FIRS 9111.04.. PAO ,..01/ Z17 92 comm.: XAX NAM, OLS 140 TH ST. S. [1111111 H44441111 ljZITT 1 9' WESTERN. nil CEDAR P. FM •-•- 040' SW V4 OF SEC. I5,TWP 23 N.,RGE. 4 E, W.M. 1 i1111 E SPRUCE OPP PP 141 ST. ST. S. ....... 1 PP \\ I Bennett PS&E INC SURVEYORS and ENGINEERS 20. 205 ISII NYMAN WA. PUYALLUP MIMI MAMA MANN ..... ••• • 270 •••270 ca•MDE max .•:40• 107(4. LOT 1101 • 173.01t •410••■ lilt IAD All. •ONT11 MSTI•tirt• B OUT. P•rrtt akar • ”/ ••••••••••••7 SNOW pg.. ....• .00. 0100110•21•3 BAST 2......74 ...... NUT ••••••••Olt 0. LaMi..22ack=211 1111.21. 00, I 11 014 . 4100: IS11104-007S 20E11 011 131J113f1Ell ?At cAnt 117.111011 . •••1111 111111121 Sill ■••IM rum.. . . • ••• sm. miry. Pan• 1007117441 401, ••••••011. 11.•. lean 0•11 ila..11101011 11.403•41. O 1111011* •1• 17111.7 P114 17. • 100 • 17.94.110 Sr S KIM. PLO. 1/9 • IN • 11.770.00 Sr • r1.01 179 • 1110 • 29.17..o• Br 701•1..011.911 1011 .011.1110 ••• • 114.410.490 II WHAMS ••• Mat •14.011 179 • 100 • 17.907.00 SilrOSO •100. 179 • II. • 33.370.10 Sr 7011111 /lam 179 • Ill • 13.771.00 Sr RM./ OMB. ISM• al11411110 ••• • 44.1140.00 If IlrfaL MOM. /UV OP WILSON •A• •04 •O• •17...411.1111 Sr 1100111 145.I.0.00/i001 0011410 nfl. • Ill ill I 3.3 01*3.1.1 III 77443.0 1141111121071111 111134.11 11•1111“.■ 1 IIT•12./111• 11.1.111 • 4 21.7.1.2 220' 130 100' 10 I 100 29 3 STORY SCUMMY ELEVATION VICINITY MAP NTS L- •• FL: !, kr.= I I *. I 9Hirx 1