HomeMy WebLinkAboutPermit L93-0001 - CRYSTAL RIDGE CONDOMINIUMS - SPECIAL PERMISSION: SIGNl93-0001 15305 sunwood boulevard
crystal ridge condominiums special permission
City of Tukwila
John W. Rants, Mayor
Department of Community Development Rick Beeler, Director
PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES
FEBRUARY 25, 1993
The meeting was called to order at 8:00 p.m. by Chairman Meryhew. In attendance were
Messrs. Meryhew, Haggerton, Knudson, Malina, Flesher, and Mrs. Craft. Scott Clark was
not in attendance.
Vern Meryhew welcomed the new Planning Commission member, Joyce Craft.
With regard to the minutes of January 28, 1993, George Malina clarified that his motion
approving the Home Depot project was contingent upon the City Council's resolution of the
SEPA appeal. Since the applicant rescinded their appeal, the motion stands that the project
be approved.
MR. HAGGERTON MOVED TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF JANUARY 28,1993; MR.
FLESHER SECONDED THE MOTION AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY
APPROVED.
There were no citizen's comments.
L92 -0001: Crystal Ridge Condominiums Sign:
Moira Bradshaw presented the staff report. She entered into the record the staff report.
She also entered a letter of objection for the project. She stated that the applicant is
Schneider Homes who took over the project after it was approved by the Board, of
Architectural Review in August, 1990. One of the conditions of the design review was
review and approval of the sign design. The applicant proposes a 2 1/2 by 8 1/2 foot sign
which measures twenty -one square feet that will be attached to the rockery wall in the
southeast corner of the subject property. This sign is approximately 1/3 smaller than the
maximum allowed in the Sign Code. The sign is constructed of formed aluminum and
painted a dark green. It will have white, twelve inch aluminum letters. The sign will be
bolted directly to the rockery wall and is currently not shown with any illumination. The
rockery wall is four feet high and is setback approximately fifteen feet from the edge of the
curb. Staff recommends approval of the sign with three conditions:
1. Any lighting of the apartment identification sign shall be shielded and screened with
landscape material. Any lighting shall originate from concealed sources with no spillage
beyond the edge of the rockery wall.
6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • (206) 431 -3670 • Fax (206) 431-3665
Planning Commission Minutes Page 2
February 25, 1993
2. The applicant shall submit a luminaire and landscape plan that must be approved by
the Department of Community Development prior to the installation of lighting for the sign.
3. To ensure a consistent appearance, the mounting bolts for the proposed sign shall be
painted the same color as the sign or otherwise treated to visually blend in with the sign and
rockery wall.
Moira Bradshaw then entered into the record pictures of the site and adjacent signs.
Carol Bloss, Schneider Homes, 6510 Southcenter Blvd.:
Mr. Bloss asked if the submittal of a luminaire landscape plan before installation of the sign
was really necessary. He went on to say a flood light will be used and it is not necessary to
go to the expense of preparing a plan and getting a permit. He suggested that staff's
condition number two be eliminated.
Staff said that no additional permit or fee would be required for this luminaire landscape
plan.
Mr. Knudson asked what kind of a plan the staff would like to see.
Staff said that it would be part of their existing sign permit application for the wall sign and
would include the specifications for the light to show where the light will be directed, as well
as how it will be concealed using plant material.
Mr. Mauna clarified that the applicant was limited to a certain amount of lighting.
Mr. Bloss said that they were more concerned with the aesthetics of the sign since they have
to market the condominiums.
Mr. Malina asked if Mr. Bloss had talked with the Sunwood Condominium Association as
far as being consistent with their signage.
Mr. Bloss said that staff has a letter from the Association giving their approval of the sign.
Also, Mr. Bloss said that he had had several meetings with the Association and have worked
very well with them.
Mr. Meryhew asked if their was a reason that he had not submitted a plan for the lighting
when he submitted the plan for the sign.
Mr. Bloss said that it had never occurred to him since the light itself is insignificant. He
then offered to go to "Seattle Lighting" and get the make and model number of the bulb and
Planning Commission Minutes
February 25, 1993
show how it is going to be screened using plant material.
Mr. Malina asked Mr. Bloss if he had any comment with regard to the letter of objection
submitted by a Sunwood Condominium resident.
Mr. Bloss said that he did not know the individual who wrote the letter.
Mr. Malina said that he was concerned with those individuals who have objections with the
sign.
Mr. Haggerton asked if the artist's rendering of the sign was an accurate depiction of what
the sign will look like.
Mr. Bloss said that the sign, the rockery, and the way it is located is accurate, but the
shrubbery isn't that large yet.
Mr. Haggerton said that the applicant has gone a step further by meeting with the Sunwood
Condominium Home Owner's Association.
Page 3
Mr. Knudson said that he agreed and that you can't always please everyone. The sign is well
within the size requirements of the Sign Code. If the rendering is accurate, then it is not
an obtrusive sign in any way.
Robert Erickson, 15209 Sunwood Blvd. #B24:
Mr. Erickson said that the rendering is not even close to what is seen when driving by the
site. He said that he is on record as being an opponent of the project and there are some
discrepancies as far as what was approved by the Board of Architectural Review and what
has actually been built. Mr. Erickson went on to say' that the sign was posted before this
hearing ever took place and it had to be taken down. He asked how that happened.
Mr. Haggerton said that happened because when a permit was issued in 1990 for the
original developers of this area, a stipulation made to that applicant stated that before they
put a sign up they had to come back before the BAR to ensure the sign meets the City Sign
Code. That project eventually fell through and this new applicant had no way of knowing
about the stipulation made in 1990.
Mr. Erickson asked if the current developer is unaware of all the things that came before
the BAR in 1990 regarding this project.
Mr. Haggerton said that he was not going to answer that because he has no idea.
Mr. Erickson said that if they had tried to comply with all the other things that have been
Planning Commission Minu es
February 25, 1993
brought before the BAR, o e would have thought they would have been aware of this as
well.
Page 4
Mr. Haggerton said it's a to
Mr. Erickson said that he
reiterated that he was oppo
not a private drive then ther
be kept, a private drive.
Condominiums or the Sunw
sign is 1 /20th the size of thi
before they stop with that If
Mr. Haggerton asked how 1
Mr. Erickson . said that was
Mr. Haggerton said that it
Mr. Erickson said that he w
long he has lived there.
Mr. Haggerton said that wh
who developed the Sunwoo
Mr. Erickson said that he u
Mr. Malina said that they w
issue. He suggested that
Mr. Erickson said that he •
landscaping and the area a
Mr. Malina said that the si
Condominiums or the rest o
addressing the sign issue t
Mr. Flesher clarified tha
requirements.
ally different project and you cannot assume that.
as not making an assumption, but asking a question. He
sed to the sign as it is designed and to its location. If this was
might not be a problem, but this is in fact, and was fought to
en one drives up Sunwood Blvd., they don't see Sunwood
• od sign, they see Crystal Ridge. The Sunwood Condominium
proposed sign. How much further is this project going to go
side. Where is Sunwood up there?
ng Mr. Erickson has lived there.
elevant.
as not irrelevant and asked how long he had lived there.
s a home owner who lived there now and did not answer how
• le area was supposed to be developed by the same developer
property and they did not follow through.
derstood that.
re not here to discuss the relevancy of the project, but the sign
. Erickson direct his comments strictly to the signage issue.
jects to the sign because he doesn't feel it blends in with the
it stands.
n is to blend in with the Crystal Ridge project, not Sunwood
the area. He reiterated that the Planning Commission was just
s evening.
the Planning Commission has to go by the Sign Code
Mr. Erickson said that is th- reason it is the way it is, because of the Code.
Mr. Knudson asked Mr. rickson if he was aware that the Sunwood Condominium
Planning Commission Minutes
February 25, 1993
Association gave their approval to the sign.
Mr. Erickson said that he was aware of that.
Mr. Meryhew closed the public hearing.
Page 5
Mr. Flesher said that Condition #1 covers Condition #2, and maybe #2 is not necessary.
Mr. Haggerton said that from the pictures submitted, every project wants to have an
identifying sign and it is not unreasonable for this applicant to have an identifying sign.
Mr. Malina recommended that in Condition #1, the word "apartment" be changed to
"condominium ".
Mr. Meryhew thought it was immaterial how the condition refers to it.
Mr. Haggerton asked if the same sign that was previously taken down would be put back up.
Mr. Bloss said that it would be the same sign.
Mr. Haggerton thanked Mr. Erickson for coming to the public hearing and appreciated his
comments.
MR. KNUDSON MOVED TO APPROVE PROJECT L93 -0001: CRYSTAL RIDGE SIGN
PERMIT BASED UPON THE STAFF'S FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS AND BASED
UPON CONDITIONS #1 AND #3 OF THE STAFF REPORT. MR. FLESHER
SECONDED THE MOTION AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Mayor Rants welcomed Joyce Craft to the Planning Commission.
Moira Bradshaw asked the Commission for their input regarding the Tukwila Tomorrow
Phase I report and the joint meeting.
Mr. Malina said that it seemed everyone was working toward the same goals and that he
appreciated the minutes.
Mr. Meryhew commended the Tukwila Tomorrow Committee for their hard work. The
Committee has saved the Planning Commission a lot of work.
Moira Bradshaw encouraged to the Planning Commissioners to attend the Council meeting
to recognize George Gomez's time and efforts on the Planning Commission. She also asked
if they would be interested in participating in a canoe trip on the river with the Tukwila
Planning Commission Minutes
February 25, 1993
Tommorrow members. Approximately five members expressed an interest in participating.
Finally, Moira briefed the Commission that the Hearing Examiner proposal had been
dropped and was not being pursued at this time.
Mr. Meryhew adjourned the meeting.
Page 6
•
,�J�v.11LA' 444 t
0 I.' 1\4
City of Tukwila
wila
John W. Rants, Mayor
Department of Community Development
STAFF REPORT
TO THE BOARD OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW
Prepared 2/17/93
HEARING DATE:
STAFF CONTACT/
PHONE #
PROJECT:
APPLICANT:
REQUEST:
LOCATION:
ZONING:
February 25, 1993 •
Carol Proud, 431 -3661
Rick Beeler, Director
L93 -0001: CRYSTAL RIDGE CONDOMINIUMS
SIGN PERMIT
Mr. H. C. Bloss, Schneider Homes
Board of Architectural Review approval of a twenty seven
square foot identification sign.
Northwest corner Sunwood Blvd. and 62nd Avenue S.
R -4, Low Apartments
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
DESIGNATION: High Density Residential
ATTACHMENTS:
A. Copy of Applicant's Request Letter
B. Sunwood Board Meeting Minutes
C. Site Plan
D. Sign Elevation
E. Copy of 8 -9 -90 BAR Public Meeting Minutes
F. Color board (to be submitted at hearing)
G. Colored Illustration (to be submitted at hearing)
6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • (206) 431 -3670 • Fax (206) 431 -3665
Staff Report to the L93 -0001: Crystal Ridge Condominiums
Planning Commission Page 2
BACKGROUND
The Board of Architectural Review (BAR) approved the "62nd. Ave. S. Apartments"
on August 9, 1990 under file number 89- 14 -DR. Since the original approval the
project was sold to Schneider Homes. The name has been changed to Crystal Ridge
and the project is now marketed as condominiums rather than apartments.
One of the conditions of approval for the project required that any sign permit must
be approved by the Board. (Please refer to copy of BAR minutes, page 10,
Attachment E)
Although not required by the City, the applicant has obtained approval from the
Sunwood Board of Directors for the proposed sign. (Please refer to copy of Board
minutes, Attachment B)
FINDINGS
DECISION CRITERIA
The applicant proposes to attach a 2.5'x 8.5' or twenty -one square foot identification
sign to the rockery wall at the southeast corner of the subject property at the
entrance of Sunwood Blvd.
A multi- family identification sign must meet the following Sign Code regulations
(TMC Title 19) highlighted below in bold.
19.32.110 Multiple Familv Development. Each multiple family development may have one sign for the
purpose of naming or other wise identifying the project. Total area of the sign faces shall not exceed thirty -
two square feet; maximum height above average grade, when in setback area, shall not exceed five feet and
base of sign stall be located in landscape area. Illuminated signs shall be front - lighted from concealed
sources or back lighted channel letters or back lighted cut -out letters framed by an opaque cabinet or non-
illuminated opaque sign panels.
Staff's Response:
The sign will be constructed of formed aluminum and painted dark green with white
12" aluminum letters. The sign will be bolted directly to the rockery wall. According
to the applicant the sign may be indirectly illuminated with lights located at the base
of the wall. No lighting plan was included with the permit application. The rockery
wall is four feet high and is set back approximately fifteen feet from the curb edge
of Sunwood Blvd. The base and top of the rockery wall will be landscaped with a
combination of grass and shrubs.
Staff Report to the L93 -0001: Crystal Ridge Condominiums
Planning Commission Page 3
CONCLUSIONS
The size of the proposed sign will be smaller than the maximum allowed for an apartment
identification sign. The height of the rockery wall at four feet is under the maximum height
allowed for a typical freestanding or monument sign when located within a required yard
setback. Therefore, the sign meets the minimum criteria for height and total square footage
necessary for sign approval.
Painted formed aluminum is a sturdy material that withstands weathering. The dark green
color is not obtrusive and will blend in with the surrounding landscaping. The rockery wall
will provide a textured background for the sign. It is not apparent from the submitted
material if the bolts used to mount the sign are painted or left untreated. To insure a
consistent appearance the bolts should be painted the same color as the sign or otherwise
treated to visually blend in with the sign and rockery wall.
The applicant has not decided at this time if the sign will be illuminated. Therefore, the sign
application did not specify a method of indirect lighting. The code requires that illumination
originate from concealed sources. This means that lights must be shielded, screened with
plants or ground cover and directly illuminate the sign with no spillage. Any future lighting
for the sign must meet this criteria.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Staff recommends APPROVAL of the proposed sign with the following conditions:
1. Any lighting of the apartment identification sign shall be shielded and screened with
landscape material. All lighting shall originate from concealed sources with no spillage
beyond the edge of the rockery wall.
2. The applicant shall submit a luminaire and landscape plan that must be approved by the
Department of Community Development prior to the installation of lighting for the sign.
3. To insure a consistent appearance, the mounting bolts for the proposed sign shall be
painted the same color as the sign or otherwise treated to visually blend in with the sign and
rockery wall.
r•
January 6, 1993
•
JE" /EILOiPriviENT
City of Tukwila
6200 Southcenter Blvd.
Tukwila, WA 98188
Att: Jack Pace
Subject: Crystal Ridge Condominiums
Dear Jack:
Attached for the Board of Architectual Review information is
a rendering and specifications of the signage for our
project at Crystal Ridge. Also attached are the minutes
from the Sunwood Board meeting of November 11, 1992, at
which they approved the same signage.
Please call me if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
�/. e• %� %!✓..
H.C. Bloss
Manager of Development
and Construction
I•ICB /jc
.Attachments
ATTACHMENT A
SC•HN•E1 245 P8
SUNWOOD BOARD MEETING
November 11,1992
1\6 V •3 0 R cu
PRE -BOARD MEETING WITH SCHNEIDER HOMES, INC.
6510 Southcenter Blvd, Suite #6
Tukwila, WA 98188
Present: Sandy Ault, Wayne Farmer, Glenita Aarhus, Mike
Williams of Asset Management.
Absent: Greg DeWar and Alice Coday
Representatives of Schneider Homes, H. C. Bloss and Dale
meet with the above Board members and presented the signage
to the Board for their approval. The signage was moved and
passed to accept as presented.
Further discussion followed:
- The light pole that was damaged by Schneider has been moved
and will be repaired as soon as possible and they have agreed
to move it to a location we request.
•- Phase II of Crystal Ridge is scheduled to begin in the spring
of 1993.
- Road replacement should be done in the fall of 1993 upon
completion of buildings.
- We will look into the agreement of maintenance of the street
lights running down the median that is to be shared by both
Crystal Ridge and Sunwood Condos.
- Dale from Schneider reported that we need to look into the
maintenance of the lights down the median as they appeat to
be in need of some reinforcement and it was agreed to do that.
- There were questions on the fence and its height to be built
on the west side of the road and Schneider will advise the Board.
Meeting with Schneider Homes adjourned at 7:22pm
Barbara Mjelde,Recording Secretary
cc: Schneider Homes, Inc.
ATTACHMENT B
•
.r.
Pk'
WO
0.1
cr7
r- 4— 4-
o '0 0
..V
0
0 0 0
.cr)
\-1
4
0 o 0
•••••■■,,
•
• ;•
•
VEF:)
•. •
JAN 0 71203
COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT
(panunuo3) 3 ZN1NHDV11V
I p
0
0
JAN 0 7 1993
COMMUNITY
DEveLoPmEN7
•
•
Ph
a
oiar
.00
ATTACHMENT D
0 7 1$a.
. COMMLIN;-TY
DEVELOPMENT
/
/
ATTACHMENT D (continued)
�
|
Planning Division
City of Tukwila
6300 Southcenter Boulevard
Tukwila WA 98188
Re: Case Number L92 -0001
Dear Sirs:
CENTERPLEX
Management Office:
6100 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite 150
Tukwila, Washington 98188 -5708
Telephone: (206) 246 -9986
Facsimile: (206) 241 -2977
1993/02/13
I y4
�� 1 6 1993
We are happy to support the requested permit for an identification sign for Crystal Ridge
Condominiums at 62nd Avenue S. and S. Sunwood Blvd. We believe such a sign will help travelers
find their way to their destination and thereby reduce the incidence of lost persons interrupting our
tenants to ask for directions.
Sincerely yours,
Jonathan Pool
Proprietor
1305 Northeast 43rd Street, Apartment 710
Seattle, Washington 98105 -5815
Telephone: (206) 543 -7946, 632 -0692
Facsimile: (206) 543 -9285
1
A
4 City of Tukwila
.1909
6200 Southcenter Boulevard
Tukwila Washington 98188
City Council 433 -1800
CITY OF TUKWILA
PLANNING COMMISSION
AUGUST 9, 1990
The meeting was called to order at 8:10 P.M. by Jim Haggerton,
Chairman. Members present were Messrs. Haggerton, Hamilton,
Flesher, Knudson, and Malina. Messrs. Gomez and Kirsop were
excused.
Representing the staff were Jack Pace, Moira Bradshaw, and
Lawrence Hard.
Mr. Haggerton noted that Mr. Gomez would like the minutes of the
July 19, 1990 amended. The minutes had indicated that Mr. Gomez
was opposed to the Adult Entertainment issue, relating to its
distance from schools and its zoning. Mr. Gomez was not the
single opposing vote on this issue.
MR. HAMILTON MOVED TO ACCEPT THE MINUTES OF THE JULY 19, 1990
MEETING AS AMENDED, THE MOTION WAS SECONDED. THE MINUTES WERE
APPROVED UNANIMOUSLY.
CITIZEN'S COMMENTS
The Mayor spoke regarding the S.A.O. and communication problems
between the City Council and the Planning Commission. He
accepted ownership of some of the communication problems and
stated that he wanted to get the S.A.O. settled before the end of
the second moratorium. He noted that the City Council had agreed
to delete the Tree Preservation and Clearing & Grading ordinances
from the S.A.O.
Mr. Malina asked if the packages would be revised and re- issued
to the Planning Commission. Moira Bradshaw indicated that they
would.
Mr. Hamilton asked if the Tree Preservation and Clearing &
Grading ordinances would be handled in the same fashion at a
later date. The Mayor indicated that the Council would want the
Planning Commission to see these ordinances at a later date, but
was not sure if the process would be the same.
Joan Hernandez, President of the City Council stated that Dennis
Robertson and herself were present to keep the lines of
communication open and answer any questions of the Planning
Commission. She emphasized the Council's hopes that the Planning
Planning Commission Minutes Page 2
Commission would delete the Tree Preservation and Clearing &
Grading ordinances and proceed with the hearing on August 30,
1990.
Mr. Hamilton again asked if the other two ordinances would be
handled in the same manner. Ms. Hernandez said that these two
ordinances were legislative ordinances and don't require public
hearings.
Dennis Robertson, Council member, clarified that the S.A.O. is
modifications and additions to the current zoning code and
legally, has to have public hearings on it. The other two
ordinances are not considered zoning related ordinances and the
State law does not require the Planning Commission to have public
hearings. He stressed that the Council did not want the Tree
Preservation and Clearing & Grading ordinances to tie up the
implementation of the S.A.O. and the end of the moratorium.
Mr. Haggerton expressed the Planning Commission's concern that
the two ordinances not by -pass the public hearing process, and
get added to the S.A.O. in the future.
Mr. Robertson clarified that the Council had no intention of
passing those ordinances without public hearings. The Council
would also provide documents for the Planning Commission to
review.
Mr. Malina expressed his concern of meeting timelines. He also
asked if the Planning Commission would have the opportunity to
hold another workshop on the S.A.O.
Moira Bradshaw indicated that it was up to the Planning
Commission to schedule a workshop given that the hearing is
scheduled for August 30, 1990.
Mr. Haggerton closed the Citizen's Comments portion of the
meeting.
89- 14 -DR: 62nd AVENUE APARTMENTS
Mr. Haggerton noted that the public hearings should be re- opened
regarding this issue.
Jack Pace reviewed the Staff Report, and handed the Planning
Commission additional submittals. Jack stated that the staff is
recommending approval with the following conditions:
1. Breaking Building F and moving building E over, thereby,
eliminating the need for a retaining wall, obtaining better
screening and landscaping at the entrance to the site.
2. There be a 3' -5' high berm along Sunwood Drive.
Planning Commission Minutes Page 3
3. The relocation of the trash receptacles.
4. Revise landscaping in the following areas.
a. Along building B and north of building B.
b. Provide additional landscaping near buildings E and F
so that there is 40% tree coverage in the open areas
within ten years.
c. Additional landscaping along retaining wall B, similar
to building A.
5. Planning Director's approval of the location of the mailbox
facilities.
6. Incorporation of any design proposal for the signage to fit
in with the design theme of the project.
Mr. Malina asked if a children's recreation area would be
designated. Jack indicated that the applicant had not proposed a
designated area for children.
Mr. Malina asked if the glass on the retaining wall couldn't be
colored to blend in with the wall itself. Jack replied that
there is no reason why it could not be colored.
PUBLIC HEARING
The first speaker was the applicant, Bill Jeude. He stated that
the project has complied with all the requirements. He
emphasized the need for an immediate decision on behalf of the
Board of Architectural Review.
The second speaker was Roger Newell, architect for,the project.
With regard to the question of safety in the stairwells, he
indicated that they would be able to add emergency lighting if
the Planning Commission so desired. He stated this would be
primarily an adult oriented complex, therefore, a children's play
area was not a high priority.
Mr. Malina said that he would like to see a proposal for a play
area, as well as, emergency lighting in the stairwells.
Mr. Bruce Johnson
architect for the
willing to adjust
Sunwood property.
provided 67 shade
and over 50 small
with Johnson Associates, the landscape
project spoke next. He said that they were
the landscape to accommodate the wishes of the
Mr. Johnson told the members that they had
and flowering trees, over 50 large conifers,
conifers.
John Hunt, a land use consultant employed by the Sunwood Home
Owners Association -Board of Directors located at 1218 3rd Ave.,
Planning Commission Minutes Page 4
Seattle: He stated that there were a number of agreements,
restrictions and covenants that are edited from the public record
that accompanied the rezone of this property all the way through
with a definite set of site plans. In a previous re -zone (1974)
to R -4, the property was proposed to be a mix of apartments and
condominiums. This proposal was approved with a number of
conditions, including a site plan which showed that the Sunwood
Condominiums Phases I and II would be granted an easement to
complete a separate access road for the Sunwood Condominiums up
to 62nd Avenue. A few years later, the City receipted the rezone
because the applicant couldn't meet the conditions the City
placed on it. When the same applicants returned for this
property (excluding the Cato property) to rezone it back to R -4,
the City Council assumed the property would be subject to all the
conditions that were placed on Sunwood, including the covenants.
It appears that few of the conditions which were placed on
Sunwood in 1981 will apply to this project. A number of
conditions have changed; this is no longer a part of Sunwood
Condominiums, the property owner is suing Sunwood to have the
covenants between the properties vacated. There is no
information as to whether those will be replaced with anything
definite, the applicants are using the private road.
He would like to propose that:
* the parking lot be moved to where it originally was at the
minimum dimension from the Sunwood property line.
* the City get an engineering detail if the retaining wall is
not removed.
* a 3' berm be placed along the southerly and westerly edges
of the road with an evergreen cover on top of the berm.
Sunwood would also like to see some winter landscaping along
the berm.
* a variance from the provisions of the sign code be
entertained so that Sunwood could get better directional
identification at the entrance of the private road.
* City staff assist Mr. Hunt in researching the public records
to find what the conditions, covenants, agreements, etc.
were in relation to the rezone, find what is relevant and
what needs to be replaced to assure compatibility between
the old neighborhood, and this new neighborhood.
Joan Hernandez, residing at 15224 Sunwood: She questioned
whether the retaining wall would be a desireable transition with
the street scape. Ms. Hernandez expressed the need for a mock -up
Planning Commission Minutes Page 5
of the site to properly visualize the impact of the project. The
height of the retaining walls may pose a safety hazard for
children in the area. The landscaping buffer between the Sunwood
property and this project should be preserved, rather than
replace them with immature landscaping. She questioned whether
a:30', single lane road is adequate to service an additional 72
homes. There is a significant surface water problem at the
entrance to Sunwood Blvd. which needs to be resolved. There is a
considerable water problem where building E is proposed to be
located. The Sunwood residents would like to provide input as to
the signage at the entrance of Sunwood Blvd. Adding brick or
shake roofs to the buildings would improve the quality of the
appearance. The 72 fireplaces should be removed from the
interior plans to reduce fire hazards. She asked Jack Pace where
the detention ponds will be located on the property. Jack stated
that there would be a storm water retention system, rather than
detention ponds.
FOLLOWING A FIVE MINUTE RECESS, THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS RESUMED AT
10:15 P.M.
Richard Burley, a homeowner at Sunwood: He expressed his concern
for the density of the units, the provision of a mock -up of the
project, and enforcement of the approved design. Jack Pace
assured the Board that the designs, and site would be examined
prior to issuing a Certificate of Occupancy.
Sandra Alt, a homeowner at Sunwood: This project should provide
its own detention tanks and some assurances should be provided
that Sunwood's tanks will not be utilized by this project. She
also expressed concern for traffic congestion of the private
road.
Bill Dobson, a homeowner at Sunwood: The density is to high, and
the quality of the project be as good as it can be.
Barbara Meldy, a homeowner at Sunwood: The location of the
swimming pool, across the street from the apartment complexes,
poses a. traffic hazard for those crossing the busy street;
especially children.
Kristine Wong, a homeowner at Sunwood: expressed support of the
project, but noted her concern for its compatibility with the
existing homes.
Mr. Knudson: Is the road a part of the Sunwood property?
Mr. Pace: The property is different from Sunwood Phases I and
II, and a sign at the entrance would be an off - premise sign which
is prohibited under the sign code.
Planning Commission Minutes
Mr. Hard: I'm not sure that I agree that the property
actually off - premise. There is some question as to the
of the word premises. I will look into it further.
Page 6
is
definition
Tom Beatty, a homeowner at Sunwood: Is there a regulation on
street signs? Would there be any regulation preventing a sign
prominently displaying the fact that is Sunwood Blvd.?
Jack Pace: That could be permitted if its a directional sign.
Jaren Aubrey, a homeowner at Sunwood: Would there be a
possibility of putting a small sign in the first median strip
indicating where Sunwood is located? Who owns the private road?
Jack Pace: The road is part of this property and there are
reciprocal easements for access.
Larry Hard: We should be creative and problem solving with this
signage issue. Proper designation can be accomplished.
Jack Pace: With the applicant's proposal of garages, there needs
to a setback of 8'. The setback could not be reduced to 5' with
the garages in their current location. The trees can be saved
if the buildings are moved closer to the street.
Mr. Hamilton: What happens if we go to standard setbacks from
the street?
Jack Pace: There are no required setbacks, this is a private
street.
Mr. Hamilton: From a typical dedicated street, what happens if
we go with standard setbacks?
Jack Pace: The setback distance would be 30 feet in the front
yard, along Sunwood Blvd. and 8 on the side yards.
Mr. Hamilton: Why wouldn't we do that?
Jack Pace: It's your discretion.
Mr. Hamilton: What we would gain is the prevention of problems
in the future. Secondly, if the standard setbacks mean anything,
why don't they apply here?
Jack Pace: Setback standards apply to property lines and not to
private streets.
Mr. Hamilton: I cannot change what was decided at Sunwood, but I
can control what happens to this project.
Jack Pace: Public Works would not recommend this to become a
Planning Commission Minutes Page 7
public road since it does not meet public street requirements.
Mr. Hunt: We need to clarify the number and the location of the
existing trees on the site plan. We might be able to provide a
landscape easement.
Dick Hernandez, a homeowner at Sunwood: Why do we allow a
builder to encroach on the property that belongs to Sunwood and
build properties not adhering to the proper setbacks? Is it
because of a mistake you made long ago? Why do we have to
continue that?
Jack Pace: This project was always designed as a private street.
Phases I and II were built based upon that.
Dick Hernandez: Is it a public street in Tukwila?
Jack Pace: No, it's a private street. There are no requirements
to make this a public street. The review from Public Works
showed that there was no reason to make it a public street.
' Mr. Jeude: We can accomplish the additional 5' by the street,
which also makes the north retaining wall less severe. We believe
we can remove the retaining wall in front of building E. With
regard to the water flow on 62nd Ave., that has already been
reviewed and approved by Public Works. The storm water detention
system and the road are the property of our project and we give
easements to the Sunwood people to allow their system to drain
into that.
As a practical matter, children's play areas become difficult to
manage, pose a safety hazard and add to the noise factor. We
don't prohibit children, but we can't take responsibility for
watching other people's children.
Mr. Hamilton: You're going to leave, and all the rest of us are
going to be stuck taking care of those children and enforcing the
laws.
Mr. Jeude: You misunderstood me. We are not going to leave,
we're trying to create an environment that allows them to exist
in a safe place.
Mr. Haggerton: Can you build a less dense project?
Mr. Jeude: Not practically, the project costs a certain amount
of dollars, and you have to have the revenue base to make it
worth while. We can also do something to control the pedestrian
traffic, such as put in crosswalks.
Planning Commission Minutes Page 8
Mr. Hamilton: Jack, have we heard the whole story here? What
about the sidewalks, sewers, street lights, storm sewers; is
there something lurking here that we haven't heard about that
could come up and get us later on?
Jack Pace: No. There's been extensive work done with Public
Works regarding the soils, there was also work done on looking at
storm drainage. There were many revisions made on the utilities
regarding storm water in particular. Based upon the original and
newest traffic estimates, it was concluded that there was no need
for additional off -site mitigation for the road. All the sewers
are private versus public facilities.
John Hunt: Jack, is the 8' needed for garages, is that a setback
or landscaping width?
Jack Pace: A setback requirement.
John Hunt: Okay, if the carport is not attached to the retaining
wall, the retaining wall can be 5' from the back wall?
Jack Pace: Yes.
John Hunt: With regard to the detention tank, the tanks are
owned by Old Stone Bank and Sunwood has an easement to use it.
That tank was designed to serve only the existing Sunwood
development, no further development. The City should be very
diligent and careful in analyzing that tank before they allow it
be utilized for additional drainage. Some document should make
clear, the liability for any tank failure, between those two
entities. Public Works should make sure that grades and site
distances are as good as they can make them where people are
crossing over to the pool; maybe they could paint cross walks.
Mr. Haggerton Closed the Public Hearing and opened the Planning
Commission's discussion:
Mr. Hamilton recommend that they disapprove the project for the
following reasons:
a. Need to handle recreation and safety issues for children.
b. Need normal setbacks whether public or private road.
c. All utilities should meet public utility standards.
Mr. Haggerton asked if there was any support for that?
Mr. Malina agreed with half of it. He has questions regarding
the fireplace and playground issues, but does believe the project
needs to be developed.
Mr. Flesher acknowledged the concerns of the project, but
stressed the need deal with individual project issues rather than
the project itself.
Planning Commission Minutes Page 9
Mr. Hamilton noted that he would not vote for the project if it
did not conform with Tukwila public utility standards.
Mr. Hard stated that the City Council determines what is
appropriate, and that they were dealing with a legislative
question, not one that the Board of Architectural Review should
be addressing. The project meets all of the requirements set
forth by the City Council.
MR. HAMILTON MOVED TO DISAPPROVE THE APPLICATION FOR THE SPECIFIC
REASON THAT IT DOES NOT CONTAIN GOOD, SOUND PLANNING PRACTICES IN
THE DESIGN. THERE WAS NO SECOND TO THAT MOTION. THE MOTION
DIES.
Jack Pace reviewed the site plan and its revision as indicated in
attachment EE3.
Mr. Haggerton asked if the project could be moved up the hill,
and still retain the existing trees based on the garages?
Jack: It depends on how far you want to move it. If you move it
a minimum of 5, I don't think you could save the trees. A
variance could not be granted.
Mr. Malina: I would prefer preserving the trees as a buffer.
MR. MALINA MOVED TO ACCEPT ATTACHMENT EE3. MR. FLESHER SECONDED
THE MOTION. THE MOTION PASSES BY A VOTE OF 3 -2, WITH MESSRS.
HAMILTON AND KNUDSON OPPOSED.
Jack reviewed the berm of the site.
MR. MALINA MOVED THAT THE APPLICANT PROVIDE A 3 -5' BERM ALONG THE
ENTIRE LENGTH OF SUNWOOD DRIVE, WITH ADDITIONAL 2' HIGH
EVERGREENS AT 60% OF THE LENGTH OF SUNWOOD DRIVE. MR. HAGGERTON
SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION DOES NOT PASS BY A VOTE OF 2 -2,
WITH MR. KNUDSON ABSTAINING FROM THE VOTING.
Mr. Haggerton entertained a motion.
MR. HAMILTON MOVED THAT THE APPLICANT PROVIDE 5' SIDEWALK
COMMENCING AT 62ND AVE. UP TO THE POOL, WITH THE RESIDUAL BEING A
MAXIMUM HEIGHT BERM, AND A 70% CONIFEROUS PLANTING ALONG THE
SOUTH AND WEST SIDE OF 62ND AVE. MR. KNUDSON SECONDED THE
MOTION. THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.
Jack Pace reviewed the possibility of providing a children's
area.
MR. HAMILTON MOVED THAT THE APPLICANT DEVELOP 40% OF THE
RECREATIONAL AREA INTO IMPROVED AREAS FOR CHILDREN TO INCLUDE
ITEMS SUCH AS BIG TOYS, BASKETBALL COURTS, TENNIS COURTS. MR.
Planning Commission Minutes Page 10
MALINA SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.
Jack Pace reviewed the location of the dumpsters, and the issue
of recommending that the fireplaces be removed.
Mr. Hard clarified that the B.A.R. does not have the authority to
decide this issue.
Jack Pace discussed the staff's recommendation that the applicant
provide more intensive landscaping.
MR. HAMILTON MOVED TO ACCEPT STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION OF ITEMS 2 b,
c, d, e, AND f OF THE STAFF REPORT. MR. MALINA SECONDED THE
MOTION. THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.
Jack Pace reviewed the signage issues.
MR. HAMILTON MOVED THAT THE APPLICANT COME BACK TO THE
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD FOR APPROVAL OF A SIGN PERMIT.• MR.
FLESHER SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.
IT WAS MOVED AND SECONDED TO GIVE THE STAFF THE RESPONSIBILITY
OF FINDING A LOCATION FOR THE MAILBOXES. THE MOTION PASSED
UNANIMOUSLY.
MR. FLESHER MOVED TO APPROVE THE PROJECT WITH THE STAFF'S
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS BASED ON ALL THE INDIVIDUAL ITEMS
PREVIOUSLY APPROVED. MR. MALINA SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION
WAS APPROVED UNANIMOUSLY.
DIRECTOR'S REPORT:
August 23rd date for next planning commission hearing.
S.A.O. workshop scheduled for 6:00 -8:00 P.M., August 23rd.
S.A.O. hearing scheduled for August 30th.
MR. HAGGERTON MOVED TO ADJOURN, MOTION UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
MEETING ADJOURNED AT 12:15 A.M.
Respectfully Submitted,
Sylvia Appleton, Administrative Secretary
One Application Per Sign
(, ;y of Tukwila
Department of Community Development
6300 Southcenter Boulevard
Tukwila, Washington 98188
(206) 431 -3670
FEE pc —
en�'
PERMY9��iV0. j� 3 / - 'WON
RECEIPT NO ( G 2
DATE: ( ? !.>
SIGN APPLICATION & PERMIT
PLEASE PRINT
64,41'24: Swit/t- 14.+c1D & r//'
Business Name
S.Ci-Oet .0E/4 Vit)04VS 104.
3usineIssI Owner's Name
t 1,iC)
_re
Applicant
: t : (.018 z C- 1NC
Address of Sign
6g r S',), C'FO O/Q. C' CU 0
Address, City, State, Zip
Address, City, State, Zip
2 1 P,4 c- •3 S,
Contractor Address, City, State, Zip
ZONING:
(NOTE: 3 sets of plans including site plans are required)
EXISTING PERMANENT SIGNS: p/
SIGN DESCRIPTION:
0 1) Permanent ❑ Temporary ❑ Change of copy
3) Type of Sign:
❑ WALL SIGN
What is the wall area (length x hi
where the :sign will be mounted
Wall sign size- ?I' 25 square feet
Does the sign face
residential zoned land ?' ❑ Yes `t'` No
square feet
❑ FREESTANDING:
Street Frontage for the entire lot
where the sign will be located' feet
Height of building: feet
Freestanding sign size: sq. feet.
Height: ft in.
Setback from property lines: feet
Fe 0, v,A ,11∎,4 ►
Phone
Z7
"..2e/ —2/
Phone
Phone
'e 7yti S9�
Phone
None ❑ All To Be Removed ❑ Signs to Remain
Number of Signs
Type of Sign
Location
2) ❑ Internally lighted Externally lighte
❑ TEMPORARY SIGN:
Type of Construction:
❑ Cloth (Banner)
❑ Single -face rigid material
❑ Multi -face rigid material
Number of temporary signs
to be displayed'
Temporary sign size
(square feet):
Not lighted
RECEIVED
JAN 0 71993
COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT
Number of temporary sign permits
issued to this business
within this calendar year:
Length of time
to be displayed. days
It is the responsibility of the installer to obtain the electrical permit and inspections from the State Electrical Depart-
ment. The applicant or installer is required to call the Building Division at 431 -3670 for final inspection.
HEREBY CERTIFY that the above information furnished by me is true and correct, and that the applicable requirements of the City of Tukwila will be met.
(Date)
- 93
❑ Denied
Issued
❑ Issued with conditions
BUILDING
DIVISION:
PLANNING
DIVISION:
(Signature of owner or authorized agent)
SIGN PERMIT
Issued by •
Phone
Comments or Conditions:
(NOTE: Sign permit ap.roval is valid for 180 days.)
OFFICE USE ONLY
❑ Approve Approve
❑ Deny w /conditions B
Approve ❑ Approve
❑ beny
Comments or Conditions•
Date
Final Inspection: By
Date
r.rr a -. nln r:nnnry • Annli 7An1
Pink Builrlinn nivkion
CRYSTAL RIDGE
Schneider Homes, Inc.
Panel: 2'6" High x 8' Long x 1/8" Thick
Aluminum, painted green
Letters: 12" High x 1 -1/2" Wide X 1/8" Thick
Aluminum, painted white