Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Permit 88-04-CPA - CITY OF TUKWILA - THORNDYKE ANNEXATION COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT
88-4-CPA 88-04-cpa THORNDYKE ANNEXATION COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT 890330383 THORNDYKE ANNEXATION COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLAN AMENDMENT WASHINGTON CITY OF TUKWILA ORDINANCE NO. 1510 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA, WASHINGTON, ANNEXING CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY COMMONLY KNOWN AS THE THORNDYKE ANNEXATION AREA, ADOPTING ZONING AND LAND USE REGULATIONS FOR THE ANNEXED AREA, PROVIDING THAT SAID ANNEXED AREA SHALL NOT BE REQUIRED TO ASSUME ANY SHARE OF THE CITY'S EXISTING INDEBTEDNESS, AND ESTABLISHING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Tukwila received a petition certified as sufficient by the King County Prosecuting Attorney, calling for an election to vote upon annexation of certain unincorporated territory contiguous to the City, and WHEREAS, the City Clerk of the City of Tukwila determined that the signa- tures on the petition were sufficient and filed the Certificate of Sufficiency with the City Council, and WHEREAS, the City Council by Resolution 1081, passed July 18, 1988, approved the proposed Thorndyke annexation area election - method annexation, and WHEREAS, the SEPA responsible official for the City issued a Declaration of Non - Significance, and WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of RCW 35A.14.330 and 35A.14.34:0, the City Council adopted Ordinance Nos. 1486, 1487 and 1488, providing for zoning and land use regulations for the area to become effective upon annexation, and WHEREAS, the King County Boundary Review Board approved the annexa- tion in File No. 1538, dated December 8, 1988, and WHEREAS, the City Council in Resolution 1097, passed December 12, 1988, approved the proposed Thorndyke annexation area election method and requested an election date, and WHEREAS. pursuant to King County Council Ordinance No. 8819, an election was held in the area proposed for annexation on March 14, 1989. with the results of said election being that the voters approved annexation together with the proposed zoning and land use regulations and rejected assumption of the City's outstanding indebtedness. and WHEREAS, the County Canvassing Board will submit the Statement of Canvass to the King County Council, and the King County Council will enter its finding with regard thereto, and a certified copy of the minutes reflecting such entry will be transmitted, along with the certified abstract of the vote, to the City Clerk, and WHEREAS, the City Council has determined to annex the area proposed for annexation without requiring it to assume any portion of the City's existing Lidebt- edness, NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA, WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: 89'03/30 RECCE F CASHSL 8.00 #0383 A :4 ; +::+:: +:0.00 55 Section 1. Annexation. The real property known as the Thorndyke Annexa- tion Area, more particularly described on Exhibit A attached hereto, and shown on Exhibit B attached hereto, both of which are incorporated herein by this reference as if set forth in full, should be and hereby is annexed to and made a part of the City of Tukwila as of Q ,, ...p /s , 1989, and shall thereafter be subject to the zoning and land use regulations as adopted in City of Tukwila Ordinance Nos. 1486, 1487 and 1488. Section 2. Assumption of Indebtedness. Pursuant to the results of the annexa- tion election, the property within the territory annexed hereby shall not be required to assume through assessment or taxes, any indebtedness, bonded or otherwise, contracted prior to or existing as of the effective date of the annexation. Said prop- erty shall be assessed and taxed at the same rate and on the same basis as property within the City to pay for any bonds issued or other debts contracted subsequent to the date of annexation. Section 3. Effective Date. This ordinance shall be in force and effect five days after publication of the attached Summary which is hereby approved. PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA, WASH- INGTON, at a special meeting thereof this cZ day of '?a.c A ,1989. APPROVED AS TO FO ATTEST /AUTHENTICATED: giga■ 1 fice of the City Att, me Filed with the City Clerk: .3 - a? 7- R9 Passed by the City Council: . 3 - .27- P9 Published Valley Daily News: 3'31 S'Y Effective Date: '1 6 - F 9 Ordinance Number l5"/ D THORNDYKE ANNEXATION ORDINANCE Page 2 APPROVED: • ��f� / — Ga ' L. Van Dusen, Mayor axine Anderson, City Clerk THORNDYKE • REV. MAY 17, 1988 A parcel of land situated in Section 22, and in a portion of the west 1/2 of Section 23, all in T23N, R4E, W.M. described as follows: Commencing at the northwest corner of Section 23, T23N, R4E; thence north 1' east. 30 feet to the easterly extension of the north margin of South 144th Street and the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; thence continuing easterly along said easterly extension to the east line of Primary State Highway No. 1 as condemned under Superior Court Cause No. 598539. records of King County, WA; thence southerly along said east line to its intersection with the centerline of 53rd Avenue South; thence southerly along said centerline to its intersection with the easterly extension of the north margin of South 151st Street, said centerline also being the Corporate Boundary of the City of Tukwila as filed in the office of the Secretary of State, in Washington State per King County Commissioner's Resolution #23309, dated 10- 11 -61; thence westerly along said north margin and the westerly extension thereof to the centerline of 51st Avenue South; thence southerly along the centerline of 51st Avenue South to the southerly margin of State Highway 518 as condemned under Superior Court Cause No. 656772. records of King County. WA; thence westerly along said southerly margin to its intersection with the east margin of 42nd Avenue South; thence southerly along said east margin to it intersection with the north margin of South 160th Street; thence westerly along said north margin to the east margin of Pacific Highway South; thence northerly along said east margin to the north margin of South 144th Street; thence easterly along said north margin to the TRDB POINT OF BEGINNING. EXHIBIT A NJ 111111 1 1 1 1j111 IiIii ili1IItIIlII h. b 1111 ' �IIIIIIIIIIIIII IO • ° o rig • O 411 11 :11 11111111 1 11 1 11 N U U l 11!111111 UANH �'�' 45r;' �eta.�r ii��� iii�ii� 1111111" O.. —4 m ru' Q S 144TH ST S 160TH ST THORNDYKE ANNEXATION COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LEGEND HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL PARKS AND OPEN SPACE Q PUBLIC FACILITIES ® COMMERCIAL OFFICE LIGHT INDUSTRIAL CITY OF TUKWILA AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA, WASHINGTON, ENACTED PURSUANT TO RCW 35A.14.330, AMENDING THE COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE POLICY PLAN MAP FOR THE AREA DESCRIBED LYING OUTSIDE OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA AND KNOWN AS THE THORNDYKE ANNEXATION AREA. 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, said area is within the City's planning area and therefore subject to the existing Comprehensive Land Use Policy Plan and Plan Map, and WHEREAS, a petition has been filed proposing annexation of said area and petitioners have requested Comprehensive Land Use Policy Plan Map amendments, and WHEREAS, the SEPA responsible official made a determination of nonsignificance, and WHEREAS, the planning staff held land use meetings in the community, and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing August 30, 1988, and on September 8, 1988 recommended amending the existing Comprehensive Land Use Policy Plan Map for the area, and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Tukwila held two public hearings on September 12 and October 17, 1988 to consider the recommendations of the Planning Commission and the comments of all those wishing to be heard, NOW, THEREFORE, THE TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. The Comprehensive Land Use Policy Plan Map for the property known as Thorndyke Annexation Area as described in attached Exhibit A is hereby amended as shown on the map which is attached as Exhibit B. Section 2. A certified copy of this ordinance shall be filed in the Office of the King County Department of Records and Elections. Section 3. 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, W day of , 1988. ATTEST /AUTHENTICATED: IT �� NE ANDERSON APPRO OFFICE By 33S9C2/39ZA AS TO FO F HECI WASHINGTON ORDINANCE NO. / 41 6 96 T0 - FI D WITH T t CITY CLERK: PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL://- 1 7 - ff PUBLISHED: /1- /2- 88• EFFECTIVE DATE: /1- .Z3- 88 ORDINANCE NO.: /4/6% ono .tom R,'G•' VAN DUSEN TON, this th THORNDYKE xEV. MAY 17. 1988 A parcel of land situated in Section 22. and in a portion of the west 1/2 of Section 23. all in T23N. R4E. W.M. described as follows: Commencing at the northwest corner of Section 23. T23N. R4E; thence north 1 34'41.5" east. 30 feet to the easterly extension of the north margin of South 144th Street and the TRUE POINT OP BEGINNING; thence continuing easterly along said easterly extension to the east line of Primary State Highway No. 1 as condemned under Superior Court Cause No. 598539. records of King County. WA; thence southerly along said east line to its intersection with the centerline of 53rd Avenue South; thence southerly along said centerline to its intersection with the easterly extension of the north margin of South 151st Street, said centerline also being the Corporate Boundary of the City of Tukwila as filed in the office of the Secretary of State. in Washington State per King County Commissioner's Resolution #23309. dated 10- 11 -61; thence westerly along said north margin and the westerly extension thereof to the centerline of 51st Avenue South; thence southerly along the centerline of 51st Avenue South to the southerly margin of State Highway 518 as condemned under Superior Court Cause No. 656772. records of King County. WA; thence westerly along said southerly margin to its intersection with the east margin of 42nd Avenue South; thence southerly along said east margin to it intersection with the north margin of South 160th Street; thence westerly along said north margin to the east margin of Pacific Highway South; thence northerly along said east margin to the north margin of South 144th Street; thence easterly along said north margin to the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING. EXHIBIT A ti SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE NO. /4 gt AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA, WASHINGTON, ENACTED PURSUANT TO RCW 35A.14.330, AMENDING THE COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE POLICY PLAN MAP FOR THE AREA DESCRIBED LYING OUTSIDE OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA AND KNOWN AS THE THORNDYKE ANNEXATION AREA. passed 0 dinanc7No. On , 1988, the City Council of the City of Tukwila g� , which provides as follows: Amends the Comprehensive Land Use Policy Plan Map for the area known as the Thorndyke Annexation Area 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 ftd, i s k : Valley 3>kt 3359C2/392A Newer - !/ • /8 • gr 1988. 7 O ' I O pm .. V J 111'lIO011111 1'I I IIIIIIIIIIIIIiiI1iiiol IIUI�IIII�I�IU�i !� IIIIIIII���� -� p •.I,�;411l ICI111 r i i ; , Il11 NM MNN MANN NAMMN D dllllll � '�� fdIlIIII Arri AIN / dllllllllll :: IIIIIIIIIIIII �,�,� IDIIIWIII01�il it �.. .� � S 154TH JIIIIIIIII ME .....TM X11111111 lll1�11111 .... mnuuu . ■i�.l. ■. ■■ �ul4plll611111 u MINIM MINIM 1111 f7Dlllll .■1 0 u OMB= 1111 -----== ; A L ■■. MMMMM MMIIMMIN .w A m S 160TH ST S 144TH ST j THORNDYKE ANNEXATION COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LEGEND HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL PARKS AND OPEN SPACE PUBLIC FACILITIES COMMERCIAL OFFICE LIGHT INDUSTRIAL '11011111 TUKVILA CITY COUNCIL COMP - TEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING MINUTF October 24, 1988 \--- Page 2 NEW BUSINESS - Contd. Disc. on pre - annexation zoning & comp. plan amendments for Foster annex. - contd. RECESS 8:42 - 8:47 P.M. Disc. on pre= annex. zoning & comp. plan amend- ments for Thorn - dyke annexation area. MOVED BY MORIWAKI, SECONDED BY DUFFIE, THAT THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN IN AREA 3 BE MEDIUM DENSITY AND R -1 ZONING.MOTION CARRIED. Councilmember Robertson requested an area beside Area 3 be known as Area 3A. MOVED BY ROBERTSON, SECONDED BY MORIWAKI, THAT AREA 3A BE R -1 ZONING AND MEDIUM RESIDENTIAL DENSITY ON THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. MOTION CARRIED. Jack Pace, Senior Planner, stated Area 4 has current zoning RM -1800 high density in the County. The Task Force and Planning Commission recommended R -1. Chairman Bauch stated the Tukwila City Council concurred with the Task Force and Planning Commission recommendation. Jack Pace, Senior Planner, stated in Area 5 the Task Force could not come up with any recommendation. The Planning Commission recommended R -4. MOVED BY HERNANDEZ, SECONDED BY MORIWAKI, THAT AREA 5 BE ZONED AS R -2 AND MEDIUM DENSITY ON THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. MOTION FAILED, WITH ROBERTSON, BAUCH AND DUFFIE VOTING NO: STOKNES, HERNANDEZ, AND MORIWAKI VOTING YES. ** MOVED BY DUFFIE, SECONDED BY BAUCH, THAT AREA 5 BE REZONED TO R -3 AND A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION OF MEDIUM DENSITY. MOTION FAILED. STOKNES, HERNANDEZ AND MORIWAKI VOTING NO: DUFFIE, BAUCH AND ROBERTSON VOTING YES. Councilmember Robertson called for a reconsideration of the original motion. ** MOTION CARRIED, WITH STOKNES AND HERNANDEZ VOTING NO. Jack Pace, Senior Planner, stated the discussion have favored R -2 for Area 6. MOVED BY ROBERTSON, SECONDED BY MORIWAKI, THAT AREA 6 BE ZONED R -1 WITH A SINGLE FAMILY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION. MOTION CARRIED. Chairman Bauch called for a 5- minute recess. Chairman Bauch called the Committee of the Whole Meeting back to order, with Councilmembers present as previously listed. Moira Bradshaw, Associate Planner, explained Area 1 and stated the Task Force recommended R -3 and County zoning was between R -3 and R -4. The Planning Commission recommended R -3. MOVED BY ROBERTSON, SECONDED BY MORIWAKI, THAT AREA 1 OF THE THORNDYKE ANNEXATION BE ZONED R -1 AND THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN BE MEDIUM DENSITY WITH A POTENTIAL NO HIGHER THAN R -3. MOTION FAILED, WITH ROBERTSON, HERNANDEZ, STOKNES, BAUCH VOTING NO. MOVED BY HERNANDEZ, SECONDED BY STOKNES, THAT IN AREA 1 COUNCIL ACCEPT THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND ZONING AS RECOMMENDED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF R -3. MOTION CARRIED, WITH DUFFIE VOTING NO. Councilmember Robertson requested that the area immediately to the east of the property just discussed as Area 1 be noted as Area 10, MOVED BY ROBERTSON, SECONDED BY MORIWAKI, THAT AREA 1 BE CHANGED TO R -1 AND MEDIUM RESIDENTIAL DENSITY COMPREHENSIVE PLAP DESIGNATION. MOTION FAILED, WITH HERNANDEZ, DUFFIE, BAUCH VOTING NO. MOVED BY HERNANDEZ, SECONDED BY BAUCH, THAT AREA IA BE ZONED R -3 WITH P -0 OFFICE DESIGNATION ON THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. MOTION FAILED, WITH HERNANDEZ AND BAUCH VOTING YES. TUK�1{ILA CITY COUNCIL COMM' OF THE WHOLE MEETING MINUTE`' Ober 24, 1988 '. Page 3 NEW BUSINESS - CONTD. MOVED BY BAUCH, SECONDED BY ROBERTSON, THAT AREA 1'0 BE ZONED R -1 WITH OFFICE DESIGNATION ON THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. MOTION CARRIED. Disc. on pre - annex. zoning & comp. plan amend- ments for Thorn - dyke annexation - contd. P -0 & Design Rev. REPORTS Moira Bradshaw, Associate Planner, explained current zoning on Area 2 is RM 1800 and R7200. The Planning Commission recommended R -3. After discussion, Chairman Bauch stated the consensus of the Council is that they accept the Planning Commission recommendation of R -3. Moira Bradshaw, Associate Planner, explained Area 3 has a Comprehensive Plan designation of single family and the Planning Commission recommended single family. Chairman Bauch stated it was the consensus of the Council that they accept the Planning Commission recommendation of single family zoning for Area 3. Moira Bradshaw, Associate Planner, stated for Area 4 the Planning Commission recommended single family low density and this was also the recommendation of the Task Force. Chairman Bauch stated it was the consensus of the Council that they accept the Planning Commission and Task Force recommendation of single family low density for Area 4. Moira Bradshaw, Associate Planner, said the text amendment dealt with the P -0 and design review. The design review has been distributed to the Councilmembers. Some things have been added to the design review. This has been summarized under Scope of Authority. It is, in essence, any development in the City, and this would include any areas that annex to the City, would be subject to design review except single family homes, developments of less than 10,000 gross square feet of building area in C -1, C -2, C -P and CM except when they abut or are across the street from residential uses or districts and within 200 feet of the Green River and all developments in M -1 and M -2 except when they abut or are across the street from residential uses or districts and within 200 feet of the Green River. Ms. Bradshaw explained (b) would be any exterior modifications in excess of 10,000 square feet in C -2, C -P and C -M are exempt from design review. MOVED BY ROBERTSON, SECONDED BY HERNANDEZ, THAT ADMINISTRATION MAKE THE TEXT AMENDMENT SUGGESTED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT ON THE DESIGN REVIEW. MOTION CARRIED. Chairman Bauch stated the items discussed at this meeting will be on the agenda of the Regular Meeting on November 7, 1988. To the Tukwilla City Council: Steven Lawrence 4461 S. 144th I strongly urge the City Council members to endorse the zoning recommendations of the Thorndyke zoning task force. The zoning designations decided upon by the task force were arrived at after many weeks of discussions and consideration. The task force tried to serve the community as a whole while recognizing the concerns of individuals. Compromises were made in an effort to achieve unity in the group's decisions. The most controversial area of concern within the Thorndyke annexation was the property bordering 51st Ave. S. Task force members and several other community residents were concerned with the prospect of large scale apartment development. Two members of the task force favored apartment development as did a few other residents attending the meetings. It should be noted that each of these people have vested interests and stand to profit from any development along the street. In subsequent meetings zoning compromises were adopted and those have been presented to you. It is my belief that our community has as many apartment complexes as it can accomodate without seriously jeopardizing the single - family neighborhood. The complexes near highway 99 have deva- stated adjoining residences due to the problems associated with high density, lower cost housing. Apartment complexes also border the neighborhood to the south along SR 518. Due to the devaluing effect of I -5 it is likely any large complexes built along 51st Ave S. would be relatively inexpensive, attracting a more tran- sient and possibly problem plagued group of renters. Any large population influx along 51st Ave. S. would contribute to the traffic along S. 144th St, which fronts the neighborhood, two schools, and the fire station. That street has considerable pedestrian and bicycle traffic and is dangerous enough. In addi- tion, large complexes would add many students to our schools which are at near capacity now. One of the qualities of our school dis- trict is its smallness; its fine ratio of teachers to students, and the close relationship of the community and the schools. The zoning designation of R -3 and PO for this area would allow development compatible with our community as a whole to proceed at a cautious rate. Construction of high density housing might well send a destabilizing ripple affect through the adjoining single - family neighborhood. We have seen it before; "For Sale" signs abound, families flee, and homes become rentals. You have the opportunity to help us shape our community and provide stabil- ity for our neighborhood. Thankyou Steven Lawrence Rev. Gary K. Cowden . _ Pastor Dear Sirs, City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Blvd Tukwila, WA 98188 RE: Thorndyke Annexation Thank you for considering our appeal. enan Every Chris !�� October 17, 1988 We as a church body are sensitive to the proposed zoning of our facility and ajacent rental houses in the category R -1. Our church has stood on this site since 1931, and over the years has been added a manse property, and two significant additions to the church facility. Most recently was the addition of paved parking. We project that we will experience significant growth in the future, and wish to ensure that the present zoning not hinder us from further expansion. The two rental houses just east of the church were secured not for their value as single - family residences, but for the additional land that could be available for expansion as needed. We feel that, in not too many years from now, those houses will be destroyed and the space utilized for our growing ministry. Currently we are working toward the establishment of a Daycare Center in the church facility, with its playground utilizing some of the back property the two houses occupy. We have been working for about nine months now, and it currently looks like we may open sometime after the first of the year. Again, we desire a zoning code which would not prohibit us from continuing with that ministy. After consultation with others knowledgeable in zoning matters, it was suggested that we appeal for the highest zoning we could secure. It was our understanding that the church property was already zoned B /C, as is the property to our north and west. We feel that zoning would be most helpful for our future as well. Yours very sincerely, Gary K. C owden, Pastor 15880 Military Road South • Seattle, Washington 98188 • (206) 242 -7767 ....aV - �1v.: tt':: rJ` i�,.fn'u.rr..• October 10, 1988 Tukwila City Council 5200 Southcenter Blvd. Tukwila, WA 98188 Dear Council Members: We respectfully request: that you change your Planning Commission's zoning recommendation for Section 8 (west of 51st Ave. So. from 144th to 154thi to R -4 from R -3. Our reasoning for this request is as follows: - Your R -4 zoning is more in Line with the present King County RF1 2400 zoning. - We have paid taxes for over 20 gears on the basis of this zoning. - In contacts we have had in recent weeks with developers, we are finding that they feel there is no way they can recover their cost of developing this property if the number of units allowed were .Limited to that designated in the R -3 zoning. - We feel the only way the "street" can be improved is for developers to be allowed to develop it. This would benefit the entire neighborhood. Portions of the street are an "eyesore" and will only get worse if property owners are not able to sell their acreage. A variance to allow 2400 square feet per unit would be an acceptable compromise. Respectfully yours, Wayne and Hazel 1 Ketchersid / 37 ‘S-1-1-2- �I ,, e , f. 7r/ c 16)t 9gi a#73 - C-6?6 City of Tukwila PLANNING DEPARTMENT 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, Washington 98188 (206) 433 -1849 TO: Tukwila Planning Commission FROM:' Tukwila Planning Department DATE: September 21, 1988 SUBJECT: DESIGN REVIEW Review of the Riverton, Foster and Thorndyke annexation proposals have elicited concerns over quality of development and questions about a level of review comparable to that currently required within the City. The Planning Commission made two separate recommendations on this subject following the public hearings. These recommendations combined with several other recent amendments to the design review section of the zoning code necessitate clarification and summary of when and what type of development would come before the Board of Architectural Review. EXISTINQ 1. Development within 200 feet of the Green River requiring a shoreline permit. 2. a Commercial development in excess of 10,000 square feet in RMH FO C1 b. All commercial development in C2 CM CP MEMORANDUM c. Exterior modification in excess of 10,000 square feet of building area of existing commercial development in C2 CM CP 3. Development of multi - family in excess of twelve (12) units in R2 R M H R3 FO R4 C1 4. Development exceeding basic height limits. 5. Development north of 1 -405 and east of 1 -5 in all zones excluding single- family homes. NOW BEING CONSIDERED ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATION 18.60.030 Scope of Authority (3) 6. Developments which receive a design review condition through a rezone or other land use action of the City Council or by the SEPA official. The following are additional recommendations pending before the City Council that are a result of Riverton: 1. Require design review for developments in CM districts adjacent to residential areas. and Foster/Thorndyke: 2. Require design review for all development with the exclusion of single - family homes; development Tess than 10,000 square feet in C2, CP and CM districts; and development in M1 and M2 districts. Residential areas adjacent to M1 and M2 should be added to provide consistence in the level of review. In addition, Planning staff suggests that when commercial development in excess of 10,000 occurs in residential areas, review is warranted. At this point, it becomes simpler and more understandable to list when review is not required than when it is required. A consolidation of the existing code and pending recommendations is as follows: A Any development in the City (and in areas that annex) will be subject to design review with the following exceptions: (1) Single- family homes. (2) Developments less than 10,000 gross square feet of building area in C1, C2, CP and CM districts, except when abutting or across the street from residential uses or districts or within 200 feet of the Green /Duwamish River that requires a shoreline permit. Concerns about development in PO districts, which more often abut residential, are as acute as those expressed for other districts. Therefore, staff suggests adding PO to the above list of districts. Developments In M1 and M2 districts except when abutting or across the street from residential uses and districts or within 200 feet of the Green /Duwamish River. The following recent requirement has raised questions about the scale and clarification of type of modification the Planning Commission would like to review. Given the recent cumulative changes, is this type of review actually desirable? B. Any exterior modifications to existing commercial development in excess of 10,000 gross square feet in building floor area in C2 CP CM - 7rr-t& 44 . J /1 F 9- s/ . .4 . ztt - •YC7 b� �a1� 4 1 / %.,V1 "e4 .L/LfJ 117 - 44aLLee% / etAe..Q' 42-/ f( -eza d.eiJL/ „ Ad- .# -4e./4.0/ 13. 4 %1'17 ICYl .G4-l' !- 1 / 1fSJ -ez 4 GEC/ �2/ �/' -cC/ r-lc a6 - ir 74e 1.44ze. ,a40 7;2za-1-6- 0 r/ ,e. -. ' - .d€'/ 4p ) 7/6 .::.' J LL ?--eec -ar6 Q_ -G eIe G G .e.G - ate- ' -' = - 1i e y y_ .4 , r 421 - -'7 ztd ' ,e/77,474/00 .edJ A - 4ft -;6' .e-7' max - .C� e - . ZeUi . �.,ti4 �7ye(/�CI�U 7774e..-e6 • A ,r , =etf, ,c t ,(..: e-!' 7' .CL�L�I.0 �/ rcc 61,e. lre. .ace L/i o'1D yf2-f-42. 4 ,te cz e4� -8��� �/l rC /" 26 �� J ` "`� i �ltie' l�C�� /I /JLB� - -N'- /4 r/' le-e-,e 41 74 . � � - �irt 9 , ice ,� ° /O f e ,tr z•<i) ue - &h %JAe' - - ,4$ u .r= ,an rrJ. /ill/r.✓ ,ainrc) duel Aott -e= r-~-7: .e.6 ahet /) -t <k.4e-) -st.JJ .riri-zt't /44-1.- -214 .-‘_�--*'..°' � - ,4:' A24 7 -0 4(--, - - .,P. r j . - - , - - 0 fet-e) -ae*-1- 'tali 77 ist,,e -sr& --d-rne o gn o e •e4g 40-7.kze-A-er-6,•-;7_, lee 7 ' d-j fri'-iblm'eL' ' . - ' -' go-Au-7:i -1 - e ---- 4,21ee/6) .e..42-$ 77 .4, z4., Aeove,ei • (2 e4a.e .-rise--/ /7 el- ...-.A4,,Ae-• \=, -6 feeered-/-' -7 ,i ..e141..e-leizie •e•-ecoie-e.) ,,),..Le-- -re eze--,_t4e,:v .• 7-:: -4e...e. ---).e.,...,e_, ,e) ,--0:0z..) • • . - -2,94'-' I et-l-e-' -4/1 -7 -1.--it-1 ..' -co/ Z.) 7:1 ae-1 / I s-7- ,, -- ---- .....4:.4,<.. %...11 .e_a., 4z-- Z d- 71,27 / f a . e.-X" -eiree-reze-e- -z 7):7z.e....---/f ..-e-.,,e..-z.e..- itAvt-d -ed-e^ .".-' e/- - ) VIZI C.40+: -aY-45.0.0-4-J ---2 ,e,•77 • '-&‘'z zi-74,- i,-7 ,e4-, 6-e-471_40,2 iA-t 7 c3.47-1-e-; , , ,A -44e/A,.-e-ae.e.--,z} -C,66i-r,e7z,6 _---A-;e.xe-V---)-A- -e-e/t--' " ----e- 5) 792 4-4zose et :7tit - f 4.r0 0 . %-.Z.le_,-.te,i_e_eitree-e„•-,:,e.z y , ee- .er.--7,ee ..." el:vie, . --tee-ecr,-,2e.e___. ofof,?.titeetet,- Mae •,' --nez -e4e7-e--c' -‘ge-e -a...2 ..ei.,•,..21e-ez%.-7 t. i -4e..r.,z2ze.... -4-2 I Ael.-- - 44Ce AA./6e-4.-1 -70 7 . , ‘4 in a-eae42? di 7ed.kit ' -1i-41-v. . ie7-4t 4, za. a.../ 7) e 6 e i,e,-, i 4- -iteee _//i;G; .z" t*- -43e -eeteer 44 -eeAd .5. 7 4-!,6 am ee 4/..cga-e,-- grier -4 ea,dtz ,i-l r--,,euf, -r-4e.- - Acee) 4Z-Ae. : -/- ,0.7-7, -e-Alay• 4, .._.e.- Z- -e--,,,e..lr y e.e.e..-/- -aeZ,,..e'a.: diZ:we..47ze.-e..).--0:1,-,40-‘1_, -,1- /972. ,- -e:C.:e-Z _,7 -cloced---.-- ,e,if:41Ai--,1.J -iee./- .ei- -,:20- -2 -...-, -C-7 „la 1 -e " et-- 7 --a4.7z. u5 . . . ,7.:7; e - zg 47 X .i.e,e2i. 4- ,-;feei,eee):.: zi:'..e., -,P-i.eAwer-inee.) ,274.4 . , Z' / -i'hlt-at,'...-4 ..-/ t.4 1 a-0-n' .6 .44tee‘d -ie. 77-- - /I ) Wie4' -‘- 4 /eele/y -.0- • -7/ • , .�,... ,..,...,, �kur�<.„ �.:. x:., 7• nrae-.: rsc: �: c...:. �, o-. x�.+. SUMMARY ZONING DESIGNATION, WEST SIDE 51ST AVENUE SOUTH TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL MEETING, OCTOBER 17, 1988 REQUEST: We request retention of the current King County zoning on the west side of 51st Avenue South from South 144th to South 152nd Street. We are requesting an equivalent designation from Tukwila of R -4 with a 2400 square foot size restriction. This may involve a new or modified zoning designation. We encourage you to look at creative options. The following facts will summarize and support our request. • The original planning meeting discussion, maps (see Attachment 1) and June 22 handout entitled "Zoning Code Comparisons" (see Attachment 2) compared Tukwila's R -4 zoning to King County's RM2400. • RM2400 zoning has been in effect on the subject property for more than 20 years (see Attachment 3). • Taxes have been paid on the basis of multiple - family zoning for more than 20 years. • No new homes have been built here since 1959. • The area is not conducive to maintaining a thriving single family neighborhood. In 1949 Mr. & Mrs. Ketchersid were denied a construction loan by several banks. The reason given: this area was unsuitable for single family development. • As development costs are considerable, it h not economically feasible, according to developers who have contacted us, to build under the proposed R -3 zoning. • Improvements would include installation of sewers, larger water pipes, probably streets, curbs and sidewalks, and grading. These items would be paid for by the developer, and therefore would not impact the Tukwila city budget. It would, however, broaden Tukwila's tax base. • Right -of -way on the west side of 51st Avenue South has been dedicated for road improvement. :.Y...;+s.�!s_2 <�.n:x:4rr:r�r. • Tukwila City Council - 2 • While there are many suitable apartment building sites along 51st Avenue South, the topography on the back of the property is quite steep. This provides a natural buffer, both vertically and laterally. (See Attachment 4) . • Development of this street will upgrade, revitalize and beautify an area which has deteriorated to the point of being an eyesore. Thank you for listening to our concerns, and considering retention of our current zoning. /6'f,:, 9 - s/ l 'w ,6. C..a l,q li [A 4.,n' , s 0 .'--; / - I � _ 'I ) D[_ lit ,t__4 r '- L L c_. t / Ac) S 10 _ Ski / l iP C G &- ( -4 / 3 5/ z9UC. S' . NAME ADDRESS i y 3 7 ` j c; / 3 ? • 5- �-�T 2. t . S . /L -57 /1Y &2. • /S �'f 1 czP-• n.. _ : / �f ^7 t lr' ' Y 5 3/ 11 Pi 7 / .6 7 ;Gi Pe cc cce-a-Ze) 1110 t lib :1 8, 146.11 tj •• )) 5J ; 14F -- d I 1' 1 : 10 1' 1 1..., 11 11 ..1 • 1 Al 17t1t, • ' 1 19 10 •1 11 ns ; g 1- I 0 4q 1M 4g1, rit 11/ .4 ......... cf .1 CP . U12 ST •.t:€1 - q,j „ 1 20 4 1 '.■ . 17,, 15 14 b1 ,r 4 P RS 7200 , . • • • •.• p 11 ,r1 18 17 16 " ; ■..r\ :;It: \NC . .1 [1 ; I 1 OW . • o•o SIY Z.■ 51' 16 00 1; 16 15 7200 • 1 on. • 1'. ' 14 1.1.. t • • I -- -Th-1 11 ' RM - 2400 12 Lips 1 I LE) 1 E 13 rio _ ••■•• 1RM 7 1E 11) : Lij :5 11 E 12 13 1 • NO? Ctgo °P6N 111 8 t•• RM-2 40 0 = 11-4 PPS 11 Id t..- • 15 1 . (-1 •:... • -' . = % i i 1 - - 1 : I:11. oo L -7-: ) • .1 / . ,. I t't• i ''.' ; - . 40 4..1 .•" 1 v tr. I Y. 1 6. 4 -• . . 'll 1- • 1 t%; - r loj II , I I 11 1 11; II 8 • 'I , II I l' t 1 t I ! ;* 1') il 11 E IIM 2400 oltItI CI 10 H • I 1.4 LI v. , 1 11 1-• ; •••• Wide .i ...HI ATTACHMENT 1 gi• lit • 117 1 ' 6 " \i/ 11;1 1 ••,, P. I ; 1 z 1 r. 13 ,.1 •. 14-.4 • .1! o• 4 , o j - 171 • 1 , 1 „ 11111111 • • o 1•,,pik c 4 1.41 ..n ▪ _ A 3 n o .; • , . I I . „ .I/ d '18.0 ‘i 1 . , 11111111iIK „fiiiil i " I .1 1 1 1.1.111 71. ,If , 10 s o . [ti 1 0 I / I , L ; Il 1 1 t 0 Z. 1 1.-- • tM 1100 Marl... Drasltr M Itl.lr Dewitt.. /Yestrlttd Sulk: Establishes permitting the maximum population density and also permits certain uses other than residential. ems. hotels /motels; retirement hornet; medical, dental. social services; and professional and busincu offices. Mobile home parks arc allowed in this zone. The unclassified uses listed at the cod of this chart are also allowed in this zone. There are no coaditional uses is the zone. Lot coverage /yard requirements 60% for residential use& Permitted floor arca: two times the arca of the lot. Minimum lot arca: 7200 square feet- less if developed through a subdivision. Minimum lot arca per dwelling unit of 900 square feet. Minimum lot width: 60 ft. Lot Height: 33 rect. Height may be iacreased 1 f& for each additional foot of side yard and open space. Landscape rcquirensemts 20 ft. landscaped front yard; office development adjacent to a RS. RD. RM, RT. RMHP or S zone must have 10 ft. landscaped side and rear yards and next to an RM office, public or institutional use. 3 ft. landscaped tide and rear yards. jM 1100 - High Density Multiple Dwrlllat Provides for high density living in a residential atmosphere without the necessity of individually maintaining a dwelling unit. Uses permitted outright include multifamily development. mobile home parks, some public facilities, churches, retirement homes. and medical /dental clinics. The unclassified uses listed at the end of this chart are also allowed i■ the zone. There are no conditional uses in the zone. Lot coverage /yard requirements: 50% Minimum lot area: 7200 square feet. Minimum lot area per dwelling unit is 1200 sgwrc feet. Minimum lot width: 60 feu Height: 33 feet. Height may be increased 1 ft. for each additional foot of side yard and open space. Landscape requirements: 20 ft. landscaped front yard. 20 ft. Landscaped tide and rear yards when adjacent to a RS or S zone and 3 ft. when adjacent to a RMHP, RM. RT or RD zone or a public or institutional use. jM 2400 - Mdlu Density Mutilate Duellist Establishes permitting relatively high density living while maintaining a residential environment. Allows multifamily development, mobile home parks, some public facilities, churches, retirement ►owes, and medical /dental clinics. The unclassified uses listed at the cad of this chart arc also allowed. There arc no conditional uses in this none. Lot coverage /yard requirements: SOY Minimum lot arca: 7700 square feet. Minimum lot arca per dwelling unit is 2400 square feet. Height: 30 feet. Non - residential uses can exceed this height under controlled conditions. Landscape requirements 20 ft. landscaped front yard. 20 ft. landscaped side and rear yards when adjacent lo a RS or S zone and 5 ft. when adjacent to a RMHP, RM, RT or RD zone or a public or institutional use. Prafrulc..I ../ Offlcr DLattict (P O Dlitrcts Provides areas for professional and adminstrativc offices that also serve as a buffer between residential and commercial . Uses permitted outright include all uses allowed in lees intense zones including multifamily and medical /dental officel: admini professional and business offices; licensed schools; and government offices excluding police and fire stations. Banks and retail talcs as part of a mized•usc development are allowed in the zone with conditional use permits Universities; commercial recreational fields and /or clubs; convalescent, nursing, and retirement homes, drive•ia theaters; fire and police stations; hospitals; monorails; motels /hotels; radio /TV stations /towers; transit shelters; and water towers /plants also are allowed in the zone with a conditional use permit. The unclassified uses listed at the cod of this chart are also allowed in the zone. Lot coverage /yard requirements: 25 ft. front. 10 ft. side, and 10 ft rear yards. Permitted floor arca: no minimum Height: 3 stories or 35 f t. Landscape requirements: IS ft. landscaped front yard, 3 ft. landscaped side yard, and 3 ft. landscaped rear yard. When meat to residentially toned land, landscaped requirements increase. paltlde Rrtldr.ct High Desalt* (RMH District] Provides areas for high density. multiple family development which is compatible with commercial and office uses. Uses allowed outright include all uses in Ices intense zones including less dense multifamily development and professional offices and clinics of individual medical providers, architects, lawyers. sad planners when the offices arc in the basement or first floor of • mix use building. Offices and clinics of more than one professional person require a conditional use permit in she zone. Churches, schools. libraries. museums. fire and police stations, utility stations transit shcttcrs, water towers. convalescent homes. boarding houses. and private clubs or fraternal orders arc also allowed in the zone with a conditional use permtt. The unclassified taus listed at the end of this chart arc also allowed in the zone. Lot coverage /yard requirements: 30 ft front. 10 ft tide, and 23 ft. .car yards required. Minimum lot arca: 1500 so. ft. required per unit; Height: 43 ft. Landscape requirements: 13 ft. landscaped front yard. 3 ft. landscaped side aid rear yard. When next to single family zones, landscape requirements increase. jaw Aaart.rsts (R -4 Dlstrlrt] Provides a for high density apartment and condominium development. Uses permitted outright include all uses allowed in less intense zones and multifamily development; convalescent, nursing or retirement homes; boardinghouses, public libraries; public museums and art galleries. Churches, public schools, fire and police stations. utility stations. transit shcttcrs, and water towers arc allowed in she zone w ith a conditional use permit. The unclassified uses at the cad of this chart arc also allowed in the a00C. Lot coverage /yard requirements: 30 (1 front, / ft side and 25 ft scar yards. Minimum lot arca: 2,000 sq. ft. rcquircd per unit. Height: 35 ft. Landscape requirements: IS ft landscaped front yard, 5 fi landscaped side and rear yards. When nest to single family zone, landscape requirements increase. ATTACHMENT 2 T Undcr certain conditions. King County alto.' ta:•r.r buildings than Tukwila. The King County zone is more restrictive and doe not allow the type of uses included as conditional uses in the Tukwila zone. King County does not allow the more intense unc •ssified uses listed at the cad of this chart and Tukwila does. Height requ •cments are similar, although Tukwila allows slightly taller buildings. The King County zone is more restrictive and doe• not allow the type of user included as conditional uses in the Tulsa'', zone. King County does not allow she more interne unclassified uses listed at the end of this chart and Tukwila doer. Under certain conditions, Kies County allows taller buildings than Tukwila. r1NANCE The biggest part of my local to tax. Will my property tax go up ... 41%.• eV . Property taxes in the City of Tlrkwila are slightly lower than in King County. For example, on a $100,000 home, the property tax in Tukwila is $47 -$127 less annually, depending on whether existing City bonded indebtedness is assumed and on your current tax rate for school and fire districts. What is "bonded indebtedness ?" "Bonded indebtedness" is a debt that Tukwila voters have approved in previous elections. This existing debt is being used to purchase the Foster Golf Course and will be paid for by 1998. In 1987, this indebted- ness was 16 cents per $1,000 of assessed value. As shown in the illustration, even with this indebtedness added, the property tax rate in Tukwila is lower than the rate in unincorporated King County. Do you have to accept bonded indebtedness if you vote to annex? It will be a separate ballot vote from the annexation question. Are there any other changes in taxes that I should know about? The City of Tukwila does not have any additional taxes on property, business or utilities, other than property tax. The sales tax in King County has just been increased to 8.1%. The sales tax in Tukwila is 8.1%. TAX RATE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN TUKWILA & KING COUNTY 1987 Average Assessed Home Value $65,000 $300 : dt:.e: . -. >.. 'Includes surface water tax • �...i TTACHMENT 3 King County $230.30' Surface Water Tax $29.89 City of Tukwila $190.32 LANt5 Ugt, How will the zoning change if the area is annexed? The City will adopt a pre- annexation ordinance providing Tukwila zoning districts comparable to King County districts. What are the major development differences between King County and Tukwila codes? The major difference between unincorporated King County and Tukwila is that Tukwila has more restrictive standards for minimum setbacks and maximum building heights. Mobile homes are not allowed as single - family dwelling units outside of mobile home parks. The City will be reviewing their current restric- tion during its pre - annexation zoning process. What will happen to buildings that do not conform to City zoning standards? Buildings that do not currently meet City setback, height or lot coverage requirements, can be main- tained by the property owner. Expansions of a building will be subject to the new standards of the City. If the building is destroyed, the new replacement building will have to meet City standards. Noncon- forming residential structures including mobile homes may continue as they exist now and may be replaced after a natural disaster. Can I keep my horse and chickens if I annex to Tukwila? Yes, livestock. small animals and fowl are allowed in Tukwila. Tukwila health standards require a minimum lot size of 10,000 square feet to keep animals; how- ever, if you currently keep animals and then annex into the City, you do not have to comply with the lot size limit. I have a boat and trailer that I use for vacations. May I park them in front of my house, in the yard, or on the street? Recreational vehicles may be parked in your yard and on the adjacent street if it will not impair the safe flow of traffic on the street. 4 ton vehicles used for commercial purposes are not permitted in residential zones. Will I be allowed to continue my home occupation? Any business operating in compliance with all existing regulations may continue as a grandfathered use. For new businesses, Tukwila defines a home occupation as incidental to the primary use of the house as a residence and is carried on by a member of the family residing in the home. The conditions for home occu- pations can be obtained when applying for a Tukwila Business license. TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL ST'"TAL MEETING September 12, 1988 ( . Page 3 PURCHASE OF PROPERTY - contd. PUBLIC HEARINGS Pre - annexation zoning 8 comprehensive plan amendments for prop. Foster annexation (1st Public Hearing) Councilmember Hernandez asked if the City could negotiate with the seller if the cost exceeds $20,000 so the seller would be paying some of the cost. Larry Hard, City Attorney, stated it would probably be up to the City to pay the cost. There is a possibility that the the contaminated soil could be spread out over the entire site. Councilmember Robertson said he would prefer to clean the soil and not spread it over the entire site. MAYOR VAN DUSEN OPENED THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 8:12 P.M. Jack Pace, Senior Planner, explained the history of the Foster annexation. Mayor Van Dusen entered as an Exhibit a letter dated September 10, 1988 regarding Foster Annexation, Issue Area #1 with five pages of signatures from the area; letters dated September 10 and 11, 1988 from Ronald and Nancy Lamb; letter from Eva Painter and letters in the agenda packet. Peter Thomson, 13450 tlst South, stated he supported the annexation with cascading effect and restrictions on the cascading. He would like to keep the P -0 designation, that would be economical use of the property. Councilmember Bauch pointed out that the City Council has not approved P -0 without restriction. Councilmember Moriwaki asked Mr. Thomson if he was a resident of the area. He stated he has been but is not at present time. Terri Craig, 5306 S. 137th, stated the area is unique and surrounded by Tukwila. The area lends itself to apartment living. She pointed to a map of the area that she provided. The apart- ments have been using the area as a thoroughfare. The County came in and improved the road with 18' of asphalt but it has not helped. Many children cannot walk to the bottom of the hill. It has been suggested to be R -3. RMH is across the street. The traffic is terrific. She stated she had been at the Task Force meetings. At present we would be unable to sell our single family homes due to traffic noise. There is no future for home owners on the street; it is no longer a single family neighborhood. What is needed is P -0 non - restrictive cascading zoning. Norris Saari, 13535 53rd Ave. So., stated it seems the property is more suitable for high density. Tukwila is annexing more property; Tukwila is growing because more people are coming in. He would propose it should be given high density rating. Joan Merryhew, 4431 S. 148th, stated she was speaking for a friend who would like the area to remain single family. The friend is Elanor Whitmore. Ron Lamb, 4251 S. 139th, stated he was a member of the Task Force and the Planning Commission came up with a recommendation not in line with the Task Force. Their concerns are the same as in the area to the south. Macadam Road is narrow and twisting; traffic is busy and no sidewalks. He suggested this be changed to the P -0 zoning. David Craig, 5306 S. 137th, stated the area is impacted by apartments. Karen Layton, 14115 43rd So., stated there are concerns about the traffic, by zoning higher traffic will be added. Putting in a light will not help. The zoning should be lower. Dennis Westphall, 2261 NE 68th, stated he owns property at 53rd and 137th. He moved because of the traffic and noise. He was in favor of P -0 zoning with cascading. TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL SPcCIAL MEETING September 12, 1988 ( Page 4 PUBLIC HEARINGS - Contd. Pre - annexation zoning & comprehensive plan amendments for prop. Foster annexation (1st Public Hearing) - contd. Ms. Deano said she did not notice the noise at that time. She has not attempted to sell her home. Pam Carter, 4115 S. 139th, stated she was on the Task Force. R -4 zoning was discussed; the office designation is different. She would support the change to allow P -0 to R -3 and below. She said she did not believe anyone developing will widen or straighten Macadam Road. The traffic will remain. Diane Meyers, 13919 42nd Ave. So., stated high desnity zoning will bring in more traffic. She stated it is not feasible for light industrial as it will bring in more traffic. Bob McGreger, 5351 S. 136th, stated the area is natural for apartments. NEW BUSINESS Approve scope of work MOVED BY DUFFIE, SECONDED BY HARRIS, THAT COUNCIL APPROVE THE & authorize contract $55,000 FOR THE PROPOSED STUDY OF THE SEA -TAC ANNEXATION PRIOR for Sea -Tac annexa- TO THE VOTE. MOTION CARRIED. tion study. Larry Howe, 13568 139th P1. SE, stated he was not included in the Task Force meetings. In Area 2 his property is located. It is zoned R -1 and recommended R -3. It is not R -1 by the County zoning. He would like to see the area between 136th to 144th be C -M. In the agenda packet there is a letter signed by the residents and they are all in agreement. One would like it to remain R -1; it is RM 1800 according to the County. Mildred Saari, 13535 53rd Ave. S., stated they do not have a community any more. The noise is terrible, from traffic, voices and planes. They have found they cannot sell their property for these reasons. They would like to stay in the community. Ray Vomenici, 4822 S. 135th, stated he was not at the Task Force meetings. They would like to come into Tukwila. They would like this to be an improved area for the community. Diane Deano, 4622 S. 138th, stated she is in the part zoned C -M. None of the residents were on the Task Force. There are 9 people who are land owners; 6 are in favor of the zoning and 1 would not comment. The noise is terrifc. They would like to move. Councilmember Moriwaki said they moved there in 1977, how was the noise then? Eva Painter, 13526 53rd, stated they have decided to sell their property. She recommended P -0 unrestricted in order to develop the property. She stated she would like to live in Tukwila, but not where she is. Teri Craig, 5306 S. 137th, stated the area has been impacted by the high density. The zoning will have to be changed to make it right. We would like P -0. 95% of the people signing the petition want P -0 unrestricted; maybe design review is needed so people will want to stay. Joan Merryhew, 4431 S. 148th, said she did not mean they wanted P -0 unrestricted. Mr. Whitton has said it is perfect for offices. Norris Saari, 13535 53rd Ave. S., said the people on the Task Force looked for lower density zoning and they are not the ones living in the area. He stated he was speaking for the ones living here. MAYOR VAN DUSEN CLOSED THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 9:38 P.M., STATING THE SECOND PUBLIC HEARING WOULD BE ON OCTOBER 17, 1988. To: Tukwila City Council Subject: Tukwila Comprehensive Zoning on West side of 51st Ave. South from South 144th to South 152nd As noted in the Planning Dept. report, this area has been a controversy since the beginning of the task force meetings this past summer. The debate centered around zoning as R3 versus R4. The opposition for an R4 zoning, as shown on the large Thorndyke annexation map, comes from non residents of that area with the effected owners wanting R4. The present county zoning is Rro 2400 which -is closer to the Tukwila R4 code. The Roberson and Ketchersid homes were the last homes to be built within the subject area and that was 30 years ago. Since the freeway cut thru the area there has been no market for single family residence. Duplexs and /or fourplexs cannot be built because septic tanks are not feasible. A duplex market cannot pay for the tremendous cost of water and sewer upgrading. Recently two builders have shown interest and signed purchase agreements based on the county.zoning of Rm 2400 and acquisition of several acres on which to build. Both builders have signed agreements for sufficient acreage, however, one builder has stated that he cannot build with a density of less than Rm 2400 because of the high cost of private upgrading of the sewer and water lines. mathmatically the figures calculate to a devaluation of approximately $20,000 per acre from an R4 zoning to an R3 zoning. In reality, it is much more because an R3 zoning essentially kills any market as noted in the previous para- graph. It is virtually impossible for us in this area to support a favorable vote when it would cost us from S40,000 to $50,000 each. Cascade zoning has been brought up several times in the task force meetings. For this area it is a moot point because the hill area essentially isolates 51st Avenue from the Thorndyke plateau above. The "not opened" streets of 146, 148, and 150th are impractical to cut thru because they all exceed the maximum grade allowance of Tukwila. We, the undersigned, strongly urge and recommend a comprehensive zoning code of R4 for the subject area. Name n ar-IJ t7' Nam September 12, 1988 Address /3 2N e� Address 1 17 7 .;./-'- ‹ b 3 /cl 5/ 3/ J/� rte / 4� T Address 4` 3/ Sd / e Address 1 7 4 3/ 5, /V 4/ 14-?rent2e -A Address lqff -4=Nf Lt 7� City of Tukwila PLANNING DEPARTMENT 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, Washington 98188 (206) 433 -1849 DATE: September 12, 1988 , TO: City Council FROM: Planning Department SUBJECT: Summary of Planning Commission Recommended Amentment to the Foster and Thorndyke Annexation Reports. The following is an summary of the Planning Commission recommended changes to the Annexation Task Force's recommendations. ZONING CODE TEXT AMENDMENTS 1. PO - PROFESSIONAL OFFICE ZONE Issue: Should the City continue to allow high density multi - family apartments in the PO zone. Thorndyke Task Force Recommendation -- Amend the Code to not allow any apartments in teh PO Zone. Foster Task Force Recommendation -- No change. Planning Commission Recommendation -- Allow multi- family density up to the R -3 Zone. 2. DESIGN REVIEW Issue: To what extent should design review be required. Thorndyke Task Force Recommendation -- No change. Foster Task Force Recommendation -- No change. Planning Commission Recommendation -- All developments (except single family homes and developments less than 10,000 square feet) in all zoning districts except M -1 & M -2. City Council September 12, 1988 Page 2 FOSTER ANNEXATION MAP AMENDMENTS 1. Location: Issue Area #2 Foster Task Force Recommendation - R -1 Low Density Residential Planning Commission Recommendation - R -3 Medium Density Residential 2. Location: East of Macadam, north of 138th, south of 136th, and west of I -5. Foster Task Force Recommendation - R -1 Low Density Residential Planning Commission Recommendation - CM Light Industrial 3. Location: Issue Area #4 Foster Task Force Recommendation - R -2 - Medium Density Residential Planning Commission Recommendation - West of 41st Ave. - C -2 Commercial THORNDYKE ANNEXATION MAP AMENDMENTS East of 41st Ave. - R -4 High Density Residential 1. Location: Issue Area #2 Task Force Recommendation - R -2 Medium Denisty Residential Planning Commission Recommendation - R -1 Low Density Residential City of Tukwila PLANNING DEPARTMENT 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, Washington 98188 (206) 433 -1849 The meeting was called to order at 8:00 p.m. by Mr. Haggerton, Acting Chairman. Members present were Messrs. Kirsop, Haggerton, Knudson, Verhalen, Cagle and Hamilton. Mr. Coplen was absent. CITY OF TUKWILA PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 8, 1988 Representing the staff were Jack Pace, Moira Bradshaw and Joanne Johnson. Mr. Haggerton explained that the Public Hearing was closed and the purpose of the meeting was to come to a decision on a recommendations to the City Council on the Foster and Thorndyke Annexations. The decision would be based on the testimony received at the August 30, 1988 meeting as well as written testi- mony. MR. CAGLE MOVED AND MR. HAMILTON SECONDED A MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE AUGUST 30, 1988 MEETING AS WRITTEN. MOTION CARRIED UNINMOUSLY. Jack Pace, Senior Planner, reviewed the proposed Zoning Code Amendments regarding the Height Exception Area, PO - Professional Office Zone, and Design Review. Discussion ensued on these issues. MR. HAMILTON MOVED AND MR. CAGLE SECONDED A MOTION TO ACCEPT THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION ON THE HEIGHT EXCEPTION AREA AS PRESENTED. MOTION UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED. The recommended Zoning Code change is as follows: Amend map 2 "Building Height Exception Area" (p. 290 of Tukwila Zoning Code) to show area adjacent to SR -99 and SR -518 inter- change as "Up to and including 115 feet ". Planning Commission September 8, 1988 Page 2 Amend TMC 18.50.040 - Building Height Exceptions up to and Including 115 Feet: "Authorization of building height greater than the heights contained in Section 18.50.020 (Table 1) up to and including 115 feet in the areas of the City as designated on Map 2 shall be made by the Planning Commission acting as the Board of Architectural Review pursuant to the guidelines and procedures specified in Chapter 18.60. Discussion ensued on PO Professional Office Zone. MR. HAMILTON MOVED AND MR KIRSOP SECONDED A MOTION TO MOVE THE PO PROFESSIONAL OFFICE DESIGNATION IN ORDER OF SEQUENCE IN THE ZONING CODE SO THAT IT FOLLOWS R -3. THE MOTION PASSED WITH VERHALEN, KIRSOP, HAGGERTON AND HAMILTON VOTING YES; AND CAGLE AND KNUDSON VOTING NO. Discussion ensued on the zoning change for Design Review. MR. HAMILTON MOVED AND MR. CAGLE SECONDED A MOTION TO HAVE DESIGN REVIEW ON ALL DEVELOPMENTS (EXCEPT SINGLE FAMILY HOMES AND DEVELOPMENTS LESS THAN 10,000 SQUARE FEET) IN ALL ZONING DIST- RICTS EXCEPT M -1 AND M -2 ZONES. MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED. FOSTER ANNEXATION Jack Pace, Senior Planner, reviewed the various maps depicting the Foster annexation area. He then reviewed the testimony at the August 30, 1988 hearing, as well as written testimony received. Mr. Pace reviewed the proposed zoning for Area #1 of the Annexa- tion area, which includes property owned by Mr. Whitlow, Mr. Hopper, Terri Craig and Eva Painter. He noted that the Task Force recommended zoning for the area is P -0 Professional Office. The Planning Commission concurred with the P -0 Professional Office designation for this area. Mr. Pace then reviewed the proposed zoning for Area #2 and the testimony given by Mr. Howe, Mr. Vomenici, Joan Meryhew who represented Eleanor Whitmore, Pam Carter, Mr: DeAno, and Mr. Davis. MR. HAMILTON MOVED AND MR. VERHALEN SECONDED A MOTION TO ESTAB- LISH C -M AS THE ZONING FOR THE AREA BORDERED BY 136TH (APPROX.) TO THE NORTH, MACADAM TO THE WEST, 138TH TO THE SOUTH, RIGHT -OF- WAY FOR I -5 TO THE EAST; ESTABLISH R -3 FOR THE BALANCE OF AREA 2. Planning Commission September 8, 1988 Page 3 THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY PASSED. MR. HAMILTON MOVED AND MR. CAGLE SECONDED A MOTION THAT THE AREA INCLUDED IN THE RIVERTON ANNEXATION WHICH IS LOCATED APPROXI- MATELY SOUTHEAST OF 48TH, AND ABUTTING I -5 AND 136TH, BE CHANGED FROM SINGLE FAMILY TO C -M. THE MOTION PASSED WITH VERHALEN, HAGGERTON, CAGLE, HAMILTON AND KNUDSON VOTING YES; AND MR. KIRSOP VOTING NO. The next area covered was the property owned by Jeff Bowman and zoned single family. The Planning Commission concurred with the single family designation. Area 4 -B was the next area to be covered which was the location of a trailer park. MR. KIRSOP MOVED AND MR. KNUDSON SECONDED A MOTION TO DESIGNATE AREA 4 -B AS R -4 ZONING. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. The Planning Commission concurred that Area 4 -C remain single family. Area 4 -A was the next area under discussion which is located in the southwest corner of the annexation area. MR. HAMILTON MOVED AND MR. KNUDSON SECONDED A MOTION THAT THE AREA WEST OF 41ST AVENUE BE DESIGNATED C -2, AND THE AREA LOCATED BETWEEN 41ST AND 42ND BE DESIGNATED R -4. THE MOTION PASSED WITH HAGGERTON, CAGLE, HAMILTON, KIRSOP AND KNUDSON VOTED YES; AND MR. VERHALEN VOTED NO. Area 3 was the next area under discussion which is located in the southeast corner of the annexation area. The Planning Commission concurred with the R -3 designation of this area. A 5- minute recess was called; the meeting reconvened at 9:55 pm. THORNDYKE ANNEXATION Moira Carr Bradshaw reviewed the minutes of the August 30, 1988 meeting and the testimony given that night, as well as written testimony received subsequent to that meeting. She pointed out the location of property owned by Steve Oatsmith, Steve Lawrence and Ed Jackson who testified first at the previous hearing. The Planning Commission made no changes on the zoning designation of these properties. Planning Commission September 8, 1988 Page 4 Next she reviewed the circumstances related to the property owned by Al Pachucki located at 3725 S. 150th. MR. KIRSOP MOVED THAT THE PACHUCKI PROPERTY BE ZONED R -1 AND THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN REFLECT A MEDIUM DENSITY DESIGNATION. MR. KNUDSON SECONDED THE MOTION WHICH WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED. The comments of Curt Drake at 4444 S. 146th street and Vern Meryhew at 4431 S. 148th was noted. She then reviewed the oral comments and written testimony submitted by Mr. Donald Guilbault who owns property located in Issue -Area 2. The Planning Commission concurred that this property remain R -1. The next item reviewed was letters received by Mr. & Mrs. Swanberg and Mrs. Ketchersid who own property in Issue Area 8. The current King County Highline Plan designates the area as residential and with zoning of RM -2400, the closest comparable medium density Tukwila zoning is R -3 which will result in 3.5 units less per acre than currently allowed. MR. KIRSOP MOVED TO LEAVE THE ZONING R -3 ON THE ASSUMPTION THAT IF THIS AREA REALLY CREATES A PROBLEM AND THEY ARE WILLING TO EXPEND THE MONEY TO DEVELOP THE ROADWAYS AND THE WATER THEN WE CAN THEN REVIEW THE PROS AND CONS AND EITHER GRANT IT OR NOT. MR. KNUDSON SECONDED THE MOTION WHICH UNANIMOUSLY PASSED. The last comment reviewed was a letter submitted by Mae Nelson who supported the comments of Ed Jackson and Steve Laurence. MR. CAGLE MOVED TO ACCEPT STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION FOR THE THORN - DYKE ANNEXATION AREA WITH THE CHANGES THAT HAVE PREVIOUSLY BEEN ENTERED. MR. KIRSOP SECONDED THE MOTION WHICH WAS UNANIMOUSLY ACCEPTED. MR. HAMILTON MOVED TO ACCEPT STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE FOSTER ANNEXATION AREA WITH THE EXCEPTIONS THAT HAVE BEEN MADE TONIGHT IN THE MEETING. MR. VERHALEN SECONDED THE MOTION WHICH WAS UNANIMOUSLY ACCEPTED. DIRECTOR'S REPORT Mr. Pace reviewed the agenda planned for the September 22, 1988 Planning Commission meeting which will include discussion of the 1989 Work Plan and Budget. Planning Commission September 8, 1988 Page 5 ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 10:25 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Joanne Johnson, Secretary " ili k s . City of Tukwila PLANNING DEPARTMENT 6200 Southcenter Boulevard :t Tukwila, Washington 98188 (206) 433 -1849 Mr. Charles Shaw Spider Staging Corporation 13536 Beacon Coal Mine Road S. Seattle, Washington 98178 Subject: FIRE DISTRICT NO. 1 ANNEXATION Dear Mr. Shaw: Enclosed is the adopted pre- annexation zoning ordinance for the Fire District No. 1 proposal. Your site is shown as M -2 - Heavy Industrial. We have cascading zoning, which permits uses allowed in all the more restrictive zones. I have copied and included herein the permitted uses in the proposed district for Spider Staging. If you have any other questions, please call me at 433 -1848. If you would like to purchase a copy of our zoning code, they are $5.00 each and you should contact Joanne Johnson at 433 -1849. MCB /sjn enclosure Ell LAl= AC June 27, 1988 Sincerely, ir '�f (� Moira Carr Bradshaw Associate Planner Jl£Al . La aaWJIRLL 1.CU1.1111 L.UillilU'1.U(ltl City of Tukwila PLANNING DEPARTMENT 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, Washington 98188 (206) 433 -1849 1 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 to: 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 COMMISSION 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 Beeler, 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 COMMISSION 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 l .AND ZONING CODE MAP AS PROPOSED AND AMENDED BY COMMISSION AND ZONING COW"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 • • LARGER COPIES OF MAP AVAILABLE IN TUKWILA PLANNING OFFICE / - 9 N . .. . \ VI;,.. ::: . - • •:. - :-.:. ' ' . 1 ii r ' ... ' ... 3....,...:..11 0.... : „..:;.. - • - ' _ v n....\., k . , . k /_ .,....,: j 7. .7.71 7 .. .. 1.• . ,- '': iir . ,.„. ......,..3 1.:...---,-- _____:• .,-. --1, .....,-,...A ..- ! / ,, , ..- - i • , ,......„...,- , .., , -...:, / ./ ,•V/L - , 5 241 I v • . '.•■•,, _ S" II 4 I i City of Tukwila PLANNING DEPARTMENT 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, Washington 98188 (206) 433 -1849 DATE: September 9, 1988 TO: Tukwila City Council FROM: Tukwila Planning Commission SUBJECT: ZONING CODE TEXT AMENDMENT FOR THE FOSTER AND THORNDYKE ANNEXATIONS The Planning Commission has recommended the following Zoning Code Text Amendments in conjunction with the Foster and Thorndyke Pre - Annexation Zoning. 1) Height Exception Area (Thorndyke Area) Amend Map 2 "Building Height Exception Area" to show area adjacent to SR -99 and SR -518 interchange as "Up to and in- cluding 115 feet" (See Thorndyke Staff Report Attachment G) PO - Professional Office Zone Amend the PO - Professional Office Zone of the Zoning Code to allow only a multi - family density up to the R -3 zone (Three /Four Family Residence). Design Review Amend Section 18.60.030 Scope of Authority Remove Section 18.60.030 (2) (B /C) (B) Commercial development in excess of ten Thousand gross square feet of building floor area in the RMH, P -O, and C -1 districts of the City; (C) Development of multiple- family complexes in excess of twelve dwelling units in the R -2, R -3, R -4, RMH, P -0, and C- 1 districts of the city; Reword Section 18.60.030 (2) (E) (E) All proposed developments in all zone districts, excluding single family homes; C2 /CP /CM development less than 10,000 square feet; M -1 and M -2 zones; APPENDIX A 'City of Tukwila PLANNING DEPARTMENT I 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, Washington 98188 (206) 433 -1849 CITY OF TUKWILA PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 30, 1988 The meeting was called to order at 8:00 p.m. by Mr. Coplen, Chairman. Members present were Messrs. Coplen, Kirsop, Nagger - ton, Knudson, Verhalen, Cagle and Hamilton. Representing the staff were Jack Pace, Moira Bradshaw and Joanne Johnson. Mr. Coplen explained the public hearing procedure, as well as the annexation process. 88 -5 -R, 88 -5 -CPA, 88 -5 -CA FOSTER ANNEXATION - Request for: 1. Pre - annexation zoning for the Foster area. 2. Amending Tukwila Comprehensive Land Use Plan Map. 3. Amending the Tukwila Zoning Code. Jack Pace, Senior Planner, reviewed the staff report and various maps depicting the Foster annexation area. He further reviewed the hearing process, as well as the annexation process. Mr. David Whitlow, 5408 153rd Pl. S.E., Bellevue, WA, pointed out his property as being located in Area #1. He felt his property is not conducive to Single Family zoning and favored a PO zoning designation. He indicated he would suffer unfair economic impacts with a Single Family zoning designation. Ron Lamb, 4251 S. 139th, spoke as a member of the Task Force representing a number of citizens in the annexation area. He read a letter submitted to the Planning Commission which outlined a number of land use issues the Task Force attempted to resolve in the annexation area. This letter is on file in the Planning Department. He favored design review process for multi- family development. Lawrence Hopper, 5105 S. 136th, pointed out his property which is located in Area 1. He spoke in favor of multi - family use rather than a PO designation in order to maintain the residential quality of the neighborhood. APPENDIX C Planning. Commission August 30, 1988 Page 2 Larry Howe, 13568 - 139th S.E., Renton pointed out his property which is located in Area 2. He favored a multi - family zoning designation for that area and felt to zone it single - family would be down- zoning it and would result in the property being unmar- ketable. Terri Craig, 5306 S. 137th, pointed out her property on the map. She favored a PO zoning designation for this area, and if cascading zoning is eliminated, she prefers no less than R -4. She felt that the roads in the area cannot support multi - family. She stated that 90% of persons polled in the area favored P0. Regarding a single - family designation, she felt it would create an economic hardship because there is no market for single family in this area. Pam Carter, 4115 S. 139th, a member of the Task Force, favored design review for multi - family development which would protect single family residents from impacts of this type of development. Regarding cascade zoning, she supported making the recommended change for cascade zoning in the PO designation. She expressed a concern regarding impacts of increased traffic resulting from more intensive development, which would occur on streets that are at a maximum efficiency now. Jeff Bowman, 18014 N.E. 125, Redmond, pointed out his property which is located in Area 2. He favors multi - family zoning. He felt this property is not conducive to single- family zoning and further, it would create an economic hardship because there is no market for single- family in that area. Joan Meryhew, 4431 S. 148th, represented Eleanor Whitmore at 14006 McAdam. She stated that Ms. Whitmore favored preserving her property single - family residential while she is still living, but she would not object to some kind of business designation in the long -range plan for this area. She expressed a concern regarding the surface water that accumulates on her property from nearby development. Rayble Vomenici, 4822 S. 138th Street, he favored M -1 zoning, not R -1, for the area between McAdam Road and I -5. Nancy Lamb, 4251 S. 139th felt that R -4 or RMH designations would have a negative impact to the South Central School District providing a more transient student population. She felt that it would also have a negative impacts on other city services and further, it would not enhance Tukwila. She concurred with earlier comments regarding PO with R -3 and below usage permitted. She supported design review for multi - family development. Planning Comnis%ion August 30, 1988 Page 3 Joanne Poirier, 13405 42nd Avenue S. spoke in general regarding the inadvisability of single family zoning in some areas that are not conducive to single family living. She favored the ability to rezone property. Eva Painter, 13526 - 53rd S. owns property located in Area =1. She spoke in support of PO zoning in view of the fact she feels it is impossible to sell her property as residential. The public hearing was closed at 9:10 p.m. Mr..Coplen expressed his thanks for those who testified and explained the Planning. Commission would come to a decision at their meeting on September 8, 1988. A five minute recess was called and the meeting resumed at 9:25 p.m. to consider the Thorndyke Annexation. 88 -4 -CPA, 88=4 -R, 88 -5 -CA - THORNDYKE ANNEXATION Request for: 1. Pre- annexation zoning for the Thorndyke area. 2. Amending Tukwila Comprehensive Land Use Plan Map. 3. Amending the Tukwila Zoning Code. Moira Bradshaw, Associate Planner, reviewed the Thorndyke Annexation staff report, entering it as Exhibit I. .She referred to the Designation Comparison map of the Thorndyke area which was entered into the record as Exhibit II and the Comparison of Hlghline Comp. Plan with Proposed Tukwila Comp Land Use Plan which was entered into the record as Exhibit III. Steve Oatsmith, 7213 - 240th S.E., Woodenville, pointed out the location of his property which is located in Area 8. He favored retaining cascading zoning in PO if the streets are able to handle the impacts. Steve Lawrence, 4461 S. 144th spoke in favor of PO but not the RMH of cascading zoning. He spoke in opposition to apartments as it would adversely impact schools, lower the quality of neighbor- hoods. Ed Jackson, 4727 S. 144th, expressed his concern regarding the traffic on 144th. He favored preserving a single family quality of life. Al Pachucki, 3725 S. 150th, spoke in support of low density, not medium density. He was generally in favor of the annexation. 'oanne John Secretary Planning Commission August 30, 1988 Page 4 ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 10:07 pm. Respectfully submitted, Curt Drake, 4444 S. 146th, expressed a concern regarding the likelihood of having to accept the obligations of the Fire District. He supported the current R -1 zoning. Vern Meryhew, 4431 S. 148th, a member of the Task Force concurred with PO zoning designation but not to include cascading zoning. He favored a zoning change to anything but R -1 or R -2. Donald Guilbault, 12040 Standring Ct, Seattle, 98146, pointed out his property which is located in the central area of Thorndyke and the norther border of area 2. He favors a zoning designation of anything but R -1 or R -2. The Public Hearing was closed at 9:55 p.m. A meeting was scheduled for September 8, 1988 at which time the Planning Commission will come to a decision on the two annexation requests. Mr. Coplen explained that written testimony would be accepted up until 5:00 p.m. Friday, September 2, 1988. Tukwila Planning Commission 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, Washington 98168 14809 51st Avenue South Seattle, Washington 98168 September 2, 1988 To Whom It May Concern: We are writing to express concern over the proposed zoning requirements in our area if we are annexed to the City of Tukwila, and the impact it will have on us as property owners. The current RM24OO zoning has been designated for our property for at least 20 years. The zoning was designated as part of a long -range comprehensive. plan influenced in part because the 51st Avenue South corridor is bounded on the east by the 1-5 freeway and on the west by a topographical barrier, Bremer Hill. These factors, combined with the feeder arterial, Klickitat Drive, would indicate good planning. The purchase of our property in 1975 vas based on this zoning, as an investment for our retirement years. We have invested a great deal of time and money to improve the property for resale. It is our plan to retire in two or three years. If we are, in effect, "down- zoned" because of larger space requirements per unit, we stand to S35,00O to 545,000, based on recent sales on our street. This will have a substantial impact on our relocation. It is also a fact that ernest money agreements have been signed for all properties on the west side of 51st Avenue South from South 151st, north to Bonsai Northwest, with the exception of two parcels, ours and the Ketchersids, who border us on the north. Even though it is a major upheaval for us to sell at this time, we feel we are being forced to do so prior to the annexation in order to protect our retirement investment. The prospect to choosing to move or lose a substantial amount of our investment is adding a great deal of stress to an .already stressful time in our lives. Mr. Swanberg is recuperating from a heart attack and having other health problems of a more serious nature. Mrs. Swanberg has recently been hospital- ized as well. We strongly feel the input of local residents in annexation planning is largely biased to single family because most are single family residents. Some have been very vocal about apartments on 51st Avenue South It h our opinion they are unowcre this zoning was arrived at by good planning guidelines and has been in place for marry years APPENDIX D Tukwila Plann , j Commission The discussion at one of the earlier planning meetings indicated that current zoning requirements would remain unchanged along 51st Avenue South. Your proposed space requirements represent a substantial change. We' therefore request zoning that will retain the present space requirements on the property under discussion. Thank you for listening to our concerns. Phillip H. Swanberg Donna Swanberg AUGUST 31, 1988 • GENTLEMEN: THERE ARE THREE PROBLEMS: THANK YOU FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION. SINCERELY, DONALD R. GUILBAULT 12040 STANDRING COURT SW SEATTLE, WA 98146 CITY OF TUKWILA PLANNING COMMISSION 6200 SOUTHCENTER BOULEVARD TUKWILA, WA RE: ANNEXATION AND REZONING OF THORNDYKE AREA LOT 15, BLOCK 7, ADAMS HOME TRACT, LESS WEST 60' FIRST, I WISH TO STATE THAT I AM IN FAVOR OF THE ANNEXATION. SECO'.D, I WOULD LIKE TO ADDRESS THE ISSUE OF ZONING. WE OWN A PROPERTY AT 4049 SOUTH 146TH STREET. OUR HOUSE, ALONG WITH THE THREE HOUSES TO THE WEST AND ONE TO THE EAST, ARE THE ONLY HOUSES IN THIS BLOCK. THEY ARE NOT ON SEWER AND SEWER IS ONLY AVAILABLE ON PACIFIC HIGHWAY SOUTH. 1. WITH THE MOBILE HOME PARK AND A STORAGE LOT TO THE WEST (UPHILL) AND THE FOUR HOUSES ON SEPTIC SYSTEMS, ALL SURFACE WATER DRAINS ONTO OUR PROPERTY. THIS RESULTS IN THE LOT FLOODING AND CRE:.Ti'.Z WHAT WE BELIEVE COULD BE A HEALTH HAZARD. THE PROPERTIES .Yvl:-L NOT PERC AND ACCEPT NEW SEPTIC DRAIN FIELDS. 2. WITH THE ABOVE CONDITIONS AND THE TRANSIENT NATURE OF THE NEIGri- BORHOOD, THE HOUSES RENT FOR A FRACTION (75S) OF COMPARABLE PROPERTIES. 3. WHEN THE SEPTIC SYSTEMS EVENTUALLY FAIL, NO ONE WILL BE ABLE TO LIVE THERE. THAT LEAVES ONLY ONE SOLUTION -- FOR A DEVELOPER TO PURCHASE ALL THE PROPERTIES AND CHANGE THE USE OF THE PROPERTY FROM SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL. THEREFORE, PLEASE CONSIDER CHANGING THE ZONING FROM R -1 TO ANY ZOt.1'.G THAT WILL ACCEPT MULTI - RESIDENTIAL, PUBLIC STORAGE, LIGHT INDUSTRi =_ OR SIMILAR USE, WITH DESIGN REVIEW CONTROL TO ASSURE THAT THE TOME= TO THE SOUTH ARE BUFFERED. APPENDIX D !H�JNTY AS "" 7 • 11 • • • • t / � • e• • ,� s. 0 40 • • • - - • t • •,/ • i. • • . . is i • r �•/• ,•r 1 , ass vs 4 I • I ..4011/4 1 AORt • 1 • AP Sa I• 'MCI a. I i• aistiit* : • ' .,:t6taa •• • » • e 7; J erre : •4 •7•A1 -- -- . — sci 1 I V V r r..•��� *1'1' .10 w air • •w Or •t • _- • ( a • I J o. , • ii � r l • 1 ..L ba • gib •,15 agir 111: • • • I : • • 1 1 , • •,/ E I w1• 1 •w - -- -r •+r • :91 $ T • • • . . ; • • ar a 1 •••• •• • 71 i1 IR* 4114 • I • I I , J *"t• N4C : 4 i 4i- f....";14 tcf-`5IP 6 1988 te).€ C4 4 , 144 i. t e er g 7 • • a../ i•ed14." a-AA ez4e4_. / 7' - " & v •ht.c. -- 1; e e% -"1.444 - re - 3 (41-",4 s . 4 14 -Co q e-44 cr .s.4.„ c: 21„ 644144- -14 4 6-1 cs-tea. Ae.‘L ? _get4:er .44).4 ‘4 ,i, .t4 e 4.i9 Ce Q4' evulof tt e'-g:‹A / ers44-fma ;-) 4 9 74A1 Zoicef -,s,os‘Zes47- **frs aL APPENDIX D S • „ z. 2 < `sa° rte- /Aral .71 V G dipper yvyti 2-‘ .: � " v"-P' -"" 1.2_, 1 t i-14 7 1 l) -?-rr 4 4 .1-0 viv rs I V 741 AP 817 44. tlops )47 ( & .:41.17.3 7 iv-- s - itt r tAp "" '''to `t° 41(77/ Planning Conmission City of 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, WA 98188 Gentlemen: and would like to advise you annexation to Tukwila I am made Tuesday evening, August Ed Jackson. • • Re: Thorndyke Annexation I have resided at my present o - Tukwi 1 a location nearly . twenty years that I am in favor of the Thorndyke in complete agreement with the comments 31st, 1988 by Steve Lawrence and Very truly yours, 77 1-sul- 6 . l alA ° 4-1 " 1 Mae E. Nelson 4206 S. 148th St. P. 0. Box 68235 Seattle, WA 98168 City of Tukwila PLANNING DEPARTMENT 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, Washington 98188 (206) 433 -1849 STAFF REPORT to the Planning Commission Prepared August 26, 1988 HEARING DATE: August 30, 1988 FILE NUMBER: 88 -4 -CPA, 88 -4 -R, 88 -5 -CA INITIATED BY: •Thorndyke Annexation petitioners LOCATION: ACREAGE: 469.15 acres COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: See Attachments A and B ZONING DISTRICT: See Attachment C REQUEST: 1. Comprehensive Land Use Plan Map Amendments 2. Pre - Annexation Zoning 3. Zoning Code Text Amendments The annexation area is generally bounded by South 144th Street, Pacific Highway South, South 160th Street, and the City limits (Attachment H) SEPA DETERMINATION: Determination of Non - Significance issued July 1, 1988 ATTACHMENTS: (A) King County Highline Community Plan Map (B) Existing Tukwila Comprehensive Land Use Plan Map (C) Existing King County Zoning Map (D) Issue Areas Map (E) Proposed Tukwila Comprehensive Land Use Plan Map Amendments (F) Proposed Tukwila Zoning Map (G) Height Exception Map (H) Thorndyke Annexation Area Map f: ks._ STAFF REPORT to the 88 -4 -CPA, 88 -4 -R, 88 -5 -CA Planning Commission BACKGROUND PRE - ANNEXATION ZONING PROCESS CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT REPORT ORGANIZATION FINDINGS In May 1988, the City of Tukwila received a petition requesting an election for annexation to Tukwila of the area shown on Attachment H. The petition contained 67 valid signatures. Of the 1,106 registered voters residing in the area, 346 voted in the last general election, therefore the signatures exceed the required 10 %. The petition requesting an annexation election also requested the simultaneous adoption of pre- annexation zoning. The procedure for designating pre- annexation zoning has been varied. In annex- ation areas where there has been little development change and the current King County zoning is compatible with the Tukwila Comprehensive Plan, then the Tukwila Comprehensive Plan is used to create the appropriate Tukwila zoning. However, in areas where there is substantial development or County zoning inconsistent with Tukwila's Comprehensive Plan, then a Tukwila Comprehensive Plan update is undertaken. Substantial change in land use and development has occurred in the Thorndyke area in the blocks which form its boundary and in the blocks which abut the freeways. Since June a group of residents, property owners and business people have been working as a Task Force on the Tukwila Comprehensive Plan for the area and pro- posed Tukwila Zoning. The Task Force was formed by volunteers who signed up at the first public information meeting on June 8, 1988, and from volunteers res- ponding to a letter requesting participation; sent to all residents who signed the petition. The proposal was then presented to the community on August 18, 1988 for comment and discussion. The majority of the comments received were concerns by property owners about the decrease in the number of units allowed on their parcels, particularly in Issue Areas 5 and 8. For the Planning Commission public hearing, notices with the proposed zoning were mailed to all property owners and public notice appeared in the local papers. As part of the public notice, hearing dates for the City Council hearings were also mentioned. This report is divided into three sections. The first section discusses general annexation information. The second section discusses the Comprehensive Land Use Plan Map and Tukwila pre- annexation zoning. The third section addresses the proposed text amendments to the Tukwila Zoning Code. STAFF REPORT to the 88 -4 -CPA, 88 -4 -R, 88 -5 -CA Planning Commission As shown on Attachment B, the Thorndyke Annexation request is within the Tukwila Planning Area. This annexation ties in with the Foster annexation to the north and the 1985 McMicken annexation to the east. The annexation area population is estimated at 4,604 people. Existing land use in the area is mixed between commercial /multi - family along Pacific Highway South, South 154th and South 158th Streets; public schools along South 144th Street; and single - family in the central and eastern areas. As part of the environmental review process, the City examined capital and operation costs of the annexation to the City. Based upon that preliminary information provided by the consultant, additional research will be done by City staff in preparing an amended City budget. The amended budget will be approved by the City Council this fall, to address the additional service needs if the voters approve the annexation. Existing land uses and King County zoning (Attachment C) were compared with the Tukwila Comprehensive Land Use Plan Map, which was adopted in 1978 and revised in 1982 (Attachment B). Zoning categories from Tukwila and King County were also compared. See Table 1 below. This comparison found substantial variation between what exists and is allowed by the County and what is planned for the area by the City. The major change has been an increase in housing density along collector arterials. The areas of difference are referred to as sub -areas and grouped into issue areas identified on a vicinity map (Attachment D). Each sub -area is discussed in detail on the following pages. In the remaining blocks in the annexation area, where there are no conflicts in the zoning and no pro- posed changes in the City's Comprehensive Plan, the current zoning is RS -7200 and the proposed zoning is R- 1 -7.2. King County SR -1500, RS -7200 Single Family Residential (2.8, 6 dwelling units per acre, respectively) RD -3600 Low Density Multiple Dwelling (12 dwelling units per acre) RM -2400 Medium Density Multiple Dwelling (18 dwelling units per acre) RM -1800 High Density Multiple Dwelling (24 dwelling units per acre) B -N Neighborhood Business C -G General Commercial ANNEXATION COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLAN MAP AMENDMENTS AND PRE - ANNEXATION ZONING COMPARABLE ZONING CATEGORIES Tukwila R -1 -12.0 R -1 -7.2 Single- Family Residential (3.6/6 dwelling units per acre) R -2 Two Family Residential (11 dwelling units per acre) R -3 Three /Four Family Residential (14.5 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 STAFF, REPORT to the 88 -4 -CPA, 88 -4 -R, 88 -5 -CA Planning Commission There have recently been several new apartment or townhouse developments in the Thorndyke area. The task force's goals were to maintain a quality, stable single - family neighborhood, and control direct traffic impacts. To carry out these goals, they used medium - density residential to provide transition between high and low density residential. The desire to control the housing density of the area has resulted in some inconsistent designations of medium density in the overall plan. Transition is not provided, however, in all blocks between Pacific Highway and 42nd Avenue South. The City may wish to consider transition areas for the Comprehensive Plan (Attachment E) but retain the proposed zoning on Attachment F. THORNDYKE ISSUE AREA 1 EXISTING SUB- AREA TUKWILA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN A High Density Residential B High Density Residential C Low Density Residential DISCUSSION The proposed Comprehensive Plan change from high- density residential to Commer- cial and a C -1 zone for Sub -Area A is to accommodate the existing water district office. Sub -Area B is surrounded by high- density uses, therefore it is appro- priate to include it in the proposed RMH district. The proposal for Sub -Area C is a compromise between its current zoning, existing land use and Tukwila Comp Plan designation. The Comp Plan policy (p. 47) which states, "Provide medium - density 'transition areas' between high- and low- density residential areas" supports the proposed medium - density Comp Plan designation and rezone. The zoning to the north of South 144th Street is medium density as well. The Task Force reviewed and concurs with the recommendation. RECOMMENDATION Sub - Area Tukwila Comprehensive Plan' Zoning' A Commercial B High- Density Residential C Medium - Density Residential (26 /TA.AREA1) -5- COUNTY ZONING LAND USE RM -1800 Commercial parking, public utility office and storage RS -7200 Single- family dwellings RM -1800 Single - family dwelling C -2 and C -1 RMH R -2 The recommendation for the remaining area in the block is shown on Attachments E and F. THORNDYKE ISSUE AREA 2 EXISTING SUB- COUNTY AREA TUKWILA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ZONING A High- Density Residential B Low- Density Residential C Commercial D High- Density Residential DISCUSSION The proposed designations for Sub -areas A, B and C would reflect the existing uses of the sites. Sub -area D is proposed as a medium - density transition area rather than its current high - density designation. The City and County have failed to create gradual change or transition between residential uses. Sub -Area 0 is an opportunity for creating a transition between high- and low- density areas. The Task Force reviewed and concurs with the recommendation. RECOMMENDATION Sub - Area Tukwila Comprehensive Plan Zoning A Commercial C -2 B High- Density Residential RMH C High- Density Residential RMH D Medium- Density Residential R -2 The recommendation for the remaining area in the block is shown on Attachments E and F. (26 /TA.AREA2) -6- B C /RM -1800 RM -1800 BC /RM -1800 RS -7200 LAND USE Commercial parking Portion of mobile home park Multi - family development Single - family dwellings THORNDYKE ISSUE AREA 3 EXISTING SUB- COUNTY AREA TUKWILA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ZONING A High - Density Residential B High- Density Residential C High- Density Residential D Public Facility DISCUSSION Land in Sub -Areas A and B is not yet developed at high densities, as currently planned by their Comp Plan designations and zoning. A less dense transition between the existing commercial businesses west of the lots and the low - density residential immediately east of the lots in Sub -Area C would be medium density. A Public Facility designation is no longer needed or planned for Sub -Area D and is therefore recommended for low- density residential. The Task Force reviewed and concurs with the recommendation. RECOMMENDATION Sub - Area Tukwila Comprehensive Plan Zoning A Medium - Density Residential R -3 B Medium - Density Residential R -3 C Low - Density Residential R -1 -7.2 D Low- Density Residential R -1 -7.2 The recommendation for the remaining area in the block is shown on Attachments E and F. (26 /TA.AREA3) $,150TH ST. RM -1800 RM -1800 RS -7200 RS -7200 - LAND USE Single - family dwelling Vacant Single - family dwellings Single - family dwelling a Q n L,_ A , ' 1 1 •311/Vd 37190W 1391L I t I Ci i ■ fi ` I BOOB 9206 ' Zk i 1 i - II . :__ --_ _ THORNDYKE ISSUE AREA 4 EXISTING SUB- COUNTY AREA TUKWILA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ZONING LAND USE A High- Density Residential RM -1800 2 fourplexes on separate lots B High- Density Residential RM -1800 Single - family dwellings DISCUSSION RECOMMENDATION in 31. a 152ND ST. Based on policies of the Tukwila Comp Plan, it is appropriate to designate the sub -area for medium - density to provide transition between the existing low - density land use to the east and the high- density residential to the west. The Task Force reviewed and recommended R -2 for Sub -Area B and high- density RMH for Sub -Area A. After further review of the sub - areas, staff recommends a medium density /R -3 for both sub -areas since Sub -Area A needs R -3 to be a conforming use. Sub - Area Tukwila Comprehensive Plan Zoning A Medium - Density Residential R -3 B Medium - Density Residential R -3 (26 /TA.AREA4) -8- L__ w S. l5 /ST The recommendation for the remaining area in the block is shown on Attachments E and F. EXISTING THORNDYKE ISSUE AREA 5 SUB- AREA TUKWILA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN A Low- Density Residential B Low- Density Residential C Low- Density Residential D Low- Density Residential E Low- Density Residential F Low- Density Residential DISCUSSION RECOMMENDATION Sub - Area Tukwila Comprehensive Plan A High - Density Residential RMH B Commercial C High- Density Residential D Low- Density Residential E High - Density Residential F Medium - Density Residential R -3 COUNTY ZONING LAND USE RM -1800, Single- and multiple- family RM -2400, dwellings RS-7200 BC 2 single - family dwellings surrounded by a commercial parking lot RM -1800 Multiple - family complex RM -900 Single - family dwelling RM -1800 Multiple- family dwellings RM -1800, 2 single - family dwellings, 7 fourplexes, and vacant The recommendations for Sub -Areas A, B, C, E and F reflect the predominant use in each of the sub -areas and require a change to Tukwila's Comprehensive Land Use Plan Map from low- to high- or medium - density residential or commercial. Sub -Area D, however, is a spot of RM -900 zoning in a block of RS-7200; therefore R -1 -7.2 is proposed. The Task Force reviewed and concurs with the recommendation. Zoning' C -2 RMH R -1 -7.2 RMH The recommendation for the remaining area in the block is shown on Attachments E and F. THORNDYKE ISSUE AREA 6 EXISTING SUB- A Low - Density Residential DISCUSSION (26 /TA.AREA6) COUNTY AREA TUKWILA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ZONING LAND USE B Low- Density Residential RM -1800 Vacant RM -1800 Multiple- family dwellings with RS -7200 2 single - family homes in the southeast corner C Low- Density Residential RM -1800 4 single- family dwellings The proposal for A and C reflects the predominant land use in the sub - areas. Commercial in Sub -Area B mirrors the designation north of 158th Street and along its west property line. The Task Force reviewed and concurs with the recommendation. RECOMMENDATION Sub - Area Tukwila Comprehensive Plan Zoning A High- Density Residential RMH B Commercial C -2 C High- Density Residential RMH The recommendation for the remaining area in the block is shown on Attachments E and F. THORNDYKE ISSUE AREA 7 EXISTING SUB- AREA TUKWILA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN A Low - Density Residential B Low- Density Residential C Low- Density Residential DISCUSSION (26 /TA.AREA7) COUNTY ZONING RM -1800, RS -7200 LAND USE Duplexes, low apartments, single - family dwelling with non - conforming manufacturing use, sensitive vacant lot RM -1800 Multiple - family dwellings RS -7200 3 single - family dwellings Sub -Area A was the most difficult in this issue area to treat because of the wide mix of uses. A medium density designation, although low for the existing apartment's actual density at approximately 4200 - 154th Street, is more appropriate for the entire area due to the small size of the parcels and the sensitive area - a deep wide ravine - in the easternmost portion of the sub -area. For Sub -Area B, the proposed high density merely reflects the existing land uses. Sub -Area C is a small pocket of single - family homes. The lots to the north and east of C have access from 51st Avenue South and are proposed for medium - density residential; therefore, medium is also proposed for Sub -Area C. The Task Force reviewed and concurs with the recommendation; however, staff is proposing R -3 zoning of Sub -Area C to reflect the surrounding zoning, instead of R -2. (Either are appropriate zones for a medium- density designation.) RECOMMENDATION Sub - Area Tukwila Comprehensive Plan Zoning A Medium- Density Residential R -2 and R -3 B High- Density Residential RMH C Medium - Density Residential R -3 The recommendation for the remaining area in the block is shown on Attachments E and F. -12- TMORNDYKE ISSUE AREA 8 DISCUSSION Issue Area 8 was the most difficult area for the task force to review for appropriate land use. The following factors were discussed: 1. The road, 51st Avenue South, is a collector arterial and has direct access to SR -518 and I -5. It is substandard for a majority of its length. If a higher intensity of use were to occur, right -of -way dedication and improvement would be needed. Traffic counts for 51st equaled other busy collectors like Southcenter Boulevard between 62nd and 65th Avenue South. 2. The area is visible from I -5.and vice versa. There is no substan- tial grade change between the freeway for Sub -Area C. 3. The noise level negatively impacts the properties and more so for Area B than C because it is upslope from the freeway. 4. There are environmentally sig- nificant grades and streams in a majority of Sub -Area B. 5. The parcels are relatively large and have not been subdivided. 6. Sewer lines are non - existent and would have to be extended down from South 144th Street or up from 52nd Avenue. The water line is substandard and would also have to be improved if the area were to be developed for denser uses. The Task Force reviewed 11 alterna- tives from low density to commercial. A quality single - family neighborhood did not seem viable due to the prox- imity, views and noise of and from the freeway. Office, which is aesthetically more acceptable to residents than commercial due to building design and site development, is a good transition from the freeway. The medium density on the east could be more sensitive to site limitations of steepness and surface water and more marketable than single- family because of accessibility and location near jobs and shopping. Bonsai Northwest and a cellular tele- phone business are located in Sub -Area A. C -1 zone would be comparable with the existing BN zone and would accom- modate the existing uses. Although no consensus was achieved, the majority opinion in the Task Force felt the recommendation was the most appropriate. EXISTING SUB- COUNTY AREA TUKWILA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ZONING LAND USE A Low- Density Residential BN Retail businesses, single - family B Low- Density Residential RS -7200, Single - family dwellings RM -2400, RM -1800 C Low - Density Residential RS -7200, Single - family dwellings RM -2400 RECOMMENDATION Sub - Area Tukwila Comprehensive Plan Zoning A Commercial C -1 B Medium - Density Residential R -3 C Office P -0 (restricted, no cascade) (26 /TA.AREA8) STAFF REPORT to the L. `..3 -4 -CPA, 88 -4 -R, 88 -5 -CA Planning Commission This section will review the proposed text amendments to the Zoning Code in conjunction with pre- annexation zoning discussed in the preceding section. There are two proposed amendments: Height Exception and the Professional Office Zone. The proposed amendments would become effective upon annexation of this area to Tukwila. The single - family setback standards were also a concern for the task force. At this time there are no proposed amendments to the setback standards. HEIGHT EXCEPTION Existing Tukwila The Tukwila Zoning Code, page 290, maps areas of the City where buildings may exceed the height limits of the underlying zones. Proposed Amend map 2 "Building Height Exception Area" (p. 290) to show area adjacent to SR -99 and SR -518 interchange as 'Up to and including 115 feet ". See Attachment G. Amend (shown in bold print) TMC 18.50.040 - Building Height Exceptions up to and Including 115 Feet: Section 18.50.040 Building Height Exceptions up to and Including 115 Feet Authorization of building height greater than the heights contained in Section 18.50.020 (Table 1) up to and including 115 feet in the areas of the City as designated on Map 2 shall be made by the Plan- ning Commission acting as the Board of Architectural Review pursuant to the guidelines and procedures specified in Chapter 18.60. Discussion The height limits in King County for regional retail districts allow unlim- ited heights subject to one -foot setbacks for one foot increases in height over 45 feet. In Tukwila, 35 feet is the height limit in regional retail districts. The C -2 district at the SR -99 and SR -518 intersection is sur- rounded by high- density residential and commercial uses. (The height limit in RMH - Maximum Density Multiple Family districts is 45 feet.) Therefore, a maximum height of 115 feet subject to design review would be appropriate and consistent with the location other height exception areas in the City. PROFESSIONAL OFFICE ZONE ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS Existing Tukwila The Tukwila Zoning Code is descriptively referred to as a cascading zoning code. As the code progresses from the single - family zones to the heavy industry zone, it allows the uses permitted in the more restrictive zones preceding. Specifically, the P -0 zone allows single, two, three and four family dwellings, apartments, townhouses, nursing homes, libraries, offices, and educational schools and studios. Proposed Amend. the Zoning Code (TMC 18) by renumbering Chapter 18.26 P -0 District Professional and Office District to Chapter 18.17. STAFF REPORT to the k_ -4-CPA, 88 -4 -R, 88 -5 -CA Planning Commission Amend (shown in bold print) TMC 18.26.020 Principally Permitted Uses - (1) Any principally permitted use in the R -3 district; Discussion The task force felt that the distinction between a professional office and apartment /high- density residential zone was important in the land use deci- sion, and recommend no residential uses. In two previous quasi - judicial decisions, the City has permitted rezones from single - family to P -0 subject to "conditions" of no high /maximum density (RMH) residential in the first instance and no multiple dwellings whatsoever in the second instance. The proposed change has City -wide implications. The P -0 districts currently within Tukwila are located along Southcenter Boulevard and South 178th Street. Many parcels within these districts have had office proposals made and approved by the City, only to not be developed. The impact of the proposal is to eliminate the opportunity for high density residential in these areas. One of the purposes of the P -0 district is to serve as a buffer between residential districts and commercial and /or industrial areas. Recent legislative actions and discussions have focused on the concern about the high percentage of multiple family in the City and the opportunity for increasing this percentage through increasing P -0 districts. A comparison of bulk and size between the P -0, RMH, R -4 and R -3 reveals that R -4 and P -0 have the same height limit of 35 feet versus 45 and 30 for RMH and and R -3 respectively and that R -4 /RMH and P -0 are likely to be similar size and type developments. In order to fulfill its purpose as transition yet also control opportunities for housing density staff proposes allowing up to R -3 uses in the P -0 zone. SINGLE FAMILY SETBACK STANDARDS A concern was raised during task force meetings regarding placement of buildings on a single - family lot. KING COUNTY TUKWILA Maximum lot width 60' 50' Front yard 20'* 30' Side yard 5'* 4' -8' (10% of width) Rear yard None 10' Maximum lot coverage 35% None * In addition, the County allows projections of one and a half feet of eaves, fireplaces, bay windows and enclosed stair landings in a required yard. The Tukwila Code places greater restriction on the front, rear and side yards; however, it is more flexible regarding the total use of the lot. A section of the Tukwila Zoning Code (TMC 18.50.070(3)) does allow the Planning Department to waive the front yard requirement and substitute a required yard that is the average of the front yards on adjacent lots. This provision would allow any homeowner who wishes to remodel an oppor- tunity to extend an addition in the front yard to something less than the required 30 feet. Side and rear yard waivers are not however mentioned. It also would provide consistency in the building fronts along a street that was developed under different standards. RECOMMENDATION Planning staff recommends that the text amendments for Height Exception Area and Professional Office be approved. Based on public testimony regarding single- family setbacks, the Planning Commission may wish to recommend to the City Council direction for further review and /or change. - 15 - 'i ■ : I �{ =6"ti (, .. t . � • a •' L V.7 191011E11 i , � ; r liieif■■a illi ti? 11' {.: rr>Q ■1149■! a } r■■■a� —a■! ,J' 214 ■111111:11■NI■ [ 1 .hlrua11aa1 7i11! o4ii • d s■nli.• p ■iii I i lo9fiGir miaglimmem - IIi�. ;; i li 11 •�Pw� �r �rI I _11111!!, 1 Tti ��i Er y�u.ia�Ei - -•7QE ran' �. t. i - 1;;!�p 1 yarn rr iIIIIIIVI E!11I! ! Ili I :3:.1 ■W ■■ 11 iiiiiirpiln 11111'1111 11 . I- II ■■s ■11; M �IC1 maws f ill °_ � . � ri � �� ` � i ,III " ` •� I ?� ' '� . ® • I E ��� o' • I 1� i IE�1 1 II . . !ii il �TI����Ir '1 I PIII i 1 Ill :I1II! III i ii4 1 tv NIP ihitr-A4- Il i�i -o' �Y ■r 0110111r .{' 11 ; ilM 1! /; i t ' j4 am/ �' f:�swwo s c ii • 1 ; ! ; i II i l Ir ' ' Il 1ritll �//// b 11/4 . a' �� r 11 I s • •3 ;S• I :! •il l,//�� r '3� ':�. / /L.f. --c.- 1IIi iJ1 I Ir .I F 1 i iIIIOI ll ��ii a;saa - I k nts9wcee :■■a■ ■al;■NERIE■ ■■■ea■■_. -_ ria;v :MAIN ■we Nzuscap.m∎ 3i1suamerhMIMA ■■■yx7!■nwAlaaftisik! ■ ■taf ssa ■ ■ ■■enr! Mss ir111 ■r©f'at:i'jM111! CU■■t7 /214 ■11111. ■u - - ' ' -- ' -- - 1 !Y[n!■MM-.Yiaa■■INf illo ss ■1l'J ■W11171n ■e■■ ■ ■■RP ■■T1 itaa R11a ■■e ■f■ ■a■ :1171■ ■■i:Y'111 •■■■L'a■ •■'2111 ANN ■7711 ■.ISpC ' ∎.■hlrw■a■MWMENa�1 - `6';iML ■■ ■7■QA11 'm ■a .- - - -. 13 y b ' ! }}: M - ! 9 - a ] ■fl■ ■typi1 r d ��I �IN' E LF: ��1. F.Frair .! .� 1 6`.1 .i•�'li1I�F! u n jj o■uvr- ;1 71 -I ��. 1 ! 1 ..ar . _ .��,•. ; y k r21; 7-i 't<■ le i Ya:1 ■ d _. far r >!: 11 _ ti11 .1si1 .ratil•'1191t ■■.UM /sw J ��i1.ilwvL L•! '111 ` - ; -= IL--J ■OVA ■ ■E■LJ■ / -a gile f . !l1DSRIi5l7fl ... rilft.w� s a 11111=111111111111111•6: delis d10i1<�:1mmil71R)L'ue ummisa ■ ■a ■f �• .-' • 1■■aa@iidi �rrM� ' drinPOgVil ■11niPt y I1 ■a■O1Y11 ■11 fah . 11L••- 11 tlifallJle•T•■■M!'" {•a ■ ■11kIM 5,IPTIir ■astir ■71. ) , 1a■ ■IiRINIRr �trRac- ,1111! ■rr - - >'1 = r.i1nrwv.l�r� Kar IL r 8111111•11A11111.11111. ./ i/ ' -11■�l�.■ ■�•�• -�1`� - / 917 4 ?1809,■ -s '". j �� • H -n_ � 1 5 1GN -� � ^ ,dL.SiEii ..011111■■ ■11.1 •111 ■111■ - •IMNIISat I N.%1a1 ■■: ■I1-■a}•1�_ : : :_ :-..... : : : : : :. : : :• :': .49111•■■ 14Arr ■1E'J•• ► .I:II Q Iimlll•.1 ■rGiai-s•uSln'r1 111,• ifiii'ae ■e■il ■■1111 IMPOW I b I I iiiiiiiii ' � G71' 1r�filial' r ry •ti.�t�ir• /AI r7 1 : Ij ,� i :. f,'.e : :. : > : > :; :•;;; : : :. :1 ''' :Fmk!. M . •...� ,•i - ICI �..I�� :�r y 1QdoI. 1 v r 5 /t•r��:•a� . • � G i q .aod`'. 1;'1 ti IV 12 , NORTH ri 1jJ P 1`1,41 Wi z °- - a ,�q \ �s 21 , 9 \` i \ \• t SOur.;E.r,•y7 1 Ji \\ " LEGEND NEIGHBORHOOD AND COMMUNITY BUSINESS � - IGHWAV ORIENTED COMMERCIAL 11:::21 HIGH MAXIMUM DENSITY HOUSING C SINGLE FAMILY COMMUNITY FACILITIES PARK AND RECREATION LOLV'MEDIUM DENSITY HOUSING � t 2 I , &.:( 4' . y_ fie_ • \4 Gs I ,,II .�r 1 " i Vii. . s : r•1 L "11 ! ' II J I tc u is /. \ f J• T l a 1 t , e r C n o'\ 1 n �J •�✓ KING CO. HIGHLINE COMMUNITY PLAN MAP ____2.1. 1 \ , ATTACHMENT A THORNDYKE ANNEXATION I � i F - - • - — f:.l T i+r u n /r f . o r•.R f ., • :1 -- a s P - t• • p _ • • - .- ''.rf� • •sr. � . - 14 1 ••11 �" r , t z, v z . -- • 1 4 11 1 - - ■lT W . 11 ., I I I o n a �- «• ' ": L. ¢ 2 it — s jc grn 9S '-__. — 4v ; T \ 1 � +, [� -' :' ▪ C 1111 ^ - _ : r l • - e ; i t • r,• re . •.- -• I 4 rp\ \ 1 k 3r - `'•`��.� � � �,, 0 • = I sc,UT.vcENTE:t l • � .irroliopor ito t tI 11:11 11111 11 I I IlIH , ,.‘ 1. inir,.!!: 1 !pc:" our zr,::ll 1111111ill; 11111111 fi 12 HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL PARKS AND OPEN SPACE PUBLIC FACILITIES ggt ATTACHMENT B THORNDYKE ANNEXATION TUKWILA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN "EXISTING" =3 COMMERCIAL VI 110111111111ARIN 11■111111 MMMMM -111111tOr"ItatM1 `VASA L. • 1--- ‘ - ** - - -- 5 --- ) , t....J --- r:- - - -• -` : 16- " " R.,..`!:.,..-. • ! • ..E.gt \••-: . •., ..,... . ' . "\ \fl.. '' i .1 E■Dll.. :1 - 4 , . . ..-'- 1.0.4 t 0 . 1,...141‘," i .• I '. V 1 }V 61-s,,.■( . a : I ; • • I . •-;:'e _ ! _ ' .t1., r ot :V 74 q;' rAlt tA'y. DtC A se ATTACHMENT C THORNDYKE ANNEXATION KING COUNTY ZONING "EXISTING" LEGEND COMMUNITY BUSINESS CLASSIFICATION \B-N NEIGHBORHOOD BUSINESS CLASSIFICATION 77-1, C-G GENERAL COMMERCIAL CLASSIFICATION RS-7200 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL RM-2400 MEDIUM DENSITY MULTI-DWELLING 1RM-1800 HIGH DENSITY MULTI-DWELLING RM-900 MAX DENSITY MULTI-DWELLING N =`2 .1:74 - 14:6% Is I • • 0 a 1 �/ 3 =rED• � t 7 ` � rO, E , �j.:..� . • - ' - • 10 9 1 • 6 — Y■lss14'F1 sS � w 1 IJ TE _ 5 •,�•'i,i a `f �7, IGN iF 4' I t j.i : .. ` , i • I 7 W ; !, to 1 p I r :.' .. • e .? u • S t ;Q 6 y 1 1371z • l. Is . 1. I • 4 ; Dot • 9 C i } { ^ 04 • I n 4 ' , 1 - pit •--1 z s ! I • IVs - 1. — Tt CP. �N • r 0 44161; -15,L2214.1_1 5 66Th ST THORNDYKE ANNEXATION D ATTACHMENT D ISSUE AREAS 1 • 1 .• I N e+ 4 S -158T1 :>_. w='. 1 150 -: 1 * NORTH gni 1 Q f1i•11i, • 1. 1.1 `•,Yid. ;ttliOII 19 20 21 R' O t \S,t r ti 36 F] � Wet a • • ▪ • r 1. SOUrHC • _.r•• ^.•L _. S' — —=-- 7JT•s•= r . • 4 ..,J G /ry . d , I s 4LE1 ,S : 7' ew�. 1..m a _ . c ,.,. - 5 . > - z - L uw)' ; � • i • ';-P�.` 1 ' ,%;.• i I' /58TH ; ST t _: \-,, ARE _ m J :' - _ c ! ; i 1 ; b ] . I O SU DALE P.:41 • 0.4 l ■•■-• u •t` I r .= 1 ' - - ■BrCR()EMS W V. . 1 +{ •I• IC•' ' G Ya a in I rn ' - .fib 1 ''1° g1 1. ... , .. i :a ▪ r .l1 jt a i• ca 1•i• « , F, r • �� li T4/7lF( ST •� ._ .. x • I :52YD ~ft:I I • I I ..•••111; 1$ Iv Ai • Em/1• MiliammErs, •• drall1111111IMINIU- •111:Mil■•• MI•01•• ■1 11R.• •• ■•.,-,1./.••■••• • ••• ••11•711 ISMIN411111:111M MI 0 ■••••••••■••-• 41•113.•••••• . ..a•Nomr...mm J1 tn. P,1••1101 01 •NM•••■•••■■.M.,--.1 Minna, 7,1••■•••■,.7.1 7S113 - I= •1./...I••••••••••■. ,Lteammal••• .,....a. ii/P. ••••,- ........,•••13.11•Cw• aaln•Mmin On• • 11•1•1•Ifil.•••,... 9■1•1011••■=WW7 mm16. •• • • - ^•11tVL. •OLACCCIEft•••••••• ■•••••••-•••■11,MIIIII• .1 ...M......}■177.1=111101111 ■...•1■1■MI1.11M•.• i•16••••■■••-■ .81•3•••••IIIIIIMIN3,...1••••■••.... • r.L.M1M11, •-,D11•7••••■ 71.-M1111.111.111r• 111•.•101 . .."..••••••••••...1••./1.• R're...+nsres •111M.Y41111011.1.1.11 WIC A.-■•••■•••■•rie• listle..”.11arar ,IN01.1 1•IMML■•• *NMI ••••■■•■ •t. 0•1=1. • . – :f ... ';.:',$::_ ..-_---H P f 11-tis-:- '—'-':-.11'16.. • I.. • 't-c= ''''....- 2' kw. rsyi. •• ■••-••••••••••• •MP.......111111•3 .N111.1N1M.113,... .11•0111111••111, 111.117.h.. •••• S1 I $ 56Th sr. ... ;3: ..&.- ,,...t.....!!__ .., i Y T I - -.'ti4* 6 ,,„, 3 - ..'t•=; X-.....4 6; g 1 • - ......7'1^-■ .:,!..r : • - `4,. . i_9151::/ - ,..1.......-v..........„.....L..4. c , .... '1, 7:'' -- --T4 . a9i e-s.:49 . , 1 cf & D1 • 0 is 4 • -- "1.7"•.-11—"••—•.' 17'9 . • 1 1 • 3 0 ff. $ 3 i 6_,,S. 1 1 I • ... • • 124 .9+ Ss *R•4 "21 +++ 4 NORTH ' —i-/ ATTACHMENT E DI L THORNDYKE ANNEXATION PROPOSED TUKWILA COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLAN COMMERCIAL OFFICE PUBLIC FACILITIES PARKS AND OPEN SPACE LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL 20 ! 1 ts g : ,p,,,,,,, 7 I • ..----1.1 - I .1 I 21 il ...,,...---n7 ..12NO 5, --- ........ SCAJTHCENTER ....... 1 — ==r1.r41- 1 THORNDYKE ANNEXATION TUKWILA PROPOSED ZONING THREE AND FOUR FAMILY DWELLINGS MULTIPLE-RESIDENCE HIGH DENSITY COMMUNITY RETAIL BUSINESS REGIONAL RETAIL BUSINESS 36-115 FEET -. 11;71 elLf 4.- Mgie Mier • 1 r 3 3 •• • TP • Alt ORIVILS • •••C .3yr. Pr..* •..c. - .1 jr.r. _NI 0 t CIP 7.- • •u, IT VP ATTACHMENT G THORNDYKE ANNEXATION HEIGHT EXCEPTION AREA . p ••• —■ — ThOiN VA•22-221.4 • N. • ...1.•••• F---.:1-71-7 -An SIIA . 1 '," r.:Asa . i "•• .,17..... _ : ATCA II OP 11[AI .... .7.74.13 •-•••• mom 1 Awalburnam , csi • SOUTHCENTER. • • • • acme . • I • M t •••• ; • : • 1 " • • •-• t • ; , • ••*i . • ;;: • efr, — • • • '„ ••„ I ki 1. • 1 -1 • • • • A '= .• • \\ ••••••., , 1 it -1, • ea '1 it , e " to 4 • 47 • le • v ! I 4. -. 1 1 I 3R0 1 . So. 144th St:' 1 - e i ' . •.:.' e- :'.: • . - — ' rt• t,- : - 7.. •'r , ATTACHMENT H l• I • -, r , •-• • .1 THORNDYKE •" ANNEXATION AREA(469.15 ACRES) --- CITY BOUNDARY LINE SCALE 1" = 880' 1 NORTH • , THORNDYKE_ANNEXATION _ INTEREST AREAS TAKEN BY 4 ..L.d NUMBER, SUBDIVISION OR NAME DATE TAKEN BY NUMBER, SUBDIVISION OR NAME DATE TAKEN BY NUMBER, SUBDIVISION OR NAME DATE 1=1= I, 1 he ZaveL p0 -3,?-5 r*) JCZn /I-e- 0 7-5 g FO n 99 3D ria r � ' Jf! ""`.�`�,- mac *. -=-:. � . 0� 0 -3 - S/T o 74 ; • 1 ' , ;• o - 4 Siq I ■ /7 / • o - - f; . `" ; .; . �. /t?L . p _/0 - 5�� el :.. D'/ : / /^ r 7 c t •0 - g - Of 349 ,- 90 /3 Sti r / r ?° Mit14 : ;.1a 0 -5 ' O - - 5 o 0 i .ht, 90--a -5P I/o e_ko 2- 5 / % 70 P! j I 2 ,1 . _ , - f/ ' / atf: M GLOBE -WEIS 9 OUT 4 IV A DATE FILE NUMBER' 88 -1 -CUP PROJECT NAME CITY OF TUKWILA RESERVOIR PUMP STATION & APPARATUS ADDRESS 14953 - 53RD AVENUE S. APPLICANT CITY OF TUKWILA PUBLIC WORKS DEPT. FILE CROSS REFERENCE J ACTION 8/26/88 10/26/88 88 -2 -CUP JESUS IS ALIVE FELLOWSHIP HALL 606 INDUSTRY DRIVE, BLDG. 8 JESUS IS ALIVE TUKWILA, WA 98188 88 -2 -SPE APPROVED BY PC 11/221 / _ f CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 1988 Fui< ' • fiiito T. o • ..----.-144T11— JP .t.t. (PL.m1c42. 41o2 --- • 1 . tie 1•0 0 LI '6 3 'A Ot-'.,SPAT-TkO . .7 THORNINKE AWASYMION ED IMAM ; 11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 1 1 1 1 1 . 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 p1 1 1 1 [ 1 1 1 1 1 .1ip1 111 1 111 1 111 1 111 1 111 1 111 1 111 1 111 1 111 1i 11 1 1111111 1 1111111 1 1111111 1 1111111 1 1111111 1 111111111111111111111111 2 3 4 • 5 p 7 • El 9 10 11 ..........., 12 • THIS MICROFiLMEO DOCUMENT IS LESSII • *.ICLEAR THAN THIS NOTICE, IT 15 DUE TO c c o 0 c c c 1 _0 OE .4 OL . 92 G. 02 Le: Z. 14 ' OTHEIVALITY. ORTHE.„ORI,S!NAL_ROCUMENTI 0 I I 1111 nlidniilitultinI4miliodiltilindlinliiikiiiiiHrquimiliiiiliRailiiiilidiiiilitillphinliniliniliiiihitiliffillinififilinthit[ljtmlintimilitmlitiihnilinfil • .. 1.11T 1 :t ogelEPII-; 1 I 1—ri • '113 ck 14 IAN P osa, COMMERCIAL OFFICE. CRESTR I CISD-NO CASCADE) MI PUBLIC FACILITIES S IIII PARKS AN D OPEN SPACE.. LOW EAS RE. SIDe NT I A MP. DENSITY RESIDENTIAL IIII HIGH DENSITY RES! . 4-cra VI I „„ W'Y222.23 -q •z. "•.„ ", , <,....__........ . _ atty.e N /wAOL._ I(' ./IT.' s :11 ,71 1 41 4,22 r1.1,; IS=M■I -7 1 S 6 WS (r ST) s. lalsr /54 OI 6W» 2 2 " tse 3' 31 osol,. 'AA • 3 (LEGEND z cmn 4y S TATE -- S I ROU 5/8 'fNORNDYKE ANNEWAT(ON D1Gw cci1FREHN5Iv1 """ N IGH8ORHOQP E 4/ NTED � C �� I M I E RC e 89 COMMERCIAL NIGH /MAXIMUM DENSITY HOUSING SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL COMMUNITY PACILI11ES PARKS AND RECREATION LOW /MEDIUM DENSITY HOUSING '4_ u� ,,.0 .,, • ""11,;1 r :u l� �� . I rro .v" f �I; © ❑ — i A 3 6 j"'(l ' " j ,�FI1, : 7, 1 i r�.i�,. •', 2T� ..... , I�rHnRtlfTlQH lx WN06L TART LORI 34 I 1 I ATLAS OF SEAT1 FF+•he IpiIUioljUliUglplipplllilillpluilOilipIUIIIoliplUllD1 )1 IIDIIIMUg41li11111iIWIWIWIH11gIIIIII IIIIII ygllgyq'ipli1111111ippliDlipp pltpplipi 7 3 4 5 5 7 8 9 10 11 -sr..- 12 1 'IF THIS MICROFILMED DOCUMENT IS LESS! • :ICLEAR THAN THIS NOTICE, IT IS DUE TO Oe oz .3 Lz z sz z C.: zz ,C OTHE UALITY OF THE ORIGINAL OOCUMENT e o A u s c z (." O IIIIIIIIIIInpiiniluiloulu0hmlimliyili !p ipli 411AthdiwGpil,t0i01Ri 1111 iglfnuliii nuluGililmdlgllllg6m�nullllllllllllluluplglilinilinllimllui6iul Ox ,430 6 A/ lllll 6 6 •Q 2 6016 T u i_ ' Szr158TH •.W ST. '4; ATLAS OF SEATTLE rant 1, MAP COMPANY.INC.,SEATTI.E_ , T'I 1 9 19 " 2 , • IX ' A ' • ,ckv, 6, 1080 Ac e.,ivutanti Y RESIAURAVT STERLING THEATRES CO 326 Ac. 4 St RUNG T ILATRES CO. 101 """ nu AL II1LAIRES CO 00.0. 100 AC. 171 Ac. , • LING RES CO. AC tt • 6 0I 4 PROGRESSIVE CO. 1.56 At tt.27 1 • 13 s.■ 2) - 20 19' „Ra " L ----- 5. 01Sr 01 2) 14, /54 0 4636 1,1 ammalt LA „ )3 --___.. ; — 11 011 e• • • —1 4.f 0A •:622 -23 -4 1 160 Ac • " .ti101( Ni011...aff ' we eCifif anJT voS.,1 Tre,e10.0Ae0 orty ro no hr•ani, if O•iretfeto 022ny,44 3 1-1} 10W • ME "V J (et r o l e • F.1, TUKWILA' EV. 22-23-4 T KW , if 1 opcUM 0:3 1 6 i D i 1 1`. 0)T In ."; '.2-.. .. 1 2 , . 4 „, ,,,! a ■■•1 I MI se . ,...•? e•4 ow. , , „ ' - ' t• ” AV% A IN= gr A T' : • ;141.: ' -,-- - -- - - " _K I • . '1 1 2 ' 3 I I IIIII r IiiiviiiiproviiiIiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiIiiiiiIiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiviliiiiiiiiiiiiviliiiiinviiiiiiiiiiiwoliwiliwr , 4 5 6 , 7 , 8 9 to 1110'611S' MICROFILMED DOCUMENT IS LESS', • 0 cz: 00 0 OTHE .CLEAR THAN THIS NOTICE, IT IS OUE TO oe 60 6 00 t. 00 6 1 IMI..ITY oF.THE.0.13foINAl.. 0111 . , 7 7 7 7 7 c 7 1 77 9 Iiiiilffill011191011610.14,696dohliphimbi!ridluilligifiiillilpOliiiiliiiiliniliiiiliiiilimliiplinOilibtili011tillip iiiilindmillinliiillHilliipliyiliiiiliiiilindiiiiliiiilinillinhinhinliiiiIiiiiIiiiil „ . • •.• ,• COMPARISON OF HIGI-ILINE. COMP PLAN IA/ITH PROPOSED TUKWILA COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLAN 7ENS117 INCREASE 50Ae. PENsITY PECREAsE- 20 AC. r....7 S=158TH:=257 1. • ' ATLAS OF SEATTLE �n N DATE FILE NUMBER PROJECT NAME ADDRESS APPLICANT FILE CROSS REFERENCE 3 ACTION 8/26/88 88 -1 -CUP CITY OF TUKWILA RESERVOIR • PUMP STATION & APPARATUS 14953 - 53RD AVENUE S. CITY OF TUKWILA PUBLIC WORKS DEPT. 10/26/88 88 -2 -CUP JESUS IS ALIVE FELLOWSHIP HALL 606 INDUSTRY DRIVE, BLDG. 8 JESUS IS ALIVE TUKWILA, WA 98188 88 -2 -SPE APPROVED BY PC 11/221 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 1988 gox 88