Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPermit 88-01-CPA - CITY OF TUKWILA - FIRE DISTRICT #1 ANNEXATION COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT88-1-CPA 88-01-CPA FIRE DISTRICT #1 ANNEXATION COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLAN AMENDMENT CITY OF TUKWILA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT WASHINGTON ORDINANCE NO. /44 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA, WASHINGTON, ENACTED PURSUANT TO RCW 35A.14.330, REPEALING ORDINANCES 1118 AND 1138, ADOPTING A COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLAN AMENDMENT AND PLAN MAP FOR THE AREA DESCRIBED LYING OUTSIDE OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA AND KNOWN AS FIRE DISTRICT # 1 STUDY AREA, AND PROVIDING THAT SAID AREA SHALL BECOME SUBJECT TO SAID COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE POLICY PLAN AND PLAN MAP UPON ANNEXATION TO THE CITY OF TUKWILA. WHEREAS, it is reasonable to expect that the hereinafter described area, at some future time, will be annexed to the City of Tukwila, and WHEREAS, parts of said area are within the City's planning area and therefore subject to the existing Comprehensive Land Use Policy Plan, and WHEREAS, existing ordinance nos. 1118 and 1138 provide for land use planning and zoning regulation for two parts of said area, and WHEREAS, the SEPA responsible official made a determination of significance and draft and final environmental impact statements have been prepared and issued, and WHEREAS, in December of 1987 the planning staff held land use meetings in the community, and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held public hearings on March 31, 1988 and April 14, 1988, and recommended that a land use plan be adopted amending and extending the existing Comprehensive Land Use Policy Plan and that the existing plan map be amended to include such changes, and WHEREAS, the planning area of the Sub -Area 3 of the Fire District #1 Study met with the Renton City Council, and WHEREAS, Sub -Area 3 is character conditions and sensitivity to seismic Seismic Area Map, and 3359C2/392A Page 1 City of Renton includes portions of Area and the Tukwila City Council has ized by steep slopes, unstable soil activity according to the King County WHEREAS, Sub -Area 3 would be more appropriately developed industrial /commercial uses, and by light WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Tukwila held two public hearings on April 4 and May 16, 1988, to consider the recommendations of the Planning Commission and the comments of all those wishing to be heard, By 3359C2/392A NOW, THEREFORE, THE TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Ordinance Nos. 1118 and 1138 of the City of Tukwila are hereby repealed. Section 2. The Comprehensive Land Use Policy Plan Map is hereby amended to reflect that the property known as Fire District #1 Study Area and shown on attached Exhibit A is hereby added to such plan map, and the policies and standards for future development, utilization, and future growth of the City of Tukwila as adopted in Ordinance No. 1039 and amended in Ordinance No. 1246 and as hereafter amended, shall apply to said area. Section 3. At such time as said described area or any part thereof shall be annexed to the City of Tukwila, the City Council may provide in the annexation ordinance that so much of said area as is thereby annexed shall be subjected to and a part of the Comprehensive Land Use Policy Plan herein adopted as an extension to the Comprehensive Plan for the City of Tukwila. Section 4. The Comprehensive Land Use Policy Plan for the subject area is shown on the map which is attached as "Exhibit B ". Section 5. A certified copy of this ordinance shall be filed in the Office of the King County Department of Records and Elections. Certified copies shall be filed with the following City of Tukwila Departments: A. Office of the City Clerk B. Planning Department C. Department of Public Works D. City Attorney Section 6. This ordinance shall be in force and effect five days after publication of the attached Summary which is hereafter approved. PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA, WASHINGTON, this Oil day of ttit -C1 , 1988. ATTEST /AUTHENTICATED: IT CLERK, INE ANDERSON APPROVED AS TO FORM: OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY FIL 2 WITH THE CITY CLERK: 41- 4- Y8 PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL: 6-4- S�8 PUBLISHED: £-/.2 - Yf EFFECTIVE DATE: 6- Pf ORDINANCE NO.: /46b Page 2 LE 11111111 rue 121111k 111 /11 inn cm r lic ‘ aFligth ' ..., NINIICRILrr MAP tio' FIRE DISTRICT *1 ANNEXATION STUDY Study Area: Street System L n sowsmil Study Area Boundary EXHIBIT A CCA inc HUGH G. GOLDSMITH & ASSOC.,INC. STALZER & ASSOCIATES TDA INC. T NORTH ATTACHMENT A J FIRE DISTRICT *1 ANNEXATION STUDY Proposed Comprehensive Land Use Plan Designations Legend I J r&WWW. atetk Low Density Residential High Density Residential Professional/Office Commercial Light Industrial Heavy Industrial Parks and Open Space Public Facility EXHIBIT B CCA Inc HUGH G. GOLDSMITH & ASSOC.,110C. STALZER & ASSOCIATES TDA INC. NORTH ATTACHMENT I OIGURE 9 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA, WASHINGTON, ENACTED PURSUANT TO RCW 35A.14.330, REPEALING ORDINANCES 1118 AND 1138, ADOPTING A COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE POLICY PLAN AND PLAN MAP FOR THE AREA DESCRIBED LYING OUTSIDE OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA AND KNOWN AS FIRE DISTRICT # 1 STUDY AREA, AND PROVIDING THAT SAID AREA SHALL BECOME SUBJECT TO SAID COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE POLICY PLAN AND PLAN MAP UPON ANNEXATION TO THE CITY OF TUKWILA. On 6 , 1988, the City Council of the City of Tukwila passed dinance No. 14144 , which repeals Ordinance Nos. 1118 and 1138, amends the Comprehensive Land Use Policy Plan Map to add Fire District #1 Study Area, provides for the application to said area of standards for future development, utilization and growth of the City as adopted in Ordinance No. 1039 and Ordinance No. 1246, and establishes an effective date. The full text of this ordinance will be mailed without charge to anyone who submits a written request to the City Clerk of the City of Tukwila for a copy of the text. APPROVED by the City Council at their meeting of Publish : `/a��e �a� �y IVtwZ - jane. /.2 l9pr 3359C2/392A SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE NO. / MAXINE ANDERSON, CITY CLERK , 1988. to: City of Tukwila PLANNING DEPARTMENT 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, Washington 98188 (206) 433 -1849 CITY OF TUKWILA PLANNING COMMISSION March 31, 1988 The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Mr. Coplen, Chairman. Members present were Messrs. Coplen, Knudson, Haggerton, and Hamilton. Mr. Larson and Mr. Kirsop were absent. Representing the staff were Rick Beeler and Moira Bradshaw. MINUTES 88 -1 -CPA, 88 -1 -R, 88 -1 -CA: Public Hearing - Annexation area -wide amendments 1. Comprehensive Land Use Plan Map 2. Zoning Map 3. Zoning Code (annexation area and City -wide amendments) Rick Beeler, Planning Director, explained the process that has been used in responding to the request for annexation. Moira Bradshaw, staff representative, entered into record Exhibits 1 (Staff Report) and 2 (letter from Spider Staging Corporation with respect to the sanitary sewer; which will not be considered in this public hearing). She explained the Fire District #1 annexation petition area and its four sub - areas. In sub -area 1, which is industrial,there are not many problems between the City and King County's designation. In sub -area 2 there are light manufacturing, retail, a non - conforming auto shop, apartments, and community center. The City would duplicate the zoning except for a transitional zone of Office /PO on Ryan Way and for an extension of the high density residential R -4 to include the two remaining lots on the low apartment block. The remainder is proposed for low density and R -1 -7.2 In sub -area 3 in the Empire Way neighborhood there are apartments and a mobile home park, commercial store type uses as well as. light and heavy manufacturing uses. No changes are proposed, although Renton's comprehensive plan is for a green belt area for the southeast tip of the area. Ms. Bradshaw explained the comprehensive plan and zoning changes which would be in sub -area 4 to create comparable zoning. PLANNING COMMIg ON March 31, 1988 Page 2 Ms. Bradshaw reviewed the zoning code amendments. Chairman Coplen opened the Public Hearing at 8:10 p.m. John Richards, 15320 53rd Avenue South, representing Rainier Bank, expressed concern with the height limitation. They would like to have a height limit that would give them the ability to redevelop at the current height limit. Dan Wolfe, Chairman of the Annexation Task Force, 11821 44th Avenue South, stated they would like another zone district of M -3 which would eliminate landscaping in a specified area. Woody Wilkinson, 2505 3rd Avenue, representing Jorgenson Steel, Boeing and Rhone Polene said they are interested in the passage of the annexation packet and have worked consistently with the Task Force to prepare these recommendations. Patrick Dillon, 3278 36th Avenue SW, expressed desire to have the City take a look at the property on the sharp bend of the river and resolve the zoning now so they would not have to wait to take action. Rick BeeleP, Planning Director, entered Exhibit #3 (Highline Plan), Exhibit #4 (three zoning map boards), Exhibit #5 (Slides), Exhibit #6 (Drawings, Exhibit #7 (Revised staff recommendations regarding manufactured homes), Exhibit #8 (photo maps of the Helstrom properties). Mr. Dillon explained the present use of the property and his wanting it to be light manufacturing. Chi -Tai Chu, 4431 NE 23rd Court, Renton, inquired of his area, which is R -1 low density. Robert Mackin, 1301 Aetna Plaza, 2201 6th Avenue, Seattle, stated he is attorney for McConky Development Company, and they would like to support the Task Force recommendation that a new M -3 zone be created. Neil Roblee, 11010 Pacific Highway South, stated they have a family business of trucks and distribute truck parts and equipment. Scott Traverso, 11025 SE 60th, Renton, objected to a 15' landscape setback preventing room to develop. Jack Minnehan 11901 E. Marginal Way South, stated a 15' landscape setback would put t out of business. Ed Wodovich, 11148 52nd Avenue South, expressed the desire for M -1 zoning on lots fronting 44th Place across from Union Tank Works and backing up to Burlington Northern. Saul Shapiro, 12929 Empire Way South, stated that mobile homes are not the best places to live. Chairman Coplen closed the Public Hearing on the Comprehensive Land Use Plan Map and the Zoning Map at 9:15 p.m. RECESS Chairman Coplen declared a five - minute recess. The meeting was called back to order with Commissioners present as previously listed. PLANNING COMMIS( N March 31, 1988 Page 3 Chairman Coplen opened the Public Hearing on the Zoning Code Text Amendments at 9:25 p.m. John Richards, 15320 53rd Avenue South, representing Rainier Bank, stated page 13 of the Staff Report deals with heights. They would like to continue with the King County zoning as is suggested under discussion page 13. Chairman Coplen closed the Public Hearing on the Zoning Code Text Amendments at 9:33 p.m. MR. HAGGERTON MOVED AND MR. HAMILTON SECONDED A MOTION TO ACCEPT THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION ON THE HEIGHT UP TO AND INCLUDING 115' ON AREA DESIGNATED ON ATTACHMENT M. MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. Rick Beeler stated height exception could be considered at another meeting. MR. KNUDSON MOVED AND MR. HAGGERTON SECONDED A MOTION TO INCLUDE THE AREA NORTH OF 116TH WEST OF 42ND AND EAST OF BURLINGTON NORTHERN IN AN M -1 ZONING DISTRICT AND A LIGHT INDUSTRIAL COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION BASED ON THE GENERAL TOPOGRAPHY OF THE AREA AND THE PROXIMITY OF THE RAILROAD AND THE TWENTY -FOUR HOUR BUSINESSES AND BASED ON THE FACT THIS CAN BE DONE WITHOUT NEGATIVELY IMPACTING THE RESIDENTIAL AREA. MOTION PASSED, WITH MR. HAMILTON VOTING NO. Chairman Coplen introduced discussion on the request for a new M- 3 type of designation. Rick Beeler, Planning Director, stated that the concern is with redevelopment of the existing businesses. MR. KNUDSON MOVED AND MR. HAGGERTON SECONDED A MOTION TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE M -3 CLASSIFICATION BASED UPON THE INFORMATION PRESENTED DURING THIS MEETING AND IT BE ON THE AREA SHOWN BY STAFF. * Rick Beeler stated this issue could be brought back with a purpose statement. *MOTION WAS WITHDRAWN BY MR. KNUDSON WITH THE APPROVAL OF MR. HAGGERTON WHO SECONDED THE MOTION. MR. KNUDSON MOVED AND MR. HAMILTON SECONDED A MOTION TO TABLE THE MATTER UNTIL THE NEXT MEETING ON APRIL 14, 1988. MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. MR. HAGGERTON MOVED AND MR. KNUDSON SECONDED A MOTION TO ADOPT THE COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE MAP AND ZONING CODE MAP AS PROPOSED AND AMENDED BY COMMISSION AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS EXCEPT FOR THE TWO BLOCKS NEXT TO THE RAILROAD TRACKS; AND THE M =3 ZONE, MOBILE HOMES, AND HEIGHT EXCEPTION FOR THE RAINIER BANK. MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. RECESS (10:40 p.m.) MR. KNUDSON MOVED AND MR. HAGGERTON SECONDED A MOTION TO CONTINUE THE MEETING UNTIL APRIL 14, 1988 AT 8:00 P.M. FOR CONSIDERATION OF THESE ITEMS. MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. Respectfully submitted, Norma Booher, Secretary TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL, REGULAR MEETING April 4, 1988 Page 4 PUBLIC HEARINGS (continued) Consider amend- ments to the Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Code and Map for the proposed annexation of the Fire District No. 1 area Mayor Pro Tem Harris declared the Public Hearing open. Mr. Beeler explained that this is the beginning of the Coun- cil's process in reviewing the annexation. They are required to hold two public hearings on the annexation, including a review of pre- annexation zoning, Comprehensive Plan amend- ments and text amendments. The Planning Commission has held one Public Hearing and has forwarded their recommendation to the Council. He pointed out the area involved. They are proceeding with the process so that it will be ready for the citizens to vote on in November. Before continuing the hearing, Attorney Hard issued an oath to all those wishing to testify. Moira Bradshaw, Associate Planner, gave an overview of the proposed annexation area. She stated the present King County zoning and what it would be on a comparative level under the Tukwila Zoning Code. She also explained the changes in zon- ing that are being proposed. The Planning staff went out into the neighborhoods to talk to the people, explain to them what is going on, and receive feedback on how the people feel about their residential areas. They also had a citizen task force that reviewed existing zoning and discussed what prob- lems there might be. Based on these actions, the staff came up with proposed changes. Part of the problems that surfaced were due to spot zoning done by King County. An example of this is the Union Tank Works, which is in the middle of a residential area and had an Industrial Park Zoning - Planning staff gave it an M -2 to allow that use. The Tukwila Comprehensive Plan shows it as low density residential so a Comprehensive Plan amendment is needed to be consistent with present zoning. She explained other areas that are inconsis- tent and the changes being proposed. There is quite a lot of trucking going on in an area to the north - truck terminals, truck distribution, truck sales, truck storage. In the Tukwila Zoning Code, truck terminals are allowed only as a Conditional Use in C -M, M -1 and M -2. The recommendation is to make truck terminals a permitted use in M -2. Ms. Bradshaw continued to explain the staff recommendations. The Planning Commission approved everything recommended in the Staff Report except for the additional light industrial and M -1 zoning for the blocks north of 116th and east of 42nd. They postponed three issues for further discussion: 1) additional M - zone, 2) zoning for light industrial blocks in Allentown, and 3) the mobile home issue. Ms. Bradshaw distributed Exhibit 8, a letter dated March 29, 1988 from Charles A. Shaw, Staff Counsel, Spider Staging Corporation, concerning sanitary sewage disposal. She also distributed Exhibit 9, a letter dated April 1, 1988 from James A. and Doreen R. Hamilton (12091 - 44th Place S.), concerning the zoning classification of the piece of property lying along the entire northern boundary of their property. Mr. Robert Macken, attorney representing McConkey Development Company, showed the Council their location - Boeing Access Road to the north, City Light right -of -way on the east, the Duwamish River to the south and west. They are asking for M -3 zoning. Basically, the businesses in that area are fam- ily businesses. It is primarily a warehousing -type area. This is an area that depends on heavy trucking - sales, dis- tribution and warehousing. The problem is getting these large rigs with trailers in and out. You cannot make a 90- degree turn with these vehicles. It will be even tighter TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL, REGULAR MEETING April 4, 1988 Page 5 PUBLIC HEARINGS (continued) if King County widens the road. If this happens, the truck trailer businesses will go out of business - there is no way they could exist. The business character of the area will change. This could reduce the square foot rental fees in the area; over a period of years it would have a great impact. If any of the businesses wanted to do a substantial remodel that would require a building permit, they would face the landscaping requirement. It is not realistic to figure they will not remodel. They need this capacity in the future or will not be able to stay in business. Landscaping has a beautifying effect but in this area it is a safety hazard. These large vehicles need to have good vision. Fifteen feet of landscaping affects the visibility dramatically. Mr. Pete Hedegard, major tenant in the area with Jencor United, explained that because of the landscaping and curb cuts for the building they are in, it is virtually impossible for a 40 -foot truck trailer to turn into their property. If the County widens the road they will be out of business un- less they can get the curb cuts changed. Another factor is the landscaping; the trucks just drive over it because they cannot maneuver around it. Along the buffer there are small trees, but as these grow the truckers will not be able to see to get out of the property. This area is unique enough right now that the landscaping requirement would be contrary to good use of the land. There is very little foot traffic. It makes sense to get the best utilization of the land in the safest manner. It is a burden to the property to require a setback of fifteen feet. Mr. Neal Robblee, of the Six Robblees Truck Parts business located in this area, explained that he has looked at the City's M -2 zoned areas. The main difference is that the fifteen -foot landscaped buffer designates an industrial park environment. Where they are now was developed long before the concept of industrial or business parks came into being. They are stuck with what they have because the ownership of the land is so cut up. This area is already built up and it would tear them up to have an industrial park zone imposed on them. They like to be there. There are five truck parts businesses there and it is a very healthy environment. There are no residential neighborhoods adjacent. All of these businesses access onto a major highway, and this is another thing that makes a landscape buffer impractical for this area. Mr. Robert Macken commented that these people have been there for years. It is the old fashioned American business spirit that is alive in Tukwila. It will be a shame if these people can't continue. They would be very happy to join your City if they can get some of these problems worked out. This area was developed a long time ago; in order to fit into Tukwila and still not have a damaging impact, we would appreciate if we can get some cooperation and make some adjustments to this particular zone. The M -3 zone is the best solution. He thanked the Council for their time and said that if they can't get some amendments to the zoning code, the character of their businesses will eventually change. Mr. Dan Wolf, chairman of the Annexation Task Force, lives at 11821 - 44th Avenue South. He thanked the City for its effort, time and resources in bringing the annexation process to this point. The Task Force has been meeting weekly since last fall sorting through the annexation issues that pertain to the homeowners, businesses and the industrial community. They are contributing information that will be helpful to the annexation process. Some of the unresolved issues are: TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL, REGULAR MEETING April 4, 1988 Page 6 PUBLIC HEARINGS (continued) 1) The possibility of M -3 zoning; it is the consensus of the Task Force to recommend this zoning. 2) The Mobile Home or Manufactured Home Code recommendation; he felt that whatever the County allows now, the City should allow. 3) Rezoning the residential lots on 44th Place South that back the Bur- lington Northern property. There is discussion on rezoning this property to M -1 to create a buffer zone to the rest of the residential area. We need to find out how the 20 home- owners would feel about this. If the goes to M -1, it is going to attract traffic and there are only three gates to the area. It doesn't lend itself to multiple use. Mr. Woody Wilkinson is with the firm representing the Boeing Company, Jorgensen Steel and Rhone Poulenc. He has attended every Task Force meeting. It has been a very noble experi- ence. They are located in the north industrial area and represent 80% of the assessed valuation. They have only one voting resident. They were not consulted when the annexation petition was drawn up. The initial reaction was negative. Then, they thought that perhaps Tukwila would approach this more rationally than Seattle did. Perhaps Tukwila would create the opportunity for them to explore the prospect of annexation, to look at the problems and to reach some conclu- sions about what would be best for everyone. The Task Force has done an excellent job of this. He commended the staff that attended their meetings and answered their questions. This annexation is different, it is not like McMicken Heights. This is an annexation that has areas and functions that are significantly different than those found in Tukwila today. We are big and complicated and have enormous invest- ments in what we do. The EIS really points this out. We have a pretty well- defined set of needs and do not expect to create a huge drain on the City. We have participated, gone through the process, and basically recommend all of the zon- ing recommendations that are included in the report coming from the Task Force. We support the idea of creating a zone specific for the Trucking Triangle. Mr. Don Elfstrom, 8104 N.E. 121st, speaking for his father, said they own property at the north end of Allentown which the Planning Commission recommended be zoned to M -1. This would make a good transition zone. His father has owned this property for the past 22 years. There are several old houses in there. With Burlington Northern there you can actually feel the buildings shake. In the past five years, they have torn down one four -plex and are looking at three others. They cannot get enough rent money. He recommended the Coun- cil agree with the Planning Commission. There being no further testimony, the Public Hearing was closed. RECESS The Council declared a recess. All members previously ores- 10:12 p.m. ent returned to the Council table and the meeting continued. Councilmember Bauch urged the Council to go along with him and agree that the zoning will be a direct conversion and not a rezone on any property. We have had people before who wanted to use the annexation as a lever to get a rezone when the County had already refused their request. Our in- structions to the Planning Commission and Planning staff was to look, as near as possible, to a direct conversion and not any rezone. He said he hoped they would stick to those in- structions. Councilmember Harris commented that during the McMicken annexation some properties were downzoned. May 23, 1988 7:00 P.M. CALL TO ORDER COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT CITY STAFF PRESENT CITIZEN'S COMMENTS Black River Quarry Coalition EXECUTIVE SESSION 7:10 - 7:30 P.M. SPECIAL ISSUES Prop. Ord. adopting Comprehensive Land Use Policy Plan & Plan Map for Fire Dist. #1. and Prop. Ord. amending Tukwila Zoning Code to provide for Fire Dist. #1. TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL City Hall COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING Council Chambers AGENDA Council President Harris called the Tukwila City Council Committee of the Whole Meeting to order. MABEL J. HARRIS (COUNCIL PRESIDENT), JOE H. DUFFIE, EDGAR D. BAUCH, MARILYN G. STOKNES, JOAN HERNANDEZ, CLARENCE B. MORIWAKI. Rick Beeler (Planning Director), Larry Hard (City Attorney), Ross Earnst (City Engineer). Michelle Nangle, 14140 56th South, Tukwila, presented the Black River Quarry Coalition's platform and urged all citizens to join the Coalition in order to support our quality of life. It is a nonprofit corporation formed to oppose the siting of a King County garbage incinerator at the Black River Quarry. The Coalition offers alternatives to incineration in a combination of waste reduction, recycling, composting and material recovery strategies. Ms. Nangle circulated the Coalition's platform. membership enrollment form and sign -up sheet. MOVED BY DUFFIE, SECONDED BY MORIWAKI, TO GO INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION FOR A PERIOD NOT TO EXCEED TWENTY MINUTES. MOTION CARRIED. The Committee of the Whole Meeting was called back to order by Council President Harris, with Councilmembers present as previously listed. Rick Beeler, Planning Director, explained the area concerned and the information in the agenda packet. Mr. Beeler explained the residents along the freight lines where it is zoned R -1 were not interested in a land use change at this time. The Map 4 recommendation by staff was for comparable zoning from King County. The batching plant proposal would go in there. The City zone of C -M would be the closest to Renton's for a business park. The quarry plant would be a non - conforming conditional use. The next closest would be C -2 which is for retail. Council President Harris said we have pledged with Renton that we would discuss compatible uses of neighboring areas. Councilmember Duffie said the people in Fire District #1 have faith in Tukwila that we will zone in a manner that will be beneficial to them. Councilmember Moriwaki stated he also cannot agree to an interlocal agreement at this time with Renton. Council President Harris said we should provide zoning and use areas that would blend in with surrounding area. Councilmember Bauch suggested the Council go along with the staff recommendation of C -M. Larry Hard, City Attorney, stated the zoning of C -M would be better than M -2. Council President Harris stated the consensus of the Council is then that it should be C -M. Rick Beeler, Planning Director, stated if zoned C -M that would make the operation of the Black River Quarry non - conforming and Stoneway would have to come back for a non- conforming permit. MOVED BY BAUCH, SECONDED BY DUFFIE, THAT STAFF BRING TO THE COUNCIL A PROPOSAL ZONING THE AREA DISCUSSED C -M TO OAKSDALE. * Larry Hard, City Attorney, stated there is professional office zoning as an alternative. * MOTION CARRIED. Dan Wolf, Chairman of the Task Force on the proposed annexation, stated the residents in the area of the railroad tracks have not TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL COMM' - TEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING MINUTE' May 23, 1988 Page 2 SPECIAL ISSUES - Contd. Prop. Ord. adopting Compre. Land Use Policy Plan & Plan Map for F. D. #1 and Prop. Ord. amending Tukw. Zoning Code to provide for F.D. #1 contd. Approval of Labor Agreement for Sueprvisor Bar- gaining Unit for 1 -1 -87 - 12- 31 -89. CIP Policies 1988 Agreement w/ Chamber of Commerce REPORTS Council President Community Affairs Finance & Safety Utilities objected to the zoning. The dwellings are deteriorating. It is an isolated area. No one objected to bringing in warehouse. No one wants to live in there. Rick Beeler, Planning Director, stated on Exhibit D in the upper corner that would come in as professional office. The zoning of M -2L would permit trucking and related. It would allow for 5' of landscaping rather than 15' of landscaping. This is a unique industrial area developed some time ago. John Miller, representing Rainier Bank, said they would like to have the option of being able to build to 115'. There are not special plans for increasing the height but they would like to have that option. With the 65' height allowance we could come in and ask for a height variance. On the east side of the building the annexation line is through the building itself. Council President Harris stated at the Regular Meeting of the Council on June 6 the two ordinances concerning the plan map and the zoning code for Fire District #1 will be on the agenda. Council President Harris stated the approval of the labor agreement for the Supervisor Bargaining Unit contract from January 1, 1987 through December 31, 1989 will be on the agenda of the Regular Meeting on June 6, 1988. It has the approval of the union. MOVED BY HERNANDEZ, SECONDED BY DUFFIE, THAT THE SUPERVISOR BARGAINING UNIT CONTRACT FROM JANUARY 1, 1987 THROUGH DECEMBER 31, 1989 BE ON THE AGENDA OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE COUNCIL ON JUNE 6, 1988. MOTION CARRIED. Council President Harris stated the CIP policies will be on the agenda of the June 6 meeting. In the meantime all City Council members should go through the policies and bring back ideas as to what they would like to have changed. Councilmember Hernandez stated this agreement has come from the Finance 'Committee. Pam Thorsen, representing the Tukwila /Sea -Tac Chamber of Commerce, explained the service performance of last year's contract. The proposal is to continue to perform the services outlined in the contract. Council President Harris stated the City Council members will look over the projects that have been outlined and make suggestions. It will be on the agenda of the Regular Meeting on June 6. Council President Harris reported the Suburban Cities meeting is coming up. The water rate change will be discussed on June 13, 1988. Chairman Duffie reported the noise ordinance is being discussed in committee. Chair Hernandez reported a large attendance at the last meeting where the tow truck rates were discussed. They will need legal advice on the matter. MOVED BY STOKNES, SECONDED BY MORIWAKI, THAT THE AUTHORIZATION FOR THE MAYOR TO ENTER INTO AN AGREEMENT WITH HORTON DENNIS & ASSOCIATES TO CARRY OUT THE SEWER -WATER COMPREHENSIVE PLANS UPDATE TO A FEE LIMIT OF $40,000 AND APPROVE A BUDGET TRANSFER BE ON THE AGENDA OF THE JUNE 6, 1988 REGULAR MEETING. MOTION CARRIED. MOVED BY STOKNES, SECONDED BY MORIWAKI, THAT THE AWARDING OF THE CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT TO GREEN RIVER CONSTRUCTION COMPANY IN THE AMOUNT OF $24,390 AND APPROVAL OF THE BUDGET TRANSFER BE ON THE AGENDA OF THE JUNE 6, 1988 REGULAR MEETING. MOTION CARRIED. TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL REGUL MEETING May 16, 1988 Page 2 PUBLIC HEARINGS - Contd. Pre - annexation Zoning & Comprehensive Plan Amendments for .72 ac. of land located at 13530 53rd Ave. S. from Single - family res- idential to commercial (1st Public Hearing) Amendments to Comprehen- sive Land Use Plan & Zoning Maps for F. D. #1 annexation area & to the City's Zoning Code. Jack Pace, Senior Planner, identified the area as approximately .72 acres of land located at 13530 53rd Avenue South, Tukwila. Mayor Van Dusen opened the Public Hearing. Cris Crumbaugh, attorney for the applicant, discussed the appearanc( of fairness, stating the mayor is his client on a corporate matter. Mayor Van Dusen asked the audience if anyone had any objections or felt the appearance of fairness had been violated. There were no objections. The matter was discussed with the City Attorney and the opinion was expressed there was no conflict; further study brought forth the possibility of a conflict due to the fact that the area involves a single property owner rather than a large area involving many property owners. Council President i Harris stated she did not discuss it except as it related to being an agenda meeting item. Since there were no objections Mr. Crumbaugh stated the owners have requested the Comprehensive Plan map changes from Low Density Residential to Commercial, and pre- annexation zone designation of Regional Retail Business (C -2). This area is not appropriate for residential due to the Park and Ride lot nearby. Mayor Van Dusen stated this is one of two hearings. The second hearing will be held in 30 days on June 20, 1988. There being no further comments Mayor Van Dusen closed the Public Hearing. Moira Bradshaw, Associate Planner, addressed the issue for the Planning Department, going over the previous discussion material. The potential M -3 zone would remain; with regard to mobile - manufactured homes the proposal as originally recommended was that individual lots that have mobile or manufactured home at the time of annexation the code will be changed so they can upgrade or replace with ones that meet the HUD code. The Rainier bank is half in Fire District #1 and half in the Riverton annexation area. Under King County code they can go up to 45' and up additional footage for each foot of setback. Under Tukwila code they can go to 45'. Rainier Bank would like to have the ability to exceed the 45'. The Planning Commission recommended height exception of up to 65' with ability to go up to 115' with BAR approval. In sub -area 4 there was only one owner who felt R -1 was not suitable. The houses back up to the railroad yard. A member of the Task Force went there about the proposed change but the people did not object. Mayor Van Dusen opened the Public Hearing. Robert Mackin, 1301 Aetna Plaza, Seattle, attorney for Scott Traverso and Six Robblees, Inc., stated his concern was the adverse impacts the landscaping requirement of the M -2 zone would have on businesses presently operating in the area. A reduction to 5' would make it comparable to what they would get in King County. There would be a problem to expand and meet the 15' requirement. King County is planning to extend the road. This would make it difficult to enter and exit, park or unload. Councilmember Moriwaki said the 15' landscaping requirement is 15' beyond the sidewalk. Mr. Mackin stated sidewalks are included in the plans on the east side. Sidewalks would not be included in the 15' or if reduced to 5'. Ross Earnst, City Engineer, stated the sidewalk is on the right -of -way. Setbacks are from the right -of -way. Council President Harris said this would be three lanes on the west side and two plus sidewalks on the east side of the planned street. TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL REG'' •May 16, 1988 Page 3 Amendments to Comprehen- sive Land Use Plan & Zoning Maps for F.D. #1 annexation area & to City's Zoning Code - contd. OLD BUSINESS a. Prop. ord. adopting Comp.Land Use Policy Plan & plan map for area known as F. D. #1 b. Prop. ord. amending Tukwila Zoning Code to provide for area known as F. D. #1. Minutes of Regular Mtg. of April 18, 1988 'R MEETING PUBLIC HEARINGS - Contd. Ross Earnst, City Engineer, stated the bridge is being replaced now. The bridge is wider than the street so the street will have to be widened. Councilmember Robertson stated Mr. Mackin then would like the 15' landscaping requirement reduced to 5' because the buildings are in the way and the room is needed to get trucks in and out and maneuver the trucks and trailers. He asked if others had asked to have the landscaping reduced. Moira Bradshaw, Associate Planner, stated one request was made in the area heavily populated with truck traffic. The proposed M2 -L which would permit flexible landscaping was explained. Councilmember Moriwaki stated it has been said that the lines would not cut into any buildings. The drawings show 5' clipped off a warehouse. Attorney Mackin said this is not accurate and explained the drawings. George Crestwich, 1221 2nd Avenue, Seattle, stated Stoneway Concrete is in sub -area 3 and the Black River Quarry. They want to continue and consolidate office and long -term planning. They have just learned about the annexation. They would like to maintain as is. This property, sub -area 3 and Black River Quarry, has been designated heavy industrial and is not consistent with what it is now. It is understood the City Council has considered changing it from heavy industrial to light industrial or light manufacturing. They would challenge that. It is heavy manufacturing. They would like it to be consistent. They would like the City to make it heavy industrial. James Hawk, Kent, stated the quarry has been in operation for a long time. There is a lot of truck traffic. Councilmember Moriwaki stated the Renton City Council has indicated they do not believe heavy industrial would be appropriate for that area. Mr. James Hawk said they would like to remain in the County. Council President Harris stated the Black River Quarry is the site the County has in mind for a burning site. Mr. Hawk said they have heard that and they would not like to see it happen The County can condemn the property and buy it, they have that power. John Richards, 1532 64th Avenue, representing Rainier National Bank, stated the property owned by the bank is cut in half by the proposed annexation. The City would like to match the zoning of King County. The other property is zoned M -2. The bank property is designated M -1. There being no further commented, Mayor Van Dusen closed the Public Hearing. MOVED BY HARRIS, SECONDED BY DUFFIE, THAT ITEMS (a) AND (b), AGENDA ITEM 8, OLD BUSINESS, BE FURTHER DISCUSSED AT THE COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING ON MAY 23, 1988, AND BE ON THE AGENDA OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE COUNCIL ON JUNE 6, 1988. MOTION CARRIED. Councilmember Robertson said it was not his intent to table the appointment of Jerry Hamilton to the Planning Commission; his intent was to postpone the appointment until he could be interviewed by members of the Council who had not met him. Mayor Van Dusen stated the Motion that was made would have to be reflected in the Minutes in the language it was given as g4r1 lai`I MS 3:.�E.�i�yi':.•N \:i MCB/sjn attachment iti:3i,TSi n' �ni�: 4t:. n•:, snruzan.= vtr.: va•: r+ vaow�rNw. v..._...•.......,.. e•..«. aa.. �wr.....__.,_..-_......_.._..__,---._.._......_..._....__,.+. um.:+ z�aN^.+ M.k IIGN :Y.t:^'R- ' City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila Washington 98188 (206) 433 -1800 Gary L. VanDusen, Mayor MEMORANDUM TO: City Council FROM: Moira Carr Bradshaw DATE: March 21, 1988 SUBJECT: FIRE DISTRICT NO. 1 PRE - ANNEXATION COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND ZONING AMENDMENTS - APRIL 4 AND MAY 16, 1988 PUBLIC HEARINGS Attached is the staff report on the above subject. Because of its length we are distributing it early. Please keep thedi 4nd bring them with you to the public hearings. You are required to hold a second hearing on the subject in May. The Planning Commission will be holding their hearing on Thursday, the 31st of March. Their recommendation will be distributed the night of your first public hearing. This is a legislative action which you may discuss with the staff. Contact Rick Beeler or me if you have any questions. City of Tukwila PLANNING DEPARTMENT 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, Washington 98188 (206) 433 -1849 HEARING DATE: FILE NUMBER: APPLICANT: REQUEST: LOCATION: ACREAGE: March 31, 1988 88 -1 -CPA, 88 -1 -R, 88 -1 -CA City of Tukwila COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: See Attachments C and D ZONING DISTRICT: See Attachment E SEPA DETERMINATION: ATTACHMENTS: STAFF REPORT to the Planning Commission and City Council Prepared March 17, 1988 Annexation area -wide amendments to: 1. Comprehensive Land Use Plan Map 2. Zoning Map and annexation area and City -wide amendments to 3. Zoning Code Fire District No. 1 annexation area, north and northeast of current City limits (see Attachment A) and City of Tukwila Approximately 2.6 square miles or 1,700 acres Determination of Significance - see Draft and Final Environmental Impact Statements (A) Annexation Area Boundary and Street Map (B) Sub -Area Map (C) King County Comprehensive /Highline Plan Map (D) Tukwila Comprehensive Land Use Plan Map (E) Existing Land Use Map (F) King County Zoning (G) Pre - annexation Zoning - 1979 - Allentown (H) Pre - annexation Zoning - 1979 - Riverton (I) Tukwila Proposed Comprehensive Land Use Plan Map (J) Tukwila Proposed Sub -Area 1 Zoning (K) Tukwila Proposed Sub -Area 3 Zoning (L) Tukwila Proposed Sub -Areas 2 and 4 Zoning (M) Tukwila Proposed Height Exception Area r STAFF REPORT to Planning 88 -1 -CPA, 88 -1 -R, 88 -1 -CA Corrission /City Council Page 2 BACKGROUND Process In January 1987, the City of Tukwila received a petition signed by residents within the boundaries of King County's Fire District No. 1. The petition requests the City to consider and approve annexation of the Fire District's area and requests that an election by residents of the area be established. Amending the City's Comprehensive Plan Map and Zoning Code and Map are essential to the annexation decisions to be made by the City and area resi- dents and property owners. The pre- annexation Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Code amendments and comparable zoning are now before the Planning Commission and analyzed in this report. The Commission is to make recommendations to the City Council on this proposal. An Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) was prepared for the annexation and land use actions In September and December of 1987, the Planning Staff held land use meetings in the community. Concerns raised during those meetings are contained in this report. Those meetings also caused the formation of an Annexation Task Force to study the area and the issues. Separately, the task force will present their analysis and recommendations to the Commission and Council. State law requires the City Council to hold two public hearings of its own on the proposal. After the second hearing, the Council is to adopt by ordinance the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Code amendments to become effec- tive upon annexation. During previous unsuccessful annexations, the Tukwila City Council adopted pre- annexation zoning for the areas shown on Attachments F and G. Now those ordinances must be repealed by the proposed subsequent ordinances. Report Organization The report is divided into four sections. The first section (blue) is an Executive Summary of the entire staff report. It highlights the contents of the other three sections and contains the recommended actions. The second section (orange) addresses the Comprehensive Plan issues and the amendment of the City's map. The third section (yellow) addresses zoning districts and their delineation on the zoning map. The fourth section (pink) addresses amendments to the text of the zoning code to provide com- parable zones to King County zones. STAFF REPORT to Planning 88 -1 -CPA, 88 -1 -R, 88 -1 -CA Commission /City Council Page 3 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 88 -1 -CPA: AREA -WIDE COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLAN MAP AMENDMENTS An amendment to the City's Comprehensive Plan is necessary because: 1. The City's Planning Area needs to be expanded to include sections of the proposed annexation area. 2. Changes are needed in the existing plan to accommodate the intensity and type of land uses that have developed in the area since 1977 when the City adopted its existing plan (see pages 4 through 7). Recommendation: Approve Comprehensive Land Use Plan Map shown on Attachment I. 88 -1 -R: AREA -WIDE PRE - ANNEXATION ZONING The Tukwila zoning classifications which most closely compare with the existing County zoning classifications are proposed for the annexation area (see Table 1, page 8). Several exceptions are made from the above table to accommodate differences between the County and City Zoning Codes when existing uses are impacted. These exceptions are noted on pages 8 through 10. Recommendation: Approve the proposed zoning maps shown on Attachments J, K, and L. 88 -1 -CA ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS The code comparison undertaken in the previous section reveals impacts that will occur to the annexation area because of Tukwila's zoning code restrictions. Amend- ments to the City's code are proposed (see pink section) to deal with these use and site restrictions. The proposed amendments will affect the entire city, not just the subject annexation area. In the M -2 zone, changes are proposed to accommodate steel manufacturing pro- cesses, truck terminals, and training facilities. A Height Exception Area is proposed for several M -2 and M -1 districts adjacent to East Marginal Way, and a height restriction map is imposed to accommodate King County International Airport. Finally, a compromise proposal is presented to allow manufactured homes as replacements for existing mobile and manufactured homes in annexation areas. STAFF REPORT to Planning 88 -1 -CPA, 88 -1 -R, 88 -1 -CA Commission /City Council Page 4 88 -1 -CPA: AREA -WIDE COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLAN MAP AMENDMENTS FINDINGS Existing Comprehensive Planning 1. Three levels of comprehensive land use planning exist in the area. The King County Comprehensive Plan (April 1985) is a general policy plan which desig- nates the entire annexation area as Urban - areas planned for growth where urban standards shall apply. The Allentown area has an Open Space Designa- tion along the east bank of the Duwamish River for a public park and recreation area. 2. The second level of planning is the more detailed King County Highline Com- munity Plan (November 1977), augmenting the Comprehensive Plan. Only those areas shown on Attachment C were given land use designations typically found in community plans. The plan shows Industrial and Light Industrial designa- tions for areas adjacent to East Marginal Way. 3. The third level of planning is the comprehensive plans of the cities which plan beyond their current limits to encompass a planning area or sphere of influence. Tukwila's and Renton's planning areas cover portions of the annexation area (Attachment D). 4. Detailed information on land Use /Housing /Population (pages 15 -24), Transpor- tation (pages 25 -50), the Natural Environment (pages 10 -24), and Utilities (pages 80 -91) are contained in the DEIS. Only changes from the existing conditions or impacts are highlighted herein. 5. The character of the areas are clearly developed, shaped by the existing land uses, the topography, and the transportation and utility systems. 6. The proposed Comprehensive Plan Map (Attachment I) makes no area -wide changes. The small changes proposed are mentioned herein. 7. Sub -Area 1: a. There is little undeveloped land. Therefore, any change would occur through redevelopment. b. The Highline Plan (Attachment C) designates the majority of the area as Industry. This designation describes heavy industrial uses including large - scale manufacturing and assembling, fabrication and processing, bulk handling and shipping, large warehousing and storage and heavy trucking. Tukwila's Comprehensive Plan does not include this area. c. Proposed is a land use designation of Heavy Industrial (Attachment J), similar to the Highline Plan. An exception is a small light industrial designation at the northwest corner of the Boeing Access Road and Martin Luther King, Jr. Way intersection. Y STAFF REPORT to Planning 88 -1 -CPA, 88 -1 -R, 88 -1 -CA Commission /City Council Page 5 8. Sub -Area 2: a. The Highline Community Plan did not designate this area. The Tukwila Comprehensive Plan does not cover this area. b. Based upon existing land uses, designations of office, commercial, light industrial and high density residential are proposed (Attachment I). 9. Sub -Area 3: a. The City of Renton considers the area south of South 133rd Street to be within their planning area and designates the area for Multi- family, Heavy Industrial, and Greenbelt. b. The area is not within the City of Tukwila's Planning Area. The County has designated the area as Urban but the Highline Plan did not designate this area. c. The Tukwila proposed land uses designations are consistent with the existing character of the area except for Light Industrial at the southeast tip adjacent to Renton. Renton has indicated that they are proposing amendments of their Comprehensive Plan to redesignate areas currently shown as Heavy Industry as Office Park. 10. Sub -Area 4: a. The Allentown /Duwamish neighborhood is one of the few remaining resi- dential communities in the Duwamish River Valley. The majority of the residents are concerned about retaining the overall quality of their residential neighborhood and the inability to locate individual mobile homes on a single lot if annexed to Tukwila. A property owner would like to request additional Light Industrial at the north end of the neighborhood adjacent to the Burlington Northern railroad right -of -way. b. The Tukwila Comprehensive Plan designates all the existing residential areas except for one block (Light Industrial) as Low Density Residen- tial. The proposal is to continue these designations. The Union Tank Works, the Hub Center, and some adjacent parcels fronting 51st Place South would be redesignated as Heavy Industrial from Light Industrial. c. Tukwila's Comprehensive Plan designates all the industrial areas as Light Industrial. The Highline Plan designates areas along East Mar- ginal Way as Industry and Light Manufacturing (see Attachments D and C). The proposal is to redesignate all of the industrial areas along East Marginal Way with one exception as Heavy Industrial. d. The Comprehensive Plan will also show a public facility designation for the METRO facility on East Marginal Way, and for the fire station and the church on 42nd Avenue South. e. A Parks and Open Space designation will continue along the east bank of the Duwamish River between 42nd and the I -5 crossing. The City Light STAFF REPORT to Planning 88 -1 -CPA, 88 -1 -R, 88 -1 -CA Commission /City Council Page 6 f. Commercial and Medium - Density Residential designations have been given to the existing uses along 42nd Avenue. 3. Sub -Area 2: 4. Sub -Area 3: right -of -way west and south of the Duwamish is changed from public facility to Parks and Open Space to be consistent with the Duwamish Trail Plan. CONCLUSIONS 1. The proposed Comprehensive Land Use Plan Map amendments and additions are reflective of a) existing plans for the area, b) the level and type of established uses in the areas, c) the infrastructure serving the areas, d) topography of the areas, and e) public comment. 2. Sub -Area 1: a. Strong relationships exist between transportation facilities (road, water, rail and air) to provide accessory /service uses to the primary uses in the area. Boeing Company relies upon King County International Airport. Rhone Poulence relies upon barge delivery of lumber by- products. Other uses have made locational and capital investment deci- sions based on the unique characteristics of the rail and road access and the land use environment. b. The Heavy Industrial designation is consistent with the existing commu- nity plan and character of the area. a. The proposed designations are reflective of the low- density residential character that is due in part to the steepness of the area. More in- tense designations are given to parcels along major arterials and /or to accomplish transition between diverse intensity of or incompatible uses. b. The low density residential designation remains for an auto repair shop on 51st because the use is not considered compatible with the adjacent neighborhood residential environment. The City's Comprehensive Land Use policy encourages the abatement of incompatible land uses in viable residential areas (Policy 5, page 46). a. The proposed designations are inconsistent with the proposed Renton Greenbelt and Office Park designations for the area, but are consistent with the majority of their existing plan for the area and /or provide designations which are consistent with existing zoning. STAFF REPORT to Planning Cormnission /City Council. . Sub -Area 4: 88 -1 -CPA, 88 -1 -R, 88 -1 -CA Page 7 • Several changes to the existing Tukwila Comprehensive Plan are necessary to reflect significant changes that have occurred in the area and to more accurately reflect the type or intensity of uses. Heavy Industrial provides the necessary intensity level reflective of service and use in the area. . Any further transitioning of use between the rail /truck terminal and the Allentown /Duwamish neighborhood would increase the degree of use incompatibility already in existence. The neighborhood is small and has a limited number of streets. Additional industrial is not conducive to stabilizing or improving the quality of the neighborhood nor is there infrastructure in place to support intensification of use. Based upon the above findings and conclusions, Planning staff recommends approval of Attachment I, Proposed Comprehensive Land Use Plan Map. RECOMMENDATION STAFF REPORT to Planning 88 -1 -CPA, 88 -1 -R, 88 -1 -CA Commission /City Council Page 8 88 -1 -R: AREA -WIDE PRE -AN \ \\ 1. Upon receipt of the al staff to prepare pre -an, King County Zoning. 2. Tukwila zones do not exactly duplicate King County's, but the following table provides the most comparable zones with reference to uses. S -R, SR -9600, RS -7200 Single Family Residential (1, 4.5, 6.05 dwelling units per acre, respectively) RM -2400 Medium Density Multi - Family (18.15 dwelling units per acre) RM -900 High Density Multi- Family/ Office (48.4 dwelling units per acre B -N Neighborhood Business B -C Community Business M -P Manufacturing Park M -L Light Manufacturing M -H Heavy Manufacturing EXCEPTIONS TO COMPARABLE ZONES Table 1 COMPARABLE ZONING CATEGORIES King County Tukwila , the City Council directed City r the area comparable to existing R -1 -7.2 Single - Family Residential (6.05 dwelling units per acre) R -4 Low Apartments (21.8 dwelling units per acre) RMH Multi-residence High Density (29 dwelling units per acre) C -1 Community Retail Business C -2 Regional Retail Business C -M Industrial Park M -1 Light Industrial M -2 Heavy Industrial (Also see Appendix C of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for a summary and comparison of the purpose and standards of both the existing and proposed zones.) 1. Sub -Area 2 Attachment L shows three exceptions that are intended to accomplish transi- tion between commercial and residential uses, continue a nonconforming use, and address a logical extension of multiple- family zoning. STAFF REPORT to Planning 88 -1 -CPA, 88 -1 -R, 88 -1 -CA Commission /City Council Page 9 2. Sub -Area 3 a. Mobile home parks are permitted in County RM zones subject to admin- istrative site plan approval whereas in Tukwila a public site plan approval process (unclassified use) is required. b. Tukwila does not have a zone as dense as the County's RM -900 (48.4 units per acre). The RM -900 district is developed with a trailer park and another parcel appears to be only partially developed with a four -unit structure. 3. Sub -Area 4 a. Many areas within Sub -Areas 3 and 4 are on septic systems and are not within a sewer provider's service area. The King County Health Depart- ment regulates septic tank approvals and inspections. Many of the lots in .Allentown /Duwamish and Foster Point have already been subdivided below the minimum standards that currently are required for septic installation - 12,500 square feet. The Health Department however will allow septic systems on pre- existing lots of less than minimum size if the soil tests prove adequate. The City of Tukwila could encourage urban densities of 7,200 square feet for the areas. This will more closely reflect existing lot size, would encourage densities that reflect the area's urban character, and possi- bly give a density that might support future sewer improvements. Any further subdivisions to this size would however be prohibited until sewer service is provided. b. This area has the highest concentration of mobile homes in the annexa- tion area - approximately 40. King County allows mobile homes to be used as a dwelling unit on individual lots. They define mobile homes as factory-assembled structures with the necessary service connections, to be readily movable and to be used as a dwelling unit. c. Tukwila distinguishes between single - family dwelling units and mobile home dwellings and then only permits single- family dwellings within its zoning districts on individual lots. Mobile home parks are allowed however with an unclassified use permit in any zone. d. Several King County M -P, Industrial Park, districts are located in this sub -area. Union Tank Works is located in the heart of a residential district. METRO, besides its storage, maintenance and training, over- hauls it buses along East Marginal Way. The small parcel west of East Marginal .Way and .South of the Duwamish River has an Industrial rather than a Light Industrial Comprehensive Land Use designation. The compar- able Tukwila C -M zone would not be sufficient in use or in standards for the above uses. M -2 is the proposed classification where there is a use inconsistency and M -1 to allow more comparable standards. e. The carpet retail store is a permitted use in the County's B -N, Neigh- borhood Business, zone but is not a permitted use in Tukwila's. A Regional Retail classification (C -2) is therefore proposed. STAFF REPORT to Planning Commission /City Council f. Several nonconforming uses will continue to exist along the edges of Allentown /Duwamish such as City Junk, a recycler of aluminum and copper. . With the exceptions noted in the Findings section, the proposed zones are comparable to Tukwila classifications. • In order to mitigate the impact of the difference between the parallel zones, zoning code amendments are proposed and discussed in the following section. • The zoning classification exceptions noted in Findings reflect the recom- mended Comprehensive Plan for the area and are proposed to accommodate the existing uses. CONCLUSIONS 88 -1 -CPA, 88 -1 -R, 88 -1 -CA: Page 10 STAFF REPORT to Planning 88 -1 -CPA, 88 -1 -R, 88 -1 -CA Commission /City Council Page 11 88 -1 -CA: ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS 1. Tukwila zones do not duplicate King County zones. Amendments to the Tukwila zoning code will be necessary to provide a greater degree of compatibility. 2. The proposed amendments would be approved through an ordinance that would be effective on annexation of the area to Tukwila. Consideration is given in each analysis to the City -wide impact of amendments to the Zoning Code. 3. An individual representing several property owners has commented that the difference in landscaping standard between the M -2 and M -H classifications is important to future development and use of their property. Tukwila requires 15 feet and King County requires 8 feet with administrative ability under limited conditions to reduce it to 4 feet. Planning staff has not recommended any changes because it is not considered to be as limiting to development as is believed. The 15 feet can be split between the adjacent right -of -way and the building (e.g., 8 feet between sidewalk and parking and 7 feet in front of building) . STEEL MANUFACTURING Existing Tukwila The M -2 zone permits manufacturing and processing of previously manufactured metal, steel fabrication, stamping, dying, shearing or punching of metal, etc. A conditional use permit is required, however, for metal processing which includes smelting, blast furnaces, drop forging, or drop hammering. Proposed Amend (shown in bold print) TMC 18.42.020 to read: "(4) The manufacturing, processing, assembling and /or packaging of previously manufactured metals including, but not limited to, iron and steel fabrication; steel production by electric arc melting, argon oxygen refining, and consumable electrode melting; structural iron or pipe works; stamping, dying, shearing, punching, open die hammer or press forging of metal, wire and rod mills, chain and cable manufactur- ing, and the manufacture of cans, fasteners, bolts, and screws." Discussion This amendment excludes processing of raw ore, usually associated with blast furnaces and .smelting, but includes current techniques for reprocessing and remanufacturing of steel ingots. Those current techniques now occur in Sub -Area 1 and cause less noise and vibration than the excluded uses. STAFF REPORT to Planning 88 -1 -CPA, 88 -1 -R, 88 -1 -CA Commission /City Council Page 12 TRANSIT OPERATING BASE Existing The METRO south operating base is also used as a training facility. The code does not mention "training ". Proposal Amend (shown in bold print) TMC 18.42.030 to read: "18.42.030 Accessory uses. Uses and structures customarily appurtenant to the principally permitted uses, such as service, repair and training activities. (Ord. 1247 §1(part), 1982)." Discussion The existing code does not directly address all facets of METRO's use. The operation resembles the permitted and accessory uses associated with truck terminals and manufacturing of heavy transportation equipment, which are both permitted. Assembling, servicing, repairing, storage and offices are all allowed as permitted or accessory uses. Training of drivers appears to be accessory to those activities. TRUCK TERMINALS Existing Tukwila Truck terminals are conditional uses in C -M, M -1 and M -2 zones. A truck terminal is interpreted to be a site, building and /or tenant space within a building in which a motor carrier transloads, consolidates or transships goods and /or materials not owned by the carrier. Proposed Amend (shown in bold print) the M -2 Heavy Industry classification, TMC 18.42.020, Principally Permitted Uses, by adding "(7) Truck Terminals" and deleting it from TMC 18.42.040(4), M -2 Conditional Uses. 18.42.040 Conditional Uses (4) Railroad freight or classification yards; Discussion Many businesses operate truck terminals in the annexation area. These terminals include large numbers of truck trips, large paved sites for stor- age, maintenance and servicing, and storage /warehousing of goods. The M -2 districts in the annexation area as well as the one existing M -2 district within the City are isolated and away from residential areas except for the Burlington Northern Hub Center in Allentown. The impacts of noise, STAFF REPORT to Planning 88 -1 -CPA, 88 -1 -R, 88 -1 -CA Commission /City Council Page 13 aesthetics, and truck congestion on roads are similar to other M -2 uses such as manufacturing, processing, and assembling heavy transportation vehicles and equipment. The use also fits within the purpose section of the M -2 district. HEIGHT EXCEPTION AREA Existing Tukwila The Tukwila Zoning code, page 290, maps areas of the City where buildings may exceed the height limits of the underlying zone. Otherwise, all three industrial zones are limited to 45 feet. Proposed Amend Map 2 (page 290) to show the annexation area and designated the area north of the Duwamish River and Proverty Hill and the area bounded by SR -99, SR -599, the Duwamish River, and East Marginal Way for heights up to 115 feet. Amend (shown in bold print) TMC 18.50.030, Building Height, up to 115 feet permitted outright. 18.50.030 Building height up to one hundred fifteen feet permitted outright. Structures may be erected up to and including 115 feet in that area of the city located south of Interstate 405 and east of Inter- state 5 and the area of the City located north of the Duwamish River along East Marginal Way and south of the Duwamish River bounded by SR -599, SR -99 and East Marginal Way as shown on Map 2. (Ord 1247 §1(part), 1982)." Discussion The difference between King County and Tukwila is the height allowance above 45 feet in the County's industrial districts. Therefore a height exception area is proposed for the M -2 district in Sub -Area 1 and extending south to SR -599 (see Attachment M). The Rainier Bank Center located on East Marginal Way at South 124th Street would object to not being included in the exception area. The height excep- tion area is not extended into this area because of the Riverton low- density residential areas located adjacent to their site. An alternative approach, which is inconsistent with the Zoning Code's approach to height restrictions, would be to amend the table on page 289 to exactly reflect the King County standard and allow one foot of increase in height for every one foot increase in setback. Existing King County King County regulates heights around its two major airports through an air- space plan map specifying height limits for structures (21.48.040). Boeing STAFF REPORT to Planning Commission /City Council 88 -1 -CPA, 88 -1 -R, 88 -1 -CA Page 14 Field height limits in the subject area vary from the surface up to 167 feet. Proposed Amend (shown in bold print) TMC 18.50, Height, Setback and Area Regulations, by adding 18.50.045. 18.50.045 Height Regulations Around Major Airports. For the purpose of regulating heights within the vicinity of major airports, there are established and created certain height limitation zones which include all the land lying within the instrument approach zones, noninstrument approach zones, transition zones, horizontal zones and conical zones. Such areas may be shown and defined on an "Airport Height Map" which shall become a part of this ordinance by adoption of the Council subject to the provisions of Chapters 18.81 and 18.92. No building or structure shall be erected, altered or maintained, nor shall any tree be allowed to grow to a height in excess of the height limit herein established in any of the several zones created by this section; provided, however, that this provision shall not prohibit the construction of or alteration of a building or structure to a height of thirty -five feet above the average finish grade of the lot. Where an area is covered by more than one height limitation zone, the more restrictive limitations shall prevail. Under the provisions of this section, the county adopts the following airport height map(s): A. Airport Height Map: King County International Airport (Boeing Field) Discussion A large portion of the annexation area lies under Boeing Field's approach and departure paths. Regardless of final height limits, the City cannot allow construction to interfere with safe flight paths into Boeing Field. Therefore, adoption is proposed of the Boeing Field Airspace Plan, duplicat- ing current King County standards and procedures. MOBILE HOMES Existing Tukwila The Tukwila Zoning Code, Section 18.12.030 - Principally Permitted Uses, permits "one single - family dwelling unit per lot ". The definition section of the Code, TMC 18.06.240, defines a single - family dwelling as a "detached residential dwelling unit other than a mobile home, designed for and occu- pied by one family only." Therefore, mobile homes are only allowed in trailer courts (TMC 18.06.840) through an unclassified use permit, not on individual lots. A grandfathered mobile home located in a residential zone prior to annexing could not be replaced with another mobile home unless the grandfathered unit STAFF REPORT to Planning Commission /City Council 88 -1 -CPA, 88 -1 -R, 88 -1 -CA Page 15 was destroyed by fire or natural disaster per the nonconforming structure section of the Code. Replacement under these limited circumstances can only be done using a unit of the original dimensions and which does not increase the level of nonconformity in terms of setback and height. Grandfathered mobile homes may be relocated on the same parcel as long as minimum setbacks are maintained. The distinction between the County and the City code is significant because Tukwila excludes a form of low -cost single - family home ownership which is heavily used in Sub -Area 4. In 1976 the Federal Government (HUD) created standards and inspections to regulate manufactured homes. The factory -built housing market has in essence three types of products: a. Mobile homes - which identifies manufactured homes built before enact- ment of the HUD code. This type is not longer built but exists in the used sales market. b. Manufactured homes - built in compliance with the HUD code. c. Modular homes - factory -built to meet local building codes. Proposed Tukwila Change the nonconforming section of the Zoning Code to allow HUD - approved manufactured homes to replace existing mobile homes or existing manufactured homes subject to the standards of the R -1 zone. This would allow existing factory -built dwelling units to continue and /or upgrade to current manufac- tured home standards. The disadvantage of this approach is for those who may have purchased property in the area with expectations of using a HUD Code or mobile home on the site. Amend (shown in bold print) TMC 18.70 - Nonconforming Lots, Structures and Uses, by adding a section: 18.70.055 Mobile and Manufactured Homes. Legally pre- existing mobile and manufactured homes may be replaced. The replacement must be with a HUD - approved manufactured home and must also meet the following stan- dards: a. Shall have roofing material that is residential in appearance including, but not limited to, approved wood, asphalt composition shingles, or fiberglass, but excluding corrugated aluminum, corru- gated fiberglass or metal roof. b. Shall have a minimum roof pitch of 3 inch rise for each 12 inches of run, or about 25 percent. c. Shall be installed on a foundation system in compliance with all applicable requirements of the Uniform Building Code to the satis- faction of the building inspector. STAFF REPORT to Planning 88 -1 -CPA, 88 -1 -R, 88 -1 -CA Commission /City Council Page 16 d. Shall have exterior siding that is residential in appearance includ- ing, but not limited to, clapboards, simulated clapboards such as conventional vinyl or metal siding, wood shingles, shakes or similar material, but excluding smooth, ribbed, or corrugated metal or plastic panels. Revise 18.06.220 Dwelling, Mobile Home. 18.06.220 Dwelling, mobile home. "Mobile home dwelling" means a de- tached residential dwelling unit which does not conform to the Uniform Building Code or the Federal Manufactured Home Construction and Safety Standards, and which is designed for transportation after fabrication on streets or highways on its own wheels or on flatbed or other trailers, and arriving at the site where it is to be occupied as a dwelling com- plete and ready for occupancy except for minor and incidental unpacking and assembly operations, location on jacks or other temporary or perman- ent foundations, connections to utilities, and the like. A travel trailer, a manufactured home, or a modular home is not considered a mobile home. (Ord. 1247 §1(part), 1982). 18.06.240 Dwelling, single - family. "Single- family dwelling" means a detached residential dwelling unit other than a mobile or manufactured home, designed for and occupied by one family only. (Ord. 1247 §1(part), 1982). A modular home which is factory built, transportable in one or more sections, and meets the Uniform Building Code is con- sidered to be a single- family dwelling. Add: e. Shall have the hitch, axles and wheels removed. 18.06.221 Dwelling, Manufactured Home. Manufactured dwelling means a detached residential dwelling unit fabricated in an off -site manufactur- ing facility for installation or assembly at the building site, bearing a label certifying that it is built in compliance with the Federal Manu- factured Housing Construction and Safety Standards. Alternatives 1. Create a new zone, such as RX -1, for the annexation area, which would permit mobile and manufactured (HUD code) homes or just manufactured (HUD code) homes. The purpose of the zone would be to create a King County - comparable single - family zone for areas annexing to the City. The disadvantage of this approach is the confusion and possible question of equity between R -1 which is single - family with no HUD Code or mobile homes permitted and an RX -1 single- family.zone where HUD Code homes are permitted. 2.. Amend Tukwila's definitions and R -1 zone to permit manufactured (HUD Code) homes. The City currently allows modular homes, factory -built homes which comply with the local building code. STAFF REPORT to Planning 88 -1 -CPA, 88 -1 -R, 88 -1 -CA Commission /City Council Page 17 Discussion The purpose of any of the above three alternatives is to allow a wider range of housing opportunities, an objective of the City's Comprehensive Land Use Policy Plan, and to mitigate the impact on the residents and property owners of annexing areas. The Comprehensive Land Use Policy Plan has several objectives and policies which would encourage a change in the current code. "Assure a diversified supply of housing in the Planning Area." (Obj 1, page 51) "Develop guidelines within the Building Code which seek to make pre- fabricated dwellings more substantial and permanent and recognize these dwelling units as a suitable housing alternative." (Policy 3, page 52) "Encourage the development of suitable low- income housing for the elderly." (Policy 2, page 54) The appearance of some homes, especially pre -HUD Code units, are chiefly responsible for the negative image of manufactured homes. Certain design standards can be required that would make a HUD Code home more compatible with traditional residential construction. Wood or non - reflective nonmetallic siding, minimum pitch roof and material and permanent perimeter foundation with a floor elevation compatible with surrounding dwelling units. These conditions, however, will make the original low cost of HUD Code homes somewhat higher. A primary goal of the HUD Code is to improve the quality and the durability of manufactured homes. Because of its fairly recent inception, it has not had the opportunity to prove the test of time. There is a perceived transi- ence associated with mobile homes. Mobile homes have historically come with a hitch and wheels allowing movement from one area to another. Manufactured homes are still transported to their sites on their own set of wheels, which are then usually removed when placed on the lot. The low cost of these homes also provides interim uses for neighborhoods in transition. Sometimes a property owner looking for a return on his property but who does not want to make a substantial investment in a conventional home in an unstable resi- dential area invests in a mobile home. An individual who buys a convention- al house is usually making a long -term commitment in the neighborhood as well as in the dwelling unit. There is no neighborhood in the annexation area or in the City where the zoning does not reflect the long -range com- prehensive plan. The exception is one block fronting on 44th Place South and backing up to the Hub Center. This one area of disparity between Comprehensive Plan and Zoning is the only area where the City has indicated a transition of land use. In contrast to the individual who purchases a home for its mobility and short -term concerns is the individual who wants to own an individual dwell- ing unit yet is constrained by the cost of conventional home ownership. For these individuals, the manufactured home is their best and only option for home ownership. Their commitment to a location and their unit is as permanent as their neighbor who lives in a conventional home. SHORELINE ENVIRONMENT (22/88- 1- CPA10 >18) STAFF REPORT to Planning 88 -1 -CPA, 88 -1 -R, 88 -1 -CA Commission /City Council Page 18 The priority of the majority of cities is their residential neighborhoods. There is a desire for quality, pleasant residential neighborhoods, which seem to improve with age, the finer the design and maintenance of their structures and landscaping. Chapter 9 of the Tukwila Shoreline Master Program mandates that the Planning Commission review its program every three years and submit any amendments to the. City Council and Department of Ecology. The Shoreline program was last updated and partially incorporated into the adoption of the 1982 Zoning Code. The Washington Administrative Code, WAC 173 -19 -044, discusses the effects of annexation and allows compliance with the pre- existing master program (King County) for the area until a new amended program is adopted by the local government assuming authority. A shoreline amendment is not included at this time with the multiple other issues being reviewed in the proposed annexation. Because annexing shorelines will be protected and developable through WAC 173 -19 -044, a comprehensive update of the City's Shoreline Program should be scheduled for the spring of 1989, at which time, if the annexation has occurred, new maps of the City's shoreline will have been prepared and adequate review can be given. l It R-I-96 C2 ( -!- y on • r� f r( - 1 - y0 �.r • M - I 4 2 n ■ ! M —I MH RI R-I -1201 _ rial -1 R -H201 R4,a3 •,-r2 ! sLLR 1 -72 F R -I , 'III' C -2ii + !R : R -I.. R-1- 72 r. C -2 • N R -2 i . al � - , I al . R -; -,2 x 4 r , -96 � i. % a•,•j6,. C4 R- -? • R -1 �2 R -3 R -1.96 I • R -' R -1 7 2 R -, - 7 2 a -. - a • .I POTENT y L R- N� PROPOSED ZONING • RE. SE: ;•25- R -I -72 CNE FAMILr '7'.'i/ELLIN a 8.-1-96 ONE GAMILY DWE�L1'GS R -I - OWE: INGS �? 8 - 3 :BEE XC =CAA FFMILi V= �...NGS•� 0'1 • = GI- SCRr-CCO RETAIL C'2 LCC. RETAIL 'M '_IG -T INCL,STRY I ATTACHMENT H 1 IV • ' erN I , I` SI t 1t•TW a I 1 11% C City of Tukwila PLANNING DEPARTMENT 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, Washington 98188 (206) 433 -1849 EXISTING DISCUSSION LANDSCAPE REQUIREMENT IN HEAVY INDUSTRY ZONE Supplement to March 17 Staff Report The 15 -foot front yard landscape requirement in the M -2 zone is 7 feet more than the 8 -foot front yard landscape requirement of the existing M -H King County zone. The Tukwila requirement of additional landscaping only appears to be adverse in an area shown on Attachment N. The area is developed with a large number of truck /trailer -type businesses and parcels which are constricted by size, adjacent roads, the river, and /or utility easements. The 15 feet of landscaping appears to be reasonable and desirable in the exist- ing M -2 district in the City and the remaining M -2 districts in the annexation area. Therefore some alternative not available in the current City code is necessary to provide comparable zoning for the subject area. The testimony received characterized the area as unique from typically large heavy manufacturing sites which accommodate a manufacturing process. The area currently is a mix of commercial, hotel, office, wholesale, truck terminal, storage and residential uses. The predominant use is truck - related sales or businesses which receive daily truck traffic. A landscape buffer, however narrow, can be effective in defining the roadway and providing visual improvement and relief from concrete and asphalt. A landscape area helps separate maneuvering and parked traffic from the road. A grass strip with trees strategically placed between curb cuts does not inhibit views or public safety, or the City could not require landscaping in any commercial area. A 4 -foot area requires expertise in tree selection, whereas 5 feet gives much wider discretion in choice of plant material. Much of the discussion has focused on the needs of truck traffic. These needs and problems are felt in the existing business community of Tukwila. A landscaping exemption for all businesses in the City and annexation area with frequent truck traffic would eliminate landscaping in a majority of areas in the City's commercial /industrial zones. Therefore one solution is to create a new zoning district which recognizes the uniqueness of the annexation area. However, other solutions are also available. These solutions are discussed below. ALTERNATIVES Amend Table 2 - Required Landscape Areas M-2L LANDSCAPE REQUIREMENT IN HEAVY INDUSTRY ZONE Page 2 1. Add a new Section 18.43 - M -2L whose purpose would be as follows: The purpose of this district is to recognize and provide for a unique in- dustrial area which developed long before other City zoning districts were formed, which has uses of significant air and water pollution, noise, vibra- tion, glare and other environmental impacts, and which requires less strict design standards in recognition of use trends of heavy truck terminals and servicing thereof. ZONE FRONT SIDE REAR 5 feet None None To include grass and street trees every 30 feet 2. Change the landscape requirement in the existing M -2 zone to permit 5 feet of landscaping for truck terminals and heavy trucking - related businesses and services. 3. Change the landscape requirement in the existing M -2 zone to 5 feet rather than existing 15 feet. EXISTING As shown on Attachment D, the Tukwila Comprehensive Land Use Map, light indus- try uses are positioned adjacent to low density residential uses. Now a heavy industrial use - the Union Pacific and Burlington Northern Railroad railways and yards - is adjacent to single - family development. The Planning Commission recommended a Comprehensive Land Use Map and Zoning District change to Heavy Industry for the railroad property and Union Tank Works, as shown on Attachments I and L. This action leaves one block between the railroad and Union Tank Works and another block just south of the Hub Center's entrance, with a Light Industry Comprehensive Plan designation and R -1 zoning. The implication is that Light Industry is perceived as appropriate but change in use is not ready to occur until circumstances change (e.g., adequate utilities are available, streets are improved, etc.). The implications of a more intense zone for the subject blocks is discussed on page 7, Item 5.b of the March 17 Staff Report. There are 22 single - family homes in the subject blocks and one nonconforming Light Industrial use. The Kroll Map indicates that two homes were recently built and none have been demolished. The condition of the homes range from poor to excellent with no obvious pattern. Whereas the railroad tracks and freight yard may be unappealing for the subject property owners, the view impact is confined and can be screened with vegetation. Noise impact is not mitigated. The traffic from the Burlington Northern HUB Center is also confined to the one entrance and exit onto 124th Street. A change of zoning would eventually lead to development that will introduce traffic onto the residential streets. That traffic will have a greater adverse impact than the now - needed transition. In addition, the land use intent of the annexation is to provide parity. The sub- ject change would impact the 22 homeowners within the subject area as well as the innumerable homeowners across the street and throughout the neighborhood. ALTERNATIVES TRANSITION BETWEEN HEAVY INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT AND SINGLE - FAMILY DISTRICTS IN ALLENTOWN /DUWAMISH NEIGHBORHOOD 1. Provide R -1 -7.2 zoning, thereby retaining the status quo. 2. Change the zoning to M -1 (Light Industry), which has a 25 -foot front yard (4 feet less than the 30 feet required for R -1), no side and 5 -foot rear. 3. Change the zoning to C -M (Industrial Park), which has a 50 -foot front yard setback and 5 -foot side and rear. (22 /88- 1- CPA.S) Ip FIRE DISTRICT *1 ANNEXATION STUDY Study Area: Street System LcgCnd "MOS= Study Arca Boundary Proposed "M - 2L" District NORTH CCA inc HUGH G. GOLDS&MTH & A$$OC.,NC. STALZER & ASSOCIATES TDA INC. ATTACHMENT N FIGURE 1 ....:.!:.. _._.y'•'i aka..:.. a • Re: Members of the Tukwila City Planning Commission Hon. Gary Van Dusen, Mayor Mr. Byron G. Sneva, Direct Department of Public Works Ms. Moira Carr Bradshaw, Associate Planner Planning Department City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, Washington, 98188 Sanitary Sewer Service K. Cnty. Fire District #1 Annexation Planning cases 88 -1 -CPA, 88 -1 -R and 88 -1 -CA Ladies and Gentlemen: SPIDER STAGING CORPORATION Corporate Headquarters 13536 Beacon Coal Mine Rd. S. Seattle. Washington 98178 (206)255.8267 c / RECEIVE MAR 2 9 1988 TUKWIL PUBLIC WORK - March 29, 1988 Spider Staging Corporation is located within the boundaries of Tuckwila's proposed annexation of King County Fire District #1, known to you under the above case numbers. Our manufacturing plant is located at 13536 Beacon Coal Mine Road South, which places us to the East of the railroad right -of -way bisecting the annexation area, and also immediately to the East of the Seattle Rendering Works plant. The issue of immediate concern to our Company, and the one on which we request the direction of City administrative officials, and which we would also like the Planning Commission to take note of at your March 31 Public Hearing, has to do with sanitary sewage disposal. At present, our manufacturing facility generates only a small amount of "domestic" effluent (we have some 95 employees on-site), which has been disposed of via an on -site drainfield for many years. However, King County's Department of Health has determined that the drainfield is in a failing condition, and has directed us to -rf6r 1 ;0 5 V ... De; Ho.._'_ Los igeleF Nev. O•iear•,s Nev. `� r Pn:aze ^ania Sar •angst Seat- Si s•_ Vancouver. B Was1:'aton. .mti%..r...?!e. +mtr.�r•Ryi•:'Rf'; (t;,4:'!4;°f -- ^'' g°'xillv�ia:� Ship`., v.. .�...._,��_..3tic:'U'Ai:F;wisv:. ilk: �..? is�11Ys., as+. cv..<. S?; s. 7:: 4; 4` a¢ c•.;•• nhax:. urcror: A.;..? R:;�; �y:: cs! ��..,_ e; i�uaYl �U. d_. SdS". �`.,:r,Y2��.G£C :,_.....1'.�u7:: :t ". '•I,<:yi, s .il. _.. • some other method of lawful sewage disposal. We must take action on this matter in the very near future. Since annexation would probably impact our plant site in a number of ways, we've looked into your proposal to some extent; however, we find that, apparently, Tuckwila is unwilling to directly address the question of sewage disposal for our area at this time. Since this sort of service is the principal justification for an annexation, we are most concerned about your City's position. We therefore ask that the City's administrative officers respond to the following inquiries, addressing both our company and making the responses part of the Planning Commission record on this annexation: 1) When, and at what cost to Spider, will sanitary sewage disposal services be provided to the Beacon Coal Mine Road South area, in the Southeastern end of the proposed annexation area? 2) If sanitary sewage disposal services will not be made available to the Beacon Coal Mine Road South area in the very near future, what types of sanitary sewage disposal methods may we legally use at our plant site; and if the area is annexed as planned, how long may we continue to use the various permissible methods of sewage disposal? 3) If we invest in an on -site septic system acceptable to King County's Department of Health, can we safely assume that this system, as long as functional, will be acceptable to Tukwila after annexation? As you might imagine, it is critically important that we receive a prompt and concise response to the foregoing; our thanks for your attention. Cordial gl ittMt: C arles A. S aw Staff Counsel HAND DELIVERED cc: Seattle Rendering 3/29/88 King County Dept. of Health City of Renton Planning Dept. Case Number: Applicant: Request : Location: Cityt-Jf Tukwila PLANNING DEPARTMENT 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, Washington 98188 (206) 433 -1849 City of Tukwila City of Tukwila PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE 88 -1 -CPA, 88 -1 -R, 88 -1 -CA r ; • Notice is hereby given that the City of Tukwila Planning Commission and Board of Architectural Review will conduct a public hearing on March 31, 1988, at. 7:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers at Tukwila City Hall, 6200 Southcenter Boulevard, to consider the following: Planning Commission Public Hearing Area -wide amendments to: 1. Comprehensive Land Use Plan Map 2. Zoning Map 3. Zoning Code Proposed annexation area of Fire District No. 1, generally bounded by the City of Seattle, Empire Way, City of Renton, City of Tukwila, East Marginal Way and the Duwamish River. Persons wishing to comment on the above cases may do so by written statement or by appearing at the public hearing. Information on the above cases may be obtained at the Tukwila Planning Department. The City encourages you to notify your neighbors and other persons you believe would be affected by the above items. Published: Valley Daily News - Sunday March 20, 1988 Distribution: Mayor, City Clerk, Property Owners /Applicants, File 6111 -My (900 891R6 uo4eu14mM'vowl pJonelnog JelueoytnoS OOL9 1N3INIV6130 ONINNYW mewl JO 413 i FIRE DISTRICT *1 ANNEXATION STUDY PROPOSED COMPARABLE TUKWILA ZONES R -1 SINGLE FAMILY R-4 LOW APARTMENTS RMH MULTIPLE RESIDENCE HIGH DENSITY C -1 NEIGHBORHOOD RETAL C -2 REGIONAL RETAL M-1 LIGHT INDUSTRIAL M-2 HEAVY INDUSTRY PO PROFESSIONAL OFFICE NORTH CCA Inc HUGH G. GOLDSMITH & ASSOC.,INC. STALZER & ASSOCIATES TDA INC. FIGURE i : u�l t�, �.` Yt'. i,": tc�4iiu: 4'« 4T, Yw" h,< �; Yt;:, sa: �J�;' sx�C:' a�::. u, ntw...«. o�, �.....«................,,. �.. �.:«.,.. ....,... .. w.,. �+... .,.w�...,,.+n.�e.u.,....e...... ,n.�rA..+e,en,.w•- ew.N*�e. rem. r..... w.. w•.. R.T. errnua. mesassrre�. mvxtln" M. n' FSJY+ �`: aK,' Y: S� $'d.:?".3'e�4;:;�'%i�::T.Y. �� SUB -AREA Sub -area # 1 North Industrial Sub -area # 2 East I -5 Sub -area # 3 Empire Way South Sub -area # 4 Allentown t, KING COUNTY Comprehensive Plan - "Urban" designation Highline Community Plan - Included in boundary, but no land use desig- nations applied Shoreline Master Plan - "Urban" designation Comprehensive Plan - "Urban" designation Highline Community Plan - Included in boundary, but no land use desig- nation applied Comprehensive Plan - "Urban" designation ( AND USE POLICY PLANS Highline Community Plan - Included in boundary, but no land use desig- nation applied Comprehensive Plan - "Urban" designation Highline Community Plan - Included in boundary, but no land use desig- nation applied Shoreline Master Plan - "Urban" and "Rural" designations TUKWILA Comprehensive Plan - Outside planning area No sub -area or com- munity level plans Shoreline Master Plan - Outside planning area Comprehensive Plan - Outside planning area No sub -area or com- munity level plans Comprehensive Plan - Outside planning area No sub -area or com- munity level plans Comprehensive Plan - Light Manufacturing, Low Density Residen- tial, Parks and Open Space designations No sub -area or com- munity level plans Shoreline Master Plan - "Urban" designation RENTON N/A N/A Comprehensive Plan - Greenbelt, Medium Density Multi- family, Heavy Industrial N/A Chapter 35A.S8 Sections 35A.58.010 35A.58.020 35A.58.030 Locating corners and boundaries. Alteration and vacation of plats. Platting and subdivision of land. Chapter 35A2hi' BOUNDARIES AND PLATS 35A.58.010 Locating corners and boundaries. Gen- eral laws shall govern the methods, procedures, and standards for surveying, establishing corners and bound- aries, describing and perpetuating and recording infor- mation and descriptions relating thereto. The boundaries and corners of sections, parcels, plats, and subdivisions of land within a code city, may be surveyed, established, relocated, and perpetuated whenever a majority of the resident owners of any section or part or parts of any section of land within the city makes application in ac- cordance with the provisions of chapter 58.04 RCW. [1967 ex.s. c 119 § 35A.58.010.] 35A.58.020 Alteration and vacation of plats. The provisions of *chapters 58.11 and 58.12 RCW shall ap- ply in appropriate cases to the alteration or vacation of plats including land or lots within a code city or the va- cation of streets therein as provided in chapter 35.79 RCW. The vacation of waterways within a code city shall be governed by the provisions of * *chapter 79.16 RCW. [1967 ex.s. c 119 § 35A.58.020.) Reviser's note: *(1) Chapters 58.11 and 58.12 RCW were repealed by 1987 c 354 § 8. * *(2) Chapter 79.16 RCW was repealed by 1982 1st ex.s. c 21 § 183. For later enactment, see chapters 79.90 through 79.96 RCW. 35A.58.030 Platting and subdivision of land. The provisions of chapter 58.17 RCW together with the pro- visions of a code city's subdivision regulations as adopted by ordinance not inconsistent with the provisions of chapter 58.17 RCW shall control the platting and sub- dividing of land into lots or tracts comprising five or more of such lots or tracts or containing a dedication of any part thereof as a public street or highway, or other public place or use: Provided, That nothing herein shall prohibit the legislative body of a code city from adopting reasonable ordinances regulating the subdivision of land into two or more parcels without requiring compliance with all of the requirements of the platting law. [ 1983 c 3 § 70; 1971 ex.s. c 251 § 9; 1967 ex.s. c 119 § 35A.58.030.] Severability -1971 ex.s. c 251: See RCW 35A.90.050. Sections 35A.60.010 Chapter 35A.60 LIENS General law applicable. 35A.60.010 General law applicable. The general law relating to liens including but not limited to the provi- sions of Title 60 RCW, as the same relates to cities of any class shall apply to code cities. Every code city may 1Titk 35A RCW —p 58) Title 35A RCW: Optional Municipal Code exercise the autheiiw »y to perform services to property within the city and to claim and foreclose liens allowed therefor by general laws for any class of city including but not limited to the following provisions: (1) Chapter 35.80 RCW, relating to unfit dwellings, buildings and structures; (2) RCW 35.22.320, relating to the cost of filling cesspools; (3) RCW 35.85.030, relating to assess- ment liens for viaducts, elevated roadways, tunnels, and subways; (4) RCW 35.21.130, 35.21.140, 35.21.150, and 35.22.320 for garbage collection; (5) chapters 35.50, 35- .55 and 35.56 RCW relating to enforcement of local im- provement liens; (6) RCW 35.73.050 relating to the expense of sanitary fills; (7) RCW 35.67.200 through 35.67.290, relating to sewerage systems and service; (8) RCW 35.68.070, 35.69.030, 35.70.090, relating to side- walks; (9) RCW 35.49.120 through 35.49.160, relating to priority of tax liens; (10) RCW 35.21.290 and 35.21- .300, providing for liens for utility services; (11) chapter 84.60 RCW relating to lien of taxes upon property; (12) RCW 4.16.030, relating to foreclosure of local improve- ment liens; (13) chapter 60.76 RCW, relating to lien of employees for contribution to benefit plans; and (14) chapter 60.28 RCW, relating to lien for labor and ma- terials on public works. [ 1967 ex.s. c 119 § 35A.60.010.) Chapter 35A.61 METROPOLITAN PARK DISTRICTS Sections 35A.61.010 Metropolitan park districts. 35A.61.010 Metropolitan park districts. Charter code cities and such contiguous property the residents of which may decide in favor thereof in the manner set forth in chapter 35.61 RCW, may create a metropolitan park district for the management, control, improvement, maintenance, and acquisition of parks, parkways, and boulevards in the manner provided in chapter 35.61 RCW, subject to the provisions of said chapter, which shall be effective as to such charter code city to the same extent as such provisions are applicable to first class cit- ies included in such a metropolitan park district as authorized by said chapter. [ 1967 ex.s. c 119 § 35A.61.010.) Chapter 35A.63 PLANNING AND ZONING IN CODE CITIES Sections 35A.63.010 35A.63.0I5 35A.63.020 35A.63.030 35A.63.040 35A.63.050 35A.63.060 35A.63.061 35A.63.062 35A.63.070 35A.63.071 35A.63.072 Definitions. "Solar energy system" defined. Planning agency — Creation -- Powers and du- ties— Conflicts of interest. Joint meetings and cooperative action. Regional planning. Receipt and expenditure of funds. Comprehensive plan — General. Comprehensive plan — Required elements. Comprehensive plan — Optional elements. Comprehensive plan— Notice and hearing. Comprehensive plan— Forwarding to legislative body. Comprehensive plan — Approval by legislative body. (1987 Ed.) 35A.63.073 35A.63.080 35A.63.100 35A.63.110 35A.63.120 35A.63.130 35A.63.140 35A.63.150 35A.63.160 35A.63.170 35A.63.200 Acquisition of interests in land for conservation, protection, preserva- tion, or open space purposes by cities: RCW 64.04.130. Appearance of fairness doctrine— Application to local land use deci- sions: RCW 42.36.010. Associations of municipal corporations or municipal officers to furnish information to legislature and governor: RCW 44.04.170. 35A.63.010 Definitions. The following words or terms as used in this chapter shall have the meanings set forth below unless different meanings are clearly indi- cated by the context: (1) "Chief administrative officer" means the mayor in code cities operating under the mayor – council and com- mission forms, the city manager in code cities operating under the council– manager forms, or such other officer as the charter of a charter code city designates as the chief administrative officer. (2) "City" means an incorporated city or town. (3) "Code city" is used where the application of this chapter is limited to a code city; where joint, regional, or cooperative action is intended, a code city may be in- cluded in the unrestricted terms "city" or "municipality ". (4) "Comprehensive plan" means the policies and proposals approved by the legislative body as set forth in RCW 35A.63.060 through 35A.63.072 of this chapter and containing, at least, the elements set forth in RCW 35A.63.061. (5) "Legislative body" means a code city council, a code city commission, and, in cases involving regional or cooperative planning or action, the governing body of a municipality. (6) "Municipality" includes any code city and, in cases of regional or cooperative planning or action, any city, town, township, county, or special district. (7) "Ordinance" means a legislative enactment by the legislative body of a municipality; in this chapter "ordi- nance" is synonymous with the term "resolution" when "resolution" is used as representing a legislative enactment. (8) "Planning agency" means any; person, body, or organization 'designated by the legislative body to per form' a. planning function or portion thereof for a munic- ipality, and includes, without limitation, any commission, committee, department, or board together with its staff members, employees, agents, and consultants. (1987 Ed.) Comprehensive plan— Amendments and modifications. Comprehensive plan — Effect. Municipal authority. Board of adjustment— Creation — Powers and duties. Administration and enforcement. Provisions inconsistent with charters. Duties and responsibilities imposed by other acts. Public hearings. Construction -1967 ex.s. c 119. Hearing examiner system— Adoption authorized — Alternative— Functions — Procedures. Conformance with chapter 43.97 RCW required. or Planning And Zoning in Code Cities 35A.63.030 ''re (9) "Special district" means that portion of the state, county, or other political subdivision created under gen- eral law for rendering of one or more local public ser- vices or for administrative, educational, judicial, or political purposes. [1967 ex.s. c 119 § 35A.63.010.] 35A.63.015 "Solar energy system" defined. As used in this chapter, "solar energy system" means any device or combination of devices or elements which rely upon direct sunlight as an energy source, including but not limited to any substance or device which collects sun- light for use in: (1) The heating or cooling of a structure or building; (2) The heating or pumping of water; (3) Industrial, commercial, or agricultural processes; (4) The generation of electricity. A solar energy system may be used for purposes in addition to the collection of solar energy. These uses in- clude, but are not limited to, serving as a structural member or part of a roof of a building or structure and serving as a window or wall. [ 1979 ex.s. c 170 § 6.] Severability -1979 ex.s. c 170: See note following RCW 64.04.140. Local governments authorized to encourage and protect solar energy systems: RCW 64.04.140. 35A.63.020 Planning agency— creation —Pow- ers and duties Conflicts of interest. By ordinance a code city may create a planning agency and provide for its membership, organization, and expenses. The plan- ning agency shall serve in an advisory capacity to the chief administrative officer or the legislative body, or both, as may be provided by ordinance and shall have such other powers and duties as shall be provided by or- dinance. If any person or persons on a planning agency concludes that he has a conflict of interest or an appear- ance of fairness problem with respect to a matter pend- ing before the agency so that he cannot discharge his duties on such an agency, he shall disqualify himself from participating in the deliberations and the decision – making process with respect to the matter. If this occurs, the appointing authority that appoints such a person may appoint a person to serve as an alternate on the agency to serve in his stead in regard to such a matter. [1979 ex.s. c 18 § 33; 1967 ex.s. c 119 § 35A.63.020.] Severability -1979 ex.s. c 18: See note following RCW 35A.01.070. 35A.63.030 Joint meetings and cooperative action. Pursuant to the authorization of the legislative body, a code city planning agency may hold joint meetings with one or more city or county planning agencies (including city or county planning agencies in adjoining states) in any combination and may contract with another munici- pality for planning services. A code city may enter into cooperative arrangements with one or more municipali- ties and with any regional planning council organized (Title 3M RCW—p 59) ) 35A.63.030 under this chapter for jointly engaging a planning direc- tor and such other employees as may be required to op- erate a joint planning staff. [1969 ex.s. c 81 § 5; 1967 ex.s. c 119 § 35A.63.030.] Effective date -1969 ex.s. c 81: Sec note following RCW 35A.13.035. 35A.63.040 Regional planning. A code city with one or more municipalities within a region, otherwise auth- orized by law to plan, including municipalities of ad- joining states, when empowered by ordinances of their respective legislative bodies, may cooperate to form, or- ganize, and administer a regional planning commission to prepare a comprehensive plan and perform other planning functions for the region defined by agreement of the respective municipalities. The various agencies may cooperate in all phases of planning, and professional staff may be engaged to assist in such planning. All costs shall be shared on a pro rata basis as agreed among the various entities. A code city may also cooperate with any department or agency of a state government having planning functions. [ 1969 ex.s. c 81 § 6; 1967 ex.s. c 119 § 35A.63.040.] Effective date -1969 ex.s. c 81: See note following RCW 35A.13.035. 35A.63.050 Receipt and expenditure of funds. Any code city or any regional planning commission that in- cludes a code city, when authorized by the legislative bodies of the municipalities represented by the regional planning commission, may enter into an agreement with any department or agency of the government of the United States or the state of Washington, or its agencies or political subdivisions, or any other public or private agency, to arrange for the receipt and expenditure of funds for planning in the interest of furthering the plan- ning program. [1967 ex.s. c 119 § 35A.63.050.] 35A.63.060 Comprehensive plan — General. Every code city, by ordinance, shall direct the planning agency to prepare a comprehensive plan for anticipating and in- fluencing the orderly and coordinated development of land and building uses of the code city and its environs. The comprehensive plan may be prepared as a whole or in successive parts. [1967 ex.s. c 119 § 35A.63.060.] 35A.63.061 Comprehensive plan Required ele- ments. The comprehensive plan shall be in such form and of such scope as the code city's ordinance or charter may require. It may consist of a map or maps, diagrams, charts, reports and descriptive and explanatory text or other devices and materials to express, explain, or depict the elements of the plan; and it shall include a recom- mended plan, scheme, or design for each of the following elements: (1) A land -use element that designates the proposed general distribution, general location, and extent of the uses of land. These uses may include, but are not limited to, agricultural, residential, commercial, industrial, rec- reational, educational, public, and other categories of public and private uses of land. The land -use element (Title 35A RCW —p 601 Title 35A RCW: Optional Muni , I Code shall also include estimates of future population growth in, and statements of recommended standards of popula- tion density and building intensity for, the area covered by the comprehensive plan. The land use element shall also provide for protection of the quality and quantity of ground water used for public water supplies and shall review drainage, flooding, and storm water run -off in the area and nearby jurisdictions and provide guidance for corrective actions to mitigate or cleanse those dis- charges that pollute Puget Sound or waters entering Puget Sound. (2) A circulation element consisting of the general lo- cation, alignment, and extent of existing and proposed major thoroughfares, major transportation routes, and major terminal facilities, all of which shall be correlated with the land -use element of the comprehensive plan. [ 1985 c 126 § 2; 1984 c 253 § 2; 1967 ex.s. c 119 § 35A.63.061.] 35A.63.062 Comprehensive plan — Optional ele- ments. The comprehensive plan may include also any or all of the following optional elements: (1) A conservation element for the conservation, de- velopment, and utilization of natural resources. (2) An open space, park, and recreation element. (3) A transportation element showing a comprehen- sive system of surface, air, and water transportation routes and facilities. (4) A public -use element showing general locations, designs, and arrangements of public buildings and uses. (5) A public utilities element showing general plans for public and franchised services and facilities. (6) A redevelopment or renewal element showing plans for the redevelopment or renewal of slum and blighted areas. (7) An urban design element for general organization of the physical parts of the urban landscape. (8) Other elements dealing with subjects that, in the opinion of the legislative body, relate to the development of the municipality, or are essential or desirable to coor- dinate public services and programs with such development. (9) A solar energy element for encouragement and protection of access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems. [ 1979 ex.s. c 170 § 7; 1967 ex.s. c 119 § 35A.63.062.] Severability -1979 ex.s. c 170: See note following RCW 64.04.140. 35A.63.070 Comprehensive plan Notice and hearing. After preparing the comprehensive plan, or suc- cessive parts thereof, as the case may be ;the'.;planning agency: shalt hold. at : least one public hearing on the comprehensive 'plan or successive part. Notice of the time, place, and purpose of such public hearing shall be given as provided by ordinance and including at least one publication in a newspaper of general circulation delivered in the code city and in the official gazette, if any, of the code city, at least ten days prior to the date of the hearing. Continued hearings may be held at the (1987 Ed.) discretion of the planning agency but no additional no- tices need be published. [1967 ex.s. c 119 § 35A.63.070.] 35A.63.071 Comprehensive plan Forwarding to legislative body. Upon completion of the hearing or hearings on the comprehensive plan or successive parts thereof, the planning agency, after making such changes as it deems necessary following such hearing, shall transmit a copy of its recommendations for the compre- hensive plan, or successive parts thereof, to the legisla- tive body through the chief administrative officer, who shall acknowledge receipt thereof and direct the clerk to certify thereon the date of receipt. [ 1967 ex.s. c 119 § 35A.63.071.] 35A.63.072 Comprehensive plan — Approval by leg- islative body. Within sixty days from its receipt of the recommendation for the comprehensive plan, as above set forth, the legislative body at a public meeting shall consider the same. The legislative body within such pe- riod as it may by ordinance provide, shall vote to ap- prove or disapprove or to modify and approve, as modified, the comprehensive plan or to refer it back to the planning agency for further proceedings, in which case the legislative body shall specify the time within which the planning agency shall report back to the leg- islative body its findings and recommendations on the matters referred to it. The final form and content of the comprehensive plan shall be determined by the legisla- tive body. An affirmative vote of not less than a majority of total members of the legislative body shall be required for adoption of a resolution to approve the plan or its parts. The comprehensive plan, or its successive parts, as approved by the legislative body, shall be filed with an appropriate official of the code city and shall be avail- able for public inspection. [1967 ex.s. c 119 § 35A.63.072.] 35A.63.073 Comprehensive plan Amendments and modifications. All amendments, modifications, or al- terations in the comprehensive plan or any part thereof shall be processed in the same manner as set forth in RCW 35A.63.070 through 35A.63.072. [1967 ex.s. c 119 § 35A.63.073.] 35A.63.080 Comprehensive plan— Effect. From the date of approval by the legislative body the compre- hensive plan, its parts and modifications thereof, shall serve as a basic source of reference for future legislative and administrative action: Provided, That the compre- hensive plan shall not be construed as a regulation of property rights or land uses: Provided, further, That no procedural irregularity or informality in the considera- tion, hearing, and development of the comprehensive plan or a part thereof, or any of its elements, shall affect the validity of any zoning ordinance or amendment thereto enacted by the code city after the approval of the comprehensive plan. The comprehensive plan shall be consulted as a pre- liminary to the establishment, improvement, abandon- ment, or vacation of any street, park, public way, public (1987 Ed.) Planning And Zoning in Code Cities 35A.63.100 building, or public structure, and no dedication of any street or other area for public use shall be accepted by the legislative body until the location, character, extent, and effect thereof shall have been considered by the planning agency with reference to the comprehensive plan. The legislative body shall specify the time within which the planning agency shall report and make a rec- ommendation with respect thereto. Recommendations of the planning agency shall be advisory only. [ 1967 ex.s. c 119 § 35A.63.080.] 35A.63.100 Municipal authority. After approval of the comprehensive plan, as set forth above, the legisla- tive body, in developing the municipality and in regulat- ing the use of land, may implement or give effect to the comprehensive plan or parts thereof by ordinance or other action to such extent as the legislative body deems necessary or appropriate. Such ordinances or other ac- tion may provide for: (1) Adoption of an official map and regulations relat- ing thereto designating locations and requirements for one or more of the following: Streets, parks, public buildings, and other public facilities, and protecting such sites against encroachment by buildings and other phys- ical structures. (2) Dividing the municipality, or portions thereof, into appropriate zones within which specific standards, re- quirements, and conditions may be provided for regulat- ing the use of public and private land, buildings, and structures, and the location, height, bulk, number of stories, and size of buildings and structures, size of yards, courts, open spaces, density of population, ratio of land area to the area of buildings and structures, set- backs, area required for off – street parking, protection of access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems, and such other standards, requirements, regulations, and procedures as are appropriately related thereto. The or- dinance encompassing the matters of this subsection is hereinafter called the "zoning ordinance ". No zoning ordinance, or amendment thereto, shall be enacted by the legislative body without at least one public hearing, notice of which shall be given as set forth in RCW 35A.63.070. Such hearing may be held before the plan- ning agency or the board of adjustment or such other body as the legislative body shall designate. (3) Adoption of design standards, requirements, regu- lations, and procedures for the subdivision of land into two or more parcels, including, but not limited to, the approval of plats, dedications, acquisitions, improve- ments, and reservation of sites for public use. (4) Scheduling public improvements on the basis of recommended priorities over a period of years, subject to periodic review. (5) Such other matters as may be otherwise author- ized by law or as the legislative body deems necessary or appropriate to effectuate the goals and objectives of the comprehensive plan or parts thereof and the purposes of this chapter. [ 1979 ex.s. c 170 § 8; 1967 ex.s. c 119 § 35A.63.100.1 Severability -1979 ex.s. c 170: See note following RCW 64.04.140. [Title 35A RCW—p 611 35A.63.061 [ 1985 c 126 § 2; 1984 c 253 § 2; 1967 ex.s. c 119 § 35A.63.061.] 35A.63.062 Comprehensive plan — Optional ele- ments. The comprehensive plan may include also any or all of the following optional elements: (I) A conservation element for the conservation, de- velopment, and utilization of natural resources. (2) An open space, park, and recreation clement. (3) A transportation element showing a comprehen- sive system of surface, air, and water transportation routes and facilities. (4) A public –use element showing general locations, designs, and arrangements of public buildings and uses. (5) A public utilities element showing general plans for public and franchised services and facilities. (6) A redevelopment or renewal element showing plans for the redevelopment or renewal of slum and blighted areas. (7) An urban design element for general organization of the physical parts of the urban landscape. (8) Other elements dealing with subjects that, in the opinion of the legislative body, relate to the development of the municipality, or are essential or desirable to coor- dinate public services and programs with such development. (9) A solar energy element for encouragement and protection of access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems. [ 1979 ex.s. c 170 § 7; 1967 ex.s. c 119 § 35A.63.062.] Severability -1979 ex.s. c 170: See note following RCW 64.04.140. 35A.63.070 Comprehensive plan Notice and hearing. After preparing the comprehensive plan, or suc- cessive parts thereof, as the case may be, the planning agency shall hold at least one public hearing on the comprehensive plan or successive part. Notice of the time, place, and purpose of such public hearing shall be given as provided by ordinance and including at least one publication in a newspaper of general circulation delivered in the code city and in the official gazette, if any, of the code city, at least ten days prior to the date of the hearing. Continued hearings may be held at the discretion of the planning agency but no additional no- tices need be published. [1967 ex.s. c 119 § 35A.63.070.] 35A.63.071 Comprehensive plan Forwarding to legislative body. Upon completion of the hearing or hearings on the comprehensive plan or successive parts thereof, the planning agency, after making such changes as it deems necessary following such hearing, shall transmit a copy of its recommendations for the compre- hensive plan, or successive parts thereof, to the legisla- tive body through the chief administrative officer, who shall acknowledge receipt thereof and direct the clerk to certify thereon the date of receipt. [ 1967 ex.s. c 119 § 35A.63.07I.] 35A.63.072 Comprehensive plan — Approval by leg- islative body. Within sixty days from its receipt of the [Title 35A RCW —p 661 Title/ ' RCW: Optional Municipal Code recommendation for the comprehensive plan, as above set forth, the legislative body at a public meeting shall consider the same. The legislative body within such p riod as it may by ordinance provide, shall vote to ap . prove or disapprove or to modify and approve, as modified, the comprehensive plan or to refer it back to the planning agency for further proceedings, in which case the legislative body shall specify the time within which the planning agency shall report back to the leg. islative body its findings and recommendations on the matters referred to it. The final form and content of the comprehensive plan shall be determined by the legisla- tive body. An affirmative vote of not less than a majority of total members of the legislative body shall be required for adoption of a resolution to approve the plan or its parts. The comprehensive plan, or its successive parts, as approved by the legislative body, shall be filed with an appropriate official of the code city and shall be avail- able for public inspection. [1967 ex.s. c 119 § 35A.63.072.] 35A.63.073 Comprehensive plan Amendments and modifications. All amendments, modifications, or al- terations in the comprehensive plan or any part thereof shall be processed in the same manner as set forth in RCW 35A.63.070 through 35A.63.072. [1967 ex.s. 119 § 35A.63.073,] 35A.63.080 Comprehensive plan Effect. From the date of approval by the legislative body the compre- hensive plan, its parts and modifications thereof, shall serve as a basic source of reference for future legislative and administrative action: Provided, That the compre- hensive plan shall not be construed as a regulation of property rights or land uses: Provided, further, That no procedural irregularity or informality in the considera- tion, hearing, and development of the comprehensive plan or a part thereof, or any of its elements, shall affect the validity of any zoning ordinance or amendment thereto enacted by the code city after the approval of the comprehensive plan. The comprehensive plan shall be consulted as a pre- liminary to the establishment, improvement, abandon- ment, or vacation of any street, park, public way, public building, or public structure, and no dedication of any street or other area for public use shall be accepted by the legislative body until the location, character, extent, and effect thereof shall have been considered by the planning agency with reference to the comprehensive plan. The legislative body shall specify the time within which the planning agency shall report and make a rec- ommendation with respect thereto. Recommendations of the planning agency shall be advisory only. [ 1967 ex.s. c 119 § 35A.63.080.] 35A.63.100 Municipal authority. After approval of the comprehensive plan, as set forth above, the legisla- tive body, in developing the municipality and in regulat- ing the use of land, may implement or give effect to the comprehensive plan or parts thereof by ordinance or other action to such extent as the legislative body deems (1985 Ed . I AVaSigli l - A kT+iF ?.S iYK °R1X4"A1A:•s.flt iN9tMnx +» Ww.'au«�+`aro t� Seattle Department of Community Development David Moseley, Director Charles Royer, Mayor December 29, 1987 Moira Bradshaw Planning Department City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, WA 98188 Dear Moira, r.. w. s. www. wranwCawn+ p!+ aCV. vKv!�{idCfK758CT'p?�61F4:J�.tP: 687& /:.TX'trAV lMW IP.nIYM.ie Auk-,.: \L _ f)4 , � , 1987 I' , pLF�NNING 0 EFT • I've enclosed some information for the South Park area for your use. The City has decided to preserve the existing residential neighborhood within South Park. In conjunction with that effort, the industrial policies for the surrounding area seek to require better landscaping and design policies to improve the edges between the residential and industrial environments. I hope that this can be of some use for your work in Tukwila. I am also responsible for reviewing the Annexation DEIS for the Department of Community Development. John Braden is on a short —term leave of absence and I will review it instead. Could you put my name on the circulation list? Thank you for answering my questions about your annexation efforts. I look forward to reviewing the Draft EIS. If I can be of any further help for yourself, please give me a call. Sincerely, .Charley (De ew An equal employment opportunity- affirmative action employer. 400 Yesler Way • Seattle, Washington 98104 -2696 • 206/684 -0327 If(I�I(IIf(I�1(fli 1111111111111111111111111111111111111111-1111111111111 III I(III I I I I.1LL1_1_11(III(III I4111111II1IIJ 11114(1p1111(III(III(I1I( III (I1I(III(III(III(III(III(III1II 0 ISTMSINCH 1 3 4 = 5__ _6_ ...... .._ .._ 7 — 8 9 10 ' 11 NGSEINSESMANT 12 'IF THIS MICROFILMED DOCUMENT IS LESS CLEAR THAN THIS.NOTICE, IT IS DUE TO OE 6z se Lz 9z sz 1 7a ez; zz tz THE sUALITY OF THE ORIGINAL DOCUMENT a e L. s s a e z ' Pal 0 1111111111111111111 a 1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111IIIIIII1111 111 1111 1111111111111111111 IIII 111 Il 1111 Iill lfll fffl I ff fff II I ►11 ►►► 11 111111111 11111111111111111111111111► 1111111111111111► 1111111 ►111111111)111111111111111111 n w r' ; . t. FIRE DISTRICT *1 ANNEXATION STUDY EXISTING TUKWILA COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLAN MAP 1 LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL LIGHT INDUSTRIAL PARKS AND OPEN SPACE PUBLIC FACILITIES NORTH CCA Inc HUGH G. GOLDSMITH & ASSOC.,INC. STALZER & ASSOCIATES TDA INC. ATTACHMENT D FIGURE � X11 I it " " "qIU 1 Idlll Ii II�IIII ICI I 1111111111 I IIIII M III qp .• . „ ►111 111111 11 11111111111 •.Id1 11�illlllliin; , � 1 � I•I �, u � IIIIIillpili , ,� a .. I •II i I�IiIIIIIUgI llllllll dllil 1111111 I iii► q �illl, 11 � tIUI' nit . ' IAII ,., �"�H.�i :.�. : Yt3s: ,�'?to �r ,t :.,;. .: ,�,�:.. r. .�::i..:• ,:: . r.. t'. :c�+;z7i3'3;3.'oi'�t.':4c�fYan, 111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 I 1111111 1 11111111111 0 18THS'NCH 1 3 -I O£ 6z ee Lz 9z Sz hZ ez l I zz 611111666666666666 1641E 1 I I fill 1 II III III 1 - 1 . 1 .1. Ih111 1111 11I1111111I11111111111111I11111111I11111111 I . 11111I1 .. -- g_. , . ___ _ ._..6 -- _ _ __.... . _ .._'_ . _E 9 10 11 MAININOIRKWY 12 IF THIS MICROFILMED DOCUMENT IS LESS CLEAR THAN THISNOTICE,'IT IS-DUE TO THE !UALITT OF THE ORIGINAL DOCUMENT 111111IIIIIII 1111 II111111111( 111111111111 iiilill(15 11111111(111 ffff III II� III ffTf 1111 161 11(( Ilii I 6 et, 9s b E z L ww 0 IIIIIIIII�� illill111111lllf 11111Illlll111111illl1 G n •'.C4, 3R v"i:%.U'>wn.. �+ i 4�. Y •: x... •5s:'^ n ...'in. iCJf •i ... >. d' FIRE DISTRICT *1 ANNEXATION STUDY Study Area: Street System Lung Nome= Study Area Boundary NORTH CCA Inc HUGH G. GOLDSMITH 8 ASSOC.,INC. STALZER It ASSOCIATES TDA INC. ATTACHMENT A FIGURE 1 I Glendale b rn1 111/ ING C WAN ,ao hi, ST � I TV RInG WU Y �� S`� \ , ©II lu uq II I III �I II III ���� III � • I• III liillll. j II n ice � I II X111 III ;: !I li '� I r�►���I•,� Ilmiluu Len,��t g ,38 5T I I -+r911 Arldm II 111111 !' I l llllllllln en IIIIi1111g111 III IIU I'dlllllllll IuIIl11► 11 1 �u�llulll 11 1111 II III 11111h utllllll 1 ll I� I fill IIM II411i1p I III II 7 ' C1 N ' • I 0€ 6Z 8L LZ 9Z 5Z bZ EZ I ZZ �III111111111111111IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII11111111111 :i •...�'�'..I�z".• ,. C' �T�...'�- `YA ?.G"dt�.!?SKA9�N.. .r.. . • ..�� . fi `u �, 1 111111111111 I I I I 1 1111111111 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1111 I I 1 111111 I I 1-1.411.1111111 iilil l i l . ili 1 2 3 4_ - -: - -: ---- _._..- _ _.:_8 9 10 11 II THIS .MICROF.ILMMDOCUMENT IS LESS CLEAR THAN THIS :NOTICE, IT IS-DUE TO 'Z QTHE !UALITY OF THE ORIGINAL DOCUMENT 'a min IIII iIII IIII IIII IIII IIII iiI) aIIII Jiii 1111 Ilil III IIII 1111 1Se 1-wI111111 iiA III I 1 LI 111 111111111111111111111111 IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII1111111111111111111111111111111111111111 1 MAOEIN 12 • I, FIRE DISTRICT *1 ANNEXATION STUDY Study Area: Sub -Area Boundaries J.egend 1 Study Area Boundary Sub -Area Boundary Sub -Area 1 North Industrial 2 Sub -Area 2 East I -5 3 Sub -Area 3 Empire Way South 4. Sub Area 4 Allentown NORTH CCA Inc HUGH G. GOLDSMITH & ASSOC.,INC. STALZER dl ASSOCIATES TDA INC. ATTACHMENT B FIGURE 2 !+ II : IIIII II i 1 n l ;� �I II11 I 1 I` I' I I! 1111!111 III ..Il III iii IIIII IIII Ii I1 11lu Ill gllll IIII ��III!IIII!!,l!11III�,: ,,151111I,0111m11 II III II IIIllllll' ,,� I II I' I i I IIIIMIiII I IIIIIII III, Sr 500 ST 50? ST 570 574 5:P ir FIRE DISTRICT # ANNEXATION STUDY King County Comprehensive Plan - Urban Highline Community Plan J..eaend Industry Light Manufacturing Remaining Study Area Undesignated \ NORTH CCA Inc HUGH G. GOLDSMITH & ASSOC.,INC. STALZER & ASSOCIATES WA INC. ATTACHMENT C FIGURE J 11111111111111111111111111111 11111!1111111111111110111 - 11-111111I!IIIII I�I.�I�I 1 I I L4.111 u h li 1 I III I II ' IeTNf INCN 1 2 3 - , _ 4..- ..... 5 - . :---- - ... -- _. - - - -- . _.__. j._:�... 9 • 10 • 11 "' UM "' 12 \ IF THIS IS LESS y : CLEAR THAN THIS NOTICE , IT IS-DUE TO 0£ ez 6e LE 9z GE 1 7z ez; zz IZ THE SUALITY OF THE ORIGINAL DOCUMENT e a L 9 s , e z 1 WW 0 1111111111111 1t1111I1111j1111I111111111I111111111 11IIIIIIII 11111111611�11111111111 Ii111111 i III MI MI iiiiiii iinl1111lmi 111117111111 1111 iii IIII Im�l iil I il611111111iII1111I1111IIIIII1111I1111I1111IIIIIlIIIIIIU1h1111111111111111I111nIIIII l IIII. • • 0 IS MS INCH 1 2 3 j 1 I L1 , . , • I 1 1 I 1 I 1 1 1 I 1 I 1 I 1 I 1 I 1 I 1 I 1 I 1 I 1 I 1 I 1 I 1 1 1 I 1 I 1 I 1 I 1 I lit 1 I 111.111-111111111111141111_111 1 '4•VgalvV8trelli • 1 ,,t,,,14*,p„,ii1;47;.;.■,.N, , ... - F4 A R • . _ip_iiifilillipAiludillpitililintliilittplIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII .6 7 \ la 9 ' 10 • 11 MADE IN GERMMY 12 , , \1IF THIS MICROFILMED DOCUMENT IS LESS \ , CLEAR THAN THIS•NOTICE, IT ISDUE TO oe 6z ed L 9Z 9 F 17Z . CZ 1 THE UALITY OF THE ORIGINAL DOCUMENT V 'W Itn,ilviitolittili0 11111101E11 Ilp 111111 lifF1111 1 .,.. ;: ,.''!'777:7777 49....t 7 f . ::':';'''''-1 1 :.';' , '''';.-4 1. ":'.;:';':': .. . 0 .c.?;. „ ,. , ' v.'' Y'!,.. ,,--•,, j ........ ,.,. , ... .,...., .....,,,,,, . ... . .... ...,... ..... ... . ..........,,,......,.... ...........--............. . . . ,.. . . . • • .. . • \ e Lss FIRE DISTRICT #1 ANNEXATION STUDY Existing Land Use and Community Facilities Lexcnd Single Family Multifamily Commercial Industrial Mixed Industrial/ Commercial Park Community Facility Community Center Library Swimming Pool NORTH CCA Inc HUGH G. GOLDSMITH & ASSOC.,INC. STALZER a ASSOCIATES TDA INC. ATTACHMENT E FIGURE 7 J '!- 66- . . . „ - 0 10 THI INCH 1 3 4- 0€ 6Z 13C Z2 9Z SZ 1 7Z ZZ ZZ LZ A , V ` THE SUALITY OF THE ORIGINAL DOCUMENT CLEAR THAN THIS NOTICE, IT IS-DUE TO IF THIS MICROFILMED DOCUMENT IS LESS 1111 1111 111( 1111 1111 IR111111111 11114 riff 11111111 111111111 111111111 111111111 111111111 111111111 1111111111111111111111111111111111111111_, .11111111 I I I I I 11111 1 all LI I I 1 I 11 1 1 1111111141 1 6 . , 7 . . 8 , '--,, • 9 10 • 11 MADE IN OF.111AANY 12 1771 FIRE DISTRICT *1 ANNEXATION STUDY Existing Zoning and Shoreline Designations *WWI Maximum Density Multifamily/Professional Office EMU =CZ Suburban Residential Single Family Residential Medium Density Multifamily High Density Multifamily Community/Neighborhood Business Light Manufacturing Heavy Manufacturing K NOMN Manufacturing Park CD Potential Zones King County Shoreline Program %, MN\ , Rural • • Urban NORTH CCA Inc HUGH G. GOLDSMITH & ASSOC.,INC. STALZER & ASSOCIATES TDA INC. ATTACHMENT F FIGURE 8 • 6 L, 9 4 7 rm . , , „ • „„.„-•••• - - _...._ • I z C., Ui = < 11 u 2 0 in in Oil) 4( 0 • cc L i ° z s r . i = 0 4 < 0 0 i■ 0 Ui cc 0 LT. cc 2 'fe . A .-1 , :•-• 1 • +:•÷4t. 1 ' ' ' • i+4'44: :., , ,„ • z - "-• 44 - :51 • " l 0. 1 : 0 4 70 . . 2.*:* f 0 % . *+ ..444.? i+. .4+ " etx4G 15 0 • t - W . ••":4 :- f,.. ..o. .40 4'4+ f:411,4:+ • r*.r..." X' S.:".45:4; 5.; ••• . • ••. • 0£ 6Z 9G LZ 9Z 5Z hZ EZ: __ Z 111111111111111111111111111111I11111111II111I1 111II111I1 111111 I I II I I I I I I I I 111 I IC 1111111111111111111111111111111111111111 1111111110111H11111111111111 4 1111111 0 teTHS INCH 1 2 !IF THIS MICROFILMED DOCUMENT IS LESS CLEAR THAN THIS NOTICE, IT IS-DUE TO Lz THE UALITY OF THE ORIGINAL DOCUMENT ilm 1111 1111 1111 Ilii IIII IIII INl 111111111�111i IIII1111 IIILIIII III IIII,IIII IIII lllllilll 1111 �.r III >.F yS''r'%4 �' a III I I 1 1 I 11111 II111 I ILI�I 1111111 I I_II 1111_111 111111 111111 01 IIIIIII 1111111 _I �— I—I—�_ 1 W 1—I— 4 � �� 1 � 1111111 11111 2 9 • 10 • 11 N4pQIHSg111ANV 12 68 L 9 5 b E Z L. WW 0 Ilillll(Il11Ii111i11111111111 IIIIIiiiiIIIIiliiiiIIiiiliiiiIIiiiIiuillillllllllllliliii1 {1111h111�. ��. ,;. xt � err >. �i a "•; < r ����4�s } �I�'+�ATI I %M+ a ING COUNTY • • FIRE DISTRICT *1 ANNEXATION STUDY Tukwila Proposed Zoning/ Sub -Area 3 jLenend 111111111111 Single - family Residence Low Apartments Multiple Residence /High Density Regional Retail Business Light Industry Heavy Industry CCA Inc HUGH G. GOLDSMITH & ASSOC.,INC. STALZER & ASSOCIATES TDA INC. ATTACHMENT K FIGURE ti • Iti t:l:•: �4 :a. FIRE DISTRICT *1 ANNEXATION STUDY Tukwila Proposed Zoning/ Sub -Area 2 & 4 Legend r.•.• ;r •. •. MEE IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIIU Single - family Residence Low Apartments Multiple Residence /High Density Professional and Office Community Retail Business Regional Retail Business Light Industry Heavy Industry T NORTH CCA Inc HUGH G. GOLDSMITH & ASSOC.,INC. STALZER & ASSOCIATES TDA INC. ATTACHMENT L FIGURE .r, r 4w tj t.75' d fY -∎• d' 1ft: II�III�II I1III1III �' II�III II II�III �III�fII �III�I I _ I�I�I�I�I__�I�I�..ill�lll —__�I I�III�I I I I I � I I I � I I I � I I I � I I — ` 1 I IJ � 1j111Il I I � I I I � I I I � I I I � I I I � I I I � I I I � I I I � I I I � I I I � I I I � I I I � I I 0 ,STHSINCN 1 2 3 6 7 8 9 10 • 11 "' KR "' 12 \ IF THIS MICROFILMED DOCUMENT IS LESS CLEAR THAN THIS.NOTICE, IT IS TO '\ OE ez eL tz ez sz tiz CZ ' zz �z g THE sUALITY OF THE ORIGINAL DOCUMENT a e L 9 s a e z 1 Ww 0 IIIIIIIIIIullliinllulllllllllillnllllullnlllulllnllllulln11Ill�lll1�l IIIIrIII IUI MI in IIII IIII IIII IIIIIIIIIIIIII IIII Itll IIII IIII IIItiIIIIIIIIII illl IIII lilt iitillllll � ii--- llltlllllllltlllllllllllltllllllllltlll l lllllllll l lllllllllllllllttllllllllillllllllllllll _. ING C • UNTY 0 IC MB INCH 1 2 111111111111111111111111 1111111111111111111111111111111 . 1 111111111111111 ill 1�1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I- 1 LIT.I 111 '1 8 9 • 10 • 11 l'ANINKM'ANY 12 V IF THIS MICROFILMED. DOCUMENT IS LESS CLEAR THAN THISNOTICE, IT IS-DUE TO THEE UALITY OF'THE.ORIGINAL DOCUMENT oe 6Z 8G LZ 9Z GZ nZ CZ ZZ lZ 11111111111111111ii 111111111111111111111111111111111111111111liilii111i1i111i1i li1iir1ii nii nn nn 11111►i 11111811 liiii 111111111 irii iii nn rm iili UU 111 i 1 j 6 8 L 9 S h C Z I WN 0 inI 11Inhn11n111nn11n11ui>11i16 nnl11nl111111 n nlriulii::hn11un h ilil FIRE DISTRICT *1 ANNEXATION STUDY HEIGHT EXCEPTION AREA UP TO & INCLUDING 115' NORTH CCA Inc HUGH G. GOLDSMITH 8 ASSOC.,INC. STALZER 8 ASSOCIATES TDA INC. ATTACHMENT M FIGURE • r� ✓i. QA � 1 ft. S 1r / ,1, 0 .. • 0 ;V • FIRE DISTRICT *1 ANNEXATION STUDY Proposed Comprehensive Land Use Plan Designations t Lund ii ❖: ❖ NORTH Low Density Residential High Density Residential Professional /Office Commercial Light Industrial Heavy Industrial Parks and Open Space Public Facility CCA Inc HUGH G. GOLDSMITH & ASSOC.,INC. STALZER & ASSOCIATES TDA INC. "1 :3 dr ,.ej+' + i y, sa2.,t II�III�III�III�II' �III�III�III�I II�III�III�III�IIII�III� ''�I�I�III�III�I ICI IIII 0 1O THE INCH 1 2 3 - 5 ... \ ' IF THIS MICROFILMED DOCUMENT IS LESS I ' ? CLEAR THAN THIS:NOTICE, IT IS-DUE TO OE 6Z ee Lz 9Z SE +,z ez; zz tz THE QUALITY OF THE ORIGINAL DOCUMENT e e 9 s e z WY1 p I Ilullnnllnllunlnnllil�llnllnnlli�lh�n IIIIrIIIlllll IIII IIII IIII HO i mini Iill IIII IIII�IIII iIhIIIIIIII�IIIIIIIII�III I irll l�ll�llll IIII III ►�1II IIII�IIIIIIIII�II�llllllllulllllllll�ll��lll� J�llllulfinllllllll��� IIIII�IIIIIIIII�IIillllll�l II ,rte R� p ar ga tY =rE to- a .23 "� { �3 �tz � ;Tro s J. t ' + +�t- r K 4 r,°r I_11.I1_,1�l�III���I�IJIIJ�IIII IIll�I IJ__!1l�l�iII IIIIIII II IIII' 'IIIII'II IIII'IIIIII III�III 6 _ .-- ......- .7 _... - - - � ... _. 8 9 10 • 11 MME INOEI1MNY 12 .:iJSin'��.lr^.'Mi r.'l:41�k� • ATTACHMENT I FIGURE 9 1