Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1994-03-28 Committee of the Whole MinutesCALL TO ORDER OFFICIALS Tukwila Gateways. TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL MARCH 28, 1994 Tukwila City Hall 7:00 p.m. Council Chambers COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING MINUTES .2 k Council President Mullet called the Committee of the Whole Meeting of the Tukwila City Council to order and led the audience in the Pledge of Allegiance. COUNCILMEMBERS STEVE MULLET, Council President; JOE DUFFIE, JOAN HERNANDEZ, PRESENT DENNIS ROBERTSON, ALLAN EKBERG, JOYCE CRAFT, DOROTHY De RODAS. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS JOHN MCFARLAND, City Administrator; RHONDA BERRY, Assistant; LINDA COHEN, City Attorney; LUCY LAUTERBACH, Council Analyst; RICK BEELER/DIANA PAINTER/ANN SIEGENTHALER, DCD. Mayor Rants prefaced the presentation by stating that during the Vision Tukwila and the Tukwila Tomorrow process one of the items identified by the community was that the City has no real entrances identification. He stated that money has been budgeted for a gateways project; however, the funds have not been utilized. Therefore, he organized an Ad Hoc Committee to study the issue to come up with designs to present to the Council for review and/or approval. Sarajane Rants, Chairman, Tukwila Gateways Committee and Horticulturist /Floral Designer, explained that represented on the Committee are six (6) citizens and one person from the business community: Betty Baker; Bill Gorjance, Arts Commission; Fred Palmer, Landscaping Expert; Joy Jenne, former School Board Member; Sue Marvin, Parks Commission; Sara Skoglund, General Manager, South King County Chamber of Commerce. The need for gateways is due to the dramatic expansion the City has experienced in the last several years; the large number and variety of entrances and because of the extremely large volume of traffic flowing in every direction throughout the City. The committee recommends that each gateway monument have a common theme: the word Tukwila, the City Seal, artwork, specimen trees plants, seasonal color and in some cases, lighting. Each committee member visited rated approximately twenty -five sites based on location, volume of traffic, visibility and space available. With the goal of desiring two to three sites completed in 1994, the committee agreed to focus on three locations: I -5 (southbound exit to Interurban); I -5 southbound exit to the Southcenter Blvd.(Ultra Boutique location); and Ryan Way (westbound toward Martin Luther King, Jr. Way). Mrs. Rants used Committee of The Whole Meeting Minutes March 28, 1994 Page 2 Tukwila Gateways (Cont'd). Recess 7:45 8:00 D.M. CITIZEN'S COMMENTS SPECIAL ISSUES River lot trade proposal. visuals to depict locations and presented examples of three different options (A, B, a minor option) based on the types of materials that would be used at each site. The price would range from approximately $10,000 $17,000. The committee `s preference was Option B, $17,000 per site. Following a brief question and answer period, the Council agreed to study the materials presented then forward to the next Committee of the Whole meeting for further discussion and possibly a decision. Council President Mullet called the meeting back to order with those present as noted above. Martin Bentenhausen, 5307 4th Avenue South, B -127, Seattle, WA 98108- 2200, complained that there is too much police interrogation without probable cause. He suggested a citizens oversight committee be established to review all complaints made by citizens to the Police Department. Pam Carter, 4115 South 139th, complained that the citizens hotline to find out what's on upcoming Council agendas is not working and asked that the issue be examined. The Mayor responded that this is an issue that will be corrected immediately. Carter continued by urging the Council to be mindful to consider the impacts on the health and vitality of the City when thinking about how the expansion of the two airports would affect the Tukwila Community. In conclusion, Carter encouraged the Council to make better provisions for residents to have input on issues such as large developments that might impact the neighborhood. George Malina, 15617 47nd South, expressed concern about the Amtrak System dumping human waste on our tracks. He said he is working on legislation (in conjunction with Senator Jennifer Dunn) that will require Amtrak to put in solid holding tanks. He requested the Council join with him in proposing, through the rail authority, the same legislation. Amend Agenda Councilmember Robertson suggested amending the agenda to change item "6a" to "4b." prior to convening the public hearing. Don Williams, Parks and Recreation Director explained that Mr. Ted Behr, owner of a house at 5703 Pamela Drive South in the Foster Point neighborhood, is asking to trade his Lot #6 for all of City -owned Lot #10 plus 15 feet of Lot #9. He said the Community Affairs and Parks Committee had discussed the proposal with Mr. Behr and concluded that this was a Committee of The Whole Meeting Minutes March 28, 1994 Page 3 River lot trade proposal (Copt' d). PUBLIC HEARINGS Quasijudicial- Request for waiver to Ordinance #1679 (moratorium) -Blue Star Motel. Quasijudicial- Consideration of the Planning Commission's recommendation of conditional approval of the Southgate Trailer Park Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Rezone. SPECIAL ISSUES SCA Regional Committee's Resolution. REPORTS ADJOURNMENT 11:30 p.m. ri reasonable request and the lot trade would in the future provide a better park area. It was the consensus of the Council to to forward this item to the next Regular Consent Agenda. The Council agreed to forward the request for waiver to Ordinance #1679 (Moratorium) -Blue Star Motel to the next Regular Council meeting (April 4, 1994) for a final decision. Verbatim transcript distributed to Council and other pertinent persons on Monday, April 4, 1994. (Copy attached.) The Council agreed to forward the Planning Commission's recommendation of conditional approval of the Southgate Trailer park Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Rezone to the next Regular Council meeting (April 4, 1994) for a final decision. Verbatim transcript distributed to Council and other pertinent persons on Friday, April 1, 1994. (Copy attached.) The Council briefly discussed the resolution prepared by Suburban Cities Association (SCA) to formalize the SCA representation on various Metropolitan King County regional subcommittees, and to set forth and ratify the appointment method. It was the consensus of the Council to forward the SCA Regional Committees resolution to the next Regular Council Consent Agenda. Councilmember Hernandez reported that one of the issues in the recent Finance and Safety Committee meeting was a unanimous recommendation to proceed with the study of all the options of hiring a Code Enforcement Officer for animal control. The Council agreed that this item should be forwarded to the Committee of The Whole as soon as the study is completed. City Administrator McFarland requested that an Executive Session be scheduled prior to next week's Regular Meeting to discuss land use issues. The Council agreed the meeting will begin at 6:30 p.m. on Monday, April 4, 1994. He also informed the Council that the School District is requesting a joint meeting around April or May. MOVI D BY DUFFIE, SECONDED BY ROBERTSON, TO ADJOURN COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING. MOTION CARRIED P.u.P 1,. �e Mullet Council President Celia Square4Deputy City Clerk Verbatim Transcript Quasijudicial Request for waiver to Ordinance 1679 (Moratorium) -Blue Star Motel Tukwila City Council Committee of The Whole Meeting March 28, 1994 PUBLIC HEARINGS Council President Steve Mullet: OK, at this time we'll go into our public hearings and the first one will be the Request for Waiver to Ordinance 1679, Moratorium, Blue Star Motel. Joe. r Ioe Duffie: Ok, before we do that we need to make the Council aware of this because I have talked to one of the owners up there. I think his name is Mr.Kim. He called me a couple of weeks ago and....he's not here? oh, it the next one. Pardon me. Mullet: Is Linda around? Mayor Rants: Yes. Mullet: Do we have any consensus on how much time we need for the parties involved in this? Rants: I did not talked to them this evening, Steve. You can, You can use an issue of time or fairness, or you can ask the applicant how time he needs and then the rebuttal can be the same. Mullet: Is the applicant here? Rants: They are. Mullet: How much time do you think you'll need to present your.... (A representative of Blue Star responds from the audience, but is not using a mic): Probably approximately a half hour to forty five minutes. Mullet: Rick, is that.... Rick Beeler: Ours is much shorter. Mullet: How many citizens do we have signed up to speak on this issue, do we have any? Are we having citizen's comments on this? Beeler: Yes, this is Quasijudicial.. There may be some here that did not know that they needed to sign up. Mullet: Are there any citizens out there who had intended to speak on this issue? Speaker: (Speaking without mic, somewhat unclear): You mean the issue regarding Blue Star? Mullet: Yes, Blue Star Motel. Mullet: Ok, at this point and time then we'll go ahead with forty five minutes. Joyce Craft: Steve, I have a disclosure. A couple a weeks ago, I got a telephone call at home from he owner of, not the Blue Star, but the motel next door, requesting to talk to me and I told him that this was quasijudicial hearing and I would not be able to discuss it. And the telephone conversation ended at that time. Also, just as a matter of record, I was on the Planning Commission when the Blue Star came before the Planning Commission but I was not on the Planning Commission when they approve this project. I don feel that there is any conflict of interest there but I just wanted to state that. City Attorney Linda Cohen: Is anyone else has any appearance of fairness issues or ex -parte contacts. They should be disclosed at this time. And hearing no challenges with respect to any of the councilmembers, if everyone who is planning on testifying during these proceedings stand and raise their right hand. (Those testifying stood.) Cohen: Do you affirm the facts you're about to give in this matter to be the truth? (Particinants responded, Yes.) Mullet: I guess that covers this for the preliminaries then. At this point and time I will open the public hearing on the Blue Star Motel. Rick, are you going to start us off? Beeler: Yes, and I will be brief. Excuse me. This is the first waiver application you've had to consider under the Moratorium Ordinance #1679 enacted along Hwy 99 for C -2 Zoned properties. The request before you tonight is from the Goldco Development, Inc. The packet was sent to you earlier and presenting the staff's report will be Diana Painter from the Department. I think this is the first time she's appeared before you on a land -use issue and so with that I'll introduce her to her. Diana Painter: Thank you. As Rick said, I will be representing an application for a waiver from the moratorium to ...the moratorium on certain types of buildings...land uses in the 99 corridor. The project that the applicant represents is a 3 -story, 37 unit motel on Hwy 99 at about 144th, more or less across from Larry's Market. And for your reference, I've pup a couple of drawings from the application on the board there. The one shows the facades, and the other shows a site plan that shows a relationship of the building to the site. On the colored plan, Hwy 99 is on the left hand side there, to give you bit of an orientation. Cohen: You can mark that as Exhibit #1 or refer to that as Exhibit #1 and the one that is left as Exhibit #2. Painter: OK, I'm going to give a brief presentation tonight. This is essentially a summary of what appears in the staff report and the attachments to the report. I'll discuss very briefly the criteria established by the City Council to assess, to judge applications for the moratorium. This is staff's interpretation of the criteria and its application to this particular project. The full ordinance is in your attachment "I" for your reference. I will also discuss some of the additional circumstances that might be considered by the Council in there assessment of this project which 2 are also in the staff report under the options section. We have not presented a recommendation at this point and time. We anticipate that the applicant is going to further elaborate on one of the criteria in particular tonight and that should influence your assessment of this project. We have, however, researched some of the issues that we felt were at the heart of this project that are of the Council's concerns and we've drafted some preliminary conditions that might address these concerns if the Council is interested in discussing these further. On November 18 of last year, the applicant received a Board of Architecture Review approval for this project with one minor condition. At that time a Determination of Non Significance was also issued for the project. The significance of this is that there are no mitigation members....measures necessary to meet the requirements of the State Environmental Policy Act. At this point and time typically an applicant proceeds with developing construction drawing and applying for a building permit On December 6 of this last year, the Council passed a six -month moratorium on projects for these types of land uses in the 99 corridor. Other projects that the moratorium applies to are hotels, taverns, and pool halls. Under the circumstances of the moratorium, the applicant is effectively prevented from applying for a building permit until June of this year. According to the Ordinance #1689, a criteria by which the applicant can obtain a waiver from this moratorium are as follows and this is also in your staff report: In considering the petition, the Council will bear in mind the intent of the moratorium, the interest of the City weighed against the interest of the individual, the circumstances or hardships caused by the moratorium and the damage that could result from strict adherence to the moratorium. And like I said I'll go very briefly through the staff's interpretation of the significance of this criteria in reference to the application. First the intent of the moratorium as stated is to protect the health, safety and welfare of the community by prohibiting certain types of uses historically associated with criminal activity in the Hwy 99 corridor; and to facilitate a neighborhood orientation in this area, consistent with the goals of the draft Comprehensive Plan. The second criteria are the interest of the City. As stated in the preliminary Comprehensive Plan Policies, the interest of the City are to encourage redevelopment with the neighborhood reorientation. The use proposed here is considered a Regional Commercial Use under current zoning. In this respect, it's possible that the...this use would not be allowed under the proposed Comprehensive Policies. The design of the project, however, is consistent with the stated policies which are reiterated in the staff report. The third criteria is circumstances and hardship. Another criteria by which an applicant can apply....can qualify for a waiver under this ordinance depends on the circumstances of specific project and potential hardship incurred by the applicant under the waiver. This hardship can be financial, personal or other according to the ordinance. Obviously, the denial of this waiver prevents the applicant from applying for a building permit which of course delays his project. This is the area in which I anticipate the applicant will be talking in more detail. The fourth criteria is damage resulting from strict adherence to the moratorium. As interpreted by staff, we looked at potential damage....damage in potentially three different areas: one to the applicant, to the neighborhood and to the City as a whole. Damage to the applicant was touched on briefly, and like I said, I expect that the applicant gonna talk about this in more detail. Damage to the neighborhood could be that this site would remain vacant if the project is not developed which could not be consistent with Comprehensive Policy Plans for three developments this area. On the other hand, if this project is developed and the types of criminal activities historically associated with projects of this types in that area, i.e. motels in the corridor become prevalent here, the neighborhood will suffer from increased crime in the City as a result will suffer from increased demand on their police services and associated services. That in summary is our interpretation of the criteria of the ordinance. Like I said we did work on some conditions that we felt would mitigate the....what we felt were the....some of the primary concerns 3 of the Council with respect to this area. And I would be glad to discuss that if the Council desires. Are there any questions at this time? Mullet: Joan. .roan Hernandez: I have a question. Does a business license for a motel allow rental by the week and month in addition to by the day? Painter: I'm not aware of any criteria or any information on the business license that goes into that kind of detail on any particular business. There is only three or four areas where they question operation of a business. Mullet: Any other questions? Ok, thank you. Does that conclude your staff presentation? Beeler: Yes. Dennis Robertson: Did we open the public hearing yet. Mullet: Yes. Robertson: Sorry. Mullet: Does the applicant want to come forward now, I guess it's your turn. Scott Miller: Do I do the name routine? Mullet: Yes. Miller: Scott Miller, address is 10306 NE 10th, Suite 110, Bellevue 98004. I'm here on behalf of to speak in favor of the waiver of the moratorium for the Blue Star Motel and I want to touch on some things briefly. I'm not sure how familiar the City Council is with this entire evolution of this project. I believe you've probably been briefed and read over the materials so you can probably get a pretty good understanding of what's been happening for the last....closing in on four years now. There is other members of the ....of the....the owner and other members will also like to speak to this and I guess they will also have to be sworn in separately or whatever. A couple of things that I would like to tough on tonight would be the we completely understand the concerns of the Council in terms of the safety and crime issue related to motels and hotels not only in this area but in many areas. And I guess that's probably the single, biggest concern of everybody's including ours. And I wanted to take the opportunity to not only speak for the owner but the entire design committee of this project that we have spent many, many years substantial and substantial thousands of dollars designing and re- designing this project in order to meet the concerns of the City, of Tukwila staff members as well as hopefully, the councilmembers. As you know this started in 1990. Various different iterations of the design have progressed along. And we got final design approval on November 18, then a few weeks later it was the the moratorium was voted in. I want to tell you and we have studied very closely the moratorium conditions or why it was voted in place and we felt that we have met, through the City, all those concerns of yours did not come up between November 18 and December 21. We feel that these concerns have been an ongoing issue. So we felt that with 4 our work with the Police Department, Fire Department, and the Building design review staff that we have addressed all those issues that were of concern to the Police Department, and we have changed the design of the project as well as the overall appearance to the street and every single specific requirement from the City of Tukwila staff to various different meetings, actually, many, many different meeting over the years in this project. The owner has even stated the willingness to comply with the possible requirements that would be additional to approval with conditions I guess you have stated. I notice none of you actually asked about those conditions so I assume at this point you know those conditions. I guess it was in the staff report. So if they are interested in a conditions with approval they are there. The only question they may have is the based on constitutionality of #7 in that list. I think I can state for the owner that they are willing to go over backward. And I think it's been out by the perseverance of their commitment to this project to make a good project for the City of Tukwila to address the concerns of the City in regards to health safety issues. And in fact, if you read the staff report and I work with the staff at the City of Tukwila, the project actually does fit into the future Comprehensive Plan requirements as likely to be adopted. And a couple of minor things that will be spoken to more and that is the substantial commitment of dollars this project over the last three years. I can speak for certain the architectural related fees and engineering fees coming to close to $40 thousand dollars at this point,. and to the fact that the owner's willingness to upgrade this project from the initial design to the new design of probably between $50 thousand to $100 thousand more in costs and design refinements and design materials. So I'd like you to be aware of that situation. And lastly the project itself does not necessarily breed crime. We feel that a project of this kind as an upgraded motel it has met many different design requirements in order to be not your standard dump that along there that breeds crime and that it's a larger more nicely will be a large, more nicely managed motel than some of the other ones that are in the area. And I think that would conclude my basic comments at this point. Mullet: Was there anybody else from your team that was going to Miller: Actually, I believe so. Mullet: (Referring to the next speaker), did he stand before? Cohen: State your name and then I will swear you in. Young Cho: My name is Young Cho. My address is 914 South 191st Street, Federal Way, Washington 98003. Cohen: You wanna raise your right hand and anyone else who is going to give testimony, they can stand and raise their right hand at this time. "Do you affirm the facts you are about to give in this matter to be the truth Mullet: Say "I do." Applicants responded, "I do." Cho: First of all I have a few English. I yet afraid to talk to your City Council. I like my best. I come over here United States. I really appreciate this country. This country really big opportunity country and beside all other equal opportunity. And we like to come over here and 5 b achieve our American dream just like any other person. They come over from Europe or from Asia. Just like I come over here working hard and any other person we try two times, three times more working. And we like observe all kind of law over the United States. And we cooperation improve our community and we like the cooperation with the Police Department and any other department we like to any time a day required to us we like to help the and clean the community. And beside, before you this evening we like to consider our situation. And after we started this one around 1990, we waiting almost four years for....we put in a lot of energy and we put in a lot of money. We don't want to but I like to consider our experiencing energy and the time and the monies, we like ask, would you please consider this to. Thank you. Mullet: Thank you. Yes, my name is John Kim, 31205 Pacific Hwy South, Federal Way, Washington. I'm the representative of the property owner. Also, I'm at Goldco Development, Inc. This time I have three considerations to City Council or the City of Tukwila. Our understanding is 99 moratorium ordinance passed City Council at December 93 and only has been (unclear) anyhow started in King County almost four years ago there has not been allowable time used. Lot of money spend developing. So three years and four years is not short time. That's a long time (unclear) Asia or Europe, it doesn't matter. They spent money. They like to try developing but I understand (unclear) until got to pass ordinance at the City Council. So the City of Tukwila request and require owner provide or architect provide almost four years. This come about almost four years. They just architect design approval was in November 1993. Just about 3 4 weeks later the City Council passed an ordinance and moratorium. So owner and property property owner and architect developed a team we didn't know that we have allowed some type of psychological drop. So anyhow, ya know, this time they use about 3 or 4 years in a time span and lots of money and lot of team members, ya know, some kind of feeling is dropped. So there expenses and money however is not an additional thing. It's the land value, if not they build motel or hotel it's land value, ya know. Market cost is a little down. I don't know how much is down for the market value because hotel and the motel is a lot expense than apartment what they appraised. Those properties are all different price. It's more than $8 dollars or $10 dollars for the motel and hotel site. But apartments sell like $4 or $5 dollars (unclear) buy $10 dollars plus $10 dollars capital. Another item is if this do not pass this time for this project, I think my personal opinion is maybe couple years or maybe 4 or 5 years or 10 years cannot develop. But I understand that in my personal opinion, it's not just developing just the state, cross here is could be a little more fancier, a little more hotel -type, City require some safety, special requirement form the owner make the development more nicer or just to stay non developing and just to stay like that, which is better for the City or citizenship or some people that property not far from the International Airport. So that why we have to look at that (unclear) so to spend money more money and the more it cost the City to not have the developing, then it better to stay currently in my personal opinion. So please understand that before the decision of the City Council and the people. What is better for the City of Tukwila or the people. So at this time we just please understand and approve for this project and allow provide for detail plans. So this is my explanation. Thank you very much. Mullet: Thank you. Anybody has any questions before we go back to Craft: I have a question. I'm sorry, your name 6 Kim: My name is John Kim. Craft: Kim. Mr. Kim, How long have you been with the project? Kim: We have since, we take a Goldco take a project about 1992. Craft: Are you with Goldco Kim: Yes. Craft: Because it seems to me I remember that actually this first came to the City and then the owner got all new architect or the owner didn't bring it back. for some period of time. Is that when Goldco got involved? Kim: Yes. First time was in 1990 which is property owner and the previous architecture or designer. I don't know if they had been following City requirements or not. Since 1992 we take project. Before the 1992 we don't know really past history. Craft: I guess what I'm getting at is that the Project kind of changed during those 4 year periods. It wasn't just continuously going forward, it changed in the level of managing teams change, architect change or whatever. Is that correct? Kim: Yes, we did since 92, no, since 90 and that over about past the 3 or 4 years, I think we changed design maybe almost 3 times and we changed the team 3 times so any more detail some of things are lot history and hard to explanation about sometime. Thanks. Craft: Ok, thank you. Mullet: Any other questions of this applicant? Rick, did you wanna did you have more to say on Beeler: In terms of rebuttal? Mullet: Yea. Could we go through those conditions? Dennis Robertson: I'd like to formally request the if the staff has conditions, if they would recommend if we were to approve this exception. I guess I'd like to have those presented and explained. Beeler: Yea, our purpose was for you to debate the central issue of whether or not you were going to approve the moratorium waiver and if you decided to approve it then we were prepared with some options of conditions that you could consider in that attaching to the approval. Robertson: No, our procedure has been to listen to the presentations and the arguments and rebuttals and wait a week in which gives us time to consider all the issues before we deliberated. I would prefer to have those conditions, have time to read and study those prior to the deliberation, which doesn't fit with your plans I guess. 7 City Administrator John McFarland: Dennis, what we wanted to do was to allow you to decide what you wanted to do. If the Council wants the conditions before they go into deliberations we are certainly prepared to give those to you. And these are minimum conditions that we think would be appropriate should the development be approved. We didn't want to get into a situation where we were directing the Council towards approval with conditions. Robertson: Ok, I personally, I think the conditions are important and the decision on whether by itself right now to grant the exception or not however I would like time to study them before proposing is part of the McFarland: We're prepared to do whatever the Council wants to do in that regard. Robertson: I'd recommend, Steve, to the Council that we have the conditions presented perhaps after the rebuttals, if there are rebuttals. Beeler: What we'll do is provide those conditions. I want to make just a couple of comments then Diana will be up here. She's gonna run through the conditions, list them for you verbally and then we will supply those to you in writing following this. Scott Miller was reading referred to a list that we had, in fact, talked to the applicant about so that the applicant as well has seen these conditions and there may be some more that you, after reading these, may think of as well. But those are the ones that we could think of in the time we had. I just like to make one point here that's very important to this application and that is that there are two distinct phases of this project of development of the Blue Star Motel. The first phase is what went on in the Board of Architecture Review(BAR) process. That process netted a decision by the BAR. As Councilwoman Craft indicated by in her questions that review process took several turns and some revisions and that is not altogether uncommon for a BAR process for a project to be redesigned. And we understand that took some time. The preapplication was in 1990. That doesn't start anything, that just start from the time they talk to us application, formal application for BAR was made approximately two years later. I'm not going to go through that history that's in the staff report. But the point I want to make is that there are costs associated with preparing this application for BAR. They were denied once and they had to come back and redesign. And they did that and there were costs associated with that. The proceeded at their risk. That was not our advice for them to proceed in that manner. Our advice is to make some changes and then go to the BAR and the applicant chose not to do that. The bottom line is is that the moratorium is the second phase of this development and the hardships, circumstances, etc. the moratorium waiver criteria all related to that process. It does not relate to what went on in the BAR process. The hardships associated with this application is that of proceeding passed that. And that typically is to go into the a plan review building permit and proceed with construction if that building permit is granted. And that second part-- hardship proposed by the waiver for the applicant to proceed to the building permit process is what's at issue here tonight. And with that I'll have Diana talk about the conditions. Craft: Could I just question you about the BAR is what allowed your department then to send a letter stating that building could continue according to certain conditions, is that right? Beeler: Yes. Right. We issue, after a BAR, a decision, a, what's called a notice of decision which says to the applicant and to the parties of record that this is a decision that was made by the BAR and also indicates what the next step for that applicant is. 8 Craft: And that was the first go -ahead to continue to the next step? Beeler: Yea. Craft: OK. Mullet: Rick, while you're up there and before we get into the next phase, can you explain the timing between the BAR's decision which was substantially to approve the application which is basically on November 18 and your response to them that they proceed which was on December 21 why there was such a long span in there. Beeler: There is a 14 day appeal period in there between the time of BAR takes action and when that decision becomes final. During that 14 day an appeal can be made. That appeal comes up to you. Mullet: OK, that takes care of half of it. His 30 some days between there Beeler: I don't know, maybe Diana has a better answer than that, do you recall? Painter: What I'd like to do is make sure that the conditions reflect exactly what the BAR established and so personally I'd like to get the minutes of the meeting before I write the letter to make sure that I remember correctly what the conditions....the phrasing of the conditions that the Board voted on so that could account for additional two week delay there. Needless to say usually it's not an issue. Mullet: Yea, I suspect it's not, I just the timing and we're always, ya know, kinda focused here on certain things but there is a timing here that between a BAR with a moratorium in the middle and then a letter going back from you that they could proceed and I was just curious about that. They kinda got stuck in the middle by my Painter: Like Rick said, there is a two -way appeal period there at It was approved on the 18, the moratorium was passed on December 6. I'd have to see a calendar to count the days in there. But procedurally, we need to send them a notice of decision by the time the City Council put into effect the moratorium. It made it more of a procedural sort of activity but none the less it needs to be done. It needs to be documented in the file that, ya know, that this step was like I said I'd have to look at the timing I'd have to look at a calendar. Mullet: I guess she gets to proceed then. Painter: I will like Rick said we worked on some conditions that we failed to recognize the heart of the issue here which is the history of criminal activities and these kinds of uses on 99. So we were looking into ways that an operation a motel like this could be operated or could be constructed designed and constructed that would insure a little more, I guess surveillance and maybe accountability might be appropriate word for project such as this Like Rick said, we worked with the applicant on this and worked with Scott Miller representing the applicant based on his knowledge of what's called a defensible design. And worked with the Police Department actually I'd worked with the Police Department all along and design approval of this and asking 9 them some very specific questions about lighting and landscaping a surveillance and that kind a thing. And then got some information from outside sources as well and based on that researched put together a number of conditions that by no means conclusive, but these are some ideas that we had: 1) Insure the grounds and public areas are clean and well maintained; 2) Install adequate building exterior and site lighting, which by the way, we are satisfied that this proposal does that adequately; 3) Install a surveillance camera in the lobby; 4) Require the manager to live on premises, idendify the current manager and provide their work schedule to the Tukwila Police Department, if applicable; 5) Install a sign in the lobby stating that management cooperates with the City of Tukwila Police Department and any investigation on the property; 6) Require positive identification of all occupants of a room at the time of registration; and 7) Photo copy identification at registration and make this available to the Tukwila Police Department at their request. Questions? ,Toe Duffie: Yea, I have have they seen that? Painter: Yes, they did see this. Like I said we worked with them on developing the list and a letter went to both Sean Park of Goldco and Scott Miller, the Architect's listing the summarizing our conversations sort a speak. Duffie: And they agree with it? Painter: Not necessarily. This was a letter to inform them of the conditions we came up with as a result of our conversation. Duffie: In other words you've had no response to them on that? Painter: They have said in their public testimony earlier on that the the, the owner I may be speaking, ya know that the owner was interested in cooperating with the City. (Someone speaking without a mic) (unclear) Craft: This really doesn't have anything to do with what we're we're talking about the moratorium. Duffie: Why are we discussing it then? Robertson: The conditions? Mullet: Because once we close the public hearing they don't get to discuss it any more. Duffie: Right. Thank ya. Hernandez: I have more questions, Steve. Mullet: Yes, go ahead. 10 Hernandez: I've noticed that on pages 21, 25 and 27 of the packet, the interior design has changed several different times and it's a little difficult to I've noticed the stairwell positions have changed to at different times and I'm wondering are the stairwells open or closed stairwells? Painter: There are exterior stairwells locations changed sort a speak. Hernandez: That's what I the next thing I wanted to know are they exterior or interior stairwells and are they open or closed? Painter: There are, If I remember correctly, two exterior and one interior stairwell and there location have been modified throughout the design process because of ADA requirements that were instituted in January of 1994. Hernandez: Is there an elevator in the building? Painter: Yes, it has to be a handicapped elevator by Code. Hernandez: I was just suggesting I wonder if one of the conditions proposed might be open stairwells exterior open stairwells that just a thought. I don't know if you'd ever considered that. Painter: I'd We'd have to review ADA requirements and Fire Code requirements on that if I'm sure the architect could speak to that if you'd like. He's more knowledgeable. Mullet: Are we digressing a little bit on this? Cohen: No, that's fine. And at any point, even if the public is closed I think it's still appropriate to ask questions and get input from the parties at hand. It would just be closed to any citizen input. And since no citizens spoke you may proceed either way by either this is appropriate. Dorothy De Rodas: I have a question. I'd like to know more or less if they have any proposed rates? What There's usually various categories: there's the low and medium and a deluxe and whatever else. I was just wondering into what category is this motel proposed to fit? Painter: I'd have to have the owner to speak to that. That's not something we would cover in design review. Mullet: Are there any more questions of staff? Hernandez: Yes, I do. Is this a vacant lot or is there a building that would have to be demolished on the site right now? Painter: It's a vacant lot. Hernandez: OK, I guess that's it. 11 JAL Mullet: Dennis. Robertson: The applicant has said earlier, if I understand that basically approximately $40 thousand was spent on architectural work, does that seem appropriate sum to you, is that a reasonable amount of money in your experience for this type of work? Painter: Typically, architectural fees are 10% of the construction costs. This project has gone through several iterations which could conceivably up the cost of the architecture's fees but as far as the number per se, I really couldn't comment on that. Robertson: OK, thank you. Mullet: Joyce. Craft: I have a question. The current zoning now is C -2 Regional Commercial and the zoning that the Tukwila Tomorrow Committee is discussing, is that a C -1? Craft: What they say in the Policy which is in the staff report is a mixed use. What we are probably going to see under new zoning is not a new application of the old categories but new categories altogether Beeler: Just two corrections to the staff report attachment "A." We had indicated there in recommendation, who, with conditions that was erroneous because obviously as you went through the report we didn't do that as we stated in our presentation. Also, lastly, I mis -spoke the appeal period for the BAR. It's 10 days not 14. So that's just to clarify for the record. Hernandez: I have another question, Rick. Mullet: Rick, Joan has another questions. Hernandez: I had asked earlier regarding the hours of operation on the business license, can they be rented by the month like apartments or is that Beeler: I don't think we have a I don't recall a law or an ordinance in the books that regulates that. One of the things that has occurred to us has been as a result of this particular moratorium ah, waiver application is that perhaps there ought to be some future ordinance revisions that address some of the issues that, particular some of the conditions that we've spoke about tonight. Mullet: Are there any other questions of staff? Mayor Rants: I believe the architect could answer some of Joan's questions. Mullet: Yes. Scott, did you wish to would you come up and you have anymore information and then we have some questions for you, I think. Miller: Sure. If I could....you could either ask some questions or I could respond to a couple of questions that have been asked, if I may. 12 Hernandez: One was the stairwells, whether the stairwells were open or closed or exterior or interior. Miller: Right. It's completely exterior and they are completely open except for the handrails. The Police Department has asked us to go to open pickets as opposed to a solid sheet of stucco, up to 30 ah, 42 inches high in order to increase the disability of the stairwells and that type of thing. The stairwells are completely open at this point except for the handrail. And there was another issue in regards to monthly rates. It's going to be a daily rate, it's not a monthly type of motel and it's gonna be in the medium to medium -high range. It's obviously not a luxury motel and it's not in the lower range according to the owner in terms of that fee structure. Hernandez: Is a chain or a franchise? Miller: No. Mullet: Are there any other questions of the applicant? Mayor Rants: Mr. Chairman. Mullet: Yessir. Rants: I believe I could ask a question on this one if I could. I think one of the things that concerns Council and the Administration, specifically, are there going to be hourly rates? Miller: Honestly, I don't know the answer to that cause I didn't ask the owner we didn't ask the owner the answer is no, no hourly rates. And secondly, one of the things that Mr. Beeler brought up in relation to the financial hardship, we have mentioned our architect fees, engineering fees, and such, which are typical for this project. We are ranging right now in about the five to ten per cent range for this type of project. And possibly one of the other members is going to bring up some other things but there is other financial hardship of three other items. One is project interest payments and money spent to date in securing the property as a C -2 zoned property. Secondly would be the decrease in value as Mr Kim mentioned in regards to the devaluation of the property. The project is either tied up in the administration procedure. And thirdly the monthly income lost during if this project was in progress, ya know, currently, but right now we are obviously in the matter of months behind. So I think maybe one of the other members would like to talk to some specifics if it interest you in regards to that financial aspect of it. Hernandez: I've noticed that the second floor has gone through several revisions. Is the final revision, does that include an owner's apartment or an on site manager's apartment? Miller: Yes it does. The final one has it's actually connected up to the office. It's not on the second floor, it's on the well, I guess you could call it the second floor. Hernandez: It says second floor in the Plan but I know what you mean. Miller: And it definitely does. 13 12v Hernandez: And there is a lobby area and office? Miller: Yes, complete lobby area which we made more visible and of course the owner's unit. And the owner's unit is specifically placed to have a good view and proximity to goings on over the project. Mullet: Other questions? Robertson: Who owns the property? Does the applicant own the property? Miller: Yes. No hidden ownerships or that type of thing. It's owned by Mr. Cho. Robertson: Who owns the property outright? Mullet: He's making payments on it yet? Miller: I believe they've actually paid cash for the property or have the cash for the property secured. Mullet: I guess we have no other questions. Mr. Miller, if another member of your group wishes to say anything more we'd sure love to hear it. Duffie: Now, I understand, is the owner going to live there? He's going to live on site? Miller: Yes. Duffie: Boy, that is really nice. Craft: Is there another Blue Star? Is there a Blue Star Motel that's owned by Mr. Cho? Miller: No, he owns the Spruce Motel at this point. That's it. Craft: Is that next door? Is that next door, or Miller: No, that a little....I'm not sure how far away it is but it's a little bit a ways. There's a Moonrise hotel right next door and that's not this ownership. Craft: Oh, I see. And the Spruce is a couple of doors south? Miller: Yea, yea. A little bit farther down. Right. Ok. Thanks for your consideration. Mullet: Go ahead, Sir. (Sean Park coming forward to be sworn in.) Cohen: Do you affirm the facts you're about to give in this matter to be the truth? 14 Sean Park: My name is Sean Park. My address is 31205 Pacific Highway, Federal Way I represent the general contractor, I was involved since planning stage. I have talked to owners and have brought some figures just in case it is denied. Moratorium, the ordinance, one of the waiver conditions is financial hardship. If it is denied, then the owners pay the taxes, interest. I have some figures in front of me I'd like to present to you. Real estate tax: Since September 1990 to the present time they have spent $8,000. Interest rate: They pay 8% APR, about $100,000. I did a similar project in Tacoma, the land value and construction costs, if the project is concluded, then the owner will make some money. If it is not, then he will lose about $450,000. If he opened a business, he will make about $10,000 net income per month, and also there is the land cost depreciation, if he is going to sell the property then I don't think he will get the same amount as when he bought the land because the land is expensive because the land use. If the zoning is changed then I don't think nobody will pay the amount that he paid when he bought the land. That is the figures. Craft: The project that you just did in Tacoma, is that called Blue Star? Park: Initially it was called Blue Star, but the name has changed, it is called... Craft: Is it similar to this motel? Park: It is very similar. Craft: It's on Pacific Highway South, 99? Park: It is located at Hosmers 82nd? We just completed it. I estimate the cost, the land value, construction costs... If the owner of that motel was to sell the property he will make this amount, I present..., roughly $450,000. Mullet: Thank you. Any other comments by Council, or questions? Do I close the public hearing? Robertson: I'm not sure you want to close the public hearing. It is my understanding that staff is going to present a memo in writing with the proposed conditions, or their suggested conditions. That would take several weeks? No? Beeler: We could have that for you tomorrow. Robertson OK. Normally, don't we leave the public hearing open and continue it to the following meeting, in case we would like to discuss stuff prior to the discussion? Cohen: You could proceed either way. You could close it and get the information, which is just clarification from either of the parties, or you could close it. It's your choice. You can still get the information appropriately. Robertson: Even if we close it we can still ask either party? Cohen: Yes. 15 Robertson: I Move that we close the public hearing. Duffie: Second. Mullet: Close the public hearing on the Blue Star Motel at this point and time. Park: Can the audience ask questions at this time? Cohen: There was an opportunity for citizen comments and that was advertised and no one spoke. Mullet: We had an opportunity earlier and now we've closed the hearing. Does Council wish to re open the hearing to hear questions from the citizen? Duffie: Yea, I think it do do to the fact we didn't have any.... Robertson: OK. When we open the public hearing again is there any.... Rants: OK. But do you need to if he just wants to ask a question? Mullet: Speak up, Sir. Please come to the microphone. Robertson: I think you better formally open Mullet: I will formally reopen the public hearing just in case. My name is Wynn Dien. Hive at 1615 SW Mill Creek Road, Seattle, Washington 98168. The reason I just come up with this question is that I heard City present some condition for the applicant to accept and this I didn't know before that's why I didn't raise my hand. I like to know the basis that City come up with 10 questions. And of course I'll pretend they are very anxious to get the permit so they will accept all this. My question is what basis this conditions. The second is those conditions are prior to this application or prior to future application of a similar nature. The third thing I'm trying to open a computer store high tech. Say that it was next to it would the City come up with the similar conditions for me to obey? Robertson: I would suggest that those questions could be answered by staff independent of this public hearing, in the normal process. Rants: That's why I said he just wanted to ask a question, you didn't need to open it and then we could have directed him. You want to close this? Mullet: The public hearing is closed again. Rants: I'm going to ask you and Rick to get together right now and Rick, Mr. Beeler could answer your questions on the issues that you just spoke of because they are separate from what we're talking about. Would that be alright? Yes, OK. 16 2 ill Robertson: I'm going to recommend that we continue this discussion of this issue to next Regular Council meeting and that staff provide their proposed conditions as soon as possible so we could have them to review prior to the Council meeting. Cohen: I think that Blue Star should be notified as to when this is going to be continued so that they can be present in case there are any questions. Craft: I just have a questions as to clarification. Maybe it's my limited brain power, I have a problem discussing items that were presented to build this motel when I think the only thing that we're addressing is whether or not they can receive a waiver to the moratorium. If we choose to allow them to have a waiver to the moratorium then at that time seem to me we can discuss conditions of building. But as I read the agenda, the only thing we're considering at this point is whether or not to grant a waiver. So to me conditions cloud the issue and the real issue is whether or not to allow a waiver as a moratorium. Hernandez: As I understand it we can approve the waiver or not approve or approve it with conditions. So that is part of the option we have. Robertson: Yea. I would think so too. Also the I'd like time to read the things and think about them and to have something presented, especially in writing, that I have to consider and vote on in the same evening is, I think, unfair to everybody concerned. So the fact of the matter is we would have to vote on the issue first and then continue it to another week to review the conditions if we decided that we were to approve it. But we wanted to consider conditions and I'm not sure that's necessary. But I do hear your concern. The primary issue is not the conditions. It certainly is not the lay out of the building. I don't think we're here to consider....we're not setting in the place of the BAR or the Planning Commission. What we're really sitting as is the Council reviewing exception to a moratorium we put in place. Craft: The moratorium did not say motel or hotels that meet certain conditions. Robertson: That's correct. Craft: It didn't say that. It just simply stated certain types of businesses. Hernandez: One of the criteria that we weigh is the best interest of the City. I think that that's why we have to broaden the discussion to include other aspects. Cohen: That's correct. This is a balancing test and intent of the Moratorium and best interest of the City weighed against the interest of the individuals are some of the factors that your are to consider. And if concerns about crime and other considerations need to be discussed in this balancing test is completely appropriate to discuss. What you might be able to do to meet the intent of the moratorium plus also to satisfy or alleviate any hardship that the applicant might suffer. Mullet: Does that address some of your concerns, Joyce. Craft: It's just confusing to me. 17 Mullet: Are there any other comments by the Council on this subject before we move on to the next one. It's been proposed that we deliberate and come back next week. And I think that....I can say that's the consent of the Council unless somebody has anything to say now against that. Robertson: Do we have time on the agenda next week to deal with this? Hernandez: Are we still dealing with the PRD? Robertson: Is there any reason that the applicant can't be present next week? Mullet: OK. We'll take up the matter, the decision at the next Regular Meeting then. For the record, that will be April 4. END OF VERBATIM. 18 2" Verbatim Transcript Public Hearing Consideration of the Planning Commission's recommendation of conditional approval of the Southgate Trailer Park Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Rezone Tukwila City Council March 28, 1994 Council President, Steve Mullet: Next up on the agenda is the public hearing for the quasijudicial consideration of the Planning Commission's recommendation of conditional approval of the Southgate Trailer Park Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Rezone. First order of business is how much time do we need? Ann Siegenthaler. Associate Planner: Ten minutes? Rick Beeler: Fifteen minutes? Mullet: The other side? j(Unclear)_About fifteen twenty minutes. Mullet: About fifteen- twenty? How many citizens, Rick, did you check the list back there? and... (unclear) Rick Beeler. Director. DCD: Bruce Harder and Jerry Marcey Mullet: So that's two and one more Okay, three? The gentleman sitting in the front there. Okay, how does twenty minutes for each side sound, and how much for citizens comments? Ten mnutes? Councilmember Dennis Robertson: Sounds fair, agreeable. REV I S E D 4/4/94 crag_ Revisions shown Mayor Rants: Did the Council wish a few words from the City Attorney on this issue? Allan, did you want some clarification here? Councilmember Allan Ekberg: My concern was, is this quasijudicial nature for the rezone issue different from the quasijudicial nature of the physical waiver? For instance, the comment was made by yourself or City Attorney that once we closed the public hearing, we could then ask additional questions. In other quasijudicial processes I have been associated with, once we closed the public hearing we could not ask any questions, so I have a confusion state on that. City Attorney Linda Cohen: There was a specific request made by one of the councilmembers to find a way to gain more information from either the applicant or the staff during deliberations, but before a vote. The compromise, which I believe is be appropriate, would be a situation that would be similar to one that a judge would engage in while closing a public hearing so that citizen's comments would no longer be appropriate. I still feel that it would be appropriate to gather information from staff, the applicant, or the appellant, just as a judge would do before rendering his or her opinion. So that with a compromise that I feel comfortable with and would also allow Council to obtain the information that you need in making an informed decision, rather than having staff come back or applicant come back and say that certain conditions are unworkable. So I feel comfortable with this compromise and I looked into it in response to the request of a certain councilmember. Councilmember Dennis Robertson: Before we start, also on Attachment B there is decision criteria, could we have the City Attorney briefly review that? City Attorney Linda Cohen: Certainly, with respect to the criteria of the rezone, I believe its set out on *the chart before Council, and we can make that -is that a numbered Exhibit *Siegenthaler: It's already entered into the public record as Attachment B.* *Cohen: On Attachment B, the first three criteria for rezone are contained in the Tukwila Municipal Code under 18.84.030. The next two criteria, significant changes have occurred and proposed rezones in the best interest of public health and safety as compared to the hardship, while they are not found in the code, they are mandated by Washington State Law, such as *Bisanti versus Board of* County Commissioners, Parkridge vs. Seattle and Woodcrest Investments vs. Skagit County. I believe the sixth criteria is not applicable in this case, and *need* not be addressed by Council. At this time it would be appropriate to disclose any appearance of fairness issues or ex -parte contacts the councilmembers may have had. Mullet: We'll, I'll go first, I haven't discussed with anybody this particular application for rezone, but I've certainly discussed over the years this particular piece of property. That's all I have to say. Councilmember Dennis Robertson: I would have the same comment, only in the sense that I have discussed the problems associated with the current use with Councilmembers, City staff and Police when I have been riding with them. But I don't believe that the current uses in those discussions in any way impairs my way to be impartial in the decision of the rezone. City Attorney Linda Cohen: Steve Mullet do you feel that you can be fair and impartial on this issue? Council President Mullet: Yes, I do. City Attorney Linda Cohen: Hearing no challenges, everyone who is intending to testify during the course of this quasijudicial hearing stand and raise your right hand. Do you affirm that the facts you are about give in this matter to be the truth? Unanimous Resnonse: I do. Beeler: Thank you, I'm Rick Beeler, the Director of the Department of Community Development. I would like to briefly introduce the issue before you tonight, and that is two issues. One is the post- comprehensive plan amendment, and second is the proposed rezone of the property which now contains the Southgate Mobile Home Park. The existing comprehensive plan is medium density residential, it is being requested to go to commercial. Existing zoning on the property that is really in question is the R -2 portion, which is the more westerly portion behind the gas station and that has been requested to go to C -2. The Planning Commission's recommendations here and you have the minutes of that meeting, there is a long history of code 2 )_14:5 enforcement on this particular piece of property, but the issue before you tonight are only these two, and that is the comprehensive plan amendment, whether to grant that or not, and the rezone, whether or not to grant that. With that I will introduce Ann Siegenthaler, from the department and she will give you a presentation on these applications. Siegenthaler: Good evening. I would like to make sure you all have for tonight's discussion, the exhibits that you need. First of all is Exhibit 1, which is the packet that was distributed earlier, it contains the various attachments. Also there are Exhibits 2 and 3, these are comment letters from citizens. I would also like to enter into the public record Exhibit 4, which is here, and Exhibit 4 is an existing City aerial photo of the existing Southgate trailer site. That's for illustrative purposes tonight and reference. Also for ease of discussion tonight, on the wall behind you we have two items out of the existing Council packet. One is the vicinity map, showing the site's location relative to the neighborhood, and the second one on the far end is the applicant's proposed site plan, as required in the rezone application. The other two items on the wall behind you are existing zoning map and also our existing comprehensive plan. Those two boards show the site in relation to the rest of Tukwila and surrounding land uses. Rants: Ann, can we just number those consecutively, Exhibit 5, 6, 7 8? Siegenthaler: We can do that, these are actually part of the public record, for ease of reference we can certainly do that. So Exhibit 4 would be the existing City aerial, Exhibit 5 would be the existing zoning map, Exhibit 6 is the existing comprehensive plan, Exhibit 7 is the vicinity map, and Exhibit 8 is the site plan. There has been a lot of community sentiment regarding this project and we will hear additional comments tonight. Given that, I think that it is important to note some of the attempts that we have made to inform the public about tonight's meeting and also the Planning Commission's meeting. Our ordinances require us to give public notice in three ways. One, by mailing notices to surrounding property owners, by posting a notice on the site, and also by publishing notices in the newspaper. We did those three types of public notices on this project. In addition to that, staff also did an additional mailing, we mailed the SEPA checklist around to the neighbors. We also published an article in the Hazelnut, letting people know of the different meetings, and third, we held a public information meeting on December 1, 1993 so that people could come in and find out more about the project and ask questions of the proponent. As the City Attorney mentioned, and Rick Beeler mentioned, it has been several years since you have looked at a rezone and comprehensive plan amendment. What's different about this type of quasijudicial review is that there are specific criteria which are established by Washington case law and also by our ordinances, that need to be evaluated, and the proposal needs to be compared to those criteria. Those criteria are listed in your packets in Exhibit 1, as attachment B. Also for your reference we have *here* on this chart, and there are a couple of important points about these criteria. One is that there are two separate sets of criteria, you are really looking at two separate proposals. Although they are related, they are separate proposals. A rezone cannot be granted unless the comprehensive plan is amended. That is the relationship between the two. *and this needs to occur first, the comp plan amendment, before a rezone can be considered The second thing to recall about these criteria is that the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate that the proposal meets the criteria. You have information in your packets and the various attachments that the applicant has submitted showing their justification for this proposal. These criteria set the framework for this discussion tonight. 3 ;0 Cohen: Excuse me for a minute, the only way we that have to record these proceedings is through the tape recorder, and we need to have a verbatim transcript and when other people are talking it will be very difficult to pick that up. Siegenthaler: Thank you. I'd like to just orient you again to the site, I think you're all pretty familiar with where it is, what it looks like, but again, referring to Exhibit 4, the Southgate Trailer Park is located on 42nd Ave., to the north we have S. 140th St., to the south S. 141st. Pacific Highway South runs here to the west beside the site. One thing that is a little bit confusing about this project is that there is a narrow strip of commercial land already existing here on Pacific Highway South. That happens to be owned by the same owner of the Southgate Trailer Park. They are two separate parcels however, and the proposal concerns just this site, the Southgate Trailer Park site, not the commercial strip. This is zoned C -2 regional commercial and again, this site, the Southgate site is zoned R -2 medium density residential. That is one of the challenges of this proposal, is that it has many different faces, it's got commercial nearby, it has *some sort of medium density residential and also *some* single family residential uses on the other side. The applicant proposes to change the existing R -2 medium density residential designation to a regional commercial C -2 designation. *Now, I'm sure you'll have* a question about the types of uses that a regional commercial zone designation would allow and we can give you some more examples later, but in general that type of designation would allow uses such as regional retail, restaurants, auto oriented uses. It would also allow office uses on that site. The Planning Commission, as you know from the staff report in your packet, reviewed the proposal on December 8, 1993. In their discussion, the Planning Commission felt that a modification of the applicant's original proposal would be appropriate. The Planning Commission felt that it would be important to maintain a residential buffer along 42nd Ave., next to existing residential areas, and they also recommended that there be a commercial designation to the west, along Pacific Highway South. [2937 -2939] the Planning Commission recommended commercial regional C -2 designation to the west, and along 42nd maintain the medium density residential on the east. The dividing line that they decided was appropriate for these two different designation was 270 feet from Pacific Highway South. So measuring *back, it's approximately half of the site In their deliberation and decision on these two designations for that site, the Planning Commission considered several different factors. These factors are listed in the staff report in attachment A on page 2. You might want to refer to those. The four reasons for the Planning Commission decision were adjacent land uses, the Planning Commission was concerned about the need to buffer existing residential uses along 42nd Ave. S. Another factor was public testimony at the hearing. The Planning Commission heard several people speak, there was a lot of discussion about code enforcement and a lot of citizens were concerned that the current conditions would be maintained under the current zoning, unless there was a different zoning designation. The third factor that the Planning Commission considered was the pre annexation zoning. There was some concern that during the process of pre annexation zoning reviews, that the original R -2 medium density residential designation may have inappropriate for the site. 4 )1-K The fourth factor that the Planning Commission considered was the recommendations of the Tukwila Tomorrow Committee. The Tukwila Tomorrow Committee meeting minutes, which the Planning Commission reviewed, are also in your packet. You can refer to those in Attachment G. The Tukwila Tomorrow Committee had some of the same concerns as the Planning Commission had. They wanted to make sure residential uses were buffered along 42nd. They also recognized the need for viable commercial uses along Pacific Highway South. This was a different sort of a process, it was not a quasijudicial review, but rather was a part of Tukwila Tomorrow's work on our Comprehensive Plan through the legislative process. But none the -less, they came up with similar conclusions. The Tukwila Tomorrow Committee decided to make a dividing line between two different designations at 200 feet from Pacific Highway South. Those are some of the decisions that have been made so far in the project, and tonight in your review of these you have several options. You can look at the Planning Commission recommendations, which I have explained to you briefly, the Tukwila Tomorrow Committee recommendation, which is a little bit different. The applicant's proposal is also another option of zoning *the entire site as regional commercial C -2 versus some split, or you could decide on some combination of designations, and put the line separate those designations somewhere else on the site. Or you could decide to zone it entirely something else, and all this designation for example.* The important thing to remember, as the City Attorney has pointed out, any decision that you make tonight that is different than the current comprehensive plan designation for zoning at this site, needs to be based on these criteria. We need to go through a set of findings and conclusions to justify any change. We've given you some options to look at, but again anything other than the existing designations will need to be based on these criteria. I think you will hear a lot of comments tonight, as the Planning Commission did, about a lot of the site's trouble in the past. There will be some comments probably on code enforcement issues, some concern about economic feasibility or economic hardship, given the site's current zoning. You may also hear some comments about pre annexation zoning and whether that was appropriate and so forth. But the important thing to remember is that, while these are concerns, the only criteria that are relevant to this proposal that you're looking at tonight in this quasijudicial review, are these criteria here. If you have some questions on the GMA process or code enforcement, staff is here and we would be happy to help you with those or answer any questions that you have. But again, the criteria are the framework for your discussion tonight and any decision you make. Thank you. I'll take any questions. Cohen: I should have pointed this earlier, I'm sorry, but not only are these the criteria, but I'd like to point out that the applicant has the burden of showing that these criteria have been met. Ekberg: I have a question on my part. Question being the criteria I earlier (unclear) is in our packet. We have to go through the Comprehensive Plan amendment before we look at the rezone. Siegenthaler: That is correct. Ekberg: As far as items 1 -3 on the comprehensive plan amendment, are those separated by "and statements" or "or statements do we have to meet one of those in order to require all three of them? 5 Siegenthaler: The comprehensive plan amendments and rezone proposals that you have reviewed in the past, have used these criteria, and all criteria need to be satisfied. Ekberg All criteria need to be satisfied. Siegenthaler: Yes, so it's an "and" versus an "or." Robertson]: I have a question on criteria 5 of Attachment B for rezone. It says, the proposed rezone is in the best interest of the public health and safety as compared to the hardship, such as diminishing of property value imposed on the individual property owner. I'm not quite sure what that means, does that mean that we have to balance one against the other one, or we should only be concerned with public health and safety here, and not be concerned with the hardship imposed on the individual property owner? Siegenthaler: I can give you the planning process interpretation, perhaps the City Attorney can give you the legal interpretation. In terms of the long -term planning process, and looking at *the designations* for various sites, you're right, it is a balancing act. That's exactly what our Tukwila Tomorrow Committee is doing now, they're looking at different properties and balancing the long -term public interest of the community in relation to specific properties. The problem with focusing on economic hardship is that there is nothing in the application so far to demonstrate that there is an economic hardship under the existing R -2 zoning designation. In fact there has been some public testimony suggesting that anything other than the current designation may create an economic hardship for neighbors. So there is a balancing act that needs to be considered. Councilmember Joan Hernandez: Ann, you mentioned that in December of 1993 there was a public information meeting, is the information from that contained anywhere in this document or in this exhibit? Siegenthaler: No it isn't, I can briefly tell you what occurred and what was presented at the meeting. It was basically an open house, an informal sort of meeting. We had the aerial exhibit for reference, we had exhibits 7 8, the applicant's proposal, and the applicant gave a presentation to some members of the community that came in to find out about the project. Hernandez: What there opportunity for public testimony or comment. Siegenthaler: It was not a public hearing, therefore there was no public testimony per se, but there was a dialog between the applicant and some members of the community. Several citizens asked questions, and their questions were answered by the applicant. Hernandez: Were there minutes taken? Siegenthaler: No, again, since it was not a public hearing, there were no minutes taken. Hernandez: The Planning Commission hearing I assume was December 8, 1993, this is 1994, the comment on Attachment A, so I assume that either it...did it follow the public information meeting? Siegenthaler: Yes, the public information meeting was held the week before with the intention that we would get citizen's comments at the public information meeting/open house and that it 6 would also generate some thought and discussion and we may get some additional public comments to present to the Planning Commission. We prepared a citizen comment form that they could fill out and had those available at the open house, so that citizens could write down their comments and we could collect those and forward them to the Planning Commission as they were written. We did not receive any written comments like that at the information meeting though. Hernandez: Thank you. Councilmember Joe Duffle: I have a question. When you had the public meeting, approximately how many citizens were there? Siegenthaler: There were three. Duffle: Just three? Siegenthaler: Three. Duffle: How many meetings did you hold? Siegenthaler: The one public information meeting was the only meeting we held that was not a public hearing, and that was advertised through a notice in the Hazelnut, as the other meetings were. Duffle: No notice like that was sent out to the property owners around... Siegenthaler: Yes we did. There was notice to the property owners of the Planning Commission meeting and the public information meeting. We did have some citizens come to the Planning Commission meeting, but we only had three people come to the open house. [Ekberg]: I'll follow up with that, how many concerned residents or businesses came to the public hearing? Siegenthaler: I don't recall the exact number of citizens in attendance. From the Planning Commission minutes, we can ascertain how many citizens actually gave testimony. There were probably more citizens in attendance than those who gave testimony. Ekberg: Oh, yea. Siegenthaler: It looks like there were six citizens who testified at the Planning Commission hearing. [Mullet]: Any other questions, then.? Hernandez: Ann, is there a road or a driveway separating the commercial C -2 zone from the R -2 zone? Siegenthaler: Not to my knowledge, the property owner can probably better answer that. 7 Hernandez: Ann, it appears as though the commercial zone is slightly smaller than the R -2 portion? Siegenthaler: The existing commercial zone? 'Hernandez The existing... Siegenthaler: The existing commercial zone runs about here (pointing to map) and here's a driveway, it's not a public road, but there is probably *a form of access through here. So it's quite a narrow strip, it's about eight to nine feet I believe. Mullet Any other questions to ask? That concludes staff's presentation then? Okay. Siegenthaler: Thank you. Mullet At this point we'll move to the applicant. Roger Blaylock: Good evening, my name is Roger Blaylock. My address is 925 116th Ave. N.E., Suite 201, Bellevue, WA 98004. I'm an urban planner, and in fact remember standing in this room many years ago in 1978 when the building was first built as staff to the Planning Commission. I don't think I went through any meetings that were quite as long as the one encountered on the review of Southgate Mobile Home Park here. What we have a situation where the attorney and the property owner got involved and they came to me looking at it, and I looked at the site and was pretty surprised because there's a couple of issues here. One is the issue dealing with a use that's been there 40 -50 years, and now it's old, it needs to be replaced. The second issue is, what do we do with it? Well, the Planning Commission, I don't think it shows in their minutes, but they spent two hours deliberating, and I really hope you don't do that this evening. I think a lot about the record that's from the Planning Commission, could be adopted by the Council, showing reasons why it is appropriate to change this It comes back really to one critical thing, and that is that Tukwila's taken over this and they have a new vision for it. This is going to become a new community center, at 144th Pacific Highway, down there. This is the northern edge of that community center. But the issue is, on this property, one that was very clearly stated, and I would reference that from the minutes, it was stated by a citizen. That was from Pam Carter, and she said, "You're not being asked to rezone property on Highway 99, you're being asked to rezone property on 42nd Ave. S." And how can we accomplish this to the best interest of the City, to create this new focus, and allow the development? Well, if you look at Exhibit C in your packets, it's very interesting. This was prepared by the staff at the public hearing to try to clarify what was going on, and it shows the applicant's proposal, basically changing all this to C -2 commercial. And then below you can see what the Planning Commission did after two hours of deliberation, one vote that was a tie vote because they were having trouble thinking about this, because we proposed something that was different, which is actually in Exhibit E on the back side. We suggested that as effective as a use buffer, was a physical buffer. The goal here is that we don't want intrusion onto 42nd. We want the residential uses along 42nd to feel comfortable and actually improve the feeling that they have. 42nd is going to be improved a lot, the City is going 8 to be spending a lot of money in the next year on this street. The City is going to be developing a new library system, school, all these other things up there, this is community focus on the south end, so this is going to become a neighborhood collector. We felt turning our back onto 42nd was the wise thing to do because we have a unique piece of property. Our piece of property is under one ownership, that makes it unique for one point of view, but it's also the closest where Highway 99 and 42nd are together. It is the closest piece, I mean it's the narrowest piece. Tust how narrow is that? This is the entire(unclear). It provides opportunity and it provides a nice planning focus of the northern edge of this new community that is going to be created. This new community focus that Vision 99 has suggested. 4- Even atVision 99, if you look carefully, they're suggesting that even a neighborhood focus by itself will not work, it needs some of this regional focus and that's why we went to the C -2 for the regional uses. So we see, if we are looking specifically at the criteria, what's happening? Unforeseen changes. A new vision of the City. Focusing a new neighborhood. In 1989 when Mr. Kim bought this property, just one month before it was annexed, he thought he was buying a piece of commercial and multiple family property that was being rezoned in the County into a higher intensity. But a month after he bought it he discovered that, low and behold, he was inside the City, he hadn't been aware of any public hearings and things that had gone on in the previous six months, and so he is sitting there with his own vision of redeveloping the site, but with no opportunity at this point. The comprehensive plan was in process, so we had to let the comprehensive plan work, and so we applied eventually for the comprehensive plan and rezone application together. Now factual evidence supports a need -the second one—evidence supports an addition or change of public need for the property designation. Well, I looked at the property very closely and thought, you know this is the end of a transitional use, and the record shows that this was probably put in the 1950's, actually it was probably put in the 1940's when Boeing was going strong. It's old. It's tired. I've had other clients look at the idea of taking it and revitalizing it to a mobile home park again. There's really not any opportunity. Economically, Mr Kim bought it with the vision that he was going to develop it into something unique, which is not even in Tukwila City code, which is a hotel/office. Hotel/office? Well, Tukwila's no longer just linked to the state of Washington with its international airport nearby, it's linked farther. We have businessmen that do business in China, Japan, the Orient... All of their communications are 12 -14 hours off. So a new style was envisioned by Mr. Kim, that's actually happening in Asia right now, but the codes don't show it, and so his vision got lost, he'd spent $10,000 in his initial plans just looking at that idea, and thinking "This is what I'll use it for." Well, within that month's time he had problems, because he didn't have the zoning any more and then the comprehensive plan was working, and so he waited. Well, I don't think his attorney waited, he got a little angry at the process and began pushing. I think that's part of the reason we're here. The proposal in the comprehensive plan is wonderful because if we look at this area, I'd like to come up and use some of these exhibits... What we have here is if you look at this very closely, 42nd, Pacific Highway, it's the northern edge, but it's also the top of the rise, it's the gateway that the people were tallcing about earlier. It's the gateway coming in on Pacific Highway South, coming south into Tukwila. And this is going to be your new community focus, with your center here with the school, new library, higher density commercial uses around it, you have the new Larry's Market, you have Bartells, you have this whole area going through a dramatic evolved transition. It is becoming a heart again for this community, which is really nice. But we believe that this is the northern focus of that. We have property just to the south of this that is RMH. It allows buildings 45 feet high. The R -4 allows buildings, if I remember correctly, 35 feet high, the R -2 would have buildings 35 feet high, and the C -2, if extended across that would have buildings 9 2 '�v approximately 30 feet high across it. So what we felt was an effective design tool, was to create a heavy berm, 30 feet wide, 8 feet high, possibly with fencing or structures on it, to push the face of this property to the west and the highway. So what we were doing is, we were creating, using the design features that a City can use, to create a more acceptable potential for the property. The zoning, as I showed in that area is very different too, because in the County zoning they use the old R -2 zoning, as a secondary buffer against higher density multiple family. We can only find two examples on your map where R -2 abuts C -2. It abuts RMH, R -4 or R -3. So we have something unique again, so by dividing it we create that uniqueness that doesn't quite fit, and the question is, is that reasonable to do? It's only done in two cases, and so we don't think it's really reasonable, it's not a good pattern to follow. I referred you back to the Planning Commission and I encourage you to read their concerns and deliberations very carefully, because they struggled with it. It was a 2 -2 vote initially to go to allow the entire site, and then it came back splitting it. I think a lot of that reasoning for splitting it, was that the guideline had been set by the Vision 2000 suggestions, and I think those are suggestions. Here we have the opportunity to make it work. One of the things that Ann said, and I hope I can quote this correctly, "You want to have an area along the highway that's viably commercial." But you also want to have the feeling of residential along 42nd. We think the compromise that we proposed can do that. Our problem is, looking at the old commercial along the highway, that it's not viable because it is strip commercial, we have little pieces, it's very difficult, when you look at both Bartells and Larry's on the other side, they had greater depth to work with and make it functional, and that's why it was redeveloped first. We don't think that the east side of 99 here will redevelop quite as fast, but we have the opportunity. I'm looking at the third- -how would the proposal have been analyzed foeffects on the existing comprehensive plan. We think it fits in. It provides that northern boundary, you can work that in in that process. In the rezone, the use of the property, use or change in zoning requested shall be in conformity with the adopted comprehensive plan. We think that goes along also with the Vision 2000. The request is not in agreement, when the request is not in agreement with the comprehensive plan the applicant shall provide evidence to the City Council's satisfaction, that there is additional need for the requested land classification. Here we run into a little bit of problems because we don't know what the use will be. I will state that very clearly. We don't know what the use will be. And that's why we're requesting the zoning, because of the chicken or the egg question. If we have a user and we're ready to go, then we have the trauma of going through the process and trying to get it approved. If we have the use and the design directed, then we have the opportunity to find a user that fits. We still have to go through BAR review, we still have to go through specific design review. What we will do, and what we are suggesting here, is a specific covenant on the property to prohibit access and require landscaping to the City of Tukwila, thirty feet wide, so that we have no access. There could be design criteria placed into it that the BAR has directed to have to use. I think that helps address the citizen's concern that we don't have commercial encroaching onto 42nd. We don't want to be on 42nd, we don't see any business on 42nd. The problem is that if we divide the property because of the amount that was paid for it, the vision that Mr. Kim thought it had, we end up with a low density multiple family on one side, directing traffic and things onto 42nd, and the higher density commercial on the other side, on Highway 99. But it's not large enough to be viable. And I think that's the key. The commercial area needs to be viable. 10 Significant changes have occurred in the character conditions surrounding neighborhood that justify or otherwise sustain the proposed rezone. This one I can get myself into trouble with the client because I think that the use has come to its end, its age end. It's like a building. A building will last 40 -50 years and then have to be redone. This mobile home park was envisioned I think as a transitory use, but now it's 50 years later...what I'm suggesting is let's be creative so we can encourage them to go on. And in the public health and interest, I think some of the discussions around the issues that we're really not here to discuss, the concern over the policing and everything else, if we don't create the opportunity then we have a City festering. It becomes a economic thing, you can't over the economic curve to redevelop it, I think we can see that. The City can see that in its own things, that if they can't economically do something on its own count, it worries about the dollars to do something, we have to be concerned about that now. And I think growth management even suggests that we need to be concerned about the economics a little bit closer. In fact, I'm working on a project up in Snohomish County where we did an economic evaluation showing that the City could pull in $400 million dollars in retail sales, which was pretty amazing, and I use Southcenter as a comparison, because they have huge economic leakages. But we have to look at economics today. I'm not quite sure how #6 fits in, it's not unimproved property, its almost the reverse. We have a code enforcement situation that we'd like to resolve, but that we can't economically afford to resolve unless we can create a viable commercial area or a viable redevelopment of the site. I think that happens in old downtown cores and other areas. I would be happy to answer any questions at any time, we've seen the changes in the area, I don't really want to go back and pound any more on the criteria, I think it's pretty obvious, the shape in unique, the location is unique, the Vision 2000 Committee is suggesting a new vision for this area, we have new development, the redevelopment of a high school, other activities to the south, we have other uses around us. But at the first *blush* when I looked at it, when I really looked at it, I thought is this an intrusion of commercial into a residential area? And I thought, yes, it is. And then I started looking at it a little bit more with the other uses around it, and the potentials, and realized that there could be a design alternative that would actually make this piece of property a positive element in the comprehensive plan and zoning. Thank you. Duffie: *I have one question that I want to ask you, that is I've been having problems when I read this over. Two questions on* Item 6, unimproved and unsuitable. Who made this condition? Roger Blaylock: I am going to have to defer that, defer to your own staff. *Cohen I believe the sixth item is not something that is being considered here, it's an inappropriate consideration for this particular case. So I don't think staff looked at it. *Mullet Any other questions? Did you have other people from the applicant... *Blaylock Our attorney would like to talk just a moment, I don't believe he was sworn in. *Mullet Do you know how much time they have left approximately? 11 �5� 1873 -875] Unclear Attorney for Applicant, Edward Parks: Good evening ladies and gentlemen, my name is Edward Parks, I am the attorney for Mr. Kim, the applicant in this matter. I wasn't planning on addressing the Council this evening, but based upon what has been represented to the Council, especially with respect to criteria and the burden of proof and other matters that have been raised by the City staff, I think it is appropriate that we enter, at least from our legal standpoint, what we believe the legal position is of the Council, because we take exception to what has been said. What I am going to refer to now is Title 18, which is the zoning code of the City of Tukwila. With specific reference to three sections of the ordinance. The first one is 18.80.010, which is titled Hearings Council Authority Commission Recommendations, which says "the Council may amend, change, modify or repeal regulations and restrictions as established in this title, and may change, restrict, or amend the boundaries of the various districts established in this tide. Before acting upon any proposed amendment, modification, change, restriction, extension or change in the maps or text of this title, the same shall be referred by the Council to the Planning Commission. The Commission, after due public notice and hearing, shall submit a report to the Council containing its recommendation thereon." Now we have had that hearing at the Planning Commission...the reports and recommendations are present in front of the Council. The other appropriate sections are 18.84.010 and 18.84.020. I am going to take certain excerpts out of 18.84.010, because the whole thing is not necessary to read at this time. 18.84.010 is titled "Submission to Planning Commission. Any request for a change in zoning of any district or area, or of any boundary lines thereof as shown on the zoning maps, shall be submitted to the Planning Commission... After due public notice, the Planning Commission shall transmit its recommendations thereon to the City Council along with any necessary covenants or agreements which have been fully executed by the petitioner." The next section of the code, which is 18.84.020, is probably most significant for our purposes tonight. It says, Submission to City Council Action. Upon receipt of all necessary documents and the recommendations of the Planning Commission, the City Council may act on said recommendation without further public hearing. Now gentlemen and ladies, if we read that section of the Tukwila Municipal Code, in light of the other two sections with respect to the nature of the hearings, the only logical interpretation that we would propose is that there has been a quasijudicial hearing in front of the Planning Commission, pursuant to public notice, where testimony was taken, decisions of the Planning Commission were made in which they ruled upon the criteria which are set forth here and made very specific findings contained within the report to the Council, concerning the fact that all the criteria were in fact established, and we therefore say, that we would like to adopt, or are adopting, the findings of the Planning Commission, with respect to the criteria that are set forth. I would further urge that under the Tukwila Municipal Code, it is not necessary under 18.84.020 for the City Council to specifically make findings of facts with respect to the issues that I have pointed out here as criteria for your decision. Those criteria have already been established. If you are able to proceed without public hearing, then it is implicit in that statement that nothing need be proved in front of the Council if you are able to proceed without public hearing. So we would urge that the findings of the Planning Commission with respect to the criteria are sufficient for the purposes here, and the Council can act without regard to what was said earlier, that you must find each one of these criteria except this item #6 before you can proceed. And that is our legal position. Thank you. *Ekberg May I follow with a question on this? From your reading of 020, does it say that the public hearing cannot be held? 12 Parks: No, it does not say that, it says but you can act without further public hearing, and therefore the only interpretation then is, in reading this, and remember now in preparing for hearings and everything else, the requirements in front of the Planning Commission is set forth... The Commission, after due public notice and hearing, shall submit a report. There is an absolute requirement for the public hearing before the Planning Commission. There is no similar requirement for the City Council. What the staff is suggesting to you is that we're essentially having two trials. We *try it in front of the Planning Commission, *and* we take the very same things...we have the very same burden, to show you the very same things that were established to the Planning Commission at least as far as, once they made the findings, they made the findings. Had they not made the findings, then I would say we have an opportunity here to suggest that maybe you should make those findings, but once those findings have been made, why should an applicant have to go through the same burden twice. And I think that is what your code is saying here. *Mullet I'm sure we'll get some legal advise on that from our... *Parks: I'm sure we'll have differences of opinion.* Cohen: *I can easily address that, and if you'll just look down...* It is a simple enough matter. This is a de novo proceeding by Council. What you get from the Planning Commission is a recommendation, it is not a decision, it is a recommendation. Under 18.84.030, it says, "The Planning Commission and City Council shall be guided by the following criteria in granting reclassification requests to the zoning map of this title" and it goes through the first criteria. So it is Council's responsibility to be at least guided by these criteria. *Mullet We are not going to debate the legal thing here tonight. But I have another related question, I'm a little confused, are you now saying you accept the Planning Commission's findings, for splitting the property in half, you just said that we should go on their recommendation, or not on their recommendation. Parks: No, that's not what we're saying, what we're saying is this, with respect to the criteria, before decision of recommendation is made. Before the Planning Commission can make a recommendation, the Planning Commission had determined whether criteria were met. Once they determined that the criteria were met, then they can say, okay, we'll modify the comp plan or make a recommendation to the comp plan, we'll make a recommendation to amend the zoning. But until the criteria are established, they say we can't go into the recommendation. Yea, or nay, are the criteria established? The Planning Commission very specifically went through and said, yes the criteria are established, they went through long discussions about how they arrived at their conclusions that the specific criteria enabling them to go to the issue of amending the comp plan, or modifying the zoning, were satisfied. What we're saying is the Council in the record, has before it those findings, and those findings can adopted by the Council, and the criteria satisfied in front of the Planning Commission are also satisfied in front of the Council. The Planning Commission found the criteria set forth and I would note also that when Council was citing 18.84.030, The Planning Commission and City Council shall be guided... The term there is "guided," it is not "shall be bound it's "shall be guided by those criteria." *Mullet So to clarify my question, you are still asking for C -2 zoning for the whole piece of property, and not what the Planning Commission recommended to us to split it in half. 13 Parks: That is correct. C -2 zoning all the way through... *Blaylock If I could clarify that just a bit too is, from the exhibit you have, we're asking for modification that clearly shows that there is a 30 foot demarcation for landscaping, that separates it. Because the way it is presented in the first exhibit, I believe it is C, suggests that it's just a carte blanche across the thing, we could have an access, everything else, is that the design limitation should be forced back to 99 to *(unclear)* *Mullet Is there anybody else from your side that is going to speak now? Parks: No. *Mullet Thank you very much. Are there any other questions for the applicant. At this point and time we'll have citizen's comments. Pam, you were first on the list. Pam Carter: 4115 S. 139th St. Yes, as the gentlemen said, I want to remind you again, this property is on 42nd. The part on the highway is already commercial. We're talking about the portion that people's residences face. The people living in the Birch Crest Apartments on 140th, those are also residents, they are not throw -away people, they are residents. They face this property as well as the people on the east side of 42nd. In the application, much was made of the economic difficulties. On Item #5 of the rezone application, it states that prior to annexation it was purchased by this owner. At the Planning Commission Mr. Kim said he bought it a month and 1/2 before annexation. At the public information meeting on December 1st, Mr. Kim said his purchase date was July of 1989. Annexation was official in April of 1989. Now both statements can't be true. If he purchased it before annexation, then he neglected the opportunity to participate in the zoning or appear before the Planning Commission and the Council at the time the zoning was set. If it was after the pre annexation zoning was set, or if it was after annexation, caveat emptor, he didn't know what he was getting, that is not our burden. That's his problem. There's the talk about the deterioration of the property. And he threatens that this will continue unless he's given the rezone that he likes. Well, deterioration, and lack of code enforcement are not reasons for rezone or comp plan amendment. If it were, I could let my house go to pot, weeds this high, junkers in the front yard, give up maintenance, the house could start falling down, and I could come and say, "I want to rezone, I want to put a 7 -11 on my property. It's not good for anything anymore, it's an eyesore, it's a blight. Give me a rezone. Essentially, that what we're faced with. I say, take him up on the threat. Say, okay, we're not going to give it to you, and then strictly enforce code compliance, drug abatement, I mean abatement of the drug houses in there. Abatement on unsafe dwellings. If you're going to be threatened, take him up on it. He hasn't answered the question about how the current zoning is a burden on public health and safety. I'm not talking about the operation of the trailer park, I'm talking about the current underlying zoning on both the comp plan and the zoning. You can take a look at Larry's Market, at times in the past there were problems in the parking lot. Now we could say, commercial is a blight, we don't want any commercial zoning. Larry's chose to address that problem by different hours at their new store, hiring security people, it's the conduct of their business. So Larry's isn't a blight on the neighborhood. We don't fear for our 14 lives going to Larry's. Because of the manner in which the business is conducted. This is not a deteriorating neighborhood, and I deeply resent that, being called a deteriorating neighborhood. This property is deteriorating. But that is a result of the operation of his business. To zone it to C -2, we don't know what's going to go there. Another gun and ammo shop. That's not going to improve the neighborhood. You're giving carte blanche when you zone the whole thing C -2. Frankly, the neighbors are fed up with the rats, at the Planning Commission the *Samara* owner complained that vandalism in his parking lot can most often be traced back to residents of the trailer park, people are tired of the drug dealers, they feel its unsafe. People are just fed up. But we shouldn't rezone it, because anything would be better than what's there. That's not criteria for a comp plan amendment and a rezone. At times, things have improved. I have articles here from two years ago. The time he was first asking for his... If you take this, they aren't stapled together, I apologize, I forgot to do that before I left the house. This was two years ago when he first put in his application for rezone. There are two sheets there, I tried to fold them together. It shows there was an attempt to clean it up. However, there hasn't been follow through. I've talked to various people who enter the trailer park as part of their job. They say, there's no attempt, there is lack of cooperation, the housing is unsafe. One worker told me she was told by a family, "Oh, don't step there, you'll go through the floor." We should not allow in the City that type of housing to exist. Those people deserve not mansions, low rent housing should not be mansion, but it should be safe and habitable. And that isn't what's happening. I would like to mention also the Vision 99 comments from September of 1993, community meeting. Comments such as, code enforcement and clean-up, encourage duplexes, triplexes, force property owners to maintain their properties... These were the types of concerns at that Vision 99 meeting. That was all. *Mullet: Do we need to enter this as an exhibit *Cohen: None of it's really relevent, but certainly if you -it should be marked.* *Robertson: It should be Exhibit 9, I guess.* *Mullet:* Lucy, would you see that everyone gets a copy of that? Did we have an extra one? If we don't you can have this one. Pam, I have a question. One of the things that we're here for is to deliberate the Planning Commission's recommendations, would you have any specific citizen input on that? Carter: On the Planning Commission's recommendations? I think that the Tukwila Tomorrow recommendations make more sense. The couple hundred feet back that they're recommending. Basically I felt this Planning Commission was a bit arbitrary and capricious in that I don't feel that they were looking at the criteria closely, and I have a feeling that this Body will look at the criteria then make up its mind. I had the feeling that it was the other feeling around, that the Planning Commission... As far as making a portion towards the highway, a deeper portion towards the highway, commercial, that would be satisfactory to me. Then the rest, a medium density residential. That would be fine. *Mullet: Thank you.* Any other questions *of Mrs. Carter? O.K.* Jerry Marcey. 15 Jerry Marcey: *My name is Jerry Marcey. Address:* 608 Industry Drive, Southcenter. Up until a year ago I operated a business within two blocks of subject property for the last twenty years. I was a real estate business, and as a real estate broker I am very familiar with all the happenings in the area, as to land use for the last many, many years; and I know personally that prior to Mr. Kim purchasing the property, subject property was a slum. Mr Kim did not make it a slum. It had deteriorated to a slum because that was its only economic use. *(unclear)* having any income on the property at all, poor Mrs..., oh boy, I can't remember her last name now, little old lady operated it herself for many, many years, it just fell down around her. She tried several times to propose and build other things, but without cooperation from King County. And then came the Tukwila annexation, and as to the disparaging comments as to the veracity of Mr. Kim buying the property on two different dates, well I'm familiar with the transaction. He gave the exact truth in both cases. He bought it prior to annexation, the sale closed after annexation. He was accurate in both his dates. As to use of the property affecting citizens in Tukwila, the new Larry's Market is definitely an improvement to our City. It never could have happened with the zoning that the Planning Commission has locked in death grip on this subject property. The new Larry's Market is a mirror -image across the street, kitty -corner slightly, of the subject property. The new Larry's Market has no adverse impact on its adjacent residential neighbors because Larry's has planned and designed the property well, with its traffic accesses and its buffers to the adjacent residential. The buffers proposed for the subject property by the applicant are much in excess of Larry's impact on mitigation. Thirty foot in buffer is bigger than any road in Tukwila. Especially when its a berm, raised, 8 feet, and then with trees on top of it for another 15 -20 feet high, well you won't even know it's there. It's like a wall of greenery. If the traffic is limited so it cannot access onto 42nd, and cannot access onto the side street where the apartment building is, then there will be no impact on the residential areas. There view will be terrifically enhanced compared to what it is now. The Planning Commission has in effect, proposed a mixed use zoning for the property, by bifurcating it with a line down the middle. Well, mixed use is a term that planners love, but we in the real estate industry and development industry call planners dreamers. Because it's a wonder dream. But it just won't happen in the real world. There has never been a successful mixed use project ever, ever, ever, and never will be, for whatever reasons, I don't know the reasons, but I just know that they don't work. For example, in West Seattle, at the junction of Alaska and Admiral is a huge one block square of mixed use complex, stores on the ground floor, apartments above, its gone bankrupt because it doesn't work. And that's what they're proposing here, except at ground level. Commercial out front impacting the duplexes they propose to build next to commercial. People don't want to live in a duplex next to a grocery store, they want to be in a neighborhood. We can have a commercial site here, which is likely it could be professional offices, it could be clinics, with stores out front on 99, it could be a lot of different things with no adverse impact to the neighborhood, by merely requiring as a provision of your approval of the applicant's plan, to have stipulated land use restrictions, like traffic access, and mitigation in the form of berms, trees, etc. That's all I have to say. Thank you. Any questions? *Mullet Next up is Ted Angle. Mr. Angle, did you raise you hand and swear in when the ceremony went on, I didn't see you stand. Ted Angle: No, I didn't. 16 261 Cohen: Raise your right hand. Do you affirm that the facts you're about give in this matter to be the truth. Angle: Yes. I'm a newcomer to the area. I just purchased a residence, my address is 14020 42nd Ave. S., which is directly across the street on 42nd Ave., from said trailer park. I had a certain amount of trepidation in buying this home, this is my first purchase, in that it was across the street from a trailer park. From what I have seen in the area, there is a brand new high school down the street, the Foster Library is going in, there's the new Larry's Market, there seemed like there was a concern in the area for improving the area in general. Seems to me there is a lot of commercial in the area, and that has been addressed previously, but we don't want to see the City just become nothing but offices, motels, and eateries and whatnot. Certain things that have been said earlier, one of the things I'm curious about, I know it's been a trailer park for a very long period of time, it is deteriorating, I've noticed lately there have been minor attempts to clean up a little bit here and there. I'm curious about this thirty feet wall, I obviously have an interest in the use of the property, if it is going to be zoned as a single commercial plot, and how that's going to affect my property value. I'm concerned about, what I believe Mr. Marcey had said about what planners, dreamer... If it was to be split, and there was to be low density residential on 42nd, what kind of residential is that, and who is going to be interested in buying property that abuts commercial property. Is it going to be Section 8? I've seen it happen, like on Delridge, where a house goes down on a nice big lot and they'll put up like a four -plex. In fact one I know of, was built four years ago, and it's already falling apart. It's already dumpy looking, and that was in a short period of time. Obviously I have a concern, I like the house, I got a lot of house for my money in this area of Tukwila. All in all, when people ask me why I want to live down by the airport, it's really noisy down there? It's quiet. I lived in White Center. This is a big step up for me, first home that I have bought. I'm concerned about the future use of the lot. I don't know if you are familiar with the Cooks, Joe and Laurie, I asked her if she could be here tonight, I think she's pretty much washed her hands of the whole deal. Seems to me it's really bound up in a litigious thing. I am just curious as to how long it will be before the Council comes to a conclusion and when and if this can proceed. That's pretty much it. *Mullet Mr. Angle, could you respond to the Planning Commission's decision to split it in half? Angle: What I'm concerned about, and what I think Mr. Marcey had addressed was that if it is split in half, what's sort of housing is that going to be? Is it going to be duplexes, is it going to be triplexes? And what sort of dividers are going to be between the back of the commercial lot and say would be their back yards I suppose? What are they going to do? Is there either going to be no windows in the back of the houses, are they going Section 8, rental units, or are they going to be owner occupied? What will they be? *Mullet Thank you. Joe did you have a comment you wanted to make *about 11 o'clock approaching Duffle: It's 11:00 now, we need to make a motion to extend the meeting or close the meeting at this time. *Robertson: I move that* we extend the meeting not to exceed 30 minutes. Duffle: Second the motion. 17 26 *Mullet All in favor say "aye" (unanimous). All right, we'll continue until 11:30. Is there any other citizens who want to speak on this subject tonight? (No response.) *Mullet Okay, at this point we'll close out citizen's comments, do we have time for some rebuttal? Rick, Ann, did you have... Siegenthaler: A couple of minutes... *Mullet Okay. *Robertson We should be able to complete the rebuttal phase tonight. Siegenthaler: Thank you, I will just take a couple of minutes. A couple of things, one, just for some clarification regarding the pre annexation zoning process, there were two public informational meetings during that time on the proposed annexation zoning and there were three public hearings. A citizen's task force, the Planning Commission and the Council all were involved in the process of establishing the pre annexation zoning, and notice of those meetings and hearings was sent out to all the property owners, including property owners who may own property here or live elsewhere. So I wanted to clarify that with regard to the annexation process, and whether or not owners received proper notice of that process. The second issue I wanted to clarify is, again we hear a lot about the GMA requirements, and the process we're going through now in updating our comprehensive plan, and we have some citizens spending an awful lot of time working on that. However, that is not directly relevant to this proposal that we're looking at tonight. That's a separate legislative process, we have some recommendations from the Tukwila Tomorrow committee, however the criteria that this proposal needs to be reviewed under are these criteria here. Now under the legislative process, or the GMA process, those criteria don't apply. The Council has much more discretion, you can get input from a variety of sources and you can review other information, such as economic feasibility of other designations. But for tonight's hearing, and whether or not a change is appropriate for the R -2 medium density residential designation to a commercial C -2 designation, these are the criteria that apply. These first three criteria need to be first, and then you can move on to the second set of criteria for the rezone. It's important to note that you still have the same options that the Planning Commission had in this de novo hearing. You can go with the Planning Commission recommendation, the Tukwila Tomorrow Committee recommendation, you can decide on some other combination of designations, or you can deny the application. If you deny the application, if you decide that that's appropriate, it's important to remember that the applicant will have another opportunity to raise this issue and to go through that GMA planning process that we're doing now, and look at alternate designations for the site. Through that process it will be a totally different type of requirement than the criteria that we're looking at here. Thank you. Blaylock: I think what we need to do is look at the difference raised in R -2. Two acres of R -2 would generate twenty dwelling units, approximately 200 vehicle trips, and what we're suggesting is directing those vehicle trips away from 42nd. And in this case with dividing them, specifically the way the Planning Commission wanted it, with the division between the two areas, the trips will be directed to 42nd in front of this gentleman's house. And so we will be having a series of duplex that will probably not be owner- occupied, but in a different setting. 18 What we're suggesting is that by creating a design limitation and directing it, we can create something that becomes viable. If we look at the separations, the front yard setback in an R -2 zone for one story building is only 15 feet, we're proposing 30. For a two story building, it's 20 feet. So we're providing 150% of what would be provided for a two story building. For a three story building, which he could have, it would be 30 feet, but he would still have driveway spacing out in traffic. The height limit would be 30 feet. What we're suggesting here in this C -2 classification that would be 30 stories or 35 feet, and we would have the actual, physical separation. So what I'm trying to do is just show that we have the intent to buffer the existing residential area, and will improve the quality of it, by separating it instead of creating a transitional buffer by use. And the buffer doesn't follow anything that's been in that general area before, so we're creating something that is still unique. I mean there are a lot of issues on whether we need to comply with criteria or not, and those are legal issues that I won't address. It does feel a little bit like double jeopardy, where we have to show the Planning Commission and then the Council *would* probably *need* a finding saying, the Planning Commission was in error, and not addressing these criteria. So they'd actually have to find the Planning Commission in error. But from a planning point of view, as a planner, I realize I can't dream either, and it would be better from a development approach as Mr. Marcey suggested, to have it in one piece that is economically feasible to redevelop instead of divide and create a separate transition zone. I think that's all, if the Council has any questions, I'd be happy to answer them. Robertson: Mr. Blaylock, you referenced a drawing on *Attachment 8* the back side? I guess the question I'm asking is does this constitute your architectural site plan? Blaylock: On the back side, which was Exhibit 8? Robertson: Yes. Blaylock: Yes. What we would condition ourselves to that. Please note that I did make errors, I'm not an architect, I did make errors in the actual dimensions, the dimensions that the staff has in Exhibit C are correct. But we would stipulate to the 30 feet along the back and coming in along both sides of the roadway. Robertson: Did you submit any other drawings for site plans? Blaylock: There were some conceptual site plans, as the building site plan that you see showing how building could be done on that, but if you interpret it and overlay the 30 feet, you can see that all the access could be directed the other way on that type of a building too. Robertson: So you are saying that Item 8 here is a conceptual site plan? Blaylock: Yes, it could be adjusted this way by placing 30 feet of landscaping here and directing access out in that direction. Robertson: Because that one is different than the other one. Blaylock: Correct. 19 Robertson: Thank you. *Mullet Any other questions? I guess that's all thank you. At this point and time that concludes the testimony. *Robertson: Do we normally allow citizen's rebuttal comments? (audience comment unclear). No, sir.* *Robertson: I would recommend that we do with this as we did with the previous one and continue it to the following week. We close the public hearing now, and reopen again for input from staff and applicants if we have questions, only based on our questions in the next week. Lucy did you have some input? Lauterbach: That will mean you will have Fosterview, Blue Star Southgate on next week's agenda. Are you sure you want to do that? Duffie: *Might as well taken them,* we've got to do them. I'm not at this time going to make a commitment. *Robertson If we were to do it we would have to have a special meeting to do it *Mullet We have to have time to get the transcripts done. So we can't have a meeting before then, before next week. *Robertson I wouldn't want one before. *What else is on the agenda besides...* Lauterbach: Look at the second to the last page of your agenda and see what's coming up. *Hernandez: Could we start at six *Mullet: I would hate to put is off for any more time. We might as well bite the bullet and see next week, and....* *Robertson I would rather not start the meeting at 6:00 because 7:00 is our normal starting and especially since we're dealing with issues that citizens are involved in, starting the meeting early I think is confusing. Besides, we have committee meetings and everything else on Monday nights. I recommend that we plan to do all three Monday anyway. Duffie: It shouldn't take that long to do some of these, to make some decisions. *Mullet: O.K., can the attorneys *can the applicant be here next Monday night, the fourth? *O.K.* At this point then I will close the public hearing for testimony now, and we will continue it on April *for final decision. *END OF VERBATIM TRANSCRIPT ON SOUTHGATE PARK* 20 2301