Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPermit 76-22-R - CITY OF TUKWILA - NEW CITY HALL SITE REZONE (DESIMONE PROPERTY)MF 76-22-R SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SOUTH 151ST STREET AND 65TH AVENUE SOUTH CITY OF TUKWILA CITY HALL SITE REZONE DESIMONE PROPERTY ./ VILA CITY COUNCIL RECUL // '•IEETING January 3, 1977 Page 5 9:50 P.M. Mayor Bauch declared a 5 minute recess. CITIZEN'S COMMENTS • Foster Golf Course PETITIONS, COMMUNICATIONS, APPEALS AND SIMILAR MATTERS ty Hall Site Waiver request Councilman Traynor stated that the Council has the information here this CHG International evening and he feels there is no reason to delay another week, the Continued Council should act on this now. Councilman Harris suggested, since the agenda for the Committee of the Whole meeting is already full, that the Council go into a Committee of the Whole meeting now to discuss this. Councilman Van Dusen stated he would like a chance to research some of the points that were brought out. Councilman Saul stated that the people have come here tonight to hear what the Council has to say. *ROLL CALL VOTE: 4 NOS - GARDNER, MS. HARRIS, SAUL, TRAYNOR; 3 AYES - HILL, MS. PESICKA, VAN DUSEN. MOTION FAILED. MOVED BY MS. HARRIS, SECONDED BY TRAYNOR, THAT THE COUNCIL CONVENE INTO A COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING FOR THE PURPOSE OF DISCUSSING THIS. MOTION CARRIED. Council President Hill presided at the Committee of the Whole Meeting. Councilman Traynor noted that Resolution #489 was passed to allow time to complete the Comprehensive Plan. He stated that his understanding is that you have to take the whole Resolution, not a piece at a time. If you are going to waive Resolution #489 you consider every item. Council continued to discuss items that had been raised during the Public Hearing. They asked for clarification from Kjell Stoknes, OCD Director, as to maximum units that could be built on the property, questioned the height requirements and asked if the City had been furnished material to back up the soils report. Councilman Harris stated concern that the Council has seen nothing that says this is unstable ground and this was causing a dilemma. Councilman Traynor asked where the data from the Data Inventory map came from and was told from USGS maps. There being no further discussion, MOVED BY SAUL, SECONDED BY MS. PESICKA, THAT THE COUNCIL GO BACK INTO REGULAR SESSION. MOTION CARRIED. MOVED BY TRAYNOR, SECONDED BY SAUL, THAT THE WAIVER BE DENIED. MOTION CARRIED. Bill Aliment, Foster Golf Course, said that there are many people wondering the status on the purchase of the Golf Course as they have had no communication with the City. He offered help to the City in obtaining a professional committee to evaluate the facility.. Mayor Bauch stated that the City's Financial Agent has a copy of the books and that Staff is compiling information.. The City is attempting to put together enough information so they can make a reasonable and intelligent assessment. He stated that he was hoping to have a repor back to the Council in about two weeks. Mr. Kjell Stoknes, OCD Director, stated that the City should be ready for financing by the first part of March and finalize the plans by June 1st. Mayor Bauch's letter dated December 30, 1976 to the City Council was read for the record. He stated that he is disappointed, as were many others, in not receiving the federal grant for the construction of the City Hall. There are two basic questions to be answered; 1) where is the facility to be located,and 2) how is it to be financed. I' r nnot rernrrtmend ion: tr tha rn on question n= b 4.. until question number one is.answered. TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING' January 3, 1977 Page 6 PETITIONS, COMMUNCIATIONS, APPEALS AND SIMILAR MATTERS CONT. y/ Ky Hall Site My recommendation is, and has always been, to locate the facility on Continued the site the City already owns. I urge the Council to give this matter the timely attention it deserves, - Councilman Traynor stated that he hoped we Would receive the grant so the problem of site would be resolved. He stated he is not happy with the location of Site 1/6, he doesn't think it is the best place but it has become apparent that this City can not continue to work divided as it is, therefore, MOVED BY TRAYNOR, SECONDED BY SAUL, THAT CITY HALL BE LOCATED ON SITE r6 AND FINANCED WITH COUNCILMATIC BONDS. OLD BUSINESS . Annexation Petition Application, • . R . K. Bradley Councilman Pesicka stated that she was not in favor of Site 716 because was too small and city hall would look like a box on the hillside bu Mithun and Associates have shown that city hall can be located here so she will go along with Site #6 Councilman Van Dusen stated that this division has gone on a long time and it should be ended so he rescinded his threat to never vote for Site #6 and for harmony at, the table, he will go along with the rest of the Council. Councilman Hill stated that Mithun has done a remarkable job in laying out a building and, in the interest of the City, it is time to bury the hatchet and start working in the same direction. .Councilman Saul expressed his appreciation to the Council for going along with his thinking on Site #6. . Councilman Harris questioned whether or not it was the intent to finance the whole 1.6 million by Councilmatic Bonds. MOVED BY MS. HARRIS, SECONDED BY MS. PESICKA, THAT TRAYNOR'S MOTION BE REWORDED TO DELETE 'THE FINANCING BY COUNCILMATIC BONDS'. ** Councilman Traynor stated that his intent was to use the City Hall Construction Fund and Councilmatic Bonds. ** ROLL CALL VOTE: 4 NOS - HILL, SAUL, TRAYNOR, VAN DUSEN. 3 AYES - GARDNER, MS. HARRIS, MS. PESICKA. AMENDMENT TO THE MOTION FAILED MOVED BY HILL, SECONDED BY SAUL, TO AMEND THE MOTION TO SELL COUNCILt•1F BONDS TO COVER THE BALANCE OF THE TOTAL COST OF NEW CITY HALL ABOVE AND BEYOND THE MONEY THAT IS IN THE CITY HALL CONSTRUCTION FUND. MOTION CARRIED. 0 * ORIGINAL MOTION CARRIED AS AMENDED'. Mr. Robert Crain stated that there was a motion made in 1973 concernir site selection and stating that it would be put to the vote of the people, it was never done. He asked if the action this evening is lec Attorney Hard stated that the Council could put this at rest by makinc a new motion to nulify the earlier motion. . Mayor Bauch stated that during the trial with the former Architect the Judge told the Council to get on with the site selection. He said there are times when there is too much input from the citizens._' Kjell Stoknes reviewed the annexation petition requested by Ramon K. and Elmire N. Bradley. The property is located at 4621 So. 134th St. and is approzimately 2 acre. He stated that there are three question to be considered. The first one, does the Council wish to accept the annexation as proposed? The Staff recommendation is to accept this petition as a 10% petition of intent to annex the entire block. ROLL CALL OF GARDNER; TRAYNOR, HILL, SAUL, MS. PESICKA, VAN DUSEN, MS. HARRIS. COUNCIL MEMBERS APPROVAL OF MINUTES ISCUSSION Rezone of Desimone Property Ord. - Adopting the 1975 Edition of the Std. Specifications for Munic. Public Works Construction as the Code of the City of Tukwila Public within area MOVEt TRAYNOR, SECONDED BY PESICKA& .NAT THE OCTOBER 11, 1976 MINUTES OF THE COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING BE APPROVED AS PUBLISHED. CARRIED, WITH GARDNER VOTING NO. MOVED BY TRAYNOR, SECONDED BY SAUL, THAT THE OCTOBER 20, 1976 MINUTES OF THE COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING BE APPROVED AS PUBLISHED. CARRIED. Mayor Bauch stated this subject had been brought before the City Council to see if they wished to appeal as the rezone request had been denied. He said the City was the applicant and could appeal if they want to. Kjell Stoknes, Director of Community Development, said the matter could be tabled and brought back at any time. MOVED BY TRAYNOR, SECONDED BY SAUL, THAT THE MATTER OF THE REZONE OF THE DESIMONE PROPERTY BE CARRIED. Steve Hall, Director of Public Works, explained that the City is presently using the 1969 edition. The 1975 edition is more up -to -date He recommended the City Council adopt the proposed ordinance.. Council. man Van Dusen asked if most of the cities are using this edition. Steve Hall said most of them were using the 1975 edition. Council President Hill said the ordinance would be on the agenda for the next City Council meeting. Transportation Councilman Traynor said he had heard that one of the reasons the bus the Tukwila would not come over the hill through Tukwila is because there are not any sidewalks. Councilwoman Harris said the buses that are express go directly through from Seattle to Kent and Auburn; the locals make several stops in .various locations between Seattle and Kent or Auburn. The lack of sidewalks is not a valid reason for discontinuing the bus service over the hill and into Southcenter. She said it seems the City should have the muscle to have the bus company keep up the sched- ule. Mayor Bauch said he had several meetings with Metro - people of Tukwila had voted the bus service out. He continued it is costing the bus $45 per rider at present. The people who work and ride the bus walk down to Interurban and take the fast bus that goes directly through. He said the people had voted they did not want to ride the bus the way it goes through Tukwila. He said the City needs to come up with something to give service to the people who are senior citizens. Councilman Van Dusen said maybe the ad hoc committee could look into the matter. Mayor Bauch said he thought a plan would be to set up a regular schedule with the park van sometime in the morning and sometime in the afternoon on a weekly schedule that would get senior citizens to the doctors and to the stores. In case of an emergency they would have to make some other decision regarding transportation. Councilwoman Harris asked if Metro would use a modified schedule and run a bus up over the hill on an experimental basis. Councilman Van Dusen said he thought they should ask the senior citizens how they felt about the matter. They are meeting every Wednesday. Mayor Bauch said the City might have to make a survey and see what the needs are of the senior citizens. MOVED BY VAN DUSEN, SECONDED BY PESICKA, THAT THE PUBLIC TRANSPORTATIC PROBLEM BE REFERRED TO THE SENIOR CITIZENS FOR THEIR SUGGESTIONS. * Councilman Gardner said the City of Richland shares half of the taxi • fare for senior citizens. He said he did not know how satisfactory the plan had been. TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL REGUV 1 EETING October 18, 1976 Page 2 PETITIONS, COMMUNICATIONS, APPEALS AND SIMILAR MATTERS - Cont. Letter from Mayor Bauch - Funding for Valley Emergency Communications System Let er from Mayor Bauch - Archite t'ral Design of C'ty Hall Ord. #995 - Providing for the transfer of funds to City Attorney Budget Proposed Ordinance - Adopting the 1975 Edition of the Standard Specifi- cations for Municipal Public Works Construction Letter from Mayor Bauch to the Tukwila City Council was read requesting approval of a budget for the remainder of 1976 for the Valley Emergency Communications System. Tukwila's prorated.share of the budget is ten percent, which amounts to $994. MOVED BY TRAYNOR, SECONDED BY SAUL, THAT THE COUNCIL ACCEPT THE MAYOR'S RECOMMENDATION AND PAY THE CITY'S SHARE OF THE BUDGET FOR THE VALLEY EMERGENCY COMMUNICATIONS SYSTEM. * Mayor Bauch stated that this money would be paid from the Non - Departmental /Miscellaneous Fund. He further stated that the 1977 Preliminary Budget contains $22,000 for operating costs and $9,000 for capital improvements. *MOTION CARRIED. Letter from Mayor Bauch to the Tukwila City Council was read requestinc that the Council authorize Mithun and Associates to expend $20,000 toward architectural design of city hall on the site the City now owns. f o�yor Bauch stated the l ,is instructions to Mr. Mithun were to proceed the grant application. By the end of this week he will be that far, then have to stop until the grant is approved. This could take as much as 60 days and we will have lost this time toward design. Councilman Traynor stated that he has had a number of phone calls from citizens about city hall. After he explained the background to them they seemed to feel that if the City can get a grant then go ahead. He stated that it looks like this is a risk we are going to have to take if we hope to get this grant. Council President Hill said he agreed, we can't stop the architect. MOVED BY HILL, SECONDED BY MS. PESICKA, THAT THE CITY COUNCIL AUTHORIZE MITHUN AND ASSOCIATES TO EXPEND $20,000 TOWARDS THE ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN OF CITY HALL. MOTION CARRIED, WITH VAN DUSEN VOTING NO. SECOND READING OF ORDINANCES MOVED BY HILL, SECONDED BY TRAYNOR, THAT THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE BE READ BY TITLE ONLY. MOTION CARRIED. Deputy City Attorney Hard read an ordaince providing for the transfer of funds from Non - Departmental /Miscellaneous Services to City Attorney to cover increased costs and amending Budget Ordinance No. 757. MOVED BY TRAYNOR, SECONDED BY SAUL, THAT ORDINANCE NO. 995 BE ADOPTED AS READ. MOTION CARRIED, WITH MS. PESICKA AND VAN DUSEN VOTING NO. FIRST READING OF ORDINANCES Proposed Ordinance MOVED BY HILL, SECONDED BY TRAYNOR, THAT THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE BE - Adopting a READ. MOTION CARRIED. revised Comprehen- sive Street Program Deputy City Attorney Hard read an ordinance adopting a revised and extended Comprehensive Street Program in accordance with RCW 35.77. Proposed Ordinance MOVED BY HILL, SECONDED BY MS. PESICKA, THAT THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE - Setting longevity BE READ. MOTION CARRIED. benefits for the employees of the Deputy City Attorney Hard read an ordinance setting forth longevity City benefits for the employees of the City of Tukwila. MOVED BY HILL, SECONDED BY SAUL, THAT THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE BE READ BY TITLE ONLY. MOTION CARRIED. Deputy City Attorney Hard read an ordinance adopting the 1975 edition of the Standard Specifications for Municipal Public Works Construction as the code of the City of Tukwila; repealing Ordinance No. 643 and T.M.C. Chapter 13.12 and further repealing Section 14, Ordinance No. 3 and T.M.C. 14.12.160. MOVED BY HILL, SECONDED BY SAUL, THAT THIS ORDINANCE BE REFERRED TO THE COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING OF OCTOBER 25, 1976. MOTION CARRIE + n �._ COUNCIL nr + >+ r nr, �s' users t,;r,'r-r � 1.A C 1 � Y COUNCIL C�,, �, �1 ( THE MOLE HE IHO ;ctober 11, 1976 Page 3 DISCUSSION_- Cont. Bonds 7 cont. the City's special "savings funds ". Also, as the City's assessed valuation increases over the years, the percentage of clebi: encumbered by bonds decreases and becomes less expensive. The disadvantages relate to how many dollars the City actually has for debt service and how secure are those dollars. Although it is almost certain that the half -cent sales tax revenue will not be completely abolished, cities may be faced with some kind of redistribution in the future, for example. President Hill stated he requested this information on the Agenda in order to tentatively finance the underground and street improve- ments programs over a two -year period and the construction of a community center as soon as City Hall is underway. Councilman Gardner was excused from the Council meeting at 10:35 p.m. Longevity benefits Mayor Bauch related the history of longevity benefits established for City employees - by the Council through the budget ordinances. The proposed ordinance proposed ordinance applies only to the U.S.T.M.E. group and department heads as union .employees have this provision in their contracts. Council President Hill stated the Council proposes to amend the ordinance to limit the maximum amount of longevity allowance to $50 per month effective January 1, 1977 and that any new employee hired after January 1, 1977 shall not be eligible to receive longevity benefits. He stated once the salary and job classification plan is adopted, time in service will be evaluated and compensated for automatically. Discussion of the proposed limitations continued. MOVED BY TRAYNOR, SECONDED BY PESICKA, TO AMEND THE PROPOSED ORDINANC;d TO READ AS FOLLOWS, FOLLOWING THE LAST LINE ENDING "($60.00 per. year "Longevity benefits shall be limited to a maximum amount of $50.00 per month ($600.00 per year), effective January 1; 1977. All new employees hired by the City after January 1, 1977 shall not be eligible fornorentitled to longevity benefits under these provi- sions." AND THAT THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE AS AMENDED BY ON THE NEXT REGULAR CITY COUNCIL AGENDA. CARRIED. McAbee property 0 ezone of Desimon property Councilman Van Dusen stated he has become aware that the property owners are now not ready to sell to the City due to some conflict. Mayor Bauch stated the City had been given the impression that the property owners were willing to sell but now it appears in order to get the property, the City would have to condemn each parcel. He stated he has stopped negotiating, with the owners. The Council agreed there seems to be no reason to continue negotiations. MOVED BY VAN DUSEN, SECONDED BY SAUL, THAT THE PURCHASE OF THE MC AB PROPERTY BE TABLED UNTIL FURTHER DEVELOPMENTS, AND THAT A RESOLUTIO BE DRAWN FOR TIIE NEXT REGULAR COUNCIL•MEETING REPEALING RESOLUTION 530 WHICH AUTHORIZED THE MAYOR TO NEGOTIATE FOR AND TO ACQUIRE PRO- PERTY FOR PARK PURPOSES. CARRIED. The Council and Mayor discussed the possibility of taking the optio to purchase the Foster Park property and property located to the South as provided under the current lease agreement. Councilman Traynor stated he felt that the seven members of the Planning Commission have considered this item and have given their opinion to the City Council. The City Council is responsible to the people of this City and he felt that his opinion as a City Coun member is as great or even greater in significance than that of a Planning Coi m iss•ion member. Several members of the Council felt tit Des 1u orie property would be a good choice for a co ilruun i Ly center which would also require a PF zoning classification. • 1 OVED RY SAM., SECONDED BY TRAYNOR, TO TABLE DISCUSSION OF THIS 11 TO 1111: !E XT CUi•ii-fI 1l L: OF THE MOLL, 1•:' ll 1NG AS ITFM 1 ON THE AGENDA C \RRJFD. n CITY �,n• c M OF THE H MEETING �►�,;�� ,.1Tr ,.,,:i�,,,tl_ co��,�1► <�:_ O , WHOLE October 11, 1976 Page 2 1 J - Cont. .' i Hall Space cgs Study - ►thun Associates, r. Omer Mithun & lifer. Tom Emrich DISCUS` C iV RECESS 4. Counci lnrati c and general obligation bonds - Mr. Ron McLaughlin, Foster & Marshall, Inc. iir. Mithun stated the Counci 1 has had the opportunity to review the Study and he mould l i k e feedback from them on the various concepts. Councilman Van Dusen asked what percentage has been built into the building for personnel expansion. Mr. Mithun stated there have been some provisions.made for specific future employee positions not • presently filled and space has been provided for those functions, but no percentage has been included for general expansion. He stated this allowance is very critical since it usually expands from planned estimates at the time of construction. He stated the term "office" applied to an area of floor space and not to a physical place enclose by a wall. Councilwoman Pesicka stated, if the grant is approved for Site 6, she was concerned about the view from the street of City Hall, that it should not appear as a box building surrounded by blacktop. She would like a natural setting for the "town square" effect. Mr. Mithun explained that with the use of small trees and other plants and utilizing berms to hide parking areas, the building site could .be as attractive to look upon as it will be to look out of. Councilman Van Dusen asked if the architect was aware that the City Council has not approved Site ,6 as the selected site yet. Mr. Mithun replied yes, they are holding off with the plans with the exception of those being submitted for grant purposes until they are instructed to proceed. Various questions were addressed to Mr. Mithun and Mr. Tom Emrich regarding departmental space needs as proposed. Storage space and conference rooms were felt to be insufficient as proposed. Functions; of the Council /Court Chambers were discussed. Council President Hill] asked when the sketches would be available for review. Kjell Stoknes OCD Director, stated the architect is putting together schematics 'lbw" for the grant application. These sketches will not lock the Council into adhering to them when plans for construction are begun. Mr. Mithun stated if the grant is approved, they should have a firm idea of what the plans will be for actual construction in order to begin within the 90 days as stipulated by the grant provisions. The grant application includes some specific answers to costs and they have estimated this at $58 per square foot for the 20,000 sq. ft. buildin Council President Hill thanked Mr. Mithun and Mr. Emrich for con- sulting with the Council. Mr. Mithun requested that the Council ,consider site selection just as soon as possible; he stated the moreA lead time the firm had for design, the more satisfactory the design would be. MOVED BY PESICKA, SECONDED BY SAUL, TO PROCEED WITH THE AGENDA. Council President Hill called for a five minute recess at 9:50 p.m. #. Council President Hill called the meeting back to order with all Council Members present at 10:00 p.►n. Mr. McLaughlin explained that 71/2% of the City's assessed valuation ($307 million) is allowed for sale of general obligation bonds, as follows: 21/2% for general purposes, 21/2% for utility purposes and 2 for green space. Each 21% classification equals $7 million bonding capacity. In addition to the general obligation bonds are council matic bonds which are not subject to voter approval. These are bas upon the amount of operating levy in the City and up to 3/4% of the assessed valuation (or $21 million) may be issued for any capital purpose. This debt service has to be paid from the operating levy or other City funds; it cannot be paid from the excess levy. Counci rnatic bonds are used most often for non- revenue generating projects. The advantages of using the bonding capacity for projects in the Ci t are than these projects can be c:impleted and used immediately and the financial obligation will be repaid over a period of years in the future. the amount: of debt service is fixed and is not subject to erosion by continual increases in labor and materials costs ,is are CITY OF TUB K JILA COMMITTEE, THE WHOLE MEETING September 27, 1976 Page 3 DISCUSSION - Contd. Memo from Kjell ' Stoknes, OCD, New bldg. at Seattle Rendering Works Independent Water Social Security - Fire Fighters Aduit - 1975 McAdoo Lawsuit A.W.C. Regional Meeting �r Kjell Stoknes, Director of Community Development, stated he had conferred with the City Attorney about the new building Seattle Rendering Works had indicated they wanted to build. Ho said he had been requested by the City Council to interpret the legal status of ' the grandfather clause and the M -1 zoning category as-it would relat to a new building and also the time frame until a building permit could issue. He said the rendering works is an allowed use in a M -1 zone, hence the grandfather clause question is mute. He said this was his opinion and also that of Assistant City Attorney Hard. The City issued a permit in 1972 for a new plant. This permit was honored by the City with no attempt to recind it. By this action thi City has committed to the fact that rendering is an allowed use in an M -1 zone and Seattle Rendering has acted in good faith and made considerable investments on this assumption. To do other than treat it as an allowed use would open the:;City to a sizeable damage suit. The implementation and interpretation of local codes is an administrative function and therefore should the Council feel this use should not be allowed in an M -1 zone, they should direct the Planning Commission and Staff to undertake an amendment to the zonini ordinance to this effect. With respect to the timing for a building permit to be issued it would begin at such a time as the applicant submits to the City a shoreline permit application. With the assump. tion it is received by September 30, 1976 and all of the permits are approved by the various agencies construction on a new plant could begin on March 1, 1977. Council President Hill stated he felt the Council should direct the Staff to draft an ordinance setting forth the restrictions in the M -1 zoning, to be presented at the Committee of the Whole Meeting on October 11, 1976 for the Council's review. Councilman Traynor said he thought the matter should be brought before the Planning Commission for review. Council President Hill said he thought there should be a time limit of 90 days on the reque Co. Councilman Van Dusen said he was concerned about a letter directed.t the City stating this company had a claim of $24,000 for improvement to the Independent Water Company. He said the letter had been answ- ered'by the City Attorney denying the claim. Mayor Bauch said it was a bill Miss Nelson would have to pay and the City was not liable for payment. Council President Hill stated in accordance with the vote taken by the Fire Fighters the City Council had directed administration to withdraw them from Social Security. He said he would like the Administrative Assistant to get information about three or four plans where their money could be invested. Councilman Pesicka said she felt the Fire Fighters should come to the City Council seeking approval of the plan they wanted. Mayor Bauch said the Fire Fighter had said they wanted a plan that the City would administer for them. Councilman Traynor said he had been curious as to why the City has not had an audit. He said he thought they came in automatically one a year. Councilman Traynor said the lawsuit with McAdoo would be held Wednesday, September 29, 1976. Mayor Bauch said the A.W.C. Regional Meetings were scheduled for. Auburn on October 26 and Bellevue on October 27. He stated they would like to know how many are going to attend. The dinner part of the meeting will start at 6:30 P.M. He said there would be a meetir prior to the dinner in Auburn regarding women in government. Mayor Bauch said the meeting would be concerned with legislation that is coming up. He said the Suburban Mayor's meeting will be next week c October 6 in Issaquah. Mayor Bauch said the City Council had received a letter from Mr. Stoknes reporting on the Planning Commission meeting with respect tc the Desimone property. He said the hearing was at his request. He said the City Council would have to direct him to appeal. He had applied for the rezone to get it moving. Councilman Traynor said hE CITY OF TUKWILA1 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING - September 27, 1976 Page 4 DISCUS N Contd. Desimone Proper - Contd. Open Space Definition ADJOURNMENT 10:35 P.M. would like to know who was present at the Planning Commission meeting as the minutes he received did not contain that informatior Mr. Stokries stated who had been present and said he had made copies of the part involving the property for the City Council. Councilmi Van Dusen said the•Planning Corrunission reports to the Council and for that reason he did not attend their meetings, also he did not want to influence their vote. Councilman Saul said the City Counc used to have a representative attend the meetings, but they were a non - voting member. Frank Todd, audience, asked if the City Council had heard from the Planning Commission as to the definition of open space. Mr. Stokni said there had not been a time limit on the request and the Plannil Commission had tabled the matter until the first of the year. MOVED BY SAUL, SECONDED BY VAN DUSEN, THAT THE COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING ADJOURN. MOTION CARRIED. Norma Booher, Recording Secretary PARKS d RECREATION PLANNING BUILDING C.' MEMORANDUM C9 ITV of Tukwia..A OFFICE of COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 27 September 1976 TO: Tukwila City Council FROM: Kjell Stoknes SUBJECT: Desimone Property rezone request to PF The Planning Commission considered the above referenced subject at a public hearing at their regular meeting of September 23,; 1976, and after considerable discussion denied the rezone request unanimously.` Please find attached a copy of the relevant preliminary minutes of that meeting, Commissioner Bohrer's letter which was read into the minutes, acopy of the relevant portion of the pending comprehensive plan referred to in Commissioner Richard's motion and the final environmental impact statement. Should the City Council wish this matter appealed to bring it before them, a motion directing the Mayor to appeal should be made since he represents the City in these types of matters. KS /cw Attachments Dear Ron, Ronald Mettler, Chairman Tukwila Planning Commission 14800 Interurban Avenue South Tukwila, Washington 98188 SEP 131976 D CITY OF TUKWILA September 10, 1976 Subject: Proposed Rezone of Desimone Property to P.F. Because of by vacation plans established more than a year ago, I will miss the regular September meeting of the planning commission and the public hearing on the subject rezone. The issue is of sufficient importance and the circumstances so unique that I want to express my thoughts to you and the commissioners. I have reviewed the draft Environmental Impact Statement, attended the City Council discussions and will review the planning staff report and recommendations. Should the latter report significantly alter my views, I will call you or Kjell Stokness prior to the hearing. My findings on the rezone and proposed city hall construction are as follows: 1. City construction on the Desimone site would eliminate viable residential property from the in- ventory. 2. Increased traffic on surrounding streets would increase noise and congestion and increase traffic hazards to children attending the nearby elementary school. 3. Transporting law offenders through the residential area is unnecessary and undesirable as noted by the Chief of Police, John Sheets. The number of meetings at the current city hall which nave been disturbed by the noise of depositing such offenders is testimony in support of this argument. -2- cc: Kjell Stoknes Director of Community Development 4. Water service at the site is marginal as noted in Section III B 3, p. 13 of the draft EIS. 5. This rezone would stimulate other rezone requests for office and commercial uses supportive of this public facility. Approval of such rezones and construction would heighten the negative impacts of this rezone; disapproval would lessen the effectiveness of the facility and generate further traffic - neither alternative is appealing. 6. The Mithun Associates, architects for the city hall, have recommended an alternative site for many of the above reasons. Although they also stated the Desimone site would (a) increase construction cost because of the rocky soil and multi - building concept envisioned there; and (b) increase heating costs due to the low incidence of solar energy, these cost impacts have not been quantified and shown to be inconsequential. 7. Plans are currently in being for location of a Community Center at another site. Co- location of this facility at the Desimone site is undesirable. 8. City Hall location at this site is incompatible with Objective 1 and Policies 3 and 4 thereof of the new Tukwila Comprehensive Plan, now in preparation. These policies and objectives have been tentatively approved by the planning commission and the city council. 9. Location of the city hall at the Desimone site may improve citizen access in comparison to the alternative sites. In conclusion, the negative aspects of the proposed rezone and construc- tion far out -weigh the positive ones. In my judgement, location of City Hall at the Desimone site is not in the best interests of the safety and general welfare of the residents. Furthermore, a suitable alternative site is available to the city. Should the subject come to a decision in my absence, I hereby register my vote in opposition to the proposed rezone. Truly yours, 4 f° i`% Lionel C. Bohrer Member, Position #4 Tukwila Planning Commission SECTION 1: NEIGHBORHOOD OBJECTIVES AND POLICIES OBJECTIVE 1. PROTECT ALL VIABLE RES.TDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOODS FROM INTRUSIONS BY INCOMPATIBLE LAND USES. When intensive uses intrude into established residential areas, they tend to undermine the quality of that neighborhood by creating adverse environmental, visual, aesthetic and property tax impacts on surrounding resi- dential properties. Of course, some residential areas in Tukwila are in a transition from residential to non - residential use, and the homes which still remain in these urbanizing areas represent only temporary residential use. But, in viable, established residential areas, it is the intent of this objective to keep intensive, disruptive land uses from undermining the quality of life. Policy 3. Utilize natural features, like topography, to separate incompatible 'land uses.from the residential areas. 1 Probably the most important kind of buffer between.incom- patible land uses is not merely space ( "The further I am from that nuisance, the better! "), but the appearance of visual separation. For example, topography can make an extremely effective buffer even though it may not separate incompatible uses by more than 30 -50 feet in elevation. The illusion that is created is separation, and it allows one to live with what is below or above, on the other side or just around the corner. Another example is the Green River. The wide expanse of river, the.drama of constantly moving waters, and the seasonal ebb and flow of the river level seems to magnify the . importance of the river and diminishes the disaffinity between shoreline uses. By utilizing natural features to separate incompa- tible land uses, the City ensures the integrity of its residential areas while creating an efficient land use pattern. Policy 2. Utilize open spaces, like parks and playfields to separate incompatible land uses from the residential areas. Land uses which have an open space nature can also function as buffers between residential areas and incompatible uses. Parks, playfields, and other public or private recreational areas are a few examples of recreational open space which serve to harmonize diver- gent districts in the land use pattern. Other uses, however, which . are not of a recreational character but have a permanent open space character can also function to separate residential areas from incom- patible land uses. Recommended by P/C 2/26/ 3 -3 City Counci 1 Motion 76 -3 Intent to Adopt 4/5/76 Policy 3. Prohibit spot zoning in established .residential cighborhoods. l Spot zoning may be defined as the creation of a more intensive zoning district within another zone which permits uses that are incompatible with the parent zone. An example might be an industrial or commercial building in the heart of a single - family residential district. As far as zoning is concerned, there are basically two ways to erode the quality of a residential area: one is by permitting incompatible land uses to jump into the neighborhood through spot zoning, or to allow incompatible uses to eat away at the edges of the neighborhood by failing to establish zoning buffers. Of the two, spot zoning is quicker. Policy 4. Vehicular traffic to commercial, office or industrial uses should not be through residential areas. The pleasantness of a residential neighborhood is in part protected by the nature of its streets, Generally, if traffic on residential streets is excessive, the.s'afety of the streets and abut- ting area is diminished, as is the pleasantness and quiet of the residential neighborhood. Commercial and office uses, whether public or private, generate traffic to a degree which impairs the serenity and safety of the residential neighborhood. Policy 5. Encourage the abatement of incompatible land uses in . viable residential areas. As mentioned, incompatible land uses which have encroached into viable residential areas have an injurious and degenerative impact on the neighborhood. Where it is feasible and consistent with the future plan for community growth, it may be within the interest of the community to abate the incompatible use in order to reestablish the vigor and viability of the neighborhood. This policy is intended to apply to residential areas which the community intends to maintain and protect, not to residential.areas which are in transition to other use. Policy 6. Encourage the abatement of public nuisances which pose vis- ual, health, safety, or other threats to the neighborhood. Public nuisances, like unkempt premises for instance, can be looked upon as a form of incompatible ].and use for they have adverse impacts on the quality of living within the residential neighborhood. This policy encourages the enforcement of city ordinances to "clean up" certain areas of Tukwila in order to protect the integrity of residen- tial areas. Recommended by P/C 2/26/71 3 -4 - City Council 76 -3 Intent to Adopt 4/5/76 Planning Commission Page 5 Minutes 23 September 1976 Chairman Mettler returned to the table and called a 5 minute recess at 9:45 P.M. Chairman Mettler called the meeting back to order at 9:50 P.M. IC HEARING - REZONE: R -1 -12.0 to PF (City Hall Site) Mr. Satterstrom read the Staff Report and a letter from Commissioner Bohrer (absent from this meeting) dated 13 September 1976 which related his conclusions regarding this subject. (A copy of the letter is attached as a part of these minutes.) Mr. Stoknes stated he had conferred with the City Attorney regarding the fact that two of the Commissioners had signed a petition objecting to the location of city hall at this site. It was the conclusion of the City Attorney that such an action does not violate the Appearance of Fairness Doctrine and does not con- stitute a conflict of interest. Therefore, those Commissioners that signed the petition are wholly eligible to participate and vote in this decision process. Mr. Stoknes further noted that the rezone issue is a very important one and should be considered on its merit from a sound planning standpoint and not as a simple administrative function under the direction of the City Council. Chairman Mettler opened the public hearing at 10:00 P.M. Ms. Louise'Strander, 15000 - 57th Avenue South, asked if the study completed by the Planning Commission a few years ago was as conclusive as the recent Environ- mental Impact Statement (EIS). Mr. Link noted that much of the information in the EIS was also contained in the Commission's 1972 study. Mr. Ken Harris, 14301 Interurban Avenue, stated his agreement with the Staff's conclusions and recommendation. Noted that visibility of a new city hall should be an essential factor in the location decision. It should be located to both provide identity for the City and make it easy for the businessmen to find it since they use it more than anyone else. Ms. JoAnn Davis, 5906 - 59th Avenue South, stated the decision of where to put city hall has historically been a political football. As recent as the fall of 1975, 6 of 7 Councilmembers favored the Southcenter Boulevard site. Also noted that considerable vacant land is near that site to allow more expansion. Mr. Dwight Gardner, 14112 - 57th Avenue South, stated he has concluded from his observations that 90% of all the people that utilize City Hall are business re- lated or are from out of town. Suggested it be placed where it can be seen. There being no further audience comments, Chairman Mettler closed the public hearing at 10:20 P.M. 1 Planning Commission Page 6 Minutes 23 September 1976 Mr. Link referred to notes of a Planning Commission work meeting conducted 28 March 1972 and noted the several criteria used to evaluate 10 different sites. Most of the Commission's criteria were echoed in those used recently by the architects for this site. Pointed out that the Commission's rating in 1972 placed the subject site in the lower half of the 10 sites considered. Referring to several newspaper articles and City Council minutes, noted the location of city hall has been dragging ever since the recommendation of the Commission was presented to the Council in February of 1974. Mr. Richards noted that Objective 1 and policies 3 and 4 thereof of the Resi- dence Element of the Comprehensive Plan, which has been reviewed by the Plan- ning Commission and received a formal intention to adopt by the City Council, explicitly discourages the location of such uses in a residential neighbor- hood. In addition, there has been some indication that the subject site is desirable for city hall because it is large enough to support a community center. Yet the 1976 Park Plan, recently reviewed by the Commission and adopted by the City Council, indicates a site far removed from the subject property. The Chief of Police has indicated in a letter included in the EIS that the transportation of law offenders through the residential neighborhood is both undesirable and unnecessary. The EIS identifies several unmitigated impacts and alternatives with lesser impacts. The plans and policies referred to have been created, reviewed, altered and adopted to provide a tool to use in a decision - making process such as this and the Planning Commission, at least, should adhere to them. Based on the conclusions stated above and the findings and conclusions contained in the Staff Report, Mr. Richards moved to deny the rezone. Motion was seconded by Mr. West and carried unanimously. OTHER BUSINESS Letter, Segale Business Park Mr. Crutchfield read a letter from Segale Business Park requesting reconsidera- tion of the Commission's stipulation of approval on their Project 763 which related to the screening of roof - mounted equipment. Mr. George Hull, Segale Business Park, stated it was unclear as to whether or not screening is required where roof - mounted equipment cannot be seen from the adjacent roadways. After some discussion regarding the intent of this particular restriction, it was concluded that it was intended to require screening of roof - mounted equipment where it otherwise would be visible to a person of average height from the oppo- site side of adjacent streets. CITY OF TUKWILA PLANNING DIVISION PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT 23 September 1976 8:00 P.M. AGENDA ITEM VII B : PUBLIC HEARING - Desimone Rezone, R.1 to P -F REQUEST: Rezone APPLICANT: City of Tukwila LOCATION: Southwest corner of South 151st and 65th Avenue South PRESENT ZONING: R -1 -12.0 (Single - family) REQUESTED ZONING: P -F (Public Facility) COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Multiple- Family Residential BACKGROUND DATA: 1. On 7 June 1976, the City Council chose the Desimone property as the site for city hall. 2. On 14 June 1976, the City Council directed the administration to seek a change of zoning on the Desimone property to permit city hall to be built on the site. 3. On 14 June 1976, the City Council directed the Planning Director to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement in -house on the rezone if it was required by the Responsible Official. 4. On 26 July 1976, the Responsible Official declared that an. E.I.S. was required. 5. A draft E.I.S. was issued on August 9th and circulated for 35 days. A final E.I.S. was completed and issued on September 15, 1976. FINDINGS: 1. The existing zoning of the Desimone property is single - family residential, R -1 -12.0. This zoning allows one family dwellings, parks, golf ranges and clubhouses, farms, and greenhouses. R.1 zoning does not allow government offices. 2. The Public Facility (P -F) zone allows public and private schools, hospitals, libraries, parks, auditoriums, public meeting halls, and government offices. Planning Commission Page 2 Staff Report 23 September 1976 3. The existing Comprehensive Plan designates the subject site for Multiple - Family Residential. 4. The property lying to the north of the Desimone site is designated for single - family residential use on the existing Comprehensive Plan. 5. Adjacent properties to the west and south, and lands lying to the north of the Desimone site are zoned R -1 (single - family). Properties across 65th Avenue South to the east are zoned R -4. 6. No direct physical imapcts are anticipated as a result of the proposed zoning change from R.1 to P -F. 7. The change in zoning is expected to have only minor direct impacts on the human environment. 8. As a result of the secondary action, i.e., the city hall construction itself, several impacts to the natural environment are expected. They are as follows: a . b. c . d. e . The topography on a portion of the site will necessarily be altered, the magnitude of which is dependent on the size of the facility. Existing tree cover will be reduced in proportion to facility size. A reduction in wildlife habitat will occur as a result of devegetation. The rate of storm water runoff will increase while runoff water quality will decrease. The ambient noise level of the site will increase. 9. Several impacts to the human environment are anticipated as a result of city hall. They are as follows: a. The residence on the site will be displaced by 50 - 75 employees who will work at the site. b. Traffic volumes on South 151st Street and 65th Avenue South will increase. • c. The surrounding area may experience a proclivity toward other supporting office and /or commercial uses. d. Discouragement of further single - family development in the vicinity. 10. The alternatives to the proposed action which were considered in the E.I.S. were: a. No action; b. Locating city hall at existing Southcenter Boulevard (Annex) site; or on c. "Site #5" west of 1 -5 freeway at South 154th Street and 53rd Avenue South. Planning Commission Page 3 Staff Report 23 September 1976 CONCLUSIONS: 1. It appears that the proposed rezoning of the Desimone site to P -F is not in conformance with the existing Comprehensive Plan since this area is desig- nated Multiple - Family Residential. 2. The rezoning of the Desimone site to P -F may in fact make the area to the north less desirable for single - family residences, even though the existing plan designates this area for such use. 3. Impacts to the natural environment caused by the construction of a city hall on the subject site would not be significant. 4. Increased vehicular traffic on South 151st Street and 65th Avenue South would reduce the safety of these streets. 5. Increased vehicular traffic on the above mentioned streets would also increase noise, resulting in a loss of quietness associated with living in the surrounding residential neighborhood. 6. The location of a city hall on the Desimone site may create a need for support -type uses, like offices and certain commercial uses, which may not be compatible with desired future land use in this area. 7. Alternatives sites are available for city hall which have lesser adverse impacts associated with them. RECOMMENDATION: The location of city hall on the Desimone property has become a highly contro- versial issue in the last several months. It is the belief of Staff that much of this controversy is directly related to the land use issue of locating city hall in a residential neighborhood. The benefits to the community of consoli- dating all city departments under one roof on one site are well -known and par- amount, but the actual location of this facility may be the most important question of all. Based on the Findings and Conclusions enumerated above (which . seem to point to the fact that undesirable land use trends may be precedented by placing city hall on the Desimone property), Staff recommends that the Com- mission deny the zone change. 23 September 1976 (date) NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING Notice is hereby given that the Tukwila PLANNING COMMISSION will conduct a PUBLIC HEARING on the above date at City Hall, 14475- 59th Avenue South, to consider a REZONE, from R -1 -12.0 (Single - family) to'PF (Public Facilities), on a parcel of property approximately .5 acres•in size . generally located at the southwest corner of the intersection of South 151st street and 65th Avenue South. CITY OF TUKWILA • Published in the Renton Record - Chronicle on 8 P ' M. (time) All interested persons.are encouraged to appear and be heard. Hans West, Secretary Tukwila Planning Commission For further information contact Fred Satterstrom at 242 -2177. 8 and, 15 September 1976.. Affidavit of Publication STATE OF WASHINGTON COUNTY OF KING Barbara C8rn1D rna ss. being first duly sworn on oath, deposes and says that S is the chief clerk 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 .I1X0•t tea •••0•f•••P•U}J,L�.� as it was published in regular issues (and not in supplement form of said newspaper) once each issue for a period of tuo consecutive issues, commencing on the 8 day of Sap.t.emb.er ,19747 , and ending the ...15.. day of September ,19. 76, 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 812..34 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. V.P.C. Form No. 87 Subscribed and sworn to before me this • 15 day of ae.p t Am e r : 419 76 y, 3 Notary Public in and for the State of ashington, i residing at Kent, mg 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. t . ei h; p,c; �� : ITY OF TUKWILA COMMITTEE OFTHE WHOLE MEETING September 13, 1976 Page 4 DISCUSSION -, Contd. ✓ty Hall site selection Space requirement study for Tukwila City Hall submitted by Mithun Assoc. Job descriptions from Prior & Assoc. Ltr. Steve Hall to Mayor Bauch re revision to curb markings for Metro Bus Zones LID 25 right -of -way Social Security - Fire Fighters ADJOURNIP''tI T 11:05 P.M. Norma Booher, ecording Secretary C Steve.Hall, Director of Public Works, stated the appropriations bil: for the building grants had passed the Senate and the grants may soon be available. He said the Mayor had requested him to attend a meeting on September 23 at which time he would receive additional information. Council President Hill requested Steve Hall make a report after the meeting and the City would then request a grant. MOVED BY SAUL, SECONDED BY MS. PESICKA, THAT THIS DISCUSSION BE TABLED UNTIL THENEXT MEETING OF THE COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE. CARRIE. Council President Hill said he would like three members of the City Council to go over the job descriptions and bring the information back to the City Council. MOVED BY MS. PESICKA, SECONDED BY MS: HARRIS, THAT THE FINANCE AND PERSONNEL COMMITTEE REVIEW THE JOB DESCRIPTIONS FROM THE PRIOR & ASSOCIATES STUDY AND REPORT BACK TO THE CITY COUNCIL WITHIN THIRTY DAYS. CARRIED. Councilman Saul sai there would be a meeting of the Finance and Personnel Committee at 12 noon on September 21 to consider the job descriptions. Council President Hill read letter from Steve Hall, Public Works Director, to Mayor Bauch stating in conjunction with the current Metro plan for standardizing bus stops that an ordinance be drawn•u similar to theordinance passed by the City of Seattle. MOVED BY VAN DUSEN, SECONDED BY SAUL, THAT AN ORDINANCE SIMILAR TO THE SEATTLE ORDINANCE REGARDING REVISION TO CURB MARKINGS BE ON THE AGENDA FOR THE NEXT CITY COUNCIL MEETING. CARRIED. Steve Hall,-Director of Public Works, said Mr. Wells and his attorney would like to talk to the City Council again regarding LID 25 right -of -way. MOVED BY HILL, SECONDED BY VAN DUSEN, THAT STEVE HALL INFORM MR. WELLS THE CITY COUNCIL HAS NOT CHANGED THEIR POSITION ANDIF HE WOULD LIKE TO NEGOTIATE WITH MR. HARD, CITY ATTORNEY, HE MAY DO SO. CARRIED. Sam Ruljanich, representing Tukwila Fire Fighters, stated the Fire Department had unanimously voted not to apply for Social Security. He said they would like the City Attorney to draw up a letter advi- sing OASI to stop payments. Council President Hill said he would like tosee a letter from the Fire Department stating an election was held, how many voted and which way they voted. He continued the FireFighters would have to get together with the City as to what they want done with the funds they will have coming back to them. He said it was possible the City Council might come back with a counter- proposal as to what they think should be done with these funds. MOVED BY VAN DUSEN, SECONDED BY SAUL, THAT THE COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING ADJOURN. CARRIED. City of Tukwila Resolution No. 489 Interim Land Use Council Directive: n. August 18, 1975 Notice to Applicants for a Rezone, Comprehensive Plan Amendment, Actions with significant negative environmental impacts, or development in areas of natural hazards. Summary: Resolution No. 489 of the City of Tukwila directs that no applications for a rezone or comprehensive plan amendment shall be accepted or processed by the City until a new Land Use Policy Plan is completed and adopted. This also applies to certain actions which are precedent setting, have signi- ficant negative environmental effects or in areas of natural limitations. Section 4 of the attached resolution specifies which actions' are affected. Duration: This resolution will be effective until the first regular council meeting in July, 1976, after which the City Council will consider the extension or repeal of its provisions. Should a new comprehensive plan be adopted prior to this date, the resolution will automatically be void. Waiver: Provisions are included in Section 5 of the resolution for an applicant to request a waiver upon the showing of facts and other evidence as specified in forms available from the City. Procedure: Attached is an application form to request a waiver of the provisions of this resolution. The City Council will review your request pursuant to Section 5 of Resolution No. 489. Prior to being presented to the City Council, the Planning Department will prepare a staff report with a recommendation based on an analysis of the following type of criteria: 1. Is the proposed action consistent with the presently emerging Land Use Policy Plan? 2. Does the proposed action represent a unique condition which is insignificant in scale and to which no other apparent alternatives are reasonable? 3. If the request for waiver involves grading, excavation, filling or development in geographical areas identified as having potential natural limitations for development, are mitigating measures provided? 4. Do the requirements contained in Resolution No. 489 impose a special hardship to a site for which a waiver of the provisions would not necessitate a major policy committment prior to the adoption of the Land Use.Policy Plan? Mailing Address: CITY OF TUKWILA APPLICATION FOR WAIVER From the Provisions of Resolution Number 489 (Please type or print) Date of Application: Name of Applicant: C ;4 o epA4 cl 'Up City:; /q Zip: Ownership Interest in Property: Legal Description of Property Affected: z kN ° aM. A- 4 etI•VLOv, General Location of Property: f3 fit/ acni--rk,--7' ___444,4 1' 5 -111 4 v/A A.Q. . 1. s�4.�,n? P 2. Describe specifically the action you are mation about the development, site maps, Phone: Z %2 — 2/ S C) • Po e ezA et ae.y- 51S1st SY, State specifically the action in Resolution No. 489, Section 4 to which you are requesting a waiver: �e3� re se7d1490 f proposing, including dimensional infor- etc., if available: 3. What is your justification for your request: (Please refer to items 1 -fjon the cover sheet and respond to them.) h6g-ti,V;t1if;-4, V1Cr tions, etc.): 0 Date Received Received by: Date of City Council Action: Date scheduled before City Council: Action of City Council: • C� /1 650 ske, e- (attach additional sheet, if necessary) 4. What other factual evidence is relevant to your request for waiver (such as exist- ing development in he vicinity of your property, soils and geolo'ic investij (Attach any other information available which substantiates your request) (for office use only) 7//19/7 re RESOLUTION HO. , " A RESOLUTION of the City Council of the City of Tukwila acknowledging that the Comprehensive Plan for the City of Tukwila no longer reflects currently held values of the community in regard to planning and land use development; recognizing the necessity of establishing a new land use policy plan or comprehensive plan; and declaring a proposed interim policy. WHEREAS, the comprehensive plan still in existence for the City of Tukwila was adopted prior to the enactment of the Washington State Environmental Policy Act and City of Tukwila Ordinance No. 759 relating to environmental policy, and; fli RR .S, it is clear that the comprehensive plan for the City of Tukwila no longer entirely reflects currently held values of the community, its legislative body or the currently recognized state of the art of planning and community development, and; WHEREAS, it is necessary, as well as required, by the State Environmental Policy Act to review the land use plans and planning processes of the City of Tukwila to assure that the land use plan, its goals and policies are consistent with the mandate of the Environmental Policy Act and the currently held values of the total community; NOW, THEMPORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Tukwila City Council as follows: Section 1: The City Council finds that the present comprehensive plan which indicates public land use policy is no longer adequate to provide guidance for fixture decision snaking and land use management. Section 2: The City Council further finds that such plan is not'related to clearly established goals and objectives for community development, nor is there •_ present consensus or understanding about the consequences of development actions - based on such plan. Section 3s The City Council directs that all segments of the city, includ— ing the City Council, its advisory bodies and the administration work together toward the identification and establishment of goals and policies consistent with the environ• mental mandate contained in the Environmental Policy Act, and with the currently held values of the community in order that a new land use plan may be prepared and adopted for the City of Tukwila. Section 4c The City Council further declares that until such time as anew land use policy plan can be prepared and adopted, the following actions are found to be those which current land use plans do not adequately address with standards and. criteria. There is not sufficient understanding and, consensus of the consequences of such actions upon present community values and future goals and resources. Therefore, the City Council directs that no application requesting any of the following actions shall be accepted or processed by the City unt81 completion and adoption of a new . land use policy plan: A. Any rezone application, except a rezone from one single family residential classification to another single family residential classification. B. Comprehensive Land"Use Plan amendments. C. Those land use actions which, subsequent•to the preparation of an Environmental Assessment or Environmental Impact Statement pursuant to the State Environmental Policy Act are found by the City Council to: 1B P 1. recedent setting. 2. Contain significant environmental impacts which will not be mitigated. • g ading, clear ing, exca -ion or filling Which axe: Section 5: Any proponent sponsor for an action identified in Section 4 above may appeal the provisions of this policy to the City Council and present evidenceP or other materials or findings to request a waiver of the provisions of this policy. Upon appeal, the city Planning Department shall recommend, and the City Council shall decide whether to permit an application to be filed and processed with the appropriate city department or departments. The City Council will at such time consider only the question of whether or not there should be a waiver of the policy herein adopted. Such action by the City Council shall in no tray prejudge the substantive merits of the proposed action. If it is determined necessary or advisable, the City Council may conduct a public hearing prior to reaching a decision on any waiver request as to the provisions of this resolution. Notice for a public hearing shall be given at the . applicant's expense in a manner prescribed by Chapter 18.92 of the Tukwila Municipal Code, Ordinance 251, as amended. /Section 6: The City Clerk is directed to file a copy of the resolution with every department and advisory or administrative board for the City of Tukwila. Section 7: This resolution and the policy herein adopted shall be brought before the City Council for its review and reconsideration at the first regular council meeting in July, 1976. Section 84. This resolution becomes effective thirty (30) days after passage Any application for a building permit on file with the City 30 days subsequent to passage of this resolution is exempt from the provisions of this policy.. PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OP TiJKWILA, WASHINGTON, at a regular % day of C.Gll�l/ /.Q.� � � 1975. 1. Located in an area t•rith average slopes in excess of 25%. 2. Located in a geographical area identified by governmental or quasi - governmental agencies as having: (a) Naturally unstable, unstable when Modified, Or in areas of known landslides. (b) Areas which serve to naturally detain significant amounts of stoma water run -off. 3. Served by inadequate water, sewer, storm drainage or trans- portation systems unless such action proposes the improve— ment ment of any deficient system to minimum city standards and at the expense of the private sponsor. Mayor Date Approved (Not approved by the Mayor.) 10 August 1976 Dear Mr. Mithun: Sir/ere-1y, CITY of TUKWILA 6230 SOUTHCENTER BLVD. TU KW I LA, WASH I N GTO N 98067 DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Omer Mithun Mithun Associates 2000 - 112th Avenue NE Bellevue, Washington 98004 Enclosed is a copy of the City Hall Site Analysis evaluation of the Desimone and City Annex sites which your firm did for the City of Tukwila. This same type of evaluation would be useful on the site west of the I -5 freeway on South 154th Street for inclusion in the final EIS on the Tukwila City Hall. We felt that the only ones capable of rating.this site according to the specified criteria was yourself. Thank you for your anticipated cooperation in this matter. Fred N. Satterstrom Associate Planner FNS /cw Encl: as Liar Bauch, Mayor 9 � Y 9 August 1976 CITY OF TUKWILA PLANNING DIVISION CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT REQUEST: Waiver from Resolution #489 for Rezone (MF #76 -22 -R) PETITIONER: City of Tukwila PROPERTY LOCATION: Southwest corner of South 151st Street and 65th Avenue South The City of Tukwila is requesting a waiver from Resolution #489 to allow the City to apply for rezone of a single - family residential piece of property to a public facility designation in order to construct approximately a 20,000 square foot City Hall facility. The procedures of Resolution #489 require Planning Division analysis of four criteria. That analysis is provided below. 1. Is the proposed action consistent with the presently emerging Land Use Policy Plan? STAFF COMMENTS: The following goals and /or policies relate to the above criteria: General Goal 6 "Attain a balance in the land use patter of the Community." (Does the placement of a City Hall complex provide a balance in the land use pattern ?) Element Goal 3.3 "Assure an adequate and diversified housing supply within the residential community." (This property presently is shown on the Comprehensive Plan as being a transition property between multiple - family and single - family. As such, it would be a property that could provide a diversified housing supply in that its density would be less than apartment and probably higher than regular single - family. The use of this property for other than residential purposes reduces the option of providing more diversified housing supply.) Residential Element, Section 1, Objective 1. "Protect all viable residential neighborhoods from intrusions by incompatible land uses." (There is some concern that the location of City Hall on this property could effect the viability of residential neighborhoods in the area.) Residential Element, Section 1, Objective 1, Policy 3. "Prohibit spot zoning in established residential neighborhoods." (Arguments could be developed both ways on this item, that is, wether or not a public service facility would be a spot zone or not.) City Council Staff Report Residential Element, Section 1, Objective 1, Policy 4. "Vehicular traffic to commercial, office or industrial uses should not be through residential areas." (A City Hall facility is an office type of complex or very similar to it. In this case traffic would be generated through a residential area, whether from Interurban Avenue from 58th Avenue South or from Southcenter Boulevard up 65th Avenue South.) Commerce /Industry Element, Objective 1, Policy 1. "Encourage the grouping of uses which will mutually and economically benefit each other or provide necessary services." (The location of City Hall in a residential area would not appear to economically benefit the residential area or conversely. Commerce /Industry Element, Objective 4. "Encourage the establishment of office areas." (City Hall construction could be used as a stimulus to encourage additional office areas to locate around it and thereby promoting this objective. City Hall situated in the residential areas would discourage the use of the City Hall construction as a stimulus for this purpose.) Commerce /Industry Element, Objective 4, Policy 1. "Encourage the use of commercial office developments as buffers between residential land uses and other land uses." (In this case the development of an office facility, i.e., City Hall, would not be a buffer between residential land uses and other land uses, but would be actually located within the residential area itself.) Summary: Although there can be policies that can be drawn from within the preliminary comprehensive plan justifying the location of City Hall on the Desimone Property, it is staff feeling that the intent of the document and the specific policies listed above, would discourage the location of City Hall on this residential property. Should the Council wish to locate City Hall on this property, and allow the waiver, consideration should be given to adding an additional policy into the residential element that would allow public buildings in residential areas with proper building design and landscaping amenities. 2. Does the proposed action represent a unique condition wich is insignifi- cant in scale and to which no other apparent alternatives are reasonable? STAFF COMMENTS: Page 2 9 August 1976 CITY OF TUKWILA ENVIRONMENTAL QUESTIONNAIRE 7/ 7 This questionnaire must be completed by all persons applying for a permit from the city of Tukwila., unless it is determined by the Responsible Official that an environmental assessment or full impact statement is required. Other forms have been developed for single- family home applications and legislation proposals. BACKGROUND DATA: 1. Name of applicant: (2'-/ 7 a-/ j (.- , ( -r.- /a 2. ' Address and phone of Applicant: /'/f/7- � '; 1 ' z".xlt c,_ — 2 715 3. Project name: III c•v /., / d_, . 1.1,, .e.( - - 4. Project location:'; 15( S: t, '( r .�G r c- % 5. Nature and brief description of proposal: Ln ,,, .' t -,, - f `, /F , e - r r' , , 6. Estimated completion date: 7. Do you - have any plans for future expansion, if yes please explain: , . 4.2' ( / / , . -1 , ; :, I (,,, ., , t ' , ' r . ; , , 4 1 2 - , 0 a o ' %, -/`t., / 17. { ^� 1 =l -fir Dnrz_11 f� 8.'What other governmental permits are required prior to completion of this project? . (a) Rezone, conditional use, substantial development, etc. YES 1. NO • (b) King County Hydr } tics Permit • YES- . NO 1..- (c) Building permit YESr/ .NO (d) Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Permit YES NO v' (e) Sewer. hook . up permit YES ri° .NO (f) Sign permit YES ✓' NO (g) Water hook up permit YES ri" NO (h) Storm water system permit YES NO ,�- (i) Curb cut permit YES NO (j) Electrical permit (State of Washington) YES ,, -- NO (k) Plumbing permit (King County) YES v ' NO (1) Other 11 (r 1 'J 11 9. Do you know of any plans by others which may affect the property covered by your proposal? If yes, explain: /:.h 10. Agency requiring checklist: City of Tukwila, Department - 11. Accepted by agency on: by: (to be filled in by city upon receipt of checklist) C ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS (b) Disruptions, displacements or overcovering of the soils: '(c) Change in topography or ground surface relief features? (d) The destruction, covering, or modification of any unique geologic or physical features? (e) Any increase in wind or water erosion of soils, either on of off the site? • (f) Changes in deposition or ' erosion of beach sands, or in changes in siltation, deposition, or erosion which may modify the channel of a river or stream or the bed. of ••the ocean or any bay, inlet or lake? Explanation: • • Air. Will the proposal result in: (a) Air emissions or deterioration of ambient air quality? (b) The creation of objectionable odors? (c) Alteration of air movement, moisture or temperature, or in any change in climate, • either locally or regionally,? Explanation: (Explanations of all "yes" and "maybe" answers are required.) Yes Maybe No Earth. Will the proposal result in: (a) Unstable earth conditions or in any changes in geologic sub - structures: . d • , (i) Explanation: Water. Will the proposal result i n: (a) Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water movements, in either marine or fresh waters? (b) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the amount of surface water run- off? (c) Alterations to the course or flow of flood waters? (d) Change in the amount of surface water in any watercourse? (e) Discharge into surface waters, or in any alteration of sur- face.'water quality, including temperature or turbidity? (f) Alteration of the direction or rate of flow of ground :waters? (g) Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an acquifer by cuts or excavations? (h) Deterioration in ground water quality, either through direct injection, or through the seep- age of leachate, phosphates, detergents, waterborne virus or bacteria, or other substances into the ground waters? Reduction in the amount of water otherwise available for public water. supplies?' es Maybe No , C Flora. Will the proposal result in: (a) Change in the diversity of species, or numbers of any species of flora (including trees, shrubs, grass, crops, micro -flora and aquatic plants)? • Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of flora? (c) Introduction of new species of flora into an area, or in a bar- rier, to the normal replenishment of existing species? (b) Explanation: Fauna. Will the proposal result in: (a) Changes in the diversity of species, or numbers of any species of fauna (birds, land animals including rep - tiles, fish and shellfish, benthic organisms, insects, or micro - fauna)? (b) Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of fauna? (c) Introduction of new species of fauna into an area, or result in a.barrier to the migration or movement of fauna? (d) Deterioration to existing wildlife habitat? Explanation: Noise.. Will the proposal increase exist ing noise levels? Explanation: C Yes Maybe No • Light and Glare. Will the proposal produce new light or glare? Explanation: Land Use. Will the proposal result in the alteration of the present or planned land• use of an area? Explanation: Natural Resources. Will the proposal re- sult in: . .(a) Increase in the rate of use of any natural resource? (b) Depletion of any nonrenewable nat- ural resource? Explanation: Risk of Upset. Does the proposal involve a risk of an explosion or the release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to, oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation) in the event of an accident or upset conditions? Explanation: Population. Will the proposal alter the location, distribution, density, or growth rate of the human population of an area? . • Explanation: Yes • Maybe No figusing. Will the proposal affect existing housing availability, or create a demand for additional housing? Explanation: Explanation: • C Transportation /Circulation. Will the pro- posal result in: (a) Generation of additional vehicular movement? (b) Effects on existing parking facilities, or demand for new parking? (c) Impact upon existing transportation systems? (d) Alterations to present patterns of circulation or movement of people and /or goods? • (e) Alterations to waterborne or air traffic? Local Services. Will the have an effect upon, or result in a need for new services in any of the'follawing areas: (a) Fire protection? (b) Police protection? (c) Schools? (d) Parks? (e) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? (f) Other' governmental services? Explanation: ^b` Yes Maybe c Yes Maybe No Energy. Will the proposal result in: (a) Use of substantial amounts of fuel or energy? (b) Demand upon existing sources of energy, or require the development of new sources of energy? Explanation: Utilities. Wi11'the proposal result in a need for new systems, or alterations to the follow- ing utilities: (a) Power or natural gas? (b) Communications systems? (c) Water ? - . (d) Sewer or septic tanks? (e) Storm water drainage? (f) Solid waste and disposal? Explanation;. Human Health. Will the proposal result in the. . creation of any health hazard.or potential . health hazard (excluding mental health)? Explanation: Aesthetics. Will the proposal result in the obstruction of any scenic vista or view open to the public, or will the proposal result in the creation of an aesthetically offensive site open to public view? Explanation: --6- Recreation. Will the proposal result in an impact upon the quality or quantity of ex- isting recreational opportunities? Explanation: Archeological /Historical. Will the proposal result in an alteration of a significant archeological or historical site? 'Explanation: Explanation: Revenue. Will the proposal cause a signifi cant increase in city revenues? Employment. Will the proposal create a . significant amount of new jobs? Explanation: es Ma be ' • Project Name: Project Address: CERTIFICATION BY APPLICANT: • BELOW THIS LINE FOR CITY USE ONLY ACTION.BY OTHER'DEPARTMENTS: 77 `Si . Date CITY OF TUKWILA 3. Applicant was notified of decision on: • June 24, 1975 • I hereby certify that the information furnished in this environmental checklist sheet is true and accurate to the best of my knowledge. Signature and Title Date =Check one 1. Date of Review: Building .by: ( +) or ( -) Planning by: ( +) or ( -) Engineering by: CO or ( -) Police by: CO or ( -) Fire by: CO or ( -) 2. Agency review of environmental checklist determined that: • ' ':.The project is exempt by definition. The project has no significant environmental impact and application should be processed without further consideration of environmental affects The project has significant environmental impact and a complete environ -::: mental impact statement must be prepared prior to further action for permit` More specific information is needed to determine impact;. gnature and Title of Responsible Official Y Date ' by by Staff Person Letter, phone In accordance with Washington State Environmental Policy Act and City of Tukwila Ordinance No.•759. (i.) Means recommend a full environmental impact statement be'done. ( -)• Means recommend a full environmental impact statement'not'be'done: FOR OFFICE USE ONLY APPLICATION FOR CHANGE OF LAND USE CLASSIFICATION OR MODIFICATION OF LAND USE REGULATIONS IN THE CITY OF TUKWILA Appl. No. 76 - - Planning Cammission Action Receipt No. NA Filing Date June 18, 1976 City Council Action Hearing Date Ordinance No. & Date APPLICANT TO ANSWER ALL THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS NEATLY AND ACCURATELY: Name City of Tukwila Address .14475 - 59th Avenue South Property Petitioned for rezoning is located on South 151st Street between 62nd Avenue South Zbtal square footage in property LEGAL DFSCRIPTION OF PROPERTY - 21 .000 square feet Lot 20, The Interurban Addition Form B Telephone No. 242 -7150 and 65th Avenue South Ei.sting Zoning R -1 -12.0 Zoning requested PF Treat are the uses you propose to. develop on this property? City Hall Facility Number of permanent off - street parking spaces that will be provided on property? Number required NOTICE TO APPLICANT: The following factors are considered in reclassifying property or modifying regulations. Evidence or additional information you desire to suhni_t to substantiate your request may be attached to this sheet. '.(See Application Procedure sheet Item No. 2 for specific mininmml requirements.) 1. What provisions will be made to screen adjacent'and surrounding property from any incompatible effects which may arise as a result of the proposed land use classification? 2. What provisions will be made to provide for necessary street widening to City minimum standards? Streets already developed to city standards. 3. What provisions will be made for adequate sewer and water service? Sewer and water services are available to the property. 4. Any other carments which the petitioner feels are appropriate: rn 1Co4i 5‘m Co1wgsc5: 3SI5T (,5AV5 C,i1M �p1*(MILA c,rt9 RAU-5M (tesLmDKrn. f O If MI INCH 1 2 3 4 5 6 • 7 8 rse, .7 I7 FLEXIBLE RULER -302 AW , 11 rs (fro Frif II op . , ' • IF THIS MICROFILMED DOCUMENT IS LESS 1. :CLEAR THAN THIS NOTICE, IT IS DUE TO THE QUALITY OF THE ORIGINAL DOCUMENT /1, -5/Pa" 0.0 l°4400.) A