HomeMy WebLinkAboutPermit L92-0022 - BENNETT ROBERT - SOUTHGATE BUSINESS PARK REZONE / COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENTL92-0022
SOUTHCENTER BUSINESS PARK COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT
COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLAN
cc: File
City of Tukwila
Department of Community Development Rick Beeler, Director
M E M O R A N D U M
TO: Linda Cohen, City Attorne
FROM: Ann Siegenthaler, DCD
DATE: October 6, 1994
RE: Southgate Trailer Park Rezone - Comprehensive Plan Amendment Comprehensive Land Use Plan
John W. Rants, Mayor
Attached, as you requested, is the file containing DCD's records on
the Southgate Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Rezone. A copy of
the SEPA Determination is also included.
The exhibit boards used in the public hearings for this project
were previously provided to the City Clerk.
Please let me know if you need anything else, or have any questions
on these materials (x1685).
6300 Southcenter Boulevard Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • (206) 431-3670 • Fax (206) 431
RE
Ski
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
v.
CEIVE
1 2 1994
MA) sic6v,)Q1-4Goz,.-
1 1,-g s b•ritzik '.. C G"vL 11
11 c-e- l 1S, s r s ( s' 4.4t,„ -MA) t:•;t [,45 , 7x-4
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
MMUNITY FOR KING COUNTY
ELOPMENT
MARK C. KIM and SOON S. KIM,
husband and wife,
THE CITY OF TUKWILA, a
Municipal Corporation,
Plaintiffs,
Defendant.
No. 94 -2- 09328 -2
WRIT OF REVIEW
TO: The City of Tukwila, a municipal corporation;
r
•
Dated September , 1994.
YOU ARE HEREBY COMMANDED to certify fully to this court by filing with
the clerk of court o n ors : before«:October;;:_ -17 19:94, a transcript of the
record and proceedings entitled "Southgate Trailer Park Comprehensive
Plan Amendment and Rezone ", file No. L92 -0023, that the same may be
reviewed by the court, and you are further ordered to desist from
furrher proceedings in the matter to be reviewed.
Judge /Commissioner
Presented by: Agreed, Notice Waived:
; Al 7 (` (,r ', r
Edward 1. Parks, WSBA 18356 Michael Kenyon, WSBA
Attorney for Plaintiff Attorney for Defendant
WRIT OF REVIEW
RCW 7.16.030 et. seq.
93 -118
Page 1
EDWARD L. PARKS, WSBA 18356
17650 140th Ave. SE #B6 -230
Renton, WA 98058-6814
Telephone (206)228 -9975
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
9
10
11
12
13
' 14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
MARK C. KIM and SO
husband and wife,
V .
IN THE S
P
THE CITY OF TUKWIL1
Municipal Corporate
D
Now come Plain
to. the provisions
order directing d
granting a writ of
Ow tZ4 L
MOTION FOR ORDER TO SNOW CAUSE
RCW 7.16.030 et. seq.
93 -118
Page 1
MARK C.
husband
IN TEE SUPERIOR COURT OF TEE STATE
COIINTY OF ZING
KIM
and
and SOON S. KIM,
wife,
Plaintiff,
vs.
THE CITY OF TUKWILA, a
Municipal Corporation,
Defendants.
TO: TEE CLERK OP TEE COURT; and alt other parties)
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that an fugue of taw in this cat
the Clerk is directed to note this issue on the appropriate calendar.
Calendar Date: June 3, 19 Dby of Weeic Friday
NatureofMation: Show Cause re : Writ of Rev
IX X Civil Motion (LR 0.7) (9:30)
( j Summary Judgment (LA 66) (9:30)
( j Supplemental Proceeding (LR 69) (1:30)
[ j Presiding Judge (Trial Date Motions Only)
(11 :15 or 1:30 Daily)
Time of Hearing:
EXPARTE M9flON II.R 0,9(b1 (W523)
The'following motions are heard 9:00 -12:00 and
1:30-4:15:
DESIGNATED CALENDAR
( j Adoption Time of Hearing:
[ J Dissolution Time of Hearing:
[ j Ex Parte Motion Time of Hearing:
[ j Probate Time of Hearing:
REAM ENTAL HEAPlNGB ILA 40(bl
fog Special Setting Before Judge /Commissioner:
Time of Hearin Room
Typed Name; Edward L. marks, WSbA I8`3 - 55
17650 140th Ave. SE, #B6 -230
Renton, WA 98058-6814 .
NOTE MOT' N C
• •
FAMILY LAW
(W2s1)
] Dom•ati
( ] Sealed
( ] Support
I I Modifies-
[ ] Raceivat:
[ ] Sealed F
J
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
v .
SHOW CAUSE ORDER
RCW 7.16.030 et. seq.
93 -118
Page 1
IN THE SUPERIOR
MARK C. KIM and SOON S. KIM,
husband and wife,
THE CITY OF TUKWILA, a
Municipal Corporation,
DATED May 24, 1994.
Plaintiffs,
Defendant.
Edward L. Parks, WSBA 18356
Attorney for Plaintiff
MAY 2 41994
CITY OF TUKvv.....
CITY CLERK
COURT OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
FOR KING COUNTY
No. 94 -2- 09328 -2
SHOW CAUSE ORDER
This matter having come before the court on Plaintiff's Motion
for Order to Show Cause pursuant to RCW 7.16.050, the court having
heard argument of counsel and being otherwise advised in the premises,
IT IS ORDERED:
That Defendant appear before this court at the time and place
below and show cause why a Writ of Review should not be allowed in
this cause.
DATE: June 3, 1994
TIME: 9:30 A.M.
PLACE: Civil Motion Judge, King County Superior Court, 516 Third
Avenue, Seattle, WA 98104 -2381
STEPHEN hi. t ,DD*
Judge /Commissioner
RECEIN
MAYI 41994
W p* a lii#PATMEfff
EDWARD L. PARKS, WSBA 18356
17650 140th Ave. SE 1186 -230
Renton, WA 98058 -6814
Telephone (206)228 -9975
1
2
3
4
5
6.
7
8
9
10
11
1.2
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
tow
d
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STAtt - OF "WASI I•tNGTEYN
v
FOR KING COUNTY car
MAY 2 419' . c s,, �� c c
MARK C. KIM and SOON S. KIM i ) +.fl � OF 7'E1Kbvi C �' �� d Sv r ..r. -"''
CITY husband and wife, ) n c CL_R:( , ''
9
Plaintiffs, ) 94-2 09328
2
No.
THE CITY OF TUKWILA, a ) PETITION FOR WRIT OF REVIEW
Municipal Corporation, )
Defendant.
The above named Plaintiffs, by their attorney, herein apply, pursuant
to the provisions of RCW 7.16.030 et. seq., for a Writ of Review
(Certiorari) to review the proceedings, findings and action by The
City of Tukwila on April 4, 1994, in its proceedings entitled
"Southgate Trailer Park Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Rezone", File
No. L92 -0023 of Plaintiffs seeking change in zoning classification
from R -2 to C -2, and respectfully alleges and shows that:
I. Action Taken by City
On April 4, 1994, Defendant's city council reversed the findings and
recommendations of the Planning Commission and denied Plaintiff's
application. in its entirety.
II. Statement of Facts
1. The property which is the subject of the proceedings is located
between South 140th and South 141st Streets and between South 42nd
Avenue and Pacific Highway South, City of Tukwila, King County,
Washington. The rights -of -way for 140th and 141st streets are 30 and
40 feet respectively. Defendant made ownership claim to a portion of
PETITION FOR WRIT OF REVIEW
RCW 7.16.030 et. seq.
93 -118
Page 1
EDWARD L. PARKS, WSBA 18356
17650 140th Ave. SE #B6 -230
Renton, WA 98058 -6814
Telephone (206)228 -9975
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
• 13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
• 23
24
25
26
27
28
Plaintiffs' property in order to establish a 60 foot right -of -way for
proposed street improvements. Plaintiff protested and Defendant will
be required to institute condemnation proceedings. The requisite
right -of -way will require the condemnation of approximately 10% of
Plaintiffs' property.
2. On or about March, 1990, as part and parcel of a much larger area,
the property was annexed by the Defendant. At that time the zoning
classification was changed from RM -1800 to R -2. The property was then
and continues to be used as a "low income" rental site consisting of
approximately 58 mobile homes. The parcel designated R -2 abuts another
parcel owned by Plaintiffs which fronts on Pacific Highway and is
Zoned.0 -2. This is the only parcel designated R -2 by Defendant in the
annexation of March 1990, which abuts a C -2 classification and is used
as a "buffer" between commercial and single family residential.
3. Plaintiff acquired the property in July, 1989, without notice of
the pending annexation proceedings. Thereafter, on or about February
10, 1992, Plaintiffs filed their Rezone Application and Comprehensive
Plan Amendment Applications. Then on September 14, 1992, Defendant
purported to terminate and /or dismiss the applications without
hearing Plaintiffs retained counsel and the application was
eventually reinstated and the requisite public hearing was finally
held on December 8, 1993.
4. At the public hearing, over objection, various letters and reports
were admitted for consideration by the Planning Commission. The
PETITION FOR WRIT OF REVIEW
RCW 7.16.030 et. seq.
93 -118
Page 2
EDWARD L. PARKS, WSBA 18356
17650 140th Ave. SE 1B6 -230
Renton, WA 98058 -6814
Telephone (206)228 -9975
1
2
3
.5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
authors were not produced for cross examination. Included in the
material objected to were the minutes of a meeting of the Tukwila
Tomorrow committee of November 4, 1993, held without notice to
Plaintiff and specifically addressing the property of Plaintiff and
the issues before the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission
found that the criteria for Rezone and Comprehensive Plan Amendment
were satisfied, eventually adopted the recommendation of the Tukwila
Tomorrow Committee with minor modifications, and made its
recommendations to the city council. Verbatim report of the
proceedings were not provided.
5. The hearing the city.council was held on March 28, 1994.
Over objection, on recommendation of staff, the council determined
that the proceedings were a "hearing de novo ", required Plaintiff to
again carry the burden of proof of the issues already determined by
the Planning Commission, found the findings of the Planning Commission
as contained in the minutes not sufficient to establish the requisite
criteria for amendment of the comprehensive plan and rezone and denied
Plaintiff's application.
III. Issues
The following issues are raised by Plaintiff for review:
1. The R -2 designation of Plaintiff's property as a "buffer" between
commercial and single family residential constitutes an unreasonable
and arbitrary zoning action, a "spot zoning ", which is inconsistent
PETITION FOR WRIT OF REVIEW
RCW 7.16.030 et. seq. EDWARD L. PARKS,,WSBA 18356
93 -118 17650 140th Ave. SE N86 -230
Page 3 Renton, WA 98058 -6814
Telephone (206)228 -9975
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
with Defendant's overall plan.
2. Defendant's action is an attempt to regulate the use of Plaintiff's
property for the purpose of obtaining a public benefit, the
continuation of the use as "low income" housing rather than preventing
a public harm and as such constitutes a taking.
3. Defendant's actions are only a subterfuge to decrease the value of
plaintiff's property so that costs will be lower for a future
condemnation for road right -of -way and as such constitute a taking.
4. Plaintiff was denied due process of law by defendant's failure to
follow its own ordinances governing the proceedings.
5. Plaintiff was denied the right to confront and cross examine
witnesses offering testimony and was denied notice and opportunity re:
the Tukwila Tomorrow Committee meeting.
6. The Tukwila Municipal Code requires the public hearing to be held
by the Planning Commission. That hearing is a quasi - judicial action.
Failure to keep and provide a'verbatim report of those proceedings
together with adequate written findings and conclusions deprived
Plaintiff of due process of law.
7. Defendant's actions in this proceeding were arbitrary and
capricious and in total disregard to the rights of Plaintiffs to
fundamental due process of law, including the right to a speedy and
PETITION FOR WRIT OF REVIEW
RCW 7.16.030 et. seq.
93 -118
Page 4
EDWARD L. PARKS, WSBA 18356
17650 140th Ave. SE #B6 -230
Renton, WA 98058 -6814
Telephone (206)228 -9975
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
IV. Relief Sought
just resolution of their petition. The action of the city in
dismissing plaintiffs' applications because of other demands placed
upon the planning staff is indicative of Defendant's disregard and
disdain for the constitutional rights of the Plaintiffs' and evidence
of the total inability of the city to provide a forum with even the
appearance of fairness.
The denial of Plaintiffs' petitions by the Defendant was erroneous,
capricious, arbitrary and contrary to law.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays that a Writ of Review issue directing the
Defendant, The City of Tukwila,. to certify its record in these
proceedings to this court, so that the reasonableness and lawfulness
of its actions may be inquired into and determined.
Edward L. Parks, WSBA 18356
Attorney for Plaintiff
PETITION FOR WRIT OF REVIEW
RCW 7.16.030 et. seq. EDWARD L. PARKS, WSBA 18356
93 -118 17650 140th Ave. SE #86 -230
Page 5 Renton, WA 98058 -6814
Telephone (206)228 -9975
1
2
3
4
5
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
STATE OF WASHINGTON
COUNTY OF KING
PETITION FOR WRIT OF REVIEW
RCW 7.16.030 et. seq.
93 -118
Page 6
SS
)
AFFIDAVIT
I, Mark S. Kim, under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State
of Washington do hereby declare that this petition for writ of review
is not filed in the case for the purpose of delay only, and I verily
believe that there is good cause for review (certiorari) ; and that the
facts stated in the foregoing petition are true and correct to the
best of my knowledge except as to those matters set forth on
information and belief, which I believe to be true.
Signed at Renton, Washington this 13th day of April, 1994.
EDWARD L. PARKS, WSBA 18356
17650 140th Ave. SE #86 -230
Renton, WA 98058 -6814
Telephone (206)228 -9975
February 15, 1994
City of Tukwila
Department of Community Development
Mr. Ed Parks, Esq.
17650 140th Avenue S.E. #B6 -230
Renton, WA 98058 -6841
RE: Southgate Business Park ( #L92 -0021, #L92 -0022)
Dear Mr. Parks:
The Southgate proposal was originally scheduled to be reviewed by
the City Council on February 28, 1994. As you know from my phone
message of February 10, this date has been changed.. The change is
due to Council scheduling conflicts.
Since we have not been able to arrange an alternative date by
phone, I am confirming the new hearing date by mail. The Southgate
proposal is now scheduled for a hearing on March 7, 1994. The time
and place of the hearing (7:00 p.m. in the Tukwila City Hall
Council Chambers) are the same.
I talked with Mr. Kim by phone about the schedule change. If you or
Mr. Kim have a conflict with the March 7 date, the Council appears
to have room on their March 21 agenda to hear the proposal.
Due to legal notice requirements, we need to confirm your hearing
date as soon as possible. Please call me (431 -3670) by Friday,
February 18, 1994 to confirm the hearing date. If we do not hear
from you by then, we will schedule your hearing for March 21, 1994.
Sincer
Ann Siege
Associate
cc: File
haler
Planner
6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #10t
John W. Rants, Mayor
Rick Beeler, Director
PHONE CALL)
FOR
M
DATE -1 8 IMg
OF
PHONED
EdITENSIO
EASE CALL
LLL'CALL
:AGAIN
,CAME'.TO..
SEE..YOUr': •
RETURNED:
• YOUR CALL
PHONE 76
AR S EE UMBEIR j. '
M ESSAGE o
,WANTS :TO
`SIGNED
TOPS o FORM 40034
January 28, 1994
Mr. Ed Parks,.Esq.
17650 140th Avenue S.E. #B6 -230
Renton, WA .98058 -6841
RE: Southgate Business Park ( #L92 -0021, #L92 -0022)
Dear Mr. Parks:
On December 8, 1994 the Tukwila Planning Commission reviewed your
application for a Comprehensive Plan amendment and rezone for the
above project.
The Planning Commission . recommended that the Southgate property
have two separate designations, with a Commercial /C -2 designation
for the first 270 feet adjoining Pacific Highway South, and a
Medium Density Residential /R -2 designation for the remainder.
Attached are the minutes of the Planning Commission hearing.
Please note that these minutes are not verbatim or intended to
supplant recorded minutes. The Planning Commission approved these
minutes on January 27, 1994.
The City Council will review Planning Commission recommendations on
your project. This Council review is scheduled for
February 28, 1994. All Council meetings begin at 7:00 p.m. and are
held in the Tukwila City Hall Council Chambers, 6200 Southcenter
Boulevard.
Please let me know if you have any questions on these items
(431- 3670).
Sincerely
•
Ann Siegen aler
Associate lanner
City of Tukwila
Department of Community Development Rick Beeler, Director
cc: File
Encl: Planning Commission minutes 12/8/93
John W. Rants, Mayor
6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • (206) 431-3670 • Fax (206) 431-3665
City of Tukwila
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
Department of Community Development
PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES
DECEMBER 8,1993
Mr. Meryhew said that Mr. Parks' objection is noted for the record.
John W. Rants, Mayor
Rick Beeler, Director
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."
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. Parks stated that a copy would do them no 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 • (206) 431 • Fax (206) 431
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 sub - standard
streets. The applicant thinks it is more reasonable to use physical buffers for separation, rather than cascading
Planning Commission Minutes
December 8, 1993
Page 3
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 against 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. Kim, 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 Tukwila'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
December 8, 1993
Page 6
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
December 8, 1993
Mr. Meryhew called the meeting back to order at 8 :40 pm.
Page 7
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. 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.
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 it should 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
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 placed
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
THE SITE SHOULD HAVE A MEDIUM - RESIDENTIAL DESIGNATION. MR. MERYHEW
SECONDED THE MOTION.
Mr. Clark asked why there was not more commercial and less residential.
Mr. Meryhew asked clarification from staff on the exact size of the site.
Page 10
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.
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 FLESHER 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.
Planning Commission Minutes Page 11
December 8, 1993
Mr. Meryhew said that there was no question in his mind that a rezone would definitely improve the site.
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.
. �S�F. t�.' avt�$ ii? 1.: Y:::: 3i� ✓� +':�.f�W°.'J:1:rNl.r:;S.k. ' mtiLS. ��i! n• Qiii« t�: ��'.l L' r' a4' �n' S� P;< Pr< t1= a' ik '1Sl�t:m`,'� 43io`:k -a4l X8MsV{ iii{' ti• J', Z4".:+ ri: LN? 9! 7s' x}¢^ E3Cv,17, t°S' isl +fik:,.mitwnr.•aucter1.A■eva
Planning Commission Minutes
December 8, 1993
DIRECTOR'S REPORT:
Mr. Meryhew adjourned the meeting.
Prepared By,
Sylvia Schnug
Page 12
:yttiAJSi
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.
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.
City of Tukwila
Department of Community Development
December 3, 1993
Mr. Ed Parks, Esq.
17650 140th Avenue S.E. #B6 -230
Renton, WA 98058 -6841
RE: Southgate Business Park ( #L92 -0021, #L92 -0022)
Dear Mr. Parks:
Thank you for attending our public information meeting Wednesday
night, and providing information on the Southgate project. As you
know, City staff is preparing for a public hearing on the Southgate
project. I would like to provide you a brief status report on
issues related to the project.
1. Planning Commission minutes:
For your information and records, I have enclosed the
"draft" minutes of the Planning Commission meeting in
which your continuance request was granted. The Planning
Commission has yet to approve the minutes.
2. Supplement to the Staff Report:
A Supplement to the Staff Report has been prepared for
the December 8th Planning Commission hearing. Enclosed
is the Supplement for your review.
3. Mailing labels:
In my letter of November 5, 1993, I related staff's
concern that the original mailing list provided by the
owner may not satisfy our requirements for public notice.
Nevertheless, in our discussion of November 18 you stated
that you would not provide an updated mailing list.
Given your decision, City staff has mailed a second
notice using the original list. To supplement this, we
mailed notice to several property owners not on the
original list. We believe this will satisfy public
notice requirements and keep your project on schedule for
the upcoming hearing. However, please be advised that
the City assumes no responsibility for the accuracy of
the mailing list, in the event of a future challenge to
the public notice procedures for this project.
John W. Rants, Mayor
Rick Beeler, Director
6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • (206) 431 - 3670 • Fax (206) 431
2. Tukwila Tomorrow citizen committee discussion:
Please let me know if you have any questions on these items
(431- 3670).
Sincerely,
Ann Siegent aler
Associate Planner
The Tukwila Tomorrow committee has had a series of
meetings to discuss Comprehensive Plan designations for
the Pacific Highway South corridor. Your project site
was discussed on November 4, 1993. At this meeting, the
committee voted to retain a Comprehensive Plan
designation of Medium Density Residential along 42nd
Avenue, with a Commercial designation for a 200 -foot
depth along Pacific Highway South. For your information,
I have enclosed the meeting minutes.
cc: File
Encl: Planning Commission minutes 10/28/93
Supplement to Staff Report 12/2/93
Tukwila Tomorrow minutes 11/4/93
Mr.. Ed Parks
Southgate, 12/3/93
Page 2
RE:
MEETING
DATE:
Main issues /citizen concerns:
AGENDA
SOUTHGATE TRAILER PARK COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
AMENDMENT AND REZONE
November 30, 1993 k
WITH: Ann Siegenthalfr;'J Pace, DCD
Rhonda Berry, John McFarland, Mayor's Office
Evelyn Boykan, Human Services
Hearing status:
• 10/28/93 Planning Commission hearing continued (at applicant
request) to 12/8/93.
• Public information ( "open house ") scheduled for 12/1/93, at
7:00 p.m.
• Public notice of 12/1 meeting and 12/8 hearing given via:
- Posting site;
- Mailing notice to surrounding residents;
- Publication in newspaper.
Purpose of informational meeting:
• Answer citizen questions prior to public hearing;
• Take public comments, listen to concerns;
• Relatively informal meeting - -more like an "open house."
Project- related issues:
• Impacts of the proposed Commercial designation on
surrounding residential areas (e.g. traffic /parking, access,
bldg. height /aesthetics);
• Quasi - judicial review vs. legislative review: Tukwila
Tomorrow committee recommendations scheduled for Planning
Commission review in early 1994. Committee has voted to
retain Medium Density Residential @ 42nd Avenue, with 200'
wide Commercial designation along Pacific Highway South.
• Process questions: Lack of opportunities for public
comment; Comp plan amend prior to rezone; burden to justify;
PC to Council; quasi- judicial = limitations on
PC /Council /Mayor ability to discuss; opportunities for
citizen comment; appeals /deadlines.
• Decision Criteria: Staff Report to Planning Commission
states that current application does not justify a change.
If applicant can provide justification at hearing, Planning
Commission may consider alternatives, such as:
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; or
C. Commercial designation for the entire site
(applicant's proposal).
Other issues:
• Housing: Potential displacement of current trailer park
residents; no relocation assistance available.
• Code enforcement /criminal activity: City's policy
on /commitment to code compliance on site; current status of
our code enforcement efforts, future options /actions planned
for improving code compliance;
Attendance /responsibilities:
• Jack & Ann: answer project - related questions on
environmental or land -use issues, rezone process,
opportunities for citizen comment. Make arrangements for
room, refreshments, handouts, name tags.
Rhonda: code enforcement issues (current status, future
options).
• Evelyn: housing; as observer only?
• Applicant, residents of trailer park and neighborhood.
• Handouts: housing resource list from Evelyn; maybe handouts
from Rhonda with names /numbers to call ?; protocol for public
hearing speaking; blank comment sheets Resource List with
names /numbers /addresses of apartments, state agencies,
etc.).
cc: File
Agenda Southgate
11/30/93
November 5, 1993
City of Tukwila
Department of Community Development Rick Beeler, Director
Mr. Edward L. Parks
17650 140th Avenue S.E., #B6 -230
Renton, WA 98058 -6854
RE: Continuance of Planning Commission public hearing
Southgate - Comprehensive Plan /Rezone #L92 -0030
Dear Mr. Parks:
John W. Rants, Mayor
In response to your request of October 25, 1993, the Planning
Commission granted a continuance of the above project on October
28, 1993. The public hearing will be held on Wednesday,
December 8, 1993, at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers.
Staff is preparing for the new hearing in several ways. First, we
will notify residents in the area of the status of the project. As
required for the original hearing, the public will also be notified
of the the new hearing date. To do this, the City will need an
updated mailing list from you. The mailing list provided with the
orginal application is more than a year old, it did not appear to
include all addresses within the required 300' radius of your site,
and 23 notices were returned as "undeliverable." This insufficient
public notice could be considered a procedural error, and should be
corrected prior to the next hearing.
Enclosed are materials to assist you in obtaining accurate mailing
labels. Mailing labels must be obtained from the King County
Assessor's Office, on forms provided by them. You will need to
obtain two sets of labels: 1) property owners' addresses, by using
parcel numbers of surrounding properties; and 2) addresses of
residents. Staff has prepared a diagram of the required 300'
mailing radius for your use. For more information, you may refer
to the enclosed handout for obtaining mailing labels from the
Assessor, or call the Assesor's Office at 296 -7300. Please submit
the two accurate sets of labels by November 17, 1993. If labels
are not received by then, staff will recommend a continuance of
your hearing to a later date.
In addition to public notice, staff will hold a public
informational meeting prior to the hearing. The purpose of the
meeting is two -fold: to provide an opportunity for residents to
comment on the proposal, and to clarify for residents the process
6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • (206) 431 -3670 • Fax (206) 431 -3665
Mr. E. Parks
Southgate proposal, 11/5/93
Page 2
and criteria by which the proposal will be evaluated. The meeting
is scheduled for Wednesday, December 1, 1993, at 7:00 p.m. in the
Council Chambers. Residents will be notified of this in the
mailing discussed above.
In light of the continued public hearing and the Staff Report
recommendations, you may wish to submit additional information
prior to the new hearing. If so, please submit any new materials
by Friday, November 19, 1993. This will allow staff time to
respond and forward information to the Planning Commission.
Failure to meet this deadline could result in a continuance of your
hearing to a later date.
Please let me know if you have any questions on this. I can be
reached at 431 -3670.
Sincerely,
Siegenthaler
Associate Planner
cc: Rick Beeler
Encl.: Mailing label handout
300' radius map
October 25, 1993
RICK BEELER
City of Tukwila
Department of Community Development
6300 Southcenter Boulevard
Suite #100
Tukwila, WA 98188
EDWARD L. PARKS
Attorney at Law
17650 140th Ave SE 86 -230
Renton, WA 98058 -6814
(206)228 -9975
Re: L92 -0022, L92 -0023
Southgate Trailer Park Comp Plan
Amendment /Rezone
Dear Mr. Beeler,
Confirming our telephone conversation of this date, this is a
request on behalf of my client, Mark Kim, to continue the
hearing on the above referenced matter for a period of thirty
days. Hearing is now set for October 28, 1993 at 8:00 P.M..
This request is prompted as a result of information contained
in the Staff Report to the Planning Commission which I
received today at 11:30 A.M.. There is insufficient time
before the scheduled hearing to fairly and adequately address
the issues raised therein.
Please advise of the new date and time at your earliest
convenience.
Thank you
• a2/
Edward L. Parks
D(ee
., .. • Ss; a:::: 7:;: rc; i�:':.:; 54' tc�d;�:z5:.x:.r.�c;.�e:.E,a�a�: ztu:o,�.,a.a.,
_ Ke.�a'•M ".WII1r�f.:R1 Y.y >4v��:n:�:t +n.et
.�, ,.v,.,,.,..w,r.»....�,n ..,,..,u:�:r..,nv.:...,,.5 r,... M, ua:., .nw•r.+a:a. ^.�r�;�rnn+•�xa..:�m �� , . ��c- �... x,.mc;::ny,u,.,�•.M. >...,......
To: Ann Siegenthaler
From: Ron Cameron
Date:. October 19, 1993
Subject: Southgate Rezone
There are two primary public works issues of a rezone:
(1) right -of -way on S 140 St and on S 141 St, (2)
traffic.
A survey of the right -of -way is being conducted in re-
sponse to identifying property lines. That survey will
be used to resolve where the right -of -way is located.
The right -of -way is substandard on both S 140 St and on
S 141 St. Additional r/w will be required to match the
r/w on each street: 30 feet on S 140 St and 10 feet on
S 141 St. This is to provide for 60 feet of r/w on
these access streets, the same as S 139 St and meeting
City standards.
Traffic of the proposed rezone is not foreseen to create
any significant impact that can be conficently identi-
fied with a rezone traffic study. It will be better to
do a traffic study of the future site plan that identi-
fies specific traffic instead of a range that would be
determined by zoning. The rezone is similar to adjacent
areas which do not require extraordinary traffic con -
trols.A traffic study will be needed for the future site
plan to determine safety and capacity needs, no major
requirements or denials for traffic generation are
forseen as the zoning change is essentially the same as
adjacent areas.
OCT 1 8 1993
DEV :: oRviENT
ugust 5, 1993
Mr. Edward Parks
Attorney at Law
17650 140th Ave. SE B6 -230
Renton, WA 98058 -6814
• Re: Southgate Business Park - L92 -0022 & L92 -0023
Dear Mr. Parks:
City of Tukwila John W. Rants, Mayor
Department of Community Development Rick Beeler, Director
I want to first apologize for the delay in acknowledging receipt of your revised applications for requests
for a comprehensive plan amendment and zone change for the above project.
I have reviewed all previous correspondence and applications for this project and have the following
comments:
As indicated on several different occasions, a traffic study is required prior to completing the
environmental review for this project. To date, a study has not been submitted.
In our phone conversation of July 30, I briefly listed some of the additional items required for submittal
as mentioned above. In response to my comments, you queried how a traffic study could be prepared
without full knowledge of a site - specific plan. Chapter 18.84, Section 18.84.030 (2) states the following:
"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;"
Therefore, a conceptual architectural site plan is required prior to action taken on your request. The
reason an architectural site plan is required is to clearly demonstrate the site could accommodate
development.
In your response to Criteria #2 related to an architectural site plan, you state "heretofore submitted' on
your revised application submitted July 8, 1993. This implies you intend to continue use that site plan
submitted with the original application dated February 10, 1992. If this interpretation is erroneous, a
revised architectural site plan will be required. In turn, a traffic study must be prepared which responds
to the proposed site plan and requested zone change.
As you are aware, the burden of proof lies with the applicant to clearly demonstrate why a rezone and
comprehensive plan amendment should be granted. Your responses include several references to the
State's Growth Management Act. The City however, has not formally amended its comprehensive plan
in accordance with GMA. Therefore, staff would be unable to show a clear nexus between the Plan and
GMA. If you wish to reference regional policies related to GMA, I would suggest you reference King
County Regional Policies which have been adopted. Any reference made to these goals and policies
should be very clear and concise. I would also suggest you refer to the required decision criteria for
rezones and comprehensive plan amendments contained on both the appropriate applications and in the
Tukwila Municipal Code. Your discussion should be as thorough as possible in order to justify your
request.
6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • (206) 431 -3670 6 Fax- (206) 431 -3665
N
Denni Shefrin
Associate Planner
Enclosures
Southgate Park . ' Page 2
Letter to Edward Parks
Additionally, because of the amount of time lapsed from the original date of submittal, an updated mailing
list with address labels for property owners and residents (including on- premise tenants) within 300 feet
of the subject property is required. You must include a King County Assessor's Map which identifies the
location of each property owner and residence listed. The application cannot be considered complete
without the above materials and clarifications.
I have enclosed new applications for reference. A copy of the letter received from residents after the initial
applications were submitted is also enclosed. It would behoove you to consider these comments as you
revise responses.
Please be aware that the City cannot commit to a hearing date until all materials specified in this letter
are received.
Feel free to contact me if you have additional questions. Once the above materials are received,
applications will be routed to the appropriate city departments for review and comment.
I look forward to hearing from you.
Sincerely,
cc: Files
Rick Beeler
John McFarland
i
RECEIVED
CHICAGO TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY
1800 COLUMBIA CENTER, 701 FIFTH AVE., SEATTLE, WA 98104 (206) 628 -5666
Edward L. Parks, Attorney at Law
17650 140th Ave. S.E., #B6 -230
Renton, WA 98058 -6814
Re: Mark & Soon Kim
Chicago Title Policy No. 164209
Dear Mr. Parks,
CIUMMUNI
DEVELOPMENT
July 27, 1993
I have enclosed copies of the policy, commitment for title
insurance, and the deeds and other documents establishing the
locations of the surrounding roads. The history of the roads
is as follows:
South 140th Street was established by dedication in the
plat of Robbin's View Tract Addition to Riverton as a 30 foot
right of way. There has been no widening according to the our
records. The north line of the insured property is the same
as the south line of the street right of way.
South 141st Street was established by dedication in the
plat•of James Clark's Garden Addition to Seattle as a 40 foot
right of way. We find no widening of the right of way other
than a partial widening on the south side of the street which
does not affect this property. The south line of the insured
property coincides with the north line of the street right of
way.
Pacific Highway was established primarily by two deeds recorded
under recording numbers 2014233 and 2018144. The right of way
is 100 feet wide and has not been widened except for a triangle
at the northwest corner of the property condemned under King
County Superior Court Cause Number 609948.
42nd Avenue South has been established in two stages. There
was originally a 20 foot wide right of way strip established
by deed recorded under recording number 472347 immediately west
of and adjoining the north -south section centerline. The right
of way way later widened by condemnation under King County Superior
Court Cause Number 614098. The widened right of way was 60 feet
wide but it was veering westerly of the north -south section centerline.
The effect was the taking of a strip of land of varying width
apparently exceeding 30 feet at one point according to the King
County Assessor's map. I have enclosed a copy of that map for
your reference. I should point out that the map may not be fully
accurate and shows the 540 foot dimension in an erroneous location.
. Very truly yours,
David E. Lawson
Assistant Vice President and
Advisory Title Officer
A survey would be needed to fully understand the locations of
the roads.
Is there any chance that your clients are mistaking the
edges of the roads as physically located on the ground with the
edges of the public rights of way which are almost'always.substantially
wider than the physical roads? This is a common misunderstanding
for property owners.
Please let me know if the City of Tukwila is asserting additional
rights of way or if I can be of further assistance.
•
•
•
July 6, 1993
CITY OF TUKWILA
Department of Community Development
6300 Southcenter Boulevard
Suite #100
Tukwila, WA 98188
Attn: Denni Shefrin
Re: Southgate Business Park
Dear Ms. Shefrin,
Sincerely,
G
Edward L. Parks
EDWARD L. PARKS
Attorney at Law .
17650 140th Ave SE B6 -230
Renton, WA 98058 -6814
(206)228 -9975
✓2�
�i� a
Enclosed please find revised applications for the above referenced
matter. We have addressed all areas of concern set forth in your
INITIAL ANALYSIS submitted with Rick Beeler's correspondence of May
28, 1993. If you still wish to schedule a meeting with the area
residents who addressed some concern about the request prior to the
public hearing, please contact me so that we may select a mutually
agreeable date and time.
. JUL 0 8 1993
co rvimuN;
July 6', 1993
CITY OF TUKWILA
Department'of Community Development
6300 Southcenter.Boulevard
Suite #100
Tukwila, WA 98188
Attn: Denni Shefrin
Re: Southgate Business Park
Dear Ms. Shefrin,
Enclosed please find revised applications for the above referenced
matter. We have addressed all areas of concern set forth in your
INITIAL ANALYSIS submitted with Rick Beeler's correspondence of May
28, 1993. If you still wish to schedule a meeting with the area
residents who addressed some concern about the request prior to the
public hearing, please contact me so that we may select a mutually
agreeable date and time.
Edward L. Parks
EDWARD L. PARKS
Attorney at Law
17650 140th Ave SE B6 -230
Renton, WA 98058 -6814
(206)228 -9975
JUL 0 81993
CCM,M ;JN; .
r
l
AM• _ED - COMPREHENSIVT 'LAN AMENDMENT •
APPLICATION
ED
CITY OF TUKWILA JUL u b 'i 93
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELORMENT'NlTY
DE: ='E-OPikiENT
f ='FoRS:TAFF<USEON
Reference Files Lg� oc�? 3 (P. -�z��
1. BRIEFLY DESCRIBE YOUR PROPOSAL: Re 7 o n from R - 2 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(1(14 Pacific Highway South
Quarter: SW Section: 1 Township: 23 Range: 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, 98058 -6814
1
hon /t) 8 -9975
:•
Signature:. lia. �r‘�r. - Date: J 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.
AFFIDAVIT OF OWNERSHIP
6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Tukwila, WA 98188
Telephone: (206) 431 -3680
4. PROPERTY Name: Mark D. Kim and Soon S. Kim , his wife
OWNER
Address: 14004 Pacific Highway South, Tukwila, 98168
Phone: ('- 06 )243 -7003
I /WE,[si ature(s)] / •" ' 1• 4 .(z C . / ^---).. •----
swear that I /we are thq"owner(s) or contract purchaser(s) of the property involved
.in this application and at the foregoing statements and answers contained in this
application -are true and•correct to the
best of my /our knowledge and belief. Date: 1 u 1 y 1 , 1993
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN dENDMENT APPLICATION
5. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN Existing: R- 2 Residential
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: Tn hP de tP rm i n e d
8. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT CRITERIA
Page 2
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 8A a •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 P1 an 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.
SOUTHGATE TRAILER PARR
Comprehensive Plan Amendment & Rezone
( #L92 -0022, #L92 -0023)
FINDINGS
A. Southgate Trailer Park is located on a 3.97 -acre site at
14004 Pacific Highway South. The Southgate site was
developed as a trailer park in King County in the 1950's
(Exhibit 1).
B. In July 1989 the Southgate Trailer Park site was annexed to
the City of Tukwila. After required public notice, public
hearings and Task Force discussions, citizens recommended,
and the City Council decided on a Medium Density
Residential /R -2 designation for the site (Exhibit 1).
C. The current owner of the Southgate property, Mr. Mark Kim,
applied for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment, Rezone and SEPA
Environmental Review (Exhibit 1). The owner proposed to
change the Comprehensive Plan and zoning designations for
the site as follows: amend the current Comprehensive Plan
designation of 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.
Applications for the proposal were submitted on January 30,
1992 by Bennett P.S. & E., Inc. on behalf of the property
owner (Exhibit 1). On July 1, 1993, Edward L. Parks, the
owner's attorney, submitted revised applications (Exhibit
1) on the owner's behalf. The SEPA environmental checklist
was submitted for the Comprehensive Plan amendment and
rezone, not for construction of any specific project.
D. A Mitigated Determination of Non - Significance (MDNS) for
the applications was issued on October 20, 1993 (Exhibit
1). The MDNS conditions of approval required the owner to
a) dedicate additional street right -of -way along adjacent,
substandard streets; b) dedicate sidewalk easements; and c)
to complete these dedications within 1 year of Council
approval of the proposal. There was no appeal of the SEPA
determination.
E. Approval of a Comprehensive Plan amendment and 'rezone
requires that the proposal meet specific approval criteria
(listed in Exhibit 1). One criterion for a rezone is
consistency with the Comprehensive Plan. The proposed C -2
zoning is inconsistent with the current Comprehensive Plan.
Therefore, the Southgate proposal must first meet the
criteria for a Comprehensive Plan amendment before a rezone
+� can be approved.
•,F A, •
•
.Nr
Southgate Council Findings
Page 2
F. On December 8, 1993, after proper public notice, the
Planning Commission held a public hearing on the
applications and reviewed the following exhibits:
1) Staff Report to Planning Commission (10/20/93) with:
• Decision criteria.
• Applicant's vicinity map (2/6/92).
• Applicant's conceptual site plan
(1/21/92).
• Revised Comprehensive Plan Amendment and
Rezone applications (7/1/93).
• Letter of comments from citizens in
response to original applications
(3/20/92) (with original applications for
reference).
2) Supplement to Staff Report to Planning Commission
(12/2/93), with letters from 2 residents.
3) Tukwila Tomorrow minutes (11/4/93), submitted at
hearing.
4) Letter from resident (12/2/93), submitted at hearing.
5) Two exhibits prepared by the applicant and submitted
at the hearing, showing an alternative proposal with
30' wide landscape buffer and 8' high berm along 42nd
Avenue South.
6) Aerial photo of Southgate Trailer Park, displayed for
reference at hearing.
Public notice of the Planning Commission hearing was
provided in the following ways:
• Posting notice on the site;
• Mailing notice to residents /property owners within
300' of site perimeter;
• Publication of notice in the Seattle Times;
• Publication of notice in the Hazelnut;
• Mailing SEPA decision notice to surrounding
residents /property owners;
• Informational meeting 12/1/93 with citizens,
applicant & staff; notice of meeting posted and
mailed.
After hearing testimony and considering the record, the
Planning Commission recommended the following designations
for the Southgate property:
1) a Commercial /C -2 designation for the first 270
feet adjoining Highway 99; and
2) a Medium Density Residential /R -2 designation for
the remainder of the site along 42nd Avenue South.
CONCLUSIONS
.,
Southgate Council Findings
Page 3
G. After proper public notice, the Council heard the Planning
Commission's recommendations and additional testimony on
March 28, 1994, making the accumulated record of exhibits
as follows:
1) Staff Report to the City Council with (12)
Attachments A through L (3/22/94). Attachments
included minutes, recommendations, and exhibits
from the Planning Commission hearing; and Tukwila
decision criteria for Comprehensive Plan
amendments and rezones.
2) Citizen comment letter (Myers).
3) Citizen comment letter (Carter).
4) Aerial photo of Southgate Trailer Park.
5) City of Tukwila Zoning Map.
6) City of Tukwila Comprehensive Plan Map.
7) Applicant's Vicinity map (2/6/92).
8) Applicant's conceptual site plan (1/21/92).
Public notice of the Council hearing was provided in the
following ways:
• Posting notice on the site;
• Mailing notice to residents /property owners within
300' of site perimeter;
• Publication of notice in the Seattle Times;
H. The Council reviewed several alternative designations (in
Exhibit 1):
• Alternatives discussed by staff in Staff Report to
Planning Commission;
• Alternative recommended by the Tukwila Tomorrow
Committee;
• The Planning Commission's recommendation;
• The applicant's original proposal;
• The applicant's revised proposal with 30'
landscape buffer and 8' high berm along 42nd
Avenue South.
I. The Council reviewed the applicant's proposal relative to
each decision criterion for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment
and for a Rezone of the Southgate Trailer Park site.
J. The applicant was advised that the burden of proof that the
proposal meets the criteria rests with the applicant.
After thorough consideration of all of the testimony, exhibits,
evidence and decision criteria for the Comprehensive Plan amendment
1(5
•4
B. Rezone:
Southgate Council Findings
Page 4
and rezone, the Council reached the following conclusions (approval
criteria shown in bold):
A. Comprehensive Plan Amendment:
1. Unforseen changes in circumstances have occurred
in community conditions that justify a
Comprehensive Plan redesignation of the subject
property or existing plan policies.
The applicant's response does not adequately
identify or substantiate the unforseen changes in
community conditions that justify a new
Comprehensive Plan designation.
2. Factual evidence supports an additional or changed
public need for the property designation.
The applicant has not demonstrated that the
requested Commercial designation is needed, or
'that any designation other than the current one is
appropriate.
3. Analyze the existing Comprehensive Plan policies
and how your proposal affects them.
The existing Medium- Density Residential
designation meets current Comprehensive Plan
policies intended to buffer residential uses from
commercial uses. The application has not
demonstrated that the requested Commercial
designation is consistent with current
Comprehensive Plan policies.
1. Conformity with the Comprehensive Plan, the Zoning Code,
and the public interest.
The proposed C -2 zoning does not conform to the site's
current Medium Density Residential Comprehensive Plan
designation. The information in the application does
not demonstrate that the proposal is consistent with the
Zoning Code or public interest.
2. The change is supported by an architectural site plan
showing the proposed development and its relationship to
surrounding areas.
The applicant's conceptual site plan does not contain
sufficient information to evaluate a specific
development or its relationship to surrounding land
uses.
• DECISION
Southgate Council Findings
Page 5
3. The applicant has provided evidence of an additional .
need for the new classification.
The applicant has not provided sufficient evidence of an
additional need for a C -2 designation.
4. Significant changes have occurred in the character
conditions or surrounding neighborhood.
The applicant did not identify or substantiate
significant changes in the surrounding neighborhood.
5. The proposed rezone is in the best interest of public
health and safety vs. diminution of property value.
The applicant has not provided sufficient evidence that
the existing R -2 designation results in a diminution of
property value which outweighs the potential impact of
a C -2 zoning on the public welfare.
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.
This criterion is intended to address unimproved
property. As the property has been improved for many
years, this criterion is not applicable.
Based on the above, the Council denies the application.
.. ?.. >��•'. } } » :a „ }'. } }:• »'. ...t... ..: n.}}}..,..,:}>,. t ? } }:... ..:., : ...:....,:.}.:.:•: r.}}:•:.},.:.}::,..:::..:{:} v. A.:'<{ t: r::{.::}}: t<{.:;<. � : }:; }...: { .::::.:.:}.:::n ,..
. :.�:.: ..,. ~.,:......,. .},,..>:.:...,... n,.}:.. .:..:..{ n•:.:.:.:+. . .. krr} n,.: f'<;:: ff < ><:r;.�ff: } v : M�:; { «... , .,v :..
: n{•: {.; :: ri•}f { } } >:v :. : }:• }• ::::::::,.: } : mw: ?•:x•. nv.:, . u ,• •x> nvn,: ti:N r ,. .: •:.•.,,. n• x ,vfA.,,.,, .,v :.,y.,..
}:�.r {: : ��., }. t; : } }i::.,•n..v,w. ♦•. i:v• .. 4.,.. :nw.n•n. .,v.,,•n.n.•:v.v: „k, :f : ":i'ii'��'4i�•:z }�: ..K !: w•{•:t•'f•:n•< " } .r. ...K Y,,,wn:wr v. >.,.
.,}.,. >: »:...••: \.,,: . .......::..:,. }; f.`•f; ..;; :. ....4.:, :.::: •:.:.:..;;,: ;.. :..: .: �::. f �;; �_ }:.:: >. .. . : S:•}xK. }x <.x,: ?•.:n>w.•.:• +:.>... .. •r...... .. �.. .`\.a \: :}ca:. •.,,..... r:.c;}
..: r.•::. >... f>. •:.. }f.:... •n........ 1.•}': r.•:;t•: } }.r,•..........:....,. rr..:.,...,.... }:: t'tt :!•: �...:. }}.,.: t, .. : :. : {.! . .,.... £ ...... ... .:X::. .• }..
. f .. .:: x•. •:.: }, ; .: •.,.;;.f•. {;• }:. . �. : }:f•;<:k.;: +r : t... v:{•i't't}.N }}•: } }x:. `}.,» :•
?.}:tr,:::}:::.:{.::?.}}: ttt. r. t�.} } }:.'. } > }:tttt:.f.:. > }:> >'.. }�. , .,..., , f..t. v G . } .. . z
•:: v .. .... .. ... .... .... ,....: ax4�:. xa: r:.,,...., f..•.,{t .v:.:r....•::::::....::::: :.... : ii:?:' tv� ?::fffxn.:.,tt•:..:.:<•:t•:,t `. v}: n?:{ tJ.< t4}\•}: 4.i} i>: :' : >` > }:, ^}}]nt,tt{•}h \..•..t, >.{t{v>.<•.w.
Meeting Date
Attachments
•
6/30/94
6/30/94
6/30/94
None
•
•
7/5/94
•
7/11/94
Memo to City Council from Mayor dated 7/7/94
•
•
7/11/94
•
Memo to Mayor from Project Manager dated 7/7/94
•
Fund Source (if known): 302 Fund
•
•
•
•
•
n4 y,.f;......v .... ,, ... ,.;. > 'n , ::.,}v... ♦ \ , i• }'4f ..::: : ,. f �;: .... .. f f :! ii::}:; �:;: fL i{ ??} if\ L.' C• %'+G::::: ;ii >i:i }f.• }f }rv:{f •4..:.; :: ::.4::•::
}.:;f .?.Y {r.vY. nv, q n:v} Y.. }.w., �. n.,.4. • 4 v.• Y.v:.v „`..,v, p } . ; ,; •.
ry:.4:..v'i }} , �. vnG • },:• }'9'..?v }.y .h4>}! ^ ? \' {. .. >} } � `•JS'•:
. > ;:{ :.. {.:,. ,:. ?:.:.;;f., .� 3 : AG : . ON:; < > ° vtf ? }f�tr ::::: • r ...... ..... .. �_�.. n...::•: ...... ..... .. .. ...... .. . /:..:..:: :.+:...........m. .... n.. v:..:.. n,•..::..: n ::: i• %•}... \v: T {2: } rJ }yn + ^ ?:� �'4 ni it`v i: .,� J:t2�•i:i .v.•.
Meeting Date
Action
•
6/30/94
6/30/94
Discus i on , 'forwarded to next Regular Council
•
Timeline: To authorize Mayor to negotiate a design contract on July 11, 1994 •
•
7/5/94
•
.
7/11/94
•
Administration: •
•
Fund Source (if known): 302 Fund
•
•
Meeting Date
Prepared by
May is review
Council review
6/30/94
OM
Original Sponsor: Council Admin. x'
Timeline: To authorize Mayor to negotiate a design contract on July 11, 1994 •
Sponsor's Summary: Three archi tectual firms will present information about their design
teams, and center and site plans for Council.consideration. Public corneas will be
.received on July 5 and 11. Council to select their first second choice of firms on
July 11 for the Mayor to negotiate a community center design contract.
•
Recommendations: •
Sponsor: None for 6/30/94 Special Meeting. .
Committee: •
Administration: •
Cost Impact (if known): Estimated design contract cost up to $500,000
:a \\ . .. }::; {. },•;: {, {••. } } .{•:{.. {:: \z ...K: i::.'rf...; >ii:' . 3 .. {..}'; f} : t om ;,: +, v}..• ...,� :.
.},:#`+• `: ` }gip: ni•..Lx:. :. a . k : .. .. ,...:,:• ., .: t.:{}a•: ,',,; : <tt•: 4::••. , '- ; . ;.g :w}} : i
. „ {�'.;o ",;,.h .y: •: ,4.,.}.; .,ln.}::.> :•r: }x ,r:.p: {!;} }M1:•. h:;o-y T � y T
�T
:..,..�: , }k::X }•} .: %•: •..7 }: :.v ::�M�IN RM fJN::::..�.. ,: } }{ {:.� { }
n
CAS Number: 9 ��
Original Agenda Date: 6/30/94
Agenda Item Title: Tukwila Community Center Architectual Firm Selection
•
Original Sponsor: Council Admin. x'
Timeline: To authorize Mayor to negotiate a design contract on July 11, 1994 •
Sponsor's Summary: Three archi tectual firms will present information about their design
teams, and center and site plans for Council.consideration. Public corneas will be
.received on July 5 and 11. Council to select their first second choice of firms on
July 11 for the Mayor to negotiate a community center design contract.
•
Recommendations: •
Sponsor: None for 6/30/94 Special Meeting. .
Committee: •
Administration: •
Cost Impact (if known): Estimated design contract cost up to $500,000
Fund Source (if known): 302 Fund
Co
'1 TCIL AGENDA 71
Initials
ITEM NO.
CALL TO ORDER
ROLL CALL
OFFICIALS
JULY 11, 1994
7:00 p.m.
CITIZEN'S COMMENTS
CONSENT AGENDA
PUBLIC HEARINGS •
OLD BUSINESS
Motion adopting Findings and
Conclusions: Southgate
Mobile Home Park Comp
Amend. & Rezone
TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL
SPECIAL MEETING
MINUTES
Tukwila City Hall
Council Chambers
Mayor Rants called the Special Meeting of the Tukwila City Council to order
and led the audience in the Pledge of Allegiance.
STEVE MULLET, Council President; JOE DUFFLE, JOAN HERNANDEZ,
DENNIS ROBERTSON, ALLAN EKBERG, JOYCE CRAFT, DOROTHY
DE RODAS.
JOHN MCFARLAND, City Administrator; LINDA COHEN, City Attorney;
LUCY LAUTERBACH; Council Analyst; ROSS EARNST, Public Works
Director; RON CAMERON, City Engineer; RANDY BERG, Projects
Manager; RICK BEELER, DCD Director; DON WILLIAMS, Parks &
Recreation Director.
Pam Carter, 4115 South 139th Street, thanked Councilmembers Steve Mullet
and Dennis Robertson for participating in the Tukwila Days Advisory Council
dunk tank. She also stated that the Seattle Public Library has dial access
(voice mail) capabilities for posting items to a community bulletin board. This
could be something the City might want to consider for posting Tukwila's
special events. Carter continued as she suggested ideas for the Hazelnut. She
said it would be nice if the fire works regulations were explained in a special,
highlighted area on the front page; and, she said it would be nice to have the
City's FAX number listed on the back page of the Hazelnut with the list of
City phone numbers.
Approval of Minutes: 06/20/94
MOVED BY DUFFLE, SECONDED BY HERNANDEZ, TO APPROVE •
THE CONSENT AGENDA AS SUBMITTED. MOTION CARRIED
Verbatim Transcript attached.
City Attorney Cohen explained that these Findings and Conclusions were
basically made by the Council some time ago. However, as a matter of form
they need to be adopted by Motion and made part of the record.
Special Meeting
July 11, 1994
Page 2
Southgate Trailer Park Findings
and Conclusions (Cont'd)
Recess
8:10 - 8:20
Tukwila Community Center
Architectural firm selection
Public Comments
Staff
MOVED BY EKBERG, SECONDED BY HERNANDEZ, TO ADOPT THE
CITY COUNCIL FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS OF SOUTHGATE
TRAILER PARK COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT AND
REZONE. *
Mullet inquired if this document is sufficient enough to hold up under scrutiny.
Cohen responded affirmatively and said that it might even be a bit more
detailed than most judges would expect for this type of proceeding.
Robertson commented, for the record, that the Council spent a very long time
going through a very structured discussion of these Findings, and everything
that is included follows generally what was decided. However, there were
arguments and discussions far in excess of what's noted here.
Cohen agreed saying that a verbatim transcript of the full discussion is on
record as well as the tapes. All of this will be given to the court to consider as
well..
*MOTION CARRIED.
The Mayor called the meeting back to order with those present as listed above.
Pam Carter inquired if there were money in the budget available to demolish
the "old" community center The Mayor and Council explained that that's an
issue that will be discussed at a later date. Carter also commended the Council
and Administration for having the new community center designs on display at
Tukwila Days. Carter said she favored Design #1 (ARC Architects') not only
because it was the most striking to the eye, but also it appears it will
accommodate the needs of the community and others.
Randy Berg, Public Works, reported that it was a unanimous recommendation
by the multi- disciplinary review team to select ARC Architects as the
Consultant firm to design the Community Center. While the team felt strongly
that any one of the three firms were certainly worthy and capable of handling
the project, the ARC group showed the highest level of sensitivity to the site,
had the strongest design concept and generally represented the greatest level of
understanding of the community's vision for the project. The review team
recommended that the firm of Wagner, Miller -Hull be identified as first
alternate.
Special Meeting
July 11, 1994
Page 3
Community center consultant
selection (Cont'd)
REPORTS
Mayor
Tukwila Pond Park Project
Landscape Architect
Consultant Selection
Councilmember De Rodas expressed concerns with regards to the Kitchen
area. She would like to see the kitchen constructed where it would meet the
needs of the diverse community including catering services and deliveries.
Williams explained that even though the consultant has been selected, there is
still a lot of detailed design work that has to be done. He said there will be
many opportunities to address those special concerns in the weeks to come.
MOVED BY HERNANDEZ, SECONDED BY DUFFLE, TO AUTHORIZE
THE MAYOR TO NEGOTIATE A CONTRACT AND SCOPE OF WORK
TO ARC ARCHITECTS FOR THE COMMUNITY CENTER DESIGN
CONTRACT. *
The Council agreed to award the contract to the principal consultant (ARC).
However, if the contract negotiations are unsuccessful with ARC, the issue
will be forwarded back to the Council for review
Each Councilmember commented in favor of the ARC firm because they all
agreed the ARC group shows the highest level of sensitivity of the site, has the
strongest design concept and generally represented the greatest level of
understanding of the community's vision for the project.
The Mayor thanked all three architectural firms: ARC, Mithun Partners, and
Robert Wagner/Miller Hall, for their efforts and concerns for participating in
the City's consultant selection process.
*MOTION CARRIED
Mayor Rants announced he will be attending a joint meeting on Thursday with
Puget Sound Regional Council Growth Management Policy Board and
Transportation Policy Board, 9:00 a.m. thru 11:30 a.m. Councilmember De
Rodas agreed to attend the meeting also.
The Mayor distributed copies of the "Report of Public Comment on Major
Supplemental Airports" to Councilmembers who were interested.
The Mayor announced that the Duwamish Coalition will be meeting this
Friday. He requested, per staff recommendation, that Steve Mullet serve on
the Infrastructure Committee instead of the Regulatory Reform Committee.
Mullet Agreed.
Williams reminded the Council of Thursday night's (July. 14) Special meeting
where three Landscape Architect firms will present information about their
design teams, work experience, and design approach for the project: The three
Special Meeting
July 11, 1994
Page 4
Pond Park Project (Cont'd)
ADJOURNMENT
9:15 p.m.
John W. Rants Mayor
Celia Square; D
firms: Murase Associates, The Portico Group and Lee & Associates will make
their 20 minute presentation and then questions can be asked by staff, Mayor,
Council and the Tukwila Pond committee board members.
City Administrator McFarland reported that the noise wall issue has been
resolved. After meeting with Washington State Department of Transportation
(WSDOT), they have agreed to extend the wall north of 138th.
MOVED BY DUFFIE, SECONDED BY CRAFT, TO ADJOURN THE
THE SPECIAL MEETING. MOTION CARRIED
Verbatim Transcript - Revision to the PRD
Tukwila City Council - Special Meeting
July 11, 1994
7:25 p.m.
Mayor Rants: Public Hearing revision to the PRD. We will open the public hearing and then
have a staff report, citizen's comments. Public hearing is open.
Denni Shefrin: Good evening. My name is Denni Shefrin and I'm an Associate Planner with
the Department of Community Development. This evening we're going to be discussing
propose revisions to the Planned District Regulations. As you recall, back in May, there were
six issue areas identified and discussed at the May meeting. The City Council directed the
department to take a lot of these areas back to the Planning Commission for further discussion.
In the report, what we've done is identified areas both of which the City Council and Planning
Commission agree to and areas where there was not concurrence. I'm going to step away from
the microphone and introduce these areas specifically. (Denni now pointing to the areas on the).
....These six issue areas that are identified here (unclear) include minimum property size,
BAR Review, and off -site perspectives. Again, the Planning Commission did concur with City
Council recommendations. They also suggested that Tukwila's words be inserted in the off -site
prospectus provision. And it's also indicated in the report. The suggestion was to incorporate
computer generated off -site perspectives
Mayor: Excuse me Denni. I'm going to stop you for a minute. Would you take this
microphone over here, please. I think it's got enough string to reach that far. The audience
would like to hear you and I don't believe they can.
Denni: Is it on?
Mayor: Can you give it a little more volume there, Celia? Try that, Denni.
Denni: Ok, is this better? Where was I? Anyhow, we were talking a little bit about the
computer generated insertion. If there are no questions I would like to move on then to the other
areas where there was a concurrence. So, getting to some of these areas, the first one being
attached vs. detached units. There was general concurrence. I'm sorry. Not concurrence but
there was lengthy discussion. I'm going to go ahead and step up here and I'll probably get Celia
wrapped around here a bit (Denni is referring to the electrical cord on the Microphone). What
I'd like to do is to address the issue of attached vs. detached units. This is an example of a
project which some of you may be familiar with which is Culhaney up in the Issaquah area. One
of the issues that arises when we're talking about detached vs. attached, the current provisions
suggest that PRDs will allow units which are attached in order to cluster. And again, the whole
purpose of clustering allows for sensitive areas, open space areas and that sort of thing to be
preserved and /or created. This is an example of what we consider a fairly successful cluster
development. this comes close to a zero lot -line concept. But I was using this in hopes that I
can give you folk a little bit better idea of how this can be accomplished. In this example
(pointing to her displays), lot areas are about 4500 sq. ft.. Set backs vary anywhere from 15 to
20 ft. This example is an alley- loaded example so you don't have parking off the street but it is
coming around from behind the units. The Planning Commission recommended that the
2
language be retained in the code; however, they had suggested that the code incorporated much
stronger design guidelines, architecturally speaking. That might be something, again, for the
City Council to give staff direction to move forward in. The second issue pertain to minimum
lot size. And I want to, I guess, take a bit of time to elaborate a bit on the interrelationship
between minimum lot sizes and the density transfer provision. We see those as being, again,
directly tied to one another rather than separate. So, I'm going to do this again to you, I
apologize (turning on view foil machine). In this example, what I've tried to illustrate is what
happens when there are sensitive areas on the site and where lot sizes become restricted. In the
top picture, I'm showing that in a sensitive area, this again is just be example, there might be a
possibility of five units being transferred. However, the bottom example reflects that if we were
to limit sizes, there may not be the opportunity for a site to accommodate those additional units.
So in essence the greater of the sensitive area, i.e. the greater number of units which could be
transferred however the likelihood of the site being able to accommodate those additional units
based on a prescriptive standard of a limited lot size becomes minimized. I don't know if that
was terribly clear. I'd be happy to answer any questions. Again, this is just an example of what
happens when the lot areas, in this case, 7200 sq. ft. In the next example, what I'm trying to
illustrate here is what sorts of site amenities can be incorporated into a site plan where lot areas
can vary in size and shape. An example to, I guess it's everybody's left ....what I've shown is
the sensitive area in the center, smaller lots (and I'm not labeling lot sizes or making some
assumptions) but opportunities to provide open space areas, and I've shown a play ground here
as well. An example to the right, I'm showing that lot sizes meet a general standard in this case
maybe 7200 sq. ft. As you can see, site amenities are not provided nor is there any incentive to
do so. So I wanted to show this comparative example between a cluster development setup and
what could happen if the City chose to go about limiting lot sizes to something very prescribed.
You can refer back to the report because there is something in here that didn't necessarily reflect
the direction of the Planning Commission so I wanted to clarify that. And I believe it's on the
bottom of page 8. What the Planning Commission was recommending was that for lots which
would result from a density transfer, only those lots should be permitted to be a minimum of
5000 sq. ft. However, the remaining lots or those that would be originally allowed should
maintain the required 7200 sq. ft. So I do want to point that out as a change for the record.
There was another issue area that was not brought before you back in May but was discussed at
the Planning Commission meeting. I'm speaking to (I'm on the top of page 9) density transfer
to developable parts of this site. The way the code currently reads is in the PRD Section, density
transferred could only be permitted in developable portions of the site with the exclusion of
sensitive areas but the SAO provisions read that those sites are also considered sensitive areas.
So we have a conflict here. The SAO also all allows for development to occur on sloped areas
provided there are adequate studies that demonstrate the sites could contain....or the hillsides
could contain development. So there is suggested rephrasing of this provision as reflected, here
in the report and I'm going to read that for the record: The Planning Commission recommends
that Section 18.46.070(d)(5) read as follows: "That development shall be confined to buildable
areas of the site in accordance with Chapter 18.45 of the Zoning Code Sensitive Areas
Regulations." Lastly, what we're looking to from you is a recommendation and we can go into
few different directions. The first being that because these issues keep coming up in terms of
how to contend with and deal with density transfer and lot areas as well as providing adequate
open space areas, the report recommends a workshop. There has been an individual who is very
skilled at site assessment, site design, architectural design, and who has worked at length with
PRDs to help perhaps the Council become more sensitized to how to formulate language,
develop goals and have that language be incorporated and translated into a PRD. Another option
might be for only a portion of the PRD to undergo revisions and in turn you would direct staff to
go ahead and provide a draft ordinance for you for the review. The other option would be that
you go ahead and direct staff to provide changes in ordinance form and draft form based upon
your original or your initial suggestions back in May. Are there any question?
Rants: Steve?
Steve Mullet: Do you want to have some discussion now or just general questions?
Rants: This should be questions at this point of staff because you would want to do it because
there is more input on the public hearing.
3
Mullet: Well, I guess my question would be I think could be considered general. Now that
you've pointed out the Planning Commission basically said only the density transfer lot could go
down to 5000 ft. Is that what you reiterated? And everything else has to stay at 7200?
Shefrin: 7200, correct.
Mullet: Now, so to follow this up, on a recent example that we had without naming names, we
had a density transfer of 3 lots. So they would basically have 3 lots that could be 5000 ft., all the
rest would have had to have been 7200 ft.
Shefrin: That's correct.
Mullet: It would seem to me that our provision to just cut down the minimum lot sizes to 6120
would have given them more lots than to go this other way. I haven't done the math because I
just found out about this. But it just seem that out system which really gets rid of the density
transfer provision really would have let them have more lots than to deal with this the way the
Planning Commission suggested to deal with it.
Shefrin: You would have had more density. However, the outcome of that may have been an
impact to the ability to provide open space areas. That would be correct. And it's important to
keep in mind, again, the whole purpose of creating loose standards, so to speak, to provide,
again, these open space areas or other site amenities vs. providing something that is restrictive.
But again, as you've pointed out, if we're limiting reducing the overall limit of lot size, you
are also providing more opportunities for density but where are the opportunities to provide
these other amenities and that's what we are seeking from you.
Rants: Are there any other questions of staff because there is more on the public hearing?
Shefrin: Yeah, I also want to point out we've got two representatives here this evening from the
Planning Commission who do wish to speak.
Rants: I think we would like to hear from the Planning Commission members at this point.
Shefrin: Thank you.
Rants: Thanks you, Denni. Mr. Clark, are you going to do the speaking?
Scott Clark: Hi, I'm Scott Clark. I was the temporary Chair of the Planning Commission the
night that we
Rants: Excuse me, Scott. Denni, can you move your sign board?
Clark: Oh, I can move it.
Rants: I've interrupted everybody now, so far.
4
Clark: So I was chosen, I guess, by Fiat, to speak to you about this tonight. You know the first
issue that was kind of a fundamental conceptual thing as whether or not clustering is a goal
you would like to work for and if you embrace that goal then do the provisions of the PRD
achieve that ultimate effect. And I'm not a real big person on creating rules. My task on the
Planning Commission is to present a human face to the rules that the Council passes. I don't
particularly enjoy that rule- making process. I'd rather interpret it. But if you don't embrace the
clustering idea then I want to tell you why I think it's a good idea and also the citizens.' I think
most people aren't familiar with clusters that work. So I thought I'd just ask that question--'Do
you embrace the clustering goal." If you don't, then I'll tell you why I think it's a good goal.
And I think the best way to support that premise is to site an example that, I think, was a PRD
that worked. I had just driven through it. I drove through it again today and I want to encourage
you and the citizens to drive through it and make your own judgment of it because it happens to
be pretty close. Oddly enough, it's not in an incorporated rural city. It's just outside the city
limits of Renton. But it a subdivision called Winsper - -W I N S P E R - -and it's locate on Talbot
Road & 169th. That's just north of Valley Medical Center. Even though it wasn't in the city
limits of Renton, it appears to have been a project that was well thought out and well executed.
It's in unincorporated King County and there are lots in that subdivision that are right at 5000 sq.
ft. But the density transfer that occurred by clustering those houses together, made huge open
spaces, some of which provide a continuous vista into the Kent Valley. And when you look at
the project as a whole, it appears to have achieve a good end result through clustering. You
know, I don't think need to belabor the point anymore than just to encourage you to look at that
and say to yourself if the way the rules are written now didn't achieve a good result then maybe
we need to write the rules so that they do achieve a good result because the goal itself, if the goal
is clustering, it doesn't necessarily have to result in a bad product in an objectionable
subdivision. So I just used that as an example of and further if we embrace clustering, if we
say that's going to achieve that's possible to achieve a good product is I don't think that
necessarily laying out only detached housing as the only way to achieve that. Winsper happens
to have only detached housing but some of those houses are very close together. Denni has a
slide, I don't know if she has it with her tonight, but it lays out row houses or zero lot line
houses but they are detached. And they have a sameness about them and a very and a
very our immediate reaction to that overhead slide was unanimously negative. And yet, it
strictly adheres to the detached concept. I just want to say that with proper modulation or with
strict design criteria, you could have received a better result, more open space by attaching some
of those low end units. Attached housing does not have to look like a row of duplexes. If you
have some modulation along the zero lot line, just changing the depth of one structural unit to
the next by 10 or 15 ft. you'll have the illusion of detachment where none previously exist. And
yet by making those attached, there's a net increase in the open space area or side yards or
whatever. Actually, if you went into Winsper and stopped for a moment and thought to yourself
-- what if we bring these two houses that are relatively close together and have them touching --
I'll bet that you can visualize yourselves that at least a little bit, not necessarily consistently
throughout that subdivision, but that subdivision might have even been enhance by that. So
while the idea of the whole subdivision of duplex - looking structures is objectionable to me also.
You can't throw out that rule just because you haven't seen a good construction of that concept.
So I think that was the general feeling of the Planning Commission that night, and mind you it
wasn't there weren't seven members there, I believe we just had a quorum. But we were
fairly unanimous in our conclusions about your desires regarding PRD amendments. I can't take
you to Winsper but there are probably many other examples in South King County that are just
as good but I believe that clustering achieves more open space, more views, better amenities and
other benefits to the City over the long term. For example, it brings in utilities closer together
and there's a whole host of benefits that accrue to it. So I, personally, think it's a good idea. I
would like to see more architectural review on the product, whatever the product is. But some
of the other issues where we had divergent of opinion, that was the basis for it.
Rants: Thank you Scott. Are there questions of Scott?
Council:. No response.
Rants: Thank you. Are there citizens who wish to address the Council on the Planned
Residential Development?
Pam Carter: Pam Carter, 4115 South 139th Street, yes, I had several comments. First talking
about the clustered. I like I agree with him, I like the idea of clustering. However, I also have
a sour taste in my mouth and I think you know why. How can we draw the laws so that we only
have good examples of clustering. He said don't judge it on the basis of these duplex these
ticky -tacky duplexes that are not good examples. I agree with that but how can we write the law
or you write the law so that those are disallowed and we only have good examples of clustering.
Because we are talking about clustering in single family neighborhoods. And I agree that they
can be very effective, they can be well done, but I think we want to guard against having
something that look like multi- family housing surrounded by a field of weeds. I mean would
that satisfy the clustering? If it not written tightly, we've seen in the past the developers gonna
take it and push it as far as he can. So that's my concern. The concept of clustering I think is
fine. But can you write it so that they cannot get away with these undesirable examples of
clustering. I'm very concerned about that. The minimum lot size, I would agree with you, I
think that's important because I understand what the density transfer is and that it is a density
transfer from the sensitive areas and I could explain to you, I know you understand, I understand
it also. But in affect, when you look at it, it's essentially a bonus when you say this is
undevelopable so we will give you, we will transfer extra lots so that you can develop those
extra lots. It in fact becomes a bonus. I would agree with you that we do need a minimum lot
size. Something that hadn't been brought up in your discussion on the PRD is the onsite
recreational facilities. I really think that those should be required and that they should not be
able to use the sensitive areas as fulfilling that requirement because the sensitive areas are by
definition sensitive. They have to be fenced off so that they are restricted. A sidehill slope or a
swamp is not a recreational facility. So I think in the PRD, the part that refers to recreational
facilities when you have sensitive areas you should not be able to use those sensitive areas to
satisfy that requirement of a recreational facility. As I said before, I think you have to be really
careful and take your time with this and really do not have loose standards because then we will
get the worst. That's just how it has happened and I think will continue to happen. I would
Rants: Thank you, Pam.
Allan Ekberg: I'd like to ask a question if I may. .
Carter: Ok.
Ekberg: On the issue of provisions for design review, were you mentioning those in regard to
the clustered facilities or a single family residence in the PRD?
Carter: Ok.
Rant: Thank you. Does anyone else wishes to address the Council? Did Council ask I
guess you asked Mr. Scott any questions you had. If there are no other
6
agree with what the gentleman just said about provisions for design review. We have design
review for multi family. A fair size development whether you are allowing clustering or not it
has the same impact as if you had a massive multi family structure. There really does need to be
some design review whether it through BAR or a Planning Commission having a charge to do
design review. We need to have that required in there because it seems like a lot of the stuff is
left to the discretion of the DCD Director who's not an elected official and he makes the
decision and then that's how it is. And you don't have much by the time it gets to the
Council, you don't have much authority to change it. So I understand allowing some looseness
because it allows for creativity and some superior design. But at the same time that looseness
can really work against what we want for our City. So when these decisions are made, you
know, outside of the legislative body, it's a problem. I think there needs to be some more
control in your hands so that if I'm not happy with your decision, I can be mad at you and you
can't say we can't do anything about it. So that you are the ones making the decision. I would
like to see that. Thank you.
Carter: Well, I think it's really vital with the clustering. But even with a PRD just if it's
detached, single family, the impact of a large, ya know if it's a two or three house PRD that's
one thing. But a large number together, that could have quite an impact on the area—just as large
of an impact as if you were putting a large multi family. So I think on the developments, the
PRDs, I think it should be a design review.
Rants: Pam, just for clarity, the DCD Director does not make the determination of design. The
Board of Architectural Review is the Planning Commission so it goes back to the Planning
Commission. It's not determined by the Director.
Carter: But by the time things come along, hands are tied and decisions have been made and
it's too late to go back. I mean in my family if my child asks me can you do something and I've
given the permission and let's say my husband is the highest authority, which isn't necessarily
the case, but let's assume he is and he says no and the kid says but mom already said I could.
He's between a rock and a hard place and says ok, if mom says, I guess
Rants: I was not meaning to create an argument. I was only saying what the process was and I
totally agree that the Board of Architectural Review design standards need to be tightened up.
Ok, so we are in agreement.
7
Ekberg: I've got a question. It might be targeted to the staff, Rick or as far as we have an
ordinance regarding multi- family design standards. Does that apply to the units that are
clustered or duplexed? Would that be considered a clustered unit?
Shefrin: It would apply to a PRD. I mean I guess if your question is whether or not those
standards would apply, no, they would not in a PRD situation. They would only apply to a multi
family development for project that are located within a multi family zone.
Rants: But it is within the Council's prerogative to make those same standards apply to a PRD.
Shefrin: For multi family development?
Rants: Yes. Yes. Mr. Pace is sitting back there nodding his head yes.
Shefrin: He's saying yes, so I guess it's yes. I think a lot of standards can clearly, they can be
borrowed too. I think that's kind a the direction we're going or suggesting is that if it's your
pleasure we can look at introducing. I think we all agree that the standards need to be tight with
respect to architectural design review or something of that nature. And I think it would the
point is to help those provisions better articulate the goals of design and that sort of thing from
the community stand point. And how do we do that? It seems that the multi family design
standards have achieved that. Everybody seems to be contented with those. How could we do
something similar to that to have it apply to PRDs for single family development.
.T ack Pace: The other thing to keep in mind with the multi family standards to keep in mind not
only did we development standards but we worked on a handbook to help developers through
the process which has some graphic representations what you wanted as acceptable levels.
Cause it's hard to articulate in words what you want. But when you see a picture you'll know
this is what I want. If you recall, the handbook for multi family standards, you put a lot of those
visual images to reflect the quality that you were looking after.
Shefrin: Again, I think Pam raised some really good questions. And I think in particular at
what point in the process is it the perception that decisions have already been made. And I •
would argue that up until the final decision things can change. It becomes tricky and I think
there lies the importance of articulating some of those design goals and strategies from a
regulatory standpoint.
Ekberg: I'll ask the same question, If I may. What would be necessary to have the multi family
design standards apply to the clustering situation in a PRD?
Pace: I think there are two things the multi family standards are designed predominantly for
apartments. Well, what we need to do is as the Vice Chairman mentioned is develop some
standards for clustering for one. We do not have basically they were designed for say
Crystal Ridge where you look at two to three story units. Not for (unclear) townhouses. We
need to go back and look at developing some standards. And that's why Denni, in her
presentation, suggested we provide you an orientation and some options to give you some better
ideas if you wish to develop some better design standards.
Rants: I'm going to close the public hearing and the Council can have the discussion and then
they can ask staff questions. This is not quasi-judicial so we can go on. If there is no other
public comment
Hernandez: There is someone in the back.
. 8
Rant: I haven't seen another hand and I've asked three times so ok, Council, how would you
like to proceed? Dennis?
Robertson: I wanna jump in cause I know what Joan's gonna say. But I want to go back a little
on history. Two steps and there's a reason for this. Can you all hear me there. On February 27,
1994, I sent a memo to the Council, to Administration, and to the Department of Community
Development with some of the suggestions that we've been discussing. That was almost five
months ago. In the memo, I said we and the Planning Commission could debate these changes
for a long time. Instead, I proposed we limit our discussion to one session each and save the
long debate until the time we both deal with the complete, new citywide Comprehensive Plan.
What I was trying to do was get some fixes in very quick before some developer came in and
basically established the rights to build under the current code, right? And I made the changes
very simple to propose. Now, since then, a lot of very good ideas have come up, pros and cons,
some very good suggestions, lots of good discussion. However, five months have lapsed and we
have nothing at this point. Nothing has changed, nothing is fixed, nothing is different from
where it was. Now that seems like a long time until Joan, I know, the next point she's going . to
talk about is the multi family design standards that have been mentioned more than several times
tonight. I'm not quite sure how long, but I would suspect it was darn near five years to get those
through. It sure seems like it's sitting here on the Council. Maybe that's an exaggeration.
Maybe it was only four. But Joan was really worried about getting it finished in her second
term. So, and the reason I'm proposing as I don't disagree with the concept of clustering at all.
I don't think the issue is whether clustering is good or bad is not the issue and that's what we
tried to attempt when we wrote the original SAO in the PRD sections afterwards. The issue isn't
whether clustering is good or bad, it's just exactly what everybody else said, how do we manage
it, how do we ensure that we only see good example. Pam made a wonderful. Depending on
which viewpoint someone wants to make you can go find good examples or you can go find bad
examples of how this is implemented. Depends on what you want to sell. Fact of the matter is,
it doesn't matter. What we really live with is the standards we have today until we change them
to something better. The standards we have today gives the developers complete flexibility to
pick the minimum. They can always pick the maximum. I mean, you could build the single
family house in the middle of the wheat field or the middle of Southcenter property if you
owned it. Segale could have build a house down there on that corner, property where we have
that new commercial area. There is no maximum standard, but there is a minimum. Everytime I
hear the word flexibility without very strong, specific workable guidelines to as we think we
have in our multi family design standards what I now believe is, what we've done is not put
flexibility in, we've just lowered the bottom minimum standards down and the developers can
choose what they want. Now that's me being scared and being negative and everything else.
But the last 5 or 6 months I haven't enjoyed sitting up here in something I've worked awful darn
hard on a few years ago ended up coming up exactly the opposite of what I expected for what
I yeah. what I wanted. And I say that I'm disappointed is just a little bit of an
understatement. And we haven't 5 months have gone by and we haven't done a thing to
change that. If we say that we want to change as was proposed, or to leave those phrases in there
Rants: Joan.
and go off and develop some new standards, we could easily be 4 or 5 years away cause the last
history with the multi family design standards showed it took that long before anything changes.
And I'll have more time setting on this Council table with a lot of really unhappy people in front
of me and I don't want to go through that again. So I want my point is real simple - -I want
the changes that we proposed, the Council did, although, it's intriguing that point on the
minimum lots standards. But as far as duplexes, triplexes and attached buildings, I'll listen to
that argument when somebody brings forward some real architectural guidelines in their hand at
the same time they make the argument. But I do not, personally, want to put or allow that to
continue without the guidelines being in hand first. Otherwise, it's a wonderful idea and I
believe in clustering; I believe in the advantages. But we aren't creating flexibility we just look
with what we have today and that approach without those guidelines all we're doing is
lowering the standards. That's
,roan Hernandez: Well, I think it's very true that, ya know, when you sit here you try to
balance the issues on the sides and I don't like to be rigid, I like to create some flexibility. But
at the same time that comes with a lot of risk. It comes with a risk of being misinterpreted and I
think that we've found ourselves in that dilemma this past year more often than we care to. And
so, I think at this point I from what I know from sitting here that this community does not
want to see I mean, wants to preserve single family housing first of all and the residential
neighborhoods. And I don't really think that they are in favor of attached houses and single
family development. That's one thing I think I'm quite sure of. Unless somebody can come to
me and show me that that's not true or that they have a better proposal for handling it, I would
rather see that we interpret it this way, the way that we have suggested that in R -1 Districts only
single family detached dwellings may be permitted. Now I'm willing to consider clustering and
I'm willing to consider attached single family dwellings when you can come to me and show me
some guidelines that will assure me that we will be getting the design quality that will be
acceptable in a single family neighborhood, not something that's going to be degrading to the
neighborhood or that will be in opposition to the surrounding uses. If you can assure me of that,
I'm willing to look at it consider it, study it. But I need more time and I need more assurance
than what we have on the books right now as far as some guidelines that would assure me that
we would achieve that goal. So until that time, I prefer that we do amend our code to address
this issue in a more clear way that there will be no question about it and how we feel about it and
what kind of stand that we're taking on it at this time.
Rants: Anymore further comments?
Mullet: I have one more.
Rants: all right, Steve.
9
Mullet: I guess I would reiterate what Dennis' comment that we were attempting to put
something in that was quick and there was general agreement around the table to review this
again when the Comprehensive Plan comes out. And the idea was not to get involved with all of
this great ideas I I don't ya know I I don't know if I have anything against
clustering either but the idea was to get the current law changed to protect some issues that we
felt were work ah some bad da some bad situations. So I would agree at this time
also to carry it forward with what we had decided before with the exception of the one area
where the Planning Commission wanted the computer generated put in. That doesn't bother me.
I thought we had talked about developable or buildable areas in our discussion when we had
that. So I'm surprised that that wasn't in minutes somewhere because I remembered that we had
discussed that. But I propose that we carry forward with where we started and get something on
the books and then let the clustering be developed for discussion at the Comprehensive Plan
level and any other thing that might want to come back in at that time.
Rants: All right, I'll have staff bring forward the recommendations for solidification, Council
voting on it two weeks from tonight, I believe.
Robertson: I think if we went through this real fast, the three pages and memo, we can clarify
it.
Rants: You'd like to do it this evening?
Robertson: Yeah
Rants: All right, then let's begin.
Ekberg: Before we do that, I'd like to ask a general question.
Rants: Ok.
Ekberg: As far as any of the ideas brought up before by the City Council for staff
implementation of those ideas, what road blocks may there be to those?
Pace: Is there a specific area you wanted to
Ekberg: Nope.
Pace: I think the major issue we would just like to redraft the ordinance, the consensus, the
direction you want us to go
Ekberg: Ok, we do that right now?
10
Rants: All right. Let's begin then with number one. As we go on through this and your
recommendation: Attached vs. Detached Units In single Family Zones. Is there a Motion on the
table?
Robertson: I MOVED THAT THE MODIFY IN R -1 DISTRICTS ONLY SINGLE FAMILY
DETACHED DWELLINGS MAY BE PERMITID.
Rants: Maintain Council wording.
Robertson: Yes.
Rants: Is there a Second there?
oe Duffle: Yes, I Second it.
Rants: That's number 3
Rants: Yes.
Shefrin: Ok, thank you.
Rants: MOVED AND SECONDED. IS THERE ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION. ALL IN
FAVOR SAY AYE. MOTION CARRIED.
Rants: Number two, Minimum Lot Size. City Council recommendation -- delete the entire
section. Do you want to just stay with it?
Council: Yea
Rants: We can pass because you concur.
Rants: Number three: Density and Minimum Lot Size. The City Council
11
Robertson: I want to go back on page 8 under, gees, 2 under Minimum Lot Size. The Planning
Commission did recommend that we put in if we did go with the minimum lot size the way
we had
Robertson: Yea, I was speaking in agreement with the A, B, C, D portion that the Planning
Commission wanted to put in. So I would move that we go with the Council's recommendation
for the minimum lot size with the addition of the ah
Rants: Of the Planning Commission recommendation?
Robertson: On A, B, C, & D, yeah
Rants: All right, I understand the Motion. Does everyone else understand the Motion?
Hernandez: And they're eliminating the density transfer first suggestion?
Rants: Yes.
Hernandez: Ok.
Rants: You're maintaining the Council sentence in the first paragraph and adding to it number
1: A, B, C, & D from the Planning Commission's recommendation.
Shefrin: Can I clarify something, I sorry. I wanted to point out that the recommendation that
the Planning Commission assumes that the density transfer provision is deleted. Is that what you
intended?
Mullet: That's stricken.
Rants: That's right. That would be added.
Ekberg: Ok, and that's not only would apply in the R -1 -7.2 zone.
Ekberg: Just for my clarification as well. When we look at a bold face print the sen ence in
paragraph begins with #1, in colon, Lot Size.
Robertson: Yeah, added. That would be the Lot Size: The minimum lot size shoul
sq. ft. in areas provided that the amenities were design features listed below are subst
provided.
Robertson: Yes, actually what the Council said was you can have a 15% reduction
shows you (that staff prepared) the 15% reduction in lot size, the front size and rear
those would all apply. The only addition would be we would add in: The amenities
features listed below are substantially provided.
Ekberg: I asked that mentioned that because as I read this I would like to see tha
table wording be changed from lot size to minimum lot size for those respective zon
And then there wouldn't be any participant's concern about potential 6100 sq. ft lot
R - -1 -20
Robertson: Ok.
Ekberg: Would you need to put minimum setbacks on would you need to
Robertson: Yeah
Rants: Maybe we should have minimum on each one of the four categories?
be 6,120
ntially
o that table
tbacks and
r design
Duffle: So we don't need to put that on there because it already stated that. So I thi we
should just leave it as it is. You have a problem with that?
maybe the
districts.
izes in an
Ekberg: On each of those or is that an assumed you can always have more than e setback
that's required. I suppose you could always have more than the minimum lot to if y . u wanted
to.
Robertson: Let's go back. Denni, Jack, what we want to do is what we said before which is
allow a if it's a sensitive area allow a 15 up to a 15% reduction in lot size a d setbacks
for the different R -1 Districts and require that the amenities and design features list ' below are
substantially provided that A, B, C, & D. Do you know how to word that in to a
Shefrin: Let me raise one question, see if I'm following you. It doesn't matter in is case. I
think the direction you're headed whether or not there's sensitive areas or not. Wha we're
doing now is just setting up standards for PRD regardless if they are sensitive areas.
Robertson: That's correct, but currently the PRD can only be applied in the sensiti e area.
12
Shefrin: No.
Robertson: Who changed that?
13
Shefrin: If there is a sensitive area PRD it's mandated. But if an individual wanted to come in
and do a PRD, they have the right to do so under the PRD provisions regardless if sensitive areas
are present.
Robertson: I though we eliminated the PRDs for everything except for sensitive areas. We did
do that.
Pace: You did not eliminate PRDs. The ordinance adopted the ordinance is the just the
opposite, it requires if you are building in a sensitive area, a short plat with boundary lines to go
through the PRD process. You did not eliminate it.
Robertson: But we did say that you could not have the PRD unless you had a sensitive area.
We did away with PRDs in general. They only apply where there's sensitive areas.
Pace: That's not correct. The current ordinance does not say that.
Robertson: That must be the multi family part
Mullet: We did get rid of the PRD and multi family unless it's sensitive areas. Is that correct?
Pace: Not to the degree he's talking about. He talking about if I wanted had a single
family development and I had no sensitive areas, you could still have a right to request a PRD.
It does not prohibit it for single family development.
Robertson: Ok, then. Did we prohibit PRDs for multi family development if you didn't have a
sensitive area?
Pace: I think that was that provision. I'd have to go back and when we did the multi family
(unclear, everybody talking at same time).
Robertson: That's my misunderstanding, then. Ok.
Rants: Could we come back to the issue here, on the table.
Ekberg: Regarding the issue on the table. The 15% reduction to lot areas, would that only
apply to PRDs that have been identified with sensitive areas or to all PRDs no matter what?
Shefrin: All.
Ekberg: All right. So I would suggest I not sure that's what we wanna do. I think that our
intent was to eliminate to just PRDs with sensitive areas in it and give them this ability to
downsize some.
Pace: Currently.
14
Mullet: Under the PRD provisions if you do not have a sensitive area you can you have no
minimum lot size.
Mullet: Currently. So I think we do want to establish a minimum lot size in any PRD that's
going on.
Rants: All right, so we have the paragraph under City Council as written. We've changed
minimum on each of lot size: front size, back size and rear setbacks and we are adding lots size
A, B, C, & D. ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE. THOSE OPPOSED (NONE). MOTION
CARRIED.
Rants: Density Transfer: Delete the entire section. Is there a motion?
Robertson: So Moved.
Ekberg: Seconded.
Rants: MOVED AND SECONDED TO MAINTAIN THE COUNCIL'S ORIGINAL
LANGUAGE. ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE. THOSE OPPOSED (NONE). MOTION
CARRIED.
Rants: Number four: Density Transferred to Developable Parts of the Site
Robertson: I MOVED THAT WE USE THE WORDS AS PROVIDED BY THE PLANNING
COMMISSION. I think that's what we intend that clarifies the issue of buildable site and
gets away from that confusion on whether or not you can build on a hillside, right? Yeah. I
WOULD MOVE THAT WE ADOPT THE SECTION
Rants: Planning Commission recommendation.
Mullet: SECOND.
Rants: MOVED AND SECONDED. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? ALL IN FAVOR
SAY AYE. THOSE OPPOSED (NONE). MOTION CARRIED.
Rants: Board of Architectural Review. Council original was delete the entire section and
Planning Commission concurred.
Mullet: Getting back to Allan's question about PRDs in general, did we want to delete BAR
approval on a none sensitive area PRD if this is PRDs in general?
Robertson: The Planning Commission still has to set and review it. But they review it with
Planning Commission's guidelines not with Board of Architectural Review guidelines, correct ?
Pace: Correct.
Rants: I would think so.
15
Mullet: This would be one of those areas where new information on clustering and other things
would probably fall in real nice as far as taking care of that problem.
Robertson: I would suggest for now we delete it.
Rants: I would suggest you stay with the original sentence and that we bring more information
forward on this one. That takes care of what we are trying to solve now of the protection at this
point and then the modification as we come into it. All right. IS THERE A MOTION TO
MAINTAIN YOUR ORIGINAL SENTENCE?
Robertson: We'll delete it.
Rants: Which is delete the entire section
Duffle: Right.
Rants: IS THERE A SECOND?
Duffie: SECOND.
Rants: ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE. MOTION CARRIED.
Rants: Off -Site Perspectives
Robertson: I MOVE THAT WE GO WITH THE MODIFICATION PROPOSED BY THE
PLANNING COMMISSION.
Joyce Craft: SECOND.
Rants: MOVED AND SECONDED TO GO WITH PLANNING COMMISSION
RECOMMENDATIONS. ANY DISCUSSION? ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE. THOSE
OPPOSED (NONE). MOTION CARRIED.
Rants: Well, that . takes care of the revisions to the PRD at this point.
Robertson: Can I ask a question? Since more than once we've missed something when we've
gone through this and I suspect I was a little bit more emotional than I was clear thinking. Does
staff understand what we want and will it work? What we've put together. I mean, we
haven't created a more confusing document than we had before, have we? Can you
administer
Pace: We'll write the ordinance and see if there are any problems and if we do we can highlight
them when we draft the ordinance for you.
Rants: All right, I think the answer to that question will come after looking into it a little bit not
just right here.
Rants: I hear ya.
Rants: You bet.
END OF VERBATIM
Ekberg: Doesn't this set the priority?
Robertson: Ok, can I ask administration how soon we are likely to see this back to us now, an
ordinance to make the changes.
Pace: We are gonna meet with the City Clerk and see what their schedule is. We have about
seven other items coming before you. And so we are just trying to schedule those so they are
not all at once.
16
Robertson: Yeah. I WOULD MOVE THAT THE COUNCIL SENDS A DIRECTIVE TO THE
ADMINISTRATION THAT THIS IS A VERY HIGH PRIORITY ITEM.
Mullet: Not knowing what the others are we'll trust you to juggle into the top of the order if you
can, Mr. Mayor.
MEMORANDUM
II. MINIMUM PROPERTY SIZE
(Section 18.46.040)
ZONE DIST.
LOT SIZE
FRONT STBK
SIDE STBK
REAR STBK
R -1 -7.2
6,120
25.5
NOT <4.0
8.5
R -1 -9.6
8,160
25.5
NOT <4.0
8.5
R -1 -12
10,200
25.5
NOT <4.0
8.5
R -1 -20
17,000
25.5
NOT <4.0
8.5 .
III. DENSITY AND MINIMUM LOT SIZE
(Sections 18.46.060(a)(1) and 18.46.070(b)(1) and (b)(2)
LOT SIZE.
City Council:
Mow a 15% reduction to lot area and setbacks with a minimum lot size of 6,120 square feet in
area (6,120 is 15% of 7,200). Council requested staff to prepare a table which reflects the 15%
reduction for lot areas and setbacks for all zone districts. Also, that Sections 18.46.070(b)(1) and
(b)(2) be deleted. The table follows:
Planning Commission:
..
If it is decided to delete the density transfer provision and impose a minimum lot size of 6,120
square feet, then the Planning Commission recommends that criteria A through D under Section
18.46.070(b)(2) not be deleted, but be referenced regardless of the presence of sensitive areas.
This revision would read as follows:
(1) Lot Size. The minimum lot size shall be 6,120 square feet in area provided that the
amenities or design features listed below are substantially provided:
DENSITY TRANSFER.
City Council:
(A) At least fifteen percent of the natural vegetation is retained (in cases where
significant stands exist).
(B) Advantage is taken or enhancement is achieved of unusual or significant site
features such as views, watercourses, or other natural characteristics.
(C) Separation of auto and pedestrian movement is provided especially in or near
areas of recreation.
(D) Development aspects of the PRD complement the land use policies of the
Comprehensive Plan.
Delete. the entire section.
Planning Commission:
Retain the density transfer provision, but limit lot sizes to no less than 5,000 square feet in area.
The provision would read as follows:
(1) Lot Size. The minimum lot size shall be 5,000 square feet in area and shall
establish the maximum number of dwelling units permitted in the PRD.
•
Planning Commission:
Modify as follows:
Section 18.46.070(d)(5).
IV. DENSITY TRANSFERED TO DEVELOPABLE PARTS OF THE SITE
(Section 18.46.070(d)(5)
City Council:
This provision was not originally discussed at the May City Council meeting, however, staff has
this as an additional provision which should be modified.
- - - Development shall be confined
to buildable areas of the site in accordance with Chapter 18.45 of the Zoning Code,
Sensitive Areas Regulations.
The Planning Commission based their decision on the discussion contained in the June 15 staff report
beginning on page 8.
V. BOARD OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW
(Section 18.46.060(g)
City Council:
Delete the entire section.
(Section 18.46.060(f)
Planning Commission:
Concur with the City Council, but create better architectural design standards for PRD's to be
incorporated into the PRD section of the TMC.
VI. OFF - SITE PERSPECTIVES
City Council:
Modify as shown (new language shown in bold):
Section 18.46.060(0(1). Downsiope and Side Yard Buffers.
Photomontage perspectives, taken from the nearest downslope off-site privately
owned property, shall show minimum landscape coverage of twenty -five percent of
the structures at the time of project completion with • anticipated forty percent
coverage within fifteen years. This standard may supplement or be in lieu of the
applicable landscape yard requirement.
Planning Commission:
Concur with City Council, but insert 'computer generated' between the words photomontage and
perspectives. The Planning Commission believed perspectives produced by computer better
depict existing vegetative conditions and vegetation and structures proposed by the new
development. The provision would read as follows:
'Photomontage and computer - generated perspectives..
CONCLUSION
4
In summary, the Planning Commission concurred with the City Council regarding minimum property size,
Board of Architectural Review and Off -site perspectives with one minor modification. The Council and
Planning Commission differed on attached vs. detached units, setting limits to lot sizes and whether to
permit or modify density transfer.
The Planning Commission felt these last three issues, minimum lot size and density transfer, deserve
further discussion. They believe the PRD approach is the best means to allow the layout of the
development to respond to the site to 1) emphasize its unique characteristics and 2) to gain open space
and recreational amenities. Further, with stronger architectural guidelines, attached units in a PRD can
be designed sensitively to incorporate features compatible with the established residential character.
Clustering is an excellent design arrangement for a number of reasons:
1. Clustering enables a developer to concentrate units on the most buildable portion of the site,
preserving natural drainage systems, open space, and environmental sensitive areas.
2. Development is more economical: only the portion of the site being developed needs to be
cleared, and streets and utility lines are shorter.
3. Maintenance costs are reduced because Infrastructure is more compact.
4. Clustering reduces impervious surfaces, thereby promoting aquifer recharge.'
5. Homes clustered around natural areas appreciate more than comparable homes on conventional
lots.
6. PRD's also consider changes in technology such as designs for drainage systems, storm water
detention, roadways. Roadway standards are undergoing significant change to respond to
pedestrian - oriented design.
Rather than force prescriptive standards onto PRD's by placing a limit on lot size, the Planning
Commission recommends the City Council augment the PRD regulations and /or Subdivision Code by
articulating site planning and architectural design objectives.
If the City Council is interested, a private consultant who specializes in, environmental assessment, site
planning and architectural design, has volunteered to lead a workshop for the City Council. The workshop
would empha the process of site planning and provide regulatory tools for PRD's and/or subdivision
regulation.
1
"The Subdivision and Site Plan Handbook ", David Listokin and Carole Walker, 1993.
CITY OF TUKWILA
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Tukwila City Council will hold a public hearing
• on July 11, 1994 at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers at Tukwila City Hall, 6200
Southcenter Blvd.,.Tukwila, to consider revisions to the Planned Residential Development
(PRD) section of the Tukwila Municipal Code pertaining to attached vs. detached units;
minimum property size: density and minimum lot size: density transferred to developable
area; BAR review; and off -site perspectives.
Any and all interested persons are invited to be present to voice approval, disapproval, or
opinions on this issue.
Published: Seattle Times - July 1; 1994
Jane E. Cantu
City Clerk
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.
Mayor 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: Urn-huh, I think we all did.
1
RECEIVED
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'll 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, it's 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 it's 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 ijjtVt :: ,• ` '`✓
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.
I. 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. Kim, 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 u'se.
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 it should 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 placed
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 TILE FIRST 200 FEET OF
THE HIGHWAY SHOULD HAVE A COMMERCIAL DESIGNATION, AND THE REMAINDER OF
au, 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 FLESHER 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.
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 I . 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
I-
w
w
w
•
�n
N
M
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
BUFFER WITH 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
U)
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
REC E N D
<.31993
DEVELOPI
3 :3a 7 7'
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
I -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. 139th
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.
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 development ", 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: I 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: Let's 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: I• 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 CR1'1'ERIA:
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.
RrC. :7 VcD
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
ATTAnL,111ACAlT A -
As neighbors of Southgate trailer park, we are concerned about the
possible tipzone of this piece of property for the following reasons:
As a member of the Tukwila brow Con dtee 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 conditions 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 housing 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 Tomrorow updating the comp. plan myself and fellow conrnitee
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, Bartells,. and the cc 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 ITII - 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 42nd 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 Tub-wila 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."
Staff's 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 change's 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.
•
CITY OF TUKWILA
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT , .:.•. , :. ; �%
}FOR °STA USE' 0I
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: 12 °1 Ja 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 o 1 Rne nff i re htii l rii nn
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 - % '
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 7.
of the community to uporade and brino the present development
into any king of compliance with the City of Tukwila's Codes
would require complete disruption. Therefore it is felt that
the commerical zoning would serve the owner and the City in the
best manner.
4. Significant changes have occurred in the character, conditions or surrounding neighbor-
hood that justify or otherwise substantiate the proposed rezone.
RESPONSE: We believe the new construction: :in the area reflects a
trend to upgrade properties. Therefore by makino the or000sed....
change. THe present conditions of the property when reviewed
• under the comprehensive plan will be more in line with the
present conditions.
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 proposal as presented conforms more the character
of the present development and if not at this present time would
would be'considered in the future. The property in present use
does not allow the ow■er a re i- ■ i -G
•
1
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 unim-
proved and land development in the surrounding area.
Therefore the rezone is the only sensible method of resolvino
any prnhlPms t'.hat ars al r❑ady in Qyi stanro
RESPONSE: The property as it now exists has no basis to make changes
and improvements in a cost effective manner. With this in mind
to make any changes would require total re- orginization and
disruption of persons involved at the present time:
The rezone would allow the City to rectify any safety problems that
nni,i
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 -- '
:�•_. � .. -- .. ....
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.
"
et
.. 11 L•'•/(
r..w.0!
arm
ti
�` 1 �
E•' :1=
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
111 a
f
_
{,�r,
{
I
I ' " ,z:I. _ ,„ , .
1- : 3 f..1"Ig-‘', • - ";":,.:"
--" ...,: 0-____
- ...z-zEn...4=-7-y--
t {
2 n
1
. . I .
ur
1
.
.
SITE
_ .
� z 1-LI
0 1
!? 11
- r11.7
re��{
r _
—
, ;"!
4-
`t
-' a
,mo
+ • -
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
IV OM
I.
PPO
Tyff171111 I ti
TIll1111111
.110111.11
1lo4TS141,041.0P ..■10.11011
as'
J111111111111• 111111
_ILI] 11.1.LL1.11111.L11 LI
•••
.0"
100
12 e•
VILSIERN•
RFC/CEDAR
30'
10•11 1 1* 40
RED CEDMV
100 '•
- So'
• •
3•12
FiRS
•111.04.. RIO
9..01/ El comut• I RRII
•11•41 07.0 111
140 TH ST. S.
1111 1111 H44441111 1 JZITT
1 9'
WESTERN.
RIR CEDAR
A 0 „ n
Fa •-•• 040'
SW V4 OF SEC. I5,TWP 23 N.,RGE. 4 E, W.M.
1 i1111
OPP
PP
141 ST. ST. S.
.......
1
PP
\\ I
Bennett PS&E INC
SURVEYORS and ENGINEERS
P.O. 202 1111 NYMAN WA.
PUTNAM/ MASI MAMA 01404
..... •••
140
• 270
\--L—
EMMA
ca•MDE
scm.E.Ao•
0:)0
10101 LoT 1151 • I 73.010 WM. 00117
IMO
0011.11 mans.»
n oun Nom
akar
14”. ••••••••••11
pg.. L..
.... CIPOICK7111
1111. 5.....14S •••••••'•
OUT •,...l. 0.
1.100S-111MLEMOS
01110111. 00 , I 1 5l114:4100:
IS11104.007.
20E11 011115: 131J113f1Ell ;'11`113
00100 Pannell . 0•Ttli 01110141 1111
E rne 001111110. . . T04. cali SIM. *1ST.
00001 0I50il7041 .0•44 44/
TIL.P•011. ..•. lean
17•11 Sia.•1107101. a/MAU Mil
O 11110100 ••• MIST VW. 171 • 100 • l7,140.5001
S towe •L0011 IT. • IN • 21,020.0000
10150 01.00 177 • 1110 • 11.17..24 17
70701. 000111 100s. 1012103 ••• • 14.440.110 tr
WILDING ••• •111. fl 170 • 100 • 17.900.00
S IKOISO •LOM 171 • IS. • 33.370.50 Sr
10101 SUM 1711 • 11• • 13.7711.00 ST
IOTA/ OMB. 1110. 1l1J1 ••• • (2,401.0011
Toral. Or WILSON •Il• 504 •B• •17...411.1111 Sr
0010300 IN' ":114r.""" " 1 % 303 07103.5
0•••111C4P11111 0702.04 11.11.11.11, 1 IIT•LL/11311 54114111 • 4 RIRLS•
240'
130'
WO' 10 I 100
39
STON7
SCUMMY ELEVATION
(0
VICINITY MAP
NTS
L-
•• I *. I
9Hirx
1