Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Permit 86-07-DR - PUGET WESTER - VALLEY VIEW ESTATES DESIGN REVIEW
86-07-DR PUGET WESTERN - VALLEY VIEW ESTATES DESIGN REVIEW Dear Gary: s \LEH \107 cc: lick Beeler Enclosure Mh dod City of Tukwila OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY 2400 Columbia Center 701 Fifth Avenue Seattle, WA 98104 -7005 (206) 624 -1040 Gary L. Van Dusen, Mayor City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, WA 98188 August 28, 1990 Re: Puget Western, Inc. v. City of Tukwila King County Cause No. 89 -2- 07446 -0 This case has remained dormant from the time it was filed last year. It would appear that Puget Western is not really interested in pursuing this matter. In any event, we have recently received an order from the court which has requested that the parties submit a joint status report no later than September 24, 1990. I do not intend to take any action in this matter, and I hope that the lawyer for Puget Western does not do anything either because, if no such report is filed, the order states that "the Clerk of the Court is directed to enter a dismissal of this case without prejudice and without further notice to the parties ". From our point of view, such a dismissal would be wonderful. Very truly yours, OFF CE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY L. wrence Hard City Attolney F iuoaiis90 TO: OFD ICE MEMO CITY OF TUKWILA FROM: AM 'DATE: Viso /BB Sc� J3i�� nMM54 ib-K Rcerd epg2- Ste, 604("7 �r rel�r2r'e� IN THE MATTER OF VALLEY VIEW ESTATES DESIGN REVIEW BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA ) SUPPLEMENTAL FINDINGS ) AND CONCLUSIONS ) RE: BAR DECISION ) I. FINDINGS 1. On April 27, 1987, the Tukwila City Council adopted written Findings, Con- clusions and a Decision on an appeal from the City Board of Architecture Review's design approval for the Valley View Estates project. 2. The City Council's decision was that the BAR had erred in making certain Findings and Conclusions regarding the Valley View Estates proposal and that the BAR's decision should therefore be modified in accord with the evidence presented in the appeal hearing. 3. As part of the decision, the City Council determined that the BAR erred in concluding that the Valley View Estates project met the criteria set forth in TMC 18.60.050 (2), (4)(B) and (4)(G). The City Council determined that the project could better meet these criteria if: a. Buildings 1, 3 and 18 were reduced in height to one story plus a basement; and b. Buildings 2, 4 and 17 were reduced in height to two stories plus a basement. 4. At the request of the project proponent, Puget Western, the Council agreed to retain jurisdiction over the matter to allow the project proponent to propose an alternative to these height reductions or an alternative con- figuration of buildings on the site which would incorporate the height reductions and still maintain the project as 108 units, the number of units which the project proponent has a right to have considered under the Supreme Court decision in Allenbach v. Tukwila, 101 Wn. 2d 193, 676 P.2d 473 (1984). The height reductions and the retention of jurisdiction were incorporated into Condition 3 of the Council's Decision of April 27, 1987. 5. On May 1, 1987, the project proponent responded to Condition 3 of the Coun- cil's decision and filed drawings showing three alternative designs for the project with the City Planning Department. The soonest that all parties to the appeal were available to meet was May 26, 1987. By agreement, the Council set a hearing for May 26, 1987 and all parties were notified. 2. x> � VALLEY VIEW SUPPLEMENTAL FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS Page 2 6. On May 26, 1987, the Council held a hearing on the alternative designs pro- posed by the applicant. All parties to the BAR appeal were present. No issue was raised by any party concerning notice. 7. The project proponent submitted a package of sixteen drawings showing three design alternatives for the Valley View Estates project. These worksheets were admitted as Exhibit 81. The alternatives were labeled Options 0, 1 and 8. Option 0 was the project proponent's conception of how the project would look if built in accord with Condition 3 of the Council's April 27, 1987 Decision. Under this option, eighteen units would be deleted from the project. The height of buildings 1, 3 and 18 would be reduced by 18 ft. and the height of buildings 2, 4 and 17 would be reduced by 9 ft. 9. Fred Brown, of Mithun, Bowman, Emrich, architectural and planning consult- ants for the project proponent, testified that Option 0 was undesirable from an architectural and engineering standpoint because it would place the roof line of buildings 1, 3 and 18 at or below grade. 10. Dharlene West and Richard Goe, speaking for the appellants of the BAR deci- sion, each testified that the buildings did not have to have their roof lines at grade but could be moved out away from the h i l l s i d e so that the roof lines would be away from the grade. 11. Fred Brown responded that while the buildings could be moved out from the grade, this would mean larger cuts into the hillside, more retaining walls, more expense and more visual impact. 12. The Council finds that requiring the buildings to be built exactly as stated in Condition 3 would place the roof lines of buildings 1, 3 and 18 at grade. Moving of the buildings away from the grade while retaining the height reductions set forth in Option 0 would result in more retaining walls being required. 13. Option 1, as proposed by the project proponent, would result in the deletion of three units from the project. The setback of buildings 1, 2 and 3 would be increased and landscaping would be added. Buildings 1, 3 and 18 would be "stepped," with one half of each building being reduced by one floor in order to break up roof mass. In addition, Buildings 1, 2, 3 and 4 would be rotated from what was proposed in the original site plan to reduce the amount of building face visible from adjacent single family properties as shown in worksheets 5 and 8 of Exhibit 81. The project proponent preferred this alternative and requested that the Council approve it. 14. Option 2, as proposed by the project proponent, would result in the deletion of nine units from the project. Option 2 is similar to Option 1, except that : a. Buildings 1, 3 and 18 would be reduced by one floor, as opposed to one half of one floor as proposed in Option 1, and b. Buildings 2, 4 and 17 would be reduced by one half of one floor in order to create a "stepped" building. ki t! VALLEY VIEW SUPPLEMENTAL FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS Page 3 15. The effect of Option 2, as opposed to Option 1 would be to create an addi- tional stairstepping of building heights from the perimeter to the interior of the project 16. The Planning staff favored Option 2 over the other options presented in the hearing and recommended that the Council approve that option. II. CONCLUSIONS- 1. Because of finished grades, Condition 3 of the Council's April 27, 1987 Decision would place the uphill eves of the perimeter buildings on the project at or below grade. Although the buildings could be moved out from the hillside, the resulting additional excavation, placement of buildings and building of retaining walls would mean less quality of design in the development and a less visually interesting project. Option 0, while more close to meeting the criteria of TMC 18.60.050(2), (4)(B) and (4)(G) than the original plan, would create additional undesirable impacts on site. 2. The Council concludes that Option 2, as proposed by the project proponent and recommended by the City staff, more closely meets the criteria set forth in TMC 18.60.050(2), (4)(B) and (G) than the other two options. The reduc- tion in height of buildings 1, 2, 3, 4, 17 and 18 and the stepped effect that these height reductions create, provide a more desirable transition between the project and the adjacent single family neighborhood than was provided in the original site plan or in Option 1. Additional setbacks and landscaping proposed in Option 2 will also add to this transition. The City Council concludes that the height reductions, increased setbacks, increased landscaping and reorientation of the buildings as proposed in Option 2 is necessary for the project to meet TMC 18.60.050(2) by creating more harmony between the lines, textures and masses of the project buildings and the adjacent single family area and by providing a more appropriate landscaped transition. 3. The City Council concludes that the rotating of the buildings, the re- ductions in height and the increased setbacks proposed in Option 2 are necessary to assure that the buildings will be to appropriate scale and in harmony with the permanent single family character of the surrounding neigh- borhood and to supply visual interest as required by TMC 18.60.050(4)(B) and (G). The stairstepping of buildings, in particular, will add visual interest and the reorientation of buildings, in combination with the stair - stepping will reduce monotony and lessen the appearance of a solid wall when the project is viewed from single family properties to the north and south. 4. Option 1 does not create as significant a transition between the project and adjacent areas as does Option 2. Building heights and massing are compara- tively less reduced than in Option 2 and the visual impacts of the project would remain substantial. The Council therefore concludes that Option 2 more closely meets the criteria of the BAR than does Option 1. For all of the reasons set forth above, the City Council hereby approves Option 2 as recommended by the planning staff and as shown in Exhibit 81 as a substitute for the reductions set forth in Condition 3 of the City Council's Decision of April 27, 1987 in this matter. Except as expressly modified herein, all conditions of the Council's April 27, 1987 decision remain in full force and effect. ATTEST /AUTHENTICATED: DATED this /Qt.: day of RK, MA " N AND RSON APPROVED AS TO FORM: OFFICE qF THE CITY ATTORNEY (Y /VVE.1,2) VALLEY VIEW SUPPLEMENTAL FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS Page 4 III. DECISION CITY OF TUKWILA + -'t;.� xea[:,r.�mrw�c.f m, :sr_;r•. 1987. May 26, 1987 7:00 P.M. CALL TO ORDER PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Mayor Van Dusen led the audience and the Councilmembers in the Pledge of Allegiance. ROLL CALL OF MABEL J. HARRIS, JOE H. DUFFIE, EDGAR D. BAUCH, WENDY A. MORGAN , COUNCIL MEMBERS (COUNCIL PRESIDENT), CHARLES E. SIMPSON, MARILYN G. STOKNES, JAMES J. MCKENNA. OFFICIALS IN Maxine Anderson (City Clerk), Rick Beeler (Planning Director), ATTENDANCE Moira Bradshaw (Assistant Planner), Jim Haney (City Attorney). PUBLIC HEARING (THIS IS NOT A VERBATIM TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING) Valley View Estates, Jim Haney, City Attorney, reported on the absence of a court Review & Approval reporter. Attorney for the applicant, Joel Haggard, agreed to the of alternative bldg. absence of a court reporter if the recorded tapes of the meeting design. were made available to him if so requested. Mayor Van Dusen stated the issue before the Council is the stipulation in Condition 3 in the Findings and Conclusions of the City Council. This will be approachal basically by first having the staff open, allowing the applicantYmake their application, then we will ask for support for opposition for the proposal and have time for rebuttal at the end. We will consider a time limit on this. • ii?1 • TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL City Hall SPECIAL MEETING "` Council Chambers MINUTES Mayor Van Dusen called the Special Meeting of the Tukwila City Council to order at 7 :50 p.m. Councilmember McKenna excused himself from the Council Chambers. Jim Haney, city attorney, said we are meeting tonight with respect to Condition 3 of the Findings and Conclusions which stipulated that certain building heights were to be reduced, but if the applicant wished to propose alternative to height reductions or building configuration which would achieve a desirable transition, the City Council will retain jurisdiction for a period of six weeks in order to allow the applicant to present that so you are proceeding pursuant to your retained jurisdiction under those Findings and Conclusions and decision which you have already adopted. It is understood the applicant has submitted some alternatives and there is a recommendatioi from staff regarding them. There will likely be a presentation by some citizens concerning their concerns about the process and the application in the site plan. As we have done throughout the proceed- ings we should continue under oath. It is appropriate that the oath be administered again, even though it was done some time ago. Everyone will then realize they are under oath. City Attorney Haney administered the oath to everyone in the room who might testify. Dick Goe, 5112 South 163rd Place, 'stated he wished to ask a procedural question before staff makes their presentation. In reading on page 3, Conclusion, we are dealing it says in Item #1, Condition 3 approved by the City Council clearly stipulates the number of building stories. The two proposed options exceed those numbers in exchange for increased building set - backs, and it goes on. It seems that...LI don't find the wording here...nor do I have the set of Findings and Conclusions that were adopted by the City Council. The reason he is speaking at this point is that the Findings and Conclusions that were adopted by the Council were handed out by the City after they were adopted. We did not then have a chance to review and offer input at that time and it occurs that in the motion that was made by the Council it was the intent to reduce the height of the buildings to allow the applicant an opportunity to retain the option for the 108 units which they had originally requested by finding some space in the other part of their property. In three, Decision, on page 18, under paragraph number three, after (b) there is an unnumbered paragraph that says, "If the project proponent desires to propose an alternative to these height reductions or an alternative configuration of buildings on the site which would incorp. orate these height reductions, etc." I am trying to bring to your recollection the motion that was made at the Council table did not include anything about alternative height .reductions. It was very specific about height reductions, that is to say a basement and one story. My recollection of the explanation of that is that it would TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL SI 'AL MEETING May 26, 1987 Page 2 • PUBLIC HEARING - Contd. Valley View Estates, Review & Approval of alternative bldg. design - contd. be like a daylight basement and one story. The question is since the Council did not originally move for an alternative to reduction in heights how they could adopt a conclusion or make a decision that included that alternative and how we can have before us tonight this proposal based not on what the motion was but on something that came up later. I would like you to look into your motion and review as to the intent behind the motion and in so doing I think you have no alternative other than reject this proposal before we even get started tonight. Thank you. Mayor Van Dusen said the basic questioh seems to be is this part of the argument of the proposal or it is something we need to address first. Jim Haney, City Attorney, said he understood what Mr. Goe is saying and he felt he could clarify it and bring to the Council's recollection the process. As you recall, when the Council deliberate regarding this Mr. Bauch made some specific suggestions regarding height reductions on the buildings. The Council reached a consensus and the motion was to direct the City Attorney to draft Findings and Conclusions in accord with the Council's discussion. He said he went ahead and drafted Findings and Conclusions which he brought before the City Council in written form. Conclusion 3 is verbatim what he brought before the City Council. At the time it was brought before the City Council he indicated to the Council that he had made one particular change. As the Council knows, your Findings and Conclusions in a matter are not final until you finally adopt them in writing. At any time up until they are adopted, you may reconsider and redebate, etc. As he understood the original motion it was to bring back Findings and Conclusions that reflected the Council discussion which he attempted to do. The reason that he mentioned to the Council, and he was specific about Condition 3 and the language that is there, was because it was his understanding that there was a possibility from a practical standpoint, a literal reading of Mr. Bauch's conditions in the height reduction might place some of the building roof lines into the dirt, given the layout of the property. There were some smiles on the Council when he mentioned that before. He indicated to the Council they might want to consider leaving themselves some flexibility in considering alternatives. The matter was then discussed. He did not recall whether the Council specifically discussed this particular condition but Mr. Bauch had a number of proposed revisions to the Findings and Conclusions which the Council agreed with and ultimately they were adopted, leaving Condition 3 intact. That is how that matter was adopted to his recollection, that the Council was aware of the way it was worded and adopted it in that form. You have properly before you the alternatives proposed by the applicant, not saying that you have to accept or that you should rejector whatever those alternatives but you are properly here to consider them. Mayor Van Dusen asked Mr. Goe if there was anything else. Mr. Goe said there was not. Rick Beeler, Planning Director, said we should establish how we are going to handle Exhibits. We had approximately 78 or 79 Exhibits entered into the record. The question he has for the city attorney is whether or not we should continue that sequence or start anew? Mr. Haney said it did not make a lot of difference but he thought for purposes of keeping the record as clear as possible it might be worthwhile to continue with the same numbers.so if this matter ever got further along the line we would not be referring to duplicate Exhibits. Council President Morgan said she would like a point of clarificatio from the City Attorney. She said she did not understand the City's continuing role in this. It seems the Council in its Findings and Conclusions provided guidance for the applicant to come forward with an opportunity to show some alternative ways of handling those Findings and Conclusions and it was her understanding that it was now between the City Council and the applicant. TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL S,,.AL MEETING May 26, 1987 Page 3 PUBLIC HEARING - Contd. Valley View Estates, Review & Approval of alternative bldg. design - contd. Jim Haney, City Attorney, said the staff is here obviously to assist the Council in making decisions and evaluating alternatives. The staff has come forward with the Staff Report saying this is, looking at these options, what we believe is the correct and proper findings and conclusions regarding them. It is up to you whether you wish to call for your staff's assistance in this matter, but the staff has gone ahead and prepared the report anticipating that you would want their input and their evaluation of these alternatives. Mayor Van Dusen said basically if you read the RCW, staff has an obligation to report. Council President Morgan said the Council is sitting as the BAR now, is that correct? City Attorney Haney said that was correct. Council President Morgan said it seems what has generated this evening is new and different information, is that correct? Mr. Haney, City Attorney, said it is information specifically requested by the Council in its Findings, Conclusions and Decision, saying if the applicant wanted to present something different to meet those height reduction requirements as an alternative to that, the Council would listen to it otherwise that was what was going to have to be done. Council President Morgan said then what the Council is doing in a sense constitues a new hearing. Mr. Haney said that is essentially correct. Council President Morgan said then the role of the City changes to what it has been in the past hearings. Is that correct? Mr. Haney said that the staff in the past has perceived its role as defending the BAR's decision. At this point, since the Council has decided that the BAR is in error, the staff sees its role as in giving you evaluation and responding to the options proposed by the applicant. That is what staff has done with their report. You have told the applicant that they must do certain things with respect to this. If they can show you some alternative you will not require that, you might accept some alternative if you find the alternative acceptable. The applicant is responding to you and saying here is what we would propose to do. This is the court of last resort as far as the City is concerned. There are other courts after that. Mayor Van Dusen said at this point we can allow opponents and proponents to whatever is brought up. Mr. Haney said they can respond and you can allow others to respond to what the applicant brings forth tonight. That is certainly appropriate. Staff is here to give you a recommendation on the new material, just as they would the BAR. Rick Beeler, Planning Director, said the role staff has taken and the report submitted is the normal procedure for staff to support the Planning Commission and yourselves on a land use matter. Staff has no problem entering this Exhibit into the record simply because it has already been submitted to you and then whenever you want us in the hearing. Council President Morgan said that will be alright as long as it is known that this is simply the Planning Department recommendation. Rick Beeler, Planning Director, said then for the record they would enter Exhibit 80, it has been confirmed that it is the correct number to use, the Staff Report with an attachment A, which includes the larger document entitled "Valley View Estates Transition Studies, date May 1, 1987." That attachment contains some documents: (1) a letter of May 1, 1987 from Mithun, Emrick, Bowman Group; and also some drawings and site plans of what are labeled as Option 1 and Option 2. Moira•Bradshaw of the Planning Department is here to present the staff report. TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL r 'AL MEETING May 26, 1987 Page 4 PUBLIC HEARING - Contd. Valley View Estates, Review & Approval of alternative bldg. design - contd. Moira Bradshaw, Assistant Planner, stated on April 15 the Council made a verbal decision through a motion to approve the Valley View Estates' proposal under certain conditions. Specifically there was Condition No. 3 that stated that transition was not sufficient as it was proposed on Exhibit 19 and made Condition No. 3 that they reevaluate and reduce the number of stories to the north and to the south and specifically that affected buildings 1, 2, 3, 4, 17 and 18. Staff met with the applicant and their architect to discuss the verbal motion, to look at the alternatives and to consider ways of making up for possible loss of unit count when the number of stories were reduced on those outside buildings. On April 27 you adopted your Findings and Conclusions and the specific wording of Condition 3 was spelled out, that is on page 2 of the Staff Report. It is listed verbatim. Basically the City Council listed their view of appropriate transition, buildings 1, 3 and 18 would be reduced to one story plus the basement; 2, 4 and 17 would be reduced to a height of two stories plus a basement. You also listed in there the flexibilit that these height reductions could be looked at in a different way and proposed through alternatives by the applicant and you would review that within the following six weeks should they come forward with an alternate proposal. Those alternatives then are shown for you in Attachment A, they came forward with Option 1 and Option 2 and those were the two options then that the City staff reviewed and as a way of providing transition for the project to the north and the south. Neither of those two options reduces the number of stories to one and a basement. Part of the problem of doing that that Jim Haney mentioned before was that due to the slope of the hillside, in order to have a one story building with a basement would be that the entry level from primarily the west side of those buildings would have to be lowered into the dirt and you would have to have retaining walls and wells to provide entrance and light to that first story. Neither do any of the options come up with alternatives within the interior of the site to make up for the loss of unit count. Option 1 has a 3 unit loss and Option 2 has a 9 unit loss. There is some reference made by the architect that should the applicant or should the City wish to look at those he can provide those but they are not before you tonight. So, again, City staff went with what they had before them, Option 1 and Option 2 On May 18 this staff report was transmitted to the City Council and mailed to the applicant and interested parties who have testified before you, Mr. Goe and Mr. Robertson, and the staff has recommended Option 2 as providing an adequate transition to the south across Slade Way to the 'single family homes and to the north across the City Light easement to potential single family homes that may be located there. The reasons for the recommendation are (1) the applicant has reduced the first buildings, 1, 3, and 18 to a two story building with a basement. The two story building would provide a single story from the west side and two or three levels from the west. They have considerably altered the location of buildings 1 and 2. They have changed 2 and moved it from an east -west access to a north -south access so the shortest portion of building 2 is then viewed from the south side which was a major concern of the Council. Building 1 is canted so the most mass of the building is no longer directly parallel to the road but it would be seen from an angle and therefore the vision of the mass would be somewhat reduced. In addition, building 1 was increased in setback and #2 was also increased in setback. Down to buildings 3 and 4, they increased the setback from 20'. As I go through these you can follow along. The pages are not numbered. On buildings 3 and 4 they were previously oriented on a east -west access so the major portion of the building was parallel to the street; they realigned 3 and 4 parallel with the other buildings 5, 6, 7 and 8 thereby increasing the setback from 20' to 35'. Again the outside building had a story reduced, effectively it went down from averaging 35' to somewhat less than 30'. Building 4 was split so you have somewhat of a setback reduction in the mass closer to the outside while still maintaining one of the units on the upper story. As far as 3 and 4 go, they increased the setback they showed a larger landscaping area and again reduced it so you still have one story visually seen from the entrance and your two lower stories -- a basement and a story below. On 17 and 18 they had originally proposed a 35 -36 split setback from the north property line, again 18 would be similar to the mass of TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL '"IAL MEETING May 26, 1987 Page 5 PUBLIC HEARING - Contd. Valley View Estates, Review & Approval of alternative bldg. design - contd. 1 and 3, with two story and a basement and 17 would be the split level with the outside portion of the building reduced to two stories and a basement and the inner portion of the building would be at its regularly proposed height. Staff saw the intent of providing adequate more appropriate transition around the outside of the project as being provided through Option 2. The relocation of the buildings, the increase in the setback, the reduction of one story and 1/2 story or half of the buildings and the canting so the full effect of the mass of the building from the side parallel to the road was changed by reorientating the outside structures. The setbacks that are being proposed, 36 and 50' minimum on the outsides will exceed typical single family setbacks of 30', the heights of the outside buildings again will be less than the average height of the single family structure permitted which is 30' so for those reasons the staff is recommending Option 2 be considered for compliance with Condition #3 of the City Council's decision for approval of this project. Councilmember Harris said then this Option reduces the unit count by 9, am I right in assuming those units are not scattered somewhere else. Ms. Bradshaw said at this time they have not presented that and as Mr. Haney said and I stated we at City Staff level reviewed what was given to us. In discussions after that the applicant may desire if the unit count is reduced by 9 units, whatever the final decision of the Council is, may wish to come back with perhaps some interior modifications to increase the number of units. Right now we do not have that information. Councilmember Harris said if the Council accepts Option 2 can she then assume that no more units will be visually built? Ms. Bradshaw said this information would have to be supplied by the applicant's information. Mr. Haney, City Attorney, said his understanding is that they understand that if they put additional units in the interior of the site they would go back to the BAR. That would be a redesign of the project. Council President Morgan said if this Council, whichever Option it accepts, and the applicant made the decision then to add some additional units internally to come up to the original 108, could they then change what had been approved at this meeting? Jim Haney, City Attorney, said if they go back before the BAR and start with a revised plan they could do that. Council President Morgan said they could then alter what was approved? Mr. Haney said it would be a redesign of the project and they would be coming back through the BAR and ultimately that could be appealed to the Council again. Council President Morgan said if the Council statement clearly said that we said if the applicant could come up with a redesign internally in the property that could be part of what they presented to us. It is my understanding that that fell within the six -week jurisdiction. Mr. Haney said for the Council, yes. He said if they are going to go back for the BAR, they always have that option and to repropose the project in some other configuration and go back to the BAR with a different site plan. They would have that option regardless of the Council decision in this proceeding. Jim Haney, City Attorney, said he noticed in all of the drawings related to the option there is some landscaping area that is laid out in circles. Is that an increase in the lancscaping? Ms. Bradshaw said staff assumed that they would be intensifying the landscaping in that area and it was included as part of staff recommendation. They do not have specific plants identified nor TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL SP�L` .AL MEETING May 26, 1987 Page 6 PUBLIC HEARING-Contd. Valley View Estates, Review & Approval of alternative bldg. design - contd. do we have numbers. We assumed that their landscape architect would come up with a proposal. We, of course, would stipulate that trees to provide transition and screening would be the appropriate landscape materials for that area. The transition is the intent. Mr. Haney said his question is that it looks from the drawing at least, that by increasing the set back they have increased at least the width of the strip that they are calling landscaping regardless of what is in there and it would be additional landscapinc he would assume. Ms. Bradshaw said that was staff's understanding. All.of that area would be in grass or trees so that would be additional landscaping. The actual content of the landscaping will have to be determined by the Council for Condition #3. Dennis Robertson, 16038 48th South, said will the applicant come back during this 6 -week period with another proposal -- if this is accepted or rejected can they come back within this 6 -week period? If it is accepted can they come back with one during the 6 -week period showing additional units or some other site plan? Joel Haggard, attorney for the applicant, said that he believed that Mr. Robertson's comments are not only legally incorrect but they are highly speculative and they assume a result by this Council. Mr. Haggard said on page 18 of Council's decision, paragraph 3, you indicated that building masses were to be reduced on the north and south side of the proposed project and you indicated in very specific terms what you desired. In Conclusion #1 it states that the finished grades would be such that the uphill eaves of the perimeter buildings would be at a below -grade elevation. It also indicates that this would force the applicant to build retaining walls, wells for windows, doors, etc. One might also speculate and anticipate that there would be the suggestion that if we follow that approach we would have to assure child safety by putting fences on the edges of the roof to prevent people from climbing up. This is probably not what all of us want. On the other hand, Members of the Council, we not only listened to what you said we also through the courtesy of your Clerk's office were able to arrange for a transcript of what you said so we could see it and not just rely on our memory or impression. We took to heart the second portion of Decision Condition #3 which indicated if we wanted to propose height reductions or alternative configura- tions we should do it in a timely fashion and we should come back to the Council and present this information to you. Tonight you have in front of you at least two pieces of information. You have the staff report and the applicant's presentation of two alterna- tives. He pointed out in the staff report in their Conclusions they do talk through Conclusions 1 through 6 basically about Option 2 and then in Conclusion 7 they think Option 2 is more acceptable than Option 1. They don't give you conclusions as to the acceptability or the benefits of Option 1. Tonight we have one witness that will be presenting information to you. It is the architect that you have seen here before. He is with the firm that designed the City Hall. When they first had the building designs for City Hall and showed them to the various people involvec there were probably suggestions of changes, etc. In a large measure that is what Fred has been asked here to do tonight, to listen to what you said and try to accomplish you have indicated you want to accomplish. Mr. Haney has offered opinions and advice through this proceeding and I have offered comments not always in agreement. I would like to share one thing that has been troubling me with respect to what the Council has been asked to do. As I reviewed the Findings and Conclusions and look specifically at the BAR criteria I find on page 16 a discussion with respect to the masses of the building there. That is in respect to a criteria about architectural style. A valuation of the project should be based on quality of its design in relationship to its surroundings. In relationship to its surroundings. No specified criteria, it doesn' .TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL SP ' ■.L MEETING May 26, 1987 Page 7 PUBLIC HEARING - Contd. Valley View Estates, Review & Approval of alternative bldg. design - contd. RECESS 8 :50 - 9:00 P.M. say what relationship should be met and I. would have to infer a degree of reasonableness. I also look at page 6 in the Findings and it says that one of the BAR's criteria is that there should be an accomplishment of a desirable transition to.the street scale. So we have the concept of reasonableness that is inferred, we have the concept of desirable and then finally on page 9 we have a comment about harmoney, texture, line and masses. I don't think that really applies. I think it is .05O(1a) and I think it is also .05O(4a). Why do I bring this up? . Because in determining what is an acceptable or desirable or a reasonable transition I believe it is important to find out what standards we are judging it against. The standards we are judging it against is not political acceptability. I understand very well members of the Council have expressed a concern about having this matter over and finished because there is an election coming up and there is a desire to talk with constituents. This is understandable. I also know that in things like the Park Ridge case our court has clearly told us that public opinion, political issues are not relevant and are not determinative of your decision. Probably this is because in a quasi - judicial hearing such as this the court is equally concerned about the constitutional rights of the property owners to know what standards are going to be used to judge the proceeding. I havE also struggled with this question of standards and what we mean. Is there some kind of an objective criteria? The BAR criteria doesn'tgive you objective standards. The only objective standards we have is in the zoning code and you have heard staff indicate that we have heights less than and set- backs greater than if we were a single family resident. I think these standards indicate some of the type of things you were concerned about. Move it back farther, drop it down. On the other hand, the BAR criteria are qualitative and that is why I have expressed concern in the past and I have expressed the concern to your attorney because of the Carlson vs. Bosart Village case where the court indicated to allow the town council to deny the application based on "the best interests of the town citizens" would put the Carolsons like the applicants in the predicament of having no basis for determining how they would comply with the law. Consequently, we find that the actions of the town council were arbitrary and capricious. That is why I have been struggling and why we have asked only one witness tonight to talk to you about what is appropriate about relocation, reorientation, building height reductions and stepping and increased landscaping so we can provide you with an adequate basis for making a decision. It is also fair to state as our position that if the Council were to adopt Alternative 1 or Option 1,.the one that causes a loss of 3 units we will accept that decision. If, on the other hand, the Council adopts Option 2 and causes a loss of 9 units we will have to go back to the BAR to show additional structures or units interior to recapture some of the units. Staff perhaps feel a little cheated because we did not bring to you an identification as to how we would recover those additional units. You have not made the decision that would require us to consider that yet. If you were to do that then we are going to have to do some engineering and then go back to the BAR. We hope we can present the information to you that will allow you to choose Option 1 as an acceptable and appropriate transition. I will turn the time over to Fred, the architect, and state we will have only one more exhibit, which is Exhibit 81. Mayor Van Dusen called for a five minute recess. Mayor Van Dusen called the Special Meeting back to order, with Councilmembers present as previously listed. lUKWILA CITY COUNCIL'' °cCIAL MEETING May 26, 1987 ,, . Page 8 PUBLIC HEARING - Contd. Valley View Estates, Review & Approval of alternative bldg. design - contd. RECESS 9:50 P.M. Mayor Van Dusen called a five minute recess. Fred Brown, architect with firm of Mithun, Bowman, Emrich Group, Bellevue, referred to Exhibit 81 as mainly worksheet"! He explained the work sheets and how they would affect the buildings. Building #1 would be reduced 18', Building #2 would be reduced 9'; retains setbacks; reduces unit length to street; creates safety and security problem with roof adjacerci to grade; retains landscaping from street to building #1; deletes six units; building #1 living level is 9' below parking and 5' below Slade Way. On page 2 it shows the relationships to buildings #3 and #4. Reduces height of building # 3 18', building #4 9'; retains setbacks; reduces un. length to street; creates safety and security problem with roof adjacent to grade (building #3); retains landscaping from street to building #3; deletes 6 units; building #3 living level 9' below parking and 4' below Slade Way. On page 3 it reduces height of building #18 18' and building #17 9'; retains setbacks; reduces unit lengths; creates safety and secu security problem with roof adjacent to grade; retains land- scaping; deletes 6 units; building #18 living level 9' below parking. Page 4 relocates building #1; building #1 setback increased from 20' to 50'; building #2 setback increased from 84' to 120'; landscaping increased between street and building #1. On page 5 it demonstrates what has been done with building #1 by relocating it. Page 6 shows building #1 reduced height; and ridge is 24' above adjacent street elevation (Slade Way). Page 7 shows relocation of buildings #3 and #4. Building #3 setback increased from 20' to 42'; landscaping increased between street and building #3. Page 8 shows relocation of buildings #3 and #4 and reduces length; page 9 shows 1/2 of building #3 is reduced 1 floor (9'); page 10 shows building #1 and reduces height of one -half of building #1 9'; increases setback of building #1 20' to 50'; increases setback of building #2 84' to 120'; reduces unit length; reduces unit height; increases landscaping between street and building; deletes one unit; "breaks -up" roof mass; retains building facade. Page 11 reduces height building #3 9'; increases setback to 42'; reduces unit length and height; increases landscaping; deletes one unit; "breaks -up" roof mass; retains building facade. Page 12 reduces height building #18 9'; retains 36' setback with landscaping; reduces length and height; deletes one unit; "breaks -up" roof mass; retains building facade. Page 13 treats building #2 as building #1 except reduces height building #1 9' and reduces height of one -half of building #2 9'; deletes three units. Page 14 treats building #4 as #3 except reduces height 9' of building #3 and reduces height of one -half of building #4 9'; deletes 3 units. Page 15 treats building #17 as building #18 except reduces height of building #18 9'; reduces height building #17 9'; deletes three units. Page 16 is a summary of options, recommending approval to Option 1. The Special Meeting was called back to order by Mayor Van Dusen with Councilmembers present as previously listed. Dennis Robertson, audience, 16038 48th Avenue South, Tukwila, said he would like to go back eight or nine years. He said he was president of McMicken Height Improvement Club and on Military Road and 188th where there is now a condominium with attached housing it was vacant land. On the Comprehensive Land Use Plan it was shown as medium density apartments. We had a freeze that King County had applied to any upzones until the Highland Community Plan was done. The Club had been working with them. A developer came in and wanted to build apartments there. He talked to people in the vicinity. When they applied for a hearing the freeze was noted. They wanted a community meeting. We chaired the meeting. The Council wanted to know whether the community wanted that development because of the freeze. The.developer had told the people the issue was where to put ingress and egress to the development. TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL SPE( MEETING MAY 26, 1987 Page 9 PUBLIC HEARING- Contd. Valley View Estates, Review & Approval of alternative bldg. design - contd. We had all of the people fighting among themselves as to who would have the entrances and exits in front of their place. The situation was then explained that it was not a matter of entrances and exits. A vote was taken and it was 130 to nothing not to build the development. What has happened here is that the City has had several proposals presented as if you have to accept one of them. On the last page of the exhibit is the summary of options. It talks about reducing height. Reducing height was what this whole thing was about. The idea of lowering the mass of the building was to lower the height of them, the visual height, that is the point that was raised. It doesn't talk about how much it reduces the height in detail, or by which building. The reductions in height are complex. There are lots of places where the heights are not reduced. This table does not show that at all. Item 11 states "requires adding units to interior of site." If you believe the table then it says you have to add units to Option 0 or Option 2. The developer may come back in a few weeks and say he wants to add more to this, which is his right I believe. He can always go back to the BAR with a new building proposal. In the original plan, Exhibit 80, the Staff Report, Option 1 did not meet any condition that was proposed. On the first page of Option 2, the neatest thing was that buildings could be relocated. In Option 0 the fact that building roofs would touch the ground was a matter of concern. There are lots of solutions to that, none of which were explored. The easiest one is to move the building out from the hillside so you cannot step onto the roof. They didn't propose that. In Building #2 they eliminated one -half of the upper level. We pointed out the problem with those buildings was how they would appear visually from the south. Buildings #3 and #4 will cut into the recreation area that was proposed to go there. I have not seen that recreation area supplied elsewhere. There is no indoor recreation area; no cabana, no swimming pool. Mr. Robertson said there are lots of apartments that did not meet the conditions set up. Neither proposal has changed much. He said he though the applicant should give the City a total site plan to make a decision. Dharlene West, 5212 South 164th, said she felt this proposal of Options 1 and 2 is not responsive to the intent of the City Council. It seems that height and scale should be in harmony. Council President Morgan said building #3 and others appeared all angular. Architect Fred Brown said the reason is that they are viewed from the street in a single family residential zone. They are turned to give them more modulation Council President Morgan said rather than physically reducing the buildings they have been moved so it appears to be less imposing. She said the City Council provided another option which was a major reduction in the number of units to achieve this transition. City Attorney Haney the applicant has offered some alternatives The Council should make a decision on those proposals. You can reject both Option #1 and #2. Option 2 proposes question would it require additional units to be located on the site? If they did they would have to go back to the BAR. Rick Beeler, Planning Director, asked if it is possible for the Council to choose part of Option 1 and part of Option 2? Mr. Haney said the Council would have the option of 1 or 2 or they could probably pick a portion of 1 and 2. Dennis Robertson, audience, said Exhibit 82 shows the impact of relocation of Units 3 and 4. It shows if the new landscape plan is put in it will not allow the recreation area to exist as required. TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL SPEC May 26, 1987 Page 10 PUBLIC HEARING - Contd. Valley View Estates, Review b Approval of alternative bldg. design contd. ADJOURNMENT 1 :30 P.M. Mayor Van Dusen stated.it.was 11:00 p.m. and the rules would have to be suspended to continue the meeting. MOVED BY BAUCH, SECONDED BY MORGAN, TO SUSPEND THE RULES AND CONTINUE THE MEETING. MOTION CARRIED. Rick Beeler, Planning Director, stated it was the recommendation of staff to accept Option 2. Of the two options, Option #2 fits better. . THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED AT 11 :15 P.M. Councilmembers discussed Options #1 and #2, the deletion of some units and additional landscaping. The original decision of the Council was to create a transition between the multiple high density and the single family residential areas. The Council asked the developer to show them if they want to have 108 units how do they plan to do it? MOVED BY BAUCH, SECONDED BY DUFFIE, THAT THE CITY COUNCIL DETERMINE THAT OPTIONS #1 AND #2 DO NOT SATISFY CONDTION 3 IN FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS. ROLL CALL VOTE: HARRIS, MORGAN, SIMPSON, STOKNES VOTING NO. BAUCH AND DUFFIE VOTING YES. MOTION FAILED, FOUR TO TWO. MOVED BY MORGAN, SECONDED BY HARRIS, THAT COUNCIL ACCEPT OPTION .2 AS. RECOMMENDED BY THE PLANNING STAFF. ROLL CALL VOTE: HARRIS, MORGAN, SIMPSON, STOKNES VOTING YES. BAUCH AND DUFFIE VOTING NO. MOTION CARRIED, FOUR TO TWO. MOVED BY HARRIS, SECONDED BY DUFFIE, THAT THE CITY ATTORNEY BRING BACK FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS WITH THE DECISION. MOTION CARRIED. MOVED BY DUFFIE, SECONDED BY HARRIS, THAT THE SPECIAL MEETING ADJOURN. MOTION CARRIED. Mayor Gary L. Van'Dusen a Secretary Boo er, Recording April 27, 1987 7:00 P.M. CALL TO ORDER AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL OF COUNCIL MEMBERS OFFICIALS IN ATTENDANCE OLD BUSINESS Review & Adoption of Findings & Conclusions for the Valley View Estates' Appeal. TUKWILA CITY COUNCI - SPECIAL MEETING City Hall MINUTES Mayor Van Dusen called the Special Meeting of the Tukwila City Council to order and led the audience and the Councilmembers in the Pledge of Allegiance. MABEL J. HARRIS, JOE H. DUFFIE, EDGAR D. BAUCH, WENDY A. MORGAN (COUNCIL PRESIDENT), CHARLES E. SIMPSON, MARILYN G. STOKNES, JAMES J. MCKENNA. Maxine Anderson (City Clerk), Rick Beeler (Planning Director), Doug Gibbs (Assistant Fire Chief), Jim Haney (City Attorney), Jim Hoel (Assistant Fire Chief), Tom Keefe (Acting Fire Chief), Bob McQueen (Assistant Police Chief), Don Morrison (City Administrator), Jack Pace (Senior Planner). Councilmember McKenna excused himself from the discussion. City Attorney Haney stated the draft of the Findings and Conclusions is being considered at this meeting. Mr. Haney reviewed some of the changes that will need to be amended: In Finding 15 it states "the acoustical fences were shown on Exhibits 58 and 76." Mr. Haney said his understanding was that they were not. That Finding will have to be amended. He suggested that they delete the first sentence and change the second sentence to read: "At the hearing before the City Council Mr. Roy Richards, Noise Consultant with Town, Richards and Charriare, testified that acoustical fences should be required around recreational areas on the site to attenuate noise. Go on to say Mr. Richards recommended that the height and length of these fences be as follows: (it has been laid out in the rest of that). Councilmember Bauch said he believed that the height of (a) recreation is supposed to be 11 feet and not 6 feet, the same as the one above. It is likely just a typo. City Attorney Haney said the other thing he wanted to mention was in Condition 3 about the building masses on page 18 of the BAR. You may note a little bit of difference in what was said by the Council and what was drafted. He said his recollection of what the Council said was in reference to the height of the buildings. Then he queried the Council in maintaining 108 units on site was possible and if that was so whether the Council was trying to prohibit that or was just regulating height and the Council indicated height. He thought the Council also indicated that it would retain .jurisdiction to see if there was some means nf putting 108 units on the site. The Council did not specifically say that they would consider an alternative to height reductions themselves, some other way of massing the buildings. He said he put that in because it was his understanding that it may not be physically feasible to reduce the height nf some nf the buildinns because the roof line might actually go into the dirt. That being the case he left it a little hit more flexihle so the Council could consider the possibility of snme other massing nf the buildinos. He said the council should consider that. With respect to the Condition No. 4 on Page 18 the last sentence beginning nn the page says "Existinn alder trees on the R -1 zoned portion of the site shall be retained except as may bP necessary to accommodate the plantina of the evergreens whereas it may be necessary to remove dead or unsafe trees." He said he would recommend that the sentence be added to "or as may he necessary to comply with the conditions of any building or any permits renuired by the City." It may be that part of the drainaae system for this site will go into that R -1 area and that would renuire removina a tree or two to put in that drain system. He understood that WAS proposed. This gives the Planning Denart- men and the Building Officials some authority to allow some additional alders to be removed should there be a requirement to construct some of the facilities required by the permit. Councilmember Bauch said the first comment he would like to make is that also included was the Findings, Conclusions, Decisions, in regards to the adequacy of the FEIS because they have never heen adopted other than by motion. City Attorney Haney said yes. Review & Adoption of Findinns & conclusions fnr the Valley View Fstates' Appeal - contd. TUKWILA r.ITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES Aoril 27. 1987 Page 2 Councilman Bauch said the first question he had then going on into the BAR decision was the auestion hP had raised about the hearing record of the appeal to the FETS. Whereas we agreed, maybe it is in there, and maybe they cnvered it but there was lots of new material hrought up and he felt that someplace around 7 or 8 of the procedural findings is some mention should be made to this hearing record. It is just saying that we adopted the FEIS just the way it was as letter perfect. It was not letter perfect, but it was adequate under the law is what ynu say in the final. but there were lots of things brought out. That hearing record was fresh to all of us as we went on into the BAR. I don't know how or where to put it in there but it is never mentioned in the BAR other than we found it was adequate. City Attorney Haney said a sentence could he added to #8 which says: "As a result of such hearing the City Cnuncil determined the FEIS to be adequate under the rule of reason and proceeded to consider the record of the FEIS hearing and additional materials in the BAR appeal. Councilmember Bauch said on Page 3 it is Finding under II. the Finding 3, where in talking about the original site landscape plans approved by the BAR and it goes down to where it says " the children's nlav area for the project be located in that portion of the site zoned R -1. Single Family, under the apnlicable zoning regulation." We were told both in the EIS hearings and in this hearing that we were not allowed to talk or the R -1 consideration was not a part of these things and this is saying that they were not brouaht up. I think we should add "which had been contested but ruled not a subject of the BAR." That would be after the end of the sentence. It was in the appeal, that was Dart of the appeal. It was thought it would be handled some nlace else. He said he proposed that change be made. Council agreed to this. On page 4, Item 10, it says the "maximum height of a single family residence in the surrounding area is approximately 30'" and it should be the "maximum allowable height: Council agreed. Under 11, this goes back to the same of where you take your roof heights from, everything that is in there is correct, but it should be added "and to the south of Slade Way, Slade Way should say to the "west has a street elevation" in that last sentence. On page 5, in (b), recreation area should be 11 feet not 6 feet. City Attorney Haney said he would check that. Councilmember Bauch said on page 8, top of page, last sentence it says "all dumpster enclosures on the site shall be screened by natural vegetation so the dumpters will not be visible from off - site." It' was discussed it was "dense" natural vegetation year- round. On page 9, second paragraph, in the conclusions, the word more comparable" should be added. It is the same throughout. On page 10, first paragraph "more" should be added to read render "more" harmonious. On page 11, top paragraph, it is not clear whether we are talking about the trees on the alternate or staggering spacing, whether that is clear on the interpretation of what it means. We mean a 10' offset so if viewed they are actually on 10' centers. We want to make sure that is what we get. Councilmember Bauch said in the next paragraph down it was to put the trees along on the inside as a noise barrier. It doesn't say that. Council President Morgan said the idea was to break up the sense of sameness. It should say on both sides of the fence. The Council agreed to this. Councilmember Bauch said on page 14, middle paragraph, it is describing the fence. The last sentence, "and have landscaping installed adjacent to it." It doesn't say both sides. That should be added. TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES April 27, 1987 Page 3 Review & Adoption of Findings & Conslusions for the Valley View Estates' Appeal - contd. ADJOURNMENT 8:15 P.M. Councilmember Bauch said on page 16, the new finding there next to the last sentence in the first paragraph, "creates harmony" should be "helps crest harmony." In the very last sentence in the last paragraph, same page, "this stairstepping of buildings" will reduce the structural massing," should be "help reduce the structural massing." Council agreed. At the very first sentence on the top of page 17, "will help reduce and will render it more harmonious." The second paragraph, page 17, second sentence, "Noise levels caused by I -5 may create difficulty for the residents of the westerly facing units in the use of their decks." He said it was his understanding that it was the ones that faced the freeway or the easterly. City Attorney Haney stated he thought he picked up that error. On page 18, Decision, #1, the dumrster shall not be visible from off -site year around. It should be "dense natural landscaping." Under Finding, 3B, does it mean that after 6 weeks if we do not have a new proposal from the applicant it is a dead issue? City Attorney Haney said that was correct. City Councilmember Bauch said under (4) he said it was his under- standing that these decisions replace all of the decisions of previous BAR. Is that correct? City Attorney said that was correct Councilmember Bauch said on page 19, under (6), and the acoustical fences, the last sentence should have "both sides." No. (7), "accessible by pedestrian walkways." City Attorney Haney said the Council did not put it in, but he did, because the Uniform Building Code would not require a rail. Do you want it everywhere? Councilmember Simpson said his concern is for the children who may be walking along there. It could be bushes or railing, to discourage the children. Council President Morgan said when she read the FEIS some of the Council concerns did not show up. City Attorney Haney said the decisions of the majority of the City Council are there. He said he could have drafted a longer document. MOVED BY HARRIS, SECONDED BY STOKNES, THAT THE EIS FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS WERE ADEQUATE AND TO ADOPT SAME. MOTION CARRIED, WITH DUFFLE AND MORGAN VOTING NO. MOVED BY HARRIS, SECONDED BY SIMPSON, THAT COUNCIL ADOPT THE BAR DECISION WITH THE MODIFICATIONS AGREED UPON. MOTION CARRIED, WITH DUFFIE VOTING NO. City Attorney Haney said within six weeks the Council can consider the proposal. Joe Haggard, attorney for the applicant, said while they do not agree with all of the points, they are sensitive to the time period. They are prepared to point out by diagram and to provide alternatives. It should be with the staff no later than Friday of this week. When it has been filed with the staff a copy will be sent to Mr. Goe. MOVED BY DUFFIE, SECONDED BY MORGAN, THAT THE SPECIAL MEETING ADJOURN. MOTION CARRIED. Mayor Gary L. Van Dusen Booher, Recording Secretary �' �: MAY 1, 1987 I L MAY 1 1987 L CITY OF Ithivi,-iLA PLANiTNG DEPT. VALLEY VIEW ESTATES. Transition Studies 1 May 1987 Rick Beeler Planning Director CITY OF TUKWILA 6100 Southcenter Blvd. Tukwila, WA 98188 Re: Valley View Estates MBE Job No. 82059.03 Dear Mr. Beeler: In the spirit of cooperation, I have been asked by Puget Western to suggest adjustments to the site plan and architectural character of Buildings #1,2,3,4,17 and 18 in an effort to provide more of a transition with surrounding zones. I have studied two options (see attached). Both of these options increases the setback from the south existing street right -of way. Option one reduces the unit count by three. .Option Two reduces the unit count by nine. I recommend that unit loss from the edge units be relocated by adding buildings to the central area of the site or by increasing the height of the existing central buildings. Sincerely, Principal cc: Tom Russell Joel Haggard VF /cl MITHUN • BOWMAN • EMRICH OROUP•PS ARCHITECTURE PLANNING AND INTERIOR DESIGN 2000 '12TH AvE NE BEL EvUE WASH 98004 (200)4E 3344 • VALLEY VIEW ESTATES 1 May 1987 OPTION #1 This option reduces the unit count three by eliminating one half of the upper floor of Buildings 1,3, and 18. The bulk appearance of these buildings is reduced from 30' to 24' thus creating . a "split level" appearance. Buildings 2,4 and 17 remain the same. In addition the setback distance from Slade Way has been significantly increased to 50' at Building ti and 120' at Building 42. s N. I • ao' SE7',fracIz. 114 of r EseHT Id Q.. IPA tx. I 2. 112 or PPWG *1 DUB TO VI Aocki . Ei t fl .9 La/EL. b. 12.& SE reAc.K INSIEAp of PRESa•T 4 b5 / 6 P'L.P MITHUN • BOWMAN • EMRICH• GRO.UP•PS ARCHITECTURE PLANNING AND INTERIOR DESIGN 2000 112TH AVE NE BELLEVUE. WASH. 98004 (206)4543344 VALLEY VIEW ESTATES OPTION: 1 JOB NO. DATE • 5 =I• b7 VALLEY VIEW ESTATES 1 May 1987 OPTION #2 This option reduces the unit count by nine by eliminating the entire top floor of Buildings 1,3, and 18 and 1/2 of the • top floor of Buildings 2,4 and 17. Building 1,3 and 18 would appear as one story buildings as seen from the entry level. Buildings 2,4, and 17 will appear as split level • buildings by reducing one half of the roof from 30' to 24' above the entry level. In addition the setback distance from Slade Way has been significantly increased to 50' at building #1 and 120' at building #2. • • • ......-.. 0 • I. Nf' aF pint -al wo * IB Feciuceo to 24' Atecive ENTRY LEveL 2• I � 2 or P U$ u7IM G *17 fzeoixat 241. 'TIz` 1. LEN/mt.. 3, 4 7"seT' ft t l NTi'+INib MITHUN • BOWMAN • EMRICH. GROUP•PS • ARCHITECTURE PLANNING AND INTERIOR DESIGN 2000 112TH AVE NE BELLEVUE, WASH 98004 (206)4543344 VALLEY VIEW' ESTATES' OPTION 2 JOB NO. DATE of 61...ps *3 IZEouc&p To 24 1 swam LEVEL 2.. SS 5 '1 'C1 - I N' T or I�EW -MT 10 t P,L.Q * 3 • y, 1!2 • oP PP 4 R+ I, . To 2¢I /"a/E ENTK L /CL `1 MITHUN • BOWMAN • EMRICH GROVP•PS ARCHITECTURE PLANNING AND INTERIOR DESIGN 2000 112TH AVE NE BELLEVUE, WASH 98004 (206)4543344 VALLEY VIEW ESTATES' '.OPTION' JOB NO. DATE 5 -I -67 ., �.«.. • l41 of bt.06. #' 1 REbucEC fio 2.4 AP,,ovE ENtR4 LEVEL 501 SETDf-cI - 114'ir NU OF 11 10 pvI.L7ri 1/9- 0 12 -W *2.. SeGVGqp Ei4TIR.4 Lava- 120' SETBAc.K 1Ns-tEAp of PResraNT 1b5 S FAPEP' ' • MITHUN • BOWMAN GROVP'PS • ARCHITECTURE PLANNING AND INTERIOR DESIGN 2000 112TH AVE NE BELLEVUE. WASH. 98004 (206)4543344 VALLEY' VIEW ESTATES OPTION' 2' JOB NO. DATE • 3 -1 -b7 ,' • N. 1. I!' of t n...vi G *16 - o 24 P -Adve ei.rrfz.4 LEN/0.. Z. 4 ;( seTio,P441.4 MA1 N Net ) MITHUN • BOWMAN • EMRICH. OROVP•PS ARCHITECTURE PLANNING AND INTERIOR DESIGN 2000 112TH AVE NE BELLEVUE, WASH 98004 (206)454.3344 VALLEY VIEW' ESTATES' OPTION 1'. JOB DATE NO. 5 -1 -e7 . 1• 3S' S `rt ctd- IN» - r or f`f2E ..14'T /o P)LW * 3 2. 1 k or rL4=a, 4 3 pemeeta To 24 / ale a-lzi LLeYel. MITHUN • BOWMAN • EMRICH. 6ROUP•PS ARCHITECTURE PLANNING AND INTERIOR DESIGN 2000 112TH AVE NE BELLEVUE, WASH 98004 (206)454.3344 VALLEY' VIEW ESTATES' OPTION' 1 JOB NO. DATE 5 -1-el April 27, 1987 7:00 P.M. CALL TO ORDER AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL OF COUNCIL MEMBERS OFFICIALS IN ATTENDANCE OLD BUSINESS Review & Adoption of Findings & Conclusions for the Valley View Estates' Appeal. TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL City Hall SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES Mayor Van Dusen called the Special Meeting of the Tukwila City Council to order and led the audience and the Councilmembers in the Pledge of Allegiance. MABEL J. HARRIS, JOE H. DUFFIE, EDGAR D. BAUCH, WENDY A. MORGAN (COUNCIL PRESIDENT), CHARLES E. SIMPSON, MARILYN G. STOKNES, JAMES J. MCKENNA. Maxine Anderson (City Clerk), Rick Beeler (Planning Director), Doug Gibbs (Assistant Fire Chief), Jim Haney (City Attorney), Jim Hoel (Assistant Fire Chief), Tom Keefe (Acting Fire Chief), Bob McQueen (Assistant Police Chief), Don Morrison (City Administrator), Jack Pace (Senior Planner). Councilmember McKenna excused himself from the discussion. City Attorney Haney stated the draft of the Findings and Conclusions is being considered at this meeting. Mr. Haney reviewed some of the changes that will need to be amended: In Finding 15 it states "the acoustical fences were shown on Exhibits 58 and 76." Mr. Haney said his understanding was that they were not. That Finding will have to be amended. He suggested that they delete the first sentence and change the second sentence to read: "At the hearing before the City Council Mr. Roy Richards, Noise Consultant with Town, Richards and Charriare, testified that acoustical fences should be required around recreational areas on the site to attenuate noise. Go on to say Mr. Richards recommended that the height and length of these fences be as follows: (it has been laid out in the rest of that). Councilmember Bauch said he believed that the height of (a) recreation is supposed to be 11 feet and not 6 feet, the same as the one above. It is likely just a typo. City Attorney Haney said the other thing he wanted to mention was in Condition 3 about the building masses on page 18 of the BAR. You may note a little bit of difference in what was said by the Council and what was drafted. He said his recollection of what the Council said was in reference to the height of the buildings. Then he queried the Council i maintaining 108 units on site was possible and if that was so whether the Council was trying to prohibit that or was just regulating height and the Council indicated height. He thought the Council also indicated that it would retain jurisdiction to see if there was some means of putting 108 units on the site. The Council did not specifically say that they would consider an alternative to height reductions themselves, some other way of massina the buildings. He said he put that in because it was his understanding that it may not be physically feasible to reduce the height of snme of the buildings because the roof line might actually go into the dirt. That being the case he left it a little hit more flexihle so the Council could consider the possihility of snme other massing of the buildinns. He said the council should consider that. With respect to the condition No. 4 on page 18 the last sentence beginning on the page says "Existino alder trees on the R -1 zoned portion of the site shall be retained except as may be necessary to accommodate the plantina of the evergreens whereas it may be necessary to remove dead or unsafe trees." He said he would recommend that the sentence be added to "or as may he necessary to comply with the conditions of any building or any permits renuired by the City." It may be that part of the drainage system for this site will go into that R -1 area and that would require removing a tree or two to put in that drain system. He understood that was proposed. This gives the Planning Deoart- men and the Building Officials some authority to allow some additional alders to be removed should there be a requirement to construct some of the facilities required by the hermit. Councilmember Bauch said the first comment he would like to make is that also included was the Findings, Conclusions, Decisions, in regards to the adequacy of the FEIS because they have never been adopted other than by motion. City Attorney Haney said yes. TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES April 27. 1987 Page 2 Review & Adoption of Findinos & conclusions for the Valley View Fstates' Appeal - contd. Councilman Bauch said the first auestion he had then going on into the BAR decision was the auestion he had raised about the hearing record of the appeal to the FETS. Whereas we agreed, maybe it is in there, and maybe they covered it but there was lots of new material hrought up and he felt that someplace around 7 or 8 of the procedural findings is some mention should be made to this hearing record. It is just saying that we adopted the FEIS just the way it was as letter perfect. It was not letter perfect, but it was adequate under the law is what you say in the final. but there were lots of things brought out. That hearing record was fresh to all of us as we went on into the BAR. I don't know how or where to put it in there but it is never mentioned in the BAR other than we found it was adequate. City Attorney Haney said a sentence could he added to #8 which says: "As a result of such hearing the City Council determined the FETS to be adequate under the rule of reason and proceeded to consider the record of the FEIS hearing and additional materials in the BAR appeal. Councilmember Bauch said on Page 3 it is Finding under II. the Finding 3, where in talking about the original site landscape plans approved by the BAR and it goes down to where it says " the children's nlav area for the project be located in that portion of the site zoned R -1. Single Family, under the apnlirable zoning regulation." We were told both in the EIS hearings and in this hearing that we were not allowed to talk or the R -1 consideration was not a part of these things and this is saying that they were not brouaht up. T think we should add "which had been contested but ruled not a sub.iect of the BAR." That would be after the end of the sentence. It was in the appeal, that was part of the appeal. It was thought it would be handled some nlace else. He said he proposed that change be made. Council agreed to this. On page 4, Item 10, it says the "maximum height of a single family residence in the surrounding area is approximately 30'" and it should be the"maximum allowable height: Council agreed. Under 11, this goes back to the same of where you take your roof heights from, everything that is in there is correct, but it should be added "and to the south of Slade Way, Slade Way should say to the "west has a street elevation" in that last sentence. On page 5, in (b), recreation area should be 11 feet not 6 feet. City Attorney Haney said he would check that. Councilmember Bauch said on page 8, top of page, last sentence it says "all dumpster enclosures on the site shall be screened by natural vegetation so the dumpters will not be visible from off - site." It was discussed it was "dense" natural vegetation year - round. On page 9, second paragraph, in the conclusions, the word "more comparable" should be added. It is the same throughout. On page 10, first paragraph "more" should be added to read render "more" harmonious. On page 11, top paragraph, it is not clear whether we are talking about the trees on the alternate or staggering spacing, whether that is clear on the interpretation of what it means. We mean a 10' offset so if viewed they are actually on 10' centers. We want to make sure that is what we get. Councilmember Bauch said in the next paragraph down it was to put the trees along on the inside as a noise barrier. It doesn't say that. Council President Morgan said the idea was to break up the sense of sameness. It should say on both sides of the fence. The Council agreed to this. Councilmember Bauch said on page 14, middle paragraph, it is describing the fence. The last sentence, "and have landscaping installed adjacent to it." It doesn't say both sides. That should be added. TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES April 27, 1987 Page 3 Review & Adoption of Findings & Conslusions for the Valley View Estates' Appeal - contd. ADJOURNMENT 8 :15 P.M. Councilmember Bauch said on page 16, the new finding there next to the last sentence in the first paragraph, "creates harmony" should be "helps creat harmony." In the very last sentence in the last paragraph, same page, "this stairstepping of buildings" will reduce the structural massing," should be "help reduce the structural massing." Council agreed. At the very first sentence on the top of page 17, "will help reduce and will render it more harmonious." The second paragraph, page 17, second sentence, "Noise levels caused by I -5 may create difficulty for the residents of the westerly facing units in the use of their decks." He said it was his understanding that it was the ones that faced the freeway or the easterly. City Attorney Haney stated he thought he picked up that error. On page 18, Decision, #1, the dumpster shall not be visible from off -site year around. It should be "dense natural landscaping." Under Finding, 3B, does it mean that after 6 weeks if we do not have a new proposal from the applicant it is a dead issue? City Attorney Haney said that was correct. City Councilmember Bauch said under (4) he said it was his under- standing that these decisions replace all of the decisions of previous BAR. Is that correct? City Attorney said that was correct. Councilmember Bauch said on page 19, under (6), and the acoustical fences, the last sentence should have "both sides." No. (7), "accessible by pedestrian walkways." City Attorney Haney said the Council did not put it in, but he did, because the Uniform Building Code would not require a rail. Do you want it everywhere? Councilmember Simpson said his concern is for the children who may be walking along there. It could be bushes or railing, to discourage the children. Council President Morgan said when she read the FEIS some of the Council concerns did not show up. City Attorney Haney said the decisions of the majority of the City Council are there. He said he could have drafted a longer document. MOVED BY HARRIS, SECONDED BY STOKNES, THAT THE EIS FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS WERE ADEQUATE AND TO ADOPT SAME. MOTION CARRIED, WITH DUFFIE AND MORGAN VOTING NO. MOVED BY HARRIS, SECONDED BY SIMPSON, THAT COUNCIL ADOPT THE BAR DECISION WITH THE MODIFICATIONS AGREED UPON. MOTION CARRIED, WITH DUFFIE VOTING NO. City Attorney Haney said within six weeks the Council can consider the proposal. Joe Haggard, attorney for the applicant, said while they do not agree with all of the points, they are sensitive to the time period. They are prepared to point out by diagram and to provide alternatives. It should be with the staff no later than Friday of this week. When it has been filed with the staff a copy will be sent to Mr. Goe. MOVED BY DUFFIE, SECONDED BY MORGAN, THAT THE SPECIAL MEETING ADJOURN. MOTION CARRIED. Mayor Gary L. Van Dusen Booher, Recording Secretary 27 April 1987 Rick Beeler Planning Director CITY OF TUKWILA 6100 Southcenter Blvd. Tukwila, WA 98188 Re: Valley View Estates MBE Job No. 82059.03 Dear Mr. Beeler: rown. AIA Principal cc: Tom Russell Joel Haggard FB /tw ely, MI *HYN • BOWMAN • EMRICH aROYP•PS ARCHITECTURE PLANNING AND INTERIOR DESIGN 2000 112TH AVE NE 9803 4 (206)45443344 Cc� [ W[ foil APR 27 1987 CI 1 1 Y OF UKVViLA PLANNING DEPT. In the spirit of cooperation, I have been asked by Puget Western to suggest adjustments to the site plan and architectural character of Buildings 41,2,3,4,17 and 18 in an effort to reduce the bulk impact of these buildings from neighboring residents. I have studied three options (see attached). My recommendation to reduce the bulk impact of the project is to lower the height of one half of the Buildings 4 2,4 and 17 from ± .30' to ± 24' above the entry level. In addition I suggest removing the entire top floor of buildings 1,3 and 18 and increase the setback from the North single family zones and south existing street right -of way. • • ,046.1Dvit.44 I 5 5aTIWAGId- I F fleeSeNT 10 es l'AXGP I 2., #2 exposuft, To "iiatee • • 1). 5 uwi rfeLETelio 4. 14 or e/NerEr-N ftlxv 2. faeplucp, etz01-4 bo 24 5 HT. or PA..06 *I ref,trzt› To 24 MITIIIIN • BOWMAN • EMRICH. GROUP.16 ARCHITECTURE PLANNING AND INTERIOR DESIGN 2000 112TH AVE NE BELLEVUE, WASH 98004 (206)4543344 VALLEY VIEW ESTATES OPTION' 1' JOB NO. DATE 4 41'111 • BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA IN THE MATTER OF ) VALLEY VIEW ESTATES ) ) ) ) ) ) ) I. PROCEDURAL FINDINGS I. FINDINGS 1. On May 3, 1982, Dr. Herman Allenbach (later replaced as project proponent by Puget Western, Inc.) applied for a building permit to construct a 108 unit multi - family complex on a sight located along the north and east side of Slade Way and 53rd Avenue South in Tukwila. 2. At the time building permit applications were filed, zoning on the site consisted of three separate classifications: R- 1 (single - family residential), R -4 (low apartments), and RMH (multiple residence high density). 3. One day after the building permit applications were filed, an ordinance rezoning the entire site R -1 (single - family) became effective. Litigation between the City of Tukwila and the project proponent concerning the effect of this ordinance on the building permit applications culminated in a ruling by the Washington Supreme Court in February 1984, that the City was obligated to process the building permit applications under the zoning in effect at the time the applications were filed. 4. A Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) was prepared by the project proponent and issued December 28, 1984. After receiving comments on the DEIS, the City's SEPA Responsible Official determined that the City should take over preparation of the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) on the project with the aid of independent consultants. The FEIS was issued for the project on January 31, 1986. Findings, Conclusions and Decisions of the City Council Re: Bar Decision - 1 TUK00011A FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND DECISION OF THE CITY COUNCIL RE: BAR DECISION S 5. Four appeals of the adequacy of the FEIS were filed in February, 1986. Pursuant to WAC 197 -11 -680 and TMC 21.04.280, hearing of these appeals by the City Council was delayed pending a substantive decision on the project by the City. That decision was made on May 22, 1986 when the City's Board of Architectural Review (BAR) granted design approval to the project. The BAR subsequently adopted its findings and conclusions. 6. Two of the four parties who appealed the FEIS filed appeals of the BAR decision. In addition, a letter was received from Mr. George A. Kresovich on behalf of the Tukwila McMicken Heights Action Committee, to which the appealing parties belonged joining in the appeals. All appeals of the FEIS adequacy and the BAR decision were timely filed and there was no objection raised at the hearing as to the timeliness of the appeals. 7. While the appeals of the FEIS and BAR decision were consolidated for hearing pursuant to WAC 197 -11 -680 and TMC 21.04.280, the City Council determined to hear presentations concerning FEIS adequacy first and then to consider presentations on the BAR decision. 8. The hearing on the FEIS adequacy began on February 2, 1987 and was continued from time to time until completed on February 12, 1987. As a result of such hearing, the City Council determined the FEIS to be adequate. 9. The hearing on the BAR decision began on February 23, 1987. The hearing was continued from time to time until completed and testimony was taken on the evenings of February 24, March 16, March 17, March 24 and April 9, 1987. The Council deliberated and reached a decision on April 15, 1987. 10. Councilman James McKenna, who was a member of the BAR at the time the project was granted design approval, excused himself from the hearing on appearance of fairness grounds. Councilman McKenna was not physically present during any portion of the hearing. No other appearance of fairness challenges were raised by any party to the proceedings. 11. All witnesses who testified before the City Council did so under oath. All documents and drawings considered by the City Council during the course of the appeal were marked and admitted as exhibits. II. SUBSTANTIVE FINDINGS 1. The proposed development consists of 18 buildings, each of the same exterior design and containing six units (Exhibits 15, Findings, Conclusions and Decisions of the City Council Re: Bar Decision - 2 TUK00011A 21 and 58). Overall density of the project when the single - family zoned portion of the site is included is 15.25 dwelling units per acre. Zoning density is higher when the southwest corner of the site zoned R -1 is excluded. The number of dwelling units within each area of zoning is found on the site plan. Surrounding current zoning of R -1 would permit a maximum of 3.65 units per acre. No transition area of medium density multi - family is proposed between the development and existing single - family districts. 2. An internal roadway through the site accesses on Slade Way at the south end of the site onto 53rd Avenue South at the northwest corner of the site. A separate access off Slade Way with a hammerhead turn around serves two of the buildings which are located somewhat higher on the hillside. 3. The original site and landscape plans approved by the BAR with conditions were admitted as Exhibits 15 -20 to the hearing. These site and landscape plans showed the children's play area for the project to be located in that portion of the site zoned R -1 (single - family) under the applicable zoning regulations. Under this site plan 32% of the site would be covered with either existing (retained) vegetation or proposed plantings. Approximately 68% of the site would be cleared during construction with considerable cut and fill required to accommodate buildings, parking areas and roadways. 4. At the hearing before the City Council, the project proponents submitted an additional site plan as Exhibit 58. This site plan was a modified version of the original, incorporating the conditions imposed by the BAR relating to the extension of pedestrian walkway from structures 1 and 2, addition of 30 evergreen conifers interspersed between structures 10 -18, acoustical fencing adjacent to all recreational areas on the site and additional evergreen cedars along the perimeter of the site adjacent to Slade Way. The relative percentage of vegetation (existing and proposed) remains the same on this site plan as in the original presented to the BAR. 5. The project proponent also presented an overlay to Exhibit 58 which was admitted as Exhibit 76. When overlaid on Exhibit 58, Exhibit 76 showed an alternative configuration for the site in which the children's play area was moved out of the R -1 zoned portion of the site to a location to the west of the buildings and between buildings 9 and 10. 6. Under the optional recreational plan shown by Exhibits 58 and 76, the total recreation space on the site is approximately 22,448 square feet, of which approximately 6,624 square feet is taken up by the children's play area. Findings, Conclusions and Decisions of the City Council Re: Bar Decision - 3 TUK00011A Findings, Conclusions and Decisions of the City Council Re: Bar Decision - 4 TUK00011A 7. The site plans submitted by the project proponent showed 182 parking stalls to be constructed on the site. This results in a ratio of approximately 1.7 parking stalls per dwelling unit. 8. Sixteen (16) structures (buildings 3 -18) are arranged linearly along the eastern half of the site, generally following the topography. The remaining two structures (buildings 1 and 2) are located south of and above the elevations of the structures. 9. Buildings 1, 3 and 18 are located in close proximity from the project's north and south property lines. While the zoning code regulations applicable to the site define the buildings as 3 stories and as averaging .35 feet in height, buildings 1, 3 and 18 will visually appear to be five stories in height and measure approximately 55 feet from the lowest point of foundation to the peak elevation of the roof. 10. The maximum height of single - family residences in the surrounding area is approximately 30 feet. 11. The roofline of building 18 is at an approximate elevation of 208. 53rd Avenue south street elevation west of the structure is 198. Structures 1 and 2 have a roofline elevation of approximately 254 and 248, respectively, while the adjacent r.i � iota. of way, Slade Way, has a street elevation of 258 (Exhibit 17) . ,, )T 12. Dumpster enclosures on site are enclosed in concrete structures with painted steel gates as shown on Exhibit 58. The landscape treatment for dumpster areas would be broad leaf evergreen shrubs. Dumpsters would be visible from off -site to persons travelling along the site's uphill side. 13. Exhibit 58 showed 30 evergreen conifers, 6 feet in height, interspersed with buildings 10 -18 in order to soften the visual appearance of these buildings as they appear from off - site. Planting of these evergreen trees in addition to those shown on the site and landscape plans presented as Exhibits 15 -21 was a condition of approval by the BAR. No such additional conifers were required for buildings 3 -9. 14. Noise levels on site will reach significant adverse levels per EPA guidelines. With windows open, day /night noise levels inside the units will exceed the level EPA considers acceptable, however, with windows shut, noise levels inside will generally be within EPA's guidelines. 15. LAcoustical fences were shown on Exhibits 58 and 76 as being located adjacent to all identified recreational areas as required by the BARJ At the hearing before the City Council, Mr. Roy Richards, noise consultant with Towne, Richards and Chaudiere, recommended that the height and length of these fences be as follows: a) Site plan shown on Area Recreation Recreation Recreation Children's Area A Area B Area C Play Area b) Optional recreational overlaid on Exhibit 58: Area III. CONCLUSIONS Exhibit 58: Height 11 ft. 16 ft. 13 ft. 4 ft. plan shown Height // ft. 16 ft. 13 ft. Area Fence Recreation Area A Recreation Area B Recreation Area C Children's Play relocated to Recreation Area A. Findings, Conclusions and Decisions of the City Council Re: Bar Decision - 5 TUK00011A Length 165 ft. 260 ft. 130 ft. 50 ft. on Exhibit 76, Len th J4S 260 ft. 130 ft. deleted and area 16. The environmental impact statement identified unavoidable impacts that will result because of the project. Unavoidable adverse impacts which are most closely associated with the surrounding single - family neighborhood and the design of the project are as follows: A. An undeveloped, wooded hillside would be converted to a multi - family housing development with associated parking areas and road surfaces. B. The project would differ substantially in scale, density, and character from that of the surrounding neighborhood. C. Residents in the area would feel a loss in the quality and cohesion of their neighborhood. D. The project would generate increased traffic through residential neighborhoods west of the site. E. Other unavoidable adverse impacts to the physical and human environment were contained in Exhibit I to the BAR staff report. 1. Because the applicant vested development rights under the zoning regulations in effect on May 3, 1982, the building permit and BAR review was constrained to the substantive requirements of that code. The standard of review utilized by the BAR was the specific development and recreation space regulations of the old code. However, the vested rights do not include permit processing under the old Code procedures. Instead the procedure for the BAR contained in the zoning code which became effective on May 4, 1982 (TMC 18.60) has been followed. 2. Per Tukwila Municipal Code (TMC) 18.60.010, the purpose and objectives of the BAR are to provide for review by public officials of land development and building design in order to promote the public health, safety and welfare. Specifically, the BAR is to encourage well designed developments that are creative and harmonious with the natural and manmade environments. 3. TMC 18.60.050 contains the guidelines that BAR must follow in its decision making. 4. In reviewing the decision of the BAR, the City Council must determine whether the BAR committed any error of fact or any error in applying its guidelines to the proposal. The City Council has the power to affirm, overturn or modify the BAR decision under TMC 18.90.020. 5. TMC 18.60.050(1): Relationship of Structure to Site. A. The site should be planned to accomplish a desirable transition with the streetscape and to provide for adequate landscaping and pedestrian movement. The BAR did not err in determining that the project met the criteria established by TMC 18.60.050(1)(A). Evidence submitted at the hearing before the City Council indicates, however, that conditions (1) and (2) imposed by the BAR in granting design approval for the project have now been incorporated into the project design as shown by Exhibits 58 and 76. The City Council concludes that the BAR's Conclusion regarding TMC 18.60.050(1)(A) should be modified to read as follows: Sixteen (16) structures are arranged linearly along the eastern half of the site, generally following the topography. The remaining two structures are located south and above the elevations of the other structures. Existing vegetation is retained between the street and structures and additional landscaping is shown on the landscape plan. Broad leaf evergreen screening shrubs have been added to provide additional screening of parking areas Findings, Conclusions and Decisions of the City Council Re: Bar Decision - 6 TUK00011A from adjacent rights -of -way. The landscape plan has also been amended to show vines planted along all concrete retaining walls located on the site. Any exposed foundation walls would also be screened with plant material. Thirty (30) 6 -foot high evergreen trees have been added to the original landscape plan and are shown on Exhibit 58 as being interspersed between structures 10 -18. Development of the site will require installation of standard sidewalk along Slade Way and 53rd Avenue South. Pedestrian movement on the site is facilitated through the addition of a continuous walkway through the site serving buildings 3 -18. A sidewalk serving buildings 1 -2 extends from those buildings to Slade Way as shown on Exhibit 58. The project site consists of portions of several lots, but a majority of the development will occur in concentrated areas. The entirety of the site is integral to the site's design and development. The subject parcel has multiple underlying lot lines that dictate required zoning district setbacks. A boundary line adjustment to show compliance with zoning requirements will be required in a covenant pledging the entire, 7.08 acre site to the project is agreed to by the applicant in Exhibit 4. 6. TMC 18.60.050(1): Relationship of Structure to Site. B. Parking and service areas should be located, designed and screened to moderate visual impact of large paved areas. The BAR erred in its conclusion relating to TMC 18.60.050(1)(B) in that the BAR concluded that the landscape treatments for the dumpster areas would provide year -round screening. The City Council concludes that the BAR conclusion with respect to TMC 18.60.050(1)(B) should be modified and the City Council adopts the following conclusion: The parking areas are generally designed into three areas due to the topography of the site. At a maximum, every 11 parking stalls arranged linearly are broken up with Findings, Conclusions and Decisions of the City Council Re: Bar Decision - 7 TUK00011A Findings, Conclusions and Decisions of the City Council Re: Bar Decision - 8 TUK00011A landscaped finger links. Dumpster areas are proposed by the project proponent to be enclosed in concrete with painted steel gates, and have been located on the landscape plan admitted as Exhibit 58. The landscape treatments for each of the dumpster areas are proposed to be broad leaf evergreen shrubs. These shrubs will not, however, prevent the dumpsters from being seen off -site by uphill residents and pedestrians. All dumpster enclosures on the site should be screened by 4 62-natural vegetation so that the dumpsters4 will not be visible from off-site. u M 7. TMC 18.60.050(1): Relationship of Structure to Site. C. The height and scale of each building should be considered in relation to the site. The BAR correctly concluded that the easterly building elevations of structures 3 -18 are out of scale with existing views of the site from the east. The BAR erred, however, in determining that the thirty (30) evergreen conifers to be interspersed with buildings 10 -18 under the BAR's condition to would moderate this impact. The Council concludes that the BAR's conclusions with respect to TMC 18.60.050(1)(B) should be modified and the Council adopts the following conclusion: The average height of the structures as defined in the zoning code regulations applicable to the project is 35 feet. The eastern face of the buildings is, however, located on the downhill side of the site. Because of this, the distance from the bottom of the easterly face of buildings 3 -18 will average 55 feet in height. These elevations substantially exceed the 30 foot permitted height of single - family residences in the surrounding neighborhood and the buildings are thus out of scale with existing views of the site from the east. The thirty (30) evergreen conifers added to the landscape plan and shown on Exhibit 58 as being interspersed between buildings 10 -18 will moderate the visual impact of those buildings. Additional evergreen conifers are necessary to be interspersed between buildings 3 -9 in the same proportion as shown on Exhibit 58 for buildings 10 -18 in order to moderate the visual impact of buildings 3 -9 on views from the east. Findings, Conclusions and Decisions of the City Council Re: Bar Decision - 9 TUK00011A 8. TMC 18.60.050(2): Relationship of Structure and Site to Adjoining Area. A. Harmony in texture, lines and masses. The BAR correctly concluded that the number of structures and the consequent mass of development was not harmonious with surrounding areas. The BAR erred, however, in concluding that the location of the structures on the site adequately moderated this massing and that the scale of the project was comparable to single - family structures. The City Council concludes that the BAR conclusions concerning TMC 18.60.050(2)(A) should be modified and adopts the following as the City Council's conclusions regarding this section: The number of structures proposed for the project and the consequent mass of development is not harmonious with the single - family residences located in surrounding areas. The four -story elevations . face to the east, which is out -of- character with the neighborhood of one and two -story single- family residences and views of the neighborhood from the valley. The addition of the thirty (30) evergreen conifers interspersed between buildings 10 -18 as shown on Exhibit 58 and the requirement of additional evergreen conifers in the same proportions interspersed between buildings 3- 9 would soften and filter the line of structures 3 -18 on the hillside and create harmony with the surrounding neighborhood as viewed from the east. Two -story elevations from all structures face to the west. This provides a scale which is comparable to single- family structures located in the neighborhood when the project is viewed from the west. Views of the project from the north and south show the greatest effect of the structural massing of the buildings. The proximity of the faces of buildings 1 and 3 to Slade Way are completely out -of- character with the surrounding single- family neighborhood and create an abrupt and vertical transition between the project and adjacent properties. A similarly abrupt transition is provided by building 18. Reducing the height of buildings 1 and 3 to one story plus a basement and the height of buildings 2 and 4 to two stories plus a basement will create a desirable transition between the project and the immediately adjacent property. Reduction of the height of building 18 to one story plus a basement and the height of building 17 to two stories plus a basement will also create a desirable transition from the project to adjacent properties. This stair - stepping of buildings will reduce the structural massing of the project and will render it Nharmonious with the surrounding neighborhood _) � , • It is not the intent of these conclusions or the conditions specified below to require reduction of the number of units proposed for the project. If the project proponent can achieve a desirable transition between buildings 1 -4 and 17 -18 and adjacent properties to the north and south while continuing to have 108 units on the site, the project proponent may, with design approval, construct 108 units. 9. TMC 18.60.050(2): Relationship with Structure and Site to Adjoining Area. B. Appropriate landscape transition to adjoining property should be provided. The BAR erred in determining that the alder growth located in the R -1 zoned portion of the property adjacent to Slade Way would provide adequate year -round screening with the addition of 6 -foot high evergreen trees planted 40 feet on center between the points marked A and B on Exhibit 19. The City Council concludes that the BAR conclusions relating to TMC 18.60.050(2)(B) should be modified and adopts the following conclusion: The landscape plan shows dense evergreen landscape shrubs along portions of the southwest and west property lines. Along the property line adjacent to the south 160th and 53rd intersection, a row of evergreen trees will be planted to provide a screen. A retaining wall will be located behind the trees and will be softened with a planting of Findings, Conclusions and Decisions of the City Council Re: Bar Decision - 10 TUK00011A vines. The undisturbed R -1 zoned area of the parcel is proposed to be maintained with the existing alder growth under both the modified site plan admitted as Exhibit 58 and the optional recreational plan overlay admitted as Exhibit 76. The screening ability of alders is seasonal, however, and the use of evergreen ed along the perimeter of the Slade Way -of -way will be necessary to create an appropriate landscape transition to adjoining single - family uses. The trees should be a minimum of 6 feet tall at the time of planting and should be planted in two rows 20 feet on center and staggered so as to provide a year -round screen of moderate density within a reasonable time after construction. Existing alder growth on the R -1 portion of the site should remain undisturbed except as may be necessary to plant the additional cedars and except as may be necessary to remove dead or unsafe trees. 1 -5 along the east property line creates noise levels which exceed EPA guidelines. Several open space areas surrounding the units are designed for recreation space. Alternative configurations for these recreation areas are set forth in Exhibit 58 )1 and the overlay admitted as Exhibit 76. Acoustic noise barriers are proposed for either configuration. In order to provide G adequate landscape transition between the project and adjoining properties, any acoustical fences installed should have landscaping adjacent )ct9( them which partial[ ` r screens them from view and which is6 harmonious with other landscaping on the site. 10. TMC 18.60.050(2): Relationship of Structure and Site to Adjoining Area. C. Compatibility of vehicular pedestrian circulation patterns and loading facilities in terms of safety, efficiency and convenience should be encouraged. The appellants did not claim error with respect to Findings, Conclusions and Decisions of the City Council Re: Bar Decision - 11 TUK00011A Findings, Conclusions and Decisions of the City Council Re: Bar Decision - 12 TUK00011A the BAR'S Findings and Conclusions concerning TMC 18.60.050(2)(C). The City Council concludes that the BAR did not err with respect to TMC 18.60.050(2)(C). The Council concludes, however, that on the basis of the evidence presented to the City Council at the appeal hearing, the BAR'S conclusion pertaining to this criteria should be modified to read as follows: The length of the internal driveway, approximately 1,050 feet, permits speeds which could be dangerous. Several curves in the length of the drive would tend to restrict speed; however, speed bumps are also proposed to discourage excessive speeds. The location of the children's play area as shown on the exhibits submitted to the BAR and on Exhibit 58 to the appeal hearing is located on the opposite of the parking lot from the majority of the structures. Where the path to the children's play area intersects with the driveway on those exhibits, a painted crosswalk is proposed for the safety of the children. Under the option recreational plan proposed by the project proponent and admitted as Exhibit 76, the children's play area is located on the opposite side of the structures from the parking lot and thus no crosswalk is proposed. The internal walkways serving building 3 -18 are extended to public rights -of -way and sidewalks. This is critical at the north access point of the site due to the proximity of the westerly Crystal Springs Park and the school and transit bus stops located on 53rd and at the intersection of 51st Avenue and 160th Street. The sidewalk serving buildings 1 and 2 is similarly extended to Slade Way. The vehicular - pedestrian circulation patterns and loading facilities shown on Exhibit 58 as modified by the optional recreational plan shown on Exhibit 76 are compatible in terms of safety, efficiency and convenience. 11. TMC 18.60.050(2): Relationship of Structure and Site to Adjoining Area. D. Compatibility of on -site vehicular circulation with street circulation should be encouraged. No error is assigned to the BAR Findings and Conclusions with respect to this criteria and the City Council adopts BAR's Conclusions as its own. 12. TMC 18.60.050 (3): Landscape and Site Treatment. A. Where existing topographic patterns contribute to beauty and utility of a development, they should be recognized, preserved and enhanced. No error was assigned to the BAR Conclusion regarding TMC 18.60.050 (3)(A). The City Council concludes, however, that the project proponents proposal to locate the children's play area has shown on Exhibit 76 will eliminate the BAR's concerns regarding steep slopes in the children's play area. The BAR's conclusions regarding TCM 18.60.050(3)(A) should be modified and the Council adopts the following conclusion: The dominant steep slope of the site is used to visually separate the development from westerly adjoining properties from 53rd Avenue and Slade Way. Existing vegetation in the southwest corner and vegetation installed pursuant to the Councils conclusions relating to appropriate landscape transition will contribute to the beauty of the site and maintain a separation from adjacent uses. Location of the children's play area as shown on Exhibit 76 will eliminate concerns regarding potentially steep slopes for the children's play area. 13. TMC 18.60.050 (3): Landscape and Site Treatment B. Grades of walks, parking spaces, terraces, and other paved areas should promote safety and provide an inviting and stable appearance. The BAR erred in determining all grades shown on the site plans were acceptable. The Council adopts the following conclusion: Several retaining walls are shown on site which are accessible by pedestrian walkways and which exceed 40 inches in height. Unless different standards are required by the Uniform Building Code applicable to the project, railings should be provided along any retaining wall which is accessible by a pedestrian walkway in which exceeds 40 inches in height. Findings, Conclusions and Decisions of the City Council Re: Bar Decision - 13 TUK00011A Grades of parking stalls and along the entire length of the drive are within acceptable standards in terms of safety. Trails have been shown leading from structures 1 and 2 and from the lower level to the play area and are at acceptable grades. 14. TMC 18.60.050 (3)(C) Landscape features should enhance architectural features, strengthen vistas and important access and provide shade. Evidence presented at the appeal hearing relating to acoustical fences and massing of buildings necessitates a revision of the BAR's conclusions with respect to TCM 18.60.050 (3)(C). The Council concludes as follows: While the site has good views of the Green River Valley, it is significantly impacted by noise from its adjacent neighbor, I -5. In order to mitigate this noise, fencing of the designated recreation areas is required. This mus:t,;4ineet :. the, criteria s,et =Torah;. on Exhibi.t::.,3 9 and: in the testimony.:;. of Roy. Ri for . the optional recreation plan , forth • on Exhibit;: 76 4n order .s tot 'attenuate noise to ,`the : A . required levels. The fence must be made of a material with a minimum weight of three pounds per square foot and be free of cracks or holes underneath or between sections. Because of the solid nature of this fence, the fence should be made of materials which will last the life of the project with normal maintenance in order not to detract from landscaping and the beauty of the site. The fence should be offset a minimum of 2 feet every 16 feet and should have landscaping installed adjacent' to it which is harmonious with landscaping elsewhere on the site. The addition of evergreen trees interspersed with buildings 10 -18 as shown on Exhibit 58 and interspersed between buildings 3 -9 is required to enhance the architectural features of these buildings and soften their appearance. The use of large shade tree species along the internal driveway will create and enhance this important internal axis through the site. The use of low growing evergreen shrubs to provide individual landscape treatments for each of the structures is also proposed to enhance the structure entries. 14. 18.60.050(3)(D) In locations where plants will be susceptible to injury from pedestrian or motor traffic, mitigating steps should be taken. Findings, Conclusions and Decisions of the City Council Re: Bar Decision - 14 TUK00011A Findings, Conclusions and Decisions of the City Council Re: Bar Decision - 15 TUK00011A No error was assigned to the BAR conclusions relating to this criteria and the City Council adopts the same without modification and incorporates the same herein by this reference as if fully set forth. 15. 18.60.050(E) Where buildings sites limit planting, the placement of trees or shrubs in paved areas is encouraged. The BAR made an error of fact in its conclusion that 32% of the site's existing vegetation will be retained. The Council adopts the following conclusion with respect to TMC 18.60.050(3)(E): Approximately 32% of the site is proposed to be covered either by existing (retained) vegetation or proposed plantings. This vegetation, proposed evergreen trees, and recommended additional evergreen shrubbery and conifers will provide screening of the site's paved area. Fingerlings planted with large deciduous shade trees will supplement existing and proposed landscaping and create additional screening when viewed from above or below the site during periods of the year when the trees are leafed out. Additional low growing shrubs will serve to soften the effect of the paved parking areas year round. 16. TMC 18.60.050(F) Screening of service yards, and other places which tend to be unsightly, should be accomplished by use of walls, fencing, planting or a combination of these. Screening should be effective in winter and summer. The BAR erred in determining that the screening of the dumpster enclosures for the project was adequate. The Council incorporates by reference its conclusions with respect to dumpster enclosures set forth in relation to TCM.18.60.050(1)(B) above. 17. TMC 18.60.050(G) -(H). No error was assigned by the appellants to the BAR's findings and conclusions with respect to TMC 18.60.050(G) -(H) and the City Council adopts the same by reference as its own as if fully set forth herein. 18. TMC 18.60.050(4): Building Design. A. Architectural style is not restricted, evaluation of the project should be based on quality of its design in relationship to surroundings. No error is assigned to the BAR's findings and conclusions relating to all TMC 18.60.050(4)(A). The City Council adopts the BAR's Conclusions on page 9 of the BAR Findings and Conclusions as its own and incorporates the same herein by this reference as of set forth in full. 19. TMC 18.60.050(4)(B) Buildings should be to appropriate scale and be in harmony with permanent neighboring developments. The BAR erred in determining that TMC 18.60.050(4)(B) was met by the project. The City Council adopts the following conclusions with respect to TMC 18.60.050(4)(B): The number of structures proposed for the project and the consequent mass of development is not harmonious with the single - family residences located in surrounding areas. The four -story elevations face to the east, which is out of character with the neighborhood of one and two -story single - family residences'and views of the neighborhood from the valley. The addition of the thirty (30) evergreen -conifers interspersed between buildings 10 -18 as shown on Exhibit 58 and the requirement of additional evergreen conifers in the same proportions interspersed between buildings 3 -9 would soften and filter the line of structures 3 -18 on the hillside and create harmony with the surrounding neighborhood as viewed from the east. Two -story elevations from all structures face to the west. This provides a scale which is comparable to single - family structures located in the neighborhood when the project is viewed from the west. Views of the project from the north and south show the greatest effect of the structural massing of the buildings. The proximity of the faces of buildings 1 and 3 to Slade Way are completely out of character with the surrounding single - family neighborhood and create an abrupt and vertical transition between the project and adjacent properties. A similarly abrupt transition is provided by building 18. Reducing the height of buildings 1 and 3 to one story plus a basement and the height of buildings 2 and 4 to two stories plus a basement will create a desirable transition between the project and the immediately adjacent property. Reduction of the height of building 18 to one story plus a basement and the height of building 17 to two stories plus a basement will also create a desirable transition from the project to adjacent properties. This stair - stepping of buildings willtreduce the structural massing Findings, Conclusions and Decisions of the City Council Re: Bar Decision - 16 TUK00011A l 20. TMC 18.60.050(5). Findings, Conclusions and Decisions of the City Council Re: Bar Decision - 17 TUK00011A of the project and will render itlharmonious with the surrounding neighborhood. It is not the intent of these conclusions or the conditions specified below to require reduction of the number of units proposed for the project. If the project proponent can achieve a desirable transition between buildings 1 -4 and 17 -18 and adjacent properties to the north and south while continuing to have 108 units on the site, the project proponent may, with design approval, construct 108 units. The largest and most significant permanent neighboring development is I -5. Noise levels caused by I -5 may create difficulty for the residents of ectcr y= -facing 4 4,y units in the use of their decks. The project proponent has proposed to provide solid wood walls in place of the originally proposed deck railings on the west -er -ly facing decks. Use of these walls should attenuate noise levels ' on the outside decks to a ,level which will make the decks useable. I'ik`i 19. TMC 18.60.050(4)(D) -(F) No error was assigned to the Conclusions of the BAR with respect to these sections. The City Council adopts the BAR conclusions with respect to TMC 18.60.050 (4)(D) -(F) as its own and incorporates them herein by this reference as of set forth in full. 20. TMC 18.60.050(4)(G) Monotony of design in single or multiple building projects should be avoided. Variety of detail, form, and siding should be used to provide visual interest. The BAR erred in its conclusions that the 18 structures on the site will not appear monotonous. The City Council adopts the following conclusion: Reduction of the building masses for buildings 1, 2, 3, 4, 17 and 18 as specified in the City Council's conclusions with respect to TMC 18.60.050(2)(A) above is necessary to prevent monotony of the siting of buildings. Topography of the parcels is a constraint but is also varied enough to provide diversity in elevation and siding when coupled with reduction in the building masses. The different color in landscape plantings will also provide a variety of detail, form and visual interest. III. DECISION Findings, Conclusions and Decisions of the City Council Re: Bar Decision - 18 TUK00011A No error was assigned to the BAR's findings and conclusions with respect to either subsection A or subsection B of TMC 18.60.050(5). The City Council hereby adopts the BAR Conclusions with respect to these sections as its own and incorporates them herein by this reference as of fully set forth. Based upon the above findings and conclusions, the City Council grants design approval for the proposed project plan as shown on Exhibits 15 -20 as modified by Exhibit 58 and with the optional recreation plan presented as Exhibit 76, subject to the following conditions: ti 1. All dumpster enclosures shall be screened by natural landscaping so that dumpsters will not be visible from offsite. M/effa 2. Additional evergreen conifers, 6 feet in height, shall be interspersed with structures 3 -9 in the same proportion as the 30 evergreens added to the project and shown interspersed with structures 10 -18 on Exhibit 58. The location of the additional evergreens interspersed with buildings 3 -9 shall be as approved by the planning department. 3. Building masses shall be reduced at the north and south ends of the property as it abuts single family areas according to the following schedule: A. Buildings 1, 3 and 18 shall be reduced in height to one story plus a basement. B. Buildings 2, 4 and 17 shall be reduced in height to two stories plus a basement. If the project proponent desires to propose an alternative to these height reductions or an alternative configuration of buildings on the site which would incorporate these height reductions and still maintain the project as 108 units, the City Council will retain jurisdiction over design review of this project for six weeks from the entry of the Findings and Conclusions herein in order to consider such alternatives. 4. The planting of evergreens along the perimeter of the project as it abuts Slade Way as shown on Exhibit 58 will be modified to require the planting of ._ rows.,,,_,Q„f, 6 foot l i0 eve„.greADA 20 feet on center and staggered for the entire length `of evergreen planting. Existing alder trees on the R -1 zoned portion of the site shall be retained except as may be necessary ENTERED, This ATTEST /AUTHENTICATED APPROVED AS TO FORM: OFFICE OF THE CITY ATT to accomodate the planting of the evergreens or as may be necessary to remove dead or unsafe trees. 5. Recreation areas on the site, including the children's play area, shall be located as proposed in the optional recreation plan on Exhibits 58 and 76. 6. Acoustical fences shall be installed adjacent to all recreational areas according to the height and length criteria set forth on Exhibit 79, as modified by Mr. Richards' testimony to accomodate relocation of the children's play area as shown on Exhibit 76. All acoustical fences will have a minimum weight of 3 pounds per square foot and shall be free of cracks and holes underneath, in or between sections which would allow for penetration of noise or air. The fence should be of durable materials which will last the life of the project with normal maintenance and should be offset a minimum of 2 feet every 16 feet. Landscaping should be installed adjacent to the fence which is harmonious with other landscaping on si e � 7. Unless otherwise required by the Uniform Building Code applicable to the project, railings must be installed on top of all retaining walls which exceed 40 inches in height and are accessible by pedestrian walkways. CITY CLERK, MAXINE ANDERSON Findings, Conclusions and Decisions of the City Council Re: Bar Decision - 19 TUK00011A day of April, 1987. APPROVED MAYOR GARY VAN DUSEN ..... _.. +,".�. "� 19 City of Tukwila Z PLANNING DEPARTMENT 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, Washington 98188 (206) 433 -1849 STAFF REPORT to the City Council Prepared May 15, 1987 HEARING DATE: May 26, 1987 FILE NUMBER: 86 -7 -DR: Valley View Estates APPLICANT: Puget Western, Inc. REQUEST: Design approval of multiple - family project. LOCATION: North and east side of Slade Way and 53rd Avenue South opposite South 160th Street. ACREAGE: 7.08 acres. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Low - density residential ZONING DISTRICT: R -1- 12.00, Single Family Residential, R -4 Low Apartments (vested), and RMH Multiple Residence High Density (vested) SEPA DETERMINATION: EIS issued January 1986. ATTACHMENTS: (A) Valley View Estates Transition Studies - May 1, 1987 TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL Staff Report BACKGROUND 86 -7 -DR: Valley View Estates Page 2 On April 15, 1987 the City Council upheld the BAR design approval of the Valley View Estates project but modified the conditions of approval. On April 27, 1987, they adopted new Findings and Conclusions. The applicant was given until June 8, 1987, to present alternate building designs and site plans. On May 1, 1987 two options were submitted. May 26, 1986 was the soonest available meeting for all involved parties. FINDINGS 1. Among the seven conditions of design approval was Condition 3 which is: " 3 . Building masses shall be reduced at the north and south ends of the property as it abuts single - family areas according to the following schedule: A. Buildings 1, 3 and 18 shall be reduced in height to one story plus a basement. B. Buildings 2, 4 and 17 shall be reduced in height to two stories plus a basement. If the project proponent desires to propose an alternative to these height reductions or an alternative configuration of buildings on the site which would incorporate these height reductions and still maintain the project as 108 units, the City Council will retain jurisdiction over design review of this project for six weeks from the entry of the Findings and Conclusions herein in order to consider such alterna- tives." 2. The applicant proposes two options (Attachment A) to provide transition to the north and south properties. Option 1 eliminates one -half of the upper outside floor of Buildings 1, 3 and 18, and angles structures 1 and 3 so that the sides of the structures are no longer parallel to the street. The setbacks for these two building is increased by thirty and fifteen feet respectively. The final change is the relocation of Building 2 so that the narrowest, lowest elevation faces south and its setback increases from 84 feet to 120 feet. No changes are proposed for Buildings 2, 4 and 17. Option 2 eliminates the entire top floor of Buildings 1, 3 and 18 and half the upper outside floor of Buildings 2, 4. and 17. The relocation and increased setbacks are the same as described in Option 1. TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL Staff Report CONCLUSIONS ( - . 86 -7 -DR: Valley View Estates Page 3 1. Condition 3 approved by the City Council clearly stipulates the number of building stories. The two proposed options exceed those numbers in exchange for increased building setbacks and landscaping and decreased building massing facing Slade Way. Along the north property line is similar, but less significant, treatment and no increased building setback. Because of finished grades, Condition 3 would place the uphill eaves of the perimeter buildings at a below grade elevation. This would force the appli- cant to build retaining walls "wells" for windows, doors, or to protect the roofs. The additional excavation needed for this type of design on this particular site is not desirable. The proposed seven -foot building height reduction is not a substantial visual difference (20 %) but should be noticeable. 2. Option 2 more closely meets Condition 3 and keeps roofs off the ground. Building heights and massing are comparatively more reduced and closer to the Condition 3 limitation. The effect is a reduction of the visual imposition of the buildings on adjacent single - family zoned properties. 3. Landscaping should be significantly increased in size and quantity of ever- green trees and shrubs along the south and north property lines adjacent to the subject buildings. This landscaping will increase the visual signifi- cance of the changes in Option 2. 4. In Option 2, deep setbacks, the realignment of Building 1, and relocation of Building 2 create a significant difference in transition for these struc- tures. 5. In Buildings 3 and 4 there is less of a change. The total setback of 35 feet would be approximately 14 percent greater than adjacent single - family front yard setbacks. Considered with the 60 -foot width of Slade Way and the proposed reduction in average height to below maximum allowable single- family limitations, a reasonable transition is achieved. 6. Buildings 17 and 18 are designed like Buildings 3 and 4 but are set back the same as originally proposed. Additional landscaping (previously mentioned) and the adjacent 30 -foot utility easement reduce the visual impact of the buildings. 7. The staff is constrained in this analysis to the two options submitted. Independent site planning was not done by staff. Therefore, staff finds Option 2 more acceptable than Option 1. Other options may be available which may or may not be acceptable to the applicant or more conforming to Condition 3. (22/86 -7 -DR) C TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL Staff Report ,. ea.uvanc o.. f' mtii+ 4. 4/ if[ lMhI Y< V0 10itG• Zi ala VW∎∎MMWh G+ti0OZIAN'11e W.Mv m mo.rt 86-7-D : Valley View Estates Page 4 RECOMMENDATIONS Based on the above Findings and Conclusions, the staff recommends approval of Option 2 subject to significant evergreen trees and shrubs being planted along the north and south property lines adjacent to Buildings 1, 3 and 18. HAND DELIVERED r James E. Haney, Esq. Office of the City Attorney 2001 6th Avenue, Suite 2300 Seattle, Washington 98121 Dear Jim: r .o-v..r..rs:.•i..n� _::Ya eon.: n» s: M�.vi<�:,.�: +.ri:a�..v;,.ay..�w �. r+,•..: c ,v..a......w.,r..vo-....,.1.,,. JOEL E. HAGGARD ATTORNEY AND COUNSELOR•AT•LAW SUITE 2426, FINANCIAL CENTER 1215 FOURTH AVENUE SEATTLE. WASHINGTON 98161 (206) 682.5635 February 17, 1987 Re: Valley View BAR Appeal OUR FILE NO: P- 17150.8 The Tukwila City Council will hear another appeal for the Valley View Estates proposal from the Board of Architecture Review's (BAR) design approval on May 22, 1986, some nine months ago. As you recognized in your January 26th, 1987 memorandum to the Tukwila City Council, the Tukwila Municipal Code (TMC) provides little explict guidance with respect to the appropriate procedure the Council should follow in conducting this appeal. This letter addresses the two primary issues arising from this ambiguity: 1) What is the appropriate standard of review of an appeal from Tukwila's BAR, when the TMC does not provide an explicit standard but does provide that the City Council may hold a public hearing? 2) Assuming the Council conducts a de novo hearing to consider the BAR appeal, what due process should the Council afford the parties to the hearing? 1. Standard of Review The Tukwila Municpal Code provides that the City Council act as an appellate adminstrative body when considering appeals from the BAR. The Council's review is judicial in nature. Consequently, the Council's James E. Haney, Esq. February 17, 1987 Page 2 consideration of the appeal should be based soley on the Cginal reco . The Council, as an appellate admins- y, should not substitute its discretion for that of the BAR. A. The scope and nature of an administrative appeal is determined by the statutes and ordinances authorizing it. In Washington, the "general legal principles which apply to appeals from lower to higher courts do not apply to administrative review of administrative de- cisions." Messer v. Snohomish County Board of Adjustment, 19 Wn. App. 800, 578 P.2d 50, 56 (1980); see also Taylor v. Greenler, 344 P.2d 515, 520 (1959) ( "the rule [is] that where a statute authorizes a restrictive appeal in a special proceeding, the general appeal statute does not apply. "); 73 C.J.S. Public Administrative Bodies and Procedure S 159a (1951). Thus, in Messer v. Snohomish County Board of Adjustment, the court looked to the statutes and ordinances governing the zoning process in Snohomish County to determine whether a conditional use applicant was entitled to a de novo hearing before the County's Board of Adjustment on its appeal of a zoning adjustor's decision. Messer, 578 P.2d at 54 -58. In Messer, the Snohomish County Public Works Department sought a conditional use permit to construct and operate a 200 acre sanitary landfill. Subsequent to four public hearings over the course of which 13 hours of testimony were taken and some 34 exhibits introduced, the hearing adjustor granted the permit. Opponents of the permit thereupon appealed to the County's Board of Adjust- ment. After a public meeting, the Board entered an order concurring with and adopting the zoning adjustor's decision. At no time during its consideration of the appeal did the Board take testimony or allow the parties to argue orally the appellate issues before them. The Board's review was limited solely to the oral record below, the exhibits introduced below, the petition for appeal and the briefs submitted by each party. Id. at 53 -57. James E. Haney, Esq. February 17, 1987 Page 3 The permit opponents then petitioned the Su- perior Court for Snohomish County for a writ of review to consider, inter alia, whether they had a right to a de novo hearing before the Board of Adjustment. After granting the petition, the Superior Court upheld the Board's action and the opponents then appealed the trial court's holding to the Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals began its analysis by noting that an administrative appeal by de novo hearing is some- times provided by statute or ordinance and sometimes not. The court stated: Under some statutes review by an appellate administrative body is ju- dicial in nature.... Under provisions to that effect the review by an appellate administrative body...does not contemplate, require, or afford a trial de novo, but contemplates rather a hearing on questions of law and fact, or mixed questions of law and facts, to be determined solely on the record made by the parties in the [hearing] before the original body. Id. at 56, citing 73 C.J.S. Public Administrative Bodies and Procedure § 159b(2), at 501 -02 (1951). Although the Snohomish County Code (SCC) did not specifically state which standard of review the Board of Adjustment should apply, the court nonetheless concluded that the appellants were not entitled as a matter of right to a de novo hearing. The court based its holding on its analysis of the statutes authorizing counties to regulate zoning, RCW 36.70 et. seq., and the specific provisions of the Sno- homish County Code which implemented the county's zoning powers. The court looked first to the statutory grant of authority to the Board of Adjustment. RCW § 36.70.810(1) authorizes boards of adjustment, subject to the conditions and safeguards in implementing ordinances, to hear and decide both various zoning applications and appeals from James E. Haney, Esq. February 17, 1987 Page 4 other administrative bodies' determinations of such appli- cations. RCW SS 36.70.810(1) - .810(3) (1985). Thus, potentially, the Board was authorized to hear the case either under its general power to decide applications or by way of its authority to decide appeals. The court then examined the Snohomish County's ordinance governing ap- peals to the Board of Adjustment. The court began by noting that the County had established an appellate route as contemplated by RCW SS 36.70.810(3) and 36.70.850; that is, the SCC provided that in those cases where the zoning adjustor initially hears the matter and makes the decision, appeals from it were to be taken to the Board of Adjustment. Messer, 578 P.2d at 55; compare RCW S 36.70.850 (1985), with SCC S 18.88.180 (1978). The court turned next to an examination of the specific language of the County Code. SCC S 18.88.240 provided that: [t]he Board of Adjustment may concur with the findings and conclusions of the zoning adjustor; or, the board of adjustment may reject the findings, conclusions, and...enter an order calling for a public hearing pursuant to Section 18.88.240. SCC S 18.88.210(1) (1978) (emphasis added). This lan- guage, the court held, provided two options "as to how [the board] could handle the appeal: (1) it could affirm the zoning adjustor; or (2) it could grant a de novo hearing." Messer, 578 P.2d at 57. But in any event, "[n]o statute or ordinance required the board to grant a de novo hearing." Id. (emphasis added). Essentially the court's underlying reasoning appears to have been that the County's implementation of the appellate route contemplated by RCW SS 36.70.810(3) and 36.70.850 indicated that the county intended the review to be judicial in nature. The adjustor's findings and conclusions were in no way intended to be advisory. They were final unless appealed. Moreover, the court noted, the language of RCW S 36.70.810(3) authorizing boards to hear appeals "refers to 'error' in the determi- James E. Haney, Esq. February 17, 1987 Page 5 nation being appealed from and is clearly language of ju- dicial or quasi - judicial nature.' Messer, 578 P.2d at 57. However, since the language of the County Code required the Board to hold a public hearing in the event it could not affirm the adjustor, the Board had the option of holding a de novo hearing provided it first rejected the "findings, conclusions and order of the zoning ad- justor, in whole or in part." SCC S 18.88.210(1) (1978). Since such a rejection of the adjustor's findings is determined first by conducting a judicial review of the adjustor's action, "(n]o statute or ordinance required the board to grant a de novo hearing." Messer, 578 P.2d at 57. B. The statutes and ordinances authorizing appeals from the Tukwila Board of Architecture Review demonstrate the review is judicial in nature. Like the pattern of statutes and ordinances in Messer, the statutes and ordinances governing the Board of Architecture Review (BAR) evidence an intent that the City Council's review of appeals from the Board should be ju- dicial in nature. As a noncharter code city, Tukwila is governed by the provisions of Title 35A of the Revised Code of Washington. RCW 35A.02.010 (1985). Pursuant to the authority of Title 35A, Tukwila has adopted both a comprehensive plan and a zoning code. See City of Tukwila, Ordinances 1246, 1289. In Washington, zoning ordinances are liberally construed to accomplish their plain purpose and intent. Wiggers v. Skagit County, 23 Wn. App. 207, 596 P.2d 1345 (1979). The primary objective in interpreting a zoning ordinance is to ascertain the legislative intent. East v. King County, 22 Wn. App. 247, 589 P.2d 806 (19697 Further, undefined words in an ordinance will be given their plain and ordinary meaning. Id., see also State v. Work, 75 Wn.2d 204, 119 P.2d 806 (1969). Chapter 18.60 of the Tukwila Municipal Code (TMC) provides for the establishment of and procedures governing the Board of Architecture Review. TMC S 18.60.010 et. seq. (1982). Section 18.60.070(4) provides that all James E. Haney, Esq. February 17, 1987 Page 6 "decisions of the BAR shall be final unless appealed." TMC S18.60.070(4) (1982). Section 18.90.020 specifies the appellate procedure governing appeals from the BAR: the appeal must made to the City Council, it must be in writing, and it must state the reasons for the appeal. Once the appeal has been heard by the Council, it must affirm, deny, or modify the BAR'S decision. Additionally, prior to making its decision, the Council "my hold a public hearing." TMC S 18.90.020 (1982) (emphasis added). The functions performed by the BAR and City Council in the design review process are the same as the functions performed by the zoning adjustor and Board of Adjustment in Messer. Like the zoning adjustor in Messer, the BAR is responsible for conducting public hearings on the proposed project. Furthermore, like the zoning ad- justor, the BAR'S decision is final unless appealed. The City Council fulfills the same function as the Board of Adjustment in Messer; the Council must affirm, deny, or modify the lower body's order. Consequently, just as the Board's review in Messer was judicial in nature, so too is the Council's review of the BAR's action. Moreover, unlike the Board of Adjustment in Messer, the Council is under no circumstances required to conduct a public hearing. The TMC explicitly provides that the Council "may" conduct a public hearing before reaching a decision. TMC S 18.90.020 (1982). In Messer, the Board was required to hold a public hearing if it concluded by way of judicial review that it could not affirm or adopt the zoning adjustor's order. But even this apparently compulsory language, the Messer court held, was insufficient to entitle the appellants to a de novo hearing. Finally, the procedures governing appeals from the BAR should be contrasted with the procedures governing requests for changes in zoning. Applications for changes in zoning are made initially to the Planning Commission which then forwards the application to the Council with a recommendation for approval, denial, or modification. TMC S 18.84.010 (1982). Since the Planning Commission's action consists soley of a recommendation to the Council, the procedure clearly contemplates that the Council may James E. Haney, Esq. February 17, 1987 Page 7 conduct a de novo review of the application. If the City wished to conduct a de novo review of the BAR's action, it could have provided for a recommendation scheme similar to the one implemented for requests for zoning changes. In fact, the composition of the BAR and the Planning Com- mission is identical. See TMC S 18.60.020 (1982). Even if a de novo hearing is held, this is not to be construed to be a wide open invitation to argue any- thing appellant desires. This would subvert the apparent intent of avoiding a second time - consuming and economically wasteful hearing. See West Slope Community Council v. City of Tacoma, 18 Wn. App. 328, 569 P.2d 1183, 1189 (1977). Besides, such an approach would render void the TMC's requirement that appeal grounds must be timely filed. C. Limiting Council review to the BAR record will not abridge appellants' due process rights. Since all parties have been afforded the oppor- tunity to be heard at the BAR hearings, restricting the scope of review to a consideration of errors of law or fact in the record established before the BAR will not abridge any party's due process rights. In Washington, due process considerations "do not require that an evi- dentiary hearing be held before the City Council, so long as the ordinances do not entirely dispense with such a hearing at some stage of the proceedings." West Slope Community Council v. City of Tacoma, 18 Wn. App. 328, 569 P.2d 1183, 1189 (1977); see also Opp Cotton Mills, Inc. v. Administrator, 312 U.S. 126, 152 (1941) ( "the demands of due process do not require a hearing...at more than one point in an administrative proceeding so long as the requisite hearing is held before the final order becomes effective ") (cited in Bowing v. Board of Trustees of Green River Com. Col., 85 Wn.2d 300, 534 P.2d 1373 (1977)). Indeed, in Messer, the court held that since no statute or ordinance required that oral arguments be considered by the Board when it heard the appeal, the Board "did not abuse its discretion or deny the opponents due process when it in effect confined appellate argument to the opponents' appellate letter and to other written objec- tions filed with the board." Messer, 578 P.2d at 58. James E. Haney, Esq. February 17, 1987 Page 8 D. The Council should closely examine the record established before the BAR. Although the law presumes that the members of an appellate legislative body discharged their public duty and considered the record before making their decision, the courts 'go no further than to hold that if it can be shown that the officials making the decision were un- familiar with the contents of the record on which they were required to base their their decision, then the decision will be set aside.' Messer, 578 P.2d at 59; see also Bowing, 85 Wn.2d at 308. As a full hearing was held before the BAR, its record should be available to and reviewed by the City Council insofar as appellants here have alleged specific errors by the BAR. The Council has had the opportunity to listen to detailed testimony on a variety of issues during the EIS adequacy appeal. Not all of those issues and evidence are even relevant to the BAR appeal. Only those legally relevant and material portions of the EIS adequacy appeal should be included in the BAR appeal record. But just as this can be done to minimize delay and duplicative testi- mony, so also should the entire BAR record insofar as it is relevant to appeal issues be reviewed by the City Council. E. The Council, acting as an appellate body, should not substitute its discretion for that of the BAR. The Council is acting as an appellate adminis- trative body. Its review is judicial in nature. Conse- quently, the Council "is not empowered to substitute its discretion for that of the original administrative officer or body, and the findings of fact made by the original tribunal in compliance with law will not be disturbed on appeal if they are sustained by substantial evidence." Messer, 578 P.2d at 56. The policy reasons underlying this rule of law only serve to underscore the importance of adhering to its admonition. Just as the doctrine of res judicata precludes further litigation of issues already fully considered and settled by judicial tribunals, so too does the separation James E. Haney, Esq. February 17, 1987 Page 9 between trial and appellate proceedings serve to cut off further consideration of disputed facts. It is axiomatic that the trier of fact is in the best position to ascer- tain the truth or falsity of the evidence presented. It is precisely for this reason that appellate courts defer to trial court judgments in this area. In the absence of these rules of law, there would be no way in which a case or controversy could be settled. Moreover, by substituting its discretion for the BAR, the Council would be subverting the intent of its own zoning code, as well as the appointive structure of the BAR design review process. If the City of Tukwila desired to have the Council conduct its own indepenent determi- nation of the facts, it could easily have done so by providing that the BAR's decision was nothing more than a recommendation to the Council. However, they chose not to do so. The zoning code contains elaborate and detailed standards the BAR is required to apply to the proposed design. See TMC 55 18.60.050, 18.60.060 (1982). F. Regardless of the duplication of testimony permitted, the Council's review is limited to appellants' specified allegations of error. This appeal from the BAR decision is not a fishing expedition. TMC S18.90.020 requires that appellants state the reasons for the appeals. Such a code requirement clearly limits the scope of the appeals only to those specific reasons cited in the appeals. While the appellants' attorney wrote on May 29, 1986, almost nine months ago, that detailed written statements supporting the appeals would be submitted, this never has been done. Accepting for sake of argument only that such a letter might allow broadening of appeal grounds, the failure to timely do this within a reasonable time precludes ex- pansion of the appeal grounds at this time. The Tukwila Municipal Code does not explicitly provide the basis upon which a reversal or modification of the BAR decision may be done. We suggest that this may be done only if there is an error of law or of fact by the BAR. Such a limitation is reasonable because the BAR is tine body charged with interpretting and applying the James E. Haney, Esq. February 17, 1987 Page 10 design criteria and rendering a final decision. If the Council may simply substitute its judgment for the BAR, the Tukwila Code's provision that the BAR make a final decision would be rendered void and made equivalent only to a recommendation. It is the appellant who has the burden of proving error by the BAR. Conventionally, this burden is expressed as requiring a showing that the BAR was arbitrary, capri- cious or acted contrary to law. See Pentagram v. Seattle, 28 Wn. App. 219, 278 (1981); See Also Lewis v. Medina, 87 Wn.2d 19, 22 (1976); See Also Messer, supra at 58. Ac- cordingly, the BAR decision must be sustained unless the appellants meet the burden of proof by substantial evi- dence. The mere fact that appellants disagree with the BAR is not sufficient to meet this burden. See Lillions v. Gibbs, 47 Wn.2d 629, 633 (1955); See State ex rel Myhre v. Spokane, 70 Wn.2d 207, 213 (1967). 2. Due process in a review by de novo hearing. If the City Council opts to proceed by way of a de novo hearing, the Council must decide what due process it will accord the parties at the hearing. Although the Washington courts have to yet to explicitly consider this issue within the context of an administrative appeal of a zoning agency decision, the Washington legislature has indicated what process it considers requisite to an ade- quate and fair admininstrative hearing. A. The Council should afford all parties the opportunity to cross - examine witnesses and present rebuttal evidence. The right to cross - examine witnesses and submit rebuttal evidence are rights of fundamental importance. 2 Am. Jur. 2d Administrative Law §§ 397, 424. Denial of the right to cross - examine or present rebuttal testimony could easily lead to the acceptance of testimony at its face value when its lack of credibility, or the necessity of accepting it only with qualifications, could be shown by cross - examination or rebuttal evidence. ■ James E. Haney, Esq. February 17, 1987 Page 11 The Washington Supreme Court, in Chrobuck v. Snohomish County, recognized the truth serving function of cross- examination when it held that a zoning hearing which 'assumes distinctly adversary proportions, the proponents and opponents are represented by counsel, expert witnesses are called, and complex, technical, and disputed factors' exist, 'it would appear particularly pertinent to an objective factual evaluation of the tesitmony presented to permit cross examination in a reasonable degree." 78 Wn.2d 858, 870 (1971). The facts of the Valley View Estates case appears to satisfy this test. Many jurisdictions now explicitly recognize the right of a party to cross-examine witnesses and present rebuttal testimony in hearings before administrative zoning authorities. See, e.g., Wadell v. Board of Zoning Appeals, 68 A.2d 152 (Conn. 1949) (the practice of a board of zoning appeals of denying an opportunity for cross - examination cannot be sanctioned); Somerset v. Montgomery County Board of Appeals, 225 A.2d 294 (Md. 1967) (in an adversary proceeding before an administrative board, the opportunity for cross - examination is a basic right); E & E Hauling, Inc. v. County of Du Page, 396 N.E.2d 1260 (Il1.App. 1979) (zoning hearing was improper for failure to allow attorney for adjoining landowners to cross examine witnesses, notwithstanding informal procedure). 3. Summary Review of the BAR decision is a judicial process narrowly involving only the BAR criteria, and then only as to the specified grounds of appeal. Matters related to conformance with other code sections and future decisions on the building permit are not relevant to this appeal. The Tukwila Code neither states what type of hearing is to be held nor the grounds for modifying the BAR final decision. A de novo hearing is not required by law. Certainly the record evidences that the determined project opponents have had every opportunity to be heard. The principal focus of the Council in this BAR appeal is on whether the BAR made an error in law or fact when applying the BAR criteria to the Valley View Estates. V'✓ :,v;a�vt:.» . N..:. wawv�+... r....•.... �rnw..... a..rrw. +w.ww:e.varrMww.Y.Wa:wr: u�wurA a✓+ruf9r:4:.�:kt NCL n.■ ..<.. ...�b[tA.TVae�wCV James E. Haney, Esq. February 17,1987 Page 12 Only those portions of the BAR record relevant to the specified appeal points are before the Council. Appellants have the burden of proving that the BAR decision was in error as to the specified appeal issues. JEH /dm 4463D cc: Mr. Richard Causey Members of City Council Sincerely yours, Joel Haggard . February 16, 1987 Dear Joel: 10717 NE Fourth Street, Suite 9 ,,,, THE BLAYLOCK COMPANY specialises in land -use procedures Mr. Joel Haggard Suite 2426, Financial Center 1215 Fourth Avenue Seattle, Washington 98161 7 r f: ;7 '_'( i� j { I Y OF TUKV - RE: NOISE RESEARCH /VALLEY VIEW APARTMENTS /TUKWILA I have conducted a review of City of Tukwila records attempting to discover any imposition of measures to mitigate noise impacts on multiple family residential complexes from adjacent freeways. My research revealed no instances of imposed mitigating measures by the City. My research focused on the southwest corner of Tukwila Hill. Two projects were comparable based on general circumstances and time; however, they are not identical to Valley View • Estates. SOUTH CENTER VIEW CONDOMINIUMS The first project, the Salant /Mora Apartment Complex (South Center View Condominiums) , file number DR -25 -77 (Environmental review EPIC —FD 41), was given a Declaration of Non — Significance without any conditions for noise mitigation on November 16, 1977. A Memorandum from Fred Satterstrom to Ijell Stokness only states that "noise levels on the site will increase ". Bellevue, Washington 98004 • (206) 455 -1550 In the project, the closest dwelling units were only approxi- mately 125 feet from the south bound on ramp to 1-5 from Southcenter Boulevard. The on -ramp is visible from the dwelling units so there is significant noise impact. (Copies of the Declaration and memorandum are attached). The design review file was not helpful. It contained a site plan with no conditions. The project was built with balconies looking down on the freeway for views, thus the name South Center View Condominiums. NEWPORT HEIGHTS APARTMENT The second project, J.B. Wright Corp. (Newport Heights), file number DR -6 -83 (Environmental review EPIC - 213 -83), was also given a Declaration of Non - Significance without any conditions to mitigate noise impacts. The Negative Declaration was issued on February 27, 1984 by Rick Beeler, Acting Planning Director. (Copy Attached). The Newport Heights apartments have outdoor balconies that are not enclosed or protected from any noise. The site appears to have been graded to create views; this included the filling of a portion of the site to raise some of the building onto higher foundations instead of cutting all of the site down. This exposed more of the dwelling units to higher noise levels from the freeway. In addition, the placement of the outdoor Jacuzzi exposed the common recreational areas to more noise. This recreational facility could have been placed on the north side of the buildings as was done at the nearby La Vista Estates apartments. Thus the buildings would have become noise barriers. However, it appears the recreation area was located for image and advertising along South 152nd Street. page 2 CONCLUSION Sincerely, cc. Dick Causey The Jacuzzi was covered, probably for year -round use, but it was not enclosed for noise mitigation. I oust conclude from these existing design features at the Newport Heights apartment complex that there was little or no concern for noise impacts in either the environmental or site plan review processes by the City of Tukwila. The most interesting point of the comparison is that Newport Heights is 230 feet away from the edge of the southbound on ramp to 1 -5 from Southcenter Boulevard, while the Valley View project is 220 feet away from the northbound on ramp from Klickitat Drive onto 1 -5. Even though the Southcenter View Condominiums partially blocked the noise impacts from the freeway, the City did not consider the noise impacts significant enough to even mention in the Newport Heights proposal. The enclosing of the balconies or actual enlargement of the dwelling units to include this space is a marketing consideration not a environmental mitigation. Personally, if the project is designed for families, the space would be more useful as a playroom, den, family room, recreation room or expanded living room, not as an enclosed north - facing deck. As you know, their point will be that "noise impacts have just become a recognized public health concern ". The City cannot raise a new concern that was not imposed on previous projects which were reviewed concurrently with Valley View. The fact that other environmental and site plan decisions in both 1977 and 1984 did not address the mitigation of noise impacts, points to the fact that the imposition of conditions at this time would be arbitrary and capricious based upon previous City actions. If I can be of any further assistance, please call. ". Roger J. Blaylock page 3 City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila Washington 98188 (206) 433 -1800 Gary L. VanDusen, Mayor Mr. George Kresovitch Hillis, Cairncross, Clark & Martin 403 Columbia Street Seattle, WA 98104 Dear George: November 19, 1986 Subject: Valley View Estates Dennis Robertson asked me for a synopsis of the building permit approval process for this project. His intent is to circulate this letter in the community to appraise people of this process. My delay in answering him is due to my recently assuming the Planning Director's position and the required review by the City Attorney. To date, City departments have preliminarily reviewed the building permit application for conformance to applicable ordinances, regulations and policies. Required corrections and changes were given to Puget Western during preparation of the EIS. Some of those corrections and changes are reflected in the plans approved by the Board of Architectural Review. Now the same departments - Planning, Public Works, Fire and Police - are to review those plans relative to the mitigation measures of the EIS. The departments will give the Building Official their lists of corrections and /or changes from that review. He will incorporate the lists and his list into a single list and give it to Puget Western. Puget Western requested and will probably be granted a meeting with those departments by the first week in December to discuss the list. It is com- mon for this type of meeting to occur in a complex application. This is not a public meeting. From that meeting the final list will be prepared by the departments and the Building Official. That list becomes the condi- tions for submittal of revised plans for the building permit. If you so request, a copy of the list can be sent to you. Uniform Building Code issues can then, or later when the building permit is issued, be appealed to a Board of Review convened through that Code. That Board consists of professional and experienced people outside of Tukwila and who know, understand and can decide Uniform Building Code issues. Zoning Code - related issues can be appealed to the Board of Adjustment. / Mr. George Kresovitch November 19, 1986 Page 2 LRB/ s j n cc: Mayor City Attorney Building Official Dennis Robertson Dick Goe Joel E. Haggard .. ,, ... ,._.,., . .,.. .. ._ . ,.,. •�.:^':: ^' ..: ., ....,. , ..:.. ,,. .. , ...r".>7r:. ,, s.. :. r.:i5,;... ...._.7, °v ., .. L..R.,, ... ...... _. t....,!- .�,.f°n,'.`t�.��'x,,... >.�.X ?. ..b..n. ..i,U.. L r_i.._�.o_l: ;u. �S. SEPA - related issues can be appealed to the City Council. Once all appeals are decided the precipitant conditions attach to the building permit. Puget Western either makes the corrections and changes in order to acquire the permit, withdraws the permit or appeals to Superior Court. Anyone in the neighborhood may also file that appeal. The building permit will not be issued until all appeals are completed and the resulting conditions are met. Construction of the project per that permit will be closely inspected and monitored, probably by licensed, professional inspectors hired by Puget Western but reporting to the Building Official. The Building Inspector will also inspect the construction. Occupancy of the buildings will not occur until all of the conditions of the building permit are met and all inspections satisfactorily completed. A timeline for the aforementioned review and appeal steps is impossible to predict. Timing is dependent upon how and when the existing appeals are heard by the City Council. However, Puget Western is anxious to acquire their building permit. I hope this lengthy general description of this intricate process is help- ful to the community. The staff will make every effort to answer questions now or during the process. L. Rick Beeler Planning Director JAMES A. MURPHY JOHN D. WALLACE DOUGLAS t. ALSRIGHT LEE CORKRUM WAYNE D. TANAKA G. GEOFFREY GIROS LARRY C. MARTIN ROBERT G. ANDRE MICHAEL G. WICKSTEAD ROBERT A. KIESZ STEVEN A. REISLER RAYMOND D. OGDEN (1176.19721 RONALD A. MURPHY 11930.19631 Gentlemen: Joel E. Haggard Attorney at Law Suite 2426, Financial Center 1215 Fourth Avenue Seattle, WA 98161 George A. Kresovich Hillis, Cairncross, Clark & Martin 403 Columbia Street Seattle, WA 98104 OGDEN, OGDEN, MURPHY & WALLACE 2300 WESTIN BUILDING 2001 SIXTH AVENUE SEATTLE. WASHINGTON 98121 (2061 446.4000 Re: Valley View Estates LAW OFFICES OF TELEX: 287941 00DN UR TELECOPIER: (2061 343.0886 1 SOUTH CHELAN ST.. SUITE B P.O. BOX 1606 WENATCHEE. WASHINGTON 96801 11091 662.1984 PLEASE REPLY TO SEATTLE OFFICE November 7, 1986 ?iC /L 06 /Lt/. R. MARK ALLEN LAURA C. INVEEN CHRISTOPHER A. WASHINGTON JAMES E. HANEY ROSEMARY P. SORDLEMAY W. SCOTT SNYDER PHILLIP C. RAYMOND ERIC J. THOMAN PAMELA M. ANDREWS CHARLES 0. ZIMMERMAN CAROL D. SERNASCONI MITCHELL V. MAURER LINDA K. NORMAN WILLIAM F. JOYCE OF COUNSEL RAYMOND 0. OGDEN. JR. This is confirm the agreement we have reached regarding the procedures that will be followed with respect to all pending and future administrative appeals on the above - referenced project. As you know, there are currently four appeals pending before the City Council regarding the adequacy of the Final Environmental Impact Statement'concerning this project and four appeals pending before the City Council concerning the decision of the Board of Architectural Review on this project. The City's position has been that SEPA requires that all administrative appeals on all permits necessary to construct the project must be consolidated with the appeal of the adequacy of the FEIS and that, therefore, resolution of the BAR and FEIS appeals must await the decision of the Building Official on the building permit, since that decision will be the decision of a non - elected official conditioning or not conditioning the project based upon SEPA. For obvious reasons, both the developer, represented by Mr. Haggard and the appellants, represented by Mr. Kresovich, have requested earlier resolution of Joel E. Haggard George A. Kresovich November 7, 1986 Page 2 the FEIS ana BAR appeals. For this reason, we have agreed to the following procedures: 1. FEIS and BAR Appeals. The four appeals on the adequacy of the FEIS will be consolidated for hearing before the City Council with the four appeals on the BAR decision. The City Council will hear from the appellants, developer and staff on the issues raised in the appeals in a single consolidated hearing which may or may not be extended over more than one night, depending upon the length of the testimony given. This hearing will be held during regular Council meetings and will be scheduled at all parties' convenience, if at all possible. Please advise me as soon as possible as to which Monday nights in December would be convenient for each of you and your clients. I will speak to the Council about scheduling the hearing as soon as you give me your acceptable dates. 2. Staff Review of Building Permit. The City staff will continue to work toward a list of conditions for the building permit, should that ultimately be issued. These conditions can only be conceptual at this stage, since no detailed building permit plans complying with the BAR's decision have yet been submitted. My understanding is that the developer will submit such plans as soon as the City Council makes its decision on adequacy of the FEIS and the BAR appeals and the developer knows finally what will be required in the building permit process. At such time as those plans are submitted, the City will finalize the building permit conditions and forward a copy of the same to all parties. 3. Appeal of Building Official's Decision. Any allowable appeal of the Building Official's decision to grant, deny or condition the building permit for the project based upon SEPA shall be made once the Building Official's decision is final. We have all agreed that participation in the FEIS and BAR appeals at this stage without waiting for the Building Official's decision to be final will not prevent Mr. Kresovich's clients or the developer from raising SEPA issues after the Building Official makes a final decision on the building permit to the extent that that final decision is based upon SEPA and the issues concern other than adequacy of the FEIS. I trust that I have correctly set forth our agreement concerning these procedures. I also understand that we have agreed that if these procedures are followed, none of the parties will raise the issue of the propriety of these procedures in any subsequent litigation or administrative appeal. I have received approval from the City Council to have the City staff follow these procedures if all parties will agree to them and the conditions set forth in this letter. If you do agree, please execute the Joel E. Haggard George A. Kresovichr November 7, 1986 Page 3 enclosed copy of this letter and return it to me for the City's records. Once I receive those executed copies, I will forward to each of you a copy of the letter signed by the other. We will then schedule the FEIS and BAR appeal hearing in accord with the mutually convenient dates I receive from you and the schedule of the City Council. If for any reason I have misstated our agreement in any way or if you think some clarification is necessary on any point, please let me know immediately. The City will await hearing from you before taking any further action. JEH /ko cc: Mayor Gary Van Dusen City Administrator Don Morrison Planning Director Rick Beeler Associate Planner Moira Bradshaw — Building Official Duane Griffin City Clerk Maxine Anderson 0042.150.028 Very truly yours, OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY /;/ James E. Haney Cit OFFIC 2001 Seattl Moira Bradshaw Assistant Plann =r CITY OF TUKWILA 6200 Southcente Boulevard Tukwila, WA 98 88 of Tukwila OF THE CITY ATTORNEY th Ave., Suite 2300 Wa. 98121 Re: Valle View Estates, 86 -7 -DR Dear Moira: Pursuant t please find rev Architectural R revisions I hav our conversation of August 12, 1986, enclosed sed Findings and Conclusions for the Board of view concerning the above entitled project. The made are as follows: 1. Title I have revised the title to clarify that these are Findings an. Conclusions of the BAR. AUG :' 0 19861 August 18, 1986 CiTY '1OMArIL;A f'L.Ai NlNG DEPT. 2. Eleva ions. I have changed the reference in paragraph 8 on page 2 of th- Findings from Exhibit 14 to Exhibit 17. 3. Trees I have inserted the phrase "should be a minimum of six feet tal at the time of planting and" in line 12 of paragraph B on •age 5 to clarify the height of the cedars which are required to be planted on the property. 4. Noise Barriers. The words "to act" have been substituted for the word "such" in line 7 of the first full paragraph on p.ge 6 relating to noise barriers. I believe these constitute all of the revisions you asked me to make. Plea -e let me know if you have any additional questions or concerns. JEH /ko Enclosures 0042.150.028 Very truly yours, OFFICE OF THE C TY ATTORNEY es E. Ha 47 JAMES A. MURPHY JOHN D. WALLACE DOUGLAS E. ALBRIGHT LEE CORKRUM WAYNE D. TANAKA G. GEOFFREY GIBBS LARRY C. MARTIN ROBERT G. ANDRE MICHAEL G. WICKSTEAD ROBERT A. KIESZ STEVEN A. REISLER RAYMOND D. OGDEN 118764972 ) RONALD A. MURPHY 1193019831 Moira Bradshaw Assistant Planner CITY OF TUKWILA 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, WA 98188 Dear Moira: LAW OFFICES OF OGDEN, OGDEN, MURPHY & WALLACE 2300 WESTIN BUILDING 2001 SIXTH AVENUE SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98121 (208) 448.4000 TELEX: 287941 OGDN UR TELECOPIER: (2061 343.0886 1 SOUTH CHELAN ST.. SUITE B P.O. BOX 1606 WENATCHEE. WASHINGTON 98801 15091 6624954 PLEASE REPLY TO SEATTLE OFFICE July 3, 1986 t't. R. MARK ALLEN LAURA C. INVEEN CHRISTOPHER A. WASHINGTON JAMES E. HANEY ROSEMARY P. BORDLEMAY W. SCOTT SNYDER PHILLIP C. RAYMOND ERIC J. THOMAN PAMELA M. ANDREWS CHARLES D. ZIMMERMAN CAROL D. BERNASCONI MITCHELL V. MAURER LINDA K. NORMAN WILLIAM F. JOYCE OF COUNSEL RAYMOND D. OGDEN. JR. J CITY OF TU K4v+l_A PLANING DEPT. Re: BAR Findings and Conclusions for Valley View Estates, Application No. 86 -7 -DR Enclosed please find the findings and conclusions for the BAR in the Valley View Estates matter. As you read the findings and conclusions, you will see that most of the changes I made were to clarify the language in the findings a bit. The most significant changes are found under conclusions 2(B) and 4(B) on pages 5 and 9 of the document. In conclusion 2(B) I have added language clarifying that the intent of the cedars along Slade Way is to provide a year round screening which is not provided by the deciduous alders. I have also added language relating to the ability to modify the requirement if the planting of cedars will significantly threaten the slope stability. I have also removed from this section the language relating to solid wood walls replacing the deck railings because I don't believe it is appropriate to address the deck railings under landscaping, which is what TMC 18.60.050(2)(B) covers. With respect to the change made in conclusions 4(B) I have added language indicating that the largest and most significant adjoining development is I -5 and that attenuation of noise from 1 -5 is the reason for the use of solid wood walls in place of the originally proposed deck railings. My thought is that it is more appropriate to address the deck railings in terms of the "harmony" of the buildings with permanent neighboring developments such as I -5, then it is to address it under landscaping. Please review the findings and conclusions carefully and advise me whether you think that this correctly addresses the BAR's concerns. Once we have all bought off on these findings and conclusions, I would like to schedule them for adoption by the BAR. Very truly yours, OGDEN, OGDEN, MURPHY WALLACE ey 13 .!<;..>....,:. itaef.'_ 1,,.;; 4•.. ��d;•' ?: Ev�L�` f..,,. ��.,..; a,.., a4'.., r�.. . }Y ....ti.. a.,: ,y,.... 7. n.. rJecxn�: �xxswr.: esxas <��- �"eti!4� 9 June 1986 Mora Bradshaw Assistant Planner City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Blvd. Tukwila, WA 98188 Re: Valley View Estates MBE Job No. 82059.03 Dear Mora: In response to your letter of May 30, 1986 my records show that at the time of my preliminary setback review with the Planning Department, . Mr. Mark Koffee determined that we had two front yards, those being along Slade Way and 53rd south. Since the remaining boundaries are Highway R.O.W. with no possibility of building construction occurring these were considered to be side yards. Should you not agree I will move buildings 4 and 5 closer to the parking lot which will yield very little landscaping in front of building #5. You are correct on the car count. I will add two stalls between building 9 and 10. Unit "C" is per the floor plan and typical side elevation. Lastly I will move the driveway to be 150' from face of curbs. measured from center lines. Sincerely, Vincent Ferrese. AIA Principal cc: Tom Russell VF /tw MITHUN • EMRICH GROUP'PS ARCHITECTURE PLANNING AND INTERIOR DESIGN 2000 112TH AVE NE BELLEVUE, WASH 98004 (206)454.3344 E_EMEED JUN 10 1986 CITY O F TUKWiLA PLANNING DEPT. Mr. Vince Ferrese 2000 - 112th Ave. N.E. Bellevue, WA 98004 Dear Vince: Front yard Side yard Rear yard City Of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila Washington 98188 (208) 433 -1800 Gary L. VanDusen, Mayor The setback requirements for the R -4 zone are: 20 feet 8 feet 25 feet I look forward to hearing from you. cc: Tom Russell Enclosure: Assessor's map May 30, 1986 Below is a list of zoning code concerns that have arisen during the design review of the Valley View Estates proposal. As you are aware, the project must meet (old) zoning code requirements. The discrepancies that I have identified are listed below. I would be happy to arrange a meeting to review and discuss these items at your convenience. Structures 4 and 5 must be setback 25 feet from the rear property line. Adjustment of internal lot lines must be made to eliminate any other possible setback violations. The parking requirement is 1.5 per unit, which would require 162 stalls for 108 units. The proponent has agreed to 20 additional stalls, which brings the requirement to 182 stalls. The code also stipulates a minimum stall width of 8.5 feet and an area of 350 square feet per stall. I have counted 180 stalls. The floor plan and entry door for Unit C does not correspond to the other view and elevations that have been reviewed. The EIS stated that project driveways would be a minimum 150 feet distance from the nearest intersections. This minimum distance should be identified on the site plans. The distance of the southeasterly driveway from the intersection of Slade Way and 54th Avenue South may need to be adjusted. Moira Carr Bradshaw Assistant Planner • •a• • 1 k • r , � J 0 • • • Lolls • J 1 4 a. • : ;;,. 9 4.11. s O a a- :811`7 - o . r • 54TH ., •N. - O 0 o.' 10 t. r � o a- c . o 0 HAND DELIVERED Dear Maxine: JEH /dm 2880D Enclosure Ms. Maxine Anderson City Clerk City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Blvd. Tukwila, Washington 98188 JOEL E. HAGGARD ATTORNEY ANC COUNSELOR -AT LAW SUITE 2426. FINANCIAL CENTER 1215 FOURTH AVENUE SEATTLE. WASHINGTON 98161 (206) 682.5635 May 30, 1986 Re: BAR 96 -7 -SR /Valley View Estates cc: James Haney, Esq. Mr. William Arthur Sincere yours, ,t,d J Haggard MAY3 0 1986 ` Crci OF TUKWILA L.-t • CITY aERKs OFFICE OUR FILE NO P- 17150.8 While not appealing the decision of the BAR approval, we take exception to the findings and conclusions which it adopted from the Staff Report. The specific exceptions are noted in Attachment 1; however, to the extent that any of these exceptions are inconsistent with the findings or conclusions adopted by the BAR as a result of its modifications of the Staff findings and conclusions, we hereby modify the excep- tion(s). We also note for the record that the FEIS was prepared under the sole control and direction of City Staff. While we believe that the FEIS is adequate for compliance with SEPA, we do not agree that the FEIS provides a basis for imposition of any or all of the possible conditions identified in' the FEIS. Should a dispute arise as to conditions imposed by the City pursuant to SEPA, we specifically assert and reserve the right to have notice, be heard and provide evidence on such con- ditions. We do not accept the proposition that the mention of a possible mitigating condition in the City's own FEIS provides an adequate or sufficient basis in law or fact to impose them on the building permit. ATTACHMENT 1 ,ll — a l/ « oGyY 7% Tide. 1.71> 0,1 •-, T Finding 5, Page 2 Transition areas involving open space and land- scaping are provided between the development and the existing single family districts. While a portion of the property is zoned single family, it will not be developed with residential structures. As one witness said in arguing about the children's play area security, you won't be able to see it from the road. Finding 7, Page 2 The testimony by Mr. Ferrese is clear and un- controverted that code required parking (161) plus an added 20 spaces will be provided. The number of stalls on the site can be clearly counted on Exhibit 18 so the fifth sentence is contrary to the record. Finding 10, Page 2 Mr. Richards testified that the EPA numbers are guidelines, not standards. This finding ignores the use of additional noise control measures recommended by Mr. Richards, to which the applicant has agreed. This finding ignores the fact the HUD standards are met. This finding appears to ignore the noise reduction of 10 -12 dBA which occurs even when windows are open. As Mr. Richards' letter indicates, interior LDN's.with south, east or north windows open are 57 to 61 and for west windows open are 47 to 51. These levels are not termed to be "signifi- cant adverse noise impacts" under the EPA Guidelines. Finding 11, Page 2 Staff negatively assumes that the impacts are "adverse." It may be that some project opponents "feel" they are adverse, but such a finding is without a basis in law. Finding 12, Page 3 The testimony by Mr. Ferrese and Mr. VanDeVanter clearly supports a finding that the children's play area is suitable, stable and of sufficient area. Further docu- mentation is not required for BAR action. Conclusion 1.A, Page 4 Exterior sidewalks are admittedly beyond the BAR jurisdiction. Any such conclusion as to their being required is not proper for the BAR to make. Staff should not attempt to prejudice future proceedings or decisions. Conclusion 1.C, Page 4 Argumentatively stating that existing views of the site from the east are out of scale with the four easterly buildings is not relevant to the BAR criterion. As Finding 8 and the testimony of Mr. Perrese affirm, the buildings are located on the site to fit with the topo- graphy. Conclusion 2.A, Page 5 Staff assumes 'harmony in mass' infers the pro- ject is 'out of character' with the neighborhood. As Mr. Ferrese testified, there is little substantial difference on this point whether single family homes or the proposal are put on the site. The proposal is judged under the old code - staff admits this on page 1. Mr. Ferrese testified that the number of units are less than would have been permitted under that zoning. Simply put, the applicable zoning es- tablishes the mass we have proposed. Conclusion 2.B, Page 5 Staff asserts that the building permit process requires that interiors not exceed a maximum performance criteria for noise level. This conclusion is not within the BAR authority to make. The conclusion is contrary to law. The conclusion is contrary to the testimony of Mr. Richards and the enclosed letter by Mr. Richards. Conclusion 2.13, Page 6 BAR does not have the authority to require a barrier fbr approriate transition to the adjacent I -5 property. The adjacent I -5 property is undeveloped and vegetated. Requiring a wood barrier where slopes are less than 25% has no meaning since the topographical differ- ences between 1 -5 and the units would require an about 30 foot high China Wall. Screens for basement level bedrooms are not required. An individual can choose, just as if he were in a single family house on the site, to open his windows or not. This is the same situation as with apart- ments similarly affected in other areas of Tukwila. Dis- criminatory application of conditions is contrary to law. Conclusion 2.C, Page 6 Staff's speculation as to driveway length •could be dangerous• is simply contrary to Mr. MacIsaac's testi- mony. Driveway length is not the determining factor, but rather the configuration and speed control devices. Mr. MacIsaac clearly affirmed the safety and access of the internal roadway and pedestrian movement system. Conclusion 2.D, Page 6 Mr. MacIsaac testified that the driveway access did not cause a traffic hazard. Should Staff concern continue despite this expert testimony, we suggest that driveway locations be further reviewed in the building permit process. Conclusion 4.3, Page 9 The introductory paragraph . here ignores the conclusion in 3.A (Page 7) where it is affirmed that the dominant steep slope of the site is used to visually separate . the development from westerly adjoining proper- ties. 2811D Towne,Richards iCha udi , Inc. Consultants in Sound and Vibration May 19, 1986 Mr. Joel Haggard Haggard Law Office Financial Center, Suite 2426 1215 Fourth Avenue Seattle, WA 98161 105 NE 56th Street Seattle. Washington 98105 206i523.3350 ;r :;yti; ".•�: ^::.tai �.;� is _n..i:- 4..* ur�c::w� Re: Valley View Estates Dear Joel: The purpose of this letter is to further clarify resident noise exposures at the proposed Valley View Estates development. Existing noise exposure at the proposed site ranges from L 68 to 72. In order to achieve an indoor L not to exceed 45 (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency guideline), improved noise attenuation of windows and doors is necessary on the south, east and north building faces. Building noise reduction from outside to inside with open windows is typically 10 to 12 dBA. 2 Consequently it is not appropriate or reasonable to assume interior noise levels are the same as exterior noise levels if a window (or door) is open. The interior EPA L 45 guideline will be exceeded if windows or doors on the south, east or north building faces are open. The resultant interior L is reasonably expected to be in the range 57 to 61. That is the reason why I recommended certain design measures at the recent BAR hearing. Mr. Joel Haggard May 19, 1986 Page Two + ..r';. \rr.._...,....T., .,r... �.:•.'M CfX': .. dfit:}; rmh' 2J{,:' A3�t'+: t'. i:�:7.:.!'1� + "raa °�1iiJ�y:`; ° d: i'^. �.s ,Yy�!., tit' yY' v' LC £.'•.�'ti�`�r {'id't� °;;;a�rBVJ +; The west face of the buildings (facing away from the freeway) can benefit by the acoustical shielding provided by the building acting as a barrier. The shielding is typically about 10 dBA. Thus if windows are opened on the west side of the buildings, the resultant interior L would be in the range of 47 to 51 ( -10 dBA for building shielding, -11 dBA for open windows). Open windows on the west side would thus yield only a minor impact under the EPA guidelines. There has been some discussion of providing air conditioning for building interiors so that windows do not have to be opened for ventilation. Residences in the Pacific Northwest are typically not air conditioned. An air conditioning system would require an external heat exchanger, usually involving some type of fan. These units produce noise and have the potential for creating problems for the building they are serving or adjacent buildings. Interior noise levels resulting from open windows would be further limited from prevading the remaining unit area due to unit layout and closed doors. Any occupant of the units may then individually control interior noise levels just as any occupant of other single family residences in the area. Accordingly, it is my opinion that total deck enclosure and installation of air conditioning is not reasonably necessary if the units are constructed with the other noise control measures I have earlier recommended. Tbwna, Richards & Chandler', Inc. Consultants in Sound and Vibration • • Mr. Joel Haggard May 19, 1986 Page Three RLR /kg Roy L. Rich Vice President The proposed children play area In the southwest portion of the development will benefit by the acoustical shielding provided by the buildings. The proposed configuration of buildings should provide 3 to 5 dB attenuation. Sincerely, TOWNE, RICHARDS & CHAUDIERE, INC. 1 Handbook of Noise Control, Second Edition, Table 43.2, McGraw Hill Book Company, 1979. 2 Protective Noise Levels, Table 2, United States Environmental Protection Agency Document EPA 550/9 -79 -100, November 1978. 3 Design Guide for Reducing Transportation Noise in and Around Buildings, Section 9, Page 42, United States Department of Commerce, April 1978. 4 Reference 1, Page 3 -5, "Rows of Houses as Barriers." Town, Richards & Chandler', Inc. Consultants in Sound and Vibration : 1�.,.. r..; JY,:: i,•... r..•14'r- ....TrxiY�e2Y; 'S.Z:V t.'rX.',1,7: `.J4 :4∎1 3t4`7T!zgrzz:C+Y.'w;'. /Zrza•Fefrze*.vaYSO!ztvw.. rn....e,.,........ws.*utbe!�J:Y+ i P GLENN J AMSTER PETER R ANDERSON DAVID H BJORNSON JOEL N BODANSKY H RAYMOND CAIRNCROSS WENDY W CAIRNCROSS LAURIE LOOTENS CHY2 MARK S CLARK SALLY H CLARKE T RYAN OURKAN GARY M FALLON ROBERT B. FIKSO FRED S FINKELSTEIN JOSEPH B GENSTER RICHARD E. GIFFORD JEROME L HILLIS Dear Ms. Anderson: LAW OFFICES OF HILLIS. CAIRNCROSS. CLARK & MARTIN A PROFESSIONAL SERVICE CORPORATION 403 COLUMBIA STREET SEATTLE. WASHINGTON 55104 (2061 623.1745 s RECEIVED MA`( 3 01986 1• May 29, 1986 Ms. Maxine Anderson Tukwila City Clerk 6200 Southcenter Blvd. Tukwila, Washington 98188 Re: Appeal of Decision by the Board of Architectural Review Concerning Valley View Estates; File No. 86 -7 -DR TIMOTHY H. HOSKIN° GREGORY E. KELLER GEORGE A. KRESOVICH SARAH E. MACK DEBORAH S. MALANE GEORGE W. MARTIN. JR LOUIS D. PETERSON SHERYL K. PETERSON JAMES .1. RAGEN STEVEN R. ROV1G MICHAEL F. SCHUMACHER MICHAEL R. SCOTT RICHARD S. SWANSON RICHARD R. WILSON CHARLES B. WRIGHT We are writing to you on behalf of our client, the Tukwila McMicken Action Committee, to appeal the above - referenced decision by the Board of Architectural Review. We understand that an appeal has already been filed challenging the adequacy of the Environmental Impact State - ment prepared in connection with that project. On behalf of our client we would join in that appeal. We will be submitting detailed written statements supporting each of these appeals; however, before we do so we need to know what procedure the city will be using to consider these appeals. That is, will the city consider both the appeal on the adequacy of the Environmental Impact Statement and the appeal of the decision by the Board of Architectural Review at one time or will these matters be heard and considered separately? Further, we need to know whether the city council will be considering, at this time, whether this project should be denied because of its severe adverse environmental impacts. If the city council will not be considering this issue at this time we need to know when and under what procedure the council will be considering this issue. We would request that the city provide us with the information noted above so that we may properly prepare our .■ ; !.: . Ms. Maxine Anders& May 29, 1986 Page - 2 - presentation to the city council in connection with this development. GAK/jg cc: Gary van Dusen Jim Haney Dennis Robertson .„. MAC 29, 1986 MAXINE ANDERSON, CITY CLERK TUKWILA CITY HALL 6200 SOUTHCENTER BLVD. TUKWILA, WASH. 98188 Dear Mrs. Anderson; I wish to appeal the May 22, 1986 decision of the BOARD OF ARCHITECTURAL REVUE on the VALLEY VIEW ESTATES project to be located at So. 160th and 53rd Ave. So. The BAR decision is inadequate. Since the City requires that space be set aside as outdoor recreational areas it behooves the City to see that these areas will be a safe place for recreation. According to the proponent of-thls 'p"oje ^_t (Puget Western) the noise levels in the proposed recreation areas are high enough to cause significant adverse effects. This fact is stressed many, many times in the FEIS. Yet, the proponent plans to do nothing to mitigate this problem. Since it will require some type of solid structure to bring the outside noise levels down to barely safe standards this is an issue that should have been properly dealt with by the BAR. Instead the BAR has required only "the addition of wood fencing approximately 6 feet high and /or plants to act as noise barriers and landscape transition between the subject site and I -5 to attenuate noise in identified recreation areas with the proponents plan for same to be brought back to the BAR for approval." Even the proponents noise expert has stated to the BAR that 6 feet would not be sufficient to attenuate the adverse noise impact. However, the BAR has implied in the motions as made and passed on May 22 that 6 feet of fence or even plants would be acceptable This particular decision cannot possibly fall within the code guidelines for'the BAR of "promoting the public health, safety and welfare ". No lighting has been planned or required for the childrens play area: another safety hazard. The height of building N3 -10 are in a R -4 zone (3 story maximum) yet are the same height as the 4 story buildings. What is a loft floor in the 4 story building, the proponent says will be closed in as attic on the 3 story buildings. In order to make the size and mass of these 18 buildings be more compatable with the surrounding neighborhood, the 3 story buildings should be reduced in height. The BAR being satisfied that the extra height would be closed in is inappropiate. Respectfully, Dharlene West 5212 So. 164th Tukwila, Wash. 98188 242 -7810 be. 255 -8673 MAXINE ANDERSON, CITY'CLERK cont. ._ �,,.:: The property in question has 3 separate zonings. Portions of some . buildings as now proposed stand on the lot lines. Therefore the buildings cannot meet the setbacks for the particular zone in which situated. To move the lot lines to accomodate the proponent in this instance would be the same as a rezone would it not? How can this be possibble? There has been no formal request for a rezone and lacking the request and an okay on same, don't the buildings have to adhere to all requirements of the code? One assumes the BAR made at least a portion of its decisions regarding VALLEY VIEW ESTATES based on the information in the FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT. Since the FEIS itself is flawed, can decisions based on this FEIS be valid? Mr. Joel Haggard 2426 Financial Center Seattle, WA 98161 cc: Thomas Russell City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila Washington 98188 (206) 433 -1800 Gary L. VanDusen, Mayor May 28, 1986 Dear Mr. Haggard: The Board of Architectural Review (BAR) approved at their May 22, 1986 meeting, the proposed design of the development for Valley View Estates with the following conditions: 1. Extension of pedestrian walkways to right -of -way from structures 1 and 2. 2. Addition of thirty (30) evergreens, six feet in height, interspersed with structures 10 -18 to be approved by staff. 3. Addition of wood fencing to act as noise barriers and a landscape tran- sition between the subject site and I -5 to attenuate noise in iden- tified recreation areas and that design of fencing and additional landscaping be brought back to Board for final approval. 4. Addition of six foot high evergreen cedars, forty feet on center, or as feasible without disturbing slope stability, along perimeter of pro- perty line adjacent to Slade Way as marked on Exhibit 19 from point A to point B. 5. Nothing in this BAR approval shall relieve the applicant from satisfing the (old) zoning code requirements. Per TMC 18.90.030, any person aggrieved by the decision of the BAR, may appeal that decision to the City Council. The appeal shall be made in writing to the City Clerk within ten days of the BAR decision as stated above and shall state the reasons for the appeal. The City Council shall affirm, deny or modify the decision of the BAR within ninety days of the filing of the appeal. If you have any questions, please feel free to call me at 433 -1848. Sincerely, agi Moira Carr Bradshaw Mr. Thomas Russell P.O. Box 97034 Bellevue, WA 98009 -9734 Dear Mr. Russell: cc: Joel Haggard City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila Washington 98188 (206) 433 -1800 Gary L. VanDusen, Mayor May 28, 1986 Sincerely, The Board of Architectural Review (BAR) approved at their May 22, 1986 meeting, the proposed design of the development for Valley View Estates with the following conditions: 1. Extension of pedestrian walkways to right -of -way from structures 1 and 2. 2. Addition of thirty (30) evergreens, six feet in height, interspersed with structures 10 -18 to be approved by staff. 3. Addition of wood fencing to act as noise barriers and a landscape tran- sition between the subject site and I -5 to attenuate noise in iden- tified recreation areas and that design of fencing and additional landscaping be brought back to Board for final approval. 4. Addition of six foot high evergreen cedars, forty feet on-center, or as feasible without disturbing slope stability, along perimeter of pro- perty line adjacent to Slade Way as marked on Exhibit 19 from point A to point B. 5. Nothing in this BAR approval shall relieve the applicant from satisfing the (old) zoning code requirements. Per TMC 18.90.030, any person aggrieved by the decision of the BAR, may appeal that decision to the City Council. The appeal shall be made in writing to the City Clerk within ten days of the BAR decision as stated above and shall state the reasons for the appeal. The City Council shall affirm, deny or modify the decision of the BAR within ninety days of the filing of the appeal. If you have any questions, please feel free to call me at 433 -1848. Moira Carr Bradshaw Dear Gary Gary Van Dusen Mayor, City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Blvd Tukwila, Wash 98188 - ... ,..., -•,.. May 27, 1986 /1 MAY 0 199E CITY OF TUKWILA PLANNING DEPT. I would like to formally appeal the decision of the Board of Architectual Review on May 22, 1986 concerning the Valley View Estates request for a building permit. I request that the City Council review the issues involved in this building permit request and render a more thoughtful, carefully conceived decision than the BAR did. The BAR's deliberations appeared more concerned with what was feasible for the applicant than appropriate for the site. Three major issues most notable for their lack of adequate cosideration were: '1. Relationship of structure to the site 2. •Relationship of structure and site to adjoining areas 3. Health, welfare and safety of future residents (for both building design and recreation area design) given the site limitations. I am sure that the City Council will not repeat the mistake the BAR made by being more concerned with what is 'economically feasible' for the applicant than what is 'appropriate' for the proposed site and buildings. Please notify me immediately if there is any further information that I must provide or procedures that I should follow in order to appeal the BAR decision. cc Maxine Anderson Brad Collins Joe Duffy Dennis L. Robertson family residential complex OFFICIAL NOTICE NOTICE IS GIVEN UNDER SEPA, RCW 43,21C.075, THAT THE CITY OF TUKWILA'TOOK THE ACTION DESCRIBED IN (2) BELOW ON: May 22, 1986 1. Any action to set aside, enjoin, review or otherwise challenge such action must be commenced within • 10 days pursuant to section TMC 18.90.020 of the Tukwila Municipal Co ea . Any action to set aside, enjoin, review or otherwise challenge such action on the grounds of non - compliance with the provisions of chapter 43.21C RCW (State Environmental Policy Act) shall be commenced within 30 days after notice; no later than June 30„ 1986 ; provided, that a judicial challenge on SEPA grounds may be barred unless the administrative appeal proce- dures set forth in Section 25 of Tukwila Ordinance No. 1331 have been timely folowed. All judicial appeals should be filed with the clerk of the King County Superior Court, Room E609, 516 Third Avenue, Seattle, Washington, 98104 (344- 2530). Any person desiring to raise SEPA issues by judicial appeal must submit a notice of intent to do so with the responsible official of the acting agency, the Cit of Tukwila, within the time limit for commencing action set by 2 Section of the Tukwila Municipal Code. Board of -Architectural Review Design 2. Description of Agency Action: Approval with conditions of a 108 -unit multiple- 3. Description �f Proposal: 108 -unit multiple - family residential with 18 structures 4. Location of proposal: Southwest quadrant of the I -5 /I -405 intersection, bordered by 53rd Avenue South and Slade Way on the west, Slade Way on the south and I -5 right -of- way on the east. Final 5. Type of environmental review under SEPA: Environmental Impact Statement 6. Documents may be examined during regular business hours at the Planning Department, Tukwila City Hall, 6200 Southcenter Boulevard, Tukwila, WA. 7. Name of agency, proponent, or applicant giving notice: City of Tukwila 8. This notice is filed by: Moira Carr Bradshaw, City of Tukwila (FM.OFF.NTC) CN - 8 3-093 Date 5/22/86 CI T Y OF TUKWILA PLANNING DIVISION PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT PROPOSED FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS a0,16( vcc • AGENDA ITEM . 86 -7 -DR: Valley View Estates INTRODUCTION Dr. Herman Allenbach (later replaced by Puget Western, Inc.) applied for a building permit before the 1982 Zoning Code and Map went into effect. That permit is for 108 multiple family units on the 7.08 acre hillside along the north and east side of Slade Way and 53rd Avenue South opposite S. 160th Street. (Exhibit A) Because Dr. Allenbach /Puget Western vested their development rights to the R -1, R -4 and RMH zoning effective prior to the current 1982 version, the building permit is not being reviewed relative to the current R -1 -12 (single family) zoning. That permit necessitated preparation of an environmental impact statement which required, among many mitigation measures, Board of Architecture Review (BAR). FINDINGS 1. Because the applicant vested development rights to the old Zoning Code and map (pre -1982 version) the building permit and BAR review is constrained to the substantive requirements of that Code. The standard of review is the specific development and recreation space regulations of the old Code. However, the vested rights do not include permit processing under the old Code procedures. Instead, the procedure for the BAR contained in new Zoning Code (1982 version) TMC 18.60 is being followed. In other words, this permit must meet old Code development requirements under new Code procedures. 2. Per Tukwila Municipal Code (TMC) 18.60.010, the purpose and objectives of the BAR is to provide for review by public officials of land development and building design in order to promote the public health, safety and welfare. Specifically, the BAR shall encourage well designed developments that are creative and harmonious with the natural and manmade environments. 3. TMC 18.60.050 contains the guidelines the BAR must follow in its decision - making. 4. An environmental impact statement (EIS) issued in January, 1986, identifies the environmental impacts of the proposal. The EIS is available at City Hall for public review. This document lists mitigating measures that will be implemented by the developer and measures that could be used should the city feel they are necessary conditions to mitigate development impacts. Exhibit B 86 -7 -DR: Valley View Estates May 22, 1986 IL Page 2 summarizes these mitigating measures which mostly pertain to the building per- mit, not BAR review. However, some of those measures may effect the ultimate design of the project and are referenced herein. 5. The development consists of eighteen buildings, each of the same exterior design and containing six units. (Exhibits 15 and 21) Overall density of the project is 15.25 dwelling units per acre which is less than permitted in the vested RMH and R -4 zoning. The southwest corner of the site is zoned R -1 but is not used for density calculations. Surrounding current zoning would permit a maximum of 3.65 units per acre. No transition area of medium density multi- family is proposed between the development and existing single family districts, however, the southwest corner, a 74,133 square foot area, will remain undeveloped, devoted to either recreation or landscaping. 6. An internal roadway through the site accesses onto Slade Way at the south end of the site and onto 53rd Avenue South at the northwest corner of the site. A separate access off Slade Way with a hammerhead turnaround serves two of the buildings which are located somewhat higher on the hillside. 7. Thirty -two percent of the site will remain in its natural wooded state. Approximately 68 percent of the site will be cleared during construction with considerable cut and fill required to accommodate buildings, parking areas and roadways. The old Code required 1.5 parking stalls for apartments but 2.0 stalls for fourplexes. Possible reduction in the unit count of some of the structures could increase the required number of stalls. It is therefore unclear at this time to determine the number of parking stalls on site. Dimensional requirements of the old Code will also have to be met and the EIS has stated that twenty additional stalls above the minimum requirement will be provided. 8. The roofline of building 18 is at an approximate elevation of 208, 53rd Avenue South street elevation west of the structure is 198. Structures 1 and 2 have a roofline elevation of approximately 254 and 248, respectively, while the adjacent right -of -way, Slade Way has a street elevation of 258. (Exhibit 14) 9. The geotechnical study determined that development of the project was feasible if appropriate measures were undertaken of which the most important is to assure the operational effectiveness of the Department of Transportation (DOT) facilities, thereby promoting hillside stability. Topography of the area is shown on Exhibit H. 10. Noise levels on site will reach significant adverse levels per EPA standards. With windows open, day -night noise levels inside the units will far exceed the standard EPA considers acceptable, however, with windows shut, noise levels inside will generally be within EPA's recommended standard. 11. The environmental impact statement identified unavoidable impacts that will result because of the project. Unavoidable adverse impacts on the surrounding 86 -7 -DR: Valley View Estates May 22, 1986 (� Page 3 single family neighborhood that the following impacts are most closely asso- ciated with the surrounding single family neighborhood: A. An undeveloped wooded hillside would be converted to a multi - family housing development with associated parking areas and road surfaces. B. The project would differ substantially in scale, density, and character from that of the surrounding neighborhood. C. Residents in the area would feel a loss in the quality and cohesion of their neighborhood. D. The project would generate increased traffic through residential neigh- borhoods west of the site. Other unavoidable adverse impacts to the physical and human environment are contained in Exhibit I. 12. Per TMC 18.60.200 (old code), a minimum of 21,600 square feet of recreation space must be provided, including a children's area of 5,400- 10,800 square feet. The recreation area may not include required setback areas and no more than 50 percent of the total requirement may be on slopes greater than twenty - five (25) percent. The proposal includes a 5,400 square foot children's play area located in the southwest portion of the site. The remaining recreation space is shown between and behind structures 3 -18. Documentation of the suitability and stability of the current location and minimum area of the children's play site will be required. The applicant submitted Exhibit 19 to show the recreation space proposed for the site. The applicant appears to be able to meet the minimum recreation space requirements, including the minimum area requirement of 10,800 square feet of area with slopes of less than 25 %. CONCLUSIONS 1. TMC 18.60.050(1): Relationship of Structure to Site. A) The site should be planned to accomplish a desirable transition with the streetscape and to provide for adequate landscaping and pedestrian move- ment. Sixteen (16) structures are arranged linearly along the western half of the site, generally following the topography. The remaining two struc- tures are located south of and above the elevations of the other struc- tures. Existing vegetation is retained between the street and structures and additional landscaping is shown on the landscape plan. Broadleaf evergreen screening shrubs have been added to provide additional screening of parking areas from adjacent rights -of -way. The landscape 86 -7 -DR: Valley View E,etates May 22, 1986 Page 4 plan has also been amended to show vines planted along all concrete retaining walls located on the site. Any exposed foundation walls would also be screened with plant material. Development of the site will require installation of standard sidewalks along Slade Way and 53rd Avenue South. Pedestrian movement on the site is facilitated through the addition of a continuous walkway through the site serving buildings 3 -18. The sidewalk serving buildings 1 -2 should also be extended to Slade Way. The project site consists of portions of several lots, but a majority of the development will occur in concentrated areas. The entirety of the site is integral to the site's design and development. The subject parcel has multiple underlying lot lines that dictate required zoning district setbacks. A boundary line adjustment to show compliance with zoning requirements would be required and a covenant pledging the entire 7.08 acre site to the project is agreed to by the applicant in Exhibit 4. B) Parking and service areas should be located, designed, and screened to moderate visual impact of large paved areas. The parking areas are generally designed into three areas due to the topography of the site. At a maximum, every eleven parking stalls arranged linearly is broken up with landscaped fingerlings. Dumpster areas are enclosed in concrete with painted steel gates, and have been located on the landscape plan. The landscape treatments for each of the dumpster areas would be broadleaf evergreen shrubs, which would provide year -round screening. C) The height and scale of each building should be considered in relation to the site. The average height of the structures will be thirty -five (35) feet; thirty (30) feet is the permitted height in the surrounding neigh- borhood. Units 1 -10 (R -4 zone) will be required to show compliance with zoning code definitions in order to satisfy the height limitations of the R -4 zone. (Exhibit 14) The four story easterly building elevations of structures 3 -18 which face east and are relatively tall and out of scale with existing views of the site from the east. This face could be landscaped with additional evergreen conifers. 2. TMC 18.60.050(2): Relationship of Structure and Site to Adjoining Area. A) Harmony in texture, lines and masses. The structures are a conventional design and constructed of wood siding and composite shingles. The number of structures and subsequent mass of 86 -7 -DR: Valley View tates May 22, 1986 Page 5 development is not harmonious with surrounding areas. The majority of the single family homes are located above the parcel on other residential streets. Consideration should be given of views of the proposal from the easterly valley floor and northeasterly hillside. Four story elevations face to the east, which is out of character with the neighborhood and views of the neighborhood from the valley. Exhibit 20 was submitted with a cross section of elevations east of the site. They show average dif- ference in elevation of approximately 70 feet. The average height of existing vegetation along the east property line would screen approxima- tely 25 feet, which leaves 45 feet of structure above the vegetation line. A softening and filtering of the line of structures 10 -18 on the hillside would be improved with the addition of evergreens along the rear line of the structures. The use of additional evergreens intermittently should be judicious so as not to screen completely the views of the valley for residents of the project. Two story elevations face to the west. The width of the structures are each approximately thirty -five feet wide with side yards of approximately twenty feet between structures. This provides a scale which is com- parable to a single family structure; however, the overall density of the development creates a mass which is greater than that in the surrounding area.' The location of the structures on the site, primarily along the east side below the elevation of adjacent streets, reduces the effect of the structural massing within the neighborhood. B) Appropriate landscape transition to adjoining properties should be pro- vided. The landscape plan shows dense evergreen landscape shrubs along the southwest and west property lines. Along the property line adjacent to the S. 160th and 53rd intersection, a row of evergreen trees will be planted to provide a screen. A retaining wall will be located behind the trees and will be softened with a planting of vines. These elements com- bined with the change in elevation, would provide sufficient landscape transition. I -5 along the east property line creates noise levels which exceed the level which the EPA considers to be environmentally significant and adverse. Several open areas surrounding the units are designed for recreation space. Whereas it is reasonable to believe that noise reduc- tion on the entire site is not possible, a maximization of usable space is desirable for residents of the development. A design or landscape feature such as a noise barrier, for example, a fence, could lower the noise levels in areas to make them more habitable. The applicant has agreed to provide solid wood walls in place of the proposed railings, as suggested in the EIS, to attenuate the noise level on the outdoor decks. The building permit review process for the interiors of the structures will require that the units not exceed a maximum performance criteria for 86 -7 -DR: Valley View :ates May 22, 1986 Page 6 noise level. The BAR has the option of requiring some form of barrier to provide an appropriate transition to the adjacent I -5 property. They could stipulate and approve wood barriers located along the east property line where slopes are less than 25% and where areas have been designed for recreation. The screens may also be used to provide noise atte- nuation for the basement level bedrooms located on the east side of the structures if needed to meet noise performance criteria. Views of any fencing would be partially screened with the evergreen shrubbery shown on the landscaping plan and could be specified by the BAR to be of wood and to be of sufficient height. Views of the site and the wall from the east should not be adversely impacted because of the vege- tation in the I -5 right -of -way. Staff feels that fencing around the children's play area is not desirable. The area has a ten foot retaining wall wrapping around the west side, any additional enclosure would create an insecure area that would negate the open space element. C) Compatibility of vehicular pedestrian circulation patterns and loading facilities in terms of safety, efficiency and convenience should be encouraged. The length of the internal driveway, approximately 1,050 feet, permits speeds which could be dangerous. Several curves in the length of the drive would tend to restrict speed; however, speed bumps are also pro- posed to discourage excessive speeds. The children's play area is located on the opposite side of the driveway from the majority of the structures. Where the path to that area intersects with the driveway, a painted crosswalk is proposed for safety of the children. The internal walkways serving buildings 3 -18 is extended to public rights -of -way and sidewalks. (Exhibit 18) This is critical at the north access point of the site due to the proximity of the westerly Crystal Springs Park and the school and transit bus stops located on 53rd and at the intersection of 51st Avenue and 160th Street. The same treatment is suggested for the sidewalk serving buildings 1 and 2. D) Compatibility of on -site vehicular circulation with street circulation should be encouraged. The driveways will be required to be located at least one hundred fifty (150) feet away from the nearest intersection. It appears, that the Slade Way driveway will be required to move to meet this requirement. Because of the projected amount of traffic and the slopes of nine to twelve percent on 53rd Avenue, a level platform extending thirty feet beyond the driveway stop line is proposed to enhance the visibility of drivers exiting the project. 86 -7 -DR: Valley View . Lates May 22, 1986 Page 7 3. TMC 18.60.050(3): Landscape and Site Treatment. A) Where existing topographic patterns contribute to beauty and utility of a development, they should be recognized preserved and enhanced. The dominant steep slope of the site is used to visually separate the development from westerly adjoining properties along 53rd Avenue and Slade Way. Existing vegetation in the southwest corner will also contri- bute to the beauty of the site and maintain a separation from adjacent uses. The 5,400 square foot children's sand pit play area is bordered by a concrete edge which will be 15 inches in height to provide seating. The steep slopes in the play area require documentation from the applicant that the site is a feasible location for the use. B) Grades of walks, parking spaces, terraces, and other paved areas should promote safety and provide an inviting and stable appearance. Grades of parking stalls and along the length of the drive are within acceptable standards. Trails have been shown leading from structures 1 and 2 and from the lower level to the play area and are at acceptable grades. (Exhibit 18 and 19) C) Landscape treatment should enhance architectural features, strengthen vistas and important axes, and provide shade. While the site has good views of the Green River Valley, it is signifi- cantly impacted by noise from its adjacent neighbor, I -5. In order to mitigate this noise, fencing may be required. The development will also be creating a multiple family complex on a hillside that is charac- teristically single family. While it is desirable to maintain views for residents of the site, additional evergreen trees judiciously used along the rear elevations of structures 10 -18 is recommended. The use of wood fencing as noise barriers and additional evergreens integrated into the landscape plan should not adversely affect the landscape treatment of the site. The use of large shade tree species along the internal driveway can create and enhance this important internal axes through the site. The use of low growing evergreen shrubs to provide individual landscape treatments for each of the structures is also proposed to enhance the structures entries. 86 -7 -DR: Valley View( sates May 22, 1986 Page 8 D) In locations where plants will be susceptible to injury by pedestrian or motor traffic, mitigating steps should be taken. The site's paved areas are curbed and sufficient use of walkways should prevent pedestrian damage to the landscaping. E) Where building sites limit planting, the placement of trees or shrubs in paved areas is encouraged. Approximately thirty -two (32) percent of the site's existing vegetation will be retained. This vegetation, proposed evergreen trees, and recom- mended additional evergreen shrubbery will provide maximum screening of the site's paved areas. Fingerlings planted with large deciduous shade trees will supplement existing and proposed landscaping and create addi- tional screening when viewed from above or below the site during periods of the year when it is leafed out. Additional low growing shrubs will serve to soften the effect of the paved parking areas year round. F) Screening of service yards, and other places which tend to be unsightly, should be accomplished by use of walls, fencing, planting or a com- bination of these. Screening should be effective in winter and summer. The concrete dumpster enclosures are shown on the plan and are screened with evergreen shrubbery. (Exhibit 14 and 19) G) In areas where general planting will not prosper, other materials such as fences, walls, and pavings of wood, brick, stone, or gravel may be used. Planting, as shown and recommended, should prosper. H) Exterior lighting, when used, should enhance the building design and the adjoining landscape. Lighting standards and fixtures should be of a design and size compatible with the building and adjacent area. Lighting should be shielded, and restrained in design. Excessive brightness and brilliant colors should be avoided. (Exhibit L) The light standards are approximately eighteen (18) feet in height with a twenty (20) foot illumination spread from the pole. The fixture's finish is baked enamel in semi -gloss black, dark bronze, or natural aluminum. Lighting of building entrances is shown on the elevations. (Exhibit 15) Possible lighting elevations are submitted in Exhibit 14, one or two of which, would be compatible with building design and provide sufficient lighting for recessed and side unit entrances. 86 -7 -DR: Valley View _ltates May 22, 1986 Page 9 4. TMC 18.60.050(4): Building Design. A) Architectural style is not restricted, evaluation of a project should be based on quality of its design and relationship to surroundings. The overall linear design quality of the structures is interesting and provides visually pleasing detail and adequate fenestration. Any exterior changes to the building's design caused by the need to meet the noise performance criteria would require additional BAR review. The entry elevation has been revised to show a greater use of fenestra- tion as well as three dimensional relief from the former flat facade. The revision creates a less monotonous facade and a more harmonious design. The use of stucco has been eliminated and wood siding is pro- posed as the dominant elevation element. The view of the east elevation from I -5 presents the multi- tiered four story maximum unit view of the development. B) Buildings should be to appropriate scale and be in harmony with permanent neighboring developments. The buildings exceed the scale of the existing surrounding single family neighborhood to the south, west, and north. The site is located along the edge of a single family neighborhood. The property owner has established a vested right in multiple family zoning, but the BAR stan- dard of review must be met. The use of topography, existing vegetation, proposed landscaping and design of the site can be used to minimize the incompatibilities between the two uses. Because of the significant noise levels on the site, the buildings may be required to provide forced air ventilation systems and /or other measures so that windows may be kept closed and to have interior noise levels meet performance criteria year round. The use of glass enclosures for the decks is also a possibility. Any interior or structural requirements should not affect the building's design. The floor plan shows that the bedrooms, except on the ground floors, are located in the west half of the units. (Exhibit G) The ground floor bedrooms facing I -5, would benefit most from any exterior site treatment for noise attenuation. Staff recommends that if additional exterior barriers for noise attenuation are required, that the BAR approve wood fencing and the glass enclosed decks. Structures 1 -10 (in the R -4 zone), must meet the (old) code height requirement of a maximum of three stories. The structures must also set- back twenty -five feet from the rear property line which should not substantially change the site plan. 86 -7 -DR: Valley View ( sates May 22, 1986 Page 10 C) Building components, such as windows, doors, eaves, and parapets, should have good proportions and relationship to one other. Building components and ancillary parts shall be consistent with anticipated life of the structure. The building components, seem well proportioned and relate well to one another. A revised entry elevation provides greater detailing and improved fenestration to create a visually interesting facade. Because of the number of identical structures in the development, and the number of units in each structure, a readable system of unit identification is proposed with lighting on the entry facade. D) Colors should be harmonious, with bright or brilliant colors used only for accent. The basic color scheme is muted beige to grey tones with subdued green to blue colored trim as accent colors. The cream colored stucco upper story has been replaced with wood siding. E) Mechanical equipment or other utility hardware on roof, ground or buildings should be screened from view. Accessory equipment such as utility meters and community mailboxes are not shown. Mechanical equipment would not be approved on the roofs of the structures due to the view impacts and would require screening. Revisions should indicate any mechanical equipment and /or and their incorporation into the site and landscape plan. F) Exterior lighting should be part of the architectural concept. Fixtures, standards and all exposed accessories should be harmonious with building design. Revised lighting standards (Exhibit 14) are harmonious with the building design. Structural lighting has also been indicated on the elevations as part of the building design. G) Monotony of design in single or multiple building projects should be avoided. Variety of detail, form, and siting should be used to provide visual interest. Eighteen (18) identical structures are proposed, of which sixteen (16) will be located in a line somewhat broken between structures 9 and 10. Topography of the parcel is a constraint but is also varied enough to provide diversity in elevation and siting. The different color and landscaping plantings are also used to break the monotony. 86 -7 -DR: Valley View tates May 22, 1986 Page 12 Exhibit 2 Dennis Robertson, et al, flyer, not dated, in opposition to the project, submitted at the March 27, 1986, BAR. Exhibit 3 86 -7 -DR: Valley View Estates staff report presented at the March 27, 1986, BAR with Exhibits A -L. Exhibit 4 Joel Haggard's brief and attachment 1 dated March 26, 1986, distributed at the March 27, 1986, BAR. Exhibit 5 86 -7 -DR: Valley View Estates, video of the site as presented at the March 27, 1986 , BAR Exhibit 6 86 -7 -DR: Valley View Estates, shingles and exterior cover samples as presented at the March 27, 1986, BAR. Exhibit 7 Joel Haggard letter dated March 27, 1986, submitted at the March 27, 1986, BAR. Exhibit 8 Resume of Vincent J. Ferrese, AIA, submitted at the March 27, 1986, BAR. Exhibit 9 Resume of James Stewart Van De Vanter, ASLA, submitted at the March 27, 1986, BAR. Exhibit 10- Resume of James W. Macissac, P.E., submitted at the March 27, 1986, BAR. Exhibit 11- Resume of Kurt G. Gahnberg, submitted at the March 27, 1986, BAR. Exhibit 12- Resume of Glenn G. Mckinney, Jr., submitted at the March 27, 1986, BAR. Exhibit 13- Resume of Jack K. Tuttle, submitted at the March 27, 1986, BAR. Exhibit 14- Proponents response to March 27, 1986 Staff Report. Exhibit 15- Revised illustration building elevations. (Board) Exhibit 16- Site Plan with section lines. (Board) Exhibit 17- Section elevation. (Board) Exhibit 18- Revised site plan. (Board) Exhibit 19- Revised landscape plan. (Board) I ' .27 vve. �G �YHlBI!` / 1-6 e /41- ©ve E AS 49A/ TTY+ ) �4 l4ew L .s rs) res r -s A,A,tiTm EST /SS NE NA R trpQE:b /7* a 44y NON / s (s rte /ad /0pA ,Q77r7 Al T Co ii P[ erX � LAA/Ne t 3 Aso vE /Sc/er/4 rAT ah / /i 771E tRri la J /DE AR Sr of J e:ADr" 1414 ''''�� 4Er /17 E 8e/Nb you . up Tv P/17 gm ENeheemmevreA . 1- :10,4tTs ,e l FE J s) I.JAs issue - b 8 y 7 #E ( i + re /t A o ,✓ 3/ JA/v84. ,✓ le l`sikw,Q/1eN 6vss0 W 4-s ns E' PR o Po,/EA+ ; Ai A areo ppe O NT. Aid kJ T'71l pi¢o 'Fiery o wAlE72, R Er V e 7E' 4 . NA/ roArAi C61) A $ T1�E pR,ol &A/e i : . eof 6 r an -RA1 os A laVelt y o uJ,t!t-1 Sue's, D/A-/es' Opt- A4e 04 . . oo ND (.4J /T IS / ____ w/►v / $ fN /N T?/es ,AoAm/ Ow 77•¢04 ?: ) OK AMY 1141/6" ,8e_ x/ /4 -i??' /eS .7TfhsE a /7 /fi t 14/#0 solo/14 /6v oRA-c. OR fie/R/ /N - Pd"7 14.44 1M4 770 / .s "AO e± es s, ZTr /r My 0P/0v/041 . 7769gr rWF FE7,5 Dot. =I m a s A- nEtpuf)7 . /q- aQ 4PCSC /9zc r .4 r,v rose r adAi me* rI t,. /m P1 7 S. ,lecoeD/,v(c y T i9w.D 7 o rteP e sr.z r F ' / L F l ) e / / A et FA) !6e s To ?Wt. /s"D .E.0. / . 0 e d ' i we . F /S . 7 t .y v7 //At U .6774 / e� ml "� I1# F17 17/ ee ee�►/6E3' rn 7 FE/S w. // 'v r 4 .geoete.A/r A p4( $e:/e tl� B 771V /T'y e!t�yo/C� /L ,,,r/L /4-peTs-7L T Jp'6 &mei) p.c 4ReH / reerd e/9L 4v / ( ) Avg - ye e e/s T71 peo 7u 7; .... . I • - TMC 23.4 IQ /17E 77Vd e.f T /ef f/T ./ .27 MNRd P . issu /t 4144,1 4 6 2 o N•77/ - a- ASE 14) A. .Z-T GO-vi e- NP r 46oee r 0 . Eveo.aa4.6 rr �± o cf v A9rTFAJZ .so T A p Ga e! XE "P &AceE 0, - Y 'lePsE F I 1711 /tsar. e0.#2 � 14)e s m[. iiervE NoP9`5 OF .rroPPi Q r7/ /t DEtiezrPm 0%117 ( Sr /t c /�'� D yoaee S upoR7 - 7770- idled /Ie. A - /Y1 g cke- / e-h M M , #6b- TM /4 0 , /1191 216 geredA/ /T /7a7E J e95 A icocftr- 100 /N r' eo4 .. Qa/e 6 poRrs. Ass. w+r Fo.e. /Y10 E DICK o6 0746-03”.- .5-//z. so /61 td PI -re...Kw LA to 11,111 DID YOU KNOW THAT PUGET POWER WANTS TO BECOME AN APARTMENT DEVELOPER? DID YOU KNOW THAT PUGET POWER WANTS TO DEVELOP THEIR FIRST APARTMENT IN OUR SINGLE - FAMILY NEIGHBORHOOD? DID YOU KNOW THAT PUGET POWER IS USING OUR ELECTRIC DOLLARS TO PAY FOR SLICK LAWYERS TO FORCE THIS ON US AND STILL WANTS TO RAISE OUR RATES? 1X4i�fl'cZ DID YOU KNOW THAT THE CITY OF TUKWILA'S PLANNING STAFF RECOMMENDED IN FAVOR OF THE PUGET POWER APARTMENTS EVEN THOUGHT THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT SAID THE APARTMENTS WOULD BE DANGEROUS TO THE RENTERS BECAUSE OF: MUD SLIDES EXTREME FREEWAY NOISE EXTREME FREEWAY AIR POLLUTION DANGEROUS TRAFFIC FOR SCHOOL CHILDREN The TMAC (Tukwila - McMicken Action Committee) officers met with Puget Power representatives and asked them not to ruin our neighborhood. We told them about the over 10 years of work to plan and preserve our single family neighborhood from being squashed between Southcenter and the 99 Strip. They told us about big profits and legal loopholes for developing. ARE YOU ANGRY? YOU SHOULD BE!! You HAVE to go with us to the Board of Architectual Review meeting Thursday night (March 27th at 7:00 PM) at the Tukwila City Hall 'and tell Puget Power that they need to decide whether they are developers or our power company. If you don't come all we worked for will be lost - -and it just isn't right. Puget Power shouldn't be allowed to use a secretive subsidiary to develop apartments' in our neighborhood with our electric dollars!! Dennis Robertson John McFarland Dave Morgan Dick Goe W e. rul.e.Q yovvc htl e . WQ mita i gc,.s, w%o eltv cAvI R vvor kern yov\ CA teltte • Si CI T Y OF TUKWILA PLANNING DIVISION PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT XH roI1 86 -7 -DR: Valley View Estates AGENDA ITEM INTRODUCTION Dr. Herman Allenbach (later replaced by Puget Western, Inc.) applied for a building permit before the 1982 Zoning Code and Map went into effect. That permit is for 108 multiple family units on the 7.08 acre hillside along the north and east side of Slade Way and 53rd Avenue South opposite S. 160th Street. (Exhibit A) Because Dr. Allenbach /Puget Western vested their development rights to the R -1, R -4 and RMH zoning effective prior to the current 1982 version, the building permit is not being reviewed relative to the current R -1 -12 (single family) zoning. That permit necessitated preparation of an environmental impact statement which required, among many mitigation measures, Board of Architecture Review (BAR). FINDINGS 1. Because the applicant vested development rights to the old Zoning Code and map (pre -1982 version) the building permit and BAR review is constrained to the substantive requirements of that Code. The standard of review is the specific development and recreation space regulations of the old Code. However, the vested rights do not include permit processing under the old Code procedures. Instead, the procedure for the BAR contained in new Zoning Code (1982 version) TMC 18.60 is being followed. In other words, this permit must meet old Code development requirements under new Code procedures. 2. Per Tukwila Municipal Code (TMC) 18.60.010, the purpose and objectives of the BAR is to provide for review by public officials of land development and building design in order to promote the public health, safety and welfare. Specifically, the BAR shall encourage well designed developments that are creative and harmonious with the natural and manmade environments. 3. TMC 18.60.050 contains the guidelines the BAR must follow in its decision - making. 4. An environmental impact statement (EIS) issued in January, 1986, identifies the environmental impacts of the proposal. The EIS is available at City Hall for public review. This document lists mitigating measures that will be implemented by the developer and measures that could be used should the city feel they are necessary conditions to mitigate development impacts. Exhibit 86 -7 -DR: Valley View Estates March 27, 1986 Page 2 B summarizes these mitigating measures which mostly pertain to the building permit, not BAR review. However, some of those measures may effect the ulti- mate design of the project and are referenced herein. 5. The development consists of eighteen four -story buildings, each of the same design and containing six units. (Exhibits C and F) Overall density of the project is 15.25 dwelling units per acre which is less than permitted in the vested RMH and R -4 zoning. The southwest corner of the site is zoned R -1 but is not used for density calculations. Surrounding current zoning would permit a maximum of 3.65 units per acre. No transition area of medium density multi- family is proposed between the development and existing single family districts, however, the Southwest corner, a 74,133 square foot area, will remain undeveloped, devoted to either recreation or landscaping. 6. An internal roadway through the site accesses onto Slade Way at the south end of the site and onto 53rd Avenue South at the northwest corner of the site. A separate access off Slade Way with a hammerhead turnaround serves two of the buildings which are located somewhat higher on the hillside. 7. Thirty -two percent of the site will remain in its natural wooded state. Approximately 68 percent of the site will be cleared during construction with considerable cut and fill required to accommodate buildings, parking areas and roadways. The old Code required 1.5 parking stalls for apartments but 2.0 stalls for fourplexes. Possible reduction in the unit count of some of the structures could increase the required number of stalls. It is therefore unclear at this time to determine the number of parking stalls on site. Dimensional requirements of the old Code will also have to be met. 8. The roofline of building 18 is at an approximate elevation of 210.5, 53rd Avenue South street elevation west of the structure is 198. Structures 1 and 2 have a roofline elevation of approximately 255 while the adjacent right -of- way, Slade Way has a street elevation of 258. 9. The geotechnical study determined that development of the project was feasible if appropriate measures were undertaken of which the most important is to assure the operational effectiveness of the Department of Transportation (DOT) facilities, thereby promoting hillside stability. A topography of the area is shown on Exhibit H. 10. Noise levels on site will reach significant adverse levels per EPA standards. With windows open, day -night noise levels inside the units will far exceed the standard EPA considers acceptable, however, with windows shut, noise levels inside will generally be within EPA's recommended standard. 11. The environmental impact statement identified unavoidable impacts that will result because of the project. Unavoidable adverse impacts on the surrounding single family neighborhood that the following impacts are most closely asso- ciated with the surrounding single family neighborhood: 86 -7 -DR: Valley View Estates March 27, 1986 Page 3 a. An undeveloped wooded hillside would be converted to a multi - family housing development with associated parking areas and road surfaces. b. The project would differ substantially in scale, density, and character from that of the surrounding neighborhood. c. Residents in the area would feel a loss in the quality and cohesion of their neighborhood. d. The project would generate increased traffic through residential neigh- borhoods west of the site. Other unavoidable adverse impacts to the physical and human environment are contained in Exhibit I. 12. Per TMC 18.60.200 (old code), a minimum of 21,600 square feet of recreation space must be provided, including a childrens' area of 5,400- 10,800 square feet. The recreation area may not include required setback areas and no more than 50 percent of the total requirement may be on slopes greater than twenty - five (25) percent. The proposal includes a 6,175 square foot childrens' play area located in the southwest portion of the site. The remaining recreation space is shown between and behind structures 3 -18. Documentation of the suitability and stability of the current location and minimum area of the childrens' play site will be required. Relocation may occur, which may A relocation may substantially effect the site plan. Staff prepared Exhibit K to show the recreation space provided on site. The applicant appears to be able to meet the minimum recreation space requirements, even if possible relo- cation occurs. CONCLUSIONS 1. TMC 18.60.050(1): Relationship of Structure to Site. A) The site should be planned to accomplish a desirable transition with the streetscape and to provide for adequate landscaping and pedestrian move- ment. Sixteen (16) structures are arranged linearly along the western half of the site, generally following the topography. The remaining two struc- tures are located south of and above the elevations of the other struc- tures. Existing vegetation is retained between the street and structures and additional landscaping is shown on the landscape plan. However, addi- tional evergreen shrubbery a minimum of four (4) feet in height should be required to screen the parking areas from adjacent rights -of -way and residential properties. Development of the site will require installation of standard sidewalks along Slade Way and 53rd Avenue South. 86 -7 -DR: Valley View Estates March 27, 1986 Page 4 Pedestrian movement on site should be facilitated by extending internal walkways to streets as well as along the entire length of the easterly 16 units. The project site consists of portions of several lots, but a majority of the development will occur in concentrated areas. Because the entirety of the site is integral to the site's development, the subject property should be consolidated into one lot of record. One lot of record would preclude any future sales or easements of undeveloped portions of the site such as the R -1 parcel in the southwest corner. B) Parking and service areas should be located, designed, and screened to moderate visual impact of large paved areas. At a maximum, every eleven parking stalls arranged linearly is broken up with landscaped fingerlings. Trash containers are enclosed in concrete with painted steel gates, but have not been located on the landscape plan. These enclosures should be shown on the landscape plan to indicate landscape treatment. A trash container is not shown for units 1 and 2 and should be indicated and screened to moderate its impact. C) The height and scale of each building should be considered in relation to the site. The average height of the structures will be thirty -five (35) feet, thirty (30) feet is the permitted height in the surrounding neighborhood. Units 3 -10 (R -4 zone) must be reduced in height to the required maximum three (3) stories. The four story easterly building elevation of struc- tures 3 -16 face facing opposite and is too large and out of scale with views of the site from the east. This face should be screened by vegeta- tion. 2. TMC 18.60.050(2): Relationship of Structure and Site to Adjoining Area. A) Harmony in texture, lines and masses. The structures are a conventional design and constructed of primarily wood siding, stucco and composite shingles, and traditional materials. The number of structures and subsequent mass of development is not har- monious with surrounding areas. The majority of the single family homes are located above the parcel on other residential streets. However, con- sideration should be given of views of the proposal from the easterly valley floor and northeasterly hillside. Four story elevations face to the east, which is out of character with the neighborhood. Two story elevations face to the west. Each elevation features stucco around the top story and wood siding around the lower stories, which appears in disharmony. Wood siding should be exclusively used. The two story building elevations are stark 86 -7 -DR: Valley View Estates March 27, 1986 Page 5 in appearance compared to the other elevations. This should be resolved with additional architectural treatment. B) Appropriate landscape transition to adjoining properties should be provided. The landscape plan shows dense evergreen landscape shrubs along the southwest and west property lines. Along the property line adjacent to the S. 160th and 53rd intersection, a row of evergreen trees will be planted to provide a screen. Additional evergreen shrubbery should be shown to screen the parking area in this location from the adjacent rights -of -way. 1 -5 along the east property line creates noise levels which exceed the level which the EPA considers to be environmentally significant and adverse. The open areas surrounding the units are designed for recreation space. A noise barrier may be required by the Building Official to reduce exterior noise levels to a maximum level that EPA finds acceptable for public health, safety, and welfare. A solid wall would provide noise attenuation for the site. Views of the wall from the site would be screened with the evergreen shrubbery shown on the landscaping plan. Views of the site and the wall from the east should not be adversely impacted because of the vegetation in the I -5 right -of -way. C) Compatibility of vehicular pedestrian circulation patterns and loading facilities in terms of safety, efficiency and convenience should be encouraged. The length of the internal driveway, approximately 1,050 feet, permits speeds which could be dangerous. Several curves in the length of the drive would tend to restrict speed; however, speed bumps would be appropriate to discourage excessive speeds. The childrens' play area is located on the opposite side of the driveway from the majority of the structures. Where the path to that area intersects with the driveway, a painted crosswalk is necessary for safety of the children. Internal walkways should be extended to public rights -of -way and sidewalks. This is critical at the north access point of the site due to the proximity of the westerly Crystal Springs Park and the school and transit bus stops located on 53rd and at the intersection of 51st Avenue and 160th Street. D) Compatibility of on -site vehicular circulation with street circulation should be encouraged. The driveways are located at least one hundred fifty (150) feet away from the nearest intersection. Because of the projected amount of traffic and the slopes of nine to twelve percent on 53rd Avenue, a level platform 86 -7 -OR: Valley View Estates March 27, 1986 Page 6 extending thirty feet beyond the driveway stop line is appropriate to enhance the visibility of drivers exiting the project. 3. TMC 18.60.050(3): Landscape and Site Treatment. A) Where existing topographic patterns contribute to beauty and utility of a development, they should be recognized preserved and enhanced. The dominant steep slope of the site is used to visually separate the development from westerly adjoining properties along 53rd Avenue and Slade Way. Existing vegetation will also contribute to the beauty of the site and maintain a separation from adjacent uses. The 6,175 square foot childrens' sand pit play area is bordered by a concrete edge which should be approximately one (1) foot to one and a half (1i) feet high to provide seating. The steep slopes in the play area require documentation from the applicant that the site is a feasible location for the use. B) Grades of walks, parking spaces, terraces, and other paved areas should promote safety and provide an inviting and stable appearance. Grades of parking stalls and along the length of the drive are within acceptable standards. The approximate twenty -three (23) percent ascent to the childrens' play area is unacceptable. A switchback in the trail with steps or relocation of the play area are necessary. is appropriate. A secondary trail from structures 1 and 2 should also be constructed. C) Landscape treatment should enhance architectural features, strengthen vistas and important axes, and provide shade. While the site has good views of the Green River Valley, it is signifi- cantly impacted by noise from I -5. In order to mitigate this noise, fencing and /or landscaping may be required by the Building Official. The use of landscaping is not effective in a limited amount but will provide a natural screen for any fencing that may be required. The use of one large shade tree species along the internal driveway can create and enhance this important axes through the site. The use of low growing evergreen shrubs planted along some of the westerly front of the structures should be similarly used by units 4, 5, 7, 8, 12 and 16. D) In locations where plants will be susceptible to injury by pedestrian or motor traffic, mitigating steps should be taken. The site's paved areas are curbed and sufficient use of walkways should prevent pedestrian damage to the landscaping. 86 -7 -DR: Valley View Estates March 27, 1986 Page 7 E) Where building sites limit planting, the placement of trees or shrubs in paved areas is encouraged. Approximately thirty -two (32) percent of the site's existing vegetation will be retained. This vegetation, proposed evergreen trees, and recom- mended additional evergreen shrubbery will provide maximum screening of the site's paved areas. Fingerlings planted with large deciduous shade trees will supplement existing and proposed landscaping and create addi- tional screening when viewed from above or below the site. F) Screening of service yards, and other places which tend to be unsightly, should be accomplished by use of walls, fencing, planting or a com- bination of these. Screening should be effective in winter and summer. The concrete dumpster enclosures are not landscaped. Landscaping should be installed to screen and soften their utilitarian appearance. G) In areas where general planting will not prosper, other materials such as fences, walls, and pavings of wood, brick, stone, or gravel may be used. Planting, as shown and recommended, should prosper. H) Exterior lighting, when used, should enhance the building design and the adjoining landscape. Lighting standards and fixtures should be of a design and size compatible with the building and adjacent area. Lighting should be shielded, and restrained in design. Excessive brightness and brilliant colors should be avoided. (Exhibit L) The light standards are approximately eighteen (18) feet in height with a twenty (20) foot illumination spread from the pole. The fixture's finish is baked enamel in semi -gloss black, dark bronze, or natural aluminum. Lighting of the buildings and their entrances is not shown and should be indicated on the elevation to demonstrate compatibility with building design and sufficient lighting for recessed and side unit entrances. 4. TMC 18.60.050(4): Building Design. A) Architectural style is not restricted, evaluation of a project should be based on quality of its design and relationship to surroundings. The overall design quality of the structures is interesting and provides visually pleasing detail and adequate fenestration. Possible deck enclo- sures as a noise mitigation measure could change the design of these ele- vatons. An additional building design change which may be required to mitigate the adverse noise levels is to use glass enclosures for the decks. The entry westerly elevation, however, is utilitarian and unin- teresting and will be the focal point for residents of the development and the residents of the uphill, westerly single family homes. The use 86 -7 -DR: Valley View Estates March 27, 1986 Page 8 of stucco for the top story appears unnecessary and not integrated with the use of wood siding for the lower stories. The view of the east elevations from I -5 present the multi- tiered four story maximum unit view of the development. Because of the significant noise levels on the site, the buildings may be required to provide forced air ventilation systems so that windows may be kept closed and interior noise levels maintained at acceptable levels. This requirement should not affect the building's design. The floor plan shows that the bedrooms, except on the ground floors, are located in the west half of the units. (Exhibit G) The ground floor bedrooms face I -5, but can most likely benefit from noise attenuation from a solid fence, which may be required. fencing or landscape screening which may be required. The height of structures 3 -10 (in the R -4 zone), must be reduced one story to a maximum of three (3) stories to meet the (old) code require- ment. The structures must also setback twenty -five feet from the rear property line which should not substantially change the site plan. B) Buildings should be to appropriate scale and be in harmony with permanent neighboring developments. The buildings exceed the scale of the existing surrounding single family neighborhood to the south, west, and north. The site is located along the edge and at the entrance to the single family neighborhood. The pro- perty owner has established a vested right in multiple family zoning, but the BAR standard of review must be met. The use of topography, existing vegetation, proposed landscaping and design of the site can be used to minimize the incompatibilites between the two uses. C) Building components, such as windows, doors, eaves, and parapets, should have good proportions and relationship to one other. Building components and ancillary parts shall be consistent with anticipated life of the structure. The building components, except for the westerly front elevations, seem well proportioned and relate well to one another. The entry elevations present a flat and barren appearance. The fenestration appears minimal and the entries uninviting. Greater detailing and /or improved fenestra- tion is required to create a visually interesting facade. Because of -the number of identical structures in the development, and the number of units in each structure, a readable system of unit identification is necessary. The proposed numbering system is an important design element. Both the numbering and lighting elements should be shown prior to final approval. 0) Colors should be harmonious, with bright or brilliant colors used only for accent. 86 -7 -DR: Valley View Estates March 27, 1986 Page 9 The basic color scheme is muted beige to grey tones with subdued green to blue colored trim as accent colors. The cream colored stucco upper story material does not blend well and breaks down the harmony of the design. Revised elevations should be submitted prior to final approval or wood siding should be used exclusively. E) Mechanical equipment or other utility hardware on roof, ground or buildings should be screened from view. Accessory equipment such as utility meters and community mailboxes are not shown. Mechanical equipment would not be approved on the roofs of the structures due to the view impacts. Revisions should indicate any mechanical equipment and /or and their incorporation into the site and landscape plan. F) Exterior lighting should be part of the architectural concept. Fixtures, standards and all exposed accessories should be harmonious with building design. The proposed driveway light standard looks universal and is not har- monious with the building design or color scheme. Structural lighting and its relation to building design is also not indicated. A revised driveway standard and structural lighting should be submitted for appro- val by staff. G) Monotony of design in single or multiple building projects should be avoided. Variety of detail, form, and siting should be used to provide visual interest. Eighteen (18) identical structures are proposed, of which sixteen (16) will be located in a line somewhat broken between structures 9 and 10. Height restrictions in the R -4 zone may cause a variation is design for some of the R -4 structures. Topography of the parcel restricts variety in siting; however, different color and landscaping schemes are used to effectively break the monotony. 5. TMC 18.60.050(5): Miscellaneous Structures and Street Furniture. A) Miscellaneous structures and street furniture should be designed to be part of the architectural concept of design and landscape. Materials should be compatible with building, scale should be appropriate, colors should be in harmony with buildings and surroundings, and proportions should be to scale. B) Lighting in connection with miscellaneous structures and street furniture should meet the guidelines applicable to site, landscape and buildings. Treatment of the concrete enclosures for the trash receptacles is not adequate. The concrete should be painted with a complementary or dupli- cate color of the structures and then screened with landscaping. 86 -7 -DR: Valley View Estates March 27, 1986 Page 10 RECOMMENDATION The staff recommends that the BAR preliminarily approve the proposed project subject to final BAR approval of the following revisions: 1. Additional evergreen shrub screening of parking areas from adjacent properties and public rights -of -way. 2. Additional pedestrian walkways on site indicated in the staff report. 3. Signage, speed bumps, and crosswalks along internal driveway. 4. Consolidation of separate lots into one lot. 5. Level driveway platform extending thirty (30) feet beyond driveway at 53rd Avenue. 6. Pathways to play area should be designed to minimize grades in excess of 15% and should provide access from structures 1 and 2. 7. Low individual landscaping schemes in front of all structures to enhance architectural features and create diversity. 8. Locate an additional service area for structures 1 and 2 and incorporate all dumpster locations into landscape plan. 9. Parking lighting standard building accent lighting, and structure identification schemes that relate and enhance the overall design of the structures and provide sufficient and safe illumination. 10. Revised elevations substituting wood siding throughout. 11. Revised entry elevation to a more aesthetically pleasing facade. EXHIBITS The play area, by Landscape Structures, will include a climbing struc- ture, post maze, horizontal ladder, platform structure, slide, spring platform, and sand box. The concrete edge encircling the sand pit should be a minimum height and depth to provide space for seating. Lighting has not been shown in relation to these miscellaneous structures. A. Vicinity Map B. Mitigating Measure C. Site Plan (PC.VALLEY /50) 86 -7 -DR: Valley View Estates March 27, 1986 Page 11 D. Landscape Plan E. Cross Section F. Elevations G. Floor Plans H. Topography Map I. Unavoidable Adverse Impacts K. Recreation Computation L. Light Standard "• ,,,,,, 163R0 /64TN Szz158THz-• fkr" 0 ipo , :z wert=405 ..... •-• Sr8 DER. LLJ la - "Urn 44 EXHIBIT A --• 775115 5 D. Summary of Mitigating Measures Note: When the Final EIS states that mitigating measures "will" or "shall" be undertaken, such measures are already planned as part of the proposal or have been committed to by the project sponsor. The word "may ", "could ", or similar language is used to indicate that the City in its discretion, and in conformance with SEPA, will consider these addi- tional mitigating measures as possible conditions of building permit issuance. In some cases, where numerous mitigation measures are discussed (e.g., Noise Mitigation), they have been grouped to distinguish those currently proposed by the applicant from those the'City will consider as possible additional conditions of permit issuance. Earth All recommendations contained within the geotechnical report*(Appendix A) will be complied with by the project sponsor. Mitigating measures and recommendations include, but are not limited to, those summarized below: ° Normal monitoring and maintenance of the existing deep drainage facili- ties on the I -5 right -of -way shall be performed by the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT). The Department of Transportation is also responsible for replacement of drainage systems that are ino- perative or worn out within their right -of -way. WSDOT has not been maintaining the vertical wells per se, but they are flushing the hori- zontal drains that tap into the vertical wells. Based on existing data, it appears that the majority of the vertical wells and /or hori- zontal drains are blocked to some degree. The existing drainage systems are considered critical to maintaining deep- seated slope stabi- lity above the adjacent roadways. The existing WSDOT drainage system is assessed by the geotechnical consultants as still effective in main- taining water levels low enough for adequate deep- seated slope stabi- lity on the project site. ° As a condition of grading and building permit issuance, the City of Tukwila could require that formal agreements be reached between the developer and the State of Washington regarding long -term commitments for adequate monitoring, maintenance and implementation of any remedial �� EXHIBIT B measures necessary to maintain the stability of both the project site and the WSDOT right -of -way. These detailed agreements will list each parties' responsibility for monitoring and maintenance of the various f acil.ities and shall include contingency plans for implementation of any required remedial measures.. o Slope movement and ground -water levels shall be monitored by means of an instrumentation program which will be maintained throughout the construction phase and during the entire life of the project. A detailed action plan shall be prepared and promptly implemented in the event of significant changes in water levels or indications of slope movement. The geotechnical consultants shall be retained to provide or direct long -term monitoring and data interpretation, evaluate the per- formance of the hillside and recommend what, if any, remedial measures may be appropriate. • As a condition of building permit issuance, the developer and project owners may be required by the City to post three bonds. One bond could make funds available to restore the existing environment and sta- bility of the hillside in the event that, during construction, the pro- ject is determined by the developer to be unfeasible for any reason. The second bond could make funds available to adjacent property owners to compensate for damages caused directly from any earth movement on the site at any time during the life of the proposed development. The third bond could make funds available, as required, to ensure that the geotechnical consultant is retained to provide or direct the slope instrumentation /monitoring program during the life of the project and for implementation of any remedial measures required to maintain the stability of the project area. o The contractor shall comply with the geotechnical engineer's general sequence for site development. Site grading shall be undertaken during the late summer - early fall months when the least amounts of rainfall can be expected and surface runoff and seepage from springs should be somewhat diminished. o Individual structure grading shall be performed on an alternating basis, with the number of sites prepared limited to the number for which foundation, retaining wall construction and backfilling can be completed during the dry season. Construction shall be scheduled so that site grading, drainage installation, and surface stabilization are completed in any given area within a single construction season. o All permanent cuts steeper than 3:1 horizontal to vertical (33 percent) shall be supported by retaining structures constructed and backfilled per specifications of the geotechnical report. o Except for localized areas near the existing gully, general fill placed on the site shall not extend above the original ground surface. Temporary stockpiles, if any, shall be placed at the north end of the site and shall be limited to minimize potential impacts on slope stabi- lity and erosion. 12 o The existing 12 -inch sewer line will be realigned so as not to be located below any building structures. o Building foundations, retaining walls, and associated drains shall be constructed per specifications of the geotechnical report. o See related Mitigating Measures listed under "Geology and Soils ", and "Ground Water Movement, Quantity, Quality," in Chapter III. o City of Tukwila requirements for grading and excavation will be followed to minimize or avoid erosion. o Plastic sheets and mulch will be used on portions of the exposed soil areas during construction to minimize erosion. o Landscaping shall be installed as soon as possible subsequent to completion of construction and shall include plants suitable for the stabilization of the surface of steep slopes. o Collection of seepage and springs will be done prior to and during construction to minimize surface flow that could cause erosion. Onsite horizontal drains will be located and connected to the site drainage facilities. o See related Mitigating Measures listed under "Erosion ", and "Surface Water Movement, Quantity, Quality, Runoff /Absorption ", in Chapter III. Air • Measures to control dust during construction, such as watering exposed areas and cleaning and sweeping of streets at the end of hauling acti- vities, will be performed by the contractor as necessary. o Low - emission construction equipment could be used whenever feasible. • Unnecessary motor vehicle engine idling during construction could be prevented by shutting off engines when not in use. Water 13 o A stormwater system designed in accordance with City of Tukwila requirements and the recommendations and requirements detailed in the geotechnical report is proposed to be installed. The City of Tukwila must approve stormwater drainage plans prior to issuance of the building permit. • Changes in potential peak storm water runoff rate may be controlled by a drainage retention and runoff control system; as an alternative, drainage facilities may be designed for direct discharge into the storm drainage system for conveyance and discharge into the Green River. o If a stormwater detention system is selected, it will be designed for a 10 -year storm and be capable of detaining 2,480 cubic feet of water. Detention for a 10 -year storm is normally required by the City of Tukwila. Stormwater would be stored in underground storage pipes. The detention system would also have an emergency overflow. The proposed stormwater collection and detention system would reduce the potential for adverse off -•ite impacts from runoff by controlling the rate of release to that hich occurs under existing conditions. The length of time over which peak discharge would occur would be prolonged. • A portion of th • If direct disch rge of stormwater is incorporated into the drainage plans (no on -sit detention), stormwater would flow to the Green River through a series of downslope pipes and open channels. This would eli- minate the pote tial for leakage from the detention structures and reduce the level of excavation and disturbance of the hillside. Upgrading of of site drainage facilities would be provided where required to prevent adverse effects on these facilities. o All required to porary sedimentation and control facilities will be constructed and in operation prior to earthwork, building construction, and paving. • Catch basins and oil /water separators are proposed within the on -site drainage collection system to separate sediments and petroleum residues from stormwater. On -site detention and the outlet control structure would further al ow for separation of these pollutants from stormwater before release f om the site. o Prior to site cl toe of the road recommended in t plan. o Temporary draina diately followin aring, an interceptor trench will be installed at the ay fill along the western boundary of the site as e geotechnical report and as shown on the site utility e ditches will be installed to collect runoff imme- site clearing and grubbing. existing perforated storm system (D -3 drain) will be abandoned and r °placed by the contractor /developer with a new storm line to handle off -site runoff as shown on the site utility plan. The existing storm line that is above ground and leaking will be repaired. The Washington State Department of Transportation will review and approve plans for such improvements. ° Existing on -site horizontal drains shall be located and flows shall be collected and di ected into the site drainage control systems. ° Site drainage s stems will be designed to eliminate or minimize the opportunity for ground water recharge, including lining surface drains to prevent infiltration and constructing subsurface drains to minimize the potential fo leakage or breaks. o Permanent Frenc drains will be installed along the upslope sides of all parking are s, in the west trenching gully that crosses the site, and in any wet a eas along the west side of the building units. 14 o Foundation and retaining wall drains will be installed and connected to drainage systems along the east property line so the flow can be pro- perly disposed of off the site. o Temporary, stormwater management and erosion control measures will be utilized during construction. Where possible, natural vegetation for silt control shall be maintained. Proposed interim drainage and ero- sion control measures include placing straw bales in drainage ditches and swales, directing runoff toward temporary siltation ponds, seeding and placing jute matting. • All temporary siltation ponds and other drainage and erosion control measures shall be maintained in a satisfactory condition until such time as cleaning and /or construction is completed and permanent drainage facilities are operational. o The contractor /developer will have maintenance responsibility for the drainage control facilities during construction. The property owner(s) should be required to assume long -term maintenance responsibility for these facilities after completion of the development. Catch basins and oil /water separators should be cleaned frequently and properly main- tained to assure maximum attainable pollution separation. o Cleaning of streets and parking areas shall be undertaken whenever necessary during construction by the contractor /developer. o See related Mitigating Measures listed under "Geology and Soils," regarding cleaning, flushing and regular maintenance of existing WSOOT drainage facilities. 0 See related Mitigating Measures listed under "Surface Water Movement, Quantity, Quality, Runoff /Absorption," in Section III, regarding sur- face drainage and stormwater detention facilities. Flora o Approximately 2.3 acres, or 32% of the site, will remain in its natural state, including the southwestern portion of the site. Disturbed areas not proposed for landscaping will be treated for erosion control by seeding with clover and rye or ivy. • Ornamental vegetation will include sycamores along Slade Way and along the perimeter of the parking lot. Vine maple and flowering cherry will be interspersed among the buildings. Additional plant materials will include platinia, rhododendron, mahonia, vibrunum Davidi, ivy and lawn. The proposed landscape plan will be subject to approval by the Board of Architectural Review. 15 Fauna o Approximately 2.3 acres or 32% of the site will remain in its natural state. Noise Proposed Mitigating Measures (i.e., currently committed by the pro -ject sponsor): • The use of glass windows and doors with an acoustical performance at least 5dBA better than conventional thermal insulated windows will be used on the north, south and east facing sides of the buildings to attain an exterior -to- interior noise reduction of 30 dBA throughout the project (5dBA better than conventional construction). The windows will have a minimum overall outside thickness of one inch and will be set in resilient gaskets. Operable windows and exterior doors (including glass doors) will be hinged rather than sliding, and will have resi- lient seals. In addition, exterior doors will have automatic threshold drops or compressible neoprene threshold seals. Detailed specifica- tions for these windows and doors are described in Appendix B. This mitigation measure will bring interior noise levels to an Ld of 38 on the south part of the site and 42 on the north part of the site, which is generally acceptable interior Ld based on EPA's Guidelines. Maximum noise levels at night would be reduced to 47 dBA at both loca- tions, which is less than the 50 dBA nighttime maximum threshold beyond which the probability of sleep interference is over 50 %. • Proposed construction materials will generally include double wall construction and one -half inch gypsum wallboards, R -11 fiberglass bat insulation and double glazed aluminum windows. These materials will help attain the noise reductions referenced above but will not provide additional attenuation beyond the proposed 30 dBA reduction. • The location of the proposed children's play area in the southwest corner of the property will reduce noise levels at that location by about 3 dBA. Fencing would still be needed to reduce noise levels to an Ld of 55 dBA or less which is the minimum level for avoiding speech interference and annoyance outdoors. • Construction will not occur before 7:00 a.m. on weekdays and 9:00 a.m. on weekends, or after 10:00 p.m., to prevent state noise code viola- tions. In addition, any diesel or gasoline power equipment used at the site will be required to have a proper muffler that is in good con- dition. Potential Mitigating Measures (not currently proposed by the applicant; possible conditions of building permit issuance): • Forced -air ventilation could be required, especially in bedrooms, so that windows could be kept closed and noise levels maintained at accep- table levels. (With windows open, interior noise levels are 10 -15 dBA higher than when windows are closed.) 16 o Additional exterior spaces, such as the proposed recreation areas, could be enclosed by noise barriers to reduce exterior Ld below the level where EPA indicates that significant adverse noise impacts occur. The acoustic barriers could be constructed of wood with a minimum thickness of 3/4 inch. Plywood, or board and batten construction would be acoustically acceptable. Such barriers would have no gaps or ope- nings, including the base. These barriers would have the disadvantage of blocking views from the site. o Noise levels on the outdoor decks could be reduced by about 5 dBA by using a solid barrier around the deck of the material described above. The barrier would need to be high enough to block views from the freeway from a typical user location (presumably seated), but would not need to be so high that it blocked views of the valley and mountains to the east. o East - facing decks could be glass enclosed, to effectively provide double windows between the outside and inside of the residential units. If this construction were used, the one -inch window thickness proposed for exterior windows would not be necessary for the exterior or interior windows of the deck area. Light and Glare • Parking lot lighting will be directed so that no direct light spills off site. o Exterior light fixtures will be selected which do not project light above 20 feet in height. o Perimeter landscaping will reduce light spillage. Land Use • The buildings will be sited along the east half of the property which provides a 50 to 30 foot topographic separation from 53rd Avenue South. (Existing houses west of the site are a minimum of 20 feet above the roof peaks of proposed buildings.) • The site plan provides a landscaped buffer along the western edge of the property partially screening the housing from commuters on Slade Way and 53rd Avenue South and from residences in the McMicken Heights vicinity. • (See Land Use Mitigation) Housing Transportation /Circulation • A left -turn lane for westbound -to- southbound left -turns from Klickitat Drive to 53rd Avenue South will be provided to eliminate conflicts bet- ween left- turning traffic and westbound through traffic. 17 o Roadway shoulders on S. 160th Street between the project site and 51st Avenue South could be widened to a minimum of four feet to facilitate safe pedestrian access (particularly for school children) to 51st Avenue South. o Project driveway locations will be located at least 150 feet away from the nearest intersection as per the proposed site plan. o The developer will work with Metro Transit to ensure a safe, convenient bus stop location for project transit patrons adjacent to the site. • By City Ordinance, sidewalks will be required along the perimeter of the project site adjacent to public roadways, i.e., along Slade Way and 53rd Avenue South adjacent to the development. o A gravel path or sidewalk could be provided along the east edge of the on -site circulation aisle with a crosswalk installed at the north entrance to the primary parking area to ensure that school children and other pedestrians can walk through the site separated from project traffic. o Speed bumps could be installed within the on -site circulation aisle (no closer than every 200 feet) to control traffic speeds on -site. o The project driveway onto 53rd Avenue South could be designed to include a level platform extending 30 feet beyond the driveway stop line to enhance visibility of oncoming traffic for drivers exiting the project. o Parking spaces in excess of City requirements will be provided on site for 20 vehicles to accommodate frequent parking demand conditions in excess of 1.5 spaces per dwelling unit. o Assignment of parking spaces to specific residential units could be prohibited so as to assure the flexibility needed to accommodate fluc- tuating demands in the primary parking areas. • Parking of recreational vehicles or trailers on site could be prohi- bited to ensure that residential and visitor parking flexibility is maintained. This restriction could be assured through condominium covenants. Fire Service o une approved fire extinguisher will oe provided in each unit and smoke detectors will be installed per the Uniform Building Code Section 1210. • A 2U -foot wide unobstructed driving lane with a 35 -foot turning radius will be required through the site. o Protective curbs or guard posts for all sprinkler valves, hydrants, gas meters and transformers will be provided. 18 0 Certain driving and parking areas could be declared "fire lane - no parking" areas per Ordinance 1110. Police Service • A close working relationship between the developers and the Police Department's crime prevention officer will be maintained throughout the planning and building phases of this project to minimize crime and per- sonal safety risks potentially associated with the project. O Adequate parking on -site will minimize problems associated with off - street parking, such as vehicle and pedestrian accidents, auto thefts and car prowl incidents. Parks and Recreation • A 6,175 square foot children's play area will be provided including an open play area, sand box, and other play equipment. O A minimum of 200 square feet of recreation area per dwelling unit will be provided, in addition to all other requirements of Section 18.60.200 of the Zoning Code, "Recreation Space in Multi - family Districts." Maintenance O Formal agreements could be required between the developer and the State of Washington regarding long -term commitments for monitoring, main- tenance and repair of the WSDOT drainage systems and all storm water and drainage facilities that could potentially adversely affect the stability of the project area for the life of the project. • The geotechnical engineer shall be retained to provide or direct long- term monitoring and maintenance of instrumentation installed to eva- luate the stability of the project site for the life of the project. • The developer and the property owner(s) could be responsible for main- tenance of all onsite drainage and erosion control facilities. • Runoff at the north side of the site will be controlled so as not to adversely affect the City of Seattle's 60 -inch water line. O The contractor will ensure that trucks carrying excavation loads are covered with canvas or tarps if necessary for dust control. O The developer will provide street and ditch cleaning during construc- tion as necessary. Energy • Double- glazed aluminum windows and R -11 fiberglass insulation will be utilized (see Noise mitigating measures). Insulated walls, floors, roof and glass could be used throughout all structures. 19 o An energy analysis of building design elements could be undertaken to assess the feasibility of reducing long -term demand, e.g., passive solar energy systems. ° (See Water Section) Communications /Telephone o All telephone lines will be installed underground. o Installation of telephone lines will be coordinated with installation of electrical lines. Water Service o Installation of water restrictive fixtures and devices such as flow restrictors in new dwelling units could reduce water consumption, if such measures are determined necessary or desirable. Sewer o The existing 12 -inch sewer line on the site will be relocated to avoid having buildings constructed atop it. Relocation of the line would significantly improve access for future maintenance and would minimize the likelihood of a break in the line going undetected or unrepaired for a period of time, thereby contributing to a potential soils loading problem. • If water use were reduced by residents implementing water - saving measures in their homes, the volume of sewage that would be discharged from the project would be reduced. Stormwater Aesthetics o Existing vegetation will be maintained to the extent possible along the eastern portion of the site. o Ornamental vegetation include sycamores along Slade Way and along the perimeter of the parking lot. Vine maple and flowering cherry would be interspersed among the buildings. Other plant materials would include platinia, rhododendron, mahonia, vibrunum Davidi, ivy and lawn. o The Landscape Plan, which is subject to approval of the Board of Architectural Review, could include plant materials similar in character to existing vegetation on the site. Human Health o Please refer to the mitigating measures listed under Noise and Air above. 20 We "I 4.11 MO- JO OPIO.V . SIPS-41 a.y� :OAP C14 ;or t1Tr•57:00t:• (tile -31M in..i••p 3./ ..a • • 2OO._ x9 530 CO 131%• S %Vr•a g N 2111111 • ■ WNMN • •1IIf1Y L� J 4- L J 4- 4- r 0 1181HX3 Ca" *was acne —,� ^o..v,:G ^•c.t.i':.•� van a r4r il( •• .•d I. • VI IV Ort• (V •1 1.•111. (. nftO jL °rg•fy •vl ..•. a nru.1 . am M /i well I WO" SOO OSIC.1 as re►•'►ir sop Span e Wry • •.4'ai •.� 0 • MPS per Wry" % t ti r••r 41 eal lartdo on "gar Sri v„• zitr ' n Tya •1•114.Ey •en n..lnnY • Tat v... • n......ra POMMY N v OAS 1 VYY t•■••••••t - 1 ••0 Psi >M• 1 • i • • •.l_ G .1 ♦Or a ao •• MaE Q!i (.011•••.1 901 (.e•rA+os • +ve/s•ii.apgrO Llf (..riallw.. am/So i •a marl 10 /.4121 I& 00401 11 _ 00 1. 0 IL OS Or 0111 pt. Cm iy• , 91 .M.V ••r•r 70•1•••)E r n•■•e es Du+ i 4 ow" •• y I°t 4/. ...JO r.t S>or /.!. ea• w.."" .J .b.:7► QO ��LON 1-Na FrftlarMlI SKI I•.oLL><W (1'!.►./O am ) aay.W �.11i.•O --_ .n ....own r • ^ .44.44•1•1 ••n..• w 44.313 .I .. �. •W w •1 w =pips "Pim •w.w . •.•« •a w w PIM •.I • w w .w ww • •y•• w w•.■ w «.« my 1111.. _ ' an ±Few• .� ^ �y . op w .•« ••••« •••w w w1I w ■.�« . T I.p •1 •w w1 •r ....11..11. w.1 . 71 11• . •. .N..1.1t . 1111. a• 1111....• ....new ��.11 . n w•` w••• Pampa • _ • ••l_ . 14 ' ~..•••••l l i•.•... T !• ...spa I n 11^11.• w .. •1111•«.•1 11 . 1111« •..1111.. •••w.... • •.. • +w •. •g •l •n ••••••• n . PPP.. a •..w ..w U 4 7••.• . PP..* 11 O.�' -Nola . t•••• .w•«N iirl•• 44.11..• •` •w1. • pea M A7 w 14 404•4•44. 4111/0 w •. 11M.. .w 11 • 11 �•. 4 wog •• r j v l , ►�� rr i - l+. 1 �► (L•yi t. inaftl..0. fro Watt, aw ,L ...LOW %111. c•.••• a•c :WO 1 IL7 a— • P •fa agl u •14 - — 74 (.a.Ivra•a1v m OS • QF1(YT!ie•ns 1 . w. • =•f • r •. ••• • TR.1iJtt1 .. n A000 •• c•u(rwa •..Cf O ■O .O ■O 1 ■O 1 ■ t u �S ■CAL• 1• • 10 VICINITY MAP r- n • Mwr./•.w PLANT f ♦ t' .. 'u • J ••■44.6.2 • •••• C.aG.JA'JH . •'r M .•.f. • •-••• I•JILA .A•A:KG •.17...2‘ ...0. •t{! • ••t&'.5 •w.DI.IS.S / J •a71J7 __4•_ p n qJS ".EE. • area •.4l . ' A C7 MAO ► • • .at.J.K A[aaluou'JH :au7•J 'LAOS. �JL Coy ce &4 • • ,ca'A • AI Y7 cl�wt • flfJO•A 12 WW." cars* J 4av� . c ., JS .:t'we St -O NE.L •fib ' r& • IaJJ'J■ W�r10.Z_LA wu•w,JA •. L••ftaY ZOfJS•A POMMY %1C..7e1. UAs. • - -C - • • •..."1,• .•••JK! •••7':W A•6. CA.Itea.ILA .P4 Rs M•1 •, 1STLe •a Alri _Ja' A•11(i • 't.•T.r CL LAJalL s°►�N6 se .� •••••• •.*_ W WI!) .. •••vu *Ma, GR AAID i •— • M •••••■• %AA. •s ,aa •• •••■•■ .e'rt a •'..- a•AJ S1 •M • l D • •••• PJ•.. TO •••t 0-M2es 1••10 •i o.c MAr. M/. a.a.•aMJ • -1 +luny..• Y a 41'0 vac•O.sws. • S 1• / S• aR/. • •••••.A y'J.b•IO•• 0.000.1 AM% • TM•aSA ava.•J• p I / •JSM w.aTOJS • ..e.rx a••upJr.taA •4'a -OS•ta 71••J••D rw L ••sz to 4 vttl.� rea%%1 , • ,•1k JJ.w 7••7. / DA1 :1 I' �ati:J• • tJa1ASft..1 A14ufA S• Aiti/a • .__.,_ •■ +Y[,.J. -., " / •,. t ••■ • • _,wi._ -.� aAS• • • Jx MJAO r •4J•l • J• 1C • 04. Mn. • 1 .. win a•••O••i. EXHIBIT D • • • F 2 F< ■ 3 2 ■ 0 u !4 • J � ; a • • 3 0 J F o J Z t 4 A -! • a r • Van De Vanter ASSOCIATES LANDSCAPE APCHITECTUPE VALLEY VIEW ESTATES TUKWILA, WA •007110N0 • • 0 0 z 4 • • Z Animariarmrommuse DATE • • REVIVONS • ;or I. NI" r NA • 4 • 1.1"1.1 N irP .• • ./.0 4D .) 4 41) A t . el! MA AarriniA 7 5 41 6 0 • 3 ei 11. 2 3 L 1 1 3 e — L, -2 0 VhS. V',1) YD.; VOIltk, IcJIFIlui AIM Iiffl IN 1N irciinv 'IVA OW !Inv:NI' V tv USTIADZI a•ti • Coco 4 1- z 9 " - 9 44 •1 - • L 6C •••• Pu • c.c. -ow ...NJ 0 - 7rr4 1 0 1cg 11141114.44X. MrUCEMPAWrOV• 11,4•47 - 0 TYPE A UNIT .' 1C70 , 1 OS Xrduoxi - -2 7.44 94111714 .4 ?"1/Z 22 .- - • 1•1••••••••... •01.- SIP Of• _AV Me 4WIN- %/woo PcizoFti 5 6 6 45 07 z; • i ; • ■ • - • amwsiat .Pomp p .135 sacus PPC :WALL. n...ow wined, TO 14r2 4#,..• '.4 cf. CuicartlE • oi• r•grf • 41OW4c...X C 11.10 Am Y4.W MIL fa.K.64(1. ▪ FILJALX 'Mt A.4 oV14#1.61 AO, eUit. 4-7A;044 1& •-az. A. A ILMICracid. Zera...AB eft! moo. •ut...,- rapr 0 P 1 "NM Yuma . • #rde . for ASP* 01 IrLam 6 aim- ._d , cimporearma • r. fises•ult• -maagio rcitztV•Ztitt 0111.11/,...1 ••••10/0 •11.1.• 41/818 •■• Rana> _ RI am Cp. ire Dor 2 Wr* i• OM- ~Mb Kt. IMO 4l/& • - - m M cc• vsto• ely14.16 ease Srage x' ams • --- lir rooms 'my mac. nrs (719.caa.) 14..0" N-Cr 1 1 oc.MaciAl ••• I NOM OPT IX 0.1 *WS CKY. Uwe- sea •PAT Jr.* cm win". • lobak Arc 1 .11 • ...T. 7.7 RECEIVED cny OF TUKWIU1 fitM.DING DEPT; --- - EXHIBIT G 14:3 11111•0 CAM * ow 4 1 EXHIBIT H E. UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS Physical Environment Earth o While the recommendation for earthwork, site drainage and erosion control structures for the project are intended to increase surficial slope stability, there is always the possibility that localized con- ditions may vary to the extent that some earth movements might occur during construction, particularly where zones of seepage are encoun- tered. These are anticipated to be small in nature and are not expected to result in any earth spillage outside of the site limits. o Site alterations during portions of the construction phase may result in temporary slopes somewhat steeper than the final configuration that will be achieved. o Stripping of site vegetation will create the possibility of surface erosion due to rainfall and seepage from springs; any potential offsite impacts will be controlled by implementation of a City- approved tem- porary erosion and sedimentation control system. Air o Project traffic would slightly increase automobile- generated pollutants in the vicinity. o Project residents with existing health problems related to asthma, and heart or lung disease might experience aggravation of their condition due to the site's location near the I -5 /I -405 intersection and the Southcenter parking lot. o Construction activities would cause a short -term increase in par- ticulate levels. o Short -term noxious odors would be produced during construction. Flora /Fauna o All natural vegetation from approximately 68% of the site would be removed. o Removal of vegetation would result in some loss of animal habitat and the displacement and /or elimination of most species that currently uti- lize the site. Noise • With windows open, day -night noise levels inside the units would far exceed the standards EPA considers acceptable: i.e., levels would range from 58 -62 Ld vs. EPA's 45 Ld standard. With windows open at 21 EXHIBIT I Land Use night, maximum noise levels would far exceed the maximum noise level beyond which a 50% probability of sleep interference occurs: i.e., 67 dBA max. vs. threshold of 50 dBA max. o With windows shut, day -night noise levels inside the units would be within EPA's recommended standard, but maximum noise levels in units on the north portion of the site would periodically reach levels at which adverse noise impacts can occur (primarily speech interference and annoyance): i.e., 55 dBA or greater. • Without acoustic fencing, exterior noise levels, including the proposed recreation areas, would have noise levels ranging from levels EPA characterizes as having significant adverse impacts (i.e., Ld of 65 -70 dBA) to those EPA considers to have unacceptable public health and welfare impacts (i.e., Ld of over 70 dBA). During the daytime, maxi- mum noise levels within these areas would regularly exceed 75 dBA, occasionally reaching 85 dBA. • Construction noise at the closest adjacent residences could on occasion sharply exceed existing traffic noise by up to 12 dBA, although typical construction noise would be masked by noise from the freeway. o Following site grading and before project completion, properties to the west would experience a slight increase in freeway noise (i.e., 2 -3 dBA) due to the loss of trees. (Upon project completion, noise atte- nuation from the buildings would offset this slight increase in noise levels.) o An undeveloped, wooded hillside would be converted to a multi- family housing development with associated parking areas and road surfaces. o The project's character, including density and scale, would differ substantially from that of the surrounding single family neighborhood. o Residents in the surrounding area would feel a loss in the quality and cohesion of their single family neighborhood. o Property owners would be subject to the conditions of a legal non- conforming use, including restrictions on their abilities to make structural alterations to the buildings. A requirement that proper notification be given to prospective purchasers regarding the project's non - conforming status might be difficult for the City of enforce. o Project owners will be subject to the conditions and requirements of the building permit regarding retaining the geotechnical engineering consultant to provide or direct the slope instrumentation and moni- toring program during the entire life of the project. o Project owners might be required to pay for additional insurance or provide collateral other than the condominiums to protect loan institu- tions in case of fire or other losses. 22 Natural Resources o Building materials and energy would be consumed during construction. Human Environment Transportation /Circulation o The project would generate increased traffic through residential neigh- borhoods west of the site. o The potential for traffic and pedestrian accidents would increase in proportion to increased traffic volumes. • School children walking to the bus on 51st Avenue South would be required to walk on the shoulder along South 160th Street. o Approximately 25 percent increase in the left -turn component from Klickitat Drive to 53rd Avenue South. o Short -term impacts on vehicular travel at South 160th Street /53rd Avenue South if trenching is required within the right -of -way or across the road. o Minimal overflow parking could potentially occur on 53rd Avenue South, Klickitat Drive or Slade Way during large social events. Public Services o The project would increase the demand for fire protection. o Response times to police calls could increase slightly throughout the City. • The project would slightly increase demand for an additional high school classroom. o The project would increase demand on local park and recreation facili- ties. (Pedestrian and bicycle access to nearby facilities is poor.) o The project would foreclose the possibility of the site's being con- sidered as permanent open space. o The project would increase the demand for long -term City maintenance. Public Utilities o Unless that portion of the sewer line located beneath four of the pro- posed buildings is relocated, a sewer line break could go undetected or unrepaired for a period of time, causing potential soils loading and in turn, possibly contributing to slope instability. o Energy demand on the site would increase over both the short- and long- term. 23 o Sewage generated by the development would contribute to above capacity conditions at the Renton Metro Sewage Treatment Plant until planned expansion of the plant is completed. Aesthetics o The view from the valley floor of a steep wooded hillside would be replaced with that of a multi- family residential development. Human Health • Short -term annoyance and irritation would be experienced periodically by area residents during construction due to high noise levels and generation of particulates. ° With building windows open, residents could experience high levels of speech interference and annoyance and serious sleep disruption at night. o Project residents using outdoor recreation areas could be exposed to significant stress due to continuous noise at high decibel levels. o Project residents with existing health problems related to asthma, and heart or lung disease might experience aggravation of their condition due to the site's location near the I -5 /I -405 intersection and the Southcenter parking lot. Economic o City costs would increase to provide needed services for the residen- tial project. 24 :.: �', `'.±' .. '��t_L`��.�',.f _d=;:...� ^.4c.t . .,.-.3 c� War. 8.1.41001110.11.10•6 r7 an= • 41..law, ..,vo WSW saw ea:W.0W WOO oa mei • laW .1, woe Waft 11.10. We. a ...awn amt. • -- .1. Wog wwwwW. awe ad= sae wellieWNI WW1 • 1 swag 1.= faerf=11•00 WWIIIIWORWWWW WNW ■=11•••• MOM I , aim We • • NW WM/ IMO 1Nf p,. Imnpar osga /NUMMI WEI•wwwn~Olsr seN11 I ail MC 1•1011•111•Ili VINAVIr mow • „ ‘ . 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 APPLICANT'S PREHEARING BRIEF - 1 PgiEtIVE MAR 2 s 1l$t OZDEN,OUDEN & =MAY BEFORE THE BOARD OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW TUKWILA, WASHINGTON Regarding Building ) No. 86 -7 -DR Permit Application ) by PUGET WESTERN, INC. ) APPLICANT'S PREHEARING BRIEF 108 residential units are proposed for an about 7.08 acre parcel of undeveloped property in Tukwila. The residential units will be located on the eastern portion of the property to reduce the pitched roof elevation as much as feasible. No units will be constructed in the R -1 zoned portion of the property. Applicant agrees to execute a covenant running with the land to assure this. You will be reviewing the residential development under the guidelines in TCC §18.60.050. The applicant will present you with information describing the site and how the development fits with the site, setting out the landscaping plan which will enhance the residential environment, and providing a representation of how the residential units will look. This is done to give you a specific information to review against your guidelines. The applicant will provide a description of what it proposes to do. This will be presented by the key JOEL E. HAGGARD ATTORNEY AND COUNSELOR•AT•LAW SUITE 2426. FINANCIAL CENTER 1215 FOURTH AVENUE SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98161 (206) 682.5635 73� t,; 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 experts retained to help the applicant. These people include Mr. Vince Ferrese, the architect, Mr. James VanDeVanter, the landscape architect, and Mr. James Maclsaac, the transportation engineer. Each will be available to respond to your questions. After you receive the applicant's testimony and exhibits and hear other persons testify, you will be making a decision. The decision is not whether a building permit will be issued or what conditions should be applied to those permits. The Staff acknowledges this in its staff report. (Paragraph 4, Page 1, Staff Report). Even though your guidelines are qualitative, the decision is not what you think is in the "best interests" of Tukwila. See Carlson v. Beaux Arts Village, 41 Wn. App. 402 (August 7, 1985). The decision you will make is whether we satisfy your guidelines, not whether the units could be done in a different way. We know you will want.to carefully consider the Staff's recommended approval. But such review is not unquestioning. At the hearing we will explain concerns we have as to some of the staff's recommended conditions. We will suggest clarification where appropriate. A summary of our preliminary position on these conditions is included in Attachment 1. We recognize that this residential development has been the subject of controversy. It has been to the Supreme Court and our rights are vested - that issue is APPLICANT'S PREHEARING BRIEF - 2 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 behind us now. The adequacy of the City's own EIS has been challenged - that issue will be heard by the City Council. People may still object to 108 new families as neighbors, but the degree of support for or against the residential development is not a criterion for your decision. The 108 residential units are proposed for development on this vacant parcel. We agree with Staff that you should approve the plans. Staff and applicant may have minor disagreement as to the conditio'na for approval. We ask you to carefully consider all the testimony and then, on the record before you grant approval subject to reasonable and legal conditions. DATED this j "day of March, 1986. Respectfully submitted, cc: Mr. Brad Collins Mr. Tom Russell bcc: ✓Mr. Jim Haney 2427D APPLICANT'S PREHEARING BRIEF - 3 Joel Hagg r Attorney for Applicant ATTACHMENT 1 Preliminary Statement of Position As to Staff Recommended Conditions Staff recommends approval subject to certain conditions. The staff's report was received on March 24, 1986 and applicant's preliminary comments follow. 1. Staff suggests more evergreen shrubs to screen parking areas from adjacent properties and roads. Comment: Mr. James VanDeVanter will discuss with the BAR applicant's proposed landscape plan. Extensive landscaping will be provided and we meet your guidelines. The Guidelines do not require blockage of all views, rather moderation of visual impact. The landscape plan satisfies §18.60.050(1)(B) and (2)(B). 2. Staff requests added pedestrian walkways. Comment: Mr. Vince.Ferrese will show on the site plan that walkways have been added from the site to the nearby roads. This modification is in response to the Staff comment. Mr. James VanDeVanter will provide you with alternative designs for access to the children's play area. We have no objection to providing a secondary trail from Structures 1 and 2. We are mindful however that the revisions may slightly increase grading requirements. Thus, Mr. VanDeVanter will be attempting to present you with an alternative that reflects both reduced grade as well as minimal site disturbance. This is responsive to the Staff suggestion. Mr. Ferrese will describe the internal pedestrian walkway patterns reflected by the current siteplan. We do not agree with Staff's demand for a continuous walkway along the entire length of the easterly 16 units. Func- tionally the objective of pedestrian movement is satisfied by present plans and the nearness of parking areas. 3. Staff wants signage, speed bumps and cross- ways for the circulation aisle. Comment: Mr. Ferrese will indicate revisions to the site plan that accomplish Staff demands. Mr. Maclsaac will be available to respond to your questions. As an alternative to placing speed bumps every 200 or so feet, they might be best placed within 100 feet of crossing areas. 4. Staff demands that the property be consoli- dated into one lot. Comment: Staff wants to assure that there be no future sales or easements [ ?] of undeveloped portions, like the R -1 parcel. We certainly do not intend to request that any development beyond the 108 units be authorized. Applicant is willing to file a covenant or restriction running with the land to assure this. But Staff's idea that the property be consoli- dated into one lot will not resolve its concern. Without the covenant merely making the lot one will not preclude future subdivision. In fact, it may well be that sub- division will be required to support unit sales for condominium ownership. Thus this condition should be revised to have applicant covenant that the entire property can only be developed with 108 residential units. 5. Staff desires a "level," 30 foot long plat- form at the 53rd Avenue driveway. Comment: Mr. James VanDeVanter will provide you with a separate drawing reflecting how we will comply with the intent of this condition. But we can not provide a perfectly level platform without causing transition con- cerns into the property. Mr. VanDeVanter will define level as within a certain maximum grade change (or slope) over the 30 feet. 6. Play Area pathways should be revised. Comment: See Comment under 2. as to this subject. 7. Diversify residential entrances by providing low individual landscaping in front of each unit. Comment: The maximum in individuality would be achieved by each resident providing their own flowers or plants. But applicant is not relying on the residents to provide the landscaping. Mr. Ferrese and /or Mr. VanDeVanter will describe the architectural and landscaping treatment applicant is proposing. This testimony should demonstrate why this condition is unnecessary. 2 8. Landscaping all dumpster locations and provide one for Structures 1 and 2. Comment: Mr. James VanDeVanter will provide by separate diagram how we respond to this desire of Staff. 9. Apparently Staff wants you to review more closely the lighting plans. Comment: Mr. Ferrese will provide illustrative examples of what applicant intends to do. We do not wish to so specify the lighting manufacturers as to get into a restraint on trade issue or a lighting device which may become unavailable. But we do believe that an acceptable plan can be easily resolved. Comment: Just as the City code does not require any residence to be all wood, or all brick or whatever, Staff's demand that these units be all wood is beyond the scope of your criteria and the City code. Applicant does not agree with Staff's rationale supporting the all wood demand. But this would be cheaper. If the BAR wants all wood, we do not object. facade." 2428D 10. Staff desires wood siding. 11. Staff desires a more aesthetically pleasing Comment: The condition and the rationale are probably illegal under the Carlson case. In any event, Mr. Ferrese will review with you facade elevations and respond to your questions. Please note that the residen- tial units are all 3 story with basements as defined in the applicable Zoning Code (i.e., TCC §18.06.080 ( "basement ") and §18.06.650 ( "story ")). NOTE: Applicant recognizes that the Staff Report contains comments and suggestions which relate to matters beyond the BAR jurisdiction and properly within the Building Permit scope. We specifically reserve all rights and objections to the Staff report comments not explicitly addressed in this memorandum. 3 �� � �l� HAND DELIVERED Mr. Brad Collins City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Blvd. Tukwila, Washington 98188 Dear Brad: JEH /dm 2453D Enclosure cc: Mr. William Arthur James Haney, Esq. JOEL E. HAGGARD ATTORNEY AND COUNSELOR•AT -LAW SUITE 2426, FINANCIAL CENTER 1215 FOURTH AVENUE SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98161 (206) 682-5635 March 27, 1986 The applicant has modified the listing of miti- gating measures which are incorporated in and are part of our total proposal. This enclosed listing is in- lieu -of that submitted earlier and included in the FEIS. Sincerely yours, -/X Jp1 Haggard Meier 7 OUR FILE NO P- 17150.7 A. Earth: Conditions Incorporated By Applicant Into Proposal 1. All recommendations contained within the geotechnical report prepared by GeoEngineers Inc., dated April 25, 1985, will be complied with by the project sponsor. 2. The existing deep drainage facilities on the I -5 right -of -way shall continue to be monitored and maintained by the State of Washington and Depart- ment of Transportation, as per correspondence dated December 20, 1984. 3. Slope movement and water levels shall be moni- tored through an instrumentation program which is to be maintained through the construction phase and during the life of the project unless the term is modified with City approval. Initial monitoring shall be undertaken by the contrac- tor /developer during construction and early occupancy phases. Subsequent monitoring shall be the responsibility of the property owner, home- owners or homeowners association. 4. Site grading shall be undertaken during the summer -fall months (unless otherwise approved by the City) when the least amounts of rainfall can be expected. The contractor shall follow the geotechnical engineer's general sequence for site development. 5. Building foundation grading shall be performed on an alternating basis, with the number of sites prepared limited to the number for which foun- dation, retaining wall construction and back - filling can be completed during a construction season. Construction shall be scheduled so that site grading, drainage installation, and surface stabilization are completed in any given area within a construction season. 6. All cuts steeper than 3:1 horizontal to vertical (33 percent) shall be supported by retaining structures constructed and backfilled per specifications of the geotechnical report. 7. Building foundations, retaining walls and associ- ated drains shall be constructed and backfilled per specifications of the geotechnical report. 1 B. Air: C. Water: 8. Applicable City of Tukwila Code requirements for grading and excavation will be followed. 9. Plastic sheets, mulch or other erosion retardant materials will be used as appropriate on portions of the exposed soil areas during construction to minimize erosion. 10. Collection of seepage and springs will be done during construction to minimize surface flow. These supplemental drains shall be located and connected by tight lines to the site drainage facilities as recommended in the geotechnical report. 11. Any temporary stockpiles will be located in the north end area of the site. 1. Measures to control construction dust such as watering, cleaning and sweeping of streets at the end of hauling activities shall be performed by the contractor as necessary. 1. Drainage facilities for direct discharge into the storm drainage system for conveyance and dis- charge into the Green River will be installed. All required temporary sedimentation and control facilities will be constructed and in operation prior to earthwork, paving and building construc- tion. 2. Catch basins and oil /water separators will be provided within the on -site drainage collection system as consistent with C.1. 3. Prior to general site clearing, an interceptor trench will be installed at the toe of the roadway fill along the western boundary of the site as recommended in the geotechnical report and as shown on the site utility plan. 4. Permanent French drains will be installed along the upslope sides of all parking areas, in the west trending gully that crosses the site and in any wet areas. 5. Foundation drains will be installed and connected to drain lines along the east property line so the flow can be disposed of off -site. 2 6. Existing on -site horizontal drains shall be located and flows shall be collected and carried in tight lines into the site drainage control systems. 7. Site drainage systems will be designed to elimi- nate or minimize the opportunity for near surface infiltration. 8. Temporary sedimentation and erosion control measures will be employed during construction. Where possible, natural vegetation for silt control shall be maintained. Proposed interim drainage control measures include placing straw - bales in drainage ditches and directing runoff to temporary sedimentation ponds, seeding and /or jute matting as deemed appropriate. 9. All temporary sedimentation ponds shall be main- tained in a satisfactory condition until such time as cleaning and /or construction is completed and permanent drainage facilities have been approved and operational. 10. A portion of the existing deep storm system will be abandoned and replaced by the contractor/ developer with a new storm line and french drain to handle off -site runoff. 11. The contractor /developer will maintain the pro- posed on -site temporary and permanent drainage control facilities during construction. The property owner, homeowners or homeowners associ- ation will assume maintenance responsibility for the permanent facilities after completion of the development. 12. Cleaning of streets and parking areas shall be undertaken whenever necessary during construction by the contractor /developer, or as requested by the City of Tukwila during construction. D. Flora: 1. Landscaping for individual units shall be installed as per the BAR approved landscaping plan prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy for that unit. 2. No residential structures will be developed on the R -1 zoned portion of the property. 3 3. Disturbed areas not proposed to be landscaped will be treated for erosion control by seeding with clover and rye or ivy. 4. Ornamental vegetation will include sycamores along Slade Way and along the perimeter of the parking lot. Vine maple and flowering cherry will be interspersed among the buildings. Ad- ditional plant materials will include platinia, rhododendron, mahyonia, vibrunum Davidi, ivy and the law. Landscaping shall be in substantial conformance with the plan approved by the BAR. E. Noise: 1. Double wall construction and 1/2 inch gypsum wall boards shall be utilized. 2. Insulation shall be a minimum of R -11. 3. All windows shall be double - glazed. 4. Construction will not occur before 7 AM on week- days and 9 AM on weekends, or after 10 PM. All construction equipment will be required to have a proper muffler. F. Light and Glare: 1. Parking lot lighting will be directed so that no direct light spills off the perimeter of the site. 2. The buildings will be sited along the east half of the property which provides an about 30 foot topographic separation from 53rd Avenue South. G. Transportation /Circulation: ,1. A 20 vehicle on -site parking overflow will be provided in the area designated RMH in the western portion of the site adjacent to 53rd Avenue. 2. The developer will work with Metro Transit to ensure a safe, convenient bus stop location for project transit patrons adjacent to the Valley View Estates site. 3. A left turn lane for westbound to southbound left turns from Klickitat Drive to 53rd Avenue South will be provided. 4 H. Public Services: I. Police: J. Parks and Recreation: K. Maintenance: 4. Roadway shoulders on S. 160th Street between the project site and 51st Avenue South will be widened (if necessary) to a minimum of four feet to facilitate safe pedestrian access (particularly for school children) to 51st Avenue South. Project driveway locations will be located at least 150 feet away from the nearest intersection as per the proposed site plan. 1. Smoke detectors and one fire extinguisher will be provided in each unit as per the U.B.C. 2. A 20 foot wide unobstructed driving lane with 35 foot turning radius will be provided to assure fire lanes and emergency vehicle access. 3. Curbs, guard posts or other protective means will be provided for all sprinkler valves, hydrants, gas meters and transformers. 1. A close working relationship between the developers and the Police Department's Crime Prevention officer will be maintained throughout the planning and building phases of this project. 1. An about A 6,175 square foot children's play area will be provided including an open play area, sand box, and other play equipment installed in substantial conformance with the site plan. 2. A minimum of 200 square feet open /recreation space per dwelling will be provided as located on the BAR approved site plan. 1. The contractor will insure that the trucks carrying excavation loads will be covered with canvas or tarp if necessary for dust control. 2. The developer will provide street cleaning during construction when necessary. L. Utilities: 1. All utilities, i.e., telephone, electrical and cable lines, shall be installed underground. 2. All utility installation shall be coordinated with the appropriate utility including, subject to terms of existing easement, the existing 12 inch sewer line so as to not locate it beneath any building. M. Aesthetics 2450D 1. Existing vegetation will be maintained along the eastern edge of the site where practical. 0. Historical /Archaeological: 1. In the event that cultural materials are dis- closed during construction, work in the immediate area will be discontinued and the Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation will be notified. 6 Resume PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE Vincent Ferrese joined the Mithun Bowman Emrich Group in 1978. His success at developing and completing multiple projects ranging in the multimillion of dollars led to his becoming a principal in 1985. Since joining the firm he has enhanced a retail- oriented staff who can respond to corporate design criteria thoroughly and expeditiously. EDUCATION Pennsylvania State University, Bachelor of Architecture, 1972 REGISTRATION State of Washington, 1976 P_,ROFESSIONAL AFFILIATIONS Member, American Institute of Architects Member, Seattle Master Builders Association PRO FESSIONAL ACTIVITI Member, Laurelhurst Planning Advisory Board Member, Laurelhurst Community Club Member, Bellevue Chamber of Commerce AEPHSENTATIVE PROJECTS Retail JCPenney Tacoma Remodel JCPenney Northgate Remodel Sears Northtown Remodel Sears Overlake Remodel VINCENT J. FERRESE. AIA Principal $5.6 million $2.8 million $0.6 million $0.5 million 233,000 sf 160,000 sf 103,000 sf 205,000 sf Tacoma, WA Seattle, WA Spokane, WA Bellevue, WA RESUME OF VINCENT J. FERRESE, AIA Page two 1esidentisl Providence Point elderly Burke Gilman elderly & low- income Burke Gilman "EurQpean street" Valley View Apartments Windsor House high -end condominiums Yesler Townhouses Ballard Condominiums Commercial Hilltop Office Park Forum South Office Park Auto Club of Washington North Hill Associates Office Auto. Club of Washington Washington Society of CPA's Sperry Marine Office AWARDS AIA with Sunset Magazine 200 units 113 units 1,000 if 108 units 62 units 14 units 10 units 30,000 sf 22,000 sf 14,000 sf 14,000 sf 11,000 sf 9,000 sf 7,800 sf Single family residence Ashton, Idaho Issaquah, Washington Seattle, Washington Seattle, Washington Tukwila, Washington Bellevue, Washington Seattle, Washington Seattle, Washington Bellevue, Washington Bellevue, Washington Bremerton, Washington Tukwila, Washington Bellevue, Washington Bellevue, Washington Tukwila, Washington JAMES VAN DE VANTER ASSOCIATES, ASLA landscape architecture / site planning JAMES STEWART VAN DE VANTER, ASLA CREDENTIALS Registered Professional Landscape Architect of Washington State. Member of the American Society of Landscape Architects (ASLA) Washington Chapter. BS Landscape Architecture Washington State University - 1978 BA Recreation and Parks Administration Washington State University - 1978 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES Project Administration Conceptual Site Planning Graphic Presentation Drawings Building Permit Drawings and Administration Construction Contract Documents Including Drawings: Layout, Grading, Planting, and Irrigation Plans. Bid Documents Specifications Construction Cost Estimates Construction Administration SUITE 201 612 BELLEVUE WAY N.E. f3ELLEVUE, WA 98004 1/31/86 (206) 451 -8001 REPRESENTATIVE PROJECTS Snoqualmie Recreation Corridor Project Consultant: James Van De Vanter Associates, ASLA Project Consultant: James Van De Vanter Associates, ASLA Contractor: Cascade Landscape Services Professional Service: Project administration, construction contract docu- ments, construction administration for an asphalt trail, pedestrian flatcar bridge, neighborhood park, and planting. Owner: City of Snoqualmie (HUD. Project via King County Dept. of Planning and Community Development). Project Consultant: James Van De Vanter Associates, ASLA Structural Engineer: N.K. Kim Associates City of Bellevue Interim Pedestrian Corridor, Phase I Professional Service: Construction contract drawings for open lawn area, concrete walk, layout, grading, and irrigation plans. Owner: City of Bellevue /Puget Sound Power & Light Co. Contractor: General R.C. Winters, Inc. Planting & Irrigation - Earth Enterprises, Inc. City of Redmond /Puget Sound Power & Light Co. Powerline Corridor Trail Professional Service: Permit drawings, construction contract documents, construction administration for grading and plant- ing designs at two neighborhood roadway /trail crossings. Owner: City of Redmond /Puget Sound Power & Light Co. REPRESENTATIVE PROJECTS Snoqualmie Falls Park and Lode arking Expansion Pro essional Service: Own r: Pro ect Consultants: Val Own r: ey View Estate Condominiums Pro essional Service: Project Consultants: Sn.qualmie Falls Park Project Consultant: Pr.fessional Service: Ow er: Conceptual site planning, design development, and construction contract documents including layout, grading, and planting plans for arking facility serving 100 vehicles. Other site elements include a R.R. trolley depot, a pedestrian highway over- pass, and planting. Puget Western, Inc. Landscape Architect - James Van De Vanter Associates, ASLA Civil Engineer John Newell Associates Conceptual planting plan, children's play structure design, and permit presentation graphics for 108 unit condominium development - Tukwilla, WA. Puget Western, Inc. Project Administrator - Architect Landscape Architect Civil Engineers Geotechnical EIS Tom Russel Associates - Mithun, Bowman, & Emerich Group, PS - James Van De Vanter Associates, ASLA - Stepan & Associates - Geoengineers, Inc. - City of Tukwilla R.W. Thorpe & Associates Construction contract documents and construction administration of an irrigation system. Puget Sound Power & Light Company James Van De Vanter Associates, ASLA REPRESENTATIVE PROJECTS Two Renton Place - Renton, WA Professional Service: Construction contract documents and administration for planting and irrigation system. Owner: Project Consultants: Architects - The Callison Partnership Civil Engineers - CH2M Hill Landscape Architects - James Van De Vanter Associates, ASLA Contractors: General - Lease Crutcher, Inc. Planting /Irrigation - P & G Landscaping Vashon Island Service Center Professional Service: Owner: Project Consultant: Contractor: Energy Control Center Professional Service: Owner: Project Consultant: Contractor: Mill Creek Re- Channelization - Kent, WA Professional Service: Owner: Project Consultant: Contractor: Renton Village Company Construction contract documents and construction administration of an irrigation system. Puget Sound Power & Light Company James Van De Vanter Associates, ASLA Pacific Earth Works - Redmond, WA Construction contract documents and construction administration of an irrigation system. Puget Sound Power & Light Company James Van De Vanter Associates, ASLA Pacific Earth Works Planting plan for creek bed erosion control and wildlife habitat. Puget Sound Power & Light Company James Van De Vanter Associates, ASLA. Puget Sound Power & Light Company REPRESENTATIVE PROJECTS Interlaken Substation - Professional Service: Owner: Project Consultant: Contractor: West Auburn Substation Professional Service: Owner: Project Consultant: Contractor: Redmond, WA Construction contract documents and construction administration of an irrigation system. Puget Sound Power & Light Company James Van De Vanter Associates, ASLA Erickson Landscaping - Auburn, WA Construction contract documents and construction administration of planting and irrigation system. Puget Sound Power & Light Company James Van De Vanter Associates, ASLA Earth Enterprises Center Substation - Bellevue, WA Professional Service: Conceptual planting plan, screen wall design, and permit presentation graphics. Owner: Puget Sound Power & Light Company Project Consultant: James Van De Vanter Associates, ASLA North Bellevue Substation Professional Service: Owner: Project Consultant: - Bellevue, WA Conceptual planting plan, retaining wall architec- tural design, and permit presentation graphics. Puget Sound Power & Light Co. James Van De Vanter Associates, ASLA JAMES W. MACISAAC, P.E. The TRANSPO Group Professional Status Mr. Maclsaac is president and co- founder of The TRANSPO Group. He has full technical and organizational responsibility for transportation projects of every type. Specifically, he manages complex transportation projects that have significant long -term impacts on both local and regional communities and that involve other senior professionals and interdisciplinary teams. He is experienced in working with project developers and community leaders to successfully resolve transportation policy issues and improvement needs associated with large land use rezone and project development efforts. Experience With more than 19 years of applied transportation planning experience, Mr. Maclsaac has been responsible for projects involving all aspects of traffic engineering and transportation planning. His professional experience includes geographic diversity throughout the West Coast and in Latin America. He has led successful team efforts in solving a variety of transportation problems involving intermodal interfaces, marine transportation, and highway and transit systems. He is responsible within TRANSPO for directing the analysis of impacts of very large -scale residential, commercial and industrial developments, and in developing transportation improvement programs and funding strategies for cities, counties and subareas therein. Mr. Maclsaac has acquired extensive working knowledge of the Puget Sound transportation system and its problems. His areas of accomplishments include: • Street and highway planning for cities, counties and regional and state agencies; • Future travel demand estimations and impact evaluations for transit, highway and arterial systems; • Transit system park- and -ride program development; • Impact evaluations of complex private developments; • Alternative development and evaluation for major transportation facilities. Background Mr. Maclsaac is a graduate of Seattle University (BSCE, 1964) and the University of Washington (MSCE, Transportation, 1965). He is a Registered Professional Engineer in the State of Washington. Before co- founding The TRANSPO Group in 1975, Mr. Maclsaac managed and directed transportation projects for the Puget Sound Governmental Conference, Tudor Engineering Company, and Alan M. Voorhees & Associates. In addition, he is visiting instructor in transportation engineering at Seattle University and the University of Washington. Mr. Maclsaac is a member of: • American Public Works Association • American Society of Civil Engineers • Institute of Transportation Engineers KURT G. GAHNBERG The TRANSPO Group Professional Status Mr. Gahnberg is a transportation engineer with technical and administrative responsibility for a wide variety of traffic impact studies for development projects as well as task management and technical support when involved in major projects. In addition to extensive working knowledge of traffic engineering, data collection and computational techniques, his position demands the ability to effectively communicate with private development clients and public agency staff. His practical approach to technical problems and issues yields realistic solutions acceptable to both private developers and the reviewing agency. Experience Mr. Gahnberg is responsible for transportation studies ranging from localized traffic engineering analyses to transportation impact studies used to support or supplement more comprehensive Environmental Impact Statements. He has been responsible for major tasks in larger studies involving traffic assignment, screenline analysis, and key intersection analysis and preliminary traffic signal and intersection design. In his tenure with The TRANSPO Group, Mr. Gahnberg has developed exceptionally efficient field data collection and reduction techniques employing the rapidly expanding portable video tape technology. His specific areas of expertise include: • Traffic impact analysis for private development projects • Short -range travel demand forecasting • Level of service and roadway capacity techniques • Transportation safety analyses • Parking demand, supply and utilization studies. Background A graduate of the University of Washington, Mr. Gahnberg specialized in traffic operations while in pursuit of his BSCE degree (1980). Prior to joining The TRANSPO Group, Mr. Gahnberg managed and directed a safety analysis of High Hazard Locations in the City of Mountlake Terrace under grant from the Washington State Traffic Safety Commission. Mr. Gahnberg is a member of: • The Institute of Transportation Engineers. l 0680# Personal Information Date of Birth: 13 January 1941 $SA STEPAN & ASSOCIATES, INC. Biographical Data GLENN G. MCKINNEY, JR. Civil Engineer Education B.S. in Civil Engineering, 1963, University of Texas, Austin Masters in Business Administration, 1972, New Mexico State University . Professional Affiliations Registered Professional Engineer (Oregon No. 9447, Texas No. 34768, and Washington No. 16283) Experience Record 1963 -1965 C. H. Leavell and Company, El Paso, Texas. Engineer. Acted as field engineer and cost estimator for a con- struction contractor. 1965 -1971 Rockwell International Corporation, El Segundo, Cali- fornia. Civil Engineer. Responsible for design, checkout, acceptance, and operation of various struc- tures and systems including instrumentation towers, firewater systems, storage facilities, environmental enclosures, and gas distribution systems. Also re- sponsible for coordination and technical supervision of systems installation by contractors. 1972 -1973 S. A. Russell and Associates, Rosenberg, Texas. Civil Engineer. Responsible for design, construction contract administration, and supervision of engineer- ing personnel on various municipal projects such as drainage, pavement, and wastewater treatment and transmission systems as well as municipal and county water, wastewater, and drainage engineering reports. Other duties included project budgeting and schedul- ing, obtaining client and government approvals, sys- tems start up, surveying, and inspection. Also pre- pared contracts, preliminary engineering reports, drawings, specifications, and operation and mainte- nance manuals. AN ENGINEERING SCIENCE COMPANY Glenn G. McKinney, Jr. (Continued) Ss►A STEPAN & ASSOCIATES, INC. 1973 -1975 Sverdrup and Parcel and Associates, Inc., Gaines- ville, Florida. Project Engineer. Responsible for design, budgeting, scheduling, and securing client approval on numerous civil engineering projects for municipalities and subdivisions involving drainage and wastewater treatment and transmission systems. Project responsibilities included preparation of con- tracts, preliminary engineering reports, drawings, specifications, and operation and maintenance manuals as well as surveying, construction contract adminis- tration, systems start up, and inspection. Also prepared municipal and county -wide water, wastewater, and drainage engineering reports. 1975 -1979 Weyerhaeuser Company, Tacoma, Washington. Project Engineer. Supervised engineering design, construc- tion, and start up of wastewater treatment facili- ties. Responsible for preparation of project bud- gets, schedules, and cost control systems. 1979 -Date Stepan and Associates, Inc., (an Engineering- Science Company), Federal Way, Washington. Chief Engineer. Responsible for overall engineering quality, budget- ing, scheduling, and general administration. Duties include approval of all project engineering output, maintenance of project schedules, distribution of technical and administrative information, and stand- ardization of work procedures. Also responsible for client liaison and new business development. 2 AN ENGINEERING-SCIENCE COMPANY Title Principal Expertise Jack K. Tuttle RESUME Geotechnical Engineering Project Direction Business Management Experience Geotechnical Engineering Mr. Tuttle has been engaged in consulting geotechnical engineering practice since 1954. His career includes over 26 years with the internationally known firm of Dames & Moore, 15 years as a general partner. He has held responsible charge of the planning, management and completion of comprehensive engineering studies involving selection of the most suitable site for development; design of site improvements by drainage control, stabilization and surcharge programs; slope retention and excavation control; pipeline route selections and design; foundation studies for elevated structures; marine and coastal construction; and major earthworks, as well as building foundation design and performance evaluations. Project As a project director, Mr. Tuttle maintains responsibility Direction for all aspects of a project including scheduling, staffing, technical product and budget control. Project responsibilities have included: - Major geotechnical engineering studies for refit piers, explosives handling wharf, deperming pier and major onshore structures for the U.S. Navy, OICC Trident, Bangor, Washington. - Design studies and construction monitoring for major office and warehouse buildings, Jack A. Benaroya Company, Seattle, Kent, Renton and Tukwila, Washington. - Comprehensive geotechnical engineering studies for major office - manufacturing complex involving extensive cuts at the building location, and major earthwork for site grading in an area of potential instability, Honeywell Marine Systems, Snohomish County, Washington. - Detailed design studies and construction monitoring for a major mill expansion program, Scott Paper Company, Everett, Washington. - Detailed site investigation, construction monitoring and performance evaluation of structures for a major refinery and associated pipelines, Golden Eagle Refining Co., near Levis, Quebec, Canada. GeoEngineers Incorporated Jack K. Tuttle Page Two - Design of an upgrading program for lime waste disposal beds and evaluation of effectiveness of construction activities, B.A.S.F. Wyandotte, Fighting Island, Ontario, Canada. - Review studies for lake restoration and teat dredging program, Port of Vancouver, Washington, Vancouver Lake. - Detailed design studies for major downtown Seattle hotel buildings, John Graham & Company, Seattle, Washington. - Review of design and construction plans for major excavations and evaluations of slope stability problems throughout the city, City of Seattle Engineering Department. - Expert witness in regulatory hearings and court cases. Business As President of GeoEngineers, Inc., Mr. Tuttle has overall Management responsibility for the business and financial management of the firm. He directs the marketing activities of the firm and actively participates in the accomplishment of projects. While with Dames & Moore, he also had a variety of management responsibilities which included the establishment and direction of two offices in eastern Canada for 9 years, and management of the Seattle office for 7 -1/2 years. Academic B.S. Civil Engineering, University of Washington, 1954 Background Supplemental courses and seminars in advanced technical subjects and business management and marketing. Professional American Consulting Engineers Council; American Society of Affiliations Civil Engineers; Association of Professional Engineers of Ontario; Consulting Engineers Council of Washington (Vice President, 1978 -79; President, 1979 -80) Registration Professional Engineer, Ohio, Washington * * * GeoEngineers Incorporated R -1 portion R -4 portion RMH portion Density R -4 height RMH height Parking VALLEY VIEW ESTATES B.A.R. Review 3/27/86 Prepared by Vincent Ferrese PERMITTED BY ZONING 6 units 82 units 312 units 56.4 units /acre 35' or 3 stories ±200' (1 -1/2 times distance to street) 162 cars MI *HVM • EMRICH GROVP•PS ARCHITECTURE PLANNING AND INTERIOI? DESIGN XXHIBIT 1L 2000 112TH AVE NE BFLLEVUE. WASH 98004 ( PROVIDED BY OWNER 0 units 60 units 48 units 15.25 units per acre 32' - 3 stories + basement 32' - stories + basement 180_ !cars 18.20.020 Height, yard and area regulations. In the RMH district the height of buildings or structures, the mini- mum dimensions of yards and the minimum lot area per family permitted on any lot shall be as follows in Sections 18.20 .030 through 18.20.080. For exceptions, see Chapter 18.60. (Ord. 298. S1(part) , 1960: Ord. 251 S4- 4A(part) , 1957) . 18.20.030 Height. No part of a building shall exceed a height of one and one -half times the mean horizontal dis- tance from such building to the centerline of the abutting street or streets, except as modified in Chapter 18.60. (Ord. 298 Sl(part), 1960: Ord. 251 S4- 4A(part),.1957). VALLEY VIEW ESTATES B.A.R. Review 3/27/86 Prepared by Vincent Ferrese MI*HVN ■ BOWMAN I QROVP•PS ARCHITECTURE PLANNING AND INTERIOR DESIGN EXHIBIT The following are major designobjectives established by the Owner and the Architect at the conception of this project: 1. Be a "good neighbor" by not seeking the highest use of the site. 2. Design housing which is compatible with the property. 3. Utilize existing contours and provide an attractive, landscaped project. 4. Create an attractive environment for the users. 2000 112TH AVE NE BELLEVUE. 98004 (206)454.3344 54 VALLEY VIEW ESTATES B.A.R. Review 3/27/86 Prepared by Vincent Ferrese REVIEW GUIDELINES 18.60.050 MITHYN • EMRICH GROUP•PS ARCHITECTURE PLANNING AND INTERIOR DESIGN EXHIBIT 1. Structures to Site Relationship 2. Structure and Site to Adjoining Area 3. Landscape and Site Treatment 4. Building Design 2000 112TH AVE NE BELLEVUE. WASH 98004 (206)454 Buildings on one side of driveway only, with natural vegetation on opposite side. Low height from driveway (two story). Natural materials used. Parking lot breakup; 65% open space. Terraced housing with modulation. Modulation and texture used. Sloped roofs. Keep buildings small; entries off sides with landscaping and facade modula- tion on all sides. Two story exposure on entry facade. Utilized existing topography; landscaping trees at driveway strengthen axis and provide parking lot breakup. Maximum of eleven stalls together; natural vegetation and grades maintained along Slade Way. Low height of driveway lights used; sharp cutoff of lights used to eliminate "spill- over". Character of buildings most similar to single family. Quality materials used; sloped roofs with wood siding; subdued colors. No; mechanical equipment, visible. Northwest character. of • r l 2ND FLOOR ,�. !• • t • 1 FLOOR ...A1 • VALLEY VIEW ESTATES B.A.R. Review 3/27/86 Prepared by Vincent Perrese Lei r ■ 11111 • ; "Er` BASEMENT.t : .` •- MITHUH • BOWMAN • CROUP.PS ARC 1411 EC1URE PLANNING AND INIERIOR DESIGN XXHIBIT. Page 5 - Exhibit 14 l LOFT AT RMH ZONE r• • =s I1 ' /AT •R-4. ZON E:. , � �, r ®�21:I� I i lII����� I��i���� «��������� ���I��I � •3RD FLOOR . ' ' I'' — ! ,. r •.n IzialimffErt a =C==M ��ri��iil i �l l ill i ' NI �+I ril.i II �' '1 I [ ...'..,II .�„i∎Ill" J1 F;`,.I =t 4 .mi.... t TYPICAL SIDE ELEVATION 18.06.650 Story. "Story" is that portion of a build- ing included between the upper surface of any floor and the upper surface of the floor next above, except that the top- most story shall be that portion a building Included between the upper surface of the topmost floor and the ceiling or roof above. If the finished floor level directly above a basement, cellar or unused underfloor space is more than six feet above grade as defined herein for more than fifty percent of the total perimeter or is more than twelve feet above grade as defined herein at any point, such basement or unused underfloor space shall be considered as a story. (Ord. 635 55, 1970: Ord. 251 Ch.3(part), 1957). 20001 1 . TI I AVE NE BELL E VUE. WASH 98004 C2004E4.3341 ATTACHMENT 1 VALLE VIEW ESTATES B.A.R. Review 3/27/86 Prepa•ed by Vincent Ferrese stor heig (Ord Dom'4ANn UI1rr GRADE = - 0' -0" ABOVE BASEMENT FLOOR MITHYN • BOWMAN • EMRICH GROUP•PS AI?CIIIIECIUPE PLANNING AND INTLI?lOrt DESIGN EXHIBIT I) 112 2000 112III AVE NE BE 11.1.Vl1F, WASII 98004(21W sal-o" % WOO M Page 6 EXHIBIT 14 GRADE = • Boma •� dy a9 _ "-J 1- gLod 5'o• TYPICAL BASEMENT PLAN WINDOW WELL 18.06.080 Basement. "Basement" means that portion of a partly underground and having at least one -half of its t or more than five feet below the adjoining finish grade. 251 Ch.3(part), 1957). 9' -0" ABOVE BASEMENT FLOOR GRADE = 4.'-67 ABOVE BASEMENT FLOOR WALL & MIN. 5' OUT GRADE = 0' - ABOVE BASEMENT FLOOR • ATTACHMENT 1 jr C* ..0 7 14 r 14r ,.MIt T at , . • 4 " = JAMES VAN DE VANTER ASSOCIATES, ASIA landscape architecture / site planning April 10, 1986 VALLEY VIEW ESTATES SUBJECT: Difference of Elevation from Top of Building Roof Lines to Centerline of 53rd Avenue S. and Slade Way to Determine View Obstructions by Buildings. Bldg. Basement Finish Top of Roof Existing Elevation at * *Difference of No. Floor Elevation Elevation Centerline of Roadway Elevation in Feet 1 El. 206 El. 254 E/W El. 258.0 - 4.0' N/S 220.0 +34.0' 2 200 248 E/W 254.0 - 6.0' N/S 230.0 +18.0' 3 172 220 N/S 185.0 +35.0' 4 172 220 N/S 188.0 +32.0' 5 172 220 E/W 226.0 - 6.0' 6 170 218 E/W 240.0 -22.0' 7 168 216 E/W 252.0 -36.0' 8 166 214 E/W 252.0 -38.0' 9 166 214 E/W 250.0 -36.0' 10 178 226 E/W 234.0 - 8.0' 11 176 224 E/W 229.0 - 5.0' 12 174 222 E/W 224.0 - 2.0' 13 172 220 E/W 220.0 0.0' 14 168 216 E/W 214.0 + 2.0' 15 166 214 E/W 208.0 + 6.0' 16 164 212 E/W 205.0 + 7.0' 17 162 210 E/W 203.0 + 7.0' 18 160 208 E/W 198.0 +10.0' SUITE 201 Indicates amount of feet that building roof elevation is below the roadway resulting in non - obstructing views beyond the site. Indicates amount of feet that building roof elevation is above the roadway that may result in limited view interference from roadway beyond the site. 612 BELLEVUE WAY N.E. BEIIEVUE. WA 98004 (206) 451 -8001 P g 4/10/86 DAMES VAN DE WINTER ASSOCIATES, ASIA landscape architecture/ site planning VALLEY VIEW ESTATES PRESENTATION OUTLINE o Name and qualifications o Scope of work on the project o General design considerations PLANTING CONCEPTS: Retention of native vegetation Screening of parking and dumpsters Continuity of plant materials Shade parking areas Seasonal color Entry design composition Use of native plant materials CHILDREN'S PLAY AREA CONCEPTS Variety of activities Circulation Activities for different skill levels Area for active and passive play Seating for adults Safety o Staff considerations - modifications we have made o BAR guidelines and compliance o Questions SUITE 201 612 BELLEVUE WAY N.E. BELLEVUE, WA 98004 (206) 451 -8001 /3 April 10, 1986 VALLEY VIEW ESTATES AREA CALCULATION OF SITE Total Area of. Site SUITE 201 JAMES VAN DE VANTER ASSOCIATES, ASIA landscape architecture/ site planning Existing vegetation retained 2.26 32 Proposed planting 2.0 29 Asphalt paving 1.44 20 Building foundation 0.94 13 Concrete walk 0.35 6 612 BEIIEVUE WAY N.E. BEIIEVUE, WA 98004 7.08 acres 100% 10 (206). 451 =8001 p ig ■V4 V, 44GR 24 Landscape Structures / Mexico Forge Actual size: 16' x 16' (488 cm x 488 cm) Space required: 28' x 25' (853 cm x 762 cm) Approx. Installation time: 15 hours Number of play events: 5 Platforms: 2 / highest at 70” (178 cm) Number of kids: 10 - 14 A resilient safety surface is recommended under and around all play equipment. See p. 19-20 for new 01270 slide details. _. .,7".M i " "1:i )fi. • . {;J'' hr r'i ;' `�' °,r " _�r1 •+'S v Q� I 4 c?' 1i, yJ i Actual size: 18' x 14' (549 cm x 427 cm) Space required: 28' x 26' (853 cm x 792 cm) Approx. installation time: 18 hours Number of play events: 5 Platforms: 2 / highest at 42" (107 cm) Number of kids: 10 - 12 A resilient safety surface is recommended under and around all play equipment. See p. 19 -20 for new 00842 slide details. Landscape Structures / Mexico Forge 23 Basic play things Landscape Structures/ 46 Mexico Forge Independent play components can turn your playstructure into a complete play area. They enlarge the play experience for more children and more fun and encourage greater play flow and child interaction. They're the perfect complement to your playstructurel 025 Post Maze Maze of 25 posts up to 3' height above grade. Area varies depending upon amount of clustering. A resilient safety surface is recommended under and around all play equipment. to m 'tn Funbooster preschool playstructures have been designed and manufactured for children ages 2 to 6 years only. If your users will be over 6 years of age, please refer to our PLAY - BOOSTERS, Redwood or AlumaCore play - structures for the correct level of activity and challenge. Actual area: 26' x28'6" (793 cm x869 cm) Area required: 36' x 41' (1098 cm x 1250 cm) Installation time: 30 -35 hours Number of play events: 11 Platforms: 6 / highest at 70" Number of kids: 30 - 35 A resilient safety surface is recommended under and around all play equipment. Landscape Structures /Mexico Forge 45 • • JAMES VAN DE WINTER ASSOCIATES, ASIA landscape architecture/ site planning April 10, 1986 VALLEY VIEW ESTATES STAFF CONSIDERATIONS Applicant has modified plans to accomplish the following: General - Add retaining .wall information on landscape plan and revise property lines to match site plan. SUITE 201 - Designate recreation area per staff finding No. 12 and similar to staff Exhibit K. (See landscape plan for recreation space computation and designation). Recreation Area Required Total recreation area (200 s.f. unit with 50% on slopes less than 4:1) Staff Recommendation No. 1 21,600 s.f. Provided (See Landscape Plan) Area A = 6,000 s.f. Area B = 7,750 s.f. Area C = 2,500 s.f. Children's Play,' Area = 5,400 s.f. (25% of Total Required Rec. Area) TOTAL PROVIDED 21,650 s.f. Additional evergreen shrub screening of parking from adjacent rights of ways. Staff Recommendation No. 2,6 Provide seat wall bordering the play area. Review slopes in this area. Reduce pathway to play area to 15% grade. Provide pathway to play area from building one, two. 612 BELLEVUE WAY N.E. BELLEVUE, WA 98004 (206) 451 -8001 r' 7 VALLEY VIEW ESTATES April 10, 1986 Page 2 Staff Recommendation No. 5 Level (2 -5% maximum slope) driveway platform extending 30 feet beyond driveway at avenue. Staff Recommendation No. 7 Low individual landscape schemes in front of all structures to enhance architec- tural features and create diversity. Staff Recommendation No. 8 Locate an additional service area for structures 1 and 2 and incorporate all dumpster locations into landscape plan. Z M 0 txt ,ThJLi 'TM1I!tb ?b FlF^Ai H X84 St.RLE_.. ( " /0 4 fo rRE/ NG M"vtu , • �� W4 1 fry 21.0 Z GoNtf . (PPIJC,t 4/ 111.1 ' 1'Pt for Gotetmet4r)p rtoFJ No. : :2 , G ► c_. r ,,4 4- • , :at *7j J (1 JAI t w TtT .�I11 4,T '° T; .••°° � � • 111+1111.L NotINcraHae414-10 '1711 •• allootio 2141AgAr?-F . 1)"Pia G ) _Serral H5 'V artaai 2 ri_3331v13A itialavo2r1 v JAMES VAN DE VANTER ASSOCIATES, MLA landscape architecture / site planning 4/10/86 VALLEY VIEW ESTATES COMPLIANCE WITH BAR REVIEW GUIDELINES 18.60.050 REVIEW GUIDELINES (1) Relationship of Structure to Site Guideline Description . (A) Transist street and units with adequate landscaping and pedestrian movement. (B) Parking and service areas to moderate visual impact of paved area. (2) Relationship of Structure and Site to Adjoining Areas Guideline Description (B) Provide landscape transition to adjoining properties. (3) Landscape and Site Treatment Guideline Description (A) Preserve desireable topography (B) Grade of walks and paved areas to promote safety. (C) Landscaping to enhance architectural features, vistas and provide shade. SUITE 201 612 BEIIEVUE WAY N.E. Compliance Linkage of sidewalk to street, continuity of plant materials. Trees throughout park- ing areas, screening of dumpster. Compliance Screening of parking areas, retention of native vegetation. Compliance Site drops off from west, retainage of existing vegetation. Play area revised within acceptable standards. Compliment buildings, soften blank walls, continuity of one large deciduous tree species through parking area forming an axis. BEIIEVUE, WA 98004 (206) 451 -8001 • 4/10/86 VALLEY VIEW ESTATES COMPLIANCE WITH BAR REVIEW GUIDELINES (cont'd) (3) Landscape and Site Treatment (cont'd) Guideline Description (E) Placement of trees /shrubs in paved areas. (F) Screening of service yards. (G) In areas where general planting will not prosper, other materials such as fences, walls and pavings may be used. (4) Building Design Guideline Description (G) Avoid monotony of buildings creating visual interest. (5) Miscellaneous Structures and Street Furniture Guideline Description (A) Miscellaneous structures should be designed to be part of the architectural concept of design and landscape. (B) Lighting in connection with miscellaneous structures. Compliance Provided planting areas throughout parking areas. Provided screen plant- ing at dumpster locations. All planting areas will prosper. Compliance Varying landscape treatment from one building to another. Compliance Dumpster enclosures concrete wall treatment to match buildings and screened with landscaping. No lighting is planned for play area. M Igo . �_� • '11131i _. - _ _ v mF 1S40-1-- ril p c1b —1 - bP � ref rt41--DR CHARACTERISTIC OF PRIVATE VEHICLE USE Percent of Vehicle Travel TRIP PURPOSE r:arnmg a Living . • ,•.Oily 8. Personal Business Ci,,c Educational religious. . . • ci. , Recreations, Rc•t ;,••r Hrme r' vet Total VEHICLE TYPE Automol:,, 'at ion Vvagon ' tt.7 • :hi.. ,•' :.'.nibus • , • I eot : ;n .,l Vehicle . : er Truck ..... :'otorcycla . • Teta; Total e _LEHICLE OWN SHIP One Vet" ..i• . . -,o VeniCles . •free Vemrles 4 or More Vehicles HOUSEHOLD INCOME Less than 510.000. . 10.000.524.999. . 000.534.999 535.000 and Over TRIP LENGTH Less than 3 Miles 3 -5 Miles 6.10 Mite: . .. . . ..-20 Nikes 21 -30 Ka s Over 30 Miles NUMBER OF VEHICLES 21.4 None . . One or More ... 16.4 One Two Three Four .. Five or More 2.9 13.6 39.1 6.6 100.0 74.6 9.7 11.4 3.2 0.1 0.4 0.5 0.1 23.5 45.6 19.9 11.0 100.0 22.1 56.8 13.4 7.7 100.0 5.2 11.9 17.4 23.3 12.4 29.8 88 Percent of Workers Travel to Work in Cars Nearly 90 percent of American households have one or more motor vehicles and more than 21 percent of the trips taken in those vehicles are for earning a living. The automobile is far and away still the mode Americans prefer for getting to and from work. Nearly 88 percent of employed people get to and from work either in their own vehicles or in car pools. These and other driver and motor vehicle HOUSEHOLD VEHICLE OWNERSHIP Total s5 EMPLOYED PERSONS HOME -TO -WORK TRIPS Percent of Households 12.8 8 33 6 42 6 8.2 2.3 0.5 Percent of Vehicle VEHICLE TYPE Automobiles.... .. 71.1 Station Wagon 8.2 Vanbus /Minibus. . 2.8 Pickup without Camper 1:f 2 Other Truck 1.4 Camper -Coach 8■ Pickup with Camper 1 3 Motorcycles 100.0 and Mopeds Other 2.8 02 100.0 Percent of Persons MEANS OF TRANSPORT Drive Alone . . . 70 4 Carpool 17 2 Total Private Vehicle 87 6 Public Transit 6.0 Walk 4.9 Other . l 5 Total 100 0 VEHICLE TYPE USED Automobile 74 1 Pickup /Van 114 Other Private . 2 1 Total Private.. .. 8/.6 Non Private 12 4 Total 100.0 Total. . . 100 0 OURCE U S. Federal ri„ihway Administration. 1977 National Personal7rans- portaaon Sway 48 PERSON TRIPS BY MODE AND AVERAGE LENGTH Mode of Transport Private Motor Vehicle (1) Public Transit Bus and Streetcar .... . Subway and Elevated Rail Train Airplane . ... .... . . Taxi Total Public Transit Other (2). . .. . Total. Age. 16.19 20 24 25 29 3034 35 39 40-44 45 •t9 50.54 55 -59 60-64 65.69 70 and over use characteristics supplied by the Federa Highway Administration help support the automobile's role as the backbone of this country's transportation system. PERSON TRIPS BY MODE OTHER( 2 ) 13.4% Percent of Average Person Length Trips (M.,•es. .e3 89 1.9 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.2 27 •i 4 7.5 28 800E 34 32- • 13.4 100.0 81- (1) Includes automobile. vanbus /minibus,. pickup ti:,,.h /other var, ot'c tr,ir.k. motorcycle selt•contained , !.Creational vehicle a• 1! (personal user C. Includes walk. big .r.le. school bus and other mucks AVERAGE ANNUAL MILES DRIVEN -`_- Males Females Ail 7.099 4.031 5 Ei 13,803 6.475 15.881 0 548 - 16.151' 0 790 11 7. 17.172 7,046 ; 2%1: 16.618 6.774 .: ?_ 15.428 6.280 11.0 15.003 5.965 10 13,764 _5,647 i' 1E. 10.843 4.452 6,925 3.919 0:7: 5,800 3.217 4 5.943 1C N:3 All Alves . SOURCE U S. Federal Highway Administration 16/7 National Pars: Transportation Study PUBLIC TRANSIT 2.7% vio 0 OLD efiz. 18.52.030 -- 18.52.060 aw6/r0(73 and minimum standard of open spaces as permitted by this title in the district in which the proposed project is to be located. (Ord. 251 S4- 18(part), 1957). 18.52.030 Restrictions. In considering the project, the city council shall, in no case, authorize a use prohib- ited in the district in which the housing project is to be located, except that buildings for administration and main- tenance of the project may be included; nor a building height in excess of that permitted unless the total amount of floor area of the proposed building is equal to or less than the total floor area permissible under the height and .yard regulations for the district. The basement area shall not be included in this calculation. The city council may permit a variation in the normal position of a building on a lot, providing the minimum distance between a building and a street line shall comply with the front yard require- ment of the district. No point of any building shall be nearer than ten feet from an adjacent building. The commis- sion may require such additional restrictions and safeguards as they deem necessary to fu]f -iii the purpose and intent of this title. (Ord. 251 §4- 18(part), 1957). 18_52.040 Open space. Ample open space, with a mini- mum dimension of twenty feet, shall be provided for recrea- tional space, outdoor drying yards, greenery, etc. in addi- tion to that required for off - street parking. (Ord. 251 S4-18(part) , 1957) . 18.52.050 Parking regulations. Parking regulations shall be as provided for in Chapter 18.56. (Ord. 251 §4- 18 (part) , 1957) . 18.52.060 Permit issuance. A permit for a group housing project shall be issued by the city council and in- spections upon approval of.the project by the planning com- mission. (Ord. 251 §4 -18 (part) , 1957) . Sections: Chapter 18.56 OFF - STREET PARKING AND LOADING REGULATIONS 18.56.010 18.56.020 18.56.030 18.56.040 Chapter application. Compliance by existing buildings or structures. Reduction of existing parking area. Screening edge - -Edge of parking area surface. 296 Sections: (Continued) 18.56.050 18.56.055 18.56.060 18.56.070 18.56.080 18.56.090 18.56.100 18.56.110 18.56.120 18.56.130 18.56.140 18.56.150 18.56.160 18.56.170 18.56.180 18.56.190 18.56.200 18.56.210 18.56.010 -- 18'.56. Partial screening required -- Height. Special screening requirements. Parking for one to four family dwellings. 'Apartments- -New structures. Apartments -- Converted or remodeled structures. Apartments -- Exceptions or modifications. Apartments -- Minimum space allotment. Places of public assembly -- Number of spaces Places of public assembly -- Methods of computation. Places of public assembly -- Exceptions. Hospitals, convalescent homes or institutions. Group housing projects -- Community unit projects. Office and professional buildings. Business or commercial buildings. Industrial buildings. Hotel off - street loading. Hospital and institution off- street loading. Business or commercial building off - street loading. 18.56.010 Chapter application. The off - street parking spaces, as required by this chapter, shall apply to new structures only, or to units or additional assembly areas to be added to an existing structure. (Ord. 533 §15(part), 1968: Ord. 251 §4 -20 (part) , 1957) . 18.56.020 Compliance by existing buildings or struc- tures. Existing buildings or structures may provide off - street parking but must comply with the requirements of this chapter as to the location and construction of the parking space for such type of structure. However, the full com- pliance with the number of spaces required need not be ful- filled. (Ord. 533 §15(part), 1968: Ord. 251 §4 -20 (part) , 1957) . 18.56.030 Reduction of existing parking area. Any off - street parking area already in use or established hereafter, shall not be reduced below the limits required by this chap- ter by the construction of any addition to a building or structure nor by the erection of an additional building or structure on the property. (Ord. 533 §15(part), 1968: Ord. 251 §4 -20 (part) , 1957) . 18.56.040 Screening edge - -Edge of parking area surface. Where off- street parking is required, the front edge of the 297 (Tukwila 12/31/70) 18.56.050 -- 18.56.055 screening for the parking area shall not be less than twenty - five feet from the centerline of streets in residential areas and thirty feet in other areas. Where screening is not required, the edge of the parking area surface shall not be less than thirty feet from the centerline of the street in residential areas and thirty -five feet in other areas for normal service streets, and forty -five feet for designated arterials. All parking "areas shall have specific entrance and /or exit areas to the street, each with a maximum width of twenty - four feet at the property line except in industrial districts where forty feet is permitted; edge of curb cut or access shall be no closer than twenty feet from a corner property line, and more when required by the city supervisor for safe movement of vehicles or pedestrians. (Ord. 635 §17, 1970: Ord. 533 S15 (part) , 1968: Ord. 251 S4 -20 (part) , 1957) . 18.56.050 Partial screening required -- Height. Off- i street loading and parking facilities shall be arranged to provide partial screening from.pdblic rights -of -way and adjacent residential use areas by means of decorative walls and /or evergreen landscaping, and /or other parts of the building. Screening shall be at least three- fourths as high as truck projection above average surrounding ground elevation. (Ord. 524 (part) , 1968: Ord. 251 S4 -20 (part) , 1957) . 18.56.055 Special screening requirements. In addition to the screening and landscaping required in other parts of the zoning title, special setbacks, planting and screening shall be required in C -1, C -2, M -1, M -2 and C -M use districts when developing adjacent to pr across a public way from ex- isting C -M, C -P, R -M -H, R -4, R -3, R -2 and R -1 use districts or land uses as follows: (1) A solid screen planting and /or decorative obscuring fence six feet high shall be provided along the boundaries of the C -1, C -2, M -1 and M -2 use districts. Except at streets, where landscape or treatment shall be as described in subdi- vision (4) hereunder; (2) A setback of fifteen feet, landscaped, shall be provided on the street or public way frontages; this setback to be measured from the minimum building setback tine, where no front yard is otherwise required; (3) Outside storage shall comply with C -M requirements except that screening shall consist of a decorative obscuring fence and /or a solid screen planting of evergreens. In areas adjacent to residential uses, no outside storage shall be per- mitted; (4) Utility easements and areas between property lines and curbing shall be landscaped and /or treated with dust and 298 (Tukwila 12/31/70) 18.56.060 - -18. erosion control planting or surfacing such as low growing evergreens, ground cover, shrubs, washed stream rocks, or a combination of similar materials; (5) Detailed plans for landscaping and screening shall be submitted with plans for building and site improvements and the certificate of occupancy shall not be issued prior to installation of landscaping and screening. (Ord. 635 S16, 1970) . 18.56.060 Parking for one to four family dwellings. For all one, two, three or four family dwellings hereafter erected, or for any buildings converted to such use or occupancy, provisions shall be made on the premises, in the side yard and /or rear yard only, or in a garage or carport, for the parking of passenger motor vehicles for the use of the occupants. Such parking area shall provide space for two passenger motor vehicles for each family unit. No commercial trucks over eight thousand pounds gross vehicle weight, machinery, bulldozers, or similar construction equipment shall be allowed to be stored in a residential zone. For any residence having roomers or boarders, and for boarding and rooming houses, provision shall be made in the side yard and /or rear yard only, for one parking space for each boarder or lodger, in addition to the requirements above for one, two, three and four family dwellings. (Ord. 524 (part), 1968: Ord. 251 §4- 20(part), 1957). 18.56.070 Apartments - -New structures. On site facilities for the storage or parking of passenger motor vehicles for the use of the occupants of apartments shall be provided or main- tained on the basis of three spaces for each two units, or fraction thereof. Screening for parking areas on streets or facing single family residences shall be provided by the following methods singularly or in combinaticn: (1) A four foot high fence, of decorative or permanent character; (2) A maintained planting strip of hardy evergreen shrubbery, which will provide dense, uniform growth, four to six feet high, within two years of planting; (3) A four foot high berm, or equivalent change in grade, covered with maintained evergreen ground cover plant- ings. Where auxiliary parking areas within five hundred feet of the immediate area of the building are developed, they • shall meet the requirements of Section 18.24.060, except screening shall be as described in this section. All parking areas shall have specific entrance and /or exit areas to the street, each with a maximum width of twenty -four feet at the property line; edge of curb cr cut or access shall be no closer than twenty feet from a corner property line, and more when required by city supervisor for safe movement of vehicles or pedestrians. 299 (Tukwila 12/31/70) • 18.56.080 -- 18.56.110 Maintained dense screen plantings shall be only two feet high, twenty feet from a corner where two streets intersect. No trucks shall be parked on a lot in an — apartment zone except for deliveries. Trailers, boats, campers or similar equipment shall be parked in side and rear yard areas only, and screened by a four- foot -high fence of decorative and permanent character. (Ord. 635 S18, 1970: Ord. 524(part), 1968: Ord. 251 §4 -20 (part) , 1957) . 18.56.080 Apartments -- Converted or remodeled struc- tures. The parking requirements shall be the same as de- scribed for new structures in Section 18.56.020. (Ord. 524 (part) , 1968: Ord. 251 §4 -20 (part) , 1957) . 18.56.090 Apartments -- Exceptions or modifications. The board of adjustment may make an exception to any of the requirements of Sections 18.56 and 18.16.030 upon showing by an applicant at•a public hearing of any unnecessary hardship or practical - difficulty constituting an unreasonable deprivation of use as distinguished from merely granting a privilege. (Ord. 889 Si, 1974: Ord. 524 (part) , 1968: Ord. 251 §4 -2 (part) , 1957) . 18.56.100 Apartments -- Minimum space allotment. The • minimum area provided for parking of passenger cars shall be three hundred fifty square feet, with a minimum stall width of eight feet six inches. Trucks and specialized com- mercial or industrial vehicles shall be provided with suf- ficient space to park and maneuver without use of public right -of -way. (Ord. 524(part), 1968: Ord. 251 §4- 20(part), 1957) . 18.56.110 Places of public assembly -- Number of spaces. Every structure or part thereof hereafter erected, or for any building converted to such use or occupancy to be used principally as a place of public assembly or for any addi- tion thereto, there shall be provided and maintained on the premises accessible off - street parking space for the storage • 299 -1 (Tukwila 12/15/74) Sections: 11/ d4, e 18.56.010 -- 18.56.030 z,- units with two or more bedrooms shall provide adequate recre- ation space for children. Such space shall be at least twenty - five percent but not more than fifty percent of the total recre- ation space required under subsection (1) above 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. (Ord. 1247 §1(part), 1982). Chapter 18.56 OFF - STREET PARKING AND LOADING REGULATIONS 18.56.010 18.56.020 18.56.030 18.56.040 18.56.050 18.56.060 18.56.070 18.56.080 18.56.090 18.56.100 18.56.110 18.56.120 Purpose. Chapter application. Reduction of existing parking spaces. General requirements. Required number of parking spaces. Loading space requirements. Cooperative parking facility. Parking for the handicapped. Compact car allowance. Uses not specified. Landscaping and screening. Filing of plans. 18.56.010 Purpose. It is the purpose of this chapter to provide for adequate, convenient, and safe off - street parking and loading areas for the different land uses de- scribed in this title. (Ord. 1247 §1(part), 1982). 18.56.020 Chapter application: Off- street parking and loading spaces shall be provided as an accessory use in all zones in accordance with the requirements of this chapter at the time any building or structure is erected, enlarged or at the time there is a change in its principal use. (Ord. 1247 §1(part) , 1982) . 18.56.030 Reduction of existing parking spaces. Any off - street parking area already in use or established here- after, shall not be reduced below the limits required by this chapter by the construction of any addition to a build- ing or structure nor by the erection of an additional build- ing or structure on the property. (Ord. 1247 §1(part), 1982). 298 (Tukwila 8/82) ■ ■ ■ 18.56.040 General requirements. Any required off - street parking and loading facilities shall be developed in accordance with the following standards: ( 1) Location. (A) Any on- premises parking area which contains park- ing stalls located more than one thousand feet from the principal use shall require board of architectural review approval for the entire parking lot. (B) Off - premises parking areas shall be provided through a deed or easement or other legally binding agreement running with the land, the term of which shall be at least as long as the reasonable life of the premises served thereby, or in•lieu thereof, obtain a conditional use permit, issued pursuant to the requirements and procedures of Chapter 18.64. ( 2) Minimum parking area dimensions for surface and structured parking facilities shall be as provided in Table 3. 18.56.040 ( 3) Parking Area and Parking Area Entrance and Exit Slopes. The slope of off - street parking spaces shall not exceed five percent. The slope of entrance and exit driveways providing access for off - street parking areas and internal driveway aisles without parking stalls shall not exceed fifteen percent; ( 4) Driveways and Maneuverability. (A) Adequate ingress to and egress from each parking space shall be provided without moving another vehicle and without backing more than fifty feet. (B) Turning and maneuvering space shall be located entirely on private property unless specifically approved by the public works director and the board of architectural review. (C) All parking spaces shall be internally accessible to one another without reentering adjoining public streets. (D) When off - street parking is provided in the rear of a building and a driveway or lane alongside the building provides access to rear parking area, such driveway shall require a minimum width of twelve feet and a sidewalk of at least a three -foot section, adjoining the building, curbed or raised six inches above the driveway surface. (E) Ingress and egress to any off - street parking lot shall not be located closer than twenty feet from point of tangent to an intersection. (F) The public works director may require ingress separate from an egress for smoother and safer flow of traffic. (5) Surface. (A) The surface of any required off - street parking or loading facility shall be paved with asphalt or concrete and shall be graded and drained as to dispose all surface water, but not across sidewalks. 299 (Tukwila 8/82) 18.56.050 18.56.040 (B) All traffic - control devices, such as parking stripes designating car stalls, directional arrows or signs, bull rails, curbs and other developments shall be installed and completed as shown on the approved plans. (C) Paved parking areas shall use paint or similar devices to delineate car stalls and direction of traffic. (D) Where pedestrian walks are used in parking lots for the use of foot traffic only, they shall be curbed or raised six inches above the lot surface. (E) Wheel stops shall be required on the periphery of parking lots so cars will not protrude into the public right -of -way, or off the parking lot or strike buildings. Wheel stops shall be two feet from the end of the stall of head -in parking. ( 6) Parallel parking stalls shall be designed so that doors of vehicles do not open onto the public right -of -way. ( 7) Obstructions. No obstruction which would restrict car door opening shall be permitted within five feet of the centerline of a parking space. ( 8) Lighting. Any lighting on a parking lot shall illuminate only the parking lot, designed to avoid undue glare or reflection on adjoining premises. ( 9) Curb -cuts. All parking areas shall have specific entrance and /or exit areas to the street. The width of access roads and curb -cuts shall be determined by the public works director. The edge of the curb -cut or access road shall be as required by the public works director for safe movement of vehicles or pedestrians. Curb -cuts in single- family districts shall be limited to a maximum of twenty feet in width and the location shall be approved by the public works director. (10) No commercial trucks over eight thousand pounds gross vehicle weight, machinery, bulldozers, or similar con- struction equipment shall be allowed to be stored or parked in a residential zone. (11) Parking stalls shall not be used for permanent or semi - permanent parking or storage of trucks or materials. (Ord. 1247 S1(part), 1982). 300 (Tukwila 8/82) 18.56.050 minimum number for the listed Business and commercial buildings Convalescent homes, nursing homes and rest homes Fast food restaurant Food stores and markets High schools Hospitals Hotels and motels Industrial buildings 18.56.050 Required number of parking spaces. The of off - street parking spaces shall be as follows uses in Table 4: Table 4 Single - family and multi - family dwellings Churches, mortuaries and funeral homes Office and professional build- ings, banks, dental and medical clinics Outdoor sports areas or parks Places of public assembly, including auditoriums, exhibi- tion halls, community clubs, community centers and theaters 2.for each unit including R -1, R -2, R -3, R -4 and RMH dwellings 2.5 for each 1,000 square feet of gross floor area 1 for each 5 fixed seats 1 for every 4 beds with a minimum of 10 stalls 1 for each 50 square feet of gross floor area 1 for each 300 square feet of gross floor area 1 for each staff member • plus 2 for every 5 students or visitors 1 for each bed 1 for each room 1 for each 1,000 square feet of gross floor area 2.5 for each 1,000 square feet of gross floor area shall be determined by planning commission 1 for every 4 persons based on occupancy load Post offices 3 for each 1,000 square feet of gross floor area 302 (Tukwila 8/82) Private clubs 1 for every 4 persons based on occupancy load Public facilities, including libraries, police and fire stations Restaurant Schools, including elementary, junior high, private and parochial schools Shopping center (mall), planned, per gross leaseable floor area size as listed below 600,000 sq. ft. or larger 400,000 -- 599,999 sq. ft. 200,000 -- 399,999 sq. ft. 100,000 -- 199,999 sq. ft. 303 18.56.050 1.5 for each staff member shall be determined by the planning commission 1 for each 100 square feet of gross floor area 5 for every 1,000 sq. ft.; restaurant factor - -minus 4 stalls per 1,000 sq. ft. of gross restaurant floor area; theater factor- -plus 3 stalls per every 100 seats over initial 750 seats 4 to 5 for every 1,000 sq. ft. per linear progression; restaurant factor - -no addi- tional parking; theater factor - -plus 3 stalls per 100 seats over initial 750 seats 4 for every 1,000 sq. ft.; restaurant factor - -no addi- tional parking; theater factor - -plus 3 stalls per 100 seats over initial 750 seats 4 for every 1,000 sq. ft.; restaurant factor - -plus 6 stalls per 1,000 sq. ft. of gross restaurant floor area; theater factor - -plus 3 stalls per 100 seats over initial 450 seats (Tukwila 8/82). 25,000-- 99,999sq. ft. 18.56.060 4 for every 1,000 sq. ft.; restaurant factor- -plus 10 stalls per 1,000 sq. ft. of gross restaurant floor area; theater factor - -plus 3 stalls per 100 seats, provided cinema occupies 10% or more of total gross leaseable area Taverns 1 for every 4 persons based on occupancy load. (Ord. 1247 S1(part), 1982). 18.56.060 Loading space requirements. Off- street space for standing, loading and unloading services shall be provided in such a manner as not to obstruct freedom of traffic movement on streets or alleys. For all office, commercial, and indus- trial uses,_ each loading space shall consist of at least a ten - foot by thirty -foot loading space with.fourteen -foot height clearance for small trucks such as pickup trucks or a twelve - foot by sixty- five -foot loading space with fourteen -foot height clearance for large trucks, including tactor- trailer large spaces. Table 5 prescribes the number of spaces required: Table 5 Square Feet of Gross Floor Area (Except Basement Area) Office Buildings, Hotels, Hospitals, Number of Spaces and Institutions 1 3,000 to 100,000 2 100,000 to 335,000 3 335,000 to 625,000 4 625,000 to 945,000 5 945,000 to 1,300,000 6 1,300,000 to 1,695,000 7 1,695,000 to 2,130,000 8 2,130,000 to 2,605,000 9 2,605,000 to 3,120,000 10 3,120,000 to 3,675,000 304 (Tukwila 8/82) Mr. Brad Collins Planning Director City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Blvd. Tukwila, Wash. 98188 Dear Brad: 6706(r c,vb April 15th, 1986 The following information is provided for the Board of Architectual Review to use in its evaluation of the Puget Western application for a building permit for the Valley View Estates project. I have reference material availible that was used to build this report and would be pleased to loan it to the city if so requested. ennis L. Robertson 2 The following information is based upon the Review Guidelines provided to the BAR and the Valley View Estates information provided to the city by Puget Western. (1) Relationship of Structure to the Site. The buildings are essentially located in a row along the east boundary of the project with the parking lot between the buildings and the single Family neighborhood to the west. The developer states that this will enhance the transition to the single family neighborhood streets ( 53rd and Slade Way) and allow space for adequate landscaping. The developer also claims that natural vegetation will be left along the street for th. transition. However, it is apparent that the real reason for the site plan presented is to provide for as many units as possible along the eastern propertly line where the view of the valley to the east can be utilized to raise the value of the units. A reasonable analysis of the site plan shows that natural vegetation will exist along only a rough 1/3 of the 53rd and Slade Way property lines. This requires that the transition to the street be accomplished by new shrubs and trees planted by the developer. Please refer to diagrams A and B. Diagram A is a copy of the site plan with the Trees and shrubs colored in as the developer would have you beleive they will look. This diagram gives the impression that much of the site will be covered by large plants, that will screen it (parking lot and buildings) from both the local neighborhood (streetscape) and the valley floor to the east. However, something seemed a little wrong when I had my wife first look at it. She pointed out that the scale on the plan indicated that the trees planted by the developer would be over 40 feet in diameter but only 10 to 12 foot tall. This seemed unlikely so we researched the landscape plan more thoroughly. It appears that the developer presented a plan for how the site might look in the year 2001 (15 years from now) provided that it survived slides and air pollution. Diagram B is a more realistic view of how the site landscaping will appear for its first 5 years. The red dots represent the approximate diameter of the plants for their first 10 years. As you can see they screen nothing. Most of the trees described would never reach the size indicated in the plan. The developer also stated that the parking lot would be broken up into many smaller lots of approximately 11 stalls and that the buildings would be terraced with modulation. A little closer look at the parking lots (Diagram C) indicates that there are actually 2 large parking lots and one smaller one for units 1 and 2. The deception of the smaller 11 stall lots (3) fails miserably when it is realized that the device used to 'break' the large lots into small 11 stall lots is nothing but a series of small (5' wide, 10' long) low protusions into the large lots. The large lots will appear as such from both within the development and from the neighboring streets. The use of "small ", terraced buildings are intended to fit into the single family housing that exists in the rest of the neighborhood. Well, when the buildings are viewed from the east by a person they will appear virtually as a 4 1/2 story high wall. The narrow (10' to 20') separation between buildings will simply be not observable from anywhere in the valley because of depth of the buildings and the fact that a viewer would be looking at most of them from an angle instead of straight on. Also, it may be possible to use the old, outdated codes to define the buildings as 3 story, but any sighted person would quickly point out the reality of the 4 1/2 story appearance from the east. The height (48') and the footprint (36' by 38') are both double any of the dimensions found in the surrounding single family homes. (2) Relationship of Structure and Site to Adjoining Area. The buildings are described as small by the developer with the use of sloped roofs, side entries, and landscaping to provide harmony, transition, and consistancy to surrounding area. As described above the landscaping is wholefully inadequate, requiring plants 3 times larger than shown by the developer. The buildings and parking lot totally overwhelm any other man made objects in the adjoining area. No consistancy of any type exists between this proposal and any existing or allowable structures in the adjoining area. The adjoining area is a wooded hillside with various, different architectual styled homes distributed on the hillside such that it actually appears as if it is still essentially an undeveloped area. This development would appear as a 1000' long, 4 1/2 story high wall from the east and a 1000' long, 2 story high wall with 2 large parking lots from the west. Building Design. The developer states that the character of the buildings will be most similar to single family homes with a northwest character. Finally, varying landscape from building to building will be used to avoid monotony of design. I would point out that it will be more similar to a long, high wall with a northwest China character. Varying the landscaping, especially the sparse, small plants planned will do very little to change the close -up boredom of 18 identical units or the distant impression of a single, monotonous long wall of a building. 3 Finally, I would like to discuss the planned recreation areas. The noise, of course would be overwhelming, dangerous, and against code. Two other features stand out. First, the areas labeled A,B and C are laid out so that they begin right at the porch step of the units they front on -- ruining privacy and relaxation. Second, the children's play area is both remote, and still noisy because no noise screening is planned. However, because of the remoteness and general very high noise environment the area will require parent supervision 100% of the time. Simply put, a parent could neither see into or hear what occurs in the play area from their units. A sincere effort to integrate into the character and scope of the neighborhood would have resulted in scattered, smaller buildings grouped about the play and recreation areas and parking. However, the developer has attempted to minimize cost and maximize profit. Neither of which are bad, as long as the plans meet the City of Tukwila's code and the criteria that this Board of Architectual Review must apply -- Which they clearly don't. The plans are out of scale, scope and character not to mention monotonous and dangerous to the health of their proposed residents.. I also feel that the city must require a contract be established with detailed specifications for the landscape and site plans prior to issuing any building permit. This is because of the high probability that the property will be sold prior to development and the extreme site conditions (noise, slope, slide potential, non - conforming land use, and great difference in site character). 4 PLANT LEGEND FOR VALLEY VIEW ESTATES TYPE NAME OF PLANT COMMON NAME SMALL DECIDUOUS TREES ►bS ACER CIRCINATUM VINE MAPLE 8-10 FT. 10 FT, APPROX. 3 FT. PA es q7 STYRAX JAPONICA JAPANESE SNOWDROP TREE 8 -10 FT. 10 FT. APPROX. 3 FT. NEEDS WELL DRAINING SOIL 4 47 - 7 23 ! A B;tMIZAt#rlt6.l s#,SE N""NB ET ONEIItl NCI E1.3 / 2.3 1 CERCIS OCCIDENTALIS WESTERN REDBUD 8 -10 FT, 10 FT. APPROX. 3 FT. EXC. FOR SELDOM WATERED BANKS X31 LARGE DECIDUOUS TREES /67 ACER RUBRUM RED MAPLE 4/7 PLATANUS ACERIFOLIUM LONDON PLANE EVERGREEN CONIFERS 4841 THUJA PLICATA I/64 SEQUOIA SEMPERVIRENS W/ // PINUS DEHSIFLORA FLOWERING TREES 431 PRUNUS SUBHIRTELLA .3b 8' MALUS IOENSIS -PLENA BROADLEAF EVERGREEN SCREENING SHRUBS I/O 6 PHOTINIA GLABRA 378 MYRICA CALIFORNICA 4136 PRUNUS LUSITANICA PRIVACY I INTEREST PLANTS I/'/ 3 RHODODENDRON 1 /7.„2 366 383 317 .25q SPIRAEA MAHONIA AQUIFOLIUM OSMAREA BURKW000II HAAAMELIS MOILIS CORHUS STOLONIFERA WESTERN RED CEDAR COAST REDWOOD JAPAN66& RED PINE FLOWERING CHERRY BECHTEL CRABTREE JAPANESE PHOTINIA PACIFIC WAX MYRTLE PORTUGAL LAUREL OREGON GRAPE OSMANTHUS CHINESE WITCH HAZEL RED -OSIER DOGWOOD LOU EVERG, SHRUB MASSES 4 VIBURNUM DA'VIOII DAVID'S VIBURNUM 00-91/3 EVERGREEN AZALEA AZALEA 39'4 PACHISTIIIA MYRSINITES OREGON BOXWOOD I/40 SARCOCOCCA HUMULIS SARCOCCA 41/3 PINUS MUGO MUGO PINE PLANTED PUG. WEST. ACTUAL COMMENTS HEIGHT EST. WIDTH PLANTED UIDTH 10 -12 FT, 50 FT, APPROX. 4 FT. SUSCEPTIBLE TO AIR POLLUTION /60 10 -12 FT 50 FT, APPROX. 5 FT. SUSCEPTIBLE TO AIR POLLUTION /4;0 8 -10 FT 8 -10 FT. 8-10 FT. 10 -12 FT. 10 -12 FT, 24 -30 IN. 48 IN. 24 -30 IN. 48 IN. 24 -30 IN. 48 IN. 24 -30 IN. 42 IN, 24 -30 IN. 42 IN. 24 -30 IN. 42 IN. 24 -30 IH. 42 IN. 24-30 IN. 42 IN. 24 -30 IN. 42 IN, 15-18 IN. 30 IN, 15-18 IN. 30 IN. 15-18 IN. 30 IN. 15 -18 IN, 30 IN. 15 -18 IN. 30 Iti. ol PLANTS SUSCEPTIBLE TO WATER PROBLEMS PLANTS SUSCEPTIBLE TO AIR POLLUTION t it�l M�Mr�ft rd6tUlNt�i@6d�8R�tilliN�MR�� *THERE 1S CONFUSION AS TO WHICH TREE THEY ARE PLANNING TO USE. THEIR REFERENCE IS INCORRECT. HOWEVER, NEITHER IS SUITABLE FOR THEIR PROJECT. 20 FT. APPROX. 2 FT. 20 FT. 20. FT. 25 FT. APPROX. 2 FT. 25 FT. APPROX. 2 FT. THESE PLANTS CAN BE PURCHASED AT THE SIZES STATED BY PUGET WESTERN BUT THEY ARE USUALLY MUCH SMALLER, DOES NOT LIKE SOGGY SOIL H81/ NEEDS WELL DRAINING SOIL 1 09 NEEDS WELL DRAINING SOIL %3/ NEEDS WELL DRAINING SOIL :346 MILDEW IS A PROBLEM 0 SUSCEPTIBLE TO AIR POLLUTION /60 NEEDS WELL DRAINING SOIL 4 /ya- /4 SUSCEPTIBLE TO AIR POLLUTION /GO HEEDS WELL DRAINING SOIL NEEDS WELL DRAINING SOIL 294 NEEDS WELL DRAINING SOIL 409 references: t) St sef New Wes/ern &arddn Bad/ ,s� Furey Nursery 160 PROBLEM SITUATIONS: Fire, Smog Plants with low fuel volume Fire risk is high where native brush and woodland encounter dwellings. No plant will stop a fire, but homeowners can lower the risk by removing highly combustible brush from around the borne, introducing low- growing plants with potentially high water content and low fuel volume, irrigating new plantings as needed. and grooming to prevent build -up of potential fuel. Here are suggested plants PERENNIALS, VINES Some poor risks for smoggy areas Air pollution adversely influences plants as well as humans. In plants, the effects will range from poor appearance to poor performance, or both. To the home gardener, damage to plants by polluted air is disconcerting, but the damage can be critical to commercial growers of vegetables and flowers. Consequently, most research into air pollution damage has been conducted to establish susceptibility of crop plants; the results have catalogued the most susceptible rather than the most resistant. At present, the plants most tolerant of different types of air pollution reveal themselves by good to excellent performance in smoggy areas. In the absence of scientifically established resistance, this implied resistance is your best guide. Look rrounri in gardens, along highways. Ask a reputable local nurseryman to suggest f,Irrnt.; that have ctcrnwnslr;tted goc performance locally. Plants propagated in polluted areas for the nursery trade are likely to be among the more resistant. The following list of fruit, vegetables, and ornamental plants contains those plants no longer grown commercially in moderately to heavily air - polluted areas. EDIBLE CROPS ORNAMENTALS v. OVC.11.'H fi I azi .Sr) ^ ! yam ^ 0 • Ls Y •J T. ? 'A-' aiarar ��aa�u.; • ALti L.Y.G. la t•i ,••G ^, • •TY'r• [S- e.0 -..." TT .^.! • czccrs •. • — fR '[vA 1.w•' ' S v7 }•{A �l �' • : d { C Err =.. - :.O4-kn.; • / W �2'� Ge7Afi • GS.d'. )O •A S:: • 1`• _`••S� Kd �NC.f • G I.J J•. J•J7 �: r' • r!.r.., / aat «"t • ?.1 •+ s•.r.1 '_.:mac& ° � —�: i.i .'s:_r mss:.'-.• yn�c •'�' ='•- -'.Lr � Y +..• 'y o- °1 •v_•.-• d.eS -'+. �A.a Tr • �.•t 1C..•pT.: wl'ti. Tv • ■wl1 1 l Y. r • r. .1 C, .^- • o • : r: C �• I ...--.- , J 1 ` � - . vcar tiJ p M.iA:J exLAprr C Z:i•2 JC •/ f V"' • ; 3 e !� a "2 - •■.( Ht•L4. • •••s.. CC: 1 .4.4 - or Tit( ▪ o1i.5 w.aotvii +• 'aJ9f7 • #.ta pL7 M• ?�� • ^..'.TA::'J• 1. 0 ¢C1✓`-0:.I1.,7? - 1 % l.:/L Do L. rJ �7S1K� z .ti ! F�CS • 1• A r..cgTF / w R+-7) _v ) ...R • :JVC�_ L!R 1 JA: ivJ! i` jTi • •J .' -.A s. '• .Lt W.Ln rl. GN L .r' �I. o •^. . :-o CtiSlt T'i.' -�+-\ / �l ✓i ?L'L C3+'••.n . .^ — /,�- .Tye °_c,a ..:i �ctiiw..,�r <•.. (..nom • ▪ •.ya t-� Cw_'iOFJ!CA PnCIs . r4'/./ • - ' ; : - .:. _ .,i' - .. ij t: f - C .J • L nL riCE w N •S •.' J ►��� t0 1AQ •y 1 - -w.. • n•w. c.y *.nos. V1A .Ix... !b •S•.•-• 1 • . WOGI?T -i c._. r . -1 � jime onb a, ; - 170 - - , '"4 - ,'`• _ - _ r _ =- •_�- -_- _ - _ _ _ -3-_ _ �+lA� of - ,• .7.7L ex. /TAT •.r _ • • Z.:, r . n0 To To 1 _Zoo M! Pte.- r• 4KS A. G .e• �• 7; Y. - ♦C, 7F_ ♦ a SL 11,.oe sr ✓,cam r.. WLAMY L•OMMD FO N izeri [KS ex le -*-', Ter. TO a1.*4;. LA•`My LI DE 4F llt.. na wl••iJ VOW.. tea • ict� +wwn.,A }tr. MA PLL • fLAT.Wi71 AC$RI pOLIVri / LoUc,e j y-vGa4 .4 Cx.1 -11 �cS • T'tJ•!A f'L1LL>,1' / w. Piet, ct7AR • s!•>4VOM Ztr'1PLtVIP.t!FJS/ CdKT D•Dd> • P 4us Jean'FLC••R / .IA y.ese *LID R.Je. • FL-ow. . & ¶ e r z LAC.. A> 1.4 ~I to c WI U. • rr,rht,•. �IONi2TC:tA • MJTvn.LL -I> / P. C.-1 • MALVS ZOe'4i51{ AECAleL G�A*+rtirr t' tveitAixeg.'� •w- Tb'f+.ca o In.o•r W A 4tAPbrA / .'J1 a, w.t 01111 Its • M1'P LA CA.1 PD1C.J . ' PAC ;P+L Wrir ' f -t T +lA 1 . Actc cl$LluATur1/ v. or. p1A'LL a grrog"< :Ar•4l4J /.'.r.hu.1 GCL a NOWD7Rx Tete . Cre.L.15 [AdAOlp.ialS /'I •CDDJ^ rLAsat ! - .fir. M. 1.. R.tL Ts RAC ( rY OF 7((w.)ILA FLA . /0-110V6 ecf,l.L1 11,Akb OF Aecoq irEc77/kA.C. KEv/�w 7a*w/lA L 'A 76/eg /? TJ-t E ,QE VACSY Va f L.S7%7 s E)(11 1817 2 9 Pkee 1 OF 2 AF'uc. 17 t41 REs /coo) TO /,VFD/2 1,A?70N 5q&-er 7E D ay T7/6 7Rori 7 A 5u1 P/6 STAB ,C'epoRT R'c`/ e - b ii- - 77/t 7 7A4 R 771 '; ,clot, 7EsT7 , D/ F�,�D �' Cc - (�- tuv�TY !L-f& P_s / 7? r"OGLd tJi/a.G (5 P/2-56 J tD / COA -(M(SS /bus CONS / e.)E,2ATib,i/, P'AR 1C.1146 As PRE5Ew."1 tt•LNY, Oti - St ir PAR kcts kccpr 1DATTO J APF-t_A „ Gizc..ssLY I.tA1JEQUPTE. 'THE I.5 a' PAcE FEi MUT' 1 EOUIPENCEt4r, PEZMSSNIC� UNDER TH 12'1 " 1- vwOt. - 26KiiNG COpt , /fig l lam' 2Et`"LercTta OF Ttt 1 ?EAR (T S - THE "rwO \? O � AtuC.TS 140usKNocL l s C_LEP 't ° - t1 9vE(Z FLo,,r V./1U_ 2Gsut_ - 114 04 2 T' "I 1 *tC-, CCs 1 D tTl Ot.ts 01.3 `LAt E \1A1' i S4 Ave S3 5 Av.F_ /.<t.\ 6. So 1 O 1.e: ONLY NEEE - r - (j Loci*. AT T.I' irtke7 `O, SEE TFir - AD> w:A NiG ltl E-l IGH- bEKISCTS it.EV6Lovoli NTS, Zl SHcAka, ISE Ni - C; -iAT It.r EklE, ONE OF 'TTte EXAMPS b 1cTr , PI€ s AetS `tivtt R- -11.44,m sL4 51 /at IVE & • - D ' (EV tT4,e Ov P- FCc1tJ c-A.WIr v1tU. CREATE". OiNicus 1- 11-zkc'et T 3 P',7`1'1 VEAKIA + Jb i`EDEST ioi TPPFFtc. 1 A5 \V LL pS FF.lC120CH it ,M3 TFI€ SI NG(€ - FpMtLY Ne - IG14. :Kt4Cb . :RAMC- RCut-dA =►.t Lt M IT? NG DER/':I-TOM OF "Mt< 1sSct - T? ONIL"( U NHSiTE /'t 't =FFI C.ONGERr.n , THB Pitcfic5E.b Loc,o.Tiows OF I hfGR.� SS / EG2 1 oL(T 1-C. l 3Qc -' 7 r To T } 4 anArAksslowk A t t Cd . `rkF —t- E1'9 - M ->`f-S Gc2 A\ s', 4s sr7� ... .....,.u.,..,.,......, .... ., ,. .......... ..vr+•. a 1 . ^...'-1r f'p5e Subs 142 i 42e Loc .Tr..D IN C.LoSE PrzCWnntri' TO Sow CuP Vrr s A►,iL F'p i eLY STcs a Gp_At e:5"• S1G HT- 01St x pfka .s MAY Accu2tt burg To - C"N � FE. Fp.c. . Abb irioNALuY `tAg• G-� raDb5 IrovcCvt 's 1 )J EG,err ATi nG . 1 tea ES f 1- U0j n17's V.1 tLL LI KtgLY gti;( 3 epar. prJ - S'f 126 €0 - 1 2/0 , 44 1 pg,124CDs OEs GOLD Icy St.7l►./ CS Otts,siBM. p(a riscdti APES SN S ReP4--(ITE OF PFkKi r.7G Nsgs B(TS tr l Af2 !-k414 b1gr.7Sn Ott T 71 - 1g ISr+KkG Rd[4:. Klsi "vazi2 -V.. Sict G 7 Sk V t O cMS71oN WP-L. t lay Sisc.Ne SUPpc21" -- E, acra \L tcJ. lT A h tsF� OC• 1 ,-t tG 1-t \(cf il•kS� of: ON sTizawr P1321c t "2o3c<==s' w tt_L. G'ignsi;Rf - (T\ cOtvvm.tsstcw 15 L124 — t 3/4.1 is PPC --CAL =►J� R gcc L 06,ssr2v 01 t ..4 0 .est . Izc c--ksTL L t't 4 ✓, -7.4 a, S772 2 . C7- ffn/ y pn/ r& - S bib '�u�Attolb s "-o'-s /-A. se'rw w.) o950 M*t �^�L!�!Q �-•r►_ . __ yid an-i l 3 A Pki96, Su JD,a� . /Y1oje,J,,t)G Gl1 Eze 6BOAJS ,7 ,s sas - ereto 770.17 MO Jr .4 0 .44 »e T D wet t WONc 8E AT /Wink p/z.,o2 a.Aue a. h. / — i, Ew a Wou ca 7N c Fr Mo,QE /4 e id, 7 nix ,t Er r /ON d g" ,4c 7%44Z, i nx. K/'/G /0•eoe 7-y des &-P 71 ierr /D ex) r� . COs V @ pou / S3 'e A SIL. �p S vi Ave A 7- r I/t PO A) r /-/ A S q- A/0 ' w /2 . E art 6 IRI6NT OF cv 4,,7,? J■DE/d A - jcS UPI 7R on? 3 ,l)t'3 DIC rNe= srk F AT, � � SOuTN // / -VC �, N.oro _ / doom.) h d n/ 6-S 444-2 b A ,)C -'1 (02 „�D 0A Al o Q /(,H -r F Rowi V / EWE .) I s PA Ko �} r CEGAz V 's , srA-*■J e. E F;e - 444 Cu,e /3 . 4 M C-79soe 6-x,„ EX) r FO nw '7-7+-E C FF i ,Q E e T N2 L 0 - 1 - 7-ter e g - 7 - 7- 1 3 rN.t C & 7V72 c, /Se or 774 D u I e 1.#/'& 1 Ge t GO = z. +A 7- y.e / /ow 6 u.1.,p s w�' s /4 . ‘7 1 . 100K/Aie sour; c/vw.JA, /% .i G A(1E Jv. T N c - j S S & 6 c rs 7?1 E 'TYN,c rrL c o +J c E. € *J I A 3 5 „J 1, tD R i/ e" k. 7, 7- M o,C,J'/J . TF}c reypicAccy /- 1u6G5 77+E c EkJ, / S - - F+�- - ce A V t) „) t` 7 - 7,4 i ft C A-S P/-f-ca re) N o e ni U P N/ t L / o #✓ 65D'4 D , S PcAy ,Q7-'c,e n o,✓A -t. Ty,E EQu,pn7EnvT whole* /3 />A-,e.K6- g2OAl6 S 7-R (F 746 w'/ , rr 7 /2 A lc. E A) / E Dr- '? t+-o 7-0 nvi su,e E3 1 2- 5 AL r - ,e.cw, /e ?-o 0 E - 7 Q re,e. L, c •r — ,eo A - t WA- ' P4io ro ' P/iv I00 K/A/ 6 AIOATN, a /Nit. o AJ 5 S &vs1 r5 T »KE P/C r4R e V 's i �e s paR►c (Aim I(.6 r .AF e 9 Q U� /4er s 100 /AA /4012,74- u / 6,5 tie 3o L A -moER. r L E 7' /J 0 wi ns GiAr *6A /A/sr eu,e B /+I e su,eFZ /2 beef Cer4 1w72 - 11 A ra C,ff- s+1flZ w a-t . .S 44 A ,frt rM E JT3 — 144 Se /S3' ! > t eICI 6; 42% i . rAAL S o /3 SA/ 4r 7'/r , O ,,ii NAs 4 0 Rr64r of au,4 ) 176 € 1e S w,774 A SI D Ew hem_ o �r �y ON 77# Nog 774 S i e FA sr BvuAID C. f+r■ /r ".fie nrED r-ti / No /',4,e K /11/6, 6 400/ /N6, ( r Do wn/ 5 .op6, o#) GUM 1 7E' v p-p A r re I. µ T /r) r S u i2 ti S so /5 3'? .5,. 7 , S „ LL? FT i . t2 T1 sae Tv y o w C ts 7 -'72 1. i Pi irr� -* 7 ,Zoo,e/A.16, EasT up sco,PE o So /BSI 4 57 4 TU KW I t.,a G s r,9 7 - ON m” 120,4 -0 f r So /5/ TH IS R0 w CO S .JOT 0 + - 1 •.e> - 9 car A-ee Et e =_14our a8' 1030' 6 e47.41 w 4 , S+De t_J 3 w 17 N!420 u) S N-o u (-DOES sti., n/o e u Ie3, J ( o e S D e'w f+ucs /- 4) 7-o s o 0kni a M r?.or. /S / = r S�, Ev �i1 T?+ruiN T+EAtE el) rt.) 73 E A D Fqu t4 TE / K /At/l 7-74,s 13 0444/e pN - S7 - eeg7- A7- - tv /Ot'7Z -7 th )- UJwAe. S/Lou1-Dc - l2 •.s main; PA SS ,N TeAC,c,e l7il� kI0T h A MA2.24- l Bar 77.4Aer /cc of ?Assi)lE, Mortie.isrs w!}s -112 ». CElo erF w Al a.o D At.) 'uy FRo P mE71s4 DArA 0,t) RE sC SIDE . 0 4 1 , Ar A#1.e- vo),47 $o /63'x'' PI (p3'a" 4 14t1 e ui X . - S /OEc, s nod . _ . .rMoue-Dew eg ✓Aie y,,v b w , D ryr W , nyev r ea,PBi oQ s ID EWAt. IC s • ci!..A D WA-if A n#e E79Jr /we'sr 00 e 1107WE 6 Ai .So . A-so D S'1 A- 1E Se s} r rogir e:s r, rtA r& Lo c,a rf0w , 7 GEC/7 F /.CoPOJe"t) % /IrF U /eta ' sra 4/ T n6Jrs f2 ER. wig d3'3 13e'r7.JE ., Wm.? r S • DEL /•�/�� SAL* tic D t)& A-ed= t,4-1P1,N WiD77✓ wi 7741)1.4 r fei,e di 04 3 D er-)'tes -sLA be 414-, Lo es - or" r7i Sou T7#Ev2.✓ Ec /T of T>' 4 2)£. fAve t/A.J4 A,es4 mFAsvg63 3' 1 BFrz., erV74.1 W sire Se De L',I 3 ._._ _ .. c,Jh OC/ c A-or� cric WI-ley/Pie, W -1 77/ R,✓ z' w/ T7 our e-u/e s/Z KS. 5 1.' .4 ✓e So ✓ a . r A . Po /4 r .7a sr A. FEUD Feuer a-oc) 714 o SLa1>er 1.044/ ME74sue6 /V ' BErure- W ■ D t L�.✓ fr TD 6 , PA - P1 - / - s ede7e 6 TA Kau Du,ei,J6 G,47 rte /6s Alvah/5 w/ 77 4 17 wy C Dub C'.ov 2 5616A, 7 "I A 7Lt �t�2A rt../ 2 E O,C R/Jou 7 5 v ° 1- , R t SPA to A .5 A Pot A -e,o, b eoLv,2 Pa-e k rL �,�-�v •��� t ,ea l/s / / 75" 3Pe eoco,e F,� M T /Dc3 , 4 E Se - Try k ,4 ._ . Tr, /6#7 $E J(, 44.),4-s Ar (/AR /oe �� r' cMS e Arm /e At_ EcP0S u)RS AT 1/f /A/f, Ov /9M,00 X /.►.r y �i 0 5 no,) a J A c 771.1 o'ic 77,ti L 4: N .5 To #0 toAr r1/2 s ld 5 t- • P/ii07O oR P/C 7 /,PE DF✓EZOf% /A.1( 44d /3 APB' 496 Iii ervt rPe-APIkr vrs ms ay Aw rD 1∎00 iM w #WJV.wr /lft/trrowee: Mani / mia wA si' _ rear w / r_/ f Z P.0 illet tc .70 •P• y e tt.o w S kan. TA P i. wrti!:�!w�t lovtr m i Frei: , " m y , A,4 I r ,wah, * ,NQ k __.. . wok jll6 10e4 4,40.1t4,N9s. - row hwee lock ..7 -N44. . 3 wA7 n/n' c/so- oAI A t*f r -ruge •u t'krrl, gr/Fsvt M Burr caexe - 7744 rim) . V y p[ ft we, '7.'0' a _ op r?►tr 7' + Pt' 4 /N!r r 1,065 474/0 eol/SJ rxicA/ L#e /44 Oa T '7'v TVEF e e jraait a Wet ' atr*o 7 1y itc*err r . itiCalkscomeaw emurr '36 seany L ,4 - 7D Dwe iy pc/fei Jt; FiVa erP 'r^ Pa - AT /Ns/De - oP PA/n/ ;b or, ob ##/ q_ our. re e e- 4 4 7 er Srie er...w ,» rw 41670sv1 .4qe Ir a Ai 65 Su war rA 'e PV -4,0+ e' Gt)e r stpe c /tee- Tv rwe NE70#93r' CFA/re adz' .r rAJPt_ . Rn/A •oa P.1. 4 // D /A'..f' s role-Or W /D nv e°7IJvot a ✓rf_ u1 ��tes" -PLALArly FAA. ;we- misr - d 4.-19e10 d n / ' S le Afar. o AA or "./t- - sr (o4 OMX a ew. e. r e e exirery G , Afe W ti E'Re i e.? /146 /due-AAP/Ne ex L owe <41A-De . /4 tsoca re' /1-e uAifn/ 011 Esr10,i. /e) s /f 6 4 F rr�c e //o W e E-t/ re-2e C i/ . ?-`j t="5 er e w/ e`>' drr /%s 1 04 FS'cAvAre - b s rQCSr G61A✓G " As Appie x.aiov Utz y . Po E74./ r .& •u �2 120 2 (fi e:- e=n #4 //y) ,-1, "u FRcro s - s T7 An" reb fv e . o 6 G (t, Ek..Yr ,,.f 0 2-0 ce f, We are all aware of the previous law suit by the petitioner. certainly watched the results closely enough. We are all also the BAR just exactly what they can and cannot consider or do in We aware that Mr. Haggard for Puget Western keeps remainding the city f that fact. He seems determined to tell the planning dept. and regards to this project.Puget Western will not receive any excess of consideration or concessions just because Mr. Haggard says so. The city tries to be fair to all parties and I trust them to be so . in this instance.. The city knows its job and obligations without Mr.. Haggards'proddings. Mr Haggard stated last Thursday that Puget Western has owned the property in question for over 20'years. That being so, \\ who did Mr Allenbach' purchase the property from? Mr Allenbach was often quoted as saying he had purchased from an individual. I never saw a quote where Puget Western was mentioned. And, if Puget Western owned the property why did Mr. Allenbach say he did; and why did Puget Western not say otherwise Perhaps they did not wish to be associated with such an ': unpopular project. They seem to have changed their minds. 14".A -t ...II — / c, I wonder if Mr. Haggard would answer me now. Has Puget Western owned this entire property cnntinuously for the last 20 years? / Puget Western repeatedly tells of us what a GOOD NEIGHBOR they wish to be. A good neighbor would utilize this property for the 21 homes possible. Under the Tukwila zoning the homes could be clustered which would make the site easier to plan for. A GOOD NEIGHBOR would not be more interested in the almighty dollar than in anything else. A GOOD NEIGHBOR would not build all the structures of the same height even though half of them cannot legally utilize the top floor and . To leave out this extra floor where it can only legally be used as an attic would certainly be more neighborly than to leave it there. Personally it seems to me that to leave it would be an open invita.ion for the builders to put in the loft that is illegal and for the tenants to use it. The Exhibit #14 submitted by Mr. Haggard for Puget Western on April 10, 86 on Pg. 12, there is a plan for a solid deck rail.which is approximately 4 feet high. Is this to be constructed on all the decks on the east side? On page 17 of Exhibit #14 as submitted to the BAR by Puget Western on April 10, applicant states he has modified plans to "designate recreation area per staff finding #12 (of the Planning Commission Staff Report) and similar to staff Exbibit K." As I read the plan, this changes the outdoor recreation areas from in front of and beside virtually all the buildings to areas in front of bldg. 8 & 9; bldg. 15, 16, 17 & 18; b1dg. 10 & 11 carrying between bldg. 9 & 10. ON Exhibit K the recreation areas are shown as abutting the buildings themselves. Will there be a space between the front of the apartments at basement level and the recreation areas? One assumes these units will have windows to take advantage of any view possible. On also assumes the residents will not appreciate having the space immediately adjacent to those windows designated as recreation areas for the entire 108 apts. Exhibit #14 makes no further mention of Staff recommendation #12 except to list the square feet of the various recreation areas. and refers one to the landscape plan on page 24. Page 24 shows the recreation areas to be placed pretty much as shown on Staff exhibit K except for the area in frontk 8 & 9 which has been moved to the space in front of bldg.. 3 . I have no comment here except as stated before as to the nearness to the buildings. However, since Staff recommendations #12, 13 & 14 were not printed on the copy in my possession I called the Planning Dept. to learn what they were. As quoted to me,(by Moira Bradshaw) #12 is "Acoustical barrier along east property line to reduce significant noise levels to acceptable EPA standards." The applicant has adressed this recommendation no where that I can find. Since the applicant evidently does not consider this worthy of comment, may I? 3 One does not get used to noise. Your ears do not toughen ar adjust to loud noise. If you are subjected! to constant loud sound levels and think you have adjusted to the noise, you're wrong. You have probably already suffered some hearing loss. You just don't hear so well.as before so , of course the noise doesn't seem so loud. High: Noise levels in the proposed recreation ares without solid sound,.barriers are &admitted by; Puget. Western. Noise levels in these areas are to exceed 65 - 70 dba. This is clearly in violation of the Laws of the City of Tukwila. Levels of 65 - 70, according to the EPA range from having significant. adverse impacts to having unacceptable public health and welfare impacts.. Level at this project will regularly exceed 75 dba H U D says 65 dba is normally. unaooepta. and' that: above- 75 dba i6 UNACCEPTABLE Whei EPA says significant adverse noise impacts at 65 to 70 dba.• they say "allowable only in unusual cases where lower levels are clearly demonstrated not to be possible." Lower levels are certainly possible. Puget Western has not properly addressed. this issue - except to list the significant adverse noise impacts in: on -site recreation areas as "unavoidable advers;?impacts (FEIS pg. 119) They have not planned for any protection at all. This is a clear health factor The FEIS (pg 133) also sta es that continued exposure to the noise levels of 65 - 70''dba could cause irritation and stress: Here, no mention is made of the previously stated level of 70 dba and : over plus the occasional 85 dba. HUD will not loan money for houses to be built in an area with a noise level of 65 dba or higher.. 67(a.14-W cdar, Exterior sound levels for the project will start at 65 dba. OSHA considers 85 dba the floor for hearing problems r There are studies that have shown. that such high noise levels can. cause hypertension' highs blood pressure is one of the major risk factors for heart disease and stroke. failed aneurisms stress Even when-when learn to sleep through excessive noise our bodies do not rest properly. Our bodies continue to react to the noise. Researchers have documented cases where the heart rate is up to four times normal. A 5 year study showed that high noise levels cause a greater. number of diagnosed medical problems tham with normal noise. These included respiratory ailments, which are not normally cnqsidered stress- related* Rates of heart disease are higher that average among people who live in noisy environments. Such noise can result in 5 times the usual rate for ulcers. e , pet f Suicide rate in the elderly is higher in high noise areas. Noise levels even have a bearing on the number of stillbirths. _ IN Japan researchers found a higher proportion than average of low - weight babies in noisy communities. Low birth weight, and the noise believed responsible, :. is also associated with subnormal levels of hormones thought to affect fetal growth. Yet another change due to noise is constriction of the uterine blood vessels supplying nutrients and oxygen to the baby. A group of researchers found that people playing a game under noisy conditions were morn likely to perceive their companions as disagreeable, disorganized and threatening than were those playing in a quieter place. A Purdue University researcher found that babies form noisy homes are slower to talk and to explore than tots living in quiet homes. The research r psychologist Theodore D. Wachs, suggeststhe stress that noise engenders prompts these tots to retreat into their own inner worlds. Among adults, studies have shown just the opposite -- living in a noisy home seems to contribute to conflict. As stated before the recreation areas would have noise levels ranging from levels EPA characterizes as having significant adverse impacts (that is, 65 - 70 dba) to those EPA considers to have unacceptable public health and welfare impacts that is, over 70 dba). During the daytime, maximum noise levels within these areas would regularly exceed 75 dba, occasionally reaching 85 dba. I consider these a definite safety factor which the applicant has chosen to ignore, repeatedly. The adverse exterior noise levels are mentioned at least 1.Z times in the FEIS and 3 times in the Planning Commission Staff Report, yet the applicant does not care to tell us what is planned to correct this situation. Why not? It would seem, from the many references to the adverse noise levels in the outdoor recreation areas that this is something that should be addressed. According to a formula for ascertaining the necessary height of acoustically an .acoustic fence we have determined the height of the necessary fencing, and we begin to see why the applicant has not made any attempt to give any information on the subject. We arrived at this figure mathematically using We used the freeway elevation as 75 feet front of bldg. 3 as 175 feet the freeway centerline to the property line, the recreation area as 50 feet .. ...... -.. deep with a 5'6" person standing in the center. / and the property line elevation as 150 ft. Accordingly an acoustic fence at the property line would need to be lat feet high. „.. spomadizetrek4ii; 411.) �.'• t.Ch.J • and 220 feet as the distance from 1 - 1 e „ E j, / , ;'�.!': ( ',,'../ i (/ p e.• e v/• . ...< a./�C�.CepGmeri .Q+tiPX� ' jauu the recreation area in I . c till o7ject to the positioning of the childrens play are across the driveway from the buildings.. c No matter where the play area goes; it should have lighting.. Not just so the area can be used during twilight.hours,: but as a safety factor also. Since everyone involved with this plan is faftailar with the local weather they shou14lso be familar with our many dark days. Without some forw of lighting in the childrens area, it will be impossible to see what is going on from any distante., At a time in:our country when even milk cartons contain pictures of missing children it seems only sensible to make any childrens play area as safe as possible \ \Abutting the play area you have an extremely large area covered! by trees, shrubs and other vegetation. Even if yourplant screening is as effective as you say it will be, someone standing on the sidewalk on 5$t Slade Way, which you will be putting in, would not be able to see the activity in the play area so there is no I ^ 1�.... protection. there. The play area is ra.theT^ large and even a parent who was there could not watch everyone at once. Nor even know It all the adults there belonged there. The—area Having lighting there would make it easier . to see the yv children. The safety of the children seems to merit .some lighting in their play area. " • tt. r ... n t. 4ti C �• �—Lk J ki ti/ / " LJ 0 — 1 • !=XI-11B11 iJ /r0 3 15 PO to e•- 4 . _ 4 :;, , , :.■•• L . ; . • _/:„... ` I *• eika4f • 1 ' \ ' .;› ' • 7 1 --...'...! . \ . tt S. . .,..1 • I .' • ) I T,3 L.) k tlii . C 1.'• , . - 4 . : • ' .2; ill Al ' ,.- •J ; ...CI ._ sa . . , 1 - .,.;•Si W,,,,,,.. 4 'f if_ 4 ,•' " .*I. ' • 7,;,;;,;..." eizt<1 , I . ; „ • 2 I I • • j 0 I '4 t • e ° I.= 9 ' I t.t), • , • - ... ) 71 / I' • f74.7 ••; ■110.WfatrOttedVS, , s_. itZT. • as' .) rI11 4 • . , :V Stalin'Arrowswr.s-akamisiniscsimilememicAmor.!i..1101111r111 'NUM Sti■IIIIIP I.Zs' / L El - • •••■•‘.-r2r_wr _ • • , 1 ,7", .1 1 • V„ez .„11 , 1';:a.,....‘" : '''' - ` 3 9 4. • .! • Pitts • . Asit ..+1 a • V . .1•1111111MISMOT ". aS • • tiost. • •••••••311. velour Immo to • amtpubs gimiza jtimil--:1112". • 1:7 • • + _ - , CITY OF TUKWILA PLANNING DIVISION PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT PROPOSED FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 86 -7 -DR: Valley View Estates AGENDA ITEM INTRODUCTION Dr. Herman Allenbach (later replaced by Puget Western, Inc.) applied for a building permit before the 1982 Zoning Code and Map went into effect. That permit is for 108 multiple family units on the 7.08 acre hillside along the north and east side of Slade Way and 53rd Avenue South opposite S. 160th Street. (Exhibit A) Because Dr. Allenbach /Puget Western vested their development rights to the R -1, R -4 and RMH zoning effective prior to the current 1982 version, the building permit is not being reviewed relative to the current R -1 -12 (single family) zoning. That permit necessitated preparation of an environmental impact statement which required, among many mitigation measures, Board of Architecture Review (BAR). FINDINGS 1. Because the applicant vested development rights to the old Zoning Code and map (pre -1982 version) the building permit and BAR review is constrained to the substantive requirements of that Code. The standard of review is the specific development and recreation space regulations of the old Code. However, the vested rights do not include permit processing under the old Code procedures. Instead, the procedure for the BAR contained in new Zoning Code (1982 version) TMC 18.60 is being followed. In other words, this permit must meet old Code development requirements under new Code procedures. 2. Per Tukwila Municipal Code (TMC) 18.60.010, the purpose and objectives of the BAR is to provide for review by public officials of land development and building design in order to promote the public health, safety and welfare. Specifically, the BAR shall encourage well designed developments that are creative and harmonious with the natural and manmade environments. 3. TMC 18.60.050 contains the guidelines the BAR must follow in its decision - making. 4. An environmental impact statement (EIS) issued in January, 1986, identifies the environmental impacts of the proposal. The EIS is available at City Hall for public review. This document lists mitigating measures that will be implemented by the developer and measures that could be used should the city feel they are necessary conditions to mitigate development impacts. Exhibit B 86-7 -DR: Valley View Estates hay `22, 1986 Page 2 summarizes these mitigating measures which mostly pertain to the building per- mit, not BAR review. However, some of those measures may effect the ultimate design of the project and are referenced herein. 5. The development consists of eighteen buildings, each of the same exterior design and containing six units. (Exhibits 15 and 21) Overall density of the project is 15.25 dwelling units per acre which is less than permitted in the vested RMH and R -4 zoning. The southwest corner of the site is zoned R -1 but is not used for density calculations. Surrounding current zoning would permit a maximum of 3.65 units per acre. No transition area of medium density multi- family is proposed between the development and existing single family districts, however, the southwest corner, a 74,133 square foot area, will remain undeveloped, devoted to either recreation or landscaping. 6. An internal roadway through the site accesses onto Slade Way at the south end of the site and onto 53rd Avenue South at the northwest corner of the site. A separate access off Slade Way with a hammerhead turnaround serves two of the buildings which are located somewhat higher on the hillside. 7. Thirty -two percent of the site will remain in its natural wooded state. Approximately 68 percent of the site will be cleared during construction with considerable cut and fill required to accommodate buildings, parking areas and roadways. The old Code required 1.5 parking stalls for apartments but 2.0 stalls for fourplexes. Possible reduction in the unit count of some of the structures could increase the required number of stalls. It is therefore unclear at this time to determine the number of parking stalls on site. Dimensional requirements of the old Code will also have to be met and the EIS has stated that twenty additional stalls above the minimum requirement will be provided. 8. The roofline of building 18 is at an approximate elevation of 208, 53rd Avenue South street elevation west of the structure is 198. Structures 1 and 2 have a roofline elevation of approximately 254 and 248, respectively, while the adjacent right -of -way, Slade Way has a street elevation of 258. (Exhibit 14) 9. The geotechnical study determined that development of the project was feasible if appropriate measures were undertaken of which the most important is to assure the operational effectiveness of the Department of Transportation (DOT) facilities, thereby promoting hillside stability. Topography of the area is shown on Exhibit H. 10. Noise levels on site will reach significant adverse levels per EPA standards. With windows open, day -night noise levels inside the units will far exceed the standard EPA considers acceptable, however, with windows shut, noise levels inside will generally be within EPA's recommended standard. 11. The environmental impact statement identified unavoidable impacts that will result because of the project. Unavoidable adverse impacts on the surrounding 86 -7 -DR: Valley View Estates May 22, 1986 Page 3 single family neighborhood that the following impacts are most closely asso- ciated with the surrounding single family neighborhood: A. An undeveloped wooded hillside would be converted to a multi - family housing development with associated parking areas and road surfaces. B. The project would differ substantially in scale, density, and character from that of the surrounding neighborhood. C. Residents in the area would feel a loss in the quality and cohesion of their neighborhood. D. The project would generate increased traffic through residential neigh- borhoods west of the site. Other unavoidable adverse impacts to the physical and human environment are contained in Exhibit I. 12. Per TMC 18.60.200 (old code), a minimum of 21,600 square feet of recreation space must be provided, including a children's area of 5,400- 10,800 square feet. The recreation area may not include required setback areas and no more than 50 percent of the total requirement may be on slopes greater than twenty - five (25) percent. The proposal includes a 5,400 square foot children's play area located in the southwest portion of the site. The remaining recreation space is shown between and behind structures 3 -18. Documentation of the suitability and stability of the current location and minimum area of the children's play site will be required. The applicant submitted Exhibit 19 to show the recreation space proposed for the site. The applicant appears to be able to meet the minimum recreation space requirements, including the minimum area requirement of 10,800 square feet of area with slopes of less than 25 %. CONCLUSIONS 1. TMC 18.60.050(1): Relationship of Structure to Site. A) The site should be planned to accomplish a desirable transition with the streetscape and to provide for adequate landscaping and pedestrian move- ment. Sixteen (16) structures are arranged linearly along the western half of the site, generally following the topography. The remaining two struc- tures are located south of and above the elevations of the other struc- tures. Existing vegetation is retained between the street and structures and additional landscaping is shown on the landscape plan. Broadleaf evergreen screening shrubs have been added to provide additional screening of parking areas from adjacent rights -of -way. The landscape 86 -7 -DR: Valley View Estates May 22, 1986 Page 4 plan has also been amended to show vines planted along all concrete retaining walls located on the site. Any exposed foundation walls would also be screened with plant material. Development of the site will require installation of standard sidewalks along Slade Way and 53rd Avenue South. Pedestrian movement on the site is facilitated through the addition of a continuous walkway through the site serving buildings 3 -18. The sidewalk serving buildings 1 -2 should also be extended to Slade Way. The project site consists of portions of several lots, but a majority of the development will occur in concentrated areas. The entirety of the site is integral to the site's design and development. The subject parcel has multiple underlying lot lines that dictate required zoning district setbacks. A boundary line adjustment to show compliance with zoning requirements would be required and a covenant pledging the entire 7.08 acre site to the project is agreed to by the applicant in Exhibit 4. B) Parking and service areas should be located, designed, and screened to moderate visual impact of large paved areas. The parking areas are generally designed into three areas due to the topography of the site. At a maximum, every eleven parking stalls arranged linearly is broken up with landscaped fingerlings. Dumpster areas are enclosed in concrete with painted steel gates, and have been located on the landscape plan. The landscape treatments for each of the dumpster areas would be broadleaf evergreen shrubs, which would provide year -round screening. C) The height and scale of each building should be considered in relation to the site. The average height of the structures will be thirty -five (35) feet; thirty (30) feet is the permitted height in the surrounding neigh- borhood. Units 1 -10 (R -4 zone) will be required to show compliance with zoning code definitions in order to satisfy the height limitations of the R -4 zone. (Exhibit 14) The four story easterly building elevations of structures 3 -18 which face east and are relatively tall and out of scale with existing views of the site from the east. This face could be landscaped with additional evergreen conifers. 2. TMC 18.60.050(2): Relationship of Structure and Site to Adjoining Area. A) Harmony in texture, lines and masses. The structures are a conventional design and constructed of wood siding and composite shingles. The number of structures and subsequent mass of 86 -7 -DR: Valley View Estates May 22, 1986 Page 5 development is not harmonious with surrounding areas. The majority of the single family homes are located above the parcel on other residential streets. Consideration should be given of views of the proposal from the easterly valley floor and northeasterly hillside. Four story elevations face to the east, which is out of character with the neighborhood and views of the neighborhood from the valley. Exhibit 20 was submitted with a cross section of elevations east of the site. They show average dif- ference in elevation of approximately 70 feet. The average height of existing vegetation along the east property line would screen approxima- tely 25 feet, which leaves 45 feet of structure above the vegetation line. A softening and filtering of the line of structures 10 -18 on the hillside would be improved with the addition of evergreens along the rear line of the structures. The use of additional evergreens intermittently should be judicious so as not to screen completely the views of the valley for residents of the project. Two story elevations face to the west. The width of the structures are each approximately thirty -five feet wide with side yards of approximately twenty feet between structures. This provides a scale which is com- parable to a single family structure; however, the overall density of the development creates a mass which is greater than that in the surrounding area. The location of the structures on the site, primarily along the east side below the elevation of adjacent streets, reduces the effect of the structural massing within the neighborhood. B) Appropriate landscape transition to adjoining properties should be pro- vided. The landscape plan shows dense evergreen landscape shrubs along the southwest and west property lines. Along the property line adjacent to the S. 160th and 53rd intersection, a row of evergreen trees will be planted to provide a screen. A retaining wall will be located behind the trees and will be softened with a planting of vines. These elements com- bined with the change in elevation, would provide sufficient landscape transition. I -5 along the east property line creates noise levels which exceed the level which the EPA considers to be environmentally significant and adverse. Several open areas surrounding the units are designed for recreation space. Whereas it is reasonable to believe that noise reduc- tion on the entire site is not possible, a maximization of usable space is desirable for residents of the development. A design or landscape feature such as a noise barrier, for example, a fence, could lower the noise levels in areas to make them more habitable. The applicant has agreed to provide solid wood walls in place of the proposed railings, as suggested in the EIS, to attenuate the noise level on the outdoor decks. The building permit review process for the interiors of the structures will require that the units not exceed a maximum performance criteria for 86 -7 -DR: Valley View Estates May 22, 1986 Page 6 noise level. The BAR has the option of requiring some form of barrier to provide an appropriate transition to the adjacent I -5 property. They could stipulate and approve wood barriers located along the east property line where slopes are less than 25% and where areas have been designed for recreation. The screens may also be used to provide noise atte- nuation for the basement level bedrooms located on the east side of the structures if needed to meet noise performance criteria. Views of any fencing would be partially screened with the evergreen shrubbery shown on the landscaping plan and could be specified by the BAR to be of wood and to be of sufficient height. Views of the site and the wall from the east should not be adversely impacted because of the vege- tation in the I -5 right -of -way. Staff feels that fencing around the children's play area is not desirable. The area has a ten foot retaining wall wrapping around the west side, any additional enclosure would create an insecure area that would negate the open space element. C) Compatibility of vehicular pedestrian circulation patterns and loading facilities in terms of safety, efficiency and convenience should be encouraged. The length of the internal driveway, approximately 1,050 feet, permits speeds which could be dangerous. Several curves in the length of the drive would tend to restrict speed; however, speed bumps are also pro- posed to discourage excessive speeds. The children's play area is located on the opposite side of the driveway from the majority of the structures. Where the path to that area intersects with the driveway, a painted crosswalk is proposed for safety of the children. The internal walkways serving buildings 3 -18 is extended to public rights -of -way and sidewalks. (Exhibit 18) This is critical at the north access point of the site due to the proximity of the westerly Crystal Springs Park and the school and transit bus stops located on 53rd and at the intersection of 51st Avenue and 160th Street. The same treatment is suggested for the sidewalk serving buildings 1 and 2. D) Compatibility of on -site vehicular circulation with street circulation should be encouraged. The driveways will be required to be located at least one hundred fifty (150) feet away from the nearest intersection. It appears, that the Slade Way driveway will be required to move to meet this requirement. Because of the projected amount of traffic and the slopes of nine to twelve percent on 53rd Avenue, a level platform extending thirty feet beyond the driveway stop line is proposed to enhance the visibility of drivers exiting the project. 86 -7 -DR: Valley View Estates May 22, 1986 Page 7 3. TMC 18.60.050(3): Landscape and Site Treatment. A) Where existing topographic patterns contribute to beauty and utility of a development, they should be recognized preserved and enhanced. The dominant steep slope of the site is. used to visually separate the development from westerly adjoining properties along 53rd Avenue and Slade Way. Existing vegetation in the southwest corner will also contri- bute to the beauty of the site and maintain a separation from adjacent uses. The 5,400 square foot children's sand pit play area is bordered by a concrete edge which will be 15 inches in height to provide seating. The steep slopes in the play area require documentation from the applicant that the site is a feasible location for the use. B) Grades of walks, parking spaces, terraces, and other paved areas should promote safety and provide an inviting and stable appearance. Grades of parking stalls and along the length of the drive are within acceptable standards. Trails have been shown leading from structures 1 and 2 and from the lower level to the play area and are at acceptable grades. (Exhibit 18 and 19) C) Landscape treatment should enhance architectural features, strengthen vistas and important axes, and provide shade. While the site has good views of the Green River Valley, it is signifi- cantly impacted by noise from its adjacent neighbor, I -5. In order to mitigate this noise, fencing may be required. The development will also be creating a multiple family complex on a hillside that is charac- teristically single family. While it is desirable to maintain views for residents of the site, additional evergreen trees judiciously used along the rear elevations of structures 10 -18 is recommended. The use of wood fencing as noise barriers and additional evergreens integrated into the landscape plan should not adversely affect the landscape treatment of the site. The use of large shade tree species along the internal driveway can create and enhance this important internal axes through the site. The use of low growing evergreen shrubs to provide individual landscape treatments for each of the structures is also proposed to enhance the structures entries. 86 -7 -DR: Valley View Estates May 22, 1986 Page 8 D) In locations where plants will be susceptible to injury by pedestrian or motor traffic, mitigating steps should be taken. The site's paved areas are curbed and sufficient use of walkways should prevent pedestrian damage to the landscaping. E) Where building sites limit planting, the placement of trees or shrubs in paved areas is encouraged. Approximately thirty -two (32) percent of the site's existing vegetation will be retained. This vegetation, proposed evergreen trees, and recom- mended additional evergreen shrubbery will provide maximum screening of the site's paved areas. Fingerlings planted with large deciduous shade trees will supplement existing and proposed landscaping and create addi- tional screening when viewed from above or below the site during periods of the year when it is leafed out. Additional low growing shrubs will serve to soften the effect of the paved parking areas year round. F) Screening of service yards, and other places which tend to be unsightly, should be accomplished by use of walls, fencing, planting or a com- bination of these. Screening should be effective in winter and summer. The concrete dumpster enclosures are shown on the plan and are screened with evergreen shrubbery. (Exhibit 14 and 19) G) In areas where general planting will not prosper, other materials such as fences, walls, and pavings of wood, brick, stone, or gravel may be used. Planting, as shown and recommended, should prosper. H) Exterior lighting, when used, should enhance the building design and the adjoining landscape. Lighting standards and fixtures should be of a design and size compatible with the building and adjacent area. Lighting should be shielded, and restrained in design. Excessive brightness and brilliant colors should be avoided. (Exhibit L) The light standards are approximately eighteen (18) feet in height with a twenty (20) foot illumination spread from the pole. The fixture's finish is baked enamel in semi -gloss black, dark bronze, or natural aluminum. Lighting of building entrances is shown on the elevations. (Exhibit 15) Possible lighting elevations are submitted in Exhibit 14, one or two of which, would be compatible with building design and provide sufficient lighting for recessed and side unit entrances. 86 -7 -DR: Valley View Estates May 22, 1986 Page 9 4. TMC 18.60.050(4): Building Design. A) Architectural style is not restricted, evaluation of a project should be based on quality of its design and relationship to surroundings. The overall linear design quality of the structures is interesting and provides visually pleasing detail and adequate fenestration. Any exterior changes to the building's design caused by the need to meet the noise performance criteria would require additional BAR review. The entry elevation has been revised to show a greater use of fenestra- tion as well as three dimensional relief from the former flat facade. The revision creates a less monotonous facade and a more harmonious design. The use of stucco has been eliminated and wood siding is pro- posed as the dominant elevation element. The view of the east elevation from I -5 presents the multi- tiered four story maximum unit view of the development. B) Buildings should be to appropriate scale and be in harmony with permanent neighboring developments. The buildings exceed the scale Hof the `existing 'surrounding single .family neighborhood to the south, west, and north. The site is located along the edge of a single family neighborhood. The property owner has established a vested right in multiple family zoning, but the BAR stan- dard of review must be met. The use of topography, existing vegetation, proposed landscaping and design of the site can be used to minimize the incompatibilities between the two uses. Because of the significant noise levels on the site, the buildings may be required to provide forced air ventilation systems and /or other measures so that windows may be kept closed and to have interior noise levels meet: performance criteria year round. The use of glass enclosures for the decks is also a possibility. Any interior or structural requirements should not affect the building's design. The floor plan shows that the bedrooms, except on the ground floors, are located in the west half of the units. (Exhibit G) The ground floor . bedrooms facing I -5, would benefit most from any exterior site treatment for -noise attenuation. Staff recommends that if additional exterior barriers for noise attenuation are required, that th e" BAR approve wood fencing and the glass enclosed decks. Structures 1 -10 (in the R -4 zone), must meet the (old) code height requirement of a maximum of three stories. The structures must also set- back twenty -five feet from the rear property line which should not substantially change the site plan. 86 -7 -DR: Valley View Estates May 22, 1986 Page 10 C) Building components, such as windows, doors, eaves, and parapets, should have good proportions and relationship to one other. Building components and ancillary parts shall be consistent with anticipated life of the structure. The building components, seem well proportioned and relate well to one another. A revised entry elevation provides greater detailing and improved fenestration to create a visually interesting facade. Because of the number of identical structures in the development, and the number of units in each structure, a readable system of unit identification is proposed with lighting on the entry facade. D) Colors should be harmonious, with bright or brilliant colors used only for accent. The basic color scheme is muted beige to grey tones with subdued green to blue colored trim as accent colors. The cream colored stucco upper story has been replaced with wood siding. E) Mechanical equipment or other utility hardware on roof, ground or buildings should be screened from view. Accessory equipment such as utility meters and community mailboxes are not shown. Mechanical equipment would not be approved on the roofs of the structures due to the view impacts and would require screening. Revisions should indicate any mechanical equipment and /or and their incorporation into the site and landscape plan. F) Exterior lighting should be part of the architectural concept. Fixtures, standards and all exposed accessories should be harmonious with building design. Revised lighting standards (Exhibit 14) are harmonious with the building design. Structural lighting has also been indicated on the elevations as part of the building design. G) Monotony of design in single or multiple building projects should be avoided. Variety of detail, form, and siting should be used to provide visual interest. Eighteen (18) identical structures are proposed, of which sixteen (16) will be located in a line somewhat broken between structures 9 and 10. Topography of the parcel is a constraint but is also varied enough to provide diversity in elevation and siting. The different color and landscaping plantings are also used to break the monotony. 86 -7 -DR: Valley View Estates May 22, 1986 Page 11 5. TMC 18.60.050(5): Miscellaneous Structures and Street Furniture. A) Miscellaneous structures and street furniture should be designed to be part of the architectural concept of design and landscape. Materials should be compatible with building, scale should be appropriate, colors should be in harmony with buildings and surroundings, and proportions should be to scale. B) Lighting in connection with miscellaneous structures and street furniture should meet the guidelines applicable to site, landscape and buildings. Treatment of the concrete enclosures for the trash receptacles is ade- quate with four sided enclosures and perimeter landscaping. The concrete should be painted with a complementary or duplicate color of the struc- tures. The play area, by Landscape Structures, will include a climbing struc- ture, post maze, horizontal ladder, platform structure, slide, spring platform, and sand box. The concrete edge encircling the sand pit would be 15 inches in height and sufficient depth to provide space for seating. Lighting is not proposed in relation to these miscellaneous structures. RECOMMENDATION The staff recommends that the BAR adopt the above findings and conclusions and approve the proposed project plan subject to the following revisions: 1. Extension of pedestrian walkways to right -of -way from structures 1 and 2. 2. Addition of evergreens interspersed with structures 10 -18 to be approved by staff. 3. Addition of wood fencing to act as noise barriers and a landscape transition between the subject site and I -5 to attenuate noise in identified recreation areas and possibly for basement level bedrooms on the west side; to be approved by the BAR or by staff. 4. Glass enclose (or similar substitute) the rear decks to improve the building's architectural relationship to its surroundings. 5. Satisfy (old) zoning code requirements. EXHIBITS Exhibit 1 - Dick Goe flyer dated March 27, 1986, in opposition to the project, submitted at the March 27, 1986, BAR. 86 -7 -DR: Valley View Estates May 22, 1986 Page 12 Exhibit 2 - Dennis Robertson, et al, flyer, not dated, in opposition to the project, submitted at the March 27, 1986, BAR. Exhibit 3 - 86 -7 -DR: Valley View Estates staff report presented at the March 27, 1986, BAR with Exhibits A -L. Exhibit 4 - Joel Haggard's brief and attachment 1 dated March 26, 1986, distributed at the March 27, 1986, BAR. Exhibit 5 - 86 -7 -DR: Valley View Estates, video of the site as presented at the March 27, 1986 , BAR Exhibit 6 - 86 -7 -DR: Valley View Estates, shingles and exterior cover samples as presented at the March 27, 1986, BAR. Exhibit 7 - Joel Haggard letter dated March 27, 1986, submitted at the March 27, 1986, BAR. Exhibit 8 - Resume of Vincent J. Ferrese, AIA, submitted at the March 27, 1986, BAR. Exhibit 9 - Resume of James Stewart Van De Vanter, ASLA, submitted at the March 27, 1986, BAR. Exhibit 10- Resume of James W. Macissac, P.E., submitted at the March 27, 1986, BAR. Exhibit 11- Resume of Kurt G. Gahnberg, submitted at the March 27, 1986, BAR. Exhibit 12- Resume of Glenn G. Mckinney, Jr., submitted at the March 27, 1986, BAR. Exhibit 13- Resume of Jack K. Tuttle, submitted at the March 27, 1986, BAR. Exhibit 14- Proponents response to March 27, 1986 Staff Report. Exhibit 15- Revised illustration building elevations. (Board) Exhibit 16- Site Plan with section lines. (Board) Exhibit 17- Section elevation. (Board) Exhibit 18- Revised site plan. (Board) Exhibit 19- Revised landscape plan. (Board) 86 -7 -DR: Valley View Estates May 22, 1986 Page 13 Exhibit 20- Section elevation of play area and I -5 /Bldg. 18. (Board) Exhibit 21- Floor plan. (Board) Exhibit 22- Federal Highway Administration Statistics. Exhibit 23- Old Zoning Code parking regulations. Exhibit 24- New Zoning Code parking regulations. Exhibit 25- Dennis Robertson Critique. Exhibit 26- Dennis Robertson colored landscape plan as proposed. Exhibit 27- Dennis Robertson colored landscape plan as actual. Exhibit 28- Dennis Robertson colored recreation areas. Exhibit 29- John McFarland and Richard Goe letters on parking and traffic with polaroid photos. Exhibit 30- Dharlene West letter. Exhibit 31- Topography map with percentage slopes. (22 /VALLEY) Board of Architectural Review City of Tukwila 6200 South Center Blvd. Tukwila, Washington 98188 Dear Board Members: JOEL E. HAGGARD ATTORNEY AND COUNSELOR•AT -LAW SUITE 2426, FINANCIAL CENTER 1215 FOURTH AVENUE SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98161 (206) 682.5635 May 20, 1986 Re: 86 -7 -SR /Valley View Estates P- 17150.8 6//(03/7" OUR FILE NO: Requested Action The record supports your approval of 108 resi- dences to be constructed in accordance with and subject to the plans submitted to your as modified during the hearing. We request your approval subject to Conditions 1 and 5 in the latest Staff Report. We request you have the City Attorney prepare appropriate Findings and Conclusions. Staff Report Staff prepared a report it will be placing in the record. As a matter of due process, we submit our com- ments regarding that report. A. BAR Conditions Should Be Clear and Definite. The Staff phrased conditions on page 11 are in- definite, ambiguous and without appropriate criteria. Our position on each condition follows. 1. "Sidewalk Extension for Structures 1 and 2." We agree. 2. "Evergreen addition between structures, #10 through #18." Board of Architectural Review May 20, 1986 Page 2 This condition gives Staff unlimited discretion to require whatever they want. No criterion guiding the Staff approval process is provided. The number, location, size and objective for added plants is not established. There was no testimony in the record establishing the need for this or notice to applicant as to such a condition. Conclusion 2.A on page 5 indicates Staff thinks evergreens should be along the rear line of the structures. This is not reflected in the Staff condition. Conclusion 2.A on page 5 indicates evergreen planting should not screen views completely. This objective is ignored in the Staff condition. And certainly, obstruction of resident views is not required by code, would not be required of any other development on the site, and has not been required of other multi- family developments in Tukwila. This proposed condition simply ignores the record. The Landscape Plan clearly shows that the existing vege- tation off our property to the east remains. Not that we have any right to take it out; but Staff ignores this off -site vegetation. Preliminary indication by the client as to the cost of this new condition is that this condition would require about 50 trees. At $100 per tree, this is about $5,000. (We make an offer or proof to this fact). Conse- quently, this condition is not reasonable nor necessary. Condition 2 should be deleted. 3. "Wood Fencing and Landscape Transition on East." The BAR does not have the authority to impose noise related structural or facility modifications. If authority exists to require such changes, it is elsewhere in the development approval processes. Staff's recommendation for "possibly" providing wood fencing and a landscape transition for basement level bedrooms on the west ( ?) side is indefinite, unascer- tainable and contrary to the record. No condition is/ Board of Architectural Review May 20, 1986 Page 3 imposed "possibly." Bedrooms on the west side have never been an issue in this proceeding. The plan involves areas both to the west and east of the structures so a landscape transition is already provided. The subject property does not abut I -5. There is undeveloped land with vegetation between the site and I -5 now. Between this and the landscape plan, no further "landscape transition" (whatever that may be) is reason- ably necessary or required by the BAR Guidelines. Staff's condition appears in part to be based upon its argumentative Finding #10. That finding is not based upon any testimony in the record. Mr. Roy Richards testified the EPA numbers are not "standards" but "Guidelines." As the enclosed letter from Mr. Richards indicates, opening a window still provides about 11 dBA noise reduction. We ask this letter be put in the record in response to Staff's new comment. If Staff is recommending a wood fencing barrier along the east boundary, this is no basis in the record. Mr. Richards testified the structure would have to be in excess of 30 feet high. We suggest this is infeasible due to wind loads, is not reasonably necessary due to incor- porating other noise control measures recommended by Richards, and due to the opinion in the attached letter by Mr. Richards. Condition 3 should be deleted. 4. "Glass enclose rear decks for architectural relationship to surroundings" Simply put, the surroundings include a freeway, treed property and single family homes that do not have enclosed decks. The videotape of Mr. Goe's deck clearly affirms this latter situation. Apparently, Staff has attempted to evade the restriction on BAR jurisdiction to require glass decks due to "architectural relationships" instead of noise. Con- clusion 4.B on Page 9 discusses glass enclosures in terms Board of Architectural Review May 20, 1986 Page 4 of alleged noise levels on the site. The glass enclosure there is mentioned as a "possibility." Yet just as significant is the Staff comment that "if" added noise barriers are required - a clear indication that such a decision has not yet been made under the alleged authority of the building permit. But as important, Mr. Richards' testimony indicated such enclosure was unnecessary given the other noise control measures he recommended which applicant has agreed to. See also the attached letter from Mr. Richards. Condition 4 should be deleted. 5. "Satisfy Applicable Zoning Code" We agree. But as this is required anyway, we do not understand why it should be a condition. 6. Implied Conditions We assume Staff is recommending approval of the plans as submitted to the BAR and modified during the hearings. Accordingly, we request approval for the pro- posal as set forth in Exhibits 18, 19, 20 and those additional plans for building story, children's play area and lighting fixture. We recommend that the City Attorney attach all such plans to the Findings and Conclusions he would prepare following your decision. B. Staff's Argumentative Report Introduces New Evidence. The Staff's report provides new evidence and argument by them as to noise impacts. While much of the material is argumentative and conclusionary, it is also contradictory of the only expert testimony in the record, that by Mr. Roy Richards. In particular, Finding 10 is simply error. We offer the attached letter by Mr. Roy Richards in response to this staff assertion and request it be entered into the record. Simply put, if a person chooses on his /her own to open a window, the interior noise levels do not equal the exterior noise levels. The "possibility" that a person Board of Architectural Review May 20, 1986 Page 5 may choose to open a window does not reasonably necessi- tate deck enclosure and air conditioning. C. BAR Findings and Conclusions Are Limited By The Scope Of Its Jurisdiction. The Staff Report, presumably to be accepted in the record, contains statements which are unsupported by the record and statements which are not within BAR's jurisdiction. If the BAR regulations had provided an unrestrained review of all matters, the scope of testimony would have been significantly broadened. We take specific and general objection to all Staff proposed findings and conclusions which are not within the BAR's jurisdiction. A partial, but not inclu- sive, listing of specific objections are in Attachment 1. We request that the BAR adopt only such findings and conclusions as are relevant and material to your jurisdiction. JEH /dm 2810D Enclosure cc: James Haney, Esq. Mr. Brad Collins Mr. Richard Causey Mr. Tom Russell Sincerel you Haggard Finding 5, Page 2 Transition areas involving open space and land- scaping are provided between the development and the existing single family districts. While a portion of the property is zoned single family, it will not be developed with residential structures. As one witness said in arguing about the children's play area security, you won't be able to see it from the road. ATTACHMENT 1 Finding 7, Page 2 The testimony by Mr. Ferrese is clear and un- controverted that code required parking (161) plus an added 20 spaces will be provided. The number of stalls on the site can be clearly counted on Exhibit 18 so the fifth sentence is contrary to the record. Finding 10, Page 2 Mr. Richards testified that the EPA numbers are guidelines, not standards. This finding ignores the use of additional noise control measures recommended by Mr. Richards, to which the applicant has agreed. This finding ignores the fact the HUD standards are met. This finding appears to ignore the noise reduction of 10 -12 dBA which occurs even when windows are open. As Mr. Richards' letter indicates, interior LDN's with south, east or north windows open are 57 to 61 and for west windows open are 47 to 51. These levels are not termed to be "signifi- cant adverse noise impacts" under the EPA Guidelines. Finding 11, Page 2 Staff negatively assumes that the impacts are "adverse." It may be that some project opponents "feel" they are adverse, but such a finding is without a basis in law. Finding 12, Page 3 The testimony by Mr. Ferrese and Mr. VanDeVanter clearly supports a finding that the children's play area is suitable, stable and of sufficient area. Further docu- mentation is not required for BAR action. Conclusion 1.A, Page 4 Exterior sidewalks are admittedly beyond the BAR. jurisdiction. Any such conclusion as to their being 1 required is not proper for the BAR to make. Staff should not attempt to prejudice future proceedings or decisions. Conclusion 1.C, Page 4 Argumentatively stating that existing views of the site from the east are out of scale with the four easterly buildings is not relevant to the BAR criterion. As Finding 8 and the testimony of Mr. Ferrese affirm, the buildings are located on the site to fit with the topo- graphy. Conclusion 2.A, Page 5 Staff assumes "harmony in mass" infers the pro- ject is "out of character" with the neighborhood. As Mr. Ferrese testified, there is little substantial difference on this point whether single family homes or the proposal are put on the site. The proposal is judged under the old code - staff admits this on page 1. Mr. Ferrese testified that the number of units are less than would have been permitted under that zoning. Simply put, the applicable zoning es- tablishes the mass we have proposed. Conclusion 2.B, Page 5 Staff asserts that the building permit process requires that interiors not exceed a maximum performance criteria for noise level. This conclusion is not within the BAR authority to make. The conclusion is contrary to law. The conclusion is contrary to the testimony of Mr. Richards and the enclosed letter by Mr. Richards. Conclusion 2.B, Page 6 BAR does not have the authority to require a barrier for approriate transition to the adjacent I -5 property. The adjacent I -5 property is undeveloped and vegetated. Requiring a wood barrier where slopes are less than 25% has no meaning since the topographical differ- ences between I -5 and the units would require an about 30 foot high China Wall. Screens for basement level bedrooms are not required. An individual can choose, just as if he were in a single family house on the site, to open his windows or not. This is the same situation as with apart- ments similarly affected in other areas of Tukwila. Dis- criminatory application of conditions is contrary to law. 2 Conclusion 2.C, Page 6 Staff's speculation as to driveway length "could be dangerous" is simply contrary to Mr. Maclsaac's testi- mony. Driveway length is not the determining factor, but rather the configuration and speed control devices. Mr. Maclsaac clearly affirmed the safety and access of the internal roadway and pedestrian movement system. Conclusion 2.D, Page 6 Mr. Maclsaac testified that the driveway access did not cause a traffic hazard. Should Staff concern continue despite this expert testimony, we suggest that driveway locations be further reviewed in the building permit process. Conclusion 4.B, Page 9 The introductory paragraph here ignores the conclusion in 3.A (Page 7) where it is affirmed that the dominant steep slope of the site is used to visually separate the development from westerly adjoining proper- ties. 2811D 3 Towne, Richards & Chaudiere, Inc. Consultants in Sound and Vibration May 19, 1986 Mr. Joel Haggard Haggard Law Office Financial Center, Suite 2426 1215 Fourth Avenue Seattle, WA 98161 Re: Valley View Estates Dear Joel: The purpose of this letter is to further clarify resident noise exposures at the proposed Valley View Estates development. Existing noise exposure at the proposed site ranges from L 68 to 72. In order to achieve an indoor L not to exceed 45 (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency guideline), improved noise attenuation of windows and doors is necessary on the south, east and north building faces. Building noise reduction from outside to inside with open windows is typically 10 to 12 dBA. 2 Consequently it is not appropriate or reasonable to assume interior noise levels are the same as exterior noise levels if a window (or door) is open. The interior EPA L 45 guideline will be exceeded if windows or doors on the south, east or north building faces are open. The resultant interior L is reasonably expected to be in the range 57 to 61. That is the reason why I recommended certain design measures at the recent BAR hearing. 105 NE 56th Street Seattle, Washington 98105 206/523 -3350 • w . b ,ate ,<- .._ .�w .,..,. ti.#.,..,.._... .._...eaa•s.n.,..,..•..,.•...a..n Mr. Joel Haggard May 19, 1986 Page Two x The west face of the buildings (facing away from the freeway) can benefit by the acoustical shielding provided by the building acting as a barrier. The shielding is typically about 10 dBA. Thus if windows are opened on the west side of the buildings, the resultant interior L would be in the range of 47 to 51 ( -10 dBA for building shielding, -11 dBA for open windows). Open windows on the west side would thus yield only a minor impact under the EPA guidelines. There has been some discussion of providing air conditioning for building interiors so that windows do not have to be opened for ventilation. Residences in the Pacific Northwest are typically not air conditioned. An air conditioning system would require an external heat exchanger, usually involving some type of fan. These units produce noise and have the potential for creating problems for the building they are serving or adjacent buildings. Interior noise levels resulting from open windows would be further limited from prevading the remaining unit area due to unit layout and closed doors. Any occupant of the units may then individually control interior noise levels just as any occupant of other single family residences in the area. Accordingly, it is my opinion that total deck enclosure and installation of air conditioning is not reasonably necessary if the units are constructed with the other noise control measures I have earlier recommended. Towne, Richards & Chaudiere, Inc. Consultants in Sound and Vibration Mr. Joel Haggard May 19, 1986 Page Three Sincerely, TOWNE, RICHARDS & CHAUDIERE, INC. Roy L. Rich as Vice President RLR /kg Towne, Richards & Chaudiere, Inc. Consultants in Sound and Vibration _____..._-- �........._...,_.__............,..,.., .,,.. .... The proposed children play area in the southwest portion of the development will benefit by the acoustical shielding provided by the buildings. The proposed configuration of buildings should provide 3 to 5 dB attenuation. 1 Handbook of Noise Control, Second Edition, Table 43.2, McGraw Hill Book Company, 1979. 2 Protective Noise Levels, Table 2, United States Environmental Protection Agency Document EPA 550/9 -79 -100, November 1978. 3 Design Guide for Reducing Transportation Noise in and Around Buildings, Section 9, Page 42, United States Department of Commerce, April 1978. 4 Reference 1, Page 3 -5, "Rows of Houses as Barriers." I. INTRODUCTION VALLEY VIEW ESTATES BAR APPEAL RMH = 2.9 acres R4 = 2.5 acres R1 = 1.7 acres TOTAL = 7.1 ACRES 02 March 22, 1987 TMAC Presentation FACT This development is inappropriate at this site. (the City established this point when they passed the new Comprehensive Land Use Map five years ago) FACT The BAR and Building Permit Processes allow the City to mitigate the impacts on the environment and the environment's impacts on the project's inhabitants. II. STRUCTURE TO SITE, SITE TO ADJOINING AREAS, AND BUILDING DESIGN . DENSITY, HEIGHTS AND SCALE OF BUILDINGS BAR ISSUES Building Height and Scale Page 2 of the BAR Findings is incorrect because it states that "the SW corner of the site is zoned R1 but is not used for density calculations" and in another place in the same paragraph it says "overall density of the project is 15.25 dwelling units per acre ". This is wrong because: 108 UNITS divided by 7.1 acres = 15.25 units /acre However, this calculation includes the 1.7 acres that is the R1. If you leave the R1 out the calculation is: 108 UNITS divided by 5.4 acres = 20.0 units /acre There is another error of the same type in the BAR Findings where it states that 32 % of the site will remain in its natural state when it is actually only about 15 %. These errors are crucial because they helped the BAR miss the ? correct conclusion that this project, as planned, will have an unneccesary, negative impact on the surrounding R1 neighborhood. Another major mistake in the BAR Findings is their focus on " The average height of the structures will be thirty -five (35) feet " on page 4 of the document: The number 35 is a correct interpretation of the Building Code. However the BAR is not concerned with the Code, it is concerned with the visual impact of the actual, physical height of the buildings; not some legalistic version that misrepresents how tall they will actually b,e. The .buildings will be 50 feet tall from the East, South and North. This error, combined with the other errors of grossly overstating open space and understating density per acre lead to the wrong conclusion. The BAR decided that this project's relationship to adj o f ni_ng areas was appropriate. Thi s. si mpl y is not true. The buildings on this site at both ,Ole North and South ends will I. it e - dominate the current and future single 'family homes. You must ( remember that this is a 'noncomforming' land use and you cannot allow it to overwhelm the single family homes to the North and G41 South. You can correct the BAR error by adapting "Variation B" in the FEIS (remove Bldgs 1 and 2) and removing the top two floors of Buildings number 3 and 18. This would truly provide a reasonable transition to the single family housing to th'e North and South because it ensures that the height and bulk of the buildings are acceptable. II. NOISE AND SAFETY IN THE RECREATION AND CHILDREN'S PLAY AREA Proposed Accoustical Fencing We are certainly pleased to see the new fencing plan for the three adult recreation areas. We are concerned about several remaining points though. First, will the. BAR require that the fences actually reduce the noise to the levels suggested by the applicant's noise expert, or will it merely require fences of a certain height with no committment of actual noise reduction? We, of course, suggest that the BAR require the project to meet the noise levels suggested by their noise expert. Second, the material suggested for the fence by their noise expert is plywood. We seriously question the wisdom of that material. It will be very .difficult to maintain a fence of that size in its exposed location. It will deteriorate fairly fast and quickly look very bad and become a danger. It is difficult to imagine that future owners will maintain it any more than they would the drain fields or slide monitors proposed by the Geo- Technical Engineers. It will also be large and heavy enough to be quite a danger, especially during a wind storm. Thus we strongly suggest a cement or masonry fence. The City's liability could be quite high if it approved a wood fence that would fall or blow down 10 -to -15 years later and injure someone. Children's Play area The children's play area is totally unacceptable as now proposed. Look at the facts. 1. The 10 foot retaining wall to the west will act as an echo chamber, actually focusing the already too high noise right on the children. Second, the wall itself is crazy, it becomes a very real safety hazard since it is simple for children to get above it by going short distances to the North or South. 2. The suggestion by the applicant (suggestion, not proposal) that bldgs 8 and 9 could be turned slightly to provide more noise reduction will not help much. The buildings are too far from the play area to help more than 2 or 3 db at most. 3. The small barrier around Eastern edge of the play area is onl y15 inches high. The chi l'dren would have to lay down to gain a noise reduction benefit from it. 4. The play area is too far from the buildings for the parents to hear their children cry out, especially in this noisy environment. ��fs��Y .� °� „��., 000: _ . 5. The play area will be impossible to see from most of the buildings because of the angle. Second, the planned trees will block the view of the play area in any case because of the slightly higher elvation of the play area. 6. It is hard to imagine 4th, 5th, and 6th grade children not playing outside after 4:30 p.m. in the winter. Yet no lights are planned by the BAR because the children are elementary age and the lights in the play area might provide a false sense of security. This argument is almost too silly to acknowledge. 7. The younger ag.e— c.hyldren will have to cross a combination � ��O'- parking 1 of and tre ,,. :. o get to the play area. They could, 1: 6 - '"— o use t e one crosswalk, but they won't. Thus they l 1 " w i l l come darting out from between the verti cal y parked cars. There will be over 180 stalls, this is like expecting 6 and 7 ear old kids to safely cross a Safeway parking lot to get from their backdoor to their backyard where their where is. The play area should be moved to a location immediately behind the the buildings. This location, if appropriate accoustical fencing, and lights were used would solve almost all of the problems listed above. It is almost too obvious a solution, too rational, too caring for the future safety of Tukwila's children. How could the BAR miss this and still not have erred? 3 III. LANDSCAPE AND SITE TREATMENT IV. CONCLUSIONS There are two objectives for landscaping and treating the site correctly. First, to make the site a more pleasant, healthful place for its future residents. We believe, that with the exception of the adult and child recreation areas, that the landscape architect proposed a reasonable plan. The object of creating a pleasant place to live is achieved to the extent possible on this site. However, the second goal of site landscaping is to provide a visual transition from the nonconforming apartment /condo use to the adjacent single family neighborhood. It is clear that the BAR failed to ensure that the applicant meet this goal. ..... ........ Tb:g sik—a.Got high..e- v g..ee.n. cedars placed on 40 foot centers ;'planned for most of the, perimeter do not : begin to Provide a ,screen or — any d of a buffer. The decidious trees planned do not provide a screen either. Especially if one considers that the sizes shown on the plan are at maturity, 15 to 20 years after the project is built. Effective screening would require cedars spaced 36 inches apart, as is used in the parking lot South of the Pavilion Shopping Center. The accoustical fences planned for the adult recreation areas (and the accoustical .fence actually needed for the poorly located child's play area) are not really landscaped at all. The landscaping designed for the Eastern edge of the property is on the inside of the fence. Thus from the freeway, Southcenter, and all areas on the East side of the valley, the fences will appear as merely blank, ugly, plywood walls. Finally, the trees planned for the landscaping themselves would create many problems. The evergreen conifers are actually large evergreen trees and will create a maintenance problem in later years. The large decidious London Plane trees are also considered to be a maintenance problem in many, existing apartment complexes because of their leaves. The solution is to provide 'solid' plantings on the North, West and South perimeters. Break up the monotony of the buildings and the ugly appearance of the accoustical fences with , :,many,:large evergreens. Replace the decidious trees chosen with a kind that future inhabitants will maintain easily and thus not cut down. Finally, allow the community to participate in the BAR's final review of the Landscape Plan. The BAR made significant errors in its review. The BAR decision must be found in error and the council immediately decide to sit in as the BAR to correct the errors and provide direction for future BAR 4 and Staff actions on this building permit application. ERRORS IN FACT Density Calculations Height Depictions Percent of Site in Wooded State - Implication that No Further Mitigations Were Possible ERRORS IN JUDGEMENT Inconsistant, Incomplete Landscape Plan (no consideration for need to transition and buffer the nonconforming use) Unsafe Children's Play Area No Landscaping for Accoustical Fence Very Large, Dangerous Wooden Accoustical Fence Instead of Masonry The FEIS stated on page 48 that the Proponent's (developer's) objectives were "to include mitigating measures which are responsive to the environmental issues and to the health, safety and welfare of project residents and neighbors." The BAR did not ensure that all of these impacts were reasonably mitigated. In fact, there is a logical simplicity to the mitigations suggested by the citizens during this appeal. If Buildings 1 and 2 are removed and Buildings 3 and 18 halved (upper two floors removed) then there will be a requirement for approximately 31 less parking stalls. This would free up space immediately behind the main row of buildings that could easily be used for a 'safe' children's play area. Removing the children's play area from the R1 zone will free up the zone to be a 'real' transition buffer. The use of 'dense' cedar screens on 36 inch centers on the West, North and South perimeters and large evergreen trees on the East side of the accoustical fence would provide a quieter and more appropriate (from a visual appearance standpoint) project. Finally, the use of rock, cement or some other long lived building material for the accoustical fence would enhance both the safety and the exterior visual appearence of the project. THE CITY HAS THE LEGAL RIGHT AND OBLIGATION TO MITIGATE THE IMPACTS OF THIS NONCONFORMING LAND USE. WE HAVE SHOWN SOME OF THE BAR'S ERRORS AND HOW THEY CAN BE CORRECTED. IT'S NOW UP TO THE COUNCIL. 5 TO: Council Members �j FROM: Planning Department)J' DATE: Apri 1 9, 1987 MEMORANDUM City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila Washington 98188 (206) 433 -1800 Gary L. VanDusen, Mayor SUBJECT: VALLEY VIEW ESTATES 87 -7 -DR - SUMMARY OF CHANGES FROM MAY 22, 1986 BAR DECISION Exhibit 58 features: A - 11 feet in height, 165 feet in length. B - 16 feet in height, 260 feet in length. C - 13 feet in height, 130 feet in length. *Children's - 4 feet in height, 50 feet in length. 1. Pedestrian walkway extended from structures 1 & 2 out to right -of -way. (See Exhibit 58.) 2. Thirty (30) additional evergreens, six (6) feet in height interspersed between structures 10 -18. (See Exhibit 58.) 3. Noise attenuating fences: a. sufficient height: Mr. Richards further described the proposed heights for recreation areas A, B, C, and Childs. b. Weight = 3 lbs per square foot 2 layers 3/4" plywood c. no holes or cracks underneath or between sections and impervious to air or sound. These measurements are for the original recreation plan. The height of the fence will decrease as it wraps around the north and south sides of the recreation areas as the slope increases. *Deleted and fence for A lengthened if optional recreation plan approved. AREA APPLICANT A B C Child's TOTAL 21,650 REQUIRED MEMORANDUM to: April 9, 1987 Council Members Page 2 4. Fifteen evergreen cedars, 6 feet in height, along the perimeter of the R -1 district frontage height of Slade Way (see Exhibit 58). Optional Recreation Plan The optional plan (Exhibits 76 and 77) relocates the Children's Play Area to Recreation Area A. The height and length of the noise attenuation fences will be recalculated to maintain the 10 -point decibel reduction or Leg of 54, 54, and 61 in A, 8, and C respectively as originally proposed. OPTIONAL RECREATION SPACE ANALYSIS STAFF 6,400 7,750 2,500 5,400 5,400 12,320 6,864 3,264 6,624 21,650 22,448 The optional recreation plan includes extension of the acoustical fencing. City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila Washington 98188 0206) 433 -1800 Gary 1. VanDusen, Mayor TUKWILA PLANNING COMMISSION Minutes of the April 17, 1986, Tukwila Planning Commission meeting. Chairman Knudson called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Other com- missioners present were Mr. Sowinski, Mr. McKenna, Mr. Kirsop, and Mr. Larson. Representing staff were Moira Bradshaw, Brad Collins and Becky Kent, Planning Department. Jim Haney, City Attorney, was also present. Approval of the minutes was deferred to the end of the meeting. BOARD OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW A. 86 -7 -DR: Valley View Estates, Puget Western request BAR approval of 108 unit multi - family residential complex on a 7.08 acre parcel located in the southwest quadrant of the I -5 /I -405 intersection, bordered by 53rd Avenue South and I -5 right -of -way on the east. David Morgan, 5190 S. 166th St., Tukwila, WA, discussed the Board's review of steep slopes on 53rd Avenue South and Slade Way, sidewalks, and parking . requirements of the site. He submitted the following exhibits into the record: Exhibit 22: Federal Highway Administration statistics Exhibit 23: Old Zoning Code parking regulations Exhibit 24: New Zoning Code parking regulations Mr. Haggard objected to the submission of Exhibit 23 and 24. Mr. Morgan suggested a concrete walkway be installed down Klickitat to pro- vide pedestrian access to Southcenter Mall. He was concerned with control of fire lane enforcement, and overflow parking. The Board discussed fire truck turning radius requirements and fire lane enforcement. Robert Crain, 5105 S. 163rd Pl., Tukwila, WA, felt the plan did not miti- gate the monotony of building design. He was concerned with the tightly sealed buildings and felt forced air ventilation should be required. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes April 17, 1986 Page 2 Ann Crain, 5105 S. 163rd P1., Tukwila, WA, was concerned with who the actual developer of the property was, location of the play area and poten- tial for accidents, and the inadequacy of details on the adult recreation areas. Dennis Robertson, 16038 48th Ave. S., Tukwila, WA, read a letter into the record responding to the BAR's review criteria of TMC 18.60 (Exhibit 25). He submitted the following exhibits into the record: Exhibit 26: Dennis Robertson colored landscape plan as proposed Exhibit 27: Dennis Robertson colored landscape plan as actual Exhibit 28: Dennis Robertson colored recreation areas Mr. Robertson was concerned with the scale of the site plan, the project being out of scope and character with the neighborhood, inadequate screening, parking areas, and modulation. He was also concerned with ina- dequate separation between the buildings, recreation areas and noise, slopes, and the non - conforming land use. Ethylmae Cole, 16030 51st Ave. So., Tukwila, WA, was concerned with slide potential, and inadequate roads. Dharlene West, 5212 S. 164th P1., Tukwila, WA, felt the site should be used as single family residential. She was concerned with the deck rails on the east side of the project, noise levels, significant adverse noise impacts and on -site recreation area protection, acoustical barriers, and location and lighting of children's play area. Dick Goe, 5112 S. 163rd Pl., Tukwila, WA, read into the record a letter dated April 17, 1986, from John McFarland, 4375 S. 158th St., Tukwila, WA, addressing inadequate parking, traffic circulation, ingress /egress, and the scale of the proposal (Exhibit 29). Mr. Goe submitted a letter from himself and eight photographs depicting several multi - family complexes within the City and adjacent on- street parking (Exhibit 29). He described the roads around the subject property and was concerned with the high volume of traffic. The Board recessed at 8:45 p.m. The Board reconvened at 8:55 p.m. Dharlene West submitted her letter dated April 17, 1986, into the record (Exhibit 30). Planning Commission Meeting Minutes April 17, 1986 Page 3 Rebuttal by the Applicant Joel Haggard, Attorney, Suite 2426, Financial Center, 1215 Fourth Avenue, Seattle, WA, felt that the BAR guidelines did not encompass noise - related aspects of the project and would be addressed during the building permit application. He said there were minor modifications they would be willing to commit to with respect to the design. Roy Richards, Towne, Richards, and Chaudiere, 105 NE 56th Ave., Seattle, WA, recommended that the windows be upgraded to provide 5 dBA more noise reducation. He reviewed the proposed window specs, door swings, and door seals. Mr. McKenna inquired about the noise impacts on the children's play area. Mr. Richards indicated that a small noise barrier could be located on the east side of the children's play area. Mr. McKenna asked about noise impacts on the other recreation areas on the site. Mr. Haggard discussed recreation areas and noise barriers using Exhibit 19. Mr. Richards indicated it would be feasible to reduce noise levels for iso- lated areas, but not feasible to use a continuous barrier for noise atten- uation for the site. Mr. Haggard indicated they would be willing to install an approximately 8 foot wood slat windowed fence wrapping around the north -south side of the children's play area, but took no position on barriers .for the other recreation areas. Jim Maclssac, traffic engineer, responded to Exhibit 22, Federal Highway Administration statistics. He responded to concerns of the parking requirements, fire truck turn around radius, ingress /egress, and traffic circulation. Jamie Vandervanter, landscape architect, reviewed the landscaping plans for the proposal. He felt lighting of the children's play area could produce a false sense of security. He also reviewed the plant and landscaping materials to be used on the site. Vince Ferrese responded to concerns of building design, forced air units, and deck railings. He described the building design details and color schemes. Mr. Haggard clarified that the solid wood railing approximately 3'6" high should become a condition of approval. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes April 17, 1986 Page 4 Mr. Haggard identified that Exhibit 15, 18, 19, and the typical basement plan contained in Exhibit 14, the Victor wall light section of Exhibit 14, are what they are asking BAR to approve in addition to those portions of Exhibit 14 which are the floor plan elevations that have not been separa- tely identified as an Exhibit. Additional modifications they agreed that should be stated as textual conditions are as follows: 1. Windows on the east, north, and south face of the structures would be 1 -inch, double window with space in between the two windows. 2. Change the doors on the decks to the interior from a sliding to a swinging door, assuring the air -tight seal. Mr. Haggard indicated that the modified plans, as discussed at the last hearing and submitted as Exhibits reflect staff's recommended conditions with the following exceptions: 1. Disagreement with Condition 12, 30 -ft fence along the easterly boun- dary. 2. Disagreement with Condition 4, consolidation of separate lots into one lot. Mr. Haggard indicated that they would prepare and execute, with the appro- val of the City Attorney, a covenant and restriction running with the land in lieu of Condition 4. Mr. Haney clarified that the setback requirements would need to be met. Final Rebuttal by the Opponents Dave Morgan reiterated his concern with parking, vehicular frequency, traf- fic on Klickitat Drive, noise reduction, and lighting. Dennis Robertson felt a fence should be required, and reiterated his con- cern with landscape areas, and the character of building design. Dharlene West expressed her concerns with fencing and the testimony given that night. Dick Goe expressed his concern with the noise impact, site barrier /screening, elevation of the units relative to other residences in the vicinity. He requested that modification be made to the landscape plan to indicate a barrier. MR. MCKENNA MOVED TO CONTINUE THE MEETING TO MAY 22, 1986, 7:00 P.M. MR. LARSON SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. • Planning Commission( Meeting Minutes April 17, 1986 Page 5 ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned approximately 11:00 p. Tukwila Planning Commission Moira Carr Bradshaw Secretary PC4 -17 Minutes of the April 10, 1986, meeting. APPROVAL OF MINUTES BOARD OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW TUKWILA PLANNING COMMISSION Chairman Knudson called the meeting to order at 7:10 p.m. Other Commissioners present were Mr. Sowinski, Mr. Mckenna, Mr. Kirsop and Mr. Larson. Representing staff were Brad Collins, Moira Bradshaw and Becky k::ent, Planning Department. Jim Haney, City Attorney, was also present. MR. SOWINSKI MOVED TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE FEBRUARY 27, 1986, MEETING. MR. MCKENNA SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. MR. SOWINSKI MOVED TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE MARCH 27, 1986, MEETING. MR. I SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH PASSED UNANIMOUS- LY. A. 86 -7 -DR: Valley View Estates. Puget Western request BAR approval of 108 unit multi - family residential complex on a 7.08 acre parcel located in the southwest quadrant of the I -5 /I -405 intersection, bordered by 53rd Avenue South and I -5 right -of -way on the east. Dick Causey, Puget Western, 10608 N.E. 4th Ave., Seattle, WA, indicated that he didn't disagree with the staff's recommenda tions but did have concerns with some of them. Joel Haggard, Attorney, Suite 2426, Financial Center, 1215 Fourth Ave., Seattle, WA, submitted a package of materials reflecting exhibits and testimony to be presented at the meeting. The package was entered into the record as Exhibit 14, and distribut- ed to the Board. Vince Ferresse, Mithun Bowman Emrich Group, 2000 112th Ave. N.E., Bellevue, WA, reviewed and summarized Exhibit 14 which included density, parking and height information, major design objectives, and response to review guidelines of TMC 18.60.050. He described how they would accomplish their design objectives and responded to staff's recommendations, noting revisions to the plans in response to staff's conditions. The following exhibits were entered into the record: Exhibit 15 - Graphic illustration of building elevations Exhibit 16 - Site plan Exhibit 17 - Section drawings Exhibit 18 - site plan Mr. Haggard reviewed and confirmed with Mr. Ferresse the modifi- cations to the site plan. The following exhibits were entered into the record: Exhibit 19 - landscape plan Exhibit 20 - cross sectional evaluation James Van De Vanter, 612 Bellevue Way N.E. Suite 201, Bellevue, WA, reviewed ans summarized Exhibit 14 which included landscap- ing, childrens play area, site elevations, preliminary grading information and area calculations of the site. He responded to staff's recommendations, noting revisions to the plans. He also responded to the review guidelines of TMC 18.60.050. Jim Macisaac, 23 148th Ave. S.E., Bellevue, WA, traffic consul- tant, discussed pedestrian circulation and vehicular activity, crosswalk and walkway locations, referencing Exhibit 18. He responded to the review guidelines of TMC 18. 60. 050. Mr. Haggard requested the Board consider approval subject to appropriate conditions per Exhibits 18, 19 and 15, and requested Exhibit 14 also be included. He discussed their proposal to put a left turn lane on klickitat Road onto 53rd Ave. So. Dennis Robertson, 16038 48th Ave. So., Tukwila, WA, requested more time to review the proponents plan revisions. Mr. Collins suggested the Board continue to take testimony and consider Mr. Robertson's request at the end of the meeting. MR. LARSON MOVED FOR A 15 MINUTE RECESS. MR. K:IRSOP SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. The meeting reconvened at 9:10 p.m. The Board proceeded to take testimony. Mr. Robertson lodged a protest for not being given adequate time to study the information presented at the meeting. He spoke in opposition to the project, and felt Puget Western was basing their decision to develop on profit. He was also concerned with the number of stories being allowed. He reiterated his protest. Dick Goe, 5112 S. 163rd P1., Tukwila, WA, was concerned with the number of stories of the buildings. He also lodged a formal protest regarding time to review changes. He presented and narrated a video depicting the site and surrounding area (Exhibit 21). He described the photophaphic equipment utilized. He requested better landscaping screening from the single family resigential neighborhood, insurance that the project was done the TUK:WILA PLANNING COMMISSION Moira Carr Bradshaw Secretary way they were told and that it be in contract form. Mr. Robertson stated his concern with noise. The meeting adjourned at 10:50 p.m. L Darlene West, 5212 S. 164th St., Tukwila, WA, was concerned with the number of stories, unsafe conditions of childrens play area, vehicular circulation, and significant adverse noise. She also lodged a protest regarding time to review changes. Robert Crain, 5105 S. 163rd P1, Tukwila, WA, was concerned with the monotonous design of structures in conflict with the design review guidelines, and Fire Department access. He also lodged a protest regarding time to review changes. John MacFarland, 4375 S. 158th St., Tukwila, WA, reported that there had been no reported incidences of criminal activity or pestilence on the subject property. He was concerned with the traffic and parking demands and questioned if the parking ratios were realistic. He was also concerned with traffic circulation on S 160th St., 53rd Ave. So., and Slade Way, and ingress /egress at the intersection of points to the site. Paul Thompson, 16836 53rd Ave. So., Tukwila, WA, was concerned with the traffic impact, slope and the slide area. MR. LARSON MOVED TO CONTINUE THE MEETING TO APRIL 17, 1986, AT 7:00 P.M. MR. KIRSOP SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH PASSED UNANI- MOUSLY. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 BEFORE THE BOARD OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW TUKWILA, WASHINGTON Regarding Building ) No. 86 -7 -DR Permit Application ) by PUGET WESTERN, INC. ) APPLICANT'S PREHEARING BRIEF 108 residential units are proposed for an about 7.08 acre parcel of undeveloped property in Tukwila. The residential units will be located on the eastern portion of the property to reduce the pitched roof elevation as much as feasible. No units will be constructed in the R -1 zoned portion of the property. Applicant agrees to execute a covenant running with the land to assure this. You will be reviewing the residential development under the guidelines in TCC §18.60.050. The applicant will present you with information describing the site and how the development fits with the site, setting out the landscaping plan which will enhance the residential environment, and providing a representation of how the residential units will look. This is done to give you a specific information to review against your guidelines. The applicant will provide a description of what it proposes to do. This willbe presented by the key JOEL E. HAGGARD ATTORNEY AND COUNSELOR•AT•LAW APPLICANT'S PREHEARING BRIEF - 1 SUITE 2426, FINANCIAL CENTER 1215 FOURTH AVENUE SEATTLE. WASHINGTON 98161 (206) 682.5635 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 experts retained to help the applicant. These people include Mr. Vince Ferrese, the architect, Mr. James VanDeVanter, the landscape architect, and Mr. James Maclsaac, the transportation engineer. Each will be available to respond to your questions. After you receive the applicant's testimony and exhibits and hear other persons testify, you will be making a decision. The decision is not whether a building permit will be issued or what conditions should be applied to those permits. The Staff acknowledges this in its staff report. (Paragraph 4, Page 1, Staff Report). Even though your guidelines are qualitative, the decision is not what you think is in the "best interests" of Tukwila. See Carlson v. Beaux Arts Village, 41 Wn. App. 402 (August 7, 1985). The decision you will make is whether we satisfy your guidelines, not whether the units could be done in a different way. We know you will want to carefully consider the Staff's recommended approval. But such review is not unquestioning. At the hearing we will explain concerns we have as to some of the staff's recommended conditions. We will suggest clarification where appropriate. A summary of our preliminary position on these conditions is included in Attachment 1. We recognize that this residential development has been the subject of controversy. It has been to the Supreme Court and our rights are vested - that issue is APPLICANT'S PREHEARING BRIEF - 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 ... behind us now. The adequacy of the City's own EIS has been challenged - that issue will be heard by the City Council. People may still object to 108 new families as neighbors, but the degree of support for or against the residential development is not a criterion for your decision. The 108 residential units are proposed for development on this vacant parcel. We agree with Staff that you should approve the plans. Staff and applicant may have minor disagreement as to the conditions for approval. We ask you to carefully consider all the testimony and then, on the record before you grant approval subject to reasopable and legal conditions. DATED this ;(9 day of March, 1986. cc: Mr. Brad Collins Mr. Tom Russell 2427D APPLICANT'S PREHEARING BRIEF - 3 Respectfully submitte Joel Hagg•r Attorney for Applicant ATTACHMENT 1 Preliminary Statement of Position As to Staff Recommended Conditions Staff recommends approval subject to certain conditions. The staff's report was received on March 24, 1986 and applicant's preliminary comments follow. 1. Staff suggests more evergreen shrubs to screen parking areas from adjacent properties and roads. Comment: Mr. James VanDeVanter will discuss with the BAR applicant's proposed landscape plan. Extensive landscaping will be provided and we meet your guidelines. The Guidelines do not require blockage of all views, rather moderation of visual impact. The landscape plan satisfies §18.60.050(1)(B) and (2)(B). 2. Staff requests added pedestrian walkways. Comment: Mr. Vince Ferrese will show on the site plan that walkways have been added from the site to the nearby roads. This modification is in response to the Staff comment. Mr. James VanDeVanter will provide you with alternative designs for access to the children's play area. We have no objection to providing a secondary trail from Structures 1 and 2. We are mindful however that the revisions may slightly increase grading requirements. Thus, Mr. VanDeVanter will be attempting to present you with an alternative that reflects both reduced grade as well as minimal site disturbance. This is responsive to the Staff suggestion. Mr. Ferrese will describe the internal pedestrian walkway patterns reflected by the current sites plan. We do not agree with Staff's demand for a continuous walkway along the entire length of the easterly 16 units. Func- tionally the objective of pedestrian movement is satisfied by present plans and the nearness of parking areas. 3. Staff wants signage, speed bumps and cross- ways for the circulation aisle. Comment: Mr. Ferrese will indicate revisions to the site plan that accomplish Staff demands. Mr. Maclsaac 1 will be available to respond to your questions. As an alternative to placing speed bumps every 200 or so feet, they might be best placed within 100 feet of crossing areas. 4. Staff demands that the property be consoli- dated into one lot. Comment: Staff wants to assure that there be no future sales or easements [ ?] of undeveloped portions, like the R -1 parcel. We certainly do not intend to request that any development beyond the 108 units be authorized. Applicant is willing to file a covenant or restriction running with the land to assure this. But Staff's idea that the property be consoli- dated into one lot will not resolve its concern. Without the covenant merely making the lot one will not preclude future subdivision. In fact, it may well be that sub- division will be required to support unit sales for condominium ownership. Thus this condition should be revised to have applicant covenant that the entire property can only be developed with 108 residential units. 5. Staff desires a "level," 30 foot long plat- form at the 53rd Avenue driveway. Comment: Mr. James VanDeVanter will provide you with a separate drawing reflecting how we will comply with the intent of this condition. But we can not provide a perfectly level platform without causing transition con- cerns into the property. Mr. VanDeVanter will define level as within a certain maximum grade change (or slope) over the 30 feet. 6. Play Area pathways should be revised. Comment: See Comment under 2. as to this subject. 7. Diversify residential entrances by providing low individual landscaping in front of each unit. Comment: The maximum in individuality would be achieved by each resident providing their own flowers or plants. But applicant is not relying on the residents to provide the landscaping. Mr. Ferrese and /or Mr. VanDeVanter will describe the architectural and landscaping treatment applicant is proposing. This testimony should demonstrate why this condition is unnecessary. 2 8. Landscaping all dumpster locations and provide one for Structures 1 and 2. Comment: Mr. James VanDeVanter will provide by separate diagram how we respond to this desire of Staff. 9. Apparently Staff wants you to review more closely the lighting plans. Comment: Mr. Ferrese will provide illustrative examples of what applicant intends to do. We do not wish to so specify the lighting manufacturers as to get into a restraint on trade issue or a lighting device which may become unavailable. But we do believe that an acceptable plan can be easily resolved. 10. Staff desires wood siding. Comment: Just as the City code does not require any residence to be all wood, or all brick or whatever, Staff's demand that these units be all wood is beyond the scope of your criteria and the City code. Applicant does not agree with Staff's rationale supporting the all wood demand. But this would be cheaper. If the BAR wants all wood, we do not object. facade." 2428D 11. Staff desires a "more aesthetically pleasing Comment: The condition and the rationale are probably illegal under the Carlson case. In any event, Mr. Ferrese will review with you facade elevations and respond to your questions. Please note that the residen- tial units are all 3 story with basements as defined in the applicable Zoning Code (i.e., TCC §18.06.080 ( "basement ") and §18.06.650 ( "story ")). NOTE: Applicant recognizes that the Staff Report contains comments and suggestions which relate to matters beyond the BAR jurisdiction and properly within the Building Permit scope. We specifically reserve all rights and objections to the Staff report comments not explicitly addressed in this memorandum. VALLEY VIEW ESTATES B.A.R. Review 3/27/86 Prepared by Vincent Ferrese �.LoFT _ • 1 ,, • 3RD FLOOD ;::' ..s • • 2ND FLOOR. t• . '`` �` 1ST FLOOR , !. ° BASEMENT ,0 / f r r • MITHUN ■ BOWMAN • GROUP•PS AI ?c;►►►:EC1uPE PLANNING AND IN1l•I ?IO12 DESIGN EXHIBIT 2000 1 12T►I AVE NE BELIEVIIE. WASH 98004 (20t.•)4E)4•334.1 mulokm APR /1.1986 CITY OF TUKWILA PLANNING DEPT. TYPICAL SIDE ELEVATION 18.06.650 Story. "Story" is that portion of a build- ing included between the upper surface of any floor and the upper surface of the floor next above, except that the top- most story shall be that portion a building included between the upper surface of the topmost floor and the ceiling or roof above. If the finished floor level directly above a basement, cellar or unused underfloor space is more than six feet above grade as defined herein for more than fifty percent of the total perimeter or is more than twelve feet above grade as defined herein at any point, such basement or unused underfloor space shall be considered as a story. (Ord. 635 S5, 1970: Ord. 251 Ch. 3 (part) , 1957) . • m . , %I.<• • VALLEY VIEW ESTATES B.A.R. Review 3/27/86 Prepared by Vincent Ferrese ' R -1 portion R -4 portion RMH portion Density R -4 height RMH height Parking •:,r.c ,.s.r._t.. ri�r_,.., ..wrr>srrs PERMITTED BY ZONING 6 units 82 units 312 units 56.4 units /acre MITHVN • EMRICH GROUP•PS ARC HITEC1U12E PLANNING AND INTERIOI? DESIGN 35' or 3 stories ±200' (1 -1/2 times distance to street) 162 cars EXHIBIT 2000 1121I1 AVE NE BELLEVUE, WASH 98004 ( ..... ��."'.. rrc')':..=: fs. iR' t':. ci'." i':; T�" rY i'.M r: �yy; �v;: e: 4 !; n ?rr,��v_.i2'k!S:�e_'^ • a� , "t � °�,y =`S'a: .. EEM Ed L APR n. 1986 CITY OF TUKWILA PLANNING DEPT. PROVIDED BY OWNER 0 units 60 units 48 units 15.25 units per acre 32' - 3 stories + basement 32' - 3 stories + basement 180 cars 18.20.020 Height, yard and area regulations. In the RMH district the height of buildings or structures, the mini- mum dimensions of yards and the minimum lot area per family permitted on any lot shall be as follows in Sections 18.20- .030 through 18.20.080. For exceptions, see Chapter 18.60. (Ord. 298. S1(part) , 1960: Ord. 251 S4- 4A(part) , 1957) . 18.20.030 Height. No part of a building shall exceed a height of one and one -half times the mean horizontal dis- tance from such building to the centerline of the abutting street or streets, except as modified in Chapter 18.60. (Ord. 298 Sl(part), 1960: Ord. 251 S4- 4A(part), 1957). • 1 A PR 4 1986 CITY OF TUICIk11.7A PLANNING DEPT. Istr-cotu s • 'SI-10415S • 1 • - 411r1441. _4V-1 5 Att,iirtcotip-Ptr±extiosi s' v` ,414, Q -u as. eige ad # p.A e.-2e, -,.-- • ..-••••*" \i. 60. ., .......... .... .. .......- ..... . .... L........ ....-- .....- ....***" ------* J-u 1 1+T I 1 U I4 [ I I [ 114 11 M I I < ••■•••■••■■■• •• • • ! - - I 11■ .. .. .04y . „ A 4,. ‘ , - A k, `(09 ,,....."*" ir,. 1 0, . ...t.-- A v ... ..• - _ - COVTI=1. - 1414 TH ql" fataCo MI4 5 - • tf •••-: MN MB APR 4 1985 CITY OF TUKWILA PLANNING DEPT. VALLEY VIEW ESTATES B.A.R. Review 3/27/86 Prepared by Vincent Ferrese (— - Ow. HAND L 1IT 17• GRADE = " 0' -0" ABOVE BASEMENT FLOOR . 3... -. a_ . au,.�csnv::. .. •,_. " . +? ^A..:iKi « >.�.::3ifl..:.....:. .... ^t :.�;!h;G.u..:i1:.,,_._. u:, °.']:T4 ^ „ ^. t':...._, Y, ".3�r..�..'.:T�_� ^ 214,..., . a,. a: 7,!? u` ° ,tl.`,Xf�' <;i't'.:Y::s� ^... ^„i:;iii'C'' MITHUN • BOWMAN • EMRICH GROUP.PS APCIII1EClURE PLANNING AND INIII ?IOR DESIGN f GRADE = 18.06.080 Basement. "Basement” means that portion of a story partly underground and having at least one -half of its height or more than five feet below the adjoining finish grade. (Ord. 251 Ch.3(part), 1957). 2000 1 12111 AVE NE BELLI:VUE. WASH 98O)I1 (200'i:43344 9' -0" ABOVE BASEMENT FLOOR GRADE = 4'-67 ABOVE BASEMENT FLOOR GRADE = 0' -0" ABOVE BASEMENT FLOOR 'r, City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila Washington 98188 (206) 433 -1800 Gary L. VanDusen, Mayor TUKWILA PLANNING COMMISSION Minutes of the February 27, 1986 Planning Commission meeting. Chairman Knudson called the meeting to order at 8:05 p.m. All Commissioners were present. Representing staff were Brad Collins, Moira Bradshaw and Becky Kent, Planning Department. APPROVAL OF MINUTES MR. COPLEN MOVED TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 6, 1986, AS CORRECTED, FEBRUARY 13, 1986, JANUARY 23, 1986, AND FEBRUARY 26, 1986. MR. SOWINSKI SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. It was requested that minutes be provided in a more timely fashion. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. 85 -49 -CUP: Singleton, requesting approval of truck terminal . located at approximately South 134th Street and 47th Avenue South. Mr. McKenna stated that he had listened to the January 23, 1986, meeting tapes and viewed all the exhibits. Mr. Larson stated that he listened to the December 19, 1985, meeting tapes and viewed all the exhibits. Mr. Coplen was unable to vote on this application because he was not in attendance at all the previous meetings. However, he requested to remain and participate in the discussion. Being no objection from the audience, he remained. Lee Singleton, 159 Western Avenue West, Seattle, WA, concurred and approved with the staff report. The Commission discussed drainage and traffic circulation. Mr. Singleton said Purolator Courier had no objection to the limitation of hours of operation and the limitation to traffic on certain streets and that conditions of the CUP would be part of their lease. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes February 27, 1986 Page 2 Chairman Knudson closed the public hearing. MR. LARSON MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION 85 -49 -CUP: W. LEE SINGLETON, ACCEPTING STAFF'S FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS, WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1. LIMIT TRAFFIC TO 134TH STREET NORTH OF 47TH AVENUE SOUTH. 2. EXCEED LANDSCAPE CODE REQUIREMENTS TO SCREEN PROPOSED USE FROM SURROUNDING SINGLE FAMILY AREAS. 3. PREVENT LIGHTING SPILLOVER AND GLARE ONTO ADJACENT PROPERTIES. 4. REQUEST PUBLIC WORKS TO INSTALL STREET SIGNS PROHIBITING THRU TRUCK TRAFFIC SOUTH OF THE SITE AND NO PARKING SIGNS ALONG 134TH PLACE. 5. THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT IS SUBJECT TO REVIEW AT ANY TIME. 6. RECOMMENDATION TO PUBLIC WORKS TO PROHIBIT ON- STREET PARKING ON SOUTH 134TH STREET AFTER THE STREET IMPROVEMENT IS COMPLETED. MR. MCKENNA SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH PASSED UNANIMOUSLY, WITH MR. COPLEN NOT VOTING. Mr. Collins clarified that the review of the Conditional Use Permit would be initiated by a formal complaint. B. 86 -4 -TA: City of Tukwila, proposing to amend TMC 18.30.040 of the Zoning Code, to allow high tech uses as a permitted conditional use in the C -2 Regional Retail Business Zone. Chairman Knudson opened the public hearing. Ms. Bradshaw summarized the staff report. Being no testimony from the audience, Chairman Knudson closed the public hearing. The Commission discussed the definition of "high tech ". MR. KIRSOP MOVED TO RECOMMEND TO THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT. MR. ORRICO SECONDED THE MOTION. MR. MCKENNA MOVED TO AMEND "LIGHT MANUFACTURING" to "HIGH TECH ", UNDER CONCLUSION. Motion died for lack of second. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes February 27, 1986 Page 3 Mr. Collins clarified that the Planning Commission will be defining "high tech" on a case -by -case basis. MR. ORRICO MOVED TO AMEND THE MOTION TO REVISE THE LANGUAGE OF THE PROPOSAL IN THE STAFF REPORT TO READ AS FOLLOWS: "18.30.040 CONDITIONAL USES. THE FOLLOWING USES REQUIRE A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FROM THE CITY AS PROVIDED IN CHAPTER 18.64. 1. HIGH TECH USES INCLUDING RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT, LIGHT ASSEMBLING, REPAIR OR STORAGE, OF PHARMACEUTICALS AND RELATED PRODUCTS: ELECTRIC, MECHANICAL, OR PRECISION INSTRUMENTS: INDUSTRIES INVOLVED WITH ETCHING, FILM PROCESSING, LITHOGRAPHY, PRINTING AND PUBLISHING, IN CONJUNCTION WITH NOT LESS THAN THIRTY -FIVE (35) PERCENT OFFICE. 2. GENERAL CONDITIONAL USES AS SPECIFIED IN CHAPTER 18.64 (ORD. 1247 §1(PART), 1982). MR. KIRSOP SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. MAIN MOTION PASSED 6 -1, WITH MR. SOWINSKI VOTING NO. BOARD OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW A. DR- 12 -85: Tukwila Mini Storage, requesting approval of revisions to proposed development at Interurban Avenue South and South 143rd. Chairman Knudson stepped down on this item due to conflict of interest and appearance of fairness, and he left the room. Mr. Kirsop assumed the Chair. Ms. Bradshaw summarized the staff report. The Board reviewed the proposed revisions. MR. ORRICO MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION DR- 12 -85, TUKWILA MINI STORAGE, AS REVISED WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITION: 1. PHOTINIA SCREEN PLANTED THREE (3) FEET ON CENTER. MR. SOWINSKI SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. Mr. Knudson resumed the Chair. B. 86 -5 -DR: Alvin Pearl, requesting approval of modified landscape plans per TMC 18.70.090 for Joslyn Building at 401 Baker Boulevard. • Planning Commission Meeting Minutes February 27, 1986 Page 4 Ms. Bradshaw summarized the staff report. Don Miles, 15828 S.E. 24th Street, Bellevue, WA, Engineer, indicated that the railroad would not allow anything 27 feet from the centerline of the track. He reviewed the landscaping on site. He also stated that Union Pacific is actively reviewing abandoning the main line north of Strander Boulevard. MR. COPLEN MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION 86 -5 -DR, ACCEPTING STAFF'S FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS AS AMENDED, WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS. 1. IF APPROVED BY UNION PACIFIC, INSTALLATION OF FIVE (5) FOOT LANDSCAPE STRIP WITH A SHRUB PLANTED TWO (2) FEET ON CENTER ALONG THE WEST PRO- PERTY LINE FROM EXISTING SPUR RAIL TO THE FRONT PROPERTY LINE. 2. IMPROVE THE EXISTING FRONT YARD LANDSCAPING STRIP BY ADDING ADDITIONAL OAK TREES THIRTY (30) FEET ON CENTER. MR. ORRICO SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. OTHER BUSINESS A. 85 -53 -CPA, 85 -54 -R: Schneider Homes, adopt . written findings and conclusions from February 13, 1986. Ms. Bradshaw identified the findings and conclusions orally presented during the February 13 public hearing and transposed into the written report. MR. MCKENNA MOVED TO APPROVE THE WRITTEN FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS AS ORALLY PRESENTED AT THE FEBRUARY 13, 1986, MEETING. MR. ORRICO SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. ADJOURNMENT MR. LARSON MOVED TO ADJOURN. MR. ORRICO SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. The meeting adjourned at 10:05 p.m. Tukwila Planning Commission Moira Carr Bradshaw Secretary City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila Washington 98188 (206) 433-1800 Gary L. VanDusen, Mayor TUKWILA PLANNING COMMISSION Minutes of the March 27, 1986, Planning Commission meeting. Chairman Knudson called the meeting to order at 7 :07 p.m. Other com- missioners present were Mr. Sowinski, Mr. McKenna, and Mr. Kirsop. Representing staff were Moira Bradshaw, Rick Beeler, Kathy Stetson and Becky Kent, Planning Department and Jim Haney, City Attorney. The approval of minutes was deferred to the end of the meeting. BOARD OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW A. 86 -8 -DR: Office Center Tecton, requesting Board of Architectural Review (BAR) and approval of a two story office building over one level of parking on the northwest parcel of the 65th Street and Southcenter Boulevard intersection. Ms. Bradshaw entered application 86 -8 -DR into the record and summarized the staff report with the addition of Recommendation 4. Revised Landscape Plan showing minimum area requirement and commented that Recommendation 1. include the recommendation for relocation of the loading space. Mr. Larson arrived at the meeting. Rick Jones, Urban Design Group, 210 -18 Gostick Place, North Vancouver, BC, Canada V7M -3G3 requested reconsideration of Recommendation 3. to not allow roof top mechanical equipment. Exhibit L air conditioner and screen in elevator shaft was entered into the record. MR. KIRSOP MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION 86 -8 -DR: 6450 SOUTHCENTER BLVD., ACCEPTING STAFF'S FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS, WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1. PARKING AREA AND BUILDING LIGHTING SCHEMES. 2. TRASH RECEPTACLE ENCLOSURE. 3. MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT LOCATION AND SCREENING ACCEPTED AS PRESENTED IN EXHIBIT L. 4. REVISED LANDSCAPE PLANS. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes March 27, 1986 Page 2 MR. SOWINSKI SECONDED THE MOTION. MAIN MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. MR. LARSON MOVED TO AMEND THE MOTION TO REQUIRE THAT THE REFLECTIVITY OF THE GLASS NOT EXCEED 20 %. MR. MCKENNA SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. PUBLIC HEARING /BOARD OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW B. 86- 10- DR/86 -9 -CUP: North Hill Reservoir, City of Tukwila requesting BAR approval and a Conditional Use Permit for a water reservoir and appurtenances at approximately 14953 57th Avenue South. Ms. Bradshaw entered the staff report for 86- 10- DR/86 -9 -CUP into the record and summarized the staff report and clarified that recommendation 3 referred to both sanitary and storm sewer. Byron Sneva, City of Tukwila, Public Works Director, and Ross Earnst, City Engineer, presented graphics and described the reservoir proposal and upgrade of 57th Avenue South. Cris Crumbaugh, 15215 52nd Avenue South, Tukwila, WA attorney representing John and Louise Strander, 15000 57th Avenue South, summarized a letter sub- mitted by the Stranders (Exhibit G), and requested it be included as part of the minutes. He requested additional conditions, as described in the letter be included. Bill Sweeney, 14949 57th Avenue South, was concerned with the exterior finish of the reservoir and asked if it was designed to be earthquake- proof. Mr. Sneva said that the reservoir was designed to earthquake specifications and the exterior finish had not been decided. MR. LARSON MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION 86- 10- DR/86 -9 -CUP, NORTH HILL RESERVOIR, ACCEPTING STAFF'S FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS, WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1. SETBACK THE PUMPSTATION THE REQUIRED 30 FEET OR OBTAIN A VARIANCE FROM THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT. 2. CONSTRUCT SUFFICIENT INTERIM IMPROVEMENTS TO ALLOW TWO WAY MOVEMENT ALONG 57TH AVENUE SOUTH FOR CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT AND PASSENGER VEHICLES PRIOR TO RESERVOIR CONSTRUCTION. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes March 27, 1986 Page 3 MR. KIRSOP SECONDED THE MOTION. C. 3. IMPROVE THE UNIMPROVED PORTION OF 57TH AVENUE SOUTH. IMPROVEMENTS SHALL INCLUDE CURB, GUTTER, SEWER, UNDERGROUNDING OF OVERHEAD UTILITY LINES AND A SIDEWALK. 4. REVISE LANDSCAPE PLAN TO SHOW AN INCREASED TREE CALIPER OF 2 ", AND A VARIETY OF EVERGREEN TREES A MINIMUM 8' IN HEIGHT AND MINIMUM WIDTHS TO PROVIDE OPAQUE LANDSCAPE SCREEN PRIMARILY AROUND THE SOUTHERN AND EASTERN PERIMETER OF SITE. Mr. Crumbaugh requested that the conditions as listed in the Strander's letter be included in the conditional use permit approval. THE QUESTION WAS CALLED FOR AND THE MOTION FAILED. MR. LARSON MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION 86- 10- DR/86 -9 -CUP: NORTH HILL RESERVOIR, ACCEPTING STAFF'S FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS, WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1. SETBACK THE PUMPSTATION THE REQUIRED 30 FEET OR OBTAIN A VARIANCE FROM THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT. 2. CONSTRUCT SUFFICIENT INTERIM IMPROVEMENTS TO ALLOW TWO WAY MOVEMENT ALONG 57TH AVENUE SOUTH FOR CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT AND PASSENGER VEHICLES PRIOR TO RESERVOIR CONSTRUCTION. 3. IMPROVE THE UNIMPROVED PORTION OF 57TH AVENUE SOUTH. IMPROVEMENTS SHALL INCLUDE CURB, GUTTER, SEWER, UNDERGROUNDING OF OVERHEAD UTILITY LINES AND A SIDEWALK. 4. REVISE LANDSCAPE PLAN TO SHOW AN INCREASED TREE CALIPER OF 2 ", AND A VARIETY OF EVERGREEN TREES A MINIMUM 8' IN HEIGHT AND MINIMUM WIDTHS TO PROVIDE OPAQUE LANDSCAPE SCREEN PRIMARILY AROUND THE SOUTHERN AND EASTERN PERIMETER OF SITE. 5. CLARIFICATION OF BOTH SANITARY AND STORM SEWER TO BE INCLUDED IN STREET IMPROVEMENT. 6. STREET IMPROVEMENT AND RESERVOIR PROJECT BE CONSTRUCTED SIMULTANEOUSLY. 7. DESIGN OF STREET AND UTILITIES BE REVIEWED WITH PROPERTY OWNERS. 8. REVISED LANDSCAPING PROPOSAL BE PRESENTED FOR REVIEW AND COMMENT TO PROPERTY OWNERS PRIOR TO FINAL APPROVAL. 9. SANITARY SEWER PLANS AND BUDGETING WILL BE COMPLETED IN A TIMELY FASHION. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes March 27, 1986 Page 4 MR. KIRSOP SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. Jim Haney, City Attorney, and Rick Beeler, Planning Department, arrived at the meeting. BOARD OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW A. 86 -7 -DR: Valley View Estates, Puget Western requesting BAR appro- val of a 108 unit multi - family residential complex on a 7.08 acre parcel located in the southwest quadrant of the 1 -5 /I -405 inter- section, bordered by 53rd Avenue South and Slade Way on the west, Slade Way on the south and I -5 right -of -way on the east. Mr. Haney asked if any of the Board members felt they had a conflict of interest for appearance of fairness. Mr. McKenna stated that he voiced an opinion regarding multi - family deve- lopment in the subject neighborhood at a public meeting that . took place in 1977 -79, but felt he could act on the application. Mr. Sowinski stated that he lived within two blocks of the project site. Mr. Kirsop stated that he was a former employee of the insurance brokers for Puget Power. Mr. Larson stated that he had recently performed some construction work for John MacFarland located at 4375 S. 158th Street. Mr. Kirsop stated that his wife signed a petition in opposition to the project. Mr. Knudson stated that he had heard opinions for and against the project, but felt it would not impede his decision - making on the proposal. Mr. Kirsop, Mr. McKenna and Mr. Sowinski stated they had received flyers in opposition to the project, but had not been contacted directly by anyone. Mr. Kirsop stated he previously attended court defending the City's posi- tion in a lawsuit involving this project. Joel Haggard, attorney for the applicant, 2426 Financial Center Seattle, WA suggested that the flyer(s) be included as part of the record. Dick Goe, 5112 S. 163rd Place, Tukwila, WA, read into the record a flyer dated March 27, 1986, written by himself, in opposition to the project. This flyer was identified as one of the flyers that several board members received and was entered as Exhibit 1. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes March 27, 1986 Page 5 Dennis Robertson, 16038 48th Avenue South, submitted a flyer, not dated, written by several residents in opposition to the project. This flyer was identified as one of the flyers several board members had received, and was entered as Exhibit 2. Mr. Haney read Exhibit 2 into the record. Mr. Haggard acknowledged that Exhibits 1 and 2 were circulated, but not that they were accurate. Mr. Haggard waived any objections and since no other objections were lodged, all members remained on the Board, and the meeting proceeded. Ms. Bradshaw entered the staff report into the record as Exhibit 3, and a briefing from Joel Haggard dated March 26, 1986, as Exhibit 4. Ms. Bradshaw presented the findings of staff report. Mr. Haney explained the FEIS appeal process and how it related to the design review application process. Ms. Bradshaw presented a video depicting the site and surrounding area (Exhibit 5), and expanded upon the conclusions of the staff report, including additional recommendations. Ms. Bradshaw summarized the conclusions on Criteria 1., identified a lack of pedestrian circulation on the site between the units and the children's play area and the essential character of the entirety of the site to the integrity of the development. During conclusions on Criteria 2., character of the adjoining areas - single family neighborhoods on the north, west and south and the I -5 freeway on the east was highlighted. The I -5 corridor noise impacts and its relationship to the structures and recreation areas were discussed and a accoustic noise barrier was recommended. The barrier would create a greater degree of harmony between the site and the eastern adjoining area. The scale of the east elevations of the structures in relation to the views of the hillside from the east were also discussed and additional landscaping to partially screen the scale and mass of the structures within the context of a single family neighborhood on the hillside. During the staff conclusion on Criteria 3., the inconsistency of property lines and retaining walls and rockeries between the landscaping and site plan was identified and a revision of the landscape plan to show the rockeries, retaining wall, correct property lines was recommended. The need for additional pedestrian walkways was addressed as a protection measure for the landscaping scheme. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes March 27, 1986 Page 6 The Board recessed at 10:20 p.m. The Board reconvened at 10:30 p.m. Dennis Robertson, 16038 48th Avenue an appearance of fairness issue. Mr. Haggard, submitted resumes for record as follows: Exhibit #8 - Vincent J. Ferrese Exhibit #9 - James Stewart Van De Vanter Exhibit #10- James W. Macisaac Exhibit #11- Kurt G. Gahnberg Exhibit #12- Glenn G. Mckinney, Jr. Exhibit #13- Jack K. Tuttle Ms. Bradshaw summarized conclusions on Cri- teri -4.1 and expanded on the interelationship of the various architectural components of the typical structures and summarized the need for a revised entry elevation with a three dimensional element that would be in harmony with the design of the side and rear elevations. To create a greater harmony with the structure and the permanent adjacent development, the_I- 5 noise barriers around the exterior decks on the east elevations was recommended. Building lighting elements had not been submitted and a request for the lighting and numbering scheme in relation to building design was requested. In the conclusions on Criteria 5., the childrens play area was identified and it was recommended that seating be provided around the area for adults supervising children in the area. Ms. Bradshaw entered a letter from Joel Haggard, dated March 27, 1986, into the record as Exhibit 7. South, lodged a complaint regarding the following individuals into the Mr. Haggard distributed copies of Exhibit 7 to the Board and suggested they pay particular attention to sections of that letter prior to the meeting of April 10, 1986, continuation. Janie Lau, 16461 64th Avenue South, Tukwila, WA, was concerned with the adequacy of 54th Avenue South. A. H. Hancuff, 16211 51st Avenue South, Tukwila, WA, spoke in favor of the project. Frank Loihl, 16223 49th Avenue South, Tukwila, WA, was concerned with the slope of the recreation areas and parking. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes March 27, 1986 Page 7 Moira Carr Bradshaw Secretary (21 /MNTS3 -27) Darlene West, 5212 South 164th Street, Tukwila, WA, 98188, requested clari- fication of the environmental review process. Mr. Haney described the environmental review appeal process. MR. KIRSOP MOVED TO CONTINUE THE MEETING TO APRIL 10, 1986, AT 7 :00 P.M. MR. LARSON SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 11:05 p.m. TUKWILA PLANNING COMMISSION City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila Washington 98188 (206) 433 -1800 Gary 1. VanDusen, Mayor TO: Board of Architectural Review (BAR) FROM: Planning Department DATE: April 4, 1986 SUBJECT: 86 -7 -DR: Valley View Estates MEMORANDUM Below is a list of Exhibits presented thus far on this application: Exhibit 1 - Dick Goe flyer dated March 27, 1986, in opposition to the project, submitted at the March 27, 1986, BAR. Exhibit 2 - Dennis Robertson, et al, flyer, not dated, in opposition to the project, submitted at the March 27, 1986, BAR. Exhibit 3 - 86 -7 -DR: Valley View Estates staff report presented at the March 27, 1986, BAR. Exhibit 4 - Joel Haggard's brief and attachment 1 dated March 26, 1986, distributed at the March 27, 1986, BAR. Exhibit 5 - 86 -7 -DR: Valley View Estates, video of the site as presented at the March 27, 1986 , BAR Exhibit 6 - 86 -7 -DR: Valley View Estates, shingles and exterior cover samples as presented at the March 27, 1986, BAR. Exhibit 7 - Joel Haggard letter dated March 27, 1986, submitted at the March 27, 1986, BAR. Exhibit 8 - Resume of Vincent J. Ferrese, AIA, submitted at the March 27, 1986, BAR. Exhibit 9 - Resume of James Stewart Van De Vanter, ASLA, submitted at the March 27, 1986, BAR. Exhibit 10- Resume of James W. Macissac, P.E., submitted at the March 27, 1986, BAR. Board of Architectura view April 4, 1986 Page 2 Exhibit 11- Resume of Kurt G. Gahnberg, submitted at the March 27, 1986, BAR. Exhibit 12- Resume of Glenn G. Mckinney, Jr., submitted at the March 27, 1986, BAR. Exhibit 13- Resume of Jack K. Tuttle, submitted at the March 27, 1986, BAR. Enclosed in and 13. Exhibit Exhibit Exhibit Exhibit 16- Exhibit 17- Exhibit 18- Exhibit 19- Exhibit 20- this packet are copies of Exhibits 1, 2, 4, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 For your convenience, Exhibit numbers sented at your next meeting. 40m 15- e6tid , de V44 (9a1.6. go-e 0 1/,-a,76i7 Lew me/ _5/7; //d/ Exhibit 14- mC �� �/,�(6�r i 21- 1i1 C ' 0 Zi Exhibit 25- , J7,� d(ra45brfa6 OWL � // / are listed below for exhibits pre- in/U0 G Petfit.-1-W bt' - &' 1.�a,�'. / fro 22- 2)4 " h.ea,66,d " Exhibit 23- / 070 - 4 /4Q ZOn/ Exhibit 24- 4?-c;‘,. 070 I, IAA' 2011/ el2t4 . p. c /4: Qpiji of' 1/ 4'51 koW/ el, ,0 f et114 ///qA d/ te LEGAL DESCRIPTION (VALLEY VIEW ESTATES) ALSO the land referred to as follows: EXHIBIT A That portion of Lots 3, 4 and 5, Block 1, and that portion of Lots 23, 24, 25 and 26, Block 2, McMicken Heights Division N1 Unrecorded, and that portion of vacated South 161st Street and 54th Ave. S., lying East of 53rd Ave. South and North and East of Slade Way, and West of the right of way of Interstate Freeway #5, situated in the Northwest quarter of Section 26, Township 23 North, Range 4 East, W.M., in King County, Washington. Beginning at the Northeast corner of the Northwest quarter of Northwest quarter of Section 26, Township 23 North, Range 4 East, W.M., in King County, Washington; thence along the East line of said Northwest quarter of the Northwest quarter, South 0 °09'36" East 69.50 feet; thence North 89 °31'13" West 614.81 feet along a line parallel to the North line of the Northwest quarter of said section; thence North 21 °10'20" West 74.78 feet to the North line of the Northwest quarter of said section; thence South 89 ° 31'13" East along said North line 641.63 feet to the point of beginning; EXCEPT the East 170 feet thereof; and EXCEPT that portion thereof deeded to the State of Washington for State Highway #1 recorded under Recording Number 5655837; BEING KNOWN AS Lot 7, Block 1, McMicken Heights Division No. 1, according to the unrecorded plat thereof, EXCEPT the East 170 feet thereof; and EXCEPT that portion thereof deeded to the State of Washington for State Highway #1 recorded under Recording Number 5655837. MEMO FEB 24 1986 I OF TUKWILA NNI 4G26EPT. GRO l.�Ys .:; *i•:.., -, _+..� +s........a�a'7r lM•.2D.. <EZ. "a' :cY:`?iic'. .....�a�: EXHIBIT B 7) PROJECT STATISTICS: A) ACREAGE OF PROJECT SIT B) FLOORS OF CONSTRUCTION: TOTAL NO. FLOORS: R -4 3story includes: X Basement RMH 3 story includes: X Basement X Mezzanine TOTAL GROSS FLOOR AREA: 90,424 s.f. includes: X Basement X Mezzanine S: 7.2A EASEMENTS: ._. C) SITE UTILIZATION: EXISTING PROPOSED NOTES ZONING DESIGNATION R -1 -12 N/A Vested rights RMH and R -4 COMP. PLAN DESIGNATION Sngl. Fam. N/A Vested rights BUILDING FOOTPRINT AREA -0- 40,824 18 units at 36 x 63 each. LANDSCAPE AREA -0- 200,260 Incl. existing ntv. and property. PAVING AREA -0- 77,480 Incl. asph and concrete walks TOTAL PARKING STALLS: STANDARD SIZE -0- 132 9' x 19' COMPACT SIZE -0- 44 8' x 16' HANDICAPPED SIZE -0- 4 9' x 19' w/3.5' isl TOTAL LOADING SPACES -0- -0- AVERAGE SLOPE OF PARKING AREA -0- 5% AVERAGE SLOPE OF SITE 30% 30% ALSO the land referred to as follows: LEGAL DESCRIPTION (VALLEY VIEW ESTATES) That portion of Lots 3, 4 and 5, Block 1, and that p Lots 23, 24, 25 and 26, Block 2, McMicken Heights Di Unrecorded, and that portion of vacated South 161st 54th Ave. S., lying East of 53rd Ave. South and Nort Slade Way, and West of the right of way of Interstat situated in the Northwest quarter of Section 26, Tow North, Range 4 East, W.M., in King County, Washingto Beginning at the Northeast corner of the Northwest q Northwest quarter of Section 26, Township 23 North, W.M., in King County, Washington; thence along the East line of said Northwest quarter Northwest quarter, South 0 °09'36" East 69.50 feet; thence North 89 ° 31'13" West 614.81 feet along a line the North line of the Northwest quarter of said sect thence North 21 °10'20" West 74.78 feet to the North Northwest quarter of said section; thence South 89 °31'13" East along said North line 64 the point of beginning; EXCEPT the East 170 feet thereof; and EXCEPT that portion thereof deeded to the State of W State Highway #1 recorded under Recording Number 565 BEING KNOWN AS Lot 7, Block 1, McMicken Heights Divi according to the unrecorded plat thereof, EXCEPT the East 170 feet thereof; and EXCEPT that portion thereof deeded to the State of W State Highway #1 recorded under Recording Number 565 rtion of ision #1 treet and and East of Freeway #5, ship 23 EXHIBIT A arter of ange 4 East, of the parallel to on; ine of the .63 feet to shington for 837; ion No. 1, shington for 837. :,•� TABLE B -1 PIEZOKETRIC LEVELS - GEOENGINEERS, INC. BORINGS Ground Elevation of Water Table (Feet) Surface Elev. Boring (feet) 11/18/83 11/30/84 3/4/85 3/12/85 1/23/86 2/17/86 C 237.1 196.6 196 197 - - 196.1 D 178.8 172.7( 172( 123 123 123.8 171.8 G 179.2 163.3 103 102 - 103.7 102.2 H 229.5 189.1 184.5 183.5 - Lost 199 J(top) 195.4 184.1 184.5 185.5 185.5 186.4 185.9 J(bot) 195.4 167.8( 114.5 166.5( 114.5 115.4 117.4 K 175.0 129.5 - ( - - Lost L 207.5 177.6 177.5 178 - 176.5 NOTES: (1) High water levels possibly due to surface water infiltration. (2) Reading obtained on 12/12/84. (3) Piezometer K plugged at 7 foot depth. GeoEnglneers Incorporated �.,- . -.: PIEZOMETRIC LEVELS — SHANNON & WILSON PIEZONETERS Casing Elevation of Water Table Elev. (Feet) Piezometer (feet) 3/4/85 3/12/85 5/15/85 1/23/86 1A 148.5 93.5 93.5 93.5 95.5 1B 151.5 111.5 111.5 108.5 110.5 1( 165.0 146.5( 139( 133.0 148.5 NOTE: (1) Piezometer 1 consists of a slope indicator casing and is obstructed at Elevation 130. AHEM FEB 26 1986 CITY OF TUK WIZA PLANNING DEPT. GeoEngineers Incorporated :. ......,.._u.:� _�.._...,.. ._.:.. n+r .., .: «::a`:•nnxa� .Et Y - � 1 .x x x s. J TABLE B -3 PIEZOMETRIC LEVELS - GROUP 1 WSDOT WELLS Casing Elevation of Water Table (feet) Elev. Well No. (feet) 11/30/84 3/4/85 3/12/85 5/15/85 1/23/86 2/2/86 1 161.4 143.5 144 144 143 144.5 143.5 2 162.6 148.5 147 147 146 147.5 147 3 162.8 152.0 152.5 152.5 151.5 153.5 153 4 166.2 - 101 101 100 101.5 100 5 166.5 103.5 104.5 104.5 103.5 104.5 Dry 6 166.4 - (1) - - 135.5 137 - 7 163.2 140 140 139 140.5 140 8 162.1 124 124 123 124.5 124 9 162.6 109.5 109.5 118.5 110.5 107 10 157.5 107.5 107.5 107.5 106.5 108 107 11 156.8 108 108 108 106.5 108 107 12 157.3 108.5 108.5 107.5 106.5 108 107 13 155.0 104 104 102.5 104.5 103 14 153.8 111 112 112 109.5 111 110 15 152.8 113 113 111.0 112 111 16 147.4 116.5 115.5 114.5 115 115 17 146.6 116.5 116.5 115.0 115 115.5 18 145.4 117.5 116.5 115 114.5 116 19 136.5 94.5 94.5 95 96.5 95 20 135.1 118 118 116.5 118.5 117 21a - (2) - - 21b 133.1 117 117 116 115.5 118.5 116.5 22 131.0 dry @ 86' dry @ 86' dry @ 86' dry @ 98' 100.0 98 23 131.3 96.5 97.5 84.5 102.5 - 24 130.3 97 96.5 84.5 100.5 97 NOTES: (1) Well No. 6 plugged at 9 foot depth. (2) Well No. 21a plugged at 10 foot depth. Darnwirm FES 26 1985 CITY OF TUKWILA PLANNING DEPT. GeoEngineers Incorporated TABLE B -4 GROUP 1 WSDOT VERTICAL WELL /HORIZONTAL DRAIN SYSTEM Well Ground Sounded GEI WSDOT Surface Pump Elevation Depth to Bottom Well Well No. Elevation Elevation at Well of Well No. Series No. Feet Feet Feet 3/12/85 272/86 1 I 1 159.6 60.1 80.9 105 120 2 2 160.1 61.0 82.6 59 57 3 3 160.5 56.0 81.6 60 62 4 II 1 164.6 54.5 82.1 50 48 5 2 164.3 51.8 82.8 49 145 6 3 164.1 51.6 86.9 - - 7 III 1 162.3 53.4 83.4 100 49 8 2 161.5 51.3 88.0 52 100 9 3 161.0 52.7 86.5 36 49 10 IV 1 156.7 50.6 84.5 47 38 11 2 155.4 53.0 87.3 74 37 12 3 156.5 51.4 90.1 63 27 13 V 1 153.3 50.2 87.8 83 72 14 2 152.4 54.2 89.7 49 93 15 3 151.2 N/S 90.1 94 53 16 VI 1 145.7 42.5 90.6 76 72 17 2 144.7 N/S 92.0 52 87 18 3 143.8 62.8 92.4 59 77 19 VII 1 133.5 N/S 93.7 24 76 20 2 132.9 N/S 95.8 23 58 21 3 132.2 N/S 94.6 58 - 22 VIII 1 128.2 N/S 97.1 93 88 23 2 128.9 N/S 97.5 52 24 3 128.6 N/S 97.9 49 72 N/S Not shown on WSDOT documents. .. M{ ll 1 FEB 2E 19ss CITY OF TUKWILA PLANNING DEPT. GeoEnglneera Incorporated City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila Washington 98188 TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: M EMORANDUM All Interested Parties Bradley J. Collins January 31, 1986 Availability of Valley View Estates Final EIS The final Environmental Impact Statement for the proposed Valley View Estates development is being issued on January 31, 1986. Valley View Estates is a 108 -unit multi - family residential development proposed for a seven acre hillside site west of I -5 and bordered by Slade Way and 53rd Avenue South. This FEIS document is divided into three parts: Part One: A revised Environmental Impact Statement clarifying and expanding on major environmental impacts of the project described in the Draft EIS issued December 28, 1985. Part Two: Comments and responses to comments on the adequacy of the Draft EIS submitted in writing during the 30 -day comment period or presented at the public hearing for the project held on January 22, 1985. Part Three: Appendices, revised geotechnical and utilities reports (originally Appendices A and G in the Draft EIS). Other appendices that are referenced in the revised EIS, but have not been changed from the Draft EIS are not reprinted herein. The Draft EIS including these other appendices is available for public review at the City of Tukwila Planning Department, Tukwila Public Library and the King County Valley View Public Library. The Environmental Impact Statement for the Valley View Estates development has been revised in response to agency and individual comments. The focus of this effort has been to provide greater detail on the geology and hydrology characteristics of the site, the probable impacts of the project on these conditions and measures that could be implemented to reduce or eliminate these impacts. A critical element of the site is the hazard posed by steep slopes and subsurface geological and groundwater conditions that could contribute to both near - surface and deep- seated landslides. Because of previous measures undertaken by Washington State Department of Transportation to encourage groundwater drainage to promote stability of the hillside, the geotechnical study determined that development of the project was feasible if measures are undertaken to assure the operational Valley View Estates Final EIS January 31, 1986 Page 2 effectiveness of the DOT facilities thereby promoting hillside stability. The study outlines a number of measures that are necessary to reduce or overcome site geological hazards. The revised EIS also addresses the noise characteristics and associated health hazards in greater detail than the Draft EIS. A number of measures are discussed that could be implemented to reduce adverse noise conditions. In issuing the Final EIS, the City has accepted the document and associated studies as satisfying the SEPA requirements of the Valley View Estates pro- ject. The EIS provides the basis for subsequent city actions with respect to the proposed project. The State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) allows the City to implement mitigating measures to reduce or eliminate identified adverse environmental impacts of the project as conditions of any approved City permit. The City could also deny the permit based on any significant, unavoidable adverse impacts that cannot be mitigated. No City action on the project can be taken until at least seven days after the issuance of the FEIS. Any party who wishes to challenge the document adequacy under SEPA or the City's substantive authority to condition the project under SEPA, can do so only after the City has taken the first action in approving or denying a permit for the project. The first action the City will take on the Valley View Estates project will be the Board of Architectural Review's approval or denial of the site plan. This action by the BAR is not anticipated before March 27, 1986. Once the BAR has acted on the per- mit and the City has published notice of this action, any party has 30 days from the time of the Notice of Action to appeal the action under SEPA. The appeal would be filed at City Hall and would be heard by the Tukwila City Council. Once City Council has acted on the appeal, this action could be challenged in King County Superior Court. (EIS.M) 7) PROJECT STATISTICS: A) ACREAGE OF PROJECT SITE: NET: 7.2A B) FLOORS OF CONSTRUCTION: TOTAL NO. FLOORS: R -4 3story includes: X Basement RMH 3 story includes: X Basement X Mezzanine X Mezzanine EXISTING PROPOSED NOTES TOTAL GROSS FLOOR AREA: 90,424 s.f. includes: X Basement C) SITE UTILIZATION: ZONING DESIGNATION COMP. PLAN DESIGNATION BUILDING FOOTPRINT AREA LANDSCAPE AREA PAVING AREA TOTAL PARKING STALLS: STANDARD SIZE COMPACT SIZE HANDICAPPED SIZE TOTAL LOADING SPACES R -1 -12 Sngl. Fam. AVERAGE SLOPE OF PARKING AREA -0- AVERAGE SLOPE OF SITE EXHIBIT B GROSS: 7.2A EASEMENTS: N/A Vested rights RMH and R -4 N/A Vested rights - 0- 40,824 18 units at 36 x 63 each. - 0- 77,480 Inca. asph and concrete walks - 0- 132 9' x 19' - 0- 44 8' x 16' - 0- 4 9' x 19' w/3.5' isle - 0- -0- 5% 30% 30% 200,260 Incl. existing ntv. and property. MASTER LAND DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION FORM THIS CITY OF TUKL ILA Central Permit System L_.5. PLEASE WRITE LEGIBLY OR TYPE ALL REQUESTED INFORMATION -- INCOMPLETE APPLICATIONS WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED FOR PROCESSING. SECTION I: GENERAL DATA / 1 r I : ' l ' 1 TYPE OF APPL I CAT I ON : O B s I P 2) PROP. OWNER: ()SHOT QSUEDIvIsI 0 CONDITIONAL aUNCLASS. USE USE 1) APPLICANT' NAME Puget Western, Inc. ;' t7/57/-- 2,'i/ OSHOR M 1 T E O PRD O rMUD VAR 1 ONCE O CHG. OF ("COMM PLAN ZONING LJAMENOMENT ADDRESS P.O. Box 97 034 , Bellevue, WA ext. TELEPHONE ( 206) 454 -6363 5147 ADDRESs P.O. Box 97034, Bellevue, WA zip 98009 -9734 NAME Puget Western, Inc. TELEPHONE (206 ) 454 -6363 gYh ZIP 98009 -9734 3) ECT LOCATION: STREET.ADDRESS . G4 �oGiiAPi� C . L.OT[ imocic) T he site i s a 7 . 0 ? a c r e hill side parcel genera ly locatecal in the sour west - quadLdnt of l.)1e .1.nt 5 /Interstate 405 intersection in the City of Tukwila. It is bordered b 53r Avenue South and Slade Way on the West, by Slade Way on the South, and b th I -5 right -of -way on the East, if extended.. See Exhibit A -Legal description. SECTION I 1 : PROJECT INFORMATION The proposal is to construct 108 multi- . family units on a 7.08 acre hillside site 4) DESCRIBE BRIEFLY THE PROJECT YQU PROPOSE. above the west side of Interstate 5 in the City of Tukwila. Eighteen three -story buiictings, each containing six units, would be located toward the downslope side of the property. 5) ANTICIPATED PERIOD OF CONSTRUCTION: FROM June 1986 TO October 1987 6) W 1 LL PROJECT BE DEVELOPED 1 N PHASES? .O YES (ZINO 1 F YES . DESCR 1 BE : 7 1 PROJECT STATISTICS: (SEE ATTACHED EXHIBIT B) A) ACREAGE OF PROJECT SITE: NET GROSS EASEMENTS B) FLOORS OF CONSTRUCTION: TOTAL 1/ FLOORS INCLUDES: O BASEMENT OMEZZANINE TOTAL GROSS 1NCLUDES: O BASEMENT OMEZZANINE FLOOR AREA EXISTING PROPOSED NOTES C) SITE UTILIZATION: ZONING DESIGNATION COMP. PLAN DESIGNATION BUILDING FOOTPRINT AREA LANDSCAPE AREA PAVING AREA TOTAL PARKING STALLS: - STANDARD 51ZE - COMPACT S1ZE - HANDICAPFED SIZE TOTAL LOADING SPACES AVER. SLOPE OF PARKING AREA AVER. SLOPE OF SITE ❑ ❑ ❑ O ❑ O Q) 1S TH1S SITE DESIGNATED FOR SPECIAL CONSIDERATION ON THE C1TY'S ENVIRONMENTAL BASE MAP? (D YES 0 NO SECTION 111: APPLICANT'S AFFIDAVIT PUGET .WESTERN, INC. DECLARES THAT IT "THE CONTRACT puRCHASER OR OWNER OF THE PROPERTY 1NvOLVED 1N TH1S APPL1CATION AND THAT THE FORE- GO1NG ST4TemENTS AND ANSWERS HERE1N CONTA1NED AND THE 1NFORMAT1ON HEREW1TH SUBM1TTED ARE IN ALL RE Pk CTS '1RUE AND CORRECT TO THE BBEST OF THE CORPORATION ''S KNOW EDGE AND BELIEF . DATE .4 /AF x _ PUGET WESTERN . INC . ( SIGNATURE OF CT OR OWNER) By : , Wm. K. Ar urr, Tice President SUBSCR 1 EED A lei BEFORE ME 2/ a T DAY OF FE. . NOTARY PUDLIC 1N AND FOR THE STATE OF WASHINGTON RESIDING AT_ 'Vp1ZT, -L EkXD 3 ‘ ek■ L ip \ N C \ t1 \%.*\ . • \ ccy% . . c st. t.. • ..\\ c:‘ • 'J VALLEY VIEW ESTATES BUILDING 1 v •`' 1ijijiji11111 1111111111111ilii1111111111111111111011I _i1= 1111`11111 III ilili 11 I il' 1lul ►I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 111 1 111 1 1ST" INCH MACFINFFRMANY 12 0 1 3 4- . -...- 5__ .,._._ . _.._ .. _ .6 _ .. 7 .. - -._ - � , 8 9 10 • 11 IF THIS MICROF.ILMED•.DOCUMENT IS LESS CLEAR THAN THIS,NOTICE, IT IS -DUE TO of 6z 8G Lz 9Z sZ ti sz zz Lz o THE s UALITY • OF THE ORIGINAL DOCUMENT ��Inlnn1nttl 11111itin1niiltitintilun1iinl111111 thrill ,i1ut MI tilt i ui MI till 1111 iii int i�iiili�ii iii tilt iiiilini milli iliinfm ill if iiiiiini HU hail l.. 1. t'Ct�•P N W S } t .H ? Y .i. .*. wJ +'•( {R ! . . ..,�::,h +. ,.. ,..+,...•'��.. ..1 ,r:.�.,. Y+.. .. n,. b.. S :b` :x .. .. , �: ,. ..,... ... ,ri. .._,. r_.,�" �` ;aC']u'i 1. Z `l. v 6 8 L 9 5 h E Z & " " • , . „ '• 3 A '.1.1;1, 2■A 1 Oh 1 1 1 1 1 111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111:111-11111111111h1111_11111 1 0 16 THE INCH 1 3 4. oe sz .• ee Lz sz sz .17Z szi zz LZ 11161111111116111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111illiifi - ffir111111111 '77):77,7 trrrMf • • • . ” - ." . • .., :N.,: .., \ % ‘ 4 .• ' 1 \\ • . ‘ • .- .. 1 f N \ k‘ . • \ It: ,, \ ...r c t \\ I \ k \ \* ‘•! ' V. \ ‘ A \ '.. 1 \ t \ 1.,\N . V N: . .. \ • , f :\\. 1 . i 1 .1 .. \ .. r... \ • 1... % . . \ • ... N ;NciA I-\•\ \.,3 • \ x f , ‘, , . s, \ ,, I ,. \ \ , .. . \ ,, •, ', .. \\ \ .,\ ' ‘ 1 \ a VALLEY VIEW ESTATES: BUILDING 3 41111111.141_11_1111101ThilLp111111111_111111111111111{111111111111111111111111111111111111 6 „ .7_ 8 9 10 • 11 MADE IN °EMMY 12 IF • THIS MICROFILMED DOCUMENT :IS LESS • CLEAR THAN THIS • NOTICE, IT .IS TO •HE UALITY OF THE ORIGINAL DOCUMENT 8 e z. 9 G 1 "0 1111 11t il,; 1111 1111 1111 I. Ht. f% 6uI1 -pNN, *is Revue-60 to 24lA Ve• E 41 j LEVEL 2.. 111 of px)11.47114.16 * 17 6b 1 24 P - Ei .rr 1 LA's/ML 3, 4 74 1 `PeTP,A4g. MAIi-ITA MITHYN • BOWMAN • EMRICH. GROUP•PS • ARCHITECTURE PLANNING AND INTERI DESIGN 20BELL00 11 2TH AVE NE , WAS 98004 E VUE (206)454334 H 4 VALLEY VIEW' ESTATES'• OPTION 2 DATE 5 -1- 1,Z �".s� ' i r�rr' , ;....... ,,.�.... h...:...., ... ......... ....._ ........... ........_ IIII ! I I I I I 1 111 111 111 111 111 111 111 11 1 111 11 1111 111 hl 11 I I- 1I - I 111 111 111 III 11 11 I I I _14111_111.11111111111F11111111111111111111111111 11 11 I I 1 111 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I 1 I I I III ► I I I 111.1111-11111111111111111111 _- a I -- - I — � --a- -� I i I i 0 16TH5INCH 1 3-, �;,.. -� 6 . g 9 • 10 • 11 IMDEINOE(IM�N'I 12 IF THIS MICROFILMED DOCUMENT IS LESS . , 0 CLEAR THAN THIS NOTICE, IT ` IS -DUE TO e L 9 • 5 , E z I WW o DE 63 •, se Ls 9z BZ Va es: zz t OTHE UALITY�OF THE ORIGINAL DOCUMENT � IIIIIIIIIrIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIiIIIIIIIII� IfIIIIflllll 1111f11lllllllllllllllllllllllll, IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII, IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII .rt �unlnn�nl liin�nullnl�nnlun�nnlnn�unllill�uulnu�liilluu i l i liul�nn nil nit IIII nu �, > • �zcac �sP"�'"�'� "i�?4,'YS'rro q'f�n'7.�'F� �:} . ,. I , f .� .' t'!•x k .. ��T��. "i.,. Y 4 . Sa: �Y3 I4 . .,�x. ..t,, .,. Y"t ..- {.lqr t. YT,. t 1- ...�• � �'s �� 11111111 11111111111i1111j1111111111111111111I1IIII1III1 _I1I1111111Ij_III1I Mil I I I 1 11LI.1.14IIIf I,IlIIilil_ IIaplino 1111111111111111111111111111111111I111 11111111111111111 0 1OYHOINCH 1 2 3 4 -. -, 5_,. 6__- ...--- ... - -- ._7__..__ 8 9 • 10 11 MEINOEIIMNY 12 IF THIS MICROFILMED.. DOCUMENT :IS LESS • CLEAR THAN THIS: NOTICE, IT `IS DUE TO; of 6Z • 8G LZ 9Z GZ Vz CZ; Zz UALITY OF • THE ORIGINAL DOCUMENT e 8 L. 9 s a e e L WW o 1 111 I11 11IIIIII a Willi II 11111 1111 n11I1111111111111 11111111161 =111111 IA11111111 1111 III ini tin 11111111 n iri lla i(iiiiliiiili1 1inilmiril iliiilljii 1111 11111111'1 11111111111111111111111111111111111 1111111111 111111111 1111111111111!1111 i 11111111 _ I ?e ^ yr m,? ^ , ! . '<.�. l t 1n; ' •: t . ��,FMn . + i y. 7' qr . 5 tS' I•n, ;; �, t.r j�} ,t.M:t Sc..N� Y <..c, n�.�i cv .KY;.. ' ` �' - - N':.� .- }. f . .r 5 y ;4 r 1 < TT • • , r ,., ...,,.. �.. �., -� .pi s., ,.+ .� ti ;'t t5. i� y'' ,,:. .. VALLEY' VIEW ESTATES' BUILDING 18 t'. .. •.1 4, Ei 1;•=1 4 + _ ' 'I All Lid �6� � 411 t sour VALLEY VIEW. ESTATES. BUILDING 1 • VV.\0 c\ N \ ' 4\0 "(Tr tt 11111111111111111111 11111111111111111111111111111\11111 : 111-1111111111111 III{ [111 1 ICI IIF THIS MICROFILMED :DOCUMENT.IS LESS CLEAR THAN THISNOTICE, IT IS-DUE TO of 6Z ee � Z 9Z 5Z 17Z e ZZ �Z o THE Q�UALITY OF THE ORIGINAL DOCUMENT 1n 111n 1�n111i n�ni11n11�11u1n1�1111nn1unllin�111i1in11i1i11iin�ililrni1nl l iii i 1i11 un iin Gii n11 nn iinlnnlnlihiii iililiiii liii nii>{nn mi{iiii 11 111 1ii1 �i95. }a� 1141 1 . .q�, rev', , (°111 1 r 11 1 :: F, .._ 1111 -1- 11,111 {11 -111 u l l iillillii I _{= 1 ! 111{ 1111111 { 1111111 { 11111111111 1111111111111111111111111 6 ..._ ._..._.__..7 8 9 10 • 11 MAD E IN°ERMNIY 12 e 8 L 9 s e z WW 0 1ni nil�nilliiii�linlnu�ni11i1i1�1i1ihi11�iniIiip�iinIIIIIl1n111n1 nn11111I11111uu1 ,. :.r,'. &,t;; kr,.tti., t.xif�, . 5..c ..� ` a e y t 5 e.d ,Fy. . ! 1"t.C�rSjiv'rik`r''I:} ,' • 1 it • 1 t k . t c.Nrw' • •:‘, • \\.\\ • • 11111111 III 111_11 I I I 14111111111111111111i.liliiililtrilliiidn_4111111 0 10 TH5 INCH 1 6 .7. , 8 9 • 10 11 "MINI:MR.0NY 12 OE 6Z se zz sz sz sz zz 1111111111111111ifill11111111111111111111111111111111111111111 • '1 LE IF THIS-MICROFILMEaDOCUMENT: CLEAR THAN THISNOTICE, IT IS-DUE TO THE UALITY OF THE ORIGINAL DOCUMENT , 8 8 L G Z 1 VW 0 • 51511111thilii illiiii11111111111111i1111111111111i1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 ‘.. • .t . t. c c ■ v \ . ••• • \ • '• \ W1 i • , ( \ r • ,f ( % • . .. . \ .,...\ \4‘ • VALLEY VIEW ESTATES BUILDING 2 - • k . - .•':77•777' . • • . . • • • ----"411191 • VALLEY VIEW ESTATES: • ' BUILDING 3 • • ^^ \' \n ` a t J\\;) • 'ter \ x.\\‘` t 1 111111111111111111111111111111111111111r1 1111 0 ITH5INCH 1 2 11111_1111 1 - i1 1.1. 1 ail 111 1 11! 1! L1llil! li11111 1 1 1 1 1 1ilili1iliji111ililili1i111111lililili lalilil1l 6. 7 8 9 • 10 • 11 HAOEINOEaMANY 12 IF THIS MICROFILMED DOCUMENT.. IS LESS CLEAR THAN THIS.NOTICE, •IT IS•-DUE TO OE 6Z 8G LZ 9Z SZ 4 7Z CZ; ZZ tz THE. 'UALITY OF THE ORIGINAL. DOCUMENT inn !Hi 'III nil Hit nu i iiifiiii �iniliiii • a t 1 8 8 L 9 S +! E Z t ww o 4Q'rt r y • • • , • , , ,,, r ,•srt i ,•.r . ,,,w • k,„i,,, , ,••••• c w y .■ • ,ts,Afrn,• : •.- t,••••r , }•r'e”<• , , , •''' , Y 1 ••.gi.r•+• , • , ••,•••••r,*•rmro••vmmvo::;, ,,, ...<.••t•,t.•*•*•em,,•T..•ann•a•••,•,• • • • •.— • ••/•'•,." V•01 • • • ,• • • .•• • • . • :••••••• '•• 1111111111111111111111111111111111111111IIIIIIIIIIVIII,1111-1111111111111 1111111 I I I 0 len" INCH 2 3, , ' I OE 6Z • 8C LZ 9Z GZ VZ CZ: ZZ 1111111111111114111111111111111111111111111111111 • tr , ,••• ••, ) VALLEY VIEW ESTATES'. BUILDING 4 _11111_111_11-1-111:1-111V-Lliiiliillialinlili1 8 9 10 • 11 /MOE IN GERMANY 12 IF THIS MICROFILMED DOCUMENT IS LESS CLEAR THAN THIS NOTICE, IT IS—DUE TO THE UALITY OF THE ORIGINAL DOCUMENT int MI lilt ins Rimini 11111111 :7,7 1111 6 8498 i C • VALLEY' VIEW ESTATES' BUILDING 18 « I LI ILiIi Lillhillll IliIIIIIIIIIIII�IIIIIIIIIIII�lI1111�111�4 _I�I�II___ I�I IIIII�I I I I 1 111. LI�1I1���IIIIIJII1�1�111_ ILII_ �111�1_ I1�_ IIIIIII�IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIlIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII�I 0 16 TNSINCH 1 2 3 6._...- ..... -_ ......._.7_ -_ -- 8, 9 10 11 WIOEINSERNANY 12 IF THIS MICROF,ILMED,DOCUMENT � IS LESS CLEAR THAN THIS: NOTICE, IT I'S TO 0E ez ' Be Lz 9z sz ez; zz La i , � A THE . UALITY OF THE. ORIGINAL .DOCUMENT 1 a e L. 9 s e z " p 11n1111111111i n1u111nu1nnln► 111111 InuIn11111111un1uu1i1�i11�111111111111n1 III in1 1111111 un In11n � ___ 1 dmi�inili 1 iiillillilniiliililiillliiillulilliiili iliilniilliiilinillinllulllliil '4v' P r ?sq v,,S /IA 9/4 t � • VALLEY VIEW ESTATES BUILDING 17 .. � {F.CC,'±.rGv5F..92t:,1... ..i ', .'i ,:,• ., -... �•.:" .,: '.n. ^..,:.,. .4 t, "}:•.. ::,. ,o-a 1111{ 1111111{ 1111111{ 1111111 {1111111{1111111{11111\1lf I1_I :I1I111III1If 111In I I I I I J1llll_Lf.L11111 f1_11l1 11111 f I 1111I I1I1I1lfl1lll1if 1111111{I1III1I1I1III1If 1111111{I1III1I1I1I 0 16THS INCH 1 2 3 4 E 6 7 8, 9 • 10 ' 11 MMEINOER"MY 12 OE 6Z • 94 LZ 9Z GZ 7Z CZ; ZZ i Iu i1unliiiilT11i liiiiiln111111iliiu1n Iiliiil1niiiilikail c l IF THIS MICROFILMED DOCUMENT IS LESS ) CLEAR THAN THIS' NOTICE , IT •IS -DUE TO tz I, THE SUALITY OF THE_' ORIGINAL. DOCUMENT i uii i ii 1 8 S b 6 L 9 z � wW H1111111 11111111111111111111 a !•• 4 IIILIMM101/11111M1111 • 0 16 THS INCH • 2 3 0e sz se cz 9Z GE 4 7Z CZ 88 'r 1 1111111nilin1611111111111111111111111111611111111111111111-111-lifi II-611111H , I "74,1 • . . . • „ , I IF THIS MICROFILMED DOCUMENT IS LESS CLEAR THAN THIS NOTICE, IT IS DUE TO ()THE UALITY OF THE ORIGINAL DOCUMENT milMpami,Vinigiki ' - • ". .`, "..• L.. .. a... tistetl"r".:*"74 . , Ph. • r, "' ve • • 41-", '''%' 1 ' ' • ' •' 4 ; I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I 1111 III I I I I I 11 I I — I 5 6 7 9 10 11 NADEMGERMairt 12 • 6 8 L 9 9 E V* 0 ? „ • • . , 0. 111 ARCHITECTURE PLANNING AND INTERIOR DESIGN • 2000 112TH AVE NE BELLEVUE, WASH AMA (206)/5133M1 JOB IN.6+20C1 DATE; 4; t•ef. ex ig :1 • p 3 . ' �.''�` ����'�`' 1.00.41/4411- 1.1.. • SUCTION DNS SOALIO I' s SO' SUCTION TWO MUMS 1.100. | 0 10 SO 40 _ ~ -- |\|U|||\|\||U||�|\||U|||\||||||||||||||||||i|iNUi| ||||||�|UU UU| ||}||||||||||||||||||||||||}|||||}||!|}|!||)|||||>| 0 °°°m" 1 2 3' 4_._�-. .��- — 6 7 9 10 11 MADE IN 12 ,IS LEsS IF' THIS .MIOF I -- =�= � . NOTICE, ] ] ] | | | | | | | | | | | � \J J J | | | / | | / � / UU UUx|NUUo UUUU J x UUUUx J UUUU v UUUUUUU|U|UUU U U UU U U U UUUUNUUUNUUUUUUUN\UUUUU|Uk||UUUUU|UUNlNU|U0|UUUUUUkUUUU|UU|UUUU||UUUU||UUUU||UUUU||UUUU||UUUU|kU/ UUkUUU �*` --�-------------� _ OtothvorrA D m e's - i p- SURROUND 1 v tat ..•s • 0 7 1 -I _ 40 .O ISO ISO QT /0 at•P'•1K 44.101• - 0I.'t 4•TaN \Curt maid J Cog- / / NA7 7'4.71. i '/ \ • / Hos / 1 LEGAL .A.i r«oebed of Yt. 1. 4 r4 S. wt 1..r art w %Ir •( Y tt T1. 74. 71 •r 11. 11«1 1. Mel fha M t . /.IM 11 dot, .r slut tot t led N r rested $*M 111.1 ftt«a sr filth Ire f.. 171411 Ira of fled Ir. IMtk •11/ t..•• trit of II.M rd. re rat of ar 7104 w •q Of 1 tt I/. .1t..t.4 If s4 Mr..••• •.•.1•r w Irtlr 74. lr..r• I) rrt•, 1.M• 4 M.t. W.A.. Is 11.1 Carly. r•41Ntr. •YO the Mr Hiner. r .. 4411••■ %•Lolly •t 0. *114.1 red «t of the r(Nr•t 1 rrt.•st tarter r OH". 11. 1.1.7.1.1 11 der.. M.J. • East. trn •s s to IM t•-tr. W.tl«t•t1 •ao tr Ea.1 11« 44 •1. r.1bn N t . Mrtt...t 1..11..1. Stott • East •l.l• .441 trace Meth •1 r.1 114.41 Ied% 414.4 • Ilr 11.1101 .o t4.... do It 11 r t 14.14 /«t So CM M118 llr ot the t 1 •w lt4 w soli « 04• . «a 1..11 wI aw Mu M.Y u» .4211 feet in 1 417,0 .tea he 7 i bN t reoh . C1.T «.tlr thereof rote. to the .1«. •1 14•410.1« for ter Hirer 11 n1.fr• roof •.Y.c 11400 YON M tot 1. 1.•r. 1..1011.....1..1. •1.•100 .n. It . EaCnr tM 14, •1. 110 t..1 sect. and 7.4417T that «eft« throve aN.f n IM 11 .1. 41 WI e.r t•t. •larfr 11 ..... ••d sorr 4•14141•••••••r iN.r11".l„•s • • 11 reTA SITE d 1 Ca e•100cTLd rent 4 046 a.. accup P• I 14 e5b eP • 01,[7:0 tr 1'21,111 Y bt (44€6 Y 741 /•u...•Ie.7Tq/Pm.) rA 3I2 4bcverrl 111/1406 • 011N17f✓h.'•o; 40 160 •1.11• - W 161•10 do 7111•0e NO1t5 r7.ai.=nb.o.6 1.6.wTNO• ow. so 16.144. IS ace 11D•Id : . CML L1W l4Zo IC - . I. FEW rtINCES 7. 4YWNO 101 Mies • MUMS. . •4, 6 ceS.6.6 • 11NH14 r)-N. sr MAW.. • .OJT "wpm )' - soNIHO/ sTflrlN•I Ran 0102/...4'.4. �.�1•.•�f1 t• Iwv,oftp r coviw. 011' U• tt• 1.. •ie. ° ��.. " � t' �Ifv AMC' 1• • . ,, • /NITS MP- GUY . _ 1 TIME l"o !y/Obl • 1111.4.1r4/7J7114. ' mo w» u � t OHM 2.; • 1•r.c4mxe• 0 tn.s 54t:t1QE rxrr"e.e ISCW 1 10 •6.14 N E -• 4!440 :: Cyee 7. 117y►U 10 5240 M5...a 41,1.4 s' PL.L6.9C 410, Ay. .. r • c - VI CA4J111 '1 'm��r•.voT�.v+ nyx•a1! yva ,y PE R OP. red r • r_- r_:1 rml I^ T e min LAWMAN • • E MRItH ARCH PLANNING %•N': INIERIOP DESI(ZN 2000 11711. AVE 1 4: 0 (200/4"..132.1.2 OE 6Z e 9Z SZ 11111nnun11111 nulun1in111ii1 ` i1= �S,. r "M {.i�!..,`, ±(�tFri....'ry..��. . .. ., .,. .:.., .... s �' °F :,'.iSSt^��Y.:. ?;1 �:satra, -,. .. •:,;...a.1.;, -,l t�a:.,_•::, "e�l,t �.:.,,�., .,,., .,.., I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I 11 I I I I j I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 \ 1 1 11 11_1 II II 1 1 1 1 11� II I I I I I II I I I _ L I 1- 1111111111 I I 1 111 1 1111111111_111[111111111_1111[11 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I I 1 1 111 I 11 MAOEIN OERMANY 12 IF THIS MICROFILMED DOCUMENT .IS LESS CLEAR THAN THIS NOTICE, IT IS -DUE TO > Z ; ?Z LZ I.o'THE UALITY OF THE _ORIGINAL : DOCUMENT Illlrllllllll IIII IIII IIII III IIII III1 I T IIIIfIIII�IIIIIIIIIIIIIIC11111111 Iniili I�Illlliui lilillililii l . ,--,',»,r..,.- rr•+?r. c_�.. -.. red' ..- < --tzr. r^'°°r:t?l.�±RJ> ^ ,r .,. ,.. .. 0 16 TH5 INCH 1 / 3 �_...._ _ _ / 9 10 . -. 6 8 1. 9 S h E Z L H$4 0 I II I II I I III I I I I I I I I I I I I I I II II I I I I I II I I I II I I I II I I I II I I I l l l l l l l l l l ll 1 1 1 ll 1 1 1 ll 1 1 1 ll 1 1 1 111 l l�f 11,1,1, p cr. I i DPP. HMJ 'Art 1jMlNt3' P�•J•N L.L6END • • 14'0 - Kt. 10464P/66x. 041 _maw. •t° 1 - 'TYPE A UNT - �. IDpl 40 /it uNrr : ._. _..__. r r F� PP hizeLecC . 'cot:4 .•W %/RwJ 4G tt.ty' rrh.4 GM O Q .r:o' 1W 1 4'•ai • a-a - f` rim' i I s collet. PLAN NO1f/b 1. gE.470 10 FOGG ft 6 1700 my..! _OF IX.NGRLIE • GEN•KUNG Q rAeri r• 61fp1N1c1.CC ALL •PAN4 twalwx Wu A111✓i V.NG/I ANL WGLYCI. e. nwvILC FIC.L AI..KM oevsum ANV PULL .W1'10 ftK. •L peer Ei.CfMN[00f•TN► 4. 4 /64- 111145M1614. 1 11 , C101010 =pap- 4 11 •b 41. r 111 0 0 KM. ter 6 16.467 li+r retie 4et4. • 1..°•• N'•G I4' 0 4 10'•2 ofP IMNG UNPr 1• 1 E' Yx�4 • • Kr! 4 (0 .r ;,► L�. III, r OCG/G r« FI uw. _. .. I 2..1 d.p. __me__ sw•►Nttt• 111.061P/P.JC '• d� : RL eA "MN SOW 0 40.• • . ..1111 VIBE lw • 10 w./. f tYr• i g /� r Rnee� besme IC 0070) ...Ir. d e.1n ='te i em. j t. 1111111111111111111111II111111II11I111111111IIlIlh1 !1 Illy111 0 15 THS INCH 1 / 3 4. - - - OE 6Z • 9C LZ 9Z 93 bZ C3 33 ji1U 1111nniiii iMiliii \HI11nli \lnl11111111 ill, li111Iilill ul1r111 0 • 4 0 IbWDIG FFYEO ll•IT te. so'o) 7910/11 K16• 1464 01601. . Marr ... . TYPE W NIT U a HANDICI P' >n f .r /uwrc . • .... r.@• 1 slue e rt 11 KW- nte'; ewe .. • 160" .. 5'4 o, t ID'-0 I 14'.0 • 14'.0• 141.0 4• L' •- �b'.4'1 I& • 6 IICO K FLo S0/A.R.. rI N (1f41 tL0f R 1 Z01 t > I 10M.11.10.1 cow toot) (_)TYPE F Ct UNIT _ .. .. OG19 4S.P2 /uNrr ToMMOY (4 fL. •91L /T•./uN4 L1.04.4.61or) 4• d•U r. - 0 Rao- 0 • 0 NOME: .oP1 IM RNH Sow" oNI.Y. ATI1G IN R-4 Y.04.. • • • • 2 sPN t ra• 4ot 4/ R 1 W/'f (64: rG. L 4 Wag. MAIL - Y e'•Itt o - . .. . . I� V-51" ate or.46•3611 ( z O etato .108 NC "et C TE t_.•.. AIR A4 I ' 0. i o • NORTH • . CO an • COALS 1• • AM Ge4etc 2oA: NQi G-s -o' !t .1 rang-I . 77 ALL GANG. 401411`IIN* WALLA TO *r. fLAN1tt' 'M 4 • $4.1. troset, coHL. No*. foL.041oATI0H To 11C7 5447a774457 , 44141 1 l'IATEXI477.4 ALL r4* -111 4 gFIWG 7 DV IFFICIPar7 AU1OMR1ICALLt la .nr. *019".on•te!ro ?a{ T L a ►• A A -S • 4.0 4. 1 1 Pt!• • 15'07A. W.L. •1•A 10 MT11.11.1. v.t • 4 744•75- a.• •1.•' ••904.44 DT 0.4 FITS y M,t.1 To SM1. M•IL. •t ft•1 l9JIM •MT t't t•uo••f! STherol tut To INLLJDt 1 I• LVM•WG ...tT. !►T Y Ai T .t 11.0 1•I.11 ►L•1••w, • • 7711771:Z. •.•frvar. esclie TI•W Y•Le. corrnerAIICN `••• •• . ' 4N .. Tl4O ' b N . IWA �e wtr /4.'f "1 Am" Ib•vle rrl Attu) A :::. - L..,,,. . 41J , ati _ ... VICINITY • MAP s - ot. -,• L C • liar 9 CCO ry ICT1114 T•• t Ph•I•01 LAVi4 • SMALL hrcII,IJOIJ•: 1rsl • AKF il•GMATJM/ !we WVL*• • arrows JANYIN. / 4ohr u•tt awwbROr fft! • •••013 s•M•••M4I./ W. Maw* LAtr4t. b CAI U • NAP NA•IAI rsaMAI•Lt • VLA1tII us At .IUoLIIIM / lOMM 1 £IA•It 6Vt 1 d Go141FMLS • • 1011)10. r+.ICATA / W PM.ti cIDA* • ••S%I01•► SIlMRRVIMIN/ [MST }rDWt01a • P•Ju, 14145IPLPMI / 4144.11tSt Pap nos •FLow6tr1•4A Teat .• rwwJU• 4unwIA1•,I.1A'a VT 04.11 / /1. OMI11P1 • SAWS iotiMSls Pm"' / MIC•1Tli. GMAAIT1t • P Uow..•.tws Jtdrlt &rctt.! •vN wI1Je1 44i •t • 1.0•90.0 NO MA / 4.0NJ.;E r•D11MIA • MYNtA Goil••F•11C11 / /M•IML t1V11V MTFTLt • MAMF1 I.041TA8J1CA / t'rFfJIiAL LAu lL rtlhf4CT• ».b It•11 gl:'41 •1wA11114i • A14•0•14•1 . t f V4I W DOObt•1J • %TN^ 11. 4P;W • • 10714•IA 0001•1.11,4 1C! • *PVC . • •5.5044 WKW II / oWMT•1us • 0 As1J'• M•Go.ssi owing W W AMR. • emialu• 4T••dU1 ►1114% / P D -MlIE ••t,WHD Lard £Vta&tNMJ SiJR� 041 UC. • vi•lnWUM OAV.DI1 1MMO1 uftuUM • MWu J AIM.IA Sr / Vln A$ALfi* • fA•11•11MA •Tp1MITSt / PAL • •.•t • 01 00017.11.1 .1/ •••••711.• • Navy MUA• /MAO mint A mit t s stew' MT. emu. 7 0,0 • 0 Y A• •••••.I Mu. • ••I•M •117 •. s1 ••Iwlto. M SM•••1 RILL N MO • • M. w•wu 117.11 ebWSW s{•■•• y •.•. Imt. Pau. Name. f1 -b ,iL M. ••% rlt•AMt11 M• •UN•WV• 0•• 11• ••• 04. woe. P .i. 4, tR01•11W1r . r. ', C: 1.:., ,. g 1tP r' i'. " "r•. ".;+Pre .t" Lr a�Q I . 1).M . I . r~ , , • u ; sal:. #i _ i t r,,I s.t., �, a�, rF l z b t� '�'m. + r:.t ,,`Y?�fN. ,u §$ rk,. >« k" ' F � J 1'�tosi'I 7•' a.• ,+.' 1 x*.�'i..IH�1 ; .. .. .. ,., n . : . .. 1. �.. •: fir..' ^, •.,: }••• ., $.. v.a ..t. +• :�`:�u1 a i S,.,r. .. , ,,8y .r d,. +..,. � ...., z . o °'�.. •�. 'f I -:.r •�a: ,,>• iV� t `,a,•7Y;•:'Y'�h�%f4�,• .:. .YSr ,... ,. i � ..:.. ..,r �. .•�,. •.... r . .,, ,. •._1.t .,.;, 5•s x>•� ,("h� `��`ty��y!� a x . ! &�•'tf�1X .. �ix ,.. CM t., {..p,4,^. r(l.,rt•. " ,_ : "; . . 111" 7�V.f ";"R'�a:.�.; �' ?;:1a f. l.�!7�•�•r .., :�. '. ,. .i .. .' '... •. .. ,;.Si a:!i�;:;';t�!�'t( . . r.' 111111 11I111 111 I1 I1111 1111111 111I1I1I1I1I111Ih11I1I1 _411I1III1III1 111 II III I I 1. 1. 1III111 I1I1I1I1h1I�1_ 1IJII1! IIJ. I_ I 1' Ii1 111 11 11 1 IIII I I _ 8 9 10 11 NMEINOERMANY 12 0 t•THSINCH 1 2 3 . �_ ,..: . ". ..5 _6 7_ _, . � - -...: .. -_. 1 I F HIS MICROF DOCUMENT IS LESS I 0 ` CLEAR THAN THIS NOTICE, IT IS.DUE TO 0£ 6Z . ORIGINAL DOCUMENT . _1 6 8 L. 9 S 4 ' E Z 1 WY+ 0 ' et cz 9Z sZ 1 7Z EZ 1 zZ tz � THE QUALITY OF THE ORIGI . _ ��.-- - �" '' �� ,� THE 1111111 IIIII (IIIlIII IIII IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII�uIIIIuI�I�II�I��I�I��Iu�II�I��I�I�II�1111�I I IIIIIII IIIIILIIIII�1 ll u nrnl�u iiil ini ii I ii flliil iiil`�inlrn7 cssl 777777,777,77;7,7,77.7 75 , ,�,�,._7..rv, , , ,....., , _ I11JJI�I�IIIIII��I�IIIIIIIJ ,III, c,.,...,..�F'�!�1°1 '�"f �.:;; •,.� ;, y ..:rt,, rT�^ ,!7 .: ... .. .. d + r .?Se$: • ” • • • . • • • . . • • • • • . . • " • , • • • ■• • • .•• . „ • • : '.• 1 • • . • • . • • 2 , • .;.." . 2 .•• • :'•.:1•! . ,'.: • 411111 ,111. 6 • • •.% •••• • •• • . • • • • • ' . • • • • • • 1 . • . . • • • : • . • • . •... •.• •, • • • • • L • . • ••••••; • ri-497 .• • • : • '• • • • • • •• •. • • .• • • , • • •• • • .•.•• • • • • . • • • . • .u.a-Ppor4;:..Pi.o • ...• . • . • • • # • • .• .. • . • • .• .'. • • ' .• . • : • . • . *. • .. , . , • . , . . . vA.L. sl es 14. 5i .• . . .' . 1... us. - , ' • • i SO.- L.. • # : • . • . • ,141 ,•• • 1 • # • HHi ill h t LI I' • fl 1111 . 'I • • • oliCTION THINE. • . • SOA1.116 1. • 410* • IIIECTION P01.11 • • • • • • . . , sail.. • .• . . . . .,,„•ff...,w,......4.;,,i.i.kg.,=.4..i....;,,k;,. • :.:• i t ..,kkr.• • •• kettliii , ±-414•! .!:kMite 101 • 04 " 64 4 1*# 10 4, 14 .4, 4 0; );:.... , ..,. , ,,7 :. x. ..s....,.:...,,,. , ,...,;,.,.......tr..a... ... .. ..... ............ ,:. . .... . ........ .. ... ., ....,.:•,.......,....• . • .• • • •:.. ••••••• • .....•• • • • . . •.. • , .. , _....,.....,...‘44.4.441kk ,••;i''' ' „ ,..:T,„3,::„ ....„ , • NikA11' I 1 '''':"C ..L.!...k...,.,.t.g7; 1 77PAY517grga, • - k. k r, ,,, l i . ,..,. ,...T4 ,.• • , y':.--: •: ',".•:•,:".1.1",:•. . , i , >.`,. , , , 4%,..•: - ... 0 IP , .: , :•.# .•••• - # • - • !... •;# # ' • #' 4 •4 :- x,.. • . , .. • # ' .A.i. 4,-.". 1- '", ..... • At:? , .1,1 ot• • ''i' 4411 r *As: / te... ta. , to . '.` 2 • ..* ,#,.., •i -=';Ik#"•-'1,.V:;',!4*::::#7.,441.1.17 ,N , ;40#Nr## •-..• 4 V4# i ' 0' 4• e.. • " ••• •Ye4 ''''.2f '1,, ki # .',,, . # '•.:;'• '''';'.#;'''.'!;4:1"11.., . . i.0,17P1:11714MI.C....1:i.:! oo '' . ,. 0 is THS INCH 1 7 3 . 7 _ ... \, .. _ 9_ 9 ' 1C) . :!(:; '.'1 11111111111111111111111111111111111111111 1111111 11\11111 1 1 1 1 1 1 ILIM Illn IA 11111111111 111111111111I1111111111111111111111 11 I 1 Fir • i HADEIN homy 12 . ' ■ \IIF THIS MICROFILMED DOCUMENT IS LESS i CLEAR THAN THIS NOTICE, IT IS-DUE TO oe 6 a LF 9 F gr "F CZ ) A _____ ZZ i ' Z i .0THE UALITY OF THE ORIGINAL DOCUMENT , 1 e i L i g i '7 C — Z — L " 0 1))11 ill141111W1111111 111111151 IIIIIIRETIIII[liliRtilitritillifilitlitaK011111111111111111111111111111IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII 111111111 IIIIIIIII IIIIIIIII 1111111111 , .4 '•,,,:•;,-,-,.`,.- •• . •P ,.'1?,!- i••,.:1',•!" , , , ..'-: , -.5....7.7....' 7 : 17.7 ' 7 :si'' , •-• ... • • • . • ..• • fa na .. • - • 1 -1 4 ' ' • • ■••■ 1.3 VALLEY VIEW ESTATES: ONE STORY! PLUS; BASEMENT. BUILDING 1: • -q1-111-11111111ilillaillIIIJIIILLII.1111114111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 6 8 9 • 10 • 11 MOE IN BERMAN, 12 0 le THS INCH 1 oc 6z ee Lz sz sz 47Z ez zz 111111111\111141111411J121,1111h111111111111111111111111ili 1 11 11111M111111 1 IF THIS MICROFILMED .DOCUMENT IS LESS CLEAR THAN THISNOTICE, IT IS-DUE TO THE SUALITY OF THE ORIGINAL DOCUMENT 11111111111111111111FIR11111a1a1F411111 1111 6E11.95 POI 0 111111Ill , 0 rA 27 1987 me OF TUKUViLA PLANNING DEPT. 114 • r ; VALLEY. VIEW ESTATES: • STAIR —STEP DESIGN BUILDING 2: 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I l - I I I l l I 1 I I I I I I III ILLI I I I 0 16TMfINCH 1 2 ^ 3_ . 4. - -':- IF THIS MICROFILMED. DOCUMENT., IS LESS ,' CLEAR THAN THIS':NOTICE, IT'IS-DUE TO 0e 63 ee Lz 9z sz 4 7z ez1 zz 1,z a THE SUALITY OF • THE ORIGINAL DOCUMENT 11 nit II11111iin u nlull nnllnllniiliiii�nnllinlunluillnillnn ii� iiC�llil�j ii nil nil Ull nit nit no iinliniln---4,-,:i.., i ini inililllll iililii(Im rmllin iliil(i1i1 rill i . 1 ` i. �. 1/1 �1! ��! I! I!{ 1 Ill�II�IIIIIII�IIIIIII�IIIIIII�IIIIIII�IIII I I I � I I I I I I I � 6 ... _ ....... ..... ._ . 7 _ .- . ° -.. 8 , 9 10 • 11 M INGEll M NY 12 e e L 9 s e e I L WW 0 1111 I�I► IIIIII�IIIIIIIII�IIIIIIIII�IIII IIIII�IIIIIIIII�IIII IIIII�IIIIIIIII�IIIIIIIII�IIIIf ll r, •3'.t!4p. ,..'�.tw�i'x . ?,1 .,.� i rs!.�s. ,:i, tr.,.Gt �. .. a., , r'."t�?.�a.t:' .. • VALLEY VIEW: ESTATES' ONE: STORY4LUS7 BASEMENT: BUILDING 3' x 0 16THIINCH 1 2 3 1 111111 11 1111111 1 1111111 1 1111 11111111111111111111 \111111 I I -1111 OE 6Z 8G LZ 9Z 9Z 4Z 8Z i ZZ _,111111111111111)4 11I111111111111111111111111111I 111111111111111111111111 III�III'111 I�I I I I _14111_411111IIIIli.I 11111IIIuI+ JI 1111i1, 111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 6_ 7. ___.._.. . 8 9 10 • 11 MADE IN GERMANY 12 IF THIS MICROFILMED .:DOCUMENT.. I,S LESS CLEAR THAN THIS: NOTICE, IT-IS-DUE TO THE UAL ITT OF THE. ORIGINAL DOCUMENT 11111m I11I 1111 nn Ii uiillilllnnrm 111111111 nnlni>aliiiirrrifllil Ililllinl inl r r, , � 8 8 L 9 s C z L W W 0 I I I I I I I I I I 111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 I I I I I I 1 11111111 11 111111111111111111111111111111 1 ��7 � � (IJKb'ti'iLA pL _ • A AA . 0% .l: 1111 .1= 1 0 16THIINCH 1 / 3 I}_ I � OE 6Z 8L LZ 9Z SZ bZ EZ ZZ LZ ( 11111ln111u11i1ulnnlliu1unlin111111114i1111inlnn llul1111 nil r ! :, ,i�?zs =r ^;* eta ,"�.. *,'se!�!? 1 1 1 11111 1 1 L IF THIS MICROFILMED..DOCUMENT IS LESS CLEAR •THAN:THIS.NOTICE,'IT IS-DUE TO THE sUALITY OF • THE' ORIGINAL DOCUMENT • in�fnill nn {n1i�i1ihi11hi1ilmiliii�lml �m in1 nii i LI1�iI L�� 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 6._ - ...__.- . -_.__ ._7 - _ - 8 9 10 11 IMaEINOENNANY 12 6 8 L 9 S 4 E z L ww0 111111111111111111111Iiin11111111111111111iu1p11111n1in1111111iu11 .,, r VALLEY VIEW: ESTATES' ST.AIR —STEP DESIGN' • • BUILDING 4 0€ 6Z 9t L.Z 9Z SZ *!Z EZ I — ZZ 111 n1111 n 41,14,1111 nii1inilnninilim1nnl111111 Mini ii 11111iii I'."R _ .. r^7�r,�^rq..5!? 1 40 r Nr�d IF THIS - MICROFILMED..DOCUMENT IS LESS CLEAR THAN' THIS •NOTICE, IT IS -DUE TO 1 Z THE• UALITY OF THE. ORIGINAL DOCUMENT H' fin nn Inl�inlllinlnu n�iiiiii iiil nn�iil nn imfnnliiiilii i �ux`^��s�'.�;a?�. ;fir „i,: �: �:<„ . �:. . •., � ; .. �:, r:-i : „r. + III IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIjIIIIIIIIIIII�IIIIIlI tIIIIIIIIIIIII IIIIIII I I I I , I__LILllIiII lll_�I_I��II_fJ�I���L_I�.I�f �11�111�111IIIIf IIIIIII�IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII� 11 MACEINOENMANV 1 1 0 teTNaINCN 1 3. - 4' g - 6 7 ,_ - 8 - � 9 10 8 8 L 9 S 4 7 e• Z t WW p Iiillnninnliiii�iiiilliIIIuuliIIIIl I IIiniItiiiIiI IIiiIIIIiiiIIIInllni�liiiItII Iliilllul� .l.;as.4. , .we,:'S �3 . �fr” ��5?'. s" i�c.��'a`�?„'� .,.,.r.' .:. +.�;�.`,. . • • ±1-4 ApvANTA es ceseie-- INgT .7 or rizEw.1.1T 2oi e.1 * 3 2. HT. or o rfH I I/' P,I,pc peivi,e07 P$'M 547'1V ?A' . e 3. HT. of Ia.O0 +D fz To 14 . 4. Thizbe UNITS PELL'I'CD MITNUN • EMRICH. GROUP•PS ARCHITECTURE PLANNING AND INTERIOR IN DESIGN 200 ELL 0 EV 112TH UE AVE NE B, WAS 98004 (206)454.3344 H VALLEY' VIEW ESTATES' OPTION' 2' JOB NO. DATE 4.2..61 I• HT OF' NotzTHetaN I/2 of p # 1 . 7 R rizOM & TO 2 4' 1. 4 %; zehfr.k NIh( .4 Nr✓t) >5• HT ar r'uIUDI, 4 I8 fattaxet, 'ID 24' •. . 4. 4 3 UNITS t> , / eIIm arl \ urrev level MITMUN • BOWMAN GROUP•PS ARCHITECTURE PLANNIN AND INTERIOR IN DESIGN 2000 1 NE BELLEVUE2TH AVE , WASH 98004 (206)454.3344 VALLEY, VIEW' ESTATES OPTION 3' JOB NO. DATE 4.2% •i1 L } z VALLEY' VIEW ESTATES' ONE. STORY' PLU& BASEMENT: BUILDING 1 & MATO. WI APR ?, "t 1987 ��7Kl PLAP�Ia::. � 1111111111111111111111111111111111111 1II ill 1 11II \11111:1- 11-IIII I 111111 0 16 THS INCH 1 / QE 6Z se LZ 9Z 9Z hZ EZ 1 ZZ �II 11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111IIII 1111IIII 1111111 III 11111 II I _I 11 1111 -1.I Ill- 1 -Illii- iiiiki iiLl i LIJ i.iiiii111111 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I I I 6._.._ .. ..._.. 9 10 • 11 MADE INOERM 12 IF'THIS •MICROFILMED DOCUMENT.IS LESS CLEAR• THAN THIS: NOTICE IT•IS -DUE•TO THE•:QUALITV i OF THE ORIGINAL. DOCUMENT ml11l11uh111 i►iiliiidiiiiirniliiil i:' 8 8 G 9 9 +i E Z 1 W Y 1111 1ir111111I11I1h11 11111111In1111111In1IIiiu11ii11 . 1 , 1 I11i1111111 1I111ni11111111111111111111 k v r .Y�G+` <1 c� r .� �`.. L n � . •i,.s. ,.0 .. � ? �:.xF. �r:.a.:� t i •r;�aste;, s. .�..x_. �(.'•I W'�i i I f amw:0; . . • • 0€ sz , se Ls 9Z SZ 1 7Z EZ ZZ LZ 11111111111111111 1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111[11111111111LillUg 1111 3 - IF THIS MICROFILMED DOCUMENT ,IS LESS CLEAR THAN THIS NOTICE , IT IS DUE TO THE UALITY OF THE ORIGINAL DOCUMENT 7 r `'7' VALLEY VIEW ESTATES STAIR—STEP DESIGN BUILDING 17 „ . - • - . . . .„ •,-+: 5 ;•-.; • ; • • 111111111111J_Ii11111111111111111 7_ _.8 9 10 11 MOEN GERMAN' 12 6 8 L 9 9 E Z IAN° r • SIT* . 01' SEATTLE'' '�•r.�r.- , rr , �.� -gam TrNw. • 1 fez xe IeM.ec d► ° . x / - srr , N.as i TU2 3 - 43 - s2 AF 00022104!! AA i re►•rylM* 4 e. � 2 ro � s ... ' v. 497.40 s ._ .•Aee ✓ 2 3S 'N A Y ster7sre .�. .-'• • ;.11 _x. • ' AO; //• I "o ■ • �. .. --- _ __ Ir'. .. t / E1^ 1 t 14 r • o ••' -, e..o R 4, • • t LeT L - • /' . , • Q ,, <. • 4D 1 • n4'' . .. �'.' TU.SP81- 20•SS e107020714 , : ? F Y 11 J t': , 6.',., l!! e 13 a- 12 : + I I 10 9 8 .+� ,,, I : • •P I Y e„o a � '1� 'a " 7:;. - od'P p ▪ {- � . V�• e• 9 '1• I _. a' y l $e _ Y ■-I , 20 NI .. a JIS e�, . C414 IV } 'Y Ali '' i' • ■F 5r49-1.- tK I 4� �o � t G ., .+s.>a.. i « tiro t7 : ; Ti i ( f v d p i jetye•Y �0 2 Y el. $ 0 . 7.o 4 � f olti 8 , V ell il ,n.e. u o• , • , / �6A1.. 7i N N `X I ` 1 1 9 • • ' • . ♦•'p e,0 1r-s.o CITY OF TUK PLANNING D FEB 24 196 , _., se 1 71 0 7 1 i A I V • a IS3RD. PL. i�i ter..•... ,n.. 8 V II ■ ,. .•a,; .,: 4; y}.: :h a.., .r ,.. '.a, .k ",# .'• , �.,,: ..tip .th:S'>V::`1` ",�k "4 ^k" rr.'.i j ft :,. „ :C :, .gr,ko 2e"'� { ,��11aa t fi {„ ,,. .a 1. f { ,1� ": � ,� t "., t• t , .� a ti- Y�' � R,t „ � .�3:• {5,1: .V .. x 1. {i;:.. C .4 , [ "p r�..•;+ C :. ..., , t, ,� 1, t `[:;•1 ,cU o a �i+ :.a., " •.l };.: r , .. L ta, ,S". ,, ,. ' • :..a � i,,,. f•,r ," F . 'x , :'r •• • i P ,. S{ ; 'N ��}• ..d. :.f e; ts:o : n }....�. (, L : 4 ! ' ' • i 'pft� a rF}.�.r,r ', F,,.i�'fin �' fi .. �,:i i { h l � P , a 111 � 1111111 1 1111111 � I I I 1 111 � 11111111111111111111111111 . 1111 - 111111 1 1 1 1 1 1 1_1111 1111 I I I_J I L1� 1- 1- 111.1_L� 1111 I j 111 I I I I I I N I I I Lli.ii i I I I I I� I 111 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 111111 I I I I I I I I I I I 1 111111111111111 2 3 1 5 g 9 10 11 MACEINOERMANY 12 C IF THIS MICROFILMED DOCUMENT IS 1.E 0 CLEAR THAN M1 THIS NOTICE, IT IS DUE TO \ L WW a . I. 9 S h E Z 0 12 4 4o. ON 1 . -• 149.44 �aTI. S ,0• • l,. Gats s. 118TH /64TH 4e .d: –L_ - - – – t :.os, fff,f, fff,,,f „ff ti /0. h AJ 10171 ij• • G lf 7 Y N7;i� • u . jf 41986 1c SAY IONA L It Mt O Cf --fact ,. . n,.,�r.a ;� ).. .:: yfi:.. :....,.,...,u. -„ i� xa sk-� ,. �t.- jw,� .rya .,, ��. �h: t „ � , Y+?. 'x •�.wea ..,.. ,.j ,. v' �.n . t.•:.•.4 .� S. ...:.� `:, .. ... ... ,, :; ":, - 'lt•t S�.J:wi. W" �,: # c .'� °`t'yY t;�xL`rV4fy ik � I I I I I I I I I I I III III III III 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 II 1111111 11 1111111 111111111 I I .14111111.111111�11�11111 111I1111I1111111111101 111111111111111IIIINIIIIIIIIII111111111111 1111 11 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 I I I —— — µNEINSERwue 12 3 // .. 7.._._... . 9 10 11 0 "THS INCH 1 g / 3 _ �_.. ' -... ..'.. - . 6 8 . .___.__......... . ... � •. .. . _. fiIF T M ICROFILMED DOCUMT LES CLEAR THAN THIS NOTICE, IT IS -DUE TO B e L ? S E Z ! Ill 0 .. „� T� ne EN nnru MFNT I I 1 I i