Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPermit L92-0023 - BENNETT ROBERT - SOUTHGATE BUSINESS PARK REZONELtoz3 SEe P%t5)O!� Lf42..co2 i L42 500Tik&NTE DUN 7■)15 tiNiKk ReZoN5 CITY OF TUKWILA JUL 0 8 DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVtL5PMENT AMENDED :ONE • APPLICATION REZONE ZONING CODE AMENDMENT Comprehensive Plan Amendment Comprehensive Land Use Plan Amendment 1. BRIEFLY DESCRIBE YOUR PROPOSAL: Rezone 'R-2 t o 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 Pacific Highway South Quarter: SW 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: 7650 -140th Ave. SE #B6 -230 Renton 98058 - 6814 Ph Signature: c.A - G J Date: July 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. i OWNER Address: AFFIDAVIT OF OWNERSHIP 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Tukwila, WA 98188 Telephone: (206) 431 -3680 4. PROPERTY Name: Mark 0 Kim and Soon S. Kim. his wife : .: Phone: (206)243 -7003 I /WE,[signature(s)rY7 G tiL 2 C ' / --- swear that I /we are th 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: Jul y 1, 1993 REZONE APPLICATION Page 2 1• 5. What is the current zoning of the property? R - 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 Den s i t y' R e s i dent i al 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 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 Goals 1, 2. 4 and 6. The property in its present use and con- dition places a demand on the soci al servi ces of the city which is totally disproportionate to the services and benefits provided to the city. The requested rezone is al so consistent with the goal s and the ohjertivac of the (rawth Management Art (RMA) ?. 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: 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) pansion required by the Act. vage :� r1 C1-V«L Mr t LIL. 1 1VJV RESPONSE: GMA reguii _3 cities to plan and provi..0 for expansion within Urban Growth Areas. The act has been implemented since the city adopted its current Comprehensive Plan. It is this Applicant's hnderctanding that that plan is now under •review for modification . - - . 11 • . . . - . _ . • . • • corridor is' a prime candidate for designation for commercial •ex- 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.g. Police) is evidence of a rtPterioratinrg npighhorhnnd Thic property in its present conditinn is a major contributing factor to that deterioration. The requested 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, `r reducing, if not entirely eliminating, the burden presently'.inposed 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. T Nb fsi t e inr1M54 o Whi t t l tads KEA i ce 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. ugust 5, 1993 Mr. Edward Parks Attorney at Law 17650 140th Ave. SE B6 -230 Renton, WA 98058 -6814 Dear Mr. Parks: City of Tukwila Re: • Southgate Business Park - L92 -0022 & L92 -0023 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, 1 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 0 Tukwila, Washington 98188 0 (206) 431.3670 o Fax: (206) 431 -3665 Southgate P Letter to Ed Additionally, list with addr of the subjec location of e without the a I have enclos applications revise respo Please be a are received. Feel free to applications I look forwar Sincerely, Denni Shefri Associate PI Enclosures cc: Files Rick Joh rk and Parks, ecause of the amount of time lapsed from the original date of submittal, an updated mailing ss labels for property owners and residents .(including on- premise tenants) .Within 300 feet property is required. You must include a King County Assessor's Map which identifies the ch property owner and residence listed. The application cannot be considered complete ove materials and clarifications. d new applications for reference. A copy of the letter received from residents after the initial ere submitted is also enclosed. It would behoove you to consider these comments as you ses. - are that the City cannot commit to a hearing date until all materials specified in this letter contact me if you have additional questions. Once the above materials are received, ill be routed to the appropriate city departments for review and comment. to hearing from you. nner Beeler McFarland Page 2 • May 28, 1993 Mr. Edward L Parks 13101 SE 240th Street, Suite D -104 Kent, WA 98031 SUBJECT: Southgate Business Park Dear Mr. Parks: The City has found .that applications submitted February 10, 1992 for a rezone, Comprehensive Plan Amendment and SEPA Checklist will remain active. However, revised applications must be provided and completed in full. In order to avoid incomplete applications, It would behoove you or the applicant to refer to the attached documents during the preparation of new submittals. The two attached documents: Initial Analysis and citizen's letter dated March 20, 1993, responded to the original submittal packet of February, 1992. Each. document identifies areas where the application material was ambiguous, vague or deficient. If you have additional questions, please contact Denni Shefrin at 431 -3663. Sincerely, Rick Beeler Director, Department of Community Development cc: John McFarland Denni Shefrin Southgate Files Encl. City of Tukwila John W. Rants, Mayor Department of Community Development Rick Beeler, Director 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • (206) 431-3670 • Fax (206) 431-3665 Updated 5/28/93 REQUEST: 1. Comprehensive Plan Amendment from residential to commercial; 2. Rezone from R -2 to C -2 (portion of site currently zoned C -2); 3. SEPA Determination Zoning GLA = 173,059 sq. ft (3.9 acres) The burden of proof rests with the applicant to demonstrate that the proposed rezone and comprehensive plan amendment are appropriate to the site and to the City at large. It is therefore critical that the proponent be as specific and elaborate as possible in responding to each of the application criteria Rezone Application City of Tukwila Department of Community Development INITIAL ANALYSIS SOUTHGATE BUSINESS PARK Several responses to the rezone application do not clearly support the rezone criteria: John W. Rants, Mayor Rick Beeler, Director #1. The response should address the current Comprehensive Land Use Policy Plan. Please clarify and elaborate on the last sentence. What is meant by the property's potential? #3. Describe why the present use of land does not respond to the needs of the community. The first sentence also does not address why redevelopment with existing zoning could not result in upgrading the site. What meant by compliance with City codes would result in disruption? #4. The second and third sentence are not clear. In the third sentence, the second part should support the first part. Specific goals and policies of the comprehensive plan should be identified to support any statement made where the comprehensive plan is referenced. #5. The first sentence is unclear. The second sentence does not specify why the existing R -2 & C -2 zones would not permit upgrading. The application does not suggest that reasonable consideration has been given to redevelopment opportunities under the existing zoning conditions. Other zone classifications should be considered as well and addressed. #6. There should be some discussion about the present use of the site, the length of time the use has occupied the site and a description of the surrounding land uses on all sides. More importantly, there has been no information provided which would demonstrate that redevelopment under existing zoning conditions would be neither cost effective nor suitable.. What is meant by reorganization and disruption of persons involved? Comprehensive Plan Amendment Application #8A. The response does not identify specific changed city policies or plans. Please reference specific examples of what has been upgraded. Have city policies and plans been investigated? AV)/) Crn,thr'ontor Rnnlovarrf C11ItP }11 IV) • Tukwila Wachlnatnn OR1 RR • 121)1) 421 -Q1)71) • Par• I21)h) dq 1- '41)AS #8B. Discuss how the proposal would serve.the public need. #9. The response does not specify goals and policies of the Comprehensive Land Use Policy Plan & page numbers as required by the application. The nature of comprehensive plans deal with both existing conditions, and desirable future conditions. What method was used to determine the highest and best use of the property? Discuss how the Comprehensive Land Use Policy Plan conflicts with your highest and best use analysis. Recommended Task Force Members The individuals listed below were either signatories on the attached letter or referrals. Once revised applications are received, the City will inform those listed below about the status of the project. At some point in the process and prior to any public hearing, a neighborhood meeting will be scheduled to provide information on the project and take comments. Ron and Nancy Lamb 243 -3716 Pam Carter 244-0558 Rena Shawver 431 -8960 Diane Myers 243 -1061 Prepared by: Denni Shefrin Date: March, 1992 Denni Shefrin Department of Community Development 6200 Sou'thcenter Blvd. Tukwila, WA 98188 Dear Ms. Shefrin: March 20, .1992 rIr . f � Q .�i 2 J 1982 • • We would like to make you aware of our concerns regarding the proposed redevelopment of the Southgate Trailer Park 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 c 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 residential 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. 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 tiine. Here is ari 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. Its 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 walk. 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 lcnow which properties he is referring to. Nearby Foster 1-Iigh 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 show 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 .vi 1 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 hawks, 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 Pacitc 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. )c. Is there evidence supporting this statement? 1. 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 & 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 14f. 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 300 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 Tukwila's Comp Plan philosophy of protecting residential neighborhoods from encroachment by business uses. 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 I5 -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 wishes 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 Tulcwila'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. 13919 42nd Ave. 'S. 4115 S. 139th St. Diane and Ted Myers Pam and C.C. t'arter Ron .nd Nancy Lamb 4251..5. 139th St. 1'I t: 1 �•9i �I �r I. r _.f e- April 28, 1993 Mr. Edward L Parks 13101 SE 240th Street Suite D -104 Kent, WA 98031 SUBJECT: Southgate Business Park, P92 -0028 Dear Mr. Parks: It has been brought to my attention that a more elaborate explanation is necessary regarding the City's processes and procedures pertaining to requests for rezones, comprehensive plan amendments and SEPA determinations and how each relates to the Southgate Business Park proposal. The City Administrator has asked that I provide you with a chronology of events to date on this project. SEPA DETERMINATION City of Tukwila John W. Rants, Mayor Department of Community Development Rick Beeler, Director A SEPA Determination is required prior to taking any development proposal to a public hearing. The City must decide, based upon the type of proposal and information contained in the SEPA Checklist (completed by the applicant), whether adverse environmental impacts would result from the development proposal. In order for the City to clearly determine that no significant adverse impacts would result, a trip generation /traffic study was required. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT /REZONE The request involved an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan from residential to commercial and a rezone from R -2 to C -2. The City's Comprehensive Plan was adopted in 1982. The City Council also adopted specific decision criteria to be used by the City's planning staff, the Planning Commission and City Council. This criteria is incorporated into the rezone and comprehensive plan amendment applications. The planning staff recognizes that it's in the City's and applicant's best interest to provide a recommendation of support to the Planning Commission and City Council. Because the burden of proof rests with the applicant to demonstrate to the City why approvals should be granted, it is critical that all applications be completed carefully and thoroughly. CHRONOLOGY A meeting was held with Mr. Bennett and Tim Matelich on March 13, 1992. At that meeting, I outlined all deficiencies I had identified during my review of the application material. I stated that a trip generation study would be required which also looked at traffic circulation. I also provided a typewritten handout which listed those portions of the applications which lacked 1 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • (206) 431 -3670 • Fax (206) 431-3665 adequate information, clarity and elaboration. The rezone process also requires submittal of a site plan which shows the proposed development and its relationship to surrounding development. Staff raised several issues about the development proposal some of which were addressed in the handout, and much of which was addressed in subsequent letter dated April 29, 1992. In that letter, a May 6 deadline was given to submit revisions to the City. Also attached to that letter was a letter signed by several property owners in the vicinity which identified inadequacies of the reponses contained in the applications and raised questions about the proposal. May 6. Neither revisions to the applications and site plan, nor traffic study were received. May 12. Mr. Bennett was again contacted. He indicated that revisions would be delayed because he was waiting for additional information. Specifically, the long term transportation corridor plan for Pacific Highway. He added that METRO's plans were speculative and that he intended to proceed with the project. I requested he submit a letter to that effect. May 18. I left a message with Mr. Bennett to return my call. May 20. I again contacted the applicant. A different staff person, Janet Bean, had been assigned to the project. I requested a follow -up letter and we discussed the project. I also indicted that a SEPA determination must be made prior to scheduling a hearing, and because additional information had not been received, a SEPA determination could not be made nor a hearing date given. May 22. I received a letter from. J. Bean stating revisions would be submitted within 90 days. While 1 cannot provide dates, several conversations were held with Janet regarding the status of the project. She informed me that her firm was not being paid by Mr. Kim, and thus, had decided that no further work would be conducted on the project. August 17. Letter received from J. Bean (dated August 7, 1992) informing City that her firm was no longer involved in the project due to "complications with our client" and that no revisions would be submitted. August 18. Letter from me to J. Bean providing another deadline of September 4. This letter also included an outline of tasks and the amount of time involved to process the requests once revised information was received. Several attachments were also included: 1. • Southgate Business Park (project analysis). This described the distinction between zoning classifications; 2. Application deficiencies which needed to be addressed in the revised applications /site plan; 3. Letter dated March 13 to Mr. Bennett; 4. Letter from property owners dated March 20, 1992; 5. Letter dated April 29 to Mr. Bennett; 6. Letter dated August 7 to me from Janet Bean. This letter was a follow -up to my conversation with Janet Bean, who requested that even though her firm had put the project on hold, that an extension be considered. The City agreed to a final extension to September 4. September 4. Letter from Mr. Kim dated August 31 indicating issues with Mr. Bennett's firm had been 2 resolved and a request to extend the submittal deadline to September 18. September 4. Letter from Mr. Bennett dated September 2 indicating issues with Mr. Kim had been resolved and requested an extension to the deadline. September 14. Letter to Mr. Kim from City informing him that files for the project would be closed because no revisions over a seven -month period had been provided to the City. Mr. Kim was also informed that new applications and fees would be accepted any time. I believe you will agree that the City's planning staff made every reasonable effort to work with and assist the applicant with the process. In addition to the amount of lapsed time, the decision to close this project was also the result of the Department of Community Development's expenditure of an inordinate amount of staff time in assisting the applicant. Due to heavy work load demands, we could not justify further attention to this project. I hope I have answered your questions satisfactorily. Feel free to contact me any time if you have additional questions of if you need additional information. Sincerely, i . Denni Shefrin Associate Planner cc: John McFarland Rick Beeler Linda Cohen Jack Pace P92 -0028 Files April 12, 1993 Mr. Edward L Parks 13101 SE 240th Street Suite D -104 Kent, WA 98031 Dear Mr. Parks: Sincerely, Denni Shefrin Associate Planner cc: Linda Cohen, City Attorney Jack Pace, Senior Planner P92 -0028 Files Enclosures. City of Tukwila John W. Rants, Mayor Department of Community Development Rick Beeler, Director Subject: Southgate Business Park Project File No. P92 -0028: L92 -0021 SEPA L92 -0022 Comprehensive Plan Amendment L92 -0023 Rezone In your letter dated April 6,' 1993 to Linda Cohen, City Attorney, you requested that the above applications be re- opened. Applications for the rezone, Comprehensive Plan amendment and SEPA Checklist were received by the City on February 10, 1992.' Files for this proposal were closed on approximately September 14, 1992. During a seven -month period, and to the best of my recollection, extensive time was spent with Mr. Kim's agent. Through a series of meetings and written correspondence, staff attempted to provide as much assistance and guidance as reasonably possible. Submittal deadlines for revisions were also given to provide some level of certainty to staff for the scheduling of public notices and hearings associated with this project as well as scheduling several other projects. None of the deadlines had been met. The City's position concerning the status of the above applications remains unchanged. As stated in the September 14, 1992 letter, new applications and fees may be submitted any time. I might also suggest a pre - application meeting (no fee) with City staff. Pre - application meetings serve to provide an overview of applicable City requirements and policies triggered by the specific proposal. Feel free to contact me at 431 -3663 if you have further questions concerning this matter. 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • (206) 431-3670 • Fax (206) 431.3665 RECD . � "�- EIT:_., AFr 8 1993 COMMU NITY DEVELOPMENT April 6, 1993 LINDA COHEN Attorney at Law 6200 Southcenter Blvd. Tukwila, WA 98188 Re: Southgate Business Park 'File No P92 -0028 Dear Ms. Cohen, Please be advised that I represent the applicant in the above referenced matter. It appears that there was .some confusion in dealing with this matter. Mr. Kim had filed an application for change of zoning, paid the fees, but was not afforded a hearing with the Planning Commission. I am making a formal request on behalf of my client that this matter be re- opened and set for hearing before the Planning Commission. After you have had the opportunity to review your file, I would like to discuss the procedure necessary to complete the application process. Thank you,' Edward L. Parks EDWARD L. PARKS Attorney at Law 13101 SE 240th Street Suite D -104 Kent, WA 98031 (206)630 -8743 RECEIVED APR - 71993 CITY OF TUKWILA CRY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE TO: FROM: Rick Beeler, DATE: February 7, 1993 BACKGROUND: DISCUSSION: 1. City of Tukwila Department of Community Development M E M O R A N D U M Director DC Linda Cohen, City Attorney 1 RE: Criteria for Comprehensive Plan Submittal of exhibits in public 2. Must cross - examination of authors of written exhibits be afforded to parties in the hearing? Comprehensive plan amendment criteria: A. Role of the comprehensive plan: RECF'V D FEB 1 1 1994 COMMUN ITY DEVELOPMENT John W. Rants, Mayor Washington's planning laws (e.g. Growth Management Act, Planning Enabling Act RCW 36.70) establish the role of the Rick Beeler, Director RECEIVED FEB - 7 1994 CATYCETUM on ' Y A ITOf3NL Or"F:OE Amendments and hearings During the Planning Commission's review of the Southgate Trailer Park Comprehensive Plan amendment, the applicant raised two legal issues: 1. Are Tukwila's criteria for a Comprehensive Plan amendment valid? I need your advice on these issues in preparation for the Council hearing on the Planning Commission's recommendations. The legal basis for a zoning change has been evaluated by former City Attorneys Wallace and Kenyon (see attached memos); however, they have not evaluated criteria for a comprehensive (comp) plan amendment. Pursuant to my November 22, 1993 memo to you, we did the additional research you requested on December 7, 1993. Amendment criteria need to address: a) the role of the comp plan, b) criteria established by the courts, c) all of the criteria must be met, and d) whether the Planning Commission and Council must adopt findings and conclusions to amend a comp plan. 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • (206) 431-3670 • Fax (206) 431-3665 B. Court - established amendment criteria: Memo City Attorney Southgate criteria & exhibits, 2/7/94 Page 2 comp plan as a guide for future legislative action. While courts give divergent weight to the role of the comp plan, they agree that, if adopted as part of a SEPA ordinance, a comp plan has some regulatory effect. Aside from that, the comp plan is a standard of review for approving rezones. Attached is additional background information on the use of the comprehensive plan. Unlike the legislative process, quasi - judicial review places the burden of proof on the applicant. It follows logically that there must be some criteria which an applicant's proposal must meet. Staff found virtually no literature on comp plan amendment criteria. Several court decisions have established standards for review of rezones, including a relationship to the comp plan. Absent any comp plan criteria, the standards for review of rezones are the only criteria available to apply to a comp plan amendment. Below are Tukwila's Comp Plan amendment criteria. Criteria #1 and #2 (with slightly refined wording) are currently used in our amendment application. Criterion #3 is not stated as a criterion, but is listed on the application. Following each criterion is its source, based on standards of review for rezones. 1. "Unforseen changes in circumstances or in community conditions have occurred which justify a change in the Comprehensive Plan designation or in existing plan policies." Standard of review: A change in circumstances or changed conditions warrant the exercise of the police power (Barrie v. Kitsap County, Hayden v. Port Townsend). 2. "Factual evidence supports an additional or changed public need for the proposed designation." Standard of review: The change must bear a substantial relationship to the public health and welfare (Farr v. Bellevue; Cathcart v. Snohomish County; Parkridge v. Seattle). Memo City Attorney Southgate criteria & exhibits, 2/7/94 Page 3 3. "The proposed amendment is generally consistent with existing Comprehensive Plan policies." Our application asks the applicant to identify related Comp Plan policies and analyze their proposal's affect on them. Standard of review: The City must give due consideration to facts or circumstances (the arbitrary and capricious standard). Also, the change must bear a substantial relationship to the public health and welfare, which is expressed in comp plan policies. In the past, staff has used somewhat different criteria for our Comp Plan amendments (e.g. Martin, 1986). This is probably the result of evolving case law and guidance from different legal counsel. However, all of the Comp Plan amendment criteria we use appear to share the same basic elements: factual evidence, changes in circumstances, and public need. It appears from the above information that our Comp Plan amendment criteria have been developed consistent with court decisions. CONCUR / NOT CONCUR . C. Compliance with all or one of the above criteria: In our review of Comp Plan amendment proposals over the last 5 -6 years, staff has taken the approach that all criteria must be satisfied. CONCUR \/ NOT CONCUR D. Adoption of findings and conclusions in quasi- judicial amendments: The Southgate applicant asserted amendment criteria must be forma applied. While formal adoption i instruction is sufficient as outl' that Tukwila's Comp Plan order to be preferable, e above legal Staff Report to Ann Siegenthaler File Memo City Attorney Southgate criteria & exhibits, 2/7/94 Page 4 the Planning Commission and Council. The applicant did not object to the legal basis for the criteria staff evaluated. Adoption of Findings and Conclusions is sufficient. n e eA *t c"d o r 1- l�. o r et r r nc.� . S r- CONCUR/ NOT CONCUR krt - loe e ScAr -c.— y 6eP4 , a ep ,51r1 {�.,,., L+ r�, �r►-, L� v - C r 2. Submittal of exhibits in public hearings: b wt 11 ' › b L, , I °A The other issue which arose in the Southgate hearing is to what extent may parties object to new exhibits entering the public record? Quasi - judicial hearings are not governed by normal judicial rules of evidence, for example, written or hearsay evidence that cannot be cross - examined. However, quasi - judicial rules provide for cross - examination of parties who speak at a public hearing. Usually the dilemma is resolved by allowing the objecting party time to review the evidence for preparation of rebuttal or only noting their objection "for the record." Therefore, unaffirmed written evidence is allowable, but given accordingly. \_O ( 7\ \ s)y Your r- --•nse to these issues will assist us in preparing for a City ouncil hearing this month. Please respond by 2/14/94. If you have any detailed questions, please call Ann Siegenthaler (x 1685). ONCUR J NOT CONCUR Wallace memo "Criteria & Guidelines" Kenyon memo "Sensitive Areas Ordinance" 5/15/91 Kenyon memo "Allentown Downzone ".5 /24/91 "Using the Comprehensive Plan" handout 1988 Mackie handout "Zoning in the 80's" Martin rezone memo re: Farr v. Bellevue TO: FILE FROM: DENNI SHEFRIN DATE: SEPTEMBER 17, 1992 CONVERSATION: MR. KIM MR. KIM INDICATED THAT WHEN THE PROPERTY WAS ANNEXED INTO THE CITY, IT WAS REZONED TO A LOWER DENSITY ZONE COMPARED WITH THE COUNTY'S DESIGNATION. HE WAS TOLD AT A COUNCIL MEETING AT THE TIME GARY WAS MAYOR, THAT HE SHOULD APPLY FOR A REZONE. I INDICATED THAT STAFF CLOSED HIS REZONE, COMP. PLAN AMENDMENT /SEPA BECAUSE OF A 7 -MONTH DELAY IN SUBMITTED MATERIALS REQUESTED BY THE CITY. HE STATED THAT HIS PROPERTY RIGHTS HAVE BEEN IMPACTED AND HAD EARLIER ELECTED NOT TO GET HIS ATTORNEY INVOLVED BASED ON COUNCIL'S DIRECTION TO APPLY FOR THE ZONE CHANGE. HE ADDED THAT THE DISPUTE BETWEEN HE AND HIS CONSULTANT HAS BEEN RESOLVED. I SUGGESTED HE GET COPIES OF THE ANNEXATION RESOLUTION, ZONING ORDINANCE AND MINUTES OF THE COUNCIL MEETING AND SPEAK TO JACK PACE. September 14, 1992 Mr. Mark C. Kim 14004 Pacific Highway South Seattle, WA 98168 RE: Southgate Business Park Dear Mr. Kim: In your.letter dated August 31, 1992, you requested that the City consider extending the. September 4 1992 submittal deadline for revisions to the SEPA Checklist, Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Rezone applications. Included with my letter to you dated August 18 were copies of correspondence over a,, -month period. The letters address deficiencies of each application and provide submittal deadlines for application revisions. Because adequate time has been provided for the preparation and submittal of revisions, and because of the current demands placed upon the planning staff, your request for an extension of time cannot be granted. New applications and fees would be required if you desire to pursue this project proposal. Should you have further questions, I can be reached at 431 -3663. Sincerely, Denni Shefrin cc: Robert Bennett Jack Pace Ross Haller Rhonda Berry Evelyn Boykan City of Tukwila John W. Rants, Mayor Department of Community Development Rick Beeler, Director r 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • (206) 431-3670 • Fax (206) 431 SOUTHGATE BUSINESS PARK (P92 -0028) ..THE FOLLOWING PROJECT FILES'ARE CLOSED AS OF SEPTEMBER 10,.1992: SEPA L92 -0021 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT L92 -0022 REZONE L92 -0023 NEW APPLICATIONS AND FEES WOULD BE REQUIRED FOR SAME OR SIMILAR REQUEST. D. Shefrin Sept. 10, 1992 September 2, 1992 Attn: Denni Shefrin City of Tukwila Department of Community Development 6300 Southcenter Blvd., Ste 100 Tukwila, WA 98188 Dear Ms. Shefrin, Cordially, Robert A. Bennett, PLS cc: Mr. Kim I1 eiineit P B1 INC. SURVEYORS AND ENGINEERS P.O. BOX 1031 • PUYALLUP, WA 98371 PUY: (206) 845 -8833 SEA: (206) 838 -3474 FAX: (206) 841 -1734 Re: Kim Rezone Southgate Business Park L92 -0021, L92 -0022, L92 -0023 Reviewed your letter of August 18, 1992 as to needing the requested information by September 4, 1992. Mr. Kim and I met; our difficulties have been resolved. Would like to extend this project to answer the questions on this project. Need an appointment with you as soon as possible. I will make myself available. Mr. Kim would also like to attend any meetings. If you have any questions, please contact me. RECEIVED SEP '0 4 1992 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 4 u -/ 7- r? • r iZ�. . :v 5 i 9e= A/i ,10e) Jo z e! (5--f/'' /99a Mobil Homes & Flats Leasing. & Management Candliwood LeasingCorp. 14004 Pacific Highway South Seattle, Washington 98168 RECEIVED CITY OF TUKWILA SEP 0 4 1992 5 6- / (206) 243 -7003 oN 1LA yy •xtA City of Tukwila John W. Rants, Mayor Department of Community Development Rick Beeler, Director August 18,1992 Mr. Mark K. Kim 14004 Pacific Highway South Tukwila, WA 98168 RE: Southgate Business Park Dear Mr. Kim: As a follow -up to today's phone conversation, I have enclosed the following: Page 1 Southgate Business Park Initial Analysis Page 2 Letter dated March 13 to Robert Bennett Page 3 Letter dated April 20 to City from community members Page 4 Letter dated April 29 to Robert Bennett Page 5 Letter dated August 7, 1992 from Janet Bean of Bennett PS &E Inc. Information -contained in the Initial Analysis results from a cursory review of the proposed .Rezone and Comprehensive Plan Amendment applications and SEPA Checklist. The planning staff has concluded that the responses to these applications are deficient to the extent that a favorable recommendation•to the Planning Commission can not be made at this time. The City has requested revisions on several occasions and to date, revisions have not been received. In order to keep this project active, revisions must be received by September 4, 1992. Provided the revised applications are accepted as complete, processing the request may take approximately five months and will involve the following: 1. Internal staff meetings; 2. Meetings with you or your consultant to respond to outstanding issues which may arise; 3. SEPA Determination which may include mitigation measures; 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • (206) 431-3670 • Far (206) 431-3665 4. A meeting coordinated between you or your consultant and residents to address concerns as. stated .in the letter dated April 20, 1992; 5. Report preparation for public hearings before the Planning Commission and City Council. If you have further questions, you may contact me at 431 -3663. Sincerely, Denni Shefrin Attachments. cc: Janet Bean Jack Pace Ross Heller Rhonda Berry • :: ethaeit _PSE INC. SURVEYORS AND ENGINEERS P.O. BOX 1031 • PUYALLUP, WA 98371 PUY: (206) 845 -8833 SEA: (206) 838 -3474 FAX: (206) 841 -1734 I am writing to inform you that due to complications with our client, we will not be forwarding resubmittals for the SEPA Checklist, Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Rezone. As of this date we are no longer working on this project and any questions, should be forwarded to the land owner, Mr. Mark Kim. If you have any questions, please contact me. RECEIVED AUG 1 71992 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT August 4, 1992 Janet R. Bean Bennett PS &E Inc. P.O. Box 1031 Puyallup, WA '98371 City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Boulevard • Tukwila, Washington 98188 John W. Rants, Mayor RE: Southgate Business Park Dear Ms. Bean: Denni Shefrin Associate Planner cc: File No. L92 -0022 Rhonda Berry,tMayor's Office ;- In your letter dated May 20, 1992, you indicated that you anticipated resubmittals for the SEPA Checklist, Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Rezone within 90 days. In order for the planning staff to effectively evaluate its work plan and project processing schedule for the upcoming months, resubmittals for the above should be received no later than August 20, 19.92. Please contact me at 431 -3663 if you have further questions. Sincerely, Phone: (206) 433 -1800 • City Hall Fax (206) 433-1833 City of Tukwila Department of Community Development M E M O R A N D U M TO: Rick Beeler FROM: Denni Shefrin DAVE: 27 May 1992 SUBJECT: Southgate Business Park cc: Rhonda Berry John W. Rants, Mayor Rick Beeler, Director I am in receipt of a letter dated 20 May 1992 regarding the expected resubmittal to occur within 90 days for Southgate Business Park Comprehensive Plan Amendment, Rezone and SERA checklist. In my conversation with the applicant' (Janet Bean of Bennett PS &E Inc.), I suggested she coordinate with residents in the vicinity who have expressed concerns regarding the original proposal as it appears the applicant may be reconsidering their original development program. / On .Sn„threnter Boulevard. Suite #100 • Tukwila. Washineton 98188 • 1206) 431-3670 • Fax 1206) 431 -3665 May 20, 1992 Attn: Denni Shefrin City of Tukwila Department of Community Development 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite 100 Tukwila, WA 98188 Re: Southgate Business Park - L92 -0021, L92 -0022, L92 -0023 Dear Ms. Shefrin, Cordially, Bennett PS t (_ INC. SURVEYORS AND ENGINEERS P.O. BOX 1031 • PUYALLUP, WA 98371 PUY: (206) 845 -8833 SEA: (206) 838 -3474 FAX: (206) 841 -1734 Per our telephone conversation today regarding the above named project. We are revising the SEPA Checklist, the Comprehensive Plan Amendment Application, and the Rezone Application on this project and we intend to turn these in within the next 90 days. )anet R. can project Manager and Environmental Specialist MEN If 2 2 1992 CITY OF Tti w i A PLANNING DEPT. City of f Tukwila . 6200 Southcenter Boulevard • Tukwila, Washington 98188 John W Rants, Mayor M E M O R A N D U M TON John McFarland FROM: Denni Shefrir7 DATE: 20 May 1992 SUBJECT: Southgate Business Park Project Status 4/29/92 Letter to the applicant (Bob Bennett) providing options for further processing of the already submitted SEPA checklist, Comp. Plan Amendment and Rezone applications. The letter notified the applicant of previously missed deadlines for revised submittals (see letter attached). The applicant was to respond by May 6 concerning the submittal status. 5/6/92 There was no response from the applicant regarding submittal status. 5/12/92• 1 phoned the applicant to discuss the contents of the letter and requested a status update. Bennett indicated he was waiting for additional information concerning the long term transportation corridor plan for Pacific Hwy. He added that METRO's plans were speculative and would not impact the project. He said he would provide a letter the week of 5/12 stating his intent to proceed. No letter was received. • 5/18/92 Left phone message requesting call be returned. 5/20/92 Contacted the applicant. Janet Bean from Bennett's office indicated she is taking over the project. I requested a follow -up letter. We briefly discussed possible timelines from resubmittal to hearing. 1 indicated that no commitment could be made to schedule a hearing until a SEPA determination was made and community members met to discuss the project. I suggested a hearing could occur approximately 60 days after the resubmittal provided all required information was received. Phone: (206) 433-1800 • City Hall Fax (206) 433 -1833 , CC: Attachment Rick Beeler Jack Pace Rhonda Berry Please 'let me know if you have additional' questions. April 29, 1992 Dear Robert: City. of Tukwila Department of Community Development Rick Beeler, Director Mr. Robert Bennett, PLS Bennett PS &E Inc. 720 E. Main P.O. Box 1031 Puyallup, WA 98371 Re: Southgate Business Park - L92 -0021, L92 -0022, L92 -0023 John W. Rants, Mayor As a follow -up to our March 13 meeting, I provided a letter to you (copy enclosed) indicating that the information contained in the applications for a rezone, comprehensive plan amendment and SEPA checklist was insufficient for a cotplete analysis by staff. A submittal deadline of March 27 was also given for revisions for the April hearing. The March deadline had not been met. During our phone conversation on April 7, you indicated that revisions discussed both during our March 13 meeting and letter would be provided by April 17. To date, the City has not received revisions to any of the above applications. You therefore have.the following options: 1.' Inform staff by May 6 whether you intend to revise your submittal; 2. Provide revisions no later than May 8th in order for the request to be tentatively placed on the Planning Commission agenda for June.; 3. Should you choose not to revise the above submittals, staff will proceed with the current proposal and make recom- mendations based on existing information contained in the applications; 4. You may withdraw your request. Once revised applications.are received, a meeting will be arranged with community members who have expressed an interest in the project prior to the hearing. 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 •• Tukwila, Washington 98188 • (206) 431-3670 • Fax (206) 431-3665 Sincerely 4 L� Deenn Shefrin • Associate Planner RC: Enclosure !V� Rhonda Berry, FILE L92 -0021 FILE L92 -0022 FILE L92 -0023 Feel free to contact me at 431 -3663 if you have further questions. Mayor's Office (SEPA) (COMP. PLAN AMENDMENT) (REZONE) Dear Ms. Shefrin: March 20, 1992 i Denni Shefrin I MAR 2 3 '1992 Department of Community Development ;_ . 6200 Southcenter Blvd. CITY Tukwila, WA 98188 PLANNING ING DEPT. _ We would like to make you aware of our concerns regarding the proposed redevelopment of the Southgate Trailer Park 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 residential 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. 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 walk 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. 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 - I.d. Earth - There is no evidence presented that any soil testing has been clone 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 hawks, 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. lc. Is there evidence supporting this statement? I. 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? I0. 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 & 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 14f. 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 300 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 Tukwila's Comp Plan philosophy of protecting residential neighborhoods from encroachment by business uses. 1 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, 0a/i a Diane and Ted M ers 13919 42nd Ave. S. tetu Pam and C.C. carter Ron - d Nancy Lamb 4115 S. 139th St. 425.1...5.._ .139th St. [MAR 23 1992 PLANNING DEPT. .March 13, 1992 Mr. .Robert Bennett 720 :E. Main P.O. Box 1031 Puyallup, WA 98371 City of Tukwila Department of Community Development Rick Beeler, Director Re:•Southgate Business Center Dear Robert: John W. Rants, Mayor Thank you for meeting with me today. I hope the discussion was helpful in providing you clearer direction should you elect to revise both the rezone and comprehensive plan amendment applications and SEPA checklist. As expressed during our meeting, the information presently contained in each application is insufficient for the Planning staff to make reasonable findings to support your proposal. Please be aware that all SEPA issues must be resolved in order for the Planning staff to commit to a specific hearing date. It is therefore essential that revisions and all technical studies be provided no later than March 27th for consideration by the Planning Commission at the April 23rd hearing. In addition to dedicating public rights -of -way along S. 140th and S. 141st Streets, the City will require public improvements along both frontages to include curb, gutter and sidewalk. Questions related to improvements in general and adjacent to Pacific Highway should be addressed. to Phil Fraser who can be reached at 433 -1641, or Ron Cameron at 433 -1639. Please feel free to contact me at 431 -3663 if you have further questions.' Sincerely, : �, Denni Shefrin Associate Planner 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • (206) 431-3670 • Fax (206) 431-3665 March 13, 1992 REQUEST: 1. Comprehensive Plan Amendment from residential to commercial 2. Rezone from R -2 to C -2 (approx. 9600 sq. ft.portion currently zoned C -2) 3. SERA Determination Zoning GLA = 173,059 sq. ft (3.9 acres) R -2: 10.8 du /ac R -3: 14.5 du /ac R -4: 21.7 du /ac RMH: 29 du /ac SOUTHGATE BUSINESS PARK The burden of proof in demonstrating the appropriateness of a zone change and comprehensive plan amendment rests entirely with the proponent. It is therefore critical that the proponent be as specific and elaborate as possible in responding to the application criteria. It is this criteria which will be used by both the Planning Commission and City Council in making the recommendation and final decision for each quasi- judicial action. Rezone Application Several responses to the rezone application do not clearly support the rezone criteria: 1. The response should address the current Comprehensive Land Use Policy Plan. Please clarify and elaborate on the last sentence. What is meant by the property's potential? 3. Describe why the present use of land does not respond to the needs of the community. The first sentence also does not address why redevelopment with existing zoning could not result in upgrading the site. What is meant by compliance with City codes would result in disruption? 4. The second and third sentence are not clear. In the third sentence, the second part should support the first part. Specific goals and policies of the comprehensive plan should be identified to support any statement made where the comprehensive plan is referenced. 5. The first sentence is unclear. The second sentence does not specify why the existing R -2 & C -2 zones would not permit upgrading. The application does not suggest that reasonable consideration has been given to redevelopment opportunities under the existing zoning conditions. Other zone classifications should be considered as well and addressed. Comprehensive Plan Amendment Application SEPA /Rezone 6. There should be some discussion about the present use of the site, the length of time the use has occupied the site and a description of the surrounding land uses on all sides. More importantly, there has been no information provided which would demonstrate that redevelopment under existing zoning conditions would be neigther cost effective nor suitable.. What is meant by reorganization and disruption of persons involved? 8A. The response does not identify specific changed city policies or plans. Please reference specific examples of what has been upgraded. Have city policies and plans been investigated? 8B. Discuss how the proposal would serve the public need. 9. The response does not specify goals and policies of the Comprehensive Land Use Policy Plan & page numbers as required by the application. The nature of comprehensive plans deal with both existing conditions, and desirable future conditions. What method was used to determine the highest and best use of the property? Discuss how the Comprehensive Land Use Policy Plan conflicts with your highest and best use analysis. Extended checklist. Applicant must provide traffic, circulation and trip generation analysis. Contact Phil Fraser. Provide water and sewer availiability letters from Water Dist. 125 and Val Vue sewer district. Possible street dedication required. Fire 2000 gpm required for commercial development. February 18, 1992 Mr. Mark Kim Candlewood Leasing Co. 14004 Pacific Hwy South Tukwila, WA 98168 Dear Mr. Kim: Thank you for meeting with Mayor Rants and myself last week. I believe the discussion was beneficial in that we now have a clearer understanding of the issues surrounding Southgate Mobile Home Park. The following is a memorialization of those issues. 1. Your stated intent is to request a rezone of that portion of the park currently zoned R -1 to a higher use classification of C -2. It is understood that you would like to accomplish the re -zone as soon as possible. The City of Tukwila will provide appropriate and timely guidance to you in this effort. 2. Code enforcement violations are evident to anyone who views the park. Specific concerns were expressed regarding garbage, junk, torn skirting and other unsightly situations. A higher level of attention needs to be given to correcting these deficiencies. Bear in mind that you as the property owner retain primary responsibility for correcting these deficiencies. 3. Criminal activity in the park is appalling. Incidents of crime are the highest per capita of any defined geographical area within the City, and has generated a significant demand for police services. Greater attention in screening potential residents needs to be initiated. We are willing to provide a letter for you to offer to all potential residents stating our anti -crime emphasis program in the park. We understand that you are dealing with some very difficult circumstances with respect to some of your tenants. The fact remains that you as the property owner are the person most responsible for the condition of the park. We are willing to provide whatever assistance we can to assist in addressing and correcting the crime, code enforcement and social services needs of your tenants. Just as you rightfully have an expectation that the City will be responsive to you in the re -zone and development process, we too have an expectation that you will be responsive in correcting deficiencies brought to your attention by our staff. I remain hopeful that we can work cooperatively together through the mutual issues of concern that face both you and the City in these coming months. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at 433- 1832. Sincerely, cr‘--- t7z-./ John McFarland City Administrator IM/so City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Boulevard • Tukwila, Washington 98188 John W. Rants, Mayor Phone: (206) 433-1800 • City Hall Fax (206) 433-1833 1- - Cr (. 1 2_ - C ---2 ci - 2— **••...... • • • ■••••-r i. 4 II, t • P. '';1:.,t •,.4p140 ' • • ,,,,j.• ..s.LV . ._ /e•i .. :V1f - 4( 4•7 4., :',.s:",:: ' %. N.- .. ,■., -ter,VAIT . '.: :'' - '-' i: ) ..,••• , ' '; ' ..r. . . ■ - 7 0, . .,$ A■ 4 114 - -,, . - ,—. 41: 'for • - • rm,431iiiiirmemays t .,.. 1.. , , .,.:: ,-.,....,,,,„„„,.„.. .'... , ...v.:-4 , ...-. 4 .-.' ••="; r o im.. ...436,7 , "' . r;... -• ' ' " "_______,..„....„..„. ,„ . . , _„. , - , . ' r - : •- • - , • •;L'.*; •• • - • • • • • , • , " . • . . „ .• , • • • • . , . • • ": • •' • • ,••• ' ,s i". • "T. " ttlr • f ,• - 1 r " !tt . • • , • ...•34- • • • •••• „ N. •.* ■•., . ... ( • • •■•••■■• ; ' - ( , • •-•••••,. e ••••••••!••••.%...,..„ MEMORANDUM TO: John McFarland " FROM: Evelyn Boyka42 2 RE: Response to impact on Southgate rezoning DATE: March 9, 1992 I have very few questions regarding Mr. Kim's application. I would question his consultant. The application is pretty vague. However, my concern focuses on the broader issue of available low income housing in Tukwila and the impact by reducing the amount available. Unfortunately, at this time, I have more questions than definitive statements. I am including with this memo information from Wendy Morgan's report as it relates to housing, and information from Tukwila's current comprehensive plan which is to be revised. Questions related to application: What defines best use of property in this matter? Within the application, the writer says, " The property in present use does not allow the owner any relief for up- grading facilities ". Does this mean that problems in existence are only solved by rezone? How does writer describe "problems in existence "? How does writer describe safety problems that exist? Other related questions /issues... Mr. Kim' reports owning 40 trailers. This would mean that apprroximately 18 trailers are owned individually. This is a significant number of families that would be displaced. Should City have a certain percentage of property for low - income rental housing? What should City's fair share be? How would the city define low- income housing? What is current vacancy rate in Tukwila's low income rental housing? In the absence of 1990 census data on income, how does Tukwila measure in terms of amount of affordable housing for low- income residents? Should City /owner share financial responsibility for relocation /displacement of mobile home owners? Writer acknowledges that about 100 people are to be displaced. With limited available of low income housing, and not wanting to disrupt a child or children in school, how should we assist families to stay in the area? Will /Should the City have a human services element in their comprehensive plan? The last comprehensive plan, completed in 1992 indicates policies and objectives regarding diversified supplies of housing, rehab of aging structures, encouraging development of housing for elderly, etc. (See attached). What municipal codes promote /deter activity to support these policies? How does the City intend to revise those policies and objectives, and provide a process for following through on them? Should Comp plan include policy on development of housing for other targeted groups beside the elderly? Who would the groups be and what is the evidence of need? Current status on housing and low income in Tukwila: Residents in 98168 and 98188 represent 32% of total # of residents in those zipcodes. Residents in 98178 represent 4% of total # of residents. As of July 1991, there were 123 active section 8 contracts in 98168, 55 contracts in 98178 and 104 contracts in 98188. There were also 46 applications in 98168, 16 applications in 98178 and 23 applications in 98188. A reasonable guess is that 10% of the 98168, 78, and 88 residents are eligible for Section 8 housing. This would make 27 residents. Updated information on current contracts and applications are pending. Number of housing units in Tukwila currently used as Section 8 housing is also pending. However, we do know that 40% of school district children are eligible for free and reduced lunch, (approximately 720 kids) so there is probably a much larger population that would be eligible for section 8 housing. Families who are eligible for this program make no more than $22,385 for a family of four. The majority of rental units in Tukwila are less than the King County average of $560 for a two bedroom unit. For a family of 4 on public assistance $187 a month would be considered affordable (30% of their income). So looking at the median rent in Tukwila ($433), more than 60% of that family's income would have to go for housing. A family whose income is 50% SMSA ($21,950 for family of 4) would be able to afford a two bedroom at $549 month. The Crisis Clinic lists four motels in Tukwila as "low- income ". This represents a total of 178 units that range from $23 -$29 daily and $155 - $160 weekly. At that rate, any long term stay in a motel would certainly not be considered a "low- income "rate. The City has approximately 6 low- income rental apartments or trailers. I don't currently have the total number of units or rental rates. In summary, growing needs for low income housing units in South County impacts Tukwila, as well as other South King cities. As such, zoning changes that reduce the number of available low- income units will have an effect on our population. Further investigation is needed to determine what the effect would be and how many of our residents are considered "at- risk" in terms of losing their homes and becoming homeless. This is a complex issue that also is tied to employment, family violence, substance abuse, senior needs, developmental disabilities etc. I will continue to try and gather information to address some of the questions I have raised. cc: Mayor Rants Denni Shefrin :COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT APPLICATION CITY OF TUKW/LA 1 (: ; DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEi QPME61t , on the subject site. 3. APPLICANT:* Name: 1. BRIEFLY DESCRIBE YOUR PROPOSAL: T place office - building complex '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 ?nd Ave. and Pacific Hwy. S. Quarter: SW Section: 15 Township: 23 Range: 0 E (This information may be found on your tax statement) Bennett P.S. & E., Inc. AFFIDAVIT OF OWNERSHIP Phone: 243 -7003 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, T wila, WA 98188 Telephon: (206) 431 -3680 Address. 720 East Main /d . o . Box 1031/ Puyallu WA 98372 Phone. 838 -3474 Signature Date: 1 / /q Z * The applicant is the person whom the staff will contact regarding the appl cation, and to whom all notices and reports shall be sent, unless otherwise stipulated b applicant. • 4. PROPERTY Name: Mark K. Kim and Soon S. Kim (Husband and Wife) OWNER Address: 14004 Pacific Hwy. S., Tukwila, WA '8168 I /WE,[signature(s)12 v�1 C • / ,��-�� swear that I /we are a owner(s) or contract purchaser(s) of the property volved in this application an I that the foregoing statements and answers contain d in this application are true and correct to the best of my /our knowledge and belief. Date: l 30- 7,72 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN • IAENDMENT APPLICATION Page 2 5. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN Existing: tA57 DL t.-atd— d-e-n-si -t-y Residential and Commercial DESIGNATION Proposed: Commercial 6. ZONING: Existing: - ae:n-s i-t v— R:e-s -'. Proposed: Commerical C - Z 7. USE: Existing: Residential Proposed: commerical]. 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 the 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 upgrading of surrounding properties has led this site to be more in line with the requested zoning g'am B. Factual evidence supports an additional or changed public need for the proposed designation. RESPONSE: The ,properties on three (3) sides an-d the major 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 existing condition of the property and not with what would be considered the best use of the property. CITY OF TUKWIL4 f DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT :..•. ; :.:..;\ DEPT. 1. 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: S W Section: 15 Township: 2 3 Range: 4 E (This information may be found on your tax statement) 3. APPLICANT:* Name: Bennett P.S. & E . , Inc. Address' 729 East (lain, Puyallup, WA 98372 P On 838 -3474 Signature: � drr,G . * Date: I /Eat (.512_ * 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 To place offir.e hiii lding 4. PROPERTY Name: dark D Kim and Soon S. Kim (Husband and Wife) OWNER Address: 14004 Pacific Hwy. S., Tukwila, WA 98168 Phone: 243 -7003 I /WE,[signature(s)] 2) (' e' - l ��-- swear that 1/we are a 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: REZONE APPLICATION . Page 2 IMMIN 5. What is the current zoning of the property? Low Density Residential and Commercia: 6. What is the size of the property? 3.97 Acres 7. What zoning classification is requested? 8. What is the comprehensive land use map designation? 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 fronting on Old 99 (Pari f i r . Hi,►y. . S . ) An upgrade in this property use to commercial zoning will allow the owner to provide services more in line with the properties potential. CRITERIA Commercial e^ -e: 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 attacheddesign provides a foot print review showing access to be from streets South 140th and South 141st. and not the busy arterial Pacific Hwy 5. (01d 99) This effort alone cuts potential traffic hazards involving altercations to access the property. Also controllinn the on -site infrastructure will be 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) REZONE APPLICATION Page 3 RESPONSE: The present use of the land does not respond to the needs of the community to upgrade and bring 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 constructioni.in the area reflects a trend to upgrade. properties. Therefore by making the-proposed,. 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 to 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 owner any relief for upgrading fanilities. Therefore the rezone is the only sensible method of resolving any prnhlems that are alrParly in pxistanre_ 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. 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 prpspnt time. The rezone would allow the City to rectify any safety problems that nnw exist. City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila Washington 98188 (206) 433 -1800 Gary L. VanDusen, Mayor TO: Members of the Community Affairs & Parks Committee FROM: Michael R. Kenyon, City Attorney ! RE: Citizens' Request for Allentown Downzone DATE: May 24, 1991 MEMORANDUM At the May 6, 1991, City Council meeting, members of the Allentown community presented a petition from the KOCR (Keep Our Community Residential) requesting that certain real property located at "42nd Avenue South, South 114th Street and South 115th Street, on the east side of Poverty Hill ", be downzoned from CM to R -1. As can be seen from the attached map submitted by the KOCR, the small CM parcel is generally surrounded by residential zoned property to the west (with the exception of a small C2 parcel) and by M2 industrial property to the east. The question presented is whether the Council, on its own and in response to citizen request, can undertake such a downzone in a constitutional manner? The short answer: in general, zoning is especially within the province of the legislative body and a court will not substitute its judgment for that of the legislative body absent an abuse of legislative discretion. Any zoning, specifically including downzoning, however, will be invalidated when it merely serves the private interests of neighbors of the rezoned site without serving any substantial public purpose. If the Council chooses to pursue a site specific downzone here, as opposed to rezone of that parcel as part of a general area - wide rezone, the Council's determination will necessarily turn on the advanced by proponents and opponents with, respect to public good vs. private harm. Unless and until the Planning Commission and Council are provided with that evidence, the following legal analysis must necessarily be considered in a vacuum. MEMORANDUM Page 2 May 24, 1991 A. General Law. As briefly indicated above, zoning is peculiarly within the• province of the City Council and the Council's judgment will not be upset by a court absent an abuse of legislative discretion. Carlson v. Bellevue, 73 Wn.2d 41, 47, 435 P.2d 957 (1968). The Carlson case involved a proposed upzone of a parcel from residential to business use where the owner hoped to build a service station. The County had zoned the property residential. In 1964 when the property was annexed to Bellevue, the City maintained the residential zoning. The Court indicated that, "If the validity of the legislative authority's classification for zoning purposes is fairly debatable, it will be sustained." Carlson at 45, citation omitted. To interpret that blanket statement, however, the Court listed several factors to be considered in determining whether a zoning ordinance is "fairly debatable" in its application to a given parcel: 1. Character of the neighborhood; 2. Existing uses and zoning of nearby property; 3. The amount by which property values are decreased; 4. The extent to which the diminution of values promotes public health, safety, morals or welfare; 5. The relative gain to the public as compared with the hardship imposed upon the individual owner; 6. The suitability of the subject property for the purpose for which it is zoned; and 7. The length of time the property has remained unimproved, considered in the context of the land development in the area. Carlson at 51. ejZsz i In analyzing the "public interest" portions of the equation, it is important to recognize that the public interest which must be served by the zoning action is the public interest of the region directly affected•by the action, including any areas outside Tukwila limits. SAVE v. Bothell, 89 Wn.2d 862, 576 P.2d 401 (1978); Settle, Washington Land Use and Environmental Law, Section 2.11 (c) at 60 -61. A further wrinkle to the "public interest" portions of the equation arose in Allingham v. Seattle, 109 Wn.2d 947, 749 P.2d 160 (1988). The Allingham Court, holding that the Seattle ordinance requiring portions of property owners' lots to be set aside as greenbelt constituted an unconstitutional taking, specifically held that a "taking" occurs where an ordinance "does not substantially promote legitimate public interests...." Although Allingham was subsequently overruled in part, that later overruling was limited only to the Allingham MEMORANDUM Page 3 May 24, 1991 Id at 462, citation omitted. holding that a taking can occur to only one portion of a regulated parcel. The Allingham "takings" holding above, with respect to a lack of public interest promoted by the zoning regulation, appears to continue to be the state of the law in Washington. B. Specific Downzone Cases. Although not large in number, at least two reported appellate decisions specifically involving downzones are worth comment. In Valley View v. Redmond, 107 Wn.2d 621 733 P.2d 182 (1987), a citizen panel recommended a downzone of the subject property from light industrial to agricultural. The citizen recommendation was adopted as part of area -wide zoning changes. Prior to the adoption of the downzone, Valley View had vested by filing complete building permit applications for five buildings to be put on the site. The downzone must bear a "substantial relation to the public welfare ", specifically "to the general welfare of the affected community ", in order to satisfy due process standards. Valley View at 640. In this case, Redmond advanced two public interests in support of its downzone: the preservation of farm land and a more appropriate dividing line between land zoned industrial and land zoned agricultural. In this case, the downzone was invalidated. Arguably, Valley View could be distinguished from our case based on the fact there that the applicant had vested. As a practical matter, however, we should expect the owner of the CM parcel in Allentown to submit complete building permit application as soon as he receives notice that the Council may be contemplating a downzone. Finally, in Parkridge v. Seattle, 89 Wn.2d 454, 573 P.2d 359 (1978), Seattle attempted to rezone certain property "from apartment construction to single - family use ". Id at 456. The developer successfully challenged the downzone at trial. The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court, and voided the downzone as arbitrary and capricious. Of significance to our case is the Supreme Court's recognition that the "current views of the community urging rezone to single - family use may be given substantial weight in matters of this nature. They cannot, however, be controlling absent compelling reasons requiring . a rezone for the public health, safety, morals or' general welfare." MEMORANDUM Page 4 May 24, 1991 C. Conclusion. The general rule, set forth in many cases, is that zoning actions are within the legislative province and will not be disturbed absent an abuse of discretion. Those cases, however, typically deal with large scale zoning actions. Where'a municipality seeks to isolate some parcel not large enough to be considered an area - wide rezone, different factors are at play. Specifically, the factors enumerated in Carlson v. Bellevue, set forth at page 2 above, should be considered. The City must be able to articulate one or more :public interests and /or public purposes to be served by the proposed downzone. After that threshold is reached, the various Carlson factors must be applied to reach a final decision. Under Parkridge, you can additionally consider the views of the community urging the rezone to single family, but those views cannot be dispositive absent compelling reasons requiring a rezone for the public health, safety, or welfare. cc: Mayor VanDusen L. Rick Beeler Lucy Lauterbach ALLENTN.001 •.. • “. • • . . • . ;,-; • 1 - • ." " I I- 2. • . ••:;....• I • ; ..• 1... R -1- . I • • •••• • . I • . ' t •••••••,. ' I i''.:4 • • . , .......: 1" ...\\\,,*‘:. > ,„,,•.• • I 1 .....: . .. 1 ... .../ i ' N,,..,.... • ...\.• '.... .1 f i I . P ... I I '' • :.. ... ":1 ,•' . ■ .C•r, ,, . \ ..I .. 1 ., 17...... • : . • 1 j ... , .• .. ., .......---.‘ .., ; ••.... f .! .. • i • ':: i . ) ...* \ ... .. i • , : • i ■•`:: \ ..,. it R-1-7.2 .. . 1 - 1 i i • • ' ' .1 ..• -....1.. . : .... ' .• - I ...... 1 1..--',..„,:.„, \ • 2 M-2 i 1 .1;1'. 11 lir . ....1......1. x...lit. k .:,. %. M.11 M.1 ft 1 ,:-1\ ‘ I! I • • • I.. •• ...2.7.11 • li, v.p.1.7.2 , k„,.. ....ii .11'.1...\.:1'1'.-.' I 11•1'7-2 !I: '" I ' \U •, .,..,.. t.......:..11,1,... .:•;...... CI; . • - - 1111.:1: • :1 1-7 1 ;- - 1 . ' : ; .' . : 17•2: i \ .. t . j • :,1 1 j 11 ., .:......7.....y - ... •\•• <....„ .. ..-,- .. I • ''.•'. k..•... ; . II 1 , C-11 ••• • • ...!, • 1 1.1 . 1 • • • • . . • • .1 . I -■• t . 7.2 AIM-1) ....1 os•mommoll • i •;: 1 • .•• • • R-1-12.0 . • \ , \\\.\ , A .•>•7. •••• .H• ....... • ' 111 1:1 Ft; va-2 •• 1T.:1 1 R •1•7.2 • " • • 1 1• ••••••-• •! C.1 "R-1-7.2 --11..!---„.p INC 'CO S1 *N?.. ROG.' • •,• M.1 rTUKWILA 'PROG • \ \ \ \ • * M-1 1 1 / M • • \••• ;IN • • * •;* • , \ • i12-°!;__-..:---?\„ , . • . \ 11•■■•■•• ; ,i ' • . . s. 1 .: ..... . .,,,,. -..../ -1-7.2 ',I: ir : . .1 i t t r.; * i '\ 1: P'1.-.1 ' ., / ... .1 tr.:.?.:..i 1.7.r.:.! \ \ 0 i . ...i 1 R.1-7.2'. N1,1 •\,\ . ....,: -...• F'i.1 .' \ ': .. ■ 1 -0 •.;. .., - 1-• \ ;; ,.1 .i 1 \ \ I • *. .■ :.:----0, ,,,. , ‘,..;\ ) 1 S • ...„ .. ...1...:: 1 ....1 - 1` . ...: ••• .:•' --- .., -..,' .1 . . • . '••.. '' • 1 i- ‘ ..\ N''.. 1 - ' . : ....,,.,i., J. 1 •(:l !.• i R 2. 1 0 . . ."'''..." CN:' . ‘‘..\\ \-\ --1-rn r--.Th 1747: ' • .1`...'N tI \ .• , , .. : ‘ \ • ! ..... ■-• '71 ' 'i ; ; 1; • i - . t .•-•- •---• - • ." " •R•1- • . • ! . • ....•,•... :___-• '''.) _...j... MH i .......:,..,,,z\ 1 •.,, k R.-I-7.2 N. • '.. i'' . 1'' aLIIII 1..■•■•■.„, : :.. L.: L.i i,,..\ \ g ••••••...... i ,, LL i 7). ga■rt .. o i ■.... ;,,,, . "i f 7.7 i.:7 7.2 F;. :2 ..R.-i. j \ - "? ...s4 -rds.: • v....A ‘::: 4:••••• . C c f ; . .i ;; i I" '13 i ••,',, 3 , t: 7:" '' : ::..:!) i • : ..t y .,.., • . .:714 7 .‘• I . .. .. ,1 : . .:!' „;.... ,i .... • .*•\\ -......•'. . . '‘. t 1 ;11 20.0 1 .R •-, -. --o.1.72 11':.... \-.. - ,K,,..: • 4 ........, . . .,....,... • , .... ... ..!. _ , ... ,.... • , 1 L . • I , i , ., ,,..PT: \ 4 11-.. ..... _J 1 .. 172 "I r '2 :.. -- r J..= --..i ; •••• -''' ":: • "' N iL'2 .. . • ; t ■• 1 •• 1 1 1 ,.■ i -. 'it' `...ii::A. 12.0 7- .J.:-.) LI ''.2r" 1 1.1'. 1 II+ ..• : 4 . .."'`.....' u 1 ... • I.J L. 7 F3 .: 2 7;-1: &IC, . 2.; R . ,-) ; 1,•_•,:„..... .... ::: -..:•..... - 1 . ' , , , ! , • r _ . I. .1. ..... r . 1 ..t : 11:: ,1 L:, .:I i. :7:-_ •,.......,..„ ; : . 1......!: .!..... ..i ;.1 i ■-- .:; --...! .... :lie /. L..; i .. - ,••• / ; ; , i ■• ... 1 , ° ' . ..,....-„N.... ,.. . • • , r.-3 ' C-2 ' - 1 - - . ' .... • . i • ••.. .. -- , .,, ; ... • • 1 , •-• • ..... ...••• „ ' .:1••,;(....1 ..:.... I .P'.r= ( 'S-1-7.2 :.....1 i :i 1!-.:. .-........_,, ., 1 ,......... : .. ; .,...• s . .:7..,."... y .. .. ...........--3 i • . .. , ..), t, .........., I . . i R. i • .. : 7 • '.. 1 I • $ ••• 1 I • • .141 4 . • 7 ............." 1 I I A" .- t -1 i ../ 1.........■ Y, ilm C22..! 1■As • .."..-.`, . . ..,....-..,..........-.„.....- ._... ..... • I , : R-1-7 -, - ..7-1:.;. 1:.-.= 1•2•;" , ,:*c:2 ....; 491. P. 1 ' • 1 • ; I 1 C-ei ..• L i t_... ...... _.LL _.:1.!, 'T 1: . 1 1 , . .. st I.- .- ''•- •:' - ..;:".... .: P..14,AH ••••: ... i r*.: C-171 1. -..r. ' • -: . -•. ..,i 1 R.1.7 2i .. 6 1 . i j 4. ' I 3 . . . i • I • ', ', ' I,',:,;l2, i ; 1, 1 1 . • ; R2 R172 .. ...., _,... • .. ......: ..: ... . , ... ..\ , .. .1 .., ...... _ • ' . 1 1 , , i 1,.* 1 : . i . . • I ( ' I I .. • II-. f - ' . I .: ••• • • I r.: i • , I. 1 R ■3 .1 I. \. '.\\%, • 4 6,; Fi..17:2 1 I .7 J. :-:„........: ,, .2.......L I_ . i .. , !.. _.. .1,...:_i L _J___ ,,, .„. ...........„J 1 • i .i 1L . . • ,. . ,.-., .• . •• 1-. ••'1 . R ... '- -FT i j ■ . ' 7 1 ET: -. 1 .----7-7 1 • , , ,,, I 1 t 't. ,....?._,.::::._ . \: -...; • 4 ) ,---, , • .,.. i i ,....1....,..1 7 .2 _I, ■,,--•,- 1 jR.;/.7.2 • 1 ii ;R.1.7.2 I It XI. .....,.1 1"•,..V, 7 \ \:!...... R-1•9 6 I ,, , , .. • •-•••. 1... ..... ., 11 : .., i i j I F.s., 1 - I • -', ...4 ; ! , • . ! i .,... , 1: • V. \ I .1..!.• • t L. R-A M-1 FOSTER GOLF COURSE RA City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila Washington 98188 (206) 433 -1800 Gary L. VanDusen, Mayor MEMORANDUM TO: Members of the City Council FROM: Michael R. Kenyon, City Attorney RE: Sensitive Areas Ordinance SUBJECT: Identification of Specific Sensitive Areas in Ordinance DATE: May 15, 1991 At the Committee of the Whole meeting on Monday, May 13, you posed the following questions: Whether the identification within the terms of the ordinance (or by reference within the ordinance to the parcels identified in the Jones & Stokes Report) constitutes impermissible spot zoning? If not, whether such site specific identification triggers quasi - judicial requirements? As a preliminary matter, we also refer you to our memorandum dated May 13, 1991 and John F. Colgrove's memorandum dated May 9, 1991 for additional background information. A. Snot Zoning. As a general proposition, "spot zoning" is zoning for the benefit of one or a few and to the detriment of the community as a whole. See, e.g., Cathcart - Maltby Community Council v. Snohomish County, 96 Wn.2d 201, 634 P.2d 853 (1981). Under certain other reported cases, this Council's action in singling out the smaller, sensitive areas from larger areas and zoning those sensitive areas for a use classification different from the surrounding land could constitute spot zoning. SORE v. Snohomish County, 99 Wn.2d 363, 662 P.2d 816 (1983). Although spot zoning is generally improper, there is no hard and fast rule to that effect. Id, at 368. Rather, the test is: MEMORANDUM - Page 2 May 15, 1991 "... whether the zoning action bears a substantial relationship to the general welfare of the affected community ... only where the spot zone grants a discriminatory benefit to one or a group of owners to the detriment of their neighbors or the community at large without adequate public advantage or justification will the [City's] rezone be overturned." Id. [Citations omitted.] In SANE v. Seattle, 101 Wn.2d 280, 676 P.2d 1006 (1984), the court declared that spot zoning can be valid, if it promotes the welfare of the community and generally conforms to the comprehensive plan, regardless of whether it involves easing or tightening of restrictions. In our particular situation, where the City is seeking to identify and protect certain areas, rather than a case' where a developer or other private landowner is seeking to isolate certain areas for private gain, the general policies condemning spot zoning would appear to be inapplicable. Although some may argue about the wisdom of the City's decision in identifying certain areas as has been done, no convincing argument can be advanced that such identification was not intended for the greater public good. Accordingly, even though the City's actions in isolating smaller sensitive areas from larger parcels and zoning those smaller areas differently than the surrounding areas, we do not believe a court would consider the City's actions to be spot zoning. This is due to the "public benefit" ,policy considerations referenced above, the state's mandate in the Growth Management Act to identify certain sensitive areas, and other, general case law. For example, in Wiggers v. Skagit County, 23 Wn.App. 207, 596 P.2d 1345 (1979), the court set forth certain factors to consider in determining whether state action constitutes spot zoning: 1. The benefit or detriment to the owner; arlqui 2. The benefit or detriment to the public; bases 3. The size of the area reclassified; and. 4. The character of the adjacent land. Id at 216. Applying these factors to the situation now facing the Council, a landowner could clearly prove that the sensitive area designation is a detriment. Given the corresponding public benefit, however, MEMORANDUM - Page 3 May 15, 1991 coupled with the relatively small size of the sensitive areas in Tukwila, such classifications probably would not constitute spot zoning. The final factor, character of the adjacent land, will obviously turn on the particular characteristics of land adjacent to any sensitive area. It is not possible to intelligently generalize on that proposition. As a final consideration regarding spot zoning, the Wiagers court indicated in dicta that a claimed spot zoning is subject to invalidation only if the Council's action is determined to be arbitrary and capricious. Wiggers at 216. The state Supreme Court, in Buell v. City of Bremerton, 80 Wn.2d 518, 526, 495 P.2d 1358 (1972) had previously adopted just that test. This is a substantial burden for a challenger to overcome. Any challenger would have to prove that this Council: ... acted in an arbitrary and capricious manner which [the state Supreme Court has} defined as being willful and unreasonable action, without consideration and with a disregard of facts or circums ances. Where t ere is room for two opinions, action is not arbitrary and capricious when exercised honestly and upon due consideration though it may be felt that a different conclusion might have been reached." [Citation omitted.] Buell at 526. Accordingly, prcvided the Council can articulate reasonable bases for identifying specific sensitive areas, and those bases are grounded in materials in the Council record, the action is not likely to be considered spot zoning. B. Quasi- Judicial Impacts of Identifying Specific Sensitive Areas. Although not likely td be found by a court to constitute spot ioning, the identification of specific pieces of land as sensitive areas either in the ordinance or by reference to the Jones & Stokes Report, without providing those landowners an opportunity for a hearing, raises serious constitutional questions. The issues are generally categorized as due process concerns and are addressed initially in John Colgrove's memorandum dated May 9, 1991, beginning with the "Invalidation Issue" heading at page 3. These issues are separate from his "takings" analysis, also contained in that memorandum. Textbook due process requires that any person subject to state action be provided with notice of the action and an opportunity MEMORANDUM - Page 4 May 15, 1991 to be heard. Arguably, notice of public hearings, newspaper reports, and the opportunity for a landowner to speak at a public hearing satisfy the due process concerns. From the perspective of a landowner, however, who for whatever reason first becomes aware after enactment of the SAO that some portion of his property has been identified as a sensitive area and whose use of that property has been significantly curtailed, public hearings and media reports may not be sufficient. For example, in Presbytery. of Seattle v. Kina County, 114 Wn.2d 320, 328 -336, P.2d (1990), the court discussed the boundaries outside of which land use regulation can constitute a violation of substantive due process rights. The Presbytery case centered around the Presbytery of Seattle's purchase of a single family residence on approximately four and one -half acres in Federal Way. The purchased parcel contained a wetland. Prior to submission of a building permit or any development on the parcel, King County enacted its wetlands preservation ordinance. The Presbytery sued seeking damages for constitutional "takings" and due process violations. The court made clear that these two constitutional theories are alternatives in cases where restrictive land use issues arise. That is to say, a challenging party need not elect to sue under either one or the other of those theories. The difference is in the available remedies. The first inquiry in all cases is whether the challenged land use regulation safeguards the public health and safety, environment, or "fiscal integrity of an area ". Id at 329. Second, the court inquires whether the regulation destroys one or more of the fundamental attributes of land ownership (rights to possess, exclude others, and dispose of property). If a regulation protects the public from one of the enumerated harms and also does not infringe upon a fundamental attribute of ownership, there is no constitutional "taking ". If there is no "taking ", no just compensation is due to the owner. Even so, the regulation may still violate due process. "The inquiry here must be whether the police power (rather than the eminent domain power) has exceeded its constitutional limits." Id at 330. The due process test is: 1. Whether the regulation is aimed at achieving a legitimate public purpose; 2. Whether it uses means that are reasonably necessary to achieve that purpose; and cc: SA0.004 MEMORANDUM - Page 5 May 15, 1991 3. Whether it is unduly oppressive on the landowner. In determining whether the regulation is "unduly oppressive ", several additional factors ought to be considered: a. The nature of the harm sought to be avoided; b. The availability and effectiveness of less drastic protective measures; c. Economic loss suffered by the property owner; d. The seriousness of the public problem and the extent to which the owner's land contributes to it, together with the degree to which the proposed regulation solves it and the feasibility of less oppressive solutions; and e. The amount and percentage of value lost considered with the extent of remaining uses, as well as a consideration of the temporary or permanent nature of the regulation together with the extent to which the owner shouI3 have anticipated such regulation and the feasibility of the owner's alteration of planned uses. Id at 331. The above analysis takes into consideration many' factors not often, or ever previously considered by this Council.• This is a complicated legal issue. Professor Settle of the UPS Law School has recently called it "the most perplexing area of American land use law ". Settle, Regulatory Taking Doctrine in Washington, 12 UPS Law Review 339 (1989). With this overview in mind, however, harken back to the Tukwila landowner who first becomes aware of the SAO and its effect on his property after enactment. The due process concerns should be apparent. Accordingly, if the Council desires to ultimately enact the SAO with reference to specific parcels, we believe that each affected landowner must be •iven th- •ecific o•.ortuni.t to address, at a minimum, the factors listed above. This opportunity shou • •e something more than the right to speak at a public hearing. This will be a cumbersome and time - consuming process, but constitutional protections are not eliminated by virtue of administrative inconvenience. In our opinion, if these pre- adoption hearings are not undertaken, the chances of successful challenge to the SAO are substantially increased. Mayor VanDusen Rick Beeler Lucy Lauterbach John F. Colgrove CITY OF TUKWILA JUL U b 1S93 DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELORMENT' N I TY DEVELOPMENT OWNER AME,,,' - COMPREHENSIVE - ''LAN AMENDMENT RECEIV APPLICATION AFFIDAVIT OF OWNERSHIP Phone: (1 06 )2 4 3 - 7 0 0 3 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Tukwila, WA 98188 Telephone: (206) 431 -3680 1. BRIEFLY DESCRIBE YOUR PROPOSAL: Re z n n from R - 2 to C - 2 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) 14nf14 Pacific Highway South Quarter: SW Section: 15 Township: 23 Range: 4 E (This information may be found on your tax statement) 3. APPLICANT:* Name: Edward L. Parks , Attorney at Law Address. 17650 - 140th Ave. SE #86 - 230, Renton, 98058 177, /s ,,8 -9975 g Si nature: a , Date: d u l 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 Address: 14004 Pacific Highway South, Tukwila, 98168 I /WE,[signature(s)] 7",)'19-1-'>e __,,--' 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 . ` PLAN M "y1ENDMENT APPLICATION 8. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT CRITERIA 5. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN Existing: R-2 Residential DESIGNATION Proposed: C-2 Commercial 6. ZONING: Existing: R-2 Proposed: C -2 7. USE: Existing: T r a i l e r Pa r k Proposed: Tn he determined 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 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 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. JUL 08C93 CITY OF TUKWILA ' LL DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEV &25JPMENT 1. BRIEFLY DESCRIBE YOUR PROPOSAL: Re zone 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) 14004 Pacific Highway South Quarter: SW Section: 15 Township: 23 Range: 4E (This information may be found on your tax statement) 3. APPLICANT:* Name: Edward L. Parks. Attorney at Law Address. , 7650 -140th Ave. SE #B6 -230 Renton 98058 - 6814 Ph OWNER • Address: Phone: (206)243 - 7003 I /WE,[signature(s)1 2 v7"'' AMENDEDRI !ONE APPLICATION 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Tukwila, WA 98188 Telephone: (206) 431 -3680 Signature: �� ; J co Date: J u 1 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 f] Kim and Snort S . Kim, his wife . 1 1 • . . : •: 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 • . REZONE APPLICATION ) 5. What is the current zoning of the property? R - 2 Page 2 6. What is the size of the property? 3.2 acres 7. What zoning classification is requested? C - 2 S. What is the comprehensive land use map designation? Low Den s i ty 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 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 change in zoning requested is consistent with and promotes General Goals 1, 2, 4 and 6. The property in its present use and con- dition 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 ohjPctivPS of the Grnwth Management Art ((MA) 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: • II _ • 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) 'REZONE-APPLICATION Page 3 RESPONSE: GMA requires cities to plan and provioe 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 that that plan is now under review for modification rorsistent with the legislative 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.g. Police) is evidence of a deteriorating neighhnrhnod This prnpPrty in its prPsent rnnditinn is a major contributing factor to that deterioration. The requested 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, i f not entirely eliminating, the burden presentl y 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. Iiit j x h b e peWit e angu n ita 1e ff 1 t t1ie continue indefinitely. 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 ••11 • 0014•111120 P1. p1 0 i• • ..... .. . .............. 1 [I•l 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I tilt Itici 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 A •tSiGHli • • NCO CEPA ire s• MEAN • P10 MINI 140 TH St S. 11 tvii44 I1L•2 111111111117 Immj = S • - 100' 130' • • 3•12 COAL.* 1100 I f • *MEP*. APO COI•A SW V4 . OF SEC. 15,TWP23 N.,RGE. 4 W.M. . ) 1.4.5 *10 . 5111 1114111111H_ 11 111111111111.111111.1111111111T} '0 •040• 141 ST ST. S. DLS •3 •1118.11 PA* AAA loosevn /.1 • : : • 0 ennett- PS6it.INC • SURVEYORS • and ENGINEERS P.O. ION 1111 MA'AM. WA. 11111 . MAW" 1)0)011 SUMS ne.m. SI ••• . • \ • • 1 •-• ....... fl 'DO rue 1 0 .. 11TVICT MS 14011 00141100.. VAL 11.111 StVI1S 1111T. rm.. Inny3100 . 4..frri,d,ry 1 111.1,4001 11.11. 1.1114 041 ... MIMI 101111141. OAS !MILL LOT Slit • 11).0111 i001i1 41111 • • 541L0111 0011110 LIA01411111, 50.7,11 MOTSI. • • • • ▪ • RC w ort. ilINNOCIAL BOOTH cloometki. • • 7L3 Front. De. 13330.1.0.20 133704•03741 131304-001, i3011111 6'7f1.: $111811:13g 1711.01.1 •A. 11151 71000 110 5 100 • 17.300.00 lir 0e10.. 1.70 111 5 130 • 07070,00 SI 1101010 ?LOOS 111 • 130 • 33.300.00 Sr VICINITY•M'AP NTS TOTAL SOU11.1 1113/ 1•11.103 . 0 7 . . • 14.00.00 Sr 171114100 .1 /111ST 11001 171 100 • 17.300.00 St SICOOD IWO& 173 • 130 • 31.170.00 SP TH12010000 173 • .110 • 31.174.005P . . ;MAL sou•O Oen ir111.11100 1 04.340.00 Sr TVIAL 100•111 333T or 01710011•17 art :0. .171.030.00 Sr 113.330.00,1000 1004.. 014. • 129 111 • 2.1 wrALLs • • • • 1S1 07311.3 . . • • • • • • • • ........... !TOLLS 11300 ..... 1 STAL1./100 11111111.1 4 . • • ' . . '. • • • . . • . • 130' 1 110 . 3 STCar 33 I / SO • I • SetillieRLY ELEVATION 0.0.1 . • :.• • • . • .• . . . . • . . 1 • 1 9Hzu ii P t>n►� rit- • R i ' ';'`'g WV. NO wtI w . 1 y• /.o i.K t••9p w.F w K•.rr.M 1.114.1•1 rA6 •wamt RAd ur•wr•t.C/Q SW 1/4 9 SE 1/4 SEC. 15,TWP.23,N., RGE. 4 E, W.M. Kennett PS&E INC SURVEYORS •n d ENGINEERS. 11 . T.O. 'ID'1•il .an WA. RnMLLV twin . NAnL tl► u• SOUTH'GATE BUISNESS PARK • • ZONING .MAP VICINITY YAP • NT, • • • •r/ M. • / .• COUNCIL AGENDA SYNOPSIS Initials Meeting Date 3 -28 -94 Prepared by Mayor's review Council review ITEM NO. Thm ItulAIi 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. Cost Impact (if known): Fund Source (if known): Meeting Date 3 -28 -94 • Action Meeting Date Attachments 3 -28 -94 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). City of Tulcvvila John W. Rants, Mayor Department of Community Development Rick Beeler, Director TO: Mayor Rants FROM: Rick Beeler, Director Dept. of Community Development RE: Southgate Trailer Park: Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Rezone ( #L92 -0022, #L92 -0023) DATE: March 22,1994 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 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 COMMLSSION 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. Rick Beeler, Director 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. 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 December 8, 1993 Page 2 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 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 December 8, 1993 Page 4 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 December 8, 1993 Page 5 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 P1. 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 re not sure they want residential property on Hi wa P Pe rtY• a Pg � Y Y Y P Pe ttY 1� Y 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 Page 10 December 8, 1993 Mr. Clark said that there are all kinds of buffers that are far more desirable than the existing use. He indicated he was concerned about the type of commercial use there ; but there can also be all kinds of conditions on allowing a C -2 zone. Mr. Meryhew said that its hard to visuRlize 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 T HE 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 1HE SUE 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. 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 T1±E 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., T13E FIRST 270 FEET ADJOINING PACIFIC HIGHWAY SOUTH BE ZONED C -2, AND '11iEi APPROXIMATE HALF FRONTING 42ND AVE. SOUTH REMAIN ZONED R -2. MR FLESHER SECONDED THE MOTION AND 'rH.E 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. DIRECTOR'S REPORT: Prepared By, Sylvia Schnug Planning Commission Minutes December 8, 1993 Mr. Meryhew adjourned the meeting. Page 12 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 Cornmission 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. SOUTHGATE MOBILE .bME PARK - COMPREH: )SIVE PLAN AND REZONE SOUTH 140 TH STREET ADD 30 FEET RIGHT OF WAY ADD 20 FEET RIGHT OF WAY 505 FEET 485 FEET C-2 EXISTING APARTMENTS R-4 ' SINGLE' FAMILY A SOUTH 141 ST STREET C-2 MOTEL EXISTING APARTMENTS 1- w w LO C*, RMH SF CITY OF TUKWILA ATTACHMENT E • • SOUTHGATE . MOI . LE HOME PARK - jUMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND REZONE SOUTH 140 TH STREET ADD 30 FEET RIGHT OF WAY 505 FEET CREATION OF A HEAVY 30 FOOT WIDE LANDSCAPED BUFFERWITH 8 FOOT HIGH BERM • 485 FEET VVVIINNO:101.W11 WIWWWWWWWW% •11 11010101011 .\\ % .■ %NAVA. ADD 20 FEET RIGHT OF WAY EXISTING APARTMENTS MOTEL ' SINGLE' FAMILY EXISTING APARTMENTS 1- w w 10 N C) CITY OF TUKWILA Date: • To: From: Re: December 2, 1993 Department of Community Development ,and Tukwila Planning Commission Nancy Sandine Lamb, 4251 S. 139th St. Southgate Mobile Home Park Rezone and Comp Plan Amendment RECE N D oaz :-1 1993 commum DEVELOPMEN 3:30 r' 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 Horne 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 - o density t 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 w. t C -2 regional commercial designation for the entire block, all the ay to 42nd Avenue, an important residential street. The point at which Pacific Highway comes closest to 42nd Avenue encompasses he proposal. Yet Tukwila staff and elected officials have time and agai indicated that 42nd is to remain primarily for use of Tukwila reside ts; 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-0 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 betwe °n Pacific Hi • hwa and I -5. Any designation upgrade• would be inco sistent with and intrusive upon a significant area of R -1. Furthermore, evidence to ju density multi - plan at this ti agreement wit shall provide additional need for the requested land classification." There is no proof of additional ne d along the Pacific Highway corridor for more commercial zoning than ready exists. It would put too much pressure on existing single - family wner- occupied housing to convert to rentals, further destabilizing ukwila's population in general, and destabilizing this neighborhood to be specific. Tukwila Tomorrow recommends community - oriented development here, not regional. Besides the family housin uncertainty i risk here, bec undesirable b including poo liquor stores. drawbacks, a area. Landsc . n connection with this property, the applicants show no tify commercial zoning (including office), or even high - amily residential zoning, or change of the comprehensive e. TMC18.84.030.3 states: "When the request is not in the Comprehensive Land Use Policy Plan, the applicant vidence to the City Council's satisfaction that there is an omino effect" on the status quo (relatively stable single- north, east and then south) , there is far too much volved in upgrading from R -2 to C -2. There is too much use approving a C -2 level could open the door to many sinesses •- especially adjacent to R -1 residences - rooms, taverns, nightclubs, more motels, hotels, and ower classifications of commercial designation also have the property is situated right in the middle of a residential ped 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 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 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 ATTACHMENT G (see page 11, Policy 6) November 4, 1993 Page 2 • parking, low level lighting .versus more lighting on cross strets, closing roads versus keeping them open, landscape islands versus no landscape islands. This map is a lot -by -lot analysis of land use for the entire City. As I mentioned before, we are moving away from the single family neighborhoods, as identified on the map in yellow, and moving into our commercial areas, identified by red. For analysis and comparison purposes, as you decide what you are doing on 99 you might want to keep in mind the other similar transportation corridors that we have in the City, which at this point staff has identified as Interurban Avenue and Southcenter Boulevard. As a comparison, and to get you thinking a little more about commercial areas in the City I brought in the land use map for the Urban center. This demonstrates the tremendous difference in scale, both in buildings and lot size and composition or frame work of the area. Looking at the aerial map, one thought that comes to mind is the tremendous amount of residential that is attempting to take over this area, as you see by looking at the boundaries of the commercial area. We have a definite commercial corridor, transitioning to multi - family, medium and higher density, some low density abutting the commercial in some areas, and significant cores of open space or public facilities. I wanted you to consider the other types of commercial designations. Right now we have one commercial designation in our comprehensive plan, although as you went through the. residential section we came up with a category of neighborhood commercial. There are pockets of commercial which are occurring throughout the City. • For example, at the interchange of I -5 and Southcenter Boulevard, and at 144th and 51st. There are three different types of commercial areas, the little isolated pieces, more linear pieces, then the pods of commercial. The other significant impression in going through and studying this area, is the effect of the topography along 99. At the north end you are starting at the valley floor. It moves up and along the valley wall and there is a strong sense of traveling up with a lot of vegetation then a startling arrival when you get to the .plateau. All of a sudden you are out in the open and up on top. The plateau basically extends from 1 -5 all the way over to Puget Sound. The topographic conditions of this corridor are a significant factor to consider as you are making your decisions about how to plan for this area. I have also included SeaTac's plans for the area. I hope you had a chance to look at that. They have a very distinct version from what I see the Tukwila community going towards. What you hope to see in the Southcenter area, they 'see occurring in November 4, 1993 . Page 3 their 99 core, from SR 518 south. In their planning and mapping they are putting emphasis on the designated area around the airport. They are proceeding ahead with a $600,000 design study for 99. It will probably be a seven lane section with a planted median. I talked to the planning director and he said they would like to have a personal rapid transit system. The service area for that would be around the hotel core across from the airport, at least initially. In terms of economics and market, just to highlight again and go over what the economist found in a preliminary review, the surrounding census tracks show that we are on the low end of the demand side for a neighborhood commercial area. The area closest to 518 has the most chances for redevelopment because of access and the depth of the lots and ideal frontage. In terms of the different market segments, regional retail would have more a chance. The office market tends to be very saturated, and tends to be attracted to areas where they look good. Do you want to ask some questions at this time before we move onto some of the conclusions and recommendations? Question: I have a question about the reference to the seven lane section in SeaTac, and how that will effect Tukwila. And also, you mentioned they were talking about doing a median, how would the seven lanes fit in there? Moira: The seventh lane would be a turn lane pocket. I talked with the planning director, and he thought the natural transition point from that to what Tukwila would want would be at SR 518. • It would possibly be farther south at 176th. There will be a design report issued next week which will go to their committee for review. Question: Is it supposed to be a State project? Moira: I am sure it is embraced by both agencies. Comment: The State DOT is the one that presented the concept to our 'citizens. Moira: As I mentioned in the report, the State a couple years ago did a route development plan. It showed a cross section of seven lanes. Five foot sidewalks, and curbs; and if sufficient right -of -way, six foot sidewalks. Question: Is there a significant difference in the level of service within SeaTac on 99 and the amount of 'traffic? 0 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 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. November 4, 1993 Page 5 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 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. Page 6 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 Page 7 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. 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 8 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: store. Mark: create an Comment: above. Mark: structure Moira: • In my mind •I can't see any quality development in one story built above a Right, but with two, you can start putting internal amenities in and inducement to develop. Many cities in Europe have the concept of small retail with residential With the higher yield, then it begins to justify putting the parking in the 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 ; . Moira: 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? 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: land then Question: Comment: If you truly want mixed use you may have to do that. If you don't, the will be valued as office and you will never see any residential. Are you opposed to three .or four story office buildings? 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: You would be surprised how many people do want that, particularly those who are limited transportation .wise. Comment: We have addressed that issue a number of times and it's presumptuous of us to say that we wouldn'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 lower 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 sections of the corridor. Question: What does that mean? Moira: It means that we have a section of our code that says currently there is a 90 day limit on how long 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 they 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? Question: Does that include adult video stores? Moira: Unfortunately adult video stores were the legal problem in the ordinance ruled unconstitutional by • 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 entertainment facilities. Comment: I want to know 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? Agreement on policy 5. Page 11 Moira: The neighborhood center would be businesses of a smaller scale, less auto oriented uses, that cater to a local market. 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 terns 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. Ann: It is 3.97 acres. Question: How large is the parcel? November 4, 1993 Page 13 Question: When you change zoning, do you ever change it where it goes down in the middle of a lot? Moira: Yes. Ann: There is some confusion over the conceptual drawing. I think you are seeing this red area as a proposed commercial lot. The reason this is colored red is because this is all under one ownership so there is an opportunity to look at the entire area as a new designation. The question is, what is an appropriate use for that entire area? At that point you can start talking about different designations for the site • or a mixed use development. There are three steps in this, 1) looking at the entire site, 2) looking at types of uses that might be appropriate across the site, and 3) site planning and standards issues. Comment: I would like to ask where other people see a division line on the map, there doesn't seem to be a clear majority 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 on the diagram, it basically says infill development. You can have different. zones within that, it just means to encourage the filling in of various forms of development. That isn't suggesting uniform zoning. Moira: This is what has been suggested in the report for neighborhood commercial at that site. Comment: We want to leave it medium density on the 42nd side and commercial on the highway side. Comment: 1 am hesitating because the land owner is constantly going for the "max" on everything. Currently he is trying to get an upzone and have the entire area commercial. That's why I hesitate giving 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 ban 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 -2, 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. I • 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 Comment: Yes, R -2. 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? 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. • November 4, 1993 ' Agreement on policy 7. Page 17 Moira: The potential for redevelopment is not there yet. After this we will be 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? 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. November 4, 1993 . Page 19 Question: Does neighborhood commercial .include a parking lot? 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 unus Moira: I can't tell you off hand, I would need to look. If you want me to do that I 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 Agreement to revisit area 8 and area 9. Page 22 Moira: Area 10 l 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: PROJECT: 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 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 citizens, applicant & staff; notice of meeting posted And mailed. John W. Rants, Mayor ATTACHMENT H 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 •' Supplement to Planning Commission Staff Report Southgate, 12/2/93 Page 2 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 CRfI'ERIA: 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 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 Supplement to Planning Commission Staff Report Southgate, 12/2/93 Page 3 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. RE0 7.1V ED OCT 2 6 1993 fY DEVELOPMENT To: City of Tukwila Planning Commission Re: Southgate 'Nailer Park Rezone 0:T. 24, 1 993 As neighbors of Southgate trailer park, we are concerned about the possible upzone of this piece of property for the following reasons: As a member of the Tukwila T ommorow Commitee 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 an upzone, so residents and city staff would conclude "anything would be better then whats there ". Neighbors would like to see Mr. Kim clean up and improve condition_ on his property to benifit the residents of the trailer park as.well as add to the • surrounding neighborhood. Many of the people who reside at the park can- not come•up with the first, last; and damadge deposit required for other housing, but are able to scrape :together the $500 rent at the trailer park. Tukwila already has vast amounts of office and commercial space available, why add more in the middle of a single family neighborhood! The need for affordable 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 Ton orow updating the comp. plan myself and fellow con itee 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, Partells, and the community center. Riverton hospital is also nearby. These are all additional reasons it, was designated. for housing, Increased pressure for alternative transportation makes 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 wheat 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. Sincerly • i� ) i -/� ATTA f■U1IACRIT A .• • letter 89186 Yin 'fillr'S 'OS x°E1'S ' F'uZfr 5:00k Optaa ;rum onA p 1-3 ) -- --pz,;(;-2-7-- 0--?-2,--- . i ---G 7ei-crg2 12 0' - 0 0 iyy G c"/ HEARING DATE: PROJECT/FJT P. APPLICANT: PROPOSAL: LOCATION: COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: ZONING DISTRICT: SEPA DETERMINATION: STAFF RECOMMENDATION: STAFF: ATTACHMENTS: City of Tukwila John W. Rants, Mayor Department of Community Development Rlck Beeler, Director STAFF REPORT TO TLLE PLANNING COMMISSION COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT AND REZONE Prepared October 20, 1993 October 28, 1993 #L92 -0022, #L92 -0023: Southgate Trailer Park Comprehensive Plan Amendment & Rezone Edward L. Parks, Esq., 17650 140th Avenue S.E. #B6 -230, Renton, WA 98058 -6814 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. 14004 Pacific Highway South, Tukwila, WA (SW 1/4 Section 15, Twn. 23, Rge. 4), King Co. (Existing Southgate Trailer Park) Medium Density Residential R -2 (Two - Family Residential) Mitigated Determination of Non- Significance Denial, pending additional information from applicant; with an alternative designation of Office with limited Commercial, if applicant provides justification for change. Ann Siegenthaler, 431 -3670 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) 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • ATTACHMENT I • BACKGROUND FINDINGS OF FACT Southgate Comp Plan/Rezone Staff Report 10/20/93, Page 2 VIC1mffry /S11 INFORMATION 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 t� 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. 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. The Tukwila Tomorrow citizens committee is in the Tukwila's Comprehensive Plan and zoning designations. C by the committee will be reviewed by the Planning Co 1994 and 1995. Requests from individual property own during this community -wide evaluation of land use changes. project, the applicant has asked that the City review his p In 1992, the property owner submitted his original reques .Plan Amendment, Rezone and Environmental Review. prepared a comment letter (see Attachment C). After information was requested from the applicant. Among asked for further explanation of how the applicant's prop criteria. The applicant has submitted revised application These revised applications are quoted in this report, and recommendations. The City is conducting a phased environmental review Mitigated Determination of Non - Significance (MDNS) h Comprehensive Plan designation and rezone requests. MDNS, the property owner will be required to dedicate ad way. Remaining environmental issues will need to be ac specific project is proposed. DECISION CRITERIA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT REQUEST The Planning Commission will be reviewing two separ amendment to the Comprehensive Plan, and B) •a chang • Approval criteria have been established for both of these r must meet the criteria for a Comprehensive Plan designati .. be approved. uthgate Comp Plan/Rezone ff Report 10/20/93, Page 3 rocess of evaluating anges recommended 'ssion and Council in rs will be considered To avoid delaying his oposal now. for a Comprehensive In response, citizens ity review, additional other items, the City sal met the approval (see Attachment D). are the basis of staff of the proposal. A s been issued for the a condition of the itional street right -of- dressed at the time a ate requests: A) an e in the site's zoning. views. The applicant n before a rezone can The Comprehensive Plan amendment and rezone r. quest are evaluated separately in the staff report. The applicant's response .n each application is . given, followed by staff's response. Washington courts have established criteria to be used b local communities in evaluating requests for changes to their Comprehensive P an. The burden is on the applicant • •. to demonstrate that the change meets these criteria. Southgate Comp Plan/Rezone Staff Report 10/20/93, Page 4 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 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 I -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 Off ce /Commercial designation: A third alternative would be to have Southgate Comp Plan/Rezone Staff Report 10/20/93, Page 6 two designations on the site. This would allow more flexibility in providing a transition between different uses. The potential for very intense uses makes a Commercial designation less appropriate than Office next to residential areas. Yet, commercial is an appropriate use next to Highway 99. An office development can provide benefits to the community with relatively few visual and environmental impacts on residential uses. An Office designation adjacent to residential areas, with a Commercial designation toward Highway 99 could provide a more viable commercial site while minimizing potential future impacts to residential areas. Staff comments on these alternatives are general observations, based on experience with other sites: The burden of demonstrating that ' there is an additional public need for anything other than Medium Density Residential designation for the site remains with the applicant. 3. Analyze the existing Comprehensive Plan policies and how your proposal affects them. Applicant's response: . "See (Items #1, #2). The Plan W and Policies are under review for amendment consistent with GMA. It is our position that rezone to C -2 is consistent with GMA and will be consistent with the plan and policies of the city of Tukwila as adopted and amended in compliance therewith. The Highway 99 corridor is ideally suited for designation as an area of anticipated commercial growth and expansion." 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.46). • 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/Industry policies: • Encourage the grouping of compatible uses to promote economic viability (p. 60). • • Allow new commercial areas when compatible with surrounding land 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). Southgate Comp Plan/Rezone Staff Report 10/20/93, Page 7 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 Commercial designation than an Office designation. . Another area of concern is the relationship of existing development on site to a possible new Comprehensive Plan designation. A new designation does not . require .that the existing trailer park be re- developed. Consequently, conflicts between incompatible uses may be heightened. For example, a Commercial designation (with a subsequent rezone) would allow commercial uses to occur adjacent to, or within, existing mobile homes. Such a scenario would not be consistent with some of the current Comprehensive Plan policies. It has_ . the potential to magnify current code enforcement issues on site. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN CONCLUSIONS Based on the above, staff concludes that the applicant has not adequately addressed the criteria for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment at this time. 1. Unforseen changes in community conditions: The applicant's response does not clearly identify the unforseen changes in community conditions which might justify a new Comprehensive Plan designation. Given existing conditions at the site, vacation of the trailer park Southgate Comp Plan/Rezone Staff Report 10/20/93, Page 8 would probably be the most significant change in community conditions. Until a "clean -up" of the site provides the needed incentive for re- investment in the neighborhood, it is not likely that the surrounding area will experience any changes significant enough to justify a Comprehensive Plan amendment. 2. Factual evidence of an additional or changed public need for the property designation: It. is possible that the public need for a Medium Density Residential designation has diminished. It is also possible that an Office designation, or combined Office /Commercial designation for the site could better serve a public need. However, the applicant has not shown that the requested Commercial designation is needed - -or any designation other than the current one - -is appropriate. 3. Affects on existing Comprehensive Plan policies: While Comprehensive Plan policies encourage economic development, the Plan's residential policies serve to guide this development to appropriate areas: A designation other than Medium Density Residential may satisfy these policies. However, the applicant needs to explain how or if this would be. the case with the proposed Commercial designation. Moreover, a Commercial designation for an existing trailer park could generate additional conflicts between residential and commercial uses. Until the trailer park is vacated, it is . unlikely that a Comprehensive Plan amendment would be consistent with Comprehensive Plan policies. As the.applicant does not meet all three .criteria for a Comprehensive Plan amendment, staff concludes that an amendment is not appropriate at this time. Vacation of the trailer park could be considered a significant change in the area. Removal of all trailers on the site may generate interest in reinvestment in the neighborhood and a public.need for additional commercial services. COMPREHENSIVE 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. Southgate Comp Plan/Rezone Staff Report 10/20/93, Page 9 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 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)." Staffs 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 areas as set forth in the application form. Applicant's response: "Heretofore submitted." (See Attachment B.) . Staff's 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: 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 trailer 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. 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. 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." 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 C-2 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 REZONE CONCLUSIONS 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." Staffs 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. 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. _ e 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 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 Southgate Comp Plan/Rezone Staff Report 10/20/93, Page 14 Architectural Review; and 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. 1 . . - t, • o' + 1 1 , ,. •1 �L N• r,.... _,.T I „...., T Out— -1 " "" '11 r Iry I .: 1 t' • to ... wrt .,•1•• ..... ••••r'r•^'•' .., .. ., , I - •, • , Icn(Icf€ PS &E INC. 9UhVEYORS and ENGINEERS I.0. so 1,11 NXNII V•A. - IVINl1R 1.INn _ - NAInI • IM NH SOUTH GATE BUISNESS PARK ZONING MAP . i. / • re ,.,,,,.I /I C ' t •4 .w.1 .."....,PlQ _ E 3 u.....rj s9. 3 n - • h _ ..d ,•/ U'. . - - t . }, � L I . � L ,. Ni i • C • • SW 1/4 Q SE 1/4 SEC. 15, TWP. 23 N., RGE. 4 E, W.M. v..... - . • n7TH SI •. 1 N - .13 Haar • : . � ' . . ir 4.1i�E1 I_'s ` H s! .� 1 d d .'`I Ilx• i:Qi trfl iris ..:, 7 n . C-.,' :7 . r ,...... a ....r. 10,-.......1.:::..- .. ' at ' ) i . / ..) e a loo • 1.11 110 110 TUN I1 ITU nTTrfTt•fftrfl' _ 1l�f Il(Il [WT I P ZF1ITrj°J; f 0.l] 1111. O0c OfK •.NW10 r , I I I IiI ftUil z s 1 = - O. I(J 111 LIJ A •1tW •. m' 1)0' •00• ...uanvS .••*1011 • 0.10 CM 100 Y1 /• n u1 D•0 0.xo• !! .. 0I• ,_,I., 111 POO' 1)0' • • 43 11.1 101 */.111.0. MO Cm• 310' 141 ST. ST. S. I,. T SW 1/4 OF SEC. 15,TWP 23 N.,RGE. 4 E, W.M. 140TH ST. S. = ®. ® F1111111111 111:1111111111 -- = 11111111 IJJIILL 11 I,. j11LILLLLLIJ _LLIJJ_U..I_Il1J]J..US ' OT. ..... _..__......_.......- ° _.._ 1111... . • a`d a1r On. Q N d z Bennett 1 &t: INc SURVEYORS and ENGINEERS I.O. 101 1111 MAW" 1/4, ?WNW 1 1411 111011 111 1 11 .i. 1 -111 • "MIN u11c..m' rora o Ss so aso .411. 1. 1111 • 111,.1...•.. • ••1 V!iJ•1.1 •. 1/•I•• 1•� ........... n 1111 .1.1. 1 111104•0•11 :3OI1111 Ltl•f c 13U1/31)5.8 i3 ?.11115 ••• •1+•• 111 • 1.. • 1,.1'•0.. Of 10 • 110 • !1.11•.•• . 1•1•• •■•• 111 • 00 • 11.11•,•• 11 .411, .w1624 I1•1 w.11+1w ••• .....10.10 •• 101.•111 ••• •Iw. In • 1•.. ,•a•...0. ••••• nw.. In • 110 • 11.41..0. n 1•1•1/ •I.-• 111.11. • 1,.11..1... 11.1...••• 1 wll+lw ••• • ..... 00 I. 111•1. •w .•. 1.0 .+ 0.11+1* ••• ••■ . •11•.••..10 •• 111......•;1..• .A »•• 0,•I • 111 1,1.1.. 1111. • 111 41111 1 0 1)0• I)0' 1) 12 L.}.-o-•• 110'•••• SCUT (0 Y cccVgfON 0 VICINITY 000 11 1 1/110 swim,. • . •••1.41 Denni Shefrin Department of Community Development 6200 Southcenter Blvd. Tukwila, WA 98188 Dear Ms. Shefrin: MAR 2 3 1992 F' J; E\f', j f;i.i' We would like to make you aware of our concerns regarding the proposed redevelopment of the Southgate Trailer Park 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 mariner 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. w •r•rw l-sifflUIENjT (1 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 - I. 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. c 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 hawks, 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? I. 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 & 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 14,1 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 300 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 Tukwila's Comp Plan philosophy of protecting residential neighborhoods from encroachment by business uses. 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, -/ Diane and Ted M 'ers Pam and C.C. arter 13919 42nd Ave. S. 4115 S. 139th St. C Ron . d Nancy Lamb 425.1...S... 139th St. f9[ 1.0"Fi l f,lAR 2 3 1992 r D EPT . D i , 1 1 Quarter: SW 1 1 , . , - - . • 1. • Phone: CITY OF TUKWILA rro� • ', DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVEL5PIvfENT APPLICATION PJIiENDEDR[ .:ONE • South 1. BRIEFLY DESCRIBE YOUR PROPOSAL: Rezone R-2 t o C-2 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) Section: 15 Township: 23 Range: 4 E (This information may be found on your tax statement) 3. APPLICANT :* Name: Edward L. Parks, Attorney at Law • Address: 7650 - 140th Ave. SE rB6 -230 Renton 98'058 -6814 Signature: [�'�. ✓G ' 1 J 4,e-r / Date: J u l 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 6300 Soulhcenler Boulevard, Tukwila, WA 98188 Telephone: (206) 431 -3680 4. PROPERTY Name: Mari; n Kim an Soon S. Kim, his wife OWNER Address: 4 (206)243 -7003 I /WE,[signatur(s)1 2 d ./( swear that I /we are th 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: Ju 1 y 1 , 1993 ATTACHMENT J REZONE APPLICATION Page 2 5. What is the current zoning of the property? R - 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 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 change in zoning requested is consistent with and promotes General Goals 1, 2 4 and 6. The property in its present use and con- dition places a demand on .the social services of the city which is totall disproportionate to the services and benefits provided to the city. The requested rezone is also consistent with the aoals and the ohjertivec of th Arnwt'h ,ManagPmPnt Art (AMA) The use or change in zoningrequested 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: •11I T • 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 provide for expansion within Urban Growth Areas. The act •has been implemented since• the city doted its currer _Comprehensive P1 an. It is this Applicant's �. . 1 1 I ■ 1 . 1. 1 • 1 tr . 1 • - n•1 11 consistent with the legislative mandates •nf 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.g. Police) is evidence of a t :• deteriorating neighhorhond Thic prnperty in its present rnnditinn is a major contributing factor •to that deterioration. The requested - 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, ;r 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 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. lii Aepe a .61 bYte 141?)W 1ox 4, i Pli qs 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 ' • DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOP. MENT : `• : '( .eference••• es FOR STAFF..:.•.: USEONL'.Y` 1. BRIEFLY DESCRIBE YOUR PROPOSAL: R e 7n 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(104 Parifir Highway SniLth Quarter: SW Section: 15 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 hon ' 8- 9975 D� \ Date: Oulu 1, 1993 Signature: AME1...ED - COMPREHENSIVE 'LAN AMENDMENT APPLICATION 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Tukwila, WA 98188 Telephone: (206) 431 -3680 * 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 0. Kim and Soon S. Kim , his wife OWNER Address: 14004 Pacific Highway South, Tukwila, 98168 Phone: ('- 06)243 -7003 I /WE,[signature(s)] 7 1Y---- )0 4M ' swear that I /we are th 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: ,111 y 1 . J 991_ AT'TA PUMP NT Tl COMPREHENSIVE PLAN • ¶ENDMENT APPLICATION Page 2 5. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN Existing: R-2 R e s i d e n t i a l DESIGNATION Proposed: C - Comme rci a 1 6. ZONING: Existing: R - 7 Proposed: C - 2 7. USE: Existing: Trailer Park • Proposed: T n he d e t e r m i n e d 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 i s 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 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 posi tion that rezone to C -2 is consi stent with GMA and will be consistent with the plan and policies of the city of Tukwila as adopted and amended in com The Highway .99 corridor is ideally suited for designation as an area of anticipated commercial growth and expansion. • DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT , i rL• , N: DrP CITY OF TUKWILA Toss ? Refe re nce 1. 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 South 42nd AVe. and Pacific Hwy. South. Quarter: SW Section: 15 Township: 23 Range: 4E . (This information maybe found on your tax statement) 3. APPLICANT•* Name: . Bennett P . S . & E. , Inc. Address: 728 East Main, Puyallup, WA 98372 P on 836 -3474 Signature: / ! I . - _46 Date: /2°k l cI 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. Phone: 243 -7003 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Tukwila, WA 98188 Telephone: (206) 431 -3680 To place n•ffi np hiii 1 rli nn AFFIDAVIT OF OWNERSHIP 4. PROPERTY Name: Mark D Kim and Soon S. Kim (Husband and Wife) OWNER Address: 14004 Pacific. Hwy. S. Tukwila, WA 98168 I /WE,[signature(s)1 - swear that 1/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 D - ' REZONE APPLICATION Page 2 - isf 5. What is the current zoning of the property ?• Low R Density Residential and Comm 6. What is the size of the property? ;' . 9 7 Acres 7. What zoning classification is requested? Commercial C -� 8. What is the comprehensive land use map designation? 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 policy plan, the provisions of this title, and the public interest. RESPONSE: CRITERIA The surrounding properties are developed into commercial ventures frontino on Old 99 (Parif'n Hiiy. S.) An uoorade in this property use to commercial zonino will allow the owner to provide services more in line with the properties potential. 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 orovides a foot print review showing access to'be from'streets South 140th and South 141st. and not the busy arterial Pacific Hwy S. (Old 99) This 'effort alone cuts potential traffic hazards involving altercations to access the property. Also controllino the on -site infrastructure wt11 be 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) RESPONSE: The oresent use of the land does not respond to the needs 7. of the community to uporade and brine 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 oresent time would would be'considered in the future. The property in present use does not allow the owner any relief fnr upnradinn fer.ilities. Therefore the rezone is the only sensible method of resolvino II 1 11 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. 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- orqinization and • i disru.tion of e s - • r - C - u - The rezone would allow the City to rectify any safety problems that now pxisi;. CITY OF TUKWILA • t :. DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVE OPMENr' '' • COMPREHENSIVL PLAN AMENDMENT • APPLICATION >US 1. BRIEFLY DESCRIBE YOUR PROPOSAL: To place office building complex on the 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) Between South 140th St. and South 141st and .Between Smith /'7nri Ave. and Pacific Hwy. S. • Quarter: SW Section: 15 Township: 23 Range: 04E • (This information maybe found on your tax statement) 3. APPLICANT:* Name: Bennett P.S. & E., Inc. ' Address: 720 East Main/.o. Box 1031/ Puva1 1 tpp, WA 98372 Phone. 838 -3474 �� _. 4 i! Date: 1 /1.-q �G Z Signature. a' * The applicant is the person whore 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 Narne: (Mark K. Kim and Soon S. Kim (Husband and Wife) OWNER Address: 14004 Pacific Hwy. S., Tukwila, WA 9E3168 Phone: 243 - 7003 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Tukwila, WA 98188 Telephone: (206) 431 -3680 I /WE,[signature(s)] W v? C • j, �-�- }-----'-• swear that 1/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:. / - 3 0 - 7, COMPREHENSIVE PLAN \MENDMENT APPLICATION Page 2 5. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN Existing: n Residential and C o m m e r c i P DESIGNATION C � Proposed: commercial 6. ZONING: Existing: si t y— R..e:s -. Proposed: Commerical C - Z 7. USE Existing: Residential Proposed: C o m m e r :L c a i l 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 orooerties has led this site to be more in line with the reouested zonino. B. Factual evidence supports art additional or changed public need for the proposed • designation. RESPONSE: The properties on three (3) sides and the major 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: Thee:present comprehensive plan dealt only with the existino condition of the property and not with what would be considered the best use of the property. 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 • CITY OF TUKWILA MITIGATEC OF NONSIGNIFI CE (MDNS) (Phased Review) DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT & REZONE OF EXISTING TRAILER PARK FROM MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL TO'A "COMMERCIAL" COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION AND A "REGIOI'NAL COMMERCIAL" (C -2) ZONING DESIGNATION. NO SITE IMPROVEMENTS ARE APPROVED IN THIS ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION. PROPONENT: EDWARD PARKI;`ES0: "'"° "" " .4 '" ' ° LOCATION OF PROPOSAL;;: - I ' :STREET • ADDRESS , • IF' ANY!: S' � n�T. ".: =1 `t• ADDRESS: -] i t 'O4 P H Y S .: `. i• N; PARCEL NO •:f'` O'O08'" r �. <: c v . t:• ,. , !: ' ; �..� _ ,. SEC /TWN, RNG•. , %SW S -23 =4 ; BETWEEN , 140TH S . 141 ST r'STREE•T? & HIGHWAY 99. -� f 4 , •�: 5 y . LEAD AGEtYC;Y: - CITY ,0F TLI {A`� FI NO : �L -0 k . • The Ci ty.'. d the •t the pro•posa l does not have-, a , p obab••l e'�. s i gn i t i cant adver�se;s i mpact= on i r . An e nv i ronmen l '..i riipact statemen't4 (EI•SJ. required under RGW :,43...21c.030(2) (c) This :. '. • deci=ioii�':wa= made after " rev.i ew -. of a: com environmental .checklist• • and otte ( inform tion on -.ile w the lead•'.• ag This • .,� i_ ava r laDlo_ ; to, , the' `on,request .` 'The _ cond -itions to t .:E Determi .;ia�vion_a.re:.att.a•ched_ _,•r \`\ This DkS /A i issued under ` i97-11-346.02). fComme.n. must be submit by N Y &., \ 43 9. 3 proposa r` f or f• 155 - '':das f y from the date b' ow. '7. `'• r • { L y h, ` , :•: .. . • • \ [ r 1 . C, ` t f ' ` 5 j` t 1:1 1 ! . I \• '' 1 ` ` •' . 0c t o b_.e •2 0,- x.99 3 L. nick Be'eA0..:, Re.s'pgnsi'ble Official' Date City of T' k'w:a -a:a , ::(2 06) 431:-.3680 , c: `•• 6300 Southce. ter Bou`l'evard `'' �' c' F'. a ` (".4.- • Tukwila, W A :198.h8 r•. �. 1'• . " c ' ` _ h • • . ''. `` G I; J . y '�\ WfvFy / You may a ppeal th is d t'errnr�nat i'on:tbt.theCi ty C -1 e ^at y Hall , 6200 'Southcenter BoulevardTbj .tie;- �W,�_95.1.88 nom la 'er• than 10 days from the above .: .,.. ��-.., :�,•• signature date by wr i t't n. � app;e _ a st:.i�ti'g the basis of the appeal for specific factual objections. Yuii may be required to bear some of the expenses for an appeal. Copies of the procedure'_ for SEPA appeals are available with the City Clerk and Department of Community Development. . The l ead -cy wi 1 1 Lnot act ;,on th ATTACHMENT L . .._�.. .. •.1n .+.r�ivtC:.4i. r ..:.'. ... .-... P1. 4 .NLi1w.l�'#?��.'t.1�.n.V.:� -/.. .... .. . .�..... CITY OF TUKWILA • PROJECT: SOUTHGATE TRAILER PARK COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT AND REZONE FILE: DATE: PROPOSAL: LOCATION: APPLICANT:' City of Tukwila la John W. Rants, Mayor Department of Community Development Rick Beeler, Director` MITIGATED DETERMINATION OF NON - SIGNIFICANCE #L92 -0021 October 20, 1993 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. 14004 Pacific Highway South, Tukwila, WA (SW 1/4 Section 15, Twn. 23, Rge. 4), King Co. (Existing Southgate Trailer Park')" Bennett PS &E, Inc. P.O. Box 1031 Puyallup, WA 98371 THRESHOLD DETERMINATION: This is a Mitigated Declaration • of Non - Significance ATTACHMENTS: . A. Vicinity Map (2/6/92) B. Conceptual Site Plan (1/21/92) • ... • C . -- Comprehensive- - rr. :.plan• • Amendment . 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 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW RECORD The:•• environmental - , r••evi- ew- •of --th s ••proposal consisted of an analysis based on the following documents included in the environmental record: DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSAL BACKGROUND :,:.. . MDNS Southgate Trailer Park Rezone 10/20/93, Page 2 • 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). OTHER APPROVALS REQUIRED Comprehensive Plan Amendment • Rezone KEY CHECKLIST ITEMS A. EARTH B. WATER C. AIR DNS Southgate Trailer Park Rezone 10/20/93, Page 3 The applicant has submitted a site plan with a- commercial _.,_ ,r huildi.ng ..of_ approximately;:.129 ,.000. _square...: feet and 333 parking stalls (see Attachments B, C, and D). However, as the request is for a Comprehensive Plan amendment and rezone, rather than.a specific project, no specific site plan or building type is approved in this environmental determination. If the property is re- developed under the current zoning, or under'a commercial zoning, specific architectural plans will be required prior to approval of any permits for the site. Additional design issues and environmental impacts will need to be addressed during review of those permits. As no specific improvements are being approved in this request, there will be no disruption of the earth's surface. The site is developed with mostly impervious surfaces, and is relatively flat. Therefore, future development is not likely to have significant impacts on soils or to be .constrained by topography. There are no permanent surface water bodies on site. Future development under a different zoning designation may increase storm water runoff and demand' on existing stormwater facilities. However, any future project will be required to provide adequate stormwater facilities as part of the development permit process. 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 12" in diameter or larger. Any redevelopment of the site is likely to have an impact on this vegetation. Therefore, impacts will need to be addressed in the landscaping and site plans for future development proposals. E. HOUSING 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 MDNS Southgate Trailer Park Rezone 10/20/93, Page 4 Currently, the site is occupied by an older mobile home park. Any re- development is likely to change the visual quality of the site. For example, development of non- ,residential uses will mean a large portion of the site must be dedicated to parking. It is expected.that there will be a need for visual buffers between the site and surrounding residential areas., • While visual changes due to a rezone can 'be anticipated, ;...impacts. will ,need . to .be. evaluated' on a project- specific basis. Re- development will require Design Review, where specific•changes to the visual quality of the site are addressed. In the re- development permit process, improvements* to the perimeter of the site, such as sidewalks, landscaping and screening will be required. MDNS Southgate Trailer Park Rezone 10/20/93, Page 5 G. NOISE :• The..,site ._.is..,located..in ...a ...predominately single- family residential area. However, it has multi - family and commercial development on three sides. The proposed rezone would allow more intensive development, which may result in increased noise levels near these adjacent uses. However, noise impacts can vary greatly, depending upon .the ultimate use of the site. These potential impacts are typically addressed in a project- specific environmental review. H. TRANSPORTATION 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 ...P.lan..:.._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 t. The environmental review summarized above indicates no probability of significant adverse environmental impacts from .the proposed Comprehensive Plan amendment /rezone. Therefore, it is appropriate to issue a Mitigated Determination of Non - Significance. The main impact of a Comprehensive Plan /rezone which can be identified at this time is the potential for increased traffic on side streets. The proposal could best address this by including dedication of additional right -of -way or easements necessary for future street improvements. Additional environmental review will need to•be conducted at such time as a specific development project is proposed. • A Mitigated Determination of Non - Significance is recommended, with the following conditions to mitigate potential impacts: CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL MDNS Southgate Trailer Park Rezone 10/20/93, Page 6 1. After City Council approval of the Comprehensive Plan amendment and rezone request, the property owner shall dedicate a proportionate share of the additional right -of -way required to bring �.._:. �adjacent__streets _up._.to. standard, as follows: a) South 140th Street: dedicate 30 feet; and ) South 141st Street: dedicate 10 feet. af ter. City =:Council:::approval•.•of. the . 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.. MDNS Southgate Trailer Park Rezone 10/20/93, Page 7 w.II I z:..e .... wors t/ .rll.w.l to I....I.1 .w1r IRK! 4 SW 1/4 9 SE 1/4 SEC.15, TWP. 23 N., PGE. 4 E, W.M. Bennett PS &E INC SURVEYORS and ENOINCJRa I.0. IOt 1111 INI/UV Mh 11111 IIIIILLV Islrfl I AIIU SOUTH GATE BUISNESS PARK ZONING MAP VICIMTI /{AP MIS 111• 11•1111 . NIa•1.11tt t 1 1••11r aY•• r Ia111 1 40 •111•81.1 141101 32 a•as.: SAS nan' DLt LINNN: \ 140TH ST. S. 141 Sr. Sr S. SAS SW LM OF SEC. 15 ,TWP 23 N.,RGE. 4 E., W.M. 840 Bennett PS &E Inrc. SURVEYORS and ENGINEERS I.O. 106 1811 NYALLI► WA. 11111 /IIYALLUP SOW MAlls /NMI • -pt 'Ash' 1NAL In Sill • 111.511 NUM Min Ir 1 o• MINI N\f•8NI1 sour* 1p/•I. NWT Nn S •••∎••• Mum IOM CL�NILL •MI N1M1t1LL INI S•••/4 1rW�1 • NN .•r010 ,w 40401 10314000 • . YI1t t1MILT 1179 N INO MIN140 • . /AL .0. 1111•• DIN. MIN f401N40 . • Iifftl a ..i...r S at1/40tt W ••I•1• MINN O4 MINIMAISCUSILM3 / NM 40. l8N40•IM. 1181•8 -•sa 111140.4018 • 40100140 ••• /1•n /N00 •Nall NON NIRO NOM 1NLL s0••11 MT nILDIn ••• 511111• ••• Pi••■ NON 111 • 140 • 11.140.40 N •nnS 11•11 it a 140 • 21.170.55 N 71111111 I1100 III • 111 • f1.770.40 ST NMI. INNS Nn 101111M ••• • 40.4.5.40 N 181• NOW PIN 00 •1401• ••• W •t IM.00 ••11140 Ift.n0.40,1I40 •0040/ /IN • I11 of IN • 8.5 81\12.1 • ylnuu ••1CLN40 NNW IINIINI 1 117•11J1• NNW • 1 NALN 8011111 EMI\' 131J1811188 Pflil}S 130 SOUTHERLY ELEVATION NT II 140 • 100 • 11.100.40 II I,.. IN • f1.I70.40 N IN • IN • .1.)11.40 • 64.440.03 N —100 100 VICINITY MAP NTS Lq2 -0022 �il��ii}�I Ir111 F:110 i9::, G1, ∎.1 1 . '.A pI MIMI} 1 1•• ' 1. •• •1.9huu V. -- VP 31 1 - ' 1 LJelit. : . . 0.011 — . ..., na 111 , I k., , . • - .10 4 4 A ,•.,, er. 4 , 1 .. F '=. , ‘ -MIL R A:::::- , --1 , s- I 3 A rili — es' ■311111rUl • II . SW 1/4 8 SE 1/4 SEC. 15, TWP. 23 N., RGE. 4 E., W.M. AMC. 1%200' nanr- KO 200 VICINITY MAP WS 02. CO22- OOOOO 11.1.• p,A6 Com<o8•1 ....n,.: t*e. Bennett PS&E• NC. SURVEYORS and ENGINEERS P.O. Mn WI PUYALLUP WA II 1111 PUYALLUP 01.4111 %ATM MAHN SOUTH GATE BUISNESS PARK