Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSEPA EPIC-323-86 - MARTIN ROY - REZONEROY MARTIN COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT & REZONE- OFFICE BUILDING 5665 SOUTH 178T" STREET EPIC 323 -86 WAC 197 -11 -970 DETERMINATION OF NONSIGNIFICANCE Description of Proposal Amend the Comprehensive Land Use Plan Map designation of the subject property from Low Density Residential to Office and the Tukwila Zoning Map designation from R -A to P -0. Proponent Mr. & Mrs. Roy Martin Location of Proposal, including street address, if any 5665 South 178th Street Tukwila, WA Lead Agency: City of Tukwila File No. EPIC - 323 -86 The lead agency for this proposal has determined that it does not have a probable significant adverse impact on the environment. An environmental impact statement (EIS) is not required under RCW 43.21C.030(2)(c). This decision was made after review of a completed environmental checklist and other information on file with the lead agency. This information is available to the public on request. [xi There is no comment period for this DNS [[ This DNS is issued under 197 -11- 340(2). Comments must be submitted by . The lead agency will not act on this proposal for 15 days from the date below. Responsible Official Rick Beeler Position /Title Planning Director Phone 433 -1845 Address 6200 Southcenter Boulevard, Tukw'1 Date 2 /7 Signature a, ,;,0":18j 4•011 .. °_ You may appeal this determination to the City Clerk at City Hall, 6200 Southcenter Boulevard, Tukwila, WA 98188 no later than 10 days from the above date by written appeal stating the basis of the appeal for specific factual objections. You may be required to bear some of the expenses for an appeal. Copies of the procedures for SEPA appeals are available with the City Clerk and Planning Department. FM.DNS THE BLAYLOCK COMPANY specialists in land -Use procedures MEM JUN 2 21987 CITY OF TUKWiLA PLANNING DEPT. June 22, 1987 Mr. Vernon Umetsu, Associate Planner Planning Department City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, Washington 98188 RE: Roy Martin, Files CN -86 -144 (86 -19 -CPA, 86 -20 -R) Dear Mr. Umetsu: This correspondence is to clarify previous my letters of January 12th and May 6th concerning the pending application before the City of Tukwila by Mr. & Mrs.. Roy Martin. The application is presently modified to include the following specific items: COMPREHENSIVE PLAN REQUEST From LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL to OFFICE. REZONE REQUEST From R/A DISTRICT - AGRICULT_URE to P -0 DISTRICT PROFESSIONAL AND OFFICE DISTRICT. 1. Dedication of seven (7) feet of right -of -way along 57th Avenue South according to the specific legal description prepared by the City-of Tukwila Public Works Department as set forth in the letter of transmittal from Mr. Vernon Umetsu to Mr. Roger Blaylock (June 11, 1987). The dedication would occur concurrently with City Council approval of the pending rezoning request. 10717 NE Fourth Street, Suite 9 • Bellevue, Washington 98004 • (206) 455 -1550 ID • Mr. Vernon Umetsu June 22, 1987 Page 2 2. Access will be restricted solely to 57th Avenue South, unless at the time of development of the subject site or construction of the South 188th Street Connector, the City of Tukwila determines that some form of limited access to the Connector is acceptable. The burden of proof to assure that a safe access can be accomplished will rest with the property owner or applicant as part of a future traffic analysis. The pending design and reconstruction of 57th Avenue. South by the City must include a curb -cut for the Martin's future access. 3. Only one access point will be provided onto 57th Avenue South, unless the City determines that a secondary emergency access is required on any of the adjacent streets as a condition of development approval. 4. The access point will be at the far south end of the property and not less than 175 feet from the existing (January, 1987) south edge of the pavement at the intersection of South 180th Street and Southcenter Parkway (57th Avenue South). If the location creates a sight distance problem from the south at the bridge, the property owner or developer is not responsible for upgrading the bridge. 5. At the time of development further traffic analysis will be provided to determine whether further mitigating measures may be required as part of the development proposal. However, because of the specific restriction by the City to limit access to the subject site on 57th Avenue South, improvements to the bridge lying south of the subject site on 57th Avenue South will not be included as a mitigating measure unless the traffic study clearly shows that any improvements are a result of a significant adverse environmental impact that is directly measurable. In that case the property owner or developer will be responsible for only a proportionate share. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, ete4e- 7-8 te•rlt - Roger Blaylock • L 178th & 57th NEW RIGHT -OF -WAY That portion of the southeast 1/4 of the northwest 1/4 of Section 35, Township 23 North, Range 4 East, W.M.,,. described as follows: Beginning at the northwest corner of said subdivision; thence south 87051'01" east along the north line of said subdivision 800 feet; thence south perpendicular to said north line of said subdivision 250 feet; thence east parallel with said north line of said subdivision to the westerly margin of 57th Avenue South (formerly County Rd. 540) and the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; thence west parallel with said north line, a distance of 7 feet; thence north 8046'00" east, a distance of 170 feet more or less to its intersection with the westerly margin of 57th Avenue South as established under King County Superior Court File No. 698092; thence southerly along said westerly margin to the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING. • .5- - i2' .CAA/4S 6 - S-�OE,vu._ Both' 5,,045 - Fin c vn , /wpm Asa) = ,fix a' t a(1) t 6"Z) =73 7-o, ""ass ,poJZ • • e7 40 S.24 7 THE BLAYLOCK COMPANY specialists in land -use procedures February 9, 1987 Mr. Vernon Umetsu, Associate Planner City. of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, Washington 98188 RE: Roy Martin, Files CN -86 -144 (86 -19 -CPA, 86 -20 -R) Dear Mr. Umetsu: [FEB 12198- 7 CITY OF TUK1lWiLA PLANNING DEPT. After our meeting on Thursday, I was unable to reach Mr. and Mrs. Martin until early Friday evening. The Martins have requested that I formally seek a postponement of the public hearing date until Thursday, March 26, 1987. Mr. Martin has scheduled surgery for the 26th of February and neither of them would be able to attend the public hearing. In addition, recognizing that the City of Tukwila must make a formal SEPA determination within a certain period of time, we would request that the City not issue a final SEPA decision for 30 days until Monday, March 9, 1987. This will allow us time to address the situation with our clients. cc. Mr. & Mrs. Roy Martin Gary Faull 10717 NE Fourth Street, Suite 9 Sincerely, 844i4e"Fe Lt4 *tk- Roger J. Blaylock • Bellevue, Washington 98004 • (206) 455 -1550 CITY OF TUKWILA • '� CENTRAL PERMIT SYSTEM - ROUTING FORM PERMIT NUMBER 6-(0) -p? • CONTROL NUMBER gib- LN TO: Ea BLDG. PLNG. P.W. 0 FIRE g POLICE gf ,P. & R. PROJECT /%Y04,-b/U teLLY)e ADDRESS '56'6 ,5- 5' 17 it DATE TRANSMITTED /-;76e-,5;-7 RESPONSE REQUESTED BY /-,13'.7 DFC 4%60p1 C.P.S. STAFF COORDINATOR V '/7 2Y? RESPONSE RECEIVED PLEASE REVIEW THE ATTACHED PROJECT PLANS AND RESPOND WITH APPROPRIATE COMMENTS IN THE SPACE BELOW. INDICATE CRUCIAL CONCERNS BY CHECKING THE BOX NEXT TO THE LINE(S) ON WHICH THAT CONCERN IS NOTED: ❑ piloAt, ,tnibce CLioiab, - '634.' pa £J U, tu. C -E. [[ /10/4-k, q()6 66 l'C'OMm t-S (/-t nOn, e� L (mi el or r% /aii,Zl / cith . (l ❑ 0 D.R.C. REVIEW REQUESTED 0 PLAN SUBMITTAL REQUESTED [[ PLAN APPROVED EJ PLAN CHECK DATE ✓ a7� J J COMMENTS PREPARED BY- JAY C.P.S. FORM 2 ?6,-1Q-cp+41 CITY OF TUKWILA • PERMIT NUMBER m110- / 40 CONTROL NUMBER Rs-/L /CY CENTRAL PERMIT SYSTEM - ROUTING FORM TO: Q[ BLDG. 21 PLNG. P.W. 0 FIRE El POLICE P. & R. PROJECT ina4,11ju £LZ YJe ADDRESS '56'6,5- 5' 178 it DATE TRANSMITTED /- '&- % RESPONSE REQUESTED BY /- $- ,7 a (: 4`,L0 C.P.S. STAFF COORDINATOR (/r'2%2/ RESPONSE RECEIVED PLEASE REVIEW THE ATTACHED PROJECT PLANS AND RESPOND WITH APPROPRIATE COMMENTS IN THE SPACE BELOW. INDICATE CRUCIAL CONCERNS BY CHECKING THE BOX NEXT TO THE LINE(S) ON WHICH THAT CONCERN IS NOTED: D.R.C. REVIEW REQUESTED [[ PLAN CHECK DATE PLAN SUBMITTAL REQUESTED ❑ COMMENTS PREPARED BY 1, (5?),( g-1, PLAN APPROVED ❑ C.P.S. FORM 2 CITY OF TUKWILA • • CENTRAL PERMIT SYSTEM - ROUTING FORM s0-iq -CPS PERMIT NUMBER a(p o -R • CONTROL NUMBER E(p -/L/L' TO: J BLDG. PLNG. P.W. PROJECT /7 h4J iez_z_ey,e ADDRESS 56'05 5' /7 DATE TRANSMITTED / -2& -3 2. FIRE g POLICE .' P. & R. RESPONSE REQUESTED BY / -,,?$ , ?7 ,QEC `7,66 C.P.S. STAFF COORDINATOR pi?„,,,,-)/2/ RESPONSE RECEIVED PLEASE REVIEW THE ATTACHED PROJECT PLANS AND RESPOND WITH APPROPRIATE COMMENTS IN THE SPACE BELOW. INDICATE CRUCIAL CONCERNS BY CHECKING THE BOX NEXT TO THE LINE(S) ON WHICH THAT CONCERN IS NOTED: ❑ purLod(t ,Ath. AA, ,un wt: f Q Wi -hog✓ 1 1:66 /c'1, rrt t-5 . t/eync I it, (Atte4 Q ❑ Q Q ❑ a Q Q ❑ PO C aJt Lot-(IC cr 0 /ctnni)71., (tcvn on' 4b,efc.eh D.R.C. REVIEW REQUESTED ❑ PLAN SUBMITTAL REQUESTED [[ PLAN APPROVED ❑ PLAN CHECK DATE COMMENTS PREPARED BY C.P.S. FORM 2 • THE BLAYLOCK COMPANY specialists in land-use procedures • January 23, 1987 Mr. Vernon Umetsu, Associate Planner City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, Washington 98188 RE: Roy Martin, Files CN -86 -144 (86 -19 -CPA, 86 -20 -R) Dear Mr. Umetsu: Thank you again for discussing how the recent Planning Department staff position (January 16, 1987) concerning the Kato Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Rezoning. Request could affect the pending Roy Martin land use requests. I offer the following evidence to show how the Martins' case is substantially different from the Kato applications: o The Martins' property is bordered on two sides by existing arterial streets, 520 feet of street frontage, while the Kato site had 100 feet of frontage on only one arterial street. o Access to the Martins' property is from a City of Tukwila designated collector arterial, while access to the Kato property is from a residential street. o The primary argument of both the Martin and Kato requests is that the P -0 zoning will create a use buffer. However, in the Martins' case the transitional nature of the subject is of much greater value. The Kato proposal appears to be an extension of an adjacent use - office -onto the site, while the Martins' modification of their application meets the traditional intent of a "transitional zone" in that it would buffer the proposed low intensity single family residential area to the south from the extremely active regional shopping center to the north and northeast. o The noise generated from automobiles climbing the 18- 21% grade on South 178th Street is more intense than the traffic noise from Southcenter Boulevard adjacent to the Kato property. Thus, the Martin site appears even less suitable for residential use because of noise levels than the Kato site. 10717 NE Fourth Street, Suite 9 • Bellevue, Washington 98004 • (206) 455 -1550 • • January 23, 1987 In addition to the standard criteria, the Planning Department staff is utilizing the following three universal planning concepts to determine if a Comprehensive Plan amendment is proper: o there is an error in the factual basis of the plan, o there is an unforeseen change in circumstances from the point at which the plan was adopted, or o there is some unforeseen and demonstrated "public need ". There is an error in the planning process as it relates to the factual basis of the Comprehensive Plan. It appears that the South 188th Street connector was conceptually planned and first placed on the Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) in 1981. The Planning Commission held a public hearing on November 12, 1981; however, the roadway extension was not included on the final Circulation Map. The error not only affected the subject site, but that area lying south on South 178th Street and west of 57th Avenue south. The unforeseen change, as it directly affects the subject site, is the preferred location of the South 188th Street Connector. The 1984 CENTRAC Study recommended Alternative E, which would introduce a secondary arterial on the third side of the Martins' property. The concept of "public need" should be distinguished from "public interest ". There is a demonstrated "public need" for the construction of the South 188th Street Connector, since it has been placed on the TIP for 6 years. "Need" suggests that the general public directly benefits from the project, i.e., a new park, access to the shoreline, a new road, etc. In this case, the benefit is secondary, in that the creation of a transitional area is in the "public interest" because it prevents the potential of premature decay of the single family neighborhood that has a questionable future. Recently, the City of Bellevue encountered a similar situation; however, the single family residential area adjacent to Bellevue Square could only be protected by building a solid wall at substantial cost to the community. The subject site would never be developed into single family residences because of the cost to build a 520 foot wall 8 -10 feet high to protect a maximum of 7 residences. The wall would add a minimum of $10,000 to each lot. In analyzing a comprehensive plan amendment along with or separately from a rezoning request, the Planning Department staff discovered that the three criteria under January 23,•1987 • Section 18.84.030 do not adequately address the issues of appropriateness and timeliness. The courts in the State of Washington have faced a similar problem. Therefore, the Planning Department is utilizing the following case law rezone criteria: o The relationship of the proposed zoning change to the existing land uses and zoning of surrounding or nearby properties; o What changes have occurred in the character, conditions or surrounding neighborhood that would justify or otherwise substantiate the rezone; o The relative gain to the public as compared with the hardship imposed upon the individual owner; and, o In the case of unimproved property the suitability of the subject property for the purpose for which it has been zoned and is proposed to be zoned and the length of time the property has remained unimproved considered in the context of land development in the surrounding area. The following points are offered to specifically address the criteria: o The subject site is more closely linked to the uses along 57th Avenue South and South 178th Street than the area to the west. This is not only a result of topography, but access. Both Centrac and the City of Tukwila Public Works Department has concluded that the only safe and reasonable access is from 57th Avenue South. The problem is that if the commercial uses were continued onto the subject site, it would create an intrusion into the existing residential areas to the south. However, the introduction of a professional office building would buffer the residential area from the more intensive areas to the north and northeast. o The physical change that has resulted is actually one that should have been anticipated, traffic congestion. Development in Tukwila, Renton, Rent, and King County have placed more demand on South 180th Street. Even though comprehensive plans and zoning codes create categories for planning and implementation purposes, they do not regulate the intensity of the activities. The traffic generated from a commercial store with 3,000 square feet of area could vary from as few as 30 vehicle trips per 3 • January 23, 1987 day to 1,800 depending upon the use. It could be a specialty dress shop or a 7 -11 convenience market. That is what has physically happened to the area. This increasing intensity needs to be buffered and this lone corner of this intersection should not be singled out to remain at a lower intensity. o The property owner will gain substantially by rezoning. The public will not gain any monetary benefit; however, if implementing a planning concept such as transitional zones is important and in the public interest then the public does gain. Stronger, stable zoning district will be created with a reduced potential for the intrusion of one upon the other. o The question in this case is could the property be considered unimproved or in transition? The property is truly not suitable for what it has been zoned. Not only do the goals and policies of Tukwila's Comprehensive Plan contradict the Plan Map, but good planning procedures to create transition zones demand the change. The Comprehensive Plan Map is the blueprint for the community. However, that blueprint can not be read in a vacuum and when policies, common sense, and professional intuition so clearly contradict the Plan, the Plan must be wrong. At that point a correction must be made to fine tune the goals of the community back to the Plan. We believe that the Plan needs to be changed. Sincerely, Roger J. Blaylock The Blaylock Company 4 • CITY OF TUKWILA Central Permit System MASTER LAND DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION FORM • Control # File #(s) Fee(s) $ Receipt # PLEASE WRITE LEGIBLY OR TYPE ALL REQUESTED INFORMATION -- INCOMPLETE APPLICATIONS WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED FOR PROCESSING. SECTION 1: GENERAL DATA TYPE OF SHOR APPLICATION: D BSIP Q PBLA ® SUBDIVISION OSNORELINE PERMIT CONDITIONAL USE/ COOPERATIVE PARKING DUNCLASS. USE 0 VARIANCE 0 PRD OPMUD ErG. OF ®P COM PLAN ONING AMENDMENT BAR INTERURBAN All communications are to be with Roger Blaylock APPLICANT: NAME Roger Blaylock, representativ13ELEFICNE (206) 455 -1550 � � 10717 NE Fourth St, Suite 9, Bellevue, W41P98004 PROP. OWNER: NAME Mr .and Mrs. Roy Martin TELEPHONE ( ) ADDRESS 5665 Snnth 17Rth r Ge t tfle, A ZIP 98188 PROJECT LOCATION: (STREET ADDRESS, GEOGRAPHI C , LOT /BLOCK) 5665 S. 178th, Seattle Legal description attached as Exhibit "A" SECTION 11: PROJECT INFORMATION 4) DESCRIBE BRIEFLY THE PROJECT YOU PROPOSE (Please see attachment for description.) See attachments 5) ANTICIPATED PERIOD OF CONSTRUCTION: FROM TO 8) WILL PROJECT BE DEVELOPED . IN PHASES? DYES ONO IF YES, DESCRIBE: uncertain 7 ) 8) PROJECT STATISTICS: A) B) C) ACREAGE OF PROJECT SITE: FLOORS OF CONSTRUCTION: SITE UTILIZATION: Approximately 1.62 acres NET N/A GROSS N/A EASEMENTS TOTAL 11 FLOORS TOTAL GROSS FLOOR AREA ZONING DESIGNATION COMP. PLAN DESIGNATION BUILDING FOOTPRINT AREA LANDSCAPE AREA PAVING AREA TOTAL PARKING STALLS: STANDARD SIZE - COMPACT SIZE - HANDICAPPED SIZE TOTAL LOADING SPACES AVER. SLOPE OF PARKING AR AVER. SLOPE OF SITE N/A N/A INCLUDES; 0 BASEMENT D MEZZANINE INCLUDES: 0 BASEMENT [3 MEZZANINE EXISTING PROPOSED R/A 0 -P NOTES single- family office N/A ❑ N/A ❑ N/A o N/A o N/A o N/A o N/A N/A N/A N/A EA N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 1S THIS SITE DESIGNATED FOR SPECIAL CONSIDERATION MAP? YES ❑ NO ON THE CITY'S ENVIRONMENTAL BASE SECTION 111: APPLICANT'S AFFIDAVIT 1, Roger J. Blaylock , BEING DULY SWORN, DECLARE THAT 1 AM THE AGENT FOR CONTRACT PURCHASER OR OWNER OF THE PROPERTY INVOLVED IN THIS APPLICATION AND THAT THE FORE- GOING STATEMENTS AND ANSWERS HEREIN CONTAINED AND THE INFORMATION HEREWITH SUBMITTED ARE IN ALL RESPECTS TRUE AND CORRECT TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE AND BELIEF. DATE January 23, ] 984 SUBSCRIBED AND IfiORN BEFORE ME TH 1 S c,..e 3 DAY OF O NO C L I r: IN . AND FOR THE STATE OF WASHINGTON RESIDING AT (SIGNA OF AGENT • • TABLE OF CONTENTS MR. AND MRS. ROY MARTIN COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENTS AND REZONE APPLICATION A. COVER LETTER /JUSTIFICATION B. LAND USE APPLICATIONS C. ZONING MAP/ MAP OF SUBJECT SITE INDICATING PROPERTY OWNERS D. ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST E. SPECIFIC. TRAFFIC AND GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATIONS F. TITLE REPORT G. TRAFFIC VOLUMES H. MEMORADUM OF LAW / ANALOGOUS CASE IN BELLEVUE FARR vs. CITY OF BELLEVUE • • THE BLAYLOCK COMPANY specialists in land -use procedures Air. Vernon Umetsu, Associate Planner City of Tukwila Planning Department January 12, 19C7 INEMEO AN 12, jtjI � CI fY Uf TiJKWt PLANNING DEPT. RE: Roy tiartin Request for Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Zoning Request. Dear Er. Umetsu: Thank you for taking the time on several occasions to discuss the pending land use applications of Roy Martin with me. ter. and Mrs. Roy tiartin have retained The Blaylock Company to present the proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment and zoning request to the City of Tukwila. ItBloR ?8 The original application, submitted in June of}e -S-, requested a Commercial Land Use designation and a C -2 zoning reclassification. The applicants' representative, Mr. Ken Shellan's, presentation focused on the zoning request and the legal parameters. The applicants formally request that the pending application before the City of Tukwila be modified to the following specific requests: CONPREIIDESIVE PLAN REQUEST From LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL to OFFICE. REZONE REQUEST From R/A DISTRICT - AGRICULTURE to P -0 DISTRICT PROFESSIONAL AND OFFICE DISTRICT. In their application revision, the Martins include five points that address the issues raised by the City of Tukwila on September 25, 1986. The following voluntary amendments mitigate both environmental and future site planning concerns: 10717 NE Fourth Street, Suite 9 • Bellevue, Washington 98004 • (206) 455 -1550 January 12, 1967 2 Point 1 Access will be restricted solely to 57th Avenue South, unless at the time of development of the subject site or construction of the South 188th Street Connector, the City of Tukwila determines that some form of limited access to the Connector is acceptable. The burden of proof to assure that a safe access can be accomplished will rest with the property owner or applicant as part of a future traffic analysis. Point 2 Only one access point will be provided onto 57th Avenue South, unless the City determines that a secondary emergency access is required on any of the adjacent streets as a condition of development approval. Point 3 The access point will be at the far south end of the property and not less than 175 feet from the existing (January, 1987) south edge of the pavement at the intersection of South 180th Street and Southcenter Parkway (57th Avenue South). If the location creates a sight distance problem from the south at the bridge, the property owner or developer is not responsible for upgrading the bridge. Point 4 At the time of development further traffic analysis will be provided to determine whether further mitigating measures may be required as part of the development proposal. However, ' because of the specific restriction by the City to limit access to the subject site on 57th Avenue South, improvements to the bridge lying south of the subject site on 57th Avenue South will not be included as a mitigating measure unless the traffic study clearly shows that any improvements are a result of a significant adverse environmental impact that is directly measurable. In that case the property owner or developer will be responsible for only a proportionate share. Point 5 The applicant agrees to sign an agreement that limits the use of the northwest corner of the site with setback requirements to allow for the future construction of the January 12, 1987 3 South 188th Street Connector. The. applicant does not give the property in question to the City of Tukwila since it is not a necessary mitigation measure to address significant adverse environmental impacts associated with the land use requests. (The City of Tukwila is requested to prepare the necessary legal documents to assure development limitation on the specific property that is intended to be the location of the South 188th Street Connector.) Enclosed is the justification of the request to change the Comprehensive Plan designation from Low Density Residential to Office and to rezone the property from I; /A District - Agriculture to P -0 District Professional and Office District. Thank you again for your consideration. Sincerely, R�er�g � la lock Y January 12, 1987 JUSTIFICATION OF COMPREHENSIVE PLAN REQUEST I. HISTORY o The Martins bought a house in the country with acreage in 1959. At that time the Green River Valley was all farms. The site was truly agricultural - residential. Since then I -405 has been completed and tremendous amounts of commercial and industrial development have occurred in the Green River Valley in Tukwila, Renton, and Kent. o Since 1959, the Martins' acreage has shrunk. Originally the property contained 2.5 acres. The property is now only slightly more than 1.6 acres. Over 36 percent of their land has been taken for public roads and facilities. o The City of Tukwila has undertaken a major re- evaluation of the traffic situation resulting from the continued expansion of the industrial and commercial activities. o In March, 1982, the City of Tukwila adopted a new Comprehensive Plan to replace their 1961 Comprehensive Plan. o The nearby jurisdictions of Kent, Renton, and King County have also re- evaluated the traffic problems associated with the rapid commercial and industrial growth in the Green river Valley and taken action to upgrade the S.W. 180th Street /Petrovisky Road Corridor. o In December of 1984, the City of Tukwila received from CENTRAC a Location and Feasibility Study and Regional Travel Impact Report for the South 188th Street Connector. The study recommended the immediate construction of the roadway. II. LAND USE ISSUE INCONSISTENCY The land use designation of Low Density Residential for the subject site is inconsistent with the Goals and Policies of the Comprehensive Plan and general planning practices of • • January 12, 1987 buffering and separating inconsistent uses. In addition, the general transportation needs of the city of Tukwila around Southcenter dictate that another major freeway access is necessary to allow the development of the proposed land use in the existing 1982 Comprehensive Plan. This access most commonly known as the South 188th Street Connector seriously impacts the reasonable use of the subject site as a single family residential area. The first inconsistency is that the subject site is the only location on the Tukwila Comprehensive Plan Map where Low Density Residential Uses are placed adjacent to Heavy and Light Industrial Uses, Office, and Commercial Uses without some type of buffering or land use separation. The Comprehensive Plan goals and policies very clearly address the need to separate and buffer inconsistent uses. The Comprehensive Plan Map has carefully followed this planning philosophy of buffering single family residential areas with low and medium density multiple family areas, office uses, or large landscaped setbacks. The site is also part of the only area lying east of I -5 and south of I -405 that has been designated as Low Density Residential. Even though this area is unlike the industrial floor of the Green River Valley, it is also unlike the established single family residential areas found on Tukwila Hill or McMicken Heights. The key is that both Tukwila Hill and McMicken Heights are established single family residential areas, while the area lying south of South 178th 5 January 12,1987 Street and west of Southcenter Boulevard is primarily undeveloped and agricultural in nature. Implementation of this proposed Comprehensive Plan designation is complicated by the following purpose of the R -1 District - Single Family Residential; 18.12.010 Purpose. The purpose of this district is to stabilize and preserve low density, single - family residential neighborhoods; to prevent intrusions by incompatible land uses; to provide a range of minimum lot sizes in order to respond to the development constraints of the natural environment; and to promote diversity and recognize a variety of residential environments. (Emphasis added) Thus, the Zoning Code can not fully implement the intent of the Comprehensive Plan because the existing adjacent commercial and industrial and potential office land uses would be automatic intrusions into the proposed single family residential area on the subject site. The second land use inconsistency arises from the fact that the South 188th Street Connector is not included on the Roadway Circulation Map of the 1982 Comprehensive Plan. Even though the Martins' land use applications do not entirely rest upon the issue of the South 188th Connector, the impact of the construction of a major four -lane arterial street with an estimated 20,000 to 30,000 motor vehicles travelling the street daily is not conducive to the establishment of a stable new single family residential area. Any of the proposed five designs for the. south 188th street Connector 6 January 12, 1987 • • would intrude into and destroy the possibility of a viable, livable neighborhood. In fact Policy 4, page 46 of the Comprehensive Plan specifically states: Vehicular traffic to commercial, office or industrial uses should not be through residential areas. THE LAND USE QUESTION IS: WHAT IS THE BEST USE FOR THE SUBJECT SITE AND THE GENERAL AREA LYING SOUTH OF SOUTH 178TH AND WEST OF 57TH AVENUE SOUTH? The five possibilities are: Low Density Residential High Density residential Commercial Light Manufacturing Office Low Density Residential This possibility has been discussed in above. The introduction of a single family residential area would be in conflict with the existing adjacent uses and the South 188th Connector. High Density Residential The creation of a High Density Residential area does not appear to be appropriate for the entire area and specifically not for the subject site. Even though it may be consistent with the intent of the Zoning Ordinance, and establish a land 7 January 12, 1987 use buffer between the commercial and industrial uses on the valley floor and the single family residential uses west of I 5; the subject site should be considered as a transitional area between the intense commercial and industrial uses to the northeast and east. In addition, the establishment of multiple family residential area could seriously overbalance the ratio of single family residences to multiple family dwellings in the entire city. Presently, over 65 per cent of the housing stock is multiple family residential, this ratio could easily exceed 80 per cent with the creation of another major multiple family dwelling area. This may not be consistent with a primary objective of the Comprehensive Plan to assure that there is a diversified supply of housing in the planning area. (Page 51) A new multiple family zone could be implemented by the Zoning Code. The purpose statement of the RMH DISTRICT- - MULTIPLE- RESIDENCE HIGH DENSITY is "this district is to create a high density, multiple - family district which is compatible with commercial and office areas and which can be used adjacent to such districts to buffer other, less dense multiple - family districts. It is also the purpose of this district to encourage a variety of housing types and residential environments by allowing apartment houses and apartment /office development. 8 • • January 12, 1987 Commercial The keys to the fantastic success of a regional retail facility located in Tukwila are location, marketability, and access. The value of the location is dependent upon the continued efficient operation of the street system. Future traffic demands could gradually strangle the existing businesses. The City of Tukwila has identified the need to construct the South 188th Street Connector to improve access to I -5 to relieve the general traffic congestion. The creation of a new retail commercial area would only increase the congestion based upon the limited capacities of the transportation system and would therefore not be a reasonable land use decision. A 70,000 square foot shopping center would generate over 5,537 daily vehicle trips. This is more than four (4) times the anticipated daily traffic volume of a maximum sized professional office building (1,240 average daily trips). Light Manufacturing Light manufacturing is proposed further south of the site along the west side of 57th Avenue South. The traffic associated with light manufacturing is less than half of that anticipated for an office building. However, the critical variable of the frequency and size of trucks is introduced into the complex traffic congestion formula. A conflict is created between the automobile and the large truck. Large 9 January 12, 1987 trucks take up much of the design capacity of a street system because of their size and slowness. The maneuvering of trucks on public streets to allow access to the loading doors of warehouses and manufacturing plants in light industrial areas has become a major safety problem. A thorough investigation of the issue can not be contemplated without a city -wide transportation study. This is beyond the scope of the land use or environmental review processes being requested by the applicant. Professional Office The arguments for a professional office building have been discussed by analyzing the other land use alternatives. Professional offices would provide a reasonable land use transition between the high intensity commercial and industrial areas to the east, while it would complement the anticipated professional office uses to the north. Plus the professional office classification would create a land use buffer if a residential area was still planned for the areas to the south and west of the subject site. Secondary Issue - Domino Effect Normally the review of an apparently localized request to modify any comprehensive plan for a small parcel of property raises the issue of: if we allow the change, will it create a domino affect where the higher intensity land use keeps expanding. In this case how far south will the request 10 January 12, 1987 to allow Professional Offices be extended to the south? The simple answer is: That is in the hands of the Planning Commission and City Council. In this case that is the truth. The necessity for the construction of the South 188th Street Connector has created a critical flaw in the fabric of the Comprehensive Plan document that is only 5 years old. Therefore, I would argue that the applicant's request will neither support or oppose the extension of professional offices south of the subject site. Their property will either act as a buffer or a conduit depending upon the decision of the City of Tukwila. REZONING JUSTIFICATION Section 18.84.030 of the Tukwila Municipal Code establishes three (3) criteria for the granting of a zoning map, the following analysis addresses each point and shows that the rezoning request is appropriate at this time. Criteria 1: The use or change in zoning requested shall be in conformity with the adopted comprehensive land use policy plan, the provisions of this title, and the public interest. This criteria actually contains three conditions: however, the key is what is the "public interest ". The Comprehensive Plan is a statement of "The Public Interest" as identified by the elected officials of the City of Tukwila. 11 • • January 12, 1987 The arguments raised in the Justification for the Comprehensive Plan Amendment point out that the "public interest" is not the same as embodied in the Plan in 1982. This is not a conflict or a major mistake made by the professional planners, planning commissioners or by the city council; it is the normal life cycle of a Comprehensive Plan. As the City was undergoing a metamorphosis, the Plan is static. The Plan needs to be fine tuned and adjusted to reflect changes in the environment and new goals and programs of the City. In Martins' case, the crucial factor is that existing commercial, industrial and office uses are intrusions into the proposed single family residential area. This is pointed out in a recent law case, Colella vs. Ring County, supra, where Mr. Colella's property adjoined a busy freeway on one side and an airport on another side, while the property was zoned suburban residential. The Appellate Court, quoting the trial court, reasoned that "In short, the subject property had lost its residential character." Id. at 255 -56. The Martins' property is identical, it has lost its residential character. Traffic and urban development has dramatically modified the area. The proposed construction of the South 188th Street Connector is only the final nail in the coffin for a stable single family residential neighborhood. 12 • • January 12, 1987 Criteria 2: The use or change in zoning requested in the zoning map or this title for the establishment of commercial, industrial, or residential uses shall be supported by an architectural site plan showing the proposed development and its relationship to surrounding areas as set forth in the application form. The applicants, Mr. and Mrs. Roy Martin, have specifically not included architectural plans simply because they do not personally plan to develop the property. Theoretical maximum building areas have been suggested in the environmental checklist. The City of Tukwila is protected under provisions of Chapter 18.60 which requires the review of any commercial structure over 10,000 square feet before the Board of Architectural Review. Criteria 3 When the request is not in agreement with the comprehensive land use policy plan, the applicant shall provide evidence to the city council's satisfaction that there is an additional need for the requested land classification. The Justification for the Comprehensive Plan amendment elaborates upon the planning issues and the primary fact that the request is a simple fine tuning of the Goals and Policies with the Plan Map. The location across a major arterial street from a regional retail business center is not conducive to the development of a new single family neighborhood. The City of 13 • January 12, 1987 Bellevue is presently building a $500,000 wall at its cost around an established single family residential area kitty - corner from Bellevue Square to protect the neighborhood from the intensity of the commercial activity. CONCLUSION The Martins have been trapped by the continuing degradation of the surrounding single family residential neighborhood by urban growth. In 1959 when they bought the property, they were out in the country. Farms were all they could see. Now in their retirement years they can no longer deal with the situation and propose selling the property and leaving. However, they do not want to give their property to a commercial developer who would present the same arguments to the Planning Commission and City Council with the added statement that "The Martins were forced off the site because of the impacts resulting from the adjacent commercial and industrial uses." The Martins have seen in the land use process over the last eight months that requesting a C -2 District for a Regional Retail Business would only be an intrusion of high intensity commercial uses upon their neighbors to the south. The modified request to P -0 District Professional Office not.only lets the Martins leave the area with a little retirement security, but is in the "public interest" and complies with the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan and corrects an error on the Comprehensive Plan Map. 14 Zoning Plat CITY OF TUKWILA MR. AND MRS. ROY MARTIN CN -86 -144 86 -19 -CPA 86 -20 -R \`a.CS7l.I. Ste' 4' 8/ S +' SCALE: 1 inch = 100 feet. Map Dept. Reference MAILING LIST FOR PUBLIC NOTICE TAX LOT NO. ID OWNER'S NAME A ADDRESS 1 PROPERTY ADDRESS (IF NOT OWNER•OCCUPIED) 35 -23 -04 9008 Mario A. Segale 18010 Southcenter Parkway N/A Seattle, WA 98188 9013 Ray and Madeline Plink 18059 Southcenter Parkway N/A Seattle, WA 98188 9019 Paul and Lorraine Jonientz 5.565 S. 178th St N/A Seattle, WA 98188 9031 Robert W. Schoenbachler 12905 N.E. 25th No assigned address Bellevue, WA 98005 . 9034 Mr. &Mrs.Herman Schoenbachler 18115 Southcenter Parkway Seattle, WA 98188 N/A 9038 William M. Polk 2500 One Union Square 18000 Southcenter Parkway Seattle, WA 98101 9055 Mario A. Segale P.O. Box 88050 18311 Andover Park Drive Tukwila, WA 98188 9061 Pacific Northwest Group A 5601 Sixth Avenue S. 17794 Southcenter Blvd Seattle, WA 93101 • 1 CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE AND ACCURATE LIST OF PROPERTY OWNERS OF PARCELS WITHIN 300 FEET OF SITE PERIMETER TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE. 9012 Schneider Homes Inc. DRIGINAL" SPUR LINE clS 9019' Paul Jonientz 9090 John W. Denure Willai Ray and Madeline Flink 9034 Mr. & Mrs. Herman Schoenbachler Paci Northwe Group . 3Agale 9032 M: A. Segale 9055 M. A. Segale Robert Schoenbachler Scale 1: 200 Approximately MR. AND MRS. ROY MARTIN CN -86 -144 '86 -19 -CPA 86 -20 -R • • TRAFFIC VOLUME Numerous studies commissioned by Richard Etherington and Associates, Sigoly Business Parks and the City of Tukwila indicate that the traffic volume in the subject area has grown tremendously. (Enclosed is one such study by Richard Etherington and Associates) The study dramatically sets forth the phenomenal increase in traffic volume over the past ten years and further highlight the further tremendous increases which will occur by the year 2000. Of particular interest are the allusions to the roadway surrounding the subject rezone parcel and referring to them as major thoroughfairs for the commercial /industrial centers in the area. In other words, the road ways themselves along with the heavy traffic volume certainly indicate that subject corner property should be rezoned so as to be consistent with the neighboring property usage. That portion of the southeast quarter of the northwest quarter of section 35, township 23 north, range 4 east, W.M., in King County, Washington, described as follows: Beginning at the northwest corner of said subdivision; thence south 87 °51'01" east along the north line of said subdivision 800 feet to the true point of beginning; thence south perpendicular to the said north line of said subdivision 250.00 feet; thence east parallel with said north line of said subdivision to the west line or county road No. 540; thence northerly along the said westerly line of said county road to the intersection, with the said north line of said subdivision; thence north 87 °57'01" west along said north line of said subdivision 335 feet, more or less, to the true point of beginning; Except county road And except that portion condemned in King County Superior Court Cause No. 698092 by the City of Tukwila for road purposes. Exhibit "A" • • PROJECT PROPOSAL COMPREHENSIVE PLAN REQUEST From LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL to OFFICE. REZONE REQUEST From R/A DISTRICT — AGRICULTURE to P -0 DISTRICT PROFESSIONAL AND OFFICE DISTRICT. In their application revision, the Martins include five points that address the issues raised by the City of Tukwila on September 25, 1986. The following voluntary amendments mitigate both environmental and future site planning concerns: Point 1 Access will be restricted solely to 57th Avenue South, unless at the time of development of the subject site or construction of the South 188th Street Connector, the City of Tukwila determines that some form of limited access to the Connector is acceptable. The burden of proof to assure that a safe access can be accomplished will rest with the property owner or applicant as part of a future traffic analysis. Point 2 Only one access point will be provided onto 57th Avenue South, unless the City determines that a secondary emergency access is required on any of the adjacent streets as a condition of development approval. Point 3 The access point will be at the far south end of the property and not less than 175 feet from the existing (January, 1987) south edge of the pavement at the intersection of South 180th Street and Southcenter Parkway (57th Avenue South). If the location creates a sight distance problem from the south at the bridge, the property owner or developer is not responsible for upgrading the bridge. Point 4 At the time of development further traffic analysis will be provided to determine whether further mitigating measures may be required as part of the development proposal. However, because of the specific restriction by the City to limit access to the subject site on 57th Avenue South, improvements to the bridge lying south of the subject site on 57th Avenue South will not be included as a mitigating measure unless the traffic study clearly shows that any improvements are a result of a significant adverse environmental impact that is directly measurable. In that case the property owner or developer will be responsible for only a proportionate share. Point 5 The applicant agrees to sign an agreement that limits the use of the northwest corner of the site with setback requirements to allow for the future construction of the South 188th Street Connector. The applicant does not give the property in question to the City of Tukwila since it is not a necessary mitigation measure to address significant adverse environmental impacts associated with the land use requests. CITY OFSJKWILA Central Permit System MASTER LAND DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION FORM • S C H E D U L E COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT EXISTING COMP. PLAN DESIGNATION single family PROPOSED COMP. PLAN DESIGNATION office EXISTING ZONING R/A PROPOSED USE p -0 Professional nffire_ EXISTING USE AND CLASSIFICATION OF SURROUNDING PROPERTIES: ZONE COMP. PLAN DESIG. NORTH P-0 Office Undeveloped SOUTH R -A Single Family Single family EAST M-2 & C -2 Heavy Industry Parking lot WEST R-A Single Family Single family USE IDENTIFY THOSE POLICIES IN THE TUKWILA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN WHICH YOU FEEL SERVE TO JUSTIFY (7 THE PROPOSED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT, AND ANALYZE THOSE POLICIES AS THEY RELATE TO THE SUBJECT PROPERTY. POLICY 1/ PAGE /I RELEVANCE Element thrust It is questionable that even with major physical sPrarafinng 'Liveability: such as landscaped setback or solid walls, that a livable and viable single family neighborhood could be created. Obj. 1 45 The topographic separation is at the western boundary of the Pol. 1 subject site. This is reinforced by the requirement to access 57th Avenue South and not South 178th Street. Pol4 46 The South 188th Connector will divide the potential single family area. The subject site has two arterials adjacent to it and possibly three in the future. Ob.. 1 60 The site will offer a use buffer between the intense activi- Pol. 1 ties of the adjacent commercial and industrial activities Pol. 2 of the north and east and the planned single family areas to the west and southwest. • CITY OF TUKWILA Central Permit System MASTER LAND DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION FORM • S C H E D U L E -1_1" SL CHANGE OF ZONING EXISTING ZONING R/A REQUESTED ZONING; P -0 Professional Office COMP. PLAN DESIGNATION single fami1 ITE IN CITY LIMITS? yes PROPOSED USE IF REZONE APPROVED unknown at this time - will sell property to developer EXISTING USE AND CLASSIFICATION OF SURROUNDING PROPERTIES: ZONE COMP. PLAN DESIG. NORTH P/0 office undeveloped b�,l le family soum R/A light industry single family EAST M2 & C2 heavy industry parking lot WEST R/A single family single family USE ?ESCR 1 BE THE MANNER 1 N WHICH YOUR REQUEST FOR CHANGE OF Zak 1 NG CLASS 1 F 1 CAT 1 ON SATISFIES EACH THE FOLLOWING CRITERIA AS SPECIFIED IN TMC 18.84.030 (ATTACH ADDITIONAL SHEETS IF NECES- SARY). 1) THE PROPOSED CHANGE IN ZONING IS 1N CONFORMANCE WITH THE C1TY•S COMPREHENSIVE AND LAND USE POLICY PLAN, THE PROVISION OF THE CITY ZONING CODE AND THE PUBLIC INTEREST. RESPOME: The proposal is in conformance with the Plan's Goals and Policies but not the Plan man. See Justification pages 11 and 12. 2) THE PROPOSED CHANGE IN ZONING 1S APPROPRIATE IN RELATIONSHIP TO THE ZONING AND USE OF SLRROLAm1NG PROPERTIES (IN ADDITION TO THE FOLLOWING NARRATIVE, SITE AND ARCHITECTURAL DRAWINGS SHOULD BE REFERENCED). RESPONSE: Existing and proposed uses on the 3 other corners of the inter- section are 50 to 100 times more intensive measured by traffic generation than the allowable development on the subject site. See Environmental IF THE REQUESTED CHANGE IN ZONING IS NOT IN AGREEMENT WITH THE COM REHE'NSIVE LAND USE POLICY PLAN, THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE IS CITED IN SUPPORT OF THE NEED FOR THE REQUESTED RECLASSIFICATION. RESPONSE: The utilization of the site for a single family neighborhood is not appropriate. The site should be a transitional. zone. The construc- tion of the South 188th St Connector, will make the property less suitable for single family with major arterial streets on 3 sides. • A. DJ CKG OU iD ENVI1.:0NI ENTAL CHECKLIST •:rol flo. Epic File No. Fee ?105.00 Feceipt ; o. 1. Name of proposed project, if applicable: ROY MARTIN COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT AND REZONE REQUEST 2. Name of applicant: MR. & MRS. ROY MARTIN 3. Address and phone number of applicant and contact pers APPLICANT ROY MARTIN 5665 South 178th Street Seattle, Washington 98188 Telephone: 575 -0327 CONTACT PERSON: Roger Blaylock The Blaylock Company 10717 N.E. 4th Street, Suite 9 Bellevue, Washington 98004 4. Date checklist prepared: Telephone: 455 -1550 JANUARY 1987 MNMEO CITY OF TUKWILA PLANNING DEPT. 5. Agency requesting Checklist: CITY OF TUKWILA 6. Proposed timing or schedule (including phasing, if applicable: No development is immediately anticipated for the subject site. The earliest development would occur after approval of the the land use requests. Probable development would not occur until spring of 1988 or latter. 7. Do you have any plans for future additions, expansion, or further activity related to or connected with this proposal? If yes, explain. NO. The property owners will not develop the site themselves. The property will have to be sold. S. List any environmental information you know about that has been prepared, or will be prepared, directly related to this proposal. An Environmental Checklist was prepared in March of 1985 for the the original land use application submission. It was non- specific because the application was unclear. 1 CITY OF TUK:ILA 9. Do you know whether applic ons are pending for government approvals of other proposals directly affecting the property covered by your proposal? If yes, explain. City Council Approval of the South 188th Street Connector Project. 10. List any government approvals or permits that will be needed for your proposal. Building and construction permits from the City of Tukwila. 11. Give brief, complete description of your proposal, including the proposed uses and the size of the project and site. There are several questions later in this checklist that ask you to describe certain aspects of your proposal. You do not need to repeat those answers on this page. Section E requires a complete description of the objectives and alternatives of your proposal and should not be summarized here. The land use requests include both a comprehensive plan amendment and zoning reclassification to allow the ultimate construction of a professional office building. Since there is not a specific site plan proposal accompanying the land use requests. SEPA suggests that a worst case scenario be presented. Under the P-0 Professional and Office District zoning a maximum building of approximately 70,000 square feet could be constructed. This structure would contain a basement parking garage, one additional floor of parking and two level of office. This configuration would require the removal of approximately 80,000 cubic yards of material from the subject site. The concept also generally maintains the eastern 100 feet of the site as open space. Realistically, the site would not be developed to this degree because of other limiting environmental feasures such as slope and access constraits. (SEE PAGE 2A) 12. Location of the proposal. Give sufficient information for a person to understand the precise location of your proposed project, including a street address, if any, and section, township, and range, if known. If a proposal would occur over a range of area, provide the range or boundaries of the site(s). Provide a legal description, site plan, vicinity map, and topographic map. If reasonably available. While you should submit any plans required by the agency, you are not required to duplicate maps or detailed plans submitted with any permit applications related to this checklist. The subject site is located on the southwest corner of the intersection of Southcenter Parkway and South 178th Street. It is kitty — corner from the Pavillion Shopping Center. 13. Does the proposal lie within an area designated on the City's Comprehensive Land Use Policy Plan Map as environmentally sensitive? YES 2 CITY OF TUKWILA CROSS SECTION A to A' EAST TO WEST A SEPA WORST CASE SCENARIO 70,000 sq. ft. building 80,000+ cubic yards of material to be excavated 175 - 180 parking spaces SOUTH 178TH STREET Office Level MR. AND MRS. ROY MARTIN FILE NUMBERS CN -86 -144 86 -19 -CPA 86 -20 -R (35,000 Office Level (35,000 1 Level Of Above Ground Parking Maximum 15% Grade Parking Garage ELEVATION 1 s.f.) . j s.f.) ENVIRONMENTAL • cs 100 APPROXIMATE PROPOSED GRAD 90 FOR AL 'E S. 188TH. T. 80 S,i'7. CORNER 70 57th AVENUE SOUTH 1LU I .1 U 1 N.W. CORNER Evaluation for Agency Use Only TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT B. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS 1. Earth a. General description of the site (circle one): Flat, rolling, hilly, steep slopes, mountainous, The site slopes from crest to east. The steepest slopes are along 57th Avenue South. A level area is located on the western half of the site. b. What is the steepest slope on the site (approximate percent slope)? A steep embankment exists about 100 feet west of 57th Avenue South. This embankment is greater than 40 percent. c. What general types of soils are found on the site (for example, clay, sand, gravel, peat, muck)? If you know the classification of agricultural soils, specify them and note any prime farm land. The site is generally dense silty sandy gravel overlaying hard to very dense layers of glacially overridden sandy silt, fine sand and silty sandy gravel. The lower portion of the subject site located along 57th Avenue South appears to be the higher density sandy silts. d. Are there surface indications or history of unstable soils in the immediate vicinity? If so, describe. Some signs of possible unstable soils and old possible landslides were reported by Centrac in the South 188th Street Connector Study. These areas were located to the south and west of the subject site and do not affect the stability of the subject site. e. Describe the purpose, type, and approximate quantities of any filling or grading proposed. Indicate source of fill. The ultimate building design would determine exactly how much filling or grading would be necessary. If the building was recessed into the hillside more material would have to be excavated. Specific grading plans would be reviewed as part of the building permit process. 3 City of Tukwila • f. Could erosion occur as a result of clearing, construction, or use? If so, generally describe. Yes. Erosion could occur during clearing and construction if proper temporary erosion control measures are not taken. Specific engineering plans for erosion control depend upon the building design. Erosion should not occur with final construction. g. About what percent of the site will be covered with impervious surfaces after project construction (for example, asphalt or buildings)? Maximum impervious surface coverage with a 70,000 square foot office building would be approximately 71.5 per cent. h. Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion, or other impacts to the earth, if any: Unknown. Depends on final construction designs. All plans must comply with City of Tukwila standards. 2. Air a. What types of emissions to the air would result from the proposal (i.e. dust, automobile odors, industrial wood smoke) during construction and when the project is completed? If any, generally describe and give approximate quantities if known. General and professional offices will typically generate lower levels of air pollutants except for automobile emissions than any other use. Actual levels of emissions from automobiles will not be known until a building size is determined. However, based on the ITE (Institute of Traffic Engineers) standards a total of 1,240 daily vehicle trips could be generated from the site. b. Are there any off -site sources of emissions or odor that may affect your proposal? If so, generally describe. NO 4 City of Tukwila Evaluation for Agency Use Only • • c. ;'ropo seal measures to recrce or control er:i_ssiens or other ir.pacts to air, if any: ..c:ter I:vLlunti on for A Transportation Management Plan could be developed at the time actual construction. a. `.'urface 1) Is there any surface water body on or in the ir.::Aediate vicinity of the site (inclucino. year— round and seasonal streams, saltwater, lakes, 2orCs, wetlands)? If yes, describe type 2nc: provide names. If appropriate, state' what stream or river it flows into. Standing water was identified approximately 1,000 feet west of the subject site in the South 188th Street Corridor Study. Seasonal water exists on the eastern portion of the subject site. This could be integrated into the final site design. 2) :'ill the project require any work over, in, or adjacent to (ti:it'i_n 2Cv feet of) the described - waters? If yes, please describe and attach available plans. NO 3) Estimate the amount of fill and dredge material that could be placed in or removed from surface water or wetlands and indicate the area of the site that would be affected. Indicate the source of fill material. NOT APPLICABLE '.) ::ill the proposal require surface water ti:it h- drnwrls or diversions? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities, if known. NO 5 City of Tukwila • . Evclur:tior. for 5) iocs the proposal involve any discharges of waste materials to surface waters? If so, describe the type of waste and anticipated volume of discharge. POSSIBLY. Oil residues, tire rubber, and minor amounts of gasoline could be discharged from parking areas. Oil /water separators are installed in most storm water drainage system to address this pollution problem. 6) Does the proposal invo]ve any discharges of waste materials to surfhce waters? If so, describe the type of waste and anticipated volume of discharge. UNKNOWN. The probability of any waste materials that would pollute surface water is highly improbable from a professional office complex. b. Ground: 1) kill ground water be withdrawn, or will water be discharged to (round water? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities, if known. PROBABLY NOT. 2) Describe waste materials that will be discharged into the ground from septic tanks or other sources, if any (for example: Domestic sewage; industrial, containing the following chemicals..; agricultural; etc.) Describe the general size of the system, the number of such systems, the number of houses to be served (if applicable), or the number of animals or humans the system(s) are expected to serve. NONE 6 City of Tukwila 1.,5,ency Ls( ('n7 Evrlur :tion for Ar encv Use Only c. 12ter }runoff (inc]udin2 story: grater): 1) Describe the source of runoff (including storm water) and methoc of collection and disposal, if any (include rivantities, if known). there will this water floy? Ui.il this water flow into other waters? If so, describe. Water runoff is primarily storm water. It will be collected in on site roof and parking lot drains and then discharged into the City of Tukwila's storm water drainage system. On site filtering would include oil /water separators and possibly setting ponds. 2) Could waste materials enter ground or surface waters? If so, generally describe. NO d. Proposed measures to reduce or control surface, ground and runoff water impacts, if any: UNKNOWN AT THIS TIME 4. Plants a. Check or circle type of vegetation found on the site: X deciduous tree: ., aspen II evergreen tree:•, cedar pine, 1( shrubs )( grass pasture crop or grain wet soil plants: cattail, buttercup, bullrush, skunk cabbage, other water plants: water lily, eelgrass, milfoil, other other types of vegetation b. What kind and amount of vegetation will be removed or altered? Depending on the building design either all of the on site vegetation could be removed or partially retained. 7 City of Tukwila List t hreatened or end3ngcrec*. srecies know to: bc' on or near the site. UNKNOWN Ev,^.]untioc for L ^encv l se (:]v d. Proposed landsc re: sure; to • site, if any. 5. tini:.rls UNKNOWN se of ,e . or eniianc vo pni, or other vegetation on-the a. Circle cny birds el;::ervec: on or ne r the site or are cr. �n to, be on or near the site ani r.e1 birds: hay;:,, hero rc,' ea;,le, r:,a': c] r : c:eer, bear, ell:, beaver, other:. fish: bass, salr.:on, trout, herring, shellfish, otter: b. List any threatened or endrngered species know be on or near the site. UNKNOWN Is the site part 0 a migration route? If so, e: :plain: NO o. Proposed measures to preserve.: or if any: None proposed at this time. If storm wade retention ponds are required it is passible integrate wildlife areas with the ponds* _ Energy End ; :atural KesouTces c. 'act '.:i. ^.cc of e nerg }, {electric, natural cas, oil, z.:cc(7, stove, solar) will he- used - to meet,, _rt;ie= c :pleted projects energy needs? Describe w ether it will be uses: for heating, rsrufacturing, etc. The type of ener to 3 iaate ild has not been determined. It will have to be address:; as part of the environmental review of the building plans. • • i. 1;ould your project affect the potential use of solar ener;;y by adjacent properties? If so, generally describe: NO c. net kinds of energy conservation features are included in the plans of this proposal? List other proposes: measures to reduce or control energy impacts, if any: NOT APPLICABLE 7. Lnviron: :.ental iieclth a. Are there any environmental health hazards, incluc:ing exposure to toxic cher.;icals, risk of fire and explosion, spill, or hazardous waste, that could occur as a result of this proposal? If so, describe. NONE 1) Describe special emergency services that might be required. UNKNOWN 2) Proposed measures to reduce or control environmental health hazards, if any: NOT APPLICABLE b. noise 1) Uhat types of noise exist in the area which may affect your project (for example: traffic, equipment, operation, other)? Traffic 2) What types and levels of noise would be created by or associated with the project on a short —term or a long —term basis (for example: traffic, construction, operation, ether)? Indicate what hours noise would core from the site. Traffic — long term, especially heavy truck traffic from the industrial area. Construction -short term (Hours should be limited because of adjacent residential area) 9 City of Tukwila Lvaltintion For Auncv Lsc Cnl•: 3) Proposed mensures to reduce or contrcl noise irpacts, if any Reduce the grade of South 178th Street by ,building the South 188th Street Connector end limiting bourisof construction to on the subject site 7 a.m. to 10 p.m. per State of Washington Noise Standard Level. Lrri and Shordine Use a. Vhat is the current use of the site and adjacent properties? A Single Family Residence. b. !Its the site been, used for ure so, descri e. NO c. Describe any structures on the site. A Residence and associated structures. d. 11 any structure- be demolished? If so, what? When the property,is-ultinntelrredeveloped the structures will be removed. e. Uhat is the current zoning classification of the site? RA District -- Agricultural f. What is the current comprehensive plan designation of - the site? Single Family If applicable, what is the curren,t shoreline master prorur designation of the site? Not Applicable Evaluation for Arenty Use h. LOS any part of the site been On as nn "en v renr,entelly sensitive" area? If so, specify. YES, the subject site is located at the base,of the valley wall on, the west side of the GreekRiver Valley. The area is of environmental concern because of slope stability. The South 188th Street Corridor Study found that the stability problem could be addressed through state of the art engineering procedures and can be considered an environmental concern that can be mitigated. i. :.ppro::i::atc1y ,ia.: many people would reside or work in the coxplcte:; project? Only a generalised number of people wotking on the subject site can be °projected based upon the theoretical maximum building area of 70,000 square feet. The employment population could range from, 140 to 450 employees. P'rojettions t t is stage of planning are not it act n ° re— analyzed at the tilOS Evaluation for 4eac'-i:::er(nl j. Approximately hog: riany people would the completed project displace? Two people. k. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce eisplacenent impacts, if any: None are anticipated. 1. Propcsec measures to ensure the proposal existin: arc' projected 1 n uses an+:•: Mitigating measures can not be projected at this time without consideration of aspecific project components and site design. The design review process under SEPA will address the environmental impacts at that time. S. I;,,,,,._ n• a. Approximately how ran Indicate v.ether hi Not Applicable. • Evz:lurticr. for ••L e�ie` l.Fl ;nli b. A •proximately how n,mny units, if any, would be eliminated? Incicate whether hick, middlc , or loi•:- incoie ;you_ inL? One single family residence. c. iroposed neasures to reduce or control housinE impacts, if fly: None are anticipated. 1C. Aesthetics a. ::hat is the tallest heiE.ht of any proposes: structure(s), not inclur:inE antennas; what is the p rinci - .1 exterior buildinc material(s) proposed? The height will be regulated by the P-0 Zoning District's maximum of 35 feet or 3 stories. Most probably the structure would be terraced into the hillside reducing its perceived height. b. What views in the irr,ediate vicinity would be altered or obstructed? None. c. Proposed neasures to reduce or control aesthetic impacts, if any: Specific building and site designs must be proposed to consider possible mitigation measures to reduce or control aesthetic impacts. 11. Licht anc. Clare a. What type of light or glare will the proposal produce? [:hat time of say would it mainly occur? Light and glare could be a critical issue. The design and exterior treatment of the building could create severe glare problems during the a.m. commute hours for west bound vehicles on South 180th Street. b. Could lig`.t or flare from the finished project be 12 City of Tukwila a safety hazard or< interfere with vi See 11 a. above. w c. l:hnt existing off -site sources of light or glare may effect your proposal? None Anticipated. d. Proposer' necsures i:pacts, if ary:, Both the ty landscaping Will have environmenta ;o reduce or control litht and Clare 12. %ccrection ZvaIuation for ,.: ': i enc} Use � '. 1Y of glass and the type and :size of important design issues that will consequences. a. .fiat designed end inform are in the irrediate vicinity? None. opPcrtuni b. t'ould the Proposed project : displace.. - recreational uses? If so. describe. No c. Proposed measures to reduce or control npacts on recreation, including recreation orportunities ...to be provides by the project or applicant, if, any: It is unknown at this time. The site design could include some on -site amenities. 1�. .;istoric end Cultural Preservation a. tre there any places or objects listed on or proposed' for, national,-!'state, or locsl' -prey rvation misters known to be on or <next to the site? If $0,- rally describe: 13 City of Tukwila c. t,oncrnlly describe any lcnd-nrks or evidence o: historic archaeological, scientific, or cultural importance knos•:n . to he on or next to the site. NO c. Proiosed measures to reduce or control impacts, if any: NONE 14. Trans,ortntion a. Identify pant streets and highway serving the site, cnc descrihe proposed access to the existing street system. Shop on site plans, if, any.. South 178th Street Lyclur.tiors fcr A ^arcv L Orly 57th Avenue South (Southcenter Parkway) Future South 188th Street Connector (Limited access may be proposed if the final designs for the Connectors allow such a proposal in the future. Primary access would be directly: off of 57th Avenue South. Secondary fire /emergency access may be from another street depending upon,the Fire Departwent.'a requirements at the actual time of development based upon the: site design. b. Is the site currently served by public transit? If not, what is the approximate distance to the nearest transit stop? Public transportation is available at the inter section of Southcenter Parkway and South °l8Oth Street, which is kitty - corner from the subject site., c. Now many parking spaces would--the completed project have? ;:o:: many would the ' project elimincte? This is difficult issue to discuss. The theoretical, maximum based en .s building of 70,000 square feet would, be 180 parking spaces under the City of Tukwila. Parking Code. Possible 4 residential parking spaces would be eliminated with the residence. 14 City of Tukwila c. tall the prorosa) require any improver eats to existin4 inclt:c inc criveways? If (indicate whether "public or` p new roads or streets, or rocs or streets, not so, tenerally describe ivate). Major improvements will be necessary to 57th Avenue South. The ultimate design will depend upon the building design and appropriate environmental mitigation can be imposed at the time of actual development. e. Uill the project use (or occur in the irreCiate vicinity of) water, roil, or air transportation? If so, g;encrslly describe. NO f. l:ow many vehicular trips per dry wou1c' be generated by the cor lctec. project? If known, ineicate when peak volur:es would occur. • Lvoluation for frond: Use Cn1.-; The maximum development of a 70,000 square foot building would generate approximately 1,239 daily vehicle trips based upon the Institute of Traffic Engineers —Trip Generation Manual -3rd Addition (1983). Office buildings 'containg less than 100,000'aquere generate on an average, 01 17.7 daily vehicle trips Per '1,000` square feet of building area. The p.m. peak is typically the highest impact time with 10 to 15 per `cents of the daily ,`vol being directed' to the city streets. Maximum Estimated to be 185 vehicle trips at peak. Impacts on 57th Avenue South South of South 180th Street would, represent a theoretical maximum increase of 32 per cent, while impacts to South 180th'` Street and Southcenter would be a maximum increase of 7 and 6 per cent respectively Pra; -c cd . r. er sures to reduce or control transportation if any: Specific traffic mitigating measures depend upon the actual building design. At a minimum 57th Avenue South south of South 180th Street will have to have substantial improvements. 15 City of., iul:w.ila 1 • 15. Fu li c Services a. l:oulc; the project result in En increased need for public services (for e: :crple: fire protection, police protection, health care, schools, other)? If so, generally describe. Demand levels will increase for all public services based upon the ultimate building design. These increases must be evaluated at the time of building permit application. b. Proposes: measures to reduce or control direct impacts on public services if Grey: Unknown. 1C. Utilities a. Circle utilities currently available at the site: electricity, natural gas,. water, refuse service, telephone, sanitary sewer, septic system, other. b. Describe the utilities that are proposed for the project, t::e utility providing the service, and the general construction activities on the site or in the immediate vicinity which night be needed. Unknown. Depends on architectural designs. C. Signature The above answers are true and complete to the best of my knowledge. I understand that the lead agency is relying on them to make its decision. Signature: <- ::o e - J. . 1r; i.Ec : ALent for :artin Date submitted: PLEASE C0;•: i I: Ui: OH THE EEXT PAGE 16 City of Tukwila Lv; ivaticr. for ; se „l TO ; is t,C:::;.i T: :r i.i D. St:. ";LL;: ::'1AL si:rr"T 1TE I {:PI:e j c7 ACT IA S (ee not u::e this s ;;vet for p Evaluation for i:sc Orly 1eccu::c these cuections ere very genercl, it may. be helrfui to, rect. the!:. in ca. j_ncticn with the list of the cele .ents of the erviron; :c:.t. 1. :pen ensworins these cu..tiors, be cvere or the extent the proposal, or the types of, . ctivi tict Mc1y to result 'from ti , the p ro, oral, vould affect the iter- et e treater intensity 4r at al fester mtc than if t; t rroposrl were not i,:: lenentcd respond briefly end in sencrcl ter=ns. 1. Lot: voulc: the proposal be likely to ,increase cischer a to r:rtcr; omissions to cir; producti ©n, storete, or release of toxic or hazardous substances; or production of noise? The requested land use actions would not physically impact the environment; the ultimate impacts Will depend upon the final building .placed- on ;the site* TfA any there will be increases;<to the discharge of. :water; aiss; to the air; and the prOduct ion . + f noise. `here will oft any production, storage,. car Pete r of. toxic or 1 substances just because building. Proposed measures to cvoic or reduce such increases Specific aessureep would have to be evaluated at the project design review. Mitigating measures would be based upon adopted City standards and the scope of the project proposal. 2. Hov would the proposal be li? e1y to affect plants, ;ani is, fish, or r:arine life? Details could onl; there is a negative impact physical development::incr. vegetational cover and ln' Proposed r =ensures to protect or conserve plants or marine life are: Unknown. To be evaluated at the time of development. 17 City of Tui:wila 3. ::a. t :oulc': the proyoscl nnturcl resources? li`: ly to dor ete energy Natural resources will be utilieed to construct the building and public utilities and streets serving the subject site. The ultimate buildin g vi].1 :have to be maintained and heated along with the consumption of energy to move employees to and from work.' Pror:ose neasures to protect or conserve energy and natural resources, r. rc: Unknown. of building permit. 4. .iot: would the proposal be likely to use or affect er.vironnentally sensitive Ares or crews "desicnr ted (or elitible or unrer study) for governrfentcl prcteetia.r.; such es park, wileerness, ad scenic rive li threatened -Or enenn:;ered species halitet, historic or cultursl sites, wetlands, floodI.lcins, "or .;►rir►e "farrlands? 5. The proposal :ru "environ entailp s ns The area WW unstable slo Connecter Peas: concern over the ateb: structures can be uti stability probleas. Lvclect: c:n for Proposed measures to pro' or recuce ir:pacts 'a Engineered Structures Now would the proposal be likely to affect land and shoreline use, including whether it would allow or encourage land or shoreline uses incompatible with existin plans? It will not affect: shorelir mss. �amd policy could be draMetically Lifted i Abe f± t r f Tukwila sees the proposed es the eg � f -s pattern of development along the zest side of S7th Avenue South. However, the City can control this development pattern. . Proposed measures to avoid or reduce shoreline and land USQ i :gyp cts are: Unknown. 18 City of Tukwila :ov does the I rol.osal cor.forr, to the "iu:;t:i1n Shorelin .:ccter Ilan? tcclui.:tion for 4`4:'.cnc t j' £ Cray Not applicable. C. i.o: ti•u] d the pr trr.nr;.or tabor of ;iublic -'nsc Varies based upon the final buildiz Proposed ,:., rscres to reduce ft r respondw to ;dueh,demang ,afire Must be addressed at the time site design building permit Application. 7. Identify, if possiLle, vhether the proposal nay confi with local, state, or federal lcn s or requirenents for the protection of the- envirovr:ent. Not able to assess at this stage. . k C. Toes the proposal conflict -with p Cor..preher:sive Land Use Policy - Plan? the Flan? No Proposed r.:ensures to avoic ar reduce the canflic Not applicable 19 City of Tu :wila • TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT E. SUPPLEMENTAL SHEET FOR ALL PROJECT AND NON PROJECT PROPOSALS The objectives and the alternative means of reaching the objectives for a proposal will be helpful in reviewing the aforegoing items of the Environmental Checklist. This information provides a general overall perspective of the proposed action in the context of the environmental information provided and the submitted plans, documents, supportive information, studies, etc. 1. What are the objective(s) of the proposal? Prepare the land for sale from the present owners of the last 29 years. 2. What are the alternative means of accomplishing these objectives? o The Martins' could sell the property to a developer who would have the ability to propose a specific developement plan. Evaluation for Agency Use Only 3. Please compare the alternative means and indicate the preferred course of action: o Please see justification for Comprehensive Plan request. 4. Does the proposal conflict with policies of the Tukwila Comprehensive Land Use Policy Plan? If so, what policies of the Plan? No Proposed measures to avoid or reduce the conflict(s) are: Not applicable 21 City of Tukwila City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila Washington 98188 (206) 433 -1800 Gary L. VanDusen, Mayor September 25, 1986 Mr. Kenneth Shellan 127 Park Avenue North Renton, WA 98055 Dear Mr. Shellan: Subject: Martin Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Rezone The City has completed the environmental review of the proposal and has determined that the following mitigation measures would be required based on the proposal's impacts to the transportation system. 1. The subject site shall be restricted to 57th Avenue South only for access. 2. A sole access point shall be allowed for access onto 57th Avenue South. 3. The access point shall be at the far south end of the property and not less than 175 feet from the south edge of the pavement at the intersec- tion of South 180th and Southcenter Parkway (57th Avenue South). 4. At the time of development further traffic analysis shall be provided for the access and further measures may be required. 5. Agreement to accommodate, through setback and development, required right -of -way for 188th connector alternative which may traverse north- west corner of site. These items should be agreed to in writing by the applicant and incorpor- ated into the proposal before the SEPA determination may be signed by the City's Responsible Official. The SEPA determination will require a 15 -day comment period prior to a hearing before the Planning Commission. Mr. Kenneth Shellan III September 25, 1986 Page 2 I would like to reiterate that the comprehensive plan amendment and rezone application is still incomplete. It cannot be processed until you have stipulated the comprehensive plan land use designation and zoning district proposed for the subject site, and the notarized signature of the property owners is made on the application. Once the SEPA determination is made and the application completed, we may schedule a hearing and proceed ahead with the process. If you have any questions, please call me at 433 -1848. Sincerely, Moira Carr Bradshaw Assistant Planner MCB /s j n RE: PERSON CONTACTED: PERSON CALLING: DATE: TELEPHONE MEMO _,/ 15/(dia.& INFORMATION ITEMS: )/?eg, = . , AIDW 4 I A1P- 070 ea/ed /_Aso, 40 0 6 1:4/0 iii - Ka Wig VIM EA AinArri r 1% II .4iL_' I • I'%l.idi li T i r %i / ii. few ' lW i i1 i% Ii/ I / a ../ I J / / /./ ., 1 i /i ■r% iP,WA //AV 11 . /1/ 4 if danalgaratini ' l . . . /- M� //' s -_ - v • • • 4* Se H e -r 0414-/V a Ciit-c F,-,M f H F ie-Ase 2 'r o M 0 1 R A Ct- 1 2A-D S-w Po 2 pvrc G cookKS €p_7 (9 /5- /s6 CdMnvt&v?T. �'�A4s. City of Tukwila 4 Z_ 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila Washington 98188 _ (206) 433 -1800 Gary L. VanDusen, Mayor 1908 MEMORANDUM TO: Moira Bradshaw FROM: Phil Fraser DATE: 9/5/86 . SUBJECT: Martin Rezone Study Mitigating mesures required due to impacts of the Martin Rezone are described i n the August 7 , 1986 letter by Terry Gibson, PE, Senior Traffic Engineer for Centrac & Associates, for traffic and access. Per PubT.iciWorks reviews of this report, specific mitigating measures that shall be applied for future uses of this property as allowed through the rezone are as follows: 1. The subject site shall be restricted to 57th Ave. S only for access. 2. A sole access point shall be allowed for access onto 57th Ave, S. 3. At the time of development a traffic analysis shall be provided for the access. 4. This access point shall be at the far south end of the property and no less than 175 feel from the south edge of the pavement at the intersection of S. 180th and Southcenter Parkway (57th Ave..S.). - -to miritmi:ze traffic impacts on the 57th Ave. S. approach. Other mitigating measures uncovered through future traffic studies (See Item #3 above) will also become requirements of future developments. Per the August 14, 1986 letter of GeoEngineers Inc. a preli minary geotechnical survey of the property indicates existing conditions and future geotechnical studies that will condition any future development. Per the review of the Building Official, any building proposed in the future will require a more extensive soils investigation. Requested is these comments and the two reports be submitted as imput into . the decision making process for this rezone. ATTACHMENTS (2) Ti-i is Turst IMP aL-+ o VJ V) S co &Bair S ? S ' Tate g tken&yvi- 1 • OFFICE MEMO CITY of TUKWILA TO "Ph;1 ivazer FROM: IIDI\I� ZJr�� /v( DATE: O SUBJEC� / J iV/ NfrieJ "v Pe2a/t/e / alltr 14101t gP/'� aM)14-T- me://0?-77O171) 14/1(1-roriv kub) i3/� .w ai/.6,0- 6ehalmis. u/t&///9v4 e./.0 /A) aiomu&_. m y SU6GL3T7-W/02 Cf%71� ; / /(/U G�2_77./x/a/ .seprougeie_ y'�' ig/r25W TDs /1/lin6-1977/C/6-4096 Ll� =s &ntnn Mire X1 Eiauu Builh ing 127 ilark Avenue Nortll Renton, ' aollington 98855 (2116) 271 -89II11 August 20, 1986 runty Mee of KCennptll . 'ltellan ,ssnrtates Phase illrplg to Or Stilton Mire Phil Fraser, Senior Engineer 'City of Tukwila Department of Public Works 6200 Southcenter Blvd. Tukwila, Washington 98188 Re: Martin Rezone Dear Mr. Fraser: 'rattle (Office flroplr's Notional Mank Nuithing Orurntrrntil Moor 1415 JAiftll Surnue Orattlr, aollington 98171 (2t16) 622 -1828 RECEIVED AUG 2 5 1986 uKWILA. You have now received the three reports you requested concerning the Martin Rezone. I would therefore appreciate your scheduling a public hearing as soon as possible so that the rezone can proceed with promptitude. Very truly yours, . . ski l I 44 Kenneth B.. Shellan Attorney at Law KBS:tmh Renton @ffire 01ie 01!titan Etuu uithing 127 ilark Avenue %rill Renton, litaollington 98855 (286) 271 -8980 August 19, 1986 Elam (Mffires of �Cenne #li .411eUan Sc ,ssnritt#e, Igleute Krp11J to the Renton ®ffire Phil Fraser, Senior Engineer City of Tukwila Department of Public Works 6200 Southcenter Blvd. Tukwila, Washington 98188 Oranle Ma tleaple's National Bank iluiting euenteentil Moor 1415 3Aiftll Auenue $cattle, '' a ' ljingtnn 98171 (286) 622 -1828 REC IVEL AUG 2 5 1986 AUcKWILA I I \5\ Re: Martin Rezone Dear Mr. Fraser: Enclosed please find the Geo- Technical Report which you requested in regards to the above - referenced matter. Vgry truly yours, Kenneth B.. Shellan Attorney at Law KBS:tmh Enclosure GeoEngineers Incorporated (206) 746 -5200 2405 - 140th Ave. N.E. Bellevue, WA 98005 Kenneth Shellan & Associates 127 Park Avenue North Renton, Washington 98055 Attention: Ms. Shelley Turner Consulting Geotechnical Engineers and Geologists August 14, 1986 Geologic Conditions Proposed Commercial Building Site Tukwila, Washington File No. 1036 -01 This letter describes our observations and conclusions regarding the geologic conditions at a proposed commercial building site in Tukwila, Washington. Our observations are prepared in response to your request; our authorization for these services is confirmed by your letter dated August 4, 1986. The purpose of our consultation is to describe geologic and hydrologic conditions at the site relative to a proposed rezone application. The site is located immediately southwest of the intersection of Southcenter Parkway and South 180th Street. An occupied residence is located toward the west portion of the site. The balance of the property is unde- veloped. Except for the yard area around the residence, the balance of the site is covered with dense trees and brush. The ground surface rises from about Elevation 25 feet at Southcenter Parkway to about Elevation 125 feet at the west property margin. The ground surface is relatively flat in the yard area of the existing residence. Slopes on the balance on the property are inclined at an average of approx- imately 25 percent. Soils which underlie the site consist of mixed layers of sand with gravel and sandy silt. Except for a weathered surficial zone a few feet in thickness, the soil layers are highly compacted as a result of the entire area being overridden on several occasions by glaciers. • Kenneth Shellan & Associates August 14, 1986 Page 2 Within the overall soil sequence, the layers of sand and gravel, particularly at lower elevations, frequently carry ground water. The ground water occurs in relatively small quantities and commonly emerges along steep slopes as springs. Although no springs were observed on the subject property, they are known to occur in the immediate area. In our opinion, the site conditions on the subject property are com- patible with conventional building design and construction procedures. Conventional equipment can be used for excavation; ground water can typically be handled by drainage facilities installed during construction. The soils are capable of sustaining conventional building foundation loads. Con- struction on the site and the collection of ground water and diversion into a constructed drainage system will not affect ground water resources in the area to the west. It is essential to perform a detailed geotechnical investigation of the site to develop specific recommendations for cut slopes, retaining walls, building foundations, and other geotechnically-related design features. We would be pleased to discuss providing those services for you in the future if you so desire. We trust this letter will satisfy your present require- ments. If you have any questions, please call. Yours very truly, GeoEngineers, Inc. JWK:wd Two copies submitted Jon W. Koloski Principal GeoEngineers Incorporated • Kenton Mitre c�lie Olitllan Claw Building 127 Park Auenue Nnrtli Lenten, r;r; asiiingtnn 981155 (206) 271 -861111 August 14, '1986 tl Entnet11111.011ellault Nt .4%1444 SSOLiatta '�►44 ante Mftrr Law (Offices of VItaseeplf*j to tilt Menton (®ifirt Mr. Phillip Fraser, Senior Engineer City .of._ Tukwila Department•of Public Works 6200 Southcenter Blvd, Tukwila, Washington 98188 Re: Martin Rezone Dear Mr.-Fraser: Enclosed please find the Access .above- referenced matter. Very truly yours, t744:42ebikillP Kenneth B. Shellan Attorney at Law -= -KBS : tmh Enclosure rank's National lMank building •'euentrentll Flour 1415 iftll Amur itt V Otattlr, ri, asllingtnn 68171 (2116) 622 -1828 4 • RECE/ VET AUG 1 8 1986 7 YkWILA Study which you requested in the • • 17544 MIDVALE AVE. N., SUITE 100 SEATTLE, WA 98133 206 542-9474 CENTRAL ASSOCIATES CONSUITINg ENGINEERS August 7, 1986 Mr. Phillip Fraser, Senior Engineer City of Tukwila Department of Public Works 6200 Southcenter Blvd. Tukwila, WA 98188 Re: Access Study /Considerations for Future Development of Lot 9040 (Roy Martin Parcel) @ 57th Avenue S. & S. 178th Street Dear Mr. Fraser: Centrac has been hired by Kenneth B. Shellan (Attorney) to conduct an access study for the southwest corner property at the intersection of 57th Avenue S. and S. 178th Street in the City of Tukwila. It is our understanding that specific guidelines are desired as to proposed driveway locations and access, as well as traffic impacts of any commercial development on planned transportation improvements in the area -- S. 188th Connector from I -5 @ S. 188th interchange to 57th /178th intersection and 57th Avenue S. widening from S. 188th to S. 200th. Rezone: The subject 1.62 acre parcel is identified as Lot #9040 Roy E. Martin parcel) and is presently zoned single family residential and agricultural (RA). The owners of the property are proposing a rezone to either office (P -0) or industrial use (M -1 or M -2). The parcel limits extend 250 feet south of S. 178th /180th Street and 375 feet west of 57th Avenue S. (from centerlines). The preferred alignment for the proposed S. 188th Connector route (Alternate "E ") would traverse the northwest corner of Lot #9040, requiring some 40 -50 of right -of -way to construct the 4 -5 lane arterial. The S. 188th connector alignment would tie into 178th Street approximately 250 feet up the hill from the 57th Avenue signal. Site Access: When the S. 188th Connector arterial is constructed, the north terminus will be the 57th /178th signalized intersection. Proposed intersection revisions include two (2) through lanes plus left -turn lane for the eastbound approach (178th) and a single through lane plus left -turn lane for the northbound approach (57th). The S. 188th arterial is projected to handle about 30,000 vehicles on an average weekday (AWDT) by 1990, while 57th Avenue would handle about 7 -8,000 AWDT. Access ALASKA IDAHO OREGON UTAH WASHINGTON WYOMING Mr. Phillip Fraser, Senior Engineer City of Tukwila August 7, 1986 Page Two to the subject site should be restricted to 57th Avenue only due to high traffic volumes on S. 188th and since any driveways would disrupt traffic operations and degrade safety on the downhill approach to the signal. Full access to Lot #9040 can be safely provided off 57th Avenue since traffic volumes are significantly lower than S. 188th. It is recommended that a single driveway be provided at the far south end of the property to minimize traffic impacts on the 57th Avenue approach. The minimum distance from the driveway to the intersection (crosswalk) should be 75 feet, with 150 feet desirable. Extension of the left -turn lane on 57th south to the driveway location may be necesary prior to the proposed widening of 57th (programmed by City of Tukwila) depending on left -turn ingress /egress volumes generated by the site development. A traffic analysis of the site and project driveway volumes is required to determine whether one or two exit lanes are necessary at the single, full- access driveway off 57th Avenue. Phil, I hope this letter helps clarify the traffic access and safety issues concerning the proposed rezone of the subject property and ultimate development for office /industrial uses. If you have any questions, please contact myself of Kenneth Shellan (271- 8900). Sincerely, CENTRAC ASSOCIATES, INC. r_eA.A-i- Terry L. Gibson, P.E. Senior Traffic Engineer TLG:sik xc: Kennth Shellan, Attorney CENTRAC ASSOCIATES May 22, 1986 City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila Washington 98188 (206) 433 -1800 Gary L. VanDusen, Mayor Kenneth Shellan P.O. Box 26 Renton, WA 98055 Re: EPIC 323 -86 1 Dear Mr. Shellan: cN- g4-144 Initial review of the Martin Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Rezone proposal has been completed. The property is designated on the City's Comprehensive Land Use Plan as environmentally sensitive. Further SEPA review and a threshold determination will require the following information: 1. A geotechnical and hydrological report which addresses the suitability and stability of the site for commercial development. 2. An access study into the site given the constraints on adjacent rights -of -way, 57th Ave S. and S. 178th St. 3. A land use analysis of the effect of the rezone on the possible future public improvement of the alignment of 188th Street over the northwest portion of the parcel and of the land use impacts of the proposal on adjacent single family uses. Phil Fraser, in the City's Pulbic Works Department (433- 1856), can coordinate on the engineering requirements and I can assist you on any questions regarding the land use analysis. I may be reached at 433 -1848. Yours truly, Ad/ Moira Carr Bradshaw Assistant Planner /ks Cd --77-6/ '/C(24 OW/r/21 S � ��� ib ,°' /-aac,� 7fr-o2 Qc� �i�f _r�L � s9 Itc9a1V__"--?/117r7/rilg --/7/ .-W17/71/ T7POP j_11M/ Gay - 6'zzvd /1�7' 7 rimY; P(Wd/61? .14Y- • • • Art, X.PJ 4-44D ____//6 Pi CJ / Tr 0 / 7e-') (/ c5 CITY OF TUKWILA CENTRAL PERMIT SYSTEM • CN -144 EPIC - 3 3 - . g ' ( 0 FILE ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW ROUTING FORM: TO: PROJECT LOCATION W �. /80/44 ,5��I FILE NO. DATE TRANSMITTED 5- 7-'(, RESPONSE REQUESTED BY 5"/4--8 , STAFF COORDINATOR �M[�.(___ �((___ _ RESPONSE RECEIVED EJ BLDG PLNG Q P.W. [� FIRE 0 POLICE (J P & R 1.141A_P ..A . ILL'u € LLA THE ATTACHED ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST WAS RECEIVED REGARDING THIS PROJECT. PLEASE REVIEW AND COMMENT BELOW TO ADVISE THE RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL REGARDING THE THRESHOLD DETERMINATION. THE ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW FILE IS AVAILABLE IN THE PLANNING DEPART- MENT THROUGH THE ABOVE STAFF COORDINATOR. COMMENTS REGARDING THE PROJECT YOU WISH CARRIED TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION, BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT, AND CITY COUNCIL SHOULD BE MADE ON THE ATTACHED CENTRAL PERMIT SYSTEM ROUTING FORM. ITEM COMMENT tit ►.1 IV A Ali '� . 'JAE !A/J .4%L /�/ 07/1 r MOW"' IltraME4 fri 404WAINFINIMMi # aViavAirk iMartMriv.i tri 4/1 i4 AU, 111/WASIS ArATA4WPw- 11444/ 41A �' /�L.! �L�1' `d DATE I % COMMENTS PREPARED BY pm C.P.S. Form 11 CITY OF TUKWILA CENTRAL PERMIT SYSTEM • • CN -86 -144 EPIC - - 3 3 - FILE ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW ROUTING FORM: TO: E6LOG EJ PLNG Q P.W. ri FIRE 0 POLICE n P & R PROJECT A/ � A..44 b1II L44 . IAL.'I/ G IL. /4 LOCATION 4 W & 4'VLQit> )4. I go eljoad1CiAsat FILE NO. DATE TRANSMITTED 5- 7-g(, RESPONSE REQUESTED BY 5 -/4 -8( STAFF COORDINATOR `'V1/(/(GU ALC1J,LIlCu L RESPONSE RECEIVED THE ATTACHED ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST WAS RECEIVED., REGARDING THIS PROJECT. PLEASE REVIEW AND COMMENT BELOW TO ADVISE THE RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL REGARDING THE THRESHOLD DETERMINATION. THE ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW FILE IS AVAILABLE IN THE PLANNING DEPART- MENT THROUGH THE ABOVE STAFF COORDINATOR. COMMENTS REGARDING THE PROJECT YOU WISH CARRIED TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION, BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT, AND CITY COUNCIL SHOULD BE MADE ON THE ATTACHED CENTRAL PERMIT SYSTEM ROUTING FORM. ITEM COMMENT q)() LQ41,Ui`ri a.e, C A/1/04 Lif .19,01,61,{ J cA.64 uGhFube. DATE COMMENTS PREPARED BY C.P.S. Form 11 CITY OF TUKWILA CENTRAL PERMIT SYSTEM • CN -84 -144 EPIC - 3a 3 - 8(0 FILE ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW ROUTING FORM: TO: 0 BLDG PROJECT 0 PLNG P.W. (1 FIRE n POLICE n P & R ._4JI I1/1 _, ..Ih A JAL. 1.44 G /L IA LOCATION 4 W C0.44/LQ/t> A. 1$0 d,5o 4 .t. FILE NO. DATE TRANSMITTED 5- 7-46, RESPONSE REQUESTED BY 5"/ +leo STAFF COORDINATOR 1/171a4Aa.) 41Ccdjh(uj RESPONSE RECEIVED THE ATTACHED ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST WAS RECEIVED REGARDING THIS PROJECT. PLEASE REVIEW AND COMMENT BELOW TO ADVISE THE RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL REGARDING THE THRESHOLD DETERMINATION. THE ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW FILE IS AVAILABLE IN THE PLANNING DEPART- MENT THROUGH THE ABOVE STAFF COORDINATOR. COMMENTS REGARDING THE PROJECT YOU WISH CARRIED TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION, BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT, AND CITY COUNCIL SHOULD BE. MADE ON THE ATTACHED CENTRAL PERMIT SYSTEM ROUTING FORM. ITEM COMMENT ■ NC v., No , 1 t U F(1.5n FUN 1Z 7c -.aN 'No w- rr,vv\ [- T\\--E ti-)( Cf t' 's c.. P Tl\ 11'V SP U1 C A716 ) PUN -INJ (t 4 01 t -- 5. /33-= Cr A v S S-t I r *5s DATE S/ 9 io COMMENTS PREPARED BY C.P.S. Form 11 CITY OF TUKWILA CENTRAL PERMIT SYSTEM • • CN EPIC -3 ;3-S(, FILE ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW ROUTING FORM: TO: J BLDG Q PLNG Q P.W. PROJECT ' , V 1144_' . .LL'A4 € /L_IA LOCATION .4 w 6.64/V W) A. 1 go" d JeathetL/ FILE NO. DATE TRANSMITTED 5-746, RESPONSE REQUESTED BY 5-14-86, FIRE 0 POLICE n P & R STAFF COORDINATOR 71/1.0 - l(,U adOhC[,U) RESPONSE RECEIVED THE ATTACHED ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST WAS RECEIVED REGARDING THIS PROJECT. PLEASE REVIEW AND COMMENT BELOW TO ADVISE THE. RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL REGARDING THE THRESHOLD DETERMINATION. THE ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW FILE IS AVAILABLE IN THE PLANNING DEPART- MENT THROUGH THE ABOVE STAFF COORDINATOR. COMMENTS REGARDING THE PROJECT YOU WISH CARRIED TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION, BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT, AND CITY COUNCIL SHOULD BE MADE ON THE ATTACHED CENTRAL PERMIT SYSTEM ROUTING FORM. ITEM COMMENT O..Mc t v Qi --.14%..�. . wTcxxii- Plies f -YYl0.cL.ccS J . he C: �.�;,..� �� � ice► gad Atu - -4-tcl . ex_ Ki.st. l .1"Yk9 .:_cx.9 tc, av■s1.au. llva• - Qc'� . •' t,. krt;"-IL) ■Mt4 &tA&- €1) rA.Q- og 1 -7e-1-- DATE S- c1 - C. COMMENTS PREPARED BY C.P.S. Form 11 CITY OF TUKWILA CENTRAL PERMIT SYSTEM 1 CN -8(0-144 EPIC - -g(, FILE ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW ROUTING FORM: TO: [] BLDG PROJECT 0 PLNG n P.W. I-1 FIRE EOLICE (i P & R LOCATION )4 W 66 4 v 1A) Y 4 . 1 g0 4(do illo4t 1Ll FILE NO. DATE TRANSMITTED 5- 7-'(, RESPONSE REQUESTED BY 5-/4 --8 , STAFF COORDINATOR `/(V -(/(cu bQ rjz2dCt(.cj RESPONSE RECEIVED THE ATTACHED ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST WAS RECEIVED REGARDING THIS PROJECT. PLEASE REVIEW AND COMMENT BELOW TO ADVISE THE RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL REGARDING THE THRESHOLD DETERMINATION. THE ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW FILE IS AVAILABLE IN THE PLANNING DEPART- MENT THROUGH THE ABOVE STAFF COORDINATOR. COMMENTS REGARDING THE PROJECT YOU WISH CARRIED TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION, BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT, AND CITY COUNCIL SHOULD BE MADE ON THE ATTACHED CENTRAL PERMIT SYSTEM ROUTING FORM. ITEM COMMENT INSUFFICIENT INFORMATION AVAILABLE IN THIS REPORT FOR A ERIXIBH6X WORTHWHILE EVALUATION OF THIS PROJECT. WHEN MORE FORMALIZED PROJECTIONS FOR THIS SITE ARE AVAILABLE IMPACTS WILL BE MORE READILY JUDGED. 5/9/86 DATE COMMENTS PREPARED BY C.P.S. Form 11 CITY OF TUKWILA CENTRAL PERMIT SYSTEM • • CN -8( -144 EPIC - 3. 3 FILE ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW ROUTING FORM: TO: Q BLDG PROJECT 0 PLNG r P.W. (l FIRE 0 POLICE e P &R LOCATION 4 W 664A/Lejt, 54. l go444 JO ton t t DATE TRANSMITTED 5- 7- ' , RESPONSE REQUESTED BY s- i+ -e STAFF COORDINATOR ______�r(�,(,Ql�(___ RESPONSE RECEIVED THE ATTACHED ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST WAS RECEIVED REGARDING THIS PROJECT. PLEASE REVIEW AND COMMENT BELOW TO ADVISE THE RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL REGARDING THE THRESHOLD DETERMINATION. THE ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW FILE IS AVAILABLE IN THE PLANNING DEPART- MENT THROUGH THE ABOVE STAFF COORDINATOR. COMMENTS REGARDING THE PROJECT YOU WISH CARRIED TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION, BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT, AND CITY COUNCIL SHOULD BE MADE ON THE ATTACHED CENTRAL PERMIT SYSTEM ROUTING FORM. ITEM COMMENT DATE 7y�� COMMENTS PREPARED BY C.P.S. Form 11 avite f'1A) .401ab. tea' °;,,ton( Soo , CITY OF TUVILA Central Permit System ✓ •ASTER LAND DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION FORT PLEASE WRITE LEGIBLY OR TYPE ALL REQUESTED ACCEPTED FOR PROCESSING- • 1NFORMATION -- INCOMPLETE APPLICATIONS WILL NOT BE SECTION I: GENERAL DATA TYPE OF APPLICATION: D BSIP °SHORT PLAT CONDITIONAL USE 0 SUBDIVISION LJ DUNCLASS. USE OSHORELINE PERMIT • 0 VARIANCE All communications are to be w .APPLICANT: NAME Attorney, Kenneth B. Shellan ADDRESS PROP. OWNER: NAME IDPRO O PMUD G. OF COMP. PLAN ONING WAMENDMENT BAR INTERURBAN h attorney Kenneth Shellan ELEPHONE ( 206) 271-8900 TELEPHONE ADDRESS 5665 South 178th, Seattl: , WA PROJECT LOCATION:. (STREET ADDRESS, GEOGRAPHIC, LO ZIP 98055 ) ZIP 98188 /BLOCK) 5665 South 178th. SpattlE Legal Description attached as Exhibit "A" .ECT I ON 4) v U L \ ZONING DESIGNATION 11: PROJECT INFORMATION DESCRIBE BRIEFLY THE PROJECT YQU. PROPOSE 5) ANTICIPATED PERIOD OF CONSTRUCTION: 7) WILL PROJECT BE DEVELOPED_IN PHASES? PROJECT STATISTICS: A) B) ACREAGE OF PROJECT SITE: FLOORS OF CONSTRUCTION: SITE UTILIZATION:- COMP. PLAN DESIGNATI BUILDING FOOTPRINT LANDSCAPE AREA J PAVING AREA D\ TOTAL PARKING STAL's.: - STANDARD S1ZE. - COMPACT SIZE - HANDICAPPED TOTAL AVER. AVER. ZE LOADING - "ACES SLOPE 0 PARKING AREA SLOPE • SITE Appr NET TOT TO F ease.see.attachment for dosrription See Attachmers YES D NO IF YES, DESCRIBE: Uncertain ximately 1.5 acres /A GROSS N/A /i FLOORS N / A L GROSS N/A OOR AREA 1 NCLUDES INCLUDES: EASEMENTS N/A 0 BASEMENT 0 MEZZANINE 0 BASEMENT D MEZZANINE EXISTING ' PROPOSED 564 ,/ NOTES './ sing1 P fami l N/A D N /A, 0 N/A 0 N/A 0 N/A 0 N/A 0 N/A N/ A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 8) 1S THIS.SITE DESI TED FOR SPECIAL CONSIDERATION ON THE CITY'S ENVIRONMENTAL BASE Ml;P? D YES ❑ NO SECTION I!1 APPLI ANT'S AFFIOA\'!T 1, L CONTRACT PURCHAS DOING STATEMENTS ALL RESPECTS TR SUBSCRIBED THIS No BEING DULY SWORN, DECLARE THAT 1 AM THE OR OWNER OF THE PROPERTY INVOLVED IN THIS APPLICATION AND THAT THE FORE - AND ANSWERS HEREIN CONTAINED AND THE INFORMATION HEREWITH SUBMITTED ARE IN E AND CORRECT TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE AND BELIEF. DATE u - SWORN BEFCRE, ME'.' DAYF7 L RES /• NG AT 1 J/0/ :;"7 (SIGNATURE OF CONTRACT PURCHASER OR OWNER) 92.0 AND FOR 7;- 1E;S;5'ATE_C+F;' ASH1NGTON • • MEMORANDUM TO: City of Tukwila FROM: Law Offices of Kenneth B. Shellan & Associates SUBJECT: Rezone And Amendment To Comprehensive Plan - Roy Martin FACTS Mr. & Mrs. Roy Martin are the owners of the premises located at 5665 South 178th., Seattle, Washington. Their property is presently zoned for agricultural use (R-A) and a comprehensive plan of Tukwila designates the site as single family - residential. The Martin property is located on the corner of 180th. and Southcenter Parkway. Several retail and professional establishments, which comprise the Pavilion Shopping Center which are located easterly across the street from the Martin property. The traffic on both Southcenter Parkway and 188th. Street is heavy at all times during the day. The City of Tukwila has undergone a study of the area and is strongly considering placing an additional heavily traveled arterial on or adjacent to the Martin's property, namely the 188th. street connector. The Martins are presently applying for a change in zoning of the property and an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan. They are no �- longer comfortable living in this area in their retirement years. What was once a quiet agricultural and residential area has now become a congested area with a heavy traffic flow and a large number of businesses and commercial establishments and industrial facilities. Mr. and Mrs. Martin have been approached by several developers who wish to purchase their property, but when such developers discover that the area was zoned agricultural they have withdrawn their offers. The Martins will probably be unable to sell their property, because very few people will be interested in purchasing property for residen- tial - agricultural purposes, which is located in such a congested area and is primarily suited for commercial or business purposes. Furthermore, the market value of the property will substantially increase if the property were rezoned to allow for business and commercial establishments. ISSUE Whether the City of Tukwila should grant the Martin's application for rezone from agricultural (R -A) to a commercial or business designation based on a substantial change of circumstances in the area and based on public interest. C • Martin Memorandum Page 2 • • DISCUSSION The issue that arises in this case is whether conditions related to the zoned area have so clearly changed as to call for a revision in the zoning code of the City of Tukwila. There are several elements which must be met to obtain a rezone of property. The proponents of a rezone have the burden of proving that conditions have substan- tially changed since the original zoning regulations and the rezone must bear a substantial relationship to the public health, safety, morals or welfare of the community. Parkridge vs. Seattle, 89 Wn. 2d 454, 462, 573 P.2d 359 (1978); Cathcart vs. Snohomish County, 96 Wn. 2d 201, 212, 634 P.2d 853 (1981); Bishop vs. Town of Houghton, 69 Wn. 2d 786, 793, 420 P.2d 363 (1966); Colella vs. King County, 14 Wn. A.pp. 247, 255 -56, 539 P.2d 693 (1975). Colella vs. King County, supra is pertinent to the instant case. In Colella, Mr. Colella's property adjoined a busy freeway on one side and an airport on another side; the property was zoned suburban residential. Many of the residents in the surrounding area simply were waiting to be bought out by the City. Mr. Colella sought to have his property up- zoned, but such application was denied by King County. The court found that King County had acted arbitrarily and capriciously in denying Colella's rezone application and granted the applicant his rezone. The Appellate Court, quoting the trial court reasoned that In short, the subject property had lost its residential character." Id. at 255 -56. Like the subject property in Colella, the Martin property has lost its residential character. Substantial changes have occurred since the enactment of the present zoning ordinance. The Pavilion has recently been built and many other businesses have developed in the surrounding vicinity of the Martin property. Traffic has increased tremendously and will be increasing even more if the City of Tukwila goes through with its plan (option E) to build the 188th connector near or adjoining the Martin property. When the Martins initially moved onto the subject property, the property was appropriately designated R -A agricultural, but such designation now is completely inappropriate. They are no longer comfortable living in this congested area and cannot sale it under its present zoning designation. In addition, the public welfare would in enhanced by a rezone that more appropriately conforms to the surrounding area. Those shopping and doing business in the surrounding area would in all likelihood have access to more business establishments if the Martin property is rezoned and subsequently developed by a purchaser of their property. The Martin property is a corner lot, therefore, particularly assessable to public access. The rezone would benefit the public, rather than have a detrimental impact on the community. . Martin Memorandum • Page 3 C • • Furthermore, the comprehensive plan should be no obstacle to Mr. and Mrs. Martins application for rezone. First, the Martins are also applying for a change in the comprehensive plan designation or an amendment to the comprehensive plan, which should be govern by the same considerations mentioned above which mandate a rezone. Secondly, a comprehensive plan is simply a blueprint; it is a guide that set certain parameters in general term which suggest, but do not dictate regulatory matters. Deviations from the comprehensive plan are not automatically spot zoning. Each case must be decided on its own facts. Buell vs. Bremerton, 80 Wn. 2d 518, 526, 495 P.2d 1358 (1972); CONCLUSION Out dated zoning regulations can become burdensome and unreasonable and zoning authorities are responsible for modifying such ordinances in view of changed circumstances. Here, there is evidence that the conditions in the vicinity of the Martin property have changed substantially since the enactment of the present zoning code and are continuing to change. The area abutting the Martin property is inudated by the development of numerous businesses, including the Pavilion Shopping Center. Traffic has increased greatly and will continue to increase as the area builds up. In addition, if the City of Tukwila goes through with plan E for the 188th street con- nector, the area will become even more congested. Furthermore, there is no evidence that the public welfare will suffer if a rezone is granted, but rather, public welfare will be enhanced by the additional commercial establishments in an already commercialized area. DATED this day of December, 1985. Respectfully submitted, Kenneth B. Shellan Attorney at Law Farr vs. The City of Bellevue: An Analogous Zoning Reclassification Case. Please find enclosed the oral opinion in the case of Farr vs. the City of Bellevue. This case is incorporated in the rezone documents because it closely resembles the facts of the rezone at bar and is helpful in its discussion of the issues in determining whether and when a rezone should be granted. In particular, as highlighted in red throughout the opinion, the case emphasizes the changing neighborhood conditions, the higher density development permitted on neighboring parcels, and the economic viability of the existing zoning designation. All of these issues as well as others militated for a more dense zoning designation in Bellevue and the same logic compels the same conclusion for rezoning the subject property in the Martin rezone. TICOR TITLE INSURANCE 1008 Western Avenue. SI, W,._, ,ington 98104.1032 (206) 223 -7878 LIMITED LIABILITY REPORT Refer to: Number : A- 344765 Unit : 1 MICHAEL S. BECKMAN LORI COTTON KEN SHELLAN ATTORNEY AT LAW 321 BURNETT AVE. S. RENTON, WASHINGTON 98057 ATTN: JEANETTE COLEMAN Date: NOVEMBER 12, 1985 at 8:00 A.M. DIRECT DIALING (206) 223 -6527 This is a report as of the date shown above, showing the record title is vested in: ROY E. MARTIN, PRESUMPTIVELY SUBJECT TO THE COMMUNITY INTEREST OF HIS WIFE, WINONA W. MARTIN. Covering the following property: THAT PORTION OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 35, TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH, RANGE 4 EAST, W.M., IN KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF SAID SUBDIVISION; THENCE SOUTH 87 °51'01" EAST ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF SAID SUBDIVISION 800 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE SOUTH PERPENDICULAR TO THE SAID NORTH LINE OF SAID SUBDIVISION 250.00 FEET; THENCE EAST PARALLEL WITH SAID NORTH LINE OF SAID SUBDIVISION TO THE WEST LINE OF COUNTY ROAD NO. 540; THENCE NORTHERLY ALONG THE SAID WESTERLY LINE OF SAID COUNTY ROAD TO THE INTERSECTION, WITH THE SAID NORTH LINE OF SAID SUBDIVISION; THENCE NORTH 87 °57'01" WEST ALONG SAID NORTH LINE OF SAID SUBDIVISION 335 FEET, MORE OR LESS, TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; EXCEPT COUNTY ROAD AND EXCEPT THAT PORTION CONDEMNED IN KING COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT CAUSE NO. 698092 BY THE CITY OF TUKWILA FOR ROAD PURPOSES Subject to: 1. EASEMENTS FOR EXISTING ROADWAY OVER THE WESTERLY PORTION OF SAID PREMISES IN FAVOR OF ARTHUR E. SMITH, HIS SUCCESSORS OR ASSIGNS, DISCLOSED BY A- 344765 PAGE 1 PROCEEDINGS UNDER KING COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT CAUSE NO. 423664, WHEREIN IT WAS DECREED THAT SAID EASEMENT SHALL CONTINUE FOR SUCH TIME AS MAY BE REASONABLY NECESSARY OR PROPER TO ALLOW SAID ARTHUR E. SMITH, HIS SUCCESSORS OR ASSIGNS TO RELOCATE SAID ROADWAY UPON PROPERTY NOW OWNED BY HIM ADJOINING SAID PREMISES. 2. AN EASEMENT with provisions, conditions and covenants as may be set forth therein. For : POLES WITH THE NECESSARY CABLES, WIRES AND FIXTURES In favor of : PACIFIC TELEPHONE AND TELEGRAPH COMPANY Reflected of record by instrument Recorded : JUNE 25, 1924 Auditor's File No.: 1885784 Affects : STARTING AT A POINT 165 FEET WEST OF THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 35, TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH, RANGE 4 EAST, W.M.; THENCE SOUTH 15 °34' WEST A DISTANCE OF 556 FEET, MORE OR LESS, TO A POINT ON THE SOUTH LINE OF THE ABOVE DESCRIBED PROPERTY AS NOW LOCATED AND STAKED BY THE TELEPHONE COMPANY 3. AN EASEMENT with provisions, conditions and covenants as may be set forth therein. For : 12 INCH CULVERT In favor of : KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON Reflected of record by instrument Recorded : JUNE 9, 1937 Auditor's File No.: 2950183 Affects : OVER AN UNDISCLOSED PORTION OF SAID PREMISES 4. AN EASEMENT with provisions and conditions as may be defined therein. For : SLOPE PURPOSES Established by proceedings in Superior Court Cause No. 698092 Affects : THAT PORTION OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 35, TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH, RANGE 4 EAST, W.M., DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCING AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF SAID SUBDIVISION; THENCE NORTH 87 °50'57" WEST ALONG THE NORTH LINE THEREOF 204.18 FEET; THENCESOUTH 2 °09'03" WEST 30.00 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE SOUTH 70 °20'58" WEST 53.85 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 80 °50'27" WEST 50.99 FEET; THENCE NORTH 87 °50'57" WEST 50.00 FEET; THENCE NORTH 76 °07'59" WEST 96.76 FEET; THENCE NORTH 87 °50'57" WEST 50.00 FEET; THENCE NORTH 2 °09'03" EAST 10.00 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 87 °50'57" EAST 294.67 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING A- 344765 PAGE 2 NOTE: GENERAL_TAXES, as follows, plus interest after delinquency: For year 1985 Amount billed $729.79 Being County Treasurer's parcel No. 352304 - 9040 -01. Amount paid $729.79 This report is restricted to the use of the addressee, and is not to be used as a basis for closing any transaction affecting title to said property. Liability of the company is limited to the compensation received therefor. 41-4/1 Jd 04,:vay Authorized Signatory To Charge: $308.00 Tax : $24.33 FM /SMA B -134 A- 344765 PAGE 3 The Compants not surveyed the premises escribed in The sketch below is furnished without charge solely for the purpose of assisting in locating said premises and the Company assumes no liability for inaccuracies therein. It does not purport to show all highways, roads and easements adjoining or affecting said premises. 4' "Nt4. 4) 3 d Map Dept. Reference CITY OF TUON1LA etailtjj °`Cf°0/ Central Permit System 0 /PO, •STER LAND DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION FORM PLEASE WRITE LEGIBLY OR TYPE ALL REQUESTED INFORMATION -- INCOMPLETE APPLICATIONS WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED FOR PROCESSING. SECTION I: GENERAL DATA TYPE OF APPLICATION: DBSIP SHORT PLAT SUBDIVISION DCONDIYIONAL USE ❑UNCLASS. USE QSHORELINE PERM 1T 0 VARIANCE 0 PRO DPMUD CHG. OF DCOMP. PLAN ZONING AMENDMENT ALL COMMUNICATION IS TO BE WITH ATTORNEY SHELLAN APPLICANT: NAME Attorney Kenneth B. Shellan TELEPHONE ADDRESS 321 Burnett Avenue S. Renton, WA PROP. OWNER: NAME Mr. and Mrs. Roy Martin TELEPHONE ( ADDRESS 5665 S. 178th, Seatt BAR ,INTERURBAN .) zip 98055 ZIP PROJECT LOCATION: (STREET ADDRESS, GEOGRA C, LOT /BLOCK) The Real Estate of Mr. and Mrs. Roy Martin at the above - ref - renced address. SECTION 11:, PROJECT INFORMATION lit 4) DESCRIBE BRIEFLY THE PROJECT YOU. PRO- • -$... (.P.leasej,see. attachment -for description) See Attachment for #5) N 5) ANTICIPATED PERIOD OF CONSTRUCTION: FROM TO \ 6) WILL PROJECT BE DEVELOPED,IN PHASE DYES 0 tD � 7) PROJECT STATISTICS: IF YES, DESCRIBE: Uncertain proximately 1.5 Acres A) ACREAGE OF PROJECT SITE: •'ET GROSS EASEMENTS B) FLOORS OF CONSTRUCTION: TOTAL /FLOORS TOTAL GROSS FLOOR .AREA' SITE UTILIZATION: INCLUDES; D BASE1 ENT TJ MEZZANINE INCLUDES: BASEMENT MEZZANINE EXISTING -PROPOSED NOTES ZONING DESIGNATI. Agricultural high density Commercial COMP. PLAN DES I • T I ON G* DOVsr/ lA�YI L_ ? ) BUILDING FOOTPRI T AREA • 0 0 LANDSCAPE AREA 0 C PAVING AREA 0 0 TOTAL PARKING - TALLS.: - STANDARD S ZE - COMPACT S ZE - HANDICAP- D SIZE. TOTAL LOAD! SPACES AVER. SLOP OF PARKING AREA AVER. SLO:-E OF SITE S) IS THIS SITE DE= 1GNATED FOR SPECIAL CONSIDERATION ON THE CITY'S ENVIRONMENTAL BASE MAP? • 0 Y ES • NO (,\ SECTION 111: AP"LIC.ANT'S AFFIDAVIT 1 Kenneth B- Sheiidn , BEING DULY SWORN, DECLARE THAT I AM THE CONTRACT PURC .' ER OR OWNER rOF THE PPEERTY INVOLVED 1 N TH 1 S APPLICATION AND THAT THE FORE- GO I NG STATEME TS AND AYQSDVERS - E 1 IV CONTA 1)NED AND THE INFORMATION HEREW 1 TH SUBM t TTED ARE IN ALL R! SPECTS TRUE AND CORRECT TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE AND BELIEF. 44 _ \ SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN BEFORE ME DATE // 22'(P x, (SIGNATURE OF CONTRACT PURCHASER (Attorney in Fact) THIS 0 DAY OF 19 NOTARY PL'DL I C: I N AND F THE STATE OF WASHINGTON RESIDING AT— 257, OR pipmily • REGIONAL TRAVEL IMPACTS OF THE SOUTH IUth STREET CONNECTOR PROJECT IN TUKWILA, WASHINGTON Prepared for Centrac Associates, Inc. by Richard Etherington and Associates September 1984 CONTENTS • PAGE Summary of Findings and Conclusions A- 1 Introduction A -2 Statement of Problems A -3 Project Alternatives A -6 Regional Travel Forecasts A-7 Transit /Ridesharing Effects A-1 1 Evaluation of Alternatives A -12 Findings and Conclusions A -17 Addendum A -19 Other Scenarios Considered Other Planning Work Tables 1: Tukwila Traffic Volumes on Selected Links A -9 2: Tukwila Levels of Service on Selected Links A -14 Ma I: Project Alternatives 2: Select Traffic Links for Analysis A -4 A -8 A -1 • • INTRODUCTION Traffic problems in the Green River valley area of King County have been Increasing over the last twenty years as the valley has become increasingly urbanized and as population and employment developments have spread over south county. Industrial developments on the valley floor, together with residential developments on the Soos Creek plateau (East Hill) have produced patterns and volumes of auto traffic that are not easily handled by the present system of highways and roads. Tukwila is located in the lower Green River valley, where two interstate freeways cross and where the resulting regional accessibility has fostered the rapid growth of commercial retailing, warehousing, and office activities. At the same time as this growth has occurred, the regional road system development has not kept pace. The sparse system of local roads and streets has not been expanded and connected sufficiently to carry the local and regional traffic volumes generated by the new developments. The traffic problems in Tukwila that result from this are evidenced in vehicle congestion and delay at peak working and shopping hours. Less noticeable, but just as much a problem, are the circuitous routings used by traffic which add extra miles to vehicular travel, and which cause ineffiencies in the highway system. These existing problems will be exacerbated in the future by additional growth in travel. The road system which is marginally functional during current peak travel periods will become more and more congested and inconvenient to use. Adverse effects on regional and local travel conditions will begin to detract from the area's development potential and from the accessibility to the major commercial developments upon which the economy of the local jurisdictions depend. The area's traffic problems are compounded by jurisdictional problems. Four local jurisdictions -- Tukwila, Renton, Kent, and King County -- are located in the lower Green River valley; each is responsible for parts of the road system. In addition, the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) has jurisdiction over the freeways and highways in the area. This diversity means that the solution to one jurisdiction's traffic problem may be a project.located In another jurisdiction. The City of Tukwila has proposed a project to build a new arterial street connecting the I -5 interchange at S. 188th Street with S. 180th Street near its intersection with Southcenter Parkway. This proposed project would Improve the accessibility of the southern part of the Tukwila commercial - industrial district by providing a direct connection between the regional freeway system and the network of local arterials. A -2 This new connection has the potential to provide relief to the two main entrances to the Southcenter area at the "S" line bridge and at Klickitat Drive. The project would also provide a direct connection from the Fairwood residential area and the Green River industrial area to I -5 and the Sea -Tac commercial /airport area. The purpose of this report is to investigate the effects on regional travel patterns of building the S. 188th Street connector project. The proposed project would improve the accessibility of the commercial- industrial district and would provide a new freeway connection to the Green River valley; it will alter the traffic volumes expected on regional highways and arterial roads. This report discusses the existing traffic problems and arterial system deficiencies at which the project is directed, and the objectives to be accomplished by the S. 188th connector. The range of project alternatives is then presented In a regional context, and traffic forecasting results presented for each alternative. The potential Impacts of transit and ridesharing programs on those forecasts is reviewed, as well as some other studies currently In progress in south King County. Based on the traffic forecasts, and other considerations, the alternatives are evaluated for their abilities to solve the problems and to meet the objectives that have been identified. These evaluations of alternatives are then used to prepare findings and conclusions regarding the S. 188th Street connector project and its alternatives. The travel forecasts presented In this report are based on the computer model of regional traffic developed by the Puget Sound Council of Governments. The estimated volumes on individual facilities were adjusted to reflect the previous experience of other forecasting work and traffic modeling. The resultant volumes reported here are a composite of those recent forecasts, and should be taken to be reasonable estimates of future traffic in south King County, within the limits and assumptions of the basic growth forecasts and travel models. STATEMENT OF PROBLEM AND OB3ECTIVES Access to the commercial - industrial district (CID) of Tukwila is both limited and congested at present. The CID Is located between Southcenter Parkway and the Green River and between Tukwila Parkway and S. 180th Street (see Map 1). Freeway access to this area Is gained directly from I -5 northbound via two exit ramps to Southcenter Parkway north of Strander Boulevard. Indirect freeway access from SR 518 eastbound is via Klickitat Drive, from I -5 southbound via Southcenter Boulevard and the "S" or bridge, and from I -405 westbound via Southcenter Boulevard and the "S" line bridgeAvia A -3 • RANGE ONLYD ■ ■ LEGEND CITY OF TUKWILA 1 SO. 188TH CONNECTOR ,••• CROSS VALLEY ROUTE SCENARIOS 111111 ASSUMED NEW LINKS ASSUMED OTHER IMPROVEMENTS CROSS - VALLEY ROUTE ALTERNATIVES MAP 1 A -4 West Valley Highway and either Strander Boulevard or Southcenter Boulevard with the "T" line bridge. The one other indirect freeway access to the CID occurs at the S. 188th interchange on 1 -5 via Orillia Road, S. 200th Street, and 57th Avenue S., requiring substantial adverse travel. The main access points are heavily congested. Klickitat Drive carries 2,400 vehicles during the weekday pm peak hour which is the "worst case" condition; the "S" line bridge carries 2,850. West Valley Highway (SR 181) carries between ,• • • an , 00 vehicles in the pm peak hour along the east boundary of the CID and connecting with 5. 180th Street, Strander Boulevard, 1 -405, Grady Way, and Southcenter Boulevard. Severe con : estion exists on Southcenter Parkwa in the vicinity of Strander Boulevard. The lack of alignment of Strander and Klickitat and the I -5 exit ramps causes four signalized "T" Intersections on Southcenter Parkway within about one -tenth of a mile. The traffic channelization, added approach lanes, and multi -phase signals all combine to cause a high level of traffic congestion during weekday peak travel hours and also during the holiday shopping season. Access to the southwest part of the CID is avallable on S. 178th Street and on 57th Avenue S. South 178th Street connects to Military Road west of I -5, and has severe gradient problems as it approaches Southcenter Parkway. A maximum grade of 21 percent is posted, and heavy trucks are forbidden for safety reasons. South 178th does not have any connection to I -5, and only indirect connection to Pacific Highway South. Its excessive grades, the residential areas through which it passes, and its indirect connections to the regional highway system all combine to make S. 178th Street a poor facility for access to the CID. Access from the southwest to the CID can also be gained via 57th Avenue S. (Frager Road). This road serves some commercial uses south of S. 180th Street in Tukwila, and connects to S. 200th Street and S. 212th Street on the west side of the Green River. Fifty - seventh Avenue S. is a narrow, two-lane road that has several sharp curves as it follows the west river bank. It carries about 450 vehicles in the pm peak hour. Its chief problems as an access to the CID are Its narrow width and poor alignment, and also its indirect connections to the regional road system. Orillia Road is used now to connect the I -5 /5. 188th Street interchange to S. 200th and S. 212th streets. Its current peak hour volume is 2,300 vehicles, however very little of that traffic uses 57th Avenue 5. to access the CID. The shortest route for such traffic would be via S. 200th Street, which now carries only 300 vehicles in the pm peak hour. A -5 • • PROJECT ALTERNATIVES To address the problems of congestion and lack of accessibility to the CID, nine different alternatives were prepared initially. These Included the proposed S. 188th Street connector project In two alternative configuratior.s and four other scenarios of regional arterial roads, as well as "do nothing" and "assumed improvements" alterna- tives. The six project alternatives that were fully evaluated are described below and delineated on Map 1. The Addendum describes the other alternatives that were eliminated in an earlier stage of the study. o A new four -lane arterial from the intersection of Orillia Road and S. 188th Street northeasterly to an intersection with S. 178th Street west of Southcenter Parkway. This alternative Is the project proposal for the 5. 188th connector. It provides direct access from the I -5 /S. 188th interchange to the southwest corner of the CID with no adverse travel. This alternative Is designated T4. o A four -lane arterial route using Orillia Road and S. 200th Street, crossing the Green River on a new bridge, and then continuing northeastward along S. 196th Street and S. 192nd Street to a new interchange with the SR 167 freeway. This A -6 • • IIIassumed Improvements include a connection from Strander easterly to SW 27th The seven different scenarios reported are as follows: TO - the traffic volumes In 1980 being carried on the existing highway system In the Upm peak'hour. Tl - the traffic volumes expected In the year 2000 as carried on the existing 1980 IIhighway system. A -7 CENTRAC ASSOCIATES LEGEND 10 TRAFFIC INDEX NO. ••••M88TH CONNECTOR ROUTES •11111 ASSUMED NEW LINKS ASSUMED OTHER IMPROVEMENTS CITY OF TUKWILA SO. 188T CONNECTOR ONNECTOR A- 8 SELECT TRAFFIC LINKS MAP 2 FOR ANALYSIS S/C BLVD INTERURB- CHRSTN 1 1101 1430 1471 1121 1161 1471 1111 1 BRADY NAY NONSTR- 1NTERURB 2 1901 2580 1880 1840 1840 1881 1821 2 NEST VALLEY 1405- S158TH 3 3000 4400 6100 5700 5511 6100 5100 3 SIBITH- S196TH 4 3401 5651 5610 5611 4801 5690 4610 4 T-LINE BRID6E S-LINE BRIDGE 5 731 2001 2011 2311 2600 2751 2301 5 6 . 2851 4001 4011 3400 3280 3281 3201 6 KLICKITAT DR 15-S /C PKWY 7 2401 4801 4810 3601 4200 4710 3601 7 STRANDER S/C PKWY -ANDOV W 8 1500 1940 2701 2120 2350 2580 2120 8 CHRSTN -11 VALLEY 9 1800 2401 3230 2371 2621 3011 2371 9 MINKLER ANDOV E - N VALI 10 - 710 941 710 1090 940 10 S. 180TH N OF S/C PKNY 11 1201 1880 1560 3190 1580 1561 2200 11 S/C PK11-A1IDOV N 12 1900 2810 2400 3700 2220 2190 2701 12 ANDOV E - N VALL 13 2459 3660 3200 3501 2850 2760 2500 13 N VALI- OAKESDALE 14 2100 3010 2670 3020 2500 2801 2421 14 LIND -E VALLEY 15 2100 3000 2670 2900 2410 2701 2300 15 S/C PKWY MINKLER- STRANDER 16 1700 3200 3500 3811 3491 3601 3810 16 S OF S181TH 17 450 1010 1001 901 1101 2211 900 17 S. 188TH PAC HWY- MILITARY 18 2200 2760 2801 3901 3360 3011 4100 18 'MILITARY RD S 188TH -S 176TH 21 1300 2310 2101 2611 2511 2401 2700 29 S. 200TH ORILLIA -57TH AV 21 301 611 601 301 2351 1600 1700 21 A -9 • • TABLE 1. TUKWILA TRAFFIC VOLUMES ON SELECTED LINKS - 1981/2000. 'SOUTH 188TH CONNECTOR PROJECT' REIA FACILITY ) >ALL TRAFFIC VOLUMES ARE ESTIMATED 2 WAY PM PEAK, HOUR CAPACITY RESTRAINED« i LIMITS INDEX 1 TO Ti T3 14 16 TB T9 INDEX 1 ---------- - ---- -- ! --- ---- -! -- 1980 - -! -- 2111 -- ! »2111 -- ! »2110 -- ! »2111» »2118» ! - 2110-•!-••-•-•! ORILLIA /S. 212TH I -5 TO DRILLIA 22 2301 3690 3220 3160 3380 3220 3481 22 FRASER -SR 181 23 2401 2900 3281 3211 3100 3281 3811 23 E VALLEY-SR 167 24 1881 2281 2840 2830 2790 2841 2781 24 ALTERNATIVE 14 15 - SI78TH 25 - - • 3150 - - 200 25 ALTERNATIVE T6 SR 181- OAKESDALE 2B E VALLEY -SR 167 29 • 1570 - 1200 28 1631 - 1270 29 ALTERNATIVE 18-57TH AVE S 211TH -C DRIVE 31 450 1181 1111 890 1060 1800 911 31 FREEWAYS 15, MIL -S 188 32 12920 16410 16410 16411 16410 16410 16410 32 15, S188 -SIC EX. 33 13610 16770 16770 15471 16370 16411 15450 33 I405,I5 -S /C ENT 34 8810 11060 9550 9000 8411 9550 6211 34 1405,SR181 -SR167 35 9341 12860 9270 8700 8200 9270 8110 35 SR167,5180- 1415 36 7210 9340 5920 6421 7810 5921 7281 36 A -10 • • T3 - the traffic volumes expected in the year 2000 as carried on an improved highway system. (PSCOG adopted regional transportation plan and assumed Improve- ments in Renton and Tukwila.) T4 - year 2000 traffic volumes expected on the Improved highway system plus the S. 188th Street connector project. • T6 - year 2000 traffic volumes expected on the Improved highway system plus a new cross- valley arterial along 5. 200th /S. 196th /S. 192nd to a new SR 167 inter- change. T8 - year 2000 traffic volumes expected on the Improved highway system plus capacity improvements to S. 200th/Frager/57th Avenue S. T9 - year 2000 traffic volumes expected on the Improved highway system plus the S. 188th Street connector project plus the new cross - valley arterial along 5. 200th/S. 196th/S. 192nd (a combination of T4 and T6). TRANSIT /RIDESHARING EFFECTS Urban travel demands in the central Puget Sound region are met by vehicular travel and also by transit and ridesharing modes of travel. The extent to which transit and three plus occupant vehicle (HOV) modes are able to substitute for the average vehicle occupant (1.2 +) mode is dependent largely on the area of King County being discussed, and the densities of person trip productions and attractions involved. Downtown Seattle experiences a very high peak hour transit usage (30-40 percent of work trips) and also a higher than average number of HOVs due to preferential parking and a ten -year history of HOV programs. South King County presently has an average transit ridership of 1 -2 percent for home - based work trips, due to the low density of employment locations and the diverse locations of residential locations of workers. (Refer to the PSCOG Transportation Corridor Analysis report of June 24, 1983 fora discussion of travel patterns and also transit and ridesharing In the Green River valley.) Metro is currently designing a park- and -ride lot in Tukwila on Interurban Avenue just south of I -5. It is not expected that the proposed lot will substantially change the forecasts of vehicular travel volumes reported here. Metro is also studying a regional transit center In the CID as a part of Its 1990 transit development plan. The center would serve as a transfer point for off -peak transit services to south King County. Its effects on peak hour travel have not been estimated, A -11 ■ ■ ■ ■ however they are not expected to have a significant effect on the travel volumes reported here. The 5. 188th Street connector project would make a Tukwila transit center more accessible from the south and west part of King County, particularly to traffic on I -5. Ridesharing programs in the Tukwila CID are difficult to Implement because of the large number of small employers. Employees from two or more different firms are unlikely to rideshare together because of different working hours, coordination prob- lems, and other reasons. Commuter Pool, now part of Metro, Is instigating ridesharing programs in south King County that will be aimed at overcoming these problems. The WSDOT Is currently planning and building HOV lanes on I -405 from Tukwila to Bellevue in several segments and stages. When that project is completed, HOV usage may increase and provide for a more efficient use of the highway system. If HOV lanes are implemented on I -5 south of I -405, then the S. 188th Street connector project could be expected to carry more HOVs, possibly supporting HOV ramp bypass lanes at the I -5 /S. 188th interchange. EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES The project alternatives have been evaluated by calculating the level of service experienced by auto users in the pm peak hour for each alternative. Level of service is a concept of rating the quality of travel experienced by drivers in various levels of traffic flow that are compared to the maximum capacity of the roadway to carry vehicles. The following is a description of the six levels of service used to evaluate the project alternatives. Traffic congestion is measured in terms of the number of vehicles using a particular section of road relative to the full capacity of that road section. As the number of vehicles using the road approaches the road's capacity, vehicle speed is reduced and delays are more likely to ocur. Congestion is described in six categories called level of service or LOS. Each of these six levels is described below as it applies to arterial roads. LOS A - Traffic flows freely with no restrictions caused by other vehicles. Average speed is 30 or more miles per hour and the traffic volume will be at 60 percent or less of the road's capacity. LOS B - Steady traffic flow with only slight speed restrictions due to other vehicles. Average speed on arterials Is about 25 mph, with traffic at 60 -70 percent of the road's capacity. A -12 LOS C - Vehicle flow is still steady, but average arterial speed is reduced to about 20 mph. The road is at about 70 -80 percent of capacity. LOS D - Traffic flow is becoming less steady and drivers have little room to maneuver. Average speed Is about 15 mph and traffic volumes are at 80-90 percent of road capacity. LOS E - Flow is unsteady with a significant amount of stop - and -go traffic. Average speed is about 15 mph and traffic volume Is at 90 -100 percent of the road's capacity. LOS F - Traffic flow is forced with frequent stoppages. Average speed is less than 15 mph, frequently dropping to zero. Long traffic backups occur because of flow restrictions and accidents. Using the above definitions of level of service, each of the 36 key locations shown on Map 2 was evaluated for its projected traffic volume and its roadway capacity to carry that volume. The volume /capacity (V /C) ratio was calculated and translated into a LOS category. These levels of service are reported in Table 2, and are the basis for evaluating future traffic flow conditions for each alternative In the year 2000. The following is a brief commentary on each of the scenarios tested. TO - This scenario shows the travel conditions existing in the year 1980. Level of service E -F (severe congestion) Is found on 1 -5, 1 -405, SR 167, and on Grady Way. LOS D occurs on Military Road S., S. 180th, and the West Valley Road (SR 181). These problems are familiar to those who travel through Tukwila in the afternoon peak hour of 4:00 to 5:00 pm. Many key streets such as S. 180th (westend) and Southcenter Parkway (southend) are not carrying excessive traffic volumes. Tl - This scenario shows the effects of traffic volumes expected In 2000 on the existing highway network without any Improvements at all. LOS E -F (severe congestion) occurs on all the congested roads shown In TO plus Orillia Road, S. 212th, S. 180th -SW 43rd, West Valley Road and Southcenter Parkway. LOS D -E traffic occurs on Strander Boulevard. South 180th between S. 178th and Andover Park W. is LOS C. The "5" line bridge and Klickitat are both LOS E -F. T3 - This scenario includes several Improvements that are being planned and are expected to be constructed by the year 2000. These Improvements Include a new interchange at S. 212th and SR 167, widening of Grady Way to four lanes, an A -13 TABLE 2.TUKNILA LEVEL OF SERVICE ON SELECTED LINKS - 1981/2110. 'SOUTH 188TH CONNECTOR PROJECT' RE&A FACILITY )ALL SERVICE LEVELS A-F ARE ESTIMATED P M PEAK HOUR CAPACITY RESTRAINED( & LIMITS INDEX 1 TO 71 73 T4 76 78 79 INDEX B !______ »_________! »__---_!__1988 - -! -- 2018 - -!-- 2188 - -! -• -- 2088 - -. ! 2108 - -. i» 2008 --. i» 2111-- !»»»_! S/C BLVD INTERURB-CHRSTN 1 C E E C C E C 1 GRADY NAY MONSTR- INTERURB 2 F F B B B B B 2 NEST VALLEY 1405- S158TH 3 C F E E D E 0 3 SIBOTH- S196TH 4 0 E E E D E D 4 T-LINE BRIDGE S-LINE BRIDGE 5 A 8 8 C C D C 5 6 B E E C C C C 6 K11CK1TAT DRIVE 15 -S/C PKWY 7 C E E C 0 E C 7 STRIVER S/C PKNY -ANDOV N 6 B 0 E C D E C 8 CHRSTN- N VALLEY 9 C E E C D E C 9 MINKLER ANDOV E- N VALI 10 - - A A A A A 10 S. 180TH • N OF S/C PKNY 11 A C B D A B D 11 SIC POI -ANDOV N 12 A C B E A A C 12 ANDOV E- W VALI 13 D F E F E E D 13 N VALL-OAKESDALE 14 B E D E C 0 C 14 LIND -E VALLEY 15 B E 0 E C 0 C 15 S/C PKNY MINKLER- STRANDER 16 A E C B S OF SI$OTH 17 A A A A C C D 16 A B A 17 S. 188TH PAC HWY- MILITARY 18 A C C E D C E 18 MILITARY RD S 188TH -S 176TH 20 D F E F F F F 21 S. 280TH ORILLIA -57TH AV 21 A A A A C A 41 A -14 • 1110 III/ TABLE 2.TUKMILA LEVEL OF SERVICE ON SELECTED LINKS- 1981/2111. 'SOUTH 188TH CONNECTOR PROJECT' RBA FACILITY >ALL SERVICE LEVELS A-F ARE ESTIMATED P M PEAK HOUR CAPACITY RESTRAINED( i LIMITS INDEI 1 TI 11 T3 T4 TA TB 19 I11EI 1 �- ! ORILLIA /S 212TH 1 -5 TO ORILLIA 22 C F E E E E E 22 FRASER -SR 111 23 C E E E E E E 23 E VALLEY -S1167 24 A 1 1 C C C C 24 ALTERNATIVE 14 15 - SI78TH 25 - - - C - _ C 25 ALTERNATIVE T6 SR 181- OAKESOALE 28 E VALLEY -51167 29 A A 29 A - A 29 ALTERNATIVE TB -57TH AVE S 216TH -C DRIVE 31 A A A A A A A31 FREEHAYS 15, MIL -5 1B8 32 E F F F F F F 32 I5, SIB8 -S /C El. 33 E F F F F F F 33 1415,15 -S /C ENT 34 F F E I 1 E 1 34 I4/5,SR181 -SR167 35 F F E 1 1 E 1 35 S1167,S 116 -1415 36 £ F £ £ E C E 36 A -15 • • expressway from I -5 to Kent in the SR 516 corridor, completion of Oaksdale Avenue from S. 180th north to Empire Way, extension of Strander east to Oaksdale, and the extension of Minkler west to Southcenter Parkway and east to West Valley Road (SR 181). This network of assumed improvements is the basis for evaluating the project alternatives. With these highway improvements made by 2000, a few traffic situations can be seen to be better than in T1. The freeways are still LOS E -F, as is West Valley Road and OriIlia /5. 212th Street. South 180th Street is only LOS D from West Valley to SR 167 and from S. 178th to Andover Park W. it is LOS A -B. T4 - This scenario includes the S. 188th Street connector from the S. 188th Street /I -5 interchange to S. 180th west of Southcenter Parkway. This connector would operate at LOS C, with approximately 3,000 trips per day using the new link during the afternoon peak period. South 180th would experience LOS E -F, as would 1 -5 and SR 167, S. 188th Street and West Valley Road, however Interstate 405 would improve to LOS D, and Klickitat Drive, Strander, and the "5" line bridge would all improve to LOS C. T6 - This scenario predicts the traffic impacts of building a new arterial across the Green River valley along the S. 200th /S. 196th /S. 192nd corridor instead of building the S. 188th Street connector. The new arterial would operate at LOS A -B, with about 2,000 new trips per day. South 180th Street would improve to LOS C east of West Valley Road. Interstate 5 and SR 167 would still experience LOS E -F and I -405 would remain at LOS D. South 188th would also operate at LOS D, and S. 200th at LOS C. West Valley Road would improve to LOS D with the new interchange at SR 167 and S. 192nd Street. T8 - This scenario includes only the widening to four lanes of S. 200th Street from Orillia Road to 57th Avenue S., and of 57th Avenue S. from 5. 200th to 5. 180th. This alternative does not attract much traffic, only 1,000 new trips per day. Both S. 200th and 57th Avenue S. operate at LOS A -B. Interstate 5 and I -405 are LOS E -F, while SR 167 is LOS C because of the lack of additional cross - valley traffic. South 180th Street is LOS A -B around Southcenter Parkway and is LOS D from West Valley to East Valley. South 188th Street Is LOS C and Orillia Road is still LOS E. T9 - This scenario combines the T4 5. 188th connector with the T6 new arterial along the S. 200th /S. 196th /S. 192nd corridor. There are 2,000 new trips to T4 and 1,400 to T6. Interstate 5 and SR 167 are both at LOS E -F, but I -405 Is at LOS D. A -16 • • South 180th Street would improve to LOS C -D over Its entire length. South 188th and the west part of 5. 212th Street would operate at LOS E. Southcenter Parkway would experience LOS D traffic, although all major access points to the CID would improve to LOS C. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS Based on the technical work done under this contract, and on the review of current planning work for the Tukwila area, the following are the findings and conclusions of this report. 1. Present -day traffic flow volumes in Tukwila during the pm peak hour are congested on both 1 -5 and I -405 and on West Valley Highway and Grady Way; other arterials carry moderate volumes of traffic. 2. Auto travel is estimated to grow about 37 percent over the 16 -year period 1984 to 2000 in the Tukwila area due to growth In population and employment activities in south King County. 3. Traffic growth by the year 2000 will cause substantial congestion on both the freeway and arterial road systems, even with the regional trai po {tation plan in place and with selected arterial improvements made by Renton i and Tukwila. The westerly part of S. 180th Street would experience LOS B, but from Andover East to East Valley would be LOS D or worse. 4. The project alternative to construct the 5. 188th Street connector would result in LOS C on the project, and LOS E -F across S. 180th. Significant relief is provided to Southcenter Boulevard, the "S" line bridge, Strander Boulevard and to Klickitat Drive. South 188th and Military Road are at LOS E -F although the proposed T4 improvement at the I -5 /S. 188th Street interchange would reduce congestion to LOS D -E. 5. The alternative to build a cross - valley arterial further south improves travel conditions on S. 180th Street to LOS A -C generally. Klickitat Drive and West Valley Road are LOS D. The new arterial Itself is estimated to carry about 18,000 ADT although the Kent Transportation Study predicts a higher daily volume of about 25,000 under different development assumptions for the East HIll. 6. The alternative to Improve Frager Road results in a slightly better level of service on S. 180th Street that the connector project does, but with higher levels of congestion on 1405, Southcenter Boulevard, West Valley, the "T" line bridge, Klickitat Drive, Strander, Military, and Orillia Road. A -17 ■ • • 7. The combination alternative (T4 /T6) to build both the 5. 188th connector project and the cross- valley arterial results in reduced congestion at the major access points to the CID plus improved operations on S. 180th Street and West Valley Road. 8. The 1 -5 and I -405 freeways in the Tukwila area will be congested under any scenario of road development. The travel demand trying to use the freeway system now and in the future causes the major arterial routes to be overloaded with traffic. '• 9. Transit and ridesharing facilities and services are Important to urban travel, and should be expanded in Tukwila area. At the present time, however, transit and ridesharing do not reduce the need for additional highway capacity. 10. The traffic problems on S. 180th Street are and will be largely due to its intersections with West Valley and East Valley roads where large volumes of north- south and turning traffic are encountered. working together to prioritize and implement road improvements. The recent prioritization work of the South King County Good Roads Task Force is an example of such needed cooperation. ■ A -18 • ADDENDUM Other Scenarios Considered In addition to the scenarios of road development that were evaluated In the report, the Po � following were also considered and eliminated for the reasons Indicated. They are shown on Map 1, in Project Alternatives section. T5 - An alternative alignment of the S. 188th connector project in which the new arterial is located easterly of the T4 alignment (closer to 57th Avenue 5.) and crosses 57th Avenue S. south of S. 180th Street to connect with Andover Park West. This alternative route had the same effects on regional traffic patterns as T4, and was dropped because of unpromising soils conditions on Its alignment. T7 - An alternative which provided a new connection between S. 200th Street at Military Road and S. 212th Street near Orillia Road. The alternative attracted little traffic and provided no improvement to CID accessibility. It was dropped because of its lack of traffic Impacts, and also because of severe terrain difficulties on its general alignment. Other Planning Work There are several planning and project studies, and also highway and transit improve- ments now underway or recently completed that affect the Tukwila /lower Green River valley area. Among such are the following: o transportation plan for Renton - Wilsey & Ham o transportation plan for Kent - Wilsey & Ham o Petrovitsky HOV study - Metro o transit center study - Metro o Tukwila park and ride lot - Metro o I -405 HOV lanes - WSDOT o . Renton /Tukwila /1 -405 corridor study - PSCOG o south corridor study - PSCOG o prioritization of road Improvement projects - South King County Good Roads Task Force o update of transportation plan - King County o Southcenter Boulevard alignment - Tukwila o transit and ridesharing service Improvements - Metro o update transportation plan - WSDOT A -19 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF KING WILLET S. FARR, III, and ) EVELYN L. FARR, husband and ) wife, GRACE GOODING, SHIRLEY A.) HOSIER, BETTY E. FARR -COX, ANNA) MAE FARR - CHAPMAN, HELEN J. ) FARR -VAUX and CONTINENTAL ) PACIFIC, INC., a Washington ) corporation, ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) vs. ) ) CITY OF BELLEVUE, a municipal ) corporation, ) Defendant. ) ray. toalli, Itatak. IL- COURT'S ORAL OPINION June 28, 1984 King County Courthouse Seattle, Wa. Before: The Honorable GERARD M. SHELLAN APPEARANCES: For the Plaintiffs: For the Defendants: JOHN L. HENDRICKSON RICHARD L. GIDLEY Reported by; Richard L. Ishmael, Official Court Reporter THE COURT: First of all, I want to thank counsel for the excellent briefs and supporting materials that you provided me. I don't get briefs that well prepared too often and I can tell that both counsel spent a lot of time on this particular case, which is challenging, to say the least. I also spent considerable time on it. It sort of brought back memories, after having spent 27 years as City Attorney in a neighboring city. I know the aches and pains the City has to go through and the problems they face. This is an action by the plaintiffs seeking writ of certiorari, declaratory judgment and claim for inverse condemnation arising out of a decision by the hearing examiner and the Bellevue City Council denying plaintiffs' applications for the reclassification of a parcel of land, approximately 6.1 acres, within the city from a single family residential classificaiton; namely, R -2.5, meaning two and a half units per acre, to a low -rise office classification known as (0). The City's disposition of plaintiffs' application culminated by the passage of a resolution known as Resolution No. 4250 on.October 3, 1983. As I mentioned previously during oral arguments, zoning cases very often are encumbered by approximately 75 percent emotional issues, 2 3 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 probably 10 percent legal issues and hopefully 15 percent common sense. That issue may depend on the type of case you have and how long the fight may have lasted. I will go into pretty much 'detail on this case because I think it is an important issue and undoubtedly some Appellate Court may review it. The subject property here is an undeveloped parcel located basically at the southwest corner of the intersection of the Bel -Red Road and 148th Northeast in the City of Bellevue. The plaintiffs' application for the rezone was filed approximately two years ago in July of 1982 and proposed the construction of seven buildings of low height and design to blend in with the topography of the land and the adjoining residential area known as Glengarry, G- 1- e- n- g- a- r -r -y, located to the south of the subject property. It also appears from the record that nearly all the owners of this residential subdivision had concurred in support of plaintiffs' plan for the rezone. Counsel had suggested to the Court that I review the subject property and surrounding area to aid the Court in interpreting the lengthy record and to further correlate the numerous photographs of the general area that were furnished to me and I believe identified as Exhibits 13 and 14 before the hearing examiner. I have complied with your request on June 26, 3 1984, and as I indicated previously I have also reviewed all of the documents, every single one of them, as well as the excellent briefs that you have submitted. I think some background information for the record here on the subject parcel would be helpful. The City apparently had acquired a portion of the subject property in 1972 for the improvement and expansion of the Bel -Road Road and thereafter in 1977 acquired some additional properties for right- of-way purposes. Again in 1981 the City initiated additional eminent domain proceedings for a small parcel of the subject property to be used as a water or storage detention site at or near the most easterly portion of the plaintiffs' property. There had been two prior rezone attempts by plaintiffs; namely, in 1975 and 1979, which again were denied apparently by a split vote of the City's legis- lative body. The R -2.5 zoning was retained, which actually had been in existence now for approximately 20 years, constituting a successor zoning to the County after annexation of this property and other properties known as the Sherwood Forest Annexation. The latest denial by the City legislative body of the plaintiffs' application was by a four -to -three vote. The zoning history relative to the properties 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 abutting the north and south strip of the Bel -Red Road is extremely important in resolving the issue before the Court. It is uncontradicted that all the property abutting to the north of Bel -Red Road, which is a four - lane road and with a turn lane, between 124th and 156th Street, consists of various types of businesses, commercial and some industrial. The Court presumes that the industrial probably is on a nonconforming use basis. The area abutting the south side of said highway likewise houses various businesses with an emphasis on office use, a few commercial and recreational enterprises and one large apartment house complex known as the Illahee. There is no evidence that anv single - family residential dwellings have been constructed along the south corridor of the road for many years and plaintiffs unimproved property is the only one abutting the highway with an R -2.5 designation. The record submitted to the Court also contains a compilation of rezoning, more than two dozen or.so, . that were granted between 1965 and 1982 for properties abutting the south boundary of the Bel -Red Road, again between the 32 blocks of 124th and 156th, the great majority of which were approved for office use, one I believe for community business and two for high density apartment uses. The depth of rezoning to office and othe 5 uses along the south side of this highway extended up to a few hundred feet with residential development, either single- family or multiple, to the south. It is of interest to note that the City's land use map designates many residential uses south of the rezoned property along the highway that however are somewhat less restrictive and allow multiple residential use, such as R -5, R -10, R -20 and R -30, while plaintiffs' Property and the area south of it is limited to an R -2.5 zonine, which appears to be one of the most restrictive in the general area. The evidence at the hearing disclosed that the minimum lot size in an R -2.5 zone is 13,500 square feet and allows a site coverage of 35 percent. Plaintiffs' proposed plan as submitted to the City would involve a building site coverage of about 17 percent, which would be considerably below the permissible level. It is plaintiffs' position that low -rise design and rural setting motif would be of greater benefit to the public, especially the residential abutting owners to the south, namely Glengarry, than a development for single or multi - family development. The City denies plaintiffs' contentions. There are located directly across the street from the subject property various business entities, 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 including a shopping center, a mini -lube establishment, while the three remaining corners of the intersection of Bel -Red and 148th house a savings and loan institution, an Arco service station and a Jack In the Box establishment. The evidence adduced at the bearing, and I want to emphasize that the Court is limited by case law to the record made before the hearing examiner and the City Council, but the evidence adduced at the hearing is uncontradicted that the combined traffic flow at the intersection of those two highways that I have mentioned is in excess of 43,000 cars per day, which volume is only exceeded by or equal to the intersection of Bellevue Way and,8th, the busiest corner of the city. Due to the widening of both highways in recent years it is natural to assume, and this actually happened, that th volume of traffic has increased very substantially. It is undisputed that there is a very significant concern about the resulting noise from this tremendous traffic volume and experts testified that the existing noise level is above the cutoff point between "adverse impact" and "significant adverse impact." Such condition would undoubtedly result in the construction of sound barriers along most, if not all, the 500 to 700 -foot frontage of the subject property along the Bel -Red Road 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 as well as the frontage, which I believe, is about 60 feet or so on 148th Northeast. There are already, as I've observed, existing concrete walls and they're somewhere between 7 and 12 feet high abutting some residential developments along 148th Northeast. There is obvious disagreement among the parties as to the aesthetic benefits, if any, resulting from the erection of additional walls to minimize the existing noise level. It probably would be required for the protection of residential users within the subject property. Under plaintiffs' proposed plan there would be means of access, or ingress and egress, to the subject property from Bel -Red Road and then exits along 148th Northeast limited to a right -hand turn. Plaintiff introduced substantial evidence before the hearing examiner that the existing zone designation of the subject property would make it impossible for any reasonable owner to develop this property for residential use gt a reasonable profit or for economic advantage. The evidence before the hearing examiner was basically uncontradicted that any development of this property for residential uses, unless the density of at least 15 to 20 units per acre were permitted, would result in substantial losses to any developer and therefore, so the plaintiff claims, 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 • the existing R -2.5 zoning or any similar zoning would not be economically viable. The evidence was further uncontradicted, at least before the hearing examiner, that the present fair market value of the subject property is approx- imately $2.40 or $2.50 per square foot based on certain appraisals, and also relying on what the City actually paid for its most recent condemnation. The City officials reviewing plaintiffs' proposed rezoning plan concluded that it complied generally with the City standards and was considered a well- designed project but was not consistent as to use with the subject area requirements of the City's Comprehensive Plan adopted in 1981. For that reason and the Comprehensive Plan's designation of single - family residential R -2.5 plaintiffs' proposal had to be rejected and it was rejected. The City further maintained that it had a right to provide for a cutoff of any further non- residential development along the south boundary of the 'Bel -Red Road even though the balance of that particular corridor to the west and some to the east have been re- zoned numerous times for office and similar uses during the last 20 years. Also the City argued that plaintiffs' property with its somewhat unique topographical features made it a suitable residential area. Thus the battle 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 lines were drawn and the issues clearly defined. Topographically the subject property is on a bluff ranging anywhere from six to ten feet abose the existing road or road level of the Bellevue- Redmond Road. The subject property is fairly long and it's narrow. In other words, it's irregularly shaped. Due to the fact that it lacks depth the parcel undoubtedly would be heavily impacted by the severe noise level emanating from heavy traffic from these two highways. The view from the subject property, if you stand on it right now, to the north and northeast, without any screening, would disclose the existing Sternco Shopping Center, service stations, fast -food restaurants and similar commercial establishments. Also across the street from the subject site is an undeveloped parcel of property, which according to the record, is zoned for office use; that property is bisected by what looks to me like a deep gully there. Plaintiffs' basic position is that there have been continuous and substantial changes in the general area of the subject property consisting of a heavy increase in the amount of commercial development., the almost doubling of the traffic volume over a number of years, while at the same time the zoning now existing as to subject property has been static for almost 20 years 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 as part of the City's zoning scheme. The City denies plaintiffs' conclusions and strongly maintains that the subject property because of its topography and adjacent zoning to the south is a proper location for future singl family residences as mandated by the present zoning. As to plaintiffs' particular design of the office buildings, it should be noted that it is more or less residential in scale, will have some natural stained wood siding with pitched cedar shingle roofs. The plan also includes a green belt buffer strip varying in depth between 25 to 40 feet along the entire south boundary of the site, which would therefore provide a natural vegetative buffer to help screen any proposed improvement from the people that live down in Glengarry. Furthermore under plaintiffs' proposal most of the trees on the property would be preserved by this development. Generally one must conclude that the City could not find any particular fault with the plan except it did not meet the requirements of the Comprehensive Plan as to use. Testimony by experts at the hearing disclosed projections for increased traffic in the general area which, of course, then would result in increased noise levels. Noise levels at this particular location are considered worse than at other locations on this road because of the existing grade at that 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 particular point. Plaintiffs maintain that utilization of the area by a low -rise, low intensity office use woulc not require any corrective measures such as a concrete wall as a barrier, which however would have to be installed in the case of residential use. Wall -type barriers, according to the experts, could be avoided if the residential units could be set back four or 500 feet from any existing highway to minimize any such noise impact. But in this case because of the size and configuration of the property there is insufficient depth to locate residential units that far back from the highway. Let's discuss briefly the applicable law in this matter. The Court has very carefully reviewed all of the testimony and documents adduced at the hearing and the applicable authorities that have been cited by counsel. The Court is governed by the often stated rule that regardless of how this Court or any other Court might have decided the question before the City Council the Court is not warranted in substituting its own judgment or its own beliefs for that of a city and its elected officials or in any way interfere in the determination of the matter unless the decision under review is arbitrary and unreasonable and constitutes an abuse of discretion. Some courts have also held 1., 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 • that in determining whether a municipal body's administrative acts and policies may be upheld it should be observed that the usual presumption of the validity of the acts of public boards and officials does not apply to acts involving the forfeiture of an individual's right or the deprivation of the free use of its property, and I believe plaintiff cited the case of Decar vs. Napier, 137 Minn., 219. The Court's review of zoning action is confined to determining whether the action constitutes a manifest abuse of discretion involving arbitrary and capricious conduct. Ordinarily the party asserting such conduct has the burden of proof and the act of the City must be upheld when reasonable minds could differ regarding the existence of a substantial relationship between the action taken and the public health, safety, moral or general welfare. I think the case of Colella vs. King County, 14 Wash. App. 247, a 1975 case, is pertinent here. We have heard quite a bit about the Carlson case, which has been cited by both counsel. In the Carlson vs. Bellevue case, 73 Wn. 2d, 41, a 1968 case, which incidentally involved the parcel close by the subject parcel, the Court held as follows: "The fact that a zoning classification prevents the highest and most profitable use of property 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 does not lead to a conclusion that the zoning regulation is unreasonable or confiscatory un- less a limitation on the potentials of the property in question together with other prop- erty similarly situated clearly overcomes the considerations of public health, safety and general welfare inherent in the desire to main- tain the integrity of the zoned areas. "A primary consideration is whether or not there is a reasonable profitable alterna- tive use to which the property is adaptable under the applicable zoning classification." Some of the material questions to be answered in determining whether or not a zoning ordi- nance is reasonable as applied to a given parel of land the Court must consider the character of the neighborbooc as a whole, the existing uses and zoning of nearby property and the history of same, the amount by which the property values are decreased or even increased, the extent to which the diminution of values promotes the public health, safety, morals and welfare, the suitability of the subject property for the purposes for which it is zoned and also, which is important, the len of time a piece of property has remained unzoned in the sense that it has been left unimproved considered in 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 • • the context of the land development within the total area I think it should be emphasized that no single factor and no single element is controlling but I think each of them must receive due consideration. Certainly the case law is clear on the point that a property owner is not entitled to a rezone in order to achieve the highest profitable or economic benefit that he may derive from the use of this property. There are many other considerations that would overshadow any such desire; however, the property owner is entitled to a reasonable and profitable use of his property, which envisions economic as well as functional use. I think both elements have to be considered. There has been considerable testimony and discussion about the purpose of the Comprehensive Plan and its application. I think it is safe to say that a Comprehensive Plan is simply a blueprint, it is a guide that sets certain parameters in general terms which ,suzgests but does not dictate various regulatory measures. It usually, as some courts have said, ,proposes rather than disposes. Deviation from a Comprehensive Plan by increasing the area in which particular use is permitted is not automatically spot zoning. So the Court held in Buell vs. Bremerton, 80 Wn. 2d 518. It has been argued that rezoning must 15 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 substantially comply with the existing Comprehensive Plan Such, however, has not always been the test. Noncon- formance with the Comprehensive Plan does not necessar- ily render such action illegal. The plan is only a general blueprint and thus only general conformance is necessary. The case controlling is Cathcart vs. Snohomish County, 96 Wn. 2d 201. Another case that has been mentioned by both parties, and I think is partially controlling, is Parkridge vs. Seattle, 89 Wn. 2d 545, a 1978 case. It sets forth the elements involved in any rezoning action. A rezoning action taken without the support of credible evidence is arbitrary and capricious. The necessary relationship to the public interest will not be presumed in a rezoning, such an action being adjudicatory in nature. Because review of the action of the hearing examiner and the City Council in this instance was by writ of certiorari the questions involving the merits to be determined by the Court are as follows: 1.) whether there was any competent proof of all the facts necessary to be proved, in order to authorize the making of a determination; 2.) if there was any such proof, whether there was upon all the evidence such a preponderance of proof, against the existence thereof, rendered in an 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 action in a court, triable by a jury, as would be set aside by the Court as being against the weight of the evidence. In considering the evidence, we must keep in mind there is no presumption of validity favoring the action of rezone. The proponents of any rezone have the burden of proof in demonstrating that conditions have substantially changed since the original zoning and that the rezone must bear a substantial relationship to the public health, safety, morals and welfare. 3.) Although zoning usually seems to apply a degree of permanency it is the duty of the appropriate zoning authorities when conditions relating to a zoned area has so clearly changed as to emphatically call for a revision in zoning, to initiate proceedings and consider the necessity of pertinent modifications of their zoning ordinances. The controlling case on that is Bishop vs. Town of Houghton, 69 Wn. 2d 786. It's a 1966 case. The Court would further hold that this duty on the City is a continuing one. If the rule were other- wise, outmoded, zoning regulations could become unreason- able and the zoning authority's failure to suitably amend or modify the ordinance could become arbitrary. In such events, Courts can and should grant appropriate relief. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 I think the above -cited cases are sufficient in our case here to provide us with the parameters in assisting the Court in disposing of this particular subject matter. 1.) The Court further finds in this case that the subject property had been under one family ownership for approximately 45 years and its zoning as previously stated of R -2.5 inherited from King County upon annexation back in 1965, has not been changed since. 2.) The petitioner after working on the present proposal and also gaining favorable response from the abutting residential areas to the south, which process has taken apparently about three years, submitted this proposal to the City fathers for a low - rise residential -type office complex of approximately 68,000 square feet divided into seven separate buildings. As previously stated, these buildings would occupy approximately 17 percent of the total site area and would retain the majority of existing vegetation on the premises. The retention of the trees and other vegetation would provide a suitable setting for the subject improvement and its neighbors. Petitioner had met the City's policies for all of the rezoning except for the use, which under the City's existing ordinances and resolutions would be in violation. The subject 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 property is narrow, irregular and due to its lack of depth this parcel of property undoubtedly would be heavily impacted by severe noise levels resulting from traffic primarily on Bel -Red Road but also from the other highway, 148th Northeast. Residential development of this area would most likely require the construction of concrete walls along the perimeter of the project to minimize the impact. Petitioners have stated at the hearings that in case the development for office building would be permitted such walls would not be necessary. The uncontradicted evidence further shows a substantial increase in the traffic levels presently as stated about 43,000 vehicles per day. The traffic projections for the next 10 to 15 years, according to the experts, one may expect an additional increase between 44 and 67 per- cent on these two intersecting highways. 3.) The present zoning of R- 2.5.as related to this particular parcel of property would not allow a reasonable developer or owner to utilize the property on a reasonable and profitable basis; that the cost of the land based on its present fair market value, and it does not make too much difference whether it's $2.40, $2.50 or $1.75, together with the cost of the site improvements would heavily outweigh the fair market value of any such completed lot thus resulting in a substantial loss to any 19 50 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 owner. 4.) The uncontradicted evidence indicates that the City in its most recent condemnation of the small par cel of the property for water retention paid $2.40 or $2. per square foot based upon appraisal. The evidence before the Court is silent as to whether the appraisers involved took into consideration the present zoning or any anticipated change in the zoning but in any event the City paid it and the Court is also aware of the fact that in some cases in eminent domain proceedings some additional bonus is paid to avoid a lawsuit. I think common sense would clearly dictate the economic impossibility of any reasonable and profitable development of this property if one simply multiplied the square footage cost by the total parcel size and divided same by the 15 lots that would be permitted now under existing zoning. The resulting amount alone most likely would exceed the market price of comparable lots at this time and this figure would not even include the site developments that were testified to at the hearing and I'm talking about roads, utilities, et cetera. 5.) Furthermore the uncontradicted testimony indicates that only a change of existing zoning to approximately 15 to 20 units per acre would permit either a break -even point or a small profit. Even if the 20 property owner would reduce the present fair market value, let us say, by 30 percent the resulting cost per foot together with the necessary site improvements incidental .thereto would by the evidence adduced at the hearing exceed the prevailing fair market value for similar lots in the general vicinity. Even if we disregard completely the disadvantages of the existing traffic flow the noise alone may impact any reasonable - minded buyer who wants to buy a piece of property for a single- family dwelling. Without question, the petitioner - owner, as far as this Court is concerned, has no legal right to expect and the City has no legal duty to provide a maximum profit or even substantial profit in justifying any rezone; however, every property owner has the right to utilize his or her property in a reasonable manner and expect some profitability and economic benefit. The present existing restrictive zoning as applied to this one parcel of property would not allow the fulfillment of such expectations, even minimum expectations. 6.) The Court further finds that there have been tremendous changes in the neighborhood covering the area between 124th and 156th since zoning was last affixed to this parcel. The area abutting the north line of Bel -Red Road is inundated in strip development 21 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 • • fashion by numerous businesses, numerous enterprises including some shopping centers and some manufacturing or industrial use. All of this was done in compliance with the City's Comprehensive Plan; likewise between those termini mentioned the area immediately south of the Bel -Red Highway, except for petitioners'.parcel, has been rezoned during the last 20 years or so on numerous occasions for primarily office use as well as some recreational uses. I think there is a racquet club in there and also high density residential use. Furthermore most of the property whether developed or undeveloped south of the existing office and other uses has been designated for higher density residential use than Plaintiffs' parcel. which is the only unimproved property abutting this highway still designated as R -2.5. 8.) The evidence at the bearings futher disclo that the great majority of property owners within Glengarry division preferred to have a development such as proposed by the petitioner vis -a -vis any high density residential development. There is a recent case that just was published, I would say two or three months ago, and the title escapes me but I want to emphasize that the desire of any particular neighboring group is not controlling and just because a certain group of people may oppose a certain development is not determinative 22 2 3 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 as to whether rezoning should take place. The reverse would apply. Just because some abutting owner is supportive does not necessarily tip the scale in favor of a rezone but is one of the elements to be considered but it certainly is not controlling. 9.) The City in its announced policy for residential development has concluded that any means of ingress and egress would have to be channeled through the Glengarry subdivision in lieu of entering or exiting from or onto Bel -Red Road. This plan of channeling traffic to the adjoining subdivision obviously is not too highly welcome by the Glengarry residents who have, in fact, opposed it for some time and they apparently wish to preserve their presently existing basically private roads that, as we have at least apparently concluded during our dialogue previously, are private except for one main paved road running through this particular subdivision. Therefore undoubtedly if the City's plan is carried out eminent domain proceedings would have to be pursued to provide public access from the Farr development to or through the Glengarry subdivision to 148th. Diverting traffic of residential users from the subject property would heavily impact, and I would say most likely adversely, the tranquility of the Glengarry inhabitants. The subject site at the present time has 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 no legal access rights to the south through Glengarry. The testimony indicated that request for such access by petitioners and others apparently have been rejected in the past. 10.) The Court further finds that the City's heretofore published policy No. 21F190 as part of its Comprehensive Plan, which allows the following "low inten- sity low -rise office uses" are considered appropriate outside the central business district in the following locations: One, in freeway corridors; Two, in community retail districts; Three, and to buffer residential and nonresi -, dential uses when appropriate. Undoubtedly this policy in some form was utilized by the City over the last two decades in granting numerous rezones for office use occurring along the south side of Bel -Red Road. Ostensibly it was meant to provide a buffer or transition from the commercial zoning use along the north side of Bel -Red Road and residential areas further to the south of Bel -Red; however, the City maintains that this buffer is not applicable to the subject site. The Court's conclusions in this matter are as 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 follows: 1.) The existing zoning as applied to the sub- ject parcel is outdated, unrealistic and improper in view of the substantial and significant changes that have occurred in the conditions surrounding this parcel since its original zoning in 1965 and prior thereto which has not changed. The City has a duty to update and bring current on a reasonable basis its Comprehensive Plan in view of such substantial changes and its past course of action, which the City has failed to do in this case. 2.) Petitioners' proposal is in general conformance with the provisions of the City's compre- hensive policies except for use and that the City has during the last 20 years rezoned property along the south line of the Bel -Red Road for office and high density multiple residential uses. To isolate petitione Property and limit it to an R -2.5 zoning as the only Parcel along this whole area is clearly arbitrary and capricious in view of all the evidence adduced at the hearings. 3.) To limit petitioners' property to an R -2.5 use would leave petitioners' property in an uneconomical and unprofitable status as clearly demonstrated by the preponderance of the evidence. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 4.) Petitioner's proposed zoning and development is consistent with the zoning precedent established by the City along the south corridor of Bel -Red Road over a 20 -year period. Although the City has an undeniable right by appropriate legislation to establish definite boundaries for land use purposes it must be done in a consistent and nonarbitrary manner and must give due recognition to major and substantial changes occurring in any given neighborhood. In this Court's opinion, the City has failed to do this in the subject case. 5.) The City has failed to establish by any credible evidence in the record before the Court that petitioners' proposal would have any adverse or detrimental effect on the residential area to the south; namely, the Glengarry subdivision or others similarly situated in the neighborhood. However it should be remembered that the Court is not in any position and cannot legally dictate to the City or give its blessing to any certain development proposal since any such authority is vested solely within the legislative body of the municipality as long as it is exercised in a' nonarbitrary and noncapricious manner; as so stated in th case of Colella vs. King County previously cited, "If the judiciary is to serve its purpose, 26 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 it must be both academic and practical. "The trial judge satisfied both aspects of this requirement when he concluded that the decisior of the examiner and the County Council and the facts of the case was not only arbitrary and capricious and unrealistic but also 'Not even in good common sense.'" This is from the Court of Appeals in Colella vs. King County. This reviewing Court fully concurs with the above quote and must find that the presently existing R -2.5 zoning as limited solely to petitioners' undeveloped property along the south side corridor of Bel -Red Road is not only arbitrary and capricious but devoid of common sense. There is no evidence whatever that the proposed development would in any way affect adversely the public health, welfare, safety or morals. Outmoded zoning regulations can become unreasonable and the zoning authorities must finally amend or modify the ordinances in view of changed conditions as otherwise they may becone arbitrary. In such cases, like the one before us, the Courts have a duty to grant appropriate relief. The Court further concludes that Resolution No. 4250 is set aside and is void. Therefore this matter is remanded to the City for appropriate remedial actions not inconsistent with the opinions herein expressed. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 To reemphasize, it is not the Court's function to require the City to approve or disapprove a specific proposal by a property owner; however, in this case it should be obvious based on much of the uncontradicted evidence before the bearing examiner and the City Council that petitioners' plan is a reasonable one considering all of the surrounding properties and uses over the last 20 years or so and that the City's failure to modify the restrictive zoning applicable only to petitioners' property and to allow a similar use to all other abutting property owners within a 30 -block area was arbitrary and capricious and must be rectified. The City's mandated to reclassify the subject property by updating its plans so as to allow uses that are in basic conformity with other properties abutting this particular highway and not inconsistent with this opinion. I believe it would be helpful if the Court would retain jurisdiction, at least for a little while, to see what happens next in the saga of 'the Farr property. That ends the Court's opinion. Are there any questions by counsel? MR. HENDRICKSON: Clarification of the last point. You said the City should retain jurisdiction. Did you mean the Court? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 THE COURT: I'm sorry, the Court retain jurisdiction. Not forever, just for a little while, hopefully. Are there any further questions? MR. HENDRICKSON: I have no questions, your Honor. MR. GIDLEY: None. THE COURT: All right, we'll stand at recess. (Concluded.) C All OF TUKWILA - Planning Departml, APPLICATION TIMETABLE CHECKLIST Project Comp Plan Amendment and Rezone File #(s) 86 -19 -CPA Location SW corner 180th and Southcenter Parkway Pre - application meeting date Pre -app. # Date application received 5/5/86 Fees $ 700.00 Kroll page 350W Qtr- Sec- Twp -Rng NW 35 -23 -4 86 -20 -R SEPA # EPIC- 323 -86 Control # 86 -144 Receipt # 1165 Tax Lot # 40 ( ?) GENERAL INFORMATION Request Comp Plan amendment from low density residential to commercial and rezone Description of project from R -A, Agriculture to C -2, Regional Retail APPLICATION INFORMATION oTl/ 800 Contact Person Kenneth Shellan Phone 255-5600 Address P.O. Box 26 Renton, WA Zip 98057 Property Owner Mr. & Mrs. Roy Smith Phone Address 5665 South 178th Seattle, WA Zip 98188 Contract Purchaser Phone Address Zip PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIREMENTS /DEADLINES Notice publication deadline 6/13/86 Notice to property owners deadline 6/13/86 Notice posted on property deadline 6/16/86 Date published 6/15/86 Date mailed Date posted Notice of Shoreline app. deadline N/A 1st notice published 30 day comment period ends 2nd notice published ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW Comment period: Yes X No 15 day deadline from action Date routed Due back All comments received Additional information required Date submitted Date routed Due back All comments received DNS issued Mitigated DNS issued EIS required Date BOARD-CW-AMSTMENTYPLANNING COMMISSION Meeting date(s) 6/26/86 Date of final action Approved Approved with conditions Denied Conditions Appeal deadline Appealed: Yes No Shoreline Permit sent to DOE Date DOE received 30 day appeal period ends CITY COUNCIL Hearing date assigned Results of Hearing Ordinance or Resolution assigned (23 /ATC) Effective date LAND USE MAP UPDATED ZONING MAP UPDATED