Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPermit 85-16-CPA - CITY OF TUKWILA - MCMICKEN HEIGHTS ANNEXATION: COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT85-16-cpa 85-15-r mcmicken heights COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLAN AMENDMENT DEN UITIY ALLACE October 11, 1989 Dear John: Mr. John McFarland City Administrator City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Blvd. Tukwila, WA 98188 ATTORNEYS AT 2100 WestlakeCent.rTower 1601 Fifth Avenue Seattle, WA 98101.1886 (208) 447-7000 FAX: (206) 447-0215 Re: DiGiovanni v. Tukwila LAW r OCT 121989 I John D. Wallace Douglas E. Albright Lee Corkrum Wayne D. Tanaka G. Geoffrey Gibbs Larry C. Martin Robert G. Andre' Michael G. Wickstead Robert A. Kies: Steven A. Reisltr W. Scott Snyder Christopher A. Washington James E. Haney of Counsel James A. Murphy Wenatchee Office: 1 South Chelan Street, P. 0. Box 1608, Wenatchee, WA 98807, (509) 882.1954, FAX (509) 883.1553 R. Miller Adams Carol D. Bernasconi Rosemary P. Bordlemay Cameron G. Comfort Robert T. Dollinger Milton H. Doumit, Jr. David A. Ellenhom Kathleen C. Heady William F. Joyce Kent C. Meyer Phillip C. Raymond Theresa A. Romano Ellen M. Ryan Thomas W. Sexton DI Gil Sparks David A. Steiner Karen Sutherland Karen M. Wiggum Charles D. Zimmerman Enclosed is a copy of an Order entered in the Court of Appeals denying DiGiovanni's Motion for Reconsideration. As we have discussed previously, DiGiovanni asked the Court to reconsider its decision regarding dismissal of the Writ of Review portion of his lawsuit. DiGiovanni did not bring up anything new in his Motion for Reconsideration, but simply made the same arguments about the appeal running from the effective date of the ordinance that he made in his initial briefs. We responded to the Motion and the Court has now denied it. The effect of the denial of DiGiovanni's Motion is to uphold the Court's earlier decision that DiGiovanni did not file his request that the R -1 -7.2 zoning be reviewed in a timely manner. DiGiovanni does have the option to petition the Washington Supreme Court for review of the Court of Appeals' decision by filing such a petition within 30 days after the order denying the Motion for Reconsideration was entered, i.e., by November 3, 1989. The Supreme Court does not have to accept the review and will do so only if it decides that the significance of the legal issues involved and the substantial nature of the public interest inherent in those issues merits consideration by the Court. As I pointed out to you previously, I think it is unlikely that the Supreme Court would accept review. Because of potential malpractice implications of a late filing, it may, however, be likely that DiGiovanni's attorney will file the petition. If DiGiovanni petitions for review, we will have the obligation to respond to that petition within 15 days after it is served and filed. The Supreme Court may either accept review, which will mean additional briefing and argument before the Supreme Court, Mr. John McFarland October 11, 1989 Page 2 or deny the review, in which case the Court of Appeals will issue a mandate to the Ring County Superior Court requiring further proceedings in accord with the Court of Appeals' decision. Assuming that review is ultimately denied or not petitioned for, Mark Hucklin, the insurance pool's attorney, and I would intend to move for dismissal of the remaining .issues in DiGiovanni's lawsuit and we believe that there is a good chance that that dismissal would be granted. I will keep you advised of further proceedings in the case. Please feel free to call me if you have any questions. Very truly yours, OGDEN MURPHY WALLACE JEH:crd enclosure cc: Mayor. Gary L. VanDusen Rick Beeler Lawrence Hard Mark Hucklin JEH01840L;0042.05017A wra >iUCxN.b Mh'Y'SU:S• uNa+rme.Mwage..1 e1W'aY•1PM PICHARD D. TAYLOR. Clerk lo 4 Mr. James E. Haney Attorney at Law 2100 Westlake Center Seattle, WA 98104 Mr. Mark R. Bucklin Attorney at Law 4141 Seafirst 5th Ave. Plaza Seattle, WA 98104 Counsel: Zile &urt of ,A}tpenis • of the . Stute of 3iushingtan reuttle 98101.4170 October 4, 198 • Re: 21709 -7 -I, Digiovanni v. City of Tukwilla King County Cause No. 85 -2- 14656 -5 OCT 1 0 19189 Mr. Derrill T Bastian Attorney at Law 602 Fisher Business Center Seattle, WA 98104 Ddi '�w .. Y Wallace Enclosed please find a copy of the order entered today denying the motion for reconsideration. Within 30 days after the order is filed, the opinions of the Court of Appeals will become final unless, in accordance with RAP 13.4, counsel files a petition for review in this office. The content; of a petition should contain a "direct and concise statement of the tests established in RAP 13.4(b), with argument." RAP 13.4(c).. (7). In the event a petition for review is filed, opposing counsel may file with the Clerk of the Supreme Court an answer to the petition within 15 days after the petition is served on him. For counsel's information, the Supreme Court has determined that a filing fee of one hundred dollars ($100.00) will be required in that court. emp c: The Honorable James Dore Mr. Raymond Krontz Reporter of Decisions Very truly yours, Richard D. Taylor Clerk of the Court DIVISION I One Union Square 600 University Street (206) 464 -7750 and KING COUNTY, a municipal ) corporation, ) Defendant. ) ) the same hereby is, denied. rci:.:.•xa::.:ar; IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON MARSILIO DIGIOVANNI, ) Respondent, ) NO. 21709 -7 -I v. ) DIVISION ONE CITY OF TUKWILA, a municipal ) corporation, in King County, ) ORDER DENYING Appellant, ) RESPONDENT'S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION The respondent, Marsilio DiGiovanni, having filed a motion for reconsideration herein, and the court having determined that it should be denied; now, therefore, it is hereby ORDERED that respondent's motion for reconsideration be, and • DATED this -4 day of c -4t Cr3 ---4 , 1989. Iti: t tt,+ ���:" lS tK*. �ii 3,: .;�!':+ i &DE URMY June 28, 1989 Mayor Gary L. VanDusen City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Blvd. Tukwila, WA 98188 Re: DiGiovanni v. Tukwila Dear Gary: CE CE ATTORNEYS AT LAW 2100 Westlake Center Tower 1601 Fifth Avenue Seattle, WA 98101.1686 (206) 447.7000 FAX: (206) 447.0215 John D. Wallace Douglas E. Albright Lee Corkrum Wayne D. Tanaka G. Geoffrey Gibbs Larry C. Martin Robert G. Andre' Michael G. Wickstead Robert A. Kiess Steven A. Ressler W. Scott Snyder Christopher A. Washington James E. Haney of Counsel Raymond D. Ogden, Jr. James A. Murphy Wenatchee Office: 1 South Chelan Street, P. 0. Box 1606, Wenatchee, WA 98807, (509) 662.1954, FAX: (509) 683.1553 R. Miller Adams Kristen Anderson Carol D. Bernasconi Rosemary P. Bordlemsy Cameron G. Comfort Robert T. Dollinger Milton H. Doumit, Jr. David A. Ellenhorn Kathleen C. Healy William F. Joyce Kent C. Meyer Terry T. Preshaw Phillip C. Raymond Theresa A. Rossano Ellen M. Ryan Thomas W. Seaton BI Gil Sparks David A. Steiner Karon Sutherland Rolf H. Tangvald Karen M. Wiggum Charles D. Zimmerman • Enclosed is a copy of the Court of Appeals' decision in the above - referenced case. The bottom line is that the Court has reversed the decision of Judge Dore on the writ of certiorari, holding that DiGiovanni's challenge of the R -1 -7.2 zoning was filed too late. The Court held, in essence, that the trial court was without jurisdiction to review the zoning because DiGiovanni filed his request for review 18 days after the Council's adoption of the zoning ordinance, outside the 10 day limit established by Section 18.90.040 of the Tukwila Municipal Code. In effect, this procedural ruling upholds the R -1 -7.2 zoning of DiGiovanni's property. With respect to the effect of the Court of Appeals' decision on the remainder of the lawsuit, that may depend upon the number of factors. First, DiGiovanni has the option to petition the Washington Supreme Court for review of the Court of Appeals' decision. Any such petition would have to he filed in the Court of Appeals within 30 days of the filing of the decision, i.e., by July 26, 1989. The Supreme Court does not have to accept the review and will do so only if it decides that the significance of the legal issues involved and the substantial nature of the public interest inherent in those issues merits consideration by the Supreme Court. Because the Court of Appeals was unanimous in its decision and based that decision on procedural grounds only, I think it is highly unlikely that the Supreme Court would accept review of the case. It may, however, be likely that DiGiovanni will try this option. If DiGiovanni does not petition for review, or if review is ultimately denied, the Court of Appeals will issue a mandate remanding the case to the trial court for further proceedings in Mayor Gary VanDusen June 28, 1989 Page 2 accord with the Court of Appeals' decision. Mark Bucklin, the insurance pool's attorney, and I have discussed those proceedings and believe that most, if not all, of DiGiovanni's claims must simply be dismissed because the zoning on which they are based has effectively been upheld. In any event, while the damages claims are still pending, the Court of Appeals' decision on the timeliness of DiGiovanni's challenge to the zoning gives the City a strong boost in dealing with the remainder of the issues. Please feel free to give me a call once you have had a chance to review the decision of the Court of Appeals. I will keep you advised as to developments. Very truly yours, OGDE MURPHY WALLACE JEH:crd enclosure cc: Jack Pace Lawrence Hard Mark Bucklin JEH01643L;0042.05017A RICHAnD D. TAYLOR. Clerk Mr. James E. Haney Ogden, Murphy & Wallace 2100 Westlake Center 1601 5th Ave. Tower Seattle, WA 98101 -1686 Mr. Mark R. Bucklin Keating, Bucklin & McCormack 4141 Seafirst 5th Ave. Plaza 800 Fifth Avenue Seattle, WA 98104 Counsel: Re No: Zile Court of ,N3peuls of tilt tttte of Washington Seattic 98101- 417 9une 26, 1989 Mr. Derrill T. Bastian Bastian & Bastian 602 Fisher Business Center 3500 188th Street S.W. Lynnwood, WA 98037 21709 -7 -I, Digiovanni v. City of Tukwilla King County 85 -2- 14656 -5 The opinion filed by this court in the above - referenced case today states in part as follows: "We reverse the judgment and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion." In accordance with RAP 14.4(a), claim for costs by the prevailing party must be supported by a cost bill filed and served within ten days after the filing of this opinion, or claim for costs will be deemed to have been waived. DIVISION I One Union Square 600 University Street (206) 464 -7750 In view of a RAP rule change effective as of September 1, 1983, a party no longer must file a motion for reconsideration of a Court of Appeals decision terminating review as a condition of seeking review by the Supreme Court. page two 21709 -7 -I RDT /rp c: The Honorable James Dore Counsel may file a motion for reconsideration as explained in RAP 12.4(b) which states that the motion for reconsideration must be filed within 20 days after the decision is filed. If counsel does not wish to file a motion for reconsideration but does want to seek review by the Supreme Court, your attention is directed to RAP 13.4(a) which states that if no motion for reconsideration is made, a petition for review must be filed within 30 days after the decision is filed. Effective July 27,. 1987, there will be a petition for review filing fee of $100 pursuant to Chapter 383 Laws of 1987 amending RCW 2.32.070. Very truly yours, Richard D. Taylor Clerk of the Court JUN 2 6 000,IN J& Wallace MARSILIO DIGIOVANNI, ) Respondent, ) NO. 21709 -7 -I v. ) DIVISION ONE CITY OF TUKWILA, a municipal ) corporation, in King County, ) FLE ) Appellant, ) ) and KING COUNTY, a municipal ) corporation, ) JUN 2 6 1989 FILED: Defendant. ) ) i'i'i .... .... .. .. .. _ IN CLERKS OFFICE COURT OF APPEALS STATE CF WASHINGTON-DIVISION DATE .._. JUN 2 x_.1989 CHIEF JUDGE 2‘' IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON GROSSE, ACJ -- The City of Tukwila (Tukwila) appeals from IP' an adverse judgment on a writ of certiorari. DiGiovanni's petition for writ of certiorari challenged Tukwila's zoning classifications for the McMicken Heights area. Tukwila contends that the petition was untimely filed and that the trial court was without jurisdiction to hear the appeal. We agree. In 1970, DiGiovanni bought a tract of land located in the McMicken Heights area of King County fronting on South 164th Street. In October of 1975, the County zoned part of the property RM -900 and the other part RM -2400. These zones allowed development 21709 -7 -I /2 of the property for multi - family uses. In 1978 -79, DiGiovanni constructed a child care center on the rear part of his property. That use was permitted by the King County zoning laws. In January of 1984, DiGiovanni submitted an application for a building permit to construct a 21 -unit apartment house on the remainder of his property. That permit was ready for issuance in October of 1984. However, on February 28, 1985, the McMicken Heights area, including the DiGiovanni property, was annexed into the City of Tukwila by an ordinance that did not specify proposed zoning for the area. Prior to annexation, Tukwila had established comprehensive land use plan designations for all properties in the McMicken Heights area on the basis that the area was within Tukwila's logical planning area and might someday be annexed. The plan had designated DiGiovanni's property as "low density residential ". DiGiovanni's property is adjacent to a busy commercial intersection. Residential properties surround the intersection. Shortly after annexation, Tukwila began proceedings to establish zoning for the 187 acre newly annexed McMicken Heights area. The Planning Commission held hearings and made a recommendation that DiGiovanni's property be zoned low density residential. The Tukwila City Council held several public hearings and on August 19, 1985 adopted Ordinance 1360 which classified DiGiovanni's property as R -1 -7.2 (single family residential) and which classified other properties adjacent to the intersection as -2- 2.1709 -7 -I/3 -3- P -O (professional office use allowing multi - family, professional offices, and educational and government facilities). Eighteen days later on September 6, 1985, DiGiovanni filed a petition for writ of certiorari and a complaint which asserted several causes of action for damages against Tukwila and King County. The petition for writ of certiorari was bifurcated from the other causes of action. After trial on the writ, the superior court entered judgment invalidating the R -1 -7.2 zoning for DiGiovanni's property. Tukwila appeals contending that because DiGiovanni's petition for writ of certiorari was not timely filed the trial court was without jurisdiction to hear the matter. Tukwila Municipal Code 18.90.040 provides as follows: The action of the city council on all matters shall be final and conclusive unless, within ten days from the date of the council's action, an applicant or an aggrieved party makes an application to the Superior Court of King County for a writ of certiorari, a writ of prohibition, or a writ of mandamus. When review of an adjudicatory action such as a rezone is sought, the petitioner must file within the time prescribed by ordinance. Teed v. King Cy., 36 Wn. App. 635, 641 -42, 677 P.2d 179 (1984). See KSLW v. Renton, 47 Wn. App. 587, 736 P.2d 664 (1986); Deschenes v. King Cy., 83 Wn.2d 714, 521 P.2d 1181 (1974). DiGiovanni does not dispute this rule. Instead, he contends that Tukwila Municipal Code 18.90.040 must be construed harmoniously with RCW 35A.12.130 which provides that an ordinance does not take effect until 5 days after the date of its publication unless 21709 -7 -1/4 -4- otherwise provided by statute or charter. He notes that the zoning ordinance in question, Ordinance 1360, provided it would be effective 5 days after passage and publication. DiGiovanni urges us to accept a construction that would allow commencement of the 10 -day appeal period from the date the ordinance was effective. We cannot accept DiGiovanni's argument because of the plain language of the ordinance, Tukwila Municipal Code 18.90.040. Our construction must carry out the intent of the lawmaking body which, in turn, must be determined primarily from the language of the statute itself. State v. Neslund, 103 Wn.2d 79, 82, 690 P.2d 1153 (1984). According to that language the 10 -day limitation period runs from the date of the council's action. "Action" is ordinarily defined as "the process of doing: exertion of energy: performance: manner of doing" or "a voluntary act of will that manifests itself externally . . . a thing done: deed ". Webster's Third New International Dictionary 21 (1981). When language is as plain and free from ambiguity as the language in the Tukwila ordinance, an appellate court cannot engage in a construction of the statute because the language itself conveys the meaning and intent of the lawmaking body. Bavarian Properties. Ltd. v. Ross, 104 Wn.2d 73, 77, 700 P.2d 1161 (1985). The 10 -day period for appeal runs from the date that the zoning ordinance was passed by the city council, not from the effective date of the ordinance. 21709 -7 -I /5 This is the only sensible construction of the ordinance. Not all council actions take the form of an ordinance, particularly in zoning matters. The specific provision for appeals in zoning matters covers all council actions. Application of a different rule when the action is in the form of an ordinance would add unnecessary confusion. If an appeal is taken from a zoning ordinance, the provisions of RCW 18.90.040 stay the ordinance's effective date while the appeal is pending. Thus, the section of the zoning ordinance that provides that the ordinance will be effective 5 days after publication simply does not come into play. There is an additional basis for rejecting DiGiovanni's reasoning. The statute and parallel ordinance providing for a delayed effective date are general rules applicable to all ordinances passed by the Tukwila City Council, Tukwila Municipal Code 18.90.040 is a special statute addressing appeals from decisions of the city council in zoning matters. In this circumstance, the special statute supercedes the general. General Telephone Co. of the Northwest. Inc. v. Washington Utils. & Transp. Comm'n, 104 Wn.2d 460, 706 P.2d 625 (1985). Because DiGiovanni filed his petition more than 10 days after August 19, 1985, the date Tukwila Ordinance 1360 was passed, the trial court did not have jurisdiction to review Ordinance 1360 by writ of certiorari. 21709 -7 -I /6 We reverse the judgment and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. WE CONCUR: 1.1?)a/a;J/ (4/ JAMES A. MURPHY JOHN D. WALLACE DOUGLAS E. ALBRIGHT LEECORKRUM WAYNE D. TANAKA G. GEOFFREY GIBBS LARRY C. MARTIN ROBERT G. ANDRE MICHAEL G. WICKSTEAD ROBERT A. KIESZ STEVEN A. REISLER W. SCOTT SNYDER CHRISTOPHER A. WASHINGTON RAYMOND D. OGDEN (1876 -1972) RONALD A. MURPHY (1930-1983) OF COUNSEL RAYMOND D. OGDEN, JR. Dear Gary: Mayor Gary Van Dusen City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Blvd. Tukwila, WA 98188 LAW OFFICES OF OGDEN, MURPHY &WALLACE 2100 WESTLAKE CENTER TOWER 1601 FIFTH AVENUE SEATTLE, WA 98101 -1688 (206) 447-7000 TELEX: 287941 OGON UR TELECOPIER: (206) 447-0215 1 SOUTH CHELAN STREET P.O. BOX 1606 WENATCHEE, WASHINGTON 98807 (509) 682 -1954 TELECOPIER: (509) 883 -1553 PLEASE REPLY TO SEATTLE OFFICE March 1, 1989 Re: DiGiovanni v. Tukwila R. MILLER ADAMS KRISTEN ANDERSON CAROL D. BERNASCONI ROSEMARY P. BOROLEMAY CAMERON G. COMFORT ROBERT T. DOLLINGER MILTON H. DOUMIT, JR. DAVID A. ELLENHORN JAMES E. HANEY KATHLEEN 0. HEALY WILLIAM F. JOYCE KENT C. MEYER PHILLIP C. RAYMOND THERESA A. ROZZANO ELLEN M. RYAN THOMAS W. SEXTON ill GIL SPARKS DAVID A. STEINER ROLF H. TANGVALD KAREN M. WIGGUM CHARLES D. ZIMMERMAN r,1! R 2 1989 k This is just to let you know that oral argument in the DiGiovanni case was heard as scheduled by the Court of Appeals on February 23, 1989. The main focus of the judges seemed to be whether Mr. DiGiovanni had brought his lawsuit in a timely fashion. As you may recall, our argument there was that TMC 18.90.040 requires a person challenging a zoning decision to bring a lawsuit within ten days from the City Council's action. The Council passed Ordinance 1360, establishing the zoning in the McMicken Heights area, on August 19, 1985. DiGiovanni's lawsuit was not brought until September 6, 1985. Our argument was that the lawsuit was untimely because it was brought more than ten days after passage of the ordinance. DiGiovanni's counter argument was that the time period for bringing the lawsuit did not begin to run until the effective date of the ordinance, which was August 28, 1985. From the questions we got from the judges, it seemed as if they were leaning towards our position. If the judges agree with our position on the timeliness of the lawsuit, at least that portion of DiGiovanni's lawsuit which seeks to have the zoning overturned should be reversed. DiGiovanni would still be able to pursue a claim that, even if the zoning is valid, it devalued his property to such an extent that he is entitled to compensation. I doubt that he would prevail on this argument at trial. The next thing that will happen in this case is for the court to issue its written opinion. There is no set time limit .4 Mayor Gary Van Dusen March'1, 1989 Page 2 JEH /crd cc: Rick Beeler Lawrence E. Hard JEH01389L;0042.05017 for the court to do this, and it could be several months before we get an answer. Four to six months appears to be about the norm between oral argument and issuance of an opinion from the Court. I will keep you advised of further developments. Very truly yours OGDEN, MURPHY & W LLACE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 VS. gob deo i c 4 62 ‘ MARSILIO DIGIOVANNI, ) Plaintiff, ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Defendants. -3 ) CITY OF TUKWILA, a municipal corporation, in King County, and KING COUNTY, a municipal corporation, Com & Pat Writ Certiorari Inverse Con & Damages - 1 Plea.5 Digiov.com 11 :;3 ,r CITY OF TUAVvILA CITY CLERKS JFFICE IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON IN AND FOR KING COUNTY No . 8 5 - 2 - 1 4 6 5 6 - COMPLAINT AND PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI INVERSE CONDEMNATION AND DAMAGES UNDER CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1871 AND 42 USC 1983, 1988 COME NOW plaintiffs and for their complaint and petition for Writ of Certiorari, Inverse Condemnation and Damages under the Civil Rights Act of 1871 and 42 USC 1983, 1988, respectfully show the court as follows: 1. That the defendant, City•of Tukwila, is a municipal corporation, organized and existing pursuant to the laws of the State of Washington, within King County, State of Washington. 2. That defendant, King County, is a municipal corporation organized pursuant to the Charter under the laws of State of Washington. 3. That Marsilio DiGiovanni is the owner of real property located in King County, within the boundaries of properties newly annexed to City of Tukwilla on or about February 28, 1985, under Ordinance 1343. Said DiGiovanni property is located within the McMicken Heights annexed area, which is generally bounded on the north by SR 518A, on the west by 42nd LAW OFIICES DERRILL T. BASTIAN 330 FIRST INIERSTATC bANA BUILUIN(i 340b Ib8M S TREE( 5 W LYNNW000 WASHINGTON 98036 1.061 775 6601 Ave. S., on the south by S. 164th Street, and on the east by 51st Ave. South. The street address of the DiGiovanni property is 4220 and 4230 South 164th Street and legally described as: Beginning at a point on the north line of section 27, township 23 north, range 4 east, W.M., in King County, Washington, distant north 89 59'10" west 2306.10 feet + from the northeast corner of said section 27; and running thence south 0 15'50" east 610.80 feet to the true point of beginning of this description; thence continuing south 0 15'50" east 580.8 feet; thence north 89 59'10" west 150 feet; thence north 0 15'50" west 580.8 feet; thence south 80 59'10" east 150 feet to the true point of beginning, (being known also as tract 37, block 5, McMicken Heights Div. No. 2, according to unrecorded plat thereof) situated in King County, Washington. Less County roads. 4. That in the month of January, 1984, plaintiff, DiGiovanni applied to King County for the issuance of a building permit to construct a 21 unit building upon his property which at the time of submission of the application for building permit was zoned RM900 and RM2400 under the King County Zoning Ordinance which zoning permits and authorizes the construction of a 21 unit apartment house structure. King County gave the application for building permit NO. C84 5416. 5. That by October 9, 1984, the building permit was duly processed by King County and it was ready to be issued. 6. That during the period of time herein alleged plaintiff had a sale for a portion of his property for the sum $220,000.00. The sale was for cash subject to the issuance of a building permit authorizing the construction of 21 unit apartment house on plaintiff's property. Com 6 Pet Writ Certiorari Inverse Con 6 Damages - 2 Plea.5 Digiov.com LAW OFFICES DERRILL T. BASTIAN 330 FIRST INTERSTATE BANK BUILUIN• 3405 186114 STREET S W LYNNWOOD WASHINGTON 98036 x:061 775 6601 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 Com & Pet Writ Certiorari Inverse Con & Damages - 3 Plea.5 Digiov.coa 7. That on or about February 19, 1985, by Ordinance 1343 the City of Tukwila annexed the McMicken Heights area, above described, to the City of Tukwila. 8. That as a result of the annexation, King County refused to issus the building permit to plaintiff claiming that the jurisdiction to do so was lost upon annexation to the City of Tukwila and that the permit must be issued by the City of Tukwila. 9. That the City of Tukwila has refused to issue the building to plaintiffs because the City of Tukwila was planning to and since has down -zoned the property of plaintiff's from RM 900 and RM 2400 to single family' residential zoning R- 1 -7.2. This re- zoning was done by Ordinance 1360 passed on August 19, 1985, published August 23, 1985, to become affective on August 29, 1985. 10. That the down - zoning of plaintiff's property, above described is illegal and void and was done in violation of law and in violation of plaintiff's rights of due process of law and is an unlawful taking of plaintiff's property without just compensation, all done in violation of plaintiff's civil rights and under color of law for the following reasons to writ: A. The RM 900 and RM 2400 zoning, which was placed upon plaintiff's property by King County was placed thereon, after careful study and in harmony with good, sound, . planning and zoning principals. Therefore, the King County zoning placed upon plaintiff's property has the presumption of validity and the defendant City of Tukwila LAW OFFICE, DERRILL T. BASTIAN 330 FIRST INTERSTATE BANK BUILDING 74OS 186D4 SMREET S W LYNNWOOD WASHINGTON 98036 12061 775.660I 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 must ., products proof: in sufficient measure to support down - zoning to R- 1- 7.2°'':and the defendant, City of Tukwila, gust make and enter findings of fact in conclusions supported by evidence in the record to support the down-zone from RH 900 and RH.2400 to single family R- 1 -7.2. H. That the defendant, City of Tukwila, could not and did not maks . and enter findings of' fact and conclusions to support the down- zoning which it placed upon plaintiff's property and the action of the defendant, City of Tukwila, in so. doing, did not follow^ and.. adhere. to good, sound planning and. zoning principles and practices. In fact the City of Tukwila Planning Commission Staff Report, which was done by their professional planners in their initial report to the Planning Commission dated April 25, 1985, recommended to the Planning Commission and the City Council that an office designation or zoning (P.O.) which is equivalent to King County Zoning RH 900 and RH 2400 previously placed on plaintiff's property by King County, be placed upon the plaintiff's property. The staff made the following comment: "The purposed amendment follows a study of the newly annexed area of McMicken Heights. The office designation would appropriately classify land currently devoted to office use and act as a buffer between the commercial area and the low density residential areas." C. That the defendant City of Tukwila, by its action in down- zoning plaintiff's property to R -1 -7.2 has now placed the property of the plaintiffs next door or adjacent to Com & Pet Writ Certiorari Inverse Con & Damages - 4 Plea.5 Digiov.com LAW OFFICCi DERRILL T. BASTIAN 330 FIRST INICPSTATE BANK BUILDING 3409 1681" S TREE T S W LYNNWOOD WASHINGTON 98036 12061 775 6601 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 Com & Pet Writ Certiorari Inverse Con & Damages - 5 Plea.5 Digiov.com ! ,�I.Y�' }btu. Ai'1�'�. ���..�:''i .:•: �.'i4 M1:.t.::r:.: ^'+}.'% LAW OFFICES DERRILL T. BASTIAN 330 FINbI INII:NSIATL bANK bUIIUINLi 340b 1813TH STREET SW LYNNW000 WASIIINUTON 98036 42061 775 6601 properties zoned C -1 which is one of the least restrictive Boning categories in the Tukwila zoning ordinance. It allows uses such as the use which is now on the property next door to plaintiffs, i.e. a tavern or restaurant with a cocktail lounge. Defendants City of Tukwila thus expects and requires plaintiffs to place single family residiencee2 next door to this restaurant or cocktail lounge which is completely unrealistic and in violation of all good. zoning and planning principles and therefore it is not done in the interest of protecting and promoting the public health safety and general welfare of the people: Mis therefore, arbitrary and capricious, null and void and it is an inverse condemnation of the' plaintiff's property and property rights. D. Plaintiffs believe and therefore allege that during the hearing and zoning process conducted regarding plaintiff's property, that a member of the Tukwilla City Council was escorted to plaintiff's property by a citizen of the City of Tukwilla who was and is an advocate of the down -zone of plaintiff's property. That this member of the Tukwila City Council thereafter participated in the hearing regarding the zoning placed upon the plaintiff's property and became an advocate of the down -zone of the property of plaintiff before the hearing on plaintiff's property was completed and before the evidence was all in as to the down - zoning of the plaintiff's property. E. That this conduct of the member of the City Council denied plaintiff a fair and objective hearing before an 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 Com & Pet Writ Certiorari Inverse Con & Damages - 6 Plea.5 Digiov.com impartial tribunal. It denied plaintiff's due process of law and resulted in the unlawful taking of plaintiff's property and property rights under color of law and it violated plaintiff's civil rights under the Civil Rights Act of 1871, 42 USC 1983, 1988. F. That plaintiff's in 1979 built a 5,000 square feet day /care center on the northerly portion of their property and, in connection therewith, also did extensive work and incurred considerable expense in preparation for building the 21 unit condominium complex such as insallation of fire hydrants and . put in 650 feet of 8" water mains and water retention systems. The day /care center is an allowed use under the King County zoning RIM 900 and RM 2400 zoning but it is nonconforming under.: the City of Tukwila R -1 -7.2 zoning. That the City of Tukwila made no findings of fact and conclusions showing the necessity or justification of down - zoning the day /care center and that said down -zone does and will decrease the flexibility of use of plaintiff's property and it will seriously depreciate the value of plaintiff's day /care center and will and does deny plaintiff due process of law and constitutes unlawful taking of plaintiff's property and property rights, under color of law and violates plaintiff's civil rights under the civil rights Act of 1871, 42 UCC 1983 and 1988. 11. That the refusal of King County to issue the building permit to the plaintiffs on the grounds and for the reasons LAW OFFILEe DERRILL T. BASTIAN 330 FIRST INTERSTATE BANK BUILDING 3405 186TH STREET SW LYNNWOOD WASHINGTON 98036 12061 775'6601 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 Com & Pet Writ Certiorari Inverse Con & Damages - 7 Plea.5 Digiov.coa that the property had now been annexed to the City of Tukwilla is wrong and unlawful because plaintiff's rights to have the permit issued were vested in King County before the annexation to the City of Tukwilla took place. Therefore, Ring County should be ordered to issue the building permit requested. 12. That the Tukwila Planning Commission Staff, in the Planning Commission Staff Report submitted at the first Planning Commission hearing recommended findings No. C and D as follows: C. The existing land uses proceeding north along 42nd Avenue South from the two corner commercial structures are a medical clinic, a single family structure and then a dental clinic. To the east there is a day care /preschool and an undeveloped lot. D. The proposed amendment would be to redesignate the subject areas on the map with Office, a more appropriate land use designation given the existing and surrounding land uses. (Exhibit C.) 13. The Planning Commission in its minutes dated June 24, 1985 entered the following: The corner of So. 164th Street and 42nd Avenue So. is currently developed with commercial uses. The intersection of 42nd Avenue So. and So. 164th Street and Military Road is heavily devoted to commercial uses and is zoned commercial on all four corners. The proposed C -1 and P -O districts will be compatible with existing commercial development in the subject area and with surrounding uses. The surrounding uses include several service stations, a restaurant, a strip commercial center with grocery, drug, gift and auto parts stores, dry cleaner /laundromat, and a hair salon. 14. In this- finding, in paragraph 13, the Planning Commission recognizes the necessity of buffering the C -1 zoning with P -O zoning to make the uses surrounding the C -1 zoning LAW OFFICEb DERRILL T. BASTIAN 330 fIHST INTERSTATE BANK HUILUING )sub Warm STREET S W LYNNWOUO WAsNINOTUN 9tlUlb I:Utii 77!i b6ul 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12, 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 'compatible. However, they apply the P.O. zoning to all properties surrounding the C -1 zoning except the properties of the plaintiff which they zone R- 1 -7.2, thus making and creating an unequal application of the laws. 15. That the action of the ? City; of Tukwila and the City Council hereinabove enumerated are negligent and the approximate cause of plaintiff's loss of the sale of a portion of his property for the sum -of $220,000.00. That the actions of the City of Tukwila amount to an inverse condemnation of plaintiff's property. These actions are also in violation of RCW Title 64. These actions of the City of Tukwila have caused the plaintiffs to suffer severe financial loss, loss of the benefit of their bargain, and the defendants have under color of law as hereinabove set forth subjected the plaintiffs to a deprivation of their rights, privileges and immunities secured by the constitution and laws of the United States in attempting to regulate the properties of the plaintiffs and restrict the use of their properties in violation of due process of law, causing the defendants damage and causing the defendants to expend monies by way of attorney's fees to defend themselves from the unlawful restrictions made in violation of their constitutional rights and in violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1871, 42 USC 1983, and 1988. WHEREFORE, plaintiff's pray as follows: 1. T at - the City- -- f - and deliver certified copies of the records and proceedings of this annexation and rezone - proceeding and all of the documenta within the City of Tukwila Planning Department pertaining to Com & Pet Writ Certiorari Inverse Con 6 Damages - 8 Plea.5 Digiov.com LAW UFFICES DERRILL T. BASTIAN 330 FIRST INTERSTATE HANK BUILOIN4 3405 188T0 STREET S W LYNNW000 WASHINLi TUN 98036 12061 775 6601 :. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 Com & Pet Writ Certiorari Inverse Con & Damages - 9 Plea.5 Digiov.com LAW UFfILL:a OERRILL T. BASTIAN 330 FIN:, f IN I INS MI I YANK UUIt UtNt. 3408 16611. btNLL bW LYNNWOUD WAbHINGIUN 96036 1.061 776 bb01 this annexation and rezone . proceeding together with all correspondenos and other documents-used in connection with the decision rendered. by the City of Tukwila in zoning the properties of the plaintiffs, together with any and all documents pertaining to the proceedings herein, together with a verbatim transcript of all public hearings conducted by the City of Tukwila which have anything to do with the annexation and, rezoning of plaintiffs property in this matter. 2. That the court review the foregoing records and declare, if it finds it to so be, that the rezoning of plaintiff's property is illegal and void and not according to the laws of the State of Washington and not according to the Common Law and that the court enter an appropriate remedy and the court correct any and all erroneous and void proceedings and declare void any proceedings not conducted to the course of the Common Law or according to the law of the State of Washington and the City of Tukwila. 3. That the court enter an order declaring that service upon the Mayor of the City of Tukwila shall constitute service upon the City of Tukwila and all of its departments. 4. That the court should order either defendant King County or defendant City of Tukwila to issue to the plaintiff his building permit for 21 condominium units pursuant to King County Building Permit Application No. C84 5416. 5. For judgment against the defendant City of Tukwila for such special damages including costs of engineering fees and consultant fees and attorney's fees and for the loss of profit and for damages resulting from the loss of sale of plaintiff's 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 property cawed by the actions of the City of Tukwila in down- zoning plaintiff's property. and for damages resulting frog the inverse condemnation of plaintiff's properties and for damages resulting from the violation of plaintiff's constitutional rights all done in violation of plaintiff's rights under the Civil Rights Act of 1871, 43 USC 1983 and for attorney's foss under: 42 USC 1986 in such aaount as will be proven at the time of trial, said aaount to be determined by the trier of the fact after review of the evidence, but in a sum of not less than $1,500,000.00. 6. For such other and further relief as to the court may seem just and equitable. DATED THIS STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ss. COUNTY OF KING ) Com & Pet Writ Certiorari Inverse Con & Damages - 10 Plea.5 Digiov.com day of September, 1985. Marsilio DiGiovanni, being first duly sworn on oath, deposes and says: That he is the plaintiff in the above - entitled action, that he has read the above and foregoing Complaint of Petition for Writ of Certiorari, Writ of Mandamus and for Damages, knowes the contents thereof and believes the same to be true. Ma io . r ovanni SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before m this rr day of September, 1985. " LAW UFFICES DERRILL T. BASTIAN 330 FIRST INTERSTATE HANK BUILDING 3405 I HHTH STREET SW LY NNWODU WAS.IINU TUN 91iO3b ,2U6I 779 6601 •vFµ.::x;ts��3. � i;:i �4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 . 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 Com 4 Pat Writ Certiorari Inverse Con 4 Damages - 11 Plea.5 Digiov.com �'rf4 r..:�}. .. �'y,, �tt •,.`s ".z ?;ttiPf:.'i C4ttc,•.',SY' lrzsa.iean«rora. 7 r;t✓, Y.'ax :4 G:. S::.7r'.�Sl':�F.�GJStf:..:1: .tu".m"`"r�• %5'Tw, na or a• a• of Washington, residing at Edmonds. LAW (0E10:6 . • • DERRILL T. BASTIAN 330 FIRb T. IN T LRSMI! 13AN'l tl11'LI)INI� . 341)b Itltl)M IHT:L 1 W' LYNNWOOU WAS■11NU ION 96036 1206' 775 6601 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 MARSILIO DIGIOVANNI vs. IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON IN AND FOR KING COUNTY Plaintiff, CITY OF TUKWILA, a municipal corporation, in King County, and KING COUNTY, a municipal corporation, Defendants. Plaintiff's complaint and petition for Writ of Certiorari requiring the City of Tukwila to certify to this court its records of the annexation proceedings wherein the properties of the plaintiffs were annexed to the City of Tukwila under Ordinance No. 1343 and wherein the properties of the plaintiffs annexed for rezone in conjunction with the annexation came on for hearing this day. Copy of the proposed Writ of Certiorari is marked Exhibit A, attached hereto and made part hereof. It appearing to the court that the defendant City of Tukwila should appear before this court and show cause, if any it has, why the proposed Writ of Certiorari should not issue. Order to Show Cause Why Writ of Cert. Should not Issue - 1 Plea.6 DiG.Sho NO. 85 -2- 14656 -5 LAW U1 IL.E 1■ ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY WRIT OF CERTIORARI SHOULD NOT ISSUE DERRILL T. BASTIAN 330 FIRST INTERSTATE BANK BUILDING 34Oh IBBIH ',TREF 1 5 W LTNNWUt)D WAbIINVIUN 4BUJ■ t206t 7T5 6601 .. u: :iC, +;hu�:i:ri.•a: ;t.'v1u.;�i'. ie���a:::l:i.''u�i . _.ri ..,':i:.' . T.; i r :... fvt;i" .r .u:.r.' ��c! {��rNt;;; > .. F rrf`fi,?: y wy. 9 a:'Z:. >', , ,x x•„:r.:nF, .vcmw s wn..5 .:i:::;...,i:: �' ... . , .. ,. .!ln.r � _�. . ..... ..:. . ... ::4� i . 4.:' „C:`�bR:i'��Ar:am-va r¢x^� L. rv�2�fn'` T.� 35 36 37 NOW THEREFORE, it is hereby p . QRDERED that the City of Tukwila appear � ert< <� y ppear before this court 5 Department No. 9 1 4.1 , on the -/ •” day of October, 6 at 3.1gb, R• .m and show cause, if any it has, why the proposed 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 ...... .,'s'dllio Writ of Certiorari attached hereto as Exhibit A should not issue. DONE IN OPEN COURT this ` $ day of October, 1985. ZA Presented by: err 1 T. an Judge Order to Shot: Cause Whymur Writ of Cert. Should nofgssue • 2 4 + Plea. b...p�.G.511'id - •.•.-�,.. •••••• • ... ..... �; :.� •• :f.:'.• . • •• s:jf+iidL9a�s .�t.:r►.. A•%:i1V1►i • • 40"t /611Gin?ilMlji/dajb.1 !Aal aLYi.i :Naafi rGwwi,... i rn... wefts- w•` - ---- ojs' I.4+$1 DERRILL T. BASTIAN :Re 33S.1 rIk T INYEf.:taTL (, Lt.• 6 . • . , , ,aa:ta lab:- sTNE:. - r •% •)! ..7'^ �.fMt1 YS.1i`:S .it ���..«►�+>��. • ....':.j .. • [� .7 . . f 7Y .xL Y}dPIN.+(4 .. ThF:Y� J i • • • 'L.' • \ • . r• 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON IN AND FOR KING COUNTY MARSILIO DIGIOVANNI, ) Plaintiff, ) ) vs. ) ) CITY OF TUKWILA, a municipal ) corporation, in King County, ) and KING COUNTY, a municipal ) corporation, ) Defendants. ) ) THIS MATTER, having come on regularly for hearing before the undersigned judge upon plaintiff's verified Complaint and Petition for Writ of Certiorari, Inverse Condemnation and Damages the under Civil Rights Act of 1871, 42 U.S. 1983 and 1988,wherein the plaintiff asks this court to direct the City of Tukwila to certify to this court a full transcript and record of the annexation proceeding wherein the properties of plaintiff's were annexed into the City of Tukwila under Ordinance No. 1343 and wherein the properties of plaintiff annexed were rezoned in conjunction with the annexation and it appearing to the court that it is appropriate to issue an order requiring the City of Tukwila to certify such record for review. Writ of Certiorari - 1 Plea. 5 Digiova.wri NO. 85 -2- 14656 -5 WRIT OF CERTIORARI LAW UFftC DERRILL T. BASTIAN 330 FIRST INTERSTATE BANK BUILDING 3405 1613TH STREET S W LYNNW000. WASHINGTON 98036 12061 775 6601 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 Writ of Certiorari - 2 Plea. 5 Digiova.wri NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: That the City of Tukwila shall certify to the court forthwith and return to this court certified copies of its records as follows: 1. Copies of the records and proceedings of the City of Tukwila wherein the City of Tukwila did annex the properties of plaintiff into the City, City of Tukwila Ordinance No. 1343, together with the rezone proceedings wherein the properties of the plaintiffs were rezoned in connection with the annexation proceedings. That the City of Tukwila return all of the documents within the City of Tukwila and the City of Tukwila Planning Department pertaining to the annexation and rezone proceedings together with all correspondence and other documents used in connection with the decision rendered by the City of Tukwila in rezoning the properties of the plaintiff, together with any and all documents pertaining to the proceedings therein together with a verbatim transcript of all public hearings conducted by the City of Tukwila and the Planning Commission of the City of Tukwila which have anything to do with the annexation and rezoning of the properties of plaintiff in this matter. 2. These records shall be certified and returned to the court so that the court may review the foregoing records and declare, if it find it to so be, that the rezoning of plaintiff's property was and is illegal and.'void and not According to the laws of the State of Washington and the Common Lair thereof and that the court make and enter an order granting an appropriate remedy and that the court may correct any and LAW OFFICES DERRILL T. BASTIAN 330 FIRST INTERSTATE BANK BUILDING 3405 108TH STREET S W LYNNWOOD WASHINGTON 96036 12061 775 6601 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 • 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 1985. Presented by: berrill T. Bastian Attorney for Plaintiff Writ of Certiorari - 3 Plea. 5 Digiova.wri all erroneous and void proceedings and declare void any proceedings not conducted according to the course of the Common Law or according to the laws of the State of Washington and of the City of Tukwila. 3. That the court should, if it find plaintiffs are entitled thereto, order either defendant King County or defendant City of Tukwila to issue to the plaintiff his building permit for 21 condominium units pursuant to King County Building Permit Application No. C84 5416. It is further ORDERED that the City of Tukwila shall certify and return said record and said transcript to this court on the day of , 1985, in order that the court may review the same in accordance with the above. It is further ORDERED that service upon the Mayor of the City of Tukwila shall constitute service upon the City of Tukwila and all of its departments and officers and bodies of the City of Tukwila. DONE IN OPEN COURT this day of Judge /Commissioner LAW OFFICES DERRILL T. BASTIAN 330 FIRST INTERSTATE BANK BUILOING 3•05 ROTH STREET ti W .YNNW000. WASHINGTON 96038 1206) 775 6601 W" ..:.' ?; " �� City of Tukwila Z � I OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY 2001 6th Ave., Suite 2300 Seattle, Wa. 98121 Mr. Brad Collins Planning Director City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Blvd. Tukwila, Washington 98188 Dear Brad: July 10, 1985 Re: McMicken Heights Annexation - Zoning and Comprehensive Land Use Policy Plan Amendments Enclosed please find copies of two ordinances. The first ordinance amends the Comprehensive Land Use Policy Plan to change the designation of certain properties located in the McMicken Heights Annexation area from Low Density Residential and Commer- cial to Office. The second ordinance amends the official zoning map of the City of Tukwila to establish the zoning classifica- tions of R- 1 -7.2, PO and C -1 for the various properties located in the annexation area. Please note that I have attached only Exhibit A to each of the ordinances, this exhibit being the legal description of the entire annexation area. You will need to attach legal descriptions of the various areas being redesignated or changed. Please let me know if I can be of assistance with these legal descriptions. By copy of this letter, I am filing the originals of the ordinances with Maxine for placement on the Council's agenda. JEH /clh Enclosures cc: Maxine Anderson w /originals Very truly yours, OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY \J James E. Hane and CITY OF TUKWILA JEH /clh 07/10/85 WASHINGTON ORDINANCE NO 13- AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA, WASHING- TON, AMENDING THE COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE POLICY PLAN MAP ADOPTED BY ORDINANCE NUMBER 1039, AS AMENDED BY ORDINANCE NO. 1246, TO CHANGE THE DESIGNATION OF CERTAIN PROPERTY PREVIOUSLY SHOWN AS LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL TO PROFESSIONAL OFFICE. WHEREAS, the real property commonly known as the McMicken Heights Annexation and more particularly described on Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein by this refer- ence as if fully set forth was annexed to the City of Tukwila by Ordinance No. 1343, passed by the City Council on February 19, 1985, and WHEREAS, the City's Comprehensive Land Use Policy Plan Map designates that portion of the McMicken Heights Annexation property described on Exhibit B attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference as if fully set forth as "Low Density Resi- dential", and that portion of the McMicken Heights Annexation property described on Exhibit C attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference as if fully set forth as "Commercial ", WHEREAS, the Tukwila Planning Commission at a public hearing considered amendments to the City's Comprehensive Land Use Policy Plan Map to designate the property described on Exhibits A and B as Office and forwarded its recommendation to the City Council that such changes be made, and WHEREAS, the Tukwila City Council held a public hearing on June 24, 1985 at which all who were present were allowed to speak regarding the proposed changes, and WHEREAS, on the basis of the testimony taken at the public hearing, the City Council, at a public meeting on August 19, 1985 adopted findings and conclusions concerning the proposed changes and determined that the changes should be made, and i,_ By, WHEREAS, the City's SEPA Responsible Official has determined, and the City Council concurs, the there is no signi- ficant adverse environmental impact as a result of the Comprehen- sive Land Use Policy Plan changes, now, therefore, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA, WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. The Comprehensive Land Use Policy Plan of the City of Tukwila, Washington, as adopted by Ordinance No. 1069 of the City of Tukwila, as amended by Ordinance No. 1246, is hereby further amended by changing the designation of certain real property legally described on Exhibits B and C attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference as if set forth in full, from Low Density Residential and Commercial, respectively, to Office. Section 2. The Planning Director is hereby directed to effectuate the necessary amendment to the Comprehensive Land Use Policy Plan Map of the City of Tukwila, Washington, as authorized herein. Section 3. This ordinance shall be in full force and effect five (5) days after passage and publication in the City's official newspaper as provided by law. PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA, WASHINGTON, at a regular meeting thereof this i /y° day of a:; 2-t ATTEST /AUTHENTICATED: , 1985. ITY C ERK, MAXINE ANDERSON APPROVED AS TO FORM: OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY FILED WITH THE CITY LER 0/85 PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCI P'1 I `' PUBLISHED: •`'/.. ?/ 5 EFFECTIVE DATE: c =7i ORDINANCE NO. /357 2 APPROVED: - MAYOR, GARY L. VAN DUSEN t EXHIBIT A That certain property situated in the County of King, State.of Washington, described as follows: Beginning at the intersection of the Tukwila.City limits and the ,south right -of -way margin of State Highway 518; thence westerly along said south right-of-‘way margin, of State Highway 518 to the east right -of -way margin of 42nd Ave South;' thence south along said east right-of- way margin of South 164th Street; thence east along said • south right -of -way margin of South 164th Street to the Tukwila City limits; thence northerly along said Tukwila City limits to the south right -of -way margin of State Highway 518 and to the beginning. Beginning at the northwest corner of the northeast 1/4 of Section 27 T23N R4E W.M.; thence southerly along the centerline of 42nd Avenue South, 756 feet; thence South, . 89°59!1 . 0" - East, 42 feet to the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; thence continuing South 88 °42'38" East, 138 feet; .thence South 00°15'50" East, 145.2 feet:. thence . North 89°59'10" West, 138 feet more or less to the easterly right -of -way margin of 42nd Avenue South; thence ,northerly along said easterly margin .145,2 feet to the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING. EXHIBIT B OLD RESIDENTIAL ZONE CRESTVIEW 16234 CRESTVIEW Beginning at the northwest corner. of. the northeast 1/4 of Section 27 T23N R4E W.M.;.thence southerly along the_center.line of 42nd Avenue South, 901.2 feet; thence South 89 °59'10 ". East, 42 feet t� the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; thence continuing South G9p59'.10" East, 138 feet;, thence' South 00 °15'50 " 75.0 feet; thence North 89 °59'10" West, 138 feet more or less to the easterly margin of 42nd Avenue South; thence northerly along, said easterly margin 75 feet more or less to the TRUE POINT 'OF. BEGINNING. JEH /clh 07/10/85 (1. WASHINGTON ORDINANCE NO. S CITY OF TUKWILA AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA, WASHING- TON, AMENDING THE COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE POLICY PLAN MAP ADOPTED BY ORDINANCE NUMBER 1039 TO CHANGE THE DESIGNATION OF CERTAIN PROPERTY PREVIOUSLY SHOWN AS LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL TO PROFESSIONAL OFFICE. WHEREAS, the real property commonly known as the McMicken Heights Annexation and more particularly described on Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein by this refer- ence as if fully set forth was annexed to the City of Tukwila by Ordinance No. 1343, passed by the City Council on February 19, 1985, and WHEREAS, the City's Comprehensive Land Use Policy Plan Map designates that portion of the McMicken Heights Annexation property described on Exhibit B attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference as if fully set forth as "Low Density Resi- dential", and that portion of the McMicken Heights Annexation property described on Exhibit C attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference as if fully set forth as "Commercial ", and WHEREAS, the Tukwila Planning Commission at a public hearing considered amendments to the City's Comprehensive Land Use Policy Plan Map to designate the property described on Exhibits A and B as Office and forwarded its recommendation to the City Council that such changes be made, and WHEREAS, the Tukwila City Council held a public hearing on June 24, 1985 at which all who were present were allowed to speak regarding the proposed changes, and WHEREAS, on the basis of the testimony taken at the public hearing, the City Council, at a public meeting on July 15, 1985 adopted findings and conclusions concerning the proposed changes and determined that the changes should be made, and WHEREAS, the City's SEPA Responsible Official has determined, and the City Council concurs, the there is no signi- ficant adverse environmental impact as a result of the Comprehen- sive Land Use Policy Plan changes, now, therefore, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA, WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. The Comprehensive Land Use Policy Plan of the City of Tukwila, Washington, as adopted by Ordinance No. 1039 of the City of Tukwila, is hereby amended by changing the desig- nation of certain real property legally described on Exhibits B and C attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference as if set forth in full, from Low Density Residential and Commer- cial, respectively, to Office. Section 2. The Planning Director is hereby directed to effectuate the necessary amendment to the Comprehensive Land Use Policy Plan Map of the City of Tukwila, Washington, as authorized herein. Section 3. This ordinance shall be in full force and effect five (5) days after passage and publication as provided by law. PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA, WASHINGTON, at a regular meeting thereof this day of , 1985. ATTEST /AUTHENTICATED: CITY CLERK, MAXINE ANDERSON APPROVED AS TO FORM: OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK: PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL: --' PUBLISHED: EFFECTIVE DATE: ORDINANCE NO. APPROVED: MAYOR, GARY L. VAN DUSEN 141 A 1906 • City of Tukwila z 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila Washington 98188 433 -1800 Gary L VanDusen, Mayor PLANNING COMMISSION . Minutes of the April 25, 1985, Planning Commission meeting. Chairman Knudson called the meeting to order at 8:05 p.m. Other Commissioners present were Mr. Coplen, Mr. Kirsop, Mr. Larson, and Mrs. Sowinski. Representing staff were Brad Collins, Rick Beeler, Moira Bradshaw, and Becky Kent, Planning Department. Also in attendance were By Sneva, Public Works Director, and Jim Haney, City Attorney, and Gary Van Dusen, Mayor. • APPROVAL OF MINUTES MR. COPLEN MOVED TO ACCEPT THE MINUTES OF THE MARCH 28, 1985, PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING WITH THE CORRECTION MADE TO THE 4TH PARAGRAPH ON PAGE 2, "MR. KIRSOP" SHOULD BE "MR. KNUDSON." MR. LARSON SECONDED. THE MOTION, WHICH PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. Mr. Kirsop proposed that no new items be heard after 11:00 p.m. The Commission concurred. CITY COUNCIL ACTIONS This item was delayed to the end of the meeting. PUBLIC HEARINGS A'. 85 -16 -CPA: McMicken Heights Comprehensive Plan Amendment, requesting amendments from low density residential and commercial to an office classification for 16234, 16228 and 16218 42nd Avenue S. and 4230 S. 164th Street. Chairman Knudson opened the public hearing. Ms. Bradshaw summarized the staff report with corrections. Paul Bray, Supervisor of Facilities for the Highljne School District, 17810 8th Ave. So., Seattle, WA 98148, requested that the plan amendment include Page -2- • ( Planning Commission Mi( as April 25, 1985 an office designation for the Crestview Community Center Building site to increase option for permitted uses. Jim Wing, 4438 So. 160th St., Seattle, WA 98188, requested a more intense use designation for his property. Dennis Robertson, 16038 48th Ave. So., Tukwila, WA 98188, agreed with staff's proposal except the daycare center site should not be changed to office as long as the Crestview Center was left single family. He wasn't opposed to the existing daycare center as a nonconforming use but was opposed to a high density designation on that site. ,Robert Crain, 5105 So.163rd P1., Tukwila, WA 98188, wanted to preserve the single family residential nature of the area. Dick Goe, 5112 So. 163rd Pl., Tukwila, WA 98188, wanted to maintain the single family residential nature of the hillside, was opposed to an upgrade of zoning of Mr. Wing's property, Mr. DiGiovenni's property, and Highline School District's request for office zoning. John MacFarland, 4375 S. 158th St., Tukwila, WA, felt high density develop- ment was out of character for the neighborhood, and was opposed to the rezone as proposed for the property fronting So. 164th Street. M. DiGiovenni, 17015 53rd So., Tukwila, WA agreed with the Commission's (staff's) recommendation on the zoning of his property. Paul Veal, 16025 46th Ave. So., felt felt the area should remain single family. Chairman Knudson closed the public hearing. MR. KIRSOP MOVED TO RECOMMEND THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION PRESENT TO THE CITY COUNCIL THE STAFF EXHIBIT C WITH THE EXCEPTION THAT TRACT 37 FACING ON 164TH STREET BE LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL. MR. SOWINSKI SECONDED THE MOTION. The Commission discussed the proposed Comprehensive Plan amendments. MOTION PASSED 4 -1. Mr. Collins clarified that the changes in the findings from the staff report would be that S. 164th is a residential street and that the Comprehensive Plan designation is adequate for that street and that pro- perty, and staff's other findings and conclusions are adopted. The Planning Commission concurred. B. 85 -15 -R: McMicken Heights Annexation Rezone, requesting rezone of King County zoning classifications to Tukwila zoning classifica- ■ .Page -3- Planning Commission Mi, es April 25, 1985 tions: from RS -7200 to R -1 -7.2 Single Family Residential, from BN Neighborhood Business to C -1 General Commercial and from RM -900 and RM -2400 Multiple Dwelling Maximum and Medium Density to P -0 Professional and Office for the area generally bounded by SR 518, 51st Avenue S., S. 164th Street and 42nd Avenue S. Chairman Knudson opened the public hearing. Ms. Bradshaw summarized the staff report with corrections. Joe Dunstan, Barghausen Enginerrs, Kent, WA, representing Wm C. Markham, recommended an R -4 designation for the property located at 15436 42nd Avenue South. Terry Hope, 15603 42nd So. supported the multi - family zoning request for the site located at 15436 42nd Ave. So. Paul E. Bray, Supervisor of Facilities for the Highline School District, 17810 8th Ave. So., Seattle, WA 98148, requested that the Crestview Community Center be rezoned to an office classification. Daniel R. Surber, 13001 48th Ave. So., Seattle, WA, supported the multi- family zoning request for the site located at 15439 42nd Ave. So. Lyle C. McCoy, 15209 Military Rd. So, Seattle, WA, was opposed to an office zoning at the Crestview Community Center. Donald Wilson, 13001 48th Ave. So., Seattle, WA supported the multi - family zoning request for the site located at 15436 42nd Ave. So. Chris.Houser, 24618 43rd Ave. So., Kent, WA, supported the multi - family zoning request for the site located at 15436 42nd Ave. So. John McFarland, 4375 So. 158th St., Tukwila, WA, was opposed to high den- sity zoning for the site located at 15436 42nd Ave. So. M. DiGiovenni, 17015 53rd So., Tukwila, WA, felt the zoning did not reflect the use of this property (4220 S. 164th Street). Chairman Knudson closed the public hearing. MR. LARSON MOVED TO RECOMMEND THE APPROVAL OF THE PROPOSED REZONE BASED UPON FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS OF STAFF REPORT 85 -18 -R DATED APRIL 25, 1985, WITH THE FOLLOWING MODIFICATIONS: MODIFICATIONS TO THE FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE STAFF REPORT THAT RECOGNIZE THE CONFORMANCE WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND AMENDMENTS RECOMMENDED TONIGHT, S0. 164TH AS A RESIDENTIAL STREET, MAP II WITH CHANGE FROM P -0 TO R -1 -7,200 FOR THE PROPERTY IDENTIFIED AS 4220 SO. 164TH. MR. SOWINSKI SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH PASSED 3 -2. ,.Page -4- Planning Commission Mi( es April 25, 1985 MR. KIRSOP MOVED FOR A FIVE MINUTE RECESS. MR. SOWINSKI SECONDED THE MOTION WHICH PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. BOARD OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW a. DR- 01 -84: Windmark •Homes,• requesting approval of plans for 66 multiple units on a 3.85 acre site located on Sunwood Boulevard (Sunwood III). Mr. Beeler summarized the staff report with corrections. George Kresovich, Hillis, Cairncross et al, 403 Columbia St., Seattle, WA 98102, representing the applicant, reviewed the history of the project. He felt the submitted plans contain required recreation space. John Lane, Project Architect, 1115 West Denny Way, Seattle, WA , presented a site plan, explained the development and submitted the color scheme for the proposed buildings. He reviewed the recreation areas. Larry Hard, Attorney, 3900 Seattle First National Bank Building, Seattle, WA, representing the.Sunwood Homeowners Association, submitted a letter and memorandum to the Board. He questioned ownership of the property, adequacy of the application, the visual impacts, completeness of the environmental review, adequacy of recreation space, compliance with the Comprehensive Plan and former land use decisions. Ryan Thrower, President of the Sunwood Homeowners Association, 15232 Sunwood Blvd., Tukwila, WA, questioned compliance with the understanding the Homeowners had at the time of purchasing units in Phases I and II of Sunwood and the effect the proposal will have on their property values. Dick Taylor, Member of the Sunwood Homeowners Association, 15278 Sunwood Blvd. C13, Tukwila, WA, expressed concern about the building height and requested consideration of the old plans that were presented as part of the sales information in the Spring and Summer of 1981 be reviewed. Mr. Kresovich presented a copy of the. Certificate•of Incorporation for Windmark Homes, Inc. Mr. Beeler explained staff comments on the landscaping plan which had not been received. John Malgarini, 15209 Sunwood Blvd. B24, Tukwila, WA, was view would be obstructed. and revisions concerned his Mr. Collins clarified the staff's recommendation based upon the information provided at the meeting. I • ,Page -5- • Planning Commission Mt ' :es April 25, 1985 MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. Mr. Kirsop felt the recreation space and amenities of that nature where inadequate. MR. KIRSOP MOVED TO REJECT THE PROPOSAL BASED UPON TMC 18.60.040(1)(A), 18.60.050(1)(C), 18.60.050(3)(C) AND 18.60.050(4)(B) NOT BEING MET, AND THAT STAFF WOULD PREPARE DETAILED FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS. MR. SOWINSKI SECONDED THE MOTION. The Commission discussed findings and conclusions. Mr. Collins clarified the findings and conclusions as follows: The site plan, the relationship of the structures to the site, the relationship of the structures and the site to the adjoining area, and the relationship of the landscaping and the site treatment in the areas recreation were not adequate. Mr. Kirsop agreed. MR. COPLEN MOVED TO HEAR APPLICATION DR- 03 -85, METRO EFFLUENT TRANSFER SYSTEM. MR. LARSON SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. DR- 03 -85: Metro ETS, requesting approval of a 96" buried forcemain pipeline and bridges over the Duwamish River. Mr. Beeler summarized the staff report with corrections. Byron Sneva, Public Works Director, reviewed the proposal. Terry Monohan, Metro, 821 Second Avenue, Seattle, WA, asked that Recommendation 6 not be added but considered included in 3. He requested some changes to the staff report and said street lighting was not part of the scope of the project. He concurred with the recommendation that the . design be approved. MR. COPLEN MOVED TO APPROVE DR- 03 -85, METRO ETS, AND ACCEPT STAFF'S FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS AS MODIFIED BY MR. COLLINS AND MR. MONAHAN. MR. SOW'INSKI SECONDED THE MOTION. Mr. Beeler asked for a clarification that staff's recommendation six would remain. The Commission concurred that it would remain. MR. LARSON MOVED TO CONTINUE ITEMS DR- 05 -85: PITNEY BOWES, INC., DR- 06 -85: JANUARY LEASING COMPANY, AND DR- 08 -85: WESTERN PACIFIC PROPERTIES TO THE MAY 9, 1985, PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. MR. COPLEN SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. : ,Page -6 -. Planning Commission Mtes April 25, 1985 CITY COUNCIL ACTIONS Mr. Collins said the Council is reviewing Metro Effluent Transfer System agreement, and will be hearing the Profit Freight Appeal. ADJOURNMENT MR. COPLEN MOVED TO ADJOURN THE MEETING. MR. SOWINSKI SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. TUKWILA PL ' N ;r ISSION CITY OF TUKWILA PLANNING DIVISION PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT REVISED June 24, 1985 AGENDA ITEM 85 -16 -CPA McMICKEN HEIGHTS COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT INTRODUCTION The proposed Comprehensive Plan amendments are to correctly designate on the map existing land uses in the newly annexed area referred to as McMicken Heights. The following findings and conclusions are revised to reflect the recommendation of the Planning Commission and public testimony heard at its meeting on April 25, 1985. FINDINGS A. The annexed McMicken Heights area, generally bounded on the north by SR 518, on the west by 42nd Avenue South, on the south by South 164th Street, and on the east by the former Tukwila corporate limits, was effectively annexed into the City of Tukwila on February 28, 1985, Ordinance No. 1343. B. The subject area, prior to the annexation, was included in the City's Planning Area and therefore is designated on the Comprehensive Land Use Plan Map. The Comprehensive Plan shows the area to be amended as Low Density Residential and Commercial. The lots affected are 16218, 16228, 16234 42nd Avenue South and are to the north of the commercial area in the northeast quadrant of the 42nd Avenue South and South 164th Street intersection. (Exhibit A) C. The existing land uses proceeding north along 42nd Avenue South from the two corner commercial structures are a medical clinic, a single family structure and then a dental clinic. The two corner commercial uses include Ulysses' Restaurant and lounge at 16360 and the Sea -Tac Vision Clinic and Heinz Hairstyling at 16238 42nd Avenue South. D. The two lots generally located at 4220 S. 164th Street are designated as Low Density Residential on the City's Comprehensive Plan map. E. S. 164th Street is a residential street. A daycare facility (Bambi's) occu- pies the back lot and the front lot is undeveloped. Ulysses Restaurant bor- ders the lots on the west and a single family structure borders the lots on the east. F. The proposed amendment would be to redesignate only the 16218, 16228, 16234 42nd Avenue S. lots with Office, a more appropriate land use designation given the existing and surrounding land uses. (Exhibit B) General Goals Residence Page -2- Planning Commission 85 -16 -CPA McMICKEN HEIGHTS COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT June 24, 1985 Natural Environment G. The amendment would satisfy one of the criteria of the rezone proposal for the annexed area per 85 -15 -R McMicken Heights Annexation Zoning Amendment. H. A final Declaration of Nonsignificance was issued for the proposed amendment. CONCLUSIONS A. The proposed Comprehensive Plan amendment is in conformity with the City's Comprehensive Land Use Policies and in general will serve the public interest. Specifically, the proposed reclassification is consistent with the following goals and policies of the Plan: Goal 1, 3, 6 (pp. 12, 13): "...regulate land use and community growth, (to) promote the health, safety and general welfare of the public." "...encourage planned expansion of the corporate boundareis of Tukwila while providing adequate service levels and improvements to all areas within corporate limits." "...attain a balance in land use pattern of the community." The proposed amendments are necessary for the regulation of land use, for the general welfare of the community and will help expedite the service of the newly annexed area of the City. Examples of ser- vices would be subdivisions, building permits and inspections. Goal 1, (p. 15): "Gauge development of the land in a manner suitable to the natural environment." Given the characteristics of the annexation area, the proposed classifications reflect the physical characteristics and limitations of the site. The proposed commercial classifications have been pro- posed for 42nd Avenue South which is designated as a Collector Arterial. Use designation along 164th Street, which is designated for local access, has remained low density residential. The steep topography of the area north of 160th Street and the prevailing single family use of the entire area reiterates its low density character and classification. Goal 1, (p. 17): "Preserve the pleasantness and integrity of viable single family areas." Page -3- Planning Commission 85 -16 -CPA McMICKEN HEIGHTS COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT June 24, 1985 Objective 1, Policy 3, (p. 46): "Prohibit spot zoning in established residential neighborhoods." The amendments as proposed define whole areas of use without varying or introducing intrusions of different use classifications within established areas. Any change in zoning would be precluded without a previous Comprehensive Plan amendment. Commerce /Industry The amendments are limited to the lots which are developed with or were previously zoned for service uses. The uses would front on a designated collector arterial. Previous single family designations and areas would be maintained. Objective 1, Policy 1 (p.60): "Encourage the grouping of uses which will mutually and economically benefit each other or provide necessary services." Objective 3, Policy 1 (p. 65): "Encourage uses which are supportive to retail areas to locate in or near those areas." The intersection of 42nd Avenue South and Military Road is an established neighborhood retail center. The proposed Office designation complements the uses existing on the lots as well as the surrounding residential and neighborhood retail components. Objective 4 (p. 66): "Encourage the establishment of office areas." Policy 1: "Encourage the use of commercial office developments as buffers between residential land uses and other land uses." The proposed Office designation would act as a buffer between com- mercial and single family residential areas. B. The proposed amendment follows a study of existing land uses in the newly annexed area of McMicken Heights. The Office designation would appropriately classify land currently devoted to office use and act as a buffer between the commercial area and the low density residential areas. C. South 164th Street would retain its residential character and the existing low density residential classification would be preserved on lots 4220 and 4230 S. 164th St. D. The amendment to the Comprehensive Plan would facilitate the proposed zoning classifications for the McMicken Heights Annexation area per 85 -15 -R. oir:.� >�.i'. uiiN;.� i:.;'ni:�,iu�:.Y`' �;�',�..`'�`,u,;'.YO ;.uu �,w �a,...w. �a..K,z:: mar ^•A:c�.+^n"t:•- :a.:�:�'em': R ;r""i'F�Ei�'r9:= ";ik' ?3:. +!tc���: ri`F�"Yi�l`�hE.�'4`i 4k" ttr! {�,? (PC.MCMNMAP) Page -4- Planning Commission 85 -16 -CPA McMICKEN HEIGHTS COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT June 24, 1985 SUMMARY The Planning Commission has recommended approval of the proposed amendment to the Comprehensive Land Use Plan Map for an Office designation for the area as shown on Exhibit B. Exhibits A - Detail of Existing Comprehensive Plan designation B - Detail of Proposed Comprehensive Plan designation jo . As- 5 1 0e. ' o I )4- •-+: • z � 'e 6 60 .7 • 7. .re ,• • z,or1 z S B 03110508.) • •, 2 0 N /p ' e. • ;• v ia)als 0 3d so 0 LOW DE Va3o 0 •• r. c • 37 7.r I _° • t, EXHIBIT A NSITY RESI 001 i 0 0 O 7.1 s -5 •io.e. 1. 3 01 N 10 O — N oo Lot 2 w 1^ e ♦- o1 `. .J 6 59•.OM 9: FO 0 Q A 0 0 T C ••• n ti 1 .7 9 7 S )S c _ 90.27 :. I . . .a•r+r . - - • _ � � 1 ',.. 1 L i _.----1 -, , ` {{ • (� "r y0 - l a jo . As- 5 1 0e. ' o I )4- •-+: • z � 'e 6 60 .7 • 7. .re ,• • z,or1 z S B 03110508.) • •, 2 0 N /p ' e. • ;• v ia)als 0 3d so 0 LOW DE Va3o 0 •• r. c • 37 7.r I _° • t, EXHIBIT A NSITY RESI 001 i 0 0 O 7.1 s -5 •io.e. 1. 3 01 N 10 O — N oo Lot 2 w 1^ e ♦- o1 `. .J 6 59•.OM 9: FO 0 Q A 0 0 T C ••• n ti 1 .7 9 3 f„. 3' s •t•st -.ea. A .� � ' is eb s e /9 • I, 4 • • ; IC' 2 O a • 1• zco ■ • . Boo silo so8 • 0 -1 M t •u O FFIC -"a/8 Y C 4 i& A,90 .. 0 2. /lO -- /!93(00 .COMMERCIAL: r y a ti al �f `► • 40290 G O J 37 .I i .4 • EXHIBIT I .. SL OW DENSITY* 1. S P9 -S9 10E. 2,, inn LD13 N yC N 1 H 90 L 2 c r. o • Z P9- 57.•ci J h4 9.% z U at Y LOT I mo. o ° s P • ti y o 0 W J 1 RESIDENTIAL i• • 7 _J _, 7 • n. • • • 7S /1 7S /3 , r' 90.27 1+ o 1 ' •aa•t(r • ' i . . , .. • • i. •.. . -1- Z r 110 r A o/L . w, «.1 1 • . t ►'J� I 1 o„ 4. h4 ti L� 3 f„. 3' s •t•st -.ea. A .� � ' is eb s e /9 • I, 4 • • ; IC' 2 O a • 1• zco ■ • . Boo silo so8 • 0 -1 M t •u O FFIC -"a/8 Y C 4 i& A,90 .. 0 2. /lO -- /!93(00 .COMMERCIAL: r y a ti al �f `► • 40290 G O J 37 .I i .4 • EXHIBIT I .. SL OW DENSITY* 1. S P9 -S9 10E. 2,, inn LD13 N yC N 1 H 90 L 2 c r. o • Z P9- 57.•ci J h4 9.% z U at Y LOT I mo. o ° s P • ti y o 0 W J 1 RESIDENTIAL i• • 7 _J _, 7 • n. • • c CITY OF TUKWILA PLANNING DIVISION PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT aci,,s t�tx.v..:u!:'2il)A : r.w IV) B. , 85 -16 -CPA McMICKEN HEIGHTS COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT AGENDA ITEM INTRODUCTION The proposed Comprehensive Plan amendments are to correctly designate on the map existing land uses in the newly annexed area referred to as McMicken Heights. FINDINGS A. The annexed McMicken Heights area, generally bounded on the north by SR 518, on the west by 42nd Avenue South, on the south by South 164th Street, and on the east by 51st Avenue South, was effectively annexed into the City of Tukwila on February 28, 1985, Ordinance No. 1343. The subject area, prior to the annexation, was included in the City's Planning Area and therefore is designated on the Comprehensive Land Use Plan Map. (Exhibit A) B. The Comprehensive Plan shows the areas to be amended as Low Density Residential and Commercial areas. The lots affected are 16218, 16228, 16234 42nd Avenue South, and 4220 South 164th Street, and are to the north and east of the commercial area in the northeast corner of the 42nd Avenue South and South 164th Street intersection. (Exhibit B) C. The existing land uses proceeding north along 42nd Avenue South from the two corner commercial structures are a medical clinic, a single family structure and then a dental clinic. To the east there is a day care /preschool and an . undeveloped lot. D. The proposed amendment would be to redesignate the subject areas on the map with Office, a more appropriate land use designation given the existing and surrounding land uses. (Exhibit C) E. The amendment would satisfy one of the criteria of the rezone proposal for the annexed are a per 18 -15 -R McMicken Heights Annexation Zoning Amendment. Page -2- Planning Commission i 85-16-CPA: mcMICKEN Vg.IGHTS COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDhLAT April 25, 1985 F. A final Declaration of Nonsignificance was issued for the proposed amendment. CONCLUSIONS A. The proposed Comprehensive Plan amendment is in conformity with the City's Comprehensive Land Use Policy Plan and in general will serve the public interest. Specifically, the proposed reclassification is consistent with the following goals and policies of the Plan: (PC.MCMNMAP) General Goals Natural Environment Residence Commercial /Industry Goal 1, 3, 6 (pp. 12, 13) Goal 1 (p. 15) Goal 1 (p. 17) Objective 1, policy 3 (p. 46) Objective 1, policy 1 (p. 60) Objective 3, policy 3 (p. 64 Objective 4, policy 1 (p. 66) t- MAI B. The proposed amendment follows a study of the newly annexed area of McMicken Heights. The Office designation would appropriately classify land currently devoted to office use and act as a buffer between the commercial area and the low density residential areas. C. The amendment to the Comprehensive Plan would facilitate the proposed zoning classifications for the McMicken Heights Annexation area per 85 -15 -R. SUMMARY The Planning Commission may wish to recommend approval of the proposed amendment to the Comprehensive Land Use Plan Map for an Office designation for the area as shown on Exhibit C. Exhibits A - Comprehensive Land Use Plan Map B - Detail of Existing Comprehensive Plan designation . C - Detail of Proposed Comprehensive Plan designation • • City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila Washington 98188 433 -1800 Gary L VanDusen, Mayor PLANNING COMMISSION Minutes of the April 25, 1985, Planning Commission meeting. Chairman Knudson called the meeting to order at 8:05 p.m. Other Commissioners present were Mr. Coplen, Mr. Kirsop, Mr. Larson, and Mrs. Sowinski. Representing staff were Brad Collins, Rick Beeler, Moira Bradshaw, and Becky Kent, Planning Department. Also in attendance were By Sneva, Public Works Director, and Jim Haney, City Attorney, and Gary Van Dusen, Mayor. APPROVAL OF MINUTES MR. COPLEN MOVED TO ACCEPT THE MINUTES OF THE MARCH 28, 1985, PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING WITH THE CORRECTION MADE TO THE 4TH PARAGRAPH ON PAGE 2, "MR.. KIRSOP" SHOULD BE "MR. KNUDSON." MR. LARSON SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. Mr. Kirsop proposed that no new items be heard after 11:00 p.m. The Commission concurred. CITY COUNCIL ACTIONS This item was delayed to the end of the meeting. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. 85 -16 -CPA: McMicken Heights Comprehensive Plan Amendment, requesting amendments from low density residential and commercial to an office classification for 16234, 16228 and 16218 42nd Avenue S. and 4230 S. 164th Street. Chairman Knudson opened the public hearing. Ms. Bradshaw summarized the staff report with corrections. Paul Bray, Supervisor of Facilities for the Highline School District, 17810 8th Ave. So., Seattle, WA 98148, requested that the plan amendment include Page -2- Planning Commission Mitl :es April 25, 1985 MOTION PASSED 4 -1. Chairman Knudson closed the public hearing. an office designation for the Crestview Community Center Building site to increase option for permitted uses. Jim Wing, 4438 So. 160th St., Seattle, WA 98188, requested a more intense use designation for his property. Dennis Robertson, 16038 48th Ave. So., Tukwila, WA 98188, agreed with staff's proposal except the daycare center site should not be changed to office and as long as the Crestview Center was left single family. He wasn't opposed to the existing daycare center as a nonconforming use but was opposed to a high density designation on that site. Robert Crain, 5105 So.163rd Pl., Tukwila, WA 98188, wanted to preserve the single family residential nature of the area. Dick Goe, 5112 So. 163rd Pl., Tukwila, WA 98188, wanted to maintain the single family residential nature of the hillside, was opposed to an upgrade of zoning of Mr. Wing's property, Mr. DiGiovenni's property, and Highline School District's request for office zoning. John MacFarland, 4375 S. 158th St., Tukwila, WA, felt high density develop- ment was out of character for the neighborhood, and was opposed to the rezone as proposed for the property fronting So. 164th Street. M. DiGiovenni, 17015 53rd So., Tukwila, WA agreed with the Commission's (staff's) recommendation on the zoning of his property. Paul Veal, 16025 46th Ave. So., felt felt the area should remain single family. MR. KIRSOP MOVED TO RECOMMEND THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION PRESENT TO THE CITY COUNCIL THE STAFF EXHIBIT C WITH THE EXCEPTION THAT TRACT 37 FACING ON 164TH STREET BE LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL. MR. SOWINSKI SECONDED THE MOTION. The Commission discussed the proposed Comprehensive Plan amendments. Mr. Collins clarified that the changes in the findings from the staff report would be that S. 164th is a residential street and that the Comprehensive Plan designation is adequate for that street and that pro- perty, and staff's other findings and conclusions are adopted. The Planning Commission concurred. B. 85 -15 -R: McMicken Heights Annexation Rezone, requesting rezone of King County zoning classifications to Tukwila zoning classifica- .,Page -3- Planning Commission M . tes April 25, 1985 Chairman Knudson opened the public hearing. tions: from RS -7200 to R -1 -7.2 Single Family Residential, from BN Neighborhood Business to C -1 General Commercial and from RM -900 and RM -2400 Multiple Dwelling Maximum and Medium Density to P -0 Professional and Office for the area generally bounded by SR 518, 51st Avenue S., S. 164th Street and 42nd Avenue S. Ms. Bradshaw summarized the staff report with corrections. Joe Dunstan, Barghausen Enginerrs, Kent, WA, representing Wm C. Markham, recommended an R -4 designation for the property located at 15436 42nd Avenue South. Terry Hope, 15603 42nd So. supported the multi - family zoning request for the site located at 15436 42nd Ave. So. Paul E. Bray, Supervisor of Facilities for the Highline School District, 17810 8th Ave. So., Seattle, WA 98148, requested that the Crestview Community Center be rezoned to an office classification. Daniel R. Surber, 13001 48th Ave. So., Seattle, WA, supported the multi- family zoning request for the site located at 15439 42nd Ave. So. Lyle C. McCoy, 15209 Military Rd. So, Seattle, WA, was opposed to an office zoning at the Crestview Community Center. Donald Wilson, 13001 48th Ave. So., Seattle, WA supported the zoning request for the site located at 15436 42nd Ave. So. Chris Houser, 24618 43rd Ave. So., Kent, WA, supported the zoning request for the site located at 15436 42nd Ave. So. .•John McFarland, 4375 So. 158th St., Tukwila, WA, was opposed sity zoning for the site located at 15436 42nd Ave. So. M. DiGiovenni, 17015 53rd So., Tukwila, WA, felt the zoning did not reflect the use of this property (4220 S. 164th Street). Chairman Knudson closed the public hearing. multi - family multi - family to high den- MR. •LARSON MOVED TO RECOMMEND THE APPROVAL OF THE PROPOSED REZONE BASED UPON FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS OF STAFF REPORT 85 -18 -R DATED APRIL 25, 1985, WITH THE .FOLLOWING MODIFICATIONS: MODIFICATIONS TO THE FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE STAFF REPORT THAT RECOGNIZE THE CONFORMANCE WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND AMENDMENTS RECOMMENDED TONIGHT, SO. 164TH AS A RESIDENTIAL STREET, MAP II WITH CHANGE FROM P -0 TO R -1 -7,200 FOR THE PROPERTY IDENTIFIED AS 4220 SO. 164TH. MR. SOWINSKI SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH PASSED 3 -2. ,.Page -4- Planning Commission Mites April 25, 1985 MR. KIRSOP MOVED FOR A FIVE MINUTE RECESS. MR. SOWINSKI SECONDED THE MOTION WHICH PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. BOARD OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW a. DR- O1 -84: Windmark Homes, requesting approval of plans for 66 multiple units on a 3.85 acre site located on Sunwood Boulevard (Sunwood III). Mr. Beeler summarized the staff report with corrections. George. Kresovich, Hillis, Cairncross et al, 403 Columbia St., Seattle, WA 98102, representing the applicant, reviewed the history of the project. He felt the submitted plans contain required recreation space. John Lane, Project Architect, 1115 West Denny Way, Seattle, WA , presented a site plan, explained the development and submitted the color scheme for the proposed buildings. He reviewed the recreation areas. Larry Hard, Attorney, 3900 Seattle First National Bank Building, Seattle, WA, representing the Sunwood Homeowners Association, submitted a letter and memorandum to the Board. He questioned ownership of the property, adequacy of the application, the visual impacts, completeness of the environmental review, adequacy of recreation space, compliance with the Comprehensive Plan and former land use decisions. • Ryan Thrower, President of the Sunwood Homeowners Association, 15232 Sunwood Blvd., Tukwila, WA, questioned compliance with the understanding the Homeowners had at the time of purchasing units in Phases I and II of Sunwood and the effect the proposal will have on their property values. Dick Taylor, Member of the Sunwood Homeowners Association, 15278 Sunwood Blvd. C13, Tukwila, WA, expressed concern about the building height and . .requested consideration of the old plans that were presented as part of the sales information in the Spring and Summer of 1981 be reviewed. Mr. Kresovich presented a copy of the Certificate' of Incorporation for Windmark Homes, Inc. • and revisions Mr. Beeler explained staff comments on the landscaping plan which had not been received. John Malgarini, 15209 Sunwood Blvd. B24, Tukwila, WA, was view would be obstructed. Mr. Collins clarified the staff's recommendation based upon the information provided at the meeting. concerned his ..,Page -5- Planning Commission MACtes April 25, 1985 • Mr. Kirsop felt the recreation space and amenities of that nature where inadequate. MR. KIRSOP MOVED TO REJECT THE PROPOSAL BASED UPON TMC 18.60.040(1)(A), 18.60.050(1)(C), 18.60.050(3)(C) AND 18.60.050(4)(B) NOT BEING MET, AND THAT STAFF WOULD PREPARE DETAILED FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS. MR. SOWINSKI SECONDED THE MOTION. The Commission discussed findings and conclusions. MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. Mr. Collins clarified the findings and conclusions as follows: The site plan, the relationship of the structures to the site, the relationship of the structures and the site to the adjoining area, and the relationship of the landscaping and the site treatment in the areas recreation were not adequate. Mr. Kirsop agreed. MR. COPLEN MOVED TO HEAR APPLICATION DR- 03 -85, METRO EFFLUENT TRANSFER SYSTEM. MR. LARSON SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. DR- 03 -85: Metro ETS, requesting approval of a 96" buried forcemain pipeline and bridges over the Duwamish River. Mr. Beeler summarized the staff report with corrections. Byron Sneva, Public Works Director, reviewed the proposal. Terry Monohan, Metro, 821 Second Avenue, Seattle, WA, asked that Recommendation 6 not be added but considered included in 3. He requested some changes to the staff report and said street lighting was not part of the scope of the project. He concurred with the recommendation that the design be approved. MR. COPLEN MOVED TO APPROVE DR- 03 -85, METRO ETS, AND ACCEPT STAFF'S FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS AS MODIFIED BY MR. COLLINS AND MR. MONAHAN. MR. SOWINSKI SECONDED THE MOTION. Mr. Beeler asked for a clarification that staff's recommendation six would remain. The Commission concurred that it would remain. MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. MR. LARSON MOVED TO CONTINUE ITEMS DR- 05 -85: PITNEY BOWES, INC., DR- 06 -85: JANUARY LEASING COMPANY, AND DR- 08 -85: WESTERN PACIFIC PROPERTIES TO THE MAY 9, 1985, PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. MR. COPLEN SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. K) -!xAN A.V. ,Page -6 • • .Planning Commission Mates April 25, 1985 CITY COUNCIL ACTIONS Mr. Collins said the Council is reviewing Metro Effluent Transfer System agreement, and will be hearing the Profit Freight Appeal. ADJOURNMENT MR. COPLEN MOVED TO ADJOURN THE MEETING. MR. SOWINSKI SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. TUKWILA PL'N ISSION Rick Beeler Secretary BLK JC1i7L'.1Y91' .W.UL t kff t:+ 37L '.!'LFALTDktNmornmcsamMC42 4M IVAM , �' - �.kai ✓ xR:S"C /O / -3 • - 2 c 0 / 1 4- • c sD� % � 20 s a • 3 0'7 -. .fa z o av• �7 • tS >L 0 • V ti 00051/ 0508 • 7s /3 to ti 0 /O.0 1 n �1. . /f' 0 • v 7• /2 90. i 1 • I. ••a •re . • O � • Sao c o J 5. 1. 37 0 1.) EXHIBIT A 1. 1\ I n NSITY REST ENTIAL lbo 5 P9.59.10.E , 3 0 to r$ u. 0 n N y0 A cr— N 1 .- 0 1 h LLO o t• ti` 2 ^ e o •J P9- .5, -.oW `::4 9 ob1 x U ■ Y 1 i o LOT 1 0 o v o b./ 90 Of 7J Fo • _Z • i.� 1y •1 60 ,/3 131 • • a 3 .7 9 - A !� ., Y / • i w 21, 1166° s , 1166 A • • 7r /1 t S 0111. 2 o • C0 9oostioS08 ro FFIC _. —. /tv aa8 • �! } 16a35Z d3e) /&3(00 CO NIMERCIAL : l •.. 37 1 1 I ' ` i4 • EXHIBIT B t. 1 C f, n ' ;LOW DENSITY • RESIDENTIAL 4 t 5 P9- 59-tOE , ° , 10 L D 7 ` s 3 ` rs O c N 9C ./ N � N � n oot_or2 0 t ti �` Y c ^ • J P9.57..oW z U ••• LOT . o° • • •.s 7r 71 t 0 J Jr. i7. • .. Mr Til t). 20 �S (1?95 '0© 2 ca 7— X1, 6 5 .b II • J1. e* U 3' • ° .i f• • • • • 13 r � 1 0 U • Y � e /6 . L7 b i 1 0 LOW DE )S 1! • • 7,r s C9•S9!QE. o LOT 3 0 O t f 0 N :JO .�If N ti '. o °d :or 2 N. •J n9..„5,...01.1 tri 9J tri ■ iI g LOT • �� 90 .. I .3 .5 ea I I 1 I r o : I 1 L L 6 • 1 NSITY RESIpENTIAL • 1 • • h f3 1 If • . J7. N 3 .7 0 4 t. too 32.15 1 ( : . V'- 1 -• 1 :.` . r f A ' 111 • : 1� 1_t J. d • _. __ L 7 r /A 15 i3 1 90.27 , i* l '1%4 , .•••'.1 1 yr ,i t 0 J Jr. i7. • .. Mr Til t). 20 �S (1?95 '0© 2 ca 7— X1, 6 5 .b II • J1. e* U 3' • ° .i f• • • • • 13 r � 1 0 U • Y � e /6 . L7 b i 1 0 LOW DE )S 1! • • 7,r s C9•S9!QE. o LOT 3 0 O t f 0 N :JO .�If N ti '. o °d :or 2 N. •J n9..„5,...01.1 tri 9J tri ■ iI g LOT • �� 90 .. I .3 .5 ea I I 1 I r o : I 1 L L 6 • 1 NSITY RESIpENTIAL • 1 • • h f3 1 If • . J7. N 3 .7 0 4 t. too 32.15 •ss -+eG. O r I 0? 1 0 1 , - Ae . e�,t . • , zo L 0 • 7S 10 � 1 J ∎J. S . ! 78 11 N s „o508 • C sG 0 r /et 0 ' , ilr /S 1111 1 1.9 • P � IP to �1r • 75 • 9o.27 /3 �' • . • • • .4 r • .••2• ' • ' St. M MERCIAL .3 e r•n r 0 4 OFFICE O. o ., ✓ c r O i �./ 1 7' ' • Zo 1 _ a t1 . A. ■k5 G .c 37 7s• .I 1 / 14 EXHIBIT C 0 c� ;LOW DENSITY RESIDE(■JTIAL i 46 5.._ "y S P9- 59.10E LOT 3 0 In '` ^ m t 0 0 N )C N Q N • 1\ n 90 fp v' 14 1 i-. • 1 { JI c k t r , • • I •. 79 4 CITY OF TUKWILA PLANNING DIVISION PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT IV) B. 85 -16 -CPA McMICKEN HEIGHTS COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT AGENDA ITEM INTRODUCTION The proposed Comprehensive Plan amendments are to correctly designate on the map existing land uses in the newly annexed area referred to as McMicken Heights. FINDINGS A. The annexed McMicken Heights area, generally bounded on the north by SR 518, on the west by 42nd Avenue South, on the south by South 164th Street, and on the east by 51st Avenue South, was effectively annexed into the City of Tukwila on February 28, 1985, Ordinance No. 1343. The subject area, prior to the annexation, was included in the City's Planning Area and therefore is designated on the Comprehensive Land Use Plan Map. (Exhibit A) B. The Comprehensive Plan shows the areas to be amended as Low Density Residential and Commercial areas. The lots affected are 16218, 16228, 16234 42nd Avenue South, and 4220 South 164th Street, and are to the north and east of the commercial area in the northeast corner of the 42nd Avenue South and South 164th Street intersection. (Exhibit B) C. The existing land uses proceeding north along 42nd Avenue South from the two corner commercial structures are a medical clinic, a single family structure and then a dental clinic. To the east there is a day care /preschool and an undeveloped lot. D. The proposed amendment would be to redesignate the subject areas on the map with Office, a more appropriate land use designation given the existing and surrounding land uses. (Exhibit C) E. The amendment would satisfy one of the criteria of the rezone proposal for the annexed are a per 18 -15 -R McMicken Heights Annexation Zoning Amendment. u';' ....,i t: .,.. r.». �. .. .....,:.v .e i +;au ..�,. .��t. .'�I %:.:;:.It:w(�::hnti• :. j. z, 4U..,.. zt'"..: ir,'>..,.','. ?3i5. ?":i']uC7i.�;a,: <;rns'tivw. 'Page -2- , Planning Commission 85 -16 -CPA: mcMICKEN HEIGHTS COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT April 25, 1985 F. A final Declaration of Nonsignificance was issued for the proposed amendment. CONCLUSIONS A. The proposed Comprehensive Plan amendment is in conformity with the City's Comprehensive Land Use Policy Plan and in general will serve the public interest. Specifically, the proposed reclassification is consistent with the following goals and policies of the Plan: (PC.MCMNMAP) General Goals Natural Environment Residence Commercial /Industry Goal 1, 3, 6 (pp. 12, 13) Goal 1 (p. 15) Goal 1 (p. 17) Objective 1, policy 3 (p. 46) Objective 1, policy 1 (p. 60) Objective 3, policy 3 (p. 64 Objective 4, policy 1 (p. 66) B. The proposed amendment follows a study of the newly annexed area of McMicken Heights. The Office designation would appropriately classify land currently devoted to office use and act as a buffer between the commercial area and the low density residential areas. C. The amendment to the Comprehensive Plan would facilitate the proposed zoning classifications for the McMicken Heights Annexation area per 85 -15 -R. SUMMARY The Planning Commission may wish to recommend approval of the proposed amendment to the Comprehensive Land Use Plan Map for an Office designation for the area as shown on Exhibit C. Exhibits A - Comprehensive Land Use Plan Map B - Detail of Existing Comprehensive Plan designation C - Detail of Proposed Comprehensive Plan designation 190S • City o Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila Washington 98188 Gary L. VanDusen, Mayor TUKWILA PLANNING COMMISSION NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING AND PUBLIC MEETING Any and all interested persons are invited to attend. Published: Record Chronicle, April 14, 1985 Distribution: Mayor City Clerk Adjacent Property Owners File NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Tukwila PLANNING COMMISSION has fixed the 25th day of April, 1985, 8:00 p.m., in the City Council Chambers of Tukwila City Hall, 6200 Southcenter Boulevard, Tukwila, Washington, as the time and place for: PUBLIC HEARING 85 -15 -R: 1•1cMicken Heights Annexation Rezone, requesting rezone of King County zoning classifications to Tukwila zoning classifications: from RS -7200 to R -1 -7.2 Single Family Residential, from BN Neighborhood Business to C -1 General Commercial and from PJM-900 and RM -2400 Multiple Dwelling Maximum and Medium Density to P=0 Professional and Office.for the area generally bounded by SR 518, 51st Avenue S., S. 164th Street and 42nd Avenue South. 85 -16 -CPA: McMicken Heights Comprehensive Plan Amendment, requesting amendments from low density residential and commercial to an office classification for 16234, 16228 and 16218 42nd Avenue S. and 4230 S. 164th Street. PUBLIC IM?EETINGS DR- 03 -85: retro ETS, requesting approval of a 96" buried forcemain pipeline and bridges over the Duwamish River. DR- 06 -85: January Leasina Company, requesting approval of a site revision of adding additional paving and /or new driveway located at 13925 Interurban Ave. So INARENII Central Permit S ste APR 3 1985 MASTER LAND DEVELOPMENT APPL I C T -V F TUKWILA DEPT. LA NG DEPT. POL I CY 1f PAGE # 1 24 3 GOAL 1 RESIDENTIAL CITY OF TUk commercial uses. family neighborhood A CENE•. a TIJk N A 3 1985 S C H E D U L E COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT Commercial possible office EXISTING COMP. P , 4 , AN, pE.S lGNA T1ONSing1e Fam.ResPROPOSED COMP. PLAN DESIGNATION Med. Density EXISTING ZONING KK RMM- 24 ' I R I MM 9 ED USE Those which are existing, no change in use propc EXISTING USE AND CLASSIFICATION OF SURROUNDING PROPERTIES: ZONE COMP. PLAN DESIG. NORTH SOUTH EAST WEST SEE SCHEDULE H .USE IDENTIFY THOSE POLICIES IN THE TUKWILA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN WHICH YOU FEEL SERVE TO JUSTIFY THE PROPOSED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT, AND ANALYZE THOSE POLICIES AS THEY RELATE TO THE SUBJECT PROPERTY. RELEVANCE The R -1 -7.2 zoning district will help to maintain the character of steep slopes by limiting economic potential indeveloping land. 46 No spot zone is being proposed. 5 46 By continuing the zoning of single family residential, several non- conforming uses will be prevented from expanding and if left vacant for a period of time will eventually be prevented from existing. 1 66 The P.O. district will be an effective buffer between residential and -.1 . rt o an use c.'mu' y gr existing uses and the standards that have existed in the area 1 17 The proposed zoning will preserve the pleasantness of a viable single Res. sed. 12 Creating Tukwila zoning classifications for newly annexed property promote: 3 12 Rezoning the annexation area facilitates planned expansion of the City's . corporate boundaries 4 12 As closely as possible the proposed classifications will imitate the 7 t X (5 / -k. CITY OF TUKWILA Central Permit System S•ER LAND DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION FOR LASE WRITE LEGIBLY OR TYPE ALL REQUES CEPTED FOR PROCESSING. ECTION is - 1 FE 8 ) Ta15 OF APPLICATION: ❑ BsIP PROJtCT STATISTICS: A) 5) GENERAL DATA ❑ CONDITIONAL USE FLOORS OF CONSTRUCTION: SITE UTILIZATION: 0 SHORT PLAT ZONING DESIGNATION COMP; PLAN DESIGNATION BUILDING FOOTPRINT AREA LANDSCAPE AREA PAVING AREA TOTAL PARKING STALLS: - STANDARD SIZE - COMPACT SIZE - HANDICAPPED SIZE TOTAL LOADING SPACES AVER. SLOPE OF PARKING AREA AVER, SLOPE OF SITE IS THISS1TE DESIGNATED FOR SPECIAL MAP? j YES ❑ NO SECTION III: APPLICANT'S AFFIDAVIT SUSSCP I sEr) AND SWORN BEFORE ME CeA- R 4 r J C ' g (P -1 Ci SUBDIVI51ON D UNCLASS. USE City of Tukwila 5 ). ANTICIPATED PERIOD OF CONSTRUCTION: FROM HUME@ APR • 3 1985 CITY OF TUKWILA :.. IN ' EPT D VARIANCE 6) WILL PROJECT BE DEVELOPED IN PHASES? OYES ❑ NO ACREAGE OF PROJECT SITE: NET 185(approx RpSS TOTAL II FLOORS TOTAL GROSS FLOOR AREA DAY Or 19 NOTARY P ZLI IN AND FOR THE STATE OF WASHINGTON 'cc I f t NG AT EXISTING PROPOSED RS -7200 R -1 -7.2 RM -900 P -0 RM -2400 ❑ P -0 ❑ B -N ❑ C -1 ❑ RS -7200 ❑ R -2 (Posy ±ble) Single Family to Commercial to Public Facilities Parks & Open Space CONSIDERATION ON THE DATE X a r o iEIVED APR 3 1985 suella LETE APPLICATIONS WILL NOT BE Q SMORELINE ❑ pRD PERMIT ❑ PMUD ® CMG. OF TPl COMP. PLAN ZONING SWAMENDMENT TELEPHONE ( 206) 433 -1848 TO IF YES, DESCRIBE: ) EASEMENTS NOTES CITY'S ENVIRONMENTAL BAR EDINTERURSAN APPLICANT: .NAME ADDRESS 6200 Southcenter Boulevard ZIP 98188 z) PRO?: OWNER: NAME attached TELEPHONE ADDRESS ZIP ti) PROJECT LOCATION: (STREET ADDRESS, GEOGRAPHIC, LOT /BLOCK) SECTION'lI: PROJECT INFORMATION 4) DESCRIBE BRIEFLY THE PROJECT YOU PROPOSE Rezone of recently annexed. Change from King County zoning classifications to Tukwila zoning classification INCLUDES: 0 BASEMENT ❑MEZZANINE INCLUDES: ❑BASEMENT ❑MEZZANINE Single Family and Office Commercial and Office same same BASE , BEING DULY SWORN, DECLARE THAT 1 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. (SIGNATURE OF CONTRACT PURCHASER OR OWNER) rn: B (. 110 Uo 4z AV s 'ik23o s 67 Sge IscL.wt MeRaE)%& +1 Come PAN jMt4T r COM'FEHENSIVE LAND USE PLAN RIO &REA ' ,,1„111' "111, 1 , ;, 1111111111111 1kni11111111111111111111111111111111n11 "" " . a.l.: "� _,. •: .;..Il..:,::h . + IJI IIJIIIJII1Jl' IJIIIJIIIJIIIJIIIJIIIJIIIJIIIJIIIiJIIIJI�IJ- IIIJIIIJIIIJI IJIIIJIJI I I I _I_ WWI I. JlII_ JII�I�I�IJIIIJIuIII. �I. IIJII1J111JIIIJIIIJIIIJIIIJIII�IIIJIIIJIIIJIIIJIIIJIIIJIIIJII 0 18THSINCH 1 3 - . _. . 6. : . . : �...... . . ... 8, 9 10 11 MAOEINOERMANY 12 IF THIS MICROFILMED DOCUMENT -.IS LESS CLEAR THAN THIS NOTICE, IT IS : DUE TO 0£ ez Be Lz 9z ez 1 7z ez; zz Iz ;e THE 'UALITY OF THE ORIGINAL DOCUMENT IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIhIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII IIII�IIIIIIIII IIII II11 Inc tin nil nu Ifllfiil(I II"Illlllllrlifl lflllff(I Iffl fllltl(fl 1fiiii IIII'llll Ilfl IIf1�1IIlIIIiIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII 111111111111111111111111111111 tl' '. : 'z`•, •.. v ...,'rr'"""'Q"g'"" frv .. <+ `STit'•"..:, 'e, :� 'r' 's° ;a : cY. r • 4 e . . K ..7: 1 tl, +e:. `i:< ��' � 't • "�' •i> ", �r .aY, ',+, t: ��� o' < r,: , , n;,Pf 'nY� ..If y ;i.�.y�t�.;1' + ` .. •..�' �C`''r y�`i'�''Y;!Yl.F "I;LA riY'F. �ir'', o; .. ..:::� r! •1iSr... >.. q �1: "; ,,•C -� .�: .: e� a$',. t�'�'. P ,t ,,,t Cxn ' .. •:•.,�•c,. 1:.,�'. =.:�1.,#,s. . =.,r,:a� >, „ 4r } 't >.�x ' <•. '�a t.c kr, �'.. i '# u �iU°' r;�_, _ 7'r; ... �..- t'"4,.trt•a<,• ` td K, f . � .r >"o .I^" . '. �:1 ;4� a r _,,,a . _ k. � F l ! .. . r �•x!k t S 7 r ... . :. ` �. A, _.$,w:t c4�stL - If:: "!.. 9 , 0 LOW DENSITY RE '' ENTIAL • MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL • OFFICE • COMMERCIAL • LIGHT INDUSTRIAL • HEAVY INDUSTRIAL ▪ PUBLIC FACILITIES • PARKS AND OPEN SPACE i SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT CO RPERSTOAIEAS Of um ELOPES,MMTGSURPPCE, AND AOSCILTtmAL LANOS.TMSS[DIONATIONDOES NOT MUM OEYtIDMR1IT: RATHER, IT DEPICTS EN ARRAS WHOM CEIOAM URBAN DEVELOPMENT MST RESPOND SENSITIVELY TO VIIIMMENTAL MUMS. ��. PLANNING AREA BOUNDARY mum CITY BOUNDARY 44 :r r: t �irF2�:;.:tT'. y . : . ........ ..... nrFi,a rmmml0I0RIRrlilluu "'�1 ;�:;;;;.......r . „morn COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLAN RIO 7M[ M r[La P_=QHEOKla &NE J l ) c < r -- �v� .......I.. —.— PLANNING AREA BOUNDARY 11 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I CI I I I IMH I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 1111111 I I I I I I 11111RWII I I I NE11 l 1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 0 ISTNSINCH 1 2 3T 4_ - - -- _._,.... _5__.......... ..... 6 .... ..— ..___. 7 8 9 10 ' 11 MADEINOERMANY 12 IF THIS MICROFILMED DOCUMENT IS LESS CLEAR THAN THIS :NOTICE, IT IS -DUE TO \ OE 6Z ee Lz 9z sz 4 7z CZ; zz I.a THE QUALITY OF THE ORIGINAL. DOCUMENT,' 6 e L 99 i C z 1 YNMN o 1111111111111111111II1111111IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII1111111111I1IIIl111I11 Will IIII II II IIII IIII IIII IIII IIII IIIIIIII�MIIIIIIII II WI IUII IIIIIIIiIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII " v . ..,. .. q t r'T,' n^�t:a.,-+im 3-<�,�: .'p"`' �3, .s.,,v.. ,. f r. ; - '' u, 1•T'' ,, , a v i rY 3r ; '' r ' v ' },.e8r, i.: ' , �n� I =e t.:� r �`+ ..b v 3. r < . r . ��r' ,xCi' i ;rh ... .:'�s� ia.",. �4F � i � sr,. ,i.., , . i .. t `{a `� " "'�'r� °,'s r Y . . ,;X -l s .4s•. �.p �� i'�' ✓t •i � yL r I ik� ' t, '� .I. � �!: :k. f _�> 'Y' '. 1r t ry ... }. f { I .� • :�tUIa � �r 4,i� ¢� .c :dT .�... s 1 M,..., . .... :,, , :. :.... :, .. tb;`..,. ., .. +.,, ..�ir.:..� : ^'re °.. __ �. ,r ^�.,I .. .:IS' ^. .... ._ ... .. .... ..., . , ,. •. r ,. _. .,.., ... .,.,.. v `1'..�x. .z., ._..r .. - '. r aaL�t; . CITY LIMITS • o LOW DENSITY RE JENTIAL • MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL • HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL 1 OFFICE • COMMERCIAL ▪ LIGHT INDUSTRIAL • HEAVY INDUSTRIAL • PUBLIC FACILITIES ▪ PARKS AND OPEN SPACE SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT CO REFERS TO AREAS Cf STEEP SLOPES, WATER SURFACE, AND ACRRDATU AL LANDS. THISCESIONRWICN DOSS NOT PRECLUDE DEVELOPMENT: RATHER, IT DEPICTS AREAS WHERE URBAN DEVELOPMENT MUST!IMMO SENSITWELY TO CERTAIN ENNRCMMEN7*L FACTORS. ... PLANNING AREA BOUNDARY man" CITY BOUNDARY 7 im4 ". r µno.