HomeMy WebLinkAboutPermit 88-05-R - CITY OF TUKWILA - FOSTER ANNEXATION / PRE-ANNEXATION ZONING88-5-R Permit 88-05-R - CITY OF TUKWILA - FOSTER ANNEXATION / PRE-ANNEXATION ZONING
CITY OF TUKWILA
WASHINGTON
ORDINANCE NO. / 6-6 9
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA, WASHINGTON,
ANNEXING CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY COMMONLY KNOWN AS
THE FOSTER 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 1086, passed August 15, 1988,
approved the proposed Foster 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.14.340, the
City Council adopted Ordinance Nos. 1484 and 1485, 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. 1544, dated December 8,1988, and
WHEREAS, the City Council in Resolution 1096, passed December 12, 1988,
approved the proposed Foster annexation area election method and requested an
election date, and
WHEREAS. pursuant to King County Council Ordinance No. 8817, 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 indebt-
edness,
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA,
WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
1485
Section 1. Annexation. The real property known as the Foster Annexation
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 /s 1989, and shall thereafter be subject to the zoning
and land use re lations as adopted in City of Tukwila Ordinance Nos. 1484 and
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 p e ci al meeting thereof this a2 7 ` =r day of 1989.
OVER AS TO FO' : ATTEST /AUTHENTICATED:
ce of the City Attorney
Filed with the City Clerk: 3 J 7- P9
Passed by the City Council: 3 -.27- P 9
Published Valley Daily News: 3- 3/- P9
Effective Date: 1 - 6 - 2'9
Ordinance Number /3" 7
FOSTER ANNEXATION ORDINANCE
Page 2
APPROVED:
Ga"' L. Van Dusen, Mayor
Maxine Anderson, City Clerk
POSTER REV. JUNE 28, 1988
A parcel of land situated in Sections 14, 15, and 23. T23N, R4E.
W.N. described as follows:
BEGINNING. at the intersection of the south line of the Cyrus C.
Levis Donation Claim No. 37 and the vest margin of Macadam Road
South (46th.Ave. S.):
thence easterly along said Donation Claim line estended to the west
line of Priiary State Highway No. 1 as condemned under Superior
Court Cause No. 618283 records of King County;
thence northerly along the welt line of said Primary State Highway
'No. 1 to the southeast margin of South '(formerly Adams
Avenue) as shown on Subdivision of Lots 7, 8, 6 9 of Fostoria
Garden. Tracts, an recorded in Volume 1.1.of plats.' Page 7'6. 'Record.
Of King .County, WA;
,thence northeasterly along said southeast margin to the. the
southwest margin of Interurban Avenue South (forserly Secondary
- State Highway No. 2M);
thence southeasterly along said southwest margin to the east line
Of Priaary State Highway No. 1 as condeaned under Superior Court
Cause No.5985941'
thence southwesterly and southerly along •aid east line to the
westerly extension of the south line of land described in Statutory
Warranty Deed as recorded under Auditor file No. 8408010506 records
of .King County. WAi
thence south 88 ° 27'39" east along said westerly eztension and said
south :Line. 334.18 feat to the most northerly corner of land
described in. Real Estate Contract . recorded under King County
Auditor Fite No. 8306070243 ;`
thence south :58 °57'39" east along the northeasterly line of said
land, a distance.of 211.58' feet to the aost easterly point thereof
and the northwesterly margin of 52nd Avenue South (Foster Street);
:thence north 29. ° '10'.00 " - east along said margin. 58.66 feet
'thence south 60 30'00" east, 17 feet to the centerline of 52nd
Avenue South:
thence thence continuing along the present Tukwila City Boundary
:north 29 20 feet:
'tbence south 60 ° 30 1 00" east. 17.5 feet to the: southeast'margin of
5.2nd.Avesse Seuth
thence. - aeuth 31'03'30" west along said southeast margin to the
n orthe a a* margig of 53rd Avenue South:
thence Desk 23 49'15" east. 159.97 feet:
-thence mink 40 ° 36'00" east to the. southwest margin of Interurban
Avenue. South
thence southeasterly along' the Tukwila City Boundary end the
southwest —aerate of Interurban Avenue South 530 feet mote or less
to the south line of a strip of land .described in deed recorded
recorded October 3. 1955, under Auditor Zile No.• 4622227, records
of King County, WAi
ATTACHMENT A
Page 2
thence aouttivesterly along said south line of the Kennington Tract
(also known as South 137th Street) and the extension thereof, 330 .
feet more or . less to the southwesterly margin of 56th Avenue. South:
thence continuing westerly along the south margin of South 137th
Street to the southeast margin of South 138th Street
thence southwesterly along said southeast margin of South 138th
Street to the east margin of 51st Avenue South (formerly known as
Charles Avenue);
thence southerly along said east margin, 315 feet more or less to
the north margin of South 139th Street (formerly known as Orchard
Av.aue)
thence easterly along said north margin, 184 feet;
thence south 00 ° 00'29" vest,. 334 feet along the west line of a
parcel of land annexed under Tukwila Ordinance 1411, to the north
line of lot 3, block 1, of .Colegrove's Acre Tracts. as recorded in
Volume 11, Page 85 of Plats, records of King County. WA;
thence north" 89 ° 44'30" east, a distance of 10 feet;
thence south 00 ° 00'29" west, 148 feet to the southerly line
thereof:
thence south 89 ° 44'30" vest, a distance of 10 feet;
thence south 00 ° 00'29" vest, • distance of 77.97 feet;
thence north 89 east, 351.94 feet to the centerline of 53rd
Avenue South;
thence southerly along said centerline of 53rd Avenue South to the .
centerline of South 144th Street;
thence easterly along said centerline 100 feet sore or less to the
centerline of• 53rd Avenue South (foraerly Grahas Avenue);
thence southerly, along said centerline of. 53rd Avenue South to its
intersection with the east line of Primary. State Highway No. 1.
contiguous with land condsaned under Superior Court Cause No.
594362;
thence northerly along said east line to the north margin of South
144th Street;
thence westerly along said north aargin to the east aargin of
Pacific Highway South (Righvay,99);
thence northerly along said east margin to the north aargin of
South 139th Street:
thence : easterly 'along said north aargin of South" 139th Street and
the eastest, prolongation ,thereof, to its intersection with the
vest line :.•14. 23 of :flock 3 in Riverton Macadam. road Tracts.
recorded ialblene 15. Page 53 of Plats. Records of King County.
WA: •
thence southerly along said vest line to the north' margin of South
139th Street (foraerty Rill Avenue);
thence . easterly along said north aargin to the west aargin of 46th
Avenue South;
thence northerly along said vest margin and continuing along the
rest margin of Macadan Road•South to the south line of the Cyrus C.
Levis Donation Clain 11o. 37 and the POINT OT 120111110;
..•� \ \. 1111111111
• ‘ N\
4 11111111 1
‘‘ AmommiNF
1111111111
FOSTER
LEGEND
R -1
R -3
R -4
C -1
[� C -2
P -O
RMH
C -M
ANNEXATION ZONING PLAN
SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL 7200 ® R -2 MEDIUM DENSITY
THREE AND FOUR FAMILY DWELLINGS RESIDENTIAL
DISTRICT -LOW APARTMENTS
COMMUNITY RETAIL BUSINESS
REGIONAL RETAIL BUSINESS
PROFESSIONAL /OFFICE BUSINESS
MULTIPLE - RESIDENCE HIGH DENSITY
DISTRICT, INDUSTRIAL PARK
PUBLISH: Valley Daily News
DATE: March 31, 1989
SENT: March 29, 1989CAr
TO: FAX NUMBER - 854-1006
FROM: CITY OF TUKWILA
6200 Southcenter Blvd.
Tukwila, WA 98188
BY: Maxine Anderson, City Clerk
433-1800
SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE NO. 1509
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA, WASHINGTON,
ANNEXING CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY COMMONLY KNOWN AS THE
FOSTER 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.
On March 27, 1989 , the City Council of the City of Tukwila,
passed Ordinance No. 1509 , which provides as follows: Annexes to the City
of Tukwila the area described therein, known as the Foster Annexation area,
effective April 15, 1989, provides zoning and land use regulations for such
area, provides that said area shall not be subject to prior City indebtedness,
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 C1P of the City of Tukwila
for a copy of the text.
Approved by the City Council at its meeting of March 27, 1989.
\ l ' ? 7
,-44.4:c atdeec4-0-s-L-
a x n Anderson, City Clerk
CITY OF TUKWILA
WASHINGTON
ORDINANCE NO. 1 I -5
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA, WASHINGTON, ENACTED PURSUANT TO
RCW 35A.14.330, ADOPTING ZONING REGULATIONS AND ADOPTING A ZONING MAP
TO PROVIDE FOR THE AREA COMMONLY KNOWN AS THE FOSTER ANNEXATION AREA
AND PROVIDING THAT SAID AREA SHALL BECOME SUBJECT TO SAID ZONING
REGULATIONS UPON ANNEXATION TO THE CITY OF TUKWILA.
WHEREAS, a petition has been filed proposing that the hereinafter
described area be annexed to the City of Tukwila, and the petitioners have
requested pre - annexation zoning, and
WHEREAS, the SEPA responsible official has made a
nonsignificance, and
WHEREAS, the City Council, in Ordinance No. pip"
Comprehensive Land Use Policy Plan Map for the area, and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on August 30, 1988,
and on September 8, 1988 recommended the adoption of zoning regulations and a
zoning map in the event of annexation, and
WHEREAS, two public hearings upon said proposal were held upon proper
notice before the Tukwila City Council on September 12, 1988, and October 17,
1988,
NOW, THEREFORE, THE TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Area Affected. The area subject to this Ordinance is
described in Exhibit A.
Section 2. Zoning Code and Map Adopted Upon Annexation. At such time as
the area described in Exhibit A, or any part thereof, shall be annexed to the
City of Tukwila, the City Council may provide in the annexation ordinance that
so much of said area as is thereby annexed shall be subject to the Zoning Code
of the City of Tukwila and shall be zoned as shown on Exhibit B hereto, said
zoning map and zoning regulations herein adopted to be an extension to the
zoning regulations for the City of Tukwila.
Section 3. A certified copy of this ordinance shall
Office of the King County Department of Records and Elections.
Section 4. This ordinance shall be in force and effect
publication of the attached Summary which is hereby approved
of the Concomitant Zoning Agreement, whichever is later.
PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
of , 1988.
ATTEST /AUTHENTICATED:
ITY R K, MAXINE ANDERSON
APPROVED
OFFICE
By
FIL • WITH THE TY CLERK:
PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL: //-7-41r
PUBLISHED: /I-1P- PP
EFFECTIVE DATE: 11
ORDINANCE NO.:
TO FORM:
CITY
determination of
has amended the
be filed in the
five days after
or upon execution
FOSTER REV. JUNE 28..1988
'.A.1).arcie1 of land situated in 'Sections 14. 15. and 23, T23N,
R4E.
14.11.. described as . follows:
BEGINNING at the intersection of the south line of the Cyrus C.
Lewis Donation Claim No. 37 and the west margin of Macadam Road
South (46th Ave. S.);
thence easterly along said Donation Claim line extended to the vest
line of Primary State Highway No. 1 as condemned under Superior
Court Cause No. 618283 records of King County;
thence northerly along the west line of said Primary State Highway
No. 1 to the southeast margin of 47th Avenue South (formerly Adams
Avenue) as shown on Subdivision of Lots 7, 8, & 9 of Fostoria
Garden Tracts, as recorded in Volume 11 of plats, Page 76, Records
of King County, WA;
thence northeasterly along said southeast margin to the the
southwest margin of Interurban Avenue South (formerly Secondary
State Highway No. 2M);
thence southeasterly along said southwest margin to the east line
of Primary State Highway No. 1 as condemned under Superior Court
• Cause No.598594;
thence southwesterly and southerly along said east line to the
westerly extension of the south line of land described in Statutory
Warranty Deed as recorded under Auditor File No. 8408010506 records
of King County.
• thence south 88 27'39" east along said westerly extension and said
south line, 334.18 feet to the most northerly corner of land
described in Real Estate Contract recorded under King County
Auditor File No. 8306070243;
thence south 58 east along the northeasterly line of said
land a distance of 211.58 feet to the most easterly point thereof
and the northwesterly margin of 52nd Avenue South (Foster Street):
thence north 29 east along said margin, 58.66 feet;
thence south 60 east, 17 feet to the centerline of 52nd
Avenue South;
• thence thence continuing along the present Tukwila City Boundary
• north 29 east, 20 feet;
thence south 60 east. 17.5 feet to the southeast margin of
52nd Avenue South&
thence ; south 31 03'30" west along said southeast margin to the
northaut massif of 53rd Avenue South;
thence. iestk 23:49 east. 189.97 feet;
thence m•wth 40 east to the southwest aargin of Interurban
Avenue South
thence southeasterly along the Tukwila City Boundary and the
southwest margin of Interurban Avenue South 530 feet sore or less
to the south line of a strip of land described in deed recorded
recorded October 3, 1955, under Auditor File No. 4622227, records
of King County. WA; •
ATTACHMENT A
thence southwesterly along said south line of the Mannington Tract
(also known as South 137th Street) and the extension thereof, 330
feet more or less to the southwesterly margin of 56th Avenue South;
thence continuing westerly along the south margin of South 137th
Street to the southeast margin of South 138th Street:
thence southwesterly along said southeast margin of South 138th
Street to the east margin of 51st Avenue South (formerly known as
Charles Avenue);
thence southerly along said east margin, 315 feet more or less to
the north margin of South 139th Street (formerly known as Orchard
Avenue);
thence easterly along said north margin. 184 feet;
thence south 00 ° 00'29" vest, 334 feet along the west line of a
parcel of land annexed under Tukwila Ordinance 1411, to the north
line of lot 3, block 1, of Colegrove's Acre Tracts, as recorded in
Volume 11, Page 85 of Plats, records of Ring County, WA;
thence north 89 ° 44'30" east, a distance of 10 feet;
thence south 00 ° 00'29" west, 148 feet to the southerly line
thereof;
thence south 89 ° 44'30" west, a distance of 10 feet;
thence south 00 ° 00'29" west. a distance of 77.97 feet;
thence north 89 ° 22'00" east, 351.94 feet to the centerline of 53rd
Avenue South;
thence southerly along said centerline of 53rd Avenue South to the
centerline of South 144th Street:
thence easterly along said centerline 100 feet more or less to the
centerline of 53rd Avenue South (formerly Graham Avenue);
thence southerly along said centerline of 53rd Avenue South to its
intersection with the east line of Primary State Highway No. 1,
contiguous with land condemned under Superior Court Cause No.
594362;
thence northerly along said east line to the north margin of South
144th Street;
thence westerly along said north margin to the east margin of
Pacific Highway South (Highway 99)1
thence northerly along said east margin to the north sargin of
South 139th Streets
thence easterly along said north sargin of South 139th Street and
the easterfp prolongation thereof, to its intersection with the
vest line ••r& Lot 23 of block 3 in Riverton Macadam road Tracts.
recorded iallelmse 13, Page 53 of Plats, Records of Ring County.
WA;
thence southerly along said vest line to the north strain of South
139th Street (formerly Hill Avenue);
thence easterly along said north margin to the vest margin of 46th
Avenue South;
thence northerly along said west margin and continuing along the
v margin of Macadam Road. South to the south line of the Cyrus C.
Lewis Donation Claim No. 37 and the POIIT 0! JIGIllllO;
Page 2
NUMMI
1111111111
111111111
Ilililif
a
•
FOSTER ANNEXATION ZONING PLAN
LEGEND
R-1 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL .7200
R-3 THREE AND FOUR FAMILY DWELLINGS
R-4 DISTRICT-LOW APARTMENTS
• C-1 COMMUNITY RETAIL BUSINESS
C-2 REGIONAL RETAIL BUSINESS
P-0 PROFESSIONAL/OFFICE BUSINESS
RMH MULTIPLE-RESIDENCE HIGH DENSITY
_C-M DISTRICT, INDUSTRIAL PARK
IMISM
R-2 MEDIUM DENSITY
RESIDENTIAL
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA, WASHINGTON, ENACTED PURSUANT TO
RCW 35A.14.330, ADOPTING ZONING REGULATIONS AND ADOPTING A ZONING MAP
TO PROVIDE FOR THE AREA COMMONLY KNOWN AS THE FOSTER ANNEXATION AREA
AND PROVIDING THAT SAID AREA SHALL BECOME SUBJECT TO SAID ZONING
REGULATIONS UPON ANNEXATION TO THE CITY OF TUKWILA.
On 7 1988, the City Council of the City of Tuk.i.::.
passed Or finance No. /4'FS' which provides as follows: Adopts
zoning regulations and zoning map for property known as the Foster Annexation
Area; said regulations and map to become effective upon annexation to the City
of:Tukwila of said area or any part thereof; and establishes an'effective date.
The fu41'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 7 1988.
R.11 va 11e 1
SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE NO. I I/ IrS
1
MAX ANDERSON, CITY CLERK
O c w s 11- /r-
r r
•
CITY OF TUK
WASHINGTON
ORDINANCE NO. /
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA, WASHINGTON,
RCW 35A.14.330, AMENDING THE COMPREHENSIVE LAND
FOR THE AREA DESCRIBED LYING OUTSIDE OF THE CITY 0
AS THE FOSTER ANNEXATION AREA.
WHEREAS, it is reasonable to expect that the hereinafter described area,
at some future time, will be annexed to the City of Tu ila, and
WHEREAS, said area is within the City's plann ng area and therefore
subject to the existing Comprehensive Land Use Policy Plan and Plan Map, and
WHEREAS, a petition has been filed proposing anne ation of said area and
petitioners have requested Comprehensive Land Use Pol cy Plan Map amendments,
and
WHEREAS, the SEPA responsible official mad= a determination of
nonsignificance, and
WHEREAS, the planning staff held land use meetings
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public
and on September 8, 1988 recommended amending the exi
Use Policy Plan Map for the area, and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Tukwila
on September 12 and October 17, 1988 to consider th
Planning Commission and the comments of all those wish
APPRO
OFFIC
NOW, THEREFORE, THE TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL DO ORDAIN
Section 1. The Comprehensive Land Use Policy P
known as Foster Annexation Area as described in atta
amended as shown on the map which is attached as Exhib
Section 2. A certified copy of this ordinance shall be filed in the
Office of the King County Department of Records and E1- ctions.
Section 3. This ordinance shall be in force an effect five days after
publication of the attached Summary which is hereafte approved.
/ Z�I
TON, this
PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF .T
day of -t ,z/t..-AL,J` 1988.
ATTEST /AUTHENTICATED:
CITY ERK, MAXINE ANDERSON
S TO FORM:
T - CITY
B ' /
FIL WITH THE CITY CLERK:
PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL: // - 7-
PUBLISHED: //- /8 - 8 P
EFFECTIVE DATE: // - Pr
ORDINANCE NO.:
3 3 5 9C.2% 3 32 A
ILA
ACTED PURSUANT TO
SE POLICY PLAN MAP
TUKWILA AND KNOWN
in the community, and
earing August 30, 1988,
ting Comprehensive Land
held two public hearings
recommendations of the
ng to be heard,
AS FOLLOWS:
...00( Apo
itfAr
G• V• DUSEN
an Map for the property
hed Exhibit A is hereby
t B.
FOSTER REV. JUNE 28, 1988
A parcel of land situated in Sections 14, 15. and 23, T23N, R4E,
W.M. described as follows:
BEGINNING at the intersection of the south line of the Cyrus C.
Lewis Donation Claim No. 37 and the west margin of Macadam Road
South (46th Ave. S.);
thence easterly along said Donation Claim line extended to the west
line of Primary State Highway No. 1 as condemned under Superior
Court Cause No. 618283 records of King County;
thence northerly along the west line of said Primary State Highway
No. 1 to the southeast margin of 47th Avenue South (formerly Adams
Avenue) as shown on Subdivision of Lots 7, 8, & 9 of Fostoria
Garden Tracts, as recorded in Volume 11 of plats, Page 76, Records
of King County, WA;
thence northeasterly along said southeast margin to the the
southwest margin of Interurban Avenue South (formerly Secondary
State Highway No. 2M);
thence southeasterly along said southwest margin to the east line
of Primary State Highway No. 1 as condemned under Superior Court
Cause No.598594;
thence southwesterly and southerly along said east line to the
westerly extension of the south line of land described in Statutory
Warranty Deed as recorded under Auditor File No. 8408010506 records
of King County, WA;
thence south 88 ° 27'39" east along said westerly extension and said
south line, 334.18 feet to the most northerly corner of land
described in Real Estate Contract recorded under King County
Auditor File No. 8306070243;
thence south 58 ° 57'39" east along the northeasterly line of said
land a distance of 211.58 feet to the most easterly point thereof
and the northwesterly margin of 52nd Avenue South (Foster Street);
thence north 29 ° 30'00" east along said margin, 58.66 feet;
thence south 60 ° 30'00" east, 17 feet to the centerline of 52nd
Avenue South;
thence thence continuing along the present Tukwila City Boundary
north 29 ° 30'00" east. 20 feet;
thence south 60 ° 30'00" east, 17.5 feet to the southeast margin of
52nd Avenue Sontha
thence south 31 03'30" vest along said southeast margin to the
northeast margin of 53rd Avenue South;
thence smith 23 ° 49'15" east, 189.97 feet;
thence north 40 ° 36 1 00" east to the southwest margin of Interurban
Avenue South
thence southeasterly along the Tukwila City Boundary and the
southwest margin of Interurban Avenue South 530 feet more or less
to the south line of a strip of land described in deed recorded
recorded October 3. 1955, under Auditor File No. 4622227, records
of King County, WA;
ATTACHMENT A
thence southwesterly along said south line of the Mannington Tract
(also known as South 137th Street) and the extension thereof, 330
feet more or less to the southwesterly margin of 56th Avenue South;
thence continuing westerly along the south margin of South 137th
Street to the southeast margin of South 138th Street;
thence southwesterly along said southeast margin of South 138th
Street to the east margin of 51st Avenue South (formerly known as
Charles Avenue);
thence southerly along said east margin. 315 feet more or less to
the north margin of South 139th Street (formerly known as Orchard
Avenue) ;
thence easterly along said north margin. 184 feet;
thence south 00 ° 00'29" west, 334 feet along the west line of a
parcel of land annexed under Tukwila Ordinance 1411, to the north
line of lot 3, block 1, of Colegrove's Acre Tracts, as recorded in
Volume 11, Page 85 of Plats, records of King County. WA;
thence north 89 0 44'30" east, a distance of 10 feet;
thence south 00 ° 00'29" west, 148 feet to the southerly line
thereof;
thence south 89 ° 44'30" vest, a distance of 10 feet;
thence south 00 ° 00'29" vest, a distance of 77.97 feet;
thence north 89 ° 22'00" east, 351.94 feet to the centerline of 53rd
Avenue South;
thence southerly along said centerline of 53rd Avenue South to the
centerline of South 144th Street;
thence easterly along said centerline 100 feet more or less to the
centerline of 53rd Avenue South (formerly Graham Avenue);
thence southerly along said centerline of 53rd Avenue South to its
intersection with the east line of Primary State Highway No. 1,
contiguous with land condemned under Superior Court Cause No.
594362:
thence northerly along said east line to the north margin of South
144th Street;
thence westerly along said north aargin to the east margin of
Pacific Highway South,(Highway 99);
thence northerly along said east margin to the north margin of
South 139th Street;
thence easterly along said north aargin of South 139th Street and
the eastert$ prolongation thereof. to its intersection with the
west line •.L Lot 23 of Block 3 in Riverton Macadam road Tracts,
recorded iarVielume 15. Page 53 of Plats. Records of King County.
WA;
thence southerly along said west line to the north aargin of South
139th Street (formerly Hill Avenue);
thence easterly along said north aargin to the west margin of 46th
Avenue South;
thence northerly along said vest margin and continuing along the
west margin of Macadam Road•South to the south line of the Cyrus C.
Levis Donation Claim No. 37 and the POINT OT IIGINNIDG;
Page 2
n 11 1 1 1 11 1111111111111
MEM
w
•••••■
--".1111 _u___
�aa�_area
r P ig �a��ai
��
MOM
1•1 i sa�__■
_ __.■
EXHIBIT B
AVMHJIH
FOSTER ANNEXATION COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
LEGEND
HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL
MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL
LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL
PARKS AND OPEN SPACE
- PUBLIC FACILITIES
COMMERCIAL
OFFICE
LIGHT INDUSTRIAL
Z
CITY OF TUKWILA
WASHINGTON
ORDINANCE NO. J4 '-5
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA, WASHINGTON, ENACTED PURSUANT TO
RCW 35A.14.330, ADOPTING ZONING REGULATIONS AND ADOPTING A ZONING MAP
TO PROVIDE FOR THE AREA COMMONLY KNOWN AS THE FOSTER ANNEXATION AREA
AND PROVIDING THAT SAID AREA SHALL BECOME SUBJECT TO SAID ZONING
REGULATIONS UPON ANNEXATION TO THE CITY OF TUKWILA.
WHEREAS, a petition has been filed proposing that the hereinafter
described area be annexed to the City of Tukwila, and the petitioners have
requested pre - annexation zoning, and
WHEREAS, the SEPA responsible official has made a determination of
nonsignificance, and
WHEREAS, the City Council, in Ordinance No. /9gJ/, has amended the
Comprehensive Land Use Policy Plan Map for the area, and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on August 30, 1988,
and on September 8, 1988 recommended the adoption of zoning regulations and a
zoning map in the event of annexation, and
WHEREAS, two public hearings upon said proposal were held upon proper
notice before the Tukwila City Council on September 12, 1988, and October 17,
1988,
NOW, THEREFORE, THE TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Area Affected. The area subject to this Ordinance is
described in Exhibit A.
Section 2. Zoning Code and Map Adopted Upon Annexation. At such time as
the area described in Exhibit A, or any part thereof, shall be annexed to the
City of Tukwila, the City Council may provide in the annexation ordinance that
so much of said area as is thereby annexed shall be subject to the Zoning Code
of the City of Tukwila and shall be zoned as shown on Exhibit B hereto, said
zoning map and zoning regulations herein adopted to be an extension to the
zoning regulations for the City of Tukwila.
Section 3. A certified copy of this ordinance shall be filed in the
Office of the King County Department of Records and Elections.
Section 4. This ordinance shall be in force and effect five days after
publication of the attached Summary which is hereby approved or upon execution
of the Concomitant Zoning Agreement, whichever is later.
PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
of , 1988.
ATTEST /AUTHENTICATED:
ITY CLERK, MARINE ANDERSON
APPROVED
OFFICE;
By
TO FORM:
THE CITY
FIL • WITH THE TY CLERK:
PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL: //-7-
PUBLISHED: /I - /P- PP
EFFECTIVE DATE: //....2,3_,w
ORDINANCE NO.:
•
FOSTER REV. JUNE 28. 198E
A parcel. of land situated in Sections 14, 15. and 23, T23N, R4E,
W.M. described as follows:
BEGINNING at the intersection of the south line of the Cyrus C.
Lewis Donation Claim No. 37 and the west margin of Macadam Road
South (46th Ave. S.);
thence easterly along said Donation Claim line extended to the west
line of Primary State Highway No. 1 as condemned under Superior
Court Cause No. 618283 records of King County;
thence northerly along the vest line of said Primary State Highway
No. 1 to the southeast margin of 47th Avenue South (formerly Adams
Avenue) as shown on Subdivision of Lots 7, 8, b 9 of Fostoria
Garden Tracts, as recorded in Volume 11 of plats, Page 76. Records
of King County, WA;
thence northeasterly along said southeast margin to the the
southwest margin of Interurban Avenue South (formerly Secondary
State Highway No. 2M);
thence southeasterly along said southwest margin to the east line
of Primary State Highway No. 1 as condemned under Superior Court
Cause No.598594;
thence southwesterly and southerly along said east line to the
westerly extension of the south line of land described in Statutory
Warranty Deed as recorded under Auditor File No. 8408010506 records
of King County. WA;
thence south 88 ° 27'39" east along aaid westerly extension and said
south line, 334.18 feet to the moat northerly corner of land
described in Real Estate Contract recorded under King County
Auditor File No. 8306070243;
thence south 58 ° 57 1 39" east along the northeasterly line of said
land a distance of 211.58 feet to the most easterly point thereof
and the northwesterly margin of 52nd Avenue South (Foster Street);
thence north 29 ° 30'00" east along said margin. 58.66 feet;
thence south 60 ° 30'00" east, 17 feet to the centerline of 52nd
Avenue South;
thence thence continuing along the present Tukwila City Boundary
north 29 ° 30'00" east. 20 feet;
thence south 60 ° 30'00" east, 17.5 feet to the southeast margin of
52nd Avenue South,
thence south 31 03'30" vest along said southeast margin to the
northeast 'tarsi: of 53rd Avenue South;
thencsr * south 23 ° 49'15" east, 189.97 feet;
thence i.rth 40 ° 36'00" east to the southwest margin of Interurban
Avenue South
thence southeasterly along the Tukwila City Boundary and the
southwest margin of Interurban Avenue South 530 feet more or less
to the south line of a strip of land described in deed recorded
recorded October 3, 1955. under Auditor File No. 4622227, records
of King County, WA;
ATTACHMENT A
Page 2
thence southwesterly along said south line of the Mannington Tract
(also known as South 137th Street) and the extension thereof, 330
feet more or less to the southwesterly margin of 56th Avenue South;
thence continuing westerly along the south margin of South 137th
Street to the southeast margin of South 138th Street;
thence southwesterly along said southeast margin of South 138th
Street to the east margin of 51st Avenue South (formerly known as
Charles Avenue);
thence southerly along said east margin, 315 feet more or less to
the north margin of South 139th Street (formerly known as Orchard
Avenue) ;
thence easterly along said north margin, 184 feet;
thence south 00 ° 00'29" west, 334 feet along the west line of a
parcel of land annexed under Tukwila' ordinance 1411, to the north
line of lot 3, block 1, of Colegrove's Acre Tracts, as recorded in
Volume 11, Page 85 of Plats, records of King County, WA;
thence north 89 ° 44'30" east, a distance of 10 feet;
thence south 00 ° 00'29" west, 148 feet to the southerly line
thereof;
thence south 89 ° 44'30" west, a distance of 10 feet;
thence south 00 ° 00'29" west, a distance of 77.97 feet;
thence north 89 ° 22'00" east, 351.94 feet to the centerline of 53rd
Avenue South;
thence southerly along said centerline of 53rd Avenue South to the
centerline of South 144th Street;
thence easterly along said centerline 100 feet more or leas to the
centerline of 53rd Avenue South (formerly Graham Avenue);
thence southerly along said centerline of 53rd Avenue South to its
intersection with the east lino of Primary State Highway No. 1,
contiguous with land condemned under Superior Court Cause No.
594362;
thence northerly along said east line to the north margin of South
144th Street;
thence westerly along said north margin to the east margin of
Pacific Highway South (Highway 99);
thence northerly along said east margin to the north margin of
South 139th Street;
thence easterly along said north margin of South 139th Street and
the eastsr1* prolongation thereof. to its intersection with the
west line '*L Lot 23 of Block 3 in Riverton Macadam road Tracts.
recorded izr rolume 15. Page 53 of Plats. Records of King County.
WA; 1 . •
thence southerly along said west lino to the north margin of South
139th Street (formerly Rill Avenue);
thence easterly along said north margin to the west margin of 46th
Avenue South;
thence northerly along said west margin and continuing along the
west margin of Macadam Road.South to the south line of the Cyrus C.
Lewis Donation Claim No. 37 and the POINT 01 IIGINNING;
: 11 eat
SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE NO. 1
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA, WASHINGTON, ENACTED PURSUANT TO
RCW 35A.14.330, ADOPTING ZONING REGULATIONS AND ADOPTING A ZONING MAP
TO PROVIDE FOR THE AREA COMMONLY KNOWN AS THE FOSTER ANNEXATION AREA
AND PROVIDING THAT SAID AREA SHALL BECOME SUBJECT TO SAID ZONING
REGULATIONS UPON ANNEXATION TO THE CITY OF TUKWILA.
On 44 7 , 1988, the City Council of the City of Tukwila
passed Ordinance No. /Alps' , which provides as follows: Adopts
zoning regulations and zoning map for property known as the Foster Annexation
Areal said 'regulations and map to become effective upon annexation to the City
of Tukwila of said area or any part thereof; 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 ;21%.411. 7 , 1988.
MAXI ANDRSON, CITY CLERK
Ne.wS — //- /T - ??
III ■111111111111■
III y 1111111111
1111 11111181111
iiiii ''''32-
il aSE N � G NYd P�
5
gall
E EC
FOSTER
LEGEND
El R -1
R -3
R -4
. C -1
0 C -2
P -O
RMH
EJC -M
11111111
a
ANNEXATION ZONING PLAN
SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL 7200
THREE AND FOUR FAMILY DWELLINGS
DISTRICT -LOW APARTMENTS
COMMUNITY RETAIL BUSINESS
REGIONAL RETAIL BUSINESS
PROFESSIONAL /OFFICE BUSINESS
MULTIPLE - RESIDENCE HIGH DENSITY
DISTRICT, INDUSTRIAL PARK
E
R -2 MEDIUM DENSITY
RESIDENTIAL
c
•
City of Tukwila
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
6200 Southcenter Boulevard
Tukwila, Washington 98188
(206) 433-1849
DATE: October 31, 1988
TO: TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL
FROM: JACK PACE, SENIOR PLANNER
SUBJECT: FOSTER ANNEXATION UPDATE
The following is a brief summary of information for each of the areas
discussed at the City Council meeting of October 24, 1988.
..'AREA #1
KING COUNTY' N/A
PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION OFFICE
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. ZONING
PUBLIC COMMENT PO ZONING WITH ABILITY TO BUILD APARTMENTS
CITY COUNCIL DIRECTION OMMERC1
RM 2400/SR
PO WITH R3
DENSITY
• AREA #2
KING COUNTY SINGLE FAMILY SR
PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION INDUSTRIAL CM
PUBLIC COMMENT INDUSTRIAL PARK CM
CITY COUNCIL DIRECTION INDUSTRIAL R1
AREA #3
KING COUNTY HIGH/MAX DENSITY RM 1800
PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION MED DENSITY RES R3
PUBLIC COMMENT INDUSTRIAL PARK CM
• CITY COUNCIL DIRECTION MED DENSITY RES R1
City Council
October 28, 1988
Page 2
AREA #5
AREA #3A
KING COUNTY LOW /MED DENSITY RM 2400.
PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION MED DENSITY RES R3
PUBLIC COMMENT RANGED FROM SUPPORTING R3 TO R4 ZONING
CITY COUNCIL DIRECTION MED DENSITY RES R1
AREA #4
KING COUNTY HIGH /MAX DENSITY RM 1800
PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION LOW DENSITY RES R1
PUBLIC COMMENT RANGED FROM SUPPORTING R1 TO REQUEST FOR
RMH BY THE PROPERTY OWNER.
CITY COUNCIL DIRECTION LOW DENSITY RES R1
KING COUNTY HIGH /MAX DENSITY RM 1800
PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION HIGH DENSITY R4
PUBLIC COMMENT RANGED FROM REDUCING PLANNING COMMISSION
RECOMMENDED DENSITY TO REQUSTING COMM.
CITY. COUNCIL DIRECTION MED DENSITY RES R2
AREA #6
KING COUNTY HIGH /MAX DENSITY RM 1800
PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION HIGH DENSITY /COM R4 /C2
PUBLIC COMMENT.. SUPPORTED TASK FORCE RECOMMENDATON OF R3
CITY COUNCIL DIRECTION LOW DENSITY R1
"N \`''..? \ c■ —
\ ••\ \dr... \ 0
s,
\ \ le 0
% • a
\ i
•,z4e
0 1'
•
e 0 •
• •
ril
f;
Ite
1.1• " •
FOSTER ANNEXATION
INTEREST AREAS
Og
5 ilrIER51%
3AV 14.111f I
• ';■.: •
C/
di.
1r
1r
ti! 7 •
--4-•
Area #1
Area #2
R -1
Area 3
P -0 With R -3 Restriction
Ted & Diane !Meyers
Ron Lamb
R -1
PUBLIC COMMEMTS AND LETTERS
FOSTER PUBLIC HEARING
September.12 and October 17
FOSTER ANNEXATION
P -O With Cascading Or CM
Eva Painter 13526 ,- 53rd S/W
Terry & David Craig 5306 S. 137th S
. Dave Whitlow 5408 153rd, Bellevue S/W
Norris & Mildred Saari 13535 53rd S
Dennis WestDhall 2261 NE 68th, Seattle S
Peter Thomason 13450 51st S
Bob McGregor 5351 S. 136th S
13919 42nd Ave.
4251 S. 139th
P-0 With R -3 Restriction
Pam Carter 4115 S. 139th
*S = Sooken
W = Written
W
S/W
Commercial
Greg ? Diane Deano 4628 S. 138th S/W
Alva & Thelma Davis 13806 Macadam W
Ray & Pat Vomen -ci 4822 S. 138th S/W
Larry Howe 13568 139th P1. SE S
R -2 N. of 136th
Ron Lamb 4251 S. 139th W
Michael. Silver W
Rena Shawver 4318 S. 140th W
Ted & Diane Meyers 13919 42nd S. W
Ken Eldridge 4821 S. 136th S
Clarence Cook 13604 Macadam W
Joan Merryhew for
Eleanor Whitmore 14006 Macadam S (w /R -2 or R -3 comp. plan)
Rena Shawver 4318 S. 140th W
R -3 Contd.
Area #4
Area #5
Area #6
Commercial
Alva Davis
Larry Howe
Commercial or Multi- family
Alan Pachuk for
Audrey Bullock
R -2
R-2
R -3
Rena Shawver
General. Concerns
13806 Macadam S (Doesn't care as long as
Areas 2 & 3 are the same)
13568 139th P1. SE, Renton S (C -M or RMH)
4011 S. 139th
Ron Lamb 4251 S. 139th W
Ted & Diane Meyers 13919 42nd Ave. W
Rena Shawver 4318 S. 140th W
4318 S. 140th W
Michael Silver W
Karen Layton 14115 43rd S. S
Too much traffic with higher densities
Ron Dailey 14220 41st Ave. S. S
Tukwila should consider greenbelts along freeway
Thomas Whiteley 14240 41st Ave. S. S
Expressed concerns about taxes and Tukwila's resistance to mobile homes
,
Tukwila City Council
City of Tukwila
6200 Southcenter Boulevard
Tukwila, Washington 98188
4115 South 139th
Seattle, Washington 98168
October 18, 1988
Dear Tukwila City Council:
SUBJECT: Foster Annexation
I should like to expand on my testimony at the September 12
City Council Hearing.
When deciding zoning for an area, I feel the effects on the
entire community must be considered in addition to the financial
interests of the individual property owner(s) involved. Any
change in zoning from the current land use of a property has
an impact on the entire community. Sometimes this can be a
positive impact; at other times, the impact may be negative.
I realize no zoning decision in the controversial areas will
satisfy everyone, but I urge you to balance the interests of
the community against the interests of the few and hopefully
find wise compromises between the two.
I support the requirement of design review for all development
other than single - family development. This would ensure that
non - residential or multi - family developments would not adversely
impact adjacent single - family residences. It does not seem
unreasonable to ask a developer what his building(s) will look
like! Any plans ordinarily drawn up for a new building include
elevation (exterior views) so I cannot see how this would be
a hardship on the developer.
I would now like to address specific areas of concern in respect
to zoning recommended by the Planning Commission. Rather than
attempting to describe those areas, I have attached a map with
the areas numbered to 1 to 5.
Area #1 presents a problem due to the impacts of freeway noise,
METRO Park 'n Ride, and traffic volumes. P -0 zoning would be
less sensitive to the freeway noise and serve as a buffer between
the commercial uses to the north and the residential area to
the south. With this area's easy access to the freeway, P -O
zoning would seem to provide an excellent incentive for rede-
velopment of this area. This P -O designation is supported by
Ernest Patty, President of the Andover Company in his August
8 letter to the Mayor and by David Whitlow in his August 16
letter to Jack Pace. Traffic volume is a real problem in this
area so it does not seem wise to add to that volume by allowing
high- density apartments. All this sudden talk of C -1 or C -2
simply shows that no one has a clear vision for the future of
this area. (That translates into "take the money and run. ")
If, at a later date, someone came up with a suitable development
for this area-that required some other type of zoning, then
they could apply for a rezone. However at present, P -O seems
to offer the best incentive for redevelopment in view of the
unique problems of this area.
Area #2 - This is a very narrow area between Macadam Road and
I -5. Any non - residential zoning for this area would very
adversely affect the entire community. I can see no reason
for putting industrial -type development in the center of our
community. We don't need to add trucks to the traffic already
passing the two schools on S. 144th. But building apartments
here also presents some problems. Tukwila has sensibly stringent
requirements for open space, parking spaces, set - backs, etc.
that limit the number of units one could build on these shallow
parcels. There is also a problem with water run -off from the
hill to the west. Perhaps Larry Howe had the best suggestion
when he said that zoning it R -1 would create a greenbelt.
Residential zoning is the only logical and sensible zoning for
this area.
Area #3 - Due to the springs in the hillside and the steep
topography, it would be deceptive to zone this area for high -
density apartments. I really don't favor more apartments along
S. 144th or Macadam Road and it seems many developers also have
questions about the feasibilty of of apartments here. (Some
of this property has been for sale as RM -2400 for several years
now.) If multi - family zoning is your decision for this area,
at least lessen the impact by keeping it no higher than R -3.
Area #4A - I strongly disagree with the C -2 zoning for the west
side of 41st S. This is a single family neighborhood and is
currently zoned as such by King County. There is no direct
access to these properties from Pacific Highway. It would make
more sense to designate a single zoning for the entire #4A area.
Considering its proximity to the high school and the single
family areas on the south side of 144th, low- density zoning
is a much better "fit."
Area #4B - This is an area which demonstrates the necessity
of design review no matter which multi - residence zoning is
chosen. The task force had great difficulty, with this area.
Some type of multi - family zoning is needed to encourage
redevelopment, but the impact on the nearby single - family homes
must also be considered. 42nd S. is already a busy street and
any more apartments here would surely increase the traffic as
not all the residents of a development here would choose to
access from Pacific Highway. The single - family area to the
east needs preserved and protected from high - density
developments. I strongly agree with Rena Shawver's view that
we don't need more apartments on 42nd S. I voted in the task
force for R -2 zoning, but R -3 would certainly by a better
compromise for this area than R -4.
Area #4C - This -area of single - family homes (all but one are
owner occupied) should be zoned R -1 as recommended by the
Planning Commission.
Area #5 - I was shocked to see the Planning Commission recommend
C -M zoning for this area. Apparently some residents of this
area mistakenly believe it is already zone industrial and feel
any other zoning would be a downzone. Not true, King County
lists this area as single - family even on its Comp Plan. Directly
across Macadam Road is an area of single - family homes that would
be forced to endure the noise and traffic of industry if this
were zoned C -M. Macadam Road is a twisting road with several
school bus stops. I feel trucks and children walking along
the roadside is not a good mix. And how would this traffic
get to this site? From the north they would come down Macadam;
from the south they would use 51st, a road equally unsuited
to heavy truck traffic. Certainly some traffic would come off
of Pacific Highway via S. 144th, past two schools, and down
Brummer's Hill (a hill steep enough to be closed when it snows).
I just hope they would not come from Pacific Highway via S.
139th, 44th S., and S. 137th as many residents of the area do
currently. It just makes no sense to adversely impact many
residents simply so a few may profit.
I know this has been a rather lengthy letter, but I am very
concerned about the future of this community. My husband and
I have been homeowners and residents here for almost 15 years
and we intend to stay here for a good many more years. I have
been very involved in our schools, working to strengthen and
improve them so I know the difficulties posed by the high turn-
over of enrollment. Our single - family neighborhoods need to
be preserved and protected if this community is to remain the
viable, close -knit community it is today.
Enclosure
Sincerely,
Pam Carter
. .11111 mh 1111111111.mallei
- la 311111.1. 2 11111111111mi iliE„
1 _gm
....L..ii IMMO
. "MIMI
MEM
11111111111
' MIMI
3m HIP
*.(:)• s 10°'
.4%. Is..
..::.;*.
.30
.•
iJT
.
South f9entra?
4640 SOUTH 144th STREET
Tukwila City Council
6200 Southcenter Boulevard
Tukwila, WA 98188
Dear Council Members:
SCHOOL DISTRICT 406
KING COUNTY
• SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98168 -4196 • Phone: 244 -2100
October 17, 1988
On behalf of the South Central School District, I would like to comment on
two proposed zoning changes in the Foster annexation plan.
The South Central Board of Directors are concerned about the proposed zoning
change for the area between Macadam, 1 -5, South 135th and South 136th Streets.
The proposed zone for this area is CM- Industrial Park. If this change were to
happen, increased traffic on Macadam could result which would pose safety
concerns for students who walk to school along the shoulder of Macadam. The
district's request is to continue the present zoning of R -I in light of
traffic and safety concerns.
The second request concerns the intersection of 42nd and South 144th Street.
It has been proposed that lots along 42nd Street be rezoned from low density
to high density. The district's request is to continue low density zoning
for this area and not adopt high density zoning - RMH. Lower density
development would help in the stabilization of this area. R -3 zoning may be a
more satisfactory zone for this area.
Thank you very much for your consideration of these two points.
MS:mm
cc' >V , a410-":
Sincerely,
1/
Michael Silver, Ph.D. •
Superintendent of Schools
October 17, 1988
Tukwila City Council
Tukwila City Hall
6200 Southcenter Boulevard
Tukwila, WA 98188
OCI 17 1888)
Dear Council Representatives:
I'm a Foster resident and have been actively involved in the
Foster annexation effort. I've been absolutely delighted and
thankful for the enthusiasm and support Tukwila staff, the
mayor and council have provided to the annexation areas.
Thank you.
Through petition and informal door -to -door surveys, our community
overwhelmingly has said, "Yes! We want to be annexed to Tukwila."
We're excited about the possibilities of being in Tukwila, and we
see a better future for our neighborhood.
We're also concerned about that future and its reliance on
appropriate zoning. Your decision on zoning, based on information
gathered tonight and over'the previous months, will set the
wheels in motion for the kind of neighborhood Foster will be in
the years to come. As residents, we know what kind of neighborhood
we want: a community of single family homes with strong ties
to our schools and library. We want community. We do not want
the additional burden of living next to more apartments and
industrial parks that increase car and truck traffic and noise,
encourage transient populations, burden our school district,
make it unsafe for children to walk down the streets, and force
out single family homes and values. We're scared about what may
happen to our neighborhood. You are faced with making a zoning
decision that will impact our lives.
As a member of Tukwila's preannexation zoning task force,:I helped
map out the proposed zoning for Foster. Our proposal was bastardized
by the planning commission,who,f'although they don't live here nor
have they spent time talking with us about the issues, seem to
think our neighborhood more suitable for apartments, businesses
and industrial parks. I heartily disagree, and I strongly
believe the majority of the Foster community disagrees.
There are five areas under question:
1. Property West of 41st Ave. S.:
(Currently zoned single family residential by King County.
Zoning Task Force proposed R -2 - two family residential.
Planning commission proposes C -2 - regional retail business.)
It is not appropriate to bring retail businesses off of
Highway 99 and into residential communities. What the planning
commission proposes is heavy traffic on a dead end street,and
increased traffic on 144th where only one block to the East,
school children are present. We do not want businesses and
their Highway 99 clientel in our neighborhood and near school
children..
2, Property on the West corner of 144th St. and 42nd Ave. S.:
(Partially zoned single family and partially zoned high
density multi - family by King County.
Zong Task Force recommended R -2 - two family residential.
Planning commission proposes R -4 - district low apartments.)
Zoning the strip of land West of 42nd Ave. S. from 144th
on the South side to 140th S. on the North side admittedly
looks good on a map. It looks neat, congruent and, to those
who "zone" for a living, smoothly takes are of the spot -
zoning issue. However, if you drive down 42nd Avenue South,
as I'm sure many of you have, you'll notice that the streets
are littered with cars from existing apartments that are
too dense already. Why add to the problem? Why zone for
more apartments when clearly the neighborhood cannot support
its current, bulging apartment population? Please do not
allow for more apartments along 42nd Avenue South,
3. The trailer court. Property bordered by S. 141st St. to
the South, 42nd Ave. S. to the East and 140th S. to the
North.
(Currently zoned high density multi- family by King County.
Zoning Task Force proposed R -2 - two family residential - or
R -4 - district low apartments.
Planning commission recommends R -4 - district low apartments.)
Everyone knows the trailer court is an eyesore, a suspected
source of drug trafficing and the recent site of a domestic
shooting. I live only two blocks away from the trailer
court, and no one wants to see it upgraded more than I.
Again, I'm concerned about the negative impacts apartments
will have on the neighborhood. I would like to see that
parcel zoned R -2, two family residential. I do not advocate
R -3 (three to four family dwelling), but it would be a
better compromise than R -4, district low apartments.
(Note: I find it curious that the public hearing notice,
dated October 4, with a ,map of the planning commission's
recommended zoning for .boster has excluded R -2 zoning as an
existing option on the grid chart.)
4. Property East of Macadam, North of S. 138th and South of 136th:
(Currently zoned single family residential by King County.
Zoning Task Force recommended leaving the zoning single family.
Planning commission proposes CM district, industrial park).
I think the planning commission is completely off target on
this one. Yes, there's noise from 1 -5 in this area and
one or two very vocal residents are,promoting industrial
zoning for this area. However, I believe we need to think
of the good of the community at large. What do we want this
area to be in ten years? Do we want to make it an industrial
park and cut off our chances for improving the neighborhood?
Or do we want to keep it a residential area and petition the
state to provide adequate sound barriers between the neighbor-
hood and I -5? Foster residents do not want semi - trucks on
Macadam and we do not want the existing trees and foliage
- 2 -
.44?r4) 1:.:;:177.4...6. , t4k1:A`Vµ..'Ml 'Abw « if1U3}
which offer so; , barrier destroyed.L.I think the
single family hme owners on the West side of Macadam
feel the most strongly against industrial zoning. So let's
be optimistic about this area and keep it zoned single
family residential. There will always be opportunities
to build industrial parks in family neighborhoods, but
little chance to build family homes in industrial parks.
Property East of Macadam Road and West of I -5:
(Currently zoned high density multi - family by King County.
Zoning Task Force proposed R -1 - single family residential.
Planning commission recommends R -3 - three to four family
dwellings.)
Again, I'm concerned about the impact of more apartments
on the area. Also, putting apartments on this strip of
narrow land will require land fills. What kind of impact
will that have on natural drainage and the environment?
Obviously I care enough about this community and its future to
spend some time outlining my thoughts to the Council. There are
a vocal few, mainly absentee land owners interested in development,
who are lobbying for apartments, businesses and industrial parks
in the community. I think those who say there is no future for
single family homes provide only short sighted and narrow minded
views. Although our single family residents may not be as vocal
as the developers, single family home owners are the majority
in this community; we're proud of our neighborhood and we want to
see it grow and improve. Unlike absentee land owners, Foster
community members do live.in the area, have a stake in its future,
and we vote. .Preannexation zoning will help many area residents
determine whether or not they want to be a part of Tukwila.
Please consider the wishes of single family home owners in Foster
when you make the final decision on zoning.
Thank you for your time and continuing support of annexation.
Sinrely, ;
Rena Shawver
4318 South 140th
Seattle, WA 98168
(H) 431 -8960
(W) 583 -6581
October 10, 1988
Tukwila City Council
6200 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 154th) 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
•RM 2400 zoning.
We have paid taxes for over 20 year 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
aL :ptable compromise.
Re: .,pectfully yours,
9 !Vr
Wayne and Hazel Ketchersid
/43 7 ‘3"l -0 4. `e, &,
(ec c, 1()M 98 /W
Tukwila City Council
6200 Southcenter Boulevard
Tukwila, WA 98188
Dear Councilmembers:
4251 South 139th Street
Seattle, WA 98168
September 11, 1988
As a proponent of the Foster Annexation and as a member
of the Foster zoning task force, I am dismayed at several of
the city planning commission's recommendations for the
Foster area. In particular, I am appalled at the C -M
(industrial park) recommendation for the area east of
Macadam Road and north of 138th Street.
As an annexation advocate, this eleventh -hour proposal
causes me grave concern: It is a potential annexation
killer. Industrial encroachment on residential neighborhoods
is one of the primary concerns of residents of this area. In
fact, part of the impetus for the Riverton annexation was a
King County proposal for more industrial development in that
area. The C -M recommendation in the Foster annexation area
is an even greater industrial expansion than the county
proposes.
As a task force member, I am concerned that the C -M
designation undermines the task force process. The task
force spent many hours this summer hammering out difficult
compromises. Many viewpoints were represented, and debate
was often deeply divided. But in the end, we managed to find
acceptable solutions in almost all areas. Not once was
industrial development raised as a solution. We presented
our recommendations and reasoning to the planning commission
at the public hearing. Then, after public testimony was
closed and there was no opportunity for response, the
planning commission came up with a recommendation that was
far beyond even the most extreme position represented on the
task force.
These are my general concerns with the C -M proposal. My
specific concerns are manifold.
Access to such a development along Macadam Road would
be disruptive the residences west of Macadam at best and
dangerous at worst. Macadam is narrow and twisting, with
steep slopes on either side, particularly adjacent to the
proposed C -M site. The topography precludes economical
widening and straightening of Macadam. The city public works
department has said it has no plans to improve Macadam, .
other than perhaps to install sidewalks. One planning
commission member said he didn't think trucks going to or
2
coming from the site would use Macadam. I disagree. If I
were a truck driver delivering material to the site from
Pacific Highway South, I certainly wouldn't drive all the
way over to Interurban so that I could approach the site
from the north; I would use surface and residential streets.
In other words, such a development would bring truck traffic
not only to Macadam but to side streets as well. These
streets are not suitable for truck traffic. South 144th has
two schools and, to the east of Macadam, it passes through
present Tukwila residential neighborhoods. Smaller side
streets such as 137th, 139th and 140th are residential
streets, with sharp blind corners. (As an example, please
- visit the corner of 139th Street and 44th Avenue.)
An industrial park on the east side of Macadam also
would have a negative impact on the single - family homes on
the west side of Macadam.
Keep in mind, too, that this C -M proposal affects not
only the. Foster annexation area, but also the Riverton
annexation area. The C -M designation for the area between
136th and 138th requires that the area north of 136th -- in
the Riverton annexation area -- also be C -M so that the
Foster C -M isn't an island of industrial. (The planning
commission changed its recommendation for that part of the
Riverton area during its deliberations on the Foster area,
even though the Riverton recommendation has already gone to
the city council and the city council has already held one
hearing on it. I doubt that Riverton task force members will
look favorably on this extension of industrial zoning in
their area after they thought they had seen the final
recommendation.)
I am very concerned about the effects of this
industrial designation, but I also am confident that the
city council will do what's best for our annexation area and
our community by restoring R -1 status to the area bounded by
138th, 136th, Macadam and the freeway.
area.
Three other areas concern me in the Foster annexation
For many of the same reasons I've already mentioned, I
feel the area between Macadam and the freeway south of 138th
is not suitable for R -3 zoning, as was recommended by the
planning commission. The task force recommended R -1. I feel
that no higher density development is possible, given its
long, narrow dimensions and city setback requirements.
Traffic impacts on the narrow, winding Macadam also are a
concern. It doesn't seem reasonable to assume that all
traffic from a multiple - family development would enter and
leave only from the south, where Macadam is somewhat wider
and straighter. Some would come and go north, through the
narrowest, most crooked sections of the road.
3
The planning commission's recommendation for the area
between 140th and 141st Streets, along 42nd Avenue,
currently a trailer park, represents the extreme side of the
task force deliberations. (The task force was unable to
arrive at a recommendation when two votes on the site -- one
for R -2 and one for R -4 -- ended in 6 -6 ties. However, at an
earlier meeting, the task force voted for R -2.) Members of
the task force who live nearby feel very strongly that the
density of the site should be something less than
apartments.
Traffic on 42nd already is too heavy. There are no
sidewalks (in fact, there isn't even a shoulder, only a deep
ditch, along one portion) and children wait for school buses
or cross to school bus stops.
Neighbors of the site also are deeply concerned that
further high- density development on the west side of 42nd
would increase pressure for development on the single -
family, owner - occupied neighborhood just across the street.
Also a concern was the planning commission
recommendation for R -4 and C -2 on 144th between Pacific
Highway and 42nd. The C -2 designation is especially
troubling. I have absolutely no quarrel with a C -2
designation for the property that fronts on Pacific Highway
South. But designation of the several small parcels of
property along 41st Avenue, currently single - family homes,
does not make sense. The only access for those properties is
onto 41st, which is a dead end street, and 144th, which is
not as major an arterial as the highway is and which has
schools on it.
There was no testimony in favor of C -2 or R -4 for that
area. The task force recommendation was for R -2, which is
consistent with Thorndyke task force recommendations for the
area south of 144th.
I strongly support the two zoning ordinance changes
recommended by the planning commission, however.
Design review, although not a recommendation of the
task force because of a tie vote at our final meeting, was
of great concern to many task force members, as evidenced by
the letters you and the planning commission have received on
the subject. We look at Tukwila Hill, where design review
for all multiple - family development is already in place, and
we see quality multiple - family development. We would like to
see the same standards applied to our neighborhoods.
I also support the change in PO zoning that precludes
downzone to high- density multiple family, a proposal that
4
came out of the task force process. I applaud the planning
staff for developing this, reasonable compromise.
Thank you for taking the time to read and consider
these. :issues, which I feel are of great importance to our
-community. I.am confident that we will soon all be sharing
in. the:.benefits of your wise decisions as citizens of the
City : of Tukwila.
Sincerely,
��• � i ! 6 1 L t
■ r
Ronald A. Lamb ✓�- -�
Sept. 7, 1988
City Tukwila
..a ning Dept.
Planning Commisien
Tukwila, vYA 92163
Fri. : -tr... Annexation
Reg=+.r'c!i. 10 acre ar ra South border 3. 1 7tn
Freeway as !4est Eioundr'y and ....:erurban Ave. S. as East-n ',
ound °y
Attached ycu will - : a pet «_lion signed by land owners
and tenants living in this triangle parcel of land nearly
surr'. unde d ._ y _i t; of TC,wi l a. Our area is unique in many
ways .; Since 1972, the area has been impacted with 91 Units
to the South 'oundr as well as Multi - family units l _
'' J
S. 56th. Presently there is construction on a strip _ .
land on S. 56th and westward to Interurban Ave. S.
This last spring there t' ' > '. ";-
. l.s �,__ rin. !er - e was are �idical annexation _.�:ln
Strander to Commercial into the City of Tukwila.
Also, some areas as attachment will show have been
...--. Multi-Family that are zoned by King County.
Our ,- elings are that we have been impacted long encL:g ' ty
there changes that make it impossible for single f ami l
homes- Jor anymore: 1.. Noire of freeways, .let-=, local
tra.'f -; i i_ as well as Foster Golf Course -'A System that _er
golfers on there way at 6:30 AM. 2. Roads are sub -s .+.n.•_.lr o
for the traffic and need to be widened. !Note I've been
told ;_y the Mayor of Tukwila that this cannot. be '_lone ..n
the near future; the zoning up to co rr ._,_ _ these deformed
and dangerous road=_ and utilities. 3. At this time our _ -z-A
S i ( . 7 1 no residential buyers for al 1 the reasons l i s t e d a n' c;
experienced by Mrs. Fainter, who has `:ad RM-2400 Zoning
for over 20 years. She attempted to sell her property as
a single family residence with nc ::uyer The property
was made into apt. and economics state to get what we the
residence have put into our properties we need P.O. Zoning
with cascade zoning in Multi-Families no less that ;
this enables the residence the option= of selling
non- restrictivelyi as for all of us this is our life
savings that this will directly affect. We have worked
hard in our working fifes to have our property locked in =.
zoning that the purchaser cannot make the improvement to
the properties that will be necessary and still be .able to
purchase the land. Simple facts of dollars and sense.
Please help. our area residence in this time of need.
We, the undersigned, are in support of the task force vote
of July 3, 1988; in which the vote 17 FOR and 3 against
rezoning from SR (suburban residential) to PO
(Professional and Office) as the description of
Professional and Adminstrative Offices that also serve as .
a buf-Far between residential and commercial areas.
We live here, we know how we have been impacted by our
unique are If we are to be Annexed into The City Of Tukwila.
Name: Address:
1, TM AL
Phonel
21
2-14 i
1
2. ‘:.. **"2.54 .-,. 6 46 3/ ra-
, . c 7/7 ' .P.2 /g51-4-SVIZ Ai./04io,
Li) )30-7-1Verlir-" A" _
a t 5330V36 0 j+‘ z.5
Ya.
f 53) 5,134 .
7.6‘Aele-_S 444.11(i3 sod .S0 I3,V9L 433-F3g7,
, 1)44
. 9, -nklele e. N ‘ LI J 1 1 ti 1 atiD ArJe/ So .
/3c0 5 dig a qo ES/
. : * (y..\\4.\‘. .., Co\c,... ...: . \ • \. v.vo.-i • ■ c 0.
5?! 9 - - i 74• / . 444,1 4 Cc(
5 S. 134" 5ec,. \d
/ 6341 '8 Ivef zi
M733 62- Alttv. 243 -3-7413x,,
We the undersigned, are in support of the task force vote
of July 3, 198a; in which the vote 17 FOR and 3 against
rezoning from SR (suburban residential) to PO
(Professional and Office) as the descriptjon of
Professional and Adminstrative 0.-:-ices that also serve as
a- buffer between residential and commercial areas.
We live here, we Eno how we have been impacted by our
unique arpa; If we are to be Annexed into The City 'CZ Tukwila.
2.
4.
9.
vP1
13. AA
Pddress: Phon:;
j?
&? kizi SP 71145
37/7 C orit- '"" 9 '5
afte-A .
g g.z.st .-
/( 635(0/3/541126-,eaittee.-2S.91/:996;!'
3S 3-43 " Stu c2 41 4 4 11 t j g fi i fr 7
va-
15o 1341 25
tutz b
S - I(T.
, 95YA.
0(2, S. 1
ca6Alt-t.fiak.cb1 l6
3/3 S. / C.
.e4 C. 9
1/'/
3 706 50 AVE Seo ‘.
/ 37 0 < 111 es .57‘4,01
Pr4 cf;
(
7 76 '
5'6 E
We, the undersigned, are in support of the task force vote
of July 3, 1980; in which the vote 17 FOR and 3 against
rezoning from SR (suburban residential) to PO
(Professional and Office) as the description of
Professional and Adminstrative Office=: that also serve as
buffer between resdential and commercial areas.
We 3ive here, we know how we have been impacted by our
unique area; If we are to b€ Annexed into The City Of Tukwila.
1. 1,1-t.ti 3-57.3-C 5347) Ye.Se?
2.7LaA, / 13 00.S0 .
3./
/
/ 2 )1 017 ST 2-7.2." 64.
/144
r3/41•S,,, - 0 . 4 0 .
13Cii Syfiga. z4 4.1"4
3 -7 5-'`) / 36 7* 2'14 - 3Y iC
B. 1315' )44L441
7.
(r .54 3 ,.6
•
1)
i/31-9k.35"
•
We,.. she undersigned, are in support of the task fore_ .: c:t_
t7- July 3 1981: - in which the vote 17 FOR and _ ?
a.Q.i n
rezoning from SR (suburban residential) to PO y
(Professional and Office) as the description cf
Professional ano Admi nstr•ati ve Offices that also serve a`
a buffer beta en residential and commercial
We l i v e hsr e, we is -:o how we have been .impacted by ouv
unique area; If we are to be Annexed into Me City Of T;.;i: ; .ci11a;.
12.
1_.
Address: Phone:
-Ar3e.A leSC 7 V-6 -17Ii
�. ,80/f/4f,' -111‘D. �� a �t �-3 4277
Planning Commission
City of Tukwila
6200 Southcenter Boulevard
Tukwila, WA 98188
Dear Commission Members:
1
11988
5408 - 153rd PI. S.E.
Bellevue, WA 98006
September 1, 1988
I was the first speaker at the Planning Commission Public Hearing on the Foster and
Thorndike Annexations on August 30, 1988. Just before the meeting, Mr. Jack Pace gave
me a copy of the letter by Mr. Ronald A. Lamb to the Planning Commission. I am writing
this letter as a rebuttal to the claims made in this letter.
My first objection is his categorization of the people who attended the Foster Task Force
meetings (first para., second sentence) as "On the one side were those who generally
favor high density multiple family zoning in a number of areas, particularly in areas where
they own property. On the other side were those of us who favor preservation of our
single - family residential neighborhoods."
This bit of political nonsense was aptly refuted by the testimony of the little lady who had
lived in this area for 35 years and not sell her property because of the apartment
congestion and freeway noise surrounding her property. The point of view of hers and
others in the area is that they are completely in favor of preserving single - family neighbor-
- hoods and always have been, but that is impossible in Area 1 of the Foster Annexation.
Attached to this letter is a copy of a letter to Jack Pace (Aug. 16, 1988) by myself in which
I carefully put down my version of the background and nature of the zoning problem in the
Foster Annexation area. I have deleted portions of the letter describing the inner struggles
of the Task Force in trying to reach a consensus.
Please read my letter at this point.
Since that letter was written, the Staff Report to the Planning Commission prepared August
25, 1988 has proposed zoning code amendments in which R -3 zoning would be the high-
est level apartment zoning permitted in a P -O zone. Let me put in perspective what this
change will do in real life rather than in someone's narrow view.
I invite members of the Planning Commission to drive down through Area 1 and ask them-
selves if this is what they want this area to continue to remain for the foreseeable future.
Notice that coming south on 1 -5 or Interurban Ave., this land gives the first impression of
Tukwila. Think of what would be the best possible change to make this area as attractive
as the area around the Tukwila City Hall visible coming from the south.
I believe a first class business park in which the entire Area 1 is integrated by a single plan
is what is really required. If you let amateurs promote a little apartment here and a little
business there you will get a junky combination that will not be the best for Tukwila and will
extend the time and risks to the present owners.
In order to effect the big change quickly, before we all die of old age (I am 67 years old)
the zoning must be such as to attract the big developer with resources to do the whole job.
It would seem that he should have the choice of the best mix of offices and apartments
that will give the best return for his investment.
If you remove RMH from his options, you reduce the chances of getting a really qualified
buyer. At R -3, you can be assured that nobody will buy and the area will not change.
Let me return to the pious but mistaken views from Ron Lamb's testimony. The Tukwila
school problem stems from there being already 1,100 apartment units in Tukwila and there
must have been a good reason for having them. Surely, they must contribute to their
share of the costs to Tukwila. Ron Lamb continually mixes up generalities with specifics
on what is best for Tukwila overall. In a worst and unlikely case scenario, even if Area 1
went all apartments, it would have a negligible effect on the school system since the area
is so small.
As my letter points out and I thought the Task Forces were accomplishing, the City of
Tukwila, in the face of lessened revenues from Southcenter, must carefully look at each
and every annexation source of revenue that have the least disturbance to and indeed
support the continuing quality of life in Tukwila. I believe that the P -O zoning, including the
RMH zoning, does exactly that in Area 1 of the Foster Annexation.
Sincerely,
DHW /jj
Attachment
cc: Gary Van Duzer, Mayor of Tukwila
Rick EINE Chief Planner
w /att
David H. Whitlow
- 2 -
P.S. Ron Lamb would have you burn down your beautiful City Hall and go back to
the old one on top of the hill since we positively, absolutely want no change in the Tukwila
that used to be.
ij1f .LJ
Mr. Jack P. Pace
Senior Planner, Planning Department
City of Tukwila
6200 Southcenter Boulevard
Tukwila, WA 98188
Dear Mr. Pace:
I would like to put down for the record my version of the
background and nature of the zoning problem in the Foster
Annexation area and how the activities of the Task Force
relate to them.
Background
Residences of Tukwila since its inception have enjoyed a way
of life and form of government more reminiscent of the
classic American small town in the midst of the Seattle
Metropolitan maelstrom surrounding them. In more recent
years they have been blessed by having the Southcenter tax
base to support a sound City government and help finance the
services the City supplies. The local citizens like their
life style and rarely leave. They like their volunteer form
of government and their friends and neighbors join in holding
offices in their City government to help run the City. There
is a feeling of community that these citizens share and the
impression that they care about each other and would go out
of their way to help each other and their City.
In understanding the requirement for a balance between the
need to continue to provide the revenue to keep the City
financially sound and still protect the basic essence of the
single family community, The City Council has wisely allowed
a diversity of zoning, but only where appropriate. Where
there is a highway or a high density shopping center there is
an appropriate buffer zone of apartments between the
commercial area and the single family residences. The
southern hillside facing Southcenter is zoned all apartments
as are most of the areas immediately adjacent to the 1 -5
highway at the southwest corner. Again, where appropriate,
like along Interurban Avenue, the zoning is largely
commercial.
•
..
It is recognized by,the City Council that there is a basic
;danger of losing the'Tukwila way -of -life in granting too much
apartment development, as apartment dwellers do not consider
themselves as permanent members of the City and do not
typically concern themselves with City problems. For this
reason, the Tukwila City Council has always maintained a
cautious attitude towards allowing further apartment
development, while still recognizing that certain lands,
because of location.and topography are only suitable for
apartments.
Changes in Revenue Sources
A new consideration in Tukwila Planning has surfaced in the
possible repeal of the Washington State Sales Tax thereby
threatening the Tukwila Southcenter Tax Base. Anticipating
this problem, the City of Tukwila has launched a large
program of annexation of other properties to broaden its tax
base. I submit that with the possible loss of Southcenter
revenue, the economic reality is that mere annexation is not
enough to solve the economic shortfall. The new lands must
have a higher proportion of income property than the present
mix or either bankruptcy or a lesser capacity to provide city
services per capita are the inevitable alternatives. While
- the city had Southcenter, it did not have to consider as
seriously the economic impact of zoning changes, so more
emphasis could be put on political and social considerations.
This luxury may no longer be available and it will be very
important to consider how best to develop the revenue
potential of the new areas. This, of course, involves
consideration of the emerging business growth trends in the
Seattle Metropolitan area. The emphasis will have to be on
careful scrutiny of those changes that will produce the most
revenue for the least disruption of the traditional Tukwila
family way -of -life. These observation must be obvious to the
Tukwila Planning Department and it was welcome news that they
had formed Citizen's Task Forces to study the problem in each
new annexation area. As you know, I joined with considerable
interest the Foster Annexation Task Force and have attended
all the meetings which were held on July 13, July 19, and
August 2, 1988.
e
Foster Annexation Task Force Report
The People and The Area
Of interest, first of all, is the people who attended the
meetings. It is important to observe that to get people to
volunteer to attend after hours meetings on their own time
requires that the individual is particularly concerned about
his or her welfare in a serious way.
As could be expected, attendees at these meetings were
divided into two factions:
1) those living to the West of the 1 -5 freeway, which
will henceforth be called Westsiders and their area the
Westside of the Foster Annexation Area.
2) those living to the East of the I -5 freeway who will
be called Eastsiders and their area the Eastside.
There was about an equal number from each side, but with
completely opposite concerns or points of view. Again, this
could be expected as the areas are also completely different
in character.
The Westside is a large area measured in square miles in size
and is very appropriately largely zoned single family.
Protected by its size and topography, adequate buffer zones
from the 1 -5 freeway and Highway 99 can be provided. These
residents were very concerned about retaining the Tukwila
single family way of life and fought block by block to have
the lowest possible zoning everywhere.
The Eastside is a tiny area, perhaps 10 acres in size and
roughly triangular in shape. It is bounded on the West by
the 1 -5 freeway, on the East by Interurban Avenue and the
Metro Park and Ride; and on the South by the Terrace
Apartments and Foster Park. It is impossible for the single
family residence to have any kind of an apartment buffer zone
because the area is so small that there is no room to
surround the single family area with apartments. The noise
and pollution from the freeway and the traffic from the
Terrace Apartments (and even some new apartments) has made
this area unlivable as a single family area and virtually
unsaleable as no person in his right mind would buy this
property with the hope of improving it enough to convert it
into a decent single family area. The single family
-3-
rental units, and a 6 unit apartment.
residences in the area feel trapped and desperately want to
f move out, but cannot afford it. Most are elderly and
have the economic means and know how to promote a change:
Most of them innocently bought their property before the
freeway was built hoping for just a quiet family life. They
had no vote in the building of the Terrace Apartments.
The area is a backwater and is not even included in the
County Master Plans. Hence, people here feel deserted by the
County. For anyone to refer to them as a few radicals whose
input can be largely discounted does not reflect the values
of a community with special pride in their concern for human
values.
Economic Considerations in Upgrading the Eastside Area
Economic values will dictate the zoning required to upgrade
any area and this area in particular. There is a threshold
of perceived value in which both the buyer and seller can
make a deal. In this case, the value of the raw land alone
to the new buyer as an investment towards developing it into
higher grade property must exceed the value of the land and
the buildings on it to the present owner. Although zoned SR
by King County in 1973, the actual use includes single family
residential, single family rental units, some multi- family
The owners of these properties can not afford to sell unless
the price is high enough to sell, move, or destroy the
buildings and compensate them for their lost rental income.
It is my judgment that any zoning under R -4 will not make the
property valuable enough to accomplish any change.
Revue of Foster Annexation Task Force Progress
With these considerations in mind, let me revue from my point
of view the progress of the Foster Annexation Task Force. To
your credit and my appreciation, the meetings proceeded in a
very democratic fashion to examine in minute detail each and
every block of the area. Lively discussions in which both
factions and yourself honestly tried to find the best
possible compromise for each detailed area in the annexation
was accomplished, and a map kept up to date on the zoning
recommendations made.
-4-
3 f cFv4iG -.6
-5-
At the meeting on July 19, the area East of the 1 -5 highway
that -I have described previously in this letter came up for
discussion. By a vote of 17 to 3 in favor of PO zoning for
this area East of 1 -5 was recorded. This high number of
people for this zoning resulted from many people from the
West side of I -5 to "cross the aisle" and vote for the PO
zoning, influenced by the arguments not their prior
prejudices.;
Now I understand that the objective of the Task Force was to
not merely "Appease the Natives" but to gather information
for the larger goal of advising the Tukwila Council on the
best course of action to insure a sound financial future and
still retain its traditional values. I know that you have
prepared alternative budgets depending on the outcome of the
annexation process. Surely some of the inputs must have been
an analysis of the business growth potential of the annexed
areas. My consultants are quite enthusiastic over the
prospects of PO zoning for this little Eastside island of
Tukwila compared with the R -4 potential and their opinion can
be summarized as follows:
An Analysis of Zoning Alternatives of the Eastside Part of
the Foster Annexation. Area.
First of all, let me point out that the area is so small and
so well buffered from the rest of Tukwila that whether it is
zoned R -4 or PO, it will not be a significant threat or
dangerous precedent to the single family character of
Tukwila. In fact, it should be the buffer between I -5 and
the commercial development along Interurban Avenue from the
single family area South of the Terrace Apartments. It
should be the kind of new precedent that Tukwila needs to
acquire more revenue with the least impact to the surrounding
community.
As you know, I have a 1.4 acre apartment site adjacent to the
I -5 freeway on the upper West edge of the Eastside part of
the Foster Annexation. It has been zoned RM2400 by the King
County Council although I originally asked for RM1800.
Although I have always considered it an appropriate apartment
site, I have never felt comfortable with this zoning and have
been hesitant about committing my hard earned life savings
into its development. The reason is that the Seattle area is
basically overbuilt in apartments. When there were
attractive tax writeoffs, too many people invested in
apartments.
The situation is slowly changing as it is becoming
increasingly difficult to afford single family homes and
apartments are more affordable. Even though Tukwila
apartments show a good occupancy rate, I am not sure I would
pick this area for development of an apartment if I did not
already have the site and the zoning. A further
consideration is that I did not look forward to a continuous
struggle with a City Government that was against my project
and felt that I had forced apartment zoning on them.
Contrast this situation with the prospect of PO zoning
instead of R -4. If the city can acquire lands with the
highest possible income potential with the least disruption
of the traditional Tukwila way -of -life and with the full
approval of the local property owners, it would seem to one
of those rare situations where you can have your cake and eat
it too.
-6-
•
The very reasons that make this property so terrible as a
single family area contribute to making it an excellent site
for professional and office development. That big noisey
freeway right alongside shouts the magic word "ACCESS" to the
business park developer. With high tech, high quality
business moving into the Seattle Area from all over and
business parks springing up all over the place; to avoid the
opportunity seems almost irresponsible.
Need I repeat some of the advantages:
1) It is only 10 minutes to Seattle by multiple routes
to avoid traffic jams.
2) It is a big piece of property that can attract
large developers who have the resources to do a professional,
minimum headache, job on it.
3) It can be developed right away and start the revenue
stream that Tukwila needs.
4) Competing areas for business parks have big
problems. The I -90 corridor from Factoria to Issaquah is
much further away from the City of Seattle and will always
have bridge problems. The Renton area has I -405 and internal
street problems - try and get in or out of Renton at any time
of the day - it will always be a mess.
5) The property owners are begging to get out. They
are signing a petition for PO zoning and will have almost
100% participation.
6) It will give a wonderful first impression of Tukwila
to people driving south on I -5 as a progressive attractive
city.
The point is that in the new climate of no free lunch from
the Southcenter bonanza, the City of Tukwila must seize every
little opportunity to increase its revenue with minimum pain
to its citizens. It is a new operating mode and it will take
time and patience for all involved to realize that this is
only good management. As a staff management advisor you owe
it to your employers to inform them of the real significance
of their choices and not what they are used to hearing or
what you think they want to hear.
-7--
I trust that there is still time to change the plan given by
the staff letter and'the accompanying map showing the R -4
zoning to PO zoning in the Eastside of the Foster Annexation
Area. Please call me at 237 -0464 with your questions and
comments
Sincerely,
J oi , k-vt, )4. toilvott,,,..-
David H. Whitlow
DHW /mam
cc :Gary Van Duzen, Mayor of Tukwila
Rick Beeler, Chief Planner
P .S.
By the way, you have never asked what I do for Boeing. I am
a senior operations analyst for the Product Development
Section of the Commercial Aircraft Division of the Boeing
Company. My function is the same as yours, namely, to advise
higher management on their future best choices of action.
40.14), w,
Planning Commission
City of Tukwila
6200 Southcenter Boulevard
Tukwila, WA 98188
Dear Commission Members:
4251 South 139th Street
Seattle, WA 98168
August 29, 1988
Re: Foster Annexation zoning
In attempting to resolve a number of land use issues,
the Foster Annexation zoning task force was divided into two
somewhat divergent viewpoints. On the one side were those
who generally favor high- density multiple - family zoning in a
number of areas, particularly in areas where they own
property. On the other side were those of us who favor
preservation of our single - family residential neighborhoods.
Attendance and representation of each side varied from one
task force meeting to another. Consequently, votes taken at
different meetings had quite different results. No single
meeting can be viewed as representative of the size of
either group.
To further explain the reasoning of the group that
generally favors single - family zoning, let me point out that
we are not opposed to all multiple - family zoning. We
proposed multiple - family zoning for specific areas during
the task force process, and we concurred in designating some
areas for multiple - family uses. The difference between our
position and that of the other primary viewpoint, then, is
one of degree.
In our view, Tukwila and the immediate areas have more
than enough multiple - family housing now. Our attitude is not
one of "We've got ours, now you stay out," but rather one of
concern about the high costs local governments face in
serving a transient population. Our schools consume
considerable resources in having to constantly service new
students and bring them up to speed with the rest of their
classmates. This constant effort by a large percentage
(about 30%) of the student population to try to catch up
with classmates also has negative effects on test scores,
classroom climate, and the educational achievements of the
district as a whole. Local school, civic and governmental
organizations have considerable difficulty getting
volunteers because of the lack of "ownership" in the
community by the large percentage of the population that is
transient. Not everyone who lives in an apartment is either
constantly on the move or uncommitted to the community, but
the correlation between multiple - family housing and a
2
relatively transient, uninvolved population cannot be
ignored.
However, we are not hard -line extremists. Quite the
opposite: We represent the backbone of the community. We
work on school levies and bond issues. We work as volunteers
in school classrooms and serve on committees. We are active
in our churches. We doorbell for the cancer society and the
heart association. In short, we are part of the segment of
the community that is striving to improve our community. In
fact, that is why we started the annexation effort: We felt
that being a part of Tukwila would help improve our
community. We want annexation. But we need to be able to
show our neighbors that the city offers something better
than the rampant "do your own thing" zoning of the county.
Now let me address the three areas over which there is
still some disagreement:
- The west side of 42nd Avenue South, between 140th and
141st Street;
- The east side of Macadam Road, north of 144th Street;
- The area north of Joseph Foster Memorial Park,
between Interurban Avenue and the freeway.
First, the area west of 42nd currently a trailer court.
The task force initially voted for R -2 zoning there because
of concern about traffic on 42nd and concern about holding
the line on high - density multiple - family housing in that
vicinity. A tie vote at the last task force meeting left the
recommendation undecided.
We felt that R -2 would provide an incentive for the
owner to redevelop what nearly everyone agrees is a less
than desirable current use, but would not be so dense as to
drive out single - family owners on the east side of 42nd.
Apartments looming across the street would not be the best
neighbors for those who seek a single - family neighborhood.
And once single- family owners are driven out, what becomes
of zoning on the east side of 42nd? We are concerned that if
multiple - family zoning jumps the "fire line" of 42nd,
another single - family neighborhood will be doomed.
Our concerns about traffic impacts on 42nd are that it
has no sidewalks along the site (only a wide shoulder on the
east side) and has heavy traffic volumes. We are concerned
particularly about the school bus stops on the west side of
the street, which has no shoulder, only a ditch. It doesn't
seem reasonable to think that all traffic from a multiple -
family development on the site would come and go only via
140th and 141st onto Pacific Highway South. There is no
doubt that traffic from the site would use 42nd. However, we
3
are not saying that the site should be single - family. We
feel R -2 is appropriate.
Next, Macadam Road. Our concerns there are over the
narrow, winding road and the dangers of adding more traffic
to it. The roadway cannot be economically widened and
straightened because of the terrain: The hill rises steeply
on the west side of the road and drops abruptly on the east
side. Those who want high- density or even commercial use for
the site say no one would want to live in a single- family
home there (as if residents of multiple - family housing
aren't that smart or discerning). And yet there are several
single- family homes along both sides of Macadam. As a
practical matter, single - family homes are all that will fit
in that narrow strip between Macadam and the freeway. The
water line on Macadam also won't support any more intense
land use in its present condition. But again, we didn't
refuse to consider multiple- family in that area. The task
force is recommending R -3 for the property immediately north
of 144th, before Macadam narrows and makes its first turn,
although some of us would have preferred R -2.
Finally, the area I call Old Foster. Let me first say
that I believe anyone who lives in the Foster annexation
area -- indeed, anyone who lives in the Foster - Tukwila area
-- has a right and a responsibility to comment on land use
issues in Old Foster. It shouldn't matter whether one owns
property in that particular neighborhood or not. This is OUR
community.
At the outset let me again point out that those who
share our viewpoint on the task force were not unwilling to
compromise. We have a great deal of sympathy for those who
live near Terrace Apartments. Trying to maintain a single -
family home beside one of the most dense developments in the
city can't be pleasant. (In fact, that's our point on 42nd.)
Multiple - family makes sense for that area. But again, the
question is one of degree: How dense?
At various times during the discussion of Old Foster,
our group suggested a number of attempted compromise
positions: Initially, we suggested R -4 on the east and R -3
or R -2 on west to give transition from more intense use on
east into single- family neighborhoods on the west and south.
That proposal was not acted on. We also suggested C -1 for at
least part of the area, based on our concern about the
impact of a more transient population that high- density
multiple - family would bring. That suggestion was dismissed.
We even suggested a special planning district that would
allow PO but no down - zoning to multiple - family. That
suggestion was dismissed, too. Proponents of PO zoning said
they weren't interested in professional and office buildings
for the entire site. So, what would PO zoning REALLY mean
for Old Foster? It was "No" to R -2 and R -3, "No" to R -4,
4
"No" to C -1, and "No" to PO. That leaves RMH, the highest
multiple - family designation the city has to offer.
RMH is completely out of line with what is currently on
the city comprehensive plan for the area and out of line
with current county zoning. The city comprehensive plan says
low density. County zoning is a mixture, but the entire area
isn't zoned high density. And in the surrounding area, there
is R -1 to the southwest and south, C -1 to the east. Even the
Terrace Apartments are only R -4.
Although we still would prefer a combination of R -4 to
the east of 51st Avenue and R -3 or R -2 to the west, we could
support the staff recommendation for a change in the zoning
ordinance to allow only R -3 or lower housing in PO zones.
I have not mentioned two areas that were discussed in
the staff report because there was consensus for those two
areas. The task force had no difficulty recommending an R -1
designation for the south side of 139th Street and the west
side of 42nd Avenue South between 139th and 140th. That area
is almost entirely single - family homes now and appears to be
very stable as such. In addition, the Riverton task force
proposed and the planning commission concurred that the area
on the north side of 139th should be largely single- family.
The other area for which consensus was reached,
although not as easily as on 139th, was the area along 144th
Street between 42nd and Pacific Highway South. There, R -2
seems to make sense because of current use and similar
proposed density on the south side of 144th by the Thorndyke
task force.
The task force could not reach a final recommendation
on design review, although it had voted for design review
for all but single - family construction at an earlier
meeting. Many of us on the task force still feel quite
strongly that design review is a crucial issue in improving
our community. We look at Tukwila Hill, where design review
for multiple - family construction is in place, and see high
quality development. We would like to see the same standards
in our annexation area where multiple - family development is
appropriate.
I appreciate your taking the time to read and consider
our point of view. And I look forward to joining you as
citizens of the City of Tukwila.
Sincerely,
Ronald A. Lamb
Mr. Jack P. Pace
Senior Planner, Planning Department
City of Tukwila
6200 Southcenter Boulevard
Tukwila, WA 98188
Dear Mr. Pace:
I would like to put down for the record my version of the
background and nature of the zoning problem in the Foster
Annexation area and how the activities of the Task Force
relate to them.
Background
•
Residences of Tukwila since its inception have enjoyed a way
of life and form of government more reminiscent of the
classic American small town in the midst of the Seattle
Metropolitan maelstrom surrounding them. In more recent
years they have been blessed by having the Southcenter tax
base to support a sound City government and help finance the
services the City supplies. The local citizens like their
life style and rarely leave. They like their volunteer form
of government and their friends and neighbors join in holding
offices in their City government to help run the City. There
is a feeling of community that these citizens share and the
impression that they care about each other and would go out
of their way to help each other and their City.
In understanding the requirement for a balance between the
need to continue to provide the revenue to keep the City
financially sound and still protect the basic essence of the
single family community, The City Council has wisely allowed
a diversity of zoning, but only where appropriate. Where
there is a highway or a high density shopping center there is
an appropriate buffer zone of apartments between the
commercial area and the single family residences. The
southern hillside facing Southcenter is zoned all apartments
as are most of the areas immediately adjacent to the 1 -5
highway at the southwest corner. Again, where appropriate,
like along Interurban Avenue, the zoning is largely
commercial.
5408 153rd Place S.E.
Bellevue, WA 98006
August 16, 1988
Foster Annexation Task Force Report
The People and The Area
Of interest, first of all, is the people who attended the
meetings. It is important to observe that to get people to
volunteer to attend after hours meetings on their own time
requires that the individual is particularly concerned about
his or her welfare in a serious way.
As could be expected, attendees at these meetings were
divided into two factions:
1) those living to the West of the I -5 freeway, which
will henceforth be called Westsiders and their area the
Westside of the Foster Annexation Area.
2) those living to the East of the I -5 freeway who will
be called Eastsiders and their area the Eastside.
There was about an equal number from each side, but with
completely opposite concerns or points of view. Again, this
could be expected as the areas are also completely different
in character.
The Westside is a large area measured in square miles in size
and is very appropriately largely zoned single family.
Protected by its size and topography, adequate buffer zones
from the I -5 freeway and Highway 99 can be provided. These
residents were very concerned about retaining the Tukwila
single family way of life and fought block by block to have
the lowest possible zoning everywhere.
The Eastside is a tiny area, perhaps 10 acres in size and
roughly triangular in shape. It is bounded on the West by
the I -5 freeway, on the East by Interurban Avenue and the
Metro Park and Ride; and on the South by the Terrace
Apartments and Foster Park. It is impossible for the single
family residence to have any kind of an apartment buffer zone
because the area is so small that there is no room to
surround the single family area with apartments. The noise
and pollution from the freeway and the traffic from the
Terrace Apartments (and even some new apartments) has made
this area unlivable as a single family area and virtually
unsaleable as no person in his right mind would buy this
property with the hope of'improving it enough to convert it
into a decent single family area. The single family
-3-
-5-
An Analysis of Zoning Alternatives of the Eastside Part of
the Foster. Annexation.Area.
At the meeting on July 19, the area East of the I -5 highway
that I have described previously in this letter came up for
discussion. By a vote of 17 to 3 in favor of PO zoning for
this area East of I -5 was recorded. This high number of
people for this zoning resulted from many people from the
West side of I -5 to "cross the aisle" and vote for the PO
zoning, influenced by the arguments not their prior
prejudices.;
Now I understand that the objective of the Task Force was to
not merely "Appease the Natives" but to gather information
for the larger goal of advising the Tukwila Council on the
best course of action to insure a sound financial future and
still retain its traditional values. I know that you have
prepared alternative budgets depending on the outcome of the
annexation process. Surely some of the inputs must have been
an analysis of the business growth potential of the annexed
areas. My consultants are quite enthusiastic over the
prospects of PO zoning for this little Eastside island of
Tukwila compared with the R -4 potential and their opinion can
be summarized as follows:
First of all, let me point out that the area is' so small and
so well buffered from the rest of Tukwila that whether it is
zoned R -4 or P0, it will not be a significant. threat or .
dangerous precedent to the single family character of
Tukwila. In fact, it should be the buffer between I -5 and
the commercial development along Interurban Avenue from the
single family area South of the Terrace Apartments. It
should be the kind of new precedent that Tukwila needs to
acquire more revenue with the least impact to the surrounding
community.
The very reasons that make this property so terrible as a
single family area contribute to making it an excellent site
for professional and office development. That big noisey
freeway right alongside shouts the magic word "ACCESS" to the
business park developer. With high tech, high quality
business moving into the Seattle Area from all over and
business parks springing up all over the place; to avoid the
opportunity seems almost irresponsible.
5 4V � 1s 1.4 J/i, a
`•4' A 9 I D ° (,•
4A 9' »' �
*.4"1/64,- trf, t/fL Cv14 CtmA
1/,
"v44,44.,."
r 7 CD
wA
./0
A el % 0? 9
ou. -
61Az-t,- • LL
c kA)t4 /t/ iff /mr aittrtA a-s,
9 A,Gee-w - (-01, 7
14 1v3 " ti *A-4, A44i en.Ge,
aL o
cl a- - L a "r&-at 90-e4
.12- t.lytiutA'9,4, en- it4,
104-%1A4, hiCt, Ari;d4 01- r4-4-4
4 - #1 A` 1444-1 GLifta A frkt
t itve\- iftod4, ti"-14 k-cd
O ttz, v .
J A.tot,-1, 4 11).w4/ (2.0t-t.f 764-t
i
oLl
JP /co
P /TCCANNEX
3. Design Review
Amend Section 18.60.030 Scope of Authority
TO: TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL
FROM: Tukwila Planning Commission
DATE: September 9, 1988 (Amended)
SUBJECT: ZONING CODE TEXT AMENDMENT FOR THE FOSTER AND THORNDYKE ANNEXATIONS
The Planning Commission has recommended the following Zoning Code text amend-
ments 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 including 115 feet" (See
Thorndyke Staff Report, Attachment G)
2. 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)
Remove Secti. 18.60.030 (2) (B /C)
) Commercia development' excess of -n thousand g
bu ding floor a -a in the RM P -0, and C- districts o
(C) Development o multiple -fa 'ly complexes 'n excess of
units the R -2, R- R -4, RMH, ' 1, and C -1 d .tricts of
Reword Sec on 18.60.030 2) (E)
) All pr..osed development in all one distric
fa ily homes; /CP /CM deve ent less t .n 10,000 s
M -2 nes.
PLANNING COMMISSION REVISED WORDING, SEPTEMBER 22, 1988
ss square
he City;
elve dwelli
th City;
excluding ingle
are feet; M- and
18.60.030 SCOPE OF AUTHORITY
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 with abutting or across the
street from residential uses or districts within 200 feet of the
Green /Duwamish River that requires a shoreline permit.
(3) 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.
B. Any exterior modifications to existing commercial development in excess of
10,000 gross square feet in building floor area in C2, CP, CM.
APPENDIX A
City of Tukwila
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
6200 Southcenter Boulevard
Tukwila, Washington 98188
(206) 433-1849
CITY OF TUKWILA
PLANNING COMMISSION
SEPTEMBER 8, 1988
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.
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 ".
APPENDIX B
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 01 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 02 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 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 Conmission
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.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 10 :25 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Joanne Johnson, Secretary
Cit,..3f Tukwila
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
6200 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, Hagger-
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.
R, 88 -5 -CPA, 88 -5 -CA FOSTER ANNEXATION Request for:
.Pre annexation zoning :for the Foster area.
Amending Tukwila Comprehensive Land Use Plan Map.
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.'DavidWhitlow, 5408 153rd PT. 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 subuiltted 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 Areal. • He spoke in favor of multifamily use rather
than a .P0 designation in order to maintain' the residential
quaiity.of the neighborhood.
APPENDIX C
Planning Commission
August 30, 1988
Page
Larry Abwe, 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- toning 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, 18014.14.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'Vomenicl,.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 Commission
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 - THORNOYKE 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 aria 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 OR 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.
Planning Commission
August 30, 1988
Page 4
Curt Drake 4444 5. .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.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 10:07 pm.
Respectfully ubmitted,
Joanne Johnson
Secretary
Planning Commission
ity of ; Tukwila
8200 ; Southcelltar Boulevard
Tukwila. WA 98188
Dear Commission Members:
was the first speaker : at the Planning Commission. Pubic Hearing on the Foster and
Thorndike Annexations on August 30, 1988. Just before the meeting, Mr. Jack. Pace gave
me a copy of the letter by Mr. Ronald A. Lamb to the Planning Commission. I am writing
this letter as a rebuttal to the claims made in this : letter:
My first objection is his categorization . of the people who attended the Foster Task Force
meetings (first para.. second sentence) as "On the one side were those who generally
favor high density multiple family zoning in a number of areas. particularly in areas where
they own property. On the other side were those of us who favor preservation of our
single- family residential neighborhoods."
This bit of political nonsense was aptly refuted by the testimony of the little lady who had
'lived in this area for 35 years . andQuld not sell her property because of the 'apartment
congestion and freeway noise surrounding her property. The point of view of hers and
others in the area is that they are completely in favor of preserving single- family neighbor-
hoods and always have been. but that is impossible in Area 1 of the Foster Annexation.
Attached to this letter is a copy of a letter to Jack Pace (Aug. 18. 1988) by myself in which
.1 carefully put down my version of. the background and nature of the zoning problem in the
• Foster Annexation area.. I have deleted pentane of the letter describing the inner struggles
of the Task Force in trying to reach a consensus.
• Please read my letter at this point.
Since that letter was written. the Staff Report to the Planning Commission prepared August
25. 1988 has proposed zoning code amendments in which R -3 zoning would be the high-
est level apartment zoning permitted in a P-O zone. Let me put; in perspective what this
change wif do in real lilt rather than in someone's narrow view.
1. invite members of the Planning Commission to drive down through Area 1 and ask them -
selves if Ibis is what they want this area to continue to remain for the foreseeable future.
Notice : that coming south on I-5 or interurban Ave.. this land gives the • first impression of
Tuk wilaa.. Think of what would be the best possible change to make this area as attractive
as the area around the Tukwila City Hall visible coming from the south.
-t-
APPENDIX D
I believe a first class business park in which the entire Area 1 is integrated by a single plan
is what Is really required. If you let amateurs promote a little apartment here and a little
business there you will get a junky combination that will not be the best for. Tukwila and will
extend the time" and risks to the present. owners.
In order to effect the big change quickly, before we att die of old age ( I am 87 years'04d)
the zoning must -be such as to attract the big developer with resources to do the whole job.
It would seem that he should have the choice of the best mix of offices and apartments
that will give the best return for his investment.
If you remove RMH from his options, you reduce chances of getting a really qualified
buyer. At R-3. you can be assured that nobody will buy and the area will not change:
Let me return to the . pious but mistaken views from, Lamb's testimony. The Tukwila
school problem stems from there being already 1.100 apartment units:in Tukwila and there
must have been a good reason for having them. Surely, they must contribute to their
share of .the costs ; to Tukwila. Ron Lamb continually :mixes up generalities with specifics
on what is : best for Tukwila overall. ; In. $ worst and unliksly`case scenarlo, even 31 Area 1
went all apartments, it would have a negligible effect on the school system °since the " area
is so small.
As my letter points out and I thought the Task .Forces were accomplishing, the City of
Tukwila, in . the face of lessened revenues from Southcenter. must carefully look at each
and every annexation source of revenue that have: the least disturbance to and indeed
support the continuing quality of life in Tukwila.;: I believe that the P-0 zoning, including the
RMH zoning, does exactly that in Area 1 of the Foster Annexation.
P.S.:.. Ron, lamb would have you bum. down your beautiful City HaM and go baCk•to
the old one on top .of the hill since : we positively. absolutely want no change in: the Tukwila
that used to be. .
- 2 -
/ I4 1,.
'Dear Pace:
:Background
5408 153rd Place S.E.
• Bellevue, W&. 98006
August 16, 1988 ,
Mr. .Jack P : Pace
Senior Planner, 'Planning Department.
City Of Tukwila
6200 Southcenter Boulevard
Tukwila, ` WA' 98198 .'
I would like to put down for the record my-version of,the,
background and nature of the zoning problem'in the Foster
:Annexation area and how the activities of the Task Force
relate to .them.
, ,Residences of Tukwila since,its inception have enjoyed a way
of life and form of government more ..reminiscent of the
classic Amer ican: small . town . in the midst of the Seattle
Metropolitan maelstrom surrounding them. In more recent
years they have been blessed by having. the Southcenter tax
base-to `` support a sound. City government and help finance the
services` the City supplies. The local citizens like their
life- style and rarely .leave. They. like "their volunteer form
of government `. and their friends and neighbors join in holding
offices' in their City government to help run the City. There
is,a "feeling of community that thee* citizens share and the
impression that they care about each other and would go out
of their way to help each other and their City.
In. understanding the reguirement a :balance between the
need to continue to provide: the. revenue to keep the City
financially sound. and: still protect the basic essence' of the
single faaily community,. The.: City, Council has wisely allowed
a:d zversty of` zoning, butonly.,where; appropriate. Where
-there .is a' highway or a high density there is
an appropriate' buffer zone of, apartments between,the
commercial area'and the single family residences. The •
southern - hillside facing Southcenter is zoned. all apartments
as are most of the areas immediately adjacent to the 1 -5
highway.at the southwest corner. Again, where appropriate,
like along Interurban Avenue, the zoning is largely
Commercial.
It is recognized by;the City Council that there is a basic
danger-of losing the Tukwila way -of -life in granting .too much
apartment development, as apartment dwellers do not consider
themselves as permanent members of the City and do not
typically concern themselves with City problems. For this
reason, the Tukwila City Council has always maintained :'a
cautious attitude towards allowing' further
development, while still recognizing that certain lands, .
because of location and topography are only suitable for
Changes in Revenue Sources
A new : consideration in Tukwila Planning has surfaced in the
possible repeal of the Washington State Sales Tax thereby
threatening the Tukwila Southcenter Tax Base. Anticipating
this problem, the City of Tukwila has launched a large l..
program of annexation of other properties to broaden its tsx
base. ; t submit that : with the possible loss of Southcenterl
revenue, the economic reality is that mere .'annexation :.s:not
enough to solve the economic shortfall. The new lands must
have a proportion of income property than the present
mix or either bankruptcy or a lesser capacity to provide :city
.
services per capita are the inevitable alternatives While .
the city had Southcenter, it did not have :to consider as
seriously - 'economic impact of zoning changes, so more
emphasis could be put . on political and social considerations.
This luxury may no .longer .be available and it will be very
important: to consider : how ;best to develop the revenue
potential of the nsw areas.' ,.'this, "of course,. involves
consideration of the emerging business growth trends in the
Seattle Metropolitan area. The emphasis will have be on
careful scrutiny of those changes that will produce the most
revenue: for the. least disruption of the traditional.. Tukwila
family way -of -life. These observation must be obvious to the
Tukwila • °Planning :Department and it was welcome news that they
had : formed Citizen's Task Forces to study the problem in each
new annexation ara. As you know, joined: with considerable
interest: the roster Annexation Task Force and hay. attended
all the ;meetings.: which were held on July 13, July 1.9, and
August 2, 1901.
The °People and The Area
Foster-Annexation Task`. Force Report
CI interest, first of all, is the people who attended the
meetings. It is important to observe that to get people to
volunteer to attend after hours meetings on their own time
requires that .the individual is particularly concerned about
his or her .welfare in a serious way.
As 'could be expected, attendees at these meetings were
divided into two factions:
1) those living-to the West of the I -5 freeway, which
will henceforth be called Westsiders and their area the
Westside of the Foster Annexation Arta.
2), those living to the East of the 1-5 freeway who will
e called.Eastsiders and their area the Eastside.
There was about an equal number from each side, but with
completely opposite concerns or points of view.. Again, this
could be expected as the areas are also completely different
in character.
The Westside is a large area measured in square, miles in size
: and ,is, very :appropriately largely zoned single family.
Protected by its:sise And .topography, adequate buffer zones
:from the I -5 freeway and Highway can be provided., These
residents were very concerned about "retaining the Tukwila
single family. way of . life and fought 'block by block to have
the lowest possible zoning everywhere.
: The'Eastside.is a tiny area, perhaps l0 acres in size and
roughly triangular in shape. It is bounded on the west by
. freeway, on the East by Interurban Avenue and the
Metro and Aide ;: and on the South'by the Terrace
Apartments and Foster Park. It is impossible for the.single
` fancily residence to have any kind of an apartment buffer zone
because . the area , is so- small that there is no room to
surround the 'with apartments. The noise
and . po llution f roe the freeway and the: traff is f rest the
''`T.rrace Apartments (and even soae°new apartments) has made
this area unlivable as a single family area and virtually
unsaleable as. no person in his. right mind would buy this
property:with the hope of improving it enough to convert it •
into a decent single family area. The single family
-3-
residences in. the . :area . feel trapped: and desperately want to
move_oit .but cannot afford it. Most are elderly and few
have the economic means and know how to promote a change.
Most of them innocently bought'their property before the
freeway was built hoping for just a quiet family life. They
had no vote in. the building of the Terrace Apartments.
Th'e area is'a backwater and is not even included in. the
County Master Plans. Hence, people here - feel deserted by the
County. For anyone to refer, to`them as a few radicals whose
input can be largely. discounted ' does not reflect the values
of a community with special pride in their concern for human
values.
Economic Considerations in Upgrading the Eastside Area
Economic values will dictate the zoning required to upgrade
any area and this area in particular. .There is a threshold
of perceived value in which: both the buyer; and seller can
'make a deal..: In this case, the value of the raw land alone
to the new buyer as an investment towards developing it into
higher grade proPerty must •exceed the value of the land and
the buildings on it to the present owner. Although zoned SR
by Ring County . ,in - 1973,: the : actual use includes single family
residential, single family rental units, some multi- family
rental units, and a 6 unit apartment.
The owners of these ,properties . can not afford to sell unless
the ::price is; : high .enough .to sell, move, or destroy the
buildings and compensate them for their lost rental income.
It is my judgment that any zoning under R -4 will not make the
property valuable enough to accomplish any change.
Revue of Foster Annexation Task Force Progress •
"with these considerations in mind, let me revue from : my point
of vieiv of the. Foster: Annexation Task Force. To
your .' credit appreciation, the meeting, proceeded in a
: very democratic.:. fashion to :examine in minute detail each and
every block of the:area.• Lively discussions in which both
factions.and, yourself honestly tried'to find the best
possible compromise for each detailed area in thi annexation
'was accomplished,, and a map.kept up to date on the zoning
recommendations made.
At the .meeting : on : July 19, the area East ` of the 1 -5 highway
that 1 have described previously in this lstt.r ca. up for
discussion. By a .vote of 17 to 3 in favor of PO zoning; for
this area East of I -5 was recorded.. This high number of
people for this zoning resulted from many people from the
West side of I -5 to "cross the aisle" and vote for the PO
zoning, influenced by the arguments not their: prior
prejudices.
'' `Ll1.1L4....:
-5-
Now 1 understand that the objective of the Task Force was to
not merely "Appease the : Natives' but ` to gather information
for the larger goal of advising the Tukwila Council on the
best course of action to insure a sound financial future and
still retain, its traditional values. 1 know that you ,have
prepared alternative budgets depending on the outcome: of the
annexation process. Surely some of the inputs must have been
an analysis of thel?usinss$ growth potential of the annexed
areas., My consultants are quite enthusiastic over the
prospects of PO zoning for this little Eastside island of
Tukwila compared with "the ; R -4 potential and their opinion can
be summarized as follows
An Analysis of:Zoning Alternatives of the Eastside"Part of
the Foster Annexation Area.
First of all, let me point out that the area is so small and
so well buffered from the rest of. Tukwila that whether it is
zoned R -4 or PO, it will not be a significant threat or
dangerous precedent to the single family character of
Tukwila. In fact, it should be the buffer between 1 -5 and
the commercial development along Interurban Avenue from the
single family area South of the Terrace Apartments. It
should be the kind of new precedent that Tukwila needs to
acquire more revenue with the least impact to the surrounding
community.
As :you know, I have a 1.4 acre apartment site adjacent to the
2 - freeway on the upper West edge of the Eastside part of
the Foster Annexation. It has been zoned RM2400 by the King
County Council although I originally asked for RM1800.
Although I have always considered it an appropriate apartment:
site, I have never felt.comfortable with this zoning and have .
been hesitant about committing my hard earned life savings
into its development. The reason is that the Seattle area is
basically overbuilt in apartments. When there were
attractive tax writeoffs, too many people invested in
apartments.
The situation is slowly changing as it is becoming
increasingly difficult to afford single family homes and
:apartments are more affordable. Even though Tukwila
apartments show a,good occupancy rate, I am'not sure I would
pick this area for of an apartment if 1 did not
already have the site and the zoning. A furthsr.
consideration is that I did:not, look forward to a continuous
struggl• witk a City Government that was against my project
and felt that I had forced apartment zoning on them._
Contrastthis. with the" prosp.ct of P0 zoning
instiad:ofR - 4. If the city; can acquire lands with the
highst'possibl potential with the least disruption
of the traditional Tukwila way -of -life and with the full
approval of the local property owners, it would seem to one
of those rare situations where you can have your cake and eat
it too.
-6-
The very., reasons that make this property so terrible, as a
eingl _ family area contribute to making it an excellent site
for professional and office development. ,; That big noisey
freeway right alongside shouts the magic word "ACCESS" to the
business park developer. with high tech, high quality
business moving into the Seattle Area from all over and
business parks springing up all over the place; to avoid the
opportunity seems almost irresponsible.
Need I repeat some of the advantages:
1) It is only 10 minutes to Seattle by muitiple.routes
to avoid traffic jams.
2) It is a big piece of
large developers who have the
minimum headache, job on it.
3 It can be developed
stream that Tukwila needs.
property that can attract
resources to do a professional.
right away and start the revenue
4), Competing areas for business parks'have big
problems. TheI -90 corridor from Factoria to:Issaquah is
much further away from the City.of Seattle and will always
have bridge problems. The Renton area has I -405 and internal
street problems 7 try and get in or out of Renton at any time
of the day -'it will always be a mess.
5) The property owners are begging to gat out. They
are signing a. petition for PO zoning and will have almost
100% participation.
6) It will give a wonderful first impression of Tukwila
•to people driving south on I -5 as a progressive attractive
city.
The point is that in the new climate of no free lunch from
the Southcenter bonanza, the City of Tukwila must seize every
little opportunity to increase its revenue with minimum'pain
to its citizens. It is a new operating mode and it will take
time and patience for all involved to realize that this is
only good management. As a staff management advisor you owe
it to your employers to inform them of the real significance
of their choices and not what they are used to hearing or
what you think they want to hear.
•
Sincerely',
P.S.
I. trust that there is still time to change the plan given by
- the_Astaff letter and the accompanying map showing the R -4
zoning to PO zoning in the Eastside of the Foster Annexation .
,Area. , Please call at 237-0464 with your questions and
comments.
c iS o ..;„4, /d.
David H. Whitlow
DHW /mam
cc:Gary'Van' Dusan, 'Mayor of Tukwila
Rick Beeler, Chief. Planner
Bythe way, you have never asked what i do. for Boeing. I am
a!senior °operations analyst for the Product Development
Section of the Commercial Aircraft:Division of the Boeing
Company. My function. is same as yours, namely,. to , advise
Nigher management on their future best choices of action.
We at the prozerties shown on the enclosed map (in pink)
4628 S. 1382
138C6 Macadam Rd.
4822 S.. 1382
Tukwila Planning Commission
S '' - y' C • Poster Annexation : roposal
Vv rH a+r�•
aie.concerned about the zoning of the area from .1442 to 1302 S..
(colored in Blue). Under the present proposal the Tukwila Annexaticn
plan is to have R -1 Zoning. It currently is zoned pIH in the King
Count* Flan. Some of the property owners want the zoning to stay
multi- housing. .e would like to see the land between 1442 S. north
to :362 S. (colored ;isn) considered as a whole.
We live on Macadam Rd. and :eel that we would be adversely ±-
'pacted by the multi- family zoning between 1442 S. to 1382 S. This
zoning would affect us:as we will be impacted by increased tr ;Sic
and noise comming north on Macadam Rd.
To the North we have existing light industry aevelopments
encroaching on us in the Riverton area. seem to be "squeezed in
the middle ".. .his is why we want the whole area from 14 Z. to
:362 S. considered and not ,just the 1442 S. to 1381 S. he current
zoning impacts the whole area for . "who wants to live by noise,
air. p ollution and hi- density. hoL.sin6."
:f our area as a whole was zoned for light industry or industrial
park we could at least have a comprehensive plan which improves the
whole area. 'Js opose the current'Zing County Planning and the R - 1
proposed in Poster Annexation Flan. .:e request the Planning
Commission and the City Council to re consider our zoning.
Thank you : o _ your consideration
&41;a:)ii, 4!
1 (6xt S• /30k avd./009t
cceAzt (Am- gem/
Q9 - 0.8
aheisc, t 4 We o , :1704 "Mrexidz..( it'd
„ 4/ r:41 er:
‘ its . v 4 .
,
• SAC-~ _ /
y 2 �. eD, 3 17t-
O
• t
•
•
w �
z I
1
•
•
•
rM �.r
t \ �
-._
.' •
. • ::,:, ...„,\
r .• a ••J - f • • .• - U r t` i .� a \�, .11.1
ti 'tit
' Os i f •. ::::*-4`4.\,.:.--,
•Ill ...1 ....
� ` t .. 1 i
2 4 go it ;-041-:-Issr , 4.--.:5 I, :t. . --, r,.
].. 1 .1 11: fir, , ; '" .R ;,, 'e , ;s...� 1 ' r - ` - .• * •
:!. I I . :".. 11 I. .. ;.... - ;, , f l!'„1 i t. :i1:4
• • fir
00, IM.• w .. ••. •..
• 1•
Is
.. , -
' I
O
- • ' . ..y
4
. • ,
i
•
1:
•
I..- , t... 1
•
Tukwila Planning Commission
SJBJECT: Foster. Annexation Proposal
C.C.: Planning Commission Members
City Council Members
:: CI :Vz:. Survey Listing;
Area Map.
We are a. concerned group of property owners of land in the
Fo.ater Annexation area The properties are in the I- 5.corri:.cr
o.fthe area between Madadam Road and 1 -5 Freeway. This area
contains approximately 17 acres, between 1 '4n_:,. and 136a S.
Currently there are nine houses in this area, with an improvement
tax value of about S35C,000.0C.
Topographically, the terrain averages thirty to forty feet
below a mean level of Macadam Road. The Southern 3.5 acres
level with, 'or below the Macadam Grade.
• The effect of the 1-5 corridor and its junction with
East and the : - 5 Freeway at'the`Poster Interchange has
created an incredible level of noise and-air pollution in.this area.
As.a result, we believe there has been no new construction and
very.limited.remodeling along this whole strip for many years.
feel that examination of this area will draw you to the sane
conclusion we have come:to. Under current zoning, the area will
not develope.beyond where it :is now and in will continue its
steady : decline.
»e, for the most, part, have been residents and are involved
with the community and Tukwila. :t would :not.be our wish to
:impact our neighbors unfavorably. Cr. the contrary we would like
this_.area to buffer the western slope adjacent to Macadam Road.
This_can be accomplished in a method typical to an area further
north and : east of Macadam Road in the Riverton area.
This area'bas been re- developed: with a tree buffer. and Low
level warehousing and'wholesale buildings. It is interesting to
note: that-this area has changed to a benefical attraction to the
community, while ours appears decayed and blighted by comparison.
This: indicates that Sing County correctly re - zones this area and
a natural urban re- development took place.
'Tukwila has been working with residents to determine desired
pre- annexation zoning. For whatever the reason, most of the
listed were not notified of Initial efforts and did not have an
_opportunity. to input our concerns.
In view of our stated position, we are a majority of tax -
payers of the subject area and we request the Planning Commission
and the City Council to re- consider the zoning in the propose:
comprehensive plan and suggest a ::sane to M1 or the industrial
park concept.
4
•
•
•
•
•
1 • 1 • .• • � • = �
I •
• -r,
a •i
4 ti. r .•Y • • •
+ '
• j . i -
,.• • .� f Z • •- •j
•• 1 •
i
••. • • • � %.. .-•• L , �. ••;.i
s A .
.•••
r -
�:, t• 2112,« + •. • . l S f
• • t ., _ ........,..L ti .; =
a �_
• • sok .. ... .• . - .Z�p}•.. • • ' r :
tt -• ••
.•
• /1 • 12 12 • % . ��•.
•
- _ Jt •. 117"."" ••
- — fa.S e cNMdE x .4
• — 4 Ar. 4 X
• •• .••._.••
•
•' f
1'p •:
•1 .
^ l
• • • _ , •
�
•
.. • r :
• y .• ••
•
t i
L
,z 4,614/.,LJ 7/0 AI
/0
•
?a f .t vn /F Y S/i e. r
`o.e !./•• Tgr,
TG !"'Iar , MAP NQN 3FL
2 7 e' 25.
••` '" Lam • . ..
Jh•• ' ' .*,...7,4••••:, -
%" . 12•••••1212
••••••••.A...
•
tiet •
•. •
l'S r-
~
- 'z it.
•••■•••••
i ? 7•
SURVEY SHEET
"•34 7UALtiriz /
`0"cc:77.-A.. / fieci;rt..e) E/23
/39/ 9 902irzZ So
4.22, ckycip__
•
am_ c77/1
/1 (4c3o /No /f/I'1 (Ya fr / o'
_) 6:0 CZ-C
.0
oilZota.reo cL,u
,<2) crc . dezii?& e;.:) 6€,Ccrtni;r
&7 Caricie •
coo-u& • ,c42(2,
/zeriztai/Y1 •
/7) CLIZ/20 0./nZe c,,
,O 7727 •In.L•0 a"
- 6 / b2i
aigt.)2. ce/r(cd/J cti2
(1/Kr
4..eorzjey /4 A•
c/a c 2 22
vw Lot
6- .0/0e/it, /V - "C
I )2-.
.C.) G90 or- _, cede..t.r"A 2/2 e- 64/7_,
(... • 7 ,
Z,P421)./...
•
.
-.-
•
OesizAoeci,'
,40-t
61/7
432
azr
g cac cAfela az) /
ocz-47-t_,_fm'te.fitoze/rit Lz, afe2
a/a2 cLa&
/ Gt.)0
vOr
- ./f
ae
dek-Zgt /5 cur docxvyr,
- 7./Ltexit oce
-64a:..lZl/14.4:oui F� ��
geo 4-zot c(xizyt Le „
SZCCl/E
OM. e, 60-f, ccot,re.ai
Planning Commission
City; of.,Tukvila
62O0 Southcenter Boulevard
Tukyi a. ` wA 5b188
4251 South 139th Street
Seattle, MA 98168
.August 29,: 1'33a
Re: Foster Annexation :toning
Commission' Members:
In attempting resolve a number of .land Lea issues.
,the :Foster. Annexation: zonsnq.,.task ,force vas divided into ;two
somewhat divergent viewpoints. On the were those
who generally favor high - density multiple-.family zoning sr. a
number : of areas particularly in.areas where they own'
property. On the other side were those of ~ us.vho favor
preservation of our single - family ressdentsal neighborhoods.
Attendance and ripresentation'of each side varied from one
task force mee to anotRer..Consequently, voter taken. at
d .ff•rent meetsnga ' had quite different reaults, No single
meeting can,be viewed as: representative of the
either. group.
'lo. :further explain the reasoning of the.:.group that
genarally.savor.• single - family' zoning,_ let Me ,point out that
we a re not opposed_ to all wultiple- family zoning. Me
• pro'posed multiple- ,fawzly. zoning, .for. specific , : areas during
the task,force.process,.and've concurrid•in•dessgnating'.some
•areas for multiple- family uses. The .difference between our
position- and•that of the other primary' viewpoint, •then. IA
one of degree.
In•our view, Tukvila•and the immediate areas have more
than enough multiple housing •now. Our attitude is not
one of •We',ve got ours, nov'you stay out,•• but rather•one of
concern about the high coats local governments face 'in
serving a transient population. 0ur schools consume
. considerable reiourcei in ` having to constantly service new
students,.and'being them.up to speed with the rest of.their
classmates. Thia constant. effort. by a large percentage •
(about 307%).ot the student population to try to catch up
vith.alassnates also has negative effects on .test scores.
classroom sliest•, and the•educational achievements of the
district as a whole..Local•.school, etvic and'governmental
'organizations have considerable difficulty getting
•volunteers because of • the lack of •ownership" in the
community by the large percentage of the population that is
transient.' Not everyone who lives in an apartment is either
constantly.on • the move or uncommitted to the.. community, but
.the correlation between multiple - family housing and a
relatively transient, uninvolved :population cannot
ignored.
However, we are not hard -lino extremists. Quite the
opposites. We . represent the 'backbone of the ,community. We
work_ on school levies and bond issues. 1W0 work; as volunteers .
school classrooms and serve on committees. •We are :active
in our churches.. We doorbell for the caner society and the
heart . In short,` we are part of the segment of
the community that is striving` to improve our community. In
fact, that .is why:... we started the annexation .effort:. We felt
that being a part of Tukwila °would help improve our
community. we want annexation. But we need to be, able : to
show our neighbors.; that the city offers something better
than the rampant "do your own thing" zoning of the county.
Nov let ;. me address' the three' areas over which there is
still some disagreement:
▪ The .west : side of 42nd Avenue South, between 140th and
141st Street;
- The east side of Macadam Road, north of 144th Street;
The' area north of Joseph Foster Memorial .Park.
betveen.Interurban Avenue treevay.
First, the area- -west of 42nd currently a trailer-court.
hc -task'force Adlitially voted for R -2 zoning there 'because
of concern about traffic on 42nd and concern about holding
the line on high - density multiple - family housiaq.in that
wicini.ty.. A. tie vote at the' last task force Meeting left the
'recommendation .undecided:
W.,telt..that R- 'would provide 'an'incentive for the
Owner to, redevelop what nearly everyone agrees is a less
than desirable current use. but would not. be •o dcnseas to
drive ; out, single - family owners On the east side :o! 42nd.
Apartments looming across the street would .not be the best
neighbors for those who. seek a single- family neighborhood.
Andonce single - lastly owners' are drive,► eve..' whet becomes
of zoning:. on: the. east' side.ot`.42nd? We are'. concernsd that
oultlple- family - soning jumps th• "fire line" of 42nd,
another single- lastly neighborhood "Will be doomed.
Our concerns about traffic impacts on42nd.are
has no sidevalks along the site (only a vide shoulder on the
east side) and has 'heavy 'traffic valuses.•'Ws'are eoncerned
p.r.ticularly ° about the school bus. stops On the. vest side of
: the: street, which has no shoulder, only a ditch. :It doesn' t
seem;: reasonable to think that sll, traffic fro+ a multiple
family: development :on the 'site would cose and go only via
).'40th-encr 141st onto Pacific HighvaySouth. There is no
; :.. doubt that traffic from 'the site would use 42nd. However, we
are .'not :sayLng that site should be single - family. Me
feel R - is' appropriate.
Next. Macadam Road. Our concer -ns there are over the
narrow, winding road and tha dangers .of adding more traffic
to' it. The roadway cannot be economically widened and
'straightened ' bocause of : the, terrain: The ` hill rises steeply
on the -west side of the road and drops abruptly on the east
side " . Those who want high- density or *van commercial use for
the site say no one ,would .want to live in a single- family
home 'thsre (as if: residents .of.multiple-family housing
aren't that smart or .discerning).: And yet ther* are several
single - family homes ,along both sides of Macadam. As a
' practical matter, single - family homes are all that will fit
in that narrow strip between Macadam and the freeway. The
water line on Macadam _.also won't .support 'any more intense
land use in its pr *sent condition. But again, we didn't
refuse to consider multiple- family in that area. .The task
force is recommending R -3 for the property immediately north
of 144th, before Macadam narrows and makss its first turn,
although some of us would have preferred R -2.
Finally, the area I call Old Foster. Let me first say_
that I believe anyone ,who ..lives .in: the Foster annexation
area indeed,` anyone .who lives.in the Foster- Tukwila area.
has a right and a responsibility to comment on land use
issues in Old Foster. At.shouldn;t matter whether one owns
property in that particular neighborhood or not. This is OUR
community.
Atthe.outetlet..me again point out..that those who.
share ou on the task force,vere•not unwilling to
compromise. we have.a great deal of sympathy for those who
live neer. Terrace. Apartments ._Trying.to•waintain.a single -
fasily one,of the. most :dense devslopmntsin the
oily can''t be pleasant.. (tn fact, ;that's our point
Multiple - family aikeo' sense- for that area. sut :again, the
question is of degraas.Kov.dense?
t :,variousYtiwa• during: th.. discussion 01 Old Foster,
our group.suggostad • .nucber ot attempted compromise •
`position x ' =nittell'y,. • ve. suggested . R -4 on thn east and'R - 3
or R -2 en v.stto.give :; transition from eor• intense use on
oast into single- family netghborhoods.on the west and south.
That`propooslvap not:acted on. W.,also suggosted,C -1 for at
least part ot:tho area, based on our. concern: about tho
impact of : .lose transient population that high- density • multiple- family would bring._ That suggestion vas •dismissed.
Mi'pven su,ggestsdla opectal planning diltrict.that would
allov,P0 but no down - zoning to multiple- family. That
suggestion_ vas diswiaaed, too. Proponents'of PO zoning said
'they, vsren'.t inter•ated•.in and office buildings
for the entire site So, what would P0. zoning. REALLY mean
fax Old Foster? It was "No' to R -2 and R -3, No to R -4.
(,/
"Ho" to C -1, and Na "" to P0. That leaves RMH, the highest
multiple- family designation the city has to otter.
RMH is completely out of lino with what is currently on
the city comprehensive plan for the area and out of line
with current county zoning. The ,city comprehensive plan says
low density. County zoning is a mixture, but the 'entire area •
isn't zoned high density. And in the surrounding area, there
is:R= - to the southwest and south, C -1 to the east: Even the
Terrace Apartments are only R -4.
Although we still would prefer a combination of R -4 to
the 'east of 51st Avenue and R -3 or R -2 to the vest, we could
support the staff recommendation for a change in the zoning
ordinance to alloy only R -3 or lower housing in PO zones.
I have not mentioned two areas that were discussed in
the staff report. becausdr there was consensus for those two
areas.. The task force had no difficulty recommending an R -1
designation for the south side of 139th Street and the west
side of 42nd Avenue South between 139th and.14Oth. That area
is.almost entirely single- family homes now and appears to be
very stable as such. In addition, the Riverton task force
•proposed and.the planning commission concurred that the area
•.on the north side of 139th should be largely single - family.:
The other area for which consensus vas reached,
although not as easily as on 139th, vas . the area along 144th
Street between 42nd and Pacific Highway South. There, R
seems to make sense because of current use and similar
proposed density on the south side of 144th by the Thorndyke
task force.
The task force could not reach a final recommendation
on design review, although, it had voted for design review
for all but single-family construction at an earlier
meeting. Many of us on the task force still feel quite
strongly that design review is a crucial issue in improving
our community. We look at Tukwila Hill, where design review
for multiple - family construction is in place, and see high
quality development. W. would like to see the same standards
in our annexation area where multiple - family development is
appropriate.
I appreciate your taking the time to read and consider
our point of view. And I look forward to joining you as
citizens of the City of Tukwila.
Sincerely,
•
Ronald A. Lamb
City of Tukwila
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
6200 Southcenter Boulevard
Tukwila, Washington 98188
(206) 433 -1849 •
STAFF REPORT
to the Planning Commission
Prepared August 25, 1988
HEARING DATE: August 30, 1988
FILE NUMBER: 88 -5 -R, 88 -5 -CPA, 88 -5 -CA
INITIATED BY: Foster Annexation petitioners
REQUEST: 1. Comprehensive Land Use Plan Map Amendments
2. Pre - annexation Zoning
3. Zoning Code Amendments
LOCATION:
The general location is north of 144th Street, east of
Pacific Highway (SR -99), and south of 136th Street
(See Attachment A)
ACREAGE: Approximately 196 acres
COMPREHENSIVE
PLAN DESIGNATION: See Attachments B and C
ZONING DISTRICT: See Attachment D
SEPA
DETERMINATION:. Determination of Non - Significance
ATTACHMENTS:
(A) Foster Annexation Area Boundary
(B) King County Comprehensive Plan Map
(C) Tukwila Comprehensive Land Use Plan Map
(D) King County Zoning
(E) Issue Areas Map
(F) Tukwila Amended Comprehensive Land Use Plan Map
(6) Proposed Pre - Annexation Zoning Map
APPENDIX E
4,
STAFF REPORT to the
Planning Commission
BACKGROUND
FINDINGS
88 -5 -R, 88 -5 -CPA, 88 -5 -CA
In April 1988, the City of Tukwila received a petition signed by residents for
annexation with a request for simultaneous adoption of pre- annexation zoning for
the area shown on Attachment A. This petition. has been certified by the King
County Prosecuting Attorney and was signed by 44 qualified voters, representing
52% of all voting residents in the 1987 general election.
After the Planning Commission makes their recommendation, the City Council will
hold two public hearings. The public hearings are scheduled for September 12
and October 17. After the second hearing, the City Council will adopt by ordin-
ance Comprehensive Plan amendments and the zoning to become effective upon
annexation. The annexation is tentatively scheduled to go to the voters on
February 7, 1989.
CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT
In developing the pre- annexation zoning for the area, the City has tried to
provide a variety of opportunities for residents, property owners and businesses
to become involved. On June 2, 1988 the City had a public information meeting
concerning the annexation petition and zoning for the area. At this meeting,
people were asked to join a task force to work with City staff in developing the
zoning for this area. An average of 18 people attended meetings in June, July
and August.
On August 18, 1988, the City and task force had a public information meeting to
respond to a draft zoning map prepared by Planning staff. After hearing the
public comments at this meeting and other meetings, the task force made their
recommendations as shown on Attachment G. The task force in many cases was
unable to reach a consensus on all zoning designations.
For the Planning Commission public hearing, notices with the task force proposed
zoning was mailed to all property owners and a public notice appeared in the
local papers. As part of the public notice, hearing dates for City Council
hearings were also mentioned.
REPORT ORGANIZATION
The report contains three sections. The first section briefly discusses the
proposed annexation. The second section addresses the Comprehensive Land Use
Map amendments and proposed zoning districts. The last section discusses poten-
tial zoning code amendments.
ANNEXATION
As shown on Attachment A, the Foster Annexation request is within the Tukwila
Planning area for annexation. This annexation ties in with the Riverton annexa-
tion to the north and the Thorndyke annexation to the south.
The annexation area population is estimated-at 752 people. Existing land use in
the area is mixed between commercial /multi- family along Pacific Highway South,
public schools along South 144th Street, and single- family in the central,
northern 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.
STAFF REPORT to the
Planning Commission
COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLAN MAP AMENDMENTS
AND PRE - ANNEXATION ZONING
88 -5 -R, 88 -5 -CPA, 88 -5 -CA
As part of the Foster annexation petition, pre - annexation zoning was requested.
By requesting pre- annexation zoning, the property owners and voters will know
before the election what land use regulations will become effective upon annexa-
tion.
Task Force members were briefed on Tukwila's Comprehensive Land Use Plan Map and
zoning regulations. This material was then compared to King County's Community
Plan and land use regulations to identify conflicts and potential land use
issues. Tukwila zones do not exactly duplicate King County's. For example, the
County's RM -1800 High Density Muntiple- Dwelling Zone allows a density somewhere
in between the R -4 and RMH zone in Tukwila. The following table provides the
most comparable zones with reference to uses.
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
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 -G General Commercial C -2 Regional Retail Business
After reviewing the comparable zoning, the zoning was overlaid with Tukwila's
Comprehensive Land Use Plan Map. Several conflicts between the zoning and the
City's Comprehensive Plan were identified. Attachment E depicts those areas
where revisions in either the City's Comprehensive Plan or zoning were examined.
Each of these areas identified are discussed in greater detail in the following
pages.
The task force recommendation as reflected in Attachments F and G. In certain
areas this group was unable to either come to a consensus or a decision. The
task force consisted of two general groups. There are those who live in Area 1
who are single - family residential who have been adversely impacted by apartment
development to the southeast. Due to the increase in traffic and more transient
nature of the neighborhood, their area is no longer suited as a single - family
residential neighborhood. The second group lives west of I -5 and does not want
future development to make their existing neighborhood no longer desirable for
owner - occupied single - family housing. This concern is reflected in Issue Area
4B where the task force was unable to make one recommendation.
AREA 1
, METRO PARK
AND RIDE / �"; " ' 'N STRANDER
EXISTING
DISCUSSION
RECOMMENDATION
(26 /FA.AREA1)
ANNEXATION r
The Terrace
_ Apartments
FOSTER ANNEXATION ISSUE AREA
gi S
-4-
KING
COUNTY
TUKWILA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ZONING LAND USE
Low Density Residential S -R Predominantly single - family
RM -2400 homes with a few duplex and one
small apartment building
As mentioned in the introduction, the property owners in the area feel this
area is no longer suitable as a single - family neighborhood for the following
reasons:
1. Freeway noise;
2. Use impacts of the METRO Park 'n' Ride;
3. Traffic impacts from existing /future apartment development; and
4. Potential impacts of commercial development in the Strander annexation.
Most of the members and staff agreed this area is not going to remain a
single - family neighborhood. The issue is what are the appropriate intensive
uses for this area - whether to allow medium - density apartments or office
uses which also allows high - density apartments.
The close proximity of the park and METRO bus facility provides attractive
amenities for apartment development. However, the office designation
provides the opportunity for development which is not as sensitive to the
noise and is a transitional use from commercial uses. The concern expressed
by some of the members was that, with the P -0 designation, high- density
apartments were also permitted.
Amend the Tukwila Comprehensive Plan Map from Low - density Residential to
Office, with pre- annexation zoning designation of P -0 - Professional and
Office. (Note: See Zoning Code Amendment discussion.)
c
DISCUSSION
RECOMMENDATION
(26 /FA.AREA2)
EXISTING
Tukwila Comprehensive Plan - Low Density
Residential
King County Zoning - RM -1800
Existing Land Use - a couple of houses
and vacant land
Many of the task force members who live west of I -5 do not want future
commercial or apartment development to negatively impact their residential
area. This area is impacted by noise from I -5, limited water line size, and
limited ability to improve Macadam Road.
The task force recommended the area be downzoned from the County zoning due
to topography in the area and to minimize future traffic impacts. The staff
believes the degree of downzone is inappropriate. The area to the south
(Area #3) has similar characteristics as this area which is being
recommended for R -3 zoning.
The task force has recommended retaining the City's Comprehensive Land Use
Plan designation of Low Density Residential and zone the area R -1 Single
Family Residential.
Foster
High l
School
FOSTER ANNEXATION ISSUE AREA
DISCUSSION
RECOMMENDATION
(26 /FA.AREA3)
EXISTING
Tukwila Comprehensive Plan - Low Density
Residential
King County Zoning - RM -2400
Existing Land Use - a few houses and
vacant land
Amend the Tukwila Comprehensive Plan Map from Low Density Residential to
Medium Density Residential, with pre- annexation zoning designation of R -3
(Three /Four Family Residential).
The topography is somewhat level at Macadam and raises up to the west.
The change in topography between this area and the single - family to the
west provides a natural transition. Due to the topography and concern for
traffic, the task force recommended an R -3 zoning. This recommendation also
matches up the recommendation made by the Thorndyke task force for the area
south of 144th and west of 51st Street.
AREA 4C
FOSTER ANNEXATION ISSUE AREA
DISCUSSION
RECOMMENDATION
(26 /FA.AREA4)
-7-
EXISTING
Sub -Area 4A
Tukwila Comprehensive Plan -
West of 41st - Commercial
East of 41st - High Density Residential
King County Zoning - RW -7200, RM -1800
Existing Land Use - single - family houses
and vacant land
Sub -Area 4B
Tukwila Comprehensive Plan -
King County Zoning - RM -1800
Existing Land Use - mobile home park
Sub -Area 4C
Tukwila Comprehensive Plan - High Density
Residential
King County Zoning - RM -1800, RD -3600,
RS -7200
Existing Land Use - single - family homes
and two duplexes
As mentioned earlier in this report, the concern for all three of these
sub -areas is the impact of further commercial or apartment development and
its impact on single - family residents to the east. In Sub -Area 4A, the task
force felt the R -2 zoning designation would be appropriate due to the
surrounding uses and would be compatible with the proposed zoning to the
south in the Thorndyke annexation. Sub -Area 4B is the one where the task
force was unable to make one recommendation. Some members felt the R -2 zone
would be appropriate to reduce the traffic impact,. and would be compatible
with the single - family to the east. Other members felt the R -4 was
appropriate due to the proposed zoning to the north and south. A potential
compromise between the high or low density zones would be a medium density
designation of R -3.
In Sub -Area 4C, the task force felt this area should be zoned R -1 to reflect
the prevailing single - family homes.
4A: Amend the Tukwila Comprehensive Plan to Medium Density Residential with
a pre- annexation zoning designation of R -2.
4B: The task force was unable to make one recommendation for this area;
Attachment G shows R -2 or R -
4C: Amend the Tukwila Comprehensive Plan to Low Density Residential with a
pre- annexation zoning designation of R -1.
STAFF REPORT to the `- '"rd8 -5 -R, 88 -5 -CPA, 88 -5 -CA
Planning Commission
This section will review potential text amendments to the Zoning Code in con-
junction with the pre - annexation zoning discussed in the preceding section. The
task force has NOT made any specific recommendation to amend the Zoning Code.
The following discussion focuses on three areas - Design Review, Professional
Office Zone, and Single- Family Setback Standards.
DESIGN REVIEW
Under the current regulations, design review will be required for commercial
development in excess of ten thousand gross square feet of floor area in C -2,
C -1 /P -0 zones and multiple- family complexes in excess of 12 dwelling units. The
task force was split as to whether to require design review for all development
except for single- family development. Based upon further public comments at the
public hearing, the Planning Commission may want to re- examine this issue.
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.
8
Proposed
Amend the Zoning Code (TMC 18) by renumbering Chapter 18.26 P -0 District
Professional and Office District to Chapter 18.17.
Amend (shown in bold print) TMC 18.26.020 Principally Permitted Uses
(1) Any principally permitted use in the R -3 district;
Discussion
Some of the members of the task force had concerns with the P -0 zone which
also permitted high- density apartments. This was also discussed at the
Thorndyke task force meeting. 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.
City staff is proposing a revision in the P -0 zone which would only permit
medium density apartments. 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 devel-
oped. 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 legis-
lative 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 respec-
tively 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.
STAFF REPORT to th �•..: 88 -5 -R, 88 -5 -CPA, 88 -5 -CA
Planning Commission
SINGLE FAMILY SETBACK STANDARDS
The City has different setback standards than King County, as shown below:
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 opportunity
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 amendment to the Professional Office
zone be approved. Based on public testimony at the hearing, the Planning Com-
mission may wish to recommend to the City Council direction for further changes.
(22/88- 5 -R.2)
NW= ,MIEN
!'!l/;��IIInNIIIIIIMINI �
111111110 I\
/IIP!!liuIll lllllE11 i
7 U 1110 lla �IIIMIL�Illfii�Iil�ll
.
� Flu � „�
, :.�
Aim& ��I
Riv
P,i Bee”
ANNEXATION AREAS
• FIRE DISTRICT NO. 1
$EA -TAC INCORPORATION
RIVERTON ANNEXATION
FOSTER ANNEXATION
THORNDYKE ANNEXATION
TUKWILA CITY LIMITS
TUKWILA PLANNING AREA
. - 1 - 1 -ot •war, el 1 j •
OULU
G..1 lit
M Acres
S 1371" ST
—ll
IOC
111111
1
SINGLE FAMILY HOUSING
LOW /MEDIUM DENSITY MULTI - FAMILY HOUSING
HIGH /MAXIMUM DENSITY MULTI - FAMILY HOUSING
HIGHWAY ORIENTED COMMERCIAL
PARKS AND OPEN SPACE
COMMUNITY FACILITIES
/ FOSTER ANNEXATION
KING COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
• I .
ATTACHMENT B
:
S
11
• •• • •::tti• ••;ti611
_ II
•
_
; r :
LEGEND
• HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL
E3 LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL
rgi PARKS AND OPEN SPACE
• PUBLIC FACILITIES
O COMMERCIAL
-
rUKWILA COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLAN MAP - EXISTING
FOSTER ANNEXATION ATTACHMENT C1
\I
, •
••••••
S MIN ST
RM-1800 HIGH DENSITY MULTI FAMILY DWELLING
RM-2400 MEDIUM DENSITY MULTI FAMILY DWELLING
1: RD-3600 TWO FAMILY DWELLING CLASSIFICATION
pi RS-7200 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL
1 SR SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL
Elip B-C COMMUNITY BUSINESS
C-G GENERAL COMMERCIAL
...I. Wm
Goa Let
3. Acres
Omni
1111111111
KING COUNTY ZONING MAP
ATTACHMENT D
0
0
........
mm NOM
MI is •
:# •
Ir
LL
min
11111111
OIST AVE
1111111
. • '
• •= • 0, o
4,4
�IIIIIIIII�IIH�`���li` J .
11 IIIIIIIIII►I ��1ii'� ��, IIIIiI' ��III
I� I11,�1�ill �i II I i' " l
III„ ,111�I I II ��
11111111i � �;� IIL.. �► illy lll�11
Illl '.11 ∎lI III �01 01,1 ,I
A
LEGEND
® HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL
LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL
ig PARKS AND OPEN SPACE
1 0 PUBLIC FACILITIES
- 0 COMMERCIAL
OFFICE
MED DENSITY RESIDENTIAL
111111
1..
ATTACHMENT F
FOSTER ANNEXATION
TUKWILA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
(AMENDED)
- r
I I
FOSTER ANNEXATION
TUKWILA PROPOSED ZONING
3 R-1
R-2
R-3
111
A R-4
C-1
RMH
SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL
TWO-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL
THREE AND FOUR FAMILY DWELLINGS
DISTRICT-LOW APARTMENTS
COMMUNITY RETAIL BUSINESS
REGIONAL RETAIL BUSINESS
PROFESSIONAL/OFFICE BUSINESS
MULTIPLE-RESIDENCE HIGH DENSITY
ATTACHMENT G
LW,
r t: =IMMO
SS •MIIIIM
A m.
.• .*
s-morm—sr
c-;
;UKWILA CITY COUNCIL SPF"AL MEETING
b September 12, 1988
Page 3
PURCHASE OF PROPERTY
- contd.
APPENDIX F
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Pre- annexation zoning
& 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 820,000 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,
1938 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 Westohall, 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 SPJJIAL MEETING
September 12, 1988
Page 4
PUBLIC HEARINGS - Contd.
Pre - annexation zoning
& comprehensiva plan
amendments for -prop.
Foster annexation
(1st Public Haring)
- contd.
NEW BUSINESS
Approve scope of work
& authorize contract
for Sea -Tac annexa-
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?
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 beliere anyone developing will widen or
straighten Macadam Road. The traffic will remain.
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.
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.
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 office!
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.
£4AYOR.VAN DUSEN CLOSED THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 9:38 P.M., STATING
THE SECOND PUBLIC HEARING WOULD BE ON OCTOBER 17, 1988.
MOVED BY DUFFIE, SECONDED BY HARRIS, THAT COUNCIL APPROVE THE
$55,000 FOR THE PROPOSED STUDY OF THE SEA -TAC ANNEXATION PRIOR
TO THE VOTE. MOTION CARRIED.
Tukwila _city Council
6200 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 154th) to R-4 from R-3.
October 10, 1988
Our reasoning for this request is as follows:
- Your R-4 zoning is more in line with the present King County
RM 2400 zoning.
- We have paid taxes for over 20 years 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 squails feet per unit would be an
acceptable compromise.
Respectfully yours.
uJ
Wayne and Hazel Ketchersid
/.4.3 7 4-i 4
7r 9eie
•
1 . .t 4,4v
Zee:4 ff i.4t_ lt. e.g.c„
A,t.c.
0-K.1 0%4.4‘, As.41#,
S‘ crAtt . / •
'44..4410-f 6-ot.,
c4 /44g (a--;ZZ .Z
_eiztefit46-nd 4-x4.4..; ZZ /r2'4
64.t.4.44- • 44.41.;g44 /720.4,/s
tD I-4-4/‘ 7 1-644- 7 LA44‘. Lys.< /2-.6 4.4.
evi.4 /-• „e-s.
Ei 4.4 7c.4t-A >N44..t_.c.,
1 1.44:•ez_ze_;4.e...v •-lc..
4 /44.4-vpu., 4_, 1444,— 4i,t..4.4
/4, /f fir
•
•
, e Am L./ ,S
44 .4.4-g-4 za 7-414.4. 74, r-s14_,7 14,1-1
■ 011 , at- 6 >470-rtAtt
th. tom. • t
L a_ „2.t./.4
-m- • -.�.�, u�c. uAc. , cam - 74 , , .144A.. 4 t14-
.2.4-.- K- r -r+..� e� L " "" Gt "(i, r� �SC.t,C, �, ei4L• -,u'
, 1 2, 74—€4. /ftC
l/ ) Sy' _j.y may, .e;c.C/t-k- •c.. v
U"t'tL ,t, z400 S' J � •�c s tt t. 'u4
l�v
y
.— &-14-4-4.,
�e� , GU,4r.�.s 74-1.,
October 17, 1988
'7:00 P.M.
PUBLIC HEARING
Pre - Annexation Zoning
and Comp. Plan
Amendments for the
Foster Annexation area
(Second Hearing).
TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL
Regular Meeting
MINUTES
APPENDIX G
Tukwila City Hall
Council Chambers
Mayor Van Dusen declared the Public Hearing open on the
Pre - Annexation Zoning and Comprehensive Plan amendments
for the foster annexation area located north of South
144th to the Riverton annexation boundary and between
Pacific Highway to the west and the current city limits
on the east.
Letters from the following people were acknowledged:
- Rena Sawyer
- Clarence Cook
- Michael Silver, Superintendent
South Central School District 406
Alan Pachuck, speaking for Audrey Bullock, 4011 South
139th, under the King County zoning her property is
zoned high -use commercial; under the proposed Tukwila
zoning she would be single family. On one side of her
property there is a hotel, across the street there is a
hotel, and in back of her a laundromat. For single
family, her property is worthless. She has been paying
taxes on high use property and this is the only way she
can sell it. She would like the zoning to stay commer-
cial or multi unit.
Alva Davis, 13806 Macadam Road South, said she has lived
at this address since 1965. She signed a petition two
weeks ago asking for commercial zoning on the property
east of Macadam Road. She doesn't really care as long
as all of the property east of Macadam Road is zoned the
same otherwise, it will split the neighborhood. Her
King County zoning is for apartments. The noise from
the freeway is so bad you do not open the windows. The
area from South 144th to South 136, east of Macadam
Road should all be zoned the same.
Peter Thomson, owns of property at 13450 51st Avenue South
that is currently zoned P -0. He was on the Task Force
for the Foster annexation. They do want to become a
part of Tukwila. They are in favor of the P -0 zoning
but would like to see some latitude. Until this
evening, they did not know Council was considering
deleting the Cascade zoning. They would like the P -0
with R -4 use, if not this, then C -1.
Ken Eldridge, 4821 South 136th, said he bought his home
about 6 months ago but has lived in the area all his
life. The freeway noise does not bother them. He has a
nice big yard where his son can play. A house about 50
feet from the freeway sold recently. He feels the area
between Macadam Road and the Freeway should stay
residential.
Mildred Sarri, 13535 53rd Avenue South, said she agrees
with what Mr. Thomson had to say. They came to the
meeting with one idea and now it is going to be changed.
She wondered if the property that sold, was sold at a
loss or if the new owner is planning to do something
else with the property.
TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL, R(, )LAR MEETING
October 17, 1988
Page 2
PUBLIC HEARING FOSTER ANNEXATION - Cont.
Norris Sarri, 13535 53rd Avenue South, feels that apart-
ment living is a little different than single - family.
Apartments are built more solid, better insulated for
noise control. Apartment dwellers are more apt to be
away from the property during the day and not out
working in the yard like single family owners are.
Apartment units would be more suitable for the noisier
areas. They would like to sell their property for a good
price but with R -1 zoning, it is not appropriate for the
area. People will not buy a house in this area to live
in. He asked Council to reconsider the cascading zoning
for their area so they will have more opportunities to
sell their property. He proposed that the property be
zoned commercial or P -0 with cascading zoning.
Roy Dailey, 14220 and 14228 41st Avenue South, said his
property is located one block west of Foster High
School. First, he explained that he does not live in
the area but would like a chance to vote on this.
Second, there has been considerable comment about noise
pollution along the freeway, there is also emissions
pollution from the vehicular traffic. A lot of the area
along the freeway in King County is greenbelt, Tukwila
should look into this possibility.
Larry Howe, 13568 139th Place SE, Renton, owns property
along Macadam Road South of South 138th. The more of
these meetings he attends, the more confused he becomes.
There has been much said about the areas adjacent to the
freeway not being suitable for single - family - or multi
family for that matter. The area lends itself more to
commercial activities. Development problems could be
discussed later. It doesn't seem practical that people
would buy this property for residential. C -M seems
reasonable with cascading zoning. If the property is
not suitably zoned to sell, you could create a greenbelt
while not really intending to. He would like to see C -M
or RMH with some flexibility.
Terri Craig, 5306 South 137th, has lived on this pro-
perty for 15 years. They bought here with the
understanding they would raise their family, have the
property zone apartments and sell to a developer. They
would like P -0 zoning - unclassified. This is what they
agreed to at the Task Force meetings. Maybe it should
be C -1 which would allow P -0. The only way to get the
property developed is to get the zoning so a developer
can afford to do it.
Joan Merryhew, 4431 South 148th, representing Eleanor
Whitmore who lives at 14006 Macadam Road. Mrs. Whitmore
would like to live her remaining days in her single
family home without being pushed out by commercial.
Mrs. Merryhew said she has noticed that directly across
the freeway they have moved in at least three single-
family homes. Maybe a greenbelt is a good suggestion
for some of this property. Mrs. Whitmore agreement with
duplexes of triplexes for the property under long range
planning.
Pam Carter, 4115 South 139th, clarified that Audrey
Bullock's house on South 139th is currently zoned RM
1800.
TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL, A..AR MEETING
October 17, 1988
Page 3
PUBLIC HEARING - FOSTER ANNEXATION - Cont.
Thomas Whitley, 14240 41st Avenue South, owns three
pieces of property and two businesses in the annexation
area. One of his major concerns is what are the taxes
going to be like after the annexation. Also, it con-
cerns him that mobile homes are not allowed in Tukwila.
If an existing one is destroyed he understands that it
could not be replaced. This eliminates the use he has
planned for his property. He understands this annexa-
tion was started in April 1988 and wonders what the
hurry is to get this through. Annexation should be
looked at very closely because it is going to affect our
taxes greatly.
Dave Whitlow pointed out his property on the map and
said that at this time they do not know how to develop
this whole piece. It will depend on how roads and uti-
lities can be developed. We should have the flexibility
to decide with the Planning Commission and the City
Council together at the time we want to propose a deve-
lopment. Committing hard and fast right now is a
mistake, it should be kept flexible.
David Craig, 5306 South 137th, explained that their pro-
perty is a buffer zone between the Terrace Apartments
and Commercial. If their area is designated P -0 without
cascading zoning that is not what the Task Force
discussed. If we had known about this change, we would
have asked for C -1 so we would have had some flexibi-
lity.
Eva Painter, 13526 53rd Avenue South, explained that
they tried to sell their home as residential and could
not sell it. Finally, through the County they were
zoned RM 2400 and they put it up for sale again - and it
sold. The house was divided into four apartments but
the owners could not make a go of it so they had to let
it go. They need higher zoning in this area to make
sale of their property desirable.
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUSJECT:
City of Tukwila
6200 Southcenter Boulevard
Tukwila Washington 98188
(201) 433 -1800
Gary L. VanDusen, Mayor
MEMORANDUM
Tukwila City Council
Jack Pace, Senior Planner, Tukwila Planning Department
October 20, 1988
FOSTER ANNEXATION
APPENDIX M
The following is a summary of the verbal and written testimony
presented at the two City Council Public Hearings on Foster
Annexation. The number by the name corresponds to the number on the
attached map showing the location of the property.
1. Peter Thomson 13450 51st South
2. David /Terri Craig 5306 S. 137th
3. Norris /Mildred Saari 13535 53rd Avenue South
4. Eva Painter 13525 53rd
5. Dave. Whitlow 5408 153rd Place SE
See letter dated September 1, 1988 /August 16, 1988
6. Dennis Westphall 2261 NE 63rd
King County Zoning: Rm. 2400 /SR
Planning Commission Recommendation: P -0 with R -3 density
Request: P -0 with no restriction on cascade zoning or
commercial
7 . Karen Layton 14115 43rd South
Concerned about traffic with higher densities
8. Joan Merryhew, speaking for Eleanor Whitmore
14006 Macadam Road
King County Zoning: Rm. 1300
Planning Commission Recommendation: R -3
Request: Single Family
9. Larry Howe 1568 139th P1. SE '
King County Zoning: RM 1800
Planning Commission Recommendation: R -3
Request: C -M
10. Ray Vomenici 4822 South 135th
11. Diane Deano 4622 South 133rd
12. Alva Davis 13806 Macadam Road South
See letter /petition - no date
King County Zoning: S -R SinglTfamiTy
Planning Commission Recommendation: CM /R -3
Request: C -M
Tukwila City Council
October 20, 1988
Page 2
13. . Alan Pachuck, speaking for Audrey Bullock, 4011 S. 139th
King County Zoning: Rm. 1800
Planning Commission Recommendation: R -1
Request: R -M -H
14. Pam Carter 4115 South 139th
Comments-5 points of concern (see letter dated October 18
15. Diane Meyer 13919 42nd Avenue South
Comments -4 points of concern (see letter dated September
16. Bob McGregor 5351 South 136th
King County Zoning S -R
Planning Commission Recommendation P -0
Request: Apartment Zoning
Thomas Whitley 14240 41st Avenue South
Concerned about taxes /mobile homes standards
oy Dailey 14220/14223 41st Avenue
Concerned about voting and noise pollution
19.. Ron Lamb 4251 S. 139th
Comments - 3 points of concern (see letter dated August 29
20. Michael Silver, Ph.D., South Central School District
Comments - 2 points of concern (see letter dated October
21. Rena 4318 South 140th
Comments: 5 Points of concern .(see letter. dated October
22. Ken Eldridge 4821 South 136th
Comment: Eastside of Macadam Road should stay residential
1988)
1988)
1988
17, 1988)
17, 1988)
10•
AM
3
111��� 1
/111111/ �..;_.;. • �.
.ar .K , r�r
riiirriu/ .._..!
1111111 !
i+
/ o va •dB •a•�.•
?1 aAnina: iolt'd° 3? 3n
a.i F •f ' "'Y e _ ^o'� , - for Tes .., Annexationi snicifica.'I
the area between S. 136 th, ?kacadan =�� . ' ‘ , 5. 3
i' 7.1. r a. me are against 'ening this area for indu
use of arty kind. We favor leaving maned fer single fandly
residence alit presently is 7ened for. ..
I %eltevsretminr fci indaetrial use would result inan
immediate raise in taxer and we would be stuck With nreterty
thatcould: not be sold for laduetrial use.,The reason /believe
no'one would be interested in this area for industriAl u• :e
is the very poor access, here is no May.i+pcadam Rd.. au1A
be adiquit and. beca tse of the 3rcvstria.l establishments
already in place to the north I can sPe no way to build
an aces street to the area,
1 believe entire area of.Fostc•r annexation,shoald be
left Boned AS it is or entirely loped. for single family
. residence. a sertainlr ,do not. nold,any more apartment
houses to kelp create any awe slum and high crime area
as now exists along pacific High South.
I certainly believe that property should not be retained
so individuals who tonght.preperty zoned for single family
could make ' afortvuse ' omit .
in conclusion , if this area is.to be re,oned for
'industrial use I will do everything :I can to prevent
annexation.'
Clarence Cook-
13504 1ioadea Rd. So.
Seattlq Mash. 98I68
October 17, 1988
Tukwila City Council
Tukwila City Hall
6200 Southcenter Boulevard
Tukwila, WA 98188,
Dear Council Representatives:
I!m a Foster : resident ":,and :have,been'actively involved in the
Foster annexation effort.. I've been absolutely delighted and
thankful for the enthusiasm and support Tukwila staff, the
mayor and 'council have provided to the annexation areas.
Thank you.
Through petition and informal door -to -door surveys, our community
overwhelmingly has said, "Yes! We want to be annexed to Tukwila."
We're excited about the possibilities of being.in Tukwila, and we
see a better future for our neighborhood.
We're also concerned about that future and its reliance on
appropriate zoning. Your decision on zoning, based on information
, tonight and over' the' previou8 .months, will set the
wheels in motion for the kind of neighborhood Foster' will be in
the years 'to cove. As residents,` we know what kind of neighborhood
we want: a community of single family homes with strong ties
to our schools and library. We want community. We do not want
'the additional burden of living next to more apartments and
industrial parks that increase car and truck traffic and noise,
encourage' transient populations, burden our school district,
make it unsafe for children to walk down the streets, and force
out single' family` homes and values. We're scared about what may
happen to our neighborhood. You are faced with making a zoning
decision that will impact our lives.
As a member of Tukwila's treannsxation zoning task fores,•I helped
may out the .proposed "zoning for Foster. Our proposal was bastardized
by the planning comaission,wdo; although they don't live here nor
have they spent time talking with us about the issues, seem to
think our neighborhood more suitable for apartments, businesses
and industrial parks. I heartily disagree, and I strongly
believe the aa3ority of the Foster community disagrees.
There are five areas under question:
1. Property West of 41st Ave. S.:
(Currently zoned single family residential by King County.
Zoning Task Force proposed R -2 - two family residential.
Planning commission proposes C -2 - regional retail business.)
It is not appropriate to bring retail businesses off of
Highway 99 and into residential communities. What the planning
commission proposes is heavy traffic on a dead end street.and
increased traffic on 144th where only one block to the East,
school children are present. We do not want businesses and
their Highway 99 clientel in our neighborhood and near school
children.
Property' ` on thcWeet `corner .of 144th St. ,d 42nd .Ave. "S. :
(Partially, zoned single.famtly.and partially zoned high
density multi - family by King County.,
Zong Task Force: :recommended :R -2 r -::two family residential.
Planning: commission :proposes : : R -4 district low apartments.)
Zoning the strip of land West 42nd Ave.S..from 144th
on the South : side = to : -140th S. ; .the > North :side admittedly
-looks : gopd 'on a.:sap.' It -loots neat,' 'congruent and, ,to :those
who, "zorien for "a living, smoothly' takes of ; the .scot
zoning : issue. However, 'c if :you `drive ' down 42nd Avenue , South,
as I'm sure many of you have, you'll notice that the streets .
are littered with cars ' from :.existing : apartments that are
too: dense already. . , Why .add to the : probhem? , . Why. zone for
more 'apartments' when ;clearly . the :neighborhood; cannot, support
its currentbulging`apartment. population ?. Please do: not
allow for more apartments along 42nd Avenue South.
The ,;trailer court. ' 'Property . bordered by S. 141st St., to
he .South, :42nd Ave. to the East and 140th S. :to the
North.
(Currently zoned high'density: multi- taaily by King County
Zoning: Task Force proposed R -2 -:: family.. residential -,or
R -4 district low apartments.
Planning commission :recommends . -4 r district; low. apartments.)
Everyone:knows the trailer 'court as an eyesore, a suspected,,
source of drug trafficing ands the .recent site of a .domestio
shooting. I. live only, `two blocks .away from the' trailer
.court, , and no one wante.;lo see it' upgraded more than I.
` Again, concerned about the negative impacts
will have on the neighborhood. I would like to: see that
parcel zoned. 2,-two family' residential. I do not advocate
R - 3 : (three to four: family' dwelling), but it would be` a `
better compromise than R -4, district low apartments.
(Note: .I find it curious that the public hearing notice
dated October 4, with a,mapp of the planning commiesion'e
•recommended zoning for foster has excluded R -2 zoning as an
existing option on the grid chart.)
Property East of Macadam, North of S. 138th and South of 136th:
(Currently zoned single family residential bvKing County.
Zoning Task Force recommended leaving the zoning single` family.
Planning commission proposes CM district, industrial park).
I think the planning commission is completely off target on
this one. Yes, there's noise from 1 -5 in this area and
one or two very vocal residents are .promoting industrial
zoning for this area. However, I believe we need to think
of the good of the community at large. What do we want this
area to be in ten years? Do we want to make it an industrial
park and out off our chances for improving the neighborhood?
Or do we want to keep it a residential area and petition the
state to provide adequate sound barriers between the neighbor -
hood and 1 -5? Foster residents do not want semi - trucks on
Macadam and we do not want the existing trees and foliage
-2
OD
which offer p• -me . sound. barrier destroye'' :;, I think the
single Tamil(, r aome owners. on ; the ,West s�e Macadam +..
,fee :` most"stronglyagainst ;industrial , .zoning.:: :. So let'.s
be . optimistic about:this area and.keep it zoned single
family residential. .There.will:alwayebe opportunities,
to build°induetrial parks;in family neighborhoods but
little chance to'build family homes in industrial
P East :.of Macadam Road ,and :West of I -5 s
(Currently.zoned;high> density. multi- family County.
Zoning ;Task Force proposed R -1 - single .family :residential.
Planning commission recommends R -3 - three to four family
dwellings..)
, concerned about the impact of more apartments
on :the area. Also, putting apartments on this: s trip, of,
:narrow _ land wi11 require land fills.' What •kind .;of . impac t
..will that.have`on natural. drainage and the environaent?
Obviously I care enough about this community and its future to
spen& some time outlining my. thoughts to the ;Council. There are .
a vocal few mainly absentee. land owneeeintereeted _ in development,
who are lobbying for apartments, businesses and industrial parks
in. the- !`oommunity. I . think chose. who say these is no :future for
single f ily.•homee provide oaly shortsight and:.narrow Qinded
views. Although our single„ family residents .say. not: be. be as vocal
aethedevelopers, single family owners are the majority
in_ this : community;. -,we're proud of our .netithborhood :and wer want to
see it grow and improve... Unlike, absentee. land owners, Foster
community membere:do.live.in.the area, have a stake in'its future,
and we vote. :zoning will:help. many area residents
determine whether :or not.they; want to be a- part.of Tukwila.
Please consider the wishes of single: family home owners in Foster
when you.make..the final decision on zoning.
Thank YOU-tar your time and continuing support of annexation.
Sincerely,
,Rena' Shawver
4318 - South. 140th
Seattle -, WA 981
H � :431 -8960
W)' 583 -6581
youth f9entral
4640 SOUTH 144th STREET
Tukwila City Council
6200 Southcenter Boulevard
Tukwila, WA 98188
MS:mm
SCHOOL DISTRICT 408
KING COUNTY
• SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98168-4196 • Phone: 244.2100
October 17, 1988
Dear Council Members:
On behalf of the South Central School District, I would like to comment on
two proposed zoning changes in the Foster annexation plan.
•The.South Central Board of Directors are concerned about the proposed zoning
change for the area between Macadam, 1 -5, South 135th and South 136th Streets.
The proposed zone for this area is CM- Industrial Park. If this change were to
happen, increased traffic on Macadam could result which would pose safety
concerns for students who walk to school along the shoulder of Macadam. The
district's request is to continue the present zoning of R -I in light of
traffic and safety concerns.
The second request concerns the intersection of 42nd and South 144th Street.
.It has been proposed that lots along 42nd Street be rezoned from low density
to. high density. The district's request is to continue low density zoning
for this area and not adopt high density zoning - RMB. Lower density
development would help in the stabilization of this area. R -3 zoning may be a
more satisfactory zone for this area.
Thank you very much for your consideration of these two points.
Sincerely,
Michael Silver, Ph.D..
Superintendent of Schools
— vrri/..-==e+
FOSTER ANNEXATION
TUKWILA PROPOSED ZONING
ED R-1 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL
R-3 THREE AND FOUR FAMILY DWELLINGS
FA R-4 DISTRICT-LOW APARTMENTS
IIIC-1 COMMUNITY RETAIL BUSINESS
C-2 REGIONAL RETAIL BUSINESS
P-0 PROFESSIONAL/OFFICE BUSINESS
RMH MULTIPLE-RESIDENCE HIGH DENSITY
Iu
'west
,111111Ili
C-M DISTRICT, INDUSTRIAL PARK
•
AS AMENDED BY THE TUKWILA PLANNING COMMISSION
SEPTEMBER 8, 1988
ATTACHMENT G
€ 6Z . 8L L2 9Z Se EZ eZ Le
11111111111111111
'44
• '4,4," 4: 4.;'4,'":.'"
. a •
•
• • .
• 1 'I 410
• y • trx .,,, vimi ...0
0
8 8 L, 9S 'V e Lva
•
• •
, .
Hull 1 1 1
0 10 MS INCH • 3 , ,„ • 5__.. .6 _ . 7 .7.7.1:1.-- • 9 10 • 11 mADEmoomomY 12
IF THIS 'MICROFILMED DOCUMENT IS LESS
CLEAR THAN THIS:NOTICE, IT IS-DUE TO
THE UALITY OF THE ORIGINAL. DOCUMENT
I1114111 1111
, . ; " •
. •
• '
777 ) 1 ' 1, I ..
• . ,
• .; •
.
•
OE 6Z 8L Lz 9z
1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111
• . 4:: : f• .,•h r.
.. vw
.... ?•' ,oaai883
77ru: * — •— •— •— • —. —.-
'I I•��o
.*tscQ, 11111114111111111
* 1.11WIII
Zit6= 1101111/11M
5491
50642511 , �_ mini
13595ii ion ' � Nam m i
LEGEND
a . M HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL
LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL
L PARKS AND OPEN SPACE
=i ® PUBLIC FACILITIES -
-� COMMERCIAL
111111 OFFICE
Ea MED DENSITY RESIDENTIAL
�
LIGHT INDUSTRIAL 1111
.•;
EN �� MI
,i f a �i�s'ss
1111111111111111111110 1[1 IIIIIIIII I I I 1411114.11111 1I 111A11I1II111111111- 1l[ I1III1III111111111III1III1III111111II1III1IIIII1111i
2 3 . _4.._ — -a _..6... _... - 7 _ ... 8 9 10 • 11 MMEINOENMMIY 12
IF THIS MICROFILMED DOCUMENT IS LESS
CLEAR THAN THIS:NOTICE, IT IS-DUE TO
GE 1 7z ez; zz 1,E THE sUALITY OF THE ORIGINAL DOCUMENT � a e L 9 s 17 s 3 i WW 0
1111111111111111111111111111111111111 IIIIr111 III 1111 1111 IIIIIIIIIIIII1EllIlIlI1111111113di11�1f11111 IIIII11ii 11111111111111111111111111111111 111111111 Iu1111111111111111I1111 . I11111111111111I111111111 111111110
TUKWILA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
ATTACHMENT F FOSTER ANNEXATION
AS AMENDED' BY THE TUKWILA PLANNING COMMISSION
SEPTEMBER 8, 1988
N.
I
RS -7200
RS -7,200
RS -7,200
I36T" ST.
RS -7,200
RS -7,200
RM- 2,400 P
240
•
215 -114
S. 41'* ST.
ui
135TH ST.
II I RM -90 S• 1
!+) S -
133RD ST.
RS- 7,2001 1 RS-7,,200
1 S. 140TH ST.
RS -7,200
RM -1,800
RS -7,200
RS-7,200
130
RM -1,800
RM -2,400
S. ,41
RM -1,800
(15 0
A
a _
N N ,
S - R •
� o > (15,000)
- w
N RM•900
to
... ;I: H-499 5T'
S
6 8 6
v,4 TUK 02D.11688;
RM•1800
RM -
1,800
7,200
RS -7,200
295.29
RS -7,200
RS -7,200
RS -7,200
RS -7,200
RS-7,200
137TH
RS-7200
RM -2,400
-( sa361h. ST.
S. 1391h.
o . /H442\
14244. 5T.
137
RM-2,400
RM -900
0 „ . 5:1 1 P
\2
I5 -23-
8
N y
w
i
1-
M
0
ft0
1 0
H
K 0
1 0
NV
S- R
(15,000)
4 05,0001
N
--1—
22 — -
,
S.
14497
(15,000) Me Lo P
B -C
1,17"...1%
• —•— 144TH— .— .._•— ._)' — •ST. -- -' —
(15,000)
I. )1
RM•180.
• -p
RM'.
1,800 :2:
1,1,§14 ; v 213•79
S. 140 7 M� —ST.
RS -7,200
RM-2,400
15
- . - - -- T" —
11 221
1 1
Vs '''' I).A'(27 19981 I E 1 5-23 -
.( -'\
:111' OF
PLANNING COT.
Igilgiliplqilqilqil(' yi�ilippliliupupl !pujliijiuluijilil!�giLji t( Ujlllplgiupuliiijiuµ11pl�j iIl i IIIIIIIIII I I 'II IIIIIIIIIIIH11HIIiPI
0 ,.,...,.. 1 2 3
.4 _5__ 7 9 10 11 -.-.-- . 12
1F THIS MICROFIMED DOCUMN
ET S LESSJJl •
IICLEAR THAN THIS NOTICE, IT IS I DUE T01'
OE 4 = Re 92 22 7i 9 22 ,= OTHE QUALITY OF THE ORIGINAL DOCUMENT(j• 2 0 , 9 9 4 - I -- o
budPU�1���111 h 1 I II III lot III u� I11111111 iiC11I1I U IICI I II II .1I111�III11111I�11�iRl�I� ik � Ii1 �u1��li Zhu s I (I I I lI�RIII RII�91,0106 i l j ��1��1��N f l 1 L_
325 W
—, 5
•
rPU
FOS'T'ER
ANNE.yATIO•
17.410 b .
— t
O