Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPermit DR-01-84 - WINDMARK HOMES - SUNWOOD CONDOMINIUMS PHASE III DESIGN REVIEWdr-01-84 15100 sunwood boulevard WINDMARK HOMES SUNWOOD CONDOMINIUMS PHASE III DESIGN REVIEW DESIGN REVIEW MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and Coun FROM: City Administra DATE: May 12, 1986 RE: Windmark Homes /Sunwood Homeowners I called a meeting of representatives of the Windmark Homes development and Sunwood Homeowners Association to determine if there was a way to resolve the project development issues prior to Council action. The meeting was held Wednesday morning 5/7/96. Those in attendance included myself, Brad Collins, Rick Beeler, Jim Haney, Garry Hard, Ryan Thrower, another Sunwood board member, George Kresivich and Mr. Sneider. The administrative staff met with the parties to provide a forum for discussion of outstanding issues regarding the Windmark project. We also served as "mediators" and "facilitators" of the discussion.• Unfortunately, we were not able to get the parties to come to a resolution of the issues within the parameters of the BAR approval criteria and the application before you. There was discussion between the parties regarding their relationship as per the Covenants. Each party agreed to honor the covenants between them, although there appears to be some difference of opinion regarding the interpretation of some elements of the Covenants. The homeowner's association would like to make the city a party to this application by turning Sunwood Blvd. over to the City. However, neither the Public Works Department or the Mayor would consider that an available option. Nor is the matter of Sunwood Blvd. a part of this application or appeal. Jim Haney has advised that the Council should not bring in issues (e.g. Sunwood Blvd.) unrelated to this application and "appeal ". You may expect the Sunwood Homeowner's to raise the issue of the city taking Sunwood Blvd. as a public street. This issue was raised by Sunwood with the parties at the meeting. Windmark, on the other hand, is not interested in further delays while other issues not related to the application and appeal are considered. City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila Washington 98188 (206) 433 -1800 Gary L. VanDusen, Mayor TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: City Council Planning Department April 16, 1986 MEMORANDUM Windmark Homes Tukwila Inc. - Appeal - DR -01 -84 The public hearing on this matter was continued from March 17, 1986 to April 21, 1986. For the March 17, 1986 hearing, a complete packet was not distributed. Because of the size of that packet, it is separately attached and now submitted to the Council. On February 20, 1986, a memorandum from the Planning Department was sent to the Council, and that memorandum is superceded by this latest memorandum to correct any misunderstandings. The City Council, on July 15, 1985, denied the Windmark Homes appeal of the April 25, 1985, Board of Architectural Review (BAR) denial of what was the third and last phase of the Sunwood Condominiums. On July 15, 1985, Windmark Homes submitted slightly revised development plans which had not been seen by the BAR. Pursuant to the Council action, Windmark Homes appealed to Superior Court but later withdrew that suit. The Council on October 21, 1985, reconsidered its action and remanded review of those revised plans to the BAR for forwarding a recommendation to the Council. Therefore, disposition of the Windmark Homes appeal was tabled to receipt of the BAR recommendation. The BAR held public hearings on January 23, 1986, and February 6, 1986, and found the plans, subject to conditions, conforming to the BAR decision cri- teria of TMC 18.60.050. An appeal of that decision was timely filed by the Sunwood Condominium Homeowners Association on February 18, 1986, on the basis of inadequate demonstration of adequate recreation space. Because the Council, on October 21, 1986, tabled final action on the Windmark Homes appeal, the subsequent Sunwood Condominium Homeowners appeal may be premature. The Council continues to have jurisdiction over the matter until final action is taken by the Council. Aside from the prema- turity of the Sunwood Condominium Homeowners appeal, that appeal basis is exclusively the - adequacy of recreation space per TMC 18.52.060. The Planning Department believes that basis is not contained in the BAR review •. City Council April 16, 1986 Page 2 criteria of TMC 18.60.050. Moreover, Staff demonstrated to the satisfac- tion of the BAR that the requirements of TMC 18.52.060 were met. Therefore, the BAR approved the proposed landscaping plan, which plan is itself within the purview of TMC 18.60.050. The attached packet is a compilation of the 12 exhibits entered into the record at the BAR hearings of January 23, 1986 and February 6, 1986. Additional exhibits are also attached. DR- O1 -84: Windmark Homes Tukwila, Inc. Exhibit 1. Letter of December 12, 1985, to the Planning Commission from Lawrence E. Hard and Charles R. Wolfe. Exhibit 2. Staff report submitted at the December 12, 1985 Planning Commission meeting, with Exhibits A through J. Exhibit 3. Letter of January 14, 1986, to the BAR from George A. Kresovich. Exhibit 4. File of record. (public record on file in Planning Dept.) Exhibit 5. Topographical analysis map. (too large for the packet) Exhibit 6. Analysis of recreation space areas. Exhibit 7. Staff report submitted at the February 6, 1986 Planning Commission meeting, with Exhibits. Exhibit 8. Letter of February 3, 1986, from George A. Kresovich to Lawrence E. Hard. Exhibit 9. Letter of February 5, 1986, from George A. Kresovich to Lawrence E. Hard. Exhibit 10. Letter of February 5, 1986, from Lawrence E. Hard to George A. Kresovich. Exhibit 11. Recreation space analysis map submitted at February 6, 1986, BAR meeting. (too large for the packet) Exhibit 12. Photo looking south. (too large for the packet) • F.A. LESOURD GEORGE M. HARTUNG MEADE EMORY LEON C. MISTEREK THOMAS O. MCLAUGHLIN' JOHN F. COLGROVE C. DEAN LITTLE LAWRENCE E. HARD RODNEY J. WALDBAUM D. WILLIAM TOONE DANIEL D. WOO JOHN R. BEARD' DAVID A. LAWER' CARL J. CARLSON Planning Commission City of Tukwila Tukwila City Hall 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, WA 98188 LESOURD & PATTEN ATTORNEYS AT LAW 2400 COLUMBIA CENTER 701 FIFTH AVENUE SEATTLE. WASHINGTON 98104.7005 TELEPHONE: 1206) 624.1040 TELECOPIER: 1206) 624.3087 TELEX /TWX: 910 444.4180 CABLE ADDRESS: LESOURD LAW ANCHORAGE OFFICE FIRST NATIONAL BUILDING 425 G STREET. SUITE 630 ANCHORAGE. ALASKA 9950) TELEPHONE: 1907) 277.4531 PLEASE REPLY TO SEATTLE OFFICE December 12, 1985 RE: DR- 01 -84: Sunwood Phase III (Windmark Homes, Tukwila, Inc.) Dear Commissioners: After the April 25 hearing, the Planning Commission presented the following written findings and conclusions: EXHIBIT P. WARREN MAROUARDSON MARIANNE SCHWARTZ O'DARA ROBERT M. KANE. JR. JEFFREY C. WISHKO JUDD R. MARTEN VICTORIA JENSEN BJORKMAN CHARLES R. WOLFE WOOLVIN PATTEN ROBERT L. PALMER OF COUNSEL • ADMITTED IN ALASKA • • ADMITTED IN ALASKA AND WASHINGTON ALL OTHERS ADMITTED IN WASHINGTON We have been retained by the Sunwood Condominium Homeowners Association to represent them in matters relating to the proposed development of property generally known as the "Sunwood Phase III" property. We have discussed this matter in detail with our client, and with counsel for Windmark Homes, Tukwila, Inc. Further, we have reviewed various files maintained by the City of Tukwila regarding the "Phase III" property, as well as the Phase I and Phase II developments, and have examined the City of Tukwila Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Code. We previously presented our client's concerns at the April 25, 1985 BAR Hearing, and at the July 15, 1985 City Council meeting. At the April 25 BAR Hearing, the Planning Commission denied the application of Windmark Homes, Tukwila, Inc. On July 15, the City Council upheld the decision of the Planning Commission. On July 25, Windmark Homes, Tukwila, Inc. filed suit, and appealed the City Council decision to King County Superior Court. On October 21, the City Council voted to reconsider its July 25 decision, and then voted to remand this matter to the Planning Commission. The City Council indicated that the Planning Commission should consider a revised site plan that was submitted by Windmark Homes, Tukwila, Inc. after the April 25, BAR decision. On November 5, Windmark Homes, Tukwila dismissed its lawsuit. Planning Commission December 12, 1985 Page 2 (a) Inadequate Transition with Streetscape, Inadequate Landscaping and Pedestrian Movement. The proposal does not satisfy BAR criteria TMC 18.60.050(1)(A) due to lack of adequate recreation space, an inadequate landscape plan and lack of adequate sidewalks and /or trails to link various parts of the proposal. Inadequate Consideration of Relation of Height and Scale to Site. The proposal does not conform to BAR criteria TMC 18.60.050(1)(C) due to blockage of existing views of the southerly units of Sunwood Phase I. (d) Inadequate Landscape Treatment. The proposal does not conform to BAR criteria TMC 18.60.050(3)(C) due to failure of the landscaping plan to accommodate the existing Phase I vista of the Kent Valley floor and Mt. Rainier. (e) Inadequate Scale and Harmony with Neighboring Developments. The proposal does not conform to BAR criteria TMC 18.60.050(4)(B) due to lack of harmony with Sunwood Phase I and view blockage. The above findings and conclusions were procedurally adequate and substantively correct. Since the April 25 hearing, the applicant has taken no action which would affect the correctness of the Planning Commission's original conclusions. The applicant has submitted a revised site plan which adds certain landscaping, a jacuzzi, decking and five gazebos to the project, and attempts to show the adequacy of recreational space. However, the revised plan insufficiently addresses our client's concerns and fails to alleviate the inadequacies previously found by the Planning Commission. The (b) (c) Inadequate Recreation Space. The proposal does not conform to the requirements of TMC 18.52.060 for provision of adequate recreation space. Planning Commission December 12, 1985 Page 3 Planning Commission should therefore reaffirm its April 25 decision. In addition, we direct the Planning Commission's attention to the following concerns of our client: 1. Concerns regarding identity of applicant and record property owner. a. Who is the applicant? In January, 1984, "Pacific Townhouse Builders - Tukwila" filed an application with the City to have the Planning Commission, sitting as a Board of Architectural Review, examine a proposed design plan for the Sunwood Phase III property. This applicant was the same owner /developer of the Phase I and Phase II properties. The 1984 application clearly indicated that the Phase III development would be consistent with the earlier developments. There would be a continuity of design, as well as ownership. In February or early March, 1985, the applicant changed. The new applicant is "Windmark Homes, Tukwila, Inc." On March 5, 1985, the Secretary of State issued a certificate of incorporation to this entity. However, the records of the King County Department of Records and Elections indicate that a quitclaim deed dated February 25, 1985 was recorded granting an interest in the Phase III property from "Pacific Townhouse Builders - Tukwila" to "Windmark Homes, Inc." The consideration given was "the assumption of debt ". Note that the name of the entity used on the quitclaim deed is different. "Windmark Homes, Tukwila, Inc." does not appear to be the same as "Windmark Homes, Inc." b. Who is the record property owner? The question of the identity of the applicant has been further complicated by the findings of a title report obtained from Ticor Title Insurance dated June 13, 1985, and confirmed as current on December 12, 1985. As of that date, the record owners of the property were "Parke Place Number One, Inc., a Washington Corporation and Park Place Number Two, Inc., a Washington Corporation and Parke Place Number Three, Inc., a Washington Corporation; Doing Business as Pacific Townhouse Builders - -Parke Place, A Joint Venture ". The Ticor report notes 14 exceptions, two of which are material. Planning Commission December 12, 1985 Page 4 First, the report references a quitclaim deed dated December 10, 1984, executed by the purported president and secretary of "Pacific Townhouse Builders- -Parke Place ", to "Pacific Townhouse Builders, Tukwila ". However, as Ticor notes, a joint venture such as "Pacific Townhouse Builders - -Parke Place" "is not a legal entity capable of transferring title and we therefore question the validity of said deed ". Second, the report references the quitclaim deed dated February 25, 1985, executed by the purported president and secretary of "Pacific Townhouse Builders -- Tukwila" to "Windmark Homes, Inc." However, Ticor was unable to find a corporation with the name "Pacific Townhouse Builders -- Tukwila" registered with the Secretary of State as an active corporation. As Ticor notes, "if [Pacific Townhouse Builders -- Tukwila "] is an unincorporated association, it cannot acquire or transfer title to real estate ". Therefore, the following concerns are relevant. (1) Who is the record property owner? (2) Is the sale from Pacific Townhouse Builders to Windmark contingent on the issuance of a building permit? (3) To what extent is Pacific Townhouse Builders, or any of its principals, committed to assist in the permit process? According to the City's file, Mr. Gilroy of Pacific Townhouse Builders has indicated that, as part of the transaction, he is obligated to assist in the permit process. 2. Inadequate materials for BAR review. As of the end of business on December 12, 1985, the date of the Planning Commission hearing, the applicant had not submitted sufficiently detailed landscaping plans, sufficient analysis of a slope profile, nor sufficient analysis of the effect of the construction of structures up to 35 feet in height. This data is essential for purposes of permitting the Planning Commission to adequately review the proposed project. The materials currently on file do not adequately meet the requirements of TMC 18.60.050. 3. Incomplete environmental review. In 1984, an environmental checklist was prepared by Pacific Townhouse Builders for this project. Various City of Tukwila departments reviewed the checklist and determined that problems existed. In February, 1984, the Department of Community Development determined significant concerns regarding slope stability, drainage, traffic and recreation /open space. As a Planning Commission December 12, 1985 Page 5 result, the staff determined that it could not issue a Declaration of Non - Significance. Among the major concerns were those expressed by Don Williams of the Parks Department, who indicated that there was inadequate recreation space. In February, 1985 a revised soil analysis was submitted as part of the application. In addition, there were minor modifications to the proposal, including the elimination of a recreation area (Jacuzzi) which had been on the 1984 application. Don Williams commented in March, 1985 that there still remained problems with the recreation area. On March 22, 1985 a Declaration of Non - Significance was issued for this proposed design plan. SEPA rules and the Tukwila Municipal Code allow for withdrawal of a Declaration of Non - Significance under certain conditions. WAC 197 -11 -340 (adopted by reference in Tukwila Ordinance No. 1331, Sec. 10) states: "(2)(f) The responsible official shall reconsider the DNS based on timely comments and may retain or modify the DNS or, if the responsible official determines that significant adverse impacts are likely, withdraw the DNS or supporting documents . . . . "(3)(a) The lead agency shall withdraw a DNS if: "(i) There are substantial changes to a proposal so that the proposal is likely to have significant adverse environmental impacts; "(ii) There is significant new information indicating, or on, a proposal's probable significant adverse environmental impacts; or "(iii) The DNS was procured by misrepresentation or lack of material disclosure; if such DNS resulted from the actions of an applicant, any subsequent environmental checklist on the proposal shall be prepared directly by the lead agency or its consultant at the expense of the applicant." (Emphasis added.) We are concerned that in making the Non - Significance determination, inadequate attention was paid to the following problems: (1) all or portions of the property may be Planning Commission December 12, 1985 Page 6 designated as "environmentally sensitive" in the City's Comprehensive Plan; (2) a significant portion of the property contains slopes in excess of 20 %; (3) problems with surface water drainage exist; (4) no analysis was made of potential view blockage, loss of light and air rights, and the general visual impact of structures on the site. Further, we are concerned that, in the event the applicant seeks a building and other land use permits for this project, the applicant will contend that no environmental impact statement is required for the project. However, the DNS was issued on the basis of an inadequate and incomplete checklist and design plan, and did not consider materials that the applicant has since added or revised. We therefore request that the DNS be withdrawn according to either WAC 197- 11- 340(2)(f) or WAC 197- 11- 340(3)(a)(ii), and further request that the applicant be required to submit a new environmental checklist at the time that any permit is sought for development of the project. In this case, significant differences may develop between the non - project BAR design review and a specific development project. 4. Inadequate recreation space and screening. The applicant has failed to comply with the requirements of TMC 18.52.060 with respect to recreation space. The applicant has failed to provide for a minimum of 200 square feet of recreation space for each dwelling unit (66 x 200 = 13,200 sq. ft.). Even considering the jacuzzi and gazebos proposed within the revised site plan, the applicant has made inadequate provision for any covered recreation space, or of any single purpose permanent facility such as a swimming pool or tennis court. In addition, the applicant has provided calculations based upon areas of open space within the site, and attempted to cast such calculations as fulfilling requirements for uncovered recreation space. The Tukwila Municipal Code differentiates between "open space" and "recreation space, uncovered ". TMC 18.06.580 defines "open space" as "that area of a site which is free and clear of building and structures and is open and unobstructed from the ground to the sky." TMC 18.06.650 defines "recreation space, uncovered" as "an area of ground characterized by a natural surface, such as lawn, forest, or sandboxes." The applicant has made an inadequate analysis of the extent to which this uncovered recreation space is located on slopes Planning Commission December 12, 1985 Page 7 greater than four horizontal to one vertical (4:1) slope, as required by TMC 18.52.060(3)(B). Further, there has been inadequate showing that there will be adequate fencing, plant screening, or other buffer to separate the recreation space from parking areas, driveways or public streets. TMC 18.52.060(4)(B). Finally, no provision has been made for adequate screening of outdoor storage as required in TMC 18.52.040. 5. Inadequate compliance with City of Tukwila Comprehensive Land Use Policy Plan. The Comprehensive Land Use Policy Plan provides guidelines for the City's development, and places the City's zoning ordinance in context as an implementation device for the Plan's goals. Not only has the applicant inadequately addressed the requirements of the zoning ordinance, but the applicant has also failed to adequately address the concerns set forth in the Plan's "General Goals ". This is particularly true of Goal 1, which requires the City, "through the regulation of land use and community growth, to promote the health, safety and general welfare of the public ". In addition, Goal 5 requires the City to "strike a balance between economy and environment. While the City should encourage development and strive to provide a health economic climate, it should be sensitive to the natural limitations and hazards imposed by the physical environment and the tremendous natural amenities which that environment affords". Further, the applicant has failed to adequately address the goals for the elements of "natural environment ", "open space ", and "residence ". With respect to the "natural environment" element, this proposal fails to meet objectives of Policies 1, 2 and 3 of Objective No. 1. With respect to Objective No. 3, the proposal clearly violates the objectives of Policies No. 1 to "discourage development on slopes in excess of 20 % ", Policy No. 2, to "preserve the views of hillside residents ", and Policy No. 3, to "preserve and promote the quality of natural land form". With respect to the "open space" element, the proposal fails to meet the goals of Objective No. 1, particularly: Policy 1, to "strive to preserve steep hillsides and wooded areas in a scenic condition, encourage replanting and revegetation of denuded areas not in the process of development ", and Policy 3, to "provide for active recreation Planning Commission December 12, 1985 Page 8 areas (ballfields, tennis courts, swimming pools, playgrounds, community center) consistent with the needs of the community ". With respect to the "residence" element, the proposal fails to meet a number of criteria, including but not limited to the following policies: Policy 7, to "encourage the provision of recreational open space within multiple - family developments "; Policy 4, to "encourage minimum care and maintenance level for undeveloped open spaces "; and Policy 6, to "encourage development of pedestrian rights of way, overpasses and well - lighted trails which can provide safe passage from residential areas to commercial, service, and recreational areas ". 6. Failure to abide by rezone commitment. When this property was rezoned to R -4 in June, 1981, the rezone was the culmination of a number of meetings before the Planning Commission and the Planning Commission. (See Staff Report re Sunwood Phase III and Minutes of Planning Commission Meeting of June 2, 1981, attached hereto as Exhibit A.) At that time, those interested expressed concern regarding inadequate measures taken to provide for proper recreation and open space opportunities. Representatives of Pacific Townhouse Builders indicated that the Phase III development was an integral part of the overall development of the Sunwood complex, and that amenities provided in Phases I and II would be available to those purchasing units in Phase III. Conversely, these representatives indicated that residents in Phases I and II could make use of amenities provided in Phase III. These statements were contained both in oral statements by Mr. Dally and others at public hearings and meetings, as well as in written representations, particularly in a letter dated March 9, 1981 to the City. (See copy of letter attached hereto as Exhibit B.) Mr. Dally indicated in his March 9, 1981 letter that "during construction of Phase III we will be incorporating a jogging trail which will surround the full development ". 7. Failure to identify significance of relationship of this property to the existing development of Phases I and II of Sunwood. As noted earlier, at all times until early March, 1985, the Phase III property was owned and developed by Pacific Townhouse Builders (or a related partnership or company). The Phase III property was an integral part of the entire "Sunwood" complex. Phase III was to be a condominium project, subject to the same 1 • l• • lanning Commission ecember 12, 1985 age 9 erms and conditions of the Sunwood Condominium Declaration. hase III was to be regulated by the same rules and regulations f the Sunwood Homeowners Association. On November 13, 1980, when the Sunwood Condominium ID eclaration was filed, the legal description of this property as included as part of that recorded document. This Phase III property is "subject to covenants, conditions and restrictions recorded contemporaneously with the Condominium Declaration of Sunwood, a condominium ". However, the design application makes no reference to that obligation. The Planning Commission should note carefully the obligations of continuity with Phases I and II that are incumbent upon the applicant. These obligations cannot be separated from the questions of recreational space, height limitation, view preservation and harmony with surrounding structures at issue in this design review. Based upon all these considerations, the Planning Commission should reaffirm its April 25 decision. CRW /dva 7768B6/142A/LEH cc: Sunwood Condominium Homeowners Association Very truly yours, SOURD & PATTEN L awrence E. Hard //)/444._..) Charles R. Wolfe AGENDA ITEM tC CITY OF TUKWILA PLANNING DIVISION PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT Sunwood Phase III Rezone (81 -5 -R) INTRODUCTION The following is a summary of actions taken to date on the request of Pacific Townhouse Builders to restore R -4 zoning classification to the Ehmke and Kato properties immediately south of Sunwood Phase I: A) 1 Dec. 80 - City Council adopts Ordinance 1185 repealing Ordi -• nance 1088, reverting the zon- ing classification on the: Ehmke /Kato lands from R -4 to R -3 due to failure of the original applicants to satisfy "" "•m✓ • stipulations enumerated in . \' ' �; "' Ordinance 1088. �,„� � ` � �) »+ ‘i; B) 28 Jan. 81 - Pacific Townhouse. '`-, ► ; 11 ccaR Builders, as contract purchasers of the Etunke /Kato property, file application for for rezoning from R -3 to R -4. The boundaries of this rezone application have been reduced slightly to exclude a small area of "C -1" contained in the proceeding R -4 rezone action (see Exhibit "A"). C) 26 February81 - Planning Commission holds public hearing on Phase III rezone request: Approval recommended with stipulation that R -4 zoning on Phase III be limited to a density not exceeding 16 D.U. /ac. D) 9 March 81 - Pacific Townhouse Builders files letter with Planning Dept. staff requesting reconsideration by the Planning Commission of their 26 February decision, restricting density to 16 units /acre. E) 23 April 81 - Planning Commission reconsidered proposed rezone and stipulations of approval: Changed recommendation to denial of R -4 reclassification. .Effectively, this decision reduces the number of units allowed in Phase III from 78 (as requested) to 62, and reduces overall build -out of "Sunwood" from 256 units to 240 units. FZ 28 April 81 - Pacific Townhouse Builders files letter 1 re- questing Council review of the Commission's decision. tC DISCUSSION The Planning Commission, in deciding to recommend against t rezone to R=4 for Sunwood Phase 3, found that the following of concern had not been resolved adequately: - Ingress /egress $ traffic generation - Adequacy of recreational facilities project -wide - Adequacy of open space provided on Phase III. In essence, the Commission's position on permitted Phase II not change between the 26 February and 23 April meetings; t is already zoned R -3, allowing 16 units /acre maximum densi Comprehensive Plan. Thus, if the Commission maintained the that 16 units /acre is the appropriate maximum density for P the rezone to R -4 is not necessary and their denial action consistent. In the intervening time since 23 April, however, staff has analysis to the matters of concern raised by the Commission, to suggest herein same new factors for Council to consider the Planning Commission's recommendation. A) Ingress /Egress The Commission questioned the validity of placing concentration of dwelling units immediately adjac Avenue /Sunwood Boulevard intersection, which is th access point for the entire Sunwood Project. They that traffic activity on Sunwood Boulevard would i gestion within the project and would diminish the capacity of 62nd Avenue to Southcenter Blvd. Staff notes, however, that early site layout propo "Sunwood" incorporated 2 ingress /egress points, on at 62nd Avenue and one at the north leading to the residential district. Very early in the planning the City directed the applicants to delete the no concept in order to separate multi - family trip -gen from that of the single - family area. In a very re fore, the disadvantages, if any, of concentrating at the 62nd Avenue intersection is the City's own - In our discussion with the firm of Jones $ Associ designed the present configuration of 62nd Avenue under L.I.D. 29, they report that their approach adequate capacity.assumed two direct driveway op Ehanke -Kato property onto 62nd Avenue, in addition Boulevard's connection thereto. Since the greate driveway openings onto a street increases congest it'seems that the applicant's intent to delete driveway access to 62nd Avenue for Phase III will enhance the design service level of the street, Page 2- (81- 5 -R) e proposed topical areas density did e property under the ✓ position e III, s internally even sane and wish • evaluating intensive t to the 62nd exclusive were concerned crease con - ervice level als for on the south hillside rocess however, erly access ration activity 1 sense, there - roj ect access ing. es which built anticipating gs from the to Sunwood number of on potential, direct actually ffsetting the B) Traffic Generation Page -3- (81 -S -R) additional 96 ALT which would result from allowing 16 additional units under R -4 zoning in Phase III (16 units x 6 trips /day per 1976 I.T.E. standard for multi - family residential units). The Commission was concerned that the incremental difference in trips - per -day generated by the additional 16 units allowed under R -4 zoning of Phase III would impact significantly the design service level of 62nd Avenue. - The final environmental impact statement for the "Parkplace" rezone (i.e. "Sunwood ") projects a total ADT of 62nd Avenue of 2070 -2370 based on the following assumptions: 1) Full development of multi - family properties in the vicinity of "Sunwood" with frontage on 62nd Avenue 2) " Sunwood" Phase I& II build -out at 189 units (186 actual approved to date) . 3) "Sunwood" Phase III built -out at 108 -132 units /acre. Of the preceeding assumptions, No. 3 represents the most important to have changed since publication of the F.E.I.S: Using the aforementioned I.T.E. standard of 6 trips /unit /day for condominium uses, total trip generation for Phase III would be predicted as follows: @ 16 units /acre = 62 units x 6 = 372 A.D.T. (P.C. recomm.) @ 20 untis.acre = 78 units x 6 = 468 A.D.T. (Applicant's proposal) Based on the foregoing calculations, therefore, the projected total A.D.T. for 62nd Avenue would be: "(Anticipating no change in assumptions 1 + 2 of F.E.I.S. notes above) @ 16 units /acre = 1793 A.D.T. - 1889 A.D.T. @ 20 units /acre = 1976 A.D.T. - 2072 A.D.T. Based on the proposed 78 dwelling unit yield of the rezone . application, anti- cipated "worst- case" traffic impact on 62nd Avenue is roughly equal to the "best case" option of 2070 A.D.T. predicted by the F.E.I.S. Thus, we con- clude that the incremental difference in traffic generation between R -3 and R -4 use of the Phase III site isnot significant in relation to the anticipated decrease in street capacity impact levels on 62nd Avenue. C) Recreation /Open Space Adequacy - The Planning Commission questioned the adequacy of open space/ recreational area proposed within Phase III, noting that only 0.6 acres thereof is provided. The applicants explained that Phase III residents would be entitled to use the club - house /pool, tennis courts and open space areas of Phases I and II (totalling approximately 3.60 acres). The Commission then reiterated its Page -4- (81- 5 -R) • concern; fearing that the distance from southerly Phase III units to the pool /rec. area is too great, and the "steep" topography too inhibiting to facilitate usage by Phase III residents. They concluded, therefore, that by reducing density to R -3 levels in Phase III by not allowing the rezone, additional land space could be freed to satisfy internally some of the demand within Phase III for useable open space. It is difficult to quantify.the adequacy of open space necessary to serve a private development. However, we believe that some conclusions can be drawn in the present case by examining widely - applied national park-planning standards: A) A common ruIe -of -thumb for siting of "neighborhood" rec- reation space is 10 acres for each population increment of 1000 persons population B) Assuming total build -out of Sunwood at 256 units (R -4 on Phase III included), and assuming a total population of 665 persons in the complex (F.E.I.S. "worst case" projection at 2.6 persons /D.U.), approximately 6.5 acres of open space is required. (For discussion purposes, public open space within 1/2 mile is not included to offset some of this demand) If,. however, we assume total population of 1.4 persons /unit, or 358 total occupants (on the basis of current sales occupancy rates), 3.6 acres of recreation area is needed. We suspect that the true need for open space rests somewhere between the 6.5 and 3.6 acre figures, and is probably closer to the lower estimate. Thus, Sunwood is providing anywhere from 50% to 75% or more of its own open space requirements on an area -only basis if we apply the same standards within the project that are used to analyze public park space needs.' Additional credit should probably be given due to the extensive variety of activities offered within the project boundary. We note too,that the maximum distance is slightly less than 1 /8th mile from the Southerly -most Phase III unit to the pool /tennis complex, more than meeting the access standard for a "neighborhood" recreation facility. . The Planning Commission questioned specifically the adequacy of . pool space provided in the project. Using the National Swimming Pool Institute's standard of 15 sq. ft. /bather in waters less than five feet deep, Sunwood's pool can accomodate 4b persons, or between 7% to 12t of the project's anticipated population at a time, de- pending on which per -unit occupancy rate is used. We conclude that , this degree of pool play area is convenient to the demands'of the Sunwood project internally, and far exceeds the amount of per - cap- 'ita swimming pool space available in convenient proximity to the residents of Tukwila generally. • CONCLUSION Page . -5- (.81- 5 -R) At the time of the Planning Commission's initial review of the rezone application, staff recommended R -4 zoning for Phase III of "Sunwood". Our findings at that time included: 1) The Comprehensive Land Use Plan map designates the subject site.as High- Density Residential, defined as = 17+ U.U. /Acres in multi- family configuration. 2) The proposed density of 20 units per acre appears to. be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, although it represents a higher level of building activity than that of surrounding multi - family development (Cottage • Creek = 11 D.0 /Ac.) (Sunwood Phase I =16 D.U. /Ac.). Due to the project's proximity to the Southcenter Blvd. /. I -405 corridor, however, the higher -level density pro - posal appears justified. 3) Adequate access, utility infrastructure and recreation space appear to be available to serve the proposed re- zone area. The concerns raised by the Planning Commission in their subsequent recommendation to deny the application have caused us to examine more carefully the factors which impinge upon this rezone action, and have led us to conclude on a stronger factual basis that the R -4, 20 Unit /Ac. proposal is still appropriate. Analyzing the impacts of the rezone proposal in more concrete terms which the Planning Commission felt were missing, we feel that the foregoing discussion has been able to adress satisfactorily the issues raised at the April meeting such that a positive decision on the rezone request is justified. 31D , %WARCS ilani torial Sarvice OLD BUSINESS Ordinance N1215- Changing the name of the custodian for the Advance Travel Expense Account Ordinance 01216 - Reclassifying cer- tain lands from R -3 to P. -4 (Sunwood, 'Phase III) Mayor Pro-Tem Van Dusen noted that the current Janitorial•Servi has terminated their services with the City. The Public Works Director has asked Council approval to Call for Bids to ensure continuity of services. MOVED BY HILL, SECONDED BY PHELPS, THAT COUNCIL APPROVE THE CALL FOR BIDS FOR JANITORIAL SERVICES IMMEDIATELY.* Mayor Pro -Tem Van Dusen said there have been reasons, both pro and con, on why they terminated their services. He asked to have one of the Committees look into this. *MOTION CARRIED. MOVED BY HILL, SECONDED BY PHELPS, THAT THIS ITEM BE REVIEWED BY THE PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE.* Councilman Harris asked in what area this company was unsatis- factory. Ted Uomoto, Public Works Director, said it was many areas. They have been trying to get the contractor to meet the requirements listed in the signed contract. *MOTION CARRIED. MO BE R BY HILL, SECONDED BY PHELPS, THAT THE PROPOSED ORDI BY TITLE ONLY. MOTION CARRIED. City Atto •ey read an ordinance of the City of Tukw a, Washington, ' changing the ame of the custodian for the Advan Travel Expense Account, amend Section 2 of Ordinance No. 6 , and repealing Ordinance Nos. 7 890, 940, 1050 and 1083 MOVED BY HILL, SECOND ' BY HARRIS, THA 'RDINANCE N0. 1215•BE ADOPTED AS READ.* Mayor Pro -Tem Van Dusen ques • d if the name of the Finance Director, rather than the ti e s necessary. Attorney Hard said that the State Audito Bulle No. 010 sets forth the requirement that a pers• s name is cessary. However, the peopl who currently admini er the program for the State Audit • s Office do not take tha •osition. Some other cities me just the office, and the Au tor's Office has taken no a on against them. It makes sense t• ame the office instead • an individual, so you don't have to an* the ordi- nance ery time there is a change. The safe course •uld be to •opt the ordinance naming the individual. Council Harris d, while she held the position of City Treasurer, she s told many times that you abide by the Auditor's Bulletins. Unti uch time as the.bulletin is repealed, we need to follow it. *MOTION CARRIED. • MOVED BY HILL, SECONDED BY HARRIS, THAT THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE BE READ BY TITLE ONLY. MOTION CARRIED. City Attorney Hard read an ordinance of the City of Tukwila, Washington, reclassifying certain lands from R -3 to R -4, as described in Planning Department Master File No. 81 -S -R. MOVED BY PHELPS, SECONDED'BY HILL, THAT ORDINANCE N0. 1216, AS AMENDED BY THE CITY ATTORNEY, BE ADOPTED AS READ.* Attorney Hard noted that he added a new Section 4 to clarify the action of the ordinance. The property is rezoned from R -3 to R -4. .1- .D_e__ILESS - Cont. Ordinance f1216- Reclassifying cer- tain lands from R -3 to R -4 (Sunwood, Phase III) (cont.) Mr. Don galley, Pacific Townhouse Builders, 1370 Stewart Street, #100, Seattle, noted that since the meeting of May 12, they have met with the homeowners that occupy Phase I of the condominium .project. Their concern is adequate recreation facilities. He requested that a condition be placed in the rezoning ordinance that they add one Jacuzzi, which is equal to size and capacity of the one installed under Phase I. The location will be either in Phase III or among the other recreation facilities near the swimming pool. Councilman Hill asked if it wasn't the developer's problem rather than the City's. Mr. Dalley said they want it to be a matter of record. Mr. Hill noted that it would appear in the minutes. .Mr. Carl Lewis, 15209 Sunwood Blvd., Unit 833, said he repre- sents the group of homeowners who have expressed their concerns. After discussion with the developer, they have agreed not to oppose the rezone on the condition that the developer install the additional Jacuzzi. He said his concern is that this agree- ment has a binding legal effect. They felt it was best to make it a condition of the rezone. He asked the City Attorney how this could become a binding commitment. Attorney Hard said he would prefer this not be included in the ordinance. This could open up situations where the City should not get involved. Any development this size has to have approval of the Board of Archi- tectural Review. These minutes will reflect to the Board that there is, at least, one condition for them to consider. The Council could, by motion, direct staff to inform the Board of Architectural Review of this condition. The Building Official should be directed that a Building Permit will not be issued until this condition is taken care of. Councilman Bohrer said the Planning Commission raised the fol- lowing concerns on this project; ingress /access and traffic generation, adequacy of recreational facilities.and adequacy of open space provided on Phase III. The, Planning Commission questioned specifically the adequacy of pool space provided in the project. The City has an Open Space Ordinance, but there is no analysis as to how the project complies with it. He said it looks like there is potential further concern as the Planning Commission expressed. He further asked if the project now meets the conditions listed in the rezone ordinance that was repealed in December. The report does not indicate. Brad Collins, Planning Director, said he understood that the previous ordinance was related to a contract zone that covered more property than this specific rezone covers. Attorney Hard . said it was impossible for the whole property covered under the previous ordinance to meet the terms of rezone, so it reverted back to the existing zoning. It is back now, with the request to rezone a portion. The original conditions are completely irrelevant to what is before Council now. Councilman Bohrer asked what the conditions were and why they are no longer relevant. Attorney Hard said the property is now zoned R -3, and this is what Council has to deal with. It may have been zoned something else, but that is irrelevant. It has been zoned R -3 since January of 1981. Councilman Bohrer asked again what the conditions were and said it matters to him if they have been met. Attorney Hard explained that this property'owner has a parcel of property zoned R -3. He is before Council.with the request to change the zone to R -4. All of the necessary steps have been met .to complete the process. Tonight is the culmination of the process. What hap- pened earlier has no legal effect. RECESS: 8:00 P.M.- MOVED BY BOHRER, SECONDED BY HARRIS, THAT COUNCIL RECESS FOR 8:10 P.M. FIVE MINUTES TO'ALLOW TIME TO GET A COPY OF THE ORIGINAL ORDI- ' NANCE. MOTION CARRIED. 1 BUSINESS - Cont. Ordinance f1216- Reclassifying cer- tain lands from R -3 to R -4 (Sunwood Phase III) (cont.) .mayor Pt rem . Van Dusen called the . sting back to order with Council Members present as previously reported. City Attorney Hard reported that Ordinance 1088 rezoned the property from R -3 to R -4 with 8 conditions. These conditions applied to three parcels of property. In 1978, LID 29 was created and constructed. At that time a portion of this property was excluded from immediate assessments. After that, it was concluded that all the property rezoned under Ordinance No. 1088 could no longer meet all of the conditions. The ordinance was then repealed so the zoning reverted back to R -3. Councilman Bohrer said his recollection is that the property hadn't met the conditions, therefore, was not participating in LID •29, so the ordinance was repealed. He reviewed the conditions re- quired, Attorney Hard said the conditions have been met by the - properties within the boundaries of the LID. The logical solution for the City was to turn all of the property back to R -3 and, as the property is developed, the owners would have to come back to the City and request appropriate zoning for the use. Council- man Bohrer asked why there was no analysis of the conditions. Attorney Hard said because there was no legal requirement. The conditions are not relevant to this parcel today. The property is R -3. If Council wants to impose the conditions, they can make them part of the rezone. Councilman Harris said the project, at the time of the rezone was a separate project.. It had nothing to do with Sunwood. The conditions were for an entirely different project. Councilman Johanson noted that the Planning Commission denied the request, but staff recommended'approval. He said he also wondered about the conditions. Brad Collins, Planning Director, said he assumed the Planning Department considered the eight conditions and either they were not needed or they had been met. Councilman Phelps explained that Ordinance 1088•has been repealed so the conditions aren't even there; further, it related to another project all together. Any conditions that apply to the Sunwood Development would apply to the rezone before Council now. Councilman Bohrer noted that there seems to be a lot of questions. He said he did not see the urgency in insisting that this be passed tonight. It would be appropriate to send it back to staff for an analysis of the conditions. Councilman Phelps said all of the conditions and covenants and agreements that the City has with Sunwood Develop- ment have already been established. They are developing under the agreement we currently have. I don't see the point of im- posing more conditions upon the developer than they already have. Councilman Harris said when an ordinance is repealed, it is no longer valid. What ever was in the ordinance no longer applies to anything. That is what we did to Ordinance 1088. The conditions no longer apply. MOVED BY BOHRER, SECONDED BY JOHANSON, THAT THE ORDINANCE BE TABLED TO ALLOW STAFF TO PREPARE A REPORT ON THE RELATIONSHIP OF THE CURRENT SUNWOOD DEVELOPMENT PLAN TO THE CONDITIONS THAT WERE ORIGINALLY PROPOSED IN ORDINANCE 1088. MOTION FAILED. *MOTION CARRIED WITH BOHRER AND JOHANSON VOTING NO. MOVED BY PHELPS, SECONDED BY HILL, THAT THE PLANNING STAFF BE DIRECTED TO NOTIFY THE BOARD OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW TO OBSERVE AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE HOMEOWNERS AND THE DEVELOPERS TO PROVIDE AN ADDITIONAL JACUZZI RECREATIONAL FACILITY.• . Councilman Bohrer commented that this is a limited attempt to include some of the considerations that were in the original eight. *MOTION. CARRIED WITH BOHRER AND JOHANSON VOTING NO. - tb Pacific Townhouse Builders Seattle office: Mariner Building, 1370 Stewart Street, Suite 100, Seattle, WA 96109 (206) 682.7830 Bellevue office: 1115 108th Avenue NE, Bellevue, WA 96004 (206) 455-1726 • Dear Mark: Mark Caughey Planning Director City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Blvd. Tukwila, WA 98188 RE: REZONE PHASE III "SUNWOOD" March 9, 1981 As we discussed March 3, 1981, Pacific Townhouse Builders economically cannot live with the density factor of 16 units per acre for Phase III as recommended by the Planning Commission. I would like to point out several factors that the Planning Commission may not have been aware of in making their recommendation: 1. We initially purchased the Ehmke site and optioned the Kato prop- erty under R -4 zoning (ordinance 1088) which allowed a density of 18.7 units per acre. Needless to say, our purchase price relects this density. Because of the property's location adjacent to the freeway corridor, we never thought that the density would be down- zoned from that figure. As a matter of fact, in discussions with city staff members, we were under the opinion that the density could be rezoned well above 18.7. 2. The R -4 portion of "Sun wood" Phase I (Buildings A,B,C,D $ E) which immediately borders the subject site to the north was rezoned in 1978 for a density of 21.6 units per acre. (72 units 3.34 acre) It should be pointed out that this R'4 area is closer to the single family areas of Tukwila than the subject site. To the northeast the "San Juan" Apartments have R -4 zoning and are built -out to a density of 19.28 units per acre. To the east "Cottage Creek" is zoned R -4 and would have allowed 120 units but only 48 units were built because 50% of the site had unusable topography. The south boundary of the property borders on C -1 zoning which will be developed for commercial use in the near future. To the west of the site the new VIIP hotel is to be built. In most municipalities, EXHIBIT #8 "Sunwood" Page 2 a residential property next to an intensive zoning classification such as C -1 will have the highest residential classification poss- ible. Example: King County RM 900 (48 units per acre), Seattle RM 800 (52 units per acre). 3. As we all know, housing is getting extremely expensive'. The public wants "affordable" housing but because of government regulations, home prices are estimated to be 20 to 30% higher than they should be. This is a great example of the Planning Commission restricting the density (government regulation) thus increasing housing costs in an area that should have high density. At 16 units per acre, this site will allow only 62 units vs. the 78 units (20 units per acre) being asked for. This 16 unit red- uction will add $1800 per unit of ground cost. Add to this; the financing cost of the construction and hold period, the loss in maximum efficiency of construction, the additional cost per unit of roads, utilities, landscaping, and marketing which will be the same for 78 units as 62 units and the total additional selling price per unit is approximately $4,500. From sales on Vase , we learned that selling prices must be kept as low as possible or you eliminate a major portion of buyers because they can't qualify for a loan. From our discussion, I determined that one of the reasons for the re- duction in density from 20 to 16 might be the Planning Commissions' concern for landscaping and recreational area. The main entrance of "Sunwood" will utilize a heavily landscaped terraced wall. Sunwood Boulevard which divides the Phase III site has 20' Maples and will add a forested buffer through the center of the subject site. The area adjacent to building and parking areas will be heavily landscaped as was done in Phase I. (I might suggest that members of the Planning Commission take a tour of "Sunwood "). The purchasers of the individual condominium units for Phase III will utilize the recreational package which was built as part of Phase I which in- cludes a swimming pool, tennis court and recreation center with Jacuzzi, kit- chen, game room and changing rooms. The original recreational package was designed based on an estimated use of 2.6 people per unit. But in fact, based on the sale of the first 63 units the average has been 1.4 people per unit with only 4 children. As can be seen, the recreational facilities were over - designed by some 46% which easily will take care of the 16 additional units. In addition during construction of Phase III we will be incorporating a jogging trail which will surround the full development. In conclusion, I have tried to point out that economically we, or the eventual buyers of the condominium units, can not live with a 16 unit per acre • "Sunwood" Page 3 • density. Being that this site is adjacent to the freeway corridor and that we are providing quality landscaping and recreation amenities for buyers, there is absolutely no reason that the density could not be in excess of 20 units per acre. If you need any further information, please do not hesitate to call me at 682 -7830. cc: Frank Todd Dick Gilroy Jerry Molitor Sincerely, PACIFIC TOWNHOUSE BUILDERS -- Doily General Partner /. • CITY OF TUKWILA PLANNING DIVISION PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DR- O1 -84: WINDMARK HOMES TUKWILA, INC. AGENDA ITEM INTRODUCTION On April 25, 1985, the Board of Architectural Review (BAR) denied this applica- tion, which decision was upheld by the City Council on appeal by the proponent on July 15, 1985. During the letter consideration the applicant submitted a revised site plan which had not been reviewed by the BAR. As a result of an executive session on October 21, 1985, the City Council reconsidered their previous action and remanded the matter back to the BAR for consideration of the new site plan. The staff report before the BAR at the time of its decision is being updated and /or repeated herein per the revised site plan to facilitate review and a clear record in the matter. This report is the complete and current version for con- sideration by the BAR. FINDINGS 1. On June 2, 1981, the City Council rezoned the property to R -4 subject to: A. Overall residential density permitted on this site shall not exceed 20 D.U. /acres. B. Any project proposed on this site subsequent to City Council approval of the subject rezone action shall require BAR of the site, architecture and landscaping details prior to issuance of building permits (Exhibit A). At this same meeting the City Council passed a motion directing the BAR observe an agreement between the homeowners of Phases I and II and the develo- pers of Phase III to install a jacuzzi recreation facility. The Council's minutes are contained in attached Exhibit #F. Such a facility is contained in the current application. The rezone of the property contained a site plan very similar to that proposed (Exhibit B). However, the rezone did not obligate the City to the site plan, but the previous plan enabled analysis of land use impacts of the applicant's contemplated R -4 development. The property consists of 3.85 acres, which would permit 77 dwelling units (3.85 x 20 D.U. /acres = 77 D.U.). Only 66 dwelling units are proposed in 8 buildings (Exhibit B). DR- 01 -84: WINDMARK HO November 21, 1985 Page 2 TUKWILA, INC. 2. BAR consideration is also required by Section 18.60.030(2)(E), Tukwila Municipal Code (TMC). Per TMC section 18.60.070 the BAR may approve, approve with conditions or deny the application. Guidelines for this review are contained in TMC Section 18.60.050. 3. Little substantial vegetation exists on the property except for a small variety of trees at the middle portion of the southerly property line (Exhibit B) and a 10" apple tree along the south side of the access road. The landscape plan adds a great deal of tree, shrub and groundcover material and retains most of the existing trees (Exhibit C). 4. Exhibit B indicates essentially the entire site will be recontoured to accomo- date the proposed development pursuant to the existing Sunwood Boulevard access road off 62nd Avenue South. According to the 1975 Data Inventory this site has development limitations of: A. Slopes may be unstable when modified. B. Slopes of 15 -25% C. Part of a major wooded area. 5. Parking will be provided for 132 cars conforming to the 2 cars per unit required by TMC 18.56.050. The buildings will be three stories averaging approximately 31 feet in height (Exhibit D). Wood materials will be featured and painted /stained brown with beige trim. The roof will be of cedar shingles. 6. TMC Section 18.52.060 requires 13,200 gross square feet and 12,148 net square feet of recreation space. The poposed children's recreation areas of 3,300 square feet meets the requirement that at least 3,300 square feet must be use- ful for children. The required landscaping areas contribute 1166 square feet for recreation space. Approximately 14,350 square feet of open space is pro- vided on the site in areas less than 4:1 slope. Recontouring and recon- figuring of some of the open spaces occurred to create useable spaces. A jacuzzi, recreation building and deck, outdoor childrens play areas and five gazebos are parts of the recreation facilities. 7. Carports will contain one car per dwelling unit and will be constructed the same as carports in Sunwood Phases I and II (Exhibit E). 8. Sunwood Boulevard contains a median strip which is planted with trees and features street lights the same as exists at the entrance from 62nd Avenue South. A sidewalk exists along the northerly and easterly side of the road (Exhibit B). DR- 01 -84: WINDMARK HO._ TUKWILA, INC. November 21, 1985 Page 3 9. The northerly buildings will reach a maximum elevation of 202 feet, which is within 5 feet of the finished floor of the lower floors of the adjacent buildings of Sunwood Phase I (Exhibit ). Existing topography slopes southerly downward, thereby reducing the building height of the southerly units. The existing panoramic view from Sunwood Phase I will be impacted to the extend of the proposed buildings. 10. The following Comprehensive Plan Policies and /or objectives apply: Policy 1 Policy 3 Policy 1 Policy 2 Policy 1 Objective 8 Policy 1 Policy 3 Policy 4 Maintain the wooded character of the steep slopes and upland plateau, and encourage the use of vegetation in slope stabili- zation. Discourage disturbance of vegetation when not in conjunction with the actual development of the property. (p. 26, Natural Environment) Discourage development on slopes in excess of 20 percent Preserve the views of hillside residents. (p. 26, Natural Environment) Discourage development in areas where slopes are known to be unstable. In areas where the stability of slopes is questionable, allow development only after a qualified pro- fessional can demonstrate that slopes will be stable even after site modification. (p. 29, Natural Environment) Recognize the environmental basemap of the Tukwila Planning areas which depicts the distribution and extent of natural ame- nities based on the previously mentioned objectives and use this map as a general planning guide. (p. 30, Natural Environment) Strive to preserve steep hillsides and wooded areas in a scenic condition. Encourage replanting and revegetation of denuded areas not in the process of development. (p. 34, Open Space) Provide for active recreation areas (ballfields, tennis courts, swimming pools, playgrounds, community center) consistent with the needs of the community. Provide for passive recreational areas (parks, natural reser- ves, picnic grounds) consistent with the needs of the com- munity. (p. 35, Open Space) 11. The Public Works Department determined adequate water is available to proper- ties in the area and to the proposal. DR- 01 -84: WINDMARK HOC., TUKWILA, INC. November 21, 1985 Page 4 Conclusions 1. TMC 18.60.040(1) Relationship of Structure to Site: The site plan includes appropriate landscaping, and forms a "transition" from 62nd Avenue South and Sunwood Boulevard. Plant materials were selected which will mature to approximately the height of the proposed buildings. Parking areas are linear in configuration, avoiding the appearance of a large mass of pavement. Also carports and landscaping break up the visual impacts of the parking areas. The visual impact of the proposed buildings appears to be similar to Sunwood Phases I and II. Due to the relatively more exposure to public view of the southerly portion of the hillside, the buildings very likely will be more visible to the valley floor. 2. TMC 18.60.050(2) Relationship of Structure and Site to Adjoining Area: Sunwood is a mixture of architecture styles and building materials. Phase I is essentially more "modern ", treated with white stucco. Phase II is more "conservative contemporary ", consisting of stained wood materials. Overall visual harmony exists, largely accomplished by landscaping in Phase III along the northerly border, which may be less desirable than view maximization for Phase I. The Public Works Department indicated the proposed vehicular circulation system is appropriate relative to Phase III and 62nd Avenue South. A cut -out in the median strip accommodates vehicular congestion and public safety vehicle movement. 3. TMC 18.60.050 Landscape and Site Treatment: Existing topography is generally steadily rolling southerly down the hill. Proposed grading for the most part is parallel to the land contour to minimize grades and promote safety. Sometimes rockeries and /or retaining wall of 4 -6 feet are needed to balance cuts. Such walls may require additional soils and engineering study (TMC Section 18.56.050(3)(A and B)). The little amount of existing substantial vegetation on the site is for the most part protected from grading by landscaping and rockeries (Policy 1 and 3, p. 24, Comprehensive Plan). Available plans indicate some development will occur on slopes over 20% (Policy 2, p. 26; Policy 2, p. 29 and Objective 8, p.. 30, Comprehensive Plan). Some portions of the property exceed slopes of 20 %, which should be discouraged, but are not prohibited by the Plan. A soils report was submitted indicating little problems for the proposed development. DR- O1 -84: WINDMARK HOC TUKWILA, INC. November 21, 1985 Page 5 Landscaping on the existing plan interrupts the building masses, defines the perimeter of parking and access areas and enhances the scenic vista and view from and of the site. Currently this vista /view is largely unobstructed by vegetation and buildings. Therefore, the revised landscaping plan should pre- serve the vista /view between and round the building (Policy 2, p. 26, and Policy 2, p. 34, Comprehensive Plan). Wheel stops will help protect plant materials adjacent to on -grade parking areas. Trash containers are proposed to be located adjacent to or between carports. This seems to be appropriate screening. 4. TMC 18.60.050 Building Design: Building components relate well to each other and provide proportional interruption of the facades without appearing forced. The brown color with beige trim is compatible with Phases I and II. Submitted architectural elevations do not show mechanical equipment or light fixtures. Building design is essentially a single design with variations pro- duced by modulation of the structures, slight reduction of density and change of a few architectural features. Overall the effect will probably not appear monotonous. 5. TMC 18.60.050(5) Miscellaneous Structures and Street Furniture: Street lighting is the same as existing at the entrance onto Sunwood Boulevard, which appears compatible with all phases of Sunwood. 6. Conformance with recreation space requirements of TMC 18.52.060 is apparent in the proposal. Adequate children's play areas and areas suitable for adults are indicated, e.g., jacuzzi, trails, useable open areas, gazebos, play apparatus, etc. This seems to be reasonable and minimum recreation use on the site. Preliminary Recommendation Based on the above, staff preliminarily recommends the proposal be approved sub- ject to: 1. Public Works and Fire Departments review and final approval of the median strip in Sunwood Boulevard relative to public safety and access. DR- O1 -84: WINDMARK HOC., TUKWILA, INC. November 21, 1985 Page 6 Exhibits (PC.WNDMRK,1) (5A.1) 2. Submittal of soils and engineering reports on rockeries over 5 feet in height for final review and approval of the Public Works and Building Departments. 3. Low profile shrubs and plant materials should be located along the north pro- perty line to screen the proposed carports while preserving existing views from Sunwood Phase I per review and approval of the Planning Department. 4. Installation of wheel stops to protect on -grade landscaping.. A - Site Plan B - Landscaping Plan C - Recreation Areas Map D - Recreation Space Calculations E - Architectural Elevations F - Photographs of Carport Design G - Building Height Comparison H - File of record maintained in City Hall I - Excerpt of City Council Minutes of July 15, 1985, Public Hearing J - Excerpt of City Council Minutes of October 21, 1985, Executive Session Meeting ‘r1 130 2 0 4 0 -' 00 V1 In 1 a klr oalwammo, •i __. ---:- =5 • .,..1;": i ntZ ' Aq/1 1 14 1 .41., I Ai. lt .,.... .....‘,... ,.... :._. . . .., „ . A . . , ..... - ; - " :7 ' ;1 ' .■■••JA 1,1;;V• .202C edi.4.1i11.24201■415.2 1 1. 1,2244 4 new. Pit1I•146CC eZ0M. • rirr \ - •-\ wow.. , 1 . 45f TF=4 in, 1,5 O ti Act= r 417 t 41 1.51 N 29 fritet111..5 1114 , orr".WLFY Tar 0 :0 s4 U6U-1 w4u4,5,P • FIE/E2i.IIIC2 er11-t ■".44-T" gig* . .Z: 4 3 2:: ; ,. W.letrleft... urrpme.cuuFtg.A: tu.t. tc, 151 1...2)1Z2C4WyLic. pro —0 • " O $41. tocazta.ven., 1-'W ofrzszc O , ,r9 rrecrceloccu •oriedeeem ^7,42," 0 14 01! 7 9.2.e." reac5x7 :5•477.22.S o Prig42.132.,45 T5 V1151211L114 D•441711 I 4UULM Tuus (4-pc.r.:TW5 - 5/110C229d9 , 152m 2.2e.27jer. • Plx1 Htuctra.r, 4:045 •zerirt94-44m.s. Mos. T;T.a4cc"7", R44.4.4." EJ Heor.x."0.5,:s. mduSr! 5 t2f..2915.12 4 1 F '7 1 dm= 1=71i ILTET 1% \ 1 ..iiiii 1 0 1985 • ...._ drfy OF TLficr.NILA PLANNING DEPT. AL51. "Tp4.14.6cr, Fa•C v2...T.r • • MISIOLIM .1.11•IM 4111. OM AM.. ON••• Chill• MN& ENO ION MN, 411•■ 11WAIIIMa , • Hincen .zrframtio citrArri Ear- rfrrr rga-i F119' 90.25•Ge COWS birD1 54,441. /*Mu 1.• 24 • • 14• ■ aiE • molt rper..0 4 Prrn-resed,.woes._ L I f) - Loy . • - I 1 I ji•(' • \.• %;.?' • K. .. cvsperview:m .‘" ,• • . es•atawfrais 44041 • . PLAN ="1‘4 0 a i f i eraLCIP Izer U alim (14 gra' 1!St101 e • = .41 — 1.9 - Z-...& .4••••tF...- O t)iL ;..:419444..e5 cco „;,.••••,,A-e•L.-{ ▪ PW.; 44"7:4•Xe• 71.5 €1:4: .21 . 1. tr tf-M•Co•-0-1-trf.Q.A.: • rt,1 • ••••••■•.,:". O 441. 're) Ktl.177r..1.•=... ■••:>."-e,ak 41..." ta Afr 4 1 / lC:t.,7•44r. 15 %let tlyErsa 41e1.1[1:1..4 linctuxo-tsc • • met 1%.-01.• Pei p4g,4," - •••••14-;4 or.atant94 monCasketam Mr' TA MOMIA01 CAW - •■•■•■• MONO ...AAA 04.1. 0 MS SI/No Imam. ••• nom •• • •••••■••••• gloom. IN. owe e.g. mina v.. ow ma: %MAO I • 1.1.111.1•La 111016 sp. crer rfra RECREATION AREAS . , I Isoc --a•--fig.- 2 Il.as 3 295C -.4.1a.. 4 • 5 24:75 •ftt.i/..: 6 C-.1e'r .E.t. .4.0 -. AL. c,.....••■■ Um= IIMM. td . a _ - 9 a d recreation space calculations landscaping i mmmm mums 011llunu • 114 1.1 ifg wil ttt_ ,.,s„ ii 11 $Iii .. x1 .1. ,10001 1 aims ,m1u1 Ott■ 111111 lig 1/1/11111 17 ; 'I"' mum ::: s IIIUIIIIIIIUIIIUIt1UW111111111tI1IIIOIIM ii JJLA q N I ANC ASSUCIAIIS lib WISP UNNY WAY SATIII %M411 0.1 WI i1J Iatuml! lib .4 I'll" .u. ■ NMI ION 1 1 ■1110Ig11(IIIII: f 111101 1 1 1 11 1 1 1 111110 d! ICA ■mI Urn w q1 :11 Ir YAK maim ! MIA 111111 I_ 1191111 SKpi. UI •u. MIME M.:ME atm imam fl . A \t ■■I 1 1111111 �4H {15tt �1 TUCKWIL A TUC KWILA CONDOMINII WASI4INGTON low Iln iwii+mIfllmn ���liu••i��L \ !f 111 1111111111 ■•1:•■ R_Efii1 II, Gam ■u I', MTh ILA 1B• it � numl Ituul 'Kra BIM vikotsrt �Z JOIN IANF ASSOCIATES • Oh WEST tfNNY WAY W AI 1111 7 WM WW1 W 1 7011 IONIA MP. MEMO/ 111..1 .MJ.. INMaI I A'rlJr.l soma. . ... •. Nall II Monne ■s r• Imams i IOIIPHI Psi II'IiJ 1 UCKWIL A, TUCKWILA CONDOMINIUMS WASI IINGTON ii A 7 11 & -sut...Wqaolo IS 'NLSO oe.01:13SPO roY2_ . 'Y%44\f5Vr F City of Tukwila Planning Commission 6200 Southcenter Blvd. Tukwila, WA 98188 • IMETEI MAR 2 7 1985 CITY OF H PLANNING DEPT Re: Public Hearing on March 28, 1985 Dear Commissioners: The Sunwood Association strenuously objects to the proposed development of Sunwood III by Windmark Homes of Tukwila, Inc. and requests that the Planning Commission reject the proposed development. In February 1985, the Planning Commission continued indefinitely - the consideration of a substantially identical development pro- posal - largely in response to the opposition expressed by Sun - wood Homeowners concerning site, architectural and landscaping details. Since that date the then developer - Pacific Townhouse Builders - has made no attempt to modify the proposed development to acco- modate or seriously consider homeowner concerns. The only action taken by the then developer was to meet with the Sunwood Association's Board of January 7, 1985 to advise the Board that Pacific Townhouse Builders - and not some successor in interest to that property - would re- present the same develop- ment proposal to the City authorities. At that time the Board expressed again its many concerns about that proposal and the then developer gave no indication of being willing to compromise or work out these matters with the Board. The Board now learns for the first time - by receipt of a notice of this hearing - that the Sunwood III property has been sold and that the same development is again being proposed. The short notice of this hearing only permits a brief overview of the Sunwood Board's objections to the proposed development. First the exterior architectural design of the proposed buildings is inferior in appearance to the Sunwood buildings. Second, the close proximity of the two developments might attract homeowners in the new * to the recreational facilities in the com- mon area at Sunwood. This likelihood is enhanced by the fact that the proposed new development has no recreational facilities what- soever. EXHIBIT G Thirdly, the use of a common road for two separate condominium developments creates. problems concerning the maintenance of and any improvement to the common road. Fourth, the proposed development would not leave any "buffer zone" between the two developments in the form of a green belt or other more natural division between them. The other boundaries between Sunwood property and adjacent property accommodate this need through landscaping. Finally, the overriding concern of Sunwood property owners is the potential deterioriation of their property values that could result from an undesirable development located on both sides of the only entrance to and along the most prominent bordering piece of property to Sunwood. It should be noted, as I think you l are already aware, that the development of that. property as part of Sunwood was previously conditioned by the City. on the construction of additional recreational facilities. This re- sulted from the criticism of the Sunwood Phase II development for its lack of any additional recreational facilities. Attached is a copy of the City Attorney's June 4, 1981 letter on that subject. The Sunwood Board is prepared to discuss at the March 28th hearing or any other time or place, the problems with the proposed de- velopment, including the substantial concerns involving site, architectural and landscaping detail. Sincerely yours, V97/85" Ryan S. Thrower Director Sunwood Association Board F. A. LESOURD WOOLVIN PATTEN DONALD D. FLEMING • GEORGE M. HARTUNG MEADE EMORY LEON C. MISTEREK DWAYNE E.COPPLE THOMAS 0. Mc LAUGHLIN JOHN F. COLGROVE C. DEAN LITTLE LAWRENCE E. HARD . RODNEY J. WALDBAUM Mr. Brad Collins Director, Department of Planning City of Tukwila Tukwila City Hall 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, WA 98188 Dear Brad: LEH:sk LESOURD, PATTEN, FLEMING, HARTUNG 6( EMORY ATTORNEYS AT LAW 3900 SEATTLE•FIRST NATIONAL BANK BUILDING • SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98154 At the June 2, 1981 City Council meeting, the Council passed two motions which related to the granting of the rezone ordinance to the Sunwood Development. Both motions related to a requirement that the owner- developer provide at least one additional jacuzzi facility on the subject site. Would you please make arrangements to send a copy of the minutes of the June 2 meeting to Mr. Karl B. Lewis, an attorney who both resides in the Sunwood Development and represented a number of the homeowners. His address is Unit B 33, 15209 Sunwood Boulevard, Tukwila, Washington 98188. A notation should be made in some appropriate place to be sure that when the Planning Commission sits as an architectural review board for purposes of development of that property, that this City Council action is specif- ically addressed at that time. cc: Mayor Todd Mr. Gary Van Dusen Mr. Karl B. Lewis (206) 624 -1040 June 4, 1981 Very truly yours, LeSOURD, PATTE FLEMING, ARTUNG & EMORY awre E. and BRUCE G. HANSON RICHARD P. MATTHEWS O. WILLIAM TOONE DANIEL D. WOO CARL J CARLSON P. WARREN MAROUARDSON LAWRENCE A. M. ZELENAK JULIE G. WADE MARIANNE SCHWARTZ OBARA ROBERT L. PALMER COUNSEL Dear Commissioners: CITY OF TUKWILA Board of Review Planning Commission 6200 Southcenter Blvd. Tukwila, WA 98188 15( 1 Sunwood BlVd. �E Tukwila, Washington CITY OF A March 28, 1985 MAR 2 6 1985 As the Board of Review, I understand that your purpose is to encourage well designed developments that are creative and harmonious with ex- isting neighborhood character. As you consider the proposal before you for Sunwood III, please ask yourself the following questions: (1) Are the proposed 3 -story wood buildings, painted grey and white with imitation leaded windows, compatible in design and quality with the existing buildings in Phase I & II? (2) Is the architecture creative, or is it monotous in design? (3) Will the view be preserved for 'the existing buildings or will it be substantially impaired by the construction of the proposed 3 -story buildings? (4) Will the proposed cut into the Sunwood Boulevard median pro- vide safe ingress and egress or will it create traffic con- . gestion and hazaardous walking conditions for pedestrians? (5) Will lighting fixtures be uniform with the existing lighting standards on Sunwood Blvd and in Phase I and II? (6) Is there an adequate buffer zone between the proposed de- velopment and the existing buildings? (7) Will garbage service areas be properly screened from view? (8) Will adequate parking space be provided? (9) Will adequate recreational facilities be provided for the 66 proposed units? As homeowners in the adjoining property, we are concerned about the answer to all these above questions, in addition to the more specific questions, i.e.: (1) Who will maintain the road? ( How will our easement be protected? (3) How do we share a common street address without common .. ownership? EXHIBIT H City of Tukwila -2- March 28, 1985 (4) How will we prevent the future residents of this development from using our common recreational facilities, especially if they aren't provided with any of their own? (5) How we preserve the quality of our environ- ment in our own neighborhood? (6) Will our property lose its value and depreciate due to inferior construction at the entrance of our development? (7) How can we be sure that this proposed developer isn't going to build rental units? If you can assure us that all of these concerns of ours are being carefully weighed with our welfare in mind, we will feel much more receptive to prospective plans for this property. As voting residents of the City of Tukwila and adjoining property owners, we have a valid concern regarding the outcome of your de- cisions. Thank you for giving careful consideration to all of these very important issues. Sincerely, Joan Hernandez, Secretary Board of Directors Sunwood Homeowners' Association .Page -4- Planning Commission Millutes • April 25, 1985 MR. KIRSOP MOVED FOR A FIVE MINUTE RECESS. MR. SOWINSKI SECONDED THE MOTION WHICH PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. BOARD OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW a. DR- 01 -84: Windmark Homes, requesting approval of plans for 66 multiple units on a 3.85 acre site located on Sunwood Boulevard (Sunwood III). Mr. Beeler summarized the staff report with corrections. George Kresovich, Hillis, Cairncross et al, 403 Columbia St., Seattle, WA 98102, representing the applicant, reviewed the history of the project. He felt the submitted plans contain required recreation space. John Lane, Project Architect, 1115 West Denny Way, Seattle, WA , presented a site plan, explained the development and submitted the color scheme for the proposed buildings. He reviewed the recreation areas. Larry Hard, Attorney, 3900 Seattle First National Bank Building, Seattle, WA, representing the Sunwood Homeowners Association, submitted a letter and memorandum to the Board. He questioned ownership of the property, adequacy of the application, the visual impacts, completeness of the environmental review, adequacy of recreation space, compliance with the Comprehensive Plan and former land use decisions. Ryan Thrower, President of the Sunwood Homeowners Association, 15232 Sunwood Blvd., Tukwila, WA, questioned compliance with the understanding the Homeowners had at the time of purchasing units in Phases I and II of Sunwood and the effect the proposal will have on their property values. Dick Taylor, Member of the Sunwood Homeowners Association, 15278 Sunwood Blvd. C13, Tukwila, WA, expressed concern about the building height and requested consideration of the old plans that were presented as part of the sales information in the Spring and Summer of 1981 be reviewed. Mr. Kresovich presented a copy of the Certificate of Incorporation for Windmark Homes, Inc. Mr. Beeler explained staff comments on the landscaping plan and revisions which had not been received. John Malgarini, 15209 Sunwood Blvd. B24, Tukwila, WA, was concerned his view would be obstructed. Mr. Collins clarified the staff's recommendation based upon the information provided at the meeting. Page -3- 'Planning Commission Minutes • April 25, '1985 tions: from RS -7200 to R -1 -7.2 Single Family Residential, from BN Neighborhood Business to C -1 General Commercial and from RM -900 and RM -2400 Multiple Dwelling Maximum and Medium Density to P -0 Professional and Office for the area generally bounded by SR 518, 51st Avenue S., S. 164th Street and 42nd Avenue S. Chairman Knudson opened the public hearing. Ms. Bradshaw summarized the staff report with corrections. Joe Dunstan, Barghausen Enginerrs, Kent, WA, representing Wm C". Markham, recommended an R -4 designation for the property located at ,/15436 42nd Avenue South. Terry Hope, 15603 42nd So. supported the multi - family zo yfng request for the site located at 15436 42nd Ave. So. Paul E. Bray, Supervisor of Facilities for the High ne School District, 17810 8th Ave. So., Seattle,. WA 98148, request that the Crestview Community Center be rezoned to an office classificaion. Daniel R. Surber, 13001 48th Ave. So., Seattle, WA, supported the multi- family zoning request for the site located at 15439 42nd Ave. So. Lyle C. McCoy, 15209 Military Rd. So,,Seattl.e, WA, was opposed to an office zoning at the Crestview Community Center. Donald Wilson, 13001 48th Ave. So., Seattle, WA supported the multi - family zoning request for the site located at/15436 42nd Ave. So. Chris Houser, 24618 43rd Ave. So.,;' Kent, WA, supported the multi - family zoning request for the site located d at 15436 42nd Ave. So. John McFarland, 4375 So. 158th/St., Tukwila, WA, was opposed to high den- sity zoning for the site located at 15436 42nd Ave. So.. M. DiGiovenni, 17015 53rd So., Tukwila, WA, felt the zoningNdid not reflect the use of this property`(4220 S. 164th Street). Chairman Knudson closed the public hearing. MR. LARSON MOVED TO RECOMMEND THE APPROVAL OF THE PROPOSED REZONE BASED UPON FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS OF STAFF REPORT 85 -18 -R DATED APRIL 25, 1985, WITH THE FOLLOWING MODIFICATIONS: MODIFICATIONS TO THE FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE STAFF REPORT THAT RECOGNIZE THE CONFORMANCE WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND AMENDMENTS RECOMMENDED TONIGHT, SO. 164TH AS A RESIDENTIAL STREET, MAP II WITH CHANGE FROM P -O TO R -1 -7,200 FOR THE PROPERTY IDENTIFIED AS 4220 SO. 164TH. MR. SOWINSKI SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH PASSED 3 -2. Page -5- Planning Commission Minutes April 25, '1985 Mr. Kirsop felt the recreation space and amenities of that nature where inadequate. MR. KIRSOP MOVED TO REJECT THE PROPOSAL BASED UPON TMC 18.60.040(1)(A), 18.60.050(1)(C), 18.60.050(3)(C) AND 18.60.050(4)(B) NOT BEING MET, AND THAT STAFF WOULD PREPARE DETAILED FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS. MR. SOWINSKI SECONDED THE MOTION. The Commission discussed findings and conclusions. Mr. Collins clarified the findings and conclusions as follows: The site plan, the relationship of the structures to the site, the relationship of the structures and the site to the adjoining area, and the relationship of the landscaping and the site treatment in the areas recreation were not adequate. Mr. Kirsop agreed. MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. MR. COPLEN MOVED TO HEAR APPLICATION DR- 03 -85, METRO EFFLUENT TRANSFER SYSTEM. MR. LARSON SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. DR- 03 -85: Metro ETS, requesting approval of a 96" buried forcemain pipeline and bridges over the Duwamish River. Mr. Beeler summarized the staff report with corrections. Byron Sneva, Public Works Director, reviewed the proposal. Terry Monohan, Metro, 821 Second Avenue, Seattle, WA, asked that Recommendation 6 not be added but considered included in 3. He requested some changes to the staff report and said street lighting was not part of the scope of the project. He concurred with the recommendation that the design be approved. MR. COPLEN MOVED TO APPROVE DR- 03 -85, METRO ETS, AND ACCEPT STAFF'S FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS AS MODIFIED BY MR. COLLINS AND MR. MONAHAN. MR. SOWINSKI SECONDED THE MOTION. Mr. Beeler asked for a clarification that staff's recommendation six would remain. The Commission concurred that it would remain. MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. MR. LARSON MOVED TO CONTINUE ITEMS DR- 05 -85: PITNEY BOWES, INC., DR- 06 -85: JANUARY LEASING COMPANY, AND DR- 08 -85: WESTERN PACIFIC PROPERTIES TO THE MAY 9, 1985, PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. MR. COPLEN SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. Rick Beeler Secretary BLK. Page -6- •Plapning . Commission Minutes ' • April 2'S, 1985 TUKWILA PL N ISSION CITY COUNCIL ACTIONS Mr. Collins said the Council is reviewing Metro Effluent Transfer System agreement, and will be hearing the Profit Freight Appeal. ADJOURNMENT MR. COPLEN MOVED TO ADJOURN THE MEETING. MR. SOWINSKI SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. Page -3- Planning Commission Minutes May 9, 1985 OTHER BUSINESS Mr. Beeler informed the Board that the findings and conclusions for appli cation 'DR01 -84 ::Windmark were not ready yet, and the applicant has appealed the Board's April 24, 1985, decision of denial. Mr. Beeler asked if the Commission would consent to a City Attorney briefing on findings and conclusions at the May 23 meeting, and suggested the meeting time be changed to 7:30 p.m. The Commission agreed to the agenda item and change of meeting time. ADJOURNMENT MR. ORRICO MOVED TO ADJOURN THE MEETING. MR. KNUDSON SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. TUKWILA 'L OMMISSION ick Beeler Secretary BLK Page -3- Planning Commission March 28, 1985 The findings and conclusions of the staff report were accepted. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTIONS A. 83- 13 -SPE: Diaz School of Gymnastics, requesting approval of a cooperative parking agreement. Mr. Beeler summarized the staff report. He informed the Commission that the cooperative parking agreement had been signed. The Commission discussed the current and future parking needs and regula- tions in that area. MR. COPLEN MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION 83- 13 -SPE: DIAZ SCHOOL OF GYMNASTICS. MR. LARSON SECONDED THE MOTION. Mr. Coplen withdrew the motion as no action was required. BOARD OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW A. DR- 01 -84: Sunwood III, requesting approval of plans for 66 multiple family units. Mr. Beeler recommended continuance of this item. MR. SOWINSKI MOVED TO TABLE ANY FURTHER ACTION IN THIS ITEM UNTIL SUFFICIENT INFORMATION IS AVAILABLE. MOTION DIED FOR LACK OF SECOND. Jerry Kresovich, Hillis Cairncross Clark & Martin, representing the appli- cant, said they would not object to a continuance to the next meeting if there was an understanding that this manner be dealt with in an expeditious manner. Mr. Beeler said that the April 11, meeting date would be acceptable to staff. Ryan Thrower, President of Sunwood Homeowners Association, requesting the meeting be held no sooner than one month. Joanne Hernandez, 15224 Sunwood Blvd., Tukwila, WA 98188, requested a con- tinuance to May. MR. LARSON MOVED TO CONTINUE TO THE APRIL 25TH MEETING AND TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION THAT THE COMMISSION GET ALL THE INFORMATION AND MAKE A DECISION THAT NIGHT. MR. SOWINSKI SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. B. DR- 03 -85: Metro ETS, requesting approval of 96" buried forcemain pipeline and bridges over the Duwamish River. Page -4- Planning Commission March 28, 1985 C. DR- 04 -85: NC Machinery, requesting approval of plans for a 2 -story office building located at 17025 West Valley Highway. Mr. Beeler said the applicants of these proposals requested the Board of Architectural hold a special meeting on April 11, 1985, to . consider the applications. The Planning Commission agreed to the special meeting date. Mr. Beeler requested the Commission enter their findings and conclusions into the record on the denial of application 85 -10 -CUP, Profit Freight. Mr. Knudson opened the public hearing for 85 -10 -CUP, Profit Freight. Mr. Sowinski said he felt the truck terminal use was too intense for the area and would have an adverse ' effect on the single family neighborhood. He was concerned with noise, traffic problems and safety. Mr. Larson stated that it does not conform to TMC 18.64.050. The proposed use will be materially detrimental to the public welfare and injurious to the property or improvements in the vicinity. Mr. Knudson closed the public hearing. CITY COUNCIL ACTIONS Mr. Beeler reported the status of the SEPA Ordinance revisions, CIP for - mulation, and Building Official position ADJOURNMENT MR. SOWINSKI MOVED TO ADJOURN THE MEETING. MR. LARSON SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. TUKWILA:PLANNING COMMISSION Ric c4 Secretary BLK J *ALA • 1908 DR- O1 -84: on a 3.85 DR- 05 -85: warehouse City of Tukwila • 6200 Southcenter Boulevard o Tukwila Washington 98188 Gary L VanDusen, Mayor T U K W I L A R L A N N I N G C O M M I S S I O N NOTICE OF PUBLIC MEETING NOTICE'IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Tukwila PLANNING COMMISSION has fixed the 25th day of April, 1985, at 8:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers of Tukwila City Hall, 6200 Southcenter Boulevard, Tukwila, Washington, as the time and place 'for: Windmark Homes, requesting approval of plans for 66 multiple units acres site located on Sunwood (Sunwood III). Pitney Bowes, Inc., requesting approval of plans for a 2 -story office/ building addition located at 116 Andover Park East. DR- 07 -85: Kaiser Development, requesting approval of plans for 2 storm drain outfalls along the Green River located approximately East of Interurban Ave. So. and North of 48th Ave. So. DR- 08 -85: Western Pacific Properties, requesting approval of plans for a 3 -story office building located at 5800 Southcenter Boulevard. Any and all interested persons are jnvited to attend. Published: Record Chronicle, April 3, 1985 Distribution: Mayor City Clerk Adjacent Property Owners File March 20, 1985 City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila Washington 98188 433 -1800 Gary L VanDusen, Mayor T U K W I L A P L A N N I N G C O M M I S S I O N ' A G E N D A •I) CALL TO ORDER _II) APPROVAL OF MINUTES: January 24, 1985 and February 14, 1985 III) CITY COUNCIL ACTIONS IV) PUBLIC HEARINGS A. 85 -10 -CUP: Profit Freight, requesting approval of a truck terminal at 4477 So. 134th P1. 8:00 p.m. B. 85 -04 -R: 51st Annexation Rezone, requesting rezone of single family zoned property (RS -7200) to City of Tukwila single family zone of R- 1 -7.2, on the west side of 51st Ave. So. between So. 161st St. consisting of 3.4 acres. The subject properties bear the addresses of 16049, 16059, 16209, 16211, 16219, 16227, 16233, 16239, 16249 51st Avenue South; 4918 South 164th Street, and 4929, 2930 South 161st St. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTIONS A. 83- 13 -SPE: Diaz School of Gymnastics, requesting approval of a coopera- tive parking agreement. VI) BOARD OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW A. DR- O1 -84: Sunwood III, requesting approval of plans for 66 multiple family units. B. DR- 03 -85: Metro ETS, requesting approval of 96" buried forcemain pipeline and bridges over the Duwamish River. C. DR- 04 -85: NC Machinery, requesting approval of plans for a 2 -story office building located at 17025 West Valley Highway. VII) OTHER BUSINESS VIII) CITIZEN COMMENT (for items not appearing on this agenda) IX) ADJOURNMENT CITY OF TUKWILA PLANNING DIVISION PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT AGENDA ITEM DR -1 -84 • Windmark Homes Tukwila, Inc. (Sunwood Phase III) Introduction Pacific Townhouse Builders developed the existing first two phases of the Sunwood development in 1981 and 1982. An undeveloped portion of the ownership was reserved for future phases which were consolidated into Phase III in a 1984 development application. On February 23, 1984, the Planning Commission conducted a public meeting on Phase III and continued indefinitely consideration of the matter per the appli- cant's request. A great deal of opposition was expressed by owners of condomin- iums in Phases I and II. The City also required additional information to complete the environmental review process. In the meantime the applicant very slightly modified the proposal, met with the homeowners and sold the Phase III property to Windmark Homes — Tukwila, Inc. However, the applicant still represents the development on behalf of the new owner. At this time the proposal is again before the Board of Architecture Review. Findings 1. On June 2, 1981, the City Council rezoned the property to R -4 subject to: A. Overall residential density permitted on this site shall not exceed 20 D.0 /acres. Windmark Homes - Tukwila, Inc. Page Two 1. B. Any project proposed on this site subsequent to City Council approval of the subject rezone action shall require Board of Architectural Review of the site, architecture and landscaping details prior to issuance of building permits (Exhibit A). The property consists of 3.85 acres, which would permit 77 dwelling units (3.85 x 20 D.U. /acres = 77 D.U.). Only 66 dwelling units are proposed in 8 buildings (Exhibit B). The Board of Architectural Review is also required by Section 18.60.030 (2)(E), Tukwila Municipal Code (TMC). 2. Per TMC Section 18.60.070 the BAR may approve, approve with conditions or deny the application. Guidelines for this review are contained in TMC. Section 18.60.050. 3. Little substantial vegetation exists on the property except for a small variety of trees at the middle portion of the southerly property line (Exhibit B) and a 10" apple tree along the south side of the access road. The proposed landscape plan adds a great deal of tree, shrub and ground - cover material and retains most of the existing trees (Exhibit C). 4. Exhibit B indicates essentially the entire site will be recontoured to accomodate the proposed development pursuant to the existing Sunwood Boulevard access road off 62nd Ave. S. The property is identified as environmentally sensitive by the Comprehensive Plan. According to the 1975 Windmark Homes - Tukwila, Inc. Page Three 4. Data Inventory this is due to: A. Slopes may be unstable when modified. B. Slopes of 15 -25% C. Part of a major wooded area. 5. Parking will be provided for 138 cars slightly more than the 2 cars per unit required by Zoning Code Section 18.56.050 TMC. The buildings will be three stories averaging approximately 31 feet in height (Exhibit 0). Wood materials will be featured and painted /stained grey with white trim. The roof will be of cedar shingles. 6. TMC Section 18.52.060 requires 12,034 square feet of recreation space. The proposed children's recreation areas of 5,825 square feet meets the requirement that at least 3,009 square feet must be useful for use by children. The landscaping areas contribute 1166 square feet for recreation space. Some manipulation of the grades between and around buildings is necessary to bring the remaining necessary 5043 square feet of recreation area plus the aforementioned areas to 50% of slopes less than 4:1. 7. Carports will contain about one car perdwelling unit and will be constructed the same as carports in Sunwood Phases I and II (Exhibit F). 8. Sunwood Boulevard contains a median strip which will be planted with trees and feature street lights the same as exists at the entrance from 62nd Ave. S. A sidewalk exists along the northerly and easterly side of the road (Exhibit B). Windmark Homes - Tukwila, Inc. Page Four 9. Some view blockage may occur and impact adjacent buildings of Sunwood Phase I. Existing topography slopes southerly downward, thereby reducing some of the view impairment. The extend of impact on existing views is difficult to assess from available information. 10. The rezone of the property contained a site plan very similar to that proposed (Exhibit B). However, the rezone did not obligate the City to the site plan, but the previous plan enabled analysis of land use impacts of the applicant's contemplated R -4 development. 11. The following Comprehensive Plan Policies and /or objectives apply: Policy 1. Maintain the wooded character of the steep slopes and upland plateau, and encourage the use of vegetation in slope stabilization. Policy 3. Discourage disturbance of vegetation when not in conjunction with the actual development of the property. (p. 26, Natural Environment) Policy 1. Discourage development on slopes in excess of 20 percent. Policy 2. Preserve the views of hillside residents. (p. 26, Natural Environment) Policy 1. Discourage development in areas where slopes are known to be unstable. In areas where the stability of slopes is question- able, allow development only after a qualified professional can demonstrate that slopes will be stable even after site Windmark Homes - Tukwila, Inc. Page Five 11. modification. (p. 29, Natural Environment) Objective 8. Recognize the environmental basemap of the Tukwila Planning areas which depicts the distribution and extend of natural amenities based on the previously mentioned objectives and use this map as a general planning guide. (p. 30, Natural Environment) Policy 1. Strive to preserve steep hillsides and wooded areas in a scenic condition. Encourage replanting and revegetation of denuded areas not in the process of development. .. (p. 34, Open Space) Policy 3. Provide for active recreation areas (ballfields, tennis courts, swimming pools, playgrounds, community center) consistent with the needs of the community. Policy 4. Provide for passive recreational areas (parks, natural reserves, picnic grounds) consistent with the needs of the community. (p. 35, Open Space) 12. The Public Works Department determined adequate water is available to properties in the area and to the proposal. Conclusions 1. The site plan includes appropriate landscaping, provides for pedestrian circulation on and through the site, and forms a "transition" from 62nd Ave. S. and Sunwood Boulevard (TMC Section 18.60.050(1)(A)). Parking areas are linear in configuration, avoiding the appearance of a large mass of. ■ c Windmark Homes - Tukwila, Inc. Page Six 1. pavement. Also carports and landscaping break up the visual impacts of the parking areas (TMC Section 18.60.050(1)(B)). The visual impact of the proposed buildings appears to be similar to Sunwood Phases I and II. Due to the relatively more exposure to public view of the southerly portion of the hillside, the buildings very likely will be more visible to the valley floor (TMC Section 18.60.050(1)(C)). 2. Sunwood is a mixture of architecture styles and building materials. Phase I is essentially more "modern" and adorned in white stucco. Phase II is more " conservative contemporary," consisting of wood materials. However, overall the visual effect is harmony with each phase, largely accomplished by land- scaping. Some additional landscaping is included in Phase III along the northerly border, but reliance appears placed on Phase I for transition. This seems satisfactory (TMC Section 18.60.050(2)(B)). The Public Works Department indicates the proposed vehicular circula- tion system is appropriate relative to Phase III and 62nd Ave. S. (TMC Section 18.60.050(2)(D and E)). A cut -out in the median strip accomodates vehicular congestion and public safety vehicle movement. The Fire Department is concerned about the length of "cul -de- sacs" in the development, which may result in subsequent revisions to the site plan. 3. Existing topography is generally steadily rolling southerly down the hill. Proposed grading for the most part is parallel to the land contour to minimize grades and promote safety. Sometimes rockeries and /or retaining walls up to 8 feet high are needed to balance cuts. Such walls will require additional soils and engineering study (TMC Section 18.56.050(3)(A and B)). Windmark Homes - Tukwila, Inc. Page Seven 3. The little amount of existing substantial vegetation on the site is for the most part protected from grading by landscaping and rockeries (Policy 1 and 3, p. 24, Comprehensive Plan). Without benefit of a slope analysis of the site it impossible to determine if development will occur on slopes over 20% (Policy 1, p. 26; Policy 1, p. 29 and Objective 8, p. 30, Comprehensive Plan). Some portions of the property exceed slopes of 20 %, which should be discouraged. Landscaping on the site appears intended more to interrupt the building masses and define the perimeter of parking and access areas than enhance the scenic vista and view from and of the site. Currently this vista /view is largely unobstructed by vegetation and buildings. Therefore, landscaping should preserve the vista /view between and around the building (TMC Section 18.60.050(3)(C)). Policy 2, p. 26, and Policy 1, p. 34, Comprehensive Plan). Wheel stops will help protect plant materials adjacent to on -grade parking areas (TMC Section 18.60.050(3)(D)). Trash containers are proposed to be located adjacent to or between carports. This seems to be less than appropriate screening (TMC Section 18.60.050(3)(F and G)). 4. Building components relate well to each other and provide proportional interruption of the facades without appearing forced. The grey color with white trim is strikingly different from Phase I and II and therefore should be evaluated more closely (TMC Section 18.60.050(4)(C and D)). Submitted architectural elevations do not show mechanical equipment or light fixtures (TMC Section 18.60.050(4)(E and F)). Building design is essentially a single design with variations produced by modulation of the Windmark Homes - Tukwila, Inc. Page Eight 4. structures, slight reduction of density and change of a few architectural features. Overall the effect will probably not appear monotonous (TMC Section 18.60.050(4)(G)). 5. Street lighting is the same as existing at the entrance onto Sunwood Boulevard, which appears compatible with all phases of Sunwood (TMC Section 18.60.050(5)(B)). 6. Conformance with recreational space requirements is not totally apparent in the proposal. The recreation areas proposed will probably satisfy the requirements with some manipulation of final grades per the requirements of TMC 18.52.060 (Policies 3 and 4, p. 35, Comprehensive Plan). Preliminary Recommendation Based on the above, staff preliminarily recommends Sunwood Phase III be approved subject to: 1. Planning Department verification of recreation space provided per TMC Section 18.50.060. 2. Public Works and Fire Departments review and final approval of the median strip in Sunwood Boulevard relative to public safety and access. 3. Submittal of soils and engineering reports on rockeries over 5 feet in height for final review and approval of the Public Works and Building Departments. 4. Revision of the landscape plan to open up more of the central portion of the site to retain more of the existing vista /view. Windmark Homes - Tukwila, Inc. Page Nine 5. Installation of wheel stops to protect on -grade landscaping. 6. Appropriate screening of trash containers per approval of the Planning Department. Reevaluation of building colors to be more compatible with Sunwood Phase I or II. An earth tone color combination may be more appropriate. Exhibits A - Zoning Map B - Site Plan C - Landscaping Plan D - Architectural Elevations F — Photographs of Carport Design E le ati of 1 ..k Bud ?j`i�+- :S - ;'�,� ,`:^` �7 .,`F.�-�'':?'s;:= `ya+r,carna��' �.' s�. �Et�"H. ���::.: z.-. a :.,-•a.«.�_...s_,;�.,.f�.�,.... J l4A III, 4 A DENNY ASSOCIATES SIMILE WASnWGION GW9 an 2N m1I TUCKWII.A, TUCKWIL,A CONDOMINIUMS WASHINGTON �xuir5rr 1; W V) Ci 1111111 � 11�II1 1 �LIM MEEME [Ji_!,11 6 1984 CITY OF T 11KWi PLANNING DEPT. _.....__ - & REltty _�" r 1 STINO I 1 1 .ITS 1D I �.LOt.ATTp 1 t l ' ~ �' 'r yI $ 1 ! %r4TING rt.A PATS L_ 5 UNWOaID P$ A5E I J L114 rLA r L • • r� - to • 01 ,/ ADJUST rt.A►RMY. 1p •rIT ILMOTING RANTING TIi1K J -AT4. `1111 I111U „P 11 S�Ls.11.�'.�:•, • • %a! : :.i ce 10 . ;J;� � i .�� /,_ die G ZYME•OL 0 69 NY QUANT. VERIFY 17 9X IG2 19G r 593 197 VEKIFr NILLSIDE WALL if r AWIS. , WAS R:As 5EGTION 'Q' a !o2►av A. so PLANT LEGEND 6OTANIGAL /C4MMON NAME REMARKS ( 1 ¶REFS: SOME exist ADD WAEgE NEEDED) CoiNUS NUTrALLI OR fLCRICA NATIVE OR EASTERN PcovooD AGAR C.IRGINATUM V1NB MAFLE TSUGA 11ETEKofHYLLA n MERTENIIAAaA T•HUJA PLIGATA FIN U3 GchtTOIC WESTEI N H EML.o MOUNTAIN HEMLocK WESTEKN RED CEDAR SHOKE PINE AK.5uTU5 ONEDO V16URNUM 'TINus STRAW&ERt.Y 'TREE LAURVSTINUS Kiicx7ODENDRON HSRIDS .A2ALE•A HYDKIPS PieRIS •.elETIEs MAHONIA AOUIFOLIUM V16URNUM DAVID' KttoDODENOP.4K5 A zALEAS (E`1EIC4KEEN) ANDROMEDA OkV.C,ON G RAPE 17AVID's V 16URNUM &RIGA .erron‘qwcai Srtii AwooD FIEATK 14EC'EFA HEUx.'NAHNS OR MATCH Eri5T'CI IVY MATCH EXISTIAXr. S0 ANTV1RACNO!•E PREFER' Ct.UM1' USE ASSORTED TO SUIT AREA SIZE I S .REENG REQV IREl TENTS ALT. W/ ArrIC0VAL L.A.; 056 TD SUIT '517.E. 4 GEri NEEDS. SUIT TO 5I2E, EXPOSURE, VARIETY NEGV5 ALT. W/ L. A. AF'PPOJ. ALT. ACCT V•URS- 1:11.441KIP4.1IC.K V E GFOUNDCOYEL: AS NEEDED FOR :,GNTXOL Cg VARIETY. N • EX (STING/ TREES WILL be EXAMINED FOK MEALTH AND KEFT IF rossied.e. ANY DEEMED UNSAFE or. 6EYCND REDEEMING VALUE WILL ISE REPLACED WITH ANOTHER TREE SUITABLE To THE SITUATI011. • EXISTING TOPSOIL To 8E REMOVED SHALL tE STOCCPILED FOF VSE IN TLAI4TIN6 AND FINISH GRADING. WuEtE c..AY VD•suRFAOG is POUND IN PLANT HOLES, LCOSEN G' IN OASE Or HOLE, MIX IN To••014 SUGITHAT SACY'FILI. IS VS- 'Is Toff-doll— GHCc FOR DRAINAbE FROM HOLE. 5AcKFILL MUST CE AT LEA7T Vs EXI5TIN0, 5011- TYrE, WELL - MIAED wIT11 ADDED TOPSOIL. • REFFR ALL GUSVTION5 TO LANDScArE ARCHITE6.T. £YdiIBIT— G b b N Joe. No. esio exhibit d jla . building height comparison sunwood phase i windmark homes 1" • 2 0' • TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL, REGULAR MEETING July 15, 1985 Page 2 PUBLIC HEARING Continued From June 17, Appeal of Board of Arch. Review decision by Windmark Homes Mayor Van Dusen noted that this Public Hearing was continued from the meeting of June 17, 1985 with the approval of both parties. The application for Phase III of the Sunwood Development was filed with the City in January, 1984, by Pacific Townhouse Builders. It went before the Board of Architectural Review for design review. In February, 1984, the Planning Commission tabled consideration of the application at the request of the applicant. In March, 1985 a new application was filed with the City showing Windmark Homes as owner. The Planning Commission held a Public Meeting on April 25, 1985 . to review the application. Based on testimony received, they denied the application. An appeal on behalf of the applicant was filed May 3, 1985. The intention of the applicant is to present revised plans and demonstrate that the concerns of the Board of Architectural Review have been satisfied. Mayor Van Dusen asked if there were any challenges against he or the Council over the Appearance of Fairness Doctrine. There was no comment. Brad Collins, Planning Director, presented the following Exhibits: 1. Master Land Use Application filed January 5, 1984 2. Master Land Use Application filed March 6, 1985 3. Revised staff report to Planning Commission 4. Minutes of April 25, 1985, Planning Commission meeting 5. Appeal of Planning Commission decision received May 3, 1985 6. Planning Commission findings and conclusions 7. Notice of June 17, 1985, Public Hearing of the City Council 8. Notice of April 25, 1985,'Public Hearing of the Planning Commission, mailing list and affidavit of distribution SY1405•11" TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL, REGULAR MEETING July 15, 1985 Page 3 PUBLIC HEARING - cont. Windmark Homes 9. Letter of April 25, 1985, from Lawrence E. Hard on behalf Appeal of Sunwood Condominium homeowners and presented to Planning Commission at the April 25, 1985, Public Hearing. 10. Memorandum of April 23, 1985, from Lawrence E. Hard to Sunwood Homeowners Association and presented to Planning Commission at the April 25, 1985 Public Hearing 11. Letter of March 1, 1985, from Pacific Townhouse Builders notifying City of the sale of the property to Windmark Homes. Lawrence E. Hard, Attorney representing Sunwood Condominium Homeowners, presented a letter written by him dated July 15, 1985 to the City Council and it was labeled Exhibit 12. Mayor Van Dusen opened the Public Hearing to consider an appeal filed by Windmark Hanes, Inc. He noted that 12 exhi -, bits had been read into the record. Mayor Van Dusen asked everyone wishing to speak during the hearing to stand and be sworn in. Attorney Haney issued the oath. Brad Collins, Planning Director, gave the opening remarks. This is an appeal of a decision by the Board of Architectural Review that was heard at their April 25, 1985 meeting. The Findings and Conclusions of the Planning Commission are listed in Exhibit 6. He reviewed the Findings and Conclusions and listed the options the Council has in reviewing the appeal. 1. Review the information presented to the BAR and make their own decision regarding the criteria and the ade- quacy Of the application in meeting the criteria. 2. Review and agree with the BAR. 3. Since the applicant has submitted revisions to the site plan, the decision could be remanded back to the BAR to review the new information. George Kresovich, Attorney with the firm of Hillis, Cairncross, Clark and Martin at 403 Columbia Street,. Seattle, said he represents the applicant, Windmark•Homes. Their pre- sentation will consist of statements by: 1. John Lane, Architect for the project 2. Steven Shea, Landscape Architect 3. John Snyder, President of Windmark Homes John Lane, Architect and Planner representing Windmark Homes, 115 West Denny Way, Seattle, discussed their project. The zoning allows 77 dwelling units on the site, but they are proposing 66 units in 8 buildings - 3 six - plexes and 6.nine- plexes. The location of the structures is in agreement with the site plan submitted by the previous owner. The building locations have been maintained, but the density has been cut. Exhibit #13, Proposed Site Plan for the development, was recorded. Mr. Lane said they reviewed slopes. of drives, Fire Department access to buildings and maximum building areas and they concluded that the site plan developed by the previous plan- ners and themselves is, not only the best, but possibly the only solution for an efficient development of the site. Their proposal sits very well with existing development and are consistent with existing structures to the north. • They are proposing two story buildings with daylight basements and units two or three wide. The buildings are cedar siding and shingles•and earthtone colors as suggested by the.Planning TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL, REGULAR MEETING July 15, 1985 Page 4 PUBLIC HEARING - cont. Windmark Homes Appeal (Cont.) Staff. Mr. Lane displayed Exhibit 03, Attachment 0 (Side Elevation Study) which shows end gables. They are also showing carports and covered trash receptacles. To mitigate impacts the proposal may have on the community, they have added an indoor Jacuzzi and barbecue structure throughout the site. The total of the recreation and open space areas is 18,000 square feet. Their structures are well within the R -4 zoning requirements. The setback from the development to the north is a minimum of 60 feet, and in some places 80 feet. Their elevation of 200 is well below the eye level of occu- pants of all of the units east of Sunwood Boulevard. There is a view corridor between Buildings 1 and 2. Exhibit 014, Building Location Plan, was recorded. Steven Shea, Landscape Architect at Thomas Bing and Associates, said they were hired to redesign the landscaping. Planning Staff has reviewed their plan and concur with it. He explained the landscape plans as shown on Exhibit 113. Along with the landscape plan there is a path system that allows access throughout the site .that connect the recreation areas and gazebos. They have addressed the con- cerns of the Board, have provided better views and still pro- vided separation between the units. Council Member Morgan asked who monitors landscaping for compliance. Mr. Collins said the Planning Department in cooperation with the Building Official. John Snyder, Vice President and Project Manager for Windmark Homes, 510 Rainier Avenue South, Seattle, commented that they obtained the property in February, 1985. It had already been rezoned to R -4 allowing up to 20 units per acre. The concep- tual site plan was used throughout the proceedings. Their present proposal asks for approval for 66 units. They will be the same type units as in Sunwood I and II. They have done everything they could to respond to the concerns of the Homeowners' Association, but it has been to no avail. They feel the Homeowners are primarily interested in using this process to leverage the settlement of their dispute with Pacific Townhouse Builders, the previous owners. They have settled the concerns expressed by the Association. They have assured the Homeowners that they intend to build con - dominiums, that the purchase prices will be around 585,000, that their parking ratio is 2 to 1, and they . had a joint maintenance agreement drafted and sent to the Association. They have never responded. The Homeowners agreed to drop their appeal if Windmark agreed to join their. Association. Then, they were told that the compliance with the Homeowners' request was not good enough. Mr. Snyder said they want to build a fine project in Tukwila - one they can be proud of - and they want to comply with all the requirements. They want to be treated like everyone else. He asked Council to approve their project. Attorney Haney explained that Council is sitting as the Board of Architectural Review. Council has the same criteria to look at as they did. George Kresovich, Attorney, said they agreed to join the Homeowners' Association providing they would not oppose this project and informed their attorney of the agreement. The Homeowners' Association was not agreeable. In reviewing the BAR decision, it is clear there are three major_ problems: 1 1 TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL, REGULAR MEETING July 15, 1985 Page 5 PUBLIC HEARING • Cont. Windmark Homes Appeal (Cont.) 1. -Adequacy of the recreation areas and facilities. In an effort to satisfy the concerns of the Board of Architectural Review the recreation areas were revised. 2. The Landscape Plan. The BAR said the Landscape Plan was incomplete. Rather than fight about it, they prepared a new plan, which was developed by professionals. 3. Concern about view blockage. The Board of Architectural Review relied on two provisions in the Code to make their findings. The first says that the height and scale of each building should be considered in relation to its site. The net says buildings should be to appropriate scale and be in harmony with neighboring developments. The type of buildings that are proposed for this site are precisely the same type and precisely the same scale as the buildings in the existing Sunwood Development. The buildings have been sited very carefully in order to minimize the view blockage. The project has been designed to be a good neighbor. Mr. Kresovich asked that the same standards be applied to them that have been applied to other developments. He asked Council to approve the project as proposed. Lawrence E. Hard, Attorney representing the Sunwood Homeowners, 2400 Columbia Center, Seattle, said he was asked to assist the Homeowners with some problems relating to their application of Windmark Homes. He prepared a letter, now marked Exhibit 12, that has been distributed to Council. There are three people that would like to speak. 1. Ryan Thrower, President of the Board of the Homeowners' Association 2. Dick Taylor, Homeowner 3. Joan Hernandez, Board Member. Mr. Hard said he is concerned about statements that have been made by Mr. Snyder and Mr. Kresovich about conversations and statements that have been made. If this were a trial those would be hearsay and not admissible. He asked to have these comments taken with a grain of salt. He is concerned about the impression trying to be made here that the Sunwood Homeowners' Association consists of nothing but a bunch of angered Homeowners - angered, not at what is happening at the Windmark side, but at the company that sold them their homes. He reminded Council they are to consider only the application of Windmark Homes. The Homeowners are concerned about what is going to be placed on the piece of property immediately to . the south of them. The property was originally part of the Sunwood development. It was to be developed by the same people as Phase III, but in March of this year, they were no longer dealing with these people, but rather with a company called Windmark Homes. Ryan Thrower, 15232 Sunwood Boulevard, is President of the Homeowners' Association and a member of the Board of Directors. There are 178 households in Sunwood. When they bought their homes, they thought they were buying into a total community. They felt they would have a voice in how the community would be run, how rules would be adopted and enforced. At the time of purchase, they received a copy of the declarations of the Condominium Association which con- tained a legal description of the Phase III property. The legal said the property was subject to the convenants and restrictions of the Homeowners' Association. They found that this did not give them the protection they thought they had. Now they are looking to Tukwila and the Land Use Planning Policies to protect their investment. They asked that, if the development is allowed, they have to live up to the same TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL, REGULAR MEETING July 15, 1985 Page 6 PUBLIC HEARING - Cont. Windmark Homes Appeal (cont.) _ , set•of standards that the Sunwood Complex followed. We feel this proposal is lacking recreation facilities. It would be easy for residents of another complex to wander in and use their facilities. He asked the City to help them to protect their investments, stand behind the decision of the Planning Commission and reject any project that does not meet the requirements. Dick Taylor, 15278 Sunwood Boulevard, expressed concern over blockage of their view. At the time they bought they were given a maximum elevation for Phase III. He recalled that it was 203 feet. There have been several figures discussed so he asked what the "iron clad" maximum elevation is at this time. Joan Hernandez, 15224 Sunwood Boulevard said she is on the Board of Directors for the Homeowners' Association. A copy of her letter to the Planning Commission is included in Exhibit 03 as Item H. Sunwood is a beautiful place to live and she would like to stay there. She hopes that this deve- lopment will not affect their quality of life. She would like to have the Phase III property governed under the same convenants and restrictions they live by. She would not like to see the cheap housing units being built in the area deve- loped on this property. She said she has faith in the Council that they will not allow a developer to ruin their property. Lawrence E. Hard called attention to Exhibit 012, his letter dated July 15, 1985. It outlines the legal reasons why the Homeowners are asking the City Council to affirm the decision of the Planning Commission sitting as the Board of Architectural Review. That decision was to require this developer to go back and resubmit a design plan that met the requirements of the Tukwila Municipal Code. The applicant has submitted a revised site plan, but it does not address . the fundamental problems that the Planning Commission had with the plan. They continue to have a concern over 1) who is the applicant and 2) who is the record property owner. The deed to the property is to Windmark Homes, Inc. whereas, the applicant is Windmark Homes Tukwila, Inc. Their con- cerns are that Council has had inadequate materials for a proper review. The landscaping plans are not sufficiently detailed, there has been no analysis of the slope profile, and a more detailed environmental analysis should be made. The fundamental problem with this application is the question of adequate recreation space. The Code requires 200 square feet of recreation space per unit. Nothing shows how this applicant has calculated the recreation space. What they have done is say open space equals recreation space. There has been no analysis of the amount of open space on slopes over 4 to 1. This applicant has not complied with the Tukwila Municipal Code on its analysis of what is proper recreation space. It is up to the Council to make the deci- sion as to whether or not the application meets the intent of the code. This proposed application does not meet commit- ments that were made by the previous owner. He asked that the City Council affirm the decision of the Planning Commission at their meeting of April 25, 1985. If Council wishes to modify the application and approve it, he asked that the applicant be required to submit a new environmental checklist and that a new environment review be made. Council Member Morgan asked what happens if Council upholds the Board of Architectural Review decision. Mr. Collins said they could submit a new application or proceed their appeal through the Court System. 1 TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL, REGULAR MEETING July 15, 1985 Page 7 PUBLIC HEARING • Cont. Windmark Homes Appeal (cont.) Attorney Haney noted that TMC 18.90.020 provides that the City Council shall affirm, deny or modify the decision of the Planning Commission (BAR) within 90 days after the filing of the appeal. Prior to making a decision, the City Council may hold a Public Hearing. If Council wanted Staff to prepare additional information, the hearing could be continued and Staff directed to bring the information back. John Lane clarified the issue of height of the buildings. The buildings will be 168 feet above floor grade and 32 feet above that to the peak. We are going to stand on the 200 feet for the record. The condominium market is very com- petitive and you do not put out a bad product and expect it to sell. George Kresovich discussed the new information they had sub- mitted to Planning Staff and the Homeowners' Association for review. He commented that it was not new information just for this evening. If the developer intended to put as many units on the property as he could and then leave, he would not be reducing the number of units. The property was rezoned in 1981 to allow 77 units. The developer is trying to build a marketable product that people can afford to buy and will be in keeping with the neighborhood. Lawrence E. Hard stated that they do not think Council has enough information to make an intelligent decision. If Council does not affirm the decision of the Planning Commission, they do have the power to send it back to them and allow them to reconsider the application with the addi- tional information. If Council does not do this, they ask that the application be denied because it is not clear. There is no analysis of open space versus recreation space or how much of it is on slopes of 4 to 1. If Council should go ahead and permit this design plan as proposed, we think that the applicant should be required to submit a new environmen- tal check list. There is not enough adequate data here for anybody to make a decision. Lastly, nothing has been said about who the applicant is or who the owner of the property is. This should be of concern to Council. If the applicant says something is going to be done, what assurance do you have when we do no even know for sure who the applicant is or that is is the property owner. We have presented information that raises that question. We think this is another reason why the Council should affirm the action of the Planning Commission. Attorney Haney suggested that Council look over. the City of Tukwila Board of Architectural Review Design Review Evaluation Guide which lays out the criteria by which Council needs to decide whether or not this application should be approved or denied. If Council wishes to ask any additional questions, now is the time before you close the Public Hearing. Mayor Van Ousen asked if anyone had anything more they would like to put into the record. Council Member Phelps asked what the relationship to the street is as far as a shared use for ingress and egress for the development. Mr. Kresovich said that there is an ease- ment across the Windmark property to the Sunwood Homeowners' Association so they have a right to use the right -of -way and both properties have that right. MOVED BY BAUCH, SECONDED BY BOHRER, THAT THE PUBLIC HEARING BE CLOSED. MOTION CARRIED. TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL, REGULAR MEETING July 15, 1985 Page 8 PUBLIC HEARING • Coot. Windmark Homes Appeal (cont.) RECESS: 9 :30 P.M. 9:35 P.M. MOVED BY BAUCH, SECONDED BY PHELPS, THAT THE CITY COUNCIL REMAND THIS BACK TO THE BOARD OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW.* *COUNCIL PRESIDENT BAUCH WITHDREW HIS MOTION WITH APPROVAL OF THE SECOND. MOVED BY BAUCH, SECONDED BY MORGAN, THAT COUNCIL CONCUR WITH THE BOARD OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW AND. ADOPT. THEIR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS. MOTION CARRIED. MOVED BY MORGAN, SECONDED BY PHELPS, THAT COUNCIL RECESS FOR FIVE MINUTES. MOTION CARRIED. Mayor Van Dusen called the Regular Meeting of the Tukwila City Council back to order with Council Members present as previously reported. TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL REGU MEETING October 21, 1985 Page 5 WI *5%1' S EXECUTIVE SESSION MOVED BY PHELPS, SECONDED BY MORGAN, THAT COUNCIL GO INTO 9:30 - 9:55 P.M. EXECUTIVE SESSION. MOTION CARRIED. The Executive Session was called to discuss the Windmark Homes lawsuit. MOVED BY 80HRER, SECONDED BY DUFFIE, THAT COUNCIL GO OUT OF EXECUTIVE SESSION. MOTION CARRIED. Appeal of Windmark Homes MOVED BY BOHRER, SECONDED BY HARRIS, THAT COUNCIL RECONSIDER ITS ACTION OF JULY 15, 1985 DENYING THE APPEAL OF WINDMARK HOMES FROM A DECISION OF THE BOARD OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW ON WINDMARK'S DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL, CITY FILE.#DR- O1 -84. MOTION CARRIED. MOVED BY BOHRER, SECONDED BY PHELPS, THAT THE CITY COUNCIL REMAND THIS MATTER TO THE BOARD OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW WITH THE INSTRUCTIONS FOR THE BOARD AND STAFF TO REVIEW REVISED PLANS SUBMITTED TO THE CITY COUNCIL AT ITS JULY 15, 1985 PUBLIC HEARING ON THE APPLICATION, TO RECEIVE ADDITIONAL. PUBLIC HEARING TESTIMONY CONCERNING SUCH PLANS. AND TO FORWARD. THEIR RECOMMENDATION TO THE CITY COUNCIL. MOTION CARRIED. GLENN J. AMSTER PETER R. ANDERSON DAVID H. BJORNSON JOEL. N. BODANSKY H. RAYMOND CAIRNCROSS WENDY W. CAIRNCROSS LAURIE LOOTENS CHYZ MARK 5. CLARK SALLY H. CLARKE T. RYAN DURKAN GARY M. FALLON ROBERT B. FIKSO FRED S. FINKELSTEIN JOSEPH B. GENSTER RICHARD E. GIFFORD JEROME L. HILLIS LAW OFFICES OF HILLIS. CAIRNCROSS, CLARK & MARTIN A PROFESSIONAL SERVICE CORPORATION 403 COLUMBIA STREET SEATTLE. WASHINGTON 98104 (206) 623.1745 January 14, 1986 Mr. Jerry Knudsen, Chairman Board of Architectural Review City of Tukwila Tukwila City Hall 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, Washington 98188 Dear Chairman Knudsen and Board Members: RENE JAN le 1986 CITY OF TUKWILA PLANNING DEPT. Re: DR- 01 -84: Windmark Homes, Tukwila Inc. TIMOTHY H. HOSKING GREGORY E. KELLER GEORGE A. KRESOVICH SARAH E. MACK DEBORAH S. MALANE GEORGE W. MARTIN, JR. LOUIS D. PETERSON SHERYL K. PETERSON JAMES J. RAGEN STEVEN R. ROVIG MICHAEL. F. SCHUMACHER MICHAEL R. SCOTT RICHARD S. SWANSON RICHARD R. WILSON CHARLES B. WRIGHT On April 25, 1985, the Board of Architectural Review denied the application of Windmark Homes, Tukwila Inc. for Phase III of the Sunwood development. Planning Commission Findings and Conclusions, May 23, 1985. The City Council upheld this decision on July 15, 1985, but following an executive session on October 21 voted to remand this appli- cation to the Board with instructions to review the revised plans submitted to the Council, receive additional public testimony, and formulate a new recommendation. The Planning Commission staff has since revised their report, addressing the revised plans and their relation to the Board findings which lead to the original denial. At the hearing on January 23, 1986, we will demonstrate that the revised plans resolve the Board's initial concerns. The purpose of this letter is to briefly describe these changes to assist you in your review of our client's proposal. I. The Revised Plans Comply With the Zoning Code Recreation Space Requirements of TMC 18.52.060. In Conclusion No. 1, the Board stated that most of the proposed recreation space conflicted with the landscape plan and was not useable for recreation purposes, thereby violating TMC 18.52.060. In response, the revised plans now contain a jacuzzi, trails, gazebos, recreation building and deck, and children's play areas and apparatus. Also, open space recontouring and reconfiguring have created additional useable spaces. These changes have led staff to conclude that "[c]onformance with recreation space requirements of TMC 18.52.060 is apparent EXHIBIT 3 Board of Architectural Review January 14, 1986 Page 2 in the proposal." Planning Commission Staff Report, Novem- ber 21,1985, page 5. II. The BAR Criteria Regarding Streetscape Transition, Adequate Landscaping, and Pedestrian Movement Are Now Satisfied. In Conclusions No. 2 and 4, the Board stated that the landscape plan was incomplete and did not accommodate existing vistas, and that adequate pedestrian sidewalks and trails to link various parts of the proposal were not provided. The applicant hired landscape architect Steven Shea for the purpose of redesigning the landscape plan to resolve these concerns. The revised plan, described in the updated Planning Commission staff report, "interrupts the building masses, defines the perimeter of parking and access areas, and enhances the scenic vista, and view from and of the site." As Mr. Shea testified to the Council, this new plan provides better views while maintaining separation between the units. In addition, as mentioned above, a trail and walkway system has been added, connecting the recreation areas and gazebos and enabling pedestrian access throughout the site. These efforts have, as the Planning Staff agrees, satisfied the criteria cited above. III. The Revised Plans Minimize the Impact Upon the View From Sunwood Phase I. In Conclusions No. 3 and 5, the Board found that this proposal, with a proposed height of 202 feet, would block • the existing views of the southerly units of Sunwood Phase I, in violation of the review criteria established by TMC 18.60.050(1)(C) and (4)(B). These criteria require consideration of the height and scale of each building in relation to its . site, and further require that buildings should be of appropriate scale and in harmony with neighboring developments. Testifying at the Council hearing, Sunwood resident Dick Taylor expressed his concern with the maximum height of the proposed structures: Several of us bought our particular units because we did want the view. We understood at the time we bought there would be Phase III [and were] given an elevation maximum for Phase III which I was told . . was 203 feet max. Mr. John Lane Board of Architectural Review January 14, 1986 Page 3 just told us that his current design was 204 foot reduced to 200 foot maximum elevation. The proposal that was presented to the Planning Commission last May . . . was 216 feet. Now I don't • know where Mr. Lane came up with the 204 feet and I would invite him to tell us what his iron clad max elevation is at this time on the current proposal . . I think that all of us that bought at the 203 foot max are willing to accept that, because that was the presentation that we had under the original Phase III proposal . . . . Responding later in the hearing, project architect John Lane testified as follows: I was glad that in the gentlemen's [Dick Taylor] presentation he noted that the buildings were getting shorter in height and not larger, and I think this is indicative again of our attempt to try to listen to what the [Sunwood Phase I and II] Homeowners Association has to say and meet some of their requests. The finished floor grades in the lower levels of these top buildings up here are going to be 168, 168 and 164. We anticipate that the actual true height of the peak of our structures will be 32 feet above these finished floors which puts it at 200 feet, and we stand on that right now as part of the record. (emphasis added). Thus, the height of the proposed buildings will be lower than the height 'which was represented to the purchasers in the earlier phases of Sunwood and will minimize the view blockage impact on the southerly units of Sunwood Phase 1. In summary, this applicant has sincerely and diligently attempted to resolve the Board's expressed concerns. The Planning Staff has reviewed these efforts and judged them to be a success, recommending approval of the proposal, subject to a few minor conditions. We look forward to presenting evidence to you which substantiates that recommendation, and Board of Architectural Review January 14, 1986 Page 4 we request that you forward a positive recommendation to the City Council on this proposal. DEM01 -F cc: John Snider John Lane Lawrence Hard Very truly yours, HILLIS, CAIRNCROSS, CLARK & MARTIN, P.S. Ge rge 1A. resovich 3 6 c l-it Vac-AZ-%M Vac-AZ QL PEA all- CiZLP1110 : 13 scp. tT 'Z 5% 1, / 90 SID. plc. 1 44. 4 4.2 6 2 . 2 4 5,355 e (stsp 445ul ausis fbm° ze.• fa sit • A N N I. • /4 • PePUCTIOLN ; I C6 or 14510 s4. c . I, 05 s4. �[ . Z, 14 a 3, 3 OQ " uCA01 2 1 ( . 1 Q 6 yp. !r. 15O 3, c3Q(. 4475 4,4QQ 18, 02.5 1c )(go, wAsh c.hI..C.sJ L. 1 ak : zoo s4► R• N& C (. uatt5 = t3, zoo sca. PT. 1 " " • M • • ff 1ler Pl 4•l SS.Pr Luc 3,3QC) sozl••1='r. (*WINwM City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila Washington 98188 (208) 433 -1800 Gary L. VanDusen, Mayor MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Commission FROM: Planning Department DATE: January 31, 1986 SUBJECT: Windmark Homes DR- O1 -84: Recreation Space Requirement Attached is the updated and more detailed analysis of the recreation space contained in this proposal. The plans were reviewed do novo with the Parks and Recreation Director relative to Section 18.52.060, TMC (Recreation Space Requirements). Our finding is that sufficient recreation is provided, most of which is within the minimum slope criteria of the TMC. A total of 12,148 square feet of recreation area is required and at least 13,160 square feet is provided, including 10,736 square feet of a slope of 4:1 or less. Otherwise the calculations and recreation facilities mentioned in the previous staff report are unchanged. recreation space calculations City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila Washington 98188 1206) 433 -1800 Gary L. VanDusen, Mayor TO: Planning Commission FROM: Planning Department DATE: January 31, 1986 SUBJECT: Windmark Homes DR -01 -84 MEMORANDUM N . The following plan details were copied full size from the applicant's landscaping plan (Exhibit 2 -B) which is also attached in . reduced form as a "Map Key" to assist in locating the full size plan details. The full -size plan details are at a scale of 1 inch = 20 feet and include topography at two foot contour intervals. The shaded areas are the recreation spaces of a slope less, than 4:1 (25 %), and the unshaded, circled areas containing an area calculation are of a slope exceeding 4:1. This legend is indicated on the first plan for reference. Individual area calculations were performed on the full scale map with a compensating polar planimeter based upon the average of three separate readings. takEMBI TUN 1 0 19851 CITY OF TUKWILA • PLANNING DEPT. 1. • X NoTE* 1• 4 Intftw. • ormumec Cla:705. ---— ;"• ;NW P11174 a•4g Roman> - FLNIM arAINAt. 40 tfCtIntl# 1..4.-trzn IrtE aD 34 L.16U4112-.-I JA.PCI.V." • ute S •, 1 1.-5;ZeiZ72.e*, t7t-felc.CULJFECO.: 51 134 OJS gpr4.42A5LK. ojO LL. c:7D 'D 4. it • 0 411. rz, ICYCCOGCLORcu f...VeCkeeeNI 0 19 mUKI. - 14t11;11.CYLvell4 # ICXSZ)0( len:Faler ry 147.1.424177C, 130.35 1Z4.71•TR-Vr4.5. t'AVARte"1",. Re911.4." lift1 t=3 OWEN" t4a.ts.. n.", F7-77 eMll-r.-(0412 VI.CTLOaR32 err) • .r■cadeciamg—...-.7....-4-47-. " • - •• 40 . 4"- r i T / C&GPC , 21‘1 • f n., 1 AGM o P.W 11 S9 P47 P 11-14:4. Seact.wy 13 V1C4.703411 72.4•1011 N i yagvpi r tMajLtak r &mI" mob mar I1W 111.. *a. my ma. ow.. Sr WA:Ws WA 'WOW. W rm.. • tif."17p2 4C0)./2^111.477 CJELFAC7? gar. ?Kr. ri ft.,1 4u0rfrce em..zeta wrni 54444/31- fre419.1 5 2 Ces. I. asp.. now Irmo, say. Amman. Pa .1 7 • C li it itwo 4. ,;.si t;�. � c�il!'i.1.1i. � t �Ct� � 'w'.� ��'. li i t U : 'l,W;,' jrlltj` ;1 ►.[.�; 1�.� 1i���ji di��iti.il p N ...i��` i " 1 -�- . . P.-101 tetefrlpe- 5c-Nt.*. a7.0 0" C.FULLf SVUL) , pc • • ,•.-r Sil•IV1/41601.) 1 'L P. 1 ft4ft( AMA a w omon.• 1 vas • • ►•. • —re"- ' - -' 'amyl doomsin b • y 10t ► +01' .p ' 1- .••-.; +f 1!?7 •, -fry t 'tsj( ` , /+f's 1)1:1 11t: t 1 ;N1t'i�71 IF s'; ' • • •% •:try z , , •,i1:4•:. .• 1 l 1 11:1 � • i, :�• '' M• Irr, 1 r • 1f \ • f t A • • ' ; • . ..• " c1 o cplo7=4) awas 'dhld dcs4 /*NM • 4 -T- 1 ;;.1. 1,1.;- 1 • . -. - r -. • %., : : t ' • '. ....". I . I I . , ..... .., ' --‘.. ' • • • or ' " • . I , ....-„._,.,, 4 !,.,..11-:i,. ! • 1 . i • 0 .. i';,i '''T !if'. t ' V 1 , 1 ; !. I i • .; ••■••'- „ ;.,;,i;;, I : i • , , ;.. ; r 1,141, pi 7 ;;,,! 1 : 31 Nli ' : '01 Iv .r • • ,,, 0 • ,-; • . :,•. ii• I: '..r I i:11tItt‘IP GLENN J. AMSTER JOEL N. BODANSKY H. RAYMOND CAIRNCROSS WENDY W. CAIRNCROSS LAURIE LOOTENS CHYZ MARK S. CLARK SALLY H. CLARKE T. RYAN DURKAN GARY M. FALLON ROBERT B. FIKSO FRED S. FINKELSTEIN JOSEPH B. GENSTER RICHARD E. GIFFORD JEROME L. HILLIS TIMOTHY H. HOSKING Lawrence E. Hard, Escr., Charles Wolfe, Esq. LeSourd & Patten 2400 Columbia Center 701 Fifth Avenue Seattle, Washington 98104 -7005 Re: Windmark Homes Application For BAR Approval; DR-- 01--04 Dear Messrs. Hard and Wolfe: LAW OFFICES OF HILLIS, CAIRNCROSS, CLARK & MARTIN A PROFESSIONAL SERVICE CORPORATION 403 COLUMBIA STREET SEATTLE. WASHINGTON 98104 1206) 623.1745 February 3, 1956 This letter addresses the issues raised by the Board of Architectural Review at its meeting on January 23, 1986, as well as :.he iesu es that I discussed in my telephone confer- ence with Mr. Wolfe on January 31, 1986. We are enclosing a copy of a proposed road maintenance agreement for your review. Our records i that a draft of that agreement was forwarded to Mr. Hard on April 17, 1985. After you have h a d a chance t o review that proposed agreement we would be happy to discuss your comments and concerns to arrive at a mutually agreeable way to provide for the future maintenance of Sunwood Boulevard As we have informed you in the past, our client is willing to agree that the portion of Sunwood Boulevard that crosses the Windmark property will be restored to its existing condition following construction of the proposed project. We would suggest that representatives of the Sunwood Homeowners Association meet with Mr, Snider of Windmark Homes and with a civil engineer chosen by agreement between the parties to inspect the existing' road and to determine its present condition. After construction of the Windmark project is completed, Windmark will make whatever repairs are necessary to return the road to a condition as good as its present condition. If there are any disputes over what has to be done or whether any repairs have been satisfactorily completed, those disputes will be resolved by the civil engineer hired by the perties. In our conversation on January 31, Mr. Wolfe asked me to provide some type of binding promise that this project GREGORY E. KELLER GEORGE A. KRESOVICH SARAH E. MACK DEBORAH S. MALANE GEORGE W. MARTIN. JR. LOUIS D. PETERSON SHERYL K. PETERSON JAMES J. RAGEN STEVEN R. ROVIG MICHAEL F. SCHUMACHER MICHAEL R. SCOTT RICHARD S. SWANSON RICHARD R. WILSON CHARLES B. WRIGHT EXHIBIT . 8 February 3, 198. Page 2 will be built and sold as a condominium project. Windmark has consistently maintained that it is planning to build condominiums on this site and has authorized me to inform you that they will be filing a declaration of condominium for the project. I am enclosing a copy of our letter to you of April 16, 1985, in which we informed you of the nature of the project and the projected sales prices of the units. We would note, however, that there is simply no way that we can guarantee that the units in this project will be owner - occupied. We cannot bind any successor in interest to such a condition nor can we guarantee that the market will absorb the proposed condominium units in the short term. Of course, Windmark Homes expects that the market will absorb such units or it would not proceed with the project.. We want to be very clear that we are informing you Of what Windmark Homes intends, in good faith, to do at this time based upon present circumstances. However, Windmark Homes cannot and is not willing to be bound to fulfill its plans if circumstances change. Windmark Homes will agree to consult with the Sunwood Homeowners Association as to the design and location of signs that would identify both Windmark's project as well as the Sunwood project. Those signs would be installed at Windmark's expense. Finally, Windmark is willing to adopt a condominium declaration that would be substantially the same as those presently governing the Sunwood project. As we have told you in the past, it may be necessary to make changes to satisfy the requirements of financial institutions and governmental agencies. However, we would expect that the use restrictions that appear to be of greatest concern to your clients would be essentially identical. We hope that this letter has satisfactorily addressed most, if not all, of your client's concerns. Please give me a call after you have had a chance to review this letter so that we can discuss any questions your clients may have. GAR /lc Enclosure cc: Mr. John Snider Mr. Jerry Knudsen, Chairman Board of Architectural Review Very truly yours, George A. Kresovich GLENN J.AMSTER PETER R. ANDERSON DAVID H. BJORNSON JOEL N. BODANSKY H. RAYMOND CAIRNCROSS WENDY W. CAIRNCROSS LAURIE LOOTENS CHYZ MARK S. CLARK SALLY H. CLARKE T. RYAN DURKAN GARY M. FALLON ROBERT B. FIKSO FRED S. FINKELSTEIN JOSEPH B. GENSTER RICHARD E. GIFFORD JEROME L. HILLIS Gentlemen: LAW OFFICES OF HILLIS, CAIRNCROSS, CLARK & MARTIN A PROFESSIONAL SERVICE CORPORATION 403 COLUMBIA STREET SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 00104 (206) 623.1743 February 5, 1986 HAND DELIVERED Lawrence E. Hard, Esq. Charles R. Wolfe, Esq. LeSourd & Patten 2400 Columbia Center 701 Fifth Avenue Seattle, Washington 98104 -7005 CO Re: Windmark Homes BAR Application; DR -01 -84 TIMOTHY H. HOSKING GREGORY E. KELLER GEORGE A. KRESOVICH SARAH E. MACK DEBORAH S. MALANE GEORGE W. MARTIN. JR. DAVID E. MOSER LOUIS D. PETERSON SHERYL K. PETERSON JAMES J. RAGEN STEVEN R. ROVIG MICHAEL F. SCHUMACHER MICHAEL R. SCOTT RICHARD S. SWANSON RICHARD R. WILSON CHARLES B. WRIGHT I am writing in response to your letter of February 5, 1986, which I feel creates a mistaken impression on a critical issue. I also wish to make our client's position on the issue of the improvement of Sunwood Boulevard (as opposed to its maintenance) clear. In your letter you state that Windmark Homes has continued its "refusal to bind a condominium association to such an agreement" in reference to the proposed maintenance agreement for Sunwood Boulevard. If you will examine that proposed agreement, you will see that it is in a form suitable for execution and recording as a covenant running with the land and that the agreement provides that successors in interest will be bound by the agreement. - Please be very clear about the distinction we have made in our discussions with you. Windmark Homes is perfectly willing to execute an appropriate road maintenance agreement and to record that agreement as a covenant running with the land that would be binding upon its successors in interest. However, Windmark Homes cannot enter into an agreement that would require a condominium association that does not even exist at this time to enter into such an agreement at some time in the future. OB YE OW E FEB 6 1986 CITY OF TUKWILA PLANNING DEPT In reference to your other comments concerning the proposed road maintenance agreement, we would not that your - letter of February 5, 1986, was the first comment that we EXHIBIT 9 February 5, 1 ^6 Page 2 GAK /ic Enclosure cc: John Snider Jerry Knudsen" have received from you concerning that agreement which was forwarded to you in April of 1985. Windmark Homes will be happy to work with the homeowners association to resolve questions of definition and to make appropriate provisions for snow removal. Windmark Homes is unwilling to restore Sunwood Boulevard -- a private road which has been used by the residents of Sunwood for over five years -- to its original condition. We feel that the wear and tear that has occurred on that road during the time that it has been used by the residents of Sunwood cannot be made the responsibility of Windmark Homes. Further, while Windmark Homes will be pleased to discuss with the homeowners association the possibility of dedicating Sunwood Boulevard, Windmark Homes is not willing to construct Sunwood Boulevard to public road standards at its sole expense. If the Sunwood Condominium Homeowners Association has a proposal to make concerning the eventual dedication of Sunwood Boulevard that would prove to be to the benefit of both parties, Windmark Homes would be more than willing to consider such a proposal. I hope that this letter clarifies any potential mis- understandings as to our client's position. I will be happy to discuss with you the terms and provisions of a proposed agreement. Very truly yours, George A. Kresovich F.A. LESOURD GEORGE M. HARTUNL. MEADE EMORY LEON C. MISTEREK JOHN F. COLGROVE C. DEAN LITTLE LAWRENCE E. HARD RODNEY J. WALDBA (N D. WILLIAM TOONE DANIEL D. WOO CARL J. CARLSON FEB 6 1986 CITY OF TUKWILA PLANNING DEPT. LESOURD & PATTEN ATTORNEYS AT LAW 2400 COLUMBIA CENTER 701 FIFTH AVENUE ATTLE. WASHINGTON 98104.7005 TELEPHONE: 12061 624.1040 TELECOPIER: 1206) 624.3087 TELEX /TWX: 910 444.4180 CABLE ADDRESS: LESOURD LAW February 5, 1986 George A. Kresovich, Esq. Hillis, Cairncross, Clark & Martin 403 Columbia Street Seattle, WA 98104 HAND - DELIVERED RE: Windmark Homes BAR Application; DR -01 -84 Dear George: P. WARREN MAROUARDSON MARIANNE SCHWARTZ O'BARA ROBERT M. KANE. JR. JEFFREY C. WISHKO JUDD R. MARTEN VICTORIA JENSEN BJORKMAN CHARLES R. WOLFE PITMAN B. POTTER WOOLVIN PATTEN ROBERT L. PALMER OF COUNSEL 11,745.1 Thank you for your letter of February 3, 1986. We have discussed the contents thereof with a representative of the Sunwood Homeowners Association, and offer the following comments in response. As you are well aware, our client is particularly concerned that your client's project be built and sold as a condominium. In this spirit, our client has repeatedly attempted to arrive at a mutually satisfactory road maintenance agreement with a condominium association, rather than the developer of the proposed project. Your client's continued refusal to bind a condominium association to such an agreement places in doubt your claim that Windmark plans "to build condominiums on this site ". As we have repeated throughout the negotiation process, our client desires a good road, not a road restored to the current inferior condition. It is our understanding that either the road was poorly built or it was damaged by the construction activities of Pacific Townhouse Builders -- Tukwila during the construction of the Sunwood Phase II development. Our client takes the position that Windmark Homes, Tukwila, Inc. was aware of our client's ongoing concern about the road at the time Windmark acquired its interest in the property. Therefore, our client is willing to agree to a joint maintenance agreement as long as Windmark agrees to restore that portion of Sunwood Boulevard that crosses the Windmark property to a satisfactory condition substantially similar to the . condition prior to the construction of Sunwood Phase II. Given this concern, our client would agree to inspection by a mutually chosen civil engineer. As we have suggested, we feel that Harvey Dodd & Associates would be a suitable candidate. EXHIBIT 10 C . George A. Kresovich, Esq. February 5, 1986 Page 2 In addition, we have again reviewed your proposed "Road Maintenance Agreement" and provide the following comments. First, your suggestion of dispute resolution by the Public Works Director of the City of Tukwila recognizes the importance of public involvement in the new road. Our.client continues to feel that eventual public dedication would be appropriate, and suggests that City of Tukwila road standards would provide a suitable benchmark against which the maintenance agreement could be measured. It would be for the mutual advantage of both of our clients to have Sunwood Boulevard become a dedicated public right -of -way. Second, our client notes that the agreement makes no mention of the snow removal provisions. Snow removal is a major consideration given the length and slope of Sunwood Boulevard, and should be addressed in any maintenance agreement signed by the parties. Third, the agreement insufficiently defines "Sunwood Boulevard" and "utilities ". It would be to the advantage of both parties to firmly define both terms. Finally, we acknowledge and appreciate your client's agreement to consult with our client as to the design and location of signs. We hope that this letter sufficiently communicates our client's continuing concerns. We intend to discuss with you the contents of both letters prior to the hearing on Thursday, February 6th in the hope that we can present the BAR with a proposed agreement. LEH /jsc 8179B3 Very truly yours, SOURD & PATTEN 1 4411L-- Lawrence E. Har Charles R. cc: Sunwood Condominium Homeowners Association cc: pBoai d of Architectural Review 1( 1/14.0,0_, Wolfe ILA City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila Washington 98188 433-1800 Gary L VanDusen, Mayor TUKWILA PLANNING COMMISSION Minutes of the December 12, 1985, meeting. Chairman Knudson called the meeting to order at 8:00 p.m. Other Commissioners present were Mr. Sowinski, Mr. Larson, Mr. Kirsop, Mr..Orrico and Mr. Mckenna. Rick Beeler, Vernon Umetsu, Moira Bradshaw, and Becky Kent represented the Planning Department. Jim Haney, City Attorney, was also present. Mr. Beeler reviewed the changes in the agenda. He indicated a discrepancy had been found in the agenda and public notice for application DR- 01 -84, and recommended continuance to January 2 or 16, 1986, to insure proper notice is given. Chairman Knudson suggested the regular meeting date of January 23, 1986. George Kresovich, attorney representing the applicant, had no objection to the January 23, 1986, meeting date. Larry Hard, attorney representing Sunwood Homeowners Association, had no objection to the January 23, 1986, meeting date. BOARD OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW A. DR- O1 -84: Windmark Homes, requesting approval of plans for 66 multiple family units on a 3.85 acre site located on the west side of 62nd Avenue South, just south of Sunwood Boulevard. MR. ORRICO MOVED THAT THIS ITEM BE CONSIDERED AT THE REGULAR JANUARY MEETING TO BE HELD ON JANUARY 23, 1986. MR. KIRSOP SECONDED THE MOTION. Mr. Hard requested to submit a letter to the Board. Mr. Beeler entered the December 12, 1985, letter from Mr. Hard into the record as Exhibit #1. MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. APPROVAL OF MINUTES EXHIBIT 13 Tukwila Planning Commi on Meeting Minutes December 12, 1985 Page 2 MR. LARSON MOVED TO ACCEPT THE OCTOBER 24, 1985, MINUTES. MR. MCKENNA SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. PUBLIC HEARING B. 85 -42 -R: City of Tukwila, requesting rezone of properties from the King County classification of S -R (Suburban Residential) to City of Tukwila zoning classification of M -1 (Light Industrial), located at South 134th Place and 42nd Avenue South. Chairman Knudson opened the public hearing. Chairman Knudson said he owned property directly across from the site, and stepped down from the Commission on this item. Vice Chairman Kirsop assumed the chairmanship Ms. Bradshaw summarized the staff report. Robert E. Storseth, applicant, spoke in favor of the rezone. Joanne Poirier, 13454 42nd Avenue South, Seattle, WA, was concerned with noise, and screening and buffering of the site from the adjacent residen- tial area. She was also concerned about the particular type of development to occur on the site. Chairman Kirsop closed the public hearing. MR. ORRICO MOVED THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF APPLICATION 85 -42 -R SUBJECT TO THE FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS CONTAINED IN THE STAFF REPORT, WITH AN ADDITIONAL FINDING THAT THE SINGLE FAMILY HOMES COULD BE IMPACTED BY ANY DEVELOPMENT OF THE SUBJECT SITE AND WITH A NEW CONCLUSION #6 WHICH STATES THAT DUE TO THE ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE NATURE OF THE PROPERTY IN RELATION TO THE AREA, DEVELOPMENT OF THE PARCEL WILL BE SUBJECT TO BOARD OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW. MR. LARSON SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. Mr. Beeler noted for the record that Mr. Knudson had left the room during the Planning Commission's review and decision of this application. Mr. Knudson resumed his position Chairman. BOARD OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW MR. KIRSOP MOVED TO CONTINUE THE RIVERO APPLICATION TO THE DECEMBER 19, 1985, MEETING. MR. ORRICO SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. B. 85- 34 -SMP: Tukwila II, requesting approval of four one -story retail /warehouse buildings located on the east side of West Valley Highway, just south of Strander Boulevard intersection. City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila Washington 98188 (206) 433 -1800 Gary L. Vanousen, Mayor I1 TUKWILA PLANNING COMMISSION Minutes of the January 23, 1986, Planning Commission meeting. Chairman Knudson called the meeting to order at 8:05 p.m. Other Commissioners present were Mr. Sowinski, Mr. Larson, and Mr. Kirsop. Representing staff were Rick Beeler, Moira Bradshaw, and Becky Kent, Planning Department. APPROVAL OF MINUTES MR. KIRSOP MOVED TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE DECEMBER 19, 1985, PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AS CORRECTED, AND THE DECEMBER 12, 1985 MEETING. MR. SOWINSKI SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. , BOARD OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW A. DR- O1 -84: Windmark Homes, requesting approval of plans for 66 multiple family units on a 3.85 acre site on the northerly and southerly sides of Sunwood Boulevard west of 62nd Avenue South and south of the existing Sunwood development. Mr. Beeler summarized the staff report with the following corrections: Under Finding 6 it was clarified that the landscaping calculations were revised from 14,350 square feet to 12,000 square feet of recreation space provided, which is 49 square feet less than required. I Planning Commission Meeting Minutes January 23, 1986 meeting Page 4 The addition of Preliminary Recommendations: 5) Submittal of exterior illumination plans for review approval of the Planning Department. 6) Provide an additional 49 square feet of recreation space. Mr. Beeler entered the following exhibits into the record: 1. Letter of December 12, 1985, to the Planning Lawrence E. Hard and Charles R. Wolfe. 2. Staff report submitted at the December 12, Commission meeting, with Exhibits A through J. 3. Letter of January 14, 1986, to the Board of Architectural Review from George Kresovich. 4. File of record. 5. Topographical analysis map. 6. Analysis of recreation space areas. George Kresovich, of Hillis, Cairncross, Clark and Martin, 403 Columbia Street, Seattle, WA 98104, represented the applicant. He summarized the history of the application and reviewed his letter of January 14, 1986, summarizing his revisions to the project. John Lane, Architect and Planner, 115 West Denny Way, Seattle, WA, described the project and reviewed the changes made from previous plans, including compatibility with other structures, carports and trash enclo- sures, lighting, recreational facilities, recreation areas, and the height of the buildings. Steven Shea, Landscape Architect, 2021 Minor East, Seattle, WA 98102, reviewed the landscape plan, the types of trees and vegetation provided, and the proposed pathway. and Commission from 1985, Planning Mr. Beeler clarified that the color rendering provided was the same as Exhibit 2B in the staff report. Mr. Kresovich repeated a comment made by Dick Taylor before the City Council on July 16, 1985 regarding the building height. He felt the building height would comply with what Mr. Taylor had been informed. He requested that the Board review the project in light of their efforts to comply with the Zoning Code requirements. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes January 23, 1986 meeting Page 5 Larry Hard, with Lesourd & Patten, 2400 Columbia Center, 701 Fifth Avenue, Seattle, WA 98104, represented Sunwood Homeowners Association. He felt the application has not met the criteria. Ryan Thrower, Sunwood Homeowners Association President, 15232 Sunwood Boulevard, Tukwia, WA, was concerend with the commitment to building con- dominiums, devaluation of their homes, maintenance and operation of a pri- vate road, and renters rather than owners. He requested the Board uphold their past decision. Ben Anderson, Sunwood resident, 15353 Sunwood Boulevard, Tukwila, WA, was concerned with aesthetics, the quality of life, transient type of resi- dents, and blockage of views. Keith Corner, Sunwood resident, 15209 Sunwood Boulevard, Tukwila, WA 98188, was concerned with aesthetics -the quality of life, transient type of residents and blockage of views. Joan Hernandez, Sunwood resident, 15224 Sunwood Boulevard, Tukwia, WA, felt uncomfortable with the testimony given at the July 16, 1985, City Council hearing. She was concerned with the removal of the property from the Sunwood Plat, unauthorized use of the recreational facilities and impact upon the Police Department. Mr. Hard summarized the legal questions in his letter of December 12, 1985. He felt the applicant's changes were not truly significant. He was con- cerned with the recreation area calculations, adequacy of the plans, spots of usable areas, and adequacy of the Environmental Checklist. Louise Corner, Sunwood resident, 15209 Sunwood Boulevard, Tukwila, WA 98188, was concerned with view blockage. Mr. Hard requested that the Board recommend to the responsible official that a new environmental checklist be provided. Mr. Kresovich maintained the intention of the project to be condominiums. The Board discussed road maintenance of Sunwood Boulevard and what would be necessary to bring it up to City standards. Mr. Beeler said he felt comfortable with the plans relative to the criteria in the Zoning Code, that the type of construction normally isn't specified, and conceptual plans early on had placed buildings in almost the same loca- tion as projected during the previous rezone of the property. He said the Responsible Official hadn't seen anything in the revised plans to substan- tiate reopening the environmental review. Mr. Haney clarified that the record of property ownership was not an issue for the Board's decision. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes January 23, 1986 meeting Page 6 Mr. Kirsop suggested that the meeting be continued to give staff time to doublecheck the recreation space calculations with the architect, and to let the proponents and Sunwood Homeowners Association get together to come to a preliminary agreement on the homeowners association issue. MR. KIRSOP MOVED TO CONTINUE THE APPLICATION TO THE FEBRUARY 6, 1986, MEETING. MR. SOWINSKI SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. ADJOURNMENT The Commission adjourned at 12:45 a.m. TUKWILA PLANNING COMMISSION edht Moira Carr Bradshaw Secretary (MNTSPC23,1) (5A.3) .- S City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila Washington 98188 (206) 433-1800 Gary L. VanDusen, Mayor TUKWILA PLANNING COMMISSION Minutes of the February 6, 1986, Planning Commission meeting. Chairman Knudson called the meeting to order at 8:05 p.m. Other Commissioners present were Mr. Coplen, Mr. Sowinski, Mr. McKenna, Mr. Kirsop and Mr. Larson. Mr. Orrico was not present. Representing staff were Rick Beeler, Moira Bradshaw, and Becky Kent, Planning Department. Jim Haney, City Attorney, was also present. PUBLIC HEARING MEETING A. DR- O1 -84: Windmark Homes, requested approval of plans for 66 multiple - family units on a 3.85 acre site on the northerly and southerly sides of Sunwood Boulevard west of 62nd Avenue South and south of the existing Sunwood development. Mr. ,Coplen declared that he would not participate because he was not pre- sent at the previous meeting. Mr. McKenna declared that he was not present at the previous meeting, but had listened to the tapes. Being no objection from the audience, Mr. McKenna remained on the Board. Mr. Beeler summarized the staff report and entered the following additional exhibits into record: #7 January 31, 1986, memo from the Planning Department #8 February 3, 1986, letter from George A. Kresovich to Lawrence E. Hard #9 February 5, 1986, letter from George A. Kresovich to Lawrence E. Hard #10 February 5, 1986, letter from Lawrence E. Hard to George A. Kresovich #11 Recreation space analysis map submitted at the February 6, 1986, meeting Mr. Beeler clarified that the maintenance of Sunwood Boulevard was not an issue contained in the Board of Architectural Review's criteria. EXHIBIT 15 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes February 6, 1986 Page 2 George Kresovich, Hillis, Cairncross, et al, 403 Columbia Street, Seattle, Washington, 98104, explained that a proposed road maintenance agreement had been forwarded to the Sunwood Homeowners, containing a procedure for repairing the road after construction. Chuck Wolfe, Lesourd & Patten, 2400 Columbia Center, 701 Fifth Avenue, Seattle, WA 98104 -7005, was concerned with the ambiguity between open space and recreation space. He requested that a joint maintenance agreement of Sunwood Boulevard be a condition since he felt the issue was in the Board's perview. Sunwood Homeowners are interested in turning the road over to the City. Louise Corner, 15209 Sunwood Boulevard, B -34, Tukwila, WA, presented a pic- ture (Exhibit 12) depicting the Sunwood project and surrounding area when they purchased. Richard Taylor, 15278 Sunwood Boulevard, Tukwila, WA, questioned the ade- quacy of Sunwood Boulevard and the deterioration during construction. He requested that guaranteed access be provided during construction. Mr. Beeler clarified that the issue of Sunwood Boulevard is in the perview of the building permit process. Mr. Kresovich explained his proposal to restore Sunwood Boulevard to its existing condition after construction. Mr. Beeler clarified the definitions of recreation space and open space. The Board discussed view blockage, external lighting, road maintenance, recreation space, and the design of the project. MR. KIRSOP MOVED APPROVAL OF THE SITE PLAN AND LANDSCAPING CONCEPT FOR WINDMARK HOMES BASED ON THE TESTIMONY RECEIVED AND THE FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS OF THE STAFF REPORT, SUBJECT TO: 1. PUBLIC WORKS AND FIRE DEPARTMENT'S REVIEW AND FINAL APPROVAL OF THE MEDIAN STRIP IN SUNWOOD BOULEVARD RELATIVE TO PUBLIC SAFETY AND ACCESS. 2. SUBMITTAL OF SOILS AND ENGINEERING REPORTS ON ROCKERIES OVER 5 FEET IN HEIGHT FOR FINAL REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF THE PUBLIC WORKS AND BUILDING DEPARTMENTS 3. LOW PROFILE SHRUBS AND PLANT MATERIALS SHOULD BE LOCATED ALONG THE NORTH PROPERTY LINE TO SCREEN THE PROPOSED CARPORTS WHILE PRESERVING EXISTING VIEWS FROM SUNWOOD PHASE I PER REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT. 4. INSTALLATION OF WHEEL STOPS TO PROTECT ON- GRADE LANDSCAPING. 5. MAINTENANCE OF SUNWOOD BOULEVARD IN AN ACCESSIBLE CONDITION FOR OPERATION OF PASSENGER CARS DURING THE CONSTRUCTION PERIOD. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes February 6, 1986 Page 3 6. REPAIR SUNWOOD BOULEVARD TO AT LEAST THE PRESENT CONDITION FOLLOWING CONSTRUCTION. 7. TO FACILITATE A UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT BY THE JOINT EFFORTS OF THE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION FOR THE CONSTRUCTION PERIOD. 8. LIGHTING SYSTEM SHALL BE COMPATIBLE WITH THE EXISTING COMPLEX AND NOT CREATE GLARE FOR EITHER EXISTING OR NEW DEVELOPMENT. Motion died for lack of second. MR. LARSON MOVED TO RECOMMEND TO THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF THE PROJECT, ACCEPTING THE STAFF'S FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS, WITH THE FOLLOWING RECOMMENDATIONS: 1. PUBLIC WORKS AND FIRE DEPARTMENT'S REVIEW AND FINAL APPROVAL OF THE MEDIAN STRIP IN SUNWOOD BOULEVARD RELATIVE TO PUBLIC SAFETY AND ACCESS. 2. SUBMITTAL OF SOILS AND ENGINEERING REPORTS ON ROCKERIES OVER 5 FEET IN HEIGHT FOR FINAL REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF THE PUBLIC WORKS AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT. 3. LOW PROFILE SHRUBS AND PLANT MATERIALS SHOULD BE LOCATED ALONG THE NORTH PROPERTY LINE TO SCREEN THE PROPOSED CARPORTS WHILE PRESERVING EXISTING VIEWS FROM SUNWOOD PHASE I PER REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT. 4. INSTALLATION OF WHEEL STOPS TO PROTECT ON -GRADE LANDSCAPING. 5. SUBMITTAL OF EXTERIOR ILLUMINATION PLANS FOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT. 6. CONTRACTOR BE REQUIRED TO MAINTAIN STREET FOR ACCESS TO PHASES I AND II OF THE SUNWOOD DEVELOPMENT AND TO RESTORE THE STREET AT THE END OF CONSTRUCTION TO ITS EXISTING STATE. Mr. Sowinski seconded the motion. MR. SOWINSKI MOVED TO AMEND THE MOTION TO UPDATE THE STAFF'S FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS. His motion died for lack of second. MAIN MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. Mr. Orrico arrived at the meeting. B. 85- 62 -SPE: DOMINO'S PIZZA, requesting approval of a cooperative parking agreement at 15439 53rd Ave. South. F.A. LESOURD GEORGE M.HARTUNG MEADE EMORY LEON C. MISTEREK JOHN F. COLGROVE C. DEAN LITTLE LAWRENCE E, HARD RODNEY J. WALDBAUM D. WILLIAM TOONE DANIEL 0. WOO CARL J. CARLSON Ms. Maxine Anderson City Clerk City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, WA 98188 Dear Ms. Anderson: LESOURD & PATTEN ATTORNEYS AT LAW 2400 COLUMBIA CENTER 701 FIFTH AVENUE SEATTLE. WASHINGTON 98104.7005 TELEPHONE: (206) 624.1040 TELECOPIER: (206) 624.3087 TELEX /TWX: 910 444.4180 CABLE ADDRESS: LESOURD LAW February 13, 198 t. 12[3[EMO � FEB 14 1986 CITY OF TUKWILA PLANNING DEPT. P. WARREN MAROUARDSON MARIANNE SCHWARTZ OBARA ROBERT M. KANE. JR. JEFFREY C. WISHKO JUDD R. MARTEN VICTORIA JENSEN BJORKMAN CHARLES R. WOLFE PITMAN B. POTTER WOOLVIN PATTEN ROBERT L. PALMER OF COUNSEL RE: Appeal of Board of Architectural Review Decision of February 6, 1986 -- File No. DR -01 -84 745.1 We are writing on behalf of our client, the Sunwood Condominium Homeowners Association, in order to appeal the decision by the Tukwila Board of Architectural Review (BAR) approving the application of Windmark Homes, Tukwila, Inc. for the proposed project commonly known as Sunwood Phase III. The BAR decision was made at a public hearing held on February 6, 1986. We are directing this appeal to you pursuant to the requirements of § 18.90.020 of the Tukwila Municipal Code. Our client has chosen to appeal the BAR decision because the project as proposed does not comply with the criteria for approval within § 18.60.050 of the Tukwila Municipal Code. Specifically, the proposal does not satisfy § 18.60.050(1)(A) due to lack of adequate recreation space and provision of an inadequate landscape plan. This matter has a complex history which bears upon our client's appeal. At the April 25, 1985 BAR Hearing, the Board denied the application of Windmark Homes, Tukwila, Inc. The BAR denial was partially premised upon the lack of adequate recreation space and provision of an inadequate landscape plan. On July 15, 1985, the City Council upheld the decision of the BAR. On July 25, 1985, Windmark Homes, Tukwila, Inc. filed suit, and appealed the City Council decision to King County Superior Court. On October 21, 1985, the City Council voted to reconsider its July 25th decision, and then voted to remand this matter to the BAR. The City Council indicated that the BAR should consider a revised site plan that was submitted by Windmark Homes, Tukwila, Inc. after the April 25, 1985 BAR decision. On November 5th, Windmark Homes, Tukwila dismissed its lawsuit. EXHIBIT 16 Ms. Maxine Anderson February 13, 1986 Page 2 On January 23, 1986, the BAR again considered the application of Windmark Homes, Tukwila, Inc. Prior to and during the hearing, staff reviewed the applicant's revised site plan, and recommended to the BAR that adequate recreation space . was not provided but upon closer review, probably could be found. The BAR deferred its decision on the application of Windmark Homes, Tukwila, Inc. until February 6, 1986. Prior to the February 6, 1986 BAR hearing, staff again recalculated provision of recreation space and recommended to the Board that adequate recreation space was now provided. At the hearing, staff acknowledged that due to the ambiguity . within the Tukwila Municipal Code between "open space" and "recreation space ", staff had to exercise administrative discretion in determining when "open space" also constituted "recreation space" for purposes of complying with the requirements of S 18.52.060 and § 18.60.050. Despite staff recalculations based upon a revised site plan, Windmark Homes, Tukwila, Inc. has failed to comply with recreation space requirements. The BAR arbitrarily adopted calculations which cast areas of "open space" as fulfilling Tukwila Municipal Code requirements for "uncovered recreation space ". Consequently, the BAR was also arbitrary in concluding that more than 50% of the recreation space is located on slopes less than four horizontal to one vertical (4:1) slope, as also required. by § 18.52.060 of the Tukwila Municipal Code. Our client therefore requests that the City Council hold a public hearing to consider the approval of the application of Windmark Homes, Tukwila, Inc. by the BAR. At that hearing, we will be prepared to present the necessary information for City Council consideration. LEH /CRW /tr 8234B2 t Very truly yours, eSOURD & TT Lawrence E. H rd Charles R. Wolfe cc: Sunwood Condominium Homeowners Association Mr. James E. Haney . Rick Beeler Mr. George A. Kresovich . 44. TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL, REGULAR MEETING July 15, 1985 Page 2 PUBLIC HEARING Continued From June 17, Appeal of Board of Arch. Review decision by Windmark Homes Mayor Van Dusen noted that this Public Hearing was continued from the meeting of June 17, 1985 with the approval of both parties. The application for Phase III of the Sunwood Development was filed with the City in January, 1984, by Pacific Townhouse Builders. It went before the Board of Architectural Review for design review. In February, 1984, the Planning Commission tabled consideration of the application at the request of the applicant. In March, 1985 a new application was filed with the City showing Windmark Homes as owner. The Planning Commission held a Public Meeting on April 25, 1985 to review the application. Based on testimony received, they denied the application. An appeal on behalf of the applicant was filed May 3, 1985. The intention of the applicant is to present revised plans and demonstrate that the concerns of the Board of Architectural Review have been satisfied. Mayor Van Dusen asked if there were any challenges against he or the Council over the Appearance of Fairness Doctrine. There was no comment. Brad Collins, Planning Director, presented the following Exhibits: 1. Master Land Use Application filed January 5, 1984 2. Master Land Use Application filed March 6, 1985 3. Revised staff report to Planning Commission 4. Minutes of April 25, 1985, Planning Commission meeting 5. Appeal of Planning Commission decision received May 3, 1985 6. Planning Commission findings and conclusions 7. Notice of June 17, 1985, Public Hearing of the City Council 8. Notice of April 25, 1985, Public Hearing of the. Planning Commission, mailing list and affidavit of distribution TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL, REGULAR MEETING July 15, 1985 Page 3 PUBLIC HEARING - cont. Windmark Homes Appeal litA 4 .7 4 i 9. Letter of April 25, 1985, from Lawrence E. Hard on behalf of Sunwood Condominium homeowners and presented to Planning Commission at the April 25, 1985, Public Hearing. 10. Memorandum of April 23, 1985, from Lawrence E. Hard to Sunwood Homeowners Association and presented to Planning Commission at the April 25, 1985 Public Hearing 11. Letter of March 1, 1985, from Pacific Townhouse Builders notifying City of the sale of the property to Windmark Homes. Lawrence E. Hard, Attorney representing Sunwood Condominium Homeowners, presented a letter written by him dated July 15, 1985 to the City Council and it was labeled Exhibit 12. Mayor Van Dusen opened the Public Hearing to consider an appeal filed by Windmark Homes, Inc. He noted that 12 exhi -, bits had been read into the record. Mayor Van Dusen asked everyone wishing to speak during the hearing to stand and be sworn in. Attorney Haney issued the oath. Brad Collins, Planning Director, gave the opening remarks. This is an appeal of a decision by the Board of Architectural Review that was heard at their April 25, 1985 meeting. The Findings and Conclusions of the Planning Commission are listed in Exhibit 6. He reviewed the Findings and Conclusions and listed the options the Council has in reviewing the appeal. 1. Review the information presented to the BAR and make their own decision regarding the criteria and the ade- quacy of the application in meeting the criteria. 2. Review and agree with the BAR. 3. Since the applicant has submitted revisions to the site plan, the decision could be remanded back to the BAR to review the new information. George Kresovich, Attorney with the firm of Hillis, Cairncross, Clark and Martin at 403 Columbia Street, Seattle, said he represents the applicant, Windmark Their pre- sentation will consist of statements by: 1. John Lane, Architect for the project 2. Steven Shea, Landscape Architect 3. John Snyder, President of Windmark Homes John Lane, Architect and Planner representing Windmark Homes, 115 West Denny Way, Seattle, discussed their project. The zoning allows 77 dwelling units on the site, but they are proposing 66 units in 8 buildings - 3 six - plexes and 6 nine - plexes. The location of the structures is in agreement with the site plan submitted by the previous owner. The building locations have been maintained, but the density has been cut. Exhibit #13, Proposed Site Plan for the development, was recorded. Mr. Lane said they reviewed slopes of drives, Fire Department access to buildings and maximum building areas and they concluded that the site plan developed by the previous plan- ners and themselves is, not only the best, but possibly the only solution for an efficient development of the site. Their proposal sits very well with existing development and are consistant with existing structures to the north. They are proposing two story buildings with daylight basements and units two or three wide. The buildings are cedar siding and shingles and earthtone colors as suggested by the Planning TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL, REGULAR MEETING July 15, 1985 Page 4 PUBLIC HEARING - cont. Windmark Homes Appeal (Cont.) Staff. Mr. Lane displayed Exhibit #3, Attachment 0 (Side Elevation Study) which shows end gables. They are also showing carports and covered trash receptacles. To mitigate impacts the proposal may have on the community, they have added an indoor Jacuzzi and barbecue structure throughout the site. The total of the recreation and open space areas is 18,000 square feet. Their structures are well within the R -4 zoning requirements. The setback from the development to the north is a minimum of 60 feet, and in some places 80 feet. Their elevation of 200 is well below the eye level of occu- pants of all of the units east of Sunwood Boulevard. There is a view corridor between Buildings 1 and 2. Exhibit #14, Building Location Plan, was recorded. Steven Shea, Landscape Architect at Thomas Bing and Associates, said they were hired to redesign the landscaping. Planning Staff has reviewed their plan and concur with it. He explained the landscape plans as shown on Exhibit #13. Along with the landscape plan there is a path system that allows access throughout the site that connect the recreation areas and gazebos. They have addressed the con- cerns of the Board, have provided better views and still pro- vided separation between the units. Council Member Morgan asked who monitors landscaping for compliance. Mr. Collins said the Planning Department in cooperation with the Building Official. John Snyder, Vice President and Project Manager for Windmark Homes, 510 Rainier Avenue South, Seattle, commented that they obtained the property in February, 1985. It had already been rezoned to R -4 allowing up to 20 units per acre. The concep- tual site plan was used throughout the proceedings. Their present proposal asks for approval for 66 units. They will be the same type units as in Sunwood I and II. They have done everything they could to respond to the concerns of the Homeowners' Association, but it has been to no avail. They feel the Homeowners are primarily interested in using this process to leverage the settlement of their dispute with Pacific Townhouse Builders, the previous owners. They have settled the concerns expressed by the Association. They have assured the Homeowners that they intend to build con- dominiums, that the purchase prices will be around $85,000, that their parking ratio is 2 to 1, and they had a joint maintenance agreement drafted and sent to the Association. They have never responded. The Homeowners agreed to drop their appeal if Windmark agreed to join their Association. Then, they were told that the compliance with the Homeowners' request was not good enough. Mr. Snyder said they want to build a fine project in Tukwila - one they can be proud of - and they want to comply with all the requirements. They want to be treated like everyone else. He asked Council to approve their project. Attorney Haney explained that Council is sitting as the Board of Architectural Review. Council has the same criteria to look at as they did. George Kresovich, Attorney, said they agreed to join the Homeowners' Association providing they would not oppose this project and informed their attorney of the agreement. The Homeowners' Association was not agreeable. In reviewing the BAR decision, it is clear there are three major problems: TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL, REGULAR MEETING July 15, 1985 Page 5 PUBLIC HEARING - Cont. Windmark Homes Appeal (Cont.) 1. 'Adequacy of the recreation areas and facilities. In an effort to satisfy the concerns of the Board of Architectural Review the recreation areas were revised. 2. The Landscape Plan. The BAR said the Landscape Plan was incomplete. Rather than fight about it, they prepared a new plan, which was developed by professionals. 3. Concern about view blockage. The Board of Architectural Review relied on two provisions in the Code to make their findings. The first says that the height and scale of each building should be considered in relation to its site. The next says buildings should be to appropriate scale and be in harmony with neighboring developments. The type of buildings that are proposed for this site are precisely the same type and precisely the same scale as the buildings in the existing Sunwood Development. The buildings have been sited very carefully in order to minimize the view blockage. The project has been designed to be a good neighbor. Mr. Kresovich asked that the same standards be applied to them that have been applied to other developments. He asked Council to approve the project as proposed. Lawrence E. Hard, Attorney representing the Sunwood Homeowners, 2400 Columbia Center, Seattle, said he was asked to assist the Homeowners with some problems relating to their application of Windmark Homes. He prepared a letter, now marked Exhibit 12, that has been distributed to Council. There are three people that would like to speak. 1. Ryan Thrower, President of the Board of the Homeowners' Association 2. Dick Taylor, Homeowner 3. Joan Hernandez, Board Member. Mr. Hard said he is concerned about statements that have been made by Mr. Snyder and Mr. Kresovich about conversations and statements that have been made. If this were a trial those would be hearsay and not admissible. He asked to have these comments taken with a grain of salt. He is concerned about the impression trying to be made here that the Sunwood Homeowners' Association consists of nothing but a bunch of angered Homeowners - angered, not at what is happening at the Windmark side, but at the company that sold them their homes. He reminded Council they are to consider only the application of Windmark Homes. The Homeowners are concerned about what is going to be placed on the piece of property immediately to the south of them. The property was originally part of the Sunwood development. It was to be developed by the same people as Phase III, but in March of this year, they were no longer dealing with these people, but rather with a company called Windmark Homes. Ryan Thrower, 15232 Sunwood Boulevard, is President of the Homeowners' Association and a member of the Board of Directors. There are 178 households in Sunwood. When they bought their homes, they thought they were buying into a total community. They felt they would have a voice in how the community would be run, how rules would be adopted and enforced. At the time of purchase, they received a copy of the declarations of the Condominium Association which con- tained a legal description of the Phase III property. The legal said the property was subject to the convenants and restrictions of the Homeowners' Association. They found that this did not give them the protection they thought they had. Now they are looking to Tukwila and the Land Use Planning Policies to protect their investment. They asked that, if the development is allowed, they have to live up to the same TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL, REGULAR MEETING July 15, 1985 Page 6 PUBLIC HEARING - Cont. Windmark Homes Appeal (cont.) set•of standards that the Sunwood Complex followed. We feel this proposal is lacking recreation facilities. It would be easy for residents of another complex to wander in and use their facilities. He asked the City to help them to protect their investments, stand behind the decision of the Planning Commission and reject any project that does not meet the requirements. Dick Taylor, 15278 Sunwood Boulevard, expressed concern over blockage of their view. At the time they bought they were given a maximum elevation for Phase III. He recalled that it was 203 feet. There have been several figures discussed so he asked what the "iron clad" maximum elevation is at this time. Joan Hernandez, 15224 Sunwood Boulevard said she is on the Board of Directors for the Homeowners' Association. A copy of her letter to the Planning Commission is included in Exhibit #3 as Item H. Sunwood is a beautiful place to live and she would like to stay there. She hopes that this deve- lopment will not affect their quality of life. She would like to have the Phase III property governed under the same convenants and restrictions they live by. She would not like to see the cheap housing units being built in the area deve- loped on this property. She said she has faith in the Council that they will not allow a developer to ruin their property. Lawrence E. Hard called attention to Exhibit #12, his letter dated July 15, 1985. It outlines the legal reasons why the Homeowners are asking the City Council to affirm the decision of the Planning Commission sitting as the Board of Architectural Review. That decision was to require this developer to go back and resubmit a design plan that met the requirements of the Tukwila Municipal Code. The applicant has submitted a revised site plan, but it does not address the fundamental problems that the Planning Commission had with the plan. They continue to have a concern over 1) who is the applicant and 2) who is the record property owner. The deed to the property is to Windmark Homes, Inc. whereas, the applicant is Windmark Homes Tukwila, Inc. Their con- cerns are that Council has had inadequate materials for a proper review. The landscaping plans are not sufficiently detailed, there has been no analysis of the slope profile, and a more detailed environmental analysis should be made. The fundamental problem with this application is the question of adequate recreation space. The Code requires 200 square feet of recreation space per unit. Nothing shows how this applicant has calculated the recreation space. What they have done is say open space equals recreation space. There has been no analysis of the amount of open space on slopes over 4 to 1. This applicant has not complied with the Tukwila Municipal Code on its analysis of what is proper recreation space. It is up to the Council to make the deci- sion as to whether or not the application meets the intent of the code. This proposed application does not meet commit- ments that were made by the previous owner. He asked that the City Council affirm the decision of the Planning Commission at their meeting of April 25, 1985. If Council wishes to modify the application and approve it, he asked that the applicant be required to submit a new environmental checklist and that a new environment review be made. Council Member Morgan asked what happens if Council upholds the Board of Architectural Review decision. Mr. Collins said they could submit a new application or proceed their appeal through the Court System. TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL, REGULAR MEETING July 15, 1985 Page 7 PUBLIC HEARING - Cont. Windmark Homes Appeal (cont.) Attorney Haney noted that TMC 18.90.020 provides that the City Council shall affirm, deny or modify the decision of the Planning Commission (BAR) within 90 days after the filing of the appeal. Prior to making a decision, the City Council may hold a Public Hearing. If Council wanted Staff to prepare additional information, the hearing could be continued and Staff directed to bring the information back. John Lane clarified the issue of height of the buildings. The buildings will be 168 feet above floor grade and 32 feet above that to the peak. We are going to stand on the 200 feet for the record. The condominium market is very com- petitive and you do not put out a bad product and expect it to sell. George Kresovich discussed the new information they had sub- mitted to Planning Staff and the Homeowners' Association for review. He commented that it was not new information just for this evening. If the developer intended to put as many units on the property as he could and then leave, he would not be reducing the number of units. The property was rezoned in 1981 to allow 77 units. The developer is trying to build a marketable product that people can afford to buy and will be in keeping with the neighborhood. Lawrence E. Hard stated that they do not think Council has enough information to make an intelligent decision. If Council does not affirm the decision of the Planning Commission, they do have the power to send it back to them and allow them to reconsider the application with the addi- tional information. If Council does not do this, they ask that the application be denied because it is not clear. There is no analysis of open space versus recreation space or how much of it is on slopes of 4 to 1. If Council should go ahead and permit this design plan as proposed, we think that the applicant should be required to submit a new environmen- tal check list. There is not enough adequate data here for anybody to make a decision. Lastly, nothing has been said about who the applicant is or who the owner of the property is. This should be of concern to Council. If the applicant says something is going to be done, what assurance do you have when we do no even know for sure who the applicant is or that is is the property owner. We have presented information that raises that question. We think this is another reason why the Council should affirm the action of the Planning Commission. Attorney Haney suggested that Council look over the City of Tukwila Board of Architectural Review Design Review Evaluation Guide which lays out the criteria by which Council needs to decide whether or not this application should be approved or denied. If Council wishes to ask any additional questions, now is the time before you close the Public Hearing. Mayor Van Dusen asked if anyone had anything more they would like to put into the record. Council Member Phelps asked what the relationship to the street is as far as a shared use for ingress and egress for the development. Mr. Kresovich said that there is an ease- ment across the Windmark property to the Sunwood Homeowners' Association so they have a right to use the right -of -way and both properties have that right. MOVED BY BAUCH, SECONDED BY BOHRER, THAT THE PUBLIC HEARING BE CLOSED. MOTION CARRIED. TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL, REGULAR MEETING July 15, 1985 Page 8 PUBLIC HEARING - Cont. Windmark Homes Appeal (cont.) RECESS: 9:30 P.M. 9:35 P.M. MOVED BY BAUCH, SECONDED BY PHELPS, THAT THE CITY COUNCIL REMAND THIS BACK TO THE BOARD OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW.* *COUNCIL PRESIDENT BAUCH WITHDREW HIS MOTION WITH APPROVAL OF THE SECOND. MOVED BY BAUCH, SECONDED BY MORGAN, THAT COUNCIL CONCUR WITH THE BOARD OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW AND ADOPT THEIR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS. MOTION CARRIED. MOVED BY MORGAN, SECONDED BY PHELPS, THAT COUNCIL RECESS FOR FIVE MINUTES. MOTION CARRIED. Mayor Van Dusen called the Regular Meeting of the Tukwila City Council back to order with Council Members present as previously reported. TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL REGU'4R MEETING October 21, 1985 Page 5 EXECUTIVE SESSION MOVED BY PHELPS, SECONDED BY MORGAN, THAT COUNCIL GO INTO 9:30 - 9 :55 P.M. EXECUTIVE SESSION. MOTION CARRIED. The Executive Session was called to discuss the Windmark Homes lawsuit. MOVED BY BOHRER, SECONDED BY DUFFIE, THAT COUNCIL GO OUT OF EXECUTIVE SESSION. MOTION CARRIED. Appeal of Windmark Homes MOVED BY BOHRER, SECONDED BY HARRIS, THAT COUNCIL RECONSIDER ITS ACTION OF JULY 15, 1985 DENYING THE APPEAL OF WINDMARK HOMES FROM A DECISION OF THE BOARD OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW ON WINDMARK'S DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL, CITY FILE #DR- O1 -84. MOTION CARRIED. MOVED BY BOHRER, SECONDED BY PHELPS, THAT THE CITY COUNCIL REMAND THIS MATTER TO THE BOARD OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW WITH THE INSTRUCTIONS FOR THE BOARD AND STAFF TO REVIEW THE REVISED PLANS SUBMITTED TO THE CITY COUNCIL AT ITS JULY 15, 1985 PUBLIC HEARING ON THE APPLICATION, TO RECEIVE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC HEARING TESTIMONY CONCERNING SUCH PLANS. AND TO FORWARD THEIR RECOMMENDATION TO THE CITY COUNCIL. MOTION CARRIED. BID =,nfiRDS ilani torial Service OLD BUSINESS Ordinance i1215- Changing the name of the custodian for the Advance Travel Expense Account Ordinance E1216- Reclassifying cer- tain lands from R -3 to R -4 (Sunwood, Phase III) Mayor Pro-Tem Van Dusen noted that the turrent Janitorial.Servi has terminated their services with the City. The Public Works Director has asked Council approval to Call for Bids to ensure continuity of services. MOVED BY HILL, SECONDED BY PHELPS, THAT COUNCIL APPROVE THE CALL FOR BIDS FOR JANITORIAL SERVICES IMMEDIATELY.* Mayor Pro -Tem Van Dusen said there have been reasons, both pro and con, on why they terminated their services. He asked to have one of the Committees look into this. *MOTION CARRIED. MOVED BY HILL, SECONDED BY PHELPS, THAT THIS ITEM BE REVIEWED BY THE PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE.* Councilman Harris asked in what area this company was unsatis- factory. Ted Uomoto, Public Works Director, said it was many areas. They have been trying to get the contractor to meet the requirements listed in the signed contract. *MOTION CARRIED. MO D BY HILL, SECONDED BY PHELPS, THAT THE PROPOSED ORDIN BE R ' BY TITLE ONLY. MOTION CARRIED. City Atto 'ey read an ordinance of the City of Tu changing the ame of the custodian for the Advan Account, amend •• Section 2 of Ordinance No. 6 Ordinance Nos. 7 890, 940, 1050 and 1083 MOVED BY HILL; SECOND ' BY HARRIS, THAT sRDINANCE NO. 1215•BE ADOPTED AS READ.* Mayor Pro -Tem Van Dusen ques Director, rather than the ti e said that the State Audito Bulle requirement that a pers• s name *MOTION CARRIED. ' kw' a, Washington, Travel Expense and repealing d if the name of the Finance s necessary. Attorney Hard 'n No. 010 sets forth the is - cessary. However, the peopi who currently admini er the program for the State Audit. s Office do not take tha •osition. Some other cities , -me just the office, and the Au. tor's Office has taken no a on against them. It makes sense t. ame the office instead • an individual, so you don't have to ame • the ordi- nance very time there is a change. The safe course ould be to •opt the ordinance naming the individual. Council Harris while she held the position of City Treasurer, she s told many times that you abide by the Auditor's Bulletins. Unti uch time as the bulletin is repealed, we need to follow it. MOVED BY HILL, SECONDED BY HARRIS, THAT THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE BE READ BY TITLE ONLY. MOTION CARRIED. City Attorney Hard read an ordinance of the City of Tukwila, Washington, reclassifying certain lands from R -3 to R -4, as described in Planning Department Master File No. 81 -5 -R. MOVED BY PHELPS, SECONDED'BY HILL, THAT ORDINANCE NO. 1216, AS AMENDED BY THE CITY ATTORNEY, BE ADOPTED AS READ.* Attorney Hard noted that he added a new Section 4 to clarify the action of the ordinance. The property is rezoned from R -3 to R -4. .D'EUSINESS - Cont. fi , Ordinance W1216- Reclassifying cer- tain lands from R -3 to R -4 (Sunwood, Phase III) (coat.) Mr. Don Dailey, Pacific Townhouse Builders, 1370 Stewart Street, `100, Seattle, noted that since the meeting of May 12, they have met with the homeowners that occupy Phase I of the condominium .project. Their concern is adequate recreation facilities. He requested that a condition be placed in the rezoning ordinance that they add one jacuzzi, which is equal to size and capacity of the one installed under Phase I. The location will be either in Phase III or among the other recreation facilities near the swimming pool. Councilman Hill asked if it wasn't the developer's problem rather than the City's. Mr. Dailey said they want it to be a matter of record. Mr. Hill noted that it would appear in the minutes. -Mr. Carl Lewis, 15209 Sunwood Blvd., Unit B33, said he repre- sents the group of homeowners who have expressed their concerns. After discussion with the developer, they have agreed not to oppose the rezone on the condition that the developer install the additional jacuzzi. He said his concern is that this agree- ment has a binding legal effect. They felt it was best to make it a condition of the rezone. He asked the City Attorney how this could become a binding commitment. Attorney Hard said he would prefer this not be included in the ordinance. This could open up situations where the City should not get involved. Any development this size has to have approval of the Board of Archi- tectural Review. These minutes will reflect to the Board that there is, at least, one condition for them to consider. The Council could, by motion, direct staff to inform the Board of Architectural Review of this condition. The Building Official should be directed that a Building Permit will not be issued until this condition is taken care of. Councilman Bohrer said the Planning Commission raised the fol- lowing concerns on this project; ingress /access and traffic generation, adequacy of recreational facilities.and adequacy of open space provided on Phase III. The Planning Commission questioned specifically the adequacy of pool space provided in the project. The City has an Open Space Ordinance, but there is no analysis as to how the project complies with it. He said it looks like there is potential further concern as the Planning Commission expressed. He further asked if the project now meets the conditions listed in the rezone ordinance that was repealed in December. The report does not indicate. Brad Collins, Planning Director, said he understood that the previous ordinance was related to a contract zone that covered more property than this specific rezone covers. Attorney Hard said it was impossible for the whole property covered under the previous ordinance to meet the terms of rezone, so it reverted back to the existing zoning. It is back now, with the request to rezone a portion. •The original conditions are completely irrelevant to what is before Council now. Councilman Bohrer asked what the conditions were and why they are no longer relevant. Attorney Hard said the property is now zoned R -3, and this is what Council has to deal with. It may have been zoned something else, but that is irrelevant. It has been zoned R -3 since January of 1981. Councilman Bohrer asked again what the conditions were and said it matters to him if they have been met. Attorney Hard explained that this property owner has a parcel of property zoned R -3. He is before Council.with the request to change the zone to R -4. All of the necessary steps have been met .to complete the process. Tonight is the culmination of the process. What hap- pened earlier has no legal effect. RECESS: 8:00 P.M.- MOVED BY BOHRER, SECONDED BY HARRIS, THAT COUNCIL RECESS FOR • .8:10 P.M. " MINUTES TO' ALLOW TIME TO GET A COPY OF THE ORIGINAL ORDI- • NANCE. MOTION CARRIED. • BUSINESS - Cont. Ordinance #'1216 - Reclassifying cer- tain lands from R -3 to R -4 ( Sunwood • Phase III) (cont.) .Mayor Pi Iem . Van Dusen called the ( 'sting back to order with Council Members present as previously reported. City Attorney Hard reported that Ordinance 1088 rezoned the property from R -3 to R -4 with 8 conditions. These conditions applied to three parcels of property. In 1978, LID 29 was created and constructed. At that time a portion of this property was excluded from immediate assessments. After that, it was concluded that all the property rezoned under Ordinance No. 1088 could no longer meet all of the conditions. The ordinance was then repealed so the zoning reverted back to R -3. Councilman Bohrer said his recollection is that the property hadn't met the conditions, therefore, was not participating in LID i;29, so the ordinance was repealed. He reviewed the conditions re- quiredt Attorney Hard said the conditions have been met by the properties within the boundaries of the LID. The logical solution for the City was to turn all of the property back to R -3 and, as the property is developed, the owners would have to come back to the City and request appropriate zoning for the use. Council- man Bohrer asked why there was no analysis of the conditions. Attorney Hard said because there was no legal requirement. The conditions are not relevant to this parcel today. The property is R -3. If Council wants to impose the conditions, they can make them part of the rezone. Councilman Harris said the project, at the time of the rezone was a separate project. .It had nothing to do with Sunwood. The conditions were for an entirely different project. Councilman Johanson noted that the Planning Commission denied the request, but staff recommended approval. He said he also wondered about the conditions. Brad Collins, Planning Director, said he assumed the Planning Department considered the eight conditions and either they were not needed or they had been met. Councilman Phelps explained that Ordinance 1088'has been repealed so the conditions aren't even there; further, it related to another project all together. Any conditions that apply to the Sunwood Development would apply to the rezone before Council now. Councilman Bohrer noted that there seems to be a lot of questions. He said he did not see the urgency in insisting that this be passed tonight. It would be appropriate to send it back to staff for an analysis of the conditions. Councilman Phelps said all of the conditions and covenants and agreements that the City has with Sunwood Develop- ment have already been established. They are developing under the agreement we currently have. I don't see the point of im- posing more conditions upon the developer than they already have. Councilman Harris said when an ordinance is repealed, it is no longer valid. What ever was in the ordinance no longer applies to anything. That is what we did to Ordinance 1088. The conditions no longer apply. MOVED BY BOHRER, SECONDED BY JOHANSON, THAT THE ORDINANCE BE • TABLED TO ALLOW STAFF TO PREPARE A REPORT ON THE RELATIONSHIP OF THE CURRENT SUNWOOD DEVELOPMENT PLAN TO THE CONDITIONS THAT WERE ORIGINALLY PROPOSED IN ORDINANCE 1088. MOTION FAILED. *MOTION CARRIED WITH BOHRER AND JOHANSON VOTING NO. MOVED BY PHELPS, SECONDED BY HILL, THAT THE PLANNING STAFF BE DIRECTED TO NOTIFY THE BOARD OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW TO OBSERVE AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE HOMEOWNERS AND THE DEVELOPERS TO PROVIDE AN ADDITIONAL JACUZZI RECREATIONAL FACILITY.* Councilman Bohrer commented that this is a limited attempt to include some of the considerations that were in the original eight. *MOTION CARRIED WITH BOHRER AND JOHANSON VOTING NO. - V re V - 1" , • • rAAC)toctv_ps',L--Vs D,F co ( -.(ir.sv\ic>,(Dv 'AS '\LSO rife4S03S0 Forz, GY4.4-150 F WINDMARK HOMES TUKWILA, INC. APPEAL. PUBLIC HEARING City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila Washington 98188 COM 833.11100 GoY L vanousen, Mayor TO: PROM: OATS: SUIJOCT: City Council Planning Department April 16, 1986 MEMORANDUM Windmark Homes Tukwila Inc. - Appeal - DR -01 -84 The public hearing on this matter was continued from March 17, 1986 to April 21, 1986. For the March 17, 1986 hearing, a complete packet was not distributed. Because of the size of that packet, it is separately attached and now submitted to the Council. On February 20, 1986, a memorandum from the Planning Department was sent to the Council, and that memorandum is superseded by this latest memorandum to correct any misunderstandings. The City Council, on July 15, 1985, denied the Windmark Homes appeal of the April 25, 1985, Board of Architectural Review (BAR) denial of what was the third and last phase of the Sunwood Condominiums. On July 15, 1985, Windmark Homes submitted slightly revised development plans which had not been seen by the BAR. .Pursuant to the Council action, Windmark Homes appealed to Superior Court but later withdrew that suit. The Council. on October 21, 1985, reconsidered its action and remanded review of those..EL(i-S revised plans to the BAR for forwarding a 'recommendation to the Council. Therefore, disposition of the Windmark Homes appeal was tabled to receipt of the BAR recommendation. The BAR held public hearings on January 23, 1986, and February 6, 1986, and found the plans, subject to conditions, conforming to the BAR decision cri- teria of TMC 18.60.050. An appeal of that decision was timely filed by the Sunwood Condominium Homeowners Association on February 18, 1986; on the basis of inadequate demonstration of adequate recreation space. Because the Council, on October 21, 1986, tabled final action on the Windmark Homes appeal, the subsequent Sunwood Condominium Homeowners appeal may be premature. The Council continues to have jurisdiction over the matter until final action is taken by the Council. Aside from the prema- turity of the Sunwood Condominium Homeowners appeal, that appeal basis is exclusively the adequacy of recreation space per TMC 18.52.060. The Planning Department believes that basis is not contained in the BAR review criteria of TMC 18.60. 050. Moreover, Staff demonstrated 'to the . satisfac- tion of the 8AR that the requirements of TMC 18.52.060 were ` met. AQ' Therefore, the BAR approved the proposed landscaping plan, which plan is °'itself within the purview of TMC 18.60.050. ', u The attached packet is a compilation of the 12 exhibits entered into the record at the BAR hearings of January 23, 1986 and February 6, 1986. Additional exhibits are also attached. City Council April 16, 1986 Page 2 Exhibit 1. Letter of December 12, 1985, to the Planning Commission from Lawrence,.E. Hard and Charles R. Wolfe. Exhibit 2. Staff report submitted at the December 12, 1985 Planning Commission meeting, with Exhibits A through J. Exhibit 3. Letter of January 14, 1986, to the BAR from George A. Kresovich. Exhibit 4. File of record. (public record on file in Planning Dept.) Exhibit 5. Topographical analysis map. (too large for the packet) Exhibit 6. Analysis of recreation space areas. Exhibit 7. Staff report submitted at the February 6, 1986 Planning Commission meeting, with Exhibits. Exhibit 8. Letter of February 3, 1986, from George A. Kresovich to Lawrence E. Hard. Exhibit 9. Letter of February 5, 1986, from George A. Kresovich to Lawrence E. Hard. Exhibit 10. Letter of February 5, 1986, from Lawrence E. Hard to George A. Kresovich. Exhibit 11. Recreation space analysis map submitted at February 6, 1986, BAR meeting. (too large for the packet) Exhibit 12. Photo looking south. (too large for the packet) fisfri " )(L34ey. 15v '1 *(1 ('v 131(`(6L e, cop:sti2 VNAN(4- c 17 oil Lro[c_ , OR- O1 -84: Windmark Homes Tukwila, Inc. ti Ow.° 0-- P A LE$OURO GEORGE N HARTUNO MEADS (MORT LION C. MISTEREII THOMAS 0 MCLAU0M11 ' • JOHN / COLOR/ONE C. DEAN uTTLE LAWRENCE I. HARD ROME.' J. WALOMUM 0. WILLIAM TOON( DANIEL O. WOO JOHN R. SWAM' DAVID A. LAMER' CARL J. CARLSON Planning Commission City of Tukwila Tukwila City Hall 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, WA 98188 Dear Commissioners: LESOURO & PATTEN ATTORNEYS AT LAW 2400 COLL/NSA CENTER 10) FRITH AVENUE SEATTLE. WAS 01104.7005 TILIPHONE 12041 $24.1040 OPlss 12051124.7 .Tw■ 510 444.4150 CAKE A000115 LURIA° LAW ANCHORAGE OFFICE PIRST NATIONAL SYK.OING 4200 STREET. SUITE $30 ANCHORAGE. ALASKA 11101 TI LIPHONE. 15071 277.4531 PLEASE REPLY TO SEATTLE OFFICE December 12, 1985 RE: DR- 01 -84: Sunwood Phase III ( Windmark Homes, Tukwila, Inc.) c 444411411 5 . - 1 YII %ARIIEN MAROUAROSON . WARIANN( SCHWARTZ 0 SARA 005tNT N • KANE JR JEM(Y C WISHKO JU40 R MARTIN VICTORIA JENSEN (JORKMAN s ilo CHARLES A WOLFS WOOLVIN PATTEN ROSERT L PALM(R ;'" or CouNStL *AOMITTs° IN I •AOWTTto IN ' 'AND WASHINGTON ALL OTHIAs AOMITTIO . IN WASHINGTON ,,v4 We have been retained by the Sunwood Condominium Homeowners Association to represent them in matters relating to the proposed development of property generally known as the "Sunwood Phase III" property. We have discussed this matter in detail with our client, and with counsel for Windmark Homes, Tukwila, Inc. Further, we have reviewed various files maintained by the City of Tukwila regarding the "Phase III" property, as well as the Phase I and Phase II developments, and have examined the City of Tukwila Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Code. We previously presented our client's concerns at the April 25, 1985 BAR Hearing, and at the July 15, 1985 City Council meeting. At the April 25 BAR Hearing, the Planning Commission denied the application of Windmark Homes, Tukwila, Inc. On July 15, the City Council upheld the decision of the Planning Commission. On July 25, Windmark Homes, Tukwila, Inc. filed suit, and appealed the City Council decision to King County Superior Court. On October 21, the City Council voted to reconsider its July 25 decision, and then voted to remand this matter to the Planning Commission. The City Council indicated that the Planning Commission should consider a revised site plan that was submitted by Windmark Homes, Tukwila, Inc. after the April 25, BAR decision. On November 5, Windmark Homes, Tukwila dismissed its lawsuit. After the April 25 hearing, the Planning Commission presented the following written findings and conclusions: EXHIBIT 1 Planning Commission December 12, 1985 Page 2 (a) Inadequate Recreation Space. The proposal does not conform to the requirements of TMC 18.52.060 for provision of adequate recreation space. (b) Inadequate Transition with Streetscape, Inadequate Landscaping and Pedestrian Movement. The proposal does not satisfy BAR criteria TMC 18.60.050(1);(A) due to lack of adequate recreation space, an inadequate landscape plan and lack of adequate sidewalks and /or trails to link various parts of the proposal. (c) Inadequate Consideration of Relation of Height and Scale to Site. The proposal does not conform to BAR criteria TMC 18.60.050(1)(C) due to blockage of existing views of the southerly units of Sunwood Phase I. (d) Inadequate Landscape Treatment. The proposal does not conform to BAR criteria TMC 18.60.050(3)(C) due to failure of the landscaping plan to accommodate the existing Phase I vista of the Kent Valley floor and Mt. Rainier. (e) Inadequate Scale and Harmony with Neighboring Developments. The proposal does not conform to BAR criteria TMC 18.60.050(4)(B) due to lack of harmony with Sunwood Phase I and view blockage. The above findings and conclusions were procedurally adequate and substantively correct. Since the April 25 hearing, the applicant has taken no action which would affect the correctness of the Planning Commission's original conclusions. The applicant has submitted a revised site plan which adds certain landscaping, a jacuzzi, decking and five gazebos to the project, and attempts to show the adequacy of recreational space. However, the revised plan insufficiently addresses our client's concerns and fails to alleviate the inadequacies previously found by the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission December 12, 1985 Page 3 Planning Commission should therefore reaffirm its April 25 decision. In addition, we direct the Planning Commission's attention to the following concerns of our client: 1. Concerns regarding identity of applicant and record property owner. a. Who is the applicant? In January, 1984, "Pacific Townhouse Builders - Tukwila" filed an application with the City to have the Planning Commission, sitting as a Board of Architectural Review, examine a proposed design plan for the Sunwood Phase III property. This applicant was the same owner /developer of the Phase I and Phase II properties. The 1984 application clearly indicated that the Phase III development would be consistent with the earlier developments. There would be a continuity of design, as well as ownership. In February or early March, 1985, the applicant changed. The new applicant is "Windmark Homes, Tukwila, Inc." On March 5, 1985, the Secretary of State issued a certificate of incorporation to this entity. However, the records of the King County Department of Records and Elections indicate that a quitclaim deed dated February 25, 1985 was recorded granting an interest in the Phase III property from "Pacific Townhouse Builders - Tukwila" to "Windmark Homes, Inc." The consideration given was "the assumption of debt ". Note that the name of the entity used on the quitclaim deed is different. "Windmark Homes, Tukwila, Inc." does not appear to be the same as "Windmark Homes, Inc." b. Who is the record property owner? The question of the identity of the applicant has been further complicated by the findings of a title report obtained from Ticor Title Insurance dated June 13, 1985, and confirmed as current on December 12, 1985. As of that date, the record owners of the property were "Parke Place Number One, Inc., a Washington Corporation and Park Place Number Two, Inc., a Washington Corporation and Parke Place Number Three, Inc., a Washington Corporation; Doing Business as Pacific Townhouse Builders- -Parke Place, A Joint Venture ". The Ticor report notes 14 exceptions, two of which are material. Planning Commission December 12, 1985 Page 4 First, the report references a quitclaim deed dated December 10, 1984, executed by the purported president and secretary of "Pacific Townhouse Builders- -Parke Place ", to "Pacific Townhouse Builders, Tukwila ". However, as Ticor notes, a joint venture such as "Pacific Townhouse Builders - -Parke Place" "is not a legal entity capable of transferring title and we therefore question the validity of said deed ". Second, the report references the quitclaim deed dated February 25, 1985, executed by the purported president and secretary of "Pacific Townhouse Builders -- Tukwila" to "Windmark Homes, Inc." However, Ticor was unable to find a corporation with the name "Pacific Townhouse Builders -- Tukwila" registered with the Secretary of State as an active corporation. As Ticor notes, "if [Pacific Townhouse Builders -- Tukwila "] is an unincorporated association, it cannot acquire or transfer title to real estate ". Therefore, the following concerns are relevant. (1) Who is the record property owner? (2) Is the sale from Pacific Townhouse Builders to Windmark contingent on the issuance of a building permit? (3) To what extent is Pacific Townhouse Builders, or any of its principals, committed to assist in the permit process? According to the City's file, Mr. Gilroy of Pacific Townhouse Builders has indicated that, as part of the transaction, he is obligated to assist in the permit process. 2. Inadequate materials for BAR review. As of the end of business on December 12, 1985, the date of the Planning Commission hearing, the applicant had not submitted sufficiently detailed landscaping plans, sufficient analysis of a slope profile, nor sufficient analysis of the effect of the construction of structures up to 35 feet in height. This data is essential for purposes of permitting the Planning Commission to adequately review the proposed project. The materials currently on file do not adequately meet the requirements of TMC 18.60.050. 3. Incomplete environmental review. In 1984, an environmental checklist was prepared by Pacific Townhouse Builders for this project. Various City of Tukwila departments reviewed the checklist and determined that problems existed. In February, 1984, the Department of Community Development determined significant concerns regarding slope stability, drainage, traffic and recreation /open space. As a Planning Commission December 12, 1985 Page 5 result, the staff determined that it could not issue a Declaration of Non- Significance. Among the major concerns were those expressed by Don Williams of the Parks Department, who indicated that there was inadequate recreation space. In February, 1985 a revised soil analysis was submitted as part of the application. In addition, there were minor modifications to the proposal, including the elimination of a recreation area (Jacuzzi) which had been on the 1984 application. Don Williams commented in March, 1985 that there still remained problems with the recreation area. On March 22, 1985 a Declaration of Non - Significance was issued for this proposed design plan. SEPA rules and the Tukwila Municipal Code allow for withdrawal of a Declaration of Non - Significance under certain conditions. WAC 197 -11 -340 (adopted by reference in Tukwila Ordinance No. 1331, Sec. 10) states: "(2)(f) The responsible official shall reconsider the DNS based on timely comments and may retain or modify the DNS or, if the responsible official determines that significant adverse impacts are likely, withdraw the DNS or supporting documents . . . . "(3)(a) The lead agency shall withdraw a DNS if: "(i) There are substantial changes to a proposal so that the proposal is likely to have significant adverse environmental impacts; "(ii) There is significant new information indicating, or a proposal's probable significant adverse environmental impacts; or "(iii) The DNS was procured by misrepresentation or lack of material disclosure; if such DNS resulted from the actions of an applicant, any subsequent environmental checklist on the proposal shall be prepared directly by the lead agency or its consultant at the expense of the applicant." (Emphasis added.) We are concerned that in making the Non - Significance determination, inadequate attention was paid to the following problems: (1) all or portions of the property may be . Planning Commission December 12, 1985 Page 6 designated as "environmentally sensitive" in the City's Comprehensive Plan; (2) a significant portion of the property contains slopes in excess of 20 %; (3) problems with surface water drainage exist; (4) no analysis was made of potential view blockage, loss of light and air rights, and the general visual impact of structures on the site. Further, we are concerned that, in the event the applicant seeks a building and other land use permits for this project, the applicant will contend that no environmental impact statement is required for the project. However, the DNS was issued on the basis of an inadequate and incomplete checklist and design plan, and did not consider materials that the applicant has since added or revised. We therefore request that the DNS be withdrawn according to either WAC 197- 11- 340(2)(f) or WAC 197- 11- 340(3)(a)(ii), and further request that the applicant be required to submit a new environmental checklist at the time that any permit is sought for development of the project. In this case, significant differences may develop between the non - project BAR design review and a specific development project. 4. Inadequate recreation space and screening. The applicant has failed to comply with the requirements of TMC 18.52.060 with respect to recreation space. The applicant has failed to provide for a minimum of 200 square feet of recreation space for each dwelling unit (66 x 200 = 13,200 sq. ft.). Even considering the jacuzzi and gazebos proposed within the revised site plan, the applicant has made inadequate provision for any covered recreation space, or of any single purpose permanent facility such as a swimming pool or tennis court. In addition, the applicant has provided calculations based upon areas of open space within the site, and attempted to cast such calculations as fulfilling requirements for uncovered recreation space. The Tukwila Municipal Code differentiates between "open space" and "recreation space, uncovered ". TMC 18.06.580 defines "open space" as "that area of a site which is free and clear of building and structures and is open and unobstructed from the ground to the sky." TMC 18.06.650 defines "recreation space, uncovered" as "an area of ground characterized by a natural surface, such as lawn, forest, or sandboxes." The applicant has made an inadequate analysis of the extent to which this uncovered recreation space is located on slopes Planning Commission December 12, 1985 Page 7 greater than four horizontal to one vertical (4:1) slope, as required by TMC 18..52.060(3)(B). Further, there has been inadequate showing that there will be adequate fencing, plant screening, or other buffer to separate the recreation space from parking areas, driveways or public streets. TMC 18.52.060(4)(B). Finally, no provision has been made for adequate screening of outdoor storage as required in TMC 18.52.040. 5. Inadequate compliance with City of Tukwila Comprehensive Land Use Policy Plan. The Comprehensive Land Use Policy Plan provides guidelines for the City's development, and places the City's zoning ordinance in context as an implementation device for the Plan's goals. Not only has the applicant inadequately addressed the requirements of the zoning ordinance, but the applicant has also failed to adequately address the concerns set forth in the Plan's "General Goals ". This is particularly true of Goal 1, which requires the City, "through the regulation of land use and community growth, to promote the health, safety and general welfare of the public ". In addition, Goal 5 requires the City to "strike a balance between economy and environment. While the City should encourage development and strive to provide a health economic climate, it should be sensitive to the natural limitations and hazards imposed by the physical environment and the tremendous natural amenities which that environment affords ". Further, the applicant has failed to adequately address the goals for the elements of "natural environment ", "open space ", and "residence ". With respect to the "natural environment" element, this proposal fails to meet objectives of Policies 1, 2 and 3 of Objective No. 1. With respect to Objective No. 3, the proposal clearly violates the objectives of Policies No. 1 to "discourage development on slopes in excess of 20 % ", Policy No. 2, to "preserve the views of hillside residents ", and Policy No. 3, to "preserve and promote the quality of natural land form ". With respect to the "open space" element, the proposal fails to meet the goals of Objective No. 1, particularly: Policy i, to "strive to preserve steep hillsides and wooded areas in a scenic condition, encourage replanting and revegetation of denuded areas not in the process of development ", and Policy 3, to "provide for active recreation Planning Commission December 12, 1985 Page 8 areas (ballfields, tennis courts, swimming pools, playgrounds, community center) consistent with the needs of the community ". With respect to the "residence" element, the proposal fails to meet a number of criteria, including but not limited to the following policies: Policy 7, to "encourage the provision of recreational open space within multiple- family developments "; Policy 4, to "encourage minimum care and maintenance level for undeveloped open spaces "; and Policy 6, to "encourage development of pedestrian rights of way, overpasses and well- lighted trails which can provide safe passage from residential areas to commercial, service, and recreational areas ". 6. Failure to abide by rezone commitment. When this property was rezoned to R -4 in June, 1981, the rezone was the culmination of a number of meetings before the Planning Commission and the Planning Commission. (See Staff Report re Sunwood Phase III and Minutes of Planning Commission Meeting of June 2, 1981, attached hereto as Exhibit A.) At that time, those interested expressed concern regarding inadequate measures taken to provide for proper recreation and open space opportunities. Representatives of Pacific Townhouse Builders indicated that the Phase III development was an integral part of the overall development of the Sunwood complex, and that amenities provided in Phases I and II would be available to those purchasing units in Phase III. Conversely, these representatives indicated that residents in Phases I and II could make use of amenities provided in Phase III. These statements were contained both in oral statements by Mr. Dally and others at public hearings and meetings, as well as in written representations, particularly in a letter dated March 9, 1981 to the City. (See copy of letter attached hereto as Exhibit B.) Mr. Dally indicated in his March 9, 1981 letter that "during construction of Phase III we will be incorporating a jogging trail which will surround the full development ". 7. Failure to identify significance of relationship of this property to the existing development of Phases I and II of Sunwood. As noted earlier, at all times until early March, 1985, the Phase III property was owned and developed by Pacific. Townhouse Builders (or a related partnership or company). The Phase III property was an integral part of the entire "Sunwood" complex. Phase III was to be a condominium project, subject to the same Planning Commission December 12, 1985 Page 9 terms and conditions of the Sunwood Condominium Declaration. Phase III was to be regulated by the same rules and regulations of the Sunwood Homeowners Association. On November 13, 1980, when the Sunwood Condominium Declaration was filed, the legal description of this property was included as part of that recorded document. This Phase III property is "subject to covenants, conditions and restrictions recorded contemporaneously with the. Condominium Declaration of Sunwood, a condominium ". However, the design application makes no reference to that obligation. The Planning Commission should note carefully the obligations of continuity with Phases I and II that are incumbent upon the applicant. These obligations cannot be separated from the questions of recreational space, height limitation, view preservation and harmony with .. surrounding structures at issue . in this design review. Based upon all these considerations, the planning Commission should reaffirm its April 25 decision. CRW /dva 7768B6/142A/LEH cc: Sunwood Condominium Homeowners Association Very truly yours, SOURD'& PATTEN Charles R.. Wolfe FZ • AGENDA ITEM CITY OF TUKWILA PLANNING DIVISION PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT • S tnwood Phase III Rezone (81 -5 -R) INTRODUCTION The following is a summary of actions taken to date on the request of Pacific Townhouse Builders to restore R -4 zoning classification to the FJsnke and Kato pr erties immediately south of Sutwood Phase I: A) 1 Dec. 80 - City Council adopts snance 1185 repealing Ordi -• nance 1088, reverting the zon- ing classification on the Ehonke /Kato lands from R -4 to R -3 due to failure of the original applicants to satisfy stipulations enumerated in Ordinance 1088. B) 28 Jan. 81 - Pacific Townhouse. " 1 CPR Builders, as contract purchasers of the Ehmke /Kato property, file application for for rezoning from R -3 to R -4. The boundaries of this rezone application have been reduced slightly to exclude a small area of "C -1" contained in the proceeding R -4 rezone action (see Exhibit "Al. C) 26 February 81 - Planning Commission holds public hearing an Phase III rezone request: Approval recommended with stipulation that R -4 zoning ova Phase III be limited to a density not exceeding 16 D.U. /ac. D) 9 March 81 - Pacific Townhouse Builders files letter with Planning Dept. staff requesting reconsideration by the Planning CQnnission of their 26 February decision, restricting density to 16 twits /acre. E) 23 April 81 - Planning Commission reconsidered proposed rezone and stipulations of approval: Changed recommendation to denial of R -4 reclassification. Effectively, this decision reduces the rnsmber of units allowed in Phase III from 78 (as requested) to 62, and reduces overall build -out of "Sutwoad" from 256 units to 240 units. 28 April al,- Pacific Townhouse Builders files letter questing Council review of the Commission's decision. $.4 DISCUSSION Page -2- (81- S -R) The Pla?minl Commission, in deciding to recommend against the proposed rezone to R=4 for Sunwood Phase 3, found that the following topical areas of concern had not been resolved adequately: - Ingress /egress i traffic generation -Adequacy of recreational facilities project -wide - Adequacy of open space provided on Phase III. In essence, the Commission's position on permitted Phase III density did not change between the 26 February and 23 April meetings; the property is already zoned R - 3, allowing 16 units /acre maximum density under the Comprehensive Plan. Thus, if the Commission maintained their position that 16 units /acre is the appropriate maximum density for Phase III, the rezone to R -4 is not necessary and their denial action is internally consistent. In the intervening time since 23 April, however, staff has given some analysis to the matters of concern raised by the Commission, and wish to suggest herein some new factors for Council to consider in evaluating the Planning Commission's recommendation. A) Ingress/Egress - The Commission questioned the validity of placing an intensive concentration of dwelling units immediately adjacent to the 62nd Avenue /Sunwood Boulevard intersection, which is the exclusive access point for the entire Sunwood Project. They were concerned that traffic activity on Sunwood Boulevard would increase con- gestion within the project and would diminish the service level capacity of 62nd Avenue to Southcenter Blvd. - Staff notes, however, that early site layout proposals for "Sunwood" incorporated 2 ingress /egress points, one on the south at 62nd Avenue and one at the north leading to the hillside residential district. Very early in the planning process however, the City directed the applicants to delete the northerly access concept in order to separate multi - family trip - generation activity from that of the single - family area. In a very real sense, there- fore, the disadvantages, if any, of concentrating project access at the 62nd Avenue intersection is the City's own doing. - In our discussion with the firm of Jones $ Associates which designed the present configuration of 62nd Avenue as built under L.I.D. 29, they report that their approach to anticipating adequate capacity.assumed two direct driveway openings from the Ehmke -Kato property onto 62nd Avenue, in addition to Sunwood Boulevard's connection thereto. Since the greater number of driveway openings onto a street increases congestion potential, it seems that the applicant's intent to delete any direct driveway access to 62nd Avenue for Phase III will actually enhance the design service level of th. street, offsetting the Page -3- (81 -S -R) additional 96 AN which would result from allowing 16 additional units order R -4 zoning in Phase III (16 units x 6 trips /day per 1976 I.T.E. standard for multi - family residential units). B) Traffic Generation - The Commission was concerned that the incremental difference in trips - per -day generated by the additional 16 units allowed under R -4 zoning of Phase III would impact significantly the design . service level of 62nd Avenue. - The final environmental impact statement for the "Parkplace" rezone (i.e. "Sunwood ") projects a total ADT of 62nd Avenue of 2070 -2370 based on the following assumptions: 1) Full development of multi- family properties in the vicinity of "Stanwood" with frontage an 62nd Avenue 2) "Sunwood" Phase I S II build -out at 189 units (186 actual approved to date) . 3) "Sunwood" Phase III built -cut at 108 -132 units /acre. Of the preceeding assumptions, No. 3 represents the most important to have changed since publication of the F.E.I.S: Using the aforementioned I.T.E. standard of 6 trips /unit /day for condominium uses, total trip generation for Phase III would be predicted as follows: ! 16 units /acre • 62 units x 6 • 372 A.D.T. (P.C. recamn.) ! 20 untis.acre • 78 units x 6 • 468 A.D.T. (Applicant's proposal) Based on the foregoing calculations, therefore, the projected total A.D.T. for 62nd Avenue would be: (Anticipating no change in assumptions 1 4+ 2 of F.E.I.S. notes above) ! 16 units /acre is 1793 A.D.T. - 1889 A.D.T. ! 20 units /acre • 1976 A.D.T. - 2072 A.D.T. Based on the proposed 78 dwelling unit yield of the rezone application, anti- cipated "worst- case" traffic impact on 62nd Avenue is roughly equal to the "best case" option of 2070 A.D.T. predicted by the F.E.I.S. Thus, we con- clude that the incremental difference in traffic generation between R -3 and R -4 use of the Phase III site isnot significant in relation to the anticipated decrease in street capacity impact levels on 62nd Avenue. C) Recreation/Open Space Adequacy - The Planning Commission questioned the adequacy of open space/ recreational area proposed within Phase III, noting that only 0.6 acres thereof is provided. The applicants explained that Phase III residents would be entitled to use the club- house /pool, tennis courts and open space areas of Phases I and II (totalling appraocimately 3.60 acres) . The Commission then reiterated its concern; fearing that the distance from southerly Phase III units to the pool /rec. area is too great, and the "steep" topography too inhibiting to facilitate usage by Phase III residents. They concluded, therefore, that by reducing density to R-3 levels in Phase III by not allowing the rezone, additional land space could be freed to satisfy internally some of the demand within Phase III for useable open space. It is difficult to quantify the adequacy of open space necessary to serve a private development. However, we believe that some conclusions can be drawn in the present use by examining widely - applied national park - planning standards: A) A common ruIe- of- thumb for siting of "neighborhood" rec- reation space is 10 acres for each population increment of 1000 persons population Assuring total build -out of Sunwood at 256 units (R -4 on Phase III included), and assuring a total population of 665 persons in the complex (F.E.I.S. "worst use" • projection at 2.6 persons/D.U.), approximately 6.S acres of open space is required. (For discussion purposes, public open space within 1/2 mile is not included to offset some of this demand) If,, however, we assume total population of 1.4 persons /unit, or 358 total occupants (on the basis of current sales occupancy rates), 3.6 acres of recreation area is needed. (81 - 5 - R) - We suspect that the true need for open space rests somewhere between the 6.5 and 3.6 acre figures, and is probably closer to the lower estimate. Thus, Sunwood is providing anywhere from 501 to 75% or more of its own open space requirements on an area -only basis if we apply the same standards within the project that are used to analyze public park space needs.• Additional credit should probably be given due to the extensive variety of activities offered within the project boundary. We note too,that the maximum distance is slightly less than 1 /8tn mile from the Southerly -most Phase III unit to the pool /tennis complex, more than meeting the access standard for a "neighborhood" recreation facility. -The Planning Commission questioned specifically the adequacy of . pobi space provided in the project. Using the National Swimming Pool Institute's standard of 15 sq. ft. /bather in waters less than five feet deep, Sumnwood's pool can accomodate 4b persons, or between 71 to 12; of the project's anticipated population at a time, de- pending on which per -unit occupancy rate is used. We conclude . that this degree of pool play area is convenient to the demands•of the Sunwood project internally, and far exceeds the amount of per-cap- ita swimming pool space available in convenient proximity to the residents of Tukwila generally. Q 1ILSIOi • 1) The Comprehensive .Land use P subject site as High- Density 17 +. U.U. /Acres in aulti -fame 2) The proposed density of 20 be consistent with the Caner it represents a higher level that of surrounding multi -f Creek • 11 D.0 /Ac,) (S u Wood Due to the .project's proximi I -405 corridor, however, the posal appears justified. 3) Adequate access, utility . space appear to be available zone area. The concerns raised by the Planning recommendation to deny the applicati more carefully the factors which " and have led,us to conclude on a str R-4, 20 Unit /Ac. proposal is still impacts of the rezone proposal, in Planning Canaission felt were miss discussion has been able to adress at the April meeting such that a.po request is justified. At the time of the Planning Coiamissi• 's initial review . of the rezone application, staff .red • K -4 zoning for : Phase III of "Sunwood ". Our findings at that •ime included: Page • -5 (.al -s.K) an map designates the Kesidential, defined as y configuration. ts per acre appears to ensive Plan, although of building activity than ly developneRt (Cottage Phase In16 D.U. /Ac.). to the Southcenter Blvd, /. gher -level density pro- tructure and recreation to serve the proposed re ssion in their subsequent have caused us to examine e upon this rezone action, gerfactual basis: that the propriate. Analyzing the e concrete terms which the g, we feel that the foregoing . atisfactorily the issues raised itive decision on the rezone AID ::.BADS Oen! tool al Szrvice OLD BUSINESS Ordinance i121S Changing the name of the custodian for the Advance Travel Expense Account Ordinance #12111.. Reclassifying cer- tain lands from R -3 to 1-4 (Sunwood. Phase III) Mayor Pro -Tee Van Wien noted that the current Janiteria1, e , Ms terminated their services with the City. The Public Works Director has asked Council approval to Call for Bids to !RSVP! continuity of services. MOVED BY HILL. SECONDED SY PHELPS, THAT COUNCIL APPROVE THE CALL FOR BIOS FOR JANITORIAL SERVICES IMMEDIATELY.• Mayor Pro-Tem Van Moen said there have been reasons, both pro and con, on why they terminated their services. He asked to have one of the Committees look into this. *MOTION CARRIED. MOVED BY HILL, SECONDED BY PHELPS, THAT THIS ITEM 81 REVIEWED BY NI PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE.' Councilman Harris asked in what area this company was unsatis- factory. Ted Uomoto, Public Works Director, said it was many areas. They have been trying to get the contractor to meet the requirements listed in the signed contact. *MOTION CARRIED. BY HILL, SECONDED BY PHELPS, THAT THE PROPOSED ORDI BE R BY TITLE ONLY. MOT1ON CARRIED. City Atto y reed an ordinance of the City of Tv changing th of the custodian for the Advan Account, a Section 2 of Ordinance No. 6 Ordinance Nos. 7 890, 940, 1050 and 1083 MOVED BY HILL, SECOND BY HARRIS, THA RDINANCE N0. 1215.8E ADOPTED AS READ.* Mayor Pro-Tom Van Dusan ques Director, rather than the ti said that the State Audit lie requirement that a pars s name is , Washington. ' ravel Expanse and repealing if the name of the Finance necessary. Attorney Hard No. 010 sets forth the essary. However, the peopl o. currently admini or the program for the State Audit • s Office do not take the sition. Some other cities just the office, and the Au tor's Office has taken no a on against them. It makes sense the office instead an individual, so you don't have to amt the ordi- nance ery time there 1s a change. The safe course ld be to •opt the ordinance naming the individual. Council Harris d, while she held the position of City Treasurer, she s told many times that you abide by the Auditor's Bulletins. Unt1 uch time as the.bulletin is repealed, we need to follow it. *MOTION CARRIED. • MOVED BY HILL, SECONDED BY HARRIS, THAT THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE BE READ BY TITLE ONLY. MOTION CARRIED. . City Attorney Hard rind an ordinance of the City of Tukwila. Washington, reclassifying certain lands from R -3 to R-4, as described in Planning Department Master File No. 81 -S-R. MOVED BY PHELPS, SECONOED'BY HILL, THAT ORDINANCE N0. 1216. AS AMENDED BY THE CITY ATTORNEY, BE ADOPTED AS READ.* Attorney Hard noted that.M added a new Section 4.to clarify the action of the ordinance. The property is rezoned from 1-3 to R -4. . 1 D'1CS14SS - Cont. . jrdinance 01218. Reciassifying cer- tain lands from R -3 to R4 (Summed. Phase III) (cont.). RECESS: 8:00 P.M.- 8:10 P.M. Mr. Dee Halley, Pacific Townhouse guilders, 1370 Stewart Street, .100, Seattle, noted that since the meeting of May 12, they have mit with the'hOmeowners that occupy Phase I of the condominium ,project. Their concern is adequate recreation facilities. He requested that a,condition be placed in the rezoning ordinance . that they add one Jacuzzi, which is equal to.size and capacity of the one. installed under Phase I. The location will be either in Phase III or:amaeg the other recreation facilities near the swimming poet. Councilman $111 asked if it wasn't the developer's problem rather than the City's. Mr. Dailey said they rent it to be a matter of record. Mr. Hill noted that It would appear in the minutes. .Mr. Carl Lewis, 15208 Sunwood blvd., Unit 833, said he repro sents the group of homeowners who have expressed their concerns. After discussion with the developer, they have agreed not to oppose the rezone on the conditioe that the developer install the additional Jacuzzi. He said his concern is that this agree- ment has a binding legal effect. They felt it was best to make it a condition of the rezone. He asked the City Attorney how this could become a binding commitment. Attorney Hard said he would prefer this not be included in the ordinance. This could open up situations where the City ;should not get involved. Any development this size has to have approval of the Board of Archi- tectural Review. These minutes will reflect to the Board that there is, at least, one.condition for them to consider. The Council could, by motion, direct staff to inform the Board of Architectural Review of this condition. The. Building Official should be directed that a Building Permit will not be issued until this condition is taken care of. .Councilman.8ohrer said the Planning Commission raised the fol - lowing:concerns'on this project; ingress /access and traffic generation, adequacy of recreational facilities.and adequacy of open space provided on Phase III. The.Pianning•Coomission • questioned specifically the adequacy of pool spice provided in the project. The City has an Open Space Ordinance, but.there is no analysis.as to how the project complies with rit. . He said It looks like there is potential further concern as the Planning Commission expressed. He further asked it the project now meets the conditions listed in the rezone ordinance that was repealed in December. The report does not indicate. • '.Brad Collins, Planning Director, said he understood that the previous ordinance. was related to a contract zone that covered more property than this specific rezone covers. Attorney Hard • said it was impossible for the whole property covered. under, the previous ordinance to meet the terms of rezone, so it reverted back to the existing zoning. It is back now, with the request to rezone a portion. The original conditions are completely irrelevant to what is before Council now. Councilman Bohrer. asked what the conditions were mnd'why they are no longer relevant.. Attorney Hard said the. property is now zoned R -3, and this is.. what Council has to deel.with.. It have been zoned something. else. but that is irrelevant. -• It.has' been zoned R -3 since January .of 1981. Councilman Bohrer'asked what the.conditions were.. and said it matters to him if they have been net.. Attorney Hard explained that this property owner has a parcel. of property.zoned . R -3. He is before Council:with the request to change the zone to R -t. All of the.necessary steps have been met .to complete the process. Tonight is the culmination of the process. What hap- . paned earlier has no legal effect. MOVED BY BOHRER, SECONDED BY $ARRIS,.THAT COUNCIL RECESS FOR FIVE MINUTES MALLOW TIME TO GET;A COPY OF THE ORIGINAL ORDI - NANCE. MOTION CARRIED. .• • :USINES$ • Cont. Ordinance 01216 - Reclassifying cer- tain lands from R -g to R -4 (Sunwood • Phase III) (cont.) .Mayor Pr Lem Van Duren called the. :ling back to.order., with Council Members present as previously reported. City Attorney Hard reported that Ordinance 10SS rezoned the property from R -3 to R-4 with $ conditions. These conditions applied to three parcels of property. in 1P7$. LID 2$ was created and constructed.' At that time a portion of this property was excluded from immediate assessments. After. that, It was concluded that all the property rezoned under Ordinance No. 1088 could no longer meet all of the conditions. The ordinance was then repealed so the zoning reverted back to R -3. Councilmen Bohrer said his recollection is that the property hadn't not the conditions. therefore, was not participating in LID ill. so the ordinance was repealed. He reviewed the conditions re- quire. Attorney Hard said the conditions have been met by the properties within the boundaries of the LID. The logical solution for the City was to turn all of the property back to 1-3 and, as the property is developed, the owners would have to come back to the City and request appropriate zoning for the use. Council- man Bohrer asked why there was no analysis of the conditions. Attorney Hard said because there was no legal requirement.' The conditions are not relevant to this parcel today.: The property is 1-3. If Council wants to impose the conditions, they can make them part of the rezone. Councilman Harris said the project. at the time of the rezone was a separate project.. It had nothing to do with Sunwood. The conditions were for an entirely different project. Councilman Johanson noted that the Planning Commission denied the request; but staff recommended approval. He said he also wondered about the conditions. Brad Collins, Planning Director, said he assumed the Planning Department considered the eight conditions and either they were not needed or.they had been meta Councilmen Phelps explained that Ordinance 10811has been repealed so the conditions aren't even there; further, it related to another project all together. Any conditions that apply to the Sunwood Development would apply to the rezone before Council now. Councilmen Rohrer noted that .there seems to be a lot of questions. He said.he did not see the urgency in insisting that this be passed tonight. It would be appropriate to send it back to staff for an analysis of the conditions. Councilman Phelps said :all of the :conditions and covenants and agriements'that the City has, with Sunwood Develop- ment have already been established:. They are developing under the agreement we currently have.: I don't see the point of im- posing more conditions upon the developer than they already have. .Councilman Harris said when an. ordinance is repealed, it Is no longer. valid. What ever was in the ordinance no longer applies to anything. That is what we did to Ordinance 1088. The conditions no longer apply. MOVED.BY BOHRER, SECONDED BY JOHANSON, THAT THE ORDINANCE BE TABLED TO ALLOW STAFF TO PREPARE A REPORT ON THE RELATIONSHIP OF .THE'CURRENT SUNWOOO'DEVELOPMENT PLAN TO THE: CONDITIONS. THAT WERE ORIGINALLY PROPOSED IN ORDINANCE 1088. MOTION FAILED. 'MOTION CARRIED WITH BONIER AND JOHANSON'VOTING NO. MOVED BY PHELPS'. SECONDED BY HILL, THAT THE PLANNING STAFF BE DIRECTED TO NOTIFY THE BOARD OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW TO OBSERVE AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE HOMEOWNERS AND THE.DEVELOPERS TO PROVIDE Ali ADDITIONAL JACUZZI RECREATIONAL FACILITY.* . Councilman Bohrer commented that this is a limited attempt to include some of the considerations'that Were in the original eight. 'MOTION CARRIED WITH BOHRER-AND JOHANSON VOTING NO. Pacific Townhouse Builders Seattle office: Marine MOS 1110 lllwset Saw, &As 100, wew. WA stria (200) 002.1020 Bellevue filler 3111 101Ith Avenue NC. Bellevue. WA 1000N !2001 450.1720 Dear ark: Mark Caughey Planning Director City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Blvd. Tukwila, WA 98188 RE: REZONE PHASE III "SJN )OD" March 9, 1981 As we discussed March 3, 1981, Pacific Townhouse Builders economically cannot live with the density factor of 16 units per acre for Phase III as recommended by the Planning Commission. I would like to point out several factors that the Planning Commission may not have been aware of in making their recommendation: 1. We initially purchased the Ehmke site and optioned the Kato prop- erty under R -4 zoning (ordinance 1088) which allowed a density of 18.7 units per acre. Needless to say, our purchase price relects this density. Because of the property's location adjacent to the freeway corridor, we never thought that the density would be down- zoned from that figure. As a matter of fact, in discussions with city staff members, we were under the opinion that the density could be rezoned well above 18.7. 2. The R -4 portion of "Sunwood" Phase I (Buildings A,B,C,D 6 E) which immediately borders the subject site to the north was rezoned in 1978 for a density of 21.6 units per acre. (72 units - 3.34 acre) It should be pointed out that this R -4 area is closer to the single family areas of Tukwila than the subject site. To the northeast the "San Juan" Apartments have R -4 zoning and are built -out to a density of 19.28 units per acre. To the east "Cottage Creek" is zoned R -4 and would have allowed 120 units but only 48 units were built because S0% of the site had unusable topography. The south boundary of the property borders on C -1 zoning which will be developed for commercial use in the near future. To the west of the site the new VIP hotel is to be built. In most municipalities, EXHIBIT "Sunwood" Page 2 a residential property next to an intensive zoning classification such as C -1 will have the highest residential classification poss- ible. &ample; King County RM 900 (48 units per acre), Seattle AM 800 (S2 units per acre). 3. As we all know, housing is getting extremely expensive! The public wants "affordable" housing but because of government regulations, home prices are estimated to be 20 to 30% higher than they should be. This is a great example of the Planning Commission restricting the density (government regulation) thus increasing housing costs in an area that should have high density. At 16 units per acre, this site will allow only 62 units vs. the 78 units (20 units per acre) being asked for. This 16 unit red- uction will add $1800 per unit of ground cost. Add to this; the financing cost of the construction and hold period, the loss in maximum efficiency of construction, the additional cost per unit of roads, utilities, landscaping, and marketing which will be the same for 78 units as 62 units and the total additional selli�n pri per unit is approximately $4,500. From sa es on nase I, we learned that selling prices must be kept as low as possible or you eliminate a major portion of buyers because they can't qualify fora loan. From our discussion, I determined that one of the reasons for the re- duction in density from 20 to 16 might be the Planning Commissions' concern for landscaping and recreational area. The main entrance of "Sunwood" will utilize a heavily landscaped terraced wall. Sunwood Boulevard which divides the Phase III site has 20' Maples and will add a forested buffer through the center of the subject site. The area adjacent to building and parking areas will be heavily landscaped as was done in Phase I. (I might suggest that members of the Planning Commission take a tour of "Sunwood "). The purchasers of the individual condominium units for Phase III will utilize the recreational package which was built as part of Phase I which in- cludes a swimming pool, tennis court and recreation center with Jacuzzi, kit- chen, game room and changing rooms. The original recreational package was designed based on an estimated use of 2.6 people per unit. But in fact, based on the sale of the first 63 units the average has been 1.4 people per unit with only 4 children. As can be seen, the recreational facilities were over - designed by some 46% which easily will take care of the 16 additional units. In addition during construction of Phase III we will be incorporating a jogging trail which will surround the full development. In conclusion, I have tried to point out that economically we, or the eventual buyers of the condominium units, can not live with a 16 unit per acre 11!'t 1 umtood P.' age 3 density. Dail that this site is adjacent to the freeway corridor and that we are providing quality landscaping: and recreation amenities for buyers, there is absolutely no reason that the density could not be in excess of 20 units per acre. If you need any further information, please do not hesitate to. call Me at :682- 7830. Sincerely, PACIFIC l'Oh'N IOJSE BUILDERS AGENDA ITEM CITY OF TUKWILA PLANNING DIVISION PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DR- O1 -84: WINDMARK HOMES TUKWILA, INC. INTRODUCTION On April 25, 1985, the Board of Architectural Review (BAR) denied this applica- tion, which decision was upheld by the City Council on appeal by the proponent on July 15, 1985. During the letter consideration the applicant submitted a revised site plan which had not been reviewed by the BAR. As a result of an executive session on October 21, 1985, the City Council reconsidered their previous action and remanded the matter back to the BAR for consideration of the new site plan. The staff report before the BAR at the time of its decision is being updated and /or repeated herein per the revised site plan to facilitate review and a clear record in the matter. This report is the complete and current version for con- sideration by the BAR. FINDINGS 1. On June 2, 1981, the City Council rezoned the property to R -4 subject to: A. Overall residential density permitted on this site shall not exceed 20 D.U. /acres. B. Any project proposed on this site subsequent to City Council approval of the subject rezone action shall require BAR of the site, architecture and landscaping details prior to issuance of building permits (Exhibit A). At this same meeting the City Council passed a motion directing the BAR observe an agreement between the homeowners of Phases I and II and the develo- pers of Phase III to install a jacuzzi recreation facility. The Council's minutes are contained in attached Exhibit #F. Such a facility is contained in the current application. .The rezone of the property contained a site plan very similar to that proposed (Exhibit B). However, the rezone did not obligate the City to the site plan, but the previous plan enabled analysis of land use impacts of the applicant's contemplated R -4 development. The property consists of 3.85 acres, which would permit 77 dwelling units (3.85 x 20 O.U. /acres = 77 O.U.). Only 66 dwelling units are proposed in 8 buildings (Exhibit B). EXHIBIT 2 DR- 01 -84: WINDMARK HOP.-.. TUKWILA, INC. November 21, 1985 Page 2 2. BAR consideration is also required by Section 18.60.030(2)(E), Tukwila Municipal Code (TMC),.. Per TMC section 18.60.070 the BAR may approve, approve with conditions or deny the application. Guidelines for this review are contained in TMC Section 18.60.050. 3. Little substantial vegetation exists on the property except for a small variety of trees at the middle portion of the southerly property line (Exhibit B) and a 10" apple tree along the south side of the access road. The landscape plan adds a great deal of tree, shrub and groundcover material and retains most of the existing trees (Exhibit C). 4. Exhibit B indicates essentially the entire site will be recontoured to accomo- date the proposed development pursuant to the existing Sunwood Boulevard access road off 62nd Avenue South. According to the 1975 Data Inventory this site has development limitations of: A. Slopes may be unstable when modified. B. Slopes.of 15 -25% C. Part of a major wooded area. 5. Parking will be provided for 132 cars conforming to the 2 cars per unit required by TMC 18.56.050. The buildings will be three stories averaging approximately 31 feet in height (Exhibit 0). Wood materials will be featured and painted /stained brown with beige trim. The roof will be of cedar shingles. 6. TMC Section 18.52.060 requires 13,200 gross square feet and 12,148 net square feet of recreation space. The poposed children's recreation areas of 3,300 square feet meets the requirement that at least 3,300 square feet must be use- ful for children. The required landscaping . areas contribute 1166 square feet for recreation space. Approximately 14,350 square feet of open space is pro- vided on the site in areas less than 4:1 slope. Recontouring and recon- figuring of some of the open spaces occurred to create useable spaces. A jacuzzi, recreation building and deck, outdoor childrens play areas and five gazebos are parts of the recreation facilities. 7. Carports will contain one car per dwelling unit and will be constructed the same as carports in Sunwood Phases I and II (Exhibit E). 8. Sunwood Boulevard contains a median strip which is planted with trees and features street lights the same as exists at the entrance from 62nd Avenue South. A sidewalk exists along the northerly and easterly side of the road (Exhibit B). DR- 01 -84: WINDMARK H0L., TUKWILA, INC. November 21, 1985 Page 3 9. The northerly buildings will reach a maximum elevation of 202 feet, which is within 5 feet of the finished floor of the lower floors of the adjacent buildings of Sunwood Phase I (Exhibit ). Existing topography slopes southerly downward, thereby reducing the building height of the southerly units. The existing panoramic view from Sunwood Phase I will be impacted to the extend of the proposed buildings. 10. The following Comprehensive Plan Policies and /or objectives apply: Policy 1 Maintain the wooded character of the steep slopes and upland plateau, and encourage the use of vegetation in slope stabili- zation. Policy 3 Policy 1 Policy 2 Policy 1 Objective 8 Discourage disturbance of vegetation when not in conjunction with the actual development of the property. (p. 26, Natural Environment) Discourage development on slopes in excess of 20 percent Preserve the views of hillside residents. (p. 26, Natural Environment) Discourage development in areas where slopes are known to be unstable. In areas where the stability of slopes is questionable, allow development only after a qualified pro- fessional can demonstrate that slopes will be stable even after site modification. (p. 29, Natural Environment) Recognize the environmental basemap of the Tukwila Planning areas which depicts the distribution and extent of natural ame- nities based on the previously mentioned objectives and use this map as a general planning guide. (p. 30, Natural Environment) Policy 1 Strive to preserve steep hillsides and wooded areas in a scenic condition. Encourage replanting and revegetation of denuded areas not in the process of development. (p. 34, Open Space) Policy 3 Provide for active recreation areas (ballfields, tennis courts, swimming pools, playgrounds, community center) consistent with the needs of the community. Policy 4 Provide for passive recreational areas (parks, natural reser- ves, picnic grounds) consistent with the needs of the com- munity. (p. 35, Open Space) 11. The Public Works Department determined adequate water is available to proper- ties in the area and to the proposal. OR- O1 -84: WINOMARK HOE_, TUKWILA, INC. November 21, 1985 Page 4 Conclusions 1. TMC 18.60.040(1) Relationship of Structure to Site: The site plan includes appropriate landscaping, and forms a "transition" from 62nd Avenue South and Sunwood Boulevard. Plant materials were selected which will mature to approximately the height of the proposed buildings. Parking areas are linear in configuration, avoiding the appearance of a large mass of pavement. Also carports and landscaping break up the visual impacts of the parking areas. The visual impact of the proposed buildings appears to be similar to Sunwood Phases I and II. Oue to the relatively more exposure to public view of the southerly portion of the hillside, the buildings very likely will be more visible to the valley floor. 2. TMC 18.60.050(2) Relationship of Structure and Site to Adjoining Area: Sunwood is a mixture of architecture styles and building materials. Phase I is essentially more "modern ", treated with white stucco. Phase II is more "conservative contemporary ", consisting of stained wood materials. Overall visual harmony exists, largely accomplished by landscaping in Phase III along the northerly border, which may be less desirable than view maximization for Phase I. The Public Works Department indicated the proposed vehicular circulation system is appropriate relative to Phase III and 62nd Avenue South. A cut -out in the median strip accommodates vehicular congestion and public safety vehicle movement. 3. TMC 18.60.050 Landscape and Site Treatment: Existing topography is generally steadily rolling southerly down the hill. Proposed grading for the most part is parallel to the land contour to minimize grades and promote safety. Sometimes rockeries and /or retaining wall of 4 -6 feet are needed to balance cuts. Such walls may require additional soils and engineering study (TMC Section 18.56.050(3)(A and B)). The little amount of existing substantial vegetation on the site is for the most part protected from grading by landscaping and rockeries (Policy 1 and 3, p. 24, Comprehensive Plan). Available plans indicate some development will occur on slopes over 20% (Policy 2, p. 26; Policy 2, p. 29 and Objective 8, p, 30, Comprehensive Plan). Some portions of the property exceed slopes of 20 %, which should be discouraged, but are not prohibited by the Plan. A soils report was submitted indicating little problems for the proposed development. DR- O1 -84: WINDMARK H0R_., TUKWILA, INC. November 21, 1985 P age 5 Landscaping on the existing plan interrupts the building masses, defines the perimeter of parking and access areas and enhances the scenic vista and view from and of the site. Currently this vista /view is largely unobstructed by vegetation and buildings. Therefore, the revised landscaping plan should pre- serve the vista /view between and round the building (Policy 2, p.. 26, and Policy 2, p. 34, Comprehensive Plan). Wheel stops will help protect plant materials adjacent to on -grade parking areas. Trash containers are proposed to be located adjacent to or between carports. This seems to be appropriate screening. 4. TMC 18.60.050 Building Design: Building components relate well to each other and provide proportional interruption of the facades without appearing forced. The brown color with beige trim is compatible with Phases I and II. Submitted architectural elevations do not show mechanical equipment or light fixtures. Building design is essentially a single design with variations pro- duced by modulation of the structures, slight reduction of density and change of a few architectural features. Overall the effect will probably not appear monotonous. 5. TMC 18.60.050(5) Miscellaneous Structures and Street Furniture: Street lighting is the same as existing at the entrance onto Sunwood Boulevard, which appears compatible with all phases of Sunwood. 6. Conformance with recreation space requirements of TMC 18.52.060 is apparent in the proposal. Adequate children's play areas and areas suitable for adults are indicated, e.g., jacuzzi, trails, useable open areas, gazebos, play apparatus, etc. This seems to be reasonable and minimum recreation use on the site. Preliminary Recommendation Based on the above, staff preliminarily recommends the proposal be approved sub- ject to: 1. Public Works and Fire Departments review and final approval of the median strip Sunwood Boulevard relative to public safety and access. OR- O1 -84: WINOMARK HOPS., TUKWILA, INC. November 21, 1985 Page 6 2. Submittal of ;soils and engineering reports on rockeries over . 5 feet in height for final review and :approval of the Public Works and Building Departments. Low profile shrubs and plant materials should be located along the north pro- perty line to screen the proposed carports while preserving existing views from Sunwood Phase I per review and approval of the Planning Department. 4. Installation of wheel stops to protect on -grade landscaping. Exhibits A - Site Plan B - Landscaping Plan C - Recreation Areas Map D - Recreation Space Calculations E.- Architectural Elevations F Photographs.. of Carport Design G - Building Height Comparison H - File of record maintained in City Hall I Excerpt of City Council: Minutes of July 15, 1985,: Public:: Hearing ,j Excerpt of Council Minutes of October-21, 1985,• Executive Session Meeting (PC.WNDMRK,1) (5A.1) All istAS • / I I ' ///// 2 /..( / //""\ gi -. landscape plan S 'C44KS_ sC CAL cs.SL fl 3S itecigeomia Apt 2 3 4- Gl-k Rr - 41V 617-9-k CA c P41. : 13 . rr 2-.5% 1+4. 2, 5o I aq* 11 535 KE= 1K20 L DSCAVIkScA 17 7L)Ctt ; IO °lo Cr 1 4S?5) . sq. pr. = I OS IN 0 I. I. • Si • O 14;35Q (240 4 t ous uss Iwo 20014 . sQ ?T. peOUI R QQ Ash CALcOLAI 200 sOtrii. NI< CC, ( 1tVS = (5 sQ. Pr. ►` 05'2- La I+a 14; 350 uc 2,43416 sp. p1 1, 2ov 2,150 '' 6,44c4 18,02-5 N N N .N A 1I f1 . . 11 04 p F '1%t7 3,3 °0 .FT. NtIIJIM 'JM 313001° " l' Fizta‘I I __ jla elevation . E4.61 c"- +ew01 -1cs Ito -5.sur.Moczo '4-S 0 :ea FOri S r1(50° - 441:2441* C.CNWA4Z1 SOO VJNINNCOO tuft -01134 O mom r+Aott. - 184.75 rr. 15C( C c , 1 4 17. E pu1LP1 p tI a fa - Z42. 'f - 2VZ. (ritcm emiar: A) COWIN % t 10161444T Za2.01 W11.41144 ? 15(.3111;11.14 IS .1 ♦1 IC 1111•0 1 moor OwO SECTION 1 P • . 20' 1" • 20' 1" • 20' 2 SECTION 3 AEI wS. GWcHert 4-24 1,11. -0.6101.1s r1 • TUKWILA CITY COUNCiL, REGULAR MEETING Jell IS. 1*E1 Pale a PUBLIC • NEARING Continued From June 17, Appeal'of. Board of Arch: Review decision by Windmark Holmes Mayor Van Dusan noted that this Public Hearing was continued from the meeting of June 17, 1985 with the approval of both parties. The application for Phase III of the Sunwood Development was filed: with the City in January, 1984, by Pacific Townhouse Builders. It went before the Board of Architectural Review . for design review. In February, 1984, the Planning Commission tabled consideration of the application: at the request of the applicant. In March, 1985 a new :application was filed with the City showing Windmark.Homes as owner. The Planning Commission held a Public Meeting on April 25, 1985 to review the application. Based on testimony received, they denied the application. An appeal on behalf of the applicant WAS filed May 3, 1985. The intention of the applicant is to present revised plans and demonstrate that the concerns of the Board of Architectural Review have been satisfied. Mayor Van Dusan asked if there were any challenges against he or the Council over the Appearance of Fairness Doctrine. There was no comment. Brad Collins, Planning Director, presented the following Exhibits: 1. Master Land Use Application filed January S, 1984 2. Master Land Use Application filed March 6, 1985 3: Revised staff report to Planning Commission 4. Minutes of April 25, 1985, Planning Commission meeting 'S. Appeal of Planning Commission decision received May 3, 1985 '6. Planning Commission findings and.conclusions 7. Notice of. June 17, 1985, Public Nearing of the City Council: 8. .Notice of April 25, 1985,'Public'Nearing of the.Planning Commission, mailing list and affidavit of distribution' TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL, OMAN NICTIUS Jell 11, 191 Page 3 pUILIC MEAEIU • cot. IllndeorN iiesae Appeal 7414)(44 g. Lotter of April 25, 1911, from Lawrence E. Ward on behalf of Sunwaed ConMtnfr, homeowners and presented to Planning Ca.tsslon at the April 25, 1901, Public Hearing. 10. MesNIrandue of April 23, 191, free Lawrence E. Hard to Seemed Nemeemlers Association and presented to Planning Canissied at the April 25, 191 Public hearing 11. Letter of March 1, 191, from Pacific Townhouse builders notifying City of the sale of the property to Windmark Hagen. Lawrence E. Ward, Attorney representing Summed Condominium Homeowners, presetted.a letter written by his dated July 15. 191 to the City Council and it was labeled Exhibit 12. Mayor Van Dusan opened the Public'Nearing to consider an . appeal filed by Windmark Names, Inc. Ne noted that 12 exhl -. bits had been read into the record.. Mayor Van Dusan asked everyone wishing to speak during the hearing to stand and be sworn in. Attorney Caney issued the oath. Brad Collins, Planning Director, gave the opening remarks. This is an appeal of a decision by the Board of. Architectural Review that was heard at their April 2S, 1911 meeting. • The Findings and Conclusions of the Planning.•Cosnission iard listed in Exhibit 6. He • reviewed the Findings and Conclusions . and listed the options the • Council Alas in reviewing the appeal. . 1. Review the information presented'to the BM and make their own decision regarding'the criteria rand the ads • .guacy the application",in meeting the criteria. 2. .Review and agree•with the BM. 3., Since .the applicant has submitted revisions to the site ' .plan, the decision.could be remanded 'back rto the.BAR to review the new 'information. George Kresovich, Attorney with the .ther, firm of Hillis, Cairncross, Clark and.Martin at 403 Columbia Street, Seattle, .said, he represents the applicant, Windmark•Homes. Their pre- sentation will consist of statements by: 1.• 'John Lane, Architect for the project 2. Steven Shea, Landscape Architect 3. 'John Snyder, President of Windmark Hones John Lane, Architect and Planner representing.Windmark•Homes, 115 West Denny Way, Seattle, discussed their project.': The. ,zoning allows 77 dwelling units on the site, but they are proposing 66 units in 8 buildings - 3•six- plexes and 6 nine plexes. The location of .the structures is in' agreement with the.site plan submitted by the previous owner. The building locations have been maintained, but the 'density has.been cut. Exhibit 013, Proposed Site Plan for the development. was recorded. • Mr. Lane said they reviewed slopes of•drives, Fire Department. access to buildings and maximum. building areas • and they r concluded that the site plan developed:by the previous plan mgrs and themselves is, not only the best, but•possibly the ... only. solution for an efficient .development 'of the site. ,Their proposal sits very well with existing'development.and are consistent with existing structures to ten north. They are proposing two story buildings with daylight basements and units'twe'or.three wide. The buildings"are. cedar siding and. shingles and earthtoM colors as. suggested by. the Planning • TuanA CITY COUNCIL, PE01LM KUMM July 11, 1* Page 4 PI LIC WAIN • amt. risk Mama Sala Met./ Staff. Mr. Lame displayed Exhibit 03, Attachment 0 (Side (levatie Steely) which skews end gables. They are also shwing warts and covered trash receptacles. To mitigate impacts the proposal ea have a the coanusity, they have added an lndser jaunt and barbecue stricture throeghett the site. The total of the recreation and open space areas is 10,000 square feet. Their structures are well within the 1-4 losing remuireasmts. The setback tram the devsioprnt to the north is a a/sian of 60 feet, and in some places 00 feet. Their elevation of 200 is well below the eye level of oceu- pants of all of the units east of Summed boulevard. There is a view corridor between buildings 1 and 2. Exhibit 014, Building Location Plan, was recorded. Steven Shea, Landscape Architect at Thomas ling and Associates, said they were hired to redesign the landscaping. Planning Staff has reviewed their plan and concur with it. He explained the landscape plans as shone on Exhibit 013. Along with the landscape plan there is a path system that allows access throughout the site that connect the . recreation areas and gazebos.. They have addressed the con- cerns of the Board, have provided better views and still pro- vided separation between the units. Council Member Morgan .asked who monitors landscaping for compliance. Mr. Collins said the Planning 0epartment in cooperation with the Building Official. John Snyder, Vice President and Project Manager for Mindmark Homes, 510 Rainier Avenue South, Seattle, commented that they obtained the property in February, 1985. It had already been rezoned to 11-4 allowing up to 20 units per acre. The concep- tual site plan was used throughout the proceedings. Their present proposal asks for approval for 66 units. They will be the same type units as in Sunwood I and II. They have done everything they could to respond to the concerns of the Homeowners' Association, but it has been to no avail. They feel the Homeowners are primarily interested in using this process to leverage the settlement of their dispute with Pacific Townhouse Builders, the previous owners. They have settled the concerns expressed by the Association. ` They have assured the Homeowners that they intend to build con- dominiums, that the purchase prices will be around $85,000. that their parking ratio is 2 to 1, and they had a joint maintenance agreement drafted and sent to the Association. They have never responded. The Homeowners agreed to drop their appeal if Mindmark agreed to loin their Association. Then, they were told that the compliance with the Homeowners' request was not good enough. . Mr. Snyder said they want to build a fine project in Tukwila - one they can be proud of - and they want to comply with all the requirements. They want to be treated like everyone else. He asked Council to approve their project. Attorney Haney explained that Council is sitting as the Board of Architectural Review. Council has the same criteria to look at as they did. . George Kresovich, Attorney, said they agreed to join the Homeowners' Association providing they would not oppose this project and informed their attorney of the agreement. The Homeowners' Association was not agreeable. In reviewing the BM decision, it is clear there are three major problems: T1110IILA CITY COUNCIL. WWI Mt1Ti118 July Is. IMO Page 1 =C MEMIi • Cess. Wind>msrt Meese 1. ••Adsgmaq of tan recseatiom areas and facilities. In an Need Oat.) effort to satisfy ..the cascaras of the Board of Architectural Revise the recreaties areas were revised. 2. The landscape /lam. The 8AI said the Landscape Plan was incomplete. . Rather them fight about It, they prepared a new plan, which was developed by prefesslonals. 3. Concern about vier blockage. Board of Architectural Revise relied on tie previsiees in the Code to cake their findings. The first sews that the height and scale of each beilding should be considered in relation to its site. The nest says building should be to appropriate scale and be in harem with neighboring developments. The type of buildings that are proposed for this site are precisely the sane type and precisely the same scale as the building in the existing Summed Development.. The building have been sited very carefully in order to minimize the view blockage. The project has been designed to be a good neighbor. Mr. Kresovich asked that the sane standards be applied to them that have been applied to other developments. He asked Council to approve the project as proposed. Lawrence E. Mard, Attorney representing the Sunwood Homeowners, 2400 Columbia Canter, Seattle, said he was asked to assist the Homeowners with some problems relating to their application of Windmark Homes. He prepared a letter, now marked Exhibit 12, that has been distributed to Council. There are three people that would like to speak. 1. .Ryan Thrower, President of the Board of the Homeowners' Association 2. Dick Taylor, Homeowner 3. Joan Hernandez, Board Member. Mr. Hard said he is concerned about statements that have been made by Mr. Snyder and Mr. Kresovich about conversations and statements that have been nude. If this were a trial those would be hearsay and not admissible. He asked to have these comments taken with a grain of salt. Hi is concerned about the impression trying to be made here that the Sunwood Homeowners' Association consists of nothing but a. bunch of angered Homeowners - angered, not at what is happening at the Windmark side, but at the company that sold them their homes. He reminded Council they are to consider only the application of Windmark Homes. The Homeowners are concerned about - what is going to be placed on the piece of property immediately to the south of them. The property was originally part of the Sunwood development. It was to be developed by the same people as Phase III, but in March of this year, they were no longer dealing with these people, but rather with a company called Windmark Homes. Ryan Thrower, 15232 Sunwood Boulevard, is President of the Homeowners' Association and a member of the Board of Directors. There are 178 households in Sunwood. When they bought their homes, they thought they were buying into a total community. They felt they would have a voice in how the community would be run, how rules would be adopted and enforced. At the time of purchase, they received a copy of the declarations of the Condominium Association which con- tained a legal description of the Phase III property. The legal said the property was subject to the convenants and restrictions of the Homeowners' Association. They found that this did not give them the protection they thought they had. ' Now they are looking to Tukwila and the Land Use Planning Policies to protect their investment. They asked that, if the development is allowed, they have to live up to the same TIRYa* CITY COUNCIL, *IIL* iWWTIN July Ili. 1* PROs 0 nIaIC Willi • Cast. Ninieerk Nine Apesat Met.) set.ef standards that the Summed Complex followed. We feel this prong . is lackisg recruits. facilities. It would be easy for residents of another temples to wander In and use their facilities. Me asked the City to help them to protect their 'sweetmeats, stand bellied the daisies of the Planning Commission and reject any project that dees net suet the requirements. Old , Taylor, 15270 Sunned Boulevard, expressed concern over blockage of their vier. At the time they bought they were given a maximum elevation far Phase III. He recalled that it was 203 feet. There have bees several flyer's discussed so he asked what the °iron clad•'animum elevation 1s at this thee. Joan Hernandez, 16224 Seaweed Boulevard said she is on the board of Oirectors for the Homeowners• Association. A copy of her letter to the Pleasing Camalssios Is included in Exhibit 03 as Item N. Seaweed is a beautiful place to live and she would like to stay there. She hopes that this deve- lopment will not affect their quality of life. She would like to have the Phase III property governed under the same convenants and restrictions they live by. She would not like to see the cheap housing units being built in the area deve- loped on this property. She said she has faith in the Council that they will not allow a developer to ruin their property. Lawrence E. Hard called attention to Exhibit 012, his letter dated July 15, 1985. It outlines the legal reasons why the Homeowners are asking the City Council to affirm the decision of the Planning Commission sitting as the Board of Architectural Review. That decision was to require this developer to go back and resubmit a design plan that net the requirements of the Tukwila Municipal Code. The applicant has submitted a revised site plan, but it does `not address the fundamental problems that the. Planning Commission had with the plan. They continue to have a concern over 1) who is the applicant and 2) who is the record property owner. The deed to the property is to Windmark Hodes, Inc. whereas, the applicant is Windmark Homes Tukwila, Inc. Their con - cerns are that Council has had inadequate materials for a proper review. The landscaping plans are not sufficiently detailed, there has been no analysis of the slope profile. and a more detailed environmental analysis should be made. The fundamental problem with this application is the question of adequate recreation space. The Code requires 200 square feet of recreation space per unit. Nothing shows how this applicant has calculated the recreation space. What they have done is say open space equals recreation space. . There has been no analysis of the amount of open space on slopes over 4 to 1. This applicant has not complied with the Tukwila Municipal Code on its analysis of what is proper recreation space. It is up to the Council to make the deci- sion as to whether or not the application meets the intent of the code. This proposed application does, not meet commit - ments that were made by the previous owner. He asked that the City Council affirm the decision of the . Planning Commission at their meeting9 of April 25, 1985. If Council wishes to modify the application and approve it, ht asked that the applicant be required to submit a new environmental checklist and that a new environment review be made. Council Member Morgan asked what happens if Council upholds the board of Architectural Review decision. Mr. Collins said they could submit a new application or proceed their appeal through the Court System. TU KWILA CITY COUNCIL. 02SL NEiTINs J uly 1f. 1* ale SIC 1KMiBI • Cat. dia_k Now Apprt (cent.) Attorney Nme ested that flK 11.10.020 provides that the City Conseil skall affirm, day er msdify the decides of the Piasnley CImmission (MI) withis,l0 days after.the filing of the appeal. Prier to makieela decision, the City Cowell may hold a Public Muriel. If Council wasted Staff to prepare additional isfar matlon. the hearing could be continued and Staff directed to brie! the infanstion back. John Lane clarified the issue of height of the buildings. The buildings will be 1211 feet above floor grade and 32 feet above that to the peak. We are .g steed to sta on the 200 feet for the record. The condom slum market Is very cow petitive and you de net put out a bad product all expect it . sell. George Kresovich discussed the new information they had sub- mitted to Planning Staff and the Haioweers' Association for review. He co nested that it was not new information Just for this waling. If the developer intended to put as many units os the property as he could all then leave, he would not be reducing the number of units. The property was rezoned in 1921 to allow 77 units. The developer is trying to build a marketable product that people can afford to buy and will be in keeping with the neighborhood. Lawrence E. Hard stated that they do not think Council has enough .information to make an intelligent decision. . If Council does not affirm the decision of the Planning Commission, they do have the power to send it back to thew and allow this to reconsider the application with the addi- tional information. If Council does not do this, they ask that the application be denied because it is not clear. There is no analysis of open space versus recreation space or how such of it is on slopes of 4 to 1. If Council should go ahead and permit this design plan as proposed, we think that the applicant should be required to submit a new environmen- tal check list. There is not enough adequate data here for anybody to make a decision. Lastly, nothing has been said about who the applicant is or who the owner of the property is. This should be of concern to Council. If the applicant says something is going to be done, what assurance do you have when we do no even know for sure who the applicant is or that is is the property owner. We have presented information that raises that question. We think this is another reason why the Council should affirm the action of the Planning Commission. Attorney Haney suggested that Council look over the City of Tukwila Board of Architectural Review Design Review Evaluation Guide which lays out the criteria by which Council needs to decide whether or not this application should be approved or denied. If Council wishes to ask any additional questions, now is the time before you close the Public Hearing. Mayor Van Dusan asked if anyone had anything more thiy.would like to put into the record. Council Member Phelps asked. what the relationship to, the street is as far as a shared. use for ingress and egress for the development. Mr. Kresovich said.that there.is an ease moot across the iindnark property to the Sunwood Homeowners! Association so they have a right to use the right -of -way and• • both properties have that right. MOVED eV SAWN, SECONOED IV.101110. THAT THE .. PUBLIC. HEARING`..:. 81 CLOSED. MOTION CARRIED. TUMULI CITY COIIIICIL. MS$.M *LTINS Jell U. 1* Fol 0 rUILIC warns • C . moor* Nees Am1 IeMt.1 MOMS: II:30 P.N. S:7i P.N. NOVIO IT 106131, . IT MEM. TINT: TNI CITY COUNCIL • SMIS THIS Ogg TO TIt OF,,MCNITICTUNAL RIYIIY.■ •COL FRtsioNNT IAUp1 WITi� UNCI MIS NOTION WITH ANAL OF .TIM SICON•. NOvn ST SAIICN, SICONOIO IT MONIM, THAT COUNCIL CONCUR WITH TI* NM OF ARCNITECTINN. RIMI[W ANO ADOPT TWIN FINOINGS ANO CONCLUSIONS. NOTION CM11110. HOMED eV MOWN, SICONOEO SY WEEPS. THAT COUNCIL RECESS FOR FIVE MINUTES. MOTION CARNIEO. Mayer van Ousts called tM Regular Meeting of the Tukwila City Cowell bast to or r1 ti: Coesc l *embers present as previously reported. 1041116A 6k11 wNl11.►L KLuW '$ r1L6i OKA1 October 21, 19815 Paso S EXECUTIVE SESSION 9:30 - 9:55 P.M. . MOVED BY PHELPS. SECONDED BY MORGAN, THAT COUNCIL GO INTO . EXECUTIVE: SESSION. • MOTION CARRIED. • The Executive Session was called to discuss the Windmark Homes lawsuit. MOVED BY BOHRER, SECONDED BY DUFFIE. THAT COUNCIL GO OUT OF EXECUTIVE SESSION. , MOTION CARRIED. • Appeal of Windmark Homes MOVED.BY BOHRER, SECONDED BY "HMRIS,.THAT COUNCIL RECONSIDER ITS ACTION'OF JULY 1S, 198S DENYING THE APPEAL OF WINDMARK • .HOMES FROM A DECISION OF THE BOARD . OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW OY, • WINOMARK•S DEVELOPMENT: PROPOSAL; CITY, FILE 001- 01 -84. MOTION CARRIED. MOVED. BY.BOHNER, SECONDED BY:,PHELPS.•= THAT.TTHE CITY COUNCIL • REMAND THIS MATTER TO THE BOARD..OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW WITH . THE INSTRUCTIONS•FOR THE BOARD AND STAFF TO REVIEW THE REVISED PLANS SUBNITTEO,TO THE CITY COUNCIL AT ITS JULY 15, 1985. PUBLIC HEARING ON THE APPLICATION.' TO RECEIVE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC HEARING TESTIMONY CONCERNING SUCM"PLANS.MO TO. FORWARD.. THEIR•RECOMIENDATION TO THE CITY COUNCIL. .MOTION CARRIED. ' OIINN J. AM*TIM PITIR R. ANOt1ISON OAVp N SJORNION JOIL N. SOOANfNY M. RATMOIO GA/IIICROM WINDY W. CAMNCIIOM LAumi LOOTvNm On* MARK S. CLAM SALLY N. CLARIe T. RYAN MAMAS DART M. IALLON WNW a ,olio solo f. IINRILSTIM JORIAN f MOM RICNARO I. OI/IORO JIROMI L. WILLIS LAN ONRCIS op MILLIS. CAIRNCROSS. CLARK & MARTIN A PROISSIIONAL SIfNVICI CORPORATION 40! COLUM/IA STRKT SCAMS. WASNIMOTON fm04 120H 123 1741 January 14, 1986 Mr. Jerry Knudsen, Chairman Board of Architectural Review City of Tukwila Tukwila City Hall 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, Washington 98188 WIIVRO V EO F l C 1986 CITY OF TUKWILA PLANNING DEPT. Re: DR- 01 -84: Windmark Homes, Tukwila Inc. Dear Chairman Knudsen and Board Members: TKAOTNV N. MOSNINO GRIOORV E. KILI AN GIOROR A. KRISOVICM SARA$ I IAACR OtSORAM I $ALAN( OIOOOI W MARTIN. JR. LOUIS 0 IITIRSON SNIRTLR. IITIRSON JAMES J. RAOIN STtVIN R. ROVE* MICHAEL I ICNUNACNIR MICHAEL R. SCOTT AICMARO S. SWANSON * CNARO R WILSON CNAR.II f. WRIONT On April 25, 1985, the Board of Architectural Review denied the application of Windmark Homes, Tukwila Inc. for Phase III of the Sunwood development. Planning Commission Findings and Conclusions, May 23, 1985. The City Council upheld this decision on July 15, 1985, but following an executive session on October 21 voted to remand this appli- cation to the Board with instructions to review the revised plans submitted to the Council, receive additional public testimony, and formulate a new recommendation. The Planning Commission staff has since revised their report, addressing the revised plans and their relation to the Board findings which lead to the original denial. At the hearing on January 23, 1986, we will demonstrate that the revised plans resolve the Board's initial concerns. The purpose of this letter is to briefly describe these changes to assist you in your review of our client's proposal. I. The Revised Plans Comply With the Zoning Code Recreation Space Requirements of TMC 18.52.060. In Conclusion No. 1, the Board stated that most of the proposed recreation space conflicted with the landscape plan and was not useable for recreation purposes, thereby violating TMC 18.52.060. In response, the revised plans now contain a jacuzzi, trails, gazebos, recreation building and deck, and children's play areas and apparatus. Also, open space recontouring and reconfiguring have created additional useable spaces. These changes have led staff to conclude that "(clonformance with recreation space requirements of TMC 18.52.060 is apparent EXHIBIT 3 Board of Architectural Review January 14, 1986 Page 2 in the proposal.' Planning Commission Staff Report, Novem- ber 21,1985, page 5. II. The BAR . Criteria Regarding Streetscape. Transition, Adequate Landscaping, and Pedestrian Movement Are Now Satisfied. In Conclusions No. 2 and 4, the Board stated that the landscape plan was incomplete and did not accommodate existing vistas, and that adequate pedestrian sidewalks and trails to link various parts of the proposal were not provided. The applicant hired landscape architect Steven. Shea for the purpose of redesigning the landscape plan to resolve these concerns. The revised plan, described in the updated Planning Commission staff report, "interrupts the building masses, defines the perimeter of parking and access areas, and enhances the scenic vista. and view from and of the site." As Mr. Shea testified to the Council, this new plan provides better views while maintaining separation between the units. In addition, as mentioned above, a trail and walkway system has been added, connecting the recreation areas and gazebos and enabling pedestrian access throughout the site. These efforts have, as the Planning Staff agrees, satisfied the criteria cited above. III. The Revised Plans Minimize the Impact Upon the View From Sunwood Phase I. In Conclusions No. 3 and 5, the Board found that this proposal, with a proposed height of 202 feet, would block the existing views of the southerly units of Sunwood Phase I, in violation of the review criteria established by TMC 18.60.050(1)(C) and (4) (8) . These criteria require consideration of the height and scale of each building in relation to its site, and further require that buildings should be of appropriate scale and in harmony with neighboring developments. Testifying at the Council hearing, Sunwood resident Dick Taylor expressed his concern with the maximum height of the proposed structures: Several of us bought our particular units because we did want the view. We understood at the time we bought there would be Phase III [and were] given an elevation maximum for Phase III which I was told . . . was 203 feet max. Mr. John Lane Board of Architectural Review January 14, 1986 Page 3 just told us that his current design was 204 foot reduced to 200 foot maximum elevation. The proposal that was presented to the Planning Commission last May . . . was 216 feet. Now I don't know where Mr. Lane came up with the 204 feet and I would invite him to tell us what his iron clad max elevation is at this time on the current proposal • • • • I think that all of us that bought at the 203 foot max are willing to accept that, because that was the presentation that we had under the original Phase III proposal • • • • Responding later in the hearing, project architect John Lane testified as follows: I was glad that in the gentlemen's [Dick Taylor] presentation he noted that the buildings were . getting shorter in height and not larger, and I think this is indicative again of our attempt to try to listen to what the (Sunwood Phase I and II] Homeowners Association has to say and meet some of their requests. The finished floor grades in the lower levels of these top buildings up here are going to be 168, 168 and 164. We anticipate that the actual true height of the peak of our structures will be 32 feet above these finished floors which puts it at 200 feet, and we stand on that righ now as part of the record. (emphasis added). Thus, the height of the proposed buildings will be lower than the height which was represented to the purchasers in the earlier phases of Sunwood and will minimize the view blockage impact on the southerly units of Sunwood Phase 1. In summary, this applicant has sincerely and diligently attempted to resolve the Board's expressed concerns. The Planning Staff has reviewed these efforts and judged them to be a success, recommending approval of the proposal, subject to a few minor conditions. We look forward to presenting evidence to you which substantiates that recommendation, and Board of Architectural Review January 14, 1986 Page 4 DEMO1 -F cc: John Snider John Lane Lawrence. Hard we request that you forward a positive recommendation to the City Council on this proposal. Very truly yours, HILLIS, CAIRNCROSS, CLARK i MARTIN, P.S. Rroae&S01.1. AnkCS atdALA01S Mgg611.9.9 2 3 5 6 KOW1R53, LPN05014 P .x t ; 10% OF 10,520s4. . z cituNiass va - 1Q LS PE A �t.F�tc1 13, Zoo sr#. rT '2s14 _ l /10 smog 1 +4 *Ma 4 a9+ 5355 "" (=all aaP ..I I. N N • I. • ■• Q57. 514. pr. t t E. e(giEt) g0.4.1WirmiL3 AREPs CALcO 1.I1011 N : zoo so► pr. Nit V. ti1.11'CS = (3, 2(90 SQ. FT. c br rr 2,006 %. ei; 2 ) 15• 3 , (3041 4+75 • . 0 • M I. Y G U 18, o2.5 I. mew, ((Z` 1 ` 8 " " t 1 .'�,� 4 g� , « settfr OffiftuCuT 3,300 4!r tI M J M ,. 3, 30cat �. PR134 IDE City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila Washington 98188 [20!1433.11100 Gary L VanOusen, Mayor MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Commission PROM: Planning Department DATE January 31, 1986 SUIJICT: Windmark Homes DR- 01 -84: Recreation Space Requirement Attached is the updated and more detailed analysis of the recreation space contained in this proposal. The plans were reviewed do novo with the Parks and Recreation , Director relative to Section 18.52.060, TMC (Recreation Space Requirements) Our finding is that sufficient recreation is provided, most of which is within the minimum slope criteria of the TMC. A total of 12,148 square feet of recreation area is required and at least 13,160 square feet is provided, including 10,736 square feet of a slope of 4:1 or less Otherwise the calculations and recreation facilities mentioned in the previous staff report are unchanged. I 2 3 S 1E.ss 4; I zt.sars 680 vz•-ft 668 " 664 28t( 2420 a Zt 7 2.I Ago' ov€P 4.1 usztAZT 412 38o " 414 4-Go Iva 1I /0 3 G soirr. • z, ¢Z 4 s4 . vt. { dlteM013 43 - A TIQNI(pEO . t3 i o . • 4 ? Tlot.) MA TEQUMED Zoo. 5Q .f•r Oturt 6(3) C.-`+V trs = 13 Zoo . s <0. rt FGcuci iefe, OF KSOLN av• t.. sosc riL L t , 05z. • 5Q, PT. NQ' ? UI �z 148 sc, iota. 4., 50Y0 isitwiMuM F Leis 1 25% (• l) SAM. G, $374 s@ .'. ( 4 t IC) 73(a It Si 3 Ma € A, . 7C Z5% Mt&SI AL M • 3,3013 SQ , -C'. PI.P�f AV IDS 330• ,1 TO: PROM: DATE SUBJECT: Planning Commission Planning Department January 31, 1986 Windmark Homes DR -01 -84 The following plan details were copied full size from the applicant's . landscaping plan (Exhibit 2 -B) which is also attached in reduced form as a "Map Key" to assist in locating the full size plan details. The full -size plan details are at a scale of 1 inch = 20 feet and include topography at two foot contour intervals. The shaded areas are the recreation spaces of a slope less than 4:1(25 %), and the unshaded, circled areas containing an area calculation are of a slope exceeding 4 :1. This legend is indicated on the first plan for. reference. Individual area:calculations were performed:on the full scale map witk a' compensating polar planimeter based upon the average of three separate readings. City of Tukwila 6100 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila Washington 96188 COM =1000 Gary L VanDusen, Mayor MEMORANDUM X ‘.• •1. te•---- • • ••■ • XX - - - • • • X X%•••••'''' -••-■••••,..• • ••••, A • I. owe 4 nom vonuom mow • r•tr4r PAIDUCSID MOM Ott41NAL •••„fr.r-ir L.141/ Ltecs. dyrf 41Meetigr Met4 0 14 W 2rif,c* 0 '1 lig iLlaa it -5Ble 0'7 atiA1Mry:Gda±±At_ elnie4 40 mly = zee O " r4= slot .1 P,Wrgte Wm, -mu- g -ameeete- _ 0 4+1. tr Agipeb. 474 10 ii=r ALKE" ar it .7 _giiira- 0 1 11 MOWN 0.401:0i - Cc " -taiRtotP-143017 =. 19 1110.a,1"" loctu. • ...err mamm et••1 NUMMI. MOM 4011PIIINIOJI. 10.140L 17A•miscog" , PlitsiUt" MNI" WU" tI ELCIArl deatgalliwtilt frIUMCAIOR f:=3 EZ:1 ffitti Plitv11 F url 10 ic:.185 ..C::F,ro F TU kW I LA PLANNING_DEPT. ••■•• • MIIIMME■ •■••••• 41•••••••• ••■•• . • es- Mon •■• • umewavref. aw er 60 • MINII•MON MIMS • ONO NM Mailing* 111••• =1,11111 .00 11=111111.• 111= MM. MI= 167 6101••••10 I•••• •=01•••■ ••• 11■11 ot"cee grammae alpie. axe. • eld.r garret 01.1.220 MTH WAAL. AVM 111••■•••■••.•• • Mow swialn tat - •••1: 4 . ; • ♦. • . . ...■•■••• .9. • r :s; •. • ./•• :41■ a. S. • . • • . — . a • • NONI A AP P • , I • ..."••••■•• • •■••1 41 . 1 11=■1111■ li • ..... .... .. .. .......... .. . I . • ....... . P ... . . I . • . . A - .. . . .4 4 ,. • ,.. • ... • 44 . .• A ••••.......t., 4..... I sm. • . • •••■••• •••• 1 • SeMNOCO OLUP. — % ...."— I tr• — • • • lc ,... z4 . .. • ... ' .ePtirl+' ' . . . - . . ,................ injer AMA --- i-- 1 Ouu. slut) • 1 • .. .;4 • • r / . - �••� - -�� - • • r / f -.4 1 • ^,L .‘,. a .4 • • -•• t , _ 1 ► 1 I •• L 1 f r- • 4 w, pis .91mo:top Pow: 1•• • N I.. .+,„,4 t ,: .•..; . :.. ..t . a 41 • • 2 Silit • 1 GUM J. AMSTSO JOS. N. SOOAMMIT M. RATMOwO CAMMCAOINS WOOT M. CASMCROSO LAWS LOOTERS CN I MARK s. CLAIM SALLY M. CLARKS T. MAI OYRRAM CART N. FALLON ROOM II /WOO MO S. ASI.LST01 JOS./II • MOM RICHARD E. O IPOSO ARMS L. KILNS TIMOTHY M. MOSKSN LAW oPPICIS CV Hmus CAIRNCROe$. CLARK b MARTIN A pROISSIONAL SERVICE CORPORATION 403 COLUMBA STRUT SSATTUL WASNIINTON 51104 13051 11123.1745 February 3, 1886 Lawrence E. Hard, Esq. Charles Wolfe, Esq. LeSourd i Patten 2400 Columbia Center 701 Fifth Avenue Seattle, Washington 98104 -7005 Re: Windmark Homes Application For BAR Approval; DR -01 -84 Dear Messrs. Hard and Wolfe: This letter addresses the issues raised by the Board of Architectural Review at its meeting on January 23, 1986, as well as the issues that I discussed in my telephone confer - ence with Mr. Wolfe on January 31, 1986. We are enclosing a copy of a proposed road maintenance agreement for your review. Our records indicate that a draft of that agreement was forwarded to :Mir. Hard on April 17, 1985. After you have had a chance to review that proposed agreement we would be happy to discuss your comments and concerns to arrive at a mutually agreeable way to provide for the future maintenance of Sunwood Boulevard. As we have informed you in the pat, our client is willing to agree that the portion of Sunwol:.1 2cuievard that crosses the Windmark property will be restored to its existing condition following construction of the proposed project. We would suggest that represent::tives of the Sunwood Homeowners Association meet with Mr. Snider of Windmark Homes and with a civil engineer chosen by v.;reement between the parties to inspect the existing road and to determine its present condition. After construction of the Windmark project is completed, Windmark will make whatever repairs are necessary to return the road to a condition as good as its present condition. If there are any disputes over what has to be done or whether any repairs have been satisfactorily completed, those disputes will be resolved by the civil engineer hired by the p..rt:: «ss. In our. conversation on January 31, Mr. Wolfe asked me to provide some type of binding promise that this project 05[0011► IL WILL ER GUMS A KR.SOVICN SAAAH I. MACK 05$O11AN S. MALANI 05000. W MARTIN. it LOUIS O. PETERSON S1eRTL R. /.T.RSO• JAMES J. RAO.N STEVEN N. 00015 MICHAEL I. SCHUMACH.R MICNML R. SCOTT MCNARO S. SWANSON RICHARD N. WILSON CNA11LIS O WRIMIT EXHIBIT 8 tebruary 3, 198 Page 2 will be built and sold as a condominium project. Windmark has consistently maintained that it is planning to build condominiums as this site and has authorised me to inform you that they will be filing a declaration of condominium for the project. .1 am enclosing a copy of our letter to you of April lip 190, in which we informed you of the nature of the project and the projected sales prices of the units.. W1e would note, however, that there is simply no way that we can guarantee that the units in this project will be owner- occupied. We cannot bind any successor in interest to such a condition nor can we guarantee that the market will absorb the proposed condominium units in the short ter.. Of course, Windmark Homes expects that the market will absorb such units or it would not proceed with the project. . Ws want to be very clear that we are informing you of what Windmark Homes intends, in good faith, to do at this time based upon present circumstances. However, Windmark Homes cannot and is not willing to be bound to fulfill its plans if circumstances change. Windmark Homes will . agree to consult with the Sunwood Homeowners Association as to the design and location of signs that would identify both Windmark's project as well as the Sunwood project. Those signs would be installed at Windmark's expense. Finally, Windmark is willing to adopt a condominium declaration that would be substantially the same as . those presently governing the Sunwood project. As we have told you in the past, it may be necessary to make changes to satisfy the requirements of financial institutions and governmental agencies. However, . we would expect that the use restrictions that appear to be of greatest concern to your clients would be essentially identical. We hope that this letter has satisfactorily .addressed . most, if not all, of your client's concerns. Please give me a call after you have had a chance to review this letter so that we can discuss any questions your clients may have. GAK /lc Enclosure cc: Mr. John Snider t►tr. Jerry Knudsen, Chairmen."' Board of Architectural Review Very truly yours, George A. Kresovich GU NN J. AMSTSI /STS= R. MIOIRSON DAVID N. •JONNSON JOft N. SOOANS"V N NATNOIa CAIIMS0008 WINOT W. CA.INCS004 LAWNS LOOMIS CNTS NAN S. CLAMS saw N. CLAMS T. STAN O{IAIIMI OAR, N. /M.&ON IIOSOIT S. /1100 FASO S. /NMIBOTIIN JOpfN 0 O/NSTIN mamma a. OSMOND Jerome L. HIWS LAW OFPICtl co HILLIS. CAIRNCROSIL CLARK It MARTIN A /AO/SSS10NAL SSRVICS CORPORATION 403 COLUMBIA STOUT sIATTLS. WASNINSTON 00104 1300 0334741 February 5, 1986 CO HAND DELIVERED Lawrence E. Hard, Esq. Charles R. Wolfe, Esq. LeSourd & Patten 2400 Columbia Center 701 Fifth Avenue Seattle, Washington 98104 -7005 Re: Windmark Homes BAR Application; DR -01 -84 Gentlemen: nrOTNt N Norms altoo.T S. Ileum aroma A. IIIIISOVICN SARAN t. MCA OSSORAN S. NALAN( 0*0001 W. MARTIN. Jr. OAVIO S. NOM LOIAS 0. /1TIRSON $Np►L K. P1TIRSON JAWS J. RAOIN STIVIN A. Rows use/UK /. SCHUrACNSlI MICNAK R. SCOTT moNARO S. SWANSON IIICNAIIO N. WILSON CNARL*S S. WNW? I am writing in response to your letter of February 5, 1986, which I feel creates a mistaken impression on a critical issue. I also wish to make our client's position on the issue of the improvement of Sunwood Boulevard (as opposed to its maintenance) clear. In your letter you state that Windmark Homes has continued its "refusal to bind a condominium association to such an agreement" in reference to the proposed maintenance agreement for Sunwood Boulevard. If you will examine that proposed agreement, you will see that it is in a form suitable for execution and recording as a covenant running with the land and that the agreement provides that successors in interest will be bound by the agreement. Please be very clear about the distinction we have made in our discussions with you. Windmark Homes is perfectly willing to execute an appropriate road maintenance agreement and to record that agreement as a covenant running with the land that would be binding upon its successors in interest. However, Windmark Homes cannot enter into an agreement that would require a condominium association that does not even exist at this time to enter into such an agreement at some time in the future. 12ENOWE FEB 6 1986 CITY OP TUKVVILA PLANNING DEPT. In reference to your other comments concerning the proposed road maintenance agreement, we would not that your letter of February 5, 1986, was the first comment that we EXHIBIT 9 February 5, Page 2 have received from you concerning that agreement which..was. forwarded to you in April of 1985. Windmark:-Wooas will ;be.• happy to work with the homeowners association to resolve • questions of definition and toaake appropriate provisions. for snow removal. . •windmark Homes is unwilling to restore Sunwood Boulevard -- private road which;hes b•en used'by the residents of Sunwood•for over five .years... -- to its. original condition. We feel that the wear and tear that has occurred on that road during the time that'it'has been used by the residents of. Sunvood`Cannot be made the' responsibility of Windmark Homes. Further, while Windmark Homes . will be pleased to discuss with the homeowners association the possibility of dedicating.Sunwood.Boulevard, Windmark Homes is not willing to construct Sunwood.BouleVard to public road standards at its sole expense.::If the Sunwood Condominium: Homeowners. Association to make concerning the eventual dedication of Sunwood Boulevard • that would prove to..be to.the'benefit of both parties, Windmark Homes would be more than willing to consider such a proposal. I hope that,this letter clarifies any .potential mis- understandings as to our client's•position. I.will`be happy, . to discuss.with •you the'terms and provisions.of a:proposed agreement" Very truly George A. Kresovich GAK /lc Enclosure ca: ' John`' Snider Jerry Knudsen L1101 0 OCORSt M. NARTUM MLAOS wow LION C. N STOW JOHN I. cowmen" C. OSAN UTTL/ LAWRENCE S. HMO ROoNST .1. WALOMr 0. MUM* MONO OANIt . O. WOO CARL, J. CARLSON LESOURD a PATTEN ATTORNEYS AT LAW 2400 COI1JMt4A CVO= 701 PITH AVSMLK �TTLt. WASNMOTON NIO4.70011 TEAROOM: 120110144040 TMtCOPME 12011 524.1007 TOLOUTWi: 010 444.4110 CAMS 0100110110: WOWS LA February 5, 1986 George A. Kresovich, Esq. Hillis, Cairncross, Clark & Martin 403 Columbia Street Seattle, WA 98104 HAND DELIVERED RE: Windmark Homes BAR Application; DR -01 -84 P. WAREN NAROIMROSON HARARE SCHWARTZ OIARA NOWT N. RANI, JA. ARM C. WIS JUDO R. HARM VICTORM JtNSOI SJORRMAN CHARLES N. WOLFS PITMAN S. POTTER WOOLVIN PATTEN NOWT L. PAYEE or COLRNL 11,745.1 Dear George: Thank you for your letter of February 3, 1986. We have discussed the contents thereof with a representative of the Sunwood Homeowners Association, and offer the following comments in response. As you are well aware, our client is particularly concerned that your client's project be built and sold as a condominium. In this spirit, our client has repeatedly attempted to arrive at a mutually satisfactory road maintenance agreement with a condominium association, rather than the developer of the proposed project. Your client's continued refusal to bind a condominium association to such an agreement places in doubt your claim that Windmark plans "to build condominiums on this site ". As we have repeated throughout the negotiation process, our client desires a good road, not a road restored to the current inferior condition. It is our understanding that either the road was poorly built or it was damaged by the construction activities of Pacific Townhouse Builders -- Tukwila during the construction of the Sunwood Phase II development. Our client takes the position that Windmark Homes, Tukwila, Inc. was aware of our client's ongoing concern about the road at the time Windmark acquired its interest in the property. Therefore, our client is willing to agree to a joint maintenance agreement as long as Windmark agrees to restore that portion of Sunwood Boulevard that crosses the Windmark property to a satisfactory condition substantially similar to the condition prior to the construction of Sunwood Phase II. Given this concern, our client would agree to inspection by a mutually chosen civil engineer. As we have suggested, we feel that Harvey Dodd & Associates would be a suitable candidate. EXHIBIT 10 George A. Rresovich, Esq. February S, 1986 Page 2 LEH /jsc 817983 In addition, we have again reviewed your proposed "Road MaintenaalS Agreement" and provide the following. comments. First, your suggestion . of dispute resolution by the Public Works Director of the City of Tukwila recognises the importance of public involvement in the new road. Our client continues to feel that eventual public dedication would be appropriate, and suggests that City of Tukwila road standards would provide a suitable benchmark against which the maintenance agreement could be measured. It would be for the mutual advantage of both of our clients to have Sunwood Boulevard become a dedicated public right -of -way. Second, our client notes that the agreement makes no mention of the snow removal provisions. Snow removal is a major consideration given the length and slope of Sunwood Boulevard, and should be addressed in any maintenance agreement signed by the parties. Third, the' agreement insufficiently defines " Sunwood Boulevard" and "utilities ". It would be to the advantage of both parties to firmly define both terms. Finally, we acknowledge and appreciate your client's agreement to consult with our client as to . the design and location of signs. We hope that this letter sufficiently communicates our client's continuing concerns. We intend to discuss with you the contents of both letters prior to the hearing on Thursday, February 6th in the hope that we can present the BAR with a agreement. cc: Sunwood Condominium Homeowners Association cc: 1 ,9e►srd of Architectural Review Very truly yours SOUND & PATTEN Charles R. Wolfe City of Tukwila 6200 soutr>center Boulevard �ulcwie wlashi,gton 98188 r33.1eoo Gay L VanDusan. Mayor TUKWILA PLANNING COMMISSION Minutes of the December 12, 1985, meeting. Chairman Knudson called the meeting to order at 8:00 p.m. Other Commissioners present were Mr. Sowinski, Mr. Larson, Mr. Kirsop, Mr. Orrico and Mr. Mckenna. Rick Beeler, Vernon Umetsu, Moira Bradshaw, and Becky Kent represented the Planning Department. Jim Haney, City Attorney, was also present. Mr. Beeler reviewed the changes in the agenda. He indicated a discrepancy had been found in the agenda and public notice for application DR- 01 -84, and recommended continuance to January 2 or 16, 1986, to insure proper notice is given. Chairman Knudson suggested the regular meeting date of January 23, 1986. George Kresovich, attorney representing the applicant, had no objection to the January 23, 1986, meeting date. Larry Hard, attorney representing Sunwood Homeowners Association, had no objection to the January 23, 1986, meeting date. BOARD OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW A. DR- O1 -84: Windmark Homes, requesting approval of plans for 66 multiple family units on a 3.85 acre site located on the west side of 62nd Avenue South, just south of Sunwood Boulevard. MR. ORRICO MOVED THAT THIS ITEM BE CONSIDERED AT THE REGULAR JANUARY MEETING TO BE HELD ON JANUARY 23, 1986. MR. KIRSOP SECONDED THE MOTION. Mr. Hard requested to submit a letter to the Board. Mr. Beeler entered the December 12, 1985, letter from Mr. Hard into the record as Exhibit #1. MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. APPROVAL OF MINUTES EXHIBIT 13 TUKWILA PLANNING C0NNISSION Minutes of the January 23, 1986, Planning Commission meeting. Chairman Knudson called the meeting to order at 8 :05 p.m. Other Commissioners present were Mr. Sowinski, Mr. Larson, and Mr. Kirsop. Representing staff were Rick Beeler, Moira Bradshaw, and Becky Kent, Planning Department. APPROVAL OF MINUTES MR. KIRSOP MOVED TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE DECEMBER 19, 1985, PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AS CORRECTED, AND THE DECEMBER 12, 1985 MEETING. MR. SOWINSKI SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. , BOARD OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW A. DR- 01 -84: Windmark 'Homes, requesting approval of plans for 66 multiple family units on a 3.85 acre site on the northerly and southerly sides of Sunwood Boulevard west of 62nd Avenue South and south of the existing Sunwood development. Mr. Beeler summarized the staff report with the following corrections: Under Finding 6 it was clarified that the landscaping calculations were revised from 14,350 square feet to 12,000 square feet of recreation space provided, which is 49 square feet less than required. EXHIBIT 14 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes January 23, 1986 meeting Page 4 The addition of Preliminary Recommendations: 5) Submittal of exterior illumination plans for review and approval of the Planning Department. 6) Provide an additional 49 square feet of recreation space. Mr. Beeler entered the following exhibits into the record: 1. Letter of December 12, 1985, to the Planning Commission from Lawrence E. Hard and Charles R. Wolfe. 2. Staff report submitted at the December 12, 1985, Planning Commission meeting, with Exhibits A through J. 3. Letter of January 14, 1986, to the Board of Architectural Review from George Kresovich. 4. File of record. 5. Topographical analysis map. 6. Analysis of recreation space areas. George Kresovich, of Hillis, Cairncross, Clark and Martin, 403 Columbia Street, Seattle, WA 98104, represented the applicant. He summarized the history of the application and reviewed his letter of January 14, 1986, summarizing his revisions to the project. John Lane, Architect and Planner, 115 West Denny Way, Seattle, WA, described the project and reviewed the changes made from previous plans, including compatibility with other structures, carports and trash enclo- sures, lighting, recreational facilities, recreation areas, and the height of the buildings. Steven Shea, Landscape Architect, 2021 Minor East, Seattle, WA 98102, reviewed the landscape plan, the types of trees and vegetation provided, and the proposed pathway. Mr. Beeler clarified that the color rendering provided was the same as Exhibit 2B in the staff report. Mr. Kresovich repeated a comment made by Dick Taylor before the City Council on July 16, 1985 regarding the building height. He felt the building height would comply with what Mr. Taylor had been informed. He requested that the Board review the project in light of their efforts to comply with the Zoning Code requirements. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes • January 23, 1986 meeting Page 5 Larry Hwd with Lesourd & Patten, 2400 Columbia Center, 701 Fifth Avenue, Seattle, 1*' 96104 Sunwood Homeowners Association. He felt the application has not met the criteria. Ryan Thrower, Sunwood Homeowners Association President, 15232 Sunwood Boulevard, Tukwia, WA, was concerend with the commitment to building con- dominiums, devaluation of their homes, maintenance and operation of a pri- vate road, and renters rather than owners. He requested the Board uphold their past decision. Ben Anderson, Sunwood resident, 15353 Sunwood Boulevard, Tukwila, WA, was concerned with aesthetics, the quality of life, transient type of resi- dents, and blockage of views. Keith Corner, Sunwood resident, 15209 Sunwood Boulevard, Tukwila, WA 98188, was concerned with aesthetics -the quality of life, transient type of residents and blockage of views. Joan Hernandez, Sunwood resident, 15224 uncomfortable with the testimony given hearing. She was concerned with the Sunwood Plat, unauthorized use of the upon the Police Department. Mr. Hard summarized the legal questions in his letter of December 12, 1985. He felt the applicant's changes were not truly significant. He was con- cerned with the recreation area calculations, adequacy of the plans, spots of usable areas, and adequacy of the Environmental Checklist. Louise Corner, Sunwood resident, 15209 Sunwood Boulevard, Tukwila, WA 98188, was concerned with view blockage. Mr. Hard requested that the Board recommend to the responsible official that a new environmental checklist be provided. Mr. Kresovich maintained the intention of the project to be condominiums. The Board discussed road maintenance of Sunwood Boulevard and what would be necessary to bring it up to City standards. Mr. Beeler said he felt comfortable with the plans relative to the criteria in the Zoning Code, that the type of construction normally isn't specified, and conceptual plans early on had placed buildings in almost the same loca- tion as projected during the previous rezone of the property. He said the Responsible Official hadn't seen anything in the revised plans to substan- tiate reopening the environmental review. Mr. Haney clarified that the record of property ownership was not an issue for the Board's decision. Sunwood Boulevard, Tukwia, WA, felt at the July 16, 1985, City Council removal of the property from the recreational facilities and impact Planning Commission Meeting Minutes January 23, 1986 meeting Page 6 Mr. dirsop , suggested that the meeting be continued to . give staff time to doublecheck the recreation space calculations with the architect, and to let the proponents and Sunwood Homeowners Association get together to come to a preliminary agreement on the homeowners association issue. MR. KIRSOP MOVED TO; CONTINUE THE APPLICATION TO THE FEBRUARY 6, MEETING. MR. SOWINSKI SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. ADJOURNMENT The Commission adjourned at 12:45 a.m. TUKWILA PLANNING COMMISSION hGy Cam Moira Carr Bradshaw Secretary (MNTSPC23,1) (5A.3) 1986, 4111■01•41 TUKWILA PLANNING COMMISSION Minutes of the February 6, 1986, Planning Commission meeting. Chairman Knudson called the meeting to order at 8:05 p.m. Other Commissioners present were Mr. Coplen, Mr. Sowinski, Mr. McKenna, Mr. Kirsop and Mr. Larson. Mr. Orrico was not present. Representing staff were Rick Beeler, Moira Bradshaw, and Becky Kent, Planning Department. Jim Haney, City Attorney, was also present. PUBLIC HEARING MEETING City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila Washington 98188 GOO u1000 X11 I. Vangusen. Mayor A. DR- O1 -84: Windmark Homes, requested approval of plans for 66 multiple family units on a.3.8S acre site on the northerly and southerly sides of Sunwood Boulevard west of 62nd Avenue South and south of the existing Sunwood development. Mr.,Coplen declared that he would not participate because he was not pre- sent at the previous. meeting. Mr. McKenna declared that he was not present at the previous meeting, but . had listened to the tapes. Being no objection from the audience, Mr. McKenna remained on the Board. Mr. Beeler summarized the staff report and entered the following additional exhibits into record: #7 January 31, 1986, memo from the Planning Department #8 February 3, 1986, letter from George A. Kresovich to Lawrence E. Hard 99 February 5, 1986, letter from George A. Kresovich to Lawrence E. Hard #10 February 5, .1986, letter from Lawrence E. Hard to George A. Kresovich #11 Recreation space analysis map submitted at the February 6, 1986, meeting Mr. Beeler clarified that the maintenance of Sunwood Boulevard was not an issue contained in the Board of Architectural Review's criteria. EXHIBIT 15 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes February 6, 1986 Page 2 George Kresovich, Hillis, Cairncross, et al, 403 Columbia Street, Seattle, Washington, 95104, explained that a proposed road maintenance agreement had been forwarded to the Sunwood Homeowners, containing a procedure for repairing the road after construction. Chuck Wolfe, Lesourd & Patten, 2400 Columbia Center, 701 Fifth Avenue, Seattle, WA 98104 -7005, was concerned with the ambiguity between open space and recreation space. He requested that a joint maintenance agreement of Sunwood Boulevard be a condition since he felt the issue was in the Board's perview. Sunwood Homeowners are interested in turning the road over to the City. Louise Corner, 15209 Sunwood Boulevard, 8 -34, Tukwila, WA, presented a pic- ture (Exhibit 12) depicting the Sunwood project and surrounding area when they purchased. Richard Taylor, 15278 Sunwood Boulevard, Tukwila, WA, questioned the ade- quacy of Sunwood Boulevard and the deterioration during construction. He requested that guaranteed access be provided during construction. Mr. Beeler clarified that the issue of Sunwood Boulevard is in the perview of the building permit process. Mr. Kresovich explained his proposal to restore Sunwood Boulevard to its existing condition after construction. Mr. Beeler clarified the definitions of recreation space and open space. The Board discussed view blockage, external lighting, road maintenance, recreation space, and the design of the project. MR. KIRSOP MOVED APPROVAL OF THE SITE PLAN AND LANDSCAPING CONCEPT FOR WINOMARK HOMES BASED ON THE TESTIMONY RECEIVED AND THE FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS OF THE STAFF REPORT, SUBJECT TO: 1. PUBLIC WORKS AND FIRE DEPARTMENT'S REVIEW AND FINAL APPROVAL OF THE MEDIAN STRIP IN SUNWOOD BOULEVARD RELATIVE TO PUBLIC SAFETY AND ACCESS. 2. SUBMITTAL OF SOILS AND ENGINEERING REPORTS ON ROCKERIES OVER 5 FEET IN HEIGHT FOR FINAL REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF THE PUBLIC WORKS AND BUILDING DEPARTMENTS 3. LOW PROFILE SHRUBS AND PLANT MATERIALS SHOULD BE LOCATED ALONG THE NORTH PROPERTY LINE TO SCREEN THE PROPOSED CARPORTS WHILE PRESERVING EXISTING VIEWS FROM SUNWOUD PHASE I PER REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT. 4. INSTALLATION OF WHEEL STOPS TO PROTECT ON -GRADE LANDSCAPING. 5. MAINTENANCE OF SUNWOOD BOULEVARD IN AN ACCESSIBLE CONDITION FOR OPERATION OF PASSENGER, CARS DURING THE CONSTRUCTION PgRIOO. t Planning Cowsisslon Meeting Minutes February 6, 1986 Page 3 6. REPAIR SUNig00 BOULEVARD TO AT LEAST THE PRESENT CONDITION FOLLOWING CONSTRICTIOI. 7. TO FACILITATE A' UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT BY THE JOINT EFFORTS OF THE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION FOR THE CONSTRUCTION PERIOD. 8. LIGHTING SYSTEM SHALL BE COMPATIBLE WITH THE EXISTING COMPLEX AND NOT CREATE GLARE FOR EITHER EXISTING OR NEW DEVELOPMENT. Motion died for lack of second. MR. LARSON MOVED TO RECOMMEND TO THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF THE PROJECT, ACCEPTING THE STAFF'S FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS, WITH THE FOLLOWING RECOMMENDATIONS: 1. PUBLIC WORKS AND FIRE DEPARTMENT'S REVIEW AND FINAL APPROVAL OF THE MEDIAN STRIP IN SUNW000 BOULEVARD RELATIVE TO PUBLIC SAFETY AND ACCESS. 2. SUBMITTAL OF SOILS AND ENGINEERING REPORTS ON ROCKERIES OVER 5 FEET IN HEIGHT FOR FINAL REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF THE PUBLIC WORKS AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT. 3. LOW PROFILE SHRUBS AND PLANT MATERIALS SHOULD BE LOCATED ALONG THE NORTH PROPERTY LINE TO SCREEN THE PROPOSED CARPORTS WHILE PRESERVING EXISTING VIEWS FROM SUNW000 PHASE I PER REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT. 4. INSTALLATION OF WHEEL STOPS TO PROTECT ON -GRADE LANDSCAPING. 5. SUBMITTAL OF EXTERIOR ILLUMINATION PLANS FOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT. 6. CONTRACTOR BE REQUIRED TO MAINTAIN STREET FOR ACCESS TO PHASES I AND II OF THE SUNWOOD DEVELOPMENT AND TO RESTORE THE STREET AT THE END OF CONSTRUCTION TO ITS EXISTING STATE. Mr. Sowinski seconded the motion. MR. SOWINSKI MOVED TO AMEND THE MOTION TO UPDATE THE STAFF'S FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS. His motion died for lack of second. MAIN MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. Mr. Orrico arrived at the meeting. B. 85- 62 -SPE: DOMINO'S PIZZA, requesting approval of ..a cooperative parking agreement at 15439 53rd Ave. South. /A WNI G O<oM[ N. NAAT1 S NSAOS OSOITT LION C. MIST JOIN I. C01IAON& C. ORAN UTTLI UNIONS I. IIAM 01O0NIT A wwtrr r O. WILLIAM TONS DANI . 0. w00 CAI .1 CAAL000 Ms. Maxine Anderson City Clerk City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, WA 98188 Dear Ms. Anderson: LESOU D & PATTEN ATTORNEYS AT LAW 2100 COLUMBIA COMM 7O1 10 AVM. SCATTLS. WARRINGTON •11101170011 TRANSOM: 000 024WOIO TIMICOONk 1200 •24410•7 TOW I Tbt: 010 4441100 Came A11061111* L1001IM Wit February 13, 198 woOWIN IATTOI NOON? I. IALN N O► ANON► P. WARMS IIAAOUAN5AO• NAAMNN2 OCNWARTZ mew 5050? N. NAME a. WNW C. *IONIIO AND N. NAATOI VICTORIA ARAM OIORRNAN CNAN.0 A. WOOS /ITNAN O. POTTER RE: Appeal of Board of Architectural Review Decision of February 6, 1986 -- File No. DR -01 -84 EXHIBIT 16 745.1 We are writing on behalf of our client, the Sunwood Condominium Homeowners Association, in order to appeal the decision by the Tukwila Board of Architectural Review (BAR) approving the application of Windmark Homes, Tukwila, Inc. for the proposed project commonly known as Sunwood Phase III. The BAR decision was made at a public hearing held on February 6, 1986. We are directing this appeal to you pursuant to the requirements of S 18.90.020 of the Tukwila Municipal Code. Our client has chosen to appeal the BAR decision because . the project as proposed does not comply with the criteria for approval within S 18.60.050 of the Tukwila Municipal Code. Specifically, the proposal does not satisfy S 18.60.050(1)(A) due to lack of adequate recreation space and provision of an inadequate landscape plan. This matter has a complex history which bears upon our client's appeal. At the April 25, 1985 BAR Hearing, the Board denied the application of Windmark Homes, Tukwila, Inc. The BAR denial was partially premised upon the lack of adequate recreation space and provision of an inadequate landscape , plan. On July 15, 1985, the City Council upheld the decision of the BAR. On July 25, 1985, Windmark Homes, Tukwila, Inc. filed suit, and appealed the City Council decision to King County Superior Court. On October 21, 1985, the City Council voted to reconsider its July 25th decision, and then voted to remand this matter to the BAR. The City Council indicated that the BAR should consider a revised site plan that was submitted by Windmark Homes, Tukwila, Inc. after the April 25, 1985 BAR decision. On November 5th, Windmark Homes, Tukwila dismissed its lawsuit. Ms. Maxine Anderson February 13, 1986 Page 2 Cs January 23, 1986, the again considered the application of Wibdeark•Homes, Tukwila, Inc. Prior to and during the hearing,: staff reviewed the applicant's revised site plan, and• recommended to the BAR that adequate recreation. spice was not provided but. upon closer review, probably•could be found. The. BAR deferred its decision on. the application. of Windmark Homes, Tukwila, Inc. until February 6, 1986. • Prior to the February 6, 1986 BAR hearing, staff again recalculated provision of recreation space and. recommended to :the Board. that adequate recreation space was now provided. At the hearing, staff acknowledged that due to the ambiguity. • within the Tukwila Municipal Code between "open•space" and "recreation space ", staff had to exercise administrative' • .discretion in.determining when "open space" also constituted "recreation.. space" for. purposes of complying with•the:: requirements of S 18.52.060 and S:18.60.050. • Desppite. based upon a revised site :plan, Windmark Homes, Tukwila, Inc. has failed to.complyl with . recreation space .requirements.' The BAR arbitrarily adopted calculations which cast areas of "open space" as fulfilling Tukwila .Municipal Code' requirements for: "uncovered recreation: .space 'Consequently, the-BAR was also arbitrary in concluding •• that more than 50% of the recreation space. is located on slopes. 'less than four horizontal to one vertical (4:1) slope,•as also :required.by S 18.52.060 of the Tukwila Municipal Code. • Our client- therefore•requests that the City Council hold a • public hearing to consider.the approval of. the. application of Windmark Homes, Tukwila, Inc...by the BAR. At that hearing.-We. • .will.be prepared to. present the necessary information for City Council consideration. LEH /CRW /tr 823402 cc: Sunwood Condominium. Homeowners Association Mr. ames E. Haney Rick Beeler Mr. Oeorge A. Kresovich • • Very truly yours, eSOURD & Lawrence E. H rd Charles R. Wolfe Lawrence E. Hard Charles R. Wolfe Lesourd & Patten 2400 Columbia Center 701 Fifth Avenue Seattle, WA 98104 -7005 Dear Sirs:' City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila VVashington 98188 433 -1800 Gary L VanDusen, Mayor George A. Kresovich Hillis, Cairncross, Clark & Martin 4U3 Columbia Center Seattle, WA 98104 Re: Windmark Homes Tukwila Inc. - Appeal - DR -01 -84 This letter is to summarize the procedure that is to be followed during the March 17, 1986, City Council hearing on this matter. The City .Council, on October 21, 1985, remanded this matter to the Board of Architecture Review (BAR) for review of the revised plans and forwarding of a recommendation thereon to the Council. Therefore, the February 6, 1986 decision of the BAR is being treated as that recommendation. The Council decided to hold a public hearing on that recommendation on March 17, 1986. The February 13, 1986 Sunwood Condominium Homeowners Association appeal issue will be heard at that time. Since the City Council will be reviewing the record of the BAR recommendation it is anticipated that no new infor- mation, not presented to the BAR, will be submitted to the Council. cc: PTIMMI*000401etie0 City Clerk March 3, 1986 Sincerely L. Rick Beeler Associate Planner OLLNN J. AMSTSR MSS N. ANOIISON DAMN SJONN /ON JOEL N. 1OOANINT N. AATMONS CA/M/CNO10 wSNO, N.CAMNCSOII LAWNS Looms CNTS MANN S. CLAIM SALLY N. CLANKS T. NYAN OuNNAN OAST N. IALLON NOUNS S. IM/) INTO S. IINNIL/TIIN JOKPN 0 OIN /TIN NICNANO I. ONIONS JENOMI L. MILLIS c , • • C`' ,vnai` 1 P A Dear Ms. Anderson: GAK /lc cc: Mr. John Snider Mr. John Lane LAw O1O1/ a 1'�LLIl. CAIRNCROS$. CLARK et MARTIN A PNOIUOIONAL 1111VIC0 COAPOIATION • 400 COLUMN* STRUT 1*ATTLt. WAMN11NTON 111104 1202112!•1740 March 3, 1986 Ms. Maxine Anderson City Clerk City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, Washington 98188 Re: Windmark Homes Tukwila, File No. DR -01 -84 Inc. -- Appeal; We have been informed that the above- referenced appeal . has been set for public hearing before the City Council on March 17, 1986. I am writing to request that the Council continue that public hearing to its regular meeting on April 21, 1986, because I will be unable to attend the meeting on the 17th due to a previously scheduled commitment. I have checked with counsel for the Sunwood Homeowners Association and they will be available on that date. I would appreciate it if you would let me know whether the Council will grant this continuance. Thank you . for your consideration in this matter. Very truly yours, /404 e 4f. Kresovich rIMOTNT N. NOMINI G1110011T S. NILLEN 01011011A. NNESOVICN OMAN S. MACH G15ORAN I MALANE 51GNO1 w. MARTIN. JR • Sav10 C MOW LOUIS O. PETERSON SMENTL N. PETERSON JAMS J RAOIN STEVEN N. ROWS MN:NASL R $CNLN/ACNER MICHAEL A. SCOTT mCNANO I. SWANSON RICNARO N. WILSON CNARLEI S. NANNY M; t' J .! I:. Cli'r CITY CLERKS OFFICE Lawrence E. Hard Charles R. Wolfe Lesourd & Patten 2400 Columbia Center 701 Fifth Avenue Seattle, WA 98104 -7005 City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila Washington 98188 (206) 433 -1800 Gary L. VanDusen, Mayor George A. Kresovich Hillis, Cairncross, Clark & Martin 403 Columbia Center Seattle, WA 98104 Dear Sirs: February 26, 1986 Re: Windmark Homes Tukwila Inc. - Appeal - DR -01 -84 On February 24, 1986, the City Council decided to hold a public hearing on March 17, 1986, on the appeal filed by the Sunwood Condominium Homeowners Association. Should you continue to have difficulty in attending on that date, please submit a letter to the City Clerk requesting continuance, of the matter. The next regular Council meeting dates are April 7 and April 21, 1986 (first and third Mondays). A continuance request will be for- warded to the Council, however, any continuation is at the Council's discretion to grant or deny. LRB:td cc: Planning Director City Clerk City Attorney Sincerely, L. Rick Beeler Associate Planner • • TO: PROM: OAT!: SUBJECT: /ks City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila Washington 98188 101433.1000 Gary L. vanousen, Mayor City Council Planning Department February 20, 1986 Appeal of Board of Architectural Review approval of the Windmark Homes, Tukwila, Inc. proposal: DR -01 -84 (formerly Sunwood Phase III) On October, 21, 1985, the City Council remanded this matter to. the Board of Architectural Review for review of revised plans and for forwarding:a recommendation to the Council. The BAR held public hearings on those plans on January 23, 1986 and February. 6, 1986, and found the plans, subject to conditions, conforming to the BAR decision criteria of TMC 18.60.050. A timely appeal of the BAR decision was filed on February 18, 1986, by the,Sunwood Condominium On the basis of inadequate demonstration.of adequate recreation space. P TMC 18190 020, the Council may holda public hearing on the appeal. However, the Ci t Attor o f .. ei . .�..,. ` ,r�,Y ands���the' ;�ippeal =�,to��be��premature;.' , ecause: 1. The BAR decision was actually a recommendation to the City .. Council, •and therefore not the final action on the matter. 2. The Council continues to have jurisdication over the matter: 3. The Council has not taken final action. 4. Adequacy of recreation space requirements of TMC 18.52.060 is not one of the BAR J J decision criteria of TMC 18.60.050 as opposed to adequacy of. landscaping. Unapproved minutes of the BAR meetings are. attached. Once these minutes are approved by the BAR at its next meeting of February 27, 1986, the minutes will be forwarded to the City Council. MEMORANDUM PA. LESOURO GEORGE M WARTIME) MEADE EMORY LION C. MISTIME J OHN R COLOROVE C. OtAN LITTLE LAWRENCE E. HARD ROONEY J. WALDIAWI O . WILLIAM TOONE D ANIEL 0. WOO CARL J. CARLSON CITY i:_' :5 1•': L Dear Ms. Anderson: LESOURD a PATTEN ATTORNEYS AT LAW 2400 COLLM I A CENTER 701 'WIN AVENUE SEATTLE. WASHINGTON •104.7005 TEtIPNONE: 1201) 124.1040 TELECOPIEA: 1201) 524)057 TELE1l /Twt: 110 444.4150 CAWS AOORt55: LESOURO LAW February 13,•1986 • WARREN MAROUAROSON MAMANN* SCHWARTZ 01ARA ttellitRT. M KANE•"JI1 JEARSY c. WISHKO J000 R. MARTEN VICTORIA JENSEN SJORKMAN CHARLES R. ROVE PITMANS POTTER WOOWIN PATTEM :. . ROBERT L. PALMER 0 COUNSEL 11,745.1 Ms. Maxine Anderson City Clerk City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, WA 98188 RE: Anneal of Board of. Architectural Review Decision of February 6 1986 - File No. DR -01 -84 We are writing on behalf of our client, the Sunwood Condominium Homeowners Association, in order to appeal the decision by the Tukwila Board of Architectural Review ( approving the application of Windmark Homes, Tukwila, Inc. for the proposed project commonly known as Sunwood Phase III. The BAR, decision was made at a public hearing held on February 6, 1986. We are directing this appeal to you pursuant to the requirements of S 18.90.020 of the Tukwila Municipal Code: Our client has chosen to appeal the BAR decision because the project as proposed does not comply with the criteria for approval within S 18.60.050 of the Tukwila. Municipal Code. Specifically, the proposal does not satisfy S 18. due to lack of adequate recreation space and provision of an inadequate landscape plan. This matter has a complex history which bears upon our . client's appeal. At the April 25, 1985 BAR. Hearing the Board denied the application of Windmark Homes, Tukwila, Inc.. The BAR denial was partially premised upon the. lack of adequate recreation space and provision of an inadequate landscape . plan. On July 15, 1985, the City Council upheld the decision . of the BAR. On July 25, 1985, Windmark Homes, Tukwila, Inc. filed suit, and appealed the City Council decision to King '. County Superior Court. On October 21, 1985, the City Council voted to reconsider its July 25th decision, and then voted to remand this matter to the BAR. The City Council indicated that the BAR should consider a revised site plan that was submitted by Windmark Homes, Tukwila, Inca after the April 25, 1985. BAR decision. On November 5th, Windmark Homes, Tukwila dismissed its lawsuit • Ms. Maxine Anderson February 13, 1986 Page 2 On January 23, 1986, the BAR again considered the application of Windmark Homes, Tukwila, Inc. Prior to and during the hearing, staff reviewed the applicant's revised site plan, and recommended to. the BAR that adequate recreation space was not provided but upon closer review, probably could be found. The BAR deferred its decision on the application of Windmark Homes, Tukwila, Inc. until February 6, 1986. Prior to the February 6, 1986 BAR hearing, staff again recalculated provision of recreation space and recommended to the Board that adequate recreation space was now provided. At the hearing, staff acknowledged that due to the ambiguity within the Tukwila Municipal Code between "open space" and "recreation space ", staff had to exercise administrative discretion in determining when "open space" also constituted "recreation space" for purposes of complying with the . requirements of S 18.52.060 and § 18.60.050. Despite staff recalculations based upon a revised site plan, Windmark Homes, Tukwila, Inc. has failed to comply with recreation space requirements. The BAR arbitrarily adopted calculations which cast areas of "open space" as fulfilling Tukwila Municipal Code requirements for "uncovered recreation space ". Consequently, the BAR was also arbitrary in concluding that more than 50% of the recreation space is located on slopes less than four horizontal to one vertical (4:1) slope, as also required by 5 18.52.060 of the Tukwila Municipal Code. Our client therefore requests that the City Council hold a public hearing to consider the approval of the application. of Windmark Homes, Tukwila, Inc. by the BAR. At that hearing, we will be prepared to present the necessary information for City Council consideration. LEK/CRW/tr Very truly yours, cc: Sunwood Condominium Homeowners Association Mr. James E. Haney Mr. Rick Beeler Mr. George A. Kresovich eSOURD b� TT . kiri....„.... Lawrence ETI H r A Charles R. Wolfe City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila Washington 98188 (206) 433 -1800 Gary L. VanDusen, Mayor TUKWILA PLANNING COMMISSION Minutes of the February 6, 1986, Planning Commission meeting. Chairman Knudson called the meeting to order at 8:05 p.m. Other Commissioners present were Mr. Coplen, Mr. Sowinski, Mr. McKenna, Mr. Kirsop and Mr. Larson. Mr. Orrico was not present. Representing staff were Rick Beeler, Moira Bradshaw, and Becky Kent, Planning Department. Jim Haney, City Attorney, was also present. PUBLIC HEARING MEETING A. r R= 01'::84' W ndmark'Homes requested approval of plans for 66 multiple family units on a 3.85 acre site on the northerly and southerly sides of Sunwood Boulevard west of 62nd Avenue South and south of the existing Sunwood development. Mr. Coplen declared that he would not participate because he was not pre- sent at the previous meeting. Mr..McKenna declared that he was not present at the previous meeting, but had listened to the tapes. Being no objection from the audience, Mr. McKenna remained on the Board. Mr. Beeler summarized the staff report and entered the following additional exhibits into record: #7 January 31, 1986, memo from the Planning Department #8 February 3, 1986, letter from George A. Kresovich to Lawrence E. Hard #9 February 5, 1986, letter from George A. Kresovich to Lawrence E. Hard #10. February 5, 1986, letter from Lawrence E. Hard to George A. Kresovich #11 Recreation space analysis map submitted at the February 6, 1986, meeting Mr. Beeler clarified that the maintenance of Sunwood Boulevard was not an issue contained in the Board of Architectural Review's criteria. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes February 6, 1986 Page 2 George Kresovich, Hillis, Cairncross, et al, 403 Columbia Street, Seattle, Washington, 98104, explained that a proposed road maintenance agreement had been forwarded to the Sunwood Homeowners, containing a procedure for repairing the road after construction. Chuck Wolfe, Lesourd & Patten, 2400 Columbia Center, 701 Fifth Avenue, Seattle, WA 98104 -7005, was concerned with the ambiguity between open space and recreation space. He requested that a joint maintenance agreement of Sunwood Boulevard be a condition since he felt the issue was in the Board's perview. Sunwood Homeowners are interested in turning the road over to the City. Louise Corner, 15209 Sunwood Boulevard, B -34, Tukwila, WA, presented a pic- ture (Exhibit 12) depicting the Sunwood project and surrounding area when they purchased. Richard Taylor, 15278 Sunwood Boulevard, Tukwila, WA, questioned the ade- quacy of Sunwood Boulevard and the deterioration during construction. He requested that guaranteed access be provided during construction. Mr. Beeler clarified that the issue of Sunwood Boulevard is in the perview of the building permit process. Mr. Kresovich explained his proposal to restore Sunwood Boulevard to its existing condition after construction. Mr. Beeler clarified the definitions of recreation space and open space. The Board discussed view blockage, external lighting, road maintenance, . recreation space, and the design of the project. MR. KIRSOP MOVED APPROVAL OF THE SITE PLAN AND LANDSCAPING CONCEPT FOR WINDMARK HOMES BASED ON THE TESTIMONY RECEIVED AND THE FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS OF THE STAFF REPORT, SUBJECT TO: 1. PUBLIC WORKS AND FIRE DEPARTMENT'S REVIEW AND FINAL APPROVAL OF THE MEDIAN STRIP IN SUNWOOD BOULEVARD RELATIVE TO PUBLIC SAFETY AND ACCESS. 2. SUBMITTAL OF SOILS AND ENGINEERING REPORTS ON ROCKERIES OVER 5 FEET IN HEIGHT FOR FINAL REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF THE PUBLIC WORKS AND.BUILDING DEPARTMENTS 3. LOW PROFILE SHRUBS AND PLANT MATERIALS SHOULD BE LOCATED ALONG THE NORTH PROPERTY LINE TO SCREEN THE PROPOSED CARPORTS WHILE PRESERVING EXISTING VIEWS FROM SUNWOOD PHASE I PER REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT. 4. INSTALLATION OF WHEEL STOPS TO PROTECT ON -GRADE LANDSCAPING. 5. MAINTENANCE OF SUNWOOD BOULEVARD IN AN ACCESSIBLE CONDITION FOR OPERATION OF PASSENGER CARS DURING THE CONSTRUCTION PERIOD. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes February 6, 1986 Page 3 6. REPAIR SUNWOOD BOULEVARD TO AT LEAST THE PRESENT CONDITION FOLLOWING CONSTRUCTION. 7. TO FACILITATE A UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT BY THE JOINT EFFORTS OF THE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION FOR THE CONSTRUCTION PERIOD. 8. LIGHTING SYSTEM SHALL BE COMPATIBLE WITH THE EXISTING COMPLEX AND NOT CREATE GLARE FOR EITHER EXISTING OR NEW DEVELOPMENT. Motion died for lack of second. MR. LARSON MOVED TO RECOMMEND TO THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF THE PROJECT, ACCEPTING THE STAFF'S FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS, WITH THE FOLLOWING RECOMMENDATIONS: 1. PUBLIC WORKS AND FIRE DEPARTMENT'S REVIEW AND FINAL APPROVAL OF THE MEDIAN STRIP IN SUNWOOD BOULEVARD RELATIVE TO PUBLIC SAFETY AND ACCESS. 2. SUBMITTAL OF SOILS AND ENGINEERING REPORTS ON ROCKERIES OVER 5 FEET IN HEIGHT FOR FINAL REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF THE PUBLIC WORKS AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT. 3. LOW PROFILE SHRUBS AND PLANT MATERIALS SHOULD BE LOCATED ALONG THE NORTH PROPERTY LINE TO SCREEN THE PROPOSED CARPORTS WHILE PRESERVING EXISTING VIEWS FROM SUNWOOD PHASE I PER REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT. 4. INSTALLATION OF WHEEL STOPS TO PROTECT ON -GRADE LANDSCAPING. 5. SUBMITTAL OF EXTERIOR ILLUMINATION PLANS FOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT. 6. CONTRACTOR BE REQUIRED TO MAINTAIN STREET FOR ACCESS TO PHASES I AND II OF THE SUNWOOD DEVELOPMENT AND TO RESTORE THE STREET AT THE END OF CONSTRUCTION TO ITS EXISTING STATE. Mr. Sowinski seconded the motion. MR. SOWINSKI MOVED TO AMEND THE MOTION TO UPDATE THE STAFF'S FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS. His motion died for lack of second. MAIN MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY: Mr. Orrico arrived at the meeting. B. 85- 62 -SPE: DOMINO'S PIZZA, requesting approval of a cooperative parking agreement at 15439 53rd Ave. South. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes February 6, 1986 Page 4 Ms. Bradshaw summarized the staff report, and read the January 18, 1986, letter from Richard Hall, Colonial II, concerning truck traffic in that area. Valeria Cavanagh, 15439 53rd Avenue South described the business and the necessity for the cooperative parking agreement. MR. COPLEN MOVED TO APPROVE DOMINO'S PIZZA, APPLICATION 85- 62 -SPE, SUBJECT TO THE FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS OF THE STAFF REPORT, WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1. IT IS UNDERSTOOD THAT THIS COOPERATIVE PARKING EASEMENT IS APPROVED UNDER THIS APPLICATION UPON FINDING BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION THAT SUCH ACTION IS TAKEN IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST. THE COMMISSION RESERVES THE RIGHT TO REVIEW THIS COOPERATIVE PARKING EASEMENT ANNUALLY AND MAY REQUIRE CANCELLATION THEREOF OR MODIFICATION OF ITS TERMS UPON FINDINGS OF ADVERSE IMPACTS TO PUBLIC SAFETY OR HEALTH. 2. AN INTERNAL INFORMATION SIGN SHALL BE REQUIRED TO IDENTIFY THE PARKING _ LOT FOR DOMINO'S PIZZA PICK -UP CUSTOMERS. MR. SOWINSKI SECONDED THE MOTION. MR. ORRICO MOVED TO AMEND THE MOTION TO MODIFY CONDITION 1 TO REPLACE THE WORD "ANNUALLY" WITH "ANYTIME ". MR. MCKENNA SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. MAIN MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. C. 85- 63 -SMP: City of Tukwila, requesting approval of two storm out - falls and a mini -park upstream from Foster Bridge (56th Ave. S.) on the left bank of the Duwamish River. Ms. Bradshaw summarized the staff report, with corrections. Byron Sneva, City of Tukwila Public Works Director, described the proposed revisions. MR. KIRSOP MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION 85- 63 -SMP, AND ADOPT THE STAFF'S FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS, SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1. ADHERENCE TO THE MITIGATING MEASURES DETAILED IN EPIC - 306 -85, INCLUDING: A. PREVENTING DAMAGE TO THE JOSEPH FOSTER TREE THROUGH IDENTIFICATION AND CONSTRUCTION OF A TEMPORARY BARRIER AROUND THE TREE. B. MAINTENANCE ACCESS TO THE GOLF COURSE PARKING LOT AND CLUBHOUSE DURING CONSTRUCTION WITH A TEMPORARY ACCESS POINT SOUTH OF THE EXISTING ONE. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes February 6, 1986 Page 5 2. ADEQUATE LIGHTING TO ENSURE THE SAFETY OF PARK USERS PER THE APPROVAL OF THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF. MR. ORRICO SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. D. 86 -1 -DR: Lloyd Hartong, requesting approval of building eleva- tions and a landscape plan for 6412 S. 144th Street. Chairman Knudson excused himself from participating on this item due to his close proximity to the site, and left the room. Mr. Kirsop assumed the chair. Ms. Bradshaw summarized the staff report, and submitted two pictures, Exhibits D and E. MR. MCKENNA MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION 86 -1 -DR, LLOYD HARTONG, BASED ON THE FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS OF THE STAFF REPORT, WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITION: 1. INCREASE THE LANDSCAPE MATERIALS ALONG THE FRONT FOUNDATION. MR. LARSON SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. Mr. Knudson resumed the chair. E. 86 -2 -SPE: Stress Management, requesting approval of a cooperative parking agreement at 5200 Southcenter Boulevard. Ms. Bradshaw summarized the staff report. MR.. LARSON MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION 86 -2 -SPE, STRESS MANAGEMENT, ACCEPTING STAFF'S FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS, WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITION: 1. IT IS UNDERSTOOD THAT THIS COOPERATIVE PARKING AGREEMENT IS APPROVED UNDER THIS APPLICATION UPON FINDING BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION THAT SUCH ACTION IS TAKEN IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST. THE COMMISSION RESERVES THE RIGHT TO REVIEW THIS COOPERATIVE PARKING AGREEMENT ANYTIME AND MAY REQUIRE CANCELLATION THEREOF OR MODIFICATION OF ITS TERMS UPON FINDINGS OF ADVERSE IMPACTS TO PUBLIC SAFETY OR HEALTH. MR. ORRICO SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. Brad Collins, Planning Director, arrived at the meeting. OTHER BUSINESS MR. COPLEN MOVED TO ELECT MR. KNUDSON AS CHAIRMAN. MR. SOWINSKI SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes February 6, 1986 Page 6 Moira Carr Bradshaw Secretary (MNTS.PC6) (5A.3) CITY COUNCIL ACTIONS Mr. Collins briefed the council on the proposed text amendment to the zoning code, the Fostoria Park rezone, Mcless rezone, and the Ryerson PRD. ADJOURNMENT MR. LARSON MOVED TO ADJOURN. MR. ORRICO SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. TUKWILA PLANNING COMMISSION I TO: FROM: DATE: City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila Washington 98188 (206) 433 -1800 Gary L. VanDusen, Mayor Planning Commission Planning Department January 31, 1986 SUBJECT: Windmark Homes DR- O1 -84: Recreation Space Requirement Attached is the updated and more detailed analysis of the recreation space contained . in this proposal. The plans were reviewed do novo with the Parks and Recreation Director relative to Section 18.52.060, TMC (Recreation Space Requirements). Our finding is that sufficient recreation is provided, most of which is within the minimum slope criteria of the TMC. MEMORANDUM A total of 12,148 s quare .feet of recre ation area is required and t e t..1 ,,160 square feeet is—pravided., including 10,736 square feet of a slope of 4:1 or less. Otherwise the calculations and recreation facilities mentioned in the previous staff report are unchanged. .2.V466 eAre_ laKSS SS512IV 4= t t_tatc.. s Fm- iUtLP kS a 1 A F _nrvk S Argek 6 5Q. s. 412 v?.. t. 3 1 6.64 It 380 4. ZS I ii 5 24-2o it 4-64 " 2I5( " 4G0 7 21 Cs 1 ' 7 0 st LtSO$( i N O' .QL /0 / 73 ar- .,4z4s4 1ZZ agreATtoO ? .QU\ EO 200 5Q . V 01urt NiC (oho C Qtrs = 15,200 sQ, Fr pc= u c wt oQ P fete. OF 1, 05a sQ. PT'. 12, sQ , P'C'. �- -+ 50Y0 iit 1t•AL3 M IBS 25/0 (4' SAM _ C, 074 s4► . C Nigteal t' \ltceD VEST 4,t iq 734=. GL�JS OKS l?I-1t 13,2530 e-Q. f' . )< Z5A I tlstmvlv■ = 3, 3Qa YLPff PflaN Fr-Qu1t>a) = 3, 3oQ '' TO: Planning Commission FROM: Planning Department DATE: January 31, 1986 SUBJECT: Windmark Homes DR -01 -84 City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila Washington 98188 (206) 433 -1800 Gary L. VanDusen, Mayor MEMORANDUM The following plan details were copied full size from the applicant's landscaping plan (Exhibit 2 -B) which is also attached in reduced form as a "Map Key" to assist in locating the full size plan details. The full -size plan details are at a scale of 1 inch = 20 feet and include topography at two foot contour intervals. The shaded areas are the recreation spaces of a slope less than 4:1 (25 %), and the unshaded, circled areas containing an area calculation are of a slope exceeding 4:1. This legend is indicated on the first plan for reference. Individual area calculations were performed on the full scale map with a compensating polar planimeter based upon the average of three separate readings. nip IJOTE F141214 4 44FP4m• MOTLMICC C4004. ----------- 4 timiirk . - 1M4W tOVW S. ....27 — Alfre,,,,,..,.••■■••••.!,' -4,c,,,,,...„:„.......-.•,...----03 .. ,.. .x...b....tycep '".--..". ..... . ..."" ' ...' „•••••-:-".". -,... ... , Malt= . MOM Ofi 0 "...1*- 1 - 1 1 - 1.•G& •r•-rst.orr 14 "cm Fr zwyr..s• O il <Agues 40 ,4 1.14Z2 911E-W-SCW{ Wet �D LaUe,fle-,1-r..11.1 64•••••• GR* e LATt 17cE1' er 1.49SiM.9.1t.IFTAb• it 1 i (% S9 Z *".11.4-.6.4.4S o .,„ IOSICCCCM761SLJ r••, _ .rjz.w r " 1"le174 --- fi *7 o IMIammilb EMI MM■1•••••.11. 1116. "Ng /NEL • I. MeM.4111111 1..Mar r 3 1 I i tt4 scut V ale • O" (fir A- r SVI3L) • L • 1 owl • • r .; • • I y . .4 • - f T • -----r i i ti stimwocits lx'4P. a %.... � ✓ ..(.i • • • ' r t r X t A 7 M SOLE ' •0" �,yu. site) • • • ti:;• • • • I t ti 4 1 ;i' ;4 011 4.4-r ' 1.1"r: 4. 40 I I t; •-••••••■ •••••••.- • suNkt40017 INNP. - `.. •.:. . -: ............. -.■ •-• ._„, _. t... \ '... . ,.. i -. ..... ' . . s -• L -. :.• . N • . • ---- , - . , \ • .41 141, 4 4...... . c. Weeftil ••.-„,zitt • ,..iis ' - ' owe ..••• I �F � 041_1 II_j.«.rill; ji.1 II • • �. -aw ii40D $i.•tP. \ i • C i UN t•aLo I. (KU. SIZZ ir • ) 1" . '1.114411 • • • r. • 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila Washington 98188 433 -1800 Gary L VanDusen, Mayor CITY OF TUKWILA NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING AND MEETING OF THE TUKWILA PLANNING COMMISSION NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Tukwila Planning Commission has fixed the 23rd day of January, 1986, at 8:00 p.m., in the City Council Chambers of Tukwila City Hall, 6200 Southcenter Boulevard, Tukwila, Washington, as the time and place for: Public Hearing 85 -49 -CUP: W. Lee Singleton, requesting approval of a truck terminal located at approximately S. 134th Street and 47th Avenue South. 85 -61 -R: McLees Zoning Amendment, requesting an M -1 Light Industrial classification for 4526 S. 135th Street, which is proposed to be annexed to the City of Tukwila. Public Meeting DR- 01 -84: -Windmark.Homes; requesting approval of plans for 66 multiple family units on a 3.85 acre site on the northerly and southerly sides of Sunwood Boulevard west of 62nd Avenue South and South of the existing Sunwood development. 85 -62 -SPE: Domino's Pizza, requesting approval of a cooperative parking agreement at 15439 53rd Ave. South. 85- 63 -SMP: City of Tukwila, requesting approval of two storm outfalls and a mini -park upstream from Foster Bridge (56th Ave. S.) on the left bank of the Duwamish River. 86 -1 -DR: Lloyd Hartong, requesting approval of building elevations and a landscape plan for 6412 S. 144th Street. 86 -2 -SPE: Stress Management, requesting approval of a cooperative parking agreement at 5200 Southcenter Boulevard. Any and all interested persons are invited to attend. Published: Record Chronicle, January 12, 1986 c City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila Washington 98188 433 -1800 Gary L VanDusen, Mayor MEMORANDUM TO: Board of Architecture Review FROM: Planning Department DATE: January 17, 1986 - SUBJECT: DR- O1 -84: Windmark Homes Tukwila, Inc. Your consideration. of this matter was continued from your December 12, 1985 meeting to the January 23, 1986 public meeting. For your convenience the staff report is attached, and please note that no changes have been made thereto. On January 16, 1986 the attached letter from the applicant's attorney was received. This is the only correspondence we have received since the December 12, 1985 public meeting. Also attached is the letter from the attorney for the Sunwood Condominium Homeowners Association which was submitted at the December 12, 1985 meeting. TO: Board of Architecture Review FROM: Planning Department DAT January 17, 1986 SUBJECT: DR- O1 -84: Windmark Homes Tukwila, Inc. City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila Washington 98188 433-1800 Gary L VanDusen, Mayor MEMORANDUM F �� 23(8L pkeLLC- Your consideration of this matter was continued from your December 12, 1985 meeting to the January 23, 1986 public meeting. For your convenience the staff report is attached, and please note that no changes have been made thereto. On January 16, 1986 the attached letter from the applicant's attorney was received. This is the only correspondence we have received since the December 12, 1985 public meeting. Also attached is the letter from the attorney for the Sunwood Condominium Homeowners Association which was submitted at the December 12, 1985 meeting. F A. LESOURD GEORGE M. HARTUNG MEADE EMORY LEON C. MISTEREK THOMAS O. MCLAUGHLIN' JOHN F COLGROVE C. DEAN LITTLE LAWRENCE E. HARD RODNEY J. WALDBAUM D. WILLIAM TOONE DANIEL D. WOO JOHN R. BEARD' DAVID A. LAWER CARL J. CARLSON Planning Commission City of Tukwila Tukwila City Hall 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, WA 98188 LESOURD & PATTEN ATTORNEYS AT LAW 2400 COLUMBIA CENTER 701 FIFTH AVENUE SEATTLE. WASHINGTON 96104.7005 TELEPHONE. 12061 624.1040 TELECOPIER: 12061 624.3067 TELEX /TWA: 910 444.4190 CABLE ADDRESS LESOURD LAW ANCHORAGE OFFICE FIRST NATIONAL BUILDING 425 G STREET. SUITE 630 ANCHORAGE. ALASKA 99501 TELEPHONE: (9071 277.4531 PLEASE REPLY TO SEATTLE OFFICE December 12, 1985 RE: DR- 01 -84: Sunwood Phase III (Windmark Homes, Tukwila, Inc.) Dear Commissioners: Ye. After the April 25 hearing, the Planning Commission presented the following written findings and conclusions: P WARREN MAROUAROSON ,MARIANNE SCHWARTZ 0 BARA , , M KANE. JR ;JEFFREY C WISHKO R MARTEN • ":VICTORIA JENSEN BJORKMAN 'CHARLES R WOLFE WOOLVIN PATTEN ROBERT L PALMER 0 . OF COUNSEL !.ADMITTED IN ALASKA ADMITTED IN ALASKA ANO WASHINGTON y ALL OTHERS ADMITTED IN WASHINGTON r•-e Y4r1)1M I We have been retained by the Sunwood Condominium Homeowners Association to represent them in matters relating to the proposed development of property generally known as the "Sunwood Phase III" property. We have discussed this matter in detail with our client, and with counsel for Windmark Homes, Tukwila, Inc. Further, we have reviewed various files maintained by the City of Tukwila regarding the "Phase III" property, as well as the Phase I and Phase II developments, and have examined the City of Tukwila Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Code. We previously presented our client's concerns at the April 25, 1985 BAR Hearing, and at the July'15, 1985 City Council meeting. At the April 25 BAR Hearing, the Planning Commission denied the application of Windmark Homes, Tukwila, Inc. On July 15, the City Council upheld the decision of the Planning Commission. On July 25, Windmark Homes, Tukwila, Inc. filed suit, and appealed the City Council decision to King County Superior Court. On October 21, the City Council voted to reconsider its July 25 decision, and then voted to remand this matter to the Planning Commission. The City Council indicated that the Planning Commission should consider a revised site plan that was submitted by Windmark Homes, Tukwila, Inc. after the April 25, BAR decision. On November 5, Windmark Homes, Tukwila dismissed its lawsuit. Planning Commission December 12, 1985 Page 2 (a) Inadequate Recreation Space. The proposal does not conform to the requirements of TMC 18.52.060 for provision of adequate recreation space. (b) Inadequate Transition with Streetscape, Inadequate Landscaping and Pedestrian Movement. The proposal does not satisfy BAR criteria TMC 18.60.050(1)(A) due to lack of adequate recreation space, an inadequate landscape plan and lack of adequate sidewalks and /or trails to link various parts of the proposal. (c) Inadequate Consideration of Relation of Height and Scale to Site. The proposal does not conform to BAR criteria TMC 18.60.050(1)(C) due to blockage of existing views of the southerly units of Sunwood Phase I. (d) Inadequate Landscape Treatment. The proposal does not conform to BAR criteria TMC 18.60.050(3)(C) due to failure of the landscaping plan to accommodate the existing Phase I vista of the Kent Valley floor and Mt. Rainier. (e) Inadequate Scale and Harmony with Neighboring Developments. The proposal does not conform to BAR criteria • TMC 18.60.050(4)(B) due to lack of harmony with Sunwood Phase I and view blockage. The above findings and conclusions were procedurally adequate and substantively correct. Since the April 25 hearing, the applicant has taken no action which would affect the correctness of the Planning Commission's original conclusions. The applicant has submitted a revised site plan which adds certain landscaping, a jacuzzi, decking and five gazebos to the project, and attempts to show the adequacy of recreational space. However, the revised plan insufficiently �a addresses our client's concerns and fails _ �to a : the ;° inadequacies previouslyfound by the.Planning The Planning Commission December 12, 1985 Page 3 Planning Commission should therefore reaffirm its April 25 decision. In addition, we direct the Planning Commission's attention to the following concerns of our client: 1. Concerns regarding identity of applicant and record property owner. a. Who is the applicant? In January, 1984, "Pacific Townhouse Builders - Tukwila" filed an application with the City to have the Planning Commission, sitting as a Board of Architectural Review, examine a proposed design plan for the Sunwood Phase III property. This applicant was the same owner /developer of the Phase I and Phase II properties. The 1984 application clearly indicated that the Phase III development would be consistent with the earlier developments. There would be a continuity of design, as well as ownership. In February or early March, 1985, the applicant changed. The new applicant is "Windmark Homes, Tukwila, Inc." On March 5, 1985, the Secretary of State issued a certificate of incorporation to this entity. However, the records of the King County Department of Records and Elections indicate that a quitclaim deed dated February 25, 1985 was recorded granting an interest in the Phase III property from "Pacific Townhouse Builders - Tukwila" to "Windmark Homes, Inc." The consideration given was "the assumption of debt ". Note that the name of the entity used on the quitclaim deed is different. "Windmark Homes, Tukwila, Inc." does not appear to be the same as "Windmark Homes, Inc." • b. Who is the record property owner? The question of the identity of the applicant has been further complicated by the findings of a title report obtained from Ticor Title Insurance dated June 13, 1985, and confirmed as current on December 12, 1985. As of that date, the record owners of the property were "Parke Place Number One, Inc., a Washington Corporation and Park Place Number Two, Inc., a Washington Corporation and Parke Place Number Three, Inc., a Washington Corporation; Doing Business as Pacific Townhouse Builders - -Parke Place, A Joint Venture ". The Ticor report notes 14 exceptions, two of which are material. Planning Commission December 12, 1985 Page 4 First, the report references a quitclaim deed dated December 10, 1984, executed by the purported president and secretary of "Pacific Townhouse Builders - -Parke Place ", to "Pacific Townhouse Builders, Tukwila ". However, as Ticor notes, a joint venture such as "Pacific Townhouse Builders - -Parke Place" "is not a legal entity capable of transferring title and we therefore question the validity of said deed ". Second, the report references the quitclaim deed dated February 25, 1985, executed by the purported president and secretary of "Pacific Townhouse Builders -- Tukwila" to "Windmark Homes, Inc." However, Ticor was unable to find a corporation with the name "Pacific Townhouse Builders -- Tukwila" registered with the Secretary of State as an active corporation. As Ticor notes, "if (Pacific Townhouse Builders -- Tukwila "] is an unincorporated association, it cannot acquire or transfer title to real estate ". Therefore, the following concerns are relevant. (1) Who is the record property owner? (2) Is the sale from Pacific Townhouse Builders to Windmark contingent on the issuance of a building permit? (3) To what extent is Pacific Townhouse Builders, or any of its principals, committed to assist in the permit process? According to the City's file, Mr. Gilroy of Pacific Townhouse Builders has indicated that, as part of the transaction, he is obligated to assist in the permit process. 2. Inadequate materials for BAR review. As of the end of business on December 12, 1985, the date of the Planning Commission hearing, the applicant had not submitted sufficiently detailed landscaping plans, sufficient N analysis of a slope profile, nor sufficient analysis of the effect df the construction of structures up to 35 feet in height. This data is essential for purposes of permitting the Planning Commission to adequately review the proposed project. The materials currently on file do not adequately meet the requirements of TMC 18.60.050. 3. Incomplete environmental review. In 1984, an environmental checklist was prepared by Pacific Townhouse Builders for this project. Various City of Tukwila departments reviewed the checklist and determined that problems existed. In February, 1984, the Department of Community Development determined significant concerns regarding slope stability, drainage, traffic and recreation /open space. As a l Planning Commission December 12, 1985 Page 5 result, the staff determined that it could not issue a Declaration of Non - Significance. Among the major concerns were those expressed by Don Williams of the Parks Department, who indicated that there was inadequate recreation space. In February, 1985 a revised soil analysis was submitted as part of the application. In addition, there were minor modifications to the proposal, including the elimination of a recreation area (Jacuzzi) which had been on the 1984 application. Don Williams commented in March, 1985 that there still remained problems with the recreation area. On March 22, 1985 a Declaration of Non - Significance was issued for this proposed design plan. SEPA rules and the Tukwila Municipal Code allow for withdrawal of a Declaration of Non - Significance under certain conditions. WAC 197 -11 -340 (adopted by reference in Tukwila Ordinance No. 1331, Sec. 10) states: "(2)(f) The responsible official shall reconsider the DNS based on timely comments and may retain or modify the DNS or, if the responsible official determines that significant adverse impacts are likely, withdraw the DNS or supporting documents . . "(3)(a) The lead agency shall withdraw a DNS if: "(i) There are substantial changes to a proposal so that the proposal is likely to have significant adverse environmental impacts; "(ii) There is significant new information indicating, or on, a proposal's probable .significant adverse environmental impacts; or "(iii) The DNS was procured by misrepresentation or lack of material disclosure; if such DNS resulted from the actions of an applicant, any subsequent environmental checklist on the proposal shall be prepared directly by the lead agency or its consultant at the expense of the applicant." (Emphasis added.) We are concerned that in making the Non - Significance determination, inadequate attention was paid to the following problems: (1) all or portions of the property may be 4 Planning Commission December 12, 1985 Page 6 designated as "environmentally sensitive" in the City's Comprehensive Plan; (2) a significant portion of the property contains slopes in excess of 20 %; (3) problems with surface water drainage exist; (4) no analysis was made of potential view blockage, loss of light and air rights, and the general visual impact of structures on the site. Further, we are concerned that, in the event the applicant seeks a building and other land use permits for this project, the applicant will contend that no environmental impact statement is required for the project. However, the DNS was issued on the basis of an inadequate and incomplete checklist and design plan, and did not consider materials that 'the applicant has since added or revised. We therefore request that the DNS be withdrawn according to either WAC 197- 11- 340(2)(f) or WAC 197- 11- 340(3)(a)(ii), and further request that the applicant be required to submit a new environmental checklist at the time that any permit is sought for . development of the project. In this case, significant differences may develop between the non - project BAR design review and a specific development project. 4. Inadequate recreation space and screening. The applicant has failed: to comply with the requirements "of TMC 18.52.060 with respect to 'recreation space. The applicant has failed to provide for a minimum of 200 square feet of recreation space for each dwelling unit (66 x 200 = 13,200 sq. ft.). Even considering the jacuzzi and gazebos proposed within the revised site plan, the applicant has made inadequate provision for any covered recreation space, or of any single purpose permanent facility such as a swimming pool or tennis court. In addition, the applicant has provided calculations based upon areas of open space within the site, and attempted to cast such calculations as fulfilling requirements for uncovered recreation space. The Tukwila Municipal Code differentiates between "open space" and "recreation space, uncovered ". TMC 18.06.580 defines "open space" as "that area of a site which is free and clear of building and structures and is open and unobstructed from the ground to the sky." TMC 18.06.650 defines "recreation space, uncovered" as "an area of ground characterized by a natural surface, such as lawn, forest, or sandboxes." The applicant has made an inadequate analysis of- the :;extent to which this uncovered recreation space is located on slopes Planning Commission December 12, 1985 Page 7 greater than . four horizontal to one vertical (4:1) slope,::: as required by TMC 18.52.060(3)(8). Further, there has been " a f inadequate showing that there will be adequate fencing, plant Wkoo • screening, or other buffer to separate -the recreation ,. space from parking areas, driveways or public streets TMC 18.52.060(4)(B). Finally, no provision has been made for adequate screening of outdoor storage as required in TMC 18.52.040. 5. Inadequate compliance with City of Tukwila Comprehensive Land Use Policy Plan. The Comprehensive Land Use Policy Plan provides guidelines for the City's development, and places the City's zoning ordinance in context as an implementation device for the Plan's goals. Not only has the applicant inadequately addressed the requirements of the zoning ordinance, but the applicant has 1so4 also failed to adequately address the concerns set forth in the Plan's "General Goals". This is particularly true of Goal 1, which requires the City, "through the regulation of land use and community growth, to promote the health, safety and general welfare of the public ". In addition, Goal 5 requires the City to "strike a balance between economy and environment. While the City should encourage development and strive to provide a health economic climate, it should be sensitive to the natural limitations and hazards imposed by the physical environment and the tremendous natural amenities which that environment affords ". Further, the applicant has failed to adequately address the goals for the elements of "natural environment ", "open space ", and "residence ". With respect to the "natural environment" element, this proposal fails to meet objectives of Policies 1, 2 and 3 of Objective No. 1. With respect to Objective No. 3, the proposal clearly violates the objectives of Policies No. 1 to "discourage development on slopes in excess of 20 % ", Policy No. 2, to "preserve the views of hillside residents ", and Policy No. 3, to "preserve and promote the quality of natural land form ". With respect to the "open space" element, the proposal fails to meet the goals of Objective No. 1, particularly: Policy 1, to "strive to preserve steep hillsides and wooded areas in a scenic condition, encourage replanting and revegetation of denuded areas not in the process of development ", and Policy 3, to "provide for active recreation Planning Commission December 12, 1985 Page 8 areas (ballfields, tennis courts, swimming pools, playgrounds, community center) consistent with the needs of the community ". With respect to the "residence" element, the proposal fails to meet a number of criteria, including but not limited to the following policies: Policy 7, to "encourage the provision of recreational open space within multiple - family developments "; Policy 4, to "encourage minimum care and maintenance level for undeveloped open spaces "; and Policy 6, to "encourage development of pedestrian rights of way, overpasses and well - lighted trails which can provide safe passage from residential areas to commercial, service, and recreational areas ". 6. Failure to abide by rezone commitment. When this property was rezoned to R -4 in June, 1981, the rezone was the culmination of a number of meetings before the Planning Commission and the Planning Commission. (See Staff Report re Sunwood Phase III and Minutes of Planning Commission Meeting of June 2, 1981, attached hereto as Exhibit A.) At that time, those interested expressed concern regarding inadequate measures taken to provide for proper recreation and open space opportunities. Representatives of. Pacific :Townhouse : Builders indicated that the Phase III development .was integral: part of the overall development of the Sunwood complex, and that amenities provided: in Phases .I. and :II._,would be available to those purchasing units in Phase III. Conversely, these representatives indicated that residents in Phases I and II could make use of amenities provided in Phase III. These statements were contained both in oral statements by Mr. Dally and others at public hearings and meetings, as well as in written representations, particularly in a letter dated March 9, 1981 to the City. (See copy of letter attached hereto as Exhibit B.) Mr. Dally 'indicated in his March; :9,:.1981 letter that 'during construction of :. Phase III we .wi l i ° be incorporating a'jogging trail which will surround the•ful'l development ". 7. Failure to identify significance of relationship of this property to the existing development of Phases I and II of Sunwood. As noted earlier, at all times until early March, 1985, the Phase III property was owned and developed by Pacific Townhouse Builders (or a related partnership or company). The Phase III property was an integral part of the entire "Sunwood" complex. Phase III was to be a condominium project, subject to the same Planning Commission December 12, 1985 Page 9 CRW/dva 7768B6/142A/LEH cc: Sunwood Condominium Homeowners Association terms and conditions of the Sunwood Condominium Declaration. Phase III was to be regulated by the same rules and regulations of the Sunwood Homeowners Association. On November 13, 1980, when the Sunwood Condominium Declaration was filed, the legal description of this property 60P was included as part of that recorded document. This PhasWIIIIY q)roperty is "subject to covenants, conditions and restrictions recorded contemporaneously with the Condominium Declaration. of Sunwood,a condominium". However, the design application makes no reference to that obligation. The Planning Commission should note carefully the obligations of continuity with Phases I and II that are incumbent upon the applicant. These obligations cannot be separated from the questions of recreational space, height limitation, view preservation and harmony with surrounding structures at issue in this design review. Based upon all these considerations, the Planning Commission should reaffirm its April 25 decision. Very truly yours, SOURD & PATTEN 2 Lawrence E. Hard Charles R. Wolfe 1/1/44FL AGENDA ITEM C INTRODUCTION The following is a summary of actions taken to date on the request of Pacific Townhouse Builders to restore R -4 zoning classification to the Ehmke and Kato properties immediately south of Sunwood Phase I: CITY OF TUKWILA PLANNING DIVISION PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT • Sunwood Phase III Rezone (81 -5 -R) A) 1 Dec. 80 - City Council adopts Ordinance 1185 repealing Ordi -• nance 1088, reverting the zon- ing classification on the Ehmke /Kato lands from R -4 to R -3 due to failure of the original applicants to satisfy stipulations enumerated in Ordinance 1088. 28 Jan. 81 - Pacific Townhouse. 717 1 (� + "' , i� � ; CSR Builders, as contract purchasers of the Ehmke /Kato property, file application for for rezoning from R -3 to R -4. The boundaries df this rezone application have been reduced slightly to exclude a small area of "C -1" contained in the proceeding R -4 rezone action (see Exhibit "A"). C) 26 February 81 - Planning Conudssion holds public hearing on Phase III rezone request: Approval recommended with stipulation that R -4 zoning on Phase III be limited to a density not exceeding 16 D.U. /ac. D) 9 March 81 - Pacific Townhouse Builders files letter with Planning Dept. staff requesting reconsideration by the Planning Commmission of their 26 February decision, restricting density to 16 units /acre. E) 23 April 81 - Planning Commission reconsidered proposed rezone and stipulations of approval: Changed recommendation to denial of R -4 reclassification. 'Effectively, this decision reduces tie number of units allowed in Phase III from 78 (as requested) to 62, and reduces overall build -out of "Sunwood" from 256 units to 240 units. F) 28 April 81 - Pacific Townhouse Builders files letter 1 re- questing Council review of the Commission's decision. 1BIT "". Page -2- (81-5-R) DISCUSSION The Planning Commission, in deciding to recommend against the proposed rezone to R-4 for Sunwood Phase 3, found that the following topical areas of concern had not been resolved adequately: - Ingress /egress $ traffic generation - Adequacy of recreational facilities project -wide - Adequacy of open space provided on Phase III. In essence, the Cartmnission's position on permitted Phase III density did not change between the 26 February and 23 April meetings; the property is already zoned R -3, allowing 16 units /acre maximum density under the Comprehensive Plan. Thus, if the Commission maintained their position that 16 units /acre is the appropriate maximum density for Phase III, the rezone to R -4 is not necessary and their denial action is internally consistent. In the intervening time since 23 April, however, staff has given some analysis to the matters of concern raised by the Commission, and wish to suggest herein some new factors for Council to consider in evaluating the Planning Commission's recommendation. A) Ingress /Egress - The Commission questioned the validity of placing an intensive concentration of dwelling units immediately adjacent to the 62nd Avenue / Sunwood Boulevard intersection, which is the exclusive access point for the entire Sunwood Project. They were concerned that traffic activity on Sunwood Boulevard would increase con- gestion within the project and would diminish the service level capacity of 62nd Avenue to Southcenter Blvd. - Staff notes, however, that early site layout . proposals for . "Sunwood" incorporated 2 ingress /egress points, one on the south at 62nd Avenue and one at the north leading to the hillside residential district. Very early in the planning process however, the City directed the applicants to delete the northerly access concept in order to separate multi - family trip - generation activity from that of the single - family area. In a very real sense, there- fore, the disadvantages, if any, of concentrating project access at the 62nd Avenue intersection is the City's on doing. - In our discussion with the firm of Jones F Associates which designed the present configuration of 62nd Avenue as built under L.I.D. 29, they report that their approach to anticipating adequate capacity.assumed two direct driveway openings from the Ehmke -Kato property onto 62nd Avenue, in addition to Sunwood Boulevard's connection thereto. Since the greater number of driveway openings onto a street increases congestion potential, it seems that the applicant's intent to delete any direct driveway access to 62nd Avenue for Phase III will actually enhance the design service level of tb' street, offsetting the er Page -3- (81 -3 -R) additional 96 ADT which would result fran allowing 16 additional units under R -4 zoning in Phase III (16 units x 6 trips /day per 1976 I.T.E. standard for multi - family residential units). B) Traffic Generation - The Commission was concerned that the incremental difference in trips- per -day generated by the additional 16 units allowed under R -4 zoning of Phase III would impact significantly the design service level of 62nd Avenue. - The final environmental impact statement for the "Parkplace" rezone (i.e. "Sunwood ") projects a total ADT of 62nd Avenue of 2070 -2370 based on the following assumptions: 1) Full development of multi- family properties in the vicinity of "Sunwood" with frontage on 62nd Avenue 2) " Sunwood" Phase I $ II build -out at 189 units (186 actual approved to date) . 3) " Sunwood" Phase III built -out at 108 -132 units /acre. Of the preceeding assumptions, No. 3 represents the most important to have changed since publication of the F.E.I.S: Using the aforementioned Y.T.E. standard of 6 trips /unit /day for condominium uses, total trip generation for Phase III would be predicted as follows: @ 16 units /acre = 62 units x 6 = 372 A.D.T. (P.C. recomm.) @ 20 untis.acre = 78 units x 6 = 468 A.D.T. (Applicant's proposal) Based on the foregoing calculations, therefore, the projected total A.D.T. for 62nd Avenue would be: '(Anticipating no change in assumptions 1 + 2 of F. E. I. S. notes above) @ 16 units /acre = 1793 A.D.T. - 1889 A.D.T. @ 20 units /acre = 1976 A.D.T. - 2072 A.D.T. Based on the proposed 78 dwelling unit yield of the rezone application, anti- cipated "worst- case" traffic impact on 62nd Avenue is roughly equal to the "best case" option of 2070 A.D.T. predicted by the F.E.I.S. Thus, we con- clude that the incremental difference in traffic generation between R -3 and R -4 use of the Phase III site isnot significant in relation to the anticipated decrease in street capacity impact levels on 62nd Avenue. C) Recreation /Open Space Adequacy - The Planning Commission questioned the adequacy of open space/ recreational area proposed within Phase III, noting that only 0.6 acres thereof is provided. The applicants explained that Phase III residents would be entitled to use the club- house /pool, tennis courts and open space areas of Phases I and II (totalling approximately 3.60 acres). The Commission then reiterated its rage -4- (81- 5 -R) concern; fearing that the distance from southerly Phase III units to the pool /rec. area is too great, and the "steep" topography too inhibiting to facilitate usage by Phase III residents. They concluded, therefore, that by reducing density to R -3 levels in Phase III by not allowing the rezone, additional land space could be freed to satisfy internally sane of the demand within Phase III for useable open space. - It is difficult to quantify the adequacy of open space necessary to serve a private development. However, we believe that sane conclusions can be drawn in the present case by examining widely - applied national park - planning standards: A) A common ruIe- of- thumb for siting of "neighborhood" rec- reation space is 10 acres for each population increment of 1000 persons population B) Assuming total build -out of Sunwood at 256 units (R -4 on Phase III included), and assuming a total population of 665 persons in the complex (F.E.I.S. "worst case" projection at 2.6 persons/D.U.), approximately 6.5 acres of open space is required. (For discussion purposes, public open space within 1/2 mile is not included to offset some of this demand) If,. however, we assume total population of 1.4 persons /unit, or 358 total occupants (on the basis of current sales occupancy rates), 3.6 acres of recreation area is needed. - We suspect that the true need for open space rests somewhere between the 6.5 and 3.6 acre figures, and is probably closer to the lower estimate. Thus, Sunwood is providing anywhere from SOS to 75% or more of its own open space requirements on an area -only basis if we apply the same standards within the project that are used to analyze public park space needs. Additional credit should probably be given due to the extensive variety of activities offered within .the project boundary. We note too,that the maximum distance is slightly less than 1 /8th mile from the Southerly -most Phase III unit to the pool /tennis complex, more than meeting the access standard for a "neighborhood" recreation facility. . The Planning Commission questioned specifically the adequacy of ,pool space provided in the project. Using the National Swimming Pool Institute's standard of 15 sq. ft. /bather in waters less than five feet deep, Sunwood's pool can accomodate 4b persons, or between 7% to 12% of the project's anticipated population at a time, de- pending on which per -unit occupancy rate is used. We conclude . that this degree of pool play area is convenient to the demands:of the Sunwood project internally, and far exceeds the amount of per -cap- 'ita swimming pool space available convenient proximity to the residents of TLikwila generally. CONCLUSION CLUSION Page. -S- 181 -5 -K) At the time of the Planning Commission's initial review of the rezone application, staff recommended R-4 zoning for Phase III of "Sunwood". Our findings at that time included: 1) The Comprehensive Land Use Plan map designates the subject site as High - Density Residential, defined as 17+ D.U. /Acres in multi - family configuration. 2) The proposed density of 10 units per acre appears to, be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, although it represents a higher level of building activity than that of surrounding multi- family development (Cottage Creek = 11 D.0 /Ac.) (Sunwood Phase I =16 D.U. /Ac:). Due to the project's proximity to the Southcenter Blvd. /. I -40S corridor, however, the higher -level density pro- posal appears justified. 3) Adequate access, utility infrastructure and recreation space appear to be available to serve the proposed re- zone area. The concerns raised by the Planning Commission in their subsequent . recommendation to deny the application have caused us to examine more carefully the factors which impinge upon this rezone action, and have led us to conclude on a stronger factual basis that the R -4, 20 Unit /Ac. proposal is still appropriate. Analyzing the impacts of the rezone proposal in more concrete terms which the 'Planning Commission felt were missing, we feel that the foregoing discussion has been able to adress satisfactorily the issues raised at the April meeting such that a positive decision on the rezone request is justified. Bit) =4,kCS 1anitorial Sarvice OLD BUSINESS Ordinance #'1215 - Changing the name of the custodian for the Advance Travel Expense Account Ordinance #1216 - Reclassifying cer- tain lands from R -3 to P. -4 (Sunwood, Phase III) Mayor(.. o -Tern Van Dusen noted that the ,.urrent Janitorial.Ser„ic .'' .has terminated their services with the City. The Public Works Director has asked Council approval to Call for Bids to ensure continuity of services. MOVED BY HILL, SECONDED BY PHELPS, THAT COUNCIL APPROVE THE CALL FOR BIDS FOR JANITORIAL SERVICES IMMEDIATELY.* Mayor Pro -Tem Van Dusen said there have been reasons, both pro and con, on why they terminated their services. He asked to have one of the Committees look into this. *MOTION CARRIED. MOVED BY HILL, SECONDED BY .PHELPS, THAT THIS ITEM BE REVIEWED BY THE PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE.* Councilman Harris asked in what area this company was unsatis- factory. Ted Uomoto, Public Works Director, said it was many areas. They have been trying to get the contractor to meet the requirements listed in the signed contract. *MOTION CARRIED. MOVED BY HILL, SECONDED BY PHELPS, THAT THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE BE READ BY TITLE ONLY. MOTION CARRIED. City Attorney read an ordinance of the City of Tukwila, Washington, changing the name of the custodian for the Advance Travel Expense Account, amending Section 2 of Ordinance No. 614, and repealing Ordinance Nos. 778, 890, 940, 1050 and 1083. MOVED BY HILL; SECONDED BY HARRIS, THAT ORDINANCE NO. 1215•BE ADOPTED AS READ.* Mayor Pro -Tem Van Dusen questioned if the name of the Finance Director, rather than the title is necessary. Attorney Hard said that the State Auditor Bulletin No. 010 sets forth the requirement that a person's name is necessary. However, the people who currently administer the program for the State Auditor's Office do not take that position. Some other cities name just the office, and the Auditor's Office has taken no action against them. It makes sense to name the office instead of an individual, so you don't have to mend the ordi- nance every time there is a change. The safe course would be to adopt the ordinance naming the individual. Councilman Harris said, while she held the position of City Treasurer, she was told many times that you abide by the Auditor's Bulletins. Until such time as the bulletin is repealed, we need to follow it. ' *MOTION CARRIED. • MOVED BY HILL, SECONDED BY HARRIS, THAT THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE BE READ BY TITLE ONLY. MOTION CARRIED. City Attorney Hard read an ordinance of the City of Tukwila, Washington, reclassifying certain lands from R -3 to R -4, as described in Planning Department Master File No. 81 -5 -R. MOVED BY PHELPS, SECONDED'BY HILL, THAT ORDINANCE NO. 1216, AS AMENDED BY THE CITY ATTORNEY, BE ADOPTED AS READ.* Attorney Hard noted that he added a new Section 4 to clarify the action of the ordinance. The property is rezoned from R -3 to R -4. :0 - Cont. • I . "7rdinance #1216 - Reclassifying cer- tain lands from R -3 to r -4 ( Sunwood, Phase III) (cont.) Mr. Don Dailey, Pacific Townhouse Build 1370 Stewart Street, #100, Seattle, noted that since the meeting of May 12, they have met with the homeowners that occupy Phase I of the condominium .project. Their concern is adequate recreation facilities. He requested that a condition be placed in the rezoning ordinance that they add one jacuzzi, which is equal to size and capacity of the one installed under Phase I. The location will be either in Phase III.or among the other recreation facilities near the swimming pool. Councilman Hill asked if it wasn't the developer's problem rather than the City's. Mr. Dalley said they want it to be a matter of record. Mr. Hill noted that it would appear in the minutes. .Mr. Carl Lewis, 15209 Sunwood Blvd., Unit 833, said he repre- sents the group of homeowners who have expressed their concerns. . After discussion with the developer, they have agreed not to oppose the rezone on the condition that the developer install the additional jacuzzi. He said his concern is that this agree- ment has a binding legal effect. They felt it was best to make it a condition of the rezone. He asked the City Attorney how this could become a binding commitment. Attorney Hard said he would prefer this not be included in the ordinance. This could open up situations where the City should not get involved. Any development this size has to have approval of the Board of Archi- tectural Review. These minutes will reflect to the Board that there is, at least, one condition for them to consider. The Council could, by motion, direct staff to inform the Board of Architectural Review of this condition. The Building Official should be directed that a Building Permit will not be issued until this condition is taken care of. Councilman Bohrer said the Planning Commission raised the fol- lowing concerns on this project; ingress /access and traffic generation, adequacy of recreational facilities.and adequacy of open space provided on Phase III. The, Planning Commission questioned specifically the adequacy of pool space provided in the project. The City has an Open Space Ordinance, but there is no analysis as to how the project complies with it. He said it looks like there is potential further concern as the Planning Commission expressed. He further asked if the project now meets the conditions listed in the rezone ordinance that was repealed in December. The report does not indicate. Brad Collins, Planning Director, said he understood that the previous ordinance was related to a contract zone that covered more property than this specific rezone covers. Attorney Hard' said it was impossible for the whole'property covered under the : ordinance to meet the terms of rezone, so it reverted back to the existing zoning: It is back now, with the request to rezone a portion. The original conditions are completely 'irrelevant to what is before Council. now. Councilman Bohrer asked what the conditions were and why they are no longer relevant. Attorney Hard said the property is now zoned R -3, and this is what Council has to deal with. It may have been zoned something else, but that is irrelevant. It has been zoned R -3 since January of 1981. Councilman Bohrer asked again what the conditions were and said it matters to him if they have been met. Attorney Hard explained that this property owner has a parcel of property zoned R -3. He is before Council. with the request to change the zone to R -4. All of the necessary steps have been met .to complete the process. Tonight is the culmination of the process. What hap- pened earlier has no legal effect. RECESS: 8:00 P.M.- MOVED BY BORER, SECONDED BY HARRIS, THAT. COUNCIL RECESS FOR 8:10 P.M. " MINUTES TO ALLOW TIME TO GET A COPY OF THE ORIGINAL ORDI- • NANCE. MOTION CARRIED. .` Ordinance 1216 - Reclassifying cer- tain lands from R -3 to R -4 ( Sunwood Phase III) (cont.) .Mayor P• Iem Van Dusen called the1'" ,ting back to order with Co\...,cil Members present as previo ...y reported. City Attorney Hard reported that Ordinance 1088 rezoned the property from R -3 to R -4 with 8 conditions. These conditions applied to three parcels of property. In 1978, LID 29 was created and constructed. At that time a portion of this property was excluded from immediate assessments. After that, it was concluded that all the property rezoned under Ordinance No. 1088 could no longer meet all of the conditions. The ordinance was then repealed so the zoning reverted back to R -3. Councilman Bohrer said his recollection is that the property hadn't met the conditions, therefore, was not participating in LID •29, so the ordinance was repealed. He reviewed the conditions re- quired% Attorney Hard said the conditions have been met by the - properties within the boundaries of the LID. The logical solution for the City was to turn all of the property back to R -3 and, as the property is developed, the owners would have to come back to the City and request appropriate zoning for the use. Council- man Bohrer asked why there was no analysis of the conditions. Attorney Hard said because there was no legal requirement. The conditions are not relevant to this parcel today. The property is R -3. If Council wants to impose the conditions, they can make them part of the rezone. Councilman Harris said the project, at the time of the rezone was a separate project. . It had nothing to do with Sunwood. The conditions were for an entirely different project. Councilman Johanson noted that the Planning Commission denied the request, but staff recommended approval. He said he also wondered about the conditions. Brad Collins, Planning Director, said he assumed the Planning Department considered the eight conditions and either they were not needed or they had been met. Councilman Phelps explained that Ordinance 1088'has been repealed so the conditions aren't even there; further, it related to another project all together. Any conditions that apply to the Sunwood Development would apply to the rezone before Council now. Councilman Bohrer noted that there seems to be a lot of questions. He said he did not see the urgency in insisting that this be passed tonight. It would be appropriate to send it back to staff for an analysis of the conditions. Councilman Phelps said all of the conditions and covenants and agreements that the City has with Sunwood Develop- ment have already been established. They are developing under the agreement we currently have. I don't see the point of im- posing more conditions upon the developer than they already have. Councilman Harris said when an ordinance is repealed, it is no longer valid. What ever was in the ordinance no longer applies to anything. That is what we did to Ordinance 1088. The conditions no longer apply. MOVED BY BOHRER, SECONDED BY JOHANSON, THAT THE ORDINANCE BE TABLED TO ALLOW STAFF TO PREPARE A REPORT ON THE RELATIONSHIP OF THE CURRENT SUNWOOD DEVELOPMENT PLAN TO THE CONDITIONS THAT WERE ORIGINALLY PROPOSED IN ORDINANCE 1088. MOTION FAILED. *MOTION CARRIED WITH BOHRER AND JOHANSON VOTING NO. MOVED BY PHELPS, SECONDED BY HILL, THAT THE PLANNING STAFF BE TO NOTIFY THE BOARD OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW TO OBSERVE AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE HOMEOWNERS AND THE DEVELOPERS TO PROVIDE AN ADDITIONAL JACUZZI RECREATIONAL FACILITY.* Councilman Bohrer commented that this is a limited attempt to include some of the considerations that were in the original eight. *MOTION CARRIED WITH BOHRER AND JOHANSON VOTING NO. • tb Pacific Townhouse Builders Seattle office: Mariner Building, 1870 Stewart Street, Suite 100, Seattle, WA 96109 (206) 682.7830 Bellevue office: 1115 108th Avenue NE, Bellevue, WA 98004 (206) 455 -1726 Mark Caughey Planning Director City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Blvd. Tukwila, WA 98188 Dear Mark: RE: REZONE PHkSE III "SUNWOOD" March 9, 1981 As we discussed March 3, 1981, Pacific Townhouse Builders economically cannot live with the density factor of 16 units per acre for Phase III as recommended by the Planning Commission. I would like to point out several factors that the Planning Commission may not have been aware of in making their recommendation: 1. We initially purchased the Ehmke site and optioned the Kato prop- erty under R -4 zoning (ordinance 1088) which allowed a density of 18.7 units per acre. Needless to say, our purchase price relects this density. Because of the property's location adjacent to the freeway corridor, we never thought that the density would be down - zoned from that figure. As a matter of fact, in discussions with city staff members, we were under the opinion that the density could be rezoned well above 18.7. 2. The R -4 portion of "Sunwood" Phase I (Buildings A,B,C,D as E) which immediately borders the subject site to the north was rezoned in 1978 for a density of 21.6 units per acre. (72 units - 3.34 acre) It should be pointed out that this 31 area is closer to the single family areas of Tukwila than the subject site. To the northeast the "San Juan" Apartments have R -4 zoning and are built -out to a density of 19.28 units per acre. To the east "Cottage Creek" is zoned R -4 and would have allowed 120 units but only 48 units were built because 50% of the site had unusable topography. The south boundary of the property borders on C -1 zoning which will be developed for commercial use in the near future. ,To the west of the site the new VIP hotel is to be built. In most municipalities, EXHIBIT #B "Sunwood" Page 2 a residential property next to an intensive zoning classification such as C -1 will have the highest residential classification poss- ible. Example: King County RM 900 (48 units per acre), Seattle RM 800 (52 units per acre). 3. As we all know, housing is getting extremely expensive! The public wants "affordable" housing but because of government regulations, home prices are estimated to be 20 to 30% higher than they should be. This is a great example of the Planning Commission restricting the density (government regulation) thus increasing housing costs in an area that should have high density. At 16 units per acre, this site will allow only 62 units vs. the 78 units (20 units per acre) being asked for. This 16 unit red- uction will add $1800 per unit of ground cost. Add to this; the financing cost of the construction and hold period, the loss in maximum efficiency of construction, the additional cost per unit of roads, utilities, landscaping, and marketing which will be the same for 78 units as 62 units and the total additional selling price per unit is approximately $4,500 -From sales on lase I, we learned that selling prices must be kept as low as possible or you eliminate a major portion of buyers because they can't qualify for a loan. From our discussion, I determined that one of the reasons for the re- duction in density from 20 to 16 might be the Planning Commissions' concern for landscaping and recreational area. The main entrance of "Sunwood" will utilize a heavily landscaped terraced wall. Sunwood Boulevard which divides the Phase III site has 20' Maples and will add a forested buffer through the center of the subject site. The area adjacent to building and parking areas will be heavily landscaped as was done in Phase I. (I might suggest that members of the Planning Commission take a tour of "Sunwood "). The purchasers of the individual condominium units for Phase III will 'utilize the recreational package which was built as part of Phase I which in- cludes a swimming pool, tennis court and recreation center with Jacuzzi, kit- chen, game room and changing rooms. The original recreational package was designed based on an estimated use of 2.6 people per unit. But in fact, based on the sale of the first 63 units the average has been 1.4 people per unit with only 4 children. As can be seen, the recreational facilities were over - designed by some 46% which easily will take care of the 16 additional units. In addition during construction of Phase III we will be incorporating a jogging trail which will surround the full development. In conclusion, I have tried to point out that economically we, or the eventual buyers of the condominium units, can not live with a 16 unit per acre "Sunwood" . Page 3 density. Being that this site is adjacent to the freeway corridor and that we are providing quality landscaping and recreation amenities for buyers, there is absolutely no reason that the density could not be in excess of 20 units per acre. If you need any further information, please do not hesitate to call me at 682 -7830. cc: Frank Todd Dick Gilroy Jerry Molitor Sincerely, PACIFIC TOWNHWSE BUILDERS _., Don 'ally General Partner ( GLENN J. AMSTER PETER R. ANDERSON DAVID H. BJORNSON JOEL N. BODANSKY H RAYMOND CAIRNCROSS WENDY W. CAIRNCROSS LAURIE LOOTENS CHYZ MARK S. CLARK SALLY H. CLARKE T. RYAN DURKAN GARY M. FALLON ROBERT B. FIKSO FRED S. FINKELSTEIN JOSEPH B: GENSTER RICHARD E. GIFFORD JEROME L. HILLIS January 14, 1986 Mr. Jerry Knudsen, Chairman Board of Architectural Review City of Tukwila Tukwila City Hall 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, Washington 98188 LAW OFFICES OF HILLIS. CAIRNCROSS. CLARK & MARTIN A PROFESSIONAL SERVICE CORPORATION 403 COLUMBIA STREET SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 00104 (2061 623.1743 Emnow[Em JAN 1C 1 CITY OF TUI(WILA PLANNING DEPT. Re: DR- 01 -84: Windmark Homes, Tukwila Inc. Dear Chairman Knudsen and Board Members: TIMOTHY H. HOSKING GREGORY E. KELLER GEORGE A. KRESOVICH SARAH E. MACK DEBORAH S. MALANE GEORGE W MARTIN. JR. LOUIS D PETERSON SHERYL K. PETERSON JAMES J. RAGEN STEVEN R. ROVIG MICHAEL F. SCHUMACHER MICHAEL R. SCOTT RICHARD S. SWANSON RICHARD R WILSON CHARLES B. WRIGHT On April 25, 1985, the Board of Architectural Review denied the application of Windmark Homes, Tukwila Inc. for Phase III of the Sunwood development. Planning Commission Findings and Conclusions, May 23, 1985. The City Council upheld this decision on July 15, 1985, but following an executive session on October 21 voted to remand this appli- cation to the Board with instructions to review the revised plans submitted to the Council, receive additional public testimony, and formulate a new recommendation. The Planning Commission staff has since revised their report, addressing the revised plans and their relation to the Board findings which lead to the original denial. At the hearing on January 23, 1986, we will demonstrate that the revised plans resolve the Board's initial concerns. The purpose of this letter is to briefly describe these changes to assist you in your,review of our client's proposal. I. The Revised Plans Comply With the Zoning Code Recreation Space Requirements of TMC 18.52.060. In Conclusion No. 1, the Board stated that most of the proposed recreation space conflicted with the landscape plan and was not useable for recreation purposes, thereby violating TMC 18.52.060. In response, the revised plans now contain a jacuzzi, trails, gazebos, recreation building and deck, and children's play areas and apparatus. Also, open space recontouring and reconfiguring have created additional useable spaces. These changes have led staff to conclude that "(c]onformance with recreation space requirements of TMC 18.52.060 is apparent W441/15t1- C Board of Architectural Review January 14, 1986 Page 2 in the proposal." Planning Commission Staff Report, Novem- ber 21,1985, page 5. II. The BAR Criteria Regarding Streetscape Transition, Adequate Landscaping, and Pedestrian Movement Are Now Satisfied. In Conclusions No. 2 and 4, the Board stated that the landscape plan was incomplete and did not accommodate existing vistas, and that adequate pedestrian sidewalks and trails to link various parts of the proposal were not provided. The applicant hired landscape architect Steven Shea for the purpose of redesigning the landscape plan to resolve these concerns. The revised plan, described in the updated Planning Commission staff report, "interrupts the building masses, defines the perimeter of parking and access areas, and enhances the scenic vista, and view from and of the site." As Mr. Shea testified to the Council, this new plan provides better views while maintaining separation between the units. In addition, as mentioned above, a trail and walkway system has been added, connecting the recreation areas and gazebos and enabling pedestrian access throughout the site. These efforts have, as the Planning Staff agrees, satisfied the criteria cited above. III. The Revised Plans Minimize the Impact Upon the View From Sunwood Phase I. In Conclusions No. 3 and 5, the Board found that this proposal, with a proposed height of 202 feet, would block • the existing views of the southerly units of Sunwood Phase I, in violation of the review criteria established by TMC 18.60.050(1) (C) and (4) (B) . These criteria require consideration of the height and scale of each building in relation to its site, and further require that buildings should be of appropriate scale and in harmony with neighboring developments. Testifying at the Council hearing, Sunwood resident Dick Taylor expressed his concern with the maximum height of the proposed structures: Several of us bought our particular units because we did want the view. We understood at the time we bought there would be Phase III [and werel given an elevation maximum for Phase III which I was told . . . was 203 feet max. Mr. John Lane C Board of Architectural Review January 14, 1986 Page 3 just told us that his current design was 204 foot reduced to 200 foot maximum elevation. The proposal that was presented to the Planning Commission last May . . . was 216 feet. Now I don't know where Mr. Lane came up with the 204 feet and I would invite him to tell us what his iron clad max elevation is at this time on the current proposal . . I think that all of us that bought at the 203 foot max are willing to accept that, because that was the presentation that we had under the original Phase III proposal . . . . Responding later in the hearing, project architect John Lane testified as follows: I was glad that in the gentlemen's [Dick Taylor] presentation he noted that the buildings were getting shorter in height and not larger, and I think this is indicative again of our attempt to try to listen to what the [Sunwood Phase I and II] Homeowners Association has to say and meet some of their requests. The finished floor grades in the lower levels of these top buildings up here are going to be 168, 168 and 164. We anticipate that' the actual true .height ,of the peak of Our ° structures will be 32 feet above these finished::. floors which puts it at, 200 feet, we stand on that riight now: as part of the record. (emphasis added). Thus, the height of the proposed buildings will be lower than the height which was represented to the purchasers in the earlier phases of Sunwood and will minimize the view blockage impact on the southerly units of Sunwood Phase 1. In :summary, this applicant has sincerely and diligently attempted to resolve the Board's expressed concerns. The Planning Staff has reviewed these efforts and judged them to be a success, recommending approval of the proposal, subject to a few minor conditions. We look forward to presenting evidence to you which substantiates that recommendation, and l Board of Architectural Review January 14, 1986 Page 4 DEM01 -F cc: John Snider John Lane Lawrence Hard eeor resovich we request that you forward a positive recommendation to the City Council on this proposal. Very truly yours, HILLIS, CAIRNCROSS, CLARK & MARTIN, P.S. .114 litAS II' Lunt • Myth. 4 worm PRIM= WOE*• rirrAl ..,........;;. 4 r..: 1 1. f p ' il l -11 .4 1??f7.4 -..0 . • 4 *Z.1011Wireil■MINIMIIIMPIIM - 1.: - .4 """ ' I r M .......= ..C tit fo • 0 •■■.11 It A iYigi ••+;.■■• f ffa■: 1;. 1 : 1 ; .7; - ' , N. M 41, 4- ..., LP; l b 11 •;:Xii.. " •••,vo.N.•;12.- X= Att• 11.' IliV.4, ' 4.,.........,. .4...-9- 0 - , 0 - • , • ;,• — -...--, -, -,„„,1,,,,-.....z.,„, . ---:-.--... 7 - ;:"." - .:496 7 ..... , t..• , , 44,„ WM :1 1........:64.4 cll. ee . 11 3 . 1 1 Ai MAL. sle% , -. ;,,......,,,,.........:4,•:•,.-..re..........•,...<•.,.... , .....ta•nucto •! _ • ...„--........- ...., ...... • t- "re tow' . • - A. twom. L.rer...wc arr (n, rt,••cfrisprA o il 41 40 OCO 0 0 1. 0 u ..r 194Mga_ lgtaxxxo • ItoansPr icappjer rIEUMER. Roca IMMIT*-1•Ews. PRAM f•Prill* wpm. oetn, *e••••imt.. EA.O.■9,1 1 OPOLs.C.e.O.T.R 41 WU:PLOVER WM • • all■rarperil _pc . ••■ er.■ blowor. MEIN MM. CCM ri; 4S ••• -5/1 ■ -11 4cALt 16.1x.o. 3 I L I ■ I 0 Ct P Of' 1 UrCvviLA PLANNING DEPT. p.e_er: . PAZ Phfreol zIt lag ...4.rr..Jr••••••-t-ts Aft:MS• LA-P.CO , •riepumpjcpr TIME VU Mem; Jfriss.Jen (Ayr PeA0 C. • Z.L.L.GKA•• UMPAPCLY.Iftg.4: A34,v.-,•vu I 81 $14.-0-5 kNdiketi.t.Uf• oTD Lvrtzl- - z 44.1.71n44 " Mi-uvre 441. tr•Tg 4,9 olecommaaa14 [••9004?-e• I. Zr5ii!iiITA1X 41 114.4.V. zcictul".4.35 . 9•471;ftwye 751 virmew...4 OWIEM 1.■■••••. OM. WO0.11.41.1. ; V... mole. Ilime age. 81.112 •=0 Oa — • lito•Orit 4E/P0•411.o ak594 4,P Irecr• r/•79 Pl.hr surrece OASZEO Wilt1 51‘4 /41204 .1•••■ .1. •• en. •••• Z.,- 44. U T.4 • II • id ft' .7 47 44 10 a \ oral 0 AREA ,* 1 — • 7- - • (.1 C••-• • - r ...0 :•.14.0° ,„ • 4)- / cr I:777n a-lo Ames V2.11 1.3,141m, 1.7„;,..• :4 W Arjh trirzArz, , oak. 4, v 4V 46rffi ll* j, IVE; goi POW roasia owe& 4fr Ir "rer crmrser/Acce"._ --: • *41 .14 :6P14 .; "?1,4 • r' " I t eP___ .3r4r i••. - .0 -• t. • 1:"...et TICS," cco f.m. n' P.r.7.1: rFroft !)•••■or.,0-"•_:11 • 5.; t I 4 "." . L t •• 14 • 0 e..M.12. •-•-• 1(.4eCt 1 C 4 Coy •••• • tjayi• 19 •VIAL* 2110t4-1:340.toK • reaczo, • =a .2.442.5‘. serrromcws. H-tox. •••• . r.CSCP . 4 or......0•Ine \JUN 1 0 1985 AM NM ••• /moo , fraNeMerr, OWN 41..11••••■ MAMAN•OrN 4/4. t* 111•1111••• 010•••■■11 .11■■■■■• 1.11■11. 111. ••■••••■• ••■• 4111111. Mee OM... Ike. MEIS ••••• 6■11.11011, *OM .1.1111111.11•0. OM. .fie /MEL •■• ••••• AFKG RECREATION AREAS . 1 avere •e•.÷ 2 3 2956 -'e-ti'. 4 '...5!: ..s4.:4 5 24-15 -W. - 6. -- - 6 c s.4..." / 25 CITY OF TUKWILA PLANNING DEPT. 12•11111•1111.•111••• 1.1.0 IMMIIM 9 aig 4Z g'r gt101`S 5Ppsc C_Pst...wLchliQt3s 2 3 . 5 6 4 617F-AcaOt � � O %An. 2,c. Qc1 Sp. pr. 1+4. Scl4• as 77 4" It 5,355 A •, Id Cassp LYZ‘2,115Ua AmO LasJ Z) C2/F913 I� lo )F 145?S? S4. { = I 052. s(.ri' . ; 150 3,(.)Q + 76 /8, 0z5 12c.40( R 1013 Ash C,A L-C Ll=s L c1: Zoo $(4: Pr. 'A Ch. NITS = (5 200 s4. Er. ► 05 Z .4 ,. I Z, I + " tl, . � r z ; 84 41 ? C ' t r c tLc4 C EP (ZILS N14.9-41/4 G cu LP 'tc& : t3, 2,‘>Q0 Ss). fLT = 3,300 Sc � .FT. ti i M 3,300 " � � FIZQN IMO M Se a H U ,1 N R ,4 mmuuu : q : M ts1 ■..11 8.•• � tame k .0p1.11 I 71 •: I � I .if =w in a r g. Iii II ai t"... IIIW 11ij1'I'� IIi,I also' mars ...1:. Iiauuuuunuuunnnimunivanru fl s �I■ 1, I I T 11111.••• M... .■rr Now. LL-...I 1 t1 it.. -, III•{•.L:L1i11i I Tii� NM MI NOVI IMMO■ Mali. Mali. ..alw. •.•■ .•ae■ olilllTli itritiffinu 1111 I'll. 11Ba1 Imo" Immo Baia lama B•.■ It!• 1 MOM 1 11111111 JlLA MEI Ur i •IV l, Waal, 1 ON 1 AM AVAXWIt5 ill WI 51 UNN. WAY V r.f 111 L \ ''J MOW/ W19 iUCKWIL A x- 41 I 11 to umu r .cs 1 R r■ 11111011 !VT .t =- I'T 1 .C'1' Hfllll „ a l l 11 1111 •aGV}1'61't Sl TUC WAIL A CONDOMIF- ill IMS WASHINGTON t I � r *! lvii' 1 II�II.!■ , � lt!!r■ I ' !_ !II11 tu,tar r. r!!:.'t �x 11111111191 N1EIItl 111 IOW ea +II ■!s■ Ntntl Isar eJ LA oh MS l NAY ATIS SI Al11[ WASIIMION 411II'1 71+1 Nn 7.71 IQlail•111N 111111111111'I mm o !!sail ■■.ltl IIE ■■r� ■! iiliven ■Ut !!a!■, uar.n L ■! • ■ ■ ■■■!■� la..■■ it f ' 1111 ■H■ ,!I(!! !!: !■ : ■: .■! ■! 1111P1110111 ae■ •. ■:7..!■ . .• Y�e.N■ I.. u■ i■. Wiliam.' J ■C1■■ 1 UCKWIL A. TUCKWILA CONDOMINIUMS WASI IINGTCIN fl 0F c_por<:_kroorz_ qQ.09 s\a4, 'xLSO Foz g)(441t51 --• F << '4 PUILDtN A 17 L3IVW 0010 PW SZ I LILDI *c A r1IZs - r rtzfsR. - I84. ?5 rr. L tst4 C. . , it ,. - 2?Z, 00 " o0 (rM C441/44+p►s A) Outu7It3(& t 44616/0 - ZOZ .00 FT 8l�tl.v! Kite 8 -1 1 a.p Pr W Z J SECTION 2 I" • 20' SECTION I" • 20' 4m4405CP 4.2 TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL, REGULAR MEETING July 15, 1985 Page 2 PUBLIC HEARING Continued From , June 17, Appeal of Board of Arch. Review decision by Windmark Homes Mayor Van Dusen noted that this Public Hearing was continued from the meeting of June 17, 1985 with the approval of both parties. The application for Phase III of the Sunwood Development was filed with the City in January, 1984, by Pacific Townhouse Builders. It went before the Board of Architectural Review . for design review. In February, 1984, the Planning Commission tabled consideration of the application at the request of the applicant. In March, 1985 a new application was filed with the City showing Windmark Homes as owner. The Planning Commission held a Public Meeting on April 25, 1985 to review the application. Based on testimony received, they denied the application. An appeal on behalf of the applicant was filed May 3, 1985. The intention of the applicant is to present revised plans and demonstrate that the concerns of the Board of Architectural Review have been satisfied. Mayor Van Dusen asked if there were any challenges against he or the Council over the Appearance of Fairness Doctrine. There was no comment. Brad Collins, Planning Director, presented the following Exhibits: •1. Master Land Use Application filed January 5, 1984 2. Master Land Use Application filed March 6, 1985 3. Revised staff report to Planning Commission 4. Minutes of April 25, 1985, Planning Commission meeting 5. Appeal of Planning Commission decision received May 3, 1985 6. Planning Commission findings and conclusions 7. Notice of June 17, 1985, Public Hearing of the City Council 8. Notice of April 25, 1985, Public Hearing of the Planning Commission, mailing list and affidavit of distribution •muot•r TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL, REGULAR MEETING July 15, 1985 Page 3 PUBLIC HEARING - cont. Windmark Homes Appeal • t''i f t*. 14, 1 i— J t •M� :: 9. Letter of April 25, 1985, from Lawrence E. Hard on behalf of Sunwood Condominium homeowners and presented to Planning Commission at the April 25, 1985, Public Hearing. 10. Memorandum of April 23, 1985, from Lawrence E. Hard to Sunwood Homeowners Association and presented to Planning Commission at the April 25, 1985 Public Hearing 11. Letter of March 1, 1985, from Pacific Townhouse Builders notifying City of the sale of the property to Windmark Homes. Lawrence E. Hard, Attorney representing Sunwood Condominium Homeowners, presented a letter written by him dated July 15, 1985 to the City Council and it was labeled Exhibit 12. Mayor Van Dusen opened the Public Hearing to consider an appeal filed by Windmark Homes, Inc. He noted that 12 exhi- bits had been read into the record. Mayor Van Dusen asked everyone wishing to speak during the hearing to stand and be sworn in. Attorney Haney issued the oath. Brad Collins, Planning Director, gave the opening remarks. This is an appeal of a decision by the Board of Architectural Review that was heard at their April 25, 1985 meeting. The Findings and Conclusions of the Planning Commission are listed in Exhibit 6. He reviewed the Findings and Conclusions and listed the options the Council has in reviewing the appeal. 1. Review the information presented to the BAR and make their own decision regarding the criteria and the ade- quacy of the application in meeting the criteria. 2. Review and agree with the BAR. 3. Since the applicant has submitted revisions to the site plan, the decision could be remanded back to the BAR to review the new information. George Kresovich, Attorney with the firm of Hillis, Cairncross, Clark and Martin at 403 Columbia Street, Seattle, said he represents the applicant, Windmark 'Homes. Their pre- sentation will consist of statements by: 1. John Lane, Architect for the project 2. Steven Shea, Landscape Architect 3. John Snyder, President of Windmark Homes John Lane, Architect and Planner representing Windmark Homes, 115 West Denny Way, Seattle, discussed their project. The zoning allows 77 dwelling units on the site, but they are proposing 66 units in 8 buildings - 3 six - plexes and 6 nine - plexes. The location of the structures is in agreement with the site plan submitted by the previous owner. The building locations have been maintained, but the density has been cut. Exhibit #13, Proposed Site Plan for the development, was recorded. .Mr. Lane said they reviewed slopes of drives, Fire Department access to buildings and maximum building areas and they concluded that the site plan developed by the previous plan- ners and themselves is, not only the best, but possibly the only solution for an efficient development of the site. Their proposal sits very well with existing development and are consistant with existing structures to the north. They are proposing two story buildings with daylight basements and units two or three wide. The buildings are cedar siding and shingles and earthtone colors as suggested by the Planning TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL, REGULAR MEETING July 15, 1985 Page 4 PUBLIC HEARING - cont. Windmark Homes Appeal (Cont.) Staff. Mr. Lane displayed Exhibit #3, Attachment D (Side Elevation Study) which shows end gables. They are also showing carports and covered trash receptacles. To mitigate impacts the proposal may have on the community, they have added an indoor jacuzzi and barbecue structure throughout the site. The total of the recreation and open space areas is 18,000 square feet. Their structures are well within the R -4 zoning requirements. The setback from the development to the north is a minimum of 60 feet, and in some places 80 feet. Their elevation of 200 is well below the eye level of occu- pants of all of the units east of Sunwood Boulevard. There is a view corridor between Buildings 1 and 2. Exhibit #14, Building Location Plan, was recorded. Steven Shea, Landscape Architect at Thomas Bing and Associates, said they were hired to redesign the landscaping. Planning Staff has reviewed their plan and concur with it. He explained the landscape plans as shown on Exhibit #13. Along with the landscape plan there is a path system that allows access throughout the site that connect the recreation areas and gazebos. They have addressed the con- cerns of the Board, have provided better views and still pro- vided separation between the units. Council Member Morgan asked who monitors landscaping for compliance. Mr. Collins said the Planning Department in cooperation with the Building Official. John Snyder, Vice President and Project Manager for Windmark Homes, 510 Rainier Avenue South, Seattle, commented that they obtained the property in February, 1985. It had already been rezoned to R -4 allowing up to 20 units per acre. The concep- tual site plan was used throughout the proceedings. Their present proposal asks for approval for 66 units. They will be the same type units as in Sunwood I and II. They have done everything they could to respond to the concerns of the Homeowners' Association, but it has been to no avail. They feel the Homeowners are primarily interested in using this process to leverage the settlement of their dispute with Pacific Townhouse Builders, the previous owners. They have settled the . concerns expressed by the Association. They have assured the Homeowners that they intend to build con- dominiums, that the purchase prices will be around $85,000, that their parking ratio is 2 to 1, and they had a joint maintenance agreement drafted and sent to the Association. They have never responded. The Homeowners agreed to drop their appeal if Windmark agreed to join their Association. Then, they were told that the compliance with the Homeowners' request was not good enough. Mr. Snyder said they want to build a fine, project in Tukwila - one they can be proud of - and they want to comply with all the requirements. They want to be treated like everyone else. He asked Council to approve their project. Attorney Haney explained that Council is sitting as the Board of Architectural Review. Council has the same criteria to look at as they did. George Kresovich, Attorney, said they agreed to join the Homeowners' Association providing they would not oppose this project and informed their attorney of the agreement. The Homeowners' Association was not agreeable. In reviewing the BAR decision, it is clear there are three major problems: TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL, REGULAR MEETING July 15, 1985 Page 5 PUBLIC HEARING - Cont. Windmark Homes Appeal (Cont.) 1. Adequacy of the recreation areas and facilities. In an effort to satisfy the concerns of the Board of Architectural Review the recreation areas were revised. 2. The Landscape Plan. The BAR said the Landscape Plan was incomplete. Rather than fight about it, they prepared a new plan, which was developed by professionals. 3. Concern about view blockage. The Board of Architectural Review relied on two provisions in the Code to make their findings. The first says that the height and scale of each building should be considered in relation to its site. The next says buildings should be to appropriate scale and be in harmony with neighboring developments. The type of buildings that are proposed for this site are precisely the same type and precisely the same scale as the buildings in the existing Sunwood Development. The buildings have been sited very carefully in order to minimize the view blockage. The project has been designed to be a good neighbor. Mr. Kresovich asked that the same standards be applied to them that have been applied to other developments. He asked Council to approve the project as proposed. Lawrence E. Hard, Attorney representing the Sunwood Homeowners, 2400 Columbia Center, Seattle, said he was asked to assist the Homeowners with some problems relating to their application of Windmark Homes. He prepared a letter, now marked Exhibit 12, that has been distributed to Council. There are three people that would like to speak. 1. Ryan Thrower, President of the Board of the Homeowners' Association 2. Dick Taylor, Homeowner 3. Joan Hernandez, Board Member. Mr. Hard said he is concerned about statements that have been made by Mr. Snyder and Mr. Kresovich about conversations and statements that have been made. If this were a trial those would be hearsay and not admissible. He asked to have these comments taken with a grain of salt. He is concerned about the impression trying to be made here that the Sunwood Homeowners' Association consists of nothing but a bunch of angered Homeowners - angered, not at what is happening at the Windmark side, but at the company that sold them their homes. He reminded Council they are to consider only the application of Windmark Homes. The Homeowners are concerned about what is going to be placed on the piece of property immediately to the south of them. The property was originally part of the Sunwood development. It was to be developed by the same people as Phase III, but in March of this year, they were no longer dealing with these people, but rather with a company called Windmark Homes. Ryan Thrower, 15232 Sunwood Boulevard, is President of the Homeowners' Association and a member of the Board of Directors. There are 178 households in Sunwood. When they bought their homes, they thought they were buying into a total community. They felt they would have a voice in how the community would be run, how rules would be adopted and enforced. At the time of purchase, they received a copy of the declarations of the Condominium Association which con- tained a legal description of the Phase III property. The legal said the property was subject to the convenants and restrictions of the Homeowners' Association. They found that this did not give them the protection they thought they had. Now they are looking to Tukwila and the Land Use Planning Policies to protect their investment. They asked that, if the development is allowed, they have to live up to the same T.IKWILA CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING October 21, 1985 Page 5 EXECUTIVE SESSION MOVED BY PHELPS, SECONDED BY MORGAN, THAT COUNCIL GO INTO 9:30 - 9 :55 P.M. EXECUTIVE SESSION. MOTION CARRIED. The Executive Session was called to discuss the Windmark Homes lawsuit. MOVED BY BOHRER, SECONDED BY DUFFIE, THAT COUNCIL GO OUT OF EXECUTIVE SESSION. MOTION CARRIED. Appeal of Windmark Homes MOVED BY BOHRER, SECONDED BY• HARRIS, THAT COUNCIL RECONSIDER ITS ACTION OF JULY 15, 1985 DENYING THE APPEAL OF WINDMARK HOMES FROM A DECISION OF THE BOARD OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW ON WINDMARK'S DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL, CITY FILE #DR- 01 -84. MOTION CARRIED. MOVED BY BOHRER, SECONDED BY PHELPS, THAT THE CITY COUNCIL REMAND THIS MATTER TO THE BOARD OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW WITH THE INSTRUCTIONS FOR THE BOARD AND STAFF TO REVIEW THE REVISED PLANS SUBMITTED TO THE CITY COUNCIL AT ITS JULY 15, 1985 PUBLIC HEARING ON THE APPLICATION, TO RECEIVE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC HEARING TESTIMONY CONCERNING SUCH PLANS: AND TO FORWARD THEIR RECOMMENDATION TO THE CITY COUNCIL. MOTION CARRIED.. C,tN1eCr TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL, REGULAR MEETING July 15, 1985 Page 6 PUBLIC HEARING - Cont. Windmark Homes Appeal (cont.) •, set of standards that the Sunwood Complex followed. We feel this proposal is lacking recreation facilities. It would be easy for residents of another complex to wander in and use their facilities. He asked the City to help them to protect their investments, stand behind the decision of the Planning Commission and reject any project that does not meet the requirements. Dick Taylor, 15278 Sunwood Boulevard, expressed concern over blockage of their view. At the time they bought they were given a maximum elevation for Phase III. He recalled that it was 203 feet. There have been several figures discussed so he asked what the "iron clad" maximum elevation is at this time. Joan Hernandez, 15224 Sunwood Boulevard said she is on the Board of Directors for the Homeowners' Association. A copy of her letter to the Planning Commission is included in Exhibit #3 as Item H. Sunwood is a beautiful place to live and she would like to stay there. She hopes that this deve- lopment will not 'affect their quality of life. She would like to have the Phase III property governed under the same convenants and restrictions they live by. She would not like to see the cheap housing units being built in the area deve- loped on this property. She said she has faith in the Council that they will not allow a developer to ruin their property. Lawrence E. Hard called attention to Exhibit #12, his letter dated July 15, 1985. It outlines the legal reasons why the Homeowners are asking the City Council to affirm the decision of the Planning Commission sitting as the Board of Architectural Review. That decision was to require this developer to go back and resubmit a design plan that met the requirements of the Tukwila Municipal Code. The applicant has submitted a revised site plan, but it does not address the fundamental problems that the Planning Commission had with the plan. They continue to have a concern over 1) who is the applicant and 2) who is the record property owner. The deed to the property is to Windmark Homes, Inc. whereas, the applicant is Windmark Homes Tukwila, Inc. Their con- cerns are that Council has had inadequate materials for a proper review. The landscaping plans are not sufficiently detailed, there has been no analysis of the slope profile, and a more detailed environmental analysis should be made. The fundamental problem with this application is the question of adequate recreation space. The Code requires 200 square feet of recreation space per unit. Nothing shows how this applicant has calculated the recreation space. What they have done is say open space equals recreation space. There has been no analysis of the amount of open space on slopes over 4 to 1. This applicant has not complied with the Tukwila Municipal Code on its analysis of what is proper recreation space. It is up to the Council to make the deci- sion as to whether or not the application meets the intent of the code. This proposed application does not meet commit- ments that were made by the previous owner. He asked that the City Council affirm the decision of the Planning Commission at their meeting of April 25, 1985. If Council wishes to modify the application and approve it, he asked that the applicant be required to submit a new environmental checklist and that a new environment review be made. Council Member Morgan asked what happens if Council upholds the Board of Architectural Review decision. Mr. Collins said they could submit a new application or proceed their appeal through the Court System. PUBLIC HEARING - Cont. Windmark Homes Appeal (cont.) TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL, REGULAR MEETING July 15, 1985 Page 7 Attorney Haney noted that TMC 18.90.020 provides that the City Council shall affirm, deny or modify the decision of the Planning Commission (BAR) within 90 days after the filing of the appeal. Prior to making a decision, the City Council may hold a Public Hearing. If Council wanted Staff to prepare additional information, the hearing could be continued and Staff directed to bring the information back. John Lane clarified the issue of height of the buildings. The buildings will be 168 feet above floor grade and 32 feet above that to the peak. We are going to stand on the 200 feet for the record. The condominium market is very com- petitive and you do not put out a bad product and expect it to sell. George Kresovich discussed the new information they had sub- mitted to Planning Staff and the Homeowners' Association for review. He commented that it was not new information just for this evening. If the developer intended to put as many units on the property as he could and then leave, he would not be reducing the number of units. The property was rezoned in 1981 to allow 77 units. The developer is trying to build a marketable product that people can afford to buy and will be in keeping with the neighborhood. Lawrence E. Hard stated that they do not think Council has enough information to make an intelligent decision. If Council does not affirm the decision of the Planning Commission, they do have the power to send it back to them and allow them to reconsider the application with the addi - tional information. If Council does not do this, they ask that the application be denied because it is not clear. There is no analysis of open space versus recreation space or how much of it is on slopes of 4 to 1. If Council should go ahead and permit this design plan as proposed, we think that the applicant should be required to submit a new environmen- tal check list. There is not enough adequate data here for anybody to make a decision. Lastly, nothing has been said about who the applicant is or who the owner of the property is. This should be of concern to Council. If the applicant says something is going to be done, what assurance do you have when we do no even know for sure who the applicant is or that is is the property owner. We have presented information that raises that question. We think this is another reason why the Council should affirm the action of the Planning Commission. Attorney Haney suggested that Council look over the City of Tukwila Board of Architectural Review Design Review Evaluation Guide which lays out the criteria by which Council needs to decide whether or not this application should be approved or denied. If Council wishes to ask any additional questions, now is the time before you close the Public Hearing. Mayor Van Dusen asked if anyone had anything more they would like to put into the record. Council Member Phelps asked what the relationship to the street is as far as a shared use for ingress and egress for the development. Mr. Kresovich said that there is an ease- ment across the Windmark property to the Sunwood Homeowners' Association so they have a right to use the right -of -way and both properties have that right. MOVED BY BAUCH, SECONDED BY BOHRER, THAT THE PUBLIC HEARING BE CLOSED. MOTION CARRIED. TUKW(LA PLANNING COMM.SSION Minutes of the December 19, 1985 Meeting. Chairman Knudson called the meeting to order at 8:00 p.m. Other commissioners present were Mr. Sowinski, Mr. McKenna, and Mr. Kirsop. Representing staff were Moira Bradshaw and Becky Kent, Planning' Department. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. 85 -49 -CUP: W. Lee Singleton, requesting approval of a truck terminal located at approximately South 134th Street and 47th Avenue South. Ms. Bradshaw summarized the staff report. Chairman Knudson opened the Public Hearing. Lee Singleton, applicant, described his operation. He indicated that he would rather not have the restriction on hours of operation, but it could be workable. Bill Turner, 13435 48th Avenue South, was concerned with the travel routes of trucks on the residential streets, the narrowness of South 134th Street, and the impacts of noise and pollution on the residential area. Larry Shaw, Normed, Inc., 4301 South 131st Place, was concerned with the change in the character of the area, enforcement of restrictions imposed, traffic, noise, and the precedent being set for truck terminals in the area. The Commission discussed traffic circulation in the area. MR. KIRSOP MOVED TO CONTINUE TO THE JANUARY MEETING. MR. SOWINSKI SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. B. 85 -51 -CPA: John C. Radovich /Don Lewison, requesting Comprehensive Land Use Map amendment from commercial to light industrial for pro- perty located just east of Interurban Avenue South, on either side of Southcenter Boulevard. C. 85 -51 -R: John C. Radovich /Don Lewison, requesting rezone from C -2 (Regional Retail Business) to CM (Industrial Park) for property located just east of Interurban Avenue South, on either side of Southcenter Boulevard. Ms. Bradshaw summarized the staff report. Chairman Knudson opened the Public Hearing. Ms. Bradshaw displayed exhibits submitted by the applicant and passed around graphics depicting the type of development the applicant intends. TUKWILA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES December 19, 1985 Page 2 The Commission recessed at 9:15 p.m. The Commission reconvened at 9:20 p.m. Katie Grief, representing John Radovich and Don Lewison, 2000 124th N.E., B103, Bellevue, Wash., submitted a written presentation to the Commission and explained the reasons for the request for rezone and Comp. Plan amendment. Chairman Knudson closed the Public Hearing. The Commission discussed the alternatives to a rezone and comprehensive plan amendment. MR. MCKENNA MOVED THAT BASED UPON THE FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS, THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMEND DENIAL OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT AND ZONE CHANGE. MR. SOWINSKI SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. D. 85 -52 -CUP: T.W. Express, Inc., requesting approval of a truck ter- minal located at 581 Strander Boulevard. Ms. Bradshaw summarized the staff report. Chairman Knudson opened the Public Hearing. Lane Bockman, Coldwell Banker, was present to answer any questions the Commission may have. Mike Bud, Manager of T. W. Express, Inc. described the use of the facility. Chairman Knudson closed the Public Hearing. MR. KIRSOP MOVED THAT, BASED UPON THE FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS AND THE CHARACTER OF THE AREA THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION GRANT THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR T.W. EXPRESS. MR. SOWINSKI SECONDED THE MOTION WHICH PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. E. 85 -58 -CUP: Westar Transport, Inc., requesting approval of a truck terminal located at 1097 Andover Park East. Ms. Bradshaw summarized the staff report. Chairman Knudson opened the Public Hearing. There being no comments from the audience, Chairman Knudson closed the Public Hearing. Mr. Kirsop asked what would be stored in the facility. Chairman Knudson reopened the Public Hearing. TUKWILA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES December 19, 1985 Page 3 Chairman Knudson closed the Public Hearing. PUBLIC HEARINGS - Cont. Thomas Pool, Vice President of Westar Transport, Inc., said they would be storing non - perishable food and non -food items. MR. KIRSOP MOVED TO ACCEPT THE FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS OF THE STAFF REPORT AND BASED ON THE CHARACTER OF THE BUSINESS AND AREA IN WHICH THEY ARE LOCATING, THE PLANNING COMMISSION GRANT THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT. MR. MCKENNA SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. PUBLIC MEETINGS A. 85- 39 -SMP: Northwest Seals, requesting approval of a 2 -story office /warehouse facility located on the northwest corner lots at the intersection of South 147th Street and Maule Avenue, east of Interurban Avenue South. Ms. Bradshaw summarized the staff report and noted an addendum that was passed out to the Board. Richard Nichols, David Kehle, Architects, described the proposed project and noted that concrete block would be used rather than concrete tilt -up. Mr. Kirsop asked what type of tenants there would be. Mr. Nichols indicated there would be a sole proprietor and the use would be distribution of rubberized o'rings'and gasket materials. Mr. McKenna questioned a condition of the staff report regarding the declara- tion of non - significance. The Board recessed at 10:22 p.m. The Board reconvened at 10:30 p.m. Mr. Collins clarified that the Board would be able to act upon the application because the mitigated DNS appeal period had expired. MR. SOWINSKI MOVED TO APPROVE THE PROJECT FOR PERMIT BASED ON THE FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS OF THE STAFF AND INCLUDE THE CONDITIONS AS STATED IN THE STAFF REPORTS. MR. KIRSOP SECONDED THE MOTION WHICH PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. TUKWILA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES December 19, 1985 Page 4 PUBLIC MEETINGS - Cont. B. 85- 41 -DR: Leonard Rivero, requesting approval of structures to be located at 14800 Interurban Avenue South. Ms. Bradshaw summarized the staff report. MR. KIRSOP MOVED THAT BASED UPON THE FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS OF THE STAFF, TO DENY ACCEPTANCE OF THE PROPOSAL. MR. MCKENNA SECONDED THE MOTION. Mr. Collins asked if the Board wished to make an exception for Shed D. MR. KIRSOP MOVED TO AMEND THE MOTION TO DENY APPROVAL OF SHEDS A, B, C AND ALLOW SHED D PROVIDED IT IS IN COMPLAINCE WITH THE UNIFORM BUILDING CODE, AND MAINTENANCE OF ADEQUATE SCREENING FROM INTERURBAN AVENUE IS ESSENTIAL TU CONTINUATION OF ACCEPTANCE. MR. MCKENNA SECONDED THE MOTION WHICH PASSED 3 -1. C. 85- 44 -DR: North Hill Office, requesting approval of revisions to exterior elevation plans of building to be located at 5900 Southcenter Boulevard. Ms. Bradshaw informed the Board that the applicant requested this item be tabled indefinitely. ROLL CALL All commissioners were present except Mr. Orrico and Mr. Coplen. OTHER BUSINESS Ms. Bradshaw presented revised west elevations for the Nendels Motor Inn, and asked if the Board wished to review the revisions at its next regularly scheduled meeting. It was explained that the developer had submitted building plans without a restaurant, but intended to submit in the near future plans for the restaurant as originally approved. MR. KIRSOP MOVED TO GRANT STAFF THE DISCRETION TO REVIEW AND APPROVE INTERIM PLANS OF THE UNFINISHED AREA IN THE EASTERLY ELEVATION OF THE MOTEL AND LANDSCAPING. MR. SOWINSKI SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. The Board discussed procedures for excusing absences. ADJOURNMENT MR. MCKENNA MOVED TO ADJOURN. MR. SOWINSKI SECONDED THE MOTION WHICH PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. The meeting adjourned at 11:15 p.m. TU WILA ' L' NING MISSION • oira Bradshaw Assistant Planner 4 ,T • 1908 • City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila Washington 98188 433 -1800 Gary L VanDusen, Mayor TUKWILA PLANNING COMMISSION Minutes of the December 12, 1985, meeting. Chairman Knudson called the meeting to ord Commissioners present were Mr. Sowinski, and Mr. Mckenna. Rick Beeler, Vernon Umetsu, Kent represented the Planning Department. Jim also present. er at 8:00 p.m. Other Mr. Kirsop, Mr. Orrico Moira Bradshaw, and Becky Haney, City Attorney, was Mr. Beeler reviewed the changes in the agenda. He indicated a discrepancy had been found in the agenda and public notice for application DR- O1 -84, and recommended continuance to January 2 or 16, 1986, to insure proper notice is given. Chairman Knudson suggested the regular meeting date of January 23, 1986. George Kresovich, attorney representing the applicant, had no objection to the January 23, 1986, meeting date. Larry Hard, attorney representing Sunwood Homeowners Association, had no objection to the January 23, 1986, meeting date. BOARD OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW A. DR= 01=84: Windmark Homes, requesting approval of plans for 66 multiple family units on a 3.85 acre site located on the west side of 62nd Avenue South, just south of Sunwood Boulevard. MR. ORRICO MOVED THAT THIS ITEM BE CONSIDERED AT THE REGULAR JANUARY MEETING TO BE HELD ON JANUARY 23, 1986. MR. KIRSOP SECONDED THE MOTION. Mr. Hard requested to submit a letter to the Board. Mr. Beeler entered the December 12, 1985, letter from Mr. Hard into the record as Exhibit #1. MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. � Sid doc. Tukwila Planning Commission Meeting Minutes December 12, 1985 Page2 APPROVAL OF MINUTES MR. LARSON MOVED TO ACCEPT THE OCTOBER 24, 1985, MINUTES. MR. MCKENNA SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. PUBLIC HEARING B. 85 -42 -R: City of Tukwila, requesting rezone of properties from the King County classification of S -R (Suburban Residential) to City of Tukwila zoning classification of M -1 (Light Industrial), located at South 134th Place and 42nd Avenue South. Chairman Knudson opened the public hearing. Chairman Knudson said he owned property directly across from the site, and stepped down from the Commission on this item. Vice Chairman Kirsop assumed the chairmanship Ms. Bradshaw summarized the staff report. Robert E. Storseth, applicant, spoke in favor of the rezone. Joanne Poirier, 13454 42nd Avenue South, Seattle, WA, was concerned with noise, and screening and buffering of the site from the adjacent residen- tial area. She was also concerned about the particular type of development to occur on the site. Chairman Kirsop closed the public hearing. MR. ORRICO MOVED THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF APPLICATION 85 -42 -R SUBJECT TO THE FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS CONTAINED IN THE STAFF REPORT, WITH AN ADDITIONAL FINDING THAT THE SINGLE FAMILY HOMES COULD BE IMPACTED BY ANY DEVELOPMENT OF THE SUBJECT SITE AND WITH A NEW CONCLUSION #6 WHICH STATES THAT DUE TO THE ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE NATURE OF THE PROPERTY IN RELATION TO THE AREA, DEVELOPMENT OF THE PARCEL WILL BE SUBJECT TO BOARD OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW. MR. LARSON SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. Mr. Beeler noted for the record that Mr. Knudson had left the room during the Planning Commission's review and decision of this application. Mr. Knudson resumed his position Chairman. BOARD OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW MR. KIRSOP MOVED TO CONTINUE THE RIVERO APPLICATION TO THE DECEMBER 19, 1985, MEETING. MR. ORRICO SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. Tukwila Planning Commission Meeting Minutes December 12, 1985 Page 3 B. 85- 34 -SFP: Tukwila II, requesting approval of four one -story retail /warehouse buildings located on the east side of West Valley Highway, just south of Strander Boulevard intersection. Mr. Umetsu summarized the staff report. Scott Shanks, First Western Development, indicated that he had no objec- tions to the requirements as stated. He clarified the proposed use of the buildings, and parking. The Board discussed traffic circulation and turning movements to and from the site, and reviewed the elevation drawings of the proposed development. MR. ORRICO MOVED THAT THE BOARD OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW ADOPT THE FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS PERTAINING TO APPLICATION 85- 34 -SMP: TUKWILA II, SUBJECT TO THE FOUR RECOMMENDATIONS CONTAINED IN THE WRITTEN STAFF REPORT WITH THE ADDITIONS OF SUB -ITEMS A, B, AND C. MR. SOWINSKI SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. C. 85- 39 -SMP: Northwest Seals, requesting approval of a 2 story office /warehouse facility located on the northwest corner lots at the intersection of South 147th Street and Maule Avenue, east of Interurban Avenue South. MR. KIRSOP MOVED TO CONTINUE TO THE DECEMBER 19, 1985, MEETING. MR. LARSON SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. D. 85 -43 -SPE: Pac Tel, requesting approval of a sign located at 17125 Southcenter Parkway. This application had been withdrawn. E. 85- 44 -DR: North Hill Office, requesting approval of revisions to exterior elevation plans of building to be located at 5900 Southcenter Boulevard. MR. MCKENNA MOVED TO CONTINUE TO THE DECEMBER 19, 1985, MEETING. MR. KIRSOP SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. F. 85 -47 -SPE: Sea First Bank, requesting approval of a sign located at 225 Tukwila Parkway. Mr. Mckenna stated that he used to work for Sea First for eight years. Being no objections from the audience, Mr. McKenna remained on the Board. Ms. Bradshaw summarized the staff report. Tukwila Planning Commission Meeting Minutes December 12, 1985 Page 4 , Kenneth Duvall, Chief Architect for Sea First Bank, described the proposed sign and the reasons for the request for approval. MR. ORRICO MOVED THAT THE BOARD OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE SEAFIRST APPLICATION #85- 47 -SPE, AND ADOPT. THE FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS OF THE STAFF REPORT WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS THAT THE SIGN BE APPROVED AS PRESENTED IN EXHIBIT B, AND THE SIZE OF THE SIGN SHALL NOT EXCEED 30 SQUARE FEET. MR. KIRSOP SECONDED THE MOTION. MR. LARSON MOVED TO AMEND THE MOTION TO ADOPT STAFF'S FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS, TO ADD THE FINDING THAT THE PROPOSAL IS FOR A SECOND SEPARATE BUILDING LOCATED ON THE SITE AND THE CONCLUSION THAT THE CONTENT AND SIZE OF THE SIGN WAS NEEDED TO REDUCE THE TRAFFIC HAZARDS AND SOLVE THE, PROBLEMS CREATED BY THE SECOND BUILDING. MR. MCKENNA SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. AMENDED MOTION PASSED 4 -2. PUBLIC HEARING A. 83- 13 -SPE: Diaz, Planning Department staff requesting Planning Commission to review change in tenant mix and parking ratios of M -3 complex, 1001 to 1061 Andover Park East. Chairman knudson opened the public hearing. Mr. Beeler said Mr. Diaz was moving to another space and would be applying for another conditional use permit at a later date, so the application could be closed. Chairman Knudson closed the public hearing. ADJOURNMENT MR. ORRICO MOVED TO ADJOURN. MR. KNUDSON SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH PASSED UNANIMSOULY. The meeting was adjourned at 10:50 p.m. TUKWILA PLANNING COMMISSION Moira Bradshaw Secretary City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila Washington 98188 433-1800 Gary L VanDusen, Mayor CITY OF TUKWILA Notice of Public Hearing and Meeting of the Tukwila Planning Commission NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Tukwila Planning Commission has fixed the 12th day of December, 1985, at 8:00 p.m. in City Council Chambers of Tukwila City Hall, 6200 Southcenter Boulevard, Tukwila, Washington, as the time and place for: Public Hearings A. 83 -13 -SPE: Diaz, Planning Department staff requesting Planning Commission to review change in tenant mix and parking ratios of M -3 complex, 1001 to 1061 Andover Park East. B. 85 -42 -R: City of Tukwila, requesting rezone of properties from the King County classification of S -R (Suburban Residential) to City of Tukwila zoning classification of M -1 (Light Industrial), located at South 134th Place and 42nd Avenue South. Public Meetings A. DR- 01 -84: Windmark Homes, requesting approval of plans for 66 multiple family units on a 3.85 acre site located on the east side of 62nd Avenue South, just south of Sunwood Boulevard. B. 85 -34 -SMP: Tukwila II, requesting approval of four one -story retail/ warehouse buildings located on the east side of West Valley Highway, just south of Strander Boulevard intersection. C. 85 -39 -SMP: Northwest Seals, requesting approval of a 2 story office/ warehouse facility located on the northwest corner lots at the intersection of South 147th Street and Maule Avenue, east of Interurban Avenue South. D. 85 -43 -SPE: Pac Tel, requesting approval of a sign located at 17125 Southcenter Parkway. E. 85- 44 -DR: North Hill Office, requesting approval of revisions to exterior elevation plans of building to be located at 5900 Southcenter Boulevard. F. 85 -47 -SPE: Sea First Bank, requesting approval of a sign located at 225 Tukwila Parkway. Any and all interested persons are invited to attend. Published: Record Chronicle, December 1, 1985 Distribution: Mayor, City Clerk, Property Owners /Applicants, Adjacent Property Owners, File rte. 104.'16 R77WVT4 . NGIN+'r & Tr) — 4 2o 4^ i o t IbD — --- O ne..ot __ SECTION 1 V • 20' • ncTION r'• 20' 2 IC1Gif�G — ®I81o.6 s irm . , Roofs 161.0 t • 19 0 8 i City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila Washington 98188 433 -1800 Gary L VanDusen, Mayor CITY OF TUKWILA Notice of Public Hearing and Meeting of the Tukwila Planning Commission NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Tukwila Planning Commission has fixed the 21st day of November, 1985, at 8:00 p.m. in City Council Chambers of Tukwila City Hall, 6200 Southcenter Boulevard, Tukwila, Washington, as the time and place for: Public Hearings A. 83 -13 -SPE: Diaz, Planning Department staff requesting Planning Commission to review change in tenant mix and parking ratios of M -3 complex, 1001 to 1061 Andover Park East. B. 85 -42 -R: City of Tukwila, requesting rezone of properties from the King County classification of S -R (Suburban Residential) to City of Tukwila zoning classification of M -1 (Light Industrial), located at South 134th Place and 42nd Avenue South. Public Meetings A. DR- O1 -84: Windmark Homes, requesting approval of plans for 66 multiple family units on a 3.85 acre site located on the east side of 62nd Avenue South, just south of Sunwood Boulevard. B. 85 -34 -SMP: Tukwila II, requesting approval of four one -story retail/ warehouse buildings located on the east side of West Valley Highway, just south of Strander Boulevard intersection. C. 85 -39 -SMP: Northwest Seals, requesting approval of a 2 story office/ warehouse facility located on the northwest corner lots at the intersection of South 147th Street and Maule Avenue, east of Interurban Avenue South. D. 85 -43 -SPE: Pac Tel, requesting approval of a sign located at 17125 Southcenter Parkway. E. 85- 44 -DR: North Hill Office, requesting approval of revisions to exterior elevation plans of building to be located at 5900 Southcenter Boulevard. F. 85 -47 -SPE: Sea First Bank, requesting approval of a sign located at 225 Tukwila Parkway. Any and all interested persons are invited to attend. Published: Record Chronicle, November 10, 1985 Distribution: Mayor, City Clerk, Property Owners /Applicants, Adjacent Property Owners, File Tukwila City Council Tukwila, Washington Dear Council Members: October 30, 1985 J 1385 c ii`it • Te!..Vdi I't P. P;P.;!p<<ti DEPT. The homeowners and citizens at Sunwood were very disappointed to learn that you have rescinded your previous decision and remanded the Windmark Homes application back to the Architec- tural Board of Review. Since we were not granted the opportunity to present our case when you met in "Executive Session ", may we request that we be kept informed of any future hearings and allowed the opportunity to be heard before any future decisions are made by you or the Board of Review. If you have based this decision upon a review of the testimony presented at the appeal hearing, may we take this opportunity to offer a rebuttal to some of the mis- information that was given by the representative of Windmark Homes: (1) We were never given the opportunity to express our approval or disapproval of the joint- maintenance agreement of Sunwood Blvd. As it was written and proposed by Windmark Homes, it gives them all the protection and benefits and gives us nothing in re- turn. They are given permission to tear up the road, and we are given the responsibility of sharing the cost to put it back together again. (2) The most deceptive mis - information given lead you to believe that Windmark Homes had consulted with the Sunwood Board of Directors before removing this property from the Sunwood Plat. We would like to bring to your attention that no board member was or ever has been con- sulted regarding this maneuver. We were told it had been done after the fact, not before. (3) No representative of Windmark Homes has ever contacted us to try to work out our differences. They know where we live, they no our names and addresses, but no one has ever made an attempt to contact us. We are all reasonable people who feel we can work out our differences if given the opportunity. We proceed with caution because we have not always been treated fairly in our previous builder /developer relationship, and we look to you to make res- ponsible decisions that will protect our interests as well as yours. Respectfully, SUNWOOD CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION RECESS: 9:30 P.M. 9:35 P.M. TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL, REGULAR MEETING July 15, 1985 Page PUBLIC HEARING - Cont. Windmark Homes MOVED BY BAUCH, SECONDED BY PHELPS, THAT THE CITY COUNCIL Appeal (cont.) REMAND THIS BACK TO THE BOARD OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW.* *COUNCIL PRESIDENT BAUCH WITHDREW HIS MOTION WITH APPROVAL OF THE SECOND. MOVED BY BAUCH, SECONDED BY MORGAN, THAT COUNCIL CONCUR WITH THE BOARD OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW AND ADOPT THEIR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS. MOTION CARRIED. MOVED BY MORGAN, SECONDED BY PHELPS, THAT COUNCIL RECESS FOR FIVE MINUTES. MOTION CARRIED. Mayor Van Dusen called the Regular Meeting of the Tukwila City Council back to order with Council Members present as previously reported. F.A. LESOURD GEORGE M. HARTUNG MEADE EMORY LEON C. MISTEREK THOMAS 0. MCLAUGHLIN • JOHN F. COLGROVE C. DEAN LITTLE LAWRENCE E. HARD RODNEY J. WALDBAUM D. WILLIAM TOONE DANIEL D. WOO JOHN R. BEARD DAVID A. LAWER CARL J. CARLSON City Council City of Tukwila Tukwila City Hall 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, WA 98188 Dear Sirs: LESOURD & PATTEN ATTORNEYS AT LAW 2400 COLUMBIA CENTER 701 FIFTH AVENUE SEATTLE. WASHINGTON 98104.7005 TELEPHONE: 12061 624.1040 TELECOPIER. 12061 624.3087 TELEX /TWX. 910 444.4180 CABLE ADDRESS: LESOURD LAW ANCHORAGE OFFICE FIRST NATIONAL BUILDING 425 G STREET. SUITE 630 ANCHORAGE. ALASKA 99501 TELEPHONE: 18071 277.4531 PLEASE REPLY TO SEATTLE OFFICE July 15, 1985 11,745 RE: DR- 01 -84: Sunwood Phase III (Windmark Homes, Tukwila, Inc.) .0(0 Ir IZ P. WARREN MAROUARDSON MARIANNE SCHWARTZ O'BARA ROBERT M KANE. JR. JEFFREY C. WISHKO JUDD R. MARTEN VICTORIA JENSEN BJORKMAN CHARLES R WOLFE WOOLVIN PATTEN ROBERT L. PALMER OF COUNSEL • ADMITTED IN ALASKA • • ADMITTED IN ALASKA AND WASHINGTON ALL OTHERS ADMITTED IN WASHINGTON We have been retained by the Sunwood Condominium Homeowners Association to represent them in matters relating to the proposed development of property generally known as the "Sunwood Phase III" property. We have discussed this matter in detail with our client, and with counsel for Windmark Homes, Tukwila, Inc. Further, we have reviewed various files maintained by the City of Tukwila regarding the "Phase III" property, as well as the Phase I and Phase II developments, and have examined the City of Tukwila Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Code. At the BAR Hearing on April 25, 1985, we presented our client's concerns to the Planning Commission. At the April 25 BAR Hearing, the Planning Commission denied the application of Windmark Homes, Tukwila, Inc. on the following grounds: (a) Inadequate Recreation Space. The proposal does not conform to the requirements of TMC 18.52.060 for provision of adequate recreation space. City Council City of Tukwila July 15, 1985 Page 2 (b) Inadequate Transition with Streetscape, Inadequate Landscaping and Pedestrian Movement. The proposal does not satisfy BAR criteria TMC 18.60.050(1)(A) due to lack of adequate recreation space, an inadequate landscape plan and lack of adequate sidewalks and /or trails to link various parts of the proposal. (c) Inadequate Consideration of Relation of Height and Scale to Site. The proposal does not conform to BAR criteria TMC 18.60.050(1)(C) due to blockage of existing views of the southerly units of Sunwood Phase I. (d) Inadequate Landscape Treatment. The proposal does not conform to BAR criteria TMC 18.60.050(3)(C) due to failure of the landscaping plan to accommodate the existing Phase I vista of the Kent Valley floor and Mt. Rainier. (e) Inadequate Scale and Harmony with Neighboring Developments. The proposal does not conform to BAR criteria TMC 18.60.050(4)(B) due to lack of harmony with Sunwood Phase I and view blockage. The above grounds were presented by the Planning Commission in the form of written findings and conclusions. These findings and conclusions were procedurally adequate and substantively correct. Since the April 25 hearing, the applicant has taken no action which would affect the correctness of the Planning Commission's conclusions. The applicant has submitted a revised site plan which adds certain landscaping, a jacuzzi, decking and five gazebos to the project, and attempts to show the adequacy of recreational space. However, the revised plan insufficiently addresses our client's concerns and fails to alleviate the inadequacies found by the Planning Commission. The City Council should therefore affirm the April 25 Planning Commission decision. In addition, we direct the City Council's attention to the following concerns of our client: City Council City of Tukwila July 15, 1985 Page 3 1. Concerns regarding identity of applicant and record property owner. a. Who is the applicant? In January, 1984, "Pacific Townhouse Builders - Tukwila" filed an application with the City to have the Planning Commission, sitting as a Board of Architectural Review, examine a proposed design plan for the Sunwood Phase III property. This applicant was the same owner /developer of the Phase I and Phase II properties. The 1984 application clearly indicated that the Phase III development would be consistent with the earlier developments. There would be a continuity of design, as well as ownership. In February or early March, 1985, the applicant changed. The new applicant is "Windmark Homes, Tukwila, Inc." On March 5, 1985, the Secretary of State issued a certificate of incorporation to this entity. However, the records of the King County Department of Records and Elections indicate that a quitclaim deed dated February 25, 1985 was recorded granting an interest in the Phase III property from "Pacific Townhouse Builders - Tukwila" to " Windmark Homes, Inc." The consideration given was "the assumption of debt ". Note that the name of the entity used on the quitclaim deed is different. " Windmark Homes, Tukwila, Inc." does not appear to be the same as "Windmark Homes, Inc." b. Who is the record property owner? The question of the identity of the applicant has been further complicated by the findings of a title report obtained from Ticor Title Insurance on June 16, 1985. As of that date, the record owners of the property were "Parke Place Number One, Inc., a Washington Corporation and Park Place Number Two, Inc., a Washington Corporation and Parke Place Number Three, Inc., a Washington Corporation; Doing Business as Pacific Townhouse Builders - -Parke Place, A Joint Venture ". The Ticor report notes 14 exceptions, two of which are material. First, the report references a quitclaim deed dated December 10, 1984, executed by the purported president and secretary of "Pacific Townhouse Builders - -Parke Place ", to "Pacific Townhouse Builders, Tukwila ". However, as Ticor notes, a joint venture such as "Pacific Townhouse Builders - -Parke Place" "is not a legal entity capable of City Council City of Tukwila July 15, 1985 Page 4 transferring title and we therefore question the validity of said deed ". Second, the report references the quitclaim deed dated February 25, 1985, executed by the purported president and secretary of "Pacific Townhouse Builders -- Tukwila" to "Windmark Homes, Inc." However, Ticor was unable to find a corporation with the name "Pacific Townhouse Builders -- Tukwila" registered with the Secretary of State as an active corporation. As Ticor notes, "if [Pacific Townhouse Builders -- Tukwila "] is an unincorporated association, it cannot acquire or transfer title to real estate ". Therefore, the following concerns are relevant. (1) Who is the record property owner? (2) Is the sale from Pacific Townhouse Builders to Windmark contingent on the issuance of a building permit? (3) To what extent is Pacific Townhouse Builders, or any of its principals, committed to assist in the permit process? According to the City's file, Mr. Gilroy of Pacific Townhouse Builders has indicated that, as part of the transaction, he is obligated to assist in the permit process. 2. Inadequate materials for City Council review. As of the end of business on July 15, 1985, the date of the City Council hearing, the applicant had not submitted sufficiently detailed landscaping plans, any analysis of a slope profile, nor any analysis of the effect of the construction of structures up to 35 feet in height. This data is essential for purposes of permitting the City Council to adequately review the proposed project, and does not adequately meet the requirements of TMC 18.60.050. 3. Incomplete environmental review. In 1984, an environmental checklist was prepared by Pacific Townhouse Builders for this project. Various City of Tukwila departments reviewed the checklist and determined that problems existed. In February, 1984, the Department of Community Development determined significant concerns regarding slope stability, drainage, traffic and recreation /open space. As a result, the staff determined that it could not issue a Declaration of Non - Significance. Among the major concerns were those expressed by Don Williams of the Parks Department, who indicated that there was inadequate recreation space. City Council City of Tukwila July 15, 1985 Page 5 In February, 1985 a revised soil analysis was submitted as part of the application. In addition, there were minor modifications to the proposal, including the elimination of a recreation area (Jacuzzi) which had been on the 1984 application. Don Williams commented in March, 1985 that there still remained problems with the recreation area. On March 22, 1985 a Declaration of Non - Significance was issued for this proposed design plan. SEPA rules and the Tukwila Municipal Code allow for withdrawal of a Declaration of Non - Significance under certain conditions. WAC 197 -11 -340 (adopted by reference in Tukwila Ordinance No. 1331, Sec. 10) states: "(2)(f) The responsible official shall reconsider the DNS based on timely comments and may retain or modify the DNS or, if the responsible official determines that significant adverse impacts are likely, withdraw the DNS or supporting documents . . . . "(3)(a) The lead agency shall withdraw a DNS if: "(i) There are substantial changes to a proposal so that the proposal is likely to have significant adverse environmental impacts; "(ii) There is significant new information indicating, or on, a proposal's probable significant adverse environmental impacts; or "(iii) The DNS was procured by misrepresentation or lack of material disclosure; if such DNS resulted from the actions of an applicant, any subsequent environmental checklist on the proposal shall be prepared directly by the lead agency or its consultant at the expense of the applicant." (Emphasis added.) We are concerned that in making the Non - Significance determination, inadequate attention was paid to the following problems: (1) all or portions of the property may be designated as "environmentally sensitive" in the City's Comprehensive Plan; (2) a significant portion of the property contains slopes in excess of 20 %; (3) problems with surface water drainage exist; (4) no analysis was made of potential view blockage, loss of light and air rights, and the general visual impact of structures on the site. City Council City of Tukwila July 15, 1985 Page 6 Further, we are concerned that, in tie event the applicant seeks a building and other land use per its for this project, the applicant will contend that no environmental impact statement is required for the project. owever, the DNS was issued on the basis of an inadequate an incomplete checklist and design plan. We therefore request t at the DNS be withdrawn according to either WAC 197- 11- 340(2)(f) or WAC 197- 11- 340(3)(a)(ii), and further r quest that the applicant be required to submit a new e vironmental checklist at the time that any permit is sought f development of the project. In this case, significant dif erences may develop between the non - project BAR design revi.w and a specific development project. 4. Inadequate recreation space an screening. The applicant has failed to comply TMC 18.52.060 with respect to recreatio has failed to provide for a minimum of recreation space for each dwelling unit ft.). Even considering the jacuzzi and the revised site plan, the applicant ha provision for any purpose permanent facility such as a sw court. ith the requirements of space. The applicant 00 square feet of (66 x 200 = 13,200 sq. gazebos proposed within made inadequate covered recreation sp - ce, or of any single coming pool or tennis In addition, the applicant has prov' upon areas of open space within the sit such calculations as fulfilling require recreation space. The Tukwila Municipa between "open space ", TMC 18.06.580, an uncovered ". TMC 18.06.650. The applic . of the extent to which this uncovered r located on slopes greater than four hor (4:1) slope, as required by TMC 18.52.0 there has been inadequate showing that fencing, plant screening, or other buff recreation space from parking areas, dr streets. TMC 18.52.060(4)(B). Finally made for adequate screening of outdoor TMC 18.52.040. 5. Inadequate compliance with Cit lan. of Tukwila Comprehensive Land Use Policy The Comprehensive Land Use Policy P for the City's development, and places ded calculations based and attempted to cast ents for uncovered Code differentiates "recreation space, nt has made no analysis creation space is zontal to one vertical 0(3)(B). Further, here will be adequate r to separate the veways or public no provision has been torage as required in an provides guidelines he City's zoning City Council City of Tukwila July 15, 1985 Page 7 ordinance in context as an implementation device for the Plan's goals. Not only has the applicant inadequately addressed the requirements of the zoning ordinance, but the applicant has also failed to adequately address the concerns set forth in the Plan's "General Goals ". This is particularly true of Goal 1, which requires the City, "through the regulation of land use and community growth, to promote the health, safety and general welfare of the public ". In addition, Goal 5 requires the City to "strike a balance between economy and environment. While the City should encourage development and strive to provide a health economic climate, it should be sensitive to the natural limitations and hazards imposed by the physical environment and the tremendous natural amenities which that environment affords ". Further, the applicant has failed to adequately address the goals for the elements of "natural environment ", "open space ", and "residence ". With respect to the "natural environment" element, this proposal fails to meet objectives of Policies 1, 2 and 3 of Objective No. 1. With respect to Objective No. 3, the proposal clearly violates the objectives of Policies No. 1 to "discourage development on slopes in excess of 20 % ", Policy No. 2, to "preserve the views of hillside residents ", and Policy No. 3, to "preserve and promote the quality of natural land form ". With respect to the "open space" element, the proposal fails to meet the goals of Objective No. 1, particularly: Policy 1, to "strive to preserve steep hillsides and wooded areas in a scenic condition, encourage replanting and revegetation of denuded areas not in the process of development ", and Policy 3, to "provide for active recreation areas (ballfields, tennis courts, swimming pools, playgrounds, community center) consistent with the needs of the community ". With respect to the "residence" element, the proposal fails to meet a number of criteria, including but not limited to the following policies: Policy 7, to "encourage the provision of recreational open space within multiple - family developments "; Policy 4, to "encourage minimum care and maintenance level for undeveloped open spaces "; and Policy 6, to "encourage development of pedestrian rights of way, overpasses and well - lighted trails which can provide safe passage from residential areas to commercial, service, and recreational areas ". City Council City of Tukwila July 15, 1985 Page 8 6. Failure to abide by rezone commitment. When this property was rezoned to R -4 in June, 1981, the rezone was the culmination of a number of meetings before the Planning Commission and the City Council. (See Staff Report re Sunwood Phase III and Minutes of City Council Meeting of June 2, 1981, attached hereto as Exhibit A.) At that time, those interested expressed concern regarding inadequate measures taken to provide for proper recreation and open space opportunities. Representatives of Pacific Townhouse Builders indicated that the Phase III development was an integral part of the overall development of the Sunwood complex, and that amenities provided in Phases I and II would be available to those purchasing units in Phase III. Conversely, these representatives indicated that residents in Phases I and II could make use of amenities provided in Phase III. These statements were contained both in oral statements by Mr. Dally and others at public hearings and meetings, as well as in written representations, particularly in a letter dated March 9, 1981 to the City. (See copy of letter attached hereto as Exhibit B.) Mr. Dally indicated in his March 9, 1981 letter that "during construction of Phase III we will be incorporating a jogging trail which will surround the full development ". 7. Failure to identify significance of relationship of this property to the existing development of Phases I and II of Sunwood. As noted earlier, at all times until early March, 1985, the Phase III property was owned and developed by Pacific Townhouse Builders (or a related partnership or company). The Phase III property was an integral part of the entire "Sunwood" complex. Phase III was to be a condominium project, subject to the same terms and conditions of the Sunwood Condominium Declaration. Phase III was to be regulated by the same rules and regulations of the Sunwood Homeowners Association. On November 13, 1980, when the Sunwood Condominium Declaration was filed, the legal description of this property was included as part of that recorded document. This Phase III property is "subject to covenants, conditions and restrictions recorded contemporaneously with the Condominium Declaration of Sunwood, a condominium ". However, the design application make no reference to that obligation. The City Council should note carefully the obligations of continuity with Phases I and II that are incumbent upon the applicant. These obligations City Council City of Tukwila July 15, 1985 Page 9 CRW /dva 6059B6/142A/LEH cannot be separated from the questions of recreational space, height limitation, view preservation and harmony with surrounding structures at issue in this design review. Based upon all these considerations, the City Council should affirm the April 25 Planning Commission decision. cc: Sunwood Condominium Homeowners Association Very truly yours, L•SOURD & PATTEN awrence E. Hard ( Charles R. Wolfe AGENDA ITEM CITY OF TUKWILA PLANNING DIVISION PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT Sunwood Phase III Rezone (81 -5 -R) INTRODUCTION The following is a summary of actions taken to date on the request of Pacific Townhouse Builders to restore R -4 zoning classification to the Ehmke and Kato properties immediately south of Sunwood Phase I: A) 1 Dec. 80 - City Council adopts Ordinance 1185 repealing Ordi -• nance 1088, reverting the zon- ing classification on the Ehmke /Kato lands from R -4 to R -3 due to failure of the `"�" -�✓ r original applicants to satisfy , . ■ .: stipulations enumerated in \ - — - '" Ordinance 1088. B) 28 Jan. 81 - Pacific Townhouse. 1 r1 11 CSR - ,' i� r I Builders, as contract purchasers of the Ehmke /Kato property, file application for for rezoning from R -3 to R -4. The boundaries of this rezone application have been reduced slightly to exclude a small area of "C -1" contained in the proceeding R -4 rezone action (see Exhibit "Al. C) 26 February 81 - Planning Commission holds public hearing on Phase III rezone request: Approval recommended with stipulation that R -4 zoning on Phase III be limited to a density not exceeding 16 D.U. /ac. D) 9 March 81 - Pacific Townhouse Builders files letter with Planning Dept. staff requesting reconsideration by the Planning Commission of their 26 February decision, restricting density to 16 units /acre. E) 23 April 81 - Planning Commission reconsidered proposed rezone and stipulations of approval: Changed recommendation to denial of R -4 reclassification. Effectively, this decision reduces — Te number of units allowed in Phase III from 78 (as requested) to 62, and reduces overall build -out of "Sunwood" from 256 units to 240 units. Fl 28 April 81 - Pacific Townhouse Builders files letter o peel re- questing Council review of the Commission's decision. AIBIT • Page -2- (81-5-R) • DISCUSSION The Planning Commission, in deciding to recommend against the proposed rezone to R -4 for Sunwood Phase 3, found that the following topical areas of concern had not been resolved adequately: - Ingress /egress $ traffic generation - Adequacy of recreational facilities project -wide - Adequacy of open space provided on Phase III. In essence, the Commission's position on permitted Phase III density did not change between the 26 February and 23 April meetings; the property is already zoned R -3, allowing 16 units /acre maximum density under the Comprehensive Plan. Thus, if the Commission maintained their position that 16 units /acre is the appropriate maximum density for Phase III, the rezone to R -4 is not necessary and their denial action is internally consistent. In the intervening time since 23 April, however, staff has given sane analysis to the matters of concern raised by the Commission, and wish • to suggest herein sane new factors for Council to consider in evaluating the Planning Commission's recommendation. A) Ingress /Egress - The Commission questioned the validity of placing an intensive concentration of dwelling units immediately adjacent to the 62nd Avenue /Sunwood Boulevard intersection, which is the exclusive access point for the entire Sunwood Project. They were concerned that traffic activity on Sunwood Boulevard would increase con- gestion within the project and would diminish the service level capacity of 62nd Avenue to Southcenter Blvd. - Staff notes, however, that early site layout proposals for "Sunwood" incorporated 2 ingress /egress points, one on the south at 62nd Avenue and one at the north leading to the hillside residential district. Very early in the planning process however, the City directed the applicants to delete the northerly access concept in order to separate multi- family trip- generation activity from that of the single - family area. In a very real sense, there- fore, the disadvantages, if any, of concentrating project access at the 62nd Avenue intersection is the City's own doing. - In our discussion with the firm of Jones $ Associates which designed the present configuration of 62nd Avenue as built under L.I.D. 29, they report that their approach to anticipating adequate capacity.assumed two direct driveway openings from the Ehmke -Kato property onto 62nd Avenue, in addition to Sunwood Boulevard's connection thereto. Since the greater number of driveway openings onto a street increases congestion potential, itseems that the applicant's intent to delete any direct driveway access to 62nd Avenue for Phase III will actually enhance the design service level of the street, offsetting the B) Traffic Generation - The Commission was concerned that the imcremental difference in trips - per -day generated by the additional 16 units allowed under R -4 zoning of Phase III would impact significantly the design service level of 62nd Avenue. - The final environmental impact statement for the "Parkplace" rezone (i.e. "Sunwood ") projects a total ADT of 62nd Avenue of 2070 -2370 based on the following assumptions: 1) Full development of multi - family properties in the vicinity of "Sunwood" with frontage on 62nd Avenue 2) "Sunwood" Phase I $ II build -out at 189 units (186 actual approved to date) 3) " Sunwood" Phase III built - at 108 -132 units /acre. Of the preceeding assumptions, No. 3 represents the most important to have changed since publication of the F.E.I.S: Using the aforementioned I.T.E. standard of 6 trips /unit /day for condominium uses, total trip generation for Phase III would be predicted as follows: @ 16 units /acre = 62 units x 6 = 372 A.D.T. (P.C. recomm.) @ 20 untis.acre = 78 units x 6 = 468 A.D.T. (Applicant's proposal) Based on the foregoing calculations, therefore, the projected total A.D.T. for 62nd Avenue would be: (Anticipating no change in assumptions 1 + 2 of F.E.I.S. notes above) @ 16 units /acre = 1793 A.D.T. - 1889 A.D.T. @ 20 units /acre = 1976 A.D.T. - 2072 A.D.T. Based on the proposed 78 dwelling unit yield of the rezone application, anti- cipated "worst- case" traffic impact on 62nd Avenue is roughly equal to the "best case" option of 2070 A.D.T. predicted by the F.E.I.S. Thus, we con- clude that the incremental difference in traffic generation between R -3 and R -4 use of the Phase III site isnot significant in relation to the anticipated decrease in street capacity impact levels on 62nd Avenue. C) Recreation /Open Space Adequacy - The Planning Commission questioned the adequacy of open space/ recreational area proposed within Phase III, noting that only 0.6 acres thereof is provided. The applicants explained that Phase III residents would be entitled to use the club- house /pool, tennis courts and open space areas of Phases I and II (totalling approximately 3.60 acres). The Commission then reiterated its Page -3- (81-5-R) • additional 96 ADT which would result from allowing 16 additional units under R -4 zoning in Phase III (16 units x 6 trips /day per 1976 I.T.E. standard for multi - family residential units). Page -4- (81- 5 -R) concern; fearing that the distance from southerly Phase III units to the pool /rec. area is too great, and the "steep" topography too inhibiting to facilitate usage by Phase III residents. They concluded, therefore, that by reducing density to R -3 levels in Phase III by not allowing the rezone, additional land space could be freed to satisfy internally some of the demand within Phase III for useable open space. It is difficult to quantify the adequacy of open space necessary to serve a private development. However, we believe that some conclusions can be drawn in the present case by examining widely - applied national park - planning standards: A) A common rule -of -thumb for siting of "neighborhood" rec- reation space is 10 acres for each population increment of 1000 persons population B) Assuming total build -out of Sunwood at 256 units (R -4 on Phase III included), and assuming a total population of 665 persons in the complex (F.E.I.S. "worst case" projection at 2.6 persons /D.U.), approximately 6.5 acres of open space is required. (For discussion purposes, public open space within 1/2 mile is not included to offset some of this demand) If,. however, we assume total population of 1.4 persons /unit, or 358 total occupants (on the basis of current sales occupancy rates), 3.6 acres of recreation area is needed. We suspect that the true need for open space rests somewhere between the 6.5 and 3.6 acre figures, and is probably closer to the lower estimate. Thus, Sunwood is providing anywhere from 50% to 75% or more of its own open space requirements on an area -only basis if we apply the same standards within the project that are used to analyze public park space needs.' Additional credit should probably be given due to the extensive variety of activities offered within the project boundary. We note too,that the maximum distance is slightly less than 1 /8th mile from the Southerly -most Phase III unit to the pool /tennis complex, more than meeting the access standard for a "neighborhood" recreation facility. . The Planning Commission questioned specifically the adequacy of . pool space provided in the project. Using the National Swimming Pool Institute's standard of 15 sq. ft. /bather in waters less than five feet deep, Sunwood's pool can accomodate 46 persons, or between 7% to 120 of the project's anticipated population at a time, de- pending on which per -unit occupancy rate is used. We conclude, that this degree of pool play area is convenient to the demands of the Sunwood project internally, and far exceeds the amount of per -cap- ita swimming pool space available in convenient proximity to the residents of Tukwila generally. CONCLUSION At the time of the Planning Commission's initial review of the rezone application, staff recommended R -4 zoning for Phase III of "Sunwood ". Our findings at that time included: 1) The Comprehensive Land Use Plan map designates the subject site as High - Density Residential, defined as 17+ D.U. /Acres in multi- family configuration. 2) The proposed density of 20 units per acre appears to be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, although it represents a higher level of building activity than that of surrounding multi- family development (Cottage • Creek = 11 D.0 /Ac.) (Sunwood Phase 1 =16 D.U. /Ace). Due to the project's proximity to the Southcenter Blvd. /. I -405 corridor, however, the higher -level density pro- posal appears justified. 3) Adequate access, utility infrastructure and recreation space appear to be available to serve the proposed re- zone area. The concerns raised by the Planning Commission in their subsequent recommendation to deny the application have caused us to examine more carefully the factors which impinge upon this rezone action, and have led us to conclude on a stronger factual basis that the R -4, 20 Unit /Ac. proposal is still appropriate. Analyzing the impacts of the rezone proposal in more concrete terms which the Planning Commission felt were missing, we feel that the foregoing discussion has been able to adress satisfactorily the issues raised at the April meeting such that a positive decision on the rezone request is justified. Page . -5- (.81 - 5 -R) ,Face �, 19O1 ` BID fr,nkkDS Janitorial Szrvice OLD BUSINESS Ordinance W1215- Changing the name of the custodian for the Advance Travel Expense Account Ordinance #1216 - Reclassifying cer- tain lands from R -3 to R -4 (Sunwood, Phase III) *MOTION CARRIED. *MOTION CARRIED. Mayor Pro -Tem Van Dusen noted that the current Janitorial Servi has terminated their services with the City. The Public Works Director has asked Council approval to Call for Bids to ensure continuity of services. MOVED BY HILL, SECONDED BY PHELPS, THAT COUNCIL APPROVE THE CALL FOR BIDS FOR JANITORIAL SERVICES IMMEDIATELY.* Mayor Pro -Tem Van Dusen said there have been reasons, both pro and con, on why they terminated their services. He asked to have one of the Committees look into this. MOVED BY HILL, SECONDED BY PHELPS, THAT THIS ITEM BE REVIEWED BY THE PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE.* Councilman Harris asked in what area this company was unsatis- factory. Ted Uomoto, Public Works Director, said it was many areas. They have been trying to get the contractor to meet the requirements listed in the signed contract. MOVED BY HILL, SECONDED BY PHELPS, THAT THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE BE READ BY TITLE ONLY. MOTION CARRIED. MOVED BY HILL; SECONDED BY HARRIS, THAT ORDINANCE NO. 1215 BE ADOPTED AS READ.* Mayor Pro -Tem Van Dusen questioned if the name of the Finance Director, rather than the title is necessary. Attorney Hard said that the State Auditor Bulletin No. 010 sets forth the requirement that a person's name is necessary. However, the people who currently administer the program for the State Auditor's Office do not take that position. Some other cities name just the office, and the Auditor's Office has taken no action against them. It makes sense to name the office instead of an individual, so you don't have to amend the ordi- nance every time there is a change. The safe course would be to adopt the ordinance naming the individual. Councilman Harris said, while she held the position of City Treasurer, she was told many times that you abide by the Auditor's Bulletins. Until such time as the bulletin is repealed, we need to follow it. *MOTION CARRIED. MOVED BY HILL, SECONDED BY HARRIS, THAT THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE BE READ BY TITLE ONLY. MOTION CARRIED. City Attorney Hard read an ordinance of the City of Tukwila, Washington, reclassifying certain lands from R -3 to R -4, as described in Planning Department Master File No. 81 -5 -R. MOVED BY PHELPS, SECONDEDBY HILL, THAT ORDINANCE N0. 1216, AS AMENDED BY THE CITY ATTORNEY, BE ADOPTED AS READ.* Attorney Hard noted that he added a new Section 4 to clarify the action of the ordinance. The property is rezoned from R -3 to R -4. City Attorney read an ordinance of the City of Tukwila, Washington, changing the name of the custodian for the Advance Travel Expense Account, amending Section 2 of Ordinance No. 614, and repealing Ordinance Nos. 778, 890, 940, 1050 and 1083. RECESS: Vuu,1%. t 1 ` /3 : :D EUSINESS - Cont. "Jrdi na nce 4 - reclassifying cer- tain lands from R -3 to R -4 (Sunwood, Phase III) (cont.) Mr. Don Dalley, Pacific Townhouse Builders, 1370 Stewart Street, #100, Seattle, noted that since the meeting of May 12, they have met with the homeowners that occupy Phase I of the condominium .project. Their concern is adequate recreation facilities. He requested that a condition be placed in the rezoning ordinance that they add one jacuzzi, which is equal to size and capacity of the one installed under Phase I. The location will be either in Phase III or among the other recreation facilities near the swimming pool. Councilman Hill asked if it wasn't the developer's problem rather than the City's. Mr. Dalley said they want it to be a matter of record. Mr. Hill noted that it would appear in the minutes. Mr. Carl Lewis, 15209 Sunwood Blvd., Unit B33, said he repre- sents the group of homeowners who have expressed their concerns. After discussion with the developer, they have agreed not to oppose the rezone on the condition that the developer install the additional jacuzzi. He said his concern is that this agree- ment has a binding legal effect. They felt it was best to make it a condition of the rezone. He asked the City Attorney how this could become a binding commitment. Attorney Hard said he would prefer this not be included in the ordinance. This could open up situations where the City should not get involved. Any development this size has to have approval of the Board of Archi- tectural Review. These minutes will reflect to the Board that there is, at least, one condition for them to consider. The Council could, by motion, direct staff to inform the Board of Architectural Review of this condition. The Building Official should be directed that a Building Permit will not be issued until this condition is taken care of. Councilman Bohrer said the Planning Commission raised the fol- lowing concerns on this project; ingress /access and traffic generation, adequacy of recreational facilities.and adequacy of open space provided on Phase III. The Planning Commission questioned specifically the adequacy of pool space provided in the project. The City has an Open Space Ordinance, but there is no analysis as to how the project complies with it. He said it looks like there is potential further concern as the Planning Commission expressed. He further asked if the project now meets the conditions listed in the rezone ordinance that was repealed in December. The report does not indicate. Brad Collins, Planning Director, said he understood that the previous ordinance was related to a contract zone that covered more property than this specific rezone covers. Attorney Hard said it was impossible for the whole property covered under the previous ordinance to meet the terms of rezone, so it reverted back to the existing zoning. It is back now, with the request to rezone a portion. .The original conditions are completely irrelevant to what is before Council now. Councilman Bohrer asked what the conditions were and why they are no longer relevant. Attorney Hard said the property is now zoned R -3, and this is what Council has to deal with. It may have been zoned something else, but that is irrelevant. It has been zoned R -3 since January of 1981. Councilman Bohrer asked again what the conditions were and said it matters to him if they have been met. Attorney Hard explained that this property owner has a parcel of property zoned R -3. He is before Council.with the request to change the zone to R -4. All of the necessary steps have been met .to complete the process. Tonight is the culmination of the process. What hap- pened earlier has no legal effect. 8:00 P.M.- MOVED BY BOHRER, SECONDED BY HARRIS, THAT COUNCIL RECESS FOR .8:10 P.M. " MINUTES TO ALLOW TIME TO GET A COPY OF THE ORIGINAL ORDI- • NANCE. MOTION CARRIED. CITY r'n L .L.ne 2, 1981 ','Face 4 r,LD BUSINESS - Cont. Ordinance #1216 - Reclassifying cer- tain lands from R -3 to R -4 (Sunwood Phase III) (cont.) REGN -%? t . . Mayor Pro -Tem . Van Dusen called the meeting back to order with Council Members present as previously reported. City Attorney.Hard reported that Ordinance 1088 rezoned the property from R -3 to R -4 with 8 conditions. These conditions applied to three parcels of property. In 1978, LID 29 was created and constructed. At that time a portion of this property was excluded from immediate assessments. After that, it was concluded that all the property rezoned under Ordinance No. 1088 could no longer meet all of the conditions. The ordinance was then repealed so the zoning reverted back to R -3. Councilman Bohrer said his recollection is that the property hadn't met the conditions, therefore, was not participating in LID ;29, so the ordinance was repealed. He reviewed the conditions re- quired: Attorney Hard said the conditions have been met by the properties within the boundaries of the LID. The logical solution for the City was to turn all of the property back to R -3 and, as the property is developed, the owners would have to come back to the City and request appropriate zoning for the use. Council- man Bohrer asked why there was no analysis of the conditions. Attorney Hard said because there was no legal requirement. The conditions are not relevant to this parcel today. The property is R -3. If Council wants to impose the conditions, they can make them part of the rezone. Councilman Harris said the project, at the time of the rezone was a separate project. It had nothing to do with Sunwood. The conditions were for an entirely different project. Councilman Johanson noted that the Planning Commission denied the request, but staff recommended approval. He said he also wondered about the conditions. Brad Collins, Planning Director, said he assumed the Planning Department considered the eight conditions and either they were not needed or they had been met. Councilman Phelps explained that Ordinance 1088' has been repealed so the conditions aren't even there; further, it related to another project all together. Any conditions that apply to the Sunwood Development would apply to the rezone before Council now. Councilman Bohrer noted that there seems to be a lot of questions. He said he did not see the urgency in insisting that this be passed tonight. It would be appropriate to send it back to staff for an analysis of the conditions. Councilman Phelps said all of the conditions and covenants and agreements that the City has with Sunwood Develop- ment have already been established. They are developing under the agreement we currently have. I don't see the point of im- posing more conditions upon the developer than they already have. Councilman Harris said when an ordinance is repealed, it is no longer valid. What ever was in the ordinance no longer applies to anything. That is what we did to Ordinance 1088. The conditions no longer apply. MOVED BY BOHRER, SECONDED BY JOHANSON, THAT THE ORDINANCE BE TABLED TO ALLOW STAFF TO PREPARE A REPORT ON THE RELATIONSHIP OF THE CURRENT SUNWOOD DEVELOPMENT PLAN TO THE CONDITIONS THAT WERE ORIGINALLY PROPOSED IN ORDINANCE 1088. MOTION FAILED. *MOTION CARRIED WITH BOHRER AND JOHANSON VOTING NO. MOVED BY PHELPS, SECONDED BY HILL, THAT THE PLANNING STAFF BE DIRECTED TO NOTIFY THE BOARD OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW TO OBSERVE AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE HOMEOWNERS AND THE DEVELOPERS TO PROVIDE AN ADDITIONAL JACUZZI RECREATIONAL FACILITY.* . Councilman Bohrer commented that this is a limited attempt to include some of the considerations that were in the original eight. *MOTION CARRIED WITH BOHRER AND JOHANSON VOTING NO. Ir ? Pacific Townhouse Builders tb Seattle office: Mariner Building, 1370 Stewart Street, Suite 100, Seattle, WA 98109 (206) 682-7830 Bellevue office: 1115 108th Avenue NE, Bellevue, WA 98004 (206) 455.1726 Mark Caughey Planning Director City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Blvd. Tukwila, ll'A 98188 Dear Mark: RE: REZONE PHASE III "SUNWOOD" March 9, 1981 As we discussed March 3, 1981, Pacific Townhouse Builders economically cannot live with the density factor of 16 units per acre for Phase III as recommended by the Planning Commission. I would like to point out several factors that the Planning Commission may not have been aware of in making their recommendation: 1. We initially purchased the Ehmke site and optioned the Kato prop- erty under R -4 zoning (ordinance 1088) which allowed a density of 18.7 units per acre. Needless to say, our purchase price relects this density. Because of the property's location adjacent to the freeway corridor. we never thought that the density would be down - zoned from that figure. As a matter of fact, in discussions with city staff members, we were under the opinion that the density could be rezoned well above 18.7. 2. The R -4 portion of "Sunwood" Phase I (Buildings A,B,C,D F E) which immediately borders the subject site to the north was rezoned in 1978 for a density of 21.6 units per acre. (72 units - 3.34 acre) It should be pointed out that this 12.4 area is closer to the single family areas of Tukwila than the subject site. To the northeast the "San Juan" Apartments have R -4 zoning and are built -out to a density of 19.28 units per acre. To the east "Cottage Creek" is zoned R -4 and would have allowed 120 units but only 48 units were built because 50% of the site had unusable topography. The south boundary of the property borders on C -1 zoning which will be developed for commercial use in the near future. To the west of the site the new VIP hotel is to be built. In most municipalities, EXHIBIT #B "Sunwood" Page 2 a residential property next to an intensive zoning classification such as C -1 will have the highest residential classification poss- ible. Example: King County RM 900 (48 units per acre), Seattle RM 800 (52 units per acre). 3. As we all know, housing is getting extremely expensive: The public wants "affordable" housing but because of government regulations, home prices are estimated to be 20 to 30% higher than they should be. This is a great example of the Planning Commission restricting the density (government regulation) thus increasing housing costs in an area that should have high density. At 16 units per acre, this site will allow only 62 units vs. the 78 units (20 units per acre) being asked for. This 16 unit red- uction will add $1800 per unit of ground cost. Add to this; the financing cost of the construction and hold period, the loss in maximum efficiency of construction, the additional cost per unit of roads, utilities, landscaping, and marketing which will be the same for 78 units as 62 units and the total additional selling price per unit is approximately $4,500. From sales on Phase I, we learned that selling prices must be kept as low as possible or you eliminate a major portion of buyers because they can't qualify for a loan. From our discussion, I determined that one of the reasons for the re- duction in density from 20 to 16 might be the Planning Commissions' concern for landscaping and recreational area. The main entrance of " Sunwood" will utilize a heavily landscaped terraced wall. Sunwood Boulevard which divides the Phase III site has 20' Maples and will add a forested buffer through the center of the subject site. The area adjacent to building and parking areas will be heavily landscaped as was done in Phase I. (I might suggest that members of the Planning Commission take a tour of "Sunwood "). The purchasers of the individual condominium units for Phase III will utilize the recreational package which was built as part of Phase I which in- cludes a swimming pool, tennis court and recreation center with Jacuzzi, kit- chen, game room and changing rooms. The original recreational package was designed based on an estimated use of 2.6 people per unit. But in fact, based on the sale of the first 63 units the average has been 1.4 people per unit with only 4 children. As can be seen, the recreational facilities were over - designed by some 46% which easily will take care of the 16 additional units. In addition during construction of Phase III we will be incorporating a jogging trail which will surround the full development. In conclusion, I have tried to point out that economically we, or the eventual buyers of the condominium units, can not live with a 16 unit per acre "Sunwood" Page 3 density. Being that this site is adjacent to the freeway corridor and that we are providing quality landscaping and recreation amenities for buyers, there is absolutely no reason that the density could not be in excess of 20 units per acre. If you need any further information, please do not hesitate to call me at 682 -7830. cc: Frank Todd Dick Gilroy Jerry Molitor Sincerely, PACIFIC TOWNHOUSE BUILDERS --- Don Dilly General Partner disapproval, or opinions on same. CITY OF TUKWILA NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING BY THE TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Tukwila City Council will conduct a Public Hearing on the 17th day of June 1985. at 7-on p ,M, in the.Council Chambers of Tukwila City Hall, 6200 Southcenter Boulevard, to consider the following: • Appeal of the Board of Architectural Review decision to deny approval of the proposed Multiple Family project originally known as Sunwood Phase III — filed by Windmark Homes. Any and all interested persons are invited to be present to voice approval, Published: Record - Chronicle, May 31,1985 CITY OF TUKWILA Maxine Anderson City Clerk 1 • ec ee c41•00.514t154.• • • .0,4.5 .144. ...a.Y .w.4•44 is d114..� rw 1 Wore' r/acH 4 no.. DI9TL WG =es. .11' nuts I• •SO-0' • P�nllf L157/ LGbGNG 71.cG5 { k 1 AL ?..1 A /rf rl=' j ucwr o POQ 41 r'n .5 T N V*, I. •R.r54. 40 !+[L'JTU LL. COO 91LI4/r..ee- r 1102 l•1 ri AMK+ .1/105-K" r 11t truE el 1.l45VG11UFLkr.' r 151 e,..$..1�{r5 l.W - !' r {K 0f'D LLYl2! AD 1 �.rG'l.t. J II'u :L $41. L.cWCLttu (✓ 79 e- L•�Um.3a!W n7N.0 r1 I+ 47 411f GlLITtru5 IQN Q \n c� N G Y test 66 N yH�u.DQH'WRJixill G 19 vG.P1L+u - 1 ruY lv.rGb ltt�Ly I JUN 1 1985 C►T`l "OF TUKWILA P LANNING DEPT. IHCl•cCfi TIW G4frAco ear. r, r# ram , rurece. COstr a WITH 510 Maas - oppoux Mc $ irceme1' =wry- /Slw'f!' r Lt LK.gt. � ^ orG1R�'T41A. SHittis HLOLi.". 11N.ZA. .TU• Q etlh! fir 1- z� e+xuun rx s 6/1t11.04Jne wx • r Ms rM* .... a,e- t.. 0.6. r S am.. I Sva... rr•■ rte.. wr 111.r •■•. _J 1 Al 4 y'i; zttii11 4 - 41- §.1.11.: e 0 o o • , 1 .1.. ' • ./ yym 1-1(111101-taorioa, . . ! I ; • • . I IA • V V • . a • • E ammo somordroau wricenum A - CAS AGENDA ITEM TITLE of Architecture review decision Original Agenda Date May 13, 1985 Original Sponsor: Council COUNCIL AGENDA SYNOPSIS Windmark Homes, Inc (PR- 1- 84- Sunwood III) Appeal of Board Timeline Decide Appeal by August 7, 1985 Purpose of Item and Objective of Sponsor: Set public hearing date for considering and deciding the appeal. . Sponsor's Recommended Action: Conduct public hearing on June 10, 1985 Alternative Action: (1) Conduct Public Hearing on June 7, 1985. (2) Conduct Public Hearing on June 17, 1985. ,Committee Recommendations: Administration Recommendations: RECORD OF COUNCIL ACTION Date Action <- es - COST COST IMPACT (if known) FUND SOURCE (if known) APPENDICES (: I T E M CAS NO. /Admin. Apprvd. OTHER City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila Washington 98188 433.1800 Gary L VanDusen, Mayor TUKWILA PLANNING COMMISSION Minutes of the May 23, 1985, Planning Commission meeting. Chairman Knudson called the meeting to order at 7:45 p.m. Other Commissioners present were Mr. Coplen, Mr. Kirsop, Mr. Orrico, and Mr. Larson. Representing staff were Rick Beeler and Becky Kent, Planning Department. APPROVAL OF MINUTES MR. COPLEN MOVED TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE MAY 9, 1985, PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. MR. ORRICO SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH .PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. The City Attorney briefing was postponed to the June 13, 1985, Planning Commission meeting. BOARD OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW A. DR- 08 -85: Western Pacific Properties, requesting approval of plans for a 3 -story office building located at 5800 Southcenter Boulevard (continuance of May 9, 1985, meeting). Nancy O'Brien, representing the applicant, submitted an elevation drawing for the Board's review. The meeting was recessed to go outside and view the screening samples pro- vided by the applicant. The meeting was reconvened. MR. ORRICO MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION DR- 08 -85, WESTERN PACIFIC PROPERTIES, ACCORDING TO THE FOLLOWING FIVE CONDITIONS: 1. IMPROVED PEDESTRIAN SIDEWALK ACCESS INTO THE SITE FROM SOUTHCENTER BOULEVARD ALONG THE WEST SIDE. Page -2- ..Planning Commission Mi.utes May 23, 1985 2. FOUR INCH CALIPER TREES ALONG SOUTHCENTER BOULEVARD AS CLOSE TO THE PROPERTY LINE AS POSSIBLE. 3. REVIEW AND APPROVAL BY THE BOARD OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW OF PROPOSED SUN SCREENS. 4. INCLUDE AN AUTOMATIC IRRIGATION SYSTEM. 5. LIMIT REFLECTIVITY OF THE GLASS TO 20% AS DEMONSTRATED IN THE SAMPLES. MR. KIRSOP SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. B. DR -09 -85 and 85 -18 -CUP: Metro, requesting approval of a park -and- ride lot for 260 to 300 automobiles north of the intersection of Interurban Ave. So. and 52nd Ave. So. Chairman Knudson stepped down for this item. Mr. Beeler summarized the staff report. Don Pierce, Police Chief for the City of Tukwila, was concerned with juris- dicational problems and suggested annexation to the City of Tukwila. He recommended low growing plants for the landscaping to promote better visa - bility and security on the site. Larry Ellington, METRO, described the project and responded to staff's recommendations in the staff report. Chairman Kirsop opened the public hearing for application 85 -18 -CUP, incor- porating testimony heard on application DR- 09 -85. Chairman Kirsop closed the public hearing. The Commission reviewed the preliminary recommendations. MR. ORRICO MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION DR- 09 -85, METRO, FOR APPROVAL OF A PARK AND RIDE LOT WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1. REVISION OF THE LANDSCAPING PLAN TO INCLUDE LOW PROFILE SHRUBS AND 2" CALIPER DECIDUOUS TREES PER REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF THE PLANNING AND POLICE DEPARTMENTS. 2. PLACEMENT OF THE TRANSIT SHELTER STATIONS TO 8i FEET FROM THE PROPERTY LINES OR APPROVAL OF A VARIANCE FROM THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT. 3. ADDITION OF A 6 -FOOT HIGH SECURITY FENCE ALONG THE PERIMETER OF THE SITE ADJACENT TO PRIVATE PROPERTY. 4. ADDITION OF LIGHTING TO ILLUMINATE ALL TRANSIT SHELTER STATIONS, WALKWAY AREAS /SIDEWALKS, AND PARKING AREAS. Page -3- ", Planning Commission M1,,utes May 23, 1985 5. SUPPORT ANNEXATION OF THE KING COUNTY PORTION OF THE PROPERTY TO THE CITY OF TUKWILA. 6. SPILL -OVER ILLUMINATION WILL NOT OCCUR ON ADJACENT PROPERTIES. 7. FORWARDING TO KING COUNTY A RECOMMENDATION OF COMPLIANCE OF THE KING COUNTY PORTIONS OF THE SITE WITH THESE CONDITIONS AND ANY OTHER CITY OF TUKWILA REGULATIONS TO INSURE A UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT IN ANTICIPATION OF ANNEXATION TO TUKWILA. 8. CONSTRUCTION OF INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS AT 52ND AVENUE SOUTH AND INTERURBAN AVENUE SOUTH PER REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF THE PUBLIC WORK DEPARTMENT. 9. COMPLIANCE WITH APPLICABLE CITY ORDINANCES AND REGULATIONS. 10. NOXIOUS MATERIALS SHALL BE REMOVED FROM THE SITE, AND KEPT FREE OF NOXIOUS GROWTH SUCH AS BLACKBERRIES AND WEEDS. MR. LARSON SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. MR. ORRICO MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION 85 -18 -CUP, METRO, FOR APPROVAL OF A PARK AND RIDE LOT, WITH THE SAME TEN CONDITIONS AS APPROVED FOR DR- 09 -85. MR. LARSON SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. C. DR -10 -85 and 85 -20 -CUP: Southcenter Daycare, requesting deviation from landscape requirements of TMC 18.52.020 per TMC 18.70.090, and a Conditional Use Permit for a daycare facility located at 345 Andover Park East. Chairman Knudson opened the public hearing. Mr. Beeler summarized the staff report. Kelly Grose, Southcenter Daycare, described the proposed project. Chairman Knudson closed the public hearing. The Commission discussed screening of the play area, parking, fencing, and landscaping. MR. LARSON MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATIONS DR -10 -85 AND 85 -20 -CUP WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1. A DUMPSTER, OPAQUELY SCREENED, BE INDICATED ON THE SITE PLAN THAT WILL BE SUBJECT TO STAFF'S APPROVAL. 2. LANDSCAPING BE IMPLEMENTED PER CODE ALONG THE SOUTHERLY BORDER, AND THAT THE AREA ADJACENT TO THE SOUTH OPEN CYCLONE FENCE OF THE PLAY AREA OF APPROXIMATELY 15' FEET BE LANDSCAPED, INCLUDING THE 5' IN FRONT THE THE TWO PARKING STALLS THAT WILL BE MOVED BACK, AND A COUPLE DECIDUOUS TREES BE PLACED NEXT TO THE FENCED PLAY AREA. Page -4- Planning Commission Minutes May 23, 1985 3. A HAZARDOUS MATERIALS EMERGENCY PLAN APPROVED 'BY THE TUKWILA FIRE DEPARTMENT. 4. LOADING ZONE FOR PASSENGER DROP OFF AND PICK UP ON NORTH. SIDE OF BUILDING. 5. COMPLIANCE WITH CITY ORDINANCES AND REGULATIONS. MR. ORRICO SECONDED THE MOTION. MR. KIRSOP MOVED TO AMEND THE MOTION TO INCLUDE ANNUAL REVIEW OF THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AS WARRANTED. MR. COPLEN SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. MAIN MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. CITIZEN COMMENT Lynn Takeuchi, representing Kaiser Development, requesting a special meeting date of June 13, 1985, to discuss Application DR- 07 -85. OTHER A. `DR41 -84:' ° Wi ndmar„k Homes adoption of findings and conclusions from May 9, 1985, Board of Architectural Review meeting. MR. LARSON MOVED TO ACCEPT THE FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS OF APPLICATION DR- O1 -84, WINDMARK HOMES. MR. KIRSOP SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. ADJOURNMENT MR. COPLEN MOVED TO ADJOURN THE MEETING. MR. LARSON SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. TUKWILA _ '�' NING COMMISSION i Beeler Secretary CITY OF TUKWILA PLANNING DIVISION PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT AGENDA ITEM . DR- O1 -84: WINDMARK HOMES TUKWILA, INC. 1. Zoning Code Recreation Space requirements of TMC 18.52.060 Findings: TMC 18.52.060(1)(A) requires a minimum of 13,200 square feet of recreation area. Of this area 3,300 to 6,600 square feet may be devoted to children's recreation space (TMC 18.51.060(4)(A)). Furthermore, 10% of the minimum required landscaping areas of TMC 18.51.020 may be subtracted from the required recreation space (13,200 square feet - approximately 1052 square feet=12,148 square feet) (TMC 18.51.060(1)(B)). Therefore, the net required recreation space for adults in approximately 7,233 square feet (12,148 square feet - 4915 square feet = 7,233 square feet). TMC 18.06.630 defines recreation space as "...designed and intended for active and /or passive recreational activity... ". Recreation space is distinguished from landscaped areas (TMC 18.06.410) and open space (TMC 18.06.580). Conclusions: The landscaping plan on file and topography of the site reduce the proposed landscaped open space to areas which are small and not very useable for recreation. Therefore, the proposed recreation spaces are not useable for recreational purposes, except for the indicated children's play areas. The landscape plan conflicts with the proposed recreation space areas. Topography size and shapes of the proposed recreation areas renders the areas undesireable /unuseable for young adult or adult recreation activities. Insufficient demonstration has occured of compliance with TMC 18.52.060. Therefore, the proposal does not conform to TMC 18.52.060. 2. Board of Architecture Review criteria TMC 18.60.050(1)(A): The site should be planned to accomplish a desirable transition with the streetscape and to provide for adequate landscaping, and pedestrian movement." Findings: The proposal includes landscaping plan which has not been corrected pursuant to recent changes in the site plan and to recreation space require- ments (TMC 18.52.060). A single sidewalk exists on the property along Sunwood Boulevard, and no other sidewalks or trails are provided. Conclusions: The landscaping plan is incomplete and does not provide for ade quate recreation space. Adequate pedestrian sidewalks and /or trails are not provided to link the various parts of the proposal. Therefore, the proposal does not satisfy TMC 18.60.050(1)(A). Page -2- Planning Commission DR- 01 -84: WINDMARK HOMES TUKWILA, INC. May 23, 1985 ( PC.SU N F C ) 3. Board of Architecture Review criteria TMC 18.60.050(1)(C): "The height and scale of each building should be considered in relation to its site." Findings: The height of the proposed buildings along the northerly property line will reach a topographic level of 202 feet. Existing adjacent units of Sunwood Phase I were constructed with the first floors at a topographic eleva- tion of 184.75 feet. Conclusions: Blockage of the existing views of the southerly units of Sunwood Phase I will occur as a result of the proposal. This does not conform to TMC 18.60.050(1)(C). 4. Board of Architecture Review criteria TMC 18.60.050(3)(C): "Landscape treat- ment should enhance architectural features, strengthen vistas and important axes, and provide shade." Findings: The landscape plan on file includes trees and shrubs around the proposed buildings and parking areas. Conclusions: Maturation of the landscaping will obstruct existing views from Sunwood Phase I and users of Sunwood Boulevard and the view from the proposed buildings. Sunwood Boulevard offers an important vista of the Kent Valley floor and Mount Rainier. This vista is currently enjoyed by existing Sunwood residents. The landscaping plan does not accommodate for this vista through plant material selection and location. Therefore, the proposal does not con- form to TMC 18.60.050(3)(C). 5. Board of Architecture Review criteria TMC 18.60.050(4)(B): "Buildings should be to appropriate scale and be in harmony with permanent neighboring developments." Findings: The proposed buildings of a height of 202 feet topographic eleva- tion will be located less than 100 feet from existing Sunwood Phase I buildings with a first floor elevation of 184.75 feet. The second floors of Sunwood Phase I buildings would be at approximately the 193 foot elevation. Conclusions: View blockage of the first and second floors of Sunwood Phase I southerly units will occur. This is not harmonious with Sunwood Phase I. Therefore, the proposal conflicts with TMC 18.60.050(4)(B). DECISION Based upon the above the Planning Commission on April 25, 1985, denied the appli- cation. c CITY OF TUKWILA PLANNING DIVISION PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DR- O1 -84: WINDMARK HOMES TUKWILA, INC. • AGENDA ITEM INTRODUCTION On April 25, 1985, the Board of Architectural Review (BAR) denied this applica- tion, which decision was upheld by the City Council on appeal by the proponent on July 15, 1985. During the letter consideration the applicant submitted a revised site plan which had not been reviewed by the BAR. As a result of an executive session on October 21, 1985, the City Council reconsidered their previous action and remanded the matter back to the BAR for consideration of the new site plan. The staff report before the BAR at the time of its decision is being updated and /or repeated herein per the revised site plan to facilitate review and a clear record in the matter. This report is the complete and current version for con- sideration by the BAR. FINDINGS 1. On June 2, 1981, the City Council rezoned the property to R -4 subject to: A. Overall residential density permitted on this site shall not exceed 20 D.U. /acres. B. Any project proposed on this site subsequent to City Council approval of the subject rezone action shall require BAR of the site, architecture and landscaping details prior to issuance of building permits (Exhibit A). At this same meeting the City Council passed a motion directing the BAR observe an agreement between the homeowners of Phases I and II and the develo- pers of Phase III to install a jacuzzi recreation facility. The Council's minutes are contained in attached Exhibit #F. Such a facility is contained in the current application. The rezone of the property contained a site plan very similar to that proposed (Exhibit B). However, the rezone did not obligate the City to the site plan, but the previous plan enabled analysis of land use impacts of the applicant's contemplated R -4 development. The property consists of 3.85 acres, which would permit 77 dwelling units (3.85 x 20 D.U. /acres = 77 D.U.). Only 66 dwelling units are proposed in 8 buildings (Exhibit B). DR- O1 -84: WINDMARK HOMa TUKWILA, INC. November 21, 1985 Page 2 2. BAR consideration is also required by Section 18.60.030(2)(E), Tukwila Municipal Code (TMC). Per TMC section 18.60.070 the BAR may approve, approve with conditions or deny the application. Guidelines for this review are contained in TMC Section 18.60.050. 3. Little substantial vegetation exists on the property except for a small variety of trees at the middle portion of the southerly property line (Exhibit B) and a 10" apple tree along the south side of the access road. The landscape plan adds a great deal of tree, shrub and groundcover material and retains most of the existing trees (Exhibit C). 4. Exhibit B indicates essentially the entire site will be recontoured to accomo- date the proposed development pursuant to the existing Sunwood Boulevard access road off 62nd Avenue South. According to the 1975 Data Inventory this site has development limitations of: A. Slopes may be unstable when modified. B. Slopes of 15 -25% C. Part of a major wooded area. 5. Parking will be provided for 132 cars conforming to the 2 cars per unit required by TMC 18.56.050. The buildings will be three stories averaging approximately 31 feet in height (Exhibit 0). Wood materials will be featured and painted /stained brown with beige trim. The roof will be of cedar shingles. 6. TMC Section 18.52.060 requires 13,200 gross square feet and 12,148 net square feet of recreation space. The poposed children's recreation areas of 3,300 square feet meets the requirement that at least 3,300 square feet must be use- ful for children. The required landscaping areas contribute 1166 square feet for recreation space. Approximately 14,350 square feet of open space is pro- vided on the site in areas less than 4:1 slope. Recontouring and recon- figuring of some of the open spaces occurred to create useable spaces. A jacuzzi, recreation building and deck, outdoor childrens play areas and five gazebos are parts of the recreation facilities. 7. Carports will contain one car per dwelling unit and will be constructed the same as carports in Sunwood Phases I and II (Exhibit E). 8. Sunwood Boulevard contains a median strip which is planted with trees and features street lights the same as exists at the entrance from 62nd Avenue South. A sidewalk exists along the northerly and easterly side of the road (Exhibit B). ti DR- O1 -84: WINDMARK HO( TUKWILA, INC. November 21, 1985 Page 3 9. The northerly buildings will reach a maximum elevation of 202 feet, which is within 5 feet of the finished floor of the lower floors of the adjacent buildings of Sunwood Phase I (Exhibit ). Existing topography slopes southerly downward, thereby reducing the building height of the southerly units. The existing panoramic view from Sunwood Phase I will be impacted to the extend of the proposed buildings. 10. The following Comprehensive Plan Policies and /or objectives apply: Policy 1 Maintain the wooded character of the steep slopes and upland plateau, and encourage the use of vegetation in slope stabili- zation. Policy 3 Policy 1 Policy 2 Policy 1 Objective 8 Policy 1 Policy 3 Policy 4 Discourage disturbance of vegetation when not in conjunction with the actual development of the property. (p. 26, Natural Environment) Discourage development on slopes in excess of 20 percent Preserve the views of hillside residents. (p. 26, Natural Environment) Discourage development in areas where slopes are known to be unstable. In areas where the stability of slopes is questionable, allow . development only after . a qualified pro- fessional can demonstrate that slopes will be stable even after site modification. (p. 29, Natural Environment) Recognize the environmental basemap of the Tukwila Planning areas which depicts the distribution and extent of natural ame- nities based on the previously mentioned objectives and use this map as a general planning guide. (p. 30, Natural Environment) Strive to preserve steep hillsides and 'wooded areas in a scenic condition. Encourage replanting and revegetation of denuded areas not in the process of development. (p. 34, Open Space) Provide for active recreation areas (ballfields, tennis courts, swimming pools, playgrounds, community center) consistent with the needs of the community. Provide for passive recreational areas (parks, natural reser- ves, picnic grounds) consistent with the needs of the com- munity. (p. 35, Open Space) 11. The Public Works Department determined adequate water is available to proper- ties in the area and to the proposal. DR- O1 -84: WINDMARK HOME iUKWILA, INC. November 21, 1985 Page 4 Conclusions 1. TMC 18.60.040(1) Relationship of Structure to Site: The site plan includes appropriate landscaping, and forms a "transition" from 62nd Avenue South and Sunwood Boulevard. Plant materials were selected which will mature to approximately the height of the proposed buildings. Parking areas are linear in configuration, avoiding the appearance of a large mass of pavement. Also carports and landscaping break up the visual impacts of the parking areas. The visual impact of the proposed buildings appears to be similar to Sunwood Phases I and II. Due to the relatively more exposure to public view of the southerly portion of the hillside, the buildings very likely will be more visible to the valley floor. 2. TMC 18.60.050(2) Relationship of Structure and Site to Adjoining Area: Sunwood is a mixture of architecture styles and building materials. Phase I is essentially more "modern ", treated with white stucco. Phase II is more "conservative contemporary ", consisting of stained wood materials. Overall visual harmony exists, largely accomplished by landscaping in Phase III along the northerly border, which may be less desirable than view maximization for Phase I. The Public Works Department indicated the proposed vehicular circulation system is appropriate relative to Phase III and 62nd Avenue South. A cut -out in the median strip accommodates vehicular congestion and public safety vehicle movement. 3. TMC 18.60.050 Landscape and Site Treatment: Existing topography is generally steadily rolling southerly down the hill. Proposed grading for the most part is parallel to the land contour to minimize grades and promote safety. Sometimes rockeries and /or retaining wall of 4 -6 feet are needed to balance cuts. Such walls may require additional soils and engineering study (TMC Section 18.56.050(3)(A and B)). The little amount of existing substantial vegetation on the site is for the most part protected from grading by landscaping and rockeries (Policy 1 and 3, p. 24, Comprehensive Plan). Available plans indicate some development will occur on slopes over 20% (Policy 2, p. 26; Policy 2, p. 29 and Objective 8, p.. 30, Comprehensive Plan). Some portions of the property exceed slopes of 20 %, which should be discouraged, but are not prohibited by the Plan. A soils report was submitted indicating little problems for the proposed development. DR- O1 -84: WINDMARK HO TUKWILA, INC. November 21, 1985 Page 5 Landscaping on the existing plan interrupts the building masses, defines the perimeter of parking and access areas and enhances the scenic vista and view from and of the site. Currently this vista /view is largely unobstructed by vegetation and buildings. Therefore, the revised landscaping plan should pre- serve the vista /view between and round the building (Policy 2, p. 26, and Policy 2, p. 34, Comprehensive Plan). Wheel stops will help protect plant materials adjacent to on- grade parking areas. Trash containers are proposed to be located adjacent to or between carports. This seems to be appropriate screening. 4. TMC 18.60.050 Building Design: Building components relate well to each other and provide proportional interruption of the facades without appearing forced. The brown color with beige trim is compatible with Phases I and II. Submitted architectural elevations do not show mechanical equipment or light fixtures. Building design is essentially a single design with variations pro- duced by modulation of the structures, slight reduction of density and change of a few architectural features. Overall the effect will probably not appear monotonous. 5. TMC 18.60.050(5) Miscellaneous Structures and Street Furniture: Street lighting is the same as existing at the entrance onto Sunwood Boulevard, which appears compatible with all phases of Sunwood. 6. Conformance with recreation space requirements of TMC 18.52.060 is apparent in the proposal. Adequate children's play areas and areas suitable for adults are indicated, e.g., jacuzzi, trails, useable open areas, gazebos, play apparatus, etc. This seems to be reasonable and minimum recreation use on the site. Preliminary Recommendation Based on the above, staff preliminarily recommends the proposal be approved sub- ject to: 1. Public Works and Fire Departments review and final approval of the median strip in Sunwood Boulevard relative to public safety and access.' DR- O1 -84: WINDMARK HOME( fUKWILA, INC. November 21, 1985 Page 6 2. Submittal of soils and engineering reports on rockeries over 5 feet in height for final review and approval of the Public Works and Building Departments. 3. Low profile shrubs and plant materials should be located along the ;north pro- perty line to screen the proposed carports while preserving existing views from Sunwood Phase I per review and approval of the Planning Department. 4. Installation of wheel stops to protect on- grade. landscaping. Exhibits A - Site Plan B - Landscaping Plan C - Recreation Areas Map D - Recreation Space Calculations E - Architectural Elevations F - Photographs of Carport Design G - Building Height Comparison H - File of record maintained in City Hall I - Excerpt of City Council Minutes of July 15, 1985, Public Hearing J - Excerpt of City Council Minutes of October 21, 1985, Executive Session Meeting (PC.WNDMRK,1) (5A.1) '44 littS . - .Vi" • 4. SalliP . 0 'NEP i isn '' 41 •.:1 1 % . ' . if i7,4 I. til tl-Nu4 ITI cf zi e wirf .14 :n4 11.11111 Pr_ tuf`tC040.11/400N4 i•seNI t • •-• tiore' 1,4'0 4 arepes. PleTIPIWC WOOS, 1.•11r.O. LIT/ L-ret,PG *1-1- 40frirr" — naccfs ers:1, _ " idir4 41 sy a4agurgr .1=1. •■■•=z, 11 Aar c• e•• r • s ,-1 - 11[7, - 1, i ■ u • • I ii:71 1 0 i: J 0 D eafre..• F's.e .40 mEeurtA v‘tzz .Axptarziew-r lace • 04•••1.e.•• ▪ Fir L•fRAG" Li"( •I Cs UHP)4•41.1.1rEgfr: 151 tlal.0.5 Vro 1.1. n7 •al 444. f.tzu 1.9 iDiarCeLtacc:s., Vl Wetuesta4 ig - 6ZY -- 7•4X 7 ZU - • 11444. •rac1wri..15 - w. VIDLIB4.1.1 GIKACAI G " 4MAY9F402M 19 14C.P.M2 41:19.19MIteo Cl4Y-14CD eta 17 rsvm ptr 5l.ErPC.0 CM.Y.C61 wrrm 504424. AffiN CI Pt' o Tijr:VVILA • PLANNING DEfT. I - GOWELVG... , EPK • 14:01Ceser • Praw.ier rtAarc Neva4ere, ropy Geerre.‘rems. f140•• fOrTi./4 E=3 cuet4P1 .."7" EZ:31 1911a./..r..(0-2J¢ 4 WUNWPARIZ . 11■Clidneal al so ro. ill•••••■• •■•■■•• Iamb •••••••• ••■•• ■•■••■• •••■■ me... rte. ..e•sam■.• .•.■8 misaynio 00. OM. _O.. .416 IN= 111•••• _No.. mama. IWO .111111••••11. VW. pima. • tat J— D • ! • , A • - mele• r.tal 4 RAWL psn.#13C1,..tredn.. -KO 4 • I I c° M — rofr•Ce..G •sag.••.• .• est 0 ▪ 1.4.4.ay - cco €1.15+ en'D ex 0 4 - G7 TILL" icc1ct. s',•<••. 0 C. Loy 1, tletart..L.; • 7..A.LIXO.OEPOs • pepartice =OMR r.x.rne.mee,,A. 1›..rdt.T..T" 1 '-eCtr." .. mnsi la 1•11111•M Er 77 . . t77 JUN 10 1 - : -I 85 CiTY OF TiJKWILA PLANNING DEPT. Cf4 •=0.M. ■•••••• io■ • PE.• W• rug • : 4 • wiNWIN• W SW/ rpm. ; WW1. WM W. WO ma: a.m. a "ea.. swam.. S WM.... ma. .o• RECREATION AREAS . 1 2Vese 51.4.. 2 I Zet, al' 3 2956 -seil 4 '.',..1.1!.: '-4• 5 24-1.5 .iiiR ..--- 6 c „4.-..- ,.;,....,... 1 f 25 - 1 4 .1? - . sTAJc-ia GAst.,w Qos Z 946 •. 3 2150t I. I. #' , 8q4- 5,355 L.Ptza45 w.c-Ner=iNsi1 QU NW A GPst_cuL,Ps t.c& : t3 2,'4 S4. r y ?..S = I /go �.tc. t• ,r I• I• 14; 55 " 18 oz.5 LS 1S;E01P• L-Pski0SCAPIkSCh 1 ' a ' o c n 0 1 3 : 10 OF 1452 . �C: = I , a5z 59. C L I 4 L.) ( R t Q A Ps cv3 : ZOO s• NI( 64. LN..wts = (3,200 0 sQ. FT. t z- 350 • 11 it l Apput C - 2 0 (..1Q6 5•, Pr 4I M M N I. •• A I• t•a 44 FFQN Pep 3,3 c) scA 111t•V 3 30ot " '• Pgs.IN 1PQV r� 11 Ittemi tlmeiteleetntalrnamtitt anon 1111 I I 1111111111 .11,1111 1.. 11.11,1111 . 111 JUAN fl„ n mom OEM rug 411111111 tams:* 111111 it I' _ i u -; . t it I•. 1 �1 t • .R .1 IIIU1111111W�W1lW11R1_ mom imnuuuuIMIIIUII1111U 1111/1119/1 :III•E I u.t tar I 11111 3::: JIIIIIll11 [!� /MHO I -r.. IUTU I .rte luniin� lYlrt�� f .-.dgIIIIUii • ■ 1111u1u1U11t111111pun11uilJHWp111U • t • II ...a ■r.. Roam worm ■X•r■ •OPwr mmtwas MIME GO NO etl IS tO III JAM .. r.. UM MINI Marini WOlrl.l .boar inborn Bros ua. OA e. ■1' •• t u_. elLA KNO i aM ASSOCIATES or, WI St CE NV, y,Av g6'111 clmp _, Y att.. . .. .' :. /J1 Omsk Oils 1111 WA .L•1• 1 i r!111 11I 0111® um 1111111 SASS. ta, ti ::::t 11;711114 111' liFAM ISOM +ql VIM — It MU 111111DI�I��IIIU111f11 ,,;iTrrrITITur171 ■MOI SOMA 1! "1 Gn!3 MM Ilnr■ wfrJ■ MOO It NI NO:J. ! It elrnttrl 1/ ... I �.f.r SWIM Inv 0 ' 1.' . dirt, Mt' . 1111112 1111112 1111112 saO7 OWN is HEM ::.. III nil Illtt..111 It /1a ( ILA 0rull 111 ' ,I M111 III IJJImEMIMI .r "C .1. y/ �atF4115t'C £1 T A CONDOM' Nil 1 S TUC.KWI1.A WASHINGTON_ I Sc}4lblT €2 I JON !Of ASSOCIATES lit/ K(51 DENNY NAY 54 1 II � 71117/10 10410N '114x1 ■..!!■ III 'UN MINUS ■M■ :s: ITN u• I:7 ■.0.1 u.. Imo MOMS OMAN. • JEi■ 1UCKWII A. TUCKWILA CONDOMINIUMS W1SI IINGTON ii,,.I H.► pmerm • -T- x NI u `_ ,�� tQl- <D \LaU t ru;,r c' , rL daY.o1FSIT - F TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL, REGULAR MEETING July 15, 1985 Page 2 PUBLIC HEARING Continued From June 17, Appeal of Board of Arch. Review decision by Windmark Homes Mayor Van Dusen noted that this Public Hearing was continued from the meeting of June 17, 1985 with the approval of both parties. The application for Phase III of the Sunwood Development was filed with the City in January, 1984, by Pacific Townhouse Builders. It went before the Board of Architectural Review for design review. In February, 1984, the Planning Commission tabled consideration of the application at the request of the applicant. In March, 1985 a new application was filed with the City showing Windmark Homes as owner. The Planning Commission held a Public Meeting on April 25, 1985 to review the application. Based on testimony received, they denied the application. An appeal on behalf of the applicant was filed May 3, 1985. The intention of the applicant is to present revised plans and demonstrate that the concerns of the Board of Architectural Review have been satisfied. Mayor Van Dusen asked if there were any challenges against he or the Council over the Appearance of Fairness Doctrine. There was no comment. Brad Collins, Planning Director, presented the following Exhibits: 1. Master Land Use Application filed January 5, 1984 2. Master Land Use Application filed March 6, 1985 3. Revised staff report to Planning Commission 4. Minutes of April 25, 1985, Planning Commission meeting 5. Appeal of Planning Commission decision received May 3, 1985 6. Planning Commission findings and conclusions 7. Notice of June 17, 1985, Public Hearing of the City Council 8. Notice of April 25, 1985, Public Hearing of the Planning Commission, mailing list and affidavit of distribution V /Ati5M _r■ ioNVI/pro" • • , t/\,,c:, — 77 'aY44-150 - F 3t■I■iP■10017 fW 15311.4,03CA it• r - 184.75 rr. el-WAWA C. PU1LPtc 17 '4 . ZP2.. Otl" -Z(..)?... 00 " 15(31 UP 1 0(4 440 Clt-ic C.CMPARl s Q4/3 (MOM S4Coi DAT A) kilYsiatadeg 1:5LSILDIM4 t 446144T - 102 .0 15Ult.-Dtht4 7 - WILLA klCe 01 -118.0P TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL, REGULAR MEETING July 15, 1985 Page 2 PUBLIC HEARING Continued From June 17, Appeal of, Board of Arch. Review decision by Windmark Homes Mayor Van Dusen noted that this Public Hearing was continued from the meeting of June 17, 1985 with the approval of both parties. The application for Phase III of the Sunwood Development was filed with the City in January, 1984, by Pacific Townhouse Builders. It went before the Board of Architectural Review for design review. In February, 1984, the Planning Commission tabled consideration of the application at the request of the applicant. In March, 1985 a new application was filed with the City showing Windmark Homes as owner. The Planning Commission held a Public Meeting on April 25, 1985 to review the application. Based on testimony received, they denied the application. An appeal on behalf of the applicant was filed May 3, 1985. The intention of the applicant is to present revised plans and demonstrate that the concerns of the Board of Architectural Review have been satisfied. Mayor Van Dusen asked if there were any challenges against he or the Council over the Appearance of Fairness Doctrine. There was no comment. Brad Collins, Planning Director, presented the following Exhibits: 1. Master Land Use Application filed January 5, 1984 2. Master Land Use Application filed March 6, 1985 3. Revised staff report to Planning Commission 4. Minutes of April 25, 1985, Planning Commission meeting 5. Appeal of Planning Commission decision received May 3, 1985 6. Planning Commission findings and conclusions 7. Notice of June 17, 1985, Public Hearing of the City Council 8. Notice of April 25, 1985, Public Hearing of the Planning Commission, mailing list and affidavit of distribution SA4t1511° PUBLIC HEARING - cont. Windmark Homes Appeal TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL, REGULAR MEETING July 15, 1985 Page 3 Ni MI I ft 4 • a... . 9. Letter of April 25, 1985, from Lawrence E. Hard on behalf of Sunwood Condominium homeowners and presented to Planning Commission at the April 25, 1985, Public Hearing. 10. Memorandum of April 23, 1985, from Lawrence E. Hard to Sunwood Homeowners Association and presented to Planning Commission at the April 25, 1985 Public Hearing 11. Letter of March 1, 1985, from Pacific Townhouse Builders notifying City of the sale of the property to Windmark Homes. Lawrence E. Hard, Attorney representing Sunwood Condominium Homeowners, presented a letter written by him dated July 15, 1985 to the City Council and it was labeled Exhibit 12. Mayor Van Dusen opened the Public Hearing to consider an appeal filed by Windmark Homes, Inc. He noted that 12 exhi- bits had been read into the record. Mayor Van Dusen asked everyone wishing to speak during the hearing to stand and be sworn in. Attorney Haney issued the oath. Brad Collins, Planning Director, gave the opening remarks. This is an appeal of a decision by the Board of Architectural Review that was heard at their April 25, 1985 meeting. The Findings and Conclusions of the Planning Commission are listed in Exhibit 6. He reviewed the Findings and Conclusions and listed the options the Council has in reviewing the appeal. 1. Review the information presented to the BAR and make their own decision regarding the criteria and the ade- quacy of the application in meeting the criteria. 2. Review and agree with the BAR. 3. Since the applicant has submitted revisions to the site plan, the decision could be remanded back to the BAR to review the new information. George Kresovich, Attorney with the firm of Hillis, Cairncross, Clark and Martin at 403 Columbia Street, Seattle, said he represents the applicant, Windmark .Homes. Their pre- sentation will consist of statements by: 1. John Lane, Architect for the project 2. Steven Shea, Landscape Architect 3. John Snyder, President of Windmark Homes John Lane, Architect and Planner representing Windmark Homes, 115 West Denny Way, Seattle, discussed their project. The zoning allows 77 dwelling units on the site, but they are proposing 66 units in 8 buildings - 3 six- plexes and 6 nine - plexes. The location of the structures is in agreement with the site plan submitted by the previous owner. The building locations have been maintained, but the density has been cut. Exhibit #13, Proposed Site Plan for the development, was recorded. Mr. Lane said they reviewed slopes of drives, Fire Department access to buildings and maximum building areas and they concluded that the site plan developed by the previous plan- ners and themselves is, not only the best, but possibly the only solution for an efficient development of the site. Their proposal sits very well with existing development and are consistant with existing structures to the north. They are proposing two story buildings with daylight basements and units two or three wide. The buildings are cedar siding and shingles and earthtone colors as suggested by the Planning TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL, REGULAR MEETING July 15, 1985 Page 4 PUBLIC HEARING - cont. Windmark Homes Appeal (Cont.) Staff. Mr. Lane displayed Exhibit #3, Attachment D (Side Elevation Study) which shows end gables. They are also showing carports and covered trash receptacles. To mitigate impacts the proposal may have on the community, they have added an indoor Jacuzzi and barbecue structure throughout the site. The total of the recreation and open space areas is 18,000 square feet. Their structures are well within the R -4 zoning requirements. The setback from the development to the north is a minimum of 60 feet, and in some places 80 feet. Their elevation of 200 is well below the eye level of occu- pants of all of the units east of Sunwood Boulevard. There is a view corridor between Buildings 1 and 2. Exhibit #14, Building Location Plan, was recorded. Steven Shea, Landscape Architect at Thomas Bing and Associates, said they were hired to redesign the landscaping. Planning Staff has reviewed their plan and concur with it. He explained the landscape plans as shown on Exhibit #13. Along with the landscape plan there is a path system that allows access throughout the site that connect the recreation areas and gazebos. They have addressed the con- cerns of the Board, have provided better views and still pro- vided separation between the units. Council Member Morgan asked who monitors landscaping for compliance. Mr. Collins said the Planning Department in cooperation with the Building Official. John Snyder, Vice President and Project Manager for Windmark Homes, 510 Rainier Avenue South, Seattle, commented that they obtained the property in February, 1985. It had already been rezoned to R -4 allowing up to 20 units per acre. The concep- tual site plan was used throughout the proceedings. Their present proposal asks for approval for 66 units. They will be the same type units as in Sunwood I and II. They have done everything they could to respond to the concerns of the Homeowners' Association, but it has been to no avail. They feel the Homeowners are primarily interested in using this process to leverage the settlement of their dispute with Pacific Townhouse Builders, the previous.owners. They have settled the concerns expressed by the Association. They have assured the Homeowners that they intend to build con- dominiums, that the purchase prices will be around $85,000, that their parking ratio is 2 to 1, and they had a joint maintenance agreement drafted and sent to the Association. They have never responded. The Homeowners agreed to drop their appeal if Windmark agreed to join their Association. Then, they were told that the compliance with the Homeowners' request was not good enough. Mr. Snyder said they want to build a fine project in Tukwila - one they can be proud of - and they want to comply with all the requirements. They want to be treated like everyone else. He asked Council to approve their project. Attorney Haney explained that Council is sitting as the Board of Architectural Review. Council has the same criteria to look at as they did. George Kresovich, Attorney, said they agreed to join the Homeowners' Association providing they would not oppose this project and informed their attorney of the agreement. The Homeowners' Association was not agreeable. In reviewing the BAR decision, it is clear there are three major problems: TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL, REGULAR MEETING July 15, 1985 Page 5 PUBLIC HEARING - Cont. Windmark Homes Appeal (Cont.) 1. Adequacy of the recreation areas and facilities. In an effort to satisfy the concerns of the Board of Architectural Review the recreation areas were revised. 2. The Landscape Plan. The BAR said the Landscape Plan was incomplete. Rather than fight about it, they prepared a new plan, which was developed by professionals. 3. Concern about view blockage. The Board of Architectural Review relied on two provisions in the Code to make their findings. The first says that the height and scale of each building should be considered in relation to its site. The next says buildings should be to appropriate scale and be in harmony with neighboring developments. The type of buildings that are proposed for this site are precisely the same type and precisely the same scale as the buildings in the existing Sunwood Development. The buildings have been sited very carefully in order to minimize the view blockage. The project has been designed to be a good neighbor. Mr. Kresovich asked that the same standards be applied to them that have been applied to other developments. He asked Council to approve the project as proposed. Lawrence E. Hard, Attorney representing the Sunwood Homeowners, 2400 Columbia Center, Seattle, said he was asked to assist the Homeowners with some problems relating to their application of Windmark Homes. He prepared a letter, now marked Exhibit 12, that has been distributed to Council. There are three people that would like to speak. 1. Ryan Thrower, President of the Board of the Homeowners' Association 2. Dick Taylor, Homeowner 3. Joan Hernandez, Board Member. Mr. Hard said he is concerned about statements that have been made by Mr. Snyder and Mr. Kresovich about conversations and statements that have been made. If this were a trial those would be hearsay and not admissible. He asked to have these comments taken with a grain of salt. He is concerned about the impression trying to be made here that the Sunwood Homeowners' Association consists of nothing but a bunch of angered Homeowners - angered, not at what :is happening at the Windmark side, but at the company that sold them their homes. He reminded Council they are to consider only the application of Windmark Homes. The Homeowners are concerned about what is going to be placed on the piece of property immediately to the south of them. The property was originally part of the Sunwood development. It was to be developed by the same people as Phase III, but in March of this year, they were no longer dealing with these people, but rather with a company called Windmark Homes. Ryan Thrower, 15232 Sunwood Boulevard, is President of the Homeowners' Association and a member of the Board of Directors. There are 178 households in Sunwood. When they bought their homes, they thought they were buying into a total community. They felt they would have a voice in how the community would be run, how rules would be adopted and enforced. At the time of purchase, they received a copy of the declarations of the Condominium Association which con- tained a legal description of the Phase III property. The legal said the property was subject to the convenants and restrictions of the Homeowners' Association. They found that this did not give them the protection they thought they had. Now they are looking to Tukwila and the Land Use Planning Policies to protect their investment. They asked that, if the development is allowed, they have to live up to the same ' TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING October 21, 1985 Pale 5 EXECUTIVE SESSION MOVED BY PHELPS, SECONDED BY MORGAN, THAT COUNCIL GO INTO 9 :30 - 9:55 P.M. EXECUTIVE SESSION. MOTION CARRIED. The Executive Session was called to discuss the Windmark Homes lawsuit. MOVED BY BOHRER, SECONDED BY DUFFIE, THAT COUNCIL GO OUT OF EXECUTIVE SESSION. MOTION CARRIED. Appeal of Windmark Homes MOVED BY BOHRER, SECONDED BY HARRIS, THAT COUNCIL RECONSIDER ITS ACTION OF JULY 15, 1985 DENYING THE APPEAL OF WINDMARK HOMES FROM A DECISION OF THE BOARD OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW ON WINDMARK'S DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL, CITY FILE #DR- O1 -84. MOTION CARRIED. MOVED BY BOHRER, SECONDED BY PHELPS, THAT THE CITY COUNCIL REMAND THIS MATTER TO THE BOARD OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW WITH THE INSTRUCTIONS FOR THE BOARD AND STAFF TO REVIEW THE REVISED PLANS SUBMITTED TO THE CITY COUNCIL AT ITS JULY 15, 1985 PUBLIC HEARING ON THE APPLICATION, TO RECEIVE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC HEARING TESTIMONY CONCERNING SUCH PLANS AND TO FORWARD THEIR RECOMMENDATION TO THE CITY COUNCIL. MOTION CARRIED. Wiksteter TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL, REGULAR MEETING July 15, 1985 Page 6 PUBLIC HEARING - Cont. Windmark Homes Appeal (cont.) set of standards that the Sunwood Complex followed. We feel this proposal is lacking recreation facilities. It would be easy for residents of another complex to wander in and use their facilities. He asked the City to help them to protect their investments, stand behind the decision of the Planning Commission and reject any project that does not meet the requirements. Dick Taylor, 15278 Sunwood Boulevard, expressed concern over blockage of their view. At the time they bought they were given a maximum elevation for Phase III. He recalled that it was 203 feet. There have been several figures discussed so he asked what the "iron clad" maximum elevation is at this time. Joan Hernandez, 15224 Sunwood Boulevard said she is on the Board of Directors for the Homeowners' Association. A copy of her letter to the Planning Commission is included in Exhibit #3 as Item H. Sunwood is a beautiful place to live and she would like to stay there. She hopes that this deve- lopment will not affect their quality of life. She would like to have the Phase III property gov 3rned under the same convenants and restrictions they live by. She would not like to see the cheap housing units being built in the area deve- loped on this property. She said ste has faith in the Council that they will not allow a developer to ruin their property. Lawrence E. Hard called attention to Ext #12, his letter dated July 15, 1985. It outlines the legal reasons why the Homeowners are asking the City Council ti affirm the decision of the Planning Commission sitting as the Board of Architectural Review. That decision was to require this developer to go back and resubmit a design plan that met the requirements of the Tukwila Municipal Code. The applicant has submitted a revised site plan, but it does not address the fundamental problems that the Planning Commission had with the plan. They continue to have a concern over 1) who is the applicant and 2) who is the record property owner. The deed to the property is to Windmark Homes, Inc. whereas, the applicant is Windmark Homes Tukwila, Inc. Their con- cerns are that Council has had inadequate materials for a proper review. The landscaping plans are not sufficiently detailed, there has been no analysis of the slope profile, and a more detailed environmental analysis should be made. The fundamental problem with this application is the question of adequate recreation space. The Code requires 200 square feet of recreation space per unit. Nothing shows how this applicant has calculated the recreation space. What they have done is say open space equals recreation space. There has been no analysis of the amount of open space on slopes over 4 to 1. This applicant has not complied with the Tukwila Municipal Code on its analysis of what is proper recreation space. It is up to the Council to make the deci- sion as to whether or not the application meets the intent of the code. This proposed application does not meet commit- ments that were made by the previous owner. He asked that the City Council affirm the decision of the Planning Commission at their meeting of April 25, 1985. If Council wishes to modify the application and approve it, he asked that the applicant be required to submit a new environmental checklist and that a new environment review be made. Council Member Morgan asked what happens if Council upholds the Board of Architectural Review decision. Mr. Collins said they could submit a new application or proceed their appeal through the Court System. • TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL, REGULAR MEETING July 15, 1985 Page 7 PUBLIC HEARING - Cont. Windmark Homes Appeal (cont.) Attorney Haney noted that TMC 18.90.020 provides that the City Council shall affirm, deny or modify the decision of the Planning Commission (BAR) within 90 days after the filing of the appeal. Prior to making a decision, the City Council may hold a Public Hearing. If Council wanted Staff to prepare additional information, the hearing could be continued and Staff directed to bring the information back. John Lane clarified the issue of height of the buildings. The buildings will be 168 feet above floor grade and 32 feet above that to the peak. We are going to stand on the 200 feet for the record. The condominium market is very com- petitive and you do not put out a bad product and expect it to sell. George Kresovich discussed the new information they had sub- mitted to Planning Staff and the Homeowners' Association for review. He commented that it was not new information just for this evening. If the developer intended to put as many units on the property as he could and then leave, he would not be reducing the number of units. The property was rezoned in 1981 to allow 77 units. The developer is trying to build a marketable product that people can afford to buy and will be in keeping with the neighborhood. Lawrence E. Hard stated that they do not think Council has enough information to make an intelligent decision. If Council does not affirm the decision of the Planning Commission, they do have the power to send it back to them and allow them to reconsider the application with the addi- tional information. If Council does not do this, they ask that the application be denied because it is not clear. There is no analysis of open space versus recreation space or how much of it is on slopes of 4 to 1. If Council should go ahead and permit this design plan as proposed, we think that the applicant should be required to submit a new environmen- tal check list. There is not enough adequate data here for anybody to make a decision. Lastly, nothing has been said about who the applicant is or who the owner of the property is. This should be of concern to Council. If the applicant says something is going to be done, what assurance do you have when we do no even know for sure who the applicant is or that is is the property owner. We have presented information that raises that question. We think this is another reason why the Council should affirm the action of the Planning Commission. Attorney Haney suggested that Council look over the City of Tukwila Board of Architectural Review Design Review Evaluation Guide which lays out the criteria by which Council needs to decide whether or not this application should be approved or denied. If Council wishes to ask any additional questions, now is the time before you close the Public Hearing. Mayor Van Dusen asked if anyone•had anything more they would like to put into the record. Council Member Phelps asked what the relationship to the street is as far as a shared use for ingress and egress for the development. Mr. Kresovich said that there is an ease- ment across the Windmark property to the Sunwood Homeowners' Association so they have a right to use the right -of -way and both properties have that right. MOVED BY BAUCH, SECONDED BY BOHRER, THAT THE PUBLIC HEARING BE CLOSED. MOTION CARRIED. TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL, REGULAR MEETING July 15, 1985 Page 8 PUBLIC HEARING - Cont. Windmark Homes Appeal (cont.) RECESS: 9:30 P.M. 9:35 P.M. MOVED BY BAUCH, .SECONDED BY PHELPS, THAT THE CITY COUNCIL REMAND THIS BACK TO THE BOARD OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW.* *COUNCIL PRESIDENT BAUCH WITHDREW HIS MOTION WITH APPROVAL OF THE SECOND. MOVED BY BAUCH, SECONDED BY MORGAN, THAT COUNCIL CONCUR WITH THE BOARD OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW AND ADOPT THEIR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS. MOTION CARRIED. MOVED BY MORGAN, SECONDED BY PHELPS, THAT COUNCIL RECESS FOR FIVE MINUTES. MOTION CARRIED. Mayor Van Dusen called the Regular Meeting of the Tukwila City Council back to order with Council Members present as previously reported. GLENN J.AMSTER JOEL N. BODANSKY H. RAYMOND CAIRNCROSS WENDY W. CAIRNCROSS LAURIE LOOTENS CHYZ MARK 5. CLARK SALLY H. CLARKE T. RYAN DURKAN GARY M. FALLON ROBERT B. FIKSO FRED 5. FINKELSTEIN RICHARD E. GIFFORD JEROME L. HILLIS GREGORY E. KELLER Ms. Maxine Anderson City Clerk City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Blvd. Tukwila, WA 98188 Dear Ms. Anderson: LAW OFFICES OF HILLIS, CAIRNCROSS, CLARK & MARTIN A PROFESSIONAL SERVICE CORPORATION 403 COLUMBIA STREET SEATTLE. WASHINGTON 98104 (208) 823.1745 May 3, 1985 EMI ijI J MAY 71885 CITY OF TUKWILA PLANNING DEPT. Re: Appeal of Board of Architectural Review Decision of April 25, 1985 -- File No. DR -01 -84 The reasons for this appeal are as follows: 3) The Board did not provide our client with a fair opportunity to respond to the issues raised at the hearing. The only basis for denying this approval discussed by the Board in its deliberations that related to the criteria for approval set forth in Section 18.60.050 of the Tukwila GEORGE A. KRESOVICH SARAH E. MACK DEBORAH S. MALANE GEORGE W. MARTIN. JR. LOUIS D. PETERSON SHERYL K. PETERSON JAMES .1. RAGEN STEVEN R. ROVIG MICHAEL F. SCHUMACHER MICHAEL R. SCOTT RICHARD S. SWANSON RICHARD R. WILSON CHARLES B. WRIGHT We are writing on behalf of our client, Windmark Homes, Tukwila Inc., the applicant for the above - referenced approval to appeal the decision by the Tukwila Board of Architectural Review denying our client's application for approval of the proposed project commonly referred to as Sunwood Phase III. The Board's decision was made at a public hearing held on April 25, 1985. We are directing this appeal to you pursuant to the requirements set forth in Section 18.90.020 of the Tukwila Zoning Code. We have discussed this procedure with Mr. Haney, the city attorney, and have been assured that it is the proper procedure to follow. 1) The project as proposed complied fully with the criteria for approval set forth in Section 18.60.050, Tukwila Zoning Code; and there was no basis for the Board to determine otherwise. 2) The Board clearly used as a basis for its decision factors other than the criteria set forth in Section 18.60.050 -- the sole legal basis for its review. 4) The Board's hearing lacked the required appearance of fairness on the part of one of its members. Ms. Maxine Anderson May 3, 1985 Page 2 Zoning Code had to do with the adequacy of the recreational facilities provided in the development. Both the applicant and the city planning staff were satisfied that the proposed project met the requirements in the city code in connection with the amount and type of open space required. There is simply no evidence in the record to the contrary, though questions were raised as to whether this, in fact, is so. These questions, do not, without more, provide a basis for the Board's action. The Board and the planning staff both question whether a jacuzzi or other recreational facility should be required for approval of this project. While it may be appropriate to require such a facility, and while the city may have the authority to require the construction of such a facility in order to mitigate the impacts of this project on the city's recreational facilities, there is simply no way that our client could have determined that it would have to provide such a facility in order to comply with any specific section of the city's codes or other requirements. To base a denial of our client's request for approval on our client's failure to provide an amenity which is nowhere required in city codes or ordinances is simply arbitrary and capricious. The discussion by the members of the planning commission prior to their vote indicates that, in fact, the criteria under which this project must be reviewed were not the reason behind the Board's action. As that discussion reveals, the Board was concerned with several issues that were entirely outside the scope of those criteria. The discussion reveals that, only upon the urging of both the city attorney and the planning staff, did the Board address the criteria set forth in the Tukwila Zoning Code in a transparent attempt to manufacture a basis to justify the decision the Board had already reached. Again, this is improper and constitutes arbitrary and capricious action on the part of the Board. - Windmark Homes first appeared before the Board in connection with this approval on March 28, 1985. At that time representatives of the Sunwood Homeowners Association appeared and requested that the Board continue its consideration of the matter in order to provide them with an opportunity to review the proposal and to present their concerns to the Board. The representative of the Homeowners Association also requested that delay in consideration of the matter in order to allow the Homeowners Association to meet with our client to discuss those concerns. On several occasions our client attempted to arrange for a meeting with the Homeowners Association, but the Homeowners Association refused to meet. At the hearing on April 25, 1985, the Homeowners Association presented several claims concerning the inadequacy of the • Ms. Maxine An Arson May 3, 1985 Page 3 application materials which had never before been presented to the Board. The Board thereupon failed to provide our client with a fair opportunity to comment or respond to those claims. Following the presentation by the Homeowners Association and its attorney, the chairman of the board informed us that we would have 1 -1/2 minutes to respond to those claims. That was simply an inadequate opportunity to respond to the issues that had been newly raised and the Board's action violated our client's rights to a hearing conducted in a fair and impartial manner. Finally, during the public hearing and immediately thereafter, one of the members of the Board conducted himself in such a manner as to violate the appearance of fairness and to give rise to a reasonable suspicion that he had discussed the details of the case prior to the public hearing with people who were opposed to our client's application and that he had decided the case based, at least in part, on the information he had received outside the public hearing process. We do not want to highlight this as an issue because of the sensitivity surrounding any accusation of improper conduct; however, we feel that we must raise this issue at this time in order to preserve our client's rights . with regards to it. If the city council believes it is . necessary we will be prepared to detail our concerns in connection with this issue. We would, therefore, request that the city council hold a public hearing to consider the denial of our client's application by the Board of Architectural Review. At that hearing, we will be prepared to present the information necessary to answer the concerns and questions raised at the Board's hearing. GAK:bf cc: Mr. John Snider Mr. Jim Haney e ler Mr. Larry Hard Very truly yours, George A. Kresovich *ILA 1908 TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: (WIND.PD) City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila Washington 98188 Gary L VanDusen, Mayor MEMORANDUM Planning Commission Planning Department May 3, 1985 Windmark Homes, DR- O1 -84, Findings and Conclusions Per your action of April 25, 1985, of denying this application the Commission directed staff to prepare detailed findings and conclusions. Staff's draft of the findings and conclusions is with the City Attorney for review and will be presented at your May 9, 1985, meeting for your review. F.A. LESOURD GEORGE M. HARTUNG MEADE EMORY LEON C. MISTEREK THOMAS O. MCLAUGHLIN • JOHN F. COLGROVE C. DEAN LITTLE LAWRENCE E. HARD RODNEY J. WALDBAUM D. WILLIAM TOONE DANIEL D. WOO JOHN R. BEARD* DAVID A. LAWER CARL J. CARLSON Planning Commission City of Tukwila Tukwila City Hall 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, WA 98188 Dear Sirs: LESOURD & PATTEN ATTORNEYS AT LAW 3900 SEATTLE•FIRST NATIONAL BANK BUILDING SEATTLE. WASHINGTON 98154 TELEPHONE: (206) 624.1040 TELECOPIER: (206) 624.3087 TELE% /TWX: 910 444.4180 CABLE ADDRESS: LESOURD LAW ANCHORAGE OFFICE FIRST NATIONAL BUILDING 425 G STREET. SUITE 630 ANCHORAGE. ALASKA 99501 TELEPHONE: (907) 277.4531 PLEASE REPLY TO SEATTLE OFFICE April 25, 1985 RE: DR- 01 -84: Sunwood Phase III (Windmark Homes, Tukwila, Inc.) P. WARREN MAROUARDSON MARIANNE SCHWARTZ O'BARA ROBERT M. KANE. JR. JEFFREY C. WISHKO JUDD R. MARTEN VICTORIA J. BJORKMAN CHARLES R. WOLFE WOOLVIN PATTEN ROBERT L. PALMER ROGER CREMO OF COUNSEL • ADMITTED IN ALASKA • • ADMITTED IN ALASKA AND WASHINGTON ALL OTHERS ADMITTED IN WASHINGTON We have been retained by the Sunwood Condominium Homeowners Association to represent them in matters relating to the proposed development of property generally known as the "Sunwood Phase III" property. After having discussed this matter with our client, reviewed various files maintained by the City of Tukwila regarding the "Phase III" property, as well as the Phase I and Phase II developments, and having examined the City of Tukwila Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Code, we have the following concerns: 1. Who is the applicant? In January, 1984 "Pacific Townhouse Builders - Tukwila" filed an application with the City to have the Planning Commission, sitting as a Board of Architectural Review, examine a proposed design plan for the Sunwood Phase III property. This was the same owner /developer of the Phase I and Phase II properties. The 1984 application clearly indicates that the Phase III development was to be consistent with the earlier developments. There would be a continuity of design, as well as ownership. Sometime in February or early March, 1985, the applicant changed. The new applicant is "Windmark Homes, Tukwila, Inc." The records of the King County Department of Records and Elections indicate that a Quit Claim deed dated February 25, Planning Commission City of Tukwila April 25, 1985 Page 2 1985 was recorded granting an interest in the Phase III property from "Pacific Townhouse Builders - Tukwila" to "Windmark Homes, Inc." The consideration given was "the assumption of debt ". According to records of the Corporation Division of the Secretary of State's Office, there are no active corporations in this State with the names "Windmark Homes, Inc." or "Windmark Homes, Tukwila, Inc." For reasons which will be made clear, the BAR should determine whether or not Pacific Townhouse Builders still retain some interest in the property or its development. For example, is the sale contingent on the obtaining of a building permit? To what extent is Pacific Townhouse Builders, or any of its principals, committed to assist in the permit process? The City's file indicates that Mr. Gilroy of Pacific Townhouse Builders has indicated that, as part of the transaction, he is obligated to assist in the permit process. 2. Inadequate materials for BAR review. As of the end of business on April 23, 1985, just two days before the hearing on this matter, the applicant has not submitted detailed landscaping plans nor any analysis of a slope profile and the effect of the construction of structures up to 35 feet in height. This data is essential for purposes of permitting the BAR to adequately review the proposed project. 3. Incomplete environmental review. In 1984, an environmental checklist was prepared by Pacific Townhouse Builders for this project. Various City of Tukwila departments reviewed the checklist and determined that there were a number of problems. In February, 1984 the Department of Community Development determined that there were significant concerns dealing with slope stability, drainage, traffic and recreation /open space problems. As a result, the staff determined that it could not issue a Declaration of Non - Significance. Among the major concerns were those expressed by Don Williams of the Parks Department to the effect that there was inadequate recreation space. In February, 1985 a revised soil analysis was submitted as part of the application. In addition, there were a few minor modifications to the proposal, including the elimination of a Planning Commission City of Tukwila April 25, 1985 Page 3 recreation area (Jacuzzi) which had been on the 1984 application. Don Williams commented in March, 1985 that there still remained problems with the recreation area. On March 22, 1985 a Declaration of Non - Significance was issued for this proposed design plan. We are concerned that in making that determination, inadequate attention was paid to the following problems: (1) all or portions of the property may be designated as "environmentally sensitive" in the City's Comprehensive Plan; (2) a significant portion of the property contains slopes in excess of 20 %; (3) there are problems dealing with surface water drainage; (4) no analysis was made of potential view blockage, loss of light and air rights, and the general visual impact of structures on the site. We are concerned that, in the event the applicant seeks a building and other land use permits for this project, the applicant may contend that no environmental impact statement is required for the project because a DNS was issued on the basis of an inadequate and incomplete checklist and design plan. We request that the applicant be required to submit a new environmental checklist at the time that any permit is sought for development of the project. In this case, there may be a significant difference between the non - project BAR design review and a specific development project. 4. Inadequate recreation space and screening. The applicant has failed to comply with the requirements of TMC 18.52.060 with respect to recreation space requirements. In addition to failing to provide for a minimum of 200 square feet of recreation space for each dwelling unit (66 x 200 = 13,200 sq. ft.), the applicant has made no provision for the providing of any covered recreation space or the provision for the providing of any covered recreation space or the provision of any single purpose permanent facility such as a swimming pool, tennis court or similar facilities. No analysis has been made of the extent to which there is uncovered recreation space located on slopes greater than four horizontal to one vertical (4:1) slope. There has been no showing that there will be adequate fencing, plant screening, or other buffer to separate the recreation space from parking areas, driveways or public streets. No provision has been made for adequate screening of outdoor storage as required in TMC 18.52.040. Planning Commission City of Tukwila April 25, 1985 Page 4 5. Inadequate compliance with City of Tukwila Comprehensive Land Use Policy plan. There has been a failure to adequately address the concerns set forth in "General Goals ", particularly Goal 1 which "through the regulation of land use and community growth, promote the health, safety and general welfare of the public ", and Goal 5 "strike a balance between economy and environment while the City should encourage development and strive to provide a health economic climate, it should be sensitive to the natural limitations and hazards imposed by the physical environment and the tremendous natural amenities which that environment affords." There has been a failure to adequately address the goals for the elements of "natural environment ", "open space ", and "residence ". With respect to the "natural environment" element, this proposal fails to meet objectives of Policies 1, 2 and 3 of Objective No. 1. With respect to Objective No. 3, the proposal clearly violates the objectives of Policies No. 1 to "discourage development on slopes in excess of 20%", Policy No. 2 "preserve the views of hillside residents ", and Policy No. 3 "preserve and promote the quality of natural land form ". With respect to the "open space" element, the proposal fails to meet the goals of Objective No. 1, particularly: Policy 1, "strive to preserve steep hillsides and wooded areas in a scenic condition, encourage replanting and revegetation of denuded areas not in the process of development ", and Policy 3 "provide for active recreation areas (ballfields, tennis courts, swimming pools, playgrounds, community center) consistent with the needs of the community ". With respect to the "residence" element, the proposal fails to meet a number of criteria, including but not limited to the following policies: Policy 7 "encourage the provision of recreational open space within multiple - family developments "; Policy 4 "encourage minimum care and maintenance level for undeveloped open spaces "; and Policy 6 "encourage development of pedestrian rights of way, overpasses and well - lighted trails which can provide safe passage from residential areas to commercial, service, and recreational areas ". Planning Commission City of Tukwila April 25, 1985 Page 5 6. Failure to abide by rezone commitment. When this property was rezoned to R -4 in June, 1981, the rezone was the culmination of a number of meetings before the Planning Commission and the City Council. A major concern expressed during that time was the fact that there were inadequate measures being taken to provide for proper recreation and open space opportunities. A number of statements were made by representatives from Pacific Townhouse Builders to the effect that the Phase III development was an integral part of the overall development of the Sunwood complex, and that amenities provided in Phases I and II would be available to those purchasing units in Phase III. Conversely, residents in Phases I and II would be able to make use of amenities provided in Phase III. These statements were contained both in oral statements by Mr. Daily and others at public hearings and meetings, as well as written representations, particularly in a letter dated March 9, 1981 to the City. At the time that the City Council approved of the rezone, Mr. Dally agreed at a minimum to provide a Jacuzzi facility in Phase III. In fact, a Jacuzzi facility was originally contemplated in the design plan submitted by Pacific Townhouse Builders to the BAR in January, 1984. Windmark Homes has deleted that facility. 7. Failure to identify significance of relationship of this property to the existing development of Phases I and II of Sunwood. As noted earlier, at all times until sometime in early March, 1985, this property was owned and developed by Pacific Townhouse Buildings (or a related partnership or company). It was always considered to be an integral part of the entire "Sunwood" complex. It was always intended to be a condominium project, subject to the same terms and conditions of the Sunwood Condominium Declaration. It was always intended to be regulated by the same rules and regulations of the Sunwood Homeowners Association. On November 13, 1980, when the Sunwood Condominium Declaration was filed, the legal description of this property was included as part of that recorded document. This Phase III property is to be "subject to covenants, conditions and restrictions recorded contemporaneously with the Condominium Declaration of Sunwood, a condominium ". There is no reference made in the design application to that obligation. In fact, the recent steps taken by Pacific Townhouse Builders, with the knowledge and consent of "Windmark Homes" is an intentional 4 Planning Commission City of Tukwila April 25, 1985 Page 6 effort to renege on those obligations which should play a significant role in this design application. 6059B cc: Sunwood Condominium Homeowners Association Very truly yours, LeSOURD & PATTE Lawrence E. Hard I, Becky L. Kent Joan Hernandez Sunwood Board of Directors 15224 Sunwood Blvd. Tukwila, WA 98188 Ryan S. Thrower Director - Sunwood Assoc. Board 15232 Sunwood Blvd. Tukwila, WA 98188 Dick Gilroy Pacific Townhouse Builders 1115 108th Ave. N.E. Bellevue, WA 98004 Don Wilson 15249 Sunwood Blvd. Tukwila, WA 98188 Vern Aarhus 15220 Sunwood Blvd. Tukwila, WA 98188 Windmark Homes 510 Rainier Ave. So. Seattle, WA 98144 Name of Project Windmark Homes (Sunwood III) File Number OR -01 -84 AFFIDAVIT OF DISTRIBUTION 1935, r Board of Adjustment IXXIPlanning Commission f] Short Subdivision Committee agenda and staff report was mailed to the following addresses on April 19 , 1935. hereby delcare that the April 25 b9e. Signature Date: April 23, 1985 MEMORANDUM ,14-0144.M c. Hn To: SUNWOOD CONDOMINIUM HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION MOB APR 2 51985 CITY PLANNING PLNING DEPTF i 1 Re: History of Development of Sunwood Phase III Property #11,745 1. December, 1980: Subject property was rezoned by Tukwila Ordinance No. 1088 to R -4 at the request of Messrs. Ehmke and Kato. Stipulations attached to ordinance. 2. December 1, 1980: City Council adopted Ordinance No. 1185 which repealed Ordinance 1088 and reverted zone classification to R -3 because of failure to meet conditions. 3. January 28, 1981: Pacific Townhouse Builders (PTB), as contract purchasers of the Ehmke /Kato property, file application for rezoning from R -3 to R -4. The boundaries of this rezone appli- cation are reduced slightly to exclude a small area of C -1 contained in the preceding R -4 rezone action. Applicant proposes to place 78 units on 3.9 acres. Planning commission staff report shows integrated nature of Phase III development with Phases I and II. Sunwood Boulevard is shown as divided road. Staff report cites "significant questions about proposed 78 -unit project remain. Additional information regard- ing adequacy of open- space /outdoor recreation opportunity, building height, scale and material concept, vegetation retention and grading will be needed to more accurately assess the environmental integrity of the project. Final analysis of that information should then be made by the Board of Architectural Review, following City Council approval of the rezone action." 4. February 26, 1981: The subject rezone application was approved, with the stipulation that the density be limited to 16 d.u. (dwelling units) per acre. 5. March 9, 1981: PTB request Planning Commission to reconsider its recommendation. In a letter dated March 9, 1981 PTB emphasizes relation of Phase III to earlier Sunwood developments. PTB makes specific commitments regarding Phase III development: "The main entrance of'Sunwood' will utilize a heavily- landscaped terraced wall. Sunwood Boulevard, which divides the Phase III site, has 20 -foot maples and will add a forested buffer through the center of the subject site. The area adjacent to building and parking areas will be heavily landscaped, as was done in Phase I . . . "The purchasers of the individual condominium units for Phase III will utilize the recreational package which was built as part of Phase I, which includes a swimming pool, tennis court and recreation center with Jacuzzi, kitchen, game room and changing rooms . In addition, during construction of Phase III we will be incorporating a jogging trail which will surround the full development." 6. March 24, 1981: Letter from Joseph Orrico to Richard Kirsop. Mr. Orrico, a member of the Tukwila Planning Commission, is unable to attend the meeting scheduled for March 26, 1981. In his letter he gives his reasons why he suggests that the density recommended by the Planning Commission remain at 16 units per acre for Phase III. As an alternate, he states the density should be no higher than 18 units per acre. In his letter he notes as follows: "I feel it would be aesthetically preferable to have a lower density near the entrance. Density could increase as one progresses up Sunwood Boulevard, thus diminishing the initial impression of a crowded project environment. Irrespective of the density of neighboring properties, this development should be considered as a community of its own, as long as the position is not discriminatory . . . "With regard to the recreational facilities provided for this development, it is my opinion that they are insufficient for the total number of units . The swimming pool is very small to accommodate the demand of such a large complex. It would not be unreasonable to have additional facilities on the site, leaving the existing ones for use by the area higher on the hill and for the single - family section yet to be built. As a resident of a multi - family structure, I feel that regardless of what the applicant states, the existing facilities will be inadequate and over - crowded during periods of peak use." 7. March 26, 1981: No Planning Commission meeting. 8. April 23, 1981: Planning Commission staff report specifically notes "adequacy of Phase III open space: Please see the applicant's letter address- ing this point (March 9, 1981)." Minutes of Planning Commission indicate that the applicant's request for reconsideration is granted. The Planning Commission considered the staff report and the Orrico letter of March 24, 1981. Don Dally, representing PTB, made a pre- sentation. As part of Mr. Dally's statements to the Commission, the minutes indicate "Mr. Dally then presented a graphic concept illus- trating the 'grand- entrance' landscape concept which is a focal point of the total Sunwood project. In keeping with that concept approximately 36% of Phase III area will be landscaped, proportionately greater than that of Phase I or II. He noted that residents of Phase III are fully entitled to use 3.5 acres of passive open space within Sunwood, as well as formal recreation facilities . . . In response to questions regarding measures taken to insure the continued high quality of Sunwood Development, Mr. Daily 'described the proposed height and exterior treatment of Phase III construction.'" Following further discussion there was a motion by the Commission to modify the Planning Commission's recommendation of February 26, 1981 "to recommend to City Council that Application 81 -5 -R be approved subject to stipulations as follows: 1. Overall residential density permitted on this site shall not exceed 20 d.u. /acres; 2. Any project proposed on this site subsequent to City Council approval of the subject rezone action shall require Board of Architectural Review of site, architec- ture and landscaping details prior to issuance of build- ing permits." This motion died for lack of a second. Commissioner James summarized the areas of concern with the project as being ingress and egress, adequacy of recreational facilities, open space and traffic generation. Following further discussion, the Planning Commission voted 4 -0 to deny the rezone application. 9. April 28, 1981: PTB appeals the Planning Commission decision. Tentatively scheduled to be heard by City Council on May 12, 1981. 10. May, 1981: City Council reviews Planning Commission's action at a City Council Committee of the Whole meeting. City Council Com- mittee of the Whole votes to put application forward to a regular City Council meeting in June, 1981. 11. May 28, 1981: Planning Commission prepares staff report to City Council regarding activities at this site. The staff report emphasizes relation of Phase III development to earlier Phases I and II. In discussing "recreation /open space adequacy" the staff report noted that in its April, 1981 action the Planning Commission concluded that "by reducing density to R -3 levels in Phase III by not allowing the rezone, additional land space could be freed to satisfy internally some of the demand within Phase III for usable open space." The staff report goes on to note that "it is difficult to quantify the adequacy of open space necessary to serve a private development." In analyzing the Sunwood project as a larger entity, the staff report notes that "thus Sunwood is providing anywhere from 50% to 75% or more of its own open space requirements on an area -only basis . . . Addi- tional credit should probably be given due to the extensive variety of activities offered within the project boundary. We note, too, that the maximum distance is slightly less than 1 /8th mile from the southerly -most Phase III unit to the pool /tennis complex, more than meeting the access standard for a 'neighborhood' recreation facility . . . Sunwood's pool can accommodate 46 persons, or between 7% to 12% of the project's anticipated population at a time . We con- clude that this degree of pool play area is convenient to the demands of the Sunwood project internally, and far exceeds the amount of per capita swimming pool space available in convenient proximity to the residents of Tukwila generally . . ." In a 'conclusion', the staff report to the City Council notes that "adequate access, utility infrastructure and recreational space appear to be available to serve the proposed rezone area." • LEH:ja 4 The staff preliminarily recommends: 12. May 28, 1981: Planning Commission meeting. In the "General Citizen Comment" section, Mr. Karl Lewis, representing a group of Sunwood home owners, asked the Planning Commission to indicate "spe- cifically if the follow -up staff report addressed adequately the concerns raised at the public hearing (April 23, 1981) ". Mr. Leo Sowinski stated that his perception of the inadequacy of recreation space and traffic intensity level associated with the rezone proposal had not been alleviated. Mrs. Avery noted that some of the "open space" area is not of sufficient size and slope to permit reasonable use as a play area. Mr. Sowinski expressed concern about the poten- tial view - blockage eastward from Phase I by Phase III rooflines. 13. June 2, 1981: City Council passes Ordinance 1216, rezoning property to R -4 which, among other things, permitted overall residen- tial density on the site not to exceed 20 d.u. /acre. Ordinance 1216 further requires "any project proposed on this site subsequent to City Council approval of the subject rezone action, shall require Board of Architectural Review of site, architecture and landscaping details prior to issuance of building permits." At the June 2, 1981 meeting, Don Dally told the City Council "that since the meeting of May 12 they [PTB] had met with the home- owners that occupy Phase I of the condominium project. Their concern is adequate recreation facilities. He requested that a condition be placed in the rezoning ordinance that they add one Jacuzzi . . . The location will be either in Phase III or among the other recreation facilities near the swimming pool . . . Mr. Daily said they want it to be a matter of record." At that same meeting Mr. Karl Lewis stated that the homeowners association "have agreed not to oppose the rezone on the condition that the developer install the additional Jacuzzi." 14. February 23, 1984: PTB presented a plan for development of the Phase III project to the Planning Commission sitting as a Board of Architectural Review. The BAR continued indefinitely the application at the request of the applicant. 15. April 19 1985: The Planning Commission staff report revised. Staff report notes that there is "little substantial vegetation" on the property, there is inadequate recreation space, there is no way of assessing the extent of view blockage, based on the data that is provided. A landscaping plan is inadequate. The landscaping "appears intended more to interrupt the building masses and define the peri- meter of parking and access areas than enhance the scenic vista and view from and of the site ". With respect to trash containers, there appears to be "less than appropriate screening ". Furthermore, "con - formance with recreation space requirements of TMC 18.52.060 is not totally apparent in the proposal." 1. Addition of an indoor Jacuzzi recreation facility; and 2. Submittal of a revised landscape plan, among other requirements. City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila Washington 98188 433 -1800 Gary L VanDusen, Mayor PLANNING COMMISSION Minutes of the April 25, 1985, Planning Commission meeting. Chairman Knudson called the meeting to order at 8:05 p.m. Other Commissioners present were Mr. Coplen, Mr. Kirsop, Mr. Larson, and Mrs. Sowinski. Representing staff were Brad Collins, Rick Beeler, Moira Bradshaw, and Becky Kent, Planning Department. Also in attendance were By Sneva, Public Works Director, and Jim Haney, City Attorney, and Gary Van Dusen, Mayor. APPROVAL OF MINUTES MR. COPLEN MOVED TO ACCEPT THE MINUTES OF THE MARCH 28, 1985, PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING WITH THE CORRECTION MADE TO THE 4TH PARAGRAPH ON PAGE 2, "MR. KIRSOP" SHOULD BE "MR. KNUDSON." MR. LARSON SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. Mr. Kirsop proposed that no new items be heard after 11:00 p.m. The Commission concurred. CITY COUNCIL ACTIONS This item was delayed to the end of the meeting. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. 85 -16 -CPA: McMicken Heights Comprehensive Plan Amendment, requesting amendments from low density residential and commercial to an office classification for 16234, 16228 and 16218 42nd Avenue S. and 4230 S. 164th Street. Chairman Knudson opened the public hearing. Ms. Bradshaw summarized the staff report with corrections. Paul Bray, Supervisor of Facilities for the Highline School District, 17810 8th Ave. So., Seattle, WA 98148, requested that the plan amendment include Page -2- Planning Commission M( aces ( ,_: April 25, 1985 an office designation for the Crestview Community Center Building site to increase option for permitted uses. Jim Wing, 4438 So. 160th St., Seattle, WA 98188, requested a more intense use designation for his property. Dennis Robertson, 16038 48th Ave. So., Tukwila, WA 98188, agreed with staff's proposal except the daycare center site should not be changed to office and as long as the Crestview Center was left single family. He wasn't opposed to the existing daycare center as a nonconforming use but was opposed to a high density designation on that site. Robert Crain, 5105 So.163rd P1., Tukwila, WA 98188, wanted to preserve the single family residential nature of the area. Dick Goe, 5112 So. 163rd Pl., Tukwila, WA 98188, wanted to maintain the single family residential nature of the hillside, was opposed to an upgrade of zoning of Mr. Wing's property, Mr. DiGiovenni's property, and Highline School District's request for office zoning. John MacFarland, 4375 S. 158th St., Tukwila, WA, felt high density develop- ment was out of character for the neighborhood, and was opposed to the rezone as proposed for the property fronting So. 164th Street. M. DiGiovenni, 17015 53rd So., Tukwila, WA agreed with the Commission's (staff's) recommendation on the zoning of his property. Paul Veal, 16025 46th Ave. So., felt felt the area should remain single family. Chairman Knudson closed the public hearing. MR. KIRSOP MOVED TO RECOMMEND THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION PRESENT TO THE CITY COUNCIL THE STAFF EXHIBIT C WITH THE EXCEPTION THAT TRACT 37 FACING ON 164TH STREET BE LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL. MR. SOWINSKI SECONDED THE MOTION. The Commission discussed the proposed Comprehensive Plan amendments. MOTION PASSED 4 -1. Mr. Collins clarified that the changes in the findings from the staff report would be that S. 164th is a residential street and that the Comprehensive Plan designation is adequate for that street and that pro- perty, and staff's other findings and conclusions are adopted. The Planning Commission concurred. B. 85 -15 -R: McMicken Heights Annexation Rezone, requesting rezone of King County zoning classifications to Tukwila zoning classifica- Page -3- Planning Commission N rtes April 25, 1985 tions: from RS -7200 to R -1 -7.2 Single Family Residential, from BN Neighborhood Business to C -1 General Commercial and from RM -900 and RM -2400 Multiple Dwelling Maximum and Medium Density to P -0 Professional and Office for the area generally bounded by SR 518, 51st Avenue S., S. 164th Street and 42nd Avenue S. Chairman Knudson opened the public hearing. Ms. Bradshaw summarized the staff report with corrections. Joe Dunstan, Barghausen Enginerrs, Kent, WA, representing Wm C. Markham, recommended an R -4 designation for the property located at 15436 42nd Avenue South. Terry Hope, 15603 42nd So. supported the multi - family zoning request for the site located at 15436 42nd Ave. So. Paul E. Bray, Supervisor of Facilities for the Highline School District, 17810 8th Ave. So., Seattle, WA 98148, requested that the Crestview Community Center be rezoned to an office classification. Daniel R. Surber, 13001 48th Ave. So., Seattle, WA, supported the multi- family zoning request for the site located at 15439 42nd Ave. So. Lyle C. McCoy, 15209 Military Rd. So, Seattle, WA, was opposed to an office zoning at the Crestview Community Center. Donald Wilson, 13001 48th Ave. So., Seattle, WA supported the multi - family zoning request for the site located at 15436 42nd Ave. So. Chris Houser, 24618 43rd Ave. So., Kent, WA, supported the multi - family zoning request for the site located at 15436 42nd Ave. So. John McFarland, 4375 So. 158th St., Tukwila, WA, was opposed to high den- sity zoning for the site located at 15436 42nd Ave. So. M. DiGiovenni, 17015 53rd So., Tukwila, WA, felt the zoning did not reflect the use of this property (4220 S. 164th Street). Chairman Knudson closed the public hearing. MR. LARSON MOVED TO RECOMMEND THE APPROVAL OF THE PROPOSED REZONE BASED UPON FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS OF STAFF REPORT 85 -18 -R DATED APRIL 25, 1985, WITH THE FOLLOWING MODIFICATIONS: MODIFICATIONS TO THE FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE STAFF REPORT THAT RECOGNIZE THE CONFORMANCE WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND AMENDMENTS RECOMMENDED TONIGHT, SO. 164TH AS A RESIDENTIAL STREET, MAP II WITH CHANGE FROM P -0 TO R -1 -7,200 FOR THE PROPERTY IDENTIFIED AS 4220 SO. 164TH. MR. SOWINSKI SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH PASSED 3-2. Page -4- • Planning Commission M April 25, 1985 tes MR. KIRSOP MOVED FOR A FIVE MINUTE RECESS. MR. SOWINSKI SECONDED THE MOTION WHICH PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. BOARD OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW a. DR- 01 -84: Windmark Homes, requesting approval of plans for 66 multiple units on a 3.85 acre site located on Sunwood Boulevard (Sunwood III). Mr. Beeler summarized the staff report with corrections. George Kresovich, Hillis, Cairncross et al, 403 Columbia St., Seattle, WA 98102, representing the applicant, reviewed the history of the project. He felt the submitted plans contain required recreation space. John Lane, Project Architect, 1115 West Denny Way, Seattle, WA , presented a site plan, explained the development and submitted the color scheme for the proposed buildings. He reviewed the recreation areas. Larry Hard, Attorney, 3900 Seattle First National Bank Building, Seattle, WA, representing the Sunwood Homeowners Association, submitted a letter and memorandum to the Board. He questioned ownership of the property, adequacy of the application, the visual impacts, completeness of the environmental review, adequacy of recreation space, compliance with the Comprehensive Plan and former land use decisions. Ryan Thrower, President of the Sunwood Homeowners Association, 15232 Sunwood Blvd., Tukwila, WA, questioned compliance with the understanding the Homeowners had at the time of purchasing units in Phases I and II of Sunwood and the effect the proposal will have on their property values. Dick Taylor, Member of the Sunwood Homeowners Association, 15278 Sunwood Blvd. C13, Tukwila, WA, expressed concern about the building height and requested consideration of the old plans that were presented as part of the sales information in the Spring and Summer of 1981 be reviewed. Mr. Kresovich presented a copy of the Certificate of Incorporation for Windmark Homes, Inc. Mr. Beeler explained staff comments on the landscaping plan and revisions which had not been received. John Malgarini, 15209 Sunwood Blvd. B24, Tukwila, WA, was concerned his view would be obstructed. Mr. Collins clarified the staff's recommendation based upon the information provided at the meeting. • ,Page -5- rr Planning Commission M- ..,utes April 25, 1985 Mr. Kirsop felt the recreation space and amenities of that nature where inadequate. MR. KIRSOP MOVED TO REJECT THE PROPOSAL BASED UPON TMC 18.60.040(1)(A), 18.60.050(1)(C), 18.60.050(3)(C) AND 18.60.050(4)(B) NOT BEING MET, AND THAT STAFF WOULD PREPARE DETAILED FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS. MR. SOWINSKI SECONDED THE MOTION. The Commission discussed findings and conclusions. Mr. Collins clarified the findings and conclusions as follows: The site plan, the relationship of the structures to.the site, the relationship of the structures and the site to the adjoining area, and the relationship of the landscaping and the site treatment in the areas recreation were not adequate. Mr. Kirsop agreed. MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. MR. COPLEN MOVED TO HEAR APPLICATION DR- 03 -85, METRO EFFLUENT TRANSFER SYSTEM. MR. LARSON SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. DR- 03 -85: Metro ETS, requesting approval of a 96" buried forcemain pipeline and bridges over the Duwamish River. Mr. Beeler summarized the staff report with corrections. Byron Sneva, Public Works Director, reviewed the proposal. Terry Monohan, Metro, 821 Second Avenue, Seattle, WA, asked that Recommendation 6 not be added but considered included in 3. He requested some changes to the staff report and said street lighting was not part of the scope of the project. He concurred with the recommendation that the design be approved. MR. COPLEN MOVED TO APPROVE DR- 03 -85, METRO ETS, AND ACCEPT STAFF'S FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS AS MODIFIED BY MR. COLLINS AND MR. MONAHAN. MR. SOWINSKI SECONDED THE MOTION. Mr. Beeler asked for a clarification that staff's recommendation six would remain. The Commission concurred that it would remain. MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. MR. LARSON MOVED TO CONTINUE ITEMS DR- 05 -85: PITNEY BOWES, INC., DR- 06 -85: JANUARY LEASING COMPANY, AND DR- 08 -85: WESTERN PACIFIC PROPERTIES TO THE MAY 9, 1985, PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. MR. COPLEN SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. ,Page -6- �~ Planning Commission F utes April 25, 1985 CITY COUNCIL ACTIONS Mr. Collins said the Council is reviewing Metro Effluent Transfer System agreement, and will be hearing the Profit Freight Appeal. ADJOURNMENT MR. COPLEN MOVED TO ADJOURN THE MEETING. MR. SOWINSKI SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH UNANIMOUSLY. TUKWILA PL 'N ISSION Rick Beeler Secretary BLK CITY OF TUKWILA PLANNING DIVISION PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT REVISED AGENDA -ITEM IV)A . . DR- 01 -84: WINDMARK HOMES TUKWILA, INC. Introduction . ccJoo g , ID g Eux6 Pacific Townhouse Builders developed the existing first two phases of the Sunwood development in 1981 and 1982.. An undeveloped portion of the ownership was reserved for future phases which were consolidated into Phase III in a 1984 deve- lopment application. On February 23, 1984, the Planning Commission conducted a public meeting on Phase III and continued indefinitely consideration of the matter per the applicant''s request. A great deal of opposition was expressed by owners of condominiums in Phases I and II. The City also required additional information to complete the environmental review process. In the meantime the applicant very slightly modified the proposal, met with the homeowners and'sold the Phase III property to Windmark Homes Tukwila, Inc. At this time the proposal is again before the Board of Architecture Review. Findings 1. On June 2, 1981, the City Council rezoned the property to R -4 subject to: A. Overall residential density permitted on this site shall not exceed 20 D.U. /acres. B. Any project proposed on this site subsequent to City Council approval of the subject rezone action shall require Board of Architectural Review of the site, architecture and landscaping details prior to issuance of building permits (Exhibit A). At this same meeting the City Council passed a motion directing the Board of Architecture Review observe an agreement between the homeowners of Phases I and II and the developers of Phase III to install a jacuzzi recreation faci- lity. The Council's minutes are contain d in attached Exhibit_+L. Such a facility is not containe in a current application. The rezone of the property contained a site plan very similar to that proposed (Exhibit B).. However, the rezone did not obligate the City to the site plan, but the previous plan enabled analysis of land use impacts of the applicant's contemplated R -4 development. Page -2= Planning Commission DR- O1 -84: WINDMARK HOMES TUKWILA, INC. April 25, 1985 The property consists of 3.85 acres, which would permit 77 dwelling units (3.85 x 20 D.U. /acres = 77 D.U.). Only 66 dwelling units are proposed in 8 buildings (Exhibit B). The Board of Architecture Review is also required by Section 18.60.030(2)(E), .Tukwila Municipal Code (TMC). 2. Per TMC section 18.60.070 the BAR may approve, approve with conditions or deny the application. Guidelines for this review are contained in TMC Section 18.60.050. 3. Little substantial vegetation exists on the property except for a small variety of trees at the middle portion of the southerly property line (Exhibit B) and a 10" apple tree along the south side of the, access road. The landscape plan adds a great deal of tree, shrub and groundcover material and retains most of the existing trees (Exhibit C). 4. Exhibit B indicates essentially the entire site will be recontoured to accomo- date the proposed development pursuant to the existing Sunwood Boulevard access road off 62nd Avenue South. r The -pr- open -ty is iidentifted tall-- sense- lye — the- -Comd hen Pl-ap. According to the 1975 Data Inventory � t f .du t-& c� � ,,, w"rr doss of A. Slopes may be unstable when modified. B. Slopes of 15 -25% C. Part of a major wooded area. 5. Parking will be provided for 132 cars conforming to the 2 cars per unit required by TMC 18.56.050. The buildings will be three stories averaging approximately 31 feet in height (Exhibit D). Wood materials will be featured and painted /stained brown with beige trim. The roof will be of cedar shingles. . TMC Section 18.52.060 re•uir -s 13 200 square feet of recreation sp The poposed children's - - .• • . . • - - - t meets the require- ment that at least 3,300 square feet must be useful for children. The required landscaping areas. contribute 1166 square feet for recreation space. Per the applicant's analysis 25 077 s•uar- -- • ••-• space is • rovided on the site in, areas less than :1 slope. No indications are made on the site plan that part of this area, minus the 4,915 square feet for children's, is useable /designated for recreation purposes. The open space areas are irregu- larly shaped and of various sizes. 7. Carports will contain one car per dwelling unit and will-be constructed the same as carports in Sunwood Phases I and II (Exhibit E). 8. Sunwood Boulevard contains a median strip which is planted with trees and feature street lights the same as exists at the entrance from 62nd Avenue Page -3= Planning Commission DR- 01 -84: WINDMARK HOMES TUKWILA, INC. April 25, 1985 South. A sidewalk exists along the northerly and easterly side of the road (Exhibit B). •Some view blockage may occur and impact adjacent buildings of Sunwood Phase I. Existing topography slopes southerly downward, thereby reducing some of the view impairment. The extent of impact on existing views is difficult to assess from available information. 10. The following Comprehensive Plan Policies and /or objectives apply: Policy 1 Maintain the wooded character of the steep slopes and upland plateau, and encourage the use of vegetation in slope stabili- zation. Policy 3 Policy 1 Policy 2 Discourage disturbance of vegetation when not in conjunction with the actual development of the property. (p. 26, Natural Environment) Discourage development on slopes in excess of 20 percent . Preserve the views of hillside residents. (p. 26, Natural Environment) Policy 1 . Discourage development in areas where slopes are known to be unstable. In areas where the stability of slopes is questionable, allow development only after a qualified pro- fessional can demonstrate that slopes will be stable even after site modification. (p. 29, Natural Environment) Objective 8 Recognize the environmental basemap of the Tukwila Planning areas which depicts the distribution and extent of natural ame- nities based on the previously mentioned objectives and use this map as a general planning guide. (p. 30, Natural Environment) Policy 1 Policy 3 Policy 4 Strive to preserve steep hillsides and wooded areas in a scenic condition. Encourage replanting and revegetation of denuded areas not in the process of development. (p. 34, Open Space) Provide for active recreation areas (ballfields, tennis courts, swimming pools, playgrounds, community center) consistent with the needs of the community. Provide for passive recreational areas (parks, natural reser- ves, picnic grounds) consistent with the needs of the com- munity. (p. 35, Open Space) 11. The Public Works Department determined adequate water is available to proper- ties in the area and to the proposal. • 313 Page -4= • `` ( Planning Commission DR- O1 -84: WINDMARK HOMES TUKWILA, INC. April 25, 1985 Conclusions 1. TMC 18.60.040(1) Relationship of Structure to Site: The site plan includes landscaping, and forms a "transition" from 62nd Avenue .South and Sunwood Boulevard. Revised landscaping plans were not submitted prior to writing this report. Parking areas are linear in configuration, avoiding the appearance of a large mass of pavement. Also carports and landscaping break up the visual impacts of the parking areas. The visual impact of the proposed buildings appears to be similar to Sunwood Phases I and II. Due to the relatively more exposure to public view of the southerly portion of the hillside, the buildings very likely will be more visible to the valley floor. 2. TMC 18.60.050(2) Relationship of Structure and Site to Adjoining Area: Sunwood is a mixture of architecture styles and building materials. Phase I is essentially more "modern ", treated with white stucco. Phase II is more "conservative contemporary ", consisting of stained wood materials. Overall visual harmony exists, largely accomplished by landscaping. Landscaping in Phase III along the northerly border is proposed, but reliance continues to be on Phase I for transition. This may be satisfactory unless more separation and /or buffering between the two developments is desired. The Public Works Department indicated the proposed vehicular circulation system is appropriate relative to Phase III and 62nd Avenue South. A cut -out in the median strip accommodates vehicular congestion and public safety vehicle movement. 3. TMC 18.60.050 Landscape and Site Treatment: Existing topography is generally steadily rolling southerly down the hill. Proposed grading for the most part is parallel to the land contour to minimize grades and promote safety. Sometimes rockeries and /or retaining wall of 4 -6 feet are needed to balance cuts. Such walls may require additional soils and engineering study (TMC Section 18.56.050(3)(A and B)). The little amount of existing substantial vegetation on the site is for the most part protected from grading by landscaping and rockeries (Policy 1 and 3, p. 24, Comprehensive Plan). Available plans indicate some development will occur on slopes over 20% (Policy 2, p. 26; Policy 2, p. 29 and Objective 8, p. 30, Comprehensive Plan). Some portions of the property exceed slopes of 20%, which should be discouraged, but are not prohibited by the Plan. `fr re�or� Landscaping on the existing plan appears intended more to .interrupt the building masses and define the perimeter of parking and access areas than Page -5- Planning Commission DR- O1 -84: WINDMARK HOMES TUKWILA, INC. April 25, 1985 7J. enhance the scenic vista and view from and of the site. Currently this vista /view is largely unobstructed by vegetation and buildings. Therefore, the revised Landsc apinig__plan__s.hnu1cLprese.r__ve the vista /view_hew.een_a2d round the buildingL(Policy ,__p._26, and P oaac y 2 p, 34, Comp�ehensiv Plan . Wheel stops will help protect plant materials adjacent to on -grade parking areas. Trash containers are proposed to be located adjacent to or between carports. This seems to be less than appropriate screenings,. 4. TMC 18.60.050 Building Design: Building components relate well to each other and provide proportional interruption of the facades without appearing forced. The brown color with beige trim is compatible with Phases I and II. Submitted architectural elevations do not show mechanical equipment or light fixtures. Building design is essentially a single design with variations pro- duced by modulation of the structures, slight reduction of density and change of a few architectural features. Overall the effect will probably not appear monotonous. 5. TMC 18.60.050(5) Miscellaneous Structures and Street Furniture: Street lighting is the same as existing at the entrance onto Sunwood Boulevard, which appears compatible with all phases of Sunwood. 6. Conformance with recreation space requirements of TMC 18.52.060 is not totally apparent in the proposal. Adequate children, play areas are provided. But areas suitable for .dult is n di .ted it2T-1Acuzii_for adult r e cr_ eat -i-o - tts-e (-E- x- h -i- -i tf1� ¥h4-s- seems- -4e- -b reasonable and minimum recreation usetrbe added to the site p l an . -Dt r evei =1 -1-n g- c-fiiiiratentf i orrs =t# - f -i ' f u �S k' 1 tr tz i LLTi aY J1 L YL� ss NE VOW e- Atsc o VIA r*U ut r 7s1{oUt P ruNuNw- Preliminary Recommendation Based on the above, staff preliminarily recommends the proposal be approved sub- ject to o r or ,port_ rz St eb ^ D o <I' 1. Addition of an indoor jacuzzi recreation facilitlt be reviewed and approved by the Board of Architecture Review. 2. Public Works and Fire Departments review and final approval of the median strip in Sunwood Boulevard relative to public safety and access. Page -6- Planning Commission DR - 01 -84: WINDMARK HOMES TUKWILA, INC. April 25, 1985 3. Submittal of soils and engineering reports on rockeries over 5 feet in height for final review and approval of the Public Works and Building Departments. 4. Submittal of a revised landscape plan to open up more of the central portion of the site to retain more of the existing vista /view for review and approval of the Board of Architecture Review. 5. Installation of wheel stops to protect on -grade landscaping. (o • TrL s4 CssNt\ Stk , -w2s $c.lcst 1.s tNc► Pn2, f2e.6 , 4Q err.a 0"- - K Exhibits A. Zoning Map B - Site Plan C - Landscaping Plan D - Architectural Elevations E - Photographs of Carport Design F - Minutes of June 2, 1981, G - Letter of March 27, 1984 from Ryan S. Thrower Board H - Letter of March 28, 1984 from Joan Hernandez, Sunwood Homeowners' Association (PC.WNDMRK) Secretary, Board of Directors City Council meeting Director Sunwood Association ,-.v»...s, J... ._:'.. R .�- 'Ci::��''i �fi L�ak•'Z+ \ I i r l ' X •- { I, _,1,-F" .-4 f ` , �1 i 11 � j I ; I JL AH ISM &SSOGA M (I , NISI NN, w' Si AVM N+S••.CIIQ ! 9 7 71.1 yJMI 6 rpndj �AVEI �lPUe -.. JS... �lc) t TIICKWII A TUCVV.'ILA CONDOMINIUMS WASI.4Nr,TON p Sult5rr $ TelEEEP JAN 6 19$4 CITY OF T UKWILA PLANNING DEPT. 5UNWOOD PHASE : —r --r-- -r r, rNNTS (. as Ilcaou�tio y _ ( } I f J 1 1 i— ■ss J • , V • 1 • AWLIST MAW INC, Tb 4011' ILL *T TRIOS J Ivy PLANT LEGEND QUANT. YERIF`C 17 92 I62 593 197 veRlFr HILLSIDE WALL rL.miI5 . y4A1.- R:A'S Sf.L TIOFJ ' A ' e lo2Na A v.. so. (TRFET TREES: SOME EXIST ADD WLIEItE NEEPC0.) Cote Nus NuryALLI cc fLdRIDA NATIVE CX EASTERN DOSh7oc) AC.BR GIRGINATUM VINE. MAPLE TSJAA HETE Cot HYLLA „ MERTENSI #Nh TA WA PLIC.ATA PI►JU'S GcNTORTA 1VESTEi:N 14EMLoGK Moon:TAIN +IEMi.o . WESTERN ICED C.EDAIC SHORE: PINE Ar °NEDO VISURJJUM TINUS STRAW6ER-R2Y 'FREE •LAuRVSrINUS K•ORODENDRON HSRIDS .. AZALfiA HYCICIDS P16RI' wR1E71E5 MAHONIA AC4UIFOLIUM V16URNUM .DAVIDI P. fiDDODENOr-oNS AZALEAS (EEy ERGICEEN) ANDROMEDA Or;EGON GRAPE DAVID'S V IbJCNUM Ef.IcA C&RNEA 1 5'?INywl.'.L` 1 Sf ZING WOOD AEATA }IE.EEFA •IELIX'11AANS C1C MATCH E/.57'Ci IVy DOTANI /COMMO NAME 1 KE•MAKKS MATCH EXI$TIIJCt. w ANTOKAGNC!•E rKEFCR. CLUIJft. VSE Asso TED TO 'SUIT ARFJ 'SIZE Y..RCESG. REOu IREA;ENTS ALT. WiArrcvOLL 7 L.A.; USE 7D SUIT 51ZE 4 54rEp1 SUIT To 5;ZE, EXPOSURE, VAR.16TY NI•"• ALT. W/ 1..A. APrl J. ALT. ACCT, U U►.:- RI►J1JIKIN►JICJ; VDE agO0AlDCDVEc AS MELDED FDR VARIETY. IP NOTES • ex i•TING TREES v41/.1. bE $XAAA1n1E.D FOR MEALTA AND KEPT IF roSS16LE. ANY DEEMED UNSAFE OR tEYCND REDEEMING VALUE WILL !SE RE-Pt-AGED WITH ANDTHER: TREE SUITA6LE To THE 5IruATico.1 • EXISTING TOPSOIL To bE REMOVEV SMALL tE STOGtrILED F OR VS G IN fLAIJTING AAID rINIS11 GoAvu.LCs. WMEItE CLAY SUL...>UICFALE K fo)ND IN PLhNT .:IDLES, yGCtEN G IN 6ASE Of HOLE, MIX n.l TOT oU TMAT t•AC.r.f11.L IS Ye• '!s TofgolL. C.ME4.4 roc DCAINAGE FROU HOLE. bALK L. A1L'ST 15E AT LEA'tT Vt. EAISTINra •SOIL Tyre, wall. wart ADDEp Tofbo14. • f.£FiR ALL GUE•iTioNS 'TO L14:54• A Job No. 6914 SYd41 $ I1" — G NOKTH 119Ifia*A:. II .a..1 =1 IRS 1 1 Wit ■111111 IRAN ■.7■ solo nem . rl ime a■11110a 11!.1,1111 l!tlr OSrml Mg ass 1MMEDA MUM= nu sum MI 11 •• uis>t•.w� IUIILu .1 1; 1 ii i� ,ter: Ili:! l!.R/ Salm Nasal NI!l1H 1111111 111101 umIDIl ll= el LA I wrs ( ENV., •i{ SIAM wM..MIQA / 1 1 7111 ?111 7.110 1 UCKWIL A, TUCKWILA CONDOMINIUMS W,\ I IINGTON 1111111111111111111111111111111 111R: 1111 a 9 . lip tit:. J _ J' .. 'all COMM EaI:TV 1 . litLi • 4i _ I I'F log i • _a ima r M •m - 1/04_1 - ' AMA mot auIklt II - mama Minot in � M VI M I+ II Inhhll Biel■ Wawa., anon 111• 411:1.41 IC I it I • I1 miamanii 10.1.■ unarm Munn - n.1 rt..a1 Jiai mama taros WWI monamn ilia. 1•• .. • 11 f1» -..1- 11 ld u' u u/t NM —duo l fi Mel taloa OisiC, rTrri WOOF II UUI 11111111111111Ialtill liiul .ataa WWI •I rl III "I I tlll llll awt ara.. Mann an =• I +nil II II 11 11 Z ell A ON I AM ASSS1XJA1t1 - •� 1, W1 5T ((wry wax T l II-KwIT_ 4 TuC^.vIL A CONDOMINII 1 1 51-11t1(3TCr Oune 2, 1981 raoe 2 BID AWAkDS Janitorial Service OLD BUSINESS Ordinance #1215 - Changing the name of the custodian for the Advance Travel Expense Account Ordinance n1216- Reclassifying cer- tain lands from R -3 'to R -4 (Sunwood, Phase III) Mayor Pro -Tem Van Dusen noted that the current Janitorial Servi •has terminated their services with the City. The Public Works Director has asked Council approval to Call for Bids to ensure continuity of services. MOVED BY HILL, SECONDED BY PHELPS, THAT COUNCIL APPROVE THE CALL FOR BIDS FOR JANITORIAL SERVICES IMMEDIATELY.* Mayor Pro -Tem Van Dusen said there have been reasons, both pro and con, on why they terminated their services. He asked to have one of the Committees look into this. *MOTION CARRIED. MOVED BY HILL, SECONDED BY PHELPS, THAT THIS ITEM BE REVIEWED BY THE PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE.* Councilman Harris asked in what area this company was unsatis- factory. Ted Uomoto, Public Works Director, said it was many areas. They have been trying to get the contractor to meet the requirements listed in the signed contract. *MOTION CARRIED. MOVED BY HILL, SECONDED BY PHELPS, THAT THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE BE READ BY TITLE ONLY. MOTION CARRIED. City Attorney read an ordinance of the City of Tukwila, Washington, changing the name of the custodian for the Advance Travel Expense Account, amending Section 2 of Ordinance No. 614, and repealing Ordinance Nos. 778, 890, 940, 1050 and 1083. MOVED BY HILL, SECONDED BY. HARRIS, THAT ORDINANCE NO. 1215 BE ADOPTED AS READ.* Mayor Pro -Tem Van Dusen questioned if the name of the Finance • Director, rather than the title is necessary. Attorney Hard said that the State Auditor Bulletin No. 010 sets forth the requirement that a person's name is necessary. However, the people who currently administer the program for the State Auditor's Office do not take that position. Some other cities name just the office, and the Auditor's Office has taken no action against them. It makes sense to name the office instead of an individual, so you don't have to amend the ordi- nance every time there is a change. The safe course would be to adopt the ordinance naming the individual. Councilman Harris said, while she held the position of City Treasurer, she was told many times that you abide by the Auditor's Bulletins. Until such time as the bulletin is repealed, we need to follow it. *MOTION CARRIED. MOVED BY HILL, SECONDED BY HARRIS, THAT THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE BE READ BY TITLE ONLY. MOTION CARRIED. City Attorney Hard read an ordinance of the City of Tukwila, Washington, reclassifying certain lands from R -3 to R -4, as described in Planning Department Master File No. 81 -5 -R. MOVED BY PHELPS, SECONDED BY HILL, THAT ORDINANCE NO. 1216, AS AMENDED BY THE CITY ATTORNEY, BE ADOPTED AS READ.* Attorney Hard noted that he added a new Section 4 to clarify the action of the ordinance. The property is rezoned from R -3 to R -4. EXH'iT' F Lill LUiiiivli., _, 1981 / //3 it BUSINESS - Cont. l• , i /Ordinance ;1216 - / Reclassifying cer- tain lands from R -3 to R -4 (Sunwood, Phase III) (cont.) RECESS: 8:00 P.M.- 8:10 P.M. IOW Mr. Don Dalley, Pacific Townhouse Builders, 1370 Stewart Street, #100, Seattle, noted that since the meeting of May 12, they have met with the homeowners that occupy Phase I of the condominium project. Their concern is adequate recreation facilities. He requested that a condition be placed in the rezoning ordinance that they add one jacuzzi, which is equal to size and capacity • of the one installed under Phase I. The location will be either in Phase III or among the other recreation facilities near the swimming pool. Councilman Hill asked if it wasn't the developer's problem rather than the City's. Mr. Dalley said they want it to be a matter of record. Mr. Hill noted that it would appear in the minutes. Mr. Carl Lewis, 15209 Sunwood Blvd., Unit B33, said he repre- sents the group of homeowners who have expressed their concerns. After discussion with the developer, they have agreed not to oppose the rezone on the condition that the developer install the additional jacuzzi. He said his concern is that this agree- ment has a binding legal effect. They felt it was best to make it a condition of the rezone. He asked the City Attorney how this could become a binding commitment. Attorney Hard said he would prefer this not be included in the ordinance. This could open up situations where the City should not get involved. Any development this size has to have approval of the Board of Archi- tectural Review. These minutes will reflect to the Board that there is, at least, one condition for them to consider. The Council could, by motion, direct staff to inform the Board of Architectural Review of this condition. The Building Official should be directed that a Building Permit will not be issued until this condition is taken care of. Councilman Bohrer said the Planning Commission raised the fol- lowing concerns on this project; ingress /access and traffic generation, adequacy of recreational facilities.and adequacy of open space provided on Phase III. The, Planning Commission questioned specifically the adequacy of pool space provided in the project. The City has an Open Space Ordinance, but there is no analysis as to how the project complies with it. He said it looks like there is potential further concern as the Planning Commission expressed. He further asked if the project now meets the conditions listed in the rezone ordinance that was repealed in December. The report does not indicate. Brad Collins, Planning Director, said he understood that the previous ordinance was related to a contract zone that covered more property than this specific rezone covers. Attorney Hard said it was impossible for the whole property covered under the previous ordinance to meet the terms of rezone, so it reverted back to the existing zoning. It is back now, with the request to rezone a portion. The original conditions are completely irrelevant to what is before Council now. Councilman Bohrer asked what the conditions were and why they are no longer relevant. Attorney Hard said the property is now zoned R -3, and this is what Council has to deal with. It may have been zoned something else, but that is irrelevant. It has been zoned R -3 since January of 1981. Councilman Bohrer asked again what the conditions were and said it matters to him if they have been met. Attorney Hard explained that this property owner has a parcel of property zoned R -3. He is before Council with the request to change the zone to R -4. All of the necessary steps have been met to complete the process. Tonight is the culmination of the process. What hap- pened earlier has no legal effect. MOVED BY BOHRER, SECONDED BY HARRIS, THAT COUNCIL RECESS FOR FIVE MINUTES TO'ALLOW TIME TO GET A COPY OF THE ORIGINAL ORDI- NANCE. MOTION CARRIED. iur..; LA L1IY LUJNLIL, !;ttal lh m IIHh June 2., 1981 i Page 4 '�(_ OLD BUSINESS - Cont. Ordinance #1216 - Reclassifying cer- tain lands from R -3 to R -4 (Sunwood Phase III) (cont.) .Mayor Pro -Tem . Van Dusen called the meeting back to order with Council Members present as previously reported. City Attorney Hard reported that Ordinance 1088 rezoned the property from R -3 to R -4 with 8 conditions. These conditions applied to three parcels of property. In 1978, LID 29 was created and constructed. At that time a portion of this property was excluded from immediate assessments. After that, it was concluded that all the property rezoned under Ordinance No. 1088 could no longer meet all of the conditions. The ordinance was then repealed so the zoning reverted back to R -3. Councilman Bohrer said his recollection is that the property hadn't met the conditions, therefore, was not participating in LID 'i29, so the ordinance was repealed. He reviewed the conditions re- quired. Attorney Hard said the conditions have been met by the properties within the boundaries of the LID. The logical solution for the City was to turn all of the property back to R -3 and, as the property is developed, the owners would have to come back to the City and request appropriate zoning for the use. Council- man Bohrer asked why there was no analysis of the conditions. Attorney Hard said because there was no legal requirement. The conditions are not relevant to this parcel today. The property is R -3. If Council wants to impose the conditions, they can make them part of the rezone. Councilman Harris said the project, at the time of the rezone was a separate project. It had nothing to do with Sunwood. The conditions were for an entirely different project. Councilman Johanson noted that the Planning Commission denied the request, but staff recommended approval. He said he also wondered about the conditions. Brad Collins, Planning Director, said he assumed the Planning Department considered the eight conditions and either they were not needed or they had been met. Councilman Phelps explained that Ordinance 1088 has been repealed so the conditions aren't even there; further, it related to another project all together. Any conditions that apply to the Sunwood Development would apply to the rezone before Council now. Councilman Bohrer noted that there seems to be a lot of questions. He said he did not see the urgency in insisting that this be passed tonight. It would be appropriate to send it back to staff for an analysis of the conditions. Councilman Phelps said all of the conditions and covenants and agreements that the City has with Sunwood Develop- ment have already been established. They are developing under the agreement we currently have. I don't see the point of im- posing more conditions upon the developer than they already have. Councilman Harris said when an ordinance is repealed, it is no longer valid. What ever was in the ordinance no longer applies to anything. That is what we did to Ordinance 1088. The conditions no longer apply. MOVED BY BOHRER, SECONDED BY JOHANSON, THAT THE ORDINANCE BE TABLED TO ALLOW STAFF TO PREPARE A REPORT ON THE RELATIONSHIP OF THE CURRENT SUNWOOD DEVELOPMENT PLAN TO THE CONDITIONS THAT WERE ORIGINALLY PROPOSED IN ORDINANCE 1088. MOTION FAILED. *MOTION CARRIED WITH BOHRER AND JOHANSON VOTING NO. MOVED BY PHELPS, SECONDED BY HILL, THAT THE PLANNING STAFF BE • DIRECTED TO NOTIFY THE BOARD OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW TO OBSERVE AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE HOMEOWNERS AND THE DEVELOPERS TO PROVIDE AN ADDITIONAL JACUZZI RECREATIONAL FACILITY.* Councilman Bohrer commented that this is a limited attempt to include some of the considerations that were in the original eight. *MOTION CARRIED WITH BOHRER AND JOHANSON VOTING NO. ..14501 /"/ / / / ft C \ 7 (St 19.1iit / f 1 � pu29 I n 2 1' '61 i ati:2 , f,skair. ..,..-- . Dzie ■. •;:: : 1 ..t . ;;:! . 1 . 1: fefril OS • trr ' '4 t•:\ No ! ,0 4 W 1 >ziolV wif ".7-9:747:1(4744,%„,,ill'e-aii \ mow meal 4 espro• .11•••• .14/. N.. •••• •• 11.04.0 - • • • ON "elbUtV 2.0We trzIL, 4-* *r.er.4 .71 ••••••••xs. :...4 4. • 0 Cia) a l210 . ' 0 - _211 •K o 1.1 v454. ELL. rd.", " ..SW4C%32:1113,." tio.4.791. - 1417LLT7C0.410s • Epescrje, • 404MR ..Ls41.51. MOS .4.1.•41•444" ••••••?-134 KLE" VC..1.1. .F.M.1.4.4. ••■ ••••• "ND amass. OM= • t 1•10.■•• 4■11■■ •••••1 •••■••••■11• 111•1• •■••••• ■■■•••■• • •IM1•11• Mom. - S. ••••• au • Elm VIM ▪ a...or ...ram • •••••■• 0•111, • • , •••••••ss 1.•••• • 111••• •■• „. • 4 . MUNE 111111100 tJN 10 CITY OF KW LA - PLANNING DEPT. RECREATION AREAS . 1 1.95C 31. 2 I 24e. -3/Z 3 29SG .. 4 5 2415 : MA'. 6 Qeler .f••■• • 1 ". a••••••••• v... 11. 1.,1.••••••.• ' CI, se. • .* Rm.; 14 ' • 7 L/■•••44•.7.1.art•." S714 . ..1-OttO frC SO Pt} ••■••■-•_;.... SA • • ." • •0 __ •••••••••• •■•••••• •••• ••• •■•••••• sm. 41••• uml• ■••••••.. •••• ••• •1/1. II•END ••••••••••• ••••••••••••• •■•• fp. Om/. 1 Z 3 f 6 Ks olP LAkIDSCAr1kSC4 RFPULTIOLN; t0 ° f0 c I45?J s4 imc-V TI P-.A GAsL(U'.Ps% tc& : t3, ZS4 'scp. P&T Z.S7 srotef l� /qo s4.ti'. 2.5� 4 894- 5,355 7 ];1R3Ft:11 Foul R oN AVEct c.Ast_coL lo, : 200 s pad. X G t Jt'CS 151200 SQ. PT. eg le uCAOr 2,c]c a St., tor. 4 /8, 02.5 so w sci.'tu . 5,3O() 4 4 T. tM JM 31300t ' ` S 1 fluaN 1 __ 15UIl.DI1J4 44fl4mT GOMPAWSO0 (mom £443101'S A) ..31■1•NO:113 PI4ASE sitLDIOC.► a mizsT ?Low. - 154.76 Pr- - 19, 7.00 -- ZUZ, 0(1" - Zt7Z.. 00 " UI LGINLi C. it 11 33ILDINc.6 p /. 1. Qv' VAliJOMA g. DutuANL t 4461440- 2. .o Fr) 15ksN.PtPKt7 I` - 11 JUILDI N4 •■■■■••• 1..111.1•Ms•alb • •■■••■ ) 'ICV•a . .14 MLA( anesk5 KW( Cr;21Y0 ?NJ* •11131 eair.rodirnivoAri, ?U,.74 • 1 d _ICI Ls. ',": •:% j ` 1 1 c, E ri i 0 1 .14 0 ••271.,■0 . 1■1 MI ••• 11•0041.4 OPOs ••■■•••• ...4.7i MOW VII• MI •••• *la lw. awl. OW ••••• .6”......7 '!..., . . :... ■•••■•■■•01.• Olonim. 4.0..M NI • . . j •.. ..1.... owe, Waa . 1M•Mim p.104 : •:;• . :.. : ....• 11.010 • 01.1m. arm. 1 ■.. - • .. -- 1■■■• f'••=.:.••""'".......-. Z ! .... • . ....• •••••■••••••■ ....., .. • •-•••••—• ••••••••••••••• • • • • . • . . • z :, ; ..• ..,... :,, ..,. ... 4. , , ,.. 2I „ ....m. ....• ..• •••• ...... WM 141/.01421/1 P 747, ) ..........., ••• , - —...... ,^.1141144 441 var1 *we •Noveris ,.11.+Ar .Laip.orw • .L•rtdoey • 5.•aro2crvsC10. _ • II gi -.7,- ...„.2„..L * -. n - :ismarpritS.432 -,e. . .4: 11131, ,,..... ca. 0 - -.7 ..1Ma•41. ,r17".7 r:is. L•• 1;) ••;. AI •• - rl..7. ,oi E r4.23,1 .1 • 41 — 7 - 0,... - .CO , J , ..4111 - C•Cr C') __:."T ' rs • . r i• 3 II 4....11 141 0 di' ' - . • T:• - .1 .4 a , • 1 t4aW11 •VPS -ftr 'GI ty ..1: • 01,w1 i.17!i I* 4511$ jp • o.wal 44 rj .1. •r.1-t_s.).r t-.•-•,r_nti 1 is ODD ; 2711. ... ”ts' rj i , 6) ••L•• I ...at, I, 35' 117 ••••• • • 1 p r • .4i.d,r LI - .'"1 7 SI 0111/721 /1(711 ..1.t . .* •■•••••■,* sAr•••••••"1.•• • • •rr,...••■■ • . • ..-•••;••••••• • pi . 011_ 40 INV* . • - - - - J.: Z..4) 012•141,./. „ 1 9 .. I N.. • • ..2\ N • • it. Vi Una 'Wan 07trti•sd • 21.r, . • : :IT? ...... 3 • • ■■■•-•==.- rail4144=4 I • X .4 9 t. .L+L ar.:4 :•% I ' SV3HV 44011/3103U „-. - _ ../.7•J • • 174 - • f .: ;1; ,.;.'.-.:: 7: . , - .i....... , .1...................- ..... s.; ..: as • .. ' • ' itA fretrIe.. 0 44..1..trowr .... re...Yr. ,......-1•41. •m---3p..na !.. 32 ., . 41 W/ • .:, 314 ,s. ....,2.,,,, I tr ! ---- -, 7 .!'''.-,-;'-... - 7C. ct ..... • s...a...ncroatt. 1111r• .., • — sir..7:17:._ : •-• • _ 0 S ■;.-- II 14 Ir••••• 01/ Co •••••■• :•••••-• - 11 1 ••■ N'ke gat.W4 1.01.4. NaSerie -.e.„ •i (a: •444. - L 46:14'14 x - - " iiNINNV Id - vilr, 1 ..:() Ato. • ( - : i !,- • ••••• r.1) 0 J 7 • „ J __•••17 €1 : > - • .. • • , • • • . ; • : . • ). • • • . • • .• : %• • • • N• s. • %vast kkrla ito • I • „ . r - •••-•!-- • ,...S.p....M111.■•■•••••■• 1 : •• • 11• %•:• 1.1," terC.)-1.•• •-• • ••• 'Vie • . • • ' . • ••••. • 7 • . . ?twit to.V.aoetan IWO uv 01.••• Pon 1040 Pvime via0CM I ? s. 1! 1. • t t 1 1* • rL • inC.KMJI V covcoommInve AAV2111 • 1 1 . • I ' \ I , • I • I • I - - 12' - 1 (bnerc) I I — -- . :-'77-- -- -;;- - •-• .., ,..• 1 ' -----. - ; -- . .... 1 ,.1 ,...7:..... _—. — )■-/ / ' / / /I-7-7'H 1 ill /-7L'! 1,1; 1 1 1 A . ill • .%//7 • , If . ( 1 1/) ..„ NUlt;NIH , VM SV'UIININK.U1OD d IW.)IJflI MI{ 1401,WSVA ililtR AVM arNP V 571V00GS► NVv . *or Y lit I '1 , I I II II 1 1Z ( 41 II 1 11, 1 r ' 1 I IN I ' tet , IV .� PST t 11111 1 MI ,`��' Al ■ 1111 ! I '! 1 1 I : - 1 ji_ -{I 1 . ! ' \: ! k 1, -1, i' `• _ ' ; I; to, � , ■ - - !!� !,. - � �, • � / � ,.1 ' \ I 1 '1 \ \ ' \ ! / �t i , \ ; r:_� •: 1 .17 ■ 1 i / _ + I 1, =Ai IMAM JLA JOHN 1 Alf ASSOCIATES ITS WEST OENNY wow Sl All E WASIIWOION 94 708 7P +Thu TUCKWILA CONDOMINIUMS TUC.KWII. A. WASI IIN(TON 1 ° 4 A ACSOCIAAIES 51 119 ?HI rn 9409 TUCKWII. A TUCKWILA CONDOMINIUMS WASI IINCTON jla . e3' c P b �0 r D z eJLA JOHN A E IXNNY ASSOOOAARS SI AitlE WASrtNGtON 71418 200 :RI 72110 TUCKWII. A, TUCKWILA CONDOMINIUMS WASHINGTON ,lt 1Lt1U l� SCA Oar; el LA I � C LAM ASv TES VOW R SI AI II E WA I14IINJ 118+1!1 70 2111 T.NU 111WIYJ11 mums MUM LM 17om § mu sir. I SI 1I.JCKWIL A. TUCKWILA CONDOMINIUMS WASI IING TON 111:1111111 H111111111. 1111111111111 • :ILI WIXII I I • I 1P MM 4 ; 4 WNW • „ p, Now U III :;) :II 6 1 ' 4 11 I •ii:* k /11,1 1115 .,-; 1, • • I I- • • t , I., ' 4.1.4 , .1 u 4 :1 — t":1 Fiquilmmlillignylim 11111111WIMMINIMIIII ... ..„ 1: 1 I I ii m"17:1 ,.. vi.ii,.,!, _ _ ... ■., — —, .,... 1,--- :.., . :WEI' Ittill ' a...., um. 11111 = i ii a l . 1111 1 51.1"41 111 1111114.1.111hm--ami' Elnki 11111 1".1 1UHIMIltilii, il L itil 11111 1111111 titi i IMUMUUUMMUUMIUMUUMUSUIS ii eILA 10t4 AY L ASSOCiAltS WI $t (NY WAY Sr All voyorr,t0•4 911 IMO ru iij mull 41(1:101.1 Valolme•s••• 1111111111111 41 1111113i 1111114111/ 111111 111111111111 - LeA UMW 11C.KWIL A TUC1CW IL A CONDOMINII MS WASHINGTON.. BII City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila Washington 98188 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Tukwila PLANNING COMMISSION has fixed the 28th day of March, 1985, at 8:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers of Tukwila City Hall, 6200 Southcenter Boulevard, Tukwila, Washington, as the time and place for: 85 -10 -CUP: Profit Freight, requesting approval of a truck terminal at 4477 So. 134th Pl. PUBLIC HEARINGS C: TUKWILA PLANNING COMMISSION NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARINGS AND MEETING 85 -04 -R: 51st Annexation Rezone, requesting rezone of single family King County zoned property (RS -7200) to City of Tukwila single family zoned of R- 1 -7.2, on the west side of 51st Ave. So. between So. 161st and So. 164th St. consisting of 3.4 acres. The subject properties bear the addresses of 16049, 16059, 16209, 16211, 16219, 16227, 16233, 16239, 16249 51st Avenue South; 4918 South 164th Street, and 4929, 2930 South 161st St. PUBLIC MEETINGS 83- 13 -SPE: Diaz School of Gymnastics, requesting approval of . cooperative parking agreement. DR- 04 -85: NC Machinery, requesting approval of plans for a 2 -story office building located at 17025 West Valley Highway. • DR- 03 -85: Metro ETS, requesting approval of 96" buried forcemain pipeline and bridges over the Duwamish River. *DR- 01 -84: Sunwood III, requesting approval of plans for 66 multiple family units on a 3.85 acre site. Any and all interested persons are invited to attend. Published: Record Chronicle, March 17, 1985 Distribution: Mayor City Clerk Adjacent Property Owners Files ;D r Becky L. Kent See attached list. c1,14,42 e ---- 1104'164-4011- 1510 x, uoO'd Otpcf. . Tottor'Q, 1 q i ' g Name of Project Sunwood III File Number DR - 01 - 84 AFFIDAVIT OF DISTRIBUTION hereby declare that: Q Notice of Public Hearing Notice of Public Meeting Q Notice of Application for Shoreline Management Substantial Development Permit Q Declaration of Significance and Scoping Notice. was mailed to each of the following addresses on March 18 , 1985. 1%LA ;1908 City of Tukwila Z _ 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila Washington 98188 Gary L VanDusen, Mayor TO: Sunwood File DR -01 -84 FROM: Becky Kent DATE: March 25, 1985 SUBJECT: Notice for 3 -28 -85 Planning Commission Meeting On 3 -18 -85 I gave Alan Doerschel, Finance Director, copies of the Public Meeting notice for the 3 -28 -85 Planning Commission meeting to post on the Sunwood site and to distribute to interested parties. On 3 -25 -85 I send copies of the notice to the following: Ryan Thrower 15232 Sunwood Blvd. Tukwila, WA 98188 Don Wilson 15249 Sunwood Blvd. Tukwila, WA 98188 Vern Aarhus 15220 Sunwood Blvd. Tukwila, WA 98188 Pacific Townhouse Builders 1115 108th Ave. N.E. Bellevue, WA 98004 Attn: Dick Gilroy Windmark Homes 510 Rainier Ave. So. Seattle, WA 98144 MEMORANDUM The contact person for Windmark is John Snider at 325 - 8585. As part of the sale, I agreed to assist them'in`obtaining.a building permit so if you would prefer, I would be more than happy to remain as the contact person thru the completion of the BAR Review. Pacific Townhouse Builders Seattle office: Mariner Building, 1370 Stewart Street, Suite 100, Seattle, WA 98109 (206) 682-7830 Bellevue office: 1115 108th Avenue NE, Bellevue, WA 98004 (206) 455.1726 Rick Beeler City of Tukwila Planning Department 6200 Southcenter Blvd. Tukwila, WA 98188 Dear Rick: As I have mentioned to . you on the phone, we have now completed a sale of our property to Windmark Homes. They have purchased the property and all our Architectural and Engineering plans. It is their intent to build out the project in the same manner as we had planned. DG /nd Cordially, P.T Dick Gilroy RECEIVED CM OF 'NOWA [AAR a Ma OMNI Ml.' March 1, 1985 • CITY OF TUKWILA Central Permit System CITY � TUKWIIA MAR 6 1985 MASTER LAND DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION FORM PLEASE WRITE LEGIBLY OR TYPE ALL REQUESTED INFORMATION -- INCOMPLETE APPLICATIONS WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED FOR PROCESSING. SECTION I: GENERAL DATA TYPE OF APPLICATION: OBSIP SHOAT RT OsuBD1VISION OSHORELINE PRD PMUD f L BAR PL INTERURBAN PERMIT CONDITIONAL OUNUSESS. OVARIANCE O NING LJAMENDMENT 1) APPL I CANT : NAME /�1 "4 L /T 1e/N I l�';V. L A A PHONE ( 204 ) sec = r p � / ' 2,- ADDRESS �.6 - 74 /�-ii C'7Z 4 c: / + �I . -3 ITL <= Z IP 97 / 1`' ' l 2) PROP . OWNER: NAME /i/, /A - gi.(C A/p A/1 - J 7r/j7,-a, L -f JJICrELEPMONE ( ) ADDRESS 57, mel *e1 ZIP 3) PROJECT LOCATION: (STREET ADDRESS, GEOGRAPHIC, LOT /BLOCK) '/°/ SECTION II :, PROJECT INFORMATION 4 ) DESCRIBE BRIEFLY THE PROJECT YOU PROPOSE. Z 4' 11.os 1.2 1.is . P . C� L J/i 1 d iwley E.) .--.4 014,, ld ,a, 4- I s J 4 .z . 4 7 ."Z 1 E., i' •1" 1 ..,1 e4- 1./ - ..� s ) ANTI CI PATED PERIOD OF CONSTRUCTION : FROM / /is-- TO f G "AI 4 6 ) WILL PROJECT BE DEVELOPED . I N // / cellICI PHASES? [aYES ONO / I F YES, DESCRIBE: L) -p tIy,,! S" en 7 ). PROJECT STATISTICS: A) ACREAGE OF PROJECT SITE: NET N /./3 GROSS 3• EASEMENTS „V /. B ) • FLOORS OF CONSTRUCTION: TOTAL # FLOORS INCLUDES: BASEMENT OMEZZANINE TFLOORGRREA 7.2%02.5 INCLUDES: ©-BASEMENT OMEZZANINE C) SITE UTILIZATION: EXISTING PROPOSED NOTES ZONING DESIGNATION R' 1 7 1 COMP, PLAN DESIGNATION BUILDING FOOTPRINT AREA 0 z 3o/ 0 LANDSCAPE AREA 0 7/ 5/ 2 0 PAVING AREA reef C'-e 0 `il 3 0 TOTAL PARKING STALLS: JJ - STANDARD SIZE. I eL - COMPACT SIZE 24 - HANDICAPPED SIZE TOTAL LOADING SPACES AVER. SLOPE OF PARKING AREA .. . AVER. SLOPE OF SITE /2 7 IS THIS SITE DESIGNATED FOR SPECIAL CONSIDERATION ON THE CITY'S ENVIRONMENTAL BASE MAP? 0 YES 0 NO SECTION III: APPLICANT'S AFFIDAVIT 1, )-1 ...S i e� , BEING DULY SWORN, DECLARE THAT I AM THE CONTRACT PURCHASER OR OWNER OF THE PROPERTY INVOLVED IN THIS APPLICATION AND THAT THE FORE- GOING STATEMENTS AND ANSWERS HEREIN CONTAINED AND THE INFORMATION HEREWITH SUBMITTED ARE IN ALL RESPECTS TRUE AND CORRECT TO THE BEST OF MY KNOW / B I M , /,• : 9 3 7 c DATE /f X 4 !, {i / / ' "�` i 1 � I • E F CONTRACT PURCHASER OR OWNER) SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN BEFORE ME /, THIS / $ r 7 DAY OF I 41 , 1 AND OR THE STATE O NOTARY PUBLIC'IN F WASHINGTON ESIDING AT Pacific Townhouse Builders Seattle office: Mariner Building, 1570 Stewart Street, Suite 100, Seattle, WA 98109 (206) 682 -7830 Bellevue office: 1115 108th Avenue NE, Bellevue, WA 98004 (206) 456.1726 Rick Beeler City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Blvd. Tukwila, WA 98188 Re: Sunwood III Dear Rick, DG:lt Dick October 12, 1984 Thank you for your letter of September 27th. I apologize for not getting a letter off to you regarding the continuance of our project. It has taken us a longer time than I expected to negotiate a settlement with the existing Homeowners. On Wednesday of this week there was a meeting held by the Sunwood Homeowners to create a new board to accept the operation of the Association from us. During this next week we will be turning over the board to this new group of officers. After that has been accomplished they will select a committee that we will work with hopefully to come up with a mutually acceptable design. I hope we would be able to make a revised sub- mittal to the city in approximately eight weeks or so. Cordially, Pacif Tow, ouse Builders IM =0 OCT 15 1981 ` crry City .Lr Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila Washington 98188 September 27, 1984 Dick Gilroy Pacific Townhouse Builders 1115 108th Ave. N.E. Bellevue, WA 98004 RE: Sunwood III Dear Dick: Pursuant to our conversation of September 11, 1984, you were to send a letter to me stating this proposal was still active. To dateI have not received anything. You also indicated that revised plans will be submitted by October 1, 1984. By October 1, 1984, please submit the revised plans in order to be placed on the October 25, 1984, Planning Commission agenda. At that meeting we plan to present a recommendation on revised plans or on abandonment of the pro- ject. •Respec l ly Rick Beeler Associate Planner RB /blk cc: Planning Director Building Official 0/11/6 id .0 to;el.t&i^1 4ZA7 zbeed ley2%eif. Win, 6 ,w.cAt. *ILA ; 1909 Dear Dick: RB /Blk ;s ue , City �f Tukwila March 13, 1984 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila Washington 98188 Gary L VanDusen, Mayor DICK GILROY Pacific Townhouse Builders 1115 108th Ave. N.E. Bellevue, WA 98004 RE: Sunwood III Pursuant to your letter of February 14, 1984, requesting indefinite con- tinuance of this matter, the City will take no further action until notified by yourself. However, after a reasonable period of time the time- liness of your application becomes questionable. Therefore'we request the application be returned to the Planning Commission per your notification by September 3, 1984. Otherwise we will assume the application abandoned. • . Respectul ick Beeler Associate Planner 1 • P le route a rat Way park-ano 1 trip on Route 187 Federal Way park- 1:42 a.m. and arrive Parkway and South !6:12 a.m. The route he Star Lake and :-and-ride lots and •• • 'al for Routes 20 and .tnter will move froM outhwest and South; yet to Southwest 98th Avenue Southwest.?'. a.m. trip will be 'on Route 177 to the park-and-ride lot Avenue and Pike service will be dis-: reach the Renton riders can take, es from the Federal -ride lot or the Star -ride lot and transfer to Routes 240 and - 1 the Kent Boeing in transfer at South- ibound Route 150. A Touch of Class llIRIEN'S FINEST RESTAURANT &DISCO INNERS FOR THE PRICE .0F, 1 co DANCING IN SOUTH SEATTLE 91iM-2AM' • Closed Sunday and Monday : • 1, ;•:IL • ' !: • ; 56 SW 152nd Sudan 243-1800 — wires Feb. 29. 192/ • .1 . • •• • •• • • • •• •• • • • • • • •• • :0 • • • • • • •■• • • •• .• P • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • : • • • under close scrutir.: session of the counc Councilman Bruce mented. - The council panel nt. Laing, Gary Grant, chairman, aig, Audrey Gruger. contend more information is need- ed on soil and drainage as well, ai on Sunwood Boulevard, the privn and sole access road to the condo4, Because of the decision, diV project will not be discussed at thg Feb. 23 meeting of the Tukwila Planning Commission. ELUXE SHEERS I PHONE Sold B tm,„t 872-5710 0 °7: — „ Lp illimmuonNIIMINIMINIIMinusoliesilillIMIMMONMerlirlfr HMS - ! i C CITY OF TUKWILA NOTICE OF PUBLIC•MEETING OF THE • TUKWILA PLANNING COMMISSION NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Tukwila PLANNING COMMISSION has fixed the 26th day of January , 19 84 at 8:00 P.M. in City Council ChaMbers of Tukwila City Hall, 6200 Southcenter Boulevard, Tukwila, Washington, as the time and place for A. DR -6 -83, J.B. Wright Corp., requesting approval of 84 multiple family units on 4.62 acre:site. B. DR -1 -84 Pacific Townhouse Builders, requesting approval of Sunwood III consisting of 66 multiple family units on a 3.85 acre site. Any and all interested persons are invited attend. Published: DISTRIBUTION: Record Chronicle Date: January 13, 1984 Mayor CITY OF TUKWILA PLANNING DIVISION PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT AGENDA ITEM IV) B. . DR -1 -84, Pacific Townhouse Builders (Sunwood Phase III) INTRODUCTION This property has been the subject of much land use deliberation in the past. As the most southerly portion of the Sunwood development, the property is one of the most visible sites in the City of the hillside north of I -405. Pacific Townhouse Builders purchased the property and sucessfully achieved rezoning to R -4, multiple family, in 1981. Actual development is sought now. FINDINGS 1. On June 2, 1981, the City Council rezoned the property to R -4 subject to: A. Overall residential density permitted on this site shall not exceed 20 D.U. /acres. B. Any project proposed on this site subsequent to City Council approval of the subject rezone action shall require Board of Architectural Review of the site, architecture and landscaping details prior to issuance of building permits (Exhibit A). The property consists of 3.85 acres, which would permit 77 dwelling units (3.85 x 20 D.U. /acres = 77 D.U.). Only 66 dwelling units are proposed in 8 buildings (Exhibit B). Board of Architectural Review is also required by Section 18.60.030(2)(E), Tukwila Municipal Code (TMC). 2. Per TMC Section 18.60.070 the BAR may approve, approve with conditions or deny the application. Guidelines for this review are contained in TMC Section 18.60.050. 3. Little substantial vegetation exists on the property except for a small variety of trees at the middle portion of the southerly property line (Exhibit B) and a 10" apple tree along the south side of the access road. The proposed landscape plan adds a great deal of tree, shrub and groundcover material and retains most of the existing trees (Exhibit C). Page -2- //- PLANNING COMMISSION t . DR -1 -84, Pacific Townhouse Builders January 26, 1984 4. Exhibit B indicates essentially the entire site will be recontoured to accomo- date the proposed development pursuant to the existing Sunwood Boulevard access road off 62nd Ave S. The property is identified as environmentally sensitive by the Comprehensive Plan. According to the 1975 Data Inventory this is due to: A. Slopes may be unstable when modified. B. Slopes of 15 -25 %. C. Part of a major wooded area. j At the time of writing the staff report a slope andsoil analysis had not been submitted. 5. Parking will be provided for 138 cars, slightly more than the 2 cars per unit required by Zoning Code Section 18.56.050 TMC. The buildings will be three stories averaging approximately 30i feet in height (Exhibit D). Wood materials will be featured and painted /stained grey with white trim. The roof will be of brown composition shingles. 6. TMC Section 18.52.060 requires 12,034 square feet of recreation space.The pro- posed recreation building and outdoor jacuzzi and deck satisfy part, but not all, of this requirement. At least 3,009 square feet must be useful for use by children which is not indicated on the plan. In any case the 12,034 square feet of recreation space has not been set aside on the property. 7. Carports will contain about one car per dwelling unit and will be constructed the same as carports in Sunwood Phases I and II (Exhibit F). 8. Sunwood Boulevard contains a median strip which will be planted with trees and feature street lights the same as exists at the entrance from 62nd Ave. s. A sidewalk is included along the northerly and easterly side of the road (Exhibit B). 9. Some view blockage may occur and impact adjacent buildings of Sunwood Phase I. Existing topography slopes southerly downward, thereby reducing some of the view impairment. The extent of impact on existing views is difficult to assess from available information. 10. The rezone of the property contained a site plan very similar to that proposed (Exhibit B). However, the rezone did not obligate the City to the site plan, but the previous plan enabled analysis of land use impacts of the applicant's contemplated R -4 development. 11. The following Comprehensive Plan Policies and /or objectives apply: Policy 1. Maintain the wooded character of the steep slopes and upland plateau, and encourage the use of vegetation in slope stabilization. Page -3- PLANNING COMMISSION DR -1 -84, Pacific Townhouse Builders January 26, 1984 Policy 3. Discourage disturbance of vegetation when no in conjunction with the actual development of the property. (p. 24, Natural Environment) Policy 1. Discourage development on slopes in excess of 20 percent. Policy 2. Preserve the views of hillside residents. (p. 26, Natural Environment) Policy 1. Discourage development in areas where slopes are known to be unstable. In areas where the stability of slopes is questionable, allow development only after a qualified pro- fessional can demonstrate that slopes will be stable even after site modification. (p. 29, Natural Environment) Objective 8. Recognize the environmental basemap of the Tukwila Planning areas which dipicts the distribution and extent of natural amenities based on the previously mentioned objectives and use this map as a general planning guide. (p. 30, Natural Environment) Policy 1. Strive to preserve steep hillsides and wooded areas in a sce- nic condition. Encoureage replanting and revegetation of denuded areas not in the process of development. (p. 34, Open Space) Policy 3. Provide for active recreation gareas (ballfields, tennis courts, swimming pools, playgrounds, community center) con- sistent with the needs of the community. Policy 4. Provide for passive recreational areas (parks,g natural reser- ves, picnic grounds) consistent with the needs of the community. (p. 35, Open Space) 12. The Public Works Department is unable to determine if adequate water is available to properties up hill from the total Sunwood development. Sufficient water is available for Sunwood, but may reduce uphill pressure to an unsatisfactory level. At the time of writing the staff report, a water pressure analysis had not been submitted by the applicant. • Page -4- PLANNING COMMISSION DR -1 -84, Pacific Townhouse Builders January 26, 1984 CONCLUSIONS 1. The site plan include appropriate landscaping, provides for pedestrian circula- tion on and through the site, and forms a "transition" from 62nd Ave. S. and Sunwood Boulevard (TMC Section 18.60.050(1)(A)). Parking areas are linear in configuration, avoiding the appearance of a large mass of pavement. Also car- ports and landscaping break up the visual impacts of the parking areas (TMC Section 18.60.050(1)(B)). The visual impact of the proposed buildings appears to be similar to Sunwood Phases I and II. Due to the relatively more exposure to public view of the southerly portion of the hillside, the buildings very likely will be more visible to the valley floor (TMC Section 18.60.050(1)(C)). 2. Sunwood is a mixture of architecture styles and building materials. Phase I is essentially more "modern" and adorned in white stucco. Phase II is more "conservative contemporary," consisting of wood materials. However, overall the visual effect is harmony with each phase, and Phase III is harmonious from Phase I to Phase III has largely been accomplished by landscaping in Phase I. Some additional landscaping is included in Phase III along the northerly border, but reliance appears placed on Phase I for transition. This seems satisfactory (TMC Section 18.60.050(2)(B)). Available information and advise from the Public Works Department indicate the proposed vehicular circulation system is appropriate relative to Phase III and 62nd Ave. S. (TMC Section 18.60.050(2(D) and (E)). But some concern exists of public safety in Sunwood Boulevard relative to the median strip accomodating vehicular congestion and public safety vehicle movement. 3. Existing topography is generally steadily rolling southerly down the hill. Proposed grading for the most part is parallel to the land contour to minimize grades and promote safety. Sometimes rockeries up to 8 feet high are needed to balance cuts. Such walls will require additional soil and engineering study (TMC Section 18.56.050(3)(A) and (B)). The little amount of existing substantial vegetation on the site is for the most part protected from grading by landscaping and rockeries (Policy 1 and 3, p. 24, Comprehensive Plan). Without benefit of a slope analysis of the site it is impossible to determine if development will occur on slopes over 20% (Policy 1, p. 26; Policy 1, p. 29 and Objective 8, p. 30, Comprehensive Plan). A "best guess" is some portions of the property exceed slopes of 20 %, which should be discouraged. Landscaping on the site appears intended more to interrupt the building masses and define the perimeter of parking and access areas than enhance the scenic vista and view from and of the site. Currently this vista /view is largely unobstructed by vegetation and buildings. Therefore, landscaping should pre- serve the vista /view between and around the buildings (TMC Section 18.60.050(3)(C)). (Policy 2, p. 26, and Policy 1, p. 34, Comprehensive Plan) Wheel stops will help protect plant materials adjacent to on -grade parking areas (TMC Section 18.60.050(3)(D)). Page -5- PLANNING COMMISSION C DR -1 -84, Pacific Townhouse Builders January 26, 1984 Trash containers are proposed to be located adjacent to or between carports. This seems to be less than appropriate screening (TMC Section 18.60.050(3)(F) and (G). 4. Building components relate well to each other and provide proportional interruption of the facades without appearing forced. The grey color with white trim is strikingly different from Phase I and II and therefore should be evaluated more closely (TMC Section 18.60.050(4)(C) and (D)). Submitted architectural elevations do not show mechanical equipment or light fixtures (TMC Section 18.60.050(4)(E) and (F)). Building design is essen- tially a single design with variations produced by modulation of the struc- tures, slight reduction of density and change of a few architectural features. Overall the effect will probably not appear monotanous (TMC Section 18.60.050(4)(6)). 5. Street lighting is the same as existing at the entrance onto Sunwood Boulevard, which appears compatible with all phases of Sunwood (TMC Section 18.60.050(5)(B)). 6. Conformance with recreational space requirements is not apparent in the propo- sal. Some active and passive recreation areas exist in Phases I and II, but it is uncertain whether these facilities and the proposed jacuzzi area of Phase III satisfy the requirements of TMC 18.52.060 (Policies 3 and 4, p. 35, Comprehensive Plan). However, it is apparent the area requirements are unmet. 7. Water pressure analysis for the J.B. Wright Company development (DR -6 -83) con- firmed the Public Works Department's experience with the water system on the hill. Unless a water pressure analysis is prepared for Sunwood Phase III, the Public Works Department can't analyze the total water supply problem and its resolution. However, the Department's "best guess" is that Sunwood may not present a significant problem to other properties in the water system serving Sunwood. PRELIMINARY RECOMMENDATION Based on the above, staff preliminarily recommends Sunwood Phase III be approved subject to: 1. Planning Department verification of recreation space provided per TMC Section 18.52.060. If additional space is needed, Board of Architectural Review approval is required. 2. Public Works and Fire Departments review and final approval of the median strip in Sunwood Boulevard relative to public safety and access. 3. Submittal of soils and enginering reports on rockeries over 5 feet in height for final review and approval of the Public Works and Building Departments. 4. Revision of the landscape plan to open up more of the central portion of the site to retain more of the existing vista /view. Page -6- PLANNING COMMISSION ( DR -1 -84, Pacific Townhouse Builders January 26, 1984 5. Installation of wheel stops to protect on -grade landscaping. 6. Appropriate screening of trash containers per approval of the Planning Department. 7. Reevaluation of building colors to be more compatible with Sunwood Phase I or II. An earth tone color combination may be more appropriate and consistent with the brown shingle roof. Trash containers are proposed to be located adjacent to or between carports. This seems to be less than appropriate screening (TMC Section 18.60.050(3)(F) and (G). 8. Submittal of slope analysis, soil study and other environmental informaiton pursuant to the State Environmental Policy Act for verification by the Planning Department that a conflict does not exist between this information and either the proposal or BAR decision. 9. Demonstraiton of compliance with recreation space requirements of TMC Section 18.52.060 per review and approval of the Planning Department. 10. Submittal of a water pressure analysis per Public Works Department requirements. EXHIBITS A - Zoning Map. B - Site Plan. C - Landscaping Plan. D - Architectural Elevations. E - Recreation Building Elevations. F - Photographs of Carport Design. G - Elevations of Jacuzzi Building. RB /blk R -I.12O R•I.120 R•1120 . \. �: I \\' • 51t LLMEGIB R AGPICLLTURAL R•I.200 SIa. FAMLY RESIDENTIAL SINGGLE FN.ILY RESCENTIA_ ❑ S JLE FAMLY RESCENTIAL R•I•T2 91GLE FAMLY RESIDENTIAL Li R -2 TWO FAMLY RESCENTIAL R•3 Li THREE AND FOUR WILY RESCENTIAL ❑ RW APARTMENTS ❑ MLLTRE RESIDENCE NIGH CENSTY M P-0 ESSIONAI. AND CEFICE C -I IE480RNOCO FETAL C•2 Li REGIONAL FETAL C -P L i FLAMED EMESS CENTER ❑ �NDUSTPoAL PARK M•1 LGFR A .STPY M•2 MAN ICAN IDUSTIN • ©041 419GOVOLA (SlYJl1VlRIS \I I CAN Mt 1s 1 SLIyN*V ocao MASSZTZ CM APR- 2O. 4192 C` I ail 4 a 7 a Et _ _ .� i_re��i���oMrort►'s�ll►.a�'/ lili� /�a� . ■ - - - mi.o. - - Mal i i 1 lry ti TTT rrtat alap RI,- It 4 m l 2 1� omens afar 4Aa Ifspol 1110.4. 444 i i I 14 kW eta not XII e e a SSS II la li tr Fisz COMPOSITE GRADING, STORM DRAINAGE. & UTILITY PLAN SUNWOOD PHASE IQ TUKWILA, WASHINGTON ixt " S SOClATES ENGINEERING SURVEYING PLANNING 11415N E. 1711T 11. • KA My YIr111110JJ • 170!1117141.48 NIMMONS • 4 .�R r. suun� 0111110 _Li Rl•7lrm trot Ede Inn OM Fetr/e! I ell 7•AI[ moor A ltflt &DO M tri Irmo, AU. [fair. some 77eRAef!'/le. Ala 01 1 4 M SUNWOOD CORY Aar nrio rtArl Met wnA(L ar.*ree -F+► -- T. r"t°`°ft li == - 1 wt�mv A7I1En1c an • 1. • iii � r� inz-ermwa mite await . M : i s ~ofnum man' 0OWIE OWL se'+' e.0 NIP rI PA MIS SITIMICS,11 A11 WV 1/1 ORM ref Awl 7 p A11 6 1981 CITY OF TUKWiLA PLANNING DEPT. C C swizz Lev ffmt D warp 'MSS. KEire AWE .'1 2.x nm e OIndot6 k A corners tyP NORTH / FRONT ELEVATION o e angled IA wo.UTyp SOUTH /REAR ELEVATION Como. Ghln9itroTyp. 4030 t? bcment tef. ate how above • Attic verit D- C I in Hors revel vat TEIN111131 I, tit MBA m 111 r; tigtl* .es ;� ( IlIlillIllir rIT 9r 2x tnm e 43tncioarc> t C -ner5 typ 4040 'Rip JORTH / FRONT ELEVATION Aso C an /A Lo o m "SOUTH /REAR ELEVATION Comp. 64itn eh T9p. 4o3o 8 bobernent �'1P act note above Attic vent' P.O. C u �ut D - H on3. lxvel 5idm tr. • 4 !1T- � N- if1 " e 111 �.3 3050 - a il ,. 5 I L !AN 6 1984 CITY OF TUKW {LA PLANNING "LPL_ MR, EAST/ WEST ELEVATION B tl s • . EAST/ WEST ELE\ • 0 / toed EAST / WEST ELEV, fl N w 5 t- o 1 EAST/ WEST ELEVATION D (4) 4oso 500 EAST / WEST ELEVATION C 5040 Trip A tton3 beU¢Q 5idtr11t p ) 2.oTci? front, 4rear Vki4 MIT-a 13 . 11- OCC?PsW Gf [ �S SUtJWQQ19 1 YN4A-1f5Vr --b p b j'_, 1 9 198,1 1 C , DEPT. 4 - rT.IM Crfl ) %j 3W L. 29 *trr- A H aasirr app:; _! ` ■ • CITY OF TU( .VILA Central Permit System MASTER LAND DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION FORM PLEASE WRITE LEGIBLY OR TYPE ALL REQUESTED INFORMATION -- INCOMPLETE ACCEPTED FOR PROCESSING. SECTION I: GENERAL DATA TYPE OF APPLICATION: D BS I P SHORT PLAT D SUED I V I S I ON CONDITIONAL USE ❑ UNCLASS. USE 0 VAR I ANCE 0 SHORELINE PERMIT D CHG. OF ZONING PRD o PMUD IN TERURBAN • COMP. PLAN ▪ AMENDMENT 1) APPLICANT: NAME ( / /0.1.i.Lelep,!6 ( : ,2 1-h G. de-','' TELEPHONE (2Oj ) SS- /7 .L ADDRESS /f/s /O/ Ac: xi - Z 7 114=16.. ZIP ?,.p (1 2) PROP. OWNER: NAME .5:5 ) C TELEPHONE ( ) ADDRESS ZIP 3) PROJECT LOC l T1ON: (STREET ADDRESS, GEOGRAPHIC, LOT /BLOCK) J a ‘'2 � , ve x . „..171.111 u,� c�� +g 411,G SECTION II: PROJECT INFORMATION 4) DESCRIBE BRIEFLY THE PROJECT YQU PROPOSE. 5) ANTICIPATED PERIOD OF CONSTRUCTION: FROM /9 TO / '77 -1 6 ) WILL PROJECT BE DEVELOPED.IN PHASES? YES ONO IF YES, DESCRIBE: - /rcZ-` ✓ . 7 ) NAN 5 1984 APP_( MNP I. NO f l -a - -0 QS iSWILA BE PROJECT STATISTICS: ,/ A) ACREAGE OF PROJECT SITE: NET 11 j4 GROSS .35' S EASEMENTS / B) FLOORS OF CONSTRUCTION : TOTAL it FLOORS .3 INCLUDES: © BASEMENT OMEZZANINE TOTAL GROSS 72 f03 INCLUDES: [ASEMENT OMEZZANINE FLOOR AREA C) SITE UTILIZATION: EXISTING PROPOSED NOTES ZONING DESIGNATION ' - `/ J COMP. PLAN DESIGNATION BUILDING FOOTPRINT AREA O 2 3 "0 I ❑ LANDSCAPE AREA - O 'J. '/ 2.- 0 PAVING AREA / Z yJ 0 0 /.y„W U TOTAL PARKING STALLS: -STANDARD SIZE /0.5 - COMPACT SIZE 2 0 - HANDICAPPED SIZE TOTAL LOADING SPACES ,gyp AVER. SLOPE OF PARKING AREA 3 Q AVER. SLOPE OF SITE /2 74, 8) IS THIS SITE DESIGNATED FOR SPECIAL CONSIDERATION ON THE CITY'S ENVIRONMENTAL BASE MAP? OYES ❑ NO SECTION III: APPLICANT'S AFFIDAVIT 1 , � c /,-9r J ($.L �d v , BEING DULY SWORN, DECLARE THAT I AM THE CONTRACT PURCHASER OR OWNE 4 )F THE PROPERTY INVOLVED IN THIS APPLICATION AND THAT THE FORE- GOING STATEMENTS AND ANSWERS HEREIN CONTAINED AND THE INFORMATION HEREWITH SUBMITTED ARE IN ALL RESPECTS TRUE AND CORRECT TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLE AND 'ELIEF. DATE r /-3 X SUASCR I BZ17'% sit -1G • woRN BEFORE-ME THis o � % DAY OF AN4r4/2y , I9 5 . • / iJ 1 K GcJ be •l NOTARY F=U ‹ 1 17: IN A F THE STATE OF WASHINGTON RESIDING / AT )3E44 4 I14/E (S I G9iA ii�'' C ' �a� - OR OWNER) drawings sunwood phase iii windmark homes I le •.yf d {nL it.' 1 ..�rtr ` vt 0,4"1.E 1'' 'LD•4' 4): . seN, 74/1140 roan 4 7 '1001.,9 C..41.14.1. " re • •■f, ,ti i , 16 , *•! , 1 '1#4 • • Itt..11;;Gtet 4..1? / • • . - ■ .... -. .:::. — -. ...% - - - .. .., ..- „. ..- - ..-- 1,',-rriet ___ - -- , / - ... , / ....- • „ -5 ,-- , ..-• . -,- 5- •••• ... a ' - / ., / ,./ ./ . ...- i /" to ...- 0 • tivret•It. . • .•••• 0 =-3 .41 ;!- RECREATION AREAS 1 2 3 4 5 6 q:Fe • , LA 1 4" 4 - 7.x.:e c.OJ t4. L.111 n-LJI-1 ;e %XI.E.-"F , n. -),* PIM.* ,1?-4°C3-Jv_ 14' 1,.11)1' Cf 421 rCiJc.. t.:4-01(1.41.1.1FPP1. eik./ t 1 3( *'._ !.-i'j5 Ld".1. 'ITO L-1- :1- To 1.4)-TI<ErJ sia Poeur405 ' j..1 a ITAL;I:::■••■ 1,40 rt... -1-...<_'.r..3C 5v11 "V^LEAK 3-id•f= 44!+.1.. - 1-L" VI et'fa.41...,t-i VIA.A.)-(V-t f I:1 19 Mel-WI-4..41 pIL LekL-RI.4;111 # IterActieT Tee-4 1-tUe-tine, (WAS; SfeFfz•/IRr-l-4S, 44114 Preimut" -1-i•Tirtu* • HEZE.ICA- tzlzt.1-rxe Wi triP LOW Ele 4I$ •cioass Nat 12141 Fir 11C111 73• Stz.teIrV C111~ azt_rfricr, CN r • Ss Carysainammr loottothoorm - Vogt, �sLa..ty. - IS Oramthars oiamoorioasia Illearorl Primer , • SI Liromm Kay • . • , • ‘• Paporsz nualomila Poppy • - • 311 Iliklbec It 1.11 111.3T.113 .. alliel Igo*, lame ' . . . .7. ••'' • , _ ': , !..: DI lagiaom ruerslantim- arroyo tin. • ' , . ,, , „ . , • . , , ‘, ..-_,.01... 15 Caromptio tlattett• . Plata, Oato • oplio ., . • 1.:• • .S: .'• r " . ".‘ 1,7. • 4 ''• ! ..•.,` • '' • , , I: 1% Digital], purism, - - toed aim avallablm from, Clyde SOW, liamg 1.0.• Dor Infl I "lots, - * -5 . ra/lay. Califoraia.14545 (4111) 7511-0 513. pro goomf.,. ' '.• • , -;-.: 1;11 1 S 5.141 CODpight • NOP, Mass amigme allsoCO4,11. fa g • • . dir 1 '77 .• • • ',' •■••• 114 P r�w hqs S,t&ocd 4hase 3 i?Mdr ffornes ) I t.V \tj. Fir PRWATEL I 11111111110 1IIIIIIIIIIII11111,1II111RIPPI IIIIIIIIIII1111 IT11'DIII1II1111111' 171111! Ig11111111111111111111VITIIIIIIIIIIII i 3 4 5 6 7 8 'I 01 ' IF THIS MICROFILMED DOCUMENT IS LESS _CLEAR THAN THIS NOTICE, IT IS DUE TO SUNWOOD / WINDMARK HOMES SITE PLAN 0 10 20 40 80 3o MAY 1985 JLA JOHN LANE ASSOCIATES 115 WEST DENNY WAY SEATTLE. WASHINGTON 98119 MUMIIVE 1.1 JUN 10 19851 CITY OF TUKWILA PLANNING DEPT. 1 5 LIN WOOD P> .i: • BX19•1N6 PLANT -r- 1 _.tlyaocATB cX17TC .,� l i •' :4 1 - r PLAi�TS HBI.0 : — ._.— r.�_:._- -- - -- 1 E.Y.WrI! -� I L3L 1 t'I.ni4iS TO • I r KOCAre,C 1 � r t1 ' 1 _• � _l ._.. _ J-. _1 I L. _ _— � __ __ _ —1 I ~ ■ i '- P 1 g 1 1 1 0 1 1 111 1 1 j 1 1 11 4 111 1 1 j 1 1 1 ITI I I F I I Pl l l l l l I l l l l l l i a l lI P T I'''I' O P I P ll l F O I lll l l W'I T W 11 I Il 1-4 0 • "• " 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 116 ®FLEIiIn LE RULER -767 AWFilrart..- QE 6Z BE. L2 9Z SZ VZ CZ ZZ IZ O Z 61 61 LI 91 SI VI 'Cl ZI 1l OI ind11llllll4llll ,l1llll61111l04!J TIU! Ii1JI( U1O111111111601111611111W11OM11p1111111l11N11I1111, 111161111111611JIII1IpIlI1111III1 IF THIS MICROFILMED DOCUMENT IS LESS CLEAR THAN THIS NOTICE, IT IS DUE TO THE QUALITY OF THE ORIGINAL DOCUMENT, a n SECTION A e 62NG So. P LANT LEGEND 196 543 197 VERI rY L HII.L511. •I i•LL 4 PLh0 SoTANICAL /COMMON NAME (�TREtT TR4;E`.)1 50ME EXtS• . ADD vil-legt3 f1 PED,) GoRNUS NUT1 - ALLI OR { ^ LOr irk IIATIVE, EASTEtN �(c C IKCANATUN6 PINE. MAPLE- T-50/ HET- KQP4lYLLA n M5K TEN• UJA PLIC-ATA FII'JU3 GcNTOKTA e HEML MoLNTAI• +IEMI -ocK- WE KED CEDAK 1-IOKE PINE AR6ur( (Max, VIBURNUM TINUs "• TRAW66R. TREE LAURUSTINUS t;HODoDENDRotJ 118K'Irs AZALEA HYPiKIDS PIERIS VARIETIES hlAHONIA AQUIFoL.IUM VIE7UKNUM DAVID' }IoPODENQF i fl AS, (EV Er4IGEEN� ANDROMEDA O4; GRAPE p /VID'S VIBURNUM EKICA CAKNEA ° srP,IN -WGOD `:PKINLiWOOU 14A1 HEDEtzA HELIX oK MATG4-1 EXrV'Ct IVY •. -144 KE-MAK Ks MATCH .xi - ri mer, 140 ANTAKAC -" FFGFeS CL UI.It'5 U55 As5or.TED 70 sUIT AREA SIZE 4 sc.REL-MG KEc;;U IRSNIENTS At-T. W/ A?fficovAL of L,A.; U5E To son SIZE 4 _••c,KEEti 14SEDS, sUIT To SIZE, xrosu RE, VARI6T MEEK. ALT. Wit A • ArfRol, ALT ,4tiCT, U•U,esp, KINkJ 1 K4NIJ1 USE rKoONDCove'i: NcEDGD F.R CONTKOL OF. VARIETY. • 1EX15TINu TR - WILL EE EXAMINED FOR I- {EAL-Ti♦ AND KEPT IF rooslEALE• ANY D4E.E.MED UNSAFE. ot= e:zYOND REDE4:MINu VALUE WILL rE REPLACE-1D WITH AMOT+IER: TREE SUITABLE To -THE 51TUATIOF-1 • • EXISTING TOPSOIL To 47b REMOVED 544ALL SE 5rGCKPILED FoF: USE IN pLANTING AND PIN15rl GI`API1.1. INHERE CLAY / ur Is FOUND IN PLANT IDLES, LOOSEN Ca" 14 E'ASC. OR 4;oLE, MIX IN T•or 'oIL UcH '1HAT 5AGKFILL IS % -' /2 TvPS : -A�• G4IE 'F c5R Di=A1NA6E FROM HOLE.. A =f ILL Iv1U5T ISE AT LEAST EXISTING 5011 TYPE, WELL-MINED WITH ADDED T•OI'SOIL, • R•E.FER ALL CW5511010,5 70 LANDSoA1E At`cHITE - r511WEE1 JAN 8 19841 CITY OF TUKWILA PLANNING DEPT. Joe, Mo.5316 r WATER METER (TYPICAL) WM% 32'4 "PVC.015O% F.F. 16 1 )M,L 01. 144 I•FIREHYDRANTASS` �. CONCRETE BLOCKING • 1111 "NLIO% ..i2 -160- - 1511- BL E -B WATER FE 152.0 P 15E0 "NV. 148.80 4'INY. SURFACE CO. TOP 1720 6 "INV. l6 . 6' TYP RE PLANTER. INSTALL UM( PAVEMENT "SANSEWE -"e /611 r.. 148516 _ - _ TYPE !• 15011 'VE 161.5=( .25 (FIE I 1 EX.S . NNE CONTRACTOR 10 REMOVE rot f DISPOSE OF EX. ROCKERY 5 5 M \ L rMx I45 .\ ONCRETESLOCW/N6, 2IL.R-8 8 WATER ' CONSTRUCT 241 CONCRETE DRIVEWAY ENTRANCE PER CITY wltA STOS. __ 0-7" T COWMAN &TO REMOVE ND DISPOSE OF EX ASPHALT PARKING LOT M.J. -/62 ANN L II 99� ji\ 1 / /14.141.19 IN .41.4BOUTidmlr I • NEW 8'1 .601(1 .00� SAN SEWER FOR ENTRANCE, REPLACE EX. CURB AND GUTTER WITN TYPE D "CURB GUTTER PER RPM STD. PLAN 110.5 CARPORT (I \ E RM M.N. 10P15 56.1119 140.35 ( n 87/11.144.90' l•8•X6"TEE, I fIRENYO.4NTA 1 CONCRETEROCA' 4 '/ 50 .CONNECT TO dB DEADEN MAIN 1 HELD LOCATIOi FP: 1367D 32,,6, 5.0.45 TOP 140.0 6711V. 12586 . A 5.0.020 4 "INV. 13500 F.F. 1680 152'•. "SAN.SEWER 3 0020 • 70.4 C� 80 %' r 0 - •/ 9* CE.+ I3 TYP � I - % ,1�_� PEQ ARY mlll! - TOP7 64.5 x _ TOP /4 CONNECT TO E/lD OfEX 8" 12 "INV.l6 ,a(9 " /NV 139 as e t 56.0 X6060 NWJ2 AtY (46 MINYTOR9PIaSRUILd _� 'x 5'0400 O/0.0% -- 140__ 5A,. . 1387 6' /NV. /55 8' FF 199. 5AN. 5/ . -- 4, / OP17S 2/ .. 8/1N RV . 4 8 ° /NY. RT947 . 92Ne "p ,.. � N Y. /60 PACE CO. CE C.0. 7 "1.00 dill■lia.011110 /NM TYPE PC EX. ROC _ . NEW 0C - - O ABANDON OR REMOVE EX. EXCESS B" • MAIN S 10= 4"050% N88 ° 24 ' OYE EX. ROCKE AS REOUJREO fo FOR STORM OR INSTALL • /DON. 6 4PPLE 36.88Pit ca.* le TYPEE•C TOP 160.60 BIM! 15826 W 4 "1M4.158.60 W 181L90•BEND j MJ.L. CONC. BLOCKING /60 e.8#11 nPE PC 1OP15907 121NY 15595 8 "INY. l562B l•0. "X6 "TEE !•FIRE HYDRANT A CONC. BLOCKING 1 CONC. BLOCKING RETA /N /NO WALL /70 CONNECT 70 EXISTING B "WATER MAIN WITH: 1.8 TAPPING SLEEVE W16" rAPPING VALVE CONCRETE BLOCKING /BO I FIRE HYDRANT ASSEMBLY �q0 \4' claim (TYP.) FOR EANCE, ! XISTINGCORB ND GU TER WI PER AMA STO.PLAIrlf 5� NEW RO m........ .v....a.a .wraz- ----�- r. -2...s �... ,z.. MNN t EX. B "SRN. SE E)L•. 1315 J FFI LO VERIFY 1° o C.B.# TOP 1330 12 'INV 155/2 4"111Y 128.78 EX.SAN MH. 70P18451 8 "INV.17371 N 8' /NV. 17346W &INV 17334E 8181 173215 (45 mar) Ex.CB 701' 18463 12741176.331V l2 "INV 17633/1 12 115485 87/11 17954E I 36 ` o 1 111!!11!1110111) 111111111 112'' (rl ri ii111111i111111'II)111 REPLACE CURB, GUI/ER AND SIDEWALK IN K1110. MATCH EXISTING IMPROVEMENTS SUN Vb / OC ) i l Prf, 5l LONNECT TO EX. B" DEAOEND MAIN. FIELD VERIFY EXACT LOCAT /ON. INSTALL 1 8",(45 BEND M.J. CONCRE N88 °25 "LT +14° 5 " -� • UM. 0E` BZ BE L7 97 9Z 6Z CZ ea Ix IDE fil 9l Ll 91 9I Y1 'CI Zl II OL( _ 111111111161111111111111111111111I1111 111 1111111IIID1 1 11 11 pI11b1h111111111111111111111111111IU1111111I1111111111111111111I1111I1p111111I111111111I11111111 111111I1111111111111111111Ip11111 SEC. 23 , TWP23N, RGE. 4 E. , IY. M. 190 l- 8 "x 6 "TEE, M.J. x FL. r I "BL NO FL WITH TAP 1-FIRE HYDRANT ASSEMBLY CONCRETE BLOCKING 2'/ -17B- C8.#4 TOP 600 / - 271N 12660 / 4 I 8 1.- 153.00 C.8 #5 TYPETE48" TOP 134.0 /2'VNV. 12705 4 "INV. 13150 PEIF54" -- -176 -- W 15410% /146.5' TD CTR. %IS", •4Z'S '• 1'05 0 NOTE CONTRACTOR SHALL EXERCISE GRfAr CARE TO MINIMIZE DISTURBANCE AROUND EXISTING TREES, SHOWN ON PLAN DURING CONSTRUCTION. IF THIS MICROFILMED DOCUMENT IS LESS` CLEAR THAN THIS NOTICE, IT IS DUE TO, THE QUALITY OF THE ORIGINAL DOCUMENT! 2011 "CPfrt. W /RfSTRIC/OR• SEf A4FVL TOP 12500 OVERftt&/_EL.1Z430- _AMY 11900 /2%NY. 11900 B"IN/ /10.0 AVIV 120 . ou /50 /20 ..cimaaln. -,11,3" asmtle..- ....._ . I C8.#16 BENCH MARK NE. FLANGE Bar OF FIRE HYDRANT ELEVATION: 170.75 DATUM 'CITY OF TUKWIL A SEWER OISTRICT 70P /72.10 /2%NV 16960 EX.POWER VAULT 58.08 TOP/4994 etc. 14752 E 112P14116 INV 13413 EX CB TOP 13514 12"/NV 1326B IN 011 1326300T AS BUILT C.5 #3 TYPE FC TOP 14E13 8'01713749 30 EX PJNER r3Utr EX.CB TOP 12700 12 "INV 184/1/11 OW 1841900T SURFACE CO. TOP 1310 6'1NV. EX.SAN. Ml1 TOP /23.47 INV.1 /666 TEL OUr•AS me) NEW 81N1 PI (RECHANNEL INVERT) C.8#1 TYPE 70P /212 EX. /E) EX.I21NV. 11380t (FIELD VERIFY) CAUTION! UNDERGROUND POWER /N THIS AREA. EX.CB TOP 11675 17•INV 113.56,N PINY 1137500( A5 BUILT SCALE: / " =20' sLDFES 2a /h c M€ T EX.CB.•AS emu 10P 16324 1/1160.57(5) INV. 160.49 (N) INV. 16044 (S) ® EX. 6414 M.H. -AS BMX TOP 16348 1/1115769 /N INV. 15769 01)7 ..._CONCRETE RETAINING WALL PROPOSE ROCKERY (8'MAX.NEIGNT) T LOCATION OF 78451 DUMPSTERS - 172 ._•- EXISTING CONTOUR -- -134 -- .... PROPOSED FINISH CONTOUR !a6j ....PROPOSED FINISH SPOT ELEVATION PROPOSED ASPHALT PVMT. __ --PROPOSED STORM DRAIN - PO --PROPOSED SANITARY SEWER I ". ....PROPOSED B "WATER MAIN. ....PROPOSED FIRE HYDRANT AND W.M. WATER METER. F.N. LEGEND JAN 05 1984 O P L m N Y rn m i E 0 011 (7 a JOB NO. 78 -006 40V.163 �) g l�� 11111 � , N ryryE I A /ER.,I INSTAW URB�' 168.0 SURFACE CO t PAVEMENT. 1 TOP 172.0 6 "INV. /63. . d, WE F.F. SURFACE C.O. MP /520 6"INV. 14880 4'INV. 1476 _ IDL. . -170' (5011 161.5 • 12%8'. .25 (leeelo /' EX:SR NO \ � NEII P. yw7.791N ?W ig " 4.14BOOTNNEW 8 601 16?-- • ,.005 'O SAN. SEWER EX. ROC - ABANDON OR REMOVE EX. EXCESS B" MAIN 77 - - -- - -- COIYTRACmr-ID.RCMOYE A)ND OISPOSE'Of'EX ASPHALT, '. PARKING 'LOT , ' „ ATER -' . Hill 2IL.2•8 "WATER C8 4 TYPEPC' CONSTRUCT MIME CONCRETE 1DP/73.43 DRIVEWAY ENTRANCE PM CITY WILA SIDS. CONTRACTOR TO REMOVE 7O rE 4' DISPOSE OF EX. ROCKERY EF.1360 TOP 140.0 61,`N. 12886 3.0.020 4 "INV. /3200 107= "C?I.O/ SORfAC .0. - 12 5.76 I PROILY o 10'4 "e50% CONSTRUCT 3074E CB. #l3 rYP ARV TAO r - TOP764.5 CONNECT TO END Of Eta" 12 "INV.160� TOP /56.0 6050 A/NV /4RIP IASBWIr) ` . • Tom. EX.INV 14035( Ir BITIV.144 0 ull�n FOR ENTRANCE, REPLACE EK.CURB AND GUTTER N1171 TYPE D "CUR GOTTEN PER AIWA STARRY N0.5 CARPORT trio) �\ CONNECT TD dog DEADEN NW t I RIELD� RIFT LOCATI • �` / 04 / - -.144 - ! SA .M /38.7 6'9NV. 1252 . ' /2N BYNY, /69.47 � 5 • I8 "G0 i.. 92'•/2 "C+ 0 X51 - - .. aeDe /0 0 S''� 1.816 Midi. -11 , I•fIRENYORANTAS ' I CONCRETEBLOCK G 3 I j. n 01' __---L 5.0•/• 4OJG� 34L.2. - B"WATER IbuM�WW • ' 111 ?1 Ee /39.0 X 136 -' I 4 132 4 /NY. l6Q FACE CO. TOP 16 . FE1 351f6111 \ � � ■ I. a? - � - � • 1- I �.�,� 11��1 's" 1•B'k6 "1)6M.drfl ' la - ►`�- ��„ H) I I I Ir l EIRE NYORANTASS'Y. CONN TD EX .B"WAIER MAIN 1 � CON BLOCKING i f.8 M E BLOCKING VALVE 1 62 1y 3 =8 "8609. � O fi t T� In //42 W b In - • TIN WWII W • ,Ilywlnwnl ■ �h: +1 .140 '• r 0.5•. 1 /�(p. „� •, i Np, 37 1 TYPE �NV /4 &24 0 - 1 IV1i L f C " !� 1 1 1 520 8 q • p11 1k . 6 „ 5 °0 . 0 20 C4�f� „Ili i �e;x4 11 1 v��i � [5 .� lTi► ��, , te a I t tfr "?AJ_rl TA 4.1.103113111111111,8, 2. ill `11 �� "7--17-' /50 :i, L! 4.1. 1�" �, «, -� YARD DRA ' 9 =I .. - -1,5- , v4 os \ lahgt 148.5'. , y� . TO. P/5 l --"-------"'e /40, ` \ �_ _ F. B "WRYER o nnnN/ N lnnn/l NNnN nnnn nlnnn , Nu 2 1 - 2.0'• _ 501 • ��.! • ir. TYPE -.--� \ 1 •72791!8.42 • -....,.• --- 12LF- /e ▪ _ ,1 , (_,• „,,,,,� ` * BlNIL13 ic TOP /3790 • TYPE PC N88 /4/.65' O YE Ex. ROCKS FOR SrO8M OR N88 °24 • AS REGO 0 NSTALL ' N. 2012 " e10% EX.POWER VAULT EX.CB T0P/49.94 • ,2'/.E.14752 /70 C.B. # /2 MEC 127 160.60 87NY /5826 >" 4 1•819073EN° , MJ.L� CONC. BLOCKING `A. too C.B. #11 TYPE TT 727 15907 lZ'lNV 155.95 8 /NY.156.28 . 1 l•8 "X6 "TEE,MJx !•EIRE HYORRNrA CONC. BLOCKING 1•8 190•BEND,MJ. CONC. BLOCKING RETAINING WALL Dl CONNECT TO EXISTING &WATER MAIN NO 1 TA TE SL E W/6 "TAPPING VALVE /0 (• FIRE HYDRANT ASSEMBLY 12� /6 NEW ROCKERY C.8 TOP 133.0 l2 %MKl2Bl2 4 "INV. 128.78 EK.SAN M.H. 7071645/ 8149.1737111 8'/NY..11346W 8 /11Y. 17339E &INV 173PIS (as war) I 1:r ` \� ° �G- 11 ! t ;k 18 7 c i FOR ENTRANCE, REPLACE , EX /STING CURB ANO GLITTER' WI 1;; ; GUTTER PER APWA S/D. PLRA�" _208• � , �- ., EX. B "SANSEW ., A g• \ �� \ ���� EX. "INV. lfl0 YER/fY1. �j . � ' 1 \ 25.78 TOP 18463 12%NV I76.33W 121W /7533N I21NV 178485 B'INV 17954 REPLACE CURB, GUNER AND SIDEWALK INN /ND. MATCH EXISTING IMPROVEMENTS 511/ PHA SE i CONNECT TO EX. B" DEROEND MR1N. FIELD VERIFY EXACT LOCRT/DN. INSTALL 1.8 "x45• BEND ,M.J. CONCRETE-BLOCK/NG NBB'2527 "IT 44_` - •190 C.: #5 TxPE71.48" TOP 134.0 12705 4 "INV. 19150 I - 8 "x 6 "TEE, MJ. x FL. 1 • 6" ADAPTER M.J. x FL. 1 "BLIND FLANGE WITH TAP I.-FIRE HYDRANT ASSEMBLY CONCRETE BLOCKING /80 5 "2 / ------- __ -/7B-- ,----/76-- W 15420 j /146.5' TO CIR. / 36 ", 4 e0.5 %) ca #e TYPE if-54" 727p 600 E1F54" / /� TOP � 255.00 MRSEEOETNL 3b °INV. 1197/ 36"1NV 119. 0 Z IeNV goo 4 11.4533.00 / 1270. "INV l %. Od 4 "1NV l2 NOTE CONTRACTOR SNAIL EXERCISE GREAT CARE TO M /NIMl2E DISTURBANCE AROUND EXISTING TREES, SNOWNON PLRN DURING CONSTRUCT /0N. • BENCH MARK //E. FLANGE BOLT OF FIRE HYDRANT ELEVATION' 170.75 0ETUM'C /TYOFTUKWILA SEWER DISTRICT CB. #16 707172. /0 /2%NV /6960 EX SAN•MH 10714116 INV 134.13 EX CB. 707/3514 /8'/NV 13268/8 1219/ 132630(17 45 BUNT C.8 #3 rrPE TOP (42.13 8 7NV.13749 130 EX,POWER rauLr EX. CB. TOPI2700 12169 (24 2781 12 /NV /24/900r SURFACE CO. TOP 1310 6'789. /28.5 EX.7..B. TOP 116.75 12'INV.11356IN 12 /NV. l/3.750U( AS BUILT EX.SAN. Ml1 707123.47 INV 11588 (E8. our -AS BUILT) NEW B " /NV. //676 /N (RECHANNEL INVERT) C.B. # / TYPE Z•C TOP 12 121 WATCH EX. N) EX,12 /NV. /18.80± (FIELD 1/E8/74 CAUTION 1 UNDERGROUND POWER TN THIS AREA. SCALE 1"= 20' OI EX.CB.•ASBUILT TOP 16324 INV. 160.57 LE) INV. 160.49 (8) INV 16044 (S) ® EX. SAN M.N. •AS BUILT TOP 16348 INV 15769 IN INV. 15760 0117 LEGEND fir / - ' --si4 RECEIVED CITY OF TUKWILA JAN 2 G 1984 BUILDING DEPT. __CONCRETE RETAINING WALL. Ce PROPOSE ROCKERY (B'MAX.HEIGNr) T ....LOCATION OF TRASH DUMPSTERS - 122 .... EXISTING CONTOUR -- -134 -- _... PROPOSED FINISH CONTOUR ....PROPOSED7INISN /LW •f; PROPOSED ASPHALT PVMT. - oO _PROPOSED STORM ORA /N - 00 --PROPOSED SANITARY SEWER ....PROPOSED R "WATER MAIN. I la ....PROPOSED FIRE NORM' AND F.N. W.M. WATER METER. JAN 201984 a Si al Oh N E Og g E Y I" r ��! -�'jj N icp . , 1 JOB NO. 78-006 �i o � l l I 1 1 �� oIII lllll i Al I l 5 0h r •79] AWnsrzw OC 6Z D6 LZ 9Z SZ bZ ea ZZ IZ 0Z 61 BI LI mm "1 'LI ZI II Ot 111111111111111h1111111111111I111d111111111111g11111 101 11 1A11111Lp11111d11u111i111111111111111111mIm11111111111IU116111I(1111(11111m1111111111111(11mdu1111111111111111d (111111 5E7.83 , TWP23N, RGE.4 E. , WM. • 24x I 1. \ IF THIS MICROFILMED DOCUMENT IS LESS CLEAR THAN THIS NOTICE, IT IS DUE TO THE QUALITY OF THE ORIGINAL DOCUMENT DRLH OLOPE OICCAC. 04M , ;t5011.10 o• 67• 1O' e' lo' /• TOO' > 10• /. 00 COVI C 10 TD 00 P-001-11", OOLJD, * MAeKLD DeA1U; 11{ Move Lour.-tun OoL•F'r• OIr00T LIO 90 CLOTRIGTOR po_ xnoW ve e vIG 16 Y1Sie.1- AT BOOB. Or opB141UG, AuO DIRrGTLY o*/eL LADDGL. TOP 9L13■. 1e6.o0 GHAIU : too Le. CAPACTry, 01.4504. w14e1.1 e Cyar Is 1:01 .411 UL AIW To G6 FLA OJeKFLOAI ELEV. 12930 oeGIARE Rre TO WALL W 4ALV. 4'N BEL AP 00' MAX. MOVE._ OR (e" ReAeeelcroe Iuc_ . • De GULVP,fGr GIG •or equAL) 0/C. LIFT 4ATe -S UGCGCAOe COW. IUG.),OR IRO• How Beouze. 1410U1.ITe.0 1151-164R * W.TM. friisn IPIG FUOCA OG eQUA.L. N MINIMUM DIMENSION PLAN FRAME AND GRATE MAZ. SLOPE 1:1 f (9' STANDARD STALL 6'CEMENT CONCRETE EXTRUDED CURB 2"MIN. COMAE DEPTH •CLASS "B" .SHALT CONCRETE lWt "MIN. COMPC OEPIN CR. SURFACING TOP COURSE 29E•MIN. COMPT. DEPTH CR SURFACING BASE COURSE GRAVEL BASE .CLASS "5 MAYBE REQUIRED PENDING STYE CIWOI1704S NOTE: SEE COMPI4 /NG SHEET FOR HORIZONTAL LRYOUT OF BUILDING , PARK /NG AND ROADWAY TYPICAL ROADWAY AND PARKING SECTION NTS. SECTION TEMPORARY SEDIMENT TRAP AT STORM DRAIN INLET NTS. 425 Ce, 1F 2 1y1= ]E•54• OIL• 'JATLR OCPARATole 4 RasTRIGTLD ORiFIGE. DETENTIO 4 PROTECT INLETS DURING CONSTRUCTION. KEEP SEDIMENT OUT OF THE STORM DRAINAGE SYS. TEMI USE HALF-CIRCLE BEHIND CURB INLETS DURING STREET CONSTRUCTION. MODIFY PRO- TECTION AS CONSTRUCTION PROGRESSES. CIRCULAR SHAPE IS NOT ESSENTIAL-VARY SHAPE 10 TIT DRAINAGE AREA AND TERRAIN. OBSERVE TO CHECK TRAP EFFICIENCY AND MODIFY AS NEC ESSARY TO INSURE SATISFACTORY TRAPPING OF SEDIMENT. CAN BE ADAPTED TO THRU•CURB INLET. MINIMUM DEPTH-1' MAXIMUM DEPT11•2 24' DRIVING LANE 5.0% TYP. 146 5' rnrpL y t�T WELD 2 OA. BOTTOM F-AT WITH 27e• VIA. lOtie C3JV IW PLATS.. LEAVE OUT BLOCK TEMPORARILY•INSERT TILE WITH WIRE SCREEN AND GRAVEL FILTER KEEP POOL OEWATERED. 2' -Et, "CMP e o. oEour IM: 4TLeL AIR [ELe:.4.5e 41000r w PLAaE 42: 96" CMP r puceP (OSISLADG CULY. TUG. OR I u AL)\ 5TO OALV. Or ALIJMIUUM LLDDM 6TEP� (n/P5 G0 ,R 4 . - Type. IG54" Liore.1 ALL_ STLCL PARTS AUD eueltOGG6 M 3&r OG 4ALVAU1zeo AUD Ai-P1 TRGATMEUT 1 COATED (OR 6aTTeR.1 • 401_: IF 01651Mu _ McTALS ARE LNse•0 FOIL TT4e LII r Ga ATE. AWO TIDE RESTRICTOR "ME, THG JOINT SHALL 15e CAI- .1LCCGD Pee Kw& GOUWTL/ 9PeLIPIGATI014 e. SYSTEM DETAIL, uO CK�LC O I U4uu CLEAN OUT WHEN SEDIMENT IS6 - BELOW INVERT "� ' -1 VZ" PtAMETL"R wAGNeD CTCAVeL. ql RI X1113111 2•54 O.4• /. l6•CONPACT STALL ALTERNATE PARKING SECTION WI EXTRUDED CURS I WHERE SHOWN ON PLAN 4' l' 1 MIN 4 "THICK CEMENT CONCRETE y WALK WHERE SHOWN ON PLAN • _ RE: APWA S10. P[AM N0. l5 TYPE El CURB (APWA STD PLAN NA 6) IS REQUIRED IN ALL COCANONS WHERE CURB IS USED FOR DRAINAGE CONTROL 1114111 1 ` - I�ill S•3,/ I TEM 3' 0.5' MIU, KEY CCt:JL IUTD 9WALE O.ZS' CMILI) 6WALE )<- SECTIOU rce'JC GNFLK PAM I 4, I " a o S'ro 81.' 8 the.IIIGHI 3 HOLD LLVeL FOR eU1TRG t LJe 11 Or nY Pow-0W GU, ert-wr IU4 CDUTOUCes. - K•Y room. KrID ooWALE MIU.O.2' ROCK CHECK flAM Se- Tb1.-1 ROCK CI-I EC K OAM DETAILS LIO ° LE 1 &111r 11 =RTE '- IMIU• DEPrH II.ITEKC PT'OR. SWAL.E. DETAIL- S' 1 -/ I.O'MW. 0uMP BG111LID v.+•v UIeLK. DCM &HALL 13E ∎LIsPe _TLD DAILY Jb CJ_eA.UED wHeu Cn' C TLD DGTSe is CKGCE.D5 '/2 or ITS /- Ixvrl(. 3' more : PA.1E SHALL BE a - MWUS 014Aeev RELIC. CX15T. p ICOU4D 1■1 "i 111 WMC: CDUVEr lOr eaFlNGL ETP..A Ar 190I1-1 ELIDE, OF DBPEI SAL TIME1 -1 1.1 • COUTIUUG PX.I M UP• HILL LILITIL TIT OF CC.V..M MATT1. E: V,Y,11LUCa C,epLJ LID. 1 I e,,.aT 1.1.aw 1 DISPERSAL TIZENGI -1 W/ GRAVEL. FILTER TERM DETAIL. rtzu view I" • 2' GENERAL NOTES: 1, ALL WORK AND MATERIALS SHALL BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH CITY OF TUKWILA SPECIFICATIONS. 2. A PRECONSTRUCTION CONFERENCE SHALL BE HELD PRIOR TO TIIE START OF CONSTRUCTION, AND SHALL BE ATTENDED BY THE CONTRACTOR, REPRESENTATIVES OF THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS /UTILITIES ACID FIRE DEPARTMENT, CITY OF TUKWILA, AND ANY INTERESTED UTILITIES. 3. IT SHALL BE THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE CONTRACTOR TO OBTAIN STREET USE AND ANY OTHER RELATED PERMITS PRIOR TO ANY CONSTRUCTION IN RIGHTS -OF -WAY, 4, APPROXIMATE LOCATIONS OF EXISTING UTILITIES HAVE BEEN OBTAINED FROM AVAILABLE RECORDS AND ARE SHOWN FOR CONVENIENCE. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR VERIFICATION OF LOCATIONS SHOWN AND FOR DISCOVERY OF POSSIBLE ADDITIONAL UTILITIES NOT SHOWN, SO AS TO AVOID DAMAGE OR DISTURBANCE. 5 . ALL EXISTING UTILITIES WITHIN THE PRIVATE ROADWAY ARE SUBJECT TO A 5' UTILITY EASEMENT ON BOTH SIDES OF CENTERLINE. THESE EASEMENTS HAVE NOT BEEN GRAPHICALLY SHOWN FOR CLARITY. 6, IF ANY CONFLICTS ARE FOUND BETWEEN THESE PLANS AND THE STANDARDS OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA, THE ENGINEER SHALL BE NOTIFIED PRIOR TO CONTINUING WORK IN THAT AREA. 7. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY THE LOCATIONS, WIDTHS, THICKNESSES AND ELEVATIONS OF ALL EXISTING PAVEMENT AND STRUCTURES THAT ARE TO INTERFACE WITH NEW WORK. HE SHALL PROVIDE ALL TRIMMING, CUTTING, SAW CUTTING, GRADING, LEVELING, SLOPING, COATING AND ALL OTHER WORK, INCLUDING MATERIALS AS NECESSARY, TO CAUSE THE INTER- FACING WITH EXISTING IMPROVEMENTS TO BE PROPER AND ACCEPTABLE TO THE OWNER/ ENGINEER /CITY, COMPLETED IN PLACE AND READY TO USE. 8. ALL DISTURBED SURFACES SHALL BE SEEDED TO TOUGH, HARDY GRASS UNLESS OTHER LAND- SCAPING /EROSION CONTROL MEASURES ARE EMPLOYED. 9. THE TEMPORARY EROSION /SEDIMENTATION CONTROL FACILITY SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED PRIOR TO ANY GRADING OR EXTENSIVE LAND CLEARING, IN ACCORDANCE WITH TIIE APPROVED TEMPORARY EROSION /SEDIMENTATION CONTROL PLAN. THESE FACILITIES MUST BE SATIS- FACTORILY MAINTAINED UNTIL CONSTRUCTION AND LANDSCAPING IS COMPLETED AND THE POTENTIAL FOR ONSITE EROSION HAS PASSED. 10. ALL STORM SEWER PIPE SHALL BE NONREINFORCED, BELL AND SPIGOT CONCRETE PIPE CONFORMING TO ASTM C -14 (EXTRA STRENGTH) CLASS II (THE BELL END OF THE CONCRETE PIPE SHALL NOT BE INSTALLED INSIDE THE CATCH BASISN) OR HELICAL CORRUGATED METAL PIPE (16- GAUGE, WITH 2 -2/3" X 1/2" CORRUGATIONS). ALL ROOF DRAINS, YARD DRAINS, FOOTING DRAINS AND RETAINING WALL DRAINS SHALL BE CONNECTED TO THE STORM DRAINAGE SYSTEM WITH 4" P.V.C. PIPE CONFORMING TO ASTM 0 -3034, (5DR 35), UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED ON THE PLANS. CONSULT THE ARCHITECTURAL PLANS FOR SPECIFIC DRAINAGE CONTROL AROUND THE BUILD- ING AREAS, ALL PIPE BEDDING SHALL BE APWA CLASS "C ". ALL TRENCH BACKFILL SHALL BE COMPACTED TO AT LEAST 90% OF ITS MAXIMUM DENSITY AT OPTIMUM MOISTURE CONTENT. 11, ALL CATCH BASINS SHALL BE TYPE 1 -C OR TYPE I1 -C (APWA - 1981). THE CATCH BASIN GRATES SHALL BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH "STANDARD PLAN N0. 49 ", APWA -1981. 12. IT SHALL BE THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE CONTRACTOR TO ENSURE THAT THE GRADES AND ELEVATIONS SHOWN.IN THE PLANS ARE SET WITHIN 4 0.05'. UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED, ELEVATIONS SHOWN IN PAVED AREAS ARE TOP OF PAVING. 13, THE SANITARY SEWER PIPE SHALL BE P.V.C., CONFORMING TO ASTM D -3034 (SDR 35) OR CLASS 52 DUCTILE IRON PIPE CONFORMING TO ASA SPECIFICATION A- 21.51 -1971. ALL PIPE BEDDING SHALL BE CLASS "B ". ALL TRENCH BACEFILL SHALL BE COMPACTED TO 95% OF ITS MAXIMUM DENSITY OF OPTIMUM MOISTURE CONTENT AS DETERMINED BY ASTM D -698, METHOD "D ". COMPACTION SHALL BE ACCOMPLISHED BY MECHANICAL MEANS. COMPACTION SHALL BC COMPLETED PRIOR TO ANY TESTING OF MAINS. 14. PRIOR TO INSTALLATION OF ANY SANITARY SEWER CONNECTION, THE CONTRACTOR SHALL OBTAIN THE NECESSARY SIDE SEWER OR CONNECTION PERMIT FROM THE CITY OF TUKWILA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS. 15, MINIMUM GRADE FOR 6" SIDE SEWERS SHALL BE 2% (1/4" PER FOOT). 16. THE WATER MAIN SHALL BE CLASS 52 DUCTILE IRON PIPE CONFORMING TO ASA SPECIFI- CATION A- 21.51 -1971. THE PIPE SHALL BE 1 /16" CEMENT LINED AND SEALED IN ACCORDANCE WITH ASA SPECIFICATION A- 21.4 -1964. THE PIPE JOINTS SHALL BE TYTON JOINT, MECHANICAL JOINT OR APPROVED EQUAL, IN ACCORDANCE WITH ASA SPECIFICATION A- 21.11 -1964. THE CAST IRON PIPE FITTINGS SHALL BE CLASS 250 AS PER ASA SPECIFICATION A- 21.10 -1971. PIPE BEDDING SHALL BE COMPACTED TO 95% OF ITS MAXIMUM DENSITY AT OPTIMUM MOISTURE CONTENT. THE MAIN SHALL BE INSTALLED WITH A MINIMUM COVER OF 36 ". 17. THE GATE VALVE ASSEMBLIES SHALL INCLUDE THE GATE VALVE, VALVE BOX AND VALVE MARKERS, ALL,IN ACCORDANCE WITH CITY OF TUKWILA STANDARDS. 18. THE FIRE HYDRANT ASSEMBLY SHALL INCLUDE THE REQUIRED CAST IRON TEE, 6" GATE VALVE (LOCATED 3' -10' FROM THE HYDRANT STEM), 6" SPOOL, 5" M.V.O. FIRE HYDRANT, VALVE BOX, 3/4" SHACKLE ROD ASSEMBLIES AND TWO CONCRETE GUARD POSTS, ALL IN ACCORDANCE WITH CITY OF TUKWILA STANDARDS. 19. CONCRETE BLOCKING, DESIGNED AND INSTALLED IN ACCORDANCE WITH APWA AND CITY OF TUKWILA SPECIFICATIONS, SHALL BE INSTALLED AT ALL VERTICAL AND HORIZONTAL BENDS AND FITTINGS. PRIOR TO BLOCKING, THE FITTINGS SHALL BE SECURELY WRAPPED WITH VISQUEEN. 20. THE SERVICE MAINS AND METERS SHALL BE INSTALLED IN ACCORDANCE WITH CITY OF TUKWILA STANDARDS. DURING CONSTRUCTION, WATER METERS MAY REQUIRE MINOR ADJUST- MENTS TO THEIR LOCATIONS TO AVOID ROCK AREAS AND ADVERSE LOCAL CONDITIONS. 21. ALL CONNECTIONS TO EXISTING MAINS, TESTING AND DISINFECTION, SHALL BE PERFORMED UNDER THE INSPECTION OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA. 22. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR KEEPING COMPLETE AND ACCURATE AS -BUILT RECORDS OF ALL UTILITY INSTALLATION. THE INFORMATION SHALL INCLUDE: - WATER - LOCATION OF ALL BENDS (HORIZONTAL AND VERTICAL), VALVES AND CORPORATION STOPS. SANITARY - LOCATION OF ALL BENDS (HORIZONTAL AND VERTICAL), MANHOLES AND CLEANOUTS, SIDE SEWER SLOPES, AND INVERT ELEVATION AT EACH CLEANOUT. 23. IT SHALL BE THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE DEVELOPER 70 INSURE THAT ALL CONCRETE REEAT.IJIN3 VDJLS AND/OR FCCHERIFS ARE DFSIGNED AND CONSTRUCTED IN AC(1TRD.'WCE HARM CITY OF TUKWILA REQUIREMENTS. 24. ALL YARD DRAINS SHALL BE ASSOCIATED SAND 6 GRAVEL "CB -I0" OR D?UIVALENP. SOOTRCEVTER ALTO SITE EROSION /SEDIMENTATION CONTROL NOTES: 1. ALL LIMITS OF CLEARING AND AREAS OF VEGETATION PRESERVATION AS DESCRIBED ON THE PLAN SHALL BE CLEARLY FLAGGED IN THE FIELD ANO OBSERVED DURING CONSTRUCTION. 2. ALL REQUIRED SEDIMENTATION /EROSION CONTROL FACILITIES MUST BE CONSTRUCTED AND IN OPERATION PRIOR TO LAND CLEARING AND /OR OTHER CONSTRUCTION TO INSURE THAT SEDIMENT LADEN WATER DOES NOT ENTER THE NATURAL DRAINAGE SYSTEM. ALL EROSION AND SEDIMENT FACILITIES SHALL BE MAINTAINED IN A SATISFACTORY CONDITION UNTIL SUCH TIME THAT CLEARING AND /OR CONSTRUCTION IS COMPLETED AND POTENTIAL FOR ONSITE EROSION HAS PASSED. THE IMPLEMENTATION,MAINTENANCE, REPLACEMENT AND ADDITIONS TO EROSION/ SEDIMENTATION CONTROL SYSTEMS SHALL BE THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE PERMITTEE. 3. THE EROSION AND SEDIMENTATION CONTROL SYSTEMS DEPICTED ON THIS DRAWING ARE INTENDED TO RE MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS TO MEET ANTICIPATED SITE CONDITIONS. AS CONSTRUCTION PROGRESSES AND UNEXPECTED OR SEASONAL CONDITIONS DICTATE, THE PERMITTEE SHOULD ANTICIPATE THAT MORE EROSION AND SEDIMENTATION CONTROL FACILITIES WILL BE NECESSARY TO INSURE COMPLETE SILTATION CONTROL ON THE PROPOSED SITE. DURING THE COURSE OF CONSTRUCTION, IT SHALL BE THE OBLIGATION AND RESPONSIBILITY OF THE PERMITTEE TO ADDRESS ANY NEW CONDITIONS THAT IIAY BE CREATED BY HIS ACTIVITIES AND TO PROVIDE ADDITIONAL FACILITIES, OVER AND ABOVE MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS, AS MAY BE NEEDED TO PROTECT ADJACENT PROPERTIES AND WATER DUALITY OF THE RECEIVING DRAINAGE SYSTEM. 4. APPROVAL OF THIS PLAN IS FOR EROSION / SEDIMENTATION CONTROL ONLY. IT DOES NOT CONSTITUTE AN APPROVAL OF STORM DRAINAGE DESIGN, SIZE NOR LOCATION OF PIPES, RESTRICTORS, CHANNELS OR RETENTION FACILITIES. 5. IN ANY AREA WHICH HAS BEEN STRIPPED OF VEGETATION AND WHERE NO FURTHER WORK IS ANTICIPATED FOR A PERIOD OF THIRTY DAYS OR MORE, ALL DISTURBED AREAS MUST DE IMMEDIATELY STABILIZED 1111) MULCHING, GRASS PLANTING OR OTHER APPROVED EROSION CONTROL TREATMENT APPLICABLE TO THE TIME OF YEAR IN QUESTION. GRASS SEEDING ALONE WILL BE ACCEPTABLE ONLY DURING THE MONTHS OF APRIL THROUGH SEPTEMBER INCLUSIVE. ' SEEDING MAY PROCEED, WHENEVER IT 15 IN THE INTEREST OF THE PERMITTEE, BUT MUST BE AUGMENTED WITH MULCHING, NETTING, OR OTHER TREATMENT APPROVED BY THE CITY OF TUKWILA OUTSIDE THE SPECIFIED TIME PERIOD. ( MI.SLSOWISI."1 LAN 5 19841 CITY OF Tun /VILA PLANNING L'BPT. Pe_ 1 4 - IAN 0 5 SR cc 1 JOB NO. 78 -006 .. 11 1j01111Ij1ill41011140 .0illjiji•li-j4 0111Pll00r 0 1 ilniTOMMIfrj AMrji O '• " "•' "•" 1 2 3 4 5 6 OC RE 86 Lz 9E sz RE Cz zE Iz a 61 91 LI 91 GI VI 'El . at 11 0 ' -._. 11od11u1u1!1111I1u1d1141, 1111IIIIIIIIIIIIl11 1l ( m1uuluu1uulull1uploli1.aplpu1oull)oV 1' nAC: 170711410 144 7 8, • - :, .... IF THIS MICROFILMED DOCUMENT IS LESS CLEAR THAN THIS NOTICE, IT IS DUE TO THE QUALITY OF THE ORIGINAL DOCUMENT -170 IYPf eka to - 1y150L11 'VER 70116(5=1 121/191555.25 (FIELD V ERIFY) F.F. 168.0 .* q TOPl3B.42 - 72711V734.01 CB:# 9 PIN 13514 TOP 137.90 835.7' OIr N N F.F. 152. 45L.E DISPERSAL TRENCH O S-00 . WIGRAVEL -FILTER M -s E DETAIL. 50 �I10" Ike NIB I 11I /.2% FB "Co -/78 -- - -- - 176 -- 1271464_5 UHH MIL FE 136.0 - -- /2 /A4/ 9/4 -4 B %NV. /69.47 92'•12 "& 0 (PRIVATE) tt LIMITS Of CLEARING 7 5.0°1. F.F 130 o / 0 EX CB. i9' TYPE / 0 1 • 4266---- INV 1393 / NE81.12-1 NV-I46 75L. oAftoL TRENCV j.944 WIG AVEL FIL ER.BER -SEE DETAIL. MEE S OETENITBN SYSTE4It1. I2SO N8824'4 014•H91 141.65' ca..* le 70P /60.60 8 /1/.155.26 •CB #II TOP 15907 1211# 155.95 8 %NV. 15628 45 L.F. DISPERSAL TRENCH & S.0.0 WIGRAVEL FILTER BERM-SEE DETAIL. EX SAN MN 1011845/ 8 " /NY 1757/ N 8"INV 17346W 8"INV 17339E 84NY 173 CIS C.B. #6 TOP 153.00\ 12"11W .12612 , EX CB T0P NM 6.1 • 111NY17833 11 11"INV 17633N IZ"INX 115485 87NY 179.54E C'P N88 °15'27'44585' L_J L I- r�fl, -1 L 1 \ ® : _� . 742- ---4 )47- 4 ��i / / a Ids 4 � � -- -13 - 12!5420' yw O/�O ■ 2'3238 / •• NBB °2$7^/1 r nwPn � 2012'Ca/.0% 136 - /1465' CTtT0CTR. / •2'•36"LI138 ". ' Cc0.5' %) m 6'APPIE ■ 41 = o CB #4 PEIT•54' / Of T4/1 o 10 -f 6.00 7 FPM` 1 Q I • -8 /NV. 1/97/ l2' /NV / 268 0 g ig C.8. #5 TYPEIF48" TOP134.0± 12 "INV 12705 90 • OITI`H V-3 ` ��� Z' -1.4 140�� NOTE' CONTRACTOR'S/MU EXERC /SE GREAT CARE 70 MINIMIZE DISTURBANCE AROUND EX /STING TREES SHOWN ON PLAN DUR /NS CONSTRUCTION. CB #e TYlEd54" WIRESTRICIOR•SEE TA/1 TOP 18500 OVERfLOW.EL.113.30-- 36"INV. 11900 l2'7NV. 11900 B "INV. 11980 130 C.B. #I6 70P 178/0 . le"/NV 16960 EX.CB. TOP14E13 8'/NV.13749 BENCH MARK' NE. FLANGE BOLT OFfIRE HYDRANT ELEVATION; 17075 OATUM'CITYOPTUKW /LA SEWER DISTRICT EX CB TOP 12700 12 12116/.1241900T TOP 1/675 I27NV 113.56//1 /2'4/1/.1 /3.75001 EX C TOP 13514 1E INV 13266 IN ' 12 "INV 13E630M EX.54/1 Ml1 TOP 123.47 INV 11668 THE!IOLLOUING CONSTRUCTION SEQUENCE IS BASED UPON INFORNA -.'- Y TIOR'PRQVIDED.TO THE ENGINEER THAT THE:SUMIOOD;CONDOMINIIM ;• ' :PROJECT;WILL BE;BUILT IN THREE (3) PHASES = ':PNASE :I•. WILL ..;. I BUILDINGS 1', 2,.& 3,-PHASE-.II WILL : lloME,CONSTRUCTI0N- 0F' BUILDINGS 7 &.8, AND IMASE'1I1 WILL ,CONPLETE'THE PROJECT WITH CONSTRUCTION OF.BUILDINGS'4,:5:6 6. C.B. #I TOP 022 MINCH EY. EX. 12%NV. 118 80 M LD /FY) /20 SCALE: /N.20' COMSTRUCTION•SEQUENCE:" • CLEAR AND GRUB AREA 1 AS REQUIRED TO :COMSTRUCT•BUILDINGS 1 2'6'3 WITH ASSOCIATED IMPROVEMENTS , - INCLUDING`LOOPING , OF THE 8" VATER•MAIN , .'.'CONSTRUCT• /- 1 "V- DITCH" NO. 1) WITH ROCK CHECK DAMS -AT ' .50' CENTERS AND THE. TWO (2) DISPERSAL: TRENCHES :LOCATED' IN AREA 1 PER DETAILS. ' . 3. INSTALL' CB 11 & 12 WITH'TEMPORARY. SEDIMENT ' TRAPS AROUND CB 11 6 12 PER DETAIL. ' ROUGH 'GRA11ESITE, INCLUDING CONSTRUCTION OF ROCKERIES.,. AND RETAINING WALLS. MODIFICATIONS TO ITEMS IN 3 MOVE MAY HAVE TO BE MADE. ' . ' EX C.8 I '5. c' INSTALL, UTILITIES. " 70P149..94 12'mm./4752 6. PAVE. 7. IMMEDIATELY :STABILIZE ALL DISTURBED SLOPES. .110TE: 'ITEM.1•SHALL BE PERFORMED WHEN NO PRECIPITATION IS EXPECTED DURING THE TIME REQUIRED TO COMPLETE ' ; THIS WORK'. AS. DETERMINED BY THE ENGINEER. ITEMS:2 6 3'SHALL'BE PERFORMED'IMMEDIATELY UPON 'COMPLETION OF ITEM 1. • CONSTIWCT'V -2 ( "H DITCH" NO. 2) AND THE DISPERSAL .TRENCH LOCATED.IN'AREA 2 PER .DETAILS: 9. CLEAR AND RL AREA 2. 10. ROUGH GRADE SITE INCLUDING CONSTRUCTION 01' ROCKERIES: . 11. INSTALL UTILITIES EX.SRN MH ' 12. PAVE' 70P14116 1/1/.134 • 13. '6TAMILIZE SLOPES? 14. CLEAR:AND AREA 3. 16 INSTALL.CB 1, 2 ;.4, 5 6 6. .17.. CONSTRUCT V-3 ( "Y- DITCH" NO 3) IN AREA 3. 15.. ROUGH'GRADE SITE, INCLUDING CONSTRUCTION OF ROCKERIES , AND , RETAINING'WALLS. NOTEi. SHOULD RAINFALL. OCCUR BETWEEN THE COMMENCEMENT OF'ITEM 14 AND THE COMPLECTION OF ITEM 17 IT SHALL BE THE CONTRACTOR'S RESPONSIBILITY TO PROVIDE REMEDIAL. MEASURES TO INSURE THAT NO SEDIMENT -LADEN STORMWATER LEAVES THE SITE. ' 18. INSTALL REMAINING UTILITIES . 19. PAVE. 20. IMMEDIATELY STABILIZE DISTURBED SLOPES. JAN 5 198 CITY OF TUKWILAA PLANNING DEPT. J AN 05 ISBQ 1R. I . %& 0 A z J 0 J 0 0 z 0 Q z W 2 W fn z 0 1n 0 1.r W g JOB NO.' ; 78' -006' 1 01) IIIIIliI11111iIIIl111I111111 1I111ji11j1�1j1 (�I� r i (i7��iilli111(lllil8� UHrtri wn,,„, OE 6x 06 Lx 9x 9x Vx Ez xx Iz OZ 61 IS LI 91 sI VI 'El 7t 11 OI '... _ IINd1111III1111111161IIIHIIIHIIHRINNI HIIIIHIIIHJIHHIHHINHIHHINHIHHI111116111!l 111111111IIIIIIIII11111111111111IHHI HIIHHIHHIHHIIIH11IIHHIHHIUHIPHI H IIWA • se C,23 I TWP23N, RGE.4E. ,W.M. IF THIS MICROFILMED DOCUMENT IS LESS CLEAR THAN THIS NOTICE, IT IS DUE TO THE QUALITY OF THE ORIGINAL DOCUMENT: • L 1 � pil r (�Nlrll�/ U f ON f . N f (D . P A iA! ! f l ! ' 70 'SO1/7N LYN /fX 41'O NF.. an� 11 1!111 II�; �� _ �0 I ail � r����u� 1 TI I . n r ii�mlml ' 1 �' 1 �I I II IIII' �Illilil► \� I'1I �Il 111 IIII ffl1I 1, iU p� » i Ill 1 111 Im l � 1 � ��� �in; �llll 111 / /l ► UI in IIIjI �,,�� : n11 mi l lll l l �i��� 1 . 'G7, 02 (CALL.) • • • ....IMO CEN/fA. R+rct . 14 /raw wyrehme,p! Illlglt�►u1 "'1 i!'�i� , . al,. lrr,a �„ r: ,•,:;a ,'. ... _..... __ ,.,�; , A; :....: ; •:*a2- • � Lr.ux 0. 7o•K /p/q /Oae 4 /1+' 4 l;' N 00 .Ly,' fate. PfR AOS . 3,1'4 a Rfe N0, , Aviv/yaps': 7 • r -.a: 4f .., :2.:2/ f NE(O;.PgfA(!fe.. ;; !0 SDUlle /Nf ar!OFT //. mu , 77n !!!! 4• '�\, 4' aovr(Mi draz av n,\ Q �,� U\1 / ?u MrPJrq 1 1 �11!l111`i 1111t�imin �u► Iri ii rr IIIi) �^ti��� 011 lUa Ifl Illrl ►llllllrt�l { uur'n►r� ° �,�,►`�o�� ' ��' I J /111rI1U11 111IIIlill IIRI iro l iqu411 ` <<� n , .� 1111 �1��11(! Ilui�►Plu ii I r I�`►;�t;;t ' � ow \\‘,1\,,,10210; .'. Ce•+N /H 75 .. • . /t•,( w • . • /tW(OU7/ / /Srr: SSMMiJW y SAL- Nf.'!lAAGCLI7[7' : 11ty %70.75,,? QO7U4e: C /7Y 0171/AW((A : Ai oar Ira bur) U218 /rxt MP lie u, ,1171.(1/11,10.17 rrr t.ramru.n- • 20 % + :SLOPES 4 ' O Sfl /A17N ,f00 d lAP /+ /R /AU /MB' ' (RLC.) . D /SIAN(f of eliAvNa ace! DfSGr /P/ /ON'- ' Ow) MfASURfD D /S74Nlf RND &'Q /NG BY SD•lYfY ' • ;entail/WO, OLi7ANCf AND BEAR/NO :CITY LiKWILA PLANNING DEPT. G • . .. PMl(fr a •The West 150 feet of the-Es t 450.86 feet of'Tract'11;'Interurban Addition to the 1 City of..Seattle according to the;plat.recorded in Volume 1D Plats page 55. in X1ng Co Washingtoni.' ° + XCEPT thet'partion lytng of 'the fotlowtng described line • . Comseneing•et ra point on the'East'lIns of said'Tract, 1L; 162.79 feet North of • feet the • .:.: Southeast •corner: of,seid:.tract; South 89 52'00 " West :159.21'feet;'thence . . ''.South'00 test 38.26`, feet; thence South 89'52!GO" West 141.65 .to: the 1. • .; +True;Potn`t of ;Reglnning;2hence Northwesterly. parallel to'the centerline of South- ' •.'center.;Boulevard;(Renton -Three Tree Point to 'the West line of the East 450.86_ '.` feet 'Of .said'Tract'I!:arid "th'e end' of said Ilnc. • • ,...That • portion of',Tract'. T1 ", Interurban Addition to' Seattle,/according to the plat re =: ".'corded;in VolunIe.10 'of •Plats;.page 55, .In King County,.Washiegton • described as .follows: .BegInning at a, polnt the East 1 lne of 'said Tract 11 which is 162.79'feet North•of . ': the Southeast corner 'thereof; -thence continuing. North 0 ° 08'00' , West 359.88'.feet to : . : !'the Northeast corner of sad-Tract 11; thence South'89 ° 52'00". West along the .Norther "'' .IIne .•thereof :300.86: feet;. thence South 0 °08'00 East 998. 14 ,feet;,thence'North.89 ".' :East- 141.65. feet;; thence North' 0°08.00 west. 38.26",feet; thence' North' 89 East •• 159. feet to': the :point of;Ibeginning;' ' ,. . : -'' ' or .EXCEPT the Eas 5 feet thereof as conveyed .to the .01 O • xi . 4 , , ,,.,,,, under , King . 7909040616. r /RAC!// R SGA./fel. /O 'eweMfN/ S throcl /DNS •AND if Sf P,07 /dy9,OP AfCLIf0 ;' dtafR Aff.;Le.7/M290009, , • ... ,vR.. 9fc,. 29,;.; TIYP, 23N•, iP (d E., p��y rs� y, �.= •-•- .1 1 1 1 1 1 111 { I { 111 1 1 j 1 1 11i 1 111 1 1 l l l 111 1 11 1 1 1 ¢ IT[1I}II,iIlU111 0 ;E Gn OL LE 9E SE 4E CE en In OZ GL DI LI 91 GI 91 'EL El 11 Q( Ilndlulllluluull111I1111 �nuI1111 I1111II111Im11mllludunlmdlullNldmlllluluuln�dmllmduulmdmllnuluulul11u11lluduulloduulmdmlluubmllllllullhi 1'LEXIuLE nuLcu.3n AwUe 1 IF THIS MICROFILMED DOCUMENT IS LESS {CLEAR THAN THIS NOTICE, IT IS DUE TO THE QUALITY OF THE ORIGINAL DOCUMENT r 11CiT1iSi:911d)tl i`::N':+ I ^ 4 a ILA .a.: au .r O.•.�1 �� ` ,ffL � ]1���`'�'�''�� + rlswY ?∎i .2` Eli9:Ci 1t" ' . 1+ it . 11:;' .l1?.i.∎ tL^• 'LitJt - . • .-aw.. . TS r • * - . — _ Qn, lE• Fm Isn, 1/011 :xn tt�'•�, 110" 111 X.M1 :.: 7i 9s K c : d 1 s1t ±S4 ; I 5 SA 5., e.• ICAm S �1c u � . r.'�t;�} I7 t,1� .'i �n42�{ � "4' " L. a••: ."10 u ""•E :7F1 f L 4;1,0 My FEN EE &. la: � Q9:4`"2'i ..' CS�'01'F'i.E 3T. •'. fl: 'i i y �ii Q OS �'�R E'.'1 • c ` _ H ,:u::n 11 '.." Mal D Soo an ./ A WaU i�P SOUTH /REAR ELEVATION NORTH / FRONT ELEVATION see notes above 1 1 C , .rte^.-. .4 i :� . .•!?Lr'','�rrl i�'P."; .L' • ••-+cr- 1_.•_`!Y ,1'd313i: -'tr: • 2 .'f tit�t ntFlfdt.n'::•_ �1 Qt ...d f . 7iu',LL'1L "t�R•'r - dG Li ■ iliMI Eg F ara if 3 rS: C1X�554? ..410 B �yy�TFIIL•iA.Ga-G'f. :.vt'ER'L . L' ' KW LA3 rtmr:;•a SiZs" :2 Ri14�7 crx l� tt1..i:a 1 .1 man Is, IC LT' cat ADM aux LEIMILUMI surn Z"'iT egl ..- ..+zgmM"s�163R+Tt+v P f ' Male !>100Y'A AllNag • ;: i :f 1,1 49" rPL7Rl�� '� em • .rzJ -•*� .. dp EVIL. r Ci1[f® man i;9 ISMUM ' IT7 tS11r3 1..... JAN 5 1984 CITY OF TUKWILA PLANNING DEPT. 1 y y � r, 8 a) min < SMc*1 —IN Can C (C) • j/1 I }? 11l 11' 1T({.i1TIi11 1 ... { I 11fiT 9 4 5 6 7 8 �'' QE 6Z BL LZ 9Z 9Z 6Z CZ ZZ lZ OZ 61 81 LI 91 9 t 'C1 ZI 11 O 1 '.._.. 1IIIIIIIUIII 11IgIIIIIIIIIIIIIIip1011111111 II(111�!I�1 { �I�d n 11111lllldatllllp)111110 111111�,IIhuI1IIp1110,1 UJ!II0, 1111111( IIIIIIIIII IIIIIUIIgIIIUI{IIIIInIdUllll IF THIS MICROFILMED DOCUMENT IS LESS CLEAR THAN THIS NOTICE, IT IS DUE TO THE QUALITY OF THE ORIGINAL DOCUMENT • 1 , % , :MINIEZEMEMEZ ','' ..111ENEMCW riN,IMMIEMBana.. J1 , IMIEMISM . 1L::; 1... ••■••+,...sr.. tvalmainsmsseP • w • ta lliaMilarAT.21 '" ,. • ' • isagszomeammk. aff •••J gi ;. 71 ====== • 3 ti v fir t 7321= „.. .10 1 1 1 • ; upc661:111116.• lz 0,619: t's , boy, 97‘106.39.96-1a • ,• ' 6.61 ISM.= LV.V966.64 `vvi maaitamo tivitarr EAST/ WEST ELEVATION B •.' .J.1r2.4c....i. • • 01 4 44E9D. V ' gzi.r:11.gati ' • ••,,, ay, w ... TCaticentime.. '"a (...41....W MIFF= .• 119571cr=9=71 arA99929.999m • f.4' Fat .* .,. • vl axi..tr.:".P.TolainiSITAild • iI Y.47.. X ML,.:•, '41 -••••,+, • ••MiliNa7ifili '7 a... , ...oamM4 : :.it•:•••rir.X. F77. IV.R5 Eill4 Cikli On v ri•••.r.a Ef. gr• ..............9.caturs...0.,i • sa=z1=9=1=armaana. . ...anmemzsgs.... :31 Ea,• te========a5; •.:am ra PrP•ta VI C7., 4 61 MO 6 • fl MU 74.91Mr ',99} 43=PIEEEMMED2F,EMI=9 • 1==.; •In= " •.••■,•ux•,, • • V 40 ••3040 EAST/ WEST ELEVATION D 3030 s ' (2)40S 0 EAST/WEST ELEVATION C oso . o rear ) . 'DR-(44 MON Jittl 5 198d CITY OF TUKWILA PLANNING DEPT. uJ (f) a_ 0 0 0 z (J) uJ 5 (f) IlltITITITITI II (I I 1 KtflICIIII1111 firtlittiir rim iTrrpTivpinf(}111111(1 I IIII111111Ttylif1414:: 1II IFLE8Iffl.E RULER .3O 0 c ex tie Lz 9z sz Vz ea az la oz 61 91 LI 91 st bi 'CI . a 11 at . . .1111111111111111141111111111109111,11,0141 :', ■ V IF THIS MICROFILMED DOCUMENT IS LESS1 ,, s ., CLEAR THAN THIS NOTICE, IT IS DE TO 1 ' THE QUALITY OF THE ORIGINAL DOCUMENT •• • • 4. 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 ...T(DFL Oe ex Be cz 9E SZ 9Z ey az tz OZ 61 01 a 91 GI 91 'El EI 11 OL ,___IiI1111111101111114111IIIIIIRIP)11#11141k1 V4"- 1 41 *A141151 y4u L 0 1: • .2.4 enT n/A.1 C5 . ATY,471_7_ 11 .• Lb • 6:71 - rlitv16 - rr) ese..vet- s444tv.zr 4 MUNOW11 Llf_til 2 3 198 CITYDFTLI6;;ALA PLANNING DEPT. ; IF THIS MICROFILMED DOCUMENT IS LESS . 1 CLEAR THAN THIS NOTICE, IT IS DUE TO THE QUALITY OF THE ORIGINAL DOCUMENT 1 .• • • • • ,!!:!!!. !I••!L; PR-144 • MOM JUN 101985] CITY OF TlIi6AtILA PLANNING DEPT. .!; 2 3 4 6 7 CLEAR THAN THIS NOTIdE, IT IS ME IF THIS MICROFILMED DOCUMENT IS LESS[ fenummulca THE QUALITY OF THE ORIGINAL DOCUMENT : OE 6Z 13L LZ 9Z VZ CZ EE 1E OE 6{ 91 LI 91 GI VI ! El 21 It OL SUNWOOD/ WINDMARK HOMES SITE PLAN c?4,0 6o MAY Fie5 elLA JOAN LANE ASSOCIATES ob WEST CENNY NAY AU A , UIL60KI • .1 • • • 1 • • • • • • • ' , •• • ..• •:, ••••• I • 0 Io1N/INCN 1 2 3 rAMT 4 11 FLEXIBLE RULER - 302 AWi7wn.— > 05, e Col ao PST 7 . . •••••--• —15cvez. 9 '.04 s _ /:eff/1. y 4. 11.,„ 1 1, 0 11 591.1 COW fre.N5) #2 X /Q1 x13 rAzo 13eVeZ. 7 IF THIS MICROFILMED DOCUMENT IS LESS; CLEAR THAN THIS NOTICE, IT IS DUE TO! THE QUALITY OF THE ORIGINAL DOCUMENT ..,... , • - .• • • 4 - 1 ;Li• ' /4 • t it ) - 11, 1 C. lir / 44 44 .? 01; %FtIbti!fiel t. 7 1.07: - .1. 11 , •7114 - 1 111 • Pore! P44-4 geffrirc 12151V1 ; • . . • . „ L . oppirirripirri 11 arrirri nVilltrilrirpiri 0 ISMS INCH 2 3 4 5 6 7 FLEXIBLE RULER -302 AWaro oc 6Z 9e LZ 9Z SZ C o z 61 81 Lt 9t St ht 'El ZI t-/--±1 -r c>1/ arf .1-1 LIIJ_Igle," esu9T ;X•••0‘ FIJD Qin-es+ 40 frPJt cyrwrwe..P...-re-pf CCO Lie...)- 1 • Rigtv_ 4,1 • r USI 0/e.frall.JFEP" . 1 • 1 1....N..wrzzicrA*Vg. Cir0 Lu-r,l<EN 1"-irczt (1,) . • ..AUFZ.% • • treFf e t-t - Tter-G LIGfel. 5%-1.9321E514 h4'? I4LL A.19KL56. D•tc.1 etc irctrAtus frGrrowrAi Mc vtaleuum Ra.4 VIft t• • ■AMtel-turi to ree...Mer reat•tzr Htuctiri.e, tem FkIMUL," ..111•11J5 1-1ECLEIC" &Nal.1.-rec,tte 4 ttilLrm.cAtitie frot • ca c=7 0 •4`4 etztrAep pt ;WM PA 'z i3L Afrev-I 1. Coq. I 0'' ;0" 14" 6 • 141 • ,145 ammo.. leessoith■ • fl. • as oaliyAlwe're.f44' 7 , • —11 oissmionslo•. 114.wet tofsmarauttmi.W. Zael.111496,..: ,;;;;- :• 36 Ilabliktallra...IlledkillveCillasat ' faelrosiomeoliiatinv. Um* Canopoi• clroncla ■!laita"nr114 Z. Nal MS mallabl• ft.. are. era etercit., 101i cauttossa•las4. ;auteesomit.. as: pee • •••,;z1 RECREATION AREAS 1 Ivac •-• f .4. 2 I 2c:re -;14.e 3 2.900 4 , .-z.v - a f - f- 5 2+75 6 6:4er - IF THIS MICROFILMED DOCUMENT IS LESS1 — CLEAR THAN THIS NOTICE, IT IS DUE TO1 THE QUALITY OF THE ORIGINAL DOCUMENT - 0• • • ';••••::...,Cf!..,••••Tztlr'ri 0 Man 1. Ilrpokoneetn,I1..• :•: • ''• • • • • "" • • .‘ MI= el 411,40 CARPORT CARPORT CARPORT 7.;53 • 71 7 / 0(-) 0 , 6 6 / 1 ,/ 7u SITE PLAN 1" = 20' 66 UNITS 132 PARKING (66 CARPORTS) I I " 5 6 11`11HTN'L 7 REYFLEXIULE RULER • 302 AWirinrrqr. nr. 6Z De LE 9E GE VZ Ea EE I Q Z 61 91 a 91 SI 11 'El Z1 11 OL - IF THIS MICROFILMED DOCUMENT IS LESS i .•,, 1 . : CLEAR THAN THIS NOTICE, IT IS DUE TO. , • THE QUALITY OF THE ORIGINAL DOCUMENT 2 D 0 0 0 D • I • • i1 r, �uixt,b • OPEN SPACE REQUIRED 13,200 OPEN SPACE SHOWN 25,077 SQ.FT. OPEN SPACE IN AREA SHOWN" OPEN SPACE SYMBOL SITE PLAN 1h= 20' 66 UNITS 132 PARKING (66 CARPORTS) � IIIIII _ ILI I �. 1I IIll IIIIIIIIIIiIIIIIIii , IILIIIIIIIIIIrII , I11111 I � IT) 1 , rl 1 � 1 .... .......... 2 3 4 II 5 6 7 1 8 Eqa 0 6 6Z BC LZ 9Z SZ bZ CZ ZZ IZ OZ 61 Bl LI 91 Sl bl 'Cl el II 01. .... IIIIIIIII11111111111111111111111 I01IM IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII1111 Ig11111111111g11111 Ix .. {IF THIS MICROFILMED DOCUMENT IS LESS' . CLEAR THAN THIS NOTICE, IT IS DUE TOI ,THE QUALITY OF THE ORIGINAL DOCUMENT; (/) 2 2 0 0 z O U J 0 • r • lo err) 2)6";.'' . 7- ', n (-7. • I J:- , Pe.5 .QH,5/57 7 4.1 1 7 - ",=7:2 , 4' , F sie/VSLE. C7r-A-s) • 11 SIDE ELEVATION STUDY SIDE ELEVATION STUDY fropripivii nitirlril 2 3 4 5 1 o€; 6Z fle LZ 9Z SZ 4Z CZ ZZ IZ OE 61 GI a 91 SI 41 'El • Z1 II 01 1 .-J 1 3 1 1 1 /11 1 1 11 !),HillitiliIIIIIII1 1 , 11 401111 1 611. 1 16.WW1611111111116111.1111*11 1 111111 1 111 1 1 1 1111 1 111[1111111161[11111111(111111111111111111111111)11IIIIIIIIIIIIVIIIII ' I I . \ , . , . . , „ , , .. , . , i, . ,. „ • , ,,, , . 7 NO Fp) CLEAR THAN THIS NOTICE, IT IS DOE TO IF THIS MICROFILMED DOCUMENT IS LESS \ THE QUALITY OF THE ORIGINAL DOCUMENT r TYPICAL FRONT i It e 4; JP911111 II III ir - '------ 111 i ;NEM; - -T r: r 1 1611 17 i117:117.„! TYPICAL FRONT t • pR - 1 4 aerNWORM•1••■■■•■•••■•■•• ----qrx=r7f liripir 'ittriptliillintlpr NO flUR - 3p A Wurn - OE BB Bd dB BB cz 'a Ce ez te OZ ° ° 41 B' ° B 'B1 0 11 01. ..„-111111111111111111411111111111110111114 I CLEAR THAN THIS NOTICE, IT IS DUE TO IF THIS MICROFILMED DOCUMENT IS LESS ' THE QUALITY OF THE ORIGINAL DOCUMENT 1; 1 vio...41,s?c,,,Impuil„7,;7,4;lfilitillil?fIlit.4111!!'1',1,1.., '['tb. ,,,* A ' ' : j ,' '• ,:iA 'Meitilift7iis a's.a 0 s Imp wo ,'. 4 --;., , e■ .;.% ■Illss 0 17.0:" e. '.. / 11 ; +:: '; :1•••<'• , i f •,...ve „ ' 1 i3j, ,,s, % ° :'<';' , A4 1 q 1 T.., , -rt... 40 r ,,„.t.,,. v... „..„ ,,,,, ,, ...„, , 11,. ,. , • • .1. • ' 't,i,S 1 ' 4 4 it itil•'• . ''.'' .q 1 hv', .02.- t • ' ..., . . at '' • ' ••• aii . kr %......„... 4 .1)to .4,, las to we .(;!... eoa :P. sko-ev..:, -, .1. .t: tri 0 t4.',.... ta: . ''.".'. • .C I Cto to, ' I • 14(4 t et , ,t i:M r. -xl ,.,., r •r i.i.... . .!• - • • • •!!.<.t.',1 ` U -...; ",:••••;,;<!::<, at . „ ' L ••V • ni tEt • ; ' 1 • • • • .• • ' • ,, • • 1. , • , ••••.„••:•••,1•! ! ::liret,i1,1;; .iftedr... fiCEITAI it); • •t, , • 444 te. • 1 • 4•• 1 4", T . , ;k1A": , i • C t '. 7 9. ' • =rata. 0. vij ,t=emilt:r41111111:0 gid -- ce. ushric„ AMMR, )13ti 1 erri:OF TUK4V1LA:,• f,t, r„ P 1:A01:5+11,igrIL.rbi . ' ' : ' • ' " • qrS,, • ..d• • • •••1;:•; tt.t•I'l • •V• •,- • ••• ' ' t .,Witithig. f '415i 45 ' 1 4.? • 4 aet+41 1 ,W'efIr .' 0 1 2 3 4 5 • 7 • oc L. gz ce ez za tz OZ GL t a of a 4 tL zt 01 11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111,11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111; 441 •tt'4 rjy !AMBLE RULER •302 AW 6 7 410111 24x \ IF THIS MICROFILMED DOCUMENT IS LESS; CLEAR THAN THIS NOTICE, IT IS DUE TO THE QUALITY OF THE ORIGINAL DOCUMENT - •-•H::::=1; I / *r1-1fhol LP „ aPgLH • • • 'AL) YLrJr .ii • us :teht•A , • • 4H 0fLi' . i.):•• • -, f ::. :'-':..-P-11. -, .' E • :-'• ' 001101: ::;;17:-,L;1'6Werieri . s e PIGUI:4 . . ''''', . • -,., :...'-';'=:!:. '?',ht4.f.pet ' ", !,...,..,:,.- , L.:„:......,..,„;,, 1,..1 • , "-'rtio 4, 4 040* 4,01 -:11111,111$11t. e.t.'..‘AEL40- Atee•gtl'"' , mei FlotA••• • .• . • : •";-`,.....: 1 ,;:.., ;::. ; ;. 15Z 1 Tra - lP2..... - ..; : . , , .6K91.4- }-1CA,19.'', f : iiLii;:j&O' • ' m ..,, ' . • : - . ' .■.t, t , N 1 7 -,,,,, 1--0 , ttirt. ''-4 tr 17114.7: ' tr2017t.T . • •.•-; . . .• •. • • • • .• _ . . •.. MTh . : • , , •• . , . . • r • • 14Dei .,. itik‘ 9 LA" nr11 17- 1W -7 =r%P ir lairWav o lia 0 ImilhAirepikii0111 Utiii •.-:;,*' , ! , ,* ;Ni i ' 'tti 1-'0 , : t alw . - 't'i • A) ' 1. 1. i 6 I , u 5'7. 1- • ., . 0 ) ...' 1 AS - N- ,,f.', 1 ,,,„,......... ...ruirsTr:+11 A.', , 1 ro .•;,, iti , ,,.,,,..1.4)0 flv, f . , ,? • ;, )1 ,g, Jr.liof■ ' ' ' '•: ' LI • \ ) • • *. • P., 7 rt •:, 1111111111111111111111(111(11111111111111111111111111111111i1111111111111111111111111111i1111111p1101111111101111011V1111111; 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 8II xIui. nuitu•302AWrmarra= OE Sit 0,1 (2 9Z SZ VZ CZ ZZ te or GI, at a 9t St tit 'Cl Z( 11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111,111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111,111111 24x ): • • , : • r..7.7r1 = - 0 ' IF THIS MICROFILMED DOCUMENT IS LESS CLEAR THAN THIS NOTICE, IT IS DUE TO THE QUALITY OF THE ORIGINAL DOCUMENT . RECREATION 40 O't ••)1: zs 1 2 3 4 5 6 ki■i 5 -•• • 8( - 2165 NE JUN 10 198 CITY OF TUIMILA PLANNING DEPT. '0:1P art - io h'I•fiZ_. • J O% I 4 ( - fUfr4 - IIJ 1..e) t zl i t-M.L" KITur-1)-1" P. Z •. • • •- • 1-11yr tyt v/t4:- Wei • 1i i71:0 Li;)•-r : . bt - t=„ 4 ).‘9J 67 1 .. . : ,• 1/ ,0 LE frsiov. 1p UP1; I . . 0 • • •6(;?." •\*Aufq-*-10 . . .,. , , • _ ''fc; 4- r%:- ,. • . • : , . , .' . . 4, .. t . i .,,,,,,,il i : Hto.ci,:.:. le sq .. • 11-11,0>t. • Pivi'1 MI FlUI.:A ........... .. - • 7M • t: - He-05. Hu'- 'F:AL , . , . t 1-Ki-4 vF. Ivy . " , . Tr- ,,,,,,,,,,,, 4 WIL.crLOAJW .b ,. :72:-:Ft!vtierm. anrt z". 1; , ; \ ,7:•',• • - 7 .. V °Im41,* *‘,,,:?)g,,.. ,4stt, 5 s•-.77.:1, t )..,, 4,04,..a. i•uoi4h—ix;ut.saiwc xx. ; :E r esilis ;,,••■■ 1 tte i ttv:: s t a s.413rs:it 4 .E �� tc " 301 5 04 4 4 , i rkiktutrii r Lailailli4 611 "1', 4,1 ,....1%, IDTTOrp'. rAIIMI• . :;■!;VptiODiii■ !;•1#9 .., • - Dt.i4, iptirptiii' , ' N C: . 14 ‘ r.,..• • ,),. .■ 0. s•ed mikiAtyloaucfrmi,crole,iikaktOtesdt, co.. . 1 0 14s • ,1 ; 11 i,; vidaiii4e4ifernii ;94546 ' (41S) 71$442S ,,‘ IlliViiiir • , •., .; . h..,.. • - .',.i;,- ,,,,,. .: • — ..,, L. ,'. a 1. :v.:. 1;........,,i',4 .'.:::`..:.......;:.rig! P. Wm: '......... Hc iTh at.-0 rf201 /1*•r,'Gtf- . OikZ-Cr_70 MTH CSIK&.\/ AREAS ec? a9so 24 j. C.-4er 01 _ 2 1b".. •". 14)1 la" I /44 I I, £ ' tir. , ek" crt, . • .Copyr101 L . • •. gf0 • I DIP a_ 1--0 184.15 � Y.iti -�i RIXG1E 202.0 t /GS s+. 183.o s RooF — 1'13,0 �� RIOG7e 2o2.0s SECTION 1 1" = 20' SECTION 2 1" = 20' SECTION 3 1" = 20' gVelE 19 III11111111111111111 111j111j1101�4m11j111.IITf TIlh __ f�� I(ff 1nIfgl '11gfOHIHi1i1i 1 3 4 5 6 7 8WjL., 1111/ Roof IF THIS MICROFILMED DOCUMENT IS LESS CLEAR THAN THIS NOTICE. IT IS DUE TO 139.o