HomeMy WebLinkAboutPED 2020-12-07 COMPLETE AGENDA PACKET The City of Tukwila strives to accommodate individuals with disabilities.
Please contact the City Clerk’s Office at 206-433-1800 (TukwilaCityClerk@TukwilaWA.gov) for assistance.
City of Tukwila
Planning & Economic
Development Committee
Thomas McLeod, Chair
Kathy Hougardy
Zak Idan
Distribution:
T. McLeod
K. Hougardy
Z. Idan
D. Quinn
Mayor Ekberg
D. Cline
R. Bianchi
C. O’Flaherty
A. Youn
L. Humphrey
AGENDA
MONDAY, DECEMBER 7, 2020 – 5:30 PM
HAZELNUT CONFERENCE ROOM
(At east entrance of City Hall)
THIS MEETING WILL NOT BE CONDUCTED AT CITY FACILITIES
BASED ON THE GOVERNOR’S PROCLAMATION 20-28.
THE PHONE NUMBER FOR THE PUBLIC TO LISTEN TO THIS
MEETING IS: 1-253-292-9750, Access Code 157208534#
Item Recommended Action Page
1. BUSINESS AGENDA
a. An ordinance to adopt revisions to the Subdivision
Code.
Jaimie Reavis, Senior Planner
b. Seattle Southside Regional Tourism Authority:
Return on Investment.
Brandon Miles, Business Relations Manager
c. Experience Tukwila: Performance measures .
Brandon Miles, Business Relations Manager
d. COVID-19: Amending and renewing emergency rules
to allow tents in parking lots and temporary signage.
Brandon Miles, Business Relations Manager
e. 2020 Committee work plan.
Laurel Humphrey, Legislative Analyst
2. MISCELLANEOUS
a. Forward to 1/11/21 C.O.W.
and 1/18/21 Regular Mtg.
b. Discussion only.
c. Forward to 12/14 C.O.W.
d. Forward to 12/14 C.O.W.
Meeting and Special
Meeting Consent Agenda.
e. Discussion only.
Pg.1
Pg.57
Pg.81
Pg.89
Pg.93
Next Scheduled Meeting: January 2021
City of Tukwila
Allan Ekberg, Mayor
INFORMATIONAL MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning & Economic Development Committee
FROM: Jack Pace, Director, Department of Community Development
BY: Jaimie Reavis, Senior Planner
CC: Mayor Ekberg
DATE: November 25, 2020
SUBJECT: Updates to subdivision procedures
ISSUE
Should the subdivision procedures in Title 17 and Title 18 of the Tukwila Municipal Code be
amended to create a process to allow for the modifications of preliminary approved plats; modify
the approval process for final plats; allow for the creation of a phasing plan for plats; and modify
the expiration time-period for preliminary plats?
BACKGROUND
Planning Commission Review
The Tukwila Planning Commission at its November 12, 2020 meeting held a public hearing and
provided recommendations on proposed amendments to Title 17 (Subdivisions and Plats) and
Title 18 (Zoning). Two members of the public representing Segale Properties provided
comments. A Comment Letter drafted by Nancy Bainbridge Rogers of Cairncross &
Hempelmann on behalf of Segale Properties was also submitted for review by the Planning
Commissioners prior to the meeting (Attachment C). The Planning Commission Meeting
Minutes are included in Attachment B.
A draft ordinance is attached which includes the
proposed amendments based on Planning Commission
recommendations (Attachment A), as well as some
minor housekeeping text edits. Per the request of the
Planning and Economic Development (PED) Committee
at its October 19, 2020 meeting, a memo from the City
Attorney on the proposed subdivision amendments is
included as Attachment D.
Subdivision Process
The steps in the subdivision process are shown at right.
Steps taken by the applicant are shown in the white
areas, major decision points in the process shown in
black, and construction of project infrastructure in gray.
A subdivision is vested to the regulations in place at the
time an application for a Preliminary Plat is deemed by
the City to be complete. After initial review of the survey
and construction documents, the Preliminary Approval is
granted, which gives the applicant the go-ahead to
1
INFORMATIONAL MEMO
Page 2
https://tukwilawa.sharepoint.com/sites/mayorsoffice/cc/CC Docs/Old W/2020 Info Memos/InfoMemo12-7PED_SubdivisionAmendments (BJM
COMMENTS)_LM.docx
submit construction permits to build project infrastructure to prepare individual lots for sale or
development.
State law requires an expiration date of five years from the date of Preliminary Approval and
provides cities the authority to adopt extension periods. Property cannot be sold or developed
until Final Approval is granted, through which final signatures are added to the survey and the
survey is recorded to formally establish the new property lines for the new lots.
DISCUSSION
Table 1 summarizes the staff and Planning Commission recommended changes to TMC Title
17 and 18. The proposed subdivision amendments cover four main areas:
1. Adding a process to review proposed modifications to a project after it has received
preliminary approval and before final approval. This option is currently not addressed in
the code for any type of application for the subdivision of land, requiring an applicant to
submit a new application even for minor changes.
Staff Recommendation: DCD Director determines whether the modification is Minor or
Major. Minor modifications may be approved by the Director. Major modifications require
submittal of a new subdivision application. The full text of the staff recommendation is
included below, with language additions recommended by the Planning Commission shown
in italics.
PC Recommendation: Approve staff’s recommendation, with the language changes shown
in italic text:
1. Minor modifications proposed by an applicant after a preliminary approval decision
has been issued may be approved by the Director, based on review by multiple
departments. The Director may include conditions as part of an approval of a minor
modification to ensure conformance with the criteria below. Minor modifications are
those which:
a. Do not increase the number of lots beyond the number previously approved, or
which maintain the number of lots, or that decrease the number of lots in the
subdivision below the number previously approved.
b. Do not decrease the aggregate area of open space, or the design or location of
stormwater systems or roadways in the project by 10% or more.
c. May realign internal roadways and lot lines, but do not relocate any roadway
access point to an exterior street.
d. Do not alter the exterior boundaries of the project.
e. Are consistent with applicable development standards and will not cause the plat
to violate any applicable City policy or regulation.
f. Are consistent with the conditions of the preliminary approval, provided that a
minor modification may revise conditions of the preliminary approval so long as the
revisions are consistent with the minor modification limitations set by TMC Section
17.12.020.D.a-e.
2. Major modifications are those which, as determined by the Director, are not minor
modifications as defined in this code, and either add property or lots or substantially
change the basic design, density, open space, or other substantive requirement or
provision. If the applicant proposes to make one or more major changes, the revised
plan(s) shall be processed as a new application.
2
Table 1. Summary of Existing Processes and Staff and Planning Commission Recommended Changes
ITEM TMC
SECTIONS
EXISTING PROCESS PROPOSED CHANGE/STAFF
RECOMMENDATION
REASON FOR CHANGE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION
1. Modification
of a
Preliminary
Approval/
Preliminary Plat
– Minor and
Major
17.08.030,
17.12.020,
17.14.020,
18.104.010
Currently there is no
process in the TMC for
modifying preliminary
approvals
DCD Director determination on
whether the modification is Minor
or Major.
Minor modifications may be
approved by DCD Director.
Major modifications require
submittal of a new subdivision
application.
To add a process to the code for
this.
Approve staff’s recommendations with addition of
language to require all departments review a
modification before DCD Director approves it.
Add language to criteria a. and f., as provided in
Comment Letter
2. Final Plat
Review and
Approval
17.14.030,
17.20.030,
18.104.010
City Council approves Final
Plat
Administrative approval by the DCD
Director.
Substantive issues are
addressed at preliminary plat
stage
2017 Change to State Law
Public hearing is not required.
Decision is non-discretionary
Reduces City Council quasi-
judicial decisions
Reduces review and approval
time
Approve staff’s recommendation.
3. Phasing Plan
Approval
17.14.040,
18.104.010
Preliminary approval by
Hearing Examiner (or
Planning Commission if
design review is
required)
Final approval by City
Council
Review and approval by the
Hearing Examiner at time of
Preliminary Approval.
Hearing Examiner review if
phasing is proposed to be
modified after Preliminary
Approval has already been issued.
Needed due to proposed change
in Final Plat review and approval
process.
Hearing Examiner review and approval at
Preliminary Approval stage.
If phasing needs to be modified after Preliminary
Approval has been issued, the phasing plan should
go back to the Hearing Examiner for review and
approval.
4. Subdivision
Preliminary
Plat Expiration
and
Extensions
17.14.050 The hearing body for the
preliminary approval may
approve one extension not
to exceed one year
DCD Director approves extensions
for subdivisions.
Criteria added for DCD Director’s
review of extension requests.
Three-year extension beyond the
state-required 5-year expiration
period for phased subdivisions
Request from applicant For a Preliminary Plat with up to 2 phases: Three-
year extension beyond the state-required 5-year
expiration period.
For a Preliminary Plat with more than 2 phases:
Nine-year extension beyond the state-required 5-
year expiration period.
No change to staff recommended criteria for DCD
Director’s review of such an extension request.
3
INFORMATIONAL MEMO
Page 4
2. Changing the procedures and decision maker for Final Plat approval of a subdivision
of 10 or more lots (called a plat). A plat currently receives Preliminary Plat approval following
a public hearing by the Hearing Examiner (or Planning Commission when there is an associated
design review). The Final Plat decision is currently made by the City Council following a public
hearing.
Staff Recommendation: DCD Director issues the Final Plat decision, based on review and
written findings from multiple departments.
PC Recommendation: Approve staff’s recommendation to have the process for Final Plat
Approval changed from City Council to DCD Director.
3. Changing the procedures and decision maker for approval of a subdivision phasing
plan. The current process is for review and approval of a subdivision phasing plan to occur at
the Final Plat stage when the applicant goes to the City Council to receive Final Plat approval of
the first phase of a phased subdivision.
Staff Recommendation: Hearing Examiner review and approval at Preliminary Approval stage
(or by the Planning Commission if there is an associated design review). DCD Director review
and approval if modifications to the approved phasing plan are proposed after Preliminary
Approval has been issued.
PC Recommendation: Hearing Examiner review and approval of all phasing proposals or
modifications to phasing plans (or Planning Commission when there is an associated design
review).
4. Allowing DCD Director approval of subdivision extensions, and an additional
extension time-period for phased subdivisions. Phased subdivisions allow infrastructure
to be constructed incrementally, so that one phase may receive Final Plat approval while
subsequent phases are still under construction. The current expiration for a phased
subdivision is the same as for a subdivision that is not phased: 5 years from the date of
preliminary approval, with the option for one, 1-year extension upon request to the Hearing
Examiner.
Staff Recommendation: The recommendation is to have the DCD Director issue approval of
subdivision extension requests according to a set of criteria (included below this paragraph)
and allow a longer extension period of up to 3 years for phased subdivisions. The staff
recommendation of 3 years is different from the Planning Commission recommendations
which allow up to up to three, 3-year extensions for subdivisions with more than two phases.
The staff recommendation of a shorter extension period from the Planning Commission
recommendations is based on City Attorney input and recommendations (Attachment D),
vesting implications associated with the date of Preliminary Approval, the desire to have
infrastructure finalized and new lots available for development, and staff review of
subdivision extension periods in other jurisdictions.
Criteria for approval of a subdivision extension:
1. A written request for extension is filed at least 30 days before the expiration of the
preliminary plat; and
2. Unforeseen circumstances or conditions which are not the result of voluntary actions of
the applicant necessitate the extension of the preliminary plat: and
4
INFORMATIONAL MEMO
Page 5
https://tukwilawa.sharepoint.com/sites/mayorsoffice/cc/CC Docs/Old W/2020 Info Memos/InfoMemo12-7PED_SubdivisionAmendments (BJM
COMMENTS)_LM.docx
3. Conditions in the immediate vicinity of the subject property have not changed
substantially since the preliminary plat was first approved; and
4. An extension of the preliminary plat will not cause substantial detriment to existing
uses in the immediate vicinity of the subject property or to the community as a whole;
and
5. The applicant has demonstrated reasonable diligence in attempting to meet the time
limit imposed; and
6. The preliminary plat substantially complies with applicable City Code provisions in
effect on the date that the application for extension was made.
PC Recommendation: Allow DCD Director to approve subdivision extensions according to staff-
recommended criteria. For a preliminary plat with up to two phases, one 3-year extension can
be granted for a maximum time-period of 8 years from the date of preliminary approval to the
date of recording of the final phase. For a preliminary plat with more than two phases, up to
three 3-year extensions can be granted for a maximum time-period of 14 years between the
date of preliminary approval and the date of recording of the final phase of a phased
development.
FINANCIAL IMPACT
None.
RECOMMENDATION
The PED Committee is being asked to provide direction on Planning Commission
recommendations and forward the ordinance to the January 11, 2021 Committee of the Whole
Meeting for a public hearing and review. COW is being asked to forward a recommendation to
approve, deny or modify the draft ordinance at the Regular Meeting on January 18, 2021.
ATTACHMENTS
A. Draft Ordinance
B. Planning Commission meeting minutes and staff report from November 12, 2020
C. Comment letter from Nancy Bainbridge Rogers, Cairncross & Hempelmann on behalf of
Segale Properties LLC
D. City Attorney Memo
5
6
CC:\Legislative Development\Subdivision amendments strike-thru 12-1-20
JR:bjs Review and analysis by Barbara Saxton Page 1 of 26
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA,
WASHINGTON, AMENDING VARIOUS ORDINANCES AS CODIFIED
IN TUKWILA MUNICIPAL CODE TITLE 17, “SUBDIVISIONS AND
PLATS,” AND TITLE 18, “ZONING,” AT THE SECTIONS AS STATED
HEREIN, TO INCORPORATE CODE AMENDMENTS PROVIDING A
PROCESS TO MODIFY A SUBDIVISION PROJECT AFTER IT HAS
RECEIVED PRELIMINARY APPROVAL, TO DELEGATE FINAL PLAT
APPROVAL TO THE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT,
TO CHANGE THE PROCEDURES FOR PHASING OF A
SUBDIVISION, AND TO PROVIDE FOR ADDITIONAL EXTENSIONS
TO THE PRELIMINARY APPROVAL EXPIRATION OF PHASED
SUBDIVISIONS; REPEALING ORDINANCE NO. 2499; PROVIDING
FOR SEVERABILITY; AND ESTABLISHING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, the rules, regulations, requirements, and standards for subdividing land
in the City of Tukwila are contained in Title 17, “Subdivisions and Plats,” of the Tukwila
Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, permit application types and procedures, including those for subdividing
land in Tukwila, are contained within Title 18, “Zoning,” of the Tukwila Municipal Code;
and
WHEREAS, the Tukwila Municipal Code (TMC) does not currently provide a process
for modification of most types of subdivisions after preliminary approval has been issued
and before final approval is provided; and
WHEREAS, the need for a process to modify a subdivision in between the preliminary
approval and final approval stages of a project has arisen multiple times, requiring an
applicant to withdraw preliminary approved projects in order to make modifications that
can at times be minor in nature; and
WHEREAS, the addition of a process to modify a subdivision in between the
preliminary approval and final approval stages will provide City staff and applicants
direction on how to address proposed minor and major modifications after a project has
received preliminary approval; and
7
CC:\Legislative Development\Subdivision amendments strike-thru 12-1-20
JR:bjs Review and analysis by Barbara Saxton Page 2 of 26
WHEREAS, a 2017 update to Section 58.17.100 of the Revised Code of Washington
allows the City Council, by ordinance, to delegate final plat approval to an established
planning commission or agency, or to such other administrative personnel; and
WHEREAS, TMC Section 17.14.040 outlines the process for review and approval of
a proposal to record a subdivision in phases, which currently is tied to final plat review by
the City Council; and
WHEREAS, the Hearing Examiner is the hearing body that reviews a subdivision
preliminary plat (unless there is an associated design review whereby the subdivision
preliminary plat public hearing and decision can be combined for review by the Planning
Commission); and
WHEREAS, a proposal for a phased subdivision can be reviewed by the Hearing
Examiner as a Type 3 decision, (or by the Planning Commission as a Type 4 decision if
there is an associated design review); and
WHEREAS, there is a need to offer a process to modify an approved phasing plan;
and
WHEREAS, the Tukwila Planning Commission held a public hearing and provided
recommendations on amendments to the subdivision procedures in Title 17 and Title 18
of the Tukwila Municipal Code at its November 12, 2020 meeting;
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA,
WASHINGTON, HEREBY ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Ordinance No. 1833 §1 (part), as codified at Tukwila Municipal Code
(TMC) Section 17.08.030, is hereby amended to read as follows:
17.08.030 Preliminary approval
A. In order to receive preliminary approval, the applicant must submit to DCDthe
Director (as defined in TMC Chapter 18.06) a complete application, in quantities specified
by the CityDCD, and meet the criteria for approval.
B. A complete application consists of the following:
1. A completed application on a form provided by the Department of
Community Development City and fee as identified in TMC Chapter 18.88.
2. A neat and readable plan drawn to a standard decimal (engineer) scale. A
survey may be required if it is determined that level of information is needed to ensure
the adjustment meets the approval criteria. The plan shall show the following information:
a. Property lines, with those that remain in their existing location shown as
a solid line, those that are being moved or removed shown as a dashed line, and those
that have been relocated shown as a solid line and clearly identified as a relocated line.
b. Dimensions of all property lines and area of the lots, before and after the
adjustment.
8
CC:\Legislative Development\Subdivision amendments strike-thru 12-1-20
JR:bjs Review and analysis by Barbara Saxton Page 3 of 26
c. Location and floor area of all structures on the site, and their setbacks
from existing and new property lines.
d. Location and purpose of all easements on the site.
e. Location, purpose and legal description of any new or extended
easements proposed.
f. Location of adjacent public roads and points of access from the public
road(s) if a lot does not front on a public road; show how and where access is provided.
g. Location of existing utilities and utility easements.
h. Calculations which that demonstrate that required yards of the Uniform
Building Code are met.
3. Before and after legal description of the affected lots.
C. In order to approve a boundary line adjustment or lot consolidation, the Short
Subdivision Committee shall determine the project complies with the following criteria:
1. No additional lots, sites, parcels, tracts or divisions are created.
2. The adjustment will not create non-conforming lots with respect to zoning
dimension and area standards, zoning setbacks and lot area coverage standards.
3. The degree of non-conformance on existing non-conforming lots with
respect to zoning dimension and area standards, zoning setbacks and floor area ratio are
not increased.
4. All lots have legal access to a public road. Existing required private access
road improvements and easements are not diminished below subdivision ordinance
standards for lots that are served by a private access road.
5. Existing easements for utilities are appropriate for their intended function, or
they are extended, moved or otherwise altered to an appropriate location.
6. The adjustment does not create any non-conformities with respect to the
Uniform Building Code or any other locally administered regulation.
D. Minor and major modifications to a preliminary approval.
1. Minor modifications proposed by an applicant after a preliminary approval
decision has been issued may be approved by the Director as a Type 1 decision, based
on review and recommendations of the Short Subdivision Committee . The Director may
include conditions as part of an approval of a minor modification to ensure conformance
with the criteria below. Minor modifications are those which:
a. Do not increase the number of lots beyond the number previously approved,
or which maintain the number of lots, or that decrease the number of lots in the subdivision
below the number previously approved.
b. Do not decrease the aggregate area of open space, or the design or location
of stormwater systems or roadways in the project by 10% or more.
9
CC:\Legislative Development\Subdivision amendments strike-thru 12-1-20
JR:bjs Review and analysis by Barbara Saxton Page 4 of 26
c. May realign internal roadways and lot lines, but do not relocate any roadway
access point to an exterior street.
d. Do not alter the exterior boundaries of the project.
e. Are consistent with applicable development standards and will not cause the
boundary line adjustment or lot consolidation to violate any applicable City policy or
regulation.
f. Are consistent with the conditions of the preliminary approval, provided that
a minor modification may revise conditions of the preliminary approval so long as the
revisions are consistent with the minor modification limitations set by TMC Section
17.08.030.D.a-e.
2. Major modifications are those which, as determined by the Director, are not
minor modifications as defined in this code, and either add property or lots or substantially
change the basic design, density, open space, or other substantive requirement or
provision. If the applicant proposes to make one or more major changes, the revised
plan(s) shall be processed as a new application.
Section 2. Ordinance No. 1833 §1 (part), as codified at TMC Section 17.12.020, is
hereby amended to read as follows:
17.12.020 Preliminary short plat approval
A. Application/fees. The following items are required, in quantities specified by
DCDthe City, for a complete Short Plat application for preliminary approval. Items may
be waived if, in the judgment of the Short Subdivision Committee, they are not applicable
to the proposal:
1. Items contained in TMC Section 18.104.060.
2. Completed Preliminary Short Plat Application Form as prescribed by the
DCD DirectorCity with fee as identified in TMC Chapter 18.88.
3. Completed Application Checklist.
4. A complete SEPA Checklist application if project is not exempt from SEPA.
5. Complete applications for other required land use approvals.
6. A vicinity map showing location of the site.
7. A survey prepared to the standards identified in TMC Section 17.04.060.
8. Site and development plans which that provide the following information:
a. The owners of adjacent land and the names of any adjacent
subdivisions.
b. Lines marking the boundaries of the existing lot(s) (any existing lot to be
eliminated should be a dashed line and so noted).
c. Locations of existing and proposed public street rights-of-way and
easements and private access easements.
10
CC:\Legislative Development\Subdivision amendments strike-thru 12-1-20
JR:bjs Review and analysis by Barbara Saxton Page 5 of 26
d. Location, floor area and setbacks of all existing structures on the site.
e. Lot area, lot line dimensions and average widths for each lot.
f. Location of proposed new property lines and numbering of each lot.
g. Location, dimension and purpose of existing and proposed easements.
Provide recorded documents which that identify the nature and extent of existing
easements.
h. Location of any proposed dedications.
i. Existing and proposed topography at two-foot contour intervals,
extending to five feet beyond the project boundaries.
j. Location of any sensitive critical areas and sensitive critical area buffers
(slopes 15% or greater, wetlands or watercourses) on the site.
k. Location, size and species of any trees located within a sensitive critical
area or its buffer or the shoreline zone unless none of these trees are to be removed and
their location is not likely to create undue hardship on individual lots with respect to TMC
Chapter 18.54, “Urban Forestry and Tree Regulations.”
l. Location of existing and/or proposed fire hydrants to serve the project.
m. Description, location and size of existing and proposed utilities, storm
drainage facilities and roads to serve the lots.
n. Expected location of new buildings and driveways, including finished
floor elevations of the buildings.
9. Letter of water and sewer availability if the provider is other than the City of
Tukwila.
B. Review procedures.
1. Referral to Other Departments. Upon receipt of an application for a short
subdivision, the Department of Community DevelopmentDirector shall transmit one copy
of the application to each member of the Short Subdivision Committee, and one copy to
any department or agency deemed necessary.
2. Short Subdivision Committee Decision. The Short Subdivision
Committee may approve, approve with modifications, or deny the application for a short
subdivision pursuant to Type 2 permit procedures. No formal meeting of the Committee
is required so long as the Chair obtains the recommendations and consent of the other
members of the Committee before issuing a decision.
C. Criteria for preliminary short plat approval. The Short Subdivision Committee
shall base its decision on an application on the following criteria:
1. The proposed Short Plat is in conformance with the Tukwila Comprehensive
Plan, and any other such adopted plans.
11
CC:\Legislative Development\Subdivision amendments strike-thru 12-1-20
JR:bjs Review and analysis by Barbara Saxton Page 6 of 26
2. Appropriate provisions have been made for water, storm drainage, erosion
control and sanitary sewage disposal for the short plat which that are consistent with
current standards and plans.
3. Appropriate provisions have been made for road, utilities and other
improvements which that are consistent with current standards and plans.
4. Appropriate provisions have been made for dedications, easements and
reservations.
5. The design, shape and orientation of the proposed lots are appropriate to
the proposed use for which the lots are intended and are compatible with the area in
which they are located.
6. Appropriate provisions for the maintenance of commonly owned private
facilities have been made.
7. The short plat complies with the relevant requirements of the Tukwila
Subdivision Ordinance.
8. The short plat complies with the requirements of the Tukwila Zoning
Ordinance and other relevant local regulations.
D. Minor and major modifications to a preliminary short plat approval.
1. Minor modifications proposed by an applicant after a preliminary approval
decision has been issued may be approved by the Director as a Type 2 decision, based
on review and recommendations of the Short Subdivision Committee. The Director may
include conditions as part of an approval of a minor modification to ensure conformance
with the criteria below. Minor modifications are those which:
a. Do not increase the number of lots beyond the number previously
approved, or which maintain the number of lots, or that decrease the number of lots in the
subdivision below the number previously approved.
b. Do not decrease the aggregate area of open space, or the design or
location of stormwater systems or roadways in the project by 10% or more.
c. May realign internal roadways and lot lines, but do not relocate any
roadway access point to an exterior street.
d. Do not alter the exterior boundaries of the project.
e. Are consistent with applicable development standards and will not cause
the short plat to violate any applicable City policy or regulation.
f. Are consistent with the conditions of the preliminary approval, provided
that a minor modification may revise conditions of the preliminary approval so long as the
revisions are consistent with the minor modification limitations set by TMC Section
17.12.020.D.a-e.
2. Major modifications are those which, as determined by the Director, are not
minor modifications as defined in this code, and either add property or lots or substantially
change the basic design, density, open space, or other substantive requirement or
12
CC:\Legislative Development\Subdivision amendments strike-thru 12-1-20
JR:bjs Review and analysis by Barbara Saxton Page 7 of 26
provision. If the applicant proposes to make one or more major changes, the revised
plan(s) shall be processed as a new application.
Section 3. Ordinance Nos. 2124 §1 and 1833 §1 (part), as codified at TMC Section
17.14.020, are hereby amended to read as follows:
17.14.020 Preliminary plat
A. Decision process. Applications for preliminary plat approval shall be processed
as a Type 3 decision (or Type 4 decision when there is an associated design review)
subject to the provisions of TMC Section 18.108.050030 (or TMC Section 18.108.040).
B. Application. The following items are required, in quantities specified by DCD
the City, for a complete application for preliminary plat approval. Items may be waived if,
in the judgment of the DCD Director, the items are not applicable to the particular
proposal:
1. Completed Preliminary Plat Application Form and fee, as identified in TMC
Chapter 18.88.
2. Completed Application Checklist.
3. A complete SEPA Checklist application if project is not exempt from SEPA.
4. Complete applications for other required land use approvals.
5. A vicinity map showing location of the site.
6. A survey prepared to the standards identified in TMC Section 17.04.060.
7. All existing conditions shall be delineated. Site and development plans shall
provide the following information:
a. Owners of adjacent land and the names of any adjacent subdivisions.
b. Lines marking the boundaries of the existing lot(s). (Any existing lot to
be eliminated should be a dashed line and so noted.)
c. Approximate names, locations, widths and dimensions of existing and
proposed public street rights-of-way and easements and private access easements,
parks and other open spaces, reservations, and utilities.
d. Location, floor area and setbacks of all existing structures on the site.
e. Lot area, dimensions and average widths for each lot.
f. Location of proposed new property lines and numbering of each lot.
g. Location, dimension and purpose of existing and proposed easements.
Provide recorded documents that identify the nature and extent of existing easements.
h. Location of any proposed dedications.
i. Existing and proposed topography at two-foot contour intervals
extending to five feet beyond project boundaries.
13
CC:\Legislative Development\Subdivision amendments strike-thru 12-1-20
JR:bjs Review and analysis by Barbara Saxton Page 8 of 26
j. Location of any sensitive critical areas and sensitive critical area buffers
(slopes 15% or greater, wetlands or watercourses) on the site.
k. Location, size and species of any trees located within a sensitive critical
area or its buffer or the shoreline zone unless none of these trees are to be removed and
their location is not likely to create undue hardship on individual lots with respect to TMC
Chapter 18.54, "Urban Forestry and Tree Regulations."
l. Source of water supply, method of sewage disposal, and manner of
surface runoff control.
m. Location of existing and proposed fire hydrants to serve the project.
n. Description, location and size of existing and proposed utilities, storm
drainage facilities and roads to serve the lots.
o. A survey of existing trees and vegetation with a retention/removal plan
for the preservation of significant trees and vegetation.
p. Expected location of new buildings, their driveways and finished floor
elevations.
8. Letter of water and sewer availability if the provider is other than the City of
Tukwila.
9. Two sets of mailing labels for all property owners and tenants (residents or
businesses) within 500 feet of the subdivision.
10. Items required by TMC Section 18.104.060 not already listed above.
C. Review procedures.
1. Referral to Other Offices. Upon receipt of a complete preliminary plat
application, the Department of Community DevelopmentDirector shall transmit a notice
of application and one copy of the preliminary plat to each of the following offices, where
appropriate: Public Works, Building Division, Fire Department, Police Department, King
County Health Department, the appropriate school district, and each public utility agency
serving the area in which the property proposed for subdivision is located.
2. Departmental Approval. The Public Works Department and other
interested departments and agencies shall review the preliminary plat and submit to the
Department of Community Development written comments with respect to the preliminary
plat decision criteria.
23. Public Notice and Public Hearing. The process for public notice, hearings,
decisions and appeals shall be as provided for Type 3 decisions (or Type 4 decisions if
the plat is combined with an associated design review) as identified in TMC Title 18,
“Zoning Code.”
D. Criteria for preliminary plat approval. The Hearing Examiner (or Planning
Commission if there is an associated design review) shall base its decision on an
application for preliminary plat approval on the following criteria:
14
CC:\Legislative Development\Subdivision amendments strike-thru 12-1-20
JR:bjs Review and analysis by Barbara Saxton Page 9 of 26
1. The proposed subdivision is in conformance with the Tukwila
Comprehensive Plan and any other City adopted plans.
2. Appropriate provisions have been made for water, storm drainage, erosion
control and sanitary sewage disposal for the subdivision that are consistent with current
standards and plans.
3. Appropriate provisions have been made for road, utilities and other
improvements that are consistent with current standards and plans.
4. Appropriate provisions have been made for dedications, easements and
reservations.
5. The design, shape and orientation of the proposed lots are appropriate to
the proposed use for which the lots are intended and are compatible with the area in
which they are located.
6. The subdivision complies with the relevant requirements of the Tukwila
Subdivision and Zoning Ordinances, and all other relevant local regulations.
7. Appropriate provisions for maintenance of privately owned common facilities
have been made.
8. The subdivision complies with RCW 58.17.110.
E. Minor and major modifications to an approved preliminary plat.
1. Minor modifications proposed by an applicant after a preliminary approval
decision has been issued may be approved by the Director as a Type 2 decision, based
on review and recommendations of City departments including Public Works, Fire,
Building, and Planning. The Director may include conditions as part of an approval of a
minor modification to ensure conformance with the criteria below. Minor modifications
are those which:
a. Do not increase the number of lots in the subdivision beyond the number
previously approved, or which maintain the number of lots, or that decrease the number
of lots in the subdivision below the number previously approved.
b. Do not decrease the aggregate area of open space, or the design or
location of stormwater systems or roadways in the subdivision by 10% or more.
c. May realign internal roadways and lot lines, but do not relocate any
roadway access point to an exterior street from the plat.
d. Do not alter the exterior boundaries of the subdivision.
e. Are consistent with applicable development standards and will not cause
the subdivision to violate any applicable City policy or regulation.
f. Are consistent with the conditions of the preliminary approval, provided
that a minor modification may revise conditions of the preliminary approval so long as the
revisions are consistent with the minor modification limitations set by TMC Section
17.14.020.E.a-e.
15
CC:\Legislative Development\Subdivision amendments strike-thru 12-1-20
JR:bjs Review and analysis by Barbara Saxton Page 10 of 26
2. Major modifications are those which, as determined by the Director, are not
minor modifications as defined in this code, and either add property or lots or substantially
change the basic design, density, open space, or other substantive requirement or
provision. If the applicant proposes to make one or more major changes, the revised
plan(s) shall be processed as a new application.
Section 4. Ordinance No. 1833 §1 (part), as codified at TMC Section 17.14.030, is
hereby amended to read as follows:
17.14.030 Final plat
A. Application. The following items are required, in quantities specified by DCD
the City, for a complete application for final plat approval. Items may be waived if in the
judgment of the DCD Director said items are not applicable to the particular proposal:
1. Completed Application Form and fee as identified in TMC Chapter 18.88.
2. Completed Application Checklist.
3. Copies and one original of the final plat survey in conformance with the
standards set forth in TMC Section 17.04.060.
4. A plat certificate from a title insurance company documenting the ownership
and title of all interested parties in the plat, subdivision or dedication, and listing all
encumbrances. The certificate must be dated within 45 calendar days prior to the date
of filing the application for final plat approval.
5. Private covenants intended to be recorded with the plat.
6. Any documentation necessary to demonstrate conditions of preliminary plat
approval have been met.
7. King County Assessor’s maps which shows the location of each property
within 500 feet of the subdivision; two sets of mailing labels for all property owners and
tenants (residents or businesses) within 500 feet of the subdivision.
8. Maintenance agreements, easements and other documents ready for
recording.
9. Signatures on the following certificates on the face of the plat (when
appropriate) from the surveyor that prepared the plat, the King County Treasurer, Seattle-
King County Health Department, City of Tukwila Finance Director, Owner’s affidavit and
certificate of dedication as identified in TMC Section17.04.060(I) 17.04.060.B.2.
B. Final Plat Review Procedures. Applications for final plat approval shall be
processed as a Type 52 decision subject to the provisions of TMC Section18.108.050
18.108.020.
1. Referral to Other Departments and Agencies . The Department of
Community DevelopmentDirector shall distribute the final plat to all departments and
agencies who receiveding the preliminary plat, and to any other departments, special
purpose districts and other governmental agencies deemed necessary.
16
CC:\Legislative Development\Subdivision amendments strike-thru 12-1-20
JR:bjs Review and analysis by Barbara Saxton Page 11 of 26
2. Departmental Approval. The Public Works Department and other
interested departments and agencies shall review the final plat and submit to the
Department of Community Development written comments with respect to the final plat
decision criteria. If the final plat is in order, the Public Works Director shall sign the
appropriate certificates on the mylar original.
3. Filing Final Plat.
a. Before the final plat is submitted to the City CouncilDirector, it shall be
signed by the City Treasurer (Finance Director), and the Director of Public Works, and
the Director of the Department of Community Development . Upon approval by the City
CouncilDirector, it shall be signed by the Mayor and attested by the City Clerk.
b. The applicant shall file the final plat with the King County Department of
Records and Elections. The plat will be considered complete when a copy of the recorded
documents is returned to the DirectorDepartment of Community Development.
C. Criteria for final plat approval. In approving the final plat, the City Council
Director shall find:
1. That the proposed final plat bears the required certificates and
statements of approval.
2. That a title insurance report furnished by the subdivider confirms the title
of the land, and the proposed subdivision is vested in the name of the owner(s) whose
signature(s) appears on the plat certificate.
3. That the facilities and improvements required to be provided by the
subdivider have been completed or, alternatively, that the subdivider has submitted with
the proposed final plat a performance bond or other security in conformance with TMC
Section 17.24.030.
4. That the plat is certified as accurate by the land surveyor responsible for
the plat.
5. That the plat is in conformance with the approved preliminary plat.
6. That the plat meets the requirements of Chapter 58.17 RCW and other
applicable state and local laws which were in effect at the time of preliminary plat
approval.
Section 5. Ordinance No. 1833 §1 (part), as codified at TMC Section 17.14.040, is
hereby amended to read as follows:
17.14.040 Phasing
A. Approval of phasing plan. The subdivider may develop and record the
subdivision in phases. Any phasing proposal shall be submitted for City Council Hearing
Examiner review at the time at which a final plat for the first phasepreliminary plat is
submitted. If there is an associated design review application, the phasing proposal and
associated preliminary plat may be combined with the design review application and
submitted for Planning Commission review. If changes to an approved phasing plan are
proposed, they shall be resubmitted for review by the Hearing Examiner (or Planning
17
CC:\Legislative Development\Subdivision amendments strike-thru 12-1-20
JR:bjs Review and analysis by Barbara Saxton Page 12 of 26
Commission if the original phasing plan and preliminary plat were approved by the
Planning Commission). Approval of the phasing plan shall be based upon making the
following findings:
1. The phasing plan includes all land contained within the approved preliminary
plat, including areas where off-site improvements are being made.
2. The sequence and timing of development is identified on a map.
3. Each phase shall consist of a contiguous group of lots that meets all pertinent
development standards on its own. The phase cannot rely on future phases for meeting
any City codes.
4. Each phase provides adequate circulation and utilities. Public Works has
determined that all street and other public improvements, including but not limited to
drainage and erosion control improvements, are assured. Deferment of improvements
may be allowed pursuant to TMC Chapter 17.24.
5. All phases shall be recorded within the five-year life of the preliminary plat,
unless an extension is granted.The first phase submitted for final subdivision approval
must be recorded within five years of the date of preliminary plat approval, unless an
extension is granted pursuant to TMC Section 17.14.050.C and TMC Section
17.14.050.D.
Section 6. Ordinance Nos. 2124 §2 and 1833 §1 (part), as codified at TMC Section
17.14.050, are hereby amended to read as follows:
17.14.050 Expiration
A. The preliminary plat approval for a subdivision that is not phased pursuant to
TMC Section 17.14.040 shall expire unless a complete application for final plat meeting
all requirements of this chapter is submitted to the Tukwila City Council Director for
approval within seven years from the date of preliminary plat approval if the date of
preliminary plat approval is on or before December 31, 2014, and within five years of the
date of preliminary plat approval; provided that the Director may extend a preliminary plat
if the date of preliminary plat approval is on or after January 1, 2015 pursuant to TMC
Section 17.40.050.B and TMC Section 17.40.05.D provided that final plat meeting all
requirements of this chapter shall be submitted to the Tukwila City Council for approval
within ten years from the date of the preliminary plat approval if the project is not subject
to requirements adopted under Chapter 90.58 RCW and the date of the preliminary plat
approval is on or before December 31, 2007.
B. The hearing body of the preliminary approvalDirector may approve one extension
not to exceed one year.
C The preliminary plat approval for a phased subdivision approved pursuant to
TMC Section 17.14.040 shall expire unless the first phase of the final subdivision approval
is recorded within five years of the date of the preliminary plat approval; provided that the
Director may extend a preliminary plat that has up to two phases for three additional years
beyond the period provided in TMC Section 17.14.050.A. For preliminary plats that have
more than two approved phases, the Director may extend a preliminary plat for a total of
18
CC:\Legislative Development\Subdivision amendments strike-thru 12-1-20
JR:bjs Review and analysis by Barbara Saxton Page 13 of 26
9 years with first extension of three years, and two subsequent extensions of three years
each. In no case shall the total time period between the date of preliminary approval and
the date of recording of the final phase of a phased development exceed 14 years.
D. The following criteria shall be used in review of an extension request for a
subdivision preliminary plat approval:
1. A written request for extension is filed at least 30 days before the expiration
of the preliminary plat; and
2. Unforeseen circumstances or conditions that are not the result of voluntary
actions of the applicant necessitate the extension of the preliminary plat; and
3. Conditions in the immediate vicinity of the subject property have not changed
substantially since the preliminary plat was first approved; and
4. An extension of the preliminary plat will not cause substantial detriment to
existing uses in the immediate vicinity of the subject property or to the community as a
whole; and
5. The applicant has demonstrated reasonable diligence in attempting to meet
the time limit imposed; and
6. The preliminary plat substantially complies with applicable City code
provisions in effect on the date the application for extension was made.
Section 7. Ordinance Nos. 1971 §21 and 1833 §1 (part), as codified at TMC Section
17.20.030, are hereby amended to read as follows:
17.20.030 General Standards
A. Environmental Considerations.
1. Sensitive Critical Areas. Land which that contains a sensitive critical area
or its buffer as defined in TMC Title 18, or is subject to the flood zone control ordinance
as defined in TMC Chapter 16.52, shall be platted to reflect the standards and
requirements of the sensitive critical areas overlay zone, TMC Chapter 18.45, the planned
residential development overlay if required pursuant to TMC Chapter 18.46, and/or the
flood zone control ordinance, TMC Chapter 16.52. No lot shall be created that does not
contain an adequate building site, given the environmental considerations of the lot and
current development standards.
2. Trees. In addition to meeting the requirements of TMC Chapter 18.54,
“Urban Forestry and Tree Regulations,” every reasonable effort shall be made to preserve
existing trees and vegetation, and integrate them into the subdivision's design.
B. Compatibility with Existing Land Use and Plans.
1. Buffer between uses. Where single-family residential subdivisions are to
be adjacent to multiple-family, commercial or industrial land use districts, and where
natural separation does not exist, adequate landscape buffer strips and/or solid fences
for screening shall be provided.
19
CC:\Legislative Development\Subdivision amendments strike-thru 12-1-20
JR:bjs Review and analysis by Barbara Saxton Page 14 of 26
2. Conformity with existing plans. The location of all streets shall conform
to any adopted plans for streets in the City. If a subdivision is located in the area of an
officially designated trail, provisions may be made for reservation of the right-of-way or
for easements to the City for trail purposes. The proposed subdivision shall respond to
and complement City ordinances, resolutions, and comprehensive plans.
3. Other City regulations. All subdivisions shall comply with all adopted City
regulations. In the event of a conflict, the more restrictive regulation shall apply.
4. Accessory structures. If a subdivision, short plat, or boundary line
adjustment in a residential zone would result in an accessory structure remaining alone
on a lot, the structure must be demolished before preliminary approval, or the owner must
provide a bond or other financial guarantee acceptable to the Director in the amount of
150% of the cost of demolition and assurance that the accessory structure will be
demolished if a residence is not built on the lot within 12 months of final approval.
C. Streets.
1. Extension. Proposed street systems shall extend existing streets at the
same or greater width, unless otherwise approved by the Department of Public Works
and authorized by the City Council Director in approval of the plat. Where appropriate,
streets shall be extended to the boundaries of the plat to ensure access to neighboring
properties. The City’s goal is to have an integrated system of local streets whenever
practical. Grading of steep topography may be necessary to achieve this objective.
However, in sensitive critical areas, the layout and construction of streets shall follow the
standards and procedures of the sensitive critical areas overlay zone. Dedication of
additional right-of-way may be required for a short plat when it is necessary to meet the
minimum street width standards or when lack of such dedication would cause or
contribute to an unsafe road or intersection.
2. Names. All proposed street names or numbers shall be subject to approval
by the Department of Community Development.
3. Intersections. Any intersection of public streets, whatever the classification,
shall be at right angles as nearly as possible and not be offset insofar as practical.
4. Street layout. Street layout shall provide for the most advantageous
development of the subdivision, adjoining areas, and the entire neighborhood. Evaluation
of street layout shall take into consideration potential circulation solutions. While it is
important to minimize the impact to the topography from creating an integrated road
system, improved site development and circulation solutions shall not be sacrificed to
minimize the amount of cut and fill requirements of the proposal. Where sensitive critical
areas are impacted, the standards and procedures for rights-of-way in the sensitive
critical areas overlay zone shall be followed.
5. Private access roads may be authorized if:
a. Allowing private access roads in the area being subdivided will not
adversely affect future circulation in neighboring parcels of property; and
b. Adequate and reasonable provisions are made for the future
maintenance and repair of the proposed private access roads; and
20
CC:\Legislative Development\Subdivision amendments strike-thru 12-1-20
JR:bjs Review and analysis by Barbara Saxton Page 15 of 26
c. The proposed private access roads can accommodate potential full
(future) development on the lots created; and
d. For residential subdivisions, the proposed private access roads do not
serve more than four lots nor are more than 200 feet in length. Those access roads 150
feet or greater in length shall have a turnaround built to Fire Department standards.
e. For commercial and industrial subdivisions, when private access roads
are authorized, there shall be a minimum easement width of 40 feet. With the exception
of minimum easement widths, private access roads shall be designed and constructed in
accordance with the Department of Public Works standards, and zoning setbacks shall
be required as though the easement were a public right-of-way.
6. Public roads.
a. Right-of-way and paving widths for public roads shall be based as shown
in the following table. The minimum paving and right-of-way width shall be used unless
the City Engineer demonstrates a wider width is needed due to site circumstances,
including but not limited to topography, traffic volume, street patterns, on-street parking,
lot patterns, land use and bike and transit facilities, that justify an increase in width.
Type of Street
Right-of-Way
Roadway
Pavement
Principal Arterial 80 - 100 feet 48 - 84 feet
Minor Arterial 60 - 80 feet 36 - 64 feet
Collector Arterial 60 - 80 feet 24 - 48 feet
Access Road 50 - 60 feet 28 - 36 feet
Cul-De-Sac
Roadway 40 feet 26 feet
Turnaround 92 feet (dia.) 81 feet (dia.)
Alley 20 feet 15 feet
Private Access Roads
Residential 20 feet 20 feet
Commercial 40 feet 28 feet
b. Design: The design and alignment of all public streets shall conform to
the following standards unless otherwise approved by the Department of Public Works:
(1) Cul-de-sacs: Cul-de-sacs are not allowed unless there is no
reasonable alternative or the cul-de-sac is shown on an officially adopted street plan.
When allowed, they shall not exceed a length of 600 feet unless the City Council City
determines that adequate alternative emergency access will be provided.
(2) Street Grades: Street grades shall not exceed 15%. However,
provided there are no vehicular access points, grades may be allowed up to 18%, for not
more than 200 feet when:
(a) Exceeding the grades would facilitate a through street and
connection with the larger neighborhood;
(b) The greater grade would minimize disturbance of sensitive
critical slopes;
21
CC:\Legislative Development\Subdivision amendments strike-thru 12-1-20
JR:bjs Review and analysis by Barbara Saxton Page 16 of 26
(c) The Fire Marshal grants approval of the grade transition; and
(d) Tangents, horizontal curves, vertical curves, and right-of-way
improvements conform to Department of Public Works standards.
c. Full width improvement:
(1) When interior to a subdivision or a short plat of five or more lots, all
publicly owned streets shall be designed and installed to full width improvement as
provided below:
(a) Shall be graded as necessary to conform to Department of
Public Works standards.
(b) Shall be of asphaltic concrete according to Department of
Public Works standards.
(c) Shall have permanent concrete curbs and gutters according to
Department of Public Works standards.
(d) Shall have storm drains consisting of the proper size pipe and
catch basins; sizes to be approved by the Department of Public Works prior to the public
hearing for the preliminary plat.
(e) Shall have sidewalks provided at a minimum width as specified
in TMC Chapter 11.12.
(2) When interior to a short plat of four or fewer lots, all public streets
and all privately owned streets that have the potential to serve five or more lots shall be
designed and installed to full width improvement as provided below:
(a) Shall be graded as necessary to conform to Department of
Public Works standards.
(b) Shall be of asphaltic concrete according to Department of
Public Works standards.
(c) Shall provide storm drainage to be approved by the Department
of Public Works.
(d) Shall provide sidewalk right-of-way or easements at a minimum
width as specified in TMC Chapter 11.12.
(e) Shall construct or provide L.I.D. no-protest agreements for
permanent concrete curbs, gutters, and sidewalks according to Department of Public
Works standards.
(f) Shall be dedicated to the City or subject to a binding agreement
for future dedication.
(3) All privately owned roads that will serve four or fewer houses shall
be designed and installed to full width improvement as provided below:
(a) Shall be graded as necessary to conform to Department of
Public Works standards.
22
CC:\Legislative Development\Subdivision amendments strike-thru 12-1-20
JR:bjs Review and analysis by Barbara Saxton Page 17 of 26
(b) Shall be of asphaltic concrete according to Department of
Public Works standards.
(c) Shall provide storm drainage to be approved by the Department
of Public Works.
d. Half width improvement:
(1) Streets abutting the perimeter of a subdivision or short plat of five or
more lots shall provide the full improvements on the half of the street adjacent to the site,
provided additional paving may be required to ensure safe and efficient roads exist to
serve the subdivision; provided further that there are no physical obstructions to
completing the other half of the roadway; and that there is a minimum of 20 feet of paving.
(2) If the future grade or alignment of the adjacent public street is
unknown and it is not feasible to establish the grade in a reasonable period or the
immediate improvement of the street would result in a short, isolated segment of improved
street and similar street improvements in the vicinity are unlikely to occur within six years,
the City may approve a delay of improvements. The owner(s) must agree to enter into a
binding L.I.D. no-protest agreement to further improve the street to full public street
standards in the future; however adjacent streets must still be improved to the minimum
level necessary, in the judgment of the City Engineer, to safely accommodate traffic
generated by the proposed subdivision or short plat.
(3) Streets abutting the perimeter of a short plat of four or fewer lots
shall provide L.I.D. no-protest agreements for construction of frontal improvements on the
half of the street adjacent to the site, provided that there is a minimum of 20 feet of paving.
D. Utilities.
1. Generally. All utilities designed to serve the subdivision shall be placed
underground and, if located within a sensitive critical area, shall be designed to meet the
standards of the sensitive critical areas overlay zone. Those utilities to be located
beneath paved surfaces shall be installed, including all service connections, as approved
by the Department of Public Works; such installation shall be completed and approved
prior to application of any surface materials. Easements may be required for the main-
tenance and operation of utilities as specified by the Public Works Department.
2. Sanitary sewers. Sanitary sewers shall be provided to each lot at no cost
to the City and designed in accordance with City standards. Septic systems may be
installed when approved by the Seattle-King County Department of Public Health and
when the existing sewer system will not be available to the lot within the life of the
preliminary approval.
3. Storm drainage. The storm drainage collection system shall meet the
requirements of the City’s stormwater ordinance standards (Ordinance #1755TMC
Chapter 14.28).
4. Water system. Each lot within a proposed subdivision shall be served by a
water distribution system designed and installed in accordance with City standards.
Locations of fire hydrants and flow rates shall be in accordance with City standards and
the Uniform Fire Code.
23
CC:\Legislative Development\Subdivision amendments strike-thru 12-1-20
JR:bjs Review and analysis by Barbara Saxton Page 18 of 26
E. Blocks.
1. Length. Residential blocks should not be less than 300 feet nor more than
1,000 feet in length, (600 - 2,000 feet for commercial and industrial areas). Where
circumstances warrant for the purpose of implementing the Comprehensive Plan, the
Planning Commission may require one or more public pathways of not less than six feet
nor more than 15 feet in width, either by dedication or easement, to extend entirely across
the width of the block to connect public rights-of-way.
2. Width. Blocks shall be wide enough to allow two tiers of lots, except where
abutting a major street or prevented by topographical conditions or size of the property,
in which case the City Council Director may approve a single tier.
3. Pedestrian considerations. Blocks, roads and pedestrian improvements
shall be designed to provide a safe and convenient pedestrian network.
F. Lots.
1. Arrangement. Insofar as practical, side lot lines shall be at right angles to
street lines or radial to curved street lines. Each lot must have access to a public street
that is approved at the time of plat review; however, rather than designing flag lots, access
shall be accomplished with common drive easements.
2. Lot design. The lot area, width, shape, and orientation shall be appropriate
for the location of the subdivision, for the type of development and land use contemplated,
and shall conform with the requirements of the zoning ordinance.
3. Corner lots. Corner lots may be required to be platted with additional width
to allow for the additional side yard requirements.
G. Landscaping.
1. Each lot within a new subdivision or short plat of five lots or greater shall be
landscaped with at least one tree in the front yard to create a uniform streetscape.
2. Landscaping shall conform with Public Work standards.
H. Street Signs. The subdivider shall be responsible for the initial cost of any street
name or number signs, or street markings, including installation thereof, that Public Works
finds necessary for the subdivision.
I. Lighting. Street lighting shall conform to the Department of Public Works
standards unless the City Council Public Works Director requires alternative fixtures,
poles, and/or spacing to contribute to an overall design concept of the subdivision.
J. Monumentation.
1. Imprinted monument. All monuments set in subdivisions shall be at least
1/2 inch x 24-inch steel bar or rod, or equivalent, with durable cap imprinted with the
license number of the land surveyor setting the monument.
24
CC:\Legislative Development\Subdivision amendments strike-thru 12-1-20
JR:bjs Review and analysis by Barbara Saxton Page 19 of 26
2. Centerline monument. After paving, except as provided in TMC Section
17.20.030.J.5, monuments shall be driven flush with the finished road surface at the
following intersections:
a. Centerline intersections.
b. Points of intersection of curves if placement falls within the paved area;
otherwise, at the beginnings and endings of curves.
c. Intersections of the plat boundaries and street center lines.
3. Property line monumentation. All front corners, rear corners, and
beginnings and endings of curbs shall be set with monuments, except as provided in TMC
Section 17.20.030.J.5. In cases where street curbs are concentric and/or parallel with
front right-of-way lines, front property line monumentation may be provided by brass
screws or concrete nails at the intersections of curb lines and the projections of side
property lines. If curb monumentation is used, it shall be noted on the plat, and also that
such monumentation is good for projection of line only and not for distance.
4. Post-monumentation. All monuments for exterior boundaries of the
subdivision shall be set and referenced on the plat prior to plat recording. Interior
monuments need not be set prior to recording if the developer certifies that the interior
monuments shall be set within 90 days of final subdivision construction inspection by the
Department of Public Works, and if the developer guarantees such interior
monumentation.
5. Post-monumentation bonds. In lieu of setting interior monuments prior to
final plat recording as provided in TMC Section 17.20.030.J.3, the Public Works Director
may accept a bond in an amount and with surety and conditions satisfactory to the
Director, or other secure method as the Public Works Director may require, providing for
and securing the actual setting of the interior monuments.
Section 8. Ordinance Nos. 2124 §3 (part) and 1833 §1 (part), as codified at TMC
Section 17.24.010, are hereby amended to read as follows:
17.24.010 Plans and permits required for public improvements
A. Approval of a preliminary plat, short plat, binding site improvement plan or
boundary line adjustment shall constitute approval for the applicant to develop
construction plans and specifications, for all facilities and improvements, in substantial
conformance to the preliminary approval, design standards, and any special conditions
required by the Short Subdivision Committee, Hearing Examiner, or Planning
Commission or City Council; to obtain permits and complete installation for said
improvements; and to prepare a final plat, plans, surveys and other documents for
recording.
B. Prior to installing improvements, the developer shall apply for all required permits
for those improvements. The applications shall include development plans as specified
on the application form. [Note: See TMC Chapters 11.08 and 11.12 for additional
guidance on standards and permit requirements for improvements in the public right-of-
way.]
25
CC:\Legislative Development\Subdivision amendments strike-thru 12-1-20
JR:bjs Review and analysis by Barbara Saxton Page 20 of 26
Section 9. Ordinance Nos. 2124 §3 (part) and 1833 §1 (part), as codified at TMC
Section 17.24.030, are hereby amended to read as follows:
17.24.030 Improvement agreements and financial guarantees
A. Required improvements. Before any final subdivision, short plat, binding site
improvement plan or boundary line adjustment is finally approved, the subdivider shall
install required improvements and replace or repair any such improvements which are
damaged in the development of the subdivision. In lieu of the completion of the actual
construction of all required improvements (public and private) and prior to the approval of
a final plat, the Public Works Director may accept a bond in an amount and with surety
and conditions satisfactory to the Director, or other secure method, providing for and
securing to the City the actual construction and installation of all required improvements.
This is in addition to the requirements of TMC Chapter 11.08 requiring a performance
bond for all work being done in the public right-of-way. If the Public Works Director
accepts a bond for the completion of the work, the subdivider shall execute and file with
the City an agreement guaranteeing completion of such improvements together with any
needed replacement or repair. The agreement shall:
1. Specify the period of time within which all work required shall be completed.
The time for completion shall not exceed one year from the date of final approval of the
subdivision. The agreement may provide for reasonable extensions of time for comple-
tion of work. Extensions must be requested, approved by the Public Works Director, and
properly secured in advance of the required initial completion date.
2. Require notice by the subdivider to the Public Works Director promptly upon
completion of all required improvements.
3. Provide for notice of approval or disapproval by the Public Works Director of
the improvement within a reasonable time after receiving notice of completion.
4. Require financial security to be provided by the subdivider pursuant to TMC
Section 17.24.030.C.
5. Provide that, if the subdivider fails to complete all required work within the
period specified, the City may take steps to demand performance of the developer’s
obligation within a reasonable time not to exceed 90 days from the date of demand.
6. Provide that, if the required improvements are not completed within that time,
the City may take action to require the subdivider to forfeit the financial security.
7. Provide that the City shall be entitled to recover all costs of such action
including reasonable attorney’s fees.
8. Provide that, following recovery of the proceeds of the financial security,
those proceeds shall be used to complete the required improvements and pay the costs
incurred.
9. Provide that, should the proceeds of the financial security be insufficient for
completion of the work and payment of the costs, the City shall be entitled to recover the
deficiency from the subdivider.
26
CC:\Legislative Development\Subdivision amendments strike-thru 12-1-20
JR:bjs Review and analysis by Barbara Saxton Page 21 of 26
B. Maintenance agreement. Regardless of whether all required improvements are
completed prior to final approval of any subdivision of land, as a condition of such
approval the subdivider shall execute an agreement to assure successful operation of
said improvements. [Note: See TMC Section 11.08.110 for details.] The agreement
shall:
1. Require the subdivider to post a bond or other financial security to secure
successful operation of all required improvements and full performance of the developer’s
maintenance obligation. Such financial security shall be effective for a two-year period
following approval of installation of all required improvements.
2. Require the subdivider to perform maintenance functions on drainage
improvements for a period of time not to exceed two years from approval of their com-
pletion or final plat approval, whichever is later. Such maintenance functions shall be
specified by the Public Works Director, and shall be reasonably related to the burdens
that the subdivision will impose on drainage facilities during the time maintenance is
required. The City Council may agree to accept and perform maintenance of the
improvements, in which case the subdivider’s obligation to perform maintenance
functions shall terminate.
3. Not relieve the subdivider of liability for the defective condition of any
required improvements discovered following the effective term of the security given.
4. Provide a waiver by the subdivider of all claims for damages against any
governmental authority, which may occur to the adjacent land as a result of construction,
drainage, and maintenance of the streets and other improvements.
C. Performance bond. To assure full performance of the agreements required
herein, the subdivider shall provide one or more of the following in a form approved by
the City Attorney:
1. A surety bond executed by a surety company authorized to transact business
in the State of Washington.
2. An irrevocable letter of credit from a financial institution stating that the
money is held for the purpose of development of the stated project.
3. An assignment of account with a financial institution which holds the money
in an account until such time the City signs a written release. The assignment of account
will allow the City to withdraw the funds in the event the provisions of the agreement are
not met.
4. A cash deposit made with the City of Tukwila.
D. Amount of Financial Security. The financial security provided shall be 150%
of the estimated cost of the improvements to be completed and all related engineering
and incidental expenses, final survey monumentation and preparation of reproducible
Mylar or electronic records in a format approved by Public Works and meeting current
Public Works drawing standards of the “as-built” improvements. The subdivider shall
provide an estimate of these costs for acceptance by the Public Works Director.
27
CC:\Legislative Development\Subdivision amendments strike-thru 12-1-20
JR:bjs Review and analysis by Barbara Saxton Page 22 of 26
E. Defective Work. The acceptance of improvements by the City shall not prevent
the City from making a claim against the developersubdivider for any defective work if
such is discovered within two years after the date of completion of the work.
Section 10. Ordinance Nos. 2627 §32, 2442 §6, 2368 §70, 2294 §1, 2251 §75, 2235
§19, 2135 §19 and 2119 §1, as codified at TMC Section 18.104.010, are hereby amended
to read as follows
18.104.010 Classification of Project Permit Applications
Project permit decisions are classified into five types, based on the degree of
discretion associated with each decision, as set forth in this section. Procedures for the
five different types are distinguished according to who makes the decision, whether public
notice is required, whether a public meeting and/or a public hearing is required before a
decision is made, and whether administrative appeals are provided.
1. TYPE 1 DECISIONS are made by City administrators who have technical
expertise, as designated by ordinance. Type 1 decisions may be appealed to the Hearing
Examiner who will hold a closed record appeal hearing based on the information
presented to the City administrator who made the decision. Public notice is not required
for Type 1 decisions or for the appeals of those decisions.
TYPE 1 DECISIONS
TYPE OF PERMIT DECISION MAKER
Administrative Variance for Noise – 30 days or less
(TMC Section 8.22.120)
Community Development Director
Any land use permit or approval issued by the City, unless specifically
categorized as a Type 2, 3, 4, or 5 decision by this chapter
As specified by ordinance
Boundary Line Adjustment, including Lot Consolidation
(TMC Chapter 17.08)
Community Development Director
Minor Modification of a Boundary Line Adjustment or Lot
Consolidation Preliminary Approval
(TMC Section 17.08.030)
Community Development Director
Development Permit
Building Official
Minor modification to design review approval
(TMC Section 18.60.030)
Community Development Director
Minor Modification to PRD
(TMC Section 18.46.130)
Community Development Director
Tree Permit
(TMC Chapter 18.54)
Community Development Director
Wireless Communication Facility, Minor
(TMC Chapter 18.58)
Community Development Director
2. TYPE 2 DECISIONS are decisions that are initially made by the Director or,
in certain cases, other City administrators or committees, but which are subject to an open
record appeal to the Hearing Examiner, Board of Architectural Review, or, in the case of
shoreline permits, an appeal to the State Shorelines Hearings Board pursuant to RCW
90.58.
28
CC:\Legislative Development\Subdivision amendments strike-thru 12-1-20
JR:bjs Review and analysis by Barbara Saxton Page 23 of 26
TYPE 2 DECISIONS
TYPE OF PERMIT
INITIAL
DECISION
MAKER
APPEAL BODY
(open record
appeal)
Administrative Design Review
(TMC Section 18.60.030)
Community
Development
Director
Board of
Architectura
l Review
Administrative Planned Residential
Development
(TMC Section 18.46.110)
Short
Plat Committee
Hearing
Examiner
Administrative Variance for Noise –
31-60 days
(TMC Section 8.22.120)
Community
Development
Director
Hearing
Examiner
Binding Site Improvement Plan
(TMC Chapter 17.16)
Short
Plat Committee
Hearing
Examiner
Cargo Container Placement
(TMC Section 18.50.060)
Community
Development
Director
Hearing
Examiner
Code Interpretation
(TMC Section 18.90.010)
Community
Development
Director
Hearing
Examiner
Exception from Single-Family Design
Standard
(TMC Section 18.50.050)
Community
Development
Director
Hearing
Examiner
Modification to Development Standards
(TMC Section 18.41.100)
Community
Development
Director
Hearing
Examiner
Parking standard for use not specified
(TMC Section 18.56.100),
and modifications to certain parking
standards
(TMC Sections 18.56.065, .070, .120)
Community
Development
Director
Hearing
Examiner
Sensitive Critical Areas (except
Reasonable Use Exception)
(TMC Chapter 18.45)
Community
Development
Director
Hearing
Examiner
Shoreline Substantial Development Permit
(TMC Chapter 18.44)
Community
Development
Director
State
Shorelines
Hearings
Board
Shoreline Tree Permit Community
Development
Director
Hearing
Examiner
Short Plat
(TMC Chapter 17.12)
Short Plat
Committee
Hearing
Examiner
Minor Modification of a Short Plat
Preliminary Approval
(TMC Section 17.12.020)
Community
Development
Director
Hearing
Examiner
Minor Modification of a Subdivision
Preliminary Plat
(TMC Section 17.14.020)
Community
Development
Director
Hearing
Examiner
Subdivision – Final Plat
(TMC Section 17.14.030)
Community
Development
Director
Hearing
Examiner
29
CC:\Legislative Development\Subdivision amendments strike-thru 12-1-20
JR:bjs Review and analysis by Barbara Saxton Page 24 of 26
Modification to TUC Corridor Standards
(TMC Section 18.28.110.C)
Community
Development
Director
Hearing
Examiner
Modification to TUC Open Space Standards
(TMC Section 18.28.250.D.4.d)
Community
Development
Director
Hearing
Examiner
Transit Reduction to Parking Requirements
(TMC Section 18.28.260.B.5.b)
Community
Development
Director
Hearing
Examiner
Wireless Communication Facility, Minor
(TMC Chapter 18.58)
Community
Development
Director
Hearing
Examiner
3. TYPE 3 DECISIONS are quasi-judicial decisions made by the Hearing
Examiner following an open record hearing. Type 3 decisions may be appealed only to
Superior Court, except for shoreline variances and shoreline conditional uses that may
be appealed to the State Shorelines Hearings Board pursuant to RCW 90.58.
TYPE 3 DECISIONS
TYPE OF PERMIT INITIAL DECISION
MAKER
APPEAL BODY
(closed record appeal)
Resolve uncertain zone district boundary Hearing Examiner Superior Court
Variance (zoning, shoreline, sidewalk,
land alteration, sign)
Hearing Examiner Superior Court
TSO Special Permission Use
(TMC Section 18.41.060)
Hearing Examiner Superior Court
Conditional Use Permit Hearing Examiner Superior Court
Modifications to Certain Parking
Standards
(TMC Chapter 18.56)
Hearing Examiner Superior Court
Reasonable Use Exceptions under
Critical Areas Ordinance
(TMC Section 18.45.180)
Hearing Examiner Superior Court
Variance for Noise in excess of 60 days
(TMC Section 8.22.120)
Hearing Examiner Superior Court
Variance from Parking Standards over
10%
(TMC Section 18.56.140)
Hearing Examiner Superior Court
Subdivision -– Preliminary Plat with no
associated Design Review application
(TMC Section 17.14.020)
Hearing Examiner Superior Court
Subdivision Phasing Plan
(TMC Section 17.14.040)
Hearing Examiner Superior Court
Wireless Communication Facility, Major
or Waiver Request
(TMC Chapter 18.58)
Hearing Examiner Superior Court
Shoreline Conditional Use Permit Hearing Examiner State Shorelines Hearings Board
4. TYPE 4 DECISIONS are quasi-judicial decisions made by the Board of
Architectural Review or the Planning Commission, following an open record hearing.
Type 4 decisions may be appealed to the Hearing Examiner based on the record
established by the Board of Architectural Review or Planning Commission, except
30
CC:\Legislative Development\Subdivision amendments strike-thru 12-1-20
JR:bjs Review and analysis by Barbara Saxton Page 25 of 26
Shoreline Conditional Use Permits, that are appealable to the State Shorelines Hearings
Board pursuant to RCW 90.58.
TYPE 4 DECISIONS
TYPE OF PERMIT
INITIAL
DECISION
MAKER
APPEAL BODY
(closed record
appeal)
Public Hearing Design
Review
(TMC Chapter 18.60)
Board of
Architectural
Review
Hearing
Examiner
Subdivision -– Preliminary
Plat with an associated
Design Review application
(TMC Section 17.14.020)
Planning
Commission
Hearing
Examiner
Subdivision Phasing Plan
(for a subdivision with an
associated Design
Review)
(TMC Section 17.14.040)
Planning
Commission
Hearing
Examiner
Shoreline Conditional Use
Permit
(TMC Section 18.44.050)
Planning
Commission
State
Shorelines
Hearings
Board
5. TYPE 5 DECISIONS are quasi-judicial decisions made by the Hearing
Examiner or City Council following an open record hearing. Type 5 decisions may be
appealed only to Superior Court.
TYPE 5 DECISIONS
TYPE OF PERMIT
INITIAL
DECISION
MAKER
APPEAL BODY
(closed record
appeal)
Planned Residential
Development (PRD),
including Major
Modifications
(TMC Chapter 18.46)
City Council Superior Court
Site specific rezone along
with an accompanying
Comprehensive Plan map
change
(TMC Chapter 18.84)
City Council Superior Court
Sensitive Critical Area
Master Plan Overlay
(TMC Section 18.45.160)
City Council Superior Court
Shoreline Environment
Re-designation (Shoreline
Master Program)
City Council Superior Court
Subdivision - Final Plat
(TMC Section 17.12.030)
City Council Superior Court
Unclassified Use
(TMC Chapter 18.66)
City Council Superior Court
31
CC:\Legislative Development\Subdivision amendments strike-thru 12-1-20
JR:bjs Review and analysis by Barbara Saxton Page 26 of 26
Section 11. Repealer. Ordinance No. 2499 is hereby repealed.
Section 12. Corrections by City Clerk or Code Reviser Authorized. Upon
approval of the City Attorney, the City Clerk and the code reviser are authorized to make
necessary corrections to this ordinance, including the correction of clerical errors;
references to other local, state or federal laws, codes, rules, or regulations; or ordinance
numbering and section/subsection numbering.
Section 13. Severability. If any section, subsection, paragraph, sentence, clause
or phrase of this ordinance or its application to any person or situation should be held to
be invalid or unconstitutional for any reason by a court of competent jurisdiction, such
invalidity or unconstitutionality shall not affect the validity or constitutionality of the
remaining portions of this ordinance or its application to any other person or situation.
Section 14. Effective Date. This ordinance or a summary thereof shall be published
in the official newspaper of the City, and shall take effect and be in full force five days
after passage and publication as provided by law.
PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA, WASHINGTON, at
a Regular Meeting thereof this _______ day of ____________________, 2021.
ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED:
Christy O'Flaherty, MMC, City Clerk Allan Ekberg, Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM BY: Filed with the City Clerk:
Passed by the City Council:
Published:
Effective Date:
Ordinance Number:
Office of the City Attorney
32
City of Tukwila
BOAR
PLANNING COMMISSION (PC)
PUBLIC HEARING MINUTES
NOVEMBER 12, 2020
Date: November 12, 2020
Time: 6:30 PM - 10:45 PM
Location: Virtual Meeting - Microsoft Teams
Present: Chair Heidi Watters; Vice-Chair Louise Strander; Commissioners Dennis Martinez, Sharon
Mann, Karen Simmons, Dixie Stark, and Andrea Reay
Staff: Deputy Director Minnie Dhaliwal; Senior Planner Jaimie Reavis; Assistant Planner
Meredith Sampson; Business Relations Manager Brandon Miles and Planning
Commission Secretary Wynetta Bivens
Adopt
Minutes: Commissioner Strander moved to adopt the November 5, 2020 minutes. Commissioner
Martinez seconded the motion. Motion passed. Commissioners Mann, Stark and Reay were
absent on 11/5/20 and abstained from voting.
CASE NUMBER: L20-0106
PURPOSE: Consider updates to subdivision procedures in Tukwila Municipal Code Title 17 (Subdivisions and
Plats) and Title 18 (Zoning).
LOCATION: City-wide.
Jaimie Reavis, Senior Planner, Department of Community Development (DCD) gave the presentation for staff. The
intent of the public hearing was to consider amendment to the subdivision regulation within the Tukwila Municipal
Code and Title 17 for subdivisions and plats and Title 18 for zoning. Ms. Reavis provided background information
on the subdivision process; explanation of why the code amendments are being proposed; gave an overview of the
proposed changes and options; went over the approval process; as well as the proposed amendments and staff’s
recommendations. She also answered several clarifying questions.
PROPOSED AMENDMENTS / STAFF’S RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Modification of a preliminary approval
This process is not currently in the code, the process would be added to modify a preliminary approval of any type
of subdivision, after the preliminary approval and before final approval.
STAFF’S RECOMMENDATION: The DCD Director makes the determination whether the modification is a minor
or major modification and can require conditions to ensure conformance with the criteria.
NOTED: The DCD Director will use proposed criteria in determining if the modification is minor. If the
modification is determined to be major the applicant needs to apply for a new application.
2. Final plat approval
STAFF’S RECOMMENDATION: The decision is made by the DCD Director.
3. Phasing of final approval
STAFF’S RECOMMENDATION: The phasing plan be submitted and reviewed by the Hearing Examiner at the
33
Page 2 of 4
11/12/20
PC Minutes
time of preliminary approval; after preliminary approval if it turns out that it is better to phase subdivisions staff is
recommending that a modification to the preliminary plat be submitted and it be reviewed by the DCD
Director.
NOTE: Concern was expressed in having the Director review and approve phasing proposed after the
preliminary approval has already been issued. There was discussion on how phasing proposed after preliminary
approval should go back to the Hearing Examiner (or the Planning Commission if there was an associated design
review).
4. Expiration and Extensions (language clean-up for expiration and phasing extensions)
NOTE: Currently the existing code requires the first phase must be recorded within five years. Concern was
expressed that if a subdivision is phased and does not meet the deadline another application needs to be submitted
and the applicant must start over.
STAFF’S RECOMMENDATION: The DCD Director may extend a preliminary plat for a project that has received
phasing approval for up to three additional years, for a total maximum of eight years from the date of preliminary
approval.
NOTE: There was extensive discussion on this proposed amendment, the PC expressed concern that the
recommended extension was not long enough. After multiple suggested amendments to staff’s recommendation, the
PC added several more recommendation options in addition to staff’s recommendations.
PUBLIC TESTIMONY
Mike Pruett, for Segale Properties said that it is important for the PC to understand the whole pre-plat final plat
process and that approximately 90% of the effort is in the pre-plat. He explained that it involves preparation of all
sorts of different plans and infrastructure, not just the pre-plat plans. He said it is a time consuming and expensive
process, and all subdivisions are not created equal. He said it will probably take 15 to 20 years to develop the 20
lots, and he would like the pre-plat to stay alive as long as possible. He said all the pre-plats will be built out under
the current regulations, and all the public infrastructure that could change over time is already built. He also
commented on the language and process for minor modifications. He said they are in favor of flexibility for the life
of the pre-plat.
Nicole DeLeon, Attorney, Cairncross and Hempleman, representing Segale Properties,
went over the highlights of the comment letter submitted on behalf of Segale Properties. She stated what is driving
Segale’s interest in this amendment is the amount of infrastructure, and work that goes in during the preliminary plat
phase. She reiterated Mr. Pruett’s comment that 90% of the effort, such as planning, work, and infrastructure goes in
during the preliminary plat phase. She said if the preliminary plat expires, you have done 90% of the work,
expense, time, and investment and suddenly you are just out of luck. She said they are requesting flexibility, and it is
critical to be granted flexibility for an extension up to 12 years on the extension approval process. She said if the
extension is granted that there are certain guards that would prevent any concerns on the city’s part in granting the
extension. She commented on the discussion pertaining to the department review process, and said she researched
and found code TMC18.104.180, which states the review process is required by all departments. They are proposing
their project is revised to a minor modification, as a Type 1 decision. She provided clarification on why they are
focused on a 10-lot standard. She said that state law does allow for approval of a longer extension. In addition to the
other revisions requested, she suggested that a provision for fewer lots be included to eliminate any ambiguity.
There was no additional public testimony.
Following are some of the clarifying questions raised by the PC.
Commissioner Mann asked Mr. Pruett considering he said that most of the improvements are complete, what are
their concerns with what staff is proposing? Mr. Pruett said through the initial pre-plats, he said the risk associated
with providing a longer timeframe is small because the improvements are done. However, the pre-plat underlines all
their future development plans that will expire over and over while they are building out the project over 15 to 20
years.
34
Page 3 of 4
11/12/20
PC Minutes
Commissioner Martinez asked Ms. DeLeon if they were okay with staff’s language pertaining to the preliminary
plat phasing approval? Ms. DeLeon said it captures the concept that they are comfortable with.
Commissioner Stark asked staff how they came up with the recommended extension period of 3 years, considering
the comment letter mentions a 12-year period. Staff said that the recommendation was based on review of other
cities’ codes. Commissioner Stark asked whether staff had found a city that offers an extension greater than 3-years,
staff noted that one example was found where a total of 11 years was allowed, with extensions provided in
increments of two years.
Commissioner Simmons asked how many of their current sub-plats are subject to expire? Mr. Pruett responded
one.
Commissioner Reay asked if a total of seven-years extension would be sufficient, or would additional years be
more prudent? Mr. Pruett said they would need more years, and they would need to re-apply at least once, or
multiple times before the project is complete. He said the longer timeframe the City approves the better.
Commissioner Watters asked staff to clarify where the Tukwila South project is in the subdivision process. Staff
noted that it is not clear why Tukwila South has been set up as such a large subdivision with future development
tracts that will also need to be subdivided. Given that most of the infrastructure has been constructed, Commissioner
Watters asked what would expire if the preliminary plat is not extended? She noted a balance between a developer
having to continually resubmit new applications for preliminary plat approval, and having development be subject to
things like environmental regulations that get updated, since we want to use best available science and fulfill the
City Council’s vision for the City. Mr. Pruett said they need additional flexibility for the length of time a
preliminary plat can stay alive.
Commissioner Stander asked Ms. DeLeon to provide clarification on the language in the comment letter regarding
item #6 on page 2. Ms. DeLeon said they are asking for a revision to the modification criteria to allow a proposal to
modify conditions of the original preliminary plat approval to qualify as a minor modification. Commissioner
Strander asked clarifying questions about the proposed 12-year timeframe, and whether it provides the flexibility for
the decision-maker to determine how much time the extension would be provided for, up to 12 years. Ms. DeLeon
said that the Director under the various criteria could reduce the amount of time of the extension to be less than the
maximum allowable.
Commissioner Martinez inquired whether the City Attorney reviewed the comment letter. Staff confirmed the City
Attorney reviewed the letter and staff’s recommendations and agreed with staff’s recommendations. The City
Attorney felt they met the balance of providing flexibility without the vesting period being a concern. Therefore,
the City Attorney did not feel any additional changes to staff’s recommendations were necessary.
DELIBERATIONS
Request: Commissioner Stander requested to add the proposed revision to the minor modification #1 language as
listed in the comment letter. Note: (motion #1, first bullet)
Request: Commissioner Stander requested to add the proposed revision to the minor modification #6 language, as
listed in the comment letter. Note: (motion #1, second bullet)
Request: Commissioner Mann requested that a statement is included under minor modifications that all
departments (Planning, Building, PW, and Fire) must be part of the review process. Note: (motion #1, third bullet)
Commissioner Watters said the proposed amendments are a good addition, and she agrees with the City Attorney
and staff, as recommended.
MOTIONS
1. Modification of a preliminary approval
Commissioner Mann moved to approve and forward to the City Council with the additional modification language
in bullets 1-3.
35
Page 4 of 4
11/12/20
PC Minutes
• Minor modifications do not increase the number of lots in the subdivision beyond the number previously
approved or which maintain the number of lots or decrease the number of lots in the subdivision below the
number previously approved’.
• Minor modifications are consistent with the conditions of the preliminary approval, provided that a minor
modification may revise conditions of the preliminary approval so long as the revisions are consistent with the
minor modification limitations set by TMC 17.14.020.E.1-5.
• All departments must be part of the minor modification review process (Planning, Building, PW, and Fire).
Commissioner Stark seconded the motion. Motion Passed. Commissioners Watters and Simmons opposed.
2. Final plat approval
Commissioner Mann moved to approve and forward to the City Council as recommended by staff, Option A.
Commissioner Watters seconded the motion. Motion passed. Commissioner Martinez opposed.
3. Phasing of final approval
Commissioner Watters moved to approve and forward to the City Council as recommended by staff.
Commissioner Simmons seconded the motion. Motion failed. Commissioners Martinez, Strander, Mann, and Stark
opposed.
Commissioner Mann moved to approve and forward to the City Council, Option B as listed in the staff report, for
approval by Hearing Examiner or Planning Commission. Commissioner Martinez seconded the motion.
Motion passed. Commissioners Watters, Simmons, and Reay opposed.
Chair Watters called for a two-minute recess.
4. Expiration and extensions (language clean-up for expiration and phasing extensions)
The PC asked staff to type and show on the screen their proposed language of several revised options of
recommendations in addition to staff’s recommendations, and then they voted on the options.
Commissioner Strander moved to approve and forward to the City Council the following recommendation as
amended, The DCD Director may extend a preliminary plat that has up to 2 phases
three additional years beyond the period provided in TMC 17.14.050, A. For plats that have more than 2 phases
approved as part of the preliminary plat the DCD Director may extend a preliminary plat for a total of 9 years with
the first extension of 3 years and two subsequent extensions of three years each.
In no case shall the total time between the date of preliminary approval and the date of recording of the final
phase of a phased development exceed 14 years. Commissioner Stark seconded the motion. Motion passed.
Commissioners Simmons and Watters opposed.
The public hearing was closed.
• The briefing on the housing plan was continued to December 10th.
Adjourned: 10:45 p.m.
Submitted by: Wynetta Bivens
Planning Commission Secretary
36
STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION
Prepared November 3, 2020
FILE NUMBERS: L20‐0106
REQUEST: Amend Title 17 and Title 18
PUBLIC HEARING: A Notice of Public Hearing was published in the Seattle Times on October 29,
2020.
SEPA: This project is exempt from the State Environmental Policy Act under WAC 197‐
11‐800 (19), Procedural actions.
STAFF: Jaimie Reavis, Senior Planner
ATTACHMENTS: A. TMC 17.14.030, C: Criteria for Final Plat Approval and TMC 17.14.040 Phasing
ISSUE/SUMMARY OF PROPOSED ACTION
Staff is proposing changes to Title 17 and Title 18 that are intended to address approval process issues
for subdivisions identified by City staff, Segale Properties, and other applicants. Included are revising the
approval process for modifying a subdivision which has received preliminary approval (including
Boundary Line Adjustments, Lot Consolidations, Short Subdivisions, and Subdivisions), changing the
decision maker for final approval of subdivision applications which involve 10 or more lots, and
modifying the length of time for phases in a subdivision to be submitted for final subdivision approval.
BACKGROUND
Title 17 Subdivisions and Plats of the Tukwila Municipal Code (TMC) contains the regulations and criteria
for approval of subdividing land in the City of Tukwila. Title 18 of the TMC (Zoning) has additional
regulations for subdividing land, specifying the decision maker, appeal body, appeal type (open record
or closed record), and the procedures required for each type of application.
The different processes for the subdivision of land include short plats, boundary line adjustments, lot
consolidations, binding site improvement plans, and subdivisions. Except for the first issue, the focus of
this memo is on subdivisions of 10 or more lots (called plats).
1 37
2
Subdivision Process – Current
Table 1 summarizes who the decision maker is at various stages of review for a subdivision plat,
subdivision phasing, and modification of a preliminary plat. Also included are the public notification and
public hearing processes, time limits for expiration of the Preliminary Approval, and information on
proposed changes.
The current process all applications for subdivision go through include the following workflow:
Staff review‐‐> Preliminary Approval‐‐>Installation of Infrastructure (utilities, access)‐‐>Final Approval
1. Staff review: Initial review by Fire, Public Works, Planning, and Building – results in correction
letter or recommendation for Preliminary Approval.
2. Preliminary Approval: for the decision on a subdivision involving 10 or more lots ‐ the
recommendations are referred to the Hearing Examiner or Planning Commission (when there is
an associated Design Review application). After mailed and posted public notice is provided to
tenants and property owners within 500 feet, a public hearing is held on the application prior to
a decision on approval by either the Hearing Examiner or Planning Commission.
3. Installation of infrastructure and changes to survey document: Conditions of Preliminary
Approval include required changes to the survey and easement documents (for all types of
subdivision applications), and construction of infrastructure improvements in the case of a Short
Plat, some Binding Site Improvement Plans, and Subdivision Plats.
4. Final Approval:
a. The applicant makes changes to the survey and other applicable documents in response
to the conditions of Preliminary Approval and resubmits materials for City review. If
conditions of approval are met, then Final Approval is recommended and approval
granted by the DCD Director’s signature on the survey.
b. Subdivision plats are forwarded to the City Council for a quasi‐judicial public hearing and
decision.
DISCUSSION
Four main areas of revisions to Titles 17 and 18 of the TMC have been identified to improve subdivision
procedures. The options to consider are included in Table 1 below:
1. Add a process for an applicant to request modifications to Preliminary Approval of any type of
subdivision (i.e., Boundary Line Adjustment, Lot Consolidation, Binding Site Improvement Plan,
Short Plat, Subdivision). There is currently no guidance in the code and addition of a process
would add clarity for applicants and staff.
2. Revise the process for Final Approval of a subdivision with 10 or more lots (called a Final Plat) to
allow Director approval. Currently, the final plat is approved by the City Council as a quasi‐
judicial decision. State law was changed in 2017 to allow the City Council to delegate the review
and decision of a Final Plat to “an established planning commission or agency, or to such other
administrative personnel in accordance with state law or local charter.” Other jurisdictions have
adopted ordinances which allow Final Plat approval by the Planning Director, Hearing Examiner,
or Planning Commission.
238
3
3. Revise the phasing approval process to accommodate phasing during and after the Preliminary
Plat Approval stage.
4. Revise the extension approval process and language in TMC 17.14.050 to allow the DCD Director
to approve extensions, and allow for the expiration of a preliminary approval for a phased
subdivision to be extended for longer than the existing one‐year time period. Housekeeping
cleanup of the existing language is also proposed.
3 39
440
4
Ta
b
l
e
1
.
S
u
m
m
a
r
y
o
f
R
e
c
o
m
m
e
n
d
e
d
C
h
a
n
g
e
s
(
h
i
g
h
l
i
g
h
t
e
d
i
n
b
l
u
e
)
*Ty
p
e
1
=
D
i
r
e
c
t
o
r
(
p
u
b
l
i
c
n
o
t
i
c
e
n
o
t
r
e
qu
i
r
e
d
f
o
r
T
y
p
e
1
d
e
c
i
s
i
o
n
s
,
a
p
pe
a
l
i
s
c
l
o
s
e
d
‐
r
e
c
o
r
d
a
p
p
e
al
t
o
H
e
a
r
i
n
g
E
x
a
m
i
n
e
r
)
,
Ty
p
e
2
=
D
i
r
e
c
t
o
r
(
a
p
p
e
a
l
i
s
o
p
e
n
r
ec
o
r
d
a
p
p
e
a
l
t
o
t
h
e
H
e
a
r
i
n
g
Ex
a
m
i
n
e
r
o
r
B
o
a
r
d
o
f
A
rc
h
i
t
e
c
t
u
r
a
l
R
e
v
i
e
w
)
;
Ty
p
e
3
=
H
e
a
r
i
n
g
E
x
a
m
i
n
e
r
;
Ty
p
e
4
=P
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
C
o
m
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
/
B
A
R
;
Ty
p
e
5
=
C
i
t
y
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
Su
b
d
i
v
i
s
i
o
n
Ap
p
l
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
Na
m
e
Ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
P
r
o
c
e
s
s
e
s
Re
c
o
m
m
e
n
d
e
d
F
i
n
a
l
A
p
p
r
o
v
a
l
De
c
i
s
i
o
n
Ty
p
e
*
Ex
p
i
r
a
t
i
o
n
–
Pr
e
l
i
m
i
n
a
r
y
Ap
p
r
o
v
a
l
Pr
e
l
i
m
i
n
a
r
y
Ap
p
r
o
v
a
l
De
c
i
s
i
o
n
(T
y
p
e
*
)
Re
q
u
i
r
e
d
P
u
b
l
i
c
No
t
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
/
Pu
b
l
i
c
H
e
a
r
i
n
g
F
i
n
a
l
Ap
p
r
o
v
a
l
(T
y
p
e
*
)
Su
b
d
i
v
i
s
i
o
n
s
(
1
0
+
Lo
t
s
)
He
a
r
i
n
g
E
x
a
m
i
n
e
r
(T
y
p
e
3
)
OR
Pl
a
n
n
i
n
g
Co
m
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
i
f
de
s
i
g
n
r
e
v
i
e
w
is
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
d
(T
y
p
e
4
)
Pu
b
l
i
c
H
e
a
r
i
n
g
h
e
l
d
fo
r
b
o
t
h
pr
e
l
i
m
i
n
a
r
y
ap
p
r
o
v
a
l
a
n
d
f
i
n
a
l
ap
p
r
o
v
a
l
s
t
a
g
e
.
He
a
r
i
n
g
a
t
f
i
n
a
l
ap
p
r
o
v
a
l
s
t
a
g
e
n
o
t
re
q
u
i
r
e
d
b
y
s
t
a
t
e
la
w
.
Ci
t
y
Co
u
n
c
i
l
(T
y
p
e
5
)
Di
r
e
c
t
o
r
(
T
y
p
e
2
)
OR
He
a
r
i
n
g
E
x
a
m
i
n
e
r
(
T
y
p
e
3
)
o
r
Pl
a
n
n
i
n
g
C
o
m
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
(
T
y
p
e
4
)
Ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
:
5
y
e
a
r
s
(p
l
u
s
1
a
d
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
y
e
a
r
u
p
o
n
w
r
i
t
t
e
n
re
q
u
e
s
t
)
Pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
:
N
o
c
h
a
n
g
e
Ph
a
s
i
n
g
o
f
a
su
b
d
i
v
i
s
i
o
n
He
a
r
i
n
g
Ex
a
m
i
n
e
r
(
T
y
p
e
3)
OR
Pl
a
n
n
i
n
g
Co
m
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
i
f
de
s
i
g
n
r
e
v
i
e
w
is
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
d
(T
y
p
e
4
)
Ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
n
o
t
i
c
e
i
s
d
o
n
e
as
p
a
r
t
o
f
n
o
t
i
c
e
o
f
C
i
t
y
Co
u
n
c
i
l
m
e
e
t
i
n
g
.
Pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
n
o
t
i
c
e
w
o
u
l
d
be
p
e
r
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
d
n
o
t
i
c
e
fo
r
T
y
p
e
2
d
e
c
i
s
i
o
n
s
(T
M
C
1
8
.
1
0
4
)
.
Ci
t
y
Co
u
n
c
i
l
(T
y
p
e
5
)
He
a
r
i
n
g
E
x
a
m
i
n
e
r
(
T
y
p
e
3)
/
P
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
C
o
m
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
(
T
y
p
e
4
)
at
t
i
m
e
o
f
P
r
e
l
i
m
in
a
r
y
A
p
p
r
o
v
a
l
.
If
p
r
o
p
o
s
e
d
o
r
m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
a
f
t
e
r
Pr
e
l
i
m
i
n
a
r
y
A
p
p
r
o
v
a
l
,
r
e
v
i
e
w
e
d
th
r
o
u
g
h
a
n
a
p
p
l
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
f
o
r
a
mo
d
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
t
h
e
P
r
e
l
i
m
i
n
a
r
y
Pl
a
t
(
s
e
e
b
e
l
o
w
)
.
(
T
y
p
e
2
)
Ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
:
A
l
l
p
h
a
s
e
s
m
u
s
t
b
e
re
c
o
r
d
e
d
w
i
t
h
i
n
t
h
e
5
‐
y
e
a
r
t
i
m
e
li
m
i
t
a
s
s
o
c
i
a
t
e
d
w
i
t
h
P
r
e
l
i
m
i
n
a
r
y
Pl
a
t
Pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
:
F
i
r
s
t
p
h
a
s
e
m
u
s
t
b
e
re
c
o
r
d
e
d
w
i
t
h
i
n
5
y
e
a
r
s
;
su
b
s
e
q
u
e
n
t
p
h
a
s
e
s
c
a
n
r
e
c
e
i
v
e
a
n
ex
t
e
n
s
i
o
n
o
f
u
p
t
o
3
y
e
a
r
s
.
Mo
d
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
Pr
e
l
i
m
i
n
a
r
y
Ap
p
r
o
v
a
l
/
Pr
e
l
i
m
i
n
a
r
y
P
l
a
t
(M
i
n
o
r
)
Di
r
e
c
t
o
r
(T
y
p
e
2
)
.
Pe
r
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
d
n
o
t
i
c
e
f
o
r
Ty
p
e
2
d
e
c
i
s
i
o
n
s
(
T
M
C
18
.
1
0
4
)
N/
A
N/
A
Pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
:
R
e
t
a
i
n
s
o
r
i
g
i
n
a
l
pr
e
l
i
m
i
n
a
r
y
a
p
p
r
o
v
a
l
e
x
p
i
r
a
t
i
o
n
.
Mo
d
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
Pr
e
l
i
m
i
n
a
r
y
Ap
p
r
o
v
a
l
/
Pr
e
l
i
m
i
n
a
r
y
P
l
a
t
(M
a
j
o
r
)
Re
q
u
i
r
e
s
s
u
b
m
i
t
t
a
l
of
a
n
e
w
ap
p
l
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
f
o
r
t
h
e
su
b
d
i
v
i
s
i
o
n
5
41
6
4
2
5
1. Addition of a Process to allow a Modification of Preliminary Approval/Preliminary Plat
The Department of Community Development has received requests by subdivision applicants to modify an application in
between the Preliminary Approval and Final Approval stages. This process is not currently addressed in the code,
requiring an applicant to withdraw an existing application and submit a new one to obtain Preliminary Approval for their
revised plan. Other cities have adopted a process under which changes can be made to an existing Preliminary Approval
before the application for Final Approval is submitted.
Many other cities have adopted an application process which involves the Director deciding as to whether the request
for a modification to a Preliminary Approval constitutes a “minor” or “major” modification. If the modification is deemed
to be Minor by the Director, then the modification can be approved administratively by the Director, and additional
conditions that must be addressed prior to Final Approval can be added. If the modification is deemed to be “Major”,
then a new application for Preliminary Approval must be submitted and the previous application is required to be
withdrawn. A minor modification does not change the vesting or expiration date associated with a Preliminary Approval
decision.
Staff Recommendation: Staff’s recommendation is to create a new application process for a minor and major
modification, according to the following processes:
Minor modifications proposed by an applicant after Preliminary Approval may be approved by the DCD Director as
an administrative Type 2 decision. The DCD Director may include conditions as part of an approval of a minor
modification to ensure conformance with the criteria below.
Minor modifications are those which:
(1) do not increase the number of lots in the subdivision beyond the number previously approved;
(2) do not decrease the aggregate area of open space, or the design or location of stormwater systems or
roadways in the subdivision by ten percent (10%) or more;
(3) may realign internal roadways and lot lines, but do not relocate any roadway access point to an exterior
street from the plat;
(4) do no alter the exterior boundaries of the subdivision;
(5) which are consistent with applicable development standards and will not cause the subdivision to violate any
applicable City policy or regulation;
(6) are consistent with the conditions of the preliminary approval.
Major modifications are those which, as determined by the DCD Director, are not minor modifications as defined in
this code, and either add property or lots or substantially change the basic design, density, open space, or other
substantive requirement or provision. If the applicant proposes to make one or more major changes, the revised
plan(s) must be processed as a new application.
2. Final Plat Approval Process
Currently, the decision on a final plat is made by the City Council following a public hearing. The Council decision on the
final plat is quasi‐judicial, meaning the City Council is required to make the decision on a project that will impact a
specific project site and applicant or property owner. As the legislative body of the City, the Council most often reviews
issues and makes decisions that apply City‐wide.
The following are reasons to consider changing the Decision Maker on a Final Plat Approval:
State law only requires a public hearing during the review of the Preliminary Plat application. Tukwila currently
complies with this requirement per TMC 18.104.010. A change in the decision maker or approval process will not
change this.
The City of Tukwila also currently requires a public hearing at the Final Plat Approval stage of a subdivision, as
required for Type 5 decisions (as well as Type 3 and Type 4 decisions). However, as noted above, state law only
7 43
6
requires a public hearing on a subdivision during review of the Preliminary Plat application when there is the most
opportunity to consider public comments.
State law requires Final Plat to be processed within 30 days of filing unless an extension is requested. It is difficult to
meet the deadline when a public hearing by the City Council is required for Final Plat approval. A code change to
allow administrative review by the Director of a Final Plat as a Type 2 or Type 1 decision would remove the
requirement to hold a public hearing for final plat approval, allowing for a faster and more efficient processing of
Final Plat applications.
A Final Plat is approved if it meets established criteria of approval for the preliminary plat. The Final Plat approval
process is non‐discretionary, subject to the criteria in TMC 17.14.030, C (see Attachment A).
The Washington Cities Insurance Authority strongly encourages councils to remove themselves as much as possible
from having to make quasi‐judicial decisions.
The City Council is the legislative body of the City of Tukwila. Most of the items reviewed by the City Council are
legislative in nature, involving setting City‐wide policies. The decision on a final plat is quasi‐judicial, meaning the
Council is required to make the decision on a project that will impact a specific project site and applicant or property
owner. This is different from a legislative process, as Councilmembers are not allowed to discuss the matter with
community members beforehand (ex parte communication).
Proposed options:
a. Administrative approval by the DCD Director.
b. Approval issued by the Hearing Examiner or Planning Commission.
Staff Recommendation: Option a. Administrative approval by the DCD Director.
3. Phasing of Final Approval
Phasing of a plat is currently approved by the City Council during the Final Plat approval, according to the criteria of TMC
17.14.040 (see Attachment A).
Staff Recommendation: At the time of Preliminary Approval, review and approval of project phasing is done by the
Hearing Examiner (Type 3)/Planning Commission (Type 4). If phasing is proposed after Preliminary Approval, or if a
modification to the phasing is proposed, then an application for a modification to the Preliminary Approval shall be
submitted for review by the DCD Director.
4. Subdivision Preliminary Plat Expiration
Currently, a subdivision preliminary plat and all associated phases must be recorded within five years of the date of
preliminary plat approval. Per TMC 17.14.050, B, “the hearing body of the preliminary approval may approve one
extension not to exceed one year.” Phased subdivisions are often done on larger plats to allow the developer to
sequentially receive final approval and begin selling or building on lots in one area of a plat while still completing
infrastructure installation in other specified phases.
The length of time a preliminary plat approval is in effect is significant because a preliminary plat vests the developer
with the right to both divide the property and to develop it in the manner disclosed in the application in accordance
with the land use and zoning laws in effect on the date of submittal. As land use and zoning laws are adopted, it is
the City’s intent to have new development consistent with current laws. It is also important for developers to have
assurance regarding the land use and zoning laws applicable to their proposals when they are planning new
developments.
844
7
The options below allow for the DCD Director to issue extensions on subdivision preliminary plats which have received
phasing approval.
Proposed options:
Staff is recommending the following criteria be used in review of any request for extension of a subdivision
preliminary plat approval that has received phasing approval.
1. A written request for extension is filed at least 30 days before the expiration of the preliminary plat; and
2. Unforeseen circumstances or conditions which are not the result of voluntary actions of the applicant
necessitate the extension of the preliminary plat: and
3. Conditions in the immediate vicinity of the subject property have not changed substantially since the
preliminary plat was first approved; and
4. An extension of the preliminary plat will not cause substantial detriment to existing uses in the immediate
vicinity of the subject property or to the community as a whole; and
5. The applicant has demonstrated reasonable diligence in attempting to meet the time limit imposed; and
6. The preliminary plat substantially complies with applicable City Code provisions in effect on the date that
the application for extension was made.
The two options for extending the time allowed for a Subdivision Preliminary Plat Approval that has received phasing
approval including the following:
a. The DCD Director may extend a preliminary plat for a project that has received phasing approval, but not
including the initial phase, for up to three additional years beyond the period provided in TMC 17.14.050, A. In
no case shall the total time period between the date of Preliminary Approval and the date of recording of the
final phase of a phased development exceed 8 years.
b. Final plat approval of any phase of the subdivision preliminary plat will constitute an automatic one‐year
extension for the filing of the final plat for the next phases of the subdivision.
Staff Recommendation: Option A, along with adoption of the above criteria for use in review of requests for an
extension.
Additionally, staff is recommending the following language cleanup to TMC 17.14.050, A, since there are not currently
any Preliminary Plats in Tukwila which have not received Final Plat Approval:
RECOMMENDED ACTION
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission hold a public hearing on the proposed changes on November 12, 2020,
review each proposed change, and forward recommendations to the Council for a public hearing on December 14, 2020.
9 45
1046
7. King County Assessor’s maps which shows the
location of each property within 500 feet of the subdivision; two
sets of mailing labels for all property owners and tenants
(residents or businesses) within 500 feet of the subdivision.
8. Maintenance agreements, easements and other
documents ready for recording.
9. Signatures on the following certificates on the face
of the plat (when appropriate) from the surveyor that prepared
the plat, the King County Treasurer, Seattle-King County Health
Department, City of Tukwila Finance Director, Owner’s affidavit
and certificate of dedication as identified in TMC 17.04.060(I).
B. FINAL PLAT REVIEW PROCEDURES: Applications
for final plat approval shall be processed as Type 5 decision
subject to the provisions of TMC 18.108.050.
1. Referral to Other Departments and Agencies - The
Department of Community Development shall distribute the final
plat to all departments and agencies receiving the preliminary
plat, and to any other departments, special purpose districts and
other governmental agencies deemed necessary.
2. Departmental Approval - The Public Works
Department and other interested departments and agencies
shall review the final plat and submit to the Department of
Community Development written comments with respect to the
final plat decision criteria. If the final plat is in order, the Public
Works Director shall sign the appropriate certificates on the
mylar original.
3. Filing Final Plat -
a. Before the final plat is submitted to the City
Council, it shall be signed by the City Treasurer (Finance
Director), Director of Public Works, and the Director of the
Department of Community Development. Upon approval by the
City Council, it shall be signed by the Mayor and attested by the
City Clerk.
b. The applicant shall file the final plat with the
Department of Records and Elections. The plat will be
considered complete when a copy of the recorded documents is
returned to the Department of Community Development.
C. CRITERIA FOR FINAL PLAT APPROVAL: In
approving the final plat, the City Council shall find:
1. That the proposed final plat bears the required
certificates and statements of approval.
2. That a title insurance report furnished by the
subdivider confirms the title of the land, and the proposed
subdivision is vested in the name of the owner(s) whose
signature(s) appears on the plat certificate.
3. That the facilities and improvements required to
be provided by the subdivider have been completed or,
alternatively, that the subdivider has submitted with the
proposed final plat a performance bond or other security in
conformance with TMC 17.24.030.
4. That the plat is certified as accurate by the land
surveyor responsible for the plat.
5. That the plat is in conformance with the approved
preliminary plat.
6. That the plat meets the requirements of Chapter
58.17 RCW and other applicable state and local laws which
were in effect at the time of preliminary plat approval.
(Ord. 1833 §1(part), 1998)
17.14.040 Phasing
The subdivider may develop and record the subdivision in
phases. Any phasing proposal shall be submitted for City
Council review at the time at which a final plat for the first phase
is submitted. Approval of the phasing plan shall be based upon
making the following findings:
1. The phasing plan includes all land contained
within the approved preliminary plat, including areas where off-
site improvements are being made.
2. The sequence and timing of development is
identified on a map.
3. Each phase shall consist of a contiguous group of
lots that meets all pertinent development standards on its own.
The phase cannot rely on future phases for meeting any City
codes.
4. Each phase provides adequate circulation and
utilities. Public Works has determined that all street and other
public improvements, including but not limited to drainage and
erosion control improvements, are assured. Deferment of
improvements may be allowed pursuant to TMC Chapter 17.24.
5. All phases shall be recorded within the five-year
life of the preliminary plat, unless an extension is granted.
(Ord. 1833 §1(part), 1998)
17.14.050 Expiration
A. The preliminary plat approval for subdivision shall
expire unless a complete application for final plat meeting all
requirements of this chapter is submitted to the Tukwila City
Council for approval within seven years from the date of
preliminary plat approval if the date of preliminary plat approval
is on or before December 31, 2014, and within five years of the
date of preliminary plat approval if the date of preliminary plat
approval is on or after January 1, 2015; provided that final plat
meeting all requirements of this chapter shall be submitted to
the Tukwila City Council for approval within ten years from the
date of the preliminary plat approval if the project is not subject
to requirements adopted under Chapter 90.58 RCW and the
date of the preliminary plat approval is on or before December
31, 2007.
B. The hearing body of the preliminary approval may
approve one extension not to exceed one year.
(Ord. 2499 §1, 2016; Ord. 2124 §2, 2006;
Ord. 1833 §1 (part), 1998)
11 47
48
{04104265.DOCX;3 }
nrogers@cairncross.com
direct: (206) 254-4417
November 10, 2020
VIA EMAIL
Planning Commission, City of Tukwila
c/o Jaimie Reavis
6200 Southcenter Blvd.
Tukwila, WA 98188
Email: Jaimie.Reavis@TukwilaWA.gov
Re: Written Comments in Support of Additional Amendments to Title 17 and Title 18
Planning Commission Meeting, November 12, 2020
Dear Planning Commissioners:
On behalf of Segale Properties LLC (“Segale”), we write to support the proposed amendments to
provisions governing subdivisions in the Tukwila Municipal Code (“Code” or “TMC”). Segale agrees with
City Staff’s comments explaining the need to amend the Code to provide clarity and flexibility to the
City’s subdivision entitlement process. We also recommend a few additional revisions to City Staff’s
proposed approaches regarding plat modifications and the term of a phased plat, as detailed below.
We request the Planning Commission recommend City Staff’s proposal, with our revisions
incorporated, to City Council. Our suggested revisions to the language used in the Staff Report are
shown with new text in underline format and deleted text shown in strikethrough format, followed by
our rationale for the revisions in italics.
Process to allow a Modification of Preliminary Approval/Preliminary Plat
Minor modifications proposed by an applicant after Preliminary Approval may be approved
by the DCD Director as an administrative Type 2 1 decision. The DCD Director may include
conditions as part of an approval of a minor modification to ensure conformance with the
criteria below.
Minor modifications are those which:
(1) do not increase the number of lots in the subdivision beyond the number previously
approved or which maintain the number of lots, or decrease the number of lots in the
subdivision below the number previously approved;
49
Planning Commission
November 10, 2020
Page 2
{04104265.DOCX;3 }
(2) do not decrease the aggregate area of open space, or the design or location of
stormwater systems or roadways in the subdivision by ten percent (10%) or more;
(3) may realign internal roadways and lot lines, but do not relocate any roadway access
point to an exterior street from the plat;
(4) do no alter the exterior boundaries of the subdivision;
(5) which are consistent with applicable development standards and will not cause the
subdivision to violate any applicable City policy or regulation;
(6) are consistent with the conditions of the preliminary approval, provided that a minor
modification may revise conditions of the preliminary approval so long as the revisions
are consistent with the minor modification limitations set by TMC 17.14.020.E.1-5
above.
Major modifications are those which, as determined by the DCD Director, are not minor
modifications as defined in this code, and either add property or lots or substantially change
the basic design, density, open space, or other substantive requirement or provision. If the
applicant proposes to make one or more major changes, the revised plan(s) must be
processed as a new application.
Rationale:
We recommend a minor modification be processed as a Type 1 decision, not a Type 2 decision.
The Type 1 categorization for a minor modification is consistent with other examples of Type 1 decisions
in the Code. See TMC 18.104.010. Examples of other Type 1 decisions are minor modifications to
design review approvals and minor modifications to a Planned Residential Development (“PRD”). Type
1 decisions are generally made by the DCD Director and subject to a closed record appeal before the
Hearing Examiner. Type 2 decisions are generally made by the DCD Director and subject to an open
record appeal before the Hearing Examiner. Examples of a Type 2 decision are administrative design
review, code interpretations, modification to development standards, and short plats. Type 2 decisions
are, therefore, clearly intended for more complex entitlement issues whereas the framework for Type 1
decisions is proportionate to the scale of a minor modification.
Next, we recommend inserting language to clarify that while a minor modification cannot
increase the number of planned lots, a minor modification may either retain or decrease the number of
lots in a plat. This flexibility is appropriate and the Subsection 5 requirement that minor modifications
be consistent with applicable development standards guards against any other concerns.
We also recommend adding language to clarify that a minor modification may revise a condition
of a preliminary plat approval, but only so long as it is consistent with the limitations set by the
preceding subsections. For example, plat conditions typically set a specific amount of open space.
Pursuant to Subsection 2, a minor modification may change the amount of open space so long as the
change is by less than 10%. Therefore, the minor modification may change the related plat condition,
50
Planning Commission
November 10, 2020
Page 3
{04104265.DOCX;3 }
but only within the stated 10% limit. We think this was City Staff’s intent, but suggest adding the
proposed language to clarify.
Subdivision Preliminary Plat Expiration
Option A
The DCD Director may extend a preliminary plat for a project that has received phasing
approval, but not including the initial phase, for up to three seven additional years beyond the
period provided in TMC 17.14.050, A. In no case shall the total time period between the date of
Preliminary Approval and the date of recording of the final phase of a phased development
exceed 8 12 years.
Rationale:
We recommend revisions to allow the City to grant extensions to a preliminary plat for up to 12
years, rather than the City Staff proposal for just eight years. Twelve years provides larger projects, like
Segale’s Tukwila South project, the needed certainty to develop large and complex projects over a
longer period of time. We support the City Staff’s recommended criteria for discretionary approval of
such an extension and note that these criteria and the City’s discretionary authority guard against
potential issues that could arise in the course of an extended term. For example, an extension may only
be granted if it “will not cause substantial detriment to existing uses in the immediate vicinity of the
subject property or to the community as a whole.” See Criterion 4. Through these criteria, the City
retains broad discretionary authority to grant, or not grant, an extension. The request to make
available the possibility of securing up to four additional years for the life of a complex phased
preliminary plat provides significant benefits to large scale projects, which is balanced by the
discretionary nature of the extension process.
Conclusion and Request for Support of these Amendments to Title 17 and 18
Segale supports this proposed update to the City’s subdivision process and urges the Planning
Commission to recommend City Staff’s proposal to City Council, together with the additional minor
revisions requested in this letter. We also appreciate the opportunity to engage on these important issues
with City Staff and we will continue to participate and make ourselves available to assist with this effort.
Thank you in advance for your time and consideration and we look forward to our continued work
together.
Very truly yours,
Nancy Bainbridge Rogers
51
52
Page 1 of 3
M E M O R A N D U M
DATE:December 1, 2020
TO:City of Tukwila Planning & Economic Development Committee
FROM: Assistant City Attorney Emily Miner
CC:Mayor Allan Ekberg
Community Development Director Jack Pace
RE:Updates to Subdivision Code
I. Background
City staff have proposed amendments to Title 17 of the Tukwila Municipal Code that are intended to
address approval procedures for subdivisions. City staff’s recommendations include: (1) amending the
code to have the Community Development Director approve final plats, (2) allowing an extension period
up to three years, (3) establishing a preliminary plat modification process, and (4) revising the subdivision
phasing procedure approval. The City Attorney’s Office was asked by the Planning and Economic
Development Committee at their October 19, 2020 meeting to explain the legal justification for these
amendments.
II. Discussion
Chapter 58.17 RCW sets out the procedures related to the subdivision of land. In the purpose section, the
state legislature finds as follows: “the process by which land is divided is a matter of state concern and
should be administered in a uniform manner by cities, towns, and counties throughout the state.” RCW
58.17.010. In other words, the City’s subdivision process should mirror the process established by state
law as closely as possible to ensure uniformity in the subdivision of land.
The key statutory provisions at issue are RCW 58.17.100 and RCW 58.17.140 regarding the time limitations
and decisionmakers for approval of preliminary and final plats. Additionally, the statute is silent with
regards to modifications of preliminary plats and phasing of plats; however, local jurisdictions have
authority to establish processes by which a preliminary plat can be modified or phased.1
1 The State constitution allows cities to exercise all the police powers possessed by the state government so long as
local regulations do not conflict with general laws. WASH. CONST. art. XI, § 11.
53
Page 2 of 3
A. Extensions for Phased Subdivision Approval.
RCW 58.17.140 establishes the time limitation for approval of final plats. For all preliminary plats filed
after January 1, 2015, a final plat shall be submitted for approval within five years from the date of the
preliminary plat approval.2 The statute goes to on state that nothing prohibits a city from adopting an
ordinance that allows extensions of time that may contain additional or altered conditions or
requirements. RCW 58.17.140. Accordingly, cities are free to establish their own extension periods.
The City’s current code is silent with regards to an extension period for phased subdivisions but does
permit a one-year extension for preliminary plats. TMC 17.14.050(B).
City staff’s recommendation is to amend the extension period to three years, and in no case would the
total time between the preliminary plat approval and the date of the final plat recording exceed eight
years.
The Planning Commission proposed a different recommendation. Their recommendation turns on how
many phases the applicant has proposed: if the applicant proposes two phases, the applicant could seek
a three year extension; if the applicant proposes three or more phases, the applicant could seek to a
combination of extensions not to exceed 14 years.
The additional time for the extension period recommended by Staff is reasonable, given the reasons
outlined in their staff memo; however, the City Attorney’s Office does not recommend the longer
timelines for extension proposed by the Planning Commission as they far exceed the initial approval
timelines that state law establishes. Further, such recommendation does not serve the purpose of
uniformity as set out by the State Legislature.
B. Phasing Plan Approval
As noted above, cities have discretion to establish their own phasing procedures. The City’s current code
states that phasing must be approved by City Council at the time at which a final plat for the first phase is
submitted. TMC 17.14.040. This does not account for the possibility to amend the phasing plan or to
propose a phasing plan after a preliminary plat has been approved. The City Attorney’s Office supports
the recommendation that amendments to a phasing plan already approved can be reviewed under the
proposed plat modification procedure while phasing proposed after a preliminary plat has been approved
requires a new plat application. This amendment supports the goal of streamlining and clarifying the
City’s subdivision procedures.
C. Administrative Final Plat Approval
RCW 58.17.100 permits “the legislative authorities of cities…[to]…delegate…[via ordinance]…final plat
approval to an established planning commission or agency, or to such other administrative personnel in
accordance with state law or local charter.” This change was made in 2017 when the legislature
acknowledged that by the time a preliminary plat reaches the final plat approval stage, all building and
environmental issues are resolved. As there are no outstanding issues to resolve, there is no need for
further discretionary review by a legislative body. The City’s current code states that a final plat approval
2 Per RCW 58.17.140, if a plat was submitted prior to December 31, 2014, the final approval timeline is seven
years, and if submitted prior to December 31, 2007, the approval timeline is ten years. To our knowledge, there
are no plats in Tukwila that fall into these longer exceptions.
54
Page 3 of 3
is subject to a Type 5 decision by City Council. Staff’s recommendation is to revise this code requirement
so that the final plat approval is made by the Community Development Director, and the City Attorney’s
Office supports this recommendation.
D. Plat Modification Process
There are no procedures for modifications to a preliminary plat established in state law and the City’s
current code contains no plat modification procedures. However, from a practical standpoint, it is
important for the City to have procedures in place to address requests to modify a preliminary plat.
Without a process to amend a preliminary plat for minor modifications, the applicant is required to
withdraw their application and re-apply. This resubmittal process is time intensive and resource
consuming for both the applicant and the City. Establishing a process to determine what types of
modifications are permitted creates a framework for City staff to analyze whether the modification is
“minor” and can be approved administratively or is “major” and requires a new application. The City
Attorney’s Office supports the recommended change, along with the Planning Commission’s minor
revision to ensure other departments have an opportunity to review the proposed modification.
EFM:efm
55
56
City of Tukwila
Allan Ekberg, Mayor
INFORMATIONAL MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning and Economic Development Committee
FROM: Brandon Miles, Business Relations Manager
CC: Mayor Ekberg
DATE: December 1, 2020
SUBJECT: Seattle Southside Regional Tourism Authority, Return on Investment
ISSUE
Presentation on the return of investment reported by Seattle Southside Regional Tourism
Authority (SSRTA).
BACKGROUND
At a previous City Council meeting there was interest in the return of investment reported by
SSRTA, specifically as to how it would relate as the City develops key performance indicators
for Experience Tukwila and how it was calculated. Staff requested that SSRTA provide a write
up to the City Council with information on its return on investment (see attached). Staff has not
conducted a detailed review or analysis of the information presented by SSRTA and is providing
it to the Council as presented by SSRTA.
FINANCIAL IMPACT
N/A
RECOMMENDATION
Discussion only.
ATTACHMENTS
Estimated 2019 RTA Return on Investment (document prepared by SSRTA).
57
58
Estimated 2019 RTA Return on Investment
Notes regarding ROI:
The RTA influences much more return on investment than what is calculated below, however,
some fundamental work of any marketing organization (public relations, social media, some
advertising, brand awareness , etc.) cannot be tracked and tied directly to spend without
conducting conversion studies. Issuing conversion studies for every activity would be cost
prohibitive and therefore the RTA is strategic about which studies are conducted.
The RTA adheres to the industry standards for calculating ROI established by the national
association for DMOs, Destinations International. In addition, the RTA includes in its ROI
calculation only spending as measured at the destination level, not a national average.
The RTA invests in multiple research firms to conduct studies on evaluating spend in Seattle
Southside. This data is compared and analyzed internally, and the most conservative results are
used in the below calculations.
ROI CALCULATION VISITOR SPEND
1) Website: 540,182 unique users' x 28% conversion = 151,251 travel party x
$1,039 trip average spend = $ 157,149,789
2) Group Sales: 10,774 room nights x $438 average daily spend = $ 4,719,012
3) Ad Attributed Hotel Sales: 34,223 room nights x $438 average daily spend = $ 14,989,674
4) Shuttle Services: 24,619 riders x $172 average = $ 4,234,468
$ 181,092,943
Total Estimated Visitor Spend = $181,092,943 / 2019 RTA Total Operating
Expenditures* $4,325,719 = $ 41.86
1. WEBSITE
(A) 540,182 unique users x (B) 28% conversion = (C) 151,251 travel party x (D) $1,039 trip average
spend = $157,149,789 visitor spend
A. The number of unique users is derived from Google Analytics tracking of our website. This
means that 540,182 different people (differentiated by their IP Address) visited our website in
2019.
B. The 28% website conversion rate was determined by an H2R Market Research study conducted
in 2019 (see H2R Market Research, page 4). H2R surveyed people who visited our website to
59
determine the number that actually booked a stay in Seattle Southside which establishes this
conversion rate.
C. 28% of the unique users equals 151,251 overnight trips to Seattle Southside. From Dean Runyan
Research, the average overnight trip includes 2.1 people (aka. travel party) so we can determine
that one person visiting the website (unique user) represents a travel party (see Seattle
Southside Travel Impacts, page 5).
D. From Dean Runyan Research, the average travel party that visits Seattle Southside spends
$1,039 per trip (see Seattle Southside Travel Impacts, page 5). Dean Runyan Research analyzes
multiple data sources to determine these estimates, including WA State Dept of Revenue
lodging tax data, sales tax receipts, etc. We use the ‘trip average’ instead of the ‘daily rate’
spend because the 28% conversion rate reports that the unique user booked an overnight trip,
not simply one night in a hotel.
2. GROUP SALES
(A) 10,774 room nights x (B) $438 average daily spend = $4,719,012 visitor spend
A. Based on reports from host hotels and meeting planners, 10,774 projected rooms occurred in
2019 for events the RTA supported through lead generation or event assistance.
B. Dean Runyan Research reports that $438 is spent per day by a travel party staying overnight
(the average overnight room includes 2.1 people, aka. “travel party”, also according to Dean
Runyan Research (see Seattle Southside Travel Impacts, page 5).
3. AD ATTRIBUTED HOTEL SALES
(A) 34,223 room nights x (B) $438 average daily spend = $14,989,674 visitor spend
A. A marketing campaign conducted with digital advertising media partners in 2019 resulted in
34,223 room nights booked as a direct and trackable result of the campaign.
B. Dean Runyan Research reports that $438 is spent per day by a travel party staying overnight
(the average overnight room includes 2.1 people, aka. “travel party”, also according to Dean
Runyan Research (see Seattle Southside Travel Impacts, page 5).
4. SHUTTLE SERVICES
(A) 24,619 riders x (B) $172 average = $4,234,468 visitor spend
A. The Westfield Shuttle service provider tracks ridership and reported 24,619 riders in 2019.
B. According to the Shuttle Bus Economic Impact Study conducted through shuttle rider surveys by H2R
Research, the average rider spends $172 per trip to Westfield Southcenter (see Shuttle Bus Impact Study,
page 4).
*Actual expenses shown on Audited Statement of Activities, which includes depreciation and other reported expenses such as
compensated absences. In addition, it excludes capital expenditures but reported on Statement of Net Position
60
H2R Market Research
Reveal Your Customer’s Full Experience
2018-2019 Digital Media Conversion Study
Seattle Southside RTA
Delivered August 2019
6
1
2
Overview
Executive Summary
Purpose. The purpose of the Seattle Southside RTA 2018/2019 Digital Media Conversion Study was to measure the conversion rate of website visitors who booked an overnight trip to the area, as well as identify motives for website visitation and what Seattle Southside visitors do while visiting the area.
Target Audience. The Seattle Southside RTA Digital Media Conversion Study survey was conducted among website visitors who visited www.seattlesouthside.com over the past 12 months.
Sample. A total of 235 respondents both visited the website and were subsequently interviewed for this study which provides for a maximum margin of error of +/-6.4% at a 95% confidence interval.
6
2
Executive Summary
2018-2019 Digital Media Conversion Study
6
3
4
▪A majority (72%) of the Seattle Southside website visitors had already decided to make a trip to the area when they visited the website—a 4-point increase over 2015/2016. Most of these website visitors were looking for activities to do in the area (80%, +24 pts), dining options (55%) and/or events and festivals (52%).
▪More than 8 in 10 website visitors feel the Seattle Southside website is a good/great website that is somewhat/very easy to navigate—on par with the 86% who said the same in 2015/2016.
▪The Seattle Southside website earned a conversion rate of 28%. That is, 28% of website visitors who visited the Seattle Southside website ultimately ended up booking an overnight trip to the area afterwards. In 2015/2016 the conversion rate was 34%, or 6 points higher than this year.
▪Website visitors indicated their experience online impacted them in several ways. Nearly half (47%) indicated their visit to the website persuaded them to visit attractions or restaurants they had not planned to visit, 20% said they visited Seattle Southside instead of another destination and 15% said their experience on the website persuaded them to stay longer in the area than they planned.
Website Generates Positive Results
4
6
4
5
▪More than 9 in 10 Seattle Southside visitors* spent the night in the area on their most recent trip (+2 pts). And, the average length of stay among Seattle Southside visitors* was 3.8 nights—an increase over 2015/2016’s length of stay at 3.7 nights.
▪Most Seattle Southside visitors indicated they were visiting the area for vacation/leisure purposes (58%), and the majority reported staying in hotels (69%). The average converted visitor participates in a variety of area activities including the Space Needle (12%) and Pike Place Market (10%).
▪In a shift from 2015/2016, most converted visitors this year were under the age of 55 and were significantly more likely to be families with children (+26 pts).
▪Nearly three-quarters of non-visitors** indicated they are Seattle Southside prospects, or “considerers,” who are somewhat/very likely to visit the area in the next six months. These respondents, however, have not yet booked a trip and fewer than half (43%) said they had considered it in the past.
Visitor Composition Changes
5*Website visitors who booked an overnight stay**Website visitors who did not book an overnight stay
6
5
Reveal Your Customer’s Full Experience
Thank You!
Springfield | Branson | Bentonville | Kansas City
www.h2rmarketresearch.com | 417.877.7808
@H2RMktResearch
6
6
SEATTLE SOUTHSIDE
Travel Impacts, 2003-2019p
May 2020
67
SEATTLE SOUTHSIDE
TRAVEL IMPACTS, 2003-2019P
TUKWILA, SEATAC, & DES MOINES
Prepared for the
Seattle Southside Regional Tourism Authority
3100 S. 176th Street
Seattle, Washington 98188
Prepared by
Dean Runyan Associates, Inc.
833 S.W. Eleventh Avenue, Suite 920
Portland, Oregon 97205
(503) 226-2973
www.deanrunyan.com
May 2020
68
DEAN RUNYAN ASSOCIATES PAGE 1
SEATTLE SOUTHSIDE TRAVEL IMPACTS, 2003-2019P
TUKWILA, SEATAC & DES MOINES
This study, prepared for Seattle Southside Regional Tourism Authority, documents the
economic significance of the travel industry in the Seattle Southside area of King County
from 2003 through 2019. The estimates for 2019 are preliminary. The separate estimates
for Tukwila, SeaTac and Des Moines are reported at a summary level for 2019 only.
Overnight visitor volume estimates and average spending estimates for the larger Seattle
Southside are also provided in this report.
REPORT CONTENTS
The main body of this report contains five sections:
• Seattle Southside Travel Trends (annual estimates of economic impacts and lodging
sales for the larger Seattle Southside)
• Travel Impacts in Des Moines, SeaTac and Tukwila (summary estimates for 2019p,
only)
• Visitor Volume (major trends and characteristics)
• Detailed Spending and Visitor Volume Tables
• Detailed Impact Tables
The report also contains appendices that provide an overview of methodology and
definitions of terms and concepts.
INTERPRETATION OF IMPACT ESTIMATES
Users of this report should be aware of the following with respect to the interpretation of
these estimates:
• All monetary estimates in this report are expressed in current dollars. There is no
adjustment for inflation.
• Sub-county estimates such as contained in this report are necessarily less reliable
than county and state level estimates because of data limitations. Nonetheless,
these estimates were generally prepared with the same methodology used to
estimate county and state level travel impacts and visitor volume.
69
DEAN RUNYAN ASSOCIATES PAGE 2
$0
$50
$100
$150
$200
$250
$300
04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19
Lo
d
g
i
n
g
S
a
l
e
s
(
M
i
l
l
i
o
n
s
)
SEATTLE SOUTHSIDE TRAVEL TRENDS
Travel spending in the Seattle Southside increased by 2.3 percent from 2018 to 2019p.
Travel-generated earnings and tax receipts also increased. This was the tenth consecutive
year of growth in the Seattle Southside travel industry.
Spending Earnings Employment
($Millions) ($Millions)Local State Total
2003 395.9 124.3 4,480 15.3 21.4 36.7
2004 422.5 130.2 4,540 16.2 22.7 38.9
2005 461.4 141.9 4,790 17.8 24.5 42.3
2006 486.9 146.8 4,720 22.7 25.6 48.3
2007 528.0 157.7 4,880 25.2 27.7 52.9
2008 532.3 158.0 4,810 25.7 27.6 53.3
2009 463.9 149.5 4,530 22.7 24.9 47.6
2010 473.5 147.6 4,350 22.7 25.1 47.9
2011 504.9 149.8 4,340 24.0 26.4 50.4
2012 537.5 157.2 4,460 25.7 28.2 53.9
2013 564.6 169.2 4,640 27.3 29.7 57.0
2014 620.5 184.5 4,840 30.3 32.5 62.8
2015 665.0 194.7 4,870 33.3 35.1 68.3
2016 690.5 203.2 4,910 34.9 36.9 71.8
2017 721.2 211.8 4,950 36.5 38.6 75.1
2018 770.3 230.0 5,120 38.5 40.8 79.2
2019p 787.9 240.3 5,110 39.1 41.8 80.9
Annual Percentage Change
17-19p 2.3 4.5 -0.2 1.6 2.5 2.1
03-19p 4.4 4.2 0.8 6.0 4.3 5.1
Seattle Southside Travel Trends
Tax Receipts ($Millions)
Seattle Southside Lodging Sales Lodging sales (in current
dollars) were $281.6
million in 2019
(preliminary), an increase
of 0.2 percent over 2018.
Source: Washington State
Department of Revenue. Lodging
sales calculated from 1% Additional
Hotel/Motel tax for Des Moines,
SeaTac and Tukwila.
70
DEAN RUNYAN ASSOCIATES PAGE 3
Des Moines,
$10.9
SeaTac,
$186.8
Tukwila,
$83.4
TRAVEL IMPACTS IN DES MOINES, SEATAC AND TUKWILA
The preliminary 2019 impact estimates for the three cities within the Seattle Southside are
shown below. Lodging sales are shown in the pie chart. In general, these estimates are a
function of lodging sales, the number of private homes for visiting friends and relati ves, and
the volume of sales in other types of establishments that serve visitors (e.g., restaurants,
entertainment and retail). (Note: These small area estimates are necessarily less reliable
than the estimates for the larger Seattle Southside due to data limitations.)
Travel Tax Receipts
Spending Earnings Employment Local State Total
($Million)($Million)(jobs)($Million)($Million)($Million)
Des Moines 49.4 15.7 330 2.5 2.6 5.1
SeaTac 311.0 101.5 2,130 15.4 16.5 31.9
Tukwila 427.5 123.1 2,650 21.2 22.7 43.9
Seattle Southside 787.9 240.3 5,110 39.1 41.8 80.9
Travel Impacts within Seattle Southside, 2019p
Lodging Sales within Seattle Southside
2019p
Source: Washington State Department of Revenue.
Lodging sales calculated from 1% Additional Hotel/Motel
tax for Des Moines, SeaTac and Tukwila.
Although Tukwila has the
greatest estimated visitor
spending, SeaTac has 66
percent of all lodging
sales. However, its share
of visitor-related sales in
food services,
entertainment and retail is
comparatively smaller.
71
DEAN RUNYAN ASSOCIATES PAGE 4
3.0
3.1
3.2
3.3
3.4
3.5
3.6
3.7
3.8
3.9
4.0
4.1
4.2
03 05 07 09 11 13 15 17 19p
Vi
s
i
t
o
r
N
i
g
h
t
s
(
M
i
l
l
i
o
n
s
)
0%20%40%60%80%100%
Washington State
King County
Seattle Southside
4.0
4.5
5.0
5.5
6.0
6.5
7.0
7.5
03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18
19
p
Vi
s
i
t
o
r
A
r
r
i
v
a
l
s
(
M
i
l
l
i
o
n
s
)
VISITOR VOLUME
All Overnight Person-Nights
Hotel/Motel/STVR
Visitor-Nights, 2019p
(Percentage of All Overnight)
Visitor Air Arrivals at SeaTac International Airport
Domestic Flights
The estimate of all overnight
visitor-nights (the number of
nights that all individual visitors
stayed in the Seattle Southside) is
shown in the top line chart. The
overall trend in visitor volume
corresponds to the trends in
travel spending and related
impacts shown previously. In
2019p volume increased about
1.5 percent.
More than eighty percent of all
visitor nights in the Seattle
Southside are attributable to
Hotel/Motel/Rented Home stays.
This percentage is much greater
than for King County and
Washington State. (See bar chart
to left. STVR are short term rental
homes subject to lodging tax.)
Visitor air arrivals (domestic only)
to SeaTac airport have also
increased for the tenth year in a
row. (Note: Visitor air arrivals do
not include return flights that were
initiated at SeaTac, nor passengers
making connecting flights.)
Source: U.S. Department of
Transportation Airline Origin and
Destination survey.
72
DEAN RUNYAN ASSOCIATES PAGE 5
DETAILED SPENDING AND VISITOR VOLUME TABLES
The following three tables are inter-related. The first, Visitor Spending by Type of Traveler
Accommodation, reports the total annual spending estimates for each type of visitor. The
second, Average Expenditures for Overnight Visitors, reports the average daily and average
trip expenditures for each type of visitor for 2019p. The third table, Overnight Visitor
Volume, reports annual visitor volume for each type of visitor. Volume is broken out in
terms of trips and nights and visitors (persons) and travel parties. In general, multiplication
of an average spending numbers with the appropriate volume number will yield the annual
total spending number for that type of visitor. (See appendix B.)
Day travel represents less than four percent of all visitor spending in the Seattle Southside
($2.5 million in 2019p). Due to data limitations, reliable estimates of visi tor volume and
average expenditures cannot be reported for day travel.
2010 2012 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019p
All Overnight 447.1 506.9 588.4 634.1 659.3 688.0 734.4 751.1
Hotel, Motel, STVR* 431.3 489.5 570.2 615.9 640.6 668.7 714.2 730.4
Other Overnight 15.8 17.4 18.2 18.2 18.7 19.2 20.2 20.7
Day Travel 18.9 21.5 23.7 24.4 25.0 25.9 27.5 28.4
Spending at Destination 466.0 528.4 612.1 658.5 684.3 713.9 761.9 779.5
Note: Destination spending does not include ground transportation expenditures for travel to other
Washington destinations. STVR stands for short term vacation rentals or rented homes subject to lodging tax.
Visitor Spending by Type of Traveler Accommodation ($Million), 2010-2019p
Party Length of
Day Trip Day Trip Size Stay (nights)
Hotel, Motel, STVR $438 $1,039 $208 $487 2.1 2.4
Other Overnight $148 $427 $56 $163 2.6 2.9
All Overnight $389 $968 $183 $451 2.2 2.4
Travel Party Visitor (Person)
Average Expenditures for Overnight Visitors, 2019p
2017 2018 2019p 2017 2018 2019p
Hotel, Motel, STVR 3,339 3,454 3,515 1,576 1,640 1,666
Other Overnight 575 588 590 256 262 263
All Overnight 3,914 4,043 4,105 1,832 1,902 1,929
2017 2018 2019p 2017 2018 2019p
Hotel, Motel, STVR 1,425 1,474 1,500 665 691 703
Other Overnight 160 164 164 71 73 73
All Overnight 1,585 1,638 1,664 736 764 776
Visitor-Trips (000)Party-Trips (000)
Overnight Visitor Volume, 2017-2019p
Visitor-Nights (000)Party-Nights (000)
73
DEAN RUNYAN ASSOCIATES PAGE 6
DETAILED IMPACT TABLES
The following table shows spending estimates for all categories of visitors, including day
travel, earnings and employment estimates by industry sector, and travel-generated tax
receipts.1
2010 2012 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019p
Total Direct Travel Spending ($Million)
Destination Spending 466.0 528.4 612.1 658.5 684.3 713.9 761.9 779.5
Other Travel*7.5 9.1 8.4 6.5 6.2 7.3 8.4 8.4
Total Direct Spending 473.5 537.5 620.5 665.0 690.5 721.2 770.3 787.9
Visitor Spending by Commodity Purchased ($Million)
Accommodations 158.4 178.5 219.9 250.1 262.8 275.7 294.9 295.9
Food Service 130.0 149.2 171.1 183.8 192.7 201.7 216.6 228.0
Retail, Entertainment & Local Transport 177.6 200.7 221.1 224.6 228.8 236.5 250.4 255.7
Destination Spending 466.0 528.4 612.1 658.5 684.3 713.9 761.9 779.5
Industry Earnings Generated by Travel Spending ($Million)
Accom. & Food Serv.111.1 118.5 138.6 147.1 154.3 161.6 175.9 184.9
Retail, Entertainment & Local Transport 36.5 38.7 45.9 47.7 48.9 50.2 54.1 55.4
Total Direct Earnings 147.6 157.2 184.5 194.7 203.2 211.8 230.0 240.3
Industry Employment Generated by Travel Spending (Jobs)
Accom. & Food Serv.3,190 3,270 3,580 3,620 3,670 3,720 3,870 3,870
Retail, Entertainment & Local Transport 1,160 1,190 1,260 1,250 1,240 1,230 1,250 1,250
Total Direct Employment 4,350 4,460 4,840 4,870 4,910 4,950 5,120 5,110
Government Revenue Generated by Travel Spending ($Million)
Local Tax Receipts 22.7 25.7 30.3 33.3 34.9 36.5 38.5 39.1
State Tax Receipts 25.1 28.2 32.5 35.1 36.9 38.6 40.8 41.8
Total Local & State 47.9 53.9 62.8 68.3 71.8 75.1 79.2 80.9
Details may not add to totals due to rounding.
*Other Travel reflects ground transportation expenditures for travel to other Washington destinations.
Travel Impacts, 2010-2019p
Seattle Southside
1 The economic impacts for the Seattle Southside do not include travel to and from SeaTac International
Airport. This passenger air travel accounted for 16,100 jobs with earnings of $1.7 billion in 2019.
74
Shu$le
Bus
Economic
Impact
Study
Prepared
by:
7
5
2
PURPOSE
The
purpose
of
the
Sea$le
Southside
Shu$le
Bus
Economic
Impact
Study
was
to
es>mate
shopping
revenue
generated
from
shu$le
bus
riders
as
well
as
provide
a
profile
of
those
who
used
the
shu$le
to
visit
the
WesCield
Southcenter.
Project
Overview
TARGET
AUDIENCE
The
Sea$le
Southside
Shu$le
Bus
survey
was
conducted
among
those
riding
the
Shu$le
Bus
for
the
past
9
months.
The
surveys
were
distributed
by
shu$le
drivers
and
passengers
were
asked
to
fill
out
the
surveys
and
return
them
upon
depar>ng
the
shu$les.
SAMPLE
A
total
of
1,865
respondents
were
interviewed
for
this
study
providing
a
maximum
margin
of
error
of
+/-‐2.3%
at
a
95%
confidence
interval.
7
6
Execu>ve
Summary
7
7
4
▪Travelers
to
the
Sea$le
Southside
area
only
use
a
handful
of
hotels
to
catch
the
shu$le,
and
most
hear
about
the
service
at
the
front
desk
of
their
hotel.
▪Those
who
use
the
shu$le
to
travel
to
the
WesCield
Southcenter
are
primarily
shopping
and
dining
and
spend
around
3
hours
at
the
shopping
center.
▪Shu$le
riders
spend
around
$172/person*
on
their
trip
to
the
shopping
center,
with
those
visi>ng
from
outside
the
United
States
spending
more
($190
vs.
$158).
▪Shu$le
riders
were
very
sa>sfied
with
their
experience
on
the
shu$le
bus.
More
than
nine
in
ten
riders
indicated
they
were
somewhat/very
sa>sfied
with
the
friendliness
of
the
driver,
the
cleanliness
of
the
shu$le
and
the
comfort
of
the
ride.
Addi>onally,
85%
indicated
they
were
sa>sfied
with
the
>meliness
of
the
shu$le.
▪Finally,
eight
in
ten
shu$le
riders
would
recommend
the
services
to
their
friends.
However,
the
word-‐of-‐mouth
buzz
is
fairly
low
(5%).
Giving
visitors
the
tools
they
need
to
recommend
the
shu$le
service
will
only
help
increase
ridership
and
the
amount
of
money
spent
in
the
area.
Sea;le
Shu;lebus
Offers
Great
Service
4
*An outlier is an observation in a data set that lies a substantial distance from other observations. These unusual observations can have a disproportionate effect
on statistical analysis, such as the mean, which can lead to misleading results. Only those who spent more than $25 and less than $1,000 were included in the
calculations.
7
8
Thank
You!
Know
Your
Customer
417.877.7808
1717
E
Republic
Road,
Suite
C
Springfield,
MO
65804
@H2RMktResearch
agarou;e@h2rmarketresearch.com
7
9
8
0
City of Tukwila
Allan Ekberg, Mayor
INFORMATIONAL MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning and Economic Development
FROM: Brandon Miles, Business Relations Manager
CC: Mayor Ekberg
DATE: December 1, 2020
SUBJECT: Experience Tukwila: Performance Measures
ISSUE
Discussion of performance measures for Experience Tukwila.
BACKGROUND
This year Tukwila launched its social media to promote the City to people within the greater
Seattle region (within 50 miles of the City). These social medial accounts are part of the City’s
overall campaign to help to bring more people to the City and to help the City brand itself in the
region. The overall campaign is called, “Experience Tukwila.” Experience Tukwila will have
several components:
1. Digital Platforms
Digital platforms will include social media (Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, and LinkedIn),
website, and direct email. These platforms will digitally promote Tukwila, its community
members, its businesses, and everything that makes the City unique. The digital
platforms will include custom photography and videos highlighting the City. The digital
platforms will also allow the City to highlight specific events with unique landing pages
for those events.
2. Small Events and Festivals
Events and festivals will be sponsored under the “Experience Tukwila” name. Previous
events include the Rave Green Run, International Food Truck Rally, and Drag Queen
Bowling. The City will work to develop and support additional events and festivals
coming into the City.
3. Sponsorship
The City will sponsor third party activities in the City, such as Seattle Chocolates
Haunted House, Starfire Sports soccer tournaments, the Museum of Flight. These
activities do not fall under the small events and festivals given that they are usually
longer in duration activities and are on a larger scale.
DISCUSSION
Performance measures and key performance indicators (KPIs) are important in allowing the City
to track the success of activities. The following outlines staff’s initial ideas for performance
measure and KPIs for Experience Tukwila. These are draft and staff would like to work with
PED as part of the budget process to identify the appropriate performance measures and KPIs
for Experience Tukwila. Staff will also be reviewing how other similar organizations track
success of their efforts.
81
INFORMATIONAL MEMO
Page 2
https://tukwilawa.sharepoint.com/sites/mayorsoffice/cc/CC Docs/Old W/2020 Info Memos/Experience Tukwila, Peformance Measures 12-7 PED.doc
Overall Performance Measures for Experience Tukwila
Performance measures need to be linked to the overall goals of an initiative or campaign. The
following are the overall goals of Experience Tukwila.
Performance Measure Target Method Tracking
Increase total hotel occupancy
and hotel revenue.
TBD While tracking these
performance measures is
simple, tracking how
Experience Tukwila impacted
the overall City economy
would be difficult. The City
could use surveys to track
impacts of the City’s activities.
For example, if someone visits
the Experience Tukwila
website, we could ask them if
they plan or have visited the
City. However, this creates a
causation versus correlation
issue.
Cell phone data might also be
able to be used to track
certain outcomes.
Increase the total number of
visitors (day and night)
coming to the City.
TBD
Increase dwell time people
spend in the City when
visiting.
TBD
Increase total revenue at
entertainment establishments,
restaurants, and retailers.
TBD
Public Perception of the City. TBD In 2017 the City completed a
survey of Puget Sound
resident’s perceptions of the
City. This survey could be
duplicated on a regular basis
to see if the City’s marketing
efforts on changing how
people in the region view the
City.
Key Performance Indicators for Certain Activities
Website
KPIs Goals Method of Tracking
Total Sessions TBD Google Analytics
Total Unique Visitors TBD
Total Page Views TBD
Click Throughs TBD
Videos Viewed TBD
Total Session time. TBD
Geographic location of
visitors.
TBD
Specific pages viewed TBD
Ranking on Google Search Top of page 1. Searching “Tukwila” on
Google
82
INFORMATIONAL MEMO
Page 3
https://tukwilawa.sharepoint.com/sites/mayorsoffice/cc/CC Docs/Old W/2020 Info Memos/Experience Tukwila, Peformance Measures 12-7 PED.doc
Social Media
KPIs Goals Method
Total engagements (likes,
shares/retweets, comments).
TBD Track usage on social media
accounts.
Reach/Impressions TBD Free analytics provided by
social media companies.
Tags/mentions TBD Free analytics provided by
social media companies
Hashtag utilization TBD Free analytics provided by
social media companies
Click through rate TBD Free analytics provided by
social media companies
Video views TBD Free analytics provided by
social media companies
Check Ins TBD Free analytics provided by
social media companies
Social Listening reports TBD TBD
Email Marketing
Open Rate TBD Tools provided with email
management systems
(Constant Contact, Mail
Chimp, etc.)
Clickthrough rate TBD
Small Events and Festivals
Media Impressions TBD TBD
Tickets Sold TBD Tracking of tickets sold
Total Attendance TBD Tracking admission and
headcounts.
Revenue from event TBD Ticket sales and vendor sales
reports.
Media impressions of event. TBD TBD
Sponsorships
Attendance at event or
activity.
TBD Online sales and headcount.
Media mentions TBD Self-reporting and google key
word monitoring.
Hashtag usage TBD Free analytics provided by
social media companies
FINANCIAL IMPACT
N/A. Many KPIs can be monitored using free tools on google and social media accounts.
Updating the public perception study would incur a cost to have a firm complete the study.
RECOMMENDATION
Forward to December 14 Committee of the Whole Meeting for discussion from full council.
ATTACHMENTS
Screen Shots of Selected Social Media Analytics
83
84
Screen Shots of Selected Social Media Analytics
LinkedIn (Launched in October of 2020)
85
Facebook (Launched in May of 2020)
Facebook Ad Currently Running
86
Twitter (Launched in May of 2020)
87
88
City of Tukwila
Allan Ekberg, Mayor
INFORMATIONAL MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning and Economic Development Committee
FROM: Brandon Miles, Business Relations Manager
CC: Mayor Ekberg
DATE: December 1, 2020
SUBJECT: Amending and Extending the City’s Interim, COVID-19 Policy on Outdoor
Seating and Temporary Signage
ISSUE
Affirm the revised interim policy regarding outdoor seating and temporary signage for
businesses in response to COVID-19.
BACKGROUND
On July 20, 2020 the City Council affirmed the Mayor’s emergency rules regarding temporary
outdoor seating and easing the requirements regarding the display of temporary signage. These
emergency rules were put in place in response to the COVID-19 pandemic and the associated
rules put in the place by the Governor’s Office to promote social distancing in public settings.
Outdoor seating provided certain benefits to restaurants in meeting the requirements of the
Governor’s orders. The City’s current emergency rules are set to expire on January 15, 2021.
On November 15, 2020, the Governor announced a new round of COVID-19 restrictions
intended to help slow the transmission of COVID-19. These new restrictions prevent restaurants
from having indoor seating. Outdoor seating, including in a tent, is permitted, under the
Governor’s current guidelines. The Governor’s new restrictions are scheduled to run until
December 18. However, it is possible they could be extended or reimposed at a later date.
City Administration has made the following changes to the emergency rules:
1. Extend the date of the emergency rules to June 30, 2021.
2. Clarify the tent and membrane structure policy:
a. Tents and membranes up to 400 square feet do not require a permit.
b. The City will create a flat fee ($50.00) of permit for tents and membranes over
400 square feet. The flat fee will cover all require permits and inspections.
DISCUSSION
As the Council is aware, the City is currently operating under a State of Emergency due to the
COVID-19 pandemic. Tukwila Municipal Code (TMC) 2.57.040 (3) requires the City Council to
affirm any rules or regulations related to the protection of life, environment, and property affect
the emergency. These emergency rules for tents are needed to allow businesses in the City to
operate in a safe manner. In addition, the rules for temporary signage are needed because
many businesses are doing pick up and drop off to encourage social distancing. Signage will
help direct motorists to businesses and pickup/drop off points.
FINANCIAL IMPACT
Minimal and would include a small amount of loss revenue related to temporary signage.
89
INFORMATIONAL MEMO
Page 2
https://tukwilawa.sharepoint.com/sites/mayorsoffice/cc/CC Docs/Old W/2020 Info Memos/covid19 amendment for outdoor seating temp sign.doc
RECOMMENDATION
Affirm the revised emergency policy provided by City Administration. Forward to the December
14 Committee of the Whole meeting and special meeting on the same night for adoption.
ATTACHMENTS
Revised, Interim Outdoor Seating and Signage Allowance for Businesses in Response to
COVID-19.
90
Page 1 of 2
City of Tukwila
Interim Outdoor Seating and Signage Allowance for Businesses in
Response to COVID-19
SUBJECT: Temporary policy to allow outdoor seating and temporary signage
during the Public Health Emergency related to the COVID-19
pandemic.
PURPOSE: The purpose of this policy is to temporarily allow outdoor seating and
temporary signage and issue any approvals in an expeditious manner while
ensuring safety protocols are in place. This policy will be effective on June
15, 2020 and will expire on June 30, 2021 Jan 10, 2021 unless otherwise
terminated or extended.
SCOPE: This policy applies to all City of Tukwila businesses.
DEFINITIONS:
1. “Public Health Emergency” shall mean any such emergency declared by the Governor
of the State of Washington pursuant to his or her powers under chapters 38.08, 38.52
and 43.06 RCW, any such emergency declared by the King County Executive or the
Mayor of the City of Tukwila pursuant to chapter 38.52 RCW.
POLICY:
During the current Public Health Emergency and in compliance with the Washington State
Governor’s “Safe Start” phased approach to business reopening, the City of Tukwila shall
establish the following policy to expedite approval of any outdoor seating areas and to
relax temporary signage requirements:
1) Businesses are allowed to set up outdoor seating areas in parking spaces on
private property, and no land use approval is required to deviate from the number
of parking spaces required by City code, provided the following conditions shall
be met:
a) No fire lanes are blocked
b) No fencing nor other containment feature is to be placed around the outdoor
seating area that does not allow openings for safe egress/exiting from the
seating area. In case of an emergency, people seated in the outdoor area
should be able to exit the premises without passing through the building.
c) Outdoor lighting shall be provided to ensure safe exiting from the dining area.
Any outdoor lighting fixtures shall be rated for outdoor use. Note: electrical
work will still require a permit.
d) Tents may be used, subject to the following requirements:
I. Tents and membrane structures up to 400 square feet do not require a
permit. Other permits for heating, plumbing, and electrical may still be
required.
91
Page 2 of 2
II. Tents and membrane structures having an area greater than 400
square feet require a permit. The City will charge a flat $50.00 (not
included credit card fees). The permit fee shall cover the building,
mechanical, electrical, plumbing plan reviews, inspections, and permit
requirements of the Department of Community Development, Fire, and
Public Works Department.
d)e) Tents and membrane structures having an area in excess of 400 square
feet shall not be erected without first obtaining a permit and approval from the
Fire Marshall. Here is the link to Fire Tent permit application and requirements .
2) Temporary signs informing the public that the business is open, or other directional
signs, such as designating curb side pickup areas, shall not require a temporary
sign permit, provided the following conditions shall be met:
a) Up to a maximum of 4 signs per business are allowed, and the maximum size
of the signs shall not exceed 64 sq. ft. total for all 4 signs. These signs can only
be placed on the premises of the business. Signs are not allowed to be placed
off premises or within public right of way or sidewalks.
b) Sight distance for cars entering and exiting the driveway shall not be blocked,
and signs shall not be placed on sidewalks.
c) Enforcement of the following prohibited signs is temporarily suspended:
i) Strings of pennants, balloons, and similar devices.
ii) The use of portable signs (A-boards, wire frames).
All other Tukwila Sign Code regulations remain in effect.
EFFECTIVE DATE: June 15, 2020, Amended December 1, 2020.
APPROVAL:
__________________________________ ______________________________
Mayor Allan Ekberg De’Sean Quinn, Council President
________________________ ______________________________
Jack Pace, Director Community Development Kari Sand City Attorney
Jay Wittwer, Fire Chief
92
Tukwila City Council Planning & Economic Development Committee – 2020 Work Plan
1 City of Tukwila Updated November 30, 2020
Description Qtr Dept Action or
Briefing Status/Notes
1. HB 1406/Affordable Housing Spending Options 1 DCD A Completed (temporary decision for COVID-19)
2. Building Code consultant contract 1 DCD A Completed
3. TIB Rechannelization Report 1 DCD/PW A Complete
4. Grant Application – Port of Seattle Economic Development 1 ED A Complete
5. Lodging Tax Six-Year Financial Model 1 ED B Complete
6. Accessory Dwelling Unit Update 1 DCD B Briefing complete; postponed
7. Resolution: Rental Business License Late Fee Waiver 2 DCD A Complete
8. Ordinance: TIB moratorium 2 DCD A Complete
9. Ordinance: Repeal Bag Ban due to COVID 2 CNCL A Complete
10. Tukwila Village CDA Board appointment – Council role 2 ED A On hold due to COVID-19
11. Economic Development Plan 2-3 ED B Briefing 1/13; RFQ 2/3
12. Branding and Wayfinding Briefings 2-3 ED B Complete
13. COVID-19 Related Business Recovery 2-4 ED B Ongoing
14. Business Recovery from COVID-19 2-4 ED B Ongoing
15. Lodging Tax Overview, History, Budget, 6 year Model 2-4 ED B Complete
16. Housing Action Plan 3 DCD B PED review of scope of work Complete
17. Business license fee deferral (response to C19) 3 ED B Complete
18. Ordinance: HB 1590 3 DCD A Complete
19. Land sales process 3 ED B Complete
20. Upcoming Development Agreements: Wadajir, Riverton
Heights
3 DCD B Complete, Forward to PC
21. King County CARES Act Funding 3-4 ED B Complete
22. TIB Plan Implementation – Interim Zoning 4 DCD A Complete
23. Recycling Program Grant Application 4 DCD A
24. Subdivision Code update 4 DCD A 12/7
25. Rental Housing Update & Fee Reso 4 DCD B Complete
26. Tourism Funding Principles 4 ED A Complete
27. Lodging Tax Funding Applications/Contracts 1-4 ED A Applications accepted on rolling basis
28. South King Housing & Homelessness Partnership Updates 1-4 DCD A CM McLeod will serve as Tukwila Rep; SKHHP
Workplan Approved by Council
29. Orillia Road Annexation/Zoning DCD A Pending King County response
30. Housekeeping Code Amendments 2021 DCD A Postponed to 2021
9
3
Tukwila City Council Planning & Economic Development Committee – 2020 Work Plan
2 City of Tukwila Updated November 30, 2020
31. MFTE TIB Option 2021 DCD A Requested by Idan/Council 1/13; will be in 2021
after Housing Action Plan completed
32. Development Review Process Improvements 2021 DCD B Postponed to 2021 Q1
33. Building/Fire Code Update 2021 DCD/FD A Postponed until January 2021
34. Economic Development Plan Adoption 2021 ED A 2021
35. Transit Oriented Development Regulations for SRO 2021 DCD B 2021
36. Tukwila Valley South Housing Standards 2021 DCD A 2021
37. Buildable Lands Report 2021 DCD B 2021 Q1
9
4