Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPermit 89-02-CPA - CITY OF TUKWILA - CASCADE VIEW ANNEXATION / COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT89-02-cpa military road south highway 99 152nd street south 116th street 89-03-r epic-32-88 89-02-a CASCADE VIEW ANNEXATION COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE AMENDMENT Absent: Lee Cagle COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLAN AMENDMENT City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila Washington 98188 (206) 433 -1800 Gary L. VanDusen, Mayor CITY OF TURWILA PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 24, 1989 The meeting was called to order at 8:00 p.m. by Chairman Jim Haggerton. Members present were Messrs. Haggerton, Hamilton, Flesher, Kirsop, and Knudson. Representing the staff were Jack Pace, Vernon Umetsu, and Joanne Johnson. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - MR. HAMILTON MOVED AND MR. KNUDSON SECONDED A MOTION TO APPROVE THE AUG 10, 1989 MINUTES AS PRESENTED. MOTION UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED. 89- 1 -SPE; 89 -7 -DR; 89 -1 -CUP -- SOUTHCENTRAL SCHOOL DISTRICT #406 (FOSTER HIGH SCHOOL) Request for approval of a cooperative parking agreement, design review and conditional use permit for Foster High School. Jack Pace, Senior Planner, reviewed the proposal using a model of the site as well as detailed site plans of the project. He reviewed the staff report recommending approval of the coopera- tive parking agreement with two conditions; approval of the design review with five conditions; and approval of the condi- tional use permit with no conditions. Brad Collins, 365 Ericksen, Bainbridge Island, WA 98118, represented the applicant. He concurred with the staff report in general. He reviewed each of the requests in detail. Dr. Michael Silver, Southcentral School District Superintendent stressed the importance of the new facility to the community. He expressed appreciation to the city staff and consultant. Bill Riggs, 11319 - 26th Avenue S. , Facilities Director for Southcentral School District reviewed the history of the project. Frank Smith, BJSS Group, 320 West Bay Drive, Suite 98502, Olym- pia, WA, architect for the project, reviewed the design aspects of the project. Planning Commission August 24, 1989 Page 2 MR. FLESHER MOVED AND MR. HAMILTON SECONDED A MOTION TO APPROVED THE REQUEST FOR A COOPERATIVE PARKING AGREEMENT (89- 1 -SPE) BASED ON THE FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS OF THE STAFF REPORT AND INCLUDING PROVISIONS ONE AND TWO AS READ IN THE STAFF REPORT. Akira Sato, BJSS Group, designer of the project, expressed his enthusiasm for the project design concepts. Mr. Collins felt that although the site is small, the design will work well. He credited Chris Johnson as the other designer for the project. Jeannelle Baldwin, 5827 S. 144th Street, School Board President, assured the Commission that it is the philosophy of the school district to immediately remove graffiti, which discourages further incidents of graffiti. The Public Hearing was closed at 8:55 p.m. Discussion ensued on the three proposals. Provisions 1 and 2 read as follows: 1. When activities /events are scheduled in such a manner as to require the simultaneous use of any combination of the high school complex facilities and thereby potentially generate parking demand which will exceed the on -site 282 parking stalls, the School District shall provide necessary staffing and signs to direct traffic to nearby designated overflow parking locations. Failure on the part of the School District to do so may cause rescission of this agreement. 2. If there is a demonstrated consistent daytime high school use) parking demand which exceeds the on -site 282 parking stall capacity for the high school use, the matter shall be reviewed at a public hearing before the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission may at that time require the School District to construct the additional on -site parking (as shown on the site plan as future parking) in a reasonable period of time. MOTION UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED. MR. HAMILTON MOVED AND KNUDSON SECONDED A MOTION TO APPROVE THE REQUEST FOR APPROVAL FOR DESIGN REVIEW (89 -7 -DR) BASED ON THE FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS AND INCLUDING ALL OF THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF STAFF. MOTION UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED. Planning Commission August 24, 1989 Page 3 Conditions read as follows: 1. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall submit for review and approval of the Community Development Department a revised site plan showing: a. An enhanced pedestrian crossing with a differentiated surface (raised pavement, contrasting material) at the north end of the bus load area (along 42nd Avenue S.E.) between the public sidewalk and the bus load area. b. An enhanced pedestrian crossing with a differentiated surface (raised pavement, contrasting material) at either end of the pedestrian walkway (between the auditorium and the existing indoor swimming pool facility) in the eastern parking lot. 2. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall submit for review and approval of the Community Development Department a site lighting plan showing: a. Reduced wattage of the fixtures used in the parking lot lighting (Type "C" fixtures) to 250 watts unless there is satisfactory evidence provided that the 400 watt fixtures are necessary for public safety. b. Restriction of the lighting distribution to within the property boundaries of the site. c. Statement on the drawing which indicates the use of the tennis court lighting shall be restricted to no later than ten p.m. d. Information on the specific exterior lighting fixtures. 3. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall submit for review and approval of the Community Development Department revised landscaping plans showing: a. Additional landscaping (trees, groundcover) along the pedestrian walkway (between the auditorium and the existing indoor swimming pool facility) in the eastern parking lot. b. The addition of three trees to be located within the lawn area along 144th Street South (next to bus load area). Planning Commission August 24, 1989 Page 4 c. The addition of a minimum of 3 trees to be located within the lawn area located along 42nd Avenue S.E. d. A minimum of 24 inch shrubs along the east perimeter of north parking lot (next to athletic fields). e. Substitution of 36 inch for 24 inch shrubs (laurel shown) in locations where used between site perimeter and adjoining parking stalls. f. Landscaping specifications for the planting of the London Plane trees will be reviewed in detail and must include a 3 -foot minimum planting distance of 3 feet back of curb with a trench for each tree to be a minimum of 4 feet deep, 5 feet wide, and 10 feet long. Special soil mix may be required at the time of build- ing permit issuance. 4. The height of the (2) earth berms located at the southwest corner of the site and within the vision triangle area (south and west of the visitor parking area) shall not exceed (3) feet in height above street grade. 5. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall submit for review and approval by the Community Development Department plans showing the location and screening details for exterior trash receptacles. MR. FLESHER MOVED TO APPROVE THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (89-2 - CUP) BASED ON THE FACT THAT THERE IS ALREADY A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR THAT SITE AND THE ONLY NEW AREA IS THE AUDITORIUM. MR. KNUDSON SECONDED THE MOTION WHICH WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED. A recess was called and the meeting reconvened at 9:12 pm Chairman Haggerton reviewed the procedure for this meeting, indicating that public testimony would not be taken; and a decision would be made on the request for zoning designations and comprehensive plan designations for the Cascade View Annexation area, based on the public testimony taken at the at the August 10, 1989 Planning Commission meeting. 89 -3 -R i 89 -2 -CPA CASCADE VIEW ANNEXATION - Request to establish Comprehensive Plan Map and Pre - annexation Zoning Map designations for the Cascade View Annexation area. Vernon Umetsu, Associate Planner, reviewed the testimony which was presented on August 10, 1989 meeting. He reviewed area #15 of the map pointing out the present uses and proposed zoning and testimony given for this area. Planning Commission August 24, 1989 Page 5 Discussion ensued next on Item #1. MR. KNUDSON MOVED AND MR. HAMILTON SECONDED A MOTION TO ACCEPT THE TASK FORCE RECOMMENDATION OF RMH FOR THIS AREA. MOTION UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED. Discussion ensued next on Item #2. MR. HAMILTON MOVED AND MR. KNUDSON SECONDED A MOTION FOR A ZONING DESIGNATION OF SINGLE FAMILY AND COMP PLAN DESIGNATION OF MEDIUM DENSITY. MOTION UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED. Discussion ensued next on Item A, Area 3. MR. KIRSOP MOVED AND MR. HAMILTON SECONDED A MOTION TO RECOMMEND R -3 ZONING DESIGNATION FOR ITEM A, AREA 3. THE MOTION CARRIED WITH KIRSOP, FLESHER, HAGGERTON, HAMILTON VOTING YES AND MR. KNUDSON VOTING NO. Discussion ensued next on Item #4. MR. KIRSOP MOVED AND MR. KNUDSON SECONDED A MOTION TO ACCEPT THE TASK FORCE RECOMMENDATION FOR AREA 4 AS R -3 ON THE EASTERLY TWO THIRDS AND R -2 FOR THE WEST WHICH CONSISTS OF AN EXISTING APART- MENT STRUCTURE. MOTION UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED. Discussion ensued next on Item #5. MR. KNUDSON MOVED AND MR. HAMILTON SECONDED A MOTION TO ACCEPT THE TASK FORCE RECOMMENDATION OF R -1, 7.2 ZONING DESIGNATION. MOTION UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED. Discussion ensued next on Items B, C, D; Areas 6 & 8. MR KNUDSON MOVED AND MR. FLESHER SECONDED A MOTION TO RECOMMEND AREA 6 HAVE A ZONING DESIGNATION OF R -2 BECAUSE IT WOULD BE A BUFFER FROM RMH AND STILL BE COMPATIBLE WITH NEIGHBORHOOD. THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED. Discussion ensued next on Area 7. MR. HAMILTON MOVED AND MR. FLESHER SECONDED A MOTION TO ACCEPT THE TASK FORCE RECOMMENDATION FOR R -1 ZONING. THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED. Discussion ensued next on Area 8. MR. KIRSOP MOVED AND MR. KNUDSON SECONDED A MOTION TO RECOMMEND R -2 ZONING DESIGNATION FOR AREA 8 PRIMARILY FOR THE DIFFICULTY OF THE SITE AND THE PROXIMITY TO THE HIGHWAY. MOTION UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED. Planning Commission August 24, 1989 Page 6 Discussion ensued next on Area 9, Item E. MR. KNUDSON MOVED AND MR. KIRSOP SECONDED A MOTION TO RECOMMEND PO ZONING FOR THIS AREA BASED ON THE TASK FORCE RECOMMENDATION AND THE APPROPRIATENESS FOR SENIOR HOUSING. MOTION UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED. Discussion ensued next on Areas 10 & 11. MR. KIRSOP MOVED AND MR. KNUDSON SECONDED A MOTION THAT AREAS 10 AND 11 HAVE A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION OF HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL WITH A ZONING DESIGNATION OF R -1, 7.2. MOTION UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED. Discussion ensued next on Area 12. MR. FLESHER MOVED AND MR. HAMILTON SECONDED A MOTION TO ACCEPT THE TASK FORCE RECOMMENDATION FOR AREA 12 FOR P.O. ZONING DESIGNATION. MOTION UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED. Discussion ensued next on Area 13. MR. KNUDSON MOVED AND MR. HAMILTON SECONDED A MOTION TO ACCEPT THE TASK FORCE RECOMMENDATION OF R -4 ZONING. MOTION UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED. MR. KNUDSON MOVED TO EXTEND THE DEADLINE FOR MEETING LENGTH BEYOND THE 10:30 PM DEADLINE. MR. FLESHER SECONDED THE MOTION WHICH WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED. Discussion ensued next on Area 14. MR. KIRSOP MOVED AND MR. HAMILTON SECONDED A MOTION TO RECOMMEND R -1 ZONING AS RECOMMENDED BY THE TASK FORCE. MOTION CARRIED WITH KIRSOP, FLESHER, HAGGERTON AND HAMILTON VOTING YES AND MR. KNUDSON VOTING NO. Discussion ensued on Area 15. MR. FLESHER MOVED THAT AREA CM (INDUSTRIAL PARK) ZONING THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED HAMILTON VOTING YES AND MR. Discussion ensued next on Area 16. 15, ITEM H, BE REZONED TO REFLECT A DESIGNATION. MR. HAMILTON SECONDED WITH KIRSOP, FLESHER, HAGGERTON AND KNUDSON VOTING NO. MR. KIRSOP MOVED AND MR. HAMILTON SECONDED A MOTION TO SUPPORT THE TASK FORCE RECOMMENDATION OF R -4. MOTION UNANIMOUSLY AP- PROVED. Planning Commission August 24, 1989 Page 7 MR. HAMILTON MOVED TO ACCEPT THE TASK FORCE RECOMMENDATIONS, FINDINGS:AND CONCLUSIONS AS SUBMITTED TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION WITH THE EXCEPTIONS OF THOSE MODIFICATIONS'MADE AT TONIGHT'S •. MEETING. MR. KNUDSON SECONDED THE MOTION WHICH WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED DIRECTORS' REPORT Jack Pace, Senior Planner stated that September 25, 1989 has been set aside fora joint meeting of the City Council and Planning Commission on Wetlands. Also, September 28, 1989 the BAR meeting. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 11:10 p.m. Respectfully submitted, anne John on, Secretary City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila Washington 98188 (206) 433 -1800 Gary L. VanDusen, Mayor CITY OF TUKWILA PLANNING COMMISSION AUG 10, 1989 The meeting was called to order at 8:00 p.m. by Chairman Jim Haggerton. Members present were Messrs. Haggerton, Hamilton, Cagle, Flesher, Kirsop, and Knudson. Representing the staff were Jack Pace, Vernon Umetsu, and Joanne Johnson. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - MR. KNUDSON MOVED AND MR. CAGLE SECONDED A MOTION TO APPROVE THE JULY 27, 1989 MINUTES AS PRESENTED. MOTION UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED. Chairman Haggerton reviewed the procedure for this public hear- ing, indicating that public testimony would be taken at this meeting; and a decision would be made at the August 27, 1989 Planning Commission meeting. 89 -3 -R & 89 -2 -CPA CASCADE VIEW ANNEXATION - Request to establish Comprehensive Plan Map and Pre - annexation Zoning Map designations for the Cascade View Annexation area. Vernon Umetsu, Associate Planner, reviewed the staff report which was entered into the record as Exhibit A. He pointed out the intent of the Task Force on existing uses and expected uses on a large display map emphasizing the single family characteristics of the area which is also in compliance with the goals and policies of the Tukwila Comprehensive Plan. The Public Hearing was opened. David Livermore, 13212 - 31st Avenue S., spoke representing the Task Force. He stated that the intent of the Task Force was to preserve as much Single Family character as practical without undue hardship. Planning Commission August 10, 1989 Page 2 Adele Scott, 13020 - 34th Avenue S. pointed out the location of her property on the display map. She felt areas designated on the display map as 6 and 8 should have a single family designa- tion. She presented a petition supporting a Single Family designation for Areas 6 and 8 which was entered into the record as Exhibit "B ". John Welch, 2700 S. 133rd, pointed out his property on the display map stating he did not want to be locked into a P.O. zone and preferred M -1 zoning designation to P.O., Single Family, or C -2 zoning designation. Leslie Brown, 12010 - 26th Avenue S. pointed out his property on the display map, stating he preferred a R -4 zoning designation for his property. Floyd Thistle, 3226 S. 130th, asked that the Task Force recommen- dations for the annexation area be upheld. He also supported the formation of a Community Municipal Council. Montana Cooter, 12915 Pacific Highway S. pointed out that the lots adjacent to Riverton Hospital were very unstable and she felt it may threaten her property below if they are developed. Robert Boren, 12471 Pacific Highway S. wanted his name added to the mailing list and also wanted the C -2 zoning designation to remain on the property to the south of Area 10. Bernardo Salle, 5611 S. Ryon Street, preferred that Areas 6 and 8 reflect a zoning designation that permits a 4 -plex. He felt that this area is not conducive to single family. Bob Kaye, 3715 S. 141st, owns two lots. He has a 13 unit apart- ment complex on one lot and the other lot he would like changed from a suggested R -3 designation to R -4 designation. Larry Swedeluis, 3131 S. 133rd, pointed out his property on the display map. He favored maintaining the single family quality as much as possible and was opposed to any apartments being built. Robert Boe, 13515 - 35th Avenue S. felt that the Task Force worked hard to be fair and wants the Task Force recommendations upheld. Bernard Salle wanted the Planning Commission not to forget the local businessman. He felt the area is getting more and more foreign businesses. Floyd Thistle was opposed to any more apartment zoning taking place and wants single family neighborhood quality preserved. Planning Commission August 10, 1989 Page 3 He supported the Task Force recommendations. The Public Hearing was closed at 9 :00 p.m. The Chairman noted that a decision will be made at the August 24, 1989 Planning Commission hearing. DIRECTQRS REPORT Jack Pace, Senior Planner stated that Monday, September 25, 1989 at 7 :00 p.m. has been set aside to review the City's Wetland areas. ADJOURNMENT • The meeting was adjourned at 9 :05 p.m. Respectfully submitted, anne Jo son, Secretary (�]�tj & L=r�� �f is / ✓� ck_yrt ,9 8 -4 -89 Veknan llnetsu City a b Tufaita 6200 Southcenten B.2vd. Ta!zwUa, GIa. 98188 SEATTLE TRUCK & TRACTOR, Inc. 15260 - 20th Ave. S.W. Seattle, WA 98166 (206) 246 -1250 Re: Cascade View Zoning 6 Compnehens.ive P.&an Dean Mn. Umetdu: I operate a ne aU used ttuefi business at 14141 Paci Hwy. So I am ado in the process a6 punchas.ing this parcel ob £cnd and the aja.in.ing dupeLex and nes.idenee. I want to express my appnavat o the Pne- Annexation Zoning 8 Camp' hens.ive Ptan; Fite numbeius 89 -2 -CPA 6 89 -3 -R. I am aeso sticangey in 1avon a 6 annexation .to the City a b Tu!zwita. gu.cg ZTnactan, Inc. Bud 'd aunt Pnes.ident N.0 G 1 1989 .1(IANNF ,]OHNSQN . Ei Notice of Public Hearing O Notice of Public Meeting Q Board of Adjustment Agenda Packet Q Board of Appeals Agenda Packet • Planning Commission Agenda Packet Q Short Subdivision Agenda Packet A F F I L O A V I T OF D I S T R I, " . U T I 0 N 0 Notice of Application for (] Other Shoreline Management Permit Q Shoreline Management Permit [I Other was mailed to each of the following addresses on FRIDAY, AUGUST 4, 1989 PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBERS, STAFF MEMBERS INVOLVED, MAYOR AND (SEE ATTACHED) Name of Project CASCADE VIEW ANNEXATION PRE - ANNEXATION ZONING PUBLIC HEARING File Number hereby declare that: Q Determination of Nonsignificance Q Mitigated Determination of Non - significance [I Determination of Significance and Scoping Notice [] Notice of Action (l Official Notice , 19 City ( of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila Washington 98188 (206) 433 -1800 1908 Gary 1. VanDusen, Mayor CALL TO ORDER ATTENDANCE NEW BUSINESS CASE NUMBER REQUEST: ADJOURNMENT PLANNING COMMISSION Thursday, August 10, 1989 8:00 p.m. - Council Chambers in City Hall AGENDA 530 p.m. PLANNING COMMISSION WORK SESSION (in Conference Room #3) IV DIRECTOR'S REPORT (if time permits) Planning Commission Public. Hearing 8:00 p.m. - Council Chambers 89-3-R: CASCADE VIEW REZONE Establish Comprehensive. Plan Map and Pre- Annexation Zoning Map designations for the Cascade View Annexation area. 5 HEARING DATE: FILE NUMBER: APPLICANT: REQUEST: LOCATION: ACREAGE: COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: ZONING DISTRICT: SEPA DETERMINATION: ATTACHMENTS: STAFF REPORT to the Planning Commission Prepared August 4, 1989 Approximately 581 acres. DNS issued (EPIC- 20 -89). August 10, 1989 89- 2-CPA: Cascade View Comprehensive Plan Amendment 89 -3-R: Cascade View Rezone. Cascade View Annexation Petitioners Establish Comprehensive Plan Map and Pre - Annexation Zoning Map designations for the Cascade View Annexation area. Generally bounded by Pacific Hwy. So., Military Rd. So. /24th Ave. So., So. 116th Street, and So. 152nd Street (see Attachment A). King County Comprehensive Plan designations are shown in Attachment B to be presented at the public hearing. King County area zoning is shown in Attachment B to be presented at the public hearing. A. Cascade View Vicinity Map B. Area -wide Existing Land Use Map with King County Zoning and Comprehensive Plan Designations* C. Task Force Recommended Cascade View Comprehensive Plan Map* D. Task Force Recommended Cascade View Zoning Map *Attachment to be presented at Planning Commission public hearing of August 10, 1989. STAFF REPORT to the( Planning Commission 89-1\,_ Cascade View Rezone Page 2 FINDINGS 1 VICINITY /SITE INFORMATION 1. Project Description: To establish pre- annexation comprehensive plan and zoning designation for the Cascade View annexation area. 2. Existing Development: There are a variety of residential, commercial and light industrial uses located within the 581 acre annexation area. Maximum building height is approximately 7 stories, with the majority being one to three story structures. An existing land use map will be presented at the Planning Commission public hearing. 3. Terrain: The Cascade View area generally slopes toward the east. The angle of this slope steadily increases from gentle in the southern third; to rolling up from Hwy. 99 in the central third; to a plateau 80+ ft. high, 50+ percent slopes from Hwy. 99 within the northern third. 4. Access: North -South access to the Cascade View area is Pacific Hwy. So. and Military Road So. East -west access is provided by So. 144th St., So. 128th St. from the west, and So. 116th Street. South 133rd St., a residential local access street also provides an informal east -west route for south -bound traffic for Hwy. 99 and SR -599 to all areas to the west and north of Cascade View. The road system is generally shown in Attachment D. 5. Public Utilities and Facilities: A full range of urban level public utilities and facilities are, or are readily available, to this area. BACKGROUND Cascade View residents have petitioned annexation to the City of Tukwila with pre - annexation zoning. This proposed action is to establish such zoning as well as the comprehensive plan designations for the area. No Zoning Code amendments are proposed. The following discussions are organized into three sections: • Citizen Involvement • The Plan Development Process • Task Force Zoning and Comprehensive Plan Recommendations. Citizen Involvement . Citizen involvement in the pre - annexation zoning process was focused along two avenues: a pre - annexation zoning task force, and public information flyers and meetings. A Pre - Annexation Zoning Task Force was formed from all those area residents, landowners, or interested parties who indicated they wished to participate in this process. All parties were encouraged to participate through information brochures mailed on May 3rd and July 19th to all registered voters and landowners. These brochures also gave notice of the initial public information meeting, subsequent preliminary zoning recommendations and follow -up public meeting where comments were taken. A notice of final Task Force recommendations and the Commission hearing was mailed to all parties on August 1, 1989. Task Force recommendations were developed in seven meetings between May 18th and July 25th (see Plan Development below). Preliminary recommendations were STAFF REPORT to the( 89 -1 Cascade View Rezone Planning Commission Page 3 mailed to all registered voters, landowners, and other interested parties for comment at the second public meeting on July 19th. Brochures and information meetings were the primary vehicles for distributing information and soliciting comments. The public will continue to have an opportunity to comment at two City Council hearings after this public hearing and recommendation. Council hearings are anticipated to be held on September 11th and October 16th, as announced in an earlier information brochure. The Plan Development Process Development of the recommended zoning and comprehensive plan was a joint effort by Task Force members and the Planning Staff. Task Force members were instrumental in directing staff work and made all decisions, while Planning staff provided technical information, graphic support and facilitated discussions. Task Force decisions were by general concensus with "votes" usually taken to facilitate discussions. In general, the Task Force followed the plan development process described below: a. Use County zoning as the basis of discussion, b. Identify all "issue sites" for later discussion, c. Review Planning staff site evaluation notes and visit each area, d. Discuss and resolve zoning for each issue site, e. Review map for overall coherence, and f. Revise recommended map as necessary after wide opportunity for public comment through a preliminary zoning map mailed to all registered voters, property owners and interested parties and a public meeting. The final Task Force zoning recommendation was mailed on August 1st to all registered voters, landowners, and other interested parties, along with a notice of the Commission's August 10th meeting. Task Force Zoning and Comprehensive Plan Recommendations The recommended plan generally reflects existing King County zoning as shown in Attachment B to be presented at the public hearing. The Task Force has recommended modifications to the County's zoning to reflect its overall goal: To balance environmental constraints, the needs of existing land uses, the realities of future development, and the need to preserve existing residential neighborhoods. In this balance, the preservation of existing residential neighborhoods shall be given priority. The Task Force recommended comprehensive plan and zoning maps are shown as Attachments C and D. Large versions of these maps will be presented at the public hearing. In general, the recommended zoning and comprehensive plan reflect a land use pattern dominated by commercial and high density residential uses in the southern quarter and along a majority of Hwy. 99; an interior single family core; and a large, 40 acre office zone bi- seating the residential areas, centered around Riverton Hospital. The Task Force spent many hours visiting and discussing the merits of zoning for various specific sites. The results of these specific area discussions have been summarized in the table below. Detailed Task Force findings, conclusions, and recommendations by site, follow the summary table. RECOMM. NUMBER SUMMARY ACTION 1 Up- zone to RMH as most comparable to County's RM1800 zoning. 2 Maintain R -1 -7.2 zoning with Comp. Plan designation "Medium Density Residential" 3 Down -zone to R -3 (3 and 4- plexes at 15 units per acre) and change Comp. Plan to "Public Facilities" from County RM2400 (High Den. Apt. 24 units per acre) /HD (High Density Apt.). Down -zone area to. R-2 and R-3 from County RM2400 (Med. Density Apt. -18 units/ acre) and CG (General Commercial). Maintain R- 1- 7.2 as equivalent to County's RS7200. 6 Maintain R-1-7.2 zoning as equivalent to County RS7200. 7 Down zone area to R-1-7.2 from County RM1800 (High density apt -24 units /acre). 8 Down -zone area to R-1-7.2 from County RD3600 (Low density apt-12 units /acre). 9 Up -zone area to P-0 from County RS7200. 10 Change Comp. Plan to "Low Density Res." from County's LD (Low Density Apt.). Maintain existing zoning as R -1 -72 as equivalent to County's RS7200. 11 Rezone to R-1-7.2 with Comp. Plan "High- density Residential" in order to allow City to consider continuing County's "senior housing condition." 12 Rezone to P-0 from County RM900P (Max. Den. -48 units per acre). 13 Rezone to R-4 from County's CG (Gen. Commercial) 14 Rezone to R-1-72 from County RS7200 and two small areas of RD3600. 15 Up -zone to M-1 with 115 ht. exception and B.A.R. approval from CG (Gen. Commer- cial) Cascade View ) 're- annexation Zoning Task Force Specific Site Recommendations and Analyses ��.. • -S • Q _ l i • o' , { --TT a. 10 1 1, Ii . , ii ce. p p b s" i'c • d. • b.�: -• O il. ' ..' a 5 4 al (CI . '�_ c 1•o ' a5• • G i •' t1 . r) ` ' ? .tl1� n, `'t of 4'1' E,�(I , ? c s \ . r . a s •f . �!14i9AMpF�•P.iR. a o • D• ..t �..:��Yii•. `._fin li{t4i06�. _iI . =1 I "'' • - g �' RIVERTON CHEST { ' p• h ,. F• •• G p l 11 _ E J Cc. 1 t .:.: iSfl.1 _ j=am y . - ; D �' . t. :' T ° o ° o-: 1 1.^IDv is °1 3 1 o• ., a 'c 1I-,\• \'� _ ; �C • p Q. !e. 1R09 3 0 k G. .p • •J • �i • ..G r s 167. • v st.ir...._. i a t4 • ;ii 41 " o� o i b r 1 . - {a CASCADE VIEW LOCATION MAP FOR PRE - ANNEXATION ZONING TASK FORCE SITE SPECIFIC RECOMMENDATIONS AND ANALYSIS August 4, 1989 1 f � • 41' •1'4 ©? d " • wa s . P �• � 6 � �°` a { ��' SU• w., o - ,,,,.... pppp •:•• 'a.' . • B.J , .. .• . :; ¢• s a >'4�''?r,. :,...'U . : ri8.�ti .. nom' v .. a 0 '00' O bcc , 4coC °.-y �3 ; :. 'n Al_ , .= o i' , b ,' , • R, ,p Eye �'19.,1•'..1.1.,•9.6 go o'`�O p; O0006 Coco: 4� r1;i;174'..4. w o� a ----° ----° �IC1 -j , : _ .. t: r� .! I ' � _ a 0 •�aa . : , r� • u . .l • d `• � •' 1., ∎•r a' i •r3 v5 24. . ►r 0 o ; i ,. ° ... _ I k s v eat ` o 17 d o - o, ti; r ST .. o it 11 4 o ay 0 sml„i �i4] . v Q m ° Gj i • r ' i In .l Q �'e x t { • � i 1 !'fir✓' :IV mud :` _,0.„ .. � fblMt r . . • YI `' • (� it ik 5 FOE ACM _ � . f):0 i i � � ~ y 7' • _* �!r --r•i ' °s� �•: is — ' -+— — i . . F4`'''1 aPo t4 ° Q • e.q.: }o . • fit" �; • . • r volieps' t . 3.7 4, 118; n; ,. "�. ' '� ; C O i _ ',;. � Q 1 i t 4V a vi• •' 4i c • t aotl)gir :73= 11171; icy ; i5 Z. 4113 4 . r t'1 • o�' — b ri'k' - �� r� �? •� -T � z (';:r' ' TASK FORCE {� F RECOMMENDATION 1 Up -zone to RMH (High Density Multi- Family = 29 units per acre KING COUNTY ZONING/ COMPREHENSIVE PLAN RM1800 (High Density Multi - Family = 24 units per acre)/ HD (High Density Multi- Family) EXISTING LAND USE Single family NUMBER OF ACRES: 1.0 FINDINGS ,ATM I,I4I A? AL 1420 --1 S JI ; Jr 11 I 14 N. el* Of 1) Proposed surrounding zoning is RMH on the south and west, C -2 (Regional Retail) to the east and single family to the north. The adjacent streets are heavily traveled. The stability of these five lots as a single family area, when surrounded by higher density uses, is questionable. 3) Significant lot consolidation is required for a viable multi- family project. CONCLUSION The current King County zoning is reasonable in light of surrounding uses. The most appropriate, equivalent Tukwila Zone is RMH. 'TASK FORCE RECOMMENDATION 2 Zone the area R-1-7.2 (Single Family) with Comprehensive Plan designation as Medium Density Residential. KING COUNTY ZONING/ COMPREHENSIVE PLAN RS7200 (Single Family) with RM2400 potential (Apts -18 units per acre) /SF (Single Family) EXISTING LAND USE Single family and vacant along the 37th Avenue frontage. NUMBER OF ACRES: 1.3 FINDINGS 1) The expected surrounding land use pattern is high density multi- family to south and east, with strong single family areas to the north and west. 2) There are three single family residences in the area which are all reasonably to very well main- tained. 3) Adjacent apartment uses are well buffered from these lots by mature landscaping and fencing. CONCLUSION tie a� �13 Al t 0 1.111! n LA! 1. 1, - 4 A /� .� 1 �r Y p, 111 hL. 011171 N� •.--- I Ian .11 /1 / - / I/1, [(��., to ) ., 14/ I., O4IAIZ vQ Y I41,A/ I W.� ,.e, __ fi r/ ._.... ;° - • - -.. • ti w r N l .'6% // ,/ ' Inrn. AL ' � � �� � 0 +h 4I31 LL Ie/ I -,!—' I _ N-.-- //1�1�. -J i .04 /AL i 11065 I ®� 7 ri i4 ' I A /011 Io „ � c i . ii Y- ' i � (( (�11 v�� '11 L 7��.� 1t( .... C AI`� { I) .b A it 'II N1 � ,; .. • V .LL� rt - 1 1ICtO I%LVtt INC - I' Ihf 1 i 1 I_ a .. A L f!'� • , • I I ' O r 1 S11�c $.' �t 141.3 °I A (SourH S11 84 1 '41251 The long term viability of this area for single family uses is questionable given its location between apartment uses. R-2 zoning would provide a transition between high density apartments and single family uses. The Task Force does not wish to drive the existing residents from their homes with zoning. It there- fore concludes it reasonable to zone the area R -1 while making future provision for a transition zone. TASK FORCE RECOMMENDATION 3 (s Down -zone to R-3 (3 and 4- plexes at 15 units per acre) and change Comprehensive Plan designation to Public Facilities. This is to encourage the loca- tion of public and quasi -public uses, to create a buffer between highway commercial uses and single family uses to the west. KING COUNTY ZONING/ COMPREHENSIVE PLAN RM1800 (High Density Multi - Family = 24 units per acre)/ HD (High Density Multi- Family) EXISTING LAND USE Mixed single and multi- family uses. NUMBER OF ACRES: 3.1 FINDINGS CONCLUSION PLANNING STAFF DISCUSSION 1) An R-3 zone would provide a transition between proposed C -2 (Regional Retail) highway ori- ented uses and westward single family areas. 2) Tri-plex and four -plex structures in R-3 zones can provide a more compatible development with the adjacent single family neighborhood than the 3 story apartments at 22 units per acre allowed in an R-4 zones. 3) A Public Facility designation is usually given to parcels which are the identified sites for a non- profit community facility such as a church, recreation center, or water reservoir. R-3 zoning and a Comprehensive Plan designation of 'Public Facility" designation is appropriate as an indicator of community desires. The Planning staff supports R-3 zoning, but requests the Planning Commission consider options to the "Public Facility" designation. Tukwila has historically used the "Public Facility" designation only for parcels which are currently, or planned for public /quasi- public facilities. In this case, no such public facilities are currently on the site, nor are they likely given the existing land uses in the area. Use of this designation may also mislead residents into thinking that some community facility such as a neighborhood center, or park is planned for this site. No such plans are currently being considered by the City Council. The Planning staff recommends that the Commission consider a Comprehensive Plan designation of Medium Density Residential as being more reflective of anticipated future uses. It will also allow the Comprehensive Plan to be a useful guide in reviewing conditional uses, rezones, variances, and other land use actions. 'TASK FORCE RECOMMENDATION 4 Down-zone the area to R -2 (duplex -11 units /acre) and R-3 (3 and 4- plexes -15 units /acre) with Com- prehensive Plan as Medium Density Residential. KING COUNTY ZONING/ COMPREHENSIVE PLAN RM2400 (Medium Density Multi- Family =18 units per acre)/ RR (Residential - Retail Mix); and CG (General Commercial)/ HC (Highway Commercial). EXISTING LAND USE Single family with one, 4 -unit apartment building. NUMBER OF ACRES: 2.4 FINDINGS CONCLUSION Alb ti N' (NOR f sr) 1. 14115 I, 14 21 20 r 1f - I 10 14 fI) 0 , INAtt —2 Is 312 I J I c n N ST N t S !39T 10 !0 Ol (sour? sr, F 1 • • 4 1+ /, 5) The existing apartment use at the site is approximately R-3 density. AD ,Ie An R -3 zone extending from the eastern analysis site boundary up to and including the apartment building would provide a transition area which recognizes adjacent high activity areas to the east, north, and south. R -2 zoning of remaining areas would enhance a buffer for single family areas. Gi • •JJ 1) The Task Force desires to keep traffic and transient visitors focussed on Hwy. 99 where there is capacity, compatible uses and sites designed to accommodate such activity. This will help to maintain the livability of interior residential neighborhoods. 2) Proposed surrounding zoning is R-3 (15 units /acre) to the south, single family (6 units /acre) to the west and north, and C-2 (Regional Retail) to the east. 3) The location of Highway 99, 80 feet to the east, puts the stability of existing single family uses at this site in question. 4) Lower intensity multi- family uses in this area would provide a transition zone between single family neighborhoods on the north and west from the high density apartments to the south and commercial uses to the east. • TASK FORCE RECOMMENDATION 5 Maintain the existing R-1-7.2 (Single Family) zoning. KING COUNTY ZONING/ COMPREHENSIVE PLAN RS7200 (Single Family) with RM2400 (Apts -18 units per acre) potential/ SF (Single Family) EXISTING LAND USE Single family NUMBER OF ACRES: 14.5 CONCLUSION 0 054IL 4E116 AC « r /, /101 „ 44 .4L , .$ if /N..11 •1 $0 11 l. N «�.II I f 1 • ~ 1 1 � �rJ t _ �IICCO I l1;Vt1 1 ; r 04! AC i ‚di II1.1..4 1140{ I,JJJ(•AC I ^IACE1 31 AC Oh1 /. • 140 . /1 01 1Aft'' `oQ Y HIEr)4GA1 ItSI •/1.1. I 7111 — InlN. 1,L 01 101 Irl 14(,) OIIAC ' n 4 " 446 M. r N045 II 111 � 1l '' u r ret INC °"44111 H F!� 1. Y .10 0$ !Sou H 511 1 41.3 P " 5�= r, ■ 10 7.74 ' 1 ,- 004 110 1"1 ' 4 } _ ^ , 1.1H MI•: «IA • • F7, v7 ,1: FINDINGS 1. This is a strong single family area. Yards and structures are well maintained. 2. There is a strong, unanimous Task Force support for preserving single family uses in this area. Zoning should be used to maintain the viability of this neighborhood. An R-1 zone is appropriate. 21 It 2:' t 'TASK FORCE RECOMMENDATION 6 Maintain R-1-7.2 (Single Family) zoning. KING COUNTY ZONING / COMPREHENSIVE PLAN RS7200 (Single family = 6 units /acre) /SF (Single Family). EXISTING LAND USE Vacant NUMBER OF ACRES: 0.9 Ib N Off , I4 ,9 ©„r c•-• •-•13• I-. Ili 11 t IJI M :11 M J1 x.1 e „ Ir I I , 2, kl- rt .r ICI AI ,;,:,: • IS • �I�IPI I Fr Ii.v..r I i.T ry.)J. f Inn nit ad "a „I/ • 1/ 55' x i s • ,RMn.,i rte. ,r 1 m R ao) S s I 3O T T < (fAAtPSOf — to 0 Cal 11 51�1: AL 1 2 I372" • wit r l � < ki ` • CTI•�5.5 17 IIU 14 13 am: d" 4 sr;: I f 1 v't; w • 4 m MED v i0 1 5r 1s I FINDINGS 1) The minimum Tukwila multi - family zone is R-2 Duplex units at 11 units /acre, with the maxi- mum being 29 units /acre. This would mean a maximum unit count of 10 to 26 units at the site, depending on zoning. A realistic estimate is 6-8 units given Tukwila development standards and lot consolidation. 2) Proposed surrounding zoning is RMH (29 units /acre) to the east, with proposed single family zones to the north, south, and west. 3) Surrounding housing is generally well maintained. 4) A Task Force member submitted a petition signed by over 130 residents in the surrounding area requesting no up- zoning to multi-family uses. The petition will be submitted at the Planning Commission hearing. CONCLUSION The surrounding single family community is viable and does not desire an expansion of multi- family uses. The existing zoning is appropriate. TASK FORCE RECOMMENDATION 7 Down -zone to R-1-7.2 (Single Family) with Comprehensive Plan as Low Density Residential. KING COUNTY ZONING/ COMPREHENSIVE PLAN RM1800 (High Density Multi - Family = 24 units per acre)/ HD (High Density Multi- Family). EXISTING LAND USE 50% vacant and 50% single family. NUMBER OF ACRES: 0.6 acres (say 28,000 sq.ft.) FINDINGS 1) Proposed single family zones lie to the east, west and southwest. A C -1 (Neighborhood Business) lies adjacent to the area's northern tip while an RMH multi- family zone lies to the southeast. 2) The down zone would reduce maximum density from 24 units /acre, to 6 units /acre. 3) Direct property access to Hwy. 99 is prohibited by a steep slope. Property access is via a sub- standard, 16 ft. wide alley from 132nd Street. The map shows three closely spaced intersections (i.e. 30-40 ft.), but does not show the steep 15-21% slope on 132nd Street which significantly increases the hazard level. 4) A task force member who owns lots 7 and 8 in the analysis area requests the down -zone, and asserts that all property owners on the west side of the alley support the down -zone. 5) A petition with the signatures of over 130 residents in the immediate area has been submitted to oppose multi- family zoning in this area and will be submitted at the Planning Commission hearing. CONCLUSION Lack of access and a demonstrated community preference for single family uses in this area indicates that this area is unsuitable for multi- family use; and that single family zoning is appropriate. TASK FORCE (� RECOMMENDATION 8 Down -zone the three indicated lots R -1 -7.2 with Comprehensive Plan as Low Density Residential. KING COUNTY ZONING! COMPREHENSIVE PLAN RD3600 (Low Density Multi - Family =12 units per acre) /SF (Single Family) EXISTING LAND USE Vacant NUMBER OF ACRES: 0.22 (9,600 square feet) FINDINGS CONCLUSION 4 Od ■Yale:. 12' 3 4 a 1 ,, 14 of al I/ YIf 19 Inn MEE imirt • ;an IRA 4 NT-\"' c: I Q h god • (JAmPs i D) 10 II 15 a 10 sou 24 12 ptM 23 22 1- U 10 19 18 IT 1 16 I is Pt! 1 18 ^1 I- L C c 1 %i t. • 0 60 Al.'.'•. 8 ° • ro + g4 ' N 1) Proposed surrounding zoning is C -1 (Neighborhood Business) on the east, and single family in all other directions. 2) The 130th St. /34 Ave. /Hwy. 99 intersection and immediate segments have very steep grades; making access via other than 33rd Ave. somewhat dangerous. 3) Duplex zoning of these lots may provide a feasible access solution by requiring all lots be served by a joint southern access onto 33rd Avenue. Rezone from an equivalent R-2 to R-1-7.2, would reduce expected site density from two units in a single duplex to one single family unit. 5) A petition signed by all surrounding single family residents requested single - family zoning in this area. The existing R-2 equivalent multi- family zone is inconsistent with the desires of the surrounding single family neighborhood residents. R-2 zoning is thus a strong, direct, negative element to the viability of this single family neighborhood. TASK FORCE RECOMMENDATION 9 Zone area P-0 (Office) with Conclusion "C" adopted as a Finding. Comprehensive Plan as Office. KING COUNTY ZONING/ COMPREHENSIVE PLAN RS7200 (Single family -6 units /acre) with RM900 po- tential zone (Max. Density Apartments = say 48 units per acre) /CF (Community Facility). EXISTING LAND USE Vacant wooded NUMBER OF ACRES: 24.7 FINDINGS 1) This site is a series of wooded benches (i.e. alter- nating steep and flat areas). The northern half of the site is a steep ravine. 2) Surrounding proposed zoning is R-4 in the north, P-0 in the west, and R -1 -7.2 in the south and east. 3) The Task Force formed an overwhelming consensus that R -3 and R-4 densities were inappropriate at this location due to the lack of compatibility with the strong single family neighborhoods to the immedi- ate south and east. 4) The P-0 (Office) zone pattern of low activity during evenings and weekends, with high activity during the normal working weekday, is very compatible with the surrounding viable single family neighbor- hood. 5) P-O zoning would allow expansion of medical facilities, development of 200+ duplex units, and /or clustering low apartments around a central medical complex using the Planned Residential Develop- ment or Planned Mixed Use Development provisions of the Zoning Code. Any of the above use patterns would allow the provision of a buffer area for adjacent residential areas. Property development has a high potential to dramatically increase traffic along the 130th / 132nd road network 6) 7) 8) Highline consultants did not know if P-0 zoning would provide them with the maximum land use potential, while being sensitive to community desires. The Task Force considered six months a reasonable time for the consultant to develop a plan, and for the Task Force to retain the focussed understanding of area land use, zoning, and group cohesion necessary to make a decision consistent with the current set of recommendations. CONCLUSION iT 12) • (21 070102 a. 1 _ t.1!! ,. `Z gtN � s an AC. • I.1.. TI " QOM JP 6 Jtf Si w. 9. 12t1 r 12) SP 1077144 (II 17 V 1 y 11110 y • • e -+ h 0 4 A) A P-0 zone designation would be the most compatible with adjacent residential zones, which also allowed a reasonable property use for the hospital. Development of R-3+ residential densities are inappropriate due to their incompatibility with surrounding single family uses. B) Any property development should mitigate increased traffic from Hwy. 99 to Military Rd. via low capacity residential streets and fully buffer user impacts from surrounding residential neighborhoods. C) Highline Hospital should be given the opportunity to present a development proposal to the Task Force for a formal recommendation. Any subsequent Task Force recommendation should supersede its earlier recommendations in Planning Commission and Council deliberations. This opportunity should lapse six months from August 1, 1989. 'TASK FORCE RECOMMENDATION 10 Retain comparable R-1-7.2 (Single Family) zoning, but change Comprehensive Plan to Low Density Residential. KING COUNTY ZONING/ COMPREHENSIVE PLAN RS7200 (Single family - 6 units per acre) with Potential RD3600 (Low Density Multi- family - 12 units per acre)/ LD (Low Density Multi- family) EXISTING LAND USE Vacant NUMBER OF ACRES: 6.9 FINDINGS CONCLUSION ERICKSON 3.31 At EY L STEWART .1.SIAc �/. !/ „7 //II r142! UM. RICHARD .3. FR KI.IN 1.83 Ac. fRAHK L .1N HAPKA .roe Ac It 44 RICHARD L L FLORENCE E YOUNG Z.E') Ac. .N rcx/ •Jf t( I PROGRESSIVE CARE IwC f'6U1 Ac. '` W I r . ^ /. r Pit/ .J J .4 I J. • 1, /I [ �/J I ,.• 'M4 0.01 AC.1R S. ••12 / , r Sr. • -• The Task Force had no concern about continuing the existing single family zone designation. 1) The site is composed of portions of three lots which run east -west down to Hwy.99 which is the sole access point. 2) Access to Hwy. 99 requires traversing a difficult 30+ percent slope. 3) Discussions with Rainier Vista Sewer District staff revealed slides on 25-30 percent slopes which uncovered their sewer lines in the immediate area. This indicates potential surficial hillside instability. There is a flat benched area running across portions of all three lots. The remaining hillside areas upslope of the existing Hwy. 99 developments, have 2430+ percent slopes. Y I 9 ` e ! - -- — 4 ol d � .t 4 •t M1 ' rt.Jl, • • 1 i 4 I I ° N�10 J I % � FRANK l HAPKA l 4 t08 Ac I 1 % 1 . JJf • RICHARD l 1l Ft YOUNG 2 A1 Ac � •Inn c - - -- I _ I JJ MJ ID '7 pp��.FF ,. r Str f at t,1 ii 4 CIF ` , :,... - . - _7` ' I 2� I I . I I i {{.,, I(JI ' .: 6 ti 11l J�j� 1 1 I1, �� I , 1 , . �� '1°I 1 . .1 R. F. ERICKSON 3 31 Ac. :. '(i tED NAKKF ^ 1 �6 t - ,J -.1 ,' x H RICHARD : 14 lJttt J 1.61 i 204 lJ JJ) - OUDREY 4. Si UNARY R J.SIAc It AI tJJJfI ... I I E - ' i#;di A " - -- \l 'fi nJf Il 14 tY Wit .a T§ • _ _ • i PROGRESSIVE _J.. = - S - ; = 127TH' ''T. -1+ Jf i; CARE - - - - _, , 611 Ac - YYY"' I :1 try .W14 II,/ • . M ` l w is Al fI 11 .- I . •. .• !1 of f1 M N 1 at /J I • 0. ' TASK FORCE L. RECOMMENDATION 11 Zone to R-1-7.2 with Comprehensive Plan desig- nation "High- density Residential". KING COUNTY ZONING/ COMPREHENSIVE PLAN RM2400P (Medium Density Multi - Family - say 18 units per acre) /LD (Low Density Multi- Family). EXISTING LAND USE Vacant wooded area. NUMBER OF ACRES: 6.8 FINDINGS 1) The existing County zoning carries a condition of allowing only senior (55 +) housing. This condition was established after extensive community participation in this parcel's rezone, and after developer agreement to the condition. 2) Continuation of this condition with an appropriate Tukwila zone would be possible by estab- lishing an R -1 -7.2 zone, Comprehensive Plan designation of High Density Residential, and adopting this finding that R-4 is an appropriate zone only with a "senior housing only" condi- tion. 3) Re- establishing the existing senior housing condition could be done during a later quasi - judicial rezone of the site to R-4. The maximum R-4 density (22 units /acre) allowed would result in increased maximum County RM2400 density (18 units /acre). 4) Site access is far below Tukwila standards. CONCLUSIONS The long term development of the site as senior housing could be appropriate and compatible with surrounding uses if adequate access could be demonstrated. This action would provide for a poten- tial up -zone from existing County density, upon re- establishment of the current development condi- tion. TASK FORCE RECOMMENDATION 12 Rezone to P-O (Office). Retain existing Compre- hensive Plan "Office" designation. KING COUNTY ZONING/ COMPREHENSIVE PLAN RM900P (Max. Density Multi- Family - 48 units/ acre) with a small corner of RD3600 (12 units per acre) at the western limit /Office. EXISTING LAND USE Vacant and single family. NUMBER OF ACRES: 2.4 FINDINGS CONCLUSION 1, R. f. ERICI<SON 331 Ac IUOREY l STEWART 3.51 Ac JT.:ut 4 t II It � IAA I I 5. "••1$1 ST it t21 f itil '0 1 • I lb I. • RIGIIARO J, I e! J. II. GAI Z U 4' „ N J ll „7 I_.L•1J PROGRESSIVE CARE FE/ Ac ri YIJ I 0.61 Ac. 1) The existing small lot pattern and shallow lot depth (160 ft.) limits the ability to develop a qual- ity project at RMH or R-4 densities. 2) The low or marginal quality development encouraged by RMH /R-4 zoning in this area would significantly degrade the viability of single family uses to the immediate north and across So. 127th Street; especially if lots adjacent to So. 127th St. were later rezoned for development. 3) P-0 zoning would provide a reasonable use for lots adjacent to So. 128th St. and a transition to single family uses in the immediate north. P-0 zoning would better preserve the existing residential neighborhood, while allowing a reasonable range of use to property owners. TASK FORCE RECOMMENDATION 13 Zone R-4 (Low Apts. -22 units per acre) with Comprehensive Plan as High Density Residential. KING COUNTY ZONING/ COMPREHENSIVE PLAN CG (General Commercial) /HD (Highway Oriented Business) and a small triangle of RM2400 (18 units per acre) /LD (Low Den. Multi- family) EXISTING LAND USE Vacant NUMBER OF ACRES: 7 S. , Ito ? ,.t' t • ,e." 4 i 1 012110 I � FRANK L -- _:' _ l 1 •'vltAc•--`11 1 1� N IUtAc • i ::: I 1 1 i 1 Q3r27 -- f ti, ,+ ,+ 1 74 ./J RICHARD L t FLORENCE E FOUND •2A1Ac COLES SOIL g at FINDINGS 1) This is a steeply sloping site with 23-30+ percent grades throughout. 2) There is no access to Hwy. 99. 3) Assessor records indicate this parcel is owned by the same parties who own the Woodridge Apts. to the immediate west. The Woodridge parcel is zoned R-4. CONCLUSION It is reasonable to recognize that this parcel has no significant highway orientation, but an immediate connection to the adjacent R-4 zoned parcel. Thus, R-4 zoning is appropriate. ' TASK FORCE RECOMMENDATION 14 Zone the area R-1-7.2 (Single Family with Comprehensive Plan as Low Density Residential. KING COUNTY ZONING/ COMPREHENSIVE PLAN RS7200 (Single family) with RD3600 (12 units /acre) potential zone in the eastern half of this strip. There are also two areas of RD3600 zoning in the eastern half of this strip. Comprehensive Plan designation is Low Density Apt. in the east- ern half and Single Family in the western half. EXISTING LAND USE Vacant and single family. NUMBER OF ACRES: 27.5 FINDINGS 1) Staff is not able to identify any significant physical differences between lots in this area, nor does there seem to be any Comprehen- sive Plan policy basis for such distinctions; even rec- ognizing the wide latitude given to cities to make this discrimination in area -wide zoning actions. 2) There are two requests to the Task Force for the eventual R -2 (Duplex) rezoning of R -1 lots in the western half of this strip. These are in addition to two existing County RD3600 apartment zones in the area. CONCLUSION /. 0TH 4e1N o>,14 " !^y d 4 r.• • •III' r � t I' Sr • N 13 II • t^LIJ SO Mel/ 0 •••71 1'•L t 1241E PL III 2 4 3 M t; a IliN ___ 1 1: ' 0.67Ac 11401 -C N 22 I1a 40 JO , N S oz ale i1tp ` 5 , 11 4— I,\ • t4L 1 �11a10 1 1 \ 1 \ • -I I/ At- _ 4 \1� uHAYUDH SM I 4 7 At. • hod In , z _ _r I, JJI l f R. F. ERICKSON 331 Ac 7 O 0' C FHA HA P AUDREY t SI EWAI 3.51 Ac 8TH „ ST �T I J T. I I 11303 JO. II ..4 N • toL if - - llN 4s4 26 25 1- LC Cr Hilltop Park 11 = 0 1 la— r N S 1. . a. '•o I .n • o•.. •,r • w , 1 o n • 1 • ,1 t alo 14 >< ::: }{ I - - 16 • l 8 1 s =12 7TH ; I I I li Filt! 4 /4 If ,l ; , 709 a0 A[ , el,Pil I et I, h 11 • ,i II �xcaJI r_ li 1S 1111(J 1J - 1 I. .•J 3) Staff has had contact with several individuals wanting to keep the area single family use. 4) Establishing a transitional strip adjacent to the R -4 zone would result in an untenable single family strip, 1-2 lots deep, between Military Rd. and the duplex zone. Eventual rezone of any such R -1 strip to R -2 uses should be expected. Continuing the existing RD3600 zones and approving the two up -zone requests to R -2 would result in the eventual conversion of this area to R -2 uses; as apartments began to make single family uses less viable and conversion requests more numerous. Planning staff would be hard pressed to recommend denial of such rezone requests in light of no significant differences between R-1 and possible R -2 parcels in this area. The Task Force concludes that its goal of preserving viable residential areas is best served by zoning the area R -1. ' TASK FORCE RECOMMENDATION 15 Rezone M -1, with 115 height exception with BAR approval (18.50.040). KING COUNTY ZONING/ COMPREHENSIVE PLAN CG (General Commercial) /HC (Highway Oriented Business) EXISTING LAND USE Truck /heavy equipment sales and storage. NUMBER OF ACRES: 12.0 FINDINGS 1) The site is located at foot of steeply sloped, benched hillside with apartments at the top of slope to west and north. 2) Construction in the western portion is difficult due to steep slopes with possible high groundwater levels. Access to northern two-thirds is currently only via an earth ramp from the southern one -third of site. There is no direct access to High- way 99 from northern portion without extensive site work. CONCLUSION PLANNING STAFF DISCUSSION Jo • VI la A Jn ..HAYI•)A SM11H l41Ac. • R. F. ERICKSON 3.31 Ac. II 1.0 FRANK L HAPK i Oe Ac •I 1.. IA. RICHARD l & FLORENCE C YOUNG 2AS At A ASSUN I A 51StSluvt II IS LO. ES P \0IL tN 3 86 A TEO NAKKERUO 146 At 0 010 JO IHONAS URI Wilt IAN 3414 .0• 3) An approximately seventy -five foot high steep slope separates up -slope apartments to west and north, thereby isolating the site and orienting it toward the M -2 zone across Hwy. 99 to the east. 4) Most of front property is at elev. 80-90. The maximum 115 ft. building height would reach the foot of the lowest upslope apartment at 190 ft. 5) The proposed zone designation would make any development be subject to design review since it is within 300 ft. of a residential zone; and if it exceeds the basic M -1 height limits. Residents and property owners would be notified and given an opportunity to comment when a specific project is proposed. The proposed zone is appropriate since it is consistent with the existing use, is oriented toward other heavy and light industrial zones toward the east and Hwy. 99, development impacts would be largely isolated from residential zones, and adjacent residents would be given an opportunity to comment on project design. This site is at a prominent gateway location to the City. The current C-G designation makes the existing use in the County a nonconforming use. The comparable Tukwila zone would be C -2 which would also make the existing use nonconforming. The Task Force has recommended M -1 which would make the existing use conforming. The M -1 zone allows outdoor industrial operations and storage. The design quality of industrial buildings are generally limited by their function. The Planning Commission may wish to consider the following three options in its deliberation and recom- mendations: A. Task Force recommended M -1 B. Comparable zoning C -2 C. Industrial use C -M. TASK FORCE RECOMMENDATION 16 Upzone to R-4 (Low Apartments - 22 units per acre) with Comprehensive Plan as High Density Residential. KING COUNTY ZONING/ COMPREHENSIVE PLAN RM2400 (18 units per acre) /LD (Low Density) Apts. EXISTING LAND USE Three and four story apartments. NUMBER OF ACRES: 12 FINDINGS CONCLUSION FRANK L HAPNA t NA At 1) Sites are generally developed as three and four story apartments at R-4 and RMH densities. 2) Sites are separated from adjacent single family uses by a 25 ft. change in elevation and screened by a variety of vegetation. Three story structures are thus not visible from most single family areas while four story structures may be marginally visible. 3) An area Task Force member indicated a desire to limit future structure height to a three story maximum to preserve the viability of adjacent single family areas. The existing three story apartment buildings allowed in R-4 zones are the maximum structures ap- propriate to these sites in order to preserve adjacent single family areas. STAFF REPORT to the( Planning Commission 89-1L,.., Cascade View Rezone Page 4 The Planning Division generally concludes that the Task Force recommended zoning and comprehensive plan, strikes a reasonable balance between the Natural Environment, Residence, and Commerce /Industry Element goals of the Tukwila Comprehensive Plan. Staff concludes that Recommendations 3 and 16 should be re- evaluated in light of previous departmental comments in the site specific evaluations. RECOMMENDATION Not withstanding further new information presented at the Planning Commission public hearing, the Planning Division recommends that the Task Force recommended Comprehensive Plan and Zoning (Attachments C and D) be used as the basis for its formal actions and modifications. Riverton Foster S 140th St Thorndyke rATirAcofer - CASCADE VIEW �.. Tukwila City Limits m. m. = Sea Tac City Limits LEGEND Proposed Cascade View Annexation NO SCALE WENDY BULL hereby declare that: El Notice of Public Hearing O Notice of Public Meeting O Board of Adjustment Agenda Packet Q Board of Appeals Agenda Packet O Planning Commission Agenda Packet Q Short Subdivision Agenda Packet Q Notice of Application for Shoreline Management Permit 0 Shoreline Management Permit was mailed to each of the following addresses on Monday, July 31, 1989. SEE ATTACHED MATRIX; MAYOR AFFIDAVIT Name of Project CASCADE VIEW ANNEXATION File Number 89-3 -R Zoning 89 -2 -CPA Comp. Plan OF DISTP BUTI0N Q Determination of Nonsignificance O Mitigated Determination of Non - significance [j Determination of Significance and Scoping Notice (] Notice of Action Q Official Notice Q Other O Other , 19 . City of Tukwila PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE Notice is hereby given that the City of Tukwila Planning Commission will conduct a public hearing to consider Pre - annexation Zoning and Comprehensive Plan designations for the Cascade View annexation area, should it annex to the City of Tukwila. The annexation area is generally bounded by Military Rd. So., Pacific Hwy. So., So. 152nd St., and So. 116th Street. This hearing will be held on August 10, 1989, at 8:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers at Tukwila City Hall, 6200 Southcenter Boulevard. The applicable file numbers are 89 -2 -CPA (Comprehensive Plan Amendment) and 89 -3 -R (Rezone). Persons wishing to comment on the above cases may do so in writing or by appearing at the public hearing. All comments must be received by August 10, 1989. Information on the above cases may be obtained at the Tukwila Department of Community Development. Published: Valley Daily News on July 30, 1989. Distribution: Mayor; file. The City encourages you to notify your neighbors and other persons you believe would be affected by the above items. Please contact Vernon Umetsu at 433 -1858 if your have any questions. q I, WENDY BULL 111 Notice of Public Hearing 0 Notice of Public Meeting 0 Board of Adjustment Agenda Packet 0 Board of Appeals Agenda Packet J Planning Commission Agenda Packet C7 Short Subdivision Agenda Packet 0 Notice of Application for Shoreline Management Permit 0 Shoreline Management Permit SEE ATTACHED TASK FORCE MEMBERS LIST MAYOR FAXED TO VALLEY DAILY NEWS Name of Project CASCADE VIEW PRE - ANNEXATION ZONING /COMPREHENSIVE PLAN File Number 89 -2 -CPA & 89 -3 -R hereby declare that: ature AFc I DAV I T OF D ISTR .. BUT ION [I Determination of Nonsignificance Q Mitigated Determination of Non- significance [� Determination of Significance and Scoping Notice O Notice of Action Q Official Notice ❑ Other • Other was mailed to each of the following addresses on MONDAY, JULY 24, 1989. , 19 . Distribution: Mayor; file. City of Tukwila PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE itlIZYG•Y wR.u1.•:�1•L. •., �rt•\ ,ACev�,.NY�•• %•�•Ylrrr �•:'.nNr wt^zL1:t.1.4.=su ^umwn*...•a.+..... -w. mtsosrsii {rsventk.c aaaw -o KAna on3' klt FA ls -ulLrollmEZ4:CYJS Notice is hereby given that the City of Tukwila Planning Commission will conduct a public hearing to consider Pre - annexation Zoning and Comprehensive Plan designations for the Cascade View annexation area, should it annex to the City of Tukwila. The annexation area is generally bounded by Military Rd. So., Pacific Hwy. So., So. 152nd St., and So. 116th Street. This hearing will be held on August 10, 1989, at 8:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers at Tukwila City Hall, 6200 Southcenter Boulevard. The applicable file numbers are 89 -2 -CPA (Comprehensive Plan Amendment) and 89 -3 -R (Rezone). Persons wishing to comment on the above cases may do so in writing or by appearing at the public hearing. All comments must be received by August 10, 1989. Information on the above cases may be obtained at the Tukwila Department of Community Development. The City encourages you to notify your neighbors and other persons you believe would be affected by the above items. Please contact Vernon Umetsu at 433 -1858 if you 3c have any questions. Published: Valley Daily News on July 30, 1989. 1908' City F Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila Washington 98188 (206) 433-1800 Gary L VanDusen, Mayor City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila Washington 98188 JULY 19; 1989 7.9 PM AGENDA NOTICE FOR CASCADE VIEW ANNEXATION PUBLIC INFORMATION MEETING NO. 2 FOSTER HIGH SCHOOL CAFETERIA SO. 144TH ST AND 42ND AVE SO 1 DESCRIPTION OF PUBLIC SERVICES TO CASCADE VIEW. 2. DISCUSSION OF PRELIMINARY TASK FORCE ZONING 'RECOMMENDATIONS. 3. INFORMAL MEETINGS WITH TUKWILA STAFF AND ELECTED OFFICIALS. Fire Protection INTRODUCTION This is a follow -up information brochure to share the City's findings on providing services, revenues, and preliminary zoning since the May public information meeting. I PUBLIC SERVICES Fire service would continue to be summoned through "911 ". Primary fire protection would be provided by the Tukwila Fire Department through the Allentown Station and the Foster Fire Station. Mutual aid assistance from Fire Districts No. 11 and 2 would be provided under an existing agreement. An automatic mutual aid agreement over the entire Sea - Tac plateau is currently being negotiated between Fire Districts 11, 2, 24, 26 and the City of Tukwila to allow the closest unit to respond to a call, regardless of district boundaries. A decision between the providers is anticipated prior to 1990 before the annexation vote. Police Police services would continue to be summoned by dialing "911 ". Tukwila Police Department programs include crime prevention, drug education, and in -depth investigation units; as well as uniformed patrol units. Joint operations with the region's law enforcement agencies will continue. Response time is anticipated to reflect Tukwila averages. This is generally 3 minutes for emergency calls and 7 -8 minutes for non - emergency calls. Public Works An initial Public Works Department analysis shows capital projects that should be scheduled are a traffic signal at So. 130th and Hwy. 99, paving So. 144th, possible pedestrian improvements around Cascade Elementary School, and an unspecified amount of storm drainage improvements to be funded by a new City utility tax. There( :e also pedestrian safety and st rm drainage problems along Military Rd. So., which is ' now in the City of Sea -Tac. These improvements would be jointly planned. Sewer and Water Service Sewer and Water Service will continue to be provided by the existing districts. This will include but not be limited to new line installation, maintenance, and billing. General Government Tukwila will provide all general government services through its City Hall, 10 minutes from Cascade View. King County City el %limits District 5 1 Representaliv for 195,000 1 County Executive for 1.417,900 Wiln Cascade View Council Positions at Large 7 Representatives for 14.000 I Mayor or 14,000 Representation The City is limited by State law to seven Council members who serve four year terms. City Council members are elected by the whole city, not by any one district. Thus, council members would provide the same level of representation for Cascade View as they do for the Riverton or Tukwila Hill neighborhoods. • Annexation approval in 1990 would make Cascade View residents eligible to run for three City Council seats or the Mayor's position in 1991. Earlier opportunities for direct participation in Tukwila's government are available through the many citizen boards such as the Planning Commission, Arts Commission, Library Board, and Board of Adjustment. The Mayor appoints and the City Council confirms these appointments. Annexation Property T__( Impacts • Property taxes now paid by owners in Cascade View will be reduced upon annexation to Tukwila. Three separate taxes now paid would be incorporated within a lower Tukwila city tax as shown below: Fire Library Co. Road Tukwila TOTAL TAX Tax Rate /$1,000 County Tukwila $1.50 0.53 1.72 N.A. $3.75 This tax rate difference results in a $58 tax reduction on a $100,000 single family home at this time. Lowering taxes while providing higher service levels is possible because of Tukwila's large commercial /industrial base. Annexation Boundary Adjustment Only the King County Boundary Review Board may adjust the existing Cascade annexation boundary. The City is not empowered to do this. 11 LAND USE ZONING A major part of this brochure is to ask for comments on the PRELIMINARY zoning map recommended by a Task Force of area residents and land owners. The zoning map is shown on the back page. Preliminary recommendations generally adjust County zoning to maintain viable single family neighborhoods, reflect current use, and respond to specific community comments. The Task Force will meet a final time to discuss public comments and modify zoning recommendations. III NElt STEPS The remaining major steps in this process are: 1. Adopt Pre - annexation Zoning Aug. 10th: Planning Commission Public Hearing Aug. 24th: Planning Commission Recommendation to City Council Sep. 11th: City Council Public Hearing Oct. 16th: City Council Public Hearing and Decision on Zoning 2. Confirm Annexation Boundary by November 15th (King County Boundary Review Board l. 3. Hold Annexation Vote on February 6. 1990 Should annexation fail, there would be no change in existing service providers, taxes, or King County zoning. This brochure has been successful if it has answered some of your questions and started you thinking about others. You are invited to contact Vernon Umetsu at 433 -1858, at the Tukwila Department of Community Development if we can be of further help. All registered voters and property owners will be automatically notified. C4 .: • r' - r r -FIB • t .. . COMP I Ab Mn APT -y a. L. :".ho • •,t; M • .r '..5 ,y r, n . I . 71.1;.. , t , ,e it �, 1y�i , t I t j . ' ' 1 r • - ' _6• • +11.,....' `' ' !,:i I ~t'', y TRPr14 • ' ' e.- I l t `LSL • ': :1. /4 :+ • . : j ' a ' ' i: 4',. * . _ ' :" ....L. -.. *t4 .( ,► . • ;T;i11' : 1. 1 • • 1: ...7 L 7'1 � .• R 4.7.2 R•2 Na • R -4 MAN 0.11 C.2 M i TASK FORCE PRELIMINARY ZONING RECOMMENDATIONS FOR CASCADE VIEW ANNEXATION SIMILE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DUPLEX RESIDENTIAL 3 AND 4 TOWNHOUSES LOW DENSITY APARTMENTS IRON DENSITY APARTMENTS COMMUNITY RETAIL REGIONAL RETAIL * City C iil final decision on October 16th; i989 O A LARGER DETAILED MAP IS AVAILABLE AT TUKWILA CITY HALL FOR REVIEW. .CONTACT VERNON UMETSU 433 -1858 • MRITONCt MiOIMI&tIO TIOM ! AJb111TV •x•14.{ •• otlITr •M•s• , C•: • . j . f r ft.'" e • • S; D I ' • Isom sr • ..� ` • . . �•. TMtf , • .. r• . • • MAX UNITS PIN ACID II/AC 11 /AC 1S /AC 22 /AC 30 /AC / DUWAMISII :t. t . t .. I `.1 il Ii 4 i q.E19.j� , . - 6p1;, . . • h I ei .; y 5111_ ' 1 1 - -) c t r. , I i C. lux: t� C.J E�',D t Q o w.� tl l }1,.1 "P •. rl c` • I • :•C .,. 41 1.,..'i 11 0 t t, 1 t ',rJ: ' ,i/, t� . j ! r c , �' . - .� . '{ ..c h "'a• L { ` rr ` :d • � �1. t 10 r r•Jr." !i, ,A (11' °mq,0- _ . ,' •- ' ' 1 . li : • -r' , I ' . ?' � 7 1 `1 . ; {7t Ipj'ji�' � ` ,' .6;-,; .1`1�h1}� + „1� +t; v t 'l t7r +' ^lr�it1 4 1‘i f� ,l i•. Yt �Q{ . . ,i °• .,•,;.........:.: n. 1 e, T o to n . • Q 'tF ` , 11[y . i i., •• '•I al A 1 ,ati: .. !• ` pct • 'a' - , n- o`' oF { f fi ° r ;J •Cl : r Itb GlJ a .[: r p '''7 '. • f• ' .T'- 55 � { m\-\ I It fi „.!..,,:t.,:,•:-..) . n p „ L it' r ,..'dl_1.1 r �It i t �..('.''J tlt�n .(� F a b ,,F, r ra p ., tt 07 1(°i F• • ' 'd ~ gad 1 lI �S , -'”' _ .a - r_ ^ d',j .c.,o7 v «, ' C =- - �.- .rtc,tt -.�_ p pp �}k t1:t -„a 'KNOWS • r - 7 17 • :q, t •� �:' f / // 9 •.� Y ! : -1 1' + .t jj.t..l- 1 ,. 1 J t.: ` �i'i i►J , .. 0 , ' r y t ri•+� ••,1(1 vw�ve' ncnc iY_;. 1' i ll t "1 °1 ' tt, ,,,,i . �.C,,,S''d' • Qr r^•g,,, ;per. sIiiIt Li I). i� : 0 'etiS b - -'' t. .,, S'i {c rn{: i d ei i cia 1 '0 ' a ' ' a t5. . 911TT 9q�,p u ct r . " F.: .: t n..; s �,rL St: ° ....:s IT 1 ;1',.i• I n r• , � ty . fi t t'- 11, 8 XXI': :111 '• , j 1 � ' Ydu'ipj•v�f +t � � . !...3i.'‘ �.. . � . .. �• it..? :t ' r? I �e„ • +.•, L� 11; .. ... _ , ... ;Rss _ 1":1941, t t t tas k ,_' ^ . a - t4 ., rc • i WE THE UNDERSIGNED STONGLY RECOMMEND THAT THE LOTS INDICATED ON THE ATTACHED MAPS BE ZONED R -1 -7.200 (SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL LOT SIZE 7,200 SQUARE FEET) IN ORDER TO MAINTAIN THE RESIDENTIAL QUALITY OF THE SURROUNDING AREA. 7. JAN C k /z 4 8. Q 4/0/1 4o re .4 J), 41ws.c 9 10 . c' A P d c. 1 1 . f N� : �;iU,� L / x-11 12. 13. 14� 15. 16. 17. 18. 19 20. 21 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. • 7 r /j P E TI O N 1. 3V -4 /91/e / 3e9. 5r 3 �` ez---so Ayr,. Za. /3o V/ Arr E I1 i 4 1 / • 36-ac /33, /S/; ‘-kc,,=-L5, 1...T, . S -3 D2 j1), l•7 / 30 . / 3) 3/— 33 ?l.L / 33f(/ t � /36* " s� r, _G� ty � , � (32 12_ . i/ ,A u_ 70 /5c24.2. 3/4 8Q i J: /" K P y. C ► L. J • • Yr►tk i r Flu £ itteW .y r• art cZea 1 9 1 +'1 - e Z : „--)""Ze(.„ 1 4 a I /344? 7- ,V c/ ' lUf. S . S / �' o ,•) t� B . f4 0A'U 7'' #, (KtJr'• M. -r) J /1.5."(n." / re> CDN"A J bit c f 32/ V , 132 -2-" d , -M 2 _ 3.; / o S2) /3-S 57L 3r a) L / e 71lo LJ WE THE UNDERSIGNED S RECOMMEND THAT THE LOTS INDICATED ON THE ATTACHED MAPS BE ZONED R -1 -7.200 (SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL LOT SIZE 7,200 SQUARE FEET) IN ORDER TO MAINTAIN THE RESIDENTIAL QUALITY OF THE SURROUNDING AREA. 39- 40• 41• 4 8 % ),.& .,a) //. 49• 5.0 • 51 • % 2� 52 . 53 '54. t55 '56. L57. L58. j 59. 60. 64 • I/66. L 67. '68. 70 , c. r‘ ��v- \ 42 • .- - /� le C ` / J , :s l > . 43- / ; .',1,1 -, - / - 7 ' ! L 4 --/ / /JJ e z 6 ! 33..Q tiS -.7 / S '`/`"1 Ye . .Sd , i''��Ct.GCla , / " ' �,,,,WV 44 . T & R l E V, B A top t, L ,A /J 1,2„k k 1/e.. o . rr (.)-- .. aA /1u., JP 45 11 /.19 /T7 / 9 \ _5/1-/ / 77" / /t/ ,5 O / 3:3 'r 61 ( ) ; 4 6 • D o NC7' I,4.) . er ' iiD e,e/c. ge37 g f5 : /=�2 - r� Z. P E ' I T I O N Z O N I N G ADDRESS SIGNATURE i /i 7, 32 J/2- s i' 3 r` 7 13 S s. / 5 =� << Ci ,'•. ( 2r/ 2 O 1 f /. LSD i ,g1- 3 3 J 61 . revl b. R eJso m JaoySo. /3 hf1 4 G2 "mil `�1— t� ( 1 irk 1(w y SD 6 3 4' r . (2939 P4c y s c4 .3 ` ) 7 jy . 134.' ''�'' S � . __ : ! i/ . 6 /1e/!� .3�2 ' 4-e . S / ' e / 77 a "'? 1 (`/9 O l 1)/9- -i1 b4. L` M 1 /. S-412A:et_>39. 2 e ■ °<■".SR _ ' i • • �. / Aili• r < 1 40 PN, I ZS�{0 3 L . LA .a9I L i/ • 'J so, X S S L /oL i• A_ 7 o WILI )A174 S as fix E iAto 33 pl 5D 4 i')%rrz L�.w1),I 5b 4 74.z ze WE THE UNDERSIGNED STONGLY RECOMMEND THAT THE LOTS INDICATED ON THE ATTACHED MAPS BE ZONED R -1 -7.200 (SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL LOT SIZE 7,200 SQUARE FEET) IN ORDER TO MAINTAIN THE RESIDENTIAL QUALITY OF THE SURROUNDING AREA. NAME 71. /11atv d ,fl owc, 72 • r l s Pv 73 • '1 a44/ 74 . 4 6 fit✓! i Y L'D . 75 . \N CS S 7%. 80 . /lc /I , , 7;/()Z } 8 1 . � 1 '(L.(.R.tc -ir 82 . /0% /326 -4 / 83 . 8 4 . 5 86. 87. 6a. 89. 90. 91. 92. 93. 94 • � -�u �ae F �r fCr ��•, f / � cn)i ( Z 3 / 3 SCE 95 96. 97 5 Li- 4) 98. 99 100. 101 . 102 103 104 105 , 1 1 Air / m ,. / 1 P-1-;- /4J k3 �U (,a C.cAgi PE I T I O N Z O N I N G ADDRESS - 31Au77, /3?o4, r fS, 5iZ 13c`7 • ev, 50 ■3o% 35 "Nb ‘v e, ( L i• 3 S t J �- 13 3 2 -1 3 o a iu x )24 ) • j232 4L E S coliND d ' c TS s ? 5 U' ,Jtl (t)l c lin i2 j,) 3 S .P «JL I:530 :3L1►) �� e i sofq - C 3 _5 ,42 — -2e/ 133 L/ S /1/, /S SV 1) 1J / ll `3 . / 3333 4y /' 33 P 39 WS )33 8 3`( .1( aut -S. 3w7 / 9 SIGNATURE c �/�/j � '-ee.,c..e1`� 'F va J, .VL VI . 3c--(t., v s 4. 2s 4 � r re/0;;) 1/ -I ( Ac/ D. /'s BA ��Cdty �i� `. I � k h AV)V/ 4 • Sri /✓ / 9•AQ_6 z) u.._ .r 1 C. 3��- )e /j /1S• y SR. P E. T-T I 0 N Z O N I N G NAME 06. W' / /iq.M I07- W (T eaK 108. I ' 109 110, 111 112. 62e0-44,. 113 114, 115 116 f17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 34 35 36 37. 38 ;9 .0 1, WE THE UNDERSIGNED STONGLY RECOMMEND THAT THE LOTS INDICATED ON THE ATTACHED MAPS BE ZONED R -1 -7.200 (SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL LOT SIZE•7,200 SQUARE FEET) IN ORDER TO MAINTAIN THE RESIDENTIAL QUALITY OF THE SURROUNDING AREA. ADDRESS C L. e4 n-4 e-6 /30 /( d ula,' 1 5' Cr1 ) I 7; SP W)./. 32 SO /3.r Gil, 0. ( ,l'�` . * . _ '4 GG TVA _t 7 Q" co 0_4( p ck e- 4.(472/ 13333 3'1 S. fi4 C.. GrorifliOtt Co 2 /4 6A a 13333 3 V:S-. w a rc11s o--i 3a 5 U 1 35 ,y>- ))01, CONDITIONAL USE rERMIT 1989 6C)c 4N-9 I APPL A ON DATE FILE NUMBER PROJECT NAME I ADDRESS I APPLICANT FILE CROSS REFERENCE ACTION 3/13/89 89 -1 -CUP SYLVAN GLEN 18059 - 57TH AVENUE S. PRIMARK EPIC -4- 89/89 -1 -CPA 89- 1- R/89 -1 -BSIP V4 T40(24 89 -2 -CUP FOSTER HIGH SCHOOL 4242 S. 144TH STREET SOUTH CENTRAL SCHOOL DISTRICT 89 - 4 - UR 89 -7 -DR 6/13/R9 10/27/89 89 -3 -CUP BECKER TRANSFER S. 128TH ST. & E. MARGINAL WAY S. JEFFREY MANS PAC -TECH 24 -89 -EPIC 89 -10 -DR APPRD. W /CO 2/22/90 APPEAL APPRV 4/2/90 CONDITIONAL USE rERMIT 1989 6C)c 4N-9 rnF IA-a-CPA 551Veal mwLs.Ry Rpy/ tksJM 4't 1 152 ST 4 o nV 5T 5;E frLfO : mF 8"43 -R enc.-3241 Isct-a- A CI\fkAD ViJ AJ$AT1L*J • .17..]: 0) AO 15 14 . 121 t 035 AC 13 e 41- r --" ;1 too, - 3 N A K 1.1.9 At )11 47 16 117— CEA tr) im 14 rel ■Zti..Ecire 011415 • 11 6 I Alf to I S %/3C 7 16 s 1:211‘33s 1 -In 27TH 0.6 7 Ac. .3. SI Ac. It i I 101.4: 41'17-"A" .° . §77: ■ i ...1•$ i .. 4 1. I. ..„, , .. I,----vzi n.0 , . - • .4 • t A. Y 1 1 150 Ac (3) 4 (33 33R ■••• •••• 140 - - 4 0 - - - - / 131 OAS Ac: • n ' 12) S.P. 678102 1 - 1 F r.3 0.44 At. '0 7 1 0 . /2 S 1132 It ..... - 4 ; 2 M ... • ■ .. J. H. GARDNER 1 2.0 Ac 17,0T-71W "Lail 1'70 PROGRESSIVE _CARE - 1 ( Ac. `‘ 1 4 / - 11 " . 1 t ., t T ° ...st is . ' 4 ts. 4 1 6 a I a tpi - 111 • • - -1-- - i— t *.. ' N A • ..... L.4.39 !a il ,00 N ;1 1 -1 i SP 3 51- 1 - 1 : 1r 't ril -- 71 ,_ 1, ii.. : . :.. S 7 . 4... ,:i.,..,. ..7, , to ;•,. — 1 • "."- , rAr I .4 • ___ ,280) ,,. ..n17 1. 0 ' :: :.. rit 5 4 I. L. .... • ..: ■ : ? ... ,% :4..., , ,.. .:: :...„ . _ 7: , 4 1 I 2; ._ _ - .. ... .......... S.P. 1077144 0 T • ,1 0 LC) 0 (r) C‘I ct • E 0 5O I 4 - 0 CC (1.1 • C rc/ 0I N C C rcl 0 0 Q/ CI 4 0:1 CC cu Q) +.. V) 00 V 3138? 6 t I z .$111140 22 (I) I 4 (2) a rn I Wet ki c2 r7r0 1 Cni 71 6114 „ .'4.97 • 54 0 4 u;$ go . k.10: • I MA 0 ( 133 10 zi I 1‘`ii 113 n 3t6.1 i ll 0 1 1, 0 4 ._ L_ ....1..1_14 00, ..71 zsT - .. ‘. Pug I n 13 4 (2) to It rtl * IA It; c..■ 110 41 "a 1 0 16 THS INCH 1 2 3 . „. 6 11 NOMEINORMANY 12 IF THIS 'MICROFILMED DOCUMENT 1- 8 9 10 § LESS • , • jCLEAR THAN THIS NOTICE, IT IS-DUE TO 0 6z ad L2 9Z GZ „ i er!_, ,7,r_____T___ARIta -THE-ORIGINAL-DOCUMENT 8 ON DATE FILE NUMBER PROJECT NAME ADDRESS APPLICANT CROSS REFERENCE E ACTION 3/13/89 89 -1 -CUP SYLVAN GLEN 18059 - 57TH AVENUE S. PRIMARK EPIC -4- 89/89 -1 -CPA 89- 1- R/89 -1 -BSIP V6 T4.0644 4 6/1/89 89 -2-CUP FOSTER HIGH SCHOOL 4242 S. 144TH STREET SOUTH CENTRAL SCHOOL DISTRICT 89-4 -UR 89 -7 -DR 10/27/89 89 -3 -CUP BECKER TRANSFER S. 128TH ST. & E. MARGINAL WAY S. JEFFREY MANS PAC -TECH 24 -89 -EPIC 89 -10 -DR APPRD. W/CO 2/22/90 APPEAL APPRVP 4/2/90 CONDITIONAL USE 'ERMIT 1989 frNl( At`i"J ''' ' ^ N DATE FILE NUMBER PROJECT NAME ADDRESS APPLICANT CROSS REFERENCE ACTION 11/13/89 89-13—DK ' BOEING 1409 / 8701 E. MARGINAL WAY S. NEAL TUNISON BOEING 89-7—SMP/ 89-3—V )// 11/20/89 89-14—DR / . &''''—'" 3UNWOOD PHASE 3 L Aw'/7k 62ND AVENUE S. & SUNWOOD BOULEVARD SOUTHCENTER ASSOCIATES EPlC-30-89 APPROVED 5/25/87 11/20/89 89-15—DR MIKAMI 16813 SOUTHCENTER PARKWAY R. SCHOFl[LD . EPIC-32-89/89-4—DR/ EPIC-25 & 29-89 11/22/89 89-16—VK BOEING #9-08 9303 E. MARGINAL WAY S. NEAL TUNISON BOEING 89-8-SNP APPROVED 3/25/89 11/22/89 DP- 89-17—.W NORTH HILL OFFICE BUILDING 5900 SOUTHCENTER BOULEVARD ' EPIC-28-89 440;t0 l2/8/O9� �u~ 89—l8_&A HARTUNG—TEMPERLINE NORTH OF 17830 WEST VALLEY HWY./S. 180TH STREET ON WEST VALLEY HWY. ` HOWARD KINNEY, ARCH. NICK 8CIOL� OWNER } EPIC-33-89 89-9—SMP ^ 6/16/89 89-8—DR CRYSTAL SPRINGS PARK PHASE 2 • TUKWILA PARKS AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT 89-8—SPE/ EPIC-8-89 APPROVED 1/25/90 _ 8/22/89 89-9—DR FORT DENT 2 & 3 SOUTHCENTER BOULEVARD RADOVICH 88-11—DR ' 9/8/89 89-10—DR BECKER TRUCKING S. 128tH STREET & E. MARGINAL WAY S. JEFFREY MANS EPIC-24-89/ 89-3—CU APPROVED w/ COND. 2/22/c 9/12/89 89-11—DR WHITCO S. 115TH STREET . . WITHDRAWN 10/31/89 9/22/89 . HOMEWOOD SUITES NORTH OF SOUTHCENTER AND EAST OF INTERURBAN ON GREENRIVER 24-23-4 DIMITRI DEMOPULOS ' APPROVED W/ COND. 2/22/' • . . . • . . ` 1/9/89 80-1—DR RAINIER RIDGE APARTMENTS N.E. 1/4 OF THE I-5/S. 178TH STREET INTERSECTION IN NW 1/4 OF 35-23-4 SOUTHCENTER GATEWAY ASSOCIATES 4/z/9» EPIC'33-88 0(11r-a*z. 2/10/89 89-2—DK FIRE DEPARTMENT HEADQUARTERS STATION NO. 61 444 ANDOVER PARK EAST CITY OF TUKWILA FIRE DEPARTMENT - EPlC-2-89 APPROVED 3/6/89 89-3—DK BOEING EMPLOYEES CREDIT UNION (BECU) 12700 — 12780 GATEWAY DRIVE CALLISON PARJNERSH[P � $yr 01310 APPROVED 5/25/87 3/13/89 89-4—DR SYLVAN GLEN 18059 — 57TH AVENUE S. PRIMARK EPlC-4-89/89-1—CPA — — / 9-1—D3zP/ 4/10/89 89-6—DR THOMPSON TILE 6700 RIVERSIDE DRIVE ALFRED CROONQUIST EPIC-6-89 89-2—SMP APPROVED 3/25/89 4/4/89 89-6—DR : BURGER KING TUKWILA POND — SW CORNER OF STRANDER JOEL BENOLIEL EPIC-28-89 APPROVED 8/27/89 6/13/89 89-7—DR FOSTER HIGH SCHOOL 4242 S. 144TH ST. SOUTH CENTRAL SCHOOL DISTRICT ' 88-1-CUP ^ 6/16/89 89-8—DR CRYSTAL SPRINGS PARK PHASE 2 NORTH OF 160TH AND EAST 51ST STREET SE 1/4 OF SE 1/4'22-23-4 TUKWILA PARKS AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT 89-8—SPE/ EPIC-8-89 APPROVED 1/25/90 _ 8/22/89 89-9—DR FORT DENT 2 & 3 SOUTHCENTER BOULEVARD RADOVICH 88-11—DR ' 9/8/89 89-10—DR BECKER TRUCKING S. 128tH STREET & E. MARGINAL WAY S. JEFFREY MANS EPIC-24-89/ 89-3—CU APPROVED w/ COND. 2/22/c 9/12/89 89-11—DR WHITCO S. 115TH STREET ROBERT O'CONNELL, JR. WITHDRAWN 10/31/89 9/22/89 89-12—DR HOMEWOOD SUITES NORTH OF SOUTHCENTER AND EAST OF INTERURBAN ON GREENRIVER 24-23-4 DIMITRI DEMOPULOS EPIC-26-89/ 89-6—SMP . APPROVED W/ COND. 2/22/' DESIGN REVIEW 1989 DESIGN REVIEW 1989 �� �� �^��_ ` . 0 � ��