Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSEPA EPIC-19-80 - CITY OF TUKWILA / COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT - ZONING ORDINANCE (DRAFT #5)PROPOSED CONING ORDINANCI: DRAFTF #5 FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT for the PROPOSED ZONING ORDINANCE REVISIONS TEXT AND MAP (Draft #S) Prepared By CITY OF TUKWILA PLANNING DEPARTMENT FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT for the PROPOSED ZONING ORDINANCE REVISIONS TEXT AND MAP (Draft #5) Prepared By CITY OF TUKWILA PLANNING DEPARTMENT For the review and _comment . of. citizens, citizen groups, and governmental agencies In:J:compliance..with: The State Environmental Policy Act of 1971 Chapter 43, 21 C, Revised Code of Washington Revised SEPA Guidelines, Effective:January'.21. 1978 Chapter 19.7 -10, .Washington.-._ Administration Code City.of Tukwila Ordinance #1211 Date of Issue: 22 December 1981 Cost per Copy: $5.00 Bradley Coll 4�a's, AICP Responsible Official ACTION SPONSOR City of Tukwila Planning Department 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, Washington 98188 (206) 433 -1849 PROPOSED ACTION Adoption of a revised zoning ordinance to guide development in the City of Tukwila. PROJECT LOCATION Tukwila is located in west central King County in the lower Green - Duwamish River VAlley. The Tukwila.City- Limits extend generally from South 188th Street on the south to the Duwamish River on the north, and from 51st Avenue South on the west to the BNSF Burlington Northern railroad-tracks on-the east, encompassing:Rapproximately 3.8 square miles. LEAD AGENCY City of Tukwila. Planning Department RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL Brad Collins, Planning Director : ,,. City of Tukwila Planning Department ° CONTACT PERSON Caroline V. Berry; Fred N. Satterstrom, AICP Project Planners City of Tukwila Planning Department PRINCIPAL CONTRIBUTORS /LOCATION OF BACKGROUND DATA Planning Department Staff Environmental Analysis and Document Preparation of the First Draft of the Environmental - Impact Statement: Wilsey $ Ham, Inc. 1980 - 112th Avneue N.E. Central Park Building, Suite 200 Bellevue, Washington 98004 (206) 454 -3250 Graphics: Audrey Ko, City of Tukwila Planning Department. REQUIRED APPROVALS City of Tukwila City Council Adoption COST OF COPIES: DATE OF ISSUE OF DRAFT EIS: DATE OF ISSUE OF AMENDED DRAFT EIS: DATE OF ISSUE OF FINAL EIS: $ 5.00 10 October 1979 8 October 1980 22 December 1981 RECIPIENTS OF THE DRAFT AND FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENTS Federal Environmental Protection Agency Department of Energy State Department of Ecology Department of Fisheries Department of Game Department of Transportation Department of Social and Health Services Department of Commerce and Economic Development Office of Planning and Community Affairs Office of Program Planning and Fiscal Management Regional Puget Sound Council of Governments Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Agency Seattle -King County Economic Development Council Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle County Department of Budget and Program Development County Council: District 6 Bruce Laing District 8 Bob Grieve City of Tukwila Mayor Frank Todd City Council: George D. Hill Mabel Harris L. C. Bohrer J. Reid Johanson Doris Phelps Dan Saul Gary Van Dusen Planning Commission: Joseph Orrico Eileen Avery Gerald James Leo Sowinski Richard Kirsop Charles Arvidson Other Agencies and Individuals Tukwila Chamber of Commerce Cities Auburn Planning Department Bellevue Planning Department Issaquah Planning Department Kent Planning Department Renton Planning Department Seattle EIS Review Committee Libraries King County Library System Seattle Public Library'(Main Branch) Tukwila Library University of Washington Library College of Architecture $ Urban Planni Institute for Environmental Studies Newspapers Daily Journal of Commerce Renton Record Chronicle Seattle Post Intelligencer Seattle Times Highline Times CONTENTS OF THE FINAL ENVIROMMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT . SECTION I. Summary of Changes to the Proposed Zoning Ordinance II. Additions., Deletions, and Corrections to the Draft Environmental Impact Statement III. Written Comments and City of Tukwila Responses IV. Summary of Comments Received at Public Hearing SECTION I SUMMARY OF CHANGES TO THE PROPOSED ZONING ORDINANCE The following are modifications to the proposed zoning ordinance which have occurred since the publishing of draft #4 of the proposal and the distribution of, the draft E.I.S. on 8 October 1980.' These modifications. have been made by both the Planning Commission or the City Council and are listed below by chapter in the proposed ordinance. 1. Chapter 18.02. "Title:" No changes were proposed. 2. Chapter 18.04. "General Provisions." The date for which a building or structure is defined as having vested rights was changed from "six" to "twelve" months for start of construction from date of building permit. 3. Chapter 18.06. "Definitions." Several substantive changes were proposed: (a) Definitions for "access road," "curb -cut," "driveway;" "gross floor area; "high impact environment," "low impact environment," 'mean high water mark;'.' "river environment,'" and "service station" were added to the chapter. (b) The definition of "gas station" was deleted. (c) The definition of "boarding house" and "sign" were modified. • 4. Chapter 18.08. "District Established -- Maps." There were no changes to this chapter. 5. Chapter 18.10. "R -A District -- Agricultural." There were no changes to this chapter. 6. Chapter 18.12. "R -1 District -- Single Family Residence." The conditional use section was modified to include "transit shelter stations 7. Chapter 18.14. "R -2 District" -- Two Family Dwellings." There were no substantive changes to this chapter. 8. Chapter 18.16. "R -3 District -- Three and Four Family Dwellings." There were no substantive changes to this chapter. 9. Chapter 18.18. "R -4 District -- Low Apartments." There were no substantive changes to this chapter. 10. Chapter 18..20. "RMH District -- Multiple Residence High Density." There were no substantive changes to this chapter. I - 2 11. Chapter 18.26. "P -0 District -- Professional and Office District." There were no substantive changes to this chapter. 12. Chapter 18.28. "C -1 District -- Community Retail Business. " - Several uses were added to the principally permitted use section including "fixture and appliance stores," "ice cream stores," and "loan and finance companies." 13. Chapter 18.30. "C -2 District -- Regional Retail District." (a) Several uses were added to the princiaplly permitted use section including "hotels," "motels," and "tourist cabins." (b) Several uses were removed from the principally permitted use section, as they were,assumed to !'cascade from.the C -1 district into the C -2 district, including "frozen food lockers for individual or family use," "ice cream stores," "loan and finance companies," and "single family dwellings." 14. Chapter 18.34.' "C -P District -- Planned Business Centers." No substantive changes. 15. Chapter 18.38. "C -11 District -- Industrial Park." The principally permitted use section was modified to include "manufacture process and /or package of candy." 16. Chapter 18.40. r'M -1 District -- Light Industry." The principally permitted use section was modified to include "manufacture process and /or package of candy." 17. Chapter 18.42. 'm1 -2 District -- Heavy Industry." There were no substantive changes in this chapter. 18. Chapter 18.44. "Shoreline Zone." (a) The authority to review and approve Shoreline Substantial Development Permit applications has been assigned to the Planning Director. At the Planning Director's discretion, a public hearing may be scheduled before the Planning Commission to further public input. (b) Section (112), Specific Shoreline Regulations:. River environment has been modified to specify placement of access roads, parking, and storage areas. 19. Chapter 18.46. "PRD -- Planned Residential Development." The permitted districts have been changed to include only multiple family districts, excluding the commercial business districts. 20. Chapter 18.48. "PMUD - Planned Mixed -Use Districts." (a) The permitted districts have been modified to include .._ M -2 - heavy Industry. (b) The building height exception clause has been deleted from this chapter. (c) Density standards section has been modified. (d) Setbacks from the perimeter property line have been modified. 21. Chapter 18.50. "Height, Setback and Area. Regulations." This chapter has undergone several substantial changes, including:. (a) The amended version provides for two situations in which height exceptions up to 115 feet, and the second has height. exceptions greater than 115 feet. Both situations are limited to the areas illustrated on.Map 2. Exceptions to the basic height limitations can be approved by the Planning Commission acting as the Board of Architec- tural Review pursuant to the criteria set forth in Chapter 18.60. Building height exceptions greater than 115 feet are also.subject to review of the standards listed in section 18.50.040. (b) The yard regulations have been modified to allow for the Planning Department to waive yard requirements according the prevailing neighborhood yard patterns. (c) The height of fences, walls, or vegetation in. the front yard are no longer regulated. 22. Chapter 18.52. "Landscape and Recreation Space Requirements.," .Landscape requirements were eliminated from the R -1 district, the side yards of Al -1.and M -2 districts, and.parking and loading facilities. 23. Chapter 18.56. "Off- street Parking and Loading Regulations." (a) The distance which parking lots may locate from the principal use was changed from 500 to 1000 feet. (b) The text was amended so that parking lots located off -site shall require a conditional use permit or a legally binding agreement running with the land. (c) The regulation for parking and loading areas within 50 feet of a residential district was deleted. (d) Minimum parking area dimensions were modified to apply to both surface and structured parking facilities. (e) The slope regulations of entrance and exit driveways were amended to also apply to internal driveway aisles. I - 4 (f) Dispersal of compact parking stalls is no longer required. 24. Chapter 18.60. "Board of Architectural Review." (a) The scope of authority for the Board of Architectural Review has been amended to review development on a project -by- project basis rather than as a condition imposed on a zone district basis. The following types of development require B.A.R. . Review: 1) Development in the shoreline zone; 2) commercial development in excess of 10,000 gross sq. ft. in the PMH, P -0, and C -1 districts; 3) more than twelve multiple family dwelling units in the R -2, R -3, R -4, RMH, P -0, and C -1 districts 4) buildings which exceed the basic height limits; 5) development in the Interurban Special Review District excluding single family dwellings; 6) and all other proposed developments referred by the City Council or responsible official's decision pursuant to the State Environmental Policy Act or as a condition of a land use action such as a rezone. Specific wording for B.A.R. requirements has been removed from specific district regulations and placed in Chapter 18.60. (b) Special review guidelinws have been added for the Interurban area (SEE, Map 3) . The Board of Architectural Review is responsible for review of development in the area, pursuant to the criteria established in Section, 18.60.060 and the guidelines specified in sections 18.60.065(3) and (4). It is the intent of the special review to coordinate the land use and the design of structures in the Interurban area in order to effectuate the objectives outlined in the proposed code. . ) Design review for signs, formerly included in Section 18.60.060(E), has been eliminated. 25. Chapter 18.64. "General Conditional Uses." (a) "Transit shelter stations" have been added to the list of uses requiring a conditional use permit. (b) The expiration date of a conditional use permit has been modified to authorize the Planning Commission to extend the expiration date of conditional use permits where appropriate. 26. Chapter 18.66. "Unclassified Use Permit." There were no substantive changes in this section. 27. Chapter 18.70. "Nonconforming Lots, Structures and Uses." (a) The time period in which a structure or structure and premises, in combination, may be vacated or abandoned has been extended from 12 to 24 consecutive months. (b) The nonconforming parking lot section was modified for purposes of clarification. 28. Chapter 18.72. "Variances." There were no substantive changes in this chapter. 29. Chapter 18.80. "Amendments." There were no substantive changes in -this chapter. '30. Chapter 18.84. "Requests for Changes in Zoning." - There were no substantive changes in this chapter. 31. Chapter 18.88. "Application Fees." There were no substantive changes in this chapter. 32. Chapter 18.92. "Public Notice of Hearing." There were no substantive changes in this chapter. - 33. Chapter 18.96. "Administration and Enforcement." (a) The performance bond section was modified to- authorize. the City Council to extend the date of the deadline specified in the temporary occupancy permit beyond a year. (b) The fee schedule for the amount of bond was modified to read: Fair Cost Estimate . Amount of Bond up to $ 49, 9.99. 99. $ SQ,Q0.Q.QQ to $..99,999.99 $100,000.00 to $249,999.99 $250,00.0.0.0 and over 100% of the estimate 75% of the estimate 60% of the estimate 40% of the estimate Mi rte`! • Mi ; ti-, t + • 1 G2 i R-A %1 r/ C_2, Mi ©04 7 OF `ti Ma ieflL a PROPOS PER DECEMBER 1981 DRAFT Oa DINANC R-I -72 R -I -72 • R-3 ! r IR _72 RI-2 R1-72 1IR+72 4 7N2O CQ 1-142 \ 1-7i MAP 1 PROPOSED ZONING MAP Showing changes made by City Council to 12- 16 -81. y JR -H20 GRI R -A ACI.LTl1RAL R -i00 SPJGLE-FAMLY RESICENTIAL R-H20 SINGLE-FAMILY RESICENTIAL R+96 SINGLE - FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ❑ R-N2 SINGLE -FANCY RFSOENTIAL n132 TNO-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL II R -H20 i, -- T� I. R,3 f / THREE AND FOUR - FAMLY RESCENTWL ___ n- H4 LGN APARTMENTS 1 r .3 U RMi MULTIPLE RESIDENCE HIGH CENSITY II P-0 PROFESSIONAL AND OFFICE c -I r m0 RETAIL Fl C -2 REGIONAL RETAIL C -P PLUMED BUSINESS CENTERS C-M INDUSTRIAL PARK nM -I MI NDUSTRY M -2 FENY INDUSTRY P2 I R -A R -1- C -M O R -A M-2 `J " C-M /I! 004 OF 4MCOLQ PRODP005 PER DECEMBER 1981 [WAFT ZOONIN OR MAP 2 PROPOSED ZONING NAP Building height exception area (up to 115') SEE, Sec. 18.50.030 Building height exception area (greater than 115') SEE, Sec. 18.50.040 ❑ it to R+�p SNGLE -FAY RESIDENTIAL R H2O SZE-FA ILY RESCENRgL 0 SWAM -WALT RESCEM a. SNGLE-FAMAYY RESaFJlRAL TKO-FAMLY RESCENTIAL RJ 11-1 AFD foul -F J.LY RFSOENTpt - OR< LCW AgGf2TmTJiS ^IIRMi . I I M.A.WI E R Hpi c P-O PRMESocALAL AFC) CFFCE AEIGrBOgHOCO RETAL C -2 REOCNAL RETAL 1-71C4 PLANED E S1•ESS CENTERS ❑ NDJSTRIAL PARK AAA L.R}F7 F'OUSTRf nM -2 uy WIJifR! JG Ma y L • i— zz ►--s -2 C -2 . s • I I R- I-12O Li R-A AGRI«L7lAA1 + R12�O SAME-WAY RESCENTIAL R-H2A SIK.,LE -RmLy Racernx_ 8-148 SNGLE-RWILT RESCENTI L ❑R-la2_ i SNGLE -FLY 0.5mAj. Ce rq, .6aYSa�:.! ❑ WA} FAMILY RNfA1 9/1 R4. sR -1-¢, r gg afiV:: ©o1F 7 OF IMCM'oL a PIER DECEMBER 1981 O Rs - (� R A, IA C-2 C-M • C-P MAP 3 PROPOSED INTERURBAN SPECIAL REVIEW AREA M-1 RJ T IPEE NO PXZ F MY FESCIENTIAL LON APARTIerrs ElRAH Mi -TRE E , CE TY P-° a�Y'ESSUNEL Aw CFFOE wicHa3AOCO iL�"TAL nC -2 REGIONAL C -P putmm B.SrESS CENTERS C -M INCUSTR::_ =:aK U3-CT tLuST-4y M-I M -2 1 (C.-2 I C-M C-P C -2 ! C-M C-M C-M Li C-2 C -M M-2 /1 SECTION II ADDITIONS, DELETIONS, AND CORRECTIONS TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT Due to the critical continents received on the economic impacts section of the draft EIS, pp. 126 -127, that portion of the EIS has been revised and is included below. 3. ECONOMICS a. Existing Conditions. Zoning regulations are one of the several factors.which affect land . utilization and value. Other factors such as location, transportation facilities and access, utilities, and market. areas affect land values_ . as well and, together with zoning, determine the demand for and value of land and building improvements. While zoning is only a single factor, it can generally be stated that the higher intensity zoning classifications -- such as commercial and industrial zones -- have a higher land value associated with them. The reverse is also generally true, that the lower intensity zoning classifications, such as single - family residential districts, have a -lower land value. Specific zoning regulations, such as building height limitations. and parking requirements, also have an effect on land values. For instance, zones which allow greater building height and bulk generally have higher land values, and vice versa. Commercial and industrial zones, particularly_ those located south of Interstate 405, allow greater building height - -. up to 300 -feet under existing regulations -- and, hence, may be said to have a higher land value because of this factor than other areas of the City. While landscaping and parking requirements have "an effect on land value, it is difficult to quantify or generalize about their impact_ since the requirements for both usually concurrently. increase with use intensity. The highest intensity zoning in the City currently is found in the retail and industrial park districts located south of Interstate 405 in the valley flatlands. Most of this area is zoned C -P, C -M, M -1, or M -2, and regulations permit high -rise development. It is here that the majority of the City's existing retail, office, and industrial firms and employees are located. High - intensity commercial and industrial zoning is also located along Interurban Avenue north to the Fostoria area north of the I -5 interchange. -Medium and high - intensity residential zoning is currently located along the east and south perimeters of the Tukwila Hill and on the north and east faces of McMicken Heights slopes. b. Environmental Impact. One of the objectives of the proposed zoning ordinance is the preservation of City -wide land values through the establishment of desired land -use patterns. While some properties may experience an increase in value as. a result of the proposed zoning, certain other properties may experience a decrease in potential value. Both types of impacts may be necessary in order to achieve the overall community objective of a desired land use pattern. While some properties may increase or decrease in value, the overall economic impact to the City in terms of total assessed value and revenue projections based on property values is not anticipated to be adverse. It is expected that City -wide land values will be protected. The following factors may help to explain: . In several cases in the proposed zoning ordinance, a change of zoning from an intensive to a less intensive classification may have no economic impact at all. This is true, for example, in the case of the Foster Golf Course and Ft. Dent Park which are presently zoned M -1 (Light Industry) but are proposed for R -A (Agricultural) zoning; these areas are publicly - owned, tax exempt parklands whose zoning has no impact on either the assessed value'or revenue of the City. . A number of proposed rezone actions from intensive to less intensive zoning classifications involve developed properties where the existing use conforms to the proposed zoning. In these cases, the economic impact to land values is expected to be insignificant. An example of this is the Southcenter South Industrial Park area where over 100 acres are proposed to be changed from M -2 (Heavy Industry) to C -M (Industrial Park) zoning. Current use in the SSIP is light industrial and private covenants prohibit M -2 uses. Therefore, little, if any, economic impact.,.., is anticipated as a result of a zone change. . Several proposed zone changes from a more intensive to a less intensive classification involve properties which are currently undeveloped but where development trends indicate the "lesser" use. In such circum- stances, impacts to land values are expected to be minimal.) An example of where this is proposed is the oxbow parcel at the entrance to Fort Dent Park north of the I- 405 /Interurban interchange. This vacant parcel is currently zoned M -1 (Light Industry) but proposed zoning is for C -2 (Regional Retail) which would eliminate the option to use the land for industrial purposes. Development trends in the area, however, seem to indicate retail, office, or comercial service use; these would be permitted by the proposed C -2 classification. . Approximately a 155% increase in the amount of land zoned for commercial use (P -0, C -1, C -2, and C -P) is proposed. The reservation of this amount of land for commercial purposes helps to ensure a retail sales tax base for the City and may be viewed as a positive overall economic impact. . Development "bonuses" or "incentives," in the form of increased residen- tial density or building height and bulk, may partially offset some of the adverse impacts which proposed zoning may have on certain properties. These bonuses may be authorized through the Planned Residential Develop- ment (PRD) and Planned Mixed -Use Development (PMUD) procedures. Areas where zone changes are likely to have the most impact on land values is in the McMicken Heights area where existing multiple - family zoning (R -4 and RMH) is proposed to be changed to R -1 (Single- family Residential). Notwithstanding the environmental constraints to intensive development and the development costs associated with building in steep slope areas, the potential value of these undeveloped lands is expected to decline as a result of the proposed zoning. II - 2 An additional impact of the proposed zoning ordinance will be to create a number of nonconforming uses and structures. While the continuation - of these uses and structures are protected under regulations of Chapter 18.70 of the proposed code, there may be certain adverse economic impacts which will result. Questions with regard to the insurability and refin- ancing of nonconforming uses and structures may be investigated in conjunction with specific projects. Zoning conformance is not necessarily important, and other considerations such as economic viability and building condition can be overriding factor.' Alternatively, continuation of nonconforming uses and structures may have an adverse impact on the values of surrounding property specifically and City -wide land values generally. 1To determine the general economic impacts of a nonconforming status, the Planning Department conducted a survey of insurance and financial institutions. Specific questions were asked with regard to the insurability and refinancing of nonconforming uses and structures. According to sources polled by the Department, zoning conformance generally does not impact the ability or the rate for insuring structures. Financial institutions, on the other hand, are interested in whether properties meet zoning requirements and routinely investigate this factor in conjunction with financing projects. While it is a part of their investigation, confor- mance is not necessarily a deciding factor; other considerations such as economic viability and building condition are overriding factors. SECTION III WRITTEN MOMENTS AND CITY OF T[JKWILA RESPONSES Comment Letter Page Washington State Department of Game (11 -12 -1980) Washington State Department of Game (11 -15- 1979) Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle' Mario A. __Segale John C. Radovich Interurban Property Owners Petition Jem Locke Barbara A. Wilson Harold W. Hill Arthur T. Bateman Jerry. Knudson Randy Coplen Gary Huff Henry Vander Pol Milton C. and Lynn R. Young Benny Woyvodich Chester K. Rhett Donald and Jeanette Engstrom Paul K. Haggard Aden M. and Rosemary O'Dell Washington State Department of Ecology Washington State Department of Transportation Washington State Department of Fisheries Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Agency I11 -2 III -5 III -8 _III -10 III -15 III -17 111- 23 III -26 III -30 III -33 III -36 III -39 III -41 III -45 III -47 III -49 III -52 III -54 III -56 III -60 III -66 III -67 III -68 III -69 STATE OF WASHINGTON Dixy Lee Ray Governor DEPARTMENT OF GAME 600 North Capitol Way, GJ -11 Olympia, WA 98504 206/753 -5700 r O.C.D. . cm OF 1u011.A November 12, 1980 ,sov. 1. Mr. Kjell Stoknes Director of Community, Development City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, Washington 98188 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT: Proposed City of Tukwila Zoning Code (Draft 4), City of Tukwila, King County Mr. Stoknes: Your document was reviewed by our staff as requested; our comments follow. Your goals to preserve agricultural land (p. 24), Green River water quality (p. 66), and wildlife habitat along the river (p.66) are commendable. How- ever, we wonder if your zoning code will accomplish these goals. [ We wonder why all shorelines within Tukwila are designated "urban ". (p.63) I. We also wonder why your most restrictive "river environment ". was reduced from 60 feet to 50 feet. Your low impact zone (from 50 feet to 100 feet from the water's edge) is not very restrictive if it would allow structures up to 35 feet in height as well as parking and storage facilities. Vegetation buffer strips along the river are important in maintaining water quality. Not only do they shade the water, but they filter stormwater and reduce non point source pollution. The Green - Duwamish system is at a cri- tical stage regarding water quality. Future proposals include widening and deepening of the Duwamish and increased withdrawal-s by'- -•the City of Tacoma. These proposals combined with increases in non point source pollution would take very large tolls on the public's fish resources. Stream corridors are also heavily used by wildlife for breeding -, rearing, . feeding and migration. Because of their value to water quality and fish and wildlife resources, we recommend retention of- vegetatiowtfo-r.200 feet from the stream whenever possible. Another.reason for preserving stream corri- dors is your statement on page 92 of the EIS: "Generally, unstable slopes lie along the valley wall and stream canyons." Page 2 November 12, 1980 In addition to stream corridors, wetlands are environmentally sensitive. They provide extremely valuable wildlife habitat. Not only are wetlands important for wildlife, but they serve as sponges storing water in the winter and discharging it in summer. They help maintain minimum flows in summer and control flooding in winter. This is why runoff control can be accomplished by maintaining natural marshes or ponds to act as temporary water storage reservoirs as you have stated on page 109. You state on page 133: "In the valley, in more open conditions, understory vegetation consists of sedges, spirea, fireweed rushes and various grass species." We point out that sedges, spirea, rushes, and one species of fireweed need standing water or wet soils. They are wetland indicators. Filling these wetlands would likely require Section 404 permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. We are concerned that your document does not discuss City Light Pond other than mention Special Development Considerations. Requiring Special Develop- ment Consideration does not preclude development, therefore, we are not assured that City Light Pond and other sensitive areas would be preserved and that development would be directed to areas most suited for it. Since our comments to your third draft still apply, we have attached a copy of our response to that document. Thank you for sending your document. We hope you find our comments helpful. Sincerely, _ THE DEPARTMENT OF GAME Bob Zeigl "er, Applied Ecologist Environmental Affairs Habitat Management Division BZ:mjf cc: Agencies Region Attachment Responses to Comments from Washington State Department of Game (11- 20 -80) 1. An environmental classification is required to be placed on all applicable shorelines of the State by WAC 173.16, "Shoreline Management Act Guidelines for Development of Master Programs." In consideration_ of the existing development pattern, the.biophysical limitations of the shoreline, and the goals and objectives of local decision - makers, the "urban" environment designation has been chosen as- the most appropriate for the shorelines in Tukwila. This designation has been part of our shoreline master program since 1974 when the program was adopted; the designation does not represent a change. 2. The 60 -foot river environment was a proposal in draft. #3 of.the proposed zoning ordinance; the river environment under existing shoreline regulations is either 40 or SO feet wide. The major reason for not increasing the width of the river environment which was cited during review of proposed regulations was the impact on existing development along the shoreline. That is, an increase in the river environment setback would have created many nonconforming structures due to the._ inadequate setback of existing buildings from the.mean high water mark. 3. Your comments regarding the importance of vegetation and wetlands rela- tive to wildlife habitat are hereby acknowledged. 4. Your comments regarding the necessity of section 404. permits are hereby _ acknowledged. S. Proposed zoning on the "City Light site;" as you correctly note, does not preclude development. Nor does the designation of "Special Development Considerations" expressly limit or prohibit development of the site. However, the latter designation does draw attention to the site's environmental sensitivity and amenities in the review of any application for development of the property. A statement regarding the importance and fragility of the site's wetland environment is -found on p. 42 of the draft E.I.S., parcel #78. In addition, this site is identified in the City's SEPA ordinance as an environmentally . sensitive area. As such, certain actions which might normally be exempt from SEPA procedures are required to conform to environmental review procedures specified by SEPA guidelines. STATE OF WASHINGTON Dixy Lee Ray Gouernor 15 November 1979 DEPARTMENT OF GAME 600 No, ih Capitol Way, Gi•11 Olympia, WA 98504 206/753.5700 Mr. Kjeil Stoknes Director of Community Development City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, Washington 98188 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT: Proposed Tukwila Zoning Ordinance City of Tukwila, King County Mr. Stoknes: Your document was reviewed by our staff as requested; our comments follow. We appreciate your maps especially those dealing with soil groups, hydrology, wooded areas and land use. They show marshy soils, and surface water in addition to showing undeveloped and farm land. Your discussion of existing conditions for wildlife is essentially accurate. The Green River does support significant runs of anadromous fishes as well as large numbers of resident fishes. The river and ponds and marshes are in the Pacific Waterfowl Flyway and do support waterfowl. Even City Light Pond provides feeding and nesting for large numbers of geese and ducks. Wetlands and stream and river bank areas support the largest number and most diverse types of wildlife and are also the most sensitive to habitat alteration. Impacts on the land surrounding standing water usually have the most significant impact on fish and wildlife as well. In a natural condition, wetlands and riparian zones have benefits beyond those to fish and wildlife as these areas maintain water quantity and quality and provide flood protection. We appreciate the fact that you are providing some reduction of the impacts to fish and wildlife over what would occur under existing zoning. However, we recommend more measures be taken to protect public resources. A shoreline zone that would prohibit alteration to the Green River channel and prohibit land- filling in the river is a step in the right direction. However, we also recommend that f sh, wildlife and other public resources be part of your planning. We suggest that urban wilds be developed and that an environmentally sensitive areas program be developed. Wetlands (marshy soils, marshes, bogs and swamps) and riparian are r::; are environmentally sensitive. To protect wildlife resources, 200. foot corridors of native: vegetation should be left to separate development from the t•.et :,ttci:, and/or standing water. Where there are at least 200 feet of page 2 Mr. Kjell Stoknes 15 November 1979 undeveloped land we recommend these setbacks. r [ Prevention of wager pollution in stormwater runoff is essential to the protection Pof fish resources. We point out that for sedimentation ponds and oil traps to have any effectiveness, they must be cleaned frequently. - \ 1 We also recommend the use of native vegetation in landscaping. Native vegetation CJ I would provide the most benefit for wildlife. Thank you for sending your document. We hope you find our comments helpful. Sincerely, THE DEPARTMENT OF GAME Bob Zeigler, Applied Ecologist Environmental Affairs Program Habitat Management Division BZ:bj cc:Agencies Regional Manager III 6 Responses to Comments from Washington State Department of Game (11- 15 -79) 6. A discussion of the fish and wildlife resources of the Tukwila community is included in pp. 113 -114 of the draft•E.I.S. The importance of vegetation to wildlife resources is discussed on pp. 110 -113 of the D.E.I.S. While no "urban wilds" program has been developed locally, the City has identified environmentally sensitive areas in its ordinance adopting SEPA guidelines. Major wetland areas are included within the definition of environmentally sensitve areas. 7. Your comments regarding the prevention of water pollution caused by stormwater runoff are hereby acknowledged. 8. Native vegetation is discussed in the draft E.I.S. on pp. 110 -113. _ :__. Retention of native vegetation is specifically encouraged in the proposed zoning ordinance in two cases: 1) in Chapter 18.44, shoreline zone regulations, and 2) As a development review criteria for proposals in the Interurban Special Review District - Chapter 18.60. ® METRTRO ,_ ®® Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle Exchange Bldg. • 821 Second Ave., Seattle, Washington 98104 October 30, 1980 Mr. Mark Caughey Acting Planning Director City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, Washington 98188 Dear Mr. Caughey: NOV 3 1930 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Proposed City of Tukwila Zoning Code (Draft 4) Metro staff has reviewed this proposal and anticipates no adverse impacts to Metro's wastewater treatment facilities or the public transportation system. Metro, as the designated areawide water quality planning agency for the Cedar and Green River Basins in King County, is committed to assist in the protection of instream resources in the Green /Duwamish Basin. We suggest land use codes include measures which are aimed at the protection and enhancement of water quality. One such measure could require trees to be planted along the Green River to provide shading. This would help mitigate temperature problems which occur in the Green River during summer and early fall. Mr. Pete Machno of Metro's Water Quality Enhancement Division is available to assist the proponent in developing a program to enhance water quality. He may be reached at 447 -6869. Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment. Very truly yours, Rodney .. Proctor, Manager Environmental Planning Division RGP :kej cc: Pete Machno Responses to Comments from Metro 9. General discussions of water resources, water quality, and vegetation are included in the Draft E.I.S. on pp. 106 -113. Proposed shoreline regulations (SEE, section 18.44.100) generally encourage retention of existing trees and vegetation; for landscape areas in the shoreline zone, ordinance language specifically calls out "large, hardy shade trees" as being desirable species. SEG AL E BUSINESS PARK November 10, 1980 Responsible SEPA Official City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Blvd. Tukwila, Washington 98188 RE: Draft Environmental Impact Statement, Draft Four, Proposed Tukwila Zoning Ordinance NOV 1 2 1980 Gentlemen: We have purchased draft four of the proposed -- zoning ordinance . along with the draft environmental impact statement. Segale Business Park is a mixed -use business park located south of South 180th. Street and east_of Southcenter Parkway in Tukwila. It is in excess of 100 acres. Fifty acres.. are presently developed. Structures are. concrete. The. park has in excess of 1 mile of streets. These streets are private roads and are maintained by. us at no cost to the City.. The park is fully served by all utilities including electricity,. water, natural gas, sewers, and rail. -It has access to public transit, I- 5,'405, SR -167, and the West Valley.Highway. We have a private sidewalk system. Additionally, in our opinion, the park has beautiful landscaping which is well maintained. It provides a large tax base as a source of revenue to the City and the region. It also provides a source of many jobs. Segale Business. Park has developed under existing regulations of the City of Tukwila. The City of Tukwila has other fine developments. They range from Andover Industrial Park, to Southcentei Shopping Mall, Parkway Plaza, and others. _These . too have developed under the existing Tukwila regulations. The City of Tukwila is one of the most centrally located municipalities in the Puget Sound region._ It is at the cross roads of Interstate 405 and Interstate 5,.located next to the region's major airport. It is fully served by all railroads. The Port of Seattle is but a few miles away. Geographically we are centrally located at the end of Seattle's Duwamish Waterway and at the head of the expansive Green River Valley... We are truly a crossroads; a crossroads of commerce and a crossroads of people. P.O. BOX 88050 o TELEPHONE: (206) 575-3200 a TUKWILA, WASHINGTON 98188 November 10, 1980 Page Three number of new rules and regulations regulating land development. The Shorelines Code, the State Environmental Policy Act, Puget 'Sound Air Pollution. Control Agency regulations, health and sanitary laws, noise standards, traffic regulations, and new building and fire codes are but to name a few. These rules and regulations are presently working in conjunction with our existing zoning code. Segale Business Park spent hundreds of thousands of dollars in complying with these existing rules and regulations. The draft Environmental Impact Statement for Draft 4 of the proposed zoning code does not properly address the affects of the proposed new code on Tukwila at present and ,in the future. The proposed zoning code is a step backwards. Almost every building in Segale Business Park will become non - conforming, in some way or another, if the new code is implemented. Others have stated the economic implications of a non- conforming use. But, additionally, what does this do to the vitality of our community? Traffic, the movement of people, energy conservation, and regional needs are not addressed adequately. We need more mass transit. We need people to support mass transit. We also need customers to serve our businesses. We also need mass transit to cut down energy consumption and to reduce air pollution. This dictates high density. Our regional location also dictates high density. However, the proposed zoning code takes a step backward and forces less density.. The new height limitations are a clear example. However, this approach is exactly the opposite direction of addressing the environmental problems which are facing us in the future. The ability to mix residential and commercial development has been drastically reduced. The ability of people to live where they work'and work where they live has tremendous environmental benefits. None of these things are properly. addressed. As stated above, the commercial area of our city, including our business park, is fully serviced by all major utilities. These were installed based upon maximum utilization. Other areas in the region are not so fortunate. Also, for various economic and environmental reasons, we do not want these services provided to other areas. To not fully utilize these improvements in our town wastes both public and private capital investment, has negative economic implications and causes pressure to develop other areas we do not want to develop for environmental and economic reasons. November 10, 1980 Page Two The Puget Sound region is rapidly changing. We all 'know and remember the 'big economic slump which occurred in the early 70's and the effects'of that downturn. Since then, major strides have been taken to diversify the industrial base of the area. Population has substantially increased. There has been a fuel crisis and we are now energy conscious. Additionally, inflation has caused us to look more seriously at cost effective approaches to problem solving. We have become aware of a growing desire to contain urban sprawl which has infected other regions and to revitalize and redevelop existing centralized areas. In early years of the City's development, the emphasis was on regional shopping facilities and warehousing. The social and economic climate in the area is changing. We now see increasing demands for office space, more retail development, hotels and other service industries. Tukwila, being so central to the region will increase in population. This increase is also welcomed by the City for very real economic and tax reasons. Also,because of our central location,business growth will continue. Tukwila is truly remarkable in that it has, through past private ands. governmental cooperation, all the essential elements to continue its destinies. Tukwila will be a center for mass transit. This is because of our location and because of our facilities. This will also benefit us. Because of energy and cost reasons, mass transit is going to be the way we-will move people in the future. It will also,in turn,provide_a way to bring workers and customers to our business. Taxwise and jobwise, Tukwila's continued economic vitality will be beneficial. To support this service, continued growth is necessary. Tukwila has a vital future and will play a positive and necessary role in our region. Growth has benefited the residen- tial areas of our town. We have new streets, parks, senior citizens facilities, recreational programs, and increased public services for our citizens. These can continue to prosper as long as we do Any new zoning codes should recognize the future. I sat ' on the Commerce and Economic Development Committee _of _the Comprehensive Plan, and although that Plan's intent was to recognize our existing development and to foster future growth, many changes have occurred since then. Since the original zoning code was adopted in 1957, the City and other governmental entities have introduced an astounding November 10, 1980 Page Four The tax implications of the zoning proposal are not adequately addressed. Taxes have a tremendous impact upon the ability of our City Government to serve the people. If service goes down, the human benefits in this town go down. Additionally, the environment in .which we live deteriorates. These are environmental concerns and are major. The tone of this document is non - professional and not appreciated. As an example, the following statement is taken from Page 5, Paragraph 2 of the statement: Under the new.ordinance, rezoning to lower intensity' uses, more stringent restrictions, and higher standards for development could reduce the potential economic gain of some individual property owners. One long term impact may be a_ more desirable character for Tukwila. This statement is meant to be the substance of analysis of the economic impacts of adoption of the proposed zoning code on this town and its residents. it is superficial and biased. I have not addressed specifics of the proposed regulations in this letter, because this letter is a comment on the impact statement. Sincerely yours, SEGALE BUSINESS PARK >71...),...) Mario A. Segale MAS:lpb Response to Comments from Mario Segale: 10. Nonconforming structures and site improvements are protected under regulations of Chapter 18.70 of the proposed zoning ordinance. Generally, nonconforming structures may be expanded as long as this expansion does not increase .their degree of nonconformity. Therefore, the vitality of the community should not be adversely affected. 11. Substantial changes have been made by the City Council to the Planning Commission's recommended height and bulk limitations. These modifi- cations are discussed in Section I of this document under Chapter 18.50 - Setbakcs, Height, and Area Requirements. Proposed modifica- tions increase the permitted building height limits in most commercial and industrial areas and, therefore, allow for greater density of floor area, employees, and site users. In turn, this greater density may lead to greater support of and need for mass transit, as you mention in your letter. 12. Chapter 18.48 of the proposed zoning ordinance which details prodedures for Planned Mixed -use Developments, together with the "cascading" or "cumulative" nature of the zone districts themselves, allow various types of uses to mix or locate on the same premises. The ability of persons to live where they work, or in very close proximity to employment centers, is furthered through these two factors. The economic impact section of the draft E.I.S. has been revised and rewritten in order to respond to critical comments. This revised discussion is included in Section II of this document. 13. As stated in response #12 above, the economic impacts of the draft zoning ordinance have been revised and are included in Section II of this document. November 11, 1980 City of Tukwila City Council 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila WA 98188 Re: Rezone of Interurban Avenue Gentlemen: NOV Three years ago we built a warehouse at 143rd and Mall Avenue. You are now considering rezoning this property for retail use which would cause this new building to be obsolete. Structurally, it would be very inefficient because of the high ceiling and concrete tilt -up walls. Inasmuch as the parking was planned for manufacturing or warehouse usage, it would be impossible to comply with enough parking to utilize the 8400 sq. ft. for retail use. If you proceed with this idea of downzoning the property, my only remedy will be a lawsuit against the City of Tukwila, which I will not hesitate to crnence. ?larrel.? ohn C. Radovich JCR/yk cc. Planning Commission CaRadaVidl Development Corp. 2000 -124th Ave. N.E. B -103 Bellevue, WA 98005 (206) 454 -6060 III - 15 2 19a° November 7, 1980 7 NOV 1 2 1980 Mayor Frank Todd City of Tukwila 6200 Southoenter Boulevard Tukwila, Washington 98188 REs PROPOSED ZONING ORDINANCE DAFT 4 Dear Mr. Todd, In regard to the recent issue of the DRAFT ENVIRONMENT IMPACT FOR THE PROPOSED ZONING ORDINANCE and PROPOSED ZONING ORDINANCE DRAFT 4, some of us have already sent in our own individual letter expressing each of our own personal view on the matter involved but some of us were totally unware of the propoeed change because the official notice did not reach each and every property owner in the area. Since basically we are all in agreement that the proposed change to not in the beet interest in every' s concern, therefore, we summed up our main objection to the change as followas (1) In all practical purposes Interurban Avenue South -is a busy regional as well as local thoroughfare for much of the auto traffic which go to euch places and areas as Long Acre, Southcenter, Benton, Kent, Auburn, Federal Way, Enumclaw, Sumner, Black Diamond, Puyallup, iurien, and points Muth. This fact is well known to people in business on Interurban Avenue South. This makes Interurban Avenue South a regional highway in fact as well as local thoroughfare and as regional highway we should be allowed to keep businesses more in aligned with regional traffic. III - 17 (2) Since auto traffic pasaes through the same section of Interurban Avenue South between the two points be. ginning at the traffic lights just off 1.5 exit then mouth to the lights at Southeenter Boulevard, many businesses along this cection serve the same auto traffic customers. The nature of auto traffic is mixed and intermingle and Indistinguishable as to which portion of the traffic is local and Which portion of the traffic is regional. Despite of this fast, oertatn pieces of properties in this section of the road athtlo serving the same auto traffic customers are zoned C-2 and the rest are zoned C•i. This obviously Is discriminatory. unfair, and unjust. (3) Down zoning Is not a temporary thing. It is permanent and the effect is profound. The damage to property value is Incalculable and the tax return to the city dtmieh in a sizable amount is unavoidable. The city has arrays been operative with business and we feel that if there are some changes the City would like to see, such changes can be accomplished by meeting with the badness and property owners. For the above stated reasons we, the undersigned, want to express clearly our wholehearted support and sustain the existing zoning ordinance and resolutely oppose the PROPOSED ZONING DRAFT 4. ac tot Tukwila City Council Dan Saul, President Planning Commission Richard 8iraop Mark Caugbay. Acting Planning Director :SIGNATURE: PRINT NAME & ADDRESS 1(c / & t ( O / `7 M1^ iQ LOCATION OF PROPERTY/BUSINESS /C "-4z- /7 -1-&7 G' 6 — /y9 1 V Y M f- o cr i t' 70 t4-_.3 Sc u i 4.3 -. PL. ,U ►< w r/ k ae,/i'y VVt y i c. (,Z', / /'.9.)-/ E /46,&/9.0..o Bear 0 /1 /..ms , czta /Le.! / c&L, 5(1 e",?4.7-i-- t'"/ 5e 44 6 -Se) /3 .z.t q e16 e Aix/6,o g ii„vo ,„,,h_ ,/,2, 6-9.8,4 4,,,,Are -,0 (a S� • /3 0� �t� A/� b�, Ara ar /C v g �/3) 5. ,y31 J ek (Oil,/ 9.,s S SIGNATURE PRINT. NAME & ADDRESS L • ,t / L"1///4-' i✓07) /(/ 537,271 t'a-vt_y\ S.St Se4�� — L lV Trg-LS LOCATION OF PROPERTY /BUSINESS -11 ( ,Y ee/YST. Co. •t/YG, sS� Leek 1 Yo i 618' CP 4L t i'r 1'c.'- Iii' ecto ee4.11e_ tt( s(c3 f-tde. utit g.>-(L- 144 SIGNATURE PRINT NAME & ADDRESS LOCATION OF PROPERTY /BUSINESS 9AKi-lAR� ✓Rri- 6,NT err330- S. (/ / } t )FC.ii -', (4: r- ,( / /Ctr }1t( ..( y ( d —5 iy32I�. • i Responses to Comments from Interurban Petition Letter (11 -7 -80) 15. As a result of further studies by the City and the input of several Interurban property owners, the City Council has modified the proposed zoning for the Interurban area from that shown in draft #4 of the proposed ordinance. As indicated in draft #4, frontage properties along Interurban Avenue were proposed for C -1 zoning (Community Retail).. Properties lying to the east of Maule Avenue were shown as M -1 (Light Industry), except for such public facilities as the Foster Golf Course and Fort Dent Park which were designated R -A (Agriculture). Draft #5, which reflects the recent modifications of the City Council to the proposed zoning ordinance, has changed this basic pattern. Draft #5 proposed C -2 zoning for frontage properties lying along Interurban Avenue. C -2 zoning is a regional retail classification which permits a broader range of retail and service uses than the C -1 district. Areas lying east of Maule Avenue generally remain in a M -1 classification, except the recreational facilities mentioned above which are proposed for R -A zoning. Like draft #4, draft #5 proposed C -2 zoning on certain vacant and developedJlands east of Interurban Avenue which are currently zoned M -1. Zoning studies have indicated that no nonconforming uses would be created as a result of this action. In addition to modifying the basic zoning pattern, draft #5 also proposes to establish an Interurban Special Review Area. Section 18.60.065 of the proposal established and defines the Interurban area as a special review area where the Board of Architectural Review is authorized to review and approve all major development proposals. In addition, development incentives are also provided for in this section which allow for additional building height and reduced setbacks and landscaping perimeters in exchange for particular site design attributes. O.C.D. CITY OF TUIMI1A Nom 1980 14225 Interurban Ave. So. Tukwila, Washington 98168 November 3, 1980 Mr. Richard Kirsop Planning Commission City Hall 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, Washington 98188 Re: The need of enlarging the section on "Principally Permitted Uses" for C -1 District on Interurban Ave. So. Dear Mr. Kirsop, I have carefully read over section 18.28.020 for C -1 District and section 18.30.010 for C -2 District on "Principally Permitted Uses" and strongly felt that a revision is necessary. The main reason is the characteristics peculiar to .Interurban Avenue South. Nearly the entire residental area is located on the hill on the west side of the road and on the east side of the road, parallel to Duwamish River, is a narrow strip of land with estab- ix lished businesses, manufacturing, and a few residences. The road itself is busy with heavy auto traffic but foot traffic is practically non - existent. In the early days the stores and other businesses along the road served mainly the local community and community spirit was very high. This I personally experienced for I was in business in the same location for 20 years. The nature of business began to change when Bouthcenter Shopping Center was built and rapidly expanded with more and more shops of all types, and banks and services encompassing a wide spectrum of businesses. Because of the proximity of the Southcenter Shop- ping Center businesses along the Interurban Avenue South began to lose more and more of local trade but since auto traffic of the same period increased business generated from auto traffic gradually make up much of the loss of the local trade. Although the list of "Principally Permitted Uses" in C -1 District is fairly long but many uses on the list I seriously question the practicability and its ability to survive if such uses were adapted on Interurban Avenue South. To list a few of the uses I have in mind are the following :" Book or stationery stores Clothing or ready -to -wear stores Confectionery stores Dry goods or notion stores III - 23 Frozen food lockers for individual or family use (this particular use became obsolete many years ago. In fact, there was one in Tukwila on Interurban Avenue South and ceased operation over twenty years ago.) Meat Market or delicatessens Shoe stores and shoe repair shops On the other hand many categories listed under "Principally Permitted Uses" in C -2 have a much greater possibility to be suc- cessful and practical if put in use on Interurban Avenue South. They are: Auto repair shops Cocktail lounges when in association with a restaurant facility Billid.rd or pool rooms car washes ice cream shops Loan and finance companies single family dwellings tire and battery shops These uses serve local population needs as well as general sur- rounding community. Therefore, I strongly urge that these and perhaps a few others be incorporated into the list of "Principally Permitted Uses" in C -1 District. I am sure that to put the land to best use is welcome by the people who live in Tukwila, the business community, and property owners so that theInterurban Avenue South is lively and properous rather than an area inter - mittantly dotted with marginal, struggling store or businesses. Your careful consideration in this regards is. appreciated. P.S. After rereading the above I noticed I failed to mention the location of my piece of property which information should be mentioned. It is from the corner of 58th Avenue South and Interurban Avenue South to the fence on the south edge of Cenex Self Serve Station. Response to Comments from Jem Locke 16. After extensive study and considerable input from citizens and property owners, the City Council changed the Planning Commission's recommendation of C -1 zoning to C -2 for lands along Interurban Avenue. Therefore, the zoning of the Locke property at 58th and Interurban Avenues is proposed for C -2 in draft #5 and the suggested uses you mention in your letter are all permitted under such classification. III - 25 GLENN J. AMSTER H. RAYMOND CAIRNCROSS MARK S. CLARK MARK R. HAMILTON JEROME L. HILLIS GEORGE A. KRESOVICH GEORGE W. MARTIN. JR. SALLY H. MILLEN DAVID E. MYRE, JR. LOUIS D. PETERSON JOHN E. PHILLIPS WENDY W. REED RICHARD S. SWANSON BARBARA A. WILSON RICHARD R. WILSON LAW OFFICES OF HILLIS, PHILLIPS, CAIRNCROSS, CLARK & MARTIN A PROFESSIONAL SERVICE CORPORATION 403 COLUMBIA STREET SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98104 October 23, 1980 Mr. Richard Kirsop, Chairman Members of the Tukwila Planning Commission City of Tukwila 6230 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, Washington 98188 623 -1745 AREA CODE 206 Re: Seattle Rendering Works Proposed Zoning Ordinance Draft 4 Dear Chairman Kirsop and Members of the Planning Commission: On behalf of Seattle Rendering Works, please review and accept the following recommendations for amendments to the City of Tukwila's Proposed Zoning Ordinance Draft 4. As a result of several hearings held over the past eight months, the Tukwila Planning Commission agreed to require that the "rendering use" be included in the classification of those uses requiring an unclassified use permit. The Proposed Zoning Ordinance Draft 4, however, does not clearly include the rendering use within the definition of uses requiring an unclassified use permit. We therefore recommend that Section 18.66.020, subparagraph (13) be amended to read I as follows: "(13) Processing of animal by- products and manufacture of products from same." Presently subparagraph (13) reads "processing of animal wastes and manufacture of products from same ". It is our recommendation that the words "animal by- products" rather than "animal wastes" be used to more fully comply with the iintent of the Planning Commission to include the rendering use within the category of uses requiring unclassified use Lpermits. As we discussed at the Planning Commission hearing of July 10, 1980, we would also recommend that subparagraph (3) III - 26 c Mr. Richard Kirsop, Chairman Members of the Tukwila Planning. Commission October 23,. 1980 Page Two of paragraph 18,66.060. be eliminated. A requirement that a use which`is so .unique that it .does not 'fit within any existing .zone classification be compatible with .other surrounding land uses is a. contradiction in .terms.' The unique nature of an unclassified use means inherently that it will not be compatible with: surrounding land. .uses. • Further., any. concern the Planning. Commission might have about unclassified uses that might be. detrimental to .surrounding land uses has been addressed in subparagraph (1) where it is provided that these uses will not be materially.detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to .the property or improvements. in the. .vicinity. It is .therefore not necessary and is redundant to also require compatibility. with .surrounding land uses. We again recommend to .the Planning Commission .that Section 18.66.070.regarding expiration and - renewal of an unclassified use permit be rewritten .to more ;clearly indicate the intention of .the Planning. Commission that absent possible revocation of a unclassif.ied.use .permit,..the .permit would not expire for a reasonable period of time. The section should be rewritten to clearly point out that the automatic expiration of an unclassified use permit will only occur if a building permit conforming to the plans on which the permit was granted is not obtained within one 'year of the date of issuance of the UUP or .substantial. construction is not completed within two years from. the date of issuance of a building permit. It should be clearly stated that. renewal of an unclassified use permit is not required for those unclassified use permits where .the. building permit has been obtained and substantial..constr.ucti.on .completed within the above - referenced time periods. We would suggest the following language: "18.66.070 Expiration and Renewal. Once an unclassified use permit has been granted, it shall be considered. void if: (a) a building permit conforming to the plans upon which the UUP was granted is not obtained within one (1) year of the date of the issuance of the UUP; and (b) substantial construction is not completed within two (2) years from the date the building permit became effective, unless renewal is granted or unless the UUP specifically provides for a construction period greater than two (2) years. In the event the holder of the unclassified use permit has not obtained a building permit or Mr. Richard Kirsop, Chairman Members of the Tukwila Planning. Commission October 23, 1980 Page Three completed .substantial construction within the time periods :set .for.th,. the City Council, upon recommendation of the Planning Commission,_ may renew a.UUP for a maximum period of one :(1) additional year. No more than one (1) renewal shall be :issued for any UUP. A renewal may be granted only if there has been no permanent changes in the conditions surrounding the property since the time of original approval. A fee for a renewal shall be the same as for the original permit. No hearing is required for renewal of the unclassified use permit. If. criteria (a) and .(b) above, related to obtaining a building permit and completion of substantial construction have been satisfied by. the permittee, the .UUP. shall not automatically expire nor require renewal. Finally, we recommend that the Planning Commission delete subparagraph (e) of Section 18.66.080 wherein one of the grounds for revocation of an unclassified use permit is "that the use for which the approval was granted is so exercised as to be detrimental to the public health or safety ". This criterion for revocation of a UUP is so vague and so general that in essence no standard for revocation is established at all. The determination of what is "detrimental to the public health or safety" is an entirely subjective determination, not at all defined within the ordinance, and may result in the revocation of unclassified use permits . merely at the whim of the Council rather than based upon failure of the.permittee to meet a specifically defined . standard of performance. We request the Planning Commission consider these . suggested amendments and recommend their inclusion into the Proposed Zoning Ordinance, Draft 4. Should you or any other members of the Planning Commission have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact us. Very truly yours, BAW:kk Barbara A. Wilson cc: Seattle Rendering Works Lawrence E. Hard, Esq. III - 28 Response to Comments from Barbara A. Wilson 17. The Planning Commission considered your suggestion at their 13 November 1980 zoning review session. The Commission agreed with your suggestion and substituted the word "by- products" for "wastes" in proposed section 18.66.020(13), which reads as follows in draft #S: "(13) Processing of animal by- products and manufacture of products from same." 18. The Planning Commission considered your comment on the elimination of section 18.66.030(3) at their 13 November 1980 zoning review meeting. It was the consensus of the commissioners to retain this section since they thought that it was possible to make the un- classified uses compatible with other surrounding land uses. The Commission felt it was the purpose of the unclassified use permit procedures to ensure this compatibility; that the uses listed in Chapter 18.66 may be unique or special, but his did not automatically render them incompatible with any and all neighboring land uses. 19. The Planning Commission considered your comment regarding rewording of section 18.66.070 at their 13 November 1980 meeting. It was the consesnsus of the Commission that there were no problems with the intent of the unclassified use permit expiration and renewal procedures and, therefore, no changes to the proposed -zoning ordinance were made. 20. The Planning Commission considered your comments regarding the suggestion of deleting section 18.66.080(e) at their 13 November 1980 zoning review meeting. It was the consensus of the Planning Commission to retain the proposed language relating to what is "detrimental to the public health or safety" since they felt this was a valid criterion for evaluating whether an unclassified use should continue to operate or not. III - 29 HAROLD W. HILL P.O. BOX 700 MERCER ISLAND, WA 98040 October 23, 1980 CITY OF TUKWILLA City Council City Hall 14475 - 59th S. Tukwilla, WA 98188 Re: The Public Hearing on the Revised Zoning Code Gentlemen: (206) 232.7500 I am writing regarding the C -2 zoning portion of the ordinance. I have two properties which are affected by this zoning, both of which are in the proximity of the Foster Interchange at Inter- urban Avenue. One is the Grantree Building which borders the river and is also affected by the shoreline zone. The other is on the south side of the intersection of Interurban Avenue and 52nd Avenue S. First, I would like to reiterate my concern for the C -2 zoning and relate my experience regarding development of the 52nd Ave. property. Most of the prospects for use of the property to date were not allowed by the present zoning but would probably fall into the contemplated C -2 zoning with some minor clarification or additions. The problems of a truly neighborhood use are limited because of the lack of population in the near proximity and the advantages of the location because of freeway access and /or ex- posure indicate a more regional oriented usage. The concern I have is that.0 -2 is by definition "Regional Retail Business." I think retail might be.too restrictive for this zone since it implies, to me at least, off the street or through the door customers which for the most part is not possible economically in this area.. Therefore, I would like to have the word "Retail" deleted from the heading of the C -2 district. I would like to have the following revisions to the wording of the in principle permitted usages as follows: (17) Furniture, Fixture, and Appliance Sales (32) Tire, Battery and Accessory Shops (35) Reworded as follows:. "Other business service and supply activities primarily serving regional residents and businesses such as those enumerated . above and not included in any other classification ". CITY COUNCIL OF TUKWILLA -2- October 23, 1980 Because of my experience in potential prospects for business locations here I would like to have the following added to the list: Medical and Dental Laboratories Medical and Dental Service and Supply Data Processing and Record Storage Tool and Equipment Rental, Sales and Repair Confectionery Manufacturing Regarding the shoreline zone I am concerned primarily for the Grantree property since many of the requirements of this section of the code would not permit this building to exist at some future date. Obviously, we satisfied all the requirements at the time the building was constructed. We need assurance that logical future use of the building will be maintained, that is ,some form of the grandfather clause in the code to protect the owner's interest. I, therefore, request some statement from the City of Tukwilla outlining the ramifications of the new zoning code affecting the future of this facility in the event of a change in usage or modification to the facility. I think that you would agree that the property where Grantree is presently located is unique in many respects and possibly special consideration for this should be made prior to concluding the acceptance of this code. There may be other properties with similar uniqueness. I definitely feel that there is a possibility of being trapped economically and I would hope the Council and Planners would recognize this and give the situation due consideration. Very truly yours, Harold W. Hill HWH /db Response to Comments from Harold Hill 21 The Planning Commission considered your suggestion to delete the word "Retail" from the title of the C -2 district (Regional Retail Business). The Commission agreed by consensus to retain the,word "Retail" in the description of the C -2 district, noting that the primary purpose of this zone is to establish regional retail use and not to encourage wholesaling or warehousing as principal uses of properties. Regarding your suggested additions to the list of C -2 permitted uses, the Planning Commission agreed to add "furniture, fixture, and appliance sales." The Commission noted that "tire and battery shops" are permitted uses in the proposed C -2 district. No action was taken on the other suggested uses in your letter. As far as draft #5 of the proposed zoning ordinance is concerned, the City Council has not changed the recommendations of ;the Planning Commission on these points. Please note that on 8 December 1981 the City Council changed the zoning classification on the Grantree site to 11 -1 on the proposed zoning map. Therefore, the proposed zoning is the same as the existing zoning classification, 22. While the proposed zoning ordinance incorporates the shoreline development regulations presently contained in the City's shoreline master program, it does not substantially alter them with respect to the existing Grantree facility. As you know, the Grantree facility was constructed prior to the adoption of Tukwila's shoreline master program in 1974. Grantree's existing site develop- ment probably does not conform to several regulations of the current shoreline program, including building setback from the mean high water mark and setbacks of private access drives. The proposed shoreline regulations of Chapter 18.44 are substantially the same as those which currently exist and, therefore, the Grantree facility will likely remain nonconforming under the proposed ordinance. Nonconforming uses, structures, and site development are protected and regulated under the provisions of Chapter 18.70 of the proposed zoning ordinance. III - 32 ARTHUR T. BATEMAN MARC A. BATEMAN Tukwila Planning Commission Tukwila Planning Department 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Thkwila, Washington 98188 Dear Commissioners: BATEMAN AND BATEMAN ATTORNEYS AT LAW TELEPHONE 5415 FOURTH AVENUE SOUTH 762-3351 SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98IO8 October 23, 1980 Re:. Proposed zoning Ordinance We wish to state our objects to the suggested rezoning of our clients' property under Draft 4 of the proposed ordinance and the Draft EIS. As set forth in our prior letters to the commission, we represent Adolph Sanft and Burnard Sanft, who own parcels of property east of Interurban and in the vicinity of 144th Street South, comprising lots 12 through 20 of Block 16 and lots 19, 20 and 21 of Block 18 of Hillman's Seattle Garden Tracts, All of this property is currently zoned M -1. As we stated in our letter of November 8, 1979, the proposed rezone would, if enacted, cause our clients a serious economic hardship. Portions of their property would be downzoned to C -1, We have received purchase offers for that property, but such offers have been in reliance upon the existence of M -1 zoning as presently defined. • In addition to thwarting sale of portions of their proper- ty, the remaining portions of our clients' property are rendered nonconforming by the Shoreline zone and the' "de facto downzoning" which will take place under the redefinition of the permitted uses under the M -1 zone. Those whom we represent stand to suffer a substantial economic loss as a re- sult of the proposed rezone. Even so, the only mention of this by the planners has been the inadequate and conclusory statement of the EIS at page 216: "An overall economic impact of the proposed zoning ordinance would be to possibly reduce the potential economic gain of property owners in some cases where cer- tain parcels that could have feasibly been developed in their existing higher density zoning designations would be restricted by the proposed rezone to lower density uses." No further attempt has been made to inquire into the extent of that reduction. In talking with members of the Planning department, we were , informed that they had not contacted anyone with specific expertise in the areas of economics, real estate, engineering, or other relevant professions with re- gard to the impact of the proposed rezone along Interurban. Thus, their approach to the proposed ordinance has totally failed to adequately consider this very real aspect of economic impact. III - 33 To: Tukwila Planning Commission October 23, 1980 Page 2 To even a mildly critical observer, it is apparent that the areas of Inter- urban Avenue that give the appearance of blight and "honky tonk development" are the "commercial establishments," while the developments that are present- ly classified M -1 are near models of attractive and productive land use. We feel that the proposed rezone unnecessarily and unreasonably burdens par- cels located in the vicinity of Interurban and 144th South, and that the EIS inadequately reflects the economic loss and the suitability of property in- volved for M-1 development, as evidenced by -the developments under existing zoning. Very truly yours, BATEMAN AND BATEMAN Arthur T. Bateman ATB: j 1 cc: Mr. Burnard Sanft Mr. Adolph Sanft Response to Comments from Arthur T. Bateman 23 As you state in your letter, the Planning Commission originally proposed C -1 zoning for Lots 12 -20, Block 18 of Hillman's Seattle Garden Tracts. However, on 29 October 1980, the Planning Commis- sion changed this property to a M -1 classification and recommended this zoning to the City Council on 11 December 1980. In turn, the City Council modified the Commission's recommendation -to a C -2 classification on 5 October 1981 in conjunction with an overall zoning study of the Interurban area. This proposed zoning is reflected in the zoning map accompanying draft #5 of the proposed zoning ordinance. The C -2 one is a regional retail business district as opposed to the M -1 zone which is an industrial district. C -2 allows retail and office uses outright and multiple - family development by conditional use permit. In light of the surrounding land uses in the area and the site's location on the banks of the Green River, the City Council felt that C -2 development may be more appropriate than light industry. 24 The summary of economic impacts of the proposed zoning ordinance has been rewritten and is included in section II of this document. While this section does not discuss the economic impacts of proposed zoning on a parcel -by- parcel basis, it should present an expanded and more accurate discussion than that included in the draft E.I.S. III - 35 City of Tukwila City Planners 6200 Southcenter Blvd. Tukwila, WA 98188 Dear Sir: Page 1 of 2 October 22, 1980 As a native and life -long resident of the City of Tukwila, I am proud of our City and how it has grown in the past two decades.- I have invested my time and money in property in the Tukwila area. Two parcels of land I share ownership in are located in the East side of Interurban Avenue be- tween I -5 and 405. 1. Lots 1,2,3,4 Block 17 Hillmans Seattle Garden Tract 2. Lots 1 - 7 Block 18 Hillmans Seattle Garden Tract These parcels of land are presently zoned M-1. It is because of this zoning that I purchased this land. Under the pro- posed zoning it would change the land from IM -1 to C-1. The surrounding area is presently M -1. (ie. trucking ter- minals, warehouses, light manufacturing) I would like to go on record as showing my strong opposition to any change in they present zoning. The proposed new zoning is a meandering line with no real geographical boundaries to define it. Such a zoning can place the same pieces of land with two separate zoning classification C -1 and iii -1. I feel that if it is the intent of the Planning Commission to preserve and beautify the area along Interurban Avenue and have it serve as a buffer to the M -1 properties that'they consider that area East of Interurban Avenue and West of Maule Avenue to be zoned C -1. The area East of Maule Avenue should then retain its M -1 zoning. Such a change from the proposed zoning would serve as a more natural barrier. /1 City of Tukwila Page 2 of 2 City Planners I am an Underground Utility Contractor with the hopes of building an office complex along Interurban Avenue and a shop in the backhalf of my property. Such a program ;,could not be allowed under your proposed zoning. I sincerely hope you will give the matter some serious consideration before you draft your final proposal. Respectfully, Jerry Knudson Green River Construction 6421 South 143rd Place_ Tukwila, WA 98188 246 -9456 Response to Comments from Jerry Knudson 25. On 29 October 1980, the Planning Commission changed the proposed zoning for that area lying east of A-Iaule Avenue - which includes both properties mentioned in your letter - from C -2 to AI -1. In their subsequent review of the Planning Commission recommendation, the City Council has concurred with the M -1 classification on these properties. Therefore, in draft #5 of the proposed ordinance, the proposed zoning is the same as the existing zoning, M -1. The Greater Tukwila Chamber of Commerce 950 Andover Park East • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • (206) 575-1953 October 22., 1980 Richard Kirsop, Chairman, Planning Commission City of Tukwila Dear Mr. Kirsop, Draft ::f4 of the Proposed Zoning Code contains changes that could adversely affect land use in some areas of Tukwila in the following ways: 1. Maximum utilization of capital investment in existing public utilities would be diminished. 2. Energy savings by concentrations of development, people and uses would be reduced. 3. Maximum utilization of.capital investment in street systems and mass transit services to concentrated areas would be lessened. 4. Projected expansion of the tax base to the area would be less. 5. Continued growth, .based on area comprehensive planning would be limited. 6. A higher intensity of people to support growth of existing business establishments would he reduced. 7. Higher utilization of land in many areas would be impossible. 8. Protection from urban sprawl to outlying areas would be more difficult. 9. Much private and public investment which has been based on developmental plans and contemplation of existing regulations would be severely affected. 10. Growth plans would not he consistent with area -wide planning such as the King sub - regional Plan for the Puget Sound Council of Governments. 11. The inflexibility of the proposed regulations would make variances more difficult to obtain. The Board and Community and Economic Development Committee of the Greater. Tukwila Chamber of Commerce is opposed to down - zoning the existing height regulations. It is in favor of retaining the existing height regulations and in reviewing those regulations to ascertain whether they are. consistent 'with ongoing trends of better space utilization and energy savings. In addition, there has been virtually no evaluation or determination of the economic impact on existing property owners. We believe that the economic .. impact should be completely reviewed. Sincerely, Randy Coplen, President, for the Board and Community and Economic Development Committee. . of The Greater Tukwila Chamber of Commerce cc Members of the Planning Commission Mark Caughey, Acting Director, Planning Department Staff of planning Department III - 39 Response to Comments from Randy Coplen 26. The City Council made extensive modifications to the building height regulations recommended by the Planning Commission. These modifica- tions are discussed in Section I of. this document. Generally, the changes proposed by the Council allow greater building height to be authorized by the City using criteria and procedures designed to mitigate any adverse impacts associated with higher, more intensive urban development. 27. The summary of economic impacts of the proposed zoning ordinance has been rewritten and is included in section II of this document. III - 40 ROGER L. SHIDLER GEORGE W. MCBROOM WILLIAM H. GATES WILLIAM F. BALDWIN JAMES R. IRWIN JAMES C. MIDDLEBROOKS RICHARD B. DODD FREDERICK ROSS BOUNDY WILLIAM H. NEUKOM JAMES L. FLETCHER DAVID T. MCDONALD PATRICIA J. PARKS DALE K. ROUNDY GARY 0. HUFF WILLIAM A. BUTLER DAVID H. BINNEY ROBERT A. ESHELMAN CONSTANCE L. PROCTOR KARL J. OUACKENBUSH CRAIG R. LEWIS SHIDLER, McBROOM, GATES & BALDWIN A PROFESSIONAL SERVICE CORPORATION LAW OFFICES 1000 NORTON BUILDING SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 99104 Mr. Mark Caughey Acting Planning Director City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Blvd. Tukwila, WA 98188 Planning Commission City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Blvd. Tukwila, WA 98188 Mayor Frank Todd City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Blvd. Tukwila, WA 98188 October 20, 1980 1 12061 223 -4666 !;1 OC T, 2 3 198u Re: Southcenter Shopping Center, Inc., Comments: Draft #4, Proposed Zoning Code and Draft Impact Statements Dear Sirs: We have reviewed Draft #4 of the proposed zoning code and the draft environmental impact statement therefor, and we offer the following comments. As you are well aware, we have commented extensively on orior drafts and the need for any substantive change to the zoning code. We hereby incorporate those comments with respect to the need for a new zoning code. However, assuming that there will be a new code in some form, we are of the opinion that Draft #4 represents a significant improvement over prior versions. We thank both the staff and Commission for listening to our concerns and responding, for the most part favorably. Community opposition to Draft #3 was based primarily on the fact that many existing uses would by its terms be made nonconforming. Mr. Mark Caughey Planning Commission Mayor Frank Todd October 20, 1980 Page 2 Draft #4 does not have that effect, at least on our client's prop- erties. While we find Draft #4 generally acceptable, there remain several real concerns. (1.) It was the intent of the staff and Commission, to utilize § 18.70.080, as a method of mitigating the harsh impacts of S 18.56 which would by its terms render all our existing parking areas, loading spaces and curb cuts non - conforming. The intent of § 18.70.080 was to render conforming all existing parking areas unless and until subsequent changes in the use of the property required a doubling or a 100% increase in stall requirements. Only until then would all of the harsh impacts of § 18.56 be avoided or mitigated. As currently printed, that provision could only be interpreted to mean that only certain aspects of § 18.56 relating to the parking lot itself, such as stall dimensional requirement and handicapped parking, would be mitigated. To clarify the intent of § 18.70.080 that none of the pro- visions of § 18.56 applied to existing legal lots until required parking requirements were increased in excess of 100 %, the Commission amended section .080 on July 10, 1980 by adding language concerning the "non- parking layout" aspects of § 18.56. The minutes of that meeting reflect the adoption of that amendment which is not now reflected in the text. (2) Several definitions are also required in the interest of completeness. 2.1 "Structure ". Our primary concern is with the definition of the term "structure ", particularly as it is used in § 18.70.050.. which deals with nonconforming structures. Southcenter is a multi - tenanted and a multi - building complex. Many of the buildings are. connected. Is each free standing.building a structure, or is the. entire center a structure? The destruction of a structure will require rebuilding in strict compliance with the code, yet we cannot tell what constitutes a structure. A "building" is defined at § 18.06.070 as a structure. When a structure is separated by division walls without openings, each. Mr. Mark Caughey Planning Commission Mayor Frank Todd October 20, 1980 Page 3 portion so separated is considered a separate building. But is each building or each such tenant space a "structure "? The con- fusion is obvious. I2.2 "Gross Leaseable Area ". Draft #4 introduces this erm, but nowhere is a definition included. 2.3 "Curb Cuts ". By § 18.56.040(9), maximum curb cuts in commercial and retail areas are raised from 24' to 28'. However, Southcenter now has numerous curb cuts in excess of even the larger figure. If, as the Planning Staff contends, curb cuts on private property are not controlled by these provisions and those at inter- sections with public streets are regulated by Public Works, we question the need for this provision at all. r (3) In its report on the compact car allowance, the Planning Staff recommended deletion of the dispersal requirement (S 18.56.090 (2)). We believe that the Commission accepted the staff recommend- ation and removed this particular language. If we are incorrect, further clarification of the term "dispersal" is required. We appreciate the dedication of the staff and Commission. With these above modifications and provided that we receive written staff assurance after the Commission's review that (a) existing parking lot landscaping meets the 5% landscaping requirements of § 18.52.050; and (b) Southcenter's private access roads are exempt from code re- quirements and are conforming under the criteria of the 18.56.040(a), we are of the opinion that we can live with Draft #4. GDH /kll Sincerely, Response to Comments from Gary Huff 28 Your Comments here are accurate. A search of the minutes of the Planning Commission meeting of 10 July 1980 indicates that they agreed by consensus to add the wording "Including curb -cuts and loading requirements" to section 18.70.080. This was not inserted into the retyped version of draft #4. Nevertheless, the City Council added your suggested wording to draft #5 on 28 September 1981. This section now reads as follows: "18.70.080 Nonconforming parking lots. Adoption of the provisions of Chapter 18.56 contained in this ordinance shall not be construed to require a change in any aspect of a'structure or facility covered thereunder, including without limitation parking lot layout, loading space requirements and curb - cuts, for any structure or facility which existed on the date of adoption of this code." Draft #5 of the proposed ordinance has been changed to reflect this added language. 29. Each of the free - standing buildings in the Southcenter complex may be called a "structure ", as defined in section 18.06.750 of Draft #5. The entire complex would not be called a single structure nor a single building, as the latter term is defined in section 18.06.080. 30. On 19 October 1981, the City Council added a proposed definition of "gross leaseable area" to chapter 18.06. The exact language of this definition is consistent with that suggested by yourself. 31. The major entrances to the Southcenter complex fall within the definition of "access road" in section 18.06.020 of draft #5. Therefore, the width of the cut in the curb at these locations is not regulated by the curb -cut standards of proposed section 18.56.040(9). Curb -cut width regulations apply to driveways, as this term is defined in section 18.06.200. 32. The Planning Commission considered the dispersal requirement of compact parking stalls at their 13 November 1980 zoning review meeting. Their recommendation was to drop this requirement from the proposed zoning code. The City Council has not at this point reinstated this requirement and it is not, therefore, a proposed regulation_ of draft #5. 33. At their 3 August 1981 zoning review session, the City Council dropped the five percent parking lot landscaping requirement from the proposed zoning ordinance. Therefore, this regulation is not part of draft #5 of the proposed zoning code. III - 44 Oak Weak:. 7eig%t ,&nea, 9 #c. 6350 SOUTH 143RD STREET - SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98168 TELEPHONE 246- 26 0a-J-`0cto1 er .22, 1980 City of Tukwila Project Planners 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, Washington 98188 Attention: Mr. Fred Satterstrom Dear Sir: OCT 2 3 1900 In reference to proposed zoning changes Sub Area 3.- Interurban. We purchaSed.our property located. at 6350 South. 143rd. Street back. in 1974 with a zoning of M -1. Our business has grown.and.we are still interested in buying more property to expand our parking area to the west. We would have bought :it.but our "Honorable Mayor" decided he did not want to sell part of the piece of property he owns; however, we are still dickering with some other prospects who (like us) only need part of that 5.acre piece. We moved in this area knowing it was zoned M -1 and we believe it should stay that way. C -1 zoning would increase the traffic much more than having it zoned M -1 the way it is now; therefore, kindly request it remain the same. HVP:ek III - 45 Yours truly, OAK HARBOR FREIGHT LINES, INC., 114a Henry' Vander Pol 'President Response to Comments from Henry Vander Pol 34. The proposed zoning on your property has been changed to M -1 classification, the same as the existing zoning. Please see response to comment #2S. 7 CITY CF iU.', :!'•� OCT 2 2 1980 City of Tukwila Project Planners 6200 Southcenter Blvd. Tukwila, WA 98188 Attention: Mr. Fred N. Sdtterstrom Dear Sir: 12059 Beacon Avenue South Seattle, WA 98178 October 21, 1980 We are considered new arrivals to Tukwila, and (the Subarea #3 -- Interurban). Your proposed zoning change has given us grave concern for the quality andfuture of this area. Contrary to your study, which is far from a realistic picture of this area, our interest in our property was stimulated bythe M -1 zoning and geographical location this area provided. We feel the present M -1 zoning gives the city a diversified - environment and apossible attractive addition to the city. In our tenure we have observed little or no::growth in new or existing Retail Business. If- anything, their struggle to remain solvent, is shown in a decline in the maintenance of those establishments. In short, geographically it:.is a poor area to establish C -1 or Retail Business unless it compliments the needs: ;of M -1. At the same time the city has discouraged the growth of the area, by a moratorium of building permits for which\the property was zoned, leaving this area forgotten and hanging in limbo. We feel the city and Planning Commission would best serve all concerned by keeping M -1 classification on the East side of Maule Avenue and C -1 on the West side of Maule Avenue. It is our greatest hope the Planning Commission reconsider this zoning change before they create a monumental financial burden and a blight upon the property owners of this city. Respectfully, Milton C. Young iynn R. Young Property Owners Response to Comments from Milton/Lynn Young 35. The proposed zoning on your property has been changed to a M -1 classification, the same as the existing zoning. Please see response to comment #25. III - 48 O.C.D. CITY CF .1U1I' „11LA October 22, 1980 iOCT. 2 t. 1880 Mr. Richard Krisop, Chairman City of Tukwila Planning Commission 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, WA 98188 Dear Mr. Kirsop: We join in support of the October 20 and 21, 1980 letters and recom- mendations submitted to you by Aden and Rosemary O'Dell of Hazel Candies and Paul Haggard of Paul K. Haggard Company. The Tukwila Riverside Inn is situated at 14060 Interurban Avenue South, Tukwila, Washington. For many years, we have enjoyed a cooperative and successful working relationship with the businesses in our immediate vicinity. The Planning Commission's proposal to change the zoning classification for the area east of Interurban from an M -1 to C -1 will not serve the best interests of the community, the City of Tukwila, or present or future owners of the property along Interurban Avenue. We strongly encourage the Commission to retain the present M -1 (or proposed C -M) classification for the 150 foot area east of Interurban Avenue which, as we understand the plan, will be immediately adjacent to the property to the east classified In view of the development of property along Interurban, and the needs of our community for light industry as well as commercial establishments, retention of the present zoning classification (or a C -M classification) in the area 150 feet from the center of Inter- urban Avenue will further the goals outlined in the City of Tukwila's Draft Environmental Impact Statement and proposed Draft 4 Zoning Code. As the O'Dells outlined for the Commission in their October 20 letter, and as Mr. Haggard explained in his October 21 letter, the businesses situated in the area affected by the zoning change do not favor the proposed change. Moreover, we are aware of no community support or planning objectives which would be served by this change. The proposed change could seriously hamper the ongoing, constructive dev- elopment of the area and could seriously jeopardize the City's goals 3 and 5. Goal 3 provides that the City should: "Encourage planned expansion of the corporate boundaries of Tukwila while providing adequate ser- vice levels and improvements to all areas within corporate limits.” Mr. Richard Kirsop, \..airman October 22, 1980 Page 2 Goal 5 provides that the City should: . . strike a balance between economy and environment. While the City should encourage development and strive to provide a healthy economic climate, it should be sensitive to the natural limitations and hazards imposed by the physical environment and the tremendous natural amenities which that environment affords." In order to accommodate the City's interest in planned expansion and its desire to promote environmentally sound economic development, the City Planning Commission should retain the present zoning (or proposed new C -M classification). Respectfully, TUKWILA RIVERSIDE INN, INC. By Benny Woyvodich President Response to Comments from Benny Woyvodich 36. The proposed zoning on your property has been changed to a M -1 classification, the same as the existing zoning. Please see response to comment #25. C. RHETT, INC. 6437 SOUTH 144th STREET ,TUKWILA, WA 98168 October 22, 1980 City of Tukwila Planning Commission 6200 Southcenter Blvd. Tukwila, WA 98188 Attention: Reference: Gentlemen: Mr. Richard Kirsop Chairman (206) 246 -6080 TWX 910 - 444 -1413 C RHETT TKLA JLILJ o. '.h. C111 OF 1,„ .i LA C. Rhett, Inc. Lots 1,2,3,4,5 and 6, Block 16, Hillman's Seattle Garden Tracts, According to Plat recorded in Volume 11 of Plats, Page 24, in King County, Washington Please be advised that we have reviewed the Proposed City of Tukwila Zoning Code (draft #4) . Under the aforementioned proposal our Company zoning would be changed from an M -1 (light industry) classification to that of C -1 (neighborhood retail) classification. With the implementation of this re- classification, our Company would be permitted to operate as a light industry, under the grand- father clause. However, future expansion of our facilities under said pro- posal would be prohibitive. I'm sure your commission is aware of the fact that within the past year our Company had quite an extensive building expansion with a cost in excess of one million dollars on improving and expanding our facilities. We are a rapidly growing company and cannot afford to have our growth curtailed. In our most recent expansion program, we complied with each and every build- ing code and ordinance with respect to our building addition and landscaping. We strongly urge and request the Planning Commission to review our position and give our Company every consideration with regards to remaining an M -1 (light industry) zoned facility. Sincerely, C. RHETT, INC. 5/?3/45P$---- Chester K. Rhett President CKR:ba FURNACE ENGINEERING CRI • GLASS PLANT CONSULTANTS • GLASS PROCESS EQUIPMENT III - 52 Response to Comments from Chester K. Rhett 37. The proposed zoning on your property has been changed to a M -1 classification, the same as the existing zoning. Please see response to comment #25. III - 53 City of Tukwila Project Planners 6200 Southcenter Blvd. Tukwila, Washington 98188 Attn: Mr. Fred N. Satterstrom Dear Sir: October 21;,1:9807 CVIY V J OCT, 2 2 1980 In reference to proposed zoning changes in Sub -Area 3 Interurban; As a matter of record we purchased the property located at 6400 South 143rd Place in 1967. At that time the Tukwila city administrators authorized us to build a facility and move our machine shop there. In the text of the proposed zoning ordinance draft #4 you say the Interurban area has experienced little development in the past 15 -20 years. In reality this period has produced most of the development that now exists. My company, Engstrom Machine Works, has doubled the size of its building along with parking and security fences. Our neighbor to the east, Bert -Well Industries, has expanded and upgraded his facility 4 times in the past 10 years. There have been several manufacturing and warehouse buildings constructed within the past 5 years 1 block north and south of us. Furthermore, if there had not been a reluctance on the City's part to issue building permits in the last few years I'm sure there would have been more development of light industry in Sub -Area 3. It has been my understanding that the Planning Commission intended to form a boundary 150 feet east from Interurban to rezone as C -1. It seems to me that an existing boundary such as Maule Avenue would better serve the community to create a buffer zone along the Interurban corridor and also protect the M -1 business in the area. As I said before, in 1967 the City of Tukwila assured me that I could build a business of my choice at 6400 South 143rd Place. This business now represents a sizable investment on my part. The stability of my financial ,future hinges on the assurance of establishing permanent zoning of M -1 for my property. I hope the Council will consider the Comprehensive Plan in Sub -Area 3 carefully to insure that the rights of individual property owners are protected. III - 54 Very tr ly yours, 0-7G,,,i,C Donald & Jeanette Engstrom 6400 South 143rd Place Tukwila 246 -4911 Response to Comments from Donald /Jeanette Engstrom 38. The proposed zoning on your property has been changed to a M -1 classification, the same as the existing zoning. Please see response to comment #25. III - 5S (Alaska Branch) 625 W. 54th Avenue Anchorage, AK 99502 (907) 272 -1444 TLX: 090 -26 -603 Iiaii 1. K Since 1951 ooaito oo. Home Office: 14000 Interurban Avenue So. Tukwila, WA 98168 (Seattle) (206) 244 -8600 TLX 32 -0127 21st Day of October Our 29th Year 1980 CITY OF TUKWILA ZONING PLANNING COMMISSION 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, WA 98188 .z- (Spokane Branch) E. 13110 Indiana Ave. Spokane. WA 99216 t ,Z( 9028 -6764 C.C.D. CITY C. iL':fi;IIA OCT, 2 1980 Attn: Mr. Richard`Kirsop, Chairman Dear Sir: I have reviewed the Proposed City of Tukwila Zoning Code (Draft 4) and Draft Environmental Impact Statement recently made available. I wish to commend your commission, you as the chairman and all the staff that have spent so much time and effort in its development to date. There are a couple of discrepancies and one in particular that I appreciate the opportunity to point out. I do ask for your careful consideration previous to submitting the final proposal to the City Council. 1. In Part Two I was unable to find any mention or stipulation on the most important point relating to the property located at 14000 Interurban Avenue as it was "Agreed by consensus to follow their Quasi- official policy to establish the first 150 feet parallel to Interurban Avenue as commercial, in this case C -1 (Community Retail Business) because of its position in the interior of Interurban Avenue and that area behind the 150' frontage as M -1 (Light Industry)." This quotation taken from PARTS BOMBAROIER SERVICE .1'/,e('iali:i)I, in Lyni /,!ten! and Service !u !/ litililL:,r. (',,n!!aet,,,s, Muni( i/r,li(irs and Gure•rnu,en! Agencies III - 56 the minutes of your work session 8 May 1980 second'page, but not numbered, seventh paragraph. This oversight is especially important to our company. These minutes fail to mention, as my notes indicate, the agreed 150' would be measured from the centerline of Interurban Avenue eastward. In leaving that particular meeting I felt the commission had been fair and clear in their decision. Your Goals 1 through 8 as spelled out in Part II, pages 10 & 13 are commendable and needed. I strongly feel however that in order to help reach them serious consideration should be given in making the 150' boundary between C -1 and M -1 on the east side of Interurban Avenue from the southwest corner of Foster Golf Course extending south to the south boundary of The r Village Green. In other words have C -1 end on the west side of Maule Avenue that extends that full route parallel to Interurban Avenue and M -1 i e start on the east lont.Maule; resulting in a buffer zone.. This will provide a fair,equable and recognizable boundary the full route; measuring 150' from center -line of Interurban Avenue to the east line of Maule Avenue. This simple and easily determined division between C -1 and M -1 zones in this sensitive area will eliminate ill- feelings, frustrations and possible expensive litigations. I have enjoyed our community relations these past 15 years and earnestly encourage that we all work together for the good of our community. Equally important that our government recognizes that changes in laws can be positive or negative and thereby always keep in mind that profitable business establishments pay taxes and provide jobs; without these what would-weJhave? III - .57 • :!A OCT 2 2 1980 There are other points .I could mention but I find my excellent neighbor to the south Aden O'Dell who came to Tukwila 10 years before I has masterfully covered them in his letter to you. PKH:ds Sincerely, PAUL K. RD COMPANY Paul K. Haggard, President ,OCT. 2 2 1980 Response to Comments from Paul K. Haggard 39. The minutes of the 8 May 1980 Planning Commission meeting are clear and correct; the 150' width was intended to be measured from the margin of the Interurban Avenue right -of -way and not from the center- line of the street. 40. Subsequent to your letter, the Planning Commission followed the basic outline of your suggestion and designated Maule Avenue as the dividing line between C -1 and M -1 zoning. In their review of the Planning Commission recommendation, the City Council modified the Commission's proposal by changing the C -1 zoning to a C -2 classifica- tion; the M -1 classification on the east side of Maule Avenue near your property remained the same. For additional detail on the proposed zoning in the Interurban area, please refer to response under comment #15. III - 59 City of Tukwila Planning Commission 6200 Southcenter Blvd. Tukwila, Wa. 98188 Attn: Mr. Richard Kirsop, Chr.rri 14040 Interurban Ave. South Tukwila, Washington 98188 (206) 433 -0133 Dear Sir, ACT 2 Z 1980 October 20, 1980 We have'r.eviewed the Proposed) City of Tukwila Zoning Code (draft 4) and Draft Environmental Impact Statement recently available. It is obvious a great deal of-time and effort was put into it and we compli- ment you and your staff on .same.. We do find several discrepancies that are extremely important to numerous peoples of the community and feel obligated to inform.your commission. As 'a brief resume , -- we formerly owned and operated til 1972, the concrete products facility located at 14040 Interurban Avenue South; this bus'ines's:was• originally located at the corner of 56th south and South 144th, when current zoning ordinance was adopted. (1957) That zoning change made that facility .and-property non- conforming and upon the re- quest of the Mayor and the City Council; and thru their help we were able to locate a piece of property in the M-1 zone which we built on. We moved into that facility in 1960; this being present location of 14040 Interurban Avenue South. During the period of 1960 thru 1972 we maintained a neat and orderly premises and used the property between Maule Avenue and Over half a century of fine candymaking III - 60 Interurban Avenue for the sole purpose of sign to identify our business and a small display of products. The rest of the area was kept clean and neat. ( When the party who purchased the business ceased to operate same in January 1980, we again occupied our property. We conformed to the re- quirements under the comprehensive zoning plan and filed all necessary papers for the Waiver hearing, went thru the process in which the Council voted that our use as a candy manufacturing facility would not be a negative use under their goals of the Comprehensive Plan. With this approval, we proceeded to re- develop the property. Based on this waiver to the comprehensive plan and the under- standing of the May 8th minutes of the work session of the Planning Com- mission that was relayed to me, the intent to make an approximate 150 ft. strip parallel to the center of Interurban Avenue as C -1 and all property east to remain as M -1; we felt this left us in total compliance with the Council and the Planning Commission's desires for the M -1 zoning on our property to remain. In reference to the Proposed City of Tukwila Zoning Code (draft 4) and Draft Environmental Impact Statement: Page 49, section (C) Sub -area #3 - Interurban - " Historically, the Interurban area has experienced little development in the last 15 - 20 years; development which has occurred has been sporadic and slow paced." Historically, we have seen ALL commercial development in the area occurring in the last 15 to 20 years. Prior to that time the properties were either abandoned or run -down residential. A current examination of the area shows that the additional development of the properties in the last 5 years has been primarily manufacturing and warehouse space; with up- III - 61 IOW grading of existing manufacturing buildings. For example, Engstrom Machine has doubled in size and Bertwell Industries has expanded three times. In the past 2 years - a new facility by Cascade Manufacturing on South 143rd and a new building by C. Rhett, Inc. on South 144th. has been built; plus the total renovation of our building and we are in the process of finishing the other building on our property for occupancy. Contrary to your statement "Currently a 2 -story office building is under construction in the southern part of the sub -area and another office com- plex is on the drawing board for the central part of the sub-area." The office buildings your refer to as "setting a trend" are both being built by the same party on land which is currently zoned M -1 and the other currently zoned C -2; which is in compliance of both old and new zoning; therefore they are not affected by the proposed zoning plan. Also on page 49: you state "as a general rule, retail business has grown up along Interurban Avenue." We refute this - by pointing out that on the east side of Interur- ban Avenue, all property, with the exception of the Riverside Inn and a few small storefronts in the Riverside building, are the only retail sales, from the golf course to the junction of 405. Also on pages 49 & 50: "Also the design and layout of Interurban Avenue itself gives little articulation to certain nodes and presents difficult ingress - egress to abutting properties." We disagree - Interurban Avenue was a 2 - lane street with prohibited left -turns until it was upgraded and improved to the present 5 lanes, which includes a two -way center turn lane, safely providing a more than adequate ingress- egress to all abutting properties: III - 62 ' It is not our desire to have any property on the east side of Interurban Avenue down- zoned; and in keeping with the Council's goals, we therefore suggest a more workable boundary between C -1 and M-1 classification as being Maule Avenue; C -1 on the west side of Maule and M -1 on the east side of Maule Avenue. This would afford a natural geographical border on the west side of Maule Avenue of approximately 150 ft. This would go along with the quasi - official policy as spelled out in the Planning Commission minutes of 5/8/80 work session, page 2, paragraph 7. This change would place no hardship on existing property owners and still accomplish the Council's comprehensive goals as spelled out in Part II, page 10 and 13, goals 1 thru 8. We sincerely hope that future deliberation by the Planning Commission and the City Council to this matter takes into consideration the complied change by the Council vote to the Comprehensive Plan in sub -area #3 as it pertains to my property. We have been residents and /or property owners in the City of Tukwila since 1957 and are proud of the City's gorwth. While living as residents we actively worked in the community and schools, etc. and feel familial closeness to all that concerns the city and its peoples. Our sincere appreciation to all for their time and concern in this matter. AMO /ro III - 63 Response t� Comments from Aden and Rosemary O'Dell 41. In the 20 -year period between 1961 -1980, over 12,600;000 square feet of commercial and industrial building space,was constructed in the City-of Tukwila. Of this total, only approximately 271,000 sq. ft. was constructed in the Interurban area, or about 1.7% of the total building area city -wide. Compare this percentage with the fact that the land area of the Interurban corridor accounts for approximately 12% of the total City area and it .becomes apparent that the growth rate in the Interurban area, at least insofar as commercial and indus- trialbuilding floor space is concerned, has not kept pace with the rest of the City. 42 It is,always debatable as to what constitutes a trend and what does not, and this holds true for land use trends in the Interurban subarea as well. However, an analysis of building permit activity during the period of 1961 -1980 may help to illuminate the general statements made in the draft E.I.S. For example, during the period 1961 -1965, almost 40,000 sq. ft. of industrial building space was constructed. During the same period, only about 10,000 sq. ft. of commercial space was constructed, much of it being accessory to indus- trial uses on the same premises. During successive 5 -year periods, the total building space constructed for industrial activities dropped to 28,000 sq. ft. (1966 - 1970), 20,000 sq. ft. (1971 - 1975), and 19,000 sq. ft. (1976 - 1980). On the other hand, commercial building space constructed in the Interurban subarea expanded to over 21,000 sq. ft. during 1971 -1975 and to 68,000 sq. ft. during 1976 -1980. Based on these figures, the draft E.I.S. states that there appears to be a shift in emphasis of development in the Interurban subarea. Of course, since these building statistics are compiled for an area nearly one -half square mile in size, there may be variations in land use "trends" within the subarea. One area may be experiencing more indus- trial growth than office or commercial development, and vice versa. Because the discussion of land'use in the draft E.I.S. was conducted on a subarea level, localized variations in growth and development were generally overlooked. 43. The statement in the draft E.I.S. regarding retail businesses growing up along Interurban Avenue was not intended to indicate the quantity of such development but rather the location of commercial use as opposed to the location of industrial use in the Interurban subarea. Your examples of commercial uses on the east side of Interurban Avenue - i.e., Riverside Inn and associated businesses - reflect the point being made here; that is, that retail and commercial development is located along or adjacent to Interurban Avenue while industrial activities are situated further to the east, accessed from sidestreets intersecting with Interurban. 44 The statement in the draft E.I.S. regarding the design and layout of Interurban Avenue was taken from the "Interurban Corridor Study and Design Plane ;" (1978). The statement says essentially two things. First, the design of Interurban Avenue gives little articulation to Response to Comments from Aden and Rosemary O'Dell Con't certain nodes. That is, it does not emphasize, either through lane configuration, alignment, or other design features, any certain point or place between the I -5 underpass on the north and the I -405 inter- change on the south. Second, the design of Interurban Avenue presents difficult access to abutting properties. This statement may be attributable to other factors in addition to the design of Interurban Avenue which are not mentioned in the draft E.I.S., namely speed and volume of traffic and lack of deceleration lanes. 45. The Planning Commission and City Council have modified the proposed zoning in the Interurban subarea from that shown in draft #4. Draft #5 of the proposed zoning ordinance, which reflects the recent modifica- tions, indicates C -2 zoning between Interurban and Maule Avenues and M -1 zoning east of Houle Avenue. For a more detailed explanation of Interurban subarea zoning changes, please refer to response under comment #15. C STATE OF WASHINGTON Dixy Lee Ray Gouernor DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY Mail Stop PV-11 206/753 -2800 Olympia, Washington 98504 November 5, 1980_ Mr. Mark Caughey Acting Planning Director City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, Washington 98188 Dear Mr. Caughey: O.C.D. CITY OF T0:('411A NOV 7 1980 Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the draft environ- mental impact statement for the proposed zoning ordinance revi- sions. Headquarters and regional personnel have reviewed the EIS and have no comments to offer. If you have any questions, please call me at 753 -6890. BJR:bjw Sincerely, Barbara J. Ritchie Environmental Review Section III - 66 STATE OF WASHINGTON Dixy Lee Ray Governor C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION KF -Ol Highway Administration Building, Olympia, Washington 98504 206/753 -6005 Mr. Mark Caughey,Acting Director City of Tukwila Office of Community Development 6200 Southcenter Boulevard . Tukwila, Washington 98188 November 7, 1980 City of Tukwila Proposed Zoning Ordinance Draft Environmental Impact Statement Dear Mr. eaughey: We have reviewed the subject document and have no objections to the proposal but have the following comment: We would appreciate you sending all future environmental documents directly to the Environmental Policy and Coordination Section, Highway Administration Building, Olympia, Washington 98504, as we are responsible for coordinating the Department's review. If you have any questions, please call Will Smith at 753 -6644. Sincerely, RSN:sab JB /WBH cc: J. D. Zirkle /T. R. Burke ROBERT S. NIELSEN Assistant Secretary for Public Jnsportation and Planning By: /JOSEPH BELL, Manager Planning Implementation and Environmental Policy STATE OF WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF FISHERIES 115 General Administration Building, Olympia, Washington 985 206/754- .4600_ Dixy tee Ray •„ i a �t• +� Gouernor October 14, 1980 City of Tukwila Planning Department 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, Washington 98188 Attention Caroline V. "Berry Gentlemen:. OCT. 1.7, 1880 Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Proposed City of Tukwila Zoning Code We will reserve comments on matters concerning the above - referenced document until specific projects are proposed. If work is required within the ordinary high water mark of a stream, a Hydraulic Project Approval from the departments of Fisheries and Game will be required. If you have any questions, please contact our Natural Production Division at (206) 753 -6650. Sincerely, L� Gordon Sandi Director ) cc: Department of Game Department of Ecology III - 68 • 3 Mr. Mark Caughey Acting Planning Director City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, WA 98188 Dear Mt. Caughey: 410 West Harrison Street, P.O. Box 9863 (206) 344-7330 Seattle, Washington 98109 Nov ? rA.:IQ 0.C.D. CITY OF TUK WILA ;NOV. 4 1980 City of Tukwila Zoning Code DEIS We have reviewed a copy of the subject draft environmental impact statement regarding the proposed zoning changes for the City of Tukwila. We have no comments or suggestions for additions. Thank you for the opportunity to comment. gh SERVING: KING COUNTY 410 West Harrison St. P.O. Box 9863 Seattle. 98109 (2061 344-7330 KITSAP COUNTY Dial Operator for Toll Free Number Zenith 8385 Bainbridge Island, 98110 Dial 344.7330 PIERCE COUNTY 213 Hess Building Tacoma, 98402 1206) 383 -5851 SNOHOMISH COUNTY 1206) 259 -0288 BOARD OF DIRECTORS CHAIRMAN' Gene Lobe, Commissioner Kitsap County; James B. Haines, Commissioner Snohomish County; Harvey S. Poll, Member at Large; Sincerely, A. R. Dammkoehler Air Pollution Control Officer III - 69 Glenn K. Jarstad, Mayor Bremerton; William E. Moore, Mayor Everett; Charles Royer, Mayor Seattle; John D. Spellman, King County Executive; VICE CHAIRMAN: Patrick J. Gallagher, Commissioner Pierce County; Mike Parker, Mayor Tacoma; A. R. Dammkoehler, Air Pollution Control Officer. SECTION IV SUMMARY OF COMMENTS RECEIVED AT PUBLIC HEARING The following is the summary of comments received at the 23 October 1980 public hearing on the proposed zoning ordinance (draft #4) and draft environmental impact statement. Following the enumeration of comments is a list of responses; the comment number corresponds with the response number in the following sections. Public Hearing Comments - City Hall 23 October 1980 Planning Commission Meeting Barbara Wilson (speaking for Seattle Rendering Works): 1. Suggested that the words "animal wastes" in section 18.66.020(13) be rewordedtomore accurately reflect the actual process of rendering. Paul Haggard: 2. The proposed zoning map should be changed to indicate M -1 (Light Industrial) on the east side of Maule Avenue and C -1 (Community Retail) between Interurban and Maule Avenues. 'Joel Benoliel (speaking for the Benaroya Company): 3. The maximum allowable height for buildings should be changed to 130 - feet or the defintion of building height should be redefined so as to make mechanical equipment areas ea:empt from height limitations. Either of these changes. would allow the Boeing Office Building to remain conforming in the new ordinance. 4. The proposed zoning of C -2 (Regional Retail) for the Parkway Plaza shopping complex may cause a problem due to the size limitation of planned shopping centers in the C -2 zone and the definition of a "shopping center (mall), planned" as specified in section 18.06.600. 5. The proposed zoning on the Parkway Plaza site on the east side of Southcenter Parkway should be rezoned to C -P (Planned Business Center). Aden O'Dell: 6. The statement on p. 49 of the draft E.I.S. which reads, "Historically, the Interurban area has experienced little development in the last 15 -20 years; development which has occurred has been sporadic and slow- paced," is not accurate. • 7. The statement on p. 49 of the draft E.I.S. which reads, "Currently a two -story office building is under construction in the southern part of the subarea and another office complex is on the drawing board for the central part of the subarea," does not mean that a trend to office use is 'occurring in the Interurban area. 8. The statement on p. 49 of the draft E.I.S. which reads, "as a general rule, retail business has grown up along Interurban Avenue," is refutable. 9. The statement on pp. 49 -50 of the draft E.I.S. which reads, "Also, the design and layout of Interurban Avenue itself gives little articu- lation to certain modes and presents difficult ingress- egress to abutting properties," is inaccurate. 10. Maule Avenue would be a more logical boundary between C -1 and M -1 zoning, with C -1 between Maule and Interurban Avenues and M -1 east of Maule Avenue. It is not desirable to downzone any property on the east side of Interurban Avenue. Lynn R. Young: 11. The present M -1 zoning classification east of Interurban Avenue gives the City a diversified environment and a possible attractive addition to the City. Therefore, the M -1 classification should be retained. Cris Crumbaugh (speaking for M.A. Segale, Inc.): 12. The proposed zoning ordinance forces less density and reduces the ability to mix land uses. This aspect of the proposed code is not .property addressed in the draft E.I.S. 13. The economic and tax implications cif the proposed zoning ordinance are not adequately addressed in the draft E.I.S. 14. The front, side,!.and rear yard setback and landscaping requirements of the proposed M -2 zone district may render some of the exisiting buildings in Segale Business Park nonconforming. Benny Woyvodich: 15. The Planning Commission should retain the existing M -1 zoning classifi- cation on the area lying east of Interurban Avenue. Retention of this zoning will further the goals outlined in the City's Comprehensive Land Use Policy Plan. • Marc Nemirow (speaking for Don Koll Northwest): 16. The term "access roads" has not been defined in the proposed zoning code. This is especially important as they relate to the,•shoreline zone. IV- 2 17. Bridges, particularly railroad bridges, should be allowed in the Shoreline zone. 18. There is no definition of lead trackage in the proposed ordinance. Lead trackage needs to be differentiated from spur trackage, side trackage, or other forms of trackage. Jerry Knudson: 19. A more logical boundary between M -1 and C -1 zoning in the Interurban area is Maule Avenue, with C -1 zoning between Interurban and Maule Avenues and.M -1 on the east side of Maule Avenue. The C -1 zone would then serve as a buffer along Interurban Avenue. Don Engstrom: 20. The statement in the draft E.I.S.which claims there has been little development in the Interurban area over the past 15 -20 years may be inaccurate. In reality, this period has produced most of the develop- ment which presently exists. 21. An existing boundary such as Maule Avenue would better serve the community to create a buffer zone along the Interurban corridor and, also, to protect the M -1 business in the area. C -1 zoning should then be imposed between Maule and Interurban Avenues. Gary Huff (speaking for Allied Stores, Inc.): 22. There should be a clearer definition of "structure" which explains the disposition of Southcenter Shopping Center. Is each free - standing building a structure or is the entire center a structure? 23. The regulations pertaining to curb -cuts in the proposed zoning ordinance should be eliminated. 24. The dispersal requirement for compact parking stalls should be eliminated from the parking regulations. Francis North: 25. The Codiga property on the east bank of the Green River should remain in a M -1 classification. Two single - family residences may be made nonconforming by rezoning to R -A (Agricultural). It is not known whether King County will ever purchase this additional land for recreational purposes. 26. The Codiga property on the west bank, consisting of approximately 35 acres, is proposed for M -1 zoning and this is fine. However, the building height limitation of four stories should be eliminated in favor of a higher limit, such as 10 or 11 stories. 27. The 25 -foot front yard setback for the M -1 zone should be set up so that the Board of Architectural Review could waive or reduce it through their design review procedures. Walt Kassner: 28. The property located near the extension of S. 144th Street at 59th Avenue should be considered a R -4 (Low Apartment) property and should not be changed. Louise Strander: 29. The M -1 zoned property in the north.part of the City is surrounded by freeways where no neighborhood would be influenced by tall buildings. This is one area of the City where high buildings would least affect residents. John Barnes: 30. Parcel #67 identified on p. 40 of the draft E.I.S. is not prone to landsliding as indicated in the statement. Various soils reports have been prepared for this area and they bear this out. 31. The present RMH zoning of parcel #67, as identified in the draft E.I.S.; should remain rather than be changed to the proposed R -1 -12.0 classification. Kent Johnson (speaking for the Tukwila Chamber of Commerce): 32. The Community and Economic Development Committee of the Tukwila Chamber of Commerce is opposed to lowering the maximum height limi- tations for buildings. It is in favor of retaining the existing height regulations and in reviewing these standards to ascertain whether they are consistent with ongoing trends of better space utilization and energy savings. 33. There needs to be a more complete review of the economic impacts of the proposed zoning code. Milton Young: 34. The zoning on the east side of Interurban Avenue should be left as it is, M -1. • Andrew Kalan (speaking for C. Rhett, Inc.): 35. That area lying east of Maule Avenue in the Interurban area should be zoned M -1 rather than C -1. Downgrading of the C: Rhett property at 6437 S. 144th Street would be detrimental to the growth of the community. IV - 4 RESPONSES TO COM'4ENTS RECEIVED AT PUBLIC DARING The number of each response below corresponds with the comment number in . the previous section of this chapter. 1. Please see response to Comment #17 in Section III of this document. 2. Please see response to Comment #15 in Section III of this document. 3. The City Council has modified the proposed building height limits and the building height exception regulations which were recommended by the Planning Commission. Generally, these proposed modifications permit a greater building height than that proposed in draft #4 of the proposed zoning ordinance. Please see Section I of this document for a detailed discussion of the proposed modifications to Chapter 18.50 relating to building height limits. • 4. As interpreted by the City planning staff, the existing Parkway Plaza commercial development does not meet the definition of a "shopping center (mall), planned" as defined in Section 18.06.600 of draft #4. Also, the Parkway Plaza complex consists of buildings which are physically separated from one another, no single structure exceeding 300,000 square feet in total floor area. Therefore, the existing commercial use of the property is provided for under the proposed C -2 classification. This interpretation was considered and accepted by the Planning Commission in their review of your comments on 13 November 1980. S. The Planning Commission considered your request to rezone the Parkway Plaza site on 13 November 1980 but decided to retain the proposed C -2 designation. 6. Please see response to comment #41 in Section III of this document. 7. Please see response to comment #42 in Section III of this document. 8. Please See response to comment #43 in Section III of this document. 9. Please see response to comment #44 in Section III of this document. 10. Please see response to comment #45 in Section III of this document. 11. Please see response to comment #15 in Section III of this document. 12. The proposed building height limitations and exceptions have been modified by the City Council from that recommended by the Planning Commission in draft #4 of the proposed zoning ordinance. These modifications are discussed in detail in Section I of this document under changes to Chapter 18.50. Generally, the modifications of the City Council allow greater building height, hence greater density, than that permitted under regulations in draft #4. Furthermore, the cascading nature of the commercial and industrial zone districts plus the procedures of the Planned Mixed -use Development process permit maximum mixing of uses in most areas of the City while requiring a review process which should help alleviate use incom- patibilities. 13. The economic impacts section of the draft E.I.S. has been revised and rewritten. Please see Section II of this document for.that. discussion. 14. Any existing building or site improvement such as parking or landscaping is protected under the proposed regulations of 18.70 (Nonconforming Uses and Structures). Generally, nonconforming buildings are permitted to expand as long as the expansion does not increase the degree of nonconformance. 15. Please see response to comment #15 in Section III of this document. 16. On 11 December 1980, the Planning Commission added aHdefinition of "access road" to the proposed zoning ordinance. The Commission endorsed the following language: "A driveway that may provide access to more than one parking lot or area, may provide access to more than one property or lot, and may provide internal access from one street to another." 1.7. On 11 December 1980, the Planning Commission added "Road and railroad bridges" to the list of permitted uses in the river environment in Section 18.44.110(A) of draft #4. 18. Your comment is acknowledged. The Planning Commission considered your suggestion and decided not to include a definition of "railroad read tracts ". 19. Please see response to comment #15 in Section III of this document. 20. Please see .response to comment #41 in Section III ofthis.document. 21. Please see response to comment #15 in Section III of this document. 22. The Planning Commission considered your suggestion to clarify the definition of "structure" at their 29 October 1981.meeting. Their consensus was that the definition was relatively clear and appropriate and, they decided not to change the language from that appearing in draft #4. 23. The Planning Commission considered your comments relating to curb - cuts at Southcenter at their 13 November 1980 meeting. Based on your comments and the concerns of the Commissioners, staff was instructed to develop a definition for curb -cut. On 11 December 1980, the Commission recommend the'following defintion for cub -cut: "A depression in the roadside curb for driveway purposes which provides access to a parking lot on private premises from a public street ". This definition is part of draft #5 of the proposed zoning ordinance. 24. The Planning Commission deleted the dispersal requirement for compact car stalls at their review meeting of 13 November 1980. This requirement is no longer part of the proposed zoning ordinance, draft #5. 25. At their 13 November 1980 meeting, the Planning Commission modified the proposed zoning for Lbts 32 -36, Block 13 of the Allentown Addition to R- 1 -7.2, thus making the two single - family homes located thereon in conformance with proposed regulations. 26. The City Council has modified the proposed building. height exception regulations as recommended by the Planning Commission.. Buildings on the west bank of the Green River north of the Interstate -5 interchange at Interurban Avenue may reach up to 115 -feet by approval of the Board of Architectural Review pursuant to proposed regulations of Section 18.50.030. Please see Section I of this document for further information regarding modificaitons to the proposed height limitations (Chapter 18.50) of draft #4. 27. Your comments are acknowledged. 28. The Planning Commission considered your comments at their:13 November 1980 meeting. It was agreed by consensus to retain the proposed R -1 -7.2 (Single - family Residential) classification. 29. Please see response to comment #26, above. 30. The draft E.I.S. on p. 93 (Map:Slope) identifies the general area in the vicinity of parcel #67 as having slopes in the range of 15 -25a. Such slopes are described as "steep ". The draft E.I.S. also mentions that small landslides occurred in the McMicken Heights area during construction of the I -5 freeway. The slope stability map on p. 95 of the draft E.I.S. designates the general area in the vicinity of South 158th Strees /53rd Avenue as "unstable when modified." This designation is described as "normally stable slopes but may become unstable due to man's activities; generally steeper than 15 percent." This environmental information has been taken from the document , entitled, "Data Inventory: Tukwila Planning Area." Source material for this document consisted of reports and manuscrips prepared by govern- mental agencies; such materials were general in nature, not site specific, and were intended only to suggest generalized areas where certain environmental hazards may exist. On -site evaluations of geologic and soils conditions by a qualified professional.are recommended in these areas. The City of Tukwila Comprehensive Land Use Plan map identifies parcel #67 as "Low- density Residential." The Plan map appears on page 11 of the draft E.I.S. This site is part of the general McMicken Heights area of Tukwila, all of which has been designated "Low- density Residential." In addition, a "Special Development Considerations" designation has also been superimposed over parcel #67 due to the - . potential environmental hazards mentioned above. • • • While soils reports have been prepared for parcels #64 and #66 in conjunction with land use permit applications, none have been submitted to the City for parcel #67. 31. The Planning Commission considered your comment at their 13 November 1980 meeting. It was their recommendation to retain the proposed R -1 -12.0 zoning for parcel #67. 32. The City Council has modified the building height limitations as recommended by the Planning Commission. Please see Section I of this document for a discussion of these modifications. 33. The economic impacts. section of the draft E.I.S. has been revised and rewritten. Please see Section II of this document for this discussion. 34. Please see response to comment #15 in Section III of this document. 35. Please see response to comment #15 in Section III. of this document. ratati E t 1 f1d»J-!!bv1 PIS f v� , UL-f v t rs-f SU IAA Wttl Gvi f i01A Of PrDp5ai ex,4g : (to) ivtsrOVt3 ID DE 15 / P►v Osot ) Cbi,wvd Lfters (k 01-kr) r 2. Oral Co vovuevt13 6le/b Taker) n ; a 1kfrai x N4, E (5 wi (L k- w' (c vt �al (ow; vta 1 y'iu, procutusu otA 4(,i tu4- riK VvAC 10- 58"0 (Z) tN1Wvt -( - 1144 t di1CrwtI J OatL 1 e `je i d,.v& r`tlukirtd fo 'f'kL. DE1 VMl jvVfO3zJ Awl_ cm 4f 1J !D is vi o.. ; c4 140 cu UGt,.,t4.± G — wi cjat. U owi 14,1 i Wad: cd: (1) GOOu.► f k1us , (11 and ww,i&uwf f , (3) re5 ovueJ ( tiA,tet Z (4) Jutmat.a. vi of 0615, w4 S) c 1Vt(3 mitzl oat. ( 5m t, kaitriX • leattr,cs Department of Energy Seattle Branch Office Richland Operations Office 915 Second Avenue Seattle, Washington 98174 Bradley J. Collins, AICP Director of Planning City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, Washington 98188 Dear Mr. Collins: December 28, 1981 We have received the Final Environmental Impact Statement for the proposed City of. Tukwila Zoning Ordinance, Draft #5 which was addressed' to the U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Regional Representative of the Secretary, Region X. A recent Departmental reorganization greatly reduced the size and scope of the DOE Seattle Office, and we no longer have the staff resources available which could appropriately comment on future environmental impact statements. We, therefore, request that you please remove our Office from your mailing list for review /comment on future EIS's. T'h.ank you for, your interest. Enclosure Sincerely, / /avid L. dead y ;ExternaliAffairs Officer f AFFIDAIOIT OF DISTRIOlTION Fred N Satterstrom , being duly sworn, hereby declare that the Final Environmental Impact Statement on the Proposed Zoning Ordinance (Draft #5) has been mailed to each of the following addresses. PLEASE SEE ATTACHED MAILING LIST ON AGENCIES AND INDIVIDUALS red N., SSa terstrom Subscribed and sworn to before me th 's �� " %day ' of e, G ern b e r— Notary Pulbic in and for Washington, risiding a - „'' — seor rvi is 1j-t- VI FEDERAL X Environmental Protection Agency 1200 6th Seattle, WA 98174 )(Department of Energy Office of Regional Repr. of Secretary Region X 1992 Federal Bldg. 915 2nd Ave. Seattle, WA 98174 STATE MASTER.LIST Office of Program Planning & Fiscal Management Olympia, WA 98504 ,XDepartment of Ecology 4350 150th NE Redmond, WA 98052 J‹ Department of Fisheries 115 General Administration Bldg. Olympia, WA 98504 ' Department of Game 509 Fairview No. Seattle, WA 98109 x Department of Transportation 6431 Corson Ave.. So., C -81410 Seattle, WA 98108 ) Department of Social & Health Services 149 South 140th Seattle, WA 98166 Department of Commerce & Economic Development 321 1st No. Seattle, WA 98104 .. Office of Planning & Community Affairs Olympia, WA 98504 . • Institute for Environmental Studies 4350 150th NE Redmond, WA 98052 REGIONAL x Puget Sound Council of Governments 216 1st South . Seattle, WA 98104 Puget Sound Air Pollution 410 W. Harrison St. P. 0. Box 9863 Seattle., WA 98109 • REGIONAL - Contd. Seattle -King County Economic Dev. Counci'. 1218 3rd Seattle, WA 98174 Metro 600 1st Ave. Seattle, WA 98104 COUNTY Department of Budget & Program Dev. King County Courthouse, Rm 400 Seattle, WA 98104 Councilman Bruce Laing District 6, King County Council Room 402 King County Courthouse Seattle, WA 98104 N( Councilman Bob Grieve District 8, King County Council Room 402 King County Courthouse Seattle, WA 98104 CITY OF TUKWILA Mayor Frank Todd 14446 59th Ave. So. Tukwila, WA 98168 Councilman George D. Hill 5618 South 147th Tukwila, WA 98168 Councilman Mabel Harris 14301 Interurban Ave. So. Tukwila, WA 98168 Councilman Lionel C. Bohrer 14731 59th Ave. So. Tukwila, WA 98168 Councilman J. Reid Johanson 6425 So. 153rd Tukwila, WA 98188 Councilman Daniel J. Saul 17000 53rd Ave. So. Tukwila, WA 98188 Councilman Doris Phelps 14250 59th Ave. So.. Tukwila, WA 98168 . r PAge 2 CITY OF TUKWILA - Contd. 41 Councilman Gary L. Van Dusen 14228 59th Ave. So. Tukwila, WA 98168 Planning Commission: John Richards 15320 64th Ave. So. Tukwila, WA 98188 Joseph Orrico 13765 56th Ave. So., #C202 Tukwila, WA 98168 Eileen Avery 16014 51st Ave. So. Seattle, WA 98188 Gerald James 14434 57th Ave. So. Tukwila, WA 98168 Leo Sowinski 16050 51st Ave. So. Tukwila, WA 98188 Richard Kirsop 16816 53rd Ave. So. Seattle, WA 98188 Charles Arvidson Seattle 1st Natl. Bank P. 0. Box 88199 Tukwila, WA 98188 OTHER AGENCIES AND. INDIVIDUALS Tukwila Industrial Council P. 0. Box 88556 Tukwila, WA 98188 Tukwila Chamber of Commerce P. 0. Box 58591 950 Andover Park East Tukwila, WA 98188 CITIES K City of Auburn Planning Department 25 W. Main Auburn, WA 98002 KBellevue Planning Dept. P. 0. Box 1768 Bellevue, WA 98009 Issaquah Planning Dept. 130 E. Sunset Way Issaquah, WA 98027 CITIES - ltd. J( Kent Planning Department 220 So. 4th Kent, WA 98031 Kirkland Dept. of Community Development 210 Main St. Kirkland, WA 98033 Mercer Island Dept. of Community Developmen 3505 88th Ave. SE Mercer Island, WA 98040 Redmond Planning Department 15670 NE 85th St. Redmond, WA 98052 Renton Planning Department 200 Mill Ave. So. Renton, WA 98055 -< Seattle EIS Review Committee 600 4th Avenue Seattle, WA 98104 LIBRARIES • King County Library System 300 8th No. Seattle, WA 98104 Seattle Public Library (Main Branch) 1000 4th Seattle, WA 98104 'K Tukwila Library 14475 59th Ave. So. Tukwila, WA 98168 Univ. of Wash. Library (College of Archi- tecture & Ur4an:Planning Branch) 334 Gould Hall Seattle, WA 98195 NEWSPAPERS Daily Journal of Commerce 83 Columbia Seattle, WA 98104 Renton Record - Chronicle 801 Houser Way So. Renton, WA 98055 Seattle Post Intelligencer 6th and Wall Seattle, WA 98121 Seattle Times P. 0. Box 70 Seattle, WA 98111 1906 City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila Washington 98188 Frank Todd, Mayor 22 December 1981 RE: Final Environmental Impact Statement on the Proposed City of Tukwila Zoning Ordinance (Draft #5) TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: Enclosed is the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) for the proposed City of Tukwila Zoning Ordinance, Draft #5. A Draft Environmental. Impact Statement (DEIS) on.the proposed zoning ordinance was circulated on October 10, 1979, and an amended DEIS was circulated on October 8, 1980. All letters of comment received in response to the amended DEIS have been reprinted as a part of this final document along with the lead agency's responses to those letters. Testimony from the public hearing of October 23, 1980 has been summarized and answered. The proposed action is expected to be adopted by the City Council on December 29, 1981. Adoption of this proposal would repeal and replace the City's existing zoning ordinance and shoreline use regular tions. Copies of this statement are available at the libraries indicated herein and from the Tukwila Planning Department. Respectfully, BRADLEY J. -COLLINS, AICP Director of Planning Enclosure CITY OF TUKWILA NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING 23 October 1980 (DATE) 8:00 P.M. (TIME) Notice is hereby given that the Tukwila PLANNING COMMISSION will conduct.a PUBLIC HEARING on the above date at City Hall, 6200 Southcenter Boulevard, to consider revisions to the Tukwila Zoning Ordinance and Official Zoning Map. The proposed zoning document (Draft #4) contains numerous revisions to the district and use regulations, dimensional requirements, and the official map. A Planned Unit Development procedure is proposed to be included in the revised zoning document. In addition the proposed Zoning Ordinance will incorporate the use regulations of the City's current Shoreline Master Plan which was adopted by Ordinance #759 in 1974; several modifications of these regulations are proposed. Copies ofthe proposed Zoning document may be obtained from the Tukwila Planning Department. A Draft Environmental Impact Statement on the proposed zoning ordinance is available beginning 8 October 1980 from the Tukwila Planning Department. The Draft EIS assesses the impact of the proposed zoning document on the physical and human elements of the environment. The Public Hearing on the Zoning Ordinance is also open to public comment on the content and adequacy of the draft EIS. All interested persons are encouraged to appear and be heard. Should you have any questions regarding the proposed zoning ordinance or draft EIS, please contact the Tukwila Planning Department, 6200 Southcenter Boulevard, Tukwila, WA 98188 (433- 1845). EILEEN AVERY, SECRETARY TUKWILA PLANNING COMMISSION Published in the Record - Chronicle on 8 October 1980 AFFIDOVIT OF DISTR.UTION I, Caroline V. Berry , being duly sworn, hereby declare that A copy of the proposed Zoning Ordinance (Draft #4) and Draft Environmental Impact Statement on same has been mailed to each of the following 040010W 0% I agencies and organizations: See Attached Distribution List. (104A-b;rciii (1'41/. Subscribed and sworn to before me this 19 so . loth day of Notary Pulbic in and for th Skate pf Washington, residing a October RECIPIENTS OF THE DRAFT EIS Federal Environmental Protection Agency Department of Energy State Office of Program Planning and Fiscal Management Department of Ecology Department of Fisheries Department of Game Department of Transportation Department of Social and Health Services Department of Commerce and Economic Development Office of Planning and Community Affairs Institute for Environmental°Studies Regional Puget Sound Council of Governments Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Agency Seattle -King County Economic Development Council METRO County Department of Budget and Program Development (4) County Council: District .6 Bruce Laing District 8 Bob Grieve City of Tukwila Mayor Frank Todd City Council: George D. Hill Mabel Harris L. C. Bohrer J. Reid Johanson Doris Phelps Dan Saul Gary L. Van Dusen Planning Commission: John Richards Joseph Orrico Eileen Avery Gerald James Leo Sowinski Richard Kirsop Charles Arvidson • • w vi Other Agencies and Individuals Tukwila Industrial Council Tukwila Chamber of Commerce Cities Auburn (P1"anning Department) Bellevue (Planning Department) Issaquah (Planning Department) Kent (Planning Department) Kirkland (Department of Community Development) Mercer Island (Department of Community Development) Redmond (Planning Department) Renton (Planning Department) Seattle (EIS Review Committee) Libraries King County Library System Seattle Public. Library (Main Branch) Tukwila Library University of Washington Library, College of Architecture & Urban Planning Branch Newspapers Daily Journal of Commerce Renton Record- Chronicle Seattle Post Intelligencer Seattle.Times Highline Times 1 1 1 1 w 1 1 i 1 1 i T IJYtP� -co So ci-Qn u0egt Swelik Co4 9b)-14C IRe.vvt--on ?lawn 2-00 O mt I , 0 o. e vv n '055' • FILL • City of Tukwila Planning Division 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, Washington 98188 433 -1845 Office of Community Development 8 October 1980 To: Recipients of Draft Environmental Impact Statement to the Amendment Proposed Zoning Ordinance Draft #4. Attached for your review is the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for the Municipality of Tukwila's proposed amendment to its Zoning Ordinance. The public review period for the DEIS is between 8 October and 12 November 1980. During that time, written comments on the DEIS may be submitted to the Planning Department, and comments received will be addressed in the Final Environmental Impact Statement. A public hearing on the Proposed Zoning Ordinance Draft #4 and its DEIS will be held before the Tukwila Planning Commission on 23 October 1980 at 8:00 p.m. Your participation in the hearing process is encouraged. Following the conclusion of the DEIS public comment period, aLfinal EIS and the Planning Commission's recommended Zoning Ordinance'.text will be transmitted to the City Council for review and adoption into law. Please direct all questions about these documents or the review procedures affecting them to this office at 433 -1845. MC:nb Enclosure Since ark Caughey Acting Planning Director Nit '$7 ,_;,, City of Tukwila . 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila Washington 98188 Frank Todd, Mayor TO: FILE FROM: Fred /' DATES 15 SUBJECT: MEE MEMORANDUM . Satterstrom, Planner gust 1980 NG WITH CITY ATTORNEY On Tuesday, 5 August 1980, Caroline Berry and I met with Carl Carlson and Larry Hard to discuss matters relating to the proposed zoning ordinance. The following is a short synopsis of the results of that meeting: 1. Contract zoning and effect of new zoning ordinance. It was determined that the City Attorney would look into this matter on a preliminary basis as the initial step. Following this preliminary analysis, all rezone and zoning amendment ordinances since 1957 (when the original zoning code was adopted) may have to be analyzed by the City Attorney to determine exactly how each would be affected by a new zoning ordinance. It was suggested that a policy decision may have to be made by the City Council on whether to repeal rezones which are not "contracts" and which impose stricter development requirements than the pro- posed zoning code. 2. Level of detail in Draft EIS: Proposed zone changes. It was generally agreed that all properties which were proposed to have their zoning changed should be identified individually in the revised draft EIS. A short discussion of each and a brief reasoning for each may also be beneficial in fully dis- closing environmental impact. The concept of having the draft EIS help to establish "Findings of Fact" following adoption of the proposed zoning code was discussed. 3. Alternatives to the action (draft EIS). According to the City Attorney, the only reasonable alternative to the proposed code which warranted discussion in the EIS was the existing code. Any other alternative seemed too speculative and nebulous. However, it was noted that drafts #1, #2, or #3 of the proposed code might be evaluated as alternatives although this procedure might not add any critical insight to the process. Tfi2morandum File Page 2 15 August 1980 4. Economic impacts of proposed code on City. It was the feeling of the City Attorney that only a general discussion of the probable impacts of the ordinance, on a city -wide scale, need be discussed in the revised draft. To discuss in detail the economic impacts of each specific zone change would unduly burden the process and should not be expected. FNS /ckh cc: APD City Attorney Mayor • MASTERI:LIST • FEDERAL Environmental Protection Agency 1200 6th Seattle, WA 98174 Department of Energy Office of Regional. Repr. of Secretary Region X _ 1992 Federal Bldg. 915 2nd Ave. Seattle, WA 98174 STATE Office of Program Planning & Fiscal Management Olympia, WA 98504 Department of Ecology 4350 150th NE Redmond, WA 98052 Department of Fisheries 115 General Administration Bldg. Olympia, WA 98504 Department of Game 509 FairviewsNo. Seattle, WA 98109 Department of Transportation 6431 Corson Ave., So., C -81410 Seattle, WA 98108 Department of Social & Health Services 149 South 140th Seattle, WA 98166 Department of Commerce & Economic Development 321 1st No. Seattle, WA 98104 Office of Planning & Community Affairs Olympia, WA 98504 Institute for Environmental Studies 4350 150th NE Redmond, WA 98052 REGIONAL Puget Sound Council of Governments 216 1st South Seattle, WA 98104 '(Puget Sound Air Pollution 410 W. Harrison St. P. G. Box 9863 Seattle, WA 98109 REGIONAL - Contd. Seattle -King County Economic Dev. Council 1218 3rd Seattle, WA 98174 Metro 600 is ve. Sea e, WA 98104 COUNTY Department of Budget & Program Dev. King County Courthouse, Rm 400 Seattle, WA 98104 Councilman Bruce Laing District 6, King County Council Room 402 King County Courthouse Seattle, WA 98104 Councilman Bob Grieve District 8, King County Council Room 402 King County Courthouse Seattle, WA 98104 CITY OF TUKWILA Mayor Frank Todd 14446 59th Ave. So. Tukwila, WA 98168 Councilman George D. Hill 5618 South 147th Tukwila, WA 98168 Councilman Mabel Harris 14301 Interurban Ave. So. Tukwila, WA 98168 Councilman Lionel C. Bohrer 14731 59th Ave. So. Tukwila, WA 98168 Councilman J. Reid Johanson 6425 So. 153rd Tukwila, WA 98188 Councilman Daniel J. Saul 17000 53rd Ave. So. Tukwila, WA 98188 Councilman Doris Phelps 14250 59th Ave. So. Tukwila, WA 98168 Page 2 CITY OF TUKWILA - Contd. • Councilman Gary L. Van Dusen 14228 59th'Ave. So. Tukwila, WA 98168 Planning Commission: John Richards 15320 64th Ave. So. Tukwila, WA 98188 Joseph Orrico 13765 56th Ave. So., #C202 Tukwila, WA 98168 Eileen Avery 16014 51st Ave. So. Seattle, WA 98188 Gerald James 14434 57th Ave. So. Tukwila, WA 98168 Leo Sowinski 16050 51st Ave. So. Tukwila, WA 98188 Richard Kirsop 16816 53rd Ave. So. Seattle, WA 98188 Charles Arvidson Seattle 1st Natl. Bank P. 0. Box 88199 Tukwila, WA 98188 OTHER AGENCIES A D INDIVIDUALS Tukwila Ind. trial Council P. 0. :ox 88556 Tuk a, WA 98188 Tukwila Chamber of Commerce P. 0. Box 58591 950 Andover Park East Tukwila, WA 98188 CITIES City of Auburn Planning Department 25 W. Main Auburn, WA 98002 Bellevue Planning Dept. P. 0. Box 1768 Bellevue, WA 98009 Issaquah Planning Dept. 130 E. Sunset Way Issaquah, WA 98027 CITIES - Contd. Kent Planning Department 220 So. 4th Kent, WA 98031 Kirkland Dept. of Commun.i ty. _Devel opment 210 Main St. Kirkland, WA 98033 Mercer Island Dept. of Community Development 3505 88th Ave. SE Mercer Island, WA 98040 Redmond Planning Department 15670 NE 85th St. Redmond, WA 98052 Renton Planning Department 200 Mill Ave. So. Renton, WA 98055 Seattle EIS Review Committee 600 4th Avenue Seattle, WA 98104 LIBRARIES King County Library System 300 8th No. Seattle, WA 98104 Seattle Public Library (Main Branch) 1000 4th Seattle, WA 98104 Tukwila Library 14475 59th Ave. So. Tukwila, WA 98168 Univ. of Wash. Library (College of Archi- tecture & UrhanPPlanning Branch) 334 Gould Hall Seattle, WA 98195 NEWSPAPERS Daily Journal of Commerce 83 Columbia Seattle, WA 98104 Renton Record - Chronicle 801 Houser Way So. Renton, WA 98055 Seattle Post Intelligencer 6th and Wall Seattle, WA 98121 Seattle Times P. 0. Box 70 Seattle, WA 98111 City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila Washington 98188 TO: FILE FROM: Fr N. Satterstrom DATE: 18 J l y 1980 SUBJECT: DRAFT EIS: LAND USE SECTION MEMORANDUM 1. In addition to outlining the specific zoning map changes (i.e., pro- viding ,a map indicating each parcel which will be affected by the regulations in terms of changing the zoning designations), this sec- tion should also carefully outline the general land use impacts to the various parts or sub -areas of the City. That is, for example, the Interurban Corridor area should be discussed as a unit, with the goals and intentions (purposes ?) clearly delineated, and also with a description or discussion of how that area has changed over the years. This procedure should also hold for the various other sub -areas of the City. The following sub -areas could be discussed as units, so that generalized public purposes may be traced to specific zone changes made by the pro- posed regulations: 1. Interurban area 2. Southcenter area - all C -P zoned lands 3. Andover Industrial Park area - all C -M zoned land 4. Southcenter Parkway area 5. McMicken Heights area 6. South Tukwila Hill 7. North Tukwila Hill 8. West Tukwila area - north of I -405 and west 9. North Tukwila (Codiga - 58th Avenue) 10. Northwest Tukwila (Fostoria) 2. In the discussion of land use impacts to each sub -area mentioned above, the following outline of considerations could be handled: 1. Existing land use in the area trends which might be present difference in use as compared to 5, 10, or 20 years ago anything else significant: employment, pop. in area, etc. • • Memorandum Page 2 File 18 July 1980 2. Existing zoning pattern 3. Proposed zoning pattern 4. Differences, if any, between intent of existing and proposed zoning patterns 5. Reasons which might be cited for change in zoning — various , purposes which might be served by shift in emphasis, if any. 3. This kind of analysis should _be undertaken in the EIS document in order to clearly define public purposes and objectives in case of possible litiga- tion subsequent to adoption of revised zoning regulations. In this manner, the EIS will partially serve as a Finding of Fact ledger, establishing pur- poses and information crucial to an understanding of regulatory changes. The goal, of course, is to better withstand a challenge on grounds of either "arbitrary or capricious decision - making" or "taking." FNS /ckh Atv f Fitt- , Draft E 3: 40/6 1- u- 5ecIu /• /a tt a etih'H fo o Lt f'Gf wi wA t1 Sf f, - zo wfPt" aut-of cf `�' �c •( r W ✓i d-+ i a- wLa v i H d/ call / .c a L%k �a w k/cI wig be affcc{td f'lw rc�lut "- o143 i1. / i5 i f ckat4 i 4w - v GU s ii a affa hf ) , tk(J s c (Jli'vn S l�Li u ld a lJ D J / tru u,7 o u, I Z�` t u., q r. —ram/ 1 avid u LL I ow/ a, ikt. ' / / t pc�, ✓art o us a,i1 a r s wb - a/ta.3 a & �' 7 t a.i is ,uz� p i4 f cru r b a t Go rn`d o r ter . a Gu u! d be- 0611 cu! I -6d 44 S a.144. !f !? hl 5 (/ o 0reJ ') Ga1u iy jovI / tu,,UktLa.tLd writ a1 Ito w-ft c a dcJGri 11 z ar Mrc.uWJiaH 0i AO* Jrduaw /k,utd w .n4 aWet, La s k t q c d fears . afro ltio 7c,v�/aw attar J arid" aH&C" Try- ft) i /awiHi 5(44 -arts ta-w(a; G-?., drr6u5s -cd as urzif� da ilit-etjt 1u.raU u cC 12,1,4 Gt7/ p 144r/' O ItJ LU,a. y ke & Z C L fZ lz-ta 20 fit& alrtu r 1/1441- li 11W rrli 0 YG GL r taalf8 K d def lot k-rurk4,44, are-4 - 2 • f 00. th,til kf rid -- 4,11 c -, Zan-d la�dl 3. ff7iIto ✓ir 1 daytwo-/ Pay& area — 6- A4 1,07,u2 ¢. foof, d tth./cr 19.t-4 way aria S . M ,(ti k I-1�� k fs 11.1c4 (r J`eGtl, 7-b4.kwi `A- fHII 7. /Veirth 7&w//t -Hi • (� WIJ1 r w/la Q,r€ — „144 O1 1--405 arcc� 49 wr✓ �. f i- 5 wifn4 God tfa - 570 10 . Mt W451" l c,kwi M (10,117/1711) /,a04quu 2 / n - w 614`5 Gt-t 5 5% eH O f i w azY3 7Lo t a(,14 Atb afei4 m4444,17.0 Ka a 6O ✓G/ `tlt,L 110 wi 0-1 0 VIA. k a Ga vt 4 i G%e-ra- /1 o 123 1,0 u-1 l • 6R Ga 4, d, u 1C' / u t/w 4 f? 4 • f v 1,144 5 ,w•Gt4 04.1 irt.rt rt v,kut' • 6 1 4 1 ft r ` u U of 1 01441 7 Y � L f a 5 � / D i , ' - f , a9° , irtetifrti 411/ . - 1. fr o u d u P1.4' Q v� G� /?0 p o ycGl ?r� w/ vt q _�1 a, ffof -u r _ 14-1014 5 orti/iat_ £44-f 14,f - ke t d - ; _ L�� / et if byt 9 c im 74 why vim? o t.GJ - -_/Palo tcJ wkic t urywr scrv-eQ _ iy J jai in ,uwp Ica/ is, ;f y 3. di" ti tt e_f area fi✓ AA, ttlk 4(44 /fa, kt A9'41444" -fr %Pt f 11 164-- Let 74444.., pa tic- / ore., kt,(41 Ob /t.t%fiVCJ in 141L I /o fiot4 f ubferal- r f 'Id A-d•oMem o f rcvile4 2014114-7 reIjt/a- 1'7Iits. ha /Al✓ va.a.z • 5 • eIi wig/ prilallit r-crvc aJ f'kdiK a f fact tcd cry ,GJ{ -bGl i k 14 pup i/rf /144, d t t ri44 a fi k Grcc Gf:ci 1244 1444.44-, ht,H,d.+'a e f rr (.1 a fn c ka,k r.r. - %o aj Q f " a-r 4411 14 al 141 116i %014 – K /f r, di Ge LvVt -Gl ktk wl fhJ {.0 d A. • e /tit l tm q e, o H 07-664*-01447– 1 rtk v *ALA , : ' ,! �,ts, City of Tukwila 0 6200 Southcenter Boulevard N 20 Tukwila Washington 98188 7908 Edgar D. Bauch, Mayor La, f rvt o-� MEMORANDUM To: Kjell S es, O.C.D. Director FROM: Fred `: tterstrom, Planner DATE: 16 0 -tuber 1979 SUBJECT: Proposed Zoning Ordinance Environmental Impact Statement Alternative Courses of Action for Final E.I.S. According to the SEPA guidelines (See,, WAC 197 -10 -580), the City has basi- cally two optional courses of action for preparing a final E.I.S., depending upon whether comments received seriously undermine the adequacy or integrity of the draft E.I.S. or the proposal.. If the City determines that no changes are required . in either the draft E.I.S. or the proposal despite critical comments received, we could press ahead and issue a final E.I.S. pursuant to WAC 197 -10- 580(2). On the other hand, if the City determines that it is appropriate to rewrite the draft E.I.S. in order to respond to critical comments received then it may choose to re- circulate a new draft E.I.S. pursuant to WAC 197-10-580(3). Criticisms of the Ordinance and E.I.S. The Planning Division has received a number of letters which have been critical of the scope and content of the draft E.I.S. on the proposed zoning ordinance. Criticism of the E.I.S. can be lumped into two main categories: 1. Inadequate discussion of the economic impact to non - conforming uses; particularly with reference to the difficulty of re- financ- ing non - conforming uses and structures with the resultant effect of reduced maintenance, and the possible future blight of certain areas in the City. Some commentors have also questioned the r ultimate economic impacts to the City of designating uses as non - conforming. 2. Inadequate discussion of alternatives .has also been cited a short- coming of the draft E.I.S. particularly as this discussion pertains to certain properties within the City which are earmarked for zone changes. Public hearings which have been held by the Planning Commission on 15 October 1979, 8 November 1979, and 15 November 1979, have also served to highlight the above issues, as well as others. While I believe the non - conforming use issue has been dramati- cally overstated, there are some uses /buildings which would become non - conforming if draft #3 were adopted where no ostensible public purpose would be served. Kjell Stoknes, O.C.D. Director Proposed Zoning Ordinance Environmental Impact Statement ' Page 2 16 November 1979 A definite portion of what the public has been stating is true and I contemplate changes in the proposal will result. Recommendation Based on the number and content of comments received on the draft E.I.S. and the proposed ordinance, I feel that we should not proceed with the final E.I.S. at this time. I anticipate substantial changes will be made to the proposed zoning document by the Planning Commission which will result in an ordinance significantly different from the draft #3 document. As a result, any draft and final E.I.S. which would be completed on draft #3 would have to be entirely redone following major changes to the proposal. Therefore, I recommend that the City, as lead agency, opt to rewrite the draft E.I.S. on the Planning Commission's recommendation to the City Council and follow it up by a final E.I.S. prior to Council action on the ordinance. Should you agree with this course of action, we should issue a statement to this effect to all those who have either submitted oral or written testimony on the proposed zoning ordinance or draft E.I.S. FS /mkb _- essmen to lean on o e lac � ,►- „.� GLA4 -K.4 , o r code o zoning . Tukwila s eis deadlm zonin current use, according to the impact e cretionary power has been given to ofthe Planning Commission in approv- statement. For example, more than e. StBy aff BILL SELL ing or disapproving development. 100 acres would be changed from M- e. Staff Reporter An environmental impact state- pahk) zoniindustry) to C -M (industrial in The Tukwila City Council hopes to meat prepared in conjunction value of undeveloped land in e- complete by Feb 16 the five -year- tY long process of revising the city's e. zoning code. I The council had hoped to adopt the tY code in December, before new members, winners in the November e election, were : seated. But with Ed id Bauch and. Joe Duffie replacing.Dan at Saul and Reid : Johanson, : the new at councilmen . will need time to do rs _ some homework before voting on the_' w document: Tuesday night the council ap P- proved a schedule for adopting the code. On Jan. 18 comments from the 1e city attorney `Will- be'reviewed Dis -: s. cussion of unresolved - issues Will d• take place on Jan. 25 and Feb. :1, with •e review of the adoption ordinance set for Feb. 9. Adoption is scheduled for the Feb 16 meeting. Revising the city's 1957. zoning, Icode. has been a long process, begin- ning ,,with µthe adofitmin S co m- prehensive land use Plan mb, is er 1977 The zoniing code proposal y` e- now before the cotn►cil is the fifth ;r draft to appear since that time. ail While . homeowners showed a good :h deal of interest ib'the provisions of d the node, the most 'vocal group, 1, perhaps, was the Tukwila business �t community: Businessmen were can- t cerned about height restrictions and ,r other limitations that might prevent it them from making maximum use of i- increasingly valuable .land. The fifth draft _ gives develoFers h and the city Planning Commission flexibility in deciding construction e , designs, particularly in the areas of y building height and development along interurban Avenue. More dis- unction wit the zoning code proposal states that the new zoning map would increase the amount `of. commercially zoned land in the city by about 155 percent. This reflects a shift in city land use from warehousing and man ufactur ingto office buildings. The code also downzones a number of parcels of property where the higher zoning is not needed for the the McMicken Heights area is ex- pected to decline under the new code, since zoning would change from multi- family to single family. There had been an interest in de- veloping multi - family housing there, despite homeowner opposition and the high cost of building on steep slopes. . MEDICAL COOPERATIVE ALTERNATIVES TO BACK SURGERY A clinic _.devoted to non - surgical, gentle spinal- disc correction & rehabilitation. All clients are medically screened before treatment. Medical, surgical & hospital _cooperation encouraged'. Medical -X -Rays accepted. Physician referrals, welcomed. HUMAN WRECKAGE AFTER SURGERY Anthony F; DePalma, MA, , Professor otOrthopedi &Surgery and otsugery leavesIn tswakemoreeh manwreckage hansurgery on the lumbar discs.” 'alley: Chiropractic Clsnic Peter J Misdds, "s' • Partial Medicare Coverage ▪ • Insurance Ask yourp lanto 10909 SE, 116th St. • State Industrial call me and discuss R�Flt l� • Auto' Personal consultation and refer- 'ral for_ treat nentbiyour 228 - "159 injury spinal problem, ' (1 Mile East of, .•: (Write or on tor brochure Valley General Hospital) sr 'Alteredtittes to Bak Surgery " ) if �:Q�.:i!�4i • +�,i!i ��,�_+ : +, ,f� ✓!i �.i�i �ri���,i�y+,e!i i. �i�i �:,N i i!i! .•��.a+ ,,",� 2t....!••'•,rR � ... r � • , tin ;non's community newspaper Tukwila, Washington Sunday, October 12, 1980 Staff photo by DUANE HAMAMURA somas Greene, Evelyn Carlson, pie — siblings they never met before :. r 'ers and sisters a -r. blind alleys, f a -ran who turn- '. "His last name when they asked be from the same ed and said no," L wen placed with a family. One of the tc:,: took so long is qtr• tcd on Wyom- t But the Greenes !wed from Wyom- b has lived in the 24 years. a-:: sister -in -law, larlte Clark, have Ott r. Oregon Adop- Oaiation in the `blood relatives. w.arily want the ives," said Mrs. the explained that Epers had no inter- " Wt'e just want to p`.1 people some tst the neatest per- t: Zoning code She said when her brother, Thomas Greene of Kent, met his "new brother" Charlie, "I'ts like they've been lifelong friends. Maybe a scandal Asked why her mother didn't . place the twins with relatives or get some help to rear them, Mrs. Carl- son said, "I don't know. I think there had been some scandal in the family before that, not involving my mother, but maybe with her mother." That's one question that may never be answered. Both of Mrs. Carlson's parents are dead. Eight of the 10 brothers and sisters who were reunited this weekend include Alice Gillespie of Tukwila, Betty Lou Minnenrich of Federal Way, Barbara Greene of Kent, Virginia Winstead of Kent, Thomas Greene of Kent, Mrs. Carl- son of Renton, and the twins. Phillip Greene of Walla Walla and a sister, Mary Ann Wood of Pennyslvania, were unable to at- tend the reunion. restrictive on highrises By BILL SEIL Staff Reporter A proposed new zoning code for the City of Tukwila places sterner restrictions on the construction of high -rise buildings, but offers grea- ter flexibility to developers of com- mercial and multi - family structures. This is the fourth draft of the proposed code to appear since a new comprehensive land -use plan a was adopted in September 1977. The first two drafts were basically staff pro- posals used for discussion. There were several objections to a third draft, released in October 1979, in- cluding complaints that some exist- ing business would not conform to their proposed zoning. The fourth draft, prepared by Fred Satterstrom and Caroline Berry, is closer in many respects to the exist- ing zoning code. A public hearing on the proposed zoning ordinance and its draft environmental impact state- ment will be at 8 p.m., Thursday, Oct. 23, at - City Hall before the city Planning Commission. Highrises allowed Under the existing code, the Plan- ning Commission can allow the con- struction of high -rise buildings as tall as 300 feet, providing they are - south of I-405 on an adequately zoned site. The proposed code would limit high -rise buildings in the city to a height of 110 feet. All existing high - rises in the city would comply with this limit, according to city officials. The proposed code also has special provisions that would allow develop- ers of multi- family and non- residen- tial complexes to vary from zoning restrictions in exchange for addi- . tions to their plans that would benefit the community. For example, the developer could be granted flexibili- ty in the configuration of his de- velopment, if he agreed to provide more open space or roadway im- provements. For this to happen, the t a site would have to be designated "planned residential development" or a "planned mixed use develop- ment." The proposed ordinance generally would add more restrictions Interurban Avenue use along corridor. Some land zoned for indust- rial or retail use would be rezoned for.retail onty. suggested Shift "In the past two years, develop- ment proposals for office buildings along Interurban Avenue suggest a City altered considerably since 1957 vv e tendon The City of Tukwila has under- gone some dramatic changes since its existing zoning code was passed in 1957, according to city planners. A draft environmental impact statement in support of a pro- posed new zoning code, prepared by city planning officials, says that in 1957 Tukwila was essen- tially a rural community with a population of about 900 and an assessed valuation of approxi- mately $500,000. Since then the town has grown from 418 to more than 2,300 acres, and the population has jumped four -fold to 3,400. The total as- sessed valuation now is around $450 million with the Southcenter shopping : center, warehouses, light manufacturing industries and numerous other retail businesses. Two major interstate freeways now bisect the city and approxi- mately two-thirds of the city's population lives in apartments and condominiums. Only about 6 percent of . the city's land is used for residential purposes. Wareh- ousing, in comparison, uses 10.5 percent of the land shift in emphasis in the corridor from the automobile- oriented businesses to service and pedest- rian- oriented establishments," ac- cording to the proposal. In the Tukwila Hill area zoning changes are proposed to buffer resi- dential areas from more intenstive land -use zones. Single - family dis- tricts are intended to neighbor medium density residential zones, which act as a buffer from the high - density residential districts. The go- al was a transition from single - family residential, to multi - family residential to commercial use. • !, Sloping and potentially slide -pro- ne sections of the McMicken area south of SR 518 have been proposed for lower intensity single - family re- sidential zoning. City plans hearing on water rate hike A public meeting on a proposed South and South 153rd Street. Ap- .vatPr rate increase will lead off proximately 92 condominium units ,nt Jack T. Roe as Ms. Turk and with possession e enterprise. line tartrate, a m Ms. Bate and ufacturing part of $4,000 — for i Kevin . Gillan is quantities of of thousands of Francisco and ies, Diskin said ie, remained at idered Tuesday th arsons were sday a mile Washington when he was s Place, was ley General ar, Monte A. on at Valley a curve, ran —awua iu yclauu5 uvliIE,' in et uUWnIUWn Kenton mobile home park, many of them old and on limited incomes, may be homeless by mid - sumner. There appears to be little anyone can do for them. The potential nomads reside at Hub Trailer Park, 641 Wells Ave. N. The 52 -space trailer park is nestled among tall Boeing office buildings and a large apartment complex. The trailer park has been there since the 1940s, according to its present owner, Don McMullen. Some residents at the trailer park have lived there . for 20 years or more. But that choice location „property that long has been zoned for. heavy industrial use, finally has attracted the interest of developers. McMullen acknowledged Tuesday that he may close a deal with Sixth Avenue Corp. by mid -July to sell the property. McMullen believes an office building will be built on the property, although an attorney repre- attterence to residents; it was fairly easy then to find another mobile home park. No so today. . 1 percent vacancy "If you take Pierce, King, Snohomish and Kitsap counties, trailer park vacancies for all those counties combined might add up to 1 percent. King County alone definitely is under 1 percent, ". said John Jensen, executive director of the Mobile Homeowners of America, Inc. Hub Trailer Park residents say Jensen isn't exaggerating. ' • _ "Owners of double -wide trailers got eviction notices that say they have to be out by May 31, and everybody else.has to be out by July 31," said Lita Marvis, a Hub resident. 'We've all been looking around, and we just can't find anything. The spaces that are available, they don't accept older mobile homes like most of us _ -- v � aauc„a, Will 21 similar tale to Renton City Council Monday night. She asked the council for help.. 'They won't take us' • "Many of the people there are older, and some are handicapped and on limited incomes," she said. "We've been looking for new places to go from Bellingham to Tacoma, but they won't take us: r; ,> "We came here tonight because we have no place else to go." • • Renton Mayor Barbara Shinpoch told the 20 Hub r residents who attended the meeting that there is little the city' can do. City Council approved a motion to ask McMullen to extend the deadline on his eviction notice. - , But McMullen indicated Tuesday there is little chance of that happening. McMullen said he is aware of,only two residents of his ,trailer park who are senior citizens and haven't found a new location yet.. (Related story on page A3) Htmih. get hamber blasts zoning code proposal By BILL SEIL Staff Reporter . A proposed new zoning code for ” the City of Tukwila "would have detrimental impacts on growth, the local economy and the existing pro- perty owners," 'according to the Greater Tukwila Chamber of Com- merce. Chamber representatives were among more than 20 people who spoke Monday night at a City Council hearing on the proposed code. The council next Monday night will es- tablish a schedule .for its formal review of the document. Patrick Astrograph rict 00 8.65 its p.m. Most of the speakers represented commercial, or industrial firms. Ob- jections most often mentioned in- volved proposed height restrictions on buildings, building setbacks and parking space requirements. Gary Huff, an attorney represent- .ing Southcenter, however, told the council that his client was generally pleased with the document. Chris Crumbaugh,. representing Segale Business Park, called the proposal a compilation of various other codes and asked the council postpone action on it. "I don't think the document looks to the future," Crumbaugh said. "I think that's what we need in this town if we're going to change the existing zoning code." The chamber asked the council to postpone action on the proposed code until a new city planning direc- tor is named. It states the document . does not encourage growth. "We position Tukwila as a cros- sroads of commerce in the•Pacific Northwest - as a hub of commerce if you will," said Ron Mikulski, chamber president. Kent Johnson of the chamber's Community and Economic Develop- ment Committee read a position statement of the chamber. Accord- Bond appears to fail ['nada Tack h voters f Patrick ads 58, i in i it fling Comics it nancial in- Crossword h the Editorials /opinions h the Hazel gay to National Obituaries Police • Pages B6 B4 -B9 B8 By JAN HINMAN B7 Staff Reporter • A4 • 1 Issaquah voters Tuesday ap -; BS • proved a $1.6 million school levy but re ected a $3.65 million bond, ac- A10 cording to unofficial returns com- A5 piled by school officials.. A6 The district learned Monday that ing to the statement, the code would cause economic problems for both business and the city. , "The code does not deal with the realities of current economics and building costs," it said. "Develop ment of existing property would be curtailed and the most significant adverse effects might be to the city itself, as the tax base drops off." . . The chamber statement carne out against proposed building height limitations; spot landscaping, and the downzoning of Interurban Av- enue. It also states that the propos- al's parking and landscaping ; re- quirements are excessive. The number of votes needed in a special election is 40 percent of the number of votes cast in the preced- ing general election. Issaquah School District officials had been told that would amount to 5,866 voters needed for the school - related election. But that figure was revised Monday up to '5,967. appears to have been defeated. Yes votes totalled 2,997; -no votes 1 ;503. A levy is just slightly easier to pass because it can be approved even'; without the 40 percent voter turnout required for the bond issue. For passage, the levy needed a minimum ' of 3,581 favorable votes. , The levy received, unofficially,