HomeMy WebLinkAboutOrd 1246 - Amend Comprehensive Plan Map (Repealed by Ord 1757) 1
CITY CAF TUK
J j WASHINGTON
r p ec 1 1757 ORDINANCE NO. 1246 jl
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA, WASHINGTON,
AMENDING THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP.
WHEREAS, the statutory provisions of Chapter 35A.63 of the
Revised Code of Washington authorizes the City of Tukwila to adopt
general land use planning guidelines for the lands within and under
its jurisdiction, and
WHEREAS, the Comprehensive Land Use Policy Plan Map was first
adopted in 1961 and has been amended from time to time, and
WHEREAS, the City Council has undertaken an extensive review
of land use classifications within the City and is prepared to adopt a
new zoning code to reflect current land use practices within the City,
and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Tukwila held
a hearing on November 12, 1981, to consider changes to the Comprehensive
Land Use Policy Plan Map to bring it in conformance with the proposed
new zoning code, and
WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed the Planning Department
file on this matter, reviewed the Planning Commission's recommendation
regarding these changes, has listened to and reviewed a presentation by
property owners or their representatives at a public hearing held on
December 1, 1981.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA,
WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
The Comprehensive Land Use Policy Plan Map is hereby
amended to show that the property described in Exhibit
A attached hereto shall be included within the land use
policy classifications as indicated on Exhibit A.
PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA, WASHINGTON,
at a regular meeting thereof this day of 7/�,1<,C/‘ 1982.
Mayor Todd vetoed Ordinance #1246 on (larch 17, 1982.
City Council overrode the Mayor's veto at the
Regular Meeting of April 6, 1982.(35A.12.130)
Cit Clerk
Ap.roved as to Form
Exhibit A is available for inspection at the
office of the City Clerk.
tit Attorney,
y y Lawrence E. Hard
Published Record Chronicle April 18, 1982
EXHIBIT A. 1
SUMMARY OF PRELIMINARY CITY COUNCIL ACTIONS ON POTENTIAL COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP AMENDMENTS
3 -1 -82
PROPOSED
MAP PARCEL Cd4PRIHENSTVE ZONING PLANNING CC144ISSION CITY COUNCIL ACTION
REORf•1QIMTION (11- 12 -81)
NUMBER 8ER PLAN DESIGNATION CLASSIFICATION
Parks and Open Change comprehensive plan map per Planning Conmission
1 Space M -1 designation to Light Indus- recommendation (12- 14 -81)
trial.
Parks and Open Change conprehensive plan map per Planning Commission
2 Space R -1 -7.2 designation to Low- density recommendation (12- 14 -81)
Residential.
(a) Change comprehensive plan per Planning Comnission
map designation to Light In- recommendation (12- 14 -81)
dustrial. (b) Change compre-
3 Public Facilities M -1, C -2, R -A hensive plan map designation to
Commercial. (c) Change plan
designation to Parks and Open
Space.
4 Low- density C -2 Change comprehensive plan map per Planning Commission
Residential designation to Comnercial. recommendation (12- 14 -81)
S Parks and Open C 2 Change the comprehensive plan per Planning Commission
Space map designation to Commercial. recommendation (12- 14 -81)
6 Low- density
C-2 Change comprehensive plan map Excavated portion desig-
Residential designation to Commercial. nated Commercial; remainder
of site designated Low
density residential (12- 14 -81)
Medium and
Change the comprehensive lam
7 High density C -2 8 P per Planning Commission
Residential map designation to Commercial. recommendation (12- 16 -81)
Retain the Low- density Residen- per Planning Comnission
8 Low- density R-1-7.2 tial designation on the conpre- recommendation; also,
Residential hensive plan map. change proposed zoning' to
R -1 -7.2 (12- 16 -81)
Change to Light Industrial per Planning Conmission
9 Cartnercial M -1 designation on the comprehensive recommendation (12- 16 -81)
plan map.
10 Public Facilities C -2 Change the comprehensive plan map per Planning Commission
designation to Commercial. recommendation (12- 16 -81)
11 Low- density C -2 Change the comprehensive plan map per Planning Commission
Residential designation to Conmercial. recommendation (12- 16 -81)
Change the comprehensive plan map per Planning Commission
12 Low- density R -3 designation to Medium- density recommendation (12- 16 -81)
Residential Residential.
Low and Ilium- Change comprehensive plan map
13 density R -2, IAII designations to High- density and per Plannine Conmission
Residential Medium density designations to recommendation (12- 16 -81)
reflect proposed zoning.
Change comprehensive plan map per Planning Comnission
designation to Medium- density recommendation (12-16-81)
Low- density r sidential on area proposed for
14 Residential C -2, p -0, R 4_ zoning, to Office on area
R-4- proposed for P -0 zoning, and to
Commercial on area proposed for
C -2 zoning.
15 Parks and Open n1 Change the comprehensive plan map per Planning Commission
Space designation to Light Industrial. recomnendation (12- 16 -81)
16 Commercial p1_1 Change the comprehensive plan map per Planning Commission
designation to Light Industrial. reconmendation (12- 16 -81)
*Mao corrections 3 82
17 Light Industrial C -2 Change the comprehensive plan map per Planning Commission
designation to Commercial. recommendation (12- 16 -81)
18 Commercial c-M Change the comprehensive plan map Retain the Commercial
designation to Light Industrial. designation on the
comprehensive plan map
(12- 16 -81)
page 2 3 -1 -82
PROPOSED
MAP PARCEL COMPREHENSIVE Gtf
ZONING PLANNING CISSIQJ CITY COUNCIL ACTION
NUMBER PLAN DESIGNATION RECO•DIENDATION (11- 12 -81) (PRELIMINARY)
CLASSIFICATION
19 Commercial M -1 No consideration. Change comprehensive plan
map designation to Light
Industrial.
20 Medium- density R-1 --7 2 No consideration. Change comprehensive plan
Residential map designation to Low
density residential.
21 Medium- density R -4 No consideration. Change comprehensive plan
Residential map designation to High
density Residential.
22 Low- density R-3 No consideration. Change comprehensive plan
Residential map designation to Medium-
density Residential.
1
6 ,5 j i rig.
.2 ji 1 \V"..-___
r \t
;.-lier Iii \--J .1- ....k....., t 1 t t
ill A
.i's. N „7 ik,....
i= /7 s _.•.,-.1i
C[ITV CT npmwoLa
ri.,
t.4-1 gi.... 1 1
prs POTENTIAL COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
cod 'I 1
MAP AMENDMENT SITES
4
f
Sif "B" 7 (SEE, individual staff reports
i
which correspond to parcel
.....1
It N
s
10 'Li
...,,,./A. 1
f 2)4 1 22 'i
‘..-,______•.1
a
.....7' 'L...
i
a ,R... a.I..72 R...72
SITE "C"
r 1 f .•-■-m, ;•••""""S, 1.
1 1:4
R-I r r R,A
i 1 6 Efie, C-2
11 a •-m2 7 t
I
11 '1--"1. 1
146 ...1. rt
i
1 4
-1-•.,.•-
14 tisd."2F i-- r i N 1°
13
--,L,-*-_-N---
1
r
ii /0.2 to
r R......
L m
t; \k v___,t. 1
t,
1 I 15
11-612D it LI. 17.------,r--i
D AGACU.31501. 1
r...•=c .1 g
O. 044 1
16
L .....E_R. a f j l 1
i R-1-ge j I
0 =Pa-F*1-Y REMENT1,11
c -w,
c _p 17, c
0 cm-9e If. i
SkGa-FAMLY nc.. i i i
E SN3I-E-FAHLY RESCe471,41.. --z 4 I 1 i
111-2 s i 1
E c- 1 c' m
i
M-I
E ,,,c, FCX.C2-FitNLY %MENTAL. i 1 1
1 4fmcnct,
t '''\'‘.1'
0 1. APP.TTNeITS i
W
0 6 FeSCEMZE 6413H CatSITY t t
i 0,j.
C-2
I
1
C2
C-1.1 II 0-1/
21
VI
Li D
4a-estiar m.1_
nt c.-2 i
i
rE-ru, 4,-,. 1 ;:-4,1 I
r ::-F
0-I, ''''.-t...
1 4C
La p_Ap reD ssare ct-Nr-
s I ,-----,_.:L.,
.e."2.0.=-,...-
1 C
7 po I j C4..
L j e0.-STRUL PAP.. .4
i il
F
La 0047 NASTR f
7 ■„4_2 i i j;
I
i
6F.Afr ACkSrlif j ...6. 4
662 7/
if 1 c
h., t r
(1 1 f :"---4
I rt.
r 1
i:
,1 1.14 ./%/4 ''Ir,..... g
F r
s City of Tukwila
�2 6200 Southcenter Boulevard
Tukwila Washington 98188
7908 Frank Todd, Mayor
March 17, 1982
MR. LIONEL BOHRER TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL
Tukwila City Hall
Tukwila, WA 98188
Ladies and Gentlemen:
This letter is to inform the members of the City Council that there are
several things about the newly approved Comprehensive Plan Zoning Ordi-
nance that I feel do a disservice to the City of Tukwila and to the several
property owners effected by the passage of -the ordinances..
I, therefore, veto the zoning ordinance and the comprehensive plan ordi-
nance, hopeful that the council members will re -think their individual
positions, consider my position on the matter, and seek a compromise as I
do. This, I think, will save the city taxpayers the costs of expensive
litigation which certainly would be the result of a "no compromise" posi-
tion. I further believe that the city cannot afford the erosion of our
real estate tax base that follows the massive down zone.
I list below my specific reasons for veto as required by law.
1. The Planning Department informs me that the owners of Parcel 9,
Exhibit 1 have furnished the City all the data and details requested
by the city. The owners report that the information meets all the city's
requirements and in their opinion vests rights of RMH zoning and
development with the property.
2. Parcel 10, Exhibit 1, has a similar situation in that the King
County Superior Court found for its owner and ordered the city to
process a building permit. This decision is under appeal, but at
this time the City Council must recognize that parcel 10 is RMH zoned
property until a reversal of the King County Superior Court is obtained.
3. The area outlined in Exhibit 2 is ideally suited for multi- family use.
It is isolated from the single family developments of the city; is
within easy walking distance from the industrial areas; close to the
job market; and needs to be developed to meet the housing needs to
satisfy our employment base. It is best suited for multi family de-
velopment. I request the Council designate this area PRD R -3 density.
Please bear in mind that the PRD designation will give the .city complete
control over any development proposed that may come forth from the owners.
4. The ordinance allows expansion in commercial areas, but does not ad-
dress energy considerations by allowing housing availability related
to new employment sure to come with expansion.
MR. LIONEL BOHRER TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL
March 17, 1982
Page 2
5. The ordinance removes nearly all of the existing available land from
the multi housing land use inventory, while providing sharply increasing
job opportunities in our city. Decisions handed down by Supreme Courts
in the states of Illinois and California have held that actions of this
nature violate the Federal Human Rights Statute. Violations of human
rights carry liability exposure not only to the city, but also indivi-
dual exposure as well.
6. The zoning text was understood by me to contain a provision for the
selection of two property owners to sit with the BAR to decide how
property in the Interurban special use district would be developed.
The text includes no such provision. The ordinance needs to clearly
define the selection process for the two people mentioned above.
7. The shoreline zone changes in 18.44 cannot become effective with the
final adoption of the ordinance as now written. No changes in the
"accepted" shoreline code as now adopted by the city may be made until
the various RCW's are complied with. I refer you to RCW 90.58.190;
to WAC 173.19.060; and WAC 173.19.062 to reference the above.
I stand ready to discuss with the Council all listed reasons for my
veto. Working out the solutions might be surprisingly easy if we can all
approach the proposed solutions with an open mind.
Respectfully submitted,
Frank Todd
Mayor
FT /co