HomeMy WebLinkAboutPermit 86-66-R - KAT0 - REZONE86-65-cpa
86-66-r
15419 62nd avenue south
KATO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT
COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLAN
ZONING CODE AMENDMENT
REZONE
KATO REZONE COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLAN AMENDMENT
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT
August 11, 1987
Cris Forrest Crumbaugh
Park Ridge Building
Suite 9
P.O. Box 58986
Seattle, Washington 98188
RE: Kato Rezone 86 -65- CPA /86 -66 -R
Dear Mr. Crumbaugh,
This letter serves to confirm the City's position regarding the
road easement referred to in your letter of August 3, 1987 as
follows:
1. The road easement described in the CONCOMITANT ZONING
AGREEMENT FOR KATO REZONE (hereafter referred to as the
easement) is acceptable.
2. The easement is to provide access to the Michio and Hisako
Kato property from 62nd Avenue South. The location of the
easement and the curb cut on 62nd Avenue So. is not firm and
may be moved to another location if acceptable to the City.
3. If both properties jointly develop and the City determines
that the roadway is not necessary, then the easement may be
removed.
4. The City will be responsible for filing the documents with
King County provided the applicants bear the cost of filing
fees. See the City Clerk.
Please contact Vernon Umetsu, Planning Department, at 433 -1858 if
you have any questions.
Si Ore
ick ee er
Planning Director
City of Tukwila
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
6200 Southcenter Boulevard
Tukwila, Washington 98188
(206) 433 -1849
.. �•v� �- i ""�<; � � ,� 'a :•r. •.. ...... . rw%! ,i 1 .`F! '... s'. 1. ., 'B.' ., C`"" e
•
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:
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
6200 Southcenter Boulevard
Tukwila Washington 98188
(206) 433 -1800
Gary L. VanDusen, Mayor
City of Tukwila
PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE
Planning Commission Public Hearing
87 -2 -CA - M - 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
"ci1:1!4wpm'v'. .'.: f:: a'-•
Dear Vernon:
.::JSs:i: i:L'.sS.e.'`.�v l.�:vrJ.4� ?:�t "� " .�4a t:il.iS�ri.:'1'. ' ��:. � >•.'
t
City of Tukwila
OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY
2001 6th Ave., Suite 2300
Seattle, Wa. 98121
Mr. Vernon Umetsu
Associate Planner
City of Tukwila
6200 Southcenter Boulevard
Tukwila, WA 98188
May 27, 1987
Re: Kato Rezone
N�nern .:uva.•'xarn�.:�w�.w�xnw.+a.�
As you probably know, the Katos requested, and the City
Council approved, the splitting of this rezone into two
Concomitant Zoning Agreements, one for the parcel owned by Tom
and Katie Kato and the other for the parcel owned by Michio and
Hisako Kato. Enclosed are the following documents which are
intended to accomplish this split:
1. A Concomitant Zoning Agreement to be signed by Tom and
Katie Kato;
2. A Concomitant Zoning Agreement to be signed by Michio
and Hisako Kato;
3. A copy of the revised ordinance approving the
comprehensive plan and zoning map amendments; and
4. A copy of the ordinance summary.
The changes in the ordinance and ordinance summary were
approved by the Council at its May 18, 1987 meeting. I am
forwarding the originals of those documents to Maxine under
separate cover. The originals of the Concomitant Zoning
Agreements have been forwarded to you so that you may obtain the
Kato& signatures on the documents so that they can be recorded.
'Mr. Vernon Umetsu
May 27, 1987.
Page -2-
JEH /gg
JEH00097L/0042.150.009
Enclosures
cc: Maxine Anderson
Very truly yours,
E. H
If, you have any questions concerning the agreements or the
procedure you need to go through to finalize the matter, please
give me a-call.
OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY
0042.150.009
JEH /sal /gg
05/12/87
05/27/87
and
JEH000450
CITY OF TUKWILA
WASHINGTON
ORDINANCE NO. /4/3 0
-1-
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA, WASHINGTON,
AMENDING THE COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE POLICY PLAN
DESIGNATION ON CERTAIN PROPERTY LOCATED GENERALLY AT
15419 62ND AVENUE SOUTH, FROM HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL
TO OFFICE AND REZONING THE SAME PROPERTY FROM R -4 (LOW
APARTMENTS) TO P -O (PROFESSIONAL /OFFICE), AND
AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF CONCOMITANT ZONING AGREEMENTS.
WHEREAS, Michio and Hisako Kato and Tom and Katie Kato, have
applied for a comprehensive plan amendment and rezone for certain
property located generally at 15419 62nd Avenue South, under City
file Nos. 86 -65 -CPA and 86 -66 -R, and
WHEREAS, the Tukwila Planning Commission held a public
hearing on January 22, 1987 to consider amending the
Comprehensive Land Use Policy Plan designation for the property
from High Density Residential to Office and also to consider
rezoning the property from R -4 (Low Apartments) to P -O
(Professional /Office), and
WHEREAS, after considering all testimony presented at the
public hearing, the Planning Commission, at public meeting held
on March 26, 1987, adopted findings and conclusions, together
with a recommendation to the City Council that the Comprehensive
Land Use Policy Plan amendment and rezone be approved subject to
the condition that no residential development be allowed on the
property at greater than the density permitted in the R -4 zone,
WHEREAS, the City Council held a public hearing on the
proposed rezone and Comprehensive Land Use Policy Plan amendment
on May 4, 1987 and at the conclusion of said hearing determined
to adopt the findings, conclusions and recommendation of the
Planning Commission as the City Council's decision and directed
JEH00045O
that the condition relating to residential density be
incorporated in a concomitant zoning agreement to be signed by
the owners of the property, now, therefore,
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA, WASHINGTON, DO
ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Findings and Conclusions. The City Council
hereby adopts the Findings and Conclusions of the Planning
Commission dated March 26, 1987 and relating to the Kato
property.
Section 2. Comprehensive Land Use Policy Plan Map
Amended. The Comprehensive Land Use Policy Plan Map of the City
of Tukwila, as adopted by Ordinance No. 1039, is hereby amended
by changing the designation of certain property generally located
at 15419 62nd Avenue South and more particularly described on
Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein by this
reference as if set forth in full, from High Density Residential
to Office, subject to execution of, and compliance with, the
terms and conditions of the Concomitant Zoning Agreements
attached hereto as Exhibits B and C and incorporated herein by
this reference as if set forth in full.
Section 3. Zoning Map Amended. The Official Zoning Map of
the City of Tukwila as adopted by Ordinance No. 1247, is hereby
amended to change the zoning classification for the property
described on Exhibit A from R -4 (Low Apartments) to P -O
(Professional /Office) subject to the execution of, and compliance
with all terms and conditions of, the Concomitant Zoning
Agreements attached hereto as Exhibits B and C.
Section 4. Authorization to Execute. The Mayor is hereby
authorized to execute, and the City Clerk authorized to attest
to, the Concomitant Zoning Agreements attached hereto as Exhibits
B and C.
Section 5. Duties of Planning Director. The Planning
Director is hereby instructed to make the necessary changes to
the Comprehensive Land Use Policy Plan and the Official Zoning
Map of the City to reflect the changes authorized by this
Ordinance and the Concomitant Zoning Agreements.
-2-
Section 6. Severability. If any section, sentence, clause
or phrase of this ordinance should be held to be invalid or
unconstitutional by a court of competent jurisdiction, such
invalidity or unconstitutionality shall not affect the validity
or constitutionality of any other section, sentence, clause or
phrase of this ordinance.
Section 7. Effective Date. This ordinance shall take
effect and be in full force five (5) days after publication of
the attached summary which is hereby approved.
PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA,
WASHINGTON, at a regular meeting thereof this /JP1' day
of //24. , 1987.
ATTEST /AUTHENTICATED:
C CL ERK, MAAA IN ANDERSON
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTO EY
JEH000450
FILED WITH THE CITY' ERK
PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL:
PUBLISHED:
EFFECTIVE DATE:
ORDINANCE NO. / ,/.J Q
X S'7
- /4 -y7
APPROVED:
ATTACHMENT A
• fix Ell.
DESCRIPTION:
PARCEL A:
That portion of tract 11, Interurban Addition to
Seattle, according to plat thereof, recorded in
Volume 10 of Plats, page 55, records of King
County, Washington, described as follows:
Beginning at the Southeast corner of said tract
11, thence South 89 ° 52' West along the Southerly .
line thereof 300.86 feet, thence North 0 ° O8'West
124.53 feet, thence North 89 °52'East 141.65 feet,
thence North 0 ° 08'West 38.26 feet, thence North
89 °52' East 159.21 feet to a point on the Easterly
line therof which is 162.79 feet North of the
point of beginning, thence South 0 ° 08' East 162.79
feet along the Easterly line of said tract 162.79
feet to the point of beginning.
PARCEL B:
That portion of the West 150 feet of the East 450.86 feet of the Tract 11, Interurban
Addition to the City of Seattle according to the plat recorded in Volume 10 of
Plats, page 55, in King County, Washington described as follows:
Beginning at the Southeast corner of the West 150 feet of the East 450.86 feet of
said Tract 11, thenceNO1 °21'40 "E along the East line thereof 124.53 feet, thence
N65°52'04"W along a line parallel to the centerline of Southcenter Boulevard
(Renton - Three Tree Point Road) 162.68 feet to the West line of the East 450.86
feet of said Tract 11, thence SO1 °21'40 "W 165.17 feet to the Northerly Margin of
PSM No. 1 as conveyed by deed under Auditors File No. 5473599, thence S69 °17'02 "W
along said highway margin 66.33 feet to intersect the South line of said Tract 11,
thence S88 °24'47"E along said south line 87.42 feet to the Point of Beginning.
0042.150.009
JEH /sal /gg
05/12/87
05/27/87
/V39
PUBLISH: VALLEY DAILY NEWS - SUNDAY, MAY 31, 1987
JEH000460
-1-
SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE NO. x,30
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA, WASHINGTON,
AMENDING THE COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE POLICY PLAN
DESIGNATION ON CERTAIN PROPERTY LOCATED GENERALLY AT
15419 62ND AVENUE SOUTH, FROM HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL
TO OFFICE AND REZONING THE SAME PROPERTY FROM R -4 (LOW
APARTMENTS) TO P -O (PROFESSIONAL /OFFICE), AND
AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF CONCOMITANT ZONING AGREEMENTS.
On >2ir 1r , 1987, the City Council of the
r./
City of Tukwila passed Ordinance No.
which provides as
follows:
Section 1. Adopts findings and conclusions.
Section 2. Amends the Comprehensive Land Use Policy Plan
designation property generally located at 15419 62nd Avenue South
and more particularly described on Exhibit A to this summary,
from High Density Residential to Office, subject to Concomitant
Zoning Agreements.
Section 3. Rezones the property from R -4 to P -O, subject to
Concomitant Zoning Agreements.
Section 4. Authorizes the Mayor and City Clerk to sign the
Concomitant Zoning Agreements.
Section 5. Prescribes the duties of the Planning Director.
Section 6. Provides for severability.
Section 7. Establishes an effective date.
The full text of this Ordinance will be mailed without
charge to anyone who submits a written request to the City Clerk
of the City of Tukwila for a copy of the text.
APPROVED by the City Council at their meeting of
`77;iz / /r , 1987.
MA I ANDER 0 . CITY CLERK
0042.150.009
JEH /sal /gg
05/12/87
05/27/87 .
JEH00047A
: :;: N FLED
r-t. U G ! 1 9 8 7
s: Director r,1 f cords
:j fk Ziections
t �. �` d.':' C" t9.:.. YS tfuACt.�A.•:Y.Y<�til"it71.t�ITY�
tt
CONCOMITANT ZONING AGREEMENT FOR KATO REZONE
-1-
t,/ 7/. . /L/3
1..; t ', 1 1 =
�� - or -027- 0393
WHEREAS, Michio and Hisako Kato (hereinafter referred to as "the
Owners "), have applied for a comprehensive plan amendment and
rezone for certain property located generally at 15419 62nd
Avenue South, under City file Nos. 86 -65 -CPA and 86 -66 -R, and
WHEREAS, the Tukwila Planning Commission held a public
hearing on January 22, 1987 to consider amending the
Comprehensive Land Use Policy Plan designation for the property
from High Density Residential to Office and also to consider
rezoning the property from R -4 (Low Apartments) to P -O
(Professional /Office), and
WHEREAS, after considering all testimony presented at the
public hearing, the Planning Commission, at public meeting held
on February 26, 1987, adopted findings and conclusions, together
with a recommendation to the City Council that the Comprehensive
Land Use Policy Plan amendment and rezone be approved subject to
the condition that no residential development be allowed on the
property at greater than the density permitted in the R -4 zone,
and
WHEREAS, the City Council held a public hearing on the
proposed rezone and Comprehensive Land Use Policy Plan amendment
on May 4, 1987 and at the conclusion of said hearing determined
to adopt the findings, conclusions and recommendation of the
Planning Commission as the City Council's decision and directed
that the condition relating to residential density be
incorporated in a concomitant zoning agreement to be signed by
the owners of the property, and
WHEREAS, the Owners have indicated a willingness to sign a
Concomitant Zoning Agreement limiting the uses on the property if
rezoned, now, therefore,
IN THE EVENT THAT the City of Tukwila approves a
Comprehensive Land Use Policy Plan Map amendment for the property
generally located at 15419 62nd Avenue South and more
particularly described on Exhibit A, attached hereto and
incorporated herein by this reference as if set forth in full,
from High Density Residential to Office and rezones the property
from R -4 to P -O, the Owners covenant and agree as follows:
ORIGINAL
JEH00047A
-2-
(.)
1. Restrictions on Development. No residential development
shall be permitted on the property on Exhibit A at a density
which is greater than the maximum density permitted under
the City's R -4' zoning regulations. The development
regulations of the Tukwila Zoning Code for RMH (Multiple -
Residence High Density) shall have no application to
development on the property and all residential development
shall be governed by the R -4 zoning regulations or such less
intensive residential development regulations as may apply
to the particular development proposed.
2. Binding. Fact - Recording. This Agreement shall be
recorded with the King County Recorder 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.
3. Police Power. Nothing in this Agreement shall be
construed to restrict the authority of the City to exercise
its police powers.
4. 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.
5. 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.
ORIGINAL
Hisako Kato
ACCEPTED BY:
THE CITY OF TUKWILA
Gar L. Vah Dusen,
ATTEST /AUTHENTICATED:
CITY CLERK, MAXINE ANDERSON
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY
BY i'aGed L ) ee
STATE OF WASHINGTON
)ss:
COUNTY OF King
I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that
Michio Kato signed this instrument and acknowledged it to be his
free and voluntary act for the purposes mentioned in this
instrument.
JEH00047A
DATED this
OWNERS
Michio Kato
DATED this % day of
day of
Mayor
-3-
ORIGINAL
, 1987.
'
7
NOTAR4 IC
My co ssion expires: *// 990 .
STATE OF WASHINGTON )
)ss:
COUNTY OF King ).
I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that
Hisako Kato signed this instrument and acknowledged it to be her
free and voluntary act for the purposes mentioned in this
instrument.
41 "
DATED this,/ day o
JEH00047A
-4-
EXHIBIT A
That portion of the West 150 feet of the. East 450.86 feet of
the Tract 11, Interurban Addition to the City of Seattle according
to the plat recorded 1n'Volume 10 of Plats, page 55, In King County,
Washington described as follows:
Beginning at the Southeast corner of the West 150 feet of the
East 450.86 feet of said Tract 11, thence N01'21'40 "E along the East
Tine thereof 124.53 feet, thence N65 °52'049/ along a line parallel
to the centerline of Southcenter Boulevard (Renton - Three Tree
.Point Road) 162.68 feet to the West line of the East 450.86 feet of
said Tract 11, thence S01 "W 165.17 feet to the Northerly
Margin of PSM No. 1 as conveyed by deed under Auditors File No.
5473599, thence S69 °17'02 "W along said highway margin 66.33 feet to
intersect the South line of said Tract 11, thence S88 ° 24'47 "E along
sald south line 87.42 feet to the Point of Beginning.
OR!GINAL
0042.150.009
JEH /sal /gg
05/12/87
05/27/87
COPY OF
OF :Wsr4AL I!LEJ x �� b i
AJG N/ 1987 gy_D — �7_ o39-
Director cf Records
CONCOMITANT ZONING AGREEMENT'FOR KATO REZONE
WHEREAS, Tom. and Katie Kato (hereinafter referred to as "the
Owners "), have applied for a comprehensive plan amendment and
rezone for certain property located generally at 15419 62nd
Avenue South, under City file Nos. 86 -65 -CPA and 86 -66 -R, and
WHEREAS, the Tukwila Planning Commission held a public
hearing on January 22, 1987 to consider amending the
Comprehensive Land Use Policy Plan designation for the property
from High Density Residential to Office and also to consider
rezoning the property from R -4 (Low Apartments) to P -O
(Professional /Office), and
WHEREAS, after considering all testimony presented at the
public hearing, the Planning Commission, at public meeting held
on February 26, 1987, adopted findings and conclusions together
with a recommendation to the City Council that the Comprehensive
Land Use Policy Plan amendment and rezone be approved subject to
the condition that no residential development be allowed on the
property at greater than the density permitted in the R -4 zone,
and
WHEREAS, the City Council held a public hearing on the
proposed rezone and Comprehensive Land Use Policy Plan amendment
on May 4, 1987 and at the conclusion of said hearing determined
to adopt the findings, conclusions and recommendation of the
Planning Commission as the City Council's decision and directed
that the condition relating to residential density be
incorporated in a concomitant zoning agreement to be signed by
the owners of the property, and
WHEREAS, the Owners have indicated a willingness to sign a
Concomitant Zoning Agreement limiting the uses on the property if
rezoned, now, therefore,
IN THE EVENT THAT the City of Tukwila approves a
Comprehensive Land Use Policy Plan Map amendment for the property
generally located at 15419 62nd Avenue South and more
particularly described on Exhibit A, attached hereto and
incorporated herein by this reference as if set forth in full,
from High Density Residential to Office and rezones the property
from R -4 to P -0, the Owners covenant and agree as follows:
JEH00096A
-1-
C t • I t 5,1
1. Restrictions on Development. No residential development
shall be permitted on the property on Exhibit A at a density
which is greater than the maximum density permitted under
the City's R -4 zoning regulations. The development
regulations of the Tukwila Zoning Code for RMH (Multiple -
Residence High Density) shall have no application to
development on the property and all residential development
shall be governed by the R -4 zoning regulations or such less
intensive residential development regulations as may apply
to the particular development proposed.
2. Binding Fact - Recording. This Agreement shall be
recorded with the King County Recorder 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 recokd this Agreement.
3. Police Power. Nothing in this Agreement shall be
construed to restrict the authority of the City to exercise
its police powers.
4. 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.
5. 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.
JEH00096A
-2-
1
1,J; \� I1 �..
OWNERS
JEH00096A
DATED this / day of
Tom Kato
Katie Kato
ACCEPTED BY:
THE CITY OF TUKWILA
Ga,ty L. Van Dusen, Mayor
ATTEST /AUTHENTICATED:
•
/I :?/t. C C ` ;�'! �` /C.. • -'-L' *' C
•CITY CLERK, MARINE ANDERSON
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
OFFICE • THE CITY ATTORNEY
BY
-3-
•
J
I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that Tom
Kato signed this instrument and acknowledged it to be his free
and voluntary act for the purposes mentioned in this instrument.
/
DATED this / day of
r-- ', 1 , '
1 •.-/ /
1987.
OTARYJPUBL3C
My commission expires: )/,9190
STATE OF WASHINGTON )
• )ss:
COUNTY OF King ),
I certif th t •I know or have satisfactory evidence that
/ 2
)1 2 ae ,srj'Q 1%G , `o
Katie Kato signed this instrument and acknowledged it to be her
free and voluntary act for the purposes mentioned in this
instrument.
JEH00096A
DATED this z::::day of Ke. /f J
NOTAR f? B C
My commission expires: 2.,//7/90.
-4-
, 1987.
n
EXHIBIT A
That portion of tract 11,. Interurban Addition to Seattle,
according to plat thereof, recorded in Volume 10 of Plats, page 55,
records of King County, Washington, descrilAd as follows:
Beginning at the Southeast corner of said tract 11, thence
South 89 ° 52' West along the Southerly line thereof 300.86 feet,
thence North 0 °80' West 124.53 feet, thence North 89°52' East 141.65
feet, thence North 0'80' West 38.26 feet, thence North 89'52' East
159.21 feet to a point on the Easterly line thereof which is 162.79
feet North of the point of beginning, thence South 0'80' East 162.79
feet along the Easterly line of said tract 162.79 feet to the point
of beginning. LESS the Easterly 6 feet thereof previously conveyed
to the City of Tukwila by Deed recorded under king County Auditors
file No. 8102100335
p ^ NAL
VU /sjn
Mr. Cris F. Crumbaugh
Post Office Box 58986
Seattle, WA 98188
City of Tukwila
6200 Southcenter Boulevard
Tukwila Washington 98188
(206) 433 -1800
Gary L. VanDusen, Mayor
,..: , 111 G'MVs...mizta mtrA 3; tuae s4v .wro ro.o.ww,.Akwx"Ma4"'
February 2, 1987
Subject: Kato's Applications
Dear Mr Crumbaugh:
This is to provide you with early notification of Planning Commission
action.
The Tukwila Planning Commission has recommended approval of the proposed
Comprehensive Plan amendment and rezone. The Commission's sole condition
is to limit the maximum potential for multi - family development to R -4.
The Planning Department will draft a Planning Commission report with the
Commission's recommendations for application approval at the Commission's
next meeting on February 26, 1987. The Planning Commission may change any
findings, conclusions or recommendations at the February meeting. The
Commission's finalized recommendation and report will be forwarded along
with all exhibits to the City Council who must take final action.
Please do not hesitate to contact me at 433 -1858 if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
Vernon M. Umetsu
Associate Planner
.: n��: ait...h.... �: L' ._..:i - a....• .,. ....•. ?:Y h.: iz .1 ■• ..:1:%�. ..! :x:1r.•Y ".C.��..e F.':: ..:!. SV•`... T�:. ?. .�.— !.......'.
City of Tukwila
"6200 Southcenter Boulevard
Tukwila Washington 98188
(206) 433 -1800
Gary L. VanDusen, Mayor
CITY OF TUKWILA
PLANNING COMMISSION
JANUARY 22, 1987
The meeting was called to order at 8:07 p.m. by Chairman Knudson.
Members present were Messrs. Knudson, Coplen, Larson and Kirsop.
Those members absent were Sowinski, Haggerton and Orrico.
Representing the staff were Rick Beeler, Vernon Umetsu, and
Joanne Johnson.
MINUTES
MR. COPLEN MOVED TO ACCEPT THE MINUTES OF THE DECEMBER 18, 1986
MEETING AS PRESENTED. MR. KIRSOP SECONDED THE MOTION WHICH
PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.
•x- CC 0 . z: 0 nw01.0-00 00w000.010
OLD BUSINESS - PLANNING COMMISSION
86 -50 -SPE: NENDELS INN John R. Dittrich requests approval of a
25% increase in sign area for a readerboard.
Mr. Beeler explained that the applicant, Ted Dahl, passed away
and staff has been working with his partner. Due to the time
constraints, they are requesting this application be continued to
the February Planning Commission meeting.
MR. LARSON MOVED AND MR. COPLEN SECONDED A MOTION TO CONTINUE
APPLICATION 86 -50 -SPE NENDELS INN TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION
MEETING OF FEBRUARY 26, 1987. MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.
NEW BUSINESS - PLANNING COMMISSION
86 -65 -CPA: KATO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT
86 -66 -R: KATO REZONE (Simultaneous Hearing)
Mr. Knudson opened the Public Hearing.
Mr. Orrico arrived at 8:15 p.m., but did not miss any significant
testimony.
pfn
Planning Commission
January 22, 1987
Page 2
4'vSf 't(,f.. Taw+' tir.s.awr.•+.�.
Cris Crumbaugh, 15215 52nd Avenue S. Suite 9, Tukwila, WA 98188,
represented the applicant. With respect to the appearance of
fairness issue, he informed the Commission that he has previously
represented Mr. Coplen on several occasions, however, it was
totally unrelated to the issue being heard.
Mr. Knudson asked if there was any objection to Mr. Coplen
participating in this action under these circumstances. No one
objected.
In response to a question raised by Mr. Beeler, Mr. Coplen felt
he could render an impartial decision on this application.
Mr. Crumbaugh also disclosed that he has retained Mr. Brad
Collins, former Planning Director for the City, to assist him in
this application.
Mr. Knudson asked if there was any objection to proceeding under
these circumstances. There were no objections.
Vernon Umetsu, representing the Planning staff, entered Staff
Report 86 -65 -CPA and 86 -66 -R as Exhibit I. He briefly reviewed
the Staff Report explaining that this is a quasi - judicial
proceeding.
An aerial photograph of the area of the proposed rezone, taken in
1986, was entered into the record as Exhibit II.
With respect to the appearance of fairness issue, Mr. Crumbaugh
disclosed that Mr. Collins has previously worked on a project for
Mr. Coplen's church.
There was no objection regarding this prior relationship, and the
hearing continued.
Mr. Umetsu continued briefing the Commission on the Staff Report
and concluded by recommending denial of both the requested Rezone
and Comprehensive Plan Amendment.
John Kelly, 6249 S. 153rd, Tukwila, WA. asked that Mr. Umetsu
reiterate his conclusions for clarification.
Mr. Umetsu clarified his conclusions for Mr. Kelly.
Mr. Crumbaugh introduced his clients, the Katos. He introduced a
letter from Rob Larson, Cushman and Wakefield, addressed to the
Planning Commission as Exhibit III. He then introduced as Exhibit
IV an enumeration of the reasons why this request for Rezone and
Comprehensive Plan Amendment should be approved.
Planning Commission
January 22, 1987
Page 3
v.. ^..::.. �fi..:f.'..:.�.f.✓::t "Ymirw.a.`. nomnv.�Nn>.nsrve.r.+a:. ire+ �.. n. r.. �-«... �...... �...-..... �...... �.. �»...... �.........».«.. w....... i... r.» a. w .<rvn.e�r...«x...- �..».....�....
City Ordinance No. 1230 was entered into the record as Exhibit V
and 13 photographs taken of the subject property and surrounding
area was introduced as Exhibit VI. He felt the high traffic
volumes and the zoning designations of the surrounding property
was not conducive to residential or multi - family development of
the subject property. He reviewed Exhibit IV for the Commission
in support of his position that this request should be approved.
Mr. Brad Collins, 411 First Avenue S. Suite 660, Seattle, 98101
reviewed the Comprehensive Plan, Comprehensive Plan Map, Zoning
Map. A map depicting the subject property and property above the
100 -foot topographical line, or corridor running along South -
center Blvd. and zoned P0, was entered into the record as Exhibit
VII. He then reviewed the Staff Report findings and conclusions
to demonstrate the reasons why this request should be approved.
Mr. Kelly asked if there are any height restrictions for a
building on the subject property.
Mr. Beeler answered that there is a height restriction of 35
feet.
Mr. Kelly inquired as to how many units are being considered, LID
participation and stability of the hillside.
Mr. Knudson stated that these issues would be addressed at the
time of development.
Mr. Kelly had no specific objection to the Rezone or Comprehen-
sive Plan Amendment.
Mr. Umetsu made comments in rebuttal which supported the position
that the request should be denied.
Mr. Gary Kato, 2000 Lakeridge Dr. S.W., Olympia, WA, discussed
buffering of noise levels, 100 -foot topographical line, and
slopes at this site.
Mr. Collins summarized the reasons why he felt the Commission
should approve the Rezone and Comprehensive Plan Amendment
request.
Mr. Knudson asked for additional public comments in support or
opposition to this request. There were none. He then closed the
public hearing.
Mr. Kirsop felt that offices are generally good neighbors and
don't interfere with apartments uses and do serve as a buffer.
::
He felt that lack of public opposition to this request means it
is a political favorable decision. Further, it a potential higher
tax base by development of the property to P0. A net reduction in
traffic will result by development of this property to office
use. He stated that a rezone to PO designation should include a
limit on the density allowed and that if there is apartment
development on the site, that the density shall not exceed that
allowed for R -4 designation.
Mr. Larson felt that the record should reflect that a precedent
is not being set by the approval of this rezone to a PO designa-
tion.
Discussion ensued by the Commission on the merits of this
request.
MR. ORRICO MOVED AND MR KIRSOP SECONDED A MOTION REGARDING ITEM
86 -65 -CPA AND 86 -66 -R, RECOMMENDING THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION
ADOPT THE FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS AS STATED BY COMMISSIONER
KIRSOP WITH SPECIAL NOTE TO THE LIMITATION ON THE ULTIMATE
DENSITY SHOULD THE PROJECT BE DEVELOPED AS RESIDENTIAL, AND
RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF THE COMPREHENSIVE
PLAN AMENDMENT AND APPROVAL OF THE REZONE REQUEST TO P0.
Mr. Beeler pointed out that this would result in a concomitant
agreement.
The consensus of the Commission was in favor of a PO zoning
designation for this property stating that it does conform to the
Comprehensive Plan if RMH residential densities are excluded,
however that the densities do not exceed the R -4.
A VOTE WAS TAKEN ON THE MOTION WHICH WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
The Commission directed the Planning Department staff to draft a
report which reflects its findings, conclusions and recommenda-
tions for review and adoption at its February 26, 1987 meeting.
Mr. Coplen was in favor of recommending to the City Council that
the RMH classification be eliminated from the PO zoning designa-
tion.
•
Planning Commission
January 22, 1987
Page 5
DIRECTOR'S REPORT
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 11:15 pm
Respectfully submitted,
Joanne Johnson
Secretary
The Commission asked the staff to draft a report for the Commis -
sion's review as to the ramifications of such a recommendation.
MR. KIRSOP MOVED AND MR. COPLEN SECONDED A MOTION TO DEFER THE
REMAINDER OF THE AGENDA TO THE FEBRUARY 26, 1987 MEETING. MOTION
CARRIED.
Mr. Beeler informed the Commission of several items which will be
heard at future meetings. They include the Silver View Plat and
Martin Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Rezone. He commented that
the City Council is in the process of reviewing the Valley View
Appeal
SAM a { "i�t'S,'.'i* `Wi -1+r!: .:u,. -���, • uce; • :a-k . ilrf 7 ,'o� n :I;."1 �. i •;fiat•. ;gVag5'��l'-`Y!.
:... c, ��' ec: s;, rxta, �' fs5; ak. vw���sbv, �; ru..,., i�.:? f$' i3�. . , «...�'t�'?�i$.l'��.,�.�"86::t. �;". idd�. ��: �" ��{ a�:. rl rr_ �` xW:° � ;`�'s,a, >.,,.,�•:�:.v:��;��C�y' Bch' �,'; �,; �„ �::: ..:?.d;V:�:x...•.•Us.s���:�:r;t
FILE NUMBER: 86 -65 -CPA and 86 -66 -R
APPLICANT: Michio and Hisako Kato / Tom and Katie Kato
REQUEST:
SUMMARY INFORMATION
Comprehensive Plan amendment from High Density
Residential to Office (File No. 86 -65 -CPA) and
rezone from R -4 (Low Apartments) to P -0
(Professional /Office) (File No. 86 -66 -R)
LOCATION: Generally, 15419 - 62nd Avenue South, including
the lot immediately to the west, as shown in
Exhibit 1, Attachments A and B.
COMPREHENSIVE
PLAN DESIGNATION: High Density Residential
ZONING DISTRICT: R -4 - Low Apartments
SEPA DETERMINATION:
COMMISSION
RECOMMENDATION:
CITY OF TUKWILA -(
PLANNING COMMISSION REPORT dP r41p G °F
Prepared February 10, 1987 . T g rr (67
A Determination of Non - Significance issued on
January 21, 1987.
Approval subject to limiting residential uses to
R -4 densities.
EXHIBITS: (A) Planning Department Staff Report
(B) Aerial Photo of Vicinity Around Subject Property
(C) Robert Larson Letter
(D) Some Reasons for Need of Comprehensive
Plan Change and Rezone
(E) Tukwila Ordinance Number 1230
(F) 13 Photos of Vicinity Around the Subject Property
(G) Map of P -0 Zoned Land Along Southcenter Boulevard
Above the 100 -foot Topographic Line
NOTE: Text with a right -hand bar indicates a Planning Commission
revision of the Planning Department Staff Report to reflect
its own Findings, Conclusions and Recommendations.
PLANNING COMMISSION
... ..,.,..,...
1. Project Description:
a. Amendment of the City of Tukwila Comprehensive Land Use Plan Map to
redesignate the subject area Office from High- Density Residential; and
b. Amendment of the Tukwila Zoning Code Map to redesignate the subject
parcels from R -4 (Medium- Density Residential) to P -0 (Professional -
Office).
The Comprehensive Plan amendment must be approved prior to, or simultaneous
with, the proposed rezone.
2. Property Area: The subject property is 1.50 acres in two parcels as shown
on the site plan in Exhibit A, Attachment A.
3. Site Development: The easterly parcel is developed with a single - family
residence along 62nd Avenue South and an orchard. The western parcel is
undeveloped.
The potential for quality multi- family development is very low given the
site's poor noise and air characteristics (Findings 6 and 7). Those charac-
teristics are less significant for office use. Therefore, a quality office
development is more likely to be developed on the site. An office use would
also tend to value views from the site much more highly than residential
units.
4. Terrain: The rezone site is located on the lower south face of Tukwila
Hill. The easterly half of the rezone area has slopes from 10 to 18 percent
(Exhibit A, Attachment E). The western half of the site has much steeper
slopes of 25 percent.
5. Soils: Soils are of the Alderwood series which are moderately well- drained
on the surface but more dense, more slow to drain at a depth of 20 to 40
inches. This type of soil does not generally pose unusual development
constraints. Spread footings may be satisfactory on the upper slopes while
pilings might be required on the down -slope side of the buildings.
6. Surrounding Land Use: Existing land use in the surrounding analysis area is
typically office uses to the south and multi - family uses to the north and
east (Exhibit A, Attachment F). To the west, the site is separated from a
convenience store and restaurant by a 100 -foot strip of undeveloped land.
Southcenter Boulevard is a major east /west arterial running immediately to
the south of the site. This arterial is a major cross - valley traffic cor-
ridor with correspondingly high traffic volumes.
7. Light /Noise /Air Quaiiity: Noise, glare, fumes from Southcenter Boulevard
and 1-405 and the S -Line bridge impact the subject property.
'r.
PLANNING COMMISSION
Staff Report
g.
.. PYA !. ■.tt.,,k , ,F, ..,, .;.
86 -65- CPA /86 -66 -R: Kato
Page 3
8. Access: formal access to the subject area is provided to the easterly
parcel from 62nd Avenue South. Access to the westerly parcel in from South -
center Boulevard via a 30 -foot easement. That easement has an average slope
of 25% which exceeds the permitted maximum grade of 15% for an access road.
The applicants have agreed to develop a joint access road to only 62nd
Avenue South, which will be used to serve the entire 1.50 acres. The 30-
foot road easement is not to be used.
9. Utilities: Water, sewer and stormwater facilities are adequate to serve the
site for both the existing and proposed uses.
10. Comprehensive Use Plan:
a. The Planning Department has identified a list of Comprehensive Plan
goals, objectives and policies which are generally applicable to this
proposal and listed them in Exhibit A, Attachment G.
b. The applicant has submitted a list of relevant Comprehensive Plan
goals, objectives and policies in support of his application (Ex-
hibit A, Attachment D).
c. The current Comprehensive Land Use Plan designation for the subject
site is "High- Density Residential" (Exhibit A, Attachment I).
d. The existing Comprehensive Land Use Plan map designations in the
surrounding area shows office and commercial uses along Southcenter
Boulevard up to the 100 -foot topographic line to the west of 62nd
Avenue South and 125 feet to the east of 62nd Avenue South.
e. The 125 -foot topographic line generally forms the crest of a steep
embankment to the west of the rezone site, but ceases to be as defined
a feature as slopes become gentler to the east (Exhibit A, Attach-
ment E).
f. .While areas above the crest of the steep embankment were envisioned for
medium and high- density residential uses in the 1977 Comprehensive Land
Use Plan Map, changes from residential to office uses along Southcenter
Boulevard since 1977 have been recognized as consistent with the Com-
prehensive Plan (Exhibit A, Attachment I).
There has been one amendment to the Comprehensive Land Use Plan map in
the Southcenter Boulevard area since its adoption in 1977. A 3.17 -acre
parcel on 65th Avenue, 400 feet north of Southcenter Boulevard was
redesignated Office from Medium - Density Residential and High- Density
Residential (81 -22 -CPA). There have been two rezones on Southcenter
Boulevard which did not require Comprehensive Plan amendments (see
Finding 11.c.).
• t i �F 5 Y i-•.. ,V r•x,.. .:,V ,Z Za i 4s'�"t TSB a�72.gti;``�'v 7 "'
a�.f �.r.:a J" 6fi., w4.�,. , . �. 1 ,m.k.:`i•i��'�i.';.'::Ltt�`itD f:;F•9d'[1.:.�._...:Gi.: r.t.r :':A�,':fF: �:3�:.'.t:.:..,. ,.. �: wL. �.7.�:'S {. ...i:.Yd�:sir:'t«+CC..7 �slilti.�w.n wn�as n.; r4ru: r; s�z. 2 +t5ri1:'�' {..- ..k?.t..�,.. �S�+�A�w..r. ,,. �t _....tLtt •.,la ' .
PLANNING COMMISSION
Staff Report
86 -65- CPA /86 -66 -R: Kato
Page 4
h. A Comprehensive Plan amendment is justified and proper when:
(1) There is an error in the factual basis of the plan.
(2) There is an unforeseen change in circumstances from the point at
which the plan was adopted.
(3) There is some unforeseen and demonstrated public need.
11. Tukwila Zoning Code:
a. The rezone site is designated R -4, Low Apartments in the Tukwila Zoning
Code. This is a high- density residential classification allowing a
maximum of 22 units per acre.
b. Existing zoning in the surrounding area reflect Comprehensive Land Use
Plan designations (Exhibit A, Attachment J). Parcels along Southcenter
Boulevard are zoned for P -0 (Professional- Office), C -2 (Regional Com-
mercial), and C -1 (Neighborhood Commercial). An exception to this
consistency are parcels fronting Southcenter Boulevard between 65th
Avenue South and Interurban Avenue South. These parcels are zoned for
single - family uses instead of the office uses envisioned in the Com-
prehensive Plan. Parcels lying substantially above the 100 -foot eleva-
tion have been zoned for multi- family uses (R -2, R -3, R -4 and RMH).
c.' There have been three relevant rezone actions located in the South -
center Boulevard area: two associated with the North Hill Office
Project (5900 Southcenter Boulevard) from RMH to P -0, and the Xerox
Building (6400 Southcenter Boulevard) from R -4 to P -0. The first two
rezone actions required were already consistent with the Comprehensive
Plan while the second North Hill Office - related rezone required a
Comprehensive Plan amendment.
d. The rezone of property to P -0 would result in higher residential
densities (i.e., RMH uses per TMC 18.26.020(1)) than are now allowed
under the property's R -4 zoning.
e. There are three Tukwila statutory criteria and four applicable case law
criteria which must be considered in evaluating a rezone application.
These criteria are listed below and discussed in the Conclusions sec-
tion of this report.
(1) Tukwila Zoning Code Criteria:
(a) 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.
(b) 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 supported by an architectural
Staff Report
'. y.Y C.. .; b.r r „ �7':4er +.n: tf •_ -1` ''a, +': :.Y(a':xr.�KJ'f:w: ;'y�}t�YQj
PLANNING COMMISSION 86 -65- CPA /86 -66 -R: Kato
Page 5
site plan showing the proposed development and its relation-
ship to surrounding areas as set forth in the application
form.
(c) 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.
(2) Case law rezone criteria not directly addressed in the Tukwila
Zoning Code:
(a) The relationship of the proposed zoning change to the exist-
ing land uses and zoning of surrounding or nearby property.
(b) What changes have occurred in the character, conditions or
surrounding neighborhood that would justify or otherwise
substantiate the rezone.
(c) The relative gain to the public as compared with the hardship
imposed upon the individual owner.
(d) 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 prop-
erty has remained unimproved considered in the context of
land development in the surrounding area.
f. The applicant has submitted information regarding consistency of the
proposed rezone with the Tukwila Zoning Code Criteria (Finding 10.d.),
which is shown in Exhibit A, Attachment K.
12. The RMH density permitted in the P -0 zone is inappropriate for this site,
but the R -4 density now permitted on the site is appropriate. Maximum
development of the site in RMH high- density residential use would be compar-
atively out of scale with the small size of the property, incompatible with
nearby uses, and generates increased traffic impact on 62nd Avenue South.
The P -0 zone, restricted to R -4 multi - family density, would not increase
existing expected traffic volumes on 62nd Avenue South. If the site is
developed in office uses, expected traffic on 62nd Avenue South would
decrease during peak hours due to opposing office traffic directions and
complementary peak hour periods.
13. At the time of adoption of the Comprehensive Land Use Policy Plan in 1977,
office development had not yet occurred along Southcenter Boulevard and
improvements were not completed or fully planned for that arterial. Proper-
ties along Southcenter Boulevard are now developed in office uses, and the
arterial generates traffic noise and air pollution impacts on all abutting
properties.
PLANNING COMMISSION
..... d. ^.Nllilx, S•l'e•.1'_^v •sr.:•r. ✓:nr,Mrr..v. +.
h _'r. yn• grr ?i�.:l yY78: ^.:'C ".7•T,.1 : ^ *'F':F e "�P;t;± .!Lm °r:x�.•` ?aJ ;�
86 -65- CPA /86 -66 -R: Kato
Staff Report Page 6
14. There is aTi additional public need for a deeper and more continuous buffer
zone between Southcenter Boulevard /I -405 and northerly residential uses, in
order to protect the public health, safety, and welfare from the impacts of
that major traffic corridor.
CONCLUSIONS REGARDING THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT
1. Finding any one of the comprehensive plan amendment criteria (Finding 10.h.)
in favor of the application may be sufficient to warrant changing the Com-
prehensive Plan.
2. There has been a change of circumstances due to increased traffic, planned
road improvements, and office development since 1977.
3. A public need exists for a more continuous buffer for residential use along
Southcenter Boulevard; to create a unified office area along Southcenter
Boulevard; to create the potential for a quality office development in place
of a mediocre apartment project; and to relieve uphill residents from more
peak hour traffic on 62nd Avenue South.
4. The proposed amendment complies with 26 Comprehensive Plan policies, gener-
ally conforms to the Comprehensive Plan Map, and is an appropriate expansion
of existing uses.
5. The compatibility of office uses with multi - family uses is expected to be
consistent with similar situations east of the project site on Tukwila Hill
where P -0 zones border multi - family zones. The use of Office districts as
transitional zones between multi - family and commercial districts implements
Comprehensive Plan Policy 4.4.1 (Comprehensive Plan, page 66).
6. Insurmountable constraints do not exist to using the subject parcels for
development under either R -4 or P -0 zones, based on land use compatibility
and the provision of public service.
7. The City of Tukwila Comprehensive Land Use Plan is the adopted policy to
guide in determining whether the site should be designated High- Density
Residential or Office. The generalized nature of the goals, objectives and
policies is not as clearly instructive as the Comprehensive Land Use Plan
Map. In this instance, the map is the clear interpretation of policy, and
that map indicates the proposed amendment is inconsistent with the Compre-
hensive Plan.
8. With increased travel on Southcenter Boulevard /I -405, the subject property
will become less desirable for residential uses. Development of an R -4
density is more appropriate than the denser RMH development.
1
&
-- CONCLUSIONS REGARDING REZONE PROPOSAL
86 -65- CPA /86 -66 -R: Kato
Page 7
Tukwila Zoning Code Rezone Criteria
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 rezone is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan in that
it is consistent with the Planning Commission's recommended amendment.
In general, the change is in the public interest because:
• There will be an improvement in potential uses (i.e., quality
office instead of mediocre apartments).
• The land use pattern will be improved by unifying office uses
along Southcenter Boulevard.
• The rezone will correct an error in analysis, made at the time of
Comprehensive Plan development, which left the site as the only
property along Southcenter Boulevard zoned for multi - family
instead of office uses.
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
supported by an architectural site plan showing the proposed development and
its relationship to surrounding areas as set forth in the application form.
A general site plan with property boundaries and building area foot-
print has been shown for illustrative purposes only (Exhibit A,
Attachment A). Data on height and obstruction impacts, soils, and
traffic impacts have been submitted by the applicant (Exhibit 1,
Attachment H). In general, P -0 uses would be compatible with surround-
ing land uses at this site (see Comprehensive Plan Conclusion Number
7).
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
(Ord. 1247 P1(Part), 1982).
The proposed rezone is in conformance with Comprehensive Plan Objec-
tives and Policies as discussed in Exhibit A, Attachment K (Applicant
Submittal) and Rezone Criteria Number 1.
- r .. I:�:i +: L y.:wi. .. Rt••< J 7 1+ C71:1: 7 77:. a( 1` un .....11.74wr1G^.:vve1.:tny::77,. 775v.• .777.
PLANNING COMMISSION
Staff Report
86 -65- CPA /86 -66 -R: Kato
Page 8
Case Law Rezone Criteria Not Directly
Addressed in the Tukwila Zoning Code
4. The relationship of the proposed zoning change to the existing land uses and
zoning of surrounding or nearby property.
Both R -4 uses and P -0 uses would be equally compatible with surrounding
and nearby property (see Conclusion 7). Office uses would also help to
unify Southcenter Boulevard's office developments.
5. What changes have occurred in the character, conditions or surrounding
neighborhood that would justify or otherwise substantiate the rezone.
In 1977 most Southcenter Boulevard office development had not yet
occurred. Southcenter Boulevard improvements were not completed or
fully planned. Increased traffic in Southcenter Boulevard /I -405 travel
corridor has occurred much more rapidly than anticipated in 1977.
Other office rezones have recognized these changes in conditions and
have been acted upon favorably by the City of Tukwila in 1981 and 1984.
Also, see Rezone Criteria Number 1.
6. The relative gain to the public as compared with the hardship imposed upon
the individual owner.
The public would gain by having created the potential for quality
office development (see Rezone Criterion #1). The owners would bear no
additional hardship if the proposal is approved or denied.
7. 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.
Surrounding properties along Southcenter Boulevard had the opportunity
to develop in either high density apartment or office uses. All of
these properties have opted for office development. That the subject
property (also along Southcenter Boulevard, but which can only be
developed as apartments) has remained vacant adequately demonstrates
its suitability for office uses, but not apartment uses.
RECOMMENDATION
The Planning Commission recommends approval of the Comprehensive Plan amendment
and the rezone for office and P -0 uses, subject to limiting any residential uses
to the maximum density permitted in the R -4 zone.
.u:'�(��!nt�� }mow.::. ;.2.±��t„» �„ia�bi�:;i�a:S.Y,�•. , ayi2S��:.�a Jzli>tinS,�zS�tvrrsaaac..,m� a..�
CITY OF TUKWILA
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
STAFF REPORT
Prepared January 16, 1987
SUMMARY INFORMATION
FILE NUMBER: 86 -65 -CPA and 86 -66 -R
APPLICANT: Michio and Hisako Kato / Tom and Katie Kato
REQUEST: Comprehensive Plan amendment from High Density Residential to
Office (File No. 86 -65 -CPA) and rezone from R -4 (Low Apartments)
to P -0 (Professional /Office) (File No. 86 -66 -R)
LOCATION: Generally, 15419 - 62nd Avenue South, including the lot
immediately to the west, as shown in Exhibits A and B.
COMPREHENSIVE
PLAN DESIGNATION: High Density Residential
ZONING DISTRICT: R -4 - Low Apartments
ATTACHMENTS:
SEPA DETERMINATION: A Determination of Non - Significance to be issued prior to
January 22, 1987.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Denial.
(A) Vicinity and Site Map
(B) Legal Descriptions
(C) Cris Crumbaugh letter of January 8, 1987
(D) Schedule I, Tukwila Central Permit System
(E) Topography
(F) Existing Land Use
(G) A list of relevant Comprehensive Plan goals, objectives,
and policies
(H) Project Impact Data
(I) Comprehensive Land Use Plan Map
(J) Existing Zoning Map
(K) Schedule H, Tukwila Central Permit System
•
: h;i�::.°r.�l:.: +: su 1iii;r?4 �d;ua .:, ° .s a..'. a,r�
i:: `u+W r. izMits7. 2 [': i m, ya .x.k i2 e r r -r. :
1. PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
FINDINGS
-2-
,If
a. Amendment of the City of Tukwila Comprehensive Land Use
Plan Map to redesignate the subject area Office from
High Density Residential, and
b. Amendment of the Tukwila Zoning Code Map to redesignate
the subject parcels from R -4 (Medium Density Residen-
tial) to P -0 (Professional - Office).
The Comprehensive Plan amendment must be approved prior to,
or simultaneous with the proposed rezone.
2. PROPERTY AREA: The subject property is 1.50 acres in two
parcels as shown in Attachment A.
3. EXISTING DEVELOPMENT: The easterly parcel is developed with
a single family residence along 62nd Avenue S. and an
orchard. The western parcel is undeveloped.
4. TERRAIN: The rezone site is located on the lower south face
of Tukwila Hill. The easterly half of the rezone area has
slopes from 10 to 18 percent (Attachment E). The western
half of the site has much steeper slopes of 25 percent.
5. SOILS: Soils are of the Alderwood series which are moder-
ately well drained on the surface but more dense, more slow
to drain at a depth of 20 to 40 inches. This type of soil
does not generally pose unusual development constraints.
Spread footings may be satisfactory on the upper slopes
while pilings might be required on the down -slope side of
buildings.
6. SURROUNDING LAND USE: Existing land use in the surrounding
analysis area is typically office uses to the south and
multi - family uses to the north and east (Attachment F). To
the west, the site is separated from a convenience store and
restaurant by a 100 foot strip of undeveloped land.
Southcenter Boulevard, a minor arterial runs to the south of
the rezone site.
7. ACCESS: Formal access to the subject area is provided to
the easterly parcel from 62nd Avenue South. Access to the
westerly parcel is from Southcenter Boulevard via a 30 -foot
easement. That easement has an average slope of 25% which
exceeds the permitted maximum grade of 15 percent for an
access road.
The applicants have agreed to develop a joint access road to
only 62nd Avenue S. which will be used to serve the entire
1.50 acres. The 30 -foot road easement is not to be used.
; «rtUmf +. mw,:F.rnym"a'
r e;:- g i. qaegUtaaik JO EYT.ea :usu: ±a , 4ii1Je N.x:r.WPWNWMIr:.wrorrL wxns.arvmm wK::sn^:zr,,zt
8. UTILITIES: Water, sewer and storm water facilities are
adequate to serve the site for the both the existing and
proposed uses.
9. COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLAN:
-tibnaW
a. The Planning Department has identified a list of
Comprehensive plan goals, objectives and policies which
are generally applicable to this proposal and listed
them in Attachment G.
b. The applicant has submitted a list of relevant Compre-
hensive Plan goals, objectives and policies in support
of his application (Attachment 0).
c. The current Comprehensive Land Use Plan designation for
the subject site is "High Density Residential" (Attach-
ment I).
d. The existing Comprehensive Land Use Plan Map designa-
tions in the surrounding area shows office and commer-
cial uses along Southcenter Boulevard up to the 100
foot typographic line. The only exception to this is
an area at the northeast corner of the intersection of
Macadam Road and Southcenter Boulevard.
e. The 100 foot topographic line generally forms the crest
of a steep embankment to the west of the rezone site,
but ceases to be as defined a feature as slopes become
gentler to the east (Attachment E).
f. Areas above the 100 foot topographic lines are envis-
ioned for medium and high density residential uses in
the Comprehensive Land Use Plan map (Attachment I).
g. There have been no amendments to the Comprehensive Land
Use Plan map along Southcenter Boulevard since its
adoption in 1977. However., there have been two rezones
(see Findings 10.c).
h. A Comprehensive Plan amendment is justified and proper
when:
i. there is an error in the factual basis of the
plan,
ii. there is an unforseen change in circumstances from
the point at which the plan was adopted, or
iii.. there is some unforeseen and demonstrated public
need.
Y:.! G:::. GJat'.`. yhrV, b: e YA:. 4n:, crarvx . +crns3:,Vazat:7si
10. TUKWILA ZONING CODE:
a. The rezone site is designated R -4, Low Apartments in
the Tukwila Zoning Code. This is a high density
residential classification allowing a maximum of 22
units per acre.
b. Existing zoning in the surrounding area reflect
Comprehensive Land Use Plan designations (Attachment
J). Parcels along Southcenter Boulevard are zoned for
P -0 (Professional - Office), C -2 (Regional Commercial)
and C -1 (Neighborhood Commercial). An exception to
this consistency are parcels fronting Southcenter
Boulevard between 65th Avenue S. and Interurban Avenue
S. These parcels are zoned for single family uses
instead of the office uses envisioned in the Comprehen-
sive Plan. Parcels lying substantially above the 100
foot elevation have been zoned for multi - family uses
(R -2, R -3, R -4 and RMH).
c. There have been two relevant rezone actions in the
analysis area, both located along Southcenter Boule-
vard: the North Hill Office project (5900 Southcenter
Boulevard) from RMH to P -0, and the Xerox Building
(6400 Southcenter Boulevard) from R -4 to P -0. Neither
rezone action required a Comprehensive Plan amendment.
d. There are three Tukwila statutory criteria and four
applicable case law criteria which must be considered
in evaluating a rezone application. These criteria are
listed below and discussed in the Conclusions section
of this report.
Tukwila Zoning Code Criteria
* 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 use or change in zoning requested in the zoning
map or this title for the establishment of commer-
cial, industrial, or residential use shall be
supported by an architectural site plan showing the
proposed development and its relationship to sur-
rounding areas as set forth in the application form;
and
* When the request is not in agreement with the compre-
hensive 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.
, w&,1
`.:f._ �;' �x. j1: Yti e''F �'�J�ii;; .�. , a , .?...,.y.„ .!.�. -.�. ... mrt ay...+ r .
: ti5".:✓ v= 5'.'• b.!:: r;:.. Tt'?.> Y�w�'!. F'.$t: �Y{ 1'.' fJ' M.' C:: �:`.`- h^ S:! t21` y:'!. �W'•'. i!. 94lQJtA.! Ht.l tMrif kHYJ! C2YAtl' ti9l T: �! trtif�7. fi\: Niv' �yi' lYX'. 1+ y7:.^.`,�`li7i'S'UV...'�"t`c..� t vl'.:�.�.t .
Case law rezone criteria not directly addressed in the
Tukwila Zoning Code:
* The relationship of the proposed zoning change to the
existing land uses and zoning of surrounding or
nearby property;
* What changes have occurred in the character, condi-
tions or surrounding neighborhood that would justify
or otherwise substantiate the rezone;
* The relative gain to the public as compared with the
hardship imposed upon the individual owner; and
* 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 consi-
dered in the context of land development in the
surrounding area.
e. The applicant has submitted information regarding
consistency of the proposed rezone with the Tukwila
Zoning Code Criteria (Finding 10.d.) which is shown in
Attachment K.
CONCLUSIONS REGARDING THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT
1. Finding any one the comprehensive plan amendment criteria
(Finding 9.h.) in favor of the application may be sufficient
to warrant changing the Comprehensive Plan.
2. No assertion is made by the applicant that an error exists
in the factual basis of the Comprehensive Plan.
3. The applicant submitted testimony to demonstrate changed
circumstances (Exhibit C). The Planning Department has
reviewed this information and conducted its own analysis.
The Department does not feel that a change in circumstances
is demonstrated. The area has developed in the manner which
is encouraged by the Comprehensive Plan and no changes
occurred to said plan in the surrounding area since its
adoption (as asserted stated in applicant's Exhibit C). The
actual development of vacant lands in an manner envisioned
by the Comprehensive Plan is not viewed by the staff to
constitute a change in circumstances.
4. The applicant submitted testimony to establish need (Exhibit
C and D). The Planning Department does not feel that
arguments regarding the superiority of using the parcel for
office over residential uses are applicable unless it can be
related to the public benefit.
ij F_rr ).t .... n.. .. .�. a... .... .i..a .._:''r..C; .. ,....
5. The applicant's submittal, Exhibit D, addresses the consist-
ency of the proposed rezone to the Comprehensive Plan
Objectives and Policies. The Planning Department finds that
the testimony submitted in Exhibit D:
(1) could be used as rationale for designating all multi- -
family areas adjacent to office /commercial uses to
"Office." The applicant's analysis is thus too
generalized to be appropriate in this specific case;
(2) simply restates the consistency of the existing
development pattern with the Comprehensive Plan; or
(3) are not necessarily accurate.
The Department disagrees with the analysis of Policy 2 on
page 45 and Policy 2 on page 60. The rezone will cross the
100 foot topographic line which separates multi - family from
office uses.
Providing opportunities for business expansion refers to
expansion of vacant land which has the appropriate Compre-
hensive Plan designation.
6. The compatibility of office uses with multi - family uses is
expected to be consistent with similar situations east of
the project site on Tukwila Hill where P -0 zones border
multi - family zones. The use of Office districts as transit-
ional zones between multi - family and commercial districts
implements Comprehensive Plan Policy 4.4.1 (Comprehensive
Plan Page 66).
7. Insurmountable constraints do not exist to using the subject
parcels for development under either R -4 or P -0 zones, based
on land use compatibility and the provision of public
service.
8. The City of Tukwila Comprehensive Land Use Plan is the
adopted policy to guide in determining whether the site
should be designated High Density Residential or Office.
The generalized nature of the goals, objectives and policies
is not as clearly instructive as the Comprehensive Land Use
Plan Map. In this instance, the Map is the clear interpret-
ation of policy, and that Map indicates the proposed
amendment is inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
9. Amending the Comprehensive Land Use Plan may be justified
and proper when it can be demonstrated that (a) the factual
basis of the plan was in error, (b) there has been a change
in circumstances since the plan was adopted, or (c) there is
a demonstrated public need. The applicant has not clearly
born the responsibility for demonstrating the above condi-
tions in favor of the application. However, testimony
entered during the public hearing may shed additional
insight into the basis for the requested change.
-6-
+'x:..k ..: v [ i, 4<+ .......'. LMa":. 7h3'.$',': 5;' ;:a;�;.;�`.'5�w•M�.�,2'�;�,"£.. i s :....
...
.�.`;.
CONCLUSIONS REGARDING REZONE PROPOSAL
Tukwila Zoning Code Rezone Criteria
(1) The use or change in zoning requested shall be in conformity
with the adopted comprehensive land use policy plan, the provi-
sions of this title, and the public interest;
The proposed rezone will only be consistent with the
Comprehensive PTan if the above Comprehensive Plan amendment
application is approved. The rezone will be in the public
interest to the extent that it is in conformance with the
Comprehensive Plan. To date, that conformance is not
clearly demonstrated.
(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 supported by an architectural site plan
showing the proposed development and its relationship to sur-
rounding areas as set forth in the application form;
A general site plan with property boundaries and building
area foot print has been shown for illustrative purposes
only (Attachment A). Data on height and obstruction
impacts, soils, and traffic impacts have been submitted by
the applicant (Attachment H). In general, P -0 uses would be
compatible with surrounding land uses at this site (see
Conclusion 7).
(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. (Ord. 1247 P1(Part), 1982).
Public need for additional P -0 land has not been demon-
strated (see Conclusion 4).
Case Law Rezone Criteria not directly addressed in the Tukwila
Zoning Code.
(4) The relationship of the proposed zoning change to the
existing land uses and zoning of surrounding or nearby property;
Both R -4 uses and P -0 uses would be equally compatible with
surrounding and nearby property (see Conclusion 7).
(5) What changes have occurred in the character, conditions or
surrounding neighborhood that would justify or otherwise substan-
tiate the rezone;
Any changes in circumstances that have occurred do not
justify a rezone (see Conclusion 3). Those changes imple-
mented the Comprehensive Plan.
RECOMMENDATION
(6) The relative gain to the public as compared with the
hardship imposed upon the individual owner;
No public need has been demonstrated for additional P -0. No
additional hardship would be imposed upon the owners if the
rezone application is denied.
(7) 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 property remains unchanged for many years (Finding 3)
which indicates no overwhelming demand for R -4 land.
No current development proposal has been submitted relative
to this property and no building permit applications for
offices have been received for various nearby vacant
properties along Southcenter Boulevard, although some zoning
permits have been granted. Therefore, the marketability for
P -0 land is not now clear.
The Planning Department's preliminary recommendation is to deny
the proposal because of lack of supportive information. However,
the public hearing may provide more information and staff wants
to enter a final recommendation after receipt of testimony.
SITE 7 " -- �
Adiegti. VICINITY MAP
130
- 100
70
ROAD EASEMENT
LAND USE & ZONING
1'.30"
.cal.
LOCATION
PROPOSIII SIZE
WEST (11 1%If
NORM OF SIZE
EAST UI Sill
SOU1H Of SIII.
ZONING
PRESENT - R -4
PROPOSED - P -0
P - 0
C -1
11-4
R -4
I' —O
LAND USE
PRESENT - VACANT
PROPOSED - PROFESSIONAL /OFFICE BLDG.
PARKING LOT /OFFICE BLDG.
MINI - MART - SERVICE STATION
CONDOMINIUMS
RLSIDENTAL
PROFESSIONAL /OFFICE (BLDG.
SOIITHCENT[R BLVD.
I -405
SECTION A -A
30 0 30
Nom
N ° .e
Olt *
Lao 87.48'
is'
A•
PT IN R/ W
Ne �
? ° ' Iv HT F R
5D
POSSIBLE BLDG. AREA
scale
141.65'
N88 ° 24'47' W
L PROPERTY LINE
■153. SITE PLAN
5r 0
MEM .0•111
foot
50
SOUTHCENTER
BLVD.
N I
m'
10
s ?b
A1 1.800FT
N88 24'47' W
300.86'
159.21'
N88 ° 24'47'W
OM MO
}25
1
L
UIY Ut IJKbAEA
PLANNING DEPT.
L
+ -F--
A la ALPHA ENGINEERS INC.
tzx Cnw•SlMUC1 WW EW...kf WAS: CV.SWLwi5
1= Fi.NORt N WM EASr %AMA ...ma
H
SITE PLAN & PROFILE
ate' r �r� q t }
Y Fi ltd �i•rr '��"L'.°g sk ��t : ^'°+nt:' !, '� *. , iu us.Yd1. fF:��''y h
nr..iF:�...�:��. x11„<.. ���r�6�+ �91t% In�: ��.�sk�'.{�'�`�+ 4:"��� °`�. a.�R:...�'ri+i�'4`:�.'1:', 1''� ."' L• C7'.^ SJ�? iivcn:l �' tZ�: aY` R�iiT .'S13d{44"�SY�.°!6'�.�6•:.d tA7. �f' iK '.66'�bt+t�J':fClfa.tda.4.,.:�' t�i�`.•'"t•"�W �lst ow.
DESCRIPTION:
PARCEL A:
A rri4 oil err c �
That portion of tract 11, Interurban Addition to
Seattle, according to plat thereof, recorded in
Volume 10 of Plats, page 55, records of King
County, W described as follows:
Beginning at the Southeast corner of said tract
11, thence South 89 °52' West along the Southerly
line thereof 300.86 feet, thence North 0 °O8'West
124.53 feet, thence North 89 °52'East 141.65 feet,
thence North 0 °08'West 38.26 feet, thence North
89 °52' East 159.21 feet to a point on the Easterly
line therof which is 162.79 feet North of the
point of beginning, thence South 0 °08' East 162.79
feet along the Easterly line of said tract 162.79
feet to the point of beginning.
PARCEL B:
That portion of the West 150 feet of the East 450.86 feet of the Tract 11, Interurban
Addition to the City of Seattle according to the plat recorded in Volume 10 of
Plats, page 55, in King County, Washington described as follows:
Beginning at the Southeast corner of the West 150 feet of the East 450.86 feet of
said Tract 11, thence NO1 °21'40 "E along the East line thereof 124.53 feet, thence
N65 °52'04 "W along a line parallel to the centerline of Southcenter Boulevard
(Renton - Three Tree Point Road) 162.68 feet to the West line of the East 450.86
feet of said Tract 11, thence SO1 °21'40 "W 165.17 feet to the Northerly Margin of
PSM No. 1 as conveyed by deed under Auditors File No. 5473599, thence S69 ° 17'02 "W
along said highway margin 66.33 feet to intersect the South line of said Tract 11,
thence S88 °24'47 "E along said south line 87.42 feet to the Point of Beginning.
u
A- r74 CVME'N• 7
Dear Mr. Umetsu:
LAW OFFICES OF
CRIS FORREST CRUMBAUGH
PARK RIDGE BUILDING SUITE 9
15215 52ND AVENUE SOUTH
P.O. BOX 58986
TUKWILA, WASHINGTON 98188
1206) 241.7734
Mr. Vernon Umetsu
City of Tukwila Planning Department
6200 Southcenter Blvd.
Tukwila, Washington 9188
RE: KATO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT
AND REZONE APPLICATION
This letter supplements our previous materials
submitted in connection with the above - referenced
applications.
January 8, 1987
As you know I was quite shocked to hear from the
Planning Deparment two days ago that you are now considering
submitting a staff report denial of the Kato's
Comprehensive Plan amendment request. From the time of our
pre - application meeting with City staff in July to the
present, the staff never indicated there appeared to be any
significant problem from a planning viewpoint with this
request. I do want to thank you for providing me the
opportunity to respond to your comments before preparation
of the staff report.
We believe after reviewing this matter that both the
Comprehensive Plan Map amendment and the rezone are
justified and proper. There have been changes in
circumstances since the original Comprehensive Plan Map was
adopted in 1977 or 1978. We also believe that if the
specific property had been discussed more at that time that
additional facts would have been brought to light about
designation as Office. Additionally, we think there is need
for this zoning in the particular area.
Since the original Comprehensive plan was adopted there
has been a change in circumstances in that new office
development has occurred all along Southcenter Boulevard.
The Southcenter Boulevard corridor has become an office
corridor. This is the only piece of residential property in
that area which is fronting on Southcenter Boulevard. In
fact, from 65th all the way to I -5, this is the only
residentially zoned property occurring on the corridor.
.ry ...... ....p.. -•r i . .. ...... - .t. ^p::- i::Ji ^t C.'A : <r:. "7:.:.. ., ....a ...�.
High traffic has developed on the I -405 ocrridor and
the Southcenter Boulevard corridor. These high traffic
counts cause more serious impact to R -4 land residential
uses rather than professional office buildings.
Additionally, the proposed improvements to Southcenter
Boulevard and the proposed Grady Way improvements will
additionally cause higher impacts here.
Under the present circumstances there will be offices
on both sides of the subject property. At the time of
development of the Comprehensive Plan the property to the
west was to be zoned multi - family.
From my experience in the City, I am aware that there
is and has developed from people living in the area,
opposition to continued high density multi - family
development on the Tukwila hill. Professional offices would
have less impact and it is appropriate in this area
especially when the property borders in part on Southcenter
Boulevard.
The property is more similar to the City Hall property,
the North Hill property, the Xerox property and the changes
made to them, then residential properties.
We understand that the Comprehensive plan in its
preparation process was changed at before it was adopted for
at least a portion of the Xerox property recognizing a
similar situation. The Katos did not fully participate in
the Comprehensive Plan development process and I am sure if
they would have, they would have dealt with this problem at
that time.
The comprehensive plan was adopted in 1977 or early
1978, that was almost ten years ago. This is a minor change
request and it should be noted that our last comprehensive
planning process started only fifteen years after the 1961
Comprehensive Plan was adopted. Therefore, this request is
not a quick change after the plan has been adopted.
In approximately 1982, five years ago, when several
changes were made to the Comprehensive Plan, one of those
was to change zoning to allow a similar change as requested
on the Lynch property behind the. Xerox building which fronts
on 65th Avenue South.
Again, the comprehensive plan, according to law, is
only a general plan stating the policy of the City. It is
not a site specific zoning map and is used as a general
guide for policy development in the city. This property is
sandwiched between two offices developments and fronts on a
high impact corridor and we believe it is totally consistent
to read the plan to allow such a change without amendment.
The Staff has chosen not to do this and we feel that it
k `"9 ri&lai z�1! a zil42't:.t'`nCi: S417hT+.` S"f?..'S C.16,: t.wMfaVI'tL"
MaMcIZI> Mx„attt�steta5�tMst.4rSMgMa�.�r�nau tM,.,
should allow an amendment to the plan to allow this property
to be consistent with neighboring properties in the area.
We do not believe a significant policy decision is involved
and believe this is consistent with proper planning within
the City.
Again, thank you for allowing us to respond. You have
stated that we have approximately until January 15, 1987 to
get some minor map changes done and we will try to get those
off to you as soon as possible so they may be mailed out
with the Planning Commissions's packet.
If you have any questions or comments, please feel free
to contact me at any time.
Very , my
u
C " is F. Crumbau
Attorney At Law
s,
Airr Pf Grote/ 7" b
CITY OF TUKWILA
Central Permit System
MASTER LAND DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION FORM
S C H E D U L E
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
AMENDMENT
EXISTING COMP. PLAN DESIGNATION HDR PROPOSED COMP. PLAN DESIGNATION fffirp
EXISTING ZONING R -4
PROPOSED USE
Office and parking
EXISTING USE AND CLASSIFICATION OF SURROUNDING PROPERTIES:
NORTH
SOUTH
EAST
WEST
USE
R -4 High Dens_ Resid. Vacant / Multi- family
P -0 Office Office and Southcenter Rlvd
R -4 High Dens. Resid. Multi- family and 62nd Avenue South
P -0 & C -1 'Office & Commercial Vacant / Community Retail
ZONE
COMP. PLAN DES1G.
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
Goal 5 12 The property along Southcenter Boulevard has become devoted to quality
Goal 6 .12 professional office buildings which take advantage of the hillside
Goal 1 15 views along a high travel corridor easily accessed by professionals
Goal 2 15 wishing to reside in the Tukwila area.
Goal 1 18 The development of quality professional offices along Southcenter Blvd
Goal 2 18 has been a consistent and healthy element of economic growth in
Goal 3 18 Tukwila.
Object.3 25 The use of the subject property will take advantage of the hillside
Pol. 1 26 view along Southcenter Boulevard while preserving the views of
Pol: 2 26 residents further uphill.
Obj.•6 28 The hillside has provided stable building sites for other office
Pol. 1 29 buildings including City Hall, and it is not located in an environment -
Obj. 8 30 ally sensitive area.
Obj. 1 45 ) Residential neighborhoods are protected from the office use of this
Pol. 1 45 site by topographical separation and vehicular traffic access directly
Pol. 4 45 to high travel corridors without going through residential areas.
Obj. 1 60 Thp Site nfferS a Continuation of quality professional affire usP
Pol. 1 60 along Southcenter Boulevard that is a steady growth of the Tukwila
. Pol. 2 60 business community.
IVA
c
Obj. 4 65 The proposed rezone and subsequent use will add to the
Pol 1 66 establishment of a quality office area as well as serve as
Pol. 2 66 a buffer between uphill residential land uses and the
Pol. 3 66. Southcenter B oulevard /I -405 high travel corridor. Since
any subsequent office building will be subject to BAR
approval, design compatibility to adjacent uses and
sensitivity to the high amenity of view will be assured.
Pol. 10 74 The access easement to 62nd Ave. S. is a much safer access than
Pol. 11 74 the Southcenter Boulevard Access. The noise from the Southcenter
Boulevard /I -405 high travel corridor will be mitigated by
the placement of an office building, which is less sensitive
to noise interference, between the major roads and the uphill
residential areas.
Obj. 3 76 The office use on the Southcenter Boulevard bus route will
promote increase use of the transit system. Access to
62nd Ave. S. is convenient to the bus stops at the 62nd &
Southcenter Boulevard intersection.
x
275
25
x 275
TTRc KMevT
SOUT HCENTER
Area Topograhphy
Scale: 1" =200'
26.5
/47.0
1
x
245
/ii r it r
153RD
'1
1
I)
�--� Poved
• . . „ _ - • • •
SI o •
p . fit,
1:4 • ••••-• ..."••■•
•••• •
•
S R 5 • t .
7
Boundary
O EM • .■ • — — • — • — •
•
Analysis Area
•
•
•
I MMM1 ■■• 1••• • •MI • =I= ••J
1
1
1
•
; , •
••••••
4TTAC.#IMEW F
Existing Land Use
Use Areas
17.771 Office Mt. Multi-Family Park
Retail/Commercial 1= Single Family l Vacant
'1 •,.
--- • 7 .1 :‘ ,
il li
1
...7.7
1.4
0 :..' ;!, ..7••••
4 - - .i:'. 2 : - s .'.• .. '' . ;....‘,..
. •' - :-.-.461... • •,. •
ti. ......., I ,
. • * ... . ': -..3 -:. i... . .. . F. . 717 . - " 6 ' . . . ........... . ...::
..-. . . - • -. '''''•:...'...TL,..,, . - ..; 7.1/4, : • - .....
- ... • . . . •••'. ReT... .... -
..r'
• ---/. '---- - :^'72..-- — -
0 600'
North
Page 12 Goal 6
Page 13 Goal 8
Page 15 gaol 1
Page 15 pool 2
Page 18 goal 1
Page 18 goal 2
Page 18 goal 3
Page 25 OBJECTIVE 3.
:
:
ENVIRONMENT.
,• rA c #Mews'" b ..
A LIST OF RELEVANT COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLAN GOALS, OBJECTIVES AND POLICIES.
...STRIKE A BALANCE BETWEEN ECONOMY AND ENVIRONMENT. WHILE THE CITY
SHOULD ENCOURAGE DEVELOPMENT AND STRIVE TO PROVIDE A HEALTHY ECONOMIC
CLIMATE, IT SHOULD BE SENSITIVE TO THE NATURAL LIMITATIONS AND
HAZARDS IMPOSED BY THE PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT AND THE TREMENDOUS
NATURAL AMENITIES WHICH THAT ENVIRONMENT AFFORDS.
...ATTAIN A BALANCE IN THE LAND USE PATTERN OF THE COMMUNITY.
GAUGE DEVELOPMENT OF THE LAND IN A MANNER SUITABLE TO THE NATURAL
USE AND PRESERVE THE NATURAL FEATURES AND RESOURCES OF THE PHYSICAL
ENVIRONMENT IN A WISE AND POSTERITY - ORIENTED MANNER.
ASSURE HEALTHY ECONOMIC GROWTH THROUGH INCREASED EMPLOYMENT, DIVER-
SIFICATION, AND STRENGTHENING OF BUSINESS AND INDUSTRY.
ASSURE A HEALTHY PACE OF ECONOMIC GROWTH CONSISTENT WITH THE CITY'S
ABILITY TO PROVIDE NECESSARY SERVICES.
HELP ESTABLISH A SOCIOECONOMIC CLIMATE WHICH DOES NOT DISCRIMINATE
AGAINST CERTAIN LAND USES BUT STRIVES TO PROMOTE A DIVERSITY OF LAND
USE.
RECOGNIZE THE ADVANTAGES AND OPPORTUNITIES AFFORDED BY THE TOPO-
GRAPHY AND PLAN ITS USE ACCORDINGLY.
The physiography of the Tukwila area is varied. It in-
cludes flat alluvial bottomlands, rolling hills, plateaus, steep -
sided hillsides and ravines, rocky buttes and wet swales. Each of
these physiographic qualities represent certain opportunities or ad-
vantages and it is up to each community to recognize and capitalize
on them.
ATTACHMENT G
Page 26
Page 26
Policy 1. Discourage development on slopes in excess of 20 percent.
All other environmental factors aside, a flat piece
of land will accommodate the widest range of land uses. As
the slope of the land parcel increases, however, the range of
suitable land uses diminishes to a point where finally the
slope is so steep that it is not suitable for any use. Generally
it is not desireable to develop slopes of greater than 20 per-
cent and according to city ordinances roads can not be con-
structed with gradients in excess of 15 percent.
Policy 2. Preserve the views of hillside residents.
:., ac :...... ^,:r> ::...... XDXr: + ?>...;:�:. r',. ..,... >,m •.�•�+,_ „ .� .. .1 : s ":`�..a5`:. h 7.,1 Vi a.
The Tukwila Hill boasts tremendous views and panora-
mas. To the north are the Seattle nightlights, to the west
colorful sunsets over McMicken Heights, to the south Mt. Rainier
looming over the Green River Valley, and to the east the rugged
Cascade Mountains. These views are extraordinary amenities
which can be promoted and enhanced through planning and fore-
sight.
Page 28 OBJECTIVE 6. RECOGNIZE THE CHARACTERISTICS OF LOCAL GEOLOGY AND CONSIDER THEM
IN THE LAND USE PLANNING PROCESS.
The geologic characteristics of the Tukwila area are not
uniform throughout. Owing to the Green River, the valley is flat and
sediment - filled. On the other hand, because of the influence of Ice
Age glaciers, the valley wall and plateau are composed of glacial till.
Each of these geologic formations require different approaches for
development.
Page 45 Policy 1. Use natural features, like topography, to separate incompa-
tible land uses from the residential areas.
Probably the most important kind of buffer between
incompatible land uses is not merely space ( "The further I am
from that nuisance, the better! "), but the appearance of
visual separation. For example, topography can make an ef-
fective buffer even though it may not separate incompati-
ble uses by more than 30 - 50 feet in elevation. The illu-
sion that is created is separation, and it allows one to
live with what is below or above, on the other side or just
around the corner. Another example is the Green River. The
wide expanse of river, the drama of constantly moving waters,
and the seasonal ebb and flow of the river level seems to
magnify the importance of the river and diminishes the disaf-
finity between shoreline uses. By utilizing natural features
to separate incompatible land uses, the City ensures the inte-
grity of its residential areas while creating an efficient land
use pattern.
Page 60
Page 60
�'z:G•. ",': .f V ii'r ?rri:; .. �'i rz..:. ^5,;'Ir. �.. ,�
.
•r'
. . . -t C •
�J7!y n:' 1' 5� .. •;i�..ra ...� .ri e.. r. Xri ;,.klf. ., w ic.. '. , .. .
Page 46 Policy 4. Vehicular traffic to commercial, office or industrial uses
should not be through residential areas.
The pleasantness of a residential neighborhood is in
part protected by the nature of its streets. Generally, if
traffic on residential streets is excessive, the safety of the
streets and abutting area is diminished, as is the pleasantness
and quiet of the residential neighborhood. Commercial and
office uses, whether public or private, generate traffic to a
degree which impairs the serenity and safety of the residential
neighborhood.
OBJECTIVE 1. ENCOURAGE A SMOOTH, STEADY AND PLANNED GROWTH OF THE BUSINESS
Page 60 COMMUNITY.
There are a variety of methods to achieve this ob,jec:-
tive. Some of these methods may include a technically sound and ra-
tional zoning ordinance, a supportive local city government, know-
ledgeable and professional city staff, capable and willing lending
institutions and communication of the needs and desires of the business
community to the City. The above may not be all- inclusive. However,
they area significant part of what makes up afavorable business cli-
mate that could encourage smooth, steady growth.
COMPATIBILITY:
Policy 1. Encourage the grouping of uses which will mutually and econo-
mically benefit each other or provide necessary services.
Most business land uses, when grouped, complement one
another since the clientele drawn to one will generally fre-
quent others. Advantages are also present for the grouping
of warehouse or industrial areas. This policy is intended to
encourage this planned grouping of complementary uses and
thereby maximize the drawing power or reputation of each group-
ing. This concept could minimize business failures and pro -
mote prosperity in the business community.
Policy 2. Allow for the location of new commercial and industrial areas
and the expansion of existing ones when this expansion is com-
patible with surrounding land use and not detrimental to the
public welfare.
Just as the City strives to provide land for the lo-
cation of new business, so should it provide the opportunity
for existing businesses to expand. Due to Tukwila's location,
transportation systems, level land and local services, the City
is an attractive area for the location of commerce and industry.
The City has vacant lands that can accommodate additional loca-
tion of new business or the relocation or expansion of local
businesses.
Page 66
Page 66
, c,, 24 ..`.';ii, :..4.:?'.Wd r.. r 1tut,. P,: adK 4.^ 4;:l snvvarr..,:ra ;^_ta0.w:::ip!:r, r)^ «r;rEa �. :x w 4+Y 1;�r „'F�",�', ,,, ti�a% . ..
=.at:ma >:rrx'+s :�, �, .:r:- :;c�rr: x�.w st�'�??• #'SS��_:,`s'�,,,:.k c'� �:x .a r
OBJECTIVE 4. ENCOURAGE THE ESTABLISHMENT OF OFFICE AREAS.
Page 65
Each city needs a balanced complement of business uses.
Commercial offices can be used as a transition between commercial retail
areas and residential areas. This objective is not intended to dis-
courage compatible office uses, regardless of size, in retail and in-
dustrial areas.
COMPATIBILITY:
Policy 1. Encourage the use of commercial office developments as buffers
between residential land uses and other land uses.
Commercial office complexes are often attractive and
not larger than multiple- tamily structures. Commercial office
uses have the least impact on nearby residential areas.
DESIGN:
Policy 2. Commercial office developments should consider the adjacent use
districts in the design process.
While larger, bulkier structures are appropriate to-
gether, they should be scaled down and made more compatible
with adjoining structures as another use area is approached.
This can be accomplished by increased setbacks, landscaping
and revised building design.
Page 66 GROWTH:
Policy 3. Encourage the location of commercial offices in areas of high
natural amenities.
Commercial office complexes often have less site
coverage than other business types of land uses and therefore
provide a greater opportunity of preserving any natural ameni-
ties on the site. In addition, the commercial office use is
generally semi - public, offering visual or even physical access
to more people.
r •i bj ; c,.
- ". f''�1�. r..
7�.�.r3�.{D,! Ica
INTRODUCTION
This report is intended to fulfill necessary requirements for the purpose
of changing the existing zoning status of the properties located at
15419 62nd Ave. S. from R - to P -
HEIGHT AND OBSTRUCTION
krncI(s Ff
The existing topography of the property is defined as a sparcely vegetated
hilly area with a 15 to 18 percent slope surrounded on the north by a
steep hillside and by Southcenter Boulevard to the south.
Because of this existing topography, it is necessary to grade the site as
shown in the site plan and profile, attached, in order to construct an
office building and a parking lot. The difference in elevation resulting
from grading the site and the adjacent property to the north becomes consi-
derable. Windmark Buildings 4, 5 and 6, currently submitted to the city of
Tukwila for approval, are located behind Kato's properties discussed here.
The floor elevations for these properties lie between 131.00 feet and
139.00 feet. The floor elevation and the height of the two story building
shown on the attached profile indicates that there would be minimal
to no obstruction to the Windmark Properties.
wittuwvw..YksitaaregieMilantangcMgiaffi.kuzzoznimagartalrazwarny.samwesatoosam-osittorAmmts
0
SOIL TYPE
The general soil type found on the site is gravel with small amounts of
clay and sand. The soil type was identified by physical observation, .
hand boring and hand testing in the field. The exact classification and
condition of the soil is going to be determined before construction.
!t:sz rt `R,`lft
�' �1 :57 a v3f.t: :..,i;Sr:i:,-:�;�i ;4.�.:":y ••• :�,:.: r #�'. ?;2�:;� G w3sra >shF54:t.��ac4 raCaxtcaiMM: st:s2rA„- rES7**.!. r+r2xsacxsr,<ti+hrM4?d!ilit1
TRAFFIC ACCESS AND IMPACT STUDY
The attached site plan shows the location and preliminary layout of the
office buildings considered for this study. Presently, the parcel is un-
developed and there is no access leading to it.
Two driveway access alternatives were studied. The first alternative is a
direct access to Southcenter Boulevard, and the second access goes across
Tom and Katie Kato's property connecting to 62nd Avenue South. The access
easement is available for this alternative.
The direct access to Southcenter Boulevard is difficult to achieve due to
the following reasons:
curves.
1. The distance between the access and the intersection is very short.
The left turning movement from the driveway is not possible due to the
intersection channelization.
2. A grade of +25% would be needed with very short and tight vertical
The access going across Tom and Katie Kato's property to 62nd Avenue South
is the recommended access for this development. The sight distance is
above the standard minimum, and a right and left turn from the driveway to
62nd Avenue South is available. For the purpose of the Traffic Impact
vmm
'''. ,?,l`:- `�' °ha`•"�v'%3= ;yty�••: .x i ,. ��1�: ....:.
• ;.t ea,vw49e.avna: ,zvrdrrue,v,*arzr. r�.Fwtr*.. , rhMaa> v-w..v rmavev.=tTrn .,wr.rr::t..;mvxrsmssrZ,.���:
Study, it was assumed that this access will be used exclusively by the
tenants of both office buildings.
The traffic volume generated by office buildings, with a gross area of
approximately 20,000 square feet, was determined using the Trip Generation
Manual of The Institute of Transportation Engineers. Following is the
summary of traffic volume generated by this facility.
Trip Ends Enter Exit
Average Daily Traffic 360 180 180
AM Peak Hour Traffic 60 44 16
PM Peak Hour Traffic 60 8 52
For the purpose of the capacity analysis and level of service determina-
tion, PM Peak Hour was assumed as the worst case scenario on 62nd Avenue
South. The level of service according to the Highway Capacity Manual is
defined as follows:
o Level of Service
Level of Service
o Level of Service
o Level of Service
o Level of Service
o Level of Service
Trip Generation by Time Periods
UAu
"B"
"CO
"Du
E
UF"
= Little or No Delay
= Short Traffic Delays
= Average Traffic Delays
= Long Traffic Delays
= Very Long Traffic Delays
= Intersection Blocked by External Causes
•':�i�if.'a1•�j'j /';���j�i�ny ���, ti.i }...- : ..:r?.
.w4��r.:,':`?.�r ri i.�. �:S4e�i"r�:i +..;.,`�.a, >�a� ;�� e. s: d`? Y•, s; �if�3ty , 6My5.alczt�.s^c.matr,:Dtxat;; use:;w..•w.^r:;ax:? is :�y���aKr.„•srari•���,.::�r�x?: tins', z� :.s�•a+vt,.xw:,,eamr�'ca.;ratr '�;'�:�5'�:
Proposed
New Access
1
Figure 1
To determine the turning at this intersection location, similar character-
istics at approaches along 62nd Avenue South were studied during the PM
Peak Hour. It was found that the predominant flow exists on 62nd Avenue,
south of the access, because of access from /to I -405 and I -5 available via
Southcenter Boulevard. It was assumed that the split in turning movements
during the PM Peak Hour exiting the parking lot would be 90% southbound
toward Southcenter Boulevard and 10% northbound. Figure 1 shows the traf-
fic volumes used for capacity analysis. Using the Unsignalized Intersec-
tion Capacity Analysis Methodology as described in Circular 212 of the
Transportation Research Board, it was found that the level of service at
this intersection would be W. Hence, there is no impact of the new
office buildingson 62nd Avenue South.
14462 i.>': egkea �•��4 ".a4":"•.as'�h ":.dwX.% =41 ",L": ta •fe;5;iik`i'::i' l;K�Jt�r.�z�b'::.':=Gt AF..'r .ii`,tl,.'.' •a:
C
CIRCULAR ela WORKSHEET: UNSIGNALIZED - 3 APPROACHES
DATE : 00 -00 -19(30 TI ME :05:01) : 00
KA'f'U PROPERTY
GENERAL CHARACTERISTICS
CONTROLS: STOP
PREVAILING SPEED: 30 MPH
MAIN STREET U OF LANES: 2 LANES
MINOR STREET LANES
APPROACH: C: DRIV. ACCESS
SHARED LEFT AND RIGHT TURN LANES: Y
APPROACH ROACH A : 62ND AVE. SD B: 62ND AVE NB C: I)R I V. ACCESS
LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH R'1'
VOLUME 0 80 Cs 8 104 0 4 0 48
PERCENT GRADE -4.00 4. 00 -2.00
1=AS5 CAR /HR 0 14 4 0 48
STE=P 1 RIGHT TURNS FROM C : DR I V. ACCESS
CONFLICTING FLOWS SC
CRITICAL GAPS 6.0
CAPACITY 923
SHARED L.ANI: Y
M r "l "Yt�; >:
r• vre�srakzuz1mrna .srm i:? ::.:,
STEM'' 2 LEFT TURNS FROM 3:62ND AVE NB
CONFLICTING FLOWS 80
CRITICAL GAPS 5.0
CAPACITY 1127
DEMAND 14
CAPACITY USED 1
IMPEDANCE FACTOR 1.O0
AVAILABLE RESERVE 1113
DELAY Little or no delay
LOS A
STEP 3 LEFT TURNS FROM C : D R I V. ACCESS
CONFLICTING FLOWS 192
CRITICAL GAPS 7.5
CAPACITY 61)3
ADJUST FOR IMP 600
SHARED LANE RIGHT Y
SHARED LN DEMAND 5`
CAPACITY OF SHARED LN 887
AVAILABLE RESERVE 835
DELAY Little or no delay
LOS A
SUMMARY OF LEVEL OF SERVICE BY MOVEMENT
MOVEMENT DEMAND CAPACITY RESERVE LOS
LT FROM E3: 14 1127 1113 A
ALL MOVES FROM C: 52 887 035 A
COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLAN MAP
CITY LIMITS
�.�.�.�.�.�.� PLANNING AREA BOUNDARY
❑ LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL
▪ MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL
▪ HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL
I OFFICE
MI COMMERCIAL
I LIGHT INDUSTRIAL
▪ HEAVY INDUSTRIAL
MI PUBLIC FACILITIES
▪ PARKS AND OPEN SPACE
SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT CONSIDERATI
IERMTOPPIPS Sr STEEP SLOPES. PREP SIPPICE,
WO IS.G1TUUL LAW'S TM16 S[90YTMOI. OOES
POT AEIIIRE SEVISCP EMI. WWII. TT SEMIS
PREPS *MESE UMeW S[xaOgpET MUST PEEKNO
SEMSrtNE T TO CEPTEN ESVPONNEMLL PKTERS
.. W.. PLANNING AREA BOUNDARY
mum CITY BOUNDARY
I
' t.
R-I-72
R -I -98
SINGLE FAMLY RESIDENTIAL
R-I-72
SINGLE FAMLY RESIDENTIAL
P-0
PRDFESSIONAL AND OFFICE
C -I
NEI0-€OR/1000 FETAL
C -2
REGIONAL PETAL
n C-P BUSINESS CENTER
C -M
INDUSTRIAL PARK
irA-1
LIGHT INDUSTRY
ri M-2
FEA/Y INDUSTRY
'tire
IN TER, .HANCcF
I R-I -120
SINGLE FAMILY Rf511 1 ; - -
I -1 TWO FAMLY RESIDENTIAL
R -3
THRFE AND FOUR FAMILY RESDENTIAL
LOW APARTMENTS
2.pit;.i iZl• i Tn I^.; rt4#. vn. 7: S.: u! r. VV,!. f,V i' 604 31•r iit 7':!: A' NC.1. 5 t1,9: 4,»»., l/, .nrr:..+,rneslrt ::+r.•.xuPn,a�na v.. ao. utnr,• w.... cr.<. wirn•: mnu. yrknxxrx�vZrrxra.!: ne, SnKm. Kr; ct?tn�eu :.ars..c:,.w:,.,..+
A '
II RMH
:-2
IA ,•
C -P
Existing Zoning
l
R-1-120
R -1 -12o
R -1-72
R -I -120
R -1 -7.2
C -P
\ c2 \ \ R -A
1^1 D
C-2
CM
•
C -M
C -2
M -I `
y < 1 .
♦r
C -M
C-M ` �.;
C2 ` '•
•
C-2
t
M -I
M -I
MASTER LAND DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION FORM
A l AcHM ENT K
CITY OF TUKWILA
Central Permit System
S C H E D U L E
SL
CHANGE OF ZONING
EXISTING ZONING R -4 REQUESTED ZONING P -0
caMP. PLAN DESIGNATION High Dens. RessITE IN CITY LIMITS? yes
PROPOSED USE IF REZONE APPROVED Office building and related parking
EXISTING USE AND
NORTH
SOUTH
EAST
WEST
ZONE
R -4
P -0
R -4
P -0 & C -1
CLASSIFICATION OF SURROUNDING PROPERTIES:
COMP. PLAN DES1G.
High Dens. Resid.
Office
High Dens. Resid.
Office & Commercial
USE
Vacant/Multi-family
Office & Southcenter Blvd.
Multi - Family and 62nd Avenue South
Vacant'& Community Retail
, ESCRIBE THE MANNER IN WHICH YOUR REQUEST FOR CHANGE OF ZONING CLASSIFICATION SATISFIES EACH
JF THE FOLLOWING CRITERIA AS SPECIFIED IN TMC 18.84.030 (ATTACH ADDITIONAL SHEETS IF NECES-
SARY).
I) THE PROPOSED CHANGE IN ZONING IS IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE CITY'S COMPREHENSIVE AND LAND
USE POLICY PLAN, THE PROVISION OF THE CITY ZONING CODE AND THE PUBLIC INTEREST.
RESPONSE: As evidenced by 26
use, the rezone does conform
TMC 18.26.010 is well served
goals -, objectives, and policies supported by the proposed off
to a substantial number of Comp Plan provisions. The purpose
by the proposed P -0 zone, which buffers the residential area
. • - • . • 11
primarily quality offices (including City Hall) which buffer residential uses further
uphill and away from the high travel corridor. This shift was recently affirmed by the
RMH to PO rezoning of the property immediately adjacent to the subject site. The
circumstance of market interest in a quality office area along Southcenter Boulevard
(go to attached sheet)
c
o to attached sheet)
2) TRE 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: The subject site is located adjacent to professional offices including City
Hall similarly situated on the hillside along Southcenter Boulevard. The property immedia
ly west of this site has recently been rezoned from RMH to P0. The subject property
(go to attached sheet)
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 general relationship of land uses•along Southcneter Boulevard has become
area
1. (cont) growth in this quality officeAis further established by this
proposal.
2. (cont.) is more closely situated on the hillside to the existing offices
than the existing multi - family residences. The Southcenter Boulevard
and I -405 uses south of the property relate far better to a P -0 rather
than a R -4 use, which is more sensitive to noise and traffic impacts than
the office use of the property. Specifically, the change in character
along Southcenter Boulevard is a logical expansion of a better use
(i.e. offices rather than apartments) for property impacted by high
traffic volumes. This change is further justified by the actual buffer
created by the offices for uphill residences.
3. (cont.) has resulted in numerous office building proposals and several
rezones since the adoption of Comp Plan revisions in 1982. In fact,
except for the needed map change for properties along Southcenter Boulevard
the Comp Plan policies are quite supportive of the requested change.
•
January 22, 1987
It is my understanding that the City of Tukwila has hired a
consultant to advise the City on how to attract additional businesses
to Tukwila. As an office leasing specialist, concentrating in this
area for the past five years, I cannot help but wonder where these
companies would locate. My partner, Gary Danklefsen, and I have been
the leasing agents for the Sea -Tac Office Center and Riverview Plaza,
the areas two largest office developments. Through our involvement
with these projects and many other smaller ones in the area, we are
very familiar with the tenants in this area. We have seen that this
area is becoming increasingly popular with companies wishing to
service the Puget Sound area. The majority of these companies prefer
Tukwila to Renton or Kent. Within the very near future, companies
desiring the image of a new office building, will no longer be able
to consider Tukwila as an alternative.
There are very, very few well - located and appropriately zoned
sites for office projects available in Tukwila. All available land
along Southcenter Boulevard has been sold. Development will take
place and these buildings will be leased in 1987. The Pond site on
180th Street is years away from development. Rents needed to justify
development on this land will likely exceed rents achievable from
office buildings. Therefore, the site will necessitate a majority
of retail and hotel development. Due to the mixed use along
Interurban Avenue, no major office projects will be developed there.
The only available and appropriately zoned land attractive to
office development is at the entrance to Fort Dent and the Plateau
where 180th overpasses I -5. A development is proposed for the
Plateau site.
Cushman & Wakefield of Washington, Inc.
Tukwila Planning Commission
January 22, 1987
Page 2
Sij,- = rely
If Tukwila desires new businesses requiring office space,
additional land is needed. Redevelopment of industrial facilities to
office use is for the most part not economical. The City is likely
spending substantial fees on business consulting, yet, has seemingly
disregarded the need for land for new development. I hope that the
inconsistency is recognized soon.
Cushman & Wak' field of
Washington, Inc.
Robert R. Larsen
Assistant Vice - President
Associate Broker
No .warranty or representation, express or implied, 15 made as to the accuracy of the Information contained herein, and same is submitted subJect to :
errors, omissions, change of price, rental or other conditions; withdrawal without notice, and to any special listing .conditions, ,Imposed by. our principals.,
area
•
1. Lack of PO designated land.
SOME REASONS FOR NEED OF COMPREHENSIVE PLAN CHANGE AND
REZONE.
3. Would provide better buffer to up -hill
residential areas.
5. Would provide less disturbance during
weekend hours.
6. Would cause decrease in single family
multi family ratio which is out of balance.
/ V
2. Would promote health safety and welfare by
removing residential use from high traffic corridor and from
direct noise, glare and fumes.
4. Would decrease competing residential traffic on
62nd Ave so. at peak hours due to opposite office cycle.
evening and
residential/
7. Would further city goal of economic development.
8. Need for more land which can be developed as
office.
9. Would increase tax base and city revenues.
10. Would provide more uniform use corridor along
Southcenter Blvd.
11. One of last available parcel suited for office in
CITY of TUKWIL4
si - io - o/ - 6s99
OCT' i' 1981
WASHINGTON
ORDINANCE NO. /2 N30
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA,
WASHINGTON AMENDING THE COMPREHENSIVE
PLAN MAP
WHEREAS, P & L Company, a Washington General Partnership,
filed a petition on June 8, 1981 to have certain real property owned
by that partnership reclassified from R -3 to C -1; and
WHEREAS, the comprehensive plan map for the City of Tukwila
indicates that the subject property is to be used for residential
purposes; and
WHEREAS, the current zoning of the subject property is for
multiple residential use; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Tukwila held
a hearing on June 25, 1981 to consider both the zoning reclassification
request and the proposal to change the comprehensive plan map; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed the Planning Department
file on this matter, reviewed the Planning Commission's recommendation
regarding this project and has listened to and reviewed a presentation
by the property owners and their representatives,
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Tukwila,
Washington does ordain as follows:
Section 1. The comprehensive plan map is hereby amended to
show that the property described in Exhibit A attached hereto shall be
included within the professional /office designation.
PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA, WASHINGTON
at a regular meeting thereof this 4$07 day of
Approved as to Form:
City Attorney, Lawrence E.
Hard •
Attest:
yor
Published Record Chronicle - September 20, 1981
Ex
1981.
H ir t
\e/ e' iv IrY Pt-Icsro S
•
— _...__...-._.,-_...,..__.............._............ ..,...._._..„.........
2/
Fay! t`+ ?+'. �Z.;; r�w :.t',+.C;......r,..,,.,...'- ---
3 /s
785
7.5
/50-
; +,
City of Tukwila
6200 Southcenter Boulevard
Tukwila Washington 98188
(206) 433 -1800
Gary L. VanDusen, Mayor
CITY OF TUKWILA
Notice of Public Hearing and Meeting of the
Tukwila Planning Commission
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Tukwila Planning Commission has fixed the 22nd
day of January, 1987, at 8:00 p.m., in the City Council Chambers of Tukwila City
Hall, 6200 Southcenter Blvd., Tukwila, Washington, as the time and place for:
Public Hearings
CN -86 -436: Kato Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Rezone - Michio and Hisako
Kato, and Tom and Katie Kato are requesting approval of a Comprehensive Plan
amendment from High Density Residential to Office, and a rezone from R -4 (Low
Apartments) to P -0 (Professional /Office). The project site address is 15419 -
62nd Avenue South, including the unaddressed lot to the immediate west.
Any and all interested persons are invited to attend.
Published: Record Chronicle - January 11, 1987
Distribution: Mayor, City Clerk, Property Owners /Applicants,
Adjacent Property Owners, File
MEMORANDUM
TO: Rick Beeler, SEPA Responsible Official
From: Cris Crumbaugh
Date: January 14, 1987
RE: Comprehensive Plan and Rezone Application by M/M T. Kato and
M/M M. Kato.
Please amend the subject applications to reflect the following
change:
A twenty -two foot private road access easement will be
located across Parcel A to Parcel B from 62nd Avenue
South. This easement will be located on a map in a
manner and location acceptable to the City of Tukwila
prior to final action by the City of the Tukwila on the
above - referenced applications.
It is my understanding that the City of Tukwila will
provide the applicants with a document assuring them
that the subject easement location is viewed as an
initial designation and may be revised upon approval of
the City of Tukwila. Please contact me immed'ately if
this is not the case.
By:
Cris F. Crumbaugh
-
II
JAN 2 :1987
CITY OF TUKWILA
PLANNING DEPT.
; .
$
High traffic has developed on the I -405 ocrridor and
the Southcenter Boulevard corridor. These high traffic
counts cause more serious impact to R -4 land residential
uses rather than professional office buildings.
Additionally, the proposed improvements to Southcenter
Boulevard and the proposed Grady Way improvements will
additionally cause higher impacts here.
Under the present circumstances there will be offices
on both sides of the subject property. At the time of
development of the Comprehensive Plan the property to the
west was to be zoned multi - family.
From my experience in the City, I am aware that there
is and has developed from people living in the area,
opposition to continued high density multi - family
development on the Tukwila hill. Professional offices would
have less impact and it is appropriate in this area
especially when the property borders in part on Southcenter
Boulevard.
The property is more similar to the City Hall property,
the North Hill property, the Xerox property and the changes
made to them, then residential properties.
We understand that the Comprehensive plan in its
preparation process was changed at before it was adopted for
at least a portion of the Xerox property recognizing a
similar situation. The Katos did not fully participate in
the Comprehensive Plan development process and I am sure if
they would have, they would have dealt with this problem at
that time.
The comprehensive plan was adopted in 1977 or early
1978, that was almost ten years ago. This is a minor change
request and it should be noted that our last comprehensive
planning process started only fifteen years after the 1961
Comprehensive Plan was adopted. Therefore, this request is
not a quick change after the plan has been adopted.
In approximately 1982, five years ago, when several
changes were made to the Comprehensive Plan, one of those
was to change zoning to allow a similar change as requested
on the Lynch property behind the Xerox building which fronts
on 65th Avenue South.
Again, the comprehensive plan, according to law, is
only a general plan stating the policy of the City. It is
not a site specific zoning map and is used as a general
guide for policy development in the city. This property is
sandwiched between two offices developments and fronts on a
high impact corridor and we believe it is totally consistent
to read the plan to allow such a change without amendment.
The Staff has chosen not to do this and we feel that it
should allow an amendment to the plan to allow this property
to be consistent with neighboring properties in the area.
We do not believe a significant policy decision is involved
and believe this is consistent with proper planning within
the City.
Again, thank you for allowing us to respond. You have
stated that we have approximately until January 15, 1987 to
get some minor map changes done and we will try to get those
off to you as soon as possible so they may be mailed out
with the Planning Commissions's packet.
If you have any questions or comments, please feel free
to contact me at any time.
Very my u s,
C "is F. Crumbau
Attorney At Law
Planning Department
City of Tukwila
Tukwila City Hall
6200 Southcenter Blvd.
Tukwila, WA 98188
RE: KATO REZONE
Gentlemen:
Enclosures
LAW OFFICES OF
CRIS FORREST CRUMBAUGH
PARK RIDGE BUILDING SUITE 9
15215 52ND AVENUE SOUTH
P.O. BOX 58986
SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98188
(206) 241-7734
..__-. --
RJR ET E.0 15 I
I t
1
[.) E. c 1986
CITY ui- Itit
PLANNING DEPT.
.----._
December 15, 1986
Enclosed please find the Title company report and legal
,descriptions for the Kato properties. Also, a check for $40.00 to
cover the additional amount required for the rezone application.
This updates the information previously delivered to you.
Very truly yours,
Cris F. Crumbaugh
Attorney at Law
;;%
4 _'
Transamerica
Title Services
REPORT FOR: Chris Crumbaugh, Attorney
Park Ridge Building, Suite 9
Seattle, WA 98166
OWNER (From Tract Book):
DESCRIPTION:
(as hereto attached)
Transamerica
Title Insurance Company ("
10635 Northeast Eighth Street
Box 1493
Bellevue, Washington 98009
(206) 451 -7301
D E 15 19861
TOM KATO, presumptively subject to the community interest
of his spouse, if married, as to Parcel A; and
MICHIO KATO and HISAKO KATO, husband and wife, as to
Parcel B;
DATED: December 12, 1986
No examination of the title has been made and our search
was limited to the matters shown above.
TRANSAMERICA TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY
By: /Ew /Qafl 1/4:5 - .
� , �'ah���i''r. "5;%ahJ�.'.'^ !l'.' fi: .vr�r,": g r 22 15
n�cs,:S„Hs7,,: 1�k7i :.- ..��ili�...�'..�....1?,. a.: I�cs. Js. �ut .:.'�: %.•'.:w�...�atR1..d.
DESCRIPTION:
PARCEL A:
Page 2
That portion of tract 11, Interurban Addition to
Seattle, according to plat thereof, recorded in
Volume 10 of Plats, page 55, records of King
County, Washington, described as follows:
Beginning at the Southeast corner of said tract
11, thence South 89 ° 52' West along the Southerly
line thereof 300.86 feet, thence North 0 ° O8'West
124.53 feet, thence North 89 ° 52'East 141.65 feet,
thence North 0 ° 08'West 38.26 feet, thence North
89 ° 52' East 159.21 feet to a point on the Easterly
line therof which is 162.79 feet North of the
point of beginning, thence South 0 ° 08' East 162.79
feet along the Easterly line of said tract 162.79
feet to the point of beginning.
PARCEL B:
i <F..t( q �i!n
R? fShY1f.: i' V/.: Tb' lrtlfTt�f. PTAi!:-$ S�I�. A.' 4. �t'77i.�.�x`.RS�..W_J'4.2. ■
DEC IMMEI
15 19861
s
c 1 ` or l U;
PLA.NN;;c: a DEPT.
That portion of the West 150 feet of the East 450.86 feet of the Tract 11, Interurban
Addition to the City of Seattle according to the plat recorded in Volume 10 of
Plats, page 55, in King County, Washington described as follows:
Beginning at the Southeast corner of the West 150 feet of the East 450.86 feet of
said Tract 11, thence NO1 ° 21'40 "E along the East line thereof 124.53 feet, thence
N65 ° 52'04 "W along a line parallel to the centerline of Southcenter Boulevard
(Renton - Three Tree Point Road) 162.68 feet to the West line of the East 450.86
feet of said Tract 11, thence SO1 ° 21'40 "W 165.17 feet to the Northerly Margin of
PSM No. 1 as conveyed by deed under Auditors File No. 5473599, thence S69 ° 17'02 "W
along said highway margin 66.33 feet to intersect the South line of said Tract 11,
thence S88 ° 24'47 "E along said south line 87.42 feet to the Point of Beginning.
is`.w ev: ' . 3`.: ?''.Si�L:4 "`.'.C'�is NxST3 .N.':?•teU'.:! Mf r. �JZMN: S: b' a. Y4: x::: �x�tC' s4.? trit4s.: rGiw: H t: S; iJ sr_ 9.sG.W:a1cr..r.e.vc�FVxx.w.ever xxe,Wtl v..Wwa.. `a +nrs�:.vca+xctartans t11£,. t! M AtZri. 'vl' <t+A ' i1 %.`i. }k.57.'.n':::'l`tiw,c'<::: {:
F. A.LcSOURD
WOOLVIN PATTEN
DONALD D. FLEMING
GEORGE M. HARTUNG
MEADE EMORY
LEON C. MISTEREK
DWAYNE E.COPPLE
THOMAS 0. Mc LAUGHLIN
JOHN F. COLGROVE
C. DEAN LITTLE
LAWRENCE E. HARD
RODNEY J.WALDBAUM
Dear Mr. Kato:
L
LESOURD, PATTEN, FLEMING, HARTUNG & EMORY
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
3900 SEATTLE -FIRST NATIONAL BANK BUILDING
SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98154
(2041824 -1040 -
November 26, 1980
Mr. Tom Kato
15419 - 62nd Ave. South
Tukwila, WA 98188
LEH:sk
Enc.
cc: Mr. Matt Sayre w /enc.
Ms. Maxine Anderson w /enc.
Mayor Todd
Ted Uomoto
I am the City Attorney for Tukwila, Washington. As you
are aware, the City is about to confirm the final
assessment roll for LID No. 29. There has been an
adjustment by the City Council regarding the assessment
against your parcel of property. That adjustment will
result in having the City pay a substantial portion of
the assessment, which money may ultimately be recovered
in the form of a latecomer charge.
The City would like to acquire title to the land necessary
to complete the sidewalk which will run in front of your
house. As you know, this sidewalk was constructed as part
of LID No. 29, but the portion on your property was not
included because of the inability of you and the City to
reach an agreement as to how title to the property could
be acquired.
I am enclosing a warranty deed to the land in question for
your review. If you find it in order, please sign the deed
before a Notary Public and either return the deed to me or
deliver it to the City Clerk at City Hall. Thank you for
your cooperation in this matter.
Very truly yours,
Le OURD, PATTEN, FLEMING,
TUNG & EMORY
Lawrence E. Har
BRUCE G. HANSON
RICHARD P. MATTHEWS
D. WILLIAM TOONE
DANIEL D. WOO
CARL J. CARLSON
P. WARREN MAROUARDSON
LAWRENCE A.M.ZELENAK
JULIE G. WADE
ROBERT L. PALMER
COUNSEL
8102100335Filed for Record or Request of
Name CITY OF TUKWILA
Address 6200 Southcenter Blvd.
City and State Tukwila, Wa. 98188
ATTN: City Clerk
STATE OF WASHINGTON )
ss.
COUNTY OF KING
Warranty Deed
WARRANTY DEED
F.:ECC' F
CASH "L
FEB 13 - 910F,i'a •
THE GRANTOR, TOM KATO, as his separate estate, for and in
consideration of ONE DOLLAR ($1.00) in hand paid, conveys and warrants
to the City of Tukwila, King County, Washington, the following
described real estate, situated in the County of King, State of
Washington, including any interest therein which Grantor may hereafter
acquire:
RECORD'? T:
The Easterly 6.00 feet of the following described property:
Tract 11, Interurban Addition to Seattle, according to
the plat thereof, recorded in Volume 10 of Plats, page 55,
records of King County, Washington, described as follows:
Beginning at the southeast corner of said Tract 11;
thence south 89 °52' west along southerly line thereof
300.86 feet; thence north 0 °08' west 124.53 feet;
thence north 89 °52' east 141.65 feet; thence north
0 °08' west 38.26 feet; thence north 89 °52' east 159.21
feet to a point on the easterly line thereof which is
162.79 feet north of the point of beginning; thence
south 0 °08' east 162.79 feet along the easterly line
of said Tract 162.79 feet to the point of beginning.
Dated ? day of .� 19AF/ t ,
TOM KATO, as his separate (SEAL)
estate
On this day personally appeared before me TOM KATO to me
known to be the individual described in and who executed the within
and foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that he signed the same
as his free and voluntary act and deed, for the uses and purposes
therein mentioned.
Given under my hand and offi l seal this f 3 day of
\f/9-A./ y y , 19 iq .
#07771
3.[rid
11
NOTARY PUBLIC in and or the
Stat- • Was,',. • -, residin.
at
F. A. Lt SOURD
WOOLVIN PATTEN
DONALD D. FLEMING
GEORGE M. HARTUNG
MEADE EMORY
LEON C.MISTEREK
DWAYNE E.COPPLE
THOMAS 0. McLAUGHLIN
JOHN F. COLGROVE
C. DEAN LITTLE
LAWRENCE E. HARD
RODNEY J. WALDBAUM
Honorable Frank Todd
Mayor, City of Tukwila
Tukwila City Hall
6200 Southcenter Boulevard
Tukwila, WA 98188
Dear Mayor Todd:
LEH:sk
LESOURD, PATTEN, FLEMING, HARTUNG & EMORY
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
3900 SEATTLE - FIRST NATIONAL BANK BUILDING
SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98154
(206) 624-1040
cc: Mr. Ted Uomoto
Director, Department of
Public Works
October 30, 1980
Re: City of Tukwila, LID No. 29 - Acquisition
of Tom Kato Property
It is my understanding that in exchange for the City's
willingness to pay a portion of his LID assessment,
Mr. Tom Kato is willing to deed to the City the real
property necessary to construct a sidewalk. This should
be done at or before the time that the final assessment
roll is confirmed.
I am prepared to prepare such a deed if the Public
Works Department will give me the appropriate legal
description.
Very truly yours,
LeSOU
HAR
PATTEN, LEMING,
UNG & E
Lawren
E. Hard
BRUCE G. HANSON
RICHARD P. MATTHEWS
D. WILLIAM TOONE
DANIEL D. WOO
CARL J. CARLSON
P. WARREN MAROUAROSON
LAWRENCE A. M. ZELENAI
JULIE G. WADE
ROBERT L. PALMER
COUNSEL
1 .
Psovember 24, 1980
7 :00 P.M.
FLAG SALUTE AND
CALL TO ORDER
ROLL CALL OF
COUNCIL MEMBERS
OFFICIALS IN
ATTENDANCE
DISCUSSION
*Proposed Ordinance
Approving & con-
firming the assess-
ment roll for LID
' 29
TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL
Special Meeting
Tukwila City Hall
Council Chambers
MINUTES
Mayor Todd, presiding, led the Pledge of Allegiance and called
the Special Meeting of the Tukwila City Council to order.
The Special Meeting was called to consider the following:
1. An ordinance modifying, approving and confirming the
Assessment Roll for LID #29.
2. An ordinance fixing the amount of tax levies necessary
to raise funds to meet the estimated expenditures for
the year, 1981.
Mayor Todd noted that the necessary information for the tax levy
ordinance has not arrived.
LIONEL C. BOHRER, MABEL J. HARRIS, GEORGE D. HILL, J. REID
JOHANSON, DORIS E. PHELPS, GARY L. VAN DUSEN.
MOVED BY VAN DUSEN, SECONDED BY HARRIS, THAT COUNCILMAN SAUL
BE EXCUSED FROM THE MEETING. MOTION CARRIED.
MOVED BY HILL, SECONDED BY PHELPS, THAT COUNCILMAN VAN DUSEN
CHAIR THE C.O.W. MEETING IN THE ABSENCE OF COUNCILMAN SAUL. MOTION
CARRIED.
LAWRENCE E. HARD, City Attorney; MARK CAUGHEY, Acting Planning
Director; SHIRLEY KRISTOFFERSON, Acting Finance Director; TED
UOMOTO, Public Works Director; MAXINE ANDERSON, City Clerk.
Attorney Hard noted that the assessment roll has been revised
by the Consultant and delivered to the City. He said the only
matter ,remaining is the 5 foot right -of -way for sidewalks along
the Tom Kato property. He will be contacting Mr. Kato concerning
this matter.
It was noted that the total sum of the assessment roll is $538,070.66.
The ordinance needs to be corrected.
MOVED BY VAN DUSEN, SECONDED BY PHELPS, THAT THE CENTS IN THE
TOTAL SUM, PAGE 2, BE CHANGED FROM .81 to .66. MOTION CARRIED.
MOVED BY VAN DUSEN, SECONDED BY PHELPS, THAT THE PROPOSED ORDINAN;
BE READ BY TITLE ONLY. MOTION CARRIED.
City Attorney Hard read an ordinance modifying, approving & con-
firming the assessments and assessment roll of Local Improvement
District No. 29 which has been created and established for the
purpose of the improvement of property within the City of Tukwila,
Washington, along portions of 62nd Ave. South and South 153rd St.
by acquisition of additional public right -of -way, gradinr:, widening
and paving the street surface, installing sidewalks, curbs and
gutters, installing storm drainage, storm sewers and sanitary
sewers, water facilities., underground utilities and street il-
lumination, as provided by Ord. No 1098, and levying and assessing.
the amount thereof against the several lots, tracts, parcels of
land and other property shown on the roll.
MOVED BY VAN DUSEN, SECONDED BY HILL, THAT THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE
BE ADOPTED AS READ.*
Mayor Todd explained that Mr. Kato, Assessment No. 3, feels he
is benefited by the LID only to the extent of the sewer line. If
the City is willing to waive the charges over and above the sewer
assessment, he will sign the deed for five foot sidewalk.
TIIKWILA CITY COUNCIL, SPECI .MEETING
November 24, 1980
Page 2
DISCUSSION - Cont.
Proposed Ordinance
Approving & con -
firming the assess-
ment roll for LID
29 (cont.)
ADJOURNMENT
7:20 P.M.
Councilman Bohrer noted that Section 4 reads that the assessment
shall be paid by the City. He asked if it will be added to the
City assessment. Mrs. Kristofferson explained that there are
three special assessments on the roll. Two of them will be paid
out of the Street Fund and the other out of the L. I. Guarantee
Fund. According to Mr. Martin, Jones Associates, there is one
parcel that is being distributed to everyone participating in the
LID; the other two parcels will be paid by the City for reimbursement
at a later date.
Attorney Hard said he wanted to be absolutely sure the assess-
ment roll is correct and recommended it be tabled.
MOVED BY VAN DUSEN, SECONDED BY HILL, THAT ADOPTION OF THE PRO-
POSED ORDINANCE BE TABLED TO THE REGULAR MEETING OF DECEMBER 1,
1980. MOTION CARRIED.
MOVED BY VAN DUSEN, SECONDED BY HILL, THAT THE SPECIAL MEETING
ADJOURN. MOTION CARRIED.
Mayor
•
'City Clerk
/mac- �'�ls-s�C
OFFICIALS IN
ATTENDANCE
Se" ember 15, 1980
7:00 P.M.
FL nr SALUTE AND
CALL TO ORDER
ROLL CALL OF
COUNCIL MEMBERS
MINUTE APPROVAL
VOUCHER APPROVAL
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Revenue Sharing
Proposed Use
Hearing
A' LID #29: Public
Hearing on the
Assessment Roll
TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL
C
Regular Meeting
MINUTES
Mayor Todd, presiding, led the Pledge of Allegiance and called
the Regular Meeting of the Tukwila City Council to order.
LIONEL C. BOHRER, MABEL J. HARRIS, GEORGE D. HILL, J. REID
JOHANSON, DORIS E. PHELPS, DANIEL J. SAUL, Council President.
MOVED BY SAUL, SECONDED BY HILL, THAT COUNCILMAN VAN DUSEN BE
EXCUSED FROM THE MEETING. MOTION CARRIED.
LAWRENCE E. HARD, City Attorney; SHIRLEY KRISTOFFERSON, Acting
Finance Director; JOHN MCFARLAND, Administrative Assistant; TED
UOMOTO, Public Works Director; DON WILLIAMS, Recreation Super-
visor; MAXINE ANDERSON, City Clerk
MOVED BY SAUL, SECONDED BY HILL, THAT THE MINUTES OF THE
REGULAR MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 2, 1980, BE APPROVED AS PUBLISHED.
MOTION CARRIED.
MOVED BY PHELPS, SECONDED BY HARRIS, THAT THE VOUCHERS, APPROVED
BY THE FINANCE COMMITTEE, BE ACCEPTED AND WARRANTS BE DRAWN IN
THEIR RESPECTIVE AMOUNTS. MOTION CARRIED.
Current Fund
Street Fund
Water Fund
Sewer Fund
Claims Fund Vouchers #7716 - #7719
7716 $ 7,526.33
7717 455.17
7718 319.31
7719 286.09
$ 8,586.90
Claims Fund Vouchers #7720 - #7870
Current Fund
Golf Crse. Spec. Rev.
Street Fund
Federal Shared Rev.
Land Acq, Bldg, Dev.
Water Fund
Sewer Fund
Firemen's Pension
7720 -7811
7812 -7813
7814 -7833
7834 -7837
7838-
7839 -7850
7851 -7868
7869 -7870
LID 30 C2/ #7871; C3/ #7872 -7874 $215.50
$ 52,752.24
20,250.75
43,235.99
609.22
74.70
8,179.11
19,370.08
168.80
$144,640.89
Tukwila City Hall
Council Chambers
Mayor Todd declared the Public Hearing open on the proposed
use of the Revenue Sharing Funds for 1981. He invited anyone
wishing to comment to come forward and give their suggestions
for the use of this money. There being no input from the
audience, Mayor Todd closed the Public Hearing.
Mayor Todd declared the Public Hearing open on the final
Assessment Roll for LID #29.
Ted Uomoto, Public Works Director, introduced the consulting
engineer on the project, Mr. Garth Anderson. Mr. Anderson,
Vice President of Operations for Jones Associates, said they
did the engineering and construction management on the street
. project. He explained that the project consisted of the con-
struction of 62nd Avenue South from Southcenter Blvd., to South
153rd and construction of South 153rd from 62nd to 65th Ave.
South. 62nd Avenue was constructed with a turn lane. South
153rd was constructed as a normal residential street. There
was also a water main installed to provide adequate fire flow
to the multi- family•developments. Storm drains and sanitary
sewers were installed to serve a portion of the area. The LID
was assessed on the Zone and Termini Method. The formula assesses
TUKW.ILA CITY COUNCIL, REGUIAr MEETING
September 15, 1980 %L. .
Page 2
PUBLIC HEARINGS - Cont.
LID #29: Public
Hearing on the
Assessment Roll
(cont.)
property based on the area of the property being served and
the location with respect to the improvements. Mr. Anderson
explained the boundaries of the Local Improvement District.
He explained that only 3 or 4 of the parcels of property were
assessed for sewer and storm drain; whereas, everybody included
in the LID was assessed for water and street. The cost of the
improvements was considerably higher than the assessment roll
as it was originally sent out. There were a number of changes
made during construction; the project was done during the very
worst time. Midwinter, the native material, wet weather and
the hill caused a great deal of problems. The assessment roll
is about 30% higher than the original. As a result of this
increase, the City paid an additional $50,000. The City also
has an assessment of $56,256.
The main question raised in the protests was concerning the
Cottage Creek Condominiums. When this project was started,
it was a single piece of property. Affiliated American owned
the property and received a single assessment. Between that
time and the completion of the street project, the condominiums
were completed, sold, and filed with the King County Assessor.
Consequently, the final assessment roll is distributed equally
to the new owners. The City is not involved in the commitment
made by Affiliated American to the new property owners to pay
$40,000 against the total assessment. This would reduce each
of their assessments by $833.00. The logical time for them to
pay these funds to the City would be during the 30 day pre-
payment period.
Deborah Paul, 15376 62nd Ave. So., asked about the prepayment
period. Mr. Anderson explained that once the final assessment
roll is approved, the Finance Director will publish a notice
that any portion of the assessment may be paid within thirty
days without penalty, interest or costs.
Ron Germeaux, 15378 62nd Ave. So., asked if bids were taken on
the LID. Mr. Anderson said, yes they were. Mr. Germeaux asked,
why the overruns. Didn't the contractor complete his work per
the original estimate. Mr. Anderson said it is not uncommon
to find something during construction that was not anticipated
in the original design. These are handled during the con-
struction process as Change Orders; also, the contractor was
required to keep the street passable and conditions were very
difficult. Mr. Germeaux asked if it is safe to say that when
you accept bids, you are going to fall within an approximate
range. Was there any major problem? Mr. Anderson said, no,
just problems.
Nancy Scharf, 15388 62nd Ave. So., submitted a letter for the
record. She asked why Tukwila has a policy of not assessing
single family residential property when they do street improve-
ments. Councilman Saul said that residential street improvement
is part of the 6 Year Comprehensive Street Program. Councilman
Johanson explained that this is a plan that is updated every
year and has been in effect for many years. Ms. Scharf asked
if, in the future, they will be considered for street improve-
ment without another LID.
Councilman Bohrer noted that the single family areas have been
part of the 6 Year Street Program. This is one of the first
times that we have had a street improvement program that was
not strictly a single family area. At the time the program was
started, all the residential areas included in the program were
either in the stage of development or they were apartment rentals.
Council drew a distinction between an area where the owner was
the individual residing in the City and a piece of property
where the owner did not reside there, but was engaged in a
profit- making enterprise. When the project was started,the City
had only the Developer to consult.
TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL, REGULP° MEETING
September 15, 1980
Page 3
PUBLIC HEARINGS - Cont.
LID #29: Public
Hearing on the
Assessment Roll
(cont.)
C
Councilman Harris added that it has always been the City's
policy that when a developer is constructing a project he is
obligated to install the streets and utilities. When this
project was started the developer of Cottage Creek was just
beginning. It was believed that it would be finished and he
would bear the cost of it. However, the project carried on
longer than anticipated and the condominiums were sold. Part
of the additional costs on this was due to inflation. In her
mind, the developer should have told everybody about the LID,
and since he was making the profit he should have allowed for
it.
Ms. Scharf, president of the Cottage Creek Condominium Assoc.,
presented two letters for the record - -one from San Juan South
Apartments supporting the protest made by the condominium
owners and the other from Pacific Townhouse Builders requesting
a thirty day delay in finalizing LID #29. She requested a 30
day tabling of this item so that a citizen's committee could
review the information that has been presented, and then come
back to a regular Council Meeting to address the total LID.
Attorney Hard noted that the packet for tonight contains the
ordinance approving and confirming the assessment roll. He
recommended that Council continue the Public Hearing if they
wish to put it off. This can be done legally.
Councilman Johanson reminded the audience that the LID will
increase at about $1,000 per week in interest. He asked if
they wanted to wait four weeks.
Don Crisp, Cottage Creek Condominiums, asked if the City knows
any reason why Affiliated American waited until about the time
they were ready to move into their units, close their loans,
and made many irrevocable decisions regarding the move before
they confronted them with the prospect of paying a share of
the LID. He said he wanted to enter into the official record
their protest regarding Affiliated American's involvement in
the matter whereas they used time and circumstances to coerce
us into signing the agreement,they signed under duress. He
said he felt it was wrong to discriminate against certain
property owners. For example, it is wrong to assess the people
living in the condominiums and not to assess the people who
live in single family dwellings. Frankly, I think Affiliated
American should pay everything.
Councilman Johanson clarified that the easterly boundary of
the LID is the easterly boundary of the condominium property.
The cost to finish South 153rd down to 65th was not included
in the LID.
Councilman Bohrer noted that if you were to purchase a home
in a new development where the developer had to put in the
street and utilities, you would pay for these improvements in
the cost of the home. This is the same process being applied
here. Had the. street been completed before the condominiums
were sold the cost would have been added to the price of the unit.
Tom Morgai'i; G235 Soui.t. 153cd, commented on the LID versus the
single family development. This is one of the major complaints.
There are a number of single'family homes that have received
street improvements the same as they have, and they don't pay
a dime for it, and we are paying, not only for the LID but for
theirs through taxes.
Councilman Saul asked if, without the improvements, would they
have been able to develop the property. Councilman Hill said
without the agreement to participate in the LID, they wouldn't
. even have gotten the zoning.
TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL, REGULAn MEETING
September 15, 1980
Page 4
PUBLIC HEARINGS - Cont.
LID #29: Public
Hearing on the
Assessment Roll
(cont.)
Street - $64,761
Water - 11,284
Total - $76,045
z
Kris Lanning, 15364 62nd Ave. So., referred to the cost summary
shown by Mr. Anderson and asked for an explanation of the difference
between actual contract cost and total final cost. There is a
substantial difference, almost $100,000. Mr. Anderson explained
that the actual contract cost is the contractor's estimate received
at the time of bidding. The final cost is the actual construction
cost. The difference between the two is the increased costs
that occurred.
Ron Germeaux referred to the cost overruns and asked if the
contractor was given a free hand. Who gave the final approval
for the additional costs? Mr. Anderson said it was a combination
of approval by both the City and the consulting engineer. The
contractor did not have the right to do what he wanted to do.
He was guided by inspection provided by their staff and looked
over by the City. All change orders were approved by the project
engineer, City's representative and the contractor's representative.
Mr. Germeaux said, since homeowners are involved in an LID of
this nature with a substantial increase in cost, it seems like we
should have some participation in approval or disapproval of
increases. We were led to believe the LID would cost "x" dollars
and it is almost three time that much. Council disagreed with
this statement. Mr. Anderson explained that the assessment roll
is about 30% higher, not three times. What is misleading is that
the condominium owners did not receive a preliminary assessment
notice; Affiliated American did, as the owner at that time.
They notified you of the LID and notified you of their intent
to participate in the project by letter which states: "The
improvements provided by the LID have reduced our on -site
development cost by $40,000. We are passing this savings on
to you in the form of a lump sum payment applied against the
total assessment." When they make this $40,000 payment, your
assessment will come down. This is an agreement between the
Developer of the property and the buyers.
Mayor Todd asked if anyone knew where the $40,000 is. No one
could answer this.
Mr. 'Anderson proceeded to explain to the audience how the
assessments were computed. He noted that the cost of the
8" water line doubled from the time of estimate to the time of
purchase. He noted that the condominium property was assessed
for street and water only - -not for drainage or sewer. The
Cottage Creek property was assessed as follows:
Pre3 imi nary Final
Assessment Assessment
$80,661
18,801
$99,461
Increase
24.6
66.6
30.8
Mr. Germeaux said the sidewalk and street lights are on the
opposite side of 62nd and he wondered if they are paying the
same proportion as those with the utility on their side. Mr.
Anderson said yes. Mr. Germeaux asked why the left hand turn
lane is necessary. Mr. Anderson said it was discussed and felt
that the traffic -den„1 tJ~ o ta justify . the left turn lane.
Councilman Harris said she feels for the condominium owners.
Their complaint is with the developer. Certainly a lien
against the property should have been told to everyone.
Debby Paul said she made the request in writing, signed by 20
home owners, that they be granted a 30 day delay in the final
decision on this LID.
TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL, REGUI MEETING
September 15, 1980
Page 5
PUBLIC HEARINGS - Cont.
LID #29: Public
Hearing on the
Assessment Roll
(cont.)
Councilman Phelps said they will consider the request after they
hear all the comments from the audience. She pointed out that
when Sunwood is fully developed you will be able to see that
the left hand turn lane is justified.
Tom Morgan said he believes the City knew Sunwood and Cottage
Creek were going to be multi - family and they should have been
given the same treatment as the single family dwellings were in
the funding of the street. He noted that Nancy Scharf, President
of the Condominium Association, would like to be a member of a
citizens committee to work on this during the next 30 days.' She
can be reached at 15388 62nd Ave. So.; phone 455 -2900 or 244 -1251.
Sandra Breslich, 6283 South 153rd, asked what percentage, if
any, of the street increase, particularly on 62nd, was borne
by the firm that did the work. I noticed that they had to redo
part of the road to level it up to the sewer drain. This did not
seem to be a change but rather a correction of faulty construction
work. Mr. Anderson said there were a number of things that
occurred; if it was a contractor error he was not paid. Ms.
Breslich said she was referring to the cost overrun. Mr. Anderson
said the costs paid to the contractor were documented. Ms.
Breslich said it would have been helpful to have those costs prior
to this meeting.
Mayor Todd assured her something would be prepared if the
meeting is extended.
Nancy Paul commented that it was stated that the City has not
had condominium projects before and that the single family versus
occupancy for profit, such as apartments, were assessed differently.
She asked if they are being assessed at the same tax rate as
single family homeowners. Mayor Todd said it is the same millage
rate based on the valuation of the property. Ms. Paul said when
the City made the arrangements for this LID with the contractor
the City knew in advance that they would be single family dwellings.
Councilman Harris explained whether the development was going to
be apartments or condominiums made no difference. The company
that was developing them was doing it for profit. When the
land was rezoned, the condition of the LID was part of the
rezoning and they agreed to it. They would participate; they
would be willing to pay so long as they were able to develop
the property. They could not have developed the project and
made the money. To the City, there was no single family involved;
it was the developer who was making a profit. Ms. Paul asked about
Sunwood Condominiums' largest section of property lying in
Zone 5. They will be assessed at a much lower rate per unit
than Cottage Creek. Mr. Anderson said that's true. Sunwood
only has a small road frontage. Ms. Paul asked about the clearing
being done on the north section of the Sunwood property. She
asked how that area would be assessed. Mr. Anderson said it •
would not affect this LID at all. Once the ordinance is passed
confirming the assessment roll, the LID is closed.
Russell Olin, 6287 South 153rd, said it bothers him that there
is talk about the agreement between the City and Affiliated
American; now, when it comes tile.: L. pa;; the bill, it is no
longer the City and Affiliated American; it is the City and the
homeowners. There is an inconsistency here. I hope, from now
on, those in Cottage Creek are looked at as individual homeowners.
I feel just as much a homeowner in Cottage Creek as if I had a
singTe unit dwelling. It is my home; I pay taxes like everybody
else; I want to be treated fairly like everybody Right
now, I feel very discriminated against.
TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL, REGUI MEETING
September 15; 1980
Page 6
PUBLIC HEARINGS - Cont.
LID #29: Public
Hearing on the
Assessment Roll
(cont.)
Councilman Phelps commented that during the process of an LID,
the City deals with the owner of record. The owner in the
beginning was the developer. That changed as you purchased your
units.
Michio Kato, 9316 39th So., said he feels he should be taken out
of the LID. his property is on the west side of Tract 11 and
has no way to get access to 62nd Ave. South. Is it possible to
be assessed when you can never use the street? Attorney Hard
explained that there was a public hearing for the formation of
the LID. At that time the boundaries of the LID were established.
Mr. Kato said he wrote a letter of protest. Attorney Hard noted
that the protests were not sufficient to defeat the formation.
The power of the Council at this hearing is to hear the comments
on the final assessments and decide whether or not the dollar •
amounts are fair. Mr. Kato said it seems to him that an assess-
ment of $17,000 for something you don't use is pretty steep.
He said he was protesting on that amount.
Councilman Johanson asked if property could be landlocked.
Atty. Hard said a property owner has to have access to his property.
Orin Kato, 15419 62nd Avenue South, said an LID is to benefit
those using the street, however, some homeowners had their street
improved at no cost. How can you discriminate by saying that
people who are benefiting by the improvement will have to pay
when some are getting it for nothing? There are some people
like the person that spoke before me, who has to pay a high
assessment for no benefit at all. Attorney Hard explained the
process of forming an LID. Now, construction is complete and
Council has to decide whether the property within the boundaries
is being specially benefited by the dollar amount of the assess-
ment. Council has the right to make adjustments. Once the
ordinance, approving and confirming the assessment roll, is
adopted there is a ten day period in which a protesting property
owner may file his appeal in the King County Superior Court.
If there is a lawsuit and the Court agrees, the City Council
will to reduce the dollar amount of the assessment. He
said he wanted everyone in the audience to understand that this
is their legal right.
Barbara Clark, 15346 62nd Ave. So., commented that the Sunwood
Condominiums wouldn't survive without 62nd Av. So. There is no
difference in the usage of that street for Cottage Creek as
opposed to Sunwood.
Bruce Morgan, 6000 & 6100 Southcenter Blvd., presented Council
with a letter of protest. He addressed the additional assess-
ment against parcel 7. The work required Change Orders and
involved adjusting existing driveways to the new improvements.
Neither of these were properly addressed as Change Work Orders.
The upper access was established by the time the contract was
let. It should have been part of the contract. There was no
excuse to have it come in as.a Change Work Order, nor any
excuse to have it as a Special Assessment charge. The property
could not have been used without changing the existing grade.
The $3,500 for upgrading the driveway to meet the new grade of
62nd is an improper charge against the tirnnrt'.: Perhaps this
is why the costs overran on this project. The lower driveway
• again was established before•the grades were cut on 62nd Avenue.
The charge is excessive. There are also other specific things
he will be working with the engineering staff on to determine
other. discrepancies.
Mr. Anderson explained to the condominium owners the dis-
crepancy between their assessments as stated by Affiliated
American and the final notice charge mailed to them by the City.
TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL, REGUI " MEETING
September 15, 1980
Page 7
PUBLIC HEARINGS - Cont.
LID #29: Public
Hearing on the
Assessment Roll
(cont.)
r
Mr. Germeaux noted that there are 48 homeowners participating
in an LID which they had nothing to say about. They are paying
approximately 20% of the total costs involved. He asked Council
to take this into consideration when deciding to extend the period.
Councilman Saul asked what they expect to happen at the end of
the 30 days. Mr. Germeaux said they need the 30 days to look at
the cost overruns to see if they are fair. If they aren't fair,
the City should answer some questions.
Mr. Tom Morgan said the increase to the condominiums is 65 %..
The original plan by the City was to put $39,000 into this as a
part of their share and now they are willing to put in $50,000- -
this is a 28% increase. The City is asking Cottage Crrek to help
pay a part of the City's share also. There are a number of home-
owners that are not paying. There were a number of curbs that
were replaced and I couldn't see anything wrong with them. It
looks like there were costs that could have been avoided.
Councilman Hill noted that the cracked curbs were all replaced
at the expense of the contractor.
Councilman Harris said the fact is being overlooked that the City
also has an assessment and it went up in the same proportion as
Cottage Creek. The $50,000 is in addition to the City's assessment.
Ms. Paul said the addition also includes the single family
dwellings that were waived from any increase.
Council said no, they were not included in the LID.
Councilman Johanson explained that when the single family
homes were built, the water lines and streets were installed so
the improvements were all made at one time. For the past 8
years upgrading residential streets has been on the 6 Year Street
Program. We have a history of improving all the streets at no
cost to the homeowner. You will receive the same now that your
street is in. You will be involved in the 6 Year Street Plan.
The citizens are aware of this and have encouraged it. The City
has grown faster than its income. We had to let a lot of things
go for a lot of years with nothing in the way of improvements
to support the building that has gone on with the development of
apartments as well as industry.
We have had to do lots of things on a catch up basis. We finally
reached the point-where we could start improving the City streets
on a maintenance basis; that is the 6 Year Street Program. I
paid for the improvements when I bought my house. I paid for the
sewer under an LID. The single family area is not a cost to this
LID.
Councilman Bohrer said the thing that is bothering a lot of
you is that you feel, as condominium owners, you are not being
dealt with fairly by the City in comparison to the single
family residences. We have another development; it was a plat
and all single family, that involved 14 separate lots. As part
of this development, the developer was told he had to install the
streets, curbs and gutters, storm drains, sewers - -the City will
not do that. Who do you suppose is going to pay for this? it
isn't the City. It is the people who buy the homes. Those are
single family residences and they are going to buy all the
improvements that are currently encompassed in this LID. You
can expect, in the future, that as a resident of the City, you
will be given exactly the same respect as everybody else. The
manner in which this assessment has come to you is a very unusual
one. We understand.that. It is your responsibility to go back
TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL, REGU' "' MEETING
September 15, 1980
Page 8
PUBLIC HEARINGS - Cont.
LID #29: Public
Hearing on the
Assessment Roll
(cont.)
to the developer. We have to deal with the property owner of
record. We are trying to deal with you as fairly as we can.
If you were buying a new single family residence in a new
development you would pay the same sort of charges; you would
simply be assessed for them in a different manner.
Attorney Hard explained that at the time the City became aware
that these costs were going up, the Council gave direction to the
staff to ascertain what the problems were. In the summer the
City was involved in active negotiations. If the City had not
gone to bat for the property owners, the actual costs would have
been greater than what you are being assessed for. The negotiations
resulted in a reduction of the cost to the contractor and others.
The City was concerned and they did take action. The figures
could have been substantially higher if we had paid the contractor
and others exactly what they billed the City for.
Don Crisp, Cottage Creek Condominiums, asked who will decide if
the assessment, as proposed, will be confirmed. Mayor Todd said
the members of the City Council will decide. Mr. Crisp said he
understands the assessment goes to the property owners and they
are the property owners and that they should address their problem
to Affiliated American. However, it is not right to charge one
person for an improvement and not another. This is his objection
to the proceedings.
Isaco Kato, 9316 39th So., said the letter from the City said
"Estimated Assessment for Special Benefits $17,000." Can Council
tell her what the Special Benefits are? They are assessed in
Zone 5. How was the figure arrived at? Mr. Anderson said the
formula in the State Law was used. Your property is within the
LID boundaries and the law does not require that you have access.
This - method has been tested and proven and defended. It says
that you benefit, not whether you have direct access, but by being
in the proximity of. Mrs. Kato asked if it was possible to get a
breakdown of how the figure was arrived at. Mr. Anderson assured
her it was. Mrs. Kato said they protested earlier and it was
useless. Attorney Hard explained the protest process.
Tom Morgan said it is even more unfair because, at the same time
the LID was done, the rest of South 153rd was done and done free
of charge, so there are a lot of people going to use the street,
and the condominium owners are going to have to pay for it. He
said he would also like to participate in the Citizens Committee.
He noted there were a number of protests received and asked what
process would be followed in reviewing and commenting on them.
Attorney Hard explained that the protests are on file with the
City Clerk for anyone to look at. They are a public record. The
City Council, tonight, can make their decision to confirm the
assessment roll as proposed and that is an assessment roll in
the amount of $536,562.31.' This ordinance is before them tonight.
If they decide to continue it, there are interest charges ac-
cruing at about $1,000 a week that will be added on. All of
the individual assessments will be increased proportionately.
If Council acts tonight, you have the right to file an appeal
in King County Superior Court. If no appeal is filed, there is
a 30 day prepayment period during which property owners may pay
off their assessments. Attorney Hard said he would hope Affiliated
American would take the opportunity during that period of time
to pay their $40,000. After that period, the City sells bonds
to pay for the LID. The property owners make payments once a
year against their unpaid balance.
Tom Morgan asked how Council responds to the formal written
protests. Attorney Hard said they have been reviewed by Council.
TUKILA CITY COUNCIL, REGUt MEETING
' September 15, 1980
Page 9
PUBLIC HEARINGS -
LID #29: Public
Hearing on the
Assessment Roll
(cont.)
RECESS:
9:22 P.M.-
9:32 P.M.
Amenda Agenda
Cont.
Proposed Ordinance -
Approving & Con-
firming the assess -
ment roll for LID 29
COUNCIL DECLARED A TEN MINUTE RECESS.
Tommy Wells, Cottage Creek Condominiums, asked how the $59,810
preliminary engineering figure was arrived at. Mr. Anderson
said it provided for the design of the project. It does not
include construction inspection and administration. Mr. Wells
asked if there is a rule of thumb for engineering costs compared
to project costs. Mr. Anderson said it depends on circumstances.
Mr. Wells said 18.6% is ridiculous. Mr. Anderson did not agree.
Mr. Wells said it was pretty cut and dried engineering. Are
there any pollution permits required, any soils testing or any-
thing like that? Mr. Anderson said there was soil testing;
was right -of -way acquisition; there was an environmental analysis;
there was the LID assessment roll. Sir, 18% is not unreal.
The physical design was about $25,000. The fee was negotiated
ahead of time. There were also extra services required at the
preliminary phase. It includes the LID services, design services;
it does not include the time and expense of baby- sitting the
construction contract. That is the difference in the $59,810
and the $108,500. Mr. Wells asked if the engineering firm was
an advisor to the City. Mr. Anderson said yes. Mr. Wells said
18.6% is entirely too much for engineering. Are the figures
available to the public? Mr. Anderson said the City staff has
them. Mr. Wells asked if they could have the name of the City
Official that approved the Change Orders. Mayor Todd noted
that all records are available to the public.
Jeanette Stiers, 15372 62nd Ave. So., told Council that each
condominium has just 22 feet across.
There being no further comment on the final assessment for LID
#29, Mayor Todd closed the Public Hearing.
Mayor Todd called the meeting back to order with Council Members
present as previously reported.
MOVED BY SAUL, SECONDED BY PHELPS, THAT COUNCIL AMEND THE AGENDA
TO DISCUSS ITEM 8A AT THIS TIME. MOTION CARRIED.
MOVED BY SAUL, SECONDED BY PHELPS, THAT THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE
BE READ BY TITLE ONLY. MOITON CARRIED.
City Attorney Hard read an ordinance approving and confirming
the assessments assessment roll of Local Improvement Dis-
trict No. 29 which has been created and established for the pur-
pose of the improvement of property within the City of Tukwila,
Washington, along portions of 62nd Ave. So. and So. 153rd St.
by acquisition of additional public right -of -way, grading,
widening and paving the street surface, installing sidewalks,
curbs and gutters, installing storm drainage, storm sewers and
sanitary sewers, water facilities, underground utilities and
street illumination, as provided by ordinance No. 1098, and
levying and assessing the amount thereof against the several
lots, tracts, parcels of land and other property shown on the
roll.
MOVED BY SAUL, SECONDED BY PHELPS, THAT THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE
BE ADOPTED AS READ.*
Councilman Saul asked Attorney Hard to discuss the advantages
or disadvantages of delaying the adoption of the ordinance for
30 days. Attorney Hard said whether to postpone this or not
is a matter Council . has to decide. The advantages of adding
TiUKWILA CITY COUNCIL, REGU! MEETING
September 15, 1980
Page 10
ORDINANCES
n ( Proposed Ordinance -
Approving & Con-
firming the assess-
ment roll for LID 29
Budget Transfer
Motion No. 80 -33
and No. 80 -34:
FICA
•
thirty more days would be to provide the public with an opportunity
to review the records. These are public records. Thirty says
should be ample time. This may answer some of the questions
raised this evening. This would be a good move on the part of the
Council. The disadvantages are: 1. It could involve a greater
cost. 2. The thirty day period will give people an opportunity
to look at this but there is no legal requirement of the City
Council to anything at all at the end of that time. The City
is not legally obligated to recognize a citizen's group. It is
not legally obligated to do anything at all in response to
additional comments. 3. If the interest rates continue to rise
the bonds might not be saleable.
Mayor Todd said he is uncomfortable that the title does not
include the interest rate being set at 12% and he wanted everyone
to know this.
Councilman Bohrer said Council should grant the delay to give
the citizens a chance to study this and to give Council a chance
to get some items clarified.
Councilman Harris said she would like a chance to review the new
protests. One advantage to living in a small town is your voice
is heard at the City Council meetings.
*MOTION FAILED
MOVED BY BOHRER, SECONDED BY HARRIS, THAT THIS ITEM BE PLACED BACK
ON THE AGENDA FOR THE OCTOBER 13TH COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING. *
Attorney Hard asked if Council intends to have a Public Hearing.
Mayor Todd noted that the Public Hearing is closed but the audience
can still speak on the matter.
*MOTION CARRIED
Councilman Hill noted that the citizens should set their own
commi ttee.
PETITIONS, COMMUNICATIONS, APPEALS AND SIMILAR MATTERS
Budget Transfer Motions No. 80 -33 and No. 80 -34 are to provide
funding for three additional months of FICA for 1980 as required
by changes in the statute. No. 80 -33 is in the amount of $2,780
and No. 80 -34 is in the amount of $19,625.
MOVED BY SAUL, SECONDED BY HILL, THAT THE PROPOSED BUDGET TRANSFER
MOTION BE READ BY TITLE ONLY. MOTION CARRIED.
Attorney Hard read Budget Transfer Motion No. 80 -33, Authorization
for Transfer of Funds.
MOVED BY SAUL, SECONDED BY HILL, THAT BUDGET TRANSFER MOTION NO.
80 -33 BE ADOPTED AS READ. MOTION CARRIED.
MOVED BY SAUL, SECONDED BY HILL, THAT THE PROPOSED BUDGET TRANSFER
MOTION BE READ BY TITLE ONLY. MOTION CARRIED.
Attorney Hard read Budget Transfer Motion No. 80 -34, Authorization
for Transfer of Funds.
MOVED BY SAUL, SECONDED BY HILL, THAT BUDGET TRANSFER MOTION NO.
80 -34 BE ADOPTED AS READ. MOTION CARRIED.
CITY OF TUK...iLA
Central Permit System
MASTER LAND DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION FORM
POLICY # PAGE #
Goal 5 12
Goal 6 12
Goal 1 15
Goal 2 15
Goal 1 18
Goal 2 18
Goal 3 18
Ob.iect.3 25
Po. 1 26
Pol: 2 26
Ob 6 28
Pol. 1 29
Obj. 8 30
Obj. 1_ 45
Pol. 1 45
Pol. 4 45
Obi 60
Pol. 1 60
Pol. 60
S C H E D U L E
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
AMENDMENT
EXISTING COMP. PLAN DESIGNATION HDR PROPOSED COMP. PLAN DESIGNATION pffirp
EXISTING ZONING R-4 PROPOSED USE
Office and parking
EXISTING USE AND CLASSIFICATION OF SURROUNDING PROPERTIES:
ZONE COMP. PLAN DESIG. USE
NORTH R -4 High Dens. Resid. Vacant / Multi- family
SOUTH
EAST
WEST
P -0 Office Office and SnuthcPntpr Rlvd
R -4 High Dens. Resid. Multi- family and 62nd Avenue South
P -0 & C -1 • Office & Commercial Vacant / Community Retail
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.
RELEVANCE
The property along Southcenter Boulevard has become devoted to quality
professional office buildings which take advantage of the hillside
views along a high travel corridor easily accessed by professionals
wishing to reside in the Tukwila area.
The development of quality professional offices along Southcenter Blvd
has been a consistent and healthy element of economic growth in
Tukwila.
The use of the subject property will take advantage of the hillside
view along Southcenter Boulevard while preserving the views of
residents further uphill.
The hillside has provided stable building sites for other office
buildings including. City Hall, and it is not located in an environment-
ally sensitive area.
Residential neighborhoods are protected from the office use of this
site by topographical separation and vehicular traffic access directly
to high travel corridors without going through residential areas.
Thp citp offprc a Continuation Of quality professional office _uSe
along Southcenter Boulevard that is a steady growth of the Tukwila
business community.
C
Obj. 4 65 The proposed rezone and subsequent use will add tb the
Pol .1 66 establishment of a quality office area as well as serve as
Pol. 2 66 a buffer between uphill residential land uses and the
Pot. 3 66 Southcenter B oulevard /.I -405 high travel corridor. Since
any subsequent office building will be subject to BAR
approval, design compatibility to adjacent uses and
sensitivity to the high amenity of view will be assured.
Pol. 10 74 The acdess easement to 62nd Ave. S. is a much safer access than
Pol. 11 74 the Southcenter Bouldvard Access. The noise from the Southcenter
Boulevard /I -405 high travel corridor will be mitigated by
the placement of an office building, which is less sensitive
to noise interference, between the major roads and the uphill
residential areas.
76 The office use on the Southcenter Boulevard bus route will
promote increase use of the transit system. Access to
62nd Ave. S. is convenient to the bus stops at the 62nd &
Southcenter Boulevard intersection.
7 3. 40
1 0*.
,..5
•■ '334 7 3W
• i gm' • . 4 4 - „ i i„ N
0E. 4
----4.___
I, 42 7 9030/ °goo
4
• en 79043CO3G6 7 o ." ,. •
144.E 1 1 ° I
38 - 4 47 64 dia
4 .-„,.............1 1
)1 1
",.....
1 "6 3 D.0 1
4.36a4 A9
1
Rai(
\ tE4
Ai 89 - 25 - 270/4(c 423.4&
/ fp
•
PRI MAR),
S. 1 7 8 r S74 y
45 4 ,430 4 0, s
41, dr ° • ds a
r •
. X/10
/ a
•
3oe.s•S
Go prz.,€
PLAN ANI.o.po-te.N
A-
115
I si 7 ,7_ 10 0
3„
411%. ss
4Sfe
TH
..r•
44'
1,6N6 I TY
of-
rk %*t
t 00
0
NO /
41 �mp
0
R E
4
PLANK !.,1(13 DEPT,
, •
cm •
• ek
L`
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
•
5. Agency requesting Checklist: City of Tukwila
Control
Epic File No.
Fee $100.00 Receipt No.
A. BACKGROUND
1. Name of proposed project, if applicable: Kato Rezone (R - to P - 0)
2. Name of applicant: Michio & Hisako Kato and Tom & Katie Kato
3. Addrracs and phone number of applicant and contact person: Mr. and Mrs. Michio Kato,
9316 -39th South, Seattle, WA 98118 Tom Kato 15419 62nd S.
— Tukwila, WA (Z43 -0738) Cris Crumbaugh 15'245 52nd S., Tukwila (241 -7734)
4. Date checklist prepared: December 11, 1986
6. Proposed timing or schedule (including phasing, if applicable):
Rezone from R -4 to P -0 in early 1987.
Develop nffire huiMaing cubsPrivenr to rezone approval.
7. Do you have any plans for future additions, expansion, .or further activity
related to or connected with this proposal? If yes, explain.
Develop nffice huilding after rP7 nP approval
8. List any environmental information you know about that has been prepared, or will
be prepared, directly related to this proposal.
Environmental checklists prepared for North Hill Associates nn.4 /3 /R4, and
Sunwood Phase III. These properties are immediately west and nnrth of the
subject property respectively.
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. Buildin• • ermit and or BAR a••licati.ns •e,dii.
and Windmark Sunwood III) properties,
electri
::i::a'S;_c;: lip,. ...,..e4". +.z "t`•r�ii ?:i'7ar_sY 11 „ta^-. ..s.t', r'; -�v- �:xr- e•.!r. W+,�.. .�'rt +'r,W...,.�� . >,,, 1'ri„`h�:^:.?,Z',`..a,�;lr u'' ..
... TT .1,1�. V :�.u^'L”: �_. af•: T�.`. eL:.? nY' �i:".. U_: w ,^.r.':,`�ti+,�,?�aeW+xrs!srt"+G TrA� r..e..:�k`.e,.r._..rC.,1.�:..; ....,e .J.veltr.:_.._r...,..
• • / 1
a ..
, sign permit.
10. List any government approvals or permits that will be needed for your proposal.
C0 nt re one, building permit, curb rich /arcess
-up permit, sformwater syttpm
• • 11
•.
1 • II
11 1 . . I • 11
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.
Rezone two parcels ofproperty fron R -4 .D 2 -Q .o allow for twa professional
off e_buildings of a &prnximate17,200 square feet on the westernmost
property and 11,800 square feet on the easternmost. The height oLthe
potential office buildings is expected to be two stories nr approximately
24 feet in height
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 applica-
tions related to this checklist.
The properties front on either the north side of aythcenter Boulevard or._
the west side of 62nd Ave, S. One property is addressesL a. 154 9 UndAme..
5uth now, Legal deuriptions. site plea. .vicinity map, as topaaraphtc
_.map are attaches) as part_of b. rezone appl i ca.tio1L
13. Does the proposal lie within an area designated on the City's Comprehensive Land
Use Policy Plan Map as environmentally sensitive?
_DO
TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANTIL
B. ENVIRONMENTAL. ELEMENTS
1. Earth
a. General description of the site (circle one): Flat,
rolling, hilly, steep slopes, mountainous, other
' hillside with 15 -18% average grade
b. What is the steepest slope on the site (approximate
percent slope)? 23%
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 farmland.
Gravel with small amounts of clay and sand
d. Are there surface indications or history of unstable
soils in the immediate vicinity? If'so, describe.
no
f. Could erosion occur as a result of clearing,
construction, or use? If so, generally describe.
Some soil disruption will occur during construction
but temporary erosion controls shall be used per
requirements of the City Engineer.
g. About what percent of the site will be covered with
impervious surfaces after project construction (for
example, asphalt or buildings)?
50% building areas
30% asphalt areas
-4-
Evaluation for
' Agency Use Only
e. Describe the purpose, type, and approximate quanti-
ties of any filling or grading proposed. Indicate
source of fill.
To create more level building sites and parking areas, the site will
be cut and filled in such a manner as to minimize
the grading necessary for project construction.
Source of fill is on site material.
2. Air
3. Water
a. Surface:
«iY•ti ^::1•, ?:arand �31:�',9':;L15E,1:.t+L ^l;n.:: xtuus :��rtmuf• :rya:•,
t .•
, �,r.:.:•.....: rzsrr, a.
h. Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion, or
other impacts to the earth, if any:
Temporary ernsinn cnntrnl per requirements Of
City Fngineer
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.
Relatively small amounts of dust during construction
and automobile exhaust with building occupancy.
b. Are there any off - site sources of emissions or odor
that may affect your proposal? If so, generally
describe.
Automobile exhaust from high travel corridor
along I -405 and Southcenter Boulevard
c. Proposed measures to reduce or control emissions or
other impacts to air, if any:
Dust control during construction per requirements
of City Engineer
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.
No
.. ay.....+.«.•.. r, uv<... wrnr .��;:..._�'tY'.'r`.'Y�.'i:5i7 ...fi:'i ^i ".'�i�1t�'a}'`.. .
:valuation for
"Agency Use Only
Non
No
No
n..;! it ..,.;.:ii`......d�;i':`ii�i:`. __�4i.;:x "..: ?r':.r ,. ""'�t`�n•:,,f... .r K':- trv��s.:w y��.S;re:.Yi: �.%�J �3: i�%", ".�ri?,7; :sX ^C;
'C... �r ,,:- ...u•._.r,�- .} <,aa :,_•.S.,. a.,..r..._ •..,..... >�•,r,.t 6.n...,:.v- :.:.:.7
2) Will the project require any work over, in, or
adjacent to (within 200 feet) 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.
4) Will the proposal require surface water
withdrawals or diversions? Give general
description, purpose, and approximate quan-
tities, if known.
5) Does the proposal lie within a 100 -year
floodplain? If so, note location on the site
plan.
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.
4 -valuation for
`'"Agency Use Only
1 W.W_ W" elft`: v" �i'; � wL�.,' �:'• u' Y. 1.' JY. F`; �. GiFb. 1h. K5' 1•:: K: SeC:; 1 i? 4' f %{FkUIt {uxYHf:N.LW.eI+AYt••4.rN �.x�4e:.'ln:aw�n.i..+�..wnw+� cK, �l.' iYtS. M1T�C��9l.�F:'1.f i�:+. /.� �� {. 4�.r'i.�...
b. Ground:
1) Will ground water be withdrawn, or will water be
discharged to ground water? Give general
description, purpose, and approximate quan-
tities, if known.
No
2) Describe waste materials that will be discharged
into the ground from septic tanks or other sour-
ces, 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
c. Water Runoff (including storm water):
1) Describe the source of runoff (including storm
water) and method of collection and disposal, if
any (include quantities, if known). Where will
this water flow? Will this water flow into
other waters? If so, describe.
Surface water runoff shall be controlled via
an on -site retention system and connected
to the City's storm drainage system per requirements
of the City-Engineer.
valuation for
Agency Use Only
f .lw�}x:�'2"�.'.
4. Plants
.::• ti ,:.a...A.....`:J.`d'sfy1;}4'sf `!'�t.:l:;: \P>n +,f _,.._L.
2) Could waste materials enter ground or surface
waters? If so, generally describe.
Nn
d. Proposed measures to reduce or control surface,
ground, and runoff water impacts, if any:
PrnvidP on- site_drainagP systerm
sewpr honk ups ppr regtiirPments aLCi_ty.._
_ Eagjneer.
a. Check or circle types of vegetation found on the
site:
X deciduous tree: alder, maple, aspen, other
X evergreen tree: fir, cedar, pine, other
X shrubs
X grass
pasture
crop or grain
wet 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?
Grass, shrubs. and some sina_Ll trees _ ,a1n g__pprimeter
of the site.
c. List threatened or endangered species known to be on
or near the site.
none
Evaluation for
Agency Use Only
�i •
S ffCiP:e .i;k14:S 7: n�L...:✓ u; L...:° 5.::; 5: :i�'.S'K.titC`�.t:r;. <i; +�:�::s ;'efi rx:krr. „...wu.x wrrrr:v.ns -ee.�, w.+c,•�.�ea..- nx- x,.:v..n.,.
5. Animals
d. Proposed landscaping, use of native plants, or other
measures to preserve or enhance vegetation on the
site, if any:
The proposed office development and corresponding
landscape will beneficially increase the quantity
and quality of plan species.
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, songbirds, other:
mammals: deer, bear, elk, beaver, other:
fish: bass, salmon, trout, herring, shellfish,
other:
b. List any threatened or endangered species known to
be on or near the site.
none
c. Is the site part of a migration route? If so,
explain.
No
d. Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife,
if any:
None
Evaluation for
- Agency Use Only
6. Energy and Natural Resources
a. What kinds of energy (electric, natural gas, oil,
wood stove, solor) will be used to meet the
completed project's energy needs? Describe whether
it will be used for heating, manufacturing, etc.
Flertric and natural gas is Pxparted to_be_uspd
fnrai..ghti.n.g and_hea.ting_office_ buildings
b. Would your project affect the potential use of solar
energy by adjacent properties? If so, generally
describe. No
c. What kinds of energy conservation features are
included in the plans of this proposal? List other
proposed measures to reduce or control energy
impacts, if any:
Not'known at this time.
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.
No
2) Proposed measures to reduce or control environ-
mental health hazards, if any:
none •
1) Describe special emergency services that might
be required. Police, fire, and medical
emergency services could be used from time
to time by future occupants of the nffic_
buildings.
Evaluation for
Agency Use Only
Tif
`...rtiV�.v.,. :'.Yi,.c,.� %Yi '...,:�iJ•"1: ?ct;t ' •::1. ` . .., - .. .!..� w7. pk'.:f�
i
r�erzrzc! .. �r_ w w.. e•..+ szvn: an.: rw. i< usea v,.,.,. n, r.... aev: s:- 4: rc: tt:':- CC}: ?7.!.. isf." izP: �..«-.. ..�..�!';: >. !v_..,.Flr
b. Noise
1) What types of noise exist in the area which may
affect your project (for example: traffic,
equipment, operation, other)?
Traffic noise from Southcenter Boulevard and
I -405
2) What types and levels of noise would be created
by or associated with the project on a short -
term or a long -term basis (for example: traf-
fic, construction, operation, other)? Indicate
what hours noise would come from the site.
Short term construction related noise will
occur during construction hours allowed by
the City.
3) Proposed measures to reduce or control noise
impacts, if any:
Abide by construction hours allowed by the
City.
8. Land and Shoreline Use
a. What is the current use of the site and adjacent
properties? Vacant and single family residential
on subject site, office building and Southcenter
Boulevard to south, vacant roposed office to the
west, vacant /proposed multi - family to north, and
multi - family and 62nd Ave. S. to east.
b. Has the site been used for agriculture? If so,
describe. not known
c. Describe any structures on the site.
a single family residence
✓ Evaluation for
Agency Use Only
g•
j•
r r.:� , :cas;;,!v -...:�.¢, u',v_.�.zei .s r.:. ✓w.a r;�WCm
d. Will any structures be demolished? If so, what?
Not as a.result of the zQfljng_changebut the
single family residence would be removed before
development of office building would occur.
e. What is the current zoning classification of the
site? R -4
f. What is the current comprehensive plan designation
of the site? High density residential
If applicable, what is the current shoreline master
program designation of the site?
not applicable
h. Has any part of the site been classified as an
"environmentally sensitive" area? If so, specify.
No
i. Approximately how many people would reside or work
in the completed project?
Not known at this time.
Approximately how many people would the completed
project displace?
Two people in single family resicipnce.
k. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement
impacts, if any:
None. Owner- occupants would relocate themselves.
Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is com-
patible with existing and projected land uses and
plans, if any:
Building height would be limited to reduce view
obstruction n � and BAR requirements would be met.
Evaluation for
Agency Use Only
9. Housing
a. Approximately how many units would be provided, if
any? Indicate whether high, middle, or low- income
housing? Not applicable
b. Approximately how many units, if any, would be eli-
minated? Indicate whether high, middle, or low -
income housing. One
c. Proposed measures to reduce or control housing
impacts, if any:
None
10. Aesthetics
=h.V.: wC C.t•1t >.�14.:.tK... b t�4.'[':': }::art�Y /:::�.tt.f:t+.,�;. .nv.a`rrvn..:..
a. What is the tallest height of any proposed
structure(s), not including antennas; what is the
principal exterior building material(s) proposed?
It is not known at this time but expected to be
two story or 24' high office buildings. P -0 zoning
would limit height of buildings to 35 feet or
3 stories.
b. What views in the immediate vicinity would be
altered or obstructed? View analysis of the hillside
topography and proposed building heights and finished
floor grade of proposed multi - family units finds little
view obstruction. Analysis attached.
c. Proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic
impacts, if any: Meet BAR requirements.
Evaluation for
''Agency Use Only
11. Light and Glare
a. What type of light or glare will the proposal
produce? What time of day would it mainly occur?
Some off - site lighting spillover may occur at nigh
when car headlights are not screened by the contours
of the site or from parking lot lighting.
b. Could light or glare from the finished project be a
safety hazard or interfere with views?
Not expected to be a problem because of topography.
c. What existing off -site sources of light or glare may
affect your proposal?
None
d. Proposed measures to reduce or control light and
glare impacts, if any:
Meet BAR requirements.
12. Recreation
a. What designed and informal recreational oppor-
tunities are in the immediate vicinity?
Tukwila Park, City Hall picnic table area proposed
S -line bridge hillside /sidewalk pocket park.
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:
None
■••r.........., . a .W.t: - &
Evaluation for
Agency Use Only
M4;.�S:i`:i:r: �urrii".':. 19' L7 ui� .Aa.�u::1::.;wtti•_'Sxsv >'.`:: .'t�`3x•;.t3T3 "v+
T
13. Historic and Cultural Preservation
a. Are there any places or objects listed on, or pro-
posed for, national, state, or local preservation
registers known to be on or next to the site? If
so, generally describe.
Nn
b. Generally describe any landmarks or evidence of
historic, archaeological, scientific, or cultural
importance known to be on or next to the site.
__None
iaZS.':'; x: tA4:`.: �M, sr:,. aav: �xu»: azrr., u�rr< irsrr.. ervv�: yir.�.n�¢.:tncrrur.>v.rrrrcn..•. .,.- ......,...a,.rruy.a: x+ar• AMY% x? Y' Y: c:`{ 1. ��' � : =. . .
c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts, if
any:
None
14. Transportation
a. Identify public streets and highways serving the
site, and describe proposed accss to the existing
street system. Show on site plans, if any.
Southcenter Boulevard to the south and 62nd Ave. S.
to the east. Proposed access is to 62nd Ave. S.
Site plan attached.
b. Is the site currently served by public transit? If
not, what is the approximate distance to the nearest
transit stop? _
Bus stop at 62nd Ave. S. and Southcenter Boulevard
is 4 mile from site.
c. How many parking spaces would the completed project
have? How many would the project eliminate?
Approximately 50 and none.
.Evaluation for
C �` Agency Use Only
!Y
15. Public Services
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).
No
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.
360 ADT is estimated for 20.000 square feet of total
office s•ace. The •eak volume w.. d .
� 1 •
g. Proposed measures to reduce or control transpor-
tation impacts, if any:
None
.m.
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.
The office development would require basic. public safety
services and utilities but wnuljLnot warrant an increase
in City service levels nr staff_
b. Proposed measures to reduce or control direct
impacts on public services, if any.
None
Evaluation for
Agency Use Only
` :'..`'+
16. Utilities
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 might be needed.
On -site private lines and hook ups
C. Signature
The above answers are true and complete to the best of
my knowledge. I understand that the lead agency is
relying on them to make its decision.
Signature:
Date Submitted: •
PLEASE CONTINUE TO THE NEXT PAGE.
_Evaluation for
Agency Use Only
TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT
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 imple-
mented. Respond briefly and in general terms.
1. How 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? Minimally or not all
Proposed measures to avoid or reduce such increases are:
On - site retgntion drainage system
2. How would the proposal be likely to affect plants, ani-
mals, fish, or marine life?
Substitute maintained landscaping for sparse
vegetation
Proposed measures to protect or conserve plants, ani-
mals, fish, or marine life are:
None
• Evaluation for
' Use Only
f
3. How would the proposal be likely to deplete energy or
natural resources?
Increase development and use of building
materials and energy resources for utility
purposes.
Proposed measures to protect or conserve energy and
natural resourses are:
None
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? No impart
Proposed measures to protect such resources or to avoid
or reduce impacts are:
None
5. How would the proposal be likely to affect land and
shoreline use, inclduing whether it would allow or
encourage land or shoreline uses incompatible with
existing plans? Office development would he compatible
with surrounding land asps and provide a buffer
from .he high travel rnrridnr imparts to uphill
residences_
Evaluation for
-Agency Use Only
t�•lrL'i,':1h:':iiti <'S »`Y:5 i! �• rf.' C.: Jr' wT1. �.1tiJi.'Aa.•Y[r1')wt•:.W:'etY.V MA. v..kn �Yxb»zY.�Teiy�
C
Proposed measures to avoid or reduce shoreline and land
use impacts area: Building offices
How does the proposal conform to the Tukwila Shoreline
Master Plan? Nnt inrated in thnreline area
6. How would the proposal be likely to increase demands on
transportation or public services and utilities?
360 Average daily trips will be generated by office
users. Normal use of puhlir, services and utilities for
small office buildings_
Proposed measure to reduce or respond to such demand(s)
are: None
7. Identify, if possible, whether the proposal may conflict
with local, state, or federal laws or requirements for
the protection of the environment.
No conflict.
Evaluation for
� Agency Use Only
s,irF dYPII 6
i�M1�Q.,..Yw.
•
8. Does the proposal conflict with policies of the Tukwila
Comprehensive.Land Use Policy Plan? If so, what poli-
cies of the Plan?
Supportive of 26 goals, objectives, and policies of the
Comp Plan while having some conflicts with Policy 3 (p.26)
and Objective 1 (p.34).
Proposed measures to avoid or reduce the conflict(s)
are: Minimize cut and fill necessary for building site and
parking area grades.
Evaluation for
Agency Use Only
TO 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 infor-
mation provided and the submitted plans, documents, suppor-
tive information, studies, etc.
1. What are the objective(s) of the proposal?
To rezone the property from R -4 residential to P -fl
office use to facilitate office devPlnpmPnt in
harmony with other offices uses along Southcenter
Blvd.
2. What are the alternative means of accomplishing these
objectives? none
3. Please compare the alternative means and indicate the
preferred course of action:
Simple action to facilitate office development
along Southcenter Boulevard or net
w.�T:[Wi:Y:Aax.:e i •`1[rx- Mn�nr�a: rrN^:".'. K. 4v:. c£"..... ....x.:��nd +a:�.nzY +,�tr�.,.P:S _;S.S•..a :.���
-22-
valuation for
Agency Use Only
4. Does the proposal conflict with policies of the Tukwila
Comprehensive Land Use Policy Plan? If so, what poli-
cies of the Plan?
. 9 C
II .
Comp Plan while having some conflicts with Policy 3
(p.26) and Objective 1 (p.341.
Proposed measures to avoid or reduce the conflict(s)
are: Minimize cut and fill necessary for building site
and parking area grades.
-
he
Evaluation for
Agency Use Only
CITY OF TUK
Central Permit System
MASTER LAND DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION FORM
S C H E D U L E
u
rL
CHANGE OF ZONING
[
EXISTING ZONING R -4 REQUESTED ZONING p_
COMP. PLAN DESIGNATION High Dens. ReSSITE IN CITY LIMITS? yes
PROPOSED USE IF REZONE APPROVED Office building and related parking
U } 1 U ,v ILA
P l.a.p.wN :2 DEPr.
EXISTING USE AND CLASSIFICATION OF SURROUNDING PROPERTIES:
ZONE COMP. PLAN DESIG.
NORTH R -4 High Dens. Resid. Vacant /Multi- family
SOUTH P -0 Office Office & Southcenter Blvd.
EAST R -4 High Dens. Resid. Multi- Family and 62nd Avenue South
USE
WEST P -0 & C -1 Office & Commercial Vacant'& Community Retail
ESCRIBE THE MANNER IN WHICH YOUR REQUEST FOR CHANGE OF ZONING CLASSIFICATION SATISFIES EACH
F THE FOLLOWING CRITERIA AS SPECIFIED IN TMC 18.84.030 (ATTACH ADDITIONAL SHEETS IF NECES-
SARY).
1) THE PROPOSED CHANGE IN ZONING IS IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE CITY'S COMPREHENSIVE AND LAND
USE POLICY PLAN, THE PROVISION OF THE CITY ZONING CODE AND THE PUBLIC INTEREST.
RESPONSE: ... .. • • .._ ,. ., • . su••orted b the 'ro•osed offic
use, the rezone does conform to a substantial number of Comp Plan provisions. The purpose o
TMC 18.26.010 is well served by the proposed P -0 zone, which buffers the residential area
from high impact commercial corridor along I 105. The public inte-rast i-n steady economic
AD to attached sheet)
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: The subject site is located adjacent to professional offices including City
Hall similarly situated on the hillside along Southcenter Boulevard. The property immediate
ly west of this site has recently been rezoned from RMH to P0. The subject property
go to at ac a see
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 general relationship of land uses along Southcneter Boulevard has become
primarily quality offices (including City Hall) which buffer residential uses further
uphill and away from the high travel corridor. This shift was recently affirmed by the
RMH to PO rezoning of the property immediately adjacent to the subject site. The
circumstance of market interest in a quality office area along Sout center ou evar
(go to attached sheet)
°
qJ
area {�Y.►''
1. (cont) growth in this quality officeAis further established by this
proposal.
2. (cont.) is more closely situated on the hillside to the existing offices
than the existing multi - family residences. The Southcenter Boulevard
and I -405 uses south of the property relate far better to a P -0 rather
than a R -4 use, which .is more sensitive to noise and traffic impacts than
the office use of the property. Specifically, the change in character
along Southcenter Boulevard is a logical expansion of a better use
(i.e. offices rather than apartments) for property impacted.by high
traffic volumes. This change is further justified by the actual buffer
created by the offices for uphill residences.
3. (cont.) has resulted in numerous office building proposals and several
rezones since the adoption of Comp Plan revisions in 1982. In fact,
except for the needed map change for properties along Southcenter Boulevard
the Comp Plan policies are quite supportive of the requested change.
\ Af.
S .
I it
1
P-b I !
5
1 b 45 1.
0
41/4
.9
7\n /V
e,e
4131
413DRoK. Lac Cik reb jgeie
Z/AJE
0
Dp
z\ oi\
4
S
'2■ c,‘
Q
x`
4 se - zs- 2 7 W
0 j0
• •
O
623.4c.
/
•
O
es
Li
'Zb tJ1I— ' L—M (I;
21 Z
ItZ Aft6tt
Ow
" I 00
I A k 4
3 oo.S6
0 t
1■ . o
507
0
a
e
PRI MA/4y
, 7 ru $TA -r •
4- s T'o
NO 'Ilbd-ce• g Rend
414).0. e
_c
' '' .04 P C 0.
? Le e
00. 00
R
w S. 1 5 3 R D. ST
>
< ok
• v..,
— 4
: (\.1
: co
„ 5
0
a
:
0
••
qz- -3
I.
5.
.37
5.0•- 2/40"
ir 7F070 z 4 7 4
5
0
0
S.
N• l..
of see
61111.
•
1¢tYI+V.
It for a a
.n Mating your land n al ri' - - ' , ID/
.i. the Co mpany with ralanoato streets and thee! p$tatl: While Ih . I.sad to ba
M ..�i no liability for any lose oeawing by reason of 'IMAM Iberian.
•
SAFECO TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY
'TRACT 1 I *f'ortr of ^11' ?Ac. 12
YV}:YYI ?ihrfu's ezza
/%
M A, u v.1 —t .-
\
s
•
'
PLAN'
LAND USE E ZONING
LOCATION ZONING
PROPOSED SITE
•
PRESENT -
PROPOSED -
VICNTY MAP
LAND USE
R -4 PRESENT - VACANT
P -0 PROPOSED - PROFESSIONAL /OFFICE BLDG.
WEST OF ISTE P -0 PARKING LOT /OFFICE BLDG.
C -1 MINI -WART- SERVICE STATION
NORTH OF SITE R -4 CONDOMINIUMS
EAST OF SITE R -4 RESIDENTAL
P -0 PROFESSIONAL /OFFICE BLDG.
SOUTH OF SITE
SECTION A - A
1 ":30' -0"
SOUTHCENTER BLVD.
I -405
_ POSSIBLE BLL . AREA
L —
L PROPERTY L1146Vk \"Fb� ,o
cc o c
�,,, d
SITE P ln�
r:tr
c E
G4
SOUTHCENTER
BOULEVARD
ACCESS
— y
FN.
i
1
air ALPHA ENGINEERS INC.
cmasom enwrer.omewomrs
saarsawstormatunumusue
SITE PLAN & PROFILE_
HEIGHT AND OBSTRUCTION
%'11:i. ism' .. 4^". �,,: �' i; �:; ..,.�'is >:f�f�'r'�F2:;:Y.a! ^s:; r,� :'7:'.,..,.'.k!;:1;ie'C : a. niltirv: -6 ^v W.a'i^ter.'v,•saar +u..ma n•..
.14,1W MMFM79,e,
INTRODUCTION
This report is intended to fulfill necessary requirements for the purpose
of changing the existing zoning status of the properties located at
15419 62nd Ave. S. from R -4 to P -0.
The existing topography of the property is defined as a sparcely vegetated
hilly area with a 15 to 18 percent slope surrounded on the north by a
steep hillside and by Southcenter Boulevard to the south.
Because of this existing topography, it is necessary to grade the site as
shown in the site plan and profile, attached, in order to construct an
office building and a parking lot. The difference in elevation resulting
from grading the site and the adjacent property to the north becomes consi-
derable. Windmark Buildings 4, 5 and 6, currently submitted to the city of
Tukwila for approval, are located behind Kato's properties discussed here.
The floor elevations for these properties lie between 131.00 feet and
139.00 feet. The floor elevation and the height of the two story building
shown on the attached profile indicates that there would be minimal
to no obstruction to the Windmark Properties.
.
0
0
0
!.
• :, .i:.
5.244k •c
15Lvo ,.
1 ; 1
•S- SAtJi,zoit- tK
.
p ? d .17 .11V
.J(. Fo
Ni 7.• i O�
2 41 • ..
Jd - / S i
Q
))> /s 9!t 391,./Z •io
1
it/
•
9/,00.0606g
l7• �•4 •
.$N
0 017" ;
v
d O
o P
•
»/
• e• ''Ot'oiz i r
t'.r'' •
t 0 0
' /6F' mob- / Z
Z /Zdve! re1WS3
S ao °•
- - - te o a,
SS
\ 9• sccoolzorp
/ •
290.03
1 �O
•
• yti
f4•b ?i,M
e`
0
2 Lt. £8 00 /Zj N
/8 °
' S
� � 'li V V- • t.1
� ' S � 0£ .78 .1)/
.��a %.1 s n1
•
1 /i• 4 yo'otb s :4'7 'dW v o
aiI P2E••• - vri - z -/ ;v [/ '.FT/
I
4. $0
\ CN
_ I
N
I ^' D n
49#. t 01
inn -iZ v v
I DE
261
t n•.nwHs in
'3
or ()Po
(se v;i6)
12-aP
4
1 /
4- • vita �Y 121•VMa.is
r4 II '0 3 t•I' '2). •7•S+ )
•
/ et
�tl15
<5
•
DATED this // day of
STATE OF WASHINGTON
County of KING
C .�.� , ., u wL 1t tr "' ; ..1 . w 7 , ; , ! +( yy tyr,I c�lNS! d?'F` ''` �
tY.7'r .;C�.ttJ'E .F.i. .,E S,SY -. :'.P��j"�.:- 6M;ac11;3i�tt= 1.3;:'h '� �:s4:�.`<:�'ti * -�i t.: <k �` .i) :.:.:, su n .t ss:di
I, MICHIO KATO, being duly sworn, declare that I am the contract
purchaser or owner of the property involved in this application and that
the foregoing statements and answers herein contained and the information
herewith submitted are in all respects true and correct to the best of my
knowledge and belief.
) ss.
, 1986.
BY:
Michio Kato
I, HISAKO KATO, being duly sworn, declare that I am the contract
purchaser or owner of the property involved in this applicaton and that
the foregoing statements and answers herein contained and the information
herewith submitted are in all respects true and correct to the best of my
knowledge and belief.
DATED this // day of , 1986.
BY: r «. - /c.
Hisako Kato
On this day personally appeared before me MICHIO KATO and HISAKO KATO,
his wife, to me known to be the individuals described in and who executed
the within and foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that they signed the
same as their free and voluntary act and deed, for the uses and p rposes
therein mentioned.
GIVEN under my hand and official sea '
NS o' rq.IBLIC in and for the
Statpf Washington, residing
at ..-4.='s<'w;/ate.
Appointment expires
1986.
STATE OF WASHINGTON
COUNTY OF KING
1986.
) ss.
.
I, TOM KATO, being duly sworn, declare that I am the contract
purchaser or owner of the property involved in this application and that
the foregoing statements and answers herein contained and the information
herewith submitted are in all respects true and correct to the best of my
knowledge and belief.
DATED this // ' day of ,( -� , 1986.
BY: ,,�t, -�•��1
'fan Kato
Katie Kato
BY:
I, KATIE KATO, being duly sown, declare that I am the contract
purchaser or owner of the property involved in this application and that
the foregoing statements and answers herein contained and the information
herewith submitted are in all respects true and correct to the best of my
knowledge and belief.
DATED this W day of � � -�-� -� , 1986.
On this day personally appeared before me TOM KATO and KATIE KATO, his
wife, to me known to be the individuals described in and who executed the
within and foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that they signed the same
as their free and voluntary act and deed, for the uses and purposes therein
mentioned.
GIVEN under my hand and official seal th; day of
NOT P i IC in and for the
Sta — o Washington, residing
at Z 1 /C.u.)i /�
Appointment expires 7 1/47/9 .
CITY OF TUKWILA
Central Permit System
ly us
Ncl k : n Y l S U
MASTER LAND DEVELOPMENT APPL I CAT I ON FORM c k c i c f re
PLEASE WRITE LEGIBLY OR TYPE ALL REQUESTED INFORMATION -- INCOMPLETE APPLICATIONS WILL NOT BE
ACCEPTED FOR PROCESSING.
SECTION I: GENERAL DATA
TYPE OF APPLICATION: s1P °'P°RT sUSD1VIS1ON D cRRM TE D PRD 0PMUD O
o RBAN PLAN
CONDITIONAL QUNUL o VARIANCE ZONING `„IAMENDM NT
APPLICANT: NAME Michio &Hisako Kato /Tom &Katie Kato TELEPHONE (206 ) 243 -0738
ADDRESS 15419 62nd Ave. S.
PROP. OWNER: NAME same
ADDRESS
PROJECT LOCATION: (STREET ADDRESS, GEOGRAPHIC, LOT /BLOCK)
THIS DAY OF
same
SECTION II: PROJECT INFORMATION
4) DESCRIBE BRIEFLY THE PROJECT YOU PROPOSE Amend Comprehensive Plan from High Density
Residential to Office; Rezone from R -4 to P -0.
5) ANTICIPATED PERIOD OF CONSTRUCTION: FROM TO
6) WILL PROJECT BE DEVELOPED IN PHASES? OYES ®ND IF YES, DESCRIBE:
7) PROJECT STATISTICS:
A) ACREAGE OF PROJECT SITE: NET GROSS 1.5 EASEMENTS
B) FLOORS OF CONSTRUCTION: TOTAL1 /FLOORS INCLUDES: 0 BASEMENT O MEZZANINE
TOTAL GROSS INCLUDES: O BASEMENT Q MEZZANINE
FLOOR AREA
C) SITE UTILIZATION: EXISTING PROPOSED NOTES
ZONING DESIGNATION R -4 P -0
COMP. PLAN DESIGNATION High Dens. Res. Office
BUILDING FOOTPRINT AREA 0 0
LANDSCAPE AREA O D
PAVING AREA 0 0
TOTAL PARKING STALLS:
- STANDARD SIZE
- COMPACT SIZE
- HANDICAPPED SIZE
TOTAL LOADING SPACES
AVER. SLOPE OF PARKING AREA
AVER. SLOPE OF SITE 15% 0 -5% Proposed cut & fill to provide
8 ) I S THIS SITE DESIGNATED FOR SPEC I AL CONS I DERAT I ON ON THE CI T p l lad 1 _I (tr sY s i t e
MAP? ❑ YES ®
SECTION III: APPLICANT'S A,FIDAVIT
1, , BEING DULY SWORN, DECLARE THAT I AM THE
CONTRACT 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
ALL RESPECTS TRUE AND CORRECT TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE AND BELIEF.
DATE X
See attached Applicant's Affidavit
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN BEFORE ME
, 19
NOTARY NUDLI': IN AND FOR THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
Qccct i:
�V Zc�Ne 4446421 3oo "°
Comvo wt.44, t'I1(4'1 3 oo."
g „ v. CIcCts 1-, G o .c?o
e 4 0.0 -J
0.
Tukwila, WA
TELEPHONE
Control #
File #(s)
Fee(s) $ fa-4
Receipt #
ZIP 98188
ZIP
(SIGNATURE OF CONTRACT PURCHASER OR OWNER)
13f�EMED
� 198
c, TY Of Tu
PLANNING DEPT..