Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutReg 2023-11-06 Item 6A.4 - Ordinance - Rezone 6250 South 151st Street (Schneider Homes)COUNCIL AGENDA SYNOPSIS Initials Meeting Date Prepared by Mayor's review Council review 11/6/2023 67 ITEM INFORMATION ITEM No. 5.D. & 6.A. (4) STAFF SPONSOR: NORA GIERLOFF ORIGINAL AGENDA DATE: 11/6/2023 AGENDA ITEM TITLE Request for rezone from Low Density Residential to Medium Density Residential at 6250 S. 151st St. This is a quasi-judicial matter and any and all discussion related to this issue should occur during the meeting. CATEGORY ❑ Discussion Mpg Date ® Motion Mtg Date 11/6/23 ❑ Resolution Mtg Date ® Ordinance Mtg Date 11/6/23 ❑ Bid Award Mtg Date ® Public Hearing Mtg Date 11/6/23 ❑ Other Mtg Date SPONSOR ❑ Council ❑ Mayor ❑ Admin Svcs ® DCD ❑ Finance ❑ Fire ❑ P&R ❑ Police ❑ PW SPONSOR'S SUMMARY Tukwila has received an application to change the zoning and Comprehensive Plan map for one parcel, current zoning Low Density Residential (LDR) to proposed zoning Medium Density Residential (MDR). REVIEWED BY ❑ Trans&Infrastructure Svcs ❑ Community Svcs/Safety ❑ Finance & Governance ❑ Planning & Community Dev. ❑ LTAC DATE: ❑ Arts Comm. ❑ Parks Comm. ❑ Planning Comm. COMMITTEE CHAIR: RECOMMENDATIONS: SPONSOR/ADMIN. Department of Community Development COMMITTEE COST IMPACT / FUND SOURCE EXPENDITURE REQUIRED AMOUNT BUDGETED APPROPRIATION REQUIRED Fund Source: Comments: MTG. DATE RECORD OF COUNCIL ACTION 11/6/2023 MTG. DATE ATTACHMENTS 11/6/2023 Informational Memorandum dated 10/31/2023 Draft Ordinance Staff Report with attachments 133 134 TO: FROM: BY: City of Tukwila Allan Ekberg, Mayor INFORMATIONAL MEMORANDUM Committee of the Whole Nora Gierloff, Department of Community Development Director Max Baker, Development Supervisor CC: Mayor Ekberg DATE: October 31, 2023 SUBJECT: Request for Rezone and Comprehensive Plan Map Change QUASI-JUDICIAL ISSUE Conduct a public hearing for a rezone and Comprehensive Plan map change request from Low Density Residential to Medium Density Residential. This is a quasi-judicial matter and any and all discussion related to this issue should occur during the Council meeting. Please do not communicate on this topic outside of the meeting. BACKGROUND Tukwila has received an application for a rezone from Low Density Residential (LDR) to Medium Density Residential (MDR) on a parcel located at 6250 S. 151st St. If the zoning is changed, any MDR use would be permitted, subject to all City regulations. DISCUSSION See attached Staff Report along with Attachments A through E for detailed description of the proposal and findings of fact for the decision. FINANCIAL IMPACT N/A RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the rezone from Low Density Residential (LDR) zoning and Comprehensive Plan designation to Medium Density Residential (MDR). ATTACHMENTS Staff Report with Attachments A — E. 135 136 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA, WASHINGTON, REZONING CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY LOCATED AT 6250 S. 151ST STREET, TUKWILA, FROM LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (LDR) TO MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (MDR); PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; AND ESTABLISHING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, in 1995 the City of Tukwila adopted the Zoning Code and Map based on consideration of existing conditions and long-term community goals, and these documents may be reviewed and updated as appropriate; and WHEREAS, as part of the City's 2022-2023 Comprehensive Plan docket of potential amendments, the City received an application for consideration of a change to the Comprehensive Land Use and Zoning Maps for the property located at 6250 S. 151st Street (the "Property"); and WHEREAS, the zoning of the Property is currently Low Density Residential; and WHEREAS, the Applicant seeks to rezone the entirety of the Property to Medium Density Residential; and WHEREAS, on January 31, 2023, the City mailed a Notice of Application to the surrounding property owners and tenants, and on February 15, 2023, held the required public meeting regarding the proposed rezone and change to the Zoning Code Map; and WHEREAS, the City of Tukwila has complied with the requirements of the State Environmental Policy Act by making a determination on June 15, 2023 that no significant environmental impact would occur as a result of the Zoning Code Map change; and WHEREAS, notice of the public hearing was timely published in "The Seattle Times," posted onsite, and mailed to surrounding properties; and CC:\Legislative Development\Rezone 6250 S 151 sc Schneider Homes 10-30-23 B. Jayger A.Youn Page 1 of 3 137 WHEREAS, on November 6, 2023, the City Council held a public hearing and, after receiving and studying staff analysis and comments from the public, has recommended approval of the rezone application, and has made and entered Findings and Conclusions thereon in support of that recommendation; and WHEREAS, after due consideration, the City Council concurs with the Findings and Conclusions and determines the public interest will be served by approving the rezone application, which is in compliance with the City of Tukwila Comprehensive Plan's Land Use Map; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA, WASHINGTON, HEREBY ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Findings and Conclusions Adopted. The City Council hereby adopts Findings and Conclusions, attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated by this reference as if fully set forth herein. Section 2. Rezone Approved. The Property is located at 6250 S. 151st Street, Tukwila, Washington. The site is further identified as King County tax parcel 3597000400. The site is hereby approved to be rezoned from Low Density Residential to Medium Density Residential across the entire parcel, as shown in the attached Exhibit B and incorporated by this reference as if fully set forth herein. Section 3. Map Amendment Authorized. The Department of Community Development Director, or their designee, is hereby authorized to amend the City's official Zoning Code Map to show the zoning change as authorized in Section 2 of this ordinance. Section 4. 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 5. 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 6. 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 , 2023. CC:\Legislative Development\Rezone 6250 S 151 sc Schneider Homes 10-30-23 B. Jayger A.Youn Page 2 of 3 138 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 Attachments: Exhibit A, Staff Report (Findings and Conclusions) Exhibit B, Revised Zoning/Comprehensive Plan Map CC:\Legislative Development\Rezone 6250 S 1515` Schneider Homes 10-30-23 B. Jayger A.Youn Page 3 of 3 139 140 City of Tukwila Allan Ekberg, Mayor Department of Community Development - Nora Gierloff, AICP, Director STAFF REPORT TO THE TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL HEARING DATE: November 6, 2023 NOTIFICATION: 1/31/23: Mailed to properties within 500' radius 1/31/23: Site Posted 2/15/23: Public Information Meeting Notice of hearing published in the Seattle Times FILE NUMBERS: L19-0123 - Rezone E19-0013 - SEPA APPLICANT: Hans Korve, Daley-Morrow-Poblete, Inc. REQUEST: Change Comprehensive Plan map and zoning designation from Low Density Residential (LDR) to Medium Density Residential (MDR) LOCATION: 6250 S. 151' St., Tukwila, WA (APN: 359700-0400) CURRENT COMPREHENSIVE PLAN/ZONING DESIGNATION Low Density Residential (LDR) SEPA DETERMINATION: STAFF: ATTACHMENTS: Determination of Nonsignificance issued June 15, 2023 Breyden Jager, Associate Planner A. Site + Current Zoning Map B. Proposed Zoning Map C. Applicant Response to Criteria D. MDR Zoning Development Standards (TMC 18.12) E. Public Comments Tukwila City Hall • 6200 Southcenter Boulevard • Tukwila, WA 98188 • 206-433-1800 • Website: TukwilaWA.gov 141 L19-0123: Rezone and Comprehensive Plan Amendment Staff Report Page 2 of 12 BACKGROUND/PROPOSAL Summary of Proposed Actions The applicant has submitted a proposal to amend the City of Tukwila Comprehensive Plan Map and the Tukwila Zoning Map to rezone a 4.4-acre parcel located at 6250 S. 151st St. from Low Density Residential (LDR) to Medium Density Residential (MDR). This non -project proposal is a quasi-judicial change to the land use designation on the Tukwila Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Code maps. If the zoning is changed, any MDR use would be permitted, subject to all City regulations. The proposed action does not meet the exemptions from review under the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) listed under WAC 197-11-800. Rezone requests that require a Comprehensive Plan amendment are subject to SEPA review. A Determination of Nonsignificance was issued on June 15, 2023. Land Use - Comprehensive Plan and Zoning The site is classified as Low Density Residential (LDR) in the Tukwila Comprehensive Plan and the Tukwila Zoning Ordinance. To the immediate north, west, and south of the subject parcel are properties also zoned LDR. To the east of the parcel is an area of vegetation and significant slope zoned High Density Residential (HDR), the eastern developed portion of which is accessed off of Interurban Avenue S. Further to the southeast of the property is an area zoned Medium Density Residential (MDR) and there is also a small pocket of MDR located behind LDR zoned lots to the southwest. See Figure 1 below for zoning map. Allowed uses under the existing LDR zoning are enumerated in TMC Table 18-6, and primarily include detached single-family dwellings, garages, greenhouses, and domestic shelters. Allowed uses under the proposed MDR zoning are largely similar, with the notable addition of detached zero lot line dwellings, duplexes, triplexes, fourplexes, daycare centers, senior housing, and townhomes with up to four attached units. Site and Vicinity Conditions The subject site is located at the northeast corner of South 151st Street and 62nd Avenue South. The site contains a single-family home located near the center of the parcel, accessed by a gravel driveway off of 5. 149th PI. The site includes areas of open gravel and disturbed land with abandoned cars and various debris and junk piles. The site is bordered to the north by residential development, to the east by forested land and a steep, natural slope, and to the south and west by South 151st Street and 62nd Avenue South, respectively. Public Services and Utilities A review by City of Tukwila Development Review Engineering staff was completed and noted that project design considerations will be evaluated for feasibility at the time of Design Review, Project SEPA, and development permitting. No relevant comments pertaining to the rezone action itself were received. 142 L19-0123: Rezone and Comprehensive Plan Amendment Staff Report Page 3 of 12 N 14759 LDR 59313 9940 LDR R,.r•e+iu tier 5959 599. 14915 14923 14931 14935 14951 14953 14961 LDR 1512 15135 15185 195 15214 3 152164 NOR 15226 1 .15230 3 15234 1 ' 15232 4 1523612 15222 15228 152393 .1524914 121 1011812023, 3:14:31 PM Parcels 4095 47 14895 48 a481540 1489549 14900 622 14920 6230 14801 RC* 14593 04 !irk!: 14893 16 .6230 5151 LSr s +slats 522 6201 6240 4 6326 634 6241 6301 6321 6360 14901 96 190 ''' 5 1499 14901 108 ^-- RDR 14�75' ARKItG OC T ;i'9:2;a;2,d5 414 j7 6361 15100 06 15100 26 15100 29 1510017 15130 151', A08 A15 M R 151 0A11.15130 02 LDR 15131 214D 6214A 6216 MDR 1046216 204 6216 201 ' 6216309 MDR Medium Density Residential =City Limits HOR High Density Residential Buildings =RCM Regional Gamma/mint Mixed Use ' Addresses (Tukwila) DO,teday Area Zoning LDR Low Density Residential 15156 1011 15156 1917 15138111 15138 108 15140 216 151.0 219 1:2.257 0 0.01 0.03 0.06 mi 0 0.03 o 06 0.11 km 049 of ne..• Hag county Sources Earl, PA6ua O6. 0405. NGA. NASA CGIAR. N RHL4¢en. ,O [iealarrE. ISS,H S Go ' 6la sty,een. RYkewa,erataat GSA, p ana ete GIs user mmmwery King county wee App0Wleer fer Ar0Gis Figure 2: Zoning Map Environmental Conditions Site topography generally descends to the north/northeast with a total elevation change of about 20 feet occurring within the property. To the east of the site is a large, natural downward slope to the northeast, having more than 40% slope in areas. The Tukwila environmentally critical areas map classifies this area, and an area on the southern parcel boundary, as having a Class 3 (High) landslide potential. The City's critical area data also suggests the presence of a potential uncategorized wetland in the southwest corner of the site. However, the applicant submitted a wetland study in April, 2020, prepared by Sewall Wetland Consulting, which found that no wetlands, streams, or critical area buffers were present on the subject site. 143 L19-0123: Rezone and Comprehensive Plan Amendment Staff Report Page 4 of 12 The tree -forested areas of the site to the west are a mix of fir and big leaf maple and some cedar with an understory of Himalayan blackberry, snowberry, vine maple, hazelnut, sword fern, bracken fern and Oregon grape and scattered holly. The remainder of the site is a mix of native Douglas fir forest and disturbed shrub covered areas. 1011812023, 3:54:49 PM FFE��m Ferry unto MIE19ma-H4111 ____Frrul_ 0 • Fwe....y Needed 19galylll mml0ms 1 001 0.03 Bald, 3+wnb[.... m E,....A 3t WC L _ Iy 0 0.03 0.00 • M sea Rule., Green ante.,- Outs. Duos — ttle�yrV_1001IAwEer wrw.Ema Aih. DSGB. NGM1 ANX CGAVt,H PoWvnr. *MR... icor ww N.E tl0i� ___a199,V_150RBrRe neomre Ceeemmtveleur, d,uwxrx.u. neA L��es•�yI11501Bu1r - _ EIM ewnw end th Glsure. mnmuNty 119.1:119111 e.adur _ GI-WYIV 100RdM.+ IW"Pb �•A.Nm.rm. L—J'..Iepvy ll�EOOABuffi - Iq.11aLSGNYA, 1:2,257 0.001n1 0.1E kin 200 62ttpmio MCGIS Figure 1: Environmentally Critical Areas Map Development Regulations Comparison, LDR vs. MDR Height The rezone action would not result in an increase in maximum height allowance for the existing parcel. The maximum height of 30 feet in the MDR zoning district is consistent with the existing 30-foot height limit in the LDR zoning district. Unit Density Per TMC 18.10.060, the LDR zoning district requires a minimum lot size of 6,500 SF. Therefore, if subdivided under the existing LDR zoning, a total of 29 new parcels could be created. Each parcel in the LDR district allows a 144 L19-0123: Rezone and Comprehensive Plan Amendment Staff Report Page 5 of 12 total of one single-family home, as well as one accessory dwelling unit (ADU), equating to 58 total potential dwelling units. If rezoned to MDR, based on the size of the parcel, the site would allow up to 64 primary housing units, recognizing that the final number of units could be fewer to accommodate space needed for roads or other utilities. This number does not account for ADUs, and per TMC 18.50.220(2), ADUs may only be permitted on parcels containing a single-family dwelling, not multi -family uses. Scale and Design It is expected that a modest increase in bulk and scale could result from a multi -family dwelling proposal on the subject parcel under MDR zoning. However, due to the minimal difference in magnitude of these impacts relative to what could occur under existing conditions, the impact is not expected to be significant. Bulk and scale impacts of any project developed pursuant to the proposed rezone will be addressed by the City's design review process. Specific scale and design impacts of proposed development will be determined at the time of project review, pursuant to TMC 18.12.070. Transportation The proposed rezone will increase development capacity on the subject parcel. Projects developed pursuant to the proposed rezone may generate higher volumes of traffic and have greater transportation impacts than projects proposed under the current zoning. The subject parcel is approximately 4.45 acres, and it is not possible to accurately determine the location and/or intensity of individual projects that may be proposed under MDR zoning. The subject site lies along 62nd Ave S and S 1515t St, which currently serve vehicular, bike, and pedestrian traffic from both single- and multi -family developments in the immediate Tukwila Hill neighborhood. Sidewalks are provided along both streets for the entire project location frontage. The nearest transit stop is the RapidRide line along Southcenter Blvd, approximately 0.5 miles down the hill from the project site. It is not expected that the number of housing units allowed under MDR zoning would result in a significant impact on traffic and transportation. However, the transportation impacts of individual projects developed subsequent to a rezone to MDR would be evaluated through construction permitting at the time of project level permit applications. A traffic concurrency review would be required for any new proposed housing units and findings would result in traffic impact fees under the authority of TMC 9.48.010. The traffic concurrency program is a mechanism to charge and collect fees to ensure that new development bears its proportionate share of the capital costs of transportation facilities necessitated by new development. Public Comment Public notice for this rezone proposal was posted on site and mailed to property owners within 500 feet of the subject property on January 315T, 2023. On February 15th, 2023, staff held a public information meeting for residents to ask questions and provide feedback to the applicant. Comments received as a result of the public comment period are contained in attachment E. The key issues raised include, but are not limited to: • Noise impacts from additional residents. • Traffic impacts to the neighborhood. • The potential displacement of trees, vegetation, wildlife living on the site. • Property tax impacts on neighboring properties from a future development. 145 L19-0123: Rezone and Comprehensive Plan Amendment Staff Report Page 6 of 12 • Water, sewer, stormwater infiltration, and other utility impacts. • On -site and off -site parking impacts. • Lack of recreation space. • Increase of recreation space. • Multi -family homes encourage affordability and diversity. • Neighborhood character and design. • Safety considerations related to privacy fences. • Geotechnical engineering considerations. • MDR zoning could threaten the health, livability and natural beauty of the neighborhood. • Potential impacts to property values. • Student capacity impacts to the nearby elementary school. • Potential litter and trash impacts. • City should explore zoning code amendments and alternatives to site -specific rezones. • Opposition to increased unit density. • Support for townhomes in this area. • Miscellaneous environmental impacts (other). • Concerns regarding affordability of dwelling units. • Potential to increase emergency vehicle response times. • COVID-19 impacts to the public process. • Air quality impacts from vehicles and fireplaces/wood stoves. • Pet waste concerns. • Overuse of Tukwila Park. • Potential increase in crime. • Support for additional affordable housing throughout the greater Seattle area. • Fire safety and mitigation measures. • Need for increased public transportation service in the area. • MDR zoning is inconsistent with surrounding LDR-zoned properties. • Concerns regarding adequacy of applicant's responses to rezone approval criteria. It should be noted that this rezone request is not tied to any specific project proposal and no approval or denial of any development plan would be granted or denied by the approval of this rezone request. Development - specific items, including project design, would be addressed at the time of a formal project proposal. FINDINGS Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Map Amendment Criteria Four broad -reaching objectives are the basis for the elements, goals and policies for Tukwila's Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan's primary objective is preserving and enhancing Tukwila's neighborhoods. The following will summarize the elements, goals, and policies the applicant has cited to support their rezone request, along with a staff response. The applicant's response to the decision criteria is attached hereto as Attachment C. 1. The proposed amendment to the [Comprehensive Plan and] zoning map is consistent with the goals, objectives and policies of the Comprehensive Plan. Applicant cites the following Comprehensive Plan elements: 146 L19-0123: Rezone and Comprehensive Plan Amendment Staff Report Page 7 of 12 Element 3: Housing Goal 3.1.2: Work with residents and property owners to consider housing options that meet current and future needs. ■ Applicant Statement: Comprehensive Plan Policy .3.1.2- directs that the City work with property owners to consider housing options that meet current and future needs. The Applicant proposal will help to meet the needs of moderate -income families and increase housing choice close to transit and employment opportunities. ■ Staff Response: Western Washington is experiencing a housing shortage that will worsen if housing production within Tukwila, and across the region, is not increased. Housing scarcity leads to higher housing costs and limited options for residents. Construction of new housing creates more energy efficient units built to higher standards, provides more options for residents, and also encourages other investment in the community. This rezone proposal would increase the residential density potential of the subject parcel. Under the existing LDR zoning, based on the size of the parcel, the site could accommodate up to 58 housing units, if subdivided. If rezoned to MDR, based on the size of the parcel, the site would allow up to 64 housing units, recognizing that the final number of units could be fewer to accommodate space needed for roads or other utilities. The City utilizes medium and high density residential zoning districts as transitional areas between single-family neighborhoods and commercial districts, both near the subject site and in other areas of Tukwila Hill. For example, an HDR zoned parcel near the intersection of 58th Ave S and S 142nd street lies between the LDR and the RCM districts, and is developed with a 3 story, 13-unit building. The subject site for this rezone request is currently situated adjacent to HDR-zoned parcels which also act as transitional areas along Interurban Ave S, extending to its intersection with Southcenter Boulevard. This rezone would be similar in nature to those existing transitional housing zones, which provide a tapering in use intensity from Interurban westward. See Figures 3 and 4 on the following page of this report. 147 L19-0123: Rezone and Comprehensive Plan Amendment Staff Report Page 8 of 12 Figure 3: Existing HDR Zoned Parcel on Tukwila Hill (14081 58th Ave 5) Figure 4: Existing HDR Zoned Parcels on Tukwila Hill (East of 62nd Ave S) 148 L19-0123: Rezone and Comprehensive Plan Amendment Staff Report Page 9 of 12 Goal 3.2.1: Provide zoning that allows a variety of housing throughout the City to allow for diverse, equitable neighborhoods. Goal 3.2.2: Encourage a full range of housing opportunities for all population segments, including very low-income households earning less than 30% AMI, through actions including, but not limited to, revising the Tukwila's zoning map and development codes as appropriate, which would enable a wide variety of housing types to be built. • Applicant Statement: Comprehensive Plan Policy .3.2.1 and 3.2.2 —Also support a variety of housing opportunities through revisions to the zoning map and development regulations to promote more attainable housing. • Staff Response: As stated previously, a zoning designation of MDR would increase the development capacity of the subject parcel and allow for additional housing types in the Tukwila Hill neighborhood, which has traditionally featured both single-family homes and small multifamily residences. Multifamily homes are, on average, more affordable than single family homes, primarily due to the ability to share land costs between units and their smaller unit sizes. Additionally, Tukwila's single family home stock is less diverse than its multi -family home stock. Approximately 57% of Tukwila's single-family homes are occupied by households that identify as white, exceeding the percentage of Tukwila's overall white population (33%). Conversely, approximately 19% of Tukwila identifies as Black or African American, while households with that racial identity occupy only 8% of Tukwila's single- family homes. These statistics highlight racially disparate impacts that put single family homes, on average the most expensive form of housing, out of reach for many of Tukwila's residents. Goal 3.6.1: Encourage long-term residency by improving neighborhood quality, health and safety. Goal 3.6.2: Encourage long-term residency by providing a range of home ownership options for persons in all stages of life. • Applicant Statement: Comprehensive Plan Policies 3.6.1 and 3.6.2 — encourage longer term residency through a range of home ownership options that maintain and strengthen neighborhood quality. The applicant alteration proposal will increase housing choice and affordability while maintaining the opportunity for home ownership. Home ownership creates a sense of investment in the community and supports long-term residency. • Staff Response: The proposed MDR zoning district would allow for a greater range of housing types to be constructed than currently allowed under LDR zoning. Housing units permitted in the LDR district include single-family homes and accessory dwelling units (ADUs). Housing units permitted in the MDR district include single-family homes, ADUs, detached zero -lot line units, duplexes, triplexes, fourplexes, and townhouses with up to four attached units. As previously discussed, multifamily homes are, on average, more affordable than single family homes, primarily due to the ability to share land costs between units and their smaller unit sizes. These less costly housing options provide an avenue for home ownership to be enjoyed by buyers of a wider age range, on average. Construction of new 149 L19-0123: Rezone and Comprehensive Plan Amendment Staff Report Page 10 of 12 housing also creates more energy efficient units built to higher standards, provides more options for residents, and also encourages other investment in the community. Element 7: Residential Neighborhoods Goal 7.4.2: Decrease greenhouse gas emissions through land use strategies that promote a mix of housing, employment and services at densities sufficient to promote walking, bicycling, transit and other alternatives to auto travel. ■ Applicant Statement: Comprehensive Plan Polices 7.4.2- seeks to community enhancement through long-term residency and environmental sustainability. This is to be achieved through a mix of housing at sufficient density to promote walking and bicycling and the use of transit. Increased pedestrian activity and transit use decrease carbon emissions. The applicant's proposal will create a higher density residential option that supports long-term residency while maintaining compatibility with the existing single-family homes in the area. The project site is within walking distance of Tukwila Park and Tukwila Elementary. It is also within Biking distance of Fort Dent Park and the Southcenter commercial & transit center. ■ Staff Response: Rezoning this property to the MDR zoning district would permit housing at a higher density and wider range of forms than is currently allowed, within short walking distance of major transit stops and biking distance to several public amenities. 2. The proposed amendment to the Zoning Map is consistent with the scope and purpose of this title and the description and purpose of the zone classification applied for. Per TMC 18.26.010, the purpose of the MDR zoning district is, "...intended to provide areas for family and group residential uses, and serves as an alternative to lower density family residential housing and more intensively developed group residential housing and related uses. Through the following standards this district provides medium -density housing designed to provide: 1. Individual entries and transition from public and communal areas to private areas; 2. Building projections, level changes and so forth to effectively define areas for a variety of outdoor functions as well as privacy; and 3. Landscaping and open space to serve as extension of living areas." (Attachment d) The proposed MDR zoning is consistent with the neighborhood character and uses in the site's vicinity. MDR zoning would allow development that is moderately more intensive than some neighboring single- family homes, but of similar or lesser intensity than nearby multi -family residential properties. See Attachment C for applicant response to criteria. 3. There are changed conditions since the previous zoning became effective to warrant the proposed amendment to the Zoning Map There have been no zoning changes in this area since 1995 when the current zoning was instituted. Since 1995, fewer housing units have been constructed in the City of Tukwila than have been set by our housing goals. Under the Washington Growth Management Act (GMA), King County is required to assign housing targets to each jurisdiction in order meet current and projected housing demands. For the 150 L19-0123: Rezone and Comprehensive Plan Amendment Staff Report Page 11 of 12 period between 2019 to 2044, the housing target for production of new net housing units in Tukwila is 6,500 units. Based on the rate of housing development in Tukwila from 2019 to present, it will be necessary to build approximately 250 net units each year until 2044 to meet this target. However, from 2006 to 2018 Tukwila grew by only 130 housing units. The 2021 King County Urban Growth Capacity Report states that "Since 2006, Tukwila has grown at 6% of the pace needed to achieve its 2035 housing growth target of 5,626 units. During this period, the total number of housing units in Tukwila grew by roughly 2%. At this current rate, Tukwila is under the production pace needed to meet its 2035 growth target, and needs to grow at an annual rate of 3.2% to reach its remaining target by 2035." King County recommends the City of Tukwila take reasonable measures to achieve additional housing growth, including taking "action to encourage and/or incentivize residential development". One way to incentivize residential development is to permit rezones on undeveloped properties to higher residential densities. 4. The proposed amendment to the Zoning Map will be in the interest of furtherance of the public health, safety, comfort, convenience and general welfare, and will not adversely affect the surrounding neighborhoods, nor be injurious to other properties in the vicinity in which the subject property is located. A rezone from LDR to MDR would increase the potential for small multifamily buildings to be constructed on the property. Increasing housing capacity is in the furtherance of public health, safety, comfort, convenience, and general welfare. Residential development is unlikely to adversely affect the surrounding neighborhood, which is largely dominated by other residential uses of similar intensities. Additionally, higher residential densities provide additional support to local businesses, and promote pedestrian scale neighborhoods within walking and biking distance of major transit stops and a large commercial core. CONCLUSIONS Criteria 1: Consistency with Comprehensive Plan: • The rezone is consistent with the following Comprehensive Plan goals: o Goal 3.1.2: Work with residents and property owners to consider housing options that meet current and future needs. ■ Tukwila is experiencing a housing shortage that will worsen if housing production is not increased. Housing scarcity leads to higher housing costs and limited options for residents. This rezone proposal would increase the residential density potential of the subject parcel. o Goal 3.2.1: Provide zoning that allows a variety of housing throughout the City to allow for diverse, equitable neighborhoods. o Goal 3.2.2: Encourage a full range of housing opportunities for all population segments, including very low-income households earning less than 30% AMI, through actions including, but not limited to, revising the Tukwila's zoning map and development codes as appropriate, which would enable a wide variety of housing types to be built. ■ This rezone proposal would enable a wider variety of housing types to be built in an established neighborhood, increasing housing opportunities. Multifamily homes are, on 151 L19-0123: Rezone and Comprehensive Plan Amendment Staff Report Page 12 of 12 average, more affordable than single family homes, primarily due to the ability to share land costs between units and their smaller unit sizes. o Goal 3.6.1: Encourage long-term residency by improving neighborhood quality, health and safety. o Goal 3.6.2: Encourage long-term residency by providing a range of home ownership options for persons in all stages of life. ■ Increased housing options provide an avenue for home ownership to be enjoyed by buyers of a wider age range, on average. Construction of new housing also creates more energy efficient units built to higher standards, provides more options for residents, and also encourages other investment in the community. o Goal 7.4.2: Decrease greenhouse gas emissions through land use strategies that promote a mix of housing, employment and services at densities sufficient to promote walking, bicycling, transit and other alternatives to auto travel. ■ Rezoning this property to MDR would permit housing at a higher density and wider range of forms than is currently allowed, within short walking distance of major transit stops and biking distance to several public amenities. Criteria 2: Consistency with Zone: • The proposed MDR zoning is consistent with the neighborhood character and uses in the site's vicinity. MDR zoning would allow development that is moderately more intensive than some neighboring single-family homes, but of similar or lesser intensity than nearby multi -family residential properties. Criteria 3: Changed conditions: • There have been no zoning changes in the vicinity since the LDR zoning was instituted in 1995. • Since 2006, Tukwila has, according to King County, produced housing at a rate 94% slower than is necessary to meet our 2035 housing growth target. • Since 2015, the median sale price of a single-family home in Tukwila has increased 97%, from $303,000 to —$594,000. The median sale price of a unit in a multi -family home in Tukwila has increased 182%, from —111,000 to —$313,000. • Tukwila's housing production has been determined by King County to be the lowest of all jurisdictions within the core metropolitan area, both in total number and in percentage of growth target. Criteria 4: Benefit to community: • The proposed rezone would positively affect the community by providing needed housing capacity on an undeveloped parcel in a location near an existing commercial core and a variety of single- and multi -family structures. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approving the rezone from Low Density Residential (LDR) to Medium Density Residential (MDR). 152 Current Zoning Map 10/25/2023, 5:16:54 PM I —I Parcels Zoning LDR Low Density Residential MDR Medium Density Residential Air HDR High Density Residential RCM Regional Commercial Mixed Use Overlay Area 0 0 0.01 0.03 1:2,257 0.03 0.06 0.06 mi 0.11 km City of Tukwila, King County Sources: Esri, Airbus DS, USGS, NGA, NASA, CGIAR, N Robinson, NCEAS, NLS, OS, NMA, Geodatastyrelsen, Rijkswaterstaat, GSA, Geoland, FEMA, Intermap and the GIS user community King County Web AppBuilder for ArcGIS 153 154 Proposed Zoning Map 10/25/2023, 5:16:54 PM I —I Parcels Zoning LDR Low Density Residential MDR Medium Density Residential HDR High Density Residential RCM Regional Commercial Mixed Use Overlay Area 0 0 0.01 0.03 1:2,257 0.03 0.06 0.06 mi 0.11 km City of Tukwila, King County Sources: Esri, Airbus DS, USGS, NGA, NASA, CGIAR, N Robinson, NCEAS, NLS, OS, NMA, Geodatastyrelsen, Rijkswaterstaat, GSA, Geoland, FEMA, Intermap and the GIS user community King County Web AppBuilder for ArcGIS 155 156 ♦♦♦ DALEY-MORROW-POBLETE,INC. ENGINEERING -SURVEYING -LAND PLANNING 726 Auburn Way North Auburn, WA 98002 TEL: (253) 333-2200 FAX: (253) 333-2206 EMAIL: dmp@dmp-inc.us August 14, 2022 City of Tukwila. Nancy Eklund 6300 Southcenter Blvd, Suite 100 Tukwila, WA 98188 RE: Hopper Townhomes—Comprehensive Plan Alteration Request LDR to MDR 6250 S 151ST ST, Tukwila. — Parcel No. 359700-0400 Dear Ms. Eklund: A. Project Background The project site is located in the Tukwila Hills Neighborhood, North of Tukwila Park and east of Tukwila Elementary. The property is currently undeveloped with the exception of a small home, to be removed. Within the limits of the Tree retention ordinance, a numbers of existing trees will be removed to support development of the site. The amount of impact would be similar under either the current LDR or the proposed MDR designation. The number of Peak Hour Trips will likely increase in accordance with the final number of permitted residence. With the payment of impact fees, these impacts are considered mitigated. The proposed alteration is expected to have a positive impact on the neighborhood by increasing the amount of attainable housing in close proximity to employment and recreation opportunities and increasing access to Transit for more residence. B. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT CRITERIA (TMC 18.84.020) Demonstrate how each of the following circumstances justifies a re -designation of your property or a change in existing Plan policies: 157 1. The proposed amendment to the [Comprehensive Plan and ] Zoning map is consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies of the Comprehensive Plan? The Applicant proposes to re -designate a 4.5 acres parcel from LDR to MDR. The current LDR designation limits the style of housing to the most land intensive and costly form of development (Single -Family). This limits the number of new potential home owners and reduces support for Transit. Increased use of Public Transit reduces carbon output per unit. The proposed MDR designation will allow for the creation of zero -lot -line, fee simple townhomes that will increase the opportunity for home ownership at a more modest price point without diminishing the quality of the neighborhood. This will increase the choices of housing styles in close proximity to one of the region's largest employment / transit centers. The proposed alteration will also not result in the loss of an extensive amount of existing housing stock to achieve its goal. The subject property contains only one existing house which is schedule for demolition to address a continuing transient situation. Tukwila's Comprehensive Plan is a flexible framework that adapts to changing conditions over time. One of the Comprehensive plans basic objectives is to support "A thriving Southcenter/Urban Center for shopping, working, living and playing". Another purpose of the comprehensive plan is to reduce barriers that prevent low- and moderate -income households from living near their work or transit, and to support housing that is affordably priced for all households. Tukwila is striving to be a community of choice because increasing home ownership, in turn, supports long term residency and neighborhood stability. According to the Comprehensive plan and the 2010 US Census, home ownership in Tukwila is just above 40%. The applicant's proposal will increase housing choice, decrease housing cost and maintain an ownership option for Tukwila residents. For these reasons, the Applicants proposal supports the intent of the Comprehensive Plan as well as these specific policies: ➢ Comprehensive Plan Policy .3.1.2- directs that the City work with property owners to consider housing options that meet current and future needs. The Applicant proposal will help to meet the needs of moderate income families and increase housing choice close to transit and employment opportunities. ➢ Comprehensive Plan Policy .3.2.1 and 3.2.2 — Also support a variety of housing opportunities through revisions to the zoning map and development regulations to promote more attainable housing. ➢ Comprehensive Plan Policies 3.6.1 and 3.6.2 - encourage long-term residency through a range of home ownership options that maintain and strengthen neighborhood quality. The applicant alteration proposal will increase housing choice and affordability while maintaining the opportunity for home ownership. Home ownership creates a sense of investment in the community and supports long-term residency. 158 Page 12 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Request 18.84 Hopper Townhomes ➢ Comprehensive Plan Policies 7.4.2 — seeks to community enhancement through long-term residency and environmental sustainability. This is to be achieved through a mix of housing at sufficient density to promote walking and bicycling and the use of transit. Increased pedestrian activity and transit use decrease carbon emissions. The applicant's proposal will create a higher density residential option that supports long-term residency while maintaining compatibility with the existing single-family homes in the area. The project site is within walking distance of Tukwila Park and Tukwila Elementary. It is also within Biking distance of Fort Dent Park and the Southcenter commercial & transit center. 2. The proposed amendment to the [Comprehensive Plan and ] Zoning map is consistent with the scope and purpose of the TMC Title 18, Zoning Code, and the description and purpose of the zone classification applied for? There is a need for more attainable home ownership options. More often, higher density development supports a more transient population. The Proposed alteration from LDR to MDR will allow development of a fee - simple townhome neighborhood that will open up home ownership to a broader population base while supporting long-term residency. The applicants proposal is a market based approach to achieving the Comprehensive Planning Policies described above. Other option for increasing housing attainability involves private/public partnerships and grant funding of low cost housing. These programs are complicated, expensive and require long term management. The applicant's proposal is an organic approach and requires only minimal city oversight during the review processes. Smaller, zero -lot -line, fee simple townhomes are, by their nature, a more attainable housing option. 3. There are changed conditions since the previous zoning became effective to warrant the proposed amendment to the [Comprehensive Plan and ] Zoning Map? As indicated above. The applicant's proposal will increase housing attainability options, strengthen long-term residency and place workforce housing in close proximity to employment and recreation opportunities. With proper design review, the proposed structures can complement the existing neighborhood. Please refer to the specific Comprehensive Plan Policies discussed in Section#1 above. 4. The proposed amendment to the [Comprehensive Plan and] Zoning map will be in the interest of and furtherance of the public health, safety, comfort, convenience, and general welfare; and will not adversely affect the surrounding neighborhood; nor be injurious to other properties in the vicinity in which the subject property is located. Page 13 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Request 18.84 Hopper Townhomes 159 The Applicant proposes to re -designate a 4.5 acres parcel from LDR to MDR. The current LDR designation limits the style of housing to the most land intensive and costly form of development (Single-family). This limits the number of new potential home owners. The proposed MDR designation will allow for the creation of zero -lot -line, fee simple townhomes that will provide the opportunity for home ownership at a more modest price point. This will increase the choices of housing styles in close proximity to one of the region's largest employment centers. The proposed alteration will also not result in the loss of an extensive amount of existing housing stock to achieve its goal. The proposed use is also a middle ground between the areas higher density apartment complexes and the intermixed single-family homes. If you have any questions, please contact me at (253) 333-2200 Sincerely, Hans Korve DMP. Inc. 160 Page 14 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Request 18.84 Hopper Townhomes Return to Title Page Return to Chapter 18.10 TITLE 18 — ZONING CHAPTER 18.12 MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (MDR) DISTRICT Sections: 18.12.010 Purpose 18.12.020 Land Uses Allowed 18.12.030 Recreation Space Requirements 18.12.060 Design Review 18.12.070 Basic Development Standards 18.12.010 Purpose A. This district implements the Medium Density Residential Comprehensive Plan designation, which allows up to 14.5 dwelling units per net acre. It is intended to provide areas for family and group residential uses, and serves as an alternative to lower density family residential housing and more intensively developed group residential housing and related uses. Through the following standards this district provides medium -density housing designed to provide: 1. Individual entries and transition from public and communal areas to private areas; 2. Building projections, level changes and so forth to effectively define areas for a variety of outdoor functions as well as privacy; and 3. Landscaping and open space to serve as extension of living areas. B. Certain MDR properties are identified as Commercial Redevelopment Areas (see Figures 18-10 or 18-9) to encourage aggregation with commercial properties that front on Tukwila International Boulevard. Aggregation and commercial redevelopment of these sites would implement the Pacific Highway Revitalization Plan and provide opportunities to redefine and create more uniform borders between the commercial corridor and adjacent residential neighborhoods. C. Certain MDR properties are located in the Urban Renewal Overlay (see Figure 18-15). Existing zoning and development standards will remain in place, although multi -family buildings would be permitted. The overlay provides additional alternate development standards that may be applied to development within the Urban Renewal Overlay upon request of the property owner and if the development meets certain qualifying criteria. Urban Renewal Overlay district standards would implement the Tukwila International Boulevard Revitalization Plan through more intensive development. (Ord. 2257 §6 (part) 2009; Ord. 1865 §8, 1999; Ord. 1758 §1(part), 1995) Produced by the City of Tukwila, City Clerk's Office Page 18-40 161 Return to Title Page Return to Chapter 18.12 TITLE 18 — ZONING 18.12.020 Land Uses Allowed Refer to TMC Chapter 18.09, "Land Uses Allowed by District." (Ord. 2500 §5, 2016) 18.12.030 Recreation Space Requirements In the MDR zoning district, any proposed multiple -family structure, complex or development shall provide, on the premises and for the use of the occupants, a minimum amount of recreation space according to the following provisions: 1. Required Area. a. For each proposed dwelling unit in the multiple - family development and detached zero -lot -line type of development, a minimum of 400 square feet (100 square feet for senior citizen housing) of recreation space shall be provided. Any multiple -family structure, complex or development shall provide a minimum of 1,000 square feet of total recreation space. b. Townhouse units shall provide at least 250 square feet of the 400 square feet of recreation space as private, ground level open space measuring not less than 10 feet in any dimension. c. The front, side and rear yard setback areas required by the applicable zoning district shall not qualify as recreation space. However, these setback areas can qualify as recreation space for townhouses if they are incorporated into private open space with a minimum dimension of 10 feet on all sides. 2. Indoor or Covered Space. a. No more than 50% of the required recreation space may be indoor or covered space in standard multi -family developments. Senior citizen housing must have at least 20% indoor or covered space. b. The Board of Architectural Review may grant a maximum of two square feet of recreation space for each one square foot of extensively improved indoor recreation space provided. Interior facility improvements would include a full range of weight machines, sauna, hot tub, large screen television and the like. 3. Uncovered Space. a. A minimum of 50% of the total required recreation space shall be open or uncovered, up to 100% of the total requirement may be in open or uncovered recreation space in standard multi -family developments. Senior citizen housing allows up to 80% of recreation space to be outdoors and has no minimum outdoor space requirement. b. Recreation space shall not exceed a 4% slope in any direction unless it is determined that the proposed space design clearly facilitates and encourages the anticipated use as endorsed by the Director. c. The Board of Architectural Review may grant a maximum credit of two square feet of recreation space for each one square foot of outdoor pool and surrounding deck area. 4. General Requirements. a. Multiple -family complexes (except senior citizen housing, detached zero -lot -line and townhouses with nine or fewer units), which provide dwelling units with two or more bedrooms, shall provide adequate recreation space for children with at least one space for the 5-to-12-year-old group. Such space shall be at least 25% but not more than 50% of the total recreation space required under TMC Section 18.12.030 (1), and shall be designated, located and maintained in a safe condition. b. Adequate fencing, plant screening or other buffer shall separate the recreation space from parking areas, driveways or public streets. c. The anticipated use of all required recreation areas shall be specified and designed to clearly accommodate that use. (Ord. 2525 §2, 2017) 18.12.060 Design Review Design review is required for all new multi -family structures, mobile or manufactured home parks, developments in a Commercial Redevelopment Area that propose the uses and standards of an adjacent commercial zone, and in the shoreline jurisdiction, if new building construction or exterior changes are involved and the cost of the exterior work equals or exceeds 10% of the building's assessed valuation. Multi -family structures up to 1,500 square feet will be reviewed administratively. (See TMC Chapter 18.60, Board of Architectural Review.) (Ord. 2368 §7, 2012; Ord. 2251 §16, 2009; Ord. 2005 §1 2002; Ord. 1865 §11, 1999; Ord. 1758 §1 (part), 1995) ft571uced by the City of Tukwila, City Clerk's Office Page 18-41 Return to Title Page Return to Chapter 18.12 TITLE 18 — ZONING 18.12.070 Basic Development Standards Development within the Medium Density Residential District shall conform to the following listed and referenced standards: MDR BASIC DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS Lot area, minimum 8,000 sq. ft. (Applied to parent lot for townhouse plats) Lot area per unit (multi -family) 3,000 sq. ft. (For townhouses the density shall be calculated based on one unit per 3000 sq. ft. of parent lot area. The "unit lot" area shall be allowed to include the common access easements). Average lot width (min. 20 ft. street frontage width), minimum 60 feet (Applied to parent lot for townhouse plats) Setbacks, minimum: Applied to parent lot for townhouse plats • Front -1st floor 15 feet • Front - 2nd floor 20 feet • Front - 3rd floor 30 feet (20 feet for townhouses) • Second front - 1st floor 7.5 feet • Second front - 2nd floor 10 feet • Second front - 3rd floor 15 feet (10 feet for townhouses) • Sides - 1st floor 10 feet • Sides - 2nd floor 20 feet (10 feet for townhouses unless adjacent to LDR) • Sides - 3rd floor 20 feet (30 feet if adjacent to LDR; 10 feet for townhouses unless adjacent to LDR) • Rear -1st floor 10 feet • Rear - 2nd floor 20 feet (10 feet for townhouses unless adjacent to LDR) • Rear - 3rd floor 20 feet (30 feet if adjacent to LDR; 10 feet for townhouses unless adjacent to LDR) Refer to TMC Chapter 18.52, "Landscape Requirements," Table A, for perimeter and parking lot landscaping requirements. Townhouse building separation, minimum • 1 and 2 story buildings 10 feet • 3 story buildings 20 feet Height, maximum 30 feet Development area coverage 50% maximum (75% for townhouses) Recreation space 400 sq. ft. per dwelling unit (1,000 sq. ft. min.) Off-street parking: • Residential See TMC Chapter 18.56, Off-street Parking & Loading Regulations. • Accessory dwelling unit See TMC Section 18.50.220 • Other uses See TMC Chapter 18.56, Off-street Parking & Loading Regulations (Ord. 2678 §24, 2022; Ord. 2581 §3, 2018; Ord. 2199 §12, 2008; Ord. 1976 §23, 2001; Ord. 1758 §1(part), 1995) Produced by the City of Tukwila, City Clerk's Office Page 18-42 163 164 Breyden Jager From: Bonnie Wong <auntybon@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2023 1:03 PM To: Breyden Jager Subject: FileL19-0123 Rezone and E19-0013 (SEPA) Attention Mr Jager, As an original owner (1989) in the Mapletree Cul De Sac directly across the proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Rezone from LDR to MDR at 6250S 151st St Parcel #3597000400, I am concerned about the adverse impact to the neighborhood in general. 1. The main arterials from 58th and Interurban through the neighborhood as well as Southcenter Blvd. are heavily utilized by vehicles traveling to and from work places in the community as well as in the greater Seattle -Renton areas. Businesses in the community are expanding and increasing traffic (speeding and parking )issues in the morning and the late afternoons. Avoiding 1405,1-5 and 167 are the issue. IF REZONING FROM LDR TO MDR,AN ADDITIONAL 40-80 (AVERAGE 2 CARS PER HOUSEHOLD IS REALISTIC) VEHICLES WILL BE ADDED TO THE CONGESTION ON THE HILL. There has been no change to the traffic mitigation when this issue was a concern before the pandemic. Additionally, the opening of the new fire department building will be a cause for delay at the peak hours too. And what about snow days? 2. Construction for the MDR will interrupt the flow for school buses in the afternoon and the increased car traffic for families who are driving their students. This is clearly a problem proven by the unfinished buildings next to the fire department building and the interruptions of the remodeling of the apartment buildings too. 3.How will existing neighbors be impacted by the increase water and sewer utility amendments? My water was interrupted when there was a break in the pipes on the hill last summer. I was told that I must be at the end of the pipelines which was the reason I had grey water for two days. 4. All of Tukwila learned about the danger of a large fire and access to emergency help a year and a half ago. This was a tragic mess! What are the safety measures for this project (approx.40 units) which is a bit bigger than Mapletree (14 units). 5. My neighbors and I are not against development and affordable housing. We oppose the Plan Amendments and especially the rezoning from LDR to MDR. Affordable housing is needed. 6. Tax dollars may be an advantage to the city and certainly to the developer, but does Tukwila have the foresight about solutions for increased pollution, safe play spaces for the community (homeless people are living amongst us on the hill),safe mitigation for the traffic on main boulevards, and bus services to encourage public transportation? I appreciate your attention to these matters. Bonnie Wong Tukwila resident 6341 S.151st Place CAUTION: This email originated from outside the City of Tukwila network. Please DO NOT open attachments or click links from an unknown or suspicious origin. i 165 https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAQkAGFhNDMxNzU5L... SEPA,Comprehensive Plan/Zoning Amendment,Hopper Townhomes Project PL19-0099 Bonnie Wong <auntybon@gmail.com> Sun 3/22/2020 12:08 PM To: Maxwell Baker <Max.Baker@TukwilaWA.gov>; David Tomlinson <davidwtomlinson@gmail.com>; Nhan Nguyen <ctplanner@gmail.com>; Mayor <Mayor@TukwilaWA.gov> Hello Max, Thank you for facilitating the public meeting on March 18,2020. I was virtually present from 4:30-6:15 and listened tomost of the comments. As I relayed to you, I am one of the original residents in the single family Mapletree Development which is directly opposite fromthe HopperTownhomes proposal. There are 14 homes in our cul de sac. I'm in opposition to changing the zoning! The Schneider proposal of the development plan is for about 35 "affordable houses.ln the meeting,the proposal is that these homes will most likely 3-bedrooms,one to two car garages .These homes would be attached to each other in 3 or 4 homes configurations dependent on the storm collection areas and tree lines. What I heard the average price of the homes would be $450,000 each. Even though the set plans are not decided. The zone change again is at a point where there have been discussions with the city planning commission and Tukwila City Council. I did hear that permitting for storm drain regulations is $38,000 and that the regulations for building is 1500 pages. There were a few comments regarding a $1,000,000 investment and profit margins being unreasonable if the zoning was not changed. The few neighbors that have invested in this neighborhood are focused on the impact of the the amount of homes that are primarily safety issues on the neighborhood,namely increase in the volume of traffic and capacity of utility infrastructure. So the obvious differences are dollars invested and cost by the investors and developers and traffic safety (65th Ave and Southcenter Blvd as well as school traffic (car and walking to and from Tukwila Elementary)and the environmental impact of use (water,sewage,gas and electric infrastructure and portables for Tukwila Elementary). The common thread for both sides (investors and neighbors) is agreement about affordable housing. I am in favor of sharing Tukwila with others. I am not in favor of changing the zoning. The five large buildings constructed to expand the Southcenter area(Holiday Inn, Interurban Hotel,Marvel,and the two facilities for elders on Andover East) are not filled because of the costs of each unit). When occupied,traffic will be very serious. The planning commission then has a responsibility to provide the answers and plans for this section of "town". 1. There needs to be a light for safety on 65th and Southcenter BLVD.high peak traffic on Southcenter Blvd absorbs cars from RENTON to avoid using backups on 1-405. 2. During school starts and endings ,traffic on Southcenter Blvd is traveling at 45 mph. Its dangerous to turn left from 65th Ave S . turning right is also as dangerous. 3. Emergency vehicles will also be using this route. 4. Parking on 65th Ave S. (due to condos and apts) also restricts north and south travel.lncreasing car traffic from the proposed development (on average based of 35 166 1 of 2 3/23/2020, 10:14 AM https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAQkAGFhNDMxNzU5L... homes (50-70 cars) will need mitigation.(stop signs)Could guest parking overflow in the complex be a doable responsibility of the developer. 5. The tree viability assessment should be published. 6. With the pandemic of CoVid-19,Is this a time to propose a development that may begin but not finish if workers,city representatives and buyers being "put on hold "? Again , I do agree with affordable housing ($450,000 is not affordable for families earning less $75,000) and conservative expansion for Tukwila. I propose keeping the zoning as is and developers being patient and accommodating as we realistically head for a recession for sure and a possible depression. (So now ,I am considering the dollars just as the developers should). I would not want Tukwila to be a town with empty ,expensive housing. Thank you for your time, Bonnie Wong almost 30 year resident at 6341 5.151 st Place CAUTION: This email originated from outside the City of Tukwila network. Please DO NOT open attachments or click links from an unknown or suspicious origin. 167 3/23/2020, 10:14 AM March 30, 2020 David & Layla Tomlinson 6360 S 151st PI Tukwila, WA 98188 Tukwila City Council 6200 Southcenter Blvd Tukwila, WA 98188 Members of the Tukwila City Council, ECE VED Our names are David and Layla Tomlinson and we reside in Tukwila at 6360 S 151st Place. DMP Inc. and Schneider Homes Inc. have recently applied to rezone the property at 6250 S 151st Street (which is across the street behind our house) from low to medium density residential (File #s: L19-0123 & E19-0013, Project File #: PL19-0099). We are adamantly opposed to the rezoning of this property, as well as the development plan put forward by DMP and Schneider Homes. We will delve further into our reasons for opposing this rezone below, but hope you will listen to the objections and concerns of your constituents who would be most directly impacted by this proposed zoning change and vote in accordance with their interests. We want to begin by assuring you that we are keenly aware of our areas need for more housing and making it clear that we are not necessarily opposed to the development of this property in general, we simply believe that current and future residents of our particular area would be best served by the land remaining zoned as low density residential. Our foremost concern is that allowing this development to go forward as proposed would destroy the natural, tree -filled character of the neighborhood that we love. The current zoning of the property would allow for up to 30 single-family units to be built on it. Rezoning it to medium density would allow for up to 65 units to be placed on the property. The site plan submitted by Schneider Homes and DMP only calls for 38 units, but would still require the property to be clear cut. Furthermore, their plan envisions building 120-foot-long, 30-foot- high buildings only 10 feet from the sidewalks along S 151st Street and 62nd Ave S. Leaving little to no room for vegetation between the street and the townhomes, we believe these structures would tower imposingly over these streets and the current homes across from them. We recently took the time to visit another townhome development built by Schneider homes, only to have our fears of what might come to pass be confirmed. While the buildings were not particularly unattractive, they were imposing on an otherwise naked skyline, and it was clear that not a single tree had been spared during construction. We have included a picture below for your reference of what we can expect to see from our back porch if this development is allowed to go forward as proposed. Leaving the property zoned as low density would require additional distancing from the road to any structures to be built and allow for more vegetation to remain or be subsequently planted. We believe this would honor and preserve the current character of the area that we call home. 1 168 A picture of the Copper Ridge townhome development in Kent built by Schneider Homes. It is clear that no trees were spared during construction. This is what we can expect to see along S 151st St and 62nd Ave S if this project is allowed to proceed as proposed. In the spirit of good faith, we plan to reach out to the developer and builder in the weeks ahead and further explore ways that we can come to agreement on a plan to which we and everyone else in the area is amenable. Until such a time as that has taken place, this rezone must not be allowed to go ahead. Another major concern of ours is the effect that adding such a development to our area would have on traffic and parking. Even with things as they currently are, cars often line up waiting to turn on to Southcenter Blvd from 65th Ave S. During drop-off and pick-up times at Tukwila Elementary, some residents of the area already have difficulty getting out of their driveways. The apartment and condo complexes along 65th Ave S were not built with adequate parking provided, resulting in the streets being continuously lined with cars and creating a hazard as people enter and exit these vehicles. All of this is to say that our area already faces significant traffic and parking challenges, and it is remains unclear how much a new development such as this would exacerbate these. It is my understanding that a public works review has been commissioned to evaluate the implications of allowing this proposed rezone to go ahead, but we have not yet been able to attain a copy of this review. Ultimately, we believe that this rezone should not even be considered by the council until the full traffic and parking implications are fully understood. Our final concern revolves around the implications of the current COVID-19 pandemic. This event has thrown a wrench into all of our lives and it remains to be seen what the ultimate societal, economic and housing market implications of this pandemic will be. The restrictions placed on public gatherings has already impacted the due process normally allowed prior to the consideration of a zoning change such as this as the town hall meeting with the builder and developer had to be conducted via phone conference. Even if you are not convinced that this rezoning application should be denied, we urge you to defer it to such a time as the full implications of this pandemic can be better understood and normal due process allowed to take place. Nothing would be worse than allowing the builder and developer to begin this project, clear cut the land, and then discover that they could not continue with it due to the economic environment. 2 169 We want to close by ensuring that you know we are not alone in our opposition to this rezone. We have taken the liberty of collecting the signatures of 36 individuals from 17 residences in the immediate vicinity of this property who stand in opposition to this proposal. We did this in a manner consistent with the social distancing guidelines currently in effect, and it is likely that we could have garnered even more signatures if this had not been the case. We have provided copies of these signatures in a separate document that has also been provided to the council. We believe the role of government is to protect the interests of all the people that it serves, not just those who stand to gain from maximizing their profit margin from a development such as this. Ultimately, we believe we can find a path forward that permits both the development of this property and the retention of the natural neighborhood feel that we so love about our area. However, we do not believe that this path should involve the rezoning of this property. We urge you to listen to the voices of your constituents who will be most directly affected by this proposal and vote against it. We can be contacted at 719-761-6516 or davidwtomlinson@amail.com and would be happy to discuss this matter further and/or answer any questions you may have. We sincerely thank you for your valuable time and consideration in this matter! Respectfully, David Tomlinson Layla Tomlinson 170 3 https : //outlook. office3 65. com/mail/search/id/AAQkAGFhNDMxNzU5... Re: Public Meeting Minutes, Hopper Townhomes 3/18/2020 Maxwell Baker <Max.Baker@TukwilaWA.gov> Mon 3/30/2020 3:47 PM To: David Tomlinson <davidwtomlinson@gmail.com>; Nancy Eklund <Nancy.Eklund@TukwilaWA.gov> Hi David, The Public Works review is not complete, nor is it a formal document for dispersal; each department provides comments that are included in the staff report that goes before Planning Commission and/or City Council. As a Party of Record you will be notified of any staff reports, public hearings, etc. as they are completed and/or scheduled. The next steps for a Comp Plan Amendment/Rezone include finishing departmental reviews, attaining any additional information from the project applicant, and then presenting the findings as a staff report to the City Council. Between the end of the public comment period and the City Council public hearing the City usually budgets at least two months, but this is likely to be pushed back due to the COVID19 response. You and other Parties of Record will receive a Notice of Public Hearing at least 14 days ahead of the hearing with City Council. Just another reminder that Nancy Eklund will be taking over as the project manager for the proposal, she has been cc'ed on this email as well. Best, Maxwell Baker I Senior Planner Department of Community Development I City of Tukwila 6300 Southcenter Blvd, Suite 100 I Tukwila, WA 98188 Max.Baker@Tukwilawa.gov 1206.431.3683 Tukwila: The City of opportunity, the community of choice. From: David Tomlinson <davidwtomlinson@gmail.com> Sent: Friday, March 27, 2020 2:18 PM To: Maxwell Baker <Max.Baker@TukwilaWA.gov> Subject: Re: Public Meeting Minutes, Hopper Townhomes 3/18/2020 Max, I just left you a voicemail and now following up with an e-mail. I had a couple of questions for you regarding the proposed Hopper Townhome Rezone: - On the call last week you mentioned a public works review. Has this been completed and is it available to the public? - What would be the normal process and timeline from here on something like this and how is it currently looking as a result of the COVID impacts? I would prefer to discuss all of this on the phone with you if at all possible, but e-mail also works if 171 3/30/2020, 3:47 PM hops ://outlook.office365.com/mail/search/id/AAQkAGFhNDMxNzU5... not. Thanks for your time! Respectfully, David Tomlinson 719-761-6516 On Mon, Mar 23, 2020 at 5:06 PM Maxwell Baker <Max.Baker@tukwilawa.gov> wrote: Hello, You are receiving this email because you are a party of record for the Hopper Townhomes Rezone, PL19-0099. Attached to this email is a copy of the minutes for the public meeting held on 3/18/2020. Please let me know if you have any questions. Best, Maxwell Baker I Senior Planner Department of Community Development I City of Tukwila 6300 Southcenter Blvd, Suite 100 I Tukwila, WA 98188 Max.Baker@Tukwilawa.gov 1206.431.3683 Tukwila: The City of opportunity, the community of choice. CAUTION: This email originated from outside the City of Tukwila network. Please DO NOT open attachments or click links from an unknown or suspicious origin. 172 2 of 2 3/30/2020, 3:47 PM https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAQkAGFhNDMxNzU5L... Opposition to Proposed Rezoning of 6250 S 151st Street David Tomlinson <davidwtomlinson@gmail.com> Mon 3/30/2020 1:48 PM To: Verna Seal <Verna.Seal@TukwilaWA.gov>; Kathy Hougardy <Kathy.Hougardy@TukwilaWA.gov>; Thomas McLeod <Thomas.McLeod@TukwilaWA.gov>; Cynthia Delostrinos Johnson <C.DelostrinosJohnson@TukwilaWA.gov>; Zak Idan <Zak.ldan@TukwilaWA.gov>; Kate Kruller <Kate.Kruller@TukwilaWA.gov>; De'Sean Quinn <DeSean.Quinn@TukwilaWA.gov>; Maxwell Baker <Max.Baker@TukwilaWA.gov> B 2 attachments (5 MB) Letter of Oppositon to File L19-0123.pdf; Petition Letters Opposing File No L19-0123.pdf; Esteemed members of the Tukwila City Council & Co, My wife Layla and I are writing you to express our own opposition, as well as that of our neighbors, to the proposed rezoning of the property at 6250 S 151st Street, (Reference Files L19-0123 & E19-0013, Project File 19-0099). Attached you will find a letter expressing our personal reasons for opposing this action, as well as letters of opposition signed a total of 36 individuals who live in 17 separate residences in the immediate vicinity of this property. We hope you will hear all of our voices and vote against this proposed rezoning. Please do not hesitate to contact us with any further questions you may have (contact info below). We greatly appreciate your time and consideration in this matter, thank you! Sincerely, David & Layla Tomlinson 6360 S 151st PI Tukwila, WA 98188 Cell: 719-761-6516 CAUTION: This email originated from outside the City of Tukwila network. Please DO NOT open attachments or click links from an unknown or suspicious origin. 173 3/30/2020, 1:53 PM https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAQkAGFhNDMxNzU5L... Re: Opposition to Proposed Rezoning of 6250 S 151st Street David Tomlinson <davidwtomlinson@gmail.com> Mon 3/30/2020 3:00 PM To: Verna Seal <Verna.Seal@TukwilaWA.gov>; Kathy Hougardy <Kathy.Hougardy@TukwilaWA.gov>; Thomas McLeod <Thomas.McLeod@TukwilaWA.gov>; Cynthia Delostrinos Johnson <C.DelostrinosJohnson@TukwilaWA.gov>; Zak Idan <Zak.ldan@TukwilaWA.gov>; Kate Kruller <Kate.Kruller@TukwilaWA.gov>; De'Sean Quinn <DeSean.Quinn@TukwilaWA.gov>; Maxwell Baker <Max.Baker@TukwilaWA.gov>; Mayor <Mayor@TukwilaWA.gov> B 1 attachments (743 KB) Opposed rezone Thoelke.pdf; Sir/Ma'am, Our apologies for the multiple e-mails. We received one additional letter of opposition after we sent you our last e-mail, which you will find attached. Thank you again for your time and consideration. Sincerely, David & Layla Tomlinson On Mon, Mar 30, 2020 at 1:48 PM David Tomlinson <davidwtomlinson@gmail.com> wrote: Esteemed members of the Tukwila City Council & Co, My wife Layla and I are writing you to express our own opposition, as well as that of our neighbors, to the proposed rezoning of the property at 6250 S 151st Street, (Reference Files L19-0123 & E19-0013, Project File 19-0099). Attached you will find a letter expressing our personal reasons for opposing this action, as well as letters of opposition signed a total of 36 individuals who live in 17 separate residences in the immediate vicinity of this property. We hope you will hear all of our voices and vote against this proposed rezoning. Please do not hesitate to contact us with any further questions you may have (contact info below). We greatly appreciate your time and consideration in this matter, thank you! Sincerely, David & Layla Tomlinson 6360 S 151st PI Tukwila, WA 98188 Cell: 719-761-6516 CAUTION: This email originated from outside the City of Tukwila network. Please DO NOT open attachments or click links from an unknown or suspicious origin. 174 1 of 1 3/30/2020, 3:08 PM Breyden Jager From: Breyden Jager Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2023 1:40 PM To: Geoff Hinton Subject: RE: 6250 S 151ST ST Parcel 3597000400 Geoff, Unfortunately, the tool only allows searches by address, parcel number, and permit number, which makes it a bit difficult to run a general search. To find the information you are looking for, my advice would be to submit a public records request. You can find instructions on how to do so on the City Clerk's website at the following link: https://www.tukwilawa.gov/departments/city-clerks-office/public-records-requests/ Thank you, Breyden Jager I Associate Planner Pronouns: He/Him/His Department of Community Development I City of Tukwila 6300 Southcenter Blvd, Suite 100 I Tukwila, WA 98188 Breyden.Jager@tukwilawa.gov 1206.431.3651 Tukwila: The City of opportunity, the community of choice. From: Geoff Hinton <geoffhin@microsoft.com> Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2023 11:14 AM To: Breyden Jager <Breyden.Jager@TukwilaWA.gov> Subject: RE: 6250 S 151ST ST Parcel 3597000400 Thanks for the details, Breyden! That was very comprehensive. Is there a way I can programmatically query the data in this database? I'm specifically interested in previous examples where zoning was either approved or declined in the last 5-10 years. Thanks, Geoff From: Breyden Jager <Breyden.Jager@TukwilaWA.gov> Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2023 9:15 AM To: Geoff Hinton <geoffhin@microsoft.com> Subject: [EXTERNAL] RE: 6250 S 151ST ST Parcel 3597000400 Good morning, Geoff, In order to access the latest plans and documents, please navigate to the land use permits portal at the following link and use the search function to locate each application number L19-0123 & E19-0013: https://www.tukwilawa.gov/departments/permit-center/land-use-permit-portal/ 1 175 Once you have the permit file pulled up, just click on the attachments tab to view and download all associated files. The ones that are dated 2023, will be the newer, currently relevant documents. Everything older is superseded by the newer files at this point. There are no current decisions to view, as both applications are still in review at this point. Administrative appeals of the City Council's rezone decision are not allowed; however, the decision may be appealed to the King County Superior Court, pursuant to the procedures and time limitations set forth in RCW 36.70C. Administrative appeals of the SEPA decision follow the process outlined in TMC 21.04.280, and must be filed within 14 calendar days of the date of decision. It's important to note that in deciding to approve or deny any rezone application, the City Council utilize the criteria found in TMC 18.84.020 (shown below). This application is for a rezone only, which is a non -project action. No development proposal has been submitted at this time. The criteria simply assess whether the change in zoning, in this case from LDR to MDR, is appropriate for the subject property. The criteria do not assess the feasibility or impacts of a specific project proposal. The project design plans and documents that have been submitted by the applicant should be considered for reference only, and any preliminary project proposal is subject to change following the decision to approve or deny the rezone application. More concisely, the approval criteria simply ask whether any of the allowed uses within the MDR zoning district are appropriate for the property, not necessarily just townhomes. Specific design considerations would be reviewed during the Design Review land use process accompanying any multi -family proposal later on, if the rezone request is approved. Off-street parking for any future proposal will be required to meet the City's minimum parking requirements outlined in TMC Table 18-7. 18.84.020 Criteria Each determination granting a rezone and the accompanying Comprehensive Plan map change shall be supported by written findings and conclusions, showing specifically that all of the following conditions exist: 1. The proposed amendment to the Zoning Map is consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies of the Comprehensive Plan; 2. The proposed amendment to the Zoning Map is consistent with the scope and purpose of TMC Title 18, "Zoning Code," and the description and purpose of the zone classification applied for; 3. There are changed conditions since the previous zoning became effective to warrant the proposed amendment to the Zoning Map; and 4. The proposed amendment to the Zoning Map will be in the interest of furtherance of the public health, safety, comfort, convenience and general welfare, and will not adversely affect the surrounding neighborhood, nor be injurious to other properties in the vicinity in which the subject property is located. (Ord. 2368 §69, 2012; Ord. 2116 §1 (part), 2006) Thank you, Breyden Jager I Associate Planner Pronouns: He/Him/His Department of Community Development I City of Tukwila 6300 Southcenter Blvd, Suite 100 I Tukwila, WA 98188 Breyden.Jager@tukwilawa.gov 1206.431.3651 Tukwila: The City of opportunity, the community of choice. 2 176 From: Geoff Hinton <geoffhin@microsoft.com> Sent: Friday, February 10, 2023 1:43 PM To: Breyden Jager <Breyden.Jager@TukwilaWA.gov> Subject: 6250 S 151ST ST Parcel 3597000400 Dear Breyden, I hope this email finds you well. I am reaching out to request more information regarding the proposed rezoning and building plans for the lot located across the street from my home. I understand that, according to the mailer, there are details available about the application, plans, and any current decisions, as well as information about any appeal rights regarding Parcel# 3597000400. It has been over a year since the last hearing on this, and I have not yet seen any updates on the status of the plans for the development. I am particularly concerned about the lack of parking that has been planned by Schneider Homes, as I do not want to see the overflow from their parking situation spilling into our cul-de-sac. I understand that commitments have been made by Schneider Homes in the previous hearing for expanding designated parking spaces inside the property, but I would like to understand more. I hope that you can provide me with the information I am seeking so that I may better understand the situation for preparing my comments. Thank you for your time and attention to this matter. I look forward to hearing back from you soon. Best regards, Geoff Hinton 6202 S 151st PI CAUTION: This email originated from outside the City of Tukwila network. Please DO NOT open attachments or click links from an unknown or suspicious origin. CAUTION: This email originated from outside the City of Tukwila network. Please DO NOT open attachments or click links from an unknown or suspicious origin. 3 177 Breyden Jager From: Hugh Tobin <htobin@comcast.net> Sent: Tuesday, February 21, 2023 4:56 PM To: Breyden Jager Subject: Re: L19-0123 Comments Comp Plan/Rezone Proposal L19-0123, 6250 1515` St. I am writing to oppose City Council approval of this proposal for reasons stated below. If the Council decides to allow the upzone despite these matters, it should impose enforceable conditions, as discussed in the last section below. These comments are based on the information I have been able to review and obtain between recently learning of the revised materials submitted in 2022 and earlier this year and before the Feb. 21 deadline. The Neighborhood First, let's be clear about the nature of the neighborhood, which has been stable for many years. The applicant continues to assert that the proposed upzone would be consistent with multifamily developments in the "surrounding area," and at the 2/15/23 meeting stated again that the site was "surrounded" by multifamily property. In fact, the site is surrounded by LDR zoning and an unbuildable steep slope, and all developed land adjacent to the site is built to lower than LDR density, with much remaining wooded open space. The site is bounded on 3 sides (2 across streets) by LDR zones with housing at less than LDR density, often much less. What might appear on the zoning map to be high density property across 65th to the East is actually a steep wooded slope below a walking trail, which is zoned HDR but entirely undeveloped except for a 19-unit condo project with an Interurban Ave. address located well to the Northeast of the site as well as far downhill. That condo project sits on a 4- acre lot (thus is less dense than LDR allows), and in any case is not part of the same neighborhood as the subject site. The only multifamily -zoned lot adjacent to the site and at or near the same elevation, at the SE corner on the other side of 65th and Trail No. 3, was the scene of a tragic fire and is now bare land. To the North, three adjacent lots average one house to about 26,000 s.f., and just North of those is a 2-acre lot with only a small 1903 vintage house. Facing the entire South side of the site on 151st is a single-family subdivision developed by the same applicant with lots of at least 12,000 s.f. each. South of that a large wooded wetland area separates the site vicinity from the multifamily development further South abutting 151st . Applicant cites the Sunwood condos as "surrounding" multifamily development, but these sit high on a hill, separated from the SW corner of the site by 4 homes on lots averaging 34,000 s.f. each. Sunwood does not even take access in the direction of the site. In short, the proposal would be a 4.45 acre intrusion of multifamily zoning into an area of very low -density single-family housing. Build -out of the site under MDR, allowing 1 unit per 3000 s.f., would be radically inconsistent with the existing nature of the surrounding residential neighborhood. The Proposal Does Not Satisfy Rezone Criteria A Comp Plan Amendment/Rezone can be approved only if the Council can make specific findings to establish that all four criteria of TMC 18.04.020 are met. They are addressed by number below. It appears that the applicant did not address these criteria in its 2019 application, which used an incorrect form that called for different criteria. Only in August 2022 1 178 did it submit a letter trying to adapt some of its arguments on those criteria to those that apply, or simply repeating them even if not on point. 1. The main rationale for the rezone advanced in the August 2022 letter is that it is consistent with the Comp Plan because it would provide for more affordable home ownership due to a more efficient housing types. But that could apply to any LDR-zoned property. Comp Plan policy 3.2.2 provides: Encourage a full range of housing opportunities for all population segments, including very low-income households earning less than 30% AMI, through actions including, but not limited to, revising the Tukwila's zoning map and development codes as appropriate, which would enable a wide variety of housing types to be built. [emphasis added] Whether an upzone of this site is the appropriate way to provide opportunities depends on consistency with other Comp Plan policies; on whether the Council can find that all of the Code criteria are met; and on whether the alternative of revising the Code is a better way. Indeed, the City is starting to pursue that better way, to allow "middle housing" more broadly. The City published an RFQ in November of last year for a consultant to "analyze and consider the feasibility of adopting policies and code language that would allow a range of higher density housing types in single family zoned areas of the City; conduct extensive public outreach on housing issues to the general public and community based organizations in the City..." with work to be completed by June 30, 2023. That is more consistent with the Comp Plan strategy at p. 3-5, "Following the neighborhood outreach process, consider flexible zoning standards to promote housing options that meet current and future needs." It would also be a more efficient and equitable way to allow for different housing types in LDR zones than to grant upzones on an ad hoc basis. The applicant seeks to emphasize the access to transit as a reason why this site should be changed from from LDR. The same argument might support rezoning all of the LDR land in the area (such as ours, with theoretical capacity for 13 units in MDR), at similar distances from or closer to bus routes. But the idea that many would walk to transit from the site is not realistic. Unit owners would have cars. From the bus stop on the North side of Southcenter Blvd. it is a hike up a steep hill on 65th, which I timed at 9 minutes to the proposed South entrance of the site at my rather brisk pace; to reach the westbound stop one must brave the unsignaled crosswalk and high-speed traffic, which I did not try. Using that stop would significantly increase the time on the 150 bus compared to boarding on the other side of the hill on Interurban. Having commuted to Seattle for many years from a home near the SW corner of the site, I can attest that the way to use transit to Seattle from here is to drive to it: down to Interurban for the 150 bus, or to the Sounder station (one would not walk there). Some commuters from the site would be dropped off by a family member, to avoid parking issues or keep a car in use; that would double the trips. Some would find current conditions on transit unacceptable and drive to work even if transit would get them there. Nor would homeowners at the site walk to work or shopping in Southcenter. They would have cars, and it is much easier to drive and park. There are no neighborhood retail business that one can reasonably walk to. The applicant says Fort Dent and Southcenter are in easy biking distance, but that overlooks the grueling climb home up 65th, to which I can attest, as well as safety issues. Over many years we have never braved the traffic to Southcenter, and though we have biked down to the Green River Trail and Fort Dent, heavier traffic will make it riskier from here to the bottom of 65', and I think most would choose the ease and safety of driving the bikes down to the trail parking area. The applicant's August 2022 letter tries to support its proposal with policies for the Southcenter/Urban Center as a place for "living" (applicant's emphasis), but the site is not there. It is in the residential area called Tukwila Hill (Comp. Plan, p. 7-5), cut off from the Urban Center by I-405 and Southcenter Boulevard, as well as by the topography that provides its name This is not a case in which rezoning would lead to transit -oriented development in the sense that residents might live without automobiles, nor would it put density in a walkable neighborhood. Comp Plan objectives, goals, policies, and strategies with which the proposal would not be consistent include: The first priority objective (p. 8): 2 179 1. To improve and sustain residential neighborhood quality and livability. GOAL 7.3 Neighborhood Quality. Stable residential neighborhoods ... 7.1.1 Maintain a comprehensive land use map that supports the preservation and enhancement of single-family and stable multi -family neighborhoods; eliminates incompatible land uses; and clearly establishes applicable development requirements through recognizable boundaries. 7.3.4, p. 8: Use new development to foster a sense of community, and replace lost vegetation and open spaces with improvements of at least equal value to the community. I have seen no indication that such replacement would be done or how it could be done if substantially all of the vegetation is cleared. Continued emphasis on existing land use patterns to protect and preserve residential uses. (p. 7-10) 7.5.9 Support zoning densities that encourage redevelopment of existing multi -family properties. (p. 7-13). Allowing MDR density on greenfield sites by rezone to higher density tends to have the opposite effect. The Aug. 14, 2022 letter to Nancy Eklund emphasizes that the LDR designation allows only detached single-family housing, and that a choice of housing styles can allow more affordable home ownership. These are grounds to reform development standards for LDR, but the cure does not require applying all the MDR rules, including density, lot coverage, and permitted uses, to LDR lots generally or to this particular lot. The proposal is not an appropriate way to further housing goals and is predominantly inconsistent the Comp Plan. 2. The August 2022 letter does not explain how the proposal is consistent with the scope and purpose of Title 18. I am not sure what that means, but part of the purpose is stated in TMC 18.10.010 (LDR Zone): It is intended to provide low -density family residential areas together with a full range of urban infrastructure services in order to maintain stable residential neighborhoods, and to prevent intrusions by incompatible land uses. [emphasis added] The rezone would conflict with that purpose. 3. The applicant fails to identify any change in conditions since the existing zoning was adopted, though that is an essential requirement for a rezone under TMC 18.04.020.3. Having lived in this stable neighborhood over 15 years, I do not know what changes could be cited. The August 2022 letter, coming more than 2.5 years after the application, has a response to that item that does not relate to changed conditions. It merely recites supposed benefits and argues consistency with Comp Plan policies, referring back to another item that relates to an independent requirement. Even if somehow the need for affordable housing has increased over some relevant period, which is not claimed or documented (Seattle declared a housing emergency in 1995), that is a general issue that could merit general Code amendments, not the kind of changes affecting a site or its surroundings that would be relevant to a site -specific rezone. 4. A project at MDR density will have more negative affects on the surrounding neighborhood and its residents and properties than a project within maximum LDR density, which is less than half All the traffic will have to use the single arterial, because there is not a normal street grid. Not only the residents' vehicles, but also deliveries, service trucks, visitors, contractors, etc., will all have to turn onto and off that arterial, and if entrances are congested they may stop in the road to await a turn. We will feel less safe biking from our home. 3 180 There will be more noise from the vehicles (including emergency vehicles or police when needed), equipment, alarms, and human activity generally. Vehicles that do not fit on site will park on the street and sounds from them will not be buffered. There will be more emissions to air, such as from vehicles and from any barbecues or wood -burning fireplaces (the SEPA checklist says the latter, "if permitted," will produce emissions). An LDR-density development would have some impacts of the same nature, but at a smaller scale. Humans who live in townhomes or triplexes are probably no better or worse neighbors on average than others, and equally variable. By arithmetic, more density will mean more who tend to cause negative impacts. I would expect to see more people drive into the dead end of 62nd — a rather secluded spot right by our property — to hang out at night. We already see this occasionally, and find the debris they leave. The increased impacts on some public infrastructure could be disproportionately greater than from an LDR project; i.e. could hit a tipping point. Sanitary sewer capacity is a concern, discussed separately. Traffic may reach the point at which the left turn lane at the bottom of 65th will frequently back up or a signal is required. Reductions in tree canopy are generally recognized as detrimental to a neighborhood, and we expect more loss from an MDR project, with the permitted and intended 75% lot coverage. See discussion below in the "Conditions" section. Trees retained in a steep slope area in the NE corner provide the least benefit in the neighborhood. I believe that the impacts above, together with the expectation that more land in the immediate vicinity may be similarly rezoned and developed, such as the large lots directly North of the site, are likely to be injurious to the values of single-family properties that are not suitable for MDR redevelopment even if rezoned. The impacts during construction would have to be worse for development to MDR density. More clearing, grading, infrastructure work, and unit construction would mean more noise, dust, emissions, heavy truck traffic, road obstructions, etc. If the street would have to be dug up for sewer work that would not be required for a less dense project, that would substantially increase the inconvenience. As with all types of impact, if we do not know, then Council has no basis to conclude there would be no adverse effect. I have made separate comments regarding some impacts under the SEPA matter, E19-0013, which should be considered incorporated here. The issue under 18.04.020.4 is not whether MDR density will make our lives unbearable, compared to the utopia of living by an LDR development. The applicant seeks a special change in rules for its property alone, enhancing its value with potential that we surrounding owners will not have, and appropriately it must show, on top of the other requirements, that the rezone "will not adversely affect the surrounding neighborhood, nor be injurious to other properties in the vicinity in which the subject property is located." The Council could not rationally find that there will be no adverse or injurious effect. Sanitary Sewer and Concurrency Note: These comments are based on what I have been able to find out before the comment deadline. I am concerned that a high density development on the site not overtax the sanitary sewer system below where our 4-lot subdivision discharges to the main, and cause back-ups. At the 2/15/23 meeting the applicant or consultant dismissed the concern saying that it would discharge to an existing City 12-inch concrete sewer pipe under 151 St. But the "Existing Conditions" plan dated January 2023 from the applicant indicates that the only sewer main there is 8-inch (see also 2014 Sanitary Sewer Plan, Drainage Basin no. 4). I am no sewer expert, but I read that plan as showing that the slope of the pipe drops from .45% to .34% as it runs East from the manhole 4 181 slightly West of the middle of the site. I see that the City's Comprehensive Sewer System Plan linked in the online Comp Plan, at 1.3.3 on p. 1-12, includes a City policy that 8" pipe must have a minimum slope of .40% (a spot check of other sources, including one from Ecology, suggests that is a common minimum). If I follow all this correctly, the proposal is to increase potential density on a site that would discharge to sanitary sewer main that does not meet standards. The Comp Plan says: LEVEL -OF -SERVICE STANDARDS 40. Sufficient system capacity for surface water, water, sewer and transportation is required prior to approval of any new development. (Standards for surface water, water and sewer are codified in the City's Municipal Code, and the transportation standards are in the Transportation Element of this Plan.) New development must pass the concurrency tests before development may be permitted. TMC 14.36.020 provides in part: 3. Applications for Type 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 decisions involving projects which will require sanitary sewer service from the City of Tukwila shall be referred by the Department of Community Development to the Department of Public Works, which shall determine whether the City has the necessary sewer system capacity, including such mains, pump stations and other facilities as may be necessary, to provide sanitary sewer service meeting City standards or that such capacity will be available by the time a certificate of occupancy is issued. If adequate service is not available, the Department of Public Works shall determine and shall advise the applicant of the improvements which are necessary to provide service meeting City standards. (Ord. 1769 §2 (part), The proposed rezone is a type 5 decision "involving" such a project. A City pre-app checklist for this site,under PRE20-0005, that I found online from 2020 has a note about the 8" sanitary sewer main, saying the applicant shall conduct a study as to capacity to handle "so many units." An email exchange from 2000 includes a City staffer who would "not feel confident telling you that we have enough sewer capacity for the new townhomes (38 currently?) that they plan to build." From a phone call with Public Works today (2/21), it appears no final determination has been made on that question; no study has been done over the last 3 years; and the City may not intend to require one. I think there should be a clear determination consistent 5 182 with the concurrency provision in the Code prior to a rezone vote, and if the infrastructure is already substandard or is of doubtful adequacy to support a project at MDR density, the City should have a clear plan for any necessary improvements and their funding, before the rezone decision. Conditions The proposal cannot satisfy Code requirements. But if the City Council decides to approve a zoning change, it should use its authority to impose conditions that will limit the impacts and make the development of the site more compatible with the surrounding low density housing than an unconditioned development under MDR. The Council has "the authority to impose conditions and safeguards as it deems necessary to protect or enhance the health, safety and welfare of the surrounding area, and to ensure that the rezone fully meets the findings set forth in TMC 18.84.020." A Comp Plan policy relied on by the applicant, 3.2.3, says: "Provide sufficient appropriate zoning for housing of all types, including government -assisted housing, housing for low-income families, manufactured housing, multi -family housing, and group homes and foster care facilities, subject to conditions that appropriately integrate them into existing neighborhoods. [Emphasis added] The Council has imposed conditions on prior rezones. Conditions should include: Density limit A limit of 30 units would make the density roughly compatible with the theoretical maximum LDR density of 1/6500, though still several times greater than the actual average density of the surrounding property. That should allow the final design to minimize various impacts by allowing more land to be kept in a natural state rather than cleared and regraded. A 30-unit townhome subdivision should easily be able to preserve many of the mature trees on the site, if the conditions on the rezone so require, and with less impervious surface the extent of grading, filling and detention to deal with stormwater would be less. Note that the applicant's August 2022 letter emphasizes several times that the proposal would allow a different housing type that is more affordable and offers more options in housing style for homeowners; the problem is that LDR limits the style of housing to the most expensive. The letter does not even mention the LDR density limit or say that higher density than that is needed. But to preempt any claim that the rezone with conditions makes it less profitable to develop the site that before, the Council could leave open the option to develop under all LDR regulations instead. Impervious Surface Impervious surface should be limited to something determined by staff to be more consistent with the density limit suggested, and with reasonable tree preservation, than the 75% maximum (At one place the revised SEPA checklist says it will be about 65%, for a project at MDR density). Housing type The applicant represents that the project will be townhomes. A condition excluding other uses that the upzone to MDR might permit (which include boarding homes, senior living facilities, and fourplexes) would ensure that outcome, and housing more compatible with the surrounding single-family homes. Stormwater The change from a heavily wooded lot to one with mostly impervious surface will obviously increase annual stormwater flow from the site. The applicant has submitted a plan that shows stormwater generally routed to a new underground tank in the Southeast corner (though it is not clear how it gets there from the South auto entrance) and from there into the City system on 65th Ave. S. A rezone condition should require that 6 183 solution, and that the developer pay for any necessary improvements to the City system. The earlier plan shown by the applicant had a detention pond in the SW corner, which would have to flow through the surface drainage (wetland) South of the 62nd Ave. S dead end, which would worsen flooding over City Trail No. 4 and adjacent private property, which is already a problem. Sanitary Sewer See the comments and citations above on this issue. Whether or not the City determines prior to the rezone decision that an upgrade is needed to support the density, if the main is substandard under policies incorporated in the Comp Plan, then if the applicant would have to upgrade it as a rezone condition, that would help make the rezone be consistent with the Comp Plan and serve the public health, safety, and welfare, and the issue would not have to be debated in later permitting decisions. Tree Preservation Although the SEPA checklist says in one place that 75% of the site will be cleared (pdf p. 16), in another it says flatly "the site will be cleared" and trees retained per "adopted standards" (pdf p. 8). At the public meeting on 2/15/23 I understood the intent was to clear the entire property, with the exception of the small portion in the NE corner with a slope exceeding 40%. The property is now heavily wooded, and includes tall cedars, firs and maples. The arborist's preliminary survey from early 2020 reported 257 trees of which he said 43 were "exceptional trees" under the Code. This figure may well be low, because others may have grown to the 18 inch diameter over 3 years, and the 43 are a subset of 125 trees the report calls "viable," from which it excludes all cottonwoods as well as some firs and maples that may merely be covered by excess ivy. Under Sec. 18.54.060 A, as many Exceptional Trees as possible are to be retained on a site proposed for development; however, based on what we heard from the applicant and staff at the public meeting, it seemed that the proposed upzone would lead to the near total clearing of the site, without even off -site planting or in -lieu payments except for any trees removed from critical areas. Whether or not proper application of the Code at the subdivision or project permit level would have that result, I think the rezone could cause a much greater loss of canopy and habitat than would be likely as a practical matter under LDR. If the rezone is allowed, the Council should condition it on the retention of at least half of the on -site Exceptional Trees, based on an updated survey that identifies them all using the TMC definition. From a sidewalk survey I see that several Exceptional Trees are near the perimeter, particularly along the western boundary where they may be within the landscape buffer, or in some cases the setbacks, shown on the latest site plan (p.3). These trees enhance the neighborhood and can buffer light and noise (both ways), and I suspect there is nothing wrong with most of them that removing English Ivy cannot cure. A landscape buffer will not prevent the buildings near the West perimeter from looming above the streetscape, absent mature trees. The condition should require the preservation of all Exceptional Trees wholly or partly in that buffer or wholly within the 20 foot setback, unless certified as Defective under the TMC by a qualified arborist. If there is no condition on the rezone I fear that DCD will be pressed to allow a cheaper approach than preserving them. There are also a few Exceptional Trees that must be in the City ROW, which I hope would have to be protected as a matter of course, but a rezone condition could remove any doubt. No Wood -burning Fireplaces or Stoves The SEPA checklist discloses the potential for emissions from wood -burning fireplaces "if allowed." They should not be. Their use would worsen the problem of particulate pollution in the area. If City regulations do not already prohibit them in new homes, a condition should do that here to reduce the impacts on the neighborhood and the environment. Respectfully submitted, Hugh Tobin 15165 62nd Ave. S 7 184 CAUTION: This email originated from outside the City of Tukwila network. Please DO NOT open attachments or click links from an unknown or suspicious origin. 8 185 https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAQkAGFhNDMxNzUSL... L19-0123, E19-0013: "Hopper Townhomes" Comp Plan Amendment and Rezone Proposal, Environmental Review Hugh Tobin <htobin@comcast.net> Mon 3/30/2020 2:59 PM To: Maxwell Baker <Max.Baker@TukwilaWA.gov> Cc: Verna Seal <Verna.Seal@TukwilaWA.gov>; Kathy Hougardy <Kathy.Hougardy@TukwilaWA.gov>; Thomas McLeod <Thomas.McLeod@TukwilaWA.gov>; Cynthia Delostrinos Johnson <C.DelostrinosJohnson@TukwilaWA.gov>; Zak Idan <Zak.ldan@TukwilaWA.gov>; Kate Kruller <Kate.Kruller@TukwilaWA.gov>; De'Sean Quinn <DeSean.Quinn@TukwilaWA.gov> Dear Mr. Baker and Councilmembers: I am a resident (since 2007) and homeowner at 15165 62nd Ave. S., which is part of a 4-home subdivision on about 3 acres to the southwest of the proposal site, between it and the Sunwood Condominiums (this area of LDR zoning is omitted from the application's "General Description of Surrounding Land Uses", which states that Sunwood is to the southwest). I write first to address the range of alternatives that should be considered if the City is to amend the comprehensive plan and zoning regulations, and second to comment on the adequacy of the SEPA checklist for the specific proposal. Scope of alternatives and environmental review If the City is to consider changing the comp plan to allow greater density or more affordable housing, it should evaluate a range of options for the City as a whole, rather than merely respond to the desire of a single property owner for an upzone. Options could include changes in policies that drive development regulations for LDR zones, and/or creation of additional zoning categories, which might include density bonus options based on provision of housing that would be truly affordable to very low-income households. In some jurisdictions single-family zoning is being phased out, as in Oregon. Without changing the basic density limit for LDR, 6500 s.f. per unit, and perhaps without amending the comp plan, the City could change regulations that unduly limit density and affordability of development on larger lots. For example, Chapter 18.10 TMC arbitrarily limits development coverage and footprints on larger LDR lots (such as the Hopper tract) to much lower percentages than on smaller lots, and prohibits duplexes and triplexes, thereby encouraging subdivision into 6500 s.f. lots and more expensive housing. If an owner could achieve the same 1/6500 unit density on a larger LDR development site (whether or not divided for sale or made into a condominium), or could add to a partly developed site, with townhome development, then housing could be more affordable and climate -friendly, with more usable open space, and in many cases more of the site left undisturbed, than in a typical SF subdivision. Under present LDR zoning, even on a lot large enough for several units under that density (such as the one where I live), one may not have a duplex, even in an existing structure that could be converted without exterior changes ("ADU" unit rules, designed to make those acceptable on minimum size lots, have restrictions that would often require dysfunctional modifications, and do not accommodate family -friendly units). So the City should consider revisiting development restrictions more generally, and include 186 1 of 3 3/30/2020, 3:55 PM https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAQkAGFhNDMxNzU5L... potential changes to them as reasonable alternatives to any proposed rezone for purposes of environmental analysis. SEPA Checklist for Hopper Lot Proposal My general comment on the SEPA checklist, as it relates to the specific rezone, is that it does not adequately respond to the questions in the form, and therefore does not provide a sufficient basis for a threshold determination — certainly not a DNS. In many cases responses have one or more of these defects: • Incomplete (e.g., checking "yes" but not answering the "if yes" question) • Admitting or revealing that insufficient study has been done to provide the answer • Entirely omitted (e.g., "N/A" for an item that does apply) • Contradicted by other statements in the checklist or by materials with the application • Inaccurate • Consisting of unsupported and implausible statements • Lacking any quantitative information • Based on assumptions or promises as to actual development for which no assurance exists • Inconsistent with information available in public records, including City maps • Merely stating that regulations (of the new zone) will be followed, as if that disclosed the impact of development under them Subjects on which these defects occur include stormwater runoff, sensitive areas, slopes, streets, traffic, public services and facilities, discharges, noise, tree preservation, wildlife, nearby historic buildings, and nearby recreational facilities. I could provide detail, but it is not the job of neighboring residents to prepare responses to the checklist. I notice also that two preliminary reports from consultants submitted with the application, as well as limited online information in eTRAKIT regarding open code violations, indicate that there have been unpermitted grading, filling, and other activities altering the conditions of the site prior to the submission of this application, all of which clearly were known to the present owner prior to a purchase completed on or about 3/13/2020. That raises the question, whether the full extent of those activities and the previously existing site condition need to be established and the evaluation of impacts done using that prior condition as a baseline for a threshold determination. Finally, although the proponent has indicated an intent to develop approximately 38 townhome units on the site and has provided a possible site plan, there is no proposed concomitant agreement that would limit development or provide any mitigation, so what must be evaluated is the potential maximum development of the site under MDR zoning. The new owner may be describing its intent in complete good faith, but the ultimate development could be done by someone else. 187 3/30/2020, 3:55 PM https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAQkAGFhNDMxNzU5L... Thank you for your consideration of the above comments. I understand from the virtual meeting held on 3/18 that if the proposal submitted is to be considered, then there will be public hearings and opportunity to comment. I am reserving any comments on the merits for a later stage, when I would expect there to be more information available about the conditions on the site than the 2 preliminary letters from consultants that were filed with the application. Sincerely, Hugh R. Tobin CAUTION: This email originated from outside the City of Tukwila network. Please DO NOT open attachments or click links from an unknown or suspicious origin. 188 3 of 3 3/30/2020, 3:55 PM https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAQkAGFhNDMxNzU5L... Re: L19-0123, E19-0013: "Hopper Townhomes" Comp Plan Amendment and Rezone Proposal, Environmental Review Hugh Tobin <htobin@comcast.net> Mon 3/30/2020 3:51 PM To: Maxwell Baker <Max.Baker@TukwilaWA.gov> Following up on my checklist comment with one example, re: stormwater: Under C.1 at p. 8 of the pdf, the checklist says the project will not create stormwater from impervious surfaces that will not be infiltrated on site. Given the preceding statement that 75% of the lot will be made impervious, that is implausible and appears inconsistent with a later statement in the checklist, below. At p. 17, item c., the checklist asks about runoff, including where it will flow. The answer is evasive: it will be collected and infiltrated "to the greatest extent possible." That extent may be little or none, yet maximum MDR development will obviously add a lot of impermeable surface. The City's Surface Water Comprehensive Plan (2013), Section 2.3, identified this site as an area "where infiltration is not allowed as a surface water management approach due to steep slopes and/or high groundwater table (Figure 4)." I understand from City staff that this categorical prohibition has been removed, but the fact that the land was so mapped is a strong indication that very little infiltration could occur, so there would be a large increase in stormwater flowing offsite. At p. 30, 16.b, it is disclosed (notwithstanding the response to C.1, above) that development of the site would require stormwater discharge into the existing City system (presumably in 151st St.). Thus, the quantity of flow that could occur, including in extreme conditions, from a maximum development under MDR, with the site "cleared" as the applicant proposes, must be compared to the adequacy of the existing system to accept added flow in order to evaluate the impact of the proposal and whether it would cause a need for off -site stormwater improvements. Quantitative analysis is required to make a determination as to significance. It is likely that much rainfall to the site is presently absorbed by the vegetation (300 trees according to the proponent on the conference call). Some may now drain easterly down toward Interurban; however, the site is mapped mainly or entirely in the the Gilliam Creek drainage basin, which implies a southerly flow. If flow would drain toward 62nd Ave. S., as does at least some from the Mapletree Park development across 151st from the site, that could exacerbate recent flooding along Tukwila Trail no. 4 (which the applicant evidently assumes residents will use to walk to Southcenter; else it would not be as close as claimed). A City stormwater map shows that the flow must pass through a 12-inch pipe (and associated catch basins) on the Terra Apts. property to reach larger pipe under 153rd Ave . S. and then Cottage Creek, which drains into Gilliam Creek. Within approximately the past year the water has backed up to make the trail, which is used by elementary school children, impassable, for approximately one day after a heavy rain in the Fall and for weeks after the snowfall in the winter of 2019. CAUTION: This email originated from outside the City of Tukwila network. Please DO NOT open attachments or click links from an unknown or suspicious origin. 189 3/30/2020, 3:54 PM Nancy Eklund From: Hugh Tobin <htobin@comcast.net> Sent: Monday, April 20, 2020 4:24 PM To: Nancy Eklund Cc: Maxwell Baker Subject: Re: L19-0123, E19-0013: "Hopper Townhomes" Comp Plan Amendment and Rezone Proposal, Environmental Review Dear Ms. Eklund, I appreciate that you have posted online the recently received limited geotech report and "Tree Protection Plan", and I have downloaded those. I am writing to request any other consultant reports and other communications from the applicant that have been submitted (Max Baker did provide early letters from the wetland consultant and geotech attached to the application), and to renew and update my public records request in the 3/30 email below for copies of comments from residents received to date. I see from the website comments that you agreed to provide those to the applicant. Related to the SEPA analysis, I note from a brief look at the recently filed documents that (1) the geotech report confirms my earlier comment to the effect that infiltration of stormwater is not feasible, and proposes a pond that it appears would have to drain under 151st down the 62nd Ave. ROW into the recently overflowing wetland abutting Trail No. 4, and (2) the "Tree Protection Plan" seems to say that the effect of the rezone would be that the applicant would remove "most, if not all" the many significant trees. The Plan seems to assume that all cottonwood trees are per se "nonviable hazard trees" and holly trees are invasive, so neither need be considered for protection. I would like to know whether the City accepts those assumptions. I am puzzled by the documentation submitted as it relates to environmentally sensitive areas. The new geotech report describes only one area, a steep slope "along the eastern most margin" and then refers to the landslide hazard as "directly east of the site" (see also negative response to item 12 on pdf p. 12 of the SEPA checklist). The City's map at https://www.tukwilawa.gov/city-maps/ shows not only a Class 3 area in the northeasterly part of the site near the City's Trail No. 3, but also numerous other Class 3 areas, including one along most of S. 151st St. extending well into the site. Is that map current, please, or has the City updated that map to remove those classifications, or others in our area? Sincerely, Hugh Tobin 15165 62nd Ave. S. On 3/30/2020 4:46 PM, Maxwell Baker wrote: Hi Hugh, After today I will no longer be assigned to the project, you will want to coordinate with the new project manager, Nancy Eklund, who is cc'ed on this email. Maxwell Baker I Senior Planner Department of Community Development I City of Tukwila 6300 Southcenter Blvd, Suite 100 I Tukwila, WA 98188 Max.Baker@Tukwilawa.gov 1206.431.3683 Tukwila: The City of opportunity, the community of choice. 1 190 From: Hugh Tobin <htobin@comcast.net> Sent: Monday, March 30, 2020 4:43 PM To: Maxwell Baker <Max.Baker@TukwilaWA.gov> Subject: Re: L19-0123, E19-0013: "Hopper Townhomes" Comp Plan Amendment and Rezone Proposal, Environmental Review Hi Max -- I infer from the message below that Jeff has submitted a comment. Could you please provide me a copy of that, and any others from residents, and any further consultant reports? Hugh On 3/30/2020 3:56 PM, Maxwell Baker wrote: Hi Jeff, Thank you for your comment, it will be considered by City staff and entered into the project file. You are now a Party of Record on the project and will be notified when staff reports are issued as well as of any public hearings before the Planning Commission and/or City Council. Best, Maxwell Baker I Senior Planner Department of Community Development I City of Tukwila 6300 Southcenter Blvd, Suite 100 I Tukwila, WA 98188 Max.Baker@Tukwilawa.gov 1206.431.3683 Tukwila: The City of opportunity, the community of choice. CAUTION: This email originated from outside the City of Tukwila network. Please DO NOT open attachments or click links from an unknown or suspicious origin. CAUTION: This email originated from outside the City of Tukwila network. Please DO NOT open attachments or click links from an unknown or suspicious origin. 2 191 https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAQkAGFhNDMxNzU5L... Opposition to L19-0123 jeff.thoelke@gmail.com <jeff.thoelke@gmail.com> Mon 3/30/2020 3:32 PM To: Maxwell Baker <Max.Baker@TukwilaWA.gov> March 30, 2020 Mr. Max Baker City of Tukwila Project Planner Regarding File #: L19-0123 Mr. Baker, I am a long time resident of Tukwila, having lived at my current residence for 28 years. My house is located at 14915 62nd Ave S, Tukwila WA 98168, which is across the street from the 4 % acre property formerly owned by Patricia Hopper and is the subject of the rezoning proposal from low -density - residential to medium -density -residential. I knew Pat Hopper and spoke with her often about her plans for her undeveloped property. She purposely held on to it to prevent it from being rezoned and overcrowded. I am adamantly opposed to this rezoning proposal. I understand why more families would want move into this neighborhood, as it is relatively isolated from the hustle and bustle of the many commercial enterprises surrounding it. But a person only has to turn the corner from South 151st Street onto 65th Avenue South to see why medium density housing is undesirable. Tenants of the existing medium density housing crowd 65th Avenue South with parked cars 24 hours a day, every day of the year. Those tenants apparently lack any pride in the community because litter is constantly thrown on the street and sidewalks by the owners of those cars. But, even if 65th Ave S wasn't already an eye -sore, the streets are often not safe for pedestrians to walk. My house butts up against Tukwila Elementary School and I am frequently appalled at the speed and quantity of cars that pass my house each day. I am not exaggerating when I say cars frequently wiz by my house at over 40 miles -per -hour, through the school zone. Many of these cars likely don't belong to residents of this neighborhood, but rather are taking a shortcut from Interurban Avenue to Southcenter. Regardless of the results of this rezoning effort, 62nd Avenue South needs to have permanent stop signs at the corner of South 149th Street. A traffic light needs to be installed at the corner of Southcenter Boulevard and 65th Avenue South. Increased traffic on Southcenter Boulevard frequently makes it difficult to exit from 65th Avenue South. Considering the new fire station being built near that intersection and the crosswalk feeding the bus stops at the intersection, Tukwila ought to be proactive and put a stoplight at the intersection. Additional homes in this neighborhood is going to exacerbate this problem. Thank you for your consideration, Jeff Thoelke 192 1 of 2 3/30/2020, 3:34 PM https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAQkAGFhNDMxNzU5L... 206-579-3254 CAUTION: This email originated from outside the City of Tukwila network. Please DO NOT open attachments or click links from an unknown or suspicious origin. 193 3/30/2020, 3:34 PM Breyden Jager From: Jesboneb <jesboneb@yahoo.com> Sent: Tuesday, February 21, 2023 4:43 PM To: Breyden Jager Subject: Rezone 6250 S 151st St, Parcel #3597000400 File #s: L19-0123 comment "Of all man's works of art, a cathedral is greatest. A vast and majestic tree is greater than that." — Henry Ward Beecher I have lived for about 25 years in a home on a heavily wooded lot nearly adjacent to the SW corner of the Hopper tract. I place great value on the tree canopy that extends through our neighborhood and the many species of birds that inhabit and frequent it. I know that building any housing on the Hopper tract will involve cutting some trees, and I will not mourn the loss of holly or cottonwoods, but am disturbed that the City Council might approve a change in the Comprehensive Plan and zoning that could lead to that property being virtually clearcut, including towering conifers and maples. I can see that some of them have a lot of English Ivy, but I know from experience in our own back yard (and the City's work in Tukwila Park), that ivy can be cut and uprooted; it is not a reason to cut the tree. The August 2022 letter to Ms. Eklund says that within the "limits of the Tree retention ordinance,a numbers [sic] of existing trees will be removed." I fear that greatly understates the applicant's intent and the impact of a rezone. The site is heavily wooded, with about 55 trees per acre, many of which are "Exceptional Trees." The SEPA checklist says in places that about 75% of the site would be cleared, but at the February 15 public meeting (to which I phoned in) it was clear that the developer intended to clear the entire site except for the extreme slope in the NE corner, and the DCD staffer did not suggest that any ordinance would prevent that; rather I got the impression that even trees in other steep slope areas could be cut with a compensating payment, which would not be required for the rest. The current site plan shows a landscape buffer and setbacks, but does not show where any trees would be preserved, and from the "Existing Conditions" plan recently submitted it appears that many are clustered where buildings are intended according to the site plan, or where a large proposed detention facility would require a treeless cover. In addition, the intent of the applicant to conduct grading to change the natural direction of drainage, expressed at the meeting, may be inconsistent with keeping trees even where they would not conflict with buildings or infrastructure. The applicant asserts that certain impacts, particularly on trees, would be similar to development under LDR zoning. So far as I know, that assertion is not supported by analysis or any expert opinion. It is not consistent with a statement I heard at the meeting. that the same regulations as for LDR would not apply. Even if that is wrong — if the terms of TMC Ch. 18.54 would be applied to the same extent as under LDR -- logically it seems the impact on canopy would be greater under MDR. If the site were subdivided under LDR, even assuming addition of interior streets rather than having homes only on lots abutting the existing 62nd Ave S and S 151st, I believe the lower limits on lot coverage and the lower density would provide more ability to condition the layout so as to fulfill the City policy and requirement to preserve Exceptional Trees when possible, and with less impervious surface the scale of any stormwater detention facility would be reduced. While I support the idea of allowing more affordable and energy efficient housing types, I think any change to rules to allow townhomes should be designed to result in less loss of tree canopy and less impervious surface than single-family development, not to enable or encourage more of these impacts. So I must oppose this rezone proposal, at least without very strict conditions to protect the tree canopy. i 194 Jessica Bonebright 206-679-4976 CAUTION: This email originated from outside the City of Tukwila network. Please DO NOT open attachments or click links from an unknown or suspicious origin. 2 195 f , - — ,1;•6". . ..122‘e's 7."-- • 1.- 1171:1/,,:.4r 4, 1 96 1 97 https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAQkAGFhNDMxNzU5L... Re: Re -zoning of 6250 S 151st (File# L19-0123 Maxwell Baker <Max.Baker@TukwilaWA.gov> Mon 3/30/2020 10:34 AM To: MICHAEL J. MOORE <hummingbirdking@msn.com>; Nancy Eklund <Nancy.Eklund@TukwilaWA.gov> Hi Michael, Thank you for your comment. You are now a Party of Record on the project and will be notified when staff reports are issued as well as of any public hearings before the Planning Commission and/or City Council. To answer some of the questions that I have answers for at this time: • The City Public Works Department is reviewing the proposed layout of the project and is working to ensure that it meets the requirements of the Infrastructure Design Manual, as well as the ability for the project to accommodate any overflow parking onsite vs. on City streets. • The applicant's proposed townhomes will be sold individually, meaning that they will be purchased by individuals and not rented out by one entity. They have been described as being target towards middle -income earners. • The Tukwila School District has been notified of the proposed rezone and the potential increase in students. No comments have been received from them at this time. Additionally, Nancy Eklund, Senior Planner, will be taking over for meas the project manager for the City moving forward, she is cc'ed on this email. Any additional questions should be directed to her. Best, Maxwell Baker I Senior Planner Department of Community Development I City of Tukwila 6300 Southcenter Blvd, Suite 100 I Tukwila, WA 98188 Max.Baker@Tukwilawa.gov 1206.431.3683 Tukwila: The City of opportunity, the community of choice. From: MICHAEL J. MOORE <hummingbirdking@msn.com> Sent: Sunday, March 29, 2020 12:46 PM To: Maxwell Baker <Max.Baker@TukwilaWA.gov> Subject: Fw: Re -zoning of 6250 S 151st (File# L19-0123 Subject: Re -zoning of 6250 S 151st (File# L19-0123 To whom it may Concern I moved into my home over sixteen years ago and one of the reason I moved here is that it is a very quite community of well kept single family homes and I and my neighbors like it that way. I didn't 198 1 of 2 3/30/2020, 10:35 AM https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAQkAGFhNDMxNzU5L... move here with the indentation of the city to rezone mine and my neighbors community to high density housing and change our quality of life here on the hill. If you allow the almost 40 homes that you are proposing that could add up to an additional 100 cars into the neighborhood. The traffic volume is already high enough with vehicles using the hill as a shortcut to the mall and this will just add to it . Then there is the parking issue, will parking be pushed out on to S 151st St or on 62nd Ave S which in my opinion would be an eyesore as it is on 65th Ave S. south of 151st. The town homes that you are proposing will they be high end which would hopefully keep it owner occupied as I would not want it to become a bunch of rentals which would probably start to become rundown looking which in turn would hurt the value of mine and my neighbors property. I did not buy my house to live in a crappy looking neighborhood. I like the that there is a pride ownership here. Next there will more an likely be family's with grade school kids which would attend Tukwila Elementary and will they have the capacity to absorb those children at this facility already as it already has close to 540 kids attending there now. So would there be room to add another 50 to 80 children or more into this school? I'm not oppose to development of the property but the area needs to stay zoned low to medium residential because if we let this go through then we have opened up Pandora's Box and more and more high density housing will get approved and there will be more and more traffic which in turn will continue to destroy the peace and tranquility here on the Old Hill. Please listen to your constituents and preserve our way of life here in our neighborhood. PLEASE DO NOT CHANGE THE ZONING, PLEASE DO NOT APPROVE THIS PLAN AND PLEASR DON'T RUIN MY NEIGHBORHOOD Thank you for you time Michael J. Moore Jacqueline L Spicer Malena C-Moore 206-794-2438 5936 S 149th St CAUTION: This email originated from outside the City of Tukwila network. Please DO NOT open attachments or click links from an unknown or suspicious origin. 199 3/30/2020, 10:35 AM https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAQkAGFhNDMxNzUSL... Re: L19-0123 Maxwell Baker <Max.Baker@TukwilaWA.gov> Fri 3/27/2020 9:40 AM To: Miles Mitchell <tfc@drmilesdc.com> B 3 attachments (4 MB) L19-0123 Hopper Townhome Comp Plan.pdf; L19-0123 Hopper Townhome Site Plan - No Notes.pdf; E19-0013 Hopper Townhome SEPA.pdf; Hi Miles, Thank you for your email. I've attached copies of the application materials to this email. I have also cc'ed Nancy Eklund, the new project contact for the City moving forward; I will be taking leave starting next week and will no longer be working on the project. Any future questions you may have should be directed to her. Just to clarify, the rezone theoretically could allow for 64 townhome lots on the site based solely on square footage; the minimum square footage for a townhome lot in the proposed MDR zone is 3,000 square feet and the current property is 193,705 sf; divided this equals 64 3,000 sf lots. However, the applicant is not proposing to subdivide the property into that many lots/units, and is instead proposing 38 dwellings (see attached site plan for proposal). It should be noted that the proposed site plan is only a proposal at this point and may change once it is officially submitted to the City, which could occur only after a successfully approved rezone. Thank you again for your email, please keep an eye out for future notices regarding public hearings for the project. Maxwell Baker I Senior Planner Department of Community Development I City of Tukwila 6300 Southcenter Blvd, Suite 100 I Tukwila, WA 98188 Max.Baker@Tukwilawa.gov 1206.431.3683 Tukwila: The City of opportunity, the community of choice. From: Miles Mitchell <tfc@drmilesdc.com> Sent: Thursday, March 26, 2020 3:17 PM To: Maxwell Baker <Max.Baker@TukwilaWA.gov> Subject: L19-0123 Hi Max, Jennifer and I are against up to 65 units in this area. I think 30 would be max so we are against the zoning change. Thanks, Miles & Jennifer Mitchell CAUTION: This email originated from outside the City of Tukwila network. Please DO NOT open 200 1 of 2 3/27/2020, 9:40 AM https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAQkAGFhNDMxNzU5L... attachments or click links from an unknown or suspicious origin. 201 3/27/2020, 9:40 AM Breyden Jager From: Nicholas Anderson <nanderson03@gmail.com> Sent: Saturday, February 4, 2023 4:43 PM To: Breyden Jager Subject: Comments for Parcel# 3597000400 Hi Breyden, I received a postcard soliciting comments on the proposed rezoning of this lot at 6250 S 151 st St. from LDR to MDR. I am a current owner/resident at Sunwood Condominiums nearby, and walk by this property frequently. Rezoning to medium density residential is fine with me; however, I would like to see the mature conifers on the property preserved if possible. These trees provide natural services including habitat, hillside retention, and are aesthetically valuable to an urban neighborhood. Perhaps denser building in the already cleared areas of this lot would allow for some of these mature trees and understory to remain intact. Having a wooded area on the development with links to existing trails would make the developed property more desirable to prospective buyers, and it would allow a denser development to better fit in with the neighborhood. Sunwood condominiums has this sort of aesthetic with MDR nestled into mature conifers. It's great to live here! Those are my 2 cents. Thanks for listening. Nick Anderson Resident/owner, Sunwood Condominiums. CAUTION: This email originated from outside the City of Tukwila network. Please DO NOT open attachments or click links from an unknown or suspicious origin. 1 202 Breyden Jager From: Nick Webb <webbn@acm.org> Sent: Friday, February 3, 2023 1:52 PM To: Breyden Jager Subject: L19-0123 & E19-0013 [Was: PL19-0099 Comment] Hi Breyden, I'm forwarding my prior 2020 comments on this parcel given the upcoming meeting. My stance is the same, I support this more dense development that is badly needed in our area. Schneider Homes also has a stellar reputation for building quality multifamily homes. Thanks, Nick 6247 S 153rd St. Forwarded message From: Nick Webb <webbn@acm.org> Date: Mon, Mar 16, 2020 at 8:39 AM Subject: PL19-0099 Comment To: <Max.Baker@tukwilawa.gov> Hi Max, I'd like to convey my support for adding additional housing in Tukwila, including the development at 6250 S 151st St, very near my own condo. The Seattle area continues to need more and more housing, especially lower end housing, and thus I applaud this development. My family, as a specific example, would like to move from a condo into a larger townhome or a single family home, but the selection in our area is quite constricted and prices are high, thus I'm in favor of adding more supply. Sincerely, Nicholas Webb 15165 Sunwood Blvd CC32, Tukwila, WA 98188 CAUTION: This email originated from outside the City of Tukwila network. Please DO NOT open attachments or click links from an unknown or suspicious origin. i 203 Breyden Jager From: Nick Webb <webbn@acm.org> Sent: Monday, October 23, 2023 8:35 PM To: Breyden Jager Subject: L22-0137 / E23-0005 Hi Breyden, As a Tukwila resident, I'd like to voice my approval of increases in densities within the city to provide more housing in general and for L22-0137 specifically. Sincerely, Nick Webb 6247 S 153rd St Tukwila, WA 98188 Nick Webb C: 206.755.2150 webbn@acm.org CAUTION: This email originated from outside the City of Tukwila network. Please DO NOT open attachments or click links from an unknown or suspicious origin. 1 204 https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAQkAGFhNDMxNzU5L... PL19-0099 Comment Nick Webb <webbn@acm.org> Mon 3/16/2020 8:40 AM To: Maxwell Baker <Max.Baker@TukwilaWA.gov> Hi Max, I'd like to convey my support for adding additional housing in Tukwila, including the development at 6250 S 151st St, very near my own condo. The Seattle area continues to need more and more housing, especially lower end housing, and thus I applaud this development. My family, as a specific example, would like to move from a condo into a larger townhome or a single family home, but the selection in our area is quite constricted and prices are high, thus I'm in favor of adding more supply. Sincerely, Nicholas Webb 15165 Sunwood Blvd CC32, Tukwila, WA 98188 CAUTION: This email originated from outside the City of Tukwila network. Please DO NOT open attachments or click links from an unknown or suspicious origin. 205 3/17/2020, 2:25 PM https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAQkAGFhNDMxNzU5L... Re: Hopper Townhomes Maxwell Baker <Max.Baker@TukwilaWA.gov> Fri 3/27/2020 9:08 AM To: PATRICIA PERRY <patperry@comcast.net> Cc: Hans Korve <hans@dmp-inc.us>; Nancy Eklund <Nancy.Eklund@TukwilaWA.gov> Jj 3 attachments (4 MB) L19-0123 Hopper Townhome Site Plan - No Notes.pdf; E19-0013 Hopper Townhome SEPA.pdf; L19-0123 Hopper Townhome Comp Plan.pdf; Hi Patricia, Thank you for your email. I've attached copies of the application materials to this email. I've also cc'ed Hans Korve, the project applicant, on this email for you to contact regarding your plot of land adjacent to the project site. Hopefully the two of you can connect regarding the proposal. I have also cc'ed Nancy Eklund, the new project contact for the City moving forward; I will be taking leave starting next week and will no longer be working on the project. Any future questions you may have should be directed to her. Thank you again for your email. Best, Maxwell Baker I Senior Planner Department of Community Development I City of Tukwila 6300 Southcenter Blvd, Suite 100 I Tukwila, WA 98188 Max.Baker@Tukwilawa.gov 1206.431.3683 Tukwila: The City of opportunity, the community of choice. From: PATRICIA PERRY <patperry@comcast.net> Sent: Thursday, March 26, 2020 4:29 PM To: Maxwell Baker <Max.Baker@TukwilaWA.gov> Subject: Hopper Townhomes HI Max, I would like to view the application for the Hopper Townhomes rezone. I actually own the driveway , yes just the driveway, between the property of 6250 S 151st and 14920 65th Ave S. It goes to 6230 144th place south. Im trying to figure out what to do with the driveway.... Perhaps the townhomes could use it or the city or the people that it actually serves? Do you have any thoughts. I think townhomes will be good there, hopefully preserving the wet area in the properties. Again, I would like to see the full application 206 1 of 2 3/27/2020, 9:43 AM https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAQkAGFhNDMxNzU5L... Thanks Patricia Perry CAUTION: This email originated from outside the City of Tukwila network. Please DO NOT open attachments or click links from an unknown or suspicious origin. 207 3/27/2020, 9:43 AM Breyden Jager From: Minnie Dhaliwal Sent: Monday, July 13, 2020 5:21 PM To: Laurel Humphrey; Maxwell Baker; Lynn Miranda; Nancy Eklund Cc: Jack Pace Subject: Re: Proposed rezone of property at 6250 S 151st St Hi Laurel, This matter is a quasi-judicial matter so City Council members cannot discuss it outside of the hearing. Public comments should be directed to staff (Nancy Eklund is the planner working on this project). This item was tentatively scheduled for Aug 17th, but it is likely going to get postponed to Sept. Also, I think Councilmember Kruller had made a comment at one City Council meeting that community members had desired an in -person hearing for this project. It is not clear if we could have in -person hearing in Sept. Minnie From: Laurel Humphrey <Laurel.Humphrey@TukwilaWA.gov> Sent: Monday, July 13, 2020 5:05 PM To: Minnie Dhaliwal<Minnie.Dhaliwal@TukwilaWA.gov>; Maxwell Baker <Max.Baker@TukwilaWA.gov>; Lynn Miranda <Lynn.Miranda@TukwilaWA.gov> Subject: FW: Proposed rezone of property at 6250 S 151st St Hi all, can you remind me of the timeline on this project and any further public hearings? Thanks, Laurel From: Peggy McCarthy <MCCARTHYJP@msn.com> Sent: Monday, July 13, 2020 5:02 PM To: CityCouncil <CityCouncil@TukwilaWA.gov>; Allan Ekberg <Allan.Ekberg@TukwilaWA.gov> Subject: Proposed rezone of property at 6250 S 151st St I stand in opposition of the proposed rezone of the property at 6250 S 151st St 98168 from low -density residential, LDR, to medium density residential, MDR. The owner of this 4.45 acre property, purchased in March 2020, has asked for a rezone so that up to 65 units of townhomes can be built on the property. Under the existing LDR zoning, approximately 30 single family homes could be built. The increased density created by MDR zoning and up to 65 new townhomes would add to the existing traffic, street parking and safety issues. Currently, even with the existing number of residents, 65th Ave S gets backed up with vehicles trying to turn left onto Southcenter Boulevard, especially at peak travel times. Because of insufficient parking at the multifamily complexes along 65th Ave S, the street is continuously lined with parked cars creating a hazard as people enter and exit those vehicles. The proposed up -zone site is located just a block or two from Tukwila Elementary school. Traffic congestion already occurs when students are being dropped off or picked up from school. The route i 208 along 151st is used by school children to walk to the elementary school as well as by other pedestrians and bicyclists. Adding up to 65 new households to this area would increase traffic congestion and possibly street parking and would reduce safety for school children and other pedestrians. The housing element of the comprehensive plan was thoroughly vetted by the City Council over a two-year period from March 2013 through adoption in the spring of 2015. Community input was gathered through open houses and public comment and each section of the plan was reviewed and discussed. The plan addressed housing density and identified the Tukwila Urban Center, Tukwila International Boulevard and Tukwila South as three areas targeted for multifamily housing and increased density. This density has been and continues to be realized with at least three residential complexes developed in the Southcenter area, Tukwila Village on the boulevard and possibly apartment housing in Tukwila South. Rather than respond to the desire of a single property owner, the in-depth work of the Council on the comprehensive plan should be honored and the current low density residential zoning retained. At the March 2020 public meeting on this subject, the developer said the reason for requesting the zoning change is to increase their return on investment. As stated by one resident, "We believe the role of government is to protect the interest of all the people that it serves, not just those who stand to gain from maximizing their profit margin from a development such as this". Lastly, one of the stated goals of the comprehensive plan is to preserve neighborhoods. Adding this level of density would change the character of the neighborhood - forever. Please reject the request for a zoning change on this property. Thank you, Peggy McCarthy CAUTION: This email originated from outside the City of Tukwila network. Please DO NOT open attachments or click links from an unknown or suspicious origin. 2 209 Nancy Eklund From: Maxwell Baker Sent: Tuesday, May 5, 2020 2:32 PM To: Nancy Eklund Subject: Fw: hopper townhouses E19-0013 FYI, may need a reply. Maxwell Baker I Senior Planner Department of Community Development I City of Tukwila 6300 Southcenter Blvd, Suite 100 I Tukwila, WA 98188 Max.Baker@Tukwilawa.gov 1206.431.3683 Tukwila: The City of opportunity, the community of choice. From: rcwieser@comcast.net <rcwieser@comcast.net> Sent: Tuesday, May 5, 2020 1:03 PM To: Maxwell Baker <Max.Baker@TukwilaWA.gov> Cc: karenlenise@comcast.net <karenlenise@comcast.net>; CityCouncil <CityCouncil@TukwilaWA.gov> Subject: hopper townhouses E19-0013 Mr. Baker: Regarding public comments for project #E19-0013, L19-0123, the Hopper Townhouses; though the comment period expired March 30, 2020, may I offer a couple of observations? As a proponent of the "New Urbanism," I welcome Hopper Townhouses to our neighborhood. The density of townhouses rather than the sprawl that has defined Tukwila is refreshing. As townhouses are more affordable it will encourage economic and ethnic diversity. As a neighborhood resident, I believe it important the design and placement of the homes fits the character of the neighborhood as "Foster Hill" has many early 20' Century homes. Will this development enhance the neighborhood by mirroring design of these legacy homes? Will the design be open and inviting? Will it enhance neighbor interaction? Will it encourage walking, bicycling and space for children to play. I commend the developer for including recreation space. The proposed street design currently posted on the MUP sign does not address a question regarding placement of homes. It is unclear if front door access to those homes bordering S 151sY St and 62"d Ave South will be from those streets. Or will the back of the houses be facing 151' and 62'. If the latter, there is strong probability a tall privacy fence will border those streets. Or, the homes will be defined by a garage/driveway sticking out like a pig snout. Privacy fences are a safety concern. Tukwila School is just one block away. Many children walk along those streets. Check out existing homes on 151st St. with tall fences. Imagine the same thing just across the street. Privacy fences on both sides can prove dangerous to a child's safety. Danger from cars, from bullies, and yes, danger from abduction. Privacy fences prevent homeowners from "keeping an eye on the street." i 210 Privacy fences, especially close to sidewalks, detract from the aesthetics of the neighborhood. And impact resale values. Will existing sidewalks that border the street remain? A Mother remarked she will never walk along such streets with Baby in stroller. "Some car can be flying down the street, jump the curb and smack into us." Just a 2' to 3' buffer with low plantings between sidewalk and street can mitigate that. Regarding the storm pond, no doubt a fence will be required. What sort of landscaping is required to soften the barrier and provide wildlife habitat? Thank you for reading this letter and for your service to the City of Tukwila. A copy of this letter is forwarded to City Council and Karen Simmons as she on Planning Commission and is neighbor. Richard McLeland-Wieser 14234 58th Avenue South Tukwila, Washington 98168 206-229-6123 CAUTION: This email originated from outside the City of Tukwila network. Please DO NOT open attachments or click links from an unknown or suspicious origin. 2 211 https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAQkAGFhNDMxNzU5L... Re: Opposition Maxwell Baker <Max.Baker@TukwilaWA.gov> Mon 3/30/2020 9:58 AM To: kkoma yemo <morningscent12@Outlook.com> Hi Saehee, Thank you for your comment. You are now a Party of Record on the project and will be notified when staff reports are issued as well as of any public hearings before the Planning Commission and/or City Council. Please let me know if you have any questions in the meantime. Maxwell Baker I Senior Planner Department of Community Development I City of Tukwila 6300 Southcenter Blvd, Suite 100 I Tukwila, WA 98188 Max.Baker@Tukwilawa.gov 1206.431.3683 Tukwila: The City of opportunity, the community of choice. From: kkoma yemo <morningscent12@Outlook.com> Sent: Sunday, March 29, 2020 11:06 AM To: Maxwell Baker <Max.Baker@TukwilaWA.gov> Subject: Opposition Max Baker My name is Saehee Yim and I'm residing at 6380 S. 151st PI. Tukwila 98188 for 20yrs. This mail for sending my voice to oppose the Re -Zoning of 6250 S 151stStreet, the file number L19-0123 (Comp Plan/Zoning Amend). Here I'm submitting my voice to strongly oppose the plan. Sincerely Saehee Ymi CAUTION: This email originated from outside the City of Tukwila network. Please DO NOT open attachments or click links from an unknown or suspicious origin. 212 1 of 1 3/30/2020, 9:58 AM Breyden Jager From: Talia Long <long.talia@yahoo.com> Sent: Monday, February 13, 2023 11:50 AM To: Breyden Jager Subject: Questions/Concerns - L19-0123 Rezone (6250 S 151st St) - Hopper Townhomes Greetings Mr. Jager: We are the owners and residents of a property in the culdesac across S. 151st Place from the development proposed by Schneider Homes, Inc. on parcel #3597000400. First, we are pleased that Schneider Homes is the owner and developer of the proposed project. Our culdesac is a vintage 1980s Schneider Homes development. We appreciate the quality and attention to detail that Schneider put into our development, and we hope that Schneider will do the same for the proposed development. However, we have the following concerns: 1. A little less than three years ago we added our signatures to a letter from our culdesac neighbors opposing the rezoning of the subject parcel from low to mid density. We continue to oppose this rezoning. The subject parcel is approximately the same size as the cumulative size of the 14 parcels making up our culdesac, yet the proposal calls for 38 townhomes! Our culdesac and the other properties immediately west and north of parcel #3597000400 are all single-family dwellings. The density proposed for this project significantly changes the nature of our neighborhood. 2. A project of this size will significantly increase the traffic on the adjacent streets. Thirty-eight townhomes will add huge volume of resident, visitor, service, and delivery vehicles entering and exiting neighboring streets and pouring forth on Southcenter Blvd. This was a burden recognized in our comments nearly three years ago and is even more of a concern now that the new, enlarged fire station has opened nearby and there has been other residential development adjacent to the fire station. Where will all these vehicles enter and exit the project? Have there been provisions for adding traffic and pedestrian controls in the immediate neighborhood as well as adding a traffic signal, including a left turn signal, on Southcenter Blvd.? The two -right angle (blind) turns at either end of S.151 st Place in front of our culdesac will only become more dangerous with the addition of so many more vehicles and people. Will parking be prohibited on these streets? If parking is allowed on S. 151st Place, our visibility will likely be severely limited when exiting the culdesac. 3. The horrible fire that took three lives and destroyed the apartment building adjacent to the proposed project site highlighted the problem of accessing and fighting a fire on the bluff overlooking Interurban Avenue. Has emergency fire, medical, police access to the eastern most portion of the project been sufficiently and safely addressed? 4. We understand that development necessitates removal of some vegetation and tree canopy. However, hopefully huge heritage trees will be saved, and project landscaping will provide for large scale plantings to help mitigate the loss of wildlife habitat and provide screening and additional landscaping will provide maximum erosion control. Sincerely, Talia and B.J. Long, Jr. P.E. Nelson 1 213 6241 S. 151st PI. CAUTION: This email originated from outside the City of Tukwila network. Please DO NOT open attachments or click links from an unknown or suspicious origin. 2 214 Nancy Eklund From: Maxwell Baker Sent: Monday, March 30, 2020 4:58 PM To: Travis Boyd Cc: Nancy Eklund Subject: Re: Public Comments on L19-0123: Re -Zoning Proposal for 6250 S 151st St Hi Travis, Thank you for your comment, it will be considered by City staff and entered into the project file. You are now a Party of Record on the project and will be notified when staff reports are issued as well as of any public hearings before the Planning Commission and/or City Council. Maxwell Baker I Senior Planner Department of Community Development I City of Tukwila 6300 Southcenter Blvd, Suite 100 I Tukwila, WA 98188 Max.Baker@Tukwilawa.gov 1206.431.3683 Tukwila: The City of opportunity, the community of choice. From: Travis Boyd <travisboyd2018@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, March 30, 2020 4:53 PM To: Maxwell Baker <Max.Baker@TukwilaWA.gov> Subject: Public Comments on L19-0123: Re -Zoning Proposal for 6250 S 151st St Travis Boyd / Deb Sorensen 6221 S 151 st P1 Tukwila, WA 98188 (206) 241-3971 travisboyd2018@gmail.com 30 March 2020 City of Tukwila Dept. of Community Development 6300 Southcenter Blvd., Suite 100 Tukwila, WA 98188 Max Baker City Project Planner RE: File: E19-0013 (SEPA), L19-0123 (Comp Plan, Zoning Amend) Applicant: Hans Korve, DMP, Inc. Property Owner: Patricia Hopper 1 215 Hopper Townhomes Project PL-19-0099 Project Location: 6250 S 151St St Mr. Baker, The recent proposed change in zoning from Low Density Residential to Moderate Density Residential for the property located at 6250 S 151 St St is concerning to us as residents of the cul de sac on S 151 St Pl. The proposed change to MDR would include a change from up to 30 single-family homes to up to 65 multi -family townhomes being built. We understand the need for housing in the greater Seattle area and are not opposed to the development of the property into an LDR area. However, we are opposed to the proposed change to MDR for a number of reasons. Traffic is already an issue in the immediate area. Between Tukwila Elementary, Southcenter Boulevard, I-5 and I-405, the Southcenter Mall, City Hall, and soon the new fire station 52 and Tukwila FD headquarters, the area simply cannot handle the major increase in traffic that the change to MDR will create. With the condos and apartments on 65th Ave S already creating traffic and parking problems in the area, it will be a struggle to accommodate the traffic created by the addition of 30 new homes, let alone 65. Combine all this with the busy morning and afternoon work traffic, construction, emergency vehicle use, a school day at the elementary school, and add in the absence of traffic lights and you've pushed an already hectic commute to an unsafe capacity. The fact of the matter is that this area cannot handle the major increase in traffic that the proposed change to MDR will generate. Another concern of ours is the environmental impact this proposed development will have. The trees on the property should be assessed for viability. Any time there is a storm in the area, you are almost guaranteed to have one of those trees fall. The earth movement involved in the construction process will only add to this problem. How about the increase in water usage, sewer, run-off, and waste? What effect will this have on the surrounding area? It is our belief that it will take a great deal of work to accommodate 30 new homes, let alone 65. Recreation space is already at a premium in this area as the lone park, Tukwila Park, currently has a full or near -full parking lot and constant use. How would the city respond to the need for increased recreation space? We have not seen or heard anything regarding an environmental impact report, which is concerning to say the least. Lastly, just some other miscellaneous concerns we have. The plans we've seen have not included overflow parking (something that is already an issue in the area). What will be done to account for the increase in noise in the neighborhood? With the fire station moving down the hill and conceivably responding to more calls with the addition of more homes, how can the city justify the change to MDR and the massive increase in traffic with no new road accommodations? We ask that the Schneider Homes proposal to re -zone the area from Low Density Residential to Moderate Density Residential be denied. We are supportive of building a small number of 2 216 single-family homes on the property but to change the zoning to MDR and build up to 65 townhomes would create a plethora of problems in an area that was not designed for and is not capable of housing that many residents. Sincerely, Travis Boyd Deb Sorensen L CAUTION: This email originated from outside the City of Tukwila network. Please DO NOT open attachments or click links from an unknown or suspicious origin. 3 217 William James/Clotilde Molina 14920 62nd Avenue South Tukwila, WA 98168 (206) 375-1323 "90E2ok?d,nes@"omc , t?®ne% (206) 383-2536 th© 6 lo1@c+i,mc 3s ' n % March 17, 2020 City of Tubwila Department of Community Development 6300 Southcenter Boulevard., Suite 100 Tubwila, Washington 98188 Max Baber/Department of Community Development (206) 431-3683 or Mcm,ZeL av@ has �r3a9oloc)ou RE: File #: E19-0013 (SEPA), L19-0123 (Comp Plan, Zoning Amend) Applicant: Hans Korve, DMP, Inc. Property Owner: Patricia Hopper Hopper Townhomes Project PL-19-0099 Project Location: 6250 South 151st Street, Rezone from LDR to MDR. Develop a Maximum of 65 Townhomes. Dear Mr. Baber: Recently, we received a notice regarding a proposed change in zoning from Low Density Residential to Moderate Density Residential for the area to the immediate south of our property, on which we have resided for twenty years. This change proposes multi -family dwelling units — specifically 65— townhomes, instead of what is currently in place in our neighborhood — single family homes. We are very concerned about what this change could mean for our neighborhood and we are opposed to this proposal. 1 218 First, is the issue of increased vehicular traffic. 62nd Avenue South currently has as much traffic as it can bear, especially during school days when parents drop-off and pick up their children from school. There are also a multitude of cars using our street to come from our nearby freeways, South Center, Costco, and other shopping and restaurant areas to their homes in our surrounding neighborhoods. In addition, we have a fire station close by that uses this street to respond to calls. Adding 65 more housing units would add considerably more traffic to this immediate neighborhood and would pose a risk to the number of children and parents walking to/from school, residents walking to/from the bus stop on Southcenter Parkway, recreational and dog walkers, as well as, bike riders. This neighborhood was not designed nor can it tolerate this kind of increase in traffic. Second, we have heard nothing about an environmental impact statement. Our initial questions include: 1) how will 65 more housing units impact the amount of water usage — water run-off, sewer, etc.? 2) what will the impact of approximately 250 more people and automobiles have on our air quality? 3) how can our very small, lovely little Tukwila Park tolerate the level of ensuing overuse anticipated? 4) Assuming that at least some/most households will have a pet, how will the increase of pet waste and pet dander impact our land areas as well as our wild life — cats kill an enormous number of birds every single day and careless, inconsiderate dog owners leave piles of dog poop in our yard as well as on our neighbors' yards, let alone the amount of dog and cat urine that will naturally go into ground water. Finally, this neighborhood has been a relatively peaceful, quiet neighborhood with relatively low crime. We are very concerned that with the influx of so many more people, the quality of our neighborhood will be changed forever. We ask that this proposal be denied and that, instead, Schneider Homes build a small number of single-family homes, which is what we understood would originally happen to this property when it was sold. Sincerely, ZUilP,eam PaHxed &atiide 712oeuza cc: Mayor Ekberg, Tukwila City Council 2 219 March 30, 2020 David & Layla Tomlinson 6360 S 151st PI Tukwila, WA 98188 Tukwila City Council 6200 Southcenter Blvd Tukwila, WA 98188 Members of the Tukwila City Council, t 1 L •. Please find attached 17 letters of opposition to the rezone of the property located at 6250 S 161st Street (File Us: L19-0123 & E19-0013). These letters are signed by 36 individuals who currently reside in the immediate vicinity of the property and were collected in accordance with the social distancing guidelines currently in place. We believe we could have collected even more signatures during normal times. We have provided a map on the following page indicating the location of the property in question (yellow), as well as the location of those opposed to the proposed rezone (red markers). We hope you will hear the voices of those who will be most significantly impacted by this proposed measure and vote against it. We thank you for your time and consideration in this matter. Respectfully, David Tomlinson Layla Tomlinson 220 1 9 9 9 9 9 9 999 9 9 Go gfc ' • 9 9 2 221 Subject: Opposition to Proposed Re -zoning of 6250 S 151st Street (File# L19-0123) Esteemed Members of the Tukwila City Council, My name is (our names are): [� �t ra f� o gal-ioAt 06 and I (we) reside at: \ 419r1 (42 2"- kvt,c As a Tukwila resident who lives near the property at 6250 S 151st Street, I am strongly opposed to the re -zoning of this land from low to medium density residential. I am firmly of the belief that retaining the current zoning of low density residential would best preserve the health, livability and natural beauty of the neighborhood in which I live. I urge you to listen to the voices of your constituents who would be most directly affected by this proposed measure and vote against it. I greatly appreciate your time and consideration regarding this matter. Signed: �� 1W\ Date: ( 4 f) U __ Signed: `G1u ��u Date: 43 / Z Signed:Date: Signed: Date: 222 Subject: Opposition to Proposed Re -zoning of 6250 S 151st Street (File# L19-0123) Esteemed Members of the Tukwila City Council, My name is (our names are): 141)4Wt11/) C4.00 A/10 (414, and l(we) reside at: t ‘\--<3.7A) 24') M/6- As a Tukwila resident who lives near the property at 6250 S 151st Street, I am strongly opposed to the re -zoning of this land from low to medium density residential. I am firmly of the belief that retaining the current zoning of low density residential would best preserve the health. livability and natural beauty of the neighborhood in which I live. I urge you to listen to the voices of your constituents who would be most directly affected by this proposed measure and vote against it. I greatly appreciate your time and consideration regarding this matter. Signed: Signed: Signed: Signed: Date: .1:c3Ct I ;ci Date: z,vi---142z4.2 Date: Date: 223 Subject: Opposition to Proposed Re -zoning of 6250 S 151 st Street (File# L19-0123) Esteemed Members of the Tukwila City Council, My name is (our names are): e SS't C to kn� ; ,e 'Sr) - and I (we) reside at: \Li 9 S) (O 2 Ate. S Tv.1t10. . Il ill 1 i v 0 As a Tukwila resident who lives near the property at 6250 S 151 st Street, I am strongly opposed to the re -zoning of this land from low to medium density residential. I am firmly of the belief that retaining the current zoning of low density residential would best preserve the health, livability and natural beauty of the neighborhood in which I live. I urge you to listen to the voices of your constituents who would be most directly affected by this proposed measure and vote against it. I greatly appreciate your time and consideration regarding this matter. Signed: Date: 3/2-0 Signed: -+ Date: I. -ze Signed: _ Date: Signed: Date: $ 224 Subject: Opposition to Proposed Re -zoning of 6250 S 151st Street (File# L19-0123) Esteemed Members of the Tukwila City Council, My name is (our names are): and I (we) reside at: J 1 / U tio-F-c731 Apo As a Tukwila resident who lives near the property at 6250 S 151 st Street, I am strongly opposed to the re -zoning of this land from low to medium density residential. I am firmly of the belief that retaining the current zoning of low density residential would best preserve the health, livability and natural beauty of the neighborhood in which I live. I urge you to listen to the voices of your constituents who would be most directly affected by this proposed measure and vote against it. I greatly appreciate your time and consideration regarding this matter. Signed: f �(iV Date: , ` 7 z'' Signed: Date: 3 /._, '. Signed: �-�L. Date: -/-)` 7/} C`� v Signed: Date: 225 Subject: Opposition to Proposed Re -zoning of 6250 S 151 st Street (File# L19-0123) Esteemed Members of the Tukwila City Council, My name is (our names are):���-�1�-� 1 i'14.6✓4-k -�,ac.��-__(;�rEcc-- r and I (we) reside at: /4/9 As a Tukwila resident who lives near the property at 6250 S 151 st Street, I am strongly opposed to the re -zoning of this land from low to medium density residential. I am firmly of the belief that retaining the current zoning of low density residential would best preserve the health, livability and natural beauty of the neighbcrhood in which I live. I urge you to listen to the voices of your constituents who would be most directly affected by this proposed measure and vote against it. I greatly appreciate your time and consideration regarding this matter. Signer .. ' Signer ,., Date: Signed: Signed: Date: Date: Date: --7 Lr 226 Subject: Opposition to Proposed Re -zoning of 6250 S 151 st Street (File# L19-0123) Esteemed Members of the Tukwila City Council, My name is (our names are) )61-4/44- and I (we) reside at: As a Tukwila resident who lives near the property at 6250 S 151 st Street, I am strongly opposed to the re -zoning of this land from low to medium density residential. I am firmly of the belief that retaining the current zoning of low density residential would best preserve the health, livability and natural beauty of the neighborhood in which I live. I urge you to listen to the voices of your constituents who would be most directly affected by this proposed measure and vote against it. I greatly appreciate your time and consideration regarding this matter. Sign Signed: Signed: Signed: Date: y. Date:. . Date:77, ate: 227 Subject: Opposition to Proposed Re -zoning of 6250 S 151st Street (File# L19-0123) Esteemed Members of the Tukwila City Council, My name is (our names are): (ieo4`I frL ri€. and I (we) reside at: (%2 0 "--S ( c1 1 L. As a Tukwila resident who lives near the property at 6250 S 151 st Street, I am strongly opposed to the re -zoning of this land from low to medium density residential. I am firmly of the belief that retaining the current zoning of low density residential would best preserve the health, livability and natural beauty of the neighborhood in which I live. I urge you to listen to the voices of your constituents who would be most directly affected by this proposed measure and vote against it. I greatly appreciate your time and consideration regarding this matter. Signed: `- Date: 3 . Z) IZo �a i• r Signed: } Date: 3ia,/ OR-C) Signed: Date: Signed: Date: 228 Subject: Opposition to Proposed Re -zoning of 6250 S 151st Street (File# L19-0123) Esteemed Members of the Tukwila City Council, My name is (our names are): ) E,t) (2 E ti S ,ti v i s to»{D and I (we) reside at: :4- ( ='> , I P As a Tukwila resident who lives near the property at 6250 S 151 st Street, I am strongly opposed to the re -zoning of this land from low to medium density residential. I am firmly of the belief that retaining the current zoning of low density residential would best preserve the health, livability and natural beauty of the neighborhood in which I live. I urge you to listen to the voices of your constituents who would be most directly affected by this proposed measure and vote against it. I greatly appreciate your time and consideration regarding this matter. Signed: ,truse/ri Date: -/: a y/- c Signed: Date: 1 %''( 1 `'0 Signed: Date: Signed: Date: 229 Subject: Opposition to Proposed Re -zoning of 6250 S 151st Street (File# L19-0123) Esteemed Members of the Tukwila City Council, My name is (our names are): VAOV' 1 -6 o)4 Glv i E v and I (we) reside at: (i Tuv3 O ,\ 1b' As a Tukwila resident who lives near the property at 6250 S 151st Street, I am strongly opposed to the re -zoning of this land from low to medium density residential. I am firmly of the belief that retaining the current zoning of low density residential would best preserve the health, livability and natural beauty of the neighborhood in which I live. I urge you to listen to the voices of your constituents who would be most directly affected by this proposed measure and vote against it. I greatly appreciate your time and consideration regarding this matter. Signed: Signed: Signed: Signed: ij l Date: ?J"' ado7 Date: _- 16 - Z-c>2-c) Date: / 2(v / 20 2.0 Date: 230 Subject: Opposition to Proposed Re -zoning of 6250 S 151 st Street (File# L19-0123) Esteemed Members of the Tukwila City Council, My name is (our names are): I1 kir! zf 5 and I (we) reside at: (: C / Sc' / S / J '-9/ As a Tukwila resident who lives near the property at 6250 S 151 st Street, I am strongly opposed to the re -zoning of this land from low to medium density residential. I am firmly of the belief that retaining the current zoning of low density residential would best preserve the health, livability and natural beauty of the neighborhood in which I live. I urge you to listen to the voices of your constituents who would be most directly affected by this proposed measure and vote against it. I greatly appreciate your time and consideration regarding this matter. Signed: - Date: / �✓ ��: Signed:, Date: Signed: Date: Signed: Date: 231 Subject: Opposition to Proposed Re -zoning of 6250 S 151st Street (File# L19-0123) Esteemed Members of the Tukwila City Council, My name is (our names are): and I (we) reside at: 10 3 c-C) As a Tukwila resident who lives near the property at 6250 S 151 st Street, I am strongly opposed to the re -zoning of this land from low to medium density residential. I am firmly of the belief that retaining the current zoning of low density residential would best preserve the health, livability and natural beauty of the neighborhood in which I live. I urge you to listen to the voices of your constituents who would be most directly affected by this proposed measure and vote against it. I greatly appreciate your time and consideration regarding this matter. Signed: g Date: Signed: V "' Date: Signed: Date: Signed: Date: 232 Subject: Opposition to Proposed Re -zoning of 6250 S 151 st Street (File# L19-0123) Esteemed Members of the Tukwila City Council, My name is (our names are): S �,ah� �h� ✓�..�G'.�G L,�L,u ter and I (we) reside at: G 3 2! S rsL fi L As a Tukwila resident who lives near the property at 6250 S 151st Street, I am strongly opposed to the re -zoning of this land from low to medium density residential. I am firmly of the belief that retaining the current zoning of low density residential would best preserve the health, livability and natural beauty of the neighborhood in which I live. I urge you to listen to the voices of your constituents who would be most directly affected by this proposed measure and vote against it. I greatly appreciate your time and consideration regarding this matter. Signed: �ofie,--,-- le Fc/e-7 Date: 3 /2 s-/zezc Signed: - l/l4 ,,.,i (-Ai . Whl' _ Date: /.916-10-0,21-0 Signed: Date: Signed: _ Date: 233 Subject: Opposition to Proposed Re -zoning of 6250 S 151 st Street (File# L19-0123) Esteemed Members of the Tukwila City Council, My name is (our names are): 1\ N and I (we) reside at: / t S~( , L. L,' ro- si kAi- As a Tukwila resident who lives near the property at 6250 S 151st Street, I am strongly opposed to the re -zoning of this land from low to medium density residential. I am firmly of the belief that retaining the current zoning of low density residential would best preserve the health, livability and natural beauty of the neighborhood in which I live. I urge you to listen to the voices of your constituents who would be most directly affected by this proposed measure and vote against it. I greatly appreciate your time and consideration regarding this matter. Signed: )L0(3\.6---i\c:3, Date: 3- — 2_0: C' v Signed: Date: Signed: Date: Signed: Date: 234 and I (weans e at: 3 / Ir_dd-A,_/5/sr a Subject: Opposition to Proposed Re -zoning of 6250 S 151st Street (File# L19-0123) Esteemed Members of the Tukwila City Council, My name is (our names are): b K n g.,Won //K/s (4/t� you ) la_�/, IA14 92/ea As a Tukwila resident who lives near the property at 6250 S 151st Street, I am strongly opposed to the re -zoning of this land from low to medium density residential. I am firmly of the belief that retaining the current zoning of low density residential would best preserve the health, livability and natural beauty of the neighborhood in which I live. I urge you to listen to the voices of your constituents who would be most directly affected by this proposed measure and vote against it. I greatly appreciate your time and consideration regarding this matter. Signed: Date: O3A7/970 \, 3f�l 5 • , I1 U1 ?o Signed: IL � �l.i / Date: � Signed: J 141 /! Date: 3 I21 /9-02 6 Signed: Date: 235 Subject: Opposition to Proposed Re -zoning of 6250 S 151st Street (File# L19-0123) Esteemed Members of the Tukwila City Council, My name is (our names are): and I (we) reside at: S �( As a Tukwila resident who lives near the property at 6250 S 151st Street, I am strongly opposed to the re -zoning of this land from low to medium density residential. I am firmly of the belief that retaining the current zoning of low density residential would best preserve the health, livability and natural beauty of the neighborhood in which I live. I urge you to listen to the voices of your constituents who would be most directly affected by this proposed measure and vote against it. I greatly appreciate your time and consideration regarding this matter. Signed: Signed: +• Signed: Signed: Date: ,2 7 44, rrG, 7C70 Date: /? ( o2— Date: Date: 236 Subject: Opposition to Proposed Re -zoning of 6250 S 151 st Street (File# L19-0123) Esteemed Members of the Tukwila City Council, My name is (our names are): t r 1.11) and I (we) reside at: b As a Tukwila resident who lives near the property at 6250 S 151 st Street, I am strongly opposed to the re -zoning of this land from low to medium density residential. I am firmly of the belief that retaining the current zoning of low density residential would best preserve the health, livability and natural beauty of the neighborhood in which I live. I urge you to listen to the voices of your constituents who would be most directly affected by this proposed measure and vote against it. I greatly appreciate your time and consideration regarding this matter. Signed: ';t�;,1 Al( Signed: Signed: Signed: Date:C' Date: Date: Date: 237 Subject: Opposition to Proposed Re -zoning of 6250 S 151st Street (File# L19-0123) Esteemed Members of the Tukwila City Council, My name is (our names are): 5ZeI1ef' 71 ,4Po and I (we) reside at: As a Tukwila resident who lives near the property at 6250 S 151st Street, I am strongly opposed to the re -zoning of this land from low to medium density residential. I am firmly of the belief that retaining the current zoning of low density residential would best preserve the health, livability and natural beauty of the neighborhood in which I live. I urge you to listen to the voices of your constituents who would be most directly affected by this proposed measure and vote against it. I greatly appreciate your time and consideration regarding this matter. Signer _ /Ai / Signed: Date: / Signed: Date: Signed: Date: Date: <3 238