Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Permit L99-0095 - SHAMROCK ASSOCIATES - COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT: HOLADAY PARKS OFFICE/WAREHOUSE
L99 -0095 HOLADAY PARKS OFFICE /WAREHOUSE 4625 So. 134t" Pl. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLAND AMENDMENT March 4, 2002 Cizy of Tukwila Steven M. Mullet, Mayor Department of Community Development Steve Lancaster, Director NOTICE OF PUBLIC MEETING RE: COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE AMENDMENT Comprehensive Plan Amendment / Zoning Code amendment to revise the boundary for Low Density Residential (LDR) adjacent to Commercial /Light Industrial (C/LI) in the vicinity of 48th Avenue South and Macadam Road (File #L01 -076) The City of Tukwila will review the boundary between Low Density Residential (LDR) adjacent to Commercial/Light Industrial (C/LI) in the vicinity of 48th Avenue South and Macadam Road. This will include consideration of a change in designation of two parcels (one parcel south of 4532 S. 135th St. and one parcel west of 4625 134th Place South) from LDR to C/LI which had been deferred from 2001. (Please refer to map on. reverse) The Tukwila City Council will hold a public meeting to give residents and businesses an opportunity to comment on the proposal in order to determine if the amendment shall be forwarded to the Planning Commission for further study. There will be additional opportunities to comment on this proposal in the coming months. Public Meeting Tukwila City Hall Council Chambers 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Monday, March 18, 2002 7:00 p.m. The City of Tukwila welcomes both written and verbal comments about the proposed Comprehensive Plan/Zoning Code amendments from Tukwila's residential and business community. Please contact Rebecca Fox, Tukwila Department of Community Development at (206)431 -3683 or rfox@ci.tukwila.wa.us if you have questions or would like additional information about this proposal. Comments may be submitted prior to March 18, 2002 via e-mail or addressed to the Tukwila Department of Community Development, 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Tukwila, WA 98188. 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • Phone: 206 - 431 -3670 • Fax: 206 - 431 -3665 Boundary for Low Density Residential (LDR) adjacent to Commercial /Light Industrial (C/LI) (File# L01 -076) C /LI zoning requested by Holaday Parks in 2000 -2001. Consideration deferred by City Council until 2002. 0.06 0 0.06 Miles . Smooth Feed SheetsTM Hardeep Singh 224 S 152Nd St #45 Burien, WA 98143 AvrRY® Address Labels Craig Abbott & Susan Goss 13601 Macadam Rd S Seattle, WA 98168 Pacific Northwest Ironworkers & Employee 6701 SE Foster Rd Portland, OR 97206 William Tumer 13435 48Th Ave S Tukwila, WA 98168 Palmer & Mary Fauconnier 13435 48Th Ave S Tukwila, WA 98168 Use tempiate for 51600 Pacific Northwest Ironworkers & Employer 701 5Th Ave #2200 Seattle, WA 98104 Eleanor Om 1-3415 48Th Ave S Tukwila, WA 98168 Ion Manea 13407 48Th Ave S Tukwila, WA 98168 Laser 5960 7M z w UO W =' W O> • gJ: co W. _. z� Z 0; UU W W' . O Z F_ _ 017 Smooth Feed SheetsTM Jeff & Nanci Ingersoll 55 48Th Ave S .:kwila, WA 98168 Jolly James B & Sonja M Llc PO Box 2295 Shelton, WA 98584 Elling & Barbara Halvorson 12515 Willows Rd NE #200 Kirkland, WA 98034 King County 500 Kc Admin Bldg . Seattle, WA 98104 Dale Shawley 4433 S 135Th Seattle, WA 98168 David & Susan An Hussey Iii 4357 S 135Th St Seattle, WA 98168 J Kenneth Rozum 4420 S 136Th St Seattle, WA 98168 Matthew & Jill Peters 13552 Macadam Rd S Tukwila, WA 98168 City Of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Blvd Tukwila, WA 98188 Hobart Usitalo & Debra Ann Larson 7120 177Th St SW Edmonds, WA 98026 Gordon & Sylvia Hunter 13345 Macadam Rd S Tukwila, WA 98168 Robert Merkle 13515 Macadam Rd S Tukwila, WA 98168 James & Margit Stenseng PO Box 98 Kensington, KS 66951 Candice Richardson 4505 Sunnyside Ave N Seattle, WA 98103 Gerald Parks Jr. PO Box 69203 Seattle, WA 98168 Uee template for 5160® Jaqueline Laura Doman 12028 25Th Ave NE Seattle, WA 98125 E B Halvorson 12515 Willows Rd NE #200 Kirkland, WA 98034 Kellie Ann & Ralph Cardinal PO Box 58995 Seattle, WA 98138 Daniel & Teresa Zapata 4508 S 136Th St Tukwila, WA 98168 Robert Farrington 4512 S 136Th St Tukwila, WA 98168 A E & J B Merkle 4426 S 136Th St Tukwila, WA 98168 WCHaII 17522 13Th Ave SW Normandy Park, WA 98166 Winfred Pritchett 12 Pearl PI Sequim, WA 98382 . Q �. CLW • 'U(X .U) • W =. J i- L • 1.11 0}: CO L. < H W. Z H O: 'Z � Uf 'W W Z 11 0 U • • H O Z OCCUPANT 4550 S. 134111 PL. TUKWILA, WA 98168 n OCCUPANT 4611 S. 134TH PL. TUKWILA. WA 98168 OCCUPANT 13423 48TH AVE. S. TUKWILA, WA 98168 OCCUPANT 13433 48TH AVE. S. TUKWILA, WA 98168 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 4534 S. 135TH ST. 4601 S. 134TH PL. TUKWILA, WA 98168 TUKWILA, WA 98168 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 4501 S. 134TH PL. 4585 S. 134TH PL. 4585 S. 134TH PL. TUKWILA, WA 98168 TUKWILA, WA 98168 TUKWILA, WA 98168 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 4345 S. 137TH ST. 4515 S. 135TH ST. 4433 S. 136TH ST. TUKWILA, WA 98168 TUKWILA, WA 98168 TUKWILA, WA 98168 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 4561 S. 135TH ST. 4425 S. 136TH ST. 13457 MACADAM RD. S. TUKWILA, WA 98168 TUKWILA, WA 98168 TUKWILA, WA 98168 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 4521 S. 135TH ST. 4650 S. 134TH 13375 48TH AVE. S. TUKWILA, WA 98168 TUKWILA, WA 98168 TUKWILA WA 98168 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 4650 S. 134TH 4643 S. 138TH ST. 13406 48TH AVE. S. TUKWILA, WA 98168 TUKWILA, WA 98168 TUKWILA WA 98168 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 4526 S. 136111 ST. 13436 48TH AVE. S. 4625 S. 134TH PL. TUKWILA, WA 98168 TUKWILA, WA 98168 TUKWILA, , WA 98168 z Q • C4 W U O N p W.=. J CO LL W 0 J LL <. HW. 2 Z Z Off; LU n p. ,O - 0 F- , U= O 1- z Smooth Feed SheetsTM Eric Schweiger 13 S 134Th Pl .rattle, WA 98168 Dale 13467 Macadam Rd. S. Tukwila, WA 98188 David Hussey 13457 Macadam Rd. S. Tukwila, WA 98188 Leon Spruill & Elena Alberto Maria 13445 48Th Ave S Tukwila, WA 98168 Peter Gatto 13400 48Th Ave S Seattle, WA 93168 Gregory Ryan 13416 48Th Ave S • Seattle, WA 93163 Roy & Karen Bradshaw 13432 43Th Ave S Seattle, WA 93163 Harold Wagner 101 N48ThAve #41B Yakima, WA 98908 Darrell Clark - Rr 1 Box 30 Thorp, WA 98946 Rhonda Clenna 13765 Macadam Rd S Seattle, WA 98163 Sisouvanh Phomma & Parinda Stallings 13410 48Th Ave S Tukwila, WA 98168 William Looney PO Box 66098 Seattle, WA 98166 Floyd Patterson Duckett 11840 Renton Ave S #134 Seattle, WA 98173 Use template for 5160 Melanie Clark 13443 48Th Ave S Tukwila, WA 98168 PETER & JENNIFER GATT° 13404 S. 48TH AVE. TUKWILA WA 98168 Kim Roberts 13430 43Th Ave S Tukwila, WA 98168 _~ w it 00. 0; cn w w = -I 1-. W O. g -71 LL Q, co I- a ,c- I- 0' Z E- 11J ut. 0 1--'. = twj 1- w H` O film. Z 0 Z To: File From: Rebecca Fox Date: 3/02 Subj: Deferral /denial of L99 -0094 as part of LO1 -075 Short Plat L99 -0073 (Ram short plat) was approved between the time that Holaday Parks (L99 -0094) was deferred by the City Council in 3/01 and when it was denied (i.e. not sent on to the Planning Commission) in 3/02. This indicates interest in residential uses in the vicinity. (See also M12000 -164; D01 -232; D01 -230; DO1 -231) I. 2002 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE AND AMENDMENT PROCESS Z 1.11 cc 2 The 2002 Comprehensive Plan amendment process will be addressing amendments proposed by individuals or by staff. Work on updating the Sensitive Areas Ordinance to 0 o include "best available science" as required by the State of Washington will follow a w w separate schedule and will be completed prior to the December, 2004 deadline. E-- W o. Council Consideration Process The procedure for City Council review is shown in Exhibit 1. Although certain deadlines g are set by the State, the basic process is similar to the one Tukwila usually follows each cn year in considering Comprehensive Plan amendments. w Z= The first step in Council's consideration is to evaluate a proposed amendment according z 0 to the following review criteria: Iii 11.1 • Is the issue already adequately addressed in the Comprehensive Plan? D o. • If the issue is not addressed in the Comprehensive Plan, is there a public need for the C.) co co o' -. proposed change? W w • Is the proposed change the best means for meeting the identified public need? LL P • Will the proposed change result in a new benefit to the community? — 0. .z w0.) Following its initial consideration of a proposed amendment on March 18, 2002, the H Council shall take one of the following actions: z • Refer the proposed amendment for further review by the Planning Commission and a recommendation to the City Council; • Defer further Council consideration for one or more years; • Reject the proposed amendment. We are requesting that these "threshold" decisions be made at the conclusion of the public meeting scheduled for March 18, 2002. Timeline Work on updating the Sensitive Areas Ordinance will be completed prior to 12/31/04. We will return to the Council with a more specific schedule. The timeline for other proposed Comprehensive Plan amendment follows: March 2002 City Council briefing City Council public meeting City Council threshold decision/referral to Planning Commission 2"d quarter 2002 Planning Commission Review 3rd quarter, 2002 Planning Commission recommendation to City Council City Council Hearing City Council decision Description of amendments: 1 =1-; in re 2 J0 00 0 CO w.= ....1 F.. U) LL W0 u_Q Comprehensive Plan /Zoning Designation — submitted by Gregory Johnson = d • L01 -075 (LDR to C /LI) Comprehensive Plan designation and L01 -078 (LDR to C /LI) 1— _ F. Zoning Designation at 13136 42 "1 Ave. S Z 1-- This proposal was submitted by a property owner who owns two adjacent properties, one z O with Commercial/Light Industrial (C/LI) zoning and the other with Low Density 2 n Residential (L/DR) zoning. The proposal is to amend the Comprehensive Plan and 0 N Zoning Code Map from LDR to C/LI at 13136 -42nd Avenue South so that both properties c F- are C/LI. This property was redesignated to LDR from light industrial during the 1995 = v' Comprehensive Plan development. There are some steep slopes at the northern edge. F-. r WZ • LO1 -076 including P �; • Revise the Comprehensive Plan to revise the Transportation z Two proposed Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Code amendments applications were submitted for consideration by the December 31, 2001 deadline. One application was filed by a member of the public and one application by the City of Tukwila. The City of Tukwila's application has several different elements that will be separated into individual files once the City Council determines which proposed amendments would be referred on to the Planning Commission. Exhibit 2 is a map of proposed amendments, and Exhibit 3 is a summary table of the amendment requests. Comprehensive Plan Amendments — Submitted by City of Tukwila Element /Concurrency Ordinance (Certain parts required by GMA) Staff requests a Comprehensive Plan amendment to accommodate potential policy changes that may be needed as a result of revising the Transportation Element and Concurrency Ordinance. • Revise the Sensitive Areas Element (including Best Available Science)(GMA requirement) Revise Sensitive /Critical areas work to include the State's revised goals and policies for protecting critical areas functions and values. Local governments are required to include the "best available science" in developing policies and development regulations to protect the functions and values of critical areas and give special consideration to preserving or enhancing anadromous fisheries. • Encourage transit - related uses near high capacity transit stations Staff proposed this amendment in order to address development in the vicinity of the proposed light rail station at S. 154th and Tukwila International Boulevard, as well as to address future transit- oriented development near the commuter rail station located in the Tukwila Urban Center (TUC) or in other areas. atilMaSEMBEESIMMESMEREMMOOMOMIolkmmat.fte~anTOWNIMOMIlte6teattml&kra..00,.....,m...,*;.,.......„ .... «- . -x--.� •• - ••.........., «.. ..�.- ....wanrt.+l'•sirMMrAN!;': A`.M1Mkf1:14 }iR1'i��1y{ .. ^/..'7Y,�t!141 N.rnYt/«...� • Require adequately -sized parking facilities near high capacity transit stations Staff proposed this amendment to ensure that there is adequate parking to meet demand near high- capacity transit stations and to ensure that parking impacts do not overflow into adjacent neighborhoods. • Consider appropriate boundaries for C /LI adjacent to LDR Designation (vicinity of 48`h Avenue S. and Macadam Road/S. 135`h) This issue came up in 2000 -2001 when a business /property owner requested a Comprehensive Plan/Zoning Code map change from LDR to C/LI to enable their existing facility to expand. The City Council deferred the issue from last year's process and also requested consideration of the general topic of with Low Density Residential (LDR) zoning adjacent to Commercial/Light Industrial (C /LI). This general topic is similar to proposed amendment LO1 -075 above. N ?a .x €nY.ii;str.iSL.'k::a'irx "vi, z Z 're w. •j 00. • COW i • w =• nw 2 gj • is • w. . .1-- O. zl-. 0 c, !0 N. WW. 1- U LL O'. w:U.. Z Exhibit 1 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT PROCESS Options for Council Review Threshold Review Process Reject Proposal Refer to Planning Commission Defer Proposal Environmental Review Planning Commission Hearing / Recommendation City Council Review / Decision z I-z re Ur 2 U O' � U W =. J W0 tea • I--W Z I- 0. Z al N! • WW 0. LI O. iti z; • '. Z • Exhibit 3 SUMMARY OF PROPOSED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENTS Z < Z W U: U O U 0; uJ J W IL W O. gQ. • a it W. Z�' H O Z 2 UU ;O D H W - -U t— Z W Z Proposal (as submitted) Submitted by Background Recommendation 1. Revise Comp Plan and zoning Code maps to change LDR to C /LI at 13116 48'" Avenue South ( #L01 -075 & #L01 -078) 4 L..4 1 h ,tc p1,4+A Gregory Johnson Mr. Johnson wants the property changed to Commercial /Light Industrial, which is the designation of the adjacent property. Mr. Johnson's father owned both properties. Before the 1995 Comprehensive Plan, both properties were designated "light industry." The property in question was changed from industrial to low density residential during the Comp Plan adoption review. The adjacent property remains Commercial /Light Industrial. The properties in question contain some environmentally sensitive areas. Refer to the Planning Commission for further review. 2. Revise Transportation Background Report, Concurrency Ordinance and associated Comprehensive Plan policies as appropriate. City of Tukwila Public Works The City of Tukwila requests a Comprehensive Plan amendment to accommodate potential changes which may be needed as the Transportation Element and Concurrency ordinance are updated Refer to Planning Commission for further review 3. Update Sensitive Areas Ordinance to include "Best Available Science" per GMA requirements City of Tukwila Community Development Review of the Growth Management Act's latest requirements has shown that "Best Available Science" must be incorporated into sensitive /critical areas review process. Refer to Planning Commission for further review 4. Encourage transit - related uses near high capacity transit stations City of Tukwila Community Development This proposed amendment gives guidance In development near transit stations Refer to Planning Commission for further review 5. Require adequately -sized parking facilities near transit stations to prevent spillover onto private property City of Tukwila Community Development This proposed amendment gives guidance for parking structures near transit stations Refer to Planning Commission for further review 6. Consider the appropriate boundaries for C /LI adjacent to LDR zoning In the vicinity of S. 135th St. S. and 48'h Avenue S. City of Tukwila (includes deferred L99 -0094) This issue was initiated last year by a property owner seeking to change the boundary of the C /LI in order to expand a business use. The City Council deferred consideration proposal until consideration in 2002 pending a more general review of the appropriate limits and buffers of the C /LI and LDR zones which are adjacent. (Includes L99 -0095 ) (This general issue is similar to # L01 -075 above) Refer to Planning Commission for further review Z < Z W U: U O U 0; uJ J W IL W O. gQ. • a it W. Z�' H O Z 2 UU ;O D H W - -U t— Z W Z Public meeting to be held regarding Comprehensive Plan amendments The City of Tukwila is beginning its annual consideration of possible changes to the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Code. The Comprehensive Plan contains the broad land use goals and policies that will guide Tukwila for the next 20 years. The Zoning Code carries out the Comprehensive Plan's policies with specific requirements for land development. This year, in addition to Tukwila's regular yearly process, the State of Washington has mandated that all cities also review their Comprehensive Plans to be sure that they are up to date with statewide planning requirements and the Growth Man- agement Act (GMA). The City of Tukwila has submitted one application with several parts. The remaining amendment was proposed by a member of the public. Meeting State requirements will be the focus of this year's update, including the following proposed amendments: • Revise Sensitive Areas Ordinance to include "best avail- able science" and update inventory of sites (File #L01 -076, Applicant: City of Tukwila) • Revise Transportation Element to update Concurrency Ordinance (File #L01 -076, Applicant: City of Tukwila) Other proposed amendments are as follows: • Change the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning designation from Low Density Residential (LDR) to Commercial /Light Industrial at 13136 42nd Avenue S. (File #L01 -075, Applicant: Gregory Johnson) Storage container issues to be considered You may have noticed that some of your neighbors and local businesses have begun using cargo or shipping containers as storage sheds. The City Council is considering regulations that would limit the use of these containers in all areas of the City except industrial zones. Under the draft regulations: • All existing containers in residential or commercial areas would have to apply for a permit from the City or be removed within one year. • In residential areas, new cargo containers will only be allowed for institutional uses such as schools or hospitals. • New cargo containers may be allowed in commercial zones with a permit. • In order to get a permit, you would have to show that the container was screened from your neighbors and the street and that it met setback distance requirements. 8 • Consider the boundaries for Low Density Residential (LDP 1, adjacent to Commercial /Light Industrial (CLI) zoning nip S. 135th /Macadam Road and 48th Avenue South (File #L01 -076 , Applicant: City of Tukwila /deferred from 2001) • Revisions to Transportation element to encourage appro- priate development near high - capacity transit stations (File #L01 -076, Applicant: City of Tukwila) To give residents and businesses the opportunity to express opinions about the proposed amendments, there will be a PUBLIC MEETING 7:OOPM — Monday, March 18, 2002 City Council Chambers at Tukwila City Hall 6200 Southcenter Boulevard There will be additional opportunities for public input during the spring and summer of 2002. The City of Tukwila wel- comes both written and verbal comments about the proposed Comprehensive Plan /Zoning Code amendments from the residential and business community. Please contact Rebecca Fox of the Tukwila Department of Community Development at 206 - 431 -3683 if you have qt'' tions. You may address written comments to the Tukwila Department of Community Development, 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Tukwila, WA 98188. If you prefer, you may also comment via e -mail to rfox @ci.tukwila.wa.us . by Council • Containers would still be allowed on construction sites in all areas for temporary storage of materials and equipment. The City Council will be holding a public hearing on these changes on Monday, March 18th at 7:OOPM, and you are welcome to come and share your thoughts about the issue. For additional details, please call Nora Gierloff in the Department of Community Development at 206 - 431 -3670. " 4eatEM f�xxn3N + wr,•} F:+* r` 3" irtNNY.r nc^^, , srx;°"" rsar,,<..,�.,,...,.- Y...�..... THE HAZELNUT Minutes, 1/8/01 Page 1 of 5 TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL January 8, 2001 7:00 p.m. Tukwila City Hall - Council Chambers COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE and SPECIAL MEETING CALL TO ORDER: Council President Joan Hernandez called the Committee of Whole meeting to order and led the audience in the Pledge of Allegiance. COUNCILMEMBERS PRESENT: Council President Joan Hernandez; and Councilmembers Joe Duffie; Pam Carter; Jim Haggerton; Pam Linder (arrived 8:26 p.m.), Dave Fenton and Richard Simpson. OFFICIALS: Mayor Steve Mullet; City Administrator John McFarland; Assistant City Administrator Rhonda Berry; Police Chief Keith Haines; Steve Lancaster, DCD Director; Alan Doerschel, Finance Director; Bruce Fletcher, Parks Director; Rick Still, Assistant Park Director; Rebecca Fox, Associate DCD Planner; Lucy Lauterbach, Council Analyst; Brian Shelton, City Engineer; Ryan Larson, Senior Engineer- Surface Water; Rosa Krows, Police Record Manager; Jessica Richardson, Alder Hendrickson, Shannon Fisher, Community Center staff. SPECIAL PRESENTATION: a. Tukwila Community School Collaboration Winter Camp Jesse Richardson, Alder Hendrickson, and Shannon Fisher presented different aspects of the recent Tukwila Community Schools Collaboration Winter Camp ( "camp. ") The camp was organized with the help of the City of Tukwila, Casey Family Program, Puget Sound Educational Service District, Tukwila School District., and Department of Social and Health Services. It was operated for eight days (December 20 - January 2); and served 330 kids. The camp was staffed by 50 temporary workers, plus Community Center staff, volunteers, and School District workers. A slide show exhibited some of the programs not normally done in school, such as drama and field trips, computer practice, visits from fire and police, and board games. Council member Duffie asked if this program would be continued. The response was that if funding were provided, the program would expand to all five Tukwila schools for before and after school programs. b. Cascade Park Acquisition Rick Still, Parks & Recreation Assistant Director, displayed a map of the project, and how it could be developed. The park, at 37th between S. 144th- 142nd, has ten parcels. Mr. Still emphasized that http: / /www.ci.tukwila .wa.us /clerk/docs01 /cow1-8.htm 3/26/01 Minutes, 1/8/01 Page 2 of 5 community input has been sought to ensure park safety. Next, he introduced Sharon Mann of ReMax, who said the plan for the park had begun in August, and she has successfully obtained for the City all but two of the parcels, which are currently in process. Bruce Fletcher, Parks & Recreation Director, noted a community meeting will be held to obtain additional input from neighbors in the affected area. Jack Hendricks, neighboring citizen, expressed concern over the lack of parking spaces for the proposed park. The issue was referred to the Community Affairs and Parks Committee. CITIZEN COMMENT /CORRESPONDENCE: Bill Arthur 18000 Andover Park West Suite 200, Tukwila, representing the Highway 99 Action Committee, thanked the Council for the City's part in the Committee's success. He distributed the Committee's monthly newsletter and presented an award to Joan Hernandez for her part in helping clean up the highway. Margaret Bratcher 13003 56111 Avenue South, Tukwila, reported that graffiti artists have again defaced the columns under I -5 , and have now expanded to the actual sides of the freeway. She expressed concern for kids' safety in climbing up to I -5 to paint. Her telephone contact with Department of Transportation was fruitless; and she was referred back to Tukwila officials. Steve Snyder, Owner - Silver Dollar Casino -14027 Interurban South, Tukwila, said trees planted along Interurban as part of the street improvement are blocking his signs. This issue was (again) sent to the Community and Parks Committee. Councilmember Duffle introduced members of a new Youth Council he helped organize. He was inspired by the teen representatives at the National League of Cities Conference. Six of the teens spoke, as did Foster High School Principal Gary Moab. Several students expressed hope they could bring issues forward to the City Council of which they may be unaware. PUBLIC HEARING : Local Law Enforcement Block Grant (LLEBG) Fund Use Council President Hernandez opened the public hearing. Rosa Krows explained the ($34, 553.00) funds from this grant help support the Domestic Violence Advocate. Tukwila's crime has decreased in recent years, thus the grant amount has also declined. No public comment was received. Council President Hernandez closed the public hearing. SPECIAL ISSUES: a. Comprehensive Plan Amendment Proposals Triangle Piece L99 -0092 http://www.ci.tukwila.wa.us/clerk/docs01/cow1-8.htm 3/26/01 OLIO •,::., n. ta., nay, Minutes, 1/8/01 Page 3 of 5 Steve Lancaster, Director of Community Development, presented two proposed amendments remaining (unresolved) from the original list of seven. The first issue involves a triangle piece of land (L99 -0092) which is zoned LDR. The property owner has requested a rezone to MIC /L. Mr. Lancaster and staff suggest a compromise. He noted that if the City is careful about using a contract rezone, it could also allow the owner to apply for a MIC /L use through a conditional use review. One requirement for such a review is that a use be compatible with surrounding uses. Council agreed this should come back.as an ordinance .allowing. ,the .contract -rezone. ,. Holiday Park The Planning Commission recommended denial of Holiday Park's request to change from LDR to C/LI. Mr. Lancaster noted the Planning Commission did not have some information from the developer which could have influenced their decision. Though the Council recognized the proposal had some merit, they did not feel it was strong enough to override their reluctance to make special allowance for a single property. They felt it would be appropriate to defer consideration of this item to the Comprehensive Planning process slated for 2002. Concerns listed by Councilmembers Fenton and Carter included having no guarantee the current owners would retain ownership; and, once zoning was changed, a new owner could decide on something very incompatible with neighbors. Councilmember Haggerton also spoke against the change since the Council denied that opportunity to other applicants. In recommending deferral of this item to the Comprehensive Plan process, 4 Council also wanted other properties who had requested zoning changes to be included in discussion ,at that time. ::::� ,: ; : -__ ,..•,..:; _.: =.... a ear2; ? iy��tae 'i. • a . • .::• . •. b. Gilliam Creek Basin Stormwater Management Plan Ryan Larson, Senior Engineer, Surface Water, introduced the Plan. The Plan studied Gilliam Creek, and recommended actions to be taken to improve some problems found in the basin. The problems are so great that utilizing only current funding, the City could never afford to do all the projects required to clean and repair the basin. There is bank erosion and creek bed scouring, as well as sediment accumulation in different parts of the creek basin. The problems are so great that the City could never afford to do the projects required to clean and repair the basin. 20 projects are recommended to improve water quality. Councilmember Haggerton expressed concern with the effect of SeaTac Airport property runoff which enters the Creek. Ms. Carter noted staff will need to be creative to find funding for the projects, and expressed confidence that they will be able to do so. Councilmember Fenton asked what the highest priority was. Mr. Larson replied it was to build a regional in- stream detention pond, scheduled for 2003. Council recommended moving adoption of the Plan to a Regular Meeting. 8:26 p.m. Clerical Note: Councilmember Linder arrived. REPORTS: http://vvww.ci.tukwila.wa.us/clerk/docs01/cow1-8.htm 3/26/01 Minutes, 1/8/01 Page 4 of 5 Councilmember Duffle announced a tree planting ceremony for Martin Luther King Day, at the Community Center. He also announced a study circle to discuss racism will begin this Thursday, January 11, at 4:00 p.m. at Tukwila Elementary. This will be open to everyone. It is expected to run four or five weeks, depending on the will of the group. Councilmember Hernandez reviewed the last Equity and Diversity meeting. She also discussed Committee meeting times. After some discussion, Council agreed to keep the same basic schedule for = w as in 2000. IX U O' Councilmember Haggerton expressed discontent with the new name of the DoubleTree Inn; which co o is now entitled the Red Lion Hotel - Seattle Airport. w _ J H Councilmember Linder reported on the meeting she attended this evening. The Part 150 group is w O comprised of airport users and businesses, with only four resident representatives. The group is narrowing down the focus of the Part 150 study, and it is important for Tukwila that our interests are • Q represented. She also announced that due to a new work schedule, she will need to withdraw from her cn a position on the Joint Recommendation Committee for CDBG. • w z �. 8:44 p.m. Council agreed to go into executive session for 30 minutes, to discuss labor issues and z potential litigation, following a 10- minute break. al Ill moo. EXECUTIVE SESSION: o o E-- Labor Issues Pursuant to RCW 42.30.110(1)(g) ▪ o 4-- 0 Potential Litigation Pursuant to RCW 42.30.110(1)(i) w Z o ADJOURNMENT: CO- 8:59 p.m. No action taken as a result of the executive session. COW meeting adjourned. CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES CALL TO ORDER: Mayor Mullet called the City Council Special meeting to order at 9:00 p.m. ROLL CALL: Lucy Lauterbach, Council Analyst, called the roll of Council. Present were Council President Joan Hernandez; and Councilmembers Joe Duffle, Pam Carter, Jim Haggerton, Pam Linder, Dave Fenton and Richard Simpson. OFFICIALS: John McFarland, City Administrator; Viki Jessop, Administrative Services Director; Police Chief http://www.ci.tukwila.wa.us/clerk/docs01/cow 1 -8.htm 3/26/01 Minutes, 1/8/01 Page 5 of 5 Keith Haines; Alan Doerschel, Finance Director; Lucy Lauterbach; Council Analyst. OLD BUSINESS: Approve purchase of Cascade Park Property Councilmember Dave Fenton recused himself from consideration of this item. Carter moved; Duffie seconded; approval to purchase properties for Cascade Park Project. The motion carried 7 -0. It was noted the project is under budget thus far. NEW BUSINESS: Approval of the Police Officers Labor Agreement for January 1, 2001- December 31, 2003. Hernandez moved; Fenton seconded; approval of the Police Officers Labor Agreement, for January 1, 2001 through December 31, 2003. The motions carried 7 -0. ADJOURNMENT: 9:39 p.m. Haggerton moved; Duffie seconded; adjournment of the Special meeting. The motion carried 7 -0. Return to Home http://wwvv.ci.tukwila.wa.us/clerk/docs01/cowl-8.htm 3/26/01 z �z. 2: UO (/) 0: cn.w. W= fn LL g co z� Z o; 2 V 0 , Z U N. H z To: From: Subject: Date: City of Tukwila 'ATTACHMENT A Steven M. Mullet, Mayor Department of Community Development Steve Lancaster, Director Mayor Mullet City Council Steve Lancaster Comprehensive Plan Amendments —Next Steps December 5, 2000 Process to Date At its public hearing on 11/20/00, the City Council approved 5 proposed Comprehensive Plan amendments as follows: • L2000 -036 Allow Office in MIC/L as a Conditional Use • L99 -0086 Allow Office uses on third floor in NCC along Tukwila International Boulevard • L99 -0085 Eliminate overlapping Potential Annexation Area (delay implementation until Interlocal Agreement is finalized) • L99 -0088 Revise City boundaries near Boeing Field (delay implementation until Interlocal Agreement is finalized) • L2000 -038 Revise Transportation Element to include State requirements (i.e. Highways of Statewide Significance) Council members decided to discuss two remaining amendments at a later meeting and requested that staff provide alternatives for consideration. Triangle Designation (L99 -0092) Discussion: Owners want MIC/L in order to receive some economic return. Council members are concerned over the potential that many uses permitted in the MIC/L zone would be inappropriate for the site's characteristics and its location. The owners think a communications, utility or transportation use would be possible i.e. cell tower, storage building etc with Qwest, Sound Transit, State of Washington. They would be interested in having the City purchase the property. While lower in potential impacts, a home is not likely to be built there. Uses allowed in LDR are very restricted. A communications tower, one of the few commercial uses allowed, would be limited to 30 feet in height. A contract rezone to MIC/L which required potential development to receive conditional use review would allow appropriate MIC/L uses to locate in the area and allow the owners to receive economic return. n 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • Phone: 206 - 431 -3670 • Fax: 206 - 431 -3665 rgS3nmonaR.riY'rtY. ez ;x¢akrwnx.e w Options • LDR (Initial Staff recommendation responding to public comment in 1998) • MIC/L (Planning Commission recommendation responding to owner input) • Contract Rezone to MIC/L (Contract terms would require any proposed development subject to- conditional use review) LDR to C/LI (L99 -0094) The Applicant submitted four development alternatives at the 11/20/00 public meeting. If granted the LDR to C/LI rezone, the applicant proposes access on S. 134th, rather than Macadam Road. Without the rezone /redesignation, some industrial access will be along Macadam. Throughout the review process, the public has spoken against the rezone /redesignation. Their primary concerns are the shrinking of the residential area and the possible negative impacts of light industrial development on their homes and neighborhood. Options • Approve rezone from LDR to C/LI (Applicant request) • Defer rezone and consider the designation of the entire area during the 5 year Comprehensive Plan update in 2001 -2002 (Initial staff recommendation) • Reject the rezone / redesignation (Planning Commission recommendation) Next Steps: Once the City Council makes a recommendation, staff will prepare ordinances and resolutions enacting the amendments. These documents will come before the City Council for adoption in January, 2001 and will become effective thereafter. z• • s I— ~w JU: 0 w ' =. J • u) g • Q =• a z o z F— w 2 U O U, U uiz: j•t H �: .O . z Please consider the following issues specifically before you make your final decision in this matter. • A Rezone to C/LI will allow for a greater distance between residential and commercial buildings. (Refer to attached Site Plan Exhibit "A" and Exhibit `B ".) • A Rezone to C/LI will allow traffic from the assembled property to access directly to S. 134th Street and not onto Macadam Road. Holaday -Parks agreed to give up access to Macadam if this rezone is approved. • A Rezone to C/LI will allow a bus turnout to be constructed along the westerly boundary of the property frontage on Macadam Road. This turnout would be available for both school and metro busses. • A Rezone to C/LI will allow for better Fire Department access to the assembled property by creating the opportunity for a turn- around. (Refer to attached site plan exhibit "A ".) • A Rezone to C/LI will allow the elimination of developing the two existing substandard lots as residential and their need for access onto Macadam Road. • A Rezone to C/LI will allow for more substantial frontage improvements due to the development of the assembled property. • A Rezone to C/LI will allow for improved water quality treatment and detention of run -off. The one option that clearly maintains the livability and integrity of the residential neighborhood is to rezone the two (2) residential lots from LDR to C/LI. It is very rare that increasing a commercial /industrial zone and decreasing the area of a residential zone will actually improve the quality of life in the residential zone, but this is the case where that will be the result by not having to impact residential streets with industrial traffic, and by being able to create greater separations between the commercial and residential buildings. As Architects we are concerned that the opposition by both the City and the neighbors is focusing on "not in my back yard" while ignoring how the current zoning is eventually going to negatively impact their front yards and the safety of their street system. Yours truly, Ted N xon AIA Campbell / Nixon & Assoc., Inc . �,..,.... �, c�,. N�• �ns�± �v�n�sa�sK' Mr+ 3�" �- '�s��ta.....'�iatFRS:�:s..�st�R z _1- w Ce 6 D. 0 0 0 co 0 w�= w0 = d. t.w z� 1- o z~' w. 1:3 • U • --, O -. w w 1- r o. wz =. 0 z • • • • • • • • ATTACHMENT B 1 ARCHITECTS & PLANNERS December 4, 2000 Honorable Mayor and City Council City of Tukwila 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Ste 100 Tukwila, WA 98188 420 West Harrison Street, Suite 202 Kent, WA 98032 Phone: 253.854.2470 FAX: 253.854.2475 AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF ARCHITECTS Re: Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Rezone; File Number L99 -0094 and L99 -0095 Dear Mayor Mullet and City Council: On November 20, 2000 a public hearing was held on the Holaday Parks' request to change the designation of two lots zoned Low Density Residential to Commercial/Light Industrial. As professionals we feel compelled to write this letter in support of this request. The City will miss an important planning and design opportunity if they deny or postpone this request. We felt that the four minutes allowed to present the proposed rezone alternatives to the City Council and to the Mayor was inadequate, and we may have missed the opportunity to present the important benefits to the community of our request. During the Public Hearing held on Sept. 28,2000 by the Planning Commission several neighbors spoke of their concerns about the amount of traffic that this project would generate directly to and from Macadam Road (S. 135th Street). The second largest concern voiced by the neighborhood was that of having a commercial/industrial building built within a few feet of single- family residences. Holaday- Parks' request allows resolution for both of these concerns. At the October 12 Planning Commission workshop, we listened to the Planning Commission's reasons for recommending denial of this application: their recommendation for denial was based on the concern that this was 1) a spot rezone; and 2) that they were concerned about the livability of the existing neighborhood. Your City Staff and ourselves both agree that this is not "spot rezone" by any means. Livability and preservation of residential neighborhoods is important, but what the Planning Commission failed to consider was the impact on the neighborhood if the parcels were developed in accordance with current zoning. We unequivocally contend that by denying or postponing this request that the future development of the CILI parcels separate from the intervening LDR parcels, will have greater impacts to traffic on Macadam Road and to the adjacent residential neighborhood. z z re 2 6 JO. Uo to w= u)w w0 u- ¢. i0 1- 11. Z = 1.0 zi- L1.1 w U� o1- w W. 1-- L-0 wz U 01 z CITY OF TUKWILA NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Tukwila City Council will hold a public hearing on Monday, November 20, 2000 beginning at 7 p.m. in the Council Chambers at Tukwila City Hall, 6200 Southcenter Blvd., Tukwila, to consider the following: Changes to the Tukwila Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Code. Applications include: 1) Eliminate overlap with the City of Seattle's Potential Annexation Area (L99 -0085) 2) Revise boundary with Seattle in vicinity of Boeing Field (L99 -0088) 3) Establish LDR (Low Density Residential) designation for undesignated area at Interurban Ave. S. and e. Marginal Way (L99 -0092, L99 -0093) 4) Designate two adjacent LDR (Low Density Residential) lots as C/LI (Commercial Light Industrial) at 4625 S. 134`" Pl. (L99 -0094, L99 -0095) 5) Allow 3rd floor office use in NCC (Neighborhood Commercial Center) zone along Tukwila International Boulevard (L -99 -0086, L99 -0087) 6) Allow office use throughout MIC/L (Manufacturing/Industrial Center - Light) zone (generally between S. 112"' and S. 126th between E. Marginal Way and Tukwila International Boulevard) independent of industrial use (L2000 -036, L2000 -037) 7) Revise Transportation Background Report to include changes to Growth Management Act (L2000 -038) All interested persons are invited to be present to voice approval, disapproval, or opinions on this issue. For those unable to attend in person, you may submit written testimony to the City Clerk's office until 5 p.m. on November 20, 2000. Please contact Rebecca Fox, Associate Planner, Department of Community Development, at (206) 431 -3683 or rfox ci.tukwila.wa.us if you have questions. The City of Tukwila strives to accommodate people with disabilities. Please contact the City Clerk's Office at (206) 433 -1800 or TDD 1- 800 - 833 -6388 by noon on Monday if we can be of assistance. Jane E. Cantu City Clerk Published: Seattle Times - 11/3/00 & 11 /10 /00 z .=Z' Ce ate' Wes. 0 00 N0. LU J H N � WO u-a I— W z� E- O Z I- U• 0 =. 0 W al • 0 O Z W =; O 1- z Rebecca Fox - Council Meeting Pag� From: WDSHOLU|NGS"<mdohcddinon@ iols.net> To: "Rebecca Fox" <rh)x@oitukvv|a/wa.uo> Date: 11/19/00 8:36AK4 Subject: Council Meeting Dear Rebecca: Do to work obligations | will not be ob|u to attend the meeting of 11/20/00. | would like to let staff know that it would be my desire that the City Council follow the recommendations of the Planning Committee in regards to items #3 and 4(LAQ-U0S2.L00-0UO3 and LQ0-0004.LQQ-OO95). The work done by staff and the Planning Committee reflect the desires of the community in the areas effected by these proposals. On items #3/L-89'0092.L89'0003\;to change this designation would beto continue o hardship onthe property owner. This designation should remain C/LL On item #4(LQ0-0US4.L00-0005); to change the boundaries that were established by the Comprehensive Planning committee and the desires of the effected community on the whim ofo corporate neighbor would bewrong. This designation should remain LOR. I would be grateful if the results of the City Council meeting could be e-mailed to this address. Thank you for all your help. Da|eKDnndehn|dingm@|DLS.net �_ / [} / �_/�y)�/J � / _ ���� -- � � - '] 2 -/ 41 Lq�� — ��<� �4- . ./ RECEIVED �qp 1, ',j 2000 C(")hAMUNI'ry DEVELOPMENT %� ewe, city of Tukwila Steven M. Mullet, Mayor Department of Community Development Steve Lancaster, Director CITY OF TUKWILA NOTICE OF HEARING NOVEMBER 20, 2000 PROJECT INFORMATION Holaday Parks has filed an application to amend the Comprehensive Plan (File #L99- 0094)' and- Zoning Code (File # L99 -0095) to establish.0 /LI- (Commercial/Light Industrial) designations for two adjacent parcels currently designated as LDR (Low Density Residential) located one parcel south of 4534 S. 135th St./Macadam Road and one parcel west of 4625 S. 134th Place. (Refer to map on reverse) The Planning Commission has recommended denying the proposed amendment. You are invited to comment on the proposal at a public hearing before the City Council scheduled for: Date: November 20, 2000 Time: 7.00 p.m. Place: Tukwila City Hall 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila , WA 98188 For more information on this proposal, contact Rebecca Fox at 206 -431- 3683. Written comments are welcome. Please address comments to Rebecca Fox, 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite 100, Tukwila, WA 98188 or via e -mail to rfox @ci.tukwila.wa.us. If you prefer, you may submit written comments in person at the hearing on November 20, 2000. 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • Phone: 206 - 431 -3670 • Fax: 206- 431 -3665 NORTH =32 .0 4.94.16 ay 'arks 9-0094 Rezone 095 i omprehen 0 0 entia to C/U (Commercial/Light Industrial) R (Lbw Density Residential) to C/L1 (Comme-cial/ Light ndustrial) 7 - ' ••• ^ • -! 4 1 6/30/0 1,00. F7' • • „,... , . OV. 2 0 L60 (,;.OMMUNITY__ DEVELOPMENT • /71/71A‘ z < • 1— Z 0 00 co 0 LL1 W w 0 2 5 u_ W Z 0 Z 1— W w • G) O co O — C) 1— W w 1— LLIo z U) 0 51- Gity of Tukwila Steven M. Mullet, Mayor Department of Community Development Steve Lancaster, Director KATHRYN STETSON, CHAIRMAN, VERN MERYHEW, VICE CHAIRMAN, BILL ARTHUR, DAVID LIVERMORE, GEORGE MAUNA, HENRY MARVIN, AND KIRSTINE WHISLER THURSDAY, October 12, 2000 Conference Room 5, Minolta Building PLANNING COMMISSION WORKSESSION • AGENDA PLANNING COMMISSION WORKSESSION 7:00 - 9:00 p.m. Deliberations on Comprehensive Plan Amendments 1. CALL TO ORDER II. ATTENDANCE III. ADOPTION OF MINUTES: September 28, 2000 IV. DELIBERATIONS Attachment 1 CASE NUMBER: L99 -0094 (Zoning Code Amendment) LDR to C/LI L99 -0095 (Comprehensive Plan Amendment) LDR to C/LI Attachment 2 CASE NUMBER: L99 -0092 Establish LDR (Comprehensive Plan Amendment) L99 -0093 Establish LDR (Zoning Code Amendment) Attachment 3 CASE NUMBER: L2000 -036 - Office in MIC/L (Comprehensive Plan Amendment) L2000 -037 - Office in MIC/L (Zoning Code Amendment) (Add Table 1 and Table 2 to this section) Office in MIC/L, Attachment D V. DIRECTOR'S REPORT • Discussion on the recording for Public Hearings VI. ADJOURN 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • Phone: 206- 431 -3670 • Fax: 206 - 431 -3665 z • =z. CC w 6 D U: .U0: 'CO 0' W= w O 2 g Q. co: =c5 _ z� I- O Z D 0 ;052' 0 H. = U F— —. LL O; w z. U! 0 ~, z. CITY OF TUKWILA PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING MINUTES SEPTEMBER 28, 2000 z w The public hearing was called to order by Vern Meryhew at 7:05 p.m. Attendance was taken. U O co CI w Present: Commissioners: Vern Meryhew, Bill Arthur, Henry Marvin, George Malina, David Livermore, and -I E-- Kirstine Whisler. _ LLO Representing City Staff: Jack Pace, Rebecca Fox, Minnie Dhaliwal, and Wynetta Bivens. W Absent: Kathryn Stetson LL.Q George Malina made a motion to adopt the minutes from August 24, 2000. Bill Arthur seconded the motion. The to motion was unanimously approved. = W Z� Vern Meryhew swore in those wishing to provide testimony. H O z Case Number: L2000 -043 Qwest Wireless LLC (Conditional Use Permit) g D, Location: 10400 Martin Luther King Jr. Way South, Tukwila .0 Request: Conditional Use permit to install a wireless Communication facility comprised of antennae mounted O a' on the roof of an existing building and associated operating equipment mounted on ground on the west w w side of the building. Bill Arthur made a declaration; he has a spouse and daughter employed by competitors, he wanted to know if O. wz U 0 I- anyone would have objections to him hearing. the case. Norris Bacho, for applicant had no objections. Minnie Dhaliwal gave the presentation for staff. Staff recommended approval with the following three conditions: 1. Screen wall must be provided on all four sides of the antennae that are proposed on the southwest corner of the building. 2. The antennae and the screen wall proposed on the north side of the roof must be located on the north east corner of the existing building so the screen wall appears to be part of the building and can be an architectural element of the building. 3. Prior to issuance of miscellaneous permit, applicant shall submit material and color samples of the proposed screen wall. The screen wall must be finished and painted to match the existing building. Norris Bacho gave presentation for the applicant. They concurred with staff recommendations and conditions. There were no further comments. Public Hearing closed by Vice -chair Meryhew. The Commission deliberated. z Page 2 KIRSTINE WHISHLER MADE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR CASE NUMBER L2000 -043, WITH STAFFS FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS, AND CONDITIONS. DAVID LIVERMORE SECONDED THE MOTION AND THE PLANNING COMMISSION UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED THE MOTION. z ~ w Case Number: L2000 -047 Qwest Wireless LLC (Conditional Use Permit) n Location: 11000 Block of Pacific Highway South, Tukwila J 0 Request: Conditional Use permit approval for the installation of a wireless telecommunication facility, U O (0 O; consisting of antennae mounted on an existing Seattle City Light lattice tower and associated operating u) Ill equipment placed underneath the tower. . H 2u Bill Arthur made a declaration; he has a spouse and daughter employed by competitors, he wanted to know if w O anyone would have objections to him hearing the case. J LLg ?. Norris Bacho, for applicant had no objections. N Ci Tw Minnie Dhaliwal gave the presentation for staff. z Z O O Staff recommended approval with the following conditions: w uj 1. Antennas must be painted with a non- reflective paint to match the existing lattice tower. U N CIF—;. Norris Bacho gave presentation for the applicant. They concurred with staff recommendations with one exception. The applicant proposed a fence instead of landscaping. U u- O. tLZ: ow O� There were no further comments. Public Hearing closed by Vice -chair Meryhew. The Commission deliberated. DAVID LIVERMORE MADE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR CASE NUMBER L2000 -047, WITH STAFFS FINDINGS CONCLUSIONS (WITH THE EXCEPTION OF A CEDAR FENCE INSTEAD OF LANDSCAPING), RECOMMENDATIONS AND CONDITIONS. GEORGE MALINA SECONDED THE MOTION AND THE PLANNING COMMISSION UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED THE MOTION. Case Number: L2000 -050 Metricom Inc. (Conditional Use Permit) Location: 13130 44th Avenue, Tukwila Request: Conditional Use permit approval for the installation of a wireless telecommunication facility, consisting of antennae mounted on an existing 120 feet tall monopole and associated operating equipment placed underneath the monopole. Bill Arthur made a declaration; he has a spouse and daughter employed by competitors, he wanted to know if anyone would have objections to him hearing the case. Richard Cordo, for applicant had no objections. Minnie Dhaliwal gave the presentation for staff. z Page 3 Staff recommended approval with the following conditions: 1. The existing chain link fence shall be made sight obscuring by inserting privacy slats that are painted the same color as the existing building. The height of the equipment shall not be higher than the existing fence. Richard Cardoza gave presentation for the applicant. They concurred with staff recommendations. There were no further comments. Public Hearing closed by Vice -chair Meryhew. The Commission deliberated. KIRSTINE WHISLER MADE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR CASE NUMBER L2000 -050, WITH STAFFS FINDINGS CONCLUSIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS AND CONDITIONS. GEORGE MALINA SECONDED THE MOTION AND THE PLANNING COMMISSION UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED THE MOTION. Public Hearing closed at 7:40. Case Number: Location:. Request: AMENDMENTS TO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND ZONING CODE L99 -0094 Zoning Code Amendment L99 -0095 Comprehensive Plan Amendment 4534 S. 135th St. (Macadam Rd.) and 4625 S. 134th Pl. Establish C/LI (Commercial/Light Industrial) Comprehensive Plan and Zoning designation for two adjacent parcels currently designated at LDR (Low Density Residential) Rebecca Fox gave presentation for staff. Staff recommended deferring, until the issue of residential vs. light industrial use for the area can be considered during the 5 -year Comprehensive Plan update in 2001-2002.-- See attachment for public comments Public Hearing closed by Vice -chair Meryhew. Case Number: L99 -0092 Location: Intersection of East Marginal Way and Interurban Avenue South Request: Approval for LDR Comprehensive Plan and Zoning designation for a non - designated, non -zoned area. Rebecca Fox gave presentation for staff. Staff recommends approval. See attachment for public comments Public Hearing closed by Vice -chair Meryhew. Case Number: Location: Request: L2000 -036 Office in MIC/L (Comp Plan Amendment) L2000 -037 Office in MIC/L (Zoning Code Amendment) The MIC/L district located between Tukwila International Boulevard and East Marginal Way South, East Marginal Way South and Hwy 599, and Hwy 599 and the Duwamish River. Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Code amendments to allow office use in the MIC/L (Manufacturing Industrial Center/Light) district. Page 4 Rebecca Fox gave presentation for staff. Staff recommends approval. See attachment for public comments Public Hearing closed by Vice -chair Meryhew. Case Number: L99 -0086 Comprehensive Plan Amendment L99 -0087 Zoning Code Amendment Location: NCC districts throughout Tukwila Request: Amend Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Code to allow office use on the third story in the NCC Neighborhood Commercial Center zones. Rebecca Fox gave presentation for staff. Staff recommends approval. No public comments. Public Hearing closed by Vice -chair Meryhew. Case Number: L99 -0085 North Potential Annexation Area Location: Generally west of the King County Airport Request: To modify part of the Potential Annexation Area boundary, which currently overlaps with the City of Seattle. Change Comprehensive Plan map accordingly. Rebecca Fox gave presentation for staff. Staff recommends approval. No public comments. Public Hearing closed by Vice -chair Meryhew. Case Number: L99 -0088 North Boundary Adjustment Location: Generally in the King county Airport area and the center of 51' Avenue South between Ryan Way and South 113th. Request: To revise and simplify boundaries with Seattle and King County in the vicinity of King County Airport (Boeing Field). Change Comprehensive Plan map accordingly. Rebecca Fox gave presentation for staff. Staff recommends approval, with no final action taken until the details have • been worked out regarding the final disposition of the 14th —16th Avenue Bridge and the exact location of the boundaries. No public comments. Public Hearing closed by Vice -chair Meryhew. Case Number: L2000 -038 Transportation Background Report Update Location: Citywide Request: Revise the Comprehensive Plan for new Transportation Background Report Rebecca Fox gave presentation for staff. Staff recommends approval. No public comments. Public Hearing closed by Vice -chair Meryhew. . .. ..... ??s}• }�, ^r.:.gY.,. .........�,a:r�fuk; =art`�f ..G�i�, +5:�ri93.. .� i!v >SG'r.; z • ;� z • W. 00 O w'= fn u, ' WO 2 Q. _a I— W z�. I0 Z LLI U CI I— =U u' O. .Z. W U- f=- _ ~ O z Page 5 DIRECTOR'S REPORT • Jack informed the Commission that the Public Hearing in November and December would be scheduled on the second Tuesday of the month, due to the holidays. Respectfully Submitted Wynetta Bivens Administrative Secretary 0 PLANNING COMMISSION WORK SESSION AND PUBLIC HEARING Identified speakers: SEPTEMBER 28, 2000 Commissioner Vern Meryhew, chairing the meeting Commissioner David Livermore, Commissioner Arthur, and Commissioner Malina Rebecca Fox Robert Bernhardt Michelle Evans Gina Vale Jack Pace Betty Gully Ted Nixon Ray Rosatto Matt Peters Doug Barlow Ms. Peters Bryan Shelton Meryhew: And we will now close the public hearing for the planning commission and go into the amendments of the comprehensive to the planning code. We have a, a number of items to include here tonight. And the plan is to go through these case number by case number and have the people wishing to speak on each of these, speak at the time that that case number comes up. And we'll try to get through them all as quickly as we can. We'll try to make sure if we can, that we can hear them all tonight. And if we have time we may have deliberation and we may not. We may continue this over to another hearing, depending on how long it•takes tonight. So with that we'll have staff uh, open up on item L99 -0094 and 0095, on the Holaday Parks application. Fox: I'm Rebecca Fox, associate planner with the Department of Community Development. I'd like to ask for the benefit of the, of the members of the public, would you like a brief run- through of the process for amending the comprehensive plan or should we go right to the... 1 Meryhew: That's a good idea, to give them an idea of what the process is here. Fox: Alright. Basically amending the comprehensive plan is a serious, is a serious issue which did involve a number, a number of steps. It's a legislative process and we're basically in the middle of the process at the moment. Amendments that were proposed at the end of, at the end of last year. They've been slowly moving forward. A public meeting was held in April and at that time citizens made comments on five of these applications. City Council then added consideration of, office in the MIC /L zone. And then a couple months later, the Public Works Department added TAPE ENDED • SECOND TAPE Fox: The City Council requested that all seven proposed amendments go to the Planning Commission for consideration and recommendation. We're at that point now. After you make your recommendation, these recommendations will then be forwarded back to the City Council. There will be a public hearing and at that time citizens will have another opportunity to make comments. After that point the City Council will make its final decision. So that is basically the process. There's this evening for public comments and then uh, they go back to the Planning, excuse me, to the City Council. Meryhew: Okay. Excuse me right there for a minute, but in case anyone in the audience don't have copies of this, there are copies of these proposals on the table over there, and you probably need them to follow along with us. Okay? Okay! Fox: Alright. First, the first proposed amendment is file #L99 -0094, Zoning Code amendment and L99 -0095, Comprehensive Plan amendment. The request is to establish a commercial light industrial and zone, comprehensive plan and zoning designation for two adjacent properties that are currently designated as 2 Meryhew: Fox: Livermore: low density residential. They're located approx', in the general vicinity of South 135th and 34th, 43rd Avenue South. Otherwise known as Macadam. Otherwise known as Macadam. Thank you very much. Um, the applicant wants to extend the CLI, Commercial Light Industrial district south by two lots into the existing low density residential zone. Once this is accomplished the applicant wants to combine these two lots with adjacent properties located at 4534 135th Street, South 135th, and 4625 South 134th Place to build a new facility for an existing firm. This, the designation for this area, was discussed during the 1995 Comprehensive Plan discussions and there were proposals at that time for light industry and residential being considered. The Council decided to retain the residential designation at that point. In your packet you have comments that have been made by residents. Two were, two are in support and three are in opposition. Okay. Do you have any questions of the staff? Not at this time. Meryhew: No, no questions of staff? Okay. With that we will hear from people in the audience. And what I'm going to do is I'm going to start down this sign -up list. If you didn't get a chance to sign in, you'll still have an opportunity to speak. Okay! Fox: We've got this aerial view, if the public would like to use that to.... Meryhew: Yeah. Maybe.... Fox: Meryhew: Marvin: ... you're more than welcome. I'll bring it closer to the podium. ..is it alright with you people if we turn it a little bit better so that they can see it? Yeah. That would be good. Meryhew: Why don't you move it back by those chairs and turn it 3 •: • Zt,# ','r!tUi".M41144a P:15 Nttfi�'� :dita 4ikx Fox: Meryhew: Man: Meryhew: Man: Meryhew: Man: Meryhew: towards the audience a little bit if you can? Okay. Now that's probably good. We have a lot of people on this one? Yeah. Most of them are on this particular one. Is there, is there a time limit necessary or we'll see how it goes? Uh, I think we'll go, just see how it goes. Okay. And try to keep it a little bit brief when you do get a chance to speak. I'm not going to put a time limit on it, but if I think you're running a little bit too long, I will have a tendency to cut you off. Okay? Alright. With that the first person to speak is uh, Ray Rosatto? Would you please come up and, if you want to speak, and give your name and address please. Rosatto: My name is Ray Rosatto and that's R- O- S- A- T -T -O. And I reside at 10818 Des Moines Way South, Seattle, 98168. Need a telephone number? Pace: Meryhew: Rosatto: Pace: Meryhew: Rosatto: Meryhew: I know this gentleman. He's wanting to speak about another, the next item on the agenda. Next item on the agenda. Are you aware that this, the one we're talking about is the .... No I, when you called me, I thought this was on the 1990092? He's on the second one. Oh, no. That's the next one up sir. We'll call you back later on. Okay! Okay. Thank you. Alright. Um, Matt Peters. 4 Peters: Good evening distinguished Commission members. My name is Matt Peters and I live at 13552 Macadam Road South. Said lot is immediately south of the parcel in question. My family has resided at this location since 1982. During the years of our occupancy the parcel north of us has served as a haven for hawks, owls, racoons, possums and other wild life. A watershed for Southgate Creek is below us. It is natural buffer between industrial facilities north and several LDR parcels surrounding us. My cond', my concerns are as follows: How can Tukwila's Planning Commission disrupt this harmony by allowing construction of proposed two story industrial facility perilously close to the entrance of our residence? How can any one neighbor be allowed to jeopardize another's property value, peace and tranquility by constructing a facility that would entertain double shifts, complete with back -up tones on service vehicles that would wake the dead, permitted by ordinance for safety at any time of day or night? This is not a good neighbor policy, but rather a recipe for future conflict. Not to mention increasingly disruptive large tractor /trailer traffic in violation of weight restrictions, looking for shortcuts around residences nearby. There's been a sign posted recently with a notice stating that there would be no adverse effects on the environment signed by Steve Lawrence, representing the City of Tukwila. However, neither my family nor my neighbor were approached for any information concerning our observations or opinions. Are we not part of the environment? I've seen many proposed land action use signs go up in my life and very few come down without the proposal being realized. It is my hope that this council will send a message to tax paying, single family dwellings that it will protect the investment and refuse endorsement of thoughtless development, undue stress to any neighbor, by any neighbor, for the sake of profit expansion. I'm aware that Cardinal Aerospace at 4585 South 134th Place had um, directly northeast of the parcel in question, has requested permits in the past to construct new facilities on their parcel and they were denied. The reasons I'm not aware of, yet their goal was the same as Holaday Parks, expansion. And they are already zoned commercial light industrial. How can 5 Meryhew: Peters: Meryhew: Barlow:. this be fair to them? Thank you for listening and please be a wise and serving council by acting judiciously and with common sense today as well as tomorrow concerning your neighbors and constituents. Thank you. Thank you. Any questions for Mr. Peters? Thank you. Next person is Doug Barlow. My name is Douglas Barlow. I live at 13715 Macadam Road South. I completely concur with the previous gentleman's comment with just a couple of short additions. They already, it's kind of two parcels stuck between no man's land. But I view it as just a small additional encroachment on the residential area. And I just see it slowly but surely moving down. Next time they'll want to take those four or five houses south, southeast of there. Then all the people down 48th Avenue South would be affected. It's just a small encroachment. This is only two parcels. Furthermore they're also stating that they, when they build their expansion they would have primary access off 134th But I'm just scared of all get out that they're going to have commercial access off 135th or Macadam, which is primarily a residential street. It's almost an arterial to some degree for a lot of people now. And uh, I just think it's a bad idea. Thank you very much. Meryhew: Are there any questions? Okay the next person is uh, I'm not sure if it's Michelle or Michael Evans. Evans: Hi. My name is Michelle Evans and I'm here on behalf of Holaday Parks. I kind of wanted to tell you uh, what we're doing down in the area and why we're there and why we like Tukwila. So um, we are located at 4600 and 4650 South 134th Place. We design and build heating and cooling systems for large commercial buildings in Washington, Oregon and Alaska. And we also provide monitoring and systems controls of the buildings lighting, heat and cooling system for their maximum energy efficiency and the service and 6 maintenance on the system. In 1990 Holaday Parks relocated its cooperate headquarters and fabrication operation down here in Tukwila because of the great spaces down here. It's really convenient for our employees to come into the area and go back home. Our trucks had really easy access to I -5 and 405 and that made it great for getting to downtown or an eastside business. We have approximately 100 employees at this location that come into the area in the morning and leave in the evening. And uh, we did a survey and 16% of our employees are southend residents that come to Tukwila. We are a member of Greenworks, the EPA's Energy Star Building Program, ES Green building Council. We're a member of the Chamber of Commerce, um, the White Center Branch of the Boys and Girls Club and we also are a partner in company with the Renton Technical College in the Tukwila Business Training Center down here in Tukwila. We are invested in this . area and we want to stay here. Um, this zoning change is really important to us. We've done one renovation this last year to help some of our overcrowding in our business, but if we're going to again expand and grow, we need to use these parcels to build an office building and small warehouse facility in this area. We hope that this will also relieve some of the parking congestion on 134th. It will improve the area we believe because right now this is all brambles, blackberry vines and we'd put in nice landscaping and stuff and a barrier between the residents and us. We had some problems with vagrants using the empty property for drinking and drug use and so that would be gone. And we just believe it would be a good move for Holaday Parks and the City of Tukwila and we hope that you will grant our request. Meryhew: Thank you. Any questions? Arthur: I do have a question. How many additional employees would you be adding to your facilities in this area in the event this goes through? Evans: Well this would actually be to uh, ease overcrowding in our existing buildings at the moment. But we would want to expand to probably, we're thinking of moving this one division over and it's got about 16 office 7 staff and then there are service trucks that the employees take home with them. There's probably another 15 of those. Those are not there in the evenings. Those employees take those vehicles home with them. So we'd probably expand that to about 10 more employees. Meryhew: Any other questions? Thank you. Next person is uh, Gina Vale. Vale: Meryhew: Nixon: My name is Gina Vale and I live at 12607 East Marginal Way. I actually didn't come to talk about this, but I do want to make a comment. I just feel that, as I was driving down Macadam with a friend of mine and I'm saying to my friend, "This is such a great road. It feels like you're out in the country. Doesn't feel like you're in the city. You're so close to the city, but you're in the middle of nowhere." And it's great because it is trees and there's owls and it's neighborhood and to build a commercial building there would change that whole outlook there. I live in an area that's commercial /residential and there's a lot of issues. And it's constant and we're fighting the battles every single day. And don't change more neighborhoods. That's all I have to say. Thank you. Any questions here? Okay. Next person is Ted Nixon. Hello. My name is Ted Nixon. I'm an architect with Campbell, Nixon and Associates. We're representing the design and the re -zone and Comprehensive Plan amendment that you have before you. I have two exhibits and I'd like to explain the, the complexity or really the uh, lack of complexities as relates to these four parcels that are interconnected. Uh, the uh, staff recommendation has been for you to defer this until they can address the residential LI. I think that this particular project and especially its potential impact to 135th will stand on its own merits. And I would like to present to the council my two presentation boards and I think that will explain why it's important that we get action on this matter uh, today or in this time frame rather than waiting for two years before the five year Comp. Plan update. And I would like, I, I 8 Meryhew: Nixon: Meryhew: Nixon: • don't know a good place to stand, because I'd like the citizens and people in the neighborhood to understand this completely. So if you'll bear with me I'll try to show you and show them at the same time.... That's fine. ...so that they may follow. That's fine. What we have here and in the exhibit you're aware of, is we have a, there's two lots right here. The checkerboard two CLI zoning. Our, Holaday Parks owns this, this parcel here, which is zoned CLI, these two parcels here that have a residential zoning, and this parcel here that is zoned CLI. The only access right now to this parcel is from 135th. As you see it's checkerboard again here. What we're trying to do is combine these three lots so we don't have to bring in a access from 135th and bring our access in here from 134th to service this building here. What this does, and I'll demonstrate when I, when I put up my other display, is we also create a consistent landscape buffer at the back of very long residential lots that go out to, I believe it's 45th out here. And uh, so the opportunity to create this buffer and to eliminate access off 135th is present now with the zoning of this particular, these two parcels right here, straightening the line to CLI zoning and allowing access in off 134th to the facility on this existing CLI lot. And I'll show that now to the citizens. This is the checkerboard pattern we're talking about. These are the two parcels that we want to re -zone. This has the current CLI zoning that allows us to do what we want to do. (Unintelligible). But by re- zoning this CLI parcel here, it allows us to bring in access off 134th If it's not allowed this, then we have to come in off 135th there, with the access to this parcel here (unintelligible). Meryhew: Do you own those two parcels up there? Nixon: We own this... 9 Meryhew: (Unintelligible) with the house on it? Nixon: Yes. And it's one parcel. And we own these two parcels and we own this parcel here. So it's matter of sort of putting the checkerboard and we don't have any z connectivity between those parcels without having to <.. come down here off of 135th. w` 0 Livermore: Can I ask a question at this stage? v v 0 WO Nixon: Yes sir. H Livermore: The interior, one of these two lots you're ' WO proposing to re- zone... u.¢ Nixon: Yes sir. = d 1-- w z Livermore: ...what's its current legal access at this time? Z 1-0 Z I-. UJ Nixon: There is none. g U0 Livermore: It's a landlocked piece of land? O S 0 I— Iii W Nixon: That's, that's correct sir. '0 Livermore: I didn't think we could do that Jack. How do we 11-~ O handle landlocked piece of land? till co Pace: (unintelligible) O E_ z Livermore: Is this carryover from county? Pace: Yes. This is part of the annexation. We don't create landlocked pieces. We do land division short plat. I can't speak for what the county did in the past. Meryhew: Okay. Thank you. Nixon: So the next one is the aerial. It's very similar to this, but what I've done is uh, and I think you can see it both instances so I won't double demonstrate now. Meryhew: Yeah. I don't think we can see anything on that one. Nixon: You can't see, except I think you can see the expanse of the depth of the residential lots that are right -10- Livermore: here and the distance and separation from these housing units to the buffer strip that we would be creating here. And in subsequent uh, Comp. Plan review, if, if there is any further encroachment or any further division of LIC zoning, this does create an opportunity to at least have a nice backdrop of landscaping. Very few developers will go up there and (unintelligible) landscaping because of a zoning exchange. This is, this is something that creates a buffer even between CLI and CLI zoning. And I, and I think it just straightens out and I think it makes a lot of sense with the circulation, especially if the goal is to eliminate or minimize any industrial traffic that's off 135th. That's the end of my presentation concerning (unintelligible). Put the other one back up a second. I've got another question I want to pursue a bit. Okay. You currently own the large lot where the building will actually be built? Nixon: Yes. We own all this parcel. Livermore: You own all of those parcels. Would you be willing to.... Nixon: Livermore: Nixon: Livermore: Nixon: Livermore: (unintelligible) ... . ...be willing to... ...only development in this area is actually just the turnaround for the fire department (unintelligible). Yeah. I appreciate that. Uh, I'm trying to get at something totally different. Would you be willing to have a covenant on that total length of property along Macadam that you cannot not have, ever have access on the Macadam or 135th if you got the zoning change on those two lots? Yes. Except for uh, the qualification. There is an existing duplex that hasn't been demo'ed yet and that access would be maintained until we demo'ed it, yes. But you'd be willing to give up any future access on 135th or Macadam? ::44,44.•q:.,tesi;`.4:t:t� <N:x ...�xr. �rkC_�hF+.;4u, ti- 5k7,a:[wn1�nF?y.U,'eiif�CS ^;i ry:�:.,r:a. ..x .,�.r..i..,. ..,'�;'r4 '.avtn'6 ;C:.c'.i. .laW' Nixon: Yes. Livermore: Thank you. Nixon: (unintelligible) Meryhew: Any other questions? Arthur: I have a couple for Mr. Nixon, looking at the parent building. The proposal is just an amendment to a Comprehensive Plan and the Zoning Code. But when I start going through the material it looks like we have certainly an amendment request to the Comprehensive Plan and the Zoning Code, but we have something beyond that. I actually saw a development plan. So we kind of rolled more than one thing in here. And I'd kind of like to keep them separate if I could. With respect just to the development plan aspect of this thing, which I guess is what you're contemplating as a result that would occur if this were to go through. Uh, the statement is made in here that there is no adverse effect to the adjoining properties. "It will not adversely impact adjoining. property." Well there's a house located, I guess, just across the property line from where you propose to have this two story building. Now if I was a resident in that house, can you explain to me how there would not be a substantial negative impact by having a two story building uh, built right next to me? Nixon: Well, the type of (unintelligible) I heard mostly tonight was traffic related. The fact that you would restrict access off 135th would be more of a positive impact to that residential property than, because we do have the one parcel of land that's CLI with the only access to it off of 135th, where the three, where the two story is proposed to be. The uh, the other uh, aspect of.... Arthur: Well what I'm getting at and you're kind of going away from it. - 12 - z W. 65. J U U0 CO o. U) W. w =. J 1 w 0. g w? • �w z �. t- O` z�-; lu 'O U. o E-: ww H • U. w r; O, ..z O — z Nixon: I'm sorry. Arthur: This is directly from Campbell, Nixon and Associates, and it says, "a) Impacts on Surrounding Property. There are no adverse impacts to the proposed change. The impacts will be positive to the surrounding land use." So I'm trying to find where you're coming from with that statement that's saying, having a two story warehouse structure of fairly significant size a few feet from a single family residence will have no impact? Nixon: (unintelligible) (?) : Okay. It would be the um, this one. BACKGROUND WHISPERING UNINTELLIGIBLE Nixon: The 20 feet, building set back by 15 feet (unintelligible). You can't build within a few feet. Behind our building is other two story height industrial building. Uh, the restrict', placing a buffer that does not exist, a landscaped buffer and landscaped street, a significant landscape buffer and landscaped street, across the delineation between the two zonings I feel screens and enhances the residential area. Uh, the fact that vagrants and drug users currently use the site uh, and this creates a development that enhances the property, uh, supposedly driving out that type of force enhances the community. What, what we're proposing is a strong buffer between the two uses so that there is a significant landscaping. We think that's an enhancement to the residential. Again, and I'll repeat again, 'cause I don't think it's off the line, restricting access off 135th also enhances that neighborhood's quality of a road that's identified as a residential nature. We would, we would also look at also modifying our, if the City so wanted, to modifying the landscaping along 135th. I mean I think the, I had Michelle come up here to speak first because I think that they are good neighbors in this community. They're responsible. They have a clean operation. And they are just as vested as everybody else in this neighborhood and - 13 - z 1-1 JU 00 w'= WO LLa CO =w 1- _ z �. 1- O z i- w O N' o I- ww H U` w 0 — O, wz U(I) 0 z they're not looking for, they just spent $300,000.00 in upgrading their one building. And they're not interested in down - zoning or they're not interested in creating a blight. They're a very clean neighbor. But by restricting access off 135th, which you'd create by allowing us to access the, the residential lot, which, if, when I look at these residential lots, are they really residential lots or are they are, are you using them as a buffer. I think realistically which one of us would go out there and build a $200,000.00 home on either one of those lots. And uh, for this, and what I'm looking at is the fact that we have an opportunity here, by not postponing this decision on something that is uh, with two parcels that are, it, they can only be linked, left together by going through the CLI. By creating, allowing us to create that link and allowing us to create a buffer that's in line with the industrial development all the way out to the freeway, uh, I simply have a strong separation of residential or non - compatible uses. Arthur: Okay. In b) in the paperwork you submitted, when it comes to non - conforming uses created, you create none, if this change goes through. And the re -zone and development of the sites will lesson the non - conforming uses. Nixon: Yes. Arthur: But is there, when you say uses, is there more than one use or is there just one? Nixon: Well right now there's a duplex lot on the CLI zoning. And as you know how development goes, until somebody develops that lot, that duplex, that duplex house will stay there. And it, it's not necessarily in the, you know, it's a maintainable property. It's value is the CLI zoning that's on it. But on the, are you familiar with what I'm talking about? Arthur: Yes. Nixon: Okay. By allowing the development to proceed, in the elimination of that duplex, we're making less non- conforming lots by taking the duplex out of the CLI -14- ti zoning that's already in, by eliminating the duplex. Livermore: Is a duplex a non - conforming use? Pace: (unintelligible) I think a more accurate statement. By allowing them, makes more, makes a Comp Plan amendment, there's enough unit economic (unintelligible) for them to demolish the duplex that's currently inn,the zoning. So by making this Comp Plan amendment (unintelligible) eliminating the duplex as a non - conforming unit. Second point, when you look at the zoning code, the residential use is particularly single and duplexes are not considered, if you look at a zoning code, there's a, for non - conforming use section, we exempt residential from that status. So it's not, we don't treat single family residential uses as the same kind of non - conforming use that we would commercial investors. So it's not the same legal description as other usage. We had a lot of leadway for residential usage in our non - residential zones. Arthur: Okay. So more accurately then we're not talking about then non - conforming uses of any type? It is a conforming use? Pace: the districts I've been in, when you look at a non- conforming section, it specifically exempts residential. Arthur: Okay. Pace: But I think his point is... Arthur: I see what's said here. I just want to make it clear in my mind what we're really talking about. Man: Word games. Nixon: I'll, I'll accept that. What I'm (unintelligible) is not necessary (unintelligible). Arthur: Okay. Um, the, there is reference in here again, and I just want clarification, that it's just a boundary line adjustment of zones. But in effect isn't it truly a change of zone, an up -zone? - 15 - z ��. w cc 6U O 0 0) IL -.I , CO u_ wO u.¢. • a. w z� F- O zF-- w 2o '0 1-- ww • E- U. • LL z ` U W; •O z Nixon: Well I would (unintelligible) the staff report. Meryhew: No, I'm looking at your letter. Nixon: Arthur: Nixon: Arthur: Nixon: Arthur: Okay. But, you know, but I, I can comment to that. I'm trying to remember what I wrote last (unintelligible), before last December. All I can do is say that the, that when I wrote that, the, my, my approach to this thing was that it clearly, that the zoning clearly establish applicable development requirements through recognizable boundaries. Now I think I've demonstrated that, that this piece of land as I understand it's history was just, well, when you have a development plan, come back to us, we'll look at it. You know, it was, it wasn't that they took a definite objection to it. It was more like an inaction. That's the history I was given. But I think it creates, with the parcels, given the parcels that exist here, it created this checkerboard pattern that only, that only I think causes uh, a, a poor design by, by forcing access to two separate parcels, one off 135th and one off 134th. I think this makes, makes this a consistent, a whole. I think it limits access off to 134th which I believe is the Comp. Plan's goal and to restrict access off Macadam. And that, that was my approach to, to, my reasoning behind it. It might not be well - stated. You might be able to tear it apart word by word... No. No, I'm trying to get your intent. ...but, but what I'm trying to (unintelligible). But my, my question was, is this in fact not an up -zone you're asking? No. I think it's adjustment to the boundary line. Okay. You have a statement in here that the adjustment of the boundary line does not add significantly to the intensity of any land use. I think typically doesn't land use in a commercial zone or light industrial zone, isn't it generally considered to be a more intensive land use than low density residential. — 16 — u w .�.:.a .� ....� ._ ....., . .,�.... z �w U0 ( o. w= J 1. U) u. w 0: u. ¢ w Z 1- 0 Z U O 01- ww t--. - 0. w Z UN 01-- Z Nixon: Yes. Arthur: Then can you explain how you came by this statement? Nixon: Well when I came by that, is that I looked at what the parking and building could fulfill. And I build (unintelligible 2126) two different structures. The office on the upper portion of 135`'. And off 134`' I could look at the warehousing function and the only area that I felt that I was, that I was inheriting by this CLI zoning was actually a, a portion of the property that would allow circulation and maneuvering. I mean, it, and as the Comp. Plan points out that, or I mean as the City staff report points out, I mean, (unintelligible) they wanted to show how it would be developed. Uh, and I thought reasonably well I could probably take pretty close to the same square footage and work with those two parcels, but I don't think it would be as nice. We also, if you see on the, on the plan, on the upper duplex site, right now it's just haphazard parking and unpaved areas and everything else like that. And in the interim, here what I did at least show as that. there was some, there was some parking provided up there. I don't know when these two other parcels could or might be or would be developed. All I see is that there is a checkered pattern. The checked pattern created problems. All I'm trying to do is find a way to connect the two. The building stands alone on the CLI zoning. The parking stands alone on its own, CLI zoning. I have essentially a fire department turnaround and moving area for trucks to turn around on that two pieces of parcel that we're talking about (unintelligible). There might be, there might be, I, I expect there might be a 5 %, 6% type of increase in what I can do there. But it's not significant. Livermore: Well I think what we're running and this was alluded to earlier by Mr. Arthur. We're mixing two things together here. One of them in essence is an up -grade of zoning for two pieces of property. The other thing that you're talking about in here, but is not at all related to this up- zoning of property, is your plan for - 17 - z HZ QQ J U 00 U)o W W J IL w fl U• ", '0 CI ww 0 u" O. wz O 22 O' z development. Now indeed if your plan for development is what is built, then the impact on surrounding properties is fairly low. But if this land were to be upgraded in zoning there is no guarantee that that's what you will build. You could turn it right around and flip that around and put a, you know, a two story building right against the LDR here, with appropriate setbacks. So the two really need to be separated. You know it's nice to know where you're going. Nixon: (unintelligible) Livermore: ...but you know, that's not a guarantee. We have to look at this and weigh this on what potentially could be done on this piece of property, not exactly what you're telling us you plan to do on it. Nixon: Well... Livermore: Now I happen to like your plans, but, but we've got to weigh, you know, bigger issues. Nixon: I see. And so do my clients. I mean we're forced to look at this as two parcels with a residential component in the middle which forces it to a single development with access off 134th and 135th which we are legally zoned to do or (unintelligible) compromise (unintelligible). Now if you want to add some conditions. I think conditions are a lot more acceptable then just totally (unintelligible). Livermore: Bring your drawing up again. I wanted to ask one more question here. Uh, who owns the property directly to the right of where you have your proposed building? That, right in there? Nixon: That is owned by the same owners that we bought this (unintelligible). You know we were trying to buy the other building over here and the parking lot that was over here. (Unintelligible) Evans: (Unintelligible) -18- Nixon: (unintelligible) Livermore: Okay. So you don't own that property at this time? Nixon: No we do not. Livermore: Okay. Nixon: They attempted to buy that from (unintelligible) so that we could have just a full thing. But that deal went with the other building so they weren't able to purchase it. Woman: Could you turn that around and show us... Nixon: There is a parking lot right here, that (unintelligible). (Unintelligible) And it's owned by Albertson's. (Unintelligible) Yes. And (unintelligible) \. Man: Nixon: Man: Nixon: EVERYONE HAS MOVED AWAY FROM THE MICROPHONES, THEN BACKGROUND WHISPERING, IMPOSSIBLE TO HEAR Meryhew: Any more questions of Mr. Nixon? Okay. That's all. Nixon: Thank you. Meryhew: Next person to speak is Betty Gully. Gully: Betty Gully, G- U- L -L -Y, 13017 Macadam Road South. I would hope that one of these days, before too very long, Macadam Road that was changed from the numerous uh, ten or twelve numbers that it has will be Macadam Road on a permanent map and we won't have to stop and figure out that 135th is really Macadam Road. About time that somebody straightened it out because we as citizens straightened it out a long time ago. I think there are several questions here and there are several -19- • issues. One is, you know when we annexed, when the communities of Riverton and Foster annexed to the City of Tukwila, we did that to preserve our residential neighborhoods. Because King County was re- zoning, doing spot zoning, and our neighborhoods were disappearing. One of the things that we worked real hard with was people like Jack Pace and with Moira Bradshaw when we were doing the re- zoning for the residential areas was to conserve neighborhoods. This little neighborhood that the piece of property that they want to change the zoning is a nice little pocket neighborhood. And it can be eaten away piece by piece and the City of Tukwila can let that happen. That's what King County did. That was a nice little pocket neighborhood that was twice the size that it is today and King County allowed all of that to happen. And we annexed into the City of Tukwila because we were sure we could save our neigh', our residential neighborhood. I was on the Tukwila Tomorrow committee. And we struggled with that little area because it is a transition area. (Unintelligible). But it survived as a pocket neighborhood. 135`h, as the gentleman before me said, or Macadam Road as I prefer to call it, has a mixed use, when you look at both sides. Across from me is Normed, where I live. And as you, as you work farther down towards this property, there is other commercial development and it has a buffer. And the buffer that is close to the property that is in question tonight, is a mess. It has a fence that's falling down. The buffer isn't maintained at all. So when a developer comes along and he wants to build something that is adjacent to a residential neighborhood or a residential property, such as this development here, and they propose this wonderful buffer, well what happens in five or six years if the trees die, if the fence falls down. If you drive along Macadam Road and take a look at the buffers just beyond or just before this property, depending which direction you're coming from, it's a mess. If I was living where the Peters were, how could I be assured that the buffer, regardless of how nice they made it to begin with, would last, would still be there for them? The argument that the piece of property is blackberries and has vagrants on it, has drug use on it, well, if they're the ones who own the property, then that's -20- their responsibility to fence it off to make sure that it doesn't have this kind of access. If I had a piece of property, residential property, and I allowed vagrants and drug users to be on my property you can bet the police department, City of Tukwila, would make me clean it up. Building a commercial development on it isn't the only thing that they can do to clean that up. The issue of traffic on 135th or Macadam Road. There isn't any commercial traffic along there now. Normed has to enter from down low, off of 131St . The warehouses that are right next to where they're talking about for their development, they have to enter from down below. That was the one thing about the, the planning, about the zoning that happened with that. The Macadam Road could be kept a residential street. I would hope that this application would be denied and that a residential neighborhood would be protected, not by a bad buffer, but by good planning. Thank you. Meryhew: Any questions of Miss Gully. Thank you Betty. Next person is Doug Brown. Mr. Brown or, I think it's Doug Brown. Brown: I've already spoken. Meryhew: Already spoken, okay. Is there anybody else in the audience now who would like to speak whose name is not on the list? Mrs. Peters come up. Ms. Peters: Good evening. I'm Jill Peters. I live at 13352 Macadam Road South, not 135th. I do appreciate the comments Betty made. And I'm really troubled about this. A couple of times the gentleman from, I don't know, the design company for... Meryhew: Mr. Nixon. Ms. Peters: ...(unintelligible) Mr. Nixon made comments about the vagrants and the drinking or partying that goes on that lot right next door to me. We have had problems with neighbors that live in the duplex having parties. Having lived there for 18 years, we've never had vagrants living there, camping out. Um, any situation that have come up -21- the Tukwila Police have always dealt with. Um, as far as kids partying, yeah, they take their dirt bikes down there. It makes good dirt bike country. I am very concerned about the traffic. Just Tuesday coming home from work, I work at Thorndyke Elementary School, for lunch, 30 minute lunch, I get to the cross section of 40th Avenue and Macadam Road where the little "t" is. There's a big truck trying to go down 48th Avenue. He's pulled over by the City of Tukwila and was given a ticket, which blocked the access to my house which is just further down the road a little bit. So I go down 48th Avenue to South 134th and here comes a big blue semi coming up the street in my direction. He has to back down the road to Farwest, into the parking lot, so that I can get through because he's trying to go down a road that is too small for semis to go down anyway. So I had to go all the way around the block just to get home to have lunch. By the time I get home, I have 10 minutes for lunch. I have a 30 minute lunch. It took me 20 minutes to get to my house from Macadam and 48th Avenue South. That bothers me. It doesn't just happen once in a blue moon. It happens two or three times a month. And I don't think the traffic just comes from that little commercial development off of where Holaday Park is. It comes from the trucking center from Allentown. They use Macadam Road all the time. The other issue is it's a residential neighborhood. And we have more and more traffic going through there. Those kids that go outside to play in the street, ride their bikes, walk to and from school, get on the school buses, we've had several incidences where kids have had near misses out in the street from heavy traffic. Most of it is trucks. It bothers me. It bothers me that my little community is getting torn apart for, for more commercialism. That little buffer zone of blackberry bushes provides a wonderful opportunity for the neighborhood kids to come over and pick blackberries. It's an opportunity a lot of kids don't get. They don't get to go outside `cause they live in apartments. There's a lot of apartment dwellers in Tukwila. It gives them an -22- z 1— w re J0 000 N w.I U. w �< w0 = a. z� I— 0. Z �0 O co 'O — O I- ll/ ui • 0 w0 - O. Z w O~ z opportunity to come and sit with me outside and watch the birds. The hawks are coming back full force, partly because we have done a lot of work on the river not too far from us. Last winter walking along the Southgate Creek we found a blue heron in the creek. That's a wonderful thing. You don't find blue heron very often in Tukwila any more, because of the heavy pollution. I would hate to see us lose this all in the name of progress and commercialism. I want to preserve my neighborhood for what it is, a little neighborhood. It provides wonderful opportunities. And yes it is really convenient for the I -5 and 405 and 518, not just for commercial people, but for us residents. And I think that the City of Tukwila owes it to us to preserve our neighborhood. Thank you. Meryhew: Any questions? Thank you. Anybody else who would like to speak? Okay. With that we will close this item and go onto the next item. Okay. We will not deliberate at this time, 'til we get through all these. Okay? Next item on the agenda is L99 -0092 and 0093. Uh, LDR Comprehensive Planning on intersection of East Marginal Way and Interurban Avenue South. Fox: I'm Rebecca Fox, Associate Planner with the Department of Community Development. Uh, the proposal property is located at the intersection of Interurban Avenue South and East Marginal Way, just north of highway 599. There is a triangle of land that has received neither Comprehensive Plan nor Zoning Designation when the Comp. Plan zoning codes were adopted in 1995. It was proposed as Manufacturing /Industrial Center Light several years ago. The Council rejected this and recommended low density residential, but did not send this item forward. So we're addressing this omission by proposing low density designation in order to correct the map. That's staff's proposal. Thank you. Any questions? Arthur: I have one question just for the record. LDR is technically feasible for this property with its size? - 23 - Fox: Meryhew: Fox: Meryhew: Rosatto: Meryhew: Rosatto: Meryhew: Rosatto: Meryhew: Rosatto: I would need to check the set -back on that. It would be allowable if the set -back, if the set -backs were met. The access is hard. You have to, it's difficult to turn out of the property. I thought Mr. Pace indicated earlier that it was ... Possible. Be hard to get out of the (unintelligible). Okay. Um, I guess you are the applicant. Mr. Rosatto, I guess you want to speak on this item. You know when you get old getting in and out of these chairs (unintelligible) Would you give us your name and address please? You want the mailing address? Yes please. 10818 Des Moines Way South and that's Seattle, 98168. And your full name.. Area code 206... Meryhew: Full name please. Rosatto: My full name, Ray J. Rosatto, R- O- S- A- T -T -O. Meryhew: Thank you. Rosatto: I'm part owner of that triangle piece there. Now that piece of property there before SR599 came through went on down where the, where the bus garages are. And uh, there's no way that, it's supposed to be residential, there is no way to a house on a little piece like that. Now that, I think that that should be, should have the same zoning as what's (unintelligible). MIRCOPHONE IS CUTTING OUT Meryhew: You might turn that back around Rebecca if you will please. I think mostly now it's going to be us that - 24 - z ,~w re f -JU UO w•= J I- w O: 2 g¢ a I- Ill z= I- O z U • � 'O = • U' u"O .. z w U =• O H 'z are concerned. Thank you. Rosatto: Yeah. This is where, where the bus, bus garages are. And this property here went on down. When SR599 came through there it divided that. Well I think that that property should be, have the same zoning as this here. Not residential but, you can't put a house in there. Malina: Rosatto: Malina: Rosatto: Malina: Rosatto: Malina: Rosatto: Malina: Rosatto: Malina: Rosatto: Meryhew: Rosatto: Are you saying that you still own the other little piece. (unintelligible) You also own the other little piece there on the bottom? No. Down below? Yeah. No. We own this here. Oh, okay. So that other piece belongs to? This down here? Yeah. That's part of the bus, Metro. Okay. But when the freeway came through they uh, it divided that. At one time we did own that across there. And I, now you, think you can put houses in that little piece of property there? I think it should have the same zoning on this here. What type of development would you envision going in there? Well I don't know, but I mean uh, there could probably be a, one of these uh, what do they call it, cellular telephone, where they put up a full tower, something like that. But you can't, you can't build house in -25- there. We've got, in fact uh, were arguing now, with, with uh, Nextlink that went through the property with a fiberoptic, without, without our permission. Meryhew: Really. Rosatto: I think if you pay taxes on a piece of property, I think it belongs to you. And we pay the water runoff and stuff like that I mean for the City of Tukwila. Meryhew: Rosatto: Meryhew: Pace: Livermore: Pace: So you're suggesting is a possible mono -pole for a, a wireless tower of some type? Well I no,,I don't know. Someday maybe they would like that, something like that. Mr. Pace isn't that possible even in LDR?. You cannot, if you look at the code, there are two factors for LDR restricting this. One, the height. Most mono -poles need to be higher than the 35 feet height limitation. I think also then the question (unintelligible) in a residential district. I think the other fact you . have to understand(unintelligible) record, meaning they were partitioned legally at the time the property was developed. They are not non- conforming standards. They are not treated as non - conforming uses. They are lots of record whether, it's industrial, commercial or residential. So the issues of these sites don't change. The issue of set -back. You look at the district we're suggesting in that area (unintelligible) so the set -back issues that you face for single family are (unintelligible) commercial (unintelligible). From the standpoint of traffic control you have more issues with commercial than you would with a single family. It's just a difficult site. But do you have a higher height so to speak. For instance for cellular tower use, you'd probably be better off with MICH. Correct. And I think though the question is, we try to neither encourage mono -poles we've been trying to discourage that particularly with such a visible site. -26- Meryhew: Man: Rosatto: Meryhew: Rosatto: Meryhew: LAUGHTER Meryhew: Rosatto: Meryhew: Rosatto: Mr. Rosatto are you the only owner on that triangle? Three. There was two families that, we had bought that property within the families back in the 1930s. And uh, as a matter of fact it went all the across over here too. Uh, but uh, like I say, it's probably been more of a pain. I think maybe if the City of Tukwila would buy it from us, it would probably be the... But there are two families that own that now did you say? Well there are more than two families because there's kids and kids and kids and you know each one is and I'm the old guy with the headaches. I see. But is it one piece of property with multiple owners? I didn't hear that. Is it one piece of property with multiple owners or is it two distinct pieces or ... No it's the one piece here that's left. We owned this here. We went across. Years ago we even went across here. Then when, in 1940 or 41 when they built this road here they took part of it. Then when they come by with the freeway, well they divided it again and left it, eventually just left us with this here. But uh... Meryhew: One piece. Pace: Well technically there are multiple lots owned by the same owners. Meryhew: Pace: Oh, okay. Multiple lots. (unintelligible) If you look at the assessors you'll see multiple lots. -27- ::: ..:.:uu.u6'.YUSW1l..L6.ht:��.:f t-0 ra .•:�Eac.:,;.:.:srv;z.fr,cW:.:, r xW.r_u4:.14.00+ ' rt'ratUa C: Meryhew: One owner. Pace: Right. Meryhew: One family owner. Livermore: One family. Rosatto: You can't put a house there and have the kids going out. There are three streets. There's a freeway here. I got after the people from the State, the fence that they have along there has been torn down. You put a house there and kids could get out on the freeway, get on this road, get up on, it don't make sense. That's why I don't see the, (unintelligible) say that it's a residential area. Meryhew: Okay. Malina: Rosatto: Meryhew: Rosatto: Meryhew: Fox: Fox: Do you recall how big a piece that is? Half acre, quarter, three - quarters, one? Just off the top of your head? I forget what the tax, how many, how many square feet. I thought we heard earlier it was about one acre. What's that? Maybe we can get staff to answer. Rebecca? A little less, supposedly less than 3 quarters of an acre. .67. Supposedly it's a little less than three quarters of an acre. Rosatto: Probably less than three quarters. Fox: Yeah. Less than three quarters of an acre. Slightly more than a half. (Unintelligible) -28- z • _ w , -J U' • C.) 0. CO 0 w'= J H U) w o J w zF 1- O- Z t- ,O 0 =w �0 IJIZ 0S-11; 0 z Rosatto: In fact last year the City of Tukwila planted some trees down along in there and I, I called and I told them that they were planting trees on our property and uh, and so they, they looked at it and I guess they found out that it wasn't on highway property, it was on our property and so they uh, they uh, (unintelligible) is a fellow that's a, the guy, I think it was Iriarte, I don't know, but anyway he has something to do with the City's Public Works. And he uh, and when they checked it out, he said, "oh yeah, they did put them on your property. We'll wait 'til fall and then pull them up." (Unintelligible). Well they took, a couple of them up (unintelligible) and I thought to myself well that makes a lot of sense, how you can plant something (unintelligible) at the base. Meryhew: Okay. Thank you Mr. Rosatto. Rosatto: Thank you for listening to an old guy. Meryhew: Anybody else who would like to speak on this subject? Sir? Bernhardt: Bob Bernhardt 3418 South 126th. And I think Tukwila should buy this little piece of property from this gentleman and landscape it and make it look good. What do you think of that fellows and lady? Meryhew: It's beyond our, our scope here. Bernhardt: Beyond your scope? Meryhew: Yeah. It's not part of our position. Thank you anyhow. Bernhardt: Thank you. Meryhew: Anybody else? Okay. We'll close the public hearing on items 92 and 93. Open up the hearing on items L2000- 036 and L2000 -037. Uh, amendments on International Boulevard and East Marginal Way South, Highway 99 and the Duwamish River. Fox: This um, this proposal was suggested by the City - 29 - z • • Z rt urn. U O. CO (3 cw w =: J � w0 I_ • w Z = I- 0 Z I- O I--: uj F- U LL-O Li/ • z • •U 0) 0 I- Z Council. They requested that this be looked at. The proposal is to allow office use in the manufacturing and industrial center light district. Currently office use has been the MICL, both light and heavy, need to be associated with another permitted use. For example you can have an administrative office for a manufacturing company. The proposal would expand office use to allow stand alone offices throughout the MICL zone regardless of whether they're associated with or serve another permitted use. Offices would be subject to the same development regulations as other usage. Now the key issues here of course are the traffic impact of any possible office uses on arterials, but especially on the residential street. That's the concern. A traffic study was done which you have there. Um, and it's staff, the staff recommendation is to allow the use, but allow this as a conditional use so that every individual, any individual proposal would be studied very carefully and any traffic impacts would be determined and mitigated. Thank you. Any questions? Meryhew: Thank you. Is there anybody in the audience who would like to speak on this item? Come forward please. Vale: (unintelligible) Meryhew: Give us your name. Vale: Gina Vale, 12607 East Marginal Way. I am basically kitty - corner to where this would happen. I know that you guys have copies of the traffic study. I would like to see them if it's possible, if it's public information. Currently with construction going on, with the light industrial that happens down the street, the traffic is incredible down our street. With all these buildings you're going to have a higher density of people. Light industrial you're going to have manufacturing working not in their cubicles, close to each other. The office spaces are going to increase the number of people going through the neighborhood probably ten -fold. The hours would be different and hours would be commuting hours so this means there would be even higher traffic problems. Between that and this being truck route through the residential area as well, it really needs to be studied. It's not just -30- z j--w U O to 0 w= CO wO Q c• o Z E-. I- O Z t- w uj U o. O— o w wi F-- U Lit Z' UN O • ~ z oops we looked at it once and seemed like it would be fine. Changing the zoning on that area will change the area incredibly. That's all I have. Any questions? Meryhew: Okay. Thank you. z Man: (Unintelligible) ,� z. 2 Meryhew: Did you... -J v; 00 coCi Fox: I just wanted to clarify that the proposal isn't to w =' change the zoning of the area. It's to allow office, ''�. office use within that zone. If there are any w O questions about the traffic study we would certainly be happy to get you copies. We also have Brian Shelton < . here of the Public Works Department who could explain, cn d. if you like, if any of the public would like, the w traffic impact and what, what the study showed. z a:' O. Meryhew: Ithink we'd like, I think we'd like to hear Brian: We w w haven't heard much from him throughout the night so 2D it's time for him to get up here. O - w w. �U u' O. BACKGROUND CONVERSATION UNINTELLIGIBLE Wu) U Shelton: I guess just for the record, Brian Shelton, city 01=--' Engineer, Public Works Department. Uh, well as Rebecca z said the proposal is to consider the office stand alone use within the MICL, as opposed to... Meryhew: Is he coming through on the mike? Shelton: (unintelligible) Bivens: Yeah. Bivens: Pretty much. BACKGROUND WHISPERING Meryhew: Speak up a little bit Brian. We're going to record this. Shelton: Let me back up and start again. Like Rebecca said, the proposal being considered is office use stand alone in MICL as opposed to office use adjunct or with some -31- other industrial type. The, actually it's fairly proximal consideration here. Along Highway 99, along the east side, if I can find it here. BACKGROUND WHISPERING UNINTELLIGIBLE Shelton: There's East Marginal Way, Highway 99 and Highway 599. The proposal, the actual proposal involves three buildings, one of which is in the MICL. The other two are in MICH. So the one office building in MICL, let me back up, the three office buildings take access, proposed off of Highway 99, directly. They are not currently proposed to access into, through this area to East Marginal Way. So the traffic circulation and access is actually to and from Highway 99, which would be obviously north and south. The trip distribution is mostly attracted towards Highway 599 and Highway 99 north, in this interchange right here. Um, and the remainder of the traffic would go southbound. Now there maybe someone on South 130th, but it would be a minor amount. So the impact to the neighborhood over here, that uses East Marginal Way, be it residential or the existing uses here, the Metro bus base and so on, wouldn't be effected, wouldn't be impacted by this considerable or considered use out here. So the impact to the residential neighborhood should be nominal or non- existent. Woman: (unintelligible) Shelton: Do you understand where the office building or the office consideration is? Woman: It's the current (unintelligible) Shelton: Actually, actually it's approximately where Non - Stop Grill exists. Woman: Well I live on the corner of 128th and East Marginal Way. Meryhew: Ma'am you'll get a chance, you'll get a chance a little bit later, please. Pace: I think to clarify, what we're saying is the impact of office in this, with MICL is, depends upon the location - 32 - z • W. re 6 U O' 0 w•= J � w O. L Q. za I- w z�.. I- 0 zI- CU Lu 2 U 0' 'O N! ww -O wz 0- -_-_ O~ z where it gets access. For that reason the staff felt it made sense to make a conditional use. Then why conditional use? By making conditional use it doesn't give an individual a right to do office. So we, you, or whoever can decide to deny that use based upon the impact. z Meryhew: And that's... 2 D _1U Pace. Design review, when we said, you can't restrict the use co o of property. You only can say how the site should ' W w .: developed. So the point (unintelligible) when you look -' E- U)ii. at the MICL, all the property that's MICL, certain area ' w O: would have no impact because of direct access to 99. Other areas have immediate significant impacts to the Q neigh Borsto the south. So the fact remains on the con traffic analysis where you locate the office and the H w size of the office determines how those neighbors are ?Fz going to be impacted. `Cause we can't, the MICL is a Z O fairly large area. We could say this property and this LU property, so therefore we thought, making a conditional v o use was a more effective way to balance opportunity for o H. public comment as well as flexibility for the City to w determine whether they should permit the use or not. i v LI ~O Man: I like the, I like (unintelligible) Iii z. U= Arthur: And that is your actual staff proposal, conditional p H z use. Pace: That's what we're recommending. Arthur: Stand alone conditional use. Pace: Right. Arthur: Just so I understand. Pace: And thereby the applicant still has one public hearing, the design review and conditional use is one public hearing. The neighbors can argue or object to the use itself as well as to the design. And the impact on the neighbor depends upon where it's located. Brian was giving an example, if the office uses were located where the One -Stop is located, along 99, which is MIC, - 33 - along that area versus if it's right above these people, above 124th, 128th, then traffic will then go through the neighborhood. Another area to look at is if it where the rock quarry is. How many of you are familiar with where the rock quarry is? Meryhew: Yeah. Pace: This is an area next to Allentown (unintelligible). Meryhew: South of the rifle range. Pace: It's right here. If this is, you're going around the corner, this is where the new fire station is. Meryhew: Uh, huh. Pace: It's right here. This is MICL. The rock quarry is another, and that, this is turn here. If this went office, how would it impact the traffic on this (unintelligible). There are valid concerns about the traffic in the neighborhood, but it's very locational impact. So that's what we found out when you read the traffic study. Meryhew: But the office use at the rock quarry is not part of this proposal at this time? Pace: It's MICL. Livermore: Any MICL. Any... Meryhew: Any MICL. Malina: Which would be conditional use only. Pace: Right. So we looked at traffic impact. What if the office were to go there? What if the office were to go right next to these people? What if the office were to be on 99? They have different impacts and depending on the size office and how to access it has either great impact on people or no impact. So it didn't make sense for staff to say you get it and you don't on each property, because of the ownership changes of property. That's how we came up with the concept of making it -34- z < z • ce O. O 0. ' '. w.w w0 • D- I= H= z� o z I- O N. 0 H • w w° L- E; w z: U= 1=.1' ~: z conditional use, so you, if this were a conditional use would have a right to deny the use, not only the design, but deny the use. And the public, there wouldn't be a pre- exemption, meaning the public would know and be able to debate whether you should be (unintelligible) to begin with, because it's a conditional hearing they would have an opportunity to say, "We don't want an office here." Right now they don't, with the high tech, which is a variation of office, they don't have that right. Meryhew: Okay. Malina: How do we deal with that? I mean how do we deal with high tech later on down the line. I mean we're, do we have, do we need to put something into place and maybe consider that a conditional use? Pace: That's an option. I think the definition in the (unintelligible) of what high tech is changing so quickly... Malina: Well generally I think everybody understands at this point in time., you know... Pace: I can show you in my planning journals probably a half dozen different definitions which are equally vague. (Unintelligible) Livermore: I think I pushed a button. BACKGROUND WHISPERING OVERRIDING WHAT THE WOMAN IS SAYING Pace: I guess I'm trying to deal with the immediate issue right now where individuals come to the council requesting to allow office (unintelligible) in MICL. We've got this traffic analysis that says varying degrees of impact of making this decision. That's what the traffic report says. The question is then something, what are the options. (Unintelligible) And we're suggesting an option that is somewhere in the middle. Does the public understand what a conditional use is? Let me repeat. Woman: (unintelligible) - 3 5 - z z 00 moo. w • i J • U. w0 J w a. F_ _' Z �. �0 z u.1 uj O � ON 01- w w -O (/) 0 z Meryhew: Okay. Pace: Have we helped? Meryhew: Yeah. I think you helped quite a bit. Livermore: Yeah. Then you would consider, like software development would be office? Pace: Well let's say you're doing, if you look at the zoning code, there's a percentage of the current zoning in MICL restricts the amount, if you look at that category, in certain categories, restricts the amount of office space. Livermore: By a percentage? Pace: Yeah, 35%. If you look at the district map. Livermore: Okay. So... Woman: (unintelligible) Livermore: So in essence we could uh, we could force anything above say 35% office, as a conditional use, where it would have to come before us? Pace: Right. Livermore: Or some percentage above space? Pace: Livermore: That's what we're suggesting. Most likely when that need occurs, they have to go through design review anyway, so they're not likely to go through two public hearings, just one. Okay. Explain something to me, the building down there on uh, Tukwila Boulevard, on the north side of the river, the big Boeing Building, which, where Gil's Drive-In used to be... Pace: Oh, yes. Livermore: ' Customer service, yeah. Now to me from all - 3 6 - z < = Z re Lu 2 6 D -J 0 0 • co.w -J CO Li. O. g u_ < F_ Z I— 0 Z F- LU 0 0 2, 0 w I CY = 0: LIJ Z 0 (k 0 Jack: appearances from outside, that is an office? Exactly. But you look at Boeing. Boeing has 9,000,000 square feet in MIC. A small percentage of that is office. They just consolidate, of that 9,000,000 square feet that they have in the City of Tukwila in that area, they consolidated so it looks they got... z w 2 _JO Livermore: I understand what you're saying, but the impact on . N o' people around it is the same. In other words what �'i you're saying is Boeing has a chunk of property up N u here in the MICL. ' W O Pace: No. That's (unintelligible). None, none of u_ Q. Boeing's property is close to these areas. c a They're further north. _ zF- Livermore: Okay. Say they bought a piece of property in z O, WW there. U O Pace: Okay. O m:. W Livermore: And they put up a huge pure office building, v that's a small percentage of the Boeing company u-p itself and yet they're getting by with it, which w �. is thwarting the attempt we're making to keep, you v ' know, to have control on uh, on the percentage of 17- /- office in this area. Maybe we ought to consider rather than by corporation, any building with more than 35% office is conditional use and comes before the, the board. And we can, as of right now though we need to give an opportunity for the public to comment and deliberation. You can suggest... Livermore: I'm trying to plant some seeds to see if people out there like it or not. Pace: But I think the point though is, the technical point is the traffic study shows where an office is located and the size has a dramatically different impact upon the neighborhood, depending upon where it's located. That's what we found out - 37 - from this traffic study. The concern that the City has in how to deal with that issue, at the same time balance some opportunity for redevelopment. Meryhew: Shall we move on? � W. Meryhew: Anybody else in the audience like to speak on this ce M subject. Come forward. -J o. coo Bernhardt: Bob Bernhardt, 3418 South 126th. This is going to W.w z directly impact me. And I was on the zoning J1-' co ti. committee with Jack when we zoned this area and w O this area was zoned for small businesses, not M Sabey office buildings up on Highway 99, like what g Q is going to go in there. Correct? co a =w I- Pace: (unintelligible) z H. Bernhardt: That's what's being proposed. z O w w: Pace: By this amendment will allow that to occur. v o O 52 o F. ww 1- U' u. O .z Cu U co; O Bernhardt: True. I oppose this amendment. We are having enough problems down there in this area, with office buildings, every kind of building you can think of, including the 50 generator building that lives, is right next door to us. We don't need any more problems in our community. Like Betty Gully said, we're trying to keep a residential community together here. You know, pretty soon you're going to be all commercial. Sure you're going to have all the money you want to pay your salaries, but where's the residential going to be. 50 miles away? We like living where we're living. It's easy to commute. I don't know about you guys. I know you live right on top of snob hill up here and you like it. We like it where we're at. And I recommend that the committee rejects it and when they (unintelligible) office buildings that Sabey wants up on the hill, then let us come in and talk you guys again and see what the community likes and what they don't like. I have to call probably once a day to this gentleman right here or once every three days because somebody in the community calls me because - 38 - z there's somebody parked in their driveway or the dust is not being taken care of. I don't like this. These office buildings aren't going to make me any happier. Thank you. Meryhew: Anybody else on this item? Okay. We'll close items 036 and 037 and go onto to items L99-086 and 087, which allows office use on the third story of the NCC areas on Tukwila International Boulevard only. - DELIBERATIONS WILL BE HELD ON OCTOBER 12TH FOR AMENDMENTS L99- 094, L99-095, L99-092, L99-093., L2000-036 AND L2000-037. 1. - 39 - iRe'becca_Fox - Table 1.doc City of Tukwila Redevelopment Project Table 1 Land Use and Trip Generation Page 1 L:\33591\Table 1.doc 09/21/00 z < • z re 1112' .—I c-) 0 w uJ Uri _1 F. • u_ 0. ui LL w — ui Z 1-0; Z F- UJ 2 D, • 13. ° 0 — CI 1— • w F- LI 0. . Z Lb co: c.) 1--; 0 z • Group Health Intl. Gateway East Redevelopment Area ICCE Pacific View Office Park Rockpile Site Zoning Land Use Bldg. Area 1000 (sq ft) Previous Land Use MIC/L Office 77.6 Office MIC/L Office 163.2 Vacant MIC/L Office 566.5 Light Industrial MIC/H Data Center 564.6 Light Industrial MIC/L Office 150.0 Vacant MIC/H Data Center 300.0 Vacant C/LI Office 240.8 Light Industrial MIC/L Office 180.0 Vacant Net New Trips (vehicles per hour) AM Total In Out PM Total In Out 220 - 195 25 195 10 185 545 490 55 530 80 450 400 355 45 380 60 320 0 0 0 0' 0 0 620 545 75 585 100 485 340 300 40 325 55 270 300 265 35 280 50 230 L:\33591\Table 1.doc 09/21/00 z < • z re 1112' .—I c-) 0 w uJ Uri _1 F. • u_ 0. ui LL w — ui Z 1-0; Z F- UJ 2 D, • 13. ° 0 — CI 1— • w F- LI 0. . Z Lb co: c.) 1--; 0 z • City of Tukwila Redevelopment Project Table 2 Intersection Level -of- Service Summary Weekday PM Peak Hour Intersection Location and Type Year 2000 with Committed Projects Year 2010 with City of Tukwila Redevelopment Signalized v/c Delay (sec) LOS v/c Delay (sec) LOS ' Pacific Highway S / E Marginal Way S / 0.73 32.5 C 1.03 65.7 E Boeing Access Road Pacific Highway S / S 112th Street . 0.74 12.7 B 1.06 52.8 D Pacific Highway S / S 116th Way / 0.74 21.0 C 0.79 22.9 C SB SR 599 On Ramp Mitigation for Double SBL • Year 2010 0.60 16.0 B Pacific Highway S / S 130th Street 0.41 6.0 A 0.84 19.2 B E Marginal Way S / Interurban Avenue 0.46 8.2 A 0.90 23.8 C Unsignalized v/c Delay (sec) LOS v/c Delay (sec) LOS E Marginal Way S / S 120th Street 0.06 10.1 . B 3.29 1135.1 F Mitigation for signalization of intersection - Year 2010 0.89 22.9 C E Marginal Way S / S 130th Street 0.27 9.7 A 1.14 184.3 F Mitigation for signalization of intersection - Year 2010 0.92 27.9 C C: \" .WIDOWS \TEMP \Table 2.doc 09/^ ° '00 •Z = 1- • yH Z red. 2 W •JU. UO' Ci W= J l.. Nom: w 0. J W = a, Z� O: Z H. MI a 1--. W'• H U IL WZ O 1- Z HEARING DATE: NOTIFICATION: FILE NUMBER: APPLICANT: REQUEST: LOCATION: Attachment 1 STAFF REPORT TO THE BOARD OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW PREPARED SEPTEMBER 20, 2000 September 28, 2000 Notice of hearing published in the Seattle Times, 9/18/00 (TMC 18.108.060 specifically exempts Comprehensive Plan amendments from procedures set forth TMC 18.104 through 18.116, but staff exceeded the statutory requirements as follows: • Notice of Hearing mailed to surrounding properties, 9/15/00 • Site posted on 9/21/00) L99 -0094 Zoning Code Amendment L99 -0095 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Holaday Parks /Ted Nixon, Campbell/Nixon & Associates (contact) Establish C /LI (CommerciaULight Industrial) Comprehensive Plan and zoning designation for two adjacent parcels currently designated as LDR (Low Density Residential) Parcel 261320 -0046 (one parcel south of 4534 S. 135th Street/Macadam Road); Parcel 261320 -0050 (one parcel west of 4625 S. 134th Place) COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: LDR (Low Density Residential) ZONE DESIGNATION: LDR (Low Density Residential) SEPA DETERMINATION:Determination of Non- Significance, issued 9/20/00 STAFF: Rebecca Fox z �w J0: 00 w= J H, Nu_; w O: 2 g¢ F--O` Z t- �o O CI UJ 0 t- U N' • O z ATTACHMENTS: A. Comprehensive Plan Amendment application B. Area Map C. Citizen comment letters 1. Ion Manea 2. Ion Manea 3. Dale a,mdsholdings eIOLS.net 4. David Hussey 5. Matt and Jill Peters D. SEPA Determination of Non -Si ificance ....,.,i.,:,:,;.a <.r�.::k!:: . i};: ii`"< ,�?.. *L?S:cL::u�: *'�i�;+: }r i °ni:i+c`;S1 ti;:f4,2d .Z •_ Z; JU 00 co co w W.= W Oi J u. Q: • w • m. .z F-O z F-: Do: 'O Nf '1 0: �H — Z U� FINDINGS VICINITY /SITE INFORMATION Project Description The proposal is to redesignate two adjacent parcels from "LDR" (Low Density Residential) to "C/LI" (Commercial/Light Industrial) on the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Maps. This boundary change would allow the applicant, an existing Tukwila business, to develop a two - story office /warehouse facility on the two parcels in question plus two adjacent parcels on the north and on the east. Parking and landscaping would be provided, with South 134th Street the primary access to the site. Surrounding Land Uses The combined size of the two undeveloped parcels is approximately 16,344 square feet. Surrounding land uses are as follows: North: Light Industrial and office (across South 134th Place) and SR -599 South: Single - family residential (across South 135th Street) East: Single family residential and 48th Avenue South West: Light Industrial and office DISCUSSION Background This general area was proposed for light industrial use in 1995 during discussion leading to adoption of the current Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Code. At that time, the Council chose to leave the area as single - family residential. The Tukwila City Council held a public meeting on the current proposal on April 3, 2000, and on July 24, referred the matter to the Planning Commission for further study. At the July 24 meeting, the City Council decided to limit review to the proposal at hand, rather than expanding the analysis to consideration of the appropriate area -wide boundary for residential use, or a 1995 request by Ion Manea for a similar rezone at 13407 48th Avenue South. During the Council's preliminary review, three area residents wrote in opposition to the proposal, and one resident wrote in support. (Attachment C 1 -5) At present, two parcels designated LDR extend into the C/LI zone. The proposed amendment would redesignate two parcels from LDR to C/LI to "straighten" the boundary on both the zoning map and Comprehensive Plan map. Two adjacent parcels to the north and east of the subject area are already zoned C/LI, and each contains a residential use (a duplex on the northern parcel and the single - family home on the eastern parcel). These structures would eventually be demolished when light industrial development occurs. REVIEW CRITERIA Planning Commission review is required for Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Code amendments. The Planning Commission may recommend approval, recommend approval with conditions or recommend denial of the amendment based on a clear compliance with the criteria which follow. The Planning Commission's recommendation will be forwarded to the City Council, which will make the final decision. w 1) Describe how the issue is addressed in the Comprehensive Plan. If the issue is not adequately addressed, is there a need for it? o (/) o. w'= The Comprehensive Plan's primary objective is preserving and enhancing Tukwila's residential neighborhoods. The Comprehensive Plan expresses the following: w 0 1. To improve and sustain residential neighborhood quality and livability. u_ Comprehensive Plan Policy demonstrates commitment to residential neighborhoods through Policy 7.3.1 (Residential Neighborhoods): z F— O z i--: uj • 7.3.1 Maintain a comprehensive land use map that supports the preservation and enhancement of single-family and stable multi family neighborhoods; eliminates incompatible land uses; and clearly establishes applicable development requirements p through recognizable boundaries. w w' H U Comprehensive Plan Policy 2.1.12 (Economic Development) states: L' z. 111 U� • 2.1.12 Promote economic use of industrial lands outside the MIC by encouraging redevelopment of under - utilized sites and by promoting the retention of large parcels or z consolidation of smaller parcels of industrial land to facilitate their use in an efficient manner.' Such lands should be preserved for industrial uses, achieved through appropriate buffering requirements and use restrictions. 2. Impacts Redesignating the two parcels would straighten the boundary between the LDR and C/LI districts as they appear on both zoning and Comprehensive Plan maps. A more uniform boundary would allow the parcels in question to be developed more efficiently as commercial/light industrial. Truck traffic could use S. 134th Street for access. Two residential lots would be converted to light industrial designations. Three existing, non - conforming residential units in the C/LI would eventually be demolished when light industrial redevelopment occurs. 3 3. Is the proposed change the best means for meeting the identified public need? What other options are there for meeting the identified public need? 1 This proposal contrasts neighborhood preservation and neighborhood quality concerns with industrial development issues. A key objective of the Comprehensive Plan is improving and sustaining livability in residential neighborhoods. It is unclear that redrawing the boundary :z w and reducing the LDR zone would achieve this goal. j JU The Comprehensive Plan also encourages consolidation and redevelopment of underutilized N o industrial sites to facilitate efficient land use. This could be accomplished under the proposal w.= by redesignating two parcels from LDR to C/LI. The Comprehensive Plan supports the � elimination of incompatible land uses and the establishment of recognizable boundaries. The w o existing irregular zoning boundary would be replaced with one that is clearly defined. u. If the zoning and Comprehensive Plan designations remain "as is ", the two subject parcels If th D. be limited to development as single - family residences (under the existing LDR zoning). I- _ Z E. Other possible options for consideration include: w o • Defer decision on the proposal and consider the boundary between LDR and C/LI for the 2 n entire area during the 5 -year Comprehensive Plan update v o. • Deny the proposal. o I, iw 4. Will the proposed change resultin a net benefit to the community? If not, what type of benefit can be expected and why? — O wz 0- The proposed amendment would expand slightly the amount of property available for light o �, industrial development, and straighten the boundary between light industrial and residential z zones. Commercial/light industrial uses would still be located immediately adjacent to a single - family zone. While the applicant proposes eventual development which includes buffering the site from adjacent residences and limiting truck access to 134th, there is no assurance that the site would be developed as proposed if the amendment were approved. The existing adjacent single- family residential area would be reduced by redesignating two residential lots to commercial/light industrial. This action could detract from the adjacent residential community by enabling a larger scale light industrial use to be built on the two parcels along with two adjoining C/LI parcels. Industrial development would bring about the eventual elimination of three non - conforming residential uses in the current C/LI zone. Additional light industrial development on these parcels would potentially threaten the adjacent existing residential uses. 4 CONCLUSIONS Pursuant to Tukwila Municipal Code (TMC) Chapter 2.36.030, the Planning Commission hereby makes the following conclusions. Redesignating the two subject parcels from LDR to C/LI will extend the boundary between LDR and C/LI southward by two lots. The resulting expansion of C/LI and reduction of residentially - zoned land would facilitate light industrial redevelopment. The proposal would make the existing zoning boundary more uniform while eliminating two existing non - conforming uses. The proposal raises the larger question of whether the entire area in the vicinity of 48th Avenue South should remain designated LDR for single - family use, as was decided in 1995,or be considered for eventual light industrial designation and redevelopment. By dealing with only two parcels through this request, it appears that these issues are being considered piecemeal, rather than in more a comprehensive manner. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that a decision on the proposal to redesignate two parcels from LDR to C/LI be deferred until the issue of residential vs. light industrial use for the area can considered during the 5 -year Comprehensive Plan update in 2001 -2002. ;;�y;;,s:.ni ' xu3Y. ur`+ J,: a�T��h6�Ft :3:rdlii�+,�.�`•;;:.�. •z Z w :0 0 In CI w =° J - N LL wo ga LL a. co =a _. z I-:. o z ►— 2 V. H • LL O, iui ---- = z . CITY OF TUKWILA . Department of Community Development 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Tukwila, WA 98188 'Telephone: (206) 431 -3670 ATTACHMENT A (P-CPAJ (P-R) Comprehensive Plan/Zoning Code Amendment Application . f:. PROJECTIPROPOSALBACKGROUND. - 1. i• /PROPOSAL: - Pa'eKS cFP W `sue- ‘ L.c --' A. NAME OF PROJECT .74;f B. LOCATION OF PROJECT /DEVELOPMENT: STREET ADDRESS: 4S 4 , I'54' .tom, 11344,; 1 L-h� ASSESSOR PARCEL NUMBER: A, 1504-..D •- 6-4-to OOSO (. Z4;(320 — oo4 R OO�j t ) iT"' K` :44:1 CGy` '-'.. %* P. Ian ner -.• Q �,, ..`•...�. vant ` �': .$rta ;•' ;i p **V.'. ,54i'� c?.r: CI r.a'0, . V*;" ?,,7"' . `�' ckF::a ?�,M: �,....• .... �.� .:. . ,�.�........∎', tt$C .�.%� *O'ra • . FEexKum er:� . , �� *; :'`f,7^..” 4 � ;, °`�,�ry a:.. �:• n '" • • •f:•.^i... ,- .•+v.: ":snMC � ?�i4"t' . r=ny . :., ' 4..*. n:"." T��i' °` F:: r ^•' :..f_.i ttSS y -� .-, :�'" i •.s ' . ,Y,– , _• - °- . �� Recelpt=Kumher ..- ,,N,.�: 4.7.. �' . Wig . . h,... ih.v �' �PralectA ,,,, —: :.. �Y�:.:�..: .alXl•:�ML'..vitr�.:1�1.::� ..Cl'. YL�' '. ':_.. -, — -�- • _e•• �'y. ak..7h'i.i+..•.:"�'{nJI'; �v �•1. �: _•`k".4 `Y?iis.. i.%?5 :.tilii%^`1 x. :'.t 41' W.'.tlfr4t-Zg4. 'YYL '.:7.:''+. "!L'rf:r:w T x , • 4 >wA ,iy;"'.a. ` + �:i'.. ti u.� ,.,'...r :s��. 't,' il:C, ,'' ;.',....�.L:. >; n...: 3'1.: rc,..; .1 i t i. ;. �''�� lic o tco �' r7R: +1',-.azy� . ,m,e)r,i,n::f•.'M��.�u'.�'.. ^, ....r.w '`.7::T -J :. ...fit,.....^ .�w... ... ,..s:i �. �y �.�z.:a9�Nrr �yE Fi .:t.;: --.'.; �` -,,,,7.te` aL.c .1:...•'4;,t. `'S, .,. 'I..I��:ii.,,,,. ?1..%'^...[T y. .,,,, .,L., .V.. . f... �.:rw. ..w;1� va. i •47,, .97-,.,x�;Y�4M".r'^ ".: J , .; �4rtL•M -..,,,y.,,-.74,1s...,, �ie,Yr4I ...syr..: .ezexit gr,., ,,•&.,:.4j t:^.. , j w #X.'_. ..25,.'. 'L*ii_.: ,� W,+e. .. ... .:3= a.:..., • ,. A:ppItde'on��ri:complete hate :k. :: 'a:,r4:Atz f:. PROJECTIPROPOSALBACKGROUND. - 1. i• /PROPOSAL: - Pa'eKS cFP W `sue- ‘ L.c --' A. NAME OF PROJECT .74;f B. LOCATION OF PROJECT /DEVELOPMENT: STREET ADDRESS: 4S 4 , I'54' .tom, 11344,; 1 L-h� ASSESSOR PARCEL NUMBER: A, 1504-..D •- 6-4-to OOSO (. Z4;(320 — oo4 R OO�j t ) / J ('�z- -A.e_ LEGAL DESCRIPTION: i TS Et Quarter: /1 E. Section: 1 Township: 2 Range: 4 (Tnis information may be found on your tax statement) c. CoNTAcr: (Primary contact regarding the application, and to whom all notices and reports shall be sent) NAME J� II ha. 4.—.1.1. aIAPL t- .L., t 1?4 6\i i ...3—. ...3—. . : f) / E Q° V-1 1k, • !N► (6 24 `7` ADDRESS: .. 6 , T — l PHONE: (S')fiS4 2/ 7c -IL Z.'. 85'l 2'1'77 Cepl a.5- -(PS3 -.53Lb 0 SIGNATURE: _ / DATE: IZ'p/q'l ...............,. .r..n'+.�....rc+t•;rc.e >.ni."".x .� r ?'z.�f5*,?';b+'".`�t. %�✓F7.; ii�5�.:, tcvj,, +,. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: EXISTING: 113 cozkie PROPOSED: CAA F. ZONING DESIGNATION: EXIST1NG: PROPOSED: G. • LAND USE(S): : EXISTING:" Y e-1" \r [Z-74 PROPOSED: Fi C----- MIT" VI 1--\8l4 (for proposed changes in land use designations or rezones) H. DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: (attach additional sheets if necessary) . © E`er 1 - 1O l�Lt G P N Izk L.,r T4-(E SEc�.k Vt `1-\ WORE' • A1`1 D (.., 0r>Jzi Dce__IL t 1 t`SE_ Srscr. o 1✓ F-12s -r -=( / . • -11-1C a. (2-- `c,iti3L -D v lc.Ls -`G S Ct C ;72a4 Al i (L -+ ti-d-t 1 &R..c.,O.L.t-t--td4 »it �CXLAPit -r I. GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF SURROUNDING LAND USES:., Describe the existing uses located within 1,000 feet in all directions from the property or area for which a change is proposed. '531Lb+ZziS • (..14- l),)Di.6Tk 1 dFF11 - 4,1t L41.1.t tl6 m-t� •` / Loc,.t.` Td t✓ l i.ic 6 A4 T-- I /1B Izu A40 !1 - 1.1 v-r --r- . -s9 `1 • lz, LDCQZ= b `C"a i tA6(_ -1- AAD 42.5 14 `lc) ` -1-4c 'F ; , )0L(1_12._ Pi, i"\I1 ->f SiDt_ =-�i 1JL. 14 (.-De--A-71-0 AT- -FIA ■t51H . A. IMPACTS) OF PROPOSED CHANGE ON SURROUNDING PROPERTIES: Describe potential adverse impacts of the proposed change on surrounding geographic area, such as affects on land use designations and zoning of surrounding properties, adjacent natural features or systems, or public utilities or streets. (A summary of impacts addressed in SEPA checklist is acceptable.) Attach separate sheet(s) with response. B. NON - CONFORMING USES CREATED: Describe any existing uses that are likely to become non - conforming under the proposed land.use/zoning designation. C. IMPACT(S) OF PROPOSED CHANGE ON COMPREHENSIVE PLAN POLICIES, ZONING REGULATIONS AND C(iY` z =z re w 00 co W'= J f. �w w0 2 LQ =d w z= )-0 w~ w O P, o 1.- w w 1- u' O w z. co 0f z . FUNCTIONAL PLANS: Identify specific Comprehensive Plan policies and zc_.g regulations and how your proposal affects them. Identify any functional plans affected by the proposal (e.g. Storm and Surface Water Plan, Shoreline Master Program, Parks and Open Space Plan) and what changes would be required in those plans if the proposed amendment were approved. Attach separate sheet(s) with response. . D. IMPACT(S) OF PROPOSED CHANGE ON CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLAN: Describe any capital improvements that would be needed to support the proposed amendment, and what changes would be required in the City's Capital Improvements Plan. Attach separate sheet(s) with response. E. DEFICIENCiES IN EXISTING PLAN/CODE RESOLVED BY THE PROPOSAL: Explain why the current . Comprehensive Plan or Zoning Code is deficient or why it should not continue. Be specific; cite policy numbers and code sections that apply. Attach separate sheet(s) with response. F. COMPLIANCE OF THE PROPOSAL W1TH GROWTH MANAGEMENT ACT: Describe' how the proposed change complies with and promotes the goals and specific requirements of the Growth Management Act. Attach separate sheet(s) with response. •. G. OTHER ISSUES PRESENTED BY THE PROPOSED CHANGE: Describe any other issues that are important to consider in the proposal, such as other changes in City codes that would be required, other City - adopted plans affected, environmental or economic issues. (Attach additional sheet(s) if necessary). �,� -1s I"c t 6-4 Iti&ib tip` — � i T kt 11-1-\ He �?r..(� )\ -zi _ P6 rso -T1 AG T" �t =z,c.� W. -t' F Fri- -116-• G►_ E`o,A{c u..`-( r.�( A, ,J tti z5 DA-f. _ -r-o D • G&/E51.- R- c Lk ,fir -r &lk._._ C hu.. e O cam, -n.a,t . . H. ALTERNAT1VES TO PROPOSED CHANGE: (A summary of altematives addressed in the project's SERA checklist is acceptable.) Attach separate sheet(s) with response. III. COMPREHENSIVE PLAIWZONING COOEAMENDMENTCRiTERiA. • The burden of proof in demonstrating that a change to the Comprehensive Plan or Zoning Code is warranted lies solely upon the proponent. The greater the degree of change proposed, the greater will be the burden of showing that the change is justified. The Planning Commission and the City Council will review your proposal using the criteria listed below. It is essential that you describe in a clear and precise manner why the amendment request should. be approved. Attach additional sheet(s) with your responses to each criterion. You may submit other documentation in support of your proposal. A. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT CRITERIA: Demonstrate how each of the following circumstances justifies a re- designation of your property or a change in existing Plan policies: 1. A detailed statement of what is proposed and why, 2. A statement of the anticipated impacts of the change, including the geographic area affected and the issues presented by the proposed change; 3. An explanation of why the current comprehensive plan or development regulations are deficient or should not continue in effect; 4. A statement of how the proposed amendment complies with and promotes the goals and specific requirements of the Growth Management Act; 5. A statement of how the proposed amendment complies with applicable Countywide Planning Policies; 6. A statement of changes, if any, would be required plans (Le., the .City's water, sewer, storm water or shoreline plans) if the- firoposed amendment is adopted; • • • 7. A statement of what capital improvements, if any, would be needed to support the proposed change, and how the proposed change will affect the capital facilities plans of the City; and . • 8. A Statement of what other changes, if any, are required in other City codes, plans or regulations to implement the proposed change. B. ZONING AMENDMENT CRITERIA: Demonstrate how each of the each following circumstances justifies a rezone of your property or a change in the existing Zoning Code:. 1. The use or change in zoning requested shall be in conformity with the adopted Comprehensive Land Use Policy Plan, the provisions of this title, and the public interest; 2. The use or change 7n zoning requested in the zoning map or this title for the establishment of co. mmercial, industrial, or residential use shall be supported by an architectural site plan showing the proposed development and its relationship to surrounding areas as set forth in the application form. v,J - kurch4t4k.: aimea,,,Div.AAK ' • 10024 SE 240th Street, Suite 102 Kent, WA 98031 -5124 Phone: 253.854.2470 FAX: 253.854.2475 • ARCHITECTS & PLANNERS AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF ARCHITECTS IL IMPACTS OF PROPOSED CHANGE A. Impacts on Surrounding Property:. There are no adverse impacts to the proposed change. The impacts will be positive to the surrounding land uses. Two of the four parcels included in the proposed development are already zoned C/LI. These are the two parcels that currently have non - conforming residential uses. These two parcels are separated in a checkerboard pattern from each other by the two vacant lots that are zoned LDR. The development of the four parcels will create the screening and landscape buffers in accordance with the Zoning Code protecting the residential uses to the south from many of the adverse impacts which currently exist due to the lack of screening. B. Non - Conforming Uses Created: None. The rezone and development of the sites will lessen the non - conforming uses by ,pliminating the residential use at 4625 S 134th Place that is currently in the C/LI zoning. -e-Ven�1,1. m C. Impacts on Comprehensive Plan Policies, Zoning Regulations and Functional Plans: None. The' requested revisions are best described as adjustments to the boundary between the C/LI and LDR zoning areas. This adjustment was discussed initially during the Last Comprehensive Plan Review. Though there was no specific objections to zoning the properties to C/LI, the City requested a project proposal be submitted for review first. There are no impacts to the functional plan. D. Impacts to Capital Improvement Plan: None. The change is limited to a boundary adjustment to the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning. The adjustment does not add significantly to the intensity of any land use. The .development will fund any of its own required street improvements. E. Deficiencies in Existing Plan/Code Resolved by the Proposal: . 134th and 135th are part of the North Section of the Interurban Corridor. The. checkerboard border of the existing plan requires truck access to the 261320 -0049 parcel from. 135t. The proposed project routes truck traffic from 134th. The rezone will also allow a more defined border and buffering between the residential and-industrial uses rather than having industrial uses wrap around residential lots. The combined lots allow fewer driveways for access than individual developments. Reference Comp Plan Policies 1.7.4, 1.8.6, 7.3.1, 7.4.2, 7.4.4, 8.3.1, 8.3.4. HOLADAY -PARKS OFFICE/WAREHOUSE FACII.ITY COMP PLAN/ZONING CODE AMENDMENT APPLICATION PART II: IMPACTS OF PROPOSED CHANGE Page 1 of 2 F. Compliance with Growth Management The requested amendment to the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning for the two parcels is conipatable with the Growth Management Act. The adjustment to the boundary protects the existing residential neighborhood by providing enhanced landscape buffering and reduced truck traffic in residential streets and collectors. This protection will help preserve the residential quality of the neighborhood to the south while increasing the opportunity for employment. G. Other Issues 2 yo Holaday -Parks is an existing business in Tukwila with over..2etlemployees. The proposed change would be consistant with the proposed use. The Project would benefit the City economically by allowing Holaday -Parks to expand their facility at.their existing location. The existing parking for their existing operation is inadequate. The new facility would help to reduce this impact and reduce the need for on -street parking. H. Alternatives An alternative would be for Holaday -Parks to move part of their operation and administration to other facilities. This would displace workers and require a greater demand on transportation between the different facilities. HOLADAY -PARKS OFFICE/WAREHOUSE FACILITY COMP PLAN/ZONING CODE AMENDMENT APPLICATION 'PART IL• IMPACTS OF PROPOSED CHANGE Page 2 of 2 • • • • • • • • 10024 SE 240th Street, Suite 102 Kent, WA 98031 -5124 Phone: 253.854.2470 FAX: 2.53.854.2475 ARCHITECTS & PLANNERS AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF ARCHI'T'ECTS W. JU 00 0 W'= J H LL w0 g w z� �0 z I- w • w. VO O P 0 w• w LL ' 3. 134th and 135th are part of the North Section of the Interurban Corridor. The tii Z checkerboard border of the existing plan requires truck access to the 261320- U 0049 parcel from 135t• The proposed project routes truck traffic' from 134t. The z rezone will also allow a more defined border and buffering between the residential and industrial uses rather than having industrial uses wrap around residential lots. The combined lots allow fewer driveways for access than individual developments. Reference Comp Plan Policies 1.7.4, 1.8.6, 7.3.1, 7.4.2, 7.4.4, 8.3.1, 8.3.4. IIL COMPRERENSTVE PLAN / ZONING CODE AMENDMENT CRITERIA A. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AIVLENDMENT CRITERIA: 1. Develop a two -story office and warehouse facility. The office would be primarily on the second floor with warehouse space and two loading docks on the first floor. The project would include site development for parking, circulation and landscaping. The proposed amendment will allow the two existing C/LI lots (0049 and 0051) to be combined into a single development with primary access from S 134th Place. 2. The re- designation of Parcels 0046 and 0050 will have positive impacts to the surrounding area by reducing commercial and light industrial truck traffic on. 135th and facilitating a well defined boundary between the C/LI and LDR Zoning. 4. The requested amendment to the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning for the two parcels is compatable with the .Growth Management Act. The adjustment to the boundary protects the existing residential neighborhood by providing enhanced landscape buffering and reduced truck traffic in residential streets and collectors. This protection will help preserve the residential quality of the neighborhood to the south while increasing the opportunity for employment. 5. The request does not significantly diminish residential neighborhood .development. It in fact helps preserve the existing quality of life and the environment for the residential neighborhood to the south by enhanced landscape buffers and reducing industrial truck traffic in these neighborhoods. HOLADAY -PARKS OFFICE/WAREHOIISE FACILITY COMP PLAN /ZONING CODE MENDiVElNT APPLICATION PART III: AMENDMENT CRITERIA Page 1 of 2 6. The requested revisions are best described as adjustments to the boundary between the C/LI and LDR zoning areas. This adjustnaent was discussed initially • 'duririg the Last Comprehensive Plan Review. Though there was no specific • objections to zoning.the properties to C/LI, the City requested a project proposal be submitted for review first. There are no impacts to the functional plan. 7. The development will fund any of its own required street improvements. The change will not impact the capital facilities plan. 8. The change is limited to a boundary adjustment to the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning. The adjustment does not add significantly to the intensity of any land . use. The development will be in full compliance with the zoning requiremnts of _the re-designation to C/LI Zoning. B. ZONING AMENDMENT CRITERIA: 1. The zoning code amendment is being requested together with a Comprehensive Plan Amendment. The requested revisions are best described as adjustments to the boundary between the C/LI and LDR zoning areas: This adjustment was discussed initially during the Last Comprehensive Plan Review. Though there was no specific objections to zoning the properties to C/LI, the City requested a project proposal be submitted for review first. 2. See attached Site Plan. HOLADAY-PARKS OFFICE/WAREHOUSE FACILITY . COMP PLAN/ZONING CODE AMENDMENT APPLICATION PART Ea: AMENDMENT CRITERLA. Page 2 of 2 • • ; A ... .•'• • 04.4. *4,:-.%2.k;•;:agt,itiiiolk4.i.V.A,-tirigsm:P.17.4.14N;;A.43. Z uj z, • ,w 6 = _J C.) 00 co 0. QLL •ILI; LU'x: w 0: • 11_ w EcY Z • )-0 Z 111 LU: :D a • 0 1-1 uJ- cy 1- F: LLI • 0 .z • •■■• ....c•: twn. CA, me•1.e.lau.• tO..tftx 4V. ., ,,i ,� � Il 41;, :7'.a {' 1%' .40;•:,•67,.. 1 ` tFr� I i��g �'` f' j' �jli • 11-741, Litii, ���,.� •.1.... ,m•. twuOf.r;• 1�II ;OAK.* um.�c., ,` ,`\� 11N 114' �1 •Qti..C&4OA tfT•M.., l•.00./• t A 1 to �! •� /'f �1 �•� � I4bS1JE7 G' iO re.f. 'two./ po Gti '%I•'3r 0 4. G'- rt,%241 e:re *evo..r.4.1 G'�.11/�•\`'•1I 69 G.vrA it••i., !.a'ke\w1E mil. . #rl�I.t %:4.(61..441!Gi.► .r/f.t:Ti'i.1:.I�:AZer,wr iNtriv1',v 1 Asii�'.V , 4 }1:�11..►1i. ma3f .Gq/• 4 :_wor '1'r"!!! t..yc• .a a .. Si/CAMS 1/.2.1= PST. IPA SO io.1.01/ ilKSSO a.rtr t�•w•.a 7 M N 6I TE PLAN CflE DATA, TAX ACCOUNT en 261320 -0046 261320 -0049 261320 -0050 261320-0051 PARKING PROVIDED, 31 PARKING REQUIRED, DUPLEX, 2 PER DWELLING WIT • 4 OFFICE: (-Law / 1,0001 x 3 • 21 UTAREHOUBE, (1,000 / 7p00) • 3 TOTAL REQUIREP • 25 BUILDING HEIGHT, 35 FEET BCALEI 1 "• 30' u:.e, ITS YICINITY MAP N.T.B. 1 .NraritA �10�8 MASK •6 nu P•tN0 •f• lets 1 1 A -1.1 Z re w: : JO U O. N 0: W'= ! J H N O w u. Cl W H =. Z �.. 1-O: ZZC F-;. 111 ui: U� O� W •1 H U Z1. :z ./29/99 13:38 PAM 42S 889 5922 FIRST AMERICAN TITLE 14002 First American Title Insurance Company .Regional Commercial Division . 2101 4th Avenue, Suite 800 Seattle, .Washington 98121 (206)728 -0400 / Fax (206)448 -6248 Toll Free 1- 800 -826 -7718 Order No. 504335 -5K REF: 34803SDI COMMERCIAL TITLE OFFICER: LANCE LEWIS COMMERCIAL Ti i'LE OFFICER: MIKE N. COOPER. COMMERCLAL 'ITTLE OFFICER: SHARON CROASDILL FAX NO.: (206) 448 -6248 SCHEDULE A 1. Effective date: October 15, 1999 at 7:30 A.M. 2. Owners proposed insured: SHAMROCK ASSOCIATES Lenders proposed insured: TO FOLLOW 3. Policy/policies to be issued: COMMERCIAL. RATE Standard Owner's Coverage Extended Mortgagee's Coverage PHONE: (206) 615 -3257 PHONE: (206) 728-7229 PHONE: (206) 72.8-72.27 • Amount Premium Tax $420,000.00 • 51,094.00 $94.08 TO FOLLOW 4:• A fee simple interest in the land described in this commitment is vested, at the Commitment date in: ELLING HALVORSON AND BARBARA HALVORSON, HUSBAND AND WIFE, AS TO PARCELS A AND B; Lori A: HALVORSON, AS ITTS SEPARATE- ESTATE,_ TD . _N.. _ UNDIVIDED 25% INTEREST IN PARCEL C; ELLING. HALVORSON AND BARBARA. HALVORSON, HUSBAND AND WIFE, AS TO A LIFE ESTATE AND E. KENT H.ALYORSON, PRESUMPTIVELY SUBJECT TO TIM COMMUNITY INTEREST OF HIS SPOUSE IF MARRIED ON JANUARY 13, 1989, LON A. HALVORSON, AS HIS SEPARATE ESTATE,. AND BRENDA HALVORSON, AS B.ER SEPARATE ESTATE, AS TO REMAINDER, ALL AS TO AN UNDIVIDED 75% INTEREST IN PARCEL C 5. The land referred to in this commitment is described in Schedule A -2. 6. ABBREVIA'l trD LEGAL DESCR1LPTION: Tract 14, FOSTORIA. GARDEN TRACTS, Vol. 9, P. 95. 7. Tax Account No(s),: 261320 - 0049 -04, 261320-0046 -07, 261320 - 0050 -00 & 261320 - 0051 -09 Page 2 lfss i3:37 FAX 42S 882 5922 DESCRIPTION: PARCEL A: FIRST A .RICAN TITLE Q10as SCHEDULE A2 Order No. 504335 -5K THAT PORTION OF TRACT 14 OF FOSTORIA GARDEN TRACTS, ACCORDING TO PLAT RECORDED t VOLUME 9 OF PLATS AT PAGE(S) 95, IN KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: • COMMENCING AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF SAID TRACT 14; THENCE SOUTHEASTERLY ALONG THE SOUTH MARGIN OF VALLEY STREET 90.94 FEET; THENCE SOUTHWESTERLY ALONG LINE PARALLEL TO THE NORTHWESTERLY BOUNDARY OF SAID 'TRACT 14 A DISTANCE OF 252 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNLNG; THENCE SOUTHWES'T'ERLY PARALLEL TO THE NORTHWEST BOUNDARY OF SAID TRACT 14 A DISTANCE OF 220.32 FEET TO THE INTERSECTION OF THE NORTH MARGIN OF FOSTER STREET: , • THENCE SOUTHEASTERLY ALONG SAID MARGIN 169.8 FEET; THENCE NORTHEASTERLY ALONG LINE COINCIDING WITH THE SOUTHEASTERLY BOUNDARY OF TRACT 14, 235.98 FEET; THENCE NORTHWESTERLY ALONG LINE PARALLEL TO VALLEY STREET 169.06 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; • EXCEPT THE SOUTHEASTERLY 70 FEET OF THE NORTHEASTERLY 110 FEET. PARCEL B: THE SOUTI-IEASTE.RLY 70 FEET OF THE NORTHEASTERLY 110 FEET OF THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED TRACT: THAT PORTION OF TRACT 14 OF FOSTORIA GARDEN TRACTS, ACCORDING TO PLAT RECORDED fN VOLUME 9 OF PLATS AT PAGE(S) 95, IN KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCING AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF SAID TRACT 14; THENCE SOUTHEASTERLY ALONG THE SOUTH MARGIN OF VALLEY STREET 90.94 1 -tt 1; (CONI' I JED) Psgc3 z • == • .6 n rU •:0 0 U 0. �.w w= w: w0 J j. 5.2a =W Z Z �. w ai U0 O U�. 0 1-. w W. 2 U U c1). O ~' z : /29/99 13:37 FAX 42S 869 5922 FIRST AXERICAN TITLE ' DESCRIPTION CONT. ORDER NO. .504335-51C. THENCE SOUTHWESTERLY ALONG LINE PARALLEL. TO THE NORTHWESTERLY BOUNDARY OF SAID TRACT 14 A DISTANCE OF 252 FEET TO.THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE SOUTHWESTERLY PARALLEL TO THE NORTHWEST BOUNDARY OF SAID TRACT 14 A DISTANCE OF 220.32 FEET TO THE INTER,. SECTION OF THE NORTH MARGIN Of FOSTER STREET; THENCE SOUTHEASTERLY ALONG SAID MARGIN 169.8 FEET; THENCE NORTHEASTERLY ALONG LINE COINCIDING WITH THE SOUTHEASTERLY BOUNDARY OF TRACT 14, 235.98 FEET; THENCE NORTHWESTERLY ALONG LINE PARALLEL TO VALLEY STREET 169.06 FEET TO THE TRUE FOINT OF BEGINNING. PARCEL C: THE NORTHEAST 252 FEET OF THE SOUTHEAST 0.86 ACRES OF TRACT 14 OE FOSTORIA GARDEN TRACTS, ACCORDING TO PLAT RECORbED IN • VOLUME 9 OF PLATS AT PAGE(S) 95, INKING COUNTY, WASHINGTON; EXCEPT THE NORTH 10 FEET OF THE NORTE-IEAST 119.11 FEET OF THE . SOUTHEAST .86 ACRES OF LOT 14: f t 1/99 •1;27 FAX 42S 889 5922 FIRST AMERICAN TITLE Zoos SCHEDULE B - SECTION 1 Rat Order No. 504335-5X 'the following retp iterniatta mat be .tat 1. Psyrnent to or tltr die =acute of We Grr+nors or Mortgagors or ore full cooAid.ruioa fat the elute or idsterest to be insured. 2. Proper inattum•nt{t) creating the =hoe or interest to be bossed turn be etecuted and duly Llcd for lecvnl. Copd)1ottt mad Slice about 1. The tt-ea 'netts¢ ■', when used herein, rbaf matede deed of Wes, trust decd, or oiler toeurity ittstrumettt 2. If the pra(w.od Jo/cured h.a or eog.4res actual kna`rietko of ettY defect, lice, eseatnbnacc. adverse claim uc uthcr .totter affecting the estate, interest or Inc rolage thereon =Anted by this Comnsiemea.t otter than thaw shown in Schedule D hereof, acid shall tail to (aldose such kxrwlndrtw the Company in wrieng, the Company .hat! to relieved firm liability for any Iou or damage resulting L'otn any act of tction= hcrcvA to the niter( the Cumitan7 is pr judiord try faliurc to ao d)sdoso such knnw)c e. 1 f the proposed Insured slain ditdoso Arta ksoarfetec to the Company, tic It the Company otherwise acquires usual knowledge of soy seats drfear 5m, raGaabtaaoa, a4ve;se claim or other man ce, the Company at its option any sreera Schedule B of this Cathm)tae:e, yecor'.:mply, but such anso%darrct tthall nom relieve the Comisany from liability provioualy inftgred purstrnt to par.graph 3 of therm Conditions and Stipulations. 3. Liability of the Cal:warty under this Comatirment snail be owly m nto carved ptopaacd Ittntra4 sod rah parries included under the definition of Insured m dan than of poQoy or policies committed the and only ICs actual lo►, incurred its reliencc bermes in undctutking in Rind tiith•(a) to comply with the r1 VICOCCicnts bOr °04 err (b) to elimioala exocpdotle shorn in Se ule a, or (c) to acqulte of =to the estate or latax=rt or mortgage therms =versa by this CammitmccL in no event shall inch liabiity erecad the•smeune gated In Schedule A for the policy or policies OlOuuntratd for and such liability is subject to the Itaucag ptorislous, modasiem noon Coverage, nail the Conditions sod Stipulations of the form of policy or politica oossaisacd for in savor of the proposed Isnural which are hereby ineoryant_zl by reference and urn made r pert ortlis Commitment except as aptwly modified herein. 4. Any claim of tom nr damsPa whether or not Mired anncgligoa=, wad which ari.Sct nut of ibe- status afthe till■ to the estate, iracrest or the Deer e1 the lrtsuted cm:Incite earetsd hereby of nap action xstettitlx such duce. shall be t>;strictcd to tltc precisions and Cocelitions anti Stipulations of this Caaailmcat. jti'OTEL - Erre:dee Jitmtary 1, 1997, tied pommel( to uvend neat of WIshinktrn State Santucci rdatbse to standardization of recorded docusnent_s, the fed neinr; foster red elonet netpsis•etacra t utttst be tact. Failurti m comity ttsxy that( is rdarcdaq of tbe.dooanttrt by the t cwt"der. jrC)3tMAT: Margin: to b. 3' on top of Ina page, t' on ciders And bosom. 1' an top. lid= and bona= of each suto:cedtng page. Fund ties of t! points or tarter t,nd piper size of un mots: tiro a 112' by 14', No atteehrnonts on pages such as stapled or tripod oocul sacs; pressmen seals toast b. smuddad. INFO lIgi1 TTQNWFiu,. : • •:s. OM 1'PAt7.: Thle'of thin or document. Ituiigonetxorrseoav r).tn.:ecrfareacato Audito't fiQl'iWntraCof 'abject deed of mu t. . Tema at'tcantar(s) and Irantce(s) with tefettnea to additional =rocs an folloctiag par.(s), it any. Abbrnviaprd Ieyat tlazriptiva (Sag block, put :AMC or section, township, ran” anti goattar reecho% of quintet section for unplarttcdl. Assessor's Tax Parcel Nurtber(x). Return eddn«x, wbiob may apps• in the upper left bantl czip Mar,;in. Page 5 Z re w: u`6 O - O. W.= J 1- N LL. W0 J LL ¢' D. d I W Z F—' W U 0. 'O zz, � F- W W' LI.O CU Z. O Z da9 /99 1a :97 F.11 925 859 5922 EIRsT AXERICAN TITLE SCHEDULE B - SECTION 2 Order No. 51)4335 -5K aneT xcet irt__am� The policy or policies to be issued will contain exceptions to the following unless the same are disposed of to the satisfaction of the Company. A. Taxes or assessments which are not shown as existing liens by the records of any taxing authority that levies taxes or assessments as real property or by the public records. B. Any facts. rights, interest, or claims which are not shown by the public records but which could be ascertained by an inspection of said land or by making inquiry of persons in possession thereof. C. Easement3, claims of easements or encumbrances which are not shown by the public records. D. Discrepancies, conflicts in boundpry limes, shortage in area, encroachments, or any other facts which a correct survey would disclose, and which arc not showa by public records. E. • (a) Uapatented mining claims- (b) Reservations or exceptions in patents or in acts authorizing the issuance thereof; (c) Water rights, claims or title to water, whether or not the matters excepted under (a), (b), or (c) arc shown by the public records; (d) lndthn tribal codes or regulations, Tndian treaty or aboriginal rights, including easements or equitable servitudes. Any lien, or right to a lien, for services, labor or material theretofore or hereafter furnished, imposed by law and not shown by the public records, Any service, installation, connection, maintenance, construction, tap or reimbursement charges /costa for sewer, water, garbage or electricity. H. Defects, liens, encumbrances, adverse claims or other matters, if any, created, first appearing in the public records or 'attaching subsequent to the effective date hereof but prior to the date th_ proposed insured acquires of record for value the estate, interest or mortgages thereon covered by this commitment. .. �iel�::n.� " %:1:3'�:.A.'�. :� }'.�t.. . rd-y�i� �'M1 ^SY'!r:•mnr Page 6 triv S?�] I��.'.�'SiaY`.�+hNkR.i'rilw�ii •.k'��Lw *�h .iUfiS'i4`.fiKn z. F w ce 'U O: gym. U)w J Nw 5 w0 u_¢ =. w zE... O. .z ILI • 5 0 O N` :0I = • z: co U O z 99 13:95 FAX 425 869 5e22 • FIRST ADERICAN TITLE SCHEDULE B - SECTION.2 *CONY. SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS QJao7 Order No. 30433E -5X j. LIEN OF THE RED, ESTATE EXCISE SALES AA OF DATE UPON ANY SALE OF SAID.PREMISES, HEREIN, THE EXCISE TAX RATE FOR CITY OF TUKWILA IS 1.78"x. LEVY CODE: 2.413 2. GENERAL TAXES. THE FIRST HALF BECOMES DELI UT AFTER R APRIL 30TH. THE SECOND HALF BECOMES OCTOBER 31ST. . 1999 YEAR: 075.4 AMOUNT BILLED: $037.42 2,2 AMOUNT PAID:: AMOUNT DUE: $1,037.71, PLUS INTEREST AND PENALTY', IF DELINQUENT TAX ACCOUNT NO.: 261320- 0049 -04 9,000.OQ ASSESSED VALUE OF LAND: - •. ASSESSED VALUE OF IMPROVEMENT: •; $3 $3 9,000.00 (AS TO PARCEL A) 3. GENERAL TAXES. THE FIRST HALF BECOMES S DELINQUENT T AFTER APRIL 30TH. THE. SECOND HALF BECOMES OCTOBER 31ST. 1999 YEAR: AMOUNT BILLED: $389.83 AMOUNT- PAID: • . _. ._..: $194.92 AMOUNT DUE:* $194.91, PLUS INTEREST AND PENALTY, IF DELINQUENT TAX ACCOUNT NO.: ' 261320- 0046 -07 $x{,004.00 ASSESSED VALUE OF LAND: ASSESSED VALUE OF IMPROVEMENT= NON (AS TO PORTION' OF PARCEL B) 4. GENERAL TAXES. THE FIRST• HALF BECOMES DELINQUENT ERER APRIL 30TH. THE SECOND HALF BECOMES DELINQUENT • OCTOBER 31ST. 1999 AMOUNT BILLED: $422.25 X3 AMOUNT PAID: $ 4 AMOUNT DUE: $211.12, PLUS INTEREST AND PENALTY;.-IF DELINQUENT TAX ACCOUNT NO.: 261320..000 -00 p,gc7 L29/99 13:38 FAI 425 859 5922 { FIRST AMERICAN TITLE ASSESSED VALUE OF LAND:. ASSESSED VALUE OF IMPROVEMENT: (AS TO REMAINDER OF PARCEL B) Order No, 504335.5K $26,000.00 NONE 5. GENERAL TAXES. THE FIRST HALF BECOMES DELINQUENT AFTER APRIL 30TH. THE SECOND HALF BECOMES DELINQUENT AFTER OCTOBER 31ST. YEAR: 1999 AMOUNT BILLED: $1,556.78 AMOUNT PAID: $. 778.39 AMOUNT DUE: $ 778.39, PLUS INTEREST AND PENALTY, IF DELINQUENT TAX ACCOUNT NO. :. 261320 - 0051 -09 ASSESSED VALUE OF LAND: ASSESSED VALUE OF IMPROVEMENT: (AS TO PARCEL C) 6. DEED OF TRUST GRANTOR: TRUSTEE: BENEFICIARY: $33,000.00 $63,000.00 AND THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS THEREOF: LON A. H'ALVORSON AND LEZLIE L. HALVORSON, HUSBAND AND WISE, AS TO AN UNDIv1DED 25% INTEREST; ELLING B. HALVORSON AND BARB) .RA J. flALVORSON, HITSBAND AND WIFE, AS LIFE TENANTS, AND E. KENT HALVORSON, AS HIS SEPARATE PROPERTY, LON A. HALVORSON, AS EIS SEPARATE PROPERTY, BRENDA HALVORSON, A SINGLE PERSON, AS TENANTS IN COMMON AS . REMAXNDERMEN, AS TO AN UND1-'VIDED 75% INTEREST AS TENANTS IN COMMON FIRST" AMERICAN TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY, A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION THEORDORE L. LINDE A.ND PATRICE E. LINDE, HUSBAND AND WIFE $54,375.00 JANUARY 3, •1989 JANUARY 13, 1989- 8901130955 AMOUNT:. DATED: RECORDED: RECORDING NO.: (AS TO PARCEL C) 7. MATTERS REGARDING EXTENDED COVERAGE FOR THE MORTGAGEE'S POLICY WHICH ARE DEPENDENT UPON Psi- 3 oa8 z ~w ce 00 w= J w0. gQ w z� 1-- 0 z 1— E- ww U PI c_ 0 z ,99 1.3:38 FAI 425 989 5922 } FIRST AMERICAN TITLE Qloo9 Order No, 504335 -5K INSPECTION FOR DETERMINATION OF INSURABILITY. THE. RESULTS OF OUR INSPECTION WILL BE FURNISHED BY SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT. ADDRESS OF PROPERTY: TO BE VERIFIED 8. UNRECORDED LEASEHOLDS AND kiCr: n•i� yr T ENA NTS , rr. �.ry tr AA1 J. . 9. ACCORDING TO. THE APPLICATION FOR TITLE INSURANCE, TITLE IS TO VEST IN SHAMROCK ASSOCIATES. WE ARE UNABLE TO DETERMINE THE NATURE OF SAID ENTITY AND REQUIRE FURTHER INFORMATION PRIOR TO CLOSING. (A CERTIFICATE OF INCORPORATION IS NOT CURRENTLY ON FILE WITH THE SECRETARY OF STATE.) 10. EASEMENT, INCLUDING TERMS AND PROVISIONS CONTAINED THEREIN: RECORDED: -MAX 19, 1977 RECORDING NO.: 7705190562 IN FAVOR OF: VAL YtJE SEWER DISTRICT FOR: SEWER PIPELINE AFFECTS: NORTHEASTERLY 10 FEET AND THE NORTHWESTERLY 20 FEET OF THE SOUTHWESTERLY 20 FEET OF THE NORT.H.i✓ASTERLY 30 FEET OF PARCEL A II. CONDITIONS, NOTES AND PROVISIONS CONTAINED AND /OR DELINEATED ON THE FACE OF THE SURVEY RECORDED UNDER KING COUNTY RECORDING NO. 8409259003. 12. EASEMENT, INCLUDING TERMS AND PROVISIONS CONTAINED THEREIN: RECORDED: RECORDING NO.: IN FAVOR OF: FOR: AFFECTS: NOTES: FEBRUARY 26, 1988 8802260529 CITY OF TUKWILA PUBLIC PURPOSES THE NORTE 15 FEET OF PARCEL C ADJACENT TO SOUTH 134TE PLACE A. • "The Company expressly disclaims any liability resulting from dace field related computer processing errors,including without limitation, "Year 2000" errors, of third parties upon whom the Company depends in. processing Pago 9 L009 13:38 FAX 425 889,8822 FIRST AMERICAN TITLE Zola Order No. 504335-5K infortnation necessary to act as the settlement. agent and/or insure the transaction. This Note is for information purposes oily; it will not be carried over into any tide policy and will not be constrlied in any way to modify or limit any policy which is issued pursuant to this Commitment? B. A fee will be charged upon the cancellation of this commitment pursuant to the Washington State Insurance Code and the filed Rate Sc.hedule of the Company. C. An abbreviated legal description is required by the County Auditor if the full legal description JS NOl ciantained on the first page of all documents to bc recorded. • I'S/ejh • cc: ELLING HALVORSON, INC. • 12515 WILLOWS RD. NE SUITE 200 KIRKL,AND, WA 98034 ATTN: 01-LEI i cc: SHAMROCK SSOCTATES PO BOX 59208 SEATTLE, WA 98168 ATTN: DAVID PARKS Page 10 z I• I- 2r. ce 0 0 (403 W —I E- U) u. m110 g 5 =3 I w z o z F- LU • D CI 14 O . 0 — 0 • u j LI 5 4; 2E LLJ :44 p: e: z 0 /99 13:39 FA._ 425 384 5922 s Slst it turaiettod u r oinitizy T lay Rod Amrsrcsa le lasurussa C.comart Lod ituMUa PIA oL4114" lualesent or pol+g d %1Qe inresr- it clam± iu (=imbed tb+ab' Cot the ponoos to ell Weimar.. "l ng tbo pro iiac n24 4 aot purport o ell a. uk, of r s dfcctiag thbpiepory. oc limcasiasa doe pi..;a +■pxt Ltd r'ketch for Cho l�lia. ci rsr,rodsolirbiliry itrsteal fort..4e carrtestpets Lucaf• ___ELLs1 ! 1ERIC4tPi TITLE ORDER (rep- a�";; SuaDMSt N RCD4 NO./VOL.. & PS. •TWNSH 2 QTR C SEC J.., • .5 OL1 3 35 RNG �? F • 4.c•a -s... ..�.� ••.•• 17.21. 7L • a• f •••A L?T 3 9- FOS RIA G 261E60 (}NS vflL. II/ 74 •t • •• • 5 • M f7 t. r: /rraa s- .•• .1 •._............... �. ......- .e- ....- .....- .- .....w.» r�,..+....ti- r.+-.. xMn•l tn�li !i"��:�5`7;.�:!��»k7$,St:+i�i '29/99 13:34 FAX 425 889 5922 rm N.. 17S5 mmItment. Conditions one Stta.(rtion. • FIRST AMERICAN TITLE . al812 COMMITMENT Conditions and Stipulations 1. Tha term "mortgage," when used herein, shall Induct* died of truer. trust deed. or other security instrument. 2. If the proposed Insured has or acquires actual knowledge of any defect, lien, encumbrance, adverse claim of other matter' effecting the estate or interest or mortgage thereon csovered by this Commitment other than those shown in Schedule B hereof, and shall fail to disclose such knowledge to the CompenY in writing, the Company shall be relieved from liability for any loss or damage resulting from any act of reliance hereon to the extent Ma Company la prejudiced by failure to so disclose such knowledge. If the proposed Insured shall disclose 2uch knowledge to the Company, or if the Company otherwise acquires actual kiiawledge of any such defeot, flea, encumbrance, adverse claim or other matter. the Company at its option may amend Schedule 9 of this Commitment accordingly. but such amendment shall not relieve the Company from liability previously Incurred pursuant to paragraph 3 of VIM. Conditions end Stipulations. 3 Liability of the Company under this Commitment shall be only to the named proposed insured and such parties included under the definition of Insured in the form of policy of policies committed for and only for octull lass incurred in reliance hereon in undertaking in good faith (a) to comply with the requirements hereof, or (b) to eliminate azceptions shown in Schedule B, or lel to acquire or create the estate of interest or mortgage thereon severed by thla Commitment. In no crent shall such liability exceed the amount stated in Schedule A far the policy or policies committed for and such liability is subject to the insuring provisions, exclusion from coverage. and the Conditions and Stipulations of the form of policy or policies committed for in favor of the propos• Insured which are hereby incorporated by reference end are mad. a part of this Commitment except es expressly modified herein. 4, Any claim of loss or damage, whether or not' based an negligence, and which arises out of the norms of the title so the state or interoct or the lien of the insured mort. pose covered hereby or any action assorting such claim. shall be restricted to tote provisions and condttians and stipulations of tttl =Commitment. . 1'z{.Rt:.k�?,�er:7+'7i�.e:i!3�_ ca ',two r'+•+ E- Z. Ce i0 0 0: 0 W'= W 0. Q. tn� = a. H =.. Z �. !— O Z H: W 0 .0 -'. W W 1- LL. —0 • W Z' 0 Z ATTACHMENT NORTH ay Parks 9-00 entia to C /Ll (Commercial /Light Industrial) 095 R ( •w Density Residential) to C /LI (Comme-cial/ Light ndustrial) z W. re 6 JU 0O co co J. u) LL. w O g LL.?. • a = w H =: Z.F- I- 0 Z UJ 2 Di U i U 0 D H' • 0. W ut .. Z w F- U- O Ci) IT- 0 Z ATTACHMENT C C—I Hello Rebecca, On 11.06.95 Public Hearing I have submitted a written proposal to change my property zoning from LD -Lower density Residential to C/L1 - Commercial/Light Industrial in z accordance with the recommended comprehensive zoning plan in effect at that time. , 1 i In the council meeting that followed, the proposal has been discussed and approved for 'i- w zoning change to office. 6D Unfortunately, official decision has not followed up on any decision taken at that council -I 0 meeting and my property zoning is still LD. co w .i. Recently, I have received a notice of Public Meeting for rezoning two properties that are co u. in the same situation with my property: W O. they are LD and will become C /L1 by extending southward a larger C /L1 zone. g 5 u. Q' I am not only in the agreement with the suggested proposal but I would like to ask you to I a advise me of what needs to be done to have my property included in the same public Z meeting for rezoning to C/L1. 1- O z (- LLI Rezoning this property will make possible creation of several software related high tech M D jobs in Tukwila by INDUSTRIAL v DUSTRIAL DIGITAL, INC. an industry partner of University of m O Washington and Washington Technology Center. o F- ILL' w Due to the quiet nature of the proposed development, and to the fact that this building F- �. LL will act as a sound barrier between existing residential properties and industrial Z' enterprises to the east and north. v Actually, the current noise level to the residential area westward and southward of my �. property will be reduced to some degree. z Due to the proximity of the properties and the identical nature of the request, I will be happy if there is a way of including my property on this Public Hearing of 04/03/00. If there is any expediting application process, I will be more than happy to go through. For property identification here is the address: 13407 48th Ave. South Ti lcwila, WA. 98168 Thank you for your consideration Ion Manea - Owner Voice: 206 498 0445 E -mail : industrial@seanet.com (L1q -oo ( Li) rta / • i • From: Ion Manea < industrial @seanet.com> To: "Rebecca Fox" <rfox @ci.tukwila.wa.us> Date: 3/31/00 10:07AM Subject: Comprehensive Plan application omprehensive Plan apr"`ation C.2 Page 1 Rebecca, Thank you for checking it out. As you know I have been able to find out that indeed my 1995 request to not change the comprehensive plan from light industrial to single residential has been officialy recoreded at the public hearing. In reference to the follow -up silent city council meeting, myself and Lucy's notes can testify that indeed the comprehensive plan has not been approved to be changed to single residential. It remains to find out why the changes were not recorded on the new map. According to the above and to expedite the matters I need to do the following: Apply to change the comprehensive plan to light industrial Apply for rezoning my proprety to office (providing that it has been a record error and indeed the comprehensive plan for my property is "office "). Thanks, Ion For your information, these are the main ideas in reference to changing the comprehensive plan proposal on next Public Hearing. I am a resident and also I have a business on this proprety so I can speak for both sides. As a resident I can testify that for the last eight years the most disturbance on this property is created by the nearby freway and heavy air trafic. Ther property is midily afected by every minute from noise associated with SeaTac departures and severely afected by depatures and approaches to Boeing Field. Occasionaly, heavy trucks take the wrong tum at the 1 -5 enterance, and the only way they can turn is on front of my property that is at comer of 134th and 48th. Most of this happends at night when the noise disturbance is more accute. Due to the inadequate width of the 134th St, no streetwaiks and deep side ditch, walking to is quite a safety hapzard esspecialy in winter time. Ocassionaly, cars and trucks skip into side dich and the trafic is perturbed due to blockages created by rescue teams. All of the above come with the territory, it is not created by the existing tentants and property owners and except improving the street condition, nothing can be done about it. Except street condition, all of the above will not afect businesses but continously afect people leaving in this area. z ¢• �z .� U U0 w'=. (0u W O. W ¢. =W Z� 1— O. Z W Lu 2o ,O Ni 0H =U p. O Z w U co 0 • • Comprehensive Plan app. ,ation On the other hand if businesses are allowed to expand into this area (as former comprehensive plan called for) there is a posibility that the situation will improve due to the incerses noise dummpening by the large buildings are likely to be build. Additional revenue generated by business taxes and associated permits can be used as a resuorce in improving the street condition. There is a posibility that for business will help natural gas and DSL, ISDN to be extended into neighbood. As a business owner I can testify that this is a prime business area by: Proximity to airport cargo area, 1 -5, 1-405, Interurban Ave., Seattle and Kent Industrial Supply area, Southcenter wholesale and light industrial area. 3 phase power service. Easy employee access to work by car or Bus from South Seattle, Rento, Kent and Seatac, vial-5, Interurban, Hy 99, Hy 509, 1-405. Taking into account all of the above please appove requested changes for comprehensive plan. I hope that the city council will take a better look of the proposal and realize that the original comprehensive plan that called for extension of the exiating Light industrial area at least to 48th street southward was a better accomodation of business, residents and city as a whole interest and priorities. Thank you for your consideration. >Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2000 15:00:13 -0800 >From: "Rebecca Fox" <rfox @ci.tukwila.wa.us> >To: industrial @seanet.com >Cc: jpace @ci:tukwila.wa.us >Subject Comprehensive Plan application >Content- Disposition: inline >X- MIME- Autoconverted: from quoted - printable to 8bit by krim.seanet.com id OAA05580 >Mr. Manea -- >I checked with my supervisor and, as I thought, it is not possible to include a new Comprehensive Plan amendment application in this year's consideration. As we discussed, you may apply at any time prior to the December 31 deadline, but your application will not be considered until this time next year. >I will distribute your letter to the Councilmembers at the April 3, 2000 meeting. You are welcome to make comments on the proposed amendment or other associated topics at the meeting. Please let me know if you have additional materials for the Council. >Rebecca Fox, Associate Planner >206 -431 -3683 Page 2 z cc w • J U: U O: cn.w J H' - • LL wO g5 J u. a: _d I—O: ZH ui w U � • 10 ES • 0 H ww •Z U- _ u- F-. Z ▪ • =: O ~' Z, Rebecca Fox - Code Amendment 4Y From: "MDSHOLDINGS" <mdsholdings @iols.net> To: tuk- mail.6300- po(Rebecca) Date: 3/28/00 7:57AM Subject: Code Amendment As a home owner living next to an area zoned Commercial /Light Industrial I am opposed to any increase of that zoned area. Your letter of notice did not state the reasoning behind this proposed change. When the city wanted to establish a recycling facility in this same area they purchased land and then could not obtain the permits to build. It is my belief that the city does this type of activity with little or no thought as to the area residence. If you respond to this e-mail please instruct me as to why this zoning change is being considered. 13467 Macadam Rd. So. Dale @ mdshoidings @IOLS.net L_ a6-vpq •z • ~w: 00 co =, J i- .w0 J LL < w _.. Z I—. I— O Z I— W UON:: W W .Z H V. WZ F= _ z Rebecca Fox - Re: fle L99 -0094 and L9„095 From: Rebecca Fox 'To: . "batduck @ aa.net"@Tuk -BM- dom.GWIA Date: 4/6/00 11:41 AM Subject: Re: file L99 -0094 and L99 -0095 Mr. Hussey: Thank you for your e-mail. I will forward it to the City Council. Rebecca Fox, Associate Planner 206 -431 -3683 »> Dave <batduck @aa.net> 04/04/00 07:05PM »> Dear Mz. Fox, I wish to voice my opinion against the re- zoning and ammendment of the Holaday Parks property. This plan seems to go against one of the central themes of the city's charter, as I understand it: to enhance the quality of living in residential areas. 1 believe this would only bring more noise, more traffic, more uncontrolled invasion into our diminishing peace and quality of living in our low density community. Please read on. L- i'1 —Qo`f y Lei My name is David Hussey and I own the LDR property at 13457 Macadam Rd. So. which is located south west of the properties in question, and directly across the street from the C /LI business park known to me as Fostoria Garden Business Park. I and my neighbors are not satisfied with the way in which the city has allowed the erosion of the peace and quiet, and the quality of living we used to enjoy in our low density residential community on Macadam Rd., (or 135th Avenue as it was once called.) The city has allowed the (previous) owner of property directly across Macadam Rd. from mine (McLees) to re- contour his land bordering Macadam Rd. and to plant fir trees which now block our territorial view. I was told at city hall that there is no ordinance against blocking a view. Seasonally, thistles grow unabaited on the property (McLees) and southerly winds blow clouds of thistle seed cotton to my yard and my neighbors yards. The city says there is nothing that they can do about it. Now the city.owns the property. Last year the city attempted to get approval to build a sediment/ compost retaining facility on this property. Thank God this was not approved. The city has allowed the middle of the night pick up and delivery of heavy industrial dumpsters (the big green refuse containers) from the light industrial /commercial properties in the Fostoria Garden Business Park. Please try to envision being awakened from a deep restful sleep by the sound of two freight trains crashing into each other at 3 in the morning. That I believe aproximates the sound I'm referring to. I have to wear ear plugs to sleep. The city says there is nothing that can be done about it, because it occurs at night. The police say they can't do anything about it, because it's normal business. No, I do not want more light industry near where l live. Please look closely at what constitutes light industry. I believe the Page 1 Re:I?ecca Fox - Re: file L99 -0094 and LI 1095 city has been negligent and careless in it's management of existing "light industry" zones. I do not support expansion, at this time. Thank you, Sincerely, David F. Hussey 206 - 243 -4305 eve 206 - 655 -3937 day Page L l f i'4 :i. >' i..� .... .. .. ....: .+'v �..:.�...4�•�.�.,} liM. ` rii: iri'.'.. L' RLc. z w, .6 Di U O; w'=' . - H N �. W O' 2 �1 N d; • .1.-W. i- O`. ZF • U C) N, • 2 u" O; O ~`. Z Matt and Jill Peters 13552 Macadam Road South Tukwila, WA. 98168 July 23,2000 Mayor Mullet, Tukwila City Council Members, Tukwila Department of Community Development 6300 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, WA. 98188 RECEIVED JUL 2 2000 COMMUNITY D10-117-1 ! LJi iii We are very disappointed in the City of Tukwila regarding the way in which they have chosen to notify the residents of our neighborhood of the Holiday Parks request to build a warehouse on an adjacent wooded lot. At the meeting we attended last spring, we were told we would be notified by mail as to the next hearing date, this however did not occur. We have since found out that the notice of the latest hearing was posted in the Hazelnut. We received a phone call stating that we had until July. 24, 2000 to make a written response /appeal regarding this issue. As we have previously stated at the spring hearing, we do not want a warehouse in our backyard. We also do not want our property to be rezoned Commercial, which was the second part of the original proposal. We also stated at the hearing that we already experience the heavy truck traffic down the side street of 48th Ave. South and the many jack- knifed trucks at the intersection of 48`h Ave. South and Macadam Road South, the latest one occurring on July 21, 2000. There is also heavy truck traffic in both directions down Macadam Road South, even though it is posted as being off limits to truck over 10,000 pounds. In eighteen years of living in our house, we have never seen this posting enforced. A fellow resident and business owner who spoke, stated that truck drivers make mistakes and travel on 48`h Ave. South due to lack of adequate signing. However it is our experience that using 48th Ave. South and Macadam Road South provides them a clear and simple short cut to both 1 -5 South (By passing the nasty traffic on the Southcenter hill area) and easy access to Hwy. 518. It was stated at the spring hearing that the trucks would not be using these two streets, as the entrance to the facility_would be located somewhere on 48th Ave. South. Our thoughts are, who will enforce this? Who will watch to ensure that the children who are walking to and from the bus stops will be safe? By allowing this warehouse to be built on the wooded lot next door to us, you are taking away several features of our immediate surroundings. ❖ The wooded lot acts as a sound barrier from the existing commercial industries in the neighborhood. ❖ It also provides habitat sanctuary for many birds and other wildlife. We have over the last eighteen years seen an increase in the number of hawks who make their homes in our neighborhood, a sign that Tukwila is committed to preserving some green spaces. ❖ Currently we have a wonderful view of the Seattle skyline. • The wooded lot also provides our home with some sense of privacy. We already experience the noise and comings and goings of our business neighbors. Several companies located in our area make use of swing shifts, thus we are subjected to noises in the early hours of the mornings and late at night. We understand that there is in effect a noise ordinance in the City of Tukwila, but once again who enforces this? As far as we are concerned, this will only increase and deprive of us of "quiet times ". How would you, as a citizen of Tukwila, like a warehouse in your backyard? Would you consider it attractive? Would it help you to sell your house and make a profit? Does Tukwila really need to "loose" more homes and residents to big businesses? Sincerely, Matt and Jill Peters z t-- wev u6 5 00: N 0 w•=. W LL J H. 0` u-Q •s • w z�... ZO LL! w:. U !O.Ni. 2 U LL- .1.1J O: ATTACHMENT D CITY OF TUKWILA DETERMINATION OF NON'SIGNIFICANCE (DNS) DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: 1999 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN & ZOMING CODE AMENDMENTS PROPONENT: .CITY OF TUKWILA • LOCATION OF PROPOSAL, INCLUDING STREET ADDRESS, IF ANY: ADDRESS: PARCEL NO : . SEC/TWN/RNG: THROUGHOUT CITY LEAD AGENCY: CITY OF TUKWILA FILE NO: E2000• -019 The City has determined that the proposal does not have a probable significant adverse impact on the environment. An environmental impact _.tatement :. (EIS) is not required under RCW 43.21c.030(2) (c) . This decision was made after revie.i,: of a completed environmental checklist and other information on file with the lead agency. This information is available to the public•on request. • k•. l ••.l••kA• *•k* * *•k•k•k** *•k *•.l* **- A•k•k•k.k * * * * *•. **• k****• k********• k* kk :. **.....k'k ** *:L.....*:l'kkk This •determination is final and signed this day of 200_0. , Stev�'Lances.t� r, Responsible�t3'fficial —City) f Tukwi la, (206) 431 -3670 •6300 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwi la. WA 98188 Copies of the, procedures for SEPA appeals are available with the Department of Community Development. Z w. 0 00' w'= J LL w0 u.¢. co d H=<. Z �.. I- 0 Z ~. w, 0 m Lt- � Z. iii H -• Z Dept. Of Community Development City of Tukwila AFFIDAVIT OF DISTRIBUTION I , Leslie HEREBY DECLARE THAT: X Notice of Public Hearing Project Number: L99 -094 & L99 -095 Determination of Non - Significance Person requesting mailing: Rebecca Fox Notice of Public Meeting Mitigated Determination of Non - Significance Board of Adjustment Agenda Pkt Determination of Significance & Scoping Notice Board of Appeals Agenda Pkt- Notice of Action Planning Commission Agenda Pkt Official Notice Short Subdivision Agenda Notice of Application Shoreline Mgmt Permit Notice of Application for Shoreline Mgmt Permit __ FAX To Seattle Times Classifieds Mail: Gail Muller Classifieds PO Box 70 - Seattle WA 98111 Other • Was mailed to each of the addresses listed on this 15th day of sept . in the year 20 00 • • Project Name: Holaday Parks Project Number: L99 -094 & L99 -095 Mailer's Signature: Person requesting mailing: Rebecca Fox P:GINAWYNETTA/FORMS /AFFIDAVIT -MAIL 08/29/003:31 PM z �W waag JU 00 N O` 0) ILI J T. F- w 0 g �. o =w I _ z F- 1— 0. w~ • w U - O O I- 111 w u- w z. o~ z 1 Ciiy of Tukwila Steven M. Mullet, Mayor Department of Community Development Steve Lancaster, Director NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING September 14, 2000 RE: Redesignate two parcels from LDR (Low Density Residential) to C /LI (Commercial/Light Industrial) Holaday Parks has filed a proposal with the City of Tukwila to redesignate two adjacent parcels, from LDR (Low Density Residential) to C/LI ( Commercial/Light Industrial) in the Comprehensive Plan (File #L99 -0095) and on the City Zoning Map (File #L99- 0094). The parcels are located located one parcel south of 4534 S. 135th Street and one parcel west of 4625 S. 134th' Place. (Please refer to map on reverse.) The Tukwila Planning Commission will hold a public hearing to allow residents and businesses an opportunity to express their opinions and give testimony about the proposal: Public Hearing Tukwila City Hall Council Chambers 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Thursday, September 28, 2000 7:00 p.m. The City of Tukwila welcomes both written and verbal comments about the proposed Comprehensive Plan/Zoning Code amendment from Tukwila's residential and business community. Please contact Rebecca Fox, Associate Planner, of the Tukwila Department of Community Development at (206)431 -3683 or rfox@ci.tukwila.wa.us ci.tukwila.wa.us if you have questions. You may send your written comments via e-mail or addressed to the Tukwila Department of Community Development, 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Tukwila, WA 98188 prior to September 28, 2000. If desired, written comments may also be presented in person at the Planning Commission hearing on September 28. 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • Phone: 206 - 431 -3670 • Fax: 206 - 431 -3665 z Q • i- w 2 .6 Jo o O: coo. W'=. J H, w 0. U. Q. i a_ Z= zo w uj o (j.): Cl :w W' H U. wz. U N O . z Smooth Feed SheetsTM Hardeep Singh 224 S 152Nd St #45 Burien, WA 98148 ,VERY® Address Labels Craig Abbott & Susan Goss 13601 Macadam Rd S Seattle, WA 98168 Pacific Northwest Ironworkers & Employee 6701 SE Foster Rd Portland, OR 97206 William Turner 13435 48Th Ave S Tukwila, WA 98168 Palmer & Mary Fauconnier 13435 48Th Ave S Tukwila, WA 98168 Use template for 5160® Pacific Northwest Ironworkers & Employer 701 5Th Ave #2200 Seattle, WA 98104 Eleanor Om 13415 48Th Ave S Tukwila, WA 98168 Ion Manea 13407 48Th Ave S Tukwila, WA 98168 Laser 5960TM z _� rt U - O`. (n 0. U w W.= J CO LL: W O: LL J LL Q, N I Lit Z F- . F- O Z • ul 2 .D ° ❑. iO N' ;0 1—` _ w Z U N` O Z Smooth Feed SheetsTM Jeff & Nanci Ingersoll 13455 48Th Ave S Tukwila, WA 98168 Jolly James B & Sonja M Llc PO Box 2295 Shelton, WA 98584 Elling & Barbara Halvorson 12515 Willows Rd NE #200 Kirkland, WA 98034 King County 500 Kc Admin Bldg Seattle, WA 98104 Dale Shawley 4433 S 135Th Seattle, WA 98168 David & Susan An Hussey Iii 4357 S 135Th St Seattle, WA 98168 Kenneth Rozum 4420 S 136Th St Seattle, WA 98168 Matthew & Jill Peters 13552 Macadam Rd S Tukwila, WA 98168 City Of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Blvd Tukwila, WA 98188 Hobart Usitalo & Debra Ann Larson 7120 177Th St SW Edmonds, WA 98026 Gordon & Sylvia Hunter 13345 Macadam Rd S Tukwila, WA 98168 Robert Merkle 13515 Macadam Rd S Tukwila, WA 98168 James & Margit Stenseng PO Box 98 Kensington, KS 66951 Candice Richardson 4505 Sunnyside Ave N Seattle, WA 98103 Gerald Parks Jr. PO Box 69208 Seattle, WA 98168 Use template for 5160® Jaqueline Laura Doman 12028 25Th Ave NE Seattle, WA 98125 E B Halvorson 12515 Willows Rd NE #200 Kirkland, WA 98034 Kellie Ann & Ralph Cardinal PO Box 58995 Seattle, WA 98138 Daniel & Teresa Zapata 4508 S 136Th St Tukwila, WA 98168 Robert Farrington 4512 S 136Th St Tukwila, WA 98168 A E & J B Merkle 4426 S 136Th St Tukwila, WA 98168 W C Hall 17522 13Th Ave SW Normandy Park, WA 98166 Winfred Pritchett 12 Pearl PI Sequim, WA 98382 AVERY® Address Labels Laser 5960'''' z HW. U. 0 0. p, W= w 0. 2 g J; tea =d �w 2 z� Z o. 0 i0 -; Ili Li: O, • w Z Z OCCUPANT 4550 S. 134TH PL. TUKWILA, WA 98168 OCCUPANT 4611 S. 134TH PL. TUKWILA, WA 98168 OCCUPANT 4501 S. 134TH PL. TUKWILA, WA 98168 OCCUPANT 4345 S. 137TH ST. TUKWILA, WA 98168 OCCUPANT 4561 S. 135TH ST. TUKWILA, WA 98168 OCCUPANT 4521 S. 135TH ST. TUKWILA, WA 98168 OCCUPANT 4650 S. 134TH TUKWILA, WA 98168 OCCUPANT 4526 S. 136TH ST. TUKWILA, WA 98168 v OCCUPANT 13423 48TH AVE. S. TUKWILA, WA 98168 OCCUPANT 4534 S. 135TH ST. TUKWILA, WA 98168 OCCUPANT 4585 S. 134TH PL. TUKWILA, WA 98168 OCCUPANT 4515 S. 135TH ST. TUKWILA, WA 98168 OCCUPANT 4425 S. 136TH ST. TUKWILA, WA 98168 OCCUPANT 4650 S. 134TH TUKWILA, WA 98168 OCCUPANT 4643 S. 138TH ST. TUKWILA, WA 98168 OCCUPANT 13436 48TH AVE. S. TUKWILA, WA 98168 OCCUPANT 13433 48TH AVE. S. TUKWILA, WA 98168 OCCUPANT 4601 S. 134TH PL. TUKWILA, WA 98168 OCCUPANT 4585 S. 134TH PL. TUKWILA, WA 98168 OCCUPANT 4433 S. 136TH ST. TUKWILA, WA 98168 OCCUPANT 13457 MACADAM RD. S. TUKWILA, WA 98168 OCCUPANT 13375 48TH AVE. S. TUKWILA, WA 98168 OCCUPANT 13406 48TH AVE. S. TUKWILA, WA 98168 OCCUPANT 4625 S. 134TH PL. TUKWILA, , WA 98168 z Z lYw te. JU J1 W O; 2 -J w Q. = d; I- _;. �- O Z w • n :p W, • H U.. • 12= a . Z: 6.1 0 I•-.. z Smooth Feed SheetsTM Eric Schweiger 4712 S 134Th P1 Seattle, WA 98168 Dale 13467 Macadam Rd. S. Tukwila, WA 98188 David Hussey 13457 Macadam Rd. S. Tukwila, WA 98188 Leon Spruill & Elena Alberto Maria 13445 43Th Ave S Tukwila, WA 98168 Harold Wagner 101 N48ThAve #41B Yakima, WA 98908 Darrell Clark Rr 1 Box 80 Thorp, WA 98946 Rhonda Clenna 13765 Macadam Rd S Seattle, WA 98168 Sisouvanh Phomma & Parinda Stallings 13410 48Th Ave S Tukwila, WA 98168 Peter Gatto William. Looney 13400 48Th Ave S PO Box 66098 Seattle, WA 98168 Seattle, WA 98166 Gregory Ryan 13416 48Th Ave S Seattle, WA 98168 Roy & Karen Bradshaw 13432 48Th Ave S Seattle, WA 98168 Use template for 5160® Melanie Clark 13443 48Th Ave S Tukwila, WA 98168 PETER & JENNIFER GATTO 13404 S. 48TH AVE. TUKWILA, WA 98168 Floyd Patterson Duckett Kim Roberts 11840 Renton Ave S #134 13430 48Th Ave S Seattle, WA 98178 Tukwila, WA 98168 AVERY® Address Labels Laser 5960TM z =Z w uI J 0 00 o t�.w` w =. J N u_ 0 LL Q, co - d. _; I- - O' Z U�! 0 wW O: ;W Z! 0 Z 1- City of Tukwila City Council of Whole Meeting Minutes Page 3 of 10 July 24, 2000 Administrator McFarland reported the City is finalizing the developer agreement. The City signed the development agreement in 1995, which exempted the property owner from undergrounding. The cooperation of the property owner would be required to underground the utilities at this point. Currently, the City cannot legally require undergrounding. Councilmember Linder said she would appreciate receiving information on the development proposal to answer citizen's questions. Mr. Johnson reminded the City the waiver was issued in exchange for 25 feet of right -of -way for the street. He noted that since the City does not want the property until more development occurs, the waiver should be terminated. Administrator McFarland responded to a question from Councilmember Haggerton concerning current procedures for issuing a waiver to underground utilities and reported the ordinance allows exemptions on a case -by -case basis, dependent upon circumstances. The City encourages undergrounding for all projects but in some cases, costs are too prohibitive. SPECIAL ISSUES: a. Discussion on Comprehensive Plan Amendments Associate Planner Rebecca Fox explained the purpose of the review and noted Council may forward a proposed amendment to the Planning Commission for consideration, change the amendment, defer the proposed amendment for a year or more, or reject a proposed amendment. Planner Fox reviewed the criteria Council should consider for each amendment. Planner Fox briefly described each amendment followed by Council review and decision on the following proposed amendments: 1. L99 -0092 — To designate a undesignated area with a Low Density residential Comprehensive Plan and Zoning code Amendment designation for undesignated, unzoned area. Council Action: Referred to Planning Commission. 2. L99 -095 — Establish Commercial Light Industrial Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Code Amendment designation for two adjacent parcels currently designated as Low Density Residential. Planner Fox shared a copy of a map outlining the affected properties. The property owner wants to redevelop the property. Councilmembers discussed several concerns with the amendment with respect to adjacent residential impacts, noise, steep slopes, and proposed use of the property. Council Action: General agreement by the majority of the Council to send the proposed amendment to the Planning Commission with some reservations and with some stipulations regarding no development on steep slopes. 3. L99 -00085 — Proposal to modify part of the (North) Potential Annexation Q • e!2 vO 0 cn.w to 0 u_? C! z�- z0 U.1 al O- 0 H wW U u' O .z UN O~' z City of Tukwila City Council of Whole Meeting Minutes Page 4 of 10 July 24, 2000 Area boundary which currently overlaps with the City of Seattle. An interlocal agreement with Seattle would be required. This would also result in an amendment to the City's Comprehensive Plan map. Council Action: Referred to the Planning Commission. 4. L99 -00088 — A North Boundary Adjustment. The amendment would revise and simplify boundaries with Seattle and King County in the vicinity of King County Airport (Boeing Field) and to change the Comprehensive Plan map accordingly. Councilmembers expressed reservations with releasing property to Seattle and generally agreed to forward the amendment to the Planning Commission to undergo a review and public hearing. Director Lancaster said the amendment would also require an interlocal agreement, which would require Council approval. Council Action: Referred to the Planning Commission for further study and public hearing process. 5. L99 -00086 — Amendment proposes to amend the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Code to allow office uses on the third story in the Neighborhood Commercial Center zones. Councilmember Carter preferred rezoning only the property on Tukwila International Boulevard to NCC and referring the smaller properties to the Planning Commission for an appropriate zoning designation, such as an RCC zone. Council Action: Councilmembers concurred with Councilmember Carter's recommendation and referred the amendment to the Planning Commission with conditions as stipulated by Councilmember Carter. 6. L99 -00036 — Amendment would expand office and allow standalone offices throughout the NRC/L zone regardless if they are associated or serve another permitted use. Councilmember Carter said the amendment has some merit but cautioned about the supply of industrial properties versus the demand for industrial property. Councilmember Haggerton commented that he supports the zoning changes as it provides more flexibility to the City to accommodate changing economics. Councilmember Linder said she supports forwarding the proposal to the Planning Commission but requested the Commission pay special attention to residents on Proverty Hill. Councilmember Simpson asked if rezoning the property would have an effect on property values if Sound Transit decides to put commuter rail through the area. Director Lancaster replied a broader array of land uses designated for a property, the more competitive the property becomes in the marketplace. Council Action: Referred to the Planning Commission. 7. L99 -00038 — An amendment to update the existing Transportation Background Report as required by the Washington Growth Management Act. Council Action: Referred to the Planning Commission. To: Dave Fenton Joan Hernandez Pam Linder From: Rebecca Fox 7k Subj: Follow up to site visit Date: July 5, 2000 Minutes to April 3, 2000 meeting: Attached are the minutes from the 4/3/00 public meeting which pertain to proposed Comprehensive Plan amendments. I have marked the comments which pertain to the C/LI to LDR request. In your notebooks, you should also have comments which were made in writing. Please let me know if you would like an additional copies of the written comments. Holaday- Parks: The Holaday -Parks Company makes and designs HVAC systems. Its Tukwila location has offices for engineers, designers, service and administration. It also houses a shop and warehouse. c.c. Steve Lancaster � �t;t?i6i'J +C!lJiLd:;i:Yi •y. "n �• %'r)F.�;'r�,�dktiti.`�',Stiiy', J 040300. reg; doc City of Tukwila City Council Regular Meeting Minutes 2000 Page 6 Page 6 of 10 April 3, the filing of development and/or land use permits for community treatment centers, correctional facilities, transitional homes for prisoners, pre - release centers, limited security detention facilities and similar land uses. Joanne McManus, 5610 So. 133rd, Tukwila, spoke in favor of the moratorium. She is in favor of protecting everyone in the community and not putting them in any additional danger. Margaret Bratcher, 13003 — 56th Ave. So., Tukwila, from the Foster Point Neighborhood, also spoke in favor of the moratorium and protecting the citizens of the City. 7:56 p.m. Mayor Mullet closed the public hearing. Council Discussion/Deliberation: There was Council consensus to continue the moratorium and to remand the item to staff for further work. Staff will also consider ways to implement changes to the Comprehensive Plan and/or Zoning Code to accommodate these types of land uses. OLD BUSINESS: a. Comprehensive Plan Amendments Associate Planner Rebecca Fox reviewed each proposed amendment individually and sought questions from Council and/or citizens upon considering each item. Ms. Fox reminded Council they do not have to make decisions on these proposed amendments and that City staff wants to hear what the public has to say about these proposals. Referring to Exhibit 2 in the staff report, Ms. Fox reviewed Council options after hearing from the public. Council may reject a proposal, modify and/or defer a proposal or refer a proposal to the Planning Commission for further review. As Council reviews the items under consideration, Ms. Fox noted some criteria considerations may be whether an issue has already been addressed within the Comprehensive Plan; if it has not been addressed, is there a public need to address the proposed change; is the proposed change the best means to identify the public need and will the proposed change result in a net benefit to the community. The first proposed amendment considered — L99 -0092 — To designate and undesignated area with a Low Density Residential Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Code Amendment designation for undesignated, unzoned area. Ms. Fox reviewed that portion of the staff report which applies to this proposed amendment. Mr. Ray Rosatto, 10818 Des Moines Way So., Seattle, 98168, spoke regarding the article of land which would be affected by this proposed change. He noted the land is far too small to build upon. He also spoke against the low density residential zoning proposal. He asked the Council to leave it as is. Mr. Rosatto is one of the owners of this land and enjoys the low, yearly property tax rate. - 040300.reg.doc M. � Page 7 of 10 April 3, Next, Ms. Fox discussed proposed amendment L99 -0095. The proposed amendment is to establish Commercial Light Industrial Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Code Amendment designation for two adjacent parcels currently designated as Low Density Residential. Matt Peters, 13552 McAdam Road So., Tukwila, spoke against the proposed amendment as it would eliminate his view. He spoke against increased noise levels, decreased sleep levels as well as an increase to traffic and congestion. Ted Nixon, 10024 SE 240th St., Kent, spoke in favor of the proposed amendment and urged the City Council to forward this item to the Planning Commission for further consideration. Jill Peters, 13552 McAdam Road So., Tukwila, wife to prior speaker, also spoke against the proposed amendment as it would greatly and negatively impact the quality of life near their residence. Ion Manea, 13407 — 48th Ave. So., Tukwila, spoke in favor of the proposed amendment. He stated the nature of the proposed development should be relatively quiet and that the building will act as a sound barrier between existing residential properties and industrial enterprises to the east and north. He has a very similar situation with his property that he would like the City to consider as well. City staff will continue working with Mr. Manea on this issue. The next item considered was L99- 00085. This request is to modify part of the (North) Potential Annexation Area boundary which currently overlaps with the City of Seattle. This would also result in an amendment to the City's Comprehensive Plan map. The location is generally west of the King County Airport. A draft interlocal agreement with Seattle was also referenced as an attachment to the staff report. Charlie Harris, Mayor and resident of Normandy Park., noted he has property in South Park which is adjacent to the South end of the 14th/16th Avenue Bridge. This is the first time he's seen the draft interlocal agreement between Seattle and Tukwila. He noted the draft agreement was roughed out with "holes" and stated Council may want to more completely review the document before approving it. Specifically, he noted sections 1.3.1 and 2.1.2 may be of concern. Ms. Fox then discussed L99 -0088, North Boundary Adjustment. The requested amendment is to revise and simplify boundaries with Seattle and King County in the vicinity of King County Airport ((Boeing Field) and to change the Comprehensive Plan map accordingly. Next, L99 -0086 was discussed. This proposed amendment would amend the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Code to allow office uses on the third story in the Neighborhood Commercial Center zones. Ms. Fox noted this would allow greater flexibility for development. Byron Saunders, 4118 So. 130th St., Tukwila, spoke against this proposed amendment. He stated it would negatively impact the neighborhood. He is concerned with the net results of an "upgrade" in zoning in that area. _..040300.reg.doc City of Tukwila City Council Regular Meeting Minutes 2000 Page 8 Page 8 of 10 April 3, Michael Jones, 13025 — 41st Ave. So., Tukwila, also spoke against this proposed amendment. He stated to change the zone in that area would be a great disservice to the community. Dwight McLean, 13015 — 38th Ave. So., Tukwila., spoke against the proposed amendment and stated other zoning classifications may better meet the City's needs to keep the friendly residential atmosphere in that area. Byron Saunders, (address above), agreed with Mr. McLean's statements. He said people in that area are very proud of their neighborhood and a change in zoning may make residents move away. Community Development Director Steve Lancaster noted that at the recent Community Affairs and Parks Committee meeting, there was a discussion for a potential change not to the Comprehensive Plan map, but to the types of uses that are permitted in the manufacturing and industrial center /light designation. There has been considerable interest in the community in terms of the office market which is heating up. Additionally, there is an interest in looking at the MIC Light as a possible area to accommodate that market. The MIC Light area is fairly small and centered primarily in the area of SR599 and East Marginal Way. One of the issues in that area is a concern that appropriate buffers are provided between the industrialized area and the residentially designated areas. Currently allowed in MIC Heavy is steel mills and fabrication; airplane manufacturing; etc. The MIC Light eliminates the heavier, noisier, vibration - inducing kinds of uses, such as heavy metal fabrication plants, etc. Both allow office uses, yet they must be in conjunction with another permitted use. Discussions continued regarding MIC Heavy and MIC Light zoning designations. This information tends to "ducktail" [sic] with the issues at hand and should be considered soon. Ms. Hernandez noted the Council, at one time, expressed concern about more pawn shops being allowed in the NCC. She wondered if this would be a good time to again consider the issue. Mr. Lancaster said it could be reviewed at this time if Council so desired. There was consensus among Council to have Mr. Lancaster add that item to his "list." 9:08 p.m. Mayor Mullet closed the public meeting. a. A resolution endorsing the South King Countv Human Services Forum Item stricken. See page one for related motion. a. An ordinance approving the formation of the Valley Communications Center Development Authority z z J U. 0 CO w'= J w LL¢ rn� =d �w z� �o zi- w 2 U O- oI- wW —O .z Cu co O~ z April 19, 2000 City of Tukwila Department of Community Development 6300 Southcenter Blvd Tukwila WA 98188 RECEIVE') APR 2 0 2000 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Re: Zoning for the L99 -0092 Application Packet parcel of land located at the intersection of East Marginal Way and Interurban Avenue South We understand that the owner of this vacant land would like to see this property zoned commercial or some designation other than residential. Because there is residential zoning so close by, we'd like to see this parcel retain its original (City Council) intention of being zoned residential. We're just offering our opinion. We think this parcel should be zoned LDR. eorgina and Ron Kerr 3834 S 116`h St Tukwila WA 98168 z '.1- 00' W =' J �LL w O. LQ D._ a 1 _; z� I-0', w~ 2 U0 co! ,0 E-. = 0, LL ll.i O z r Rebecca Fox - Re: file C99 -0094 anaL91' 4)95 r From: Rebecca Fox To: " batduck @ aa.net"@Tuk -BM- dom.GWIA Date: 4/6/00 11:41 AM Subject: Re: file L99 -0094 and L99 -0095 Mr. Hussey: Thank you for your e-mail. I will forward it to the City Council. Rebecca Fox, Associate Planner 206 -431 -3683 »> Dave <batduck @aa.net> 04/04/00 07:05PM »> Dear Mz. Fox, I wish to voice my opinion against the re- zoning and ammendment of the Holaday Parks property. This plan seems to go against one of the central themes of the city's charter, as I understand it: to enhance the quality of living in residential areas. I believe this would only bring more noise, more traffic, more uncontrolled invasion into our diminishing peace and quality of living in our low density community. Please read on. My name is David Hussey and I own the LDR property at 13457 Macadam Rd. So. which is located south west of the properties in question, and directly across the street from the C /LI business park known to me as Fostoria Garden Business Park. I and my neighbors are not satisfied with the way in which the city has allowed the erosion of the peace and quiet, and the quality of living we used to enjoy in our low density residential community on Macadam Rd., (or 135th Avenue as it was once called.) The city has allowed the (previous) owner of property directly across Macadam Rd. from mine (McLees) to re- contour his land bordering Macadam Rd. and to plant fir trees which now block our territorial view. I was told at city hall that there is no ordinance against blocking a view. Seasonally, thistles grow unabaited on the property (McLees) and southerly winds blow clouds of thistle seed cotton to my yard and my neighbors yards. The city says there is nothing that they can do about it. Now the city owns the property. Last year the city attempted to get approval to build a sediment/ compost retaining facility on this property. Thank God this was not approved. The city has allowed the middle of the night pick up and delivery of heavy industrial dumpsters (the big green refuse containers) from the Tight industrial /commercial properties in the Fostoria Garden Business Park. Please try to envision being awakened from a deep restful sleep by the sound of two freight trains crashing into each other at 3 in the morning. That I believe aproximates the sound I'm referring to. I have to wear ear plugs to sleep. The city says there is nothing that can be done about it, because it occurs at night. The police say they can't do anything about it, because it's normal business. No, 1 do not want more light industry near where 1 live. Please look closely at what constitutes light industry. 1 believe the city has been negligent and careless in it's management of existing "light industry" zones. 1 do not support expansion, at this time. Thank you, Sincerely, David F. Hussey 206-243-4305 eve 206-655-3937 day Page 2 • Re • ecca ox - Re: meeting From: Rebecca Fox To: " mdsholdings @iols.net" @Tuk- BM- dom.GWIA Date: 4/5/00 9:51 AM Subject: Re: meeting Dear Dale: At its public meeting on 4/3/00, the City Council heard a staff presentation and citizen comments on each of the five proposed Comprehensive Plan amendments. The next step in this process is for the Council to make a threshold decision for each of the proposed amendments. The choices are: 1) reject the proposal; 2) defer consideration for a year or more; or, 3)pass the proposal on to the Planning Commission for further study and a recommendation. Proposals which go to the Planning Commission return to the Council for a final decision. The public may comment at each step of the process. Four individuals commented on the LDR to C /LI issue that you're interested in. Two were residents (a married couple) who lived in the vicinity. They were opposed due to the impacts on the neighborhood. The applicant spoke in favor of the proposal, as did an individual who lived nearby and works from his home. He feels that the area is already heavily affected by freeway traffic and airplane noise so that changing the LDR line really wouldn't have an effect. He felt that larger commercial buildings might result in better sound barriers. The. Council has not scheduled its discussion for making a threshold recommendation on the proposed amendments. I would be happy to contact you when the date is set for the meeting. Sincerely, Rebecca Fox »> "MDSHOLDINGS" <mdsholdings @iols.net> 04/04/00 08:23PM »> Rebecca: Due to an emergency in my family I was unable to attend the meeting on 4 -3 -00 concerning the request to amend the Comprehensive Plan /Zoning Code. I would greatly appreciate an overview of the meeting. The requests of the Council and any information you can provide. Thank You Dale @ mdsholdings ci,lOLS.net Page 11 z �z _J U 0 w.= _1 F. u1 O � d Hw z� zo LL! ur U� 'O - H- w qua. 0. - O. Z iii —=i 0 z Rebecca Fox - fiieaL99- 0094yarid`L99 :0 From: Dave <batduck @aa.net> To: tuk- mai1.6300- po(Rebecca) Date: 4/4/00 7:05PM Subject: file L99 -0094 and L99 -0095 Dear Mz. Fox, I wish to voice my opinion against the re- zoning and ammendment of the Holaday Parks property. This plan seems to go against one of the central themes of the city's charter, as I understand it: to enhance the quality of living in residential areas. I believe this would only bring more noise, more traffic, more uncontrolled invasion into our diminishing peace and quality of living in our low density community. Please read on. My name is David Hussey and I own the LDR property at 13457 Macadam Rd. So. which is located south west of the properties in question, and directly across the street from the C /LI business park known to me as Fostoria Garden Business Park. I and my neighbors are not satisfied with the way in which the city has allowed the erosion of the peace and quiet, and the quality of living we used to enjoy in our low density residential community on Macadam Rd., (or 135th Avenue as it was once called.) The city has allowed the (previous) owner of property directly across Macadam Rd. from mine (McLees) to re- contour his land bordering Macadam Rd. and to plant fir trees which now block our territorial view. I was told at city hall that there is no ordinance against blocking a view. Seasonally, thistles grow unabaited on the property (McLees) and southerly winds blow clouds of thistle seed cotton to my yard and my neighbors yards. The city says there is nothing that they can do about it. Now the city owns the property. Last year the city attempted to get approval to build a sediment/ compost retaining facility on this property. Thank God this was not approved. The city has allowed the middle of the night pick up and delivery of heavy industrial dumpsters (the big green refuse containers) from the light industrial /commercial properties in the Fostoria Garden Business Park. Please try to envision being awakened from a deep restful sleep by the sound of two freight trains crashing into each other at 3 in the morning. That I believe aproximates the sound I'm referring to. I have to wear ear plugs to sleep. The city says there is nothing that can be done about it, because it occurs at night. The police say they can't do anything about it, because it's normal business. No, I do not want more light industry near where I live. Please look closely at what constitutes light industry. I believe the city has been negligent and careless in it's management of existing "light industry" zones. 1 do not support expansion, at this time. Thank you, Page 11 z • w 6 • '0 0` No. w� =: J � W 01 • g ¢. w d: = w' z� i- 0 Z . '0 -; 0 ww •1 0 •u_ ~O • .. z' w O ~' • z e s ecca Fox - i e 99 -0094 an 99 -0C Page 2 Sincerely, David F. Hussey 206 - 243 -4305 eve 206- 655 -3937 day Re eecca Fox - meeting •••-•• • wa w • Page 1 From: To: Date: Subject: "MDSHOLDINGS" <mdsholdings@iols.net> tuk-mai16300-po(Rebecca) 4/4/00 8:23PM meeting Rebecca: Due to an emergency in my family I was unable to attend the meeting on 4-3-00 concerning the request to amend the Comprehensive Plan/Zoning Code. I would greatly appreciate an overview of the meeting. The requests of the Council and any information you can provide. Thank You Dale @ mdsholdings@lOLS.net 1--. z LLI 2' 6 D' U) uj 0: - a w Oi Z uj 111 D: C co! c): . 11 = 0, (0, 17. 0 Z i e ecca Fox: comp amend00 -- public nntice.doc ... Page 1 i PUBLIC NOTICE Notice of Public meeting on Comprehensive Plan Amendments The City of Tukwila is considering changes to its Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Code, including: 1. Eliminate overlap with the City of Seattle's Potential Annexation Area 2. Revise boundary with Seattle in the vicinity of Boeing Field 3. Establish LDR (Low Density Residential)designation for undesignated area at Interurban Avenue S. and E. Marginal Way 4. Designate two adjacent LDR (Low Density Residential) lots as C/LI (Commercial/Light Industrial) at 4625 S. 134th Place 5. Allow 3' floor office use in NCC(Neighborhood Commercial Center) zones The Tukwila City Council will hold a public meeting to give residents and businesses an opportunity to express their opinions and give testimony about the proposals: Public Meeting Tukwila City Hall Council Chambers 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Monday, April 3, 2000 7:00 p.m. The City of Tukwila welcomes both written and verbal comments about the proposed Comprehensive Plan/Zoning Code amendments from Tukwila's residential and business community. Please contact Rebecca Fox, Associate Planner, of the Tukwila Department of Community Development at (206)431 -3683 or rfox @ci.tukwila.wa.us if you have questions. Written comments nay be submitted via e-mail or addressed to the Tukwila Department of Community Development, 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Tukwila, WA 98188. Rebecca Fox - 040300.reg.doc Page 1 TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL April 3, 2000 - 7:00 p.m. Council Chambers — City Hall REGULAR MEETING MINUTES CALL TO ORDER/PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Mayor Steven M. Mullet called the Regular Meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. and led the audience in the Pledge of Allegiance. ROLL CALL: City Clerk Jane Cantu called the roll of Council. Present were Council President Joe Duffle and Councilmembers Joan Hernandez, Pam Carter, Jim Haggerton, Pamela Linder, David Fenton and Richard Simpson. OFFICIALS: City Administrator John McFarland; City Attorney Bob Noe; Council Analyst Lucy Lauterbach; City Clerk Jane Cantu; Deputy City Clerk Bob Baker; Community Development Director Steve Lancaster; Public Works Operations Manager Pat Brodin; Parks & Recreation Director Don Williams; Human Services Coordinator Evelyn Boykan; City Engineer Brian Shelton, Associate Planner Rebecca Fox and Assistant Planner Deborah Ritter. Linder moved; Haggerton seconded; to strike item (b) from the Old Business section of the agenda. The motion carried 7 -0. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS: Introduction of new employees Charles Claiborne, Custodian, Public Works Public Works Operations Manager Pat Brodin introduced Mr. Claiborne. He also reminded Council that Mr. Claiborne has previously worked as a part-time employee at the Community Center. Earl Robinson, Custodian, Public Works Public Works Operations Manager Pat Brodin introduced Mr. Robinson. Mr. Robinson comes to the City from the Boeing Company where he served for two years. Rebecca Fox - 040300.reg.doc Page 6 City of Tukwila City Council Regular Meeting Minutes 2000 Page 6 of 10 April 3, the filing of development and/or land use permits for community treatment centers, correctional facilities, transitional homes for prisoners, pre - release centers, limited security detention facilities and similar land uses. Joanne McManus, 5610 So. 133rd, Tukwila, spoke in favor of the moratorium. She is in favor of protecting everyone in the community and not putting them in any additional danger. Margaret Bratcher, 13003 — 56th Ave. So., Tukwila., from the Foster Point Neighborhood, also spoke in favor of the moratorium and protecting the citizens of the City. 7:56 p.m. Mayor Mullet closed the public hearing. Council Discussion/Deliberation: There was Council consensus to continue the moratorium and to remand the item to staff for further work. Staff will also consider ways to implement changes to the Comprehensive Plan and/or Zoning Code to accommodate these types of land uses. OLD BUSINESS: a. Comprehensive Plan Amendments Associate Planner Rebecca Fox reviewed each proposed amendment individually and sought questions from Council and/or citizens upon considering each item. Ms. Fox reminded Council they do not have to make decisions on these proposed amendments and that City staff wants to hear what the public has to say about these proposals. Referring to Exhibit 2 in the staff report, Ms. Fox reviewed Council options after hearing from the public. Council may reject a proposal, modify and /or defer a proposal or refer a proposal to the Planning Commission for further review. As Council reviews the items under consideration, Ms. Fox noted some criteria considerations may be whether an issue has already been addressed within the Comprehensive Plan; if it has not been addressed, is there a public need to address the proposed change; is the proposed change the best means to identify the public need and will the proposed change result in a net benefit to the community. The first proposed amendment considered — L99 -0092 — To designate and undesignated area with a Low Density Residential Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Code Amendment designation for undesignated, unzoned area. Ms. Fox reviewed that portion of the staff report which applies to this proposed amendment. Mr. Ray Rosatto, 10818 Des Moines Way So., Seattle, 98168, spoke regarding the article of land which would be affected by this proposed change. He noted the land is far too small to build upon. He also spoke against the low density residential zoning proposal. He asked the Council to leave it as is. Mr. Rosatto is one of the owners of this land and enjoys the low, yearly property tax rate. ..., , ....,.,..r....s.+,• 'aer wrnrtv-,ar�lwr:�n" .!t::+Fn?'t x7.�?' idE�'tti�T' iu",r F{'7Prei".S,xi z z 61.1 6 U O. co 0 w°= _1E.. CO LL WO gQ cn _a W Z= I— O wir uj no U O- 1— U LL- O W Z U= O�' z Rebecca Fox - 040300.reg.doc Page 7 City of Tukwila City Council Regular Meeting Minutes 2000 Page 7 of 10 April 3, Next, Ms. Fox discussed proposed amendment L99 -0095. The proposed amendment is to establish Commercial Light Industrial Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Code Amendment 1 designation for two adjacent parcels currently designated as Low Density Residential. '; 0: Matt Peters, 13552 McAdam Road So., Tukwila, spoke against the proposed amendment as it tit/ would eliminate his view. He spoke against increased noise levels, decreased sleep levels as well as an increase to traffic and congestion. Ted Nixon, 10024 SE 240th St., Kent, spoke in favor of the proposed amendment and urged the City Council to forward this item to the Planning Commission for further consideration. Jill Peters, 13552 McAdam Road So., Tukwila, wife to prior speaker, also spoke against the proposed amendment as it would greatly and negatively impact the quality of life near their residence. Ion Manea, 13407 — 48th Ave. So., Tukwila, spoke in favor of the proposed amendment. He stated the nature of the proposed development should be relatively quiet and that the building will act as a sound barrier between existing residential properties and industrial enterprises to the east and north. He has a very similar situation with his property that he would like the City to consider as well. City staff will continue working with Mr. Manea on this issue. The next item considered was L99- 00085. This request is to modify part of the (North) Potential Annexation Area boundary which currently overlaps with the City of Seattle. This would also result in an amendment to the City's Comprehensive Plan map. The location is generally west of the King County Airport. A draft interlocal agreement with Seattle was also referenced as an attachment to the staff report. Charlie Harris, Mayor and resident of Normandy Park, noted he has property in South Park which is adjacent to the South end of the 14th/16th Avenue Bridge. This is the first time he's seen the draft interlocal agreement between Seattle and Tukwila. He noted the draft agreement was roughed out with "holes" and stated Council may want to more completely review the document before approving it. Specifically, he noted sections 1.3.1 and 2.1.2 may be of concern. Ms. Fox then discussed L99 -0088, North Boundary Adjustment. The requested amendment is to revise and simplify boundaries with Seattle and King County in the vicinity of King County Airport ((Boeing Field) and to change the Comprehensive Plan map accordingly. Next, L99 -0086 was discussed. This proposed amendment would amend the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Code to allow office uses on the third story in the Neighborhood Commercial Center zones. Ms. Fox noted this would allow greater flexibility for development. Byron Saunders, 4118 So. 130th St., Tukwila, spoke against this proposed amendment. He stated it would negatively impact the neighborhood. He is concerned with the net results of an "upgrade" in zoning in that area. z w CC 2 6U U o. No In I • w w O. u_ Q co = d. z� i- 0 w~ n • o U o — o1— w W _ _ U O ..z w U =. O F. Rebecca Fox - 040300.reg.doc Page 8 • City of Tukwila City Council Regular Meeting Minutes 2000 Page 8 of 10 April 3, Michael Jones, 13025 — 41st Ave. So., Tukwila, also spoke against this proposed amendment. He stated to change the zone in that area would be a great disservice to the community. Dwight McLean, 13015 — 38th Ave. So., Tukwila., spoke against the proposed amendment and stated other zoning classifications may better meet the City's needs to keep the friendly residential atmosphere in that area. Byron Saunders, (address above), agreed with Mr. McLean's statements. He said people in that area are very proud of their neighborhood and a change in zoning may make residents move away. Community Development Director Steve Lancaster noted that at the recent Community Affairs and Parks Committee meeting, there was a discussion for a potential change not to the Comprehensive Plan map, but to the types of uses that are permitted in the manufacturing and industrial center /light designation. There has been considerable interest in the community in terms of the office market which is heating up. Additionally, there is an interest in looking at the MIC Light as a possible area to accommodate that market. The MIC Light area is fairly small and centered primarily in the area of SR599 and East Marginal Way. One of the issues in that area is a concern that appropriate buffers are provided between the industrialized area and the residentially designated areas. Currently allowed in MIC Heavy is steel mills and fabrication; airplane manufacturing; etc. The MIC Light eliminates the heavier, noisier, vibration - inducing kinds of uses, such as heavy metal fabrication plants, etc. Both allow office uses, yet they must be in conjunction with another permitted use. Discussions continued regarding MIC Heavy and MIC Light zoning designations. This information tends to "ducktail" [sic] with the issues at hand and should be considered soon. Ms. Hernandez noted the Council, at one time, expressed concern about more pawn shops being allowed in the NCC. She wondered if this would be a good time to again consider the issue. Mr. Lancaster said it could be reviewed at this time if Council so desired. There was consensus among Council to have Mr. Lancaster add that item to his "list." 9:08 p.m. Mayor Mullet closed the public meeting. a. A resolution endorsing the South King County Human Services Forum Item stricken. See page one for related motion. a. An ordinance approving the formation of the Valley Communications Center Development Authority �rscc rskar!��5 +rs���srxt?strst3�:. �t I TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL March 18, 2002 Tukwila City Hall - Council Chambers REGULAR MEETING — 8:17 p.m. (immediately following a Special COW meeting) SECE r ED APR -2 2002 COMMUNITY DE VELOPMENT CALL TO ORDER /PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Calling the meeting to order at 8:17 p.m., Steven M. Mullet, Mayor, led the Pledge of Allegiance. ROLL CALL: Calling the roll of Council was Bob Baker, Deputy City Clerk. Present were Councilmembers Joe Duffie; Joan Hernandez; Pam Carter; Jim Haggerton; and Dave Fenton. Absent was Council President Richard Simpson. DUFFIE MOVED; HERNANDEZ SECONDED; TO EXCUSE THE ABSENCE OF COUNCIL PRESIDENT SIMPSON. The motion carried 6 -0. OFFICIALS: John McFarland, City Administrator; Bob Noe, City Attorney; David St. Pierre, Assistant City Attorney; Bruce Fletcher, Parks and Recreation Director; and Jim Morrow, Public Works Director. CITIZEN COMMENT /CORRESPONDENCE: None. CONSENT AGENDA: a. Approval of Minutes — March 4, 2002 — Regular Meeting b. Approval of Vouchers — 234759 - 235060, in the amount of $820,116.45 HERNANDEZ MOVED; DUFFIE SECONDED; APPROVAL OF THE CONSENT AGENDA, AS PRESENTED. The motion carried 6 -0. BID AWARD: Award a contract to C. A. Goodman Construction Company, in the amount of $42,595.20, including Washington State Sales Tax, for construction of the Christensen Road Water Line Extension FENTON MOVED; LINDER SECONDED; TO AWARD A CONTRACT TO C. A. GOODMAN CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, IN THE AMOUNT OF $42,595.20, INCLUDING WASHINGTON STATE SALES TAX, FOR CONSTRUCTION OF THE CHRISTENSEN ROAD WATER LINE EXTENSION. The motion carried 6 -0. PUBLIC HEARING: An ordinance clarifying and updating zoning code provisions regulating the use of cargo containers as accessory buildings AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA, WASHINGTON, AMENDING ORDINANCE NOS. 1758 AND 1976, AND CHAPTERS 18.06, 18.10, 18.12, 18.14, 18.24, 18.26, 18.28, 18.30, 18.50 AND 18.70 OF THE TUKWILA MUNICIPAL CODE, TO CLARIFY AND UPDATE ZONING CODE PROVISIONS REGULATING THE USE OF CARGO CONTAINERS AS ACCESSORY BUILDINGS; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; AND ESTABLISHING AN EFFECTIVE DATE Nora Gierloff, Senior Planner, presented the newly- created draft ordinance to Council. At the February 11 COW meeting, Council provided direction to City staff to amend the proposed ordinance relative to siting of cargo containers. Since that last time Council reviewed this issue, Department of Community Development staff has received two telephone calls. One telephone caller spoke in favor of allowing cargo containers as long as they "are not junky." The other caller spoke in favor of allowing food banks to qualify for use, even if in residential neighborhoods. 8:32 p.m. Mayor Mullet opened the public hearing. Anna Bernhard, 14241 — 59th Avenue South, Tukwila, spoke against the use of cargo containers in anyone's front yard. She spoke in favor of siting them in back yards, with fencing to hide them. City of Tukwila City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 2 of 4 - . , March 18, 2002 Joe Tice, 3629 South 137th, Tukwila, representing the Tukwila Pantry, spoke in favor of allowing cargo containers being used for a proposed regional food bank, here in .Tukwila. He noted two would be required on site for the anticipated amount of food. Gregory Johnson, 4917 South 164th, Tukwila, owns a cargo container and spoke in their favor. William Schmidt, 12924 E. Marginal Way South, Tukwila, spoke in favor of the use of cargo containers, so long as they are aesthetically pleasing. He stated they are an inexpensive form of storage which most can afford. Joanne McManus, Tukwila resident, noted when people are in need of food, they are generally referred to St. Thomas Church or the Church By the Side of the Road. She did not know of Mr. Tice's intention to apply for a Regional Food Bank license. 8:42 p.m. Mayor Mullet closed the public hearing. Council deliberations took place with Council speaking in favor of creating a "use category" for foodbanks, as they do not currently exist within the TMC; 2. Considering (further) the potential sizes of the containers to be allowed; and 3. including a no stacking" policy when within residential neighborhoods. Based on Council's decision during deliberation, this matter was remanded to staff for additional, draft language to the proposed ordinance. OLD BUSINESS: a. An ordinance adopting the King County 2001 Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA, WASHINGTON, ADOPTING THE 2001 KING COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; AND ESTABLISHING AN EFFECTIVE DATE FENTON MOVED; LINDER SECONDED; READING OF THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE, BY TITLE ONLY. The motion carried 6 -0. City Attorney Bob Noe read the title of the proposed ordinance. FENTON MOVED; DUFFIE SECONDED; APPROVAL OF THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE, AS PRESENTED. The motion carried 6 -0. APPROVED ORDINANCE #1988 b. Public Meeting: Comprehensive Plan Amendment Process Having already heard from City staff during a COW meeting (earlier tonight), Mayor Mullet called for public input/testimony. Rebecca Fox, Associate Planner, was on hand to answer inquiries from citizens, staff and Council. As it relates to L01 -075 & L01 -078, the foliowing spoke: Gregory Johnson, applicant, for 101 -075 & L01 -078, spoke in favor of revising the comprehensive plan and zoning code maps to change LRD to C/LI at 13136 — 48th Avenue South. John Gustafson, 4425 — 178th Avenue Court E, (no City specified), spoke in favor of the Gregory Johnson application for . rezone. Betty Gully, 13017 — MacAdam Road South, Tukwila, noted 42nd Avenue South is formally known (now) as MacAdam Road and should be referred to as such. Additionally, Ms. Gully spoke against "eating away at single family housing. Ms. Gully then read a letter into the record from former Tukwila Councilmember Allan Ekburg, speaking against the proposed change by Petitioner, Gregory Johnson. Brad White, 13429 — 43rd Avenue South, Tukwila, on behalf of his wife and himself, spoke against "converting the property" at 13136 — 42nd Avenue South. He stated the proposed shifting of the property in question into the C/LI category will upset the boundary; and breaks the natural separation that currently exists between the commercial and residential uses in their neighborhood. : G'.' ��4 . +?i1v'iinS'id`U2Wuww'GR.i•.p � rY�Ya<e•}?liS�:?� ht,{•s7.8a•,i8 City of Tukwila City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Robert Jensen, 11682 — 44th Avenue South, Tukwila, spoke against the proposed re -zone. Page 3 of 4 March 18, 2002 Gregory Iohnson, 6306 — 151st Avenue Court, KPN, Key Center, WA, (applicant) spoke in favor of the proposed changes. Rebecca Fox presented Council with copies of two e-mails received by the City before this evening's public hearing. One e-mail was from Nadine Morgan, Tukwila resident, who is opposed to the change of zoning from residential to that of Light Industrial. The other e-mail, from Michelle Roedell, Tukwila resident, spoke against the proposed rezoning classification as it would lower the value of the nearby homes. No citizen comment was received relative to proposed amendment #2, #3, #4 and #5. As it relates to considering appropriate boundaries for C/LI adjacent to LDR Zoning in the vicinity of South 135th Street and 48th Avenue South: Betty Gully, 13017 — MacAdam Road South, Tukwila, noting the item was deferred from last year, was opposed to it then and is opposed to it now. Michelle Evans, o/b /o Holaday Parks, spoke in favor of the rezone. Holaday Parks has been in Tukwila 12 years and they would like to expand their operations. She noted there is no residential housing on this property. Jeff Weber, Attorney at Law, for Holaday Parks, also spoke in favor of the rezone. He asked Council to consider sending this item to the Planning Commission. The intent is to develop parcels into integrated projects. Ted Dixson, 420 W. Harrison, Seattle, (architect), noted the parcels are currently zoned like a checkerboard. Should Council vote in favor of a revision, it would correct the situation. Gregory Johnson, 4917 So. 164th, Tukwila, (not the applicant above) noted that he owns a cargo container and it's strategically placed in his yard as a result of bad buffering on behalf of the City, with the current zoning. As it relates to the proposed rezone of City property, Parcel No. 00200006: Joanne McManus, calling this a "bad idea" due to traffic, spoke against the proposal. Anna Bernhard called this a "very poor idea" and stated Interurban is beginning to "be nicer." She encouraged Council not to send this forward to the Planning Commission for consideration. As it relates to the proposed allowance of Office in MIC areas, no citizen comment was received. Upon hearing from community members, City Councilmembers discussed and deliberated each of the eight proposals to determine whether or not they should be forwarded to the Planning Commission for consideration. AS IT RELATES TO: 1. 101 -075 & 101 -078 Revise Comp. Plan and Zoning Code Maps to Change LDR to C/LI at 13136 — 48TH AVENUE SOUTH 2. Revise Transportation Background Report, Concurrency Ordinance and Associated Comprehensive Plan Policies as Appropriate 3. Update Sensitive Areas Ordinance to Include "Best Available Science' per GMA Requirements Refer to Planning Commission or Reject Reject Refer Refer 4. Encourage Transit - Related Uses Near High Capacity Transit Stations Refer 5. Require Adequately -Sized Parking Facilities Near Transit Stations Refer To Prevent Spillover onto Private Property 6. Consider Appropriate Boundaries for C/LI adjacent to LDR Zoning in the Reject Vicinity of South 135th Street and 48th Avenue South 7. Proposed Rezone of City Property, Parcel No. 002800006 Refer 8. Proposed allowance of Office in MIC Refer City of Tukwila City Council Regular Meeting I■...iutes Page 4 of 4 • . March 18, 2002 9:54 p.m. LINDER MOVED; FENTON SECONDED; TO TAKE A FAVIE MINUTE BREAK. The motion carried 6 -0. 10:01 p.m. Mayor Mullet reconvened the regular meeting. DUFFIE MOVED; FENTON SECONDED; TO DISPENSE WITH REPORTS. The motion carried 5 -1; with Councilmember Carter voting NO. MISCELLANEOUS: Jim Morrow, Public Works Director, informed Council that a request has been received (from the contractor) to close South 180th Street the first week in April. Details are being discussed and the request is being reviewed. More information will follow. DUFFIE MOVED; FENTON SECONDED; APPROVAL TO RECESS THE REGULAR MEETING AND CONVENE THE EXECUTIVE SESSION. The motion carried 6 -0. EXECUTIVE SESSION: - Personnel Issues — 45 minutes — Pursuant to RCW 42.30.110(1)(g) 10:01 p.m. 10:22 p.m. Executive session began. Executive session ended. No action was taken. ADJOURNMENT: 10:23 p.m. DUFFIE MOVED; CARTER SECONDED; TO ADJOURN THE EXECUTIVE SESSION; RECONVENE AND ADJOURN THE REGULAR MEETING. The motion carried 6 -0. Steven M. Mullet, Mayor "Pvil Iv__ Robert H. Baker, Deputy City Clerk Date Minutes Approved: April 1, 2002 4 Y+`:itYr::`_tA-diriii 4w.tat. +s3rur.,:, •dirh.ilYovg, :I— W JU O O, to v).W .1_ H • u_: W 0 u-¢; • d: 1- Z 1- O' Z H• LLI U • � ,O N. 0 I-: WW'. 1— U • ~O .. Z W N. z Dept. Of Community Development City of Tukwila • AFFIDAVIT OF DISTRIBUTION I , ` Q fo HEREBY DECLARE THAT: Notice of Public Hearing Determination of Non - Significance Project Name: Notice of Public Meeting Project Number: (_O ` Mitigated Determination of Non - Significance Mailer's Signature: Board of Adjustment Agenda Pkt Person requesting mailing: kJOCCA Determination of Significance & Scoping Notice Board of Appeals Agenda Pkt Notice of Action Planning Commission Agenda Pkt Official Notice Short Subdivision Agenda Notice of Application Shoreline Mgmt Permit Notice of Application for Shoreline Mgmt Permit __ _ FAX To Seattle Times Classifieds Mail: Gail Muller Classifieds PO Box 70 - Seattle WA 98111 Other Was ma i 1 ed to each of the addresses listed on th i s Q ' day o ffL4chr.Ati n• the year 20137.- P:GINAWYNETTA/FORMS /AFFIDAVIT -MAIL 08/29/003:31 PM z W et 2 00 Na w•= .h1.... N wo LQ Id z= I-0 wF- LU Uc �o - o1- wuJ 1- a. u- ..z w U =, oI z Project Name: 1- w1 (I6 Project Number: (_O ` --(3 -76- Mailer's Signature: JJ - 51,OC Person requesting mailing: kJOCCA P:GINAWYNETTA/FORMS /AFFIDAVIT -MAIL 08/29/003:31 PM z W et 2 00 Na w•= .h1.... N wo LQ Id z= I-0 wF- LU Uc �o - o1- wuJ 1- a. u- ..z w U =, oI z City of Tukwila Steven M. Mullet, Ma-- Department of Community Development Steve Lancaster, Director NOTICE OF PUBLIC MEETING March 4, 2002 RE: Request to amend the Comprehensive Plan/Zoning Map from Low Density Residential (LDR) to Commercial /Light Industrial (C /LI) at 13136 42nd Avenue South (File #L01 -075) The City of Tukwila has received a proposal to revise the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Code maps to change the designation of a parcel located at 13136 42nd Avenue South from Low Density Residential (LDR) to Commercial/Light Industrial (C/LI)'. (Please refer to map on reverse) z ▪ w. n_ 2 00 W• .= • 0 2 LQ I w, z� I— C) _; The Tukwila City Council will hold a public meeting to give residents and businesses an o opportunity to comment on the proposed amendment in order to determine if the ca __ amendment shall be forwarded to the Planning Commission for further study. There will = w be additional opportunities to comment on this proposal in the coming months. v_ }- =7 0 .z Public Meeting v Tukwila City Hall Council Chambers I �: 6200 Southcenter Boulevard z Monday, March 18, 2002 7:00 p.m. The City of Tukwila welcomes both written and verbal comments about the proposed Comprehensive Plan/Zoning Code amendments from Tukwila's residential and business community. Please contact Rebecca Fox, Tukwila Department of Community Development at (206)431 -3683 or rfox @ci.tukwila.wa.us if you have questions or would like additional information about this proposal. Comments may be submitted prior to March 18, 2002 via e-mail or addressed to the Tukwila Department of Community Development, 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Tukwila, WA 98188. 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • Phone: 206- 431 -3670 • Fax: 206- 431 -3665 Oiamesstispr...—, ,,„- wlr.pwem.,009,,e5movtoemom--......,---,,,---wa.r S+µ erxmrer,+tzn;r x ar worxm. » s Hello Rebecca, On 11.06.95 Public Hearing I have submitted a written proposal to change my property zoning from LD -Lower density Residential to C/L1 — Commercial /Light Industrial in accordance with the recommended comprehensive zoning plan in effect at that time. In the council meeting that followed, the proposal has been discussed and approved for zoning change to office. Unfortunately, official decision has not followed up on any decision taken at that council meeting and my property zoning is still LD. Recently, I have received a notice of Public Meeting for rezoning two properties that are in the same situation with my property: they are LD and will become C /L1 by extending southward a larger C /L1 zone. I am not only in the agreement with the suggested proposal but I would like to ask you to advise me of what needs to be done to have my property included in the same public meeting for rezoning to C/L1. Rezoning this property will make possible creation of several software related high tech jobs in Tukwila by INDUSTRIAL DIGITAL, INC. an industry partner of University of Washington and Washington Technology Center. Due to the quiet nature of the proposed development, and to the fact that this building will act as a sound barrier between existing residential properties and industrial enterprises to the east and north. Actually, the current noise level to the residential area westward and southward of my property will be reduced to some degree. Due to the proximity of the properties and the identical nature of the request, I will be happy if there is a way of including my property on this Public Hearing of 04/03/00. If there is any expediting application process, I will be more than happy to go through. For property identification here is the address: 13407 48th Ave. South Tukwila, WA. 98168 Thank you for your consideration Ion Manea - Owner Voice: 206 498 0445 E -mail : industrial @seanet.com z ~w 6 JU 0 0' NO u) .w J w• 0 1 w ?. ��- _ z i-O z►—.. LIJ • 0 O c=. 0 I— w w'. u" O: w Z O ~• z Rebecca Fox - Comprehensive Plan api tion From: Ion Manea < industrial @seanet.com> To: "Rebecca Fox" <rfox @ci.tukwila.wa.us> Date: 3/31/00 10:07AM Subject: Comprehensive Plan application Rebecca, Thank you for checking it out. As you know I have been able to find out that indeed my 1995 request to not change the comprehensive plan from Tight industrial to single residential has been officialy recoreded at the public hearing. In reference to the follow -up silent city council meeting, myself and Lucy's notes can testify that indeed the comprehensive plan has not been approved to be changed to single residential. It remains to find out why the changes were not recorded on the new map. According to the above and to expedite the matters I need to do the following: Apply to change the comprehensive plan to light industrial Apply for rezoning my proprety to office (providing that it has been a record error and indeed the comprehensive plan for my property is "office "). 1 Thanks, Ion Page 1 For your information, these are the main ideas in reference to changing the comprehensive plan proposal on next Public Hearing. I am a resident and also I have a business on this proprety so 1 can speak for both sides. As a resident I can testify that for the last eight years the most disturbance on this property is created by the nearby freway and heavy air trafic. Ther property is midlly afected by every minute from noise associated with SeaTac departures and severely afected by depatures and approaches to Boeing Field. Occasionaly, heavy trucks take the wrong turn at the 1 -5 enterance, and the only way they can turn is on front of my property that is at corner of 134th and 48th. Most of this happends at night when the noise disturbance is more accute. Due to the inadequate width of the 134th St, no streetwalks and deep side ditch, walking to is quite a safety hapzard esspecialy in winter time. Ocassionaly, cars and trucks skip into side dich and the trafic is perturbed due to blockages created by rescue teams. All of the above come with the territory, it is not created by the existing tentants and property owners and except improving the street condition, nothing can be done about it. Except street condition, all of the above will not afect businesses but continously afect people leaving in this area. (' e• ecca Fox - Compre ensive P^ an ap.ation Page21; On the other hand if businesses are allowed to expand into this area (as former comprehensive plan called for) there is a posibility that the situation will improve due to the incerses noise dummpening by the large buildings are likely to be build. Additional revenue generated by business taxes and associated permits can be used as a resuorce in improving the street condition. There is a posibility that for business will help natural gas and DSL, ISDN to be extended into neighbood. As a business owner I can testify that this is a prime business area by: Proximity to airport cargo area, 1 -5, 1 -405, Interurban Ave., Seattle and Kent Industrial Supply area, Southcenter wholesale and light industrial area. 3 phase power service. Easy employee access to work by car or Bus from South Seattle, Rento, Kent and Seatac, vial-5, Interurban, Hy 99, Hy 509, 1 -405. Taking into account all of the above please appove requested changes for comprehensive plan. 1 hope that the city council will take a better look of the proposal and realize that the original comprehensive plan that called for extension of the exiating Light industrial area at least to 48th street southward was a better accomodation of business, residents and city as a whole interest and priorities. Thank you for your consideration. >Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2000 15:00:13 -0800 >From: "Rebecca Fox" <rfox @ci.tukwila.wa.us> >To: industrial @seanet.com >Cc: jpace @ci.tukwila.wa.us >Subject: Comprehensive Plan application >Content- Disposition: inline >X- MIME- Autoconverted: from quoted - printable to 8bit by krim.seanet.com id OAA05580 >Mr. Manea -- >1 checked with my supervisor and, as I thought, it is not possible to include a new Comprehensive Plan amendment application in this year's consideration. As we discussed, you may apply at any time prior to the December 31 deadline, but your application will not be considered until this time next year. >I will distribute your letter to the Councilmembers at the April 3, 2000 meeting. You are welcome to make comments on the proposed amendment or other associated topics at the meeting. Please let me know if you have additional materials for the Council. >Rebecca Fox, Associate Planner >206- 431 -3683 z. • zi 6 JU 0 0. N D w =: J ~ • u- w0 Q co d. =w z z ►- w Li] 'O CO: o E- w W: H 0 u_0 .z El U I': O~ z • Co •e Amendment From: "MDSHOLDINGS" <mdsholdings @iols.net> To: "Rebecca Fox" <rfox @ci.tukwila.wa.us> Date: 3/29/00 8:06AM Subject: Re: Code Amendment Dear Rebecca Fox In the wake of the information I received from you my neighbors at 13515 Macadam Rd. So., 4426 So. 136th and 13463 Macadam Rd. So. all agree that this proposed change would neither benefit the our community or the Tukwila community at large. I will continue to discuss this with other neighbors and feel confident that several of them will be with myself at the meeting on April 3,2000. Thank you; Dale @ mdsholdings @IOLS.net Original Message From: Rebecca Fox <rfox @ci.tukwila.wa.us> To: mdsholdings @iols.net <mdsholdings @iols.net> Date: Tuesday, March 28, 2000 9:31 AM Subject: Re: Code Amendment >Dear Dale, >This proposal is under consideration because a member of the public (Holaday Parks, a business in the vicinity) made an application to the City for this change to the Comprehensive Plan /Zoning Code. Under the Washington Growth Management Act, cities and other jurisdictions with Comprehensive Plans consider amendments yearly. > In their application, the applicant indicated that they are seeking the amendment in order eventually to construct a new facility. City staff has prepared a report to the City Council on this proposal. We have indicated that the primary issue in this case is housing in the area. > After the meeting on April 3, the City Council will make a "threshold" decision on this (and 4 other) proposed amendments. The Council will decide whether to reject the proposal, defer consideration for a year or more, or forward the proposal to the Planning Commission for environmental review, further study, a hearing and a recommendation. The City Council has the authority to modify the proposal as it goes to the Planning Commission. Any proposal which the Council refers to the Planning Commission will return to the Council for a final decision. > I hope this addresses your concerns. Please contact me if you have further questions. >Rebecca Fox, Associate Planner >206- 431 -3683 »» " MDSHOLDINGS" <mdsholdings @iols.net> 03/28/00 07:57AM »> > As a home owner living next to an area zoned Commercial /Light Industrial I am opposed to any increase of that zoned area. Your letter of notice did not state the reasoning behind this proposed change. When the city wanted to establish a recycling facility in this same area they purchased land and then could not obtain the permits to build. It is my belief that the city does this type of activity with little or no thought as to the area residence. If you respond to this e-mail please instruct me as z o: -I U 000 cn.w J H w: w0 g J -a = z� �= o z h- Lu U0 'O N 0 1- W uj H LL" w Z CO. z e e" cca Fox - Re: Code Amendment Y ✓` "�y '" " ' "' °"p " "` """" p to why this zoning change is being considered. >13467 Macadam Rd. So. >Dale @ mdsholdings @IOLS.net > Page 1 I, Rebecca ox - Co.e Amendment r Page 1 From: To: Date: Subject: "MDSHOLDINGS" <mdsholdings @iols.net> tuk- mai1.6300- po(Rebecca) 3/28/00 7:57AM Code Amendment As a home owner living next to an area zoned Commercial /Light Industrial I am opposed to any increase of that zoned area. Your letter of notice did not state the reasoning behind this proposed change. When the city wanted to establish a recycling facility in this same area they purchased land and then could not obtain the permits to build. It is my belief that the city does this type of activity with little or no thought as to the area residence. If you respond to this e-mail please instruct me as to why this zoning change is being considered. 13467 Macadam Rd. So. Dale @ mdsholdings @IOLS.net 8. A statement of what other changes, if any, are required in other City codes, plans or regulations to implement the proposed change. Overlapping Potential Annexation Areas: No additional changes are anticipated. Boundary Adjustments: No additional changes are anticipated. ZONING AMENDMENT CRITERIA (TMC 18.84.030) 1. The use or change in zoning requested shall be in conformity with the adopted Comprehensive Land Use Policy Plan, the provisions of this title, and the public interest; 2. The use or change in zoning requested in the zoning map or this title for the establishment of commercial, industrial, or residential use shall be supported by an architectural site plan showing the proposed development and its relationship to surrounding areas as set forth in the application form. • p Rebecca Fox - Re: Code Amendment From: Rebecca Fox To: " mdsholdings @iols.net " @Tuk- BM- dom.GWIA Date: 3/28/00 9:49AM Subject: Re: Code Amendment Page 1 Dear Dale, This proposal is under consideration because a member of the public (Holaday Parks, a business in the vicinity) made an application to the City for this change to the Comprehensive Plan /Zoning Code. Under the Washington Growth Management Act, cities and other jurisdictions with Comprehensive Plans consider amendments yearly. In their application, the applicant indicated that they are seeking the amendment in order eventually to construct a new facility. City staff has prepared a report to the City Council on this proposal. We have indicated that the primary issue in this case is housing in the area. After the meeting on April 3, the City Council will make a "threshold" decision on this (and 4 other) proposed amendments. The Council will decide whether to reject the proposal, defer consideration for a year or more, or forward the proposal to the Planning Commission for environmental review, further study, a hearing and a recommendation. The City Council has the authority to modify the proposal as it goes to the Planning Commission. Any proposal which the Council refers to the Planning Commission will return to the Council for a final decision. I hope this addresses your concerns. Please contact me if you have further questions. Rebecca Fox, Associate Planner 206 -431 -3683 »> "MDSHOLDINGS" <mdsholdings @iols.net> 03/28/00 07:57AM »> As a home owner living next to an area zoned Commercial /Light Industrial I am opposed to any increase of that zoned area. Your letter of notice did not state the reasoning behind this proposed change. When the city wanted to establish a recycling facility in this same area they purchased land and then could not obtain the permits to build. It is my belief that the city does this type of activity with little or no thought as to the area residence. If you respond to this e-mail please instruct me as to why this zoning change is being considered. 13467 Macadam Rd. So. Dale @ mdsholdings a( lOLS.net z w 0 0O moo: v).w. J =. H u 0. -. co =w F— zF- 1— o. w 2 co: ' 0 ww Z w O ~' z . eecca fox - Comprehensive Plan ap�tion From: Rebecca Fox To: lnternet:industrial @seanet.com Date: 3/28/00 3:OOPM Subject: Comprehensive Plan application Mr. Manea -- I checked with my supervisor and, as 1 thought, it is not possible to include a new Comprehensive Plan amendment application in this year's consideration. As we discussed, you may apply at any time prior to the December 31 deadline, but your application will not be considered until this time next year. I will distribute your letter to the Councilmembers at the April 3, 2000 meeting. You are welcome to make comments on the proposed amendment or other associated topics at the meeting. Please let me know if you have additional materials for the Council. Rebecca Fox, Associate Planner 206- 431 -3683 rfox@ci.tukwila.wa.us CC: Jack Pace Page z Q z o: J U .o O: 10 CY wO =w' z� • �o .0u. .10 H,. :w W!. .:z _'. :off Dept. Of Community Development City of Tukwila AFFIDAVIT OF DISTRIBUTION 1. ,,--Dcw e/(t .[tvAijjli HEREBY DECLARE THAT: Notice of Public Hearing Determination of Non - Significance Notice of Public Meeting Project Name LD R Mitigated Determination of Non - Significance Project Number: Board of Adjustment Agenda Pkt Mailer's Signature :II)��.�X Determination of Significance & Scoping Notice Board of Appeals Agenda Pkt Notice of Action Planning Commission Agenda Pkt Official Notice Short Subdivision Agenda Notice of Application Shoreline Mgmt Permit Notice of Application for Shoreline Mgmt Permit .— ^ FAX To Seattle Times Classifieds. Mail: Gail Muller Classifieds PO Box 70 - Seattle WA 98111 Other Was mailed to each of the addresses listed on thisa day of'i year 20 (� adyn the P:GINAWYNETTA/FORMS /AFFIDAVIT- MAIL01/24/0011:44 AM Project Name LD R > C.0 Project Number: Mailer's Signature :II)��.�X P:GINAWYNETTA/FORMS /AFFIDAVIT- MAIL01/24/0011:44 AM Gity of Tukwila Steven M. Mullet, Mayor Department of Community Development Steve Lancaster, Director NOTICE OF PUBLIC MEETING March 20, 2000 RE: Comprehensive Plan/Zoning Code amendment to allow commercial/light industrial uses one parcel south of 4534 S. 135th Street and one parcel west of 4625 S. 134th Place The City of Tukwila proposes to revise its Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Code to change the designation of two parcels (one parcel south of 4534 S. 135th Street and one parcel west of 4625 134th Place South) from LDR —Low Density Residential to C/LI- Cominercial/Light Industrial ( Please see map on reverse.) The Tukwila City Council will hold a public meeting to give residents and businesses an opportunity to express their opinions and give testimony about the proposal: Public Meeting Tukwila City Hall Council Chambers 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Monday, April 3, 2000 7:00 p.m. The City of Tukwila welcomes both written and verbal comments about the proposed Comprehensive Plan/Zoning Code amendment from Tukwila's residential and business community. Please contact Rebecca Fox, Associate Planner, of the Tukwila Department of Community Development at (206)431 -3683 or rfox@ci.tukwila.wa.us if you have questions. You may send your written comments via e-mail or addressed to the Tukwila Department of Community Development, 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Tukwila, WA 98188. 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • Phone: 206 - 431 -3670 • Fax: 206 - 431 -3665 z z w: JU 00 J u_' u. w 2• Z �. I- o` z moo; u.): 0 ' 0 I- w W` _ Z, • 01– z • S 133 ST (-"••• ir 1. Existing,lone 'Line Affected/Properties • se. / • • ( / / \ / / . • \ • . / • e../ / \ / \ ( %/ \ / / / ' / \ (151 .1\I - - - 136 13 r p9sed Zone Line ST , I C/3 -1 LU OZ C.) Holaday Parlcs File L99-0094 Rezone LDR (Low Density Residential) to CAJ ( Canmerdal /Light Industrial) L 99-0095 Comprehensive Plan Amendment LDR (Low Density Residential) to CAJ (Commercial/Light Industrial) Holaday Parks File L99-0094 Rezone LDR (Low Density Real)) to CM ( Commercial /Light Industrial) L 990095 Comprehensive Plan Amendment LDR (Low Density Residential) to C/LI (eight Industrial) Z = F- F- z NOTICE OF PUBLIC MEETING o co° w •=; March 20, 2000 N • wo LL. Q RE: Comprehensive Plan/Zoning Code amendment to allow commercial /light industrial co a: uses one parcel south of 4534 S. 135th Street and one parcel west of 4625 S. 134th Place F- _ z �- The City of Tukwila proposes to revise its Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Code to z o, change the designation of two parcels (one parcel south of 4534 S. 135th Street and one parcel west of 4625 134th Place South) from LDR —Low Density Residential to C /LI— v Commercial/Light Industrial ( Please see map on reverse.) o w W; The Tukwila City Council will hold a public meeting to give residents and businesses an 1- v �' 0 PP ortuni tY to express their opinions and give testimony about the proposal: z 0 N, Public Meeting Tukwila City Hall Council Chambers z 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Monday, April 3, 2000 7:00 p.m. The City of Tukwila welcomes both written and verbal comments about the proposed Comprehensive Plan/Zoning Code amendment from Tukwila's residential and business community. Please contact Rebecca Fox, Associate Planner, of the Tukwila Department of Community Development at (206)431 -3683 or rfox @ci.tukwila.wa.us if you have questions. You may send your written comments via e-mail or addressed to the Tukwila Department of Community Development, 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Tukwila, WA 98188. .,. Smooth Feed Sheets"' Eric Schweiger 4712 S 134Th P1 Seattle, WA 98168 Craig Hittle 13757 Macadam Rd S Tukwila, WA 98168 Leon.Spruill & Elena Alberto Maria 13445 48Th Ave S Tukwila, WA 98168 Harold Wagner 101 N 48Th Ave #41B Yakima, WA 98908 Darrell Clark Rr 1 Box 80 Thorp, WA 98946 Rhonda Clenna 13765 Macadam Rd S Seattle, WA 98168 Sisouvanh Phomma & Parinda Stallings 13410 48Th Ave S Tukwila, WA 98168 Use template for 5160® Melanie Clark 13443 48Th Ave S Tukwila, WA 98168 Peter Gatto William Looney Peter & Jennifer Gatto 13400 48Th Ave S PO Box 66098 13404 48Th Ave S Seattle, WA 98168 Seattle, WA 98166 Seattle, WA 98168 Gregory Ryan 13416 48Th Ave S Seattle, WA 98168 Roy & Karen Bradshaw 13432 48Th Ave S Seattle, WA 98168 Floyd Patterson Duckett Kim Roberts 11840 Renton Ave S #134 13430 48Th Ave S Seattle, WA 98178 Tukwila, WA 98168 AVERY® Address Labels Laser 5960TM 6:• �-., �;.• �o�4liiuir.. 11 .dti�::.....�kea:a..'a,,:,...,. _.. ._..... _.____,. ......o .. .. :.+�'A- :.raliitkfi".Yak.� Smooth Feed SheetsTM Jeff & Nanci Ingersoll 13455 48Th Ave S Tukwila, WA 98168 Jolly James B & Sonja M Llc PO Box 2295 Shelton, WA 98584 Elling & Barbara Halvorson 12515 Willows Rd NE #200 Kirkland, WA 98034 King County 500 Kc Admin Bldg Seattle, WA 98104 Dale Shawley 4433 S 135Th Seattle, WA 98168 David & Susan An Hussey Iii 4357 S 135Th St Seattle, WA 98168 Kenneth Rozum 4420 S 136Th St Seattle, WA 98168 AVERY® Address Labels -, ciL Z Matthew & Jill Peters 13552 Macadam Rd S Tukwila, WA 98168 City Of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Blvd Tukwila, WA 98188 Hobart Usitalo & Debra Ann Larson 7120 177Th St SW Edmonds, WA 98026 Gordon & Sylvia Hunter 13345 Macadam Rd S Tukwila, WA 98168 Robert Merkle 13515 Macadam Rd S Tukwila, WA 98168 James & Margit Stenseng PO Box 98 Kensington, KS 66951 Candice Richardson 4505 Sunnyside Ave N Seattle, WA 98103 Gerald Parks Jr. PO Box 69208 Seattle, WA 98168 Use template for 5160 Jaqueline Laura Doman 12028 25Th Ave NE Seattle, WA 98125 E B Halvor on 12515 Willo/ d NE #200 Kirkland, W 034 Kellie Ann & Ralph Cardinal PO Box 58995 Seattle, WA 98138 Daniel & Teresa Zapata 4508 S 136Th St Tukwila, WA 98168 Robert Farrington 4512 S 136Th St Tukwila, WA 98168 A E & J B Merkle 4426 S 136Th St Tukwila, WA 98168 W C Hall 17522 13Th Ave SW Normandy Park, WA 98166 Winfred Pritchett 12 Pearl PI Sequim, WA 98382 Laser 5960" Smooth Feed SheetsTM Hardeep Singh 224 S 152Nd St #45 Burien, WA 98148 VERY® Address Labels 1441-/ Craig Abbott & Susan Goss 13601 Macadam Rd S Seattle, WA 98168 Pacific Northwest Ironworkers & Employee 6701 SE Foster Rd Portland, OR 97206 Palmer & Mary Fauconnier 13435 48Th Ave S Tukwila, WA 98168 Use template for 5160® Pacific Northwest Ironworkers & Employer 701 5Th Ave #2200 Seattle, WA 98104 Eleanor Orn 13415 48Th Ave S Tukwila, WA 98168 Ion Manea 13407 48Th Ave S Tukwila, WA 98168 Laser 55960TM .z rcW; ul JU W =:. J t, L1J O; Z W U La WW 0? Z; ILI CO OF OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 4550 S. 134TH PL. 13423 48TH AVE. S. 13433 48TH AVE. S. TUKWILA, WA 98168 TUKWILA, WA 98168 TUKWILA, WA 98168 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 4611 S. 134TH PL. 4534 S. 135TH ST. 4601 S. 134TH PL. TUKWILA, WA 98168 TUKWILA, WA 98168 TUKWILA, WA 98168 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCC N 4501 S. 134TH PL. 4585 S. 134TH PL. 4585 S. 1 TH PL. TUKWILA, WA 98168 TUKWILA, WA 98168 TUKWI A, A 98168 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 4345 S. 137TH ST. 4515 S. 135TH ST. 4433 S. 136TH ST. TUKWILA, WA 98168 TUKWILA, WA 98168 TUKWILA, WA 98168 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 4561 S. 135TH ST. 4425 S. 136TH ST. 13457 MACADAM RD. S. TUKWILA, WA 98168 TUKWILA, WA 98168 TUKWILA, WA 98168 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 4521 S. 135TH ST. 4650 S. 134TH 13375 48TH AVE. S. TUKWILA, WA 98168 TUKWILA, WA 98168 TUKWILA, WA 98168 OCCUP T OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 4650 S. 13 4643 S. 138TH ST. 13406 48TH AVE. S. TUKWILA, A 98168 TUKWILA, WA 98168 TUKWILA, WA 98168 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 4526 S. 136TH ST. 13436 48TH AVE. S. 4625 S. 134TH PL. TUKWILA, WA 98168 TUKWILA, WA 98168 TUKWILA, , WA 98168 zz{. 5 Z ' �►_ w J Ui 00 co 0 w• = J 1; LL w 0} J u_ =• d. z �. 1-0: Z 2 D. ww H U'. w - O, ui O 1- city of Tukwila Steven M. Mullet, Mayor Department of Community Development MEETING DATE: NOTIFICATION: FILE NUMBERS: APPLICANT: REQUEST: STAFF REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL Prepared March 20, 2000 April 3, 2000 Steve Lancaster, Director Notice of public meeting mailed to surrounding properties March 23, 2000 Notice of public meeting published in Seattle Times on March 23, 2000. L99 -0095 (Comprehensive Plan Amendment) L99 -0094 (Zoning Code Amendment) Holaday Parks /Ted Nixon, Campbell/Nixon & Associates (contact) Establish "C/LI" (Commercial/Light Industrial) Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Code Amendment designation for two adjacent parcels currently designated as "LDR" (Low Density Residential) LOCATION: Parcel 261320-0046 (one parcel south of 4534 S. 135th Street) Parcel 261320-0050 (one parcel west of 4625 S. 134th Place) COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: LDR (Low Density Residential) ZONING DISTRICT: LDR (Low Density Residential) ATTACHMENTS: A. L99 -0095 Application Packet B. Rezone and Comprehensive Plan Amendment Map Plait Paw hGtq"60( - s��bfi /kJ/ x,,;, - 6„ - 6� h- '- �- ` ,- e- ,�� �� r,�,� - e � /z�Ci� �,�e..� ri. Q eTS,- �8+� . 6^9x^ /3YK gat J /( / 3si-Z /Yac. ,M '-.. vv„ rr 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • Phone: 206 - 431 -3670 • Fax: 206 - 431 -3665 Staff Report to the L99 -0094, L99 -0095 City Council Zoning & Comprehensive Plan Amendments FINDINGS Site Information The proposal is to redesignate two adjacent parcels from "LDR" (Low Density Residential) to "C/LI" (Commercial/Light Industrial) in the Comprehensive Plan and on the City Zoning Map. The combined size of the two undeveloped parcels is approximately 16,344 square feet. Surrounding land uses are as follows: North: Light Industrial and office (across South 134th Place) and SR -599 South: Single - family residential (across South 135th Street) East: Single family residential and 48th Avenue South West: Light Industrial and office Upon approval of the change in designation from LDR to C/LI, the applicant proposes to develop a two -story office /warehouse facility. The applicant, Holaday- Parks, wishes to construct this facility in order to expand from their current location at 4650 South 135th Place. The proposed development would occupy the two parcels in question plus two adjacent parcels (on the north and on the east). Warehouse space and loading docks would be located on the first floor of the facility, with office space on the second floor. Parking and landscaping would also be provided. South 134th Street would be the primary access to the site. DISCUSSION Background At present, two parcels designated LDR extend into the C /LI zone. Under the proposal, redesignating the two subject parcels from LDR to C/LI would "straighten" the existing configuration as it appears in both the zoning map and Comprehensive Plan. Two adjacent parcels to the north and east of the subject area are already zoned C/LI, and each contains a legally non - conforming residential use (a duplex on the northern parcel and the single - family home on the eastern parcel). These existing non - conforming structures would eventually be demolished when light industrial development occurs. Threshold Review Criteria >i,,i'= ��i1 ?:!:,�i;HnCtdl7�. el: �` r •+dc,.µ- •J:'A'k.F:M < >:: Staff Report to the L99 -0094, L99 -0095 City Council Zoning & Comprehensive Plan Amendments • Describe how the issue is addressed in the Comprehensive Plan. If the issue is not adequately addressed, is there a need for it? Comprehensive Plan Policy 2.1.12 (Economic Development) states: z ce w Promote economic use of industrial lands outside the MIC by encouraging 6 v redevelopment of under - utilized sites and by promoting the retention of large U o parcels or consolidation of smaller parcels of industrial land to facilitate their use w in an efficient manner. Such lands should be preserved for industrial uses, achieved through appropriate buffering requirements and use restrictions. N u- (Emphasis added) g gQ Comprehensive Plan Policy 7.3.1 (Residential Neighborhoods) states: =w Maintain a comprehensive land use map that supports the preservation and z = enhancement of single - family and stable multi - family neighborhoods; eliminates I-- O incompatible land uses; and clearly establishes applicable development w w. requirements through recognizable boundaries. (Emphasis added). n o U 0— c w w' - U The redesignation of the two parcels would straighten the boundary between the LDR and IL. C/LI districts as they appear in both the zoning map and Comprehensive Plan. By z creating a more uniform boundary, the parcels in question can be developed more efficiently as commercial/light industrial. A more defined border between residential and 01— industrial uses as well as a reduction in truck traffic along the neighboring residential z streets would result, since new development could use S. 134th Street for access. Three existing, non - conforming residential units in the C/LI would eventually be demolished when light industrial redevelopment occurs. • Impacts No non - conforming uses will be created as a result of the redesignation. The proposal is not expected to negatively affect the Capital Improvement Plan, Comprehensive Plan policies, City zoning regulations or City functional plans. • Is the proposed change the best means for meeting the identified public need? What other options are there for meeting the identified public need? The Comprehensive Plan encourages consolidation and redevelopment of under- utilized industrial sites to facilitate efficient land use. This will be accomplished under the proposal by redesignating two parcels from LDR to C/LI. The Comprehensive Plan also supports the elimination of incompatible land uses and the establishment of recognizable boundaries. The existing irregular zoning boundary will be replaced with one that is clearly defined. St. NtivaafiinK - .. ,:...w. ..s........ Staff Report to the L99 -0094, L99 -0095 City Council Zoning & Comprehensive Plan Amendments If the existing zoning and Comprehensive Plan designation remain "as is ", the two subject parcels would be limited to development as single - family residences (under the existing LDR zoning). The existing non - conforming residential uses on the adjacent z parcels would remain "grandfathered ", with eventual redevelopment under C/LI , _ requirements. w 2 Alternatively, the C/LI designation and zone could be expanded in a southeasterly ° o direction, making 48th Avenue South the new boundary between the LDR and C/LI w.w. districts. In this scenario, LDR and C/LI would be separated by dedicated public streets (i.e, South 135th on the west - southwest and 48th on the southeast). CO w wo 2 • Will the proposed change result in a net benefit to the community? If not, what type g of benefit can be expected and why? co a 1w The proposed change would modestly expand the property available for light industrial z development. The boundary between light industrial and residential uses would become z o better de.1ned, although there would still be no buffer between light industrial and single - family zones and uses. The applicant Holaday Parks seeks to expand its existing, v ❑ adjacent operations onto the proposed site if the proposal is approved. p S2 ❑ 1-w_ The single - family residential area would be further reduced by redesignating two i residential lots to light industrial. Redesignating the two parcels would facilitate their u_ o being redeveloped in conjunction with two adjoining C/LI parcels. Industrial z development would bring about the eventual elimination of three non - conforming v u) PI residential uses in the current C/LI zone. Light industrial development on the parcels z would potential threaten adjacent residential uses. CONCLUSIONS The redesignation of the two subject parcels from LDR to C/LI will extend the boundary between LDR and C/LI southward by two lots. The resulting expansion of C/LI and reduction of residentially -zoned land would facilitate light industrial redevelopment. Approval of the proposal would make the existing zoning boundary more uniform while eliminating two existing non - conforming uses. The larger question remains of whether the area in the vicinity of 48th Avenue South should remain designated LDR for single - family use or be considered for eventual light industrial designation and redevelopment. Alternatives for Action The City Council's threshold alternatives include the following: • Refer the proposal as is to the Planning Commission for further review; • Modify the proposal and refer to the Planning Commission for further review • Defer consideration until a later time; • Reject the proposal. sa w,..tJ:tyib't:u�atr..'rv+3Y?k' #t :r..s,.' Lri;" �..••' Staff Report to the L99 -0094, L99 -0095 City Council Zoning & Comprehensive Plan Amendments If the proposal is referred to the Planning Commission, the Planning Commission could: • Recommend approval; • Modify the proposal; • Recommend denial. CITY OF TUKWILA Department of Community Development 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Tukwila, WA 98188 Telephone: (206) 431 -3670 (P -CPA) (P -R) Comprehensive Plan/Zoning Code Amendment Application :FOR `'STAFF `USE ONLY ''Plannei Receipt Num Project File # t. Iication complete (Date SEPA File # :` 1 Applicatlon-incomplete (Date .. _. I. PROJECT /PROPOSAL BACKGROUND A. NAME OF PROJECT /PROPOSAL: r vAY - % c Fit- B. LOCATION OF PROJECT /DEVELOPMENT: STREET ADDRESS: /410Z5 i '4 FL.. , / -To tux- ASSESSOR PARCEL NUMBER: Z4 1500 i5f346 ObSG LEGAL DESCRIPTION: C %'iT ' eZz 1310 - c c4.tt) oo Quarter: J .1E_ Section: 15 Township:. 05 Range: 4 (This information may be found on your tax statement) C. CONTACT: (Primal)/ contact regarding the application, and to whom all notices and reports shall be sent) NAME: I =t7 aNI}'i /1\t»44A. '4 A ,te_ I I' • / ADDRESS: 06 24 M- VtE tI ■ i , , ' j E I t [. /Eta i \,1/41 A. , 1 7 1 PHONE: ( S4 2470 ILL 2'75 4_ii ass `t15� - SIGNATURE: DATE: 049, .... .c�u.a.uw:«rn..rw��«�..�.�i.irr .. �. ,_.._..,....... �w�-. w,,..:, sn.,r rw. o.. vr^ r?„ mryridv':W!,9`4�"7!4:rii.,utyo;. • z • Z • w J U O 0 w'm J 1- U) u_. w �< = d. I- Wm i- 0 W }- J• ❑ U O - Ww � U z LLI U= z E. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: EXISTING: Ct" *F 3.&L4 FLIP f eb t ) PROPOSED: C' /Lt F. ZONING DESIGNATION: 604- cc ) EXISTING: PROPOSED: (---*/L-1 3/96 G. LAND USE(S): EXISTING: V�caar Lj-T4 PROPOSED: cr i ._ AtAT2 WAREaeo5E_. (for proposed changes in land use designations or rezones) H. DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: (attach additional sheets if necessary) 9exiaz05 A _b. A•1b 1u fac.- tu`t`c i aF tLE 5+at OL-D a-% N\P'k -k f 6 r4-1E E.c.,_ 1 D �L � ik t T1A 1t•r/42E Ato D O LEM itzi DcuL5_, ov4 rgvE F12s -r 2. c �b t,.lc_L - s LIE b ilt,A 1. GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF SURROUNDING LAND USES: Describe the existing uses located within 1,000 feet in all directions from the property or area for which a change is proposed. Lt 101>6TAalkt_, . dfiL) IL.btziej AO> LFNcrEb 6-11,AL. Rd L -f'a C to E 0.47y Ao tz.-rik ikAD AsQ'n i WC-4T ° 142 L2)64,- Ta 1 : AAD 52...5 t6 Lce- -K -,a -n i 11. IMPACTS OF PROPOSED CHANGE A. IMPACT(S) OF PROPOSED CHANGE ON SURROUNDING PROPERTIES: Describe potential adverse impacts of the proposed change on surrounding geographic area, such as affects on land use designations and zoning of surrounding properties, adjacent natural features or systems, or public utilities or streets. (A summary of impacts addressed in SEPA checklist is acceptable.) Attach separate sheet(s) with response. B. NON - CONFORMING USES CREATED: Describe any existing uses that are likely to become non - conforming under the proposed land use /zoning designation. C. IMPACT(S) OF PROPOSED CHANGE ON COMPREHENSIVE PLAN POLICIES, ZONING REGULATIONS AND CITY'S 3 FUNCTIONAL PLANS: Identify sp.ofic Comprehensive Plan policies and zc .g regulations and how your p; oposal affects them. Identify any functional plans affected by the proposal (e.g. Storm and Surface Water Plan, Shoreline Master Program, Parks and Open Space Plan) and what changes would be required in those plans if the proposed amendment were approved. Attach separate sheet(s) with response. D. IMPACTS) OF PROPOSED CHANGE ON CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLAN: Describe any capital improvements that would be needed to support the proposed amendment, and what changes would be required in the City's Capital Improvements Plan. Attach separate sheet(s) with response. E. DEFICIENCIES IN EXISTING PLAN/CODE RESOLVED BY THE PROPOSAL: Explain why the current Comprehensive Plan or Zoning Code is deficient or why it should not continue. Be specific; cite policy numbers and code sections that apply. Attach separate sheet(s) with response. F. COMPLIANCE OF THE PROPOSAL wrTH GROWTH MANAGEMENT ACT: Describe how the proposed change complies with and promotes the goals and specific requirements of the Growth Management Act. Attach separate sheet(s) with response. G. OTHER ISSUES PRESENTED BY THE PROPOSED CHANGE: Describe any other issues that are important to consider in the proposal, such as other changes in City codes that would be required, other City - adopted plans affected, environmental or economic issues. (Attach additional sheet(s) if necessary). •i F 1--*.o CA\A4N/ : tit .�t7 C E-- 6Wf21j1 -4-Y - N_in\ TAe- b jtsb �% • 116 '3tec.: \ i6, `� t-t' c.--0 . F i I . I +ice Ail' Fecr t e...k .l._� r•{ A,L115,ti tJ■ ) CI.MDA: ._ �1' j -r-c) c...-i%4h . i✓ CC2tE Fi i 1-41r kr -'1 1 \ik___ � Q4rr Lc, A'T1ot.A H. ALTERNATIVES TO PROPOSED CHANGE: (A summary of alternatives addressed in the project's SEPA checklist is acceptable.) Attach separate sheet(s) with response. III. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN/ZONING CODE ANI NDMENT CRITERIA The burden of proof in demonstrating that a change to the Comprehensive Plan or Zoning Code is warranted lies solely upon the proponent. The greater the degree of change proposed, the greater will be the burden of showing that the change is justified. The Planning Commission and the City Council will review your proposal using the criteria listed below. It is essential that you describe in a clear and precise manner why the amendment request should be approved. Attach additional sheet(s) with your responses to each criterion. You may submit other documentation in support of your proposal. A. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT CRITERIA: Demonstrate how each of the following circumstances justifies a re- designation of your property or a change in existing Plan policies: 1. A detailed statement of what is proposed and why; 2. A statement of the anticipated impacts of the change, including the geographic area affected and the issues presented by the proposed change; 3. An explanation of why the current comprehensive plan or development regulations are deficient or should not continue in effect; 4. A statement of how the proposed amendment complies with and promotes the goals and specific requirements of the Growth Management Act; 5. A statement of how the proposed amendment complies with applicable Countywide Planning Policies; 4 z w Ce JU 00 CO C) W• = J F" CO LL WO gQ co =a I-W Z1._ zO W • W V0 O 1- W W H LL'O .. z W U =. P z 6. A statement of v..,:ot changes, if any, would be required vnctional plans (i.e., the City's water, sewer, storm water or shoreline plans) if the proposed amendment is adopted; 7. A statement of what capital improvements, if any, would be needed to support the proposed change, and how the proposed change will affect the capital facilities plans of the City; and 8. A statement of what other changes, if any, are required in other City codes, plans or regulations to implement the proposed change. B. ZONING AMENDMENT CRITERIA: Demonstrate how each of the each following circumstances justifies a rezone of your property or a change in the existing Zoning Code: 1. The use or change in zoning requested shall be in conformity with the adopted Comprehensive Land Use Policy Plan, the provisions of this title, and the public interest; 2. The use or change in zoning requested in the zoning map or this title for the establishment of commercial, industrial, or residential use shall be supported by an architectural site plan showing the proposed development and its relationship to surrounding areas as set forth in the application form. 5 • • • • • • • • 10024 SE 240th Street, Suite 102 Kent, WA 98031 -5124 Phone: 253.854.2470 FAX: 253.854.2475 ARCHITECTS & PLANNERS AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF ARCHITECTS II. IMPACTS OF PROPOSED CHANGE A. Impacts on Surrounding Property: There are no adverse impacts to the proposed change. The impacts will be positive to the surrounding land uses. Two of the four parcels included in the proposed development are already zoned C/LI. These are the two parcels that currently have non - conforming residential uses. These two parcels are separated in a checkerboard pattern from each other by the two vacant lots that are zoned LDR. The development of the four parcels will create the screening and landscape buffers in accordance with the Zoning Code protecting the residential uses to the south from many of the adverse impacts which currently exist due to the lack of screening. B. Non - Conforming Uses Created: None. The rezone and development of the sites will lessen the non - conforming uses by'weak- C. eliminating the residential use at 4625 S 134th Place that is currently in the C/LI zoning. Impacts on Comprehensive Plan Policies, Zoning Regulations and Functional Plans: None. The requested revisions are best described as adjustments to the boundary between the C/LI and LDR zoning areas. This adjustment was discussed initially during the Last Comprehensive Plan Review. Though there was no specific objections to zoning the properties to C/LI, the City requested a project proposal be submitted for review first. There are no impacts to the functional plan. D. Impacts to Capital Improvement Plan: None. The change is limited to a boundary adjustment to the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning. The adjustment does not add significantly to the intensity of any land use. The development will fund any of its own required street improvements. E. Deficiencies in Existing Plan /Code Resolved by the Proposal: 134th and 135th are part of the North Section of the Interurban Corridor. The checkerboard border of the existing plan requires truck access to the 261320 -0049 parcel from 135th. The proposed project routes truck traffic from 134th. The rezone will also allow a more defined border and buffering between the residential and industrial uses rather than having industrial uses wrap around residential lots. The combined lots allow fewer driveways for access than individual developments. Reference Comp Plan Policies 1.7.4, 1.8.6, 7.3.1, 7.4.2, 7.4.4, 8.3.1, 8.3.4. HOLADAY -PARKS OFFICE/WAREHOUSE FACILITY COMP PLAN /ZONING CODE AMENDMENT APPLICATION PART II: IMPACTS OF PROPOSED CHANGE Page 1 of 2 F. Compliance with Growth Management The requested amendment to the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning for the two parcels is compatable with the Growth Management Act. The adjustment to the boundary protects the existing residential neighborhood by providing enhanced landscape buffering and reduced truck traffic in residential streets and collectors. This protection will help preserve the residential quality of the neighborhood to the south while increasing the opportunity for employment. G. Other Issues gAo Holaday -Parks is an existing business in Tukwila with over.l.'l60 employees. The proposed change would be consistant with the proposed use. The Project would benefit the City economically by allowing Holaday -Parks to expand their facility at their existing location. The existing parking for their existing operation is inadequate. The new facility would help to reduce this impact and reduce the need for on- street parking. H. Alternatives An alternative would be for Holaday -Parks to move part of their operation and administration to other facilities. This would displace workers and require a greater demand on transportation between the different facilities. HOLADAY -PARKS OFFICE/WAREHOUSE FACILITY COMP PLAN /ZONING CODE AMENDMENT APPLICATION PART II: IMPACTS OF PROPOSED CHANGE Page 2 of 2 • • • • • • • • 10024 SE 240th Street, Suite 102 Kent, WA 98031-5124 Phone: 253.854.2470 FAX: 253.854.2475 ARCHITECTS & PLANNERS AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF ARCHITECTS HI. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN / ZONING CODE AMENDMENT CRITERIA A. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT CRITERIA: 1. Develop a two -story office and warehouse facility. The office would be primarily on the second floor with warehouse space and two loading docks on the first floor. The project would include site development for parking, circulation and landscaping. The proposed amendment will allow the two existing C/LI lots (0049 and 0051) to be combined into a single development with primary access from S 134th Place. 2. The re- designation of Parcels 0046 and 0050 will have positive impacts to the surrounding area by reducing commercial and light industrial truck traffic on 135th and facilitating a well defined boundary between the C/LI and LDR Zoning. 3. 134th and 135th are part of the North Section of the Interurban Corridor. The checkerboard border of the existing plan requires truck access to the 261320- 0049 parcel from 135th. The proposed project routes truck traffic from 134`h. The rezone will also allow a more defined border and buffering between the residential and industrial uses rather than having industrial uses wrap around residential lots. The combined lots allow fewer driveways for access than individual developments. Reference Comp Plan Policies 1.7.4, 1.8.6, 7.3.1, 7.4.2, 7.4.4, 8.3.1, 8.3.4. 4. The requested amendment to the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning for the two parcels is compatable with the Growth Management Act. The adjustment to the boundary protects the existing residential neighborhood by providing enhanced landscape buffering and reduced truck traffic in residential streets and collectors. This protection will help preserve the residential quality of the neighborhood to the south while increasing the opportunity for employment. 5. The request does not significantly diminish residential neighborhood development. It in fact helps preserve the existing quality of life and the environment for the residential neighborhood to the south by enhanced landscape buffers and reducing industrial truck traffic in these neighborhoods. HOLADAY -PARKS OFFICE/WAREHOUSE FACILITY COMP PLAN /ZONING CODE AMENDMENT APPLICATION PART III: AMENDMENT CRITERIA Page 1 of 2 6. The requested revisions are best described as adjustments to the boundary between the C/LI and LDR zoning areas. This adjustment was discussed initially during the Last Comprehensive Plan Review. Though there was no specific objections to zoning the properties to C /LI, the City requested a project proposal be submitted for review first. There are no impacts to the functional plan. 7. The development will fund any of its own required street improvements. The change will not impact the capital facilities plan. 8. The change is limited to a boundary adjustment to the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning. The adjustment does not add significantly to the intensity of any land use. The development will be in full compliance with the zoning requiremnts of the re- designation to C/LI zoning. B. ZONING AMENDMENT CRITERIA: 1. The zoning code amendment is being requested together with a Comprehensive Plan Amendment. The requested revisions are best described as adjustments to the boundary between the C/LI and LDR zoning areas. This adjustment was discussed initially during the Last Comprehensive Plan Review. Though there was no specific objections to zoning the properties to C/LI, the City requested a project proposal be submitted for review first. 2. See attached Site Plan HOLADAY -PARKS OFFICE/WAREHOUSE FACILITY COMP PLAN /ZONING CODE AMENDMENT APPLICATION PART III: AMENDMENT CRITERIA Page 2 of 2 ./29/99 13:32 FAI 423 $e9 5922 L.% FIRST AMERICAN TITLE First American Title Insurance Company Regional Commercial Division 21.01 4th Avenue. Suite 800 Seattle, Washington 98121 (206)728-0400 / Fax (206)448 -6248 Toil Free 3- 800 - 826 -7718 COMMERCIAL TITLE OFFICER: LANCE LEWIS COMMERCIAL TITLE OFFICER: MIKE N. COOPER. COMMERCIAL TITLE OFFICER: SHARON CROASDILL FAX NO,: (206) 448 -6248 23002 Order No. 504335 -5K REF: 34803SDI PHONE: (206) 615 -3257 PHONE: (206) 728 -7229 PHONE: (206) 728 -7227 SCHEDULE A 1. Effective date: October 15, 1999 at 7:30 A.M. 2. Owners proposed insured: SHAMROCK ASSOCIATES Lenders proposed insured: TO FOLLOW 3. Policy /policies to be issued: Amount Premium Tax COMMERCIAL RATE Standard Owner's Coverage Extended Mortgagee's Coverage $420,000.00 $1,094.00 $94.08 TO FOLLOW 4. A fee simple interest in the land described in this commitment is vested, at the Commitment date in: ELLING HALVORSON AND BARBARA, HALVORSON, HUSBAND AND WIFE, AS TO PARCELS A AND $; LON A. HALVORSON, AS HIS SEPARATE ESTATE, AS TO AN UNDIVIDED 25% I iTEREST IN PARCEL C; ELLJNG HALVORSON AND BARBARA HALVORSON, HUSBAND AND WIFE, AS TO A LIFE ESTATE AND E. KENT HALVORSON, PRESUMPTIVELY SUBJECT TO THE COMMUNITY INTEREST OF RS SPOUSE IF MARRIED ON JANUARY 13, 1989, LON A. HALVORSON, AS MS SEPARATE ESTATE, AND BRENDA HALVORSON, AS HER SEPARATE ESTATE, AS TO THE REMAINDER, ALL AS TO AN UNDIVIDED 75% INTEREST IN PARCEL C 5. The land referred to in this commitment is described in Schedule A-2, 6. ABBREVIATED LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Tract 14, FOSTORIA GARDEN TRACTS, Vol. 9, P. 95. 7. Tax Account No(s).: 261320 - 0049 -04, 261320-0046 -07, 261320-0050-00 & 261320 - 0051 -09 Page 2 Z00I SMUVd- AVQV'IOH 00L6SPZ XVd 6C :tT 66/6g/TT z rY1 00. (0 (3' u�.w• J =' • w w �. u- < `s a F=- 2 Z �. ,= O Z t— U �. O U. w w: C.), w Z Uc12: 0 Z /20/99 19:97 FAX 425 8a9 5922 FIRST AMERICAN TITLE SCHEDULE A2 DESCRIPTION: PARCEL A: Order No. 504335 -SK THAT PORTION OF TRACT 14 OF FOSTORIA GARDEN TRACTS, ACCORDING TO PLAT RECORDED IN VOLUME 9 OF PLATS AT PAGB(S) 95, IN KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCING AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF SAID TRACT 14; THENCE SOUTHEASTERLY ALONG THE SOUTH MARGIN OF VALLEY STREET 90.94 FEET; THENCE SOUTHWESTERLY ALONG LINE PARALLEL TO THE NORTHWESTERLY BOUNDARY OF SAID TRACT 14 A DISTANCE OF 252 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE SOUTHWESTERLY PARALLEL TO THE NORTHWEST BOUNDARY OF SAID TRACT 14 A DISTANCE OF 220.32 FEET TO THE INTERSECTION OF THE NORTH MARGIN OF FOSTER STREET; THENCE SOUTHEASTERLY ALONG SAID MARGIN 169.8 FEET; THENCE NORTHEASTERLY ALONG LINE COINCIDING WITH THE SOUTHEASTERLY BOUNDARY OF TRACT 14, 235.98 FEET; THENCE NORTHWESTERLY ALONG LINE PARALLEL TO VALLEY STREET 169.06 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; EXCEPT THE SOUTHEASTERLY 70 FEET OF THE NORTHEASTERLY 110 FEET. cooti PARCEL B: THE SOUTHEASTERLY 70 FEET OF THE NORTHEASTERLY 110 FEET OF THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED TRACT: THAT PORTION OF TRACT 14 OF FOSTORIA GARDEN TRACTS, ACCORDING TO PLAT RECORDED IN VOLUME 9 OF PLATS AT PAGE(S) 95, IN KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCING AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF SAID TRACT 14; THENCE SOUTHEASTERLY ALONG THE SOUTH MARGIN OF VALLEY STREET 90.94 FEET; (CONTINUED) Page 3 SMIVd-AVOY70H OOL68PZ XYd 9C :rT 66 /6Z /Ti /29/89 13:37 FAX 425 899 5922 DESCRIPTION CONT. FIRST AMERICAN TITLE 0004 ORDER NO. 504335 -51 THENCE SOUTHWESTERLY ALONG LINE PARALLEL TO THE NORTHWESTERLY BOUNDARY OF SAID TRACT 14 A DISTANCE OF 252 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE SOUTHWESTERLY PARALLEL TO THE NORTHWEST BOUNDARY OF SAID TRACT 14 A DISTANCE OF 220.32 FEET TO THE INTERSECTION OF THE NORTH MARGIN OF FOSTER STREET; THENCE SOUTHEASTERLY ALONG SAID MARGIN 169.8 FEET; THENCE NORTHEASTERLY ALONG LINE COINCIDING WITH THE SOUTHEASTERLY BOUNDARY OF TRACT 14, 235.98 FEET; THENCE NORTHWESTERLY ALONG LINE PARALLEL TO VALLEY STREET 169.06 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING. PARCEL C: THE. NORTHEAST 252 FEET OF THE SOUTHEAST 0.86 ACRES OF TRACT 14 OF FOSTORIA GARDEN TRACTS, ACCORDING TO PLAT RECORDED IN VOLUME 9 OF PLATS AT PAGE(S) 95, IN KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON; EXCEPT THE NORTH 10 FEET OF THE NORTHEAST 119.11 FEET OF THE SOUTHEAST .86 ACRES OF LOT 14_ I'aRe 4 mu-Hanoi{ anon{ 00L69t' XVd 6C :t'T 66/9 /t1 z Z' re�, U O:; NO:. CD In: w= .Luo LL. �y 1- O •Z 1- w w. :Z U iu- z: o 2 0 H • .O z /29/99 13 :37 FAX 425 899 5922 FIRST AMERICAN TITLE @1005 Order No. 504335 -5K SCHE DULE B - SECTION 1 The miaowing requirements must be midi Peprnta to or Liar hike amount of eke Gramm or Mortgagors of tine foil consideration for the sauna or interest to be ittsutv4. 2. proper instrumirnt(ie) crcnting to =tree or interest to be insured roust be mooted and duly Mod for record. Copaolab aul 86881si8i , 1. Thelma tm 'erxtgag.', when used herein, ibatl include deed of trust, trust deed, or other security lad iumct t. 2. if the proposed insured fiat or empires actual htov1ojgo of any defog, lien, eoaumbmocc, adverse claim Or other runner affecting the estate, idrXttett or mortnage thereon emend by this Cammemor other then U osa shown in Schedule B hereof, and shall shit to disclose inch hatwlaiireto the Ceupao} in wrinsy, the Company ship to relieved from liability for any Ices or daase3o Molting trona any act of toilaoec hettott to the Mont t 4* Cwrrdany is pr judiend by failure 1e so disdain .deep knowledge. If the ptoporet Insured than disclose web knowledge to the Company, of It the Company otherwise acquires Mist i knowledge of any such dotirea, Star, eaoumbrrttoe, advetne claim or other matter, Ma Company at in option may emend Schedule B of this Cotnmiaent tcmrd n ty, bul inch amendment tan not regeve rhs Company from I1at itity previously incurred pungent. to parrgraph 3 of these Conditions sad Stipulations. 3. Liability of tare Company under this Cemmirmart run be only to die turned proposed lanced and such panics included tinder the definition of matted in rholbtm o(potiay oe poloira mtnotitted gat and only for aauaI 16u incurred lb rellan.e berms in undertaking in good faith (1) to oerepty rick the toquitagtontt betea4 of (b) to eUnsinata ecngttione shown in Sehedulo 9, or (c) >o acrlulrn or were she Undo of rose est or mortgage tetrad covered by this CoamitmeoL in no evens shall snob i'iabinty mood the sumac stated in dahittt sic A for she policy or polities totortgo d for and such liability is subject to tax Worm provisions, exotosion from coverage, and she Conditions and Stipularions of the (Otto of popsy Or policies oo .ended for In favor of the proposed United Whist ask hereby incorporated by reference sod two made a pets of this Commitment except as a:ptcasly modified herein, 4. Any claim of tom or damag , orhetha( or not based ca negligadx, And whieb arises out of the =MS atilt tiVa W the estate, Itttrtsn or the lien of the Insured mortgage coveted hereby or Any action asserting such claim, shall be mulcted to the provisions and Corntitieas ad I Stipulations of this Commitmr.& Nome: 8(receive Jneuacyr 1, 1fl, bad waist to ant odo►nac at w &Muria State mature relabog to sirtsdatdbtation of recorded doeuoustln, the 'Amin Wrist erns contrast respilemnenbr nuut be Md. Failure 10 comply now emit in aria:to o of the. docnoiarm by the recorder. lldatyists to be 3' on lop of Newt pogo, I` on sides and broom. I" on top, sides and bottom of each weer -ding page. Font ai2e of !! points or larger end prpor size of tie more thin a 112' by 14', No autotuncnts on pogo. such ns stnplcd or taped notary scats; pressure malt roust be smudged. JJvrOIIMATlOI4 ' IM. .•► 1 . ' Y • 1:1 nl: 1' rl.: Title or titlsa of document. If aiigmtwx or reeottveyrncc reference to Auditor's Fia Iswnbcr of subject deed of trust. Names of grantor(*) and grantee(s) with rotettince to additional names on follua+ing pere(s), if ray. I .bbrevisted lager douiptiao (lot. block, plat name or section, townsbip, range gad yoattsr settlan of quartet section for unpinttcd). Assessor's Tax Patter Nttrnb.r(s). Return address, who rosy appear in to upper left band 3' top Margin. Page 5 001.69't Xbd 6c :rT 66 /6t /TT PR.!'M1VTiS9Yy..StA°I". L/29/99 13 :37 FAX 425 889 5832 EIRST AAERICAN TITLE SCHEDULE B - SECTION 2 Order No. 5O433S -5( fat oae net xce one z `~ w 6 -4 C.) A. Taxes or assessments which are not shown as existing liens by the records of U o any taxing authority that levies taxes or assessments on real property or by the W = public records. -J H u, B. Any facts. rights, interest, or claims which are not shown by the public w O records but which could be ascertained by an inspection of said land or by 5 making inquiry of persons in possession thereof. u. ¢. co :. za I-- i Z t•-. t- O. Discrepancies, conflicts in boundary lines, shortage in area, encroachments, or w w any other facts which a correct survey would disclose, and which arc not shown by public records. 0 O o t-- w w: H U. u_ [7; The policy or policies to be issued will contain exceptions to the following unless the same are disposed of to the satisfaction of the Company. C. Easements, claims of easements or encumbrances which are not shown by the public records. E. (a) Unpatented mining claims; (b) Reservations or exceptions in patents or in acts authorizing the issuance thereof; (c) Water rights, claims or title to water, whether or not the matters excepted under (a), (b), or (c) are shown by the public records; (d) Indian tribal codes or regulations, Indian treaty or aboriginal rights, including easements or equitable servitudes. F. Any lien, or right to a lien, for services, labor or material theretofore or hereafter furnished, imposed by law and not shown by the public records. G. Any service, installation, connection, maintenance, construction, tap or reimbursement charges /costs for sewer, water, garbage or electricity. 13. Defects, liens, encumbrances, adverse claims or other matters, if any, created. first appearing in the public records or attaching subsequent to the effective date hereof but prior to the date the proposed insured acquires of record for value the estate, interest or mortgages thereon covered by this commitment. Page 6 sxxva- traVTax 00L89tZ XVd 06: T 88 /8Z /TT wz c.) S12. 0 H O. z /29/99 13:38 FAX 425 869 3822 FIRST AMERICAN TITLE SCHEDULE B - SECTION 2 CONT. SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS Order No 504335 -5K I. LIEN OF THE REAL ESTATE EXCISE SALES TAX AND SURCHARGE UPON ANY SALE OF SAID PREMISES, IF UNPAID. AS OF THE DATE HEREIN, THE EXCISE TAX RATE FOR CITY OF TUKWILA IS 1.78%. LEVY CODE: 2413 2. GENERAL TAXES. APRIL 30'T11. THE OCTOBER 31ST. YEAR: AMOUNT BILLED: AMOUNT PAID: AMOUNT DUE: THE FIRST HALF BECOMES DELINQUENT AFTER SECOND HALF BECOMES DELINQUENT AFTER 1999 52,015.42 51,037.71 51,037.71, PLUS INTEREST AND PENALTY, IF DELINQUENT TAX ACCOUNT NO.: 261320- 00494)4 ASSESSED VALUE OF LAND: ASSESSED VALUE OF IMPROVEMENT: (AS TO PARCEL A) 3. GENERAL TAXES. APRIL 30TH. THE OCTOBER 31ST. YEAR: AMOUNT BILLED: AMOUNT PAID: AMOUNT DUE: $39,000.00 $89,000.00 THE FIRST HALF BECOMES DELINQUENT AFTER SECOND HALF BECOMES DELINQUENT AFTER 1999 5389.83 5194.92 S194.91, PLUS INTEREST AND PENALTY, IP DELINQUENT TAX ACCOUNT NO.: 261320- 0046 -07 ASSESSED VALUE OF LAND: ASSESSED VALUE OF IMPROVEMENT: (AS TO PORTION OF PARCEL B) 4. " GENERAL TAXES. THE FIRST HALF BECOMES DELINQUENT AFTER APRIL 30TH. THE SECOND HALF BECOMES DELINQUENT AFTER OCTOBER 31ST. YEAR: AMOUNT BILLED: AMOUNT PAID AMOUNT DUE: $24,000.00 NONE f aoT TAX ACCOUNT NO,: 1999 5422.25 5211.13 $211.12, PLUS INTEREST AND PENALTY, IF DELINQUENT 261320- 0050-00 Pc7 88 d LOOQt $TIM- AdQd'I01 00L686Z VA T6:6I 66/62/TT - -._ -■- �..r. .....a,..i- .�s.e�- ,�.r..,..,,., .- .41wx,4wRwfwwp.•mf t ,++t titrTt 9Pi crta:+•u.q ■ F 129/99 13 :98 FAX 425 889 5922 FIRST AMERICAN TITLE 900Q) ASSESSED VALUE OF LAND: ASSESSED VALUE OF IMPROVEMENT: (AS TO REMAINDER OF PARCEL B) Order No 504335 -SK $26,000.00 NONE 5. GENERAL TAXES. THE FIRST HALF BECOMES DELINQUENT AFTER APRIL 30TH. THE SECOND HALF BECOMES DELINQUENT AFTER OCTOBER 31ST. YEAR 1999 AMOUNT BILLED: $1,556.78 AMOUNT PAID: $ 778.39 AMOUNT DUE: $ 778.39, PLUS INTEREST AND PENALTY, IF DELINQUENT TAX ACCOUNT NO.: 261320-003109 ASSESSED VALUE OF LAND: $33,000.00 ASSESSED VALUE OF IMPROVEMENT: $63,000.00 (AS TO PARCEL C) 6. DEED OF TRUST GRANTOR: TRUSTEE: BENEFICIARY: AND THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS THEREOF: LON A. HALVORSON AND LEZLIE L. HALVORSON, HUSBAND AND WIFE, AS TO AN IJNDIVUIED 25% INTEREST; RUING B. HALVORSON AND BARBARA J. HALVORSON, HUSBAND AND WIFE, AS LIFE TENANTS, AND E_ KENT EALVOI:SON, AS HIS SEPARATE PROPERTY, LON A. HALVORSON, AS HIS SEPARATE PROPERTY, BRENDA HALVORSON, A SINGLE PERSON, AS TENANTS IN COMMON AS REMA NDERMEN, AS TO AN UNDIVIDED 7$96 INTEREST AS TENANTS IN COMMON FIRST AMERICAN TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY, A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION THEORDORE L. LINDE AND PATRICE E. LINDE, HUSBAND AND WIFE $54,375.00 JANUARY 3, 1989 JANUARY 13, 1989 8901130955 AMOUNT: DATED: RECORDED: RECORDING NO.: (AS TO PARCEL C) 7. MATTERS REGARDING EXTENDED COVERAGE FOR THE MORTGAGEE'S POLICY WHICH ARE DEPENDENT UPON Pap 8 S?Iavd- Avay'IOH (it 008 00L69p2 XVd TP :bT 68/82/TT '4! z 2 6 0 o W W; U) w. wO 2 LL. < d. 2w Z �. I- O Z LU 'O U: o1.- w W; 2 -- O • Z' U• 0 z /29/99 13:38 FAX 425 8A9 5922 FIRST AMERICAN TITLE 0009 Order No. 504335-5K INSPECTION FOR. DETERMINATION OF INSURABILITY. THE RESULTS OF OUR INSPECTION WILL BE EURNISI-LED BY SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT. ADDRESS OF PROPERTY: TO BE VERIFD 8. UNRECORDED LEASEHOLDS ANT) itiGHT OF T l Ai T S, it ANY. 9. ACCORDING TO THE APPLICATION FOR TITLE INSURANCE, TITLE IS TO VEST IN SHAMROCK ASSOCIATES. WE ARE UNABLE TO DETERMINE THE NATURE OF SAID ENTITY AND REQUIRE FURTHER INFORMATION PRIOR TO CLOSING. (A CERTIFICATE OF INCORPORATION IS NOT CURRENTLY ON FILE WITH THE SECRETARY OF STATE.) 10. EASEMENT, INCLUDING TERMS AND PROVISIONS CONTAINED THEREIN: RECORDED: MAY 19, 1977 RECORDING NO.: 7705190562 IN FAVOR OF: VAL VUE SEWER DISTRICT FOR: SEWER PIPELINE AFFECTS: THE NORTHEASTERLY 10 FEET AND THE NORTHWESTERLY 20 FEET OF THE SOUTHWESTERLY 20 FEET OF THE NORTHEASTERLY 30 FEET OF PARCEL A 11. CONDITIONS, NOTES AND PROVISIONS CONTAINED AND /OR DELINEATED ON THE FACE OF THE SURVEY RECORDED UNDER KING COUNTY RECORDING NO. 8409259003. 12. EASEMENT, INCLUDING TERMS AND PROVISIONS CONTAINED THEREIN: RECORDED: FEBRUARY 26, 1988 RECORDING NO.: 8802260529 IN FAVOR OF: CITY OF TUKWILA FOR: PUBLIC PURPOSES AFFECTS: THE NORTH 15 FEET OF PARCEL C ADJACENT TO SOUTH 134TH PLACE NOTES: A. "The Company expressly disclaims any liability resulting from date field related computer processing errors,including without liunitation, "Year 2000" errors, of third parties upon whom the Company depends in processing Patio 9 SNIVd- AVQV'IOH 00L6StZ Xdd Z' 'T 66 /6Z /TT Loos 13:38 FAIL 425 859 5922 FIRST ,AMERICAN ^TITLE o10 Order No. 504335 -SK information necessary to act as the settlement agent and /or insure the transaction. This Note is for information purposes only; it will not be carried over into any title policy and will not be construed in any way to modify or limit any policy which is issued pursuant to this Commitment." 13. Mee will be charged 1nsurapnce Code cancellation of this filed Ratc Schedule of pursuant he Company. Washington State C_ An abbreviated legal description is required tbrs the page of all .documents tQr if to be legal description Is NQ3 contained on the pag recorded. PS /ejb cc: FLUNG HALVORSON, INC. 12515 WILLOWS RD. NE SUITE 200 KIRKLAND, WA 98034 ATTN: VGOLLE'IT cc: SHAMROCK LSOCTATES PO BOX 69203 SEATTLE, WA 98168 ATTN: DAVID PARKS Page 10 SMHVa- AVQV'IOH 00L681Z XVd 26:6T 66 /6Z /TT /29/99 13:39 FAX 425 889 5922 .�==ig==== ----ti swum : skis skisch is A+roiskad as a oouA.at Ng, %I Fog Aiectic I le Ittititaaits Cavan aa+d it is tar a pan o[ a►Y titan motes/at at ?dig of lilts is osntrs. kitten* u Assaislced smoky for du pow. of asolaies it *log tbettsasissacasol fiats.s:tpstcpsrt soaker* Al Weimer. ums, M esssesaaats: altdttog sboptepaRX- No tdiaocs timid passed um* tiit *arch tat Osa iotslio.errmsooas.1tba overly Nadia tiabitiry is swami tar tbt sserapea tbersof. I FIRST AMERICAN TITLE ORDER SU DMS1 RODS. NO./VOL & PG. QTR AVG. SEC ,LS ¶WNSHP �i,AJ Awl �1 50133.5 011 SN 1Yd- AVIWICH 00L686ZL'Hd Ct :6T '29/99 13:39 FAX 425 889 5922 rm No. 17CS L/ mmitrn.nt, Condition end Stiwtlation. FIRST AMER/CAN'TITLE COMMITMENT Conditions and Stipulations X012 The term ''mortgage," whin used herein, shall include tied of trust, trust deed, or other security instrument. if the proposed insured has or *squires actual knowledge of any detect, lien, encumbrance, adverse debt or other matter effecting the estate or interest or marblepe thereon covered by this Commitment other than those shown in Schedule 9 hereof, and shall fail to disclose such knowledge to the Company in writing. the Conrpanv shall be relieved from liability for any lose or damage resulting from any act of reliance hereon to the extent the Comprytty is prejudiced by failure to so disclose such knowledge. If the proposed Insured shall disclose such knowledge to the Company, or if the Company otherwise acquires actual knowledge of any such defect, lien, encumbrance, adverse claim mother matter, the Company at its notion may amend Schedule 9 of this Commitment accordingly, but such intendment shall net relieve the Company from liability previously Incurred pursuant to paragraph 3 of shwa Conditions and Stipulations. Liiability of the Company under this Commitment shun be only to the named proposed insured and such parties included under the definition of insured in the form of policy or policies committed for and only for actual loss incurred in reliant,. hereon in undertaking in good faith (a) to comply Math the requirements hereof. or (b) to eliminate exceptions shown ih Schedule @, or (c) to acquire or create the estate of intermit or mongage thereon covered by this Commitment. In no went shell such liability exceed the amount stated in Schedule A for the policy or policies committed for and such liability le subject to the Insuring provisions, exclusion from coverage, and the Conditions and Stipulations of the form of policy or policies committed for in favor of the proposed Insured which are hereby incorporated by reference And are made a pan of this Commitment except is expressly modified herein. Any claim of toss or damage, whether or not based on negligence, and which arises out of the slaws of the title TO the meats or interact or the lien of the insured mangage covered heresy or any action asserting such daim. Shell be restricitd to the provisions and renditions and stipulations of thIs Commitment. ZTOaj • Imo r, Raj_ Refs S}ItiVd- LVQY'Iofi 002,69tZ XV,d itb:Ot 66 /6Z /TT CITY OF TUKWILA Department of Community Development 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Tukwila, WA 98188 Telephone: (206) 431 -3670 Comprehensive Plan/Zoning Code Amendment Application Checklist The materials listed below must be submitted with your application unless specifically waived in wilting by the Department. Please contact the Department if you feel certain items are not applicable to your project and should be waived. Application review will not begin until it is determined to be complete. The initial application materials allow starting project review and vesting the applicant's rights. However, they in no way limit the City's ability to require additional information as needed to establish consistency with development standards. Department staff are available to answer questions about application materials at 206 -431 -3670. APPLICATION FORMS: Application Checklist (1 copy), indicating items submitted with application Pr Comprehensive Plan/Zoning Code Amendment Application (8 copies) ❑ Comprehensive Plan Amendment Fee ($700) ❑ Zoning Code Amendment Fee ($700) PLANS [Eight (8) copies of the following]: gr Vicinity map showing location of the site. th4F') (661?-k061.116qd% For proposed changes to land use designations or rezones, also include the following: Site plan at a scale of 1".20' or 1".30', with north arrow, graphic scale, and date; and the license stamp of the architect and landscape architect. The following information must be contained on the plan: O Property lines and dimensions, lot size(s) and names of adjacent streets O Location and gross floor area of existing and proposed structures with setbacks O Location of driveways, parking, loading, and service areas, with parking calculations and location and type of dumpster /recycling area screening O Location and classification of any watercourses or wetlands, limit of 200' Shoreline Overlay District O Existing and proposed grades at min. 5' contours, extending at least 5' beyond the site's boundaries, with a notation of the slope of areas in excess of 20 %. Air topography data from the Public Works Department may be used if reasonably accurate 3/96 ?"s"t�'; O Other relevar , 'uctures or features, such as rocke'', --- fences' O Location of closest existing fire hydrant; location /type _ utility lines; description of water and sewer availability O Location and dimensions of existing and proposed easements and dedications (e.g. open space, streets, sidewalks or utilities) O Development area coverage (max. allowable = 50 %) for multi - family proposals. APPLICANT'S RESPONSE TO AMENDMENT /REZONE CRITERIA, IMPACTS & ALTERNATIVES (See Comprehensive Plan/Zoning Code Amendment Application) ❑ OTHER MATERIALS Other documentation in support of the proposal may be included as appropriate, such as studies or recommendations that support the proposed change, color renderings, economic analyses, photos or materials sample board. If other materials are to be considered with the application, eight (8) copies of each must be submitted (except materials sample board). Color drawings or photos may be submitted as 8.5 x 11 -inch color photocopies.�� PUBLIC NOTICE: King County Assessor's map(s) which shows the location of each property within 500 feet of the subject property (see attached "Address Label Requirements "). .1� Two (2) sets of mailing labels for all property owners and tenants (businesses and residents) within 500 feet of the subject property. (Note: Each unit in multiple - family buildings - -e.g. apartments, condos, trailer parks- -must be included.) See Attachment A. ❑ A 4' x 4' public notice board will be required on site within 14 days of filing a complete application. See Attachment B. z • _I ' w ce g 6 '0 0: ww: w =: Ww w0 ga cn Cf: w z�, Z O' 2 D0 0 •ww •1- 0 O. z w 0z 0 ~: z CITY OF TUKWILA Department of Community Development 6300 Soutlrcenter Boulevard, Tukwila, WA 98188 Telephone: (206) 431 -3670 FAX (206) 431 -3665 E -mail: tukplan cr,ci.tukwila.wa.us AFFIDAVIT OF OWNERSHIP AND HOLD HARMLESS PERMISSION TO ENTER PROPERTY STATE OF WASHINGTON COUNTY OF KING The undersigned being duly sworn and upon oath states as follows: I. I am the current owner of the property which is the subject of this application. 2. All statements contained in the applications have been prepared by Inc or my agents and are true and correct to the best of my knowledge. 3. The application is being submitted with my knowledge and consent, 4, Owner grants the City, its employees, agents, engineers, contractors or other repr senta ryes he right t e ter upon Owner's re l property, located at 4 "3rit• 6 . 13S�(, sr 'ice 4. 'L ft-� , A.1 4. Oc5o ss for the purpose of application review, for the limited time necessary to complete that purpose. 5. Owner agrees to hold the City harmless for any loss or damage to persons or property occurring on the private property during the City's entry upon the property, unless the loss or damage is the result of the sole negligence of the City. 6. The City shall, at its discretion , cancel the application without refund of fees, if the applicant does not respond to specific requests for items on the "Complete Application Checklist" within ninety (90) days. 7. Non - responsiveness to a City information request for ninety (90) or more days, shall be cause to cancel the application(s) without refund of fees. EXECUTED at fl 'Irk rk /GL/)d (city), IA (state), on De e c m b e r o?D, / 1991 • HWiting alvorson (Print Name) c % 5 Ili/Wows Pe Ng o 1'irkIG wR , (Address) 4,25- Sao -88'oo (Phone Nu 9036' (Si 'nature) On this day personally appeared before Inc Ell i nal Hal vo rson to me known to be the individual who executed the foregoing instrument and acknowledged that lie /she signed the same as his /her voluntary act and deed for the uses and purposes mentioned therein. SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO BEFORE ME ON THIS a0 4.h DAY OF De e e m be r \ A • is d IA ....1),••• 10- 01-02••.• ,■ 4• •••• e•• ♦ .,e o ;w `sOso• G: MPPtiANLANDUSE.APPICOMPAPP.DOC, 10/23/99 , 1999 NO' Alc in n for th State o Washin_ton residing at a 'i i /A My Commission expires on / !O l Jaz, rew..,... - - ■ mr— �"w[ tzna+tc^rYrnnm�ltxr,"�r co. INFOPAC PAGE: 17,150 JOB PAM200 REPORT PAM20030 -02 TAXPAYER HALVORSON E B KING COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF ASSESSMENTS PARCEL NUMBERS BY TAXPAYER NAME CITY OF TUKWILA HALVORSON E B HALVORSON E B HALVORSON;;ELLING ±BARBARA =HALVORSON"ELLING +BARBARA HALVORSON!'ELLING +BARBARA 4, �.1, nc .v ♦.. ..i i.::P.rcr.ls 4'r ,„„pyokSON;lON''A ±LESLIE L HAM NOAH HAMASAKI NOBUYOSHI HAMASAKI NOBUYOSHI HAMILTON BURL HAMILTON JAMES C HAMILTON JERRY A • HAMMOND WAYNE S HAMMONS JOHN L JR HAMPTON LIONEL A SR HAN BONG YEO HAN SUNG IN HANCOCK JAMES J PAGE 105 DATE 07/04/99 PARCEL - NUMBER SITUS ADDRESS / QTR- SEC- TWP -RGE 261320- 0042-0 4611 S 134TH PL LOT: 14 -15 BLOCK: PLAT: FOSTORIA GARDEN TRS 261320- 0047 -0 .0 LOT: 14 BLOCK: PLAT: FOSTORIA GARDEN TRS 261320 - 0048 -0 0 LOT: 14 BLOCK: PLAT: FOSTORIA GARDEN TRS 26,1320- 00.46;- 0 =:.;; 0 LOT '14;:.. ",.- BLOCK: PLAT: FOSTORIA GARDEN TRS t.261.32a0049 0;' ?'; 4534 S 135TH ST LOT: 14 BLOCK: PLAT: FOSTORIA GARDEN TRS ";261320-0059. -01. 0 LOT: 14 .. BLOCK: PLAT: FOSTORIA GARDEN TRS 2.70320=0Q5EO 4625 S 134TH ST LOT: 14 BLOCK: PLAT: FOSTORIA GARDEN TRS 814140 - 1010-0 15100 SUNW000 BL LOT: UNIT 33 BLOCK: AA PLAT:' SUNWOOD PHASE I 032304 - 9200 -0 10215 BEACON AV S 002304- 9234 -0 10225 BEACON AV. S 192250 - 0020 -0 16032. 46TH AV S LOT: 2 BLOCK: PLAT: DAWN VIEW ADD NE- 15 -23 -4 NE- 15 -23 -4 NE- 15 -23 -4 NE- 15 -23 -4 NE- 15 -23 -4 NE- 15 -23 -4 NE- 15 -23 -4 SE- 23 -23 -4 SE-3 -23 -4 SE -3 -23-4' NE- 27 -23 -4 336590-0510 -0 ,5624 S 147TH ST LOT: 18 BLOCK: 5 NW- 23 -23 -4 PLAT: HILLMANS SEATTLE: GARDEN TRACTS 336590-0010-0 0' LOT: 2 & 17 BLOCK: 1 NW- 23 -23 -4 PLAT: HILLMANS SEATTLE GARDEN TRACTS 941500 - 0080 -0 3211 S 142ND PL LOT: 8 BLOCK: PLAT: WILDWOOD TERRACE ADD 814140 - 1300-0 15100 SUNWOOD BL LOT: UNIT 31 BLOCK: EE PLAT: SUNWOOD PHASE I 7360600370-0 13727 42ND AV S LOT: 14 BLOCK: 6 PLAT: ROBBINS VIEW TR ADD TO SW- 15 -23 -4 SE- 23 -23 -4 SW- 15 -23 -4 RIVERTON 669850- 0280 -0 15310 MACADAM RD S LOT: UNIT B -404 BLOCK: B PLAT: PEAKS AT TUKWILA THE 788895 - 0210 -0 15210 MACADAM RD S LOT: UNIT D -208 BLOCK: BLD D PLAT: SOUTHCENTER VIEW 177050 - 0130-0 15344 62ND AV S LOT: UNIT 6 BLOCK: BLD B PLAT: COTTAGE CREEK SW -23 -23-4 SW- 23 -23 -4 SE -23 -23-4 INFOPAC PAGE: 8,062 JOB PAM200 KING COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF ASSESSMENTS PAGE 197 REPORT PAM20020 -02 PARCEL NUMBERS BY STREET NAME DATE 07/04/99 CITY OF TUKWILA SITUS ADDRESS 4501 S 134TH 4550 S 134TH 4550 S 134TH 4585 S 134TH 4601. S 134TH 4610..: 4611 S 134TH 134TH, '195,73i 4650 S .•134TH 4650' , S 134TH 4712 S 134TH 13324 5 134TH 13326 _S 134TH 13328 S 134TH 13330 S 134TH 13332 S 134TH 2919 S 135TH • 2920 S 135TH PARCEL - NUMBER TAXPAYER /QTR-SEC- TWP-RGE PL 261320- 0045 -0 CITY OF TUKWILA LOT:15 BLK: NE- 15 -23 -4 PLAT:FOSTORIA GARDEN TRS ST . 261320 - 0005 -9 PACIFIC NW IRONWORKERS &E LOT:6 & BLK: NE-15 -23 -4 PLAT:FOSTORIA GARDEN TRS ' ST 261320-0005 -0 PACIFIC NW IRONWORKERS &E LOT:6 & BLK: NE- 15 -23 -4 PLAT:FOSTORIA GARDEN TRS PL 261320- 0055 -0 CARDINAL KELLIE & RALPH LOT:14 -15 BLK: NE- 15 -23 -4 PLAT:FOSTORIA GARDEN TRS PL 261320 - 0043 -0 JOLLY FAMILY PROPERTIES LOT:15 BLK: NE-15 -23 =4 PLAT:FOSTORIA GARDEN TRS STS:. 261660-0045-0 .PARKS JR GERALD T +ETAL LOT:10 -11 BLK:1 & NE- 15 -23 -4 PLAT:FOSTORIA GARDEN TRS SUBDIV 'PL •' 261320-0042 -0 HALVORSON E B LOT::14 -15 BLK: NE-.15 -23 -4 PLAT.:FOSTORIA GARDEN TRS STS 261660- 0040 -0 PARKS JR GERALD T +ETAL LOT:10 -11 • BLK:1 & NE-15 -23 -4 PLA.T:FOSTORIA GARDEN TRS SUBDIV ST!261320- 0051; -0:` HALVORSON LON A +LESLIE L ...- LOT: 14::.:,,.,__ ...,,._.,.•.,.� BLK: NE- 15 -23 -4 PLAT:FOSTORIA GARDEN TRS ST.. - :261660-0030 -0. PARKS JR GERALD T +ETAL LOT :.7 -8 BLK:i & NE- 15 -23 -4 PLAT:FOSTORIA "GARDEN TRS SUBDIV :PL "26.1660- 0035- 0•rPARKS GERALD T JR +ETAL LOT:9 BLK:1'& NE- 15 -23 -4 PLAT:FOSTORIA ,GARDEN TRS SUBDIV _ST...:261660-0071-O SCHWEIGER ERIC M LOT:1 -2 BLK:3 NE- 15 -23 -4 PLAT:FOSTORIA-GARDEN TRS SUBDIV ST ..:.734660-0137 -0 ENGLISH DOROTHY M LOT:3 BLK:4 NE- 16 -23 -4 PLAT :RIVERTON ACRE TRS ST 734660- 0140 -0 SKOGLUND CHARLES +DEBRA LOT:3 BLK:4 NE-16 -23 -4 PLAT:RIVERTON ACRE TRS ST 734660- 0141 -0 WILEY•ROBERT A &CANDIS L LOT:3 & 6 . . • BLK:4 NE- 16 -23 -4 PLAT:RIVERTON ACRE TRS ST 734660 - 0127 -0 ELLIS BRIAN K LOT:2 TO 6 BLK:4 NE- 16 -23 -4 PLAT:RIVERTON ACRE TRS ST 734660 - 0129 -0 LITTLE JANICE V LOT:2 -3 BLK:4 NE-16 -23 -4 PLAT:RIVERTON ACRE TRS ST 734660- 0032 -0 WILLIAMS JOHN F LOT:2 BLK:2 NE-16 -23 -4 PLAT:RIVERTON ACRE TRS ST 734660 - 0115-0 UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA LOT:1 BLK:4 NE- 16 -23 -4 PLAT:RIVERTON ACRE TRS Z W 6 • 00 N W'= • N u_. WO La w =a I- _. •Z F- 0 Z 1- 0 0 -. 0 F- Ill W • 1--U • u.0. .Z W O� Z INFOPAC PAGE: 17,255 JOB PAM200 REPORT PAM20030 -02 TAXPAYER PARK EAST BUILDING INC PARKER BEVERLY PARKER BRIAN L PARKER GORDON A PARKER TIMOTHY C PARKS:GERALD T JR +ETAL :,PARKS i1R .GERALD ,.T +ETAL PARKS JR.GERALD T +ETAL. PARKS:JR GERALDT +ETAL KING.COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF ASSESSMENTS PARCEL NUMBERS BY TAXPAYER NAME CITY OF TUKWILA PARKS RALEIGH .G PARKWAY PLAZA SC - NORTH PARMELE JEAN M PARR R PARRIOTT MARK T PARRIS STEPHEN A PARRISH MARIE MCGIBBON PARRY MICHAEL L +DONNA M PARSHALL NOEL J PARSLEY KATHLEEN J PAGE 210 DATE 07/04/99 PARCEL - NUMBER SITUS ADDRESS / QTR - SEC - TWP-RGE 022310 - 0040 -0 130 ANDOVER PW E LOT: 4 -5 BLOCK: NE- 26 -23 -4 PLAT: ANDOVER INDUSTRIAL PARK NO. 02 884970-0070 -0 16211 49TH AV S LOT: 7 BLOCK: NE- 27-23 -4 PLAT: VALBORG HEIGHTS 735860 - 0180 -0 13317 35TH AV S, LOT: 21 BLOCK: 3 NW- 15 -23 -4 PLAT:•ROBBINS ORCHARD ADD TO RIVERTON 004200 - 0390 -0 4801 S 150TH ST LOT: 6 BLOCK: 4 NE- 22 -23 -4 PLAT: ADAMS HOME TRS 2ND ADD 336590- 0575 -0 14424 57TH AV S • LOT: 12 BLOCK: 6 NW- 2:3 -23 -4 PLAT: HILLMANS SEATTLE GARDEN TRACTS 261660- 0035-0 4650 S 134TH PL LOT: 9 BLOCK: 1 & PLAT: FOSTORIA GARDEN TRS SUBDIV 261660- 0030 -0 4650 S 134TH ST LOT: 7 -8 ' BLOCK: 1 & PLAT: FOSTORIA GARDEN TRS SUBDIV 261660-0040 -0. 4620 S 134TH ST S LOT: 10 -11 BLOCK: 1 & PLAT: FOSTORIA GARDEN TRS SUBDIV NE- 15 -23 -4 NE-15-2374. NE- 15 -23 -4 261660 - 0045-0 4610 S 134TH ST S LOT: 10 -11. BLOCK: 1 & NE- 15 -23 -4 PLAT: FOSTORIA GARDEN TRS SUBDIV 162304- 9222 -0 .13618 MILITARY RD S SE- 16 -23 -4 262304- 9126 -0 17080 ANDOVER PARK VAC W • SE- 26 -23 -4 ,004300 - 0219 -0 15401 S 42ND AV 5 LOT.: 2'&.6. : BLOCK: 3 SW- 22 -23 -4 PLAT: ADAMS HOME TRS 3RD ADD 941500-0020 -0 3208 S 142ND PL • LOT: 2: ," BLOCK: SW- 15 -23 -4 PLAT: WILDWOOD TERRACE ADD 537980 - 0308 -0 4907 S 161ST ST LOT: 19 BLOCK: 5 NE- 27 -23 -4 •- PLAT: MC MICKEN HEIGHTS DIV NO. 02 192080 - 0035 -0 13027 40TH AV S LOT:' 7 •. • BLOCK: A NW- 15 -23 -4 PLAT: DAVIS REPLAT TRACT NO. 54 RIVERSIDE TR 941260- 0070-0 14120 34TH AV S BLOCK: PLAT:- WILDWOOD COURT ADD 186520 - 0300 -0 15310 SUNWOOD BL LOT: UNIT A -202 BLOCK: PLAT: CRYSTAL RIDGE SW- 15 -23 -4 SE-23 -23 -4 359700 - 0122 -0 14935 62ND AV S LOT: 7 BLOCK: • NE- 23 -23 -4 PLAT: INTERURBAN ADD TO SEATTLE 873300-0077 -0 0 LOT: 1 - BLOCK: 3 NW- 23 -23 -4 PLAT: TYLERS- STELLA A 1ST TO STERLING .,.«,..•..+�.«�w.+: ,rwExxvrnset ±lAt3±�43��t s' 4UMtma__ INFOPAC'PAGE: 8,064 JOB PAM200 KING COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF ASSESSMENTS REPORT PAM20020 -02 PARCEL NUMBERS BY STREET NAME CITY OF TUKWILA PAGE 199 DATE 07/04/99 SITUS ADDRESS PARCEL — NUMBER TAXPAYER /QTR— SEC— TWP —RGE 3224 S 135TH ST 152304- 9189 -0 GROSS D J NW- 15 -23 -4 3229 S 135TH ST 886400-0235 -0 FRANCIS LINDA L +LOVELL,B LOT:7 BLK:3 NW -15 -23-4 PLAT:VAL —VUE ADD 3235 S 135TH ST 152304 - 9099 -0 LOVELL BEN F +LINDA L NW- 15 -23 -4 • 3236 S 135TH ST 152304 - 9093 -0 KIRKLAND WILLIAM H NW -15 -23-4 3240 S 135TH ST 152304- 9234 -0 TANG NGA T NW- 15 -23 -4 3241 S 135TH ST 152304 - 9087 -0 BAUMGART FREDRICK +ROXANN ,NW -15 -23=4 3249 S 135TH ST 152304 - 9090 -0 MCCAMISH KEITH P +BARBARA NW- 15 -23 =4 3250 S 135TH ST 152304 - 9138 -0 CHASE MANHATTAN MTG CORP NW -15 -23-4 . 3406 S 135TH ST 735860 - 0135 -0 STROM GERD J +HEIDI L ET LOT:12 • BLK:3 . PLAT:ROBBINS ORCHARD ADD T RIVERTON • 4343 • S 135TH 4345 S 135TH 4425 S 135TH 4433 S 135TH 4515 S 135TH 4521 S 135TH 4534tiW ;,�G• >Sa7705TIi • 4561 S 135TH 3203 S 136TH 3206 S 136TH 3207 S 136TH 3212 S 136T1O • ST 261320 - 0170 -0 EATMON BETTY GERALDINE LOT:20 BLK: NE- 15 -23 -4 PLAT:FOSTORIA GARDEN TRS ST 261320 - 0171 -0 HUNTER GORDON R & SYLVIA LOT:20 BLK: NE- 15 -23 -4 PLAT:FOSTORIA GARDEN TRS ST 261320 - 0178 -0 W C HALL LIVING TRUST .. LOT:20 BLK: NE- 15 -23 -4 PLAT:FOSTORIA GARDEN. TRS ST 261320 - 0176 -0 SHAWLEY DALE A LOT:20 BLK: NE -15 -23-4 PLAT:FOSTORIA GARDEN TRS ST 261320- 0174 -0 MERKLE ROBERT A LOT:20 BLK: NE- 15 -23 -4 PLAT:FOSTORIA.GARDEN TRS ST '261320- 0182 -0 PRITCHETT WINFRED LOT:20 BLK: • NE- 15 -23 -4 PLAT:FOSTORIA GARDEN TRS 261320 790490`�HALVORSON ELLING +BARBARA LOT`" 14 ` :.:............._r.....,,...., BLK: NE- 15 -23 -4 PLAT:FOSTORIA GARDEN TRS ST 261320- 0177 -0 STENSENG FLORENCE G LOT :20 BLK: NE- 15 -23 -4 PLAT:FOSTORIA GARDEN TRS ST 886400 - 0280 -0 WOLD JOEL D +LAVITA E LOT:1 BLK:4 SW- 15 -23 -4 PLAT:VAL —VUE ADD ST 886400- 0215 -0 THOMAS BERNIECE LOT:3 BLK:3 NW-15 -23 -4 PLAT:VAL —VUE ADD ST- 886400- 0285 -0 YOSOFI BASIR A +ZOHRA RAH LOT:2 BLK:4 SW -15 -23-4 PLAT:VAL —VUE ADD 'ST 886400- 0275 -0 KROUSE ROBERTA L LOT:15 BLK:3 NW -15 -23-4 -�LAT ,VA L, -VUE ADD ,,,,.,,�..�,_ __—,..., va.. �a.. �,., n. ��.. �:,., ��� ..���n��,,..,...•— ...., —._... A • Campbell /Nixon • & Associates JOB SUBJECT SHT Architects and Planners PREPARED BY DATE G GU De-x/1- tr /2-6--5/1,61v /;r C G = Cvii)46i1G< U - 7- 4 4- Lr�tit/A'/%fr - e cdf w oif ,?-exir 1 r .6T- at/ TT 4v . i� • .S v /2-11-0 U/vVi/1/ ST/Z-6-6- 7 Sy s-- T6'fn s A-C 7`c =1--/ 44- / V S / U U 2- p A Cif /L G",40 &, •ZJE 7/-f6; T w0 6.1j R. noont7 -rIcj' 7V c/ I rk/ / nil ,4 CCM)TJ va /J 57-71,/}-t5 6'-r GbU e: so v7-7.11/2_6y $0V A✓,13 y W ITII A / S FT. 77/, E' . GA-,v.DSG G` gUF- / A-c,on; Q eiV77, So . /PAP, G /ic/_. 6 4 S7 c f W6-,r7 # Ri ' Of= f P6iL7y waIJGD Tile-4) /11,4-7-c /4-- ii $C- ,4-C 9r •ve-D - 7-WI-C CGOceJ^ rain .4' pA i1- k / tiGl ,i-6- O)tJ NA.A- p,-/e/ /2-o, 1 We UGv /2- 6-QU /,G A L /rH/ rev ,4-4t ocJ'vT-- 0 f G°A2t_ 77t4,dl- re; G �v T crit cif G-KI T 0,f-,- 0E- N4 4-v /4x - safrrC T/t-A -f-Fcc. / 41,0,4--r c.)-A/ /l/FGf{ -Ds� /f # 7 -/a -V e ( SO q- s..4-/w6 '+S /, c k c '-- T/� -l-j ,4 c evTtiy 7 C /T- a/c- 77Z-'# -/='/c Lr/n26., F 0/`f= o, So. /3f---E# J/ w • io exrre y o._ c- i �a t-r , A-o (e- iT7 e 0.t., //CJ /M 1OM T Oti fsK d4-r7A -N /� 7 : - SGfie Co 0G0 A -GCiw r---07L Tvtixv -avT A-, e -A- Prig-- S%' B r o,:- /lie-Ma 7�invSir- A-ca,tig in s- tiA -.+1 j • C c —.-I(G 2 o ti //v' ,-S 1 / / S/ ,t) E V O,0 a/ n-rey cr. C /L/ /7F //c/TG A- cot mof / ec.K, oXJ A-- s i xy rco,a6.0 s/ re- k A-GL f r' /aA- i ti- q TI-'C Ti-ArFP c -6.---4/7-c- 4,9 Of-c U ,F.-t, (fioc& tid CO.vit, e-c-i't dt/ SG, / 3 - S/`/L6-e- r/ AIA-.To/C_. / /mot 1.4----- cicJ N4,44-41 rg T'4` A-ve, ca., 46 Z -o/ue- C- Tei1 -e7 G 0X- 2�/v� 70 C/ / .SU 7��T T/-t W c�Te-2 Ly ay is /,v• C G / 2-0'Aie / S tia T- S 066-Q ' .0E f eAJQ6NT cJ4) AC,4 4/V A0,± 2 F/L / FS / 4 1 % fi - e - S S (5o/6 T / L A f= /c /M',17 ow N kr_A- a /.v! e .54-g r A-Y6, So, 3, TYPE I LANDSCAPE ADJACENT ZCNNSre C4.1 T I 19 Al -11. PA .4. -I I I Itt. I l!t,, 411r#-'11-1112*41 --1-11h" Priic .:4"71 r w Iv k ■ IAN 11117 a' Mt OP- at- ATI AmPte. tozsaa:M.1:64.-APaa2ziatar;&6-c6-7vaira WAIN. 411b, 41■_ 411W 4INS' '411INV 'NUE' wiwt--"_•±.1tz—t.trir-a-nr.4....r.4.1.-■ "Zirrili7'4117■17V1FAU ADJACENT ZONINDI CalMERICAL/LIGNT INDUSTRIAL LANDSCAPE TYPE -0 stkaitiatittfAAkilisrailigatirabritteeibisargararatembralteivearemitalremikareag Vrelaridp2WANNIVIIrprAlrelAVAMISIMErySIAWINSMIV IZIMAIMINVIffirTFA1111001.MMIKOMPURNIAIVAMINMA ADJACENT 7.0241142o LDR LOW DENSITY RESIDENTAL 1= A • io 2 /0 LANDSCAPE TYPE r 1-r • Ve -4- • . et. .1. r"- z z re W. 6 O 0• Cl • W W (i) w 0 • < — es w Z I- 0 Z F- LU uj E , 0 -, co 11.1 • W ° g Z 17- O I- ADJACENT ZONING* CAI COMMERICAL/LIGHT INDUSTRIAL N 4144'58" E 150.75' L I: .L I.E. . .I :I: ;L' , • .x, • .I�� (:III jj� I0 1. __ __ 'INGRESS / EGRESS EASEMENT 0 L ...mom... 7 W 70.41r te' __.� ADJACENT ZONING, CAI COMMERICAL/LIGHT INDUSTRIAL MD O. 411M 111”1.1■111•10 OM ON AI►a e •o c? AIlrc) • AA • oo() • QA ••••0 1A. a// 4i n:I J.LI, ark!, 41'44'57 E 119.11 LDR ZONING 1C) IQP07 LDR ZONING O to 1 S 41'44'57" W 165.51' MID 4= 1 QA () !AQ !!tefk •4 * () A.00AAQ(AA1►0Aoe, d. • ADJACENT ZONING* LDR LOW DENSITY RESIDENTAL SETI PI AN WIT! 10 S 41'44'57" W 252.00 R /ON E P -U t T' • r L 1 g rne+wer.n.:..e.nw.. If" z �%,: i;S-i ;'c1, 1(I��bV'rl� �il�.yJ�//�6i nab ;;Vt.,-.7-1;',74v1;,, 9r. 17 6F 1 k 11117 1F swc.a:=c a t 5t 7 •u • v .. "-i nP,47 -, D1S1►IA. %4j 1 g ,or vw �r io► .u. if 5"-te" 0/ / 041 • �"I:1 1.'tegKria rA1 C� 34'''10 L5 (!A Ore lr.AA � .'4. UAZ I��CII� O WAN/ ANiik1 '3.17.190,PayorAYASreNwlv.` !',Citi ►,w1AI: tell Leis► �U•^. GG,;•L g '.74.01u/.fL:�:L.�//kw�mimr•vmm m•ieue&.mmm mwarim 1l CODE DATA: TAX ACCOUNTS: 26I320 -0046 261320 -0049 261320 -0050 261320 -0051 PARKING PROVIDED: 31 PARKING REQUIRED: DUPLEX: 2 PER DWELLING UNIT 4 OFFICE: (1000 / 1,000) x 3 21 WAREHOUSE: (1,000 / 2000) = 3 TOTAL REQUIRED 28 !BUILDING HEIGHT: 35 FEET L■60SCIIPE TPL1 VICINITY MAP N.T.S. 113 ■ • • 1 t 1 1 ■ ..e2k 1046, P.M e.. Cti.73S7 •1. TEA Inas. Nagar, A -1J - •P"e_'^an :-a::M SI:11- Ste. °VI,VItet . Z • .•• W ;.r.M• J U' :U O (Lo V) W 'W =: , w0 L1 < • ill E- w. wO 2 U� N: o tiji ~ F': O Z LL! U N. ;0I— Z File: L 99 -0095 35mm Drawing #1 -2 •Z • . Z:. 1U; 00 co :co Ulf W Zi • J F-: O; J. LL Q N H W. 1- O; Z D! i0 :2 W LL � U N; Z File: L 99 -0095 35mm Drawing #1 -2 SHORT PLAT NO. L99 -0073 City of Tukwila King County, Washington APPROVALS: Reviewed and approved by the Short Subdivision Committee and hereby certified for filing this '_'M day of thin._ Examin nd ap roved this day of _ _ 20.0.1.- _ Chairman, Short Subdivision Committee DEPARTMENT OF ASSESSMENTS Examined and approved this ._2Z day of d144, < en rt- Assesger DephQ•o Assessor Account Number 2613200026 RECORDING NO. e?oo / ea S o p 9ocoa SCALE: 1 inch = ft. VOL. /PAGE , 9 t5 1111111 1 0 DECLARATION Know all men by these presents that we, the undersigned, owner(s) in fee simple and /or contract purchaser(s) of the land herein described do hereby make a short subdivision thereof pursuant to RCW 58.17.060 and acknowledge that said subdivision shall no be further divided In any manner. within a period of five years, from date of record, without the filing of a final plat. The undersigned further declare this short plat to be the graphic representation of said short subdivision and the same is made with the free consent and in accordance with the desire of the owner(s). IN WITNESS WHEREOF we set our hands Name iARQEEL -2° �'ntSH Name kat Name Name State of Washington County of Kos.1G I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that Ham? 5 O-JGO + 9■pt04 signed this instrument and acknowledged it to b =44 her) free and voluntary act for the uses and purposes mentioned In the instrument. Signature of Notary Public Chejl ?s,Ar - - Dated S \ My appointment expires SIC?. State of Washington County of I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that signed thls instrument and acknowledged it to be (his /her) free and voluntary act for the uses and purposes mentioned in the instrument. Signature of Notary Public Dated My appointment expires EXISTING LEGAL DESCRIPTION THE SOUTHWESTERLY 120 FEET OF THE NORTHEASTERLY 340 FEET AS MEASURED ALONG THE SOUTHEASTERLY LINE OF TRACT 13, FOSTORIA GARDEN TRACTS, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF RECORDED IN VOLUME 9 OF PLATS, PAGE 95, IN KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON. NEW LEGAL DESCRIPTIONS LOT 1 THAT PORTION OF THE SOUTHWESTERLY 120 FEET OF THE NORTHEASTERLY 340 FEET, AS MEASURED ALONG THE SOUTHEASTERLY LINE OF TRACT 13, FOSTORIA GARDEN TRACTS, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF RECORDED IN VOLUME 9 OF PLATS, PAGE 95, IN KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOW: BEGINNING AT THE INTERSECTION OF THE SOUTH LINE OF THE NORTHEASTERLY 340 FEET OF SAID TRACT 13, WITH THE NORTHWESTERLY MARGIN OF 48TH AVE. SOUTH; THENCE NORTH 41'44'57" EAST, ALONG SAID MARGIN, 20.00 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE CONTINUING ALONG SAID MARGIN, NORTH 41'44'57" EAST 100.00 FEET TO THE NORTHEASTERLY LINE OF SAID SOUTHWESTERLY 120 FEET THEREOF; THENCE NORTH 48'15'03" WEST, ALONG SAID NORTHEASTERLY LINE, 77.41 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 41'44'57" WEST 80.00 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 2616'38" WEST 20.72 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 48'15'03" EAST 72.00 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING. LOT 2 THAT PORTION OF THE SOUTHWESTERLY 110 FEET OF THE NORTHEASTERLY 340 FEET, AS '•..4ASURED ALONG THE SOUTHEASTERLY LINE OF TRACT 13, FOSTORIA GARDEN TRACTS, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF RECORDED IN VOLUME 9 OF PLATS, PAGE 95, IN KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOW: BEGINNING AT THE INTERSECTION OF THE SOUTH LINE OF THE NORTHEASTERLY 340 FEET OF SAID TRACT 13, WITH THE NORTHWESTERLY MARGIN OF 48TH AVE. SOUTH; THENCE NORTH 41'44'57" EAST, ALONG SAID MARGIN, 20.00 FEET; THENCE NORTH 4815'03" WEST 72.00 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE NORTH 26'36'38" EAST 20.72 FEET; THENCE NORTH 41'44'57" EAST 80.00 FEET TO THE NORTHEASTERLY LINE OF SAID SOUTHWESTERLY 120 FEET THEREOF; THENCE NORTH 4815'03" WEST, ALONG SAID NORTHEASTERLY LINE, 79.28 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 41'44'57" WEST 57.38 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 07'39'49" EAST 65.51 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 48.15'03" EAST 34.94 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING. PORTION OF _ . i / 4 of __1/4, s._15_ T. 23.N., R._q-_E., W.M. LOT 3 THAT PORTION OF THE SOUTHWESTERLY 120 FEET OF THE NORTHEASTERLY 340 FEET, AS MEASURED ALONG THE SOUTHEASTERLY LINE OF TRACT 13, FOSTORIA GARDEN TRACTS, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF RECORDED IN VOLUME 9 OF PLATS, PAGE 95, IN KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON, DESCRIBED AS. FOLLOW: BEGINNING AT THE INTERSECTION OF THE SOUTH LINE OF THE NORTHEASTERLY 340 FEET OF SAID TRACT 13, WITH THE NORTHWESTERLY MARGIN OF 48TH AVE. SOUTH; THENCE NORTH 41'44'57" EAST, ALONG SAID MARGIN, 20,00 FEET; THENCE NORTH 4815'03" WEST 106.94 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE NORTH 07'39'49" WEST 65.51 FEET; THENCE NORTH 41'44'57" EAST 57.38 FEET TO THE NORTHEASTERLY LINE OF SAID SOUTHWESTERLY 120 FEET THEREOF; THENCE NORTH 48'15'03" WEST, ALONG SAID NORTHEASTERLY LINE, 100.00 FEET TO THE WESTERLY LINE OF SAID LOT 13; THENCE SOUTH 41'44'57" WEST, ALONG SAID WESTERLY LINE 60.00 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 4815'03" EAST 80.00 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 0719'49" EAST 61.48 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 48'15'03" EAST 23.06 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING. LOT 4 THAT PORTION OF THE SOUTHWESTERLY 120 FEET OF THE NORTHEASTERLY 340 FEET, AS MEASURED ALONG THE SOUTHEASTERLY LINE OF TRACT 13, FOSTORIA GARDEN TRACTS, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF RECORDED IN VOLUME 9 OF PLATS, PAGE 95, IN KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOW: BEGINNING AT THE INTERSECTION OF THE SOUTH LINE OF THE NORTHEASTERLY 340 FEET OF SAID TRACT 13, WITH THE NORTHWESTERLY MARGIN OF 48TH AVE. SOUTH; THENCE NORTH 48'15'03" WEST 2.56.69 FEET TO THE WESTERLY LINE OF SAID LOT 13; THENCE NORTH 41'44'57" EAST, ALONG SAID WESTERLY LINE, 60.00 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 4815'03" EAST 80.00 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 07'39'49" EAST 61.48 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 4815'03" EAST 130.00 FEET TO THE NORTHWESTERLY MARGIN OF 48TH AVE. SOUTH; THENCE SOUTH 41'44'57" WEST, ALONG SAID NORTHWESTERLY MARGIN 20.00 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. INGRESS, EGRESS AND UTILITIES EASEMENT THAT PORTION OF THE SOUTHWESTERLY 120 FEET OF THE NORTHEASTERLY 340 FEET, AS MEASURED ALONG THE SOUTHEASTERLY LINE OF TRACT 13, FOSTORIA GARDEN TRACTS, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF RECORDED IN VOLUME 9 OF PLATS, PAGE 95, IN KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOW: BEGINNING AT THE INTERSECTION OF THE SOUTH LINE OF THE NORTHEASTERLY 340 FEET OF SAID TRACT 13, WITH THE NORTHWESTERLY MARGIN OF 48TH AVE. SOUTH; THENCE NORTH 41'44'57" EAST, ALONG SAID MARGIN, 20.00 FEET; THENCE NORTH 4815'03" WEST 57.41 FEET TO A POINT OF CURVATURE; THENCE ON A CURVE TO THE RIGHT WITH A RADIUS OF 20.00 FEET AND AN ARC OF 31.42 FEET; THENCE NORTH 41'44'57" EAST 45.00 FEET; THENCE NORTH 48'15'03" WEST 20.00 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 41'44'57" WEST 45.00 FEET TO A POINT OF CURVATURE; THENCE ON A CURVE TO THE RIGHT WITH A RADIUS OF 20.00 FEET AND AN ARC OF 31.42 FEET; THENCE NORTH 4815'03" WEST 45.00 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 41'44'57" WEST 20.00 TO THE SOUTHWESTERLY LINE OF SAID NORTHWESTERLY 340 FEET THEREOF; THENCE SOUTH 48'15'03" EAST, ALONG SAID LINE 162.41 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. NOTE: Field data for this survey was obtained by direct field measurements. Angular and linear relationships were measured with a six second theodolite and electronic measuring device, supplemented by a steel tape. w 0 J 0 RECORDER'S CERTIFICATE ��jj I3.•o 0 filed for record this V day of414y.,20A1....atP M //in�n b/ook.t.��X E of4.4! at page.(&.•at the request of erlitrtcC�✓o e; La vie/ fufr. ✓eJO✓ Mgr. Supt. of Records LAND SURVEYOR'S CERTIFICATE This Short Plat correctly represents a survey made by me or under my direction in conformance with the requirements of the appropriate State and County Statute and Ordinance In ,�.4 . �? •/999 Certificate No. 4--r2 36051 SURVEY FOR: Hardeep Singh SCHROETEROLAND SURVEYING PROFESSIONAL LAND SURVEYORS s. P.0, Box 813, Seahurst, Washington 98062 (206) 242 -6621 FAX (206)243 -9679 DWN. BY law DATE 3/27/01 DATE FIELD 9/7/99 JOB NO. 352/21 PROJECT NO. 99084 CI-IKD. BY Revised 4/25/01 SCALE 1" = 40' SHEET 1 OF 2 rIIprf }sma1- I�� 0 lilch } tY TCCT * • 1 i 911 u111u 1111 n111111111111I1111111111111111111111F iii111111111IIIIIIIIIIIII11lill1111111111111111111111111111111111111111III111111111IIII1111111111II SHORT PLAT NO, L99 -0073 City of Tukwila King County, Washington oSk.O \U F 1 JOINT MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT THE OWNERS OF THE LOTS SHOWN ON THIS SHORT PLAT SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE MAINTENANCE AND REPAIR OF THE UTILITY AND DRAINAGE FACILITIES WITHIN THE EASEMENTS SHOWN ON THIS PLAT AND SHALL EQUALLY SHARE IN THE COST OF MAINTAINING THESE FACILITIES. THE INGRESS AND EGRESS PRIVATE EASEMENT IS FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE OWNERS OF ALL LOTS. OWNERSHIP OF THE LOTS CONTAINED WITHIN THIS PLAT INCLUDES AN EQUAL AND UNDIVIDED OWNERSHIP INTEREST IN THIS INGRESS AND EGRESS EASEMENT, AND AN EQUAL AND UNDIVIDED RESPONSIBILITY IN THE MAINTENANCE OF SAID EASEMENT. Elevation datum per City of Tukwila Sewer manhole #9 -44: inv. = 47.2' rim = 56.0' shed guy 2s Platted centerline // 10' utility easement aCdtS va• 13 LEGEND ® Concrete Monument in Case ▪ Monument k( Tack in Lead or Nail & Disk i Bronze plug O Set rebar w /cap #23604 • Found pipe or rebar Hydrant co., Power pole ps Sewer manhole wm0 water meter SS Sanitary sewer SA 0. 38.4 1 edge asphalt paving Manhole #9 -44 monumented 58813'43 "E calc. I 408,38 calc. 6 (1) set nail in asphalt K.C. Water District #12 existing fire hydrant Found S.E. corner C.C. Lewis D.C. #37 - concrete monument 7/7/97 RECORDING NO. .200/0._c-o9 94,00c VOL. /PAGE / rs /4P9 SCALE: 1 inch - 40' ft. 111111 1 0 1 I 1 40' 80' PORTION OF SE_1 /4 of .N_1/4, S._15_ T.23 -N., R.4 - -E., W.M. DETAIL Ingress and Egress Easement 1 " =40' V'y shed guy S8813'43 "E Basis of Bearing • 796,44 mess. 10' utility easement 10' utility easement 11: / /' O'Drain ge Esmt.(Private) East 1/4 corner Found tack in lead in concrete monument 7/7/97 NOTE: Field data for this survey was obtained by direct field measurements. Ai;yular and linear relationships were measured with a six se; Jnd theodolite and et.,ctronic measuring device, supplement::d by a steel tape. -edge ospllalt paving Manhole #9 -44 Lot Areas : LOT 1 = 7,GF37 sq.ft. LOT 2 = 6,922 sq.ft. LOT 3 = 6,926 sq.ft. LOT 4 = 6,668 sq.ft. Tract A = ,.720 sq.ft. Aproximate 1 Jwest elevation of building areal on new lots = Lot 2 = 44 feet Lot 3 = 42 feet Lot 4 = 50 feet a. .J O RECORDER'S CERTIFI.CATE filed for record this day of 20 at M ink book ,/ n of 1at page / at the request of /t4r!r�i eeaJGgrOCTe; L.trid fdrV070 Mgr. Supt. of Records LAND 'SURVEYOR'S CERTIFICATE This Short Plat correctly repro :rents a survey made by me or under my direction in conformance with the requirements of the appropriate State and County Statute and Ordinance in ,..C/92.( 9 Certificate No. S. 23000 SURVEY FOR: Hardeep Singh SCHROETEReLAND SURVEYING PROFESSIONAL LAND SURVEYORS P.O Box 813, Seahurst, Washington 98062 (206) 242 -6621 FAX (206)243 -9679 DWN. BY law DATE 3/27/01 DATE FIELD 9/7/99 JOB NO. 352/21 PROJECT NO. 99084 CHKD. BY Revised 4/25/01 SCALE 1" = 40' SHEET 2 OF 2 ' 0 Inch 1116: 1 .J IIIIIIIIIJ���1I�11111�111�11111111111111��1111���1 111111111 111111111 ?__ p �..E L t�..!o.'. 111111111 11111111Iiiii111111II1iilil111111111111i1U ;I1111I1.Iiil1li11i i. 11�n1