Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1981-03-09 Committee of the Whole MinutesMarch 9, 1981 TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL 7:00 P.M. COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING Council Chambers PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL OF COUNCIL MEMBERS REPORTS Approval of Minutes: February 23, 1981. Legal gambling in the City. M I N U T E S City Hall Council President Van Dusen led the City Council and audience in the Pledge of Allegiance and called the Committee of the Whole Meeting to order. LIONEL C. BOHRER, MABEL J. HARRIS, GEORGE D. HILL, DORIS E. PHELPS, DANIEL J. SAUL, Council President GARY L. VAN DUSEN. MOVED BY HILL, SECONDED BY PHELPS, THAT THE COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MINUTES HELD FEBRUARY 23, 1981 BE APPROVED AS PUBLISHED. MOTION CARRIED. Carl Carlson, City Attorney, explained the system by which gambling is regulated in the State and what would have to be done if Tukwila changes their law permitting gambling. Gambling activities are regulated by the State but it is up to a City to specify whether or not gambling activities can take place in the City. Cities can tax gambling. The City presently has a gambling ordinance that permits card rooms and pull tabs and taxes them. Acting Police Chief Patrick Lowery said in the City we have three card rooms in operation and one tavern selling tabs. None operate the maximum number of hours. The police have monitored the activities during the past 15 months. There have been no serious enforcement problems so far. The revenue that has been received from these gambling activities has been: 1976 $99,245; 1977 $54,478; 1978 $54,502; 1979 $61,605; 1980 $72,834. The Gambling Commission notified the City last October that monitoring efforts would be up to the City. This is a very sensitive area as the local police officers are known to the gambling operators. If the games are not regulated they will be susceptible to professional gambling. Councilman Bohrer said the Acting Finance Director has listed gambling penalties for 1978, 1979, and 1980. Acting Police Chief Lowery said this was due to money coming in late. The only penalties have been in the form of suspension of licenses. Councilman Harris asked how many times the licenses have changed since there has been gambling in the City. Chief Lowery said each establishment has been in the process of turnover since November 1979. In the case of the Silver Dollar and the Golden Nugget the turnover occurred when the license was up for suspension. When there is a change of license they recommend one year's probation rather than suspension of license. Joe Gasparovich, former owner of the Golden Nugget, said they have never had their license suspended. If gambling is prohibited in Tukwila sixteen people will lose their jobs at the Golden Nugget. The card room operators are only allowed to charge $2.00 per hour to each card player and the house cannot become involved in the gambling. Only an idiot would come to Washington and invest his money in a poker place with these limitations. People are not coming here from any distance. They come and play for recreation, not for gambling. The Tukwila Police Department has done a good job. They have come in and have been fair and honest. A dance band would create a bigger problem and more noise than a poker game We are no different than the Long Acres race track. At Long Acres they call it pari mutual betting, when it is a card room they call it gambling. Jack Sherman, Everett, Gambling Commission, said he had been in the business for about 31 years. In Washington the people have been opposed to casino type gambling. We have the best gambling laws. The Gambling Commission has strict control. There is a $100 license that has to be paid on each employee. Sometimes gambling has been associated with crime and vice. The City of Seattle has chosen not to have card rooms or pull tabs. TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING March'9, 1981 Page 2 REPORTS Contd. Legal gambling in the City contd. Bruce Durocher, attorney representing Benny and Ella Woyvodich of the Riverside Inn, said gambling is a supplement to the major business of dining and dancing. If there is any doubt about the reputation of any of the employees they are let go. They have never been threatened with suspension. There has been gambling in the City since 1976 and the City has obtained revenue of more than $300,000. The Police Chief has said there was practically no crime associated with gambling in Tukwila. The policing has been good. Larry 0. Denner, customer, said there is a good atmosphere in Tuk- wila. It is not a sleezy crowd. Women do not feel reluctant to come in and there has not been any fights. The floormen are good and have control. Playing in Tukwila has been a pleasure. He said it troubled him that the card rooms might be shut down. Lou Hendrickson, owner of Short Acres Tavern, said if the Mafia is involved in gambling in Tukwila he would like to know where it is. Bob Davis, employee at Riverside Inn, said he does not find anything crooked going on there. They hired him when he had been out of work for one year and he needed a job. MOVED BY BOHRER, SECONDED BY SAUL, THAT THE CITY ATTORNEY DRAW UP AN ORDINANCE PROHIBITING ALL GAMBLING IN THE CITY OF TUKWILA AND IT BE ON THE AGENDA OF THE MARCH 23, 1981 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING. MOTION CARRIED, WITH HARRIS VOTING NO. RECESS MOVED BY HILL, SECONDED BY SAUL, THAT THE COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE 8:25 8:35 P.M. MEETING RECESS FOR TEN MINUTES. MOTION CARRIED. The Committee of the Whole Meeting was called back to order by Council President Van Dusen with Council Members present as previously listed. CITIZEN'S COMMENTS Sign Ordinance The business does not take anything or participate in any way in the gambling. They get $2.00 per hour for play by a customer. Mike Imamura, Golden Nugget Restaurant, said his place is for the betterment of Tukwila. There is no question that gambling has been associated with crime. He said there had been a minor violation when an employee did not have his name tag visible. Often in cities where gambling is prohibited it goes on behind the scene. He said they welcomed the visits of the Police Department to their place of business. Kim McDaniel, Office Manager of Gambling Commission, said spot checks are made in- depth. Councilman Saul said gambling is considered to be a stimulant to help a restaurant. Kim McDaniels said there is a training program in process to train local police officers. There are many checks made on the earnings of gambling establishments. The training program will vary according to the individuals. It would involve about 90 hours and would be training at all levels. Councilman Bohrer asked if the earnings reports are available to the City? Mr. McDaniels said he could not answer that question. He is in enforcement and not the auditing office. Dick Goe, Chairman of the Board of Adjustment, said as a member of a citizen's committee they would like to have a meeting to address the sign ordinance. The projected meeting date is April 16, 1981. MOVED BY HILL, SECONDED BY SAUL, THAT THE CITIZENS COMMITTEE ADDRESS THE SIGN ORDINANCE AND SET THE DATE FOR A MEETING. MOTION CARRIED. TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING March 9, 1981 Page 3 PUBLIC HEARING 8:40 P.M. Zoning Ordinance, Draft No. 4. Council President Van Dusen said the Public Hearing is being held to get the public feeling regarding the draft of the proposed zoning ordinance. Since 1978 the Planning Commission has been working on this zoning ordinance. Eileen Avery, Secretary of the Planning Commission, and Chairman Richard Kirsop are present at the meeting. Letters have been received from the following and the contents are recapped as follows: Bruce Solly (Bruce W. Solly Development Co., Inc.): A solution to a previously unforeseen problem has been created at Southcenter Office Park. The subject site is shown (on attached map) in yellow color. Draft No. 4 shows approximately the southerly one -half of this site as C -2 and the northly portion as P -0. Under Section 18.50 of Draft No. 4, the Planning Commission can authorize a building height up to 115 feet in the C -2 district, but it not allowed to do so in the P -0 zone. For information, we own the land on the east side of the subject site between 52nd Avenue South and Interstate 5. We also own the land on the north side on which we are just completing the Parkridge Building. On the west side of the site is 51st Avenue, which is approximately 50 feet above elevation of 52nd Avenue. To the south, across Southcenter Boulevard there is a retail and office area. (We also own the frontage on the south side of Southcenter Boulevard.) Allan E. and Jane B. Merkle, 4426 South 136th Street, Tukwila 98168: Our small apartment building at 14081 58th Avenue South is in compliance with the new Land Use Map and presently zoned R -4. The proposed zoning ordinance (Draft No. 4) proposes to drop the zoning on our property from R -4 to R -3. Why? Yes, we oppose the down -zone in the ordinance and if you were in our shoes, wouldn't you? We are just two people trying to make a living in Tukwila. Al and I have lived in or near Tukwila all of our lives, over 53 years, we intend to be here a lot longer. I certainly hope you can see our point of view regarding this down -zone matter when it comes before the Council. L. E. Crostick, Southcenter Distribution, Inc.: This letter is to serve as official protest to the downgrading of the zoning of property owned by Tukwila Interurban Investment, Inc. on Interurban Avenue from C -2 to C -1. Zoning designation of C -1 to these properties creates a highly restrictive use as compared to the allowed uses within the present C -2. We invite your serious consideration to the keeping of the present C -2 zoning. This letter is to serve as official protest to the downgrading of the zoning of property owned by Southcenter Distribution, Inc. on Interurban Avenue from C -2 to C -1. Zoning designation of C -1 to this property creates a h ighly restrictive use as compared to the allowed uses within C -2. We are inviting your serious consideration to the keeping of the present C -2 zoning. Stephen J. Crane, Crane, Carroll, Boese, Dunham, Stamper Daily: We represent the owners of the Verona Apartments. We have previously expressed our concerns with the impact that certain changes in the zoning code would have on our client with respect to the use, enjoy- ment and value of their property. We feel that the provisions made in this now fourth draft with respect to the escapement clauses for parking, landscaping, and non conforming residential structures are fair and acceptable to our clients, and we urge that they remain as they presently exist in the final version of the ordinance. Fred Satterstrom, Planner, stated Draft No. 4 of the Zoning Ordinance is very close to what is desired by the City. The Public Hearing is the beginning of the process to take out the wrinkles. A register has been provided for citizens to sign so they can be on a mailing list to be kept informed as to meetings. There is also a Speaker sign -up sheet for those desiring to speak on the proposed zoning ordinance document. The speakers will be called in the order of sign -up. FUKWILA CITY COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING larch 9, 1981 )age 4 DUBLIC HEARING Contd. 7 _oning Ordinance )raft No. 4 contd. Jem Locke, 14225 Interurban Avenue South, Tukwila, stated his son would read a letter he had prepared. In brief, the letter stated the current proposal recommends a zoning reclassification of Parcel No. 19 from C -2 to C -1. The proposed zoning ordinance states that, as is cited to be consistent with the Interurban Corridor Study, the reclassification will serve to "direct commercial development to more local- oriented businesses and offices." I cannot accept that a down zoning from C -2 to C -1 will most effectively achieve that goal. I believe that a reclassified C -1 Parcel No. 19 would serve more to inhibit rather than enhance the chances of achieving a business community of a more local orientation. Basically, down zoning to C -1 classification severely restricts the flexibility of commercial usage considerable. The down zoning of Parcel No. 19 from C -2 to C -1 is a mistake. The end results of a down zoning are not pleasant. Businesses that have historically existed in this area will no longer be able to operate. Because of lower commercial flexibility, new businesses will not be attracted to locate and existing businesses will not be stimulated toward improvement. This will stifle many potential desirable businesses. This will lower property values which will end in reduced tax revenues for the City. The following C -2 businesses that are not allowed under the C -1 district but would serve citizens of Tukwila in the desired "local oriented" fashion are: auto repair shops, auto or trailer sales rooms, barbecue stands, cocktail lounges in association with restaurant billiard or pool rooms, bus stations, car washes, drive -in restaurants, garages, ice cream stores, loan and finance companies, night clubs or taverns, single family dwellings, tire and battery shops, upholstery and furniture repairs. Tukwila's policies, while reflecting the aspirations of the local citizenry, should also provide for the enhancement of regional goals." The only means to meet that mandate is to retain parcel No. 19 as a C -2 district or to modify the proposed C -1 district to include above mentioned C -2 opportunities. Chris Crumbaugh, representing Segale family, said he felt the document was a mishmash. It was put together from a lot of different zoning codes. The existing zone code was adopted in 1957 and it has had several revisions since then. It has developed warehouses in this town, it has developed hotels, developed commercial buildings, it has developed Southcenter. It has been quite flexibile and we have been able to deal with concerns that have confronted us. When we have not been able to deal with those concerns we have adopted ordinances to take care of certain problems. As an example, the shorelines code, the sidewalk ordinance, so we are taking care of concerns as they arise. The new code, in my opinion, is unworkable. It has so many new provisions, so many new change provisions, that we cannot find the direction we are going with the code. When we do come to some of these provisions, they are unacceptable, I think, to the City and to use as a person who is trying to work with the code. We have a vision as to what we see is going to happen in this town. We thought tonight we would try to give you sort of a positive view of what we see for the future of this town. When we were told that this was going to be informationaland we did not have to get into particulars about the code, I think we wanted to present to you some of the things we think and feel when we are working with the code and with our property. All too often we do not communicate in this fashion. We sit and talk about specifics and we never communicate as far as goals and ideals. We have asked our architect, Stanford Wyatt, to show you a few slides that he has taken and discuss in general terms about development of the property that is owned by the Segale family south of 180th Street. The Segale family also has other properties, one of which is located across from Southcenter and the concerns we express would apply to those properties as well. Some of the areas in particular that we are concerned with are the height, which has been lowered in this code. The setbacks have changes, the parking requirements have been changed, the landscaping requirements have been changed. Some of the mixed use capabilities of the code have changed. Not only am I criticizing, I would also TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING March 9, 1981 Page 5 PUBLIC HEARING Contd. Zoning Ordinance, like to express a thought that the document does not look to the Draft No. 4 contd. future. That is what we need if we are going to change the present zoning code. Standford Wyatt, architect, Segale Business Park, showed slides of developments and visions and goals they have for the City. He said they would like to work their visions into the code, if Tukwila goes ahead with the proposed code. Jack Link, 1411 4th Avenue, Seattle 98101, representing Tri -Land Corporation and William E. Boeing, Jr. Altogether we own over 750,000 square feet of warehouse and office facilities, as well as undeveloped sites located in the Tukwila industrial area south of 405 and north of the Green River bend. In the draft proposed we have 3 main concerns: change in zoning from M -2 to C -M in the eastern part of the area south of 180th and the other concerns are in Chapters 18.50 Height, Setback and Area Restrictions and 18.52, Landscape and Recreation Space Requirements. The proposed zoning change south of 180th and in particular the river's bend area where Sperry Flight Systems, Old National Bank and Pacific National Bank facilities are located is of concern to us. The area is and has been zoned M -2 and the building setback restriction from the street for M -2 has been minimal. The proposed M -1 and M -2 building setback is 25 feet from the street which the existing buildings in the river's bend area do meet. This area is now proposed for C -M zoning which requires a 50 foot setback. This will make at least one existing facility non conforming and further with the remaining land being too relatively narrow lots, each abutting the meandering Green River and affected by the shoreline zone restrictions. The proposed C -M zoning classification adds another 25 foot setback restriction, squeezing down the size of a future building, placing economic restraints on the development of the remaining parcels in River's Bend. Next, the parts of Chapters 18.50 on height limitation and 18.52 on additional landscaping requirements for parking areas having 50 or more parking stalls are of serious concern to us as owners and developers. The height limitation chart in Chapter 18.50 basically sets C -2 zoning land at 3 stories or 35 feet and C -M, M -1, and M -2 at four stories and 45 feet. In Section 18.50.030 the Planning Commission may authorize building height limits up to 115 feet from 35 feet for C -2 and only up to 75 feet from 45 feet in C -M, M -1 and M -2. I do not understand the logic of allowing C -2 to go from 35 to 115 and holding C -M, M -1, and M -2 to just 75 from 45 feet, the question still remains would not it be better to have no height limitations with specific restrictions than to have the Planning staff and Commission extract a host of concessions for each floor of additional height requested over the basic limitation as the overwhelming 1 through 8 criteria listed on pages 88, 90, and 91 of Section 18.50.030. Section 18.52.050 of Chapter 18.52, Landscape Requirements, calls for an additional 5% landscaping for parking and loading facilities having 50 or more parking stalls. This is in addition to the required front side and rear landscape requirements. The idea supposedly is to reduce the barrenappearance of the parking lot. I submit that for industrial warehouse facilities this not only creates truck maneuvering problems, but again compresses the size of the new building and the economic aspects of that facility. Present ordinance, with planned review and approval by the Board of Architec- tural Review already extracts a good hunk of landscaping by way of existing side and front yard plan requirements. With this 5% rule added in it further takes away from parking space. It would further burden should a change be made later to an existing building which might require even additional parking. These chapters and sections point up the Catch 22 of the proposed ordinance. The rezone proposed in some areas makes for nonconforming buildings by the added setback restrictions in those zones that are changed. It compresses the size for future facilities on any remaining land which greatly affects the economic aspects of development. The height limitations and repressive criteria associated with the limita- tions, the added landscaping as well as current changes in thinking about sidewalk widths will make it excessively restrictive to make changes in existing buildings in order to meet tenant needs as they may be required. The overall ordinance plan appears to give the feel ing of having been created for planning area that was mainly bare lanc about to be developed, rather than a planning area that has been mostly developed and built upon. TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING March 9, 1981 Page 6 PUBLIC HEARING Contd. 1/46/.2 7 Zoning Ordinance, Councilman Bohrer said he appreciated the specific comments offered Draft No. 4 contd. by Mr. Link. It appears that he is out to keep enlarging the buildings and making them higher and do away with the landscaping. Mr. Link said the City is increasing the restrictions that are not going to provide the aesthetic value. He said he felt the City should stay with what they have. William Rademaker, Jr., 1411 4th Avenue, Seattle, legal counsel to Mesabi Western Corporation, Tri -Land Corporation, and William E. Boeing, Jr., said he would like to address one of the fundamental issues of the height limitation question and that is where our people in businesses exist. He said he thought the height limitation should be abolished. Councilman Hill asked if he was proposing the City not have any rules and regulations on building and everyone do what they want. Mr. Rademaker said it would be better to have the restrictions based on a particular property. There is also the question of the setbacks, the parking and the landscaping and some other provisions do create a situation. If you comply with one of them you disallow compliance with another. He said he thought the proposed ordinance was unrealistic. Councilman Hill said the Council is trying to build a City that does not look like the south end of Seattle. He said the City is trying to help the developer so it is consistent. Councilman Bohrer said the Council is trying to be forward looking and develop principles and goals as to how they want the City to look. Councilman Bohrer asked Mr. Rademaker if his clients have a five year plan? Mr. Rademaker said it was more like a 5 -month plan. Councilman Bohrer said the Council would like to be able to plan for 30 years. Ron Mikulski, Chamber of Commerce, said the Chamber of Commerce is a new organization, just barely one year old. He said he would like Kent L. Johnson, Co- Chairman of the Community and Economic Development Committee for the Greater Tukwila Chamber of Commerce to speak to the Council. Kent L. Johnson said in October 1980 the Tukwila Chamber of Commerce made a position statement concerning Draft No. 4 of the zoning ordinance. He said they would like to update that position with the following statement: (1) Economic Impact: several people have asked for an economic impact statement. The cost of the proposed code could be more than economics allow. The code does not deal with the realities of current economics and building costs. Development of existing property would be curtailed and the most significant adverse effects might be to the City itself, as the tax base drops off. In short, the proposed code does not address progress for the future of Tukwila. (2) Height Limitations: The Committee is in favor of allowing higher buildings. For economic, energy conservation and other reasons, in the long run, this will benefit the community. (3) Interurban Avenue: The committee is not in favor of downzoning Interurban Avenue. A signifi- cant number of the users of Interurban Avenue begin and terminate their journeys outside the City making it unquestionably a regional road. To regard it only as a local road seems contrary to facts. It should be maintained a C -2 zone with solutions established for some of the existing problems. (4) Spot Downzoning: The committee in general, does not favor spot downzoning. (5) Parking and Land- scaping: Parking and landscaping requirements under the proposed code are excessive and do not foster proper utilization of existing lands. The committee favors reasonable parking and landscaping requirements, but not to the detriment of the prudent use of the remaining high value land. TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING March 9, 1981 Page 7 PUBLIC HEARING Contd. Zoning Ordinance The Committee feels that government regulations should encourage Draft No. 4 contd. good growth. We believe that Draft No. 4, as proposed, would have detrimental impacts on growth, the local economy and the existing property owners. It is the understanding of the Committee that the City is currently interviewing and planning to hire a professional planning director. We would like to encourage that consideration of any further action on Draft No. 4 be delayed until the new director is at his position and has the opportunity to become familiar with the proposed Draft No. 4 zoning code contents. Gary Huff, 1000 Norton Building, Seattle, representing Southcenter, said they opposed Draft No. 3, Draft No. 4 is much improved. It is a document they can live with. Rod Kirsch, representing McCann Development, 950 Andover Park East, said they are responsible for several million square feet of warehouse and office area in the Tukwila area. As charter members of the community on business and economic development, we share the concerns of many people who have spoken tonight. We would like to take this opportunity and underscore one further concern, that being this ordinance is efforts to make the new zoning regula- tions somewhat retroactive by incorporation of the nonconforming use regulations. To appreciate the impact of this you have to realize that as you drive through the industrial section of Tukwila the majority of the businesses you see now will become nonconforming buildings. They no longer are legal in the eyes of your Zoning and Planning Commission. What that means to representatives of Tri -Land, representatives of McCann Development, what it means to representa- tives of CPI, is every time they go back for a permit, for a tenant improvement, for a new office, for a speculative warehouse type commodity exchange or something along those lines they are again being exposed to the discretion of the Planning Department. The potential for the slight manipulation of the ordinance is somewhat substantial and we are concerned. Realize when you see an 80,000 foot warehouse being built in Southcenter Industrial Park, that is not being scheduled for one tenant, that is being scheduled for 8, possibly 10 tenants. There will be limited leases. In maybe two, five, or six years there will be new tenants moving in there. That reconstruction, that refabrication and refacilitation is going to require permits and again we are exposed to the new ordinances. Not only that, consider the financial ramifications to it. Often the tenant improvements, etc., require financial commitment Empathize with the lending institution. Now you are suddenly being asked to finance the nonconforming use. Ladies and gentle- men, my comments are brief. Our big concern is as you drive through Tukwila you see a healthy thriving community with a terrific tax base that is growing with leaps and bounds in what we consider to be a very dynamic way. As you drive through realize that dynamics is due to a large degree to the efforts of a Bill Rademaker, a Jack Link, a Mario Segale, and a Bruce McCann, to mention a few. It is also due to the effort of your Planning Commission and Department and you as a City Council. My understanding is that this meeting is to establish a dialogue. You have heard a lot of negative comments about this zoning ordinance and I gather just through my personal impression some of those comments have not been taken too kindly. We want to establish a dialogue, and it has been negative, and maybe with reason. Councilman Bohrer said the Council is trying to dialogue what the developers are telling us. We have a warehouse that goes in and they say the biggest truck that goes in will be 5,000 pounds. The next year another tenant goes in and they require larger trucks and semis that have to maneuver on our City streets in order to get to the warehouse. We have no control over that at the present time. Mr. Kirsch said he agreed that there has to be regulations. The solution is pre planning. It has to be codified and digested. There has to be flexibility. Dennis Robertson, 16038 48th South, said in his area they would like to share in the vision as to what the City should look like. They like what they see for the hillside where he lives. He said his wife would like to continue to be able to drive around when TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING March 9, 1981 Page 8 PUBLIC HEARING Contd. &/.2-7 Zoning Ordinance, she does her shopping. It is getting difficult to shop and drive Draft No. 4 contd. around due to the large truck traffic. He said with respect to height, the trees are getting taller and he would like to see that continue. Richard Goe, 5112 South 163rd Pl., Tukwila, said residential zoning is what they want for McMicken Heights and other parts of Tukwila. They want single family on the hillside. We have had developers who have cared because we have had a tight ordinance on them. Barbara Wilson, 403 Columbia Street, Seattle, representing the Seattle Rendering Works, said they support Chapter 18.66 (Unclassi- fied Use Permits). However, in Section 18.66.060 compatability is too vague. Gene Ives, 14247 56th South, Tukwila, said he was speaking in behalf of his in -laws who own part of his property. He said they would like to have it remain as it is presently zoned, R -4. It is not spoiling anyone's view, there is a dedicated street down there that will be put through. It is shown as R -1 on the proposed draft. If it has to be changed R -3 would be better than R -1. Councilman Phelps asked if Mr. Ives would identify it as to parcel number. Mr. Ives said he did not know the parcel number. Francis North, Box 441, North Bend, representing the Codiga family, said east of the river at approximately 12529 50th South is proposed to be downzoned from M -1 to R -A. This acreage was a portion of the original annexation to Tukwila from King County in 1959 and at that time received the M -1 zoning. It is difficult to understand the Committee's reasoning in proposing the change to R -A especially in light of recent expansion of industrial development in the immediate area, for instance, the Burlington Northern installation. A return to M -1 zoning in the proposal would be realistic. West of the river at approximately 12610 Interurban South is zoned M -1. She encouraged that it retain existing height legislation. She said she had several other concerns with the zoning code and would like to discuss them with the Council when it comes to addressing their property in particular. Joe Benoliel, 5950 6th Avenue South, Seattle, representing the Benaroya Company, said he had one specific comment to make and it has to do with the parcel that is identified as Parcel No. 80 in the impact statement. This is the property that we refer to as the Parkway Plaza shopping center. This is not with reference to the property on the west side of the parkway which contains the 9 -story office building. He said he was talking only about Parcel No. 80 which is on the east side of Southcenter Parkway. It is proposed in the new code for designation as C -2 or regional retail business. His concern is that this is more appropriately one of two things, either this should be classified as C -P or that the limitation in Paragraph 28, Page 48, of Draft No. 4 limiting a shopping center mall plan to not more than a total of 300,000 square feet be increased. My particular problem is this, if you consider as we do now that it is all completed, what we call Park- way Plaza that includes Jafco and the south and north phases on either side to be one functioning shopping center, functioning as a unit, and the total leasable area is in excess of 530,000 square feet. I think as you can see from the orange on the map to the right that the effort was made in designating Parcel No. 80 in classifying it C -2, the Planning Commission was making an effort to make existing use conforming, in fact, that is what the comment is in the Impact Statement, that it conforms. My concern is that it would make it nonconforming in this respect. If you look on Page 15 of the Draft to Section 18.06.600 which is the definition (Proposed) of shopping center mall plan you find that the existing use of Parkway states: "Said establishments front and TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING March 9, 1981 Page 9 PUBLIC HEARING Contd. X3 /36 Zoning Ordinance, open onto a common mall or concourse." My vision is not that far Draft No. 4 contd. reaching into the future and I don't see that it would be prepostrous or too forward thinking to suggest the day might come for the conven- ience of the shoppers and the idea of getting people to stay out of their automobile a little bit and not have to get in and drive from store to store. Why we have not yet ant this into a firm proposal, someday in the future we might be proposing a minor modification to the front end of the buildinas at the south of Jafco which would cover some kind of a common concourse and make it possible for someone to park as the north side and walk under a covered walk- way. It was the last part to be built so it had more of a modern thinking. To go back and make a minor modification, we would then precisely fit the definition of the shopping center mall plan. We would then be required to do a rezone, because under this Section 28, paragraph 28, we would then have 530,000 square feet opening to a common mall or concourse where the limitation is 300,000 square feet. It seems that the solution which would, of course there would be plenty of restrictions if we ever did make that proposal, we would have to go through BAR and meet all of the other requirements and determine at that point whether or not it is even feasible and permissible. What I am trying to avoid is having to go through a next step which would be unnecessary and that would be a rezone because the effort here is to zone it consistent with the existing use, to classify it according to the way it is being used. The way it is being used is as a single functioning shopping center except for the fact that you cannot get out of your car and walk on a single walkway from one end to another. With a minor modification that could be done. It is my point simply that either the 300,000 on Page 48, Paragraph 28, ought to be increased or that the property should be classified C -P. Councilman Bohrer said when he shops there he drives to a store and almost never walks from one store to another. What is said, however, may be true in the future. Mr. Benoliel said the way it is laid out a person is encouraged to do just what Mr. Bohrer said he does. It is not convenient for you to get out of your car and leave it in one spot and walk. John Barnes, 15814 51st Avenue South, Tukwila, said as I understand it we are going to have another chance to appear before the City Council. I cannot agree with the zoning that is proposed for my property at 158th and 51st Avenue South because it is a piece of property that is all by itself} there on the west we have a city park, on the south we have a city park, on the north we have a freeway and to the east we have a freeway. At present it is zoned RMH, the highest zoning and under the proposed plan they are knocking it down to the very lowest zoning. I cannot go along with that. I will make up a letter and present it to the Council. Joanne Davis, 5906 South 144th, Tukwila, said she was disturbed by the draft. It is making the City too nonconforming in may ways. Tonight I address the R -1 sector, my own personal residence. This illustration shows my house and our land and if we had a fire over 50% destruction as it is written here we would not be able to rebuild. We would have a complete loss. Have any one of you experienced fire that has destroyed your property? The useable land is approximately 62 feet back from the road and you would be asking me to go 30 feet back, I am right now 20 feet back, I have approximately 4 to 5 feet on my side yard. I am conforming to the existing code, but with the bank in the back I am about 6 feet on one corner of the house and approximately 10 feet on the other. Going back could not not be had on my property, even though I do have approximately 88 feet back. Overlooking other homes I see a situation also that they would be, my neighbors, would be nonconforming. In fact, if you look at your ownselves I think you would find maybe approximately 4 of the present Council people to be in the same situation. Maybe more, I do not know. I do feel you will look into this situation. I think the Planning Commission did somewhat try to address it but it is not clearly stated. In fact, I do not feel that this draft is clearly stated all of the way through. I think the impact has not been addressed. TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING March 9, 1981 Page 10 PUBLIC HEARING Contd. Zoning Ordinance, I did ask the Planning Commission to have an impact financial Draft No. 4 contd. impact with Draft No. 3. This document is mind bongling, a monster, I am sorry, but it needs to be thrown over your shoulder into the waste paper basket. We need to get back to the old, existing right now, rules of the present zoning and update it. I hope to be allowed to speak on the other issues, since we will be studying it. Thank you. ADJOURNMENT 10:26 Steve Keller, 9750 3rd Avenue NE, Seattle, developer of the South center Place Office Building, on the corner of Southcenter Parkway and Strander Boulevard. Just one observation on the height limi- tations. When I developed that property it was zoned M -1 and there was a height limitation with the exception of 300 feet. I think you will not be able to find a building in Tukwila that is 300 feet that has been the height limitation to date. You analyze the building and you try to do the best job you can with the building. A lot of people have spoken here tonight that have a great deal of background in development. The City has developed quite nicely within the existing code, and there are enough restrictions and limitations within the group that we met, the Planning Commission, to review the building, how it was going to be sited on the site, the height of the building, yet you have the flexibility with the existing code to meet all of the requirements to have a nice City. I think even though there is the existing, what you are really doing is taking the tallest building that exists in the City today at 115 feet and saying we are not going to have another building that is higher than that building. That is it. I think that has limited the flexibility of future development with new materials, new architectural thinking and a lot of input from people who have good educational backgrounds and practical experience in this whole field. I would like to say that I feel in that one area that the existing ordinance has flexibility with the required limitation that developers need to have. Council President Van Dusen closed the Public Hearing at 10:25 P.M. Councilman Hill said he would like to take Draft No. 4 of the Zoning Ordinance section by section and review it at the Committee of the Whole meetings. Councilman Harris said she would like to look at the comments that have been made at this meeting. Council President Van Dusen said he would present a plan to the Council at next week's meeting that would set up a schedule for discussions at the Committee of the Whole meetings. MOVED BY HARRIS, SECONDED BY PHELPS, THAT THE TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING ADJOURN. MOTION CARRIED. llt en;' C Min President Norma Booher, Recording Secretary