HomeMy WebLinkAboutOrd 2744 - DOCUMENT: Rezone 6250 S 151st St to Medium Density Residential (Schneider Homes)Department of Community Development - Nora Gierloff A1CP, Director
ADDENDUM TO STAFF REPORT
TO THE TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL
HEARING DATE: October 21, 2024
NOTIFICATION:
FILE NUMBERS:
REQUEST:
LOCATION:
Thomas McLeod, Mayor
Adopted by
on 10/21 /24.
10/3/24: Mailed to properties within 500' radius
10/3/24: Site Posted
10/7/24: Notice of hearing published in the
Seattle Times
L19-0123 - Rezone
E19-0013 - SEPA
d 2744
Change Comprehensive Plan map and zoning designation from Low Density
Residential (LDR) to Medium Density Residential (MDR)
6250 S. 151' St., Tukwila, WA (APN: 359700-0400)
CURRENT COMPREHENSIVE
PLAN/ZONING DESIGNATION: Low Density Residential (LDR)
STAFF: Breyden Jager, Associate Planner
ATTACHMENTS:
A. LUPA Remand Order
B. Notice of Hearing comments received from public, through 10/11/2024
C. Notice of Hearing comments received from Applicant, through 10/11/2024
Tukwila city Hall • 620i outhcenterBoulevard • Tukwila, WA 98188 206-43 -180o Website: TukwilaWA.gov
L19-0123: Rezone and Comprehensive Plan - Staff Report Addendum
Page 2 of 2
Background Information
On November 6, 2023, the Tukwila City Council denied permit application no. L19-0123, which sought to amend the
City's Comprehensive Plan Map and 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). The City Council's findings and conclusions of law
supporting the denial were formalized by Council on November 20, 2023, by adoption of Resolution No. 2083.
Following denial of the rezone application, the applicant filed an appeal under King County Superior Court Case No.
23-2-24102-9 KNT. The City defended Council's decision on appeal. However, the Superior Court granted the
applicant's appeal and remanded it to Council to conduct a new hearing on the rezone application. A copy of the
Court's Order is attached to this Addendum as "Exhibit A." The Court's remand order requires City Council "to
reconsider the merits of the rezone application under TMC 18.84.020(4). The quasi-judicial decisionmaker, the
Tukwila City Council, shall hold another open record hearing regarding the rezone's consistency with TMC
18.84.020(4), deliberate thereafter, and issue a new decision based on substantial evidence in the record."
Overview of Application and New Hearing
The purpose of this hearing is to comply with King County Superior Court's remand order. City Council has been directed
by the Court to "hold another open record hearing regarding the rezone's consistency with TMC 18.84.020(4),
deliberate thereafter, and issue a new decision based on substantial evidence in the record." TMC 18.84.020(4)
requires that, in order to approve the rezone, Council must find that "[t]he 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."
Significantly, the application remains the same as it was when previously considered by the City Council on
November 6, 2023. The applicant has not submitted any changes to the proposal. The only significant change is to
the maximum number of dwelling units that can be potentially built on the property due to changes in the City's
code. In the 2023 legislative session, the Washington State Legislature adopted House Bill 1337, which required all
local jurisdictions (including Tukwila) to amend their development regulations to allow a minimum of 2 ADUs on all
lots that that permit single-family homes. After the City Council denied the subject rezone application in 2023, the
Council adopted significant changes to the City's Accessory Dwelling Unit Code to comply with the state law.' As a
result of these changes to the ADU Code, the maximum number of total dwelling units that may be built on the
property, under its current LDR zoning, is 87 potential dwelling units.2 But, if the property were to be rezoned to
MDR, then the property would allow up to 112 potential dwelling units.3 These figures are entirely theoretical
however, as the actual number of dwelling units that can be actually built on the property is likely to be far less
than the maximum allowed because space on the property will be needed for roads, recreation areas, and parking.
For additional information about the application, please refer to the Staff Report, dated November 6, 2023.
' A "single-family dwelling" is now defined as a single building or home plus two accessory dwelling units. TMC 18.06.248.
(Previously, a "single-family dwelling" was defined as a single building or home plus one accessory dwelling unit). In addition,
accessory dwelling units are now permitted in the MDR zone. TMC 18.12.070.
2 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 also allows a total of one single-family
home, plus two accessory dwelling units (ADU), resulting in 87 total potential dwelling units.
3 Per TMC 18.12.070, the MDR zoning district requires a minimum lot area of 3,000 SF. Therefore, if subdivided under MDR
zoning, a total of 64 new primary dwelling units could be created. Each dwelling unit in the MDR district is allowed one single-
family home and two ADUs, resulting in 112 total potential dwelling units.
2
3
4
5
6'
7
8
9
10
11'.
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
SUPE
THE HONORABLE WILLIAM L. DIXON
OR COURT OF WASHINGTON FOR THE COUNTY OF KING
Schneider Homes, a Washington corporation,
Petitioner,
vs.
CITY OF TUKWILA, a Washington
municipal corporation,
Respondent.
NO. 23-2-24102-9 KNT
ORDER G ` NTING PETITIONER
SCHNEIDER HOMES' LAND USE
PETITION AND ' ANDING FOR
FURTHER PROCEEDINGS
Clerk's Action Required
THIS MATTER having duly come on for hearing before the undersigned Judge of the
above -entitled Court upon Petitioner Schneider Homes' Land Use Petition; all parties having
been duly represented by counsel; and the Court, being fully advised in the premises, having
heard oral arguments of counsel for the parties and having reviewed the pleadings, exhibits,
and other documents in the court file:
1. The Land Use Petition;
2. Petitioner Schneider Homes' Opening Brief;
3. Respondent City of Tukwila's Response Brief;
4. Petitioner's Reply Brief;
5. The Certified Record;
6. Petitioner's Motion to Supplement the Certified Record;
7. Respondent's Response to Motion to Supplement;
ORDER GRANTING PETITIONER SCHNEIDER HOMES'
LAND USE PETITION AND REMANDING FOR FURTHER
PROCEEDINGS- PAGE 1 OF 3
JOHNS MONROE MITSUNAGA KOLOUAKOVA PLLC
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
11201 SE 8"' St., Suite 120
Bellevue, Washington 98004
Tel: 425-451-2812 / Fax: 425-451-2818
4
5
7
9
11/
11
13
14
15
16
18
20
8. Petitioner's Reply in Motion to Supplement;
9. The Supplemental Records; and
10. The Transcript of Proceedings.
ORDER
NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that:
1. Petitioner Schneider Homes' Land Use Petition is GRANTED;
2. The City of Tukwila's Land Use Decision, set forth in Resolution 2083, is
REVERSED;
3. The parties do not dispute that the rezone is consistent with the rezone criteria
set forth in TMC 18.84.020(1)-(3).
4. Under Finding and Conclusion A, Resolution 2083 adopts the facts set forth in
the November 6, 2023 Staff Report, pages 1-6, but denies the rezone for failure to be consistent
with TMC 18.84.020(4);
5. Under Finding and Conclusion D, Resolution 2083 denies the rezone for failure
to be consistent with TMC 18.84.020(4);
6. The foregoing two sections of Resolution 2083 are internally, fatally
inconsistent and therefore constitute unlawful procedure under RCW 36.70C.130(a);
7. Substantial evidence in light of the whole record before the Court does not
support denial of the rezone under TMC 18.84.020(4) and therefore violates RCW
36.70C.130(1)(c);
8. Likewise, the land use decision is a clearly erroneous application of the law to
the facts, in violation of RCW 36.70C.130(1)(d); and
9. This matter is REMANDED for the City of Tukwila Council to reconsider the merits
of the rezone application under TMC 18.84.020(4). The quasi-judicial decisionmaker, the
Tukwila City Council, shall hold another open record hearing regarding the rezone's
ORDER GRANTING PETITIONER SCHNEIDER HOMES'
LAND USE PETITION AND REMANDING FOR FURTHER
PROCEEDINGS- PAGE 2 OF 3
JOHNS MONROE MITSUNAGA KOLOIAKOVA PLLC
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
11201 SE 8' St., Suite 120
Bellevue, Washington 98004
Tel: 425-451-2812 / Fax: 425-451-2818
5
8
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
21
24
consistency with TMC 18.84.020(4), deliberate thereafter and issue a new decision based on
substantial evidence in the record.
.14 4
DATED this/2- day of
LAy.ks+
2024.
THE HONORABLE
Presented by:
JO S MONROE MITSUNAGA
KOLOUKOVA, PLLC
By
Duana T. Kolou§kova, WSBA #27532
Peter Durland, WSBA #61486
Attorneys for Petitioner Schneider
Homes
Approved as to form:
OGDEN MURPHY WALLACE
By
James E. Haney, WSBA #11508
Andrew Tsoming, WSBA #42949
Attorneys for Respondent City of Tukwila
ORDER GRANTING PETITIONER SCHNEIDER HOMES'
LAND USE PETITION AND REMANDING FOR FURTHER
PROCEEDINGS- PAGE 3 OF 3
I LIAM L Dfc<oN
JOHNS MONROE MITSUNAGA KOLOUSKOVA PLLC
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
11201 SE 811' St., Suite 120
Bellevue, Washington 98004
Tel: 425-451-2812 / Fax: 425-451-2818
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
http s : //o ut i oo k. offi cc3 65 . com/mail/inbo x/i d/AA QkA GFhN D MxNzU 5 L...
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
1 of 2 3/23/2020, 10:14 AM
haps ://outlook.officc365.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 S.151st Place
TI : 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 of 2 3/23/2020, 10:14 AM
March 30,Z02O
David &LavaTomlinson
6360S151stP|
Tukwila, VVA98l88
Tukwila City Council
G2OD5outhcenterBlvd
Tukwila, WA 98188
Members of the Tukwila City Council,
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:Ll9-OlZS &E19-0013,Project Fi|e#:PL19-OO99). Weare adamantly
opposed to the rezoning mfthis property, aswell asthe development plan put forward byDK4P
and Schneider Homes. VVewill 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.
\A/ewant tnbegin hvassuhngyouthotvveanekeenk/axvareofourareasneedfnrnnore
housing and making itclear that wveare not necessarily opposed tmthe development ofthis
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 isthat allowing this development tmgo forward maproposed
would destroy the natural, tree -filled character ofthe neighborhood that wwelove. The
current zoning ofthe property would allow for up to 3Osingle-family units tn 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 tobeclear cut. Furthermore, their plan envisions building 120-foot-long, 30-foot-
high buildings only lOfeet from the sidewalks along S 151st5treet and 62nd AveS. 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 tohave our fears ofwhat might come topass beconfirmed. While the buildings were not
particularly unattractive, they were imposing on an otherwise naked skyline, and it was clear
that not asingle tree had been spared during construction. VVehave included apicture below
for your reference of what we can expect to see from our back porch if this development is
allowed togoforward asproposed. Leaving the property zoned aslow density would require
additional distancing from the road to any structures to be built and allow for more vegetation
toremain orbesubsequently planted. VVebelieve this would honor and preserve the current
character ofthe area that xvecall home.
1
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
We want toclose byensuring that you know we are not alone in our opposition to this
rezone. VVehave taken the liberty ofcollecting the signatures of36 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
tothe 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 asthis. Ultimately, vvebelieve xvecan find apath 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, xvedonot believe that this path should involve the rezoning of
this property. Weurge you to listen tothe voices sfyour constituents who will bemost
directly affected bythis proposal and vote against it.
VVecan be contacted at7l9-76l-6S1O or andwould 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 inthis matter!
David Tomlinson
LavaTomn|inson
3
https://outlook.officc365.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
1 of 2 3/30/2020, 3:47 PM
https65—
not. Thanks for your time!
Respectfully,
David Tomlinson
719-761-6516
OnMon, Mar 23, 20208i5l6PM Maxwell Baker <M3x.B8ier@tukwilawa.g{v> wrote:
Hello,
You are receiving this email because you are a party of record for the Hopper Townhomes Rezone,
Attached to this 8rn8i| is 8 copy of the minutes for the public rn88dng held On 3/ . Please |8t
me know if you have any questions.
� Best
Maxwell Baker I Senior Planner
Department of Community Development ICity of Tukwila
0300Southcenter Blvd, Suite 100 1 Tukwila, WA98188
Tukwila: The City of opportunity, the community of choice.
TI
�
: This email originated from outside the City ufTukwila network. Please DO NOT open
attachments or click links from an unknown or suspicious Origin.
https : //o utiook. officc3 65. com/mail/inbox/id/AAQkAGFhNDMxNzU5 L...
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>
JJ 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 151 st 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 151 st PI
Tukwila, WA 98188
Cell: 719-761-6516
TIi : 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 of 1 3/30/2020, 1:53 PM
https : //o utiook. officc3 65. com/mail/inbox/id/AAQkAGFhNDMxNzU5 L...
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>
JJ 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
TI
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 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 1 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@TukwilaWAgov>
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/
i
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 CDR 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
From: Geoff Hinton <geoffhin@microsoftcom>
Sent: Friday, February 10, 2023 1:43 PM
To: Breyden Jager <Breyden.Jager@TukwilaWAgov>
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 151sY 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
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 151' 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 151sY 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 151' . 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
t
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 65h, 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 65`h, 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`h, 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
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
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 65d' 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 151st. 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
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
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
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
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
https://outlook.officc365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAQkAGFhNDMxNzU5L...
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
1 of 3 3/30/2020, 3:55 PM
https://oudook.officc365.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.
2 of 3 3/30/2020, 3:55 PM
https://oudook.officc365.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
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 of 3 3/30/2020, 3:55 PM
http s : //o ut l oo k. offi cc3 65 . com/mail/inbo x/i d/AA QkA GFhN D MxNzU 5 L...
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.
TI
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 of 1 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.
From: Hugh Tobin <htnbin (acomcast. et>
Sent: Monday, March 30,Z0Z04:43PM
To: Maxwell Baker <Max.8aker(cDTukwi|aVVA.gov>
Sukject:Re:L19'U1Z3,E19'U0l3:"HopperTovvnhomes"CompP|anAmendmentandRezoneProposa|'
Environmental Review
HiMax —
| infer from the message below that Jeff has submitted acomment. Could you please provide nneacopy
ofthat, and any others from residents, and any further consultant reports?
Hugh
On 3/30/20203:56 PM, Maxwell Baker wrote:
Hi Jeff,
Thank you for your comment, it will be considered by City staff and entered into
the project file.YouarenovvaPartyofReoordonthep jec±andvvi||benotified
when staff reports are issued aswell asofany public hearings before the
Planning Commission and/or City Council.
KMaxvvgU Baker I Senior Planner
Department ofCommunity Development ICity of Tukwila
63OOSouthcenterBlvd, Suite lOO 1 Tukwila, VVA98lD8
Max8aker@Tukvvi|avva.gov1IO6.431.]6D3
Tukwila: The City nfopportunity, the community nfchoice.
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.
CAUTIO,",,": This email originated from outside the City of Tukwila network. Please DO NOT open attachments or click
links from an unknown or suspicious origin.
z
http s : //o ut i oo k. offi cc3 65 . com/mail/inbo x/i d/AA QkA GFhN D MxNzU 5 L...
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
1 of 2 3/30/2020, 3:34 PM
httm 65'
206-579-3254
"All",
TI
�
� This email originated from outside the City ofTukwila network. Please DO NOT open
attachments or click links from an unknown or suspicious origin.
Breyden Jager
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Henry
Jesboneb <jesboneb@yahoo.com>
Tuesday, February 21, 2023 4:43 PM
Breyden Jager
Rezone 6250 S 151st St, Parcel #3597000400 File #s: L19-0123 comment
eech
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 Tots 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 1 must oppose this
rezone proposal, at least without very strict conditions to protect the tree canopy.
i
Jessica Bonebright
206-679-4976
CAIJT1O : 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
https : //o utiook. officc3 65. com/mail/inbox/id/AAQkAGFhNDMxNzU5 L...
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: MICHAELJ. 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
1 of 2 3/30/2020, 10:35 AM
https : //o utiook. officc3 65. com/mail/inbox/id/AAQkAGFhNDMxNzU5 L...
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
TI : 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 of 2 3/30/2020, 10:35 AM
http s : //o ut i oo k. offi cc3 65 . com/mail/inbo x/i d/AA QkA GFhN D MxNzU 5 L...
Re: L19-0123
Maxwell Baker <Max.Baker@TukwilaWA.gov>
Fri 3/27/2020 9:40 AM
To: Miles Mitchell <tfc@drmilesdc.com>
0 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
C TI : This email originated from outside the City of Tukwila network. Please DO NOT open
1 of 2 3/27/2020, 9:40 AM
https://oudook.officc365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAQkAGFhNDMxNzU5L...
attachments or click links from an unknown or suspicious origin.
2 of 2 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 o 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
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
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.
i
http s : //o ut i oo k. offi cc3 65 . com/mail/inbo x/i d/AA QkA GFhN D MxNzU 5 L...
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
TI
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 of 1 3/17/2020, 2:25 PM
https : //o utiook. officc3 65. com/mail/inbox/id/AAQkAGFhNDMxNzU5 L...
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>
0 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, 1 would like to view the application for the Hopper Townhomes rezone.
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.
think townhomes will be good there, hopefully preserving the wet area in the properties.
Again, I would like to see the full application
1 of 2 3/27/2020, 9:43 AM
https://oudook.officc365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAQkAGFhNDMxNzU5L...
Thanks
Patricia Perry
TI : 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 of 2 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 151' 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, 65" 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 65' 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
1
along 151' 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
CAIJTIO : 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
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 20t' 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 151' St and 62"d Ave South will be from those
streets. Or will the back of the houses be facing 151' and 62"d. 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 151' 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
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
CAUTIO 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
https : //o utiook. officc3 65. com/mail/inbox/id/AAQkAGFhNDMxNzU5 L...
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
TIi : 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 of 1 3/30/2020, 9:58 AM
Breyden Jager
From: Talia Long <Iong.talia@yahoo.com>
Sent: Monday, February 13, 2023 11:50 AM
To: Breyden Jager
Subject: Questions/Concerns - L19-0123 Rezone (6250 S 151 st St) - Hopper Townhomes
Greetings Mr. Jager:
We are the owners and residents of a property in the culdesac across S. 151 st 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. 151 st 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
6241 S. 151 st Pl.
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
Nancy Eklund
From: Maxwell Baker
Sent: Monday, March 3U'2020ztS8PK4
To: Travis Boyd
Cc: Nancy Eklund
Subject: Re: Public Comments onL19-0123:Re-Zoning Proposal for S2SOS1S1stSt
Hi Travis,
Thank you for your comment, it will be considered by City staff and entered into the projectfi|e.Youarenovva
Party ufRecord onthe project andvxi||benoti0edm/henstaffreportsaneissuedasvve||asofanypub|ic
hearings before the Planning Commission and/or City Council.
KMaxvvgU Baker I Senior Planner
Department ofCommunity Development ICity of Tukwila
63OOSouthcenterBlvd, Suite lOO 1 Tukwila, VVA98lD8
Max8aker@Tukxvi|avva.gov1IO6.431.]6D3
Tukwila: The City nfopportunity, the community nfchoice.
From: Travis Boyd <traysboyd2018@gmaiioomnx
Sent: Monday, March 3O,202O4:53PM
To: Maxwell Baker <K4ax.8aker@Tukwi|aVVA.8ov>
Subject: Public Comments onL19-0123:Re-Zoning Proposal for 6250S251stGt
Travis Boyd / Deb Sorensen
6771S151uP|
Tukwila, WA4RlRR
(706)241-3471
30 March 7070
f n ��fn
_'-� -- Tukwila —
Dept. of Community Development
6300Snn+6CeDterBkd.,Suite 100
Tukwila, WA 98188
Max Baker
City Project Planner
RE: File: El0-0O13/ ,L|9-0|73 T»ln` Zoning
Applicant: Hans Korve,DMP,Inc.
1.r0��IT���\�O�T.' 1.�l7lclO.Hopper
1
Hopper Townhomes Project PL-19-0099
Project Location: 6250 S 151' St
Mr. Baker,
The recent proposed change in zoning from Low Density Residential to Moderate Density
Residential for the property located at 6250 S 1.51 St St is concerning to us as residents of the cul.
de sac on S 151st 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, 1-5 and 1-405, 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
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
IJTIO This email originated from outside the City of Tukwila network. Please DO NOT open attachments or click
links from an unknown or suspicious origin.
illiam James/Clotilde olina
14920 62nd Avenue South
Tukwila, A 98168
(206) 375-1323 . .j es@co c . e
(206) 383-2536 cleo oI@co c s . et
arch 17, 2020
City of Tukwila
Department of Community Development
6300 Southcenter Boulevard., Suite 100
Tukwila,Washington 98188
ax Baker/Department of Community Development
(206) 431-3683 or . er@ u i1 . ov
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 o DR.
Develop a Maximum of 65 Townhomes.
Dear Mr. Baker:
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
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,
ZUelP.iaot PaHxe¢
eeatC2de NoPuia
cc: Mayor Ekberg, Tukwila City Council
2
March 30,302O
David &LavaTomlinson
6360S151s1P|
Tukwila, WA 98188
Tukwila City Council
6ZODSouthcenterBlvd
Tukwila, VVA98l8A
Members of the Tukwila City Council,
Please find attached 17 letters of opposition to the rezone of the property located at
6Z5OSl61stStreet (File #s:Ll9-OlZ3 &E19-OOl3).These letters are signed by36individuals
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. VVehave provided amap onthe following page
indicating the location of the property in question (yellow), as well as the location of those
opposed tothe proposed rezone (red rnarkers\. VVehope you will hear the voices ofthose who
will be most significantly impacted by this proposed measure and vote against it. VVethank you
for your time and consideration inthis matter.
1
2
Subj
t: 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: E'lllk19: EA2r,,,kis
LwC
ay\
As a Tukwila resident who lives near the property at 6250 S 151st Street, I arn strongly
opposed to the re -zoning of this land from low to medium density residential. 1 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 1 live. 1 urge you to listen to
the voices of your constituents who would be most directly affected by this pr000sed measure
and vote against it: I greatly appreciate your time and consideration regarding this matter:
Signed:
Signed:
Sign
Sign
stratzeresek
atateetke 142-
Date:
ta5
Date: etatt
Date:
Date:
Subject: Opposition to Proposed Re -zoning of 6250 S 151 st Street (File# L19-0123)
Esteemed Members of the Tukwila City Council,
y name is (our names are
6 -
and I (we) reside ati \1
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. 1 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. urge you to listen to
the voices of your constituents who would be most directly affected by this proposed measure
and vote against it. greatly appreciate your time and consideration regarding this matter,
Signed:
Signed4
Signed._
Date:
Date:
Date.
Datei
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): eSco e _o3 Lars3n
s_
and I (we) reside at: \Li 9 S) 62'4
Tv.
'-‘Li tlE)
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: 3/2-6/20
Signed: Date:
Signed: Date:
Signed: Date:
6
Subject: Opposition to Proposed Re -zoning of 6250 S 15ist Street (File# L19-0123)
Esteemed Members of the Tukwila City Council,
My name is (our names are):
and I (we) reside at: a,
„::',„:21:PIL000,4141C:Vi*uA:'
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. 1 greatly appreciate your time and consideration regarding this matter.
Signed:
Signed:
Signed:
Signed:
Date:
Date:
Date:
Date:
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):
— 114C-)cx
L
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 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.
Signe :
Signed :,
Date: 27z2cL
Date: e
f /
Date: 3"2
Signed: Date:
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. '-<,1
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.
Date: -1
Signed: I: ,. , ‘„,. ',17 ,",,. Date:
- IST,
' Sig ned6) - , . )„.„:„2._ ,
t: . le ate. : ,
Signed:
Date:
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):
ex:rte.\
and I (we) reside at: (72 0 -2-
-1" I
,,)
c 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:
Date:
Date:
Date:
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): ?").
1
and I (we) reside at: C 141
P
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. 1 greatly appreciate your time and consideration regarding this matter.
Signed: i )
Date:
Signed: Date:
Signed:
D'2,ate:
Date:
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): VA.
and (we) reside at: LaH 5PCACfI
Tu_KkAD\Va clt‘t")
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:
ate: 5-)A1- dlo RD
ate: 3 - -
ate: 3 Zs/202o
Date:
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). 1,1.14
and (we) reside at: ( $r/
/bre .11/7 rte./4 creer'r.
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.
re',1
rtEfr-,;r4 I„ Date:
Signed: Date:
Signed: Date:
Signed: Date:
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
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 1 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:
Date:
Date:
Date:
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): S q's--% 1"71-1-111V-e-
c-
and I (we) reside at: 6 -3
1-S- 1
z
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: 5 Ae
Signed: L-11 a4/4_, W
Signed:
Date: 3/Z/zz
Date:
Date:
Signed: Date:
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):
1\4
and I (we) reside at: t i2
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: - 2 c
Signed: Date:
Signed: Date:
Signed: Date:
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):
aaa
If -
and I (we) reside at:
\jea g_WOna
vU49',WPS/
As a Tukwila resident who lives near the property at 6250 5 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:
(93/Q-7/6262-0
Date:
(9:7 1,200
Date:
Date:
Signed: Date:
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):
7")
,21v2J
/ 4 "j,. C • V?
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.
Signed:
Signed:
Signed:
Date: 27 44--e6;17(2°'e
Date: 3/ ,--1-1ZCZ.K.,
Date:
Date:
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: 11; '5/
)
As a Tukwila resident who lives near the property at 6250 S 151st Street, 1 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 ow 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. 1 greatly appreciate your time and consideration regarding this matter.
.?'
Signed/- i' ___1,.., / i
Signed: li,v', ''''
/
Signed:
Signed:
Date:
Date:
Date:
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):
a eo ( 5(44- P
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.
Sign
Signed:
Signed:
Date:
Date:
Signed: Date:
Breyden Jager
From: Sheryl Havens <sherylhavens3@gmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, October 9, 2024 11:22 AM
To: Breyden Jager
Subject: Re: Schneider Homes rezone application
Thank you, Breyden. Unfortunately, the over development in Tukwila is destroying our beautiful green
spaces and habitats for our critters. They are being forced out and it's very sad.
Sent from my iPhone
On Oct 9, 2024, at 9:11 AM, Breyden Jager <Breyden.Jager@tukwilawa.gov> wrote:
Hello Sheryl,
Thank you for providing public comment on this matter. Your comments will be added to
the record.
Respectfully,
Breyden Jager (He/Him) I Associate Planner
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.
Original Message
From: Sheryl Havens <sherylhavens3@gmait.com>
Sent: Tuesday, October 8, 2024 5:16 PM
To: Breyden Jager <Breyden.Jager@TukwitaWA.gov>
Subject: Schneider Homes rezone application
Hello Brayden,
I will be unable to attend the meeting regarding the rezoning application submitted by
Schneider Homes at 6250 S 151 st St. Tukwila, WA 98188. Please consider this email in lieu
of my presence at the meeting. As a 23-year resident in that neighborhood, I regularly walk
by 6250 S 151 st St. and I can tell you that it is a nesting area for bald eagles and an
ecosystem that supports wildlife. Therefore, I want to voice my disapproval. I do not think
any development should happen on that property because it wilt destroy the wildlife
habitat, especially that of our endangered bald eagles. As a Tukwila citizen, I say no to
Medium Density Residential there and I say no to any kind of development on that property.
Thank you,
S. Havens
1
SunvvoOdCondominium community
Sent from rnyiPad
CAUTION: This email originated frOD1OutSidUth8CitvOfTuhvvb3D8tvvOrk. Please DC)NOT
open attachments O[click links from 8Dunknown O[suspicious origin.
Notice: emaih and attachments may be subject to disclosure pursuant mthe Public Records Act (chapter*z.56
T1
:This email originated from outside the City of Tukwila network. Please D N Topen
attachments or click links from an unknown or suspicious origin.
2
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 12, 2022
City of Tukwila.
Nancy Eklund
6300 Southcenter Blvd, Suite 100
Tukvvila, VVA 98188
RE: Hopper Townhomes—Comprehensive Plan Alteration Request
LDR to MDR
6250 S 151ST ST, Tukwila. — Parcel No. 359700-0400
Dear Ms. Eklund:
Thank you for the opportunity to review the public comment received after the
Neighborhood meeting. We would like to offer a reply to some of the comments. Many
comments are either identical or similar enough that the information provided below
should cover all the issues raised.
Nicholas Webb - March 16, 2020
• Housing Choice - The resident expressed support for additional housing in
Tukwila, and specifically for the proposed townhome 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"
The Applicant appreciates the Residents support and recognition that the
region needs increased ownership opportunities for the widest variety of
families. Not everyone can afford a, large lot, single-family house.
2. William James — March 17, 2020
Increased Traffic- The resident is concerned about increased traffic during
school hours. It is clear that some of the new residents will have school age
children who will likely walk two blocks northwest to the adjacent
Elementary School. Children are currently dropped off on S 149th St. which
is one block north and one block west of the project entrance. There are
sidewalks on both sides of 62nd Ave S. and S. 151st St surrounding the
proposed project. Sidewalks extend south to Southcenter Blvd. During
school hours the speed limit in the area is reduced and crossing guards
control traffic flow around the school. The proposed entrance point to the
new community is located on the south end of the property. Assuming that
most residents leaving for work will do so before school starts, and also
assuming that the majority of residents would continue south, away from
the school, the number of potential drivers traveling North during school
drop off times is minimal. The same is true during school pick-up times.
The majority of residents will still be working when school lets out and the
entrance to the Community is located south of the school. A review of the
available information indicates that the intersection at 65th Ave S. and
Southcenter Blvd is operating well within standards and that no
signalization of the intersection is planned. There is no indication of a
capacity issue or identified safety concerns in the area.
• Environmental Concerns — The residents refers to an EIS. We assume he
is referring to a SEPA checklist. The concerns about sewer and water
capacity relate to availability certificates from the service providers. To the
best of our knowledge, there are no capacity issues in the City of Tukwila.
The issues of traffic that are raised are addressed above. The issue of air
quality is not generally regulated at the City level. The State Department of
Ecology recently discontinued "SMOG" testing of cars because the State air
quality has improved so much as to make it unnecessary. Concerns were
also expressed about the overuse of Tukwila Park. We are unaware of any
capacity issues with Tukwila Park. It is unlikely that residents of the new
community will make use of the nearby facility simultaneously. The City
code also requires that recreation facilities be provided within the project
site. It is likely that these on -site facilities will meet most of the new
residents needs. We are unclear how to respond to the concerns over pets.
It is unlikely that this new community will precipitate such an influx of
uncontrolled domestic animals as to create an ecological impact.
• Quality of Life — While we sympathize with the resident and his desire to
avoid change, we feel it is inappropriate to associate the creation of a new
community with an increase in crime. The surrounding neighborhood is
replete with Medium and High density residential projects. Canyon Estates,
Parkview and Maple Crest Apartments are within 1 or 2 blocks of the
project site. Terra Tukwila, Sunwood, North Hill, Hill Crest and
Heatherwood Apartments are also in the immediate vicinity. The resident
has identified the Neighborhood as peaceful, quiet and low crime. With the
large number of high density communities in the area, we fully expect the
proposed Townhomes to follow that proud tradition.
Page 12
Response To Public Comment Hopper Townhomes
3. Bonnie Wong- March 22, 2020
• Traffic -As indicated above, the intersection at 65th Ave S and Southcenter
Blvd is operating freely and there are no identified capacity issues. There
are no plans to install a signalized intersection.
• School Hours and Left Turns - The resident identifies speeding on
Southcenter Blvd during school hours as an issue. It is unclear how the
traffic on Southcenter Blvd impacts Tukwila Elementary a half mile to the
northwest. The intersection in question has significant signage indicating
heavy cross walk use. Two Rapid Ride stops are located at the intersection
and transit users cross Southsenter Blvd on -foot on a regular basis without
incident. It can be assumed that if pedestrians can cross Southcenter Blvd.
during commute hours, then drivers should be able to make a left or right
turn without significant trouble.
• Emergency Vehicles- We are unclear how to respond to this comment.
The addition of 30 to 40 townhome units should have no negative impact on
the ability of Emergency units to navigate the surrounding streets with use
of emergency lighting.
• 65th Ave S. Parking — A review of 65th Ave S finds that the curb to curb
measurement is approximately 38' wide. This allows for the provision of
parking on either side of the roadway and two 11' or 12' travel lanes. There
are no indications of any restriction of the traveled way.
• Tree Viability — The tree report has been submitted to Staff and it is
available for public review on the City Website.
• CoVid 19 — We are unclear how to respond to this comment. We assume
the business of City Government continues.
• Affordability — The Applicant has not indicated that the proposed project is
"Affordable Housing". The project proposes to construct fee -simple, owner
occupied, townhomes that are more attainable by a larger segment of the
population than large lot single-family homes. The project is middle ground
between the Apartments in the surrounding area and exclusive single-
family communities.
4. Joseph Roppo — March 25, 2020
• Ugly Building — This is a Comprehensive Plan /Rezone application. The
design review application will follow once a successful rezone has been
approved. The Applicant has no intension to construct "Ugly buildings".
Page 13
Response To Public Comment Hopper Townhomes
• Density —The resident is concerned about project density and maintaining
a sense of community. As previously described the surrounding
neighborhood is replete with Medium and High density residential projects.
Canyon Estates, Parkview and Maple Crest Apartments are within 1 or 2
blocks of the project site. Terra Tukwila, Sunwood, North Hill, Hill Crest and
Heatherwood Apartments are also in the immediate vicinity. The resident
has identified the Neighborhood as peaceful and quiet. With the large
number of high density communities in the area, we fully expect the
proposed Townhomes to follow that proud tradition.
• School Traffic — The resident is concerned with the traffic associated with
the drop-off and pick-up for school children at Tukwila Elementary. There
also is a reference to speeding. It is unclear if the speeding is associated
with the School drop off or at a different time. The Residents driveway
appears to be located directly across from the Elementary School exit
driveway. It can be assumed that traffic from the school has been present
since the school opened.
5. David Tomlinson — March 27, 2020
• No comments. Mostly process related questions.
6. Patricia Perry — March 26, 2020
• Ms. Perry is in support of the proposed Comp Plan change.
7. Miles Mitchell — March 26, 2020
• Alternatives - The Resident is opposed to 65 units on the property and
supportive of 30 units with no explanation given. The Applicants original
proposal was 38 units based on available information.
8. Hugh Tobin — March 30, 2020
• Alternatives — The resident proposes that the City complete a wholesale
revision of its zoning code and development regulations rather than to
review the disposition of a single lot that is surrounded by higher density
housing and within walking distance of the largest employment and transit
center in the area. The resident makes reference to "very low income
households". The Applicant proposal is to create a more attainable housing
option for residents while still maintaining the principal of home ownership.
The Applicant proposes a middle income neighborhood and not a low
income community. It is unclear why the comparison seems to be offered.
The Resident goes on to propose what appears to be a cluster housing
provision to the LDR zone. This proposal would not increase density but it
would reduce unit size and required shared walls. With no reduction in
development costs, utility costs, mitigation costs or improvement costs, it is
difficult to see how creating a less marketable housing type, with no
Page 14
Response To Public Comment Hopper Townhomes
increase in unit count and no decrease in project cost would result in a
more affordable housing option ?
• SEPA —The resident makes general statements about "checking yes"
without a specific reference. The same is true for the "insufficient study"
comment. The Applicant has provided a full Geotechnical review, Arborist
report and Wetland study. No other reports are required at this time. There
are additional general statements with no clear reference to any relevant
documentation that the Applicant can respond to. We have no additional
response at this time. If the Resident would provide specific references or
explanations, we will respond. We would also remind the Resident that this
is a Comprehensive Plan Alteration /Rezone. It should also be noted that
the original purpose of SEPA was to address environmental impacts at a
time at which few environmental regulations were in place. Much of the
SEPA process is rendered redundant by the current adopted codes.
(shorelines, wetland, steep slope, grading, tree preservation, stormwater,
traffic mitigation, endangers species act, Traffic Concurrency, water/sewer
availability, etc)
• Previous Owner — The Applicant was made aware of the dumping violations
that occurred under the previous owner. The Applicant has worked with Staff
to determine the extent of the dumping. Both the Wetland Biologist and
Geotechnical Engineer found no evidence of contaminated soils. It is unclear
what impact the minor soil imports would have on a Comp Plan /Rezone
application? Any non-structural soil would be removed during the
construction phase of the project. This previous condition has no impact on
the SEPA determination. The issue is being addressed through the existing
code enforcement process.
• Commitment — The Resident identifies the difference between the
Applicant's current proposal and the theoretical number of allowed units. The
Applicants proposal is a Comp Plan / Rezone application to MDR based on
the available urban services and surrounding land uses. The applicant
proposal is consistent with the goals and policies of the comprehensive plan
and would further support public transit. The Applicant acknowledges the
total allowable density and also calls attention to numerous elements of the
development code that make attaining that number a "Catch 22". The
Applicants impacts are addressed by the adopted codes under a 65 or a 38
unit development proposal.
Page 15
Response To Public Comment Hopper Townhomes
9. Hugh Tobin — March 30, 2020 (Storm water Email)
• Stormwater - The Resident points to p.17, tem c. of the SEPA checklist related to
stormwater flow. The Resident calls into question the statement that stormwater with
be "infiltrated to the greatest extent possible". While the Resident is correct that
portions of the site or adjacent properties contain a steep slope, that does not relieve
the Applicant from following the Low Impact Development requirements of the
adopted Stormwater Manual. As the resident is no doubt aware, all properties are
required to infiltrate storm water on -site "to the greatest extent possible".
When it is shown that such infiltration is not possible, the remainder of the
Stormwater Manual dictates the extensive calculations, and analysis required
to develop the on -site stormwater system to address all of the stormwater
generated by the project. As with all development, projects discharge at the
pre -development rate to the downstream system. The Applicant proposal will
likely construct a massive underground tank structure to retain and treat the
anticipated stormwater runoff under the proposed park. If it is determined
during the Engineering design phase that downstream improvements are
required, then those improvements will be installed per the adopted
standards. As previously indicated, SEPA is not required to determine
stormwater impacts in the presence of the adopted Stormwater Manual.
• Trail no. 4 — In a continuation of the impromptu downstream analysis begun
under the previous comment, the Resident indicates that there has been
recent flooding on Tukwila Trail no. 4 and expressed concern for pedestrians
who could use it during winter months. As previously indicated, the project
will construct an on -site detention facility per the adopted manual, it will not
discharge water beyond the predevelopment rate and the project will improve
downstream facilities found to be deficient. It should also be noted that
residents are unlikely to use this unpaved, unlit recreation trail during heavy
rain events when 65th Ave S provides 2 paved and lit sidewalks connecting
the project site to Southcenter Mall and 2 transit stops.
10. Jeff Thoelke - March 30, 2020
• Trash and Parking — The Resident expresses a concern over the current
condition of 65th Ave S. As previously discussed, 65th Ave S. has designated
parking lanes and ample travel width to accommodate unobstructed through
traffic. Parking has no impact on vehicle travel. A review of the area also
indicates that much of the area parking is overnight and on weekends. This is
presumably because local residents are at work during the week. It should be
restated that the Applicant proposal is specifically designed to promote home
Page i6
Response To Public Comment Hopper Townhomes
ownership and not transient housing as specifically indicated in the Comp
Plan criteria response.
• Speeding — The resident expresses a concern for pedestrian safety in the
presence of "speeding "cars. 65th Ave S. has sidewalks on both sides that are
lit and separated from the travel lanes by parked cars. We do not see a
concern for pedestrian safety. The Resident goes on to describe cars
speeding past his house in excess of 40 mph proceeding south. While we
agree that some residents could be more respectful of the speed limit, it is
difficult to understand cars proceeding towards two right angle intersections
spaced 600' apart at such a speed. We are also assuming that these
"speeding" incidents are not happening during school hours. We would
recommend the City conduct a speed study at the S. 149th / 62nd Ave S.
intersection.
• Traffic Light — As previously indicated. Current information from the City of
Tukwila indicates that no traffic signal is warranted at the intersection of 65th
Ave S. and Southcenter Blvd. Some delays entering the traffic flow of a major
arterial from a side street are expected. There have been no significant issues
reported related to access to and from the Rapid Ride bus tops at the same
intersection. It is also not clear how the construction of the new Fire Station
relates to traffic in the area. When in use, emergency vehicles have the right
of way and Fire Stations generally do not generate excessive traffic.
11. Dave Tomlinson — March 30, 2020
• Trees —The resident expressed a concern for the trees on the site and their
enjoyment of the trees located on the Applicant's property. It should be noted
that many of the trees on the subject property are diseased and ill health from
years of neglect. It should also be noted that a majority of the on -site trees will
be removed as the result of any development proposal. Given the required
utility improvements, road construction, house placement and the required
tree protection zones, few existing trees will remain under the current zoning.
The site will be replanted with more appropriate trees that can grow safely
and will not threaten to damage or destroy future homes. It must also be
noted that the City requires a landscape buffer around townhome
developments. It should also be pointed out that the commenter is living in a
neighborhood that was cleared of trees when it was developed and that the
existing trees were planted by Schneider Homes at the time of construction.
Page 17 Response To Public Comment Hopper Townhomes
• New Homes — The Residents states that 30 Single -Family homes can be
placed on the property. It should be noted that under no scenario would it be
possible to develop 30 SF homes on a parcel this size. This excludes the
need for roads, slope setbacks, landscape buffers, storm water facilities, tree
retention and recreation requirements. Developing the site with Single-family
homes would result in a clearing of the site and the creation of fewer, more
expensive homes. While this would increase the overall housing stock, it
would not create homes that are more attainable by a wider segment of the
working population.
• Townhome Example — The Resident states that he toured a similar
townhome development in an adjacent City and has determined that this is
proof of the tree impacts. As previously stated, any development of this site
will result in clearing of a large portion of the site. We would like to point out
that the attached picture was taken from the far side of the storm water pond.
It is clear that the image was staged for maximum visual effect. It is also clear
that the Resident is not aware of the previous condition of the subject
property. There was an incorrect assumption that the property was forested
prior to construction. We feel it is always important to make accurate
representation when making comparisons.
• Traffic — The Resident referenced a number of traffic related issues. The first
was a general comment about access to Southcenter Blvd. As previously
stated, there are no identified issues with the subject intersection. The City
Traffic Division has no plans to install a traffic light at this location. The
Residents comment is purely anecdotal. The second comment related to the
number of parents picking -up and dropping -off students at Tukwila
Elementary and its impact on adjacent driveway access. Tukwila elementary
is located northwest of the project site and well past the proposed access
point of the project. Pick-up and drop-off times for the Elementary school are
also generally outside normal commuting hours. It is unclear how the addition
of 38 townhomes would have any impact on what is described as the existing
condition adjacent to the Elementary School. The third identified issue related
to existing parking patterns along 65th Ave S. The comment inferred that
parking standards for the adjacent apartment complexes were insufficient to
accommodate the existing number of cars. This results in on -street parking
along 65th. The additional inference is that this parking situation in inherently
dangerous. At this time, there are no known pedestrian safety issues in the
area. There are no reported pedestrian accidents related to the described
parking. The comments are then tied to a possible increase in parking issues
as related to the proposed project. As previously indicated, the proposed
Page 18
Response To Public Comment Hopper Townhomes
parking will provide all required on -site parking. No on -street parking is
proposed. It also needs to be said that it is inappropriate to do a detailed
project review of a Comprehensive Plan alteration request. Once an alteration
is approved, the Applicant still needs to develop and submit a detailed
development proposal that is compliant with all the applicable development
codes.
• COVID- While we agree that Covid has caused disruption of what we all
consider to be "Normal Life" society has adjusted and every municipality is
currently using remote participation for development review meetings, City
Council meetings and Public Hearings. The State Legislature also conducted
business through remote access. Most communities have returned to normal
operation at this time. It is inappropriate to think that normal City Business
should be halted for an indefinite time period for this project while other
elements of municipal life continue to move forward. It should also be noted
that while the applicant appreciates the concerns expressed for his financial
wellbeing, it is inappropriate to use speculative market analysis as the basis
for public policy decisions. The Puget Sound area is experiencing an
unprecedented housing crisis. Attainable housing is an issue faced by
communities in every County. Providing housing options to the widest portion
of the population is an adopted goal of the Tukwila Comprehensive Plan.The
Applicant's proposal meets that goal and a number of others. The
Comprehensive Plan is a tool to guide growth into the future. The Applicant's
proposal is to meet the needs of the present by providing attainable homes
for the future residents of Tukwila. The proposal is to include a more diverse
segment of the population in the dream of homeownership and not support a
continuation of the more exclusive development patterns of the past.
12. Michael J. Moore — March 29, 2020
• Quiet neighborhood — While we understand that no one likes change, the
description of the area as a quiet single family residential neighborhood is not
entirely accurate. As previously stated, the area has historically been a
mixture of high, medium and lower density development. There are a number
of existing apartment and townhome developments adjacent to the project
site.
• Traffic — As with many other residents, Mr. Moore identified traffic as a
concern. As previously discussed, 65th Ave S. has designated parking lanes
and ample travel width to accommodate unobstructed through traffic. Parking
has no impact on vehicle travel. The proposed development will provide on -
Pace 19
Response To Public Comment Hopper Townhomes
site parking per the applicable code. S. 151st St. and 62nd Ave S, are public
streets. The Applicant will rely on the City of Tukwila to determine if parking is
appropriate in the ROW. The proposed community does not reply on street
front parking. It should be restated that the Applicant proposal is specifically
designed to promote home ownership and not transient housing as
specifically indicated in the Comp Plan criteria response.
Schools — We appreciate the Residents concern for the children of the
proposed neighborhood. He is correct that the proposed development may
someday house new school aged children. However the estimated number of
children is likely exaggerated and the School District has not expressed any
concerns over capacity in the school. I would remind the resident that School
populations are not static and children regularly leave the school and move to
Middle school.
We thank Staff for this opportunity to review the public comments and provide our
response. While we understand that change is sometimes unsettling, the proposed
alteration is in keeping with the guidance provided by the Comprehensive Plan. Tukwila
needs to provide housing options that can serve a variety of community needs. The
proposal is in keeping with the character of the surrounding area and will improve the
overall quality of the neighborhood. Unlike some nearby communities, this proposal will
offer home ownership to families at a more reasonable price point while protecting the
nearby sensitive areas. In its current iteration, the proposed site plan has been altered
to reflect Staffs desire for a large open space at the corner of S. 151st St. and 62nd Ave
S. Approval of the proposed alteration will allow for the preservation of this large open
area.
If you have any questions, please contact me a 25 ) 333-2200
Sinc rely,
Hans Korve
DMP. Inc.
Page 110
Response To Public Comment Hopper Townhomes
Breyden Jager
From: Hans Korve <hans@dmp-inc.us>
Sent: Wednesday, October 9, 2024 12:48 PM
To: Breyden Jager; 'Zach Schneider'
Cc: 'David Toyer'
Subject: RE: Schneider Homes rezone application_Public Comment_Reply
Breyden
Thanks for the public comment.
We have contacted the Biologist who did the original report. He does not recall finding any nest on site and he does not
recall any nest listed with the WDFW Priority Habitats mapping website.(See Pg. 3 and 6 of his report dated April 20,
2020)
We have asked him to make a site survey and confirm his original findings.
We will forward his report when it is ready. Given that we were just informed of the issue, we are not confident of
having the report before the 11t". Please include this email as our reply until the report can be issued.
Thanks
Hans
Hans A. Korve
Planning Manager
DMP Engineering - Auburn
Tel 253-333-2200 Cell 425-444-3240
Website: www.dmp-inc.us
Original Message
From: Sheryl Havens <sherylhavens3@gmait.com>
Sent: Tuesday, October 8, 2024 5:16 PM
To: Breyden Jager <Breyden.Jager@TukwitaWA.gov>
Subject: Schneider Homes rezone application
Hello Brayden,
I will be unable to attend the meeting regarding the rezoning application submitted by Schneider Homes
at 6250 S 151 st St. Tukwila, WA 98188. Please consider this email in lieu of my presence at the meeting.
As a 23-year resident in that neighborhood, I regularly walk by 6250 S 151 st St. and I can tell you that it is
a nesting area for bald eagles and an ecosystem that supports wildlife. Therefore, I want to voice my
disapproval. I do not think any development should happen on that property because it will destroy the
wildlife habitat, especially that of our endangered bald eagles. As a Tukwila citizen, I say no to Medium
Density Residential there and I say no to any kind of development on that property.
i
0h3DhyOu,
S.Howenu
SUnVvOOdCondominium community
Sent from DlyiP3d
CAUTION: This email originated frornoutaidetheCitvofTukvvhonetvvork.P(maae[}[)N[Topen
attachments orclick links from onunknown orsuspicious origin.
Notice: Emails and attachments may be subject to disclosure pursuant to the Public Records Act (chapter 42.56 RCW).
This email originated from outside the City of Tukwila network. Please DO NOT open
attachments or CLICK 1inKS Trom an unKnown or suspicious origin.
Notice: Ernails and attachments may be subject to disclosure pursuant to the Public Records Act (chapter 42.56 RCW),
:This email originated from outside the City of Tukwila network. Please D N Topen
attachments or click links from an unknown or suspicious origin.
2
TOYER STRATEGIC ADVISORS, INC.
DAVID TOYER, PRESIDENT
3705 COLBY AVE, STE 1
EVERETT, WA 98201
425-322-5226 I toyerstrategic.com
HEARING MEMORANDUM
October 10, 2024
Tukwila City Council
6200 Southcenter Boulevard
Tukwila, WA 98188
APPLICATION: L19-0123 (ON REMAND)
REZONE & COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT
Dear Councilors:
Our land use and economic development planning firm represents the Applicant on its proposed rezone and land
use map amendment from Low Density Residential (LDR) to Medium Density Residential (MDR). We concur with
November 2023 and October 2024 staff reports, which recommended approval of the rezone as consistent with
the decision criteria for such amendments.
In the lead up to the 2023 hearing on this proposal, the city received comments from the public expressing
concerns that the rezone would lead to more undesirable development types (e.g. apartments) and that it would
further impact area traffic, as well as wetlands on the site. Lastly, some commentors expressed concern about
parking, the buffer between the project and adjacent residences, and the maximum development area of the site
and related removal of trees.
The Applicant has been clear about its intended development of the site for townhomes. The rezone to MDR
enables the Applicant to create 64 townhomes on the site instead of what would otherwise be 29 single family
homes (SFUs) and 29 accessory dwelling units (ADUs) permitted under the LDR zoning. While the difference
between 64 townhomes and 58 SFUs/ADUs may seem small, the distinction between these product types is
significant because townhomes are a needed middle housing type.
In response to citizen comments regarding traffic and wetland impacts, the Applicant hereby submits a 2019
Critical Areas Report from Seawall Wetland Consulting and a 2024 Trip Generation Comparison Memorandum from
TENW. These reports reach two significant conclusions that conclusively address public concerns and questions:
• there are no critical areas on the site - i.e. no wetlands on site, despite public impression to the contrary
• maximum development under the MDR rezone would result in 174 fewer daily vehicle trips than
development under the current LDR zone due to the types of residential units
While the Applicant does not necessarily plan to develop to the maximum extent allowed under the MDR zoning, if
a rezone is approved, the Applicant has provided analysis with that assumption in mind so that there can be no
mis-impression as to the development differences (or lack thereof) between the LDR and MDR zone. Were the
rezone to be denied, the Applicant would anticipate developing the site to the maximum extent feasible, so
therefore we have also analyzed all zoning considerations based on the maximum density allowed under that zone.
Compatibility with Surrounding Zoning
The larger area in which the Applicant's property is located contains a broad range of zoning. The property is
bounded to the east by a roadway and High Density Residential (HDR). The properties to the north are zoned Low
Density Residential (LDR) but immediately change to HDR just a few parcels north without any transition overlays
or setbacks. The property to the west is LDR. To the south is a mix of LDR, arterial, and MDR. In their 2023 Staff
Report, City Staff concluded that a rezone to MDR would have a "minimal difference in magnitude of [] impacts
relative to what could occur under existing conditions" and the "impact is not expected to be significant." That
remains the case today, under this remand review.
In its original review, the prior City Council discussed the theory of a transition or buffer area between zones. It has
been nearly a year between that Council's review, the Court review finding that Council's decision to be erroneous,
and this Council's review. Despite that passage of time, the City has chosen not to adopt any sort of transition or
buffer between zones, to the contrary, the City is discussing increased zoning flexibility and density across the City.
Granting the Applicant's rezone based on the years -old application is entirely consistent with the City's long-range
planning direction. The idea of isolating the Applicant's property to create a transition between zones, especially
given the mix of zoning, topography and existing uses, was and remains unsupported by City Code and the facts on
the ground.
Parking
Figure 18-7 of the Tukwila Municipal Code shows that the requirement for parking is based on the number of
bedrooms, not the underlying zone. Thus, the parking requirement for single and multifamily units, whether they
are in the LDR or MDR zone is the same.
Landscape Buffering
Table A in Chapter 18.52 demonstrates that regardless of whether the site is zoned LDR or MDR, the side and rear
landscaping requirements are that of a 10 foot, Type 1 landscape buffer. This constitutes the minimum buffer,
actual development may vary to provide for larger buffers depending on topography, project design (including
considerations such as impervious surfaces, yards, open space), and retained trees.
Tree Removal
Regardless of whether the property is zoned LDR or MDR, future development is allowed a maximum development
area of 75%.1 Further, regardless of the zone any future development of the site must comply with Chapters 18.52
and 18.54, which address landscaping and tree protection and removal. The only major difference between the
two zones is that the proposed MDR zone will require the Applicant to provide a minimum of 400 square feet of
recreation space per unit.
Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Thank you,
David Toyer
President
1 Applicant wishes to point out that clearing and grading is a very complex matter primarily driven by establishing the grades necessary to
support utility (water, sewer, stormwater, etc.) connections and pedestrian connectivity, as well as trying to "balance" the site (i.e. limit
import/export of fill by using what exists on the site).
L19-0123 REZONE & COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENMENT PAGE 2 OF 12
Supplemental Applicant Analysis
Tukwila Municipal Code JIN{) at 18.84.020 establishes criteria for determining whether to grant rozone, which
the Applicant must demonstrate it meets. The following provides Applicant analysis isshown inblue,
demonstrating how this proposal meets the criteria.
1. The proposed amendment tothe Zoning Map |oconsistent with the goals, objectives, andpoUcjeoofthe
Comprehensive Plan.
The Tukwila Comprehensive Plan has a clear Vision that includes the following statements:
* VVevalue the diversity nfour residents.
* We encourage home ownership, and support both owners and renters in maintaining and improving their
homes.
* We support our families so they can thrive as caretakers for all family members, including elders.
The proposed rezone to MDR is consistent with this vision as it provides greater flexibility in the creation of
housing options that serve a broader range of household sizes, types, and incomes, which supports diversity,
attainable housing options, and stronger families.
Community Image & Identify Element
Goal 1.1 - A Community of Inviting Neighborhoods and Vibrant Business Districts
The proposed rezone is consistent with at least one of the implementation strategies for Goal 1.1: "Continue to
implement the Walk & Roll P|an.^ Asnoted inthe staff report, the rezone site isinthe Tukwila Hill
neighborhood where sidewalks already exist on both sides of the road around the site. These sidewalks
connect to nearby transit and to the city's system of trails (Figure 2, Walk & Roll Plan).
The proposed rezone allows for greater housing type diversity and could create additional density in an area
that promotes connectivity within the neighborhood as well as nearby transit.
Housing Element
Goal 3.1 - The City of Tukwila provides the City's fair share of regional housing.
The proposed rezone and comprehensive plan amendment is consistent with countywide planning policies and
multicounty planning policies that guide allocation of housing within the region. Under the current regional
growth strategy, Tukwila is one of 16 cities in the region designated as a Core Cities regional geography. These
16 cities are responsible for accommodating 28% of the region's population and 35% of the region's
employment growth. Tukwila's share of the housing growth target among the 16 cities in its regional geography
Asnoted inthe staff report, Tukwila has been behind inmeeting its current housing targets for 2035. These
housing growth targets will increase for the planning horizon in 2044 and rezones like this will be necessary to
encourage and accommodate housing growth within the city.
Housing Policy 3.1.1
Provide sufficient zoned housing potential to accommodate future single- and multi -family households to meet
the regional growth target of 4,800 new housing units by 2031.
As mentioned in the staff report, which cites the 2021 King County Urban Growth Capacity Report,/ Tukwila
grew by only 130 housing units between 2006 and 2018, achievingjust 6% of its 2035 regional housing
growth target of 5.020 in a 12-year period. Looking out to 3044, the city has n preliminary housing growth
target of 6,500 units. To accommodate this growth and encourage a diverse range of housing options, the city
L1Q{)123REZONE @ COMPREHENSIVEPLAN AMENMENT PAGE 3OF12
will require rezones like the one the Applicant has proposed.
Housing Policy 312
Work with residents and property owners to consider housing options that meet current and future needs.
As mentioned in the Applicant's initial analysis, the proposed rezone and comprehensive plan amendment
would help meet the need to provide housing to moderate income families and increase housing choices close
totransit and employment opportunities. Further, the Applicant agrees with staff analysis that Western
Washington has an existing housing deficit that will worsen without more housing production in communities
like Tukwila. We also agree that the proposed rezone is consistent with establishing zoning transitions
(tapering) between low density residential zoning and high -density residential zoning.
Further, as the Applicant points out above, Tukwila has made limited progress towards meeting its regional
housing target for 2035 let alone its higher target for 2044. The city must begin to look at reasonable
measures to identify solutions for more housing production, especially the production of more diverse housing.
When cities fall behind in meeting housing targets, they are required to consider "reasonable measures" which
measures can include considering rezones like the Applicant has proposed. For direction see DP'22inthe
2O21King County Countywide Planning Pn|inies.o
This rezone and comprehensive plan amendment is an opportunity for the city and the landowner (the
Applicant) to create needed middle housing options that will help the city meet current and future housing
needs.
Housing Element
Goal 3.2 - The City of Tukwila has safe, healthy and affordable homes for all residents in Tukwila.
Applicant's proposed rezone and comprehensive plan amendment will allow for a greater diversity of housing
types and is likely to result in additional density achieved on the subject property. Both outcomes help Tukwila
provide homes for current and future residents, including existing residents that maybe looking toswitch from
one housing type tnanother.
Housing Policy 3.2.1
Provide zoning that allows a variety of housing throughout the City to allow for diverse, equitable
neighborhoods.
The proposed MDR zoning would outright allow for a greater range of housing types, including single family
detached housing, zero lot line detached housing, senior housing, duplexes, triplexes, fourplexes, and
townhomos(up to4units per Uui|din6). Also, assisted living facilities are aconditional use inthe MDR zone.
Housing Policy 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
As mentioned above, the housing types permitted in the MDR zone would provide for greater housing diversity
and may help the city achieve these goals.
Housing Policy 3.2.3
Provide sufficient appropriate zoning for housing of all types, including government assisted housing, housing
for|ow'inoomefmnni|ies.menufeoturedhousing,mu|tifami|yhousinQ,mndgrouphomesandfosteroane
fani|ities, subject to conditions that appropriately integrate them into existing neighborhoods.
L1Q{)123REZONE @ COMPREHENSIVEPLAN AMENMENT PAGE 4OF12
The proposed MDR rezone would allowfora greater range of housingtypesto be provided on this property.
Housing Element
Goal 3.5 The City of Tukwila includes a full range of housing for persons in all stages of life and for all
members ofour community.
As mentioned above the proposed MDR rezone would provide an expanded range of housing options that could
be development on the subject property - each of which has the potential to appeal to various persons in
various stages of their life.
Housing Element
Goal 3.6 - Increase long-term residency in the city.
Most housing types allowed within the MDR zone promote ownership opportunities. That said, the diversity of
the housing types allowed would provide for a greater range ofalternatives that may provide more affordable
housing options tnolarger segment nfthe population.
Housing Policy 3.0.2
Encourage long-term residency by providing a range of home ownership options for persons in all stages of life.
As mentioned above, the housing types permitted within the MDR zone provide a greater range of housing
options - some of which will appeal to a greater range of persons in varying stages of their lives.
Parks, Recreation and Open Space Policy 811
Create a system of close -to -home recreation opportunities, aiming for a 1/4-mile to 1/2-mile travel distance
between most residential uses and parks and recreation areas.
The proposed MDR rezone islocated within the 1/2mile wa|kshmdfor transit (See Figure 1m-attached) and is
within\6mi|nnadiusofTukmi|aPnrk.theGneenRivorTnai|.endFortDentPerk(SeeFiQune2*-attanhed).
Residential Neighborhoods Policy 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 wa|kinQ, bioyc|ing, transit and other alternatives to auto travel.
A 2019 King County Geographic GHG Emissions Inventoryv found that among sources of emissions, land use
contributes 5% while buildings and transportation contribute 46% and 43%, respectively. Thus, optimization of
land use and building footprints near alternative modes oftransportation (e.g., transit, we|king, biking, etc.) is
vitally important toreducing greenhouse gas emissions.
Zoning changes within high -capacity walksheds like the one the Applicant has proposed contribute to
decreased greenhouse gas emissions inthree ways. First they optimize land use bypermitting more density
(Uui|ding)within the same clearing and grading limits. Second, they encourage more efficient housing types,
which reduces building related emissions. Third, they connect ahigher concentration ofresidents to
alternative modes of transportation, including high'oapacitytranait, walking paths, and bike paths, which are
intended to reduce vehicle miles traveled and single occupant vehicle trips - contributors to transportation
related greenhouse gas emissions.
As mentioned earlier, the proposed MDR rezone is located within the 1/2 mile walkshed for transit and is within
a 1/2 mile radius of Tukwila Park, the Green River Trail, and Fort Dent Park, as well as other trails and bike
lanes. See attached Figures 1 3.
Residential Neighborhoods Policy 7.5.3
Support single-family residential in -fill housing that is in harmony with the existing neighborhood as a means of
L1Q{)123REZONE @ COMPREHENSIVEPLAN AMENMENT PAGE 5OF12
achieving adequate, affordable and/or diverse housing.
The MDR zone allows for attached and detached housing types that are very similar in character and scale to
single family detached housing but at slightly higher densities. Thus, the proposed rezone will help achieve
more affordable and diverse housing while being in harmony with the existing neighborhoods (some of which
were pre-GMA).
CONSISTENCY WITH COUNTY & REGIONAL GOALS
Tukwila's Comprehensive Plan, while governing Tukwila, is developed in conjunction with other cities, King
County, and the region in order to comply with the Growth Management Act (GMA) requirement that local
comprehensive plans be consistent with countywide planning policies (CPPs) as well as multicounty planning
policies (MPPs).\n,vil The Applicant hereby provides the following analysis to demonstrate that the proposed
rezone and comprehensive plan amendment are not only consistent with Tukwila's Comprehensive Plan, but
also consistent with the CPPs and MPPs, furthering countywide goals and policies, as well as the adopted
regional growth strategy.
CONSISTENCY WITH COUNTYWIDE PLANNING POLICIES (CPPs)
CPP Policy DP-2
Prioritize housing and employment growth in cities and centers within the Urban Growth Area, where residents
and workers have higher access to opportunity and high -capacity transit. Promote a pattern of compact
development within the Urban Growth Area that includes housing at a range of urban densities, commercial
and industrial development, and other urban facilities, including medical, governmental, institutional, and
educational uses and schools, and parks and open space. The Urban Growth Area will include a mix of uses
that are convenient to and support public transportation to reduce reliance on single -occupancy vehicle travel
for most daily activities.
The proposed MDR rezone and comprehensive plan amendment is located within a Core Cities geography
under the regional growth strategy and the rezone site is within a 1/2 walkshed of major high -capacity transit.
The site is adjacent to Tukwila Elementary School and within a 1/2 distance radius of Tukwila Park, the Green
River Trail, and Fort Dent Park, as well as other trails and bike lanes.
In sum, the rezone supports housing growth within a part of an Urban Growth Area where a pattern of compact
development can provide for urban densities proximate to schools, parks, open spaces, employment, etc.
Rezones of this type can help reduce reliance on single -occupancy vehicle trips and reduce total vehicle miles
traveled.
CPP Policy DP-4
Focus housing growth in the Urban Growth Area within cities, designated regional centers, countywide centers,
locally designated local centers, areas of high employment, and other transit supported areas to promote
access to opportunity. Focus employment growth within designated regional and countywide
manufacturing/industrial centers and within locally designated local centers.
The proposed MDR rezone and comprehensive plan amendment is located within the 1/2 mile walk -shed for
high -capacity transit. Additionally, the rezone is within a Core Cities geography and proximate to a designated
regional manufacturing/industrial center and a regionally designated Growth Center (North Tukwila MIC and
Tukwila Regional Growth Center). Additional housing near employment centers is a key principle within the
Regional Growth Strategy.
CPP Policy H-12
Identify sufficient capacity of land for housing including, but not limited to income restricted housing; housing
for moderate-, low-, very low-, and extremely low-income households; manufactured housing; multifamily
L19-0123 REZONE & COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENMENT PAGE 6 OF 12
housing; group homes; foster care facilities; emergency housing; emergency shelters; permanent supportive
housing; and within an urban growth area boundary, duplexes, triplexes, and townhomes.
Consistent with this policy, the proposed rezone and comprehensive plan amendment would allow for a greater
range of housing types to be built, including duplexes, triplexes, and townhomes.
CPP Policy H-15
Increase housing choices for everyone, particularly those earning lower wages, that is co -located with,
accessible to, or within a reasonable commute to major employment centers and affordable to all income
levels. Ensure there are zoning ordinances and development regulations in place that allow and encourage
housing production at levels that improve jobs housing balance throughout the county across all income levels.
Consistent with this policy, the proposed rezone would create additional housing options within a reasonable
commute of major employment centers, including the North Tukwila MIC and the Tukwila Growth Center.
CPP Policy H-16
Expand the supply and range of housing types, including affordable units, at densities sufficient to maximize
the benefits of transit investments throughout the county.
The proposed MDR rezone and comprehensive plan amendment is located within a Core Cities geography
under the regional growth strategy and the rezone site is within a 1/2 walkshed of major high -capacity transit.
The site is adjacent to Tukwila Elementary School and within a 1/2 distance radius of Tukwila Park, the Green
River Trail, and Fort Dent Park, as well as other trails and bike lanes.
CPP Policy H-18
Adopt inclusive planning tools and policies whose purpose is to increase the ability of all residents in
jurisdictions throughout the county to live in the neighborhood of their choice, reduce disparities in access to
opportunity areas, and meet the needs of the region's current and future residents by:
a) Providing access to affordable housing to rent and own throughout the jurisdiction, with a focus on areas
of high opportunity;
The proposed rezone is consistent with H-18(a) as it would create additional, more affordable housing options
in an area where infill development opportunities (like the one proposed) can add housing options near high -
capacity transit and employment centers.
b) Expanding capacity for moderate -density housing throughout the jurisdiction, especially in areas currently
zoned for lower density single-family detached housing in the Urban Growth Area, and capacity for high -
density housing, where appropriate, consistent with the Regional Growth Strategy;
The proposed rezone is consistent with H-18(b) as it proposes to expand the capacity for moderate/medium
density housing within an area currently zoned for lower density single-family housing.
c) Evaluating the feasibility of, and implementing, where appropriate, inclusionary and incentive zoning to
provide affordable housing; and
Not applicable to this proposed rezone.
d) Providing access to housing types that serve a range of household sizes, types, and incomes, including
2+ bedroom homes for families with children and/or adult roommates and accessory dwelling units,
efficiency studios, and/or congregate residences for single adults.
The proposed rezone is consistent with H-18(d) as it would provide for a greater range of housing types
L19-0123 REZONE & COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENMENT PAGE 7 OF 12
allowed, including housing types that may bnmore accessible tna greater range nfhousehold sizes, types and
incomes, aswell asthose having more specialized housing needs.
CONSISTENCY WITH REGIONAL GROWTH MULT|COUNTYPLANNING POLICIES (MPPa)
[NPPRGS-4
Accommodate the region's growth first and foremost in the urban growth area. Ensure that development in
rural areas isconsistent with the regional vision and the goals ofthe Regional Open Space Conservation Plan.
The proposed rezone will support housing densities and types within the urban growth areas, which densities
provide for greater housing choices city consistent with the Regional GrowthStratogy and adopted housing
growth targets.
N1PP'NGS-5
Ensure long-term stability and sustainability of the urban growth area consistent with the regional vision.
The Regional Growth Strategy sets goal ofdirecting 0596ofthe ion'spopu|ation growth to be located
within regional growth centers and within walking distance ofhigh-capacity transit. The proposed rezone site is
located within the 1/2mile walk -shed for high -capacity transit and its proximate to both the North Tukwila MIC
and the Tukwila regional growth center.
MPP-RGS-6
Encourage efficient use of urban land by optimizing the development potential of existing urban lands and
increasing density in the urban growth area in locations consistent with the Regional Growth Strategy.
The rezone to Medium Density Residential will allow for a greater density and permit a range of housing
options, including single family, multifamily, senior, and other housing types, that encourage the efficient use of
urban lands and optimize the site's development potential.
MPP-DP1
Develop high -quality, compact urban communities throughout the region's urban growth area that impart a
sense of place, preserve local character, provide for mixed uses and choices in housing types, and encourage
walking, bicycling, and transit use.
The proposed rezone will support housing densities and types that provide for more housing choices in the city
and within the 1/2 walk -shed for high -capacity transit and 1/2 mile radius from a future LNIK station. Thus, the
proposed rezone will encourage housing types that support walking, bicycling, and transit use.
N1PP'H'1
Plan for housing supply, forms, and densities to meet the re8on's current and projected needs consistent with
the Regional Growth Strategy and to make significant progress towards jobs/ housing balance.
The proposed rezone will help the city meet its projected housing needs by providing a greater range of housing
options. Specifically, the proposed MDR zone allows for housing types that include duplexes, triplexes,
townhomes, etc. - all of which are identified missing middle housing types. Further, the rezone would direct
additional population growth near regional growth centers and within walking distance of high'oapaoitytronsit.
The proposed rezone site is located within the 1/2 mile walk -shed for high -capacity transit and its proximate to
both the North Tukwila M|Cand the Tukwila regional growth center.
MPP-H-2
Provide a range of housing types and choices to meet the housing needs of all income levels and demographic
groups within the region.
L1Q{)123REZONE @ COMPREHENSIVEPLAN AMENMENT PAGE 8OF12
The proposed rezone allows for a greater range of housing, including detached and attached housing options,
which ultimately help the city comply with the Regional Growth Strategy and new GK8A requirements for missing
middle housing.
MPP-H-3
Achieve and sustain - through p,ese,vaton, nehabi|itaton, and new development - a sufficient supply of
housingtomeettheneedsof|ow'inoome.moderate+inoome.midd|e'inoomo.andspeoia|needsindividua|smnd
households that is equitably and rationally distributed throughout the region.
The proposed rezone to MDR will allow for a greater range of housing types including single family detached
and zero lot line units, dup|oxes, triplexes, fnurp|exoa, and townhnmes (4 units per building). It also allows for,
bycondition use permit, assisted living facilities. This variety can help the city achieve its housing targets and
sustain asufficient and timely supply ofhousing tomeet local needs.
2. The proposed amendment tothe Zoning Map |oconsistent with the scope and purpose ofTIVICTitle 18,"Zon|ng
Code," and the description and purpose of the zone classification applied for.
The proposed rezone isconsistent with the purpose ofthe MDR zone asset forth inTIVIC18.26D1D,which
states the intent is:
... 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.
The proposed rezone would provide additional housing options for families and others who seek alternatives to
more expensive lower -density housing. The site can support the range ofpermitted uses within the MDR zone,
including duplexes, triplexes, townhomes.etc. Additionally, the proposed rezone would create needed medium
density housing types within a 1/2 mile walkshed of transit, as well as nearby designated regional employment
centers.
3. There are changed conditions since the previous zoning became effective to warrant the proposed amendment
to the Zoning Map.
There are three primary changed conditions that support the proposed rezone.
1- There is a statewide, regional, and local housing shortfall that is negatively impacting the housing market
and the broader economy. In some cases, the result is housing displacement and in other cases it's high
percentages ofcost-burdened households. Allowing for increases indensity, consistent with the Regional
Growth Strategy and near existing services like transit, is a growing trend across the region.
Specifically, the 2022 Competitiveness Report for Washington (produced by the Lt. Governor and the Joint
Legislative Committee onEconomic Deve|opment),which makes clear:
w Washington State has the fewest number of housing units per household of any state in the country, and
the housing crisis is getting worse as the number of units built has not kept pace with household formation
over the last decade.
� The lack of supply puts strong upward pressure on home prices and rents. 44% of Washington renter
households are cost burdened and spend more than 30% of their income on housing; 22% of renters are
severely cost burdened and spend more than 5O%nftheir income onhousing.
� Chronically undersupplied housing is the principal driver of the state's homelessness crisis. Washington's
homelessness rate-30 per 10,000 residents —is well above the U.S. average (18 per 10,000 residents).
L1Q{)123REZONE & COMPREHENSIVEPLAN AMENMENT PAGE QOF12
° Homeownership is becoming more unattainable, particularly for BIPOC households. The Black
homeownership rate is 11.5% lower than the national average, which ranks last among peer states, and
the 7th lowest nationally.
* Homeownership is becoming more unattainable, particularly for BIPOC households. The Black
homeownership rate is 11.5% lower than the national average, which ranks last among peer states, and
the 7th lowest nationally.
0 There are only 1.06 housing units per household Washington State compared to 1.14 nationally.
Further, the Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC) published a Regional Housing Needs Assessment in January
2022, which found:
* The Puget Sound Region needs a total of 810,000 new housing units to accommodate the region's
population growth by2O50. Yet, the region istwo years behind inhousing production (approximately
4O,OOOhousing units that weren't created between 2O1Oand 2O2O).
* The region's current housing stock provides limited middle density housing options, including townhomes
and triplexes. Core cities, like Tukwila, have an existing housing stock that is primarily (57%) single family
detached housing as compared to an average of 25% of their housing stock in moderate (medium density)
housing types.
0 Over 30% of white households and 40% of people of color households are cost burdened today.
� The region needs 254,000 units now to address cost burdened households and a total of 520,000 units to
address both current and future housing cost burdens.
2. The 2021 Urban Growth Capacity Report demonstrates that the City of Tukwila has been substantially
behind in meeting its housing targets, which means it needs to explore reasonable measures (including
rezones like that proposed) toincrease housing production and accommodate abroader range nfhousing
needs.
Exhibit 13 of the 2021 Urban Growth Capacity Report shows that Tukwila only added 130 housing units
between 2006 and 2018, accounting for a mere 2.3% of its allocated housing target of 5,626 net new
units by2035. And according to Exhibit 55, the preliminary housing target for Tukwila by 2044 is now
6,500 housing units, which increase will require the city to enact zoning changes (such as that proposed by
the Applicant) to ensure sufficient housing production and housing options.
3. |nfiUhouaing, and in particular missing middle and medium density housing, has become a primary focus of
recent Legislative actionviii and adjustments in the Regional Growth Strategy. The proposed rezone in
consistent with the state's missing middle housing bill that passed in the most recent session, which law
requires duplexes, triplexes, and other housing options to be available in all single-family zones. Thus, the
proposed recent implements the spirit of these legislative changes without delay associated with broader
code updates. This isimportant given the pressing need for housing today.
In conclusion, current conditions now warrant the city to take full advantage of infill development opportunities like
that proposed inthis MDR rezone. The subject rezone will help the city create a sufficient and diverse housing
stock toaddress immediate and long-term housing needs.
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.
L1y-0123REZONE 8 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENMENT PAGE 1UOF12
The proposed rezone and comprehensive plan amendment will be in the interest of furthering the public health,
safety, comfort, convenience and general welfare based on the following:
* The region, including the city of Tukwila, has an urgent need to encourage housing production to address a
shortage of at least 46,000 housing units needed today.
0 Tukwila has historically underperformed in creating sufficient housing to meet its housing targets.
� Middle housing (including duplexes, triplexes and townhomes) are needed housing options that are not
permitted in the existing zoning.
� The proposed rezone would create more housing options near two regionally designated employment centers
(the North Tukwila MIC and the Tukwila Regional Growth Center), creating a more balanced and localized
housing -jobs balance that reduces transportation congestion and expenses.
� The subject rezone site is located within a 1/2 mile walkshed of high capacity transit, parks, and other key
community amenities that promote transit and walkability consistent with regional goal.
The proposed rezone and comprehensive plan amendment will not adversely affect the surrounding neighborhood
nor Uminjurious toother properties inthe vicinity based onthe following:
� The proposed MDR zone allows for housing types that are considered compatible with the existing single-family
housing within the vicinity. Further, in the adoption of HB 1110 this past legislative session, State Law now
requires jurisdictions to allow medium density housing types as permitted uses within low -density single-family
zones. Thus, the subject proposal (and future infill development in the area) will be consistent and compatible
to address changes in state law, the regional growth strategy, and housing needs.
� The proposed rezone and comprehensive plan amendment would create moderate density housing options in a
neighborhood area (half -mile radius) that currently includes over a dozen apartments and condominium
complexes.
* The proposed rezone is situated at the boundary between low density residential and high -density residential
zones. Thus, the proposed rezone will create a zoning transition between less intense and more intense
residential development.
� The proposed rezone and comprehensive plan amendment are mapping changes only, they do not approve a
development project. Thus, specific development review (including design review) will still be required, which
review will evaluate the specific impacts of a future development proposal, identify mitigation (if any is
required), and ensure design standards are met consistent with local requirements.
L1y-0123REZONE 8 COMPREHENSIVE PLANAMENAVENT PAGE 11OF12
ENDNOTES:
2021 King County Urban Growth Capacity Report, Adopted December 14, 2021, Ratified April 6, 2022.
2021 King County Countywide Planning Policies, Adopted December 21, 2021, Ratified April 6, 2022.
King County Draft Comprehensive Plan Map (June 2023) Showing Half -Mile Walk -Shed to High Capacity Transit
Tukwila iMap GIS
King County Communitywide Geographic Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Cascadia Consulting Group, August 2022
RCW 36.70A.100 - Comprehensive Plans Must Be Coordinated
The comprehensive plan of each county or city that is adopted pursuant to RCW 36.70A.040 shall be coordinated with, and
consistent with, the comprehensive plans adopted pursuant to RCW 36.70A.040 of other counties or cities with which the county
or city has, in part, common borders or related regional issues.
See RCW 36.70A.210, particularly subsections (1) and (7).
See HB 1110
L19-0123 REZONE & COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENMENT PAGE 12 OF 12
Figure 1:
Half Mile Walk -Shed to High Capacity Transit
2024 King County Comprehensive Plan
Appendix B — Housing Needs Assessment
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT — June 2023
Note: this map will be updated with the most recent available data in the final transmittal.
Map 5: Housing Development Capacity within a half mile of high capacity or frequent transit, Unincorporated King County
Data Source Potential Annexation Area Development Capacity
KCOPFDAH 48
Kent North Green River Park
48 UGC 3 '
Klurnp 3
KCOPFDAH 65
UGC 1,073
N Highline Area Y 1,138
UGC
NE 97th Street 31
UGC
North Federal Way 491
UGC
Sliver by the River 15
KCOPFDAH 32
UGC Total 2,414
31
491
15
West Hill 2,446
Total 4,173
UGC; Urban Growth Capacity data provided by KC PS8
KCOPFDAH, King County -Owned Parcels Potentially Feasible for Development of
Affordable Housing Data provided by KC DC&HS
t„
;
7,,ZEkk,
King County
GIS CENTER
arr.. s
420
NE 97th
greet
;Rezone Site
*
HOUSING
DEVELOPMENT CAPACITY
in Unincorporated KC Wthin a half mile of
High Capacity or Frequent Remit
, Parceis with Housing Development Capacity
Hip Capacity & Frequent Transit Scups
HaffMile Walk -Shed of High Capucity
FrequeraTransit Stops
Residential Land in Unincorporuted King
County
Selected Potential Annexation Areas (FAA)
------ Orin?, Growth Area Boundary
Incorporated City
City ??, Rural Aro
??- ?0708 Lands
King Cowry Boundary
Data Salm.:
?<lug tut?, Dsrunmuut of l4.1Senrkes.
1,4 Gout, Perummn, N.51. Parks
King c??????ty Ofluu tf.i. Perf.......gy
King Cat,
Regional Cow.)
a.../ .?????, th,folk?y,vonin,
bace
11,14.648CS, RS, 0 High O..,
1.18 .1.1.1..e Density
rt.... UR, ...O.,.
A -I. POS. RA-10 - 1.ral Dc.ity
Own. Parks.
001014 andWkilite
Vasgal C.M.
ScHis. sir. tort. ging
zite Far.tud
by King Oxon.,.
not va,r3 mitel mgr..
The IIMIM601, O.0 0p00000000yK06000,00010000
WE'01.SSYMIACC. King Co.ty .
express
.n6.. or clef. to . u sub info.... Coup...A1 not
or ...mut
frvrt th, n...of the
an APy ute to. or AM.. ant* ma?? p??ontiu<1
Com,
01
Paved Trails
Unpaved Trad
IIAw Bike Lanes
DATE: September 20, 2024
TO: Zach Schneider
Schneider Homes Inc.
FROM: Spenser Haynie
TENW
SUBJECT: Trip Generation Comparison Memo
Hopper Townhomes - Tukwila, WA
TENW Project No. 2024-262
The purpose of the memo is to summarize preliminary trip generation information related to the
proposed rezone of the Hopper Townhomes site in Tukwila, WA. This memo includes a project description,
trip generation estimate for two land use alternatives (current vs requested zoning), and a brief discussion
of the existing traffic concerns expressed in the project vicinity.
roject
escri
tion
The proposed Hopper Townhomes site is located on a 4.45-acre parcel at 6250 S 151" Street in Tukwila,
WA as shown in the vicinity map in Attachment A). Allowable development on the site consistent with
current City development code and with the requested rezone include:
Low Density Residential (Current Zoning): Under the current zoning, development of up to 6.7
dwelling units (DU) per net acre is allowed. The Low Density Residential (LDR) district requires a
minimum lot size of 6,500 square feet (SF) and allows a total of one (1) single family home per
parcel as well as one (1) accessory dwelling unit (ADU). Under the existing LDR zoning, a total of
29 parcels could be created with 29 single-family units, as well as 29 accessory dwelling units per
parcel, equating to the equivalent of 58 dwelling units.
1Mediu ensity Residen.ia_I._(Requested .Rezone): The requested rezone would allow for the
development of up to 14.5 dwelling units per net acre. The Medium Density Residential (MDR)
district allows for the development of single-family homes, ADUs, detached zero -lot line units,
duplexes, triplexes, fourplexes, and townhouses with up to four (4) attached units. With the
requested rezone, the project site would allow up to 64 townhome units.
Tr! • eneration Co +arison
The weekday daily, AM and PM peak hour trip generation estimates for both development alternatives
(maximum development under existing zoning, and the requested rezone) were based on methodology
documented in the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual, 11t" Edition. For
the current zoning (LDR), the trip generation estimates were based on Land Use Code (LUC) 210 (Single -
Family Detached Housing). For the requested rezone (MDR), the trip generation estimates were based on
LUC 215 (Single -Family Attached Housing). Table 1 summarizes the new weekday trip generation for both
the current zoning (LDR) and requested zoning (MDR). Detailed trip generation calculations are provided
in Attachment B.
520 Kirkland Way, Suite 100, Kirkland, WA 98033
(425) 889-6747 www.tenw.com
As shown in Table 1, development of the property with the requested rezone would generate fewer trips
than if the site were developed to max potential units under current zoning.
Table 1
Trip Generation Comparison - LDR vs MDR
Weekday Time Period
Daily
AM Peak Hour
PM Peak Hour
Current Zoning (LDR) Requested Rezone (MDR)
In Out Total In Out Total
305
11
38
306
34
22
611
45
60
218
7
20
219
21
14
437
28
34
Existing Traffic Concerns
We are aware of a couple of traffic concerns that have been expressed in the vicinity of the project site.
The first concern is at the 65t" Ave S/Southcenter Blvd intersection and the potential that there will be an
increase in southbound left -turn queuing. The second concern is related to the potential increase in
congestion on 62nd Ave S particularly during the Tukwila Elementary School arrival and dismissal peak
hours.
The existing 65th Ave S/Southcenter Blvd intersection is located a few blocks south of the project site. The
southbound approach from 65t" Street is stop controlled while Southcenter Blvd running east/west
operates as free flow. This is an existing condition that results in extended queues during peak traffic
times. Based on review of the City's current FY 2023-2024 Capital Improvement Program (CIP), the City
has future plans to construct a new traffic signal at this intersection and is expected to be funded by a
combination of grant funding and Traffic Impact Fees collected from new developments within the City.
Existing traffic conditions on 62nd Ave S in the proximity of the elementary school is also an existing
condition that is mostly limited to the peak morning time period when there are parent drop-offs.
The City's plans to construct a new traffic signal at the 65t" Ave S/Southcenter Blvd intersection will improve
operations over existing conditions. Additionally, it should be noted that maximum buildout of the site
with the requested rezone is estimated to generate 174 fewer vehicle trips per day than maximum
buildout of the current zoning with 17 less trips during the AM peak hour and 26 less trips during the PM
peak hour.
Conclusion
With the current Low Density Residential (LDR) zoning, development of the site is estimated to generate
more trips when compared to the requested Medium Density Residential (MDR) rezone, with more trips
during the AM and PM peak hours. As a result, buildout of the site with the requested rezone would
generate less traffic than the development under existing zoning, thereby reducing potential traffic and
safety concerns in the project vicinity. Additionally, the City has plans to install a new traffic signal at the
65t" Ave S/Southcenter Blvd intersection, which will improve operations.
If you have any questions regarding the information presented in this memorandum, please contact me
at wenser@tenw.com or (206) 390-7253.
cc: Jeff Schramm - TENW Principal
Attachments: A - Project Site Vicinity
B - Trip Generation Calculations
Trip Generation Comparison Memo September 20, 2024
Hopper Townhomes (Tukwila) Page 2
TT
Project Site Vicinity
520 Kirkland Way, Suite 100, Kirkland, WA 98033
(425) 889-6747 r www.tenw.com
N
Attachment A: Project Site Vicinity
Trip Generation Comparison Memo
Hopper Townhomes (Tukwila)
September 20, 2024
Page 4
TT
•
Trip Generation Calculations
Trip Generation Comparison Memo September 20, 2024
Hopper Townhomes (Tukwila) Page 5
Hopper Townhomes
Weekday Trip Generation Summary - Existing Low Density Residential Zoning
Land Use
DAILY
Proposed Use:
Single Family Detached Housing
ITE Trip Rate or Directional Distribution Trips Generated
Size/Units 1 LUC 2 Equation 2 In Out In Out Total
58 DU 210 Ln(T) = 0.92Ln(X)+2.68 50% 50% 305 306 611
AM PEAK HOUR
Proposed Use:
Single Family Detached Housing
NewiailyT
p
58 DU 210 Ln(T) = 0.91 Ln(X)+0.12 25%
75% 11 34 45
PM PEAK HOUR
Proposed Use:
Single Family Detached Housing
blew AM Peak Hour Tr
pw
4
58 DU 210 Ln(T) = 0.94Ln(X)+0.27 63%
37% 38 22 60
New PM Peak Hour Trip;
8
2
Notes:
1 DU = Dwelling Units.
2 Based on Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual, 11 th Edition, 2021.
9/13/2024
Hopper Townhomes
Weekday Trip Generation Summary - Proposed Medium Density Residential Rezone
Land Use
DAILY
Proposed Use:
Single Family Attached Housing
ITE Trip Rate or Directional Distribution Trips Generated
Size/Units 1 LUC 2 Equation 2 In Out In Out Total
64 DU 215 T = 7.62(X) - 50.48 50% 50% 218 219 437
AM PEAK HOUR
Proposed Use:
Single Family Attached Housing
ewiailyi ps= 2'18 2 437
64 DU 215 T = 0.52(X) - 5.70 25%
75% 7 21 28
PM PEAK HOUR
Proposed Use:
Single Family Attached Housing
New AM Peak Hour Tr
pw
26
64 DU 215 T = 0.60(X) - 3.93
59% 41% 20 14 34
New PM Peak Hour Trips = 21) 14 34
Notes:
DU = Dwelling Units.
2 Based on Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual, 11 th Edition, 2021.
9/13/2024
4.xmotn.m.so..` •
David Toyer
Toyer Strategic Advisors
Applicant Representative
r
,
JOO40044
151ST $
,upftlage, ,
naMflSW nM�W ka
OO.o,
,gts„f -oloOWS°.
About the
Applicant
• Schneider Family Homes owns the property
• A Tukwila business for >45 years
• Developer -builder of single family, townhome and apartments
• Built the Maple Tree neighborhood (just to the south) in 1980s
Overview of the Rezone
• Originally presented to Council in November 2023 and denied.
Remanded back to the City by King County Superior Court.
• Proposed rezone and comprehensive plan amendment from Low
Density Residential (LDR) to Medium Density Residential (MDR).
• 64 townhomes proposed vs. 58 units (29 single family, 29 ADUs).
• Rezone and comprehensive plan amendment does not approve a
specific development project.
• Future development must still go through full project review
FAMILY HOMES
Decision Criteria
• Found in Tukwila Municipal Code 18.84.020
• Four criteria:
• Is proposed amendment consistent with goals, policies and objectives of
Comprehensive Plan?
• Is the proposed amendment consistent with the purpose of Title 18 and
the description and purpose of the zoning designation sought?
• Have there been changed conditions?
• Does the amendment further the public health, safety, comfort,
convenience and general welfare, and not be injurious to other properties?
FAMILY HOMES
Compliance with Criterion 1
Is proposed amendment consistent with goals, policies and
objectives of Comprehensive Plan?
v7 Yes
The proposed amendment is consistent with Goals 1.1, 3.1, 3.2, 3.5, 3.6 and
policies 3.1.1, 3.1.2, 3.2.1, 3.2.2, 3.2.3, 3.6.2, 6.1.1, 7.4.2 and 7.5.3. Additionally, its
consistent with applicable countywide planning policies and the Regional Growth
Strategy (multi -county planning policies).
Compliance with Criterion 2
Is the proposed amendment consistent with the purpose of Title 18
and the description and purpose of the zoning designation sought?
✓ Yes
The proposed amendment is consistent with the intent of the Medium Density
Residential zone to "... provide areas for family and group residential uses, and
serves as an alternative to lower density family residential housing ..."
Compliance with Criterion 3
Is the proposed amendment consistent with the purpose of Title 18
and the description and purpose of the zoning designation sought?
✓ Yes
According to the Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC) the region has a shortfall
of two -years of housing production (about 46,000 units) and the latest King
County Urban Growth Capacity Report shows Tukwila's housing production from
2006 to 2018 did not keep pace with its housing target. The rezone directly
addresses current and future middle housing needs.
Compliance with Criterion 4
Does the amendment further the public health, safety, comfort,
convenience and general welfare, and not be injurious to other
properties?
✓ Yes
The MDR zoning would allow townhouse development which would generate fewer total daily
vehicle trips than development under the existing LDR zone. The site does not have wetlands,
the rezone does not impact applicable requirements for trees and landscaping, the site is
proximate to transit options, and it addresses the city's housing shortage.
FAMILY HOMES
Transportation/Traffic
A trip generation comparison memorandum by TENW indicates:
• This rezone (and the proposed townhomes) results in 174 fewer daily trips than
development under the current zone.
Prior public comments have expressed concern about traffic at the intersection
of 65th Ave S. & Southcenter BLVD.
• A new traffic signal at the intersection was approved in 2025-2030 Transportation
Improvement Plan (TIP). The project is funded and will start construction in 2025.
• Future development will be required to complete a project specific traffic impact analysis.
Wetlands/Trees/Landscaping
Prior public comments expressed concern about wetlands on the site.
• Seawall Wetland Consulting evaluated the site and determined it did not have any
wetlands.
Prior public comments have expressed concern about tree removal and
landscaping.
• The maximum development area allowed under either zone is same (75%).
• Future development, regardless of the zone must comply with the city's tree protection
and removal requirements, and its landscaping requirements.
• Regardless of the zone, a future development's footprint will be the same.
FAMILY HO ES
Housing Needs
• Tukwila's current housing target (for 2035) was 5,626 net new units
• Tukwila's new housing target (for 2044) is 6,500 net new units
• Tukwila added only 130 housing units from 2006 to 2018
• The region has housing shortage of approximately 46,000 units
• Proposed rezone and comprehensive plan amendment help city address its housing
targets, accommodate local and regional housing needs, and respond to new GMA
requirements
FAMILY 110MES
Regional Growth Strategy & Transit
Compatibility
• Tukwila is a Core Cities geography under the Regional Growth Strategy
• Regional Growth Strategy calls for directing 65% of population growth
within walking distance of high -capacity transit and within regional
growth centers
• Rezone site is within the 1/2 mile walk -shed for high -capacity transit
• Rezone site is within 1/2 mile radius of future planned LINK station
• Rezone site is nearby two regional growth centers (North Tukwila MIC &
Tukwila Regional Growth Center)
FAMILY 110MES
HOUSING
d KC within
.Freqlp en t
High Ca j . uw etTrir sit
Ni Vie,. We Capp
Frcqu Tiro Sty
LOW en ei, e... mug e
Cormt
,Grawth Area
to r wed Cry
fl Leal Am
T V d nth
Virg Cowl tr GAMary
Tin
Conclusions
The proposed rezone and comprehensive plan map amendment
MEETS the criteria for approval under TMC 18.84.020
• MDR zoning promotes additional housing production
• MDR zoning allows greater housing variety, including townhomes
• MDR zoning fits the site's location within a 1/2 walk -shed of high -capacity transit
and proximate to designated regional employment centers
• The proposal is consistent with and promotes the comprehensive plan, the
countywide planning policies and the regional growth strategy (Vision 2050).
Allan Ekberg, Mayor
(�
I
Depurtmentoy[onnmonityQevelopment-NunaGierloff, A/CP,Directmr
STAFF REPORT
TO THE TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL
HEARING DATE: November 6, 2023
NOTIFICATION:
1/31/2]:Mailed toproperties within 5UU'radius
1/31/23:Site Posted
2/15/2]:Public Information Meeting
Notice ofhearing published inthe Seattle Times
FILE NUMBERS: L19'O1l3-Rezone
E19'0013'SEPA
APPLICANT: Hans Korve, Daley-Morrow-Poblete, Inc.
REQUEST: Change Comprehensive Plan map and zoning designation from Low Density
Residential (LDR)toMedium Density Residential (K4DR)
LOCATION: 6250S.151"5t,Tukwila, VVA(AzN: 359700-0400)
CURRENT COMPREHENSIVE
PLAN/ZONING DESIGNATION Low Density Residential (LDR)
8EPA DETERMINATION:
STAFF:
Determination of Nonsignificance issued June 15, 2023
BreydenJager, Associate Planner
A. Site + Current Zoning Map
B. Proposed Zoning Map
C. Applicant Response tuCriteria
D. MDR Zoning Development Standards (TK8C18.12)
E. Public Comments
Tukwila City Ho8° 6200 Southeenter Boulevard ° Tukwila, v&AqS18S °20s-43,3-1*00°
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 S. 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.
L19-0123: Rezone and Comprehensive Plan Amendment Staff Report
Page 3 of 12
LD
593)6
ft
5246 4
2023, 3:1 4:31 P
14920
I4495.4Z 14
6211
6216
6214 A. 4m1046215204
6216 201 '6216309.
LUR
06 1510025
'151001"
600 A15 M�1R
A 02
15156
1011
151561017
15138 111
15138 108
15140216
1514,9 219
Parcels MDRMedium Density Residential 1=2`257
0 0.01 0.03 G.06 tni
®City Ei(nlls ._-..UDR High Density Residential 0.03 0.06 0.11 km
Buildings r . ,RCM Radismal Comm Ibused Use cuy d rang aWnG
g-^-^-1 Source, EDN, Nmus DS, NS.,, N., DASA, csr,6 i. N Robins
Addresses (Tukwila) C . -I(iv S. , t-.Latastyrslaen, DON.Nrstaet_ G
Zoning ee0 cwunry DEMON wmaq and tna ci.s user main INNIN
LDR. Low Devts:ty Residential numAggeuneertwancis
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.
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.
VEVA Nazartl nem+UV,
14
1:2,257
0 -0A] 4.06
eat. vr,.. .x.c«mq
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
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 151' 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 31st, 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.
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:
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.
L19-0123: Rezone and Comprehensive Plan Amendment Staff Report
Page 8 of 12
:2fillatiTRICKINAtit;P.,;21;;,',''
,,,q1rtaiSrVIONOWatAr
cDofl
vAiotte*,40*
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)
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 Tess 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
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
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
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).
Current Zoning Map
Attachment A
10/25/2023, 5:16:54 PM
[--- --- 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
Proposed Zoning Map
Attachment B
10/25/2023, 5:16:54 PM
[--- --- Parcels
Zoning
LDR Low Density Residential
MDR Medium Density Residential
HDR High Density Residential
RCM Regional Commercial Mixed Use
Overlay Area
0
0.01
0 0.03
1:2,257
0.03
0.06
0.06 mi
i
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
SUR;II" ,11114: NINO
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:
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.
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
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.
Page 14 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Request 18.84 Hopper Townhomes
Return to Title Page
Return to
Chapter 18.10
ttc t
TITLE 18 — ZONING
2
T
ITY '' I T
T 1 T
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
Return to Title Page
Re
urn 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)
Produced by the City of Tukwila, City Clerk's Office Page 18-41
Return to Title Page
Re
urn 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
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
http s : //o ut i oo k. offi cc3 65 . com/mail/inbo x/i d/AA QkA GFhN D MxNzU 5 L...
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
1 of 2 3/23/2020, 10:14 AM
haps ://outlook.officc365.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 S.151st Place
TI : 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 of 2 3/23/2020, 10:14 AM
March 30,Z02O
David &LavaTomlinson
6360S151stP|
Tukwila, VVA98l88
Tukwila City Council
G2OD5outhcenterBlvd
Tukwila, WA 98188
Members of the Tukwila City Council,
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:Ll9-OlZS &E19-0013,Project Fi|e#:PL19-OO99). Weare adamantly
opposed to the rezoning mfthis property, aswell asthe development plan put forward byDK4P
and Schneider Homes. VVewill 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.
\A/ewant tnbegin hvassuhngyouthotvveanekeenk/axvareofourareasneedfnrnnore
housing and making itclear that wveare not necessarily opposed tmthe development ofthis
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 isthat allowing this development tmgo forward maproposed
would destroy the natural, tree -filled character ofthe neighborhood that wwelove. The
current zoning ofthe property would allow for up to 3Osingle-family units tn 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 tobeclear cut. Furthermore, their plan envisions building 120-foot-long, 30-foot-
high buildings only lOfeet from the sidewalks along S 151st5treet and 62nd AveS. 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 tohave our fears ofwhat might come topass beconfirmed. While the buildings were not
particularly unattractive, they were imposing on an otherwise naked skyline, and it was clear
that not asingle tree had been spared during construction. VVehave included apicture below
for your reference of what we can expect to see from our back porch if this development is
allowed togoforward asproposed. Leaving the property zoned aslow density would require
additional distancing from the road to any structures to be built and allow for more vegetation
toremain orbesubsequently planted. VVebelieve this would honor and preserve the current
character ofthe area that xvecall home.
1
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
We want toclose byensuring that you know we are not alone in our opposition to this
rezone. VVehave taken the liberty ofcollecting the signatures of36 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
tothe 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 asthis. Ultimately, vvebelieve xvecan find apath 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, xvedonot believe that this path should involve the rezoning of
this property. Weurge you to listen tothe voices sfyour constituents who will bemost
directly affected bythis proposal and vote against it.
VVecan be contacted at7l9-76l-6S1O or andwould 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 inthis matter!
David Tomlinson
LavaTomn|inson
3
https://outlook.officc365.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
1 of 2 3/30/2020, 3:47 PM
https65—
not. Thanks for your time!
Respectfully,
David Tomlinson
719-761-6516
OnMon, Mar 23, 20208i5l6PM Maxwell Baker <M3x.B8ier@tukwilawa.g{v> wrote:
Hello,
You are receiving this email because you are a party of record for the Hopper Townhomes Rezone,
Attached to this 8rn8i| is 8 copy of the minutes for the public rn88dng held On 3/ . Please |8t
me know if you have any questions.
� Best
Maxwell Baker I Senior Planner
Department of Community Development ICity of Tukwila
0300Southcenter Blvd, Suite 100 1 Tukwila, WA98188
Tukwila: The City of opportunity, the community of choice.
TI
�
: This email originated from outside the City ufTukwila network. Please DO NOT open
attachments or click links from an unknown or suspicious Origin.
https : //o utiook. officc3 65. com/mail/inbox/id/AAQkAGFhNDMxNzU5 L...
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>
JJ 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 151 st 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 151 st PI
Tukwila, WA 98188
Cell: 719-761-6516
TIi : 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 of 1 3/30/2020, 1:53 PM
https : //o utiook. officc3 65. com/mail/inbox/id/AAQkAGFhNDMxNzU5 L...
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>
JJ 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
TI
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 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 1 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@TukwilaWAgov>
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/
i
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 CDR 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
From: Geoff Hinton <geoffhin@microsoftcom>
Sent: Friday, February 10, 2023 1:43 PM
To: Breyden Jager <Breyden.Jager@TukwilaWAgov>
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 151sY 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
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 151' 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 151sY 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 151' . 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
t
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 65h, 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 65`h, 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`h, 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
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
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 65d' 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 151st. 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
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
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
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
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
https://outlook.officc365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAQkAGFhNDMxNzU5L...
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
1 of 3 3/30/2020, 3:55 PM
https://oudook.officc365.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.
2 of 3 3/30/2020, 3:55 PM
https://oudook.officc365.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
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 of 3 3/30/2020, 3:55 PM
http s : //o ut l oo k. offi cc3 65 . com/mail/inbo x/i d/AA QkA GFhN D MxNzU 5 L...
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.
TI
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 of 1 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.
From: Hugh Tobin <htnbin (acomcast. et>
Sent: Monday, March 30,Z0Z04:43PM
To: Maxwell Baker <Max.8aker(cDTukwi|aVVA.gov>
Sukject:Re:L19'U1Z3,E19'U0l3:"HopperTovvnhomes"CompP|anAmendmentandRezoneProposa|'
Environmental Review
HiMax —
| infer from the message below that Jeff has submitted acomment. Could you please provide nneacopy
ofthat, and any others from residents, and any further consultant reports?
Hugh
On 3/30/20203:56 PM, Maxwell Baker wrote:
Hi Jeff,
Thank you for your comment, it will be considered by City staff and entered into
the project file.YouarenovvaPartyofReoordonthep jec±andvvi||benotified
when staff reports are issued aswell asofany public hearings before the
Planning Commission and/or City Council.
KMaxvvgU Baker I Senior Planner
Department ofCommunity Development ICity of Tukwila
63OOSouthcenterBlvd, Suite lOO 1 Tukwila, VVA98lD8
Max8aker@Tukvvi|avva.gov1IO6.431.]6D3
Tukwila: The City nfopportunity, the community nfchoice.
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.
CAUTIO,",,": This email originated from outside the City of Tukwila network. Please DO NOT open attachments or click
links from an unknown or suspicious origin.
z
http s : //o ut i oo k. offi cc3 65 . com/mail/inbo x/i d/AA QkA GFhN D MxNzU 5 L...
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
1 of 2 3/30/2020, 3:34 PM
httm 65'
206-579-3254
"All",
TI
�
� This email originated from outside the City ofTukwila network. Please DO NOT open
attachments or click links from an unknown or suspicious origin.
Breyden Jager
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Henry
Jesboneb <jesboneb@yahoo.com>
Tuesday, February 21, 2023 4:43 PM
Breyden Jager
Rezone 6250 S 151st St, Parcel #3597000400 File #s: L19-0123 comment
eech
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 Tots 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 1 must oppose this
rezone proposal, at least without very strict conditions to protect the tree canopy.
i
Jessica Bonebright
206-679-4976
CAIJT1O : 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
https : //o utiook. officc3 65. com/mail/inbox/id/AAQkAGFhNDMxNzU5 L...
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: MICHAELJ. 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
1 of 2 3/30/2020, 10:35 AM
https : //o utiook. officc3 65. com/mail/inbox/id/AAQkAGFhNDMxNzU5 L...
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
TI : 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 of 2 3/30/2020, 10:35 AM
http s : //o ut i oo k. offi cc3 65 . com/mail/inbo x/i d/AA QkA GFhN D MxNzU 5 L...
Re: L19-0123
Maxwell Baker <Max.Baker@TukwilaWA.gov>
Fri 3/27/2020 9:40 AM
To: Miles Mitchell <tfc@drmilesdc.com>
0 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
C TI : This email originated from outside the City of Tukwila network. Please DO NOT open
1 of 2 3/27/2020, 9:40 AM
https://oudook.officc365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAQkAGFhNDMxNzU5L...
attachments or click links from an unknown or suspicious origin.
2 of 2 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 o 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
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
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.
i
http s : //o ut i oo k. offi cc3 65 . com/mail/inbo x/i d/AA QkA GFhN D MxNzU 5 L...
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
TI
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 of 1 3/17/2020, 2:25 PM
https : //o utiook. officc3 65. com/mail/inbox/id/AAQkAGFhNDMxNzU5 L...
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>
0 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, 1 would like to view the application for the Hopper Townhomes rezone.
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.
think townhomes will be good there, hopefully preserving the wet area in the properties.
Again, I would like to see the full application
1 of 2 3/27/2020, 9:43 AM
https://oudook.officc365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAQkAGFhNDMxNzU5L...
Thanks
Patricia Perry
TI : 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 of 2 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 151' 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, 65" 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 65' 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
1
along 151' 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
CAIJTIO : 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
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 20t' 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 151' St and 62"d Ave South will be from those
streets. Or will the back of the houses be facing 151' and 62"d. 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 151' 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
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
CAUTIO 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
https : //o utiook. officc3 65. com/mail/inbox/id/AAQkAGFhNDMxNzU5 L...
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
TIi : 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 of 1 3/30/2020, 9:58 AM
Breyden Jager
From: Talia Long <Iong.talia@yahoo.com>
Sent: Monday, February 13, 2023 11:50 AM
To: Breyden Jager
Subject: Questions/Concerns - L19-0123 Rezone (6250 S 151 st St) - Hopper Townhomes
Greetings Mr. Jager:
We are the owners and residents of a property in the culdesac across S. 151 st 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. 151 st 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
6241 S. 151 st Pl.
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
Nancy Eklund
From: Maxwell Baker
Sent: Monday, March 3U'2020ztS8PK4
To: Travis Boyd
Cc: Nancy Eklund
Subject: Re: Public Comments onL19-0123:Re-Zoning Proposal for S2SOS1S1stSt
Hi Travis,
Thank you for your comment, it will be considered by City staff and entered into the projectfi|e.Youarenovva
Party ufRecord onthe project andvxi||benoti0edm/henstaffreportsaneissuedasvve||asofanypub|ic
hearings before the Planning Commission and/or City Council.
KMaxvvgU Baker I Senior Planner
Department ofCommunity Development ICity of Tukwila
63OOSouthcenterBlvd, Suite lOO 1 Tukwila, VVA98lD8
Max8aker@Tukxvi|avva.gov1IO6.431.]6D3
Tukwila: The City nfopportunity, the community nfchoice.
From: Travis Boyd <traysboyd2018@gmaiioomnx
Sent: Monday, March 3O,202O4:53PM
To: Maxwell Baker <K4ax.8aker@Tukwi|aVVA.8ov>
Subject: Public Comments onL19-0123:Re-Zoning Proposal for 6250S251stGt
Travis Boyd / Deb Sorensen
6771S151uP|
Tukwila, WA4RlRR
(706)241-3471
30 March 7070
f n ��fn
_'-� -- Tukwila —
Dept. of Community Development
6300Snn+6CeDterBkd.,Suite 100
Tukwila, WA 98188
Max Baker
City Project Planner
RE: File: El0-0O13/ ,L|9-0|73 T»ln` Zoning
Applicant: Hans Korve,DMP,Inc.
1.r0��IT���\�O�T.' 1.�l7lclO.Hopper
1
Hopper Townhomes Project PL-19-0099
Project Location: 6250 S 151' St
Mr. Baker,
The recent proposed change in zoning from Low Density Residential to Moderate Density
Residential for the property located at 6250 S 1.51 St St is concerning to us as residents of the cul.
de sac on S 151st 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, 1-5 and 1-405, 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
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
IJTIO This email originated from outside the City of Tukwila network. Please DO NOT open attachments or click
links from an unknown or suspicious origin.
illiam James/Clotilde olina
14920 62nd Avenue South
Tukwila, A 98168
(206) 375-1323 . .j es@co c . e
(206) 383-2536 cleo oI@co c s . et
arch 17, 2020
City of Tukwila
Department of Community Development
6300 Southcenter Boulevard., Suite 100
Tukwila,Washington 98188
ax Baker/Department of Community Development
(206) 431-3683 or . er@ u i1 . ov
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 o DR.
Develop a Maximum of 65 Townhomes.
Dear Mr. Baker:
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
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,
ZUelP.iaot PaHxe¢
eeatC2de NoPuia
cc: Mayor Ekberg, Tukwila City Council
2
March 30,302O
David &LavaTomlinson
6360S151s1P|
Tukwila, WA 98188
Tukwila City Council
6ZODSouthcenterBlvd
Tukwila, VVA98l8A
Members of the Tukwila City Council,
Please find attached 17 letters of opposition to the rezone of the property located at
6Z5OSl61stStreet (File #s:Ll9-OlZ3 &E19-OOl3).These letters are signed by36individuals
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. VVehave provided amap onthe following page
indicating the location of the property in question (yellow), as well as the location of those
opposed tothe proposed rezone (red rnarkers\. VVehope you will hear the voices ofthose who
will be most significantly impacted by this proposed measure and vote against it. VVethank you
for your time and consideration inthis matter.
1
2
Subj
t: 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: E'lllk19: EA2r,,,kis
LwC
ay\
As a Tukwila resident who lives near the property at 6250 S 151st Street, I arn strongly
opposed to the re -zoning of this land from low to medium density residential. 1 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 1 live. 1 urge you to listen to
the voices of your constituents who would be most directly affected by this pr000sed measure
and vote against it: I greatly appreciate your time and consideration regarding this matter:
Signed:
Signed:
Sign
Sign
stratzeresek
atateetke 142-
Date:
ta5
Date: etatt
Date:
Date:
Subject: Opposition to Proposed Re -zoning of 6250 S 151 st Street (File# L19-0123)
Esteemed Members of the Tukwila City Council,
y name is (our names are
6 -
and I (we) reside ati \1
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. 1 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. urge you to listen to
the voices of your constituents who would be most directly affected by this proposed measure
and vote against it. greatly appreciate your time and consideration regarding this matter,
Signed:
Signed4
Signed._
Date:
Date:
Date.
Datei
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): eSco e _o3 Lars3n
s_
and I (we) reside at: \Li 9 S) 62'4
Tv.
'-‘Li tlE)
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: 3/2-6/20
Signed: Date:
Signed: Date:
Signed: Date:
6
Subject: Opposition to Proposed Re -zoning of 6250 S 15ist Street (File# L19-0123)
Esteemed Members of the Tukwila City Council,
My name is (our names are):
and I (we) reside at: a,
„::',„:21:PIL000,4141C:Vi*uA:'
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. 1 greatly appreciate your time and consideration regarding this matter.
Signed:
Signed:
Signed:
Signed:
Date:
Date:
Date:
Date:
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):
— 114C-)cx
L
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 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.
Signe :
Signed :,
Date: 27z2cL
Date: e
f /
Date: 3"2
Signed: Date:
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. '-<,1
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.
Date: -1
Signed: I: ,. , ‘„,. ',17 ,",,. Date:
- IST,
' Sig ned6) - , . )„.„:„2._ ,
t: . le ate. : ,
Signed:
Date:
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):
ex:rte.\
and I (we) reside at: (72 0 -2-
-1" I
,,)
c 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:
Date:
Date:
Date:
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): ?").
1
and I (we) reside at: C 141
P
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. 1 greatly appreciate your time and consideration regarding this matter.
Signed: i )
Date:
Signed: Date:
Signed:
D'2,ate:
Date:
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): VA.
and (we) reside at: LaH 5PCACfI
Tu_KkAD\Va clt‘t")
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:
ate: 5-)A1- dlo RD
ate: 3 - -
ate: 3 Zs/202o
Date:
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). 1,1.14
and (we) reside at: ( $r/
/bre .11/7 rte./4 creer'r.
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.
re',1
rtEfr-,;r4 I„ Date:
Signed: Date:
Signed: Date:
Signed: Date:
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
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 1 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:
Date:
Date:
Date:
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): S q's--% 1"71-1-111V-e-
c-
and I (we) reside at: 6 -3
1-S- 1
z
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: 5 Ae
Signed: L-11 a4/4_, W
Signed:
Date: 3/Z/zz
Date:
Date:
Signed: Date:
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):
1\4
and I (we) reside at: t i2
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: - 2 c
Signed: Date:
Signed: Date:
Signed: Date:
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):
aaa
If -
and I (we) reside at:
\jea g_WOna
vU49',WPS/
As a Tukwila resident who lives near the property at 6250 5 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:
(93/Q-7/6262-0
Date:
(9:7 1,200
Date:
Date:
Signed: Date:
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):
7")
,21v2J
/ 4 "j,. C • V?
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.
Signed:
Signed:
Signed:
Date: 27 44--e6;17(2°'e
Date: 3/ ,--1-1ZCZ.K.,
Date:
Date:
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: 11; '5/
)
As a Tukwila resident who lives near the property at 6250 S 151st Street, 1 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 ow 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. 1 greatly appreciate your time and consideration regarding this matter.
.?'
Signed/- i' ___1,.., / i
Signed: li,v', ''''
/
Signed:
Signed:
Date:
Date:
Date:
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):
a eo ( 5(44- P
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.
Sign
Signed:
Signed:
Date:
Date:
Signed: Date:
2
3
4
5
6'
7
8
9
10
11'.
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
SUPE
THE HONORABLE WILLIAM L. DIXON
OR COURT OF WASHINGTON FOR THE COUNTY OF KING
Schneider Homes, a Washington corporation,
Petitioner,
vs.
CITY OF TUKWILA, a Washington
municipal corporation,
Respondent.
NO. 23-2-24102-9 KNT
ORDER G ` NTING PETITIONER
SCHNEIDER HOMES' LAND USE
PETITION AND ' ANDING FOR
FURTHER PROCEEDINGS
Clerk's Action Required
THIS MATTER having duly come on for hearing before the undersigned Judge of the
above -entitled Court upon Petitioner Schneider Homes' Land Use Petition; all parties having
been duly represented by counsel; and the Court, being fully advised in the premises, having
heard oral arguments of counsel for the parties and having reviewed the pleadings, exhibits,
and other documents in the court file:
1. The Land Use Petition;
2. Petitioner Schneider Homes' Opening Brief;
3. Respondent City of Tukwila's Response Brief;
4. Petitioner's Reply Brief;
5. The Certified Record;
6. Petitioner's Motion to Supplement the Certified Record;
7. Respondent's Response to Motion to Supplement;
ORDER GRANTING PETITIONER SCHNEIDER HOMES'
LAND USE PETITION AND REMANDING FOR FURTHER
PROCEEDINGS- PAGE 1 OF 3
JOHNS MONROE MITSUNAGA KOLOUAKOVA PLLC
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
11201 SE 8"' St., Suite 120
Bellevue, Washington 98004
Tel: 425-451-2812 / Fax: 425-451-2818
4
5
7
9
11/
11
13
14
15
16
18
20
8. Petitioner's Reply in Motion to Supplement;
9. The Supplemental Records; and
10. The Transcript of Proceedings.
ORDER
NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that:
1. Petitioner Schneider Homes' Land Use Petition is GRANTED;
2. The City of Tukwila's Land Use Decision, set forth in Resolution 2083, is
REVERSED;
3. The parties do not dispute that the rezone is consistent with the rezone criteria
set forth in TMC 18.84.020(1)-(3).
4. Under Finding and Conclusion A, Resolution 2083 adopts the facts set forth in
the November 6, 2023 Staff Report, pages 1-6, but denies the rezone for failure to be consistent
with TMC 18.84.020(4);
5. Under Finding and Conclusion D, Resolution 2083 denies the rezone for failure
to be consistent with TMC 18.84.020(4);
6. The foregoing two sections of Resolution 2083 are internally, fatally
inconsistent and therefore constitute unlawful procedure under RCW 36.70C.130(a);
7. Substantial evidence in light of the whole record before the Court does not
support denial of the rezone under TMC 18.84.020(4) and therefore violates RCW
36.70C.130(1)(c);
8. Likewise, the land use decision is a clearly erroneous application of the law to
the facts, in violation of RCW 36.70C.130(1)(d); and
9. This matter is REMANDED for the City of Tukwila Council to reconsider the merits
of the rezone application under TMC 18.84.020(4). The quasi-judicial decisionmaker, the
Tukwila City Council, shall hold another open record hearing regarding the rezone's
ORDER GRANTING PETITIONER SCHNEIDER HOMES'
LAND USE PETITION AND REMANDING FOR FURTHER
PROCEEDINGS- PAGE 2 OF 3
JOHNS MONROE MITSUNAGA KOLOIAKOVA PLLC
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
11201 SE 8' St., Suite 120
Bellevue, Washington 98004
Tel: 425-451-2812 / Fax: 425-451-2818
5
8
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
21
24
consistency with TMC 18.84.020(4), deliberate thereafter and issue a new decision based on
substantial evidence in the record.
.14 4
DATED this/2- day of
LAy.ks+
2024.
THE HONORABLE
Presented by:
JO S MONROE MITSUNAGA
KOLOUKOVA, PLLC
By
Duana T. Kolou§kova, WSBA #27532
Peter Durland, WSBA #61486
Attorneys for Petitioner Schneider
Homes
Approved as to form:
OGDEN MURPHY WALLACE
By
James E. Haney, WSBA #11508
Andrew Tsoming, WSBA #42949
Attorneys for Respondent City of Tukwila
ORDER GRANTING PETITIONER SCHNEIDER HOMES'
LAND USE PETITION AND REMANDING FOR FURTHER
PROCEEDINGS- PAGE 3 OF 3
I LIAM L Dfc<oN
JOHNS MONROE MITSUNAGA KOLOUSKOVA PLLC
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
11201 SE 811' St., Suite 120
Bellevue, Washington 98004
Tel: 425-451-2812 / Fax: 425-451-2818