Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPermit 89-14-DR - SUNWOOD CONDOMINIUMS - PHASE III DESIGN REVIEW15100 sunwood boulevard epic-30-89 Permit 89-14-DR - SUNWOOD CONDOMINIUMS - PHASE III DESIGN REVIEW December 17, 1992 TO: Crystal Ridge File DESIGN REVIEW FROM: Jack Pace, Senior Planner SUBJECT: Summary of revisions • MAJOR CHANGES The following changes were approved by the BAR on June 25, 1992. * Recreation Building; this building was moved 10' to the south and 23' to the east and square footage reduced from 2,100 square feet to 1,542 square feet. * Recreation Area; reduced 58 square feet from 17,753 to 17,695 square feet; minimum required is 14,400 square feet. MINOR CHANGES P The following changes were reviewed by the BAR on November 18, 1992 and approved by staff. * Windows; substitute bronze aluminum frame windows with light brown vinyl trim to meet new energy code. * Railing system; substitute a steel railing for aluminum railing system painted the same color. * Interior walls; wall changes on A, B or C units to meet handicap accessible codes. * Fireplace; change wood burning fireplaces to heatilator gas fireplace - this removes the need for chimney. * Siding; change from cedar siding to "L.P. Interseal" beveled siding and fire treated. * Trash Area next Building F -1; relocated to northeast corner of garages with parking area moved 8 feet to the south. * Garages; 5 carport converted to 5 garages. * Carports; 3 carports converted to 3 parking spaces. (All carports eliminated) * Building changes: open trellis converted to skylights in stairways. Add sprinkler equipment building for buildings C, D, & E, Fl & F2. Decks widened on the second floor for buildings A, B, C, D, & E. Windows; change configuration of windows muttins and window location next to decks, and bedroom windows facing parking areas. Offsets; eliminate the one foot arrow design offset elevation for buildings. Crystal Ridge Page 2 Landscape changes; add landscaping in the following areas: ▪ in front of electrical panels. • Along NE corner retaining walls. ▪ Along NE corner of trash screening. Along NW corner of retaining walls. • At storm drain access aisle that was deleted. 11/01 :'1990 11:',1 @ELLF.YUE, WASHINGTON OFFICE 1 2061 451.0500 'EL£COFIE4. 1 206% 455.5407 PORTLAND OREGON OFFICE 1508) 22!•050 TELECOPI .R •503) 221.1210 October 31, 1990 VIA FACSIMILE (206) 433 -1833 City Council City of Tukwila, City Hall 6200 Southcenter Blvd. Tukwila, Washington 98188 Attn: Jane Cantu cc (via fax): BAAC -499 FF? Jr 1 "CI TEP PEFPERa SHEF ELM N FOSTER ; & SHEFELMAN Lawrence Hard Walter Maas Duncan Findlay A LAW PARTNER9NIP INCLUDING FhOPCA ^.ZONAL SEM•ICE CORPORA71ON9 1111 THIRD AVENUE SUITE 3400 SEA, TLE. WASHINGTON 981O1 1206) 447•4.100 TeLECOPIER. 20E1) 447.9700 • (2061 4479293 TELEX. 32•804 AN313K. FOSTER LAW SEA Sincerely, TO 6#517914 ?): 44_ MtN (NQ V 27 Bruce A. Coffey -'02 tl� COUNSCL CALGNAITH 4 OWE. ANCu ..:.. Al.." (9071 276 4893 'ELECOF '9071 2'S Re: Appeal of the Decision of the Hoard of Architectural Review on the Proposed "62nd Avenue S. Apartments "; 89 -14 -DR By this letter, the Board of Directors of the Homeowners' Association of the Sunwood Condominiums withdraws its appeal referenced above. The parties to the appeal have resolved the matters in dispute, and have finalized a settlement agreement between them. Accordingly, the public hearing scheduled for Monday, November 5, 1990 is no longer necessary. Please delete it from the agenda. Thank you for your cooperation in this matter. It was a pleasure working with you. Please call me if you have any questions. • APPEAL PROCESS: APPEAL ISSUES: CITYOFTUKIVILA T \ 171 k Put LE I RD. TI10 It'.4HI.V1 ;TON .9814x PHONE = 016,433. I:41!) ' MEMORANDUM. DATE: September 27,': 1990 TO: Gary Van Dusen, Mayor FROM: Jack Pace, Senior Planner ,Larry Hard, City Attorney SUBJECT: Design Review Appeal of 02nd Ave. Apartments BACKGROUND: The Board.of_DirectOrs of the Homeowners' Association of the Sunwood Condominiums have appealed the Board of Architectural Review decision regarding the 62nd Ave. Apartments. . The project consists of six three story buildings which will contain 72 apartment units. Also partoU.thit project is a one story recreation building and several garages. The site has slopes over 15 percent.. However, since the applicant submitted for Building Permit prior to the moratorium, this project is exempt. On August 9, 1990, the Board of Architectural.Review-approvecrthis project with some. major The modifications are reflected - in. their Conditions of Approval.(Appendix:C). This appeal has been timely filed pursuant to TMC 18.90.020. The Council must do one of the following: ' 1. Affirm decision of B.A.R. (i.e., approve B.A.R. decision without changes); or . 2. Modify decision of B.A.R. by granting design approval, for the project but alter the conditions based on B.A.R. criteria; or 3. Overturn decision of B.A.R. and deny design approval for the project. As noted in the letter of appeal (Appendix B), here are two types of issues which are being appealed. The first being specific design issues. The following is a brief review of the design concerns. APPENDIX A Gory I., tan 1u. a. •Ild,tar Page 2 Specific Issues: a. Sunwood is proposing "that eight of the extra feet which staff had asked to be allocated to the north boundary line, be allocated instead to the southerly setbacks.: from Sunwood Boulevard." This proposal would setback Building E 23 feet from the roadway and 18 feet from the sidewalk. In response to the concerns expressed at the public hearing regarding the northwest portion of the site; the Board of Architectural Review passed the following condition. 1. Revise site plan to reflect the design contained in attachment EE3, except for move the buildings back, while saving as many existing trees as possible. In response to this condition, the applicant is moving the buildings back so that building.E will be setback 20 feet from the roadway and 15 feet from the sidewalk. Moving the buildings further north would require removing the existing rockery wall which could under -mine the, existing trees to the north. Sunwood has "requested analysis of screening options between the Recreation Building and pool area and adjacent Sunwood residences." The screening proposed for this area consists of Austrian Black Pine;'. Flowering Cherry and Frasers Photinia along the parking lot. The Board of. Architectural Review did not require any modifications to the landscaping in this area. Due to the change in grades, it would be difficult to provide any screening that would totally block views of the pool and recreation building parking. One option that might reduce the views would be to , require Douglas Fir trees ,8 to 10 feet in height planted every 25 feet along the north boundary. C. Sunwood has "requested a low, evergreen hedge on top of the 3' high berm recommended by staff, as a physical separation ' along the west and south sides of the entry road." The Board of Architectural Review passed the following condition regarding 62nd Ave. 2. The applicants 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. Page 3 The Board of Architectural Review felt by adding sidewalks on both sides of the road along with coniferous plantings would provide the boulevard effect desired, as well as, the screening of the buildings. Non - Compliance with Reclassification: The second issue is Non compliance with Reclassification Conditions. In response to the second type' of issue put forth in the appeal regarding implied restrictions imposed on this property by Ordinance 1216, this issue is not properly before the Council. The proposal is consistent with the designation within the City's Comprehensive Plan and is a permitted use within applicable zoning regulations. There are no additional or unique restrictive conditions imposed on the property by any other ordinance, including Ordinance 1216, passed in 1981. The items and conditions of any covenants, conditions and restrictions which apply to the neighboring Sunwood condominium development are not applicable to this property because; 1) they are not a matter of record title and 2) they were not imposed by any action of the City. Specifically, statements which may have been made by one or two council persons at the meeting when Ordinance 1216 was adopted over nine years ago, do not constitute enforceable property rights. 04 The City Clerk .City of Tukwila City Hall 6200 Southcenter Blvd. Tukwila, WA 98188 Dear Sirs: 15105 Sunwood Blvd. Tukwila, WA 98188 October 3, 1990 Re: Appeal of the Decision of the Board of Architectural Review on the Proposed 62nd Avenue Apartments, No. 89 -14 -DR I am a member of the Board of Directors of Sunwood Association, the appellant in the referenced appeal. A continuance of the City Council's hearing of our appeal was granted this past Monday, October 1st, only a few hours prior to the Council's meeting that evening. Such a last minute request for a continuance undoubtedly caused both the Council members and the City's staff to expend needless efforts in preparing for the hearing portion of that evening's meeting. Sunwood Association and I personally regret the inconvenience to the City that this continuance has caused. It is my understanding that the letters received by the City from the affected parties -- Sunwood Association and the developer -- concerning the granting of a continuance have left the City staff and perhaps the Council with the impression that the continuance was sought solely by Sunwood. I am writing this letter in an attempt to correct that impression and, hopefully, to ensure that the untimely request for a continuance will not prejudice the interests of Sunwood and its homeowners if and when this appeal is heard by the Council. The private parties most directly affected by this proposed project -- the developer, the bank which owns the property and Sunwood -- are presently seeking to resolve various differences over that development. Toward that end, Sunwood made a written proposal of settlement to the developer and the bank in early September. In that proposal, Sunwood emphasized that an early settlement was essential in view of the upcoming City Council hearing of Sunwood's appeal. On Thursday, September 27th -- with over three weeks having passed without a reply to our proposal -- Sunwood was not even considering requesting a continuance of the hearing and we had already instructed our lawyers and consultant to proceed to prepare for the hearing and file a Prehearing Memorandum. Prior to that date, I had considered the possible future need for a continuance in view of the delay in receiving any • . Page 2 October 3, 1990 response to our settlement prpoposal. At that time, I had been advised by your office that any continuance of the hearing of an appeal should be requested no later than the Thursday prior to the Council meeting at which the appeal was scheduled to be heard. In short, on that Thursday, in view of your office's advice, Sunwood fully intended to proceed with the hearing the following Monday night. The next day -- Friday, September 28th -- Sunwood received the bank's written counteroffer covering some but not all of the matters in dispute. That response appeared to be timed to arrive just prior to the Council's meeting to pressure a quick settlement. However, that incomplete counteroffer could not possibly be the basis for a complete settlement prior to the October 1st hearing date. On Monday, September 28th, Sunwood's attorneys advised the bank that achieving a settlement prior to the hearing appeared impossible. However, the parties began discussing whether a settlement in the near future appeared likely and whether a continuance would be beneficial to all parties -- including the City -- in that it would afford the private parties more time to pursue and conclude their negotiations. Based on advice that the City would require that each affected party agree in writing to any continuance, the parties began discussing the procedural approaches for seeking a continuance. However, by early Monday afternoon, Sunwood temporarily abandoned the idea of a continuance when the bank and developer attempted to tie a continuance to certain concessions by Sunwood. Finally, sometime during mid - afternoon on Monday, it was agreed that -- without any conditions or concessions by either party -- the parties would fax separate letters to the City Clerk requesting a continuance and further would jointly commit to seek an early settlement of all disputed matters. I trust that the above information serves to clarify the circumstances under which the continuance of the October 1st hearing was requested. I would appreciate your providing a copy of this letter to each . of the City Council members and to the City Planning Commission. cc: Bruce A. Coffey Lawrence E. Hard William W. Jeude Gary R. Steinvall Sincerely, gemu Terry H. Coyne BELLEVUE. WASHINGTON OFFICE (2061 451.0500 T ELECO PI E R: 12061 455.5487 October 1, 1990 City Council City of Tukwila, City Hall 6200 Southcenter Blvd. Tukwila, Washington 98188 Attn: Jane Cantu BAC:do cc (via fax): Lawrence Hard Walter Maas Duncan Findlay 034 -7984 FOSTER PEPPER Qt SHEFELMAN A LAW PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING PROFESSIONAL SERVICE CORPORATIONS 1111 THIRD AVENUE SUITE 3400 SEATTLE. WASHINGTON 98101 1208) 447.4400 PORTLAND. OREGON OFFICE 1503) 221.0007 TELECOPIER. (5031 221.1510 TELECOPIER: (206) 447.9700 . 12081 447.9283 TELEX: 32,8024 ANSBK: FOSTER LAW SEA 1.O -01-90 O : FOSTER PEPPER i.SHEFELMRN _ ._ Re: Appeal of the Decision of the Board of Architectural Review on the Proposed "62nd Avenue S. Apartments "; 89 -14 -DR By this letter, the Board of Directors of the Homeowners' Association of the Sunwood Condominiums (the "Board ") requests that the Public Hearing of the above - referenced appeal scheduled for this evening at 7:00 p.m. be continued to the next available hearing date. The Board has been engaged in settlement discussions with the property owner and the project proponent. Though the parties are nearing settlement of their dispute (which settlement would include withdrawing the Board's appeal), it is impossible to finalize the settlement agreement by tonight's hearing. Please call me if you have any questions, or there is a need for me or other representatives of the Board to appear at the hearing. Sincerely, Bruce A. Coffey VIA FACSIMILIE (206) 433 -1833 OP COUNSEL GALSRAITH & OWEN. P.S. ANCHORAGE. ALASKA (9071 276.4883 TELECOPIER. 18071 2741.0485 UNI VEST < (,A ►l L (;C)RI►(.)RATiON William 11' ,lctide, President Jane Cantu City Clerk City of Tukwila, City Hall 6200 southcenter Blvd. Tukwila, Washington 98188 Real t1 Estate Investment and Dcvcloj nent Kirkland 1'Inue IluliJin); 4X I 1 .S Ii Ave., Kidd:mid WA NM033 ( «(i/►) SS )- 4 )(1(►O October 1, 1990 Dear Jane, Please consider this letter as our consent to the rescheduling of the Appeal of the Decision of the Board of Architectural Review on the Proposed "62nd Avenue S. Apartments "; 89- 14-DR until October 15, 1990. Please call me if you have any questions. Sincerely, William W. Jeude OLL7 STONE am REAL ESTATE .SERVICES, IN OCT 1 '90 14:51 FROM OLD STONE REAL ESTAT Ootober'1, 1990 VIA FACSIMILE NO. 433 -1833 Ms. Jane Cantu City Clerk Tukwila, WA RE: Design Review Appeal 67 Avenue Apartments Dear Ms. Cantu: We respectfully request that you continue the hearing for the design review of the 67 Avenue Apartments for two weeks from tonight. Sincerel L nda Cade torney LC/rjf 3605 132 AVENUE SE., SUITE 100 • BELLEVUE, WASHINGTON 96006 • (2081844 -5400 PAGE.00E BELLEVUE. WASHINGTON OFFICE 12061 451.0500 TELECOPIER. 12061 455.5487 PORTLAND. OREGON OFFICE 15031 221.0607 TELECOPIER: 15031 221.1510 September 28, 1990 HAND DELIVERED The City Clerk City of Tukwila, City Hall 6200 Southcenter Blvd. Tukwila, Washington 98188 City Clerk: Re: Appeal of the Decision of the Board of Architectural Review on the Proposed "62nd Avenue S. Apartments "; 89 -14 -DR Here is a copy of the Prehearing Memorandum submitted by the Board of Directors of the Homeowners' Association of the Sunwood Condominiums, in connection with the above- referenced appeal. Please insure that all members of the City Council receive a copy of this memorandum in advance of the public hearing. Please call me if you have any questions. Sincerely, A G4cAL___ , Bruce A. Coffey BAC:do Enclosure cc: D34 -7984 Lawrence Hard Gary Steinvall William Jeude FOSTER PEPPER & SHEFE AN A LAW PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING PROFESSIONAL SERVICE CORPORATIONS 1111 THIRD AVENUE SUITE 3400 SEATTLE. WASHINGTON 98101 (206) 447.4400 TELECOPIER: (206) 447.9700 • (206) 447.9283 TELEX: 32.8024 ANSBK: FOSTER LAW SEA OF COUNSEL GALBRAITH & OWEN, PS. ANCHORAGE. ALASKA 19071 276.4883 TELECOPIER: 19071 278.0465 BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA In Re: Appeal of BAR Decision ) No. 89 -14 -DR Approving the 62nd Avenue ) Apartments Project ) SUNWOOD'S PREHEARING MEMORANDUM ) I. INTRODUCTION II. BACKGROUND III. ARGUMENT TABLE OF CONTENTS A. The Project Should Be Denied Because the Reclassified Parcel Has Reverted Back to Its Prior Designation, and the Project Does Not Satisfy the Development Standards of an R -3 District . B. Even if the Reclassified Parcel Has Not Automatically Reverted to Its Prior Designation, the Project Should Be Denied Because it Fails to Meet the BAR Review Guidelines Set Forth in the TZC Section 18.60.050 and /or Cannot Satisfy All of the Required Mitigation Measures Identified in the MDNS C. At Minimum, the Project Should Be Modified to Include the Conditions Applied by the City Council to a Prior Non - Sunwood Proposal, and /or Any Other Conditions the City Council Deems Appropriate 7 1. New Access to Sunwood 8 2. Increased Setback from Sunwood Blvd. 8 3. Screening; Landscaping 9 4. Sunwood Identification Sign 10 5. Private Road /Drainage Concerns 10 IV. CONCLUSION 11 SUNWOOD'S PREHEARING MEMORANDUM - i Page 1 2 4 SUNWOOD'S PREHEARING MEMORANDUM - 1 I. INTRODUCTION The Board of Directors of the Homeowners' Association of the Sunwood Condominiums (the "Board ") appeals from the decision of the City's Board of Architectural Review approving the proposed 62nd Avenue Apartments (the "Project "). The Board challenges the BAR's decision (i) because the Project is not in harmony or consistent with the neighboring developments as required by the Tukwila Zoning Code ( "TZC "), (ii) because the Project differs materially from the development of the site initially contemplated and approved by the City Council, and (iii) because several important aspects of the Project have not been adequately addressed or resolved. In 1981, the City Council approved a reclassification of the site based on (i) a specific proposal (Sunwood Condominiums, Phase III) in harmony with the existing neighborhood developments (Sunwood Condominiums, Phases I and II), and (ii) the City Council's expressed intent that the proposed project comply with the conditions imposed on the prior Sunwood developments. Without a doubt, the City Council intended that the site be developed in a manner that was harmonious with, and subject to the same conditions (including recorded covenants, conditions, and restrictions) applicable to, the existing Sunwood development. SUNWOOD'S PREHEARING MEMORANDUM - 2 Because the Project, as proposed, differs materially from the development the City Council envisioned when it reclassified the site, the Project should properly be denied, or at minimum, modified to include additional conditions. II. BACKGROUND Decisions made by the City Council over the past 12 years clearly demonstrate that the City Council had a clear vision as to how the site and neighboring properties were to be developed. The property that now comprises Sunwood Phases I and II was reclassified in 1978 by Ordinance No. 1071 (copy attached as Exhibit A). The ordinance itself contains nine conditions, many of which were expressly applicable to "each phase of development ". Incorporated into the ordinance by reference was a Concomitant Zoning Agreement and a separate Agreement Pursuant to City of Tukwila Ordinance No. 1071, imposing additional conditions on development. Later in 1978, the City Council approved a reclassification involving the site and other property. The proposed development necessitating such reclassification was a non - Sunwood condominium project. The reclassification was authorized by Ordinance No. 1088 (copy attached as Exhibit B). Ordinance No. 1088 contained eight conditions for development, including the requirement that the project proponent grant an easement for ingress /egress to the property to the north (Sunwood Phases I and II). Such easement would have provided the Sunwood development direct access to 62nd Avenue South at the south end of Sunwood's property. Ordinance No. 1088, however, was subsequently repealed, and the zoning reverted back to R -3. In 1981, the City Council considered another reclassification; this time to facilitate Sunwood Phase III, involving only the site. The Planning Commission recommended denial of the reclassification, citing concerns regarding adequacy of ingress /egress, intensity of project - generated traffic volumes, adequacy of recreation and open space opportunities. The reclassification was ultimately authorized by Ordinance No. 1216 (copy attached as Exhibit C), after substantial debate. The minutes of the Council meeting (copy attached as Exhibit D) clearly indicate that the reclassification was approved based on the assumption that the development on the site would be Phase III of the Sunwood Condominium, and that such development would be subject to the conditions, covenants, and agreements already established by the City for Sunwood developments (for further discussion, see Section III.A below). The Project proponents now attempt to "bootstrap" their non - Sunwood, apartment proposal onto the Sunwood Phase III reclassification. Such attempt adversely impacts the existing Sunwood development, runs contrary to responsible city planning, and should be resisted by the Council. SUNWOOD'S PREHEARING MEMORANDUM - 3 SUNWOOD'S PREHEARING MEMORANDUM - 4 III. ARGUMENT A. The Project Should Be Denied Because the Reclassified Parcel Has Reverted Back to Its Prior Designation, and the Project Does Not Satisfy the Development Standards of an R -3 District. Minute entries (excerpted below) from the City Council's June 2, 1981 meeting, at which the subject reclassification was discussed and ultimately approved, indicate that the City Council intended that conditions applicable to the Sunwood Phases I and II reclassification (Ordinance No. 1071) would also apply to the reclassification under consideration (Ordinance No. 1216): Any conditions that apply to the Sunwood Development would apply to the rezone before Council now [1216]. [A]11 of the conditions and covenants and agreements that the City has with Sunwood Development have already been established. They are developing under the agreement we currently have. I don't see any point of imposing more conditions upon the developer than they already have. (Councilman Phelps, Minutes of June 2, 1981 meeting, p. 4, ,paragraph 2.) Prior discussion focused on the conditions imposed by Ordinance No. 1088. Those conditions were dispensed with because, unlike the subject reclassification, they pertained to a non - Sunwood proposal: Councilman Harris said the project, at the time of the rezone [1088], was a separate project. It had nothing to do with Sunwood. The conditions were for an entirely different project. SUNWOOD'S PREHEARING MEMORANDUM - 5 (Id., paragraph 1.) Based on the above discussions, the Council clearly intended that the conditions of Ordinance No. 1071 apply to any development of the property reclassified pursuant to Ordinance No. 1216. One of the conditions contained in Ordinance No. 1071, and thus implicitly applicable to Ordinance No. 1216, provides as follows: In the event that construction of any proposed structure has not begun within 24 months of the effective date of this reclassification, then said reclassification shall revert to the present designations . . . (Ordinance No. 1071, Section 2.g.) Because the effective date of the subject classification was June 2, 1981, and no construction of the proposed structures was begun within 24 months of such date, the reclassification (R -4) has reverted to its prior designation (R -3). Because the Project as proposed is clearly not permitted outright in an R -3 district, the Council has no alternative but to deny the Project and the BAR's decision. B. Even if the Reclassified Parcel Has Not Automatically Reverted to Its Prior Designation, the Project Should Be Denied Because it Fails to Meet the BAR Review Guidelines Set Forth in the TZC Section 18.60.050 and /or Cannot Satisfy All of the Required Mitigation Measures Identified in the MDNS. Regardless of the zoning designation of the site, the Project, which is subject to BAR review, fails to satisfy the BAR review guidelines. In violation of TZC 18.60.050(1)(A), the site is not planned to accomplish a desirable transition with the streetscape (either 62nd Avenue South or Sunwood Blvd.); nor does it provide adequate landscaping and pedestrian movement. In violation of TZC 18.60.050(2)(A) and (B), the structure and site are not in harmony with the texture, lines, and masses of developments in the adjoining areas; nor is appropriate landscape transition from adjoining properties provided for. In violation of the TZC 18.60.050(3), the Project proponents have failed to provide the BAR with an acceptable landscaping plan. Numerous inadequacies, some pointed out by the Board, and others pointed out by the BAR, have not yet been resolved. In violation of TZC 18.60.050(4)(A), (B), and (G), the Project buildings do not relate well to their surroundings, are not in harmony with permanent neighboring developments, and are monotonous in design. Further, the Project as proposed simply cannot satisfy all of the mitigation conditions imposed by the MDNS issued on June 13, 1990. Accordingly, approval of the Project is pointless, or at least premature. Condition No. 5 states: To mitigate adverse impacts to water quality from proposal, the final drainage plans shall provide biofiltration and oil /water separators per the 1990 King County Surface Water Design Manual. SUNWOOD'S PREHEARING MEMORANDUM - 6 SUNWOOD'S PREHEARING MEMORANDUM - 7 The proponents cannot provide the required biofiltration given their proposed site plan; there simply isn't enough room. Similarly, Condition No. 12 which states: The applicant shall provide the City with a plan for their review and approval showing an alternative access for the residents of Sunwood I and II during Sunwood Drive reconstruction. An approved alternative access for the residents of Sunwood I and II during Sunwood Drive reconstruction. An approved alternative access plan will be required prior to the issuance of a Grading Permit. Where on the site plan can the proponents provide alternative access to Sunwood Phases I and II while Sunwood Blvd. is being improved? How long will the residents and guests of Sunwood I and II be inconvenienced by the reconstruction? If alternative access is available, why not require the proponents to construct and grant a permanent access road to Sunwood I and II? In view of the above violations of the BAR review guidelines, and the impossibility of complying with certain required mitigation measures, the Project and the BAR's decision should be denied. C. At Minimum, the Project Should Be Modified to Include the Conditions Applied by the City Council to a Prior Non - Sunwood Proposal, and /or Any Other Conditions the City Council Deems Appropriate. Even if the Council is not persuaded that the Project should be denied, the Project should, at minimum, be modified to SUNWOOD'S PREHEARING MEMORANDUM - 8 comport with the prior City Council's intent and /or the BAR review guidelines, as follows: 1. New Access to Sunwood. Because Sunwood Blvd. provides the only access to the Sunwood development, construction of the non - Sunwood project dramatically impacts the residents of the Sunwood development. If the City is going to allow a non - Sunwood project on the site, then it should require that the proponent provide separate access to the Sunwood development. Just as the previous non - Sunwood project proposal (Ordinance No. 1088) was conditioned to provide separate access to the Sunwood development, the Project should be modified to include a requirement that (i) the proponent grant to the Sunwood development an access easement along the north edge of the site, (ii) the proponent construct, at its own expense, an access road along the north edge of the site from 62nd Avenue South to Sunwood Blvd., and (iii) the proponent be solely responsible for the maintenance of the southern portion of Sunwood Blvd. that lies within the site. This would alleviate many, though not 'all, of the Board's concerns about the impact of the Project on the Sunwood development. 2. Increased Setback from Sunwood Blvd. In the alternative, the City should require larger setbacks along the southern portion of Sunwood Blvd. than are presently proposed. If the Sunwood owners and their guests will be forced to travel SUNWOOD'S PREHEARING MEMORANDUM - 9 through the unaffiliated Project, the City should attempt to gain the appearance and aesthetic quality of a public road, in terms of the feeling of openness, light, air and building scale, relative to the Project's segment of Sunwood Blvd., which setbacks normally provide. If Sunwood Blvd. were a public road, the buildings would have to be setback at least 30 feet. The private nature of the road does not justify such variance from the Code requirements (especially since the private road is non - conforming- -i.e., it is longer than 200 feet, and serves more than four units). Setbacks are of particular concern at the intersection of Sunwood Blvd. and 62nd Avenue South, where the 1981 proposal envisioned a "grand entrance" to Sunwood. 3. Screening; Landscaping. Effective screening (in both summer and winter times) of unsightly places is required by TZC 18.60.050(3)(F). Taller landscaping around the pool and recreation building parking areas was at one time shown to and approved by the Board. At a minimum, such landscaping should be made a condition of the Project's approval. There are additional landscaping inadequacies related to the Project, some of which have been identified by the BAR. As of today's date, the Project proponent has yet to provide the BAR with an acceptable landscaping plan. Before the Project receives final approval, an adequate landscaping plan should be SUNWOOD'S PREHEARING MEMORANDUM - 10 submitted to both the BAR and the Board for consideration and comment. 4. Sunwood Identification Sign. As reasonable mitigation of the physical separation of the Sunwood development from 62nd Avenue South that will result from the construction of the Project, the Project proponent should be required to construct and maintain, at its sole expense, a direction /identification sign pertaining to the Sunwood development (approved by the Board) located at the intersection of Sunwood Blvd. and 62nd Avenue South. 5. Private Road /Drainage Concerns. In addition to unresolved landscaping issues, the private road and stormwater detention issues have not been adequately addressed or resolved. As it presently exists, the private road (Sunwood Blvd.) is longer than the maximum length (200 feet) stated in Tukwila Subdivision Code ( "TSC ") Section 17.24.030(d), and serves many more units than is contemplated by that Section's limitation to four lots. Borrowing from TZC 18.070.040: No such nonconforming use shall be enlarged or increased nor extended to occupy a greater use than was occupied at the effective date of adoption or amendment of this title. Because the addition of 72 units will clearly enlarge, increase, and expand the use of the nonconforming private road, construction of the Project should be precluded; unless the proponents improve the road to public right -of -way standards and SUNWOOD'S PREHEARING MEMORANDUM - 11 dedicate it to the public use. Even if the proponent undertakes to improve the private road, the issue of interim access to Sunwood I and II has not been satisfactorily resolved. Another major issue involves surface water runoff on this steeply sloping site. Quoting from the MDNS, "the topography of the site creates the potential for erosion and siltation resulting from construction activities." The existing detention system serves Sunwood I and II, and cannot accommodate additional runoff from the Project. Because the detention tanks for Sunwood I and II lie on the site, and because the 1990 King County Surface Water Design Manual has much more stringent design standards than those applied to the Sunwood I and II detention system, especially in areas of steep slopes, the Board questions whether the detention plan required by the MDNS is feasible on the site. Particularly troublesome is the required biofiltration component of the drainage plan. As the site is presently configured, there simply isn't enough room to comply with the MDNS requirements. In view of the important unresolved issues, the BAR's approval of the Project should be denied, remanded for further consideration of the issues raised herein, or substantially modified. IV. CONCLUSION For the reasons stated above, the Project should be denied, or at minimum, modified to include additional conditions. The Board reserves the right to raise additional issues at the, public hearing. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this day of September, 1990. BMC -487 SUNWOOD'S PREHEARING MEMORANDUM- 12 FOSTER PEPPER & SHEFELMAN Bruce A. Coffey Attorneys for the Board PARK PLACE REMOVE 7808230748 ord 1071 :l ORDINANCE NECLt.SSIFYIia CERTAII ICOPERTY FRQi R -1 -12.0 AND 11-3 TO 1- 1 -1.6. 1-2. R -3. e�nndd R -4 YITHIN THE CITY OF TUKWILA AS CONTAINED 1M THE PAM M. DIVISION PIASTER FILE W. WWI. Exhibit A IRIEREAS. A draft enviran ental Ireact statement has been distributed to all affected parties a - agencies; WEREAS. CM:meats have been received on the drat envtreamental Input statonent.and a bearing in the draft EIS held at the Planning Cornis- sten in 21 APr11 1111; WHEREAS. 1 final envirerr ental impact statnrent has been issued on 7 Jena 1+778 which respells to issues raised during the comment period; UNREAL the Planning Caaission at their 26 :say 1g111 regular aeetino end after holding a eubllc hearing has recommended approval of the rezone condi- tioned upon fulfillment of eight (':) stipulations; W HEREAS. The City Council has duly considered the environmental irupact oftheproposed action and the recommendation of the Planning Corrlssion. N OW. THEREFORE. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUIO'IL.% ti`.SHUT;TON. DD OtAAlil AS FOLLOW: Section 1. That the property described in the attached legal descrip- tion (Exhibit 'A") and as shown on the attached site nap (Exhibit •S•) is hereby reclassified to 11- 1 -1.6. R -2. 11-3. and R-4 as depicted on the moo in Exhibit W. Section 2. The rezoning to R- 1 -9.6. R -2. 1.3. and R -4 is subject to the following stipulations: a. Each phase of deva refit shall provide the same proportion no open space identified for the overall development. exclusive no the R -1 district. b. Etcb_phase of deigismat shall not exceed the density identified for the overall develo'mment. inclusive of the R -1 district. c. Full application for Preliminary Plat of the entire R -1 district shall be mode prior to issuance of any building oemmit• for structures within the rerelinder of the 12 -acre site. 1 final Plat of said 1-1 district must be proneriv recorded prior to issuance of any occupancy nerrtt for any structures en the remainder of the 32-acre site. • .. } Ordinance No. 1071 Pais 2 d. Wuhan the R -1 district. the layout of lots and alignment and width of street(s) shall be determined at the time of subdivision review. irrespective of the general layout depicted In the !EIS; provided, however.. any street or roadway within the 1.1 district shall set prevlde for 1Mlcvlar movement from any multiple- tastily structure throws the 1.1 district. •. All mitigstie, feaswrss identified by the final EIS and as rewind Or . the NmsponsIblo OfflcIsl shall be assigned touch abase of develassment. t. Planing Caeattsslenreview of detailed sits. elevation and land- scape plans, to include building and landscape materials. prlsr•to Issuance of respective bulUtag permit. The empress purpose of such review is to same each phase se Portion of development is in general conformance with the overall development plans In Planting Division file Nom. NE WW2 and that each phase or parties of development 1s csmplasentary to the other phases or portions of development. g. Is the 'vest that constrictive of amp proposed stricture has oat 5.p eltSIa 24 mites of the affective date of this reclassification there said reclassifiutlss shell revert to the primed designations (9 -1 -12.0 sad 9 -3) se that portion mot platted for single-family residential; provided, however, the City Csuncil vsy grant a single. lt-mnrth sxts.51 ai to the time period impressed hertaabove. h. All previsions, conditions and stipulations aewratad herein shall be recorded la the records of the King County Department of *cords and all seek previslans. conditlaas end stipulations shall M doomed to be attached to sad rum-with the load and shall M binding wpon all Mire. successors and assigns. 1. Satisfactory preferments by the applicant of terms and conditions substan- tially similar to the uncomltant toning agreement. a copy of *MM is attached (as Exhibit C) hereto and by reference incor porated herein. Section 3. The report of the Plarwivg Csmmissioe is adopted by reference as though fully set forth herein. Section a. The toning fop adopted by reference by Ordinance No. 2S1 1s hereby weeded to reflect the changes by the reaonieg action taken in this ordinance. Section S. The City Clerk is directed to record a copy Of this ordinance had attachments with the King County Department of Records and Elections. PASSED BY THE CITY'COUNCII. Of THE CITY Of TUIOIILA. WASHINGTON. at a regular meeting thereof this 7I day of ALTO a t' . 1979. pdy lad)4,4gig a e Approved as to Form: sputy city Attorney Published: Necsrd- Owsnlele. *must 20. 1975 ATTES : ere • 001I01T •` MAL OSSQIIRION or Sag iota 1, 1, wed 10, Istuwban Addition to Seattle, tgpthar Idt► vacated riststo4bissy et tame South 1S201 Strait. Kr ; Ik'idtie' / (rlit:r"i li:..O r•_^tnl I;.14•''.,,I;:;'' [ . ofo A N 0MIT/QTf . KA NNeP • • - -• .• CONCOMITANT multi 'magma • • MOUT C Vegetation Preservation and enlacement' I. The developer shell retain all flora located in the 1-1 sone north and east of the ridge line between the ridge line and the single-famfly lets (11-1 lone) and oast of buildings S. 4. and 11, in • natural growth preservation gone, as designated on the site plan. Trees my be selectively cut east of the ridge line im the 162 mine where necessary for installation of Improvements, although efforts shall still be mode to preserve vegetation Im the 162 area. • 2. To preserve thP visual landscape buffer in the 1-2 zone at the north edge of the propert). the developer shell retain all flora within 20 to 23 feet south of the north edge of the property In the R-2 sone IN a gestural growth preservattom some. as desisnated sm the site plan. 3. To enhance the visual landscape buffer between the project or the residential area to the morth, the developer shall install and meintain im the Natural growth preservation tone established pursuant to condition 2 above, additional conifers 10 to 12 feet in height when planted, where necessary to improve the landscape buffer. 41. The developer shall. Imsofer averacticableemtain additional vegetation in other natural growth preservation zones between buildings end • other Irs.aon.ts in the 163 and 1-4 areas south of the ridge line. However, the developer osy rake Meted cuts. If any, In those zones necessary for the Installatiem of utilities. These additional natural growth preservation genes shall be designated an the site plan. • S. 411 natural grewthlreservition zones established pursuant to the above conditions 1. 2. 3. and 4 shall also be designated on the plat or plats of the property. The developer's restrictive covenants to be recorded shall provide that no owner'orresident orthe project may cut trees In that lone, except that the home-cwners' association miey authorise cutting er pruning required by death or disease Of trees or by.aluzard to safety. The covenants shall also require maintenance of vegetation in the by the homeowners' association. • . . • • • • • • 4. At the time each phase of the project is submitted to the Planning Commission for review. the developer shall stake all . proposed building sites in that phase. The sites s11al1 Isispectidly en official from the Department of Community Development. After inspection, . the developer shall make minor adjustments where .feasible in'the building.locations in order to preserve as luny trees as possible on the sits. lf.conifers 4 inches or greater in diameter, or deciduous trees 12 inches or greater in diameter. . measured 2 feet from ground level. must nevertheless be cut in connection with the construction of a bulldIng,.the developer shall.plant new'tress on a 1-for-1 replacement basis. Conlfers.and deciduous trees shall each be replaced by similar kinds of tress. Conifers when planted shall be from 10 to 12 feet In height. The developer shall include in the restrictive'covenants to be recorded a provision for mmintinanc• of all suchglanted trees by the homeowners' association. DYtldlne Weimhts 7. The developer shell limit the height of e11 buildings In • the R-6 hoc to net more this 3 habitable stories. Access and Traffic D.. .The C1ty!s Public Marks Director oust approve the road access - to :he compatible wwith the future a nd gr graddee of 62 s Avenue South. will • I.. .The developer shall design access at the loutheast corner M the project so that vehicular traffic will be routed south on 62nd Avenue South, despite the law probability of increased traffic along 153rd Street. The City shall Install road striping and directional controls to aid the routing M traffic south on 62nd Avenue South. 10. The developer shall participate In, olther a developer's extension of Sled Avenue South, era local improvement district for the Improvement of 62nd Avenue South, at the option of the City's Director of Public Mots. • • a liaga•t EXHIBIT C Page 1 1 1. } South to Tukwila Elementary School. • • AGREEMENT PURSUANT TO • CITY OF TUKWILA ORDINANCE 01071 It Is agreed between the City and developer that the following items wi11 .M complied with at a minimum during the construction phases of the deirelogment approved by the City Council in the reform erilseece 01071:: further requirements consistent with existing city cedes sod ordinances may be Instigated by City departments at sigh tie as the developer sub dts a building grit. The rospaesible official reserves all rights to require mitigating measures in c mjenction with the relevant laws related to the State Envirwwental Policy Act at the time of beildlog permit ippllcatium. • The developer mimes to the ibilwring conditions and to comply with them pursuant to Ordinance doll: The developer shall design the storm water system to retain storm water to a tan year storm interval with the following objectives built in: a. 011 separetors/weter quality control b. Wound voter recharge c. Controled outlets from ponds d. Outfalls to go into approved enters 2. The developer shall provide a trail connection fro. 52nd Avenue 3. All construction, including grading and clearing acttIt1N, in to be substan- tialiy the some ms Exhibits I- KII as contained in the Office of Comnity Development Planning Olvision Nester F11e' /ii- lG -0S -R. No clearing or grading of the land is to occur•unt•11 written approvals are received from the responsible official. Grading and.claring activities necessary for the lnst:llailon and roads ary coUence upon approval of road and/or utility drawings by the Public torts Dtreetor. A. Exterior finish of all buildings Is to be consistent with the following: a. four- plans and smeller: Exterior'flnlsh 1s to be six (weight inch channel siding or comprable b. Structures larger than four - pines: Exterior finish to be cabins State of County of Ss .p. tion of stucco and cedar or stucco and brick. depending on building and fire code requirements. c. Carports to be of rood or co prabte motorists. d. T.1.11 or arable arterials are not to be used in the exterior of any strvctrns. S. If it becomes necessary for the City to enforce the conditions of ordinance 11071orthisayment.developeragrees to pay al 1 ci ty attorney fees if the City wins. /1 .. City Clerk Date Data /""• On this day personally appeared before no tckauL and pdRr. /d F 0 to No knee to be the individual, or individuals described in and who executed the within and foregoing instrument. and acknowledged that they slimed the same as their free and voluntary act and deed, for the uses and puraoses therein mentioned. I■ • S k y . ape hand and official seal this Kr 'day of alowt . 197S. ,fit: a f 4 notary public in and for ta e of Mash - ington, residing at Agreed this 4 day of yfa4.34440 . 1970. G C �R 4 4 t 446 ‘ atassAi 0, "7, Mayor Data !MOON 311/111331 ' WASHINGTON REPEALED BY //25 ORDINANCE NO. /78!" AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA RECLASSIFYING CERTAIN PROPERTY FROM C -1 AND R -3 TO R -4 AS CONTAINED IN THE PLAN - NING DIVISIOIN EASTER FILE NO. 78 -23 -R, SUBJECT TO CERTAIN CONDITIONS. WHEREAS, An environmental checklist was submitted and reviewed by all affected parties and agencies; WHEREAS, Comments received prompted a Proposed Declaration of Signi- ficance on May 18, 1978; WHEREAS, The applicant submitted a revised application mitigating the points of concern; WHEREAS, A Withdrawal of the Declaration of Significance was made on June 21, 1978 based upon compliance with mitigating measures in the Planning Division's EPIC File No. FD -58; WHEREAS, Mr. Horst Ehmke has agreed to the above mitigating measures on June 23, 1978; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission at their 24 August 1978 regular meet- ing and after holding a public hearing has recommended approval of the rezone conditioned upon fulfillment of eight (8) stipulations; and, WHEREAS, the City Council has duly considered the environmental impact of the proposed action and the recommendation of the Planning Commission. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA, WASIII :I DO OItDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. That the property described in the attached legal descrip- tion (Exhibit "A ") and as shown on the attached site map (Exhibit "B ") is hereby reclassified to R -4, with conditions as specified in this ordinance. Section 2. The rezoning to R -4 is subject to the following stipulations: a. Dedication of 5' of property along 62nd Avenue South to the City of Tukwila and participation in an L.I.D. for the improvement of said street, utilities, sidewalk, lighting and all related im- provements. b. This ordinance shall not become effective until such time as a joint egress easement is executed and recorded with the property g• to the north. Said easement to be over approximately the north 25 feet and the east 250 feet of parcel 2 as described and shown in Exhibits "A" and "B" of this ordinance. c. Submission of a detailed site plan, landscape plan, and recrea- tion space plan to the Planning Commission prior to issuance of building permit. Said recreation space plan shall provide usea- ble and accessible open space to all occupants of the development. d. Access to 62nd Avenue South shall be reviewed and approved by the Public Works Department. e. The Declaration, By -Laws and Covenents of the Condominium Owners Association shall provide that no 'recreational vehicles' shall be allowed to park on the site. 'Recreation vehicles', for purposes of this ordinance shall speci- fically include all travel trailers, campers, and boats and, in addition, any motorized vehicle which cannot park within the con- fines of a normal automobile parking space (Approximately 8' 6" x 20' x 8' high). Review and approval of the above by -laws by the city and recording by the owner shall occur prior to issuance of any occupancy per- mits for the project. f. All proposed buildings shall be limited to three floors of habi- table space and exterior treatment of said structures and carports to be approved by the Planning Commission prior to issuance of building permit. Treatment of any proposed rockeries or retaining walls shall be approved by the'Planning Commission prior to issuance of build- ing permit. h. Not less than two parking spaces per unit be required. Section 3. A maximum of 102 units with not more than 6 units per struc- ture shall be allowed, consistent with Exhibits "C ", "D" and "E ", dated November 27, 1978, attached to this ordinance. Section 4. The zoning map adopted by reference by Ordinance No. 251 is hereby amended to reflect the changes by the rezoning action taken in this ordi- nance. Section 5. The City Clerk is directed to record a copy of this ordi- nance and attachments with the King County Department of Records and Elections. PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA, 1WASHINGTON, at a regular meeting thereof this l /t ,day of .it1/2 1f„x��� -- Edgar ID. Bauch, Mayor -2- difeal , 1978, Approved as to Fora: ATTEST: z C M ineAnderson, City Clerk Published Renton Record - Chronicle - December 10, 1978 • EHMKE - KATO -KATO REZONE NF /78 -23 -R PARCEL 2: PARCEL 3: EXHIBIT A LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF SITE . PARCEL 1: "That portion of Tract 11, Interurban Addition To Seattle; according to the Plat recorded in Volume 10 of Plats, page 55, King County,Washington, described as follows: Beginning at the southeast corner of said tract, thence south 89 0 52'00" west 300.86 feet; thence north 00 0 08'00 ".west 124.53 feet; thence north 89 °52'00" . east 141.65 feet; thence north 00 west 38.26 feet; thence north 89 °52'00" east 159.21 feet to a point on the easterly line thereof; thence south 00 0 08'00" east 162.79.feet to true point of beginning. "That portion of Tract 11, Interurban addition to Seattle; according to the Plat recorded in Volume 10 of Plats, page, 55, in King County, Washington, described as follows: Beginning at a point on the east line of Tract 11 which is 162.79' north of the southeast corner thereof; thence continuing north 0 8' west 359.88' to the northeast corner of said Tract 11; thence south 890 52' west along the northerly line thereof 300.86'; thence south 0° 8' east 398.14'; thence north 89 52' east 141.65'; thence north 0 8' west 38.26'; thence north 89° 52' east 159.21' to the point of beginning." . The west 150 feet of.the east 450.86 feet of Tract 11.Interurban Addition to Seattle as recorded 1n4o1. 10 of Plats, Page 55, in King County Washington, less portion taken for State Highway. • EXHIBIT ENMKE- KATO -KATO REZONE. Parcels 1, 2 and 3 Rezone from C -1 and R -3 to R4 • ... 18 Tukwila City Hail 15 rteorG' I cc7Noc -. vrc.R'MErsrl pYi- o_PMeNT Pog Ef4mKE - Krz.TO EXHIBIT "E" November 27, 1978 1 F EXHIBIT "C" November 27, 1978 1'l 01 1 . 2140 T. w, Atr►r r L , N/1 i S7f L7 I eso ti ae. wTo 1 As L ogees 7�J�NG1 J rho /7 I 3 tT1 ►u'r `.+ssr k t ..... •I.• • . y r � . � . l'� 1 . f • 1.1.1.1.1.1.. . 8106110466 Exhibit. C CITY of TUKWI'L WASHINGTON ORDINANCE NO. /c.2 14 NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA, WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. The real property which is the subject of this ordinance is described in the attached legal description (Exhibit A) and is shown on the attached site map (Exhibit B). Section 2. After reviewing the documents set forth in Planning Department a�Ft ster File 81 -5 -R and having heard materials presented by the property owner's representative, the City Council makes the following findings of fact: A. The real property, which is the subject of this rezone re- quest, is described in Exhibit A. It is currently zoned R -3. B. The proposed zoning classification of R -4, as shown on Exhibit B, is generally consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. C. The proposed rezone action will not be injurious to the peace, safety, health or general welfare of the community nor injurious to property value in the immediate vicinity. Section 3. Based on these findings of fact, the Council makes the follow ngT conclusions and conditions relating to and restricting the subject real property: 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 site, architecture and landscaping details prior to issuance of building permits. COUNCIL ACTIOY• 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. IiP'r". WHEREAS, a Declaration of Non- Significance was grantid by tl{e.►2 City's SEPA Responsible Official on February 25, 1981, under City File EPIC 158 -81, and WHEREAS, said Declaration of Non - Significance pertains only to the legislative act of rezoning and reserves the City's option to conduct separate environmental review for any project proposed subsequent to the grant of the rezone, and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission conducted a Public Hearing on said rezone application on February 26, 1981, and at the applicant's request reconsidered their recommendation of approval with stipulations on April 23, 1981, and WHEREAS, the result of the Planning Commission's deliberations on April 23, 1981, resulted in their decision to recommend denial of the rezone action, citing unresolved concerns regarding adequacy of ingress/ egress, intensity of project- generated traffic volumes, adequacy of recre- ation and open space opportunities, and WHEREAS, the City Council has duly considered the environmental significance of the proposed rezone action, the recommendation of the Planning Commission and the subsequent analysis by staff of the Planning Commission's concerns as presented at the City Council Committee of the Whole Meeting of May 12, 1981. Section 4. Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions and condit ons, a subject property is reclassified from R -3 to R -4. Section 5. The zoning map adopted by reference b$i Ordinance No. 251 is here y��ed to reflect the changes by the rezoning action taken in this ordinance. Section 6. The City Clerk is directed to record a copy of this ordinance and attachments with the King County Department of Records and Elections. Section 7. The conditions and restrictions contained in this ordinance shall be covenants and restrictions running with the land and shall be binding on the owners, their heirs, successors and assigns. PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF TH CITY OF TUKWILA, WASHINGTON, at a regular meeting thereof this ,? _P day of , 1981. ATTEST: App •ved as to Form: y ttorney,.Lawrenc Published Record- Chronicle - June 7 ;,1981 yo . - , K ry an 'usen .., LEGAL DESCRIP - •' Parcel A (Kato Property) ■ The West 150 feet of the East 450.86 fast of Tract 11, Interurban Addition to the City of Seattle, according to the plat recorded in Volume 10 of Plats, page 55, in King County, Washington; EXCEPT that portion lying Southerly of the following described line: Commencing at a point on the East line of said Tract 11, 162.79 feet North of the Southeast corner of said tract; thence South 89 West 159.21 feat; thence South 00 East 38.26 feet; thence South 89o52'00" West 141.65 feat to the True Point of leginning; thence Northwesterly parailei to the centerline of Southcsntsr Blvd. (Renton -Three Tres Point (load) to'ths West line of the East 450.86 fast of said Tract 11 and the end of said line. 8 •This portion of Tract 11, Interurban Addition to Seattle, according to plat recorded in Vol. 10 of Plats, p.'55, in Ring County, Washington, described as follows: BEGINNING at a point on the eastline of said Tract 11 whicp is 162.79 feet North of the.South- east corner thereof; thence continuing North 0. 8' W. 359.88 feat to the Northeast corner of said Tract 11; thence South 89. 52' West along the northerly line thereof 300.86 feett..thence South 0 08' East 398.14 feetf" thence North 89e 52' East 141.65 feet; thence North 0. 08'. West 38.26 feet; thence North 89 East 159.21 feet to point of beginning..:.',. . • WIMP Es* •,°■CRMA 773 ' • 97Acrte -; 1 .1 . . 1 1M0P0500 • " sena2seu - ro.±k4. 1 EXHI,err. _A__ =9: S ONI•11•• •• ••••11•I M M== = • 15I5T. 5T. R-4 11 1551VA .sr: 500 _ 45 4t, lickm nErmag red. . ----- ztz■_PJACMIstr_1OPPF.-P lc= Z V.: 1 R-3 1 1 1 , 1 1 PIMA 1 1 I 1 ARCHITECTS • PLANNERS • 1111.81,1•11 111■11M14411WILMte. ellellSoresomys:evr 1Vhk1L'. 1.111 t.VUI1.ILj MAI Plctltno .June 2, 1961 Page( ' BID AWARDS . r S ,3 nitorial Serv 4ce t OLD BUSINESS Ordinance 11215 - Changing the name of the custodian for the Advance Travel Expense Account Ordinance 01216 - Reclassifying cer- tain lands from R -3 to R -4 (Sunwood, Phase III) *MOTION CARRIED. *MOTION CARRIED. C Exhibit D Mayor Pro-Tem Van Dusen noted that the current Janitorial Sam •has terminated their services with the City. The Public work 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. 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. MOVED BY HILL, SECONDED BY HARRIS, THAT THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE E READ BY TITLE ONLY. MOTION CARRIED. ty Attorney Hard read an ordinance of the City of Tukwila, ashington, 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. a COUP iL, Mug MEETING i al BUSINESS - Cont. Ordinance #1216 - 'Reclassifying cer- tain lands from R -3 to R -4 (Sunwood, Phase III) (cont.) Mr. Don Dailey, Pacific Townhouse Builders, 1370 Stewart Street, 0100, 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 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 Rohrer 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. ;ur,a:". CilY COUNCIL, June 2, 1981 PIC 4 OLD - BUSINESS - Cont. Ordinance 01216 - Reclassifying cer- tain lands from R -3 to R -4 ( Sunwood Phase III) (cont.) PEON" MEET IN; Mayor Piro -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. C BELLEVUE. WASHINGTON OFFICE (206) 45I•0500 TELECOPIER (206) 455.5487 FOSTER PEPPER & SHEFELMAN A LAW PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING PROFESSIONAL SERVICE CORPORATIONS 1111 THIRD AVENUE SUITE 3400 SEATTLE. WASHINGTON 98101 (206) 447-4400 PORTLAND. OREGON OFFICE (503) 221-0607 TELECOPIER: (503) 221•1510 TELECOPIER: (206) 447.9700 • (206) 447-9283 TELEX: 32-8024 ANSBK: FOSTER LAW SEA September 21, 1990 City Clerk City of Tukwila, City Hall 6200 Southcenter Blvd. Tukwila, Washington 98188 Re: Appeal of BAR Decision, 89 -14 -DR Proposed 62nd Avenue South Apartments Project (the "Project ") City Clerk, Council, and Mayor: I am writing this letter on behalf of the Board of Directors of the Homeowners' Association of the Sunwood Condominiums (the "Board "). The Board intends to appear at the Public Hearing scheduled for 7:00 p.m. on October 1, 1990, and contest the Board of Architectural Review decision, issued on August 9, 1990, to approve the Project. This letter (i) notifies you of the Board's intent to file a prehearing memorandum in connection with the Public Hearing on or before Friday, September 28, 1990 (copies of which will be provided to the Clerk, the Project proponent, and the City's attorney), and (ii) requests that the Board be given copies of all other written materials prepared for the Public Hearing and pertaining to the Project, including without limitation the Public Hearing agenda, and any prehearing memoranda prepared by the Project proponent or the City's attorney. 0 7 ' 5 F P --- -- EP 24 1990 u` ' ', u. 1 •„ ' w'Y v : ter" SL! ( ma y fit) J.J OF COUNSEL GALBRAITH & OWEN. PS ANCHORAGE. ALASKA 19071 276.4883 TELECOPIER (9071278-0465 The City Clerk September 21,1990 Page 2 Any correspondence or communication pertaining to this appeal should be directed to me. Please call if you have any questions or comments. BAC:do CC: D34 -7818 Lawrence Hard Gary Steinvall William Jeude Sincerely, Bruce A. Coffey A ID G— 6-90 M O N 13 :3 9 PACKAGES U N L T L P. 02 u = = a BREAKDOWN OF SITE DEVELOPMENT FOR 62ND AVE SOUTH APTS streets & sidewalk building coverage parking lot landscaping, rec. space Total Site M a a =C=k = G xcaa==a== aaaaasr= NOTE: The statistics for Sunwood, Phases I & II were from original projections and not necessarily as built. No. of Units Parcel size Dwelling Units/ acre Parcel size Paved area (incl st) Bldg coverage Open space /rec.area/ landscape area Paved area (zncl st) Bldg coverage Open space /rec. area/ landscape area Parking provided Parking ratio Paved area -% of site Paved area /stall a " - a = == =a a a a a= a = = = ===sas=aaa..caa 0.75 ac. 20 % 0.97 ac. 26 % 1.21 ac. 32 % 0.84 ac. 22 % 3.75 ac. 100 % COMPARISONS BETWEEN SUNWOOD I & II AND 62ND AVE SOUTH APARTMENTS 62nd Ave South 72 du's 3.75 ac. 19.2 du's /ac. ACREAGE 3.75 ac. 1.96 ac. 0.97 ac. 0.82 ac PERCENTAGES 52 % 26 % PARKING 150 stalls 2.08 /unit 26.4 % 287.50 SF /stall a * = ap ¢= = = =aa = aaaaa a aasaa a aaa Sunwood, Phase I & II 178 du's 11.56 ac, 15.4 du's /ac. 11.56 ac. 3.17 ac. 1.93 ac. 6.46 ac. 27 % 17 # 56 % 308 stalls 1.73 /unit 27.4 % 44B.3 SP /stall - -a a No. of Units Parcel size Dwelling Units/ acre COMPARISONS BETWEEN SUNWOOD I & II AND 62ND AVE SOUTH APARTMENTS Parcel size Paved area (incl st) Bldg coverage Open space /rec.area/ landscape area Paved area (incl st) Bldg coverage Open space /rec. area/ landscape area Parking provided Parking ratio Paved area -% of site Paved area /stall 62nd Ave South Sunwood, Phase I & II 72 du's 3.85 ac. 18.7 du's /ac. ACREAGE 3.85 0.00 0.00 00 % 00 % ac. ac. ac. 0.00 ac PERCENTAGES 00 % 150 stalls 2.08 /unit 00.0 % 0.00 SF /stall 178 du's 11.56 ac. 15.4 du's /ac. 11.56 ac. 3.17 ac. 1.93 ac. 6.46 ac. 27 % 17 % 56 % 308 stalls 1.73 /unit 27.4 % 448.3 SF /stall •: Lti�ic�c rv. MEETING DATE: FILE NUMBER: APPLICANT: REQUEST: ATTACHMENTS: CITY OFTUK1iJL4 6200 i()('TIICENTEI? Ii((I./ l:ih'11. TrK117 /.:1. WASHINGTON 981M ADDENDUM STAFF REPORT TO THE BOARD OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW Prepared August 2, 1990 August 9, 1990 89 -14 -DR Southcenter Associates (Roger Newell, Architects) To construct 4 structures including 72 apartment units, garages and a recreation center AA. (Pink) City Attorney's Letter BB. (Blue) Letters Revised As Of 8 -1 -90 CC. (Green) Board Of Architectural Review Minutes Of June 23, 1990 DD. (White) Applicant's Revised Drawings EE. (Yellow) Staff Recommended Revisions ['HOVE ;1200 433.1800 • Gary L. l iri(lhrsvn..1 /urnr • 89- 14 -DR: 62nd Ave. Apts B.A.R. Page 2 STAFF REPORT to the FINDINGS BACKGROUND The Board of Architectural Review held on public hearing regarding this project on June 28, 1990. Following presentation by the staff and, the applicant and testimony by the public, the Board briefly discussed the project and closed the public hearing. The Board then directed the staff to report back at a subsequent meeting. Since the hearing the following has occurred: * A meeting between the Sunwood Homeowners Association (SHA) representatives and the Staff was held on July 18. * A meeting between the applicant and the Staff was held on July 23 to discuss the comments made by the SHA. Also discussed were the proposed changes to the drawings which were submitted the day of the public hearing and distributed at the meeting. * The Staff requested the City attorney to prepare a letter indicating the parameters of authority for the Board's decision. (Attachment AA) * The Planning Staff (and applicant) received a memorandum from John Hunt (dated 7- 6 -90), consultant to the SHA Board of Directors. (Attachment BB) * Staff has mailed notice of the rescheduled meeting to those who have commented at the public hearing. As a result of testimony made at the public hearing and in response to the above meetings, the applicant revised their development plans. In summary, the following changes have been made to the plans: * The portion of retaining wall C along Sunwood Drive has been moved further north of the existing sidewalk to provide more width for additional landscaping. * The parking area at the northeast corner of the site (adjoining Sunwood) has been revised and additional landscaping proposed. STAFF REPORT to the 89 -14 -DR 62nd Ave. Apt B.A.R. Page 3 * Building B has been moved to the west providing approximately 31 feet between Buildings B and C. The following points of clarification are noted: Any identification sign for the Sunwood condominiums must be located on their property. Off- premise identification signs are not permitted under the Tukwila Sign Code. The applicant's civil engineer has indicated that the parcel size is 3.75 instead of 3.85 acres. The reduction of parcel size shift the density per acre from 18.7 to 19.2 du's /acre. The Mitigated Determination of Non - Significance (MDNS) requires that the applicant reconstruct the portion of the road within their property to standard recommended by the Geotech and approved by the Public Works Department. The Public Works department will require a maintenance agreement for the portion of the road within the property prior to the issuance of required permits. The proposed project will require a detention area for the storm drainage system. Permits will not be issued until the proper size of detention area has been provided. DISCUSSION The following is a discussion of the various design review issues: Separation Of Buildings The 8 feet increased separation between Building B and C together with the proposed landscaping will avoid Buildings B and C appearing as one large building stretching across the site. The Staff believes the separation between buildings E and F is not adequate for purposes avoiding the tenants of one building from looking directly into the other building. In addition, further separation is needed so as buildings E and F do not appear as one large structure. As shown by attachment EE, further separation can be obtained with the relocation of the parking. The separation increases from 11 feet to 18 feet between buildings E and F. The peak elevation for building F would increase from an elevation of 197.5 to 201. 89- 14 -DR: 62nd Ave Apts B.A.R. Page 4 STAFF REPORT to the Retaining Walls The addition of plant material in the vicinity of the curved portion of retaining wall F (facing east) together with the addition of a berm (See Condition l.b.) will satisfy Condition 1.c. of the original staff report. The proposed Condition in this staff report (2.e.) to add a cascading plant material along retaining wall A similar to that used along retaining walls B and C will help to soften the appearance of the walls. Boulevard Treatment To further improve the transition from street to nearby structures and the appearance of the road itself, the Staff is proposing the use of a low berm ranging from 3 to 5 feet in height all along Sunwood Drive except where driveway cuts are proposed. Additional landscaping has been proposed on the south side of retaining wall C (northwest corner of Sunwood Drive and 62nd Avenue South). The use of flowering crabapple trees along both sides of Sunwood Drive help to achieve a boulevard appearance along a narrow street and provide transition to the structures on either side of the Drive. The change of tree species (in most instances a denser tree was selected) helps to screen structures and provides a transition to the types of tree species used along Sunwood Drive north of the project. Internal Walkways ' The addition of a walkway (east of Building Al satisfies Condition 1.d. contained in the original staff report. Although not a condition, should the applicant desire to add low - level lighting along this walkway, Condition 3 of this staff report shall apply. STAFF REPORT to the 89- 14- DR:62nd Ave Apts B.A.R. Page 5 Landscaping The revised landscaping which includes additional massing of plant material (evergreen as well as deciduous) between buildings B and C and C and D will improve the appearance of separation over time as the plant material matures. This revision to the landscape plans satisfies Condition 3.c. contained in the original staff report. Where possible, the selection of plant material around the buildings has been differentiated so as to avoid any monotony of appearance. As shown in attachment EE, staff is recommending removing 5 parking spaces which will provide approximately 1,100 sq. ft. of additional landscape area in the northwest corner of the site. Lighting A lighting plan was included in the original submittal. Details for the lighting (types of fixture, standard) were also submitted, but not included on the drawing. A copy of the lighting plan was inadvertently not included in the drawings submitted to the B.A.R., but is included among Attachment CC. in this staff report. Two lighting fixtures with cut -off features and atop 20 foot lighting standards are proposed to be located just east and south of the recreation center structure. The remaining proposed exterior lighting is provided from fixtures attached to the garages. This lighting will be located on the front of the pedestrian walkways. Although not a condition, the applicant after further review of the proposed lighting in the vicinity of the walkways and stairwells may want to supplement the proposed lighting. Condition 3., is proposed in the event the applicant chooses to do so. The proposed exterior lighting has been placed away from the perimeter of the property where possible and would not adversely impact the adjoining properties. STAFF REPORT to the 89- 14 -DR: 62nd Ave Apts B.A.R. Page 6 CONCLUSIONS The proposed density is (1) within the guideline established as a condition of the rezone and (2) meets the R -4 density requirements of the TMC. The addition of the berms along Sunwood Drive and the added landscaping along retaining wall C (north side of Sunwood Drive) create more of a "boulevard" appearance and soften the appearance of the apartment buildings on either side of the drive and improve the appearance of the Drive itself. The relocation of Building B to the west and the proposed massing of landscaping between buildings B and C; C and D will prevent the separate buildings from being "read" as a single unit from the south (across the valley). The approximate 14 feet difference in elevation between buildings E and F, as proposed by staff, will prevent them from being "read" as a single structure from the south. The staggered alignment of the buildings on the site, the use of gables to break up the the roof lines, and the mixed use of exterior materials (siding and stucco) provide visual variety so that the buildings, are not monotonous and provide visual interest. The provision of plant material which will grow over and down retaining wall A will satisfactorily soften its appearance so that the original Condition l.a. is no longer necessary. The proposed revisions which include the "stepping down" of the curved portion of retaining wall F (facing south) and the revised landscaping in front of the curved portion of retaining wall F (facing east) make the original conditions l.b. and 1.c. no longer necessary. STAFF REPORT for the 89- 14 -DR: 62nd Ave. Apts B.A.R. Page 7 RECOMMENDATIONS Based upon revisions to the proposed development plans submitted by the applicant, the Staff recommends approval of the 62nd Avenue South apartments with the following revised conditions: 1. A revised site plan shall include the following: a. Relocation of Building F north towards the traffic aisle. The building shall setback a minimum of 10 feet from the traffic aisle. Such a revision shall include a revision of parking area and location of garages in the vicinity of Buildings E and F as a result of the relocation of Building F and the required retention of the two existing pine trees south of the rockery (See Condition 2.a.) b. Provide a 3 to 5 foot heigh berm along the entire length of Sunwood Drive within the limits of the project except where not feasible (e.g. driveway cuts, etc.). Additional berming needs to be done along the northern entrance retaining wall. c.. Reverse the location of the trash receptacles on the 3- stall garage north of building E so that they face south. 2. The revised landscape plan shall include the following: a. As shown on attachment EE, the northwest corner of the site has 5 parking spaces remaining to provide additional landscape areas. This will provide for the retention of the two evergreen trees (pines) existing on the south side of the rockery on the north property line (east of Sunwood Drive). b. Substitution of proposed plant material to include a minimum of three evergreen tree and additional plant material at the southwest corner of the site (immediately west of Building B) to achieve similar massing of landscaping as proposed between Buildings B and C and C and D. c. Additional landscaping at the southwest corner of the site (along west property line and immediately north of the walkway along Building B) which is currently shown as not landscaped. STAFF REPORT to the 89- 14 -DR: 62nd Ave Apts B.A.R. Page 8 d. Revision of proposed landscaping between Buildings E and F so as to achieve similar massing of landscaping as proposed between Buildings B and C and C and D. e. Addition of same plant species (cotoneaster) used to cascade over retaining wall A to proposed landscape area along wall B. f. Overall the tree coverage needs to be increase to provide 40% open space coverage by trees within 10 years. 3. All signing or any additional exterior lighting needed for stairwells or along walkways shall be compatible with the approved architectural theme for the project. 4. Provide details for the location of mailboxes for units. If gang mailboxes are used, details shall include location, materials and colors. AUG 02 '90 15:04 LESOURD & PATTEN City of Tukwil 1 Attachment AA OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTC City Attorney's Letter 2400 Columbia Center 701 Fifth Avenue Seattle, WA 98104 -7005 (206) 624 -1040 August 2, 1990 City of Tukwila Planning Commission Tukwila City Hall 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, WA 98188 Re: Southcenter Associates «2nd Av4. S. Apartments Board of Architectural Review File No. 89 -14 -DR Dear Commissioners: P.2/3 You have before you a proposal to construct 20 structures including 72 apartment units, garages and a recreation center, on approximately 3.13 acres of land located at the intersection of Sunwood Drive and 62nd Avenue South in Tukwila. The proposal is consistent with the designation within the City's comprehensive plan and is a permitted use within the applicable zoning regulations. This matter is before you in your capacity as the Board of Architectural Review pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 18.60 of the Tukwila Municipal Code. Proceedings are quasi- judicial in nature, and should be conducted accordingly. In considering this matter, you must review only those matters which have been set forth in the provision of TMC Chapter 18.60, specifically TMC 18.60.050 ( "Review Guidelines") and TMC 18.60.030 ( "Scope of Authority "). In applying the review guidelines in making your decision to "approve, approve with conditions, or deny all plans submitted" by the applicant, you must be objective and impartial. Among the facts which are to be considered by you, there are two matters which may be of general application: 1. The existing access roadway to the Sunwood properties is a private road. 2. The use of the property may be subject to specific conditions or restrictions which constitute obligations which run with the land and are independent of any current ownership of the property. AUG 02 '90 15:05 LESOURD & PATTEN City of Tukwila Planning Commission August 2, 1990 Page 2 Any change in the characteristic of the road will require action by the City. Council and, as a.general matter, the enforcement of restrictions on the use of real property are matters to be addressed by the affected property owners and are not obligations of the City of Tukwila. I plan to attend the next meeting of the Commission when this matter will be considered to assist you in your deliberations. If you have any questions before then, please feel free to call me. Very truly yours, ORD$PT JUL,-12.-90 THU 1 4 42 WORD EXPRESS C ' WATT P.02 TO: TUKWILA PLANNING Rick Beeler, Director cc: Mike Aippersbach FROM: JOHN HUNT, CONSULTANT; SUNMOOD BOARD OF DIRECTORS RE: 62nd AVE. S. APARTMENTS 1V EMORANDLM Attachment BB Letters Revised as of 8 -1 -90 July 6, 1990 Al your request after the last Board of Architectural Review hearing on this project, we are submitting a list of Issues which we have perceived in review of those design documents forwarded to us or presented at that hearing. As you are aware, we had very little time to discuss most of these issues with the Sunwood residents and homeowners. We did have time to review the design proposed In the plans sent to us the previous week (received 6/19) but only those homeowners who attended the hearing on 6/28 . were able to review the "Entry Rendering ", the new cross sections, Building E and F details, color chips, the revised landscaping and the aerial photographs. We have not been able to have a residents' meeting since then, so we assume that residents' concerns, if any, will come directly to you or to us at a later date. We will communicate any which we receive to your offices immediately. In a rough order of importance, the issues are as follows: MAJOR CONCERNS: 1. The project site is and will be the only entrance to the Sunwood Condominium. Owners and residents of Sunwood have invested considerable funds in their 178 units and the maintenance of their site and common facilities. A substantial majority of Sunwood units are owner - occupied. The owners feel especially strongly that the proposed project, on what was originally approved as Phases III and IV of the Sunwood Condominium, will have an overriding effect on their community identity, stability and values. They feel strongly enough to be committed to legal fees well into five figures, to defend their covenants against the property owner's lawsuit. 2. The site was originally rezoned on the explicit understanding, evident In the hearing record and in documents through which c 62nd Ave. Apts - Sunwood Comments 6 July 1990 - Page Two support of the rezone was solicited and obtained by the builders, that the project was to be developed as a part of the Sunwood Condominium. The project collapsed and the Condominium expansion period ended (law does not allow them to be left open -ended indefinitely). The covenants, however, continued and continue to run with the land. These covenants form the basic framework for the self- governance and maintenance of Sunwood and the project site In the long term. The maintenance of the site as a long- term, viable community without further City Involvement was and is the purpose of the covenants. 3. The covenants (copy attached) provide for three important factors of community identity and quality within these properties: a. Exterior and common area maintenance b. Recreation area reciprocal use c. Long -term road maintenance The property owners of the 62nd Ave. Apts. site, presumably at the insistence or at least the acquiescence of the project sponsors, are suing the Sunwood homeowners (all 178 parties individually, plus the Board) to have these covenants vacated. The potential for these to be struck down or modified affects the proposed project, in that: "a" Provides a guarantee that the cash flow needs of the corporate entity owning the apartments does not override the needs of the resident community to protect their investment, and the appearance of Sunwood's "front door" is maintained. In other words, without a covenant in place, how will the two parts of this private community maintain their design quality? The BAR commonly looks at covenants as a long term guarantee of design quality being met and maintained. "b" Was intended to give the residents of both areas a broader range of recreational opportunity. As now designed, the _ 62nd Ave. Apts. would duplicate the existing Sunwood pool and recreation building, with a severe shortage of usable outdoor space on their site, compared to the standard In Sunwood. Obviously, the covenant would tend to work to Sunwood's detriment, tending to Increase use of their facilities and provide them with no additional variety. If the facility expansion goal Is foregone, Sunwood will be faced with some hard choices of physically separating or controlling access to their common areas, rather than cooperating to build • larger, self- sufficient community. "c" Provided a guarantee of adequate road maintenance in the long term, the control of emergency access, construction disruptions, winter storm access and emergency parking, and other issues on the narrower private road which is Sunwood's only access. The chained emergency access on the north side of Sunwood is significantly narrower and steeper. 62nd Ave. Apts - Sunwood Comments 6 July 1990 - Page Three 3. The rezone and concomitant approval of the private road to serve both parts of Sunwood was, presumably, based on the understanding that the CC&R's guaranteed private maintenance and access control, to a standard comparable to a public road. The owners of the project site wish to extinguish that guarantee, possibly because they would lose dwelling unit density by that substitution. The public road would also allow greater setbacks, which would benefit Sunwood and could provide a solution to several major issues (following items). The property owners wish to keep the additional value provided by the City's permission of a private road, but appear unwilling, in return, to hold to the covenants which guarantee the private road would meet the community's needs in the long term. 4. A public road would require lower unit density and greater setbacks. This would, Incidentally, reduce the unit density to better approximate the density of Sunwood (project I s 23% more dense than Sunwood). It would also give considerably more room for "Sunwood Boulevard" to have a boulevard appearance, with wider pavement and wider, landscaped front yards, rather than appearing as a driveway through an apartment complex. This would go a considerable distance towards providing a comparable appearance and /or room to isolate the different - appearing development from the road into Sunwood. 5. The Sunwood Community is greatly concerned that the effect of the narrower private road, hemmed in on both sides by 8 -9' retaining walls, buildings and large parking lots, will be to identify the entire complex behind it as a part of the apartment development. This they feel would have a strong Influence of the character of their neighborhood and the value of their homes. They were promised a rendering of the critical "entrance design" for the Sunwood Boulevard intersection with 62nd Avenue; they did not receive it. The color rendering purporting to represent the visual effect of the entry to the community, submitted at the 6/28 hearing should be viewed as not properly representative of the visual impact. The viewpoint of the drawing appears to be from near the point where the midline of Sunwood Boulevard crosses the edge of 62nd; at that point, ground level is about el. 142'. The perspec- tive indicates an eye level of about 164', or the eye level of an imaginary person about 23' tall. A true perspective would give considerably more prominence to the wall masses, which are 8 -9' high in this area, and with sections 20 long. The building appears to have been placed some 10 feet further behind the wall than It actually Is, north of the east (right end) wing wall. The building's decks are actually only 4 feet behind the middle wall segment In the picture, but the perspective seems to place them over three times that distance. 62nd Ave. Apts - Sunwood Comments 6 July 1990 - Page Four Both factors distort the actual impression of the building, which will loom much larger above the pedestrian or driver In this location. In an accurate depiction, the street would appear much narrower and hemmed in by the walls and structure. The sketch probably comes closer to the effect of a structure if it met the normally required setbacks from a public street; if the Board feels the scale relationships shown in this sketch are desirable as a design standard, the regular street setback should be required to accomplish it. This would bring the project into conformance with 18.60.050(3)(a), that existing topographic patterns should be recognized, preserved and enhanced, not converted into a continuous series of high retaining or foundation walls (over 1800 lineal feet of them), massive buildings and open parking lots The applicants acknowledge that signage would be at this location, presumably in a prominent place on the walls or In the planting in front. This may also be a dominant visual feature, indeed will identify the whole community behind it. Showing this signage is extremely important to the evaluation of the design impact on the community. It Is possible that signage could be so dominant as to give Sunwood the implicit identity as a part of the "X -Wood Apartments ". 6. The site plan and landscaping plan originally shown to the Sunwood residents at a meeting with the project developers showed a certain number of major trees (small specimens, but with growth potential) in the street median and along the street edges. At that time, and in the letter sent to them and the City in April, it was pointed out that these types of trees, small, ornamental deciduous trees for the most part 20' -30' on center, constituted a sparse screen, not in keeping with the design of the neighbor- hood, nor with 18.60.050(3)(c) to strengthen important axis. Since then, the plan was revised to reduce the number of these trees in and along the street. A total of 22 major trees were removed in the revised plan now before the Board, including ¢1I of the new trees proposed in the median. For this reason, we are very concerned at the movement away from compromise by the applicants. If the Board feels that the narrow areas left by the private road and lack of setbacks are appropriate, there should be a dense screen of trees, primarily evergreens, visually separating the apartment buildings and their open parking lots from the road. 7. In the City's files, not in any materials sent to Sunwood, we discovered that the applicants plan on using "surplus" detention tank capacity, in the main detention tank serving Sunwood. The Public Works Department rightly requested, several times in the last four months, that applicants show that they have the right to use this. Applicants are on file as telling City staff that 62nd Ave. Apts - Sunwood Comments 6 July 1990 - Page Five they were discussing this with Sunwood. To date, this statement is wholly inaccurate. Sunwood was unaware of this Intent, or the claim that there was surplus capacity. Is the "surplus" only on paper calculations, or has it ben established by the monitoring of precise tank levels during a storm of known intensity? Even if established, this raises substantial issues of maintenance and liability, even if the surplus capacity has bean proven. What would be the consequences of tank failure or overflow? Sunwood has already suffered nearly a year of intermittent flooding from the installation of an area of fill and retaining wall, without drainage, on the adjacent Heatherwood project. This had to be remedied by diversion of Heatherwood drainage into the Sunwood system; has this been factored into the applicant's analysis? 8. The quality of residential neighborhoods in Tukwila is, for the prospective new resident or home purchaser, largely visible from the valley roads and highways. The design of another complex with identical buildings, identical orientation, insignificant visual gaps between them and seas of• open parking Is not an image conducive to an image of long -term quality and stability. To date, these large, identical apartment complexes have been kept to the area west of 62nd and Sunwood Boulevard, with access from 152nd or Southcenter Boulevard. The complexes on and east of 62nd have been lower density, higher quality condominiums of distinctively different character. This established neighborhood character is an reflected in this proposal. It does not meet the standards of design review under 18.60.050(2), "Relationship of Structure and Site to the Adjoining Area ", and does not advance the image of Tukwila which the BAR and staff have been trying so diligently to improve In recent years. Broader roads and setbacks, more screening of parking and buildings, and a density reflecting the surroundings should be required. The BAR's enforcement of their design review standards are most important to the City, but are of most immediate concern to the local neighborhood, especially the 178 homes to which it Is the sole access. A simple drive - through of the Sunwood complex and the 62nd Avenue area adjacent will show that the large, identical buildings are out of scale and not in harmony with the existing buildings on most sides. They do not meet 18.60.050(4)(a & b). There Is definitely "monotony of design ", and not the "Variety of detail, form and siting...." which is required by (4)(g). The discussion in the staff report describes variety which does not exist rom one u lldl n to ano he with the exception of two cornersii for separation of Buildings E and F, and not visible from a distance. A simple review of the building elevations will show them to be identical, right down to the finished grade lines. Conclusions 62nd Ave. Apts - Sunwood Comments 6 July 1990 - Page Six "A" and "D" in the staff report are simply not supported by the evidence of a review of the plans and a drive or walk through the context of the established residential neighborhood. MINOR ISSUES: 1. The staff report cites an inaccurate site area in acres, based on the cited square footage. The cited square footage is from the applicants' plan set, and is also inaccurate. As the site is a regular geometric form, it is very easy to check using the applicants' own dimensions. These give an area of slightly under 3.77 acres, and a density of 19.1 units per acre, very close to the maximum allowed by zoning. These facts are important and should have been verified by staff. It is Important to know that the minimal amenities and design quality on the site are the result of trying to maximize the intensity on a steeply- sloping site, without utilizing under - building parking. 2. Staff report, page three, item 5 Implies that there are no significant trees on the site; we ask that staff and Board members view the site boundary along Sunwood and note the large number of trees, larger than those the applicants propose. 3. The previous site pion presented to Sunwood residents had a substantial screen of landscaping between Sunwood buildings and the open pool and parking lot. The trees were largely removed from that area in the recent submittal. Sunwood would like this area to be carefully reconsidered. The recent changes do not release territorial views, as the roofline of the next building south blocks them. 4. There are very few trees proposed In the large parking lot directly adjacent to Sunwood, east of the road. There are open - topped dumpster enclosures facing Sunwood buildings which look down into them. These design factors need to be substantially improved In order to conform with 18.60.050(3)(e) and (f). 5. The design indicates a long retaining wall up to 8.4' high on the common boundary; plans submitted include details of the construction of other walls on the site, but not this one. The proper design and stability of this wall is extremely important to Sunwood, with buildings on a high, steep bank above It. 6. The site contains little or no usable open space outside the pool aa b and recreation building; i ; evon _ f the use of Sunwood areas apartment proponents are success- ful In extinguishing the reciprocal covenants on common areas. 7. No lighting plan has been submitted, except that, by comparison, one can deduce that a number of the existing street 62nd Ave. Apts - Sunwood Comments 6 July 1990 - Page Seven lights, paid for and maintained by Sunwood, will be removed and replacements are not indicated. This, again, would be critical to whether Sunwood's entrance Is distinctive, or appears primarily as a parking lot access for the apartments. 8. Staff Recommendations, item 4 indicates a lighting and signage plan should be submitted in the future, consistent with the architectural theme for the project. Sunwood feels, for the reasons stated previously, that lighting and signage must be critically reviewed now, and must be consistent with the neighborhood, including Sunwood, to which they define the entrance. 9. Design review indicates landscaping should be effective in summer and winter; the majority of street- frontage landscaping Is of smaller, lacy, ornamental deciduous trees, out of keeping with the design of the neighborhood and the language of item 7a of the Design review application (though this language is not cited In the staff report). 10. The Retaining wall details included In the staff reports are not clearly readable and do not demonstrate the visual effect of their size and height. No detail is shown of the wall next to Sunwood. Clearly marked plans would show the extent of walls In the range of 8 -9' In height, rather than the "6 -foot heights" cited In testimony at the hearing. This is very important to an evaluation of design, as such walls do not appear to be common in this neighborhood. 11. The new site sections submitted at the hearing placed the recreation building on one section, and the Sunwood buildings behind on another. This does not allow for the critical comparison of elevations and sight lines between these two areas. New drawings should combine these structures on one section so that the BAR may evaluate them In light of applicable policies. 12. The letter of Univest Capital Corporation, William Jeude, dated May 30, 1990 was submitted at the hearing, with Mr. Jeude testifying that It demonstrated his group's efforts to meet all of Sunwood's concerns and criticisms, " ... except for those which were simply inaccurate.... ", as expressed In Sunwood's letter of record dated April 4, 1990 (attached to the staff report). The Univest responses are themselves inaccurate or misleading; Sunwood was unable to evaluate them before promised plan sets were finally delivered on 8/19: a. 1 -a claims the buildings will not be identical; the plans in fact speak for themselves, showing all buildings absolutely identical except for two facing, obscured corners. Pitched roofs end more building modulation were added, which 62nd Ave. Apts - Sunwood Comments 6 July 1990 - Page Eight Sunwood supports in general, though Sunwood had commented that the pitched roofs might not be needed on the west side. The recreation building and the apartment building below it would, in fact, have less impact without pitched roofs. b. Par. 3 response, that the buildings would not be identical or oriented in the same direction was patently false, and misleading without having been accompanied by a site plan until weeks later. The letter therefore in important aspects is irrelevant to the design which was actually submitted to the BAR and should be disregarded. c. The statement that there are only 900 lineal feet of retaining walls rather than 1800 is also disingenuous. Sunwood was not aware of that the technical terminology distinguishes between a free- standing "retaining" wall and a retaining wall with a building on top of it, called a "foundation wall ". The visual effect is the same - an exposed cement surface holding an artificial grade change (cut or fill) on the hillside. There are still 1800+ lineal feet of exposed wall faces, half of them "retaining walls" and half "foundation walls ". d. They did not in fact submit details which demonstrated the stability of the wall which most concerned Sunwood, on the common boundary. e. Par. 4 response indicated that "consideration was given to existing trees ". When we received the plans, it was evident that all existing trees in the upper terrace and most of the trees on the street were to be removed. They appear to be referring to three trees on the bottom of the site, not those mentioned in Sunwood's letter. f. The response to Sunwood's recommendations 3, 4 and 5 was site and landscaping plans which were in no Important aspect different from those which Sunwood commented upon. The response to concerns was to leave the siting identical except for movements east -west in response to City Fire requirements. landscaping density was actually reduced in the areas where Sunwood had expressed a desire that it be increased. g. Response to Recommendation 7 on recreation areas has not been demonstrated in the final plans in a positive manner. Examination of the site plans shows steep slopes and no improvements In these lawn areas. h. Response to Recommendation 7 was to cite the road recon- struction costs; site owners in the meantime alluded that they might bill Sunwood for 3/4 of those costs. j. No response was made to Sunwood's Recommendation 8 on lighting; the response on median landscaping as to remove it from the revised plans. 13. The aerial photo of the site is misleading as it includes no parking areas, and is in any case not a representative view of .T LIL- 1. ? - T H U 14 i e WORD EXRRES'3 62nd Ave. Apts - Sunwood Comments 6 July . 1990 Page girt mehe ',WATT the site. From the valley, the leading three buildings will be identical In design, virtually the same height and with minimal visual separation - In short, a wall. The aerial photo does not, as claimed at the hearing by W. Jeude, "show the density of development ". 14. There should be some comment on the attractiveness of extensive walls . for graffiti, and of glass brick wells for vandalism. The quality of appearance of the ' neighborhood will depend heavily on the enforcement of long -term commitments to a high standard of maintenance. 15. Some comments by Mr. Jeude In response to Board questions indicated they were trying to make this project "affordable but high quality ", yet were providing no children's play areas. There appear to be a fair number of large apartments. There are also few level areas or areas not bordered by retaining walls to use for play areas, Perhaps a steeply sloping site is inappropriate for "affordable" housing, especially where lower costs require all surface parking, consuming virtually all the moderate sloping areas.The "surplus of open space" is hardly usable, and comes nowhere near the standard in Sunwood for major, usable open spaces. We hope that this covers the issues which the residents have been able to discern to date, though we cannot hope to speak comprehensively for all 178 families. I will make myself and the Board representatives as available as possible for meetings with you and any other parties you feel should be Involved. I. hope that issues can be resolved or at least better focused before the next public hearing. Iity of •Tu.k7.4,7ila ::17.7:i. 1 1 0 " F,17,71. : •-• ' • ' yr" • (I.:. "r^ , By this letter I wish to register my strong protest against Tpt high densitIf t.ui1ig project on this hillside. I refer to the pc construction 4 a 72 -fl n if pa rtment complex (Case Nljrn er the Sun7.47ood condo :area. 1'Es anyone lookinp: around? Surely, this hillside: should be: al1c7,47ed to ha.ve 7.P, even small, "open spaces". Already there are TOO many apartments /condos in the area.. How can another one. be serio1s:77 considered? Sunwood Blvd already has more than enough traffic road has had to be "repaired" a number of times just in the past several years), er to think ' :at it 74,7ould be like Y 5 4 7ith another 72 units - trAnslated into probably twice that nu.mber of cars ;and people in this already small area. I shudder again to think of the tc'ssible "quality" (4 such units (like others west of Sunwood). PLEASE give this proposition most serious consideration and reject the proposal for construction of this 72-unit apartment complex. Thank you. cc: Sun7..4.7ood Board of Directors Adrienne Theophilus f re (IL) r i l 7 1 7 rl I ‘ JUN 26 1990 cITY PLANNING DEPT. Dear Board of Review; We thank you for your consideration. Mr. and Mrs William H. Dobson 15160 Sunwood Blvd. S. Tukwila, WA. 98188 Unit S22 June 25, 1990 Case Number 99 -14 -DR Hearing June 28, 1990 We wish to expr Ouc concern and hopes about the granting of building permits to construct rental apt. units at and on the entrance to our Sunwood Condo. homes complex. Our concerns are that the new buildings will not be compatible in quality of construction, value and appearance. Our hopes are that thay will not lower the value and pride we have in our Sunwood homes. Yours truly, 1)11, 1, .M.! . \V:l i 1 j ` M JUN 2 6 1930 1 CITY Cr i..J.,4�i'LA .- PLANNING DEPT. _.__J VED ete w ya Yng0 Sunwood Bra. 14, 98188 Iwo cv-- /AU-(20.1 i.) d Li- ,iz 4,"1 J (-/-/_e_._ k' u/clite- C /7 th 4,. y (--rne a- . /Y ,-‘-(fte-c-1 h4g0 U /6 cle)--:t Ofit7f01/C-- a44.4 L thi , d a-tga_ Ai 4.41_zu (--NLt fiaa 4./644/-k, 0aAJ-yr,)4 .# • LYkL e f2 a/tea_ - ZOc --/Leeo/ d1Aciet_ofy2-. 7 4.k (Aao defi-ejoyanta_"_i Jecift). fr Ple.a de LI Wie - 16 6412t,kc.. Gv. cl,riee v d euzi ent/nted- e. Li-kz40 cJ Wba. „cec a�6 WL a.Ald Yfior tuel-41 ftV5 — 6-o Goe g1)2601/ k 0-p4 ita-od deM Slit-12Z . e ? Di3 L .eA7c c5ide-cdhdk.). fIt) 1 .1r7 rp In vi I U1 JUN 19 1990 ilga .JUN 28 1990 (f i' fy D / t4/(6 �---- rr.. CITY U ( vY• 4 - , ,,A I /3 del .4.0 4/ /lAc .'fc c -c c e 'r f N :.�°'.,w G «s .& :9? z A/co AA.) e /47. 4 A- t-e.‘_)7-s *Po ezki a Dc v a e/L. aw .L %o us e / •Q/v' co Joe) cox) Q' C Aef f;i) t . q •si5 /t.v',o it -t- eocz/i_cel D �1 £e c /2', 5 .) 1"/H ,See) e a,. , ' ac /(J, //". 7 , e: G f "G(e. //A Lc / -At o/.e__, D.0 Gc_'a f GJaS• *-111e .e DX r�v /c) / � /a-) Arf S / 1 - ( 1 ' t " v z- • c c . t . ' c, oo d c 4ir t'£) /o'( / 9c J i - 44- e- G44ef 4 z',Z-- 1 C , a er, fS g / d-e,e J W o ce../eS / C ,2 f co- ,-)Se/ - ea,t; 7 e /gee e A "-ecn f � --J & .Oo /iv S a, cod /0 OC - / C.D.v /.5 7'Z a f 4,44 /5 /3&t -- 0A) 7 t:s ?"4_ / . t4.-e r/!-9/05.- ht- cie.:" ay- 6 /et 0 - //v freQ &,4 -0'.9 /i �� . to 0u 14 0 / v � a.0 _z2 C Q/ o i ec. /:v7S (reed ; f `Lim .ti G J a u ( c 7 1 - 6 AO/ t i' f4,1 o c s 4- ev? ,oaf. G ‘z,17" ze.//' /4/5 4 /*a y June 28, 1990 To: City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Blvd. Tukwila, WA 98188 Reference: Case Number 89- 14 -DR, 62nd Ave Apartment Attention: Planning Commission and Architectural Review I am an in- resident property owner in Sunwood Condominium. While I do not expect preferential treatment, I do expect reasonable and fair treatment as a citizen of Tukwila. I also expect City of Tukwila leadership that fosters a pleasant and safe living environment. To this end, I offer the following comments. 1. The apartments being reviewed in the reference case should be built in an authentic manner similar to other developments in the area such as the Sunwood Condominium and Blue Ridge development. The city should take steps to ensure that new developments do not follow the pattern of the abdominable apartments built just south of Sunwood (above Denny's). The architecture is visual pollution, cars are left essentially abandoned in the parking lot, landscaping is sparse, garbage dumpsters areas are uncovered and thus an eyesore. I extend you an.invitation to view this mess from my front room (a picture is worth a thousand words). 2. The city should take an active role' in ensuring that a fair, enforceable, and perpetual agreement is reached between Sunwood and the 62nd Ave Apartment owner regarding maintenance of the common road. Don't hide behind some legal bologna; do what common sense dictates. 3. The city should protect the right of the owners of Sunwood Condominiums with regard to not devaluing their property by allowing a shoddy development to be put in next door. This area, with exception of the afore mentioned apartments above Denny's, is a very pleasant neighborhood and new developments should be developed in similar fashion. There's no doubt in my mind that all of you involved in the reference case would be totally incensed if your city government allowed developments in your neighborhood that lowered the value of your residence. In closing, I urge you, to examine your vision for the city of Tukwila. Do you see an extension of the Pacific Highway South "strip" or an extension of attractive home areas like the majority of the developments in the area in question. I hope your vision is of the latter and you take whatever actions you can to guide the City of Tukwila towards this vision. I like living in Tukwila. Its close to work and leisure activities. I'd like to continue to live here, but if you let this area deteriorate there are many other desirable living areas in Puget Sound where I can relocate. MerlynVFlakus 15255 Sunwood Blvd. #A34 Tukwila, WA 98188 cc: Gary L. VanDusen, Mayor Tukwila City Council Tukwila Planning Department JOAN GESSNER 15141 Sunwood Blvd. #21 (206)439 -7430 Tukwila, WA. 98188 June 27, 1990 City of Tukwila Board of Architectural Review 6200 South Center Blvd. Tukwila, WA. 98188 Dear Directors: In reference to Case Number 89- 14 -DR: I am a new homeowner in the Sunwood Subdivision. After surveying. Seattle's housing market thoroughly I decided to settle in Tukwila and mainly Sunwood for several reasons. (1) Tukwila was a community that enforced zoning laws thereby monitoring its growth. (2) Tukwila appeared to limit new apartment complexes. (3) Sun wood Subdivision offered me an opportunity to purchase a home /condo in a low- density neighborhood at a reasonable price. Tukwila must continue in its progressive effort to protect the homeowner and not allow such misuse of property and the small taxpayer. Once the decision is made, it cannot be reversed. Consider the damage that will be done if such construction takes place. Do you want to look at the hill and say, "we made the wrong choice." Respectfully yours, Joan Gessner Y [7, • j ), L. • '• • ( it, • 11-4/ c ( / 15 .1) - V , \it' c. 4 i. ..:, '.."-•,' I I` e r ._ 2. I / I ) I 4c: • / - ...:. c t. 4 i '-- ' ,/ ' - Z 7 cT.T Pi— tejr .,/ /i. • 7 " . / Al. re fa, 1. ..-, A-1 , ". .i..7, ,f....- t. .) . i ;_,.. — 7 / — 7 — , .7,),../ , (..-- 4 t....1..."1.. •,, ) .---) l. • 2/' I • (...- • 7 L....I....C —,--- ---71 :1 • •--. 7 , 7 - : ! L ....--- . ---"--- c•- . • , /• 6/ . , 7•---(...../ --,, . .....e.._-/r...-- 1 _ ---.../ --1 L-. --A A • -•••■•• t 7 C •-■••• . " • - r-4 1 16 11./e–ce. c. • /* Public Hearing Notice Page 2 LOCATION: CASE NUMBER: APPLICANT: REQUEST: CATION: C W. Gentry 15384 82nd Ave S Seattle WA 98188 Published: Valley Daily News - June 17, 1990 JUN 29 1990 \ i ... „.. ....,.. ,......._ .. .....t) •-• , r-.---) . ...- _..._ i CASE NUMBER: 89 -17 -DR Office Building APPLICANT: Gencor Inc. REQUEST: Construction of on story, 9,524 S.F. office building; 33 parking lot and installation of landscaping 5800 Southcenter Blvd. Sec. 23, twn.23 Rge. 4E 89- 14 -DR, 62nd Ave Apartments Southcenter Associates Construction of 72 unit apartment complex (6 blgs.), 2 recreation center, surface and garage parking for 150 vehicles and landscaping. 62nd Avenue South and Sunwood Drive (Private Street) Sec. 23, twn. 23, Rge 4E. Distribution: Mayor, City Clerk, Property Owners /Applicants, Adjacent Property Owners, File ' s n'n cSfraC.Y � i h `1.s � �tn / 4 -i/ 1,,,,z � rtsi thr llt ��!_ n tai S S� . 6 f ' ill or l � / i e2' G �yyl rµ � � �a � � � ^„ C J CJ �� 6 h. �� 1 pr1 � /Z1 ✓r' sift" G✓AJ' -� am, !i_ i � 1 �� foci u; 1�. ;s ue 4 .6e an 11Lc Ci6 ../ 11414 Persons wishing to comment on the above cases may do so by written statement or by appearing at the public hearing. Information on the above cases may be obtained at the Tukwila, Planning Department. The City encourages you to notify your neighbors and other persons you believe would be affected by the above items. City of Tukwila Board of Architectural Review Tukwila City Hall 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, WA 98188 Re: Review of Southcenter Associates - 62nd Avenue South Apartments Honorable Board Members: Our concerns are summarized as follows: June 28, 1990 As planning consultant to the Sunwood Condominium Board of Directors, I would like to summarize for you, in writing, our concerns about this project, presented to you this evening for consideration. As you are undoubtedly aware, the owners and residents of the 178 homes in Sunwood are the most directly affected by this proposal. The Board and residents have met with the proponentviehe project several times over the past six months in an attempt to their concerns for an appropriate and harmonious project to them. Unfortunately, the groups are still some distance apart. We hope that the Board will take time for careful review and deliberation, to improve on the relationshiup between these two adjacent projects, formerly planned as a single project, to make their designs compatible with each other and with the design objectives of the City of Tukwila. 1. The density of the project is substantially above that of Sunwood; at 19.1 units per acre it is about 23% more dense than Sunwood. 2. The project includes six buildings which are identical and are oriented in exactly the same direction. There ae minimal diferences in roof line height between adjacent buildings along the front of the project. 3. The density of landscaping along the frontage of the internal street, which is the sole access into our condominium, is very sparse; small, ornamental deciduous trees predominate, spaced 20' to 30' apart. This is about half the density in Sunwood. In addition, several of the existing street trees are to be remonved, with no replacement. Since the residents met with the proponents and requested more dense landscaping, they have in fact reduced it significantly. 4. Sunwood residents will be looking down into large parking lots, unrelieved by significant landscaping, and open- topped dumpsters. This is not a design standard appropriate to the neighborhood, and should not generally be set for the rest of Tukwila's neighborhood. 5. The proposal attempts to develop a very steep hillside at near the maximum allowed density, with all surface parking. Although the proponents successfully beat the deadline to exempt their project from the City's sensitive area regulations, the inappropriateness of the design for these slopes is apparent in its conflict with design standards. '6. In the long term, the quality of design of this project can deteriorate, to the detriment of Sunwood homeowners. The intensive zoning and the private street which permits more density, were approved . on the basis that a unified community would control the upkeep of the road, the landscaping and the buildings. This is not the case at this time. We would like to indicate in tesstimony how we feel this will affect neighborhood compatibility, as this is of primary importance to the owners of the 178 existing homes in Sunwood. Yours very truly, John W. Hunt ;L_JASI -IASA Unique fabrications of fine jewelry (206) 623-0519 . ) /,‘ A-7 ,% cd 4 ,t., .z; 46<, j ee, aiA % a �t :a/ A e.-78.7.0. ra - ,Sd d X ar £ € ,;t ad, ., ,5;,,,it-e., &,,7,4„._ ,e,,,,,,, .. a-i'S , _.(44 2-fel A / /Mec-ifta-‘te e 4R. s - M s . unui / S.u.0a cage, ,2e �Q� S � �ic� o� :;4 /L a"/C , A a.07,241;;; . e lee , t ibioe /4-AS 6 ,,,, _ s _ e_e_ _ A '7- caxe 4?,eifeot, 7 af; A„„„, ,,,„,„4-, A ,et,?-4" d',,,,e_. A d a, eerov 4/e: yceruf/ iedie, ,e,e, A ,,, 4 /4 6,,,,, „„,,u,/%4,,, , 0 a--... „,,..„ -cA.e. 4 76 •/ ale. z . ./t- , Ae) .4eeet a/6%-vn e= -44: __e .or__, f 04-7Geadt7 r J /7 ' � /S sus -ex 72,-/7 ' / 4,7 fe er-7/ Z "r ner a c-;€,L /),>417/L2,iQJ d i . "`'"ei%UGC./ - , , . 1. u-ice, e c-0 o 0e 2P cit - a ' ,e.,7 ealgto-c ern / 10 -' ,44 Y 1- 61 - 0 , " 1424 4th Ave., Suite 807 Fourth & Pike Building, Seattle, Washington 98101 JUN 28 '99O .• 4/ _, ,; a-t4-/;021- 57;2'? `' a lrrt�ltng c.4-,, .i.e/7 4 /Ii DASHASA Unique fabrications of fine jewelry (206) 623-0519 deiez,e% //e- dLawit -cam fv / / "watt_ cet-oec Ja -;& 54/4 , e°1"-(ez/ V?", ,gy/t___ / Le si b ? � W .��'`x, rreweP Al l ae 4 t 44 t 6079//n.e.c_,...F 1424 4th Ave., Suite 807 Fourth & Pike Building. Seattle. Washington 98101 ' / 74 7 .4 , Staff Present: V. Umetsu, D. Wilson, Attachment CC Board of Architectural Review Minutes Of June 23, 1990 CITY OF TUKWILA BOARD OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW /PLANNING COMMISSION Minutes of JUNE 28, 1990 Called to Order: 8:06 p.m. by Chairman Jim Haggerton Members Present: Messrs. Haggerton, Gomez, Kirsop, Flesher, Malina, Knudson. Mr. Haggerton read a letter by Mayor Van Dusen re the appointment of Mr. George Malina as a new Planning Commission member. Mr. Haggerton also read a letter which was addressed to him by Joan Hernandez, Council President. The letter dated June 15, 1990 was regarding the Clearing and Grading Ordinance. COMM. KIRSOP MOVED AND COMM. FLESHER SECONDED A MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE MEETING HELD ON MAY 24, 1990. MOTION UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED. Item #1 under Old Business: 90 -5 -DR EAGLE HARDWARE REMODEL PROJECT Staff report given by V. Umetsu: Mr. Umetsu reviewed the Board's previous design approval with only minor architectural changes being required. Staff also reviewed its supplemental report conclusions that B.A.R. conditions 2 - 10 were satisfied, but that changing the western textured band from dryvit to metal and not matching any of the existing colors would result in a cluttered wall. Staff reviewed the applicant's redesign submitted four days earlier showing a different metal banding which would exactly match the raised column and beam color, and have a similar texture to the dryvit. The staff final conclusion based on the newly submitted data, and the previous B.A.R. approval; was that the proposed project would satisfy Design Criteria subject to an exact color match between the raised beams /columns, using a low reflective paint, and having a similar texture between dryvit and 5 ft. wide metal band as proposed by the applicant. Mr. John Hallstrom, the applicant's project architect addressed the Board re the materials being used and was confident of being able to satisfy all conditions. Chairman Haggerton closed the public comment portion of the item and began Board deliberations MOTION BY COMM. FLESHER AND SECONDED BY COMM. KIRSOP TO APPROVE THE PROJECT AS PRESENTED. PASSED 5 - 0 WITH COMM. MALINA ABSTAINING AS HE WAS NOT PRESENT AT THE INITIAL PROJECT REVIEW. Chairman Haggerton closed the meeting on 90 -5 -DR: EAGLE HARDWARE at 8:42 p.m. NEW BUSINESS - Public Hearing 89 -14 -DR 62ND AVE APARTMENTS City Consultant Mike Aippersbach addressed the Board re this presentation. Two errors were noted on the Staff Report- the first was on page 3, Section 3, under the surrounding land uses, the name of the development to the east of the proposed site is Cottage Creek. The second error was that the Board received black & white photocopies of the applicant's color board by mistake. Colored copies were handed out to the Board. This proposed project is exempt from the City's sensitive areas moratorium. The Applicant and Sunwood Homeowners Assoc. are in litigation to which the City is not a party. Three letters were given to the Board from Sunwood property owners which were not part of the Staff report because they were not available at that time. These letters were distributed with the agenda packet. Discussion took place re the site design and on slope construction concerns. Four plan attachments from the staff report were presented and referred to. Access to this complex would be gained from Sunwood Drive; therefore requiring a portion of existing landscape medians being removed. The initial environmental concerns included: A. Placement of the structures avoiding the bedrock present on the site. B. Unattractive massing of structures on the site. C. The exposed exterior facades. ' D. Landscaping - the selection and placement of plant material. E. Appearance of proposed retaining walls. The Applicant and the architect responded to the concerns raised by the Staff as well as submitting reports concerning soils, noise, storm water drainage during the construction and drainage during the life of the project. This provided the basis for the issuance of the City's mitigated determination of non - significance for the project. Aerial photos, with overlays, were also presented to show how the proposed structures would impact the hillside. In response to the concerns raised by the Staff and those raised by the Sunwood Homeowners letter (Attachment A in Staff report), the development plans were revised. Re- submittal was on June 13, 1990: A. Exterior facades to the structure now include additional cedar siding, a darker color of beige for the earlier stucco, use of gables, and the recreation area was revised. B. A colored aerial photo was presented to help the Board . visually understand the density and placement of the existing development as well as relative impact of color selection for the exteriors. C. Retaining wall horizontal and vertical modulation was increased (see Staff Report Attachment FF). Revisions to the drawings were handed out which had been reviewed by the City and the Staff. The net result of the revisions as recommended by the Staff were: A. Condition 1B - this condition has been met to the satisfaction of the Staff. Mr. Aippersbach recommended deleting this condition. B. Condition 1C - there was landscaping modification which satisfied the Staff. This condition was recommended to be deleted. C. Condition 1D - there is now a walkway between all buildings. Staff recommends deletion of this recommendation. D. Conditions lA & lE - Applicant disagrees. He himself will state the reason. E. Condition 2 - remains. Will be done during building permit review. F. Condition 3A & 4 - one modification was made and this condition has been met and deletion was recommended. Condition 3C, landscape plan were revised, reviewed by the Staff and condition 3C is deleted. Conditions 3B, & D will be complied with during building permit review. G. Condition 4 - will be complied with at the time of building permit review. Discussion between the Board and Mr. Aippersbach re the geo- technical report, the retaining walls, color, density of the retaining walls, fire access, parking spaces, and emergency lighting took place. A color perspective of one building was presented. The Applicant, William Jeude, a co- developer, handed out a response letter to the Board which related to the Sunwood Homeowners letter in their packet. Mr. Jeude pointed out that they are not in litigation with the Sunwood Homeowners Assoc. The sellers of the property are in litigation with the homeowners. Mr. Jeude, Neil Thompson, a representative of the architecture firm, and Mr. Bruce Johnson, the landscape architect, all made presentations on project design characteristics. Mr. Jeude addressed the Board re Conditions lA & 1E of the Staff report that were not complied with: A. Point lA - the wall is 6' at its highest point and with the landscaping and the natural barriers that are present, the wall will not be very visible. B. Point lE - Building B cannot be moved and the Staff's alternative is not feasible. Landscaping with grouping size and density will be used to create a separateness between Building B and the building adjacent to it. C. Item 2 re the dumpster enclosures will be complied with. D. Item 3 will be resolved at the time of building permits. Mr. Jeude handed out an aerial photo that outlined the property that needs to be returned to him at a later time. Mr. Hunt, a planning consultant retained by the Sunwood Homeowners Assoc., addressed the Board. He handed out an outline of the discussion with the Homeowners Assoc. re the issues that the homeowners had concerning entrance to Sunwood, streets, setbacks, retaining walls, landscaping, recreation areas, storm water retaining tanks, deterioration of the 62nd Ave. Apts, and the type of renters that the apartments will attract. Mr. Hunt submitted a letter of Sunwood concerns based on the previously distributed plans and protested the late plan changes which have just been circulated at this evening's meeting which may greatly affect his analysis. He also reviewed the series of last minute plan changes and short review times given to the Association previous to the B.A.R. meeting. Mr. Hunt's concerns regarding the applicant's materials submitted at this meeting and not necessarily covered in his submittal include the following: A. Site area was measured at 3.77 acres as shown on plans, not 3.85 acres as printed. B. The aerial photo shows the project from a misleading angle (observer in the air, not on the ground) and shows only buildings without the significant affects of parking lots and retaining walls. C. Trees needed to soften parking lots since effect on vistas is minimal in light of proposed roofs. D. Staff report was available at the City, but not sent immediately to people on the mailing list. E. Colored entry rendering is from the perspective of an observer two stories above the 62nd Ave. /Sunwood Blvd. entry; not the pedestrian level where greater visual impacts would be apparent. F. City approved all phases as a unified project; not separate developments. Mr. Hunt will present written concerns to the Planning Div. since the Board decided to continue this item. Julie LeMay, Sunwood resident, stated that the proposed buildings are too large and that the site's steep slopes should be kept grassed; not developed. Beth Stanley, Sunwood resident, requested that the Board protect her from the proposed project's poor architecture, large building size, view blockage, (potential) uncaring renters, and the large entry sign which gives the impression that Sunwood is part of the 62nd Avenue Apartments. Ryan Thrower, Sunwood resident and Chair of the Sunwood Homeowners Assn. Board of Directors, stated that the Sunwood Board has responsibility for Sunwood Blvd. construction and maintenance, but has not been contacted for acceptability of the SEPA conditions or road design. Neither was the Sunwood Board contacted about an 8 ft. retaining wall on its property line nor permission to use excess storm detention facility capacity by the applicant, as presented to the City. The Sunwood Board asserts that the access road should remain under unified administration (not separately owned segments between Sunwood and 62nd Apts.) Mr. Thrower also stated that a condition of R -4 zoning for the project site was additional joint recreation facilities for Sunwood use per a covenant written by City Attorney Larry Hard, and that Sunwood Blvd. should be designed as a boulevard streetscape. A letter by Joan Gessner,Sunwood Homeowner, was read by Mr. Ryan Thrower and a letter from Geraldine Tarver, Sunwood Homeowner, was submitted with the Agenda packet. Sandra Ault, Sunwood resident, stated that the presented project doesn't reflect its actual look, the project is too dense for sloped site, not enough landscaping is provided along the boulevard, children could fall off the high retaining walls, and that she didn't want to be perceived as living at the back of a low quality apartment project which is not maintained through successive owners. Vernon Plinkett, Sunwood resident, stated that apartment projects aren't kept up and pointed to the (North Hills) apartment project to the immediate southwest which already looks in poor condition. John Crausar, Old Stone Real Estate Services, representing the seller of the property - Citizens Service Corp.- addressed the Board re the quality of the apts. in question believing that the apts. were of a quality equal to or greater than those of the surrounding apts. He also stated that buildings look the same whether they are apartments or condominiums and that road and utilities would be highly maintained. Chairman Haggerton closed the public testimony portion of the meeting. The Board voted to continue the meeting and directed Staff to assist the Applicant and Sunwood Assoc. in ironing out smaller items that were of concern and then present major items to the Board in order for a decision to be made. He stated that the Commission could not be fair in reaching a decision at this time until these differences could be worked out between all parties involved or issues more clearly defined. Staff agreed to identify design review issues and work with the parties toward resolution of as many as possible in time for the next B.A.R. meeting if additional consultant support could be authorized. Mayor Van Dusen stated that he would do all he could to support the B.A.R.'s work. COMM. KIRSOP MOVED AND COMM. MALINA SECONDED A MOTION TO CONTINUE THE REVIEW. MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. The item was continued without setting a meeting continuation date. July 17th: July 19th: July 25th: The Board also recognized the need to complete its SAO recommendation by August 9th. The Board specifically continued the 62nd Avenue Apartments B.A.R. design review to July 26, 1990 at 8 :00 p.m. in the Tukwila Council Chambers. ADJOURNMENT Respectfully submitted, KIMBERLY I. HART Recording Secretary SAO Workshop. Adult Entertainment Ordinance Workshop and Public Hearing. SAO Public Hearing. Director's Report Mr. Umetsu reviewed the B.A.R. /Planning Commission work schedule. The Board agreed to the following meeting schedule: Site Plan Project Data Zoning Code Building Code Legal Description Construction Notes Area Calculations SCALE r -a 5' LANDSCAPE SETBACK (TYP1 25' BSBL I (WEST) N 88'25'27" W EMERGENCY ACCESS EXISTING CURB (TYP) 8' BUILDING SETBACK (TYP) NEW CURB ° o (I)Partial Plan A Scale e rrrr =ro EXISTING EDGE OF SIDEWALK 1 1v iI1 EXISTING CURB (TYP) EXISTING EDGE OF SIDEWALK (TYP) EXISTING ROCKERY (TYP) 4 Stall arage Foundation Wall SCALE I 8 Garage :ial Plan B RETAININ SCALE: 1 .• 8 3 Plan Ga EMERGENCY FIRST Fri = 162.7 BSMT F = 153.9 Garage NEW CURB Partial Plan C Scale SCALE: I • 8 SU\ WOOD BL NEW CURB FIRST Scale ED Partial Plan D RETAINING WALL C 0 8 16 SCALE. I - 8 RETAINING WALL A N \- OPartial Plan E A I 4 Stall Garage FF = 141.0 FF = 7 . Ill FIRST FF I3MTFF j1i4 4 Sta I L. I (1' cV 00 1[1 o V) N 88'24'47" W 141.65' (I) (_t» •1 1 -r ' r ,. .l l �I \50 S 88'24'47 ji rr RETAINING WALL B 154' - EXISTING EDGE OF „ / SIDEWALK (TYP) EXISTING CURB (TYP) ePartial Plan F 0 --- — 136 134 1 32 — 130 —1 - 28 -126. -124 - 122 120 1t I i it • • . L.► 1• • •••• ••••• N •• M • woo • Il if . ;; . o y:,,. a .. \ ,.•_`_� \_ .. 3 ►•M Y. ups\ Y.1 % ,,a•44% • isAr Ir MIA `' •A • UNT Two Bedroon✓ One Bath ..... .•.J `�. { IF 1� 113 M M s! i N •• � ' 4'1 7 1: : ' -- 1 1 1. : , I I i 11 I ; . .t. .. •• i • • 414•14 MAMA . • NI 4411444.444•4 • 21111/.'— s-+ +• x• •1; t••» is - -- a —•"� • a saw _ sew• ! ±! • r.r n:. •ti• 0 r••• �� WI Barrier -Free Notes M.MJ.M U.p • ..M.. Mr M rrr r. 1m.. MA A A IA MA • rrs ewr....rr.wr.rr.�r C ...or 900r.rrw.•Mruw I* ▪ ye myna .w...•r ...w.....M . ▪ Mr..r ..TrrR....w..r • ▪ • .w. r MM• b.r+r. Y. N arim .r IV YrM..A.. IA .rY r..r.... • ▪ MA.. _M.r..... w AM .... wM.wi�myme r.� • .9Mr Y..w.w...r.rMY . am Trw ainim fee =Om Sow WA • MI r.r • M.A. A. Coro C. SIMM ::.1•.:» w ..- . 'r' ... '° . •..r.,..... 0.••••••• A e1. : d: litom Ma Am *A liMrsi ti Ysr• _ .r.. •r..r. ✓ ▪ A Mrrr�r. rr.7,M • ^ r � .r �Y�. ±v.r My MB Y.. amm rr..rr .. +rrrr..r. • - • w. .... -- wwr r.rw w+.r M.. AM oft mmy 1• Irr.r rrrwrr Mimi N a O.r �rm.rr +rrr...r .111 eim• w iR. r r « r •• i w ma* ••••00 MA. Mom wr.. Iw � .. �O w SAM AMA Am.*. M. wli r.rr. M AMA I. .M. w w..r.l.rrw r..rr... CM oh w . e• • sm. siMmi r ...M...•'a'• w.r r.r. r .. .' .°wr ...e..s w• rrr r.. i u � • ... . ..d.rM....r • my. Ma w.. .r.r r.. 4o �1'.4� E- .' .:' { 't: HC TYPICAL UNT ?es x ♦. z fi Party Wan Assembly Isl.srwrrrr.+r.. .ro *V OL ..r■•••••. ^.r. .t r..� .....rtarn .. .r.■•••■•■■s•n MCI s.cs+nn Peily Weer Assembly MIKIIIINIM.O.Misa••• WM. • Y/*ren�.•x.r..r... f••••.. �.re�u.n. ■snl I src.e Exterior Wall Assembly ra. a� sir •: PO •.r NSOW. w .o...ti.. Dock Assembly i01.111. 4.1111“ ..•••••• •111•1••••••• w.ww.rr r 11106 01.11MIN Concrete Slab et Garage • M rr..I.. /••ran.. r •••••••••••• r +...n..r.Mow Interior Dearing Wall sr ll. • w s.. TO oafs 941,e •W .I... I4 BUILDING/GARAGE SECTION suer %. •. , o Perspective of Entry • I •r • ••• •■• • 4' • " t• ". •• • • 11 1 1 :1 t_ I . 1 n " 1 1 • dom. Or* ••••.. Ws.. exalt ..11 ISEE ELEVATIONS ELEVATION Ve.".• • • ! MET szweis I I i I I' ••••••• • I • • I I I I . r L I f • a t . ;Jr 'FOUNDATION PLAN • t • . Typical Entry Plan 2 ofr AIN) ANS • • • 7 • • ‘j 4 : I L • • ti •, A A •; 8 ..MY/.1.i J - •MOW V-C ` . 1.1..1 1_ I 1 n w ry •I .• ,■•M 2 rem- - LIriLi{'11I 1 -- gr , ram - - -- ° 111111A I I Y 2•• Open Recreation Space 19 • '4) V _- •• • :f y, « Typical 6 car garage • 1 ' • 1; C +' &k. I'p': t' C{7 Cul i i C V _ k c a l . ar garage _ F Garage Floor Plans l gTypical 4 car garage r e1ypictl 1 car gorge. «Typical 3 car garage 8 Typical 2 car garage w • 31 3' S 2 •• iI• Cl • • South Elevation • South Elevation • South Elevation • I ■•••••• -Win^ • 4' Retaining Wall A Retaining Wall — I . 1 : t Retaining Wall C 1 4 I 4 ed.• e_.•t.tr I LLU 5 2 Section 0-0 Section E-E ..c- Section F-F IL 1.. *K. • 1,1111l5. - A 4 MILS I - • ri••■ el • US.. tt '.5 •.• -- "F to«. _ • _ _ a- sags 1. • Section A-A • Section 13-11 Section C-C 111 2 54 i ffn IS o 41 44, ""��a Kee' I I� .q • r an ^T I i I I � _ %f A i � asa wr 1 D C • • • K Sr N 1 1 I I . 1•f.. PLANTING PLAN 044 44 1161..x. NOTES ammo Mu. Nam t NMI. fl.S. 1J . Y. •C [P.= +41 An/ w e... ret M MMM • t[.. '. Mac,' . fln.JT,011 V1lW f•fc Mf,t. OL AWIA.. wren.'. . Mee. •grZ. LAD 715.14arIVI6 TIM AfaD�al ❑ It 2 YW,AJ KO:IR f''.1. �0 1,;J y ��.d A ,,,,, .. Ti ® H.lar• s ' ►aiMr.o.l ' pRM•AN nc.eMuq KM rv . . Ai Me ^ ..10M & t.e. 4=N1 WM( �! j'U�L. _ Y IKLf2.M.A0 .►h fcO.! +t flO & * A 1H1Z ANIn.� 1 ' tY 6 /�.�t�...yI:,,�rss ,aoar. ENVOI V. l • L Yrs P.p. , .0 — •IYYYLi JD�I� Z O.. ASTl4. TEM rt. /o..4 ,rime ...AM © Man y o e " a "'T NMit.w..M a 7.•,OOL. , •. : 0 LO/bW,.0 t vaM 'R *.& 7 R . 0 p1MA MI ‘0.s.. WA 9ie Ma . -.1 eVL, MACMS IM MOVE ...rec. Mr P%1 I.u.Y {►41C..t 1 • AA d � {ni.l }WaM'wWq�f 1 4 L J1• a W.V. iyly A.0 M... .� , 09.f WA& 11r1yi MNnWM • ,.O + ie'ec. b iv. ,: • .•..•ALR FETET �p . rcr 54L S irk ,gr:•.0'OL. 1fCL�(M EVANCO r; I .G. 2'4O. cap r4r0.'Cr•O.f'4 'Rp A Iaftn 4=4 t „ti 3.0"04 • A•+w,.,. ...0 1.=Y41.. i ffn IS o 41 44, ""��a Kee' I I� .q • r an ^T I i I I � _ %f A i � asa wr 1 D C • • • K Sr N 1 1 I I . 1•f.. PLANTING PLAN 044 44 1161..x. NOTES ammo Mu. Nam t NMI. fl.S. 1J . Y. •C [P.= +41 An/ w e... ret M MMM • t[.. '. Mac,' . fln.JT,011 V1lW f•fc Mf,t. OL AWIA.. wren.'. . Mee. •grZ. LAD 715.14arIVI6 TIM AfaD�al ❑ It 2 • • . .• .., • • ':•? • I • .A.L.P. • ••••• • • • Et Staff Reco( •nded Revisions Attachment EE . • : '. 4 ". :• . , • Add landscaping • - . ....� More intensive landscaping Add trees /berm along road Il fJ The ~ - Overall tree coverage needs to be increased Summary Of Staff Recommended Revisions PLANTING PLAN Remove 5 excess parking space/ rovide additional landscaping areas UNDO 9 I NOTES Building Separation erm Add landscaping along the all O • �Mta. 11+•reo VMf R •'•'i.i an HO. • t µ /•II I + IR+eF fn 6 ■144. ewArtf0 N •••.••1 / .t. Attachment EE 2 . 441" •••• 1 LIE/6 INM • lNIL. rut . -- AL Ro204 urMf c V. MO yfre /LA!** t.A/IIY Iq' r (AL •IYIiSApLV ,V'R - -• f t •M •••51.1•I rots rr IOTM » MLA a `i tr stets M' c I4.7 " ' 9 O /IYPgN[f4 U�IK • I•rrooraaa v l e fu wo+ M iR LIA4 ta:41.+a.n •.at. cat 1 ►X0.0F.psf tt'Rw w.I'•en ■••yy/. KM al/ ft•17 LAIN M1+.% •••r, frfr ..f./.. W.., !A•RD r01ii[ •gr LfN,G I 1 . , 5m LAP vousrnenve A to AO, wr+t , 11 Q •[t ,IRS •R/rl•AC x rK , A ..-tf _ tot d Me f O OL. ram wNino me,/ Cava :.•:f rag.. 3t31 MD ./•L' Mtl wPOL. ■p: {r A•. •:0=I tiO4 or Se 41" tr ey it i. , :0 DI + NI .rL .,..t ern 511 t VOL . • — 'ML 2' L. K :+f • t ava t:0 06 III• V. A AIL trl+IiA,a.eo MAMMEM /1144 lei AUG 09 '90 15:10 ROGER rELL ARCHITECT 322 -5161 P.4/4 • .t • AUG 09 '90 15:09 ROGER NEWELL ARCHITECT 322 -5161 • P.3 /4 City of Tukwila Planning Commission Tukwila City Hall 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, WA 98188 Re: Southcenter Associates /62nd Ave. S. Apartments Board of Architectural Review File No. 89 -14 -DR Dear Commissioners: . , City of Tukwila OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY 2400 Columbia Center 701 Fifth Avenue Seattle, WA 98104 -7005 (206) 624 -1040 August 2, 1990 You have before you a proposal to construct 20 structures including 72 apartment units, garages and a recreation center, on approximately 3.13 acres of land located at the intersection of Sunwood Drive and 62nd Avenue South in Tukwila. The proposal is consistent with the designation within the City's comprehensive plan and is a permitted use within the applicable zoning regulations. This matter is before you in your capacity as the Board of Architectural Review pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 18.60 of the Tukwila Municipal Code. Proceedings are quasi - judicial in nature, and should be conducted accordingly. In considering this matter, you must review only those matters which have been set forth in the provision of TMC Chapter 18.60, specifically TMC 18.60.050 ( "Review Guidelines ") and TMC 18.60.030 ( "Scope of Authority "). In applying the review guidelines in making your decision to "approve, approve with conditions, or deny all plans submitted" by the applicant, you must be objective and impartial. Among the facts which are to be considered by you, there are two matters which may be of general application: 1. The existing access roadway to the Sunwood properties is a private road. 2. The use of the property may be subject to specific conditions or restrictions which constitute obligations which run with the land and are independent of any current ownership of the property. . AUG 0 1990 of A +.li.i:h.t: ^ .. !•,17;)7" 4 City of Tukwila Planning Commission August 2, 1990 Page 2 s \LEH \070 • Any change in the characteristic of the road will require action by the City Council and, as a general matter, the enforcement of restrictions on the use of real property are matters to be addressed by the affected property owners and are not obligations of the City of Tukwila. I plan to attend the next meeting of the Commission when this matter will be considered to assist you in your deliberations. If you have any questions before then, please feel free to call me. Very truly yours, Le =OORD & P T EN P.B. STEINVALL CONSTRUCTION CO. GENERAL CONTRACTOR June 8, 1990 4STEINCC131 CO City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Blvd. Tukwila, WA 98188 ATTN: L. Rick Beeler, Director RE: Building Permit Applications #89 -362 thru #89 -381 Dear Mr. Beeler: P.O. BOX 2458 • KIRKLAND, WASHINGTON 98083 -2458 (206) 822.6440 rIIIVI��rI� f JUN 8 1990 As the authorized agent for the above referenced Building Permit Applications, I have attached copies of Submittal Logs for the Building Permit Application and the Board of Architectural Review (BAR) application. These Submittal Logs represent the extended period that the City of Tukwila staff has been reviewing the project without committing to a date for presenting the submittal to the BAR. The building permit applications were confirmed as complete and vested on November 29, 1989 (copy of letter attached). The Building Permit Application was confirmed on December 13, 1989 not to be subject to the sensitive area ordinance (copy of letter attached). The Board of Architectural Review Design Review Application was submitted on November 20, 1989. See Submittal Log and attached November 20, 1989 memorandum. The submittals as listed in the Submittal Log respond to the majority of your concerns and requests for additional information. It has always been our intention to furnish the City of Tukwila with as complete information as possible. I have directed the Architect and his staff to review and complete all outstanding items as they understand them, for submittal at the scheduled June 8, 1990 meeting. We are hopeful this completes all requirements for a confirmed date for the BAR review on June 28th. My partners and I have met with the Sunwood Condominium Association, have answered their letters, and have mitigated their concerns such as view blockage, traffic, repairs of Sunwood Boulevard, etc.. We are ready to complete our negotiations with The Association once we understand the status of the staff review. It is our judgement that as long term holders of developed Real Estate Property, that we have met the concerns of our neighbors, designed an apartment project that exceeds existing projects in quality and meets the market demand for housing in the area. i City of Tukwila June 8, 1990 Page Two Our major concern is the date of start of construction for the project. The geotechnical issues have been resolved, but state "Retaining wall construction should be complete during the dry . months for good construction results ". As outlined in the Architect's letter dated April 20, 1990 (copy attached), the timing for the BAR Meeting has been delayed enough and we believe further delays are not necessary. Sincerely, STEINVALL CONSTRUCTION CO. Gary R. Steinvall President CC: Gary Huff, Karr Tuttle Campbell William W. Jeude, Univest Capital Corp. Jack P. Pace - City of Tukwila Roger Newell, AIA Michael Aippersbach, Consultant File GRS:sa blice._Reciums1VD,_ "r Ii.v._c-11-( OP rwrE 5ur_) I 11 .._ Ttiti IA • .1 DESCR.11.0 )_1__. d LD1 1.1 G PF.y.m IT A-,PP Li c,t,i 1 0 N II IIII 1 I TuWm_To I ' r ' .1::Bu 4# '' 63__AP.2L1._a4z2.11 5 • I - i - -J I I i 1 I , I I • . .11 - - _e3.9____ I I ! ! r I I) ARCH ITE C-Tu 1 3 ST R.\.) C.,)RAI *, I HI 11 III 1 111111 .• . 11EFT.57 1 T1 12.:117 • e, )4 -Em..-r 5__ :-._ • Si TH• 5 • .. .30s. L I TitgU L (JAL ENG,,th:Suji_l_:, ..u. "'" II <:.:.... : .: Tri•en 5 • r i ■ A. • i : .1, 115PECLEILATIMS - Tin FD 40'2 AVE WM I 1 111 - in .. , p... . • 4 ic CAI c ul_A - e 11==• H 101 III I 0 911 1 111111 IIIL .. :0 ..11 - . . ,. . • 11 111111 I i o un Lmi2ERIALTApku cAT 1 • Ii ..ii. ' 11 7) SIDIZIA \14, ANAt \-isis - 1)IZ F,TRIWG ' 11 11 Ilium= it MI 11 111 : N ., , ...... •. : •-• .... ... . ' ! 11 11E111 . .1 ., . 11 . 1101111E i 11111 11111 I PA „ " I . I II , 10) LEGAL, DGF..r.„)2 • 1:7710 1 _1 1 I I , 1 3 II) UT"( 0 - 71„11„ jI-1 -oo . v' C. II Ili III 9 6 12 - 31 . - • . • • r I- zo:.....111111111 MEM O. i • 11 111111 11 I 2 13) C IT{ C)=1),„E, , 11- 9 - 7.. - - s N 1 11 • II 111E11111111 II! II UM 11 3 4 IIIMINELIMICIPIMMIRMINIMINFIRNIIIIII 111 5 T I II 111111 16 6 • ., is)*T.usivAsu _. PA .Aer ' o4- la W. ., : i• •I 111111. Inf, 11 111 111111 .911PI 11111 111 7 _AAA . 8 9 • . , .. • , , , : I , II 111111 11 N , , II ___ . ___,_ 1 1 . __ 1111 _ . 2 3 4 5 6 a ' givAlT____A.PP LI (- LO TY 0 F TUI6N1 u I 7T L OG 9 3 3 3 4 tP um cn.j Inuce LIM n 7.2 noicc PAT APPL. FOR -• 1 DATE.2,M .A.CO:2_ py THE_Orf OF _SLIIIMITTED_LO_ TUKWILA „Cal_.` PATE " 0 F TLIKWILk .. .=. _____.,._,==., • KID F AR.C.,1-4. ITE crtd RAI V 1W A P„ ' I I 1111111 Eli KA - '7 11 .. - - • APPLI CAT ION I I _Al.....12=. is) ?oc, E.: 1 ay. i 7. u__ - FaCH i TS CT 11- la- c . 2.) L'FG.1... T..) P 1 ON ; ! 3) OPEN SIDA,C..E_ Ce.w..)1A - 7.1 : :I.i -/.") 14: ., .. - • ! (!" ••••:::17r,., '4.1•,:1:.:,: l_i - 1.. I I ..q. ,- - .- Elm I - I . Tf,E 1 -1,:,,, ...,....,—..,- ..-.2_,,,,,....., 2) ')F51c 7-\V!')-\-rv.)- c o -rum.11.:.A II 1111 V) DE-sIGN . k..i. - , , ii.7/./ (1)21:1 1: • _ s • li .A. Iip ri IN 9. - M 8 - . 11 I a) RFIDUEST Fog. SLIR1.AiTTAL . c..piusizNis A. THRu :-, . 1 C-1-iu_c_Kt_j5i Lrititu 17 1 1 _ Ii_. A D N.. •Acj.4 L- / .... 4 , NI o:5i7: s'fl)( III ■ galli I 11111 - 111111M d i 4 1 . - Z 1 I_ •.• 1111.1150 I ' • C1-I I C3 04. • S P III III I Alin o T I • 3 CD - 1 -7- _4:. I • 1 . , ..3Ery2.. I 1 CITy (:) 1= NIA, C4-1 ' I ic. to •• • =„, 1 l0 --- 77vrEhIJ___.`7:r ; II I AI m 1 Nic, \,'.i A.. I p•Ir...1.1 P.,"r ' Hal 111E1 1 ! S L1V ritzv-; I 1 GEOTEc.wc4^-,L ?.;: - UT11.1re c,r 4 • h\SIEDAPECI E 4 432.E5-wasl - r- c - ,11-17 , 1031) r2. i T 4.. ... 1 5 SAN 11 F._ DR4c, - REV17-CiN •. 6 01,1c)-1 5;41 AIPP'zcsPAC.H iari.ERL0 D. C 1_, 1 I . . I 1+1_ 1 1 i . . I di:- -• I i I ( 4r et.9 1 . I .r - o 1 4 I - i L - -. I 1 r. ■ _C14 I r I . 4. i I liii 11.1 . 1 . . 7 F:ATP14.1nio :-.,:- !:,;LL::.. 7..; F...c.P.ir,A,-. 8 FIPF ZY Tr-;:1`rS.__ 1 9 CaFxs::a H ki : cc, L., ;.> TRANSW:r- 1 S.St.,1.-"-t I 0.; RETANIT-n- WA,L.L. IsSUEs I — 1 Is& 1 rz 6 ' . . 12 5).14101E6L..8 I P_P_ERS2&cbd..Eal3ZIP--CQE • - ■ L I F.111111 7 - -?• I 1 . 13 lksisiom Tn 'RE.• VIA,Ils ii.. 14 SRa') 11NG WALLS I I -1.1 15 1?7oFit.a5 OF- RF..TA:INIt.IG VA, IS 16 7 i i 18 . 19 I 1 1 t 0 i _I . LI I H Ii L 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 1 5 11 1 2 21 2 2 2 2 2 15 WILSON JONES COMPANY ?FAIT APPLACATION C I T Y OF KITTAI 1 nr-, G7212 GREEN 7212 RUFF PAT. APPL. FOR. - • • CITY OF TUKWILA 6200 SOUTHCENTER BOULEVARD, TUKWILA, WASHINGTON 98188 November 29, 1989 Mr.Gary R. Steinvall P.O. Box 2458 Kirkland, WA 98083 -2458 PHONE II (2061433.1800 RE: Building Permit Applications #89 -362 through #89 -381 Dear Mr. Steinvall: Sincer . Rick Beeler Director cc: Roger Newell Gary L. VanDnsen, Mayor This letter is to confirm that the above applications are complete and vested under the 1988 Uniform Building Code, 1982 Zoning Code, as amended, 1977 Comprehensive Land Use Policy Plan, and Tukwila Municipal Code, Chapter 21.04, environmental review regulations. Let me repeat that the Board of Architecture Review and environmental review process will very likely cause revisions to the submitted site plan and design of the buildings. Therefore, we will not begin the Uniform Building Code review until the Board and environmental reviews are completed. Please contact Jack Pace, 433-1847, to discuss the completeness of the application for Board of Architecture Review approval. En, ddAUj 0 6861 �3a CCl/ CITY OF TUKWILA `` 6200 SOUTHCENTER BOULEVARD, TUKWILA, WASHINGTON 98188 PHONE q (206) 433.1800 Gary L. VonDusen, Mayor December 13, 1989 Mr..Gary R. Steinvall P.O. Box 2458 Kirkland, WA 98083 -2458 RE: Building Permit Applications #89 -362 through #89 -381 Dear Mr. Steinvall: This letter supplements my November 29, 19.89 letter to clarify that this application is not now subject to the Sensitive Area Ordinance under consideration by the City. Sincere L. Rick Beeler Director . cc: Roger Newell MEMORANDUM TO: Gary Steinvall FROM: Steve Cary DATE: November 20, 1989 SUBJECT: 62nd Avenue South Project Friday P.M. all items for a complete application for the above referenced building permit were received by Becky Davis, Permit Coordinator, City of Tukwila (letter attached). In addition, Al Roberts from Roger Newell's office and myself met with Jack Pace with the Board of Architectural Review and went through the package we submitted to his section. He stated that all items for this package were complete and accepted. He also stated that his department would not be able to have this processed and ready to present to the Board until their regularly scheduled meeting on the last Thursday in February. Warren Ballard will have the label requirement resolved Monday and this will not impede any progress or acceptance of the application. Al Roberts is forwarding all copies of submittals to this office. Please advise of any additional copies we need for our files and I will obtain same. ROGER H. NEWEL! t\i•A 1102 -19TH AVENUE EAST • SEATTLE, WA 98112 • (206) 322 -1192 April 20, 1990 Jack Pace City of Tukwila 6200 South Center Blvd. Tukwila, WA 98188 Re: 62nd Avenue Apartments Job No. 89 -14 -DR Dear Mr. Pace: I am writing this letter to confirm the proceedings of our meeting Thursday, April 12, 1990, called to discuss the comments from the Design Review Committee meeting held earlier that day. Those present at the meeting: Michael Aippersbach, Gary Steinvall, Jack Pace and myself. The items reviewed were covered in list form in the memos given to me by Michael Aippersbach Tuesday, April 10, and Thursday, April 12, with traffic mitigations to follow. In addition to these lists, the fire department has requested that we either move the garage or provide a space equivalent to four parking stalls between garages for ladder truck access. I believe that this request is due to misinterpretation of the Building Section. I will be in contact with the City of Tukwila Fire Department regarding truck access for 2 story buildings. It is also becoming clear. through this incident and misreading of retaining wall heights and requesting information which we have already provided that information is not being properly, processed and reviewed at the City of Tukwila. We have made every effort to clarify our drawings so that further misinterpretations and delays do not occur. The grading plan will clarify many of the issues raised and will be completed by April 24. After discussing these issues with you, we requested information on the City of Tukwila's timing for getting us on the B.A.R. schedule. I was disappointed to find out our application was not to be heard at the May 10, 1990 B.A.R. Despite the fact we provided you with all the information indicated as necessary by you and your consultant, Mr. Aippersbach, per his letter dated April 4, 1990. Instead you informed us we will now be required to complete all changes requested in the two above mentioned memos four weeks prior to our B.A.R. We were, however, pleased when you informed us that it would be a "maximum of six weeks" to get our building permit from the time we apply and that we could apply for the building permit prior to our B.A.R. With these comments in mind we will continue to refine our drawings. I am sure we will be in contact with you soon. Sincerely, Al Roberts AR:bet cc: Michael Aippersbach Gary Steinvall LOCATION: ACREAGE: COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: ZONING DISTRICT: R -4 THRESHOLD DETERMINATION: City ¶ of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila Washington 98188 (206) 433 -1800 Gary L. VanDusen, Mayor STAFF REPORT TO THE BOARD OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW Prepared June 21, 1990 HEARING DATE: June 28, 1990 FILE NUMBER 89 -14 -DR APPLICANT: Southcenter Associates (Roger Newell, Architects) REQUEST: To construct 20 structures including 72 apartment units, garages and a recreation center 62 Avenue South and Sunwood Drive (private street) 3.13 ac. (167,706 sq. ft.) which includes the private street High Density Residential A Mitigated Determination of Non Significance (EPIC- 31 -90) was issued on April 13, 1990. STAFF REPORT to the B.A.R. Page 2 A. Letter from Sunwd. Home.(4 -4 -90) B. Letter from W & W Farmer (6- 18 -90) C. Application (11- 17 -89) D. Site Plan (Sht 1) E. Partial Site Plan (Sht 2) F. Partial Site Plan (Sht 3) G. Partial Site Plan (Sht 4) H. Partial Site Plan (Sht 5) I. Partial Site Plan (Sht 6) J. Partial Site Plan (Sht 7) K. Framing Plans (sht 8) L. Framing Plans (sht 9) M. Framing Plans (sht 10) N. Framing Plans (sht 11) 0. Floor P1.,A Unit (Sht 12) P. Floor Pl.,B Unit (Sht 13) Q. Floor Pl.,C Unit (Sht 14) R. Floor P1.,HC Unit(Sht 15) S. Elevation,Bldg A (Sht 16) T. Elevation,Bldg B (Sht 17) U. Elevation,Bldg C (Sht 18) V. Elevation,Bldg D (Sht 19) W. Elevation,Bldg E (Sht 20) X. Elevation, Bldg F (Sht 21) Y. Bldg /Gar. Sect. (Sht 22) Z. Entry Plan (Sht 23) AA. Rec. Cent. Plan (Sht 26) BB. Elev., Rec. Cen. (Sht 27) CC. Elev., Rec. Cen. (Sht 28) DD. Open /Rec.Space P1(Sht 31) EE. Garage Fl. Plans (Sht 32) FF. Elev. Ret. walls (Sht 33) GG. Landscape Plan (Sht L -1) HH. Sect. Plan (Sht 2 of 3) II. Sect. Plan (Sht 3 of 4) JJ. Entry Perspective KK. Partial Perspective LL. Color Board 89- 14 -DR: 62nd Ave Apts STAFF REPORT to the VICINITY /SITE INFORMATION 89- 14 -DR: 62nd Ave Apts B.A.R. Page 3 FINDINGS 1. Project Description. The proposed project contains a total of 20 structures: 6 are three -story which house 72 apartment units, 13 are one -story garages containing parking for 70 vehicles, and the remaining structure is a one -story recreation building containing an outdoor swimming pool, lounge, restrooms, kitchen, office and exercise room. The project also includes additional parking for 80 vehicles, landscaping areas, retaining walls and rockeries, and a storm water runoff control system. 2. Existing Land Use: The existing site is vacant. 3. Surrounding Land Use: North: Condominiums ( Sunwood, Phases I & II) East: Condominiums ( insert name) South: Single family residence, office structure West: Apartments (North Hills) 4. Terrain: The site contains a general slope of 5:1 with portions approaching 2.5:1. The site drops approximately 50 -60 feet in elevation from the north to the south property lines. A more detailed description of the site characteristics are contained in the geotechnical report (from Associated Earth Sciences, Inc., dated November 17, 1989). 5. Vegetation: Most of the site has been stripped of original vegetation at sometime in the past. Site now contains mostly blackberry, scrub alder, and small evergreens. 6. Soils: The site contains a mixture of fill and natural soils with the natural soils containing fine to medium sand with some gravel. The site also contains bedrock. An extensive geotechnical report (from Associated Earth Sciences, Inc., dated November 17, 1989) is contained in the file. STAFF REPORT to the 89- 14 -DR: 62nd Apts B.A.R. Page 4 7.Access to the site is from 62nd Avenue private road (Sunwood Drive). 8.Public Facilities: The site is served utilities. BACKGROUND A.The project has vested for purposes of the Design Review approval and Building Permit (and associated permits) and is exempt from the City's Sensitive Area Moratorium. B.The subject property for this project was originally to become Phase III of the Sunwood development and is the only remaining land area originally proposed as part of the total Sunwood project. The original development plans were submitted in November, 1989 C.The applicant agreed to meet with the Staff on numerous occasion and based upon the environmental and design review revised the plans and resubmitted (June 13, 1990). DECISION CRITERIA South via a 30 -foot wide The applicable Tukwila Municipal Code (TMC) criteria are listed below in bold, followed by pertinent findings of fact. 18.60.050 GENERAL REVIEW CRITERIA by all urban public (1) Relationship of Structure to Site. a. The site should be planned to accomplish a desireable t- ransition with streetscape and to provide for adequate landscaping and pedestrian movement. b. Parking and service areas should be located, designed and screened to moderate the visual impact of large paved areas. c. The height and scale of each building should be considered in relation to the site. The development plans have placed the three story structures away from the northern perimeter and downhill on the site to protect views of the perimeter Sunwood condominiums. This placement requires the parking areas to be on the north side of the units. STAFF REPORT to the 89- 14 -DR: 62nd Ave Apts. B.A.R. Page 5 All required zoning code perimeter setbacks have been met. Although most of the building are approximately a minimum of twenty feets of separation, 5 feet separates the edge of the balcony on building E to the north wall of building F. The Staff recommends that northwest corner of building E be further modified to reduce the proposed distance between it and building F. See Condition i.e. All proposed building heights comply with the zoning code height limitation. To improve fire access to the site, a portion of the designated recreation area east of building A (adjoining Sunwood Drive) will be paved with "Turfstone" or some hard surface material. This material provides a hard surface for the vehicles while allowing grass to grow through it and soften the appearance of the hard surface. (2)Relationship of Structure and Site to Adjoining Area. a. Harmony on texture, lines and masses is encouraged. b. Appropriate landscape transition to adjoining properties should be provided. c. Public buildings and structures should be consistent with established neighborhood character.w d. Compatibility of vehicular pedestrian circulation patterns and loading facilities in terms of safety, efficiency and convenience should be encouraged. e. Compatibility of on -site vehicular circulation with should be encouraged. The three -story (12 unit) structures (two stories + basement) are compatible with the multifamily and condominium development on adjoining properties. The selection of cedar siding and stucco is consistent with the existing exterior materials used on the existing Sunwood condominiums and complimentary to the residential units on the west and east. (3) Landscaping and Site Treatment. a. Where existing topographic patterns contribute to beauty and utility of a development, they should be recognized, preserved and enhanced. b. Grades of walks, parking spaces, terraces and other paved areas should promote safety and provide an inviting and stable appearance. c. Landscape treatment should enhance architectural features, strengthen vistas and important axis, and provide shade. STAFF REPORT to the 89- 14 -DR: 62nd Ave Apts B.A.R. Page 6 d. In locations where plants will be susceptible to injury by pedestrian or motor traffic, mitigating steps should be taken. e. Where building sites limit planting, the placement of trees or shrubs in paved areas is encouraged. f. Screening of service yards, and other places which tend to be unsightly, should be accomplished by use of walls, fencing, planting or combination. g. In areas where general planting will not prosper, other materials,such as fences, walls and pavings of wood, brick, stone or gravel may be used. h. Exterior lighting, when used, should enhance building design and the adjoining landscape. Lighting standards and fixtures should be of a design and size compatible with the building and adjacent area. Lighting should be shielded, and restrained in design. Excessive brightness and brilliant colors should be avoided. The following response is divided into five areas of discussion: retaining walls, open space /recreation areas; landscaping; walkways; and exterior lightin. Retaining Walls. The proposal contains six retaining walls, four of them on the sites perimeter and two internal. The existing slopes together with the required open space have eliminated the design option of providing access on both sides of the apartment buildings allowing covered parking under the units and less surface parking. Providing all surface parking together with the placement of buildings away from the northern perimeter has created the need for slightly higher retaining walls than might otherwise have been necessary. The retaining wall plans show the use of architectural modulation (horizontally as well . as vertically) and incorporate the use of glass block with concrete. The modulation is effective in mitigating the appearance of the walls. Except for retaining wall "A" (located on the southwest corner of the site) and retaining wall "F" adjoining the recreation center, the Staff is satisfied with the design of the retaining walls. The Staff believes retaining wall "A" will be the most visible from across the valley. The staff recommends this retaining wall should be redesigned to either lower it or soften its appearance with the use of landscaping placed in front of it. See Condition l.a. STAFF REPORT to the 89- 14 -DR: 62nd Ave Apts B.A.R. Page 7 For retaining wall "F" adjoining the recreation center, the Staff recommends terracing or "stepping down" the curved portion of the retaining wall facing south (towards Building A). For the portion of the retaining wall facing east (towards Building F), some berming or otherwise modification of the finish grade in front of the curved portion is recommended. See Conditions 1.b. and 1.c. Also, the Mitigated Determination of Non - Significance requires the applicant to darken the walls to mitigate the impact of the normal light color of the concrete. Open Space /Recreation Areas. The proposed recreation center building includes an outdoor swimming pool and spa, lounge (and kitchen), exercise room for on -site recreation needs. The required area for open space is 14,000 square feet. The proposed plans provide approximately 27,000 square feet. However, except for landscaping in the required recreation areas, no equipment for passive use (e.g. benches, picnic tables) of the areas have been provided. Landscaping. The proposed landscaping meets the Zoning code requirements. The proposed plans show an effevtive use of plant material, using evergreen species on the perimeter and where trees would interfere or block view, instead suitable shrubs have been employed. The proposed landscape plan utilizes rhododendron species to soften the appearance of the base of the buildings at finish grade. To further reinforce the separation of buildings B and C; C and D, the Staff recommends the applicant provide additional landscaping to enhance the massing between the respective buildings. See Condition 3.c. Walkways. A four -foot wide on -site pedestrian walkway connection tthe public sidewalk along 62nd Ave South is provided for buildings B, C and D. Also the pedestrian walkway along buildings E and F connects to the sidewalk along the north side of Sunwood Drive. Building A, however, does not have a designated walkway connecting ultimately to a public sidewalk. 89-14-DR: 62nd Ave Apts B.A.R. Page 8 STAFF REPORT to the No internal walkways are proposed to connect buildings A, B, C and D with the recreation center. Walking to the center would require walking on the driving surfaces or landscape areas. For safety and convenience, the staff recommends such a walkway system be provided. See Condition 1.d. Exterior Lighting. Exterior lighting for the development consists of three types: fixtures with cut -off features mounted atop twenty foot standards in the parking areas; fixtures with cut -off features mounted on the recreation building; and fixtures with cut -off features mounted on the backside of the garages for the interior walkways. No exterior lighting is shown for any project or individual building identification signs. See Condition 5. Low -level lighting should be included for those portions of the walkways not adjoining the garages and the recommended additional walkways. See Condition 5. Signing. The proposed plans do not include a sign plan for project identification or the individual buildings. See Condition 4. (4) Building Design. a. Architectural style is not restricted, evaluation of a - project should be based on quality of its design and relationship to its surroundings. b. Buildings should be to appropriate scale and in harmony with permanent neighboring developments. c. Building components - such as windows, doors, eaves, and parapets should have good proportions and relationship to one another. Building components an ancilliary parts shall be consistent anitcipated life of the structure. d. Colors should be harmonious, with bright or brilliant colors used only for accent. e. Mechanical equipment or other utility hardware on roof, ground or buildings should be screened from view. f. Exterior lighting should be part of the architectural c- oncept. Fixtures, standards, and all exposed accessories should be harmonious with building design. 89- 14 -DR: 62nd Ave Apts B.A.R. Page 9 STAFF REPORT to the g. Monotony of design in single or multiple buildings projects should be avoided. Variety of detail, form and siting should be used to provide visual interest. Proposed exterior materials for the project include asphalt shingles, cedar siding, stucco, anodized aluminum windows, and aluminum railings. The proposed color scheme for the project includes medium dark for ashalt shingles; light to medium natural stain for cedar siding; medium beige paint for the stucco; bronze for windows; and green for railings. Although the building footprints are identical, the use of gables break up the roof lines and allow modulation of the individual facades. Those features together with the balconies and the use of both cedar siding and stucco give variety to the buildings. A porous paving material (grasscrete is specified) providing a hard surface, but allowing grass to grow through portions allowing a softer appearance next asphalt paving for the parking area and a trellis are combined to strengthen the visual character of the main entries into the units. (5) Miscellaneous Structures and Street Furniture. a. Miscellaneous structures and street furniture should be designed to be part of the architectural concept of des ign and landscape. Materials shoud be compatible with buildings, scale should be appropriate, colors should be in harmony with buildings and surroundings, and proportions should be to scale, b. Lighting in connection with miscellaneous structures and street furniture should meet the guidelines applicable to the site, landscape and buildings. All residential buildings (6) have a dumpster location with paved access to it. The recreation center, however, does not have a dumpster location provided. All dumpsters are enclosed and immediately abut garage structures. Where possible the dumpster locations have perimeter landscaping provided. No mailbox locations are shown on plans. See Condition 3.d. No utility (electrical /gas) meter locations are shown on plans. See Condition 3.b. STAFF REPORT to the B.A.R. CONCLUSIONS 89- 14 -DR: 62nd Ave Apts Page 10 A. The height and scale of the proposed building are consistent with other adjoining residential structures. The project as conditioned provides a desireable transition to the streetscape; provides adequate landscaping and pedestrian movement. B. The proposed project as conditioned provides appropriate landscape transition to adjoining properties and the exterior design is harmonious with the adjoining properties. C. The proposed project as conditoned respects the existing topography; and makes good use of a variety of plant material providing the proper screening of dumpster enclosures and parking lots, softening the massing of proposed three -story structures, and enhancing natural and architectural features. D. The proposed project provides a good quality development; appropriate scale of buildings with existing adjoining development; respects the views of adjoining properties; and avoids monotony. E. The proposed assessory structures are compatible with the overall architectural theme. F. The development plans contain minor areas where design revision are necessary. These areas are addressed in the form of condition contained in the recommentations section of theis report. G. The project complies with the requirements of the zoning code. Staff Report To The B.A.R. RECOMMENDATIONS 89 -17 -DR page 11 The Planning Staff recommends approval of the Design Review application for the 62nd Avenue South Apartments subject to the following conditions: Prior to the issuance of a Grading Permit, the applicant must submit for review and approval the following: 1. The applicant shall submit appropriate revised plans for review and approval of the Staff for the following: a. Redesign retaining wall "A" so that the wall is lower or soften it appearance by the use of landscaping in front of it. b. Redesign retaining wall "F" (curved portion facing south) so that it "steps down" the hill and incorporates additional plantings. c. Redesign finish grade in front of portion of retaining wall "F" (curved portion facing east) so that impact of wall is reduced. d. Provide designated internal walkway (minimum of three -feet width) which connects buildings A, B, C and D with the recreation center. Note: this will also provide a designated walkway for building A to connect with public sidewalk on 62nd Ave South. e. Move building B west to allow for more distance (approximately 30 feet) between buildings B and C. 2. All dumpster enclosures must provide for recycling bins as well as trash containers. Modifications to dumpster enclosures must be reviewed and approved by Staff and must be compatible with the approved architectural theme for the project. 89- 14 -DR: 62nd Ave Apts B.A.R. Page 12 STAFF REPORT to the Prior to the issuance of a Building Permit, the applicant must submit for review and approval the following: 3. The applicant shall submit appropriate revised plans for . review and approval of the Staff for the following: a. Modify northwest corner of building E (B units) to further reduce distance from building F. b. Utility meter locations must be reviewed and approved by Staff. Some locations may require screening with either an architectural or landscaping treatment. c. Provide additional large evergreen trees to enhance and increase the landscaping mass between buildings B and C; buildings C and D; and on the east side of building. A. d. Provide details for the location of mailboxes for units. If gang mailboxes are used details shall include location, materials, and color. 4. All signing or lighting for signing for project must be compatible with the approved architectural theme for the project. South Center Associates 911 5th Avenue Kirkland, WA 98033 Re: 62nd Avenue Apartments L pR 1 1990 C1 � Y Attention: Mr. Bill Jeude, managing partner 1 1 \April 4, 1990 4 Dear Mr. Jeude: In February, we had an architect and landscape architect visit your site with Mr. Hunt, reviewing the lay of the land and your proposed project design. Their observations are as follows: 1) Roger Newell's design is competent as far as it goes; however, as a designer, his "signature style" Is what he would probably call "clean ". Many of us who would live next to it, however, would call it "boring ". The architect indicated that this particular style, particularly the use of flat roofs and the minimal use of detailing on a group of identical buildings set in the same orientation, is a substantial departure from both designs present in Sunwood. It is somewhat less of a departure from the Sunwood I buildings with stucco finish, west of Sunwood Boulevard. 2) The buildings are less modulated and have less visual interest than either Sunwood I or II. The materials and finish quality and the amount of modulation of surfaces would be higher than the Gencor apartments to the west, though less than Sunwood Phase I or II buildings. 3) The layout is very stark, with identical buildings all oriented in the same direction, and with extensive use of retain- ing walls which could result in recontouring virtually the entire site. Your plans show some 1830 lineal feet of free - standing retaining walls and new rockeries, plus over 1000 lineal feet of foundations containing substantial cut or fill; in all, over a half mile of retaining walls. This shows little sensitivity to terrain and leaves little if any natural ground surface. More important than the concern this causes us for the stability of the slopes and the aesthetics of a radically re- sculpted hillside, this appears to go directly counter to the City of Tukwila's objectives in designating the site as a part of a Hillside Sensitive Area. Preservation of the natural landform, or indeed virtually any natural aspect of the site, is not reflected in your proposed design. We assume that the City has noted this, and hope their comments reflect these same policies. 4) The terracing of the site and the maximum density leave little landscaping area. The design will tear out most of the existing trees, including a 36" maple tree at the northeast ATTACHMENT A Sunwood III - Plans review April 4, 1990 - Page two corner and the numerous pines and firs along the common boundary. At least two large cuts in the existing landscaped median would also be required; the plans do not show what trees would be lost. 5) We assume that the landscaping plan which you have submitted is merely conceptual; if it is not, we would find it very unsatisfactory. The planting plan indicates trees at 20' to 30' on center, and indicates driplines of 25' -30' in diameter. This seems to be both very sparse and misleading as to the spread or effective screening mass of the vegetation, which could be achieved even within a reasonable number of years after instal- lation. No installed tree sizes are indicated. Though Sunwood's landscaping has had the benefit of a decade of growth, it was installed with much greater density and substantial size. In addition to retaining and enhancing usable open space around the buildings, Sunwood also retained the . landform of the central knoll in its natural state, as forested open space at the top of the hill, theough as a consequence of retaining this natural area and landform, density is substan- tially reduced. We conclude that the proposed landscaping does not come anywhere near reflecting the standard of Sunwood, and feel that it would be unlikely to adequately screen the large expanses of retaining walls and the regraded surfaces of the balance of the site. 6) We feel that pitched .roofs would provide a visual improvement, especially on the buildings east of Sunwood Boulevard and close to us on the West. This may result in some additional blockage of views into the Kent Valley from the lowest units from Sunwood's Building C. However, about 40% of your building roof width would have mechanical enclosures blocking the level line of sight in any case, which your site sections do not indicate. 7) The slope below Buildings C and D should not be cut back to a barren retaining wall for parking, removing all of the trees in this transition area. The wall is 8 to 13 feet high below Building C. A slight "bend" in the layout could accommodate the trees and natural slope, and give the buildings adjacent more variety in orientation following the slope. We will also be directly interested in how you intend to construct and support these substantial walls on our property line. 8) The City has, we understand, indicated to you that they intend to require fire -truck turning areas at the ends of all the cul -de -sacs on the site. Our architect felt that these could substantially alter your design. We are therefore waiting to see how your architect responds to this before commenting on particu- lar aspects of the site density and layout. Pending review of your modifications to the design pursuant to the City's recommendations, we would summarize our review and Sunwood III - Plans review April 4, 1990 - Page three recommendations, which you requested at our last meeting, as: 1. Add pitched roofs to all buildings. 2. Add building modulation and detailing, plus color schemes reflecting Sunwood's wood - exterior buildings, in at least those two buildings north and east of the entry road. 3. Orient the same two buildings to follow the edge of the existing slope, with the parking area at the same line, pulling them away from the toe of the existing slope at the common boundary; this should save most existing vegetation and eliminate the major retaining wall. An attempt might be made to save the big maple, but it may die from th.e disturbance anyway. 4. Reduce the length of Building "E" so that it may be pulled up the slope, reducing or eliminating the 6 -9' retaining wall at the corner. Put low plantings on the slope below, except where high foundation walls need to be screened. The two buildings in this area, above the Boulevard, are the most critical to relate architecturally to Sunwood's buildings directly above. 5. Concentrate major tree screens and other plantings (greater installed density and substantial installed size) along the south and west sides of the entry roads. If it is difficult for your architect to more closely reflect Sunwood's architectural style, then perhaps intensive plantings can be used to "disassociate" the apartment buildings below the Sunwood road. They might then relate visually as a transition between the Gencor apartments and Sunwood Buildings A and B. 6. Additional recreation area should be provided on the site, as your group has expressed no interest in participating in the existing Sunwood common area main- tenance or use. The proposed area seems very small and inadequate, especially considering that most of the balance of the site would be unusable cut and fill areas. 7. Issues were discussed pertaining to the design of the entry road area, but we feel constrained to discuss this at this time, due to the filing of the lawsuit by Old Stone Bank since the review. Depending on the outcome of that suit, we would like to see a solution to the road design which fits with our overall design comments. This might include rebuilding the road to City of Tukwila base and surfacing standards, or possibly dedication to the City as a public road, with setbacks appropriate to a public road. Sunwood III - Plans review April 4, 1990 - Page four 8. Two of the five street lights will need to be removed for median cuts along with an unspecified amount of landscaping. A new median planting and lighting plan should be required. We hope that these comments are constructive and timely. It has required considerable time for us as a group of "lay" reviewers of architecture to translate our concerns into constructive design changes, with the help of additional consultants. We look forward to an opportunity to review your next design changes submitted to the City, and hope that progress is being made to a solution which the City and Sunwood's residents can support. Yours very truly, cc: City of Tukwila Planning Dept. Mr. Gary Ackerman Mr. Duncan Findley b ei/IL) Ryan S. Thrower, President Sunwood Homeowners' Assn. • u4.:166g-d i 1 a 6e4t_t: 6.. fr . afpkr a.4 CtMgii -7- •01 de-eo • k.11ED isso 111:WILA F. Dr:PT. .4t44,17 0 e cpe ate - /0.c -nee di/2v: 91.,k de.zo veva_ wiz J.lieleede) . --21e-etae. LietA VIL4 L 4 .azae) - 4,01 I e02.1..2L L-117:64 w:ca citewe e).(„ 5i e, a Wv-tc_ ale:74 ?xiwak- ..1 - ed — ATTACHMENT B C I T Y t.:r • mo tP . 60 . • ____... . . . "00 tvo &Punt-€-44.1_ li.31-0/5 _ • _ _ . _ - Ps `B , s�- �._._. .. � / GCa.. Ti�� 7FZC. {zP __. _ ���Q� AA ... 7f 7 C�CP //L TC?_ `f/L4 G�L7c.HT7tl _ 00 _ __ ___41: _/16-t atitC- _- . JLuO' Ja�t. /ZC7 -- ..._. _ma c._ ?.__luo. cA.a. _ten, ___wa£edt., cAztoe, 49tAmileze:11-_-. Nov 17 1989 11 DE GN REVIEW APPr CATION rosy= Refgrence files: ::; 1. BRIEFLY DESCRIBE YOUR PROPOSAL: the project will consist of 72 apartmenr units in six (6) two (2) story, with basements, buildings, with a recreation building and 154 parking stalls including garages. 2. PROJECT LOCATION: (Give street address or, if vacant, indicate lot(s), block, and subdivision; or tax lot number, access street, and nearest intersection) 62nd Avenue South & Sunwood Blvd. tax lot # Parcel A; 359700- 0200 -01, Parcel B; 359700-0208-03 Quarter: * Section: * Township: * Range: a *see attached legal description (This information may be found on your tax statement.) 3. APPLICANT:* Name: Southcenter Associates Phone: , 2 1 6) 8 : —906 Signature: / ^ I�� j Date: �(«f e,c, iam ,. - use,/ anaging •artner * The applicant is the .erson whom the staff will contact regarding the application, and to whom all notices and reports shall be sent, unless otherwise stipulated by applicant. 4. PROPERTY Name: Performing Income Properties, Inc. OWNER Address: Address: P.O. Box 2458, Kirkland, WA 98083 Phone: FOR STAFF Otte 911 5th Avenue, Suite 101, Kirkland, WA 98033 AFFIDAVIT OF OWNERSHIP (206, 822 -6440 I /WE,tsignature(s) Gary R. Steinvalal Pres. swear that /we ar tie "owner s or contract purchaserts) of ti property Involved in this application and that the foregoing statements and answers contained in this application are true and __ correct to the best of my /our j;i • :`;+j;;1;._.: - ; knowledge and belief. Date: �� /E,� - , i. eceipt ........ ATTACHMENT C RESPONSE: u REVIEW APPLICATION Page 2 The following criteria will be used by the BAR in Its decision - making on your proposed project. Please carefully review the criteria, respond to each cri- terion (If appropriate), and describe how your plans and elevations meet the criteria. If the space provided for response is insufficient, use extra space on last page or use blank paper to complete response and attach to this form. 5. RELATIONSHIP OF STRUCTURE TO SITE A. The site should be planned to accomplish a desirable transition with the streetscape and to provide for adequate landscaping, and pedestrian movement. B. Parking and service areas should be located, designed, and screened to moderate the visual impact of large paved areas. C. The height and scale of each building should be considered in relation to it site. RESPONSE: The transition from street . to building is accomplished through the use of landscaping and either a retaining wall or a garage, depending if the street is on the uphill or downhill side of the building. The parking areas, linear in nature, consist of a combination of garage and surface parking, and screened by landscaping to reduce the visual impact from the street. Height and scale arc moderated on the uphill elevation by the small scale garage and landscaping. On the downhill side, the moderation is accomplished by modulation of the facade, with decks and balconies and the use of landscaping. 6. RELATIONSHIP OF STRUCIURt AND SITt 1U AUJUIFIFV AKtA A. Harmony in texture, lines, and masses is encouraged. B. Appropriate landscape transition to adjoining properties should be provided. C. Public buildings and structures should be consistent with the estab- lished neighborhood character. D. Compatibility of vehicular pedestrian circulation patterns and loading facilities in terms of safety, efficiency and convenience should be encouraged. E. Compatibility of on -site vehicular circulation with street circulation should be encouraged. The buildings have the same bulk and scale as the structures on the adjoining sites. The use of landscaping and small scale structures form the transition zone. The wood facade will maintain a visual harmony with the surrounding structures. Vehicular and pedestrian circulation is separated except along Sunwood Blvd. A cut space in the median is provided to maintain two separate parking accesses, which becomes efficient and convenient for motorists. 7. LANDSCAPE AND SITE TREATMENT . SIGN REVIEW APPLICATION Page 3 A. Where existing topographic patterns contribute to beauty and utility of a development, they should be recognized and preserved and enhanced. B. Grades of walks, parking spaces, terraces, and other paved areas should promote safety and provide an inviting and stable appearance. C. Landscape treatment should enhance architectural features, strengthen vistas and important axis, and provide shade. D. In locations where plants will be susceptible to injury by pedestrian or motor traffic, mitigating steps should be taken. E. Where building sites limit planting, the placement of trees or shrubs in paved areas is encouraged. F. Screening of service yards, and other places which tend to be un- sightly, should be accomplished by use of walls, fencing, planting or combinations of these. Screening should be effective in winter and summer. G. In areas where general planting will not prosper, other materials such as fences, walls, and pavings of wood, brick, stone, or gravel may be used. H. Exterior lighting, when used, should enhance the building design and the adjoining landscape. Lighting standards and fixtures should be of a design and size compatible with the building and adjacent area. Lighting should be shielded, and restrained in design. Excessive brightness and brilliant colors should be avoided. RESPONSE: Existing topography is generally a steady roll downhill to the south. Proposed grading is primarily parallel to the existing contours to minimize slopes and promote stability. Several retaining walls arc required to balance cuts. The existing vegetation is very minimal consisting mainly of blackberry bushes and second growth shrubs. The few trees which are on the site will be retained with the exception of a 36" maple which is located on the northeast corner of the lot and would be disturbed by the proposed parking area. Also displaced would be several existing apple trees, a holly tree and a lA" cedar tree, due to proposed building C and storm sewage the the south of building C. Proposed landscaping interrupts the building mass and defines the perimeter of the parking • and access areas. This enhances the scenic views to and from the proposed project. Wheel stops are to be provided to protect landscaping adjacent to on -grade parking areas. The trash containers are to be located at the ends of the garages and to be enclosed by a wall and view - obscuring gate. 8. BUILDING DESIGN "‘:SIGN REVIEW APPLICATION Page 4 A. Architectural style is not restricted, evaluation of a project should be based on quality of its design and relationship to surroundings. • B. Buildings should be to appropriate scale and be in harmony with per- manent neighboring developments. C. Building components - such as windows, doors, eaves, and parapets - should have good proportions and relationship to one another. Building components and ancillary parts shall be consistent with anticipated life of the structure. O. Colors should be harmonious, with bright or brilliant colors used only for accent. E. Mechanical equipment or other utility hardware on roof, ground or buildings should be screened from view. F. Exterior .lighting should be part of the architectural concept. Fix- tures, standards and all, exposed accessories should be harmonious with building design. G. Monotony of in single or multiple buildings projects should be avoided. Variety of detail, form, and siting should be used to provide visual interest. RESPONSE: 8 The project is of similar bulk and scale of the adjacent project. By locating the lower building near the property line to the north, this project avoids blocking views to the project located to the north. Building depth and modulation was achieved• by layering facades while maintaining a consistent roof line. The colors were chosen to be visually compatible with the north site. Building design is a single structure, yet appears different when viewed from different positions, and relevant to different grads and axis. This prevents the appearance from being too monotonous. RESPONSE: f — FESIGN REVIEW APPLICATION ,, ' Page 5 9. MISCELLANEOUS STRUCTURES AND STREET FURNITURE A. Miscellaneous structures and street furniture should be designed to be part of the architectural concept of design and landscape. Materials should be compatible with buildings, scale should be appropriate, colors should be in harmony with buildings and surroundings, and pro- portions should be to scale. . B. Lighting in connection with miscellaneous structures and street furni- ture should meet the guidelines applicable to site, landscape and buildings. Street lighting is the same as existing at the entrance to Sunwood Blvd., and is compatible with tai developments to the north. Recreation space is provided in excess of the required including; open play area, exercise room an showers, lounge, pool and jacuzzi spa. INTERURBAN SPECIAL REVIEW DISTRICT The following six criteria are used in the special review of the Interurban area in order to manage the development of this area, to upgrade its general appear- ance, to provide incentives for compatible uses, to recognize and to capitalize on the benefits to the area of the amenities including the Green River and nearby recreational facilities, to encourage development of more people- oriented use, and to provide for development incentives that will help to spur growth. Please describe how your proposed development relates to the goals for this District. Use additional response space, if necessary. 10. The proposed development design should be sensitive to the natural amenities of the area. 11. The proposed development use should demonstrate due regard-for the use and enjoyment of public recreational areas and facilities. 27 �� 1 F 4) 4 ..\ ' • . 1 ♦; % , f • 1a1l'.1 • 1 • •W SitePlan I es d: • :4.4 yD� 1.I �C t ' T ; I. ' rte. V...e / Q } CO. Legal Description ,_ tYF .•m1. -' - . , 1.w / I j 4 rx T.n.r� *.eu r r m.. f. w. r lrr... tr wsu1..c _ I b - 1.M..sr wlr r M r 1.r .r ' r rr•...IT w.fa•rrrr. AT ( A E]un...q l 1.]r M •.•••• 1. rc..M . �' 1Trrw01.1.1.0 �oM..••••••r TIMM. -' L.1. • r Cry Co. Y •.� .I+1. ..4 Co. S..l •. • •r! tew ; ] a (; ten'. D. : 4 • �M Project Data C.1. mom Zoning Code . ... • ..w.1. IA Be* •{ _ w•1. Building Geo 1 nnamm Paw .• •1..•4./..." If •Or mul.r a. T1u. nut- Mmlrrr.4 Energy Code r•r••r..r•..arr • f ri 2001O1.6.12001O1.6.1•215, •'d 0t2001O1.6.1•215, trr roMpopp Code • rrb•. • . M/1... 41.!0.0 e M O !0.. • i .1.50.1. 501..1. ri.e 1. 1.r•• 111••••111•••••.• r . Ma. Mr ..•r• w1. s.r...r r nfo t >r rrl mor.r. ••T.r.YM /Y r. It 30 Mmmg r r f.. 1. morn. MOM .4.1. C•n•T •.t , r rlt.mMl. �•� MGM.. . T . 1.M 4.rirl M rr. r xmmrr or M lw.Mtrrmr Cry•SAM. some .M.. 10 r/{.. I4 r.11m 1.11. +.ry. L.0. 1. r Cm r T.... c..• n..1. ../.tea • .M.r.•r.S.•..E Srrr f m •••••■•••■••••••••••■ • Irfa...rr.rr•Mpr 1.14 • rr.r++o.•ry..r...Or I ] re m . wn C. a1.A.. - 540 IOrcOhMbfi ••L - 005 101••pN• 110301.1 r.o:,.r o 2. C. 4ex 4. D • MD 0110 _ r �.PK 7 1/ C *,. Tl.^.... ^ .;POW -AT /Mr1 Construction Notes T.e.�r 1..r .r 1.r .1 Am +1..1.1rrru.r�r•ualsm 1... ppTATi CAOUSAdS Co. M.... r F a M...Or r ••41.x• .. . •.r• .w.I rC..rr..rr...+.1. •.•'4 1.r '"' ..M.....r.r..T .r..... Toon ere AO -- ••• CM..... 0.1.1....n r. .r... OT M CC210 R M . O 11 l!•1.( /O• O PROA COM10C MA 1..( II O. POT C tI00 MAMA M( Canna CI CO •ti•YCT10.. r Cr... 1.r•... moons. 1.0.01.1 p.m mop. NO a.rmr M r r.... r...1.. f..1.. r f•... O.wm trOiOtt oe *pa .l1. m......•• 1...1.4•• C.M .r/rt.rn .•.rr. is we ..ram rr.r1 mow • 1. r C.rrr r r.. r 1. ly 501....7 r 1.1....•.Y r •srr mo no A songr.r.rror rN..y. or 1.r 1. .1..50. M .•.r r swam. . M.•..v •r.r ..w..1.r.111.. .•r r ..O..Mr mesa .Or w. 1.a •w1.. Area Calculations 11* � Comt Tam 1 ...N Io ;e IrC. a`. Tad XI It .lot an° 1]M .1 • 9 a1 In Soros . LoPT .10 0..... . Tor•. . 4 1.m o MOS O•m• Canome loe I•1.. Yoe Mow t� NY ]•u mu 1.•41 AMMO. Ian ST 3 I 1 5' LANDSCAPE SETBACK (TYP 7 178 17 17 1/ : I 17 168 . 164 166 N 8825'27" W - EM ER GEN ACCESS 150.00' -. . . EXISTING CURB (TYP) 8' BUILDING SETBACK (TYP) scale, yr- r-o• FFI C TONS 76 NEW CORB - EDPaitial Plan A EXISTING EDGE OF SIDEWALK h 0 4111.111157 .Tyke I Garage UILDI t C WES EXISTING CURB (TYP) EXISTING EDGE OF SIDEWALK (TYP) EXISTING ROCKERY (TYP) FIRST F 16 1 88 1735 4 ng I ---- --- 16 SCALE 1 8 295.86' • Bung • RETAINING WALL D EBParial Plan B sca 0 m z -I 0 Buiking 7? F FIRST F F = 16.7 BSMT = _164 • 162 1 4 4e, 60 173.5 16 -- 1 A6s A6 — A5 0 \ a,6 TP111 Plan D • I- 144 REMIN1NG• WALL C 1 ■411 1 .1.1111 I LLI 150 7 48 146 A42 I 140 138 a rq NOB 1 13 0 1 28 40: _. O 8 16 sate r' - e Bu :ng \ \ _ ST FPN =i 13Ek8 . BSM FFF \ I - \ N 128 - 126- 124 N RETAINING WALL A cP 1 � • § 1 Bu4ng • FIRST FF t 142.5 BS 133.7 � L 7 Partia � I Plan E • e. 141.65' 4 1 46 7 •'' • Fandabdn / — F E I 7. r RST FF = 142.5 SMT FF = 131.7 Z N 88'24'47" W Z / 1 50 II Garage 1�$ 0 6 /6 SCAM 8 ---S 88'24'A-7 E / ) B1.- ' i 1541' 0 - 130 / , EXISTING C\1 05 X r?-) �RET WALL B Emit r /8'-P -Q EDGE OF SIDEWALK (TYP) EXISTING CURB (TYP) ®Partial Plan F ti — 136 134 1 32 -- 130 —1 - 28 © 1 26. — 124 — 1 22 120 1 MOS 2 easement Plan/First Floor Frarniqg scaiveur=r Foundation Plan licalst/r=1*-47 Buildings A,B,C,D & F . W. 42. tb•se . .. .V.. ,..... •••.' W.. 1...0 1 t..* WV s 4 - ii 0 • 14 SO' - i-■ ji . e.:•' 47.o.v I /' S I Fr i f • IF • I 1 0 - t . IL° • ! ! r II I I • 1 -/ v.) L 1 I , I , ii . L r - : I 1 1 I 1 L . ir • 11 r I. _ .. ; ; ; • ; I. I , L _ - 9 • 'r _ L - 10_1 t = . a 0 m r fq r; tT .•••4 4I 1 1.• 1 - • • • ••1‘.. 1 V.' 1 440 . 4,4e • • • • • • • 4. _ _ .• • f 4 Second Floor Plan/Roof Framing sagicur=r-o• 44:•• 4 , . , ••• iSV •••‘••• •...7 4 4: a . \ -14 • -. 1 . • T. - - i \ i- ; , . I ...T.' il ..-.. ........, ,.,...• ...,./ ; 0 1. . 0 . ,....,„,i• i .a. r , 4:41......i.i.4i 1 s i Itr ' VF I I • Find Floor Plan/Second Filjclf Framing Scalc l/r.1 , 0* Buildings A,B,C,D & F .4f- 4 I • I • L ti ••1; 44 .4; • 4 • ,,4••• •-.4c 4•Nr.:44•• • • • , ' L . if pH, Oa* Basement Plan/First Floor Fiamkg scr1nr-r-4? 1.2 : .1%SW • --q.t.).* r 4. e,(11 lg. won vr.r-r _ . , _ - li• : r - -7- - 7/ i 1 1 __ _--• `■, 1 : 1 i L i : - I 1 1 i I • ... /4.4 i 1 i 1 1 1 I I I I , % ii L _ I i r _ _ — -I L — — , I I I I I . I - ' I / I _ r i i ' l - - r - Iii i il 'I -1 - ' - I C ' I 47- f-- - ' I ' I 1 t 1 . 1 _- — 1 L. , - I I i •i : -. 1 , ; I I . . t -; i r - t I I, I , , , , 1 t .... ...! .... . .4 • • • • ,9 ; : 1 , ! .1 : I I I,: I I I -4 4__I. ; ; ; ; -: : d i r 1 hi _, 1 ..1''''''''''''r .- - - - -, ., - L - - I 1 I I 1 1 I I •r•.:4' j t•s: . 1 , ,r--- .......„ - i • 1 ae 1 ■ L 1 ..4„, ...... JAI.: *tit It. 4' 4, •v+v -4 Building E 10 Nal Second Floor Plan /Roof Framing Scalia /rwr-Ce .ter. fit:: .: ,'r , 6 . *fill 101 7.41 ; ia• e.. 1 . 2 , 6111 . 11 !VI' s:iy,. s: Fist Floor Plan /Secant! Floor Framing Gals r =rte Building E I II )11R OQY�fu 01 I a b 3 1• a l! °L 11 .w V M It yn L q li F\T' .w narls A v,L o,1L R A ldo,*, l ',NNi � f f. • 0 o: tr. • o•a • gt Y p.. kl - - _ =_== r„a ,v•n - .. ,c 'p. sr• ,s ..o 1 I- Y i w ATTACHMENT P IA YA uYl f r rrrr.w.nrrirm� it . 'o r •! u a // liis} Hap!! ° !e ;� i�t ° -gi 7, iita !i! �l i 3tli• i i ' t 9 i q t . Iii ;a d t ' i'a _; l intilir Iii 1;111 -,1111 tic 1 + itt !t =i! -!ii 1 a -- ' d 1 Offilili ,i'd ii x i! H d i 7! { �'d !� "Dili Iii ;11` , ij -t it{ ,i : ii! id; it LI d i ii ifv to"! i ip Q Q� i, jIiiuhit 1 , I ir ! i t j t ij! 1,,,. ,d 1 1 1, !!_ it ip' A i 1 i 1 /1 .• s T i t+ 1 111 i 1 _i na! 1 n i j$ a _Z l j� i. .._7 a Yi !Limit {�! � ;� 'ii� 3l tl? :ja;t iil �!'ii ;i; 7' i ti ii it '; Ill ! ' a 1 ! i! l�i�' ji li � �rl ; i �i; 1;11 ;11 il;= a -'ai E'I Iii I i =1' ii ij i 7 i 1 E i ii I Wilt i 4+ 'j �• iitt tiII;h Al .E i 4 a i t3 4 i {t ! ] " a$$ ' ] ! 6 ;{ t ! is ! u ,,y. 3q, iii 1111 t!.• - 1S[ o i II! pi 1 ! a } M`1i 1 y !pQ ! t °{ i Y !1 �i g 3 i !� i lip ='i! 3yi1 l �it� l lta #=a aid '1��i I ;�17t 7 • S lids � �� jnF 1111111 3„111 ;i �9 i7 ;�9 _ u dt {t,! Dili i ii t xid !i {i 1 iiA i 1 it yy n rd !ii , { t � i J! i 1!i i i ii,i, 7 i � a, 1'i {, ;!7 i O i �b� 'ii ; 3 it_ '�! 7 i'iidaagg it ��� a t ! l i t Y7 s1 g� n 9 $ ;d i a t t �' �d , il l; 7 717 !i •. i p i ' 1 7 t +�, 7 b7j i � , dt n t. �l�g j I !# l " 1 111 y l '! I - . d i i i �1 E 1 1 ! i + 7- 9 1I P If i b.{ i , ;ii t I � l e ad : 111 = !!1 !° 01 'b' .7y "! a! . ,,� i4 Ih . !! Y .. 1x11111 rx t�li _ j :l9�d� . �j a.1�lt.t7�:1.:.« . i . #. f ATTACHMENT R lir ' it 1 V , WNW .1.11.11.1,1yeell I. I ATTACHMENT S MONO be* •N .ti �.M g ..:iNgimt:215fignif ■U 11 T II �j I I I 11 II II 11 INMeMlftrIONDINI ATTACHMENT T f II sta ..I .f t.II III AN I�u - ■ I ■ NI MN ■I it II V wit I TO ATTACHMENT U gnaw* I. 61.11 M. .r. fir It I .1 II I I IN 4 •■•••6•11c1Noon ATTACHMENT V MIL • ..' _II "EN III 1111 � Q �I � li :_. .. UM Ell Mill • III tall u' I II IUI _ mi r .. li ,I I II -� II I W tit 03 I ATTACHMENT W 3.1'47.=.2 4.• 11. I Is L Mk t_ UNE NNW II NM 1•11EL ;74 J... • - • • Or* • I'l 0.! Fe I I 1 • I z ■11116.1.1M NOM, %POMO IN Li- ATTACHMENT X I Party Wall Assembly 2 .0. 1 .. VOW smog we woo lc 0 oglooggiagogarioggiongolgog• W DC ...agog 1.00 g go. roote Mows goo sgmoomogolo olodrolg goo brealmermlid.• maw NrOC. Wow.* go wog. 110.11.110.57C gI,OO © party Floor Assembly Goo mil bworp/sworthwavrea.m.m. immeger-TIGO0*.powrImme 14.10MAIN.FIlarmS•Vilirev.• INCIM1.01~.1-(2C 5■•••••■••■e* doom 11411.1.11MY Exterior Wall Assembly go Orgoe COM.. rol Ogg ors on posimann OM al Ws.11 Onagoomir er glosoe • 0 - ( .0 Deck Assambly pparly•10•SWO111se.....r. Mow. Nowerturp.la asamogyrwlwaw,...{ft aler. r vow.: unem.... 0 Concreta Slab at Garage roMMOOMINIII•larp.1.141.1011”1110■111.. MOIR.100.1.10000..1.1.1111.1.1.1., eft 0211111.110,10%,0101■■•■ © • Interior 'Bearing Wall .. troc nil • 13UILDING/GARAGE SECTION S.4t Vg It t)t '- Ct u tir i l "rvi n Perspective of Entry .4 ! • tetoli* ' s;• 6 ,3 % .. _ ________ • • iSIDE ELEVATIONS MIT ELEVATION 1=mm-a .R ELEVATION /- 1 Vt'llk i MeV,* = BOOR LAN Typical Entry Plan ••• 60.,61 1 • ' ' • • AR?, is ,.\ 1 .Ae ' .•)•) ••', I 1 1 4= / I 1 ! I ral ••■• .14•1•4, II i i 'T• : I t . 1 it Al -- - 1 . e 1 , 4.0 f • , , 1._ • 11 , ••.! l. Ai -**-4 70111, , L A d. .0,11■ 1, • • 4.....••••--.• b S r pI ATTACHMENT AA .Y 11 .41 7rw ►,w ~row . E: l� J ' I II I • 1I I C', . • • • iI J d 1 1 i • I i 4 T • II .' I T I 1 I I I. I. 3 ATTACHMENT `BB If 1 1 1 1 I i 1 I ■■ I 1 I I 1 110VO 8 g ATTAcHmENT.cc....••••••:-. N-t{-{ {j" b 4.41.111 I € _ Olt •••••7. - 1_1. , ', ,y ;1 I L� r i . , 1 1' . / Y!: s e rg p .a 1;1 lit L R R $ _ • MS 3AV PuZ9 1 ; " ..01 41,0gab y 1 • �. .-.1— S _.. ■ fl.i N 1. ._■,. , , \ , I \I \\ i y � • .N A'.M r• 3 •Mo aroma ATTACHMENT DD . 2 a 2 Cd f l @Typical 8 car garage lb • @Typical 5 car garage • . Garage Floor Plans Scale 1/13 " L _ • @Typical 4 car garage @TYpical I car garage @Typical 3 car garage @Typical 2 car garage Ii 2 e South Elevation South Elevation _17 w.e • ■••••• South Elevation To4 1. .1. - H Retaining Wall A j Retaining Wall 3 I I ; .r1 4%1 t • Retaining Wall El - o- • ; • 1:4 i; --70;7 '1C.6.. 4 4 1.1.... • 11....V Any. -2-=P-t ' t vr :r aeva7"rial .... ' ( Z3 :74./4 ••■• .41. •tp-rio •41. I J ii41 .w4wr. An YO2C20 '11, ••,;•,4 . 4i0 k ,, ,,-,A • 4.4 soh.. 1=771 rt..4.ifvd 1.1 C.0 - • 4■ 4 1.2 Us 11.1 b • IS .-,a, •:-, 1;41 w2U1•14 ■ — 4 :;:1 111 -:... SW .7:4 .1714 , 412UqW.‘450111 0 . " , C.f. - .1r,*.4 CO4 .e.,-e-1.1.. rwo. saia4eit:/aW1 7 - 7 ' ■•••• y;Cte;.1 n=V 0 ,-.....,; .,L .14 _4.-; 114,2f171.rd 7:1• 4.-Kantenill .1.14.7 OD 4 .../ 7 P- 21 - nil I.NIG's; IT). ,....., 1:', 00, 1.. - G,..hcsiexs , a1 '----- I ';■•7 l;4 1 •. - isoys./ it as , ....act. ..".. • --v-tt-..4. )..2411 UW11 4.4•711.I. 14 , Vr1.41•10.4 • •-• e Isom., 4s av scralir C• .:-..x.• W. fl 4oelv7.-Pe 4Nss•1 t • / 4114 o-, 1•41•1 AVII• rrt ..nmd '?'%' ow ,ffl 9exl iftwrirrY Ner.w4h1 .Now.soi. w1w1+ salA, • "14.1•A' ,. :Z. 1 1 1 11":•71.*. 4::.....g-ra 0 ., ir. OW l V c f7, NOW 9,i. .,.... ,,,,,,,,, .- - 9.4 1.n.cp ..1 i'dow iwn rol.r..-4,1 saw "7. el 5 A TLIYOOSSY 110178101 1114 MI ft =Mar • . Ft • ON•01•1•1= r _ c•s,wil - 15 4.4 I..' 1.2.4 w 10 Clvwst I. 0114d W•ns... •lits4;• Wsn • =IWO W 94 401. t•e1.1 ' WNW •s•VS• • elksr• r. • kaila.lcvasW ...v.1:4ALTrAt4 .-11•N9MS•741 Ct.TI 121 4.44-07/2 ,4.4t.<,011 ON3011 MON •V CZ5- 4. awl, - • 3 .6.4 _ iT 1111". .' - J Cal4 I I I I 16111‘ vs Alb. d:1_911- t Cte ;Apo 1!? tee OCI cs2 ' 7.1.11.1 I I 1 .4 -1 6 467.!' • • si• • AS At £1 s -■•••••Wl ATTACHMENT GG q 210 200 190 180 170 162.75 160 • 150 147.5 140 138.75 130 130.0 120 110 100 156.25 F 0 F F U U NAN 1z nN AI iNG i■,■O 3 Ni ni Sri No 171.4 162.65 153.9 - EXISTING GRADE 0 F e b 3 oi 186.65 J 18015 / \ I1.1. ' r.• Fili • ' ACS • cur CUT A RR1sG 210 200 192.25 190 185.75 cur • 180 177.0 170 160 150 140 130 120 110 100 0 20 40 SCALE: 1' = 20 PRELIMINARY PLANS 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ° = m N ° � N n FINISHED GRADES SUBJECT TO O N f CO ° CO • ° 0 N N N N 0 n n • n ADJUSTMENT PRIOR TO FINAL SUBMITTAL TO CITY OF TUKWILA 02 189268kS77EPLN.OWC SECTION A —A 62nd AVE S APARTMENTS 62nd AVE S & SUNW0OD BLVD, TUKWILA, WA °R//T 62nd AVE SW LTD PTN 911 5th AVE KIRKLAND, WA 98033 822 -6440 No. DATE BY APR NEVX Ft 194 MORS 101 WOO 111-MIRIMMI DS D. R. STRONG e.nwn. &, r w* Ma 16.1 K Ma NM 471 .0 ■•••.t •■ 1,433 N>3N N,,., 0/fJg NN RS • PLANNERS • a RvEYORS ••• ,o X 0 05, :;w CRAM TSN DATE 21- YAY -90 mama P. 892689 04E0cEO SCARE NNAR: N• - or .at r - NOSNEEr 2 or 4 4 210 • 200 190 180 170 160 150 140 130 120 110 100 164,95 — 158145 --I 149.7 1322 — NICEST SECTION C—C 62nd AVE S APARTMENTS 62nd AVE S k SUN WOOD BLVD, TUKWILA, WA • FILL • PARKING • . FILL . nIl CUT . • PROPOSED FINISHED•GRADE • STING GRADE 188.65 182.15 -7— 173.4 CLIENT 62nd AVE SW LTD PTN 911 5th AVE KIRKLAND, WA 98033 822-6440 No STORM DETENTION PIPE SEE SECTION 8-13 o ? 0 to o o 8 0 0 .7 0 0 0 0 0 •P 0 0 ID 0 0 N 0 t 0 0 0 EN ? 40 C N to LO a N N N N N N n n n n n REMSON OINK NIR No MOM RD 1,411.0. RM. Dell1101 DATE Mga' APR BY 0 • Z In 3166 210 • 200 190 180 130 120 110 100 0 20 4 SCALE I 20' PRELIMINARY PLANS FINISHED GRADES SUBJECT TO ADJUSTMENT PRIOR TO FINAL SUBMITTAL TO CITY OF TUKWILA 122 ‘89268‘SITEPLN.INV STRNG Consulting Engtitoont MI O POO: .4 At% P.M WIC ID. DA.... 111101.1 1-410.1111 DOWERS • PLANNERS • SUM 1•• ID DCI NANLL °Rivet Tilt DATE 21-MAY-90 mumme NO 892619 °mono sr..AL6Kot r ID Aft f Wsomy 3 or 4 vtwyrki ,ri*- 50,72 kr Ku) 1 4i krn01-409-07 1.1•44 oweel ATTACHMENT KK 62ND AVENUE SOUTH APARTMENTS Owner: 62nd Ave. S. Partnership Cedar Trim w/ Olympic Stain Beige I I Cedar Siding w/ Olympic Stain #916 te Cedar Accent w/ Olympic Stain Forest 11111 Green Aluminum Railing Architect: Roger H. Newell, A.I.A. Olivewood Asphalt Shingles Sandlewood Beige Dryvit Stucco System Deck Exterior Gacodeck Urethene System Adobe Bronze Aluminum Windows ATTACHMENT LL 2.4 r/ /I\J/1VVV/111 LIUr Rugged Die Cast Aluminum Housing. The seamless die cast aluminum housing provides maximum heat dissipation durability and corrosion resistance. The seamless design -ensures against typical water leaks. Recessed Die Cast Aluminum Door Frame. The black rigid door frame is nestled within the fixture housing to improve sealing, vandal resistance and appearance. Internal Door Frame Hinges. The unique internal hinges reduce vandalism and assure that door frame will properly seal every time it is closed. These hinges allow for the door frame to open the full 150° to permit easy access to the ballast and lamp. Pre - Installed Multi - Tap Ballast. The ballast, capacitor and ignitor (HPS) are pre - installed in the housing to reduce installation time. U.L. Listing. Every Ruud Lighting fixture is appropriately listed by Underwriters Laboratory, Inc. for wet locations. Computer Designed Optics. The precise optical systems are optimized for maximum fixture spacings and best uniformities. The optics are field adjustable for Type II and Type III cutoff roadway distribution. r - +- 16 " sq- -o-1 1.5" Close Pole Mount RUUD LIGHTING 6.5" Quality for Less — BUY DIRECT Typical Applications: Parking Lot Lighting Roadway Lighting Building- Mounted Security Lighting Sign Lighting (wide signs) - Wall Mount Bracket 'Direct wall mounting bracket (WM -3) for use with PR -I or PR -2 fixtures. Has 1/2" hole for connector in back plate. Ideal bracket for security lighting when c lean appearance is requited. Catalog No. WM -3 Parking and Roadway Order Information Ballast /Lamp 1751,\'MIi 25(1\\' Mil 400 \V tstli 1OI)\V HI'S PRI440.51 I'R1510.M I IOW I(I'S PRt IS•M 4(1(1W HI'S PR I 540-M Accessories: (Field Installer) t exan Lens Shield I.S.4 I'hutu Cell PC -4• Catalog Number Cline Pole Mount 11! i r ' Extended Pole Mount 161• PR1417 -M PR2417.M PR 1425-1%1 PR2425 -M PR244f1 -M PR251O -M f WG -40 Adjustable Filler PR3417 -M PR3425 -M PR3440 -M 1'R35Itl -M F'R2515•M PR 151 i.M `2511 \ \' HPS • • PR 1525-M 1'R2525.M PR 1525 -St I'R2540 -M 1'R3540 -1s1 NOTES: Mercury fixtures available - consult factory "-Extended pole mount is necessary when direct pole mounting is desired with 2 or more fixtures oriented 90° from each other. -All ballasts are multi -lap 120'208'24(1'2 volt; 48(1 %ult also available - c onsull factory. -Add suffix "r t" for internal fusing. -Add suffix "Q" for quart? standby. "•Consult factory for method of mounting: Yoke Mount PR4417 -M PR-1425•M PR4440 -M PR4510 -M I'R- 1a15.11 1114525-M PR4540 -M Pricing $132 - $197 See Price Sheet Innovative Styling. The soften shape provides welcome relief to the angular boxes commonly used. Computerized Testing. Every fixture is completely electronically tested before it is packaged. Single Compact Carton. The Housing, Ballast, Lamp and Mounting are all in one compact carton. The carton size is 18" x 22" x 8" and the fixture weight is' less than 35 lbs. Multiple Mountings. All mounting methods can be used to the same housing without any fixture modification. Two —PR1 fixtures @ 180° Two —PR2 fixtures @ 180° Four —PR2 fixtures For use with 4, 5 or 6 inch poles only. IE Two —PR1 and two —PR2 fixtures Tenon Adaptor 'Available for single fixtures as shown or for multiple. Consult factory with exact arrangement that you require. This bracket is ideal for mounting to poles with 2 -3/8" to 3" O.D. tenons. Catalog No. PT -11' Customer Commen' "The courteous and Knowledgeable response during the design stage, the timely and trouble -free delivery to the jobsite, and the performance and quality of the installed lighting units, met all of our expectations. Another job has just recently been awarded Due to history on the last jobs, we are insisting the contractor deal with, and order your equipment, directly from your company." J.B. Oregon 90' 70' 50' 30 10' 10' t � `� � Vii• - - - -- � � �� Allilak■ 4*A Typical candlepower distribution in main beam 100' 80' 60' 40' 20' 20 40' 60' PR Series 1 30' 50' 400W HPS at 30' MH Application Table - (2) Parking /Roadway Fixtures Per Pole Catalog Lamp Number Type Lumens PR1425 -M MV250 20,500 PR1440 -M MV400 36,000 1RI515 -M 1U150 15,000 PR1525 -M LU250 27,500 PR 1540-M 1U400 50,000 Pole lit. 20' 25' Pole Spacing X y 80' x 100 10(1' x 125' 25' 100' x 125 4.48 30' 120' x 150 3.12 20' 80' X 100' 2.92 25' 100' x 125' 1.86 25' 100' x 125' 3.42 30' 120' x 150' 2.38 25' 10(1' x 125' 6.22 30' 120' x 150' 4.:12 TEST / AREA Average Initial F.C. 3.99 2.54 NOTES: -Above values provide max/min # 11:1; Ave!Min # 3:1 -Illumination is horizontal footcandles at grade within test area shown belom. / Lamps included with fixtures ^TOLL -FREE 1- 800 - 558 -7883 (In Wisconsin 414 - 886 -1900) . i� - Si S•n .5 ie f'w r'? FSf ..A ; i • �` t f'ii. -'7 ;A '.i } ��. - ih } : L�f:. " :� S r E35eries Perimeter Cutoff Reflector directs light downward to wash wall below and to the sides of the fixture. The wide distribution permits maximum spacing between fixtures. E5 Series Up/Down Cutoff Optics provide con- trolled uptight and downlight with side cutoff. Same optics are also available for vertical mounting. Add suffix "V" to catalog number. I 8.5' 6.45' • r 225_• NOTE: • This dimension may increase by .75" depending on wattage and voltage. (Consult factory) • Lamps included with fixtures RUUD 5 LIGHTING Wall Moun E Series 6 Quality for Less — BUY DIRECT Mounting Bracket PAS -7 To mount any "E Series" HID Security Light to the side of a square pole. Bracket consists of a cast aluminum junction box, measuring 10" long X 6" wide X 2.4" deep. Junction box is supported by an extruded aluminum arm, 3.625" long x 4.5" high and 1.7" deep. A steel backing plate holds the arm securely to the pole. Security Light Order Information Model Ballast/ Description lamp Catalog Number 70W MH E3407 -D Perimeter Cutoff Projection Cutoff Up/Down Cutoff Deep Shielded Bronze Color Shroud Gold Color Shroud Accessory: (field - installed) Surface Mounting Box 100W MH E3410.0 35W HPS E3503.1 SOW. HPS: ; E3505 -1 ;70W HPS :;,.(3507 -1: 100W HPS E3510.1 70W MH E4407 -D Options: (factory- installed) 208V (HPS) 240V (MPS) 277V (MPS) High Power Factor Photocell 35W HPS (4503.1 50W HPS E4505 -1 70W HPS E4507.1 70W MH E5407 -D 35W SOW 70W 70W 100W 35W SOW 70W 100W HPS HPS HPS MH MH HPS HPS HPS HPS HPS Pricing 559 -576 (5503.1 E5505.1 (5507.1 (8407 -0 (8410.0 (8503.1 (8505.1 (8507 -1 (8510-1 x • change suffix "1" to "3" change suffix "1" to "4" change suffix "1 " to "2" add suffix "H" add suffix "P" add suffix "BS" add suffix "GS" (58.7 (pictured on page 5.) E4 Series Projection Cutoff Reflector projects light out and away from the fixture. Excellent for lighting small parking areas next to buildings. [8 Series Deep Shielded When mounted as pic- tured, this unit provides front brightness shielding without sacrificing wide light distribution. Ideal over entrances. Fixture can also be mounted up- side -down for effective accent uplighting. non f r Perimeter Cutoff CERTIFIED TEST REPORT NO. LSI 2793 Catalog No. E9507 -1 RUUD PERIMETER CUTOFF SECURITY LUMINAIRE, SPECULAR REFLECTOR, ONE 70 WATT CLEAR HPS LAMP. LUMEN RATINGI 5800 LMS. WAIL LIME 11111111111111111111111111111111111 OPI :a: ::�:= s`4!-:p:1Ter C I ■ ::■� RPCF N I ■OO' ■ Giii ■ ■ ■ �� ■ r �■ ■ ;11.rra •11 :111 :11E111Ep61:::::: :: r : � ` ��� •:,, nu ny 001 LO �1• ■ ■ ■ G�i r1■ = ■ ■ ■Fi : �i:�uC■ . • 1111111111111111111111 12 1.52 2.25 1.56 1.00 • 31 9 Up /Down Cutoff CERTIFIED TEST REPORT NO. LSI 2740 Catalog No. E5507 -1 RUUD DIRECT /INDIRECT WALL MOUNTED LUMINAIRE, DIFFUSE SACK REFLECTOR, FRONT AND SIDE SHIELDS. ONE 70 WATT CLEAR HIS LAMI. LUMEN RATIN01 5800 LMS. LI5I 7 0 5 o Trim here (or Customer use. RATIO • ni5tvrs Aire .VJATING IEIC I5 7 RATIO• D1tTI •r 111+- I1f•r[ ._ KXM I.1. et_ ICert CANDLEF0.EF. IN SAI. PLANE £600! CA814E238E5 0.0 576 10.0 591 15.0 614 20.0 610 25.0 610 32.0 637 35.0 701 42.0 760 45.0 8J% 50.0 9118 52.5 1090 55.0 1315 57.5 1485 60.0 1395 62.5 1307 65.0 1518 67.5 1610 70.0 2031 72.5 1747 75.0 1277 70.5 854 80.0 442 87.5 102 85.0 85 87.5 57 93.0 44 0496003.5 IN MAX. FLASI C 1420E CAAt1PPJ.S? 0.0 579 5.0 606 10.0 618 15.0 644 20.0 671 . 677 10 10.0 660 15.0 67! 40.0 68 45.0 714 50.0 625 52.5 672 55.0 6'5 5 4 5 .c 1015 5.1 6 5.0 6 165.: 611 501 1n .0 501 MAXIMUM CAF,CL2IC43.R, 1771 FLANF CF *61. Ci, 90.0 VERTICAL ANGL'_ CF MAX. CANDLF.FC,FO, 50.0 807119' 0981010 54.69 MAIIMJ7 CANDLEFJ.Er' 970 FLARE OF MAX. Cl. 95.0 VE6T10AL AN701 07 NAX. C650.1E9;1. Er: 4'. FIXT.RF to IEN :71 t7.y( 0 11;91:1111111111111111111111111 Ida . 2 :I 5 = ■. :■ .. ■ ■ a■: ■■ 11!f iii. N /: :I ■M : . ■ ■ U ■tUlE® ■ ■1. : .r.l� :: ■�G �1.. 1111 ■■.. II II:i = 5 :4111 =:.':11=='11== :C:=:= ■■ ■iipme■m■ummu ,■. ■ne ■a1wmws+■■■■■■ ■m. �•g. t■■pt.■■■ ■s■ ■ ■r 11 ■rl*BLL26X1111mm■ � : : ii : : : :W Ci :11 :Oe : : : : : :: IIMEM ■■■Y■■D ■■■I lRO■niimmoMm ■ ■■■■■■ ■ ■ ■ ■■ ■■■II. / ■■■ ■ UMNMI3 ■ ■Cl ■n a MM ■■ ■ ■ ■ ■. IIPUMEEMIM■■■ ■.41lEiMOR ■Ilf■no3 Da■g ■CU ■■1M ■■■/'el um�p■6@ ■.F :■ mismF ■.Y ■■ ■■Y■■10f�m ■ ■■p Am ■p :: ■■n■■■■ :: is :: :I ■p■■ ■. it s �■■ I 4Fii` 0 :M: a: : :: * 1P�!■w ELM MAIM Mar! ■a: MOYMtln9 Multiplier Mt - ft 7 1.04 1.50 9 1.71 10 1.00 11 .69 IS .44 70 .25 I:�i� 1'II I u :\1: :1 I I 11111111UMIU: momm i:ii e: :■UIIlIUM IQ ■■r�■■■I1■■�■a.■11111■ ■ ■wmmw 1■■■ ■e■ •a■■U■■ .ft■lMil ■ ■ ■■.M :■1 :■ ■6®® ■0■■■■■ EEEMM■NNIUM ■MUW E■■M■ ■t / ■■■11■ ■ ■et■■■■■ alE UME UMa:: UUUiIWIIRIRD ■ /_\M ■■.■►I■■► ■■■■■\R�■■■ ■■■►/n■ ®6■®■■. ■■■■ ■■ . ■■■ ■■C■■■■ ■ ■..W■®UBa. ■ ■ ■■ M1�■■■■M■ :■■ ■■■M■UMWmm 1■■II■11 ■FOP■■■■. ■ r_ m::■ G■■■ Vii■■ ■r'■■■11t1■■�■■■.aa■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■11 I.IF■■■■■. ■M II■ ■I■■■■Ifl Irn. ■■ ■►■F■ ■11■■■ ■ ■E. 1IMMI ■11■,■ ■ ■■■n■ ■p■■■ ■:6■■■■■ ■a+■■IU■■■■n■■=■■■rm■Pr■UI m■■ II1 ■ : ■. ■. commit a1Ci!■■■■■■■11F.■■=■■■WO■ ■II ■■■■■■■■■ ■!:�■■■ Cis /Y■ /.@ s■.m. r■■■■ 11■■■. ■..■■ I1■r/■ mums■■ ■■11■■Cf ■■!.'I-Fgm■ : 0 . 11. a 'N ■sir °cwt ra ■ ■1W■ ■If _ _ i19 ��p1 MUM kl'IRl�E1F7RaYa; pMciYiwm� IIBER . 211tt ttlfi3Vti I E} p■Mlt� f 4Iii�HME1S DrENSIO NEIL MMUNN ,DniiYY YY �u Yt)f I� 105109 M e lawirseem i�1wJa Mounting Multiplier It. - ft 3.52 10 2.25 12 1.56 10 1.00 2C .5f 25 .36 1 re wroPrelig-e" � t8■ -1- mwmamimcmusill FIE * 5 3A O 7R1 MOUnt'nQ 1.201. l..' NI 11 100 4 12 5 256 IS 0 1 76 20 0 1 00 300 044 350 035 40 0 C 21 Projection Cutoff CERTIFIED TEST REPORT NO. LSI 2696 Catalog No. E4507 -1 RUUD FORWARD PROJECTION CUTOFF SECURITY LUMINAIRE SEMI - SPECULAR ALUMINUM REFLECTOR, CLEAR PLASTIC LENS. ONE 70 WATT CLEAR HPS LAMP. LUMEN RATING[ 5800 LMS. 0 WALL LIME 9 WALL LULL I 0 RATIO Deep Shielded CERTIFIED TEST REPORT NO. LSI 7361 Catalog Iii E8507 - RUUD DEEP SHIELDED DOWNLIGH SECURITY LUMINAIRE, DIFFUSE ALUMINUM REFLECTOR, CLEAR LENS. ONE 70 WATT CLEAR HP LAMP. LUMEN RATING: 5800 L S. RATIO . 2 DI47N1ff NIK, R0N71■40 l l (800) 558 -7883 Wisconsin (8 2 O15TANCE 00NG M,7UNllN2. 01GNT CAN :LEIJVEN IN NAA. PLANE 85018 CAMDLEPOVER 0.0 846 5.0 791 10.0 011 15.0 845 20.0 1071 2'.0 1148 30.0 1179 35.0 1115 4U. 1511 45.0 1940 50.0 2490 5.'.S 2405 55.0 2404 57.5 2286 60.0 2167 62.5 2165 65.0 2576 67.5 2391 70.0 2007 77.5 12'15 75.0 577 77.5 311 80.0 166 82.5 111 05.0 86 87.5 69 90.0 57 14501.1 1008011 IR 001. 11014E IN;,LC 0491LCP1Ite 0.0 773 5.0 1057 10.0 1746 10.0 1455 20.0 1565 25.0 1459 30.0 1265 35.0 1555 40.0 1196 15.0 1104 50,0 1172 52.5 521 55.0 451 57.5 518 . 0 I P. 62.5 65.0 1055 0.5 67.5 615 70.0 771 72.5 753 75.0 710 71,5 644 Mo.0 82.5 710 85.0 146 87.5 Nu 90.0 7 MAXIMU6 CAI.LLEFONEAI 2576 FLA1'I CF MAX. CFI 0.0 VERTICAI. AMCLE CF PAX. CANDIEFCWEN, 65.0 FIXT1'41 EFFICIENCTI 60.16 .0114. wcuem.' NU. CA14/13•0•14 n.rw I1 6 77 0) 236 -7500 (414) 886 -1900 0_,UMN JUN - 8 1990 CITY OF RR PLANNING DEPT. Y: i. �. i.N•,s1 t' Y ? N r�� 14911241.1(i') --146.c1 tjt s evk-v) eA S( d) 4 4-6 , 0-cenicALT4 * -ced 64a6 — aiiJ PIA.47/1 3 - {. -{9 r. - o J G rmAt,L. LAt'4PSC A L FVA�'lo • c.. - , - t_ , • :• -�'\ • • ZOS L10111101* o r CAPITAL CORPORATION William W. Jeude, President May 30, 1990 Sunwood Homeowners' Association C/O Asset Management Corporation 1216 Pine Street Seattle, Washington 98101 ATTN: Ryan S. Thrower, President RE: 62nd Avenue South Apartments Dear Mr. Thrower: a) b) c) Real Estate Investment and Development Kirkland Place Building 911 5th Ave., Kirkland WA 98033 (206) 889-9060 Exterior details have been added Pitched roofs have been added Buildings will not be identical �ilj lr, J� 117 i!f Ir1,..r...._.l (JUN - 1990./ • Through the. Design Review Process with the staff at the City of Tukwila and other design considerations incorporated by our Design Consultants, we offer the following in response to your April 4th, 1990 letter. Under your observations; Your Par. 1) "Design is competent, etc." been given to Architectural Design as Consideration has follows: for more interest A site plan and elevations will be furnished at our . next meeting. Your Par. 2) "The buildings are less modulated etc." Particular design consideration has been incorporated for more modulation of the structures with exterior surfaces that are equal or exceed Sunwood Phase I and II Buildings. Building elevations will be furnished at our next meeting. Your Par. 3) "The layout is very stark, etc." The buildings will not be identical or oriented in the same direction. The retaining walls have been designed with average heights less than 6' to achieve site contours similar to Sunwood I and II. There is less than 900 lin. ft. of retaining walls and there are no rockeries. Cross - sections and soils reports Sunwood Homeowners' Association May•30, 1990 Page Two that we will furnish will demonstrate the stability .of existing and Design Slopes. Your statement, "that the City of •Tukwila's objective, etc. is preservation of natural landform ", is in error and we request that you review their current policies. Your Par. 4) "Terracing of the site - etc." A landscape plan will be provided that has had extensive review by, the City of Tukwila and our staff. Consideration has been given to existing trees. Your Par. 5) "We assume that the Landscaping Plan" - -- The Landscape Plan that will be furnished addresses the majority of your concerns. The Landscape Architect, Mr.' Bruce Johnson, has reviewed your existing landscaping and has incorporated into the design drawings, changes which • increase density, etc. Your Par. 6) "We feel that 'pitched roofs, etc." Pitched roofs have been incorporated in the Design. Your Par. 7) "The slope below building C & D, etc." We cannot respond to this because the location of buildings C & D are at the Southern most location on the site. Your Par. 8) "The City has, etc.!' We will furnish you the City approved site plan that includes fire -truck turning areas. Under your recommendations; Your Par. 1) Pitched roofs have been added. Your Par. 2) Building modulation, etc. will be furnished at our next meeting. Your Par. 3) A revised site plan will furnished that incorporates your concerns. Your Par. 4) A. revised Site and Landscape Plan will be furnished that incorporates your concerns. Your Par. 5) Same as Par. 4 above. Your Par. 6) The recreation areas as designed exceed the City of Tukwilas' requirements and exceed similar apartment projects. We see, no reason for our residents to use your facilities. You are in error when you state, William W. Jeu•e President Sunwood Homeowners' Association May 30, 1990 Page Three "most of the balance of the site would be unsuitable cut and fill areas." The site plan will demonstrate this. Your Par. 7) Suriwood Boulevard issues are as follows: 1) Repair of Sunwood Blvd. See attached Associated Earth Sciences, Inc. reports dated April 12th and April 24th for recommendations for the repair of Sunwood Blvd. The estimated cost to repair Sunwood Blvd. is $60,000 which includes a $12,000 contingency for unforseen items. Maintenance Agreement for Sunwood Blvd. for above surface and underground utilities. Sincerely. 62nd Avenue SW Limit -d Partnership UNIVEST 1Z PTrA CO ORAT - GENERAL PARTNER COPIES DISTRIBUTED AS ON FOLOWING Sunwood Homeowners Association May 30, 1990 Page Four CC: SUNWOOD CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION c/o Asset Management Corporation 1216 Pine Street Seattle, Washington 98101 PAUL DUDLEY ET UX 15126 Sunwood Boulevard Tukwila, Washington 98188 GARY POLK ET UX 15103 Sunwood Boulevard Tukwila, Washington 98188 RYAN THROWER ET UX 15232 Sunwood Boulevard Tukwila, Washington 98188 KATHY VERHALEN ET VIR 15255 Sunwood Boulevard Tukwila, Washington, 98188 DON WILSON ET UX •15249 Sunwood Bouevard. Tukwila, Washington 98188 KARR TUTTLE CAMPBELL ATTN: Walt Maas and Gary Huff 411 - 108th Avenue NE Suite 1600 Bellevue, WA 98004 TEWELL & FINDLAY ATTN: Dulan Findlay 1700 Bank of Calif. Building 900 Fourth Avenue Seattle, Washington 98164 -1011 OLD STONE REAL ESTATE SERVICES INC. ATTN: Marilyn Mortensen 3605 132nd Ave SE, #100 Bellevue, WA 98006 HUNT & ASSOCIATES ATTN: John L. Hunt gtvii arvua Kirkland —WA 9&93.3 - 1 ?18 ?gvvc = 29.0 c C. !.c4 , 7 i(n f L. RICK BEELER, DIRECTOR City of Tukwila 6300. South .Center Blvd. Tukwila, WA 98188 JACK P. PACE, SR. PLANNER City of Tukwila 6300 South Center Blvd. Tukwila, WA 98188 P I P, INC. . Gary Steinvall, Pres. PO Box 2458 Kirkland, WA 98083 -2458 CITY OF TUKWILA ATTN: Michael Aippersbach 6300 Southcenter Blvd. Tukwila, WA ,98188 04/0 9/1990 13.0i FRO i 5 T ER, PEPPER 8. SHEFLU'li IN TO South Center Associates 911 8th Avenue Kirkland, WA i180.'13 Attention: Mr. 8113 Jeude, munagtng partner Re: 62nd Ave,rtue Apartments EE2b196 P,02 April 4, 1900 Dear Mr, Jaude; In February, we had an architect and landscape architect visit your s i t e with W. Hunt, reviewing the lay of the lend and your proposed projeet design, Their observations are as follows: 1) Roger Newell's design Is competent as far as it goes; however, as a designer, his "signature style* Is what he would probably tell "clean *. Merry of as who would live next to it, however, would c a l l I t "boring ". The architect indicated that this pertIcufar. style, particularly the use of fiat roofs and the minimal use of detailing on a group of identical buiidiega set to the same orientation, is a substantial departure from both deelgns present in Stanwood. it is somewhat less of a deQ srture from the Sunwood I buildings.wich etuo00 finish, west of Sunwood Boulevard. 2) The buildings are less modulated and have less visual' Interest than either Sunwood I or II, The materials and finish quality and the amount of modulation of surfaces would be higher than the Gencor epartmenta to the west, though leas than Sunwood Phase I or II buildings. 3) The layout is very stark, with identical buildings all oriented In the same direction, and with extensive uses of retain- ing walls which could result• in recontourtng virtually the entire site. Your plans show some 1830 lineal feet of free- standln retaining walls and new rockeries, plus over 1000 lineal feet of foundations eonteining substantial out or fill; in nil, over a hull mile of retaining walla. This Shows little sensitivity to terrain and leaves little if any natur *1 pound surface. More Important than the concern this Causes us for the stability of the slopes and the aesthetic' u i' a radically re- sculpted hillside, this appears to gd directly counter to the City of Tukwiltt`s ob)ectivea in designating the site as a part of a H i l l s i d e Sops I t 1 vc Area. Preservation of the natural i endrorrn, or Indeed virtually any natural aspect of the site, It not reflected in your proposed design. We assume that the Ci tr , has noted title, and hope their comments reflect these same pol lcies. 4) The terracing of the site and the maximum density leave little landscaping area. The design will tear out most of the existing trees, Including a 36" maple tree et the northeast UU: rr il`�_r 1.5;1.11 I kL.i .1 1 i'. :J1it_t .::.i1 1 ! i_I Sunwood 111 - Plant review • Aril 4, 1490 - Pegs two corn' r end the numerous pino& and firs along the common boundary. At least two large Guts in the existing landscaped Median would also be required; the plaits do not show what trees would be lost, !) We .sasume that the landscaping plan which you have submitted is merely conceptual; if it is not we would find it very unsstisfactor,-. The planting plan lndloatoa trees at 20' to 30' on center, and IndIcatos driplines of 25' -$0f in diameter. This seems to be both very sparse and misleading as to the spread or of fectivc screening mast of the vegetation, which could be Ath l eved even within a .reasonable number of years after instal- lation. No inetallcd tree sizes are Indicated. Though Sunwood'a landscaping has had the benefit of a deetde of growth, it was Installed with much greater density and substantial size. In addition to retaining and enhancing usable open space around the buildings, Sunwood etieo retained the londform of the central knoll In its natural state, as forested open spree at the top of the hill, thcough as a consequence of retaining tbls natural area and landtorm, density is s',*batfti• tielly reduced, We conctwdt that the proposed landscaping does not come anywhere r eer reflecting the standard of Sunwood, and feel that it would be unlikely to adequately screen the large expanses of retaining ,walls and the regraded surfaces of the balance of the site. Q) We feel that pitched roots would provide a visual Improvement, especially on the buildings east of Sunwood Boulevard and close- to us on the West. This may result in same additional blockage of views Into the Kent Valley from the lowest units from Sunwood AuildIng G. HaweYer, about 4Q% of your building roof width would have mechanical enclosures blocking the level line of sight in any test,. which your site sections do not Indicate. 7) The slope below nuitidings C and 0 should not be cut back to a barren retaining wall for perking, removing all of she trees In thls transition .area. The wall is 8 to 13 feet high below fiuilding C. A alight "bead" in the layout could eccommodete the trees and natural slopes, and give the buildings adjacent more variety in orientation following the slope. We will also be directly Interested in how you intend to construct and support the substantial walls on our property line. 8) The City hos, we underetandt lstdicated to you that they Intend to require fire - truoh turnip areas at the ends of all the cut - de-saes .on the site. Our arc felt that t:hnse could substantially alter your design. We are therefore waiting to late how your architect responds to this borer* commenting on particu- lar aspects of the site density and layout. Pending review of your modifications to the design pursuant to the City's reco;nmendat Ions, we would summarize our review and 04/09%'i c3 13 02 FRlJl' r')STE1, PEPPER <- SHEFELMPM . 1 1.1 E 2;5ly6 1 . Sunwood III - Plans review April 4, 1'P 0 - Page three reconsnendetlons, which you requested et our last meeting, es: 1, Add pitched roofs to al! buildings, 2. Add building modulation and detailing, plus Color schemes reflseting Sunweed's wood- exterior buildings, in at eest those two buildings north and east of the entry road. 3. Orient the same two buildings to follow the edge of the existing slope, with the parking area at the sRme line, pulling them away from tht toe of the existing dope at the COtttnon beundbryt this 'Should save most existing vegetation and eliminate the major retaining wail. An attempt might be made to save the big maple, but it may die from the disturbance snywer. 4. Reduce the Length of Building "E" so shat it may be pulled up the slope, reducing or eliminating the $ -0' rotelning wail at the corner, Put low plantings on the slope Wow, except where high foundation walla need to be screened. The two buildings In this etre'a, above the Boulevard, are the most critical to relate architecturally tp Sunwood's buildings directly above. 5. Concentrate major tree screens end other plantings .lgreeter Installed density and substantial installed size/ along the south and west sides of the entry roads. If it is difftoutt for your erchiteet to mere Closely reflect SunwoodYs architectural Style, then perhaps'inten ive p l a n t i n g s can be used to "di seseocists" the aperttnent buildings below the Sunwood road. They might then relate visually as a transition between the Gencor apartments and Sunwood Buildings A and B. 6, Additional recreation area should be provided on the site, as your group hat expressed no interest in part ielpat ing [n the existing Sunwood common area main- tenance or use The proposed area seerna very small and Inadequate* especially considering that most of the balance of the site would be unusable cut and rill areas. 7. Issues were discussed pertaining to the design of the entry rood atsa, but we feel constrained to discuss this at this time, due to the tieing of the iswsult by Old Stone flank alnce thn review, Depending on the outcome of than suit, we would like to see a solution to the road deslpn which fits with our overall design comments. This might include rebuilding the road to City of Tukwila base and surfacing standards, or pottIbly dedication to the City as a • public road, with setbacks appropriate to s public road. 04/09/1990 13 : FROM FOSTER ,PEPPER S. 5HEFELMAN . Sunwood iC1 ' plans review April 4, 1990 • Page four 8. Two of the five etreet lights will need to be removed for median cuts along with an unspecified amount of Iandscaping. A new modian planting and lighting plan should be required. We hope that these comments are constructive and timely. it has required considerable time for us as a group of ''lays reviewers of arehi te.ctute to translate our *concerns Into constructive design changes, with the help of additional consultants, We look forward to en opportunity to review your next design changes submitted to the City, and hope that progress is being made to a solution which the City and Suriwood's residents can support. ' Yours very truly Ryan S. Thrower, Presldcnt • Stanwood Homaowners Assn, cc: City of Tukwila Planning Dept. Mr. Gary Ackerman W. Duncan Pindtey 662513E Pie!; April 24, 1990 Project No. 8911 -04G Gentlemen: PAVEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, Washington 98188 Attention: Mr. Phil Fraser Department of Public*Works Subject: 62nd Avenue South Apartments (Formerly Sunwood, Phase III) ASSOCIATED EARTH SCIENCES, INC The purpose of this letter is to address the remaining geotechnical concerns for the above noted project. Specifically, this letter addresses and provides recommendations for the following: 1) engineered pavement section for Sunwood Boulevard; 2) suitability of the planned retaining walls; 3) additional subsurface exploration to further determine potential impact of bedrock; and 4) geotechnical review of final civil engineering plans to verify that they are consistent with the recommendations contained in our Geotechnical Engineering Report dated November 17, 1989 and subsequent letter adderldurns. Each of these items are individually addressed below. As has been stated in two previous letters by Associated Earth Sciences, Inc., (AESI) dated April 12 and 19, 1990, the existing pavement section on Sunwood Boulevard does not meet the City of Tukwila's design standards, nor does it have a suitable subgrade for either existing conditions or the additional traffic loads due to the planned project. We therefore recommend that the existing pavement be removed and replaced with the following pavement section. Due to the high silt content and apparent pumping of the current subgrade, the existing pavement and subgrade should be overexcavated to a minimum depth of 17 inches below planned finish grade. The subgrade should then be proofrolled with a fully loaded, tandem axle, dump truck, and any localized soft spots should be further overexcavated down to firm, non - yielding sediments. An imported, free - draining "pit -run" should be used to fill the deeper excavations and provide a minimum 12 inch thick subgrade. This material must be compacted to 95 percent of its Modified Proctor Maximum Dry Density using ASTM:D 1557 as the standard. This higher 911 - 5th Avenue Suite 100 Kirkland, Washington 98033 (206) 827 -7701 r }� • } compaction standard is recommended in order to further identify soft areas. Once the subgrade is in place and approved, a leveling course consisting of a minimum of.3 inches of 5/8 inch crushed rock should then be placed and compacted, followed by a minimum of 2 inches of Washington State Class B asphaltic concrete pavement. RETAINING WALLS From a geotechnical standpoint, the planned retaining walls will be suitable provided they are designed and constructed according to the recommendations contained in AESI's Geotechnical Report and the Addendum Letter dated April 18, 1990. Based on our review of the proposed plans, none of the retaining walls will be surcharged by buildings, except for the retaining wall to the south of the recreation building. The structural engineer should incorporate this surcharge into the design for this particular wall. As was also stated in the April 18, 1990 letter, the proposed retention pipe will not impact the planned, retaining wall provided the recommended earth pressures and drainage requirements are incorporated into the design. It must be noted that exploration pit EP -15, near the southeast corner of the site, encountered additional fill materials. An extended footing or overexcavation and backfilling will be required for proper foundation support. If overexcavation and backfilling is utilized, it will be necessary to use a relatively impermeable capping on the fill or else an impermeable, reinforced liner must be placed at footing level. Once the wall design is finalized, AESI will coordinate with the structural engineer to determine compliance with this requirement. All other recommendations previously provided apply to this wall. BLAST FREE PROJECT On April 21 and 23, 1990, additional exploration pits (EP -9 through EP -15) were excavated in order to further evaluate the location and depth of bedrock on the site, and to determine whether or not the proposed project will be "blast free." The exploration pits were excavated to depths between 11 -1/2 and 16 feet deep using a small trackhoe. The explorations generally encountered fill soils over natural deposits of till and occasional sandstone bedrock. The sandstone was interpreted to be the Renton Formation from the Eocene age. The exploration pit logs (including logs EP -1 through EP -8 from previous explorations) and location map (Figure 1) are attached with this letter. In addition, Table 1 (attached) presents the 15 exploration pits, the approximate top and bottom elevation and depth of each pit, and the elevation of the bedrock, if encountered. The additional exploration pits were located in the areas where the anticipated cuts will be the deepest (i.e. Buildings D,'E, and F, sanitary sewer between and above Buildings B and C, and the retaining wall above Buildings E and F). Buildings A, B, C and G have relatively shallow cuts or will be placed on structural fill. 2 Based on the sediments encountered in the exploration pits, it appears this will be .a, "blast- free" site. Bedrock was only encountered in 4 of the 15 exploration pits, and where encountered the small trackhoe was able to rip into it about 4 -1/2 feet with little difficulty. Footing elevations, determined from the finished floor elevations, should be above bedrock elevation for all buildings. The utility lines will also apparently be above bedrock elevation. The only location where it appears bedrock may be encountered is at the retaining wall footing near the northeast corner of the site. Due to the apparent case of ripping, bedrock should not be an issue at this location either. REVIEW OF CIVIL ENGINEERING DRAWINGS As stated in AESI's April 19, 1990 letter, we have previously reviewed the preliminary civil engineering drawings by D.R. Strong Consulting Engineers, Inc., and have made several additional recommendations. Some of these recommendations have already been incorporated into the plans and the remainder will be included in the final plans. Once the civil plans have been finalized, they will be reviewed by AESI to verify that they are consistent with our geotechnical report and additional recommendations. Our final plan review will be conducted as soon as copies of the final plans are available. If you should have any questions regarding any other issues for this project, please do not hesitate to call. Sincerely, ASSOCIATED EARTH SCIENCES, INC. JSB /lb H911 -04G DK4/10/90 lb Battermann, Geotechnical Engineer Gary T. (bdell, P.E., P.G. Princip 3 xc: Jack Pace, City of Tukwila, Senior Planner Michael Aippersbach, City of Tukwila, Review Engineer Gary Steinvall, 62nd Avenue South Limited Partnership Don Hill, D.R. Strong Al Roberts, Roger Newell, Architects JSB /lb H911 -04G DK4/10/90 lb Y TABLE 1 Approximate Bedrock Planned Exploration Approximate Approximate Depth Encountered Footing Pit No. Top El. Bottom El. (ft.) (el.) Elevation 1 175 160 16 161 2 161 144 17 145 3 145 130 15 None 4 130 113 17 None 5 143 131 12 None 6 138 124 14 None 7 173 161 12 None 8 159 144 15 145 9 173 158 15 None 10 182 170 12 175 11 174 158 16 None 12 168 153 15 None 13 142 127 15 None 14 143 129 14 None 15 126 113 13 117 This table presents the elevations where bedrock was encountered in the 15 exploration pits only. Bedrock may also be encountered at other locations on the site. 175 NUMBER EP -1 0 0 5 10 10 15 NUMBER EP-2 EXPLORATION PIT LOG SEDIMENT DESCRIPTION SEDIMENT DESCRIPTION Loose, damp, brown, silty, fine to medium sand with numerous roots. (Topsoil) I Dense, dry to damp, light brown, silty, fine to medium sand with trace gravel. (Till) Medium dense to dense, damp to moist, grey, fine sand with some silt, interbedded with stiff silt layers and dense, fine to medium sand layers. Top 3 feet contained some gravel. 15 Dense, damp, light brown, medium sand. (Weathered bedrock) I BOH 17' Note: No seepage, no caving. 62nd Avenue S. Apartments Sunwood Boulevard Tukwila, Washington. • ASSOCIATED EARTH SCIENCES, INC 8911 -04G ,November 1989 I Loose, moist, brown, silty, fine to medium sand with trace gravel and numerous roots and occassional debris. (Fill) Medium dense, damp, light brown, silty, fine to medium sand with trace gravel. Dense, dry to damp, light brown, silty, fine to medium sand with trace gravel. (Till) The upper 1 to 2 feet was in a medium dense weathered condition. . - Medium dense to dense, damp, grey, fine to medium sand with some silt, interbedded with stiff silt layers 1 to 4 inches thick. r , - 1 Sandstone bedrock. / . BOH 152'Note: No seepage, no caving NUMBER EP -1 0 0 5 10 10 15 NUMBER EP-2 EXPLORATION PIT LOG SEDIMENT DESCRIPTION SEDIMENT DESCRIPTION Loose, damp, brown, silty, fine to medium sand with numerous roots. (Topsoil) I Dense, dry to damp, light brown, silty, fine to medium sand with trace gravel. (Till) Medium dense to dense, damp to moist, grey, fine sand with some silt, interbedded with stiff silt layers and dense, fine to medium sand layers. Top 3 feet contained some gravel. 15 Dense, damp, light brown, medium sand. (Weathered bedrock) I BOH 17' Note: No seepage, no caving. 62nd Avenue S. Apartments Sunwood Boulevard Tukwila, Washington. • ASSOCIATED EARTH SCIENCES, INC 8911 -04G ,November 1989 I NUMBER EP-3 0 10 15 0 5 NUMBER EP -4 10 15 62nd Avenue S. Apartments Sunwood Boulevard Tukwila, Washington. ( EXPLORATION PIT LOGS SEDIMENT DESCRIPTION SEDIMENT DESCRIPTION ASSOCIATED EARTH SCIENCES, INC 8911 -04G 'November 1989 Loose, damp,•brown,•silty, fine to medium sand, with numerous " roots. (Topsoil) f Dense, dry to damp, light brown, silty, fine to medium sand with trace gravel, and occassional cobbles. (Till) Weathered in upper 1' Medium dense to dense, wet to saturated, brown, silty, fine to medium sand. Gravel in top 2' Dense, moist, grey, silty, fine to medium sand with some gravel. BOH 15' Note: Minor seepage at 14', sloughing at seepage face NUMBER EP-3 0 10 15 0 5 NUMBER EP -4 10 15 62nd Avenue S. Apartments Sunwood Boulevard Tukwila, Washington. ( EXPLORATION PIT LOGS SEDIMENT DESCRIPTION SEDIMENT DESCRIPTION ASSOCIATED EARTH SCIENCES, INC 8911 -04G 'November 1989 Loose to medium dense, moist, brown, silty, fine to medium sand numerous roots. (Topsoil with Dense, dry to damp, light brown, silty, fine to medium sand with trace gravel and occassional cobbles. (Till) Weathered in upper 1' Medium dense, damp to moist, grey /brown, fine to medium sand with interbedded stiff silt layers. Some gravel in top 11' Dense, moist, grey, silty, fine to medium sand with some gravel. 1 BOH 17' Note: No seepage, .. no caving NUMBER EP-3 0 10 15 0 5 NUMBER EP -4 10 15 62nd Avenue S. Apartments Sunwood Boulevard Tukwila, Washington. ( EXPLORATION PIT LOGS SEDIMENT DESCRIPTION SEDIMENT DESCRIPTION ASSOCIATED EARTH SCIENCES, INC 8911 -04G 'November 1989 NUMBER EP -5 0 5 10 15 0 5 NUMBER EP -6 10 15 62nd Avenue S. Apartments Sunwood Boulevard Tukwila, Washington. EXPLORATION PIT LOGS SEDIMENT DESCRPTION SEDIMENT DESCRIPTION ASSOCIATED EARTH SCIENCES, INC 8911 -04G November 1989 Loose, damp,' brown,'silty, fine to medium sand with numerous roots. (Topsoil) ' - S Dense, dry to damp, light brown, silty, fine to medium sand with trace gravel and occasional cobbles. (Till) Weathered in upper 1' - - BOH 12' Due to refusal by boulder Note: No seepage No caving NUMBER EP -5 0 5 10 15 0 5 NUMBER EP -6 10 15 62nd Avenue S. Apartments Sunwood Boulevard Tukwila, Washington. EXPLORATION PIT LOGS SEDIMENT DESCRPTION SEDIMENT DESCRIPTION ASSOCIATED EARTH SCIENCES, INC 8911 -04G November 1989 Medium dense, dry to damp, light brown, silty, fine to medium sand with some gravel. Buried tree at 2' (Fill) Dense, dry to damp, light brown, silty, fine to medium sand with trace gravel and occasional cobbles. (Till) Weathered in upper 1' Very dense, damp to moist, grey, silty, fine to medium sand with some gravel. • BOH 14' Note: No seepage No caving NUMBER EP -5 0 5 10 15 0 5 NUMBER EP -6 10 15 62nd Avenue S. Apartments Sunwood Boulevard Tukwila, Washington. EXPLORATION PIT LOGS SEDIMENT DESCRPTION SEDIMENT DESCRIPTION ASSOCIATED EARTH SCIENCES, INC 8911 -04G November 1989 NUMBER EP -7 0 5 10 15 0 5 15 NUMBER EP -8 10 62nd Avenue S. Apartments Sunwood Boulevard Tukwila, Washington. EXPLORATION PIT LOGS SEDIMENT DESCR SEDIMENT DESCRIPTION ASSOCIATED EARTH SCIENCES, INC 8911 -04G IN0vembe. 1989 1 Loose, damp, 'biown,•silty, fine to medium sand with numerous . . . roots. (Topsoil) Dense, dry to damp, light brown, silty, fine to medium sand with trace gravel and occassional cobbles. (Till) Weathered in upper 1' - Very dense, damp to moist, grey, silty, fine to medium sand with some gravel. _ BOH 12' Note: No seepage No caving NUMBER EP -7 0 5 10 15 0 5 15 NUMBER EP -8 10 62nd Avenue S. Apartments Sunwood Boulevard Tukwila, Washington. EXPLORATION PIT LOGS SEDIMENT DESCR SEDIMENT DESCRIPTION ASSOCIATED EARTH SCIENCES, INC 8911 -04G IN0vembe. 1989 1 Loose to medium dense, damp, brown, silty, sand. (Fill) Thin topsoil horizon between fill and underlying sediments. . . Dense, dry to damp, light brown, silty, fine to medium sand with trace gravel and occasional cobbles. (Till) Weathered in upper 1' - - Medium dense to dense, moist, grey /brown, fine to medium sand interbedded with stiff silt layers. Sandstone bedrock. - .. BOH 15' Note: No seepage, no caving NUMBER EP -7 0 5 10 15 0 5 15 NUMBER EP -8 10 62nd Avenue S. Apartments Sunwood Boulevard Tukwila, Washington. EXPLORATION PIT LOGS SEDIMENT DESCR SEDIMENT DESCRIPTION ASSOCIATED EARTH SCIENCES, INC 8911 -04G IN0vembe. 1989 1 _ with some gravel and rocks. (Fill) Medium dense, moist, grey, medium sand. • Dense, damp, orange then tan, fine to medium grained sandstone. _ BOH 11f' _ Note: No ground water No caving r NUMBER EP - 9 0 5 15 5 10 0 NUMBER .EP -1O • 10 15 62nd Avenue S. Apartments EXPLORATION PIT LOGS SEDIMENT DESCRIPTION SEDIMENT DESCRIPTION ASSOCIATED EARTH SCIENCES, INC 8911 -04G I April 1990 I Topsoil • 7 Loose to medium dense, moist, orangish brown, silty sand with occasional pieces of rock. 3 -12" in Dia. (Fill) • Dense, moist, silty, fine to medium sand with some gravel. (Till) Very dense, damp to moist, blue /grey, silty, fine to medium sand with some gravel and occasional cobbles and boulders. (Till) _ BOH 15' . Note: No ground water, no caving _ with some gravel and rocks. (Fill) Medium dense, moist, grey, medium sand. • Dense, damp, orange then tan, fine to medium grained sandstone. _ BOH 11f' _ Note: No ground water No caving r NUMBER EP - 9 0 5 15 5 10 0 NUMBER .EP -1O • 10 15 62nd Avenue S. Apartments EXPLORATION PIT LOGS SEDIMENT DESCRIPTION SEDIMENT DESCRIPTION ASSOCIATED EARTH SCIENCES, INC 8911 -04G I April 1990 I Medium dense, moist, orangish brown, silty, fine to medium sand NUMBER EP - 9 0 5 15 5 10 0 NUMBER .EP -1O • 10 15 62nd Avenue S. Apartments EXPLORATION PIT LOGS SEDIMENT DESCRIPTION SEDIMENT DESCRIPTION ASSOCIATED EARTH SCIENCES, INC 8911 -04G I April 1990 I NUMBER EP-11 0 5 10 15 Medium dense, moist, orangish brown, silty, fine to medium sand with some gravel and cobbles. (Fill) Dense, moist, grey /brown, silty, fine to medium sand with some gravel and occasioanl cobbles. (Till) weathered on top BOH 16 Note: No seepage, no caving NUMBER EP -12 0 5 10 15 62nd Avenue S. Apartments EXPLORATION PIT LOLa SEDIMENT DESCRPTION SEDIMENT DESCRIPTION ASSOCIATED EARTH SCIENCES, INC 8911 -04G April 1990 I Loose to medium dense, moist, brown /dark brown, silty, fine to medium sand with some gravel and cobbles. (Fill) ' ' Dense, moist, grey /brown, silty, fine to medium sand with some gravel. (Till) weathered in upper 1 -2' • Dense to very dense, moist, blue /grey, silty, fine to medium sand with some gravel. (Till) - - BOH 15' Note: No seepage, no caving i NUMBER EP-11 0 5 10 15 Medium dense, moist, orangish brown, silty, fine to medium sand with some gravel and cobbles. (Fill) Dense, moist, grey /brown, silty, fine to medium sand with some gravel and occasioanl cobbles. (Till) weathered on top BOH 16 Note: No seepage, no caving NUMBER EP -12 0 5 10 15 62nd Avenue S. Apartments EXPLORATION PIT LOLa SEDIMENT DESCRPTION SEDIMENT DESCRIPTION ASSOCIATED EARTH SCIENCES, INC 8911 -04G April 1990 I NUMBER EP -13 0 15 0 5 5 10 NUMBER EP -14 10 15 EXPLORATION PIT LO SEDIMENT DESCRPTION 62nd Avenue S. Apartments SEDIMENT DESCRIPTION ASSOCIATED EARTH SCIENCES, INC 8911 -04G I April 1990 I . y Medium dense, moist, orangish brown, silty, fine to medium. sand. . Dense, moist, grey /brown, silty, fine gravel. (Till) weathered in top 1 -2' to medium sand with some Very dense, moist, blue /grey, silty, fine to medium sand with some gravel, occasional cobbles and boulders. (Till) BOB 15' Note: No seepage No caving B011 14' Note: Minor ground water at 11' No caving NUMBER EP -13 0 15 0 5 5 10 NUMBER EP -14 10 15 EXPLORATION PIT LO SEDIMENT DESCRPTION 62nd Avenue S. Apartments SEDIMENT DESCRIPTION ASSOCIATED EARTH SCIENCES, INC 8911 -04G I April 1990 I Medium dense, moist, silty, fine to medium sand with some gravel and cobbles. (Fill) Dense, moist, grey /brown, silty, fine to medium sand with some gravel. Weathered in top 1' (Till) Very dense, moist, blue /grey, silty, fine to medium sand with some gravel, occasional cobbles and boulders. (Till) - - B011 14' Note: Minor ground water at 11' No caving NUMBER EP -13 0 15 0 5 5 10 NUMBER EP -14 10 15 EXPLORATION PIT LO SEDIMENT DESCRPTION 62nd Avenue S. Apartments SEDIMENT DESCRIPTION ASSOCIATED EARTH SCIENCES, INC 8911 -04G I April 1990 I NUMBER EP -15 0 5 10 15 NUMBER 0-- 10 15- 62nd Avenue S. Apartments EXPLORATION PIT LOGS SEDIMENT DESCRPTION 8911 -04C 1 April 1990 I SEDIMENT DE SCRIPTION ASSOCIATED EAATH SCIENCES, INC Loose, moist, dark brown, silty, fine sand with numerous roots. (Fill) Loose to medium dense, moist, brown, silty, fine to medium sand with trace of gravel. Dense, moist, grey, silty, fine to medium sand with some gravel. (Till) . Dense, damp, tan, fine to medium grained sandstone. - BOH 13' Note: No ground water No caving NUMBER EP -15 0 5 10 15 NUMBER 0-- 10 15- 62nd Avenue S. Apartments EXPLORATION PIT LOGS SEDIMENT DESCRPTION 8911 -04C 1 April 1990 I SEDIMENT DE SCRIPTION ASSOCIATED EAATH SCIENCES, INC /54.3? (cacc.) /55 ric a 4 • CEM. CONC. CURB t 1U7TER (TTP /CAL /N !IS) /3282 1329B . /NV. /E.) /3290 r COOT. DEP97I a r ASI'10/7 CONC. /ir'1,1 /N. COMP,. DEP11/ CR SURE. /OP COI/Rif tir M /N. COMPS DEPTH CR. SURE. 845E COURSE ROAD SECT /ON A - NO SCAlf .— ffANT /hC 57R /P 1111111 V •, �. .• FIGURE 2. CITY OF. TUKWILA ROADWAY SPECIFICATION /5' 23' 4 =6' r _ J L� �--� EP -1 FF =177.0 REP -2 ---- 1so \ t L_ r t r-----1 ' —1 . " �- r! J t- J L l i Building "A" r d.— 4 FF =153.9 il S 150 r ..-- f ---, r-r ., , -J 1 r l L_J 1. _J L_ REP -4 \ Building "B" FF =134.4 f r ` i - -tr- --_r - -ur- Lr —J ■ 18 0 Proposed Building R EP -3 REP -13 1 "O 1 I. l r *0 Note: Finished floor elevations provided by D.R. Strong Consulting Engineers from a map entitled Road and Storm Drainage Plan, Sheet 2 of 5, dated 13 November, 1989. Building 'C" FF =133.7 AEP -5 ter-., F • r�� EP 9v EP -11 1 Building "P FF =164.7 • 170 P -1,2,v dEP -10 180 vEP -8 L 4 �uilding "E" FF =155.9 A go Proposed Building P -14J .440 5 Building "D" R -6 k../ FF =133.2 vEP -15 r / Property Line Proposed Building EXPLANATION o Ep -1 Exploration Pit Approximate Location 62nd AVENI S. APARTMENTS 0 30 60 Scale in Feet NOVEMBER 1989 PROJECT NO. 8911 -04G ASSOCIATED SC IEN CES, INC SCIENCES Avenue, Kirkland Washington 98033 GI EP-1 vio 0 EP -2.. .....--- 160 \ r rr,_ lZl fi L r -� L- - -J i Building "A" r�r -e-- -- Building ne Is r `�-_. r : -r- --. s--' 1s0 1- l4 EP-4 ti 4 ti \Building "B" j 180 SEB -1 SEB -2 SEB -3 r 1 -1 r rt, 1 ti Building "F" 170 SEB -4 N oEP -3 \\ EP -5 Building "C" A3 -tr --r— t -z \ 180 ra--a.1 — f t1 ,; L - EP -8 It —_ i i 4 Building 'E" f y r / SEB -5 ,so Proposed Building Proposed Building 1 °0 B uilding "D" oEP -6 r J . —J fl 1 5° Property Line EXPLANATION FIGURE 1: SITE AND EXPLORATION PLAN 62nd AVENUE S. APARTMENTS / 1 WI EP -1 Exploration Pit Approximate Location SEB -1 Exploration Boring Approximate Location 0 30 60 APRIL 1990 PROJECT NO. 8911 -04G ASSOCIATED EARTH SCIENCES, INC 903 - 5th Avenue. Kirkland. Washington 98033 Scale In Feet C STEINVALL CONSTRUCTION CO. GENERAL CONTRACTOR May 21, 1990 City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Blvd. Tukwila, WA 98188 NSTEINCC131 CO ATTN: Jack P. Pace, Senior Partner RE: Building Permit Applications #89 -362 thru #89 -381 Dear Mr. Pace: In our continuing effort to provide design information for the community development department for the threshold determination and after meetings with Mr. L. Rick Beeler on May 15th 1990 and Mr. Phil Fraser and Mr. Ross Heller on May 17th, 1990 and a review of Mr. Aippersbach April 27th, 1990 memorandum, on this date we are providing the following: 1) D.R. Strong civil consulting engineer, cross - sections and profiles of retaining walls and cross - sections thru site. 2) Roger Newell, Architect, design features of entrance and South property line retaining walls, cross sections, etc. 3) Associated earth sciences geotechnical engineer letters dated May 21,1990, in regards to construction, operation and maintenance of South property line retaining walls. Thank you in advance, for your interest in this matter. Please contact me at 822 -6440 should you have questions. Sincerely, STEINVALL CONSTRUCTION CO. Gary R. Steinvall President CC: Gary Huff, Karr Tuttle Campbell Bill Juede C. Michael Aippersbach Roger Newell, AIA, Al Roberts D.R. Strong, Donald Hill GRS:sv P.O. BOX 2458 • KIRKLAND, WASHINGTON 98083 -2458 (206) 822 -6440 STEINVALL CONSTRUCTION CO. (206) 822 -6440 GENERAL CONTRACTOR asTE'Ncc131 CO ' I I ,._...,.. - May 15, 1990 �S��, I � lri � �;" �'��C,� City of Tukwila mAy 17 1990 6200 Southcenter Blvd. Tukwila, WA 98188 G (�; ATTN: Jack P. Pace, Senior Partner }. -- ---�"' RE: Building Permit Applications #89 -362 thru #89 -381 Dear Mr. Pace: Because of lack of response and the importance of our request in our April 13, 1990 letter, return your written confirmation of our request for extension by may 21, 1990. Thank you in advance, for your interest in this matter and your response to my request. Please contact me at 822 -6440 should you have questions. Sincerely, STEINVALL CONSTRUCTION CO. Gary R. Steinvall President GRS:sa CC: Gary Huff, Karr Tuttle Campbell Bill Jeude Warren Ballard Roger Newell, AIA File P.O. BOX 2458 • KIRKLAND, WASHINGTON 98083 -2458 A PR- 2: T -'=•C' FF' I 1 C' : C' C P A C K A G E S Date: April 27, 1990 To: Gary Steinvall, Steinvall Construction NPI44044-- From: Michael Aippersbach, Consultant (523 -3764) Subject: 62nd Ave So. Apt's /Design Rev. Appl../ (89- 14 --DR) My discussions with Public Works on the project at the City's DRC meeting yesterday resulted in the reaffirmation that they need specific information for the proposed project to provide the Community development Department with their recommendation on a Threshold Determination. They commented they requested, but did not receive the following information as per their previous requests: O A site and civil plan showing the (1) revisions to the retaining walls and also (2) an easement for construction, maintenance, and operation of the retaining wall on the south property line; o Revised cross - sections of the showing the new retaining wall heights and slopes; and o Profiles showing the design of the retaining walls. cc. Phil Fraser, Tukwila Public Works Department Aippersbach & Ryan - Consultants tuk.dev.rev.dsk., file LINLTD R.02 WlaW MAY 2 1 1990 cay PLANN NG. DEPT. 3 3 Ilkit' . • t Iii CNA Citt ' /II /b 4stvft--24' milk J P ma WA! AL _MAW f, 4 MAY 21 c (1j' f 3f Ki'3+ vi P . A . t..!N ;N)("i rai I_W_, A' FR MAY 21.1990 crry 017 't 5 .0 WO' 'LP FORM NO. W -142 Transamerica Title insurance Co ny Washington Commitment — 1989 c COMMITMENT ! INjSUALAN ;E Issued By Tid ansamer i ca Title Insurance Company Transamerica Title Insurance Company,.a California corporation, herein called the Company, for a valuable consideration, hereby commits to issue its policy or policies of title insurance, as identified in Schedule A, in favor of the proposed insured named in Schedule A, as owner or mortgagee of the estate or interest covered hereby in the land described or referred to in Schedule A, upon payment of the premiums .nd charges therefor; all subject to the exceptions and conditions and stipulations shown here!�'ni,�the Exclusions from Coverage, the Schedule B exceptions, and the conditions and stipulatiohs'of the policy or policies requested. (See reverse side of this cover and inside of back cover fogr iped Exclusions from Coverage and Schedule B exceptions contained in various policy form j. -• ' This Commitment shall be effective only when:the identity of the proposed Insured and the amount of the policy or policies committed for havelbe �i�nserted in Schedule A hereof by the Company, either at the time of the issuance of this C o rr r itment or by subsequent endorsements and is subject to the Conditions and Stipulations o tit a back of this cover. y 4x This Commitment is preliminary to the issuance;.tif -stich policy or policies of title insurance and all liability and obligations hereunder shall cea'�nd %terminate six months after the effective date hereof or when the policy or policies corimttedaforrshall issue, whichever first occurs, provided that the failure to issue such policy or policies is''notsthe.fault of the Company. IN WITNESS WHEREOF Transamerica Title:Insuonce Company has caused its corporate name and seal to be hereunto. affixed by its duly'a o .*zed officers on the date shown in Schedule A. NOTE: THE POLICY COMMITTED FO„R`I11�AY,fBE "EXAMINED BY INQUIRY AT THE OFFICE ,X: � arrcai SP WHICH ISSUED THE COMMITME�NT:AND =A ECIMEN COPY OF THE POLICY FORM (OR FORMS) REFERRED TOIN?THIS,`'COMMITMENT WILL BE FURNISHED . PROMPTLY Transamerica Title Insurance Company 0.E iNsil By By President Secretary 1. The term mortgage, when used herein, shall in 2. If the proposed insured has or acquires actual kr the estate or interest or mortgage thereon co shall fail to disclose such knowledge to the C damage resulting from any act of reliance her ledge. If the proposed insured shall disclose knowledge of any such defect, lien, encumbran B of this Commitment accordingly, but such ai suant to paragraph 3 of these Conditions and 3. Liability of the Company under this Commitme the definition of insured in the form of policy undertaking in good faith, (a) to comply with tl (c) to acquire or create the estate or interest o exceed the amount stated in Schedule A for provisions, the Conditions and Stipulations, an favor of the proposed insured which are here expressly modified herein. 4. Any action or actions or rights of action that t the status of the title to the estate or interest o on and are subject to the provisions of this Co 1. (a) Any law, ordinance or governmental regulat but not limited to building and zoning law or regulations) restricting, regulating, pro lating to (i) the occupancy, use, or enjoyme (ii) the character, dimensions or location of ment now or hereafter erected on the land; tion in ownership or a change in the dime of the land or any parcel of which the la part; or (iv) environmental protection, or any violation of these laws, ordinances or regulations, except to the extent that a no forcement thereof or a notice of a defect, I brance resulting from a violation or allege fecting the land has been recorded in the at Date of Policy. (b) Any governmental police power not exclude except to the extent that a notice of the ex or a notice of a defect, lien or encumbrance a violation or alleged violation affecting th= recorded in the public records at Date of 2. Rights of eminent domain unless notice o • thereof has been recorded in the public rec Policy, but not excluding from coverage any t. occurred prior to Date of Policy which would the rights of a purchaser for value without k COMMITMENT CONDITIONS AND STIPULATIONS elude deed of trust, trust deed, or other security instrument. owledge of any defect, lien, encumbrance, adverse claim or other matter affecting vered by this Commitment other than those shown in Schedule B hereof, and ompany in writing, the Company shall be relieved from liability for any loss or on to the extent the Company is prejudiced by failure to so disclose such know - �uch knowledge to the Company, or if the Company otherwise acquires actual e, adverse claim or other matter, the Company at its option may amend Schedule nendment shall not relieve the Company from liability previously incurred pur- tipulations. nt shall be only to the named proposed insured and such parties included under r policies committed for and only for actual loss incurred in reliance hereon in e requirements hereof, or (b) to eliminate exceptions shown in Schedule B, or r mortgage thereon covered by this Commitment. In no event shall such liability he policy policies committed for and such liability is subject to the insuring • the Exclusions from Coverage of the form of policy or policies committed for in y incorporated by reference and are made a part of this Commitment except as e proposed insured may have or may bring against the Company arising out of the status of the mortgage thereon covered by this Commitment must be based mitment. SCHEDULE o F EXCLUSIONS FROM COVERAGE The matters listed below each policy form are e pressly excluded from the coverage of that policy and the Company will not pay loss or damage, costs, attorneys' fees or expens s which arise by reason thereof: AMERICAN LAND TITLE AS . OCIATION LOAN POLICY (6 -1 -87) AMENDED 10 -21 -87 and AMERICAN LAND TITLE ASSOCIA ION LEASEHOLD LOAN POLICY (6 -1 -87) AMENDED 10 -21 -87 on (including , ordinances, ibiting or re- t of the land; any improve - (iii) a separa- sions or area d is or was a the effect of overnmental ice of the en- en or encum- • violation af- ublic records by (a) above, rcise thereof resulting from land has been olicy. the exercise rds at Date of ing which has be binding on owledge. 3. Defects, liens, encumbrances, adverse claims or other matters: (a) created, suffered, assumed or agreed to by the insured claimant; (b) not known to the Company, not recorded in the public records at Date of Policy, but known to the insured claimant and not disclosed in writing to the Company by the insured claimant prior to the date the insured claimant became an insured under this policy; (c) resulting in no loss or damage to the insured claimant; (d) attaching or created subsequent to Date of Policy (except to the extent that this policy insures the priority of the lien of the insured mortgage over any statutory lien for services, labor or material); . (e) resulting in loss or damage which would not have been sustained if the insured claimant had paid value for the insured mortgage. 4. Unenforceability of the lien of the insured mortgage because of the inability or failure of the insured at Date of Policy, or the inability or failure of any subsequent owner of the in- debtedness, to comply with applicable doing business laws of the state in which the land is situated. 5. Invalidity or unenforceability of the lien of the insured mort- gage, or claim thereof, which arises out of the transaction evidenced by the insured mortgage and is based upon usury or any consumer credit protection or truth in lending law. 6. Any statutory lien for services, labor or materials (or the claim of priority of any statutory lien for services, labor or materials over the lien of the insured mortgage) arising from an improvement or work related to the land which is contracted for and commenced subsequent to Date of Policy and is not financed in whole or in part by proceeds of the indebtedness secured by the insured mortgage which at Date of Policy the insured has advanced or is obligated to advance. Continued on Inside Back Cover PLEASE DIRECT CORRESPONDENCE TO: Transamerica Title Insurance Co. 320 108th Avenue N.E. P.O. Box 1493 Bellevue, WA 98009 Prepared for: OLD STONE REAL ESTATE SERVICES 3605 132ND AVENUE S.E., #100 BELLEVUE, WA 98006 ATTN: MARIJANE SCHEDULE A SECOND COMMITMENT • EFFECTIVE DATE: March 15, 1990 at 8:00 A.M. 1. Policy or policies to be issued: Transamerica No.: 0795782 Customer No. . - -- Seller : Citizens Service Buyer /Borrower : Steinvall Amount For service on this order, call: 646- 8580/1- 800 - 441 -7701 LIZ SIMPSON or DAVID P. CAMPBELL (FAX 4646-8593) (X) Alta Owner's Policy (6 -1 -87) $495,000.00 Premium ( ) Alta Owner's Policy -1970 Tax (Amended 10- 17 -70) Binder Rate Extended Policy Proposed Insured: GARY STEINVALL Total 2. Title to fee simple estate or interest in said land is at the effective date hereof vested in: CITIZENS SERVICE CORPORATION, A WASHINGTON CORPORATION 3. The land referred to in this commitment is situated in the County of King, State of Washington and is described as follows: -see attached- DESCRIPTION: PARCEL A: THAT PORTION OF TRACT 11 OF. INTERURBAN ADDITION TO SEATTLE, AS PER PLAT RECORDED IN VOLUME 10 OF PLATS, PAGE 55, RECORDS OF KING COUNTY, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT A POINT ON THE EAST LINE OF SAID TRACT 11 WHICH IS 162.79 FEET NORTH OF THE SOUTHEAST CORNER THEREOF; THENCE CONTINUING NORTH 00 °08' WEST 359.88 FEET TO THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF SAID TRACT 11; THENCE SOUTH 89 °52' WEST ALONG THE NORTHERLY LINE THEREOF 300.88 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 00 °08' EAST 398.14 FEET; THENCE NORTH 89 °52' EAST 141.65 FEET; THENCE NORTH 00 °08' WEST 38.26 FEET; THENCE NORTH 89 °52' EAST 159.21 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING; EXCEPT THE EASTERLY 5.00 FEET AS CONVEYED TO THE CITY OF TUKWILA BY DEED RECORDED UNDER RECORDING NO. 7909040616; SITUATE IN THE CITY OF TUKWILA, COUNTY OF KING, STATE OF WASHINGTON. PARCEL B: TOGETHER•WITH AN EASEMENT FOR INGRESS, EGRESS AND UTILITY PURPOSES OVER THE 'WEST.30 FEET OF THE EAST 480.86 FEET AND LYING SOUTH OF.THE NORTH 280.00 FEET OF TRACT 11 INTERURBAN ADDITION TO THE CITY OF•SEATTLE, AS PER PLAT RECORDED IN VOLUME 10 OF PLATS, PAGE 55, RECORDS OF KING COUNTY; LOT 1 OF CITY OF TUKWILA SHORT PLAT NO. 81- 30 -SS, ACCORDING TO THE SHORT PLAT RECORDED UNDER KING COUNTY RECORDING NO. 8112100483; SITUATE IN THE CITY OF TUKWILA, COUNTY OF KING, STATE OF WASHINGTON. EXCEPTIONS: Schedule B of the policy or policies to be issued will contain exceptions to the following matters unless the same are disposed of to the satisfaction of the Company. A. Standard exceptions set forth on inside back cover. B. Defects, liens, encumbrances, adverse claims or other matters, if any, created, first appearing in the public records or attaching subsequent to the effective date hereof but prior to the date the proposed insured acquires for value of record the estate or interest or mortgage thereon covered by this Commitment. C. Instruments necessary to create the estate or interest to be properly executed, delivered and duly filed for record. 1. Real Estate Excise Tax pursuant to the authority of RCW Chapter 82.45 and subsequent amendments thereto. As of the date herein, the tax rate for said property is .0153. 2. General taxes, as follows, together with interest, penalty and statutory foreclosure costs, if any, after delinquency: (1st half delinquent on May 1; 2nd half delinquent on November 1) TAX ACCOUNT NO, YEAR 359700 - 0200 -01 1990 (Covers Parcel A) 359700 - 0208 -03 1990 (Covers Parcel B) The levy code for the 3. ASSESSMENT: ORIGINAL AMOUNT: INTEREST: FROM: ANNUAL INSTALLMENTS: INSTALLMENTS PAID: NEXT INSTALLMENT DELINQUENT: LEVIED BY: FOR: L.I.D. NO: ASSESSMENT ACCOUNT NO.: SUBJECT TO FORECLOSURE (Covers Parcel A) 4. The effect, if any, of: SCHEDULE B AMOUNT BILLED AMOUNT PAID PRINCIPAL BALANCE $4,282.70 $ .00 $4,282.70 $2,329.30 $ .00 $2,329.30 property herein described is PAGE $56,917.24 12.4% January 23, 1981 10 9 January 23, 1991 City of Tukwila Streets and utilities 29 2 2380 for 1990. 3 0795782 EASEMENT AND THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS THEREOF: DISCLOSED BY: PURPOSE: AREA AFFECTED: 5. EASEMENT AND THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS THEREOF: DISCLOSED BY: PURPOSE: AREA AFFECTED: (Covers Parcel A) 6. EASEMENT AND THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS THEREOF: DISCLOSED BY: Instrument recorded under Recording No. 7906150932 PURPOSE: Ingress, egress, drainage and utilities AREA AFFECTED: The description contained therein is not sufficient to determine its exact location within the property herein described (Covers Parcel A) 7. EASEMENT AND THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS THEREOF: DISCLOSED BY: PURPOSE: AREA AFFECTED: Instrument recorded under Recording No. 5473599 Right to enter where necessary to construct portion of highway Parcel B of property herein described and other property Instrument recorded under Recording No. 7903070626 Ingress and egress The North 25 feet of the East 275 feet of Lot 11 Instrument recorded under Recording No. 7906150935 Ingress, egress, utilities and drainage Portion of property herein described and other property 8. UNDERGROUND UTILITY EASEMENT AND THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS THEREOF: GRANTEE: PURPOSE: Puget Sound Power & Light Company, a Washington corporation Right to construct, operate, maintain, repair, replace and enlarge an underground electric transmission and /or distribution system AREA AFFECTED: A right -of -way 10 feet in width having 5 feet of such width on each side of a centerline described as follows: The centerline of Grantee's facilities as constructed or to be constructed, extended or relocated DATED: June 5, 1980 RECORDED: June 24, 1980 RECORDING NO.: 8006240436 (Covers Parcel A and other property) Contains covenant prohibiting structures over said easement or other activity which might endanger the underground system. 9. EASEMENT AND THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS THEREOF: GRANTEE: Pacific Northwest Bell Telephone Company, a Washington corporation PURPOSE: Right to place, construct, operate and maintain, inspect, reconstruct, repair, replace and keep clean underground communication lines AREA AFFECTED: A strip of land 10 feet in width having 5 feet of such width on each side of the lines as placed DATED: July 17, 1980 RECORDED: August 25, 1980 RECORDING NO.: 8008250582 (Covers Parcel A and other property) 10 EASEMENT AND THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS THEREOF: GRANTEE: City of Tukwila, a municipal corporation of King County, Washington PURPOSE: Water and sanitary sewers AREA AFFECTED: The description contained therein is not sufficient to determine its exact location within the property herein described DATED: April 30, 1982 RECORDED: May 26, 1982 RECORDING NO.: 8205260591 (Covers Parcel A and other property) Covenants, conditions, restrictions and easements imposed by instrument recorded on November 13, 1980, under Recording No. 8011130853. PAGE 5 0795782 BY: DATED: RECORDED: RECORDING NO.: 12. Easements, restrictions and recital set forth on the face under King County Recording No. 8112100483. (Covers Parcel B) 13. AFFIDAVIT AND THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS THEREOF: 14. AGREEMENT AND THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS THEREOF: BETWEEN: AND: DATED: RECORDED: RECORDING NO.: REGARDING: (Covers Parcel A 15. DEED OF TRUST AND THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS THEREOF: GRANTOR: TRUSTEE: BENEFICIARY: ADDRESS: ORIGINAL AMOUNT: DATED: RECORDED: RECORDING NO.: (Covers Parcel A and other property) and other property) Russel D. Coffelt January 21, 1971 February 1, 1971 7102010298 of short plat recorded Pacific Townhouse Builders -Parke Place, a joint venture composed of Parke Place Number One, Inc., a Washington corporation; Parke Place Number Two, Inc., a Washington corporation and Parke Place Number Three, Inc., a Washington corporation City of Tukwila, Washington, a municipal corporation July 16, 1979 September 4, 1979 7909040615 Segregation of liability for assessments among adjoining properties Pacific Townhouse Builders -Parke Place, a joint venture composed of Parke Place Number One, Inc., a Washington corporation, Parke Place Number Two, Inc., a Washington corporation, Parke Place Number Three, Inc., a Washington corporation Safeco Title Insurance Company, a California corporation Old Stone Savings Bank, formerly Citizens Federal Savings & Loan Association of Seattle 1409 5th Avenue Seattle, WA 98101 $500,000.00 July 8, 1982 July 27, 1982. 8207270247 PAGE 6 0795782 ASSIGNMENT OF SAID DEED OF TRUST: ASSIGNEE: ADDRESS: DATED: RECORDED: RECORDING NO.: NOTE: Said deed of trust may be merged with the legal title. If so, such merger should be evidenced by reconveyance of the deed of trust. SAID DEED OF TRUST WAS PARTIALLY RELEASED AS TO OTHER PROPERTY BY INSTRUMENT: DATED: RECORDED: RECORDING NO.: SAID DEED OF TRUST WAS PARTIALLY RELEASED AS TO OTHER PROPERTY BY INSTRUMENT: DATED: RECORDED: RECORDING NO.: SAID DEED OF TRUST WAS PARTIALLY RELEASED AS TO OTHER PROPERTY BY INSTRUMENT: DATED: RECORDED: RECORDING NO.: SAID DEED OF TRUST WAS PARTIALLY RELEASED AS TO OTHER PROPERTY BY INSTRUMENT: DATED: RECORDED: RECORDING NO.: 16. DEED OF TRUST AND THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS THEREOF: GRANTOR: TRUSTEE: BENEFICIARY: ADDRESS: ORIGINAL AMOUNT: DATED: RECORDED: RECORDING NO.: (Covers Parcel B) PAGE February 16, 1983 February 24, 1983 8302240217 December 6, 1982 December 8; 1982 8212080108 Citizens Service Corporation, a Washington corporation 3605 132nd Avenue S.E. Bellevue, WA 98008 -9625 October 25, 1988 October 28, 1988 8810281301 September 15, 1983 September 20, 1983 8309200125 September 20, 1983 September 22, 1983 8309220165 Windmark Homes - Tukwila Inc., a Washington corporation Safeco Title Insurance Company Old Stone Bank, formerly Citizens Federal Savings and Loan Association of Seattle 3605 132nd Avenue S.E. Bellevue, WA 98006 $243,000.00 April 30, 1985 May 9, 1985 8505090769 0795782 ASSIGNMENT OF SAID DEED OF TRUST: ASSIGNEE: Citizens Service Corporation, a Washington corporation ADDRESS: 3605 132nd Avenue S.E. Bellevue, WA 98008 -9625 DATED: October 25, 1988 RECORDED: October 28, 1988 RECORDING NO.: 8810281300 NOTE: Said deed of trust may be merged with the legal title. If so, such merger should be evidenced by reconveyance of the deed of trust. 17. Any defect in or invalidity to the title to said land or claim of any defect or invalidity of said title arising out of or occasioned by a violation of or the application of the Bankruptcy Code, or any fraudulent conveyance law or insolvency law. 18. MATTERS REVEALED BY SURVEY BY TRIAD ASSOCIATES DATED NOVEMBER 22, 1988 UNDER JOB NO. 88 -313: Rockery encroachments on the South boundary line of Parcel A. NOTE 1: Assessed Valuation: Land $330,400.00 Improvements (Covers Parcel A) Land $179,700.00 Improvements (Covers Parcel B), END OF EXCEPTIONS INVESTIGATION SHOULD BE MADE TO DETERMINE IF THERE ARE ANY SERVICE, INSTALLATION, MAINTENANCE OR CONSTRUCTION CHARGES FOR SEWER, WATER OR ELECTRICITY. IN THE EVENT THIS TRANSACTION FAILS TO CLOSE, A CANCELLATION FEE WILL BE CHARGED FOR SERVICES RENDERED IN ACCORDANCE WITH OUR RATE SCHEDULE. ENCLOSURES: Sketch KA /ga cc: GARY STEINVALL STEINVALL CONST. 911 5TH AVENUE, #102 KIRKLAND, WA 98034 PAGE 8 0795782 WASHINGTON STANDARD LOAN POLICY. (12 -1 -88) • a. (a) Any law, ordinance or governmental regulation (including but not limited to building and zoning laws, ordinances, or regulations) restricting, regulating, prohibiting or relating to (i) the occupancy, use, or enjoyment of the land; (ii) the character, dimensions or location of any improve- ment now or hereafter erected on the land; (iii) a separation in ownership or a change in the dimensions or area of the land or any parcel of which the land is or was a part; or (iv) protection, or the effect of any violation of these laws, ordinances or governmental regulations, except to•the extent that a notice of the enforcement thereof or a notice of a defect, lien or encumbrance resulting from a violation or alleged violation affecting the land has been recorded in the public records at Date of Policy. (b) Any governmental police power not excluded by (a) above, except to the extent that a notice of the exercise thereof or a notice of a defect, lien or encumbrance resulting from a violation or alleged violation affecting the land has been recorded in the public records at Date of Policy. 2. Rights of eminent domain unless notice of the exercise thereof has been recorded in the public records at Date of Policy, but not excluding from coverage any taking which has occurred prior to Date of Policy which would be binding on the rights of a purchaser for value without knowledge. 3. Defects, liens, encumbrances, adverse claims or other matters: (a) created, suffered, assumed or agreed to by the insured claimant; (b) not known to the Company, not recorded in the public records at Date of Policy, but known to the insured claimant and not disclosed in writing to the Company by the insured claimant prior to the date the insured claimant became an insured under this policy; (c) resulting in no loss or damage to the insured claimant; (d) attaching or created subsequent to Date of Policy (except to the extent that this policy insures the priority of the lien of the insured mortgage over any statutory lien for services, labor or material); (e) resulting in loss or damage which would not have been sustained if the insured claimant had paid value for the insured mortgage. 4. Unenforceability of the lien of the insured mortgage because of the inability or failure of the insured at Date of Policy, or the inability or failure of any subsequent owner of the indebtedness, to comply with applicable doing business laws of the state in which the land is situated. 5. Invalidity or unenforceability of the lien of the insured mortgage, or claim thereof, which arises out of the transaction evidenced by the insured mortgage and is based upon usury or any consumer credit protection or truth in lending law. AMERICAN LAND TITLE ASSOCIATION OWNER'S POLICY(6 -1 -87) AMENDED 10 -21 -87 and AMERICAN LAND TITLE ASSOCIATION LEASEHOLD OWNER'S POLICY (6 -1 -87) AMENDED 10 -21 -87 1. (a) Any law, ordinance or governmental regulation (including but not limited to building and zoning laws, ordinances, or regulations) restricting, regulating, prohibiting or relating to (i) the occupancy, use, or enjoyment of the land; (ii) the character, dimensions or location of any improve- ment now or hereafter erected on the land; (iii) a separation in ownership or a change in the dimensions or area of the land or any parcel of which the land is or was a part; or (iv) environmental protection, or the effect of any violation of these laws, ordinances or governmental regulations, except to the extent that a notice of the enforcement thereof or a notice of a defect, lien or encumbrance resulting from a violation or alleged violation affecting the land has been recorded in the public records at Date of Policy. (b) Any governmental police power not excluded by (a) above, except to the extent that a notice of the exercise thereof or a notice of a defect, lien or encumbrance resulting from a violation or alleged violation affecting the land has been recorded in the public records at Date of Policy. 2. Rights of eminent domain unless notice of the exercise thereof has been recorded in the public records at Date of Policy, but not excluding from coverage any taking which has occurred prior to Date of Policy which would be binding on the rights of a purchaser for value without knowledge. 3. Defects, liens, encumbrances, adverse claims or other matters: (a) created, suffered, assumed or agreed to by the insured claimant; (b) not known to the Company, not recorded in the public records at Date of Policy, but known to the insured claimant and not disclosed in writing to the Company by the insured claimant prior to the date the insured claimant became an insured under this policy; (c) resulting in no loss or damage to the insured claimant; (d) attaching or created subsequent to Date of Policy; (e) resulting in loss or damage which would not have been sustained if the insured claimant had paid value for the estate or interest insured by this policy. SCHEDULE B GENERAL EXCEPTIONS SCHEDULE B GENERAL EXCEPTIONS APPEARING IN ALTA OWNER'S POLICY AND WASHINGTON STANDARD LOAN POLICY - STANDARD COVERAGE 1. Encroachments or questions of location, boundary and area, which an accurate survey may disclose. 2. Public or private easements, streets, roads, alleys or highways, unless disclosed of record by recorded plat or conveyance, or decree of a court of record. 3. Rights or claims of persons in possession, or claiming to be in possession, not disclosed by the public records. 4. Material or labor liens, or liens under the Workmen's Compensation Act not disclosed by the public records. 5. Water rights or matters relating thereto. • 6. Any service, installation or construction charges for sewer, water, electricity, or garbage removal. 7. Mining claims, reservations or exceptions in Patents or in Acts authorizing the issuance thereof. 8. General taxes not now payable; matters relating to special assessments and special levies, if any, preceding the same becoming a lien. 9. Right of use, control or regulation by the United States of America, in the exercise of powers over navigation. 10. Any prohibition of or limitation of the use, occupancy or improvement of the land resulting from the rights of the public or riparian owners to use any portion which is now or has been formerly covered by water. SCHEDULE B GENERAL EXCEPTIONS APPEARING IN ALTA OWNER'S POLICY - EXTENDED COVERAGE 1. Underground easements, servitudes or installations of which no notice is of record. 2. Water rights or matters relating thereto. - 3. Mining claims, reservations or exceptions in Patents or in Acts authorizing the issuance thereof. 4. Right of use, control or regulation by the United States of America in the exercise of powers over navigation. 5. General taxes not now payable; matters relating to special assessments and special levies, if any, preceding the same becoming a lien. HOME OFFICE 6670 Amador Plaza Road Dublin. California 94568 (415) 833 -4301 Arizona Division 234 North Central Avenue Phoenix. Arizona 85004 (602) 257 -2600 Northern California Division 4683 Chabot Drive Pleasanton. California 94566 (415)463 -7970 Southern California Division' 801 Civic Center Drive West Santa Ana. California 92701 (714) 547-5777 • Colorado Division 1800 Lawrence Street Denver, Colorado 80202 (303) 291 -4800 NORTHWEST DIVISION Headquarters 1200 6th Avenue. Seattle (206) 628 -4650 • Benton - Franklin Counties 5211 W Clearwater Avenue. Kennewick (509) 783-0660 • Chelan - Douglas Counties 209 N. Mission Street. Wenatchee (509) 662 -4721 • . ' Clark County 202 E. Mill Plain Boulevard, Vancouver (206) 695 -1301 King County Northwest Agency Operations 320 108th Avenue N.E, Bellevue (206) 451 -7301 • Kitsap County 4040 Wheaton Way, Bremerton (206) 479-1900 • Okanogan County 700 Okoma Drive. Omak (509) 422 -3490 • Pierce County 950 Pacific Avenue, Tacoma (206)572 -3686 Snohomish County 2939 Colby Avenue. Everett (206) 252-1156 • Spokane County North 720 Argonne Road. Spokane (509) 922 -2222 • Thurston County 2625 Martin Way, Olympia (206) 943 -4150 • TITLE AGENTS Clallam • Cowlitz • Jefferson • Lewis • Pacific • Yakima c •I •..I • tow roe ,.J •P• .v •i • os.k�. ° f y, • S 0 t,tI1 c. 9 `,y in • SC' • 5 4 0 S 1°6.0 w r S I assn t r . ?4: SW 23 — 23 — 4*— /# I SCALE: ~• 100' iar .. • ... • -... TU SP 83 -17 -55 ter i I OS '/f - I t '1 0 • V . S t IoortnoVc Liz p'' V co V 8312210348 2 A 1oT L lo . t or I ,;+ 11 ,o p 2.J 611 I° fr it a/ yP � if � a 7. o a ,2. I •Q Ai i t\ • J J _ ��. 0 0. A, ?/ 1, 1, �! ' Pt t di d 7 o° '^ f M vs! . c! • h ! ' j. Z ':. e'rli I 1. 04 vlot el rtvire,, 1,7-111 ' :o ti,, .,,; 4i ' ,. . r ... l' • I: 7 • •, . ii., i ) IC I : pa r ii i 1 f; ;,:k ; ;. I .:, • i , .1,. .. • .: . ' p„ • Kir " , • 41 4 -•< G I I 4 1% • I i; at 4 111r Per IC I 4, 11*•40 4, •• 11£••••• or i4fIrrf• O• • \ o C2 (S .4; ‘ .1 A el 4 1 6 4.1 • ( 4 \ ,9 lit • 6 1'4 S c 0 ,0 ovi, a • •II•9•5 ••••••••• • IL Otta I • • 14. ... . . . rod • cur jS atieci *s co N •• I p op ° IN tv 4- 0 • l' I re v. IS y 4, 1 1 / 4 1.9ar 4 r . c :Zre. 4. % •4 H 04 r • • e • :27.5.„„ a■ 9. 1/4.1; * -Ors 0 • mAt O • 11 401% L6/ I SS . VIP trr••5 GI an , , 0 6 801 4 arra .44 54 - 4455 go for!, .0 •• 1•9C 'hot Clef • Mr • ••• . , ;41 a71,, toLS H49 4,4 ••• r4 •4 ' • /14 oN 4. P or cif ee• em la • 45 • • , U., 2. a. I. .411•111 PARCEL A: LEGAL DESCRIPTION The property is legally described as follows: DESCRIPTION: THAT PORTION OF TRACT 11 OF INTERURBAN ADDITION TO SEATTLE, AS PER PLAT RECORDED IN VOLUME 10 OF PLATS, PAGE 55, RECORDS OF KING COUNTY, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT A POINT ON THE EAST LINE OF SAID TRACT 11 WHICH IS 102.79 FEET NORTH OF THE SOUTHEAST CORNER THEREOF; THENCE CONTINUING NORTH 00 °08' WEST 359.88 FEET TO THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF SAID TRACT 11; THENCE SOUTH 89 °52' WEST ALONG THE NORTHERLY LINE THEREOF 300.86 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 00 °08' EAST 398.14 FEET; THENCE NORTH 89 °52' EAST 141.65 FEET; THENCE NORTH 00 °08' WEST 38.26 FEET; THENCE NORTH 89 °52' EAST 159.21 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING; EXCEPT THE EASTERLY 5.00 FEET AS CONVEYED TO THE CITY OF TUKWILA BY DEED RECORDED UNDER RECORDING NO. 7909040616; SITUATE IN THE CITY OF TUKWILA, COUNTY OF KING, STATE OF WASHINGTON. PARCEL B: LOT 1 OF CITY OF TUKWILA SHORT PLAT NO. 81- 30 -SS, ACCORDING TO THE SHORT PLAT RECORDED UNDER KING COUNTY RECORDING NO. 8112100483; TOGETHER WITH AN EASEMENT FOR INGRESS, EGRESS AND UTILITY PURPOSES OVER THE WEST 30 FEET OF THE EAST 490.86 FEET AND LYING SOUTH OF THE NORTH 280.00 FEET OF TRACT 11 INTERURBAN ADDITION TO THE CITY OF SEATTLE, AS PER PLAT RECORDED IN VOLUME 10 OF PLATS, PAGE 55, RECORDS OF KING COUNTY; SITUATE IN THE CITY OF TUKWILA, COUNTY OF KING, STATE OF WASHINGTON. STEINVALL CONSToCTION CO. GENERAL CONTRACTOR October 28, 1989 ,STEIN Ci3i CO 10 2 ' A l'E r S . APAttrM 7 PROJECT: Project 1204 SUBJECT: Snyder & Son Company Paint materials used on above referenced project ARM MANUFACTURER COLOR NUMBER, mg Unit Interior (excluding kitchens /baths) Preservative Acoustic white 79-528 Flat Latex Kitchens & Bathrooms Preservative Acoustic white 74 -528 Satin Enamel Exterior Body Preservative H-65H Color Shield 2000 Exterior Trim Preservative H-62H Color Shield 2000 Doors & Frames Preservative N-62H Velvelex Semi Gloss Rails & Chimneys Preservative Special Green Velvalex Semi Gloss P.O. BOX 245B • KIRKLAND, WASHINGTON 98083 -2458 (206) 822-6440 fIL SBS Modified Shingle Sets a new standard for strength and durability The Alaskan, SBS Modified Shingle, from Malarkey Roofing has just become the new standard for the roofing industry. This tough heavyweight incorporates SBS materials to produce the most flexible, workable shingle available. The Alaskan is so flexible it can be applied in weather down to 0 degrees F These kinds of advantages make it possible for The Alaskan to carry one of the best warranties in the industry. • 30 Year Limited Warranty. • 100 MPH Wind Warranty. (When shingles are hand sealed.) Additional Benefits: • Flexible at all temperatures. • May be applied at down to 0 degrees Fahrenheit. • Does not crack or blister with age. • Available in 6 colors with others on request: Brown Blend, White, Black, HT Brown, Spokane Brown, and Cambridge Gray. Product Description The Alaskan SBS Modified Shingle • Approximate Wt. Per Square: 240 lbs. • Shingles Per Square: 65 • Bundles Per Square: 3 • Head Lap: 2" • Exposure: 5 • 14 Squares Per Pallet • 30 Year Limited Warranty • Warnock Hersey Class C • ASTM -D- 3018 -82 Type 1 • ASTM -D- 3462 -83 Malarkey Roofing Company P.O. Box 17217 Portland, Oregon 97217 (503) 283 -1191 Malarkey • : • - I) E V E LOPME N T 72 UNIT APARTMENT COMMUNITY 62 nd AVENUE SOUTH & SUNWOOD BOULEVARD TUKWILA, WASHINGTON DEVELOPED 1990-1991 OWNER:62 nd AVENUE SOUTH LIMITED PARTNERSHIP PRODUCT CLEAR ANTIQUE WHITE STONE GREY MAUVE TAN INDIAN SAND GREEN PC -220 X X POLYGLAZE (AL- ESTER) X X X X X X X POLYGLAZE (AL) X X X X X X X AROSEAL X X X X AM -DEK X X X 2 POLYCOAT ` PRODUCTS 14722 SPRING AVE., SANTA FE SPRINGS, CA 90670 TEL: (213) 802 -8834 FAX: (213) 921 -7363 ANTIQUE WHITE TAN STONE GREY INDIAN SAND ColLON ,ac=c `' Goy .- MAUVE GREEN The above color chips closely approximate the color of Polycoat Products product line. However, due to differences in gloss or binder systems, color variations may result. Custom colors also available, minimum quantities apply. THICKNESS AND COVERAGES CHART SQUARE FEET PER GALLON AT VARIOUS PERCENTAGES OF SOLIDS MIL 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% ' 30% 1 1600.0 1400.0 1280.0 1120.0 960.0 800.0 640.0 480.0 2 800.0 720.0 640.0 560.0 480.0 400.0 320.0 240.0 3 533.3 480.0 426.5 373.3 320.0 267.3 213.3. 160.0 4 400.0 360.0 320.0 280.0 240.0 200.0 160.0 120.0 5 320.0 288.0 256.0 224.0 192.0 160.0 128.0 96.0 10 160.0 144.0 128.0 112.0 96.0 80.0 64.0 48.0 15 106.7 96.0 85.3 74.7 64.0 53.3 42.7 32.0 20 80.0 72.0 64.0 56.0 48.0 40.0 32.0 24.0 25 64.0 57.6 51.2 44.8 38.4 32.0 25.6 19.2 30 53.3 48.0 42.7 37.3 32.0 26.7 21.3 16.0 35 45.7 41.1 36.6 32.0 27.4 22.9 18.3 13.7 40 40.0 36.0 32.0 28.0 24.0 20.0 16.0 12.0 45 35.6 32.0 28.4 24.9 21.3 17.8 14.2 10.7 50 32.0 28.8 25.6 22.4 19.2 16.0 12.8 9.6 55 29.1 26.2 23.3 20.4 17.5 14.5 11.6 8.7 60 26.6 24.0 21.3 18.7 16.0 13.3 10.7 8.0 62.5 25.6 23.0 20.5 17.9 15.4 12.8 10.2 7.7 70 22.9 20.6 18.3 16.0 13.7 11.4 9.1 6.9 75 21.3 19.2 17.1 14.9 12.8 10.7 8.5 6.4 80 20.0 18.0 16.0 14.0 12.0 10.0 8.0 6.0 125 12.8 11.5 10.2 9.0 7.7 6.4 5.1 3.8 250 6.4 5.8 5.1 4.5 3.8 3.2 2.6 1.9 375 4.3 3.8 3.4 3.0 2.6 2.1 1.7 1.3 623 MIL = 1/16 INCH 125 MIL = 1/8 INCH 250 MIL = 1/4 INCH 375 MIL = 3/8 INCH DEPTH OF JOINT 1/4" 3/8" 1/2" 5/8" 3/4" 7/8" 1" SEALANT ESTIMATION LINEAL FEET PER FULL GALLON (231 cu.in.) WIDTH OF JOINT 1/4" 3/8" 1/2" 5/8" 3/4" 7/8" 1" 308 205 154 123 102 88 77 205 136 102 82 68 58 51 154 102 77 61 51 44 38 123 82 61 49 41 35 30 102 68 51 41 34 29 25 88 58 44 35 29 25 22 77 51 38 30 25 22 19 WEST -PAC CONSTRUCTION, INC. -) P.O. Box 2276 Kirkland, WA 98083 -2276 62ND AVENUE SOUTH APARTMENTS Owner: 62nd Ave. S. Partnership Cedar Trim w/ Olympic Stain Beige Cedar Siding w/ Olympic Stain #916 Cedar Accent w/ Olympic Stain Forest Green Aluminum Railing Architect: Roger H. Newell, A.l.A. Olivewood Asphalt Shingles Sandlewood Beige Dryvit Stucco System Deck Exterior Gacodeck Urethene System Adobe Bronze Aluminum Windows lb' 41 -I -J i SI dJ 4) 1 fl '_ - - T . � I L j I, 4) iy TOW 0.'_11..! I � \ __JJ • . SitePlan . E: I:•lO f D, ,air are•:..‘ 110 Project Data O CAW E.pw.. Zoning Code �.. waT.Wwl.. WI Sol Isms O..fl- T.+.p N00. Sadao wn oo OM tom ...+o SSSP Energy Cone ] SS b. 10 u m•>••m1.0 mu n .um u....w Wa. Building Code T� M O CwM•m. " " mwO/p COMM. RI Y.. Swvw. w Nom. Lags' geacription SAMOSLA • p: ,, p , erM.MTI• 0 100 .OM.1 Y S.ra :1" . 4 -.. W.1-10M•1w. GNP L. ••m.b•••p Ta..E...m.. M w..• • SW 1.0l bOOO M Mom m...w.l'•O,I �..O 10000005 M C.O.. ST 0 .0 0o5 00,00, 0 . Oq 00 ML TOOLE TOMS Sw ig00 .31. pw•CO Er S 1•MK TOMSMO g .•. STEI U, M M. 04)0.0 Penh S. Cy R ERN'NS,M b 01 O°n al 10.01011110. 'Wa 100.3 Tam �0000ClmNp.b 000401 S. 5...•w G• M TJ.C. C•A■ M ..p. 00. MOM. S " C.I•TM.Y S.n PIN Se STSDSS.oO.pw O. nort •w ..wea Is.. WV Cm., • mw.4 W 1 COM. TOGETHER .1310..14 wr 20Mw.�w 3. Mw a. ru .1 MO m m ww n TM T1 Mon is F OW 0 00000 ao rut moves In 1345. 10 M.wa MR St N oma ON . W RN Cl, • Toms. C.w. • W. S21. • pomp Is IN w S •. OS10I0 MO. . SO 3..w1w31.310 .C2 0•U • M M S .0020 ... •w • TOM moral •wa .Y w,S Res - :�co,r�vrb u.t.w 1,.sY ....a ll/.•*M TOIT wwe G 455 ! b e: ijt • 4 12.3 1 .33: [l411l'1,904.34 T1O•0.Oa• . 40,540 -.LT Construction Notes As wolow.• M.1 r1 .• 1SM •.w. • F CFOs RN UNNos Wib 001.0.00•0 A.mY.10o. ww.•eYMw•UM.w WINN C.•a Se.m. , NI Nom .lea 000.... £M.YwM.m w .law OCLOOLOGILI 00.0.0 07 r•OWIMMO a Mwn.Mra ..a feMi a.0000 ws w .I Norm sr Nap ow is pr•/Ip 0_ 00I1m ow COWL. •.M Se 1.15••0. r MM. • a• Wafts ..ep M 1....•T mom gni M•MM Thew •..V loaRsop. dew.. TM .Mw.v wlmM..• mo. Mo..,. 33 aw wow ! .wt .S • NOT UM. rw doNCIT NON ST So CONSTRUCTION. ON Connor OW TwOMMT Mown and .M.T T. .•n•• Woo nal allowee woo Y 00,00r s 00,0 am mwmoNN. 00 i 0 01000 O. fwq pmw.M. TM - .M ti ... Mom • amwWw.•O •••• • •.•••....••I Y. w. C••MI 4v..a • I w•..••.M•w • .rr....w• +a.wa..tp. •• * W •• •••••• M ••••• • woman ••assn e t Or Or an. .ea. .R •.a m.■ P aonlM O• MOWS • Area Calculations •11.1111 LOT 401 • Oa 9 . Teal MI LC 1...111 ss v : m 120 •• m rw• i e Como MI Star MAU Comon MO. Row LOW W Comm ■ ON T.. SM LL nu • MT 0 MI 0 MOO • XL 31 H Mee 20 LT Y1S. ,MM F. oeei A.AW >ti f 10 YT13 .T aIifLAUA19 Second Floor Plan /Roof Framing First Floor Plan /Ssoonq Floor Framing Yorwr•r -• Building E. hrIvK LJEbs: CLLA (V. I WMV 99•-• o 99,9. 119k9. rt . ,•••••• 1 • •••• 6.■ ▪ % • • • ,At 4 It I • fi_ /01 (11) 1E1W gr Ei SOS 410! MMI•111111111=1 NI=MIINtrOl. I. I SOMMILIOU 4,T .1 I -- e•fe • s',.• : •Vie 1 ••-■ ••00 "! S. •■■• •■• - N • • sr. • a a D iciavir=9.-o• Foundation Plan Building F ,.- 4 Basement Plan/Ffst Floor Framing ko,o• • -- •ZA'Ai• 4:0 1-14 • - . )-• • • ; — . i i • I 9---,----_,„..1 _ - 1 . I r. \ ____■„ , . ... • ! -9 17 --=----1-1, • . ... li -. " -- * . t. _ ._.,.,' : • ' ,1/ I - __ — _ . z1, , ..=-•_., , Ei — -•-•—_ 7 :1, , - - — ■ VP ■ -, , L., ,... , ' I"; r$- - ■ 1 1 i . —42-, .4.4:n4,...,4. i ■ • : r - ---7/ - I ; I i f I I ! ! I (.)••• , i : ‘i...r. I 1 I 1- -1 -4- 1 I 1 il • 4 I I' I a ' - a - . . i t, . . .. ..4 , . 4, . . • . _ ./..:-_. •7 . I' Ii I f - I I I - I I I , : 1 •:e 1 1 1 1 - / I.L - I i 1 1 i : -li r----- I ----.'''''''''- 1 I , , ▪ . 1 _ .,, , ,, , , ,_ __ I: , ,.: .„.... ,,...,.. ,,. , 4.. ,_ ,- . -1 i 1 I i i Li i l l Li l L- 1 1 Le•Air,. moo v. ,; 1 r" • --- 1....14 1 o 0 r .. , , tt. : I 7, _ _ . _ ,....-1 ,.., , .., v.,„ . 1, .,.s.... q.,,: .., : io,t,.4 ,,,,,1*., Z , 7 y' d. a. .,' ' ,,I, 7 ■ 7 :7 " .., 77 ,i ' ,i 'l N.. g■ v . • n . 1 • ! I ••■ -- .4...,44 '14 .L..... /IA ' 1 1 7 P .D - L • -al—, / i ZT , : • 1 -, I — 1 .• 13, . I r 1 • • • ••-•. 5 1 . 1 ... 4, 4 I i I . I 1 5 y 4: . . ... i 1 • ,,, . i • 0:: , 1 ■ 14.19.• --• • • ,}}.•;--...:•-•—:i- • 1 . • - ' "• ••• n; . 1 . • ' Second Floor Min/Roof Framing a:81cl /11 , I ' 4 5.1•• (-1% 4 • 40. • • f Se • s. - 1-1.4 t•-•,111 ••-1.A •••• • # 1 — - • 1-- ••• • • Z • - •• • • t - - • - • • S., • -14- -•• VIA* First Floor man/Second FloorFrarning Oadatiral'AT Building F fe-te 9.. 1•My , I I f es. 4 "'ICI U -- 1v , • - 4 a W.Va !AV b IHWbflhIk z11 47 11.01, 14•0 (1 4 _ .._±..S Jr. 12,1.i. . 9' t g.r.O _4 •-• , I . I 1 1 1 I I s.• tt • 1:. , rAIrcr"" t• :41 WI • 21 mon a,„-mmarzt: Pomo -t 4 1 , bales • 1 < 4e IS .4 • "LW .•0 It 6: sm. moo. iftaw 1.1•41.411 I ND IMMO,. AMY ..anu.•••••••• OMANI •■• mom I II ! i 1U .7930 MA f. onlithee IPS MIRAGE' aPIS 3 641 UORIMOG InnoS u I - - - - 7-1 • ,,177 11.1111111 111111.M.M.111114 mums. Ills 11 I■111101A Mn II• N•N . _ ep. tE: Y-"•; r?�-.-° r« y':= �, r-^'•"`. ,- �5G:r3s71.:ar�S*�..��.�;;� -a. �s :.a: �c:s.— .�����ua�.�arcw - -- Section D--D x_L 1 \p -0 Section E-E Section F-F euu ■•eb. — — • E.1._ • 150.15 _ . iL 11i�� 4.1t9 .. _41bI� Section A-A i�.a �•. se.. Section B-B ipYa 1. -e Section C-C auu l or . • • i • b Ea t ta a 1 \) ▪ t- a 1 Pk � 1 lal .�V vio tie r . • Ad. ebia Nit A 1111./111,..# I r� 1111./111,..# # . i' ( ' I IL . ta ' e i' C le •// a. •' I N rm II is L .., ,yam If IT Sr K PLANTING PLAN Nov NOTES .--e..••.K.R/ ♦ . O'J+ %LZK�e. `+wt .t Jw'ED w :sAnA 1:[t A; ' • M.. d: AwtA: NAK/ 49-1 , pS& . ` Z! GLLIJ. I .'H f/RY7pl4 . SUB 41•1=111111 • 3 'a -•,.* `(f1.LP r LC W'YIhg Y:1' Noe e` ® 0 atr;r 1S ffc 14 t4 „4,....,..-r,...4,, 4s</6 �!!�.e I/�:i%'LN. _11Y Wi T.& V: a MD - AtGO,.YJC rte,49444 LAPP{ 1 1 4-re".• u.+IttarxrcrFNqu� I. Ix.s• M4u., ,Inca .,,, `(170,49 YI.O.I/M•IM 1 Jt'( d• (d dee I14%1 4.. rrIGX ,K4"XL`I'1t. -z e•s. FMO s'o'ot. iL= G.46i1N✓ P SS-1.N __ Ay.s® _ Ca YY((A s.t1fA str' s 0.. ,1;% .:b'RG MZ YIL�IN OM.1M u6tU i c s V i rNT'y le..5 144,. 3b-s:o'O4 :tor1{it Ft'a� FG,1 O � 4,0,4dPW`R i 7. 10' 4i . v 0 144P2 7INSPfo4 *OA Fa'r1:b6t' 1+ •3+ •4e 9 'ir • -A1'.o'OL. ,may C q: 1P +••J[ty 'tAle.2 (I'i. M/ q•40.L_ .. F 7tIGSGS VR4N(• 114•44W'i I '4. 1111 .r•019-(/Ra c j) Gea,�.rc 'Ste s yweaaa Mr.. t :_ _1 Pr at WI._t{ ‘,...S. a va'FNtw a wKiaAw 1.04..+' .i ii 4 M.t:c - aG. oGtetsr, n . 3+7.44, -4-1,, •JA••4' • 11'O.L. L61 ',el,A GS .,Et WV •6 •:►= 1 •(A.,w r•tr•A E.'tKD 4 -+A 0 rT y ..sor. +,1 N IS 47A EM4. qg FJp:n:1 '2FA A•1!Zn 112%4 1 441 1:reat„. .0 ,w tyva • Fir V.! RC.- i • b Ea t ta a 1 \) ▪ t- a 1 Pk � 1 lal .�V vio tie r . • Ad. ebia Nit A 1111./111,..# I r� 1111./111,..# # . i' ( ' I IL . ta ' e i' C le •// a. •' I N rm II is L .., ,yam If IT Sr K PLANTING PLAN Nov NOTES .--e..••.K.R/ ♦ . O'J+ %LZK�e. `+wt .t Jw'ED w :sAnA 1:[t A; ' • M.. d: AwtA: NAK/ 49-1 , pS& . ` Z! GLLIJ. I .'H f/RY7pl4 . SUB 41•1=111111 • 3 'a • • 1 Preliminary Irrigation Layout j Scale 1:30 HEAD SCHEDULE Pril. Pe rnati • • ZO'gr VOZ4, =WV •111•111 W••• NOTES frruezzczoiw-r— irit 16.40 rop otI•14. .1;•NOWiggilr . ••v•4* tel•JarOJN-vt•L• airo• e AR** 14•Tme wrrur oellt g•••••••co e IRRIGATION PLAN ntE 10 N 0 == " 3? F. 5 L2 0 JO 60 SCALE 1' = JO PRELIMINARY PLANS FINISHED GRADES SUBJECT TO ADJUSTMENT PRIOR TO FINAL SUBMITTAL TO CITY OF TUKWILA Dl: \89268 \SITEPLN.DWG PROJECT GRADING PLAN 62nd AVE S APARTMENTS 62nd AVE S & SUNWOOD BLVD, TUKWILA, WA WENT 62nd AVE SW LTD PTN 911 5th AVE KIRKLAND, WA 98033 822 -6440 NO. t REVISION PPOPDE AFN'Fl N},, *DAIST Ft S. B R D ADO MOOS +VASE Bi➢C E MOTPQ T DATE APR BY tn S D.R. STRONG Consulting Engineers Inc um ar.. n.¢ 51,4 .m..a m i:i ENGINEERS • PLANNERS • SURVEYORS .....c ON W.I.) DRAM oYSB DATE 8— JUNE -90 DRAw+C NO. 89268.8 ow= -DV SCALE 1 = 30' SHEET 1 or 4 136 133 132 131 110 129 728 127 126 125 124 121 122 12, 120 119 115 117 116 6.. B "Y. 0 •If raaos< rsro. 9 6. -133 7 // SECTION B—B mamma. 131 •CCeirs 5 L i 34 133 132 31 130 129 29 127 726 125 12.1 123 22 120 •• 9 718 • 17 116 , r •• , 7 4 ,••••••'. ' . ••' I , •••-... . i ',,,, " •'" ... . 1 . ...... 0 r ..i • i : Si 0 ; ft); ri• )71:77. d SECTION BI -81 DI: \89268\WALLEWNC PROJECT SECTION B—B 62nd AVE S APARTMENTS 62nd AVE S & SUN WOOD BLVD, TUKWILA, WA CLIENT 62nd AVE SW LTD PTN 911 5th AVE KIRKLAND, WA 98033 822-6440 NO. DATE BY APR REVISION 1,n1 feV NZ D. R. STRONG ENGINEERS • PLANNERS • SURVEYORS oa.6wi■ 5-` 061E 21 DRAWING NO. 89268.9 CHECKED SCALE AS SHOV.71 so 4 0, 4 • City of Tukwila Planning Department 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, Wa. 98188 CHECKLIST GENERAL : Completed. PLANS: ROGER H. NEWELL AIA ARCHITECT 1102 -19TH AVENUE EAST • SEATTLE, WA 98112 • (206) 322-1192 November 18, 1989 To Whom it May Concern, We are submitting for a Board of Architectural Review. Please be advised on the following items that are missing or uncompleted at this time: A. Site Plan, sheet 1 B. Site Plan, sheet 1 C. Site Plan, sheet 1 D. Site Plan, sheet 1 E. Site Plan, sheet 1 F. Site Plan, sheet 1 G. Water and sanitary sewer and storm sewer located on plan by D.R. Strong. Electrical, gas, telephone and television locations to be provided later. H. N/A I. N/A J. Please find one copy of a blueline print of the site plan with the recreational open space indicated. We will be providing a reproducible exclusively showing the recreational open space at a later date. K. Elevations L. Exterior lighting plan and details by Electric and Electric Inc. (enclosed) M. On Site Plan and garage elevations. N. Located on Site Plan, sheet 1 and elevations, sheet 10. PMT's will be provided after further review of this project. Thank You, v Albert Roberts Roger H. Newell, A.I.A. ADR:ker PUBLIC NOTICE: Labels and the mailing list of 238 property owners and residents around the proposed project will be couriered to the City of Tukwila on Monday, November 20, 1989. OPTIONAL: Renderings of the site and elevations will be sent accompanying the PMT's at a later date. 'I'I1E •JOI ENSON ASSOCIAT Landscape Architecture Site Planning 2203 E. Louisa St. Seattle, WA 98112 (206) 325 -1870 27 March 1989 Jack Pace, Sr. Planner CITY OF TUKWILA 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, Washington 98188 RE: Design Review Application Comments- Landscape Concerns 82nd Avenue South Apartments, Tukwila, Washington. Dear Mr. Pace: We have reviewed the points in item #18 of your letter of February 21, 1990 bo Mr. Al Roberts of Roger Newell Architects. These points are addressed in the order that you mentioned them in your letter as follows: 1: The planting beds will be protected from runoff from the paved areas with Type "A" curb and gutter. 2. The plants will be protected from vehicular traffic with the curbs and wheel stops where required. 3. There are no tall trees located on the upper part of the property that would block views of residents of the adjoining property nor are there tail trees planted in the site lines to views from buildings on the property. 4. The existing topsoil will be graded from the land after grasses and vegetation have been carefully removed. The topsoil will be stockpiled in the center of site in the area that will be planted with lawn. The topsoil will be covered with visqueen during the constriction process to prevent erosion of the material. The stockpiled topsoil will be supplemented with a four -way mix for pit planting. The existing topsoil will be amended with Groom to increase the volume of the material as well as a more fertile planting media. A sand media will be used in the lawn areas. 5. The slopes for sod will be at a maximum of 4:1. If you need any other information regarding these matters, please do not hesitated to contact us for clarification. Sincerely, ibtteA!51-z---' Bruce A. Johnson /54.32(C LC.J /591'4E640 =:I /NV(w) /3769 ,r. am co/x CURB 1 GUTTER � l/P /CA1 /NifW) i31. 418' I.3L(g l�U[ P) [MAR 3 01990 GITY^OF T J+CWiLA PLANNING DEPT. 9t. _�� .j'4. • 5L'v'' : i f { aT51 'a"" 5b' 09I 47~ S I . 7 illit . ././ MO ill "fro- . - ; ,...... -, _ 7 ..... 7 1/1 7 # ' 4"._ v r 7 ��� r r. • , . 9 1 ova 61g. orvtf4 1 -9Nicrona 614 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). • DE: GN REVIEW APPL..,CATION I. BRIEFLY DESCRIBE YOUR PROPOSAL: the project will consist of 72 apartment units in six (6) two (2) story, with basements, buildings, with a recreation building and 154 parking stalls including garages. 2. PROJECT LOCATION: (Give street address or, if vacant, indicate lot(s), block, and subdivision; or tax lot number, access street, and nearest intersection) 62nd Avenue South & Sunwood Blvd. tax lot # Quarter: * Section: * Township: * Range: Parcel A; 359700- 0200 -01, Parcel B; 359700- 0208 -03 * see attached legal description (This information may be found on your tax statement.) 3. APPLICANT:* Name: Southcenter Associates OWNER Address: Address: 911 5th Avenue, Suite 101, Kirkland, WA 98033 2.6) 8V-9061 Phone: Signature: /f(4rArl �/ Date: k �(c - 772, g ^ i lam e , / Managing - ar ner * The applicant is the •erson whom the staff will contact regarding the application, and to whom all notices and reports shall be sent, unless otherwise stipulated by applicant. AFFIDAVIT OF OWNERSHIP 4. PROPERTY Name: Performing Income Properties, Inc. P.O. Box 2458, Kirkland, WA 98083 Phone: (206 ` 822 -6440 I /WE,[slgnature(s) swear that we ar e owner s or con ract purc aser s o thp property involved in this application and that the foregoing statements and answers contained in this application are true and correct to the best of my /our knowledge and belief. Date: Gar R. Steinvall Pres. "(( `1 /e,c 5. RELATIONSHIP OF STRUCTURE TO SITE ESIGN REVIEW APPLICATION Pane The following criteria will be used by the BAR in Its decision - making on your proposed project. Please carefully review the criteria, respond to each cri- terion (if appropriate), and describe how your plans and elevations meet the criteria. If the space provided. for response is insufficient, use extra space on last page or use blank paper to complete response and attach to this form. A. The site should be planned to accomplish a desirable transition with the streetscape and to provide for adequate landscaping, and pedestrian movement. B. Parking and service areas should be located, designed, and screened to moderate the visual impact of large paved areas. C. The height and scale of each building should be considered in relation to it site. RESPONSE: The transition from street . to building is accomplished through the use of landscaping and either a retaining wall or a garage, depending if the street is on the uphill or downhill side of the building. The parking areas, linear in nature, consist of a combination of garage and surface parking, and screened by landscaping to reduce the visual impact from the street. Height and scale arc moderated on the uphill elevation by the small scale garage and landscaping. On the downhill side, the moderation is accomplished by modulation of the facade, with decks and balconies and the use of landscaping. 6. RELATIONSHIP OF STRUCIUKt AND SITL IU AUJUlNlNu RKtM A. Harmony in texture, lines, and masses is encouraged. B. Appropriate landscape transition to adjoining properties should be provided. C. Public buildings and structures should be consistent with the estab- lished neighborhood character. D. Compatibility of vehicular pedestrian circulation patterns and loading facilities in terms of safety, efficiency and convenience should be encouraged. E. Compatibility of on -si vehicular circulation with street circulation should be encouraged. RESPONSE: The buildings have the same bulk and scale as the structures on the adjoining sites. The use of landscaping and small scale structures form the transition zone. The wood facade will maintain a visual harmony with the surrounding structures. Vehicular and pedestrian circulation is separated except along Sunwood Blvd. A cut space in the median is provided to maintain two separate parking accesses, which becomes efficient and convenient for motorists. C 7. LANDSCAPE AND SITE TREATMENT ,ESIGN REVIEW APPLICATION Page 3 A. Where existing topographic patterns contribute to beauty and utility of . a development, they should be recognized and preserved and enhanced. B. Grades of walks, parking spaces, terraces, and other paved areas should promote safety and provide an inviting and stable appearance. C. Landscape treatment should enhance architectural features, strengthen vistas and important axis, and provide shade. O. In locations where plants will be susceptible to injury by pedestrian or motor traffic, mitigating steps - should be taken. E. Where building sites limit planting, the placement of trees or shrubs in paved areas is encouraged. F. Screening of service yards, and other places which tend to be un- sightly, should be accomplished by use of walls, fencing, planting or combinations of these. Screening should be effective in winter and summer. G. In areas where general planting will not prosper, other materials such as fences, walls, and pavings of wood, brick, stone, or gravel may be used. H. Exterior lighting, when used, should enhance the building design and the adjoining landscape. Lighting standards and fixtures should be of a design and size compatible with the building and adjacent area. Lighting should be shielded, and restrained in design. Excessive brightness and brilliant colors should be avoided. RESPONSE: Existing topography is generally a steady roll downhill to the south. Proposed grading is primarily parallel to the existing contours to minimize slopes and promote stability. Several retaining walls are required to balance cuts. The existing vegetation is very minimal consisting mainly of blackberry bushes and second growth shrubs. The few trees which arc on the site will be retained with the exception of a 36" maple which is located on the northeast corner of the lot and would be disturbed by the proposed parking area. Also displaced would he several existing apple trees, a holly tree and a 1.4" cedar tree, due to proposed building C and storm sewage the the south of building C. Proposed landscaping interrupts the building mass and defines the perimeter of the parking • and access areas. This enhances the scenic views to and from the proposed project. Wheel stops are to be provided to protect landscaping adjacent to on -grade parking areas. The trash containers are to be located at the ends of the garages and to be enclosed by a wall and view - obscuring gate. 8. BUILDING. DESIGN SIGN REVIEW APPLICATION Page 4 A. Architectural style is not restricted, evaluation of a project should be based on quality of its design and relationship to surroundings. B. Buildings should be to appropriate scale and be in harmony with per- manent neighboring developments. C. Building components - such as windows, doors, eaves, and parapets - should have good proportions and relationship to one another. Building components and ancillary parts shall be consistent with anticipated life of the structure. O. Colors should be harmonious, with bright or brilliant colors used only for accent. E. Mechanical equipment or other utility hardware on roof, ground or buildings should be screened from view. F. Exterior lighting should be part of the architectural concept. Fix- tures, standards and all, exposed accessories should be harmonious with building design. G. Monotony of - design in single or multiple buildings projects should be avoided. Variety of detail, form, and siting should be used to provide visual interest. RESPONSE: 8 The project is of similar bulk and scale of the adjacent project. By locating the lower building near the property line to the north, this project avoids blocking views to the project located to the north. Building depth and modulation was achieved by layering facades while maintaining a consistent roof line. The colors were chosen to be visually compatible with the north site. Building design is a single structure, yet appears different when viewed from different positions, and relevant to different grads and axis. This prevents the appearance from being too monotonous. 9. MISCELLANEOUS STRUCTURES AND STREET FURNITURE A. Miscellaneous structures and street furniture should be designed to be part of the architectural concept of design and landscape. Materials should be compatible with buildings, scale should be appropriate, colors should be in harmony with buildings and surroundings, and pro- portions should be to scale. RESPONSE: ESIGN REVIEW APPLICATION Page 5 B. Lighting in connection with miscellaneous structures and street furni- ture should meet the guidelines applicable to site, landscape and buildings. Street lighting is the same as existing at the entrance to Sunwood Blvd., and is compatible with the developments to the north. Recreation space is provided in excess of the required including; open play area, exercise room and showers, lounge, pool and jacuzzi spa. INTERURBAN SPECIAL REVIEW DISTRICT The following six criteria are used in the special review of the Interurban area in order to manage the development of this area, to upgrade its general appear- ance, to provide incentives for compatible uses, to recognize and to capitalize on the benefits to the area of the amenities including the Green River and nearby recreational facilities, to encourage development of more people - oriented use, and to provide for development incentives that will help to spur growth. Please describe how your proposed development relates to the goals for this District. Use additional response space, if necessary. 10. The proposed development design should be sensitive to the natural amenities of the area. 11. The proposed development use should demonstrate due regard for the use and enjoyment of public recreational areas and facilities. (29 /DSGN.APP1 -3) 'DESIGN REVIEW APPLICATION Page 6 12. The proposed development should provide for safe and convenient on -site pedestrian circulation. 13. The proposed property use should be compatible with neighboring uses and complementary to the district in which it is located. 14. The proposed development should seek to minimize significant adverse environmental impacts. 15. The proposed development should demonstrate due regard for significant historical features in the area. (29 /EXTRA.RESP) EXTRA RESPONSE SPACE /7