HomeMy WebLinkAboutPermit 79-13-A - CITY OF TUKWILA - CRESTVIEW ANNEXATION ZONING79-13-a
pacific highway south
highway 518
south 200th street
crestview annexation zoning
PROCEEDINGS OF THE KING COUNTY BOUNDARY REVIEW BOARD
IN RE: CITY OF TUKWILA - Proposed Annex -) FILE NO. 866 CID
ation (CRESTVIEW): KING COUNTY, Zo G
WASHINGTON ) RESOLUTION AND HEARRNG ` > P1
DECISION cs, = 29
:n
The Notice of Intention filed in Boundary Review Board Filt 466 b
proposed the annexation of certain territory to the City of Tukwila, KinCi
County, Washington. o
After notice duly given, a hearing was held September 27, 1979, before
a quorum of the entire Board at the Southgate Community Center, Tukwila, WA.
On the basis of the testimony, evidence and exhibits presented at said hearing,
and the matters on file in said File No. 866, it is the decision of the King
County Boundary Review Board that the proposal contained in said Notice of
Intention be, and the same is, hereby approved.
FACTORS AFFECTING THE PROPOSAL
The Board has considered the several factors described in RCW 36.93.170
and considers the following to be of significant importance and has therefore
selected them for discussion.
The annexation comprises approximately 307 acres contiguous to the west
side of the City, west of Southcenter. It is bordered by Highway 518 on the
north; Pacific Highway South and Military'Road on the west; and South 168th
Street on the south. It is part of the McMicken Heights Community, which lies
generally between Pacific Highway South on the west; I -5 on the east; Highway
518 on the north; and approximately South 200th on the south.
The area contains a population estimated at 1,557 to 1,882 persons.
There are 1,033 registered voters in the area, 307 of which signed the petition
for annexation.
The assessed valuation reported by the City was $18,582,100, not in-
cluding tax exempt properties. The resulting assessed valuation per capita is
between $9900 and $12,000.
Land use is dominated by single family dwellings, which constitute ap-
proximately 196 acres. Multiple family dwellings account for approximately fiv
acres. There.sare 20 acres devoted to commercial uses, 13 acres for public faci
ities, and 35 acres for streets. Approximately 18 acres are vacant. There are
an estimated 542 single family dwellings, 78 condominium units and one four -
plex for an estimated 624 dwelling units. Between and 85 percent of the
total land area is developed, including streets and street rights -of -way. More
than 90% of the private property is already developed.
There is a community business center located at 42nd Ave., S. and Mil-
itary Road, S., and a combination of Eommunity business, high density apartment
and some single family dwellings surrounded generally by Pacific Highway So.,
Highway 518, 42nd Ave. So. and So. 160th. The remainder of the area is single
family in character.
Current King County zoning is mostly RS -7200. (Most of the single fam-
ily dwelling lots are in the 8,000 to 10,000 sq. ft. size catagory.) The City
has adopted a proposed zoning regulation which would down -zone three areas from
existing County zoning. Those areas are as follows:
1. An area on both sides of So. 158th St. would be reduced from
RM -1800 to single family.
PAGE ONE - TUKWILA (Crestview)(approving)
The perimeter of the commercial area at 42nd Ave., So. and
So. 164th would be down -zoned from_ RM -900 and RM- 2400
mostly single family dwelling.
3. The property along Military Road So. south of So. 160th
would be reclassified from RM -900 to single family.
However, it should be noted that the proposed zoning regulation is consistent
with the Highline Communities Plan, which is the most recently developed County
planning document for this area.
Water service for the annexation area is provided by King County Water
District No. 75, except for a portion in the northwest. corner which is provided
by District No. 125. District No. 75 expressed concern because that. District
recently upgraded the system in area. The District is apparently concerned
that the City may take over the District. However, the District, under State
statute, must have at least 60% of its land area within the City's boundaries
prior to this occurring. District No. 75 is quite large, and there is virtual-
ly no chance that this could occur. In addition, the City has not proposed any
takeover. Rather, the City suggested that water service continue to be provide
by the two districts.
Sewer service is provided by Val Vue Sewer District in that portion of
the area which is sewered. A part of the annexation does not currently receive
sewer service, i.e., that portion lying between Highway 518 on the north, Mil-
itary Road on the west, South 160th on the south, and 42nd Ave. on the east.
Development of that area in accordance with the City's Comprehensive Plan and
proposed zoning regulations would require the extension of sewers.
Growth in the next ten years, and for some time thereafter, is expected
to be an infilling process. As previously noted, the area is at least 90%
developed. Some redevelopment is possible, including redivision of some of th
larger lots.
Fire protection currently is provided by King County Fire Protection
Districts Nos. 23 and 18. The City has requested negotiations with the two
Districts, and District 18 has responded. The City stated that it will replace
any revenues lost to the Districts due to annexation. The City will provide
a base station and home receivers for District personnel to implement the
Valley -Com System in the annexation area. The City reports that response.
times are approximately the same for all three entities. Tukwila has a Wash-
ington Surveying E Rating Bureau classification of 4, and the Districts have
classifications of 5 or higher. As a result, insurance premiums for property
owners will be reduced following annexation.
The City reports it will add 2.5 patrol persons following annexation,
and will establish residential and business patrol. The City reports a respons
time of 3 minutes for police, which is significantly less than County response
time.
Following annexation, the property tax millage charged to owners will
be reduced by .365 to .456 mills, depending on the area in the annexation where
the property is located. Total revenues to the City following annexation are
expected to increase by $179,282 per annum. The City estimates spending a like
amount on services for and related to the annexation area.
King County expressed concern relating to two street projects, includin
a landscaping project scheduled for 1979 along South 160th Street from Military
Road, So. to the Airport Freeway, and one for pedestrian landscaping and inter-
section improvements along Military Road So. from So. 160th to So. 188th Street
According to the County, this project was scheduled for contract execution by
the end of January, 1980. .Although the County expressed a concern for comple-
tion of these actions, it appears that the So. 160th Project will be completed
prior to the annexation election. The Military Road Project could be completed
under an Interlocal Agreement. Unfortunately, no alternatives were suggested
PAGE TWO - TUKWILA (Crestview)(apv.)
1 .
by the City or County.
Residents of the area expressed a preference for City Street Service,
due in part to the fact that the City plows and sands during snowfall periods.
There are significant hills which make access difficult during those periods.
Access to the annexation from the City is provided by South 154th St.;
Klickitat Drive and So. 180th.
Community facilities include a.7.8 acre site owned by the City lying
adjacent to the annexation at 51st Ave., So. and So. 160th. The City reports
that the property is scheduled for development as a park. There are two church
and the former Crestview Elementary School which is now used as a conference
center.
'OBJECTIVES
This decision of the Boundary Review Board tends to accomplish the
pertinent objectives of RCW 36.93.180. Those particularly significant object-
ives are as follows:
1) Tukwila's pattern of annexation as approved by the Boundary Review
Board extends westerly to Pacific Highway South, which is also generally the
westerly boundary of the McMicken Heights Community. The Board finds that
Pacific Highway South is a logical western boundary for the City, at least as
an interim boundary. The Board would not encourage further annexation beyond
Pacific Highway South until such time as the City's corpporate area was con-
sistently extended thereto. This process of annexation westerly to Pacific
Highway South will, eventually, include the entirety of the McMicken Heights
Community within Tukwila's boundaries, thereby avoiding a long -term division
thereof. This decision therefore tends to accomplish the objective specified
in RCW 36.93.180(1).
2) With the exception of existing City limits, the annexation bound-
aries almost exclusively are comprised of streets. In many cases, the streets
are major arterials or freeways. This decision therefore tends to accomplish
the objective specified in RCW 36.93.180(2).
3) Annexation will not alter the logical service areas, as currently
established, of the respective water and sewer districts. However, it will
provide for the provision of necessary improved municipal services, in particu-
lar police services, to an area which is urban in character. In addition, it
is expected that fire service will ultimately be improved by the annexation.
This decision therefore tends to accomplish the objective specified RCW
36.93.180(3).
4) The Board finds that the proposed annexation boundaries are not
abnormally irregular and are, in fact, a progressive step toward accomplishing
a regular boundary. This decision therefore tends to accomplish that objective
specified in RCW 36.93.180(4).
5) As previously mentioned, the area is at least 90o developed at ur-
ban density levels. This decision therefore, tends to accomplish the objective
specified in RCW 36.93.180(8).
THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE KING COUNTY BOUNDARY REVIEW BOARD
THAT, for the above reasons, the annexation proposed in said Notice of Inten-
tion contained in File No. 866 be, and the same is, hereby approved. .
ADOPTED
in favor and
PAGE THREE - TUKWILA (Crestview)(apv.)
the King County Boundary Review Board by a of
against this llth day of October, 1979, and signed by
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
me in authentication of its said adoption on said date.
Filed by me this 6th da of November,
1979.
G. BRICE MARTIN, Ex cutiv- ecretary
PAGE FOUR - TUKWILA (Crestview)(apv.)
KING COUNTY BOUNDARY REVIEW BOARD
/
11#
HENRY E. HHELLERT, Chairman
August 10, 1979
King County Boundary Review Board
King County Courthouse
Seattle, WA 98104
ATTN: G. Bryce Martin
RE: Proposed Zoning for Potential Allentown and Crestview Annexations
Dear Mr. Martin:
The City of Tukwila has conducted public hearings as required by law relat-
ing to proposed zoning for the pending Crestview and Allentown annexations.
Following such hearings the City. Council has adopted proposed zoning regula-
tions for each of the proposed annexations. Please find attached City of
Tukwila Ordinance #1118 and #1121, setting forth the proposed zoning for the
two pending annexation areas as well as statements regarding amendments to
the Comprehensive Plan as a result of this action.
This is being transmitted to you so you may have the option of presenting it
to the King County Boundary Review Board during their public hearings and
deliberations on the pending annexations.
Very truly yours,
Maxine Anderson
City Clerk
MA/ KS/ ckh
Attachments
cc: Kjell Stoknes, OCD Director
Edgar D. Bauch, Mayor
•
City of Tukwila
6200 Southcenter Boulevard
Tukwila Washington 98188
h' L.
.! `
' iU.'r ;l1a City Council
,;uiy 30, 1979
;: Page 5
DISCUSSION - Cont.
Revised waiver
request by Felix
Ca ;.Dane i 1 a for
property fronting on
Interurban Avenue
between extension
of South 139th and
South 137th - Cont.
RECESS
8:50 - 9:00 P.M.
Pr-
'C
Committee of the . :;nol e Neeting
7525
Councilman Van Dusen asked about ingress and egress to Interurban
Avenue. Mr. Campanella said he and Mr. Fraser, Public Works
Department, had tried all of the entrances at different speeds at
about 9:30 a.m. Mr. Fraser had not seen the need for a deceleration
lane.
Mr. Campanella said they had no qualms about the recommendations of
quality buildings, the type of shingles, siding, glass, etc. He
said they intended to preserve all of the trees.
Councilman Van Dusen said the mass and density of the project
bothered him. Mr. Campanella said the Planning Commission had
recommended a total of 53 units on the original. He said he had
almost doubled the site in terms of area. The ratio of units has no
been commensurate.
MOVED BY HILL, SECONDED BY SAUL, THAT THE WAIVER REQUEST BE ACCEPTEC
NUMBER OF UNITS BE LIMITED TO 85, AND IT BE ON THE AGENDA OF THE
AUGUST 6, 1979, REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING. *
Kjell Stoknes, OCD Director, said if the density is cut to 8I' units,
the waiver will be needed for the steep slope.
Council President Bohrer remarked this property cannot be treated
as flat ground.
Don Richmond, 14800 Interurban Avenue, asked why this property is
so unique, except it is across the street from Foster Golf Links.
He said he did not understand the relationship of the golf course
being used to make this property special. He asked why
Mr. Campanella could not develop to the fullest.
Council President Bohrer said Foster Golf Course is only one
consideration. Councilman Van Dusen said it is the steep slope
that is of great concern and the mass and density.
* CARRIED WITH VAN DUSEN AND BOHRER VOTING NO.
MOVED BY HILL, SECONDED BY VAN DUSEN, THAT THE COMMITTEE OF THE
WHOLE RECESS FOR 10 MINUTES. CARRIED.
The Tukwila City Council Committee of the Whole Meeting was called
back to order by Council President Bohrer, with Council Members
present as previously listed.
erty zoning for `Council President Rohrer said he would like to see the Council.
iestview Annexation consider the property of those who had come to the meetings.
Kjell Stoknes, OCD Director, explained the difference in the
existing King County zoning and the proposed zoning by the staff.
Councilman Saul said in referring to the property along South 164th
there is a filling station on two corners and a restaurant and
then the Crestview School. There is also a day care center that
could become a six -plex.
Mr. Stoknes explained the recommendations of the Planning Commissio
and the property it would affect.
Councilman Van Dusen said the area where the Chalet is located is
R -3. He thought it should be R -4 rather than R -3.
MOVED BY VAN DUSEN, SECONDED BY HARRIS, THAT THE AREA ALONG SOUTH
164TH EAST OF ZONING INDICATED AS C -2 BE CHANGED TO C -1 AND INCLUDE
THE DAY CARE CENTER. CARRIED.
MOVED BY VAN DUSEN, SECONDED BY TRAYNOR, THAT THE C -1 AREA AT THE
CORNER OF 42ND AND SOUTH 164TH BE EXTENDED NORTH TO INCLUDE THE
NEXT TWO LOTS INCLUDING THE CLINIC AND BE ZONED C -1. CARRIED WITH
BOHRER VOTING NO.
Tukwila City Council Committee of the Whole Meeting
July 30, 1979
Page 6
2 5 2Co
DISCUSSION - Cont.
Property zoning for MOVED BY HARRIS, SECONDED BY VAN DUSEN, THAT THE AREA CURRENTLY
Crestview Annexation - SHOWN AS R -3, WHICH IS WEST OF 42ND AND NORTH OF 158TF BE ZONED R -4.
Cont.
Acceptance of City
Hall Landscaping
Mr. Stoknes said he would suggest leaving it R -3 for now and
perhaps change it at a later date. They can come in and ask for
a rezone. *MOTION FAILED.
MOVED BY TRAYNOR, SECONDED BY SAUL, THAT AN ORDINANCE BE PREPARED
WITH THE PROPOSED ZONING FOR THE CRESTVIEW ANNEXATION AND IT BE ON
THE AGENDA OF THE AUGUST 6, 1979, REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING. *
Council President Bohrer asked if the Council wanted to do anythin
about the C -1 area next to the Lewis and Clark Theater. He said
he suggested R -3.
MOVED BY TRAYNOR, SECONDED BY SAUL, THAT THE AREA IN THE NORTHWEST
CORNER SHOWN AS C -1 BE CHANGED TO R -3. **
Mr. Don Richmond, audience, said that area would be ideal fc,r a
hotel or motel. It would be a shame to downgrade it to R -3.
Mr. Stoknes said there is a need to preserve the area of the
neighborhood.
Mr. Jim McKenna, audience, said the area would lose the potential
a neighborhood if a hotel or motel were to be built there.
Monday night.
* CARRIED.
Council President Bohrer asked about the brown grass; is it failure
of the water or the grass? He was told that two trees are dying
because of too much water that they get from the sprinkling of the
grass.
Wendy Johnson, Jongejan /Gerrard Associates, said they are
balancing the amount of water needed by the grass and the trees
and the balance should be maintained very soon.
Mr. Monaghan said this is not the fault of the contractor, but in
the way the sprinkling system was designed. He said it is possible
an additional sprinkling head will be necessary. In accepting the
landscape project you would not be accepting the sprinkling system
design as being adequate, only to construction as designed.
** TIE VOTE, WITH BOHRER, SAUL, AND TRAYNOR VOTING YES; HILL, HARRIS
AND VAN DUSEN VOTING NO.
Council President Bohrer said this matter would be further discussed
Terry Monaghan, Public Works Director, said he recommended the
City Hall landscaping project be accepted, less Change Order No. 2
and condition of north bank, at the Council Meeting. He said the
contractors were removing weeds, dead trees and general construction
maintenance in order to bring the grounds up to a more acceptable
appearance level. He said it will be noted in the letter of
acceptance that the trees that were installed and died and sub-
sequently removed would be a warranty item and lien on the
performance bond. The warranty period runs for one year from the
date of acceptance. The maintenance contract begins on the date
of acceptance.and runs for one year. He said the weekly maintenance
provision would begin on July 31 and everything will be maintained
except the grass cutting for one year. Change Order No. 2 will come
before the Council for approval when it is completed.
Councilman Saul asked about the brick walkway with the Tweeds growing
in it. Mr. Monaghan said it is supposed to grow into grass and be
an emergency driveway. Change Order No. 2 is for 1,000 ivy plants
for the hill.
TO: . Mayor gar Bauch
FROM: FreSatterstrom, Planning Supervisor
DATE: June 7, 1979
SUBJECT: Prop 25sed Zoning in the Potential Crestview Annexation g on ea �
(Planning Commission Recommendation)' -- - —
This is to inform you that the Planning Commission con-
ducted a public hearing on proposed zoning in the potential
Crestview annexation area at their regular May meeting.
Following considerable public testimony, the Planning Com-
mission voted to recommend the zoning pattern shown on the
map attached herewith.
The Planning Commission modified the staff's recommendation
in the following manner:
1. That area lying north of South 158th Street,
east of the proposed C -1 zoning, south of
SR -518, and west of 42nd Avenue South, except
the southeast corner property, was changed to
R -3 (three and four family dwellings) zoning;
and,
2. The staff proposed C -1 zoning on the corner of
South 158th Street and Military Road South was
changed, to R -1 -7.2 (single - family dwellings).
Both of the abovementioned modifications appear on the
attached map.
Also attached to this memorandum are the following:
1. Minutes: Planning Commission public hearing
(24 May 1979)
FNS /ckh
Attachments
cc: O Dir.
MF
MEMORANDUM
Staff Report to Planning Commission
(24 May 1979)
1. F, 2. The neighborhoods of the proposed annexation area are defined
in part by the physical barriers which surround the area; SR
518 to the north, City of Tukwila to the west, South 168th
Street to the south andon the west, Military Road South and
Pacific Highway South.
The annexation of this area is logical as a portion of the
Crestview neighborhood is already located in Tukwila and this
would once more unify the area as a cohesive neighborhood.
3. The major transportation corridors are SR 518, Pacific Highway
South, Military Road South, 42nd Avenue South and Klickitat
Drive. There are no major problem areas to prevent emergency
vehicles from entering the area. The area is currently receiv-
ing water from Districts #125 and #75. Sewage is handled
either by the Val-Vue Sewer District or septic tanks. With
EXHIBIT 10
A review of the effect of this proposal upon the objectives of
the Boundary Review Board Act (RCW 36.93.180) shows this pro-
posal will meet the following objectives for the reasons cited:
"36.93.180 Objectives of Boundary Review Board. The
decisions of the boundary review board shall attempt
to achieve the following objectives:
(1) Preservation of natural neighborhoods and communi-
ties,
(2) Use of physical boundaries, including but not
limited to bodies of water, highways and land
contours;
(3) Creation and preservation of logical service
areas;
(4) Prevention of abnormally irregular boundaries;
(5) Discouragement of multiple incorporation of
small cities and encouragement of incorpora-
tion of cities in excess of ten thousand popu-
lation in heavily populated urban areas;
(6) Dissolution of inactive special purpose dis-
tricts;
(7) Adjustment of impractical boundaries; and
(8) Incorporation as cities or towns or annexation
to cities or towns of unincorporated areas which
are urban in character.
(1967 c 189 § 18.)"
the exception of a major condominium complex, there are no
future palns by Val -Vue at this time to expand their services.
4. The proposed annexation area is entirely bounded on the east
by the present City of Tukwila boundaries. The western.boun-
daries are defined by highways and arterials while the north
boundary is defined by S.R. 518. All boundaries are logical
as defined by existing city limits and man -made road systems.
5. This is not an incorporation. Tukwila was incorporated in
1908.
6. There are no inactive special purpose districts within the
annexation area.
7. As stated before, the accessibility to the annexation area
is more than adequate.
8. Both the City of Tukwila and the proposed Crestview annexa-
tion area are built -up, suburban residential areas with homo-
geneous population characteristics. A portion of the City,
i.e., the area lying west of I -5 and south of S.R. 518, may
even be considered a part of the Crestview neighborhood which
is seeking annexation.
PROPOSED CRESTVIEW ANNEXATION AREA:
PROPOSED ZONING (AS RECOMMENDED
BY TUKWILA PLANNING COMMISSION)
L E G E N D
One Family Dwelling
Three and Four Family Dwellings
Neighborhood Retail Business
Local Retail Business
tct
11
114
Planning Division— OCO
May 1979
1,1
27
457200
4
RS -7.200
RS -7,200
RS -7,200
S.
S
5.
RS -7,200
5. IS)" P1.
RS -7,200
R51,200
a
RS -7,200
RS -7,200
175 r"
RS -7,200
RS-7,200
— ST. —
RS -7,200
5T.
166 714 5T.
168T" ST.
170r" 5T.
172" ST.
RS-7,200
ST.
4
343 E
173. ST.
RS -7,200
RS -7,200
221 #�2s 1
27 I i ze
C S. 111 5T.
27
•
N
I
W
4
5
(
r
.!
(
I
274t
35
E 27 -23 -4 I_
HIGHIINE
•
See issue #166 p. ? (map W 34- 23 -4).
Plan Number on
Map # Opposite Map
E #157 #1 RS 720 & en
7200 (Potential RM 900) to RS 7200
E #154 #2 RM 900
• E #153 #3 RS 7200 (Potential RM 2400) to RS 7200
• 1,0/
•
D
006 -- -J "21 : 11':
1
00ZI.S1:1
IS INCL1 'S 1
AZ
002 k-Stl
0 02k-Sil
00Z•-Shl
00ZZ-Sli
00eC-SEI
•
0
•
m
N-8
ocnk-s
00Z2.-St1
00Z2.-S8
6ozk-sa
oon.-su
cnl-sa
00411
00 L-S
004-ski
m S1 'S
ZLI
Id
so
2
1/1
ocal-su
oort-su
.991
0021-Sk1
002L-S1
006•11k1
•S
00e1.-S11
'S
00.s.
991
.1
Id
•
a-29I 'S
0Ort•Sk1
oon-sa
00eZ•511
V-£Z-L Z M 1
0On:5W
002k-Sli
'IS 1d191
0044 ,
a 192
M 217£ kj.relz
/o1
Plan
Map #
E #149
W 27 -23 -4
Number on
Opposite Map .
#1 RS 7200 (Potential RM 2400) to RS 7200
RM 2400 to RS 7200
#3 RS 7200 . (Potential RM 900) to RS 7200 - Jordan Case
#4 ITS 7200 (Potential RM900) to RS 7200
#5 RM 2400 to RS 7200
See issue #166 p. ? (map W 34- 23 -4).
NOTE: Jordan General Construction Company, File 248 -78 -R
Request for RM 900
This issue was remanded to the Zoning and Subdivision
Examiner's Office to be held for consideration during
the area zoning process. ,
After reviewing the record on this matter, including
listening to the tape of the HCP adoption hearing before
the County Council on December 19, 1977, we draw the
following conclusions:
1) A mapping error to the east -land use map in
the plan resulted in a staff conclusion that
Mr. Jordan's property could be used for maximum
density apartments.
2) The property, undeveloped, falls within the
region identified by Councilman BArden as single
family residences, 4 to 6 units per acre. All
remaining properties are zoned for multi- family,
but undeveloped.
3) Allowing Mr. Jordan to proceed with development
of the site to make up for the erroneous information
presented at the adoption hearing December 19, 1977
would violate the adopted HCP and Ordinance 3747.
r+
City of Tukwila
Planning Division
6200 Southcenter Boulevard
Tukwila; Washington 98188 433 -1845
Office of Community Development
PLANNING COMMISSION
Minutes of the Regular May Planning Commission Meeting, May 24, 1979.
Chairman Kirsop convened the regular May meeting at 8:05 p.m. in the City Council
Chambers. Commissioners in attendance were: Mrs. Avery, Mr. Kirsop, Mr. Richards,
Mr. Sowinski, Mr. Welsh. Fred Satterstrom and Roger Blaylock represented the
Planning Division staff.
MOVED BY MR. SOWINSKI, SECONDED BY MR. RICHARDS, TO APPROVE THE APRIL 26, 1979
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES. MOTION CARRIED.
MOVED BY MRS. SOWINSKI, SECONDED BY MR. WELSH, TO APPROVE THE MAY 2, 1979 PLANNING
COMMISSION MINUTES. MOTION CARRIED.
CORRESPONDENCE
Fred Satterstrom read a letter from Bruce E. McCann regarding Planning Commission
Agenda Items V(B) and (C). The letter stated that the findings of staff reports
on the two subject parcels would require extensive review and appearance of many
witnesses in order to respond. For that reason they requested the matter be tabled
and placed on the agenda for the June Planning Commission meeting.
MOVED BY MR. SOWINSKI, SECONDED BY MR. WELSH, TO TABLE ITEMS V(B) AND (C) OF THE
AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED.
NEW BUSINESS
t/// ///
PUBLIC HEARING: Proposed Zoning - Crestview Annexation
Chairman Kirsop reviewed some of the actions leading up to the Public Hearing.
He said the City Council had accepted the petition and filed the Notice of Intent
to Annex which will be a subject for a Public Hearing by the Boundary Review Board
in the near future. If the Boundary Review Board action is favorable the matter
will be set for election in September or October. The annexation petition has
requested the determination of zoning before the election so the people voting on
the annexation will know what their property will be zoned, assuming the election
goes through. He said the Public Hearing tonight will be held so that.a recommen-
dation can be made to the City Council who will make the final decision on the
matter.
Fred Satterstrom, Planning Supervisor, read the Staff Report, including findings,
conclusions, and recommendations.
Chairman Kirsop opened the Public Hearing at 8:30 p.m.
Fred Satterstrom, Planning Supervisor, read a letter from John C. Bosch, representing
the estate of Peter Bosch, protesting the proposed zoning for the property.
1
Planning Commission MC tes
May 24, 1979
Page 2
Joe Ruffivo, 29916 2nd Avenue Southwest, Federal Way, said he owned property between
the theater and Mr. Bosch. The property is developed on the one side and the other
is going to be business. He said no one would want a house next to the theater.
Marsilio DiGiovanni, 17015 53rd South, said he owned property east of the restaurant,
"The Feed Lot." The reason his property was zoned was to create a buffer between the
�'`1 business zone and single family zoning. He does not understand why the property
s pa adjoining to the west is up- zoned, while his is down - zoned.
ti John C. Bosch, audience, said his property is immediately west of the Chalet South
(78 units), which makes it unsuitable for single family dwelling.
Joe Paulson, 4443 South 166th, said he has had a business in his home. He asked
what effect this is going to have on his business if the area is annexed. Chairman
Kirsop said it should not have any effect on his business unless he goes out of
business and then the grandfather clause would be lost. Mr. Paulson asked if there
is a business tax in Tukwila and Chairman Kirsop told him there was not. Mr. Paulson
expressed concern about police protection. Chairman Kirsop told him the Tukwila
police already survey that area more frequently than the County police so there
should be no problem.
Dick Jordon, 16060 Military Road South, said all of the people on Military Road
are against the single family zoning that is being proposed. He said there is a
lot of traffic on the street and it is going to be widened. There are nine or more
opposed. Chairman Kirsop asked Mr. Jordon what zoning he would propose. Mr.
Jordon said he thought there should be a buffer zone that would go down to single fami'
zoning. He said he had nine signatures for multi - family zoning and they are the
people who live there. Mr. Jordon said he would propose apartments. Mr. Sowinski
asked Mr. Jordon which side of Military Road he was proposing this for. Mr. Jordon
said the east side, it is single family in there now.
Kenneth Hogan, 16311 47th Place South, said the area on the east side of Military
Road is supposed to stay single family, the west side no. He said he positively did
not want to have anything to do with annexing this area to Tukwila, it will just cost
him more money. Chairman Kirsop asked him how? Mr. Hogan said it will raise taxes,
the City is putting in lights and it will require more police and fire protection.
Chairman Kirsop said Tukwila has a lower assessed millage rate. Mr. Hogan said the
sewers would raise the payments after a couple of years. Chairman Kirsop said the
sewers have nothing to do with it. Mr. Hogan said he knew this is what would happen
if the area is incorporated. He said Boeing did not get annexed into Seattle because
they knew what was going to happen. Chairman Kirsop said there is no business or
occupation tax in Tukwila.
Duane Knittel, 16036 40th Place South, said the inference that property on the east
• side of Military Road was to be upzoned to multiple zoning is incorrect. This was
made single family as shown on the map by King County.
Dennis Robertson, 16038 48th South, said if there are any changes to the Comprehensive
Plan the concerned people would be notified.
Chairman Kirsop said if the Planning Commission suggests a change to the proposed
zoning they would also pass a suggested change to the comprehensive plan to tie the
two together. He said the recommendations would go to the City Council and it would
take. anywhere from two weeks to never to effect the change.
Mr. Dennis Robertson; 16036 40th Place South, said it is pleasant to work in
Tukwila with the Planning Commission and City Council. He disagreed with what Mr.
Planning Commission M( .tes -
May 24, 1979
Page 3
Jordon said. He said King County has something called potential zoning and some
of the potential zoning that King County had, has been changed and modified for
the area. On the west side of Military Road it is condominiums and apartments.
He said it seemed foolish to zone property such as that beside the theater as single
family. He pointed to a wall map indicating property he would like to see medium
density when it is developed. He said the property owned by Mr. DiGiovanni he would
like to see stay single family. He said they would like the day care center there.
In addition, he was concerned about the property around the Crestview School. It
has value as high density, but he did not want to see that. Mr. Robertson said he
was speaking for himself and what he would like to see. He said the McMicken
Improvement Club has not taken a stand on the annexation, however, they did take
a stand on annexation to Seattle.
A man in the audience said there is an 88 year old lady on the east side of Military
Road and now they want to come in and downzone the area. He said anytime you downzone
you are taking property. Chairman Kirsop said the City is not taking any property.
Joanne Davis, 5906 South 144th Street, said she lived outside of the area being con-
sidered for annexation. She said Mr. Jordon said he was speaking for nine people
on Military Road, who are they? Mr. Jordon named them as nearly as he could remem-
ber. (Later in the meeting he provided a petition with the names of these persons.)
Cliff Godwin, 15819 42nd Avenue South, pointed out his home on the wall map and
said the shaded area to the west is the area that he is concerned with. He said at
the top of the map there is a 15 unit condominium planned. He said 42nd Avenue
is a busy street and he would like to see the shaded area as single family or maybe
duplexes, but not large apartments houses that would dwarf the homes on the street.
Duane Knittel, Chairman of the Ad Hoc Annexation Committee, said the committee felt
the Tukwila Comprehensive Plan should be adopted by the City with one exception.
He said he would like where the apartments are to become medium density, south of
158th to become single family, from there they would like to go along with the
Tukwila Comprehensive Plan. He said it is porposed high density now and they would
like it to be medium density.
Jean Wilkerson, audience, said her neighbors are mostly older people, who have
stayed in the same place all of these years hoping to make a profit on houses. She
is not interested in selling her home. If the people on the east side of Military
want to come into Tukwila that is fine, but she thought it should not include
the people on the west side.
A man in the audience said he would like to know what had inititated this action.
Chairman Kirsop replied that it was initiated by the people in the area. About
one -third of the registered voters actually signed the petition and there are a
couple of things that can be done by those who dislike the idea. The Boundary
Review Board can make adjustments so those on the perimeter could petition for re-
lief from the annexation or those in the middle who are against it could encourage
their neighbors to vote against the annexation. He said they should look to the
advantages. The City of Tukwila is the wealthiest city in the State; we are way
up on the list of assessed valuation because of Southcenter and fact that it packs
the freight of the police and fire departments.. Those who live in the City have
found the advantage of being able to participate in city government and run for the
positions of mayor or city council. A man in the audience asked if the names on the
petitions were checked. Chairman Kirsop said they were checked and certified.
Fred Satterstrom, Planning Supervisor, said the City Clerk had checked the list and
all were registered voters. He said 10% of the registered voters is all that is
Planning Commission t rtes
May 24, 1979
Page 4
•
required and there were many more than that, one -third of the registered voters
signed the petition.
Dick Jordon, 16060 Military Road South, presented the Planning Commission the list
of names of people on Military Road who were opposed to single family zoning. He read
the names into the record, stating Mrs. Jenkins lives across the street. Dennis
Robertson asked for the date of the petition. Fred Satterstrom said it was not
dated.
Dennis Robertson said the McMicken Heights Improvement Club had obtained information
that there are no plans to widen Military Road. It is planned to harden the sides of
the street.
A lady in the audience said she did not see why the City would want to annex
McMicken Heights. Chairman Kirsop said the City is receptive to the petition
because we need a bigger electorate base and we are interested in development of
the City and encourage stable permanent residents.
Duane Knittel, audience, said he lives near Mr. Jordon's cabinet shop and three
or four of the names on his list he gathered on the petition in favor of annexa-
tion. They were concerned about losing their property to condominiums, they were
concerned with how much it would cost them to buy another home of similar comfort.
John Bosch, audience, asked about the zoning where Chalet South is located. Fred
Satterstrom said it is medium density. Mr. Bosch said he thought his property
should be the same. The sewers are 300 feet and it would be too expensive to
hook up for a single family dwelling, it would take multiple family to connect up.
He said he was thinking maybe it would be better to forget the annexation in that
area, there are just three or four blocks.
Mr. DiGiovanni, audience, asked what the adjacent zoning to B -1 is, do you go to
single family? Fred Satterstrom said to create a buffer the City does not follow
the strict zonal pattern, buffers can be created in a number of ways. Chairman
Kirsop said total buffering is not called for. Mr: DiGiovanni said the noise
and the pollution and the congestion is going to be a problem for everyone in
that area. He said the question is not whether or not we need apartments rather
than single family, it is whether we want an amount of density.
A man in the audience asked what the Crestview School District had to do with the
day care center. Chairman Kirsop responded that the general concern is the larger
the density to the school the greater the possibilities to develop it for apart-
ment houses or commercial.
There being no further comments from the audience, Chairman Kirsop declared the
Public Hearing closed at 10:10 p.m.
MOVED BY MR. SOWINSKI, SECONDED BY MR. WELSH, THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACCEPT
THE STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS EXCEPT AS FOLLOWS: (1) THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF 158TH
AND MILITARY ROAD TO 42ND AVENUE SOUTH TO BE R -1 (TAX LOT 34, SECTION 22, T.23 N.,
R.4 E., AND (2) ALL OF THE PRESENTLY ZONED RM -1800 PROPERTY NORTH OF 158TH AND
WEST OF 42ND AVENUE AND EAST OF THE PRESENTLY ZONED B -C SHALL BE DESIGNATED R -3.
MOTION CARRIED.
RECESS : 10:15 - 10:20 P.M.
Chairman Kirsop declared.a five minute recess. The Planning Commission meeting was
called back to order by Chairman Kirsop with Planning Commissioners present as
previously listed.
24 May 1979
AGENDA ITEM V A :
STAFF REPORT
CITY OF TUKWILA
PLANNING DIVISION
PLANNING COMMISSION
PUBLIC HEARING: Proposed Zoning
(Proposed Crestview Annexation Area)
8:00 P.M.
A petition for annexation has been filed with the City of Tukwila by
residents and property owners of the Crestview area. This petition
has been certified and accepted by the City of Tukwila, and the City
Council has passed Resolution #684 which calls for a commitment to
zoning in the proposed annexation area prior to the annexation elec-
tion. Such a procedure is authorized by state law, RCW 35A.14.330 -
.340, and requires the Planning Commission to recommend a proposed
zoning pattern (or, regulation) to the City Council for adoption,
such zoning to take effect upon annexation to the City of Tukwila.
FINDINGS:
1. The size of the proposed annexation area is approximately 307
acres. The proposed Crestview annexation area is depicted in
Exhibit A of this staff report.
2. Based on projections of the Tukwila Planning Division, the 1979
population is between approximately 1,557 - 1,882 persons (de-
pending upon the average household size). The population den -
sity, therefore, is approximately 5.05 - 6.13 persons per acre.
3. According to a windshield survey conducted by the Tukwila Plan-
ning Division, there are approximately 624 housing units in the
proposed annexation area. The following is a brief breakdown by
unit type:
NUMBER OF TOTAL NUMBER
HOUSING UNIT TYPE STRUCTURES UNITS BY TYPE
' Single - family (detached) 542 542
dwellings
Four - family dwellings 1 4
Apartment (condominium) 1 (complex) 78
624
a. Residential land use:
Planning Commission Page 2
Staff Report 24 May 1979
4. Existing land use in the proposed annexation area is depicted in
Exhibit C and consists generally of the following:
LAND USE (BY ACRES)
IN THE
PROPOSED CRESTVIEW ANNEXATION AREA
USE NO. ACRES % OF AREA
Residential
Single - family 196 64 %.
Multiple- family 5 2%
Commercial 20 7%
Roads 35 11%
Public Facilities 13 4%
Undeveloped 38 12%
TOTAL 307 acres 100%
Approximately 64% of the land in the proposed annexation area
is used for single- family residences. Most of these units
were constructed after 1950 on lots which generally range
between 8,000 - 10,000 square feet in size. Some lots are
larger than this figure but constitute only a small minority.
Condition of single - family homes in Crestview appears to be
good to excellent. No pockets or concentrations of poor or
deteriorated housing are located in the subject area. The
area is and has been undergoing a "filling in" process. Over
the past few years, it appears that a number of short plats
in the area have been approved by the County and homes have
subsequently been built on the new lots. As a result, little
vacant residential land exists.
Some multiple - family housing is located in the northwest corner
of the Crestview area at approximately South 158th Street and
42nd Avenue South. This multi - family development consists of
one 4 -plex and a 78 -unit condominium conplex presently nearing
completion of construction as of the date of this staff report.
Planning Commission Page 3
Staff Report 24 May 1979
b. Commercial land use:
c. Community facilities land use:
Several public and semi - public land uses can be found in the
area. The largest is the Crestview Conference Center located
just east of 42nd Avenue South between South 160th Street and
south 164th Street. A church and City of Seattle water pump-
ing plant are located along Military Road South near South
160th Street. No public parks are currently located within
the proposed annexation area.
d. Undeveloped land:
As mentioned, "in- filling" has been occurring and, as a result,
very little undeveloped or vacant land presently exists within
the residential areas of Crestview. No large tracts of unde-
veloped land suitable for single - family residences presently
'exist. Future single - family residential development is expected
to occur in a dispersed pattern on lots created primarily by
short subdivisions (4 lots or less).
Lying to the east of the present theatre - bowling alley- super-
market complex along Highway 99 is a large tract of undeveloped
land currently zoned for commercial purposes.
5. Existing King County zoning is shown in Exhibit D and a synopsis
of each district is included in Exhibit E. The basic pattern in
the Crestview area is single - family residential (RS -7200, i.e.,
minimum lot size 7200 square feet) with community commercial zon-
ing (B -C) and neighborhood commercial zoning (B -N) at key inter-
sections. The single - family neighborhood is separated to varying
degrees from the commercial districts by multiple - family residen-
tial zones (RM -2400, RM -1800, RM -900).
6. The Highline Communities Plan represents the adopted land use plan
which is currently in force and effect in the unincorporated Crest -
view area. The Highl.ine Plan was adopted by King County in December
1977. In general, the Highline Plan largely reflects current County
zoning. Some expansion of the presently zoned commercial and multi-
ple- family residential areas is proposed but it is not a significant
Approximately 7% of the land in the proposed Crestview annex-
ation area is used for commercial and retail purposes. This
development is concentrated at two nodes: 1) the South 160th
Street and Pacific Highway South Intersection, and 2) the
South 164th Street and Military Road /42nd Avenue South inter-
section. Along Pacific Highway are located community -wide or
regional businesses such as a theatre /bowling alley complex,
a supermarket, hardware store, drug store, restaurant, and
various other small businesses. Located at the South 164th
and Military Road intersection are some locally - oriented busi-
ness establishments such as two gas stations, a restaurant,
day -care center, and two medical clinics.
(
Planning Commission
Staff Report
Page 4,
24 May 1979
departure from current zoning in the area. This proposed expan-
sion is planned at essentially two locations: 1) east of the
Pacific Highway commercial node on South 160th Street, and 2)
on the perimeter of the commercial node at South 164th Street.
7. The City of Tukwila adopted its Comprehensive Land Use Policy
Plan (CLUPP) in September 1977. The Comprehensive Land Use Plan
Map included the Crestview area. Exhibit F, which is the Plan
Map, indicates the City's planned land use in the Crestview area.
Basically, the land use pattern proposed by the City of Tukwila
contemplates a single - family residential community with commer-
cial land use at the Pacific Highway /Military Road and South 164th/
Military Road intersections. Within the defined annexation area,
no multiple - family residential use is proposed, except that which
might occur on properties planned for commercial use. It should
also be noted that currently zoned multiple - family areas within the
McMicken Heights area of Tukwila (within city limits) are planned
for single - family residential use.
8. The City of Tukwila zoning map is included as Exhibit G. A synop-
sis of each zoning district is included as Exhibit H. Tukwila's
zoning code is Title 18 of the Municipal Code and is included
herein by reference as a part of this staff report.
9. Water service is provided by Water Districts #75 and #125. Water
District #75 serves approximately 80% of the proposed annexation
area while District #125 services the remainder (which includes
primarily the Pacific Highway /Military Road commercial area).
10. Sanitary sewer service is provided to approximately 75% of the
properties in the subject area by Val Vue Sewer District. Generally
the area located east of Military road and north of South 160th
Street presently uses septic tank waste disposal.
CONCLUSIONS:
1. The basic land use pattern in the proposed Crestview annexation
area — that is, a single - family residential neighborhood with
commercial use districts at major intersections — appears to be
well- established and stable. The single- family residential area
is built -up, well- defined, and the quality of the housing is sub-
stantial. In addition, commercial uses which are located within
the Crestview area appear to be thriving as well; very little
vacancy exists in commercial structures.
2. Future development in areas presently not served by sanitary sewer
will be constrained. Currently the County maintains multiple- family
zoning in an area not served by sanitary sewer (along South 158th
Street between Military Road and 42nd Avenue South). At this time,
the City should not propose urban densities in areas not served by
sewer.
Planning Commission
Staff Report
a. Lots:
b. Structures:
c. Uses:
3. Adoption of zoning regulations which will implement the Tukwila
Comprehensive Land Use Policy Plan and Map will necessarily create
some legal non- conforming lots, structures, and uses in the Crest-
view area:
Any lot presently in the County which is a "buildable" lot
under the County zoning ordinance could be built upon if
annexed to the City of Tukwila, pursuant to regulations of
TMC 18.60.160. Lots which presently are less than 7200 square
feet in size and are currently occupied by a residence would
become legal non - conforming lots upon annexation; such homes
could be enlarged or extended as long as setbacks and other
dimensional requirements are complied with. This policy is
the same as that which presently prevails under County juris-
diction.
Non- conforming structures which may result from stricter or
greater dimensional requirements of the City's zoning ordi-
nance may be maintained, continued and enlarged pursuant to
TMC 18.68.
Any use which is presently permitted by County zoning which
might become non - conforming by virtue of eventual City zoning
could continue as a legal non - conforming use consistent with
TMC 18.68.
4. There are some conflicts between the City of Tukwila Comprehensive
Land Use Plan Map and the current County zoning in the Crestview
area. These discrepencies are highlighted below:
a. South 158th Street between Military Road and 42nd Avenue South:
The County presently maintains multiple - family zoning on both
sides of South 158th Street (RM -1800) east of the shopping com-
plex. According to the City's Comprehensive Land Use Plan Map,
this area is designated for single - family residential use.
b. 42nd Avenue South and South 164th Street:
Page 5
24 May 1979
The County presently maintains office and medium - density resi-
dential zoning (RM -900 and RM -2400) around the perimeter of the
commercial node in the northeast quadrant of this intersection.
Tukwila's Comprehensive Plan Map designates this area for single -
family residential use.
C
Planning Commission
Staff Report
Page`6
24 May 1979
RECOMMENDATION:
In developing a recommendation, staff has followed the guidelines men-
tioned below:
— The City's C.L.U.P.P. and Plan Map should be implemented in the
Crestview area through zoning regulations when and if the area
chooses to annex to the City of Tukwila;
— Where current County zoning and the City's planned land use
appear to coincide or conform, the nearest City zone classifica-
tion should be proposed;
— Where the current County zoning and the City's planned land use
do not coincide, then the City zone classification which most
nearly reflects the City's planned land use designation should
be proposed.
The Planning Commission should bear in mind through the public hearing
process that the Comprehensive Land Use Policy Plan and Map are genera'
in nature and the Map, especially, need not be interpreted literally.
In certain cases, the comprehensive plan policies may invoked and
exercised to make subtle and insignificant modifications to the planner
land use pattern depicted on the Plan Map. Significant or widespread
changes, however, should be preceeded by a comprehensive plan amendmen
At this time, staff does not propose to amend the City's adopted land
use pattern for the proposed Crestview annexation area as established
by Ordinance #10339.
Therefore, staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend the
City Council adopt the proposed zoning pattern for the Crestview area
as generally shown in Exhibit I of this report and as more specificall;
illustrated in the map entitled "Proposed Zoning for the'Potential
Crestview Annexation Area" included in Planning Division File No.
MF 79- 13 -CA, said zoning to become effective upon annexation to the
City of Tukwila.
15250 51
L NAr
r >N
N
164TH 51
c.� r b. • . J6
Y z CR ESf17HEW z ^ !' 51
ELEMENTARY i > < 4
cr
;7: SCHOOL _ 5 i 2ND ST .
S
'gyp^ CR ESTVIEW y. 163 i N MEDICAL z N
■ p lo TCENTTER_ :74.4.4....; z '" :' 5 163RD
s
5, •641 H L 51 v A: 2 •.
MCMICKEN
HEIGHTS
ELE
L
Z "'-; T
n McMICKCK HEIGHTS e < . �
P YY
'41'1 s 51 15611 ST i ' a [! ':t
K
1
51
5LADE
17811, SI
1791H
5 1791H 514
RIVERTON HEIGHTS
• ..ELEMENTARY SCHOOL'
s 1507H ST
a3; ' 1 7 1 ...
"
5 '15811 4 ;1 ST
• PHi57
0 lice 5
160714 51
16750 sf
173RD
158TH 51
172ND
1751H 5I
1761. 5T
150TH 5T °
1701. 51
4250
5T
5 15214
5T
172140 01
▪ 15e1
27
34 35
1781H
s 1 ; s 160TH
5 150TH
AI4lZ
Relusv
11 a'.S1nl 51
5 15250 57
PARKWAY
PLAZA 4�•...
NORTH
" — 'PLAZA'
i
148TH 5T
z
;15MLiHAL
(_t17CT7.6Y
s 1 I 1 / Lfiill' �,
L Ali E 1
ANGLE
r LAKE
ELEM 10
SC•OOL:f
EXHIBIT A
PROPOSED CRESTVIEW ANNEXATION AREA
S 190TH '
192ND
i
C
i
786TH 5T
C 41
n
x
5 189TH ST
'A 5 <
190TH
5 c 19157
'MIST : 31 ` R
ST .i. ST r., 5(
X
N
,L• 18 111, S186TH 5T 5T
5T (040
194TH
" 1
184TH 5`Ba�H
P L
ZI n
A
S �
7a 97Hp
S
1491. 5T
C 14ICT ., a Io1CT CT
2
188TH
5 1841H
PL
5 185114 S
4
5T
5 I 84T Ml 57
CHINOOK
JR. HIGH
SCHOOL
S
(Po)
5 193RD 5
TYE
SR. HIGH L` ary
• SCHOOL
2
5T
10
5
5 184714 5
1 �
f
Z
5 166 H 5
SOUTH
188TH STREET
. INTERCHANGE
5 149TH 57
214
l!S lavt.
TUKWILA!
ELEMENTARY
SCHOOL
TUKWILA
INTERCHANGE
0
SEGALE
BUSINESS
PAR K
5 15151
S 153RD SI
5
PAR^
BALL.
x
i
z
t
57RAA
5T
f O
di :
441 ce
Nuone
T UKWI
. OF WASHINGTON
RESOLUTION NO d
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA, WASHINGTON, ACCEPTING
AND APPROVING A PETITION FOR ANNEXATION AND AUTHORIZING THE
COMMENCEMENT OF AN ANNEXATION, PROCEEDING BY THE ELECTION
METHOD OF A PORTION OF THE UNINCORPORATED PLANNING AREA KNOWN
AS THE "CRESTVIEW NEIGHBORHOOD ", AND REFERRING THE QUESTION
OF A PROPOSED ZONING REGULATION TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION.
WHEREAS, a petition has been filed with the legislative body of the
City of Tukwila calling for an election to vote upon the annexation of certain
unincorporated territory contiguous to the City of Tukwila, and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Tukwila has determined that
the best interests and general welfare of the City of Tukwila would be served
by the annexation of said unincorporated territory contiguous to the City,
commonly referred to as the "Crestview Neighborhood" and more particularly
described in Exhibit . "A ", which is attached hereto and by this reference in-
corporated herein; and
WHEREAS, the City Clerk of the City of Tukwila has filed with the
City Council Certificate of Sufficiency of the petition pursuant to the pro-
visions of RCW 35A.14.020; and
WHEREAS, an environmental questionnaire form and declaration of non -
significance were reviewed on this proposal and considered during the decision
deliberations; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Tukwila has determined that
the annexation proceedings should be initiated within the provisions of RCW
35A.14.020 providing for the election method.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA, WASHINGTON,
DO RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. The petition submitted by certain qualified electors
residing in a portion of unincorporated territory contiguous to the City of
Tukwila, commonly referred to as the "Crestview Neighborhood ", the legal
description of which and a map describing which are attached hereto as Exhibit
A and Exhibit B, respectively, for annexation into the City of Tukwila, as
certified as sufficient by the City Clerk, is hereby accepted and approved.
Section 2. Annexation proceedings by the election method shall be
commenced as provided in RCW 35A.14.020, and any amendments thereto.
EXHIBIT B
RESOLUI'IO`; F( 'S4
Section 3. An election shall be held among the qualified voters in the
subject annexation area upon the question of annexation. The City of Tukwila
shall pay all costs of conducting this election.
Section 4. As a portion of said annexation election, the City of Tuk-
wila shall propose to the electorate of the subject annexation area the proposi-
tion that upon• annexation, all property within the area to be annexed shall be
assessed and taxed at the same rate and on the same basis as is the property of
the City of Tukwila assessed and taxed to pay for any then outstanding indebted-
ness of the City, contracted to or existing at the date of annexation.
Section 5. The matter of a proposed zoning regulation for the Crest-
view Neighborhood is referred to the Planning Commission with the intent that a
proposed zoning regulation is to be adopted and filed with the King County Auditor
pursuant to RCW 35A.14.340 and that it shall be adopted simultaneously upon the
approval of the annexation by the electorate of the area to be annexed.
PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA, WASHINGTON, at a
regular meeting thereof this / r1 day of (q , 1979.
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
ATTEST:
City Attdrney, De-r"-
EXHIBITS AVAILABLE AT TUKWILA CITY HALL
Published Record Chronicle - April 20, 1979
&?/
Mayor
rtOPOSED McMICKEN ANNEXATION i .
"EXHIBIT A"
Beginning at the intersection of the Southerly margin of South 168th Street and
the Westerly margin of Military Road South in Section 27, Township 23 North
Range 4 East Willamette Meridian;
Thence Northerly and Westerly along said Westerly margin of Military Road South
to its intersection with the Southerly margin of South 160th Street;
Thence Westerly along said Southerly margin of South 160th Street to its inter-
section of the Easterly margin of State Sign Route No. 99 (Pacific Highway South);
Thence Northeasterly along said Easterly margin of State Sign Route No. 99 to
its intersection of the Southerly line of State Sign Route 518;
Thence Northerly and Easterly along said Southerly line of State Sign Route
518 to its intersection with the Northerly margin of vacated South 158th Street;
Thence Westerly along said Northerly line of vacated South 158th Street
(Gilmour Street) to the Westerly line of Di of SE4 of SE4 of Section 22;
Thence Southerly along said Westerly line to the Southerly line of South
160th Street;
Thence Easterly along said Southerly line to a point in said Southerly line
which is N 89959'10" W 128.4' and S 0°15'15" E 30 feet from the N E corner
of Section 27; .
Thence S 0 ° 15'15" E 145.20';
Thence S 89 °59'10" E 162.97' to Westerly line of 51st Avenue South;
Thence Southerly along said Westerly line of 51st Avenue South to a point
800 feet North df Southeast 'Section 27;
Thence East along the Easterly production of said South line, being the common
property line between lots 10 and 11, McMicken Heights Div. No. 1, to the
Westerly common property line of lots 18 and 19, McMicken Heights Div. No. 1;
Thence South 0 °14'13" East 825 feet, more or less, to the centerline of
South 168th Street;
Thence Easterly along the centerline of South 168th Street, 192 feet to the
centerline of 53rd Avenue South;
Thence Southerly along said centerline of 53rd Avenue.South, 30 feet, more or
less, to the Southerly line of S 168th'Street;
Thence Westerly along said Southerly line of South 168th Street to the
Westerly margin of Military Road South and the Point of Beginning.
Y
c `
4 .1.1. - F .
1 " -
.173
p
Ali
•
Vi14 rosier
.� • GO
G se
if.'.
PROPOSED Mc.MIckEw A)UJEXATIOPJ
"EXHIBIT N18IT 8"
I,^kr ) 1:� 1 ly.r , 'I, 1, .• _,�.:
1
Ak
1 1..- 1 1 : i 1 i — :, / , : r -------, :Jr. '.,4,<. j‘,`Y Vi • Y 1 1' 1 :- :
' - - .---..-r, c ' • 12) 1 ..-_ . s .11 --,‘ •
.... ...,.. , .
iy :„,,
. ,:,
,!'4 . 11 : 0 1
n 1
-!, 9' '"I■ ) „1 //'
1 I J__)• '
. .
.li --)- .-.
I ..:7,...-:. u,-, , .../:14','VS). c f (.% )‘-:-;-:-.„ C, li t h
; J1
.- f
;/1.. I V r - I'n i•
• .......
• / .)I -). C, 1 ''. - ' "*A” .
i , • , 1
! L. ( . .
ri • — - •\i.• -. • •,,. ., /-f • ••• •
.,,.,,-,..,., e• •..,•.., ,..... • .
1
... `,.---,----- e-‘77;:L._ ri ..._ -
' •, r .i., - In I f :...,/ -
.<------..- : '
: .1 ill.' • '1)611A-.}1,:i'le
.14 ) P. .‘ - - I ) /. ' - • L "%••■■••-
, z? it!' ,
• a s Ta%
,
• 4 %
• •A
• V
.i • at.•
.:-.-) 1, .11 r... •
• e,...,...,.......t . i i
v__. __........;,. 1.1
T - ___.
• ;
i
1
•• •. ...1
fftcp
)-- c ■L1
.k113Vis—
,
• rt , [3,9
. -..; :•Ls :j
03. w t.
•:
EXHIBIT C
GENERALIZED LAND USE:
PROPOSED CRESTVIEW ANNEXATION AREA
Single-family Residential
Multiple-family Residential
Commercial
Public Facilities
Undeveloped
11 .
7
•
1110 :" • "" • - ks* • • ,
/ Li - j : r''
: —.
' 1 k
! • L, .
-1' f , n,,,, I, , ••■T ,;., y ; ,..q.,_ ictti,
'
°:' Ill -• :.' '. U
: ;-
- ',f . :--z:TII ,=.. --± -- -•
— , - • ---.0. w.i. ....
..r. i .. :::?i.1'.. _.,.....-' ,._ :... '
,..., , ipinT717 4: - .,. 4, ;
j . 1 Pr i t+V . II - ' - -A
i va.tiiii,- -.1,-:, r d . a
a
i ft, ii_2•41.. .: - 1 1 , s 0P.; l .,• ;
-•:-
,',), a \ • i It
/"..
.- , 6 • - . . . - - ., • s : 1 . ; . N-
l
- s.
- 7'
i rr
1.11:b64 IldkurCO'
..qa■
•ri, ji
•• 1 , •
s q ,
• ,
•
0.0
''''i '•' , 1 :i '1' 7 ; . -Yr c l .. .. 1 1:1 1 ; „ ..v.if,\1. If.; ; I; ; i.; I f
1., , -t t,;i'' . • , I • iof 1 , a ii o
• I . r. • • • I
. )
I 5 l•
;1 • r • . ,)
111_ • • .). • • ); If( 4 ..1 7 1• • ■
4 ', • 1,(F)t : i r
• P . ' , 13
•
•
— -
V
----., -,. 'L"'';';';-:4■.1■:1;;)6(/'=1;$1'.)17-;-0.Yli6 /1,"44'-r----12-.7—_-.,-,..7::__,--.:=-Z--;"----
f ! _'' 11 (..:/. " 'll 'i '' ' ' 1• - - -- 1 11t -rfr..-/ -11. -.----- <. t '' . • '7'''':. --- .''.-----:/' "!-
0" ..--: .;_...„.._-: --_____. ' - ''''•-<.:;-_-__-..„.r,___,,---• 7---,---/
-"- ..... 1)..-1---- I . - .1-'1 6-.:,, , ..IL I" ' 'f..---.--:.%•'...)9;;Vilcil!-: ' ' :-.- 5" . " r;2- "'"':-----. — _..._ ' -
.- 1! r• „1,) , .,, c - ---------: .. s ' N- -s. -- N' . . - ■_ ) )
---,,,-, . ,.. ,- i -- / -:. • -,,--; , - -N. , _ ----. - •-.
„_ . ?)\ - ) t-T yn,. -; ;• i( t 1( ' •-
... , A ..',\'' `•,-".„‘
If
1 0)„11 1-.., r, .,/, i. . .. , \k .\--
i
• / , ,i,. .•„ \ / \‘, 't i k" / r•. -. ‘ 7 ‘D' ,/ ' '
) • , -... , i ,,,' .:,1 . ";c1 ( 'f. 7 . 1. 4) '. 14 1 1 1 .it. , i-.,v, i, - 7
. `
.-..,,
- .--...) ii'' '- ' ''.7.-- 4-.... ' " i,..A.:-.,. } -7, C.-i
..---- '4
, ! .
,- r - Jr_ .---71 I- '11-1j . ;11: .: : ' n,r .
,
, ,..a- 1
.. , :z-- A: ...:, ....,". , • . .„
h V 1
. 1
......,,,,, 'IA(
i
! ..<; '-:" - ' -
"s--■.;yr:---.-cr:`3:-."-t"\i:---;\•"---....„......_f .7 7.: -
' ' '. P .... . .•\ \.. ,
'7\ ..'\ •\\\ •
.:' . ' '` — - , r - •-- .• '' • 1 ":;•, - :, . „" \\
- ..
l'.- '''''''. ' '7 . •-• -'/* ?I ! D ' iY 'f,;51'.'-'1, 1 r. 1 . : ( : ? :1 ,1,u.il :i :c. ki,1,1
11 ' -- P • '.I.'r ,.- \' '0, .
..... -
..... .....
+1-;--- . 3---• 4 ::: 1 1 :1 7:71 ' 1 \ 46:...:-4'.? rp
11.,; 713 ..1.:St,, ,\\''''
i.::•,--.u.'.:i - e l it :.:ii • ' '' ■ i'li ri, .•.
ne•I- •r6+ r ' .,. YI' '• I
. _k,I.L., ,••••. . j,';',.ii •,, • ii I ,, 1 ..1 .'-' iii i i)i 1 ?•(; , !•I'r - .1,4'.1; 1- "
, 11 `"-..
''jk •,, , , .... ,.) 1 (I..: fv), *1, i' lill rill/ .: 1 - 4, - ttlilL.,,, i7 1 1 1) `_,..._! 'AL \' ' • , :---A
41 //,,, • k-1, ' , iiif t • 1
„•,-, • )-- - . . , .). 1_1- ,, .ir
l.■11 ri 4 -, 1. \ -. 01 , % 1:ji
.. • cni •_.. . ft; -:!-, ' . -
. \ . • 1 ' .1.
; • -."'r .7 c - 7 17 :. r-i- . li l -
.
-1..:4,..._..!L ,s.1.• . 41:-......:, ,....._._
n /,, 1 L . ) •, 1, , •- 10),Ii.filL r .. e k
■,) 17 I, YM! I I; .t • ) : : ,.. 1 . J .,,, - ) 1 ,
f' I rit • ' .-.'"
- . -1- ' --.1. f • l ( 'le?,
I
(
( [7) ..-..• .„ i
i :.,,, ,1 : 1 1 . i ,. i .,.. u i • , ,i 7
&,..1::171'11.17.1.1(1(11;-'-:-:'6I1.1-11 -.-:"..ta•-'-'.!..:11';','.:::..,-.:T:
'. 11'.. , pl,
i l S,, (... • ..•;, r4t,'
• ; /-• '.' - •.. -1,1..- .il . .'1,f.,71 71r1
.)(/,:.'• ,,
11..
4 I P 1 ‘ ‘ 6,0. -- , i71
11 ' 2 ,1 1 '? I A• f kil \ / j n i
e , )YEI
,P, - O•ji,I s Ji /1 , ,-u, '
I
1 ,i-, A • ''' ''.a.til ii."
1 ,,!: ;,■•1` KO i't1 Il P.O.
.:.I
..k...•-•' 1. L k _L..)
..4. I I 11) .k.,1.• -gp
cr
i
.1 • - 1 . 1 =I . ,...,. ,i . ..„ Ll ...P 1 1 1 . C., ) i P -
1.
Itrr.T nr, k . 1 ,- .1 . .t:I •) . 1" 45 p
11 LI. • t _,... '"1 ....-r°1 4 .1, 1 1. Iv?) ra
UO
EX 11B11' EXISTING KING COUNTY ZONING:
PROPOSED CRESTVIEW ANNEXATION AREA
ii DI ';'! (:1 4 .: 1 ' --CA- vidtr - I : ,6 pa 1 '. 1 NiFfl. N
ft t1 a I fi g ti : 7„: -d 4. f : i [ l i , i i i i:-S Di - P ,;(1 • , ..'"''' 11 .1 )
• ? 41.01% , i. , .. , - 1 ./.- 1 ...VA :
:', '') , :':-1
EXISTING KING COUNTY ZONING
z. .
• :IL 11 it- 1/4/ .1!
'' "I" -• I it.y( y r/ -1
:
' " " -•- -A- j
•
INQ: COUNTY
ZONING CODE SYNOPSIS
RS (7,200, 9,600, 15,000) SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL
Provides an area for single family dwellings at urban den-
sities and other related uses which contribute to a com-
plete urban residential environment. These other uses,
churches, schools, libraries, etc., are considered com-
patible with single family residential uses.
RS -7,200
Dimensional Standards
Min. lot area: 7,200 sq. ft. Side yard: 5 ft.
Min. lot width: 60 ft. Rear yard: 5 ft. for
Lot coverage: 35% dwelling units.
Front yard depth: 20 ft. (Key and transitional lots 15')
Height: 30 ft. (Non - residential buildings and struc-
tures may be increased by 1' for each foot of
additional side yard to a maximum of 50') .
RS -9,600
Dimensional Standards
Min. lot area: 9,600 sq. ft. Min. lot width: 70 ft.
Front, side, and rear yards: height, and lot coverage
same as RS- 7,200.
RS 15,000
Dimensional Standards
Min. lot area: 15,000 sq. ft. Min. lot width: 80 ft.
Front, side and rear yards; height; and lot coverage
same as RS- 7,200.
S -R SUBURBAN RESIDENTIAL
Provides for the orderly transition of areas from a subur-
ban to an urban character. Within this classification
small scale and intensive agricultural pursuits may be
mixed with developing urban subdivisions.
Dimensional Standards •
Lot area: 5 acres, except that the area may be
reduced through subdividing.
7,200 sq. ft. with sewers, water, paved
streets, curbs, drainage.
9,600 sq. ft. with approved sewage disposal
system and paved streets.
35,000 sq. ft. with approved water and
sewage disposal systems.
Min. lot width: 330 ft. unless platted.
Front yard depth: 30 ft. unless platted.
Side yard depth: 10 ft. unless platted.
Rear yard depth: 10 ft. unless platted.
Lot coverage: 35%
Height: 30 ft. except for accessory
buildings.
G. GENERAL
Regulates the use of land in areas generally undeveloped
and - not yet subjected to urban development pressures to
prevent the improper location and intrusion of business
and industrial uses.
Dimensional Standards
Min. lot area: 35,000 sq. ft. for
S -E uses:
5 acres for S -R uses,
10 acres for A uses.
Min. lot area per dwelling unit: 35,000 sq. ft. for
single family;
Min. lot width: 135 ft.
Front yard depth: 30 ft. •
Side yard depth: 10 ft.
Rear yard depth: 20 ft. for dwelling units.
Height: R zone uses, •35' plus 1' for additional 1' of
side and rear yard.
A and S zone uses, 35' except for accessory
buildings.
EXHIBIT E
KING COUNTY :ONI'';G: DISTRICT SYNOPSES
S -E SUBURBAN ESTATE
Provides an area permitting uses and activities more
rural (such as horses, private stables, chickens and
agricultural crops) than is practical in the more concen-
trated urban areas.
Dimensional Standards
Min. lot area: 35,000 sq. ft. Side yard: 10 ft.
Min. lot width: 135 ft. Rear yard: 10 ft.
Lot coverage: 35% Front yard: 30 ft.
Height: 35ft. , except for accessory buildings.
A. AGRICULTURAL
Preserves agricultural lands and discourages the en-
croachment of urban type development in areas which
are particularily suited for agricultural pursuits.
Dimensional Standards
Min. lot area: 10 acres
Min. lot width: 330 ft.
Front yard depth: 30 ft.
Side yard depth: 10 ft.
Lot coverage: 60% Rear yard depth: 10 ft.
Height: 35 ft. except for accessory buildings.
RD -3,600 TWO FAMILY (DUPLEX) RESIDENTIAL
Permits limited increase in density while maintaining a
family living environment.
Dimensional Standards
Min. lot area: 7,200 sq. ft. Side yard: 5 ft.
Min. lot width: 60 ft. Rear yard: 5 ft. for
Lot coverage: 35% dwelling units.
Lot area /dwelling unit: 3,600 sq. ft.
Front yard: 20 ft. (Key and transitional lots 15 ft.)
Height: 30 ft. (Non- residential buildings and struc-
tures may be increased by 1' for each foot of
additional side yard to a maximum of 50')
RM -2,400 MEDIUM DENSITY MULTIPLE DWELLING
Establishes areas permitting a greater population density
while maintaining a residential environment consistent
with such density.
Dimensional Standards
Min. lot area: 7,200 sq. ft. Side Yard: 5 ft.
Min. lot width: 60 ft. Rear yard: 5 ft. for
Lot coverage: 50% dwelling units.
Lot area /dwelling unit: 2,400 sq. ft.
Front yard: 20 ft. (Key and transitional lots 15 ft.)
Height: 30 ft. (Non-residential buildings and struc-
tures may be increased by 1' for each foot of
additional side yard to a maximum of 50').
RM -1,800 HIGH DENSITY MULTIPLE DWELLING
Provides a higher density for the accommodation of those
who desire to live in a residential atmosphere without
the necessity of individually maintaining a dwelling unit.
Dimensional Standards
Min. lot area: 7,200 sq. ft. Lot coverage: 50%
Lot area /dwelling unit: 1,800 sq. ft.
Min lot width: 60 ft.
Front side & rear yards; same as RM- 2,400.
Height: 35 ft. (May be increased by 1' for each foot
of additional side yard) .
RM -900 MAXIMUM DENSITY MULTIPLE DWELLING
RESTRICTED SERVICE
Establishes areas permitting the maximum population den-
sity and also permits certain uses other than residential,
such as medical, dental, social services, and certain pro-
fessional offices.
Dimensional Standards
Min. lot area: 7,200 sq. ft. Lot coverage: 60%
Lot area /dwelling unit: 900 sq. ft. Min.lot width: 60'
Front, side and rear yards, same as RM- 2,400,
Permissible floor area; Two times the area of the lot.
Does not apply to dwelling units if the only use on
the lot.
Height: 35 ft. (May be increased by 1' for each foot
of additional side yard) .
B-N NEIGHBORHOOD BUSIN(
Provides for shopping and limited personal service facili-
ties to serve the every day needs of the neighborhood.
Dwelling units are excluded from this classification.
Dimensional Standards
Lot coverage: 100% Height: 35 ft. maximum
Permitted floor area: Not more than total lot area.
B-C COMMUNITY BUSINESS
Provides for the grouping of similar type enterprises in-
cluding recreation, entertainment and general business
activities but excluding uses relying on outdoor sales. It
is a further objective to concentrate a maximum variety
of facilities as a contribution to the convenience of shop-
pers and patrons on a community-wide basis. Dwelling
units are excluded from this classificaiton.
Dimensional Standards
Lot coverage: 100%
Permitted floor area: not more than 3 times lot area.
Height: 35 ft. (May be increased by 1' for each foot
of additional side and rear yards) .
C -G GENERAL COMMERCIAL
Provides for the grouping of enterprises which may in-
volve some on- premise retail service, but comprised
primarily of those with outside activities and display or
fabrication; assembling, including manufacturing and
processing in limited degree. These uses, if permitted
to locate in strictly on- premise retail and service areas
would introduce factors of heavy trucking and handling
of materials that destroy the maximum service and attrac-
tion of strictly retail areas . With the exception of
trailer parks, dwelling units are not permitted.
Dimensional Standards
Lot coverage: 100%
Permitted floor area not more than 3 1/2 times lot
area.
Height: 35 ft. (May be increased by 1' for each foot
of additional side and rear yards).
M -L LIGHT MANUFACTURING
Provides for the heavier general commercial uses and
for industrial activities and uses involving the proces-
sing, handling and creating of products , research and
technological processes , as distinguished from major
fabrication. These uses are largely devoid of nuisance
factors, hazard or exceptional demands upon public
facilities or services.
M-P MANUFACTURING PARK
Provides for industrial areas of high standards of oper-
ational development and environment. Standards of in-
tensity of use and standards of external effects which will
minimize traffic congestion, noise, glare, air and water
pollution, fire and safety hazards are established in this
classification.
Dimensional Standards
Front yard depth: 50'
Side yard depth: 20'
Permitted floor area: not more than 2 1/2 times
the lot area.
Height: 45 ft. (Slay be increased by 1' for each foot
of additional side and rear yards).
See text for detailed performance standards.
December 1974
M -H HEAVY MANT' ACTURING
Provides for industrial enterprises involving heavy manu-
facturing, assembling, fabrication and processing, bulk
handling of products, large amounts of storage, ware-
housing and heavy trucking.
Dimensinal Standards
Lot coverage: 100E
Permitted floor area not more than 2 1/2 times lot
area.
Height: 45 ft. (May be increased by 1' for each foot
of additional side and rear yards),
F -R FORESTRY & RECREATION
Allows the development of forest land for the sustained
production of forest products and the development of com-
patible uses such as recreation.
Dimensional Standards
Min. lot area for building site: 35,000 sq. ft.
Min. lot width for building site: 135 ft.
Front, side & rear yards: 20 ft.
Height: 45 ft. (May be increased by 1' for each foot
of additional side and rear yards).
F -P FLOOD PLAIN
Applies to those areas declared to be potentially hazard-
ous to the public health, safety , and general welfare un-
less conserved in substantially their native state. Such
hazards may exist or arise by reason of topography,
elevation, flood and inundation, surface erosion, earth
or rock slides, accentuated water runoff, denuding of
the natural land surface of vegetation ground cover , or
by grading or otherwise altering the natural stability of
an area.
Dimensional Standards
Lot area: 10 acres.
Q -M QUARRYING & MINING
Insures continued development of natural resources
through inclusion of known deposits of minerals and
materials within a zone reserved for their development
and production and allows for the necessary processing
of such minerals and materials.
Dimensional Standards
Min, lot area: 10 acres.
Front, side and rear yards: 20 ft. except plant struc-
ture shall not be closer
than 100' to an R or S zone.
Permitted floor area: not more than total lot area.
Height: 45 ft. (May be increased by 1' for each foot of
additional side and rear yards) .
See text for detailed performance requirements.
Dimensional Standards (except adjacent to R or S zones)
Lot coverage: 100%
Permitted floor area: not more than 2 1/2 times lot
area.
Height: 45 ft. (May be increased by 1' for each foot
of additional side and rear yards). UNCLASSIFIED USES (NOT A ZONE)
Provides for uses possessing characteristics of such
unique and special form as to make impractical their
being automatically included in any zone. The authority
for location and operation of these uses is subject to
review and issuance of an unclassified use permit by the
Planning Commission or a conditional use permit by the
Board of Adjustment.
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (NOT A ZONE)
Permits flexibility within a zone that will encourage a
more creative approach in the development of land than
a lot by lot development with the result that a more
efficient and desirable use of land is produced. A
minimum area of 5 acres is required.
POTENTIAL ZONE
Recognizes the suitability of a location for a future type
of use and the impractibility of precisely zoning the pro-
perty until properly designed and planned.
111111 1111111111111
// / /// •
•• ‘,
' " • ,/
111 LOW DENSITY FLIDENTIAL
• MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL
• HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL
OFFICE
▪ COMMERCIAL
LIGHT INDUSTRIAL
▪ HEAVY INDUSTRIAL
PUBLIC FACILITIES
• PARKS AND OPEN SPACE
SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT CO SIDE
REFERS TO AREAS OF STEEP SLOPES WATER SURFACE,
AP O AGRICULTURAL LANDS. THIS DESIGNATION DOES
NOT PRECLUCE DEVELOPMENT; RATHER, IT DEPICTS
AREAS WHERE URBAN DEVELOPMENT MUST RESPOND
SENSITIVELY TO CERTAIN ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS.
PLANNING AREA BOUNDARY
mum CITY BOUNDARY
fls
EXHIBIT F
ir
COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLAN iil
PLiaMEIHe &ME&
6 .....
... ....... ....... ................................. ....... . .... . ".;;; ..............................
0 601011111111111 1111101
mum
1111111111111111111111111111114
LONGACRES
A
I ----
AIRPORT
TUKWILA PUNNING DEPARTMENT 1975
11
§
111
1
• • • •
i ; •
r 1
--•
EXHIBIT G
CITY OF TUKWILA:
EXISTING :ONING
1
_SEP ED
R 4 RESIDENTIAL• AGRICULTURAL
R 1.7.2 1 FAMILY RESIDENCE
R.1.9.6 1 FAMILY RESIDENCE
R.1.12.0 1 FAMILY RESIDENCE
R.2.S1 2 FAMILY RESIDENCE
1.3 3 FAMILY RESIDENCE
1.3.60 lor 4 FAMILY RESIDENCE
R.4 LOW APARTMENTS
RMH MULE RESIDENCE HIGH DENS.
PF PUBLIC FACILITY
C.1 NEIGHBORHOOD RETAIL
C.2 LOCAL RETAIL
CPR PLAN'D BUS. CENTER REGIONAL
CM INDUSTRIAL PARK
M.1 LIGHT INDUSTRY
A1.2 HEAVY INDUSTRY
A4-I
NP.3C • C•7 • .•%:"{ CAST
CITY OF TUKWILA
ZONING
IMMWW MW
00=MMOI=XZVEMI
CITY OF TUKWILA PLANNING DEPARTMENT MAY 1975 TUKWILA WASHINGTON.REVISIONS
EXHIBIT I
PROPOSED CRESTVIEW ANNEXATION AREA:
PROPOSED ZONING
LEGEND
R -1 -7.2 Single - family
Residential
.c
C -1 Neighborhood Retail
i C -2 Local Retail
421 UI.1 u4,
Planning Division— OCD
May 1979
EXHIBIT G
CITY OF TUKWILA:
EXISTING :ONING
74?
USD
R A RESIDENTIAL. AGRICULTURAL
017.2 1 FAMILY RESIDENCE
R.1.9.6 1 FAMILY RESIDENCE
0.1.12.0 1 FAMILY RESIDENCE
R.2.S.4 2 FAMILY RESIDENCE
R.3 3 FAMILY RESIDENCE
R.3.60 3130 FAMILY RESIDENCE
R.4 LOW APARTMENTS
DMA MULE. RESIDENCE HIGH DENS.
PF PUBLIC FACILITY
Cl NEIGHBORHOOD RETAIL
C2 LOCAL RETAIL
CPR PLAN BUS, CENTER REGIONAL
CM INDUSTRIAL PARK
M.1 LIGHT INDUSTRY
M.2 HEAVY INDUSTRY
M-I
7t.45C 5 MT
CITY OF TUKWILA
ZONING
• W CC ICC? W .•
mo==mmc=immms
CITY OF TUKWILA PLANNING DEPARTMENT MAY 1975 TUKWILA WASHINGTON.REVISIONS
SYM401.
1 -7 . 2
II- 1-9.0
It- 1 - I 2.0
11 -2
11-3
11-4
10111
C-2
C-M
C-1'
11 ISTRIC N!141:
ONE FAMILY IIWELL I NGS
'II() l'AM I I.Y DWELLINGS
AND I:01 1R
IAII I,Y DWELLINGS
LOW APARD1EN'I'5
MULTIPLE RESIDENCE
111G0 DENSITY
AGRICULTURAL
AUTOMOBILE PARKING
• --- - - —
NI: 10111011110011 Rijn I I.
BUSINESS
- • -
LOCAL 0FIAIL
MIS I NESS
INDUS:IR I Al. l'AltK
PLANNEII BUSINESS
CliNniuts
1.1G1 n INDUSTRY
EXHIBIT II
TUKWILA ZONING: DISTRICT SYNOPSES
CITY OF TUKII I LA : ZON I NG CODE SYNOPSIS
EssENT I AI. USES
fami I y residences wit 11 related uses
such as parks and agr cid hire.
Two- fami ly dwe Iii ligs; a l l o w s it- I uses.
Three and four f ami 1 y dwell jugs; 1 lows
R-2 uses.
Apartment t ype divel I i ngs ; al lows 0-3 uses.
I l i gli dens t y apartment dwe I 1 i ngs ; : 1 1 1
11-4 uses.
Agricul t lira 1 uses and residential l uses.
Parking facilities in resident ia I dist rict s.
- - - - --
Neighborhood and comimin it y tontine re I and
reta
ii uses; :11 10145 it-4 11;e
------- — - •-- -
Communi y and urban retail uses; a !lows
C-1 uses.
Light Indus! rial and common i a I maim fat -
Curing uses; a 1 lows 0-1 itsc.s.
Regional shopping tenter development.
Li gill 111;IIIII t II r i ug and di St ri Mai ve 115eS
al lows C-2 uses.
Ileavy mann lac t i uses , salvage opera -
0-2 HEAVY I 000sTny
ions: a 1 lows M-1 uses .
- - - - - - - - • -
p l'acHilies; parks.
l'-1' PIIRI. I 1: FACILITIES government of i •es .
'tiLlt. 'UM: IS fur speci d ro rotwnt S.
1,111 01 N . 1.0'I
AREA W 10111
(SQ. Fr. ) ( nro
..... _
7 , 200
9,600
12 , 000
40110 - 84 00*
60101 - 9000
I 000/tin it •
20(1 - 000/tin it
1 unit/3 at
varies'
va ries'
- 5 at .
va r
varies'
5(1
SO
50
50
120
511'
DIMENSIONAL STANDARDS
— —
SIDE
YARD YARD
DEPTI1 DEPTI
(FEET) (FEET)
3 0 "
25*
75*
20'
40
varies'
none •
non
50
20
nom!'
4 - 8'
4 - 8"
4 - 0'
4 - 8"
varies'
8
varies'
none"
none'
none"
10
none*
none'
IZMIR
YARD
DEPTI1
(TI:F.T)
3 (1'
25'
25'
20*
50
vari es'
• 4 "
4*
'
10 - 20'
•*
4"
MAX 1000
0F.11arr
I FE El)
35
30'
35
Vii i es W i
Iron) ya rd
set back •
35
va ries*
35'
45
35
- 75'
IS
11 I
n
*ILA
City of Tukwila
; 7908 _
6200 Southcenter Boulevard
Tukwila Washington 98188
Frank Todd, Mayor
:JOHN MCFARLAND
ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT
PROPOSED CRESTV I EW ANNEXATION
STAFF ANALYSIS
Analysis of annexation costs to the City is a difficult task made more
difficult by a lack of hard data relating to existing service costs in
the unincorporated area and an equally frustrating lack of adequate time
to fully analyze what data has been accumulated. With the foregoing
disclaimer, this report attempts to identify and assess the impact of
the proposed Crestview Annexation in terms of immediate demands for
service and the. City's ability to meet these demands. The focus of this
report lies with the analysis of short term cost impacts which are a
variable of the need for service. Obviously, the immediate extension
of the full package services enjoyed currently by the Tukwila residents
is not practical in the annexation area as this would exceed the City's
resources, both financial and human. If the annexation is successful
with the voters, it is suggested that an Ad Hoc Board be established to
draft realistic timetables and long term budget for the "phasing in "'of
needed long range services. Additionally, long term costs are not
treated herein, as they are reflective of policy decisions regarding
capital improvement obligations or major revisions in service levels
which would occur gradually over several years. While these.concerns
are genuine, it is not possible at this stage to assess their impact
without a great degree of qualification.
Acknowledgement is given to the departments for their expedicious response
in providing the information for this report.
I. Identification of Immediate - Service Needs: (Information extracted
and summarized from staff reports submitted on February 29, 1980)
A. Public Works
1. Road Maintenance
2. Street Signing
3. Street Stripping
4. Storm Sewer Inventory and Maintenance
5. Administrative Requirements -- Permit Review, etc.
B. Public Safety
1. Police Patrol, Investigations, Crime Prevention
2. Fire Prevention (Inspection /Enforcement), Fire Combat,
Emergency 'Medical Services
C. Building /Planning
1. Permit Services, Plan Checks, Inspection (user fee supported),
Code Enforcement
2. Zoning Interpretation, Enforcement
D. Recreation
STAFF REPORT
1. Program Expansion (based on demand)
DEPARTMENT
A
CAPITAL OUTLAY •
B
MANPOWER
TOTAL .
Police
$128,666
$128,666
*Fire
-
_
Public Works
.-
53,000
53,000
Building
-
* *Planning
* *3,531
* *3,531
Recreation
-
1,400
• General Admin.
500
1.500
2,000.
TOTAL
500.E
$183,166
$184,566
E. General Administration
1. Licensing
2. Indemnification of Public Facilities, Right -of- Ways, etc.
3. Vouchers and. Warrant Processing Costs.
4. Library Assessment
5. Other Administrative Costs
II. Cost Matrix for Meeting Necessary Immediate Service Needs. (As
identified by departments in staff reports submitted on February 29, 1980)
* *Organizational changes (proposed) in Planning 'Department will eliminate
identified manpower cost.
*Fire protection costs dependent upon service arrangements with existing .
fire districts. Costs could vary from a per call unit cost to establish-
ment of a satellite station. ($0 - $259,000) See Section II.B for assess
ment of 1980 -81 fire protection costs.
-2-
AUBURN (40)
619
6
$13,856,125
6
322
10
BOTHELL (13)
516
4
8,022,770
3
212
8
EDMONDS (28)
977
10
13,549,571
5
160
4
KENT (39)
497
2
18,547,974
10
281
9
KIRKLAND (24)
708
43
6,823,125
2
168
5
LYNNWOOD (31)
673
7
10,506,322
4
128
2
MERCER IS. (27)
806
9
17,404,148
9
156
3
PUYALLUP (32)
509
3
6,524,375
1
174
6
RENTON (56)
523
5
16,647,571
8
176
7
TUKWILA (27)
116
1
14,465,703
7
109
1
W /CRESTVIEW (27)
251
1
16,245,731
7
140
1
III. Narrative Analysis of Immediate Needs (Conclusion drawn from information
submitted by Departments on February 29, 1980)
A. Police Protection: (See Appendix A)
CITY'
An accurate appraisal of service demand is not possible without
access and analysis of statistical data relating to recorded
criminal and traffic accident violation experience in the
Crestview area. Such information was not presented in the
departmental. report and is apparently not readily available
from- King County. Areas of probable high police service de-
mand were identified and their impact assessed. The addition
of one officer per shift will be necessary to insure the pro-
vision of the level of service currently experienced within
the existing city, boundary. A demonstration of the high level
of service enjoyed by Tukwila using these comparative ratios
follows:
EACH POLICEMAN PROTECTS
PER DOLLARS OF
CAPITA RANK PROPERTY
ACRES OF
RANK LAND RANK
( ) No. of Commissioned Personnel
If the comparative data is valid, indicators demonstrate, with annexation the
maintenance of the relative position of the city in relation to surrounding
jurisdictions can be maintained without the expansion of the law enforcement .
staff.
-3-
The estimate of $128,666 represents the salary requirements for 4 officers,
1 clerk, and 33% of the expense for an additional lieutenant and training
officer identified as necessary to adequately serve the demands of the
three potential annexation areas. It should be noted that requests for
additional administrative personnel have been previously advanced; thus,
the overall increase in labor costs cannot be fully assessed against the
annexed area(s) as this staffing increase will benefit the existing law
enforcement operation as well as the annexed area(s).
The primarily residential character of the Crestview area should allow
for a minimal transitory impact from the standpoint of patrol, investi-
gation, and administrative responsibilities. A more exact assessment
will be advanced upon receipt of area data from the King County Police
Department.
B. Fire Protection
•
The question of permanent fire protection in the Crestview area
remains unanswered at this date. Four options identified by the
Fire Chief represent the full spectrum of options open to the City
in addressing this question. (See Appendix B) Consultation with
the City Attorney. concerning the City's immediate responsibilities
indicate the legal obligation of fire protection remains with the
existing fire districts for the period of time that property tax
levies continue to be collected by the fire districts. The
following extract from the Annexation Handbook for Cities and
Towns in Washington State provides further definition to this
obligation:
"Since the territory within the newly annexed area is
obligated to pay property taxes which have already been
levied for a particular year by the fire protection
district, statutes provide that when less than 60% of
the real property of the district is annexed, the dis-
trict is to continue to provide fire protection to the
annexed area as Zong as the district continues to re-
ceive the regular property'taxes it levied in the
annexed area."
According to the King County Assessor's Office, fire protection
assessments will continue to be received by both Districts 18 and
24 through 1981 if annexation occurs on March 18, 1980.
The execution of a formal agreement for services between the City
and Districts 18 and 24 should occur as immediately as practical
following annexation. This will involve some administrative costs
in the preparation and legal review of the document. Operationally,
the immediate financial impact should be minimal through 1981.
At
-4-
C. Public Works
Upon annexation, the City will immediately assume full respon-
sibility in the functional divisions of Engineering, Administration,
Street and Park Maintenance and limited responsibility in the divisions
of Water and Sewer. . Per conversation with Mr. Ted Uomoto, Director
of Public Works, the following short term cost impact estimates were
developed. (Appendix C)
1. Street Maintenance: Implementation of an intermediate street
maintenance signing and striping program. Cost, approximately $48,000
per annum. Pursuant to RCW 35A.14.801, the City would be entitled to
receipt of Road Tax levy funds upon certification of the annexation
and would continue to receive Road Tax levy funds until general prop-
erty tax levy assessments have been transferred to the City by the
.County Assessor's Office. (Estimated March, 1982) The anticipated
revenue ($42,400 per annum) would offset expected maintenance costs
described above through the 1980 -81 period.
2. Parks Maintenance: There is no public parks land in the
annexation area. No cost factor anticipated.
3. Water: Water District 75 would continue to serve the annex-
ation area and provide all necessary maintenance, plan improvement
and administration. Fire flow responsibilities would remain with
the existing Fire Districts until transfer of fire protection respon-
sibilities. No immediate cost factor anticipated.
4. Sewer Department: The Val -Vue Sewer District will continue
to provide sanitary sewer service to the annexation area to include
necessary maintenance, plant improvement and administration. Storm
sewer maintenance responsibility would become an immediate concern
of the City. As reflected in the appended report from the Depart-
ment of Public Works, an estimated $48,000 per annum would be re-
quired to maintain and service existing public drainage systems in
the annexation area.
5. Engineering and Administration: Immediate design, engineering
and data inventory expenses are expected to. cost $5,000. This would
include the initiation of a comprehensive street inventory and the
development of an intermediate street and drainage maintenance program.
The total cost for immediate Public Works services, considering
expected revenue from the Road Levy maintenance fund sources is
$53,000.per annum.
D. Building /Planning
1. Building Department: The Building Official anticipates no
additional expenditures as a result of annexation of the Crestview
area.
2. Planning Department: A detailed quantification has been
provided for both the short term and long range] mpacts on the
Planning Staff with the annexation of all three pending areas.
(Appendix D) Mr. Mark Caughey of the planning department indi-
cates that the pending reorganization of the Office of Community
Development reflected by the addition of a Planning Director
would adequately address any additional manpower needs created
by the Crestview addition.
E. Recreation (See Appendix E)
The immediate effect of the Crestview annexation will be
reflected in increased program demand. No public park areas
are currently operational within the annexation boundaries.
Assessment of increases in program demand are difficult to
quantify as Tukwila Recreation Program brochures are currently
circulated in the Crestview /McMicken area. Some increase in .
program participation would accrue from increased awareness,
however much of this impact is offset by user fees. Although,
no additional immediate capital outlay would occur, it is es-
timated that approximately $1,400 in additional staff and
administrative costs can be expected. [Note: Assessment based
on .40 x total short term annexation cost estimates for Crest-
view /Riverton /Allentown]
F. General Administrative Expenses
The assessment of immediate general administrative costs
(City Clerk, Finance, Mayor's Office) will result in an estimated
initial expense.of $2,000 per annum. This figure reflects in-
creased costs in insurance premiums generated by the increased
risk exposure (additional personnel, public right -of -ways, public
activity) and the increased manhours in processing financial data
generated .by the overall provision of city services. Per conver-
sation with Mr. Herbert Mutschler of the King County Library System,
no increase for library services'would be experienced due to annex-
ation until transference of the property tax levy assessment to
the City (1982). Residents of the annexed area would continue to
patronize the neighborhood library branch during this period.
IV. Revenue Projections: The following graph depicts expected revenue
projections and attempts to pro -rate them based on anticipated
schedule of receipt. The accuracy of the figures cannot be
guaranteed without qualification. Appendix F, submitted by the
Finance Department provides a more comprehensive analysis, to
include revenue source base /rate information. The information
depicted below is designed to allow for an assessment of immediate
revenue sources which will offset immediate demands for service.
-6-
1980 REVENUE SCHEDULE/PROJECTION
ViwuE trcivCR�7X•
40/04477o4 AEA
srifelvim ,caa / erceis9'
F!y - rife Crry
PR4Ye D
F1/N!� I DIG,�'7aJ
S�Bv/'L ALCo. CA77c J/
! q eo
PRaecrcw
�
n
aLs
ivr irMLZIV
sn nvra 4
avinaa•
19.t�Q
ldaa
9ir7ad
1d3Q
y26i ,�l
•c/M7
svaorA
?Mind
jprosiwval
EONS
/,•+0$70
7rev/rv
[ oaf b1d.l
aw/.1•Pilo
ofH
4•ar.wty%
yn..w.ryrg
r 3
T,ROpcRry 7
•
S/, //9
I
•
•
•
•
•
O
0
3r►Le^s 7isc
•
13,t14
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
6584
MONle ve,74.0 licici1S
•
14,7.34
•
L /IPVi.�- rex�cisE 774, .
•
6.117
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
3
Loou t 76rsxe77 rittoirir :
•
Ile 40 4
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
87o4
•
•
,8,4
•
•
•
•
9000
•
OM& vr.Q,ad Fula
• .
16.185
•
-
•
CO2
}
Mole_ velvets Fidel.
•
,o,18
•
•
649 0
Pgveuut 511,"A ,r6
•
38,876
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
fd
R/>) AimdreA aaot Logy
•
& e u�,/ Levy/
toe &Wei 1.4144
7Jr W/ 1W
AU" V
-
r
^�
'Mil P•o7sc77 J Lsvy
Firs 7DIss
TNeorss oil
wort Asw..r
64 oLF Crass Levy
•
7,2
•
-
- roThL :
241.230
t-
'176,074
1980 REVENUE SCHEDULE/PROJECTION
V. SUMMARY: The effect of annexation from the perspective of immediate
demand for service will be reflected in a projected $50,000 shortfall
in operating expenses versus demand during the remainder of 1980. As
fiscal assessments are redirected to the City, revenue versus demand
will have a balancing. effect. This does not consider the issue of
long range capital improvement programs (ie; upgrading of storm drainage
system, street improvement or fire protection facilities) nor does this
estimate reflect the cost of full time fire protection manning. As
stated in the preamble of this report, these are major policy decisions
that will require careful consideration and consultation with the
Crestview citizenry. Increased limit and general obligation bonding
capacity which will result from annexation should be considered in
the development of capital equipment programs.
Additionally, some immediate policy decision will be necessary in
determining an acceptable .level of police protection in the area,
and the concommitant effect on the existing level of law enforce-
ment services to the city as currently composed. It is recommended
that a detailed analysis of area crime statistics and projections be
initiated prior to committing of additional expenses for personnel.
This report has made no effort to identify any positive accrual to
the city if annexation should be successful.. The intent and scope
has been to identify demands for service and affix costs for the
satisfaction of those demands. It should be noted, however, that
certain intangible benefits will accrue to both the city and the
annexation area. The increase of human resources available to the
Tukwila Community will provide an added dimension to the capabilities
and vitality of the City.
O ILA
19 O
s City of Tukwila
6200 Southcenter Boulevard
Tukwila Washington 98188
Frank Todd, Mayor
The Short Term Assessment
nn EMORANDUM
TO: . Mayor Frank Todd (n��
FROM: Chief of Police "\'
DATE: 2/27/80
SUBJECT: Impact Analysis of Proposed Riverton, Allentown & Crestview Annexations.
In response to your memorandum dated 1/14/80 in regards to the above captioned
subject, please find the three fact sheets on the proposed annexations with the
proposed manpower allocation requests.
The present work force will have to be diluted to almost a point of absolutely
no patrol in all present areas in order to answer problem requests.
The City should consider the immediate hiring of three clerks and a full -time
training officer.
The clerks to type and process all the new cases and to be immediately trained
to take minor, low priority, cases over the telephone without removing officers
from the street. This will also solve a nagging personnel problem in the
clerk's office of not having rotating shifts, affording the opportunity to have
weekends off. The training officer is needed to "tool up ". A training syllabus
must be generated for field training officers, plus equipment requisitions and
training scheduling must be generated.
The Long Term Assessment
The fact sheets have addressed the problems that will confront the Department
should all of the current annexations be successful. The question of how that
manpower should be distributed is also of vital importance. The additional
subject of clerical and administrative support must also be addressed if we
are to continue to be an efficient organization.
The current ratio of patrol officers to detectives is 3.6 to 1. (There are
currently 18 officers assigned to the patrol function and 5 to the investi-
gative function.) Our figures indicate that we must add 10 commissioned
officers to the department if we are to maintain the same level of service
to the City with the increased land mass and population as we currently provide
to the existing City.
Maintaining that ratio would add 8 officers to the Patrol Division and 2 to
the Detective Division. An increase in the investigations budget for premium
pay for an additional two commissioned personnel would, therefore, be necessary.
Clerical support must also be increased since the paperwork genrated by the
additional crimes to be investigated will increase. dramatically/ There are
currently five clerks assigned to the Operations Division. The ratio of officers
to clerks in that division is 3.6 to 1. In order to maintain that ratio, there
must be an addition of two clerical personnel. There can be little doubt that
there will be a substantial increase in the paperwork that will result from t)e,
additional areas annexed. Since our clerical staff is already understaffed, the
addition of two people is'absolutely necessary if any of the proposed annexations
join our City. A third clerk should be added to take up'the new duty work
of taking low priority cases over the telephone.
An additional lieutenant to handle the scheduling and supervision of the
additional detectives and clerks will be a must.'
Your Police Department, unlike other departments, in the City will be called
upon immediately to respond to the newly annexed areas. The present work
force will at first become elated with the prospect of an enlarged area of
responsibility but this will quickly fade to a feeling of frustration and
possible depression when the full realization that it will take so long to get
trained personnel on board to bring the work force up to norm or standard that
we arc now, presently, operating under.
This is a simple law, that physical observation can prove: Annexing new areas
and maintaining the same work force can only dilute that work force over the
present area of responsibility and these new areas with their social problems
are not going to make a policeman's job easier in Tukwila.
To abate your personnel problems more quickly please consider these immediate
steps:
1. Hire three clerks now!
2. Hire a training officer
3. Hire a lieutenant ;
4. Purchase and implement a mini - computer to assist in our
scheduling, purchasing, and manpower allocation with
immediate and pertinent information.
CRESTVIEW
The. proposed annexation of the Crestview District presents several
problem areas, some of which are:
1. A recreational center which includes a bowling alley and a
multiple cinema complex. This facility is a gathering place for
'juveniles from Midway' to Boulevard Park. This is a high crime
area. The problems that arise include general disorderly con-
duct, liquor violations, thefts, fights, and truancy, and the .
more serious, robbery, burglary, and narcotics violations. At
present, the. King County Police do assign special units to pat-
rol this area.
2. Military Road presents a traffic problem as a well- travelled
thoroughfare. There is a'major location where Military Road
intersects with So. 164th and 42nd So., creating a three -way
•intersection. The traffic congestion is created by stores at
that location which will not fall within the annexation.
3. At present there is, under construction, a major apartment
and condominium complex at So. 156th & 42nd So. This will
increase the population density and theft of various types,
e.g., car prowls, auto thefts, thefts of gas, auto parts and
accessories, and vandalism.
The proposed annexation has an approximate population of 1882. At
present there are 524 single family units within the incorporated
limits of Tukwila. Crestview has approximately 542. The population
density for Tukwila is .8 person -per acre and Crestview is 6.2. The
proposed annexation includes 5.42 street miles.
Due to the population density and the crime rate, four officers are
required to service this area. 'This requested manpower will assure
that the current' level of police services can be guaranteed to all
areas of the city, including the newly annexed area.
3300 G
2700 'GPM..
CRESTVIEW AIIUEXATION (PROPOSED)
While looking at the proposed annexation in the Crestview
area, it was also necessary to review our coverage of the westernly
part of the present City of
In order to evaluate the full impact of the responsibilities
incurred by the City when and if the annexation takes effect,
the department took a physical inventory of the physical conditions
that will affect its ability to function in an acceptable manner.
THE SURVEY REVEALED THAT THE AREA COUTAINED;
Haud e4 533
Apt. an Condo'd 117
Fine H ydh.anta 48
Bu,b.iness e•a 19
The survey also revealed
that the area contains two areas with high fire flows; the first
being the Lewis & Clark Center; and the second, the complex of
condominiums known as trie Chalet South. The fire flows were
3300 gallons per minute, and 2750 gallons per minute respectively.
Using the Insurance Service Office Fire Flow Tables, the
•same document is used to establish the fire flows within the
City, the number of required engine and ladder companies are as
follows•:
•
1 Engine Company Within iit m.LLea
' ' 1 Ladders Company Within 2 mites
1 Add.i t io na.0 Engine Within 2i5 m.itea
To further evaluate the response distances, additional
considerations must be reviewed.
pppENDi r
Using the information contained within the "Grading Schedule'
for Municipal Fire Department ", we find:
"The distance shown in Table 6 shaft be n.educed i6 a
severe tine haz exists; i6 tnaSSie touting and
congestion, topognaphicat Seatunes, man made bann.iens
such as naiZto ads and highway s tnu ctunes , on other
£ocaZ conditions h.indet response; on i6 other circum-
stances pecutian to the munieipa.Eity on pantieu.tan
distract indicate that such a reduction is needed."
The. City of Tukwila would fall in at least three,
(topographical features, traffic congestion, and man made
barriers) for both and in the case of the Lewis and Clark Center
the addition of a severe life hazard.
In order to adjust the impact we must use the "Commentary
on the Municipal Rating Schedule ". This will tell us that:
Therefore, we find that with our present stations, we will have
the effectiveness of our response reduced and as a result, there
will be built -in delays to provide fire suppression or medical
services.
•
FIRE DEPARTMENT - GENERAL 0.4 Detenm.inn_t.Lon os Companies
Needed ... "d) Reduced response distances, with a
nesut ing possibte .increase in the number os companies,
shou.Cd be considered iS there are districts on buildings
having a s evere 'tL Q. hazard, of the munieipatLty has
steep grades, nattdw streets on others conditions which
I under v on stow the tes pons e o S Site apparatus.. Such
-teductLons in the r,.esponse distances ondinanity should
not be mote than 1/4 to 1/3 oS the nonmatty recommended
distances."
Another aspect to the problem is that should we cover the
Crestview area from our present stations, we will be reducing
the coverage presently provided to the citizens and business'
of the City.
.r
•
After reviewing the "Recommendations for the Improvement
of the Fire Protection Facilities of Tukwila, Washington,"
which was issued after our last rating, we were advised under,
"FIRE DEPART11EUT"
That su66.ie,Lent company o6 6Lcens be appointed 60
as to ptov.ide one Got each company at eat times."
That paid petsonnet. os the £.ire department be .i.neneased
so that there ate at £east three men on duty at at2
times £ot each tequ.ited company exe.Cud.ive 06 chLe6
olitiicets. Note: Standard manning .is cons.i.deted to
be 6 men pet each company nequ.i,ted. (F-7)."
At the present time, the Tukwila Fire Department is required to
have two pumpers and one ladder in service based upon our fire
flow of 4500 gallon per minute. And, using their recommendations
we should have at least nine men on duty at a time exclusive of
a chief officer. At the present time we go between 6 and 7 men
on duty. So, as the numbers indicate we are not providing the
basic company components within the City, as specified back in
1975.
• ►1
" 11.
R E C 01'3 1 E 1i D A T I O N S
In order to not reduce the coverage presently provided to the
City of Tukwila (Exclusive of the I ict sicken Heights section of
the Current City) I would propose the following:
Number 1•: A pottab.Ce Lite station be pPaced in home
centtat pact oa the area being annexed. Th.i6 wowed not
only setve the proposed annexation area, but wou.Cd give
.imptov ed s etv.Lce to the pies ent tes.idents 06 the t. cM.ick.en
He..ghZ6 sectkon o6 the cuttent C.cty: Est.c.mated Co6L :
Moving Metat. Suitd.ing in Path w /a.Ct. $ 6,000.
Putchas.ing a 1b1obite Home 18,000.
Site Ptepatation 10,000.
Orden New 1500 GPM Pumpet 85,000.
Hike .6 new $.ire petsonna 140,000.
$259,000.
�4M
On going Annual Cost: $140,000.
•
This woutd pnov.i,de 2 iinei-ightens an duty each shit.
The dame coverage as pnov...ded at Station 52. It oued
be noted that .i6 a shift was ahon.t, oventLme woutd have
to be used to 64.tt the ah.i6t. At the pnesent time we
have to use this pnact.ice pant o ti the time to keep 2
£.inetighters on at Station 52 and 4 at Station 51.
This neeommendat.i.on woutd atso .inpnove the seicv.Lae
pnesentty being received by the residents in the pnoposed
annexation coma.
Numben 2: Sign a contract with King County F.Lne D.istn.ict
78 to • pno vide pno to ct.io n and aid s env.ice to the coma on
the North Aide o 160th. Stneet. Sign an add.Lt.iona€
contract with Fine District 24 to provide pnoteet.ton and
aid senv.iee to the South side of 160th. Stneet between
M.Lt.itany Road and the City Limits South to the 1Jonth
• ' side o i 168th. Stneet.
Cost: Unknown since I. have been unabte to tack to the
V.is t.Lcts on this matter.
This necommendat.ion woutd pnov.ide the exact .name senv.Lce
as pnes entty being• neee.iv ed by the nes.idents seeking
annexation.
Numben 3: The same as Humbert. 2, except that when signing
the contract with Fine P.istn.ict 24, .inctude the pnesent
City on the West side o f I ntens tate 5.
Cost: Unknown
This at:ienna.tLve• woutd pnov.ide the sane senv.iee to the
nes.idents seeking aonexat.ion and .improve the senv..ce to
the pnesent nes.idents og the City of Tufzwita an the West
side cS Intenstate 5, in the 1•'.ai.cken Heights coma.
Nu;nben 4: Pnov.ide eovenace to the Crestview coma seeking
annexation Snom outs pnes en•.t stations using pnesent personnel.
Cast: V.i.neet to the City: none •
Cost to bu.itd.ing owners: Increased .insurance' payments.
This aFtennat.ive would reduce the service being pnov.ided
to both the anea seeking annexation and the pnesent
nes.i.dents of the City o6 Tukwila. Not only would the .
s envi.ce be reduced, the pno bab.il.ity o a .ineneas ed .ins unance
pnem.iuins could prevail.
Numben 5: Turn our pnesent Station 52 into a stn.ictly votunteen
openat.ion and move the paid pensonnet to a new Location in
the pnoposed annexation anea.
Co&t: 14t. Move MetaL BLdR. in Path w /att.
Pun.chab e a Mob4te home
Site Pnepanat.to n
Orden Hew 1500 GPM Pumper
$.6,000.
18,000.
•10,000.
85,000.
$119,000.
Th�a . attennatLve would impaotle the 4 env.i.ce to that area
a eeking annexation, but n.educe a env.ice to the pn ea ent
ne4Zdent4 oS the City o6 TuawiLa.
A
' 1908
City of Tukwila .
6200 Southcenter Boulevard
Tukwila, Washington 98188 •
Public Works Department 433 -1850
DATE: February 29, 1980
TO: John McFarland, Administrative Assistant
FROM: Phil Fraser, Acting Public Works Director
SUBJECT: Annexation Impact
Per your request, the following information is provided as to estimated
Public Works Department requirements expected by any one or all of the:three
annexations.
•
Attached, you will find three separate reports on annexations for
Crestview, Allentown, and Riverton outlining existing conditions of surface
roadway improvements. It is noted that Crestview has approximately five
miles of roadway, Allentown has about 2.5 miles of roadway and Riverton has
approximately 6 miles of roadway. The reports indicate generally the streets
to be in a moderate to low state of development, with open ditches to
facilitate drainage.• A variety of street improvement projects will be
required in the future to bring these streets up to the City's standards
and long -range street improvement programs should be developed by Public
Works Administration adopted through Council.
Attached reports indicate the need for a comprehensive street inventory
to determine what is necessary to. mitigate immediate potential liabilities
for each annexation. Each•annexation will require approximately three man
months to provide this type of survey. Also, for each annexation, the
development of an intermediate maintenance program is required for street.
maintenance.
Impacts on Manpower
The added work load to Public Works Administration for each annexation
to assess liabilities and develop street improvement programs is estimated
at three man months per annexation. The added workload to respond to added'
residents needs, plan reviews, permit applications, etc. will require 25%
added manpower to the Public Works Department. Long -range plans require, as
street improvement programs are developed, one added full -time staff member.
In the maintenance shops, added manpower and facilities is provided per
the attached report by Frank Rossick, Public Works Superintendent. In my
conversations with Frank, due to inefficiency of smaller programs required
in each department, one -half of added manhours will be needed according the
Annexation Impact report dated 2/14/80 (attached) for one annexation instead of
three.
- AptkNbiv C.
Memo to John McFarland
Annexation Impact .
page 2
Therefore, giving equal weight for each annexation, for one annexation .
the following requirements exist:
PRF /jm
Water Department Projects
Sewer Department Projects
Street Department Projects -
Park Department Projects - 20%.
15%
Attachment
- 5% added manhours
15% added manhours
10% added facilities
20% added manhours
15% added facilities
added manhours
added facilities
City of Tukwila
6200 Southcenter Boulevard
Tukwila Washington 98188
To : .Phil Fraser, Acting Public Works Director
FROM: Frank Rossick, Public Works Superintenden
DATE: Febua.ry 14, 1980
SUBJECT: Annex ad on Impact
MEMORANDUM
Per your request, this information is in addition to Dick Williams
review and based on estimated maintenance requirements expected for
areas indicated.
Water Department: Minor initial impact. Fire hydrants will have to
be documented for operations and maintenance by
the responsible district. Future, upgrade of sys-
tems unknown this date.
Projected additional manhours -10%
Sewer Departmnet: No immediate impact to sanitary system. Major im-
pact to storm system requirement related to trouble
shooting and open ditch drainage comprising the
majority of area drainage. Systems are presently
void of maintenance with only trouble spots addressed
for operations and maintenace.
Projected additional man hours -30%
Projected additional facilities -20%
Street Department:Major immediate impact due to milages involved
and general poor condition of existing roadways.
Future upgrade unknown this date.
Projected additional man hours -40%
Projected additional facilities -30%
Park Department: 'Variable impact due to portions of areas in present
maintenace schedules and additional areas planned
and /or in work.
All park related areas within the annexation bound-
aries will require upgrade of maintenance level presently
held and future park areas will require study for estab-
lishing need and use criteria.
Projected additional man hours -40%
Projected additional facilities -30%
The comprehensive studies recommended will be required to establish total
impact of operations and maintenance requirements.
6200 SouthCenter Boulevard •
Tukwila, Washington 98188 .
Pub{ic~.WOrks Department :433 -1850
•
DATE: April 9, 1979
TO: Mayor.Bauch • • •
•
FROM: Dick Williams, Acting Public Works Director
•
SUBJECT: Crestview - .Neighborhood Annexation
nom:... _ .
• • • - ; : =4, - . . .
:t . ...
Regarding your requested review the proposed annexation area from the
standpoint of •impact•upon•the "Public Works Department, I submit the following
comments:
I. Water Service
This area is served by Water District 75; therefore, there will be no
impact on the City's municipal system. However, it is possible that
• the fire hydrants in the area•probably do not meet the standards and "
requirements of the Public Works Department and Fire Department.
II. ' - Sewer Service
Sanitary sewer is served by Val Vue Sewer District and would also have •
no impact on the municipal system.
III.. .Street and Road' Systems' ' " ' ' •
•
•
C. Traffic Signals
Drainage •
•
•
•
•
The road and street system of the area has been surveyed.. The statistics
of this survey for facilities maintenance . and operation are as follows:
_A. ' Streets •_
Secondary and 'collector arterials . - -
• Local access (improved)• .
Local access (unimproved)
• . •
7,300 feet.- (1.4 mi.)
16,400 feet t (3.1 mi.)
2,000 feet approximately
No traffic signal installations are anticipate rat this time.
•
Open ditches comprise the majority of drainage facilities along the
arterial streets and no storm drainage systems exist along the
residential streets .
r
Crestview Neighborhood Annexation Report - Cont.
To focus on Item •III. for the purposes of impact on the City, I would make the .
following observations and recommendations:
Observations:
1. For purposes of definition, improved secondary residential streets are those
which have as a minimum an asphalt driving surface. .Unimproved secondary streets.
are completely unpaved and arterials are those which have moderate to heavy •
traffic volume.
2. There are no sidewalks in the residential neighborhoods.
3. The .drainage ditches are not very well maintained and shoulders are gravel
surfaced.
RKW /dp
cc: Don Campbell, Planning Dept.
•
•
4. Location signage is good but would be replaced with Tukwila standard•blue signs.
greater detail.
5. Traffic signage.and striping appeaes to be adequate but must be surveyed in
6. At least the arterial streets should be considered for integration. into the
routine street maintenance program.
Recommendations:. •
I .recommend preparation of a comprehensive street inventory to d termine what is
necessary to mitigate any immediate potential liability, if any development of an
intermediate maintenance program directed to the ditch, roadway, signage maintenance;
andanong -range plan and integrated program for undergrounding, drainage, street
upgrading and any other related improvements.
To phase into.the three steps of the recommendation will initially require about
three (3) man months of present budget personnel (an engineer and street foreman)
to conduct the inventory and prepare the plan.
It is difficult to quantify what immediate corrective actions may need to be taken
. to eliminate.ariy existing liabilities until after the comprehensive survey is com-
pleted. Any extraordinary expenditures of time and money would be addressed as such
on an individual.. basis. Much of the information needed•to forecast manpower require -
ments.in the Public Works Department would only be available once the results of the
Riverton and Allentown annnexation proposals are known. The 1980 budget, and there-
after, will reflect the manpower and money required to implement full recommendations
of the comprehensive survey and plan.
•
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
•
•
SUBJECT: •
All Departments
Mayor's Office
4 April 1979
Proposed Crestview Neighborhood Annexation
On Tuesday afternoon the City Clerk received and certified a request
to annex by the.election method the area around the former Crestview
Elementary School in•McMickeri Heights. The area is shown on the
attached map.
Some information related to this area is as follows:
1. Population Estimate: 1,745 - 2,066
• 2. Assessed. Valuation Estimate: $20 • million
3. Area: Slightly over h square mile ( ±340.acres)
4. Number of Homes: ±535
5. Number of Apartments /Condominiums: -178
6.• Area includes the Lewis & Clark Theatre and Tradewell
This item will be on the City Council agenda for discussion on April
9, 1979.' : Please come to the staff meeting that day with written
comments regarding the anticipated impacts to your department should
the•area actually be annexed. Hand written comments are fine.
• Attachment
ViLy VI RW11vvi46a ,.
6200 Southcenter 'Boulevard
Tukwila Washington 98188 i
ez44€1 ote".-1/a
a 441 -
- MEMO RA6u
• ai,get-
Edgar a saudh. Mayor
•
tisi City of Tukwila
0 6200 Southcenter Boulevard
Tukwila Washington 98188
N
•
Edgar Q Bach. Mayor
7909
•
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor Bauch
FROM: Kjell Stoknes
DATE:- 3 April 1979
•
SUBJECT: Crestview Neighborhood Annexation, Population Estimates,
Assessed Valuation.
The following is an estimate of the total population in
the proposed Crestview annexation. These figures for number
of. households are estimates from maps and need to be verified.
•
A B C (AxB) (AxC)
TOTAL LOW HIGH
PROJECTED
• NUMBER HOUSEHOLD HOUSEHOLD
TYPE OF DWELLINGS. UNITS SIZE SIZE POPULATION
Single - family residences 535 3.0 3.3 . 1,605 - 1,765
Condominiums (5+ units) '78 1.8 2.2 140 - 172
•
• • 613
A check on the population figures may be made by doubling the
number of registered voters. There are approximately 1,033
' registered voters times 2 would indicate an estimated popula-
tion of Thus increasing.the potential range in our
population estimate to be from 1,745 to 2,066.
The assessed valuation of the area is $ t 20 - million.
KS /ckh
•
1,745 - 1,937
proposed mcmicken annexation
TO: •
FROM:
DATE:
2908
City of Tukwila
6200 Southcenter Boulevard
Tukwila Washington 98188
. Frank Todd, Mayor
SUBJECT:Annexation Area Impact Analysis
MEMORANDUM
Mayor Todd
Mark Caughey, Acting Planning Director
29. February 1980
As requested in your memorandum of 14 January, 1980, we are pleased
to present the attached analysis of the staffing and budgetary impli-
cations of annexing to the City those areas commonly known as Allen -
town, Crestview and Riverton. I believe that the material presented
in our.study represents a fair and responsible appraisal of the incremental
workload and cost increases which will impinge upon the Planning De-
partment as a result of annexing any one or all of the pending
realignment areas.
Special thanks are due tb Project Planner Fred Satterstrom who de-
veloped the quantitative approach used in our study to anticipate
future workload as a result of annexation, and to Assistant Planner
Caroline Berry for her skills in adapting a long -range neighborhood
study method developed for the City of Bellevue to the unique con-
straints of the three annexation areas.
•I would like to suggest that a special deb head meeting be con-
vened sometime within the next few weeks to exchange information and
insights which have been generated by all segments of the Administration
during the course of completing this assignment.
J
190$
TO: .
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
SUMMARY
2.
City of Tukwila
6200 Southcenter Boulevard
Tukwila Washington 98188
Frank Todd, Mayor
Allentown Annex. Area
Crestview Annex. Area
Riverton Annex. Area
MEMORANDUM
Mark Caughey, Acting Planning Director
Caroline Berry, Assistnat Planner
Fred Satterstrom, Planner
•29 February 1980 '
L\IPACT OF PROPOSED ANNEXATIONS ON PLANNING DEPARTMENT WORKLOAD, MANPOWER
REQUIREMENTS, REVENUES, AND CAPITAL EXPENDITURES.
The following report details the anticipated impact of the proposed
Allentown, Crestveiw, and Riverton annexations on the City Planning
Department.
Essentially, the report is divided into three parts:
1. workload' Impact/Manpo<< =er Requirements
A. Current Planning
B. Long -Range Planning (Research and Policy Development
Anticipated Revenues
3. Capital Expenditures
Predicting the impact of annexation on department workload and manpower
requirements is a difficult task at best. The following study methodology
relies heavily on a simple equation which involves several variables that
are defined within the text of the report. We believe this methodology
to be more objectivein its approach to the problem but by no means do we
pretend it to be uncontestable. Nevertheless, it does attempt to systemati-
cally quantify the variables and provides a format for council discussion
of the impacts.
Essentially, our examination reveals that in order to maintain the same
service level in current and long -range planning, the following $ amounts
should be appropriated:
CURRENT PLANNING (DIRECT)
$4,709
$3,531
$5,886
LONG-RANGE PLANNING (OPTIONAL)
1. Inventory /Needs Assessment $7,674
2. Community Plans $18,993 - $56,98!
•
The expected revenue from the various annexation areas from fees for
.rezones, use permits; environmental ° reviews, and the like are as follows
Allentown $600
• Crestview $700
Riverton $650
Finally, there will be little, if any, direct need for additional capital
equipment as a result of annexation.
FS /mkb
Attachment
Where:
W
A =
N, xa
,; , ya
W =
A
1.
0 DIRECT .IMPACT ON DEPARTMENT MANTPOWER
Upon annexation, the direct demands put upon the Planning Department's admini-
stration of land use codes and regulations will increase. For example, there
will naturally be more platting, rezoning, code enforcement, and so forth as
a result of increased city size. In order to maintain the existing level of
service, that part of the Planning Department budget which is spent for current.
planning must be increased by a certain workload coefficient or "multiplier" '
if a substantial area is annexed to the city.
The following section contains a brief explanation of how the coefficient of
workload is obtained and how it is used to determine the amount of additional
funding required by the proposed.annexxations.
DETERMINATION OF THE "WORKLOAD COEFFICIEeN'T OF ANNEXATION'
The workload coefficient of annexation is the factor by which the workload of
the Department is increased by the annexation of an unincoporated area. It is
the contention of the Planning Department that this factor is not simply a func-
tion of the size of the annexation area (in terms of land area or population)
but also a function of the general vitality of the local economy, overall condi-
tion of physical improvements in the annexation area, and other unique conditions
which are characteristic of the area to be annexed.
Therefore, in deriving a workload coefficient, the Planning Department created
a simplistic equation which integrates the factors of annexation area size with
factors related to the unique qualities and characteristics of the.unincorporated
community. The equation is as follows:
A a x
a
the factor or coefficient by which workload is increased in the
Department by annexation.
A ,= size of annexation area (in acres)
size of .City of Tukwila (in acres)
unique characteristics of annexation area
in administration of land use codes
unique characteristics of annexation area
in administration of, land use codes
which create difficulty
which allow for efficiency
Basically, the above equation says that the workload factor in the Planning Depart
ment K) is a function of the proportional size of the annexation area(A /A )plus
the unique difficulties of code administration in that area (x minus the unique
advantages of code administration Or
The specific calculations for deriving the workload coefficients for each annexati
area are shown in .detail in Exhibit 'A of this report. A brief suilmary follows:
A
L.
ALLENTOWN ANNEXATION AREA:.
A a = .10 x = .08 y = - .02,
A
Therefore, the workload coefficient for the Allentown annexation
area is:
1 .16
CRESTVIEW ANNEXATION 'AREA:
A = .12 x = .02 y = - .02
A
Therefore, the workload coefficient (W a ) for the Crestview annexation
area is:
.W a = .12
RIVERTON ANNEXATION AREA:
A = .11 xa = .09" y .00
Therefore, the workload coefficient (W for the Riverton annexation
area is:
W a = .20
The workload coefficient is important as a tool for calculating the budgetary
impact of• annexation. To calculate this impact, the coefficient is used to multipl
the present budgetary commitments to code administration to determine the amount
required after annexation in order to maintain an equivalent service level.
Therefore, it is necessary to find that portion of the present Department budget
which is spent on code administration (current planning). The following section
details this process.
CALCULATING DIRECT BUDGETARY REQUIREMENTS: PLANNING DEPARTMENT
During 1980, approximately two- thirds (62 %) of the Planning Department budget is
spent for current planning - that is, the day -to -day administration, enforcement,
and public coordination of land use related codes and regulations. Approximately
one- third(38 %) of the 19 &0 budget is earmarked for long - range planning.
The following table breaks down the 1980 budgetary commitment to current planning
in terms of manpower:
% TIME 1980
POSITION CCMITi1ENT BUDGET AMOUNT
Assistant Planner 100% $ 16,515
Assistant Planner 20% 3,270
Secretary 33% 3,615
Graphics Intern 100% 6,031
TOTAL CURRENT PLANNING $ 29,431
The above table shows the amount of monies currently budgeted for current planning
administration within the existing city limits. Annexation of new areas, of course,
requires additional manpower budgeting if the existing level of service is desirable.
To calculate the Department's manpower requirements (in terms of dollars) after
annexation of any one or all of the three potential areas, one would multiply
the 'present budgetary commitment to current planning by the workload coefficient
for each annexation area, following the simple formula.below:
R = 0' (B
•
Where:
R = Manpower requirement (in $) necessitated by annexation.
W a = Workload coefficient (as previously calculated)
Using the above tquation, the following table can be calculated which shows the
amount of dollars which would have to be'added to the current planning budget
to maintain the existing service level if the City of Tukwila annexed either the
Allentown, Crestview, or Riverton areas:
1980
Bt = 1980 budget.level for manpower to carry out current planning admini-
stration in City of Tukwila
POTENTIAL W Bt1980 R�
•
ANNEXATION WuRICLOAD 1980 BUDGETED M NPOWER
AREA COEFFICIENT MANPWR. CURRENT PLNG. REQUIRE ENT(IN $)
Allentown .16 $29,431 $4,709
Crestview .12 $29,431 $3,531
Riverton .20 $29,431 $5,886
TOTAL • .48 $29,431 $14,126
ANALYSIS OF ANTICIPATED WORKLOAD
The following is a.brief analysis of the physical conditions within each annex-
ation area and all explanation of how these conditions may affect Department
workload:.
ALLENTOWN ANNEXATION AREA
The Allentown annexation area maintains an estimated 1979 population of •
930. The approximate size of the annexation area is 256 acres (.40 sq.
mi.). Allentown basically consists of an older single - family residential
neighborhood flanked by the Duwamish River on the west side and Burling-
ton Northern railroad properties on the east side. The general condition
of existing physical improvements is poor to fair. There are a mixture
• •of vacant lots; few large tracts of unsubdivided land exist. The indus-
••trial area seems to be encroaching on the residential neighborhood. There
appear to be many building and zoning code violations, land use incompa-
tibilities, and potential nuisances. The entire area is on septic tanks.
Primary impact to the Department would be in the realm of code enforce-
ment. Pervasiveness of code violations and legal (and illegal) non- conform-
ing uses will require substantial investment of staff time. Industrial
transition in area will likely impact rezoning process. Overall condition
of physical improvements in area will tend to increase code enforcement
workload.
CRESTVIEW ANNEXATION AREA
The Crestview annexation area maintains an estimated 19S0 population of
between 1555 -1882. The approximate size of the annexation area is 307
acres (.48 sq.mi.). Cretview is a relatively homogeneous, single - family
residential neighborhood With supportive commercial uses located at major
highway intersections. The general condition of existing physical improve-
ments is fair to good. There are few vacant single- family lots in Crest -
view; however, several relatively large, potential multiple- family.and
commercial tracts exist. The overall land use pattern in Crestview appears
to be stable and well - established. Most of the area is sewered.
N Probably the major impact to the Department's workload will be land use
activities associated with in- filling of residential lots (short plats, etc.),
and development of presently vacant commercial and multi- family. Some re-
zoning'in, around, and near existing commercial nodes can also be anticipated.
RIVERTON ANNEXATION AREA
The Riverton annexation area maintains an estimated 1980 population of
906. The approximate size of the annexation area is 271 acres (.42 sq.mi).
Riverton is much like Allentown in that the area is basically an older
single - family residential neighborhood flanked by the Duwamish River and
Industrial properties :to the north. The general condition of existing
physical improvements is fair; however, since parts of Riverton have recently
been sewered, pockets of new residential and industrial construction can
be found. There are, a mixture of vacant residential lots as well as large
undeveloped tracts of industrially and conrner4aa11y zoned lands. There
appears to be an encroachment of the residential area by industrial
expansion. There also appears to be numerous code violations and land
use incompatibilities.
With .positive growth prospects in the Riverton area, impacts to the Depa t-
ment's workload will be wide - ranging. Intensification of land use is
expected as a result of the recent extension of sewers to this area. La ge .
tracts of undeveloped, undivided land remain to be subdivided. Industri 1
growth will likely bring requests for rezoning. Pressure for additional
multiple-family zoning is inevitable. A transition or buffer.area - fr
industrial zoning to single - family zoning - needs to be firmly establish •.
N. Code enforcement will probably be a major part of any zoning on
program in the Riverton area.
•r+.c;7, r."v a.,. +tt;., .t .. :3,'r•tt,........z.
0 INDIRECT IMPACT ON LONG -RANGE PLANNING (RESEARCH AND POLICY DEVELOPMENT)
MANPOWER REQUIRHMENrTS
Annexation of either Allentown, Crestview, or Riverton will also have an in-
direct (and unknown) impact on the Planning Department's manpower requirements
for long -range planning. Long -range planning consists primarily of the research
and policy development functions of the Department. Since long -range programg.
are undertaken at the option of the City Council, annexation of either or all
of the proposed annexation areas does not automatically increase manpower require-
ments.
The workload impact of each annexation area is basically unknown at this time,
but some forecasts can be made depending on the type of long -range planning
activity the Council would choose to undertake following annexation. As in
the previous section, these forecasts would take the form of workload coeffi-
cients. A workload coefficient would be associated with each planning program
and would vary according to the complexities involved.
The workload coefficient for each long -range planning program would be a function
of the current level of funding for long -range planning as specified in the
City's 1980 budget. As mentioned previously, approximately 38% of the Department's
salaries are earmarked for long -range planning; in dollars, this figure is
approximately $19,187. Therefore, each workload coefficient would be a function
of this funding level.
Please note that the following workload coefficients assume that the City will
maintain the current long -range planning funding level for programs within the
existing City limits. This may not prove to be the case; the City may choose to
replace or augment existing programs with any of the following alternatives.
The following is a list of alternative long -range planning programs with associates
workload coefficients (W by;program by annexation area:
W a ALTERNATIVE LONG - RANGE PLANNING PROGRA'i FACTORED COST ($)
1. Inventory/Needs Assessment
Consists of comprehensive update of data
sources. Includes land use, employment,
and population data base. This step
serves as an initial step for any of the
following programs.
. 15 .Allentown Annexation Area $ 2,878.00
. 10 Crestview Annexation Area $ 1,918.00
.15 Riverton Annexation Area $ 2,878.00
TOTAL $ 7,674.00
2. Community Plan Update
Program would include conducting a com-
prehensive land use plan update in the
annexation area. These sub -area or `.,
"community" plans would provide more
detailed and area - specific goals and
.33 -.99
.33 -.99
.33 -.99
policies for physical developments.
Such plans could be simple or complex
in nature, addressing land use,.trans-
portation, utilities, parks, or any other
element desired. Workload coefficient
would vary with complexity of program
tasks. •
Allentown Annexation Area $6,331 - 18,995
Crestview Annexation Area $6,331 - 18,995
Riverton Annexation Area $6,331 - .18,995
TOTAL $18,993'- 56,985
Please note that the above estimates for
manpower requirements.are one -time expendi -,
tures; they are•not on -going costs. Also,
some economy of scale would accrue if the
: Allentown and Riverton community plans were
to be done simultaneously.
0 PROTECTED REVENUES
Based on a simple analysis of fees collected for land use related permits in the
City of Tukwila for the years 1978 -79, and utilizing the coefficients for the
size of the various annexation areas, we have come up with estimates of antici-
pated revenues which would accrue to the City following annexation. These revenue
estimates are as follows:
Allentown $600
Crestview $700
Riverton $650
Total $1950
The abovementioned estimates are based on a two -year average of fees collected
by the Planning Department which is presented in Exhibit B of this report.
0 CAPITAL. OUTLAY REQUIREMENTS
At this time, the Planning Department does not anticipate any major requirements
for capital equipment as a result of annexing Allentown, Crestview, or Riverton.
Cumulatively, however, we anticipate that the increase in city population and
revenue base may permit the economy of scale necessary to allow for purchase of
a Comprehensive Data Processing System which would be available for use by all
city departments. While such equipment would not be under the direct control of
the Planning Department, we would anticipate using the computer's storage and
retrieval capabilities, and we would anticipate sharing a fair portion of the
acquisition and maintenance costs of the system.
EXHIBIT A
CALCULATIONS OF WORKLOAD COEFFICIENTS FOR:
ALLENTOWN ANNEXATION AREA
CpSTVIEW ANNEXATION AREA
RIVERTON ANNEXATION AREA
VARIABLE
•
AAL'XATTIOX •
AREA(PRO-
POSE - D)
X a
Y
I
W 1
i
A a
A
c
General condi-
tion of exist -
ing physical
improvements.
Presence of
unusual or
severe land
use conflicts
Pervasiveness
of nonconform-
ing uses and
structures.
Low Amount
of vacant
or undeve-
loped land.
Little exist-
ing invest-
rent in capi-
sal :drove-
vents.
Presence
of minisal
enviror.-
mentally
sensitive
lands.
ALLE" NT 1 N
ANNEXATION
AREA
.10
+.03
+.02
+.03
-.02
-
I
.16
CRESTVIEW
ANNE`{ATION
AREA
.12
•
+.02
-
-.01
-
-.01
r •
..
RI4 r' RTOX
ANNEXATION
AREA
.11
+.03
+.03 •
+.03•
-
-
-
I
.20 j
1
I
TOTAL:
ALL 3-WE:CATION
AREAS
'.33
+.06
+.07'
+.06 .
-.01
-.02
-.01
i
.49i
TABLE I: CALNUATIONS OF W'OR}.7.CAD COEFFICIEtiTS FOR ALLENTOWN, CRESIVIEW,
RIVERTc4, AND ALL ANNEXATION AREAS.
Wl'.ERE: W - Aa + x a - ya
iii
Aa
WORKLOAD COEFFICIENTS: CALCULATING FOR :
1979 Tukwila Population 3430
Estimated 1979 Population of Riverton:- 906 % of City Pop. 26* %
Estimated 1979 Population of Allentown: 930 % of City Pop. 27* %
Estimated 1979 Population of Crestview: 1,718 % of City Pop. • 50* %
*Convert to decimal to show proportion.
Estimated Total Land Area of Tukwila: 2,463 (acres)
Estimated Land Area
Estimated Land Area
Estimated Land Area
*Convert to decimal
of Riverton Area: 271 % of City Area 11* %
of Allentown Area: 256 % of City Area 10* %
of Crestview. Area: 307 % of City Area 12* %
to show proportion.
•
WORKLOAD COEFFICIENTS: CALCULATING FOR x AND y
VARIABLES:
X
VARIABLES: . Y
FACTOR: GENERAL CONDITION OF EXISTING PHYSICAL IMPROVMENTS.
.00 .01 .02
General condition
of structures fair
to good -no impact
on manpower require-
ments.
FACTOR: PRESENCE OF UNUSUAL OR SEVERE LAND USE INCCMPATIBILITIES.
.00 .Al .02
No unusual land
use problems -
no impact to man -
power requirements.
FACTOR: PERVASIVENESS OF NON - CONFORMING USES AND STRUCTURES.
.00 - .01 .02 .03
Few or no non -con-
forming uses /bldgs.
expected -no impact
to manpower require-
ments.
Average amount of
vacant land - no
beneficial impact
on manpower require-
ments.
FACTOR: INVESTMENT IN CAPITAL
EXPECTED TO BE LOW.
.00 .01 .02
Not a factor - building
expected to occur at
normal rate - no bene-
ficial impact to man -
..power requirements.
.03
.03
.04 .05
General condition
of structures poor -
high impact on man -
power requirements.
.04 .05
Severe conflicts in
land use pattern-
high impact to manpower
requirements.
.04 .05
FACTOR: LOW AMOUNT OF VACANT /UNDERDEVELOPED LAND.
.00 .01 .02 .03 .04 .05
Many non - conforming
uses /bldgs. expected -
high impact on manpower
requirements.
Area generally built up-
no vacant land- beneficial
impact on manpower require
ments.
IMPROVEMENTS LO'; PERMIT ACTIVITY
.03 .04 .05
Very low expectation
of building activity;
beneficial impact to
manpower requirements.
FACTOR: PRESENCE OF MINII+iAL ENVIROINMENTALLY SENSITIVE LAMS
.00 .01 .02
Not a factor -
Average amount of
sensitive land -
no beneficial
impact.
.03 .04 .05
Very few, if any,
environmentally
sensitive areas
beneficial impact
on administration
of land use codes.
EXHIBIT B
FEES COLLECTED FOR LAND USE RELATED PERMITS:
PLANNING= DEPARTr1ENT 1978 -79
TOTAL
TABLE 1.
FEES COLLECrra) FOR LAN!) USE RELATED PERMS:
PLANNING DEPARTMENT 1978 -79
1978
PERMIT TYPE FEE($) NO.# TOTAL
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT $200.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 175.
DCCUMONT SALES
REZONES
SHORELINE MANAGEMENT PERMIT
SUBDIVISIONS:,
BINDING SITE IMP. PLANS VARIES
SHORT SUBDIVISIONS 50.
PRE. /FINAL PLATS VARIES
THRESHOLD DETERMINATIONS 50.
VARIANCES 150
6
$700.
900.
1200.
600.
4 400.
8 400.
4 600.
28 1400
6 900.
$20
35
90
40
70
20
30
15
90
60
'7901
City of Tukwila
6200 Southcenter Boulevard
Tukwila Washington 98188
• Frank Todd, Mayor
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor Frank Todd
FROM: Don Williams, Recreation Department g
DATE: , • 29 February 1980 .
SUBJECT: STAFF REPORT CONCERNING PARKS AND RECREATION AND THE ANNEXATIONS (RIVERTON,
ALLENTOWN, AND CRESTVIEW)
The purpose of this report is to assess the impact of the three possible annexations,
on the four following categories of services; parks, recreation programs, Park Com-
mission and Block Grant Programs. Short and long -term assessment information is pro-
vided for each.
PARKS
Park and open space areas within all of the annexations should be looked at giving
consideration to planning, . development, and maintenance. Maintenance for parks is
within the Public Works Department and will not be addressed in this report.
Short -Term Effects:
At the present time we have only one park within the Allentown area, Duwamish
Park. We have leased this park area from the South Central School District
for three years and would anticipate no change in the level of services we now
provide, however, some work will be needed on the various equipment which is
regular maintenance.
A new fenced back -stop will be needed next year regardless of an approved
annexation. Other improvements to the park could be made depending upon the desire
of the city to upgrade the park. Any additional improvements may cost from
$10,000 to $35,000. (Tennis court, paved play area, picnic area, grading, new
infield and tree planting are a few possible improvements.) Only the back-
stop is an immediate needed.improvement.
Long -Term Effects:
Currently the Park Commission and staff are revising the Park and Open Space Plan.
Identified in the existing plan, and I assume the same will be in the new one,
are parks and open land which are within the three areas. I have talked to the
King County Parks Director and he informs me the county would be willing to turn
i
three parcels of land over to the city for park purposes, all of which are in the
annexations.
Depending upon specific development plans we can spend anything from zero to a
million dollars developing the properties into park. Priorities would have to
be establsihed and funds provided.
4 'I
Memo to Mayor Frank Todd
Annexations
Page 2
. 29 February 1980 .
Allentown and Riverton are considered law income areas and Block Grant "Needs"
dollars could be requested. Staff time would be required if such grants are
obtained for park improvements. At this time, there is noway to determine
possible manpower needs for such projects.
Short -Term Effects:
Our current policies regarding the providing of services state we are to serve
all citizens in the community which includes the three annexation areas. To
be specific, we are already serving the citizens, however, there may be some
specific programs that are affected.
A. Youth Programs - Very little if any change would occur. A few more
people may participate once "they are tax payers in the City ".
B. Senior Programs - have been told anywhere from 12 to 35 new seniors
would join our program once they are in the city. The cost for staff and
materials would increase with the increase in participation, and in particular,-
the vans would be driven more to provide transporation for the new seniors.
Estimated cost increase would be $1,900.
C. Athletics - Very little increased pressure for services would result because
of the annexations. We al have it There would be little change in
youth programs, however, the existing and any additional demands will come
from the adults. As an example: for this summer's men's slow pitch league
we can accommodate only 16 teams and we had requests from 35 29 of
which were from Tukwila. This is the pattern it seems for all of our adult
athletics,. however, the only affect the annexations will have is more "resi-
dential" teams will replace the "commercial" teams.
D. General Programs - We may see an immediate increase in class participation,
however, this will be offset with increased revenues. Again we are serving
these areas so we anticipate no major cost .increases other than for the
brochure. If we continue the policy of printing and mailing a recreation
• brochure to each residence, then our postage and printing budgets... will need
to be enlarged by $1,740 per year, using 1980 dollars.
Long -Term Effects: '•
As time passes and if the quality of our programs is . high, we can see a demand
from the citizen for even more services. If we have a larger citizen population
requesting specific programs, it becomes harder not to meet the requests. Eventu-
ally our programs may be large enough to require the need for a full -time secre-
tary /receptionist at the Community Center and additional extra labor help to .
operate the facility more on Saturdays and /or Sundays. Such increased services
could cost up to $10,000 per year.
Another question relates back to the current demand for increasing the size of
our adult athletic leagues. The question is,where will the teams play as we
currently lack field and gym space? We can increase the size of the leagues:.if
space were available at little cost to the city, mainly because team entry fees
pay for most of the services and materials they receive. What money they pay
is spent providing the services they need, only administrative services will increas
RECREATION PROGRAMS
memo to Mayor rranx ioaa rage a
Annexations 29 February 1980
The size of this increase depends upon any enlargement of the various
leagues which cannot be answered at this time.
PARKS COMMISSION
The Commissioners will have to broaden their thoughts and opinions to
' represent a larger city and a larger population. There should be no
increased cost for the Commission to operate.
Short -Term Effects:_
It would seem natural that any vacancies on the Commission should be filled
with qualified persons from the annexation areas. The present membership
consists of individuals from the existing city area and it would seem logi-
cal that at least one person should be appointed that lives in one of the new
areas.
Long -Term Effects:
If the Commissioners represent all citizens as they should, a broader
based opinion should result in recommending policy. Any actual dollar
increases regarding programs and parks will come from the Council and are
mentioned in other sections of this report. There should be no need for
additional manpower or capital outlay as a direct action of the Park Com-
mission.
BLOCK GRANT
I have attached a copy of ,a report to Ron Swanson from myself regarding increased
Block Grant Funds the city could receive. I believe in his report he has rounded
off the $4.91 per person to $3.00. In the memo to Ron, I explained that as long
as a project qualifies, regardless of the location, we can spend any of the
potential $17,452.00 in new funds as the City chooses.
Short -Term Effect:
The -Block Grant staff at this time can not say if this year's funding dollars
could be switched from the county to Tukwila. The timing of the annexation
votes, funding year dates, and commitments to approved projects may mean any
current dollars may not be available this year. I would assume if we have
no immediate revenues we will make no immediate expenditures.
Long -Term Effect:
The $17,452 may become availabe in July 1980, assuming all three annexations
are approved. If any of the annexations are approved, our revenues will be
increased at $4.91 per person, which may increase as the Federal Government
increases the share each year.
As time passes, we may choose to spend the dollars on qualified projects or
programs in the new annexation areas or pool the funds with the other Block
Grant share money we receive and continue to select projects that will help
all Tukwila citizens'. The latter is our recommmr tion.
In conclusion, I can see that the annexations can have a very costly affect to
the city or a low cost based upon policy, decisions the Mayor and Council may make.
Memo to Mayor Frank Todd
Annexations
A review of some of the immediate costs are listed below. The answer to what ..
the long -range costs will be will vary depending upon the policies and projects
decided upon.
DW /mkb
Attachment
MEDIATE COSTS:
DUWAMISH PARK BACK -STOP $3,800
SENIOR PROGRAMS 1,900
GENERAL REC. PROG. COSTS 1,740.
TOTAL $6,440.
D WI
A
▪ 1909
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
In a phone conversation with Mel Smith from the Block Grant Office, he informed
me that our share of the Block Grant Population monies is based on a share of
$4.66 per person. Looking at the estimated population of the three areas I have
taken an average and then totaled the possible revenues.
AREA
; s y City of Tukwila
Z 6200 Southcenter Boulevard
Tukwila Washington 98188
•
Ron Swanson
Don Williams
27 February 1980
Increased Block Grant Funds if the Annexation passes.
Crestview 1,555 to 1,882 1,718.5 $ •8,437.83
Riverton 906 = 906 '4,448.46
Allentown 910 to 950 • 930 4,566.30
TOTAL POSSIBLE REVENUE $:17,452.59
Both the Riverton and Allentown areas are considered by the King County Block Grant
Office as low income areas, thus when we compete for "Needs" money we stand a better
chance of obtaining funding. These funds are based on a competition situation and
such no guarantee exists that we would ever receive any "Needs" money, however,
having them within the City increases our chances.
As far as expenditures are concerned, areas must. first qualify and then individual
projects. Any expenditure of Block Grant dollars in any of the annexation areas
is a possibility, but not a fact. The new revenues do not have to be spent within
the specific annexed areas. Our City is identified as our "area ", thus individual
projects must qualify and that is the only control the Block Grant has on our
expenditures. At this time we have not identified any projects within any of the
three annexations.
DW /mkb
cc: Mayor Todd
Frank Todd, Mayor
MEMORANDUM
• ►, a
ESTIMATE POPULATION AVERAGE x 4.66 = INDIVIDUAL TOTAL
i
City of Tukwila
6200 Southcenter Boulevard
Tukwila Washington 98188
TO: John McFarland, Administrative Msistant
FROM: Ron Swanson, Finance Director
DATE: February 27, 1980
SUBJECT: Annexation Impact
RS /jt
Annexation
Crestview
Ri verton
Allentown
MEMORANDUM
As you requested, I have attached an updated analysis of the anticipated
revenue from the pending annexations. In summary, the total estimated
revenue is as follows: .
Total
Revenue
$194,000
121,000
115,000
As far.as the cost impact to the Finance Department, it appears an additional
$2,500 in extra labor will be needed. This will cover increased work load
caused by added staff and activity in other departments. (i.e. claims, pur-
chase orders, payroll, etc.). Also, the increase in population over 4,000 will
require the completion of additional mandated financial reports to the state.
It should be, noted that the above estimate will cover all the proposed annexa-
tions assuming there will not be an increase in the utility accounts billed to.
the City. •
I understand, however, that there may be the possibility the City will take
over the utility accounts in the Allentown annexation.
If the City will be taking over any of these utility accounts, the above re-
quests would expand to a full 1/2 time position.
•
A4PPeubk F
CITY OF TUKWILA
CRESTVIEW ANNEXATION
ANNUAL REVENUE ESTIMATE COMPUTATIONS
1980
REVENUE' .FUND BASE RATE AMOUNT
Property Tax Current $18,582,100: 2.751 per $51,119
Assessed Value $1,000 AV
Sales Tax Current 1882 /population $7 per capita 13,174
(Statewide =$41)
Motor Vehicle Excise Current 1882 /population 10.22 per '19,234
capita
Liquor Excise Tax Current 1882 /population 3.25 per 6,117
capita
Liquor Board Profits Current 1882 /population 9.25 per 17,409
capita
Other Current estimate 18,625
Golf Course G.O. Prop. Tax Debt. Serv. 18,582,100/AV $.390 per 7,247
$1,000 /AV
Motor Vehicle Fuel Tax Street. 1882 /population 8.60 per 16,185
capita
Motor Vehicle. Fuel Tax Airt. Street 1882 /population 5.73 per 10,784
capita
Revenue Sharing Rev. Shr. 1882 /population $18.00 per 33,876
capita
TOTAL $193,770
/o'D LFyy T
2.36,100
CITY OF TUKWILA
CRESTVIEW ANNEXATION
'ANNUAL REVENUE ESTIMATE COMPUTATIONS
NOTES
Note 1. General property tax is based on the 1979 assessed value information
currently available in the OCD annexation file. The tax rate used is
the City's 1980 tax rate. According to the assessor's office, assessed .
values for 1980 may increase as high as 80% to 100% from 1979.
Note 2. Sales tax estimate is based on a per capita sales tax collections simi-
lar to the Normandy Park area.
Note 3. State shared revenue estimates are based on per capita revenue distri-
bution statistics developed by AWC.
Note 4. The "Other" revenue category includes revenue generated from business
licenses, building permits, :plan check fees, fines, block grant funds,
etc.
Note 5. The Golf Course G.O. Bond property tax is based on 1979 assessed value
information currently available and the 1980 city tax rate.
Note 6. Revenue sharing is projected on the basis of the state wide per capita
average.
IS
Gentlemen:
CITY to 11:W 1A
Marsilio Di Giovanni
4230 South 164th
Seattle, Wash. 98188
MAY 3 1 2979 May 25, 1979
Planning Commission
CITY OF TUKWILA
6200 Southcenter Blvd.
Tukwila, Wash. 98188
Re; Proposed zoning regulations for lands
of Crestview area.
Cri dli►dw Alf
This is to state in written form my oral statements made
during the public hearing on May 24, 1979 regarding the
proposed zoning regulations of the Crestview area, which
if passed would change the zoning on my property from its
present use to RS -7200.
I strongly oppose such regulation for the following reasons:
The SW corner of the subject property is located 150 feet
East of the intersection of 42nd Ave. So., South 164th,
and Military Road South which is a very commercial corner
with four Gas Stations, A restaurant and a Shopping Center.
When the property received the present zoning, for its
present use, written petitions were obtained from all the
surrounding property owners agreeing to the present zoning.
There were NO objections to the zoning change, and all the
reports submitted from all the departments were in favor of
the zoning and its present use. None were against it. King Co.
granted the zoning request so as to form a buffer zoning
between commercial and residential properties.
Since the zoning was granted a new building has been built
on the property. This new building was first accupied on
March 19, 1979 and is being used as a Day Care and Educatin
Center.
If the proposed zoning change were to become a reality it
would be detrimental to me and cause many unnecessary
hardships and litigations because:
1. The new building on the subject property is being
used as a Child Care and Education Center, which is a
commercial usage. If the proposed zoning change became
a reality and the conditions would change whereby the
Day Care business were no longer adaptable to the area
(possibly maybe due to the lack of children in the area)
then the zoning would prevent any other usage of the
building except as a single residence for which it is
very unsutable.
2. The proposed zoning change would place the property
adjacent to and in the back of a building which was a
7 -11 store, a pop shop, and now a restaurant. Needless
to say a vary unsutable place to build a new home.
On the other hand if the present zoning is retained it
would serve (as it was intented) as a buffer between
commercial and residential lands which would obstruct
the encroachment of high density zoning to the east.
If the proposed zoning change becomes a reality, I and /or
my heirs would have no choice but to relentlessly work to
gain commercial zoning of the property since that would
be the most logical zoning, because that is the present
use of the property and that is also the present use of
the property adjacent to the west
These facts were brought out at an earlier meeting, before
the Land Use Plan Map was approved. At that time I was
assured that this was an oversight and the final Land
Use Map would show the existing King County Zoning.
I trust that you will give this matter its due consideration.
cc: L. C. Bohrer
Gary L. Van Dusen
Mabel Harris
George D. Hill
Reid Johanson
Dan Saul
Dwayne D. Traynor
Respectfully yours
Di / iovanni
\MLA
1908
4, City of Tukwila
6200 Southcenter Boulevard
Tukwila Washington 98188
TO: Richard sop, Planning Commission Chairman
FROM: F , N. Satterstrom
DATE: 24 :Ma 1979
SUBJECT: Public Hearing: Crestview Annexation Area
Edgar D. Bauch, Mayor
MEMORANDUM
The manner in which the Planning Commission handled the public hearing on
zoning in the Allentown annexation area (April .1979) was exemplary. With
you, as chairman, fielding most of the questions and relying on staff for
technical input or response, the meeting went smoothly and. methodically,
I think if the Crestview hearing is conducted in a similar manner, then it
should go smoothly as well. i believe the Crestview residents are intensely
concerned about land use matters in their neighborhood and I expect they
will take an active role in the adoption of zoning regulations for the area.
Therefore, I think it is important to explain the following facts at the
onset of the hearing:
BACKGROUND 'INFORMATION
1. Petition for annexation filed with the City in April with. 30% of voters.
2, City accepted petition and notice of intent to annex was sent to
Boundary Review Board (BRB).
3. BRB will hold public hearing on annexation in near future.
4. Probably this fall an election will be held on annexation.
PURPOSE OF THIS MEETING
1. Annexation petition filed with the City requested that zoning be proposed
for the Crestview area prior to annexation election.
2. In this manner, when residents vote on annexation, they will know what
zoning will be.
3. Purpose of meeting is to get input on zoning from landowners and residents.
All property owners in Crestview area have been notified.
FORMAT OF MEETING
1. Staff presents a report and a proposed zoning pattern. What property
owners were sent in mail is the staff's proposal.
page 2
hearing.
hearing (or continues, as case may be).
scussion.
commendation.
two (2) additional public hearings on the zoning
ing a zoning regulation which will become effective
if area is annexed. Property owners will be
rings as well.
Memorandum
Richard Kirsop
2. Chairman opens public
3. Chairman closes publi
4. Planning Commission d
S. Planning Commission r
6. City Council will hol
question before adop
in Crestview area onl
notified of these he
FNS /fns
•
r
}
o
d i
t
al
R -1 -7.2
PROPOSED CRESTVIEW ANNEXATION AREA:
PROPOSED ZONING
LEGEND
Single- family
Residential
Neighborhood Retail
Local Retail
f� - IIYZ� .: -_• - ,. •
Planning Division— OCD
May 1979
9 11
R
J I
fob
PROPOSED CRESTVIEW ANNEXATION AREA:
PROPOSED ZONING
LEGEND
R -1 -7.2 Single- family
Residential
C -i Neighborhood Retail
r 5:1 C -2 Local Retail
Li 14 .,X7.mfark
!!• id 11111
Planning Division— OCD
May 1979
❑
PROPOSED
R -1 -7.2
C -2
LEGEND
kr
CRESTVIEW ANNEXATION AREA:
PROPOSED ZONING
Single - family
Residential
Neighborhood Retail
Local Retail
R
ri
\ \
A
Planning Division— OCO
May 1979
152140 ST
5 151ST
Sr
Patrol
158TH ST
S 156TH ST
162ND ST
a
z (PH)
22 5 15 8TH
4 " <
CRESTVIEW _ 0 : S 16
ELEMENTARY i • 51
S 5 1 2ND ST
IP
CRESTVIEW v 163 PL y
MEDICAL z ✓• z Q`
'CENTER v ` 7 ` '^
164TH dl S SI v � e i
j z� ",
L '' MCMICKEN HEIGHTS
5 ?1 156TH ST a
ti
SCHOOL
ST 16 1
21
S 14671 ' ST
RIVERTON HEIGHTS
148TH ST
" ■
RIVERTON HEIGHTS
z „ELEMENTARY SCHOOL.
5 150TH ST
W'ASHING'C N
VEMUkIAL
CIM .TEP.Y
S 160TH 51 " 21 1
' ,__.... • 28
4
28 27
33 34
0
166TH
5 180TH ST
• 144TH 51 ° i
Fir
® Sta e lion
LOCATION MAP:
PROPOSED
CRESTVIEW ANNEXATION AREA
188TH 51
N TON 1H HL
172110 a l ST
175TH ST
4
176TH Si O _ __.._....._ 27
BFire
Station
188TH ST
z
150TH ST a
170TH
179TH
172140 PI
5 1521D
ST
16 0
ST
S 150TM
S
n
S
5 152140 ST
ST 5 179TH ST E _ Sl
5 ▪ 144TH ST
S 147TH
5 149TH ST
S 149TH
144TH
FOSTER ` ? SCH SO CENTRAL
•SR.HIGH < SCH DIST.. 1
SCHOOL' ■ ADMIN. 1 �)
S 184TH
C
•
5 1861K S
z
57
TUKWILA!
ELEMENTARY
SCHOOL
Police Station
City Hall
Fire Station
TUKWILA
INTERCHANGE 0
S
a
SOUTHCENTER
Z SHOPPING MALL
PARKWAY .
PLAZA
NORTH
rl
PARKWAY
` 'PLAZA -
180TH
SEGALE
BUSINESS
PARK
5 ISIST
5 15380
(PYt)
;
SR .
TYEE
r IGH Liibrary ' i f
SCHOOL
a�r ib;rnrA. t i •:
sort' 044*A -4k. t • .�.!
14,0 .4.4444:141
et •'' ' ; 4;4 ; t r y
A R :�.
Vey
Affidavit of Publication
STATE OF WASHINGTON
COUNTY OF KING
being first duly sworn on
oath, deposes and says that .::.:.... is the +.:..'......:.:i..;. .... of
THE DAILY RECORD CHRONICLE, a newspaper published six (6) times a
week. That said newspaper is a legal newspaper and it is now and has been
for more than six months prior to the date of publication referred to,
printed and published in the English language continually as a newspaper
published four (4) times a week in Kent King County Washington, and it is
now and during all of said time was printed in an office maintained at the
aforesaid place of publication of said newspaper. That the Daily Record
Chronicle has been approved as a legal newspaper by order of the Superior
Court of the County in which it is published, to -wit, King County,
Washington. That the annexed is a
as it was published in regular issues (and
not in supplement form of said newspaper) once each issue for a period
of consecutive issues, commencing on the
day of " " ` ,19 , and ending the
day of ,19 , both dates
inclusive, and that such newspaper was regularly distributed to its sub-
scribers during all of said period. That the full amount of the fee
charged for the foregoing publication is the sum of $ ` which
has been paid in full at the rate of per folio of one hundred words for the
first insertion and per folio of one hundred words for each subsequent
insertion.
Subscribed and sworn to before me this day of
V.P.C. Form No. 87 Rev. 7 -79
ss.
7i
and or the State of V1ra'pfngton,
residing at Kent, King County.'
— Passed by the Legislature, 1955, known as Senate Bill 281, effective June
9th, 1955.
— Western Union Telegraph Co. rules for counting words and figures,
adopted by the newspapers of the State.
,4 '. �'e9
b � 'L�a�Y�l iaY j G
V.P.C. Form No. 87
Affidavit of Publication
STATE OF WASHINGTON
COUNTY OF KING
= :'';'c% being first duly sworn on
oath, deposes and says that ...:3.: ?:Cis the ,Ps .j a' rk of
THE RENTON RECORD - CHRONICLE, a newspaper published four (4)
times a week. That said newspaper is a legal newspaper and it is now and
has been for more than six months prior to the date of publication referred
to, printed and published in the English language continually as a news-
paper published four (4) times a week in Kent, King County, Washington,
and it is now and during all of said time was printed in an office maintained
at the aforesaid place of publication of said newspaper. That the Renton
Record - Chronicle has been approved as a legal newspaper by order of the
Superior Court of the County in which it is published, to -wit, King County,
Washington. That the annexed is a
as it was published in regular issues (and
not in supplement form of said newspaper) once each issue for a period
of consecutive issues, commencing on the
cf'`:�.j' fir'
day of ,19 , and ending the
day of ,19 ,both dates
inclusive, and that such newspaper was regularly distributed to its sub-
scribers during all of said period. That the full amount of the fee
charged for the foregoing publication is the sum of $ 9 ' CO which
has been paid in full at the rate of per folio of one hundred words for the
first insertion and per folio of one hundred words for each subsequent
insertion.
Notary
ss.
•ubli^ ,• , , ;;� °in;*
J1erk
Subscribed and sworn to before me this 1 5 day of
its 19'
is in and for the State of W
residing at Kent, s (
ngton,
County.
— Passed by the Legislature, 1955, known as Senate Bill 281, effective June
9th, 1955.
— Western Union Telegraph Co. rules for counting words and figures,
adopted by the newspapers of the State.
a
Affidavit of Publication
STATE OF WASHINGTON
COUNTY OF KING
T'hi ^ orlo ''n Thun ^Tr
r
ss.
Washington. That the annexed is N1.1t; .C.C:...Car PIT
V.P.C. Form No. 87
19 r 9
being first duly sworn on
oath, deposes and says that t: 1 ? ( is the of
r ' f . ry rri of
THE RENTON RECORD- CHRONICLE, a newspaper published four (4)
times a week. That said newspaper is a legal newspaper and it is now and
has been for more than six months prior to the date of publication referred
to, printed and published in the English language continually as a news-
paper published four (4) times a week in Kent, King County, Washington,
and it is now and during all of said time was printed in an office maintained
at the aforesaid place of publication of said newspaper. That the Renton
Record - Chronicle has been approved as a legal newspaper by order of the
Superior Court of the County in which it is published, to -wit, King County,
as it was published in regular issues (and
not in supplement form of said newspaper) once each issue for a period
of consecutive issues, commencing on the
9 day of , t ,1979 , and ending the
16 r7
day of tR' 19 / 7 , both dates
inclusive, and that such newspaper was regularly distributed to its sub-
scribers during all of said period. That the full amount of the fee
charged for the foregoing publication is the sum of $ 1? ' 5 hick
has been paid in full at the rate of per folio of one hundred words for the
first insertion and per folio of one hundred words for each subsequent
insertion.
' bj e f (1, (Irk
Subscribed and sworn to before me this 16 day of
a
Notary Public and for the State of Washing jn,
residing at Kent, King County.
— Passed by the Legislature, 1955, known as Senate Bill 281, effective June
9th, 1955.
— Western Union Telegraph Co. rules for counting words and figures,
adopted by the newspapers of the State.
11- IS-A
erw4 PActFIC tty 5 oN niE
1NE5'r I-5 OIJTHE EAVT, Ny 518
ON Tt4E NORTH APROX . S 2010 ST
QN Tl{E QjOUTH
c�,iv(w ANNMTIOM
ZoNit.16
:
MIMI II IM MO
•
r i.I.—
• LOW DENSITY REIDENTIAL
• MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL
• HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL
• OFFICE
• COMMERCIAL
III LIGHT INDUSTRIAL
II HEAVY INDUSTRIAL
• PUBLIC FACILITIES
• PARKS AND OPEN SPACE
SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT
WMMAMAS OF N ranWMSUMP,
ull.oliCNURAL 1S. .,WImIOII.r10 11ooe
rM
MOW WW1
MN/CEVIL0161 Mr MAW
toMltrvRr TO MOW vlvMbmoa.t MOORS.
PLANNING AREA BOUNDARY
inn= CITY BOUNDARY
COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLAN
Tlawn,a PURIM ARC &
EXHIBIT F
tee..- �+- .�.+.m�-- •.•yr. rr. .mx. >r•^xrrw+^r+^n �r;�W >�. +- u�wr, m+•• IW' S. S! �fy+ wn .nsr.rm»mrM�vw»wwnm+w,nr+�c-Yn ..t xa.. awMattKrsv +n.�+^�*»�+a.�e+++�.�.w.m
I I I II . I r° jr j rid" r[ I �I i
ill .. i I '� 1 fi 1 I �1 mo
0 III ?HI INCH 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
FLEXIBLE RULER - 3O2 AW SIra.N�_
(1P 6 86 LZ 9Z SZ hZ CZ EZ IZ 03. 61. 81 Ll 91. SI . hl Cl Zl II 01
1.441,14:04.0411,11,041.191,11,Pi•
J
\-/ h
TIKWILA PLAMMIMC ICPUTIBfl 1115
a 1
IF THIS MICROFILMED DOCUMENT IS LESS
THIS_
_CLEAR THAN THIS_ NOTICE, LT IS DUE TO. I: ;._ ; .
THE QUALITY OF THE ORIGINAL DOCUMENT
•.:3-111.‘3;:esir,a4w
•
ST
V
, • • •
33;
•/;.0.
1. 4 4S
IF THIS MICROFILMED DOCUMENT IS LESS
CLEAR THAN THIS NOTICE, IT IS DUE TO
- THF OUALITV OF THE ORIGINAL DOCUMENT •
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
a. •Rma
LEGEND
R-1-7.2 ONE FAMILY DWELLING
•••
R-3_ THREE AND FOUR FAMILY DWELLING
C-1 NEIGHBORHOOD RETAIL BUSINESS
C-2 .LOCAL RETAIL BUSINESS
- :1
:=1
....( STRANDER BLVD
F-1
I
UJ
114
EMONITAIIIMISIBINSIMPMIAIMIIMINNINIMIA•i•ALM
APINEAAT BOUNDARY
•
• ..1,
4
Ui
a
I •
S
UI
I—
S
X
0
vt
175TH
S
176TH
, 4 •,iY
' 1 (,),), •
OJAI
f7 l it "'" '4 4 V4Y
,ft,\
ST
ST
Ord
IF THIS MICROFILMED DOCUMENT IS LESS
CLEAR THAN THIS NOTICE, IT IS DUE TO
THE QUALITY OF THE ORIGINAL DOCUMENT
_072 .LOCAL RETAIL BUSINESS
C NEIGHBORHOOD RETAIL BUSINESS
m
co
STRA BLVD
• •
I
J740
i
i 4J03 160111
Immilmlnan
149/)
' ' N� , Nilii @�
N 172, 000
N 171,000 _,
S94. C9,.
N 171,140.141
E 1,639,511955
635 3630
P 1790 S4
• 4790
Si
1 70.000_
t
9
1173
a83
172,000
.1 71,000_
N 179.000 _. _
— t
DEdjtil
I/4 Co,
.N 139,S2'J<
C 1,6 .76
73,
3285
JJ 3
oaa; pl
1
,. S IB
�thRA r ® V 6 ( \vo.m /� f 1 '\,-1 _ L. � Vi I'�. .._. J u I I ..:1 , EXISTING LA NDU 7 �;'• �� ! -_1.,: I I� � � ( 1 I�� �� � a� I, O [p • �� 1 II _ .- % �.v�_ it 7 . 1 a Y +P ♦1 :. � az90 U .
j o{.
I _ N90 LITA
t _ � :� o f
o5 o = I1�c 7 � ,4 �" ��I
III1 111 III �fIIT III�Ill IIII IIu iu i u i g11g1 g11gI IpII I I
w 1 ..� 2..:.1......3::., !.. 1:. - �
OE OE 06 GE 96 9C 42 CC CC IL OE IN 91 LI 9l c1 NI 'CI CI II 0L}
I I I I I I I I I 1 11111111111 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 111111111 I I I I I I I I I I 1 11111111111111111111111111111 1 1111111111111111111 1 111111111 1 111111111 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 111111111 1 1111111111111111111 1 111111111 1 1111111111111111111 1 11
te
� .
In
IF ,THIS MICROFILMED DOCUMENT IS LESS
J:LEAK.THAN'THIS:NOTICE;?IT'.IS DUE TO
'THE QUALITY' OF 'THE ORIGINAL DOCUMENT
N 174,000
1 .14370
S • .4!•3 1,010
!6!5 !6!0
,1 N172.000__
I/a Cog
11 173,022 76
E 1039,55 74
0173,000
N172, 000
Sec r Cc.
N
40.94
21_311,
/4 C4r.
74 160 525.90
E 1,639,45096
SLIGBM7
r Eli 5O ,,??''��
05,k1 �� j ❑
1
5
Os BE 04 22 92 GE 92 CL 72 IC 05 61 M LI 9$ SI I I • CI 9$ U OC
•._Ludmlluging11111/ a�141,l 11111614101114I6Ig 1131p6uiIIVIII IMIII!IIIIIPlllll 1111l4 1 11,11411lllill116116uilmiluull •
•
N r l
t
, z l ` rte-•. "�
I
CLEAR THAN THIS NOTICE, IT IS DUE TOF THIS MICROFILMED DOCUMENT IS LESS 1
THE QUALITY OF THE ORIGINAL DOCUMENT
455
1275
11173,000
NIT 4.000 E a:12
N 173,000
7,7`1 141
E1,639,511
N 1E1,002
0,525.90
39,45096
37.9
1=1
• ,
/' 7 a
iDAL
--- ( ci<,
J •
— 7
( c .
todErQ •
45 ,47.5 : (9 •. _
mi
.1.4.moloN
(1.11 Is a
i
,
6 L'i
-to II
I
2
l "
. T
- 171r h 174L 2'c,e61;11,11 r ) IiL4r ii
kyiGN ' ii
siwzaassmutineasommiwissiaurransmaramilmail.
A " " 1
0 c ,
( 1 c 7 q'
-,---,-
C 0
0 — ,
• , . (
ir
) ,
-6,,, /1
oposED .--1, AN 'ION
C1,644,78312
_ A _121.0012_•
172,000
72Q00_ A
1/4 Cc,.
N 173,822.16
C 1939554 76
3347
EXISTING KING
'
- 't 1 ),,,,k!
( \i
,
\\
COUNTY ZONIN
wii 7A7,1 kL 7 .u, - 0
14■W=1■I
09 (•• b1
0 3 no
O 1' ) :1 /
61 '
45
--1
6 7 8
OE az se LZ OZ cz • CO 88 M OE M m a m m m 'm
'.11101
AN THIS NOTICE, IT IS DIE TO '
IF THIS MICROFILMED DOCUMENT IS LESS
CLEAR THAN THIS NOTICE, i
THE QUALITY OF THE ORIGINAL DOCUMENT,
7
CL 300 79
51 1E9,050