Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPermit 88-04-R - CITY OF TUKWILA - THORNDYKE PRE-ANNEXATION ZONING CODE AMENDMENT88-04-R 88-4-R THORNDYKE ANNEXATION PREANNEXATION ZONING June 7, 1989 Harry Sanders Department of Elections 553A Administration Building Very truly yours, Gerald A. Peterson Council Administrator Attachments AUDREYGRUGER LOIS NORTH District 1 District 4 District 7 King County Council Ron Sims, Chair Gerald Peterson, Council Administrator Room 402, King County Courthouse Seattle, Washington 98104 (206) 296-1000 RE: CITY OF TUKWILA - Thorndyke ANNEXATION (election method) Ordinance No. 1510 BRB No. 1538, K C Ordinance No. 8819. All necessary documents and required reports are now a matter of record on the above subject, therefore the processing of this proposal is finalized. Accordingly, we are forwarding copies of the necessary documents to the various interested county departments and other agencies. • CC: Department of Assessments Boundary Review Board Building and Land Development Division General Services Division METRO Planning Division + Planning & Graphics Department of Public Works Department of Public Safety . *Environmental Health. Division . Washington State Department of Ecology . Kroll Maps Thomas Brothers Maps Chicago Title Insurance Company Commonwealth Land Title Insurance First American Title Company of WA Ticor Title Insurance Safeco Title Insurance Company Transamerica Title Insurance Company Washington Natural Gas Company K.C. C 911 Program Office of Finance - Don Robinson City of Tukwila ♦ o ta i CYNTHIA SULLIVAN RON SIMS GREG NICKELS District 2 District 5 District 8 Printed on recycled paper BILL REAMS Oistrict 3 BRUCE LAING ,tact 6 GARY GRANT •3tnct 9 ZONING CODE AMENDMENT COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLAN COMPREHENSIVE PLAN CITY OF TUKWILA WASHINGTON ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA, WASHINGTON, ANNEXING CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY COMMONLY KNOWN AS THE THORNDYKE ANNEXATION AREA, ADOPTING ZONING CODE AND LAND USE REGULATIONS FOR THE ANNEXED AREA, PROVIDING THAT SAID ANNEXED AREA SHALL NOT BE REQUIRED TO ASSUME ANY SHARE OF THE CITY'S EXISTING INDEBTEDNESS, AND ESTABLISHING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Tukwila received a petition certified as sufficient by the King County Prosecuting Attorney, calling for an election to vote upon annexation of certain unincorporated territory contiguous to the City, and WHEREAS, the City Clerk of the City of Tukwila determined that the signa- tures on the petition were sufficient and filed the Certificate of Sufficiency with the City Council, and WHEREAS, the City Council by Resolution 1081, passed July 18, 1988, approved the proposed Thorndyke annexation area election - method annexation, and WHEREAS, the SEPA responsible official for the City issued a Declaration of Non - Significance, and WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of RCW 35A.14.330 and 35A.14.340, the City Council adopted Ordinance Nos. 1486, 1487 and 1488, providing for zoning and land use regulations for the area to become effective upon annexation, and WHEREAS, the King County Boundary Review Board approved the annexa- tion in File No. 1538, dated December 8, 1988, and WHEREAS, the City Council in Resolution 1097, passed December 12, 1988, approved the proposed Thorndyke annexation area election method and requested an election date, and WHEREAS. pursuant to King County Council Ordinance No. 8819, an election was held in the area proposed for annexation on March 14, 1989. with the results of said election being that the voters approved annexation together with the proposed zoning and land use regulations and rejected assumption of the City's outstanding indebtedness. and WHEREAS, the County Canvassing Board will submit the Statement of Canvass to the King County Council, and the King County Council will enter its with regard tr+Av*!rr. ATV, a, certitiect 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: THORNDYKE ANNEXATION ORDINANCE Page 2 Section 1.' ' Annexation. The real property known as the Thorndyke Annexa- tion Area, more particularly described on Exhibit A attached hereto, and shown on Exhibit B : attached hereto, both of which are incorporated herein by this reference as if set forth in full, should be and hereby is annexed to and made a part of the City of Tukwila as of s 1989, ; and shall thereafter be subject to the zoning and land use re ations as adopted in City of Tukwila Ordinance Nos. 1486, 1487 and 1488. Section 2. Assumption of Indebtedness. Pursuant to the results of the annexa- tion election, the property, within the territory annexed hereby shall not be required to assume through assessment or taxes, any indebtedness, bonded or otherwise, contracted prior to or existing as of the effective date of the annexation. Said prop- erty shall be assessed and taxed at the same rate and on the same basis as property within the City to pay for any bonds, issued or other debts contracted subsequent to the date of annexation. ce of the City A APPROVED: Section 3. ' Effective Date. This 'ordinance shall be in force and effect five days after publication of the attached Summary which is hereby approved. PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF. TUKWILA, WASH- INGTON, at a special meeting thereof this .47 V day of e'.ct4 ,1989. Filed with the City Clerk: J I? Passed by the City Council: 3 - 7 - P9 Published Valley Daily News: 3 1/ - P9 Effective Date: di- 4- P9 Ordinance Number /S/ O G L. Van Dusen, Mayor ATTEST /AUTHENTICATED: / 7 Lo mine Anderson, City Clerk A parcel of land situated in Section 22. and in a,.portion of the west -`1/2 of Section 23. all in T23N. R4s.. W.M. described as follows r : Commencing. at, Iho northwest corner. of 'Section 23.. T23N. R44; thence'north1734'.41.5" east. feet to_the easterly extension of the north` margin of South 14.4th Street and the :TRW POINT OF BIGINNING /. thence continuing .easterly along said easterly extension to the 'east' line of Primary State Highway No. 1 as condemned under Superior: Court Cause No. 598539. records"of Ring County. WA; .thenc..southerly along said east line to its intersection with the centerline of 530 Avenue Southi :; thence southerly along 'said centerline to its intersection with the easterly :extension of north aargin of South lSlat.Street. said centerline also b.ing the Corporate eoundary of the. City of Tukwila as filed in the •office of the Secretary: of State. in " Washington State per King County Commissioner's Risolution •23309, dated 10- 11 -61= thence, westerly along, said north margin and`the westerly extension thereof to thecenterlino of 51st Avenue South thence southerly along the centerline of Slst Avenue South to the . southerly margin of, State Highway 518 as. ..condemned under Superior Court Cause No. 656772:4 records of :King County.' WA,' thence westerly southerly margin to its intersection with the east margin Of 42nd Avenue South; thence 'southerly along said east margin to it intersection with the .:north margin of.South,l60th Street; thence' westerly', :along. said north margin to the east margin of Pacific 8ighway South; thence northerly :along said east margin to the north margin of South 144th streets thence _ .easterly . ' along said north margin to the .2202 POINT OF BEGINNING. EXHIBIT A -113N003 .1!;:LI.; ) S 1 1 :C rid ze bJ 0::1 111333N 4to 4 -a 1 a 0 0 0 4 4 DOA HDM /1859C ORDINANCE NO. January 4, 1989 Introduced by: Greg Nickels Proposed No.: 89 -31 8819 AN ORDINANCE establishing the date of an election on the question of annexation, zoning and assumption on indebtedness to the City of Tukwila of an unincorporated area known as Thorndyke. STATEMENT OF FACT: 1. The City of Tukwila, Washington, by Resolution No. 1081 has determinekk that it is in the public interest, health, safety and general welfare to provide for annexation of an area known as Thorndyke in accordance with Chapter 35A.14 R.C.W. 2. Said resolution does satisfy the provisions of R.C.W. 35A.14.010 for qualification for annexation. 3. The City of Tukwila, by Resolution No. 1081 adopted July 18, 1988, concurs in the annexation of the area known as Thorndyke as provided by R.C.W. 35A.14.050. 4. Pursuant to the provisions of RCW 36.93.100, the Boundary Review Board (BRB) invoked jurisdiction and in accordance with RCW 36.39.160 on December 8, 1988, filed its written decision approving the proposed annexation as submitted. 5. Pursuant to Chapter 29.13 and RCW 35A.14, the council deems an emergency exists for the purpose of calling a special election. BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF KING COUNTY: SECTION 1. A special election shall be held on the 14th day of March, 1989, in accordance with R.C.W. 35A.14.050 to be held within the territory of the proposed annexation, for the purpose of submitting to the qualified voters within said territory the questions of annexation, zoning and assumption of indebtedness. SECTION 2. The number of registered voters within the subject areas is estimated at 1,106 as nearly as may be determined from available records, and has been certified as such. SECTION 3. The ballot title, as directed by statute, should be substantially as follows: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 A. Shall the area as described in this ordinance of unincorporated King County commonly known as Thorndyke be annexed to and be a part of the City of Tukwila and the zoning and land use regulations for the area as found in City of Tukwila be adopted? FOR ANNEXATION AND ADOPTION OF PROPOSED ZONING AND LAND USE REGULATIONS AGAINST ANNEXATION AND ADOPTION OF PROPOSED ZONING AND LAND USE REGUL' A7I,ONS HDM /1859C /Jan. 4, 1989 -2- 8619 B. Shall all property within the area, upon annexation, be assessed and taxed at the same rate and on the same basis as the property of the City of Tukwila is assessed and taxed to pay for all or any portion of the outstanding indebtedness of the City, including assessments for taxes in payment of any bonds issued or debts contracted prior to or existing as of the date of annexation? FOR ASSUMPTION OF INDEBTEDNESS AGAINST ASSUMPTION OF INDEBTEDNESS SECTION 4. The boundaries of the territory proposed for annexation are hereby described as follows: A parcel of land situated in Section 22, and in a portion of the West 1/2 of Section 23, all in Township 23 North, Range 4 East, W.M. described as follows: Commencing at the Northwest corner of Section 23, Township 23 North, Range 4 East; Thence North 1 East, 30 feet to the Easterly extension of the North margin of South 144th Street and the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; Thence continuing Easterly along said Easterly extension to the East line of Primary State Highway No. 1 as condemned under Superior Court Cause No.598539, Records of King County, WA; Thence Southerly along said East line to its intersection with the centerline of 53rd Avenue South; Thence Southerly along said centerline to its intersection with the Easterly extension of the North margin of South 151st Street: said centerline also being the corporate Boundary of the City of Tukwila as filed in the office of the Secretary of State, in Washington State per King County Commissioner's Resolution No. 23309, dated October 11, 1961; 29 30 31 32 33 Thence Westerly along said North margin and the Westerly extension thereof to the centerline of 51st Avenue South; Thence Southerly along the centerline of 51st Avenue South to the Southerly margin of State Highway 518 as condemned under Superior Court Cause No. 656772, Records of King County, WA; Thence Westerly along said Southerly margin to its intersection with the East margin of 42nd Avenue South; Thence Southerly along said East margin to its intersection with the North margin of South 160th Street; Thence Westerly along said North margin to the East margin of Pacific Highway South; Thence •Ngrtherly along said East margin to the North margin of South 144th 'Street; Thence Easterly along said North margin to the TRUE POINT ,OF BEGINNING. SECTION 5. The notice of election shall be published as required by law. SECTION 6. As provided in RCW 29.36.120 and King County motion 7393, the King County council requests the manager of records and election department to conduct the election by mail. INTRODUCED AND READ for the first time this 2 7'{c, day of Arittfkiket, , 1986. PASSED this gcoq^, day of ATTEST: of the t,ouncil A.�, APPROVED this ) 7 day of , 198'. n J HDM /1859C /Jan. 4,1989 al KING Ci Y COUNCIL COUNT nin WASHINGTON ..._. - 1 � 6x19 , 1981. 5 16OTH ST wTn _.I U U I s 14•TH ST ,d III X111 A 1111111iMiiiiiii= "' MIME ALIMIE11111111111MIN slim mow zinin_, M•ll t••11 THORNDYKE ANNEXATION COMPREHENSIVE PLAN !LEGEND ; L'�' HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL ® MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL. 0 LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL PARKS AND OPEN SPACE E PUBLIC FACILITIES E COMMERCIAL �►� OFFICE LIGHT INDUSTRIAL effective 4 -6 -89 CITY OF TUKWILA WASHINGTON ORDINANCE NO. /i 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 THORNDYKE 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 described area be annexed to the City of Tukwila, and the requested pre - annexation zoning, and WHEREAS, the SEPA responsible official has made a nonsignificance, and WHEREAS, the City Council, in Ordinance No. Comprehensive Land Use Policy Plan Map for the area, and NOW, THEREFORE, THE TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF of . , 1988. APPROV OFF IC ATTEST /AUTHENTICATED: CIT MAXINE ANDERSON AS TO FORM: ' By / FI WITH WITH THE CITY CLERK: PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL: //- 7- SI" PUBLISHED: EFFECTIVE DATE: // ORDINANCE NO.: i 3 =3 F HE CI 7t _ the hereinafter petitioners have determination of has amended the 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, 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. ' THORNDYKE REV. MAY 17, 1988 A parcel of land situated in Section 22, and in a portion of the west 1/2 of Section 23, all in T23N, R4E. W.M. described as follows: • Commencing at the northwest corner of Section 23. T23N. R4E; thence north 1 14'41.5" east. 30 feet to the easterly extension of , the : north margin of South 144th Street and the TRUE POINT OF • BEGINNING; thence : continuing easterly along said easterly extension to the east line . of Primary State Highway No. 1 as •condemned under Superior Court Cause No. 598539, records of King County. WA; •thence.southerly along said east line to its intersection with the centerline of 53rd Avenue South; thence southerly along said centerline to its intersection with the easterlyextension of the north margin of South 151st Street. said centerline also being the Corporate Boundary of the City of Tukwila as filed in the office of the .Secretary of State, in Washington State,:. per King County Commissioner's Resolution 423309. dated 10-11-61; thence westerly along said north margin and the westerly extension thereof to the centerline of -51st Avenue South; thence southerly along the centerline of 51st Avenue South to the 'southerly. margin of State Highway 518 as condemned under Superior Court Cause No. 656772. records of King County. WA; thence westerly along said southerly margin to its intersection withthe-east margin of 42nd Avenue South; thence southerly along said east margin to it intersection with the nOrtkalargin of South 160th Street; thence Westerly along said north margin to the east margin of Pacific Highway South; thence northerly along said east margin to the north margin of South 144th Street; thence easterly along said north margin to the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING, EXHIBIT A City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila Washington 98188 (206) 433-1800 Gary L. VanDusen, Mayor MEMORANDUM TO: City Council FROM: Mayor Gary Van Dusen DATE: November 4, 1988 SUBJECT: FOSTER AND THORNDYKE ANNEXATIONS ROAD IMPROVEMENTS During the Council's October 24, 1988 final deliberations on the zoning for these annexations, it became a concern of the Council. This in turn perhaps influenced the Council on zoning. This memorandum is some information to help clarify any confusion about road improvements that occurred on or subsequent to October 24, 1988. SEPA (State Environmental Policy Act) is the basis of evaluating traffic impacts and requiring road improvement mitigation of those traffic impacts. Rezone, build- ing permit and Board of Architecture Review actions all include the SEPA process. SEPA evaluation is based upon the details included in those actions. Rezones feature only general information about uses, thereby making identification of spe- cific traffic impacts difficult to identify. Building permits and BAR actions have very specific site plan and building proposals that make traffic impacts easy to identify, document and mitigate. For these reasons, my opinion is that rezoning is more.difficult and tenuous a pro- cess to dependably acquire road improvements related to development. Instead, the most reliable way to acquire those improvements is the BAR and/or building permit processes where specific and detailed development is known and capable of evaluation. SEPA requires accurate evaluation of development impacts. Staff adequately and conscientiously does that evaluation. In light of the time spent by the task forces and Planning Commission in recommending zoning for these areas and with the knowledge that the SEPA process can address the Council's concerns on the impacts of zoning in relation to street improvement requirements, it is recommended to zone property in the annexations according to your opinion of appropriate zoning and leave consideration of road improvements to the administrative SEPA process. The Planning Commission recommendation for the Foster area (Area 1, attached map) could therefore be zoned R -3 or PO and designated Office on the Comprehensive Plan. Area 1 is the best example in the annexations of the road improvement issue and resolution of the issue. ..'. ikhtF% w$4•.1.M AIi::.:•:.tVeawtixw a vi1LA • 1908 CITY COUNCIL DIRECTION AREA #1A KING COUNTY PROPERTY OWNER.COMMENT CITY COUNCIL DIRECTION ............__... .... ...... .w..na+...vec . Mtt.c. City of Tukwila PLANNING DEPARTMENT 620Q Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, Washington 98188 (206) 433 -1849 DATE: October 31, 1988 TO: TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL FROM: MOIRA CARR BRADSHAW, PLANNING DEPARTMENT SUBJECT: THORNDYKE ANNEXATION UPDATE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ZONING PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION MED DENSITY RES. R3 MED DENSITY RES. R3 MED DENSITY RES. NO COMMENT OFFICE RS -7200 & RM -2400 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 MED DENSITY RES. RM 2400, RM -1800 & RS -7200 PROPERTY OWNER COMMENT HIGH DENSITY RES. R4 W/2400 s.f. RESTRICTIONS PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION OFFICE PO W /LIMIT OF R3 FOR RESIDENTIAL USES PO W /FULL CASCADE R1 - 7.2 patimisan• srGy'+.' aticcr `t4ayG�C City Council October 31, 1988 Page 2 AREA #2 KING COUNTY AREA #3 KING COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION PROPERTY OWNER COMMENT CITY COUNCIL DIRECTION COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ZONING HIGH /MAX DENSITY RM 1800 & RS 7200 PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION MED DENSITY RES. R3 PROPERTY OWNER COMMENT HIGH DENSITY RES. RMH CITY COUNCIL DIRECTION MED DENSITY RES. R3 SINGLE FAMILY LOW DENSITY RES. MED DENSITY RES. LOW DENSITY RES. AREA #4 KING COUNTY NEIGHBORHOOD/ RS -7200 COMM. BUSINESS, & RM 1800 HIGH /MAX DENSITY RES. & SINGLE FAMILY PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION LOW DENSITY RES. R1 - 7.2 PROPERTY OWNER COMMENT COMMERCIAL C2 CITY COUNCIL DIRECTION LOW DENSITY RES. R1 - 7.2 RS 7200 R1 - 7.2 R2 or R3 R1 - 7.2 October 24, 1988 7:00 P.M. CALL TO ORDER COUNCIL MEMBERS -- PRESENT OFFICIALS PRESENT CITIZEN'S COMMENTS Tukwila Historical Society NEW BUSINESS Disc. on pre - annexation zoning & comp. plan amendments for Foster annex. TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL City Hall COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING Council Chambers MINUTES MOVED BY MORIWAKI, SECONDED BY DUFFIE, THAT COUNCILMEMBER BAUCH ACT AS CHAIRMAN OF THE MEETING IN THE ABSENCE OF COUNCIL PRESIDENT HARRIS. MOTION CARRIED. Chairman Bauch called the Tukwila City Council Committee of the Whole Meeting to order. JOE H. DUFFIE, EDGAR D. BAUCH (CHAIRMAN), MARILYN G. STOKNES, JOAN HERNANDEZ, DENNIS L. ROBERTSON, CLARENCE B. MORIWAKI. Mayor Gary L. Van Dusen, Maxine Anderson (City Clerk), Rick Beeler (Planning Director), Moira Bradshaw (Associate Planner), John Colgrove (City Attorney), Ross Earnst (Public Works Director), Jack Pace (Senior Planner). Janelle Baldwin, audience, President of the Tukwila Historical Society, stated she has been concerned because the storage area and vault where the Society has kept historical objects has been entered. The storage area has been cleared and the library is now using the area. In 1978 the Society was given access to two areas by referendum in the library building. The items stored in the storage area were mainly furniture such as chairs, two doors of value and a table. Mayor Van Dusen stated that due to the need of space for the library it was necessary to use that storage space. The doors have been put in a dry crawl space and the chairs are being used by the library. Councilmembers voiced the opinion that the Historical Society should have been notified that the space was needed for the library and the whereabouts of the contents of the room made known to the Society. Louise Strander, audience, stated she received a call from the City Clerk explaining the need for the storage area in the absence of Janelle Baldwin and Joan Davis. She assumed a follow -up letter would be sent to the Historical Society. Mayor Van Dusen stated the material from the storage room did not leave the library building. Chairman Bauch requested that a report on the matter be sent to the Community Affairs Committee. Councilmember Moriwaki noted that this and the next discussion on the Thorndyke annexation is not a second public hearing asindicated on the agenda. Jack Pace, Senior Planner, explained the City zoning versus County zoning. The area being discussed is near the Park and Ride lot. MOVED BY ROBERTSON, SECONDED BY HERNANDEZ, THAT AREA 1 BE ZONED AS IT IS -- R -1 AND BE GIVEN THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ZONING OF C -1 WITH A RESTRICTION THAT NO RESIDENCES HIGHER THAN R -1 CAN BE BUILT THERE. MOTION CARRIED, WITH DUFFIE VOTING NO. Jack Pace, Senior Planner, opened the discussion on Area 2 stating the Task Force recommended Single Family and the Planning Commission recommended C -M Industrial Park. MOVED BY ROBERTSON, SECONDED BY HERNANDEZ, THAT AREA 2 BE ZONED AS R -1 AND SHOWN ON THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AS LIGHT INDUSTRIAL - CO"1'1ERCIAL. MOTION CARRIED. Jack Pace, Senior Planner, opened the discussion on Area 3, explaining the Task Force recommended R -1 and the Planning Commission recommended R -3. MOVED BY ROBERTSON, SECONDED BY DUFFIE, THAT AREA 3 AND THE PIECE OF PROPERTY ACROSS THE STREET BE ZONED AS R -2 AND SHOWN ON THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AS MEDIUM DENSITY. MOTION FAILED, WITH HERNANDEZ VOTING YES. TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING MINU4S'' October 24, 1988 Page 2 NEW BUSINESS - Contd. Disc. on ore - annexation zoning & comp. plan amendments for Foster annex. - contd. RECESS 8:42 - 8:47 P.M. Disc. on pre= annex. zoning & comp. plan amend- ments for Thorn - dyke annexation area. MOVED BY MORIWAKI, SECONDED BY DUFFLE, THAT THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN IN AREA 3 BE MEDIUM DENSITY AND R -1 ZONING.MOTION CARRIED. Councilmember Robertson requested an area beside Area 3 be known as Area 3A. MOVED BY ROBERTSON, SECONDED BY MORIWAKI, THAT AREA 3A BE R -1 ZONING AND MEDIUM RESIDENTIAL DENSITY ON THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. MOTION CARRIED. Jack Pace, Senior Planner, stated Area 4 has current zoning RM -1800 high density in the County. The Task Force and Planning Commission recommended R -1. Chairman Bauch stated the Tukwila City Council concurred with the Task Force and Planning Commission recommendation. Jack Pace, Senior Planner, stated in Area 5 the Task Force could not come up with any recommendation. The Planning Commission recommended R -4. MOVED BY HERNANDEZ, SECONDED BY MORIWAKI, THAT AREA 5 BE ZONED AS R -2 AND MEDIUM DENSITY ON THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. MOTION FAILED, WITH ROBERTSON, BAUCH AND DUFFIE VOTING NO: STOKNES, HERNANDEZ, AND MORIWAKI VOTING YES. ** MOVED BY DUFFIE, SECONDED BY BAUCH, THAT AREA 5 BE REZONED TO R -3 AND A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION OF MEDIUM DENSITY. MOTION FAILED. STOKNES, HERNANDEZ AND MORIWAKI VOTING NO: DUFFIE, BAUCH AND ROBERTSON VOTING YES. Councilmember Robertson called for a reconsideration of the original motion. ** MOTION CARRIED, WITH STOKNES AND HERNANDEZ VOTING NO. Jack Pace, Senior Planner, stated R -2 was recommended by the Task Force for Area 6. MOVED BY ROBERTSON, SECONDED BY MORIWAKI, THAT AREA 6 BE ZONED R -1 WITH A SINGLE FAMILY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION. MOTION CARRIED. Chairman Bauch called for a 5- minute recess. Chairman Bauch called the Committee of•the Whole Meeting back to order, with Councilmembers present as previously listed. Moira Bradshaw, Associate Planner, explained Area 1 and stated the Task Force recommended R -3 and County zoning was between R -3 and R -4. The Planning Commission recommended R -3. MOVED BY ROBERTSON, SECONDED BY MORIWAKI, THAT AREA 1 OF THE THOR.NDYKE ANNEXATION BE ZONED R -1 AND THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN BE MEDIUM DENSITY WITH A POTENTIAL NO HIGHER ;1N R -3. MOTION FAILED, WITH ROBERTSON, HERNANDEZ, STOKNES, BAUCH VOTING NO. MOVED BY HERNANDEZ, SECONDED BY STOKNES, THAT IN AREA 1 COUNCIL ACCEPT THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND ZONING AS RECOMMENDED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF R -3. MOTION CARRIED, WITH DUFFIE VOTING NO. Councilmember Robertson requested that the area immediately to the east of the property just discussed as Area 1 be noted as Area 1A. MOVED BY ROBERTSON, SECONDED BY MORIWAKI, THAT AREA 1A BE CHANGED TO R -1 AND MEDIUM RESIDENTIAL DENSITY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION. MOTION FAILED, WITH HERNANDEZ, DUFFIE, BAUCH VOTING NO. MOVED BY HERNANDEZ, SECONDED BY BAUCH, THAT AREA IA BE ZONED R -3 WITH P -0 OFFICE DESIGNATION ON THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. MOTION FAILED, WITH HERNANDEZ AND BAUCH VOTING YES. 4 `TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING MINUTES October 24, 1988 Page 3 NEW BUSINESS - CONTD. Disc. on pre -. annex. zoning & comp. plan amend- ments for Thorn - dyke annexation - contd. REPORTS Mayor Staff City Attorney MOVED BY BAUCH, SECONDED BY ROBERTSON, THAT AREA lA BE ZONED R -1 WITH OFFICE DESIGNATION ON THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. MOTION CARRIED. Moira Bradshaw, Associate Planner, explained current zoning on Area 2 is RM 1800 and R7200. The Planning Commission recommended R -3. After discussion, Chairman Bauch stated the consensus of the Council is that they accept the Planning Commission recommendation of R -3. Moira Bradshaw, Associate Planner, explained Area 3 has a Comprehensive Plan designation of single family and the Planning Commission recommended single family. Chairman Bauch stated it was the consensus of the Council that they accept the Planning Commission recommendation of single family zoning for Area 3. Moira Bradshaw, Associate Planner, stated for Area 4 the Planning Commission recommended single family low density and this was also the recommendation of the Task Force. Chairman Bauch stated it was the consensus of the Council that they accept the Planning Commission and Task Force recommendation of single family low density for Area 4. P -0 & Design Rev. Moira Bradshaw, Associate Planner, said the text amendment dealt with the P -0 and design review. The design review has been distributed to the Councilmembers. Some things have been added to the design review. This has been summarized under Scope of Authority. It is, in essence, any development in the City, and this would include any areas that annex to the City, would be subject to design review except single family homes, developments of less than 10,000 gross square feet of building area in C -1, C -2, C -P and CM except when they abut or are across the street from residential uses or districts and within 200 feet of the Green River and all developments in M -1 and M -2 except when they abut or are across the street from residential uses or districts and within 200 feet of the Green River. Ms. Bradshaw explained (b) would be any exterior modifications in excess of 10,000 square feet in C -2, C -P and C -M are exempt from design review. MOVED BY ROBERTSON, SECONDED BY HERNANDEZ, THAT ADMINISTRATION MAKE THE TEXT AMENDMENT SUGGESTED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT ON THE DESIGN REVIEW. MOTION CARRIED. Chairman Bauch stated the items discussed at this meeting will be on the agenda of the Regular Meeting on November 7, 1988. Mayor Van Dusen reported the budget will be finalized and ready Friday or at the latest on Monday. Comments from the Councilmembers are requested as soon as possible. Rick Beeler, Planning Director, stated the Riverton, Foster, Thorndyke Task Force is active, getting out information about the annexation and making people aware of the meetings that are being held. The status of the Fire District #1 annexation is not known at this time. The Cascade annexation is being circulated. Larry Hard, City Attorney, stated a letter was sent to the Valley View Estates stating the City would require a great number of conditions. He advised the best course would be for the City to notify the owner that a 180 -day extension period is being granted to them to process a building permit. REPORTS - Contd. City Attorney - contd. MISCELLANEOUS Billboards on.. Interurban COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING MINUTES October 24, 1988 Page 4 Mr. Hard stated the Tukwila Pond development will go to the Board of Architectural Review next week. Councilmember Buach requested information on the two billboards on Interurban be furnished to the Council soon. ADJOURNMENT TO:27 P.M. Chairman Bauch adjourned the Committee of the Whole Meeting. Chairman Edgar D. Bauch i Noma Booher, Recording Secretary October 21, 1988 'M1--Harris Council Member, City of Tukwila 14301 Interurban Ave. So. Tukwila, Washington 98168 Dear Mrs. Harris, We the undersigned would like to take this opportunity to thank you, the members of the Tukwila City Council for listening and and actually considering our plight with regards to our position on the down zoning of the our property located on 51st Ave So that is within the boundaries of the Thorndyke Annexation area. Until we went before the council this last week it seemed that we could talk till we were blue in the face and still not obtain any reaction or concern to our position=_ or to the effects the annexation, as recommended by the Planning Commission, would have upon us. For most of us this property represents a large portion of our retirement, which makes your actions very critical to us. It is for this reason that we appreciate your concerns for our future as it relates to the City of Tukwila needs. During the process of previous meetings and hearings there have been two issues brought up to Justify the down zoning of our properties. From 18 units per acre to 14.5 units per acre. These issues have been an attempt to parallel the conditions of the south slope Tukwila Hill with that of the area on the west side of 51st Ave So between So 152nd and So 144th These concerns were: 1) The so called adverse effects that the 18 units per acre density would have on the schools. 2) The need not to turn the 51st Ave. So area into another Tukwila Hill as it pertains to the excessive density. We surveyed the Tukwila Hill apartment complexes to determine how many school age children these apartments represents for the area and to determine the actual density of units to the acre the area is now supporting in contrast to the existing zoning at 51st Ave. So. Exhibit "A" is a chart representing the number of school age children and the density of the south slope of Tukwila Hill. The total number of school age children that can be counted (Southcenter View Condo was not included in count) living within the apartments complexes on the south slope of Tukwila Hill is 17. This count represents one child for every 33.35 units or acreage that represents the RM 2400 zoning along 51st Ave So (approximately 21 acres) a resulting impact to the schools would be approximately 11 children. Even with an R -4 zoning the impact would only be 14 children. CORRES \SOUTHCTR \COUNCIL ,o,...r.no.,rt.srrtft" fib ti,T ........ ^.l: „Ji.'•: r�'�6��ii �:d,4tiw:� ». 1i ".u. ``1rz..n::Sr�:N „l, �i�ti :u:A.:s.�nrrt......_....__... •...... �... .�........,,._..M..._..�_._.._� _. �.. ............._... �.•...• �._. �____. �....-..-........,............ ........�......... «n.....M•.... ... ?� "', The average unit d..._. acre density on the Tukw( a Hill area is 27.72 units to the acre spanning from 17.75 units to the acre to 40.98 units to the acre. In contrast the existing zoning along 51st Ave. So is 18 units to the acre which is 35% lower in density than the average existing density and upwards to 557 lower in density than the highest existing density. The argument that the existing zoning of RM2400 (18 units to the acre) or a comparable zoning in existence post annexation will exacerbate the already over densitied Tukwila is totally unfounded. Even an R -4 zoning would represent a 47% lower density than the highest density on Tukwila Hill. In fact, if the 51st Ave So hillside is totally developed with the existing zoning it will be a much more eye appealing site than that of Tukwila Hill. As you can see, there is no substance to paralleling the existing conditions of the south slope of Tukwila Hill with the zoning along 51st Ave. So.. The comparison is like comparing apples with oranges. Even with the existing zoning of 18 units per acre the impact of the area would not be remotely as adverse as the conditions of Tukwila Hill. We are confident that you will approach this situation with objectivity and consider the facts and how your decisions affects our lives. We hereby ask that you support an affirmation to at least maintain an equivalent zoning to that is already in place or to zone the subject area to the R -4 zoning designation. Again, we thank you for your attention and consideration. It must be difficult task to listen to all the facets and try to make the correct decision. Respectfully, M ivin E. Roberson Tax Parcel #004200 -0170 4 49_ Phip . /Swanberg Tax Parcel *004200-0160 Wayne L. Ketchersid Tax Parcel #004000 -0650 thru 0660 CORRE S \SOUTHCTR \COUNCIL My l e C. Roberson Donna Swanberg <717222.(4...= CORRES \SOUTHCTR \COUNCIL EXHIBIT "A" TUKWILA HILL UNITS DENSITY SURVEY OCTOBER 20, 1988 PROJECT SQUARE TOTAL UNITS/ SCHOOL AGE FEET UNITS ACRE CHILDREN NEWPORT HEIGHTS 196320 80 17.75 0 LA VISTA 137170 114 36.20 6 TUKWILA'S APTS 126231 81 27.95 0 HAMPTON HEIGHTS 232216 113 21.20 0 VERONA 65897 • 62 40.98 8 SOUTHCENTER VIEW 88760 66 32.39 ? TUKWILA ESTATES 92191 81 38.27 0 SOUTHCENTER APTS 56000 36 28.00 3 TOTALS 994785 633 27.72 17 F y u l e 4 u . 1 ' 4- • tr. !? I o l y-y 4 pp '- 2 y,1y VrA 2' G,7t1G "i,a/-941,- _oa^G,. Za,l177 4 (D7" ,g,.jyp' , ?y am _ ' ! ��?Y 4p4 1; r ( 711/70- t.2 ? I'Zi pv . ' ( 7 (7 "7 '�)). "°°,7*,- ••9? 1 , 7'7 • 2V; 2 / 1 9-pzc' `4; ' •�' - /7-,--2-A O O/re " / /,y "Tvr"Y/ ,' Z ( Ya ' ii'j /,7- k - 40- 9 7 , -M?�,� r�. • . r ' .2-r;7 f adz/- (P• (rl mom ,- �2Ggyp-i- 23.74- s v �%� �✓d`!/��' ( r 21� /�Z r1 �2!/� =/li i �i' /7 -2tp- /77,,,/I°2GY // y7 0 A e2,G1' /Dw2 r, ,-2071,r - 1 I Ta 4 7Ae- 7 /�.l�� Sv _- 7s�.3'3i�,'r � yy (i7/y .7;G4 /. ,� -� ��� /�� �•r ���� ��/1' yZ� �Yir A /�'k✓ni+'�'�'' � - �"'L ' ''� ''� /�" ('" ? a%/ _ c="0,-7,/,./z.- i 7 4-2v x17 (2 l ��' ,9 1' , C . (?" ( >4 70 -24,2=1- 21 1 „1-'701• - P • 6 • - /S -6Sd/ii f ( (2' "Z.'`7.X r, '� ` ' 'zC� etr „zoo..., ,u (.7:.5: 4`{ i:.Y.f.'v.,�:[.':r;+,i::'•WA-4, ]t ?.•l:.Yltiw.., �•l' f,- - 6012 A rAeell/le.e) ayLni.lit-4 4. -rie--7.5i 4e4ree' ‘ci-Yr-v 1, e - e ,, d - w 7 4We 4. 1;0-;z. ) -tt" 6ait / 4 /fao. t.zedee,e_ec.J 4dj 2 'e- eAir-144 7:3 ZAe) 7- -e-a■ j etz-er-t. •e-,:t1 .-e---e--;zet. iv .e:.=-7 -,--) -0 77 - P,,,,,--, ? .e l e. :A /)-e -a-7 -) g4 -/e_e 4•Yee11:40 .4e:44, ) Vle Coett- - --.2,c4 -60-7704-ca-o-x-z) • ,2 42 zr i-0014ek-0 --eieL es-e-6/z40.:-6 -(4, 4Le-ezelA9t1 -- - -- 7 .4-.71: eeee•-154. 7 e2,4-77.7z-e• -40e j • i ., -,z1 z 4 pint. - -_,••.: .2C) - , :)40.141../ -107-1 -- let ..4..e.' 25 4-4 ci,‘.- 4f'722 /Zo o• •---Z•lee----eie-eci eew-e-iz74-A -e-J a ... 5 - e4-7•43‹. ,....,.ca ,,-, /si il-e-ter.. -44--7.2 ..r...- ,... - - ), - ‘e-i4e... -4--e et/ elo s wi/Lde,r1-e-rd Mal •Jizr -e-ae--7-e.c-ge .e...)-zza../.,e-) -e-e-0,---/-ze-e-Z -44,e--/ -•e/e-Z k -16n 1 ,04 P-41. ' / 4 lee d-10-eud -&-7ze44 44 C07 2 ge?.et 712a-e4447,c1 Zee 72.te.e..e.,7?" • . 44a gfie/b( -4 • e ),< 4 ,, w . e - 2J , ae.) Z / deea,,.. „oe vde•eleiii.7.,.-.i-e) ,,g40,6z --ze's -e -eleeee 414 4 z1',,e-ecvieeteteee>4. Dr-eJ 1..ely: -44/20-n- -et46 Atede- 1 ao--014' .2/z~ze-le- da-/re 4J-e-kP ,' u: a atiaiWigS a`f".i TL7i CIS :49EftW Wnn..•v4r.Mw.. ' w+.. r w** ** *.∎∎.__ - To '171.1.c.,-la vl An lint jo•mnissiorl i>>.i',;j° ^ is 'r • • ' for• 2os • Annexation, specifically the area between S. 136 th, . Macacan ?.r.. ,S. 7:44. chia me are against "oning this area for industrial use of any kind. We favor leaving zoned for single family residence asit presently is -oneci for. 1 belleverezoning for industrial use would result inan immediate raise in taxes and we would be stuck with property that could not, be sold for industrial use. The reason Z believe no one would be interested in this aroa for industrial ur;e is the very poor access.There is no way Macadam Rd. , .-ould be adicn?it and because of the ir.rustriel establishments already in place to the north I can s.e no way to build an access street to the area. 1 believe entire area of Foster annexation, should be left zoned as it is or entirely land for single family residence. :•1e certainly do not nedd anymore apartment houses to help create any meee slum and high crime area as now exists along Pacific Highway South. 404114--- I certainly believe that property should not be rezoned so individuals who bought property zoned for single family could make afortune onit In conclusion , if this area is to be rezoned for industrial use I will do everything I can to prevent annexation. Clarence Cool( 1370 Macadam Rd. So. Seattle wash. 98168 J.344...‘„2..e...64„ 6e-el October 10, 1988 Tukwila City Council 5200 Southcenter Blvd. Tukwila, WA 98188 Dear Council Members: Respectfully yours, Wayne and Hazel Ketchersid /4437 - Ic Oh 98/61 vtg W.. Our reasoning for this request is as follows: A variance to allow 2400 square feet per unit would be an acceptable compromise. sn erv. v. e.. r... w.,... w.++ d+aw.rae.matNnw.:4w<nr:n+vr,,r� t+MVxrr: :...007gMet , I We respectfully request that you change your Planning Commission's zoning recommendation for Section 8 (west of 51st Ave. So. from 144th to 154thi to R -4 from R -3. - 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. GI!s ; rvcw.z =, To the Tukwilla City Council: Steven Lawrence 4461 S. 144th I strongly urge the City Council members to endorse the zoning recommendations of the Thorndyke zoning task force. The zoning designations decided upon by the task force were arrived at after many weeks of discussions and consideration. The task force tried to serve the community as a whole while recognizing the concerns of individuals. Compromises were made in an effort to achieve unity in the group's decisions. The most controversial area of concern within the Thorndyke annexation was the property bordering 51st Ave. S. Task force members and several other community residents were concerned with the prospect of large scale apartment development. Two members of the task force favored apartment development as did a few other residents attending the meetings. It should be noted that each of these people have vested interests and stand to profit from any development along the street. In subsequent meetings zoning compromises were adopted and those have been presented to you. It is my belief that our community has as many apartment complexes as it can accomodate without seriously jeopardizing the single - family neighborhood. The complexes near highway 99 have deva- stated adjoining residences due to the problems associated with high density, lower cost housing. Apartment complexes also border the neighborhood to the south along SR 518. Due to the devaluing effect of I -5 it is likely any large complexes built along 51st Ave S. would be relatively inexpensive, attracting a more tran- sient and possibly problem plagued group of renters. Any large population influx along 51st Ave. S. would contribute to the traffic along S. 144th St, which fronts the neighborhood, two schools, and the fire station. That street has considerable pedestrian and bicycle traffic and is dangerous enough. In addi- tion, large complexes would add many students to our schools which are at near capacity now. One of the qualities of our school dis- trict is its smallness; its fine ratio of teachers to students, and the close relationship of the community and the schools. The zoning designation of R -3 and PO for this area would allow development compatible with our community as a whole to proceed at a cautious rate. Construction of high density housing might well send a destabilizing ripple affect through the adjoining single- family neighborhood. We have seen it before; "For Sale" signs abound, families flee, and homes become rentals. You have the opportunity to help us shape our community and provide stabil- ity for our neighborhood. Steven Lawrence Rev. Gary K. Cowden Pastor City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Blvd Tukwila, WA 98188 RE: Thorndyke Annexation Dear Sirs, Thank you for considering our appeal. v= ;:x,:.:.......∎., October 17, 1988 We as a church body are sensitive to the proposed zoning of our facility and ajacent rental houses in the category R -1. Our church has stood on this site since 1931, and over the years has been added a manse property, and two significant additions to the church facility. Most recently was the addition of paved parking. We project that we will experience significant growth in the future, and wish to ensure that the present zoning not hinder us from further expansion. The two rental houses just east of the church were secured not for their value as single - family residences, but for the additional land that could be available for expansion as needed. We feel that, in not too many years from now, those houses will be destroyed and the space utilized for our growing ministry. Currently we are working toward the establishment of a Daycare Center in the church facility, with its playground utilizing some of the back property the two houses occupy. We have been working for about nine months now, and it currently looks like we may open sometime after the first of the year. Again, we desire a zoning code which would not prohibit us from continuing with that ministy. After consultation with others knowledgeable in zoning matters, it was suggested that we appeal for the highest zoning we could secure. It was our understanding that the church property was already zoned B /C, as is the property to our north and west. We feel that zoning would be most helpful for our future as well. Yours very sincerely, Gary K. C owden, Pastor 15880 Military Road South • Seattle, Washington 98188 • (206) 242 -7767 To: Tukwila City Council Subject: Tukwila Comprehensive Zoning on West side of 51st Ave. South from South 144th to South 152nd As noted in the Planning Dept. report, this area has been a controversy since the beginning of the task force meetings this past summer. The debate centered around zoning as R3 versus R4. The opposition for an R4 zoning, as shown on the large Thorndyke annexation map, comes from non residents of that area with the effected owners wanting R4. The present county zoning is RIG 2400 which -is closer to the Tukwila R4 code. The Roberson and Ketchersid homes were the last homes to be built within the subject area and that was 30 years ago. Since the freeway cut thru the area there has been no market for single family residence. Duplexs and /or fourplexs cannot be built because septic tanks are not feasible. A duplex market cannot pay for the tremendous cost of water and sewer upgrading. Recently two builders have shown interest and signed purchase agreements based on the county.zoning of Rm 2400 and acquisition of several acres on which to build. Both builders have signed agreements for sufficient acreage, however, one builder has stated that he cannot build with a density of less than Rm 2400 because of the high cost of private upgrading of the sewer and water lines. mathmatically the figures calculate to a devaluation of approximately $20,000 per acre from an R4 zoning to an R3 zoning. In reality, it is much mare because an R3 zoning essentially kills any market as noted in the previous para— graph. It is virtually impossible for us in this area to support a favorable vote when it would cost us from $40,000 to $50,000 each. Cascade zoning has been brought up several times in the task force meetings. For this area it is a moot point because the hill area essentially isolates 51st Avenue from the Thorndyke plateau above. The "not opened" streets of 146, 148, and 150th are impractical to cut thru because they all exceed the maximum grade allowance of Tukwila. We, the undersigned, strongly urge and recommend a comprehensive zoning code of R4 for the subject area. Name > e7 C? '7� ( i7 � Address 474 5. /s/C, September 12, 1988 Address /3 S/ r �AG/E £, ae Address 1 siC - 2— Q,j — < Address T k` 2/ S. / 4S� W mn del. •IM*3:*iK'F33dWale.,71•S•LY /.17.21!!4• ,V'3.4:... 5 .Y,x0.•.*47:: SUMMARY ZONING DESIGNATION, WEST SIDE 51ST AVENUE SOUTH TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL MEETING, OCTOBER 17, 1988 REQUEST: We request retention of the current King County zoning on the west side of 51st Avenue South from South 144th to South 152nd Street. We are requesting an equivalent designation from Tukwila of R -4 with a 2400 square foot size restriction. This may involve a new or modified zoning designation. We encourage you to look at creative options. The following facts will summarize and support our request. • RM2400 zoning has been in effect on the subject property for more than 20 years (see Attachment 3). • Taxes have been paid on the basis of multiple - family zoning for more than 20 years. • No new homes have been built here since 1959. • Improvements would include installation of sewers, larger water pipes, probably streets, curbs and sidewalks, and grading. These items would be paid for by the developer, and therefore would not impact the Tukwila city budget. It would, however, broaden Tukwila's tax base. • The area is not conducive to maintaining a thriving single family neighborhood. In 1949 Mr. & Mrs. Ketchersid were denied a construction loan by several banks. The reason given: this area was unsuitable for single family development. • As development costs are considerable, it is not economically feasible, according to developers who have contacted us, to build under the proposed R -3 zoning. • The original planning meeting discussion, maps (see Attachment 1) and June 22 handout entitled "Zoning Code Comparisons" (see Attachment 2) compared Tukwila's R -4 zoning to King County's RM2400. *evlln.+P' .i+MxYMTFICJ4F41 1N \4Ur.`*, • • Right -of -way on the west side of 51st Avenue South has been dedicated for road improvement. .,......�.:'..t�,.,.. �ni a ��* �.:`..,. ,.:, r:A;y`f�F+:� ? ? ^.".. °ifi:`d�,'s"J:"ts3avr:•r., • Tukwila City Council - 2 • While there are many suitable apartment building sites along 51st Avenue South, the topography on the back of the property is quite steep. This provides a natural buffer, both vertically and laterally. (See Attachment 4) . • Development of this street will upgrade, revitalize and beautify an area which has deteriorated to the point of being an eyesore. Thank you for listening to our concerns, and considering retention of our current zoning. at. NAME 444 lt_4_414a :: • YY. Y!:: ti.! L+ VekSJ. Yd}'-"'' �Nfi' SX. �+' 4�. '� %i.'!.:?:ht('N +^1:r}I'f,.:N1 FiR'.::`4,�'::::.F �?.r, ADDRESS -pr.• IS1 1 -, Grp -� J '7 •S ! Ct- i 7(5 / 'S 7 S t = T c2 . . 1•. y' 5/ / So £4--' , y11M 1 �D `i l 1 Wi P / 3 'f . S/ /Ivc . ? _:•�.a:.^i.v, +�nas�•.am. nu•.n.^+.+cua•■ �oz'4'?. '',;. stir!�17 JS' l:va ;`d- , r3`. :r': :`1d"ltu,r -.. •,-a.,r..•. .,•,...,.. .........7PwP:. ,, . I.. ::xia:cw:x4tIL duns,VXM.Mpn.Cal =p4:r^r +4t+4c �;:n:,±+r aureaaxr:: �, -vwrr rnwiexma: c Tukwila City Council - 2,4 • While there are many suitable apartment building sites along 51st Avenue South, the topography on the back of the property is quite steep. This provides a natural buffer, both vertically and laterally. (See Attachment 4) . • Development of this street will upgrade, revitalize and beautify an area which has deteriorated to the point of being an eyesore. Thank you for listening to our concerns, and considering retention of our current zoning. NAME ADDRESS gwwerwTaw �n�w.n,�,uM�w•.,C /YA'MSCK1: .: td -67 / - Q� J / t .. / . �G::�� / � L'C: t- 41,1:1 ;.;',i 7'•r,i� . �f A U �✓ �yi sc� ' :1-416;t3,,1443- 1 • :Sys a ' 20 • 1 9 - • .. )3 r A ; ....... •J (Rh i• 1 1" II) 1 1... 1 •s .9 10 :71 ns irj 16 15 72 0 • trf 4 01E1e Ili • _Xi • ST L I a :I 2 144 11/ •1 !•••1 t 1 OW, 11 1 1.1: al ( 1;01/1.. r ....II I 1.1 I 111 2 RS 7200 19 .0 10 17 , \*-) 1.1'11111411II • VI I 16 • • Ill ..1. 1 rot 15 14 1 11 ' 12 • 13 1 Ott.s •1 0 15 • di 1 1 LSI 1, 0.1 11. 31 1% CI ' 14 RM 240? 7 1E to 114 1:0 12 • - 13 y • 11,1 I • NO, /?Rn s OPE.V .-4 .PeJ 8 • .= 9 I- c R !VI -- 2 40 0 ' i t: -4 -• • / • , • 14 11 I 5 I f I • ' t I • / 41 t - 1.1 8. . . . 2400 10 L1- l.IjI F. 1.9 11 tr • , ■ 1. .. i .ie I Ili ."-- I! • • 1 .1 i l'. 1 • 1. el ...• .:. .. 1 i!,911'51 ,i . •,,, ,,.....n , • . ...,.. 1/ i . '. : Ws 1 • .... ....... • ..... .....- - 1 r i • :1 111"113( ..111111 I 1..1 .6 i i .1 I, /■,. F: i .•;* II. iiI16 ' • ‘ " " Il j" 1 - - n " 1, . ... '1111111111.k „RNLI:1111111111111 -, Ell: lgO "*"..... . . . .... .......... % '...- E. • • k 1 1 N LI - II . 11 _ 11 ATTACHMENT 1 ••• 1E - • u 1,4 , r).! .. .. ............ . . . ••••, , pq 1E11 I . ' • j:, AS 7200 ••• IJ (1 , : D.1.111 91 • . to • .t 1 el • I•11 t•I I 110 111100 Mazlm ■m Dtulty M tit.tr Dweiii■r /itarricrti .4efljCg Establishes areas permitting thc maximum population density and also permits certain uses other than residential. e.g. hotels /motels; retirement homes; medical. dental. social services; and professional sod business offices. Mobile home parks arc allowed in this zone. The unclassified uses listed at thc cod of this chart arc also allowed is this zone. There arc so conditional uses in thc zone. Lot coverage /yard requirements: 60% for residential uses. Permitted floor arca: two times the area of she lot. 14U imam lot area: 7200 square feet- kss if developed through a subdivision. Minimum lot arca per dwelling wait of 900 square feet. Misimwm lot width: f0 ft. Lot Height: 35 feet. Height may be increased 1 fk for each additional fool or side yard gad open space. Landscape requirements: 20 ft. landscaped front yard; office development adjacent to a RS. RD. RM, RT. RMHP or S zone must have 10 ft. landscaped side and rcar yards and scat to an RM office, public or institutional use, 5 ft. landscaped side and rcar yards. jM 1100 • Hlab Deadly Mukluk. DwrIlla1 Provides for kith Gerrity living in a residential atmosphere without the necessity of individually maintaining a dwelling unit. Uses permitted outright include multifamily development, mobile home parks, some public facilities, churches. retirement homes. and medical /dental clinics. The unclassified uses listed at the end of this chart are alto allowed is the zone. There arc so conditional uses is the lost. Lot coverage /yard requirements: 50% Minimum lot area: 7200 square feet. Minimum lot area per dwelling sail h 1100 square feel. Miaimusr lot width: 00 feet Height: 33 feet. Height toy be increased 1 ft. for each additional fool of side yard sad open space. Landscape requirements: 20 ft. landscaped front yard. 20 ft. landscaped side and rear yards when adjacent to a RS or S tone and 5 ft. when adjacent to a RMHP, RM. RT or RD zone or a public or rastitutioial use. jM 2400 - Median Deadly Muffled, Dwell[u Establishes permitting relatively high density living while maintaining • residential environment. Allows multifamily development, mobile home parks. Bone public tacit" " churches, retirement homes, and medical /dental clinics. The unclassified uses listed at the cad of this chart arc also allowed. There are no conditional wars is this mac. Lot coverage /yard requirements: 501E Minimum lot arca: 7200 square feet. Minimum lot area per dwelling unit is 2400 square feet. Height: 30 feet. Noa- residential uses can escccd this height under controlled conditions. Landscape requirements: 70 ft. landscaped front yard. 20 ft. laadscaped side and rear yards when adjacent to • RS or S eons and S ft. when adjacent to a RMHP, RM. RT or RD zone or a public or rastitutional use. Prafn.jeul ■d Office ju Provides areas professional family zone, landscape requirements increase. ATTACHMENT 2 a Under certain conditions, Kiss County allows taller buildings than Tukwila. • Under certain conditions, King County allows ta:•cr buildings than Tukwila. The King County zone is more restrictive and doc not allow the type of uses included as conditional uses in the Tukwila zone. King County does not allow the more intense um •ssified uses listed at the end of this chart and Tukwila does. Height requ •ements arc similar, although Tukwila allows slightly taller buildings. The King County zone is more restrictive and doc• not allow the type of uses included as conditional uses in Ike Tukai', tone. King County does not allow the more inseam uaclassifitd uses listed at the end of this chart and Tukwila dots. 11�ANtt. • The biggest part of my local to tax. Will my property tax go uF VI VV It I. a. . M1I1I1•A • Property taxes in the City of Tukwila are slightly lower than in King County. For example, on a $100,000 home, the property tax in Tukwila is $47 -$127 less annually, depending on whether existing City bonded indebtedness is assumed and on your current tax rate for school and fire districts. What is "bonded indebtedness ?" "Bonded indebtedness" is a debt that Tukwila voters have approved in previous elections. This existing debt is being used to purchase the Foster Golf Course and will be paid for by 1998. In 1987, this indebted- ness was 16 cents per $1,000 of assessed value. As shown in the illustration, even with this indebtedness added, the property tax rate in Tukwila is lower than the rate in unincorporated King County. Do you have to accept bonded indebtedness if you vote to annex? It will be a separate ballot vote from the annexation question. Are there any other changes in taxes that I should know about? The City of Tukwila does not have any additional taxes on property, business or utilities, other than property tax. The sales tax in King County has just been increased to 8.1%. The sales tax in Tukwila is 8.1%. TAX RATE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN TUKWILA & KING COUNTY 1987 Average Assessed Home Value $65,000 $300 $200 $1.00 'Includes surface water tax .i.... t.Wt (ATTACHMENT 3 King County $230.30' pm" Surface Water Tax $29.89 City of Tukwila $190.32 How will the zoning change if the area is annexed? The City will adopt a pre- annexation ordinance providing Tukwila zoning districts comparable to King County districts. What are the major development differences between King County and Tukwila codes? The major difference between unincorporated King County and lukwila is that lUkwila has more restrictive standards for minimum setbacks and maximum building heights. Mobile homes are not allowed as single- family dwelling units outside of mobile home parks. The City will be reviewing their current restric- tion during its pre - annexation zoning process. What will happen to buildings that do not conform to City zoning standards? Buildings that do not currently meet City setback. height or lot coverage requirements, can be main- tained by the property owner. Expansions of a building will be subject to the new standards of the City. If the building is destroyed, the new replacement building will have to meet City standards. Noncon- forming residential structures including mobile homes may continue as they exist now and may be replaced after a natural disaster. Can 1 keep my horse and chickens if I annex to Tukwila? Yes, livestock, small animals and fowl are allowed in Tukwila. Tukwila health standards require a minimum lot size of 10,000 square feet to keep animals: how- ever, if you currently keep animals and then annex into the City, you do not have to comply with the lot size limit. I have a boat and trailer that 1 use for vacations. May I park them in front of my house, in the yard, or on the street? Recreational vehicles may be parked in your yard and on the adjacent street if it will not impair the safe flow of traffic on the street. 4 ton vehicles used for commercial purposes are not permitted in residential zones. Will 1 be allowed to continue my home occupation? Any business operating in compliance with all existing regulations may continue as a grandfathered use. For new businesses, Tukwila defines a home occupation as incidental to the primary use of the house as a residence and is carried on by a member of the family residing in the home. The conditions for home occu- pations can be obtained when applying for a Tukwila Business license. 4 L J I Q) ATTACHWLAT 4 • „ 17 .7 • / ' -,.._..1 ! / -' l__...' / r 7" , 1)) • / r t , r ; : `October 17, 1988 7:00 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING Pre - Annexation Zoning and Comp. Plan Amendments for the Thorndyke 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 Thorndyke annexation area located south of South 144th and north of South 160th from Pacific Highway to the current City boundary on the east. Letters from the following people were acknowledge: Wayne and Hazel Ketchersid Myrtle Roberson Melvin E. Roberson Steven Lawrence Hazel Ketchersid, 14637 - 51st Avenue South, said she has lived on her street since 1930. She and her neigh- bors are interested in what is happening to their area. She requested that Council change the Planning Commissions recommendation for the property west of 51st Avenue South from South 144th to South 154th, from R -3 to R -4. She stated the following reasons: R -4 Zoning is more in line with the present King County RM 2400 Zoning - they have paid taxes on this zoning for over 20 years - Developers feel there is no way they can recover their cost of developing this property if the number of units is limited to that designated in the R -3 Zone. The only way the street can be improved is for developers to be allowed to develop it. She added that when she and her husband were going to build their home in 1949, banks would not grant a loan for their area because it was too run down. Donna Swanberg, 14809 51st Avenue South, explained that she has lived next to the Ketchersids for 17 years. They have put a lot of time and money into remodeling their home. With the zoning change, everyone on the street feels they are forced to sell their homes before the annexation takes place because afterward, the deve- lopment costs will be high. This is the reason they are requesting that they retain the RM 2400. Myrtle Roberson, 14859 51st Avenue South, said they are neighbors of the Swanbergs and have lived their since 1949. They have been very happy with the area, it is a small Community and a small School District. With the on -set of the freeway and the shopping mall, their street became a thoroughfare. The freeway has created a lot of traffic noise, they never leave their doors open. Their land value has gone down considerably because of this noise from the freeway. They did not ask to be zoned 2400, King County felt that is what it should be and increased their taxes accordingly. They are willing to come into Tukwila but feel they should retain their 2400. Melvin Roberson, 14859 51st Avenue South, discussed the same area as previous speakers. He, along with the rest of the property owners, would like to retain their pre- sent County zoning of RM 2400. They have been paying taxes based on this, the zoning is correct. Improvements to the street will have to be borne by the City unless the zoning is raised to R -4. This would TUKWIL A CITY COUNCIL, REGUL 4 MEETING October 17, 1988 Page 2 PUBLIC HEARING - Thorndyke Annexation - Cont. allow a developer to install new utilities and upgrade the street. There have been no new homes built along here since 1959. He asked Council to hold to the County Zoning of RM 2400. Phillip Swanberg, 14809 51st Avenue South, reviewed what the previous speakers had said. They are requesting an equivalent designation of R -4 with 2400 square feet size restriction. The King County 2400 has been in effect on their property for 20 years. Development costs are con- siderable and are not economically feasible for develo- pers under the R -3 Zoning proposed. Development of this property will bring improvements to the utilities and streets. There is a Right -of -way along the west side of 51st Avenue South already designated for improvements of the street. Topography on the back of this property is quite steep and provides a natural buffer. He thanked Council for listening to them. Clifford Godwin, 15819 42nd Avenue South, explained that his property is now zoned single - family residential but would be more fair to have it as a buffer zone around the commercial and RMH development. He felt R -2 or R -3 would be better zoning. Pastor Gary Cowden, 15880 Military Road South, from the Riverton Heights Presbyterian Church. He explained that the church property lies on the boarder of the Thorndyke annexation. The map indicates that this property is designated single - family residential. The church has been located here since 1931. They would like the pro - perty zoned to reflect the Church Ministry and the potential for growth. Vern Merryhew, 4431 South 148th, stated that as a member of the Task Force, he would support C -2 Zoning for the church property. This zoning would match the rest of the area. Robert Aldrich, 4059 South 158th, said he owns a very large piece of property with a single house on it which is completely surrounded by large complexes of con- dominiums. He asked Council to consider upgrading the zoning on his property for multiple use. Cecelia Wheeler, 3723 South 150th, asked Council what kind of services she is going to get should her property come into Tukwila. She has some real concerns about cost. Mayor Van Dusen referred her to a pamphlet put out by the City that should answer her questions. Cecil Hendricks, 4234 South 154th, explained that his property lies between a large apartment complex and a 15 unit apartment. He asked to have the RMH Zoning, to his east, extended to include his property and the 15 unit apartment. There being no further comments from the audience, Mayor Van Dusen closed the Public Hearing. MOVED BY STOKNES, SECONDED BY ROBERTSON, THAT COUNCIL DISCUSS THE PRE - ANNEXATION ZONING FOR THORNDYKE AND FOSTER AT THE NEXT COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE. MOTION CARRIED WITH BAUCH VOTING NO. MOVED BY MORIWAKI, SECONDED BY DUFFIE, THAT ORDINANCES BE PREPARED FOR ADOPTION BY COUNCIL AT THE NEXT REGULAR MEETING. MOTION CARRIED. City of Tukwila PLANNING DEPARTMENT 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, Washington 98188 (206) 433 -1849 DATE: October 20, 1988 TO: CITY COUNCIL FROM: MOIRA CARR BRADSHAW PLANNING DEPARTMENT SUBJECT: THORNDYKE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND PRE - ANNEXATION ZONING The following people testified before you on either September 12th and /or October 17th public hearing. The following seven people all live in the same area and have the same requst: 1. MELVIN ROBERSON, 14859 - 51st Avenue S. 2. MYRTLE ROBERSON, 14859 - 51st Avenue S. 3. JAMES ANGLE, 4831 S. 146th 4. DONNA SWANBERG, 14809 - 51st Avenue S. 5. PHILLIP SWANBERG, 14809 - 51st Avenue S. 6. DON PITTS (No Address) 7. HAZEL KETCHERSID, 14637 - 51st Avenue S. King County Zoning: RM -2400 Planning Commission Recommendation: Request: R -4 with a 2400 Restriction 8. CLIFFORD GODWIN, 15819 - 42nd Avenue S. King County Zoning: RS -7200 Planning Commission Recommendation: Request: R -2 or R -3 R3 - Three, Four Family Dwelling R1 - 7.2 APPENDIX M City Council October 20, 1988 Page 2 9. PASTOR GARY LOWDEN —15880 Military Road S. King County Zoning: RS -7200 / RM 1800 Planning Commission Recommendation: R1 - 7.2 Request: C -2 10. ROBERT ALDRICH - 4059 S. 158th King County Zoning: RS -7200 Planning Commission Recommendation: R1 - 7.2 Request: Multiple Residential 11. CECIL HENDRICKS - 4218 & 4234 S. 154th King County Zoning: RS -7200 Planning Commission Recommendation: R -3 Request: RMH 12. VERN MERYHEW - 4431 S. 148th Street Recommends adoption of Planning Commission recommendations and C -2 for Riverton Heights Church. 13. STEVE LAWRENCE - 4461 S. 144th Street Recommends adoption of Planning Commission recommendations. 14. .JOAN MERYHEW - 4431 S. 148th Street Recommends adoption of Planning Commission recommendations. • , •• • /1 • ; r ••• .'• s' ••• :-/Os •• . • • _„ ' S 6! •••■•• SO. 111•11St.. • c• • 1" Abit •: • . PUBLIC • • 1:.".!.1 , ti ! . i 1. 4 •K. - - . :--.. P. .- • :: pip 1 --LL.•-.44..-.....__.,"_____. . , . 7 ' • - .' 7 .7.1 1 .1 ( .. 401 I.,: : :-. ..; 1-1 : it .s -.•; . , ..„,; ''El ...! ■ —• t : ..; . ' • - • io: l'iett4 St .-: • ■ - ....- ....:. .COMMEN'TOR :.. r , i . -:•.... -- ..,7, - ,..", ,. ii . _-.1,..1 . . - . ,............ • • - • 41-- • — I — LOCATION MAP • /// ; - - 7 • • ,; . 1 . •••• ; 31140 i4 • . , • z. 4 1 • • • . 0 • • ••• of: J • , • !•••■••■- r • • it • --* " Se. 1.0t St. i •••• I f ' • . . t V t . 1 I . ...• I 1 4 4 1 .1.Are-1_, 1 - —.1. g4 ...• .,.., 1 1 „..J 1 r"..=/..\ • .,-- - • -'-'- -- ; •:..; 1 1 1 i 11. .1:_..,,.`4 - I .. • 1 i•t • 7 C66 • • - . . - - • . • • s • • • .7,11 • 4-4-11 • 1 —: , , 1 So. 144 to St • 148th St. 11 • • 1 • • • ,•;.• — • 4- • ; • ' 7 .;*-•.. v • , • ' $e. Ism • • • i 1 : ; / . .....7: p A - ' IrA r N•' _ -Is 11/4 • • " .--• —1 . • , ....■ — —.. •• ; a 4. • _ . ....- :. :''' , .....— .24, • ... • ... • - .••••. • I',..r • : I . • • . :•1 . •: • A., • : .... • 2-40— ,,, • — 41 II i ft- - • . . -••••• •• • ' •!■••••• --••••••••••—•—• er • • • • •r. '-••••••• • ; a • 1 THORNDYKE am ANNEXATION AREA (4E9.15 ACRES) CITY BOUNDARY LINE SCALE 1' = 880' NORTH p It • 4 . ••• ••••• • • . • October 10, 1983 Tukwila City ::our.c:l 3 :.30 Sou hcenter Blvd. Tuxw'la, WA 9813a Dear Council Members: RespectfulIY yours, Lv L. & ,,,,• 1/4,. , :2 S L 'Jayne and Hazel Ketchersid /437 s•�-�' , , 9e/a, We respectfully request that you change Your Planning Commission's zoning recommendation for Section 3 (west :. f .51st Ave. So. from 144th to 154th) to R -4 from R -3. Our reasoning for this request is as follows: - ?cur R-4 zoning 13 more in line with the present King County RM 2400 zoning. - We have paid taxes for over 20 years on =he basis of this zoning. - Ir 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. variance to allow 2400 square feet per unit would be an acceptable compromise. 771 4= 77 ( 44„). .„.04:,, .57 .we 7/_4, t ri .4, 0,e de,. use j ■i.1.- .244 e,e/ -fit a.G4e - J `r. .a- Mr�C.e. d �et.,Lz� - ��c:/,� -C ��a1 .� lei 41 I4 .f ur 44/ a-r.� ti.rtYt ` ,�Ci Ti�i�,� �r.��i , ice- - �.�rce�. ..�.� / fdf O free �„�.Z .a1' ;►�Q ,:dt- ar�•L� ��' etu S/I •Rrcr .i�a�� - - -�z 1 -ps c,a-- . 4.d / 441 1400 .4r &0.�.1.r..14 f -a r eal 42Z rrc . de��, -ZO4ksti �"..e I 44-/P.e.-/".",itotetZ yfee-a a24' 444s/ - �-ep,1-1 . .a 1 .D6 4 -e% -4;:v -i 4 L - 7..e inr) . luc�Z. r. e 4' .) 7 /a' ti�L� a.2a -ae�' &iCe¢/ eac6PC- er Arlde . 't' /. 44. zo -t -' .t y ., -c , 44 /lZ�s j ..c�,c �.R IBC -' LLsC -' ,e, 7 4J0O .c/../. eC 4 s;"' ,/.t cry Attie r - fir - ,1211/74‹. •r.. g 444A 2 , . .c4. see. .24 yea 1 ,Lea- 1- 44.e .e' .�►�' �/�' 4 • . m e •yew/, 4 ' ' 'l_' jGtct..t- 4 4 a ./.-a 4��.�x,� — .v1 11 � u.e. 4-r✓ - -e.- / dli S /(. .mot .224. S / ci. 4;.g4• / ' tea . a "eel -Cz r• -Q1 /Le G sued %it ' r 4e to. -4411 st//1We/44-s's 44" k -11` 4 "*".= affe-14#d yat.‹, a ry7f�tr4-rtir min fie L qs v - Z�t.i. -&-=4 Y� 1� 7: e�"✓ -sr& �..Htt •l n.L <<=,e✓ 4- 077,J4 stl A .t .7: ♦u Y 1.el' -fie• -'47 :c /` ''� ►x� rt� �l:seC/✓ �/I,�?��A ��r Z�L / <.M�- „za,:„.4., Aii. Glii[72•T ,- -44,4 -tl d /j & ,fiw�• • e - AG - 4#;., e,...,�� - . • •X 7'�� La 4e -rJ - *c.L.xr_�S m .• J Ar-e' 6 - - e-e .....',4_, a�i / -e-tv ` 4 .y`y I ZAC_ /- �.l7ZrC X� G` mm.e- a-drn T� Cd�!!?l�lZt fits -rl) -0. vas •arc+” .rt.,C,v tea. Ise-- . er- ✓ r.� Fort -r /'7'J7 az-ye ' a y-,d 11 1I /too. - ja 4- Z-Gr' 4 ....e.-Agee.:,.'e..e -creee..a .0.. Ariz. x.r.r.0-,.4-Z.-‹ - t1:1'T •v ii - i.' .` 1- ,--:"Lc a e # z d - u'L� ,— a o Ae.[/ P 'Q��d, • .. - Gi-� -�G .c 4-,e • A,,,..- o.. -ae. �suQJ 4 4 e ,`_ arc." .7.4z., r. � 1 �u.Z` r_ 47U �, C 114 it Zj 1/'''4:114E41.1 _' 'e J -eo- r.4 • `. /!zr- loz•- 24e Brun -dtc : .c2 -e. igAix, y y � �ma�c�C'e� /, - r12t:Cr f-et . e-� yr,4,c. # ..e -cei w ted_. .;�-e. 4244e- 4 �� / ",Cl y i er'7 � • 'S'� /L' 2 ?t� ' 2f 2f ��4 0 • �� - t�I.QL a y�'/YG �.d1' ���r. � • S R! -':•� . sr / 4 -etit. 5c s. "c•1- 40 4' d •.S/ `1-d dNi. -t .. et/ vi -ter_ !a 4-btdir te- / 1 de .e= r, .e74e;AeC -4' - Q4' Z. ee ll-, J 00 0•41. r. c 1, 71 4.444- ci �i! •s>. t �u n; a,� u �"�•�ne e taic-': # 44 $ / -d zur.W 41,4feee ����• -� -� 4.6 7 4r4e., 4..ee : �r a4,;d- J o , G h' rdeeK• ie ie .QeILGLJ �/9= / _ .1 J � J �. lL at- C .,-.0 Q- l!'SRLL ?iv tYi cfi l !�.G�� �G" 1' .5/ / - e - / 44aG' -zeM'o ZLGJ :^ .HL -C I/ -•t c. �' alter ,f(• r_ �� Y .clAwla! f -i_c:C e....f -6072 6 P / 7enf . 44" 4 34 -4,1 4 -413,/t . - Le.e 17 ` / SUMMARY ZONING DESIGNATION, WEST SIDE 51ST AVENUE SOUTH TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL MEETING, OCTOBER 17, 1988 REQUEST: We :request retention of the current King County zoning on the west side of 51st Avenue South from South 144th to South 152nd Street. We are requesting an equivalent designation from Tukwila of R -4 with a 2400 square foot size restriction. This may involve a new or modified zoning designation. We encourage you to look at creative options. The following facts will summarize and support our request. • The original planning meeting discussion, maps (see Attachment 1) and June 22 handout entitled "Zoning Code Comparisons" (see Attachment 2) compared Tukwila's R -4 zoning to King County's RM2400. • RM2400 zoning has been in effect on the subject property for more than 20 years (see Attachment 3). • Taxes have been paid on the basis of multiple- family zoning for more than 20 years. • No new homes have been built here since 1959. • The area is not conducive to maintaining a thriving single family neighborhood. In 1949 Mr. & Mrs. Ketchersid were denied a construction loon by several banks. The reason given: this area was unsuitable for single family development. • As development costs are considerable, it is not economically feasible, according to developers who have contacted us, to build under the proposed R -3 zoning. • Improvements would include installation of sewers, larger water pipes, probably streets, curbs and sidewalks, and grading. These items would be paid for by the developer, and therefore would not impact the Tukwila city budget. It would, however, broaden Tukwila's tax base. • Right -of -way on the west side of 51st Avenue South has been dedicated for road improvement. Tukwila City Council • While there are many suitable apartment building sites along 51st Avenue South, the topography on the back of the property is quite steep. This provides a natural buffer, both vertically and laterally. (See Attachment 4). • Development of this street will upgrade, revitalize and beautify an area which has deteriorated to the point of being an eyesore. Thank you for listening to our concerns, and considering retention of our current zoning. Lit. NAME l:iitilar /'93q 5/ ,Ivc. C. J Z(.0.4, 14/•(.. «r i - . ./S1 ` �S a j'.-I- l A.7 Ly, ADDRESS /y f�9 - S/ -4 /7,;(0 , , �. i to 5 l ' /' - �Iko S l si 2_ - I 1-1lp I 4/ :"'/ • / V e �. �•. «(.4- tif0 -1--T ad 2 Tukwila City Council - 2 a • While there are many suitable apartment building sites along 51st Avenue South, the topography on the back of the property h quite steep. This provides a natural buffer, both vertically and laterally. (See Attachment 4) . • Development of this street will upgrade, revitalize and beautify an area which has deteriorated to the point of being an eyesore. Thank you for listening to our concerns, and considering retention of our current zoning. NAME ADDRESS 1 I i 7 S c'-..v ".© /'/4 3? S r r a . Sc . /41c9 /414 .Sta lU 14141 •S1,'•, a .4o4b 1, I t �I: I u A'. 1. 1 1 I 1 1' 1 1 10 1": 1 1 '• I ;' 1 11 +1 • '11 • I '1 1 • 1 20 19 uo 411 111. 16 /4611-/ _ ,ISr_ 11 •, 1N •• 1 , 41,1.1./: ' v 1 1 • �, I ' J. I 10 •1 I ', f • .1 17 • 15 14 R 7.00 R -1 9) •1 11 r .: '.1I \, 1 BO ' 1 (� 1 I. • 1 . •' :I ,., ' • 1; \ I I 1; 16 15 lt1 11 MA 13 1 RM •240 7 t I� 111-41 : (� •1 L+ ;C •r 1 ' ' = p ` : I RS 72. 0• J,, ' pill C1 ';0 = ▪ ▪ 13 .- - ='.t± L Ir • {,_I. •. • •/.. 5, 1,. , • ,•..1 11.1 RS 7200 2 3 5 1 S l_) 16 17 i; v 1. �.I\ ;�� �' .. 1,i ! 1. / 51' • . . . .•. I: 1.N 1 :. G ; 1 (11 • 111 2 p (iF 111 ' • 4 1.1' *N ,IM • •:, 4 11 16 I!, • 12 WPM • 0 , ; ' y '1- E 1 0 ' 1 147 A/ :I/.•. .1 4; f ►, e . 1 11, I 1 . • '' i RM 2400 r et 10 R - : 1'.ILII 1 14 11 • • - , 1 r II,. A. NM II I num! ' •r - 1 ' \q 4 ' Ir lu, • • 'Illllllltl. ,•{11111 .111111IIIII1111 r, �I ��� 1 RS 7200 1.:'; J 1 R '_ I . I' (1 • •N 11• A/ ATTACHMENT 1 11,1) 1 0 I I vl Liablrshca pt.aatiss the mammaes population duchy sad also permos a awl ones t ►o recidcalial. e g holds /..eels: ree.ecatat homes: medical. Paul. & still services; sod Prof' sad business offices. Mobile Iowa pas' are allowed is skis ant.. Tic rsclauifsed INKS Nisei as 1 ►t cad of obis chars ore also allowed is Skis same. There art so caadisinal sea se the sole. Lot covesagc /yscd eguireseas$: 40% far rui/gslis, sun minimum Neighs: 3 espies or 33 f. Las/ecspc regaiucmou- IS f1. Isedscamtd funs mud. 3 ft. • 15dscaped side 'std. sod 3 II landscaped rear yard Whea seal to ri$adeeially aosed land. IsmdKapsd requirssesls increase. Vdll.le 6tldesas 411.\ D... /R►IN Dlalrl it hovi/ea areas foe bilk dcasiky, multiple family dcvelopwc.l which • is csmp11akle walk canscec..l sod shut INK. Uses allowed •MuIight Melee* all uses la Stu music lames armload's ka1 dense melsif.mily develops/as .54 p.ofcasi..al .1(16(s sod clinic. of individual medical psovidesr,.rchileels. lawyers. s./ pl...cu slit. 1111 offices art is she baleacat or foal flop of • sus use building. Offices and mimics of woe has *se p/mf6ssu..al person sequoias • csdoional v16 peels in 1ht sop. Chinches. spools. bbesries. araerns. fife fed police Ualioss edit, 113140 Iuu,s shape,,, wasp soaps, cos.akaceu homes, hole /Sag buses. .d pri•ase chars or trauma! tartlets IOC also allowed a t \e same wish. elmdisiseal rat pc/mil. The unclassified uses sealed al she rod m1 Ibis eguiecd per ells; Ieighl: 43 It. Landscape regrisemests: 13 fe. Isalacap.l fens yard, 3 ft. I.Nu.psd side sod use yard Whes seal to sialk family ann. la.dseaps r14uilerees Unease. Ls Aa.Ii,.aa m■ -4 DIu11t11 humid(' a for ►igh Parity spairslss asd cosdowi.ism developaeal. Uses pe.siticd srlrigkt isclyde all sus allowed is Ins :Pepe soles sad srlltfaaily developa.e; c ...lasses Ponies or reriesseas home'; boardi.$Mrus, public l.hsui.s; public museum' amt au galleries. Chu/ekes. public sc \o.h. liic and polite sulkies, pilily '1s1, kiosk Ashen. 1.1 .alit mils 11e allowed is the same aith a eodisi..al au perms. The aocloasifiel uses a she cad of Ibis chum fee aka allowed is she sass. 1•1 ea•esge /yard upueweau' 30 fe has'. 0 fe side sad 23 fa ask yards. Mioiara 101 aka: 2,000 sal fl sequined per wail. Neighs' 33 fl. la.dscape acquirements 13 (l loodscapc4 h551 yard. 3 ft Iamd$caped Inds sad kac yards Whe• acs. so Siogls family Boat. landscape uquiuweall to ATTACHMENT 2 Uncle. mull tondll.oas. ties Couoly silo.. k •. hr ldup than T1a.111 The King Cousry sone 11 wars ettlric l..6 sad do. mot alto. At a pc of irks secluded as c0ad.l.55.I YK1 as eke 1.,1..•4 4556 King Comm, data mac alto. the 11016 ial65K Mnc •sired MKS loud as Inc cad of this chart asd Tu►..la den Height scar •1w*m/s 111 ewes. 1.1.da silos shakily calla brald.nps T1t Kiag i ImC Couas aoac is sou re sad dew mot silos the type .1 .ulYded si coa4iI,s.a1 Yse' es eke Tr1.. 1 lost. Kiss Corny does roe allow eke mole loupe umclasufsd uses laud as sec csd of Ibis chats fed Trlala doss Under in conditions. Kisg Comm, allows ul1c. I.dd... 153. . T .►idle FINANCE TAX RATE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN TUKWILA & KING COUNTY 1987 Average Assessed Home Value $65,000 $300 'Includes surface water tax ATTACHMENT 3 The biggest part of my local to tax. Will my property tax go up ., , Property taxes in the City of Tukwila are slightly lower than in King County. For example. on a $ 100.000 home. the property tax in Tukwila is $47-$127 less annually. depending on witefher existing City bonded indebtedness is assumed and on your current tax rate for school and fire districts. What is "bonded indebtedness ?" "Bonded indebtedness" is a debt that Tukwila voters have approved in previous elections. This existing debt is being used to purchase the Foster Golf Course and will be paid for by 1998. In 1987, this indebted- ness was 16 cents per $1 .000 of assessed value. As shown in the illustration, even with this indebtedness added, the property tax rate in Tukwila is lower than the rate in unincorporated King County. Do you have to accept bonded indebtedness if you vote to annex? It will be a separate ballot vote from the annexation question. Are there any other changes in taxes that I should know about? The City of Tukwila does not have any additional taxes on property, business or utilities. other than property tax. The sales tax in King County has just been increased to 8.1%. The sales tax in Tukwila is 8.1%. King County 5230.30' Surface Water Tax $29.89 City of Tukwila $190.32 How will the zoning change if the area is annexed? The City will adopt a pre- annexation ordinance providing Tukwila zoning districts comparable to King County districts. What are the major development differences between King County and Tukwila codes? The major difference between unincorporated King County and 1Lkwila is that Tukwila has more restrictive standards for minimum setbacks and maximum building heights. Mobile homes are not allowed as single - family dwelling units outside of mobile home parks. The City will be reviewing their current restric- tion during its pre - annexation zoning process. What will happen to buildings that do not conform to City zoning standards? Buildings that do not currently meet City setback. height or lot coverage requirements. can be main- tained by the property owner. Expansions of a building will be subject to the new standards of the City. If the building is destroyed. the new replacement building will have to meet City standards. Noncon- forming residential structures including mobile homes may continue as they exist now and may be replaced after a natural disaster. Can 1 keep my horse and chickens if I annex to Tukwila? Yes, livestock. small animals and fowl are allowed in Tukwila. Tukwila health standards require a minimum lot size of 10.000 square feet to keep animals: how- ever, if you currently keep animals and then annex into the City. you do not have to comply with the lot size limit. I have a boat and trailer that 1 use for vacations. May I park them in front of my house, in the yard, or on the street? Recreational vehicles may be parked in your yard and on the adjacent street if it will not impair the safe flow of traffic on the street. 4 ton vehicles used for commercial purposes are not permitted in residential zones. Will I be allowed to continue my home occupation? Any business operating in compliance with all existing regulations may continue as a grandfathered use. For new businesses. Tukwila defines a home occupation as incidental to the primary use of the house as a residence and is carried on by a member of the family residing in the home. The conditions for home occu- pations can be obtained when applying for a Tukmila Business license. !' ! / // -1 /// |/ // | / / | / / • [ ' ' ...~ �'' � / .�' / ' / �- �} / ' / / „ .o�q / / ' ' i ( / 7/1/ ("1/ ' � ^ ' ' '!. �.' . / ' '!. �.' / ' �� ' / • ' ' / --_ . ~ . / . '' ( ~~--- 1 /-� --� __ � � ' • .. .. .. . • _ \ \ \ _- . _ \� � � . To the Tukwilla City Council: Steven Lawrence 4461 S. 144th I strongly urge'the City Council members to endorse the zoning recommendations of the Thorndyke zoning task force. The zoning designations decided upon by the task force were arrived at after many weeks of discussions and consideration. The task force tried to serve the community as a whole while recognizing the concerns of individuals. Compromises were made in an effort to achieve unity in the group's decisions. The most controversial area of concern within the Thorndyke annexation was the property bordering 51st Ave. S. Task force members and several other community residents were concerned with the prospect of large scale apartment development. Two members of the task force favored apartment development as did a few other residents attending the meetings. It should be noted that each of these people have vested interests and stand to profit from any development along the street. In subsequent meetings zoning compromises were adopted and those have been presented to you. It is my belief that our community has as many apartment complexes as it can accomodate without seriously jeopardizing the single - family neighborhood. The complexes near highway 99 have deva- stated adjoining residences due to the problems associated with high density, lower cost housing. Apartment complexes also border the neighborhood to the south along SR 518. Due to the devaluing effect of I -5 it is likely any large complexes built along 51st Ave S. would be relatively inexpensive, attracting a more tran- sient and possibly problem plagued group of renters. Any large population influx along 51st Ave. S. would contribute to the traffic along S. 144th St, which fronts the neighborhood, two schools, and the fire station. That street has considerable pedestrian and bicycle traffic and is dangerous enough. In addi- tion, large complexes would add many students to our schools which are at near capacity now. One of the qualities of our school dis- trict is its smallness; its fine ratio of teachers to students, and the close relationship of the community and the schools. The zoning designation of R -3 and PO for this area would allow development compatible with our community as a whole to proceed at a cautious. rate. Construction of high density housing might well send a destabilizing ripple affect through the adjoining single - family neighborhood. We have seen it before; "For Sale" signs abound, families flee, and homes become rentals. You have the opportunity to help us shape our community and provide stabil- ity for our neighborhood. Thankyout„,� Steven Lawrence Rev. Gary K. Cowden Pastor City of. Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Blvd Tukwila, WA 98188 RE: Thorndyke Annexation 'Dear Sirs, Thank you for considering our appeal. October 17, 1988 We as a church body are sensitive to the proposed zoning of our facility and ajacent rental houses in the category R -1. Our church has stood on this site since 1931, and over the years has been added a manse property, and two significant additions to the church facility. Most recently was the addition of paved parking. We project that we will experience significant growth in the future, and wish to ensure that the present zoning not hinder us from further expansion. The two rental houses just east of the church were secured not for their value as single - family residences, but for the additional land that could be available for expansion as needed. We feel that, in not too many years from now, those houses will be destroyed and the space utilized for our growing ministry. Currently ve are working toward the establishment of a Daycare Center in the church facility, with its playground utilizing some of the back property the two houses occupy. We have been working for about nine months now, and it currently looks like we may open sometime after the first of the year. Again, we desire a zoning code which would not prohibit us from continuing with that ministy. After consultation with others knowledgeable in zoning matters, it was suggested that we appeal for the highest, zoning we could secure. It was our understanding that the church property was already zoned B /C, as is the property to our north and west. We feel that zoning would be most helpful for our future as well. Yours very sincerely, ` Gary K. C owden, Pastor 15880 Military Road South • Seattle, Washington 98188 • (206) 242 -7767 Rev. Gary K. Cowden Pastor City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Blvd. Tukwila, WA 98188 RE: Thorndyke Annexation Dear Sirs, October IS, 1988 15880 Military Road South • Seattle, Washington 98188 • (206) 242 - 7767 I appreciated the opportunity to speak before the City Council regarding the potential annexation of our area, and my concerns relative to the proposed zoning of the church property. At the meeting I raised a question about the wisdom of the church property carrying the R -1 zoning. Following my opportunity, Mr. Vern Maryhew, a diligent supporter of annexation, spoke in support of changing the proposed zoning of the church property to C -2. We feel that is the wisest category, since there is really no classification which describes our activities. Two additional items we would desire to bring before the City Council. First, we would desire the C -2 zoning to extend to the rental properties we now posers. They are the two lots adjacent on the east of the church, on 160th. These lots were secured not for their value as income - producers, but for the potential they allowed us for future expansion of the church and its ministry. Already the north 90 feet of the lots is used by the church as a play area for children. Extending the C -2 zoning to these lots now would save us having to apply for rezoning when it cames.time to expand our facilities or increase parking. The second item concerns the strip of land which is presently the property of King County, but is used exclusively by the church. When the freeway was built, part of Military Road was abandoned and 160th expanded to carry heavier traffic loads. That portion of abandoned Military Road is actually part of our parking lot in front of the church. We would like to secure clear title to that and the grassy strip bordering 160th, as it is of no use to anyone else, and would certainly be of no interest to the City of Tukwila if and when annexation occurs. With.these_ concerns addressed, we are'not at all opposed to the plan for annexation by the City of Tukwila. We welcome your further inquiry into our concerns, and will be interested to see what changes are proposed by the. Thkwila Planning Commission prior to the February election. Yours very sincerely, Gary K. Cowden, Pastor PUBLIC HEARING Pre- Annexation Zoning and Comp. Plan Amendments for the Thorndyke annexation area (Second Hearing) TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL, REGULAR MEETING October 17, 1988 Page 2 Mayor Van Dusen declared the public hearing open on the pre- annexation zoning and comprehensive plan amendments for the Thorndyke annexation area located south of South 144th and north of South 160th from Pacific Highway to the current City boundary on the east. Letters from the following people were acknowledge: Wayne and Hazel Ketchersid 14637 51st Ave. So., Seatt!e, WA 98168 Myrtle Roberson 14859 51st Ave. So., Seattle, WA 98168 Melvin E. Roberson 14859 51st Ave. So., Seattle, WA 98168 Steven Lawrence 4461 So. 144th, Seattle, WA 98168 Hazel Ketchersid, 14637 - 51st Avenue South, said she has lived on her street since 1930. She and her neigh- bors are interested in what is happening to their area. She requested that Council change the Planning Commission's recommendation for the property west of 51st Avenue South from South 144th to South 154th, from R -3 to R -4. She stated the following reasons: R -4 Zoning is more in line with the present King County RM 2400 Zoning - they have paid taxes on this zoning for over 20 years - Developers feel there is no way they can recover their cost of developing this property if the number of units is limited to that designated in the R -3 Zone. The only way the street can be improved is for developers to be allowed to develop it. She added that when she and her husband were going to build their home in 1949, banks would not grant a loan for their area because it was too run down. Donna Swanberg, 14809 51st Avenue South, explained that she has lived next to the Ketchersids for 17 years. They have put a lot of time and money into remodeling their home. With the zoning change, everyone on the street feels they are forced to sell their homes before the annexation takes place because afterward, the deve- lopment costs will be high. This is the reason they are requesting that they retain the RM 2400. Myrtle Roberson, 14859 51st Avenue South, said they are neighbors of the Swanbergs and have lived their since 1949. They have been very happy with the area, it is a small Community and a small School District. With the on -set of the freeway and the shopping mall, their street became a thoroughfare. The freeway has created a lot of traffic noise, they never leave their doors open. Their land value has gone down considerably because of this noise from the freeway. They did not ask to be zoned 2400, King County felt that is what it should be and increased their taxes accordingly. They are willing to come into Tukwila but feel they should retain their 2400. Melvin Roberson, 14859 51st Avenue South, discussed the same area as previous speakers. He, along with the rest of the property owners, would like to retain their pre- sent County zoning of RM 2400. They have been paying taxes based on this, the zoning is correct. Improvements to the street will have to be borne by the City unless the zoning is raised to R -4. This would PUBLIC HEARING - Cont. Pre - Annexation Zoning and Comp. Plan Amendments for the Thorndyke annexation area (Second Hearing) (cont.) TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL, REGULAR MEETING October 17, 1988 Page 3 o /‘ allow a developer to install new utilities and upgrade the street. There have been no new homes built along here since 1959. He asked Council to hold to the County Zoning of RM 2400. Phillip Swanberg, 14809 51st Avenue South, reviewed what the previous speakers had said. They are requesting an equivalent designation of R -4 with 2400 square feet size restriction. The King County 2400 has been in effect on their property for 20 years. Development costs are con- siderable and are not economically feasible for develo- pers under the R -3 Zoning proposed. Development of this property will bring improvements to the utilities and streets. There is a Right -of -way along the west side of 51st Avenue South already designated for improvements of the street. Topography on the back of this property is quite steep and provides a natural buffer. He thanked Council for listening to them. Clifford Godwin, 15819 42nd Avenue South, explained that his property is now zoned single- family residential but would be more fair to have it as a buffer zone around the commercial and RMH development. He felt R -2 or R -3 would be better zoning. Pastor Gary Cowden, 15880 Military Road South, from the Riverton Heights Presbyterian Church. He explained that the church property lies on the boarder of the Thorndyke annexation. The map indicates that this property is designated single - family residential. The church has been located here since 1931. They would like the pro - perty zoned to reflect the Church Ministry and the potential for growth. Vern Merryhew, 4431 South 148th, stated that as a member of the Task Force, he would support C -2 Zoning for the church property. This zoning would match the rest of the area. Robert Aldrich, 4059 South 158th, said he owns a very large piece of property with a single house on it which is completely surrounded by large complexes of con- dominiums. He asked Council to consider upgrading the zoning on his property for multiple use. Cecelia Wheeler, 3723 South 150th, asked Council what kind of services she is going to get should her property come into Tukwila. She has some real concerns about cost. Mayor Van Dusen referred her to a pamphlet put out by the City that should answer her questions. Cecil Hendricks, 4234 South 154th, explained that his property lies between a large apartment complex and a 15 unit apartment. He asked to have the RMH Zoning, to his east, extended to include his property and the 15 unit apartment. There being no further comments from the audience, Mayor Van Dusen closed the Public Hearing. MOVED BY STOKNES, SECONDED BY ROBERTSON, THAT COUNCIL DISCUSS THE PRE - ANNEXATION ZONING FOR THORNDYKE AND FOSTER AT THE NEXT COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE. MOTION CARRIED WITH BAUCH VOTING NO. MOVED BY MORIWAKI, SECONDED BY DUFFIE, THAT ORDINANCES BE PREPARED FOR ADOPTION BY COUNCIL AT THE NEXT REGULAR MEETING. MOTION CARRIED. City - of Tukwila PLANNING DEPARTMENT 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, Washington 98188 (206) 433 -1849 ZONING CODE TEXT AMENDMENTS 1. PO - PROFESSIONAL OFFICE ZONE DATE: September 12, 1988 TO: City Council FROM: Planning Department SUBJECT: Summary of Planning Commission Recommended Amentment to the Foster and Thorndyke Annexation Reports. The following is an summary of the Planning Commission recommended changes to the Annexation Task Force's recommendations. Issue: Should the City continue to allow high density multi - family apartments in the PO zone. Thorndyke Task Force Recommendation -- Amend the Code to not allow any apartments in teh PO Zone. Foster Task Force Recommendation -- No change. Planning Commission Recommendation -- Allow multi - family density up to the R -3 Zone. 2. DESIGN REVIEW Issue: To what extent should design review be required. Thorndyke Task Force Recommendation -- No change. Foster Task Force Recommendation -- No change. Planning Commission Recommendation -- All developments (except single family homes and developments less than 10,000 square feet) in all zoning districts except M -1 & M -2. . City Council September 12, 1988 Page 2 FOSTER ANNEXATION MAP AMENDMENTS 1. Location: Issue Area #2 Foster Task Force Recommendation - R -1 Low Density Residential Planning Commission Recommendation - R -3 Medium Density Residential 2. Location: East of Macadam, north of 138th, south of 136th, and west of I -5. Foster Task Force Recommendation - R -1 Low Density Residential Planning Commission Recommendation - CM Light Industrial 3. Location: Issue Area #4 Foster Task Force Recommendation - R -2 - Medium Density Residential Planning Commission Recommendation - West of 41st Ave. - C -2 Commercial THORNDYKE ANNEXATION MAP AMENDMENTS East of 41st Ave. - R -4 High Density Residential 1. Location: Issue Area #2 Task Force Recommendation - R -2 Medium Denisty Residential Planning Commission Recommendation - R -1 Low Density Residential • September 12, 1988. 7:00 P.M. CALL TO ORDER AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL OF COUNCIL MEMBERS CITY STAFF CITIZEN'S COMMENTS Sign for Blood Bank BID AWARDS Award bid for No. Hill Reservoir & Pump Sta. Ph. I Excavation Proj., Sch. A &B,in amt. of $398,409.60. PUBLIC HEARINGS Pre - annexation zoning & comprehensive plan amendments for prop. Thorndyke annexation (1st Public Hearing). TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL City Hall SPECIAL MEETING Council Chambers M I N U T E S Mayor Van Dusen called the Tukwila City Council Special Meeting to order and led the audience in the Pledge of Allegiance. MABEL J. HARRIS (COUNCIL PRESIDENT), JOE H. DUFFIE, EDGAR 0. BAUCH, MARILYN G. STOKNES. JOAN HERNANDEZ, DENNIS L. ROBERTSON, CLARENCE B. MARIWAKI. Maxine Anderson (City Clerk), Rick Beeler (Planning Director), Moira Bradshaw (Associate Planner), John Colgrove (City Attorney), Alan Doerschel (Finance Director), Ross Earnst (Public Works Director), Lucy Lauterbach (Legislative Coordinator), Jack Pace (Senior Planner), Don Williams (Parks and Recreation Director). Linda Baker, Puget Sound Blood Center, stated the Blood Center would like an exception to the sign code. The new building owners have put out their sign and many people are unable to find the Blood Center. They have approximately 65 - 70 donors a day and the sign is important. They are a nonprofit organiza- tion. Mayor Van Dusen said he would refer the problem to the Planning staff. Senior Planner Jack Pace stated he would advise Ms. Baker as to the procedure to follow in requesting the sign. Ross Earnst, Public Works Director, explained the bids that were submitted. He recommended the bid be awarded to the low bidder, Jack McCann Company, Inc., in the amount of 5398,409.60. MOVED BY STOKNES, SECONDED BY HARRIS, THAT THE BID FOR SCHEDULES A &B FOR THE NORTH HILL RESERVOIR AND PUMP STATION, PHASE I EXCAVATION CONTRACT, IN THE AMOUNT OF 5398,409.60 BE AWARDED TO THE JACK MCCANN COMPANY. MOTION CARRIED. Mayor Van Dusen opened the Public Hearing at 7:20 p.m., stating the second public hearing on this subject will be heard in 30 days on October 17, 1988. Mayor Van Dusen stated a letter dated September 12, 1988 with seven signatures regarding the zoning on the west side of 51st Avenue South from South 144th to South 152nd has been received. Melvin E. Roberson, 14859 51st Avenue South, stated he was talking about a portion of the annexation which deals with zoning on the west side of 51st Avenue South from South 144th to South 152nd. The debate at the task force meetings centered around zoning as R -3 versus R -4. The opposition for the R -4 zoning comes from non - residents of that area with the affected owners wanting R -4. The present County zoning is RM -2400 which is closer to the Tukwila R -4 code. Recently two builders have shown interest and signed nurchase agreements based on the County zoning of pm 2400 and acquisition of several acres on which to build. Both builders have signed agreements for sufficient acreage, however, one builder has stated he cannot build with a density of less than RM 2400 because of the high cost of upgrading sewer and water lines. An R -3 zoning kills any market for the property. It would be imnnossible for the people in the area to support a favorable vote when it would cost from S40,000 to 550,000 each. We would like the City Council to consider this as R -4 rather than R -3. Across the street it is compatible to R -4. James Angle, 4831 S. 146th, stated he has lived here for 51 years. R -4 is what the zoning designation should be. It has been RM 2400 for a long time. Vern Merryhew, 4431 S. 148th, was in the Task Force meetings. It was a big concern what the impact of R -4 would have on the TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL SPrr IAL MEETING Sentember 12, 1988 Page 2 PUBLIC HEARINGS - Contd. Pre- annexation zoning & comprehensive plan amendments for prop. Thorndyke annexation (1st Public Hearing) - contd. Purchase of Property neighborhood. As R -3 it will provide a buffer. In the Task Force meetings the R -3 designation was decided upon. Phillip R. Swanderhearst, 14809 51st S., said he attended the Task Force meetings. They were influenced that it would be R -4. They would lose money. Verna Ketchused, 14637 51st Avenue South, stated she agreed with Mr. Roberson. There should be a buffer zone. When the Council sees the property the back is steep. Joan Merryhew, 4431 S. 148th, stated this area was discussed extensively. The investers do not live in the community and do not care about the zoning, except to make money. It would be detrimental to have a business come in and rape the land. R -3 is the zoning she would like. Councilmember Harris stated this area is almost 10 acres. She asked if the owners would collectively build or build on an individual basis. Mel Roberson, 14859 51st Avenue South, stated none of the owners plan to do their own building. Builders would come in and develop the land. They would sell their property to a developer to come in and build. Don Pitts, developer, stated he is associated with a developer for investment and it has been assumed this property will be R -4. The new buildings would upgrade the area because there would be improvements to the streets and sidewalks. Donna Swanberg, 14809 51st So., stated she would like the zoning to be R -4. Councilmember Moriwaki asked if these citizens were members of the Task Force and if they made their desires known at that time. Melvin E. Roberson, 14859 51st Avenue S., said he thought density was being talked about in the Task Force meetings. He did not know they were talking about R -4. He did not know it was 3000 sq. ft. density. They have never been talking about high desnity apartments. The buffer is not an issue. The lay of the land becomes a buffer. James Angle, 4831 S. 146th, said there is a noise problem. If apartments are developed provision is made to abate the noise. Moira Bradshaw, Associate Planner, stated the Thorndyke Task Force and the Planning Department recommendations were alike. King County designation was medium density. The Planning Commission has recommended medium density. The City zoning is different than the County. Our R -3 allows 14.5 units per acre. The County allows 18 per acre. R -4 allows 24. The Planning Commission and Task Force recommendations are the same. MAYOR VAN DUSEN CLOSED THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 7:56 P.M., STATING THE SECOND PUBLIC HEARING WOULD BE HELD ON OCTOBER 17, 1 Larry Hard, City Attorney, asked if the purchase of property could be considered next on the agenda. Purchased property is next to the Foster Golf Course and deals with environment. An old tank has been dug up and there is still some contaminated soil from gas and oil. The cost to clean the soil was estimated at 58,000. The amount of $7,800 has been spent and there is need of more. Mr. Hard recommended that the City continue with the purchase. Some of the soil will have to be removed. The additional cost will be $15,000 to 520,000. This will make clean soil without health hazards. • 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) 4 3. Design Review Amend Section 18.60.030 Scope of Authority Remove Secti.' 18.60.030 (2) (B /C) ) Commercia development ' excess of n thousand g •ss square bu ding floor a a in the RM P -0, and C- districts o he City; (C) 'evelopment o multiple -fa ly complexes 'n excess of elve dwelli units ' the R -2, R- R -4, RMH, 1, and C -1 d tricts of th City; Reword Sec on 18.60.030 2) (E) ) All pr.•osed develo ent in all one distric fa ily homes; /CP /CM deve ' ' ent less t .n 10,000 s M -2 nes. JP /co P /TCCANNEX PLANNING COMMISSION REVISED WORDING, SEPTEMBER 22, 1988 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 M-fJ . • F'171 rtiart. f. 'AM ONO • All 3AV ONZ4 • ■••■••• ..••••■■■•■•• • ./%6 • ca. ••■■•■• ••■ 6 _ or e .` i t ykS 1* • " LARGER COPIES OF MAP AVAILABLE IN TUKWILA PLANNING OFFICE CIt4�f Tukwila PLANNING DEPARTMENT 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, Washington 98188 (206) 433 -1849 DATE: September 9, 1988 TO: Tukwila City Council FROM: Tukwila Planning Commission SUBJECT: ZONING CODE TEXT AMENDMENT FOR 'THE 'FOSTER ` AND THORNDYKE ANNEXATIONS The Planning Commission has recommended the following Zoning Code Text Amendments in conjunction with the Foster and Thorndyke Pre - Annexation Zoning. 1) Height Exception Area (Thorndyke Area) Amend Map 2 "Building: Height Exception Area ":to show area adjacent to SR -99 .and SR -518 interchange as "Up to and in- cluding 115 feet" (See Thorndyke'Staff Report Attachment G) PO - Professional Office Zone Amend the PO - Professional Office Zone of the•Zoning Code to allow only a multi- family density up to the R -3 zone (Three /Four Family Residence). APPENDIX A Design Review • . Amend. Section. 18.60.030 Scope Authority Remove. Section 18.60.030 (2) (B /C) (B) Commercial development in excess of ten Thousand gross .square feet of building floor area in the RMH, P -0, and C -1 districts of the City; (C) jlevelopMent of multiple- family complexes in excess of twelve dwelling units in the R -2, R -3, R -4, RMH, P -O, and C. 1.districts of .the city; Reword Section 18.60.030 (2) (E) (E) All proposed developments in all zone districts, excluding single . family homes; C2 /CP /CM development less than 10,000 square feet; M -1.and M -2. zones; Cit4of Tukwila PLANNING DEPARTMENT 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, Washington 98188 (206) 433 -1849 CITY OF TUKWILA PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 30, 1988 The meeting was called to'order at 8:00 p.m. by ,Mr. Coplen, Chairman. Members present were.Messrs. Coplen, Kirsop, Nagger- ton, Knudson,'Verhalen, Cagle and Hamilton. Representing the staff were Jack Pace, Moira Bradshaw and Joanne Johnson. Mr. Coplen explained the public hearing procedure, as well as the annexation process. 88 -5 -R, 88 -5 -CPA, 88 -5 -CA FOSTER ANNEXATION - Request for: 1. Pre annexation - .zoning for the Foster area. • 2. . Amending Tukwila Comprehensive Land Use Plan Map. 3. Amending the Tukwila :Zoning Code. ,Jack Pace, Senior Planner, reviewed the staff report and various maps : depicting. the Foster annexation area. He. further reviewed the hearing process, as well as the annexation process. . Mr. David Whitlow, 5408 153rd P1. S.E., Bellevue, WA, pointed out his property as being located in Area 01. He felt his property is not conducive to Single.Family zoning and favored a PO zoning designation. He indicated he would suffer unfair economic impacts with a Single Family zoning designation. Ron'Lamb., 4251 S.. 139th, spoke as a member of the Task Force representing a number of citizens in the annexation area. He read a letter submitted to the Planning Commission which outlined a number of, land use issues the Task Force attempted to.resolve in the 'annexation area. This letter is on file in the Planning Department. He favored design review process for multi - family development. Lawrence Hopper, 5105 S. 136th, pointed out his property which is located in Area 1. He spoke in favor of multi-family use rather than a PO designation in order to maintain the residential quality of the neighborhood. APPENDIX C Planning Commission August. 30, : 1988 Page. 2 Larry' Howe, 13568 - 139th S.E., Renton pointed out his property which is located in Areal. He favored a multi - family zoning designation for that area,and felt to zone it single- family would be down - zoning it and would result in the property being unmar- ketable. Terri Craig, 5306 S. 137th, pointed out her property on the map. She favored a PO zoning designation for this area, and if cascading zoning is eliminated, she prefers no less than R -4. She felt that the roads in the area cannot support multi- family. She stated that 90% of persons polled in the area favored P0. Regarding a single- family designation, she felt it would create an economic hardship because there is no market for single family in this area. Pam Carter, 4115 S. 139th, a member of the Task Force, favored design review for multi- family development which would protect single family residents from impacts of this type of development. Regarding cascade zoning, she supported making the recommended change for cascade zoning in the PO designation. She expressed a concern regarding impacts of increased traffic resulting from more intensive development, which would occur on streets that are at a maximum efficiency now. Jeff Bowman, 18014 N.E. 125, Redmond, pointed out his property which is located in Area 2. He favors multi- family zoning. He felt this property is not conducive to single - family zoning and further, it would create an economic hardship because there is no market for single - family in that area. Joan Meryhew, 4431 S. 148th, represented Eleanor Whitmore at 14006 McAdam. She stated that Ms. Whitmore favored preserving her property single - family residential while she is still living, but she would not object to some kind of business designation in the long -range plan for this area. She expressed a concern regarding the surface water that accumulates on her property from nearby development. Rayble Vomenici, 4822 5. 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 - THORNDYKE ANNEXATION Request for: 1. Pre- annexation zoning for the Thorndyke area. 2. Amending Tukwila Comprehensive Land Use Plan Map. 3. Amending the Tukwila Zoning Code. Moira Bradshaw, Associate Planner, reviewed the . Thorndyke Annexation staff report, entering it as Exhibit I. She referred to the Designation Comparison map of the Thorndyke area which was entered into the record as Exhibit II and the Comparison of HIghline Comp. Plan with Proposed Tukwila Comp Land Use Plan which was entered into the record as Exhibit III. Steve Oatsmith, 7213 - 240th S.E., Woodenville, pointed out the location of his property which is located in Area 8. He favored retaining cascading zoning in _PO if the streets are able to handle the impacts. Steve Lawrence, 4461 S. 144th spoke in favor of PO but not the RMH of cascading zoning. He spoke in opposition to apartments as it would adversely impact schools, lower the quality of neighbor- hoods. Ed Jackson, 4727 S. 144th, expressed his concern regarding the traffic on 144th. He favored preserving a single family quality of life. Al Pachucki, 3725 S..150th, spoke in support of low density, not . medium density. He was generally in favor of the annexation. Planning Commission August 30, 1988 Page . .4 Curt Drake, 4444 S. 146th, expressed a concern regarding the likelihood of having to accept the obligations of the Fire District. He supported the current R -1 zoning. Vern Meryhew, 4431 S. 148th, a member of the Task Force concurred with PO zoning designation but not to include cascading zoning. He favored a zoning change to anything but R -1 or R -2. Donald Guilbault, 12040 Standring Ct, Seattle, 98146, pointed out his property which is located in the central area.of.Thorndyke and the norther border'of'area 2. He favors a zoning designation of anything but R -1 or R -2. • The Public Hearing was closed at 9:55 p.m. A meeting was scheduled for. September 8, 1988 at which time the Planning Commission will'come to a decision on.the. two annexation requests. Mr. Coplen explained that written testimony would be accepted up until 5:00 p.m. Friday, September 2, 1988. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 10:07 pm. Respectful 1 submitted, ''oanne Joho on Secretary Tukwila Planning Commission 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, Washington 98168 14809 51st Avenue South Seattle, Washington 98168 September 2, 1988 • To Whom It May Concern: We are writing to express concern over the proposed zoning requirements in our area if we are annexed to the City of Tukwila, and the impact it will have on us as property owners. The current RM2400 zoning has been designated for our property for.at least 20 years. .The zoning was designctted as part of . a long-range comprehensive. plan influenced in part because the 51st Avenue South corridor is bounded on the east by the 1-5 freeway and on the west by a topographical barrier, Bremer Hill. These factors, combined with the feeder arterial, Klickitat Drive, would ;indicate good planning. The purchase of our property in 1975 was based on this zoning, as an investment for our retirement years. We have invested a great deal of time and money to improve the property for resale. It is our plan to retire in two or three years. If we are, in effect, "down-zoned" because of larger space requirements per unit, we stand to 535,000 to 545,000, based on recent sales on our street. This will have a substantial impact on our relocation. It is also 0 fact that ernest money agreements have been signed for all properties on the west side of 51st Avenue South from South 151st, north to Bonsai Northwest, with the exception of two parcels, ours and the Ketchersids, who border us on the north. Even though it is a major upheaval For us to sell at this time, we feel we are being forced to do so prior to the annexation in order to protect our retirement investment. The prospect to choosing to move or lose a substantial amount of our investment is adding a great deal of stress to an already stressful time in our lives. Mr. Swanberg is recuperating from a heart attack and having other health problems of a more serious nature. Mrs. Swanberg has recently been hospital- ized as well. We strongly feel the input of local residents in annexation planning is largely biased to cif-tole family because most are single family residents. Some have been very vocal about apartments on 51st Avenue South It is our opinion they are unaware this zoning was arrived at by good planning guidelines and has been in place for many years APPENDIX D Tukwila PlannL.. Commission Thank you for listening to our concerns. The discussion at one of the earlier planning meetings indicated that current zoning requirements would remain unchanged along 51st: Avenue South. Your proposed space requirements represent a substantial change. We therefore request zoning that will retain the present space requirements on the property under discussion. Sincerely, ., /' Phillip H. Swonberg i Donna Swanberg AUGUST 31, 1988 • CITY OF TUKWILA PLANNING COMMISSION 6200'SOUTHCENTER BOULEVARD TUKWILA, WA RE: ANNEXATION AND REZONING OF THORNDYKE AREA LOT 15, BLOCK 7, ADAMS HOME TRACT, LESS WEST 60' GENTLEMEN: FIRST, I WISH TO STATE THAT I AM IN FAVOR OF THE ANNEXATION. SECO`.D, I WOULD LIKE TO ADDRESS THE ISSUE OF ZONING. WE OWN A PROPERTY AT 4049 SOUTH 146TH STREET. OUR HOUSE, ALONG WITH THE THREE HOUSES TO THE WEST AND ONE TO THE EAST, ARE THE ONLY HOUSES IN THIS BLOCK. THEY ARE NOT ON SEWER AND SEWER IS ONLY AVAILABLE ON PACIFIC HIGHWAY SOUTH. THERE ARE THREE PROBLEMS: 1. WITH THE MOBILE HOME PARK AND A STORAGE LOT TO THE WEST (UPHILL) AND THE FOUR HOUSES ON SEPTIC SYSTEMS, ALL SURFACE WATER DRAINS ONTO OUR PROPERTY. THIS RESULTS IN THE LOT FLOODING AND CRE TV,S WHAT WE BELIEVE COULD BE A HEALTH HAZARD. THE PROPERTIES 'NIL NOT PERC AND ACCEPT NEW SEPTIC DRAIN FIELDS. 2. WITH THE ABOVE CONDITIONS AND THE TRANSIENT NATURE OF THE NEiG,- BORHOOD, THE HOUSES RENT FOR A FRACTION (75) OF COMPARABLE PROPERTIES. 3. WHEN THE SEPTIC SYSTEMS EVENTUALLY FAIL, NO ONE WILL BE ABLE TC LIVE THERE. THAT LEAVES ONLY ONE SOLUTION -- FOR A DEVELOPER TO PURCHASE ALL THE PROPERTIES AND CHANGE THE USE OF THE PROPER: FROM SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL. THEREFORE, PLEASE CONSIDER CHANGING THE ZONING FROM R -1 TO ANY ZOr.'.G THAT WILL ACCEPT MULTI - RESIDENTIAL, PUBLIC STORAGE, LIGHT [NDUSTRi. OR SIMILAR USE, WITH DESIGN REVIEW CONTROL TO ASSURE THAT THE -+OME5 TO THE SOUTH ARE BUFFERED. THANK YOU FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION. SINCERELY, DONALD R. GUILBAULT 12040 STANDRING COURT SW SEATTLE, WA 98146 APPENDIX D ING Co wi' Y AS _ : r ! • • •• •11• •"• a I•• .1• off • •1 O.0 • , • • • • V • T•• It t , • • •"' Y . I. • • r elk 1 F /• v v v $Cii.E r. •00• L.G Jam. I • 0 ,.. • •a 11 ik gem sr F41 t A C • S •• 1 4 T w•• I •• • T f1 I It I I ..'' ,••* . fall 1 00 . • Miaow •• • •I 01•• IPAO •11• • ' I Sa' •• t w •• 111 1, •1 )S 1• 6 •.N l e 4_, • 1.1 ••r• •NI •11• V . - r. r • • 1 � •••. ••• • �•• . .7i • 40-1 ' S C ? 61988 !' a - wei - v — GGtd - l Q 3 £ r (3 ) -1 7' 1 APPENDIX D S " S LF?ff/ /0-7-o-7-?,:zm-pr( —7 ' 1 ' 10 I 4-r) "bra. 11/ .PS o (.# + 4 rn � s ,_s c £ 608,,, - t he "`v..,$) �.. - ern- »' 1 4 7 , , %) -pyjdorAr , s c,27 ° S - "f..0 Q t ?2Z Planning Commission City . .of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, WA 98188 Gentlemen: August 31, f 1988 Re Thorndyke Annexation to Tukwila I have resided at my present location nearly twenty. years and would like to advise you that I am in favor of the Thorndyke annexation to Tukwila. I am in complete agreement with'the comments made Tuesday. evening, August 31st, 1988 by Steve Lawrence and 'Ed :Jackson. Very truly .yours, 7rj..w laiaArni Mae E. Nelson 4206 S. 148th St. P. 0. Box 68235 Seattle, WA 98168 APPENDIX D 1908 City of Tukwila PLANNING DEPARTMENT 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, Washington 98188 (206) 433 -1649 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 DEVELOPMENTS LESS THAN 10,000 SQUARE FEET) IN ALL ZONING DIST- RICTS EXCEPT M -1 AND M -2 ZONES. MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED. FOSTER ANNEXATION Jack Pace, Senior Planner, reviewed the various maps depicting the Foster annexation area. He then reviewed the testimony at the August 30, 1988 hearing, as well as written testimony received. Mr. Pace reviewed the proposed zoning for Area #1 of the Annexa- tion area, which includes property owned by Mr. Whitlow, Mr. Hopper, Terri Craig and Eva Painter. He noted that the Task Force recommended zoning for the area is P -0 Professional Office. The Planning Commission concurred with the P -0 Professional Office 'designation for this area. Mr. Pace then reviewed the proposed zoning for Area #2 and the testimony given by Mr. Howe, Mr. Vomenici, Joan Meryhew who represented Eleanor Whitmore, Pam Carter, Mr. DeAno, and Mr. Davis. MR. HAMILTON MOVED AND MR. VERHALEN SECONDED A MOTION TO ESTAB- LISH C -M AS THE ZONING FOR THE AREA BORDERED BY 136TH (APPROX.) TO THE NORTH, MACADAM TO THE WEST, 138TH TO THE SOUTH, RIGHT -OF- WAY FOR I -5 TO THE EAST; ESTABLISH R -3 FOR THE BALANCE OF AREA 2. • Planning Commission September 8, 1988 Page 3 THE MOTION. WAS UNANIMOUSLY PASSED. MR. HAMILTON MOVED AND MR. CAGLE SECONDED A MOTION THAT THE AREA INCLUDED IN THE RIVERTON ANNEXATION WHICH IS. LOCATED APPROXI- MATELY SOUTHEAST OF 48TH, AND ABUTTING I -5 AND 136TH, BE CHANGED FROM SINGLE FAMILY TO C -M. THE MOTION PASSED WITH VERHALEN, HAGGERTON, CAGLE, HAMILTON AND KNUDSON VOTING YES; AND MR. KIRSOP VOTING NO. The next area covered was the property owned by Jeff Bowman and zoned single family. The Planning Commission concurred with the single family designation. Area 4 -B was the next area to be covered which was the location of a trailer park. MR. KIRSOP MOVED AND MR. KNUDSON SECONDED A MOTION TO DESIGNATE AREA 4 -B AS R -4 ZONING. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. The Planning Commission concurred that Area 4 -C remain single family. Area 4 -A was the next area under discussion which is located in the southwest corner of the annexation area. MR. HAMILTON MOVED AND MR. KNUDSON SECONDED A MOTION THAT THE AREA WEST OF 41ST AVENUE BE DESIGNATED C -2, AND THE AREA LOCATED BETWEEN 41ST AND 42ND BE DESIGNATED R -4. THE MOTION PASSED WITH HAGGERTON, CAGLE, HAMILTON, KIRSOP AND KNUDSON VOTED YES; AND MR. VERHALEN VOTED NO. Area 3 was the next area under discussion which is located in the southeast corner of the annexation area. The Planning Commission concurred with the R -3 designation of this area. A 5- minute recess was called; the meeting reconvened at 9:55 pm. THORNDYKE ANNEXATION Moira Carr Bradshaw reviewed the minutes of the August 30, 1988 meeting and the testimony given that night, as well as written testimony received subsequent to that meeting. She pointed out the location of property owned by Steve Oatsmith, Steve Lawrence and Ed Jackson who testified first at the previous hearing. The Planning Commission made no changes on the zoning . designation of these properties. Planning Commission September 8, 1988 Page 4 Next she reviewed the circumstances related to the property owned by Al Pachucki located at 3725 S. 150th. MR. KIRSOP MOVED THAT THE PACHUCKI PROPERTY BE ZONED R -1 AND THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN REFLECT A MEDIUM DENSITY DESIGNATION. MR. KNUDSON SECONDED THE MOTION WHICH WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED. The comments of Curt Drake at 4444 S. 146th street and Vern Meryhew at 4431 S. 148th was noted. She then reviewed the oral comments and written testimony submitted by Mr. Donald Guilbault who owns property located in Issue -Area 2. The Planning Commission concurred that this property remain R -1. The next item reviewed was letters received by Mr. & Mrs. Swanberg and Mrs. Ketchersid who own property in Issue Area 8. The. current King County Highline Plan designates the area as residential and with zoning of RM -2400, the closest comparable medium density Tukwila zoning is R -3 which will result in 3.5 units less per acre than currently allowed. MR. KIRSOP MOVED TO LEAVE THE ZONING R -3 ON THE. ASSUMPTION THAT IF THIS AREA REALLY CREATES A PROBLEM AND THEY ARE WILLING TO EXPEND THE MONEY TO DEVELOP THE ROADWAYS AND THE WATER THEN WE CAN THEN REVIEW THE PROS AND CONS AND EITHER GRANT IT OR NOT. MR. KNUDSON SECONDED THE MOTION WHICH UNANIMOUSLY PASSED. The last comment reviewed was a letter submitted by Mae Nelson who supported the comments of Ed Jackson and Steve Laurence. MR. CAGLE MOVED TO ACCEPT STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION FOR THE THORN - DYKE ANNEXATION AREA WITH THE CHANGES THAT HAVE PREVIOUSLY BEEN ENTERED. MR. KIRSOP SECONDED THE MOTION WHICH WAS UNANIMOUSLY ACCEPTED. MR. HAMILTON MOVED TO ACCEPT STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE FOSTER ANNEXATION AREA WITH THE EXCEPTIONS THAT HAVE BEEN MADE TONIGHT IN THE MEETING. MR. VERHALEN SECONDED THE MOTION WHICH WAS UNANIMOUSLY ACCEPTED. DIRECTOR'S REPORT Mr. Pace reviewed the agenda planned for the September 22, 1988 Planning Commission meeting which will include discussion of the 1989 Work Plan and Budget. Planning Commission September 8, 1988 Page 5 ADJOURNMENT. The meeting was adjourned at 10:25 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Joanne Johnson, Secretary Cici of Tukwila PLANNING DEPARTMENT 6200 Boulevard Tukwila, Washington 98188 (206) 433-1849 CITY OF TUKWILA PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 30, 1188 The meeting was called to order at 8:00 p.m. by Mr. Coplen, Chairman. Members present were Messrs. Coplen, Kirsop, Nagger- ton, Knudson, Verhalen, Cagle and Hamilton. Representing the staff were Jack Pace, Moira Bradshaw and Joanne Johnson. Mr. Coplen explained the public hearing procedure, as well as the annexation process. 88-5-R, 88-5-CPA, 88-5-CA FOSTER ANNEXATION - Request for 1. Pre-annexation zoning for the Foster area. 2. Amending Tukwila Comprehensive Land Use Plan Map. 3. , Amending the Tukwila Zoning Code. • Jack Pace, Senior Planner, reviewed the staff report and various Maps depicting the Foster annexation area. He further reviewed the-heiring,process,.as well as the annexation process. Mr. David Whitlow, 6408 Pi. S.E., Bellevue, WA, pointed out his property as being located in Area 01. He felt his property is not conducive to Single Family zoning and favored a PO zoning designation. He indicated he would suffer unfair economic:. impacts.with a Single Family zoning designation. Ron Lamb, .4251 S. 139th, spoke as a member of the Task Force representing a number of .citizens in the annexation area. He read a letter submitted to the Planning Commission which outlined a number of land use issues the Task Force attempted to resolve in 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 multi-family use rather than a PO AesignatiOn in order to maintain Ahe'residential quality of the neighborhood, APPENDIX C Planning. Commission August 30, 1988 Page 2 Larry Howe, 13568 - 139th S.E., Renton pointed out his property which is located in Area 2. He favored a multi- family zoning designation for that area and felt to zone it single- family would be down- zoning it and would result in the property being unmar- ketable. Terri Craig, 5306 S. 137th, pointed out her property on.the map. She favored a PO zoning designation for this area, and if cascading. zoning is eliminated, Yshe 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 PO. Regarding a single - family. designation,, she felt .it would create an economic hardship because there is no market for single family in this area. Pam Carter, 4115 S. 139th, a member of the Task Force, favored design review for multi - family development which would protect single family residents from impacts,of this type of development. Regarding cascade zoning, she supported making the recommended . change for cascade zoning in the PO designation. She expressed a concern regarding impacts of increased traffic resulting from more intensive development, which would occur on streets that are at a maximum efficiency now. Jeff Bowman, 18014 N.E. 125, Redmond, pointed out his property which is located in Area 2. He favors multi - family zoning. He felt this property is not conducive to single- family zoning and further, it would create an economic hardship because there is no market for single- family in that area Joan Meryhew, 4431. S. 148th, represented Eleanor Whitmore at 14006 McAdam. She stated that Ms. Whitmore favored preserving her property single - family residential while she is still living, but she would not object to some kind of business designation in the long -range plan for this area. She expressed a concern regarding the surface water that accumulates on her property from nearby development. Rayble Vomenici, 4822 S. 138th Street, he favored M -1 zoning, not R -1, for the area between McAdam Road and 1 -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 on 144th. He favored preserving a single family quality of life. Al Pachucki, 3725 S. 150th, spoke in support of low density, not medium density. He was generally in favor of the annexation. Planning Commission August 30, 1988 Page 4 Curt Drake, 4444 S. 146th, expressed a concern regarding the likelihood of having to accept the obligations of the Fire District. He supported the current R -1 zoning, Vern Meryhew, 4431 S. 148th, a member of the Task Force concurred with PO zoning designation but not to include cascading zoning. . He favored a zoning change to anything but R -1 or R -2. Donald Guilbault, 12040 Standring Ct, Seattle, 98146, pointed out his property which is located in the central area of Thorndyke and the norther border of area 2. He favors a zoning designation of anything but R -1 or R -2. The Public Hearing was closed at 9:55 p. 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, V 11144,4 howals° Joanne Johnson Secretary GENTLEMEN: AUGUST 31, 1988 • CITY OF TUKWILA PLANNING COMMISSION 6200 SOUTHCENTER BOULEVARD TUKWILA, WA RE: ANNEXATION AND REZONING OF THORNDYKE AREA LOT 15, BLOCK 7, ADAMS HOME TRACT, LESS WEST 60' FIRST, I WISH TO STATE THAT I AM IN FAVOR OF THE ANNEXATION. SECO`D, I WOULD LIKE TO ADDRESS THE ISSUE OF ZONING. WE OWN A PROPERTY AT 4049 SOUTH 146TH STREET. OUR HOUSE, ALONG WITr THE THREE HOUSES TO THE WEST AND ONE TO THE EAST, ARE THE ONLY HOUSES IN THIS BLOCK. THEY ARE NOT ON SEWER AND SEWER IS ONLY AVAILABLE ON PACIFIC HIGHWAY SOUTH. THERE ARE THREE PROBLEMS 1. WITH THE MOBILE HOME PARK AND A STORAGE LOT TO THE WEST (UPHILL) AND THE FOUR HOUSES ON SEPTIC SYSTEMS, ALL SURFACE WATER DRAINS ONTO OUR PROPERTY. THIS RESULTS IN THE LOT FLOODING AND CRE..TV.s WHAT WE BELIEVE COULD BE A HEALTH HAZARD. THE PROPERTIES NOT PERC AND ACCEPT NEW SEPTIC DRAIN FIELDS. 2. WITH THE ABOVE CONDITIONS AND THE TRANSIENT NATURE OF THE NEIL- - BORHOOD, THE HOUSES RENT FOR A FRACTION (75S) OF COMPARABLE PROPERTIES. 3. WHEN THE SEPTIC SYSTEMS EVENTUALLY FAIL, NO ONE WILL BE ABLE T„ LIVE THERE. THAT LEAVES ONLY ONE SOLUTION -- FOR A DEVELOPER TO PURCHASE ALL THE PROPERTIES AND CHANGE THE USE OF THE PROPERT FROM SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL. THEREFORE, PLEASE. CONSIDER CHANGING THE ZONING FROM R -1 TO ANY ZOr.;•.; THAT WILL ACCEPT MULTI - RESIDENTIAL, PUBLIC STORAGE, LIGHT INDUSTRi =_ OR SIMILAR USE, WITH DESIGN REVIEW CONTROL TO ASSURE THAT THE rOMEi TO THE SOUTH ARE BUFFERED. THANK YOU FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION. SINCERELY, DONALD R. GUILBAULT 12.040 STANDRING COURT SW SEATTLE, WA 98146, APPENDIX D Tukwila Planning Commission 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, . Washington 98168 14809 51st Avenue South Seattle, Washington 98168 September 2, 1988 To Whom It May Concern: We are writing to express concern over the proposed zoning requirements in our area if we are 'annexed to the City of Tukwila, and the impact it will have on us as property owners. The current RM2400 zoning has been designated for our property for at least 20 years. The zoning was designated as part of a long- range comprehensive. plan influenced in part because the 51st Avenue South corridor is bounded on the east by the 1-5 freeway and on the west by a topographical barrier, Bremer Hill. These factors, combined with the feeder arterial, Klickitat Drive, would indicate good planning. The purchase of our property in 1975 vas based on this zoning, as an investment for our retirement years. We have invested a great deal of time and money to improve the property For resale. It is 'our plan to • retire in two or three years. If we 'are, in effect, "down - zoned ". because of larger space requirements per unit, we stand to S35,000 to S45,000, based on recent sales on our street. This will have a substantial impact on our relocation. It is also a fact that ernest money agreements have been signed For all properties on the west side of 51st Avenue South from South 151st, north to Bonsai Northwest, with the exception of two parcels, ours and the Ketchersids, who border us on the north.. Even though it is a major upheaval for us to sell at this time, we feel we are being forced to do so prior to the annexation in order to protect our retirement investment. The prospect to choosing to move or lose a substantial amount of our investment is adding a great deal of stress to an already stressful time in our lives. Mr. Swonberg is recuperating from a heart attack and having other health problems of a more serious nature. Mrs. Swanberg has recently been hospital- ized as well. • We strongly feel the input of local residents in annexation planning is largely biased to tingle family because most are single family residents. Some have been very vocal about apartments on 51st Avenue South It is our opinion they are unawcre this zoning was arrived at by good planning guidelines and has been in place for many years APPENDIX D Tukwila PL Commission The discussion at one of the earlier planning meetings indicated that current zoning requirements would remain unchanged along 51st Avenue South. Your proposed space requirements represent a substantial change. We therefore request zoning that will retain the present space requirements on the property under discussion. Thank you for listening to our concerns. Sincerely, Phillip H. Swanberg Donna - Swanberg : . Planning Commission City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, WA 98188 Re: Thorndyke Annexation to Tukwila' . Gentlemen: I.have resided my present location nearly twenty years and would like to advise you that I am in favor of the Thorndyke annexation to Tukwila. I am in complete agreement with the. comments made Tuesday evening,.August 31st, 1988 by Steve Lawrence and Ed Jackson. Very truly yours, Mae E. Nelson 4206 S. 148th St. P. 0. Box 68235 Seattle, WA 98168 APPENDIX D Q... a4e€ t e•-. 7 , 44 . .� ..�� cam.. c 2 . . J ? - (4 (3 .) .: •trC • 4:4.401 2..42- • APPENDIX D /7 SG t ie/Le- 5�ati�o� C1 a? S1' S'' ) - Rfffes per t a f 4 7' a r j T 0 • rNIG COUNTY AS4 • • -- - - -�•- — • a �• r , I. 1 0, , s ■ trf • • • J. JI • a• r ,1 40" ' Mr • .•M •r •. 13 ... • • • II • ii ,yo 44 HewQ Pik A 4, C 1.• • I•• • S � •J•a1 -- -- • - 0 .I v v !MAIL( r— 1a- L.d PINIM ' ,19 } P . 1 0119 1 � .•. )f. • • 0/.n •1/ i r • 11 1 � 41 •`•r de 19 t • , 4J s N a • '', o •' PI i ' arZ 44 " 000 •�� , e • • • ' • • • •• n .,,,• r — • i • • a, 7 t � , •J • • h 1 ! ! b i 1• • • • • • .•r w • .• . / . a • • __ . ... — go a • t •.• i •• • 1 •` ^. . I I 1 . I I " City of Tukwila PLANNING DEPARTMENT 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, Washington 98188 (206) 433 -1849 HEARING DATE: FILE NUMBER: INITIATED BY:. REQUEST: LOCATION: ACREAGE: COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: ZONING DISTRICT: SEPA DETERMINATION: ATTACHMENTS: August 30, 1988 88 -4 -CPA, 88 -4 -R, 88 -5 -CA Thorndyke Annexation petitioners 1. Comprehensive Land Use Plan Map Amendments 2. Pre - Annexation Zoning 3. Zoning Code Text Amendments The annexation, area is generally bounded by South 144th Street, Pacific Highway South, South 160th Street, and the City limits (Attachment H) 469.15 acres (A) (B) (C) (D) (E) (F) (G) (H) STAFF REPORT to the Planning Commission Prepared August 26, 1988 See Attachments A and B See Attachment C Determination of Non - Significance issued July 1, 1988 King County Highline Community Plan Map Existing Tukwila Comprehensive Land Use Plan Map Existing King County Zoning Map Issue Areas Map Proposed Tukwila Comprehensive Land Use Plan Map Amendments Proposed Tukwila Zoning Map Height Exception Map Thorndyke Annexation Area Map APPENDIX E PRE - ANNEXATION ZONING PROCESS BACKGROUND STAFF REPORT to the 88 -4 -CPA, 88 -4 -R, 88 -5 -CA Planning Commission FINDINGS In May 1988, the City of Tukwila received a petition requesting an election for annexation to Tukwila of the area shown on Attachment H. The petition contained 67 valid signatures. Of the 1,106 registered voters residing in the area, 346 voted in the last general election, therefore the signatures exceed the required 10 %. The petition requesting an annexation election also requested the simultaneous adoption of pre- annexation zoning. The procedure for designating pre- annexation zoning has been varied. In annex- ation areas where there has been little development change and the current King County zoning is compatible with the Tukwila Comprehensive Plan, then the Tukwila Comprehensive Plan is used to create the appropriate Tukwila zoning. However, in areas where there is substantial development or County zoning inconsistent with Tukwila's Comprehensive Plan, then a Tukwila Comprehensive Plan update is undertaken. Substantial change in land use and development has occurred in the Thorndyke area in the blocks which form its boundary and in the blocks which abut the freeways. CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT Since June a group of residents, property owners and business people have been working as a Task Force on the Tukwila Comprehensive Plan for the area and pro- posed Tukwila Zoning. The Task Force was formed by volunteers who signed up at the first public information meeting on June 8, 1988, and from volunteers res- ponding to a letter requesting participation; sent to all residents who signed the petition. The proposal was then presented to the community on August 18, 1988 for comment and discussion. The majority of the comments received were concerns by property owners about the decrease in the number of units allowed on their parcels, particularly in Issue Areas 5 and 8. For the Planning Commission public hearing, notices with the proposed zoning were mailed to all property owners and public notice appeared in the local papers. As part of the public notice, hearing dates for the City Council hearings were also mentioned. REPORT ORGANIZATION This report is divided into three sections. The first section discusses general annexation information. The second section discusses the Comprehensive Land Use Plan Map and Tukwila pre- annexation zoning. The third section addresses the proposed text amendments to the Tukwila Zoning Code. STAFF REPORT to the Planning Commission, ANNEXATION As shown on Attachment B, the Thorndyke Annexation request is within the Tukwila Planning Area. This annexation ties in with the Foster annexation to the north and the 1985 McMicken annexation to the east. The annexation area population is estimated at 4,604 people. Existing land use in the area is mixed between commercial /multi - family along Pacific Highway South, South 154th and South 158th Streets; public schools along South 144th Street; and single - family in the central and eastern areas. As part of the environmental review process, the City examined capital and operation costs of the annexation to the City. Based upon that preliminary information provided by the consultant, additional research will be done by City staff in preparing an amended City budget. The amended budget will be approved by the City Council this fall, to address the additional service needs if the voters approve the annexation. King County B -N Neighborhood Business C -G General Commercial COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLAN MAP AMENDMENTS AND PRE - ANNEXATION ZONING COMPARABLE ZONING CATEGORIES Tukwila 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) 3 88 -4 -CPA, 88 -4 -R, 88 -5 -CA Existing land uses and King County zoning (Attachment C) were compared with the Tukwila Comprehensive Land Use Plan Map, which was adopted in 1978 and revised in 1982 (Attachment B). Zoning categories from Tukwila and King County were also compared. See Table 1 below. This comparison found substantial variation between what exists and is allowed by the County and what is planned for the area by the City. The major change has been an increase in housing density along collector arterials. The areas of difference are referred to as sub -areas and grouped into issue areas identified on a vicinity map (Attachment D). Each sub -area is discussed in detail on the following pages. In the remaining blocks in the annexation area, where there are no conflicts in the zoning and no pro- posed changes in the City's Comprehensive Plan, the current zoning is RS -7200 and the proposed zoning is R- 1 -7.2. R -1 -12.0 R -1 -7.2 Single- Family Residential (3.6/6 dwelling units per acre) R -2 Two Family Residential (11 dwelling units per acre) R -3 Three /Four Family Residential (14.5 dwelling units per acre) R -4 Low Apartments (21.8 dwelling units per acre) RMH Multi- Residence High Density (29 dwelling units per acre) C -1 Community Retail Business C -2 Regional Retail Business STAFF REPORT to the 88 -4 -CPA, 88 -4 -R, 88- 5 -CA Planning Commission There have recently been several new apartment or townhouse developments in the Thorndyke area. The task force's. goals were to maintain a quality, stable single - family neighborhood, and control direct traffic impacts. To carry out these goals, they used medium - density residential to provide transition between high and low.density residential. The'desire to control the housing density of the area has resulted in some inconsistent designations of medium density in the overall plan. ' Transition is not provided, however, in all blocks between Pacific Highway and 42nd Avenue South. The City may wish to consider transition areas for the Comprehensive. Plan (Attachment E) but retain the proposed zoning on Attachment F. THORNDYKE ISSUE AREA 1 EXISTING SUB- AREA TUKWILA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN A High Density Residential B High Density Residential C Low Density Residential DISCUSSION The proposed Comprehensive Plan change from high- density residential to Commer- cial and a C -1 zone for Sub -Area A is to accommodate the existing water district office. Sub -Area B is surrounded by high - density uses, therefore it is appro- priate to include it in the proposed RMH district. The proposal for Sub -Area C is a compromise between its current zoning, existing land use and Tukwila Comp Plan designation. The Comp Plan policy (p. 47) which states, "Provide medium- density 'transition areas' between high- and low- density residential areas" supports the proposed medium - density Comp Plan designation and rezone. The zoning to the north of South 144th Street is medium density as well. The Task Force reviewed and concurs with the recommendation. RECOMMENDATION Sub - Area Tukwila Comprehensive Plan Zoning A Commercial B High- Density Residential C Medium - Density Residential (26 /TA.AREA1) -5- COUNTY ZONING LAND USE RM -1800 Commercial parking, public utility office and storage RS -7200 Single - family dwellings RM -1800 Single - family dwelling C -2 and C -1 RMH R -2 The recommendation for the remaining area in the block is shown on Attachments E and F. y C A # '' i [ % - - - - -- ° b 1. 6bOb -- so 1:311-1: 1;4) Owl i %NI I I I ._._ 1 I . I • - 6 bJ I I I It I et'O riz SSOIr THORNDYKE ISSUE AREA 2 EXISTING SUB- AREA TUKWILA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ZONING LAND USE A High- Density Residential BC /RM -1800 Commercial parking B Low- Density Residential RM -1800 Portion of mobile home park C Commercial BC /RM -1800 Multi- family development D High- Density Residential RS -7200 Single- family dwellings DISCUSSION The proposed designations for Sub -areas A, B and C would reflect the existing uses of the sites. Sub -area D is proposed as a medium - density transition area rather than its current high - density designation. The City and County have failed to create gradual change or transition between residential uses. Sub -Area D is an opportunity for creating a transition between high- and low- density areas. The Task Force reviewed and concurs with the recommendation. RECOMMENDATION S. 148TH ST. COUNTY Sub - Area Tukwila Comprehensive Plan Zoning A Commercial C -2 B High- Density Residential RMH C High- Density Residential RMH D Medium- Density Residential R -2 The recommendation for the remaining area in the block is shown on Attachments E and F. (26 /TA.AREA2) -6- DISCUSSION (26 /TA.AREA3) THORNDYKE ISSUE AREA 3 EXISTING SUB- AREA TUKWILA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN A High- Density Residential B High- Density Residential C High- Density Residential D Public Facility COUNTY ZONING RM -1800 RM -1800 RS -7200 RS -7200 Land in Sub -Areas A and B is not yet developed at high densities, as currently planned by their Comp Plan designations and zoning. A less dense transition between the existing commercial businesses west of the lots and the low- density residential immediately east of the lots in Sub -Area C would be medium density. A Public Facility designation is no longer needed or planned for Sub -Area D and is therefore recommended for low- density residential. The Task Force reviewed and concurs with the recommendation. RECOMMENDATION Sub - Area Tukwila Comprehensive Plan Zoning A Medium - Density Residential R -3 B Medium - Density Residential R -3 C Low - Density Residential R -1 -7.2 0 Low- Density Residential R -1 -7.2 The recommendation for the remaining area in the block is shown on Attachments E and F. -7- LAND USE Single - family dwelling Vacant Single - family dwellings Single - family dwelling EXISTING DISCUSSION RECOMMENDATION (26 /TA.AREA4) THORNDYKE ISSUE AREA 4 SUB- COUNTY AREA TUKWILA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ZONING LAND USE A High- Density Residential RM -1800 2 fourplexes on separate lots B High - Density Residential RM -1800 Single - family dwellings Based on policies of the Tukwila Comp Plan, it is appropriate to designate the sub -area for medium - density to provide transition between the existing low- density land use to the east and the high - density residential to the west. The Task Force reviewed and recommended R -2 for Sub -Area B and high - density RMH for Sub -Area A. After further review of the sub - areas, staff recommends a medium density /R -3 for both sub -areas since Sub -Area A needs R -3 to be a conforming use. Sub - Area Tukwila Comprehensive Plan Zoning A Medium - Density Residential R -3 B Medium - Density Residential R -3 The recommendation for the remaining area in the block is shown on Attachments E and F. -8- THORNDYKE ISSUE AREA S EXISTING SUB- AREA TUKWILA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN A Low - Density Residential B Low- Density Residential C Low- Density Residential D Low- Density Residential E Low- Density Residential F Low- Density Residential DISCUSSION COUNTY ZONING A High- Density Residential RMH B Commercial C High- Density Residential D Low- Density Residential E High- Density Residential F Medium - Density Residential R -3 The recommendation for the remaining Attachments E and F. RM -1800, RM -2400, RS -7200 RM -1800 RM-900 RM -1800 RM -1800, C -2 RMH R -1 -7.2 RMH LAND USE The Task Force reviewed and concurs with the recommendation. RECOMMENDATION Sub - Area Tukwila Comprehensive Plan Zoning area in the block is shown on Single- and multiple - family dwellings BC 2 single- family dwellings surrounded by a commercial parking lot Multiple- family complex Single - family dwelling Multiple - family dwellings 2 single - family dwellings, 7 fourplexes, and vacant The recommendations for Sub -Areas A, B, C, E and F reflect the predominant use in each of the sub -areas and require a change to Tukwila's Comprehensive Land Use Plan Map from low- to high- or medium - density residential or commercial. Sub -Area D, however, is a spot of RM -900 zoning in a block of RS -7200; therefore R -1 -7.2 is proposed. EXISTING DISCUSSION THORNDYKE ISSUE AREA 6 SUB- COUNTY AREA TUKWILA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ZONING LAND USE A Low - Density Residential RM -1800 Multiple - family dwellings with RS -7200 2 single - family homes in the southeast corner B Low- Density Residential RM -1800 Vacant C Low - Density Residential RM -1800 4 single - family dwellings The proposal for A and C reflects the predominant land use in the sub - areas. Commercial in Sub -Area B mirrors the designation north of 158th Street and along its west property line. The Task Force reviewed and concurs with the recommendation. RECOMMENDATION Sub - Area Tukwila Comprehensive Plan Zoning A High - Density Residential RMH B Commercial C -2 C High- Density Residential RMH The recommendation for the remaining area in the block is shown on Attachments E and F. (26 /TA.AREA6) THORNDYKE ISSUE AREA 7 EXISTING SUB- COUNTY AREA TUKWILA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ZONING LAND USE A Low - Density Residential RM -1800, Duplexes, low apartments, RS -7200 single- family'dwelling with non- conforming manufacturing use, sensitive vacant lot B Low- Density Residential RM -1800 Multiple - family dwellings C Low - Density Residential RS -7200 3 single - family dwellings DISCUSSION Sub -Area A was the most difficult in this issue area to treat because of the wide mix of uses. A medium density designation, although low for the existing apartment's actual density at approximately 4200 - I54th Street, is more appropriate for the entire area due to the small size of the parcels and the sensitive area - a deep wide ravine - in the easternmost portion of the sub -area. For Sub -Area B, the proposed high density merely reflects the existing land uses. Sub -Area C is a small pocket of single- family homes. The lots to the north and east of C have access from 51st Avenue South and are proposed for medium - density residential; therefore, medium is also proposed for Sub -Area C. The Task Force reviewed and concurs with the recommendation; however, staff is proposing R -3 zoning of Sub -Area C to reflect the surrounding zoning, instead of R -2. (Either are appropriate zones for a medium - density designation.) RECOMMENDATION Sub - Area Tukwila Comprehensive Plan Zoning A Medium - Density Residential R -2 and R -3 B High - Density Residential RMH C Medium - Density Residential R -3 The recommendation for the remaining area in the block is shown on Attachments E and F. (26 /TA.AREA7) -12- ■ • •vn■vw • "vim, MICA 43 DISCUSSION Issue Area 8 was the most difficult area for the task force to review for appropriate land use. The following factors were discussed: 1. The road, 51st Avenue South, is a collector arterial and has direct access to SR -518 and I -5. It is substandard for a majority of its length. If a higher intensity of use were to occur, right -of -way dedication and improvement would be needed. Traffic counts for 51st equaled other busy collectors like Southcenter Boulevard between 62nd and 65th Avenue South. 2. The area is visible from I -5 and vice versa. There is no substan- tial grade change between the freeway for Sub -Area C. 3. The noise level negatively impacts the properties and more so for Area B than C because it is upslope from the freeway. 4. There are environmentally sig- nificant grades and streams in a majority of Sub -Area B. 5. The parcels are relatively large and have not been subdivided. 6. Sewer lines are non - existent and would have to be extended down from South 144th Street or up from 52nd Avenue. The water line is substandard and would also have to be improved if the area were to be developed for denser uses. The Task Force reviewed 11 alterna- tives from low density to commercial. A quality single - family neighborhood did not seem viable due to the prox- imity, views and noise of and from the freeway. Office, which is aesthetically more acceptable to residents than commercial due to building design and site development, is a good transition from the freeway. The medium density on the east could be more sensitive to site limitations of steepness and surface water and more marketable than single- family because of accessibility and location near jobs and shopping. Bonsai Northwest and a cellular tele- phone business are located in Sub -Area A. C -1 zone would be comparable with the existing BN zone and would accom- modate the existing uses. Although no consensus was achieved, the majority opinion in the Task Force felt the recommendation was the most appropriate. EXISTING SUB- COUNTY AREA TUKWILA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ZONING LAND USE A Low- Density Residential BN Retail businesses, single- family B Low- Density Residential RS -7200, Single- family dwellings RM -2400, RM -1800 (26 /TA.AREA8) Low- Density Residential RS- 7200, RM -2400 Single - family. dwellings RECOMMENDATION Sub Area Tukwila Comprehensive Plan Zoning A Commercial C -1 B Medium- Density Residential R -3 C Office P -0 (restricted, no cascade) ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS STAFF REPORT to the 8.+ -CPA, 88 -4 -R, 88 -5 -CA Planning Commission - This section will review the proposed text amendments to the Zoning Code in conjunction with pre- annexation zoning discussed in the preceding section. There are two proposed amendments: Height Exception and the Professional Office Zone. The proposed amendments would become effective upon annexation of this area to Tukwila. The single - family setback standards were also a concern for the task force. At this time there are no proposed amendments to the setback standards. HEIGHT EXCEPTION Existing Tukwila The Tukwila Zoning Code, page 290, maps areas of the City where buildings may exceed the height limits of the underlying zones. p. Proposed Amend map 2 "Building Height Exception Area" (p. 290) to show area adjacent to SR -99 and SR -518 interchange as ".Up to and including 115 feet ". See Attachment G. Amend (shown in bold print) TMC 18.50.040 - Building Height Exceptions up to and Including 115 Feet: Section 18.50.040 Building Height Exceptions up to and Including 115 Feet Authorization of building height greater than the heights contained in Section 18.50.020 (Table 1) up to and including 115 feet in the areas of the City as designated on Map 2 shall be made by the Plan- ning Commission acting as the Board of Architectural Review pursuant to the guidelines and procedures specified in Chapter 18.60. Discussion The height limits in King County for regional retail districts allow unlim- ited heights subject to one -foot setbacks for one foot increases in height over 45 feet. In Tukwila, 35 feet is the height limit in regional retail districts. The C -2 district at the SR -99 and SR -518 intersection is sur- rounded by high- density residential and commercial uses. (The height limit in RMH - Maximum Density Multiple Family districts is 45 feet.) Therefore, a maximum height of 115 feet subject to design review would be appropriate and consistent with the location other height exception areas in the City. PROFESSIONAL OFFICE ZONE 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.O zone allows single, two, three and four family dwellings, apartments, townhouses, nursing homes, libraries, offices, and educational schools and studios. Proposed Amend : the Zoning Code (TMC 18) by renumbering Chapter 18.26 P -0 District Professional and Office District to Chapter 18.17. ' STAFF REPORT to t,_ � 88 -4 -CPA, 88 -4 -R, 88 -5 -CA Planning Commission Amend (shown in bold print) TMC 18.26.020 Principally Permitted Uses - (1) Any principally permitted use in the R - 3 district; Discussion The task force felt that the distinction between a professional office and apartment /high- density residential zone was important in the land use deci- sion, and recommend no residential uses. In two previous quasi - judicial decisions, the City has permitted rezones from single - family to P -0 subject to "conditions" of no high /maximum density (RMH) residential in the first - instance and no multiple dwellings whatsoever in the second instance. The proposed change has City -wide implications. The P -0 districts currently within Tukwila are located along Southcenter Boulevard and South 178th Street. Many parcels within these districts have had office proposals made and approved by the City, only to not be developed. The impact of the proposal is to eliminate the opportunity for high density residential in these areas. One of the purposes of the P -0 district is to serve as a buffer between residential districts and commercial and /or industrial areas. Recent legislative actions and discussions have focused on the concern about the high percentage of multiple family in the City and the opportunity for increasing this percentage through increasing P -0 districts. A comparison of bulk and size between the P -0, RMH, R -4 and R -3 reveals that R -4 and P -0 have the same height limit of 35 feet versus 45 and 30 for RMH and and R -3 respectively and that R -4 /RMH and P -0 are likely to be similar size and type developments. In order to fulfill its purpose as transition yet also control opportunities for housing density staff proposes allowing up to R -3 uses in the P -0 zone. SINGLE FAMILY SETBACK STANDARDS A concern was raised during task force meetings regarding placement of buildings on a single - family lot. KING COUNTY TUKWILA Maximum lot width 60' 50' Front yard 20'* 30' Side yard 5'* 4' -8' (10% of width) Rear yard None 10' Maximum lot coverage 35% None * In addition, the County allows projections of one and a half feet of eaves, fireplaces, bay windows and enclosed stair landings in a required yard. The Tukwila Code places greater restriction on the front, rear and side yards; however, it is more flexible regarding the total use of the lot. A section of the Tukwila Zoning Code (TMC 18.50.070(3)) does allow the Planning Department to waive the front yard requirement and substitute a required yard that is the average of the front yards on adjacent lots. This provision would allow any homeowner who wishes to remodel an oppor- tunity to extend an addition in the front yard to something less than the required 30 feet. Side and rear yard waivers are not however mentioned. It also would provide consistency in the building fronts along a street that was developed under different standards. RECOMMENDATION Planning staff recommends that the text amendments for Height Exception Area and Professional Office be approved. Based on public testimony regarding single- family setbacks, the Planning Commission may wish to recommend to the City Council direction for further review and /or change. - 15 - Ril ■r '` Iii I✓ IrI ' ani ril '� Irl • • :ilrr Ir /1Li L t1U If lrll rrl r7 +11 1 1 �' 111111111 1 .1 : r 1 1 4 1V , I MI1Liri]Of t 012 riliT 11 I.IIiD . ril p1' A " I trill' r �C` '_ _, !. 'IrrP:T71I Yi i i i i i. rie;1 ∎%i u•el9'cr - =p'__ �1 it I. it II ..11e:'se +> / i 171: ? ■11 i .� �� +I 1 i -1 1•" ii�ll Lllilrr ll 1� , �i I1I T � ., , liTic 1Ar11 �I nFytl Oil I �••.11 Is aJlil l • er r/ i r•i'1 ti IE11 •r mt MI I . .IU 1 1 li r r: N tin/ In ! - Nom v,d:4.slli,il. \'119rIrrrise ¢ru•'' `R, r11IIt`1Jirrrn,l<iiiiC•.r 111::!Ji01Iri1'rl•] ■r' .1104311 • anarg-11ittarr ■/' . /■rrhl7rl i!lrll!!07II ra.r yr• f:�1liCiN�J!lifl •rrrrrrrlli. � rrrrarrlari ■rllrir�f' irr•LX4rllri0P!9 I•I5 RrL/ r.I1°_'rjiti i[ri : :M► ■0111'! J3.r 71Flrrrra rrlrrriRct r gP , qrr� , - ■r11AiaTIVRIfra11N s. iWlrrrrl.Ii , tlIMMr.:■Ilr: sa mdli■ e1 m�,,/•rr■ iiR;iam i imAri ma llim ■Arrant!! / =`L nA: IiUIit d�li:•ada 1 "y"]I .. .. .. ::!:;elfir iti a,AAI I � 1 ■r %1 11 l1 1 N irirrr'l71If1 iP' "In IMMII OL' it IEINP 1'wfE ‘Wi r" ims ie 1rC1•remsb .Qua.iw' rNr!`r7f?'r7P1117PLi:l:Ilf+?L �■rrlrri�Irra1rr11'b ;C;,f�: 4 _ / . 1111[31 di 1 i I . 1 : l i -,• 1 .rrrrWsa h 'a•!yrresf ■fart usi!I inmel1 memeN! ! b Iwllii114I /110'1 ■Aar s1suarerbMrg r1111W5D aiMM J Ya ■Hle Lrrrur/rllrMMEME2Pt3r.'A1 401AAWS7Crl Iff3JaMM I. i1.4uur.lrrr I SIINi::iiiU iI 'rfa113uir MMMEMPi11T \Lii �rlriii't it ■GS:.. —\■i�rlli i lr•U1•�I �Nfl UI. ■ir■rt?41 �e.� \\ •grit - - -a. Jr Yp NORTH LEGEND NEIGHBORHOOD AND COMMUNITY BUSINESS j HIGHWAY ORIENTED COMMERCIAL g HIGH MAXIMUM DENSITY HOUSING SINGI E FAMILY COMMUNITY FACILITIES qM PARK AND RECREATION A LOW , MEDIUM DENSITY HOUSING ATTACHMENT A THORNDYKE ANNEXATION KING CO. HIGHLINE COMMUNITY PLAN MAP • —D I j v 1 r y— w r F • N 7.1ir #14 .A LgritifiggEO NWT 1 . pIP -.- .ar /Ink • t."P ; 20358 p' ATTACHMENT C • THORNDYKE ANNEXATION KING COUNTY ZONING "EXISTING" LEGEND B-C COMMUNITY BUSINESS CLASSIFICATION B-N NEIGHBORHOOD BUSINESS CLASSIFICATION C-G GENERAL COMMERCIAL CLASSIFICATION M RS-7200 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL RM-2400 MEDIUM DENSITY MULTI-DWELLING F1RM-1800 HIGH DENSITY MULTI-DWELLING RM-900 MAX DENSITY MULTI-DWELLING NMI • T1.• ti AREA 4 ! ••• Is•M UII NNYDALE a WV ••••11117•01111107o. I.. J TvY• • I t . �•�\ ATTACHMENT D THORNDYKE ANNEXATION y r ISSUE AREAS NORTH SO UTHCENTER' • • LARGER COPIES OF MAP AVAILABLE IN TUKWILA PLANNING OFFICE m rjjj am am lam a nnious. oNI 11•11111111111111111111111111 jinn nmensimmunsinn ion ansiniunw 1•11111111•• 1•■ M•11111111111 p 11•11•111111111 ••1111111•1 11•111111111111 •11111111111111111 p 11•11•111•11 1 11•111•11111•• ammiiiimiumommum 1111/1151111•111111W•11•1 1111111111111•01111111110 •IN•M I 1 ••11•11111111111/•••••1•11 11111111••1•11 11•111111111•1 111111111•••11•1 11•11111•1111•111 111•11•1.•1 nemmonni. sino nonunno omen 'nuns neronno I nsollakm mums onceminn 11111111•11111111JI•1111 MIME 11111•111111111 I 2L21•1131111111•1• MINIM •111 1111111111111•11.1HIMMI•1119•1/111•11111I311 MMMMM EMMEN 11•1•111•1 111•••11•1 NI MMUS • MM k r —0 S IC go mit IT sr AS .1 ,v_ ., �r sr V IL 7y • 'est OP • di NNYDAI[ ym • /MTN ST Eta il Ebb: ir.7 at d T • NORTH =7 u R .' iipir EM CC maara I - k��d� Mali 4332 gt a tft µ r \I\ I •••••,. WIN — w • I .. r 1 ety r r II Earn -u1 o T .. surge i — molt WOW $ / 'AMR o !.I / / /%r �. ee IhJ � iii/ 11/e J � f f .40/ / A - r ..: *I ' • fir C 11 Ian' I SeJOINII r • • d a • t•Z:.I ` kt *- %E R 4r if Lars i3i . 6! 36 -115 FEET - rc v � 1 AR-0 �1 y ' .l Y I * ■ _ f N a, • a 9 0 0 liggi nu 81 M IC I $ • • 5 i • diiii BAIN f or 'tr _ ma y( • re gp' ` • • f ''' X1. • a • ..- 4 0 ., a► • ■ i • .—f Mb I SOUTHC£NTEA is. OISIE ti � a A All • rs s I r $ • - RiO • �Y_� -- -- d • ATTACHMENT a THORNDYKE ANNEXATION HEIGHT EXCEPTION AREA SWAMI _imam SSA r 1 11$ •r .w� • , •"•cw. •• S. M AT iIi OI •.AT LS .•••. •••••••• an ir.m. - rMmWvrKE- ANNioN : 1 .0 IT. i r ....1:—..i* . .. .., f _• _ i ,' l i . '! .,... i - • ■.•;;TA . •-•-', -4- - - . , ..1. D A ••-MI $ r : .,.. ___. . .'" ' ' ..: 7° . . f •t` ..„.• : :: l:.1 I 7. ........---.---.."---..• ; --..x. • .. r.,•:•L.........._,-..- . , . -F,.... t, .1 .• . -. 11 • i ', .. .c :,,,,—"," t...:-......: ; ■• - , ... L. ...Ts, ,./ , . 4? .. .........°.): , \ Z1 -*! ... -..,....••, .:.....t..4 ,.. '• .... , , i ... . • . t, _ ,.... • r • 7 : .11 '31 ,sr " 1 , 1 4f s I LA .., • A -A ie.- 4 • 7 • I a So. 1440 St.. r ATTACHMENT H t _A‘ •••4 • •.7.111 s • — 1•1 THORNDYKE ANNEXATION AREA (469.15 ACRES) -- CITY BOUNDARY LINE SCALE 1" = 880' A . NORTH September 12, 1988• 7:00 P.M. CALL TO ORDER AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL OF COUNCIL MEMBERS CITY STAFF CITIZEN'S COMMENTS Sign for Blood Bank BID AWARDS PUBLIC HEARINGS', Pre- annexatton.1 1' lg & comprehend* *Atli amendments fov •.. p. Thorndyke 'aunt tiltiOn, (1st Public Hearing }. APPENDIX F Award bid for No. Hill Reservoir & Pump Sta. Ph. I Excavation Proj., Sch. A &B,in amt. of $398,409.60. TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL ' City Hall SPECIAL MEETING `' Council Chambers MINUTES Mayor Van Dusen called the Tukwila City Council Special Meeting to order and led the audience in the Pledge of Allegiance. MABEL J. HARRIS (COUNCIL PRESIDENT), JOE H. DUFFIE, EDGAR D. BAUCH, MARILYN G. STOKNES. JOAN HERNANDEZ, DENNIS L. ROBERTSON, CLARENCE B. MARIWAKI. Maxine Anderson (City Clerk), Rick Beeler (Planning Director), Moira Bradshaw (Associate Planner), John Colgrove (City Attorney), Alan Doerschel (Finance Director), Ross Earnst (Public Works Director), Lucy Lauterbach (Legislative Coordinator), Jack Pace (Senior Planner), Don Williams (Parks and Recreation Director). Linda Baker, Puget Sound Blood Center, stated the Blood Center would like an exception to the sign code. The new building owners have put out their sign and many people are unable to find the Blood Center. They have approximately 65 - 70 donors a day and the sign is important. They are a nonprofit organiza- tion. Mayor Van Dusen said he would refer the problem to the Planning staff. Senior Planner Jack Pace stated he would advise.Ms. Baker as to the procedure to follow in requesting the sign. Ross Earnst, Public Works Director, explained the bids that were submitted. He recommended the bid be awarded to the low bidder, Jack McCann Company, Inc., in the amount of $398,409.60. MOVED BY STOKNES, SECONDED BY HARRIS, THAT THE BID FOR SCHEDULES A &B FOR THE NORTH HILL RESERVOIR AND PUMP STATION, PHASE I EXCAVATION CONTRACT, IN THE AMOUNT OF $398,409.60 BE AWARDED TO THE JACK MCCANN COMPANY. MOTION CARRIED. Mayor Van Dusen opened the Public Hearing at 7:20 p.m., stating the second public hearing on this subject will be heard in 30 days on October 17, 1988. Mayor Van Dusen stated a letter dated September 12, 1988 with seven signatures regarding the zoning on the west side of 51st Avenue South from South 144th to. South 152nd has been received. Melvin E. Roberson, 14859 51st Avenue South, stated he was talking about a portion of the annexation which deals with zoning on the west side of 51st Avenue South from South 144th to South 152nd. The debate at the task force meetings centered around zoning as R -3 versus R -4. The opposition for the R -4 zoning comes from non - residents of that area with the affected owners wanting R -4. The present County zoning is RM -2400 which is closer to the Tukwila R -4 code. Recently two builders have shown interest and signed purchase agreements based on the County zoning of RM 2400 and acquisition of several acres on which to build. Both builders have sianed agreements for sufficient acreage, however, one builder has stated he cannot build with a density of less than RM 24n0 because of the high cost of upgrading sewer and water lines. An R -3 zoning kills any market for the property. It would be imnossible for the people in the area to support a favorable vote when it would cost from S40,000 to $50,000 each. We would like the City Council to consider this as R -4 rather than R -3. Across the street it is compatible to R -4. James Angle, 4831 S. 146th, stated he has lived here for 51 years. R -4 is what the zoning designation should be. It has been RM 2400 for a long time. Vern Merryhew, 4431 S. 148th, was in the Task Force meetings. It was a big concern what the impact of R -4 would have on the TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL SP'" ' MEETING September 12, 1988 Page 2 PUBLIC HEARINGS - Contd. Pre - annexation zoning A comprehensive' plan amendments for prop. Thorndyke annexation (1st Public Hearing) - contd. Purchase of Property s neighborhood. As R -3 it will provide a buffer. In the Task Force meetings the R -3 designation was decided upon. Phillip R. Swanderhearst, 14809 51st S., said he attended the Task Force meetings. They were influenced that it would be R -4. They would lose money. Verna Ketchused, 14637 51st Avenue South, stated she agreed with Mr. Roberson. There should be a buffer zone. When the Council sees the property the back is steep. Joan Merryhew, 4431 S. 148th, stated this area was discussed extensively. The investers do not live in the community and do not care about the zoning, except to make money. It would be detrimental to have a business come in and rape the land. R -3 is the zoning she would like. Councilmember Harris stated this area is almost 10 acres. She asked if the owners would collectively build or build on an individual basis. Mel Roberson, 14859 51st Avenue South, stated none of the owners plan to do their own building. Builders would come in and develop the land, They would sell their property to a developer to come in and build. Don Pitts, developer, stated he is associated with a developer for investment and it has been assumed this property will be R -4. The new buildings would upgrade the area because there would be improvements to the streets and sidewalks. Donna Swanberg,.14809 51st So., stated she would like the zoning to be R -4. Councilmember Moriwaki asked if these citizens were members of the Task Force and if they made their desires known at that time. Melvin E. Roberson, 14859 51st Avenue S., said he thought density was being talked about in the Task Force meetings. He did not know they were talking about R -4. He did not know it was 3000 sq. ft. density. They have never been talking about high desnity apartments. The buffer is not an issue. The lay of the land becomes a buffer. James Angle, 4831 S. 146th, said there is a noise problem. If apartments are developed provision is made to abate the noise. Moira Bradshaw, Associate Planner, stated the Thorndyke Task Force and the Planning Department recommendations were alike. King County designation was medium density. The Planning Commission has recommended medium density. The City zoning is different than the County. Our R -3 allows 14.5 units per acre. The County allows 18 per acre. R -4 allows 24. The Planning Commission and Task Force recommendations are the same. MAYOR VAN DUSEN CLOSED THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 7:56 P.M., STATING THE SECOND PUBLIC HEARING WOULD BE HELD ON OCTOBER 17, 1 Larry Hard, City Attorney, asked if the purchase of property could be considered next on the agenda. Purchased property is next to the Foster Golf Course and deals with environment. An old tank has been dug up and there is still some contaminated soil from gas and oil. The cost to clean the soil was estimated at $8,0OO. The amount of $7,800 has been spent and there is need of more. Mr. Hard recommended that the City continue with the purchase. Some of the soil will have to be removed. The additional cost will be $15,000 to $20,000. This will make clean soil without health hazards. �...o.w rv.+.wo.w.wn.ww+..wr.•. .. •�.Ix.�!.'ll •+ , City of Tukwila PLANIVING DEPARTMENT 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, Washington 98188 (206) 433 -1849 CITY OF TUKWILA PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 8, 1988 x 2.1• r✓r; x:,.. v7n; ra.' x.r :...car..vtv':�s:'+'Fro::as's rqn'._:': ".w.7c`'f:!!:�".."+ 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 ". Planning Commission September 8, 1988 Page 2 Amend TMC 18.50.040 - Building Height Exceptions up to and Including 115 Feet: "Authorization of building height greater than the heights contained in Section 18.50.020 (Table 1) up to and including 115 feet in the areas of the City as designated on Map 2 shall be made by the Planning Commission acting as the Board of Architectural Review pursuant to the guidelines and procedures specified in Chapter 18.60. Discussion ensued on PO Professional Office Zone. MR. HAMILTON MOVED AND MR KIRSOP SECONDED A MOTION TO MOVE THE PO PROFESSIONAL OFFICE DESIGNATION IN ORDER OF SEQUENCE IN THE ZONING CODE SO THAT IT FOLLOWS R -3. THE MOTION PASSED WITH VERHALEN, KIRSOP, HAGGERTON AND HAMILTON VOTING YES; AND CAGLE AND KNUDSON VOTING NO. Discussion ensued on the zoning change for Design Review. MR. HAMILTON MOVED AND MR. CAGLE SECONDED A MOTION TO HAVE DESIGN REVIEW ON ALL DEVELOPMENTS (EXCEPT SINGLE FAMILY HOMES AND DEVELOPMENTS LESS THAN 10,000 SQUARE FEET) IN ALL ZONING DIST- RICTS EXCEPT M -1 AND M -2 ZONES. MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED. FOSTER ANNEXATION Jack Pace, Senior Planner, reviewed the various maps depicting the Foster annexation area. He then reviewed the testimony at the August 30, 1988 hearing, as well as written testimony received. Mr. Pace reviewed the proposed zoning for Area #1 of the Annexa- tion area, which includes property owned by Mr. Whitlow, Mr. Hopper, Terri Craig and Eva Painter. He noted that the Task Force recommended zoning for the area is P -0 Professional Office. The Planning Commission concurred with the P -0 Professional Office designation for this area. Mr. Pace then reviewed the proposed zoning for Area #2 and the testimony given by Mr. Howe, Mr. Vomenici, Joan Meryhew who represented Eleanor Whitmore, Pam Carter, Mr. DeAno, and Mr. Davis. MR. HAMILTON MOVED AND MR. VERHALEN SECONDED A MOTION TO ESTAB- LISH C -M AS THE ZONING FOR THE AREA BORDERED BY 136TH (APPROX.) TO THE NORTH, MACADAM TO THE WEST, 138TH TO THE SOUTH, RIGHT -OF- WAY FOR I -5 TO THE EAST; ESTABLISH R -3 FOR THE BALANCE OF AREA 2. Planning Commission September 8, 1988 Page 3 THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY PASSED. MR. HAMILTON MOVED AND MR. CAGLE SECONDED A MOTION THAT THE AREA INCLUDED IN THE RIVERTON ANNEXATION WHICH IS LOCATED APPROXI- MATELY SOUTHEAST OF 48TH, AND ABUTTING I -5 AND 136TH, BE CHANGED FROM SINGLE FAMILY TO C -M. THE MOTION PASSED WITH VERHALEN, HAGGERTON, CAGLE, HAMILTON AND KNUDSON VOTING.YES; AND MR. KIRSOP VOTING NO. The next area covered was the property owned by Jeff Bowman and zoned single family. The Planning Commission concurred with the single family designation. Area 4 -B was the next area to be covered which was the location of a trailer park. MR. KIRSOP MOVED AND MR. KNUDSON SECONDED A MOTION TO DESIGNATE AREA 4 -B AS R -4 ZONING. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. The Planning Commission concurred that Area 4 -C remain single family. Area 4 -A was the next area under discussion which is located in the southwest corner of the annexation area. MR. HAMILTON MOVED AND MR. KNUDSON SECONDED A MOTION THAT THE AREA WEST OF 41ST AVENUE BE DESIGNATED C -2, AND THE AREA LOCATED BETWEEN 41ST AND 42ND BE DESIGNATED R -4. THE MOTION PASSED WITH HAGGERTON, CAGLE, HAMILTON, KIRSOP AND KNUDSON VOTED YES; AND MR. VERHALEN VOTED NO. Area 3 was the next area under discussion which is located in the southeast corner of the annexation area. The Planning Commission concurred with the R -3 designation of this area. A 5- minute recess was called; the meeting reconvened at 9:55 pm. THORNDYKE ANNEXATION Moira Carr Bradshaw reviewed the minutes of the August 30, 1988 meeting and the testimony given that night, as well as written testimony received subsequent to that meeting. She pointed out the location of property owned by Steve Oatsmith, Steve Lawrence and Ed Jackson who testified first at the previous hearing. The Planning Commission made no changes on the zoning designation of these properties. Planning Commission September 8, 1988 Page 4 Next she reviewed the circumstances related to the property owned by Al Pachucki located at 3725 S. 150th. MR. KIRSOP MOVED THAT THE PACHUCKI PROPERTY BE ZONED R -1 AND THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN REFLECT A MEDIUM DENSITY DESIGNATION. MR. KNUDSON SECONDED THE MOTION WHICH WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED. The comments of Curt Drake at 4444 S. 146th street and Vern Meryhew at 4431 S. 148th was noted. She then reviewed the oral comments and written testimony submitted by Mr. Donald Guilbault who owns property located in Issue -Area 2. The Planning Commission concurred that this property remain R -1. The next item reviewed was letters received by Mr. & Mrs. Swanberg and Mrs. Ketchersid who own property in Issue Area 8. The current King County Highline Plan designates the area as residential and with zoning of RM -2400, the closest comparable medium density Tukwila zoning is R -3 which will result in 3.5 units less per acre than currently allowed. MR. KIRSOP MOVED TO LEAVE THE ZONING R -3 ON THE ASSUMPTION THAT IF THIS AREA REALLY CREATES A PROBLEM AND THEY ARE WILLING TO EXPEND THE MONEY TO DEVELOP THE ROADWAYS AND THE WATER THEN WE CAN THEN REVIEW THE PROS AND CONS AND EITHER GRANT IT OR NOT. MR. KNUDSON SECONDED THE MOTION WHICH UNANIMOUSLY PASSED. The last comment reviewed was a letter submitted by Mae Nelson who supported the comments of Ed Jackson and Steve Laurence. MR. CAGLE MOVED TO ACCEPT STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION FOR THE THORN - DYKE ANNEXATION AREA WITH THE CHANGES THAT HAVE PREVIOUSLY BEEN ENTERED. MR. KIRSOP SECONDED THE MOTION WHICH WAS UNANIMOUSLY ACCEPTED. MR. HAMILTON MOVED TO ACCEPT STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE FOSTER ANNEXATION AREA WITH THE EXCEPTIONS THAT HAVE BEEN MADE TONIGHT IN THE MEETING. MR. VERHALEN SECONDED THE MOTION WHICH WAS UNANIMOUSLY ACCEPTED. DIRECTOR'S REPORT Mr. Pace reviewed the agenda planned for the September 22, 1988 Planning Commission meeting which will include discussion of the 1989 Work Plan and Budget. mov.e.....,..e.ecrawrwinr. nr:0,mtV3V.'m :: . Planning. Commission September 8, 1988 Page 5 ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 10:25 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Joanne Johnson, Secretary Tukwila Planning Commission 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, Washington 98168 To Whom It May Concern: _ ...._.......+.......,N....,.�.x �aM,.a.�c�..w.sa�w r. +.wi wv. ns�. �.: rrr;. mlrvx+- mx .�,xxz.+•-.:nu;sror�r,�cer. +�. 14809 51st Avenue South Seattle, Washington 98168 September 2, 1988 0 We are writing to express concern over the proposed zoning requirements in our area if we are annexed to the City of Tukwila, and the impact it will have on us as property owners. The current RM2400 zoning has been designated for our property for at least 20 years. The zoning was designated as part of a long -range comprehensive plan influenced in part because the 51st Avenue South corridor is bounded on the east by the 1 -5 freeway and on the west by a topographical barrier, Bremer Hill. These factors, combined with the feeder arterial, Klickitat Drive, would indicate good planning. The purchase of our property in 1975 was based on this zoning, as an investment for our retirement years. We have invested a great deal of time and money to improve the property for resale. It is our plan to retire in two or three years. If we are, in effect, "down- zoned" because of larger space requirements per unit, we stand to $35,000 to $45,000, based on recent sales on our street. This will have a substantial impact on our relocation. It is also a fact that ernest money agreements have been signed for all properties on the west side of 51st Avenue South from South 151st, north to Bonsai Northwest, with the exception of two parcels, ours and the Ketchersids, who border us on the north. Even though it is a major upheaval for us to sell at this time, we feel we are being forced to do so prior to the annexation in order to protect our retirement investment. The prospect to choosing to move or lose a substantial amount of our investment is adding a great deal of stress to an already stressful time in our lives. Mr. Swanberg is recuperating from a heart attack and having other health problems of a more serious nature. Mrs. Swanberg has recently been hospital- ized as well. We strongly feel the input of local residents in annexation planning is largely biased to single family because most are single family residents. Some have been very vocal about apartments on 51st Avenue South. It is our opinion they are unaware this zoning was arrived at by good planning guidelines and has been in place for many years. Tukwila Planning Commission Thank you for listening to our concerns. Sincerely, Phillip H. Swanberg ajotk- Donna Swanberg The discussion at one of the earlier planning meetings indicated that current zoning requirements would remain unchanged along 51st Avenue South. Your proposed space requirements represent a substantial change. We therefore request zoning that will retain the present space requirements on the property under discussion. Cf-14 a4ea a X04 tea sAx444 ° i ;,' fp ,i• 'ii\ , ,i , • Cvt ct 70 ell 7 r Po-144-.4. G 1988 a „ z-es. 4-e /93 I A �3 a) cc _Q aced 61).0 1 Gee . c Ie Gtr' C I if- 7 c orte. ggel 4 . or a 6;0 u,e0eg.t.- st?� 5 cue CYyt Y/ // � r ilay k,nSicY ■1fecGo... : 7 440.1711tewrmza4wm:Le:w• . • • :l. 4 1,. se, 0-14 O7 ( /0-1 0E44 ). .C - iiegep - :?.?:9 C - Z2*v[ 1G .-a, 1 -64 o 4c G - Sd r� pu4 ace - Thc,e."-__ C� tee. cc ..:o ac2- e a-714..vvta_,4 erz 00-ztr fridr-e. "71 Ae. j a-ptAve 0.414, .4-11.444-74cgt-rle cz-ze t'te' 4637 ;—r% C2 , s . os11. M.i:auuwesl aaw:. ;.r�w�.iM - .w • AUGUST 31, 1988 CITY OF TUKWILA PLANNING COMMISSION 6200 SOUTHCENTER BOULEVARD TUKWILA, WA RE: ANNEXATION AND REZONING OF THORNDYKE AREA LOT 15, BLOCK 7, ADAMS HOME TRACT, LESS WEST 60' GENTLEMEN: FIRST, I WISH TO STATE THAT I AM IN FAVOR OF THE ANNEXATION. SECOND, I WOULD LIKE TO ADDRESS THE ISSUE OF ZONING. WE OWN A PROPERTY AT 4049 SOUTH 146TH STREET. OUR HOUSE, ALONG WITH THE THREE HOUSES TO THE WEST AND ONE TO THE EAST, ARE THE ONLY HOUSES IN THIS BLOCK. THEY ARE NOT ON SEWER AND SEWER IS ONLY AVAILABLE ON PACIFIC HIGHWAY SOUTH. THERE ARE THREE PROBLEMS: 1. WITH THE MOBILE HOME PARK AND A STORAGE LOT TO THE WEST (UPHILL) AND THE FOUR HOUSES ON SEPTIC SYSTEMS, ALL SURFACE WATER DRAINS ONTO OUR PROPERTY. THIS RESULTS IN THE LOT FLOODING AND CREATING WHAT WE BELIEVE COULD BE A HEALTH HAZARD. THE PROPERTIES WILL NOT PERC AND ACCEPT NEW SEPTIC DRAIN FIELDS. 2. WITH THE ABOVE CONDITIONS AND THE TRANSIENT NATURE OF THE NEIGH- BORHOOD, THE HOUSES RENT FOR A FRACTION (75%) OF COMPARABLE PROPERTIES. 3. WHEN THE SEPTIC SYSTEMS EVENTUALLY FAIL, NO ONE WILL BE ABLE TO LIVE THERE. THAT LEAVES ONLY ONE SOLUTION -- FOR A DEVELOPER TO PURCHASE ALL THE PROPERTIES AND CHANGE THE USE OF THE PROPERTY FROM SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL. THEREFORE, PLEASE CONSIDER CHANGING THE ZONING FROM R -1 TO ANY ZONING THAT WILL ACCEPT MULTI - RESIDENTIAL, PUBLIC STORAGE, LIGHT INDUSTRIAL OR SIMILAR USE, WITH DESIGN REVIEW CONTROL TO ASSURE THAT THE HOMES TO THE SOUTH ARE BUFFERED. THANK YOU FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION. SINCERELY, DONALD R. GUILBAULT 12040 STANDRING COURT SW SEATTLE, WA 98146 ... w... «... «..w..nd....�...virm.Yroxwnx n�.nc,..«�•aw�ww»e swn tJl3sraarsCM a; u'' ,QRi cs9A:zr,I.Witrk51 , 0 ". .M% 1 i (SEP 61988 k !C9LR(rY ASS _ • • • o 7 = .s 01• ,a • • . .:*&t9' I• •T Gibe I ori1 1 0170 • • 2 ! Z I! - - I3J•.ss___ - -__ 0• I1R 1 1•.s •••• i s••7 7�. v • • I . 00 i I Nil • 011 - riff 1 s a.... ( s s J • M1 0701 `• Ol /O 01c2 046.1 4 41+:1101+4cma., w...+.».n..:r:o.4 SCALE r — row L.G. • "; 4 � 7 • ofW t• 411 III I •• TIS rrp • . 01ft �; r +ts • • Is d. t!• It C1 JS a0 I • of% A II. s( I a,.. NO I sal* • • or 77 • e 7 0917 ,. • R • J • S 0111 Il q' off, g . .. r,. i . l , 7 • I I t Planning Commission City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, WA 98188 Gentlemen: August 31, 1988 Re: Thorndyke Annexation to Tukwila I have resided at my present location nearly twenty years and would like to advise you that I am in favor of the Thorndyke annexation to Tukwila. I am in complete agreement with the comments made Tuesday evening, August 31st, 1988 by Steve Lawrence and Ed Jackson. Very truly yours, Mae E. Nelson 4206 S. 148th St. P. 0. Box 68235 Seattle, WA 98168 City of Tukwila PLANNING DEPARTMENT 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, Washington 98188 (206) 433 -1849 CITY OF TUKWILA PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 30, 1988 The meeting was called to order at 8:00 p.m. by Mr. Coplen, Chairman. Members present were Messrs. Coplen, Kirsop, Nagger- ton, Knudson, Verhalen, Cagle and Hamilton. Representing the staff were Jack Pace, Moira Bradshaw and Joanne Johnson. Mr. Coplen explained the public hearing procedure, as well as the annexation process. 88 -5 -R, 88 -5 -CPA, 88 -5 -CA FOSTER ANNEXATION Request for: 1. Pre - annexation zoning for the Foster area. 2. Amending Tukwila Comprehensive Land Use Plan Map. • 3. Amending the Tukwila Zoning Code. Jack Pace, Senior Planner, reviewed the staff report and various maps depicting the Foster annexation area. He further reviewed the hearing process, as well as the annexation process. Mr. David Whitlow, 5408 153rd P1. S.E., Bellevue, WA, pointed out his property as being located in Area #1. He felt his property is not conducive to Single Family zoning and favored a PO zoning designation. He indicated he would suffer unfair economic impacts with a Single Family zoning designation. Ron Lamb, 4251 S. 139th, spoke as a member of the Task Force representing a number of citizens in the annexation area. He read a letter submitted to the Planning Commission which outlined a number of land use issues the Task Force attempted to resolve in the annexation area. This letter is on file in the Planning Department. He favored design review process for multi - family development. Lawrence Hopper, 5105 S. 136th, pointed out his property which is located in Area 1. He spoke in favor of multi- family use rather than a PO designation in order to maintain the residential quality of the neighborhood. (_ Planning Commission August 30, 1988 Page 2 , .wrl. lv.Y:MUY'F Larry Howe, 13568 - 139th S.E., Renton pointed out his property which is located in Area 2. He favored a multi - family zoning designation for that area and felt to zone it single - family would be down - zoning it and would result in the property being unmar- ketable. Terri Craig, 5306 S. 137th, pointed out her property on the map. She favored a PO zoning designation for this area, and if cascading zoning is eliminated, she prefers no less than R -4. She felt that the roads in the area cannot support multi - family. She stated that 90% of persons polled in the area favored P0. Regarding a single - family designation, she felt it would create an economic hardship because there is no market for single family in this area. Pam Carter, 4115 S. 139th, a member of the Task Force, favored design review for multi - family development which would protect single family residents from impacts of this type of development. Regarding cascade zoning, she supported making the recommended change for cascade zoning in the PO designation. She expressed a concern regarding impacts of increased traffic resulting from more intensive development, which would occur on streets that are at a maximum efficiency now. Jeff Bowman, 18014 N.E. 125, Redmond, pointed out his property which is located in Area 2. He favors multi - family zoning. He felt this property is not conducive to single - family zoning and further, it would create an economic hardship because there is no market for single- family in that area. Joan Meryhew, 4431 S. 148th, represented Eleanor Whitmore at 14006 McAdam. She stated that Ms. Whitmore favored preserving her property single- family residential while she is still living, but she would not object to some kind of business designation in the long -range plan for this area. She expressed a concern regarding the surface water that accumulates on her property from nearby development. Rayble Vomenici, 4822 S. 138th Street, he favored M -1 zoning, not R -1, for the area between McAdam Road and I -5. Nancy Lamb, 4251 S. 139th felt that R -4 or RMH designations would have a negative impact to the South Central School District providing a more transient student population. She felt that it would also have a negative impacts on other city services and further, it would not enhance Tukwila. She concurred with earlier comments regarding PO with R -3 and below usage permitted. She supported design review for multi - family development. f s The public hearing was closed at 9:10 p.m. 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. Mr. Coplen expressed his thanks for those who testified and explained the Planning Commission would come to a decision at their meeting on September 8, 1988. A five minute recess was called and the meeting resumed at 9:25 p.m. to consider the Thorndyke Annexation. 88 -4 -CPA, 88 -4 -R, 88 -5 -CA - THORNDYKE ANNEXATION Request for: 1. Pre - annexation zoning for the Thorndyke area. 2. Amending Tukwila Comprehensive Land Use Plan Map. 3. Amending the Tukwila Zoning Code. Moira Bradshaw, Associate Planner, reviewed the Thorndyke Annexation staff report, entering it as Exhibit I. She referred to the Designation Comparison map of the Thorndyke area which was entered into the record as Exhibit II and the Comparison of Hlghline Comp. Plan with Proposed Tukwila Comp Land Use Plan which was entered into the record as Exhibit III. Steve Oatsmith, 7213 - 240th S.E., Woodenville, pointed out the location of his n roperty is located in Area 8. He favored retaining cascad ^2oni_n_g, in PO if the streets are able to handle the impacts. Steve Lawrence, 4461 S. 144th spoke in favor of PO. but not the f RMH�'of.'cascading zoning. He spoke in opposition to apartments " —it would adversely impact schools, lower the quality of neighbor- hoods. Ed Jackson, 4727 S. 144th, expressed his concern regarding the traffic on 144th. He favored preserving a single family quality of life. Al Pachucki, 3725 S. 150th, spoke in support of low density, not medium density. He was generally in favor of the annexation. Planning Commission August 30, 1988 Page 4 Curt Drake, 4444 S. 146th, expressed a concern regarding the likelihood of having to accept the obligations of the Fire District. He supported the current R -1 zoning. Vern Meryhew, 4431 S. 148th, a member of the Task Force concurred with PO zoning designation but not to include cascading zoning. He favored a nixing change to 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 Planning Commission will come to a decision on the requests. Mr. Coplen explained that written testimony would until 5:00 p.m. Friday, September 2, 1988. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 10:07 pm. Respectfully submitted, Joanne Johnson Secretary r C.. which time the two annexation be accepted up HEARING DATE: August 30, 1988 FILE NUMBER: 88 -4 -CPA, 88 -4 -R, 88 -5 -CA. INITIATED BY: Thorndyke Annexation petitioners REQUEST: 1. Comprehensive Land Use Plan Map Amendments 2. Pre - Annexation Zoning 3. Zoning Code Text Amendments LOCATION: ACREAGE: 469.15 acres COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: See Attachments A and B ZONING DISTRICT: See Attachment C SEPA DETERMINATION: Determination of Non - Significance issued July 1, 1988 ATTACHMENTS: (A) King County Highline Community Plan Map (B) Existing Tukwila Comprehensive Land Use Plan Map (C) Existing King County Zoning Map (0) Issue Areas Map (E) Proposed Tukwila Comprehensive Land Use Plan Map Amendments (F) Proposed Tukwila Zoning Map (G) Height Exception Map (H) Thorndyke Annexation Area Map City of Tukwila PLANNING DEPARTMENT 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, Washington 98188 (206) 433 -1849 STAFF REPORT to the Planning Commission Prepared August 26, 1988 The annexation area is generally bounded by South 144th Street, Pacific Highway South, South 160th Street, and the City limits (Attachment H) STAFF REPORT to the 88 -4 -CPA, 88 -4 -R, 88 -5 -CA Planning Commission BACKGROUND In May 1988, the City of Tukwila received a petition requesting an election for annexation to Tukwila of the area shown on Attachment H. The petition contained. 67 valid signatures. Of the 1,106 registered voters residing in the area, 346 voted in the last general election, therefore the signatures exceed the required 10 %. PRE - ANNEXATION ZONING PROCESS The petition requesting an annexation election also requested the simultaneous adoption of pre - annexation zoning. The procedure for designating pre- annexation zoning has been varied. In annex -. ation areas where there has been little development change and the current King County zoning is compatible with the Tukwila Comprehensive Plan, then the Tukwila Comprehensive Plan is used to create the appropriate Tukwila zoning. However, in areas where there is substantial development or County zoning inconsistent with Tukwila's Comprehensive Plan, then a Tukwila Comprehensive Plan update is undertaken. Substantial change in land use and development has occurred in the Thorndyke area in the blocks which form its boundary and in the blocks which abut the freeways. CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT FINDINGS Since June a group of residents, property owners and business people have been working as a Task Force on the Tukwila Comprehensive Plan for the area and pro- posed Tukwila Zoning. The Task Force was formed by volunteers who signed up at the first public information meeting on June 8, 1988, and from volunteers res- ponding to a letter requesting participation; sent to all residents who signed the petition. The proposal was then presented to the community on August 13, 1988 for comment and discussion. The majority of the comments received were concerns by property owners about the decrease in the number of units allowed on their parcels, particularly in Issue Areas 5 and 8. For the Planning Commission public hearing, notices with the proposed zoning were mailed to all property owners and public notice appeared in the local papers. As part of the public notice, hearing dates for the City Council hearings were also mentioned. REPORT ORGANIZATION This report is divided into three sections. The first section discusses general annexation information. The second section discusses the Comprehensive Land Use Plan Map and Tukwila pre- annexation zoning. The third section addresses the proposed text amendments to the Tukwila Zoning Code. STAFF REPORT to the 88 -4 -CPA, 88 -4 -R, 88 -5 -CA Planning Commission ANNEXATION As shown on Attachment B, the Thorndyke Annexation request is within the Tukwila Planning Area. This annexation ties in with the Foster annexation to the north and the 1985 McMicken annexation to the east. The annexation area population is estimated at 4,604 people. Existing land use in the area is mixed between commercial /multi - family along Pacific Highway South, South 154th and South 158th Streets; public schools along South 144th Street; and single- family in the central and eastern areas. As part of the environmental review process, the City examined capital and operation costs of the annexation to the City. Based upon that preliminary information provided by the consultant, additional research will be done by City staff in preparing an amended City budget. The amended budget will be approved by the City Council this fall, to address the additional service needs if the voters approve the annexation. COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLAN MAP AMENDMENTS AND PRE - ANNEXATION ZONING Existing land uses and King County zoning (Attachment C) were compared with the Tukwila Comprehensive Land Use Plan Map, which was adopted in 1978 and revised in 1982 (Attachment B). Zoning categories from Tukwila and King County were also compared. See Table 1 below. This comparison found substantial variation between what exists and is allowed by the County and what is planned for the area by the City. The major change has been an increase in housing density along collector arterials. The areas of difference are referred to as sub -areas and grouped into issue areas identified on a vicinity map (Attachment D). Each sub -area is discussed in detail on the following pages. In the remaining blocks in the annexation area, where there are no conflicts in the zoning and no pro- posed changes in the City's Comprehensive Plan, the current zoning is RS -7200 and the proposed zoning is R- 1 -7.2. King County B -N Neighborhood Business C -G General Commercial COMPARABLE ZONING 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) 3 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 M _-i- Residence High Density (29 dwelling units per acre) C -1 Community Retail Business C -2 Regional Retail Business STAFF REPORT to the 88 -4 -CPA, 88 -4 -R, 88 -5 -CA Planning Commission There have recently been several new apartment or townhouse developments in the Thorndyke area. The task force's goals were to maintain a quality, stable single - family neighborhood, and control direct traffic impacts. To carry out these goals, they used medium- density residential to provide transition between high and low density residential. The desire to control the housing density of the area has resulted in some inconsistent designations of medium density in the overall plan. Transition is not provided, however, in all blocks between Pacific Highway and 42nd Avenue South. The City may wish to consider transition areas for the Comprehensive Plan (Attachment E) but retain the proposed zoning on Attachment F. THORNDYKE ISSUE AREA 1 EXISTING SUB- AREA TUKWILA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN A High Density Residential B High Density Residential C Low Density Residential DISCUSSION 146TH ST. The proposed Comprehensive Plan change from high- density residential to Commer- cial and a C -1 zone for Sub -Area A is to accommodate the existing water district office. Sub -Area B is surrounded by high- density uses, therefore it is appro- priate to include it in the proposed RMH district. The proposal for Sub -Area C is a compromise between its current zoning, existing land use and Tukwila Comp Plan designation. The Comp Plan policy (p. 47) which states, "Provide medium - density 'transition areas' between high- and low- density residential areas" supports the proposed medium - density Comp Plan designation and rezone. The zoning to the north of South 144th Street is medium density as well. The Task Force reviewed and concurs with the recommendation. RECOMMENDATION Sub - Area Tukwila Comprehensive Plan Zoning A Commercial C -2 and C -1 B High - Density Residential RMH. C Medium- Density Residential R -2 The recommendation for the remaining area in the block is shown on Attachments E and F. (26 /TA.AREA1) -5- COUNTY ZONING LAND USE RM -1800 Commercial parking, public utility office and storage RS -7200 Single - family dwellings RM -1800 Single - family dwelling EXISTING SUB- DISCUSSION 5 148TH ST. THORNDYKE ISSUE AREA 2 COUNTY AREA TUKWILA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ZONING LAND USE A High - Density Residential BC/RM-1800 Commercial parking B Low- Density Residential RM-1800 Portion of mobile home park C Commercial BC /RM -1300 Multi - family development D High - Density Residential RS -72'J0 Single- family dwellings The proposed designations for Sub -areas A, B and C would reflect the existing uses of the sites. Sub -area D is proposed as a medium- density transition area rather than its current high - density designation. The City and County have failed to create gradual change or transition between residential uses. Sub -Area D is an opportunity for creating a transition between high- and low- density areas. The Task Force reviewed and concurs with the recommendation. RECOMMENDATION Sub - Area Tukwila Comprehensive Plan Zoning A Commercial C -2 B High- Density Residential . RMH C High- Density Residential RMH D Medium- Density Residential R -2 The recommendation for the remaining area in the block is shown on Attachments E and F. (26 /TA.AREA2) F • r - -..) A.. 1 I I 0 ,- 1 1 —J M OD I 1111M,••■ I t7 14UVj t ( { . i . __ 4 0) 4 04 91 Li 017 10t Eel [.- 2 E ® I 1 I I 1 1 vvoti; ME g5�ti I T EXISTING SUB- DISCUSSION 5 148TH ST. THORNDYKE ISSUE AREA 2 COUNTY AREA TUKWILA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ZONING LAND USE A High - Density Residential BC/RM-1800 Commercial parking B Low- Density Residential RM-1800 Portion of mobile home park C Commercial BC /RM -1300 Multi - family development D High - Density Residential RS -72'J0 Single- family dwellings The proposed designations for Sub -areas A, B and C would reflect the existing uses of the sites. Sub -area D is proposed as a medium- density transition area rather than its current high - density designation. The City and County have failed to create gradual change or transition between residential uses. Sub -Area D is an opportunity for creating a transition between high- and low- density areas. The Task Force reviewed and concurs with the recommendation. RECOMMENDATION Sub - Area Tukwila Comprehensive Plan Zoning A Commercial C -2 B High- Density Residential . RMH C High- Density Residential RMH D Medium- Density Residential R -2 The recommendation for the remaining area in the block is shown on Attachments E and F. (26 /TA.AREA2) THORNDYKE ISSUE AREA 3 EXISTING SUB- COUNTY AREA TUKWILA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ZONING LAND USE A High - Density Residential RM -1800 Single - family dwelling B High- Density Residential RM -1800 Vacant C High- Density Residential RS -7200 Single - family dwellings D Public Facility RS -7200 Single - family dwelling DISCUSSION Land in Sub -Areas A and B is not yet developed at high densities, as currently planned by their Comp Plan designations and zoning. A less dense transition between the existing commercial businesses west of the lots and the low- density residential immediately east of the lots in Sub -Area C would be medium density. A Public Facility designation is no longer needed or planned for Sub -Area D and is therefore recommended for low- density residential. The Task Force reviewed and concurs with the recommendation. RECOMMENDATION Sub - Area Tukwila Comprehensive Plan Zoning A Medium - Density Residential R -3 B Medium - Density Residential R -3 C Low - Density Residential R -1 -7.2 D Low- Density Residential R -1 -7.2 The recommendation for the remaining area in the block is shown on Attachments E and F. (26 /TA.AREA3) S. 150TH ST. -7- W d Z fJ C EXISTING DISCUSSION RECOMMENDATION (26 /TA.AREA4) THORNDYKE ISSUE AREA 4 SUB- COUNTY AREA TUKWILA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ZONING LAND USE A High- Density Residential RM -1800 2 fourplexes on separate lots B High- Density Residential RM -1800 Single- family dwellings Based on policies of the Tukwila Comp Plan, it is appropriate to designate the sub -area for medium - density to provide transition between the existing low- density land use to the east and the high- density residential to the west. The Task Force reviewed and recommended R -2 for Sub -Area B and high- density RMH for Sub -Area A. After further review of the sub - areas, staff recommends a medium density /R -3 for both sub -areas since Sub -Area A needs R -3 to be a conforming use. Sub - Area Tukwila Comprehensive Plan Zoning A Medium - Density Residential R -3 B Medium - Density Residential R -3 The recommendation for the remaining area in the block is shown on Attachment and F. EXISTING A Low- Density Residential B Low- Density Residential C Low- Density Residential D Low- Density Residential E Low- Density Residential F Low - Density Residential DISCUSSION RECOMMENDATION THORNDYKE ISSUE AREA 5 SUB- AREA TUKWILA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN COUNTY ZONING LAND USE RM -1800, Single- and multiple - family RM -2400, dwellings RS -7200 BC 2 single- family dwellings surrounded by a commercial parking lot RM -1800 Multiple- family complex RM -900 Single-family dwelling RM -1800 Multiple- family dwellings RM -1800, 2 single - family dwellings, 7 fourplexes, and vacant The recommendations for Sub -Areas A, B, C, E and F reflect the predominant use in each of the sub -areas and require a change to Tukwila's Comprehensive Land Use Plan Map from low- to high- or medium- density residential or commercial. Sub -Area D, however, is a spot of RM -900 zoning in a block of RS -7200; therefore R -1 -7.2 is proposed. The Task Force reviewed and concurs with the recommendation. Sub - Area Tukwila Comprehensive Plan Zoning A High- Density Residential RMH B Commercial C High- Density Residential D Low- Density Residential E High- Density Residential F Medium - Density Residential R -3 C -2 RMH R -1 -7.2 RMH The recommendation for the remaining area in the block is shown on Attachments E and F. ,•Ea�,�C T EA'�( .. q0t :2 F5 5I VE C O t..A RV, - c .1 /58TH ST DISCUSSION (26 /TA.AREA6) fess THORNDYKE ISSUE AREA 6 0-t EXISTING SUB- COUNTY AREA TUKWILA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ZONING LAND USE The Task Force reviewed and concurs with the recommendation. ‘03eD `fits P A Low- Density Residential RM -1800 Multiple- family dwellings with RS -7200 2 single - family homes in the southeast corner B Low- Density Residential RM -1800 Vacant C Low- Density Residential RM -1800 4 single - family dwellings The proposal for A and C reflects the predominant land use in the sub - areas. Commercial in Sub -Area B mirrors the designation north of 158th Street and along its west property line. RECOMMENDATION Sub - Area Tukwila Comprehensive Plan Zoning A High- Density Residential RMH 6 Commercial C -2 C High - Density Residential RMH The recommendation for the remaining area in the block is shown on Attachments E and F. EXISTING A Low - Density Residential B Low - Density Residential C Low- Density Residential DISCUSSION (26 /TA.AREA7) THORNDYKE ISSUE AREA 7 SUB- AREA TUKWILA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN COUNTY ZONING RM -1800, RS-7200 LAND USE Duplexes, low apartments, single - family dwelling with non - conforming manufacturing use, sensitive vacant lot RM -1800 Multiple- family dwellings RS -7200 3 single - family dwellings Sub -Area A was the most difficult in this issue area to treat because of the wide mix of uses. A medium density designation, although low for the existing apartment's actual density at approximately 4200 - 154th Street, is more appropriate for the entire area due to the small size of the parcels and the sensitive area - a deep wide ravine - in the easternmost portion of the sub -area. For Sub -Area B, the proposed high density merely reflects the existing land uses. Sub -Area C is a small pocket of single - family homes. The lots to the north and east of C have access from 51st Avenue South and are proposed for medium - density residential; therefore, medium is also proposed for Sub -Area C. The Task Force reviewed and concurs with the recommendation; however, staff is proposing R -3 zoning of Sub -Area C to reflect the surrounding zoning, instead of R -2. (Either are appropriate zones for a medium - density designation.) RECOMMENDATION Sub - Area Tukwila Comprehensive Plan Zoning A Medium - Density Residential R -2 and R -3 B High- Density Residential RMH C Medium - Density Residential R -3 The recommendation for the remaining area in the block is shown on Attachments E and F. -12- ....rm ■ imG ■IW 7VC Af .M 0 DISCUSSION Issue Area 8 was the most difficult area for the task force to review for appropriate land use. The following factors were discussed: 1. The road, 51st Avenue South, is a collector arterial and has direct access to SR -518 and I -5. It is substandard for a majority of its length. If a higher intensity of use were to occur, right -of -way dedication and improvement would be needed. Traffic counts for 51st equaled other busy collectors like Southcenter Boulevard between 62nd and 65th Avenue South. 2. The area is visible from I -5 and vice versa. There is no substan- tial grade change between the freeway for Sub -Area C. 3. The noise level negatively impacts the properties and more so for Area B than C because it is upslope from the freeway. 4. There are environmentally sig- nificant grades and streams in a majority of Sub -Area B. 5. The parcels are relatively large and have not been subdivided. 6. Sewer lines are non - existent and would have to be extended down from South 144th Street or up from 52nd Avenue. The water line is substandard and would also have to be improved if the area were to oe developed for denser uses. The Task Force reviewed 11 alterna- tives from low density to commercial. A quality single- family neighborhood did not seem viable due to the prox- imity, views and noise of and from the freeway. Office, which is aesthetically more acceptable to residents than commercial due to building design and site development, is a good transition from the freeway. The medium density on the east could be more sensitive to site limitati -)ns of steepness and surface water and more marketable than single - family because of accessibility and loci' ion near `lbs and shopping. Bonsai Northwest and a cellular tle- phone business are located in Suo - A. C -1 zone would be comparable :: i to the existing BN zone and would acco'n- modate the existing uses. Although no consensus was achieved, the majority opinion in the Task Force felt the recommendation was the most appropriate. EXISTING SUB- COUNTY AREA TUKWILA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ZONING LAND USE A Low- Density Residential BN Retail businesses, single- family B Low- Density Residential RS -7200, Single- family dwellings RM -2400, RM -1800 C Low - Density Residential RS -7200, Single - family dwellings RM -2400 RECOMMENDATION Sub- Area Tukwila Comprehensive.Plan Zoning A Commercial C -1 B Medium- Density Residential R -3 C Office P -0 (restricted, no cascade) (26 /TA.AREA8) : STAFF REPORT to the 88 -4 -CPA, 88 -4 -R, 88 -5 -CA Planning Commission PROFESSIONAL OFFICE ZONE ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS This section will review the proposed text amendments to the Zoning Code in conjunction with pre- annexation zoning discussed in the preceding section. There are two proposed amendments: Height Exception and the Professional Office Zone. The proposed amendments would become effective upon annexation of this area to Tukwila. The single - family setback standards were also a concern for the task force. At this time there are no proposed amendments to the setback standards. HEIGHT EXCEPTION Existing Tukwila The Tukwila Zoning Code, page 290, maps areas of the City where buildings may exceed the height limits of the underlying zones. Proposed Amend map 2 "Building Height Exception Area" (p. 290) to show area adjacent to SR -99 and SR -518 interchange as "Up to and including 115 feet ". See Attachment G. Amend (shown in bold print) TMC 18.50.040 - Building Height Exceptions up to and Including 115 Feet: Section 18.50.040 Building Height Exceptions up to and Including 115 Feet Authorization of building height greater than the heights contained in Section 18.50.020 (Table 1) up to and including 115 feet in the areas of the City as designated on Map 2 shall be made by the Plan- ning Commission acting as the Board of Architectural Review pursuant to the guidelines and procedures specified in Chapter 18.60. Discussion The height limits in King County for regional retail districts allow unlim- ited heights subject to one -foot setbacks for one foot increases in heigh: over 45 feet. In Tukwila, 35 feet is the height limit in regional retail districts. The C -2 district at the SR -99 and SR -518 intersection is sur- rounded by high- density residential and commercial uses. (The height limi: in RMH - Maximum Density Multiple Family districts is 45 feet.) Therefore, a maximum height of 115 feet subject to design review would be appropriate and consistent with the location other height exception areas in the City. Existing Tukwila The Tukwila Zoning Code is descriptively referred to as a cascading zoni• code. As the code progresses from the single- family zones to the hei:v industry zone, it allows the uses permitted in the more restrictive zor preceding. Specifically, the P -0 zone allows single, two, three and (,.;•- family dwellings, apartments, townhouses, nursing homes, libraries, offic and educational schools and studios. Proposed Amend the Zoning Code (TMC 18) by renumbering Chapter 18.26 P -0 Distr; Professional and Office District to Chapter 18.17. - 14 - • STAFF REPORT to the Planning Commission A concern was raised during task force meetings regarding placement of buildings on a single- family lot. Amend (shown in bold print) TMC 18.26.020 Principally Permitted Uses - (1) Any principally permitted use in the R -3 district; Discussion The task force felt that the distinction between a professional office and apartment /high - density residential zone was important in the land use deci- sion, and recommend no residential uses. In two previous quasi - judicial decisions, the City has permitted rezones from single - family to P -0 subject to "conditions" of no high /maximum density (RMH) residential in the first instance and no multiple dwellings whatsoever in the second instance. The proposed change has City -wide implications. The P -0 districts currently within Tukwila are located along Southcenter Boulevard and South 178th Street. Many parcels within these districts have had office proposals made and approved by the City, only to not be developed. The impact of the proposal is to eliminate the opportunity for high density residential in these areas. One of the purposes of the P -0 district is to serve as a buffer between residential districts and commercial and /or industrial areas. Recent legislative actions and discussions have focused on the concern about the high percentage of multiple family in the City and the opportunity for increasing this percentage through increasing P -0 districts. A comparison of bulk and size between the P -0, RMH, R -4 and R -3 reveals that R -4 and P -0 have the same height limit of 35 feet versus 45 and 30 for RMH and and R -3 respectively and that R -4 /RMH and P -0 are likely to be similar size and type developments. In order to fulfill its purpose as transition yet also control opportunities for housing density staff proposes allowing up to R -3 uses in the P -0 zone. SINGLE FAMILY SETBACK STANDARDS KING COUNTY TUKWILA 88 -4 -CPA, 88 -4 -R, 88 -5 -CA Maximum lot width 60' 50' Front yard 20'* 30' Side yard 5'* 4' -8' (10% of width) Rear yard None 10' Maximum lot coverage 35% None * In addition, the County allows projections of one and a half feet of eaves, fireplaces, bay windows and enclosed stair landings in a required yard. The Tukwila Code places greater restriction on the front, rear and side yards; however, it is more flexible regarding the total use of the lot. A section of the Tukwila Zoning Code (TMC 18.50.070(3)) does allow the Planning Department to waive the front yard requirement and substitute a required yard that is the average of the front yards on adjacent lots. This provision would allow any homeowner who wishes to remodel an oppor- tunity to extend an addition in the front yard to something less than the required 30 feet. Side and rear yard waivers are not however mentioned. It also would provide consistency in the building fronts along a street that was developed under different standards. RECOMMENDATION Planning staff recommends that the text amendments for Height Exception Area and Professional Office be approved. Based on public testimony regarding single- family setbacks, the Planning Commission may wish to recommend to the City Council direction for further review and /or change. - 15 - rAF l'-14 N, qq as w, Ibo 5T ot4 s. AN% •iof Umi1 oN E 5 - Pclsos rnF sl # c."A Epic- I+h -B8 Th1rIs1D11c pp4JiJtPTIOt4 v*IiNO y.� THORNDYKE ANNEXATION 113FISII•44-13 IkTEREST AREAS_ 2 IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIImlupy iiiitilimillill_Ailiquilii_plimpliiiiiiimitpliulimillIIIIIiiiiiiiliiiitiiiiiiiiiiiiliiiiiiiiiiiiiiii 0 WTHSINCH 1 2 3 -47..,.. ......-„,...,.5,..,... • _ •_6 ... ...... .,. 7 .,. 8 9 ' .. 10 • 11 "' ' 12 . \" IF THIS-MICROFILMED:DOCUMENT:IS LESS 41 , , , CLEAR THAN THIS NOTICE, IT IS-DUE TO OE 6 8d ili L.3 9 iii.i. T 1 THE' UALITY OF:THEORIGINAL:'DOCUMENT . 8 L. 9 . 0 S.. V • 1 . 1 . • i 3 • 3 3 93 1 73 CZ: 33 aziommantriv.:12 TOrtal. L arm. A.L•• ..•••• ••••••■••••• , M1 , 171,••,■.,..MT/P. Mir .1” ANL 11Y1•■111,.nernw.1 ••• OW& ■• • •••■••,./.1.../.-.1.,.. • •••■•, n I ■IIM ww•Vr.mr=111•,.. AM,1:••■•■ 11 MM.,* • • •NAMIC••■1•,• ,?1■0•1", r■-•, k...1■0: ■••••••••-••awlo,••••••■•■■-•. Iklt..1 1,, MO ',elm. ill■•'•••••■•4•••,•••1=‘,•••■•/i1 1 I Ir 1 IP.1 111151 1111111 111E2' • fr tf.'■1■111.. 4.11111.1MINIIIMIMM maim* rownowai • • •• ' • • - — • ' . . 6 ;m:' ...iull=r•■•■7 1.411 ...... M.1. • imml= • r " =1=1 ,.•■• Migh.•■11711 • suMi• •••••••••• ......31••••••••" ..... . ... .... ... .... .. ..... . I 1 I BM: I / 11111P 51M,NE" h 11 bi 1 111 *P=A rill I i Ali ir 4 11 111111 11 i I 1111 iitillir = = , gi 5 1_1 0 ill lila 1110 H I 1111111 JILIN r :" l 4 4111111111111111( 11 14 1 0 1 51 1 1011 1 : 1 1! 11 "AMENDED" ATTACHMENT E THORNDYKE ANNEXATION PROPOSED TUKWILA COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLAN COMMERCIAL 17a OFFICE (RESTRICTED-NO CASCADE) PUBLIC FACILITIES ail PARKS AND OPEN SPACE CB LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL En HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL z sz 47Z zz " .7,aX• 1:11-1:11ritilill'11)11'.'1 1T1 l 0 10 THS INCH 1 2 3 - „- 5 6 f_,3 9 10 11 MMEIN 12 1IF THIS MICROFILMED DO IS LESS , CLEAR THAN THIS NOTICE, IT IS DUE TO oe sz se L sz szl OF THE u THE UALITY O ORIGINAL DOCUMENT 684 9G ""0 t, ii in nil im • 4„; 4- 4 2.10 ;4- ST, - • 111F 4-4% • 7, ■ a 1. 44,.■ ;"'?" „ . • • . , • • . .• • • • . , • • " r ,WAIMIMMMMIUM • ::":•:1:•?:-:•:-'••••-wA' • • ' • - S 3AV 141.91/ _ mmummumsmummumuumemmamimmumimmTmormon MMMMMM um MM mom milmummomummommmommmummmommummmmummumumumilegg MMMMMM amo mamummomummummummoms MM 1101111M M MMEMIIMMEMENE MMMMM POI SMUMWMINAMMIIMMWMEMMWOMEMOMM OMAMMEMOMMIIMMWAIOMM21 .omomummomummomnimmommmommmmummimmmommummumi •M1 67111 Maniggil MUM iii LARGER COPIES OF MAP AVAILABLE IN TUKWILA PLANNING OFFICE rAPiss-4- R • In I-• Z UJ LLII: • -J LLI E ., V) (-) 8-4 I - •T4 --- = (.../ . CD i 1= : s•-• 0 ;ay. el I- a •= z m _..1 : _v) 0 x o =,.. ce 1-.. L., ).- .,_•,. .... = 1.- =, x . < ,-... =.. X -.1 (I I-- et 1.-1 = X CC I—< s-g C.) I-- I 4ir7t:Irsrlelu II 6 , or 'lw111L ➢ i.:111iC • 1 ]w[Iwwe i7: , I wunrwt>tur: ,i I!'t Amunranwt CllE EFIIlO1LNOt m OMOUMMr 110.1 I - AMSEMJw1Y■ {t*q ■.deco i •G�:wltlrlawl I � MU iI111wL ° °�� . . 011,141•1•1111 1' ' 1P•�i 1 1 6 1 U_ II k� 11 ! UM II [ f " WICa1111i4Nl'd lmummue li i�Jlll 1JLwwwv,iii3i •111111 II L'_!JtUllltww[1wl•]ww'' �GiiR]l — r1+■ ss .a.MC WWW1110 ii:+ i•:i i1: }? �,�.11www �E IR3 1!ILGU U •• r�Zilwuwgllurrea =s� 1 .=4511.111•L w:, 111/%7 GPJJw ■LI•II ;ij+}(N++M':•. L7dllllwwl�:'i;/�L1wIL11 ` • ^ ^al i ■'wuuI NIamCIEP1:1'S'J.,.4ii wliNUNCI MINMEIOXiAa4:1 Jpmfill f1w7tV't�17!117171aKGV` nEl 1 w ww1 IIini 1 I ' rr • I • 4' I �ilk li �` �tsa ar! @11ll�rL � ! w I CC � �rw:r Nili111191 ■I 1. 11S; �l! I ; , .cni , hiilitiii: 9 � . i . likiliill:' 1111111111111= . . f i etiiwrmag MMMMM■ Moran ®FELtmmumumummm5E_= 7114ww1141r /;rf:1EA 'd ■W r. nuwwwwlu - rrrM �rlwRS wfYIIIlI !Iw7a /wwwwtrPw111•!�Lai fi111tiwHl711wwwwn- ' —ma xisciliimwr.�lmmEgEID milmat � _ MG �� +oirnm,or._ __ - 9r - ?gwwOwwwl' 'Pr7wgNhIR Jrww► Ew•E1f]Ii a . I CAWMArii4 11l W1[AW113i4d11 ipmmerwwwt11w 1 wwwwEwwt VIII Xiiir. rtiwy�1IMeJINII r1iII11:1■f1TLIl' p , ■7v ill',/ c r>m €rauwrww il_Nwl � ■111w11Mw0r t 11.4i" 14!''M 11111111/ • /1111 ,1?Irlirlre rid ■rurlif R6 t OI'4 ... , 1141I.•trg IWW1 .14,;l11Sf 11wMIM1 -e11n 020 VM -2.11 . MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMH — 111+_41 IREa • rJ4y'n ATTACHMENT A THORNDYKE ANNEXATION KING CO. HIGHLINE COMMUNITY PLAN MAP Y.. F v ; . YY.•.lria fluff 111111111111( III1111111111111 (111111(III1111111111111111Ill 1111lm11 NORTH L:=1 �sc,�rrN =tea • �.EGEND NEIGHBORHOOD AND COMMUNITY BUSINESS °HIGHWAY ORIENTED COMMERCIAL COMMERCIAL 02 HIGH /MAXIMUM DENSITY:HOUSING ® SINGLE FAMILY E COMMUNITY FACILITIES 11 PARK AND RECREATION M LOW /MEDIUM DENSITY HOUSING Zff 0 . 10 INS INCH 1 . /. 3 �f rya 0F ' ��: 1 %c ; '7" ,rt 4+ r�u Y .11w glDwfr x3M IRS • • 13117 °111111:1 1 Email INALritaa SEED ▪ • • , � I ra IR O! �Z•/ � " ir��� = oL ° ' - ilk r. � !1 �7Y o i. - 1 � EMI s v .i i �9R r dlyn6Ibak s: co II3 retr IIIIIII IIIIIII 1IliiiI II' IIII111111I111IIIIIIIII•jllll_I 11 -11111 1111111 III III I I I I III LILIJII 1IlI1 1 IJIIIIIIIEIIIiIIJIIIJIIL1lIl1lif1lllilil (IIi i i�IIIIIIIII�IlIIIIIIIjIIIIIIIl11 ,7— 8 9 10 11 KetINOOIYNIr :12 ;'.T,H IFI ; MICROFILMED ;DO I,S LESS CLEAR"THAN , THIS NOTICE; IT 'IS= DUE',' T oc ' 6Z' 8G LZ 9Z SZ 4Z CZ; EZ IZ THE.??' HE UAL ITT OF''THE ORIGINAL DOCUMENT' 6 8 L . 9 S e z r IIIIIIiiIIInIII �1III IIIIrI 1111 ` _ IIII fill IIIIli111111II1111111111111111LIjImili II1111llIIlIl111111 1111 I. W 1111111 .111:_ •:: • !iliri!,!)1111!':11 MITI r ifirililli ''.' 0 ' 'Ir,1!1:11' illill. l ' L III, 1 .1 11titifi li iIIIIAL ....1 '11 l iol IllF, Ill I !I Ili ;;111 1,1,111 iq 11111 iiiiiiii! I 'mi. ;.1111 0, 1 /1/1. 1 1111 i t.r. i i: ,ffi ":;11 If '1::11 .f... .......,,,ams.....■.—•r; • , Tun ,, v il ::iiii 1.,1 1 iii : ''ill 1 " 11111 1 1ii , ir 1 1 1 I:I'll:i 1i! 1 1F. I .:1 11 I 1111i; 1;..i.lMill 1 1 111111111 p I p 1111:11 ::';', ■Il I Iii 11111:11 ": , 11:ifiliiill 111111'11 1111:11::::1111111 111;1'illiligit■ ' 111 1 1 1 1 1 11 11 1 1 1 1 1 1 1i : 1 : IIIII 1 .: T If ■ 1111:11r 1 1 111111 ill I li OM 11'1 I F 1 111111 i H .11 111 111rIllill , —diiii111111 .:■1111 1. 1 11 1 1 1 1 11 1 11111 1 1 11 1 1 : 1 1111 II " ill ii 1 li. 11 l 1 m 1 1 1111 1 11;;;;141111 i 111 1 4 11i111 i ll i l i ::::1111111111 UhiiiiiliIl • 7••••• . . • • • • • ••-• ••• . • *- '''" • , ' • ' • 11 111 • : , , . • • • . ,.„ .1■•••■•••■•■••• 111111111111 VA22-2).4 ATTACHMENT B 7 - 9 • 10 . ' 11 MAX MIMMff 12 ........,..„,„ .,.,, ..._ . „ , .. • :„.. : ; . - , , 1 ; , . F , ,.TH I $ ';,1•M I CROF ii.mgp::: Documg, NT41,5,.... L .',. ..:,,...•,..:.-..,... .;.'' !:.• ci:„Eari.,--THAW•4THIS':'NOTICE•':?•.It''''IS'DUE'•70 ., • , . , ,:,...,.:- : „,,,,•:-.: -• - : . • ,,, - . • •-...• ,,,,,,,,, , ..„ ...,.„ ,, „..,. OE'' • 6r. ' .'•',' ..r',...': '. 7.:..":'“•gr.•..',ir, -.......•: Fr I r : : : .:( THE UAL ITT::: OriTHE OR I GI NAL-.:. DOCUMENT. • i 1 .._ __. : .• . . • , , , ,. , . . : , , , ,• • , ..., ,•.• • • , • . : - .. .• • • •-•, • .. „ .... . ,. , „ .4.," _ : :•, . .. • • t • , , . .,.. ‘. 1111111111111111111116,11i111111'111i111011 11,.1 1111 1111, 1111 1111 1111 1111 11111k11111111 9111911111 111119 111111111111 flit 11111111 lift 11111111111 . .. .... ,„ . ....,.. . .. .,.. . „ . . . ... .. .. „ ... . .... .„ . . . .. : -- • '-'::-.,.,,,-. •,. r.,-,.- .., ,,, ..,,.. .., „ , .. , , . „ . • . „ .. . . .. . . „ , , , .. , ,, : : , THORNDYKE ANNEXATION TUKWILA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN "EXISTING" COMMERCIAL HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL PARKS AND OPEN SPACE PUBLIC FACILITIES wsr • ..• • • . . • . . . ••• •. . • : : . . . • n s11=' Q s*r_u owe • �+ wurglorotmimaltai marctwzr . Mice= Ernipc PRIKIN LOW. + °a i�- -- •- •- lIITM- � II ' I I II III 0 MT" INCH 1 r 3 4 1 OE 6z `8c LE 93. 4Z •:3 Bzl '33 tz 111111111111111111 1111iIIl1II111I1111ildilllllll1191I111111111111111111111 IIIIrIIIl ir ATTACHMENT C THORNDYKE ANNEXATION KING COUNTY ZONING "EXISTING" LEGEND B -C COMMUNITY BUSINESS CLASSIFICATION B -N NEIGHBORHOOD BUSINESS CLASSIFICATION C -G GENERAL COMMERCIAL CLASSIFICATION M RS -7200 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL RM -2400 MEDIUM DENSITY MULTI - DWELLING RM -1800 HIGH DENSITY MULTI - DWELLING RM -900 MAX DENSITY MULTI - DWELLING 111/111 xockiNril ..::. 1.4.I.W I I 1 1J.1 I I I Ilh I _ l l_I� 1 1 1 1 1 1 11J 11 l I� -Ilul 11 I I I I I I i l l l l l 1 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 B 9 _ 10 11 WUEINOFIINMM 12 F THIS MICROF;ILMED:,;D000MENT ,4IS LESS CLEAR THAN THIS NOTICE,• "IT IS'-DUE TO! s e 9 S E . NW o THE';s UAL ITY OF THE ORIGINAL..DOCUMENT), 11111111 IIII IIII 1111 1111 11111111 llll 111111111111 Inl lilt 111 1111 In 11111111111111111111111111111 111111111111111111111111n1111i11111111111 111111111 11111NIIII111111111111111111U11 I y .'r•aw d tT Ulna SIFOR Ic y _ •��. t• MIN LMT 4 :• 1 •r : • _. SIM ML > oar ., ,,. 4.1..W,,. -,........,r cu NORTH _.S. .M .x.�._za._.s. _._ = Aj7N - �LIYL. W T ' • j ry - V ATTACH D THORNDYKE ANNEXATION ISSUE AREAS 7* . . :. .ti. ". y f{ i5 TY Nt 4fi " .i Y fi t, 4' „G ,( 4 t 2 .} [ : , A ij .k.: rx . '� .}.,.,� -, 1 ' . kYf.: } "� ,', )(r ,} ,qty. 4 Ti� ..(. ✓kr }. 4 1} 0 u= �z.,..rw �,. �., .r : , tr S .,f xv eG i. • ^ L•' " "+1, 1 V r G S �� 51ry�! a' a.:�.`' �:`.. s''r:e•�' - :r „�,�,..;.,r. k. a.. a,: +. &F.f try, . #i�J:.:.t.�.,s"��i ; s. �: .r�t?e4. y t . ?. ; . t ., ,ir:'/v'r � ' � "f' tl . = .s t`k, :� . •,� :” a.rfk't�. ^ fx.- v:'.v..... § -•.;. ,. IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII111111IJIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIii ,11111.1 :ll 11111iili ill Ili i 1 i i 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1- 1 lilili1 1 1 1 1 1 �IJ 1 1 111 1 I IIJ I� -I- 11 -I 111 1 111 1 111 1 111 1 1 l i 1 I I I I I 1 I ) I I'1 I11 1 NI " IRCH 1 ) 3" . .. . ::. -_- - ...... 6 7 8 9 • 10 • 11 mmAINevumio 12 I � IF THIS-MICROFILMED .D000MENT LESS .. ! CLEAR THAN THIS'. NOTICE, IT' IS -DUE TO 0€ 6z ee La 9z sz tiz ez; za THE SUALITY OF THE ORIGINAL DOCUMENT - 6 e c 9 s , e a I Ww 0 n 11111111 11111111111111111 1 ,1 1 nn 1 111 11 1111111 flu m 1111 1111 lnrlii linlllii iii> nm r nil X111 11 11 1111 WIf11111uilIlnllnlllu1111111111111I11In111111111111111111 )1111111111111111111111111 ( iIi111111�ivalilii�11111111111111i1111111n11�11 11111 1� ��s .,�•..r:.. rn •,,...,. ( ! r/'N". 3., m,• ".�' 4 � , a : ; • . i. •L; . �wl.,l':; r{;^ r � P:l c! t ; Vq�i �{ t 7r•` R� 'jy 3: ; "`,!} ,?', •� ,�?9�t!4 !�' "*4 3.i.. � F.d a:.7, 72'.a -tr• ..:... .. Alt:, }4 . s4y f ;.'. F ; .. F ..�.,. .l$ ?.F.x. , . 1 = 1.....r. .. �,t �, .,1., ._, ,.. ...•,I .. J.;. �v. .._,.,...6e.?. �. ?r,r •a /:..,,. �A ^`7.0 - .:�':..�+iri..,' , ..rJ11rZ i , ,•. � .. ura 1; I 1 311 I ' „ "_ "' "• !"UIt��I��� IIIIILi1(110111171 1ill��llll�k'f:�illlfall iv4 ' : : :111111111111 r, :. ��� II 11111 , Z � . 1:11.11 Ii ' Cll1 & y:::fi:tr' X01- z. :: ;� 1 v1'71 .I . LA 4" �. In ~ —_ -- ail 1;>] �rtitrtiqpii �� ?� < _ �� .. , I r l , 1 ' i �1 II Ilk' 11 sir _ 7r-f. = rhir����rirr� �` rg • 6 iMagff .... _ 1== ; Amman. ors.. •mu. a,u Ji - ' NORTH 6>� la awe$ n Q 71 M iami iam I w I 1 1 1 1 1 H1 111 1 111 0 1 . 11 _ 1 : . 11- 1 0 ,/THIINC" 1 7 3 ( •- OE 6Z \ HL • 6Z 9Z BZ. bZ £ZI ZZ t 11 1 I I 111 "AMENDED "' ATTACHMENT E THORNDYKE ANNEXATION PROPOSED TUKWILA COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLAN Eil COMMERCIAL OFFICE (RESTRICTED -NO CASCADE) PUBLIC FACILITIES PARKS AND OPEN SPACE LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL III I III 111111 -1- 1111111 _III�I_JI_II11I111I11)p1111 IIII� Ilp -1 IIIIIIilipiIirIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII - _ ., � 6 - w_7__ __.:_.8 9 10 11 12 IF ;THIS: MICROFILMEDDOCUMENT :IS,: LESS CLEAR THAN' %THIS, NOTICE,` IT IS DUE. TO Z ' THE;! I UAL ITT OF THEs _ORIGINAL DOCUMENT 11IIIIIII11111111111111111111111111111111111IIIII1111111111111111111111111111111 IIII id111111111111111111111111 Ilfl 111111(111111111 I 111111/1 1111 i11i 1 11111111111 1111 ill 11111111 6 ' e Z. ... 9 4 .. 7 C. Z. L ray 0 I Iii 111111 I 1111111111I111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111I111111111111 . •L ' 0,' , 4461_= .--- - -7 4 ----4 . - -71-.-_-" ----------- =! =- 7,,,7,177.5.......04.0..m.m....m.m...11...mgm......icestimi.n....1441 I•• 111 "V411101 ittnumnif IMIIIIIIME 11•11ME NM' r IMO MEW MININE1111 1.1111.111111ENE11.1111•1 •EM I IML MIMED IMIMNIIMIIMIIIMMEMINEINIMMIMI SEEMIIM 1111.11111111NEEMNIEE 1 IIIMMINIMEr • MI ME11•11•1 • IIIIIMMEM NMIIIMIMME ANN .•SE" IMINEMErNINEMI.IMENIMCMI Ell MINIIINEMI 1111111111. NININIMMEMIIMEMEMEI 4 111111.1•11.111EMEIHM t EMMEN. NENN MN UMW., .14911111M•MINMENNIU .11111161.11MIEMIE INIENIEE Ell E NEEI • • •• MOM Ing lid& MUM 11111111111WEIRMil MOM MEM 1 MBE= MEM ME= I MEM v MEN EMEMEN i NOR= I 1111111111111 I MMi MOM I MilliMil I MIME 1 DEM '5 3Alf Mgt • .■.-. REIMS Ufli KS - 9, MEM trIMEN MEM M/M I =MI MEM NE= Milli =M 11111111= M2 11111111" 1111 W. ; 1111 r Il MUMMER MMMMM 1111 h AMM MMMMM MEW III II 11 iiiiimmutimll , 90 1 1 11 1 1 1 11 11111111111111 ' hi 1111 111111111 I 11 Ili 11 11 111111 I ENNEE mim mom sim mom mims icrul SSE tat -s LARGER COPIES OF MAP AVAILABLE IN TUKWILA PLANNING OFFICE . (. • s-• = EE - .•• w = 0 Add NORTH WIN s RCM REM ►:Ya r s t ^�Jk3#L: ' 1 te EL '0 Q P-:71 ;ilia 1 VII Irr 36 -115 FEET II�IIi�IFt�III�l ICI I�Ill�lll�lll�lll�lll�lll�llli�lll� _I�I�III�III�I ICI 1� 0 7143 INCH 3 _ .. _:.._...5.._. 0€ 6Z 8L LE 9Z 5Z 7Z EZ I ZZ LE 1IIIII11111111111 1111111111111IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII111111111 IIIIr111 ATTACHMENT 0 THORNDYKE ANNEXATION HEIGHT EXCEPTION AREA IF THIS MICROFILMED DOCUMENT IS LESS CLEAR THAN THIS,NOTICE, IT IS LDUE TO THE SUALITY OF THE ORIGINAL DOCUMENT 1111111 IIII 11111in Ulf 1111111(liij ilil IIIIf1111 111 thili If ilalinlini i� 111 I iIIII ►11ii1 USIL COM.. MG al •ji••••an■ • �.. wmin.131 ! gdp.e- G r te, .. 1.111: imEl smnJ maw ���� ' l1NPi r:EMICIT 11.7..11 1.12MP:Jodra_I WM.- • j s e L 9 s e z L Ww0 111111111I1n11u11InJIIJu1l�1�11 JI1I1n11n11Inn1�1�1I��jIhIJ�Ij1111u11InnInIIl1111 l l,. 11 111. 1�1► 11. I�1�1�ihi�i�IJ��lllllll��llil�i11�1 1� �I�III�► �I�III� ►�I�III�I�►�III�I�I�III�I� 6 ..._ __ _ . ._7 ,� . -. -1 8 9 10 11 INK' 12 r r •. " 3 ,....42,gmuc IYA frrovii:MsoMI warm Mr- , Inr&I.C113T13 CM ‘ 32I . 1ISi= Di Ila*IID3 DI it _ __ 1 123/115:1 112 ”1:1 'AO leo A 4 . • / A ,_ 0€ 6Z Eie L.Z 9Z GE I .1.1.1 T1 I .tzt go Ili 111 I 0 le THS INCH 1 2 III So. 144th St. I ATTACHMENT H THORNDYKE mil ANNEXATION AREA(469•15 ACRES) CITY BOUNDARY LINE SCALE 1" = 880' *1 , NORTH ese • t 4 - \ • • , 141111111111_LI11111111111111J11111_111.111.111111.plIgl111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 _ 6 7 --.;,..i , 13- • . 10 11 KCI 12 IF THIS MICROFILMED DOCUMENT IS LESS CLEAR THAN THIS NOTICE, IT IS DUE TO THE- UALITY. OF THE ORIGINAL-DOCUMENT --1-7 - r • z 1•"0 RM -9,00 . RM' =1,800 148 S. 154th ST. I52"° ST o S vi RS -7,200 RM -900 m RS -7,200 2 Rs -To - -- . �� � I • �' 7,200 "" RS - `I • 7200 A. � o st 7 k r 1,800-P � ON g N -1,800 ' R RM-90 I62Nb ST.i' • RM -I,800 221. SO • _. _ _. ono - ,_.__. .IMO _4 RM- 1,800 P • 254 x42.74 227 -04 RS -7,200 RS -7,200 r �00- ; xoo 0x (1"800) RM -1,800 ''` RM- I,800-P ew - - 254.711 1,800 O x41-02 Ch RM- 1,800. RS -7,200 RS- 7,200 73.7,200 I,800 200 -n S. I58 ST. RS -7,200 RS -7,200 RS -7,200 RS -7,200 RS -7,200 156TH RS -7,200 RS -7,200 RS -7,200 S. R. N° 518 rnFS1-4-4-R RM -2,400 RM- 2,400, RM-2,4 00 I S 141 1ST RN-2,400 RS -7,200 1 21 ch at � 1R -: I a o N s 22jj22 0 O F RS -7,200 ,RM -1800 RA4900 6 161 B-C 14864 M-1800 B —C RA4900 ST. RS-7,200 ` ��;�i I RS-7200I V RS- - rWK WI L A ORD. 7043 2 -5 -85 — 160 IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIpllpl1lllggiplipppllp lQilQ11gIIIIIIIII1ip1iUlilll11illp1 1 IIIII 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1iP1 1 1 1 1 1 i 1 1 1 PIH 1 I 1 14H 1 1 3 4 5 5, 7 A 8 9 10 11 - . ^•.-^ 12 \ IF THIS MICROFILMED DOCUMENT IS LESS) CLEAR THAN THIS NOTICE, IT IS DUE TO • oc 02 04 £7 42 42 72 C2, I of 1 22 0 'OTHE QUALITY OF THE ORIGINAL DOCUMENTIL'.0 0 4 0 0 o C 2 I -'0 11U Ii,11gI101I 11�i lja l l I u u I i 1 i.1 u Wilj mll l4illmini llidg5lnulimlu llailliliudi d1-m l utRjl Iiu limit !L!,1m1IIT tini140114Ilidlnl1iml lLi 0,!!!!!6 i1 �1 Ll1.A 11P J1 lb . . 333 E Thp121JD'( l PRE - � zclilN& \ \7 . ORD. 493 E22 -23 ,W 23 -23 -4 _ HIGHLINE 331 •T 5.— • - -- — l 14 4T H I I S I L__ I; i t ip 1 1- it RENTON - "I THREE EE POINT RD. • 23 _•_•_•_•_•_ 222 I23 L._._.-.----._._.-._._.__._._._ ._._._.��___•_.._._._._._._._._ 27 1 A 26 HIGHLINE O O I BO(YLINS ALLEY, A NESTAU,ROT' sr ..R4,6 THEATRES Cr�_j_�`l� PROGRESSIVE CO. AC UNITi( tIDJ�' r1 dsEnL ,0.47A, !W .5 S. l5IST ,( /($Ty ST) 4 LA S /56TH "ST <,�,, ": 1 11 II A ,p� 2 4 5 10 y, 11 � Hb ": I �•A TRACT E MRS. GLENN H. HOLSINGER 420 AC 66 UNITS WiYa22-23-4 r 1 • I 2 4T 12 Tyre Sr. •A?L•AS OF- SEATTLE _MOATRIOHTEO I PUBLISHED OE KROLL MAP COMPANY, INC., SEATTLE SCALE 1 INCH • 200 FEET • NOTE K,O A.M.I. dAn mlr �ORK„I Repdd, . 1 oN,�M m will�My xe l p,f.q+=.no. fe'" -,- -744TH -- -• =L • ....TON I WNC((A IAAT FOI 'o'nly T.• L,: IA[IN 0 L EON R(TAL< NITNOUr IlNMISSIONYIOLAT(S F ( y(NA L ST,fUTI ap OE e�L � 1 �� OL IILIIe 9L SL 92 CL, 2L A.. �11)l11JlLll•411S;'?iulllll I' ...�.' ` ,..; • 6 47110. , /NOTr NI MMip.w.Wnp 4M UPAOnfl,IR,mr'd, VVV .I flT „':. a' Y.• T 38A 39A 59 I ILI 1 151 •I A jl a dL" L _ (f { t & RVs 'r. 9 DJ6 ,. u PARSO ji 2 µ _Jl +!. PARSONS I, r4 nyr r E v.P c }, I 4 1 11 5A0 L l� E d Nµp t ) re-t . ,I 1 I l ll , T I l i _, 11 - : I [�1 j �� I �i Q � `L � 1 li . f16.,. SF� �•— 'I — •— • —• —• —' —f ?M . - _• + '—•—•—'— _•_ I n , — 47 — • j I6�T ILI EGEND � ,en _S — � — �ETTTA +^ " — _' — T \ , I _ 1 u LEGEND Coon', 1.. LOINo L.1ZZ; Prpoit Pool Apdo 0 +61d +, = .04 Pm) 9P NIT.. ' REPRODUCTION IN WH.. E OR PANT FOR PERSONAL USE ON R, . ILE WITHOUT PERMISSION VIOLATES FrOERAL STATUTE. \' IF THIS MICROFILMED DOCUMENT IS LESS CLEAR THAN THIS NOTICE, IT IS DUE TO UAL ITY OF THE ORIGINAL DOCUMENT, Ili II �I III ''III li illlll k �111�I� Ilium llldi ul _�;;11iliI I I rllWllnll6 WI LA Evt22 -23-4 Igylplggqlll�qlpll; IIIpI1p11�1I1pp�Iggglllppplql�qllqq gllHgHl�gl; lllllll; � f�Ipu; uyl�lp�l�lup�lp�glupuluglup�lp�yl�y 3 4 5 6 7 I 8 9 10 11 w » »»,», 12 • I e e AIRS. GLENN 11. IOLSINGER 3bE A, NT 1 EL.e 1 j ""W.S- 'I58TH: ST.. a^•,. 11 ". _. : 1 ' • -i.- e , AT OF SE _11.1LAS SEAT cNPTnaNTER / PUBLISHED BY KROLL MAP COMPANY, INC., SE KROLL MAP COMPANY, INC., SEATTLE 1 SCALE. 1 INCH • 200 FEET SCALE 1 INCH 200 FEET • IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIISIIII IIIII11111111I1 NOT!•KrMM,p,S. Ed hell. RORe'.I Record, MNMSurv<,e fAn pMCedlorrowelc , u,e. KW LA w 1 ,dd p,d _ _. R 7-4 /44711± • • !L, 19 20 21 C3 ° wl ols i] 5, :RENTON T C h O nY. \6- PERMISSAON FEDERAL ST,: ANN eXATIO '4/ I I g 7 Ll. 2 I r- p 2 . L- - ; 4 Pk t\ - �) L) 2 ... - 1 LI - '" ,661`-\ [r - .,•• A E:AS OP SI?ATTkl3 • • 30X 1547H -. SIGN :ROU14 �� •�'rT ,,. TUKGt/f LA P/222 -4 A ?T4 mF V6 -4 -R 1U KW t= RI R2 R3 RMH C -I C2 RO IIII IIIIIIIIIIpIIIiI II III II II pIy II LI'MI'TWII I11111IIII II II IIIIIIIIIII IIIIIII II IhIIIIIhI II11 IlII I III Il 1 1 1 1TH II II II I4 UI II I I I I I I I I I I II I 1'l l 1 1 l I AL I T11 T H I I 11 I 3 •......�. 7 2 3 , 4 S 6 7 8 9 10 11 ...••..- 12 IF TIlIS MICROFILMED DOCUMENT IS LESS CLEAR THAN THIS NOTICE, IT IS DUE TO z o oe ° ° L -' •- ', A ••i °TIIE DUALITY OF THE ORIGINAL DOCUMENTI I ° IIIIIIIPI Pnlnf idol 9I119II l II°lIW I uuli II nlllll' l II'IIIIII l IIII'III I nIII�III I II IIl1IlIIlIIIpIIIIIIIIIIIInnIInihmiliIIIIIn I nllllin'nllull I iul.lu IIIIIIIII In'IIIP I IIIIIIII' IIIIIn IIIIIIIII Whin I nillllnl 3 Ox � F • Awl ?to L A PROPOSED Z 0 N I N G SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL 7200 2 FAMILY RESIDEN ?IAI. 30.nd 4 FAMILY DWELLINGS MULTIPLE. RESIMNM NIGH DENSITY COMMUNITY RE'CAIL BUSINESS REGIONAL RETAIL BUSIN PROFESSIONAL. /OFFICE *R • It 1, 4•71 C. 4 1060 Ac 80041414OLLIY RaTALIRANT 511111.44O 1 11A11111. CO. 1 • WM. W. ; if 1,;;;;, • STCREir10 • • • - ; 4 1551- 1 , , THEATRES CO 0113 ., 1.00 Ac. • • Minn SSivl co Onto rt 1 4f:r4 1 CO. 148 Ao • S. cc /54TH atniutuumE ••, 72 OO E .E 5 1,1 NI 1 • .. .. 54/ 15 51 • UNPLA T TEDi % TPA CT £ • 41.5,4 lij1 NOVIARO PAU50515 . 5a15. 1•1444 II. 1101 •,5 .1TeAt 1 • ' :;75 ' .1:41■; . ;: • ;;.inA Era 01 OC cm , •;,41 . y y •\•1 / J• 11/.0 Y 7 CI 12 , • P,4 „0.411,44. 060N. 9 . ,;.4..772.=—,4• 4 7 444 :::!, _ _ _ _. ■., . ,,, rn.. .. 4.. .. WIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIMIIIMIllilliiffinnitil. • . E KING COUNTY ZONING E BC COMMUN TV BUSINESS .= C-G GENERAL COMMERCIAL UN NEIGHBORHOOD BUSINESS , e _E' 05.7200 SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING = E RM-2400 MED UM DENSITY MULTIPLE DWELLING E ▪ pM•1800 HIGH DENSITY MULT PLE DWELLING I 0 ill 1 Nt y M I I I) T i ! I; „ 1 111111 1 1 1 11 • C,2 TUKWILA ZONING IIMI I MULIII'LE RESIDENCE HIGH DENS!! Y C.1 COMMUNITY RETAIL BUSINESS C-2 REGIONAL RETAIL BUSINESS n• i SING! I' I AMOY III IUDI II 'I I (IN/ A q ' A.;...1■4 • I ,../1% NV 1 •■•• ' 44 ; 4.;41 , 41$4 q 't ,0 Im a I 4 •.4 • .4, '1 1 te•I, ,,,, , , ii,.5-4;4044.44 '"-4 4 ;.4:..: ' , ,'. 4 4.55Aii . ; , A4 . .5 , 4. 5'. 6 , . 4 IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIM1 7 3 ' .4 . , 5 . 6 7 8 9 " 10 11 .4..444 12 OD 45 . 44, 42 44 Z aC ' "I CC Jaic THE•QUALITY OF M ORIGINAL DOCUMENT • . a 4 . 0 - a , C ' a 1 " 0 - ' . 111400 ' 11 , \ IF THIS MICROFILMED DOCUMENT IS LE:5 • "\ • CLEAR THAN THIS NOTIDE, IT IS-DUE TO . • 144TH • 111019NDYKE ANNEXATION 1-; ... C9ND., . L. tAi ur n 0:4 41;4 , '" , " - "e 1 1^ :': 4 ;i 4 SMY,./t1k 4 ' , . 4 . 7, 5 , ',"'"' • ' ' • , „.„ " "- ., ••