HomeMy WebLinkAboutPermit 88-02-CPA - SCHNEIDER - ANNEXATION COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT88-02-cpa 88-2-CPA
shneider annexation
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT
COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLAN AMENDMENT
CITY OF TUKWILA
WASHINGTON
ORDINANCE NO.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLAN AMENDMENT
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA, WASHINGTON, ENACTED PURSUANT TO
RCW 35A.14.330, ADOPTING ZONING REGULATIONS AND ADOPTING A ZONING MAP
TO PROVIDE FOR AN AREA OF APPROXIMATELY 29 ACRES LOCATED SOUTH OF
SOUTH 178TH STREET AND EAST OF I -5 AND PROVIDING THAT SAID AREA SHALL
BECOME SUBJECT TO SAID ZONING REGULATIONS UPON ANNEXATION TO THE CITY
OF TUKWILA.
WHEREAS, it is reasonable to expect that the hereinafter described area
may at some time in the future be annexed to the City of Tukwila by the direct
petition method, and
WHEREAS, the property owners in the area have requested an amendment to
the Comprehensive Plan designation and pre - annexation zoning, and
WHEREAS, the SEPA responsible official has made a determination of
nonsignificance, and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on June 23, 1988,
and recommended that the Comprehensive Policy Plan Map remain unchanged as to
the subject property and recommended the adoption of a land use plan and
zoning regulation in the event of annexation, and
WHEREAS, two public hearings upon said proposal were held upon proper
notice before the Tukwila City Council on August 1, 1988, and September 6,
1988, and
WHEREAS, the City Council determined to adopt the findings and
recommendations of the Planning Commission for the reasons given by the
Planning Commission,
3964C2
NOW, THEREFORE, THE TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Area Affected. The area subject to this Ordinance is located
south of South 178th Street and east of I -5, is legally described on
Exhibit A, and is as shown on Exhibit B.
Section 2. Comprehensive Plan Map Not Amended. The City of Tukwila
Comprehensive Policy Plan designation for the subject area shall remain
unchanged and the Plan Map shall continue to indicate single family residence.
Section 3. Zoning Code and Map Adopted Upon Annexation. At such time as
the area described in Exhibit A, 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 subject to the Zoning Code
of the City of Tukwila and shall be zoned R -1 - 9.6 (Single Family Residence -
9600 square feet) as shown on Exhibit B hereto, said zoning map and zoning
Page 1
regulations herein adopted to be an extension to the zoning regulations for
the City of Tukwila.
Section 4. A certified copy of this ordinance shall be filed in the
Office of the King County Department of Records and Elections.
Section 5. This ordinance shall be in force and effect five days after
publication of the attached Summary which is hereby approved.
PASSED ,1_4(4.," CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA, WASHINGTON, this / -
7 day
of 1988 .
ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED:
CI
z / /W
GyjL INE ANDERSON
APPRO _' AS TO FORM:
OFFIC .S F
3964C2
CI
By
FI i' WITH THE CITY CLERK: 4?-/- 88
PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL: 9- /9-68
PUBLISHED: 9'- .Z8- $8
EFFECTIVE DATE: /d - - 88
ORDINANCE NO.: /177
1 T 7R. G
VAN DUSEN
SCHNEIDER
14 SEP 88 REV.
A parcel of land situated in the west 1/2 of Section 35,
T23N, R4E, W.M. described as follows:
BEGINNING at a POINT being the intersection of the
northerly margin of South 178th Street (formerly known
as P.J. Musiel Co. Rd.) with the west Tine of the east
1/2 of the northwest 1/4 of said Section 35;
thence proceeding in a westerly direction along said
northerly margin to the East Line for Primary State
Highway No. 1, as condemned under King County Superior
Court Cause No. 596587;
thence south along said East Line to its intersection
with the southeasterly margin of Orillia Road Extension
North;
thence northerly along said southeasterly margin, being
the present Tukwila City Boundary, to the west line of
the east 1/2 of the northwest 1/4 of said Section 35;
thence north along said west line to the POINT OF
BEGINNING.
/ 'tERMAN
SCHUENb.CHLER
sis ,1c
\ILA
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Tukwila City Council will conduct a Public
Hearing on the 6th day of September, 1988, at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers
of Tukwila City Hall, 6200 Southcenter Boulevard, to consider the following:
(80 /NT C.9 -6 )
City of Tukwila
6200 Southcenter Boulevard
Tukwila Washington 98188
(206) 433 -1800
Gary L. Vanousen, Mayor
CITY OF TUKWILA
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING BY THE
TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL
Pre - annexation Zoning and Comprehensive Plan Amendments for
approximately 3.2 acres of land, located south of South 178th
Street and east of I -5, from single - family residential to
professional /office. (Second Public Hearing)
Any and all interested persons are invited to be present to voice approval,
disapproval, or opinions on same.
CITY OF TUKWILA
Maxine Anderson
City Clerk
Published Valley Daily News - August 19, 1988
uj )--17er e
1/4/
1 24t4-s4,140„
d4 -5 41... ■44t4l dteve .4e.v
1 41-ct 4 0--e-tv
„Ndeipc.e ,oe
,-;‘
-- /Ztt: 7 Z
WI- •
4
a/ed04
76Filet.a_poei)(
' ti&
e4re-ee,
..�.. v,�..e_. r:.ituWf;':SV srtt%n¢+.`w : t45
!Z—�c. - .cam eV/ �_�� _
( 1 1 % //u-ve.e-;t..¢-104a-
04 1 -f-et4z, //t-e4/ -.7 /iced 4'44 ,(.
9 at /Lc
/t.d
(t"-t-1()
40eL r 1-9 al; /
ta ,da-Z
7r/tt-' ■:
/lte-ou.4)-4o
ee444- ,rud_t•eJL d‘.4
4 4)ec 0 -
e4
ey2
/2.17 ea-A-tee-¢— a-/e-cd.e4/
COX•aae/tei
tt-geoe. leoPt 'grPg;e,
/1-Rot4w.C. 4tig_ e-tetzL
t
445(
. ,;7 4
,f;e092
4g./ay
a.,14_t_teot),
?ocgedt'44 fr=4-44e 1/4- /0 c24
44-.4-pee, leL.,ttfr
a_0
&tje7AACC:d 7.0•C4_. ea•Oee
Y4
t qd4>cl
le-ot-s^e, 74- /2e-at,
d teez-€.4-4-c- .6(-1.tgs
e44
t ■ I ePet.t
fr oxg-:;/fatage 4. 4:4 .tv-ALef,
"d144 /&AJAPia.
/ep
T Tukwila
City o u a
6200 Southcenter Boulevard
Tukwila Washington 98188
(2bb) 433-1800
Gary L. VanDusen, Mayor
CITY OF TUKWILA
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING BY THE
TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Tukwila City Council will conduct a Public
Hearing on the 1st day of August, 1988, at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers
of Tukwila City Hall, 6200 Southcenter Boulevard, to consider the following:
Pre- annexation Zoning and Comprehensive Plan Amendments for
approximately 3.2 acres of land, located south of South 178th
Street and east of I -5, from single- family residential to
professional /office. (First Public Hearing)
Any and all interested persons are invited to be present to voice approval,
disapproval, or opinions on same.
Published Valley Daily News - July 15, 1988
CITY OF TUKWILA
Maxine Anderson
City Clerk
1
Planning Commission
June 23, 1988
Page 2
Darlene West, 5212 S. 164th spoke in opposition to the request.
She concurred with Ann Nichols remarks and added that the
topography of the area would lend itself to residential develop-
ment.
Mr. Richard Goe, 5112 S. 163rd Place, Tukwila, spoke in opposi-
tion to the request stating that much time and effort went into
the process of developing the Comprehensive Plan and not enough
justification has been offered to change the designation of this
property. He noted that its location is a natural buffer to
noise of the freeway.
Discussion ensued on the proposal.
MR. CAGLE MOVED AND MR. HAGGERTON SECONDED A MOTION THAT THE
PLANNING COMMISSION SUPPORT THE ANNEXATION BUT OPPOSE THE CHANGE
IN ZONING AND COMP PLAN AMENDMENT FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS:
1. THE CITY IS SHORT OF SINGLE - FAMILY RESIDENTIAL AREA;
2. THE LARGE SIZE OF THIS PARTICULAR PARCEL;
3. THERE IS STILL ADEQUATE PROPERTY AVAILABLE WITHIN THE CITY
OF TUKWILA THAT IS PROPERLY ZONED TODAY THAT COULD BE USE
FOR PROFESSIONAL OFFICE TYPE BUILDING DEVELOPMENT.
THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
The Commission concluded that due to the lateness of the hour,
the Sidewalk agenda item be moved to a future meeting.
88 -1 -SPE - EMBASSY SUITES - Request for cooperative parking
agreement.
Jack Pace, Senior Planner, reviewed the staff report for the
proposal recommending approval of the request.
Mr. Richard Chapen, 2100 Koll Center, Bellevue, WA 98004, the
applicant, briefly explained the reasons for the proposal.
Mr. Dean Powell, 7425 S. Harl 06, Tempe, AZ reviewed the proposal
explaining later details to be included.
Discussion ensued on the proposal.
MR. HAGGERTON MOVED AND MR. KIRSOP SECONDED A MOTION, BASED ON
THE STAFF'S FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS, IT IS RECOMMENDED TO
APPROVE THE REQUEST FOR COOPERATIVE PARKING AGREEMENT BASED ON
236 ROOMS; THE AREA OF THE RESTAURANT, LOUNGE AND KITCHEN NOT TO
EXCEED 5141 SQUARE FEET; MEETING ROOM AREA OF 3700 SQUARE FEET;
THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Planning Commission
June 23, 1988
Page 3
PROVIDE A MINIMUM OF 263 PARKING SPACES; AND A WRITTEN AGREEMENT
PROVIDING A STUDY TO BE CONDUCTED ONE YEAR FOLLOWING THE OPENING
OF THE HOTEL AND VALLEY PARKING OR ADDITIONS TO THE PARKING
STRUCTURE BE PROVIDED SHOULD THE STUDY WARRANT IT.
Mr. Kirsop was excused at 10:55 p.m.
DR -12 -85 - TUKWILA MINI - STORAGE - Request for a revision to June
1985 approved mini - storage proposal, to allow phasing of project
and interim design of project.
Mr. Carl Tollifson, 720 Industry Drive, represented the applicant
stated he concurred with the staff report.
MR. HAMILTON MOVED AND MR. CAGLE SECONDED A MOTION THAT BASED ON
THE STAFF'S FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS, TO ACCEPT THE REVISION TO
JUNE, 1985 APPROVED MINI - STORAGE PROPOSAL TO ALLOW PHASING OF
PROJECT AND INTERIM DESIGN OF PROJECT, SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING
CONDITIONS:
1. Substitute Northern Red Oak (minimum 2 1/2" caliper) and
grass along Interurban Avenue to complement planned street
trees.
2. Move rhododendrons back behind tam junipers and supplement
with shrubs to provide a solid landscape border.
3. Specify variety of heathers to be used in containers to
provide sufficient height and bulk.
MOTION UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
DIRECTOR'S REPORT
Jack Pace, Senior Planner reviewed with the Commission scheduling
of future work sessions and meetings.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 11:07 pm.
Respectfully submitted,
Joanne Johnson
Secretary
MINUTES
City of Tukwila
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
6200 Southcenter Boulevard
Tukwila, Washington 98188
(206) 433 -1849
CITY OF TUKWILA
PLANNING COMMISSION
JUNE 23, 1988
The meeting was called to order at 8:00 p.m. by Mr. Coplen,
Chairman. Members present were Messrs. Coplen, Kirsop, Cagle,
Haggerton and Hamilton.
Mr. Larson and Mr. Knudson were absent.
Representing the staff were Jack Pace, Vernon Umetsu, Rebecca Fox
and Joanne Johnson.
MR. HAGGERTON MOVED THAT THE MAY 26, 1988 MINUTES BE APPROVED AS
CORRECTED. MR. CAGLE SECONDED THE MOTION WHICH PASSED UNANIMOU-
SLY.
88 -2 -CPA & 88 -2 -R - GERALD E. SCHNEIDER Request for:
1. Comprehensive Land Use Plan Map amendment from Low Density
Residential to Office.
2. Pre - annexation zoning designation to P -0 (Professional
Office without Residential)
3. Rezone from R -A (Agricultural) to P -0 (Professional Office
without Residential)
Rebecca Fox, Associate Planner, reviewed the staff report,
pointing out the site of the proposal on a vicinity map.
Mr. Brad Collins, 365 Erickson Avenue N.E. #326, Bainbridge
Island, WA 98110 spoke in behalf of the applicant and other
interested property owners. He outlined the proposal on a site
plan which was entered into the record as Exhibit "B" and
requested approval of the proposal.
Ms. Ann Nichols, P.O. Box 88050, Tukwila, represented Mario
Segale spoke in opposition to the proposal. She said they are not
opposed to the annexation, but the present residential designa-
tion is appropriate for this area and therefore, they did not
sign the annexation petition.
Planning Commission
June 23, 1988
Page 2
Discussion ensued on the proposal.
THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Darlene West, 5212 S. 164th spoke in opposition to the request.
She concurred with Ann Nichols remarks and added that the
topography of the area would lend itself to residential develop-
ment.
Mr. Richard Goe, 5112 S. 163rd Place, Tukwila, spoke in opposi-
tion to the request stating that much time and effort went into
the process of developing the Comprehensive Plan and not enough
justification has been offered to change the designation of this
property. He noted that its location is a natural buffer to
noise of the freeway.
MR. CAGLE MOVED AND MR. HAGGERTON SECONDED A MOTION THAT THE
PLANNING COMMISSION SUPPORT THE ANNEXATION BUT OPPOSE THE CHANGE
IN ZONING AND COMP PLAN AMENDMENT FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS:
1. THE CITY IS SHORT OF SINGLE - FAMILY RESIDENTIAL AREA;
2. THE LARGE SIZE OF THIS PARTICULAR PARCEL;
3. THERE IS STILL ADEQUATE PROPERTY AVAILABLE WITHIN THE CITY
OF TUKWILA THAT IS PROPERLY ZONED TODAY THAT COULD BE USE
FOR PROFESSIONAL OFFICE TYPE BUILDING DEVELOPMENT.
The Commission concluded that due to the lateness of the hour,
the Sidewalk agenda item be moved to a future meeting.
88 -1 -SPE - EMBASSY SUITES - Request for cooperative parking
agreement.
Jack Pace, Senior Planner, reviewed the staff report for the
proposal recommending approval of the request.
Mr. Richard Chapen, 2100 Koll Center, Bellevue, WA 98004, the
applicant, briefly explained the reasons for the proposal.
Mr. Dean Powell, 7425 S. Harl #6, Tempe, AZ reviewed the proposal
explaining later details to be included.
Discussion ensued on the proposal.
MR. HAGGERTON MOVED AND MR. KIRSOP SECONDED A MOTION, BASED ON
THE STAFF'S FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS, IT IS RECOMMENDED TO
APPROVE THE REQUEST FOR COOPERATIVE PARKING AGREEMENT BASED ON
236 ROOMS; THE AREA OF THE RESTAURANT, LOUNGE AND KITCHEN NOT TO
EXCEED 5141 SQUARE FEET; MEETING ROOM AREA OF 3700 SQUARE FEET;
Planning Commission
June 23, 1988
Page 3
PROVIDE A MINIMUM OF 263 PARKING SPACES; AND A WRITTEN AGREEMENT
PROVIDING A STUDY TO BE CONDUCTED ONE YEAR FOLLOWING THE OPENING
OF THE HOTEL AND VALLEY PARKING OR ADDITIONS TO THE PARKING
STRUCTURE BE PROVIDED SHOULD THE STUDY WARRANT IT.
THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Mr. Kirsop was excused at 10:55 p.m.
DR -12 -85 - TUKWILA MINI - STORAGE - Request for a revision to June
1985 approved mini - storage proposal, to allow phasing of project
and interim design of project.
Mr. Carl Tollifson, 720 Industry Drive, represented the applicant
stated he concurred with the staff report.
MR. HAMILTON MOVED AND MR. CAGLE SECONDED A MOTION THAT BASED ON
THE STAFF'S FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS, TO ACCEPT THE REVISION TO
JUNE, 1985 APPROVED MINI - STORAGE PROPOSAL TO ALLOW PHASING OF
PROJECT AND INTERIM DESIGN OF PROJECT, SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING
CONDITIONS:
1. Substitute Northern Red Oak (minimum 2 1/2" caliper) and
grass along Interurban Avenue to complement planned street
trees.
2. Move rhododendrons back behind tam junipers and supplement
with shrubs to provide a solid landscape border.
3. Specify variety of heathers to be used in containers to
provide sufficient height and bulk.
MOTION UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
DIRECTOR'S REPORT
Jack Pace, Senior Planner reviewed with the Commission scheduling
of future work sessions and meetings.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 11:07 pm.
Respectfully submitted,
Joanne Johnson
Secretary
• •
1
1.
•
•
•.
.. 4. .*
•
/ . I •• • 4
, ‘1,/ •
RETAIL ; '3
LEVITZ
• ... ....
SOLID WASTE
„ .
NORTH 1" = 400
SCHNEIDER ANNEXATION N
EXISTING LAND Lira
A. •
•
• i
•
VA? 63
!i!
3 .
...• / /INDUS'
..GAC.0 .
/ k
1'4
„A
• Lv
. ,
1
;
:74
_11
RE 11,
HEARING DATE:
FILE NUMBER:
APPLICANT:
'REQUEST:
LOCATION:
ACREAGE:
COMPREHENSIVE
PLAN DESIGNATION:
ZONING DISTRICT:
SEPA
DETERMINATION:
ATTACHMENTS:
City 6 Tukwila
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
6200 Southcenter Boulevard
Tukwila, Washington 98188
(206) 433 -1849
,..vw 7nn+A•rteunfb'�`!•!';X[H.
STAFF REPORT
to the Planning Commission
Prepared June 17, 1988
June 23, 1988
88 -2 -CPA, 88 -2 -R
Gerald E. Schneider
T. taxz�M«. v�v«> n,.. .. ?vn +A °zlr�`: �. ".F.S.S' - , " ..r `;� %•: � ,
1. Comprehensive Land Use Plan map amendment for approxi-
mately 32.24 acres from Low Density Residential Office.
2. Pre- annexation zoning designation for approximately 29.03
acres'from RS -9600 to P -0 (Professional Office without
Residential).
3. Rezone approximately 4.84 acres from R -A (Agricultural to
P -0 (Professional Office without Residential).
South of South 178th Street and east of I -5
Approximately 35 acres
Tukwila Comp Plan designation - Low Density Residential
(no King County Comprehensive Plan designation)
Tukwila Zoning - R -A district (Agricultural)
County Zoning - R -S 9600 (Suburban Residential)
DNS issued on May 11, 1988. Addendum issued June 9, 1988.
(A) Tukwila Comprehensive Land Use Plan Map
(B) Applicant's Written Submittal - Comprehensive Plan
Amendment
(C) Additional Noise Level Data
(D) EPA Noise Chart
(E) Vicinity Zoning
(F) Applicant's Written Submittal - Rezone
STAFF REPORT to the
Planning Commission
VICINITY /SITE INFORMATION
BACKGROUND
FINDINGS
88 -2 -CPA: Gerald E. Schneider
Page 2
1. Existing Development: The site is primarily vacant, except for five single -
family residences in the northern portion of the subject site. I -5 forms
the area's western boundary, acting as a distinct point of separation
between land to the west which is Comprehensive Plan designated, zoned and
developed as low- intensity residential (single - family), and the subject
property. While the subject property has both the Comprehensive Plan desig-
nation and zoning for single - family use, it has not been developed for that
use and remains largely vacant. The freeway played a role in this pattern,
serving as a visual and spatial separation between housing on the west hill
and the undeveloped subject property.
2. Surrounding Land Use: Most of the surrounding property is vacant. Agricul-
tural land is located to the east and the I -5 right -of -way lies to the west.
The King County transfer station is in close proximity to the south.
3. Terrain: The site slopes from west to east, with the steepest slopes in
excess of 60% near the center of the eastern edge.
4. Vegetation: The site contains a range of vegetation including deciduous
trees, evergreens and shrubs. A pond approximately 40 feet in diameter lies
at the bottom of the steep slope area near the eastern boundary of the site.
Wet soil plants and water plants grow in and near the pond.
5. Public Facilities: While no utilities are currently on the vacant portion
of the site, adequate utility systems exist nearby for residential or office
uses.
The applicant's request has several parts, including annexing 29.03 acres to
Tukwila. This action will be reviewed by the City Council. The applicant has
further requested a Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment for the property to be
annexed, as well as approximately four acres already in Tukwila. The applicant
also seeks pre- annexation zoning for that land to be annexed to Tukwila and a
rezone for land already in Tukwila.
This area is in the Highline Community Plan and has no King County Comprehensive
Plan designation. As shown in Attachment A, Tukwila's Comprehensive Land Use
Plan Map designates this area as Low Density Residential with special environ-
mental considerations for steep slopes.
The City of Tukwila has received some rezone and Comprehensive Plan Map inquir-
ies for more intensive uses in the immediate vicinity of the subject property.
However, no formal application or proposals have been submitted for review at
this time.
STAFF REPORT to the 88- 2 -CP!r Gerald E. Schneider
Planning Commission Page 3
An update of the Comprehensive Plan was originally scheduled for this area in
1988. The work plan, however, was changed due to the large number of annexation
requests. The Southwest Tukwila Study was intended to address short- and long-
term planning issues including land uses, transportation and open space. The
study was to involve the community in discussing these issues.
This report is divided into three sections. The first section briefly reviews
the annexation request. The second section discusses the request for a Compre-
hensive Plan Amendment. The last section reviews the zoning issues including:
(1) the proposed zoning upon annexation (pre- annexation zoning), and (2) the
rezone of the area already in Tukwila. Both the Comprehensive Plan Amendment
and zoning requests will follow a quasi - judicial process. The Planning Commis-
sion will make its recommendation to the City Council and the City Council will
then hold its two public hearings.
ANNEXATION
The applicant seeks to annex 29.03 acres to Tukwila. The property lies in
Tukwila's Planning Area and has a Low - Density Residential designation. State
law requires the City Council to hold two meetings of its own on the annexation
request.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT
The decision criteria for Comprehensive Plan Amendments are listed below in bold
and are followed by a discussion of the proposal. A Comprehensive Plan Amend-
ment is justified if one of the two criteria below is met. The more significant
the change, the greater will be the burden of showing that the change is justi-
fied and in conformance with the overall Comprehensive Plan.
1. Unforeseen changes in circumstances have occurred in community conditions
that justify a Comprehensive Plan redesignation of the subject property or
existing plan policies.
In the written submittal (Attachment B), the applicant has indicated three
"unforeseen" changes - two in transportation policies and one Comprehensive
Plan change - which have affected the property and its viability for low -
density residential use. Planning staff has summarized them below and
provided discussion.
First, the applicant states, Tukwila's most recent Transportation Improve-
ment Plan identifies a four -lane limited access highway connecting the South
188th freeway interchange with Southcenter Parkway. A likely alignment runs
through the southeast portion of the property. Second, 57th Avenue South
and South 178th have been upgraded from collector arterials to the equival-
ent of secondary arterials in Tukwila's current Circulation Plan.
STAFF REPORT to the
Planning Commission
88-2 -CPA: Gerald E. Schneider
Page 4
Additionally, the applicant indicates that the Martin property, at the
southwest corner of South 180th and Southcenter Parkway, received a com-
prehensive plan change in 1987 from low- density residential to office
(86 -19 -CPA: Martin).
Finally, the applicant mentions Design Review approval for an office devel-
opment north of the subject property on South 178th Street.
The nearby Comprehensive Plan Amendment may meet the criteria for "unfore-
seen changed circumstances ". The office development north of South 178th
Street does not meet that criterion because the development conforms to the
"office" designation on the Comprehensive Plan Map. Improvements that are
permitted under the Comprehensive Plan do not constitute an "unforeseen"
change in circumstances.
The (four -lane) 188th Connector, discussed by the applicant, was initially
incorporated into the Transportation Improvement Plan for construction in
1990. A probable alignment runs through the southeast portion of the sub-
ject site of the west property boundary and along the north property line.
The project, however, has dropped in priority; currently no funds have been
set aside and no firm construction date set.
There have been very recent discussions regarding a new access ramp for I -5
at South 178th. If built, this alignment would replace the South 188th
connector discussed above. This project, however, is in the very early
discussion phase.
The City's current functional classification road map has upgraded 57th
Avenue South and South 178th Street from the collector arterials shown in
the Comprehensive Plan, to the equivalent of a secondary arterial. The
Comprehensive Transportation Improvement Plan envisions improving 57th
Avenue South to a minimum four -lane secondary arterial in 1990.
South 178th Street was upgraded from a collector arterial to the equivalent
of a secondary arterial in the Circulation Plan and has been improved to a
4- and 5 -lane roadway along the northern property boundary.
The housing mix in the City consists of 65% multi - family and 35% single-
family. Within the City's planning area there is limited amounts of vacant
land available for new single - family development. As of 1986, there were
136.3 acres of vacant land zoned for single - family use in Tukwila. The
applicant's proposal does not directly affect the existing supply of land
since only 4.8 acres are in the City.
However, the large issue involves this whole hillside which is shown on the
Comprehensive Plan as single - family. If the amendment is approved, other
requests will follow, further reducing the opportunity for new single - family
development in the City.
STAFF REPORT to the
Planning Commission
The applicant has stated:
88 -2 -CPA: Gerald E. Schneider
Page 5
2. Factual evidence supports an additional or changed public need for the pro-
posed designation.
"Much of the office - designated areas of the Comprehensive Plan have now
been developed, and there are few vacant P -0 zoned properties. Noise
levels on the site threaten public health for residential uses."
The applicant has not furnished evidence that much of the area designated
"office" in the Comprehensive Plan and zoned P -0 has been developed. Nor is
there information backing the assertion that additional "office" designated
land is needed due to a diminished supply of "office" designated land. It
should be recalled that when the Comprehensive Plan was updated in 1982, the
location and amount of land designated for various uses was not based solely
on market factors.
The original application provides no evidence to support the assertion that
"noise levels on the site threaten public health for residential use." The
applicant has, however, addressed noise impacts in supplemental
environmental information.
This shows daytime noise level readings which range from a low of 61.7/56
dBa to a high of 71.7/65 dBa. These levels can be expected to increase as
traffic increases on I -5 (Attachment C).
As discussed in the EIS prepared for the Valley View Estates project, the
Federal Environmental Protection Agency's noise guidelines show that noise
levels in excess of 55 dBa can interfere with speech communication. Signi-
ficant adverse noise impacts (primarily speech interference and annoyance)
occur at noise levels of 65 -75 Ldn) (Attachment D).
Comprehensive Plan Policies which are directly applicable to this request
follow. The are further discussed in the applicant's submittal (Attachment B).
Residence Objective 1 (p. 45) - Protect all viable residential
neighborhoods from intrusions by incompatible land uses.
The latest transportation and land use policies for this low density residential
area have not protected residential uses from intrusions. Approving the Com-
prehensive Plan Amendment would further diminish this area's, and the adjacent
area's, opportunity or likelihood of becoming a viable neighborhood.
Natural Environment Policy 1 (p. 24) - Maintain the wooded
character of the steep slopes and upland plateau, and encourage
the use of vegetation in slope stabilization.
-AND-
Open Space Police #1 (p. 34) - Strive to preserve steep hillsides
and wooded areas in a scenic condition. Encourage replanting and
revegetation of denuded areas not in the process of development.
STAFF REPORT to the
Planning Commission
The intent of these policies is to limit the intensity of development on hill-
sides. Generally, single- family development is considered a less intensive use
than office development. The larger issue raised is to what intensity should
the hillside be developed.
CONCLUSIONS
88 -2 -CPA: Gerald E. Schneider
Page 6
Over the years there have been many inquiries regarding more intensive develop-
ment of the subject properties and surrounding area. Recognizing that each
individual decision cumulatively affected the future of the entire area, an
update of the Comprehensive Plan was scheduled in 1988 for Southwest Tukwila.
The Comprehensive Plan update for this area was intended to involve citizens in
a thorough review of the area and its desired future. The work plan, however,
was modified to address several annexation requests and this study was deferred.
The applicant raises "factual" arguments for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment
• based on a lack of Professional Office opportunities and the negative impact of
noise on single - family development potential. Although asserted, these are not
conclusively shown.
However, review of the open space policies does raise questions regarding the
desired intensity of development on hillsides. These questions point to the
fact that the Comprehensive Plan leaves many questions unanswered.
The larger issue remains in determining which uses are desired in the area and
to what intensity. Only at this point will a balance be reached between
providing a range of housing development opportunities and office -type uses.
RECOMMENDATION
It must be recognized that each development decision in the area incrementally
affects the future development potential for remaining adjacent sites. With or
without policy confirmation, land use decisions in one location will de facto
affect opportunities nearby. Tukwila's current Comprehensive Plan provides no
clear policy guidance on these broad - ranging issues. Therefore, it is appropri-
ate for the Planning Commission and City Council to provide direction to the
staff regarding their priorities for the use and development of the hillside.
Accordingly, Planning staff makes no recommendation.
STAFF REPORT to the
Planning Commission
ZONING
88 -2 -CPA: Gerald E. Schneider
Page 7
The applicant desires: 1) a rezone for the property already located in Tukwila,
and 2) pre- annexation zoning for the portion of the property to be annexed.
The Tukwila portion of the property is zoned R -A (Agricultural) and the King
County portion is zoned R -S 9600 (Attachment G). The applicant is requesting
that the entire property be zoned P -0 (Professional Office) without residential
(Attachments E and F).
Although this zoning category normally allows multi - family residential develop-
ment, the applicant is seeking voluntarily to restrict the future use of the
property to office or other permitted non - residential uses (Attachment F). Due
to the impacts of noise in the area, the applicant believes that any residential
use, including multi - family normally allowed in the P -0 zones, is inappropriate.
In mid -1987, the City approved a rezone from R -A (Agricultural) to P -0 (Pro-
fessional Office) without residential at the corner of 180th and Southcenter
Parkway.
REZONE CRITERIA
The City must consider the following criteria (in bold type) in its evaluation
of rezone requests. These criteria shall also apply to the request for pre -
annexation zoning.
1. The use or change in zoning requested shall be in conformity with the
adopted Comprehensive Land Use Policy Plan, the provisions of this title,
and the public interest.
The applicant makes reference to the Comprehensive Plan Amendment applica-
tion pages 3 -7, submitted by him (Attachment B), further stating that the
rezone will be in conformity with this criterion to the extent that it com-
plies with the Comprehensive Land Use Policy Plan Map (Attachment F). Addi-
tionally, it is stated that existing land uses and roads, as well as planned
transportation improvements, seriously degrade the site for single - family
residential use. The broader issue affecting zoning is to determine the
long -term desired use for the subject properties, as well as the adjacent
lands.
2. The use or change in zoning requested in the zoning map or this title for
the establishment of commercial, industrial, or residential use shall be
supported by an architectural site plan showing the proposed development and
its relationship to surrounding areas as set forth in the application form.
Since the applicant has proposed no specific project, site development plans
are not needed at this time. Specific details including the level to which
the site can be developed, the mitigating measures to be required, and the
specific relationship to surrounding areas will be addressed when an actual
project is proposed. Any site plan will need to recognize topographic and
STAFF REPORT to the
Planning Commission
In response to this criteria, the applicant has stated:
88 -2 -CPA : - Gerald E. Schneider
Page 8
access /transportation constraints. Project of 10,000 square feet or greater
are automatically required to be reviewed by the Board of Architectural
Review.
3. When the request is not in agreement with the Comprehensive Land Use Policy
Plan, the applicant shall provide evidence to the City Council's satisfac-
tion that there is an additional need for the requested land classification.
A Comprehensive Plan Amendment Application has been submitted, and is dis-
cussed earlier in this Staff Report.
4. Significant changes have occurred in the character, conditions or surround-
ing neighborhood that justify or otherwise substantiate the proposed rezone.
This issue has been addressed in the discussion of the Comprehensive Plan
Amendment in this Staff Report.
5. The proposed rezone is in the best interest of public health and safety as
compared to any hardship imposed on the individual property owner.
Any development on the site raises environmental concerns due to steep
slopes, access and transportation planning. At present property owners feel
their potential profits are limited due to the restrictions of single - family
development. Approval of the rezone and pre- annexation zoning requests
would result in substantial gain to the property owners. The City or other
public agency would be subject to higher land acquisition costs for the
construction of the 188th connector or freeway off -ramp which could cover a
portion of the site.
6. The unimproved subject property is unsuitable for the purpose for which it
has been zoned considered in the context of the length of time the property
has remained unimproved and land development in the surrounding area.
"A portion of the subject property was subdivided for residential
development and an access road constructed prior to the construction of
I -5, which took part of the subdivided lots. Since and because of the
proximity to I -5, there has been no development of residential use on
the property for a period of over twenty -five years."
Another reason for why this area has not developed for residential uses is
the need for City utilities. The City has a policy of not extending City
utilities outside of the City limits. Since most of the property is outside
of the City, there has been limited development opportunity due to the need
for sewer and water services.
STAFF REPORT to the
Planning Commission
CONCLUSION
88 -2 -CPA Gerald E. Schneider
Page 9
Zoning issues are specific applications of priorities set by the Comprehensive
plan and are dependent on the resolution of these issues.
Any recommendation for rezoning and pre- annexation zoning is dependent on the
policy conclusions reached in the Comprehensive Plan Amendment process, and
should be consistent with that decision. Planning staff makes no specific
recommendation at this time, pending resolution of Comprehensive Plan policy
issues.
(22/88- 2- CPA1 >4)
RECOMMENDATION
ATTACHMENT A: COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP
COMMERCIAL
,
LEGEND
c• LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL
CI COMMERCIAL
/23 LIGHT INDUSTRY
IMIHEAVY INDUSTRY
Attached Sheet Comprehensive Plan Amendment Application Page 3
8. A. Unforeseen Changes in Circumstances
Several changes in City transportation and land use policies after the
1977 adoption and the 1982 revision of the Comprehensive Plan have
occurred which are inconsistent with the current low density residential
map designation of the subject property.
First, the City's Transportation Improvement Plan now identifies a four
lane highway (limited access) connecting S. 188th St. freeway
interchange with Southcenter Parkway (at 57th Ave. S. or S. 178th St.).
The most probable alignments of this S. 188th Connector run through the
southeast portion of the subject property and would result in freeways
on three sides of the site or going right through the site.
Second, 57th Ave. S. and S. 178th St. have been upgraded from collector
arterials to the equivalent of secondary arterials in the City's
Circulation Plan. Initial four lane improvements have already been
constructed on each of these roadways, and other improvements to these
existing and new arterials are planned or recommended for 1990.
Third, the Comprehensive Plan has been amended from low density
residential to office for the nearby Martin property, which is also
located south of S. 178th St. and west of 57th Ave. S. This Comp Plan
Amendment recognized the changes in circumstances for the area and the
inconsistency of these changes with residential development.
Fourth, just north of the subject property on S. 178th St., the City
approved an office development, which commits the use of S. 178th St.
east of I -5 to commercial traffic. It is questionable whether a livable
and viable single family neighborhood could be created with all of these
changes in circumstances.
9. Comp Plan Policy Analysis
The Comprehensive Land Use Policy Plan map designations should reflect
public policies. In this case changes in transportation policies and
land use approvals have created an inconsistency between City policies
and the current map designation of low density residential.
The Comprehensive Plan policies which are most directly related to this
application are analyzed in the following discussion:
Attached Sheet Comprehensive Plan Amendment Application Page 4
Goal 3 (p. 12) Encourage planned expansion of the corporate boundaries
of Tukwila while providing adequate service levels and improvements to
all areas within corporate limits.
This Comp Plan Amendment is in conjuntion with the annexation of the
western portion of the subject property into the City. It is one of a
few properties east of I -5 that is not already part of Tukwila.
Logically and physically the area can be more easily serviced by the
City of Tukwila, although existing water service is provided by Water
District No. 75. Because the area is isolated between I -5 and Tukwila,
most services provided by King County or Special Districts would be very
inefficient or at very low levels.
Natural Environment Policy 1.1 (2. 24) Maintain the wooded character of
the steep slopes and upland plateau, and encourage the use of vegetation
in slopte stabilization.
The proposed action recognizes in its environmental checklist that
vegetation buffers along the freeway(s) and steep slope areas will be
retained, particularly for slope stability, noise reduction, and
aesthetic purposes. Office development will allow for a much greater
clustering of site development than would occur with low density
residential development and thereby maintain the wooded character on a
greater portion of the site.
Natural Environment Policy 2.1 (2. 25) Strive to retain viable areas of
wooded hillsides, agricultural lands, wetlands, streams, and the Green
River for wildlife habitat.
Much of the wooded steep slope areas will be retain, particularly by the
greater degree of clustering that is typical of office development
versus single family subdivision. Due to the high noise levels and with
the addition of a second highway (S. 188th Connector), the viability of
the area for wildlife habitat is and would be greatly diminished without
any development on the site.
Natural Environment Policy 3.1 (2. 26) Discourage development on slopes
in excess of 20 percent.
The proposed action and its environmental checklist commit steep slope
areas to no development. The clustering of site development that is
typical of office development will leave more of the site undisturbed
than would be typical of single family subdivision.
Attached Sheet Comprehensive Plan Amendment Application Page 5
Natural Environment Policy 3.2 (2.26) Preserve the views of hillside
residents.
The proposed action and its environmental checklist commit the retention
of a wooded buffer along the freeway. County residents located west of
I -5 will continue to overlook the same view toward the Green River
Valley and the Cascade Mountains. Future office development will be
located below the wooded western boundary due to the topographical
sloping to the east and therefore will have little impact on the
hillside residents view.
Natural Environment Policy 3.3 (2.26) Preserve and promote the quality
of landform.
The clustering typical of office development and the mitigation of the
proposed action to protect steep slope areas from disturbance will
implement this policy.
Natural Environment Policy 6.1 (2.29) Discourage development in areas
where slopes are known to be unstable. In areas where the stability of
slopes is questionable, allow development only after a qualified
professional can demonstrate that slopes will be stable even ater site
modification.
The proposed action and its environmental checklist commit to
implementation of this policy.
Natural Environment Objective 8 (2.307) Recognize the environmental
basemap of the Tukwila Planning Area which depicts the distribution and
extent of natural amenities based on the previously mentioned objectives
and use this map as a general planning guide.
The site is designated as having special development considerations due
to steep slopes and woodlands. Unstable slopes and surface water areas
may also be present but would remain undisturbed by the proposed
action. The proposed action and its environmental checklist also
recognize and plan accordingly for the sensitive treatment of steep
slopes and significant areas of woodlands.
Open Space Policy 1.1 (2.34) Strive to preserve steep hillsides and
wooded areas in a scenic condition. Encourage replanting and
revegetation of denuded areas not in the process of development.
The proposed action and its environmental checklist have made these
commitments to the extent that undisturbed areas are scenic. The
clustering typical of office development and greater landscaping
requirements and design review will encourage a more scenic landscape
plan for areas that are disturbed than is required of single family
subdivision.
Attached Sheet Comprehensive Plan Amendment Application Page 6
Residence Obaective 1 (p.45) Protect all viable residential
neighborhoods from intrusions by incompatible land uses.
The latest transportation and land use policies for this low density
residential area have not protected residential uses from intrusions.
In particular the planning, upgrading, and improving of new arterials
through the area will have a detrimental impact on the viability of the
area for residential use. The approval of commercial traffic on S.
178th St. is in direct conflict with Residence Policy 1.4 (p.46). By
these policy changes the City has recognized that the area is not a
viable residential neighborhood nor has it developed as such over the
last 25 years.
Residence Policy 1.1 (2.45) Use natural features, like topography, to
separate incompatible land uses from the residential areas.
The established residential area in the vicinity of the subject property
lies west of I -5. The proposed action and environmental checklist
utilize topography and wooded areas to maintain a visual separation from
this residential neighborhood, which is physically separated almost
completely by I -5.
Residence Policy 1.3 (p.46) Prohibit spot zoning in established
residential neighborhoods.
The area east of I -5 and S. 178th St. has not become an established
residential neighborhood with very little residential development
occurring over the past 25 years. The most recent land use decision
(the Martin office rezone) requested by long time area residents and
approved by the City of Tukwila recognized that the area is not an
established residential neighborhood. The proposed Comprehensive Plan
Amendment would correct inconsistencies created by new City policies and
City actions that are contrary to low density residential map
designation of the area.
Residence Policy 1.4 (2.46) Vehicular traffic to commercial, office or
industrial uses should not be through residential areas.
The proposed S. 188th Connector, the upgrading and improvements of S.
178th St. and 57th Ave. S. as secondary arterials, and the approval of
office development with its only access on S. 178th St. recognize that
the area is not an established residential neighborhood.
Attached Sheet Comprehensive Plan Amendment Application Page 7
Commerce /Industry Policy 1.1 (2.60) Encourage the grouping of uses
which will mutually and economically benefit each other or provide
necessary services.
The subject area is currently being developed for two uses: office and
major roadways. The Comprehensive Plan Amendment would encourage the
continuation of this development within the City of Tukwila. Future
office development on the subject site would be much more compatible
with the S. 188th Connector than low density residential use, since a
primary service for the office is access to major roadways. There would
certainly be compatibility with other office uses in the area and make
improvements in services designed for new office uses much more
economically efficient.
Commerce /Industry Policy 1.2 (2.60) Allow for the location of new
commercial and industrial areas and the expansion of existing ones when
this expansion is compatible with surrounding land use and not
detrimental to the public welfare.
The annexation of the subject area and approval of office uses would
recognize compatibility with surrounding land uses in particlular
transportation and office uses that are approved or planned. The
continued designation of the area for low density residential uses with
approved traffic and anticipated noise impacts would be contrary to
public welfare.
Commerce /Industry Policy 4.1 (2.66) Encourage the use of commercial
office developments as buffers between residential land uses and other
land uses.
The site offers a use buffer between the intense roadway and
commercial /industrial uses encroaching upon the area and the residential
area on the west side of 1 -5.
Commerce /Industry Policy 4.3 (2.66) Encourage the location of
commercial offices in areas of high natural amenities.
The subject site has views to the east of the Green River Valley and the
Cascade Mountains. Office use could take advantage of this natural
amenity without as much detriment due to noise levels that exceed public
health limits for residential uses (i.e., sleep interference
thresholds). The clustering typical of office development will also be
able to take better advantage of the natural amenity offered by
preserving wooded areas of the site than would typical single family
subdivision.
TO: REBECCA FOX
FROM: BRAD COLLINS
DATE: APRIL 28, 1988
SUBJECT: SCHNEIDER ANNEXATION SUPPLEMENTAL SEPA INFORMATION &
EARLY NOTICE REQUEST
Subsequent to the April 7, 1988, Development Review Committee
meeting on the Schneider Annexation, this memorandum provides
the requested supplemental SEPA information and is the
applicant's request for Early Notice of the SEPA threshold
determination.
NOISE
Attachments. Additional Noise Level
Additional noise information was obtained by field
investigation on the site. On April 20, 1988, during the
afternoon peak traffic hours from 3:00 pm to 5:30 pm, noise
levels were monitored by Brad Collins with the help of Steve
Robinson. A City of Tukwila noise meter, Bruel & Kjaer Type
. 2232 Serial #1006261, was used. The weather conditions were
fair skies and mild temperatures (approximately 65 degrees F).
The noise level readings were taken at four locations on the
site as shown on the attached site map. Two different
readings were taken at each of four locations on the site:
(1) the highest dB(A) level using the manual reset and (2) an
approximate average dB(A) level using the auto reset.
Noise Level Reading Loc 1 Loc 2 Loc 3 Loc 4
3:15 -3:45 em 71.7/65 64.2/57 71.5/65 70.5/63
4:30 -5:00 em 70.5/64 61.7/56 70.0/64 69.9/63
These noise level readings are comparable to, though not quite
as high as, those found on the Valley View Estates site west
of I -5 and north of the subject site. According to the Valley
View Estates FEIS (January, 1986, City of Tukwila), the
maximum noise levels exceeded 75 dB(A) during many hours of
the day and 80 dB(A) during several hours. The conclusion
that can be drawn from the Valley View Estates FEIS is
"exterior Boise levels outside the fenced play area, including
the proposed recreation areas, would be in a range EPA
characterizes as having significant adverse impacts (i.e., 65-
70« dBA's). "
It can also be expected according to the S. 188th Street
Connector Study (December, 1984, Centrac) that the S. 188th
Street Connector, which could be constructed through the
subject property, would further impact the noise levels to be
found on the site.
January 31, 1985
ATTACHMENT D
EPA NOISE GUIDELINES
FINAL
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
FOR
VALLEY VIEW ESTATES
PREPARED UNDER
THE DIRECTION OF
CITY OF TUKWILA
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
TUKWILA, WASHINGTON
Prepared in Compliance with
The State Environmental Policy Act of 1971
Chapter 43.21c, Revised Code of Washington, as amended
SEPA Guidelines, Effective January 16, 1976
Chapter 197 -10, Washington Administrative Code, as revised
City of Tukwila ordinance Number 1211
1984
Bradley J. C
Responsible (Jffi
The noise measurements consisted of full 24 -hour noise monitoring at three
locations and 19 hour noise monitoring at the fourth location, where adverse
weather curtailed the measurement. A Digital Acoustic DA607P noise moni-
toring Intern was used for the measurements. Results of the measurements in
hourly L hourly Ld are shown in Appendix B, Figures 2 and 3.
Locations 1 and 2 are on the site. Locations 3 and 4 are off -site, near
residence immediately west of the site which have views across the site
toward 1 -5. The following is a summary of the measured day -night sound
levels, Ld and nighttime maximum sound levels, Lmax:
Location
1
2
3
4
Description
Table 3
Existing Noise Levels
SE part of site
NE part of site
Residence W of site
Residence SW of site
Existing exterior
noise levels, dBA
Ldn Night Lmax
72 77
65168 * ) 77
65 72
63 72
* Location 2 had partial topographic shielding of highway noise, which is esti-
mated to have reduced Ld by about 3 dBA compared to noise levels at a future
upper story elevation.
The day -night sound level (Ld is the reading used in EPA in Guidelines for
noise levels affecting residential areas. Those Guidelines are as follows:
Ldn
Below 55 dBA
Table 4
EPA Noise Guidelines
Levels are generally acceptable: no noise impact is
generally associated with these levels
55 to 65 dBA Adverse noise impacts exist: lowest noise level
possible should be strived for.
65 to 70 dBA Significant adverse noise impacts exist: allowable
only in unusual cases where lower levels are clearly
demonstrated not to be possible.
Uver 70 dBA Levels have unacceptable public health and welfare
impacts
81
As a comparison o. Tables 3 and 4 indicates, at two of the four sites where
monitoring occurred, day -night sound levels exceeded EPA's threshold for
significant adverse noise impacts. The other two sites were just below this
threshold and at the high end of the range where adverse noise impacts can
occur. Although EPA's evaluation of noise impacts is based on the day -night
sound level and not on maximum noise levels, a review of maximum noise levels
at the site over a 24 hour period (see Appendix B) indicates that maximum
levels over 70 dBA are reached regularly. The noise level at the southern
site location (Location 1) was found to have maximum levels exceeding 70 dBA
during all 24 -hours tested and exceeding 80 dBA during the afternoon hours
when people are apt to be outside. At the northern site location (Location
2) the maximum noise level was above 70 dBA during 10 of the 19 hours tested
and above 80 dBA during six of these 19 hours. (Measurements were not taken
from 1:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m.) On the other two sites adjacent to the single
family area to the west, noise levels measured above 70 dBA during 20 of the
24 hours tested at one site (location 3) and during 12 of the 24 hours tested
at the other site (Location 4). Location 3.experiences maximum noise levels
above 80 dBA during five hours (including the 5:00 p.m. - 7:00 p.m. period)
while Location 4 experienced maximum levels above 80 dBA during the 6:00 p.m.
hour.
EPA sources specify that interior noise levels should have an Ld of 45 dBA
or less in order to protect health and welfare with an adequate margin of
safety. Other studies indicate that to prevent the probability of sleep
interference exceeding approximately 50%, interior maximum sound levels, Lmax
should be limited to about 50 dBA in bedrooms.
A different set of standards is utilized by the U.S. Department of Housing
and Urban Development (HUD) to determine site acceptability for HUD projects.
HUD's criteria are as follows:
Table 5
H. U. D. Acceptability Standards
Ldn Site Acceptability Standard
Not exceeding 65 dBA Acceptable
Above 65 dBA but not exceeding 75 dBA Normally Unacceptable
Above 75 dBA Unacceptable
On sites where Ld is above 65 dBA but does not exceed 70 dBA, HUD requires
that the type of construction used reduce interior noise levels by 5 dBA
beyond the 25 dBA reduction that is typically accomplished with standard
construction (i.e., a total noise reduction of 30 dBA). A reduction of an
additional 10 dBA (35 dBA total) is required for sites above 70 dBA which do
not exceed 75 dBA.
82
CM
Row ITSGEMTML.
0 seas WILY FIZOXTRIAL
D 2i2.E 2 WAY ReiODOW.
0
TO FO41 RESCENT RI MR r,m. RE5CENTML
1. oAliMIONTS
0 =RE RES03401 MOM MON
11 40800L MO ONO
E G2 oecocco
LJ W ow, Few.
0 =NED OLONEIO
D?
0 WIC fehlTif
t Ze KUM
HMENT E
ITY ZONING
cm? CV WAVOLa
ONINCel
0
WPM Ilf COONNalualli Jig
MO MI JUL ON W.
' LAO& waft
aims
ATTACHMENT F '' {i] , .. ?: _;
REZONE APPLICATION , : = ? ;� "83 i
APPLIC 'S WRITTEN SUBMITTAL (REZONE APPLICATION
1. BRIEFLY DESCRIBE YOUR PROPOSAL: Annex those portions of the subject property
not in the City of Tukwila and zone the property for office use.
2. PROJECT LOCATION: (Give street address or, if vacant, indicate lot(s),
block, and subdivision; or tax lot number, access
street, and nearest intersection)
Tax lots 12, 33, 109 and Sokluded Terrace Park Lots 1 -18
South of S. 178th St. and East of I -5
Quarter: NW Section: 35 Township: 23 Range:_ 4
(This information may be found on your tax statement.)
3. APPLICANT ;* Name: Gerald E. Schneider
*Cont
d aCt Person: 6510 Southcenter Blvd., Tukwila, WA 98188
Brad Collins Address: 9
365 Erickson, Suite 213 248 ate
Bainbridge Ie., WA 98110 ?i
� one: A , 7 2 f
842 -5135 ��j/lJ :
Si gnature:
4. PROP
OW
Date: ` I -''-
* The applicant is the person whom the staff will contact regarding
the application, and to whom all notices and reports shall be sent,
unless otherwise stipulated by applicant.
AFFIDAVIT OF OWNERSHIP
ess: -6510 Southcenter Blvd., Tukwila, WA 98188
fserwilyora,
2
-24 ?1
. Gerald E. Schneider
Phone:
I /WE, Csi ]
swear that we are .wn r s or con rac c aser s o the
property involved in this application and that the foregoing
statements and answers contained in this application are true
correct to the best of my /our
knowledge and belief. Date: 3 - 02' 8�
and
5. WHAT IS.. CURRENT ZONING OF THE PROPERTY?
7. WHAT ZONING CLASSIFICATION IS REQUESTED? P-0 Tukwila
REZONE APPLICATION
Page 2
RS -9600 King County & RA Tukwila
6. WHAT IS TF ' SIZE OF THE PROPERTY? 23.91+71 acres or 1,043,137 sq. ft.
8. WHAT IS THE COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE MAP DESIGNATION? Low Density Residential Tukwila
REZONE CRITERIA:
The burden of proof in demonstrating that the change is appropriate lies solely
upon the proponent. Generally, the more dramatic the change, the greater will
be the burden of showing that the proposed change is in conformance with the
Comprehensive Plan as implemented by the Zoning Ordinance. The proponent must
show in a clear and precise manner why the rezoning application should be
granted. The Planning Commission and City Council will review your proposal
using the following criteria. You may attach additional sheets and submit other
documentation to support your rezone application.
9. The use or change in zoning requested shall be in conformity with the
adopted comprehensive land use policy plan, the provisions of this title,
and the public interest;
RESPONSE: see attached sheet(a) Comprehensive Plan Amendment Application Pages 3 -7
Existing land uses and roads, as well as planned public improvements seriously
degrade the viabilitiy of the subject site for single family residential use.
The proposed zoning change will be in conformity with this criterion to the extent
that it is in conformity with the Comp Plan map, since it complies with the policies
10. The use or change in zoning requested in the zoning map or this title for
the establishment of commercial, industrial, or residential use shall be
supported by an architectural site plan showing the proposed development and
its relationship to surrounding areas as set forth in the application form;
RESPONSE: Th±!'r!. is ne
proposed development to be shorn. A site plan does show
the } ot6ristics and relationship to surrounding areas. The site can be
devel
level of P -0 use intensity. The actual level of use which can be
develop = actual mitigating measures to be required, and assurance of project
compatibility with surrounding areas will be addressed when an actual project is pro
11. When the request is not in agreement with the Comprehensive Land Use Policy posed
Plan, the applicant shall provide evidence to the City Council's satisfac-
tion that there is an additional need for the requested land classification.
To respond to this criteria, obtain a Comprehensive Plan Amendment Applica-
tion and submit in conjunction with Rezone Application.
Comprehensive Plan Amendment Application submitted.
REZONE APPLICATION
Page 3
12. Signifi`' `changes have occurred in the character, conditions or surround-
ing neigh rhood that justify or otherwise substantiate the proposed rezone.
RESPONSE: see attached sheet(s) Comprehensive Plan Amendment Application Page 3
13. The proposed rezone is in the best interest of the public health, safety,
and welfare as compared to the hardship, such as diminution of property
value, imposed on the individual property owner.
RESPONSE: see attached sheet(s) Comprehensive Plan Amendment Application Pages 3 -7
Zoning approval would not impose a diminution of property value on the owner, and the
the threat of public health problems due to residential development in an area that
heavily impacted by noise from existing and proposed roadways would be greatly reducE
The environmental constraints on the S. 188th Connector may also be reduced by use of
this property for a less noise sensitive office development.
14. The unimproved subject property is unsuitable for the purpose for which it
has been zoned considered in the context of the length of time the property
has remained unimproved and land development in the surrounding area.
RESPONSE: A portion of the subject property was subdivided for residential
dewelopwt and an access road constructed prior to the construction of
I . ' k part of the subdivided lots. Since and because of the
pro -_ 15, there has been no development of residential use on
the ~!Or period of over twenty -five years.
(29 /MB.REZONE)
uar,.0
CONCOMITANT ZONING AGREEMENT FOR SCHNEIDER PROPERTY ZONING
WHEREAS, the City of Tukwila is a Washington nonchaxter• optional
municipal code city and as such has the power to enact laws and enter
into agreements to promote the health, safety, and welfare of its
citizens and thereby control the use and development of property within
its jurisdiction, and
WHEREAS, Mr. and Mrs. Gerald Schneider, hereinafter referred to as
"the Owners," are the owners of certain real property located in the
City of Tukwila, King County, Washington, which is the subject of this
Agreement and which is legally described on Exhibit A attached hereto
and incorporated herein by this reference as if set forth in full, and
WHEREAS, the Owners have applied for an amendment of the
Comprehensive Land Use Plan Map designation for the property from Low
Density Residential to Office and for zoning of the property from R -A
(Agricultural) to P -O (Professional and Office), and
WHEREAS, the Owners propose that the City Council limit
residential development on the property to a density no greater than
single family as a condition of the property being zoned to P -O, and
WHEREAS, the City Council has authorized similar agreements
reflecting such limitation.
NOW, THEREFORE, in the event that the property legally described on
Exhibit A is approved for annexation and classification to P -O
(Professional Office) zoning, the Owners hereby covenant and agree as
follows:
1. Restrictions on Development. No residential developmenmt shall
be permitted on the property described on Exhibit A attached hereto
and incorporated herein by this reference as if set forth in full
at a density which is greater than that permitted under the City's
R -1 (Single Family Residence) regulations. The development
regulations applicable in the R -2, R -3, R -4, and RMH Districts
shall not apply to the property, and no residential development
other than single family shall be permitted.
2. Future Traffic Analysis. At the time of the filing of an
application for development of the property described on Exhibit A,
the Owners shall, at the Owner's sole cost and expense, provide a
traffic analysis of a scope to be determined by the City in order
to determine whether mitigating measures with respect to traffic
may be required as part of the development proposal.
3. Binding Effect - Recording. This Agreement shall be recorded
with the King County Auditor and shall constitute a covenant and
servitude running with the land described on Exhibit A and shall be
binding upon the Owners, their successors in interest, and assigns.
The Owners shall pay all recording fees necessary to record this
Agreement.
-1-
•
4. Polic• Power. Nothing in this Agreement shall be construed to
restrict the authority of the City to exercise its police powers.
5. Enforcement. In addition to any other remedy provided by law,
the City may, at its discretion, maintain a lawsuit to compel
specific performance of the terms and conditions of this Agreement
or to otherwise enforce its provisions, through injunctive or other
relief, and if the City prevails in such action, it shall be
entitled to recover all costs of enforcement, including reasonable
attorneys' fees.
6. Severability. In the event any section, paragraph, sentence,
term, or clause of this Agreement conflicts with applicable law, or
is found by any court having jurisdiction to be contrary to law,
such conflict shall not affect other sections, paragraphs,
sentences, terms, or clauses of this Agreement, which can be given
effect without the conflicting provision, and to thisend the terms
of this Agreement shall be deemed to be severable, provided,
however, that in the event any section, paragraph, sentence, term,
. or clause of this Agreement is found to be in conflict with
applicable law, the City shall have the right to bring the proposed
development back before the City Council for further review and
imposition of appropriate conditions to ensure that the purposes
for which this Agreement is entered into are, in fact, accomplished
and the impacts of the proposed development are mitigated.
DATED this day of , 1988.
ACCEPTED BY:
The City of Tukwila
By:
Mayor, Gary L. VanDuaen
OWNERS
Gerald E. Schneider
Gail Schneider
-2-
f
•
Case Number:
Applicant:
Request:
Location:
(21 /NTC.6 -23)
City of Tukwila
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
6200 Southcenter Boulevard
Tukwila, Washington 98188
(206) 433 -1849
City of Tukwila
PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE
Notice is hereby given that the City of Tukwila Planning Commission and Board
of Architectural Review will conduct a public hearing on June 23, 1988, at
8:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers at Tukwila City Hall, 6200 Southcenter
Boulevard, to consider the following:
Planning Commission Public Hearing
Case Number: 88 -2 -CPA, 88 -2 -R: SCHNEIDER ANNEXATION
Applicant: Gerald E. Schneider
Request: Comprehensive Plan Amendment for approximately 35 acres
from low- density residential to office; pre- annexation
zoning designation of P -0 (Professional Office) without
multi - family for portions outside Tukwila and rezone from
R -A (Agricultural) to P -0 for property in Tukwila.
Location: Immediately south and east of 5425 South 178th Street, south
of 178th, and east of I -5, partially within unincorporated
King County and partially within the City of Tukwila.
Board of Architectural Review Public Meeting
DR- 12 -85: TUKWILA MINI - STORAGE
Monte Scruggs and Carl Tollefson
Multiple - building mini - storage project of tilt -up concrete
Northwest corner of Interurban Avenue and South 143rd Street,
Lots 1 -7, Block 18, Hillman's Seattle Garden Tracts.
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 June 12, 1988
Distribution: Mayor, City Clerk, Property Owners /Applicants,
Adjacent Property Owners, File.
;;; ;OzetinitIVC:' i;iT.�Artl,2P;;NSATi5CSc?.: ;ra
TheL its
5212 South 164th.
Tukwila, Washington 98188
June 15, 1988
. Y. :' G? tfs;+.::... 75XiY1C?.V.: AF' u xn: aaw:, zs" A' c. 3t` x '_st`k�siieY.q>k:r.14;9rIE".t'3 RfiYC4;;' 4Yt; s�GC. s. r�:' .[:u."'+i�?i�: " •'''�..
Tukwila City Council
6200 Southcenter Blvd.
Tukwila, Wa. 98188
Dear ' ukwi la C <'nnc i lmambers :
May I take this opportunity to
state my opinion?
fr l l'r '' ------- '),Ii.=r , 11'1 - •.
((±!' etBiR ;i+ j
I i' ' F
f' r
_ .
I is my understanding that a
parcel of land at the south end
of Tukwila and north of the transfer
station is asking for annexation.
It's nice that our neighbors want
to join us in the City of Tukwila.
It is also my understanding that
the applicants for this annexation
want to change the zoning at the
same time from agriculture and
single family to Professional Office.
In the past, this property was
successfully listed as having no
higher a future zoning than it has
at the present time. This zoning
was a hard fought battle at the time
of the adoption of the Comp. Land Use
Map. What has changed?
It is my opinion that the zoning
should stay where it is. Let the
property annex to Tukwila, but only
at the present zoning. There is no
reason to change.
/Lae, ca-g7
xPfil+ ?'xA.:Yt ?^.7crMi*TXMA : ii e
June 15, 1988
ti'4�c;:.ncT
Tukwila City Council
6200 Southcenter Blvd.
Tukwila, Wa. 98188
Dear Councilmembers;
This is to advise the City of
Tukwila that the Tukwila
McMicken Action Committee wishes
to go on record as opposing the
rezoning of the Schneider Annex-
ation.
The present zoning was left in
the Comprehensive Land Use after
a great deal of Citizen and City
involvment.
Many of us were Citizens then and
helped make that decision. Many of
us are new Citizens and applaud
that decision. We see no reason
to change the present zoning.
Sincerely,
Tukwila McMicken Action Committee
Dharlene West, Pres.
5212 So. 164th
Tukwila, Wa. 98188
cc: Mayor Gary Van Dusen
Rick Beeler, Planning Director
iO.n� F i.L•�� .� di r. itt�� x a�G i.' :i. t6,'". a' 4. r1. t'1'ax"1:tFM %if:(.r'v'1X.4.XM -1 :v
i F F L A V I T
Q Notice of Public Hearing
[] Notice of Public Meeting
Q Board of Adjustment Agenda Packet
Q Board of Appeals Agenda Packet
Q Planning Commission Agenda Packet
Q Short Subdivision Agenda Packet
Interested Parties
File Number -_ _ Q . 4 F & - 2 ?
O F D I , : T R I ( T I 0 N
hereby declare that:
•
Q Determination of Nonsignificance
[] Mitigated Determination of Non -
significance
Q Determination of Significance
and Scoping Notice
Q Notice of Action
Official Notice
Q Notice of Application for Q Other
Shoreline Management Permit
Q Shoreline Management Permit [] Other
was mailed to each of the following addresses on , ) / ) / 1 __ /3 , 19 S4
Name of Project S('
Signature
{• I -/2 M•1
•
R -I -72
R -1 -72
R 1.12.0
R -1.120
R +120
a
-stica FAMILY REST E!TiNt
L S G E FAMLY PFccFNT1AL
R -1.7
SNCl E FAMLY RESCENTIAL
Ell il l1A 2 0 FAMILY RESCENTIAL
1 41-FEE AtO Fa.FIFAMLT RESEENDAL.
❑ LOW AR4RTA£NTS
❑ M FESOEMX HIGH DENSITY
❑ FZEmONIY. AND OFFCE
o•I
• reo-ecalOCO FETAL
c•z
▪ REGIONAL FETAL
Li PLANNED tf/3ESS CEN
❑ II C STRIAL PARK
rkt
Li L C* MAIM
M-2
WAN ID. TRT
7/
CM'
U Olr IVWWOU
ROHM
0
O
VS
gam or onwcr SWIM JAIL
at Yla Jam a dJ� qi
' 2� .
.nao ys.
70!' an Ulu
•
. t..
alp � •
In .d ` � �� - -14_
•
j� fli • `c��\
alp
1
k e
9'
l 7.
CO v:PREHENSIVE PL>-;N AMENDMENT
APPLICATION
1. BRIEFLY DESCRIBE YOUR PROPOSAL: Annex those portions of the subject property
not in the City of Tukwila and amend the Comp Plan for office use.
2. PROJECT LOCATION: (Give street address or, if vacant, indicate lot(s),
block, and subdivision; or tax lot number, access
street, and nearest intersection)
Tax Lots 12, 33, 1.09 and Secluded Terrace Park Lots 1 -18 Section 35 T23 R4 .
South of S. 178th St. and East of 1 -5
Quarter: NW Section: 35 Township: 23 Range: 4
(This information may be found on your tax statement.)
3. APPLICANT :* Name:
4. PROPERTY Name:
OWNER
Gerald E. Schneider
* Contact Person: 6510 Southcenter Blvd. Tukwila WA 98188
Brad Collins Address: '
365 Ericksen, Suite21.3 248 -2471
Bainbridge Is., WA hone:
842-5135 5 35 98110
Signature :
* The applicant is the person whom the staff will contact regarding
the application, and to whom all notices and reports shall be sent,
unless otherwise stipulated by applicant.
AFFIDAVIT OF OWNERSHIP
Gerald E. Schneider
Address: 6510 Southcenter Blvd., Tukwila, WA 98158
Phone:
Date: r9 i2? c
I /WE,Esignature(s)]
swear that we are t e owne s or co rac purchaser s o thg
property involved in this application and that the foregoing
statements and answers contained in this application are true and
correct to the best of my /our
knowledge and belief. Date: Cg c>2.8 — 2S
5. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN Existing
DESIGNATION
7. USE: Existing vacant
Proposed future office
8. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT CRITERIA:
RESPONSE: see attached sheet(s)
(29 /MB.COMP)
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT APPLICATION
Page 2
I,ow Density Residential - Tukwila
Proposed Office - Tukwila
( Tukwlla)
6. ZONING: Existing RS -9600 (King Co) & R-A proposed P-0 Tukwila
The burden of proof in demonstrating that the change is appropriate lies
solely upon the proponent. Generally, the more dramatic the change, the
greater will be the burden of showing that the proposed change meets the
criteria by the Zoning Ordinance. The proponent must show in a clear and
precise manner why the amendment application should be granted. The
Planning Commission and City Council will review your proposal using the
following criteria. You may attach additional sheets and submit other
documentation to support your request.
A. Unforeseen changes in circumstances have occurred in community condi-
tions that justify a Comprehensive Plan redesignation of the subject
property or existing plan policies. (Examples are Functional road
classifications or new or changed City policies /plans)
B. Factual evidence supports an additional or changed public need for the
proposed designation.
RESPONSE: Much of the Office designated areas of the Comprehensive Plan
have now been developed and there are few vacant P -0 zoned properties.
Noise levels on the site threaten public health for residential uses.
9. To supplement the above criteria discussion, analyze the Tukwila Compre-
hensive Plan policies which relate to your proposed Comprehensive Plan
amendment. Identify the policies and their page numbers.
RESPONSE: see attached sheet(e)
•
'• •
'
I:.
•
•1. / ;1
,
•
! a ..
'lir
1 • 1. 1, • • I (,)
1 a I in
'. •
1 2 i LI
/. ., . /V.
'J .. . /
!-J
: 1
I
E0C sr. Coot. Moa.
•
24.43
fs-o•
I .
.01
• I
or
LJJ Se.c. 35-23-4
SG"- 1/4" liZot... PIPE.' .
11 4..hrt4 GA.P +10441. '
(XV Rt ci•
I
.
s 8° -24 'aa- E .
..
. . . .
i4ekt17...;775;
L.S8I•to•si•e. ' 1.5°•°11
'2.5,00. '• 14, ss'
Ga.
szo.e.s' -- 1,
25,0o' ,
L
•
Pc••.w“..c.
"
1, o43,1711 So.. -r-.
o- ZS .9 ill Ac... t
m
a . , • 'co
v.P. \ \
. i
, % o
- 01
0
0
L1 .
t
2
- ' - ' 7 17X7F...5 7 ;St-t
•
s 877 so' s7
ak
M
• S c.
°I t tile.b/C.846
iN
.
A • ,
\
• c
WEF.GO ENGINEERING
LAND St.
•
S141
cor F. ra.. ci.c.cs 2.-Io ws cm)
P P.O. acx 2552 •
775.174 lypn. 93:TA
-
t‘iiR 1=1 -
. 4
9 11
11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111m1111111111111mmita044K
1111impgium illmiliiiilitly
2 10 12
1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111
\ IF THIS MICROFILMED DOCUMENT IS LESS
€ sz SC LE 9E SE Cal ZE
' . ; • 4o
1E •
CLEAR THAN THIS NOTICE, IT IS DUE TO
THE •UALITY OF THE ORIGINAL DOCUMENT .egh
S e ^" iii i Rill int ! li !
1' t -• ,••:: a
410 /t , 4: 1 4 ('
•