Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPermit 76-32-A - LARIMER - ANNEXATIONmf 76-32-a west of 51st avenue south mcmicken heights larimer annexation PARKS d RECREAT ION PLANNING BUILDING January 6, 1977 Mr. E. L. Larimer 3330 South 269th Kent, Washington 98031 RE: Proposed Annexation Dear Mr. Larimer: CITY of TUKWILA OFFICE of COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT As you know, the City Council of Tukwila discussed your annexation proposal at their regular meeting of December 20, 1976. At that meeting they made the following decisions: 1. They welcome the annexation of your property to the City. 2. They feel your property should assume the City's present bonded indebtedness. A comparison of taxes per $1,000 of assessed valua- tion between the County and the City is as follows: a. 1977 County rate = $19,096 b. 1977 City rate = $18,540 The bonded indebtedness for the purchase of the golf course would add approximately .830 mills per thousand assessed valuation in 1978 and would be approximately .450 mills per thousand assessed valuation in 1979 and decrease slightly each year after 1979. (All these figures are constant projecting 1977 levy rates into the future.) Projecting these rates into the future, with no changes in any of the levys the tax comparison for a property valued at $20,000 would be as follows: . 6230 Southeenter Boulevard • Tukwila, Washington 98188 is (206) 242 -2177 1977 1978 1979 COUNTY $381.92 $381.92 $381.92 CITY, $370.80 $387.40 $379.80 PARKS d RECREAT ION PLANNING BUILDING January 6, 1977 Mr. E. L. Larimer 3330 South 269th Kent, Washington 98031 RE: Proposed Annexation Dear Mr. Larimer: CITY of TUKWILA OFFICE of COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT As you know, the City Council of Tukwila discussed your annexation proposal at their regular meeting of December 20, 1976. At that meeting they made the following decisions: 1. They welcome the annexation of your property to the City. 2. They feel your property should assume the City's present bonded indebtedness. A comparison of taxes per $1,000 of assessed valua- tion between the County and the City is as follows: a. 1977 County rate = $19,096 b. 1977 City rate = $18,540 The bonded indebtedness for the purchase of the golf course would add approximately .830 mills per thousand assessed valuation in 1978 and would be approximately .450 mills per thousand assessed valuation in 1979 and decrease slightly each year after 1979. (All these figures are constant projecting 1977 levy rates into the future.) Projecting these rates into the future, with no changes in any of the levys the tax comparison for a property valued at $20,000 would be as follows: . 6230 Southeenter Boulevard • Tukwila, Washington 98188 is (206) 242 -2177 Mr. E. L. Larimer RE: Proposed Annexation I hope what I've provided you is helpful in your decision. me if you have any further questions. Sincerely, Page 2 'January 6, 1976. The above comparison is only accurate for 1977. The figures for 1978 and 1979 are only estimates to show the effect of assuming the City's bonded indebtedness. 3. The Council proposed a conversion of zoning from King County's to the closest comparable City zoning. (The two zones are the same, that is, single - family with 7,200 square foot minimum lot sizes.) If you wish to follow through with your annexation request would you please complete the attached forms as follows: 1. You and your wife both sign the annexation petition. .Complete lines 10, 11 and 12 of page 2 in 'the Environmental Questionnaire and sign the top of the last pacie. 3.. Return all of the above . to the City. Kell Stoknes,Director Office of Community Development 1. Annexation Petition 2. Environmental Questionnaire 3.. December 20, 1976 City Council Minutes.. PETITION FOR ANNEXATION TO THE CITY OF TUKWILA, WASHINGTON (Petition Method) TO THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA: We, the undersigned, being the owners of not less than seventy - five per cent (75%) in value, according to the assessed valuation for general taxation of the real property herein described, lying contiguous to the City of Tukwila, Washington, do hereby petition that such territory be annexed to and made a part of the City of Tukwila under the provisions of Chapter 35.13 of the Revised Code of, Washington. : Petitioners'subscribing hereto agree that all property within the territory hereby sought to be annexed shall,'upon annexation, be assessed and taxed at the same rate and on'the same basis as the property of the City of Tukwila is'assessed and taxed to pay for any then outstanding indebtedness' of the City of Tukwila contracted prior to,_or'existing at, the date of annexation. This group of is one`of a number of identical groups of pages forming one, petition seeking the annexation of the property described below to the City of Tukwila, and may be.t'iled with other groups of pages containing additional signatures. . • 'The.undersigned'has read'the above or• attached text and prayer of the petition and consents 11) to the filing of other groups of pages hereto to be considered as a part of.thi's petition up through the working day upon which this petition is filed with. the City of Tukwila, and (2) to the right of:signers to request.of the.City of.Tukwila withdrawal of their signatures •up.through the working day immediately prior to the terminal date, which ,.terminal date is the date upon.which•the Public Works Director of the City •of Tukwila commences.to determine•the.legal sufficiency of the petition, and which terminal date is. to be within seven: (7) days . after this petition is filed with the City'C1erk of the City of Tukwila. The territory proposedi•to'be annexed is within King County, Washington, and is described as follows: , .Sunnydale• Gardena'- Division December 20, 1976 7:00 P.M. FLAG SALUTE AND CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL OF COUNCIL MEMBERS OFFICIALS IN ATTENDANCE MINUTE APPROVAL VOUCHER APPROVAL BID OPENINGS AND AWARDS Bid Award, 6" Trash Pump OLD BU cussion on arimer Annexation Current Street Fed. Shrd Rev. City Hall Constr. Water Sewer Vouchers No. 1221 - 1322 1221 - 1279 1280 - 1296 1297 1298 1299 - 1312 1313 - 1322 $ 20,407.16 6,075.08 1,755.75 6,800.00 2,971.88 9,853.44 $ 47,863.31 Mr. Larimer agreed that it was all right with him. TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING Tukwila City Hall Council Chambers MINUTES Council President Hill, presiding, led the Pledge of Allegiance and called the Tukwila City Council meeting to order. GARDNER, MS. HARRIS, HILL, SAUL, TRAYNOR, VAN DUSEN MOVED BY TRAYNOR, SECONDED BY HILL, THAT COUNCIL MEMBER, MS. PESICKA, BE EXCUSED FROM THE MEETING.* Councilman Van Dusen asked, for a point of interest, if there were only specific reasons for excusing councilmen from meetings. Council President Hill noted the Council procedures read that a member may be excused after prior notification has been furnished the President of the Council. *MOTION CARRIED. John McFarland, Administrative Assistant; Steve Hall, Public Works Director Kjell Stoknes, OCD Director; Hubert Crawley, Fire Chief; Mabel Harris, City Treasurer; Donald Fleming, City Attorney; Maxine Anderson, City Clerk MOVED BY TRAYNOR, SECONDED BY SAUL, THAT THE MINUTES.:OF.THE.REGULAR MEETING OF DECEMBER 6, 1976, BE APPROVED AS PUBLISHED. MOTION CARRIED. MOVED BY TRAYNOR, SECONDED BY SAUL, THAT THE BILLS BE ACCEPTED AND WARRANTS BE DRAWN IN THEIR RESPECTIVE AMOUNTS. MOTION CARRIED. Steve Hall, Public Works Director, reviewed the bids received on the 6" Trash Pump and recommended that the bid be awarded to Star Machinery for the diesel pump with trailer accessories in the amount of $6,136.39. MOVED BY SAUL, SECONDED BY VAN DUSEN, TO ACCEPT THE RECOMMENDATION OF STEVE HALL AND AWARD THE BID TO STAR MACHINERY. MOTION CARRIED. Councilman Saul explained to Mr. Larimer that the residents in the McMicke Heights area would like a moratorium placed on the construction of any apartments in their area, and he asked Mr. Larimer if this would have any . bearing on his decision to annex to the City. Council President Hill further explained to Mr. Larimer that the Council can not guarantee that his property will be rezoned to high -rise after it is annexed. . Mr. Larimer agreed that he understood what the Council was saying. Council President Hill referred to question #2 in a letter from Kjell Stoknes, OCD Director, concerning the question of bonded indebtedness. From a staff standpoint, it makes sense to require assumption of existing City indebtedness since the users'of this property, when developed, would also benefit by the Golf Course, the only existing bonded indebtedness the City has. TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL REGULAR_ MEETING Page 2 (� December 20, 1976 OLD BUSINESS - Cont. Discussion on Larimer Annexation Cont. Council President Hill asked Mr. Larimer if the Council has a Resolution - of Intent to annex prepared which includes the items of zoning conversio to Tukwila zoning R -1 -7.2 and assumption of City indebtedness, would he agree to this. Mr. Larimer stated that as far as he can see, it would be all right. Councilman Van Dusen asked if the Council needs to set a policy or if this is just part of this annexation. Council President Hill stated that this is the first request for . annexation the Council has had since the voting on the Golf Course. Councilman Harris noted that under the annexation laws large areas . proposing to annex vote on several questions within the ballot measure. They should vote on whether to assume the bonded indebtedness; another is to accept or reject the Comprehensive Plan; third, and it would be optional, to have a community council if one is desired. She stated she would rather stay away from a blanket policy and leave it up to the voters. Council President Hill stated that it did not seem fair, since the majority of the citizens voted to buy the Golf Course, that a new area could vote not to help pay on the indebtedness. Councilman Harris stated that this one item could kill a whole ballot proposition. Kjell Stoknes, OCD Director, explained that he would like a committment from the Council on the transfer of zoning from county to City of Tukwil zoning, which is single family, and not grant a rezone along with the annexation. Council President Hill questioned if the Council needed to make a policy statement on bonded indebtedness? Mr. Stoknes explained that in the past there has been no bonded indebtedness, but the Council still indicated they wanted the wording of . the annexations to include 'assume the City's bonded indebtedness'. The precedent set is to require the inclusion of bonded indeptedness. Your policy statement is only a general guideline to go by. MOVED BY TRAYNOR, SECONDED BY SAUL, THAT THE COUNCIL PROCEED WITH THE ANNEXATION OF THE LARIMER PROPERTY AND INCLUDE THE TWO ITEMS DISCUSSED.. MOTION CARRIED. Councilman Pesicka arrived at 7:30.p.m. FIRST READING OF ORDINANCES Ordinance #1000 - MOVED BY TRAYNOR, SECONDED BY SAUL, THAT THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE BE READ. Creating "Title II - MOTION CARRIED.. Antirecession Fiscal Assistance Fund . City Attorney Fleming read an Ordinance creating a new fund within the City's accounting records to be entitled "Title II - Antirecession Fiscal Assistance Fund" specifying the purposes for which said fund is created and directing the manner in which said fund shall be administers MOVED BY TRAYNOR, SECONDED BY MS. PESICKA, THAT THE RULE FOR SECOND READINGS BE SUSPENDED AND THAT ORDINANCE NO. 1000 BY ADOPTED AS READ.* John McFarland explained that the regulations for the fund state that the funds must be used to maintain basic services. They are not to be used for construction or to acquire supplies and equipment unless necessary to continue basic services. PLANNING BUILDING PARKS B RECREATION December 8, 1976 Mr. E. L. Larimer 3330 South 269th Kent, Washington 98031 Dear Mr. Larimer: CITY of T U KW I LA OFFICE of COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT RE: Proposed annexation of your property to the City of Tukwila The City Council has requested that you meet with them during their regular meeting of December 20, 1976, at approximately 7:00 P.M. to discuss the question of assumption of the City's bonded indebtedness and comprehensive planning on the property that you are proposing to become a part of the City of Tukwila. After these decisions have been made by the City Council, the Planning Staff will draft a revised annexation petition reflecting those decisions for your signature. This will than become the formal annexation petition. I apologize for all the tedious paper work involved. Very truly yours, S4 Stoknes, Director Office of Community Development KS /cw cc: Mayor City Clerk 6230 Southcenter (Boulevard m Tukwila, Washington 98188 Iw (206) 242-2177 CITY OF TUKWILA COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING • November 29, 1976 Page 2 Amendment to TMC 18.40 and 18.64: to make the process of rendering require a conditional use permit L imer Annexation - Bonded Indebted- ness and Comprehen- sive Plan Kejll Stokne., Director of Community Development, stated the City Council had directed several months ago that the Planning Commission undertake a code amendment to the Tukwila Zoning Ordinance that wolo d make rendering a conditional use. Mr. Stoknes said he rec- ommended the matter be referred to the Deputy City Attorney for his recommendation and then scheduled for a public hearing. MOVED BY TRAYNOR, SECONDED BY SAUL, THAT THIS MATTER BE REFERRED TO THE CITY ATTORNEY FOR HIS RECOMMENDATIONS. * Councilman Harris said she noticed there was a representative from Seattle Rendering present and she thought they should hear from him. John Phillips, attorney for Seattle Rendering Plant, said he was prepared to discuss what Seattle Rendering is planning to do in the near future to change their processing procedures. Council President Hill said the Council had the presentation some months ago. * CARRIED. Kjell Stoknes, Director of Community Development, stated the Staff recommends that the City Council establish a meeting date with the Larimers at which time they could decide the questions of adoption of the comprehensive plan and bonded indebtedness. MOVED BY TRAYNOR, SECONDED BY SAUL, THAT THIS ITEM BE ON THE AGENDA OF THE DECEMBER 20, 1976 AGENDA OF THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING. CARRIED.', RECESS MOVED BY SAUL, SECONDED BY TRAYNOR, THAT THE COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE 8:55 P.M. - 9:05 P.M. MEETING RECESS FOR TEN MINUTES. CARRIED. The meeting was called to order by Council President Hill with all Council Members present as previously listed. 1977 Budget Proposal Council President Hill said as they had been discussing the budget - City Attorney they let each Department justify their budget proposal. Deputy City Attorney Hard said they were asking there be a difference between the retainer work and the court work. He said the reason they were asking that it be done this way is because they have expender more time than they had anticipated. He said so far this year they had 231 hours in municipal court whereas there had been 281.5 last year. There has been an increase in the cases they are trying and this has improved the morale of the Police Department. He said they would like to have the court time handled on an hourly basis; they hope to minimize the time they have to be in court for the year 1977. He said they had set the retainer fee at $1,275 a month and it would cover the following types of work: Attendance at City Council Meeting; Preparation of ordinances, contrac leases, and other documents; Preparation of legal opinions; Inquiries from the City by telephone - sometimes information is requested that requires research and a written opinion; 'C-al4s=fr-om- 1/4people, other- than- C -i-ty- employees -s - -who want._information- from- -the law. fi -rm-as they- are-the City--Attorney; Represent the City at meetings; Review contracts and offer suggestions. Deputy City Attorney Hard said sometimes it is hard to determine what is retainer work and what is other work. He said he thought it would be a good idea to tell people when they call in forAnformation whether it is retainer work or other. Councilman Pesicka said she felt the City Attorney should attend the Committee of the Whole Meetings as frequently they need legal opinions at that meeting. Attorney Fleming said if they attende the Committee of the Whole Meetings they would have to add $100 to the retainer fee. Mayor Bauch said he had been working with the City Attorney on a procedure to follow for next year so everyone would know what work is covered under the retainer fee and what is not. The roll call vote on approval of the City Attorney budget as presented was unanimous. RECESS MOVED BY SAUL, SECONDED BY VAN DUSEN, THAT THE COMMITTEE OF THE 10:05 P.M. -10:10 P.M. WHOLE MEETING RECESS FOR FIVE MINUTES. CARRIED. The meeting was called to order by Council President Hill with all . Council Members present as previously listed. City Hall Design The Mithun architects presented a film and scale model of the proposed city hall. They explained the merits of the planned parking space and the open wall concept that would allow rearrangement of offices if PARKS i RECREATION FROM: Kjell Stoknes SUBJECT: Larimer Annexation kir MEMORANDUM CITY of w ir L IKAN tI LA OFFICE of COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT November 24, 1976 TO: Tukwila City Council KS /cw Attachment: Maps Annexati on Petition The next step involved in the processing of the Larimer Annexation, McMicken Heights area, is related to the Council decisions on assumption of bonded indebtedness and simultaneous adoption of a comprehensive plan. These items are required by state law to be decided by the City Council, must show in . their official minutes, and then must be set forth in the actual annexation petition submitted by the applicant. As you will note, the present language in the petitioner's annexation request states "that petitioners have no knowledge of whether the City Council of Tukwila has required assumption of City indebtedness by the area annexed, nor are they aware of the adoption of any comprehensive plan for the area." On the above items, Staff makes the following recommendations: 1. On the question of simultaneous adoption of the comprehensive plan, there is no comprehensive plan presently adopted for this area. Staff would recommend a zoning conversion' from King County present zoning to the closest comparable Tukwila zoning category and that the comprehensive plan for the area occur in the present comprehen- sive planning process. The present zoning by King County is RS -7200. King County does not have it designated as potentially anything but single- family. The conversion to Tukwila zoning would be to the R -1 -7.2 single- family category. 2. On the question of bonded indebtedness, this is a policy decision that needs to be taken by the City Council. From a Staff standpoint, it makes sence to require assumption of existing City indebtedness since the users of this property, when developed, would also benefit by the golf course. (The only existing bonded indebtedness the City has.) The other side of the coin is that requiring assumption of existing indebtedness may be a negative insentive to annex. Staff recommends that the Council establish a new meeting date with the Larimers at which time they should decide on the above questions. We would then develop an annexation petition for the Larimers to submit to the City that would include the decisions made by the City Council on these questions. Your reference on the contents of this Staff Report is RCU 35.13.125 1973 supplement. TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL REGUL; CEETING • November 15, 1976 Page 2 PUBLIC HEARINGS 'Petition for annexation of small site in McMicken Hts. (Larimer Property) CITIZEN'S COMMENTS City Limit Signs out of place Mayor Bauch stated that the purpose public a chance to express approval annexation. He declared the Public Fred Satterstrom, Associate Planner, reviewed the Staff Report. The Larimer property is located in McMicken Heights, north of the present City limits and west of 51st Ave. South. The area of the proposed site is 1.55 acres. At the present time, no public water or sewer service is available to the property. It presently is zoned single - family by King County. Based on their findings and conclusions, staff recommends the Council not accept this annexation petition and request the applicant to gather an annexation request for a larger area. Mr. Larimer, owner of the property, spoke in favor of annexing his property to Tukwila. It was noted that there is a petition being circulated to request annexation of the property.to the west of Mr. Larimer's property and the suggestion was made that he could be included at that time making a more economical annexation. of this Hearing is to give the or disapproval on the proposed Hearing open. There being no further discussion from the audience, Mayor Bauch declared the Public Hearing closed. MOVED BY HILL, SECONDED BY MS. PESICKA, THAT THE COUNCIL REQUEST MR. LARIMER TO JOIN THE OTHER PETITIONERS AND COME IN AT A LATER DATE. * Traynor stated that if there are an insufficient number of signatures on that petition, Mr. Larimer would be left out. He suggested proceeding with the annexation. Ms. Pesicka stated that the door should be left open so that he can come back if the other petition isn't completed. Traynor stated that if we always look at only the economics, we will never annex. Van Dusen stated that since he has come to us, let's deal with it now. Hill stated that the reason he made the motion is that it costs more to deal with a number of smaller pieces, and he would like to see them join together and come in at one time. *MOTION FAILED WITH MS. HARRIS VOTING YES. MOVED BY VAN DUSEN, SECONDED BY SAUL, TO ACCEPT THE ANNEXATION AS PROPOSED BY MR. LARIMER. MOTION CARRIED WITH MS. HARRIS VOTING NO. Mr. Ed Robinson, audience, questioned the City limit sign at the foot of 65th Ave. South. Mayor Bauch stated that action is being taken to have it removed. tii.• D“Anl.nh gwinl Mr R{{dnlnh Rnnr1 _ rnirIiPnrp. ouPstinnprt a lattar ha rprpived frnm..the. DATE: November 15, 1976 SUBJECT: Annexation Petition APPLICANT: Larimer VICINITY: McMicken Heights ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL There are two basic questions the Council needs to make regarding this annexation petition. If the answer to the first one is no, the second one need not be addressed. This report will address each question separately. Question 1: Does the City Council wish to accept this proposed annexation? Staff Findings: 1. The cost of staff time in processing an annexation by the petition method does not go up proportionately with the size of the proposed annexation. (As an example, it is estimated that approximately $500 in staff time for processing was involved in the Gjerde Annexation in 1976. The area of that property was under one acre. To have increased this to five acres would have added very little to the cost of staff time in processing it.) 2. The area of the proposed annexation is 1.55 acres. 3. An annexation petition is presently being circulated immediately to the west of this property. 4. There is right -of -way available to this property, however, it is unimproved and one area where it is only ± 20 feet in width. 5. There are apparently some landlocked properties in the general vicinity that are in unincorporated King County. 6. No public water or sewer service is available to the property. Closest service is ± 800 feet east. 7. Zoning is presently single - family by King County. Staff Conclusions: 1. Although the City is in the business of providing services, and not making money, the City still must address cost effectiveness in providing services. In this case there would be a high cost of service in staff time processing the application if analyzed in terms of the area proposed to be annexed. Administrative Report Page 2 To The City Council 15 November 1976 2. As land in this vicinity develops, it would be simpler for the City and land owners to solve access problems if all affected lands were within the city limits. This conclusion also applies to water and sewer ser- vice solutions. 3. Zoning should be studied and approved, as the case may be,on an area basis rather than on individual property basis. Including a larger area would also benefit this type of approach. Staff Recommendation: Based on the above findings and conclusions staff recommends the Council not accept this annexation petition and request the applicant to gather an annex- ation request for a larger area. Although the staff feels the present city can provide better service levels to this area than King County, there are factors here that dictate, in our minds, the need to address an expanded area. There is no question on the part of staff that Tukwila needs more balance in its land use and that this area should at some point in time become part of the City. We appreciate and encourage the applicants desire to be a part of the City of Tukwila. Should the City Council disagree with staff and wish to proceed with this annexation, the following information is provided: Question 2: A series of decisions needed to be made by the Council: (Reference RCW 35.13.125) a. Shall the City require the simultaneous adoption of a comprehensive plan, if one is adopted for the area? Recommendation: No plan has been adopted by the City for the area. Staff would recommend a zoning conversion from King County present zoning to the closest comparable Tukwila zoning category and that the comprehensive plan for the area occur in the present comprehensive planning process. b. Shall the City require assumption of existing city indebtedness by the area to be annexed? Recommendation: This is a policy decision that needs to be taken by the City Council and maintain that policy for all future annexations. To aid the Council in this decision, we offer the following pros and cons on the concept of requiring assumption of existing city indebtedness for annexing areas: G Administrative Report To The City Council (FOR REQUIRING ASSUMPTION OF CITY INDEBTEDNESS) PROS 1. Would share in paying for facilities they could use. 2. Vote on bond issue would be on landowner decision to annex or not. 3. Would cause reduction of bond issue assessment to all city residents. 4. Other Statistics on this have not been compiled by the Association of Washington Cities. Report prepared by: Kje 1 Stoknes, Director Of ice of Community Development Attachments: Maps 1. May discourage annexation due to higher property taxes. 2. Did not have a vote on bond issue decision. 3. At time of vote on bond issue, city residents were willing to pay total cost. 4. Other CONS Page 3 15 November 1976 sl•J l's. St 15 . MM ,T J f I I II II I IT m. hiPaso4 A ryl , •'� - icn a r , 3 t__7I CTY OF TUKWILA ( 156 7; I:RS. 1; vv. 611P. iv; P. Iv r‘i ILIX 71 14 t563:3 ::,,••,, • —isGiz , • PROPOSED ANNEXATION: C=3 , • APPLICANT: LARIMER 15642 --1 Li•-: 4, 15633 - 1.--`. - r -- _ . ..•:": - __ • . ;1 1 46 ••:- r , 15EG1 JTV • <\., ..... .k.) .0 471 St z.. ,. — ••_•7 — — 156 __ __ __ __ -.. s - : ,.... p E: . '\r , :al tE liffl i 7.s.z. %.) • i I\; \'' ..... . . /5877i . - 1 : 343 :•G • 1.54.:),S c'e • Z - ?SJ 6 i ._... - - 580Z • . L.1 ;'... ..:': u `. "Tr7 `•": :'; ■ 1 . • 1 „ _e_7 , 90 44•_ _,-.._ _ 1_ __i_ _ .:. ,..?..., F2 • i 4' 4. .. • 15E - Q 4 1 . 113 ,.., •,, .0 ...,,, US ii Z I rr •-• •7 •:. 13421 • I • . r •••••• 1............... •4.1 it4 77 ..... •. ••• 1 ; it •■•,.. : • . 11.4 CA TED 1 1 ox ■ :2 .161 I s.D 7. 7.91 J 1 . 11. • It ALBE.R1 L. PIT 1 5 4 :34 4.s6 ,.. 515S3Z-..".‘•• :5631 .. . 2 20Ac. . . 11 , ..1, 11 • isc 7C El .., • UNPLATTEdi N . . ••••... \••••:.,.... N •• N ••• I : I.' j s. •• 'N. ■ -... .• ---........ 1 -, ..... • •.. N :.•k:... --....,,c 1-1 1 3 ...t $ 7 ..::.''..-.... ...- ... ...,...... • i 15... .... s '■ .e. ' N . : i ,,":•••• N N ■... • N: N N ••-•". I ) '' ' . .:2 1 4 N.,•,,o.. ' a -: . I 4 i • -- -,<-: ii,-...., , • ,. , „...... •,.,..., :, .. N. <-2.... -`,....:-• 1131 1 • -..--;.:......... ....;,$•,... , ' . it..•::: 1 - - i V• N.. I . N ..., .. 0 . • X t •N. s • • 0 131.1-A 03 I - . MRS. el ENIN H. HtiLSINGER . 4.20 Ac. • . 'TRACT E • • OCTOBER 12J976 • - r • . r • . • • • • , : ,...:.. 1 .:— ..... r ,.::: ..4 ..,f -. :..! II • 44,34 i .. • ostoc.. >- 110W A1ZD E.. I . • — 1 1 ....., Ai i . . .5- ... C. ?::, b. 7 1 6 : la P ARSONS . II 1 • ... n ,:-:\...--- ''''' - 71 -7 5- -.s / /../: .., I ■. 1 . I . V •••• 1 , — - 7 -• - 1 . -.:, .. ,•••; ts. 1 : t 1 f/ 1. 1 1 ; • t //1..,. i • j AL •''' •'." 1....:3 ■ N• .:.. C: •1•---. ..1 - i I MRS. 61.F .1:N 1;. 1101.SINC,ER 1-;- -?,_ - I ! 1 . ,,..„. '- •., • ., • i i I t 1 1 j 5 . , i • .. 3.1 E. Ac.. . .. 1 2 : _i ,I1. 1.13AC. 1 ' '-: 1 - : !,I - i.. .. '' , -,\ .-! -- -.-.... 1 . \ i \ i ..:. L1.1 . I '.. . - 1 .''.: r o,l_c z; i -nt... :-.• -J ! • s• I I ' . • \ , I .• , I I -:-- 7: / . 1. 1 I; • .. 7: I •• • 1 -';'..".••• • . : ‘• ,• • e . . 7a , , : .......... II .?. 4, i Y ) ' .--..... . -.. ....._ ...-- . _.... -.. -a - — - - 1 (3 - 0 .1 i i . , -- r: . — — -- . .. -- • • , . - i1 -f -.;,:-.1;.:* :-,-:_i....-....z.:-...;.;;____ "-■ ..-:- 1% CN. -' PLANNING PARKS S RECREATION BUILDING _) October 27, 1976 E. L. Larimer 3330 South 269th Kent, Washington 98031. CITY of TUKWILA OFFICE of COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT RE: Proposed Annexation of your property to the City of Tukwila. Dear Mr. Larimer: The City Council considered your petition to annex to the City at their regular meeting of October 26, 1976. At that meeting they did not discuss the annexation, but, as required by law, set a meeting date with you as the applicant for their regular meeting of November 15, 1976. This meeting will be at Tukwila City Hall at 14475 - 59th Avenue South at 7:00 P.M. It is extremely important that you be at this meeting since the primary purpose of that meeting is to discuss the merits of the annexation with you the applicant. In the mean time if you have any questions please call me. Very truly yours, LT) 1 Stoknes, Director Of ice of Community Development KS /cw cc: Mayor Bauch City Clerk MF #76 -32 -A 6230 Sc,uthcon&er Boulevard a Tukwila, Washington 98188 a (206) 242••2177 CITY OF TUKWILA COMMITTEEP THE WHOLE MEETING October 25, 1976 Page 2 DISCUSSION - Contd. Park Board recommendations Seminar with City Council & Dept. Heads Lower Foster Annex- -Mayor Bauch said he would bring formal. motion before the City Council ation, Setting for their action at the next Council meeting. Election Date R d • • eq t - -fo a e to discuss sed annexatio n mall site in cMicken Hts. Ar Larimer Propert p Undergroundi ng ting ro- of a Council President Hill read a letter from the Park Board dated October 14, 1976. In the letter the Park Board made the following recommendations: (1) City Park: That the metal building located in the center of the park be removed, as it• detracts greatly from the beauty and atmosphere of the park. (2) City Park: It has been brought to our attention that the Public Works Department was going to continue paving a maintenance road to the top of the park. We are against such a move. We feel that a small 4 foot wide path would be plenty. We also feel no other areas ' i n the park should be, paved unless it is approved by the Park Board. (3) Duwamish School: We would like to make a few improvements on the field there. Namely, the removal and replacement of the back stop and removal of the old playground equipment in left field. Councilwoman Pesicka offered the suggestion that the paved road was needed for maintenance. Kjell Stoknes, Director of Community Development, said it was his opinion the road was not needed for maintenance. He said it is possible the top might have to be leveled by a bulldozer one time. He said it seems like big equipment would not need to be taken up there: Councilwoman Pesicka said if there is no need for the road she would rather see just the path.. Mr. Stoknes said the Public Works Depart- ment thinks there is a need for the road. Councilman Traynor said he thought the Public Works Department should talk to the Park Board and tell them why they need the road. Mayor Ba,uch'said he had told the Park Board the letter they had written had been misdirected, it should have come to Administration and it could have been handled there. Mayor Bauch said he thought the metal building was in violati of the building codes of the City and should be taken down.. MOVED BY MS. PESICKA, SECONDED BY SAUL, THAT THE PARK BOARD LETTER BE REFERRED TO ADMINISTRATION. CARRIED. Councilman Saul said he thought the City Council should know who the Department Heads are; find out what the budget policies are; how to meet the needs of the City; how to make the City Council work as a team. He said other cities are doing -this and he would like to see the City of Tukwila get together and discuss everything and get a good feeling about things; get everybody going the same direc- tion so our ideas will click. It could be an open meeting. City Treasurer Mae Harris said she thought it would be a good idea. She said she would like to see it done before the budget is adopted, it seems it is too late after the budget is adopted. Mayor Bauch said this was the program they were going to use last summer, but everyone was too busy to get it done. Councilman Traynor said it would be a good idea to do it in April or May. MOVED BY TRAYNOR, SECONDED BY SAUL, THAT THIS ITEM REGARDING THE LOWER FOSTER ANNEXATION BE REFERRED TO THE NOVEMBER 1, 1976 MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL. CARRIED. Kjell Stoknes, Director of Community Development, said a time should be set at this meeting to meet with the applicant. Mayor Bauc said he would recommend it be done at a regular City Council meeting so action can be taken at that time. MOVED BY TRAYNOR, SECONDED BY SAUL, THAT A PUBLIC HEARING BE HELD ON NOVEMBER 15, 1976 DURING THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL. CARRIED. Mayor Bauch said Councilman Traynor had called him and staff is starting a survey to find out the names of contractors who will give reasonable prices for the installation of electrical boxes where the are needed. He said complaints had been received that some contrac- tors are gouging people when they had to install wiring and boxes. He said he had requested some money be set aside to do this-work whet the people are not able to do it. Councilman Traynor said we have senior citizens who have older holies and it would be a problem to th, to get the $300 to $400 necessary to make the changeover. He said h, • PLANNI PARKS S RECREAT loll DUILD1NG FROM: Kjell Stoknes MEMO RANDUM CITY of TUKWILA OFFICE of COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 20 October 1976 TO: Tukwila City Council SUBJECT: Proposed Annexation (Larimer) A petition for annexation of approximately 1% acres in the McMicken Heights area has been submitted to the City Council for their consideration. RCW 35.13.125, 1975 supplement, requires the City Council to set a date, not latter than 60 days after the filing of the request for a meeting with the initiating parties to determine whether the City will accept the proposed annexation. In addition, the Council must take a position on the following items: 1. Whether the simultaneous adoption of the Comprehensive Plan, if such plan has been prepared and filed for the area to be annexed as provided for in RCW 35.13.177 and RCW 13.13.178 and, 2. Whether it shall require the assumption of all or of any part of existing City indebtedness by the area to be annexed? The decision of the Council on the above matters must be recorded in the minutes of the Council and the petition for annexation shall be so drawn as to clearly indicate this'fact. This item is submitted to the City Council for the purpose of setting a. meeting date with the applicant for the purpose of determining the above items. Since this is not a public hearing, we would recommend that the City Council establish the meeting date for their second regular meeting in November, that is November 22, 1976. In the meantime, this proposed annexation is being submitted to City Depart- ments for their comments which in turn we will submit to you in advance of the meeting with the applicant so you can be informed on the merits and also disadvantages that may be related to this potential annexation. KS /cw Attachments: Maps /587 ml z f ) A � 9 1J •• 2 9443 /3. 4 3 Ise 1s ;34 . Z T 156 /3441 4 tsf. c .3<.SE — 151335A • 15P43 6 0 h 12 JAc /155 •. / /•r //t t 1 - --- -15612 ;156 0 EJ L I 0 15642. 463. ?73_._._.. H. 15E 3� 4— h o - ` -' < 1 r - ..,:;‘,.:.3/ '\ 1 '•1 �L 15816 -. 9 1/ /I CA TED N4 77 2 — tie, .34.5' '74 15842 045AL. I �`L'�"w 1 •113 ,_ II it 456'5 4 TRACT E 156915 7`J/ W /LANo G /LMOUR ST) O PEN MRS. GLENN H. HOLSINGER 4.20 Ac. 7:4.3S MI 48 MRS. GLENN H. HOLSIN6ER T.L. y -o v [_I c5 s � 7. 79 ALBERT L. PIT] 220 Ac. UNPLATTE0 T. L.'a 1 PROPOSED ANNEXATION: APPLICANT: LARIMER r OCTOBER 12,1976 r HOWARD E. 0 025 Ac. U. as ` PARSONS w • tl M 1 . _ l.M _ 2. N � 71 49 -∎ � z '. tl it N h -0 3;Ac ?2Ac- d ° ; I . 1 / s �. 11 { 1 - I o v 'L.Yi II T.L.6t,11 :III v II Q. I� II 3 111 f ci .v)7. I .r •4- ' . 1 95, r', j •.4 5 t . /C..: 77 III 5::77 1 59907 . 6:I _ - :._*,6,00 • • N 171,000 Sec. Cor. N 171, 026. 25 E 1,644, 783.12 27 390 22 2 26 0 0 0 i0 cr Iii 2.0 52.5 - r 280 A' 460 /4t0 tAtsmom N 172,000 "\,1-, 4 / 01 171 441 \ Nj 0 1 0 0 (0 cr CO MIL_ Rh flII!1 urn 0 Sec. Cor. N 171, 026. 25 E 1,644,783.12 Mill 1 N1i MI ■ III 1 _ 1111111 Iffei HMI ERIN MR11 PM PI Io1 II 283.0 L. 1/ if 1 1 I ) 1 = 1LP I I // IIVI 1 /1/ 163RD 439.5 I61ST ST. ST. x4/3O 164TH x330 5 Ov E LP (' .1350 x 43.9 0 1r / --- ( A/A Rpoi / / 0 , - D„/' / 475 fl T1 J 11 / _ SEC. 22 L__J ; k - i S. 0 8 w L it tw I - 2 3 A 110 H fr • ip r x 492 0 ( r(S \ ( I -N r D11 - I I L311 -17- C ) L • .. N 171, 0 - 1 , 3.25 E 1,644,783.12 22 V23 N 26 2965 , 4" LD uj AVANNtNe IMPAATMeN* MI" 22 119Me' 23 eeA{.0 eshisme WINNE Seed*. p,Oa entra, $ ,UI vi..1 u,r lcr_i_ PO MO d MIEN .3ACi131. foe SCS I to /WOW • `ens tat Page 6 0/I {As:, : .Qs�6l . .ess. - .,_ rts9 491'11 j as1•si., 4 ~ Y ~ Y • • • LL 66. fr • • e. • Y Fri r [ ft2- , x * -4: s;? y' ki 3'- ; 14 AMiti 160TH 22 • 3230 23 I . • i x 3260 . � 0 42 x4305 - I -10-11 1 ! \� * Il I 0 M v 1 x 32/.0 . 0 :‘,., • \ f, II.1,, —f l I ; \ 1 375--= =� \) � `/ � 40 \� \i�T ot ol ` 1714W7 1 - v w CONTOUR INTERVAL 5 FEET USC 8► GS DATUM 2 Sec. Cor. N 171,026.25 E 1,644,783.12 23� N 172,00C 0 ° N 171,00 :6 27 0 w' WALKER & ASSOCIATES, INC 'IC PREFONTAINE BUILDING SEATTLE. WASH. 9d1Oa - MU 2 -.!Y OCT 1 21976 ID TO THE HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA, TM OF ItMOVNA STATE OF WASHINGTON: COME NOW the undersigned Petitioners and pursuant to R.C.W. Chapter 35.13 respectfully show: I That the undersigned Petitioners request that the following described territory be annexed to the City of Tukwila, State of Washington, pursuant to petition (without election) procedures outlined in R.C.W. Chapter 35.13, to -wit: ` -�- q r� SzJinl,�crre ��,rzGerS • (J ,u‘5,01n .1.6„„. d s yy o(' as -.2 3-4 ) (k Rolf 124' l e - 3 3 --' CAA I Atceg \ s I % Ac NLC; II That all of said described territory is situated within the County of King, State of Washington. The filing hereof with, and the approval by, the City Council of Tukwila, is a condition precedent to the filing hereof with the appropriate body of said County. III PcAlkwest That said described territory is contiguous to and lies On bopd erg kyle of the corporate limits of the said City of Tukwila, State of Washington. IV That said described territory is not now part of any incorporated city or town in the State of Washington. V That no part of the said described territory is owned by a County or used for the purpose of an agricultural fair as provided in R.C.W. 15.76 or R.C.W. Chapter 36.37. VI dElVE That the number of owners residing within said territory is /j 6 10 e. . • VII That the annexation contemplates the pro rata assumption. for. general tax- ation purposes of all existing indebtedness of said City of Tukwila by the owner(s) of said territory. VIII That the undersigned Petitioners are the sole owners of the territory hereinabove described and are therefore the owners of a full 100% in value of the said territory according to the assessed valuation of said territory for general taxation purposes. IX That there is attached hereto a map or plat outlining the boundaries of the property hereby sought to be annexed in relation to the said City of Tukwila. Date lo/g/74, Date X That Petitioners have no knowledge of whether the City Council of Tukwila has required the assumption of city indebtedness by the area annexed, nor are they aware of the adoption of any comprehensive plan for the territory. XI That the area of the above described territory is less than ten (10) acres and the assessed valuation of said territory is less than $200,000.00. WHEREFORE, your petitioners pray that a date be fixed for public hearing hereon and that notice of such meeting be published and posted as required by law. Respectfully submitted, 10/g ai act„.1„. Both of whom reside at 3 33a S 62 L fro_-I' &ua4 1?'0 -2- ---./' d__C/ MA Petitioners