HomeMy WebLinkAboutPermit 86-19-CPA - MARTIN - COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT86-19-cpa
86-20-r
southcenter parkway intersection
EPIC-323-86
MARTIN COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT AND REZONE
COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLAN AMENDMENT
MEMORANDUM
To: Community Affairs and Parks Committee
Frbm: Vernon Umetsu
Date: July 17, 1987 •
• RE: Martin Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Rezone.
COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLAN AMENDMENT
nn June 26, 1987 the Planning Commission held a public hearing
on a request to amend the Comprehensive Plan Map, and rezone a 1.6
acre parcel at the southwest corner of the 178th/ Southcenter
Parkway intersection. The Planning Commission 'recommended
approval of the Comprehensive Plan amendment for the parcel from
Low Density Residential to Office and a rezone from R-A
(Agriculture) to P-O (Professional-Office).
The Planning Department needs to know if the Council would like
to hold a public hearing on this matter•and, if so, the date on
which a hearing should be held.
City of Tukwila
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
6200 Southcenter Boulevard
Tukwila, Washington 98188
(206) 433 -1849
CITY OF TUKWILA
PLANNING COMMISSION
JUNE 25, 1987
The meeting was called to order at 8:01 p.m. by Mr. Larson,
Chairman. Members present were Messrs. Coplen, Larson, Kirsop,
Sowinski, and Haggerton. Mr. Knudson was absent.
Representing the staff were Jack Pace, Rebecca Fox, Vernon Umetsu
and Joanne Johnson.
MINUTES
MR. KIRSOP MOVED TO ADOPT THE MINUTES OF THE MAY 28, 1987 MEETING
AS PRESENTED. MR. HAGGERTON SECONDED THE MOTION WHICH PASSED
UNANIMOUSLY.
87 -2 -CA: M -1 CODE REVISIONS Request to amend M -1 Light Industry
zone to include manufacturing /processing of previously prepared
rubber products.
Rebecca Fox reviewed the staff report recommending approval of
the request.
The public hearing was closed and discussion ensued on the
request.
MR. COPLEN MOVED AND MR. HAGGERTON SECONDED A MOTION TO APPROVE
THE REQUEST TO AMEND THE M -1 LIGHT INDUSTRY ZONE TO INCLUDE
MANUFACTURING /PROCESSING OF PREVIOUSLY PREPARED RUBBER PRODUCTS
AS A PRINCIPALLY PERMITTED USE, WHICH WOULD ALSO BE REFLECTED IN
THE M -2 ZONE WHICH INCLUDES ANY PRINCIPALLY PERMITTED USE IN THE
M -1 ZONE. THIS DECISION IS BASED ON THE FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
OF THE STAFF REPORT.
After some discussion, the public hearing was reopened to obtain
additional testimony.
John Winkes, 11011 Pacific Highway South, represented Puget Sound
Tire and spoke in favor of the request, and clarifying that they
are rigidly controlled by Puget Sound Air Pollution Control.
The public hearing was closed and a vote was taken.
THE MOTION PASSED WITH SOWINSKI, LARSON,HAGGERTON AND COPLEN
VOTING YES AND MR.KIRSOP VOTING NO.
Planning Commission
June 25, 1987
Page 2
86 -19 -CPA AND 86 -20 -R: MARTIN Request to redesignate 1.6 acres
from Low Density Residential to Office in the Comprehensive Plan
and from R -A (Agricultural) to P -0 (Professional /Office) zoning
designation.
Vernon Umetsu, staff representative, reviewed the staff report
which supported an approval recommendation to the City Council.
A letter, dated June 22, 1987, from Mr. Roger Blaylock which
modified the application, was entered into the record as
Exhibit I. The Staff Report was entered into the record as
Exhibit II.
Roger Blaylock, 10717 N.E. Fourth Suite 9, Bellevue, WA 98004,
spoke in behalf of the Martins. He reviewed information which
supported the request.
After some discussion, the public hearing was closed.
MR. HAGGERTON MOVED AND MR. KIRSOP SECONDED A MOTION TO APPROVE
86 -19 -CPA AND 86 -20 -R AS PRESENTED, BASED ON THE FINDINGS AND
CONCLUSIONS OF THE STAFF REPORT WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
1. All rezone conditions be included in the property title and
recorded with the King County Assessor at the time of
rezone.
2. A seven -foot strip along the 57th Avenue South right -of -way
be dedicated to the City at time of rezone.
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
86- 40 -DR: SOUTHLAND CORPORATION Request to review a revised
building design for a 7 -11 convenience store.
Vernon Umetsu reviews the staff report recommending approval with
conditions.
Mr. Greg Aveldson, Southland Corporation, asked to go on record
as concurring with the all staff recommendations.
Discussion ensued on the proposal.
MR. KIRSOP MOVED AND MR. COPLEN SECONDED A MOTION TO APPROVE THE
REVISED SITE DESIGN FOR 86- 40 -DR, BASED ON THE FINDINGS, CONCLU-
SIONS, AND CONDITIONS OF THE STAFF REPORT WITH THE EXCEPTION OF A
REVISION TO CONDITION FOUR. THE REVISED CONDITIONS READ AS
FOLLOWS:
Planning Commission
June 25, 1987
Page 3
1. A revised landscape and irrigation plan to submitted which
formally illustrates the BAR - approved design.
2. The handicapped parking stall shall be clearly marked and
designed with sufficient width to meet City ordinances.
3. The illumination of the Alucobond strip shall be approved
subject to consistency with BAR design criteria as deter-
mined by the Planning Director.
4. Approval of two access points on Interurban, but further BAR
approval shall be required if traffic studies result in
recommending one access point on Interurban.
THE MOTION PASSED WITH KIRSOP, LARSON,HAGGERTON AND COPLEN VOTING
YES AND MR. SOWINSKI VOTING NO.
87 -3 -DR: ST. GEORGE PROPERTIES Request for design review for
renovation of existing 12 -unit apartment building and the
addition of an 8 -unit structure.
Jack Pace, staff representative reviewed the application,
recommending approval with conditions.
Mr. Leon Moore, 9422 S.E. 33rd, Mercer Island, one of the general
partners of the applicant reviewed the proposal.
MR KIRSOP MOVED AND MR. SOWINSKI SECONDED A MOTION TO APPROVE THE
SITE PLANS AND ELEVATIONS FOR THIS PROJECT, 87 -3 -DR, BASED ON
THE STAFF'S FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS AND THE NINE STAFF RECOM-
MENDATIONS AS FOLLOWS:
1. Extend sidewalk to stairway entrance of western units.
2. Provide curb along front property line from curb cut to side
property line.
3. Provide four additional large -scale trees along west
property line and parking area, and a medium -scale deciduous
tree in the sidewalk area.
4. Provide an opaque dumpster screen of similar siding and
color as building elevation.
5. Locate meter boxes on sides or screen with landscaping.
6. Provide noise relief for the occupants of the existing
building created by the basketball court to be reviewed and
approved by the staff.
Planning Commission
June 25, 1987
Page 4
7. Indicate ground cover in all planting areas and add three
additional shrubs west of dumpster.
8. Provide pitched roof as shown in Attachment E of Staff
Report for existing structure to be issued in conjunction
with issuance of building permit for new structure.
9. Revise note on Landscape Plan to read "...second growth and
tall shrubs in way of view from apartment units may be
trimmed but not removed ".
THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
DIRECTOR'S REPORT
Mr. Pace reviewed a number of issues which the Planning Commis-
sion will be reviewing revisions of the Comprehensive Plan
regarding transportation, land use, the Sidewalk Plan and Flood
Plain as well as other issues coming to the Commission in the
future.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 10:06 pm.
Respectfully ubmitted,
panne John
Secretary
THE BLAYLOCK COMPANY
specialists in land -use procedures
June 22, 1987
Mr. Vernon Umetsu, Associate Planner
Planning Department
City of Tukwila
6200 Southcenter Boulevard
Tukwila, Washington 98188
Dear Mr. Umetsu:
This correspondence is to clarify previous my letters of
January 12th and May 6th concerning the pending application
before the City•of Tukwila by Mr. & Mrs. Roy Martin. The
application is presently modified to include the following
specific items:
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN REQUEST
REZONE REQUEST
1. Dedication of seven (7) feet of right -of -way along 57th
Avenue South according to the specific legal description
prepared by the City of Tukwila Public Works Department
as set forth in the letter of transmittal from Mr.
Vernon Umetsu to Mr. Roger Blaylock (June 11, 1987).
The dedication would occur concurrently with City
Council approval of the pending rezoning request.
10717 NE Fourth Street, Suite 9
RE: Roy Martin, Files CN -86 -144
(86 -19 -CPA, 86 -20 -R)
From LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL to OFFICE.
From R/A DISTRICT - AGRICULTURE
to P -0 DISTRICT PROFESSIONAL AND OFFICE DISTRICT.
MEM
\JUN 2 21987
CITI` OF TUKWILA
PLANNING DEPT.
• Bellevue, Washington 98004 • (206) 455 -1550
Mr. Vernon Umetsu
June 22, 1987
Page 2
2. Access will be restricted solely to 57th Avenue South,
unless at the time of development of the subject site or
construction of the South 188th Street Connector, the
City of Tukwila determines that some form of limited
access to the Connector is acceptable. The burden of
proof to assure that a safe access can be accomplished
will rest with the property owner or applicant as part
of a future traffic analysis. The pending design and
reconstruction of 57th Avenue South by the City must
include a curb -cut for the Martin's future access.
3. Only one access point will be provided onto 57th Avenue
South, unless the City determines that a secondary
emergency access is required on any of the adjacent
streets as a condition of development approval.
4. The access point will be at the far south end of the
property and not less than 175 feet from the existing
(January, 1987) south edge of the pavement at the
intersection of South 180th Street and Southcenter
Parkway (57th Avenue South). If the location creates a
sight distance problem from the south at the bridge, the
property owner or developer is not responsible for
upgrading the bridge.
5. At the time of development further traffic analysis
will be provided to determine whether further mitigating
measures may be required as part of the development
proposal. However, because of the specific restriction
by the City to limit access to the subject site on 57th
Avenue South, improvements to the bridge lying south of
the subject site on 57th Avenue South will not be
included as a mitigating measure unless the traffic
study clearly shows that any improvements are a result
of a significant adverse environmental impact that is
directly measurable. In that case the property owner or
developer will be responsible for only a proportionate
share.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
6 ( e-tAltpr--
Roger Blaylock
1
THE BLAYLOCK COMPANY
specialists in land -use procedures
July 31, 1987
Mr. Rick Beeler, Director
Planning Department
City of Tukwila
6200 Southcenter Boulevard
Tukwila, Washington 98188
RE: Roy Martin, Files CN -86 -144
(86 -19 -CPA, 86 -20 -R)
Dear Mr. Beeler:
After the meeting of July 20, 1987 with the Community and
Parks Committee, I discussed with Mr. and Mrs. Martin the
possibility of excluding the possibility of developing
multiple family residences on their property. Their
reaction was that they had never considered a multiple family
development. Their sole purpose was to rezone the property
into the best use and allow professional office.
Therefore, the Martins will voluntarily place restrictive
covenants excluding any residential development of their
property based upon the following two assumptions. First,
the single family residence can continue to be occupied until
the site is redeveloped into professional office. Secondly,
there will be no time limitations on the pending rezoning
action; specifically there are no reversionary clauses that
state that if the property is not developed into professional
offices within the next 2 to 5 years that the property will
revert to the R -A (Agricultural) zoning. " oo inherent i
We appreciate this opportunity to clarify the intent of the
pending applications.
Sincerely,
V
Roger J. Blaylock
10717 NE Fourth Street, Suite 9
• Bellevue, Washington 98004 • (206) 455 -1550
11.64.010 -- 11.64.020
desire to acquire title to the land as set forth in RCW
35.79.040, the city may make the vacated street available
for acquisition by any other municipal or public corpor-
ation or agency thereof, at no cost, if the municipal or
public corporation or agency can demonstrate substantial
public benefit will be gained by said transfer. The filing
fee for street vacations is waived as to all such public
corporations or agencies. (Ord. 1087 §8, 1978).
Sections:
11.64.010
11.64.020
11.64.030
11.64.040
Chapter 11.64
SIDEWALK CONSTRUCTION
Sidewalks for new construction.
Existing streets or arterials.
Standards of construction.
Delays, waivers or exceptions.
11.64.010 Sidewalks for new construction. (a) When-
ever a building permit application is made for the construc-
tion of new multiresidential, commercial or industrial struc-
tures within the city, the person, partnership or corporation
seeking such permit shall submit a sidewalk construction
plan for approval by the directors of the departments of public
works and planning. The sidewalk construction plan shall include
all plans and specifications necessary for the construction of
sidewalks adjacent to all edges of the property adjoining any
street or public right -of -way. A building permit shall
not be issued until after a sidewalk construction plan is
approved by the director of the department of planning with
the consent of the director of the department of public works.
No final certificate of occupancy shall be issued for the sub-
ject project until the sidewalks have been constructed in
accordance with the approved plan or the applicant has made
alternate arrangements with the director of the department of
public works, which have been approved by the director of the
planning department.
(b) Building permit applications for construction of
improvements on property zoned for single- family residential
use shall be excluded from this requirement except when such
sidewalk is built as a part of an overall development, plat
or subdivision. (Ord. 1233 §1, 1981: Ord. 1217 §1, 1981:
Ord. 1158 §1, 1980).
11.64.020 Existing streets or. arterials. It is recog-
nized that there exists in the city, arterials and streets
which do not have sidewalks. In furtherance of the intent
of this chapter, and subject to the limitations and excep-
tions provided in other sections herein, it shall be a
157 -2 (Tukwila 1/82)
11.64.030 -- 11.64.040
condition of the issuance of a building permit for the follow-
ing construction activities that sidewalks conforming to
standards and guidelines prepared by the department of public
works shall be installed along the entire street frontage of
the property:
(a) Substantial remodeling to buildings or struc-
tures adjacent to a business or arterial street and
neither zoned nor actually used as a single - family
residence. For purposes of this chapter, "substantial re-
modeling" means construction which increases the floor
area of an existing building or structure by at least twenty
percent or any alteration or repairs including interior,
plumbing, electrical and structural made within a twelve-
month period, which together exceeds twenty -five percent
of the value of the previously existing building or struc-
ture. (Ord. 1158 §2, 1980).
11.64.030 Standards of construction. (a) All side-
walks required to be constructed under the provisions of
this section shall be of portland cement concrete and
sidewalks shall otherwise conform to standard specifications
and plans for municipal public works construction, commonly
known as APWA Standards. All sidewalks required to be
constructed pursuant to the provisions of this section
shall be six feet in width for arterial streets; provided,
however, that in C - -1 and C -2 zones, sidewalks shall be eight
feet in width. All other sidewalks shall be a minimum of
five feet.
(b) No fire hydrants shall be installed within the
borders of any sidewalk. Fire hydrants may be located
between the curb and.sidewalk. (Ord. 1158 §3, 1980).
11.64.040 Delays, waivers or exceptions. (a) A delay,
waiver or exception to the requirements of this chapter may
be granted by the city council upon request by the applicant.
The request may be granted if the city council determines
that such construction is not feasible because of: unique topo-
graphical conditions, or existing city public works develop-
ment plans; or such construction would render a hardship on
the applicant. In the event any person desires to file such
a request for delay, waiver or exception, such request must
be considered by the city council at least thirty days
before the requested building permit is issued as follows:
As a condition for granting a delay, waiver or exception to
the requirements of this chapter set forth above, the city
council may require the applicant to make an agreement which
would provide that such sidewalk improvements would be con-
structed at the applicant's sole expense or to provide for
the construction of the sidewalk improvements by means of
participating in a future local improvement district, or
districts, whichever should occur sooner.
157 -3 (Tukwila 1/82)
11.64.040
In the event a building permit is sought for a development
adjoining any street or other public right -of -way which does
not have an established finished grade with associated storm
drain and utility systems, including establishment of the
width of the street or right -of -way, the director of public
works is authorized to enter into an agreement with the per-
mit applicant to provide for the construction of the sidewalk
improvements by means of participating in a future local im-
provement district, or districts, or to make an agreement
which would provide that such sidewalk improvements would be
constructed at the applicant's sole expense. (Ord. 1233 §2,
1981: Ord. 1217 §2, 1981: Ord. 1158 §4, 1980).
157 -4 (Tukwila 1/82)
178th & 57th
NEW RIGHT -OF -WAY
,^. £'.
That portion of the southeast 1/4 of the northwest 1/4 of Section
35, Township 23 North, Range 4 East, W.M., described as follows:
Beginning at the northwest corner of said subdivision; thence south
87051'01" east along the north line of said subdivision 800 feet;
thence south perpendicular to said north line of said subdivision 250
feet; thence east parallel with said north line of said subdivision
to the westerly margin of 57th Avenue South (formerly County Rd. 540)
and the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; thence west parallel with said north
line, a distance of 7 feet; thence north 8o46'00" east, a distance of
170 feet more or less to its intersection with the westerly margin of
57th Avenue South as established under King County Superior Court
File No. 698092; thence southerly along said westerly margin to the
TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING.
That portion of the southeast quarter of the northwest quarter of
section 35, township 23 north, range 4 east, W.M., in King County,
Washington, described as follows:
Beginning at the northwest corner of said subdivision; thence south
87 °51'01" east along the north line of said subdivision 800 feet
to the true point of beginning; thence south perpendicular to the
said north line of said subdivision 250.00 feet; thence east parallel
with said north line of said subdivision to the west line of county
road No. 540; thence northerly along the said westerly line of said
county road to the intersection, with the said north line of said
subdivision; thence north 87 °57'01" west along said north line of
said subdivision 335 feet, more or less, to the true point of
beginning;
Except county road
And except that portion condemned in King County Superior Court
Cause No. 698092 by the City of Tukwila for road purposes.
Exhibit "A"
t
•.c: ,u
City of Tukwila
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
6200 Southcenter Boulevard
Tukwila, Washington 98188
(206) 433 -1849
HEARING DATE:
FILE NUMBER:
APPLICANT:
REQUEST:
LOCATION:
ACREAGE:
COMPREHENSIVE
PLAN DESIGNATION:
ZONING DISTRICT:
SEPA
DETERMINATION:
ATTACHMENTS:
STAFF REPORT
to the Planning Commission
Prepared June 19, 1987
June 25, 1987
86 -19 -CPA and 86 -20 -R
Mr. and Mrs. Roy Martin
To amend the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map from Low Density
Residential to Office, and to amend site zoning designation
from R -A (Agricultural) to P -0 (Professional and. Office).
15665 South 178th Street, Tukwila, WA, in the southwest
corner of the South 180th Street /157th Avenue South
intersection.
1.62 acres.
Low Density Residential
R -A (see Attachment B)
Determination to be made on June 23, 1987.
(A)
(B)
(C)
(0)
(E)
(F)
Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map
Zoning Map
Site Plan
Existing Land Use
Topography
Excerpt of Applicant Submittal
nr
STAFF REPORT 86 -19 -CPA: Martin
to the Planning Commission Page 2
FINDINGS
VICINITY /SITE INFORMATION
1. Project Description: The applicant is requesting:
a. An amendment to the Comprehensive Land Use Plan Map from a designation
of Low Density Residential to Office, and
b. A change in the Tukwila Zoning Code Map from a designation of R -A
(Agricultural) to P -0 (Professional and Office).
2. Existing Development: The subject property encompasses 1.62 acres and is
currently developed with a single- family residence. The site has been gen-
erally graded into three terraces with 6 -8 foot berms. Grading was done
several years ago as evidenced by 5" diameter alder trees on the lowest
terrace (toward 57th Avenue South). Approximately the eastern third of the
site is overgrown with blackberry bushes and alder trees. Site development
is shown in Attachment C.
3. Surrounding Land Use: The nearby land use pattern is shown in Attachment D.
In general, rural and low density uses are to the south and west while
retail and commercial uses are located to the north and east.
4. Terrain: The subject property is located on the western toe of the Green
River Valley wall as shown in Attachment E. The site itself has been graded
into three general terraces which are separated by five- to seven -foot banks.
5. Vegetation: There are no known rare or endangered species on the site.
6. Access: South 178th Street and 57th Avenue South run along the site's
northern and southern boundary respectively. The South 188th Street Con-
nector, a four -lane arterial, is early in the planning stage. One of the
alternative routes would run along the site's western boundary.
The applicant proposes to access the site only from 57th Avenue South. The
Public Works Department supports this condition. Site development potential
with a rezone from single - family to office uses would significantly increase
potential traffic generation in this intersection area.
Potential traffic generation could use up significant roadway capacity with
the location of an access point within 175 feet of the 178th /57th intersec-
tion as well as limit the length of a left turn lane. At this time, the
Planning Department and the applicant are in the final stages of negotiating
the access provision necessary to support the Comprehensive Plan amendment
and rezone. Final provisions will be presented at the Planning Commission
public hearing. The subject of this negotiation is dedicating a seven -foot
wide strip of land along 57th Avenue South. The 188th road reservation area
would be treated as right -of -way for land development purposes. The City
would still have to acquire the property at the time of road construction.
All access commitments would become effective at time of rezone. Additional
1
STAFF REPORT
BACKGROUND
86 -19 -CPA: Martin
to the Planning Commission Page 3
project specific impact analysis and mitigation shall be addressed when a
building permit application is received.
7. Utilities: The site is adequately 'served with water by King County Water
District No. 75; however; the site is not directly served by sewer or storm
drainage facilities. A 12 -inch sewer main is located directly across 57th
Avenue from the site. This main-'may require upgrading pursuant to the
Tukwila Comprehensive Sewer Plan to meet cumulative area demands. There
is an 18 -inch storm drainage stub at the northeast corner of the property
and a 12 -inch main along the north property line. The ability of these
lines to meet expected area - widedemands has not been established at this
time. Adequacy of all systems will be verified when a specific development
application is reviewed. The City's South 57th Avenue road improvement
project w i l l extend utilities to•- the- '.south, :past the' property i n . approxi-
mately 1988/89.
I n preparing this staff report, an e vai uat4on of the Comprehensive Plan indi-
cated that the property was designated ,tbw Densit.rvResidential due to its
location on the west valley wall and steep - ; topography.
DECISION CRITERIA
This report considers the request in'two parts: 1) Comprehensive Plan Map
Amendment, and 2) Zoning Amendment.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT CRITERIA
This criteria for Comprehensive Plan Amendment are listed below in bold and are
followed by a discussion of the proposal. A Comprehensive Plan Amendment is
justified if one of the three criteria below is met. Generally, the more
significant the change, the greater will be the burden of showing that the
change is justified and in conformance with the overall Comprehensive Plan.
1. There is an error in the factual basis of the plan.
The Planning Department finds no known error in the factual basis of the
Comprehensive Plan as of this date, nor does the applicant allege any error.
2. There is an unforeseen change in circumstances from the point at which the
plan was adopted.
Several changes in City transportation policies after the 1977 adoption of
the Comprehensive Plan directly affect the project site:
1. The (four -lane) 188th Connector was incorporated into the Trans-
portation Improvement Plan for construction in 1990. Preliminary
STAFF REPORT 86 -19 -CPA: Martin
to the Planning Commission Page 4
engineering was completed in 1985, and 20,000 to 30,000 vehicles are
projected to use this arterial daily. The most probable alignment runs
through a small portion of the west property boundary and along the
north property line.
2. The City's current functional classification road map has upgraded 57th
Avenue South and South 178th Street from the collector arterials shown
in the Comprehensive Plan, to the equivalent of a secondary arterial.
The Comprehensive Transportation Improvement Plan envisions improving
57th Avenue South to a minimum four -lane secondary arterial in 1990.
3. South 178th Street has been upgraded from a collector arterial to
the equivalent of a secondary arterial in the Circulation Plan and has
been improved to a 4- and 5 -lane roadway along the northern property
boundary.
The redesignation of 57th Avenue South and South 178th Street from collector
arterials to secondary arterials, along with the 188th Connector, would
together constitute a significant change in circumstances. Implementation
of the above improvements could result in bordering the subject property on
three sides with four -lane arterials.
3. There is some unforeseen and demonstrated public need.
There is a public need to ensure that Comprehensive Plan map designations
reflect public policy. There is a clear inconsistency between the site's
map designation and the Comprehensive Plan policies calling for protection
of residential neighborhoods from incompatible land uses (Neighborhood
Objective No. 1) and using office areas to separate residential areas from
other land uses (Commerce /Industry Policy No. 4.1).
The Comprehensive Plan policies which are directly applicable to this situ-
ation are shown below along with a discussion of site conditions.
Natural Environment Policy 3.1: Discourage development on slopes in excess
of 20 percent.
The site has been graded into three general terraces (see Terrain).
The eastern half of the site may be viewed as having a general slope
of 18 to 22 percent. The northern half of the property has an average
slope of 10 percent.
Natural Environment Objective 8: Recognize the environmental basemap of the
Tukwila Planning Area which depicts the distribution and extent of natural
amenities based on the previously mentioned objectives and use this map as a
general planning guide.
The site is designated as having Special Development Considerations
due to steep slopes and /or water. Slopes are as described above. The
general hillside area is known to have springs.
Neighborhood Policy 1.1: Use natural features, like topography, to separate
incompatible land uses from the residential areas.
STAFF REPORT
to the Planning Commission
86 -19 -CPA: Martin
Page 5
The project site rests on the bench of an eastward extending toe of
McMicken Heights. A 40 -foot grade change separates the (western)
development area from Southcenter Parkway. A seven -foot terrace
separates the development area from a residence to the west.
Commerce /Industry Policy 4.1: Encourage the use of commercial office devel-
opments as buffers between residential land uses and other land uses.
Designation of this transitional area (see Conclusion No. 4.c.) as
Office would buffer upslope single - family residential areas from
commercial and industrial activities to the east.
Commerce /Industry Policy 4.3: Encourage the location of commercial offices
in areas of high natural ameniti€T: -- • . - - . _ P aes me '"7"` ,"41';,wtl _. == •
The subject site has cross - valley views to the east.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT CONCLUSIONS
The applicant has demonstrated sufficient justification for reviewing the
appropriateness of the Comprehensive Land Use Plan Map at this site. The
applicant's analysis in Attachment F supports an Office designation for the
parcel. The Planning Department generally concurs with the analysis and speci-
fically concludes that:-
1. Existing land uses and roads, as well as planned public improvements
seriously degrade the viability of the subject site for single - family
residential use.
2. This is the only si-t.o.:411;:.thlity... e# :i•ch«- irs =4ce hens•i ve waned. for -si ngl e-
f ami l y residential uses,--and. . is surrounded on. ,three sides• -ley areas planned
for Office, Light Industrial, and Heavy'Ihdustrial uses, and bordered on the
fourth side by a four -lane arterial.
3. The site should be viewed as a transitional area between commercial /indus-
trial activities to the north and east, and residential areas to the west.
ZONING AMENDMENT CRITERIA
The City must consider the following criteria (in bold type)
of rezone requests.
in its evaluation
1. The use or change in zoning requested shall be in conformity with the
adopted Comprehensive Land Use Policy Plan, the provisions of this title,
and the public interest.
The proposed zoning change will be in conformity with this criteria to the
extent that it is in conformity with the Comprehensive Land Use Plan Map.
2. The use or change in zoning requested in the zoning map or this title for
the establishment of commercial, industrial, or residential use shall be
STAFF REPORT
86 -19 -CPA: Martin
to the Planning Commission Page 6
supported by an architectural site plan showing the proposed development and
its relationship to surrounding areas as set forth in the application form.
General areas have been shown as being appropriate for P -0 uses. These
development areas conform to building setback requirements and generally
demonstrate site developability if sufficient mitigation is provided.
The Planning Department concludes that the site can be developed to some
level of -0 use intensity. The actual level of use which can be responsi-
bly developed, the actual mitigating measures to be required, and assurance
of project compatibility with surrounding areas will be addressed at the
building permit phase whe.n actual project is proposed.
3. When the request is not in agreement with the Comprehensive Land Use Policy
Plan, ,the applicant shall provide evidence to the City Council's satisfac-
tion that there is an additional need for; the requested land classification.
The applicant has presented a policy evaluation regarding appropriate-
ness of P -0 zoning at _the site (Attachment F)..,,.,_ .. .,�� . - �»�•_........_.
The Planning Department concurs that changed circumstances (new and in-
': creased road development), and an analysis of applicapte policies would
justify rezoning the property from R -A to P -0. fl
4. The relationship of the proposed zoning change to.-the existing land uses and
zoning of surrounding or nearby property: •••
The proposed rezone would provide a strong rationale for rezoning the prop-
erty to the south from R -A to some higher use classification. This is the
subject of a sub -area Comprehensive Plan update to the completed by the
Planning Department in 1987. No other potential, significant land use
compatibility conflicts are anticipated.
•
.. �� V...
5. What changes have occurred in the character, conditiorts=� for surrounding
neighborhood that would justify or otherwise substantiate the rezone.
The rezone from R -A to P -0 is justified to the extent that Conclusions 1
through 4 are valid.
6. The relative gain to the public as compared with the hardship imposed upon
the individual owner.
Approval of.the rezone would result in substantial gain to the property
owner, and 'the City would become subject to higher land acquisition costs
for the 188th Connector which could over a portion of the site.
ZONING AMENDMENT CONCLUSIONS
Based upon the findings above, the staff has concluded the following:
1. The proposed Zoning Amendment from R -A to P -0 will comply with the Compre-
hensive Plan as discussed in the Comprehensive Plan Amendment section of
this report.
•
(22/86- 19- CPA1,2,3)
STAFF REPORT 86 -19 -CPA: Martin
to the Planning Commission
2. The applicant has provided enough information concerning site development to
show that the site can be developed to P -0 levels of intensity.
3. The proposed zone change is in response to development that has occurred
to the south and west of the site. What was once a quiet agricultural and
residential area has now become an area with large numbers of commercial and
industrial uses.
RECOMMENDATION
The Planning Department recommends approval of the Comprehensive Plan amendment .
and rezone applications as presented, with the following conditions:
1. All rezone conditions be included in the property title and recorded with
the King County Assessor at the time of rezone.
2. A seven -foot strip along the 57th Avenue South right -of -way be dedicated to
the City at time of rezone.
Page 7
U
34
ATTACHMENT A
Comprehensive Land Use Plan Map
MID OM
rr. • r:
oft •
Low Density Residential
Office
Commercial
Light Industrial
Heavy Industrial
111
TUKWILA
CITY LIMITS
R-H20
SNGLE FAMLY RTLAL
❑ SMICtE FAMLY RESICENTIAL
R -I -7
SINGL E FAMLY RESIDENTIAL
R. T''; ' ,IVO FAMILY RESIDENTIAL
R-3
T AND FOUR FAMILY RESIDENTIAL
}14
LOW APARTMENTS
n MULTPLE RESIDENCE HIGH DENSITY
R -1 -72
R -I -72
R -I -12.0
R -1 -72 R -I -120
R -I -120
P-O
PROFESSICINAL AND CFROE
n CC NEK3F60firi000 RETAL
ri C -2
REGIONAL RETAL
PLANNED BUSINESS CENTER
n C-M
INDUSTRIAL PARK
LIGHT INDUSTRY
M
I-EA Y INDUSTRY
CM OF 711cWo
Potential So. 188th St.
Right of Way
ATTACHMENT B
M
-H20
C -2
P-0
C-2
R-A
*1,, 4 , ,
.w
C -P
C -M
C
LA
Site
i l l M-2 I I
ALT, I{ buTES !
Fo . Id rN /
M-2 G ownetw
C-M C-M
M-4
M-1
Ne•
40.011111.11.11•11•IIIIIisil( iii
11/4 sslinosimIll,a
I .. iii
.....
........................................................
IQ ............... ,;„ ........... ..
-nil 44LM 83RJJ91
puns aap Li" ................. '. ...... .
........................... 1.4%
............................... , . :, ............
' ........................................................... .. ni ...
pi .............. .: .............................
11 11,1411
umeL
311s 44y4 aoeJJal .
PI
os anualiv Ints
(alen 01 1
NY1d 311S
3 IN3WHOVIIV
smnums
nor.) O
MMMMM
r..2=71111111111111111
17
t=1
Retail/Office
Wholesale
Industrial
SUM
111•111.01110
ATTACHMENT D
EXISTING LAND USE
Single Fam.
Agriculture
Vacant
Vacant Over
30% Slope
400 ft
ATTACHMENT E
- TOPOGRAPHY
2'5
25
Swoop A
OVERLAP SEC. 26
0
_ _ _
r — _
25
370
3
:5
. 1 c f
29 5
290
2
2'0
IN
400 F r.
27i
4
January 12, 1987
I. HISTORY
ATTACHMENT F
4
N MI
JUSTIFICATION OF COMPREHENSIVE PLAN REQUEST
o The Martins bought a house in the country with
acreage in 1959. At that time the Green River
Valley was all farms. The site was truly
agricultural - residential. Since then 1-405 has
been completed and tremendous amounts of commercial
and industrial development have occurred in the
Green River Valley in Tukwila, Renton, and Kent.
o Since 1959, the Martins' acreage has shrunk.
Originally the property contained 2.5 acres. The
property is now only slightly more than 1.6 acres.
Over 36 percent of their land has been taken for
public roads and facilities.
o The City of Tukwila has undertaken a major re-
evaluation of the traffic situation resulting from
the continued expansion of the industrial and
commercial activities.
o In March, 1982, the City of Tukwila adopted a new
Comprehensive Plan to replace their 1961
Comprehensive Plan.
o The nearby jurisdictions of Kent, Renton, and King
County have also re- evaluated the traffic problems
associated with the rapid commercial and industrial
growth in the Green river Valley and taken action to
upgrade the S.W. 180th Street /Petrovisky Road
Corridor.
o In December of 1984, the City of Tukwila received
from CENTRAC a Location and Feasibility Study and
Regional Travel Impact Report for the South 188th
Street Connector. The study recommended the
immediate construction of the roadway.
II. LAND USE ISSUE INCONSISTENCY
The land use designation of Low Density Residential for
the subject site is inconsistent with the Goals and Policies
of the Comprehensive Plan and general planning practices of
January 12, 1987
Street and west of Southcenter Boulevard is primarily
undeveloped and agricultural in nature.
Implementation of this proposed Comprehensive Plan
designation is complicated by the following purpose of the
R -1 District - Single Family Residential:
18.12.010 Purpose. The purpose of this district is to
stabilize and preserve low density, single - family
residential neighborhoods; to prevent intrusions by
incompatible land uses; to provide a range of minimum
lot sizes in order to respond to the development
constraints of the natural environment; and to promote
diversity and recognize a variety of residential
environments. (Emphasis added)
Thus, the Zoning Code can not fully implement the intent
of the Comprehensive Plan because the existing adjacent
commercial and industrial and potential office land uses
would be automatic intrusions into the proposed single family
residential area on the subject site.
The second land use inconsistency arises from the fact
that the South 188th Street Connector is not included on the
Roadway Circulation Map of the 1982 Comprehensive Plan. Even
though the Martins' land use applications do not entirely
rest upon the issue of the South 188th Connector, the impact
of the construction of a major four -lane arterial street with
an estimated 20,000 to 30,000 motor vehicles travelling the
street daily is not conducive to the establishment of a
stable new single family residential area. Any of the
proposed five designs for the south 188th street Connector
6
January 12, 1987
use buffer between the commercial and industrial uses on the
valley floor and the single family residential uses west of I
5; the subject site should be considered as a transitional
area between the intense commercial and industrial uses to
the northeast and east. In addition, the establishment of
multiple family residential area could seriously overbalance
the ratio of single family residences to multiple family
dwellings in the entire city. Presently, over 65 per cent of
the housing stock is multiple family residential, this ratio
could easily exceed 80 per cent with the creation of another
major multiple family dwelling area. This may not be
consistent with a primary objective of the Comprehensive Plan
to assure that there is a diversified supply of housing in
the planning area. (Page 51)
A new multiple family zone could be implemented by the
Zoning Code. The purpose statement of the RMH DISTRICT- -
MULTIPLE- RESIDENCE HIGH DENSITY is "this district is to
create a high density, multiple - family district which is
compatible with commercial and office areas and which can be
used adjacent to such districts to buffer other, less dense
multiple - family districts. It is also the purpose of this
district to encourage a variety of housing types and
residential environments by allowing apartment houses and
apartment /office development.
January 12, 1987
trucks take up much of the design capacity of a street system
because of their size and slowness. The maneuvering of
trucks on public streets to allow access to the loading doors
of warehouses and manufacturing plants in light industrial
areas has become a major safety problem.
A thorough investigation of the issue can not be
contemplated without a city -wide transportation study. This
is beyond the scope of the land use or environmental review
processes being requested by the applicant.
Professional Office
The arguments for a professional office building have
been discussed by analyzing the other land use alternatives.
Professional offices would provide a reasonable land use
transition between the high intensity commercial and
industrial areas to the east, while it would complement the
anticipated professional office uses to the north. Plus the
professional office classification would create a land use
buffer if a residential area was still planned for the areas
to the south and west of the subject site.
Secondary Issue - Domino Effect
Normally the review of an apparently localized request
to modify any comprehensive plan for a small parcel of
property raises the issue of: if we allow the change, will it
create a domino affect where the higher intensity land use
keeps expanding. In this case how far south will the request
10
January 12, 1987
The arguments raised in the Justification for the
Comprehensive Plan Amendment point out that the "public
interest" is not the same as embodied in the Plan in 1982.
This is not a conflict or a major mistake made by the
professional planners, planning commissioners or by the city
council; it is the normal life cycle of a Comprehensive Plan.
As the City was undergoing a metamorphosis, the Plan is
static. The Plan needs to be fine tuned and adjusted to
reflect changes in the environment and new goals and programs
of the City. In Martins' case, the crucial factor is that
existing commercial, industrial and office uses are
intrusions into the proposed single family residential area.
This is pointed out in a recent law case, Colella vs.
King County, supra, where Mr. Colella's property adjoined a
busy freeway on one side and an airport on another side,
while the property was zoned suburban residential. The
Appellate Court, quoting the trial court, reasoned that "In
short, the subject property had lost its residential
character." Id. at 255 -56. The Martins' property is
identical, it has lost its residential character. Traffic
and urban development has dramatically modified the area.
The proposed construction of the South 188th Street Connector
is only the final nail in the coffin for a stable single
family residential neighborhood.
12
January 12, 1987
Bellevue is presently building a $500,000 wall at its cost
around an established single family residential area kitty -
corner from Bellevue. Square to protect the neighborhood from
the intensity of the commercial activity.
CONCLUSION
The Martins have been trapped by the continuing
degradation of the surrounding single family residential
neighborhood by urban growth.
In 1959 when they bought the property, they were out in
the country. Farms were all they could see. Now in their
retirement years they can no longer deal with the situation
and propose selling the property and leaving. However, they
do not want to give their property to a commercial developer
who would present the same arguments to the Planning
Commission and City Council with the added statement that
"The Martins were forced off the site because of the impacts
resulting from the adjacent commercial and industrial uses."
The Martins have seen in the land use process over the last
eight months that requesting a C -2 District for a Regional
Retail Business would only be an intrusion of high intensity
commercial uses upon their neighbors to the south. The
modified request to P -0 District Professional Office not•only
lets the Martins leave the area with a little retirement
security, but is in the "public interest" and complies with
the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan and corrects
an error on the Comprehensive Plan Map.
14
City of Tukwila
6200 Southcenter Boulevard
Tukwila Washington 98188
(206) 433 -1800
Gary L. VanDusen, Mayor
1. Case Number:
Applicant:
Request:
2. Case Number:
Applicant:
Request:
Location:
1. Case Number:
Applicant:
Request:
Location:
2. Case Number:
Applicant:
Request:
Location:
City of Tukwila
PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE
Notice is hereby given that the City of Tukwila Planning Commission and Board
of Architectural Review will conduct a public hearing on June 25, 1987, at
8:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers at Tukwila City Hall, 6200 Southcenter
Boulevard, to consider the following:
Planning Commission Public Hearing
87 -2 -CA - M -1 Code Revision
Puget Sound Tire
Amend M -1 - Light Industry zone to include manufacturing/
processing of previously - prepared rubber products.
86 -19 -CPA and 86 -20 -R
M/M R. Martin
Redesignate 1.6 acres from Low Density Residential to Office
in the Comprehensive Plan and from R -A (Agricultural) to P -0
(Professional Office)
5665 South 178th Street, Tukwila, WA.
Board of Architectural Review Public Hearing
86 -40 -DR
Southland Corporation
Revise building design for a 7 -11 convenience store.
S.W. corner of the 58th Avenue South and Interurban Avenue
South intersection.
87 -3 -DR
St. George Properties
Design review of renovation and improvement of multiple -
family site and existing 12 -unit structure and the addition
of an 8 -unit structure.
14081 thru 14083 - 58th Avenue South.
Persons wishing to comment on the above cases may do so by written statement or
by appearing at the public hearing. Information on the above cases may be
obtained at the Tukwila Planning Department. The City encourages you to notify
your neighbors and other persons you believe would be affected by the above
items.
Published: Valley Daily News - June 14, 1987
THE BLAYLOCK COMPANY
specialists in land -use procedures
May 6,'1987
Mr. L. Rick Beeler, Director
Planning Department
City of Tukwila
6200 Southcenter Boulevard
Tukwila, Washington 98188
RE: Roy Martin, Files CN -86 -144
(86 -19. -CPA, 86 -20 -R)
Dear Mr. Beeler:
I appreciate your patience in awaiting a response from my
clients, the Martins, concerning your correspondence of
March 18, 1987. At this time they would like to take a
new position and formally modify their pending land use
applications.
The Martins proposal is to modify their applications to
dedicate the requested seven (7) feet of right -of -way
along 57th Avenue South concurrently with City Council
approval of the pending rezoning request.
Since the City is presently involved in the pre - construction
process to widen 57th Avenue South, our intent is that the
above modification will allow the responsible SEPA official
to consider that the request is compatible with adopted City
construction programs. This would allow him to issue a
Mitigated Declaration of Non - Significance.
Even though, the property in question was clearly
designated on the map that Mr. Umetsu provided, there
is still a question as to the length of the dedication
along 57th Avenue South and the exact square ,footage
involved. Would it be possible for your Public Works
Department to provide us with this specific information?
Sincerely,
Roger J. aylock
10717 NE Fourth Street, Suite 9
c Viceic. -- &
•
VI
I
Gth
1987
Bellevue, Washington 98004 • (206) 455 -1550
City of Tukwila
6200 Southcenter Boulevard
Tukwila Washington 98188
(206) 433 -1800
Gary L. VanDusen, Mayor
Mr. Roger Blaylock
The Blaylock Company
10717 N.E. 4th Street, #9
Bellevue, WA 98004
Dear Mr. Blaylock:
The information must contain:
March 18, 1987
Subject: Threshold Determination for Martin Comprehensive
Plan Amendment and Rezone (EPIC 323 -86)
Pursuant to our conversation on March 11, 1987, and the project clarification
letter received on March 10, 1987, additional traffic information is necessary
to make an environmental threshold determination. This information is needed
from a registered engineer with appropriate traffic engineering experience.
A. Existing level of service (based on the Highway Capacity Manual).
B. The maximum trip generation and traffic movements from the site based
on the allowed use with the highest trip generation rate.
C. Level of service in year 2000 with projected traffic levels and reason-
ably expected roadway system as approved by the Tukwila Public Works
Department.
When that information is received and the threshold determination made, the
proposed actions will proceed.
At least two alternatives to the above are worth mentioning:
1. Request the application be heard after the City completes engineering for
roadway improvements along adjacent streets (about five months). The City
will be generating most of the aforementioned information.
2. Request the application be heard in December, after the Planning Department
will probably complete its sub -area Comprehensive Plan review. Rezone under
this process would probably not require concurrent dedication of right-of-
way, and the City would be responsible for transportation system analysis.
Mr. Roger Blaylock
March 18, 1987
Page 2
The Planning Department must be informed in writing on what course of action .
the applicants have selected by April 10, 1987. Either I or Vernon Umetsu
(433 -1858) of my staff are available if you have any questions.
LRB /sjn
i
L. Rick Beeler
SEPA Responsible Official
THE BLAYLOCK COMPANY
specialists in land -use procedures
March 10, 1987
Mr. Vernon Umetsu, Associate Planner
City of Tukwila
6200 Southcenter Boulevard
Tukwila, Washington 98188
RE: Roy Martin, Files CN -86 -144
(86 -19 -CPA, 86 -20 -R)
Dear Mr. Umetsu:
MAR :
;ITV' U�� 1 Uittrti�tLA
PLANNING DEPT.
Please amend the subject applications to reflect the
withdrawal of the offer to reserve any land area for
a 188th Street Connector.
The Martins have considered the issue of the dedication of
approximately seven (7) feet of right -of -way along 57th
Avenue South to the City of Tukwila and reject this concept
at this time.
It is their position that the rezoning of the subject
property does not create an increased demand on the public
right -of -way to warrant the widening of the street. The
dedication of the right -of -way should be tied to the actual
construction of a building on the site and not to the
comprehensive plan and rezoning requests.
If I can be of any further assistance in clarifying my
client's position feel free to contact me immediately.
Sincerely,
aylock
C:2 Ro J.
cc. Mr. & Mrs. Roy Martin
Gary Faull, Attorney
10717 NE Fourth Street, Suite 9
• Bellevue, Washington 98004 • (206) 455 -1550
Dear Mr. Umetsu:
10717 NE Fourth Street, Suite 9
THE BLAYLOCK COMPANY
specialists in land-use procedures
Mr. Vernon Umetsu, Associate Planner
City of Tukwila
6200 Southcenter Boulevard
Tukwila, Washington 98188
RE: Roy Martin, Files CN -86 -144
(86 -19 -CPA, 86 -20 -R)
January 23, 1987
1987
3
66-y jr ► dKvvILA
PLANNING DEPT.
Thank you again for discussing how the recent Planning
Department staff position (January 16, 1987) concerning the
Kato Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Rezoning Request
could affect the pending Roy Martin land use requests. I
offer the following evidence to show how the Martins' case is
substantially different from the Kato applications:
o The Martins' property is bordered on two sides by
existing arterial streets, 520 feet of street frontage,
while the Kato site had 100 feet of frontage on only one
arterial street.
o Access to the Martins' property is from a City of
Tukwila designated collector arterial, while access to
the Kato property is from a residential street.
o The primary argument of both the Martin and Kato
requests is that the P -0 zoning will create a use
buffer. However, in the Martins' case the transitional
nature of the subject is of much greater value. The
Kato proposal appears to be an extension of an adjacent
use - office -onto the site, while the Martins'
modification of their application meets the traditional
intent of a "transitional zone" in that it would buffer
the proposed low intensity single family residential
area to the south from the extremely active regional
shopping center to the north and northeast.
o The noise generated from automobiles climbing the 18-
21% grade on South 178th Street is more intense than the
traffic noise from Southcenter Boulevard adjacent to the
Kato property. Thus, the M rtin site appears even less
suitable for residential use because of noise levels
than the Kato site.
• Bellevue, Washington 98004 • (206) 455 -1550
January 23, 1987
In addition to the standard criteria, the Planning
Department staff is utilizing the following three universal
planning concepts to determine if a Comprehensive Plan
amendment is proper:
o there is an error in the factual basis of the plan,
o there is an unforeseen change in circumstances from the
point at which the plan was adopted, or
o there is some unforeseen and demonstrated "public need ".
There is an error in the planning process as it relates
to the factual basis of the Comprehensive Plan. It appears
that the South 188th Street connector was conceptually
planned and first placed on the Transportation Improvement
Program (TIP) in 1981. The Planning Commission held a public
hearing on November 12, 1981; however, the roadway extension
was not included on the final Circulation Map. The error not
only affected the subject site, but that area lying south on
South 178th Street and west of 57th Avenue south.
The unforeseen change, as it directly affects the
subject site, is the preferred location of the South 188th
Street Connector. The 1984 CENTRAC Study recommended
Alternative E, which would introduce a secondary arterial on
the third side of the Martins' property.
The concept of "public need" should be distinguished
from "public interest ". There is a demonstrated "public
need" for the construction of the South 188th Street
Connector, since it has been placed on the TIP for 6 years.
"Need" suggests that the general public directly benefits
from the project, i.e., a new park, access to the shoreline,
a new road, etc. In this case, the benefit is secondary, in
that the creation of a transitional area is in the "public
interest" because it prevents the potential of premature
decay of the single family neighborhood that has a
questionable future.
Recently, the City of Bellevue encountered a similar
situation; however, the single family residential area
adjacent to Bellevue Square could only be protected by
building a solid wall at substantial cost to the community.
The subject site would never be developed into single family
residences because of the cost to build a 520 foot wall 8 -10
feet high to protect a maximum of 7 residences. The wall
would add a minimum of $10,000 to each lot.
In analyzing a comprehensive plan amendment along with
or separately from a rezoning request, the Planning
Department staff discovered that the three criteria under
2
January 23, 1987
Section 18.84.030 do not adequately address the issues of
appropriateness and timeliness. The courts in the State of
Washington have faced a similar problem. Therefore, the
Planning Department is utilizing the following case law
rezone criteria:
o The relationship of the proposed zoning change to
the existing land uses and zoning of surrounding or
nearby properties;
o What changes have occurred in the character,
conditions or surrounding neighborhood that would
justify or otherwise substantiate the rezone;
o The relative gain to the public as compared with
the hardship imposed upon the individual owner;
and,
o In the case of unimproved property the suitability
of the subject property for the purpose for which
it has been zoned and is proposed to be zoned and
the length of time the property has remained
unimproved considered in the context of land
development in the surrounding area.
The following points are offered to specifically address
the criteria:
o The subject site is more closely linked to the uses
along 57th Avenue South and South 178th Street than
the area to the west. This is not only a result of
topography, but access. Both Centrac and the City
of Tukwila Public Works Department has concluded
that the only safe and reasonable access is from
57th Avenue South.
The problem is that if the commercial uses were
continued onto the subject site, it would create an
intrusion into the existing residential areas to
the south. However, the introduction of a
professional office building would buffer the
residential area from the more intensive areas to
the north and northeast.
o The physical change that has resulted is actually
one that should have been anticipated, traffic
congestion. Development in Tukwila, Renton, Kent,
and King County have placed more demand on South
180th Street. Even though comprehensive plans and
zoning codes create categories for planning and
implementation purposes, they do not regulate the
intensity of the activities. The traffic generated
from a commercial store with 3,000 square feet of
area could vary from as few as 30 vehicle trips per
3
January 23, 1987
The Comprehensive Plan Map is the blueprint for the
community. However, that blueprint can not be read in a
vacuum and when policies, common sense, and professional
intuition so clearly contradict the Plan, the Plan must be
wrong. At that point a correction must be made to fine tune
the goals of the community back to the Plan.
Sincerely,
day to 1,800 depending upon the use. It could be a
specialty dress shop or a 7 -11 convenience market.
That is what has physically happened to the area.
This increasing intensity needs to be buffered and
this lone corner of this intersection should not be
singled out to remain at a lower intensity.
o The property owner will gain substantially by
rezoning. The public will not gain any monetary
benefit; however, if implementing a planning
concept such as transitional zones is important and
in the public interest then the public does gain.
Stronger, stable zoning district will be created
with a reduced potential for the intrusion of one
upon the other.
We believe that the Plan needs to be changed.
Roger J. Blaylock
The question in this case is could the property be
considered unimproved or in transition? The
property is truly not suitable for what it has been
zoned. Not only do the goals and policies of
Tukwila's Comprehensive Plan contradict the Plan
Map, but good planning procedures to create
transition zones demand the change.
The Blaylock Company
4
4- Vlt4 RL 2 n !9 -CFA
MEMORANDUM
TO: City of Tukwila
FROM: Law Offices of Kenneth B. Shellan & Associates
SUBJECT: Rezone And Amendment To Comprehensive Plan - Roy Martin
FACTS
Mr. & Mrs. Roy Martin are the owners of the premises located at
5665 South 178th., Seattle, Washington. Their property is presently
zoned for agricultural use (R -A) and a comprehensive plan of Tukwila
designates the site as single family - residential. The Martin
property is located on the corner of 180th. and Southcenter Parkway.
Several retail and professional establishments, which comprise the
Pavilion Shopping Center which are located easterly across the street
from the Martin property. The traffic on both Southcenter Parkway
and 188th. Street is heavy at all times during the day.
The City of Tukwila has undergone a study of the area and is strongly
considering placing an additional heavily traveled arterial on or
adjacent to the Martin's property, namely the 188th. street connector.
The Martins are presently applying for a change in zoning of the
property and an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan. They are no
C longer comfortable living in this area in their retirement years.
What was once a quiet agricultural and residential area has now become
a congested area with a heavy traffic flow and a large number of
businesses and commercial establishments and industrial facilities.
Mr. and Mrs. Martin have been approached by several developers who
wish to purchase their property, but when such developers discover
that the area was zoned agricultural they have withdrawn their offers.
The Martins will probably be unable to sell their property, because
very few people will be interested in purchasing property for residen-
tial - agricultural purposes, which is located in such a congested
area and is primarily suited for commercial or business purposes.
Furthermore, the market value of the property will substantially
increase if the property were rezoned to allow for business and
commercial establishments.
ISSUE
Whether the City of Tukwila should grant the Martin's application
for rezone from agricultural (R -A) to a commercial or business
designation based on a substantial change of circumstances in the
area and based on public interest.
. Martin Memorandum
Page 2
DISCUSSION
The issue that arises in this case is whether conditions related to
the zoned area have so clearly changed as to call for a revision in
the zoning code of the City of Tukwila. There are several elements
which must be met to obtain a rezone of property. The proponents
of a rezone have the burden of proving that conditions have substan-
tially changed since the original zoning regulations and the rezone
must bear a substantial relationship to the public health, safety,
morals or welfare of the community. Parkridge vs. Seattle, 89 Wn.
2d 454, 462, 573 P.2d 359 (1978); Cathcart vs. Snohomish County,
96 Wn. 2d 201, 212 634 P.2d 853 (1981); Bishop vs. Town of Houghton,
69 Wn. 2d 786, 793, 420 P.2d 363 (1966); Colella vs. King County,
14 Wn. A.pp. 247, 255 -56, 539 P.2d 693 (1975).
Colella vs. King County, supra is pertinent to the instant case.
In Colella, Mr. Colella's property adjoined a busy freeway on one
side and an airport on another side; the property was zoned suburban
residential. Many of the residents in the surrounding area simply were
waiting to be bought out by the City. Mr. Colella sought to have
his property up- zoned, but such application was denied by King County.
The court found that King County had acted arbitrarily and capriciously
in denying Colella's rezone application and granted the applicant his
rezone. The Appellate Court, quoting the trial court reasoned that
In short, the subject property had lost its residential character."
Id. at 255 -56.
Like the subject property in Colella, the Martin property has lost
its residential character. Substantial changes have occurred since
the enactment of the present zoning ordinance. The Pavilion has
recently been built and many other businesses have developed in the
surrounding vicinity of the Martin property. Traffic has increased
tremendously and will be increasing even more if the City of Tukwila
goes through with its plan (option E) to build the 188th connector
near or adjoining the Martin property. When the Martins initially
moved onto the subject property, the property was appropriately
designated R -A agricultural, but such designation now is completely
inappropriate. They are no longer comfortable living in this
congested area and cannot sale it under its present zoning designation.
In addition, the public welfare would in enhanced by a rezone that more
appropriately conforms to the surrounding area.
Those shopping and doing business in the surrounding area would in
all likelihood have access to more business establishments if the
Martin property is rezoned and subsequently developed by a purchaser
of their property. The Martin property is'a corner lot, therefore,
particularly assessable to public access. The rezone would benefit
the public, rather than have a detrimental impact on the community.
Martin Memorandum
Page 3
Furthermore, the comprehensive plan should be no obstacle .to Mr. and
Mrs. Martins application for rezone. First,. the Martins are also
applying for a change in the comprehensive plan designation or an
amendment to the comprehensive plan, which should be govern by the
same considerations mentioned above which mandate ,a rezone. Secondly,
a comprehensive plan is simply a blueprint; it is a guide that set
certain parameters in general term which suggest, but do not dictate
regulatory matters. Deviations from the comprehensive plan are not,
automatically spot zoning. Each case must be decided on its own
facts. Buell vs. Bremerton, 80 Wn. 2d 518, 526, 495,P.2d 1358 (.1972);
Out dated zoning regulations can become burdensome and unreasonable and
zoning authorities are responsible for modifying such ordinances in
view of changed circumstances. Here, there is evidence that the
conditions in the vicinity of the Martin property have changed
substantially since the enactment of the present zoning code and are
continuing to change. The area abutting the Martin property is
inudated by the development of numerous businesses, including the
Pavilion Shopping Center. Traffic has increased greatly and will
continue to increase as the area builds up. In addition, if the
City of Tukwila goes through with plan E for the 188th street con-
nector, the area will become even more congested. Furthermore, there
is no evidence that the public welfare will suffer if a rezone is
granted, but rather, public welfare will be enhanced by the additional
commercial establishments in an already commercialized area.
DATED this day of December, 1985.
Respectfully submitted,
Kenneth B. Shellan
Attorney at Law
CONCLUSION
Farr vs. The City of Bellevue: An Analogous Zoning
Reclassification Case.
Please find enclosed the oral opinion in the case of Farr
vs. the City of Bellevue. This case is incorporated in the
rezone documents because it closely resembles the facts of the
rezone at . bar and is helpful in its . discussion of the issues in
determining whether and when a rezone should be granted. In
particular, as highlighted in red throughout the opinion, the
case emphasizes the changing neighborhood conditions, the higher
density development permitted on neighboring parcels, and the
economic viability of the existing zoning designation. All of
these issues as well as others militated for a more dense zoning
designation in Bellevue and the same logic compels the same
conclusion for rezoning the subject ' .property in the Martin
rezone.
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
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF KING
MVP
WILLET S. FARR, III, and )
EVELYN L. FARR, husband and )
wife, GRACE GOODING, SHIRLEY A.)
HOSIER, BETTY E. FARR -COX, ANNA)
MAE FARR - CHAPMAN, HELEN J. )
FARR -VAUX and CONTINENTAL )
PACIFIC, INC., a Washington )
corporation, )
Plaintiffs, )
vs. )
)
CITY OF BELLEVUE, a municipal )
corporation, )
Defendant. )
COURT'S ORAL OPINION
Before: The Honorable GERARD M. SHELLAN
APPEARANCES:
For the Plaintiffs:
For the Defendants:
June 28, 1984
King County Courthouse
Seattle, Wa.
JOHN L. HENDRICKSON
RICHARD L. GIDLEY
Reported by; Richard L. Ishmael, Official Court Reporter
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
THE COURT: First of all, I want to thank
counsel for the excellent briefs and supporting materialE
that you provided me. I don't get briefs that well
prepared too often and I can tell that both counsel spent
a lot of time on this particular case, which is
challenging, to say the least. I also spent considerable
time on it.' It sort of brought back memories, after
having spent 27 years as City Attorney in a neighboring
city. I know the aches and pains the City has to go
through and the problems they face.
This is an action by the plaintiffs seeking
writ of certiorari, declaratory judgment and claim for
inverse condemnation arising out of a decision by the
hearing examiner and the Bellevue City Council denying
plaintiffs' applications for the reclassification of
a parcel of land, approximately 6.1 acres, within the
city from a single family residential classificaiton;
namely, R -2.5, meaning two and a half units per acre,
to a low -rise office classification known as (0). The
City's disposition of plaintiffs' application culminated
by the passage of a resolution known as Resolution No.
4250 on 'October 3, 1983. As I mentioned previously
during oral arguments, zoning cases very often are
encumbered by approximately 75 percent emotional issues,
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
probably 10 percent legal issues and hopefully 15
percent common sense. That issue may depend on the
type of case you have and how long the fight may have
lasted. I will go into pretty much 'detail on this
case because I think it is an' important issue and
undoubtedly some Appellate Court may review it.
The subject property here is an undeveloped
parcel located basically at the southwest corner of the
intersection of the Bel -Red Road and 148th Northeast
in the City of Bellevue. The plaintiffs' application
for the rezone was filed approximately two years ago in
July of 1982 and proposed the construction of seven
buildings of low height and design to blend in with the
topography of the land and the adjoining residential
area known as Glengarry, G- 1- e- n- g- a- r -r -y, located to
the south of the subject property. It also appears from
the record that nearly all the owners of this residential
subdivision had concurred in support of plaintiffs'
plan for the rezone. Counsel had suggested to the
Court that I review the subject property and surrounding
area to aid the Court in interpreting the lengthy record
and to further correlate the numerous photographs of
the general area that were furnished to me and I, believe
identified as Exhibits 13 and 14 before the hearing
examiner. I have complied with your request on June 26,
3
I
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13.
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
1984, and as I indicated previously I have also
reviewed all of the documents, every single one of them,
as well as the excellent briefs that you have submitted.
I think some background information for the record here
on the subject parcel would be helpful.
The City apparently had acquired a portion of
the subject property in 1972 for the improvement and
expansion of the Bel -Road Road and thereafter in 1977
acquired some additional properties for right -of -way
purposes. Again in 1981 the City initiated additional
eminent domain proceedings for a small parcel of the
subject property to be used as a water or storage
detention site at or near the most easterly portion of
the plaintiffs' property.
There had been two prior rezone attempts by
plaintiffs; namely, in 1975 and 1979, which again were
denied apparently by a split vote of the City's legis-
lative body. The R -2.5 zoning was retained, which
actually had been in existence now for approximately 20
years, constituting a successor zoning to the County
after annexation of this property and other properties
known as the Sherwood Forest Annexation. The latest
denial by the City legislative body of the plaintiffs'
application was by a four -to -three vote.
The zoning history relative to the properties
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
abutting the north and south strip of the Bel -Red Road
is extremely important in resolving the issue before the
Court. It is uncontradicted that all the property
abutting to the north of Bel -Red Road, which is a four-
lane road and with a turn lane, between 124th and 156th
Street, consists of various types of businesses,
commercial and some industrial. The Court presumes that
the industrial probably is on a nonconforming use ba
The area abutting the south side of said highway likewise
houses various businesses with an emphasis on office
use, a few commercial and recreational enterprises and
one large apartment house complex known as the Illahee.
There is no evidence that any single - family residential
dwellings have been constructed along the south
corridor of the road for manyyears and plaintiffs
unimproved property is the only one abutting the highway
with an R -2.5 designation.
The record submitted to the Court also contains
a compilation of rezoning, more than two dozen or .so,
that were granted between 1965 and 1982 for properties
abutting the south boundary of the Bel -Red Road, again
between the 32 blocks of 124th and 156th, the great
majority of which were approved for office use, one I
believe for community business and two for high density
apartment uses. The depth of rezoning to office and othe
r
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
uses along the south side of this highway extended up
to a few hundred feet with residential development,
either single - family or multiple, to the south. It is
of interest to note that the City's land use map
designates many residential uses south of the rezoned
property along the highway that however are somewhat
less restrictive and allow multiple residential use,
such as R -5, R -10, R -20 and R -30, while plaintiffs'
property and the area south of it is limited to an R -2.5
Zoning, which appears to be one of the most restrictive
in the general area.
The evidence at the hearing disclosed that the
minimum lot size in an R -2.5 zone is 13,500 square feet
and allows a site coverage of 35 percent. Plaintiffs'
proposed plan as submitted to the City would involve a
building site coverage of about 17 percent, which would
be considerably below the permissible level. It is
plaintiffs' position that low -rise design and rural
setting motif would be of greater benefit to the public,
especially the residential abutting owners to the south,
namely Glengarry, than a development for single or
multi - family development. The City denies plaintiffs'
contentions.
There are located directly across the street
from the subject property various business entities,
C
c.
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
including a shopping center, a mini -lube establishment,
while the three remaining corners of the intersection
of Bel -Red and 148th house a savings and loan
institution, an Arco service station and a Jack In the
Box establishment.
The evidence adduced at the bearing, and I
want to emphasize that the Court is limited by case law
to the record made before the hearing examiner and the
City Council, but the evidence adduced at the hearing
is uncontradicted that the combined traffic flow at the
intersection of those two highways that I have mentioned
is in excess of 43,000 cars per day, which volume is
only exceeded by or equal to the intersection of
Bellevue Way and 8th, the busiest corner of the city.
Due to the widening of both highways in recent years it
is natural to assume, and this actually happened, that th
volume of traffic has increased very substantially.
It is undisputed that there is a very significant
concern about the resulting noise from this tremendous
traffic volume and experts testified that the existing
noise level is above the cutoff point between "adverse
impact" and "significant adverse impact." Such condition
would undoubtedly result in the construction of sound
barriers along most, if not all, the 500 to 700 -foot
frontage of the subject property along the Bel -Red Road
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
as well as the frontage, which I believe, is about 60
feet or so on 148th Northeast. There are already, as
I've observed, existing concrete walls and they're
somewhere between 7 and 12 feet high abutting some
residential developments along 148th Northeast. There
is obvious disagreement among the parties as to the
aesthetic benefits, if any, resulting from the erection
of additional walls to minimize the existing noise
level. It probably would be required for the protection
of residential users within the subject property.
Under plaintiffs' proposed plan there would
be means of access, or ingress and egress, to the subject
property from Bel -Red Road and then exits along 148th
Northeast limited to a right -hand turn.
Plaintiff introduced substantial evidence
before the hearing examiner that the existing zone
designation of the subject property would make it
impossible for any reasonable owner to develop this
property for residential use_at a reasonable profit or
for economic advantage. The evidence before the hearing
examiner was basically uncontradicted that any •
development of this property for residential uses,
unless the density of at least 15 to 20 units per acre
were permitted, would result in substantial losses to
any developer and therefore, so thc0 plaintiff claims,
8
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
the existing R -2.5 zoning or any similar zoning would
not be economically viable.
The evidence was further uncontradicted, at
least before the hearing examiner, that the present
fair market value of the subject property is approx-
imately $2.40 or $2.50 per square foot based on certain
appraisals, and also relying on what the City
actually paid for its most recent condemnation. The
City officials reviewing plaintiffs' proposed rezoning
plan concluded that it complied generally with the City
standards and was considered a well- designed project but
was not consistent as to se with the subject area
requirements of the City's Comprehensive Plan adopted
in 1981. For that reason and the Comprehensive Plan's
designation of single - family residential R -2.5
plaintiffs' proposal had to be rejected and it was
rejected. The City further maintained that it had a
right to provide for a cutoff of any further non-
residential development along the south boundary of the
Bel -Red Road even though the balance of that particular
corridor to the west and some to the east have been re-
zoned numerous times for office and similar uses during
the last 20 years. Also the City argued that plaintiffs'
property with its somewhat unique topographical features
made it a suitable residential area. Thus the battle
9
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
lines were drawn and the issues clearly defined.
Topographically the subject property is on
a bluff ranging anywhere from six to ten feet above.the
existing road or road level of the Bellevue- Redmond
Road. The subject property is fairly long and it's
narrow. In other words, it's irregularly shaped. Due
to the fact that it lacks depth the parcel undoubtedly
would be heavily impacted by the severe noise level
emanating from heavy traffic from these two highways.
The view from the subject property, if you stand on it
right now, to the north and northeast, without any
screening, would disclose the existing Sternco Shopping
Center, service stations, fast -food restaurants and
similar commercial establishments. Also across the
street from the subject site is an undeveloped parcel of
property, which according to the record, is zoned for
office use; that property is bisected by what looks to
me like a deep gully there.
Plaintiffs' basic position is that there have
been continuous and substantial changes in the general
area of the subject property consisting of a heavy
increase in the amount of commercial development, the
almost doubling of the traffic volume over a number of
years, while at the same time the zoning now existing as
to subject property has been stet j c for almost 20 years
.
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
as part of the
plaintiffs' co
subject proper
zoning to the
family residen
As t
office buildin
less residenti
stained wood s
The plan also
in depth betwe
boundary of th
natural vegeta
improvement fr
Furthermore un
on the propert
Gene
could not find
it did not mee
Plan as to use. Testimony by experts at the hearing
disclosed proj-ctions for increased traffic in the
general area w ich, of course, then would result in
increased nois levels. Noise levels at this particular
location are considered worse than at other locations
on this road because of the existing grade at that
Q•
City's zoning scheme. The City denies
clusions strongly maintains that the
y because of its topography and adjacent
outh is a proper location for future single -
es as mandated by the present zoning.
plaintiffs' particular design of the
s, it should be that it is more or
1 in scale, will have some natural
ding with pitched cedar shingle roofs.
ncludes a green belt buffer strip varying
n 25 to 40 feet along the entire south
site, which would therefore provide a
ive buffer to help screen any proposed
m the people that live down in Glengarry.
er plaintiffs' proposal most of the trees
would be preserved by this development.
ally one must conclude that the City
any particular fault with the plan except
the requirements of the Comprehensive
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
particular point. Plaintiffs maintain that utilization
of the area by a low -rise, low intensity office use woulc
not require any corrective measures such as a concrete
wall as a barrier, which however would have to be
installed in the case of residential use. Wall -type
barriers, according to the experts, could be avoided if
the residential units could be set back four or 500
feet from any existing highway to minimize any such
noise impact. But in this case because of the size and
configuration of the property there is insufficient
depth to locate residential units that far back from the
highway.
Let's discuss briefly the applicable law in
this matter. The Court has very carefully reviewed all
of the testimony and documents adduced at the hearing
and the applicable authorities that have been cited by
counsel. The Court is governed by the often stated
rule that regardless of how this Court or any other
Court might have decided the question before the City
Council the Court is not warranted in substituting its
own judgment or its own beliefs for that of a city and
its elected officials or in any way interfere in the
determination of the matter unless the decision under
review is arbitrary and unreasonable and constitutes
an abuse of discretion. Some courts have also held
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
that in determining whether a municipal body's
administrative acts and policies may be upheld it should
be observed that the usual presumption of the validity
of the acts of public boards and officials does not
apply to acts involving the forfeiture of an individual's
right or the deprivation of the free use of its property,
and I believe plaintiff cited the case of Decar vs.
Napier, 137 Minn., 219. The Court's review of zoning
action is confined to determining whether the action
constitutes a manifest abuse of discretion involving
arbitrary and capricious conduct. Ordinarily the party
asserting such conduct has the burden of proof and the
act of the City must be upheld when reasonable minds
could differ regarding the existence of a substantial
relationship between the action taken and the public
health, safety, moral or general welfare.
I think the case of Colella vs. King County,
14 Wash. App. 247, a 1975 case, is pertinent here.
We have heard quite a bit about the Carlson
case, which has been cited by both counsel. In the
Carlson vs. Bellevue case, 73 Wn. 2d, 41, a 1968 case,
which incidentally involved the parcel close by the
subject parcel, the Court held as follows:
"The fact that a zoning classification prevents
the highest and most profitable use of property
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
does not lead to a conclusion that the zoning
regulation is unreasonable or confiscatory un-
less a limitation on the potentials of the
property in question together with other prop-
erty similarly situated clearly overcomes the
considerations of public health, safety and
general welfare inherent in the desire to main-
tain the integrity of the zoned areas.
"A primary consideration is whether or
not there is a reasonable profitable alterna-
tive use to which the property is adaptable
under the applicable zoning classification."
Some of the material questions to be
answered in determining whether or not a zoning ordi-
nance is reasonable as applied to a given parel of land
the Court must consider the character of the neitthborbood
as a whole, the existing uses and zoning of nearby
property and the history of same, the amount by which
the property values are decreased or even increased,
the extent to which the diminution of values promotes
the public health, safety, morals and welfare, the
suitability of the subject property for the purposes for
which it is zoned and also, which is important,. the length
of time a piece of property has remained unzoned in the
sense that it has been left unimproved considered in
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
the context of the land development within the total area
I think it should be emphasized that no single factor
and no single element is controlling but I think each
of them must receive due consideration. Certainly the
case law is clear on the point that a property owner
is not entitled to a rezone in order to achieve the
highest profitable or economic benefit that be may
derive from the use of this property. There are any
other considerations that would overshadow any such
desire; however, the property owner is entitled to a
reasonable and profitable use of his property,.which
envisions economic as well as functional use. I think
both elements have to be considered.
There has been considerable testimony and
discussion about the purpose of the Comprehensive Plan
and its application. I think it is safe to say that a
Comprehensive Plan is simply a blueprint, it is a guide
that sets certain parameters in general terms which
suQQests but does not dictate various regulatory
measures. It usually, as some courts have said,
proyoses rather than disposes. Deviation from a
Comprehensive Plan by increasing the area in which
particular use is permitted is not automatically spot
zoning. So the Court held in Buell vs. Bremerton, 80
Wn. 2d 518. It has been argued that rezoning must
15
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
•
substantially comply with the existing Comprehensive Plar.
Such, however, has not always been the test. Noncon-
formance with the Comprehensive Plan does not necessar-
ily render such action illegal. The plan is only a
general blueprint and thus only general conformance is
necessary. The case controlling is Cathcart vs.
Snohomish County, 96 ton. 2d 201. Another case that has
been mentioned by both parties, and I think is
partially controlling, is Parkridge vs. Seattle, 89 Wn.
2d 545, a 1978 case. It sets forth the elements
involved in any rezoning action. A rezoning action
taken without the support of credible evidence is
arbitrary and capricious. The necessary relationship
to the public interest will not be presumed in a
rezoning, such an action being adjudicatory in nature.
Because review of the action of the hearing
examiner and the City Council in this instance was by
writ of certiorari the questions involving the merits to
be determined by the Court are as follows:
1.) whether there was any competent proof of
all the facts necessary to be proved, in order to
authorize the making of a determination;
2.) if there was any such proof, whether
there was upon all the evidence such a preponderance of
proof, against the existence thereof, rendered in an
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
action in a court, triable by a jury, as would be set
aside by the Court as being against the weight of the
evidence. In considering the evidence, we must keep in
mind there is no presumption of validity favoring the
action of rezone. The proponents of any rezone have
the burden of proof in demonstrating that conditions
have substantially changed since the original zoning
and that the rezone must bear a substantial relationship
to the public health, safety, morals and welfare.
3.) Although zoning usually seems to apply
a degree of permanency it is the duty of the appropriate
zoning authorities when conditions relating to a zoned
area has so clearly changed as to emphatically call for a
revision in zoning, to initiate proceedings and consider
the necessity of pertinent modifications of their zoning
ordinances.
The controlling case on that is Bishop vs. Town of
Houghton, 69 Wn. 2d 786. It's a 1966 case.
The Court would further hold that this duty on
the City is a continuing one. If the rule were other-
wise, outmoded, zoning regulations could become unreason-
able and the zoning authority's failure to suitably
amend or modify the ordinance could become arbitrary.
In such events, Courts can and should grant appropriate
relief.
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
I think the above -cited cases are sufficient
in our case here to provide us with the parameters in
assisting the Court in disposing of this particular
subject matter.
1.) The Court further finds in this case
that the subject property had been under one family
ownership for approximately 45 years and its zoning as
previously stated of R -2.5 inherited from King County
upon annexation back in 1965, has not been changed since.
2.) The petitioner after working on the
present proposal and also gaining favorable response
from the abutting residential areas to the south, which
process has taken apparently about three years,
submitted this proposal to the City fathers for a low -
rise residential -type office complex of approximately
68,000 square feet divided into seven separate
buildings. As previously stated, these buildings would
occupy approximately 17 percent of the total site area
and would retain the majority of existing vegetation on
the premises. The retention of the trees and other
vegetation would provide a suitable setting for the
subject improvement and its neighbors. Petitioner had
met the City's policies for all of the rezoning except
for the use, which under the City's existing ordinances
and resolutions would be in violation. The subject
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
property is narrow, irregular and due to its lack of
depth this parcel of property undoubtedly would be
heavily impacted by severe noise levels resulting from
traffic primarily on Bel -Red Road but also from the
other highway, 148th Northeast. Residential development
of this area would most likely require the construction
of concrete walls along the perimeter of the project to
minimize the impact. Petitioners have stated at the
hearings that in case the development for office building
would be permitted such walls would not be necessary.
The uncontradicted evidence further shows a substantial
increase in the traffic levels presently as stated about
43,000 vehicles per day. The traffic projections for
the next 10 to 15 years, according to the experts, one
may expect an additional increase between 44 and 67 per-
cent on these two intersecting highways.
3.) The present zoning of R -2.5 as related to
this particular parcel of property would not allow a
reasonable developer or owner to utilize the property on
a reasonable and profitable basis; that the cost of the
land based on its present fair market value, and it does
not make too much difference whether it's $2.40, $2.50
or $1.75, together with the cost of the site improvements
would heavily outweigh the fair market value of any such
completed lot thus resulting in a substantial loss to an
19
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
JO
11
12
;( 13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
20
owner.
4.) The uncontradicted evidence indicates that
the City in its most recent condemnation of the small par
cel of the property for water retention paid $2.40 or $2.
per square foot based upon appraisal. The evidence
before the Court is silent as to whether the appraisers
involved took into consideration the present zoning or
any anticipated change in the zoning but in any event
the City paid it and the Court is also aware of the
fact that in some cases in eminent domain proceedings
some additional bonus is paid to avoid a lawsuit. I
think common sense would clearly dictate the economic
impossibility of any reasonable and profitable
development of this property if one simply multiplied
the square footage cost by the total parcel size and
divided same by the 15 lots that would be permitted now
under existing zoning. The resulting amount alone most
likely would exceed the market price of comparable lots
at this time and this figure would not even include the
site developments that were testified to at the hearing
and I'm talking about roads, 'Utilities, et cetera.
5.) furthermore the uncontradicted testimony
indicates that only a change of existing zoning to
approximately 15 to 20 units per acre would permit either
a break -even point or a small profit. Even if the
50
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
property owner would reduce the present fair market
value, let us say, by 30 percent the resulting cost per
foot together with the necessary site improvements
incidental thereto would by the evidence adduced at the
hearing exceed the prevailing fair market value for
similar lots in the general vicinity. Even if we
disregard completely the disadvantages of the existing
traffic flow the noise alone may impact any reasonable -
minded buyer who wants to buy a piece of property for
a single - family dwelling. Without question, the
petitioner- owner, as far as this Court is concerned, bas
no legal right to expect and the City has no legal duty
to provide a maximum profit or even substantial profit in
justifying any rezone; however, every property owner
has the right to utilize his or her property in a
reasonable manner and expect some profitability and
economic benefit. The present existing restrictive
zoning as applied to this one parcel of property would
not allow the fulfillment of such expectations, even
minimum expectations.
6.) The Court further finds that there have
been tremendous changes in the neighborhood covering the
area between 124th and 156th since zoning was last
affixed to this parcel. The area abutting the north
line of Bel -Red Road is inundated in strip development
21
•
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
fashion by numero
including some sh
or industrial use
with the City's C
those termini men
the Bel -Red Highw
been rezoned duri
occasions for pri
recreational uses
there and also hi
most of the prope
south of the exis
plaintiffs' parce
may oppose a cert
s businesses, numerous enterprises
pping centers and some manufacturing
All of this was done in compliance
mprehensive Plan; likewise between
ioned the area immediately south of
y, except for petitioners'. parcel, has
g the last 20 years or so on numerous
arily office use as well as some
I think there is a racquet club in
h density residential use. Furthermore
ty whether developed or undeveloped
ing office and other uses has been
designated for higher density residential use than
1, which is the only unimproved property
abutting this highwav still designated as R -2.5.
8.) The evidence at the bearings futher disclosed
that the great majority of property owners within
Glengarry division preferred to have a development such
as proposed by the petitioner vis -a -vis any high density
residential development. There is a recent case that
just was published, I would say two or three months ago,
and the title escapes me but I want to emphasize that
the desire of any particular neighboring group is not
controlling and just because a certain group of people
ain development is not determinative
22
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
as to whether rezoning should take place. The reverse
would apply. Just because some abutting owner is
supportive does not necessarily tip the scale in favor of
a rezone but is one of the elements to be considered but
it certainly is not controlling.
9.) The City in its announced policy for
residential development has concluded that any means of
ingress and egress would have to be channeled through the
Glengarry subdivision in lieu of entering or exiting frog
or onto Bel -Red Road. This plan of channeling traffic
to the adjoining subdivision obviously is not too highly
welcome by the Glengarry residents who have, in fact,
opposed it for some time and they apparently wish to
preserve their presently existing basically Lrivate roads
that, as we have at least apparently concluded during
our dialogue previously, are private except for one main
paved road running through this particular subdivision.
Therefore undoubtedly if the City's plan is carried out
eminent domain proceedings would have to be pursued
to provide public access from the Farr
development to or through the Glengarry subdivision to
148th. Diverting traffic of residential users from the
subject property would heavily impact, and I would say
most likely adversely, the tranquility of the Glengarry
inhabitants. The subject site at the present time has
f
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
no legal access rights to the south through Glengarry.
The testimony indicated that request for such access
by petitioners and others apparently have been rejected
in the past.
10.) The Court further finds that the City's
heretofore published policy No. 21F190 as part of its
Comprehensive Plan, which allows the following "low inten-
sity low -rise office uses" are considered appropriate
outside the central business district in the following
locations:
One, in freeway corridors;
Two, in community retail districts;
Three, and to buffer residential and nonresi -
dential uses when appropriate.
Undoubtedly this policy in some form was
utilized by the City over the last two decades in
granting numerous rezones for office use occurring along
the south side of Bel -Red Road. Ostensibly it was meant
to provide a buffer or transition from the commercial
zoning use along the north side of Bel -Red Road and
residential areas further to the south of Bel -Red;
however, the City maintains that this buffer is not
applicable to the subject site.
The Court's conclusions in this matter are as
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
1S
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
follows:
1.) The existing zoning as applied to the sub -
ject parcel is outdated, unrealistic and improper in vies
of the substantial and significant changes that have
occurred in the conditions surrounding this parcel since
its original zoning in 1965 and prior thereto which
has not changed. The City has a duty to update and
bring current on a reasonable basis its Comprehensive
Plan in view of such substantial changes and its past
course of action, which the City has failed to do in
this case.
2.) Petitioners' proposal is in general
conformance with the provisions of the City's compre-
hensive policies except for use and that the City has
during the last 20 years rezoned property along the
south line of the Bel -Red Road for office and high
density multiple residential uses. To isolate vetitione
property and limit it to an R -2.5 zoning as the only
Parcel alone this whole area is clearly arbitrary and
capricious in view of all the evidence adduced at the
hearings.
3.) To limit petitioners' property to an
R -2.5 use would leave petitioners' property in an
uneconomical and unprofitable status as clearly
demonstrated by the preponderance of the evidence.
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
4.) Petitioner's proposed zoning and
development is consistent with the zoning precedent
established by the City along the south corridor of
Bel -Red Road over a 20 -year period. Although the City
has an undeniable right by appropriate legislation to
establish definite boundaries for land use purposes • ..
it must be done in a consistent and nonarbitrary manner
and must give due recognition to major and substantial
changes occurring in any given neighborhood. In this
Court's opinion, the City has failed to do this in the
subject case.
5.) The City has failed to establish by any
credible evidence in the record before the Court that
petitioners' proposal would have any adverse or
detrimental effect on the residential area to the south;
namely, the Glengarry subdivision or others similarly
situated in the neighborhood. However it should be
remembered that the Court is not in any position and
cannot legally dictate to the City or give its blessing
to any certain development proposal since any such
authority is vested solely within the legislative body
of the municipality as long as it is exercised in a'
nonarbitrary and noncapricious manner; as so stated in th
case of Colella vs. King County previously cited,
"If the judiciary is to serve its purpose,
26
C
4
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
it must be both academic and practical.
"The trial judge satisfied both aspects of
this requirement when he concluded that the decision
of the examiner and the County Council and the
facts of the case was not only arbitrary and
capricious and unrealistic but also 'Not even
in good common sense.'"
This is from the Court of Appeals in Colella
vs. King County. This reviewing Court fully concurs with
the above quote and must find that the presently existing
R -2.5 zoning as limited solely to petitioners' undeveloped
property along the south side corridor of Bel -Red Road is
not only arbitrary and capricious but devoid of common
sense. There is no evidence whatever that the proposed
development would in any way affect adversely the public
health, welfare, safety or morals. Outmoded zoning
regulations can become unreasonable and the zoning
authorities must finally amend or modify the ordinances
in view of changed conditions as otherwise they may becone
arbitrary. In such cases, like the one before us, the
Courts have a duty to grant appropriate relief.
The Court further concludes that Resolution
No. 4250 is set aside and is void. Therefore this matter
is remanded to the City for appropriate remedial actions
not inconsistent with the opinions herein expressed.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
(.
To reemphasize, it is not the Court's function to
require the City to approve or disapprove a specific
proposal by a property owner; however, in this case it
should be obvious based on much of the uncontradicted
evidence before the hearing examiner and the City
Council that petitioners' plan is a reasonable one
considering all of the surrounding properties and uses
over the last 20 years or so and that the City's failure
to modify the restrictive zoning applicable only to
petitioners' property and to allow a similar use to
all other abutting property owners within a 30 -block area
was arbitrary and capricious and must be rectified.
The City's mandated to reclassify the subject property
by updating its plans so as to allow uses that are in
basic conformity with other properties abutting this
particular highway and not inconsistent with this
opinion.
I believe it would be helpful if the Court
'would retain jurisdiction, at least for a little while,
to see what happens next in the saga of the Farr
property. That ends the Court's opinion. Are there any
questions by counsel?
MR. HENDRICKSON: Clarification of the last
point. You said the City should retain jurisdiction.
Did you mean the Court?
CI. 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
l(
Honor.
MR. GIDLEY: None.
THE COURT: I'm sorry, the Court retain
jurisdiction. Not forever, just for a little while,
hopefully. Are there any further questions?
MR. HENDRICKSON: I have no questions, your
THE COURT: All right, we'll stand at recess.
(Concluded.)
29
CONCOMITANT ZONING AGREEMENT FOR MARTIN REZONE
WHEREAS, the City of Tukwila is a Washington noncharter
optional municipal code city and as such has the power to enact
laws and enter into agreements to promote the health, safety and
welfare of its citizens and thereby control the use and
development of property within its jurisdiction, and
WHEREAS, Mr. and Mrs. Roy Martin, hereinafter referred to as
"The Owners," are the owners of certain real property located in
the City of Tukwila, King County, Washington, which is the
subject of this Agreement and which is legally described on
Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein by this
reference as if set forth in full, and
WHEREAS, the Owners have applied for an amendment of the
Comprehensive Land Use Plan Map designation for the property from
Low Density Residential to Office and for a rezone of the
property from R -A (Agricultural) to P -O (Professional and Office)
under City File Nos. 86 -19 -CPA and 86 -20 -R, and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on
June 25, 1987 concerning the proposed Comprehensive Land Use Plan
Map change and the rezone of the property and at the conclusion
of said public hearing, adopted Findings, Conclusions, and a
Recommendation to the City Council to approve the request, and
WHEREAS, the City Council held a public hearing on August 3,
1987 to consider the Planning Commission's recommendation, and
WHEREAS, during the hearing, the Owners proposed that the
Council limit residential development on the property to a
density no greater than single family as a condition of the
property being rezoned to P -O, and
WHEREAS, the City Council has authorized the preparation of
an Agreement reflecting such limitation, now, therefore,
IN THE EVENT THAT the property legally described on Exhibit
A is reclassified from R -A (Agricultural) to P -O (Professional
and Office), the Owners hereby covenant and agree as follows:
1. Restrictions on Development. No residential development
shall be permitted on the property described on Exhibit A
attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference as
if set forth in full at a density which is greater than that
permitted under the City's R -1 (Single Family Residence)
regulations. The development regulations applicable in the
R -2, R -3, R - and RMH Districts shall not apply to the
property and no residential development other than single
family shall be permitted.
JEH00266A/0042.150.009 -1-
2. Dedication. The Owners hereby dedicate, grant, convey and
warrant to the City of Tukwila approximately seven (7) feet
of property along 57th Avenue South which is legally
described on Exhibit B attached hereto and incorporated
herein by this reference. Said property is dedicated and
conveyed for street purposes.
3. Access to 57th Avenue South.
A. Access to Owners' property described on Exhibit A will
be restricted solely to 57th Avenue South, unless at the
time of development of the subject site or construction of
the proposed South 188th Street connector, the City of
Tukwila determines that some form of limited access to the
proposed connector is acceptable. The burden of proof to
assure that a safe access can be accomplished will rest
with the Owners or applicant for development permit as
part of a future traffic analysis. The pending design and
reconstruction of 57th Avenue South by the city will
include a curb cut for the Owners' future access.
B. Only one access point will be provided onto 57th
Avenue South from the property described on Exhibit A
unless the City determines that a secondary emergency
access is required on any of the adjacent streets as a
condition of development approval.
C. The access point will be at the far south end of the
property and not less than 175 feet from the existing
(January, 1987) south edge of the pavement at the
intersection of South 180th Street and Southcenter Parkway
(57th Avenue South). If this location creates a sight
distance problem from the south at the bridge, the
property owner or developer is not responsible for
upgrading the bridge, but the city may, in its discretion,
require the access point to be located at a distance which
is safe.
4.Further Traffic Analysis. At the time of the filing of
an application for development of the property described on
Exhibit A, the Owners shall, at the Owners' sole cost and
expense, provide a traffic analysis of a scope to be
determined by the City in order to determine whether further
mitigating measures with respect to traffic may be required
as part of the development proposal. However, because of the
specific restriction by the City to limit access to the•
subject site to 57th Avenue South, improvements to the bridge
lying south of the subject site on 57th Avenue South will not
be included as a mitigating measure unless the traffic study
or other analysis by the City clearly shows that any
improvements are necessary to mitigate a significant,
adverse, environmental impact attributable to the
development. In such case, the Owners or developer will be
JEH00266A/0042.150.009 -2-
By:
required to pay a proportionate share of the costs of such
improvement.
5. Binding Effect - Recording. This agreement shall be
recorded with the King County Auditor and shall constitute a
covenant and servitude running with the land described on
Exhibit A, and shall be binding upon the Owners, their
successors in interest and assigns. The Owners shall pay all
recording fees necessary to record this Agreement.
6. Police Power. Nothing in this Agreement shall be
construed to restrict the authority of the City to exercise
its police powers.
7. Enforcement. In addition to any other remedy provided by
law, the City may, at its discretion, maintain a lawsuit to
compel specific performance of the terms and conditions of
this Agreement or to otherwise enforce its provisions,
through injunctive or other relief, and if the City prevails
in such action, it shall be entitled to recover all costs of
enforcement, including reasonable attorneys' fees.
8. Severability. In the event any section, paragraph,
sentence, term or clause of this Agreement conflicts with
applicable law, or is found by any court having jurisdiction
to be contrary to law, such conflict shall not affect other
sections, paragraphs, sentences, terms or clauses of this
Agreement, which can be given effect without the conflicting
provision, and to this end the terms of this Agreement shall
be deemed to be severable, provided, however, that in the
event any section, paragraph, sentence, term or clause of
this Agreement is found to be in conflict with applicable
law, the City shall have the right to bring the proposed
development back before the City Council for further review
and imposition of appropriate conditions to ensure that the
purposes for which this Agreement is entered into are, in
fact, accomplished and the impacts of the proposed
development are mitigated.
DATED this
ACCEPTED BY:
The City of Tukwila
Mayor, Gary L. VanDusen
JEH00266A/0042.150.009 -3-
day of , 1987.
OWNERS
Roy Martin
Martin
ATTEST /AUTHENTICATED:
By:
City Clerk, Maxine Anderson
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
OFFICE O THE CITY AT
STATE OF WASHINGTON )
)ss:
COUNTY OF
I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that Roy
Martin signed this instrument and acknowledged it to be his free
and voluntary act for the purposes mentioned in this instrument.
DATED this day of
STATE OF WASHINGTON )
)ss:
COUNTY OF
I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence
that Martin signed this instrument and
acknowledged it to be her free and voluntary act for the purposes
mentioned in this instrument.
DATED this
JEH00266A/0042.150.009 -4-
, 198 .
NOTARY PUBLIC
My commission expires:
day of , 198 .
NOTARY PUBLIC
My commission expires:
H. DONALD GOUGE
GARY F. FAULL
PETER 5. BANKS
November 3, 1986
Moira Carr Bradshaw
Assistant Planner
City of Tukwila
6200 Southcenter Blvd.
Tukwila, WA 98188
Re: Martin Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Rezone
Dear Ms. Bradshaw:
Please be advised that I am the attorney for Mr. and Mrs. Roy
Martin. We would like to schedule a meeting with you at your
convenience with respect to the mitigation measures delineated
by your letter of September 25th to Mr. Shellan. Please call
my office so that a time can be scheduled.
GA 'Y F. AULL
GFF /de
cc: Mr. and Mrs. Ma tin
■
cvs d u',.;Pi.a Wz.3FiSl&_-Cv5 t5:4o.vi4:R:51" . ur:'.."..*.._'.' t .S«':ic!+,.C4:}7omna4glu ' VAr 1 :T1%+ a✓VA, r 'M1v""3,W'W.
GOUGE, FAULL & BANKS
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
321 BURNETT AVENUE SOUTH
P. O. BOX 26
RENTON, WASHINGTON 98057
(206) 255 -5600
9t
1 ' 10 '' 04 1986
CITY OF ILIK. v LA
PLANNING DEPT.
ofq.oul I
Mr. Kenneth Shellan
Post Office Box 26
Renton, WA 98055
Dear Mr. Shellan:
City of Tukwila
6200 Southcenter Boulevard
Tukwila Washington 98188
(206) 433 -1800
Gary L. VanDusen, Mayor
September 10, 1986
Subject: Martin Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Rezone
The City has completed the environmental review of the proposal and has
determined that the following mitigation measures would be required based
on the proposal's impacts to the transportation system.
1. The subject site shall be restricted to 57th Avenue South only for
access.
2. A sole access point shall be allowed for access onto 57th Avenue South.
3. The access point shall be at the far south end of the property and not
less than 175 feet from the south edge of the pavement at the intersec-
tion of South 180th and Southcenter Parkway (57th Avenue South).
4. At the time of development further traffic analysis shall be provided
for the access and further measures may be required.
5. Agreement to accommodate, through setback and development, required
right -of -way for 188th connector alternative which may traverse north-
west corner of site.
These items should be agreed to in writing by the applicant and incorpor-
ated into the proposal before the SEPA determination may be signed by the
City's Responsible Official. The SEPA determination will require a 15 -day
comment period prior to a hearing before the Planning Commission.
Mr. Kenneth Shellai'
September 10, 1986,
Page 2
MCB/sjn
._....._.,
I would like to reiterate that the comprehensive plan amendment and rezone
application is still incomplete. It cannot be processed until you have
stipulated the comprehensive plan land use designation and zoning district
proposed for the subject site, and the notarized signature of the property
owners is made on the application. Once the SEA determination is made and
the application completed, we may schedule a hearing and proceed ahead with
the process.
If you have any questions, please call me at 433 -1848.
Sincerely,
1
Moira Carr Bradshaw
Assistant Planner,
arid= (Office
t�11r Ilan Ent Nut lbing
127 liark Avenue Nortll
#Kenton 1Uttstiingtatt 98855
(2A6) 271 - 898f
June 23, 1986
Moira Bradshaw
Assistant Planner
City of Tukwila
6200 Southcenter Blvd.
Tukwila, Wa. 98188
Re: Martin Rezone
Dear Ms. Bradshaw:
Very truly yours,
Kenneth B. Shellan
Attorney at Law
KBS:tmh
G.t, SkoNG_A Iq�
,.
. � `
'euttlr (offire
1irotlr's National link iluiting
s$rarnterntII Fluor
1415 Nittlt Avenue
&little, Wnsllingtan 98171
(2011) 022 -1828
JUN 25 1986
CITY Ui !"Ur.d■ILA
PLANNING DEPT.
I thank you for your letter of June 12, 1986 which I received
June 19, 1986. Please be advised that the office designation that
you and I discussed appears to be the appropriate classification
for the property and we are awaiting cofirmation of that fact.
As soon as I receive the approval of my clients and the verification
by various real estate experts, I will confirm this with your
office and we can make the proper office classification notation
on the rezone application.
As far as the signatures of my clients authorizing me to proceed
with the rezone, I assume that you have received the same by now.
These were mailed to you a short time ago.
Finally, I have been trying for weeks now to get hold of Phil
Fraser so that he may enlighten us on the additional information
that he needs concerning the "Access Study." Once Again, would
you please ask him to call me.
• 1908
•
June 12, 1986
Kenneth Shellan
P.O. Box 26
Renton, WA 98055
Dear Mr. Shellan:
City of Tukwila
6200 Southcenter Boulevard
Tukwila Washington 98188
433-1800
Gary L VanDusen, Mayor
Processing of the Martin application for a. Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Rezone
is pending the submittal of the notarized signatures of the property owners on the
application form and written confirmation from you on the requested land use
designation and zoning classification. During our last conversation you indicated
that an office designation was being considered.
When these items have been received and the environmental review is completed we
may proceed ahead and place you on the agenda for the next available Planning
Commission meeting.
I would be happy to meet with you to discuss the application and answer any
questions you might have on the process. During the environmental review, the
land use classification intentions need to be clear in order for the proposal to
receive an appropriate review.
Therefore, I suggest that you clarify the proposal. Further analysis would be
inappropriate until this is done.
Please call me at 433 -1848 if I can be of assistance.
Sincerely,
/40A)
/ks
Moira Carr Bradshaw
Assistant Planner
;
Renton Mire
uI12r O11eUun Emu uniting
127 lurk Aurnur North
Kenton. Washington 96255
caw 271 -B9Qa
June 6, 1986
KBS:tmh
Re: Martin Rezone
Dear Ms. Bradshaw:
With best regards,
Very truly yours,
Kenneth B. Shellan
Attorney at Law
YYa'f3.Vt4.241X:e10
Moira Bradshaw
Assistant Planner
City of Tukwila
6200 Southcenter Blvd.
Tukwila, Washington 98188
Eaw ®fftceo
of
iKennetII 11. '1�eUatt
Aoriariatr,I
Please *eplg to the
illentou (®ffirr
+h'
��
AVi� ry�Yal�`:iY:W I K'
iI] 1. riTr�"^: M53^;:. � :t�,LY a'kP(- SATICxT. +�vc.: >f. M1:1.riN'� � a,e�uf.:
Seattle Mire
'Irap1r's National Wank iluilding
foment renth Moor
1415 /Fifth Ammar
'euttlr. Washington 98171
(2116) 62a -1526
NT:H[IWT_3
JUN 9 1986
crr e OF TuKWILA
PLANNING DEPT.
Please be advised that I received your letter dated May 22, 1986
on June 3, 1986. Since our prior telephone conversation, I have
contacted Geotechnical experts to initiate the requested work.
I have also asked them to contact you if they have any questions.
In our prior telephone conversation, you had indicated that you
were not sure what was necessary for the access study and
suggested that I call Phil Fraser. I have called Phil Fraser
four times and have yet to receive return phone call. Would
you please ask him to give me a call so that we can immediately
begin work on the report you may need.
Renton Office
c�11r 1311rUttn IGttur Nuithing
127 ihrk Anent Nort11
1?ircftan, WagIiington 00t155
(206) 271 -8000
City of Tukwila
Building and Zoning Department
6200 South Center Boulevard
Tukwila, Washington 98188
Re: Martin Rezone
Dear Sir or Madam:
East (Offices
of
iKenttetll #11eUtin
Assnritttes
Prase il;r'lu to tllr
landau (Offirr
June 3, 1986
*tittle Mire
1enpleo National Vault filuililing
firurntrrntll floor
141L NW! Anemic
&tittle, illttallingtan 08171
(206) 622 -1020
[ [ g It
JUN 5 1986
CITY OF TUKWILA
PLANNING DEPT.
A rezone package was recently submitted in regard to Mr. and
Mrs. Roy Martin. It is perhaps appropriate at this time to
explain the ambiguity or flexibility as to the future intended
zoning classification requested by the Martins.
The intent of the rezone is simply to reclassify the subject
property so that it is consistent with the zoning classification
of the surrounding properties generally, and specifically so
that it is consistent with the other three corners of the
intersection which the Martin property abuts. The relatively
high density zoning classifications of the other three corners
certainly militates for a more intensive zoning classification
of the Martin property; the only question is precisely what type
of zoning classification is appropriate for the Martin property:
commercial, office building, multifamily residential or the
like. Because the Martins do not have any specific development
plans in the immediate future, the intent at the time is simply
to increase the zoning classification to a more intensive usage.
The Martins therefore wish to work with the City of Tukwila in
defining precisely the appropriate future usage of this
property. It is for this reason that the intended zoning
classification is somewhat flexible at this time.
r...31 /;YflILf aff3M1:. 3a".Pf.y'^t.L :t:�f:,
City of Tukwila
Re: Martin rezone
June 3, 1986
Page Two
If you have any questions, please call.
Very truly yours,
Vbe
KENNETH B. SHELLAN
Attorney at Law
KBS:car
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
STATE OF WASHINGTON )
COUNTY OF KING
We the undersigned, Mr. and Mrs. Roy Martin, have
authorized Attorney Kenneth B. Shellan to act on our behalf
for purposes of our rezone and have authorized Mr. Shellan
to sign and submit the rezone application.
Roy Mrtin
/!'.GGG�til
Winona Martin
s
liTi Ic 11 N .,
JUN 201996
1.2, 31TY OF TUKWILA
PLANNING DEPT.
D. ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
E. SPECIFIC TRAFFIC AND GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATIONS
F. TITLE REPORT
G. TRAFFIC VOLUMES
TABLE OF CONTENTS
H. MEMORADUM OF LAW / ANALOGOUS CASE IN BELLEVUE
FARR vs. CITY OF BELLEVUE
@NENE
JAN 23 1987
CITY Ur I"UKWILA
PLANNING DEPT.
MR. AND MRS. ROY MARTIN COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENTS AND
REZONE APPLICATION
A. COVER LETTER /JUSTIFICATION
B. LAND USE APPLICATIONS
C. ZONING MAP/ MAP OF SUBJECT SITE INDICATING PROPERTY
OWNERS
Th F $x•14• CFA
THE BLAYLOCK COMPANY
specialists in land -use procedures
Mr. Vernon Umetsu, Associate Planner
City of Tukwila
Planning Department
RE: Roy Martin Request for Comprehensive Plan Amendment
and Zoning Request.
Dear Air. Umetsu:
Thank you for taking the time on several occasions to
discuss the pending land use applications. of Roy Martin with
me. Mr. and Mrs. Roy Martin have retained The Blaylock
Company to present the proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment
and zoning request to the City of Tukwila.
The original application, submitted in June of R'j•
requested a Commercial Larid Use designation and a C -2 zoning
reclassification. The applicants' representative, Mr. Ken
Shellan's, presentation focused on the zoning request and the
legal parameters.
The applicants formally request that the pending
application before the City of Tukwila be modified to the
following specific requests:
CW4PREi!Li S]:VE PLA1' REQUEST
From LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL to OFFICE.
REZONE REQUEST
10717 NE Fourth Street, Suite 9.
January 12, 1987
•IuN 1. ` I�tb I
C PLANNING DEPT.
From R/A DISTRICT - AGRICULTURI
to P -O DISTRICT I'1:OFESSIONAL AND OFFICE DISTRICT.
In their application revision, the Martins include
five points that address the issues raised by the City of
Tukwila on September 25, 1986. The following voluntary
amendments mitigate both environmental and future site
planning concerns:
• Bellevue, Washington 98004 • (206) 455 -1550
January 12, 1987
2
Point 1
Access will be restricted solely to 57th Avenue South,
unless at the time of development of the subject site or
construction of the South 188th Street Connector, the
City of Tukwila determines that some form of limited
access to the Connector is acceptable. The burden of
proof to assure that a safe access can be accomplished
will rest with the property owner or applicant as part
of a future traffic analysis.
Point 2
Only one access point will be provided onto 57th Avenue
South, unless the City determines that a secondary
emergency access is required on any of the adjacent
streets as a condition of development approval.
Point 3
The access point will be at the far south end of the
property and not less than 175 feet from the existing
(January, 1987) south edge of the pavement at the
intersection of South 180th Street and Southcenter
Parkway (57th Avenue South). If the location creates a
sight distance problem from the south at the bridge, the
property owner or developer is not responsible for
upgrading the bridge.
Point 4
At the time of development further traffic analysis will
be provided to determine whether further mitigating
measures may he required as part of the development
proposal. IIowever, because of the specific restriction
by the City to limit access to the subject site on 57th
Avenue South, improvements to the bridge lying south of
the subject site on 57th Avenue South will not be
included as a mitigating measure unless the traffic
study clearly shows that any improvements are a result
of a significant adverse environmental impact that is
directly measurable. In that case the property owner or
developer will be responsible for only a proportionate
share.
Point 5
The applicant agrees to sign an agreement that limits
the use of the northwest corner of the site with setback
requirements to allow for the future construction of the
.January 12, 1987
Enclosed is the justification of the request to ch nge
•the Comprehensive Plan designation from Low DenAity
Residential to Office and to rezone .the property•from R /A.
.District— Agriculture to P —O District Professional and Of ice
District.
Thank you again for your consideration.'
Sincerely,
--- alt.611...
Roger •
Y
South 188th Street Connector. The applicant cl.oes not
give the property in question to the City of • Tukwila •
- since it is not a necessary mitigation measure to
address significant adverse environmental impacts
associated with the land use requests.
(The City of Tukwila. is requested to prepare the
necessary legal documents to assure development
limitation on' the specific property that is intende�l to
be the location of the South 188th Street Connector.
January 12, 1987
I. HISTORY
JUSTIFICATION OF COMPREHENSIVE PLAN REQUEST
o The Martins bought a house in the country with
acreage in 1959. At that time the Green River
Valley was all farms. The site was truly
agricultural- residential. Since then 1-405 has
been completed and tremendous amounts of commercial
and industrial development have occurred in the
Green River Valley in Tukwila, Renton, and Kent.
o Since 1959, the Martins' acreage has shrunk.
Originally the property contained 2.5 acres. The
property is now only slightly more than 1.6 acres.
Over 36 percent of their land has been taken for
public roads and facilities.
o The City of Tukwila has undertaken a major re-
evaluation of the traffic situation resulting from
the continued expansion of the industrial and
commercial activities.
o In March, 1982, the City of Tukwila adopted a new
Comprehensive Plan to replace their 1961
Comprehensive Plan.
o The nearby jurisdictions of Kent, Renton, and King
County have also re- evaluated the traffic problems
associated with the rapid commercial and industrial
growth in the Green river Valley and taken action to
upgrade the S.W. 180th Street /Petrovisky Road
Corridor.
o In December of 1984, the City of Tukwila received
from CENTRAC a Location and Feasibility Study and
Regional Travel Impact Report for the South 188th
Street Connector. The study recommended the
immediate construction of the roadway.
II. LAND USE ISSUE INCONSISTENCY
The land use designation of Low Density Residential for
the subject site is inconsistent with the Goals and Policies
of the Comprehensive Plan and general planning practices of
4
January 12, 1987
buffering and separating inconsistent uses. In addition, the
general transportation needs of the city of Tukwila around
Southcenter dictate that another major freeway access is
necessary to allow the development of the proposed land use
in the existing 1982 Comprehensive Plan. This access most
commonly known as the South 188th Street Connector seriously
impacts the reasonable use of the subject site as a single
family residential area.
The first inconsistency is that the subject site is the
only location on the Tukwila Comprehensive Plan Map where Low
Density Residential Uses are placed adjacent to Heavy and
Light Industrial Uses, Office, and Commercial Uses without
some type of buffering or land use separation. The
Comprehensive Plan goals and policies very clearly address
the need to separate and buffer inconsistent uses. The
Comprehensive Plan Map has carefully followed this planning
philosophy of buffering single family residential areas with
low and medium density multiple family areas, office uses, or
large landscaped setbacks.
The site is also part of the only area lying east of 1-5
and south of I -405 that has been designated as Low Density
Residential. Even though this area is unlike the industrial
floor of the Green River Valley, it is also unlike the
established single family residential areas found on Tukwila
Hill or McMicken Heights. The key is that both Tukwila Hill
and McMicken Heights are established single family
residential areas, while the area lying south of South 178th
January 12, 1987
Street and west of Southcenter Boulevard is primarily
undeveloped and agricultural in nature.
Implementation of this proposed Comprehensive Plan
designation is complicated by the following purpose of the
R -1 District - Single Family Residential:
18.12.010 Purpose. The purpose of this district is to
stabilize and preserve low density, single- family
residential neighborhoods; to prevent intrusions by
incompatible land uses; to provide a range of minimum
lot sizes in order to respond to the development
constraints of the natural environment; and to promote
diversity and recognize a variety of residential
environments. (Emphasis added)
Thus, the Zoning Code can not fully implement the intent
of the Comprehensive Plan because the existing adjacent
commercial and industrial and potential office land uses
would be automatic intrusions into the proposed single family
residential area on the subject site.
The second land use inconsistency arises from the fact
that the South 188th Street Connector is not included on the
Roadway Circulation Map of the 1982 Comprehensive Plan. Even
though the Martins' land use applications do not entirely
rest upon the issue of the South 188th Connector, the impact
of the construction of a major four -lane arterial street with
an estimated 20,000 to 30,000 motor vehicles travelling the
street daily is not conducive to the establishment of a
stable new single family residential area. Any of the
proposed five designs for the south 188th street Connector
6
January 12, 1987
would intrude into and destroy the possibility of a viable,
livable neighborhood.
In fact Policy 4, page 46 of the Comprehensive Plan
specifically states:
Vehicular traffic to commercial, office or industrial
uses should not be through residential areas.
THE LAND USE QUESTION IS: WHAT IS THE BEST USE FOR THE
SUBJECT SITE AND THE GENERAL AREA LYING SOUTH OF SOUTH 178TH
AND WEST OF 57TH AVENUE SOUTH?
The five possibilities are:
Low Density Residential
High Density residential
Commercial
Light Manufacturing
Office
Low Density Residential
This possibility has been discussed in above. The
introduction of a single family residential area would be
in conflict with the existing adjacent uses and the South
188th Connector.
High Density Residential
The creation of a High Density Residential area does not
appear to be appropriate for the entire area and specifically
not for the subject site. Even though it may be consistent
with the intent of the Zoning Ordinance, and establish a land
7
January 12, 1987
use buffer between the commercial and industrial uses on the
valley floor and the single family residential uses west of I
5; the subject site should be considered as a transitional
area between the intense commercial and industrial uses to
the northeast and east. In addition, the establishment of
multiple family residential area could seriously overbalance
the ratio of single family residences to multiple family
dwellings in the entire city. Presently, over 65 per cent of
the housing stock is multiple family residential, this ratio
could easily exceed 80 per cent with the creation of another
major multiple family dwelling area. This may not be
consistent with a primary objective of the Comprehensive Plan
to assure that there is a diversified supply of housing in
the planning area. (Page 51)
A new multiple family zone could be implemented by the
Zoning Code. The purpose statement of the RMH DISTRICT- -
MULTIPLE- RESIDENCE HIGH DENSITY is "this district is to
create a high density, multiple- family district which is
compatible with commercial and office areas and which can be
used adjacent to such districts to buffer other, less dense
multiple - family districts. It is also the purpose of this
district to encourage a variety of housing types and
residential environments by allowing apartment houses and
apartment /office development.
8
January 12, 1987
Commercial
The keys to the fantastic success of a regional retail
facility located in Tukwila are location, marketability, and
access. The value of the location is dependent upon the
continued efficient operation of the street system. Future
traffic demands could gradually strangle the existing
businesses. The City of Tukwila has identified the need to
construct the South 188th Street Connector to improve access
to I -5 to relieve the general traffic congestion.
The creation of a new retail commercial area would only
increase the congestion based upon the limited capacities of
the transportation system and would therefore not be a
reasonable land use decision.
A 70,000 square foot shopping center would generate over
5,537 daily vehicle trips. This is more than four (4) times
the anticipated daily traffic volume of a maximum sized
professional office building (1,240 average daily trips).
Light Manufacturing
Light manufacturing is proposed further south of the
site along the west side of 57th Avenue South. The traffic
associated with light manufacturing is less than half of that
anticipated for an office building. However, the critical
variable of the frequency and size of trucks is introduced
into the complex traffic congestion formula. A conflict is
created between the automobile and the large truck. Large
January 12, 1987
trucks take up much of the design capacity of a street system
because of their size and slowness. The maneuvering of
trucks on public streets to allow access to the loading doors
of warehouses and manufacturing plants in light industrial
areas has become a major safety problem.
A thorough investigation of the issue can not be
contemplated without a city -wide transportation study. This
is beyond the scope of the land use or environmental review
processes being requested by the applicant.
Professional Office
The arguments for a professional office building have
been discussed by analyzing the other land use alternatives.
Professional offices would provide a reasonable land use
transition between the high intensity commercial and
industrial areas to the east, while it would complement the
anticipated professional office uses to the north. Plus the
professional office classification would create a land use
buffer if a residential area was still planned for the areas
to the south and west of the subject site.
Secondary Issue - Domino Effect
Normally the review of an apparently localized request
to modify any comprehensive plan for a small parcel of
property raises the issue of: if we allow the change, will it
create a domino affect where the higher intensity land use
keeps expanding. In this case how far south will the request
10
January 12, 1987
Criteria 1:
to allow Professional Offices be extended to the south?
The simple answer is: That is in the hands of the
Planning Commission and City Council. In this case that is
the truth. The necessity for the construction of the South
188th Street Connector has created a critical flaw in the
fabric of the Comprehensive Plan document that is only 5
years old. Therefore, I would argue that the applicant's
request will neither support or oppose the extension of
professional offices south of the subject site. Their
property will either act as a buffer or a conduit depending
upon the decision of the City of Tukwila.
REZONING JUSTIFICATION
Section 18.84.030 of the Tukwila Municipal Code
establishes three (3) criteria for the granting of a zoning
map, the following analysis addresses each point and shows
that the rezoning request is appropriate at this time.
The use or change in zoning requested shall be in
conformity with the adopted comprehensive land use policy
plan, the provisions of this title, and the public interest.
This criteria actually contains three conditions:
however, the key is what is the "public interest ". The
Comprehensive Plan is a statement of "The Public Interest" as
identified by the elected officials of the City of Tukwila.
11
January 12, 1987
The arguments raised in the Justification for the
Comprehensive Plan Amendment point out that the "public
interest" is not the same as embodied in the Plan in 1982.
This is not a conflict or a major mistake made by the
professional planners, planning commissioners or by the city
council; it is the normal life cycle of a Comprehensive Plan.
As the City was undergoing a metamorphosis, the Plan is
static. The Plan needs to be fine tuned and adjusted to
reflect changes in the environment and new goals and programs
of the City. In Martins' case, the crucial factor is that
existing commercial, industrial and office uses are
intrusions into the proposed single family residential area.
This is pointed out in a recent law case, Colella vs.
King County,
supra, where Mr. Colella's property adjoined a
busy freeway on one side and an airport on another side,
while the property was zoned suburban residential. The
Appellate Court, quoting the trial court, reasoned that "In
short, the subject property had lost its residential
character." Id. at 255 -56. The Martins' property is
identical, it has lost its residential character. Traffic
and urban development has dramatically modified the area.
The proposed construction of the South 188th Street Connector
is only the final nail in the coffin for a stable single
family residential neighborhood.
12
January 12, 1987
Criteria 2:
The use or change in zoning requested in the zoning map
or this title for the establishment of commercial,
industrial, or residential uses shall be supported by an
architectural site plan showing the proposed development and
its relationship to surrounding areas as set forth in the
application form.
The applicants, Mr. and Mrs. Roy Martin, have
specifically not included architectural plans simply because
they do not personally plan to develop the property.
Theoretical maximum building areas have been suggested in the
environmental checklist.
The City of Tukwila is protected under provisions of
Chapter 18.60 which requires the review of any commercial
structure over 10,000 square feet before the Board of
Architectural Review.
Criteria 3
When the request is not in agreement with the
comprehensive land use policy plan, the applicant shall
provide evidence to the city council's satisfaction that
there is an additional need for the requested land
classification.
The Justification for the Comprehensive Plan amendment
elaborates upon the planning issues and the primary fact that
the request is a simple fine tuning of the Goals and Policies
with the Plan Map.
The location across a major arterial street from a
regional retail business center is not conducive to the
development of a new single family neighborhood. The City of
13
January 12, 1987
Bellevue is presently building a $500,000 wall at its cost
around an established single family residential area kitty -
corner from Bellevue Square to protect the neighborhood from
the intensity of the commercial activity.
CONCLUSION
The Martins have been trapped by the continuing
degradation of the surrounding single family residential
neighborhood by urban growth.
In 1959 when they bought the property, they were out in
the country. Farms were all they could see. Now in their
retirement years they can no longer deal with the situation
and propose selling the property and leaving. However, they
do not want to give their property to a commercial developer
who would present the same arguments to the Planning
Commission and City Council with the added statement that
"The Martins were forced off the site because of the impacts
resulting from the adjacent commercial and industrial uses."
The Martins have seen in the land use process over the last
eight months that requesting a C -2 District for a Regional
Retail Business would only be an intrusion of high intensity
commercial uses upon their neighbors to the south. The
modified request to P -0 District Professional Office not only
lets the Martins leave the area with a little retirement
security, but is in the "public interest" and complies with
the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan and corrects
an error on the Comprehensive Plan Map.
14
MASTER LAND DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION FORM
PLEASE WRITE LEGIBLY OR TYPE ALL REQUESTED INFORMATION -- INCOMPLETE APPLICATIONS WILL NOT BE
ACCEPTED FOR PROCESSING.
SECTION 1: GENERAL DATA
TYPE OF APPLICATION: ❑ ESIP
All communications are to be with Roger Blaylock
APPLICANT NAME Roger Blaylock, representativetrELEPHONE (206) 455 -1550
ADDRESS 10717 NE Fourth St, Suite 9, Bellevue, [4
PROP. OWNER:
( USECTIO1I 1I:
ADDRESS 5665 Sn ith 17Rth SPaft1P; wk ZIP 99188
PROJECT LOCATION: (STREET ADDRESS, GEOGRAPHIC, LOT/BLOCK) 5665 S . 178th, Seattle
Legal description attached as Exhibit "A"
4) DESCRIBE BRIEFLY THE PROJECT YOU PROPOSE (Please see attachment for description. )
5) ANTICIPATED PERIOD OF CONSTRUCTION: FROM See attachments
6) WILL PROJECT BE DEVELOPED IN PHASES? ❑YES ONO IF YES, DESCRIBE: uncertain
C) SITE UTILIZATION:
PROJECT STATISTICS:
A) ACREAGE OF PROJECT SITE:
8) FLOORS OF CONSTRUCTION:
SUBScR I BED AND SWORN BEFORE
THIS .3 =
RESIDING AT
CITY OF TUKWILA
Central Permit System
CONDITIONAL USE/
COOPERATI PARKI
NAME Mr.and Mrs. Roy Martin TELEPHONE (
PROJECT INFORMATION
ZONING DESIGNATION
COMP. PLAN DESIGNATION
BUILDING FOOTPRINT AREA
LANDSCAPE AREA
PAVING AREA
TOTAL PARKING STALLS:
- STANDARD SIZE
- COMPACT SIZE
- HANDICAPPED SIZE
TOTAL LOADING SPACES
AVER. SLOPE OF PARKING
AVER. SLOPE OF SITE
SHOR
❑ P1
❑ UNCLASS.
USE
Approximately 1.62 acres
NET N/A GROSS N/A EASEMENTS
TOTAL # FLOORS
TOTAL GROSS
FLOOR AREA
AREA
8) 1S THIS SITE DESIGNATED FOR SPECIAL
MAP? YES ❑ NO
DAY OF__.
4i-
BLit: IT-AND FOR THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
A
SUBDIVISION OSNORELINE
PERMIT
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
ALL RESPECTS TRUE AND CORRECT TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE AND
DATE January 23,198/f
❑ VARIANCE
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
®
CHG. OF ®COMP. PLAN
ZONING AMENDMENT
INCLUDES:
INCLUDES:
EXISTING PROPOSED
R/A 0 -P
single- family office
N/A ❑ N/A ❑
N/A ❑ N/A ❑
N/A ❑ N/A ❑
CONSIDERATION ON THE CITY'S
!SECTION 111: APPLICANT'S AFFIDAVIT
j I , Roger J. Blaylock , BEING DULY SWORN, DECLARE THAT I AM THE AGEN
FO J CONTRF.CT PURCHASER OR OWNER OF THE PROPERTY INVOLVED IN THIS APPLICATION AND THAT THE FORE-
GOING STATEMENTS AND ANSWERS HEREIN CONTAINED AND THE INFORMATION HEREWITH SUBMITTED ARE IN
Control #
File #(s)
Fee(s) $
Receipt #
❑ PRD O PMUD
BELIEF.
AGENT
BASEMENT ❑ MEZZANINE
BASEMENT ❑ MEZZANINE
ENVIRONMENTAL BASE
NOTES
❑1NT
N/A
Except county road
That portion of the southeast quarter of the northwest quarter of
section 35, township 23 north, range 4 east, W.M., in King County,
Washington, described as follows:
Beginning at the northwest corner of said subdivision; thence south
87 °51'01" east along the north line of said subdivision 800 feet
to the true point of beginning; thence south perpendicular to the
said north line of said subdivision 250.00 feet; thence east parallel
with said north line of said subdivision to the west line of county
road No. 540; thence northerly along the said westerly line of said
county road to the intersection, with the said north line of said
subdivision; thence north 87 °57'01" west along said north line of
said subdivision 335 feet, more or less, to the true point of
beginning;
And except that portion condemned in King County Superior Court
Cause No. 698092 by the City of Tukwila for road purposes.
Exhibit "A"
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN REQUEST
From LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL to OFFICE.
REZONE REQUEST
From R/A DISTRICT - AGRICULTURE
to P -0 DISTRICT PROFESSIONAL AND OFFICE DISTRICT.
In their application revision, the Martins include five points that address
the issues raised by the City of Tukwila on September 25, 1986. The following
voluntary amendments mitigate both environmental and future site planning concerns:
Point 1
Point 2
Point 3
Point 4
Point 5
PROJECT PROPOSAL
Access will be restricted solely to 57th Avenue South, unless at the time of
development of the subject site or construction of the South 188th Street
Connector, the City of Tukwila determines that some form of limited access to
the Connector is acceptable. The burden of proof to assure that a safe access
can be accomplished will rest with the property owner or applicant as part of
a future traffic analysis.
Only one access point will be provided onto 57th Avenue South, unless the City
determines that a secondary emergency access is required on any of the
adjacent streets as a condition of development approval.
The access point will be at the far south end of the property and not less
than 175 feet from the existing (January, 1987) south edge of the pavement at
the intersection of South 180th Street and Southcenter Parkway (57th Avenue
South). If the location creates a sight distance problem from the south at
the bridge, the property owner or developer is not responsible for upgrading
the bridge.
At the time of development further traffic analysis will be provided to
determine whether further mitigating measures may be required as part of the
development proposal. However, because of the specific restriction by the
City to limit access to the subject site on 57th Avenue South, improvements to
the bridge lying south of the subject site on 57th Avenue South will not be
included as a mitigating measure unless the traffic study clearly shows that
any improvements are a result of a significant adverse environmental impact
that is directly measurable. In that case the property owner or developer
will be responsible for only a proportionate share.
The applicant agrees to sign an agreement that limits the use of the northwest
corner of the site with setback requirements to allow for the future
construction of the South 188th Street Connector. The applicant does not give
the property in question to the City of Tukwila since it is not a necessary
mitigation measure to address significant adverse environmental impacts
associated with the land use requests.
CITY OF TUKWILA
Central Permit System
ooe
.r1ASTER LAND DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION FORM
S C H E D U L E
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
AMENDMENT
single
EXISTING COMP. PLAN DESIGNATION family PROPOSED COMP. PLAN DESIGNATION office
EXISTING ZONING R/A PROPOSED USE p -O Professional fffire
EXISTING USE AND CLASSIFICATION OF SURROUNDING PROPERTIES:
ZONE COMP. PLAN DESIG.
NORTH P -0 Office Undevelopod
souTH R -A Single Family Single family
EAST M -2 & C -2 Heavy Industry Parking lot
WEST R -A Single Family Single family
USE
IDENTIFY THOSE POLICIES IN THE TUKWILA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN WHICH YOU FEEL SERVE TO JUSTIFY
THE PROPOSED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT, AND ANALYZE THOSE POLICIES AS THEY RELATE TO THE
SUBJECT PROPERTY.
POLICY II PAGE 11 RELEVANCE
Element thrust It is auestionable that even with major physical senaratinns
'Liveability: such as landscaped setback or solid walls, that a livable
and viable single family neighborhood could be created.
Obj. 1 45 The topographic separation is at the western boundary of the
Pol. 1 subject site. This is reinforced by the requirement to
access 57th Avenue South and not South 178th Street.
Pol4 46 The South 188th Connector will divide the potential single
family area. The subject site has two arterials adjacent
Obi. 1 60 The site will offer a use buffer between the intense activi-
Pol. 1 ties of the adjacent commercial and industrial activities
to it and possibly three in the future.
Pol. 2 of the north and east and the planned single family areas
to the west and southwest.
CITY OF TUKWILA
Central Permit System
MASTER LAND DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION FORM
S C H E D U L E
Lr
CHANGE OF ZONING
EXISTING ZONING R/A
COMP. PLAN DESIGNATION single familVITE IN CITY LIMITS?
REQUESTED ZONING P -0 Professional Office
yes
PROPOSED USE IF REDONE APPROVED unknown at this time - will sell property
to developer
EXISTING USE AND CLASSIFICATION OF SURROUNDING PROPERTIES:
ZONE COMP. PLAN DESIG.
NORTH P/0 office undeveloped
si.ii lc Lamll
SOUTH R/A light industry single family
EAST M2 & C2 heavy industry parking lot
WEST R/A single family single family
USE
SCRIBE THE MANNER IN WHICH YOUR REQUEST FOR CHANGE OF ZONING CLASSIFICATION SATISFIES EACH
THE FOLLOWING CRITERIA AS SPECIFIED IN TMC 18.84.030 (ATTACH ADDITIONAL SHEETS IF NECES-
SARY).
1) THE PROPOSED CHANGE IN ZONING 1S IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE CITY'S COMPREHENSIVE AND LAND
USE POLICY PLAN, THE PROVISION OF THE CITY ZONING CODE AND THE PUBLIC INTEREST.
RESPONSE: The proposal is in conformance with the Plan's Goals and Policies
but not the Plan map. See Justification pages 11 and 12.
2) THE PROPOSED CHANGE IN ZONING IS APPROPRIATE IN RELATIONSHIP TO THE ZONING AND USE OF
SURROUNDING PROPERTIES (IN ADDITION TO THE FOLLOWING NARRATIVE, SITE AND ARCHITECTURAL
DRAWINGS SHOULD BE REFERENCED).
RESPONSE: Existing and proposed uses on the 3 other corners of the inter-
section are 50 to 100 times more intensive measured by traffic generation
than the allowable development on the subject site. See Environmental
3) IF THE REQUESTED CHANGE IN ZONING IS NOT IN AGREEMENT WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE
POLICY PLAN, THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE IS CITED IN SUPPORT OF THE NEED FOR THE REQUESTED •
RECLASSIFICATION.
RESPONSE: The utilization of the site for a single family neighborhood is
not appropriate. The site should be a transitional zone. The construc-
tion of the South 188th St Connector, will make the property less suitable
for single family with major arterial streets on 3 sides.
+-wnwr �rwn.«.+ awVxu�wnfM� .'RxAWtIUCb.K n&v/rilr g.sw.wi 4sAiVt- )'4�MtY(�`C�.44FNI, i;4 ..
MR. AND MRS. ROB ' MARTIN
CN -86 -144
86 -19 -CPA
86 -20 -R
4'
Zoning Plat
CITY OF TUKWILA
t
SCALE: 1 inch = 100 feet.
�I
Map Dept. Ralaranc•
TAX LOT NO.
AND
OWNER'S NAME A ADDRESS 1
PROPERTY ADDRESS
(IF NOT OWNER•OCCUPIED)
35 -23 -04
9008
Mario A. Segale
18010 Southcenter Parkway
N/A
.
Seattle, WA 98188
9013
Ray and Madeline Plink
18059 Southcenter Parkway
N/A
S .. WA 98188
9019
Paul and Lorraine Jonientz
•
•
5.565 S. 178th St
Seattle, WA 98188
N/A
9031
Robert W. Schoenbachler
12905 N.E. 25th
No assigned address
Bellevue, WA 98005
•
9034
Mr. &Mrs.Herman Schoenbachler.
18115 Southcenter Parkway
Seattle, WA 98188
N/A
9038
William M. Polk
2500 One Union Square
18000 Southcenter Parkway
Seattle, WA 98101 • _
9055
Mario A. Segale
P.O. Box 88050
18311 Andover Park Drive
Tukwila, WA 98188
• 9061
Pacific Northwest Group A
.
5601 Sixth Avenue S.
17794 Southcenter Blvd
Seattle, WA 93101
MAILING LIST FOR PUBLIC NOTICE
1 CERTIFY THAT THIS 1S A TRUE AND ACCURATE LIST OF PROPERTY OWNERS OF PARCELS WITHIN 300
FEET OF SITE PERIMETER TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE.
C
Ray and
Madeline Flink
30 °
N
0
Willai
CP
• 9008
Segale
0
o. ova
N
0
9031
Robert
Schoenbachler
Paci
Northwe
Group
CP
0
ORIGINAL E" SPUR LINE
ar
IOW ON
A. S' gale
9012
Schneider Homes Inc.
REVISED
ALT. "E"
9034
•
Mr. & Mrs. Herman
Schoenbachler
9032
W. A.
Segale
Scale 1: 200
Approximately
901
REVISED "E
SPUR LINE
9055
M. A. Segale
90 146 2Ae
•
9019
Paul
Jon' : ntz
MR. AND MRS. ROY MARTIN
CN -86 -144
86 -19 -CPA
86 -20 -R
109
Schneider
Homes
Inc.
9090
!!John W. Denure
9038
M. Pol
9061
is
t
.. IWO:W:0. Eaw'VG1),.tni xP 4,' l'. hiilF .Voe .`.1'J.4cA'S1bt�A:;'F•tA.l,
•'i- is''; .1%lsa!M
c
A. BACKGROUND
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
2. Name of applicant: MR. & MRS. ROY MARTIN
3. Address and phone number of applicant and contact persc
APPLICANT ROY MARTIN
5665 South 178th Street
Seattle, Washington 98188
Telephone: 575 -0327
CONTACT PERSON: Roger Blaylock
The Blaylock Company
10717 N.E. 4th Street, Suite 9
Bellevue, Washington 98004
Telephone: 455 -1550
4. Date checklist prepared: JANUARY 1987
5. Agency requesting Checklist: CITY OF TUKWILA
NO. The property owners will not develop the site
themselves. The property will have to be sold.
1
CITY OF TUKWILA
1. Name of proposed project, if applicable: ROY MARTIN COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
AMENDMENT AND REZONE REQUEST
6. Proposed timing or schedule (including phasing, if applicable:
No development is immediately anticipated for the
subject site. The earliest development would occur after
approval of the the land use requests. Probable development
would not occur until spring of 1988 or latter.
Control No.
Epic File No.
Fee $100.00 Receipt: No.
• MRMETiM
J AN ; 2 Ib I
CITY OF TUKWILA
PLANNING DEPT.
7. Do you have any plans for future additions, expansion, or further activity
related to or connected with this proposal? If yes, explain.
8. List any environmental information you knoll about that has been prepared, or
will be prepared, directly related to this proposal.
An Environmental Checklist was prepared in March of 1985 for
the the original land use application submission. It was non-
specific because the application was unclear.
9. Do you know whether applications are pending for governmental approvals of other
proposals directly affecting the property covered by your proposal? If yes,
explain.
City Council Approval of the South 188th Street
Connector Project.
10. List any government approvals or permits that will be needed for your proposal.
Building and construction permits from the City of Tukwila.
11. Give brief, complete description of your proposal, including the proposed uses
and the size of the project and site. There are several questions later in this
checklist that ask you to describe certain aspects of your proposal. You do not
need to repeat those answers on this page. Section E requires a complete
description of the objectives and alternatives of your proposal and should not
be summarized here.
The land use requests include both a comprehensive plan amendment
and zoning reclassification to allow the ultimate construction of a
professional office building.
Since there is not a specific site plan proposal accompanying the
land use requests. SEPA suggests that a worst case scenario be presented.
Under the P-0 Professional and Office District zoning a maximum building of
approximately 70,000 square feet could be constructed. This structure
would contain a basement parking garage, one additional floor of parking
and two level of office. This configuration would require the removal of
approximately 80,000 cubic yards of material from the subject site. The
concept also generally maintains the eastern 100 feet of the site as open
space. Realistically, the site would not be developed to this degree
because of other limiting environmental feasures such as slope and access
constraits. (SEE PAGE 2A)
12. Location of the proposal. Give sufficient information for a person to
understand the precise location of your proposed project, including a street
address, if any, and section, township, and range, if known. If a proposal
would occur over a range of area, provide the range or boundaries of the
site(s). Provide a legal description, site plan, vicinity map, and topographic
map. If reasonably available. While you should submit any plans required by
the agency, you are not required to duplicate maps or detailed plans submitted
with any permit applications related to this checklist.
The subject site is located on the southwest corner of the
intersection of Southcenter Parkway and South 178th Street. It is kitty -
corner from the Pavillion Shopping Center.
13. Does the proposal lie within an area designated on the City's Comprehensive Land
Use Policy Plan Map as environmentally sensitive?
YES
2
CITY OF TUKWILA
C
TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT
B. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS
1. Earth
a. General description of the site (circle one): Flat,
rolling, hilly, steep slopes, mountainous,
The site slopes from west to east. The steepest
slopes are along 57th Avenue South. A level area is
located on the western half of the site.
b. What is the steepest slope on the site (approximate
percent slope)?
A steep embankment exists about 100 feet west of 57th
Avenue South. This embankment is greater than 40 percent.
c. What general types of soils are found on the site
(for example, clay, sand, gravel, peat, muck)? If
you know the classification of agricultural soils,
specify them and note any prime farm land.
The site is generally dense silty sandy gravel
overlaying hard to very dense layers of glacially
overridden sandy silt, fine sand and silty sandy gravel.
The lower portion of the subject site located along 57th
Avenue South appears to be the higher density sandy silts.
d. Are there surface indications or history of unstable
soils in the immediate vicinity? If so, describe.
Some signs of possible unstable soils and old
possible landslides were reported by Centrac in the
South 188th Street Connector Study. These areas were
located to the south and west of the subject site and
do not affect the stability of the subject site.
e. Describe the purpose, type, and approximate
quantities of any filling or grading proposed.
Indicate source of fill.
The ultimate building design would determine
exactly how much filling or grading would be necessary.
If the building was recessed into the hillside more
material would have to be excavated. Specific grading
plans would be reviewed as part of the building permit
process.
3
City of Tukwila
Evaluation for
Agency Use Only
f. Could erosion occur as a result of clearing,
construction, or use? If so, generally describe.
g•
2. Air
Yes. Erosion could occur during clearing and
construction if proper temporary erosion control
measures are not taken. Specific engineering plans
for erosion control depend upon the building design.
Erosion should not occur with final construction.
About what percent of the site will be covered
with impervious surfaces after project construction
(for example, asphalt or buildings)?
Maximum impervious surface coverage with a 70,000
square foot office building would be approximately
71.5 per cent.
h. Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion, or
other impacts to the earth, if any:
Unknown. Depends on final construction designs.
All plans must comply with City of Tukwila standards.
a. What types of emissions to the air would result from
the proposal (i.e. dust, automobile odors, industrial
wood smoke) during construction and when the project
is completed? If any, generally describe and give
approximate quantities if known.
General and professional offices will typically
generate lower levels of air pollutants except for
automobile emissions than any other use. Actual levels
of emissions from automobiles will not be known until
a building size is determined. However, based on the
ITE (Institute of Traffic Engineers) standards a total
of 1,240 daily vehicle trips could be generated from
the site.
b. Are there any off -site sources of emissions or odor
that may affect your proposal? If so, generally
describe.
NO
4
City of Tukwila
Evaluation for
Agency Use Only
c
c. Proposed measures to reduce or control emissions or
other impacts to air, if any:
3. Water
a. Surface
A Transportation Management Plan could be developed
at the time actual construction.
1) Is there any surface water body on or in the
immediate vicinity of the site (including year —
round and seasonal streams, saltwater, lakes,
ponds, wetlands)? If yes, describe type and
provide names. If appropriate, state what
stream or river it flows into.
Standing water was identified approximately
1,000 feet west of the subject site in the South 188th
Street Corridor Study. Seasonal water exists on the
eastern portion of the subject site. This could be
integrated into the final site design.
2) Will the project require any work over, in, or
adjacent to (within 200 feet of) the described
waters? If yes, please describe and attach
available plans.
NO
3) Estimate the amount of fill and dredge material
that would be placed in or removed from surface
water or wetlands and indicate the area of the
site that would be affected. Indicate the source
of fill material.
NOT APPLICABLE
4) Will the proposal require surface water with —
drawals or diversions? Give general description,
purpose, and approximate quantities, if known.
NO
5
City of Tukwila
Evaluation for
Agency Use Only
b. Ground:
5) Does the proposal involve any discharges of
waste materials to surface waters? If so,
describe the type of waste and anticipated
volume of discharge.
POSSIBLY. Oil residues, tire rubber, and
minor amounts of gasoline could be discharged from
parking areas. Oil /water separators are installed
in most storm water drainage system to address
this pollution problem.
6) Does the proposal involve any discharges of
waste materials to surface waters? If so,
describe the type of waste and anticipated
volume of discharge.
UNKNOWN. The probability of any waste materials
that would pollute surface water is highly improbable
from a professional office complex.
1) Will ground water be withdrawn, or will water
be discharged to ground water? Give general
description, purpose, and approximate quantities,
if known.
PROBABLY NOT.
2) Describe waste materials that will be discharged
into the ground from septic tanks or other
sources, if any (for example: Domestic sewage;
industrial, containing the following chemicals..;
agricultural; etc.) Describe the general size of the
system, the number of such systems, the number
of houses to be served (if applicable), or the number
of animals or humans the system(s) are expected
to serve.
NONE
6
City of Tukwila
Evaluation for
Agency Use Only
c. Water Runoff (including storm water):
4. Plants
1) Describe the source of runoff (including storm
water) and method of collection and disposal, if
any (include quantities, if known). Where will
this ~eater flow? Will this water flow into
other waters? If so, describe.
Water runoff is primarily storm water. It will
be collected in on site roof and parking lot drains
and then discharged into the City of Tukwila's storm
water drainage system. On site filtering would
include oil /water separators and possibly
setting ponds.
2) Could waste materials enter ground or surface
waters? If so, generally describe.
NO
d. Proposed measures to reduce or control surface,
ground and runoff water impacts, if any:
UNKNOWN AT THIS TIME
a. Check or circle type of vegetation found on the
site:
X deciduous tree: alder, maple aspen
y evergreen tree: cedar pine,
)( shrubs
) grass
)( pasture
crop or grain
yet soil plants: cattail, buttercup, bullrush, skunk
cabbage, other
water plants: water lily, eelgrass, milfoil, other
other types of vegetation
b. What kind and amount of vegetation will be removed
or altered?
Depending on the building design either all of
the on site vegetation could be removed or partially
retained.
7
City of Tukwila
Evaluation for
Agency Use Only
c. List threatened or endangered species known to be on
or near the site.
UNKNOWN
d. Proposed landscaping, use of native plants, or other
measures to preserve or enhance vegetation on the
site, if any.
5. Animals
UNKNOWN
a. Circle any birds and animals which have been
observed on or near the site or are known to be on
or near the site:
birds: hawk, heron, eagle,
mammals: deer, bear, elk, beaver, other:
fish: bass, salmon, trout, herring, shellfish,
other:
The type of energy to be used in the ultimate building
has not been determined. It will have to be addressed
as part of the environmental review of the building plans.
8
City of Tukwila
Evaluation for
Agency Use Only
b. List any threatened or endangered species known to
be on or near the site.
UNKNOWN
c. Is the site part of a migration route? If so,
explain:
d. Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife,
if any:
None proposed at this time. If storm water
retention ponds are required it is possible to
integrate wildlife areas with the ponds.
6. Energy and 'Natural Resources
a. What kinds of energy (electric, natural gas, oil, wood
stove, solar) will be used to meet the completed
projects energy needs? Describe whether it will be
used for heating, manufacturing, etc.
b. Would your project affect the potential use of solar
energy by adjacent properties? If so, generally describe:
b. Noise
NO
c. What kinds of energy conservation features are included
in the plans of this proposal? List other proposed
pleasures to reduce or control energy impacts, if any:
NOT APPLICABLE
7. Environmental health
a. Are there any environmental health hazards, including
exposure to toxic chemicals, risk of fire and explosion,
spill, or hazardous waste, that could occur as a result
of this proposal? If so, describe.
NONE
1) Describe special emergency services that might be
required.
UNKNOWN
2) Proposed measures to reduce or control environmental
health hazards, if any:
NOT APPLICABLE
1) What types of • noise exist in the area which may
affect your project (for example: traffic, equipment,
operation, other)?
Traffic
2) What types and levels of noise would be created by
or associated with the project on a short —terns
or a long —term basis (for example: traffic,
construction, operation, other)? Indicate what
hours noise would come from the site.
�.... ......r....... mn....•. �....• u.. �..— M+••++ errwwm�o .+n�- .w�.vrr,..�wmr+w.•wa'V�n .R:Y,^I �N MJ.'.�.::i w:!Sd]�M1
Traffic - long term, especially heavy truck
traffic from the industrial area.
Construction - short term (Hours should be
limited because of adjacent residential area)
9
City .of Tukwila
Evaluation for
Agency Use Only
;1'4: l.iY +r
3) Proposed measures to reduce or control noise
impacts, if any:
8. Land and Shoreline Use
>art 1.140
Reduce the grade of South 178th Street by building
the South 188th Street Connector and limiting hours of
construction to on the subject site 7 a.m. to 10 p.m.
per State of Washington Noise Standard Level.
a. What is the current use of the site and adjacent
properties?
A Single Family Residence.
b. Has the site been used for agriculture? If so, describe.
NO
c. Describe any structures on the site.
A Residence and associated structures.
d. Will any structures be demolished? If so, what?
When the property is ultimately redeveloped
the structures will be removed.
e. What is the current zoning classification of the site?
R/A District -- Agricultural
f. What is the current comprehensive plan designation of
the site?
g.
Single Family
If applicable, what is the current shoreline master
program designation of the site?
Not Applicable
10
City of Tukwila
Evaluation for
Agency Use Only
MUM :'R,?'..`SL
h. Has any part of the site been classified as an
"environmentally sensitive" area? If so, specify.
i• Approximately how many people would reside or work in the
completed project?
J. •
9. housing
YES, the subject site is located at the base of the
valley wall on the west side of the Green River Valley.
The area is of environmental concern because of slope
stability. The South 188th Street Corridor Study found
that the stability problem could be addressed through
state of the art engineering procedures and can be
considered an environmental concern that can be mitigated.
Only a generalized number of people working on the
subject site can be projected based upon the
theoretical maximum building area of 70,000 square
feet. The employment population could range from
140 to 450 employees. Projections at this stage of
planning are not very accurate and will have to be
re- analyzed at the time of the actual project proposal.
Approximately how many people would the completed project
displace?
Two people.
k. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement impacts,
if any:
None are anticipated.
1. Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is compatible
with existing and projected land uses and plans, if any:
Mitigating measures can not be projected at this time
without consideration of a specific project components and
site design. The design review process under SEPA will
address the environmental impacts at that time.
a. Approximately how many units would be provided, if any?
Indicate whether high, middle, or low - income housing?
Not Applicable.
11
City of Tukwila
Evaluation for
Agency Use Only
b. Approximately how many units, if any, would be
eliminated? Indicate whether high, middle, or low -
income housing?
One single family residence.
c. Proposed measures to reduce or control housing impacts,
if any:
None are anticipated.
10. Aesthetics
• a. What is the tallest height of any proposed structure(s),
not including antennas; what is the•principal exterior
building material(s) proposed?
The height will be regulated by the P -0 Zoning
District's maximum of 35 feet or 3 stories. Most
probably the structure would be terraced into the
hillside reducing its perceived height.
b. What views in the immediate vicinity would be altered or
obstructed?
None.
11. Light and Clare
c. Proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic impacts,
if any:
Specific building and site designs must be
proposed to consider possible mitigation measures to
reduce or control aesthetic impacts.
a. What type of light or glare will the proposal produce?
What time of day would it mainly occur?
Light and glare could be a critical issue. The
design and exterior treatment of the building could
create severe glare problems during the a.m. commute
hours for west bound vehicles on South 180th Street.
b. Could light or glare from the finished project be
12
City of Tukwila
Evaluation for
Agency Use Only
a safety hazard or interfere with views?
See 11 a. above.
c. What existing off —site sources of light or glare may
affect your proposal?
d. Proposed measures to reduce or control light and glare
impacts, if any:
12. Recreation
None Anticipated.
Both the type of glass and the type and size of
landscaping will be important design issues that will
have environmental consequences.
a. What designed and informal recreational opportunities
are in the immediate vicinity?
None.
b. Would the proposed project displace any existing
recreational uses? If so, describe.
No
c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts on
recreation, including recreation opportunities to be
provided. by the project or applicant, if any:
It is unknown at this time. The site design could
include some on -site amenities.
13. Historic and Cultural Preservation
a. Are there any places or objects listed on, or proposed
for, national, state, or local preservation registers
known to be on or next to the site? If so, generally
describe:
NO
13
City of Tukwila
Evaluation for
Agency Use Only
C
b. Generally describe any landmarks or evidence of historic,
archaeological, scientific, or cultural importance known
to be on or next to the site.
NO
c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts, if any:
14. Transportation
NONE
a. Identify public streets and highways serving the site,
and describe proposed access to the existing street
system. Show on site plans, if any.
South 178th Street
57th Avenue South (Southcenter Parkway)
Future South 188th Street Connector
(Limited access may be proposed if the
final designs for the Connector allow
such a proposal in the future.)
Primary access would be directly off of 57th Avenue
South. Secondary fire /emergency access may be from another street
depending upon the Fire Department's requirements at the actual
time of development based upon the site design.
b. Is the site currently served by public transit? If not, what is the
approximate distance to the nearest transit stop?
Public transportation is available at the inter
section of Southcenter Parkway and South 180th Street,
which is kitty- corner from the subject site.
c. How many parking spaces would the completed project have?
IIow many would the project eliminate?
This is difficult issue to discuss. The theoretical
maximum based on a building of 70,000 square feet would be
180 parking spaces under the City of Tukwila Parking Code.
Possible 4 residential parking spaces would be eliminated
with the residence.
14
City of Tukwila
Evaluation for
Agency Use Only
d. Will the proposal require any new roads or streets, or
improvements to existing roads or streets, not
including driveways? If so, generally describe
(indicate whether public or private).
Major improvements will be necessary to 57th Avenue
South. The ultimate design will depend upon the building
design and appropriate environmental mitigation can be
imposed at the time of actual development.
e. Will the project use (or occur in the immediate vicinity
of) water, rail, or air transportation? If so, generally
describe.
NO
f. How many vehicular trips per day would be generated by
the completed project? If known, indicate when peak
volumes would occur.
The maximum development of a 70,000 square foot building
would generate approximately 1,239 daily vehicle trips based
upon the Institute of Traffic Engineers -Trip Generation
Manual -3rd Addition (1983). Office buildings containing
less than 100,000 square generate on an average of 17.7 daily
vehicle trips per 1,000 square feet of building area.
The p.m. peak is typically the highest impact time
with 10 to 15 per cent of the daily volume being directed
to the city streets. Maximum Estimated to be 185 vehicle
trips at peak.
Impacts on 57th Avenue South south of South
180th Street would represent a theoretical maximum
increase of 32 per cent, while impacts to South 180th
Street and Southcenter would be a maximum increase of
7 and 6 per cent respectively.
g. Proposed .measures to reduce or control transportation
impacts, if any:
Specific traffic mitigating measures depend upon
the actual building design. At a minimum 57th Avenue South
south of South 180th Street will have to have substantial
improvements.
15
City of Tukwila
Evaluation for
Agency Use Only
15. Public Services
a. Would the project result in an increased need for public
services (for example: fire protection, police
protection, health care, schools, other)? If so,
generally describe.
Demand levels will increase for all public
services based upon the ultimate building
design. These increases must be evaluated
at the time of building permit application.
b. Proposed measures to reduce or control direct impacts on
public services if any:
16. Utilities
a. Circle utilities currently available at the site:
electricity, natural gas, water, refuse service,
telephone, sanitary sewer, septic system, other.
b. Describe the utilities that are proposed for the project,
the utility providing the service, and the general
construction activities on the site or in the immediate
vicinity which night be needed.
C. Signature
The above answers are true and complete to the best of my
knowledge. T understand that the lead agency is relying on
them to make its decision.
Signature:
Date submitted:
Unknown.
Unknown. Depends on architectural designs.
l:oge J. ck Agent ent Ioi Rar Martin
iil�s) 1 c.•., g �/ }
PLEASE CONTINUE ON TILE NEXT PAGE
16
City of Tukwila
Evaluation for
Agency Use Only
.c >sn.rrr'y
A" TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT
C
D. SUPPLEMENTAL SHEET FOR NONPROJECT ACTIONS
(do not use this sheet for project actions)
Because these questions are very general, it may be helpful to
read them in conjunction with the list of the elements of the
environment.
When answering these questions, be aware of the extent the
proposal, or the types of activities likely to result from the
proposal, would affect the item at a greater intensity or at a
faster rate than if the proposal were not implemented. Respond
briefly and in general terms.
1. liow would the proposal be likely to increase discharge to
water; emissions to air; production, storage, or release of
toxic or hazardous substances; or production of noise?
The requested land use actions would not physically
impact the environment; the ultimate impacts will depend
upon the final building placed on the site. In any case
there will be increases to the discharge of water; emissions
to the air; and the production of noise. There will not be
any production, storage, or release of toxic or hazardous
substances just because of the basic nature of a professional
office building.
Proposed measures to avoid or reduce such increases are:
Specific measures would have to be evaluated at the
project design review. Mitigating measures would be based
upon adopted City standards and the scope of the project
proposal.
2. How would the proposal be likely to affect plants, animals,
fish, or marine life?
Details could only be guessed at. Generally
there is a negative impact associated with any
physical development: increased storm water, less
vegetational cover, and increased traffic.
Proposed measures to protect or conserve plants, animals,
fish, or marine life are:
Unknown. To be evaluated at the time of
development.
17
City of Tukwila
Evaluation for
Agency Use Only
3. How would the proposal be likely to deplete energy or
C natural resources?
Natural resources will be utilized to construct
the building and public utilities and streets serving
the subject site. The ultimate building will have to
be maintained and heated along with the consumption of
energy to move employees to and from work.
Proposed measures to protect or conserve energy and natural
resources are:
Unknown. Will have to be evaluated at the time
of building permit application.
4. How would the proposal be likely to use or affect
environmentally sensitive areas or areas designated (or
eligible or under study) for governmental protection; such
as parks, wilderness, wild and scenic rivers, threatened or
endangered species habitat, historic or cultural sites,
wetlands, floodplains, or prime farmlands?
The proposal would affect an area designated as
"environmentally sensitive" by the City of Tukwila.
The area was designated because of steep and apparently
unstable slopes. However, the South 188th Street
Connector Feasibility Study does not support the
concern over the stability of the slope. Engineered
structures can be utilized to address and control the
stability problems.
Proposed measures to protect such resources or to avoid
or reduce impacts are:
Engineered Structures
5. IIow would the proposal be likely to affect land and
shoreline use, including whether it would allow or encourage
land or shoreline uses incompatible with existing plans?
It will not affect any shoreline uses. Land use
policy could be dramatically modified if the City of
Tukwila sees the proposal as the beginning of a domino
pattern of development along the west side of 57th
Avenue South. However, the City can control this
development pattern.
Proposed measures to avoid or reduce shoreline and land
use impacts are:
Unknown.
18
City of Tukwila
Evaluation for
Agency Use Only
C
How does the proposal conform to the Tukwila Shoreline
Master Plan?
6. Dow would the proposal be likely to increase demands on
transportation of public services and utilities?
No
Not applicable.
Varies based upon the final building design.
Proposed measures to reduce or respond to such demand(s) are:,
Must be addressed at the time site design and
building permit application.
7. Identify, if possible, whether the proposal may conflict
with local, state, or federal laws or requirements for the
protection of the environment.
Not able to assess at this stage.
8. Does the proposal conflict with policies of the Tukwila
Comprehensive Land Use Policy Plan? If so, what policies of
the Plan?
Proposed measures to avoid or reduce the conflict(s) are:
Not applicable
19
City of Tukwila
Evaluation for
Agency Use Only
.iriri•: i:. �..
BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT
E. SUPPLEMENTAL SHEET FOR ALL PROJECT AND NON PROJECT PROPOSALS
The objectives and the alternative means of reaching the
objectives for a proposal will be helpful in reviewing the
aforegoing items of the Environmental Checklist. This
information provides a general overall perspective of the
proposed action in the context of the environmental information
provided and the submitted plans, documents, supportive
information, studies, etc.
1. What are the objective(s) of the proposal?
Prepare the land for sale from the present owners
of the last 29 years.
2. What are the alternative means of accomplishing these
objectives?
o The Martins' could sell the property to a developer
who would have the ability to propose a specific
developement plan.
an .: a �xn Ko mmex.•�.
3. Please compare the alternative means and indicate the preferred course of
action:
o Please see justification for Comprehensive Plan request.
4. Does the proposal conflict with policies of the Tukwila
Comprehensive Land Use Policy Plan? If so, what policies of
the Plan?
No
Proposed measures to avoid or reduce the conflict(s) are:
Not applicable
21
City of Tukwila
Evaluation for
Agency Use Only
17544 MIDVALE AVE. N., SUITE 100 SEATTLE, WA 98133 206 542.9474
CONSULTING ENGINEERS
August 7, 1986
Mr. Phillip Fraser, Senior Engineer
City of Tukwila
Department of Public Works
6200 Southcenter Blvd.
Tukwila, WA 98188
Dear Mr. Fraser:
CENTRAL
ASSOCIATES
Re: Access Study /Considerations for Future Development of Lot
9040 (Roy Martin Parcel) @ 57th Avenue S. & S. 178th Street
Centrac has been hired by Kenneth B. Shellan (Attorney) to
.conduct an access study for the southwest corner property at the
intersection of 57th Avenue S. and S. 178th Street in the City of
Tukwila. It is our understanding that specific guidelines are
desired as to proposed driveway locations and access, as well as
traffic impacts of any commercial development on planned
transportation improvements in the area -- S. 188th Connector
from I -5 @ S. 188th interchange to 57th /178th intersection and
57th Avenue S. widening from S. 188th to S. 200th.
Rezone: The subject 1.62 acre parcel is identified as Lot #9040
Roy E. Martin parcel) and is presently zoned single family
residential and agricultural (RA). The owners of the property
are proposing a rezone to either office (P -0) or industrial use
(M -1 or M -2). The parcel limits extend 250 feet south of S.
178th /180th Street and 375 feet west of 57th Avenue S. (from
centerlines). The preferred alignment for the proposed S. 188th
Connector route (Alternate "ff") would traverse the northwest
corner of Lot #9040, requiring some 40 -50 of right -of -way to
construct the 4 -5 lane arterial. The S. 188th connector
alignment would tie into 178th Street approximately 250 feet up
the hill from the 57th Avenue signal.
Site Access: When the S. 188th Connector arterial is
constructed, the north terminus will be the 57th /178th signalized
intersection. Proposed intersection revisions include two (2)
through lanes plus left -turn lane for the eastbound approach
(178th) and a single through lane plus left -turn lane for the
northbound approach (57th). The S. 188th arterial is projected
to handle about 30,000 vehicles on an average weekday (AWDT) by
1990, while 57th Avenue would handle about 7 -8,000 AWDT. Access
ALASKA IDAHO
OREGON UTAH WASHINGTON WYOMING
to the subject site should be restricted to 57th Avenue only due
to high traffic volumes on S. 188th and since any driveways would
disrupt traffic operations and degrade safety on the downhill
approach to the signal. Full access to Lot #9040 can be safely
provided off 57th Avenue since traffic volumes are significantly
lower than S. 188th. It is recommended that a single driveway be
provided at the far south end of the property to minimize traffic
impacts on the 57th Avenue approach. The minimum distance from
the driveway to the intersection (crosswalk) should be 75 feet,
with 150 feet desirable.
Mr. Phillip Fraser, Senior Engineer
City of Tukwila
August 7, 1986
Page Two
Extension of the left -turn lane on 57th south to the driveway
location may be necesary prior to the proposed widening of 57th
(programmed by City of Tukwila) depending on left-turn
ingress /egress volumes generated by the site development. A
traffic analysis of the site and project driveway volumes is
required to determine whether one or two exit lanes are necessa -ry
at the single, full- access driveway off 57th Avenue.
Phil, I hope this letter helps clarify the traffic access and
safety issues concerning the proposed rezone of the subject
property and ultimate development for office /industrial uses. If
you have any questions, please contact myself of Kenneth Shellan
(271 - 8900).
Sincerely,
CENTRAC ASSOCIATES, INC.
z
Terry L. Gibson, P.E.
Senior Traffic Engineer
TLG:slk
xc: Kennth Shellan, Attorney
s�» wv�.+ em. �+. rn. �u+ ttm: l' � Yww✓ ..:e Y�:'�4+kM. :3'��"�J.N ..
CENTRAC
ASSOCI AT ES
(2061 746.5200
2405. 140th Ave. N. E.
Bellevue, WA 98005
Kenneth Shellan b Associates
127 Park Avenue North
Renton, Washington 98055
Attention: Ns. Shelley Turner
August 14, 1986
Geologic Conditions
Proposed Commercial Building Site
Tukwila, Washington
File No. 1036 -01
``�
Qle0Englneers
Incorporated
Consulting Geotechnical
Engineers and Geologists
This letter describes our observations and conclusions regarding the
geologic conditions at a proposed commercial building site in Tukwila,
Washington. Our observations are prepared in response to your request; our
authorization for these services is confirmed by your letter dated August 4,
1986. The purpose of our consultation is to describe geologic and hydrologic
conditions at the site relative to a proposed rezone application.
The site is located immediately southwest of the intersection of
Southcenter Parkway and South 180th Street. An occupied residence is located
toward the west portion of the site. The balance of the property is unde-
veloped. Except for the yard area around the residence, the balance of the
site is covered with dense trees and brush.
The ground surface rises from about Elevation 25 feet at Southcenter
Parkway to about Elevation 125 feet at the west property margin. The ground
surface is relatively flat in the yard area of the existing residence.
Slopes on the balance on the property are inclined at an average of approx-
imately 25 percent.
Soils which underlie the site consist of mixed layers of sand with
gravel and sandy silt. Except for a weathered surficial zone a few feet in
thickness, the soil layers are highly compacted as a result of the entire
area being overridden on several occasions by glaciers.
Kenneth Shellan 6 Associates
August 14, 1986
Page 2
JWK:wd
Two copies submitted
Within the overall soil sequence, the layers of sand and gravel,
particularly at lower elevations, frequently carry ground water. The ground
water occurs in relatively small quantities and commonly emerges along steep
slopes as springs. Although no springs were observed on the subject property,
they are known to occur in the immediate area.
In our opinion, the site conditions on the subject property are com-
patible with conventional building design and construction procedures.
Conventional equipment can be used for excavation; ground water can typically
be handled by drainage facilities installed during construction. The soils
are capable of sustaining conventional building foundation loads. Con-
struction on the site and the collection of ground water and diversion into
a constructed drainage system will not affect ground water resources in the
area to the west.
It is essential to perform a detailed geotechnical investigation of the
site to develop specific recommendations for cut slopes, retaining walls,
building foundations, and other geotechnically- related design features. We
would be pleased to discuss providing those services for you in the future
if you so desire. We trust this letter will satisfy your present require-
ments. If you have any questions, please call.
Yours very truly,
CeoEngineers, Inc.
Jon W. Koloski
Principal
Subject to:
• TICOR TITLE INSURANCE
1008 Western Avenue. Seattle, L.Iington 98104-1032 (206) 223 -7878
LIMITED LIABILITY REPORT
Refer to:
Number : A- 344765
Unit : 1 MICHAEL S. BECKMAN
LORI COTTON
KEN SHELLAN
ATTORNEY AT LAW
321 BURNETT AVE. S.
RENTON, WASHINGTON 98057
ATTN: JEANETTE COLEMAN
Date: NOVEMBER 12, 1985 at 8:00 A.M.
DIRECT DIALING (206) 223 -6527
This is a report as of the date shown above, showing the record title is
vested in:
ROY E. MARTIN, PRESUMPTIVELY SUBJECT TO THE COMMUNITY INTEREST OF HIS
WIFE, WINONA W. MARTIN.
Covering the following property:
THAT PORTION OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION
35, TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH, RANGE 4 EAST, W.M., IN KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON,
DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
BEGINNING AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF SAID SUBDIVISION; THENCE SOUTH
87 °51'01" EAST ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF SAID SUBDIVISION 800 FEET TO THE
TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE SOUTH PERPENDICULAR TO THE SAID NORTH LINE
OF SAID SUBDIVISION 250.00 FEET; THENCE EAST PARALLEL WITH SAID NORTH LINE
OF SAID SUBDIVISION TO THE WEST LINE OF COUNTY ROAD NO. 540; THENCE
NORTHERLY ALONG THE SAID WESTERLY LINE OF SAID COUNTY ROAD TO THE
INTERSECTION, WITH THE SAID NORTH LINE OF SAID SUBDIVISION; THENCE NORTH
87 °57'01" WEST ALONG SAID NORTH LINE OF SAID SUBDIVISION 335 FEET, MORE OR
LESS, TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING;
EXCEPT COUNTY ROAD
AND EXCEPT THAT PORTION CONDEMNED IN KING COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT CAUSE NO.
698092 BY THE CITY OF TUKWILA FOR ROAD PURPOSES
1. EASEMENTS FOR EXISTING ROADWAY OVER THE WESTERLY PORTION OF SAID PREMISES
IN FAVOR OF ARTHUR E. SMITH, HIS SUCCESSORS OR ASSIGNS, DISCLOSED BY
A- 344765 PAGE 1
PROCEEDINGS UNDER KING COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT CAUSE NO. 423664, WHEREIN IT
WAS DECREED THAT SAID EASEMENT SHALL CONTINUE FOR SUCH TIME AS MAY BE
REASONABLY NECESSARY OR PROPER TO ALLOW SAID ARTHUR E. SMITH, HIS
SUCCESSORS OR ASSIGNS TO RELOCATE SAID ROADWAY UPON PROPERTY NOW OWNED BY
HIM ADJOINING SAID PREMISES.
2. AN EASEMENT with provisions, conditions and covenants as may be set forth
therein.
For • POLES WITH THE NECESSARY CABLES, WIRES AND FIXTURES
In favor of : PACIFIC TELEPHONE AND TELEGRAPH COMPANY
Reflected of record by instrument
Recorded : JUNE 25, 1924
Auditor's File No.: 1885784
Affects : STARTING AT A POINT 165 FEET WEST OF THE NORTHEAST
CORNER OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST
QUARTER OF SECTION 35, TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH, RANGE 4
EAST, W.M.; THENCE.SOUTH 15 °34' WEST A DISTANCE OF
556 FEET, MORE OR LESS, TO A POINT ON THE SOUTH LINE
OF THE ABOVE DESCRIBED PROPERTY AS NOW LOCATED AND
STAKED BY THE TELEPHONE COMPANY
3. AN EASEMENT with provisions, conditions and covenants as may be set forth
therein.
For : 12 INCH CULVERT
In favor of : KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON
Reflected of record by instrument
Recorded : JUNE 9, 1937
Auditor's File No.: 2950183
Affects : OVER AN UNDISCLOSED PORTION OF SAID PREMISES
4. AN EASEMENT with provisions and conditions as may be defined therein.
For : SLOPE PURPOSES
Established by proceedings in Superior Court Cause No. 698092
Affects : THAT PORTION OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE
NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 35, TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH,
RANGE 4 EAST, W.M., DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
A- 344765 PAGE 2
COMMENCING AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF SAID
SUBDIVISION; THENCE NORTH 87 °50'57" WEST ALONG THE
NORTH LINE THEREOF 204.18 FEET; THENCE'SOUTH 2 °09'03"
WEST 30.00 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING;
THENCE SOUTH 70 °20'58" WEST 53.85 FEET; THENCE SOUTH
80 °50'27" WEST 50.99 FEET; THENCE NORTH 87 °50'57"
WEST 50.00 FEET; THENCE NORTH 76 °07'59" WEST 96.76
FEET; THENCE NORTH 87 °50'57" WEST 50.00 FEET; THENCE
NORTH 2 °09'03" EAST 10.00 FEET; THENCE SOUTH
87 °50'57" EAST 294.67 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF
BEGINNING
This report is restricted to the use of the addressee, and is not to be .
used as a basis for closing any transaction affecting title to said
property. Liability of the company is limited to the compensation
received therefor.
A- 344765
NOTE:
GENERAL TAXES, as follows, plus interest after. delinquency:
For ear Amount billed Amount paid
1985 $729.79 $729.79
Being County Treasurer's parcel No. 352304 - 9040 -01.
Charge: $308.00
Tax $24.33
FM /SMA B -134
PAGE 3
orize Signatory moo
7 P,4 l«
The Company has not surveyed the premises described in A- 1
The sketch below is furnished without charge solely for the purpose of assisting
in locating said premises and the Company assumes no liability for inaccuracies
therein. It does not purport to show all highways, goads and easements adjoining
or affecting said premises.
\ TS. C>.H
Zan
Map Dept. Reference
TRAFFIC VOLUME
Numerous studies commissioned by Richard Etherington and
Associates, Sigoly Business Parks and the City of Tukwila
indicate that the traffic volume in the subject area has grown
tremendously. (Enclosed is one such study by Richard
Etherington and Associates) The study dramatically sets forth
the phenomenal increase in traffic volume over the past ten
years and further highlight the further tremendous increases
which will occur by the year 2000. Of particular interest are
the allusions to the roadway surrounding the subject rezone
parcel and referring to them as major thoroughfairs for the
commercial /industrial centers in the area. In other words, the
road ways themselves along with the heavy traffic volume
certainly indicate that subject corner property should be
rezoned so as to be consistent with the neighboring property
usage.
.-......... �. ...... ..+..�.�...
REGIONAL TRAVEL IMPACTS
OF THE
SOUTH 188th STREET CONNECTOR PROJECT
IN
TUKWILA, WASHINGTON
Richard Etherington and Associates
Prepared for
Centrac Associates, Inc.
by
September 1984
CONTENTS
Summary of Findings and Conclusions
Introduction
Statement of Problems
Project Alternatives
Regional Travel Forecasts
Transit /Ridesharing Effects
Evaluation of Alternatives
Findings and Conclusions
Addendum
Other Scenarios Considered
Other Planning Work
Tables
1: Tukwila Traffic Volumes on Selected Links
2: Tukwila Levels of Service on Selected Links
Maps
1: Project Alternatives
2: Select Traffic Links for Analysis
A -
A -2
A -3
A -6
A -7
A -11
A -12
A -17
A -19
PAGE
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
A. The expected growth of population and employment in King County over the next
sixteen years will cause the substantial congestion and delay of vehicles on the
arterial and freeway systems during peak travel periods in Tukwila as well as other
areas.
B. - proposed Tukwila project to build a new arterial connection between I -S /S.
188th Street and Southcenter Parkway /S. 180th Street will provide needed addi-
tional access to the Commerical Industrial District, and will relieve congestion at
other major access points to the District.
C. In addition to the proposed S. 188th connector project, a new cross - valley arterial
is needed in the S. 192nd /S. 196th /S. 200th corridor.
D. Freeway congestion is expected to worsen with time, and this will cause a traffic
spillover effect onto the local and regional arterials.
E. Transit and ridesharing programs should be continued and expanded in order to
permit the more efficient use of the road system.
A -1
■
INTRODUCTION
Traffic problems In the Green River valley area of King County have been Increasing
over the last twenty years as the valley has become increasingly urbanized and as
population and employment developments have spread over south county. Industrial
developments on the valley floor, together with residential developments on the Soos
Creek plateau (East Hill) have produced patterns and volumes of auto traffic that are
not easily handled by the present system of highways and roads.
Tukwila is located in the lower Green River valley, where two interstate freeways cross
and where the resulting regional accessibility has fostered the rapid growth of
commercial retailing, warehousing, and office activities. At the same time as this
growth has occurred, the regional road system development has not kept pace. The
sparse system of local roads and streets has not been expanded and connected
sufficiently to carry the local and regional traffic volumes generated by the new
developments.
The traffic problems in Tukwila that result from this are evidenced in vehicle
congestion and delay at peak working and shopping hours. Less noticeable, but just as
much a problem, are the circuitous routings used by traffic which add extra miles to
vehicular travel, and which cause ineffiencies in the highway system. These existing
problems will be exacerbated in the future by additional growth in travel. The road
system which is marginally functional during current peak travel periods will become
more and more congested and inconvenient to use. Adverse effects on regional and
local travel conditions will begin to detract from the area's development potential and
from the accessibility to the major commercial developments upon which the economy
of the local jurisdictions depend.
The area's traffic problems are compounded by jurisdictional problems. Four local
jurisdictions -- Tukwila, Renton, Kent, and King County -- are located in the lower
Green River valley; each is responsible for parts of the road system. In addition, the
Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) has jurisdiction over the
freeways and highways in the area. This diversity means that the solution to one
jurisdiction's traffic problem may be a project,located in another jurisdiction.
The City of Tukwila has proposed a project to build a new arterial street connecting the
I -S interchange at S. 188th Street with S. 180th Street near its intersection with
Southcenter Parkway. This proposed project would improve the accessibility of the
southern part of the Tukwila commercial - industrial district by providing a direct
connection between the regional freeway system and the network of local arterials.
A -2
This new connection has the potential to provide relief to the two main entrances to the
Southcenter area at the "S" line bridge and at Klickitat Drive. The project would also
provide a direct connection from the Fairwood residential area and the Green River'
industrial area to I -5 and the Sea -Tac commercial /airport area.
The purpose of this report is to investigate the effects on regional travel patterns of
building the S. 188th Street connector project. The proposed project would improve the
accessibility of the commercial- industrial district and would provide a new freeway
connection to the Green River valley; it will alter the traffic volumes expected on
regional highways and arterial roads. This report discusses the existing traffic problems
and arterial system deficiencies at which the project is directed, and the objectives to
be accomplished by the S. 188th connector. The range of project alternatives is then
presented in a regional context, and traffic forecasting results presented for each
alternative. The potential impacts of transit and ridesharing programs on those
forecasts is reviewed, as well as some other studies currently in progress in south King
County.
Based on the traffic forecasts, and other considerations, the alternatives are evaluated
for their abilities to solve the problems and to meet the objectives that have been
identified. These evaluations of alternatives are then used to prepare findings and
conclusions regarding the S. 188th Street connector project and its alternatives.
The travel forecasts presented in this report are based on the computer model of
regional traffic developed by the Puget Sound Council of Governments. The estimated
volumes on individual facilities were adjusted to reflect the previous experience of
other forecasting work and traffic modeling. The resultant volumes reported here are a
composite of those recent forecasts, and should be taken to be reasonable estimates of
future traffic in south King County, within the limits and assumptions of the basic
growth forecasts and travel models.
STATEMENT OF PROBLEM AND OBJECTIVES
Access to the commercial - industrial district (CID) of Tukwila is both limited and
congested at present. The CID is located between Southcenter Parkway and the Green
River and between Tukwila Parkway and S. 180th Street (see Map 1). Freeway access
to this area is gained directly from 1 -5 northbound via two exit ramps to Southcenter
Parkway north of Strander Boulevard. Indirect freeway access from SR 518 eastbound
is via Klickitat Drive, from I -5 southbound via Southcenter Boulevard and the "S" line
bridge, and from I -405 westbound via Southcenter Boulevard and the "S" line bridge
A -3
•
•
SOUTH
CENTER
8
S. 190TH
199TH
1111111141111.1
WIntill1111l
milvmo
■'N1 I
Aim=
MEW
REIM
MUER
riginam
NMI
ANGLE LAK
CENTRAC ASSOCIATES
CITY OF TUKWILA
405
CRES
RENT
SO. 188TH CONNECTOR
■
LEGEND
•••• CROSS VALLEY ROUTE SCENARIOS
Isms ASSUMED NEW LINKS
ASSUMED OTHER IMPROVEMENTS
A -4 •
CROSS - VALLEY
ROUTE ALTERNATIVES
MAP 1
West Valley Highway and either Strander Boulevard or Southcenter Boulevard with the
"T" line bridge. The one other indirect freeway access to the CID occurs at the S.
188th interchange on I -5 via Orillia Road, S. 200th Street, and 57th Avenue S.,
requiring substantial adverse travel.
The main access points are heavily congested. Klickitat Drive carries 2,400 vehicles
during the weekday pm peak hour which is the * "worst case" condition; the "S" line
bridge carries 2,850. West Valley Highway (SR 181) carries between 3,UUU and 3,400
vehicles in the pm peak hour along the east boundary of the CID and connecting with S.
180th Street, Strander Boulevard, I -405, Grady Way, and Southcenter Boulevard.
Severe congestion exists on Southcenter Parkway in the vicinity of Strander Boulevard.
The lack of alignment of Strander and Klickitat and the I -5 exit ramps causes four
signalized "T" intersections on Southcenter Parkway within about one -tenth of a mile.
The traffic channelization, added approach lanes, and multi -phase signals all combine to
cause a high level of traffic congestion during weekday peak travel hours and also
during the holiday shopping season.
Access to the southwest part of the CID is available on S. 178th Street and on 57th
Avenue S. South 178th Street connects to Military Road west of I -5, and has severe
gradient problems as it approaches Southcenter Parkway. A maximum grade of 21
percent is posted, and heavy trucks are forbidden for safety reasons. South 178th does
not have any connection to 1 -5, and only indirect connection to Pacific Highway South.
Its excessive grades, the residential areas through which it passes, and its indirect
connections to the regional highway system all combine to make S. 178th Street a poor
facility for access to the CID.
Access from the southwest to the CID can also be gained via 57th Avenue S. (Frager
Road). This road serves some commercial uses south of S. 180th Street in Tukwila, and
connects to S. 200th Street and S. 212th Street on the west side of the Green River.
Fifty- seventh Avenue S. is a narrow, two -lane road that has several sharp curves as it
follows the west river bank. It carries about 450 vehicles in the pm peak hour. Its chief
problems as an access to the CID are its narrow width and poor alignment, and also its
indirect connections to the regional road system.
Orillia Road is used now to connect the I -5 /S. 188th Street interchange to S. 200th and
S. 212th streets. Its current peak hour volume is 2,300 vehicles, however very little of
that traffic uses 57th Avenue S. to access the CID. The shortest route for such traffic
would be via S. 200th Street, which now carries only 300 vehicles in the pm peak hour.
A -5
PROJECT ALTERNATIVES
To address the problems of congestion and lack of accessibility to the CID, nine
C different alternatives were prepared initially. These included the proposed S. 188th
Street connector project in two alternative configuratior.s and four other scenarios of
regional arterial roads, as well as "do nothing" and "assumed improvements" alterna-
tives.
The six project alternatives that were fully evaluated are described below and
delineated on Map 1. The Addendum describes the other alternatives that were
eliminated in an earlier stage of the study.
o A new four -lane arterial from the intersection of Orillia Road and S. 188th Street
northeasterly to an intersection with S. 178th Street west of Southcenter Parkway.
This alternative is the project proposal for the S. 188th connector. It provides
direct access from the I -5 /S. 188th interchange to the southwest corner of the CID
with no adverse travel. This alternative is designated T4.
o A four -lane arterial route using Orillia Road and S. 200th Street, crossing the
Green River on a new bridge, and then continuing northeastward along S. 196th
Street and S. 192nd Street to a new interchange with the SR 167 freeway. This
alternative provides a new east -west arterial across the Green River valley floor.
While making no significant improvement in access to the CID, it has the
possibility of providing additional east -west traffic capacity to relieve I -5 and
I -405 around Southcenter. This alternative is designated T6.
o A four -lane arterial route using Orillia, S. 200th, and Frager Road to improve
vehicular capacity on existing roads between the I -5 /S. 188th interchange and the
southwest corner of the CID. This alternative is designated T8.
o A combination of T4 and T6 (above) which would provide both a new arterial
connection from I -5 to the CID and also a new arterial route across the valley.
This alternative is designated T9.
o A do- nothing alternative which provides no new routes or facilities beyond what
exists in 1984. This is designated T1.
o An alternative which implements the adopted regional transportation plan of the
Puget Sound Council of Governments and local improvements by Renton and
Tukwila. This involves a new expressway between Kent and I -5, completion of the
Valley Freeway, completion of Grady Way to four lanes, a new interchange on SR
167 at S. 212th Street, and other improvements in other parts of the region. Local
A -6
•
assumed improvements include a connection from Strander easterly to SW 27th
Street, an extension of Minkler west and east to Southcenter Parkway and West
Valley Highway, an extension of Oakesdale north to Grady Way, SW 7th Street, and
Empire Way. This alternative is designated T3.
REGIONAL. TRAVEL FORECASTS
In order to evaluate the regional travel impacts of the above alternatives, each scenario
was used as the basis of a traffic forecast of urban travel in the year 2000. Using the
vehicle trip table for the year 2000 developed by PSCOG, and employing the PSCOG
travel model based on the Urban Transportation Planning System (UTPS) of the USDOT,
forecasts were made of the vehicular traffic expected in the afternoon peak hour for
each alternative.
These forecasts predict the volume of autos using each link of the highways system on a
typical weekday during the pm peak hour in the year 2000. The forecasts are based on
the growth in population and employment over present levels, the numbers of vehicle
trips generated by households and jobs, the calculated interchange of trips from one
small area (or traffic analysis zone) to another based on trip productions and
attractions, on distance, on minimum paths between areas, and on the capacities of the
highways and arterial streets to carry traffic.
The raw forecast results were reviewed for consistency with other recent forecasting
efforts in the Renton /Tukwila /Kent area, and were adjusted to smooth out obvious
discrepancies caused by the capacity- restrained assignment process. The resultant
traffic volumes predicted on the selected links of the highway network and reported
here may be taken as reasonable estimates of future travel behavior and traffic
volumes that are within the limits and assumptions of the growth forecasts, model
calibration data, and regional modeling techniques used.
The final results of the travel forecasting work described above are reported in Table 1.
For each of 36 key road network locations in the study areas the pm peak hour traffic
volumes under seven different scenarios are tabulated according to the street locations
and corresponding index numbers as located 'on Map 2.
The seven different scenarios reported are as follows:
TO - the traffic volumes in 1980 being carried on the existing highway system in the
pm peak 'hour.
T1 - the traffic volumes expected in the year 2000 as carried on the existing 1980
highway system.
A -7
••••• •••••
21
N
S. 212TH ST.
SOUTH
CENTER
STRAND R
CRES
RENT
ANGLE LAK
KENT
NEW BRIDGE
NEW
INTER HANGE
W/ T ONLY)
1
CENTRAC ASSOCIATES
LEGEND
10 TRAFFIC INDEX NO.
•es* 188TH CONNECTOR ROUTES
11111, ASSUMED NEW LINKS
IMIlm ASSUMED OTHER IMPROVEMENTS
CITY OF TUKWILA 1 SO. 188TH CONNECTOR
A- 8
SELECT
TRAFFIC LINKS
FOR ANALYSIS
MAP 2
TABLE 1. TUKWILA TRAFFIC VOLUMES ON SELECTED LINKS - 1981/2011. 'SOUTH 188TH CONNECTOR PROJECT' REBA
FACILITY >)ALL TRAFFIC VOLUMES ARE ESTIMATED 2 MAY PM PEAK HOUR CAPACITY RESTRAINED«
& LIMITS INDEX 0 TI T1 T3 T4 T6 T8 T9' INDEX 0
S/C BLVD
1NTERURB- CHRSTN 1 1100 1438 1470 1121 1161 1471 1110
6RADY WAY
MONSTR- INTERURB 2 1980 2580 1880 1841 1841 1881 1821
WEST VALLEY
1405- S158TH 3 3000 4400 610f 5700 5511 6100 5100
S181TH- S196TH 4 3400 5651 5600 5601 480 5601 4600
T - LINE BRIDGE
S - LINE BRIDGE 6 2850 400 4180 3401 3281 3281 3210
KLICKITAT DR
15 -S /C PKWY
STRANDER
S/C PKWY -ANDOV W 8 150 1940 2700 2120 2350 2581 2120
CHRSTN -W VALLEY 9 1808 2400 3230 2371 2620 3000 2370
5 731 2010 2001 2311 260 2751 2310 5
7 2408 4800 4811 360f 4201 4710 3601 7
MINKLER
ANDOV E - W VALL 10 - - 710 940 710 1090 941 10
S. 188TH
W OF S/C PKWY 11 1280 1880 1560 3190 1580 1561 2200 11
SIC PKW -ANDOV W 12 1900 2800 2410 3700 2220 2191 2700 12
ANDOV E - W VALL 13 2450 3660 3280 3500 2850 2760 2500 13
W VALL - OAKESDALE 14 2188 3008 2670 3021 2501 2811 2421 14
LIND - VALLEY 15 2100 3110 2670 2901 2400 2711 230 15
S/C PKWY
M1NKLER-STRANDER 16 1700 3200 3508 3800 3490 360 3810 16
S OF S1BOTH 17 450 1000 1108 910 1010 2210 901 17
5. 18BTH
PAC HWY- MILITARY 18 2200 2760 2800 3901 3360 3081 4100 18
'MILITARY RD
S 1881H -S 176TH 20 1300 2318 2108 2600 2511 241* 270 20
S. 200TH
ORILLIA -571H AV 21 380 600 600 300 2350 1610 170 21
A -9
TABLE 1. TUKWILA TRAFFIC VOLUMES ON SELECTED LINKS- 1981/2011. 'SOUTH 188TH CONNECTOR PROJECT' REBA
FACILITY »ALL TRAFFIC VOLUMES ARE ESTIMATED 2 WAY PM PEAK HOUR CAPACITY RESTRAINED(<
1� LIMITS INDEX 0 TO T1 T3 T4 T6 T8 T9 INDEX 0
----------------- !----- - - -! -- 1981 - -! -- 2111 - -! -- 2111 - -! -- 2111 - -! -- 2111 -`! -- 2111 --! -- 2111 - -! ,
ORILLIA /S. 212TH
1 -5 TO ORILLIA 22 2311 3691 3220 3160 3380 3221 .3411 22
FRABER -SR 181 23 2411 2918 3200 3200 3101 3200 3811 23
E VALLEY -SR 167 24 1800 2200. 2840 2830 2791 2841 2781 24
ALTERNATIVE. T4
15 - 5178TH
ALTERNATIVE T6
SR 181- OAKESDALE 28
E VALLEY -SR 167 29
25 - - - 3051 - - 2100 25
1570 - .1210 28
- 1630 - 1270 29
ALTERNATIVE 18 -57TH AVE
S 208111-C DRIVE 31 450 1111 1000 890 1060 1800 901 31
FREEWAYS
15, MIL -S 188 32 12920 16410 16410 16411 16410 16410 16410 32
3
I5, S188 -SIC EX. 33 13610" 16770 16770
4558 15470
9808 16370
8418 16400
9558 15450
8200 34
I405 S/C ENT 34 8810 11060
I15R181 -451 36 7218 12860 9270 8700 8200 9270 8110 35
54R16767,5188 -I14/05 9340 5920 6420 7080 5920 7281. 36
T3 - the traffic volumes expected in the year 2000 as carried on an improved highway
system. (PSCOG adopted regional transportation plan and assumed improve-
ments in Renton and Tukwila.)
T4 - year 2000 traffic volumes expected on the improved highway system plus the S.
188th Street connector project.
T6 - year 2000 traffic volumes expected on the improved highway system plus a new
cross - valley arterial along S. 200th /S. 196th /S. 192nd to a new SR 167 inter-
change.
T8 - year 2000 traffic volumes expected on the improved highway system plus
capacity improvements to S. 200th /Frager /57th Avenue S.
T9 - year 2000 traffic volumes expected on the improved highway system plus the S.
188th Street connector project plus the new cross - valley arterial along S.
200th /S. 196th /S. 192nd (a combination of T4 and T6).
TRANSIT /RIDESHARING EFFECTS
Urban travel demands in the central Puget Sound region are met by vehicular travel and
also by transit and ridesharing modes of travel. The extent to which transit and three
plus occupant vehicle (HOV) modes are able to substitute for the average vehicle
occupant (1.2 ±) mode is dependent largely on the area of King County being discussed,
and the densities of person trip productions and attractions involved. Downtown Seattle
experiences a very high peak hour transit usage (30 -40 percent of work trips) and also a
higher than average number of HOVs due to preferential parking and a ten -year history
of HOV programs.
South King County presently has an average transit ridership of 1 -2 percent for home -
based work trips, due to the low density of employment locations and the diverse
locations of residential locations of workers. (Refer to the PSCOG Transportation
Corridor Analysis report of June 24, 1983 for a discussion of travel patterns and also
transit and ridesharing in the Green River valley.)
Metro is currently designing a park - and -ride lot in Tukwila on Interurban Avenue just
south of I -5. It is not expected that the proposed lot will substantially change the
forecasts of vehicular travel volumes reported here.
Metro is also studying a regional transit center in the CID as a part of its 1990 transit
development plan. The center would serve as a transfer point for off -peak transit
services to south King County. Its effects on peak hour travel have not been estimated,
A -11
however they are not expected to have a significant effect on the travel volumes
reported here. The S. 188th Street connector project would make a Tukwila transit
center more accessible from the south and west part of King County, particularly to
traffic on I -5.
Ridesharing programs in the Tukwila CID are difficult to implement because of the
large number of small employers. Employees from two or more different firms are
unlikely to rideshare together because of different working hours, coordination prob-
lems, and other reasons. Commuter Pool, now part of Metro, is instigating ridesharing
programs in south King County that will be aimed at overcoming these problems.
The WSDOT is currently planning and building HOV lanes on I -405 from Tukwila to
Bellevue in several segments and stages. When that project is completed, HOV usage
may increase and provide for a more efficient use of the highway system.
If HOV lanes are implemented on I -5 south of I -405, then the S. 188th Street connector
project could be expected to carry more HOVs, possibly supporting HOV ramp bypass
lanes at the I -5 /S. 188th interchange.
EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES
The project alternatives have been evaluated by calculating the level of service
experienced by auto users in the pm peak hour for each alternative. Level of service is
a concept of rating the quality of travel experienced by drivers in various levels of
traffic flow that are compared to the maximum capacity of the roadway to carry
vehicles. The following is a description of the six levels of service used to evaluate the
project alternatives.
Traffic congestion is measured in terms of the number of vehicles using a particular
section of road relative to the full capacity of that road section. As the number of
vehicles using the road approaches the road's capacity, vehicle speed is reduced and
delays are more likely to ocur.
Congestion is described in six categories called level of service or LOS. Each of these
six levels is described below as it applies to arterial roads.
LOS A - Traffic flows freely with no restrictions caused by other vehicles.
Average speed is 30 or more miles per hour and the traffic volume will be at 60
percent or less of the road's capacity.
LOS B - Steady traffic flow with only slight speed restrictions due to other
vehicles. Average speed on arterials is about 25 mph, with traffic at 60 -70 percent
of the road's capacity.
A -12
LOS C - Vehicle flow is still steady, but average arterial speed is reduced to about
20 mph. The road is at about 70 -80 percent of capacity.
LOS D - Traffic flow is becoming less steady and drivers have little room to
maneuver. Average speed is about 15 mph and traffic volumes are at 80 -90
percent of road capacity.
LOS E - Flow is unsteady with a significant amount of stop - and -go traffic.
Average speed is about 15 mph and traffic volume is at 90 -100 percent of the
road's capacity.
LOS F - Traffic flow is forced with frequent stoppages. Average speed is less than
15 mph, frequently dropping to zero. Long traffic backups occur because of flow
restrictions and accidents.
Using the above definitions of leve4 of service, each of the 36 key locations shown on
Map 2 was evaluated for its projected traffic volume and its roadway capacity to carry
that volume. The volume /capacity (V /C) ratio was calculated and translated into a LOS
category. These levels of service are reported in Table 2, and are the basis for
evaluating future traffic flow conditions for each alternative in the year 2000.
The following is a brief commentary on each of the scenarios tested.
TO - This scenario shows the travel conditions existing in the year 1980. Level of
service E -F (severe congestion) is 'found on I -5, I -405, SR 167, and on Grady
Way. LOS D occurs on Military Road S., S. 180th, and the West Valley Road (SR
181). These problems are familiar to those who travel through Tukwila in the
afternoon peak hour of 4:00 to 5:00 pm. Many key streets such as S. 180th
(westend) and Southcenter Parkway (southend) are not carrying excessive traffic
volumes.
T1 - This scenario shows the effects of traffic volumes expected in 2000 on the
existing highway network without any improvements at all. LOS E -P (severe
congestion) occurs on all the congested roads shown in TO plus Orillia Road, S.
212th, S. 180th -SW 43rd, West Valley Road and Southcenter Parkway. LOS D -E
traffic occurs on Strander Boulevard. South 180th between S. 178th and Andover
Park W. is LOS C. The "S" line bridge and Klickitat are both LOS E -F.
T3 - This scenario includes several improvements that are being planned and are
expected to be constructed by the year 2000. These improvements include a new
interchange at S. 212th and SR 167, widening of Grady Way to four lanes, an
A -13
■
TABLE 2.TUKWILA LEVEL OF SERVICE ON SELECTED LINKS- 1980/2004. 'SOUTH 188TH CONNECTOR PROJECT' RE&A
FACILITY >ALL SERVICE LEVELS A -F ARE ESTIMATED P M PEAK HOUR CAPACITY RESTRAINED(
i< LIMITS INDEX 4 TO T1 T3 T4 T6 T8 T9 INDEX 4
! 1988 - -! -- 2880 - -! -- 2880 - -! -- 2880-- !-- ZOBB - -! -- 2180-- ! - -ZBN !
S/C BLVD
INTERURB - CHRSTN 1 C E E C C E C
BRADY WAY
MONSTR- INTERURB 2 F F B B B B
NEST VALLEY
I405- 5158TH 3 C F E E D E D
SI80TH- S196TH 4 D E E E D E D
T -LINE BRIDGE 5 A B B C C D C 5
S -LINE BRIDGE 6 B E E C C C C
KLICKITAT DRIVE
I5 -S /C PKWY 7 C E E C D E C
STRANDER
SIC PKWY - ANDOV W B 8 D E C D E C
CHRSTN- W VALLEY 9 C E E C D E C
MINKLER
ANDOV E - W VALL 10 A A A A A 10
S. 180TH
W OF S/C PKWY 11 A C B D A 8 D 11
S/C PKW - ANDOV W 12 A C B E A A C 12
ANDOV E - W VALL 13 D F E F E E D 13
W VALL - OAKESDALE 14 8 E D E C D C 14
LIND-E VALLEY 15 B E D E C D C 15
S/C PKWY ,
MINKLER- STRANDER 16 A E C D C C D 16
S OF 5180TH 17 A A A A A B A 17
S. 188TH
PAC HWY- MILITARY 18 A C C E D C E 18
MILITARY RD
S 188TH -S 176TH 20 D F E F F F F 20
S. 200TH
ORILLIA -57TH AV 21 A A A A C A 8 21
A -14
■
TABLE 2.TUKNILA LEVEL OF SERVICE ON SELECTED LINKS - 1981 /2811. 'SOUTH 188TH CONNECTOR PROJECT' REI*
FACILITY >ALL SERVICE LEVELS A -F ARE ESTIMATED P M PEAK HOUR CAPACITY RESTRAINED(
& LIMITS INDEX 4 TO 11 T3 14 16 TO T9 INDEX 9.
!----- - - -! -- 1981- -!-- 2111 --! -- 2111-- !-- 2Wh -! - 2111 - -!-- 2111-- !-- ZM/ - -! -
ORILLIA /S 212TH
1 -5 TO ORILLIA 22 C F E E E E E . 22
FRASER -SR 181 23 C E E E E E E 23
E VALLEY-SR167 24 A 9 9 C C • C C 24
ALTERNATIVE 74
15 - S178TH 25
ALTERNATIVE T6
SR 181- OAKESDALE 28
E VALLEY -SR167 29
•
ALTERNATIVE TO-57TH AVE
S 211TH -C DRIVE 31
FREEWAYS
I5, NIL -S 188 32 . E F F F F F F 32
15, 5188 -S /C EX. 33 E F F F F F F 33
1415,15 -SIC ENT 34 F F E D 9 E D 34
I415,SR1111 -SR167 35 F F E 9 D E D 35
SR167,S 111 -I405 36 E F C E E 'C E = ' 36
expressway from I -5 to Kent in the SR 516 corridor, completion of Oaksdale
Avenue from S. 180th north to Empire Way, extension of Strander east to
Oaksdale, and the extension of Minkler west to Southcenter Parkway and east to
West Valley Road (SR 181). This network of assumed improvements is the basis
for evaluating the project alternatives.
With these highway improvements made by 2000, a few traffic situations can be
seen to be better than in Tl. The freeways are still LOS E -F, as is West Valley
Road and Orillia/S. 212th Street. South 180th Street is only LOS D from West
Valley to SR 167 and from S. 178th to Andover Park W. it is LOS A -B.
T4 - This scenario includes the S. 188th Street connector from the S. 188th Street /I -5
interchange to S. 180th west of Southcenter Parkway. This connector would
operate at LOS C, with approximately 3,000 trips per day using the new link
during the afternoon peak period. South 180th would experience LOS E -F, as
would I -5 and SR 167, S. 188th Street and West Valley Road, however Interstate
405 would improve to LOS D, and Klickitat Drive, Strander, and the "S" line
bridge would all improve to LOS C.
T6 - This scenario predicts the traffic impacts of building a new arterial across the
Green River valley along the S. 200th /S. 196th /S. 192nd corridor instead of
building the S. 188th Street connector. The new arterial would operate at LOS
A -B, with about 2,000 new trips per day. South 180th Street would improve to
LOS C east of West Valley Road. Interstate 5 and SR 167 would still experience
LOS E -F and I -405 would remain at LOS D. South 188th would also operate at
LOS D, and S. 200th at LOS C. West Valley Road would improve to LOS D with
the new interchange at SR 167 and S. 192nd Street.
T8 - This scenario includes only the widening to four ,lanes of S. 200th Street from
Orillia Road to 57th Avenue S., and of 57th Avenue S. from S. 200th to S. 180th.
This alternative does not attract much traffic, only 1,000 new trips per day.
Both S. 200th and 57th Avenue S. operate at LOS A -B. Interstate 5 and I -405
are LOS E -F, while SR 167 is LOS C because of the lack of additional cross -
valley traffic. South 180th Street is LOS A -B around Southcenter Parkway and
is LOS D from West Valley to East Valley.. South 188th Street is LOS C and
Orillia Road is still LOS E.
T9 - This scenario combines the T4 S. 188th connector with the T6 new arterial along
the S. 200th /S. 196th /S. 192nd corridor. There are 2,000 new trips to T4 and
1,400 to T6. Interstate 5 and SR 167 are both at LOS E -F, but I -405 is at LOS D.
A -16
South 180th Street would improve to LOS C -D over its entire length. South
188th and the west part of S. 212th Street would operate at LOS E. Southcenter
Parkway would experience LOS D traffic, although all major access points to the
CID would improve to LOS C.
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
Based on the technical work done under this contract, and on the review of current
planning work for the Tukwila area, the following are the findings and conclusions of
this report.
1. Present -day traffic flow volumes in Tukwila during the pm peak hour are congested
on both I -5 and I -405 and on West Valley Highway and Grady Way; other arterials
carry moderate volumes of traffic.
2. Auto travel is estimated to grow about 37 percent over the 16 -year period 1984 to
2000 in the Tukwila area due to growth in population and employment activities in
south King County.
3. Traffic growth by the year 2000 will cause substantial congestion on both the
freeway and arterial road systems, even with the regional traf1Spoitation plan in
place and with selected arterial improvements made by Rento% nd Tukwila. The
westerly part of S. 180th Street would experience LOS B, but from Andover East to
East Valley would be LOS D or worse.
4. The project alternative to construct the S. 188th Street connector would result in
LOS C on the project, and LOS E -F across S. 180th. Significant relief is provided
to Southcenter Boulevard, the "S" line bridge, Strander Boulevard and to Klickitat
Drive. South 188th and Military Road are at LOS E -F although the proposed T4
improvement at the I -5 /S. 188th Street interchange would reduce congestion to
LOS D -E.
5. The alternative to build a cross - valley arterial further south improves travel
conditions on S. 180th Street to LOS A -C generally. Klickitat Drive and West
Valley Road are LOS D. The new arterial itself is estimated to carry about 18,000
ADT although the Kent Transportation Study predicts a higher daily volume of
about 25,000 under different development assumptions for the East Hill.
6. The alternative to improve Frager Road results in a slightly better level of service
on S. 180th Street that the connector project does, but with higher levels of
congestion on I405, Southcenter Boulevard, West Valley, the "T" line bridge,
Klickitat Drive, Strander, Military, and Orillia Road.
A -17
7. The combination alternative (T4 /T6) to build both the S. 188th connector project .
and the cross- valley arterial results in reduced congestion at the major access
points to the . CID plus improved operations on S. 180th Street and West Valley
Road.
8. The I -5 and I -405 freeways in the Tukwila area will be congested under any
scenario of road development. The travel demand trying to use the freeway system
now and in . the future causes the major arterial routes to be overloaded with
traffic.
9. Transit and ridesharing facilities and services are important to urban travel, and
should be expanded in Tukwila area. At the present time, however, transit and
ridesharing do not reduce the need for additional highway capacity.
10. The traffic problems on S. 180th Street are and will be largely due , to its
intersections with West Valley and East Valley roads where large volumes of north
south and turning traffic are encountered.
11. Orillia Road /S. 212th Street will experience peak hour congestion under any of the
project alternatives, as does Military Road.
12. The construction of an adequate road system in the Green River valley will need
the active cooperation of Tukwila, Kent, Renton, King County, and the WSDOT, all
working together to prioritize and implement road improvements. The recent
prioritization work of the South King County Good Roads Task Force is an example
of such needed cooperation.
A -18
ADDENDUM
Nti
Other Scenarios Considered
In addition to the scenarios of road development that were evaluated in the report, the
following were also considered and eliminated for the reasons indicated. They are
shown on Map 1, in Project Alternatives section.
T5 - An alternative alignment of the S. 188th connector project in which the new
arterial is located easterly of the T4 alignment (closer to 57th Avenue S.) and
crosses 57th Avenue S. south of S. 180th Street to connect with Andover Park
West. This alternative route had the same effects on regional traffic patterns
as T4, and was dropped because of unpromising soils conditions on its alignment.
T7 - An alternative which provided a new connection between S. 200th Street at
Military Road and S. 212th Street near Orillia Road. The alternative attracted
little traffic and provided no improvement to CID accessibility. It was dropped
because of its lack of traffic impacts, and also because of severe terrain
difficulties on its general alignment.
Other Planning Work
There are several planning and project studies, and also highway and transit improve-
ments now underway or recently completed that affect the Tukwila /lower Green River
valley area. Among such are the following:
o transportation plan for Renton - Wilsey & Ham
o transportation plan for Kent - Wilsey & Ham
o Petrovitsky HOV study - Metro
o transit center study - Metro
o Tukwila park and ride lot - Metro
o I -405 HOV lanes - WSDOT
o . Renton /Tukwila /I -405 corridor study - PSCOG
o south corridor study - PSCOG
o prioritization of road improvement projects - South King County Good Roads Task
Force
o update of transportation plan - King County
o Southcenter Boulevard alignment - Tukwila
o transit and ridesharing service improvements - Metro
o update transportation plan - WSDOT
un '+r vaatri...V.N MEZVA*Z s UTIr;• ➢13 29:Cl:F.iNFIe� ` ?.7. S2 5V7/ l k k ' 7. : 9 3 �4i/ t9 ✓,: i".i�'7 ri�i'�, ;4i
MEMORANDUM
FACTS
ISSUE
TO: City of Tukwila
FROM: Law Offices of Kenneth B. Shellan & Associates
SUBJECT: Rezone And Amendment To Comprehensive Plan - Roy Martin
Mr. & Mrs. Roy Martin are the owners of the premises located at
5665 South 178th., Seattle, Washington. Their property is presently
zoned for agricultural use (R -A) and a comprehensive plan of Tukwila
designates the site as single family - residential. The Martin
property is located on the corner of 180th. and Southcenter Parkway.
Several retail and professional establishments, which comprise the
Pavilion Shopping Center which are located easterly across the street
from the Martin property. The traffic on both Southcenter Parkway
and 188th. Street is heavy at all times during the day.
The City of Tukwila has undergone a study of the area and is strongly
considering placing an additional heavily traveled arterial on or
adjacent to the Martin's property, namely the 188th. street connector.
The Martins are presently applying for a change in zoning of the
property and an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan. They are no
longer comfortable living in this area in their retirement years.
What was once a quiet agricultural and residential area has now become
a congested area with a heavy traffic flow and a large number of
businesses and commercial establishments and industrial facilities.
Mr. and Mrs. Martin have been approached by several developers who
wish to purchase their property, but when such developers discover
that the area was zoned agricultural they have withdrawn their offers.
The Martins will probably be unable to sell their property, because
very few people will be interested in purchasing property for residen-
tial - agricultural purposes, which is located in such a congested
area and is primarily suited for commercial or business purposes.
Furthermore, the market value of the property will substantially
increase if the property were rezoned to allow for business and
commercial establishments.
Whether the City of Tukwila should grant the Martin's application
for rezone from agricultural (R -A) to a commercial or business
designation based on a substantial change of circumstances in the
area and based on public interest.
Martin Memorandum
Page 2
DISCUSSION
The issue that arises in this case is whether conditions related to
the zoned area have so clearly changed as to call for a revision in
the zoning code of the City of Tukwila. There are several elements
which must be met to obtain a rezone of property. The proponents
of a rezone have the burden of proving that conditions have substan-
tially changed since the original zoning regulations and the rezone
must bear a substantial relationship to the public health, safety,
morals or welfare of the community. Parkridge vs. Seattle, 89 Wn.
2d 454, 462, 573 P.2d 359 (1978); Cathcart vs. Snohomish County,
96 Wn. 2d 201, 212, 634 P.2d 853 (1981); Bishop vs. Town of Houghton,
69 Wn. 2d 786, 793, 420 P.2d 363 (1966); Colella vs. King County,
14 Wn. A.pp. 247, 255 -56, 539 P.2d 693 (1975).
Colella vs. King County, supra is pertinent to the instant case.
In Colella, Mr. Colella's property adjoined a busy freeway on one
side and an airport on another side; the property was zoned suburban
residential. Many of the residents in the surrounding area simply were
waiting to be bought out by the City. Mr. Colella sought to have
his property up- zoned, but such application was denied by King County.
The court found that King County had acted arbitrarily and capriciously
in denying Colella's rezone application and granted the applicant his
ge rezone. The Appellate Court, quoting the trial court reasoned that
. "In short, the subject property had lost its residential character."
Id. at 255 -56.
Like the subject property in Colella, the Martin property has lost
its residential character. Substantial changes have occurred since
the enactment of the present zoning ordinance. The Pavilion has
recently been built and many other businesses have developed in the
surrounding vicinity of the Martin property. Traffic has increased
tremendously and will be increasing even more if the City of Tukwila
goes through with its plan (option E) to build the 188th connector
near or adjoining the Martin property. When the Martins initially
moved onto the subject property, the property was appropriately
designated R -A agricultural, but such designation now is completely
inappropriate. They are no longer comfortable living in this
congested area and cannot sale it under its present zoning designation.
In addition, the public welfare would in enhanced by a rezone that more
appropriately conforms to the surrounding area.
Those shopping and doing business in the surrounding area would in
all likelihood have access to more business establishments if the
Martin property is rezoned and subsequently developed by a purchaser
of their property. The Martin property is'a corner lot, therefore,
particularly assessable to public access. The rezone would benefit
the public, rather than have a detrimental impact on the community.
Mart Memorandum
Page 3
DATED this day of December, 1985.
Respectfully submitted,
Kenneth B. Shellan
Attorney at Law
...,- xn •ranGrzr,swnvotel.elvvrt -nt4 SteilICEKZ,M'. ;.` VP ZMIS P:trA:'
Furthermore, the comprehensive plan should be no obstacle to Mr. and
Mrs. Martins application for rezone. First, the Martins are also
applying for a change in the comprehensive plan designation or an
amendment to the comprehensive plan, which should be govern by the
same considerations mentioned above which mandate a rezone. Secondly,
a comprehensive plan is simply a blueprint; it is a guide that set
certain parameters in general term which suggest, but do not dictate
regulatory matters. Deviations from the comprehensive plan are not
automatically spot zoning. Each case must be decided on its own
facts. Buell vs. Bremerton, 80 Wn. 2d 518, 526, 495 P.2d 1358 (1972);
CONCLUSION
Out dated zoning regulations can become burdensome and unreasonable and
zoning authorities are responsible for modifying' such ordinances in
view of changed circumstances. Here, there is evidence that the
conditions in the vicinity of the Martin property have changed
substantially since the enactment of the present zoning code and are
continuing to change. The area abutting the Martin property is
inudated by the development of numerous businesses, including the
Pavilion Shopping Center. Traffic has increased greatly and will
continue to increase as the area builds up. In addition, if the
City of Tukwila goes through with plan E for the 188th street con-
nector, the area will become even more congested. Furthermore, there
is no evidence that the public welfare will suffer if a rezone is
granted, but rather, public welfare will be enhanced by the additional
commercial establishments in an already commercialized area.
Farr vs. The City of Bellevue: An Analogous Zoning
Reclassification Case.
Please find enclosed the oral opinion in the case of Farr
vs. the City of Bellevue. This case is incorporated in the
rezone documents because it closely resembles the facts of the
rezone at bar and is helpful in its discussion of the issues in
determining whether and when a rezone should be granted. In
particular, as highlighted in red throughout the opinion, the
case emphasizes the changing neighborhood conditions, the higher
density development permitted on neighboring parcels, and the
economic viability of the existing zoning designation. All of
these issues as well as others militated for a more dense zoning
designation in Bellevue and the same logic compels the same
conclusion for rezoning the subject property in the Martin
rezone.
:
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
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF RING
WILLET S. FARR, III, and )
EVELYN L. FARR, husband and )
wife, GRACE GOODING, SHIRLEY A.)
HOSIER, BETTY E. FARR -COX, ANNA)
MAE FARR- CHAPMAN, HELEN J. )
FARR -VAUX and CONTINENTAL )
PACIFIC, INC., a Washington )
corporation, ) NO. 83-
)
Plaintiffs, )
)
vs. )
)
CITY OF BELLEVUE, a municipal )
corporation, )
APPEARANCES:
For the Plaintiffs:
For the Defendants:
)
Defendant. )
COURT'S ORAL OPINION
Before: The Honorable GERARD M. SHELLAN
:/
June 28, 1984
King County Courthouse
Seattle, Wa.
JOHN L. HENDRICKSON
RICHARD L. GIDLEY
97
Reported by; Richard L. Ishmael, Official Court Reporter
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
THE COURT: First of all, I want to thank
counsel for the excellent briefs and supporting materials
that you provided me. I don't get briefs that well
prepared too often and I can tell that both counsel spent
a lot of time on this particular case, which is
challenging, to say the least. I also spent considerable
time on it. It sort of brought back memories, after
having spent 27 years as City Attorney in a neighboring
city. I know the aches and pains the City has to go
through and the problems they face.
This is an action by the plaintiffs seeking
writ of certiorari, declaratory judgment and claim for
inverse condemnation arising out of a decision by the
hearing examiner and the Bellevue City Council denying
•
plaintiffs' applications for the reclassification of
a parcel of land, approximately _ acres, within the
city from a single family residential classificaiton;
namely, R -2.5, meaning two and a half units per acre,
to a low -rise office classification known as (0). The
City's disposition of plaintiffs' application culminated
by the passage of a resolution known as Resolution No.
4250 onIOctober 3, 1983. As I mentioned previously
during oral arguments, zoning cases very often are
encumbered by approximately 75 percent emotional issues,
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
probably 10 percent legal issues and hopefully 15
percent common sense. That issue may depend on the
type of case you have and how long the fight may have
lasted. I will go into pretty much 'detail on this
case because I think it is an important issue and
undoubtedly some Appellate Court may review it.
The subject property here is an undeveloped
parcel located basically at the southwest corner of the
intersection of the Bel -Red Road and 148th Northeast
in the City of Bellevue. The plaintiffs' application
for the rezone was filed approximately two years ago in
July of 1982 and proposed the construction of seven
buildings of low height and design to blend in with the
topography of the land and the adjoining residential
area known as Glengarry, G- 1- e- n- g- a- r -r -y, located to
the south of the subject property. It also appears from
the record that nearly all the owners of this residential
subdivision had concurred in support of plaintiffs'
plan for the rezone. Counsel had suggested to the
Court that I review the subject property and surrounding
area to aid the Court in interpreting the lengthy record
and to further correlate the numerous photographs of
the general area that were furnished to me and I believe
identified as Exhibits 13 and 14 before the hearing
examiner. I have complied with your request on June 26,
3
c
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
1984, and as I indicated previously I have also
reviewed all of the documents, every single one of them,
as well as the excellent briefs that you have submitted.
I think some background information for the record here
on the subject parcel would be helpful.
The City apparently had acquired a portion of
the subject property in 1972 for the improvement and
expansion of the Bel -Road Road and thereafter in 1977
acquired some additional properties for right -of -way
purposes. Again in 1981 the City initiated additional
eminent domain proceedings for a small parcel of the
subject property to be used as a water or storage
detention site at or near the most easterly portion of
the plaintiffs' property.
There had been two prior rezone attempts by
plaintiffs; namely, in 1975 and 1979, which again were
denied apparently by a split vote of the City's legis-
lative body. The R -2.5 zoning was retained, which
actually had been in existence now for approximately 20
years, constituting a successor zoning to the County
after annexation of this property and other properties
known as the Sherwood Forest Annexation. The latest
denial by the City legislative body of the plaintiffs'
application was by a four -to -three vote.
The zoning history relative to the properties
;,
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
abutting the north and south strip of the Bel -Red Road
is extremely important in resolving the issue before the
Court. It is uncontradicted that all the property
abutting to the north of Bel -Red Road, which is a four-
lane road and with a turn lane, between 124th and 156th
Street, consists of various types of businesses,
commercial and some industrial. The Court presumes that
the industrial probably is on a nonconforming use ba
The area abutting the south side of said highway likewise
houses various businesses with an emphasis on office
use, a few commercial and recreational enterprises and
one large apartment house complex known as the Illahee.
There is no evidence that any single - familv residential
dwellings have been constructed along the south
corridor of the road for many nears and plaintiffs
unimproved property is the only one abutting the highway .
with an R -2.5 designation.
The record submitted to the Court also contains
a compilation of rezoning, more than two dozen or .so,
that were granted between 1965 and 1982 for properties
abutting the south boundary of the Bel -Red Road, again
between the 32 blocks of 124th and 156th, the great
majority of which were approved for office use, one I
believe for community business and two for high density
apartment uses. The depth of rezoning to office and othe
5
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
uses along the south side of this highway extended up
to a few hundred feet with residential development,
either single - family or multiple, to the south. It is
of interest to note that the City's land use map
designates many residential uses south of the rezoned
property along the highway that however are somewhat
less restrictive and allow multiple residential use,
such as R -5, R -10, R -20 and R -30, while plaintiffs',
property and the area south of it is limited to an R -2.5
zoning, which appears to be one of the most restrictive
in the general area.
The evidence at the hearing disclosed that the
minimum lot size in an R -2.5 zone is 13,500 square feet
and allows a site coverage of 35 percent. Plaintiffs'
proposed plan as submitted to the City would involve a
building site coverage of about 17 percent, which would
be considerably below the permissible level. It is
plaintiffs' position that low -rise design and rural
setting motif would be of greater benefit to the public,
especially the residential abutting owners to the south,
namely Glengarry, than a development for single or
multi - family development. The City denies plaintiffs'
contentions.
There are located directly across the street
from the subject property various business entities,
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
I1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
including a shopping center, a mini -lube establishment,
while the three remaining corners of the intersection
of Bel -Red and 148th house a savings and loan
institution, an Arco service station and a Jack In the
Box establishment.
The evidence adduced at the hearing, and I
want to emphasize that the Court is limited by case law
to the record made before the hearing examiner and the
City Council, but the evidence adduced at the hearing
is uncontradicted that the combined traffic flow at the
intersection of those two highways that I have mentioned
is in excess of 43,000 cars per day, which volume is
only exceeded by or equal to the intersection of
Bellevue Way and 8th, the busiest corner of the city.
Due to the widening of both highways in recent years it
is natural to assume, and this actually happened, that th
volume of traffic has increased very substantially.
It is undisputed that there is a very significant
concern about the resulting noise from this tremendous
traffic volume and experts testified that the existing
noise level is above the cutoff point between "adverse
impact" and "significant adverse impact." Such condition
would undoubtedly result in the construction of sound
barriers along most, if not all, the 500 to 700 -foot
frontage of the subject property along the Bel -Red Road
5
8
as well as the frontage, which I believe, is about 60
feet or so on 148th Northeast. There are already, as
I've observed, existing concrete walls and they're
somewhere between 7 and 12 feet high abutting some
residential developments along 148th Northeast. There
is obvious disagreement among the parties as to the
aesthetic benefits, if any, resulting from the erection
of additional walls to minimize the existing noise
level. It probably would be required for the protection
of residential users within the subject property.
Under plaintiffs' proposed plan there would
be means of access, or ingress and egress, to the subject
property from Bel -Red Road and then exits along 148th
Northeast limited to a right -hand turn.
Plaintiff_ introduced substantial evidence
before the hearing examiner that the existing zone
designation of the subject property would make it
impossible for any reasonable owner to develop th.s
property for residential use at a reasonable profit or
for economic advantage. The evidence before the hearing
examiner was basically uncontradicted that any •
development of this property for residential uses,
unless the density of at least 15 to 20 units per acre
were permitted, would result in substantial losses to
any developer and therefore, so the plaintiff claims,
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
the existing R -2.5 zoning or any similar zoning would
not be economically viable.
The evidence was further uncontradicted, at
least before the hearing examiner, that the present
fair market value of the subject property is approx-
imately $2.40 or $2.50 per square foot based on certain
appraisals, and also relying on what the City
actually paid for its most recent condemnation. The
City officials reviewing plaintiffs' proposed rezoning
plan concluded that it complied generally with the City
standards and was considered a well- designed project but
was not consistent as to use with the subject area
requirements of the City's Comprehensive Plan adopted
in 1981. For that reason and the Comprehensive Plan's
designation of single - family residential R -2.5
plaintiffs' proposal had to be rejected and it was
rejected. The City further maintained that it had a
right to provide for a cutoff of any further non-
residential development along the south boundary of the
Bel -Red Road even though the balance of that particular
corridor to the west and some to the east have been re-
zoned numerous times for office and similar uses during
the last 20 years. Also the City argued that plaintiffs'
property with its somewhat unique topographical features
made it a suitable residential area. Thus the battle
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
lines were drawn and the issues clearly defined.
Topographically the subject property is on
a bluff ranging anywhere from six to ten feet ahome the
existing road or road level of the Bellevue- Redmond
Road. The subject property is fairly long and it's
narrow. In other words, it's irregularly shaped. Due
to the fact that it lacks depth the parcel undoubtedly
would be heavily impacted by the severe noise level
emanating from heavy traffic from these two highways.
The view from the subject property, if you stand on it
right now, to the north and northeast, without any
screening, would disclose the existing Sternco Shopping
Center, service stations, fast -food restaurants and
similar commercial establishments. Also across the
street from the subject site is an undeveloped parcel of
property, which according to the record, is zoned for
office use; that property is bisected by what looks to
me like a deep gully there.
Plaintiffs' basic position is that there have
been continuous and substantial changes in the general
area of the subject property consisting of a heavy
increase in the amount of commercial development, the
almost doubling of the traffic volume over a number of
years, while at the same time the zoning now existing as
to subject property has been static for almost 20 years
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
as part of the City's zoning scheme. The City denies
plaintiffs' conclusions'and strongly maintains that the
subject property because of its topography and adjacent
zoning to the south is a proper location for future singl
family residences as mandated by the present zoning.
As to plaintiffs' particular design of the
office buildings, it should be noted that it is more or
less residential in scale, will have some natural
stained wood siding with pitched cedar shingle roofs.
The plan also includes a green belt buffer strip varying
in depth between 25 to 40 feet along the entire south
boundary of the site, which would therefore provide a
natural vegetative buffer to help screen any proposed
improvement from the people that live down in Glengarry.
Furthermore under plaintiffs' proposal most of the trees
on the property would be preserved by this development.
Generally one must conclude that the City
could not find any particular fault with the plan except
it did not meet the requirements of the Comprehensive
Plan as to use. Testimony by experts at the hearing
disclosed projections for increased traffic in the
general area which, of course, then would result in
increased noise levels. Noise levels at this particular
location are considered worse than at other locations
on this road because of the existing grade at that
e-
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
particular point. Plaintiffs maintain that utilization
of the area by a low -rise, low intensity office use would.
not require any corrective measures such as a concrete
wall as a barrier, which however would have to be .
installed in the case of residential use. Wall -type
barriers, according to the experts, could be avoided if
the residential units could be set back four or 500
feet from any existing highway to minimize any such
noise impact. But in this case because of the size and
configuration of the property there is insufficient
depth to locate residential units that far back from the
highway.
Let's discuss briefly the applicable law in
this matter. The Court has very carefully reviewed all
of the testimony and documents adduced at the hearing
and the applicable authorities that have been cited by
counsel. The Court is governed by the often stated
rule that regardless of how this Court or any other
Court might have decided the question before the City
Council the Court is not warranted in substituting its
own judgment or its own beliefs for that of a city and
its elected officials or in any way interfere in the
determination of the matter unless the decision under
review is arbitrary and unreasonable and constitutes
an abuse of discretion. Some courts have also held
1 0
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
L.
that in determining whether a municipal body's
administrative acts and policies may be upheld it should
be observed that the usual presumption of the validity
of the acts of public boards and officials does not
apply to acts involving the forfeiture of an individual's
right or the deprivation of the free use of its property,
and I believe plaintiff cited the case of Decar vs.
Napier, 137 Minn., 219. The Court's review of zoning
action is confined to determining whether the action
constitutes a manifest abuse of discretion involving
arbitrary and capricious conduct. Ordinarily the party
asserting such conduct has the burden of proof and the
act of the City must be upheld when reasonable minds
could differ regarding the existence of a substantial
relationship between the action taken and the public
health, safety, moral or general welfare.
I think the case of Colella vs. King County,
14 Wash. App. 247, a 1975 case, is pertinent here.
We have heard quite a bit about the Carlson
case, which has been cited by both counsel. In the
Carlson vs. Bellevue case, 73 Wn. 2d, 41, a 1968 case,
which incidentally involved the parcel close by the
subject parcel, the Court held as follows:
"The fact that a zoning classification prevents
the highest and most profitable use of property
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
does not lead to a conclusion that the zoning
regulation is unreasonable or confiscatory un-
less a limitation on the potentials of the
property in question together with other prop-
erty similarly situated clearly overcomes the
considerations of public health, safety and
general welfare inherent in the desire to main-
tain the integrity of the zoned areas.
"A primary consideration is whether or .
not there is a reasonable profitable alterna-
tive use to which the property is adaptable
under the applicable zoning classification."
Some of the material questions to be
answered in determining whether or not a zoning ordi-
nance is reasonable as applied to a given parel of land
the Court must consider the character of the neiahborboo
as a whole, the existing uses and zoning of nearby
property and the history of same, the amount by which
the property values are decreased or even increased,
the extent to which the diminution of values promotes
the public health, safety, morals and welfare, the
suitability of the subject property for the purposes for
which it is zoned and also, which is important, the len;th
of time a piece of property has remained unzoned in the
sense that it has been left unimproved considered in
14
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
the context of the land development within the total area
I think it should be emphasized that no single factor
and no single element is controlling but I think. each
of them must receive due consideration. Certainly the
case law is clear on the point that a property owner
is not entitled to a rezone in order to achieve the
highest profitable or economic benefit that he may
derive from the use of this property. There are many
other considerations that would overshadow any.such
desire; however, the property owner is entitled to a
reasonable and profitable use of his property,.which
envisions economic as well as functional use. I think
both elements have to be considered.
There has been considerable testimony and
discussion about the purpose of the Comprehensive Plan
and its application. I think it is safe to say that a
Comprehensive Plan is simply a blueprint, it is a guide
that sets certain parameters in general terms which
suggests but does not dictate various regulatory
measures. It usually, as some courts have said,
proposes rat than disposes. Deviation from a
Comprehensive Plan by increasing the area in which
particular use is permitted is not automatically spot
zoning. So the Court held in Buell vs. Bremerton, 80
Wn. 2d 518. It has been argued that rezoning must
15
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
substantially comply with the existing Comprehensive Plar.
Such, however, has not always been the test. Noncon-
formance with the Comprehensive Plan does not necessar-
ily render such action illegal. The plan is only a
general blueprint and thus only general conformance is
necessary. The case controlling is Cathcart vs.
Snohomish County, 96 Wn. 2d 201. Another case that has
been mentioned by both parties, and I think is
partially controlling, is Parkridge vs. Seattle, 89 Wn.
2d 545, a 1978 case. It sets forth the elements
involved in any rezoning action. A rezoning action
taken without the support of credible evidence is
arbitrary and capricious. The necessary relationship
to the public interest will not be presumed in a
rezoning, such an action being adjudicatory in nature.
Because review of the action of the hearing
examiner and the City Council in this instance was by
writ of certiorari the questions involving the merits to
be determined by the Court are as follows:
1.) whether there was any competent proof of
all the facts necessary to be proved, in order to
authorize the making of a determination;
2.) if there was any such proof, whether
there was upon all the evidence such a preponderance of
proof, against the existence thereof, rendered in an
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
action in a court, triable by a jury, as would be set
aside by the Court as being against the weight of the
evidence. In considering the evidence, we must keep in
mind there is no presumption of validity favoring the
action of rezone. The proponents of any rezone have
the burden of proof in demonstrating that conditions
have substantially changed since the original zoning
and that the rezone must bear a substantial relationship
to the public health, safety, morals and welfare.
3.) Although zoning usually seems to apply
a degree of permanency it is the duty of the appropriate
zoning authorities when conditions relating to a zoned
area has so clearly changed as to emphatically call for a
revision in zoning, to initiate proceedings and consider
the necessity of pertinent modifications of their zoning
ordinances.
The controlling case on that is Bishop vs. Town of
Houghton, 69 Wn. 2d 786. It's a 1966 case.
The Court would further hold that this duty on
the City is a continuing one. If the rule were other-
wise, outmoded, zoning regulations could become unreason-
able and the zoning authority's failure to suitably
amend or modify the ordinance could become arbitrary.
In such events, Courts can and should grant appropriate
relief.
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
I think the above -cited cases are sufficient
in our case here to provide us with the parameters in
assisting the Court in disposing of this particular
subject matter.
1.) The Court further finds in this case
that the subject property had been under one family
ownership for approximately 45 years and its zoning as
previously stated of R -2.5 inherited from King County
upon annexation back in 1965, has not been changed since.
2.) The petitioner after working on the
present proposal and also gaining favorable response
from the abutting residential areas to the south, which
process has taken apparently about three years,
submitted this proposal to the City fathers for a low -
rise residential -type office complex of approximately
68,000 square feet divided into seven separate
buildings. As previously stated, these buildings would
occupy approximately 17 percent of the total site area
and would retain the majority of existing vegetation on
the premises. The retention of the trees and other
vegetation would provide a suitable setting for the
subject improvement and its neighbors. Petitioner had
met the City's policies for all of the rezoning except
for the use, which under the City's existing ordinances
and resolutions would be in violation. The subject
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
property is narrow, irregular and due to its lack of
depth this parcel of property undoubtedly would be
heavily impacted by severe noise levels resulting from
traffic primarily on Bel -Red Road but also from the
other highway, 148th Northeast. Residential development
of this area would most likely require the construction
of concrete walls along the perimeter of the project to
minimize the impact. Petitioners have stated at the
hearings that in case the development for office building
would be permitted such walls would not be necessary.
The uncontradicted evidence further shows a substantial
increase in the traffic levels presently as stated about
43,000 vehicles per day. The traffic projections for
the next 10 to 15 years, according to the experts, one
may expect an additional increase between 44 and 67 per-
cent on these two intersecting highways.
3.) The present zoning of R -2.5 as related to
this particular parcel of property would not allow a
reasonable developer or owner to utilize the property on
a reasonable and profitable basis; that the cost of the
land based on its present fair market value, and it does
not make too much difference whether it's $2.40, $2.50
or $1.75, together with the cost of the site improvements
would heavily outweigh the fair market value of any such
completed lot thus resulting in a substantial loss to any
19
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
owner.
4.) The uncontradicted evidence indicates that
the City in its most recent condemnation of the small par
cel of the property for water retention paid $2.40 or $2.
per square foot based upon appraisal. The evidence
before the Court is silent as to whether the appraisers
involved took into consideration the present zoning or
any anticipated change in the zoning but in any event
the City paid it and the Court is also aware of the
fact that in some cases in eminent domain proceedings
some additional bonus is paid to avoid a lawsuit. I
think common sense would clearly dictate the economic
impossibility of any reasonable and profitable
development of this property if one simply multiplied
the square footage cost by the total parcel size and
divided same by the 15 lots that would be permitted now
under existing zoning. The resulting amount alone most
likely would exceed the market price of comparable lots
at this time and this figure would not even include the
site developments that were testified to at the hearing
and I'm talking about roads, utilities, et cetera.
5.) Furthermore the uncontradicted testimony
indicates that only a change of existing zoning to
approximately 15 to 20 units per acre would permit either
a break -even point or a small profit. Even if the
20
50
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
21
property owner would reduce the present fair market
value, let us say, by 30 percent the resulting cost per
foot together with the necessary site improvements
incidental thereto would by the evidence adduced at the
hearing exceed the prevailing fair market value for
similar lots in the general vicinity. Even if we
disregard completely the disadvantages of the existing
traffic flow the noise alone may impact any reasonable -
minded buyer who wants to buy a piece of property for
a single - family dwelling. Without question, the
petitioner - owner, as far as this Court is concerned, has
no legal right to expect and the City has no legal duty
to provide a maximum profit or even substantial profit in
justifying any rezone; however, every property owner
has the right to utilize his or her property in a
reasonable manner and expect some profitability and
economic benefit. The present existing restrictive
zoning as applied to this one parcel of property would
not allow the fulfillment of such expectations, even
minimum expectations.
6.) The Court further finds that there have
been tremendous changes in the neighborhood covering the
area between 124th and 156th since zoning was last
affixed to this parcel. The area abutting the north
line of Bel -Red Road is inundated in strip development
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
fashion by numerous businesses, numerous enterprises
including some shopping centers and some manufacturing
or industrial use. All of this was done in compliance
with the City's Comprehensive Plan; likewise between
those termini mentioned the area immediately south of
the Bel -Red Highway, except for petitioners'. parcel, has
been rezoned during the last 20 years or so on numerous
occasions for primarily office use as well as some
recreational uses. I think there is a racquet club in
there and also high density residential use. Furthermore
most of the property whether developed or undeveloped
south of the existing office and other uses has been
designated for higher density residential use than
plaintiffs' parcel. which is the onlv unimproved property
abutting this highway still designated as R -2.5.
8.) The evidence at the hearings futher disclo
that the great majority of property owners within
Glengarry division preferred to have a development such
as proposed by the petitioner vis -a -vis any high density
residential development. There is a recent case that
just was published, I would say two or three months ago,
and the title escapes me but I want to emphasize that
the desire of any particular neighboring group is not
controlling and just because a certain group of people
may oppose a certain development is not determinative
sed
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
as to whether rezoning should take place. The reverse
would apply. Just because some abutting owner is
supportive does not necessarily tip the scale in favor of
a rezone but is one of the elements to be considered but
it certainly is not controlling.
9.) The City in its announced policy for
residential development has concluded that any means of
ingress and egress would have to be channeled through the
Glengarry subdivision in lieu of entering or exiting fron
or onto Bel -Red Road. This plan of channeling traffic
to the adjoining subdivision obviously is not too highly
welcome by the Glengarry residents who have, in fact,
opposed it for some time and they apparently wish to
preserve their presently existing basically private roads
that, as we have at least apparently concluded during
our dialogue previously, are private except for one main
paved road running through this particular subdivision.
Therefore undoubtedly if the City's plan is carried out
eminent domain proceedings would have to be pursued
to provide public access from the Farr
development to or through the Glengarry subdivision to
148th. Diverting traffic of residential users from the
subject property would heavily impact, and I would say
most likely adversely, the tranquility of the Glengarry
inhabitants. The subject site at the present time has
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
I1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
no legal access rights to the south through Glengarry.
The testimony indicated that request for such access
by petitioners and others apparently have been rejected
in the past.
10.) The Court further finds that the City's
heretofore published policy No. 21F190 as part of its
Comprehensive Plan, which allows the following "low inten
sity low -rise office uses" are considered appropriate
outside the central business district in the following
locations:
One, in freeway corridors;
Two, in community retail districts;
Three, and to buffer residential and nonresi-
dential uses when appropriate.
Undoubtedly this policy in some form was
utilized by the City over the last two decades in
granting numerous rezones for office use occurring along
the south side of Bel -Red Road. Ostensibly it was meant
to provide a buffer or transition from the commercial
zoning use along the north side of Bel -Red Road and
residential areas further to the south of Bel -Red;
however, the City maintains that this buffer is not
applicable to the subject site.
The Court's conclusions in this matter are as
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
follows:
1.) The existing zoning as applied to the sub -
ject parcel is outdated, unrealistic and improper in view
of the substantial and significant changes that have
occurred in the conditions surrounding this parcel since
its original zoning in 1965 and prior thereto which
has not changed. The City has a duty to update and
bring current on a reasonable basis its Comprehensive
Plan in view of such substantial changes and its past
course of action, which the City has failed to do in
this case.
2.) Petitioners' proposal is in general
conformance with the provisions of the City's compre-
hensive policies except for use and that the City has
during the last 20 years rezoned property along the
south line of the Bel -Red Road for office and high
density multiple residential uses. To isolate petitione
Property and limit it to an R -2.5 zoning as the only
parcel along this whole area is clearly arbitrary and
capricious in view of all the evidence adduced at the
hearings.
3.) To limit petitioners' property to an
R -2.5 use would leave petitioners' property in an
uneconomical and unprofitable status as clearly
demonstrated by the preponderance of the evidence.
s'
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
4.) Petitioner's proposed zoning and
development is consistent with the zoning precedent
established by the City along the south corridor of
Bel -Red Road over a 20 -year period. Although the City
has an undeniable right by appropriate legislation to
establish definite boundaries for land use purposes • ..
it must be done in a consistent and nonarbitrary manner
and must give due recognition to major and substantial
changes occurring in any given neighborhood. In this
Court's opinion, the City has failed to do this in the
subject case.
5.) The City has failed to establish by any
credible evidence in the record before the Court that
petitioners' proposal would have any adverse or
detrimental effect on the residential area to the south;
namely, the Glengarry subdivision or others similarly
situated in the neighborhood. However it should be
remembered that the Court is not in any position and
cannot legally dictate to the City or give its blessing
to any certain development proposal since any such
authority is vested solely within the legislative body
of the municipality as long as it is exercised in 4'
nonarbitrary and noncapricious manner; as so stated in th
case of Colella vs. King County previously cited,
"If the judiciary is to serve its purpose,
26
e
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
S't • 1
it must be both academic and practical.
"The trial judge satisfied both aspects of
this requirement when he concluded that the decisior
of the examiner and the County Council and the
facts of the case was not only arbitrary and
capricious and unrealistic but also 'Not even
in good common sense.'"
This is from the Court of Appeals in Colella
vs. King County. This reviewing Court fully concurs with
the above quote and must find that the presently existing
R -2.5 zoning as limited solely to petitioners' undeveloped
property along the south side corridor of Bel -Red Road is
not only arbitrary and capricious but devoid of common
sense. There is no evidence whatever that the proposed
development would in any way affect adversely the public
health, welfare, safety or morals. Outmoded zoning
regulations can become unreasonable and the zoning
authorities must finally amend or modify the ordinances
in view of changed conditions as otherwise they may becone
arbitrary. In such cases, like the one before us, the
Courts have a duty to grant appropriate relief.
The Court further concludes that Resolution
No. 4250 is set aside and is void. Therefore this matte,
is remanded to the City for appropriate remedial actions
not inconsistent with the opinions herein expressed.
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
To reemphasize, it is not the Court's function to
require the City to approve or disapprove a specific
proposal by a property owner; however, in this case it
should be obvious based on much of the uncontradicted
evidence before the hearing examiner and the City
Council that petitioners' plan is a reasonable one
• considering all of the surrounding properties and uses
over the last 20 years or so and that the City's failure
to modify the restrictive zoning applicable only to
petitioners' property and to allow a similar use to
all other abutting property owners within a 30 -block area
was arbitrary and capricious and must be rectified.
The City's mandated to reclassify the subject property
by updating its plans so as to allow uses that are in
basic conformity with other properties abutting this
particular highway and not inconsistent with this
opinion.
I believe it would be helpful if the Court
would retain jurisdiction, at least for a little while,
to see what happens next in the saga of the Farr
property. That ends the Court's opinion. Are there any
questions by counsel?
MR. HENDRICKSON: Clarification of the last
point. You said the City should retain jurisdiction.
Did you mean the Court?
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
THE COURT: I'm sorry, the Court retain
jurisdiction. Not forever, just for a little while,
hopefully. Are there any further questions?
MR. HENDRICKSON: I have no questions, your
Honor.
MR. GIDLEY: None.
.....- .
THE COURT: All right, we'll stand at recess.
(Concluded.)
29
m� $�- -tea
rw 10.Q0
5vJ CYL44E • 118 5T
Slag 1.1
SeC'flotil
SF�
AL: �IC-3�3 -86
tnMrn4 Cane PN'4
b Rezoi.16
57th AVENUE
SOUTH
CROSS SECTION
A to A'
EAST TO WEST
SEPA WORST CASE
SCENARIO
70,000 sq. ft. building
80,000+ cubic yards of material
to be excavated
175 - 180 parking spaces
OP
Maximum 15% Grade
SOUTH 178TH STREET
Office Level
Basement Parking Garage
Office Level
(35,000 s.f.)
(35,000 s.f.)
1 Level Of Above Ground Parking
ELEVATION
140
130
120
110
40!
30
20
10
MR. AND MRS. ROY MA
FILE NUMBERS CN -86 -144
86 -19 -CPA
86 -20 -R
as
U
N 1
a
• eLY , ^' r..;.. d�:'lt, ,vtt 1.- .r }SF`;'i x.� a:.i :;'yh 1. '.r. j .)1. .° .✓"._• tf `J _ ..f ': 3nXyS' ',?jt'.;.,
�� ...�'4 { ,t �. ,,, �. , �',�: s�1, r t .�. ? '. � 3 ,sh , .,vy • ; ,� � ¢ : . ++r ,, , } r c , rr ' , t .�w. � ,�as,'
, �'.•:ga , fs... .� . ?t.J`. ..( k .•t ?+`�w .4.n..tt`,`4• tr_,?<. m .s, .. �, �k. ., @.i. ,,,i .z1.1`��1.�j?L•:.,.
�{
IA MM ,, ns ,a f } :.s<.wt tt • r •', 3 4r' `�T.C3 ''� ,t
^'���k+;:t';N.x,t.�l.��� ,:, +r: : f •.<Er,. iri,a,•, .�,a.. rfu.r.�r`•�rr� .x�!. �' <•v 9.
r,, � .. .tw'.P .. �.�.:,., ,... �: ... .: .' ' •� ." � `' :':: `. :;,.. 1. : ^, � .. '.,r :. ....
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIp pllrl!IIIIIIIIII 1l11i11 1 1 1 1 11111.1.11111111 1111 11 1 j 1111 pip1 t l i III12
0 16TNSINCH 1 2 3 _.4_ .,5._- ....._. _. ._ 6„ 7 ... 8 9 10 ' 11 KenelPHER"Y
IF i THIS MICROFILMED DOCUMENT.IS LESS
•
i CLEAR THAN' THIS ,NOTICE, IT 'IS-DUE TO
oc • 6z 9G Lz 9Z SZ nz CZ: Ez la THE sUALITY OF THE ORIGINAL DOCUMENT 6 8 4 9 5 17 e Z "" O
_ __ i CIIII iiii R inililii imliii l mi 1{ii 1111 nii I i � 11111ni1lIIII1111li 111111 n lI1 1111n1IIIIlII11 . il111111nlnl11111I Jiii11n11Jn11IIl111 �r
�n , •1 ,' u11n11�n111 n11C1 11111u 111 11i1 Will n 11ii nn n. 1 i k k.0
�. f . r `• . CF h s 4 � Rr , � r J:R bv in rx t ° ,s qye• 9F �•• � +
" ^r .. t r�' S s iY '. s, - .j.;, S z 1 t: e, k- ;.trr ?. .�
.,• ,,..3.,K*S�'1� .;:, x.•s.:..,. � �. n .r., ` �,.. � ,..a. v x:c a.., ,.,• >,.... x r.'k.,.. .... � ] " � rv. b a ..,, t r.,. •... ��P......i;1'.+ .,a , r , i. h.�t.. • rv.r• :, . <f.• , t..
100 APPROXIMATE
PROPOSED GRADE
90. FOR ALT. 'E',
IS. 188TH. ST. t ,
80
IS,W. CORNER
70
601
N.W. CORNER
50