HomeMy WebLinkAboutPermit 88-06-CA - CITY OF TUKWILA - ZONING CODE AMENDMENTPermit 88-06-CA - CITY OF TUKWILA ZONING CODE AMENDMENT
ZONING CODE AMENDMENT COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLAN AMENDMENT COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT
WHEREAS, the City Council determined that it is necessary for the public
safety. health, property and peace to limit the proliferation of high density
housing within the City, and
WHEREAS, this issue was referred to the Planning Commission for study and
public hearing, and
WHEREAS, the City's SEPA responsible official made a determination of
nonsignificance, and
WHEREAS. the Planning Commission held a public hearing on this issue and
made recommendations for the City Council on December 21. 1988, and
WHEREAS, in addition to the notice required by law, notice of the Planning
Commission public hearing was mailed to every affected property owner, and
WHEREAS, the matter was considered at a special meeting of the Council on
December 21, 1988. and a public hearing before the Council was held January 9.
1989, and again considered on January 16. 1989.
Section 1. Section 18.26.020(1) of the Tukwila Municipal Code is hereby
amended to read as follows:
(1) Any principally permitted use in the R -2 district.
which use may be attached to any use permitted below.
Section 2. This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect five days
after publication of the attached summary which is hereby approved.
PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUKWI ON, this 6th
day of February, 1989.
ATTEST /AUTHENTICATED:
CI C , MAXINE ANDERSON
APPRO AS TO FORM:
OFFIC 0 THE CITY ATTORNEY
By
4 U C1 /1
CITY OF TUKWILA
WASHINGTON
ORDINANCE NO. /SDO
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA, WASHINGTON. AMENDING
SECTION 18.26.020 OF THE TUKWILA MUNICIPAL CODE TO RESTRICT
RESIDENTIAL USES IN CERTAIN USE DISTRICTS
NOW, THEREFORE. THE TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL: DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Pt +' WITH ' CITY CLERK: .2 • L- P?
PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL: A- 6.9 9
PUBLISHED: . PUBLISHED: A - L - y
EFFECTIVE DATE:
ORDINANCE NO.:
VAN DUSEN
SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE NO. /..c 0
AN ORDINANCE MIRE CITY OF TUKWILA. WASHINGTON, AMENDING
SECTION 18.26.020 OF THE TUKWILA MUNICIPAL CODE TO
RESTRICT RESIDENTIAL USES IN CERTAIN USE DISTRICTS
On February 6, 1989, the City Council of the City of Tukwila passed
Ordinance No. /Svo • which provides as follows: restricts residential
uses in certain use districts, 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 February 6, 1989.
Publish; Va.liei P' News
4/14C1/2
MAX
73
ANDERSON. CITY CLERK
CITY OF TUKWILA
WASHINGTON
ORDINANCE NO. /1-1 97
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA, WASHINGTON, AMENDING
CHAPTER 18.06 AND SECTION 18.60.030 OF THE TUKWILA MUNICIPAL
CODE TO DEFINE "DEVELOPMENT" AND TO PROVIDE EXPANDED SCOPE OF
REVIEW BY THE BOARD OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW.
WHEREAS, the City Council determined that it is desirable to expand the
scope of review by the Board of Architectural Review, and
WHEREAS, this issue was referred to the Planning Commission for study and
public hearing, and
WHEREAS, the City's SEPA responsible official made a determination of
nonsignificance, and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing and made
recommendations to the City Council on December 21, 1988, and
WHEREAS, the matter was considered at a special meeting of the City
Council on December 22, 1988, and moved forward for final action at its
regular meeting on January 3, 1989,
NOW, THEREFORE, THE TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Chapter 18.06 of the Tukwila Municipal Code is amended to add
Section 18.06.206 to read as follows:
18.06.206 Development. "Development" means the construction.
reconstruction, conversion, structural alteration, relocation or
enlargement of lfy structure that requires a building permit.
Section 2. Section 18.60.030(2) of the Tukwila Municipal Code is hereby
amended to read as follows:
524214
(2) The board of architectural review shall review
proposed development plans for the following described
land use actions:
A. All developments will be subject to design review
with the following exceptions:
1. Developments in RA and R1 districts.
2. Developments less than 10,000 gross square
feet of building area in P0, Cl, C2, CP and
CM districts, except when within 300 feet of
residential districts or within 200 feet of
the Green /Duwamish River or that require a
shoreline permit.
Page 1
B. Any exterior repair, reconstruction, cosmetic
alterations, or improvements, the cost of which equals
or exceeds ten percent of the building's assessed
valuation, of any existing commercial development in
excess of 10,000 gross square feet in building floor
area in P0, Cl, C2, CP and CM zoning districts.
Section 3. If any section of this ordinance, or any portion of any
section of this ordinance, or its application to any person or circumstances,
is declared by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, the remainder
of this ordinance or the application of the provision to other persons or
circumstances shall not be affected.
Section 4. 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, W HINGTON, t his 3 -
day of , 198
y.,,r -Tar -
ATTEST /AUTHENTICATED:
4 4 d i"lliwatS6 CILERK,MAXINEANDERSON
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY
By
FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK: /- 3- t7
PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL: /- 3-IF
PUBLISHED: /- /D - '9
EFFECTIVE DATE: / • IS - Y9
ORDINANCE NO.: pip 7
5242114
3. Developments in M1 and M2 districts except
when within 300 feet of residential
districts or within 200 feet of the
Green /Duwamish River or that require a
shoreline permit.
VAN DUSEN
C
City of Tukwila
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
6200 Southcenter Boulevard
Tukwila, Washington 98188
(206) 433-1849
DATE: December 21, 1988
TO: PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM: Jack Pace, Senior Planner
SUBJECT: Cascading Residential Uses
The Zoning Code Amendments which are before you were initiated by
the City Council as a result of discussions on the pre- annexation
zoning for Riverton, Foster and Thorndyke annexations.
The Staff Report discusses four options for residential uses in
office, commercial and industrial zones. The City Council would
prefer to allow up to R -2 (Two Family Residential) zoning
density. This would permit some residential use to occur in
office, commercial and industrial areas in Tukwila.
City of Tukwila
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
6200 Southcenter Boulevard
Tukwila, Washington 98188
(206) 433 -1849
The meeting was called to order at 8:07 p.m. by acting Chairman
Mr. Jerry Knudson. Members present were Messrs. Hamilton, Cagle,
Kirsop and Knudson.
Mr. Coplen, Verhelen and Haggerton was absent.
Representing the staff were Jack Pace, and Joanne Johnson.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES - MR HAMILTON MOVED AND MR. CAGLE SECONDED A
MOTION TO APPROVE THE NOVEMBER 22, 1988 MINUTES AS WRITTEN.
MOTION UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
88 -6 -CA ZONING CODE AMENDMENT
CITY OF TUKWILA
PLANNING COMMISSION
DECEMBER 21, 1988
1. Request to prohibit residential uses from being permitted in
office, commercial and industrial zones, thereby limiting
single- and multiple - family homes to the zoning districts
specifically designed for residential uses.
2. Increase the area of the City where design review of new
developments is required. Design review requires public
notice and plan approval by the City's Board of Architect-
ural Review.
Mr. Jack Pace, Senior Planner reviewed the various options
available on the Code Amendment request relating to cascading
zoning. He then reviewed the design review portion of the
request.
Darlene erostick, 14406 58th Avenue S. expressed her concern
whether existing uses would become non - conforming and if the tax
base would change.
Mr. Pace explained that existing uses would be "grandfathered"
and tax base changes can occur depending on the circumstances.
Mildred Saari, 13535 - 53rd Avenue S. expressed her concern
regarding the adverse impacts the cascading zoning request would
have on her property. She favored a PO designation with cascad-
ing zoning.
Planning Commission
December 21, 1988
Page 2
Norris Sarri, 13535 - 53rd Avenue S. concurred with a PO designa-
tion with cascading zoning. He felt since many other apartment
complexes have been developed in the area, they should be able to
develop their property multi - family as well.
Peter Thompson, 13450 - 51st Avenue S. asked that cascading
zoning be allowed for his property. He favors a RMH as well as
PO designation as this provides the best use and highest value
for his property.
Ann Nichols, representing Segale, Inc., asked that residential
uses be allowed in M1 and M2 as it does now. She also suggested
that minimum changes be allowed so that they don't have to go
through a costly and time consuming BAR review for minimal
changes to commercial buildings.
Dick Chapin was present representing Wells McCurdy and Harold
Iverson. He felt cascading zoning allows flexibility for
development. He and his clients are strongly opposed to removing
the cascading option of Multi- Family in PO zones. He favored
either making no changes to the zoning code or creating a totally
new PO zone for new annexation areas that restricts multi - family
development.
Harold Iverson, 5014 - 116th Avenue S.E., Bellevue, described his
property located in Tukwila where he plans to build apartments.
He felt it will be a benefit to Tukwila and Seattle area.
Terry Craig, 5306 S. 137th, felt the cascading zoning should
remain as an option as the people who voted to annex to Tukwila
support it and they are expecting it. She favors a mix of PO and
Multi - Family. She felt to take out cascading zoning would
unfairly impact them financially in the future development of
their property. She stated Jack Linch, consultant, wrote a letter
to the City Council and recommended a CO zone falling between PO
and C1 which would restrict Multi- Family development.
David Craig, 5306 S. 137th felt the right to use their property
in the way they were promised would be taken away if the cascad-
ing zoning were removed. He favors PO and Multi- Family use.
Joan Pierre, 13405 42nd Avenue S., felt the area where she owns
property is not conducive to residential; it is more conducive to
office, warehouse and similar uses and more appropriate since
this type of development already exists there.
Planning Commission
December 21, 1988
Page 3
Roland McCurdy, Suite 1025 Financial Center, Seattle, WA is
opposed to the code amendment because not enough investigation
has occurred to support it. He feels office and apartments are a
compatible mix and referred to other areas where this has been
successful.
Vern Meryhew, 4431 S. 148th served on the Thorndyke Task Force.
He feels that in some areas, multi - family in PO zones is not
advisable due to adverse traffic impacts. He favored a special
PO district that restricts multi - family use. He further stated
that he favored removing RMH and R -4 and leaving R1, R2 and R3 in
the PO zone.
The Public Hearing was closed at 9:30 p.m.
MR. KIRSOP MOVED THAT WE RECOMMEND TO THE CITY COUNCIL THAT WE
DEVELOP A PROFESSIONAL OFFICE ZONE THAT WILL EITHER NOT CASCADE
OR WILL CASCADE ONLY TO THE LOWER THAN RMH CLASSIFICATION AND
PREPARE MATERIAL FOR ADOPTION IN THE CODE. THIS WOULD BE A NEW
PO CLASSIFICATION AND THE CURRENT ZONING WOULD NOT BE AFFECTED.
MR. CAGLE SECONDED THE MOTION WHICH WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Mr. Knudson stated that if it isn't broke, don't fix it.
A three minute recess was called. The meeting resumed at 9:55 pm.
Discussion ensued on the Design Review portion of the Code
Amendment.
MR. HAMILTON MOVED AND MR. CAGLE SECONDED A MOTION THAT ANY
DEVELOPMENT WILL BE SUBJECT TO DESIGN REVIEW WITH THE FOLLOWING
EXCEPTION:
Item 1. DEVELOPMENT IN RA & R1 DISTRICTS.
MOTION UNANIMOUSLY CARRIED.
MR. KIRSOP MOVED TO ADOPT ITEM #2 AS WRITTEN WITH THE PROVISION
THAT THE WORD ADJACENT BE DEFINED IN THE DEFINITION SECTION OF
THE ZONING CODE TO INCLUDE DEVELOPMENTS WITHIN 300 FEET OF THE
SUBJECT - -PROPERTY. MR. HAMILTON SECONDED THE MOTION WHICH WAS
UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Item 2. as adopted reads:
Developments less than 10,000 gross square feet of building area
in P0, C1, C2, CP and CM districts, except when adjacent to
residential districts or within 200 feet of the Green /Duwamish
River that requires a shoreline permit.
Planning Commission
December 21, 1988
Page 4
The word ADJACENT shall be defined in the definition section of
the zoning code TO INCLUDE DEVELOPMENTS WITHIN 300 FEET OF THE
SUBJECT PROPERTY.
MR. KIRSOP MOVED TO RETAIN ITEM #3 AS WRITTEN WITH THE INCLUSION
OF THE WORD ADJACENT TO BE DEFINED TO INCLUDE DEVELOPMENTS WITHIN
300 FEET OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY. MR. CAGLE SECONDED THE MOTION.
MR KIRSOP AND CAGLE VOTED YES AND MR. KNUDSON AND HAMILTON VOTED
NO, WHICH RESULTED IN A TIE VOTE. THE CONSENSUS WAS THAT NO
CHANGE BE MADE TO ITEM #3. DUE TO THE TIE VOTE.
Discussion ensued on Item B.
MR KIRSOP MOVED AND MR KNUDSON SECONDED A MOTION TO CHANGE ITEM B
TO READ: ANY SUBSTANTIAL CONSTRUCTION TO THE EXTERIOR OF EXISTING
COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENTS IN EXCESS OF 10,000 GROSS SQUARE FEET IN
BUILDING FLOOR AREA IN C2, CP AND CM ZONING DISTRICTS. UNANIMOU-
SLY APPROVED.
88 -15 -DR MCI COMMUNICATIONS CABLE Request for design review
approval for installation of an underground utility cable.
Mr. Pace reviewed the request recommending approval.
Mr. Knudson felt that more safety measures should be used in
installation to reduce the likelihood of the cable being accid-
entally broken by someone digging in the area. He was concerned
with the liability resulting from this.
Mr. Mark Heideke, G.E. Raleigh & Associates, was present to
represent the applicant MCI Communications. He explained their
method of installation.
Ross Taylor, MCI Communications, explained he felt that the
liability issue had been addressed when they entered into the
franchise agreement with the City.
MR CAGLE MOVED AND MR. KIRSOP SECONDED A MOTION TO ACCEPT THE
RECOMMENDATION OF STAFF AND APPROVE 88- 15 -DR. MOTION WAS PASSED
WITH KIRSOP, CAGLE, HAMILTON VOTING YES AND MR KNUDSON VOTING NO.
DIRECTO lEPORT
Because of the work load, Mr. Pace suggested that the Planning
Commission meet on January 11th and January 26th. This was
acceptable to all. He reviewed the status of the annexations and
stated the work plan for 1989 will be covered at the January
meeting as well as Election of New Officers.
Planning Commission
December 21, 1988
Page 5
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 10:55 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Joanne Johnson, Secretary
City of Tukwila
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
6200 Southcenter Boulevard
Tukwila, Washington 98188
(206) 433 -1849
HEARING DATE:
FILE NUMBER:
APPLICANT:
REQUEST:
LOCATION:
ATTACHMENTS:
STAFF REPORT
TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION
Prepared December 7, 1988
December 21, 1988
88 -6 -CA: Zoning Code Amendment
City of Tukwila
1. Prohibit residential uses from being permitted in
office, commercial and industrial zones, thereby
limiting single- and multiple - family homes to the
zoning districts specifically designed for
residential uses.
2. Increase the areas of the City where design review
of new developments is required. Design review
requires public notice and plan approval by the
City's Board of Architectural Review.
City -wide impacts
A.
B.
C.
Tukwila Existing Design Review Areas
Tukwila Residential and Non - Residential Zones
Combined Zoning Map of Proposed Annexation
c
STAFF REPORT
to the Planning Commission
( l
88 -6 -CA: Zoning Code Amendment
Page 2
INTRODUCTION
There are two sections to the staff report. The first section(GREEN) discusses the
Zoning Code's ( "Code ") system of allowing uses to cascade into each succeeding
zone. At issue is the concern over the high ratio in Tukwila of multiple- family
developments to single - family units. The City Council, during pre- annexation
zoning deliberations for the Riverton annexation, motioned for elimination of
residential uses cascading into office, commercial and industrial zones. This
hearing and report are a result of that motion. The second section (yellow)
discusses the City's Board of Architectural Review (BAR) and where its authority
for design review is authorized. Several recent amendments to the code and a
third amendment made as a result of the Riverton annexation caused the need
for a comprehensive review and City -wide notice.
STAFF REPORT
to the Planning Commission
PROPOSAL
BACKGROUND
PURPOSE OF THIS REVIEW
A. REDUCE REDUNDANCY
B. EXPAND SCOPE
88 -6 -CA: Zoning Code Amendment
Page 3
BOARD OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW
Increase the areas of the City where design review of new developments is
required. Design review requires public notice and plan approval by the City's
Board of Architectural Review ( "BAR ").
The design review section of the Code has been amended three times in the last
six months to expand authority of the BAR. In addition, the City, through
annexation, will potentially expand to include areas with special planning needs.
The purpose of this review is to create a more adaptive and expanded scope of
the BAR's authority to address and to reduce the Code's redundancy.
As shown on Attachment A, only a few areas within the existing City
limits are not subject to design review, i.e., agricultural, single- family and
light and heavy industrial districts (when not abutting the river). Also,
many areas are twice required to have BAR review. Therefore, only
listing when design review is not necessary would read simpler and more
clearer in the Code.
During the pre - annexation zoning process, concerns of residents were
expressed the need for design review especially in areas where industrial
districts abut residential districts. The Code requires increased landscaping
when certain uses abut incompatible districts. For example, a solid
planting screen of five to eight feet in height in a ten -foot wide landscape
strip or a decorative fence is required when industrial districts locate
adjacent to residential districts. However, concerns of the community
were that design review was still necessary in these instances.
The Council, therefore, as part of the Riverton pre - annexation zoning
process, made two amendments to address these concerns. For example, if
Riverton annexes, the Code would be amended City -wide to require
design review whenever non - residential development occurs adjacent to
STAFF REPORT
to the Planning Commission
EXISTING
b. All commercial development in:
C2
CM
CP
88 -6 -CA: Zoning Code Amendment
Page 4
residential use districts. Due to the recent amendment's impacts City-
wide, additional notice was thought to be appropriate.
18.60.030 SCOPE OF AUTHORITY. The BAR shall review and approve, approve
with conditions, or deny proposed development plans for the following land use
actions:
1. Development within 200 feet of the Green River requiring a shoreline
permit.
2. a. Commercial development in excess of 10,000 square feet in:
RMH
PO
C1
3. c. Development in multi - family in excess of twelve (12) units in:
R2 RMH
R3 PO
R4 C1
4. Development exceeding basic height limits.
5. Development north of I -405 and east of I -5 in all zones excluding single -
family homes.
6. Developments which receive a design review condition through a rezone
or other land use action of the City Council or by the SEPA official.
See Attachment A for map of areas.
The Code does not define "development" and "commercial development" is
currently undefined in the Code. The City's interpretation has been when any
new use, filling of land, or building proposal - whether or not a building permit
is required- meets the definition of development and therefore is requied to
undergo design review.
STAFF REPORT
to the Planning Commission
COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE POLICY PLAN
Natural Environment - Goal 3 (p. 15):
88 -6 -CA: Zoning Code Amendment
Page 5
The Comprehensive Plan ( "Plan ") as a general guide to land developmrny has
not the authority of the Code, making some policies difficult to enforce in
specific developments. The following goals, policies and objectives of the Plan
would be addressed more effectively through expansion of the BAR's authority.
General Goals - Goal 8 (p. 13)
....Strive to provide the most effective service level needed as efficiently as
practicable.
Comment: The City has chosen the option of public review of
development. Due to the time involved to notify the
public and prepare for BAR meetings, the
development review process is lengthened. If the City
were to choose the option of involving the public in
defining specific desired development standards and
adopting them by Code, the service level could be
reduced.
Protect and enhance the natural amenities and aesthetic resources of the
Tukwila area for the public's welfare.
Objective 1 (p. 24) Recognize the aesthetic, environmental, and use
benefits of vegetation and promote its retention and
installation.
Policy 1- Maintain the wooded character of the steep slopes and
upland plateau, and encourage the use of vegetation in
slope stabilization.
Policy 2 - Encourage the use of live vegetation in development
landscape plans.
Policy 3 - Discourage disturbance of vegetation when not in
conjunction with the actual development of the
property.
Objective 3 (p. 24) Recognize the advantages and opportunities afforded
by the topography and plan its use accordingly.
STAFF REPORT
to the Planning Commission
88 -6 -CA: Zoning Code Amendment
Page 6
Policy 4 - Discourage filling, grading or excavations of land when
not in conjunction with actual development of the
land.
Objective 4 (p. 29) Realize the ability of natural streamways, ponds and
marshes to handle storm runoff while acting as
significant natural amenities.
Policy 1- Where possible, keep streams in as natural a condition
as is practicable.
Comment: The City does not have specific regulations that
implement these policies and objectives. Therefore,
the BAR review guideline "Landscape and Site
Treatment" refers to site treatment and the
preservation of existing topographic patterns is a
potential source of implementation for preservation of
the natural environment.
Commerce /Industry
Design (p. 61):
Policy 3 - Encourage aesthetic building and site design in
working and trading areas.
Policy 4 - Encourage the use of live landscaping in all
developments.
Policy 2 (p. 66) - Commercial office developments should consider the
adjacent use districts in the design process.
Comment: BAR review guidelines "Building Design ",
"Relationship of Structure to Site ", and "Relationship
of Structure and Site to Adjoining Area" all embody
and could potentially implement the above policies.
Transportation
Efficiency:
Policy 1- Minimize conflict between moving traffic and parked
vehicles.
STAFF REPORT
to the Planning Commission
88 -6 -CA: Zoning Code Amendment
Page 7
Policy 9 - Promote the consolidation of access points to frontage
properties along major arterials.
Comment: The BAR review guideline "Relationship of Structure
and Site to Adjoining Area ", which discusses the
compatibility of vehicular pedestrian circulation in
terms of safety, efficiency and convenience, and the
compatibility of on -site circulation with street
circulation could implement the above policies.
OPTIONS
Option 1. Revise the wording of the BAR's authority to read as follows:
18.60.030 SCOPE OF AUTHORITY
A. Any development will be subject to design review with the
following exceptions:
1. Development in RA, R1 and multiple - family complexes less
than twelve units in R2, R3, R4 and RMH districts.
2. Developments less than 10,000 gross square feet of building
area in RMH, PO, Cl districts, except when adjacent to
residential districts or within 200 feet of the
Green /Duwamish River that requires a shoreline permit.
3. Developments in M1 and M2 districts except when adjacent
to residential 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 and
CM zoning districts.
The above revision reflects existing conditions but is clearer and more
direct. There is an exception to review of multiple - family developments
of less than twelve units in R2, R3, R4 and RMH districts. The area north
of 405 and east of I -5 requires review of all development except single -
family homes, which would include all multiple - family complexes,
regardless of size. Therefore, to be consistent, Planning staff recommends
that review of this category of development be either included or excluded
from review for all areas within the City.
STAFF REPORT
to the Planning Commission
88 -6 -CA: Zoning Code Amendment
Page 8
Option 2. Revise the scope of authority section to read as follows. Changes to
Option 1 (existing conditions) are shown in bold.
The two changes above require non - residential development across the street
from residential uses to be reviewed by the BAR.
Planning staff recommends that non - residential developments that are across
the street from as well as adjacent to residential districts are as heavily impacted
and would benefit from design review.
IMPACTS
18.60.030 SCOPE OF AUTHORITY
A. Any development will be subject to design review with the
following exceptions:
1. Development in RA, R1 and multiple - family complexes less
than twelve units in R2, R3, R4 and RMH districts.
2. Developments less than 10,000 gross square feet of building
area in PO, Cl, C2, CP and CM districts, except when adjacent
to or across the street from residential districts or within 200
feet of the Green /Duwamish River that requires a shoreline
permit.
3. Developments in M1 and M2 districts except when adjacent
to or across the street from residential use within 200 feet of
the Green /Duwamish River that requires a shoreline permit.
B. Any exterior modifications to existing commercial development in
excess of 10,000 gross square feet in building floor area in C2, CP and
CM zoning districts.
As shown on Exhibit A, with a few exceptions, the Code revisions require any
use in the City to receive BAR approval. This will increase the BAR's and the
staff's workload and the uncertainty of project approval for property owners and
developers. This will also increase the amount of public review and comment
given to development, thereby increasing the impact of the BAR on aesthetics
and the allocation of the Planning Commission's time.
STAFF REPORT
to the Planning Commission
88 -6 -CA: Zoning Code Amendment
Page 9
Alternatives that would not have the time impacts associated with public review
is to create adopted standards that are required automatically and not
discretionary. The disadvantage to this approach is the loss of opportunity for
public notice and comment.
The following amendment is recommended to define development. Amend
18.06 the definitions section of the Zoning Code by adding:
18.06.206 Development
The construction, reconstruction, conversion, structural alteration,
relocation or enlargement of any structure that requires a building permit.
Without the above definition, development can be thought to include many
actions including filling, grading, and using a lot without structural
improvements.
STAFF REPORT
to the Planning Commission
PROPOSAL
Prohibit residential uses from being permitted in office, commercial and
industrial zones, thereby limiting single- and multiple - family homes to the
zoning districts specifically designed for residential uses.
BACKGROUND
EXISTING
88 -6 -CA: Zoning Code Amendment
Page 10
RESIDENTIAL USES
The Zoning Code ( "CODE ") currently allows any residential use to locate in
zones that also allow office, commercial and industrial uses. Residential uses in
office, commercial and industrial zones was thought to be an efficient and
flexible land use framework when the Code was adopted in 1982. This would
allow workers to live close to their workplace and could create active people -
oriented commercial centers within walking distance of housing. Now this
flexibility is being reconsidered.
The City has a current housing mix of 65% in multiple - family units compared to
35% in single - family units. The issue is whether or not to increase the
proportion of single - family units.
Each use district listed in the Code, from R1 to M2, allows all the uses from the
preceding zone. For example, if the R1 Single - Family Residential zone is at the
top of the list with a very limited number of uses and then a progression of
zones below it that allow a greater and greater number of uses, the uses from
above cascade into the zones below, like a waterfall. Flexibility increases and
control decreases, from R1 to M2. The potential result is that the distinction and
purpose of each succeeding zone becomes less and less clear as allowed uses mix.
Experience has shown that since the Zoning Code was adopted in 1982, there has
been only one commercially zoned property developed with a multiple - family
residential project. In addition, there are only two parcels of undeveloped
multiple family (medium density) residential properties left in the City. There
may be the possibility of increasing pressure for multiple - family in other zones.
Table 1 below compares the total acreage of Tukwila land by zone to the amount
of vacant land in each zone.
T
STAFF REPORT
to the Planning Commission
TABLE 1
CITY OF TUKWILA
TOTAL TOTAL VACANT
ZONE ACREAGE LAND
R A 211.91 13.43
R1 -20.0 19.42 2.10
R1 -12.0 91.86 35.34
R1 -9.6 48.72 23.04
R1 -7.2 304.10 61.96
R2 5.86 -
R3 37.40 .19
R4 30.96 4.69
RMH 14.98
PO 10.43 2.84
C1 .74
C2 131.98 --
CP 146.93 20.72
CM 475.03 16.92
M1 396.29 124.61
M2 101.88 10.32
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
GENERAL GOALS
Goal 1:
WPM
88 -6 -CA: Zoning Code Amendment
Page 11
The Residence element of the Comprehensive Plan focuses on livability of
residential areas. It also recognizes the incompatibility of land uses and the
adverse effect this has on the housing stock. Throughout the Residence and
Commercial /Industry sections of the Plan, reference is made to incompatible
land uses. Yet the way the Code is designed, single - family neighborhoods are the
most protected and M2 districts the least protected. The following policies relate
to the proposed action:
...Through the regulation of land use and community growth, promote the
health, safety, and general welfare of the public.
t:r
STAFF REPORT 88 -6 -CA: Zoning Code Amendment
to the Planning Commission Page 12
Goal 6:
...Attain a balance in the land use pattern of the community.
RESIDENCE
POLICY 1. (p. 45) Use natural features, like topography, to separate incompatible
land uses from the residential areas.
POLICY 2. (p. 45) Utilize open spaces, such as parks and playfields, to separate
incompatible uses from residential areas.
POLICY 2. (p. 49) Encourage the proper locating and screening of unattractive but
necessary use districts to protect residential areas from visual blight.
Comment: While the current code protects single - family neighborhoods by only
allowing single - family dwelling units and then locating them on the Zoning
Map.
COMMERCE /INDUSTRY
POLICY 1. (p. 60) Encourage the grouping of uses which will mutually and
economically benefit each other or provide necessary services.
Compatibility: POLICY 1. (p. 66) Encourage the use of commercial office
developments as buffers between residential land uses and other land uses.
OBJECTIVE 6. (p. 67) Promote land development alternatives that will increase
the effective use of the land.
POLICY 3. (p. 67) Encourage flexibility within the categories of land use.
Comment: The current cascading Code system encourages flexibility, allows for
alternatives, but does not segregate uses in the more intensive zones.
Residential land uses are allowed adjacent to, for example, chemical
manufacturing plants.
OPTIONS:
Option 1. Allow the cascading of residential uses from R1 through RMH and
the cascading of non - residential uses from PO through M2. While still allowing
for flexibility within residential categories and non - residential categories, this
option recognizes the uniqueness of residential uses and prevents their locating
in office, commercial or industrial districts.
•
wdn�d6d:lz "W' +l sCNEi'U.TX4✓+na�.wawa.mr.0 urn..+.. wkl... e' ,:...in.ra�«.......— ...__...�.� ..... ..�.. ..
L
STAFF REPORT
to the Planning Commission
88 -6 -CA: Zoning Code Amendment
Page 13
Amend 18.26.020 Principally Permitted uses by eliminating (1) Any principally
permitted use in the RMH district; this will prevent the addition of any more
high density residential dwellings in the City because there is currently no vacant
R4 or RMH land. This option would achieve the desire to control the location of
high density residential uses, as they will only be allowed in R4 and RMH uses.
Option 2. Vary the cascade system to allow uses to cascade differently from the
system described above.
Option 3. Create distinctive zones with no cascading of uses from other zones.
Option 4. No change. Allow the market to shape the community land use
pattern because it currently allows a large degree of flexibility.
-. �e.> uov,,.- m^ nw.• s-. �x•., th' reat^. z.^+.. v* v' n*. xw: rv4:.. 47-=',`;‘,7N:,.'Y.iY:'.'.,d-;n::ii:Y r'� •
City of Tukwila
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
6200 Southcenter Boulevard
Tukwila, Washington 98188
(206) 433 -1849
City of Tukwila
PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE
Notice is hereby given that the City of Tukwila Planning Commission will conduct a public hearing
on Wednesday December 21, 1988, at 8:00 p.m., in the City Council Chambers at Tukwila City Hall,
6200 Southcenter Boulevard, to consider the following:
• Planning Commission Public Hearing
CASE NUMBER: 88 -6 -CA: ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS
APPLICANT: City of Tukwila
REQUEST: 1. Prohibit residential uses from being permitted in office, commercial
and industrial zones, thereby limiting single- and multiple - family
homes to the zoning districts specifically designed for residential
uses.
2. Increase the areas of the City where design review of new
developments is required. Design review requires public notice and
plan approval by the City's Board of Architectural Review.
The proposed changes to the Tukwila Zoning Code will have area-
wide impacts to office, commercial and industrial property owners in
the City, as well as for those areas that will potentially be annexing to
- ---the City. Information on this case may be obtained at the Tukwila
Planning Department by contacting Moira Carr Bradshaw at 433 -1848
or Jack Pace at 433 -1847.
Persons wishing to comment on the above case may do so by written statement or by appearing at the
public hearing. The City encourages you to notify your neighbors and other persons you believe
would be affected by the above items.
Published: Valley Daily News - Sunday December 11, 1988
Distribution: Mayor, City Clerk, Property Owners /Applicants,
Affected Property Owners, File
Seattle Police Athletic Association
11030 East Marginal Way South
Seattle, Washington 98168
Phone (206) 762 -7468
December 19, 1988
City of Tukwila
Planning Department
6200 Southcenter Blvd.
Tukwila, WA 98188
Attn: Mr. Jack Pace
Re: Proposed Zoning Code Amendments, 88 -6 -CA
Dear Mr. Pace:
ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION
('0 1988
The Seattle Police Athletic Association is owner of several acres in an area
presently undergoing annexation to the City of Tukwila. Our complex at this
site includes several shooting ranges, offices, retail space, storeage for
various firearms and explosives, and a duplex residence. We and the City of
Seattle share a number of facilities and maintenance responsibilities at our
site, commonly referred to as "the range ". The range is staffed by on duty
Seattle police officers, supervised by a sergeant, as a regular Department
duty assignment.
Given this introduction, the need for special security at our site should
go without saying, and it was with that in mind that a duplex residence was
made an integral part of the facility over 30 years ago. Also, recognizing
the special needs here, the Seattle Police Department requires that the
assigned police sergeant must agree to live on -site, in the duplex, to act
as a resident caretaker and security. Additionallly, the other half of the
duplex, owned by the Seattle Police Athletic Association, is rented only to
sworn Seattle police officers, at a very reduced rental, with the understanding
that they will share in security duties.
The zoning amendment presently under consideration would apparently disallow
our having a "residence" on our range property, due to its zoning. Although
our situation with regards for security may be unique is its gravity, surely
there are dozens, if not hundreds, of premises that have a demonstrable need
for resident caretakers or security personnel within industrial or commercial
zoned areas of Tukwila. It would be a serious oversight not to address this
need in whatever zoning amendment is adopted.
Unfortunately, due to the late notification of the public hearing on this
matter, we will not be able to have a representative appear to give testimony
on our behalf, but we hope that attention will be given to our point of view.
We feel sure, that given further consideration of this important matter,
you can modify your proposal. to allow residences on commercial and /or
industrial zoned properties that can demonstrate a reasonable need for
residential security or caretaking personnel.
f
December 19, 1988
Re: Zoning Amendments, 88 -6 -CA
Page two
If there is any way that we may be of service to you in your future
considerations of these amendments, please feel free to contact the
undersigned. Further, as this matter is of the utmost importance to
our organization, please keep us aprized of the status of this zoning
amendment.
Sincerel
Ken W. row, president
Seattle Police Athletic Association
(weekday phone: 684 -8972)
Gentlemen:
City of ' Tukwila
Planning Department
6200 Southcenter Blvd.
Tukwila, Wash. 98188
(«`:: C 19 1988
Yours truly,
- Akiko Shi matsu, Trustee
./4.-/ Kiyoto & Nancy Mikami
Takumi & Yoshie Mikami
16813 Southcenter Parkway
Seattle, Washington 98188
December 16, 1988
Subject: Public Hearing Notice, Case No. 88 -6-CA: Zoning Code Amendments
The purpose of this letter is to notify the City of our desire to protect
the right to'consider reasonable development of our properties in the
future. We realize that today things may appear a certain way but it is
difficult to tell what the future holds. It is not unreasonable to assume
our undeveloped properties could accommodate some reasonable future develop-
ment without limiting it to office, commercial and industrial.
We have a strong interest in this process and appreciate continued notifi-
cation of anything that may affect the family properties.
TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL, REGULAR MEETING
November 7, 1988
Page 5
NEW BUSINESS - (Cont.)
Ordinance #1484 -
Amending the Comp..
Land Use Policy Plan
Map for Foster annexation
(cont.)
Ordinance #1485 -
Adopting zoning regu-
lations and adopting
a zoning map to provide
for the Foster annexation
area
Ordinance #1486 -
Amending the Comp.
Land Use Policy Plan
Map for the Thorndyke
annexation area
MOVED BY HERNANDEZ, SECONDED BY ROBERTSON, THAT THE
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FOR AREA 1 (No. of Foster Park, east
of I -5 and south of Park and Ride Lot) BE AMENDED TO THE
OFFICE DESIGNATION. MOTION CARRIED WITH DUFFLE AND
MORIWAKI VOTING NO.
*MOTION CARRIED.
Oct ic-r5°
MOVED BY MORIWAKI, SECONDED BY STOKNES, THAT THE
PROPOSED ORDINANCE BE READ BY TITLE ONLY. MOTION
CARRIED.
City Attorney Colgrove read an ordinance of the City of
Tukwila, Wash., 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 annexa-
tion to the City of Tukwila.
MOVED BY MORIWAKI, SECONDED BY ROBERTSON, THAT ORDINANCE
NO. 1485 BE ADOPTED AS READ.*
MOVED BY BAUCH, SECONDED BY STOKNES, THAT THE ZONING
ORDINANCE BE AMENDED TO CHANGE AREA 1 TO PROFESSIONAL
OFFICE. **
Council Member Harris commented that she is opposed to
this motion if the intention is to do away with
cascading zoning. This is a good place for townhouses
overlooking the golf course. It is a good place for
high quality housing.
* *MOTION CARRIED WITH HARRIS VOTING NO.
Council Member Harris said she voted against this
because the people here do not want office use only;
they want cascading zoning along with it.
Mayor Van Dusen clarified that it will take a public
hearing and adoption of an ordinance to amend the zoning
code to eliminate cascading zoning. The citizens will
have a chance to speak. Council wants to address this
for the whole City.
*MOTION CARRIED WITH DUFFIE, HARRIS AND STOKNES VOTING
NO.
MOVED BY MORIWAKI, SECONDED BY HARRIS, THAT THE PROPOSED
ORDINANCE BE READ BY TITLE ONLY. MOTION CARRIED.
City Attorney Colgrove read an ordinance of the City of
Tukwila, Wash., enacted pursuant to RCW 35A.14.330,
ROLL CALL
OFFICIALS
CONSENT AGENDA
Amend Agenda and
withdraw Item 7A
Cascading zoning
7:15 p.m.
OGAR D. BAUCH; MARILYN STOKNE= JOAN HERNANDEZ; DENNIS L.
;OBERTSON; CLARENCE B. MORIWAKI:-
JOHN COLGROVE, City Attorney; MAXINE ANDERSON, City Clerk;
ROSS EARNST, Public Works Director; LUCY LAUTERBACH, Council
Analyst; JACK PACE, Senior Planner.
a. Approval of Minutes: October 3, 1988
b. Approval of Vouchers
Claims Fund Vouchers #36593 - #36763
Current Fund $ 60,658.88
City Street 8,850.54
Arterial Street 155,657.00
Land Acq., Bldg., Dev. 70,142.00
Water Fund 8,779.69
Sewer Fund 52,580.94
Water /Sewer Construction 226,359.01
Foster Golf Course 14,030.10
Equipment Rental 9,276.52
Firemen's Pension 1,312.89
$607,647.57
MOVED BY BAUCH, SECONDED BY MORIWAKI, THAT THE CONSENT AGENDA
BE APPROVED AS PRESENTED. MOTION CARRIED.
MOVED BY STOKNES, SECONDED BY HERNANDEZ, THAT NEW BUSINESS BE
CONSIDERED AT THIS TIME AND THAT ITEM 7A (Acceptance of road-
way and utilities at Silverview Development) BE WITHDRAWN.
MOTION CARRIED.
Authorize Mayor MOVED BY MORIWAKI, SECONDED BY STOKNES, THAT THE MAYOR BE
to execute an emergency AUTHORIZED TO ENTER INTO AN EMERGENCY INTERTIE AGREEMENT WITH
agree. with W.D. #25 WATER DISTRICT NO. 25 FOR THE SALE OF WATER. MOTION CARRIED.
Mayor Van Dusen asked for the clarification of a motion made
by Council Member Bauch at the September 26, 1988, meeting
concerning cascading zoning. Council Member Bauch explained
that the intent of the motion is to eliminate cascading
zoning. It is mainly aimed at the present City. If
approved, it will revise the zoning code. This will control
the building of high density residential in commercial zones.
Council Member Robertson explained that there would be no
residential cascading allowed inl commercial or industrial
zoning. If this passes, you cannot build any residential
developments on property zoned /for commercial business or
industrial.
COUNCIL MEMBERS HARRIS AND DUFF IE ARRIVED AT THE MEETING.
TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL, COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE
September 26, 1988
Page 2
SPECIAL ISSUES - Cont.
Pre - annexation zoning
for the proposed
Riverton annexation
area (cont)
MOVED BY ROBERTSON, SECONDED BY HERNANDEZ, THAT COUNCIL
DIRECT STAFF TO DRAW A PROPOSAL FOR AN R -1- 12,000 ZONE AREA
THAT WILL ENCOMPASS THE REQUEST OF THE PROPERTY OWNERS AND
BRING IT BACK NEXT MONDAY. MOTION CARRIED.
Council Member Robertson expressed concern about the area
next to Fostoria Park and South 134th. A portion of the area
is greatly impacted by the freeway noise but there is a sec-
tion below the freeway level that is substantially quieter.
Access to this area from Macadam Road is bad.
Council Member Bauch stated that anyone wanting to use
Macadam Road will have to make it five lanes if they want to
develop it for industrial property.
Council Member Robertson said that since we show the area as
CM and we have cascading zoning, that area will probably go
high density apartments. What we do here is critical to the
whole area along the freeway.
Council Member Moriwaki said that macadam Road is unsafe
especially if there is an increase in industrial traffic. He
suggested the area be designated R -1.
Council Member Bauch said if the property is not suitable for
R -1 then it is not suitable for apartments. If our zoning
allows residential to be built there, may be we need to
reconsider the cascading in the industrial zones.
Mr. Pace commented that R -1 in this area would have an
industry on two sides and the freeway to the east.
MOVED BY BAUCH, SECONDED BY DUFFIE, THAT THE ZONING ORDINANCE
BE CHANGED SO THAT IT DOES NOT ALLOW RESIDENTIAL ABOVE RMH.*
Council Member Bauch explained that this would apply
throughout the City. There would be no cascading zone from
now on. Council Member Moriwaki clarified that the intent is
to prevent residential developments in the commercial zones.
Council Member Harris said that this would prevent someone
from living above their shop. This would eliminate the
opportunity that was put in the ordinance to help reduce
traffic.
*MOTION CARRIED WITH HARRIS VOTING NO.
MOVED BY ROBERTSON, SECONDED BY STOKNES, THAT THE TRIANGLE
PIECE OF PROPERTY (at 48th Ave. So. between Macadam Road and
the freeway) BE SHOWN AS LIGHT INDUSTRY ON THE COMPREHENSIVE
PLAN AND REMAIN R -1 -7.2 ON THE ZONING MAP. MOTION CARRIED
WITH BAUCH VOTING NO.
Council Member Bauch voted no because of access through the
property, a commercial street will have to be developed and
the residents are going to complain.
MOVED BY MORIWAKI, SECONDED BY STOKNES, THAT THE SECTION
NORTH OF THE TRIANGLE (48th Ave. So. north to the City boun-
dary) BE ALSO SHOWN ON THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AS C -M and
R -1 -7.2 ON THE ZONING MAP. MOTION CARRIED.
MOVED BY DUFFIE, SECONDED BY HERNANDEZ, THAT THIS ITEM BE
BROUGHT FORWARD TO THE NEXT REGULAR MEETING WITH THE PLANNING
COMMISSION'S RECOMMENDATIONS AND THE CHANGES MADE BY COUNCIL.
MOTION CARRIED.
TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL, COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE
September 26, 1988
Page 3
SPECIAL ISSUES - Cont.
RECESS: Council declared a five minute recess, back to order at 9:30
9:25 -9:30 p.m. p.m.
Discussion on the
proposed Fire Dist.
#1 annexation
John McFarland, City-Administrator, explained that Council
will need to pass a resolution of acceptance. If Council
decides not to pass the resolution, the annexation is no
longer an issue. The approved resolution will be sent to the
County Council. Based on this, they will pass an ordinance
placing the issue on the ballot. If they do so the election
will be set for February 7, 1989. If this doesn't happen,
the City would have the right to challenge the action.
John Colgrove, Attorney, sited the procedure to be followed.
C/53
Rick Beeler, Planning Director, explained that the King
County Council has to pass their ordinance by December 19,
1988, in order to get the Fire District #1 annexation elec-
tion on the ballot. We must have our resolution on the
action we want to take to the County by October 24, 1988.
Right now, we are all pushing toward the February election.
This will allow more time to resolve some of the issues.
Ross Earnst, Public Works Director, explained that once the
City and the County have arrived at approximate revenues,
they will meet to discuss the capital projects in the area.
Hopefully, they will come up with capital operating costs for
the 16th Avenue Bridge, capital costs for the East Marginal
Way Bridge, and the street project. Their next meeting with
the County will be October 3.
John Colgrove, Attorney, said that Steve Miller, Attorney for
the King County Council expressed the concern by the County
that Tukwila not move too fast. They would like to have
further meetings with staff. Next Monday night, our Council
can pass a resolution saying they accept the boundaries set
by the Boundary Review Board with or without an Interlocal
Agreement with the County.
Council Member Bauch encouraged Council to pass the resolu-
tion to enable the annexation to go on the ballot and then
the City will face the problems as they arise.
Mayor Van Dusen explained that the reason for trying to
obtain an interlocal agreement is that the City would have
the facts before Council considered the resolution to proceed
with the annexation. One of the main subjects besides the
16th Avenue Bridge that has not been addressed is the per-
mitting process for heavy industry in the north end of the
City. We will be dealing with different types of industries
than now and with different types of permits that are needed
immediately. We don't want to get into a separate permitting
process. Another thing is Police and Fire. We are going to
have to raise the level of our fire inspections. Eventually,
if we proceed with these four annexations, we are going to
have four fire stations. Is it efficient use of services to
operate out of the existing stations. In the Police
Department, we have not addressed the nature of the area and
how we are going to police them. The cost per capita for
Patrol is going to be very expensive. In Public Works we are
going to have put in a few more signals and we haven't
addressed surface water management. We will need to update
the Comprehensive Sewer and Water Plans. We need interlocal
agreements on the operation of the bridge; how we are going
to provide police coverage until our department is staffed;
how do we deal with the peninsula across the 16th Avenue
Bridge, and we need to address the work in progress.
APPLICON
DATE ATI
FILE NUMBER
PROJECT NAME
I ADDRESS
I APPLICANT
DICK CHAPIN
FERGUSON /BURDELL
FILE
I CROSS REFERENCE
88 -7 -DR
EPIC -16 -88
ACTION
1/1/88
88 -1 -SPE
' EMBASSY SUITES
15920 WEST VALLEY HIGHWAY
10/26/88
88 -2 -SPE
JESUS IS ALIVE
606 INDUSTRY DRIVE, BUILDING 8
JESUS IS ALIVE FELLOWSHIP
88 -2 -CUP
I
SPECIAL PERMISSION 1988
ikk4 At.
. • . •
• • • • • • • •:::• • .,1:;•• • • .•• •
17 .46 A
Fre,
Pp j KR* VT.
P%ilo
wo.
E.
TIM [I
EXISTING DESIGN
REVIEW AREAS
Development within 200 feet of
the Green River requiring a
shoreline permit
Commercial development In
excess of 10,000 square feet in
RMH PO Cl
All commercial development In
C2 CM CP
Development of multi-family in
excess of twelve (12) units in
R2 R3 R4 RMH PO Cl
Development north of 1-405 in
all zones excluding single-family
homes
1AL
• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
•
IWO
CITY OF TUKWILA
ZONING
V1 I
roma
Nat
AO1 Y OFOLOCE 14.1413131 AIL
at ThE SOL DAt MASI. lOpa
;;Ln MAm
Met 'NerAtok =cum
•
••:• . •
,• •• • .,••••,•-,••• • -.• ••,:+c " • ' • - " •
f •
, :r7,1;1..P4 . 4.T!. , A'rl,P, • a•i•: ' • "
.'. •
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII1111111111111k11111.11/11111M11 III III 11111111
0 VITUS INCH 1 3 5 .. 6. 8 9 • 10 • 11 14441 12
\ 1F THIS MI CROF ILMED :DOCUMENT:. IS LESS •
,.„. • • • CLEAR ;THAN' •TH I S NOT ICE ITIS-DUE TO •••
• aa • I - -nAns mw,' — I" "'A "•
or
•
Oe 6 Z • "
• , ;
ILKIN1.18■1111.•1011.
'
9Z 9Z 1 7E CZ I ZZ 1.3
E RA AGRICULTURAL
SUGLE FAMLY RESIDENTIAL
R•I-96
SIPE FAMLY RESIDENTIAL
IV& FAMLY RESIDENTIAL
i sgo FAMILY RESIDENTIAL
E TILE AND FOUR WILY RESIDENTIAL
E APARTNENTS
ri R mTTIPLE RESIDENCE HIGH DENSTY
2 rg AND CFRCE
?,80-130RHOCO RETAIL
ffi 2E RETAIL
C'D
PLANNED Business CENTER
?N PARK
t INDUSTRY
FAMLY INDUSTRY
* RESTRICTED ZONING
CITY OF TUKWILA
ZONING
RESIDENTIAL/VS NON-RESIDENTIAL CASCADE
-. ;•• ' '711:1/41•44
ig,Ntt, ;4
•..
0 II MINCH 1 3•••.
".•
it*
Acommermmmrwmou,SC
ON THE .20ipon oF,AESIL rhea
zCTTaLac
L.W, witusEttIAAva
IF THIS MICROFILMED DOCUMENT is ESS
CL EAR. THAN.THISMOTICE, IT 'IS—DUE TO
THE UALITY OF THE ORIGINACDOCUMENT
-;.,! • .
, ■:!;'
.7. 9 10 11 ' 'ADEINNI " Wff 12
1 1111111111111111111 1111111 I II run Iffl HI I
r r
70;
•
R-I-12.O
R+12D
R-1420 \
NIIMA NOT•1101■110a
R-I-7.2
11+72 R3
4114 003
• OM 0
R-A AGRICULTURAL
SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL
El gal FAMILY RESIDENTIAL
FAMLY RESCENTIAL
I VVO FAMLY FESCENTIAL
R ii-REE AND FOUR FAMLY RESCENTIAL
El 2 - 0 4 W ApARwENTs
E I NITTPLE RESIDENCE HIGH CENSITy
F AND CFFICE
E %3-1BORHOOD RETAL
C-2
I R4:41 RETAIL
El IUNNED BUSIESS CENTER
?Fit PARK
El MIT INDUSTRY
El MELT INDUSTRY
* RESTRICTED ZONING
C-2
CITY OF TUKWILA
ZONING
ADOPT ANCE HAIM MIL
ON TM Ifni Dal WAN.. IOU
• • .
•.:
0 " THS INCH 3
OE 6 z.Z
1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111t1INWIIIIIIII IIIM, 141111. 11111111.qq . 1:1:11111:7 . 11 11
, :1: . : 11 11:1
E
7 ir THCQUALITY OVTHE ORIGINAL 'DOCUMENT
•
CLEAR THAN THIS:NOTICE, IT IS:-DUE TOk. IF THIS ; MICROFILMED ,DOCUMENT IS. LESS
6, 7 . 8
6 • 8
9 10 • 11 " 12
.,;
MN 9011111 1 r ZaL •t"-- ,
Mr
al „„.1 i v._,... ,..„
.4.,,,,.•
Hymn , p■ i/ 1P - ",
11.91.3millE 111 - � I
Ill
L v p.;:fr ..
S 14 �j A O /:/.);
j j� �� {ti : . ....."
1 t�
ti.
/ �r r
,
1»
1.
Oen
Single Family Zoning R•1
Multi Family Zoning including R•2 ,R•3, R•4,RMH
All Other Zoning Classifications Including
P 0, C -1, C -2, C -FA , M -1, M -2
N City Limits Including Proposed Annexations
12/88
Cascading Zoning
P1F 3
2
�Hq+I +� + +I +� +lq+l+� +Iq +Iraq �rlr�ryl�il �rl!�4!�Nry+l+ iliigiJu+1l {I({W + II�IU�llt�lll�lll�tlt� +li��l��I�lli�ltliggrl+ + Ig ilililgqi� +IgIUIIUpUIIUpIiliU�gii
3 .4 .. . , 5 ... 6 7 . - 8 9 10 11 12
2
31
APPLICATION
DATE (FILE NUMBER
PROJECT NAME
ADDRESS
APPLICANT
FILE
CROSS REFERENCE I
ACTION.
1/1/88
88 -1 -SPE
• EMBASSY SUITES
15920 WEST VALLEY HIGHWAY
DICK CHAPIN
FERGUSON /BURDELL
88 -7 -DR
EPIC -16 -88
10/26/88
88 -2 -SPE
JESUS IS ALIVE
606 INDUSTRY DRIVE, BUILDING 8
JESUS IS ALIVE FELLOWSHI'
88 -2 -CUP
:1
SPECIAL PERMISSION 1988