HomeMy WebLinkAboutPermit 87-05-DR - GENCOR - NORTH HILL APARTMENTS DESIGN REVIEW87-05-DR
5750 SOUTHCENTER BOULEVARD
EPIC-11-87
5282 5286
87-01-V
GENCOR NORTH HILL APARTMENTS DESIGN REVIEW
City of Tukwila
6200 Southcenter Boulevard
Tukwila Washington 98188
(206) 433-1800
Gary L. VanDusen, Mayor DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
DATE: MAY 29, 1989
TO: DUANE GRIFFIN
FROM: VERNON UMETSU
SUBJECT: NORTH HILLS APARTMENTS (B.P. #5282 5286)
Per Jack Pace, Senior Planner, the work surrounding B.P. 5282 -
5286 substantially satisfied all Zoning Code requirements.
This approval letter shall substitute for all Planning Division
approvals on the field check -off sheet.
Fice-
After recording Return To:
LEON GRUNDSTEIN
11801 NE 160th Street
Suite G
Bothell, WA 98011
AMENDMENT TO EASEMENT
THIS IS AN AMENDMENT TO THAT CERTAIN EASEMENT dated the 19th day of
July, 1988, granted by NORTH HILLS JOINT VENTURE PARTNERSHIP, a Washington Joint Venture
Partnership, and TONY S. AND DORIS M. KATO, on Parcels A and B which Parcels are described on Exhibit
B hereto and by this reference made a part hereof.
NOW THEREFORE, for good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which is
hereby acknowledged, the following amendments to the Easement is hereby made:
1. It is understood that the North Hills Joint Venture Partnership is the Lessee of Parcel B and not
the Owners thereof, and the preamble of the Easement is hereby amended to reflect such change. It is
understood that the owners of Parcel B are Tony S. and Doris M. Kato, and that they grant and convey the
Easement along with North Hills Joint Venture Partnership.
2. It is understood that wherever in said Easement an Attachment is referred to, such reference means
to be a reference to an "Exhibit" rather than an attachment.
3. It is understood that Paragraph 2 of the Easement is hereby amended to read as follows:
Parcel A, legally described on Exhibit B attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference, is
benefited by this Easement for parking and recreation space rights across Parcel B, which is also
legally described on Exhibit B. Parcels A and B are generally mapped on Exhibit C.
4. In all other respects said Easement shall remain without change.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF the parties have hereunto set their hands and seals this I q day
of ft coq,, 5 t 1988.
NORTH HILLS JO VENTURE PARTNERSHIP TONY S. AND DORIS M. KATO
BY:
on run . stein, ener . ' artn
1
BY:
BY:
Tony S.1ato, Owner
Doris M. Kato, Owner
COUNTY OF KING
COUNTY OF KING
STATE OF WASHINGTON )
) ss.
STATE OF WASHINGTON )
)ss.
Notary Public in
residing at
Appointment Expires:
On this day of A.D.1';' 1 , before me the undersigned, a
notary public in a or t e State of ' as u m on, duly commissioned an. qualified, personally appeared Leon
Grundstein, known to me to be the General Partner described in and who executed the within and foregoing
instrument, and acknowledged said instrument to be the free and voluntary act and deed of said partnership, and
was his free and voluntary act and deed for the uses and purpos - therei entioned.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set dd my off seal e day and year
first above written.
otary
residing at
Appointment xp res:
ashington,
On this day of ' A.D. 19 before me the undersigned, a notary
public in and for t tate of Washington( my commissioned an qualified, personally appeared Tony S. Kato
and Doris M. Kato to me known to be the individuals described in and who executed the within and foregoing
instrument, and acknowledged to me that they signed and sealed the same as their free and voluntary act and
deed, for the uses and purposes therein mentioned.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand an ixed my ► eal, t day and year
first above written.
ngton,
After Recording Return to:
LEON GRONDSTEIN
11801 NE 160th Street
Suite G
Bothell, WA 98011
RECEIVED 1 IIS DAT
JUL21 111041M1
BY THE DIVISION OF
RECORDS COUN ELECTIONS
.EASEMENT
88/07/21
RECD F
"CASHSL
For One Dollar ($1.00) and other valuable consideration,
receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, the owners of Parcel B,
North Hills Joint Venture Partnership, a Washington Joint
Venture, grant the Easement described herein to the owners of the
adjoining parcel, Parcel A, and North Hills Joint Venture
Partnership, a Washington Joint Venture Partnership, as follows:
1. Grant of Easement for Parking and Recreation Space
Rights. The North Hills Joint Venture Partnership hereby grants
an Easement for parking and recreation space rights on Parcel B
to the owners of Parcel A and the occupants living in buildings
on Parcel A for the purpose of implementing the project design
approved by the Tukwila Board of Architectural Review, City of
Tukwila File No. 87 -5 -DR, a site plan of which is shown in
Attachment A.
2. Property Benefited by Easement. Pa'rcel A, legally
described on Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein by
this reference, is benefited by this Easement for parking and
recreation space rights across Parcel B, which is also legally
described on Exhibit A.
3. Running of Benefits and Burdens. The provisions of
this Easement, including the benefits and burdens, run with the
respective parcels of land and are binding upon and pass to the
heirs, assigns and successors, tenants and personal
representatives of the parties, in perpetuity.
4. Non - Exclusive Easement. The parking and recreation
space Easement rights granted by this conveyance shall be non-
exclusive, and shall not restrict the rights of the owner of
Parcel B to convey non - conflicting Easement rights over their
property to others.
5. Maintenance of Easement. Maintenance of the
Easement shall be the responsibility of the owners of Parcel B.
6. Parking and Recreation Space Rights. This Easement
is only for use by tenants living in the apartments on Parcel A
and their guests.
7. Relocation of Easement. The owner of Parcel B
shall have the option of relocating or terminating this Easement
in the future, so long as the new location allows parking and
recreational space rights designed with the approval of the
Tukwila Board of Architectural Review. Termination of this
easement shall also require approval by the Tukwila Board of
Architectural Review.
sio emit
COMPANY •
EXCISE TAX NOT REQUIRED
c :is Division
, Deputy
80449 D
11.00
** *11.00
11
ig
uuL 21
sies
STATE OF WASHINGTON )
SS.
COUNTY OF KING
DATED this f1 day of July, 1988.
WITNESS my hand and official
day and year first above written.
NORTH JIILLS J j T VENTURE PARTNERSHIP
AMOK Air
mop y pu.ss
BY: Leon rundstein, Gensial P
l finer
STATE OF WASHINGTON )
) SS.
COUNTY OF KING
On this /?L' day of July, 1988, personally appeared
before me, Leon Grundstein, known to me to be the General Partner
described in and who executed the within and foregoing
instrument, and acknowledged that he signed the same as
representative of said partnership, and was his free and
voluntary act and deed, for the uses and purposes therein
mentioned.
seal
hereto
di AIL
Irr
Y P'B IC n and
of Washington
RESIDING at
My Commission Expires:
4
Tony S. Kato, Owner
, -e-►. fir. y[' T
Doris M. Kato, Owner
RY PUBLI
PUBLI
of Washing n,
RESIDING a
My Commission
-2-
C:Xp / S:
On this 19 .day of July, 1988, personally appeared
before me, Tony S. Kato & Doris M. Kato, known to me to be the
owners described in and who executed the within and foregoing
instrument, and acknowledged that they signed the same as
owners of said parcel, and was their free and voluntary act and
deed, for the uses and purposes therein mentioned.
WITNESS my hand and official seal hereto affixed the
first above written.
i n and or the State
affixed, tbg
•
4
:::� ..
1111111111111
U. III INA!
' ATTACHMENT A
(LANDSCAPE /SITE PLAN)
EXHIBIT "A"
NT024509/492 Page 7
NC . THWESTERN
TITLE A
A Aware Ph Gwyn~
PARCEL A:
Tract 3S of Brookvale Garden Tracts, as per plat recorded in Volume 10
of Plats, on page 47, records of King County;
EXCEPT that portion lying Westerly of a line described as follows:
Beginning at the intersection of the North line of said Tract 35 with
a line drawn parallel with and 70 feet Northeasterly, when measured at
right angles and /or radially, from Mac Road centerline survey;
thence Southeasterly, Southerly and Southwesterly, parallel to said
Mac Road centerline survey, to a point 85 feet Northeasterly, when
measured at right angles, from the 1 -RE line of State Highway Route 5
(PSH No. 1), and the terminus of said line;
ALSO an unplatted strip of land adjoining said property on the East,
lying between the East line of said property and the East line of the
Southwest quarter of Section 23, Township 23 North, Range 4 East,
M.M.,
ALSO EXCEPT that portion of said Tract 35 of Brookvale Garden Tracts,
described as follows:
Beginning at the intersection of the West line of the East 25 feet of
an unplatted strip lying East of said Tract.35 and as described in
Deed from Tony S. Kato and Doris M. Kato, his wife, to Restaurant
Industries, Inc., and recorded under Recording No. 7208030148; records
of said County, with the Northerly line of State Highway as condemned
in King County Court Cause No. 600726;
thence North 65'16'34" West along said Northerly line 163.00 feet to
the true point of beginning;
thence North 24'43'26" East at right angles to said State Highway,
Northerly line 160.00 feet;
thence North 65'16'34" West parallel to said Northerly line 274.20
feet;
thence Sotith 23'54'26" West 102.85 feet to • point;
thence South 27'51'56" West to a point on the Northerly line of said
State Highway, said line running Southeasterly fro/ a point that is 70
feet Southeasterly, when measured at right angles, from the Mac Road
centerline survey and 85 feet Northeasterly when measured at right
angles, from the 1 -RB line of State Highway Route S (PSH No. 1) to a
point opposite Highway Engineers Station P.C. (1 -RE) 158- plus -93.3 on
said 1 -RE line and 70 feet Northeasterly therefrom,
thence Southeasterly along said line to said point opposite Station
P.C. (1 -RE) 158- plus -93.3;
thence_South 65'16'34" East along said State Highway Northerly line
206.81 feet to the true point of beginning;
i
JUL 21
ALSO, EXCEPT that portion of Tract 3S of said Brookvale Garden Tracts,
and of the unplatted strip of land adjoining on the East of said Tract
35 in the the Southeast quarter of Section 23, Township 23 North,
Range 4 East, W.M., described as follows:
Beginning at the intersection of•the East line of said unplatted strip
with the North line of State Highway as condemned in King County Court
Cause No. 600726;
thence Northwesterly along said North line to its intersection with a
line which is 25 feet West of as measured at right angles to and
parallel with the East line of said unplatted strip and the true point
of beginning;
•
thence continuing Northwesterly along the North line of said Highway a
•distance of 163 feet;
thence North at right angles to the North line of the a
distance of 13S feet;
thence East parallel with the North line.of said Highway to a point in
said line which is 25 feet West of and parallel with the East line of
said unplatted strip;
thence South along said line to the true point of beginning; .
ALSO EXCEPT that portion of Tract 35 of said Brookvale. Garden Tracts,
described as follows: All that portion of said Lot 35 lying Southerly
of the following described line.
Beginning at the intersection of the West line of the East 25 feet of
an unplatted strip lying East of said Tract 35 and as described in
Deed from Tony S. Kato and Doris M. Kato, his wife, to Restaurant
Industries, Inc., and recorded under Recording No. 7208030148; records
of said County, with the Northerly line of State Highway as condemned
in King County Court Cause No. 600726;
thence North 65'16'34" West along said Northerly line 163.00 feet to
the true point of beginning;
thence North 24'43'26" East at right angles to said State Highway,
Northerly' line 160.00 feet;
thence North 65'16'34" West parallel to said Northerly line 274.20
feet; to the true point of beginning.
thence continuing North 65'16'34" a distance of 154.55 feet more or
less to its intersection with the East line of Macadam Road as now
estblished:
PARCEL B:
The Northerly 228 feet measured along the Westerly line thereof of
Tract 11 of Interurban Addition to Seattle, according to plat thereof
recorded in Volume 10 of Plats, page SS, records of King County,
Washington, EXCEPT therefrom the Easterly 450.86 feet thereof.
END OF EXHIBIT "A"
NT024509/492 Page 8
NC . THWESTERN
TITLE A
'• A Wiwi flat Corp"
NORTHWESTERN
TITLE COMPANY .
210 Metre Swift 1M MOW.
aside. MN 11I01 OM w M I
pp V• . o OA&s WI
,72 odK VALC c;iw.o /
•
7 r10c , $ •
JUL 21 1
cwt Lit 5
Oren Na
Alt .24 SO9
Fop
'NFfUURSA, Abort. r.r Te C/
ow..ior «wlr. mover am UIVDF I F-SA M tr.
!tiled' %r e* essemwm Ns Wag IsasrawNlwiota* *MMr aismi Mvv.*. 1 4 s
GENCOR
11801 N.E. 160th STREET. SUTE G
BOTHER. WASHINGTON 98011
[206) 488 -1197
llo+erw 141L4. Amer(.. •G
Skitter A•2 •r 1 ar.st
wnJ ti
bv: SF 0
3 7 "'
I
rs
:s+ -: - .•i RC4=` 9t:• -. - _ . '_s.�j l .'c.'••,.wy'
ti✓;G• :e+J %{es • i. } `_+.:"7+J � .i.' �' •P
�Tl'Jl�
8807210450
After Recording Return to:
LEON GRUNDSTEIN
11801 NE 160th Street
Suite G
Bothell, WA 98011
EASEMENT
RECD
OPTAHSL
For One Dollar ($1.00) and other valuable consideration,
receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, the owners of parcel A,
North Hills Joint Venture, grant the Easement described herein to
the owners of the adjoining parcel, Parcel B, as follows:
1. Grant of Easement for Vehicular Access. The North
Hills Joint Venture Partnership hereby grants an Easement to the
owners and occupants of Parcel B for vehicular access, ingress
and egress, over, and across a twenty -four foot wide paved access
route across the easterly 228 feet of Parcel A linking the west
side of Parcel B with Southcenter Boulevard. The Easement will
be twelve feet on both sides of the centerline of the road marked
on Exhibit A.
2. Property Benefited by Easement. Parcel B, legally
described on Exhibit B attached hereto and incorporated herein by
this reference, is benefited by the Easement for vehicular access
across Parcel A, which is also legally described on Exhi.bit B
Parcels A and B are generally mapped in Exhibit/g; A
r
3. Running of Benefits and Burdens. The provisions o
this Easement, including the benefits and burdens, run with the
respective parcels of land and are binding upon and pass to the
heirs, assigns and successors, tenants and personal
representatives of the parties, in perpetuity.
4. Non - Exclusive Easement. This vehicular access
Easement rights granted by this conveyance shall be non-
exclusive, and shall not restrict the right of the owner of
Parcel A to convey Easement rights over their property to others.
-1-
4r3-150
5. Condition and Maintenance of Easement. The Easement
is paved and the owners of Parcel A agree that the Easement route
shall remain paved, in a condition to allow vehicles to cross it.
Maintenance of the Easement shall be the responsibility of the
owners of Parcel B.
6. Vehicular Access Defined. This Easement is only
for use by occupants at the buildings on Parcel B as well as
public and emergency service needed to service the buildings
located on Parcel B.
7. Relocation of Easement. The owner of Parcel A
shall have the option of relocating or terminating this Easement
in the future, so long as the new location allows paved access to
the same portion of Parcel B, and it is at least 24 feet wide and
usable by occupants and other public service and emergency
vehicles, and is approved in writing, by the responsible City of
Tukwila regulatory department or its successor regulatory agency.
is XC!;: L TAX f? -7)( 1jR7-D
DATED this
day of July, 1988.
NORTH HILLS JOINT VENTURE PARTNERSHIP
4( 1,4f , 'L.
: Leon Grund tein, "eneral Partner
STATE OF WASHINGTON )
SS.
COUNTY OF KING
On this //- day of July, 1988, personally appeared
before me, Leon Grundstein, known to me to be the General Partner
described in and who executed the within and foregoing
instrument, and acknowledged that he signed the same as
representative of said partnership, and was his free and
voluntary act and deed, for the uses and purposes therein
mentioned.
WITNESS my hand and official seal, hereto
day and year first above written. �
affixed the
• .00'' H 4 ►
NOTARY PUBLIC in and f the ;,"
yt�6 ^1.., � ,
of Washingto ,� y 31ir J• '•'��
RESIDING at, �� �� ��;: -{ ? K "
My Commission Expires: z'w,.,,.
,' '••nn,n,,, "',,
EXHIBIT IMP' 6 6 4 '
NT024509/492 Page 7
PARCEL A:
Tract 35 of Brookvale Garden Tracts, as per plat recorded in Volume 10
of Plats, on page 47, records of King County;
EXCEPT that portion lying Westerly of a line described as follows:
Beginning at the intersection of the North line of said Tract 35 with
a line drawn parallel with and 70 feet Northeasterly, when measured at
right angles and /or radially, from Mac Road centerline survey;
thence Southeasterly, Southerly and Southwesterly, parallel to said
Mac Road centerline survey, to a point 85 feet Northeasterly, when
measured at right angles, from the 1 -RE line of State Highway Route 5
(PSH No. 1), and the terminus of said line;
ALSO an unplatted strip of land adjoining said property on the East,
lying between the East line of said property and the East line of the
Southwest quarter of Section 23, Township 23 North, Range 4 East,
W.M.,
ALSO EXCEPT that portion of said Tract 35 of Brookvale Garden Tracts,
described as follows:
(` NC . THWESTERN
TITLE
'" A Minnesota rite Company
Beginning at the intersection of the West line of the East 25 feet of
an unplatted strip lying East of said Tract.35 and as described in
Deed from Tony S. Kato and Doris M. Kato, his wife, to Restaurant
Industries, Inc., and recorded under Recording No. 7208030148; records
of said County, with the Northerly line of State Highway as condemned
in King County Court Cause No. 600726;
thence North 65 °16'34" West along said Northerly line 163.00 feet to
the true point of beginning;
thence North 24 °43'26" East at right angles to said State Highway,
Northerly line 160.00 feet;
thence North 65 ° 16'34" West parallel to said Northerly line 274.20
feet;
thence South 23 ° 54'26" West 102.85 feet to a point;
thence South 27 ° 51'56" West to a point on the Northerly line of said
State Highway, said line running Southeasterly from a point that is 70
feet Southeasterly, when measured at right angles, from the Mac Road
centerline survey and 85 feet Northeasterly when measured at right
angles, from the 1 -RE line of State Highway Route 5 (PSH No. 1) to a
point opposite Highway Engineers Station P.C. (1 -RE) 158- plus -93.3 on
said 1 -RE line and 70 feet Northeasterly therefrom,
thence Southeasterly along said line to said point opposite Station
P.C. (1 -RE) 158 - plus -93.3;
thence_South 65 °16'34" East along said State Highway Northerly line
206.81 feet to the true point of beginning;
/ N(. JHWESTERN
TITLE
A MMUiesoti Tide Company
ALSO, EXCEPT that portion of Tract 35 of said Brookvale Garden Tracts,
and of the unplatted strip of land adjoining on the East of said Tract
35 in the the Southeast quarter of Section 23, Township 23 North,
Range 4 East, W.M., described as follows:
Beginning at the intersection of the East line of said unplatted strip
with the North line of State Highway as condemned in King County Court
Cause No. 600726;
thence Northwesterly along said North line to its intersection with a
line which is 25 feet West of as measured at right angles to and
parallel with the East line of said unplatted strip and the true point
of beginning;
thence continuing Northwesterly along the North line of said Highway a
distance of 163 feet;
thence North at right angles to the North line of the highway a
distance of 135 feet;
thence East parallel with the North line. of said Highway to a point in
said line which is 25 feet West of and parallel with the East line of
said unplatted strip;
thence South along said line to the true point of beginning; .
ALSO EXCEPT that portion of Tract 35 of said Brookvale. Garden Tracts,
described as follows: All that portion of said Lot 35 lying Southerly
of the following described line.
$eginning at the intersection of the West line Of the East 25 feet of
an unplatted strip lying East of said Tract 35 and as described in
Deed from Tony S. Kato and Doris M. Kato, his wife, to Restaurant
Industries, Inc., and recorded under Recording No. 7208030148; records
of said County, with the Northerly line of State Highway as condemned
in King County Court Cause No. 600726;
thence North 65 °16'34" West along said Northerly line 163.00 feet to
the true point of beginning;
thence North 24 °43'26" East at right angles to said State Highway,
Northerly'line 160.00 feet;
thence North 65 °16'34" West parallel to said Northerly line 274.20
feet; to the true point of beginning.
thence continuing North 65 °16'34" a distance of 154.55 feet more or
less to its..intersection with the East line of Macadam Road as now
estblishei:
PARCEL B:
The Northerly 228 feet measured along the Westerly line thereof of
Tract.11 of Interurban Addition to Seattle, according to plat thereof
recorded in Volume 10 of Plats, page 55, records of King County,
Washington, EXCEPT therefrom the Easterly 450.86 feet thereof.
END OF EXHIBIT "A"
NT024509/492 Page 8
• owora
a -a •-a
` nali V!
CL,•,
•.1.. •11.01•44.1. vI
P =.02010 PU11011..
5 FOOT RETAINING WALL
20 FOOT FIRE ACCESS EASEMENT
ri_e_)r a• - v
&I4DSC APIP4 PL0►N .• • •o'....
g
f
011:Al
GENCOR. APART /LENTS
•
TVPIG..I. 15UILD1Nc)._SIbt tt1.11YAt1QN 1L••1=V' --
S .i•!./•ir� - - id
- 11...e ••./ 1u , V...N I NQT'C.N.
8807210450
b .T: 1/ la.. 11.••••j••••• •••••.
•
•0. I1N.. ••r.
t
r•
i
mws ....1u• ..,••►
• •.u••J• V•a.N.u•
G
04424. G►..w•t.rn
O ..••■ I __ e __ __...
• ..•sa�.A I•0•
• (11•••• i+•..D.w•a.
f►t.r.... r>w•a.a
• ...••.l- aaw.•...•.
s
• 0.040/.p•.w.D •..•.
a 2101.•s11• wWas•►
. A .S11IA•Yw
Tn•..1. 0a1. -
N.R. err Piaui.
7..r ••• •••
1M...S
I.:i•••••• ••••.4ta
•I.w•
ALMON-
10,••1.0
w..•..ww•I
11s.00cOPlleiteua .
rut4111.
C A I I I M M A • EII•VEL
—
LAND £C, .PING. 1.4C2T1si
ati.ia:.a.s I MMO . .•w.- wrw1omm A► w.i••.a•as
MIMI •a .•.•aI.•.s // OjV► ..
.a, 1•r fame ••••••• ..S •.......••1 -.
MI rd. fwd IN ••••••••• •T.........
N
11011040 ••.a• •swoon. U...K alai. wa••a
A LL I► fO R. RGG t i.ATt( leg
04000404.0404 ..•w 40400 114 I 7140.170.11 aM s .0..001..
••••■••••• •i...l1w MUM.t
0000. MIL,..... M •••••• 1
apPEML. MM. MM. �' 1 1, 4 60
D<I.V1N Lit GLNI3
('-, i.aG•.TU .... ►..• Two...
=NM • C ••.
ID. W5 paw 7w. Cal. .. � .•.w•••T•1■- .
• I•.D1G.f.. W ..0...
1Y•IC.Mi• ••ca.MDIJ♦ Tos...
. PILlo ....•III• .+•r ..•T..•....wwo.nr.:-
IMDIC..TU II•. ■••••■••r =...
I_P MO•C•.m.asT••. a.....• ..M.co.•••IIN ..
f=ZI p.0IGAT1116 .....• w o• +•_ e.•••••••-.. a •o•.o r mop MIL •T•.f.I.is .
1.1 musses. a. ~FL • a.....
a.r•I.••••••.: •.a•maav •••• - 00.. •0,.:..
• 110..0.• AMY. I..ar 400.0••..•) :
41 1 . a..• ..•...,•...,...I.....w. -1_ .000.0•
:aaar.soo Ic�'�
�f l . i - ..s•...
r — ca t •S0I : ••.IZ '1..a+
r .ra1ar .... s .......g .........0.1a- .M•Ma t- SM
•....V.I..a M • •,••.••. •••r ••••••••
• so... 0.a•41.•0•• 4.101.4' ,.M.•
M Oals. do •••■•••••...
••••••••• •• I •••It•s••fw. •M•a0..s �
re.. or 101. •�..• ....COI. • •a1► •••■••■
... ..aa• I • A
..I•.IA, a1•au••o • AlGM/ G
M...••• Lt,.. ap/••is.
♦ wmoscarIIIL. ..t L
NORTHWESTERN
TITLE COMPANY
250 Arctic Building 7110 Third Are.
Seattle. WA 91101 12061 613-1952
A
Vot„ / 0 Ate 47
B f o o K V I L E 6AROEIJ lathers
NW
1
Order No.
All a2 4 S O r
Plat. Vol. _O Page SS"
INIERUR.BArJ AootTted -no C/
Dimensions of subject premises are: V rvo e 1 r-{= M r , i r3 L a
This ebeket dose not pinyon 10 show se Mpbwah. roads a'Ammons Wiping said preoargr. No Iiabiply r assumed far venation in einwnYrn W V a4ww .Aw i. ord
- •r - 4
•
LJ
yt1
• .. . •s:
V..
• an
Ggs. C .MILISS
\ \/A1/ /--.
0
Qs4' ta
A rrAc'1
stews cL • •Co t .4- - w
•
1"i"1
I
• P P' P--r"r O'■t•:i S- Ge.N.C.472•
.
N PRA S�c.'�'...
I
0
0
f• T
J d tax f r )
- 1 uo
o i � � I
z , t- Vl
. zaa` .nu."8,4.MYEA3.u't.
c7wY '7,742:x4 utrvw=uu
Mr. Steven Friedman
Gencor, Inc.
11801 N.E. 160th St., Suite G
Bothell, Washington 98011
Subject: BUILDING PERMIT NO. 5282 -5296
Dear Steven:
LRB /sjn
cc: Duane Griffin
City Attorney
File
City of Tukwila
: sst za ate. nar.,tasV;xr4747;t0 ::rsa
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
6200 Southcenter Boulevard
Tukwila, Washington 98188
(206) 433 -1849
July 1, 1988
This letter is a follow -up to the conversation between you and Vernon
Umetsu regarding City approval of retaining wall work. I have reviewed
your request for City approval of Wall D footings and herewith amend
my letter of June 24, 1988 to allow for the construction of perimeter
retaining walls D, F, G, and H. Construction of these walls are necessary
for stabilizing the grading actions already taken on the site.
No requests for City inspection /approval for any other aspects of this
project will be accepted until the conditions of the June 24, 1988 letter
are satisfied.
Please contact Vernon Umetsu at 433 -1858 if you have any further questions.
Si - ly,
L. Rick Beeler
Planning Director
1908
(29 /NTC.GENCOR)
.' > !"
City of Tukwila
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
6200 Southcenter Boulevard
Tukwila, Washington 98188
(206) 433 -1849
NOTICE OF DECISION
FILE NUMBER: 87 -5 -DR: GENCOR
APPLICANT: Steven M. Friedman
REQUEST: Review modifications to the landscape plan.
LOCATION: 5700 block of Southcenter Boulevard
•
The Board of Architectural Review (BAR) conducted a review of the request on
May 12, 1988, and approved the proposed action with the conditions specified in
the Addendum to the Project Record dated May 6, 1988 (see Planning Dept. file).
Any party aggrieved by this decision may appeal the decision to the City Coun-
cil by filing an appeal in writing with the City Clerk within ten (10) days of
the above date and shall state the reasons for the appeal.
Vernon Umetsu, Associate Planner
May 13, 1988
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Regarding The Matter Of:
Appeal of Board Of Architectural
Review & SEPA Determinations
The Staff Report to the Council provides a basic overview of the facts. It should be
noted that the Applicant worked with Staff to provide a good project for the City prior to
BAR review. The Planning Commission Reviewed this Project twice and imposed
conditions on the project. This is not a project where due consideration of the City's
desires and the citizens concerns has not been given.
APPLICANT'S BRIEF - 1
BEFORE THE TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL
SEPA APPEAL
No. EPIC 11 -87, 87 -5 -DR,
Gencor
Hearing Date: 2/29/88
Applicant's Brief on Appeal
On November 16, 1987, the City Council, after hearing the SEPA appeal by
Sunwood Condominium (Ryan Thrower), approved a mitigated DNS on this project.
On January 29, 1988, Ryan Thrower submitted a letter to the City objecting to the
information prepared by the staff and the applicant pursuant to the Mitigated DNS.
Since then the staff with the assistance of the applicant has supplemented the
environmental information. Mr. Thrower has indicated to the staff that it appears that
sufficient information has been provided, but that he still has questions regarding traffic
turning on Southcenter Blvd. The Mitigated DNS required the "Applicant to stipulate to
more specific mitigating measures in cooperating with the City of Tukwila and adjoining
property owners to resolve joint access problems." (Minutes of Dec. 16, 1987 City
Council Meeting). The Applicant has since submitted, at the request of staff, a writing
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
APPLICANT'S BRIEF - 2
BAR APPEAL
to the City agreeing to such cooperation, and has provided an easement to the City for
joint access.
The city has heard the appeal on this matter and made its decision. There is not a
proper appeal before the City Council on the SEPA issue. Additionally there is only
allowed one appeal of a final SEPA Determination (See WAC 197 -11 -680). The
Council is the last say on the matter within the City and it previously made it's decision.
Additionally, Mr. Thrower is raising a new matter regarding traffic that was not
contained in his original appeal. There has been no timely appeal filed on this issue.
APPEARANCE OF FAIRNESS ISSUE
Mr Thrower states in his appeal that there appeared to be some actions at the
BAR hearing by a commission member indicating he may have discussed the matter
prior to the hearing. The applicants have no knowledge about what Mr. Thrower may
be referring to. Since Mr. Thrower did not raise this issue at the hearing, and has not
raised it since, Mr. Thrower has no right to continue with this challenge. (See RCW
42.36.080).
A. Scope of Hearing.
TMC 18.90.020 provides that the City Council may hold a public Hearing prior
to making it's decision on a BAR appeal. Since a public hearing is not mandatory the
applicant takes the position that this is not a de novo appeal. It is a review of the
decision of the planning commission, not a new decision on the project. The Planning
Commission must be found to have been arbitrary, capricious or contrary to law. Mere
disagreement with the BAR decision is not sufficient to cause the BAR decision to be
modified. The City may take the position that this is a de novo appeal on the issues
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
APPLICANT'S BRIEF - 3
raised on appeal. If so, the council still may only consider the matters raised on appeal,
and can not consider other matters or modify the BAR decision on other matters
Dated this �� day of February, 1988.
Respectfully submitted
Cris F. Crumbaugh
Attorney For Applicant
B om i r - hensiv - Plan Iss ies
Mr. Thrower raises the issue that the Planning commission did not follow the
specific requirements of the City's Comprehensive Plan in it's BAR decision.
The BAR Review guidelines give no authority to review applications for specific
compliance with the Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan is not a document
upon which the BAR bases it's determination (See TMC Sec.18.60.010 et seq).
Additionally, the Comprehensive Plan is not a specific land use regulation, and it
is against state law to use it as a specific regulation of property unless a statute
specifically designating it as such has been adopted. (See RCW 35A.63.080, West
Main Associates V. Bellevue, 49 Wn. App 513).
C. Recreation Space Issues.
The BAR has no authority to administer the recreational requirements of TMC
18.60.060. Those requirements are administered by the staff. The appeal of BAR
determinations on this is therefore incorrect.
Mr. Thrower is incorrect in his analysis of the Open Space and Recreational
Requirements and the applicants compliance with them. The Applicant has complied
with the requirements, and in some instances exceeded the requirements.
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
VU /sjn
attachment
City Of Tukwila
6200 Southcenter Boulevard
Tukwila Washington 98188
(206) 433 -1800
Gary L. VanDusen, Mayor
MEMORANDUM
Tukwila Board of Architectural Review
Vernon Umetsu, Associate Planner
May 6, 1988
87-5-DR: GENCOR /NORTH HILL APARTMENTS -
ADDENDUM TO THE PROJECT RECORD
The requirement for an extensive storm runoff system has resulted in a landscape
plan modification which requires Board approval.
The affected area is located around the southern property boundary, behind the
Denny's building from Southcenter Boulevard. Existing trees which were pre-
viously indicated as remaining undeveloped will have to be removed for utility
lines. These areas will be relandscaped as a maintained grassed slope and
additional trees will be planted upslope.
The Planning Department finds that the affected areas are not generally visible
from public streets, that upslope plantings will provide a more effective visual
buffer than the existing downslope trees, and that existing downslope trees
provide a tiered slope effect which enhances the topographic hill feature. The
Department concludes that the new upslope trees will provide an effective visual
buffer, but that a desirable long -term result is to replace the original tiered
wooded effect. This would enhance the relationship of structure to site and
landscape and site treatment.
The Planning Department recommends approval of this landscape modification,
subject to replanting disturbed areas with deciduous trees in a number and
pattern which provides a tiered hillside effect and enhances trail use. Trees
are to be of standard nursery stock, relatively fast-growing and reach a minimum
height of 30 feet. This condition is to be implemented through the Planning
Director.
April 19, 1988
Dear Ms. Smith:
ARCHITECT 7605 SOUTHEAST 27TH STREET, SUITE 215 • MERCER ISLAND, WA 98040 • (206) 232
Ms. Bridget Smith
Mahan & DeSalvo, Consulting Engineers
1411 Fourth Avenue Building
Seattle, Wa. 98101
Re: 88-R-10 (Gencor Apartments)
I have received your list of comments and I am responding by this letter and
revised drawings. Please note that these drawings replace the originals.
The following classifications and numbers are per your letter of 4-11-88:
Structural
1. See revised Detail 10/A9.
2, 3, 4 and 6 by others.
5. Drawings for Buildings "A" and "B" have been revised. Dwgs. A4 and A5.
7. For footing D see Detail 3/A9. Footing K is eliminated.
8. See note, Dwg. A9.
Ordinance
1. Stairs have been redesigned. See Dwg. A9.
2. Note added to Section A/A9.
3. Occupancy: Note #15, Dwg. A2. Building areas: See "Number of units"
column, Dwg. A2. Construction type: Note #5, Dwg.
4. Roofing: See note #17, Dwg. A2.
5. Sleeping area openings: See Note #18, Dwg. A2.
6. Draft stops and ventilation: See Note #20, Dwg. A2.
Regulations for Barrier Free Facilities
1. See details, Dwg. A2.
2.' H.C. parking stalls are relocated. H.C. units are located in Building "B".
See revised plot plan, Dwg. A2.
3. are designed as adaptable units. See floor plan and notes, Dwg. A8.
4. Parking stalls are revised. See Dwg. A2.
Washington State Energy Code
1. See Note #22, Dwg. A2.
I trust that this list and the revised drawings will satisfy code requirements.
If you do have any further questions or comments, please let me know.
Sincerely,
4 r
1 : €1 V
Azaria Rousso Architect
1 1, 1
1 I
APR 2 .1 1988
4
February 29, 1988
7:00 P.M.
CALL TO ORDER
COUNCIL MEMBERS
PRESENT
OFFICIALS IN
ATTENDANCE
EXECUTIVE SESSION
7:05 - 7:30 P.M.
PUBLIC HEARING (con-
tinued from 2 -1 -88)
An appeal by Sunwood
Condo Assn. of BAR
decision for 54 -unit
apt. complex prop.
by Gencor, located
in 5700 block on
SC Blvd., above &
no. of Denny's
Restaurant.
TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL City Hall
SPECIAL MEETING Council Chambers
MINUTES
Mayor Van Dusen called the Special Meeting to order and excused
himself from the meeting due to a conflict of interest, stating
his personal attorney is also the attorney for the applicant.
Councilmember Hernandez excused herself from the meeting due to a
conflict of interest. She stated she is a homeowner in the
Sunwood Condominiums and therefore is a member of the Sunwood
Homeowners' Association which is the appellant in this appeal.
Council President Harris served as Mayor Pro Tem for the meeting.
MABEL J. HARRIS (COUNCIL PRESIDENT), JOE H. DUFFIE, EDGAR D. BAUCH,
MARILYN G. STOKNES, JOAN HERNANDEZ (EXCUSED FROM MEETING), DENNIS
L. ROBERTSON, CLARENCE B. MORIWAKI.
Maxine Anderson (City Clerk), Rick Beeler (Planning Director),
John Colgrove (City Attorney), Ross Earnst (City Engineer), Larry
Hard (City Attorney), Jack Pace (Senior Planner).
MOVED BY DUFFIE, SECONDED BY ROBERTSON, THAT THE CITY COUNCIL GO
INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION TO REVIEW PROCEDURE IN PUBLIC HEARING FOR
BENEFIT OF THREE NEW COUNCILMEMBERS. MOTION CARRIED.
MOVED BY BAUCH, SECONDED BY STOKNES, THAT COUNCIL AJOURN THE
EXECUTIVE SESSION AND RESUME THE SPECIAL MEETING. MOTION CARRIED.
The Special Meeting was called back to order by Mayor Pro Tem Harris,
with Councilmembers present as previously listed.
Larry Hard, City Attorney, gave a brief overview and referred to
the letter dated September 28, 1987 from Sunwood Condominium Assoc-
iation (written by Director Ryan S. Thrower) in which they appealed
the decision of the Tukwila BAR approving the Gencor apartment
complex.
Jack Pace, Senior Planner, gave an historical review of the matter
and referred to the Minutes of the BAR Meeting held October 22,
1987. He stated on November 16, 1987 the City Council approved
a Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance. On January 29,
1988, Ryan Thrower submitted a letter objecting to the additional
information submitted as part of the Mitigated Determination of
Nonsignificance. He believed the conditions for the City Council
decision were not met. On January 19, 1988, additional material
concerning the City Council conditions was submitted to Ryan
Thrower for his review.
On February 24, 1988, Ryan Thrower was asked if he still had concerns
regarding complicance to the Mitigated Determination of Nonsignifi-
cance conditions. His response was that the conditions have been
met but he still has questions concerning traffic movement on and
off Southcenter Boulevard.
Mr. Thrower stated he believes the applicant has not complied
with TMC 18.52.060 Recreation Space Requirements; there is inade-
quate compliance with the City's Comprehensive Land Use Policy Plan;
that there is an appearance of fairness violation.
Mr. Pace, Senior Planner, continued stating the alleged requirement
for covered recreation space or a single - purpose permanent facility
such as a tennis court is not contained in TMC 18.52.060. Instead
the standard is a maximum allowable indoor or covered space of 50%
of total recreation space. There is no requirement to provide
covered or permanent recreation facilities.
Mr. Pace, Senior Planner, stated with respect to inadequate
compliance with the City's Comprehensive Land Use Policy Plan, the
BAR review guidelines (TMC 18.60.050) do not contain any require-
ments for the BAR to review development in compliance with Compre-
hensive Land Use Policy Plan.
Mr. Pace, Senior Planner, stated details of the challenge of
appearance of fairness violation are lacking in the appeal, however
the appellant did state a willingness to present these details to the
City Council. Mr. Pace stated any challenge as to the appearance
of fairness requires that any challenge be raised at the time basis
for the challenge is known; otherwise, rights to appeal on
TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES
Page 2
February 29, 1988
PUBLIC HEARING - Contd.
An appeal by Sunwood
Condo Assn. of BAR
decision for 54 -unit
apt. complex prop.
by Gencor, located
in 5700 block on
SC Blvd., above &
no. of Denny's
Restaurant - contd.
€;
that basis are waived. In this case the alleged basis was known
during the BAR meeting but not raised at that meeting. The City
Attorney also advised that the doctrine applies to only public hear-
ings not to public meetings of the BAR. Therefore, the appeal is
invalid.
Councilmember Moriwaki asked about the traffic light entering
the project and referred to the traffic generated by Denny's Rest-
aurant and the mini - grovery.
Jack Pace, Senior Planner, stated this matter was
asked by Mr. Thrower in behalf of the Sunwood Condominium Assoc-
iation in his letter of January 29, 1988. Their questions were
answered by staff. When the applicant requests the building
permit the applicant will have to have all of the requirements
implemented.
Ryan Thrower, Director of Sunwood Condominium Association,
15232 Sunwood Blvd., stated their concerns about the traffic move-
ment have not been answered.
Larry Hard, City Attorney, stated it was his understanding that
the concerns that were raised by Mr. Thrower were discussed with
him. In Appendix A of the agenda packet it stated: "On February
24, 1988, Ryan Thrower was asked if he still had concerns regarding
compliance to the Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance
conditions. His response was that the conditions have been met
but he still has questions concerning traffic movement on and off
Southcenter Boulevard.
Mr. Pace, Senior Planner, stated all items have been addressed,
except the traffic problem. Mr. Thrower stated he does have
concers about the traffic.
Ryan Thrower, speaking for Sunwood Condominium Association, stated
his concern is the traffic study that discusses turns onto South -
center Boulevard. He wanted to know the basis of assessment? It
seems a congested area.
Mayor Pro Tem Harris said the City had had traffic studies and
traffic counts.
Ryan Thrower said his letter of January 29, 1988 was in response
to the Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance dated January
14, 1988. He stated he received response to his letter in the
manner of telephone calls and a letter.
Ross Earnst, City Engineer, stated he doesn't have information
about the turns into Denny's Restaurant and the market. He does
have accident reports available.
Cris Crumbaugh, attorney for Gencor, stated Mr. Thrower is raising
new issues.
Steven Friedman, 1633 72nd Avenue SE, Mercer Island, representing
Gencor, stated it is his understanding there is a lot of traffic
in front of Denny's and the grocery. Gencor has granted an ease-
ment to help solve the problem.
MAYOR PRO TEM HARRIS OPENED THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 8:25 P.M.
Ryan Thrower, 15232 Sunwood Boulevard, asked if his letter of
January 28, 1988 was to be discussed during the public hearing.
City Attorney Larry Hard said Mr. Thrower submitted his comments.
He received data from the staff in reply to his letter. The
SEPA hearing was held in November 1987. That process was indepen-
dent. In his opinion there is no grounds for appeal from the
SEPA.
Rick Beeler, Planning Director, stated any appeal to the SEPA
decision has to be in court. The traffic study was not required
by the City Council. The Mitigated Determination of Nonsignifi-
cance was signed by him.
TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL SPF^IAL MEETING MINUTES
February 29, 1988
Page 3
PUBLIC HEARING - Contd.
An appeal by Sunwood
Condo Assn. of BAR
decision for 54 -unit
apt. complex prop.
by Gencor, located
in 5700 block on SC
Blvd., above & no.
of Denny's Restau-
rant - contd.
RECESS
8:47 - 8:56 P.M.
City Attorney Hard said the appellant would have to go to the
Superior Court to appeal the Mitigated Determination of Nonsigni-
ficance. When the building permit is filed it has to fill all
of the requirements of the Determination of Nonsignificance.
Councilmember Moriwaki said in Mn Thrower's letter of January 29
he refers to his letter as an appeal. No where does it say this is
not an appeal.
City Attorney Hard said in response to a Mitigated Determination of
Nonsignificance comments may be submitted. If someone submits a
paper and calls it an appeal it does not create the appeal process.
Mr. Thrower said the basis of his appeal of the BAR decision was
to try and find out what is being done along Southcenter Boulevard.
Also with respect to the "active recreation facilities" what is
being done about that? When will the zoning be consistent?
Mayor Pro Tem Harris asked Mr. Thrower if his interpretation of
the Comprehensive Plan was that each development should have trails,
ball fields, tennis courts, etc?
Mr. Thrower said it was his interpretation that it should. He said
he has seen a decline in the number of recreational facilities in
projects. He said he thought there should be active facilities in
all projects. He said many of the recreational facilities are
uncovered and many are located on a 20% slope. This is not active
recreation space. The burden of recreation is falling on others.
Mayor Pro Tem Harris said she is the only member of the Council who
helped work on the Comprehensive Plan. The idea was not for every
block to have a tennis court, a ball field, a trail. The City
provides many of these amenities in the public parks. It was not
the intent that every development have many recreation facilities.
Mayor Pro Tem Harris called for a 5 minute recess.
The Special Meeting was called back to order with Councilmembers
present as previously listed.
Cris Crumbaugh, 1002 South Third, Renton, attorney for the applicant,
distributed a brief on the appeal, if it is considered an appeal.
He stated the initial application was filed last June. The zoning
allows 102 units and the applicant has only 54 units.
Mr. Thrower stated the City's zoning should be stricter.
Steve Friedman, 11801 NE 160th, Bothell, applicant, said the develop-
ment has been through a timely process and it is now a better project.
The issues have been discussed with Sunwood. The project is a
compact site and care has gone into the design. It is zoned for
102 apartments. Every effort has been made to put the buildings as
low as possible, the noise has been buffered. It would be ideal
for this to be a greenbelt for Sunwood, but they have bought the
property on the basis of what is appropriate for the land. Most of
the issues that have come up could be dealt with at staff level.
There being no further comments, MAYOR PRO TEM HARRIS CLOSED THE
PUBLIC HEARING AT 9:20 P.M.
Councilmember Moriwaki said the guidelines are suggestions; perhaps
they are not strict enough. The City should have an image of what
the City should look like. There is identity to a City that is
well planned.
Mayor Pro Tem Harris said the Comprehensive Plan was a plan and the
zoning laws were there to accomplish the planning.
Councilmember Bauch said most of this was caused by the development
of Sunwood. Gencor has done a professional noise study. They
have also offered an easement for traffic.
Councilmember Robertson asked if at the point the building permit is
issued can the appellant challenge since an EIS was not issued.
City Attorney Hard said it could be challenged.
TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES
February 29, 1988
Page 4
PUBLIC HEARING - Contd.
An appeal by Sunwood
Condo Assn. of BAR
decision for 54 -unit
apt. complex prop.
by Gencor, located
in 5700 block on SC
Blvd., above & no.
of Denny's Restau-
rnat - contd.
ADJOURNMENT
9:45 P.M.
Councilmember Robertson said before too many more changes are made,
perhaps the Comprehensive Plan should be gone over and also the
zoning ordinance.
Councilmember Moriwaki said developers are here to make money out
of their investment. It is up to the City Council to keep them
in check and make sure they meet all of the zoning laws. He
thought the Comprehensive Plan should have a good review by the
Council.
MOVED BY DUFFIE, SECONDED BY STOKNES, THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ACCEPT
THE BAR DECISION ON THE GENCOR DEVELOPMENT. MOTION CARRIED.
MOVED BY DUFFIE, SECONDED BY ROBERTSON, THAT THE SPECIAL MEETING
OF THE CITY COUNCIL ADJOURN. MOTION CARRIED.
o� a Booher, Recording Secretary
TO: City Council
FROM: Planning Department
BACKGROUND
APPEAL ISSUES
1. ZONING CODE:
Cit of Tukwila
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
6200 Southcenter Boulevard
Tukwila, Washington 98188
(206) 433 -1849
SUBJECT: APPEAL OF BAR DECISION FOR
54 -UNIT APARTMENT COMPLEX
EPIC 11 -87, 87 -5 -DR, GENCOR
Appendix A
� ' F: �; f;': '. ^..^•'tnrr;rt�'%211rtY ?: "i'•' � «'..�:'icc <:�::�
•a: ^.,�er'.,�:.^sL?. �aa rr�ru -,r: n . <sCh�r �. k'f.:,iR... � � ... .. ...
February 25, 1988
On September 24, 1987, the Board of Architectural Review (BAR) approved, with
conditions, the plans for a 54 -unit apartment complex proposed by Gencor. On
September 28, 1987, the Sunwood Condominium Association appealed the BAR deci-
sion and the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) determination of nonsignifi-
cance by the Responsible Official (see Appendix D). The BAR formally adopted on
October 22, 1987 written findings, conclusions and conditions of approval, which
were verbally adopted on September 24, 1987 (see Appendices E /F).
On November 16, 1987 the City Council approved a Mitigated Determination of Non -
significance (Appendix B). On January 29, 1988, Ryan Thrower submitted a letter
objecting to the additional information submitted as part of the Mitigated
Determination of Nonsignificance (Attachment A). He believed the conditions
for the City Council decision were not met. On January 19, 1988, additional
material concerning the City Council conditions was submitted to Ryan Thrower
for his review.
On February 24, 1988, Ryan Thrower was asked if he still had concerns regarding
compliance to the Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance conditions. His
response was that the conditions have been met but he still has questions con-
cerning traffic movement, on and off Southcenter Boulevard.
The remaining appeal issues are divided into three general areas which are
listed below in bold type, with staff discussion following.
A. The appellant believes the applicant has not complied with TMC
18.52.060 Recreation Space Requirements.
(20/PD.2 -25M)
Appendix A
Page 2
The Design Review Guidelines (TMC 18.60.050) do not give the BAR the
authority to review recreational requirements. Those requirements are
administered by City staff (see Attachment B -1). The BAR authority
extends to only review of the landscape plan. On that basis this
appeal issue, as specifically stated, is not valid.
Notwithstanding that conclusion, the alleged requirement for covered
recreation space or a single - purpose permanent facility such as a ten-
nis court is not contained in TMC 18.52.060. Instead, the standard is
a maximum allowable indoor or covered space of 50 percent of total
recreation space. There is no requirement to provide covered or
permanent recreation facilities.
B. Inadequate analysis of the extent to which uncovered recreation space
is on slope greater than 4:1 slope, per by TMC 18.52.060(3)(B).
C. Inadequate screening or other buffer to separate the recreation
space from parking areas, driveways or public streets, per TMC
18.52.060(4)(B).
TMC 18.52.060(3)(B) allows up to 50% of the recreation space to be
located on slopes greater than 4:1 slopes. This standard is met by
the proposal. In addition, due to topography, location of buildings,
parking and road access, the BAR felt adequate screening is provided.
No standards for screening exist.
2. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Inadequate compliance with City of Tukwila Comprehen-
sive Land Use Policy Plan.
The BAR review guidelines (TMC 18.60.050 - see Attachment B -2) do not
contain any requirements for the BAR to review development in compli-
ance with Comprehensive Land Use Policy Plan.
3. APPEARANCE OF FAIRNESS VIOLATION: One of the members of the Board con-
ducted himself in such a manner as to violate the appearance of fairness and
to give rise to a reasonable suspicion that he had discussed the details of
the case prior to the public hearing and that he had decided the case based,
at least in part, on information other than presented at the hearing."
Details of this challenge are lacking in the appeal, however the
appellant did state a willingness to present these details to the City
Council.
Notwithstanding the basis for that challenge, the appearance of fair-
ness doctrine requires that any challenge be raised at the time basis
for the challenge was known. Otherwise, rights to appeal on that basis
are waived. In this case the alleged basis was known during the BAR
meeting but not raised at that meeting. The City Attorney also advised
that the doctrine applies to only public hearings, not to the public
meetings of the BAR. Therefore, the appeal is invalid.
.. '1A : iE3 i:.r: =ra= rwtYkr: x ,' m!! ias. mi �k�t ..?',ti^.u•.:,.o-:..u,ar„vw_.. ,.. a0.1,11. .., Y........:. talon..w._.........rwo....,,.11, m..z •7 410 _0..azarm...u- xasvaa+i+m V. ..VIATOMMA " ai 3;S
MS. MAXINE ANDERSON
CITY CLERK
CITY OF TUKWILA
6200 SOUTHCENTER BLVD
TUKWILA WA. 98188
ATTACHEMENT A
ir i1I LL"
ate
0
JANUARY 29, 1988
REFERENCE: APPEAL OF PLANNING DEPARTMENT MITIGATED
DETERMINATION OF NONSIGNIFICANCE; DATED JANUARY
14,1988; FILE NUMBER - EPIC.
I AM WRITING ON BEHALF OF THE SUNWOOD CONDOMINIUM
ASSOCIATION TO APPEAL THE DECISION OF THE TUKWILA PLANNING
DEPARTMENT IN THE MITIGATED DETERMINATION OF NONSIGNIFICANCE
FOR THE GENCOR PROPOSAL.
THE REASONS FOR THIS APPEAL ARE THAT THE REPORT FILED WITH
THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT PREPARED, BY ENTRANCO ENGINEERING
INC., DOES NOT ADDRESS THE FOLLOWING CONCERNS RAISED BY THE
CITY COUNCIL AT THE MEETING OF NOVEMBER 16, 1987:
1) THE IMPACT OF THIS PROPOSAL AS IT RELATES TO THE
NOISE LEVEL ON THE UP SLOPE PROPERTIES.
2) THE IMPACT OF THE RIGHT HAND AND LEFT HAND VEHICLE
TURNS FROM THE SITE ON TO SOUTHCENTER BOULEVARD AND THE
IMPACT OF THE RIGHT HAND AND LEFT HAND TURNS FROM
SOUTHCENTER BOULEVARD ON TO THE SITE.
IN ADDITION THE REPORT PREPARED BY ENTRANCO ENGINEERING DOES
NOT HAVE THE SIGNATURE NOR THE SEAL OF A PROFESSIONAL
ENGINEER REGISTERED IN THE STATE OF WASHINGTON.
g frier 4<--
RYAN S. THROWER
DIRECTOR
SUNWOOD CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION
15232 SUNWOOD BLVD.
TUKWILA WA. 98188
TTACHMENT B -1
RECREATION SPACE REQUIREMENTS
'.8.52.050 -- 18.52.060
18.52.050 Landscape plan requirements. Detailed plans
for landscaping and screening shall be submitted with plans
for building and site improvements. Included in the plans
shall be type and location of plants and materials and the
location of sprinkling systems. Installation of the land-
scaping and screening shall'be completed prior to issuance
of the certificate of occupancy or within a reasonable period
of time determined by the planning director and stated on the
building permit. (Ord. 1247 S1(part), 1982).
20nOW2Or 18.52.060 Recreation space requirements. In all R -2,
R - 3, R -4 and RMH zoning districts, except those areas within
a planned residential development district, any proposed
multiple - family structure, complex, or development shall pro-
vide on the premises and for the use of the occupants a minimum
amount of recreation space according to the following provi-
sions:
(1) Required Area.
(A) For each proposed dwelling unit in the multiple -
family complex or development a minimum of two hundred square
feet of recreation space shall be provided.' Any multiple -
family.structure, complex, or development shall provide a
minimum of one thousand square feet of total recreation space;
(3) The front, side, and rear yard setback areas
required by the applicable zoning district shall not qualify
as recreation space except that ten percent of the required
landscape areas, as shown in Section 18.52.020 of this title
may be permitted in the calculation of the total recreation
space;
(C) In the event the total area required under sub-
section (A) above is less than three thousand square feet, that
portion required to be outdoors and uncovered shall be one
continuous parcel of land.
(2) Indoor or Covered Space.
(A) No more than fifty percent of the required
recreation space may be indoor or covered space;
(B) No more than fifty percent of the total required
recreation space may be used for single - purpose permanent
facilities such as swimming pools, tennis courts, and
similar facilities.
(3) Uncovered Space.
(A) A minimum of fifty percent of the total required
recreation space shall be open or uncovered, up to one hundred
percent of the total requirement may be in open or uncovered
recreation space;
(B) No more than fifty percent of the uncovered
recreation space requirement may be located on slopes greater
than four horizontal to one vertical (4:1) slope.
(4). General Requirements.
(A) Multiple - family complexes which provide dwelling
297 (Tukwila 8/82)
3.56.010 -- 18.56.030
units with two or more bedrooms shall provide adequate recre-
ation space for children. Such space shall be at least twenty -
five percent but not more than fifty percent of the total recre-
ation space required under subsection (1) above and shall be
designated, located, and maintained in a safe condition;
(B) Adequate fencing, plant screening, or other
buffer shall separate the recreation space from parking areas,
driveways or public streets. (Ord. 1247 §1(part), 1982).
Sections:
Chapter 18.56
OFF- STREET PARKING AND LOADING REGULATIONS
18.56.010
18.56.020
18.56.030
18.56.040
18.56.050
18.56.060
18.56.070
18.56.080
18.56.090
18.56.100
18.56.110
18.56.120
Purpose.
Chapter application.
Reduction of existing parking spaces.
General requirements.
Required number of parking spaces.
Loading space requirements.
Cooperative parking facility.
Parking for the handicapped.
Compact car allowance.
Uses not specified.
Landscaping and screening.
Filing of plans.
18.56.010 Purpose. It is the purpose of this chapter
to provide for adequate, convenient, and safe off - street
parking and loading areas for the different land uses de-
scribed in this title. (Ord. 1247 §l(part), 1982).
18.56.020 Chapter application: Off- street parking and
loading spaces shall be provided as an accessory use in all
zones in accordance with the requirements of this chapter at
the time any building or structure is erected, enlarged or at
the time there is a change in its principal use. (Ord. 1247
§l(part), 1982) .
18.56.030 Reduction of existing parking spaces. Any
off - street parking area already in use or established here-
after, shall not be reduced below the limits required by
this chapter by the construction of any addition to a build-
ing or structure nor by the erection of an additional build-
ing or structure on the property. (Ord. 1247 §l(part), 1982).
298 (Tukwila 8/82)
ATTC AMENT B -2
DESIGN REVIEW GUIDELINES
x,,18 .60 .040 - -18 .60 .050
(E) All proposed developments north of I -405 and east
of I -5 in all zone districts, excluding single - family homes;
(F) Approval of the board of architectural review is
required for all landscape plans in the C -P zone. The BAR
may modify all minimum width requirements according to scale
of the property upon request of the applicant;
(G) Proposed developments which, as a condition of
approval of any rezone or other land use action of the city
council or, as a condition of the responsible official's deci-
sion pursuant to the State Environmental Policy Act, are
referred to the BAR for design review. (Ord. 1247 §1(part),
1982).
18.60.040 Application requirements. Applications for
review by the board of architectural review must be submitted
to the planning department at least two weeks prior to the
meeting of the board of architectural review.
Building permits shall not be granted until approval of
plans by the BAR. All applications shall be accompanied by a
filing fee as required in Chapter 18.88 and shall include but
are not limited to site plans, exterior building elevations,
the environmental checklist if applicable, and other materials
as required by the planning department. (Ord. 1247 §1(part),
1982) .
tilloW2P5Or 18.60.050 Review guidelines. In reviewing any applica-
tion, the following guidelines shall be used by the BAR in
its decision making:
(1) Relationship of Structure to Site.
(A) The site should be planned to accomplish a
desirable transition with the streetscape and to provide for
adequate landscaping, and pedestrian movement;
(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 its site.
(2) Relationship of Structure and Site to Adjoining Area.
(A) Harmony in texture, lines, and masses is encour-
aged;
(B) Appropriate landscape transition to adjoining
properties should be provided;
(C) Public buildings and structures should be con -
sistent with the established neighborhood character;
(D Compatibility of vehicular pedestrian circula-
tion patterns and loading facilities in terms of safety,
efficiency and convenience should be encouraged;
(E) Compatibility of on -site vehicular circulation
with st circulation should be encouraged;
(3) Landscape and Site Treatment.
308 (Tukwila 8/82)
18.60.050
309 (Tukwila 8/82)
(A) Where existing topographic patterns contribute
to beauty and utility of a development, they should be recog-
nized 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 axes, 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 place-
ment 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 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.
(4) Building Design.
(A) Architectural style is not restricted, evaluation
of a project should be based on quality of its design and
relationship to surroundings;
(B) Buildings should be to appropriate scale and be
in harmony with permanent neighboring developments;
(C) Building components, such as windows, doors,
eaves, and parapets, should have good proportions and relation-
ship to one another. Building components and ancillary parts
shall be consistent with anticipated 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 archi-
tectural concept. Fixtures, standards and all exposed acces-
sories should be harmonious with building design;
(G) Monotony of design in single or multiple building
projects should be avoided. Variety of detail, form, and
siting should be used to provide visual interest.
(5). Miscellaneous Structures and Street Furniture.
(A) Miscellaneous structures and street furniture
18.60.060
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 proportions
should be to scale;
(B) Lighting in connection with ;miscellaneous struc-
tures and street furniture should meet the guidelines applicable
to site, landscape and buildings. (Ord. 1247 §1(part), 1982).
18.60.060 Special review guidelines for Interurban
special review. area. (1) Purpose of Review. Owing to its
unique physiography, the presence of natural amenities and
recreational facilities, the historical relevance of the area
to the community, and the contemplated future mix of resi-
dential, commercial, industrial, and public land uses, the
Interurban area requires a special approach for coordinated
planning and land use management. In order to manage the
development of this area, to upgrade its general appearance,
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,
there shall be special review of proposed development in the
Interurban area.
(2) Interurban Special Review District. As used in this
section, the Interurban area is that area lying between I -405
on the south, the toe of slope to the west of Interurban Avenue,
I -5 on the north, and the city limits on the east, as shown
on Map 3 entitled, "Interurban Special Review Area."
(3) Authority and Scope of Review. All development in
the Interurban special review area, excluding single - family
dwellings, shall be reviewed by the board of architectural
review. In addition to the review guidelines specified in
Section 18.60.050 of this code, the BAR shall utilize the
guidelines specified in subsections (4) and (5) below in its
review.
(4) Special Review Guidelines Applicable to All Proposed
Developments. in the review of proposed development in the
Interurban special review district, the BAR shall use the
following guidelines in order to ensure that the intent of
subsection (1) is accomplished:
(A) Proposed development design should be sensitive
to the natural amenities of the area;
(B) Proposed development use should demonstrate
due regard for the use and enjoyment of public recreational
areas and facilities;
(C) Proposed development should provide for safe and
convenient on -site pedestrian circulation;
(D) Proposed property use should be compatible with
neighboring uses and complementary to the district in which
it is located;
310 (Tukwila 8/82)
t
APPENDIX B
EXCERPTS OF CITY COUNCIL MINUTES DATED NOVEMBER 16, 1987
Mayor Van Dusen closed the Public Hearing at 10:05 p.m.
Councilmember Bauch said he was not interested in a fullblown EIS
process. He stated he was interested in some specific issues. We
have not heard a report on the soils. The Planning Director says
they are adequate. Have we asked anyone else if they are adequate?
He stated he was willing to compromise if someone will come up with
a list of answers to the concerns.
MOVED BY BAUCH, SECONDED BY SIMPSON, TO AMEND THE MOTION AND ADD THE
ISSUES THAT WERE RAISED BY THE APPLICANT ON SOILS STABILITY AND
DRAINAGE. MOTION CARRIED.
*MOTION CARRIED, AS AMENDED.
MOVED BY SIMPSON, SECONDED BY DUFFIE, TO CONTINUE THE HEARING ON THE
BAR DECISION TO DECEMBER 7. *
City Attorney Martin said this information can be taken back to the
BAR and they can determine the requirement.
*MOTION WITHDRAWN BY COUNCILMEMBER SIMPSON, WITH APPROVAL OF SECOND
( DUFFIE).
* COUNCILMEMBER BAUCH WITHDREW HIS MOTION, WITH THE APPROVAL OF THE
SECOND (SIMPSON).
MOVED BY MCFARLAND, SECONDED BY STOKNES, THAT A MITIGATED DNS BE
REQUIRED OF THE APPLICANT THAT WILL ADDRESS SPECIFIC ISSUES OF NOISE
LEVELS BOTH WITHIN THE DWELLINGS, OUTSIDE THE DWELLINGS AND THE
RECREATION AREAS, TO INCLUDE THE ISSUE OF DEALING WITH MAXIMUM
RETENTION OF THE NATURAL VEGETATION AND INCLUSION OF ANY ADDITIONAL
VEGETATION OR REASONABLY AND MEANINGFUL MITIGATE NOISE IMPACTS
AND VISUAL IMPACTS ON SURROUNDING DEVELOPMENT AND REQUIRE THE APPLICAN
TO STIPULATE TO MORE SPECIFIC MITIGATING MEASURES IN COOPERATING WITH
THE CITY OF TUKWILA AND ADJOINING PROPERTY OWNERS IN ORDER TO RESOLVE
THE JOINT ACCESS PROBLEMS. *
WAC 197 -11 -970
Proponent AZARIA ROUSSO - ARCHITECT
Responsible Official Rick Beeler
Position /Title Planning Director
Address
FM.DNS
APPENDIX C
MITIGATED
DETERMINATION OF NONSIGNIFICANCE
Description of Proposal A 54 -UNITE MULTI - FAMILY APARTMENT COMPLEX
Location of Proposal, including street address, if any
5700 BLOCK - SOUTHCENTER BLVD. TUKWILA, WA.
Date JANUARY 14, 1988 Signature
Lead Agency: City of Tukwila File No. EPIC
The lead agency for this proposal has determined that it does not have a probable
significant'adverse impact on the environment. An environmental impact statement
(EIS) is not required under RCW 43.21C.030(2)(c). This decision was made after
review of a completed environmental checklist and other information on file with the
lead agency. This information is available to the public on request.
0 There is no comment period for this DNS
This DNS is issued under 197 -11- 340(2). Comments must be submitted by
JANUARY 2 988 . The lead agency will not act on this
proposal for i5 days from the date below.
Phone 433 -1846
6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tu T - z 9818
You may appeal this determination to the ty Clerk at City Hall, 6200 Southcenter
Boulevard, Tukwila, WA 98188 no later than 10 days from the above date by written
appeal stating the basis of the appeal for specific factual objections. You may be
required to bear some of the expenses for an appeal.
Copies of the procedures for SEPA.appeals are available with the City Clerk and
Planning Department.
aYrGia 27 !t`':sff:",�:�i9,Y_�,y` -fN
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
tyr:.2,.r3z"v.HL tbitsrx..rnr�m.ccearm:u uraxrr.'..ro c.ems+n.Ytirxsn + n'a4 : »:cP.z Jtcx'B'td!.TV.Ms�f'J; x�:a' i;'.ifL'47�4i5= :r". 3i a,'2�tf! S"fr: T�'3't ". "?{': *`':''d
ATTACHMENTS: Attachment A
Attachment B
Attachment C
Attachment D
Attachment E
Attachment F
��• f T
City o Tukwila
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
6200 Southcenter Boulevard
Tukwila, Washington 98188
(206) 433 -1849
ATTACHMENT C -1
FEBRUARY 25, 1988
EPIC -11 -87 GENCOR
JACK PACE, SENIOR PLANNER
SEPA ADDENDUM - MITIGATED DNS
Memorandum from Ross Earnst, 2 -9 -88
Letter from Entranco Engineers, 2 -8 -88
Letter from Leon Grundstein, 1 -29 -88
Letter from Entranco Engineers, 1 -7 -88
GENCOR Noise and Traffic Study, 12 -18 -87
Exception from Valley View Estates EIS, 1 -86
In addition to the material above, the City Engineer has reviewed the
soils report prepared by Geotechnical Services. The City Engineer
agrees with the recommendation in the report. Additional detailed
information will be submitted with the grade and fill permit and storm -
drainage plan when the building permit is submitted.
i:Y'.;s,�'tS�.��.As1.�ui {u i ezr '"�'YWL1843ftf,�ilv�s..vwu.�_ry ��,. .....<m. •«
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
RAE:cd
City of Tukwila
6200 Southcenter Boulevard
Tukwila Washington 98188
1206) 433-1800
Gary L. VanDusen, Mayor
RICK BEELER
'EARNST
February 9, 1988
ATTACHMENT A
MEMORANDUM
GENCOR APARTMENTS ON SOUTHCENTER BOULEVARD
TRAFFIC STUDY
ifirinFM
! E3..O1988
L
CITY OF TUt' ■'d i LA
PLANNING DEPT,
I have reviewed the traffic study for the proposed development
and agree that the traffic on Southcenter Boulevard as a result
of this project will not be significantly impacted. The turning
movements into and out of the site will be eased by the
installation of the signal at Macadam and Southcenter Boulevard.
The property owners' offer to allow an easement at this entrance
for access to other properties could help reduce the number of
access points along that section of Southcenter Boulevard. This
would improve traffic flow in this section of Southcenter
Boulevard.
February 8, 1988
Mr. Rick Beeler
Planning Director
City of Tukwila
6200 Southcenter Boulevard
Tukwila, Washington 98188
Re: Gencor Noise and Traffic Study
Addendum
Entranco Project No. 88200 -10
Dear Mr. Beeler:
NOISE
ATTACHMENT B
ENTRANCO ENGINEERS, INC.
LAKE WASHINGTON PARK BUILDING (206) 821.1300
5808 LAKE WASHINGTON BOULEVARD N.E.. KIRKLAND, WA 98033
: 1 E2 1 i d ,'WiE,iIl i
o i .. I
IFE D . `) 88 i
..0 1
{
CITY C!)- i U VdlLP
PLANK NG DEPT. I
Gencor has asked us to provide additional analysis and discussion in
response to some of the appellant's concerns regarding the 54 -unit multi-
family project on Southcenter Boulevard and our report of December 18,
1987. This addendum includes the following:
1. A general discussion of the capacity of trees to attenuate sound
levels.
2. A discussion of the relative traffic noise impact on an adjacent prop-
erty caused by removal of the alder trees from a 20 -foot wide strip
along the north boundary of the site.
3. An explanation for not including an engineer's stamp on the Entranco
Engineers, Inc. report dated December 18, 1987.
The FHWA Traffic Noise Prediction Model includes a rule of thumb to account
for attenuation of traffic noise provided by trees (FHWA December 1987).
If woods are very dense, i.e., there is no clear line of sight between the
observer and the source, and if the height of the trees extends at least 5
meters (17 feet) above the line of sight, then 5 dBA attenuation is allowed
if the woods have a depth of 30 meters (100 feet) . Recently, even this
level of protection has been questioned and many noise analysts have
lowered the value to only 3 dBA for 150 feet of dense woods. It is obvious
that the 20 feet of alder trees on the site have little if any value in
lowering the traffic noise reaching the property above the site. Once the
trees are removed, landscaping planned for the area would have no effect on
traffic noise reaching the adjacent property. A wall constructed in the
EVERETT OFFICE 516 SEATTLE -FIRST NATIONAL BANK BUILDING (206) 258 -6202
1602 HEWITT AVENUE. EVERETT. WA 98201
Mr. Rick Beeler
February 8, 1988
Page 2
landscaped area would probably have little effect on traffic noise reaching
apartments on the adjacent property because of their higher position on the
slope; however, the new Gencor apartment buildings would probably provide
some relief. The amount of attenuation provided by rows of buildings
depends on the length of the row occupied by the buildings. Based on
Gencor's drawings, the length of the buildings would occupy about
70 percent of the row, a quantity which could provide between 3 dBA and
5 dBA attenuation.
Noise produced by cars in the parking lot of the Gencor apartments should
have no significant effect on noise levels experienced on the adjacent
property. Light traffic in parking areas generally produces average sound
levels between 50 and 55 dBA. This is much lower than the ambient average
sound levels in the area.
Entranco's quality control officer has indicated that noise analysis is not
considered engineering work, and therefore does not warrant an engineer's
stamp. Recently, some municipalities have been requiring an engineer's
stamp on traffic studies and Entranco's quality control officer agrees that
it is appropriate. Consequently, a stamped copy of the December 18, 1987
traffic report has been enclosed.
Sincerely,
ENTRANCO ENGINEERS, INC.
i / 14 L --1
Edward W. Murray
Project Manager
EWM:gmw
encl.
cc: Steven M. Friedman
Chris Crumbaugh, Attorney -at -Law
'
:
?ECEIV'xxz.
FEB - 1 . 086
TUKWIL.
PUBUC Y�1fli =rk'c
RE: Gencor Development property on 5700 Southcenter Boulevard
As you know, we have had numerous discussions in recent City
Council hearings regarding the development of our property at the
above referenced address. The topic of traffic ingress an egress
at this location and the existing difficulty occuring at the
Denny's Restaurant /Arco driveways has been discussed in
connection with our proposal for development. It has been
suggested, and we have agreed to cooperate with the City of
Tukwila and the adjacent property owners in efforts to improve
the situation.
At this point, please let this letter be an indication of our
further agreement to grant an easement to the City of Tukwila for
a mutually agreeable solution to the traffic access problem.
�A� ,�yh,�.i�.ysyZ.: :" �"• *•.5 ?' "�•��y.;tv "f�'t
,vn`fxY.sTs....5trkf(�:f :w. r..tf.r✓� �„•._.; r. 1. �:.:, �' C. n�. ti- a, 4Al. �%` t,. r •.�!A }..'•f�r.;4�5;��:A:;:7:C!: : �r:.
January 7, 1988
Mr. Jack Pace
Senior Planner
City of Tukwila
6200 Southcenter Boulevard
Tukwila, Washington 98188
Dear Mr. Pace:
Sincerely,
ENTRANCO ENGINEERS, INC.
Edward W. Murray
cc: Steve Friedman
Gencor
EWM:jng
�t .�1i)wttl^.4a.C'y,«ytCrM4'.w:Ln M1' s: h.::f L`. 1Etar, S: ::X <L�i5�78:AJGiY.C.d{'R;114::r c'I7�Ci<a!'i „C'l xxK' !Lr.`R }�1i�i�.
ATTACHMENT D
ENTRANCO ENGINEERS, INC.
LAKE WASHINGTON PARK BUILDING 12061 827.1300
5808 LAKE WASHINGTON BOULEVARD N E . KIRKLAND WA 98033
It is my understanding that, following review of Entranco's Noise and
Traffic Study (December 18, 1987) for the Gencor site, your staff has
recommended that noise mitigations be required for the recreation area. *A
1 -inch solid wood fence can provide up to a 15 dBA attenuation in sound
level, reducing the traffic noise to a level below the FHWA exterior noise
abatement criterion of 67 dBA (hourly L
The fence must be high enough to break the line -of -sight between the
observer and the noise source and should contain no cracks. A height of
six feet should be more than adequate considering that the majority of the
noise source is downslope from the site.
* The Audible Landscape: A manual for highway noise and land use, Urban
Systems Research and Engineering, Inc. for the U.S. Department of
Transportation, November, 1974.
•taE” "'CE 5'6 SEATTLE f'RST PAN" et :: V
•�. - -EA. A .ENUE EvERETT WA W. t'
nM�tvemva,mgt+sawusAnc:. mtir Cchcaccvema*P its! a�teriaxvau'sar..irrrtrazs :*r,a:� . w"Yl'u,":�fi�t4't,•' :'t€ �Y.l'"�i.'#'!i 'J'i';,Y,151TV.titki:: A i 'tn. "..'.
3
i
.aYtYk�'i4x xr�nz+Trxw;i wnttn'zcrnwnuawr�e
ATTACHMENT
GENCOR NOISE AND TRAFFIC STUDY
FOR A
54 -UNIT MULTI - FAMILY APARTMENT SITE
• Prepare:.
Gencar
Commercial Development
and
Construction
Prepared by
Entranco Engineers, Inc.
5808 Lake Washington Boulevard N.E.
Kirkland, Washington 98033
(206) 827 -1300
December 18, 1987
lagggAWARMUMmes
IVIOW
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
NOISE STUDY
Summary 1
Introduction 1
Noise Criteria 1
Noise Measurements 5
TRAFFIC STUDY
Overview 8
Trip Generation /Distribution 8
Estimated 1987 Volumes 9
1990 Volumes and Improvements 9
REFERENCES 12
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure Page
1 Noise Measurement Locations 6
2 Vicinity Traffic Volumes 10
LIST OF TABLES
' Table Page
1 Environmental Noise Levels for Residential, Hospital and
Educational Activity 3
2 Noise Abatement Criteria Hourly A- Weighted Sound Level -
Decibels (dBA) 4
Gencor Site Noe Measurements 5
4 Total Vehicle Trip Generation Volumes 8
•
ii
1
SU6MARY
INTRODUCTION
NOISE CRITERIA
NOISE STUDY
1
•
.n.,.. `:Y.w::'itY�L":% v...i✓') .w.. ....v ;^Vf l.f ^ii.43� + i'.:`' - :r`t',"u'�,s" ,��.`. e��.'... .,: ". .'.
Two sound measurements were taken to estimate traffic noise impact on
the Gencor apartment site in Tukwila. An hourly L of 66.4 dBA was
measured in the recreation area location. An hourly L of 68.6 dBA was
measured at the location for the western -most building, a location closer
to the noise source than other building locations. These sound levels are
within 1 to 2 dBA of the FHWA exterior noise abatement criteria (67 dBA),
at which impacts occur for residences and recreation areas. Interior noise
levels would be approximately 46 to 49 dBA with windows closed; i.e., below
the FHWA interior abatement criteria of 52 dBA. Interior noise levels
would be 51 to 54 dBA with windows open. Traffic increases by 1990 would
increase vehicular noise by approximately 0.5 dBA.
A brief noise study was conducted to estimate sound levels on the
Gencor site, and to ascertain impacts of highway noise on the 54 -unit
multi - family apartment complex planned for the site. Data was originally
intended to be generated from extrapolations of existing noise information
contained in the Southcenter Boulevard Environmental Assessment (City of
Tukwila 1983); however, because of the site's topographical location ano
the greater potential influence of I -405, I -5, and the interchange, it was
decided that new on -site measurements would be required.
The following discussion explains noise descriptors and describes noise
criteria, standards, and guidelines used by the USEPA, USHUD, State of
Washington, and the FHWA. The suitability of criteria selected for this
study and the relationship between traffic noise and noise descriptors are
also explained.
Environmental noise is measured in A- weighted decibels (dBA). The
decibel scale'is a linear numbering scale used to compress the wide range
of values associated with the logarithmic nature of sound. A- weighting
assigns greater value (weight) to higher frequency sounds to which the
human ear is most sensitive.
L
m•r
^;::.�5:...Ji. ^::,•L... .... .. -. .. .::'�'SKN::.l �.C.`. ..'°..'; i�..' Y�\ ir,:.;. 3sslte: iS r4S .nl:�7 "1:�!`•)i.'.....::fiu.rt. ..r .i.. .... ,.... ..�...�., ....,.
Duration of sound must be considered along with sound level when
evaluating the effects of noise on people. To simplify estimates of
duration, fluctuating sound is usually measured as an average sound level.
The average sound level is the level of a steady sound that would produce
acoustical energy equivalent to a fluctuating sound over a given time
period. Thus, the average sound level is known as equivalent sound level
(L The L for a 24 -hour period is known as the day -night average
sound level (Ld Because nighttime sounds are more annoying, they are
weighted with an additional 10 dBA prior to estimation of the Ld Along
highways and arterials the Ld is approximately the same as the peak -hour
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency noise guidelines (USEPA 1980) are
shown in the attached in its original form (for residential, hospital, and
educational activity). These guidelines indicate that an exterior Ld of
55 dBA or less would generally produce no noise impact in residential
areas. Noise impact would exist for an Ld between 55 dBA and 65 dBA,
impacts would be significant with an Ld above 65 dBA, and unacceptable
with an Ld above 70 dBA. The EPA has stressed that an "Ld = 55 is not a
recommended standard because the EPA has not determined that achievement of
that level is appropriate when considering other factors ". These
guidelines are not legal standards and were established only t.; guide EPA
personnel.
U.S. Housing and Urban Development site acceptability noise standards
(USHUD 1979) indicate that a housing site with an Ld not exceeding 65 dBA
is "acceptable ". An Ld above 65. dBA but less than 75 dBA is "normally
unacceptable ", without mitigation, and an Ld above i5 dBA is
"unacceptable ". On sites with an Ld between 65 dBA and 70 dBA, HUD
requires sound attenuation that is 5 dBA greater than what is normally
accomplished for interior noise levels with standard construction. HUD
standards apply only to HUD - assisted projects.
The Washington State Administrative Code (Chapter 173 -60) establishes
limits on the levels and duration of noise crossing property boundaries.
Allowable sound levels depend on land use of the source and receiving
property. Motor vehicle noise from public roadways is exempt from these
regulations.
2
[ TABLE 1 ]
FOR RESIDENTIAL, HOSPITAL AND EDUCATIONAL
ACTIVITY
Environmental Noise Level'
Associated with an Action
(exterior environment)
Ldn -
65
55
3
Qualitative Consideration; Applicacle to
Individual Actions
,Ar, �_ r - _ _,- _. , . Levels have unacceptable public health ane
x,y�. �. r ° • ^ ' welfare impacts
d �` ;t oo rh` .` Y�� �� =- ::'sue + � 4�.z i - -^�
(•_� * -•41 �: i '` ..' y e ± .mss„•
ter+ t" . �_".
70 ' � �' {: h : ✓` : sec,,,
:_:..:r-s_._-4!.: `. '- ,44, _ '�" i� . Significant adverse noise impacts exist:
�?`r °�+a ' allowable only in unusual cases where tower
! -- +r levels are clearly demonstrated not c :
Possible.
Levels are generally acceptable: no ^o•se
impact is generally associated witn fete
levels.
:Some structures do not contain relevant exterior a‘c,vrcy space and therefore. in cne :e . : :.e .
determination of the acceptability of the .nterior environment should be made.
• '
Activity
Category
A
R
E
1 /Either
L
[ TABLE 2 ]
TABLE 1 - Noise Abatement Criteria
Hourly A- Weighted Sound Level -
hospitals, and auditoriums.
cn <
o
n r
U4-.4
YC7
rt
rt •
w
n
lD
rt
•Y
N.•v:.'.i:: •..l:.x. s'�li:' §v �I.�'_.��:in .i'k kit?
NOISE MEASUREMENTS
?roc +: , ,':.reres•rrifLT^ .. .,. .a �.�i _,. t>...._,..G ,..,:L?t _,,..t.r. �1+�.. r,t., �...
ti iF i'�.h:, 'a ": Q.:s. -...: :R•'. : 'J.:L,a'tf. ^a�...:L':`•PJ:S'3' .4 �-1T`C1:iS.`.^:3ti::1.Pu ¢5,:': =S "."i.. .... _ .... .,. i?�,�.• ., 1 i, ,
The Federal Highway Administration has adopted noise abatement criteria
for federal -aid highway projects (U.S. Department of Transportation 1982).
These criteria, shown in the attached table in its original form [Noise
Abatement Criteria, Hourly A- Weighted Sound Level - Decibels (dBA)], are
based on peak -hour L sound levels. The peak -hour L for residences is
67 dBA (exterior) and 52 dBA (interior). The interior sound level
criterion is applied only when there are no exterior noise - sensitive land
uses or exterior areas are not significantly affected. Outside -to- inside
noise reduction is typically about 15 dBA with windows partly open and
20 dBA with windows closed. Consequently, if the 67 dBA exterior criterion
is met, the interior criterion of 52 dBA is met.
Although FHWA noise abatement criteria were established to help local
officials in the planning and design of federal -aid highways and noise
abatement along highways, they were determined to be the most applicable
criteria in judging impact to the Gencor development since motor vehicle
noise is the predominant source of noise at the site. The 24 -hour noise
guidelines and criteria are included to show that an Ld of 65 dBA,
considered to cause significant impact, is approximately equivalent to the
FHWA 67 dBA peak -hour L Therefore, the peak -hour data presented in the
report also addresses the 24 -hour noise impacts.
A Bruel and Kjaer Type 2231 sound level peter with an integrating
program was used to estimate sound levels a. the Gencor site. Two L
(hourly) measurements were taken on December 8, 1987 during p.m. peak -hour
traffic (refer to Figure 1 for locations). This data is presented in
Table 3.
* Refer to Figure 1 for location.
TABLE 3
Gencor Site Noise Measurements
Approximate Distance '
Start From Centerline (feet)
L (hourly) Time (P.M.) Location* Southcenter Blvd. I -405
5
66.4 3:50 1 300 450
68.6 5:00 2 210 370
NORTH
30 60 90
SCALE IN FEET
GENCOR - APARTMENT COMPLEX
e
t FJIRANCO I t.' Jt,I 1 I {' It1C
QAprproomau• Nolo.
Mea%ur•nirn' lot .1111111
O1
t....a 1 7,
•IT .YI
V
FEs`./ / 1
\
54 IiVITS PROVIDED /Q1 PAA'K
n
VG SIRLL:.
Figure 1
NOISE
MEASUREMENT LOCATIONS
J
7
As previously mentioned, the predominant source of noise was from
traffic along 1 -405, Southcenter Boulevard, I -5, and the I -5 /I -405
interchange. The FHWA defines "traffic noise impacts" as occurring when
the traffic noise levels approach or exceed the noise abatement criteria."
The measurement in the area planned for recreation (Location 1) approaches
the peak -hour Leg abatement level of 67 dBA. Sound in the vicinity of the
building that would be closest to the source of noise (Location 2) exceeds
the abatement level by 1.6 dBA. Exterior sound levels between those two
points would fall somewhere between, or would be approximately similar to,
the two measured levels on building sides that would face the noise
source. According to the FHWA definition, traffic noise would produce an
impact at all planned building locations and in the recreation area.
With no special acoustical design features, interior noise levels of
the affected apartments would be about 46 to 49 dBA with windows closed and
about 51 to 54 dBA with windows partly open. Although interior sound
levels with windows partly open are within only 1 or 2 dBA of the FHWA cri-
terion interior noise impacts would occur according to the FHWA definition.
The traffic study for the Southcenter Boulevard Environmental
Assessment (City of Tukwila 1983) and the accompanying recent assessment of
that traffic study indicate that traffic on I -405 and Southcenter Boulevard
is expected to increase up to 3 percent and 18 percent, respectively,
by 1990. Additional traffic from the site apartments would have no
significant impact on this level. A doubling of noise sources produces a
sound level increase of only 3 dBA. The increase in traffic volumes
described above would increase noise levels on the Gencor site by
approximately 0.5 dBA.
Considering the following facts, the decision maker may find that
additional noise attenuation is not justified:
1. Traffic noise levels are an existing condition that would be
essentially unaffected by Gencor apartment- generated traffic.
2. Motor vehicle noise from public roadways is exempt from
Washington State and King County regulations (WAC Chapter
173 -60; KC Title 21, Chapter 12.88).
3. Recreational area exterior noise levels and interior noise
levels with windows open would generally be within 1 to 2 dBA
of the FHWA noise abatement level.
4. Interior noise levels with windows closed and with the
proposed acoustical design features would be well below the
FHWA criterion.
1:.W:v;� � : �. a.:' 3( �,. n..:.. ir:' Jk: ti�;;. ti,± a. o. 7. r; 53�..' 11, T:.-..... exNr:+.• s.. nv. a< ce ;�.:w..w,.w...,....v:<.......�
OVERVIEW
TRIP GENERATION /DISTRIBUTION
TRAFFIC STUDY
The following summarizes the results of the traffic volume generation/
distribution analysis performed for the proposed site, and its potential
impacts on the 1990 traffic volumes and the proposed programmed improve-
ments in the vicinity. The proposed site consists of a total of 54 multi-
family apartment units and is located on the north side of Southcenter
Boulevard, west of the S -Line Bridge (61st Avenue South). The site will
have a single driveway access to Southcenter Boulevard, the eastern edge of
which is located about 410 feet from the centerline of S -Line Bridge. This
allows an approximate 120 feet of the 2 -way left turn lane on Southcenter
Boulevard to be used for left turning vehicles out of the site, which
should be adequate for the projected site traffic volumes.
The Institute of Transportation Engineers' "Trip Generation" manual
(Third Edition, 1982) was used to predict the total trips to and from the
site during both an average weekday and the p.m. peak hour. The results
are shown in Table 4.
TABLE 4
Total Vehicle Trip Generation Volumes
Average Weekday P.M. Peak Hour
54 Dwelling Units In Out Total In Out Total
Rate 3.3 3.3 6.6 0.4 0.2 0.6
Vehicle Trips 178 178 356 22 11 33
n.
ESTIMATED 1987 VOLUMES
1990 VOLUMES AND IMPROVEMENTS
As can be seen from this table, a total of 33 vehicles trips during the
p.m. peak hour, and 356 trips during an average weekday are estimated to be
generated by this site. The trips to and from this site are estimated to
distribute evenly to the east and west on Southcenter Boulevard. The
distribution is shown in Figure 2. Based on this distribution, the average
weekday traffic volumes (AWDT) on Southcenter Boulevard could increase by
about 180 as a result of the project site's volumes.
The traffic volume data contained in the Transportation /Circulation
section of the Southcenter Boulevard Environmental Assessment (SCEA) was
used to estimate the 1987 traffic volumes in the vicinity of the site. The
1981 traffic volumes were compared to- the projected 1990 volumes, and an
extrapolation was made to estimate the 1987 volumes. The 1986 traffic
counts on I -405 (by the Washington State Department of Transportation) and
1985/1986 counts on Tukwila Parkway in the vicinity of S -Line Bridge (by
the City of Tukwila) were used to test the validity of the traffic volume
projections. Based on this analysis it was determined that the traffic
volumes on the surface streets have closely followed but are slightly less
than the traffic volume projections made in the SCEA. However, the traffic
volumes on 1 -405 have increased at a sharper rate than projected. The AWDT
on I -405 near the vicinity of the site is currently about 8,000 more than
what would be projected from the SCEA data. The 1987 estimated values were
;; ::veloped mainly for the purpose of the preceding noise study. The
estimated 1987 volumes are also shown in Figure 2.
Based on the above findings, it is estimated that the projected 1990
volumes from the SCEA in the vicinity of this site are still within
reasonable estimates for all the surface streets. Traffic volumes on
I -405, however, will probably be 8,000 to 9,000 more than anticipated (see
Figure 2).
As mentioned above, the proposed site could generate an AWDT of 180 on
Southcenter Boulevard. Comparison of our 1987 volumes on Southcenter
Boulevard east of the site with the projected 1990 volumes, shows an
increase of 4,900 in the AWDT of this section (6,400 with the Grady Way
extension alternative). The site - generated volumes account for only about
9
e
SITE VowMES
- XX PM. PEAK.
- (X X) WEEKDAY
30,2.0o
(34, 200)
[35,7oo3
2.5,400
(30,800)
C31, oso]
ENTRANCO ENGINEERS, INC.
SITE
11,100
(22,2.10)
Ca2,7603
9,400
(I0,_30)
[9,G4.0]
GENCOR - A PA RTMENT COMPLEX
1 11
30,500
(35,410)
[36,9103
-
LECIEND:
xxx ESTIMATED 1987 15,400
AWDT (18,230)
(xxX) PROJECTED 1990 08,2.303
AWDT
[X xx] PRoJEcrED 1990
AWDT REALI6k0.40.1T
Or GRAM/ WAY f5FeIIX.,E
TO SG BLVD.
los
5,150
(5,470)
CE3,490]
ijJ
4, 13,300
(95,650)
Figure 2
VICINITY TRANIC
VOLLJN1ES
ig; 3aaiMMWat 2` { I' fG' r% 65i;: s.', i tdl 't:wilt`2aH�'wFI:%'Y.,rt� > ".
11
3 +trYCn+ F muzvwsr ax x 7larA' a
4 percent of this increase on Southcenter Boulevard over the next three
years (3 percent for the Grady Way extension alternative). Therefore it is
estimated that the projected 1990 volumes are inclusive of the traffic
volumes from this site; the impact of the site - generated volumes on the
1990 volumes and proposed street improvements is insignificant.
Street improvements planned for the near future in the vicinity of the
site include the widening of Southcenter Boulevard from two lanes to five
lanes on the section from west of 62nd Avenue South to east of 68th Avenue
South. This project, which will be under construction next year, will
greatly increase the capacity of Southcenter Boulevard east of S -Line
Bridge. Other proposed improvements include the widening of the 68th
Avenue South bridge from two lanes to five lanes, and the realignment of
Grady Way Bridge to Southcenter Boulevard. The traffic impact of this
latter improvement will be a shift of traffic from I -405 to Southcenter
Boulevard. By the time of this realignment, Southcenter Boulevard will
have been widened to five lanes and will have more than adequate capacity
for projected traffic volumes. The impact of the site - generated traffic
volumes on the future realigned Southcenter Parkway /Grady Way Bridge
extension'will be minimal.
•
REFERENCES
City of Tukwila
1983 Environmental Assessment for Southcenter Boulevard - 62nd
Avenue to Grady Way. February 1983.
1985 Final Environmental Impact Statement for Valley View Estates.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10
1980 Noise Guidelines for Environmental Impact Statements. 1975,
revised November 24, 1980.
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
1979 Environmental Criteria and Standards. 24 CFR Part 51.
U.S_. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration
1976 Federal -Aid Highway Manual. Vol. 7, Chapter 7, Section 3:
Procedures for Abatement of Highway Traffic Noise and
Construction Noise.
Noise
ATTACHMENT E
EXCERPTS FROM VALLEY VIEW ESTATES EIS - JANUARY, 1986
SECTION III - EXISTING CONDITIONS, IMPACTS / MITIGATING MEASURES
Existing Conditions
The project site, and adjoining properties, are exposed to significant noise
levels due to their proximity to 1 -5. The extent to which noise poses a
health hazard depends on its level, frequency and length of exposure. The
range of health hazards associated with high noise levels are described in
the Human Health section of this EIS.
Existing day -night (Ld noise levels on the site are 65 -72 dBA, with maximum
nighttime noise levels of about 77 dBA. (The day -night sound levels is an
equivalent sound level over 24 hours with a 10 dBA penalty for nighttime
noise. Definitions of other sound level descriptors may be found in Appendix
B.) Day -night sound levels at the closest residential properties west of the
site were found to be 63 to 65 dBA, with maximum nighttime levels of about 72
dBA. According to EPA's Noise Guidelines, significant adverse noise "impacts
(primarily speech interference and annoyance) occur at noise levels of 65 -75
Ld Noise levels in excess of 55 d8A can interfere with speech com-
munication. Noise level measurements taken at the project site over a four -
day period in October 1983 provide more detailed information about existing
noise levels. It can be expected that these documented noise levels will
increase somewhat over time with expected increases in traffic volumes on
I -5.
TOWNE, RICHARDS & CHAUDIERE, INC.
80
SCALE
0 00 SOO 000 woo moo
Existing Noise Measurement Locations
Consultants in Sound & Vibration
"0 FEEr
FIGURE 8
+} WWW'q { yi 4 :fv.. *. roc. 1:. S N :d_ t �s:t� ? :::...:;;t"+_:2i'&
Ldn
The noise measurements consisted of full 24 -hour noise monitoring at three
locations and 19 hour noise monitoring at the fourth location, where adverse
weather curtailed the measurement. A Digital Acoustic DA607P noise moni-
toring system was used for the measurements. Results of the measurements in
hourly L hourly Ld are shown in Appendix B, Figures 2 and 3.
Locations 1 and 2 are on the site. Locations 3 and 4 are off -site, near
residence immediately west of the site which have views across the site
toward I -5. The following is a summary of the measured day -night sound
levels, Ld and nighttime maximum sound levels, Lmax:
Table 3
Existing Noise Levels
Location
1
2
3
4.
Below 55 dBA
55 to 65 dBA
65 to 70 dBA
Uver 70 dBA
Description
SE part of site
NE part of site
Residence W of site
Residence SW of site
81
r•�ea ^ ^; °,;M.wtt2:.'.;Sl , ... e^b,;6 sg.tar.°
Existing exterior
noise levels, dBA
Ldn Night Lmax
72 77
65 (68 * ) 77
65 72
63 72
* Location 2 had partial topographic shielding of highway noise, which is esti-
mated to have reduced Ld by about 3 dBA compared to noise levels at a future
upper story elevation.
The day -night sound level (Ld is the reading used in EPA in Guidelines for
noise levels affecting residential areas. Those Guidelines are as follows:
Table 4
EPA Noise Guidelines
Levels are generally acceptable: no noise impact is
generally associated with these levels
Adverse noise impacts exist: lowest noise level
possible should be strived for.
Significant adverse noise impacts exist: allowable
only in unusual cases where lower levels are clearly
demonstrated not to be possible.
Levels have unacceptable public health and welfare
impacts
•
.... m:. s J._:: z'na�: "C�%1::�:? d.': Sth' . °'_icarSd::•C +r:a:a(�' +53'CS:: i'"i�Fu t:.':- ''.C
.t�::. • .,., �..:: �''.` �` I`:." s'. N; 3,:: �r i�'' C ?t�gr � ".:r�i
As a comparison of Tables 3 and 4 indicates, at two of the four sites where
monitoring occurred, day -night sound levels exceeded EPA's threshold for
significant adverse noise impacts. The other two sites were just below this
threshold and at the high end of the range where adverse noise impacts can
occur. Although EPA's evaluation of noise impacts is based on the day -night
sound level and not on maximum noise levels, a review of maximum noise levels
at the site over a 24 hour period (see Appendix B) indicates that maximum
levels over 70 dBA are reached regularly. The noise level at the southern
site location (Location 1) was found to have maximum levels exceeding 70 dBA
during all 24 -hours tested and exceeding 80 dBA during the afternoon hours
when people are apt to be outside. At the northern site location (Location
2) the maximum noise level was above 70 dBA during 10 of the 19 hours tested
and above 80 dBA during six of these 19 hours. (Measurements were not taken
from 1:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m.) On the other two sites adjacent to the single
family area to the west, noise levels measured above 70 dBA during 20 of the
24 hours tested at one site (location 3) and during 12 of the 24 hours tested
at the other site (Location 4). Location 3 experiences maximum noise levels
above 80 dBA during five hours (including the 5:00 p.m. - 7:00 p.m. period)
while Location 4 experienced maximum levels above 80 dBA during the 6:00 p.m.
hour.
EPA sources specify that interior noise levels should have an Ld of 45 dBA
or less in order to protect health and welfare with an adequate margin of
safety. Other studies indicate that to prevent the probability of sleep
interference exceeding approximately 50 %, interior maximum sound levels, Lmax
should be limited to about 50 dBA in bedrooms.
A different set of standards is utilized by the U.S. Department of Housing
and Urban Development (HUD) to determine site acceptability for HUD projects.
HUD's criteria are as follows:
Table 5
H. U. D. Acceptability Standards
Ldn Site Acceptability Standard
Not exceeding 65 dBA Acceptable
Above 65 dBA but not exceeding 75 dBA Normally Unacceptable
Above 75 dBA Unacceptable
On sites where Ld is above 65 dBA but does not exceed 70 dBA, HUD requires
that the type of construction used reduce interior noise levels by 5 dBA
beyond the 25 ,dBA reduction that is typically accomplished with standard
construction (i.e., a total noise reduction of 30 dBA). A reduction of an
additional 10 dBA (35 dBA total) is required for sites above 70 dBA which do
not exceed 75 dBA.
82
Open windows
* HUD Standard
10 dBA added attenuation
5 dBA added attenuation
Conventional construction
Open Windows
5 dBA added ttenuation
Conventional Construction
...i, .�, .,.. `,l'r.n ,..•. r',`.'_ .. vrrrn.ls<<4. �..K "•..?yy" ai,'7"s'i,. ,F; Cti :9t ".S. SS': -. .. �.J,'..... �5?.;.", .,r �a t{ 3n `,irr`.�:x ","ir�� u�� Mr'h'�!ti: F
Impacts
Interior Noise Levels On -Site
As indicated in Table 3, on the southeast part of the site (Location 1) the
exterior day -night sound level (Ld was 72 dBA. On the northeast part of
the site (Location 2) exterior Ld was 65 dBA at a first story elevation and
about 68 dBA at higher elevations. Nighttime maximum sound levels (Lmax)
were 77 dBA at both locations.
Since the exterior Ld on the south half of the site is in the range of 70 -75
dBA and the Ld on the north half of the site ranges from 65 to 70 dBA, the
25 dBA reduction attainable through conventional construction would result in
noise levels inside the units of 45 -50 Ld on the south portion of the site
and 40 -45 Ld on the north portion of the site. Thus, without special
construction, noise levels on the south portion of the site would exceed
EPA's recommended day -night level of 45 Ld Since maximum exterior night-
time sound levels at both sites were 77 dBA, conventional construction would
reduce the nighttime maximum to 52 dBA at both locations which is above the
50 dBA threshold beyond which a greater than 50% chance of sleep interference
exists.
Construction to meet the HUD standards described previously would require 10
dBA of additional attenuation on the south portion of the site (total reduc-
tion of 35 dBA) and 5 dBA of additional attenuation on the northern portion
of the site (total reduction of 30 dBA). A comparison of interior sound
levels with and without added attentuation, and with open windows, is shown
in the following table:
Table 6
Interior Evening Noise Levels within Proposed Development
Interior sound levels, dBA
Ldn Night Lmax
Construction Part of Site
South 1/2
North 1/2
83
37 42
42 47
47 52
62 67
38 47
43 52
58 67
This comparison indicates that an exterior -to- interior noise reduction of 30
daA (representing 5 dBA added attenuation) would provide generally acceptable
interior noise levels on both portions of the site (interior Ld below 45
dBA and interior nighttime below 50 dBA) when windows were closed, even
though the HUD standard of a 35 dBA reduction on the south portion of the
site would not be achieved. However, maximum noise levels within units on
the south portion of the site would periodically exceed levels at which
adverse noise impacts occur: i.e., reach 55 dBA or greater. With windows
open, interior noise levels would far exceed EPA's recommended interior stan-
dard of 45 dBA and in the discussion of Mitigating Measures, some form of
forced -air ventilation would be necessary, especially in bedrooms, so that
windows could be kept closed and noise levels maintained at acceptable
levels.
Exterior Noise Levels On -Site
Exterior day -night sound levels (Ld on the site (i.e., 72 dBA on the
southern part of the site and 65 to 68 dBA on the northern part of the site)
are in a range above the 65 dBA where noise levels are considered to cause
significant adverse effects according to EPA criteria. It should be noted
that these levels reflect an average of 24 -hour day -night noise levels with a
lO dBA penalty for nighttime noise. During many hours a day at both sites,
maximum noise levels exceeded 75 dBA, with 80 dBA's occurring several hours a
day. Thus varying degrees of speech interference and annoyance -- often
reaching high or unacceptable thresholds -- would be experienced by project
residents in unprotected outside areas. The noise consultant recommended
that noise mitigation for exterior spaces be considered, especially if the
proposed children's play area is to be located on the northeast part of the
site. Revisions to the site plan now propose to locate the children's play
area in the southwest corner of the site where residential buildings should
provide some reduction of freeway noise. Other potential mitigating measures
are discussed in the Mitigation Measures section.
New sources of noise resulting from occupancy of the development would
include children playing and automobile traffic. However, according to the
noise consultant, due to existing noise levels on -site, noise emanating from
the residential development would be masked and is expected to be negligible.
See Table 7, "Outdoor Evening Noise Levels On- Site."
Noise Level Changes Off -Site
Due to the residential nature of the proposed project, long term noise
changes at off -site properties are expected to be negligible. The site
currently has narrow -trunk alder growth which provides slight excess atte-
nuation of I -5 freeway noise for properties west of the site. The trees were
bare when monitored, and are estimated to provide at most 3 dBA of excess
attenuation per 100 meters, or about 2 to 3 dBA excess attentuation for pro-
perties west of the site. In summer, the excess attenuation would be
slightly higher because of foliage. Construction of buildings on the site
would provide partial shielding of views of the freeway, reducing freeway
noise levels at properties to the west by about 3 dBA due to an approximate
5U percent shielding. This attenuation by the buildings would offset the
loss of attenuation resulting from removal of existing trees on the site.
According to the Noise Consultant, project traffic will have negligible
impact on noise levels along local streets given the predominance of noise
from the nearby freeways (I -5 and SR 518).
84
r. g n;•:t.. g ,17A .r. . M : : V rr7,W :�.VIT MT,
�:; �a:, c�.: u�: t:a...i.Ja?�rr_•er.,:tnrk�.;�ai :sti scznfs��.;; �.�;:s-�z ;; i.. g:: rrte• �r; �r, �ipct .^a*5t�r�'S:�tt>si� ,� '�: ^c �.3.7,���..n,�. �'£. c..., ..�sf4:� ?Fc' �..�c. d"r :��_. .,,.Se_. emu" � . ,:. • .. .
Day -night sound levels, Ldn, from street traffic were computed using esti-
mated 1987 daily traffic volumes with and without the proposed project as
described in the Traffic Impact Analysis. It was assumed that 10 percent of
traffic occurs during nighttime hours of 10 p.m. to 7 a.m., and that traffic
speed is about 30 mph. The noise prediction was for a setback of 50 feet
from street traffic. Where appropriate, the street traffic noise was com-
bined with noise from I -5.
Table 7
1987 Day -Night Sound Levels, dBA
Outdoor Evening Noise Levels on Site
Street Noise
Street Freeway Noise without /with project
Combined Noise
without /with project
53rd Ave. S. 65 55/56 66/66
north of site
S. 160th St. -- 54/55 54/55
west of site
Slade Way and 72 44/45 72/72
54th Ave. S.
south of site
The largest noise increase, 1 dBA, would occur along S. 160th Street west of the
site. This amount of noise increase would not be noticeable. Noise increases
on other more distant streets would also be negligible (less than 1 dBA
increase).
+s�
'i 77 �` ! .. :" .i ,rye r_.,..
•..Z!�.!t?.'�L ..1:.� ,: 1 .x•1. •�rtn,.: �'.:!,...ti: C`.�::< �..�...ir'i.�.�`;., i..a� . _.:!•.r CH:;ti :Rl %fL. "..... �: 1'C.1:.
MS. MAXINE ANDERSON
CITY CLERK
CITY OF TUKWILA
6200 SOUTHCENTER BLVD
TUKWILA WA 98188
APPENDIX D
LETTER OF APPEAL
THE REASONS FOR THIS APPEAL ARE AS FOLLOWS:
(EMPHASIS ADDED)
_ , .ta. t. ;'.'F:`:" *'� .ry ..:.c. ;�:..` sr,� ^� ::''� L�t i:��•t �•r�r«�,..1 S._� <:,. =i v:t8��:`;;i4k:: � ,
SEPTEMBER 28, 1987
REFERENCE: APPEAL OF BOARD OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW
DECISION OF SEPTEMBER 24, 1985
-- FILE NO.87 -S -DR: GENCOR
I AM WRITING ON BEHALF OF THE SUNWOOD CONDOMINIUM HOMEOWNER
ASSOCIATION TO APPEAL THE DECISION BY THE TUKWILA BOARD OF
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW APPROVING OF THE ABOVE REFERENCED MATTER.
THE BOARD'S DECISION WAS MADE AT A PUBLIC HEARING HELD ON
SEPTEMBER 24 1987. WE ARE DIRECTING THIS APPEAL TO YOU PURSUANT
TO THE REQUIREMENTS SET FORTH IN SECTION 18.90.020 OF THE TUKWILA
ZONING CODE. WE HAVE DISCUSSED THIS MATTER WITH MR. PACE OF THE
PLANNING DEPARTMENT AND HAVE BEEN ASSURED THAT IT IS THE PROPER
PROCEDURE TO FOLLOW.
1) ON AUGUST 13, 1987 A DECLARATION OF NON - SIGNIFICANCE WAS
ISSUED FOR THIS PROPOSED DESIGN PLAN. SEPA RULES AND THE TUKWILA
MUNICIPAL CODE ALLOWS FOR WITHDRAWAL OF A DECLARATION OF
NON - SIGNIFICANCE UNDER CERTAIN CONDITIONS. WAC 197 -11 -340
(ADOPTED BY REFERENCE IN TUKWILA ORDINANCE NO. 1331, SEC. 10)
STATES
"(2)(f) THE RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL SHALL RECONSIDER THE
DNS BASED ON TIMELY COMMENTS AND MAY RETAIN OR MODIFY
THE DNS OR IF THE RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL DETERMINES THAT
SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE IMPACT ARE LIKELY. WITHDRAW THE DNS
OR SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS . . . .
"(3)(a) THE LEAD AGENCY SHALL WITHDRAW A DNS IF:
"(i) THERE ARE SUBSTANTIAL CHANGES TO A PROPOSAL
SO THAT THE PROPOSAL IS LIKELY TO HAVE SIGNIFICANT
ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT;
"(ii) THERE IS SIGNIFICANT NEW INFORMATION
INDICATING, OR ON, A PROPOSAL'S PROBABLE; OR
"(iii) THE DNS WAS PROCURED BY MISREPRESENTATION
OR LACK OF MATERIAL DISCLOSURE; IF SUCH DNS RESULTED
FROM THE ACTIONS OF AN APPLICANT, ANY SUBSEQUENT .
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST ON THE PROPOSAL SHALL BE
PREPARED DIRECTLY BY THE LEAD AGENCY'OR ITS CONSULTANT
AT THE EXPENSE OF THE APPLICANT."
WE ARE CONCERNED THAT IN MAKING THE NON- SIGNIFICANCE
DETERMINATION, INADEQUATE ATTENTION WAS PAID TO THE FOLLOWING
PROBLEMS: (1) ALL OR PORTIONS OF THE PROPERTY MAY BE DESIGNATED
AS "ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE " IN THE CITY'S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN;
(2) A SIGNIFICANT PORTION OF THE PROPERTY CONTAINS SLOPES IN
EXCESS OF 20%; (3) PROBLEMS WITH SURFACE WATER DRAINAGE EXIST;
(4) NO ANALYSIS WAS MADE OF THE POTENTIAL VIEW BLOCKAGE, LOSS OF
LIGHT AND AIR RIGHTS, AND THE GENERAL VISUAL IMPACT OF THE
STRUCTURES ON THE SITE.
FURTHER WE ARE CONCERNED THAT , IN THE EVENT THE APPLICANT SEEKS
A BUILDING AND OTHER LAND USE PERMIT FOR THIS PROJECT, THE
APPLICANT WILL CONTEND THAT NO ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT IS
REQUIRED FOR THE PROJECT. HOWEVER, THE DNS WAS ISSUED ON THE
BASIS OF AN INADEQUATE AND INCOMPLETE CHECKLIST AND DESIGN PLAN,
AND DID NOT CONSIDER MATERIALS THAT THE APPLICANT HAS SINCE ADDED
OR REVISED. WE THEREFORE REQUEST THAT THE DNS BE WITHDRAWN
ACCORDING TO EITHER WAC 197- 11- 340(2)(f) OR WAC
197- 11- 340(3)(a)(ii) AND FURTHER REQUEST THAT THE APPLICANT BE
REQUIRED TO SUBMIT A NEW ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST AT THE TIME THAT
ANY PERMIT IS SOUGHT FOR DEVELOPMENT OF THE PROJECT. IN THIS
CASE, SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCES MAY DEVELOP BETWEEN THE NON- PROJECT
BAR DESIGN REVIEW AND A SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT PROJECT.
2) THE APPLICANT HAS FAILED TO COMPLY WITH THE REQUIREMENTS
OF TMC 18.52.060 WITH RESPECT TO RECREATIONAL SPACE. THE
APPLICANT HAS MADE INADEQUATE PROVISION FOR ANY COVERED
RECREATION SPACE, OR OF ANY SINGLE PURPOSE PERMANENT FACILITY
SUCH AS A SWIMMING POOL OR TENNIS COURT.
IN ADDITION THE APPLICANT HAS PROVIDED CALCULATIONS BASED UPON
AREAS OF OPEN SPACE WITHIN THE SITE AND ATTEMPTED TO CAST SUCH
CALCULATIONS AS FULFILLING REQUIREMENTS FOR UNCOVERED
RECREATIONAL SPACE. THE TUKWILA MUNICIPAL CODE DIFFERENTIATES
BETWEEN "OPEN SPACE" ANO "RECREATION SPACE, UNCOVERED ". TMC
18.06.580 DEFINES "OPEN SPACE" AS "THAT AREA OF A SITE WHICH IS
FREE AND CLEAR OF BUILDING AND STRUCTURES AND IS OPEN AND
UNOBSTRUCTED FROM THE GROUND TO THE SKY. TMC 18.06.650 DEFINES
"RECREATION SPACE, UNCOVERED" AS "AN AREA OF GROUND CHARACTERIZED
BY A NATURAL SURFACE, SUCH AS LAWN, FOREST, OR SANDBOX.
THE APPLICANT HAS MADE AN INADEQUATE ANALYSIS OF THE EXTENT TO
WHICH THIS UNCOVERED RECREATION SPACE IS ON SLOPE GREATER THAN
FOUR HORIZONTAL TO ONE VERTICAL (4:1) SLOPE AS REQUIRED BY TMC
18.52.060(3)(B ). FURTHER THERE HAS BEEN INA SCREENING OR
OTHER BUFFER TO SEPARATE THE RECREATION SPACE FROM PARKING AREAS,
DRIVEWAYS OR PUBLIC STREETS. TMC18.52.060(4)(B).
3) THE APPLICANT HAS INADEQUATELY COMPLIED WITH CITY OF
TUKWILA COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE POLICY PLAN. THE COMPREHENSIVE
LAND USE POLICY PLAN PROVIDES GUIDELINES FOR THE CITY'S
DEVELOPMENT, ANO PLACES THE CITY'S ZONING ORDINANCE IN CONTEXT AS
AN IMPLEMENTATION DEVISE FOR THE PLAN'S GOALS. NOT ONLY HAS THE •
APPLICANT INADEQUATELY ADDRESSED THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE ZONING
ORDINANCE, BUT THE APPLICANT HAS ALSO FAILED TO ADEQUATELY
ADDRESS THE CONCERNS SET FORTH IN THE PLAN'S "GENERAL GOALS ".
THIS IS PARTICULARLY TRUE OF GOAL 1 WHICH REQUIRES THE CITY,
"THROUGH THE REGULATION OF LANG USE AND COMMUNITY GROWTH, TO
PROMOTE THE HEALTH SAFETY AND GENERAL WELFARE OF THE PUBLIC ". IN
ADDITION, GOAL S REQUIRES THE CITY TO "STRIKE A BALANCE BETWEEN
ECONOMY AND ENVIRONMENT. WHILE THE CITY SHOULD ENCOURAGE
DEVELOPMENT AND. STRIVE TO PROVIDE A HEALTHY ECONOMIC CLIMATE, IT
SHOULD BE SENSITIVE TO THE NATURAL LIMITATIONS AND HAZARDS
IMPOSED BY THE PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT AND THE TREMENDOUS NATURAL
AMENITIES WHICH THAT ENVIRONMENT AFFORDS ".
FURTHER THE APPLICANT HAS FAILED TO ADEQUATELY ADDRESS THE GOALS
FOR THE ELEMENTS OF "NATURAL ENVIRONMENT ", "OPEN SPACE ", AND
RESIDENCE ".
WITH RESPECT TO THE "NATURAL ENVIRONMENT" ELEMENT THIS PROPOSAL
FAILS TO MEET OBJECTIVES OF POLICY 1, 2 AND 3 OF OBJECTIVE OF
OBJECTIVE NO. 1. WITH RESPECT TO OBJECTIVE NO. 3. THE PROPOSAL
"DISCOURAGE DEVELOPMENT ON SLOPE IN EXCESS OF 20X ", POLICY NO. 2,
TO "PRESERVE THE VIEW OF HILLSIDE RESIDENTS ", AND POLICY NO.3 TO
"PRESERVE AND PROMOTE THE QUALITY OF NATURAL LAND FORM ".
WITH RESPECT TO THE "OPEN SPACE" ELEMENT, THE PROPOSAL FAILS TO
MEET THE GOAL OF OBJECTIVE NO.1, PARTICULARLY: POLICY 1, TO
"STRIVE TO PRESERVE STEEP HILLSIDES AND WOODED AREAS IN A SCENIC
CONDITION, ENCOURAGE REPLANTING AND REVEGETATION OF DENUDED AREAS
NOT IN THE PROCESS OF DEVELOPMENT ", AND POLICY 3, TO PROVIDE FOR
ACTIVE RECREATION AREAS (BALLFIELDS, TENNIS COURTS, SWIMMING
POOLS, PLAYGROUNDS, COMMUNITY CENTERS) CONSISTENT WITH THE NEEDS
OF THE COMMUNITY ".
WITH RESPECT TO THE "RESIDENCE" ELEMENT, THE PROPOSAL FAILS TO
MEET A NUMBER OF CRITERIA, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE
FOLLOWING POLICIES: POLICY 7, TO "ENCOURAGE THE PROVISION OF
RECREATIONAL OPEN SPACE WITHIN MULTIPLE - FAMILY DEVELOPMENTS ";
POLICY 4 TO "ENCOURAGE MINIMUM CARE AND MAINTENANCE LEVEL FOR
UNDEVELO OPEN SPACE ".
I WILL BE OUT OF TOWN ON PERSONAL BUSINESS FROM SEPTEMBER 30
THROUGH OCTOBER 14 AND WOULD THEREFORE, REQUEST THAT THE CITY
COUNCIL HOLD A PUBLIC HEARING ° AT A DATE LATER THAN OCTOBER 14,
1987 TO CONSIDER A REVERSAL OF THE APPROVAL BY THE BOARD OF
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW OF THE ABOVE REFERENCED MATTER. AT THAT
HEARING WE WILL BE PREPARED TO FURTHER PRESENT OUR CONCERNS.
4) FINALLY DURING THE PUBLIC HEARING ONE OF THE MEMBERS OF
THE BOARD CONDUCTED HIMSELF IN SUCH A MANNER AS TO VIOLATE THE
APPEARANCE OF FAIRNESS AND TO GIVE RISE TO A REASONABLE SUSPICION
THAT HE HAD DISCUSSED THE DETAILS OF THE CASE PRIOR TO THE PUBLIC
HEARING AND THAT HE HAD DECIDED THE CASE BASED AT LEAST IN PART,
ON INFORMATION OTHER THAN PRESENTED AT THE HEARING. WE DO NOT
WANT TO HIGHLIGHT THIS AS AN ISSUE BECAUSE OF THE SENSITIVITY
SURROUNDING ANY ACCUSATION OF IMPROPER CONDUCT; HOWEVER WE FEEL
THAT WE MUST RAISE THIS ISSUE AT THIS TIME IN ORDER TO PRESERVE
OUR RIGHTS WITH REGARD TO IT. IF THE CITY COUNCIL BELIEVES IT IS
NECESSARY WE WILL BE PREPARED TO DETAIL OUR CONCERNS IN
CONNECTION WITH THIS ISSUE.
RULY `fOURS,
RYAN'S. THROWER
DIRECTOR,
SUNWOOD CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION
15232 SUNWOOD BLVD.
TUKWILA, WA. 98188
APPENDIX E
BOARD OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW MINUTES
OCTOBER 22, 1987
SEPTEMBER 24, 1987
AUGUST 27, 1987
re.G.s.r.._,i.: Y.v.a.*. ,U .;. ,e.r.'��r,,..,.,.J_.�:•r ...,_ °.. rk';'•?::v �. .. ....
, ..�.:��...K:.rrm:r::.'y.X�.. e,.. v5. ;,- ::s >•.rlya"',p':fi� =.Y.'t IJ,x;.�citi".r
. .,_,..�,, o.,,..,...:' tyr:' FI. df: w: i YT. e f�x4i"{:. �t ,'+^i'4:.7r ,''" ,.. )•�._ .'?. ,;�..,,_ N.;.�_�`�. k... .Sta.clt;. «,..•,x'u•.:. �:, ., a.:
EXCERPTS FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
OCTOBER 22, 1987
87 -5 -DR: GENCOR Request for approval of a 54 -unit apartment
complex.
Mr. Pace reviewed the revised staff report recommending approval
of the request.
MR. HAGGERTON MOVED AND MR. SOWINSKI SECONDED A MOTION TO ALLOW
THE NEWEST MEMBER OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION, JERRY HAMILTON, TO
PARTICIPATE IN THE HEARING FOR THIS AGENDA ITEM. MOTION CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY.
Steve Friedman, 11801 N.E. 160th, Bothel, representing GENCOR
pointed out that they have complied with the requests made by the
Planning Commission and which have been reflected in the staff
report.
MR. KIRSOP MOVED AND MR. SOWINSKI SECONDED A MOTION TO ACCEPT THE
REVISED CONCLUSIONS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL, AS STIPULATED IN
THE STAFF REPORT.
THE REVISED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL READ AS FOLLOWS:
1. Revise the landscape plan prepared by a landscape architect
to include the following items subject to final approval
ofthe Planning Director.
a. Additional trees and shrubs shall be planted on the
east side of Building B to reduce the impact of a
visible blank wall.
b. Additional trees and shrubs shall be planted around the
structures to enhance the architectural offsets and
provide a better blend into the hillside.
c. Detailed plans shall be submitted for recreational
areas.
d. Sidewalk connection to be provided to the eastern
portion of the project.
e. Revise the north landscape areas to provide view
corridors.
2. A detailed exterior lighting plan shall be submitted showing
lighting fixtures and a lighting luminaire plan to be
approved by the Planning Director.
THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.
City of Tukwila
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
6200 Southcenter Boulevard
Tukwila, Washington 98188
(206) 433 -1849
CITY OF TUKWILA
PLANNING COMMISSION
SEPTEMBER 24, 1987
The meeting was called to order at 8:10 p.m. by Mr. Larson, Chairman. Members
present were Messrs. Knudson, Larson, Kirsop, Sowinski, Coplen, and Haggerton.
Representing the staff were Jack Pace, Vernon Umetsu, Ross Earnst and Norma Booher.
MINUTES
MR. HAGGERTON MOVED TO ADOPT THE MINUTES OF THE AUGUST 27, 1987 MEETING AS WRITTEN.
MR. KNUDSON SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.
OLD BUSINESS
87 -5 -DR: GENCOR Design review of apartment complex which will have five buildings
containing 54 apartment units.
Jack Pace, Senior Planner, reviewed the project and key changes that have been
incorporated: shorter appearance, landscaping, all access will be off Southcenter
Boulevard, reduced number of apartment units from 57 to 54, provided workout area,
color of buildings changed to light tan and blue grey, gazebo has been removed
and picnic area added, sidewalk modified, better ground cover.
The percentage of slope and traffic on Southcenter Boulevard was discussed.
Chairman Larson opened the Board of Architectural Review Public Hearing at 8:20 p.m.
Steven Friedman, 1633 72nd Avenue SE, Mercer Island, representing the applicant,
discussed changes that have been made to the project.
Jack Pace, Senior Planner, suggested Condition (e) be "Revise the north landscape
area to provide view corridors."
Azaria Rousso, 7605 SE 27th, Mercer Island, architect for the proposal, discussed
the changes that have been made to create a better proposal.
Kathy Verhalen, 15255 Sunwood Blvd., expressed concern that the land use plan
discourages development where slopes are in excess of 20 %.
Kathy Fetter, 15125 Sunwood Blvd., expressed concern about the possibility of erosion
and measures that can be taken to preserve the view.
Ryan Thrower, 15232 Sunwood, expressed concern about the calculations used to
determine the recreation space and the lack of a provision for adequate screening
of storage.
k tgu argir. , 4 .8 ...v ajtc it4.6231.44. .tay. ;2,Nwa .w.iam.u,- .a:, zcr u_ssAm vemtd . : ...a ', A1:irma x arr,V? St.' f .,. ^ -
MR. COPLEN MOVED TO APPROVE THE GENCOR APPLICATION, 87 -5 -DR, AFTER REVIEWING THE
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS OF THE STAFF INCLUDING THE RECOMMENDATIONS AS LISTED BY
STAFF 1 (A), (B), (C), (D), AND THE ADDITION OF (E) "REVISE THE NORTH LANDSCAPE
AREA TO PROVIDE VIEW CORRIDORS;" AND ITEM 2 AS STATED IN THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION.
MR. KNUDSON SECONDED THE MOTION WHICH PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.
Planning Commission
September 24, 1987
Page 2
87 -5 -DR: GENCOR Contd.
Steven Friedman, representing the applicant, assured that stability during
construction has been taken into consideration. A soils engineer will supervise
the work during construction. The dumpsters will be fenced and landscaped.
Retaining walls are not necessary along the north property line with revised proposal.
Kathy Verhalen, Sunwood, expressed concern that the shaking or moving of buildings
at Sunwood during construction might cause damage to a large bedroom mirror.
Chairman Larson closed the Public Hearing at 8:50 p.m.
Jack Pace, Senior Planner, stated the recreation space has been properly calculated.
The City trail will connect into the project trail.
City staff answered eugestions asked by Planning Commissioners regarding the
recreation area and erosion. '
�n'.:la= ,.:�:.. Gig :•i.�.: "i%t: +'�wCJtGY IYTil U,4l'.'^..^%. �N_:J tLtV::Mt�t.�xvrw -w.
EXCERPT FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
AUGUST 27, 1987
87 -5 -DR: GENCOR - Design Review of an apartment complex which
will have five buildings containing 57 apartment units.
Jack Pace, Senior Planner, reviewed the staff report which
recommended approval of the proposal subject to conditions. He
distributed the color scheme to be used for the outside of the
building.
Steven Friedman, 1633 72nd Avenue S.E., Mercer Island, and
representing the applicant, discussed the proposal.
Azaria Rousso, 7605 S.E. 27th, Mercer Island, and architect for
the proposal, discussed the design of the apartment complex.
Philip Verhalen, 15255 Sunwood Blvd., represented the Board of
Directors for Sunwood, expressed concerns regarding the impact
the development will have on Sunwood.
Leon Grundstein, 11801 N.E. 160th Street, Bothell, spoke in favor
of the proposal.
Christine Gordon, 15222 Sunwood Blvd., expressed a concern that
the site is not conducive to disabled people and if adequate
parking has been provided.
Discussion ensued on the proposal.
MR. KIRSOP MOVED AND MR. KNUDSON SECONDED A MOTION TO CONTINUE
APPLICATION 87 -5 -DR - GENCOR FOR TWO WEEKS TO GIVE THE ARCHITECT
ADEQUATE TIME TO ADDRESS THE CONCERNS EXPRESSED. (BUILDING COLOR,
SIDE ELEVATION OF THE BUILDING AND BUILDING PROFILE OF THE ENTIRE
COMPLEX). MOTION UNANIMOUSLY. APPROVED.
Mr. Kirsop excused himself at 11:20 p.m.
4rt ' aid { vi gYtii ti 4 4 .11 .6r„.w.r?xs'.:t• 4.1. asv ii vsOSA
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
/cs
APPENDIX F
City of Tukwila
6200 Southcenter Boulevard
Tukwila Washington 98188
(201) 433 -1800
Gary L. VanDusen, Mayor
MEMORANDUM
Board of Architectural Review
Planning Department
October 12, 1987
87 -5 -DR: GENCOR
On September 24, 1987, the BAR approved with conditions the modified plans
for a 54 -unit apartment complex for Gencor. On September 28,1987, the
Sunwood Condominium Association appealed the BAR decision. Due to the
several modifications the applicant made in response to BAR concerns,
Planning staff has consolidated the Findings, Conclusions and Conditions of
approval for BAR review and adoption. By consolidating BAR actions, this
will simplify the City Council review of the appeal. The public hearing
for the appeal is scheduled for November 2, 1987.
ATTACHMENTS:
City of Tukwila
6200 Southcenter Boulevard
Tukwila Washington 98188
(206) 433 -1800
Gary L. VanDusen, Mayor
REVISED STAFF REPORT
to the Board of Architectural Review
Prepared October 12, 1987
HEARING DATE:
FILE NUMBER: 87 -5 -DR: Gencor
APPLICANT: Azaria Rousso, Architect
REQUEST:
LOCATION: 5700 block of Southcenter Boulevard.
ACREAGE: 4 acres.
COMPREHENSIVE
PLAN DESIGNATION: Medium Density Residential
ZONING DISTRICT: Multiple Residence High Density (RMH)
SEPA
DETERMINATION: DNS dated August 13, 1987
August 27, 1987 and September 24, 1987
Design review of a 57 -unit apartment project.
(A) Landscape Plan
(B) Building Elevation
(C) Typical South Elevation
(D) Floor Plan
STAFF REPORT
DECISION CRITERIA
VICINITY /SITE INFORMATION
REVISED FINDINGS
87 -5 -DR: Gencor
Page 2
1. Project Description: A 54 -unit apartment complex containing five structures
which will be three stories in height.
2. Existing Development: There are no structures on the site.
3. Surrounding Land Use: To the south, there is a Denny's restaurant and
convenience store /gas station. To the north and east, there are apartments
and Sunwood condominiums.
4. Terrain: The site is hilly with slopes as steep as 100 percent.
5. Vegetation: The vegetation consists of blackberry bushes and trees. At-
tachment A shows the existing trees that will remain on the site.
6. Access: Street access will be provided from Southcenter Boulevard. The
gra es of the access road will not exceed 15% for fire truck access.
access.
The applicable Tukwila Municipal Code (TMC) design review criteria are listed
below in bold, followed by pertinent findings.
1. TMC 18.60.050(1) - Relationship of Structure to Site
As depicted by Attachment A, B and C, the structures will be located to the
south of the site to provide views for the residents and to provide greater
separation between structures uphill. The vertical and horizontal offsets
allow the structures to blend into the hillside versus a structure with no
offsets.
There will be a retaining wall for the parking lot south of Building "B ".
The wall will be approximately five feet in height. The parking lot to the
east will contain 60 parking spaces with a landscape island in the middle.
This landscape island is being provided to moderate the visual impact of the
large paved area.
2. TMC 18.60.050(2) - Relationship of Structure and Site to Adjoining Area
The applicant is proposing a separated trail system that will connect with
the existing City trail, as well as connect with Southcenter Boulevard. The
applicant's trail system will also provide a recreational amenity to the
site.
STAFF REPORT
Trails 1,560
Area for conditioning 900
Picnic area and general uses. 9,000
TOTAL AREA 1 - T;AgU square feet
87 -5 -DR: Gencor
Page 3
The southern buffer will be about 40 feet wide and retain some of the
existing vegetation due to the steep slopes. To the north, the landscape
buffer will vary from 10 to 30 feet. The landscape area abutting Sunwood is
20 feet wide, while the landscape area abutting Tukwila Apartments varies
from 10 to 60 feet.
As shown by Attachment B, the building lines and masses are of similar
quality to the structure above the site. (Tukwila Apartments, Sunwood
Condominiums).
3. TMC 18.60.050(3) - Landscaping and Site Treatment
The applicant has only provided general information concerning exterior
lighting. Additional information will be needed to ensure compatibility
with the building and adjacent property. The landscape plan (Attachment A)
provides a general plan for the proposed landscape treatment. The land-
scaping proposed between the parking lot and property to the north provides
shrubs or trees. The landscaping proposed around the building consists of a
lawn with a few trees and shrubs around the structure.
As shown on Attachment A, the sidewalk from Southcenter Boulevard does not
connect with the east half of the apartment complex. Sidewalk connection
would be possible by extending the sidewalk to the north.
As part of the landscape area, the applicant is required to provide
recreational area. Recreational area requirements for 54 units is 10,800
square feet. The applicant has provided recreational space in the following
areas:
4. TMC 18.60.050(4) - Building Design
The applicant is proposing an architectural style which is contemporary in
appearance. The building floor plan is modulated with projections for
egress balconies, stairways and decks. In addition, screen walls and a
short roof extension are provided at the bedroom windows. The building mass
is somewhat less obtrusive to uphill properties due to the flat roofs. The
proposed three -story structures are of similar size to the structures to the
north of this site.
The building siding will consist of cedar siding painted in a light tan.
The flashing, railings and entrance doors shall be painted a blue -grey. The
details for exterior lighting has not been developed at this time.
5. TMC 18.60.050(5) - Miscellaneous Structures and Street Furniture
Due to the shape and location of this site, no street furniture is contained
in this proposal. However, the applicant is proposing a picnic area and
bench on the hillside to take advantage of the views.
STAFF REPORT
REVISED CONCLUSIONS
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
87 -5 -DR: Gencor
Page 4
1. The height and scale of the five apartment structures is similar to the
other residential structures abutting the site. As shown by Attachment A,
parking areas are designed and screened to moderate the visual impact of
large paved areas.
2. The applicant has provided appropriate landscape transition to adjoining
properties due to the changes in grade and the varied width of landscaping
buffers. Uphill properties will see a structure which appears as a two -
story building due to the changes in grade. The grade changes also minimize
the impact to uphill properties views of Mt. Rainier
3. The applicant is proposing to use exterior lighting, but has not submitted
detail plans. The landscape plan needs to be modified to maintain vistas
for uphill properties. There is also a need to intensify the amount of
landscaping around the structures to break up the large blank walls and to
enhance the architectural features.
4. The proposed structures are of an appropriate scale and consistent with
neighboring residential developments. The structures have numerous vertical
and horizontal offsets which avoid the monotony of design. The proposed
architectural style is contemporary in design. The quality of the design is
similar to the surrounding residential structures.
5. No street furniture is proposed for this development. General information
has been provided to show the general location of picnic areas and workout
areas. Additional detail of the design needs to be submitted to know if
they will be compatible with the site plan and building design.
1. Revise the landscape plan prepared by a landscape architect to include the
following items subject to final approval of the Planning Director:
a. Additional trees and shrubs shall be planted to on the east side of
Building B to reduce the impact of a visible blank wall.
b. Additional trees and shrubs shall be planted around the structures to
enhance.the architectural offsets and provide a better blend into the
hillside.
s. S >i~ZI `s. Beta •" faia"xWAV=" th Iwtam: uz avlai; nSutrzwizttxiciassaztorr =plzm:xx,gromi vti&Qlt P 4'.r -==g2 u.
STAFF REPORT
(22/87- 5 -DR.R)
87 -5 -DR: Gencor
Page 5
c. Detailed plans shall be submitted for recreational areas.
d. Sidewalk connect be provided to the eastern portion of the project.
e. Revise the north landscape areas to provide view corridors.
2. A detailed exterior lighting plan shall be submitted showing lighting fix-
tures and a lighting luminaire plan to be approved by the Planning Director.
111441.-D144S41 %el
11111OPSW •4411.0% WAAL
TO 11•1440•440 00.411101111.4-
4414
pal cart •ug.- 1404pA
1-I 4-I
5 FOOT RETAINING WALL
o
taerraP•■•
20 FOOT FIRE ACCESS EASEMENT
p
,• . .
gafteeiSr111rablEa Sli=45:
1•0
MCl21:4 TIL414.
TYPIGA.t- 114%.11141)11 Sit LeNf.&TIC
:11
4.111.L4r, 1-4
14. faimaa-
20 Pr. 441:41 14.0441 44404.
14.406 MOH ••••••
t war 1.• ■••••V"
• weer ONO ow sun's.
.
• or. 4.44.1
-1
ve1
GENCOR. APAR-17/\ENT5
• 4.14.0 -----
1••••$.1•4C. f..GAPE.
•
D
•
•
4.4
1•Or 4 N ic444.- . 4•••••
1144WC.-11
eZ21144.0 114.404.4.
/44.4-.11.48 sffl..24/
AGSM
room 1164.C.C41.1.4.4.1.
•406.•.4. avow
Tugs/. C.A4440•4111.•
1
/44.4.76/44.08•M•
:24.C.
44Z/4.1144...14.4.11
grooPot aiwpoact, We.
31014Plauf wiaara.a•-
1.
aohwasca. 41/611•611.41.14..
4144.411.
04-
•1.44•
Sa.P4411111111 .411
%twat. 444%
ta.•••••••-■ araacili
rair4a-Car.aL.
A-0150-
11.4.4.
4•44.41PIPASU ..x.444•••••■
11•40O0011O3Da.
TONIP11•4.
Ca•••••4 ••■•••1.
4 -
LANDSCAPING. 4`
1.4.ain4.wA.44. •ar••••• 144.44. ow allialaaall• Van war4-4
1411146044 64, 4//44.0 CAM...
1.1144, *INS 040•01. 441.•
1.411444... TANIS 10 all P•Oraillaar
111•444 VAIL 44.4•44 area. isaACA•ara....ar apart. "amods
•••■••• ••■••••-
R.e. ".• p-c, OIL a- E. GU- 14
4-1 anicaamacar 2444. paomaa Zoo 0/.4.er aq. .7.9coa..
aLr44 mars. s44a.0..14.4 rasa.:
Ltrebez: z
• = mu. PAU- RAW ot/M/4.
Ala 4. vr.,r
• riarli=444.444:4•44.•11.M' 1 J.
DIZPOld I 1.4 LE GEr.3-14
(=1 •Gatc.4tas 4444,4. 44,
Vaal AWDIC.44152. 14MW TIMM rm. cart 1100441‘••••■•••Ts•-• •
It. .. 4ar.
mai c■Tas co. Maar,
a 144AaArmla ••••44114...
Os 0 WATS% P4W-aAtou• Tama ...
• • 140W-4ra% ••• ••• ,....•1- ,.,...T.... 411b ••••••••.
rns 1.401C.141•1:71 MAL01 44.4:11M11.01
: • graoic.ftras Pm% avDa44.4r.....
WA INIOC.ArarailLatarloa• aou••• 4 - 4.44.4.4.....P.N.;114.
1 = 2 1. •lo•A al a 4.0.-
Ei 116771 Srl• row arousr.....0.1441. . WIC--
i 41.10.151,-it- CIF. I-1449 of,. MR...1••••••.:S.
44=-.. 4.44.....1TM OF 4.4411:41
I '
• VID-4■1•144.0o4.. %Arra Z l .44tra.. •
• a Imilialwoos %Aare •-• 6 1.41 •
4...47;44 4.
•••4:4 4.444 ••- .4 841 at..
• 1114.1.04 44110.4 (...Or Cf.1111441411.),
.... t 1 1.. 5Z- • • •,0•:(1:444.414.144.4444041.4_ 1..4.42..4
'M 4444 40 •4
1. SSG e 1, UV •
Z.•/.. 0:
I 11424•
71 71 1. a 44344
l• 1.404• 4 -no.. UMW
tr 44.11... 4 r 1.41.4461.Z arc (
1.4/ 1.4 m. 41. 474
44.4•-•424 14
• • u
a, ILI
1•44.4.1•• 411441C..UM. 14P4.C.M. .01M40 ,••••••• 11.4.4 2
lb 4.014.66 Ir4 s
• ukItunt.0 7 c4.• • Ms, •- - -- --14. •
• b .,. tal.G•s:411 •ran:f
NA 14•4114
Tpr44.- 4/04/04 of 444. J 1,4:71 Nal*
.1040•■■•■ 4.
■.•41...44.
g1 .440 - .44 • Ma. 44440,414.
40
In_1 4PAMr41/4• C.CIA.PUM
www.
wonur. • 4.4= 4.m-
4vi
AILARALA ILOUSSO • A.W.
••••••••••.1,4•14/444.44A .4440/Ovaa
pto1 LAIJOSCAPtHa.
4 ,•
-4
)=.
m
I,I
I►itllll1gnu
TTACHMENT B (REVISED BUILDING
:i u^
44a
iEr
2
0
A
2
0
4
7
u
1
0
7
I Imltl I 1O11�1(h ummi I I!I im uI
VIII; I. isl:ij' all
mi!!; III!!''; 0!I
m'°1i -i
11 11 /11111 11 111111111 11111
t Ni I ■ I • 1 1 IUD - •
i mirt�n�u�a�ut►�uunm>
1113
Q
Q
liaV:.;aa:=
IL ATTACHMENT C (TYPICAL SOUTH FLEVATION)
v rW%S tsott4U 1 G.MAC e.
•
ppri.doimmcpure t..;tmer.•
S �P •/e-r •sts vtaxvist>
1.1t%M R.'W=1ZiSsEt•s # 1.1 Ms. icor—
treP 1 Lrk CAC t■I TIMM. SOU LASVA.11Ct) �dIPV VS C7t4 4 t= 4
ist.9%Lit4s zianzaw Twa uttAist off&sc.ug.13/P
X1J PLA
E5U tt.:111)11■1 'EV C/ft•ti
RiPbel=1111. cx:n4ot /A4r.
aNegiam
P%1 1%' •
P.7-1:41E-Vift ,a„vm.c.t-A T 15 -si
t
C
1
r 1
N
4
L -`.
•
1
Ek!.LR.Obh
�M4
r Jw:j •k. t. •
_t
•
1
�'a•� aaa.. -.0
;Mery Vu .�... 'URrcT-
L... aftm r.... - wtrrl. L •
4' c. Y 'r •1.
lama/ r. own-
Lw Y•i
.10.4s .7
t_1V: I..G /D'V.NG
• ..._ •+ _
4
ATTACHMENT D FLOOR PLAN
5s -0., ti.: 4 4
WaM..•
-
Ipl
ED .c. O w 2
D •
611.D ¢ caon f i
It -4
Lt
ct
i
. 6.IV Il.lr�
0
.T -4'
0
•
T`?P• 215 MD ;WO*. Ut...1 .J+`•' -t ". [*1•.. '
s1VOIO LJNIZ
Lr \V . I.YO
11 •••11L. r
I.' 0"
10'. e'•
r'1
!MIN .c
vrt..
r
•r'iP. %TVOTC.:Uhl\r F4:::‘,801:10 loWir GA. Liar TrH.h11mi1
L. U/Jte I NC* 1 T'ts
r- t.PfOV .. f�•\ftt... � .W.II&. 1 v+sT+.u�rawl
A
rs PP 4 La * Cad11J•..Kia...
i ALL. Jaet gA.rimatt.os *1/ L111 Gua..aMerse.
Ra rw.. •• ..S •' rr.. .L* f«.t... as .VS SaLaGreC...
?- 4PL0VfoS SLaavaa pea aanvleen dr_ leCCS
sus 4 a Far.rt►'3 iFOVN00.T10r.. va..1r1�
ha. Pl... .a, . - e01.R•_t •wrJ.. US waweII aIi TO
RAMS Sat...S 1alo�T • M.I.i.. 1a0y1 DO... •00.11•
.� u.D�awOwD •MPee .a fPeuao avr
T.44 •'1arA0 V YOIFRYOV1.111
Van. aril OelMN 0. PM' FceL Au walquIem Paew\.Tt /T --
ttcc C.
* - 1.ra0V.os ..CC..IbaTL a.�aLTR.CiL LNa ALL8T7e1J
Pam w GADS% 0. vaJSt N.NCa <...
K I.L.. ••••. Gu.••.r•...
• LAO TINS 1•1741,11.111% s1*00.4. sa I
Ace. uo «T Nf. eo..Taurow .N.... 011 esw7••■•L•
P•ew fe..s 1ftlitroar 4 cO PVY •4171* a.asu\
/Cr. UNOQ2f/.MUNCD WOJ...
a.i•OarwtN 4 P•Y Paa ..u. I•11titulsaD Ie•.\n /r11•Ts -.
l-1.1•0V VNOelaiaCVND SaeLVaIII, 1AMN P00411•-.140LINI
ftftmet.., LT1D.Vn7 LM.. wt>,c t.d,Jaa *SW& UNIT'
*. ua- P'....taa r••-
rT. rROV.Da tavacr .l . e.•.ao.'.aa NO.;T..i 6141t• 4
IterJ•saep 1.M.Tala na =NDIG *. ft& LYVIINI0 Tfl NNM•f.IN Aft D.MID&
•terprBI.TVwa O► Io MR WNtM TIM OVS'IOa MEW. O
• LNFOR.vw 0.1 Ow Vu.Ta PR
..
=rm. PP* . PR'C•L Te ►'J1C61./ba...
1■19e1a. 4 LIF-c s*FCZ^f PM TC�
14. Iao+'D....w* ....aw 003A. 6 •a,04 cuala..&ItiOta
D1r. TO at VAN ....L.«►IL 0.0111.
FL P es.ACIS #'P•aW •■ lai rat Q.YLIA
uN :r M..aY LMO.GJ.TIND-.
R'ITL Ptec..Oa 1.- .2A -tO Sc. %Mtn clam aaTLavls.ftQ.
e.*Tt1130 .....u.. • soalaSs a.&. 0u•.( 4 4...4.4
c.aca....
0.1. Kr_ Doff. CPar..Naa ¢. JNIT5 Su•l se as Amtkr't
Harm
R rae..tce a.raftox ua•T•.•S To D-a.u. ' ....le or WI
MD*. 111.14LD•4c T19 .J04 w- r....vaa Tut.. Oa. Lary'
.
aar.soe. row. co"r -- -.-
aVlt_O.••s waft as 1.I.0V11. caa- w.Y1STNt COaTaVC1101i
I./ rauari•'•ON OF Rmcla+uNa/roce.MaEP K
••••.JLT b4. Ts TO M.Yb L 4 J owbT7C.TSe1.....
7. cioT«as Oft..-o% wmyr 1..Va tx.w.sT 0V447. Ta $4.0a.
STRUCT"UTZA.L NQ1 S
S. .ow.f 11.0.14.111. Paa••a.eta w7•, •ewT•.•aa
ItATIRO &-&-167 11«•I1■ ss ea+slosa MILT OP
z. A'4.L ww 4.. at• I. a : s. X00 I\t1 -. thaw w1aa.
1T0p
11.040 faM.Ni... 01•0•1 auaa0 GC..C. /nue%
%1.r/VW a•••:Ca wt a «041../ D4 urr 0...
S cONCaaTa: 9 ao.e.ac. N.1. Pca 1000 w6L. ac•41.711b oar-.
\111w.w.. STEM_ : D% J4%O I.- 619 -4111 ..K. w,
in* ono •.a L_.
J,. :T7n er %PIM : ew•sO CMOs. 'al..Yae.r\e..a •,/ .1••11.1/41
110L. N6 Iet. pow.
- 4. RY'•000 FLS70s y'co. • Tara L +10•41. V/li.
tL+1)02 W4... aLlOR- %s`G -O D.Dfri /Waft
•• 1 b`OG.4. afasLS • a:c.c. s L «r. w►IOf.Tt..
Rot =IL 0.0444we L D. r C30. surPOt.T's - -•
-7. L'osao -1 so,r.s 4 Mars - O.w • I. • Lsuu
aa.atMC. art. 'm ``mtsrs.... 0.0.•Z,I LSO P.,.c.o..
on•as. F RAO,.•44. .. •1 • K7Tti
a•S. V -JC700 1.•••••• •. '0.0 • <X •..C.•ow. ce
/AWL. 1' -O" prow •
Gr•■• w 400 NaweSlf LN CGYrICr a/ r11 YCJCGTa
e.1•044. N "Mall ID...
A Sl �y Atprses1.2T GL7MTo .�i
1JIfS. 6��
a.• MOTS
••■
IRIS PAN
•
IIN - i2t
• aa.
"MAt 1 X. tLIUSiG • .aR.Gie1 rialGr
Us% /Palutsta. s. Leo/+>f.-ssM
1' P. UN 1T .J.1'43 4 N OT'L� r+r. �
•
City of Tukwila
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
6200 Southcenter Boulevard
Tukwila, Washington 98188
(206) 433 -1849
;190$
TO: City Council
FROM: Planning Department
SUBJECT: APPEAL OF BAR DECISION FOR
54 -UNIT APARTMENT COMPLEX
EPIC 11 -87, 87 -5 -DR, GENCOR
'BACKGROUND
APPEAL ISSUES
1. ZONING CODE:
Appendix A
January 27, 1988
On September 24, 1987, the Board of Architectural Review (BAR) approved, with
conditions, the plans for a 54 -unit apartment complex proposed by Gencor. On
September 28, 1987, the Sunwood Condominium Association appealed the BAR deci-
sion and the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) determination of nonsignifi-
cance by the Responsible Official (see Appendix B). The BAR formally adopted on
October 22, 1987 written findings, conclusions and conditions of approval, which
were verbally adopted on September 24, 1987 (see Appendices C /D).
On November 16, 1987 the City Council completed the appeal hearing on the SEPA
issues raised by the Sunwood Condominium Association and required additional
information. Appendix E contains the Noise and Traffic study done by Gencor.
Based upon the noise study, the applicant will build a one -inch thick solid wood
fence which will reduce the exterior noise level from a high of 67 dBa (hourly
Leq) to 52 dBa. The transportation study concluded: "The impact at the site
generated volumes on the 1990 volumes and proposed street improvements is
insignificant." The applicant has agreed in writing to permit shared access from
his site.
The remaining appeal issues are divided into three general areas which are
listed below in bold type, with staff discussion following.
A. The appellant believes the applicant has not complied with TMC
18.52.060 Recreation Space Requirements.
(20 /PD.1 -27M)
AppendixeA
Page 2
The Design Review Guidelines (TMC 18.60.050) do not give. the BAR the
authority to review recreational requirements. Those requirements are
administered. by City staff (see Attachment A -1). The BAR authority
extends to only review of the landscape plan. On that basis this
appeal issue, as specifically stated, is not valid.
Notwithstanding that conclusion, the alleged requirement for covered
recreation space or a single- purpose permanent facility such as a ten -
nis court is not.contained in TMC 18.52.060. Instead, the standard is
a maximum allowable indoor or covered space of 50 percent of total
recreation space. There is no requirement to provide covered or
permanent recreation facilities.
B. Inadequate analysis of the extent to which uncovered recreation space
is on slope greater than 4:1 slope, per by TMC 18.52.060(3)(B).
C. Inadequate screening or other buffer to separate the recreation
space from parking areas, driveways or public streets, per TMC
18.52.060(4)(B).
TMC 18.52.060(3)(B) allows up to 50% of the recreation space to be
located on slopes greater than 4:1 slopes. This standard is met by
the proposal. In addition, due to topography, location of buildings,
parking and road access, the BAR felt adequate screening is provided.
No standards for screening exist.
2. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Inadequate compliance with City of Tukwila Comprehen-
sive Land Use Policy Plan.
The BAR review guidelines (TMC 18.60.050 - see Attachment A -2) do not
contain any requirements for the BAR to review development in compli-
ance with Comprehensive Land Use Policy Plan.
3. APPEARANCE OF FAIRNESS VIOLATION: "One of the members of the Board con -
ducted himself in such a manner as to violate the appearance of fairness and
to give rise to a reasonable suspicion that he had discussed the details of
the case prior to the public hearing and that he had decided the case based,
at least in part, on information other than presented at the hearing."
Details of this challenge are lacking in the appeal, however the
appellant did state a willingness to present these details to the City
Council.
Notwithstanding the basis for that challenge, the appearance of fair-
ness doctrine requires that any challenge be raised at the time basis
for the challenge was known. Otherwise, rights to appeal on that basis
are waived. In this case the alleged basis was known during the BAR
meeting but not raised at that meeting. The City Attorney also advised
that the doctrine applies to only public hearings, not to the public
meetings of the BAR. Therefore, the appeal is invalid.
. TTACHMENT A -1
RECREATION SPACE REQUIREMENTS
18.52.050 -- 18.52.060
18.52.050 Landscape elan requirements. Detailed plans
for landscaping and screening shall be submitted with plans
for building and site improvements. Included in the plans
shall be type and location of plants and materials and the
location of sprinkling systems. Installation of the land-
scaping and screening shall be completed prior to issuance
of the certificate of occupancy or within a reasonable period
of time determined by the planning director and stated on the
building permit. (Ord. 1247 Sl(part), 1982).
WAV/40/ 18.52.060 Recreation space requirements. In all R -2,
R -3, R -4 and RMH zoning districts, except those areas within
a planned residential development district, any proposed
multiple- family structure, complex, or development shall pro-
vide on the premises and for the use of the occupants a minimum
amount of recreation space according to the following provi-
sions:
(1) Required Area.
(A) For each proposed dwelling unit in the multiple -
family complex or development a minimum of two hundred square
feet of recreation space shall be provided.' Any multiple -
family.structure, complex, or development shall provide a
minimum of one thousand square feet of total recreation space;
(B) The front, side, and rear yard setback areas
required by the applicable zoning district shall not qualify
as recreation space except that ten percent of the required
landscape areas, as shown in Section 18.52.020 of this title
may be permitted in the calculation of the total recreation
space;
(C) In the event the total area required under sub-
section (A) above is less than three thousand square feet, that
portion required to be outdoors and uncovered shall be one
continuous parcel of land.
(2) Indoor or Covered Space.
(A) No more than fifty percent of the required
recreation space may be indoor or covered space;
(B) No more than fifty percent of the total required
recreation space may be used for single - purpose permanent
facilities such as swimming pools, tennis courts, and
similar facilities.
(3) Uncovered Space.
(A) A minimum of fifty percent of the total required
recreation space shall be open or uncovered, up to one hundred
percent of the total requirement may be in open or uncovered
recreation space;
(B) No more than fifty percent of the uncovered
recreation space requirement may be located on slopes greater
than four horizontal to one vertical (4:1) slope.
(4) General Requirements.
(A) Multiple - family complexes which provide dwelling
297 (Tukwila 8/82)
Sections:
18.56.010
18.56.020
18.56.030
18.56.040
18.56.050
18.56.060
18.56.070
18.56.080
18.56.090
18.56.100
18.56.110
18.56.120
Chapter 18.56
8.56.010 -- 18.56.030
units with two or more bedrooms shall provide adequate recre-
ation space for children. Such space shall be at least twenty -
five percent but not more than fifty percent of the total recre-
ation space required under subsection (1) above and shall be
designated, located, and maintained in a safe condition;
(B) Adequate fencing, plant screening, or other
buffer shall separate the recreation space from parking areas,
driveways or public streets. (Ord. 1247 S1(part), 1982).
OFF - STREET PARKING AND LOADING REGULATIONS
Purpose.
Chapter application.
Reduction of existing parking spaces.
General requirements.
Required number of parking spaces.
Loading space requirements.
Cooperative parking facility.
Parking for the handicapped.
Compact car allowance.
Uses not specified.
Landscaping and screening.
Filing of plans.
18.56.010 Purpose. It is the purpose of this chapter
to provide for adequate, convenient, and safe off - street
parking and loading areas for the different land uses de-
scribed in this title. (Ord. 1247 S1(part), 1982).
18.56.020 Chapter application: Off- street parking and
loading spaces shall be provided as an accessory use in all
zones in accordance with the requirements of this chapter at
the time any building or structure is erected, enlarged or at
the time there is a change in its principal use. (Ord. 1247
§1(part) , 1982) .
18.56.030 Reduction of existing parking spaces. Any
off - street parking area already in use or established here-
after, shall not be reduced below the limits required by
this chapter by the construction of any addition to a build-
ing or structure nor by the erection of an additional build-
ing or structure on the property. (Ord. 1247 S1(part), 1982).
298 (Tukwila 8/32;
ATT 'IMENT A -2
DESIGN'ItEVIEW GUIDELINES
18.60.040 -- 18.60.050
(E) All proposed developments north of I -405 and . east
of I -5 in all zone districts, excluding single - family homes;
(F) Approval of the board of architectural review is
required for all landscape plans in the C -P zone. The BAR
may modify all minimum width requirements according to scale
of the property upon request of the applicant;
(G) Proposed developments which, as a condition of
approval of any rezone or other land use action of the city
council or, as a condition of the responsible official's deci-
sion pursuant to the State Environmental Policy Act, are
referred to the BAR for design review. (Ord. 1247 Sl(part),
1982) .
18.60.040 Application requirements. Applications for
review by the board of architectural review must be submitted
to the planning department at least two weeks prior to the
meeting of the board of architectural review.
Building permits shall not be granted until approval of
plans by the BAR. All applications shall be accompanied by a
filing fee as required in Chapter 18.88 and shall include but
are not limited to site plans, exterior building elevations,
the environmental checklist if applicable, and other materials
as required by the planning department. (Ord. 1247 §1(part),
1982).
tdR2MMOr 18.60.050 Review guidelines. In reviewing any applica-
tion, the following guidelines shall be used by the BAR in
its decision making:
(1) Relationship of Structure to Site.
(A) The site should be planned to accomplish a
desirable transition with the streetscape and to provide for
adequate landscaping, and pedestrian movement;
(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 its site.
(2) Relationship of Structure and Site to Adjoining Area.
(A) Harmony in texture, lines, and masses is encour-
aged;
(B) Appropriate landscape transition to adjoining
properties should be provided;
(C) Public buildings and structures should be con -
sistent with the established neighborhood character;
(D) Compatibility of vehicular pedestrian circula-
tion 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;
(3) Landscape and Site Treatment.
308 (Tukwila 8/32)
18.60.050
(A) Where existing topographic patterns contribute
to beauty and utility of a development, they should be recog-
nized 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 axes, 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 place-
ment 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 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.
(4) Building Design.
(A) Architectural style is not restricted, evaluation
of a project should be based on quality of its design and
relationship to surroundings;
(B) Buildings should be to appropriate scale and be
in harmony with permanent neighboring developments;
(C) Building components, such as windows, doors,
eaves, and parapets, should have good proportions and relation-
ship to one another. Building components and ancillary parts
shall be consistent with anticipated 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 archi-
tectural concept. Fixtures, standards and all exposed acces-
sories should be harmonious with building design;
(G) Monotony of design in single or multiple building
projects should be avoided. Variety of detail, form, and
siting should be used to provide visual interest.
(5) Miscellaneous Structures and Street Furniture.
(A) Miscellaneous structures and street furniture
309 (Tukwila 8/82)
18.60.060
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 proportions
should be to scale;
(B) Lighting in connection with miscellaneous struc
tures and street furniture should meet the guidelines applicable
to site, landscape and buildings. (Ord. 1247 S1(part), 1982).
18.60.060 Special review guidelines for Interurban
special review area. (1) Purpose of Review. Owing to its
unique physiography, the presence of natural amenities and
recreational facilities, the historical relevance of the area
to the community, and the contemplated' future mix of resi-
dential, commercial, industrial, and public land uses, the
Interurban area requires a special approach for coordinated
planning and land use management. In order to manage the
development of this area, to upgrade its general appearance,
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 sour growth,
there shall be special review of proposed development in the
Interurban area.
(2) Interurban Special Review District. As used in this
section, the Interurban area is that area lying between I -405
on the south, the toe of slope to the west of Interurban Avenue,
1 -5 on the north, and the city limits on the east, as shown
on Map 3 entitled, "Interurban Special Review Area."
(3) Authority and Scope of Review. All development in
the Interurban special review area, excluding single - family
dwellings, shall be reviewed by the board of architectural
review. In addition to the review guidelines specified in
Section 18.60.050 of this code, the BAR shall utilize the
guidelines specified in subsections (4) and (5) below in its
review.
(4) Special Review Guidelines Applicable to All Proposed
Developments. In the review of proposed development in the
Interurban special review district, the BAR shall use the
following guidelines in order to ensure that the intent of
subsection (1) is accomplished:
(A) Proposed development design should be sensitive
to the natural amenities of the area;
(B) Proposed development use should demonstrate
due regard for the use and enjoyment of public recreational
areas and facilities;
(C) Proposed development should provide for safe and
convenient on -site pedestrian circulation;
(D) Proposed property use should be compatible with
neighboring uses and complementary to the district in which
it is located;
310 (Tukwila 8/32)
WAG 197 -11 -970
Responsible Official Rick Beeler
MITIGATED
DETERMINATION OF NONSIGNIFICANCE
Location of Proposal, including street address, if any
Date JANUARY 14, 1988 Signature
FM.DNS
Description of Proposal A 54 -UNITE MULTI - FAMILY APARTMENT COMPLEX
Proponent AZARIA ROUSSO - ARCHITECT
5700 BLOCK - SOUTHCENTER BLVD. TUKWILA, WA.
Position /Title Planning Director
6200 Southcenter Boulevard. TukwiT 9818
Address
APPENDIX F
Lead Agency: City of Tukwila File No. EPIC
The lead agency for this proposal has determined that it does not have a probable
significant adverse impact on the environment. An environmental impact statement
(EIS) is not required under RCW 43.21C.030(2)(c). This decision was made after
review of a completed environmental checklist and other information on file with the
lead agency. This information is available to the public on request.
[I There is no comment period for this DNS
Aii This DNS is issued under 197 -11- 340(2). Comments must be submitted by
3AD Y 9 . The lead agency will not act on this
proposaHJl A ror I 2q 88 5 da from the date below.
Phone 433 -1846
You may appeal this determination to the ty at City Hall, 6200 Southcenter
Boulevard, Tukwila, WA 98188 no later than 10 days from the above date by written
appeal stating the basis of the appeal for specific factual objections. You may be
required to bear some of the expenses for an appeal.
Copies of the procedures for SEPA appeals are available with the City Clerk and
Planning Department.
ATTACHMENT C
January 7, 1988
Mr. Jack Pace
Senior Planner
City of Tukwila
6200 Southcenter Boulevard
Tukwila, Washington 98188
Dear Mr. Pace:
Sincerely,
ENTRANCO ENGINEERS, INC.
Edward W. Murray
ENTRANCO ENGINEERS, INC.
LAKE WASHINGTON PARK BUILDING 12081 827.1309
5808 LAKE WASHINGTON BOULEVARD N E., KIRKLAND. WA 98033
• • • " CE 'S NA • :•.1%. a 7
••• ••■ • ENuE EVEPE'T
APPENDIX F-1
It is my understanding that, following review of Entranco's Noise and
Traffic Study (December 18, 1987) for the Gencor site, your staff has
recommended that noise mitigations be required for the recreation area. *A
1-inch solid wood fence can provide up to a 15 dBA attenuation in sound
level, reducing the traffic noise to a level below the FHWA exterior noise
abatement criterion of 67 dBA (hourly Leg).
The fence must be high enough to break the line-of-sight between the
observer and the noise source and should contain no cracks. A height of
six feet should be more than adequate considering that the majority of the
noise source is downslope from the site.
cc: Steve Friedman
Gencor
* The Audible Landscape: A manual for highway noise and land use, urban
Systems Research and Engineering, Inc. for the U.S. Department of
Transportation, November, 1974.
EWM:jng
57t,If,/iS{d"�.{Si'd9�?` "i•':. ; ?7h•. r, �' �`.'- :a::,�;?..'2�S[ri?P3':ii'`�tii= lei': Ci3' P7, 1'. sfr� '.�+3L`�tx''1f,'tt„tM�aX �. , .,.....
CITY OF TUKWILA
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING BY THE
TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Tukwila City Council will conduct a Public
Hearing on the 2nd day of November, 1987, at 7:00 p.m. in the Council
Chambers of Tukwila City Hall, 6200 Southcenter Boulevard, to consider the
following appeal:
CASE NUMBER: EPIC -11- 87/87 -5 -DR: GENCOR
PROPOSAL: A 54 unit apartment complex
LOCATION: 5700 block of Southcenter Boulevard,
generally located above and to the north
of Denny's Restaurant
APPEALING: A. Adequacy of the Declaration of Non -
Significance under the State Environmental
Policy Act
B. Board of Architectural Review Decision
Any and all interested persons are invited to be present to voice approval,
disapproval, or opinions on same.
Published Record Chronicle - October 16, 1987
CITY OF TUKWILA
Maxine Anderson
City Clerk
November 16, 1987
7:00 P.M.
ROLL CALL OF COUNCIL
MEMBERS
OFFICIALS
SPECIAL PRESENTATION
D.A.R.E. Program
CITIZEN'S COMMENTS
Sister City Visit
CONSENT AGENDA
OLD BUSINESS
Discussion on appeal
to BAR approval of
54 -unit apt. complex
proposed by Gencor.
Sunwood Condo. Assn.
appealed BAR deci-
sion & the SEPA
determination of
non - significance.
TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL
REGULAR MEETING
a. Approval of Vouchers
Current Fund
City Street
Arterial Street
Water fund
Sewer Fund
Foster Golf Course
Equipment Rental
Firemen's Pension
5Y
City Hall
Council Chambers
MINUTES
CALL TO ORDER AND Mayor Van Dusen called the Regular Meeting of the Tukwila City
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Council to order and led the audience and the Councilmembers in
the Pledge of Allegiance.
MABEL J. HARRIS, JOE H. DUFFIE, EDGAR D. BAUCH, WENDY A. MORGAN
(COUNCIL PRESIDENT), CHARLES E. SIMPSON, MARILYN G. STOKNES,
JOHN M. MCFARLAND.
Rick Beeler (Planning Director), Larry Martin (City Attorney),
Don Morrison (City Administrator), Jack Pace (Senior Planner),
Don Pierce (Police Chief), Byron Sneva (Public Works Director).
Mayor Van Dusen presented Police Officer Tom Kilburg, the
D.A.R.E. officer. Officer Kilburg explained the D.A.R.E. program
which is being presented to elementary level students in the
schools with a video tape. The program is designed to teach students
in the lower grades of school what to do and say when drugs are
offered to them.
Dan Saul, audience, thanked the City Council for the fine 'work they
did in planning the entertainment and visit of the Sister City.
The dedication of the park was impressive.
Claim Fund Vouchers #32388 -
#32549
$ 94,318.74
9,944.22
19,687.08
36,320.98
53,571.97
102,120.17
4,387.69
767.02
$323,350.28
b Accept completion of North Hill Transmission Pipeline.
MOVED BY HARRIS, SECONDED BY SIMPSON, THAT COUNCIL APPROVE THE
CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED.
Larry Martin, City Attorney, stated the appeal by the Sunwood
Condominium Association is based on the Board of Architectural
Review (BAR) decision and the SEPA determination of non - significance.
If it is determined an EIS is necessary we will have to go back to
the beginning. If it is not required then input on the BAR decision
will be taken. Mr. Martin stated the appellant does not have
further input.
Council President Morgan stated she would like to ask the Planning
Director if there has been any resolution or movement toward
resolution of the traffic concerns.
Planning Director Beeler stated he has additional information he
would like to put into the record. It is from the North Hill
rezone application file. In the last hearing he talked about the
traffic situation and one of the exhibits that he would like to enter
into the record is a visual one with the overhead that will show
the traffic circulation. Exhibit 7 is an actual copy from the 84 -11 -R
North Hill rezone file. Mr. Beeler explained the design and traffic
flow as it was shown with the overhead.
Exhibit 8 was entered into the record which is a letter from
Steven M. Friedman, Gencor Apartments, dated November 12, 1987,
TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL REGUALR MINUTES
November 16, 1987
Page 2
OLD BUSINESS - Contd.
Disc. on appeal to
BAR approval of
54 -unit apt.
(Gencor).
Appealed by Sun -
wood Condo. Assn.
on BAR decision
& SEPA det. of
non - significance.
- contd.
which states their knowledge that traffic is of serious concern
to the City Council and they want to alleviate that concern by
offering in advance that they are willing to cooperate in the
future with the City and adjacent property owners, in efforts to
work for joint access or improved access along Southcenter Boulevard.
Council President Morgan asked if there has been any rechannelization
of the road, such as addition of a lane or redirection of anything
that might require additional construction? Mr. Ross Earnst,
City Engineer, said there was no additional work in that area. There
will be when the driveway is developed to the east.
Council President Morgan said ordinarily when there is a major
development we ask the developer to share in the cost of changes.
Mr.fiarnst then is saying this will not require changes in the
access, the turning or the signaling. Mr. Ross said there will be
no additional work in that area.
Mr. Earnst said the Arco Station and Store has not been contacted
regarding the road that will go down past their station as it does
not involve their property. Mr. Earnst explained how the traffic flow
to the east and the west would be managed.
Council President Morgan asked for a brief review of the appellant's
reasons for appealing.
Rick Beeler, Planning Director, stated briefly the appeal states
there has been inadequate consideration given to slopes and
stability of the property and view blockage that could occur.
Appellant was not making a SEPA appeal when he filed, but he was
advised that was what he was doing.
Council President Morgan said then his concern was not so much the
individual project as it was the collective effect of the planning
for vacant property for that particular area. This is something
the City needs to consider in its separation. We are looking at
whether or not an environmental impact statement should be authorized.
Mr. Beeler said he has not seen the necessity of an EIS.
Council President Morgan said she would suggest that an environmental
issue was raised in the discussions. She said she would question
the City Attorney as to the appropriateness of the Council dealing
with the issue of traffic. The Council may determine that the
questions dealing with traffic have been answered this evening.
The issue of traffic was not part of the appellant's concern.
City Attorney Martin said it was proper.
Council President Morgan said she would ask the question of the
Planning Director of alternatives of response other than an EIS,
which is a rather thorough document.
City Attorney Martin said the motion would be to uphold the threshold
determination of the responsible official. There is some analysis
included in this. He suggested staff come back with written
findings and conclusions and it could be based on both the discussions
and findings.
Council President Morgan said then the Council has the option of
saying they accept the findings and conclusions as presented.
The other option is to say that in fact an environmental impact
statement is required. I would like information from staff that
in substitute of an EIS may deal with a single issue. That was the
only issue the Council had consensus on.
Rick Beeler, Planning Director, said he would have to ask if the
Council felt that the access issue was of significant adverse
impact. If the Council decided that it was then they would be
faced with two alternatives: require an EIS which would identify
the significant environmental impact, or issue a mitigating
determination of nonsignificance. The first requires an EIS,
the second does not.
TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL
November 16, 1987
Page 3
OLD BUSINESS - Contd.
Disc. on appeal to
BAR approval of
54 -unit apt.
(Gencor).
Appeal by Sunwood
Conco. Assn. on
BAR decision &
SEPA det. of non -
significance.
- contd.
ULAR MEETING MINUTES
MOVED BY MORGAN, SECONDED BY STOKNES, THAT THE COUNCIL UPHOLD THE
NEGATIVE THRESHOLD DETERMINATION OF THE SEPA RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL
AND THAT INCLUDES A DIRECTION TO ADMINISTRATION TO PREPARE
WRITTEN FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS IN SUPPORT OF THE DECISION. *
Councilmember Bauch said he disagrees and he felt the reason the
Planning Director made this decision was because he was too busy
and did not want to take on another EIS. He thought there were
considerable impacts and they will be noticed. They said there
is plenty of room on Southcenter Boulevard, but down the street we
are getting ready to connect Grady Way and we are going to turn all
of the traffic going to Seattle onto Southcenter Boulevard instead
of by- passing it onto I -405. That impact has to be looked at. It
is going to be a freeway on Southcenter Boulevard and we will be
putting more traffic onto it. There are impacts to the environment
by this project and they should be looked at.
Councilmember Simpson said there were restrictions put on another
complex that was just as far from the freeway as this one, in
fact we even had them close up the garbage dumpsters. None of that
will be addressed if we don't have an EIS. We should put mitigation
measures on this.
ROLL CALL VOTE: DUFFIE, BAUCH, SIMPSON, MCFARLAND VOTE NO;
HARRIS, MORGAN, STOKNES VOTING YES. MOTION FAILED, FOUR TO THREE.
MOVED BY BAUCH, SECONDED BY SIMPSON, THAT AN EIS BE PREPARED FOR
THIS PROJECT. *
The City Attorney said the Council seems to focus on the traffic
issue and the vote to have an EIS would just trigger the procedure
the staff goes through and there are all of the various issues that
could possibly be covered. One option that Mr. Beeler mentioned
was the-mitigated DNS (determination of non - significance). It
means that where a City is considering requiring an EIS that it
tells the developer what he would have to do not have to prepare the
whole EIS. In this case, for example, if you were to determine
that if a traffic analysis of the traffic flow and operation of those
various intersections there would have to be done and reviewed and
any conditions placed on the building permit as found necessary.
You would get the traffic portion of an EIS. It would then be a
traffic study.
Councilmember Bauch said he is questioning whether the site is
getting too close to the freeway and the noise associated with
traffic. Soil stability has not been addressed.
Councilmember Harris stated the traffic problem is being looked
at and to go through a whole EIS which will not address traffic
only is a large request. Tonight when the committee looked at the
Planning Department budget we found they will have to
have three new people if they have this task. She felt it was an
unnecessary expense and it was not that she was for or against
developers.
Councilmember McFarland said there is the issue of equity. If
one developer is required to have an EIS another one should have
to also. There is the impact of high density in single family
areas. He said he was concerned that this development will be in
close proximity to the freeway and the noise of the traffic.
Could the Council be provided with a study as to the comparison
of this project with Valley View Estates.
Larry Martin, City Attorney, said we are looking at the living
environment of the residents. It is arguable that the best vehicle
to do that would be through information provided as part of either
the building permit review or an additional site plan review
that might be required to try to focus on that particular issue.
It is different than the traditional EIS.
Councilmember McFarland said with respect to the issue of traffic
he did not feel the situation of 54 units would add a lot of traffic.
When Grady Way and Southcenter Boulevard are connected it is going
TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL REGULAR 'LETING MINUTES
November 16, 1987
Page 4
OLD BUSINESS - Contd.
Disc. on appeal to
BAR approval of
54 -unit apt.
(Gencor).
Appeal by Sunwood
Condo. Assn. on
BAR decision &
SEPA det. of non -
significance - cont.
to be a channel to I -5. It is necessary to see what the realignment
will do to the Arco Station, Dennys and City Hall.
Council President Morgan said the proximity to the freeway has been
an issue of continued development in an area that makes it dense.
Were other developers in a proximity to the freeway required to
provide an EIS?
Councilmember Bauch said the reason the Council could require this
now is because it was brought before them. The reason the last
three did not require an EIS was because it was not brought before
them. The later ones to come in to develop come in and impact
the area.
Councilmember Harris said the City does not have a road adequacy
ordinance. We do not have a vehicle where we can make people
add to our streets or mitigate measures. We do not have our
streets numbered into A, B, C and D. Until we do that we are
certainly in violation in asking people for mitigation for something
that we don't have an ordinance for.
Council President Morgan stated she would like to reopen some
discussion from the audience.
City Attorney Martin said the Council could reopen discussion from
the audience or ask questions.
Council President Morgan said she would like to ask a question of
the attorney and planner. She said she failed to see what substitive
information that an EIS provides that changes the course of a
development. Her opinion is that it is a reference document that is
placed on the shelf once it is done. Its adequacy is determined
by whether in fact it touches a number of different issues, which
to her mind is of no use to anyone. She said SEPA should be
restructured at state level so it did something for people and
would become what she would call a quasi- consumer protection law.
It is not that right now, it is an odd document and she wanted to
know what it would do in this case that would create a "quality of
life" that everyone wants.
Councilmember Simpson asked if it was correct that if an EIS
document is brought forward mitigation measures can be placed on it?
Larry Martin, City Attorney, said that the substantive part is that
once you have the disclosure, you have the impacts laid out in the
document. The City has the authority to either condition a project
or to deny it based upon those impacts, so if they are in the EIS
and you see impacts in traffic or impacts in air pollution the
City has the right to put on reasonable conditions that try to
lessen those problems. If you don't have an EIS you can't do anything
that isn't true. The City still has authority to regulate under the
normal police power through the process, for example in the building
permit process or in the architectural review process the board
has placed conditions on. The test really is when you are looking
at the impacts, when you apply all of the City ordinances and
normal processes and you assume they are going to be enforced as
they normally are and you look at what the development has built in
to try to take care of the problem, like the soils study. Does it
still leave you with the probability that there are substantial
impacts on the environment, if that is the case then you can require
the EIS to get the information necessary to try to deal with those
impacts. Here, again, the two things identified that I have heard
are the concern; about traffic and one suggestion was is the impact
stemming from City plans to reroute traffic or is the impact stemming
from this development. If it is the first, impacts from City plans
to change traffic then that is something that we need to look at
and determine whether we need an EIS. If it is the impact from the
development then that may warrant an EIS. Likewise, the real tough
question is the concerns that people will rent or buy these units
and in fact they are going to be miserable because there is so much
noise. It is really a health and safety issue for regulation of
the occupants. He said he would suggest that another approach is
TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL P' "ULAR MEETING MINUTES
November 16, 1987
Page 5
OLD BUSINESS - Contd.
Disc. on appeal to
BAR approval of
54 -unit apt.
(Gencor). Appeal
by Sunwood Condo.
Assn. on BAR
decision & SEPA
det. of non -
significance contd.
. T7d c
really more appropriate than an EIS. That would be, for example,
to inquire of the applicant whether they are willing to have as a
condition of any building permits to do a study of the noise levels
and if necessary if the building official is not able to determine
whether these units are designed properly to take care of that,
to submit to the BAR review on that issue to see whether or not
these units are designed to take care of the noise. It could be that
they would feel that a permit would have to be denied based on the
concerns for the health and safety of the occupants, or maybe that
would be a condition to have to take care of that problem. But
that internal kind of a living condition probably is more appropriate
in our permit process than to try and get an EIS. In a strict sense
it really is an impact upon the environment, putting up the building
or having the occupant there really does not create the noise
it is the traffic outside.
Councilmember Simpson asked how will he be assured these items are
going to be addressed;
City Attorney Martin said what he had in mind, and it certainly is
up to the Council, is that on the noise issue the Council could in
fact go to the mitigated DNS route. The Council would then be
directing the SEPA responsible official to advise the applicant that
if they are willing to produce the analysis by a qualified sound
engineer, I am not sure what the right term would be, whoever the
right expert would be, what the noise levels will be in the units
as designed. If the building official feels it necessary to get input
from BAR, submit to that review, so they can intelligently apply
conditions if necessary. The applicant could agree to that o r if not
then we could go ahead with the EIS. The shortcut to that would be
if the applicant would be willing to stipulate tonight to those
conditions, then you could on the condition that they do those things
uphold the decision that we would not need an EIS. As to the traffic,
I think we are on the track on the analysis, who is really generating
traffic we are concerned about, is it the 54 -units and the traffic
they are generating, if it is then we are looking at an impact
that maybe we need a traffic study or an EIS, but if it is really
that traffic would not be that substantial when you look at the
volumes, and when the alinements are changed.
Councilmember Simpson asked about the landscaping plan -- it shows
open space in front of the buildings. According to other projects
we have required they shift the building in order to protect the
play areas.
Rick Beeler, Planning Director, stated there will be forty -eight
1- bedroom apartments and six 2- bedroom apartments. The tenancy will
be different from most apartments, it will be predominantly adult
apartments, there will be enclosed decks with rails. What is
difficult with this particular project is the noise from I -5 and 405,
especially I -405. When the determination of non - significance was
made he looked at 54 units and most of the apartments are studio
apartments. The 54 units would not increase the noise level. One of
the uses of SEPA, one of the counter - balances we have to use and
was part of the framework in reaching the decision of non - significance
was not only these units but the people who would likely live there
would not increase the noise level, but rather the noise is generated
by Southcenter Boulevard and the highway and not be the apartments.
He did not think there was a significant impact of noise to the extent
that it was going to create a problem at this particular development.
When we reach a decision on a project we look at that individual
project because a condition was imposed on a project elsewhere does
not necessarily mean that it would fit on a different project in a
different place. They are all looked at on their different merits
and evaluated accordingly.
Councilmember Bauch said the applicant is not addressing noise
until he is forced to consider it.
Councilmember McFarland said he would like to know what a mitigated
DNS would do in terms of stipulations, in terms of covenants, in
terms of requirements we could put on the developer that we would
have a reasonable expectation of being met.
1
TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING MINUTES
November 16, 1987
Page 6
OLD BUSINESS - Contd.
Disc. on appeal to
BAR approval of 54
unit apt. (Gencor).
Appeal by Sunwood
Condo. Assn. on BAR
decision & SEPA det.
of non - significance
- contd.
RECESS
9:10 - 9:15 P.M.
City Attorney Martin said the effect of it would be to say if you
will agree to abide by these conditions, which the Council would list,
then you will not have to do an EIS. He changes his project to
incorporate the Council conditions. That is is what the mitigated DNS
would do.
mitigated
Councilmember McFarland said he was looking at the weight of a /DNS
as compared to the EIS.
City Attorney Martin said the weight of it is, it is a statement to
the applicant that says if you will do these things you won't have
to do an EIS. If you don't agree with them then the Council will
issue a determination that you have to do an EIS.
Mayor Van Dusen called for a 5 minute recess.
Mayor Van Dusen called the Regular Meeting of the Tukwila City
Council back to order, with Council Members present as previously
listed.
Cris Crumbaugh, 15215 52nd Avenue South, Tukwila, was sworn in by
the City Attorney. He stated he wanted to discuss the procedure.
The applicant asked him to be present and talk on the matter. Two
concerns, the first relates to equity on the EIS. Each individual
project is its own project and each has its own particular circums-
tances and SEPA says that. There are differences between the two
areas -- this is nested within some commercial and apartment areas.
The City in its comprehensive planning and zoning reaffirmed that
this was an area for multi - family developments. Issues on the other
hill are different in that regard. The applicant, throughout
the process with the City staff, has made their decision making and
designing in presenting it in view of the information gained from
other projects in the City. That is something I would like to say
about SEPA. We can build in this town and we have been a record of
concerns in problems and how we have dealt with them and the SEPA
process allows the responsible public official to take into account
other impact statements that have been done in the City in making
the decision. There have been many traffic reports, there was a
traffic report done for the office site right below here about two
years previous. A lot of reports have been generated in this area.
Under SEPA the responsible official can take those into account.
The applicant has taken these things into consideration. As a
result of what happened on Valley View across the way, they have
put in a certain type of windows, they have put in a certain type
of insulation, they have designed the project in certain ways. Your
system is working in this town and your planning staff is taking into
consideration past experiences and is now applying those in the
permitting process. They did take a lot of those things that were
developed out of past actions into account. From the applicants
point of view we do not think an EIS is appropriate. Once a decision
is made here then there is the BAR review process where there are
other issues to look at, also when the applicant comes back he goes
through a whole new process. There is time for the City to look
at some of these issues. The applicant is willing to do a noise
analysis, if necessary. They have already designed their project
taking into account the concerns regarding noise that were addressed
by staff in making the determination. As far as mitigation, the
applicant is willing to do a study on the noise if that is the concern.
On the traffic, he is willing to look at the traffic. The staff took
into consideration the reports, their knowledge, the whole background,
and determined that with 54 units they would not significantly
impact the environment. For an applicant to do an EIS, it is very
expensive and long process. These applicants inquired as to the statuE.
of this property when they applied and found it was planned for
apartments, it was zoned for apartments. Council has a right to look
at these things, but staff has been addressing these issues.
Councilmember Simpson asked if the apartments would be strictly
adult?
Steven Friedman, applicant, said they would be mainly studio
apartment and a few two - bedroom apartments. The two - bedroom may
have children, there will be six two - bedroom apartments. There is a
play area.
TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL f_JLAR MEETING MINUTES
November 16, 1987
Page 7
OLD BUSINESS - Contd.
Disc. on appeal to
BAR approval of 54
unit apt. (Gencor).
Appeal by Sunwood
Condo. Assn. on BAR
decision & SEPA det.
of non - significance
- contd.
576
Cris Crumbaugh said the Council does have concerns about apartments
on the hillsides. The applicant is willing to mitigate. This
should be addressed head -on in a planning process or relook at the
regulations governing these things.
Rian Thrower,representing Sunwood Condominium Association, said he
is beginning to get angry at this process. It seems there are a lot
of people here who are determined the Council not deal with these
issues here tonight. He said he was contacted by the City Attorney
in an effort to get the Sunwood Association to drop their appeal.
All of the issues are not germane for Council consideration. There
might be another place for the Association to consider this at.
They are saying this based on the comments two weeks ago, that what
we really wanted to talk about were the bigger issues. The more I
see and hear I think the deck is being stacked against the Council.
Everybody is saying, "let's make one more decision." My concern
is the incremental decision making process that is going on here.
One of the Council people raised the question if you don't require
it of the first guy do you require it of the second? the third guy?
the fourth guy? You finally end up in such a mess you say this is
why the process should have begun at day 1. Unfortunately, you have
to do that to the last guy here. This appeal was the only way
that we as the homeowners of Tukwila get before you people and you
are the policy- making people. You have staff people here who are
trying to slip one more by us -- I am talking about policy. Who
is going to determine what you want Tukwila to look like? Where
does comprehensive planning come in in this process we have here?
You are again relying upon the applicant to provide you with an
expert who is going to tell you what the sound conditions are going
to be like in their units. What do you think that answer will be?
They are paying the bills and they are going to get the answer they
want. You have raised tonight an issue we had not thought about.
As a homeowner in Sunwood I can tell you that freeway noise is a
real negative aspect of living on that hill. You have to live on that
hill on a rainy night when you hear those tires coming down I -5 or
I -405. One of the things that acts as a buffer for that noise is a
very large stand of maple trees. This proposal is going to knock
all of that buffering down. The noise level may be great in their
apartments because they may have triple glazed windows and lots of
insulation, but what is going to be the impact of knocking those
trees down on the Sunwood complex? You can't put this project in
without it having rippling effects on the rest of us. When you put
in one - bedroom units it will attract one parent low income families.
They may be full of kids. As this drags on and on you are getting
at the issues.
Councilmember Harris asked Mr.Throwerwhat he wants the Council to
look at? You said the "big picture." We're looking now at the
nitty gritty, we're not looking at the big picture as such. The
big picture is already drawn. The zoning is there.
Mr. Thrower said in his appeal he pointed out the City has comprehen-
sive land use planning and you have zoning that says another thing.
What determines the growth, what is setting policy here? If it is
the comprehensive land use planning then let's get it in place and
let's get the zoning fix and put some teeth into it. You have
comprehensive planning that acknowledges that you are trying to
discourage growth or development on hillsides, that is in your
comprehensive land use planning. It says not to develop on 20%
slopes. There are slopes in here in excess of 100 %. You have
objectives and policy in your comprehensive land use policy that
you want to maintain the hills in a wooded condition. They are going
to knock all of that vegetation off. You talk about recreational
space, about tennis courts, swimming pools, permanent facilities
as part of the goal in your comprehensive land use policy. In your
zoning code it does not require any of that stuff. Who is setting
policy? Your zoning is supposedly the teeth behind your comp plan
and you have it turned around. You are letting the zoning dictate
what is going to be the development and not the comprehensive plan.
Councilmember Harris said the zoning dictates where we will
have those things. We have a golf course, we have all kinds of open
space, tennis courts, etc. In each one of the developments that are
multiples a certain amount of open space is required.
TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL REGULAR'ETING MINUTES
November 16, 1987
Page 8
OLD BUSINESS - Contd.
Disc. on appeal to
BAR approval of 54
unit apt. (Gencor).
Appeal by Sunwood
Condo. Assn. - contd.
5763. .
Mr.hrower said if open space is meant why isn't it said like that?
Stop talking about recreational facilities. There are no
recreational facilities in that project. What you have is grass.
Someone can lay out in the sun. That is not recreational facilities.
That requirement has to be fulfilled by the City. If you don't
want recreational facilities on these complexes then why don't
you take it out of the comprehensive land use plan? I'll be back
here in two years or so when we are talking about the next development
that will be going in on the border of Sunwood. If you really want
to build on that hillside, if you really want to knock down all of
those trees, if you want developers to go in there and not put in
recreational facilities, say so.
Councilmember Harris said the Council can only do and say what the
zoning says or else change it.
Mr.h rower said that is his point. I came here and said I wanted to
talk about the bigger issue, the bigger issue of what have you got
in your comprehensive plan, how does it fit with zoning? I did not
want to get into all of these issues with you but you have raised
some good issues. This is apparently the way we can get to you and
raise the issue of the problems we are having to deal with. This
problem is not going away. I will be back if you don't deal with me
now.
Councilmember Harris said we have to do what we have ordinances for
or otherwise those of you who have bought in there will be sued
and we will be paying court costs because we have not allowed what
is allowed in our zoning. What we can do is put mitigating measures
on what we allow there, a quality of life type of project.
Mr. Thrower said he hears a lot about this suit issue.
Councilmember Harris said it is a threat that hangs over the City's
head all of the time. Many of our suits have gone to the Supreme
Court and they have said "this is what you must allow." The only
way we could change it is by changing the comprehensive plan or the
land use. Even if we changed it these people would still be allowed
to build there because the land use is such that allows it and also
we, under the BAR, could put stipulations on what has to be part of
the complex. We do not want any more land zoned as multiple use.
What we have we cannot take away without asking for a suit. We
would like to listen to things you would like changed.
Mr.Throwersaid he too is an elected offical. The City needs
comprehensive planning. He said he has attempted to take advantage
of the opportunities of getting before the Council to express the
concerns of the homeowners. This may not be the best form but it
is the form that was provided to him. He said he was concerned about
the bigger issues. The people of Sunwood are being affected.
It is a question of quality. You are the people who get to make
policy.
Mayor Van Dusen asked Mr.Thrower if it was his opinion that
the appeal was the only way of dealing with the comprehensive
plan?
Mr.Thrower said he guessed not. If he had come down to the City Hall
and had done his homework he could have found a way to get these
concerns before the City. This is the mechanism that he knew the most
about. About two years ago the Sunwood Association came before the
City in connection with Sunwood Phase III. At that time it came to
the attention of the Council how little the recreational facilities
were being taken care of by the developers. There were promises
that in committee some of these issues were going to be looked at.
Some teeth was going to be put into the recreation requirement.
A telephone call from the City Attorney representing the Planning
Commission, I assume the Council, and I don't know who all, stating
they had heard my opening remarks two weeks ago that I was interested
in talking about the larger issues and that if I could withdraw
the appeal maybe there would be some other vehicle for pursuing these
issues. I stated we were going to have a board meeting of the Sunwood
Association on Sunday and would present it for consideration. I had
a call today asking for the decision of the board, and I said
TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL r-luL MEETING MINUTES
November 16, 1987 C,
Page 9
OLD BUSINESS - Contd.
Disc. on appeal to
BAR approval of 54
unit apt. (Gencor).
Appeal by Sunwood
Condo. Assn. - contd.
Ord. #1448 - Levying
gen. taxes for City
for fiscal year
Jan. 1, 1988.
the board did not have anything to decide on and I felt that another
forum was going to be offered to us to voice our concerns with land
use and the issues that have been raised. I was told there were
other ways open to get to the Council other than through the appeal
process. The City Attorney said the City would rather that the
Mayor's office act as an intermediary or third party in bringing
this consensus together as to how the homeowners of Sunwood could
voice their concerns and how we could get these issues before the
Council.
Mayor Van Dusen said they just wanted to offer this as a way for
the homeowners to present a package to the Council.
Mr. Thrower said he understood that position.
Council President Morgan stated she would like a historic report on
whether or not EIS's have been required on similar projects in the
area. She stated she did not want to make a decision on the matter
this evening. She would ask the City Attorney if there was a list
of the concerns that have been discussed. There is the noise issue
and the traffic concerns. The answer to these concerns will determine
whether or not an EIS is desired. She said she would ask that the
Council not make a decision on the EIS at this time.
Rick Beeler, Planning Director, stated the City is in the budget
process and some of these big issues will have to be added if there
is an appeal to be added.
Mayor Van Dusen closed the Public Hearing at 10:05 p.m.
Councilmember Bauch said he was not interested in a fullblown EIS
process. He stated he was interested in some specific issues. We
have not heard a report on the soils. The Planning Director says
they are adequate. Have we asked anyone else if they are adequate?
He stated he was willing to compromise if someone will come up with
a list of answers to the concerns.
*COUNCILMEMBER BAUCH WITHDREW HIS MOTION, WITH THE APPROVAL OF THE
SECOND (SIMPSON).
MOVED BY MCFARLAND, SECONDED BY STOKNES, THAT A MITIGATED DNS BE
REQUIRED OF THE APPLICANT THAT WILL ADDRESS SPECIFIC ISSUES OF NOISE
LEVELS BOTH WITHIN THE DWELLINGS, OUTSIDE THE DWELLINGS AND THE
RECREATION AREAS, TO INCLUDE THE ISSUE OF DEALING WITH MAXIMUM
RETENTION OF THE NATURAL VEGETATION AND INCLUSION OF ANY ADDITIONAL
VEGETATION OR REASONABLY AND MEANINGFUL MITIGATE NOISE IMPACTS
AND VISUAL IMPACTS ON SURROUNDING DEVELOPMENT AND REQUIRE THE APPLICANT
TO STIPULATE TO MORE SPECIFIC MITIGATING MEASURES IN COOPERATING WITH
THE CITY OF TUKWILA AND ADJOINING PROPERTY OWNERS IN ORDER TO RESOLVE
THE JOINT ACCESS PROBLEMS. *
MOVED BY BAUCH, SECONDED BY SIMPSON, TO AMEND THE MOTION AND ADD THE
ISSUES THAT WERE RAISED BY THE APPLICANT ON SOILS STABILITY AND
DRAINAGE. MOTION CARRIED.
*MOTION CARRIED, AS AMENDED.
MOVED BY SIMPSON, SECONDED BY DUFFIE, TO CONTINUE THE HEARING ON THE
BAR DECISION TO DECEMBER 7. *
City Attorney Martin said this information can be taken back to the
BAR and they can determine the requirement.
*MOTION WITHDRAWN BY COUNCILMEMBER SIMPSON, WITH APPROVAL OF SECOND
(DUFFIE).
MOVED BY BAUCH, SECONDED BY MORGAN, THAT THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE BE
READ BY TITLE ONLY. MOTION CARRIED.
City Attorney Martin read an ordinance of the City of Tukwila, Wash-
ington levying the general taxes for the City of Tukwila in King
County for the fiscal year commencing January 1, 1988, on all
property, both real and personal, in said city which is subject to
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
/ cs
APPENDIX C
City of Tukwila
6200 Southcenter Boulevard
Tukwila Washington 98188
(201) 433 -1800
Gary L. VanDusen, Mayor
MEMORANDUM
Board of Architectural Review
Planning Department
October 12, 1987
87 -5 -DR: GENCOR
On September 24, 1987, the BAR approved with conditions the modified plans
for a 54 -unit apartment complex for Gencor. On September 28,1987, the
Sunwood Condominium Association appealed the BAR decision. Due to the
several modifications the applicant made in response to BAR concerns,
Planning staff has consolidated the Findings, Conclusions and Conditions of
approval for BAR review and adoption. By consolidating BAR actions, this
will simplify the City Council review of the appeal. The public hearing
for the appeal is scheduled for November 2, 1987.
City of Tukwila
6200 Southcenter Boulevard
Tukwila Washington 98188
OM 433 -1800
Gary L. VanDusen, Mayor
REVISED STAFF REPORT
to the Board of Architectural Review
Prepared October 12, 1987
HEARING DATE: August 27, 1987 and •September 24, 1987
FILE NUMBER: 87 -5 -DR: Gencor
APPLICANT: Azaria Rousso, Architect
REQUEST: Design review of a 57 -unit apartment project.
LOCATION: 5700 block of Southcenter Boulevard.
ACREAGE: 4 acres.
COMPREHENSIVE
PLAN DESIGNATION: Medium Density Residential
ZONING DISTRICT: Multiple Residence High Density (RMH)
SEPA
DETERMINATION: DNS dated August 13, 1987
ATTACHMENTS: (A) Landscape Plan
(B) Building Elevation
(C) Typical South Elevation
(D) Floor Plan
g
•
1 �
G
9u
0
0
O
It•
1
1
+
6
•
• C
1j.
Pi
2v
•
•
JI
1
J►
• 1
. I, I
34.Lv
• ..._ ..__. - -� w _... - • :.:�. ..._ •
i
t .. .......
3
P�+
i
• *01
I •
i
1
9
1
r%
• • • • • • ""1 1 I
I * .......0 ...Ir. 0 • ..........,...."...,......•
ol••• • •••••••• .. •
ED R.c.K.)/A,
'
4
F.t.L.("..1 T:).
PAP-:V"?
2-K4 Mr%) t>
w,/ 4,1P—
SorNc:r4.. V.-11 tx.„4,..rr
in
tz 1514 Wi tz
4--
(1_
=3
air r'r: -
. =77-1 • .
() flP 4 SA"'
" 0
•
:FAA t›. . ( .1131T
$'44,
•••■••
• ft • ea,
• A. 0.
C..; L
1 7..171
•
'•
1
1••■••••••101 t
1
t 2.1
OCT 9
1987
CITY OF D,AVvri_A
NNING DEPT.
ob.) % P12'
, - ......:. -----.... -Zz. .1..... ..:c.a.
• • r1 .—.... • ;•••• - • — r — l• • ... ++1 " I :...•.!...—•••••• rrt :•■•■
I
I li) _ "0 d l 1 1 161 ;.,..,
1..0
, :).
...
i-t.. ...
......._.... . 2
I 4 I I 0 Ir Oce-ta •
I , ° i . I
i
I . --................___.
i i
i - s
1 1 I
i 1
j
= 0 /
I
I I
0 i 1
! i
....
11
•
....44+-4**
If rc.Ive' %/it), ---
. P."
i t
• 1‘..:1•CV.1:04--
• 3 11-1■6%.1 *'A (_L
'AVIA/00D s I Le,
\11
•-•-• - Li •
3 e.
rfp. 111 4 4 41Z..T 4 -e
11••••■••••■••■•‘•
a . LAO. beiColt. VIJIT
fitt3k,119.14'.
irt
'
C.0
I Ki
8 11
•••••••••■•••■••...... •
rrif 7 •••-••,
•
•
•
ojft
oc
PLI\
• i
1 — Ct'3 3
T 9 19871
OF TUKVVia
NNING D'EPT.
•
a
•
4
PICIEIIII
111 . arzci
ANIS
IIISIEIMIL
P
t
1
die
!Of;
H
,,��
2HL�:rAeC ay..s,.:..ss,....;�,_..� k :rY�.'�N.r.e:t„�t.�.3.- =_cu7:iF ii: F%....r. 2�e.,: M', 4•'. 3.>,_. �....; . >.'r2cid' ba..:.r.. e.., S�+acr .��
r
City of Tukwila
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
6200 Southcenter Boulevard
Tukwila, Washington 98188
(206) 433 -1849
Mr. Ryan S. Thrower, Director
Sunwood Condominium Association
15232 Sunwood Boulevard
Tukwila, WA 98188
Subject: CASE 87 -5 -DR: GENCOR
Dear Mr. Thrower:
October 5, 1987
This letter is to confirm that the City has received your letter dated
September 28, 1987, appealing the SEPA and BAR decisions. Attached for
your information is-the Tukwila Municipal Code procedures for appealing
SEPA and BAR decisions. As noted in your letter, the appeal is in the
proper form. However, no determination has been made as to the validity of
your appeal. This is will be discussed at the City Council public hearing.
Due to the several revisions made in the Gencor proposal and the publishing
of the Public Notice for the SEPA decision, City staff will be consolidat-
ing the findings, conclusions and conditions for BAR adoption at their
October 22, 1987 meeting. The City Council hearing is tentatively being
scheduled for November 2, 1987.
If you should have any further questions regarding this matter, please feel
free to call.
JP /sjn
attachment
cc: Maxine Anderson, City Clerk
Jim Haney, City Attorney
Steve Friedman
Sincerely,
Jack Pace
Senior Planner
wr.
.„ ti i.7:t.,. NIZroattc.:Cra�i,��,�f?„s <4r..
LIJOA rat
MS. MAXINE ANDERSON
CITY CLERK
CITY OF TUKWILA
6200 SOUTHCENTER BLVD
TUKWILA WA 98188
APPENDIX A
LETTER OF APPEAL
THE REASONS FOR THIS APPEAL ARE AS FOLLOWS:
(EMPHASIS ADDED)'
SEPTEMBER
, 1987
REFERENCE: APPEAL OF BOARD OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW
DECISION OF SEPTEMBER 24 1985
-- FILE NO.87 -5 -DR: GENCOR
I AM WRITING ON BEHALF OF THE SUNW000 CONDOMINIUM HOMEOWNER
ASSOCIATION TO APPEAL THE DECISION BY THE TUKWILA BOARD OF
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW APPROVING OF THE ABOVE REFERENCED MATTER.
THE BOARD'S DECISION WAS MADE AT A PUBLIC HEARING HELD ON
SEPTEMBER 24 1987. WE ARE DIRECTING THIS APPEAL TO YOU PURSUANT
TO THE REQUIREMENTS SET FORTH IN SECTION 18.90.020 OF THE TUKWILA
ZONING CODE. WE HAVE DISCUSSED THIS MATTER WITH MR. PACE OF THE
PLANNING DEPARTMENT AND HAVE BEEN ASSURED THAT IT IS THE PROPER
PROCEDURE TO FOLLOW.
1) ON AUGUST 13 1987 A DECLARATION OF NON- SIGNIFICANCE WAS
ISSUED FOR THIS PROPOSED DESIGN PLAN. SEPA RULES AND THE TUKWILA
MUNICIPAL CODE ALLOWS FOR WITHDRAWAL OF A DECLARATION OF
NON- SIGNIFICANCE UNDER CERTAIN CONDITIONS. WAC 197 -11 -340
(ADOPTED BY REFERENCE IN TUKWILA ORDINANCE NO. 1331, SEC. 10)
STATES
"(2)(f) THE RESPONSIBLE .OFFICIAL SHALL RECONSIDER THE
DNS BASED ON TIMELY . COMMENTS•.. AND MAY.. RETAIN:: ORMODIF.Y:::..:,
THE DNS , OR ,;IF ,,THE- RESPONSIBLE : <OFFICIALAETERMINES THAT
SLG I t ELIKELY WITHDRAW" THE DNS
"(3)(a) THE LEAD AGENCY SHALL WITHDRAW A DNS IF:
"(i) THERE ARE . : . SUBSTANTIAL .CHANGES .TO A. PROPOSAL
SO THAT : ,THE PROPOSAL IS LIKELY', TO HAVE SIGNIFICANT
ADVERSE >ENVIRONMENTAL .IMPACT;
"(ii) THERE IS SIGNIFICANT NEW INFORMATION
INDICATING, OR ON, A PROPOSAL'S PROBABLE; OR
"(iii).. THE. .DNS..WAS. BY MISREPRESENTATION
FROM A THE O ACTIIONS I OF AN APPLICANT, ANYCSUBSEQUENTLTED •
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST ON THE PROPOSAL SHALL BE
PREPARED DIRECTLY BY THE LEAD AGENCY'OR ITS CONSULTANT
AT THE EXPENSE OF THE APPLICANT."
WE ARE CONCERNED THAT IN MAKING THE NON- SIGNIFICANCE
DETERMINATION INADEQUATE ATTENTION WAS .PAID-TO .::.THE - .FOLLOWING
PROBLEMS: (1 $ ALL OR:P.ORTIONS OF PROPERTY MAY " DESIGNATED
i AS "ENVIRONMENTALLY,SENSITIVE " IN THE: CITY'
( ., 2 ) A ' SIGNIFICANT PORTION OF THE ,PROPERTY CONTAINS• SLOPES
`EXCESS - OF %; (3)PROBLEMS WITH SURFACE WATER: DRAINAGE EXIST;
( 4) NO ANALYSIS :WAS MADE OF THE POTENTIAL VIEW' BLOCKAGE' LOSS OF
: L IGH T ANDSA
R "RIGHTS AND THE GENERAL VISUAL IMPACT OF THE
FURTHER WE ARE CONCERNED THAT IN THE EVENT THE APPLICANT SEEKS
A BUILDING AND OTHER LAND USE PERMIT FOR THIS PROJECT, THE
APPLICANT WILL CONTENO THAT NO ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT IS
REQUIRED. FOR THE PROJECT. HOWEVER, THE,ONS;WAS ISSUED ':ON.THE
BASIS OF AN INADEQUATE AND INCOMPLETE_CHECKLIST :AND : PLAN ` ,, :
AND'; DID NOT.;CONSIDER IIRTERIALS THAT THE APPLICANT. HAS SINCE'.AODED
OR`;REVISED.- WE THEREFORE REQUEST THAT THE DNS BE WITHDRAWN
ACCORDING TO EITHER WAC 197- 11- 340(2)(f) OR WAC
197- 11- 340(3)0)(1i) AND FURTHER REQUEST THAT THE APPLICANT BE
REQUIRED TO SUBMIT A NEW ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST AT THE TIME THAT
ANY PERMIT IS SOUGHT FOR DEVELOPMENT OF THE PROJECT. IN THIS
CASE SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCES MAY DEVELOP BETWEEN THE NON- PROJECT
BAR DESIGN REVIEW AND A SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT PROJECT.
2) THE APPLICANT HAS FAILED TO COMPLY WITH THE REQUIREMENTS
OF TMC 18.52.060 WITH RESPECT TO RECREATIONAL SPACE. THE
APPLICANT HAS MADE INADEQUATE PROVISION FOR ANY COVERED
RECREATION SPACE, OR OF ANY SINGLE PURPOSE PERMANENT FACILITY
SUCH AS A SWIMMING POOL OR TENNIS COURT.
IN ADDITION THE APPLICANT HAS PROVIDED CALCULATIONS BASED UPON
AREAS OF OPEN SPACE WITHIN THE SITE AND ATTEMPTED TO CAST SUCH
CALCULATIONS AS FULFILLING REQUIREMENTS FOR UNCOVERED
RECREATIONAL SPACE. THE TUKWILA MUNICIPAL CODE DIFFERENTIATES
BETWEEN "OPEN SPACE" AND "RECREATION SPACE, UNCOVERED ". TMC
18.06.580 DEFINES "OPEN SPACE" AS "THAT AREA OF A SITE WHICH IS
FREE AND CLEAR OF BUILDING AND STRUCTURES AND IS OPEN AND
UNOBSTRUCTED FROM THE GROUND TO THE SKY." TMC 18.06.650 DEFINES
"RECREATION SPACE UNCOVERED" AS "AN AREA OF GROUND CHARACTERIZED
BY A NATURAL SURFACE, SUCH AS LAWN, FOREST, OR SANDBOX.
THE APPLICANT HAS MADE AN INADEQUATE ANALYSIS OF THE EXTENT TO
WHICH THIS UNCOVERED RECREATION SPACE IS ON SLOPE GREATER THAN
18.52. 060( 3r)( B). TFURTHERETHERELHA : SLOPE, Q
EQUATESCREE BY TMC
OTHER BUFFER TO SEPARATE THE RECREATION SPACE FROM PARKING AREAS,
DRIVEWAYS OR PUBLIC STREETS. TMC18.52.060(4)(B).
3) THE APPLICANT HAS INADEQUATELY COMPLIED WITH CITY OF
TUKWILA COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE POLICY PLAN. THE COMPREHENSIVE
LAND USE POLICY PLAN PROVIDES GUIDELINES FOR THE CITY'S
DEVELOPMENT, AND PLACES THE CITY'S ZONING ORDINANCE IN CONTEXT AS
AN IMPLEMENTATION DEVISE FOR THE PLAN'S GOALS. NOT ONLY HAS THE
APPLICANT INADEQUATELY ADDRESSED THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE ZONING
ORDINANCE, BUT THE APPLICANT HAS ALSO FAILED TO ADEQUATELY
ADDRESS THE CONCERNS SET FORTH IN THE PLAN'S "GENERAL GOALS ".
THIS IS PARTICULARLY TRUE OF GOAL 1 WHICH REQUIRES THE CITY
"THROUGH THE REGULATION OF LAND USE AND COMMUNITY GROWTH TO
ADDITION, GOAL CITYETOL "STRIKEEAOBALANCEUBET IN
BETWEEN
ECONOMY AND ENVIRONMENT. WHILE THE CITY SHOULD ENCOURAGE
DEVELOPMENT AND, STRIVE TO PROVIDE A HEALTHY ECONOMIC CLIMATE, IT
SHOULD BE SENSITIVE TO THE NATURAL LIMITATIONS AND HAZARDS
IMPOSED BY THE PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT AND THE TREMENDOUS NATURAL
AMENITIES WHICH THAT ENVIRONMENT AFFORDS ".
FURTHER THE APPLICANT HAS FAILED TO ADEQUATELY ADDRESS THE GOALS
FOR THE ELEMENTS OF "NATURAL ENVIRONMENT' "OPEN SPACE ". AND
RESIDENCE ".
WITH RESPECT TO THE "NATURAL ENVIRONMENT" ELEMENT THIS PROPOSAL
FAILS TO MEET OBJECTIVES OF POLICY 1 2 AND 3 OF OBJECTIVE OF
OBJECTIVE NO. 1. WITH RESPECT TO OBJECTIVE NO. 3. THE PROPOSAL
"DISCOURAGE DEVELOPMENT ON SLOPE IN EXCESS OF 20X" POLICY NO. 2,
TO r ► ", AND POLICY N0.3 TO
"PRE - r ND PR r ���' r `' r''L LAND FORM ".
WITH RESPECT TO THE ELEMENT, THE PROPOSAL FAILS TO
MEET THE GOAL OF OBJE PARTICULARLY: POLICY I, TO
"STRIVE TO AND WOODED AREAS IN A�
� r- -- `r AND REVEGETATION OF DENUDE AREAS
E PROCESS OF DEVELOPMENT" ANO POLICY 3 TO PROVIDE FOR
ACTIVE RECREATION AREAS (BALLFIELDS�, TENNIS COURTS, SWIMMING
POOLS PLAY COMMUNITY CENTERS) CONSISTENT WITH THE NEEDS
a " OF THE COMMUNITY ".
WITH
EET TO INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITTEDLTOATH TO
E
FOLLOWING POLICIES: POLICY 7 TO "ENCOURAGE THE PROVISION OF
RECREATIONAL OPEN SPACE WITHIN MULTIPLE-FAMILY DEVELOPMENTS ";
POLICY 4 TO "ENCOURAGE MINIMUM CARE AND MAINTENANCE LEVEL FOR
UNDEVELOPED OPEN SPACE ".
4) FINALLY DURING THE PUBLIC HEARING ONE OF THE MEMBERS OF
THE BOARD CONDUCTED HIMSELF IN SUCH A MANNER AS TO VIOLATE THE
APPEARANCE OF FAIRNESS AND TO GIVE RISE TO A REASONABLE SUSPICION
THAT HE HAD DISCUSSED THE DETAILS OF THE CASE PRIOR TO THE PUBLIC
THAT ATSTHEAHEAR�ING.LWESDOINART,
NOT
WANT TO HIGHLIGHT THIS AS AN ISSUE BECAUSE OF THE SENSITIVITY
SURROUNDING ANY ACCUSATION OF IMPROPER CONDUCT; HOWEVER WE FEEL
THAT WE MUST RAISE THIS ISSUE AT THIS TIME IN ORDER TO PRESERVE
OUR RIGHTS WITH REGARD TO IT. IF THE CITY COUNCIL BELIEVES IT IS
NECESSARY WE WILL BE PREPARED TO DETAIL OUR CONCERNS IN
CONNECTION WITH THIS ISSUE.
I WILL BE OUT OF TOWN ON PERSONAL BUSINESS FROM SEPTEMBER 30
THROUGH OCTOBER 14 AND WOULD THEREFORE, REQUEST THAT THE CITY
COUNCIL HOLD A PUBLIC HEARING` AT A DATE LATER THAN OCTOBER 14,
1987 TO CONSIDER A REVERSAL OF THE APPROVAL BY THE BOARD OF
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW OF THE ABOVE REFERENCED MATTER. AT THAT
HEARING WE WILL BE PREPARED TO FURTHER PRESENT OUR CONCERNS.
RULY YOURS,
RYAN'S. THROWER
DIRECTOR
SUNW00D CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION
15232 SUNW000 BLVD.
TUKWILA, WA. 98188
MS. MAXINE ANDERSON
CITY CLERK
CITY OF TUKWILA
6200 SOUTHCENTER BLVD
TUKWILA WA 98188
APPENDIX B
LETTER OF APPEAL
SEPTEMBER 28. 1987
REFERENCE: APPEAL OF BOARD OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW
DECISION OF SEPTEMBER 24 1985
-- FILE NO.87 -5 -DR: GENCOR
I AM WRITING ON BEHALF OF THE SUNW000 CONDOMINIUM HOMEOWNER
ASSOCIATION TO APPEAL THE DECISION BY THE TUKWILA BOARD OF
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW APPROVING OF THE ABOVE REFERENCED MATTER.
THE BOARD'S DECISION WAS MADE AT A PUBLIC HEARING HELD ON
SEPTEMBER 24 1987. WE ARE DIRECTING THIS APPEAL TO YOU PURSUANT
TO THE REQUIREMENTS SET FORTH IN SECTION 18.90.020 OF THE TUKWILA
ZONING CODE. WE HAVE DISCUSSED THIS MATTER WITH MR. PACE OF THE
PLANNING DEPARTMENT AND HAVE BEEN ASSURED THAT IT IS THE PROPER
PROCEDURE TO FOLLOW.
THE REASONS FOR THIS APPEAL ARE AS FOLLOWS:
1) ON AUGUST 13 1987 A DECLARATION OF NON- SIGNIFICANCE WAS
ISSUED FOR THIS PROPOSED DESIGN PLAN. SEPA RULES AND THE TUKWILA
MUNICIPAL CODE ALLOWS FOR WITHDRAWAL OF A DECLARATION OF
NON - SIGNIFICANCE UNDER CERTAIN CONDITIONS. WAC 197 -11 -340
(ADOPTED BY REFERENCE IN TUKWILA ORDINANCE NO. 1331, SEC. 10)
STATES
"(2)(f) THE RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL SHALL RECONSIDER THE
DNS BASED ON TIMELY COMMENTS AND MAY RETAIN OR MODIFY
THE DNS SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE LIKELY. WITHDRAW
OR SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS . . . .
"(3)(a) THE LEAD AGENCY SHALL WITHDRAW A DNS IF:
"(i) THERE ARE SUBSTANTIAL CHANGES TO A PROPOSAL
SO THAT THE PROPOSAL IS LIKELY TO HAVE SIGNIFICANT
ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT;
"(ii) THERE IS SIGNIFICANT NEW INFORMATION
INDICATING, OR ON, A PROPOSAL'S PROBABLE; OR
"(iii) THE DNS WAS PROCURED BY MISREPRESENTATION
OR LACK OF MATERIAL DISCLOSURE; IF SUCH DNS RESULTED
FROM THE ACTIONS OF AN APPLICANT, ANY SUBSEQUENT
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST ON THE PROPOSAL SHALL BE
.PREPARED DIRECTLY BY THE LEAD AGENCY'OR ITS CONSULTANT
AT THE EXPENSE OF THE APPLICANT.
(EMPHASIS ADDED)
WE ARE CONCERNED THAT IN MAKING THE NON- SIGNIFICANCE
DETERMINATION, INADEQUATE ATTENTION WAS PAID TO THE FOLLOWING
PROBLEMS: (1) ALL OR PORTIONS OF THE PROPERTY MAY BE DESIGNATED
AS "ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE " IN THE CITY'S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN;
(2) A SIGNIFICANT PORTION OF THE PROPERTY CONTAINS SLOPES IN
EXCESS OF 20%; (3) PROBLEMS WITH SURFACE WATER DRAINAGE EXIST;
(4) NO ANALYSIS WAS MADE OF THE POTENTIAL VIEW BLOCKAGE, LOSS OF
LIGHT AND AIR RIGHTS, AND THE GENERAL VISUAL IMPACT OF THE
STRUCTURES ON THE SITE.
FURTHER WE ARE CONCERNED THAT IN THE EVENT THE APPLICANT SEEKS
A BUILDING AND OTHER LAND USE FSERMIT FOR THIS PROJECT, THE
APPLICANT WILL CONTEND THAT NO ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT IS
REQUIRED FOR THE PROJECT. HOWEVER, THE DNS WAS ISSUED ON THE
BASIS OF AN INADEQUATE AND INCOMPLETE CHECKLIST AND DESIGN PLAN
AND DID NOT CONSIDER MATERIALS THAT THE APPLICANT HAS SINCE ADDED
OR REVISED. WE THEREFORE REQUEST THAT THE DNS BE WITHDRAWN
ACCORDING TO EITHER WAC 197- 11- 340(2)(f) OR WAC
197- 11- 340(3)(a)(ii) AND FURTHER REQUEST THAT THE APPLICANT BE
REQUIRED TO SUBMIT A NEW ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST AT THE TIME THAT
ANY PERMIT IS SOUGHT FOR DEVELOPMENT OF THE PROJECT. IN THIS
CASE SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCES MAY DEVELOP BETWEEN THE NON- PROJECT
BAR
CASE, REVIEW AND A SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT PROJECT.
2) THE APPLICANT HAS FAILED TO COMPLY WITH THE REQUIREMENTS
OF TMC .18.52.060 WITH RESPECT TO RECREATIONAL SPACE. THE
APPLICANT HAS MADE INADEQUATE PROVISION FOR ANY COVERED
RECREATION SPACE, OR OF ANY SINGLE PURPOSE PERMANENT FACILITY
SUCH AS A SWIMMING POOL OR TENNIS COURT.
IN ADDITION THE APPLICANT HAS PROVIDED CALCULATIONS BASED UPON
AREAS OF OPEN SPACE WITHIN THE SITE ANO ATTEMPTED TO CAST SUCH
CALCULATIONS AS FULFILLING REQUIREMENTS FOR UNCOVERED
RECREATIONAL SPACE. THE TUKWILA MUNICIPAL CODE DIFFERENTIATES
BETWEEN "OPEN SPACE" AND "RECREATION SPACE, UNCOVERED ". TMC
18.06.580 DEFINES "OPEN SPACE" AS "THAT AREA OF A SITE WHICH IS
FREE AND CLEAR OF BUILDING ANO STRUCTURES AND IS OPEN ANO
UNOBSTRUCTED FROM THE GROUND TO THE SKY." TMC 18.06.650 OEFINES
"RECREATION SPACE, UNCOVERED" AS "AN AREA OF GROUND CHARACTERIZED
BY A NATURAL SURFACE, SUCH AS LAWN, FOREST, OR SANDBOX.
THE APPLICANT HAS MADE AN INADEQUATE ANALYSIS OF THE EXTENT TO
WHICH THIS UNCOVERED RECREATION SPACE IS ON SLOPE GREATER THAN
FOUR HORIZONTAL TO ONE VERTICAL (4:1) SLOPE AS REQUIRED BY TMC
18.52.060(3)(B). FURTHER THERE HAS BEEN INADEQUATE SCREENING OR
OTHER BUFFER TO SEPARATE THE RECREATION SPACE FROM PARKING AREAS,
DRIVEWAYS OR PUBLIC STREETS. TMC18.52.060(4)(B).
3) THE APPLICANT HAS INADEQUATELY COMPLIED WITH CITY OF
TUKWILA COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE POLICY PLAN. THE COMPREHENSIVE
LAND USE POLICY PLAN PROVIDES GUIDELINES FOR THE CITY'S
DEVELOPMENT, AND PLACES THE CITY'S ZONING ORDINANCE IN CONTEXT AS
AN IMPLEMENTATION OEVISE FOR THE PLAN'S GOALS. NOT ONLY HAS THE •
APPLICANT INADEQUATELY ADDRESSED THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE ZONING
ORDINANCE, BUT THE APPLICANT HAS ALSO FAILED TO ADEQUATELY
ADDRESS THE CONCERNS SET FORTH IN THE PLAN'S "GENERAL GOALS ".
THIS IS PARTICULARLY TRUE. OF GOAL 1 WHICH REQUIRES THE CITY
"THROUGH THE REGULATION OF LAND USE AND COMMUNITY GROWTH, TO
PROMOTE THE HEALTH SAFETY AND GENERAL WELFARE OF THE PUBLIC" IN
ADDITION, GOAL 5 REQUIRES THE CITY TO "STRIKE A BALANCE BETWEEN
ECONOMY AND ENVIRONMENT. WHILE THE CITY SHOULD ENCOURAGE
DEVELOPMENT AND. STRIVE TO PROVIDE A HEALTHY ECONOMIC CLIMATE, IT
SHOULD BE SENSITIVE TO THE NATURAL LIMITATIONS AND HAZARDS
IMPOSED BY THE PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT AND THE TREMENDOUS NATURAL
AMENITIES WHICH THAT ENVIRONMENT AFFORDS ".
FURTHER THE APPLICANT HAS FAILED TO ADEQUATELY ADDRESS THE GOALS
FOR THE ELEMENTS OF "NATURAL ENVIRONMENT "., "OPEN SPACE ", AND
RESIDENCE ".
WITH RESPECT TO THE "NATURAL ENVIRONMENT" ELEMENT THIS PROPOSAL
FAILS TO MEET OBJECTIVES OF POLICY 1 2 AND 3 OF OBJECTIVE OF
OBJECTIVE NO. 1, WITH RESPECT TO OBJECTIVE NO. 3. THE PROPOSAL
"DISCOURAGE DEVELOPMENT ON SLOPE IN EXCESS OF 20%" POLICY NO. 2,
TO "PRESERVE THE VIEW OF HILLSIDE RESIDENTS ", AND POLICY NO.3 TO
"PRESERVE AND PROMOTE THE QUALITY OF NATURAL LAND FORM ".
WITH RESPECT TO THE "OPEN SPACE" ELEMENT, THE PROPOSAL FAILS TO
MEET THE GOAL OF OBJECTIVE N0.1, PARTICULARLY: POLICY 1, TO
"STRIVE TO PRESERVE STEEP HILLSIDES AND WOODED AREAS IN A SCENIC
CONDITION, ENCOURAGE REPLANTING AND REVEGETATION OF DENUDED AREAS
NOT IN THE PROCESS OF DEVELOPMENT" AND POLICY 3, TO PROVIDE FOR
ACTIVE RECREATION AREAS (BALLFIELDS, TENNIS COURTS, SWIMMING
POOLS PLAYGROUNDS, COMMUNITY CENTERS) CONSISTENT WITH THE NEEDS
OF THE COMMUNITY ".
WITH RESPECT TO THE "RESIDENCE" ELEMENT THE PROPOSAL FAILS TO
MEET A NUMBER OF CRITERIA, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE
FOLLOWING POLICIES: POLICY 7, TO "ENCOURAGE THE PROVISION OF
RECREATIONAL OPEN SPACE WITHIN MULTIPLE - FAMILY DEVELOPMENTS ";
POLICY 4 TO "ENCOURAGE MINIMUM CARE AND MAINTENANCE LEVEL FOR
UNDEVELOPED OPEN SPACE ".
4) FINALLY DURING THE PUBLIC HEARING ONE OF THE MEMBERS OF
THE BOARD CONDUCTED HIMSELF IN SUCH A MANNER AS TO VIOLATE THE
APPEARANCE OF FAIRNESS AND TO GIVE RISE TO A REASONABLE SUSPICION
THAT HE HAD DISCUSSED THE DETAILS OF THE CASE PRIOR TO THE PUBLIC
HEARING AND THAT HE HAD DECIDED THE CASE BASED AT LEAST IN PART,
ON INFORMATION OTHER THAN PRESENTED AT THE HEARING. WE DO NOT
WANT TO HIGHLIGHT THIS AS AN ISSUE BECAUSE OF THE SENSITIVITY
SURROUNDING ANY ACCUSATION OF IMPROPER CONDUCT; HOWEVER WE FEEL
THAT WE MUST RAISE THIS ISSUE AT THIS TIME IN ORDER TO PRESERVE
OUR RIGHTS WITH REGARD TO IT. IF THE CITY COUNCIL BELIEVES IT IS
NECESSARY WE WILL BE PREPARED TO OETAIL OUR CONCERNS IN
CONNECTION WITH THIS ISSUE.
I WILL BE OUT OF TOWN ON PERSONAL BUSINESS FROM SEPTEMBER 30
THROUGH OCTOBER 14 AND WOULD, THEREFORE, REQUEST THAT THE CITY
COUNCIL HOLD A PUBLIC HEARING AT A DATE LATER THAN OCTOBER 14,
1987 TO CONSIDER A REVERSAL OF THE APPROVAL BY THE BOARD OF
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW OF THE ABOVE REFERENCED MATTER. AT THAT
HEARING WE WILL BE PREPARED TO FURTHER PRESENT OUR CONCERNS.
RULY YOURS,
RYAN'S. THROWER:
DIRECTOR, .
SUNW00D CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION
15232 SUNWOOD.BLUD.
TUKWILA , WA. 98188
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
On September 24, 1987, the BAR approved with conditions the modified plans
for a 54 -unit apartment complex for Gencor. On September 28,1987, the
Sunwood Condominium Association appealed the BAR decision. Due to the
several modifications the applicant made in response to BAR concerns,
Planning staff has consolidated the Findings, Conclusions and Conditions of
approval for BAR review and adoption. By consolidating BAR actions, this
will simplify the City Council review of the appeal. The public hearing
for the appeal is scheduled for November 2, 1987.
/cs
APPENDIX C
City of Tukwila
6200 Southcenter Boulevard
Tukwila Washington 98188
CON 433 -1800
Gary L. VanDusen, Mayor
MEMORANDUM
Board of Architectural Review
Planning Department
October 12, 1987
87 -5 -DR: GENCOR
HEARING DATE:
FILE NUMBER:
APPLICANT:
REQUEST:
LOCATION:
ACREAGE:
COMPREHENSIVE
PLAN DESIGNATION:
ZONING DISTRICT:
SEPA
DETERMINATION:
ATTACHMENTS:
City of Tukwila
6200 Southcenter Boulevard
Tukwila Washington 98188
(204) 433.1800
Gary 1. VanDusen, Mayor
REVISED STAFF REPORT
to the Board of Architectural Review
Prepared October 12, 1987
August 27, 1987 and September 24, 1987
87 -5 -DR: Gencor
Azaria Rousso, Architect
Design review of a 57- unit artment project.
5700 block of Southcenter Boulevard.
4 acres.
Medium Density Residential
Multiple Residence High Density (RMH)
DNS dated August 13, 1987
(A) Landscape Plan
(B) Building Elevation
(C) Typical South Elevation
(D) Floor Plan
STAFF REPORT
VICINITY /SITE INFORMATION
1. Project Description: A 54 -unit apartment complex containing five structures
which will be three stories in height.
2. Existing Development: There are no structures on the site.
3. Surrounding land Use: To the south, there is a Denny's restaurant and
convenience store /gas station. To the north and east, there are apartments
and Sunwood condominiums.
4. Terrain: The site is hilly with slopes as steep s 100 percent. ---
5. Vegetation: The vegetation consists of blackberry bushes and trees. At-
tachment A shows the existing trees that will remain on the site.
6. Access: Street access will be provided from Southcenter Boulevard. The
grades of the access road will not exceed 15% for fire truck access.
access.
DECISION CRITERIA
REVISED FINDINGS
87 -5 -DR: Gencor
Page 2
The applicable Tukwila Municipal Code (TMC) design review.criteria are listed
below in bold, followed by pertinent findings.
1. TMC 18.60.050(1) - Relationship of Structure to Site
As depicted by Attachment A, B and C, the structures will be located to the
south of the site to provide views for the residents and to provide greater
separation between structures uphill. The vertical and horizontal offsets
allow the structures to blend into the hillside versus a structure with no
offsets.
There will be a retaining wall for the parking lot south of Building "B ".
The wall will be approximately five feet in height. The parking lot to the
east will contain 60 parking spaces with a landscape island in the middle.
This landscape island is being provided to moderate the visual impact of the
large paved area.
2. TMC 18.60.050(2) - Relationship of Structure and Site to Adjoining Area
The applicant is proposing a separated trail system that will connect with
the existing City trail, as well as connect with Southcenter Boulevard. The
.applicant's trail system will also provide a recreational amenity to the
site.
, STAFF REPORT
87 -5 -DR: Gencor
Page 3
The southern buffer will be about 40 feet wide and retain some of the
existing vegetation due to the steep slopes. To the north, the landscape
buffer will vary from 10 to 30 feet. The landscape area abutting Sunwood is
20 feet wide, while the landscape area abutting Tukwila Apartments varies
from 10 to 60 feet.
As shown by Attachment B, the building lines and masses are of similar
quality to the structure above the site. (Tukwila Apartments, Sunwood
Condominiums).
3. TMC 18.60.050(3) - Landscaping and Site Treatment
The applicant has only provided general information concerning exterior
lighting. Additional information will be needed to ensure compatibility
with the building and adjacent property. The landscape plan (Attachment A)
provides a general plan for the proposed landscape treatment. The land-
scaping proposed between the parking lot and property to the north provides
shrubs or trees. The landscaping proposed around the building consists of a
lawn with a few trees and shrubs around the structure.
As shown on Attachment A, the sidewalk from Southcenter Boulevard does not
connect with the east half of the apartment complex. Sidewalk connection
would be possible by extending the sidewalk to the north.
As part of the landscape area, the applicant is required to provide
recreational area. Recreational area requirements for 54 units is 10,800
square feet. The applicant has provided recreational space in the following
areas:
Trails 1,560
Area for conditioning 900
Picnic area and general uses. 9,000
TOTAL AREA 11,460 square feet
4. TMC 18.60.050(4) - Building Design
The applicant is proposing an architectural style which is contemporary in
appearance. The building floor plan is modulated with projections for
egress balconies, stairways and decks. In addition, screen walls and a
short roof extension are provided at the bedroom windows. The building mass
is somewhat less obtrusive to uphill properties due to the flat roofs. The
proposed three -story structures are of similar size to the structures to the
north of this site.
The building siding will consist of cedar siding painted in a light tan.
The flashing, railings and entrance doors shall be painted a blue -grey. The
details for exterior lighting has not been developed at this time.
5. TMC 18.60.050(5) - Miscellaneous Structures and Street Furniture
Due to the shape and location of this site, no street furniture is contained
in this proposal. However, the applicant is proposing a picnic area and
bench on the hillside to take advantage of the views.
STAFF REPORT 87 -5 -DR: Gencor
Page 4
REVISED CONCLUSIONS
1. The height and scale of the five apartment structures is similar to the
other residential structures abutting the site. As shown by Attachment A,
parking areas are designed and screened to moderate the visual impact of
large paved areas.
2. The applicant has provided appropriate landscape transition to adjoining
properties due to the changes in grade and the varied width of landscaping
buffers. Uphill properties will see a structure which appears as a two -
story building due to the changes in grade. The grade changes also minimize
the impact to uphill properties views of Mt. Rainier
3. The applicant is proposing to use exterior lighting, but has not submitted
detail plans. The landscape plan needs to be modified to maintain vistas
for uphill properties. There is also a need to intensify the amount of
landscaping around the structures to break up the large blank walls and to
enhance the architectural features.
4. The proposed structures are of an appropriate scale and consistent with
neighboring residential developments. The structures have numerous vertical
and horizontal offsets which avoid the monotony of design. The proposed
architectural style is contemporary in design. The quality of the design is
similar to the surrounding residential structures.
5. No street furniture is proposed for this development. General information
has been provided to show the general location of picnic areas and workout
areas. Additional detail of the design needs to be submitted to know if
they will be compatible with the site plan and building design.
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
1. Revise the landscape plan prepared by a landscape architect to include the
following items subject to final approval of the Planning Director:
a. Additional trees and shrubs shall be planted to on the east side of
Building B to reduce the impact of a visible blank wall.
b. Additional trees and shrubs shall be planted around the structures to
enhance the architectural offsets and provide a better blend into the
hillside.
STAFF REPORT
(22/87- 5 -DR.R)
87 -5 -DR: Gencor
Page 5
c. Detailed plans shall be submitted for recreational areas.
d. Sidewalk connect be provided to the eastern portion of the project.
e. Revise the north landscape areas to provide view corridors.
2. A detailed exterior lighting plan shall be submitted showing lighting fix-
tures and a lighting luminaire plan to be approved by the Planning Director.
pm n•1' Tom • - star -
a -J G - _ s -
5 FOOT RETAINING WALL
20 FOOT FIRE ACCESS EASEMENT
AND 5GArSING. PLAN .•
efi a so'....
filaliSL es, olio•
ao T Da1Va
ai •p .c. •.a•.•••• ••••
a G a
alas t►t•t Oval.
- a aaT •••••
Y7
N A
TUKV•IL► , va s.a1NOTON.. -..
L ANG SGAPE SC4+ C[7VLG
as
•
C
D
•
s
s
Timm!
/WW I& •.IMal. Oval..
,t..••+aN ••asW..•a
ata& q.�aarua
MOM lar.e.raavvra
Al.saar•. pa=
Ta••aA as a.w.ss
SM.ar.w. T1a f
aa•a•apasslia
s..a --
bs•.aaa aa.asr •
a•awa/ s*.raso.•a
aDaaaua ias a aaa.
aaadasua daana ll.rw
CiaM. 2 N •1•M Sala •O.
ro.s. O.aS.acafa
aaa• a. 6.0•• a...w
=a•_• _ t.aR_
llama - •a•./aal
WW a
r.sf
rassla
I.Mta.V10111 aiYM
War/0 110laaa.w
CallIOW4
at- .+-
rr.:a
ar
at•IS.
14
la
:.
n
4:
LAND SC PIPING l4Cm$.
$ t a•aa.•+s wawa. a.m.. s :aaaaaD bat waTa+rama
aaa•Y. as •••••..as M ••r e. .
Lila. Saab a..b•a. •a/ waawa•a....
1.a jl.a• Tam 1• sa •abalaaar sT•a•a•.... _
i,k4 maps row apsaa. par aaa••a • ammo. aals...
A MaP. S.C. ReCIL 0.Ttt7N
r• }/Sawmaa aiasy.a.. aaa.t
• • aaa: ai�.� .•if �a►•f��.YDi�
: a�fa�.a••• •' V.aaw.•t~Ma. •
� ... { 11,460'
GeAVINa Lt 6L 4
Q teas -y--• Tway.—
Os wD.t ram .ww T.... Paw opt aara.asaawrt-
allaa.T� s� oar.
a . a .karma a..ars...
.wS a ou
.cryss i+o.ia ri s -..
ra+7s o.s mama .+wr •.ar la• .s.••wo.latg.
a s+a.crlaa aaa1Tl..a a.aa1110/11..,
• WDIGAraa a.ao waa..aq:...
40 a+acKss:.arima wrap ♦ ....ar..w.w.
A aao.carloa aas•. saga• co.•1 111.--
11 aorhair ap aO Srsala.•f. ala•sa.a.a.. ata...
1
[+iuw�sLS. Or Laub *. a.R.■••
!► .+uwana as oars : a *....
41-
•. .rara aara 1 a .raaY
fa
�.1!.aaal& tut, s`�b•A as`.a..a.aa.�l_ rat
• I ` . 4'i1 a• f a
� y ,
•
sra.Dar a..w�Dw�a r.•aw a.a taaaaa -•M..
told Ma.taaa•s�11{{ a
aaYS • vi ; • aaaa•�.ra.l<.a
m •$Y1..DY.a law s ( w a•
arl.. D...s . 5_ .. .41._
• a.faalalla a..a.Aaaa a•Ilaa.fia.WWX alrY..a.
r•ara a aaraalwla...
a�..w�� � ar.
Ntaarla.s s a lla•W lug at+a.•�a a.� • Ova ....gala•
•
s••jwaNT'COaaaal:
alarat al•-
144$ ssaa•stam a �
wloacawat. wwig;Ce -L .
In
- ATTACHMENT B (REVISED BUILDIN " LEVATION)
e
1111111111 ma!gI11111,11!! 1 1111111111 W
1111:1 1� I I,I,' II it
r ' ' f 1 1 I I I U I I I I I I I I U I u 4 4 4 4 4 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 / 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 111
i •) ■ ■ I
Iii nnw r�niu_eu iininui��t Cronin
Kali Will X 1 1 [11
!Iii It ; Ili
1111! ICI!' _ IS
3
0
2
4
0l
a
Q
01
0
V
Z
AI J. MAILIZN E L. (TYPICAL SOUTH ELEVATION)
INV%111 t...‘141a iwvimassmers coproic7, ct. gave•idcw.
• wiprodopmpury
MAO •••■
■■•1••••■••■■•••• OOP
p +ts LAI•M. 12=PRiewen•sra APPRG))41/A.A4r= L% t'4*. cot?-
, Orb op vaemar 1%4 Ahs %Atm./1=D Fra=tiff■ •
±ripm- LiTeRcart•erminka 611111/A•lat....V1stON cpw.
131.911...V1MS 311K-04.1 TWO LAKIN CiliSGUIZMIP
■11 t_fisiP1/2•4fts imeAst 134 PLA=er....
ia• LI 1010 IN) I 12. • 1•
alzA•1= VII&Mr.711 Cx,i4t)tirtc)N5
enaa-•
G coed, e a% R...r/Aa•MV3 ivicni L.A. Nmeb-
A.-xitiotA cp.c)Lisse, oatoc.c.t.4, IT akc.r - - el
6I �
,
[ _.V
)tilt MIN:
►.60TH .I4'J....
3666 al c. .. r.
,r• � w TAIL
I.i 41: err
r r
t
-tr
0
f'
f .I
s I
t:
t
+'•4 . 0,66
Il• '
�.- .•� -
• •
4
�f? .�e • � ojr_• )C7•.
TKP. 215 e.DRUO/h UNIT
0
T
ATTACHMENT D
FLOOR PLAN
spa aruO%( 1-11,1 T:•••
71P. 0 • 1.1.► N1; G r
LU.r1.a I AIM IV C3TtiIhS
RL.►aovlp. A. GOWP VTt rWNMNi LMaTf4.1.11p4d
PR 4P1 tIMIDM
a
461.• walla'''. • ..A1sa.4.4.6 W./ ' '-"1
143 1I1.'R mus Amor.. f as 4a satiaara..�
.14.41MOVIDIS 4 *4 aO1OJIMOa a, comda art
11_66 ♦ • raora.oa /aesmarrol.. =_ -
fr111.14 aarrL..t as aaUlawaIMEM
WO, 006.0 aurr. A/111aa1... 41411114 W4 * ulM I•1 ►w Y ar..4wa..r
DD N.0.4a4aaawa.
rtrasti.94 ♦ f011 ►laa 4u. IIMM.1 maw .M..Its/rsta-
Ile Lib GTMtG A.L. %ACSr%
mow 114..ICAw DOOM * aae 1N1llta�...
SW M. I_ cs. NA11iWJa .1 L v eras- v»aDDDINII
y4141DO1 aw...i N 4O •a.alla{w... '
0611 L.•wf11J4 m►+es+sew. Mira. 44 ..aro sla.Ja
MM M.'.a IMIDIMT 6 •MrtX •'n' %J$
PO U140•144•1111144111
rt 41•e11/44W a PM Palk r.. MAW le.. .....,A/T --
a..►YVIOa •NODIDANDOy144 awva717, 1µ14 �..�.,
a1., a.a.VlCn •0/j w0.Ja1 ♦Ma.1 .11r
♦ a S. Ye+� 1i' •.
1Y1. •aay.s0 aurearo a er w.a.+. u..g's
ILOIDAaOa • M��Mb TO N11...r.MM Am MODS
ors 'P W.r -. 1411.40.11. 10►JA/t.MM...
et mu. ♦ Ll .►r-a NcaT.a
►•a.
PliOvOs 4 rlaa .a.oaw sraMln.,. r.bl.- LuM.6.4g1.m
ew.:.ra To a.as n..as..r4. Wa
VW rse.noS /•wa•M wwa.yw►.. unwires', Q.
Lo.1r
rii balsa w Ui _ • se, ir v.►so •t +•�
116'1. ALL- D. O►aw..a4 Q. 'J "1% aw4.>. K ID J...1IJTO
"WW2 Y/ U,.R....
l ►aaVIC■ O..jt1.s<uawTl 1e nL.rdwQO arirvw
►aer. WI6O..O. ID rua.+c Drf.. »w. Mme- aa.WrT
swam- ram derma--
WAL.l•r M.O. OW a rata •11•11- a•111L11{. .
sow...4gr wars To Wows swurrumers06.-.
• •ot.•aa piano wusr mpg.. axw4usr ousts Te MM.
alltsa.ela.....
TRUCTUILA. L NUrbS
WD UN Ir rRJ►NS •
L. W ay tale"r ►aaN.a� K 71.1.1•111. 4. TOn..
a. - -er aw4u., as a01411100aSINIA A nar or
. DLLOMMr 0016. as4s.l..r Z.gOO 44.*..c.aO/
4II /v sums +. .. 4., D mums.
• cOncsaera: f'Acid. wa, i'is 2.0OO MD..
YP.O. 41aaL..1 DOM4M0 r.ar•..• ••6•-G4.
H s .W. OM) PALL...
-4. s1 - aw►se.. =aft eoD.aena..s
11101.4"1.44 ►i1 .■■•...
•4..
Re. wool* a .SAT'rlr 1 01.3C11r 2 111'G12-. -sa, c.w
....."C-CD a.wr WM
a 1 • IL • o.c.a u.r. , Nn.ars.
►anroa wot/.L.a a OI? 0€30 sueears...
1. Luwalara.: ••■•■• ••• 0.0 L. 1,9a P .02
•`
aoal..y emus = ate. •i, 1.1.10 f..s. ea. AAA.
OTIAIR aaww.••.d.. •a
a-a. w oo r.rrs soLn w : Vt • w rr 4..c..aa. Oa R
o.' -o• a.c... Ara. 1' -O' meow r�.ts, awo...4.� nr•tw
01.04 .14100 war.saas L1.4 co c €.a. to
a..4di. as •twaAr�o...
I ^Wag 4. 111.1u1111O • •ar- CMATIMICT
Ian - sa'PTI►wl /w~414 .. 4weAUS.s4aa
APPENDIX D
BOARD OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW MINUTES
OCTOBER 22, 1987
SEPTEMBER 24, 1987
AUGUST 27, 1987
EXCERPTS FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
OCTOBER 22, 1987
87 -5 -DR: GENCOR Request for approval of a 54 -unit apartment
complex.
Mr. Pace reviewed the revised staff report recommending approval
of the request.
MR. HAGGERTON MOVED AND MR. SOWINSKI SECONDED A MOTION TO ALLOW
THE NEWEST MEMBER OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION, JERRY HAMILTON, TO
PARTICIPATE IN THE HEARING FOR THIS AGENDA ITEM. MOTION CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY.
Steve Friedman, 11801 N.E. 160th, Bothel, representing GENCOR
pointed out that they have complied with the requests made by the
Planning Commission and which have been reflected in the staff
report.
MR. KIRSOP MOVED AND MR. SOWINSKI SECONDED A MOTION TO ACCEPT THE
REVISED CONCLUSIONS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL, AS STIPULATED IN
THE STAFF REPORT.
THE REVISED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL READ AS FOLLOWS:
1. Revise the landscape plan prepared by a landscape architect
to include the following items subject to final approval
ofthe Planning Director.
a. Additional trees and shrubs shall be planted on the
east side of Building B to reduce the impact of a
visible blank wall.
b. Additional trees and shrubs shall be planted around the
structures to enhance the architectural offsets and
provide a better blend into the hillside.
c. Detailed plans shall be submitted for recreational
areas.
d. Sidewalk connection to be provided to the eastern
portion of the project.
e. Revise the north landscape areas to provide view
corridors.
2. A detailed exterior lighting plan shall be submitted showing
lighting fixtures and a lighting luminaire plan to be
approved by the Planning Director.
THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.
Cif j of Tukwila
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
6200 Southcenter Boulevard
Tukwila, Washington 98188
(206) 433 -1849
CITY OF TUKWILA
PLANNING COMMISSION
SEPTEMBER 24, 1987
The meeting was called to order at 8:10 p.m. by Mr. Larson, Chairman. Members
present were Messrs. Knudson, Larson, Kirsop, Sowinski, Coplen, and Haggerton.
Representing the staff were Jack Pace, Vernon Umetsu, Ross Earnst and Norma Booher.
MINUTES
MR. HAGGERTON MOVED TO ADOPT THE MINUTES OF THE AUGUST 27, 1987 MEETING AS WRITTEN.
MR. KNUDSON SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.
OLD BUSINESS
87 -5 -DR: GENCOR Design review of apartment complex which will have five buildings
containing 54 apartment units.
Jack Pace, Senior Planner, reviewed the project and key changes that have been
incorporated: shorter appearance, landscaping, all access will be off Southcenter
Boulevard, reduced number of apartment units from 57 to 54, provided workout area,
color of buildings changed to light tan and blue grey, gazebo has been removed
and picnic area added, sidewalk modified, better ground cover.
.110-percentage of slope and traffic on Southcenter Boulevard was discussed.
Chairman Larson opened the Board of Architectural Review Public Hearing at 8:20 p.m.
Steven Friedman, 1633 72nd Avenue SE, Mercer Island, representing the applicant,
discussed changes that have been made to the project.
Jack Pace, Senior Planner, suggested Condition (e) be "Revise the north landscape
area to provide view corridors."
Azaria Rousso, 7605 SE 27th, Mercer Island, architect for the proposal, discussed
the changes that have been made to create a better proposal.
Kathy Verhalen, 15255 Sunwood Blvd., expressed concern that the land use plan
discourages development where slopes are in excess of 20 %.
Kathy Fetter, 15125 Sunwood Blvd., expressed concern about the possibility of erosion
and measures that can be taken to preserve the view.
Ryan Thrower, 15232 Sunwood, expressed concern about the calculations used to
determine the recreation space and the lack of a provision for adequate screening
of storage.
Planning Commission
September 24, 1987
Page 2
87 -5 -DR: GENCOR Contd.
Steven Friedman, representing the applicant, assured that stability during
construction has been taken into consideration. A soils engineer will supervise
the work during construction. The dumpsters will be fenced and landscaped.
Retatning walls are not necessary along the north property line with revised proposal.
Kathy Verhalen, Sunwood, expressed concern that the shaking or moving of buildings
at Sunwood during construction might cause damage to a large bedroom mirror.
Chairman. Larson closed the Public Hearing at 8:50 p.m.
Jack Pace, Senior Planner, stated the recreation space has been properly calculated.
The City trail will connect into the project trail.
City staff answered eugestions asked by Planning Commissioners regarding the
recreation area and erosion.
MR. COPLEN MOVED TO APPROVE THE GENCOR APPLICATION, 87 -5 -DR, AFTER REVIEWING THE
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS OF THE STAFF INCLUDING THE RECOMMENDATIONS AS LISTED BY
STAFF 1 (A), (B), (C), (D), AND THE ADDITION OF (E) "REVISE THE NORTH LANDSCAPE
AREA TO PROVIDE VIEW CORRIDORS;" AND ITEM 2 AS STATED IN THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION.
MR. KNUDSON SECONDED THE MOTION WHICH PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.
EXCERPT FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
AUGUST 27, 1987
87 -5 -DR: GENCOR - Design Review of an apartment complex which
will have five buildings containing 57 apartment units.
Jack Pace, Senior Planner, reviewed the staff report which
recommended approval of the proposal subject to conditions. He
distributed the color scheme to be used for the outside of the
building.
Steven Friedman, 1633 72nd Avenue S.E., Mercer Island, and
representing the applicant, discussed the proposal.
Azaria Rousso, 7605 S.E. 27th, Mercer Island, and architect for
the proposal, discussed the design of the apartment complex.
PhilipVerhalen, 15255 Sunwood Blvd., represented the.Board of
Directors for Sunwood, expressed concerns regarding the impact
the development will have on Sunwood.
Leon Grundstein, 11801 N.E. 160th Street, Bothell, spoke in favor
of the proposal.
Christine Gordon, 15222 Sunwood Blvd., expressed a concern that
the site is not conducive to disabled people and if adequate
parking has been provided.
Discussion ensued on the proposal.
MR. KIRSOP MOVED AND MR. KNUDSON SECONDED A MOTION TO CONTINUE
APPLICATION 87 -5 -DR - GENCOR FOR TWO WEEKS TO GIVE THE ARCHITECT
ADEQUATE TIME TO ADDRESS THE CONCERNS EXPRESSED. (BUILDING COLOR,
SIDE ELEVATION OF THE BUILDING AND BUILDING PROFILE OF THE ENTIRE
COMPLEX). MOTION UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Mr. Kirsop excused himself at 11:20 p.m.
•
WAC 197 -11 -970
Description of Proposal a 57 -unit apartment complex
Proponent Aiaria Rousso - Architect
Location of Proposal, including street address, if any 5700 block - Southcenter Blvd.
Tukwila_ Washington
Lead Agency: City of Tukwila File No. EPIC -11 -87
The lead agency for this proposal has determined that it does not have a probable
significant adverse impact on the environment. An environmental impact statement
(EIS) is not required under RCW 43.21C.030(2)(c). This decision was made after
review of a completed environmental checklist and other information on file with the
lead agency. This information is available to the public on request.
Ef
There is no comment period for this DNS
[l This DNS is issued under 197 -11- 340(2). Comments must be submitted by
. The lead agency will not act on this
proposal for 15 days from the date below.
Responsible Official Rick Beeler
Position /Title Planning Director
Address
Date
FM.DNS
APPENDIX E
DETERMINATION OF NONSIGNIFICANCE
6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tuk it
3/75 Signature
Phone 433 -1845
You may appeal this determination to the City Clerk at City Hall, 6200 Southcenter
Boulevard, Tukwila, WA 98188 no later than 10 days from the above date by written
appeal stating the basis of the appeal for specific factual objections. You may be
required to bear some of the expenses for an appeal.
Copies of the procedures for SEPA appeals are available with the City Clerk and
Planning Department.
APPENDIX F
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
Cp• `rol No.
File No. ,EP/L 1)
Fee $100.00 Receipt No.
A. BACKGROUND
1. Name of proposed project, if applicable:
2. Name of applicant: e'L��ll�a Q.p1.9�tlSb . �IrQG ps
3. Address and phone number of applicant and contact person :74 Q5•- S.
4. Date checklist prepared: Talwom g ig1 g"0
5. Agency requesting Checklist: City of Tukwila
6. Proposed timing or schedule (including phasing, if applicable): Nt,,
7. Do you have any plans for future additions, expansion,' or further activity
related to or connected with this proposal? If yes, explain. Nd _ _ _
-
8. List any environmental information you know about that has been prepared, or will
be prepared, directly related to this proposal. Memo lilt
9. Do you know whether applications are pending for governmental approvals of other
proposals directly affecting the property covered by your proposal? If yes,
explain. t4b1,115
10. List any government approvals or permits that will be needed for your proposal.
11. Give brief, complete description of your proposal, including the proposed uses
and the size of the project and site. There are several questions later in this
checklist that ask you to describe certain aspects of your proposal. You do not
need to repeat those answers on this page. Section E requires a complete
description of the objectives and alternatives of your proposal and should not be
summarized here.
-51- -V —P
-3-
_„-,-
R.0211 .. -
12. location of the proposal. Give sufficient information for a person to understand
the precise location of your proposed project, including a street address, if
any, and section, township, and range, if known. If a proposal would occur over
a range of area, provide the range or boundaries of the site(s). Provide a legal
description, site plan, vicinity map, and topographic map, if reasonably
available. While you should submit any plans required by the agency, you are not
required to duplicate maps or detailed plans submitted with any permit applica-
tions related to this checklist.
13. Does the proposal lie within an area designated on the City's Comprehensive Land
Use Policy Plan Map as environmentally sensitive?
TO BE COMPLETED BY APFC ANT � Evaluation for
Agency Use Only
B. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS
1. Earth
a. General description of the site (circle one): Flat,
rolling, hilly, steep slopes, mountainous, other
b. What is the st,;e es t slope the site (approximate
percent slop ILIS alp
c. What general es--- soils are found on the site
(for example, clay, sand, gravel, peat, muck)? If
you know the classification of agricultural soils,
specify them and note any prime farmland.
d. Are there surface indications or history of unstable
soils in the immediate vicinity? If so, describe.
_JS4g2 MCA..
e. Describe the purpose, type, and approximate quanti-
ties of any filling or rading proposed. Indicate
source of fill. Men ti_L_t1.Ld U1, •
f. Could erosion occur as a result of clearing,
construction, or use? If so, generally describe.
g. About what percent of the site will be covered with
impervious surfaces after project construction (for
example, asphalt or buildings)?
2. Air
h. Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion, or .
other impacts to the earth, if any:
3. Water
What types of emissions to the air would result from
the proposal (i.e., dust, automobile odors,
industrial wood smoke) during construction and when
the project is completed? If any, generally
describe and give approximate quantities if known.
b. Are there any off -site sources of emissions or odor
that may affect your proposal? If so, generally
describe. Mp_401.
c. Proposed measures to reduce or control emissions or
other impacts to air, if any: 4p$ , _
a. Surface:
Evaluation for
AgencyUse Only
1) Is there any surface water body on or in the
immediate vicinity of the site (including year -
round and seasonal streams, saltwater, lakes,
ponds, wetlands)? If yes, describe type and
provide names. If appropriate, state what
stream or river it flows into._ b_
•
2) Will the project require any work over, in, or
adjacent to (within 200 feet) the described
waters? If yes, please describe and attach
available plans.
3) Estimate the amount of fill and dredge material
that would be placed in or removed from surface
water or wetlands and indicate the area of the
site that would be affected. Indicate the
source of fill material._ im„
4) Will the proposal require surface water
withdrawals or diversions? Give general
description, purpose, and approximate quan-
tities, if known._
5) Does the proposal lie within a 100 -year
floodplain? If so, note location on the site
plan. %4
6) Does the proposal involve any discharges of
waste materials to surface waters? If so,
describe the type of waste and anticipated
volume of discharge. (o.
Evaluation for
Agency Use Only
. Ground:
1) Will ground water be withdrawn, or will water be
discharged to ground water?. Give general
description, purpose, and approximate quan-
.titles, if known. Ma
2) Describe waste materials that will be discharged
into the ground from septic tanks or other sour-
ces, if any (for example: Domestic sewage;
industrial, containing the following
chemicals...; agricultural; etc.) Describe the
general size of the system, the number of such
systems, the number of houses to be served (if
applicable), or the number of animals or humans
the system(s) are expected to serve.
c. Water Runoff (including storm water):
1) Describe the source of runoff (including storm
water) and method of collection and disposal, if
any (include quantities, if known). Where will
this water flow? Will this water flow into
other waters? If so, describe.
-uo..P -mss
Evaluation for
Agency Use Only
d. Proposed measures to reduce or control surface,
ground, and runoff water impacts, if any:
�L P- sJwaga - •04
4. Plants .
2) Could waste materials enter ground or surface
waters? If so, generally describe. No,
Evaluation for
a. Check or circle types of vegetation found . on the
site:
_ deciduous tree: alder, maple, aspen, other
evergreen tree: fir, cedar, pine, other
shrubs
grass
pasture
— crop or grain
— wet soil plants: cattail, buttercup, bullrush,
skunk cabbage, other
water plants: water lily, eelgrass, milfoil, other
other types of vegetation
b. What kind and amount of vegetation will be removed
or altered ?
6Q-
c. List threatened or endangered species known to be on
or near the site.__wer
-8-
Agency Use Only
5. Animals
a. Circle any birds and animals which have been .
observed on or near the site or are known to be on
or near the site:
d. Proposed landscaping, use of native plants, or other
measures to preserve or enhance vegetation on the
site, if any :_S j Lew1 1" Rte,,,
birds: hawk, heron, eagle, songbirds, other:
mammals: deer, bear, elk, beaver, other:
fish: bass, salmon, trout, herring, shellfish,
other:
b. List any threatened or endangered species known to
be on or near the site.__Wk „41--
c. Is the site part of a migration route? If so,
. Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife,
if any: 1kbLMOIC �.L- - - - - -- - - - - -- --
Evaluation for .
Agency Use Only
6. Energy and Natural Resources
a. What kinds of energy (electric, natural gas, oil,
wood stove, solor) will be used to meet the
completed project's energy needs? . Describe whether
it will be used for heating, manufacturing, etc.
, - a 44. -14y .,..
7. Environmental Health
b. Would your project affect the potential use of solar
energy by adjacent properties? If so, generally
descr ibe. �Lo ��T•,
What kinds of energy conservation features are
included in the plans of this proposal? List other
proposed measures to reduce or control energy
impacts, ifany:_ iSUiLp
a. Are there any environmental health hazards,
including exposure to toxic chemicals, risk of fire
and explosion, spill, or hazardous waste, that could
occur as a result of this proposal? If so,
describe.
-1
1) Describe special emergency services that might
be required. t4dae.. ,
2) Proposed measures to reduce or control environ-
mental health hazards, if any: 1441414....
Evaluation for
Agency Use Only
b. Noise
1) What types of noise exist in the area which may
affect your project (for example:. traffic, .
equipment, operation, other) ?_fi
2) What types and levels of noise would be created
by or associated with the project on a short -
term or a long -term basis (for example: traf-
fic, construction, operation, other)? Indicate
what hours noise would come from the site.
440*
3) Proposed measures to reduce or control noise
impacts, if any:
S llar 4 SOMIS N it
. Land and Shoreline Use
a. What is the current use of the site and adjacent
properties?
b. Has the six q been used for agriculture? If so,
describe.
c. Describe any structures on the site. u ,,,,,
w.
•
Evaluation for
Agency Use Only
r y
d. Will any structures be demolished? If so, what?
•
-12-
e. What is the current zoning classification of the
site? R _
f. What is the current comprehensive plan designation
of the site? ...
If applicable, what is the current shoreline master
program designation of the site ?
h. H.s:= y pa 'of the site been classified as an
'
environmental sensitive" area? If so, specify.
i. Approximately how many people would reside or work
� _ completed project? �
Approximately how many people would the completed
project displace?_bigai
k. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement
impacts, if any: 420,211L
1. Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is com-
patible with existing and projected land uses and
plans, if any: Nj,enrJ ' ,
Evaluation for
Agency Use Only
9. Housing
a. Approximately how many units would be provided, if
any? Indicate whether high, middle, or low - income
housing? �? M Ii�iDl�_ T..�.•...c
b. Approximately how many units, if any, would be eli-
minated? Indicate whether high, middle, or low-
income housing. en„
10. Aesthetics
-13-
c. Proposed measures to reduce or control housing
impacts, if any: MouE f.4
a. What is the tallest height of any proposed
structure(s), not including antennas; what is the
principal exterior building material(s) proposed?
iAleaafter..
g=t_
b. What views in the immediate vicinity would be
altered or obstructed? NoN161
c. Proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic
impacts, if any:
- :� 43 -- .tom -t +IS.—
Evaluation for
Agency Use Only
11. Light and Glare
a. What type of light or glare will the proposal
produce? What t me of day would it mainly occur?
b. Could light or glare from the finished project be a
safety hazard or interfere with views? g),, r
12. Recreation
What existing off -site sources of light or glare may
affect your proposal?
d. Proposed measures to reduce or control light and
glare impacts, if any:__ `',D__LAte
a. What designed and informal recreational oppor-
tunities are in the immediate vicinity?
b. Would the proposed project displace a y existing
recreational uses? If so, describe.
••
c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts on
recreation, including recreation opportunities to be
provided by the project or applicant, if any:"
-14-
Evaluation for
Agency Use Only
13. Historic and Cultural Preservation
a. Are there any places or objects listed on, or pro-
posed for, national, state, or local preservation
registers known to be on or next to the site? If
so, generally describe. Mg:;1, , ,
. Generally describe any landmarks or evidence of
historic, archaeological, scientific, or cultural
importance known to be on or next to the site.
N�IC�r_s
c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts, if
a ny:,....
14. Transportation
a. Identify public streets and highways serving the
site, and describe proposed accss to the existing
street system. Show on site plans, if any.
b. Is the site currently served by public transit? If
not, what is the approximate distance to the nearest
transit stop?
c . How many parking spaces would the completed project
have? How many would the project eliminate ? __
-15-
Evaluation for
Agency Use Only
d. Will the proposal require any new roads or streets,
or improvements to existing roads or streets, not
including driveways? If so, generally describe
(indicate whether public or private). 'AWL-- �►�
-116L I
e. Will the project use (or occur in the immediate
vicinity of) water, rail, or air transportation? If
so, generally describe.__ •
f. How many vehicular trips per day would be generated
by the completed project? If known, indicate when
peak volumes would occur.
i s t ouLcus 4
15. Public Services
g. Proposed measures to reduce or control transpor-
tation impacts, if any:
--Nnhar
. a. Would the project result in an increased need for
public' services (for example: fire protection,
police protection, health care, schools, other)? If
so, generally describe. TIA446—
b. Proposed measures to reduce or control direct
impacts on public services, if any. h?la ._•
-16-
Evaluation for
Agency Use Only
16. Utilities
a. Circle utilities currentl av•' at ite:
i
sep is sys em,
b. Describe the utilities that are proposed for the
project, the utility providing the service, and the
general construction activities on the site or in
the immediate vicinity which might be needed.
_ELS_ML.
C. Signature
The above answers are true and complete to the best of
my knowledge. I understand that the lead agency is
relying on them to make its decision.
w
Signature:
Date Submitted:
PLEASE CONTINUE TO THE NEXT PAGE.
p'7
-17-
Evaluation for
Agency Use Only
....
TO BE COMPLETED BY API VT Evaluation for
Agency Use Only
D. SUPPLEMENTAL SHEET FOR NONPROJECT ACTIONS
(do not use this sheet for project actions)
Because these questions are very general, it may be helpful
to read them in conjunction with the list of the elements of
the environment.
When answering these questions, be aware of the extent the
proposal, or the types of activities likely to result from
the proposal, would affect the item at a greater intensity
or at a faster rate than if the proposal were not imple-
mented. Respond briefly and in general terms.
1. How would the proposal be likely to increase discharge
to water; emissions to air; production, storage, or
release of toxic or hazardous substances; or production
of noise? Herr SO111Ni .A .J'r,.•,
Proposed measures to avoid or reduce such increases are:'
2. How would the proposal be likel to affect plants, ani-
mals, fish, or marine life? so
Proposed measures to protect or conserve lants, ani-
mals, fish, or marine life are:
-18-
3. How would the proposal be likely to deplete energy or
natural resources?
Proposed measures to protect or conserve energy and
natural resourses are: N(,ipm paskutikath...
4. How would the proposal be likely to use or affect
environmentally sensitive areas or areas designated (or
eligible or under study) for governmental protection;
such as parks, wilderness -,__,, i ld and scenic rivers,
threatened bitat, historic or
cultur r -; ` wetlands, f ...', lains, or prime
farm + n s? �� -��s P
Proposed measures to protect such resources or to avoid
or reduce impacts are:'pL9e tMMLD
5. How would the proposal be likely to affect land and
shoreline use, inclduing whether it would allow or
encourage land or shoreline uses incompatible with
existing plans? M r 4plA .IINAM ",
-19-
Evaluation for
Agency Use Only
Proposed measures to avoid or reduce shoreline and land
use impacts area: too& R n
How does the proposal conform to the Tukwila Shoreline
Master Plan? *PP 1,1-1W.. ..,
6. How would the proposal be likely to increase demands on
transportation public services and utilities?
S
Proposed measures to reduce or respond to such demand(s)
are• ��1.�F U1 R► �,,,,.
7. Identify, if possible, whether the proposal may conflict
with local, state, or federal laws or re uirements for
the protection of the environment. [�Q
-20-
Evaluation for
Agency Use Only
. Does the proposal co
Comprehensive Landr e Policy P
cies of the Plan ? Rp 4 ..
Proposed measures to avoid or reduce the conflict(s)
are:. Nintaff V I Riat)
olicies of the Tukwila
1
-21-
If so, what poli-
.. ,
Evaluation for
Agency Use Only
lb UL LUMI'LL• ILU BY Al .3;, 0
Agency Use Only
E. SUPPLEMENTAL SHEET FOR ALL PROJECT AND NON PROJECT
PROPOSALS
The objectives and the alternative means of reaching the
objectives for a proposal will be helpful in reviewing the
aforegoing items of the Environmental Checklist. This
information provides a general overall perspective of the
proposed action in the context of,the environmental infor-
mation provided and the submitted plans, documents, suppor-
tive information, studies, etc.
1. What are the objective(s) of the proposal? SL1bE
2. What are the alternative means of accomplishing these
objectives? Dn 1.00 ,p0 Oft ALA.(
3. Pease compare the alternative means and indicate the
preferred course of action: (4o —" IT ,
-22-
Lva1u.iLloll foor
4. Does the proposal conflict with policies of the Tukwila
Comprehensive Land Use Policy Plan? If so, what poli-
cies of the Plan? NO 4
Proposed measures to avoid or reduce the conflict(s)
are:
-23-
Evaluation for
Agency Use Only
OENCOA A
t
i
1
•� 3 3
C IMIMINN
Earn
O
_______
,, ,
.,
•
__,, `��'"�
,, , ........„„
ao --_-_,
....„
..„.........
...
,: \,
i
D
-
6
TUKWILA • WA.
D
1 111
6
r
1
I I 1I! ;
!
Z : _ S
s i
i !
l i
X =
2 211
-
111.
=
m
s
.
■ ! s
�I =2
.
! ! !
{ 1
s
l
:
Ini -
i�=
S i
is s:
;a 'l
!-s
i:s.
• s
I . 1 I1 ii! 1
j
sh:iis
2iii
s ii =s
r'i!
?
! i i
i !-
s i
s g E s
s
i I i
i
I.
_[s
- i
2221122
_ i
E
!
i
i:
E
:
.
El
t
: -
s I sli g s
i ia!i
E Ili!
s i =i s
E s'
_ ' i
L Iii
I !
=i
s F
s =
1
s
s
i1
! i
si
Ei
: :
� =
!:.g
"1i IF'i!;I
;'i!
!
isl Is
! ; Ri
} III sij
s
as ii'='
is E
r=== iii
gal: i
l ass :
:: '
i i fI i!
: !
_! t
•..•
s
i s
s! 2
1 411 el
s /
ii
s• i:
•s!!
ii if
lilt
_ .ti =[s:
1 !N
s _ } s s lt
= i -
s
iii=.
i
:
i _ =r
_�
��
•t
iii
i !s
: - : -= s!
i i i +
: �t ,[ : ,i
E i - ._ -
.!2 i!
..2.211
! --
i • •=Zt _ii
Witt si s
�i i iiss:
ii' :e *
i s i ' i
, S t !
d i 1 L LI!
s ! Wig!
i i s i lii .
s s . x
I
i i!
s
g i l l.[.
i s!
i � !. DON'
s - - F - -:!: e
f :,I 2 :'
: ! S: .r _
! i =
: i . . ;
' [1 i - I! ! i i! i :
t E ! . - : : :.
s- ;i! = i_j
l s[= fs
s s !s 'if - i
s -L .s i:: :
i /--
i =ii i
! ors i i i;! •
= si It ._ �:.
- s lit i = - ' i 'g i 7
ss lit _ _ a
t
! r ii = i • : '6 ';t
! i U
! t.! - E.: i ::
Lt 5A. . vt3GRIPTivw.. -
{
♦
nap ` unsay-
sewrram.10. Aram-.
t ia lamemarrsow
F P - 1711111.• M•Aio $. L.,.. 0.4a rp' 5
4,0-i+ lwa..a. we- WI Imo■
ai 1K.I. RONNO • a•tU,A.T ACT
n.aa ti+M .F/a.s1•21M.aa IMPIO1111•td!
I I
1
rs :11 it'd w • rev - .
tr.•OI�I� 1 �•4
site plan
I p
IttA -- 1A
itSC •iSii
0
•
0
1
U
n
0
OMIINDIM ■■•••••■••
T.. JO
4/40 1■641.44.1111
•■••••14,•• .1.111■1114 CAN
CIA,. ST" •Je *04 110000.0-..
00.0•00.K.STO ■••••••■•■•
0....r1012 ••••111r.o■ 000.0
.1.4111- IC. • %VI LC) I IV .1.• es I as'
C.3 T
ter OIL •0‘I‘AIIL 1.111/.4011■0••
122.-• .
••=3 Fzerrjr!•=1
NOIL OBI-OVA.TI • 161.111-0 . 1•."....
0 .....
ME iii i
ill 11111111111
1 11111
ci: ro 6 wif wi. 0 •
1_1 IIM
- MI 1!
MEI Milli I
"...i;g
r
11110100.
4
E•1110M•e. M
.? 0*- P L 0 • ow. at. ■•••- W... • 110.1.
. LOC.. LAWS she_y2, •dit • Imam.
-,1 •••rai- •001.0
SJI li/CM•ACa.
•
k*.s 110.-1111"40.7 mt-eva.. "a: —
WILST est-UV/kr ION • ISL.176....e
- •
• PO.- .1 LA 11.
40•0•604.. 0r-••*-0 :
J.
PkIel; *SOUTH tAxv. euWEC,
Maar. ••••-
10 • 01,
1500Cr. 00. MIL.
jov040/00411.011
TY 1 C....L. 1. EA•t)Ft-C.,C r
fES11511‘_11Edst IIICIFE:11===2
r 4'
1.4010••
so•-•3*
•
01000.
- 11■Mr -- 21 1 ...••• ••- ••• •••
111.110•- 11. *YD. 1307.1fl WI'
. ,.fp,,c.....i._ e ,..#41T-
1•0 Pi.. 0.04 mi...
L I:. U11.11r IL P0ALT 0.1111 t...sows..as
1•110.3CC17.1.....
.00 .0 10011 • -wawa 0
.ri tirar.
so. •..0•01 .PS 00 t - 1 - as, I....
.0 0•01
0 AVM& IlLUSJOSC7 • AaILI•41 IEC:r
A
...s a 131•• sr /•••••=1116.•00•0 a • 30011
I 47;61
•L•- L•
pL.QUR Pot. Nil • L +T• rLlwR • sVILDINa'c vim....
f•P. . im..[h..esa w s•• wo j•.. - ..
r•LVCt 1 ` tLtVATI I•411
, r..�......... ..w.∎ .1•-
1 R. PL6. b.'. L•O. F ?a ..
DUI LGI NO 'i'.... •11lp.�u s •IwI..�...
..beg._ PLAN • L ikT iI •2 +16
L/2O!. "L&P4 i 41, b L!V'•TIONE / d u 11.01 NG ` Q ` .. .�wwwc 11rwas I
1 u,.
Go
lL vATIG?M • bUIl.01N6 'G Hs•..e u' .•1YPIC+ 4 -• , I
UL1yH /.Lav••TIt7AI • lLp4.
• •ILO �•rnls.�. -..
NORT ELGsv&TION • lLpaeR
V ,•Y�. HOTw � lwMt y •O•.
*. 5T 11.-116•11 ION • •41:4. •G .•••
1
i •tsT L%. 4ATIQN 1 ROi. 'G
Aor,T• get -taw. TYnN • ImLO•i. •E•
w t i.4C f T10N • iL.bG• • Lr -.--
A.
I. N J JIT f.OwS P4T C0001a1L
own i10wlco
•.•.tlo1.10
• -111-01 7.O .0: 0 -11
A A.11 0.011: •MCC Id IT KT
16•1 ZT1. •n/r•caa M.ro4o /wi- •r»
pu,Lo,N0s•C_• rfirk5,.5
. •..a.
1.
August 13, 1987
Jack Pace, Senior Planner
City of Tukwila
6200 Southcenter Boulevard
Tukwila, WA 98188
RE: EPIC -11 -87 / 87 -5 -DR
Dear Mr. Pace:
I wish to inform the City of Tukwila that I have modified the .
development proposal to include the following:
Q--sp k lered.
2. Design of surface water system shall include method to
control water run -off to down hill properties.
3. As part of the development proposal, I will provide the City
of Tukwila a trail easement for the property that abuts
Macadam Road.or 2_ 3-c .
- iewitr , • (dam
e- :-tc +ter
Sincer e ef/r1rS,!. 1
Steven M. Friedm
a te
June 24, 1987
Mr. Leon Grundstein
11801 Northeast 160th Street, Suite G
Bothell, Washington 98011
Re: Tukwila Apartment and Office Project
Dear Mr. Grundstein:
With your authorization, I have investigated the subsurface conditions as
they relate to proposed construction of 57 apartment units and an office
building in Tukwila. We met at the site on 14 May, at which time you
showed me several preliminary site plans and the approximate ground limits
of the property. I sent you a proposal dated 18 May, and on the same day
summarized the proposal to you by telephone and informed you that it was my
intention that the office site be included in the scope of work covered by
the proposal, although the document did not specifically say so. You gave
verbal authorization to proceed on 28 May, and I received your written
proposal on 30 May. On 1 June I picked up additional site plans at your
office; these provided ground control points from which field measurements
could be made. Field access preparation and subsurface exploration were
accomplished on 1 and 2 June.
This report describes the property the project proposed, the investigative
procedures and summarizes conclusions and recommendations applicable to
site grading, subgrade drainage, foundation and retaining wall design, and
mitigation of earth - related hazards, whether those hazards are the result
of development or not.
• Considering the steepness of terrains generally: favorable: conditions were
found. Exception is In the vlclnit.y of Building "A"; there a combination
of :,steep terrain, shallow groundwater, and: erosion- cavitated sand which
require ;;that ':Building "A" be! supported on augercast piles. Surface
evidence suggests that there has been a continuing problem of poor surface
drainage, sloughage and erosion in that vicinity, especially toward the
west end of the property. The pile- supported building will be as secure as
those on flatter terrain and more favorable subgrade conditions and to some
minor degree, will bring about improvement of downslope surface flow and
sloughage.
JAMES EATON, PE ga GEOTECHNICAL SERVICES
(206) 682 -6942 Box 126 • Hobart, WA 98025
IMENTO
JUL - j. 1987
CIT' TUkvvILA
PLANNING Dc "PT.
- 7 s - -pf
6e4
Mr. Grundsteln
June 24, 1987
Page Two
I am also advising you that have an accurate topographic survey made as a
logical next step and that you and your architect consider revisions in the
site and grading plan.
With this letter are three copies of my report of findings.
Yours very truly,
EARTH SCIENCE
es N. Eaton
7 -0431
JNE /rlb
Enclosures
INTRODUCTION
The property .slopes moderately to steeply: to the south and southwest;
elevation differential is in the order of 100 feet. It lies north and east
of the intersection of Macadam Road and Southcenter Boulevard. Your south
property line represents the approximate toe -of -slope and common property
line with Denny's Restaurant and the ARCO AM -PM Market. It appears that the
lower reaches of the slope were artificially steepened beyond their natural
grades at some time in the past. This is especially the case behind the
AM -PM market and around the north and east peripheries of the trapezoidal
parcel proposed for office development.
Page nine of this report was prepared from a 22 May 1987 site plan prepared
by Azaria Rousso /Architects and from an 18 June 1986 office site plan
prepared by Mithun- Bowman- Enrich Group, P.S. Note that page nine consists
of two separate plans, each to different scale; one is of the residential
portion and one applies to the office portion. An earlier undated site
plan study prepared by Milbrandt Architects was used for its location of
the existing apartments to the north. Some of the test locations plotted
on page nine were measured from a demolished house which, for field
purposes only, was scaled from a 1" =100 partial top sheet which you
provided.
Presently, the only improvements on the property are the basement floor and
walls of the aforementioned house, the driveway which served the house, and
several rockeries along or near the toe of the slope. A variety of trees
exist in clusters at various parts of the property. The areas between
clusters support a dense growth of blackberry bushes and other brush. Part
of that brush, especially in the vicinity of Building "B" and "C ", was
removed in preparing access for test equipment.
At the time of field work, a spring emerged from the toe -of -slope area
immediately north of your proposed office building. It ponded in a small
artificially created depression near the northeast corner of that building
area. Water was also noted emerging from the south of Building "A"
location and north of Denny's. This water appears to originate as spring
water from the general area around and north of Building "A ". It appears
that shallow groundwater and associated surface drainage has been a problem
for the existing apartments to the north since construction there.
Several small ditches undermine the perimeter footings and transect the
yard areas all directed to an asphaltic- cement lined swale which parallels
your common property line. Some of the small ditches carried water when
last observed less than a week ago and it can be presumed that flow varies
seasonably, but that it continues to some degree through the summer.
As now proposed, the 57 units would be divided among five buildings. The
present grading plan shown as before and after contour shows Buildings "A ",
"B ", "E ", and part of Building "C" on cut with an apparent net removal of
borrow from the site. The apartment buildings will be of wood frame
construction with slabs on grade. The office building will consist of
three stories of wood frame construction with a first floor slab on grade.
SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS
Page • nine shows the approximate locations at which 12test ; "pi'ts were dug
using a rubber -tire mounted construction backhoe. Log descriptions of
conditions at each location were maintained from direct examination of the
freshly exposed strata. With recording of soil descriptions and
groundwater conditions, the pits were backfilled in the interest of safety.
Summaries of the test pit conditions are presented on pages ten to twelve.
•The stratigraphical ly . lowes't' material found and ' re:levance to'' development
Is. sandstone. bedrock, which was; found essentially at the'. surface.'of_
ocat:ions one :and.'.two.: representing: the: north portion :of -,:the office
bU11ding ;` The sandstone is fine grained, friable, and varies in color from
white to gray or yellow- brown. It grades increasingly hard with depth, and
within a yard of its upper surface it could be further penetrated only by
repeated raking with the bucket teeth under the full weight of the backhoe.
It appears that the uppermost one to two feet within the general area of
the office building have been disturbed or artificially modified in
association with unknown past utilization.
To the depths explored, the entire residential area and part of the office
area are underlain by glacially associated soils. These `soils are `highly
vari able acr`..oss'`the property, :but range from clean sand or gravelly .sand
"the _bank behind :the;` AM -PM 'marketiand at locations: 9, `10 and.:12 td
clay hardpan: at locations, :3 4,' 5, :7, 8, and.:12.' Most of the test pits
exhibited layering of more than one type of glacial soil. Between the
•extremes.of granular and find - grained are loam and mixtures of course and
fine - grained soils; some of these mixtures include cobbles and boulders.
. In,Aeneral,:: he',glaclally'associ, aced -soils exhibi t : .moder.ate to,,high bearing
strength and -good slope stability. ;Exception Is in.,`:the: very ~ shallow :range.
fofdepth generally less -than on yard -- where" weathering' and , itoot action have
'diminished the!' teiV*. ittengtk and Where the granular. or parti ally;granul`ar
soils:: are saturated :either. by surface.; or . subsurface : - flow. Also i n general,
after wasting the topsoil and root - ladened soils, the excavated borrow will
be suitable for compaction either on this site or on another. Most of the
borrow generated will contain a sufficient fraction of fine - grained soil to
place serious seasonal restrictions on compaction and to some degree on
fresh cuts.
• Where there are alternating layers of permeable and highly impermeable
soils as on your site, there is potential to accumulate thin layers of
s aturation either seasonably or at more -or -less random locations.
Groundwater `was observed at: :locations 10 and :.,11 . The,; number 11.:. : location'
was :significant.
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
-3-
Conditions:arefavorable for conventional:' footing support of Buildings "B ";
:"C ", ".E ", and: the building. A`: deep foundationAs ' advised for
ABul°lding because the proximity to . slope anCthe highly
erosive-; nature soli. , . Unfavorable.; : soil : .hydrologicconditions .
.were ;.found : in : the vic.inity of,luilding "A% `and' terrain there :appears
steeper than shown by the "topographic map., Because of 'the s teep slopes and:
-the ,' erosive nature of the soil, unusual measures should be taken with
'± r surface: drainageand pressurized utilities. In its present
condition, these are risks of falling rocks and accumulations of sediment
or sloughage on downslope properties; surface evidence suggests that debris
removal is especially on the Denny's parking lot. 'Due to the
`considerable earthwork involved.:in this project and the: potential ` risk" to
` neighboring :properties',. especiallythose review of appropriate.
plans':and :conscientious inspection• during construction' are imperative
aspects of, development.
Office Building
The foundation along the north side of the building will, necessarily, bear
on sandstone. At a depth of about two feet below existing grade in that
area, the sandstone is sufficiently hard to support conventional spread
footing, yet it can be excavated by means of an ordinary construction
backhoe or tracked loader. Moving south across the building area, the
sandstone gets deeper and it becomes overlain by over - consolidated glacial
silt. Considering the relatively high structural loads and the
desirability of having all footings bear on generally similar material, I
recommend that all footings be excavated either into hard sandstone or
glacial hardpan; this would require excavating to 4.6 feet at location
three. Allowable soil bearing pressures of 5 ksf are advised, subject to
inspection of the bearing surfaces. The 5 ksf figure could be increased by
one third to accommodate seismic and similar loads.
Those areas which are to support slabs must also be graded down to firm
native soil, subject to good judgment and common sense.
Near the toe of the slope behind the office building, granular glacial
deposits rest on relatively impervious silt and sandstone. This
permeable /impermeable relationship is the cause of spring emergence in that
area. The footing drain should be laid with its invert at least one foot
below slab grade; the drain and its granular washed backfill should be
shrouded in filtering fabric, and along the west and north sides of the
building the backfill should rise to finished grade. A similar drain
should follow the toe -of- the -slope and should parallel the east edge of the
parking lot to insure that the paving does not fail because of softening
subgrade.
A six -inch thick or greater layer of sand or pea gravel should separate the
flow slab from natural soils.
You or your architect should provide me with a copy of the foundation,
grading and drainage plans for review when they are complete. 1 may advise
removal of some of the existing rockeries, the collapse of which could
damage the building.
You mentioned the possibility of raising grade on the office building
parcel using borrow generated from the residential area. If that is done,
I recommend that the building still be supported by footings which bear on
hard undisturbed natural earth. Fill which is to support paving or any
other improvements should be placed and systematically compacted under
inspection to assure quality.
Topography and Grading, Residential
It appears that the contour maps on which the site plans to date have been
imposed was constructed from air photos and, in some cases, the contour
lines do not accurately describe actual conditions. I recommend that a
ground survey be conducted early on and that revisions be made in the site
and grading plans based on the better information. There might be
advantages to making major site plan revisions to avoid situating buildings
near the sides of steep bluffs and thereby eliminating the need for drilled
or unusual foundations. It appears that Building "0" and at least part of
Building "C" are now proposed to rest on structural fill. I recommend that
either floor grades be adjusted or that building locations be shifted to
-place . all buildings :on cuts. In view of the ' severe topographic as well as
subsurface restrictions -at Building "A ", I am assuming that no-part of the
construction area ;will, be' filled and that no significant part of the
buliding area wlU be cut below' existing grade. Adjusting of locations may
or may not necessitate additional testing or explanation.
From.: the :onset of ` earthwork,` you are advised to ; contain all
construction related runoff within the property until it is
, control-released into the : public.' stormwater system. Generally similar
containment applies .to °the post - construction period. ,
In accordance with usual good construction practice, the areas which are to
support improvements of any type must be stripped of organics, topsoil,
fills, or soft materials. It appears that there will be some filling in
connection with parking lots. No unretained finished fill surface should
slope at steeper than 2 1:1 and then only if it is compacted to at least 95
percent as defined by ASTM D1557. Compliance with this necessarily requires
engineer inspection beginning with the stripped, unfilled surface. Cut
slopes through any of the soil types described herein should be secure at
1i:1. Existing slopes steeper than that and falling outside the
construction area are to be left as they are.
The basement walls of the demolished house must be removed and the basement
and surrounding area should be reshaped to a saucer - shaped section to
facilitate placement of fill in feather -edged lifts; this, of course,
applies only if grade is to be raised above the existing basement floor
level. Septic tanks, buried fuel tanks and similar voids if they exist are
to be similarly removed, shaped, and filled under inspection.
Slope Stability
The 'site is`> AlfevedAtabWNith respect deep _or:.shea type;. tiding.
That generality applies to the effectively unweathered and nominally
weathered soils below the depths of dense roots. With respect to surface
raveling, sloughage under adverse climatic conditions, and erosion, those
slopes which are now steeper than about 35° are no more than marginally
stable under present conditions. It appears that both sandy sediment and
rocks gravitate onto the existing parking lots, particularly the Denny's
lot from time to time. The only way in which human activities are seen to
contribute is that the toe of the slope appears to have been steepened in
association with past commercial; development. An asphaltic - cement lined
shallow ditch appears to be effective at intercepting surface runoff from
neighboring property to the north and to all appearances, the present
hydrologic condition is either natural or slightly drier than natural.
With implementation of : alt recommendations herein, the following'
' jbjectives :wi M be <accompli shed:. `
There will be no slope movement beneath foundations, parking
:lots,';.: or other 'artificial surfaces; under natural conditions
these soils will be retained, confined, or graded to safe
inclines.
° With respect to unnatural conditions, these are seen as
incursions of surface water from offsite or from breached
pressurized underground _lines either onsi to or offsite to the
north. Both categories of'water'will`or' would be directed to and
,confined within subtle ": wales, designed into the `. asphaltic
surfacing,:: where it would be dlrected to_`a`:relatively'=
locationalong'`:or near Southcenter:Boulevard.
0
The steepest slopes : will be' unaffected by development, except
''that-they will be slightly desiccated by :the, upslope ,artificial
surfaces and that hazardous- sized rocks and other materials which .,
tni ght ` rol l : `or slide ` toward' the south property' line Mould be
;intercepted:by , achain link fence. The slight desiccation would
;translate` to a slight improvement in stability.
° During the construction period, runoff from altered - surfaces,will
, ,Pot .be :permitted to ' enter unaltered . surfaces. It w i l l either be
contained and pumped from temporary basins or sumps within the
improved areas or it will be directed to a holding pond on the
office building parcel.
Underground Utilities
Earlier reference was made to unnatural contributions to slope instability,
and it was explained that this included accidental breaches of pressurized
piping. For practical' purposes this refers to water lines but could
include sewers if they are pressurized and effectively have infinite
reservoirs. The imaginable ways in which breaching might occur include,
but are not necessarily limited to, faulty materials, faulty workmanship,
seismic induced strain, impact by drilling or excavating equipment, and
water hammer or pressure surges caused by human carelessness or equipment
malfunction.
Several design alternatives have been considered in designing protection
against any of the above mishaps. Those include location of the largest
pressurized lines at unusual depth of burial or at plan locations where
some of the causal factors could be partially mitigated, using particularly
flexible or durable materials, and using concrete or other conduits or
barriers. No one would provide protection against all causal conditions.
I recommend that the water system be so designed that the soil at depth is
protected from both saturation and scouring by an impermeable : synthetic
barrier in the form of a trench ":lining and that the force of leaking water
be `directed to the surface where it can be contained in subtle open
in the parking lot and driveway. I would expect to coordinate
details of design with your civil engineer. Necessarily, the largest
diameter lines would have to fall outside or near the edges of paving.
Small diameter pipe might be exempt from location restrictions but would
confine and channel leakage with the synthetic barrier.
Apartment Foundations
Building ' "A "`: will >require , an augercast pile foundation. For now I am
assuming that this building will be terraced and underlain by crawl space.
Terracing the building is not intended to mean terracing the slope. I
anticipate that there will be no retaining walls for reasons we discussed.
I will coordinate with your structural engineer about lengths, vertical
capacities and horizontal design. Depending on the outcome of your
topographic survey, other. units including "D" will require; deep foundations
to afford protection against undermining, which might be ,associated with
encroachment of the nearby high angle bluff. To determine the proper
foundation type for each building, I recommend that a 20 -foot horizontal
distance be maintained between the foundation and daylight, measured
through native soil. Judging from existing topographic data, conventionaI
spread footings will be appropriate for most of the buildings. With the
diversity `of soil: We from point to point, I ; recommend . that. all footings
be sized: to` building code specifications or to 2' ksf soil bearing .pressure
If, after topographic mapping and revision of the site plan, the 20 -foot
condition cannot practicably beret using spread footings, I will provide
your architect with parameters for pile design. These would derive
capacity from both friction and end bearing; it would be assumed that
there was no friction through fill or through erosion or slide susceptible
soils. The piles would be in the order of 14 to 16 inches in diameter and
would penetrate beyond the depths explored for this project.
For !'either '_type of foundation, inspection during :excavation: ;is, : essential ::to
verify compliance with : .:the ; intent t h e s e of se recommendations and to confirm
continuity ; :of :::.soil :conditions between and outside the test areas. In
general footings will be poured on stripped soil in place. Under some
circumstances, it would be acceptable to support footings on compacted
fill, and the recommended 2 psf allowable pressure is within generally
accepted limits for such fill. It appears that, even after anticipated
site plan revisions, it will not be necessary for any foundations to bear
on fill.
Retaining Walls
All ofAhe. soil types found within the residential-; area ; are .'types - which
4sould;.exert wall pressu'res..oU within a commonly, assumed-
range . thls � :locality, Silt and silt- containing soils found at various
locations across the site would exert pressures well beyond the assumed
range if used as backfill. Selectively, the cleanest of onsite spoils
generated would be satisfactory as retaining wall backfill.
For walls which are free to deflect sufficiently to assume an active
condition, for which the backslope angle does not exceed 20 °, and which the
full height backfill is free draining, I recommend that P be taken as
35 pcf. P as 300 psf, and that the coefficient of friction between soil
and concrete be taken as 0.5. For the nonyieldable case, p would increase
to 55. Neither the 35 nor the 55 figure includes any surcharge . load other
than the assumed 0-20° backslope angle. lour structural= engineer should
'coordinate'with me :about =other parameters and assumptions. I ,anticipate
that. daylight basement walls will be of reinforced concrete and that .:
cantilever,:, timber bulkheads would,: be more practical': in . exterior ; areas.
.:
Rockeries, where used, will be limited to 4 feet height by City ordinance
and they, of necessity, will not and cannot be engineered.
Property Line Hazards
Several unlikely but potential hazards could transcend property lines where
the property bounds are in general proximity to steep slopes. In some
cases they represent natural hazards, such as gravity movement of earth
materials across natural slopes, and in other cases they could include
collapse of already existing rockeries along the south edge of your
property or the effects of a breach in a water main such as the one that is
understood to run parallel to but outside your north property line.
One of the objectives of.this report is to provide recommendations for
development without creating new hazards. To4ome:; degree ' both : ilatura1' and
- :unnatural existing hazards will be reduced by. The amount,of
• water; which . percolates into the soil across the property will be greatly
reduced,: having a positive effect on spontaneous sloughage;-and_.superficial
:slopcinstability. Plumbing mishaps from upslope properties, if not
controlled by the existing asphaltic -lined ditch, would become contained by
the paving, curbs, and gutters of this project, designed specifically for
such purposes.
;The fence - recommended for. ; protection : of the Denny's and _ :ARCO : properties
would be;.:;installed. prior °:to any grading, above. Hopefully it can be
installed along the edge of existing paving irrespective of whether it
coincides with the property line. The fence is not intended as a retaining
wall but as a catcher. Debris which assimulates behind the fence must be
periodically removed to preserve the effectiveness of the fence.
-7-
• 1
LIMITATIONS AND USE
This report was prepared for the exclusive use of the addressee and his
design teams • for use' on the specific residential • and office projects
described herein. It is not public information and is not to be used,. by
real estate•agents, lenders, future owners, or ',neighboring owners. In case
of significant • revisions of the types of construction, finished grades, or
• building locations, the •findings.and recommendations of this report may be
• inappropriate. The undersigned should • be consulted about :the implications..
of any revision.
Partly in recognition of the potential for creation•of hazardous conditions
by not strictly following the • intent of the recommendations. herein,
inspection: of. al:l: earthwork.. and .re:lated . construction :: ,imperative.::
Another reason for close inspection during construction is .that'the
undersigned assumes no responsibility for work performed at variance with
the recommendations of this report or which is of uncertain compliance;
with foundations and earthwork it is usually not possible to determine
compliance after the fact. •
..The only express or implied warrant carried by this report is that the
professional efforts in developing and presenting. the information in it
were performed conscientiously,' in good faith, and to recognized standards
of engineering practice. as understood by the engineering community in this .
area and at this time.
24 June 1987
James N. Eaton, PE
JNE /rib
TUKWILA APARTMENT
4
NORTH
0 D
DENOTES
TEST PIT
ENID
10
•
6 OFFICE PROJECT
•
oar
. •■•••• 111/11••• WIND
• ��MI M
•
IMMO
#2
#4
0.5'
1.2' -
White to yellow weathered sandstone (hard)
5.3' - Completed and backfilled June 2, 1987; no groundwater
encountered; dug with difficulty beyond 4'
1.4' -
1.8' -
# 3
0'
White to yellow weathered sandstone (hard)
4.3' - Completed and backfilled June 2, 1987; no groundwater
encountered; dug with difficulty beyond 3.5'
2.1' -
4.6' -
•
3.3' -
TEST PIT LOGS
Dark brown topsoil and organic matter (soft)
Yellow -brown severely weathered clayey standstone (soft to
medium)
Brown silt associated with past excavation and rockery
construction (soft)
Yellow brown severely weathered clayey sandstone (soft to
medium)
Brown silty fine to medium sand (dense)
Brown fine to medium sandy silt (stiff to hard)
Gray clayey silt with sandstone inclusions (hard)
6.4' - Completed and backfilled June 2, 1987; no groundwater
encountered
Brown loam with fine roots throughout (soft)
Brown fine sandy, silt with occasional sandstone cobbles and
small boulders throughout (medium to stiff)
-10-
•
#5
N6
#8
0'
#7
0'
5.9' -
Gray to tan clayey silt (hard)
8.8' - Completed and backfilled June 2, 1987; no groundwater.
encountered
0.9' -
5.6' -
Brown silty clay (hardpan)
7.4' - Completed and backfilled June 2, 1987; no groundwater
encountered
3.0' -
Brown fine sandy silt with occasional roots in upper 5',
sandstone and hardrock cobbles and boulders throughout
(medium dense)
8.8' - Completed and backfilled June 2, 1987; no groundwater
encountered.
0.8' -
2.1' -
0.5' -
1.9' -
Brown slightly organic topsoil with roots (soft)
Brown fine to coarse sand (medium dense)
Brown loam with fine and course roots throughout (soft)
Brown loam topsoil with roots (soft)
Brown silt (soft to medium stiff)
Brown thinly bedded silt (hardpan)
5.6' - Completed and backfilled June 2, 1987; no groundwater
encountered
Brown sandy loan topsoil with roots (soft)
Brown fine to medium sand (medium dense)
Brown slightly clayey silt (hardpan)
5.6' - Completed and backfilled June 2, 1987; slight groundwater
seepage from 1.9 feet.
-11-
#9
#10
0'
#11
0'
#12
0'
GIP
0.7' -
Brown silty fine to coarse sand with sandstone and hardrock
gravel, cobbles and boulders (loose at 0.7' to dense at 4')
5.9' - Completed and backfilled June 2, 1987; no groundwater
encountered
0.8' -
4.8' -
Brown fine sand with trace of silt (medium dense)
7.6' - Completed and backfilled June 2, 1987; minor groundwater
flow from 4/8'
OM
0.4' -
Brown sandy loam with roots
Brown gravelly loam topsoil with fine roots (soft)
Brown sandy loam topsoil with roots (soft)
Brown fine to coarse sand (medium dense)
Brown fine sand with thin silty strimers (medium to dense)
6.8' - Completed and backfilled June 2, 1987; moderate to severe
groundwater flow from 3.5' to 5.5' depths
0' -
2.6' -
4.7' -
Brown fine to medium sand (medium dense)
Brown thinly bedded silt (hardpan)
Brown fine to medium sand (medium dense)
6.3' - Completed and backfilled June 2, 1987; no groundwater
encountered; surface water across steep slope in near
vicinity
-12-
9,
C N�Y�A wtru n ! ' r ' c t d r r r•7L gs ` i yy� I(i..� ,''Se4�7'�7i=`o }¢4j p
.�+�:���ii�i a`4.3r.+..J.641.�X� tf.:'sclG'V,::. � ScL: 1t] rli� %X[.fi:C7h�LY17..)tloR[1'�3' ill' Siva[ MS�IF`. SCf�... Y- r: �i. �.: d, rct it(',":"�.C.iS..�
(29 /GENCOR)
1
City of Tukwila
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
6200 Southcenter Boulevard
Tukwila, Washington 98188
(206) 433 -1849
NAME:
TITLE:
NOTICE OF DECISION
FILE NUMBER: 87 -5 -DR: Gencor
APPLICANT: Azaria Rousso, Architect
REQUEST: Design Review of a 54 -unit apartment project
LOCATION: 5700 block of Southenter Boulevard
The Board of Architectural Review (BAR) conducted a review of the above request
on August 27, 1985 and September 24, 1987. On September 24, 1987 the BAR
approved the request with conditions (see attached conditions).
The BAR adopted the Findings and Conclusions contained in the Staff Report dated
August 20, 1987 and memorandum dated September 17, 1987.
Any party aggrieved by this decision may appeal the decision to the City Coun-
cil by filing an appeal in writing with the City Clerk within ten (10) days of
the above date and shall state the reasons for the appeal.
gdfeev
DATE: 69640. )037
87 -5 -DR GENCOR
BAR CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL:
1. Revise the landscape plan prepared by a landscape architect to include the
following items subject to final approval of the Planning Director:
a. Additional trees and shrubs shall be planted to on the east side
of Building B to reduce the impact of a visible blank wall.
b. Additional trees and shrubs shall be planted around the structures
to enhance the architectural offsets and provide a better blend into
the hillside.
c. Detailed plans shall be submitted for recreational areas.
d. Sidewalk connect be provided to the eastern portion of the project.
e. Revise the north landscape area to provide view corridors.
2. A detailed exterior lighting plan shall be submitted showing lighting fix-
tures and a lighting luminaire plan to be approved by the Planning Director.
to
Malik
NEM
Dear Mr. Pace:
ARCHITECT 7605 SOUTHEAST 27TH STREET, SUITE 215 • MERCER ISLAND WA:0 . G iB87 `I
PI_AIN_�
September 15, 1987
Mr. Jack P. Pace, Senior Planner
City of Tukwila
6200 Southcenter Blvd.
Tukwila, Wa. 98188
5. A more direct
have this and
Basically, we now
feasible cost.
Continued next page.
After the last B.A.R. meeting concerning the Gencor apartment project,
several changes have been made. The main revision is that access is now
from Southcenter Boulevard instead of 57th. Avenue South. This change
was made for several reasons as follows:
1. Although the original plan was workable, costs became prohibitive
because Of the required earthwork, retaining walls and the difficulty
in obtaining slope easements from the neighboring property owners.
2. Our project was designed with driveway slopes per fire department
requirements so that automatic fire sprinklers would not be necessary.
However one of the city streets leading to this property has a slope
greater than the maximum allowable so that sprinklers would have been
required. The new design allows for better access to the site and
does not necessitate the installation of fire sprinklers.
3. It was desirable to have all of the parking close to the buildings.
In the original design, some of the stalls were isolated.
4. It was desirable to have more recreational facilities. There is now
more open area and more atheletic facilities including a sports court.
access to Southcenter Boulevard was desired. We now
it means better access for vehicles and pedestrians.
have a much better plan than can be developed at a
I have made several other changescto the site based on input from the
B.A.R. hearing. Some of these are as follows:
1. Buildings have been lowered 42 feet so that access from the parking
level will be directly to the 2nd. floor and there will be only a
single flight of stairs to either the first floor or the third floor.
Also, this provides for a better view from properties to the north.
P.
NOUN
0
ut
A RCHITECT / 7605 SOUTHEAST 27TH STREET, SUITE 215 • MERCER ISLAND, WA 98040 • (206) 232 -3505
September 15, 1987
Letter to Mr. Jack P. Pace, Senior Planner
City of Tukwila.
2. At the easterly parking area, driveways have been reduced from 30 ft.
wide to a standard 25 ft. wide. This allows for a 20 ft, wide planting
area along the north property line in lieu of the 10 ft. originally
shown:. This also negates the need for a slope easement or a retain-
ing wall
3. A 5 ft. wide planting strip has been added between the two rows of
autos at the central parking group of the east parking area. This
allows for autos to overhang this area and provides additional land-
scaping.
4. Several additional trees and shrubs have been added.
I have also made some changes to the buildings as follows:
1. Because of the change in the site plan, the buildings are now smaller
and there are fewer units (54 in lieu of 57). The on grade utility
rooms have been eliminated.and two partial basements have been added.
2. Screen walls Q7the sides and a short roof extension have been added
at bedroom window areas.
3. The building colors have been changed. The main building body shall
be stained a light tan and the flashing, railings and entrance doors
shall be painted a blue -gray.
This summarizes the principal changes made to the original design. I
feel that we now have a much better project that will fit in better to
the surroundings. I trust that you will be equally pleased with this
new design and I shall look forward to your comments and questions.
Yours very truly,
Azaria Rousso Architect
�: i' "..... ";t7i. "£cam .!'('..:i• "...
... x!? :'rY.:) .��t���f,t{!�fl.. �,.,v.. .�.m.MC•�'rlY4 ": GS. w��� �: .
City of Tukwila
6200 Southcenter Boulevard
Tukwila Washington 98188
(206) 433-1800
Gary L. Vanousen, Mayor
MEMORANDUM
TO: Board of Architectural Review
FROM: Planning Department
DATE: September 17, 1987
SUBJECT: ADDENDUM TO STAFF REPORT 87 -5 -DR: GENCOR
The BAR continued the public hearing and requested the applicant to provide
additional drawings and propose ways in which the design of the structure could
be improved. The continued hearing was set for September 10, 1987. On Sep-
tember 9, the applicant informed Planning staff that the plans were not ready.
The continued hearing has been rescheduled for September 27, 1987. City staff
have readvertised the public hearing and mailed notices to all affected prop-
erties within 300 feet.
This memo will serve as an addendum to the staff report prepared on August 20,
1987. This memo will discuss the proposed changes as they relate to the Design Review
criteria typed in bold below.
1. TMC 18.60.050(1) - Relationship of Structure to Site
As shown by Attachment H, the height of the structures has been reduced on
the average of 3'6 ". The apartment units across from Sunwood have dropped
an average of 2 feet in elevation. The change in grading also eliminated
the need for retaining walls or a landscape easement between the parking lot
and abutting properties to the north. However, there will be a retaining
wall for the new parking lot south of Building "B ". The wall will be
approximately five feet in height. The revised grading plan and siting of
structures reflects Condition #3 in the staff report.
2. TMC 18.60.050(2) - Relationship of Structure and Site to Adjoining Area
Attachment H reflects an increase in landscaping density along the boundary
of the site. The landscape area abutting Sunwood has been increased in
width from 10 feet to 20 feet. With the revisions made in the grading plan,
retaining wall are no longer needed along property lines abutting the apart-
ments and Sunwood.
MEMORANDUM to: September 17, 1987
Board of Architectural Review Page 2
In the August 20, 1987 staff report, the applicant proposed street access by
extending 57th Avenue South. The revised plan (Attachment H) shows access
occurring from Southcenter Boulevard. The applicant revised the access to
provide a more direct access to the site and to eliminate the requirement
for automatic fire sprinklers for the structures. The City Engineer has
reviewed the revised site plan, and has no objection to access occurring on
Southcenter Boulevard, so long as the access road does not exceed a 15%
grade.
3. TMC 18.60.050(3) - Landscaping and Site Treatment
Recreational area requirements for 54 units is 10,800 square feet. The
applicant has provided recreational areas in the following categories:
Trails 1,560 sq. ft.
Area for Conditioning . 900 sq. ft.
Picnic Area and Gen. Uses 9,000 sq. ft.
TOTAL AREA 11,460 sq. ft.
The applicant has not provided the details of how these areas will be
designed. Additional details for these areas need to be submitted at the
time of building permit review.
As shown on Attachment H, the sidewalk from Southcenter Boulevard does not
connect with the east half of the apartment complex. Sidewalk connection
would be possible by extending the sidewalk to the north.
4. TMC 18.60.050(4) - Building Design
The building colors have changed. The building body shall be stained a
light tan and the flashing, railings and entrance doors shall be
painted a blue -grey. Samples of the proposed colors will be provided at the
public hearing. Attachment I shows the changes the applicant has made in
the building design since the public hearing in August. The applicant has been
modified the design with screen walls and a short roof extension at the
bedroom window areas.
5. TMC 18.60.050(5) - Miscellaneous Structures and Street Furniture
The applicant is no longer proposing to construct a gazebo on the western
portion of the site. Instead, the applicant is now proposing picnic tables
and a workout area.
REVISED CONCLUSIONS
2. With the revised site plan (Attachment H), the applicant has provided an
improved landscape transition to the adjoining properties. The change in
grading for the parking lot and buildings has improved the transition by
reducing the visual size of the structures. Access to Southcenter Boulevard
is more direct than the access from 57th Avenue South.
MEMORANDUM to:
Board of Architectural Review
5. No street furniture is proposed for this development. Additional details
are needed for the picnic and workout areas.
REVISED RECOMMENDATION
c. Detailed plans shall be submitted for recreational areas.
September 17, 1987
Page 3
Based upon the revisions made in the apartment project contained in this memo,
the Planning staff recommends approval with the following revised conditions.
1. Revise the landscape plan prepared by a landscape architect to include the
following items subject to final approval of the Planning Director:
a. Additional trees and shrubs shall be planted to on the east side of
Building B to reduce the impact of a visible blank wall.
b. Additional trees and shrubs shall be planted around the structures to
enhance the architectural offsets and provide a better blend into the
hillside.
d. Sidewalk connect be provided to the eastern portion of the project.
2. A detailed exterior lighting plan shall be submitted showing lighting fix-
tures and a lighting luminaire plan to be approved by the Planning Director.
Lc. t4 SG APE SG H E.OULt
G-.__• ■••••
wtt ROrhNlCilr NNtts
wu. w•4atsaa•S *A/
estoca 414041Y•:JL
R6tC04p...
nta.` TTr T 4 m• +.+ T
GI . c • 3Ke
1 -I to
PROP. 4
5 FOOT RETAINING WALL
4 -1 F • -K G I t: Y7 • 1 -1:.
ritcr- u
1-K = 2f TYPA `_
0 L 1- ` r O s 3 ••''tf
=Imo - t% -
.4" ►t K 'p w
RI0`
.:RIP
T.Ttw+
20 FOOT FIRE ACCESS EASEMENT
p LOr pL.AN
L4.*ID •SCA.PING PLa.N • • • tto'....
kR- P 'C. 11l.444. :8 V a�pc 4e o
11+11
I CI
�I!I
4(
Tr pICA.t. 12,4111-.01N S1Dt !r L'bVAT1UN 1/t --
.Ey..41..tr S A
• O1'• Itd ZO
GENCOR, APART /LENTS
RO - D41bt
TUKW IL... , W4.•5 1.4 SON• --
10 n RIDa Pt • 411.14
1uD3 P•Nt •••
a aT:tWl•
.lots : 11 sR.'.51.•T' ...PR L .•+1r
a 1ws.r ta..D ol• 11.••••. -•
4 -1
e
V
1••
c,e .'.1 II.lG L.& WEN
Tice•U
tc4NUS cl.D 4. wac.
pwN US •41.9
.Lira. P .i464
i*cst.s•_ PpR
Tsutfh C.4440441114
*•1 -4"•' rRCSs
..:.:us! « S■NUs
tt..ste.visS
4Z 4t414 • I6.6.'FFOt, •
4 S174.4••41:3
SIVI ANDcsArr
44.0H1:•. .Q11GCtIJUTA
. :00..0 • v f • MY
• Ru 1TUiY 1 6.Gtf..sUr R .:•
• 6utl...44 414 s sisss-f ~ s.�6w1slr f. L uN•
mr..- ..P ✓!•. aF /•...t. Ou•. - C•w /S
NINO
P••.•'- �,..
pulp 1a•a• PU+.
7 ~Ulf
•s1.+AZ.
1444`
144 .v.• -,ao hTxs••
44OOO1:44111.44+
TuN1•GL
CitR.D.1 44•41L
ig 10
1yt4i W 1t
A 2.t A. F-C Fr... FL. tt =R.. ft.,. tC7N
Si 1441C4441 was. a444•444 : 1m: /u.: slot 4 to, a ad.. --
tarac.•ceao atr•.444.4.+ •+•4 t
•
. • 7 _ •• a v06 tt u
2 10 tL� -t._ ., • I nos •7i Gw •. tS
..•_og_ • ` ► '` , 11,460 a.
L•04DSGh.F1IP4 Near s
L -L
Itrismtstsele. aY1Tr4 s•••• ea 111424•0Ro pow
DRMW K 4.pfRO•w M
Li / 9.14•3 fMWI+ 0441 •tW.V. .
TI mss TO S pROpOR.K 114•••••D-• --
14 pao,ntas ■ Tiny �ovRw tY1.aRi SND1C'h 17
¢.... 'f O,�•RR. AMC..
RRO
CZ:1 I$ .r.TL •as- /Tuar...
sQrs 111Dt04 U Nay rws.• pts. CITY 1 1 41 4 4 41144a "T 4^ ' •
11101[ /O coa•sirt_
• INDiG.Tes awau0...
IMD IG4Tt3 t7i.oU0•i rum -..
• 114DIC.4.Tt1 41444 t•s•T ••Rivas .6.pp'•
11.4171c4T1411 tYttaTlw6 - ��'{aaR - ..
S INDIC4r4S. Flair. 14111:44Mj
1A717 tNOIGhT IPS. LYti1IN• Ovum+ 4.
(=I ssaCatc.4pcS 41 44/ 4.44.-
IMOR4nom MToP vrRSIS..u••, 4114, 44.44
NIJK BGe- c Lo41T5 44. .•.1.3•A..S
i! 1• : L i- NUI\ •j,. g_.. i 4 �.. -.
' Otc] ... ► N•,•�. t 7 W11 sow. NM�O•rYpaG•._.
11004 uuffT�2. i. 1C UI.114T'as••
• L �fD100 1.41: s -•. 4 uNlri..
victor 40+61.416 t rawsu tip - • Ia.•27 a =••
• w•..ot..a .4404 I.-or c
....: nwa ), r.�•) -:nzxJ
c 1.1116 a' 1•au:
1 1.11.4 ft t+la:
j .1.-or C.•. /a.•.b. •3. ton/ 1110 t• .. 1 z
tt .9.Tor a- ..........• eu.-0l..aS -wu. .a,.R•3 r .........r..... _ .
!`( • Ou1..DWO''.• •. 1 sToa1T 9.9Pe a'
.-4
f. L
2P. 2. 0•14411, 1144.0. 44- cower,
6a.OS6s'sr.•a .NS...
1•/. •.,6LL1•..6 t s rau166D +1•/JNtr•101 • f>►. �lVr ,Rr•. •YiOKY.
•114.••140•• 14 sts.•us 1 YD
•J7 U•fr .P.RTtUNT CLY,P't8X
pa- Gt41JCCXS - •.•
rr1}.r 1114 F.
w.. n.nt
r+,- 1.- pTImP..O: e1 - 411 n..R-
.1.fit► LOUGS0 • 11 1
4.6.. q
as ill..
4w 4 LNJOS.C.PIN( rwi4e►.e.71.
III
ATT 1MENT 1 (REVISED BUILDING ELTION)
IL
2
2
0
1-
4
1
ol
0
olli - mum IMUIIIII IMIIIIIII
lit 111:111!, Eli
11 1. 1 1 IN
--
WE' 1 10- 4 1 1;
glinffltfuli
11 %111111 111111111111M111 1 111 11 111111111 1111
11,1 '
INIMMIPIMINIIIIIMIPIIIII WIW MI
p rill ill Ml
Iliii III Mili
RA! I N MI!
2
a
0
1,03 . ..4 k- - ,;',,,diA. • A ';
,
ATTACHMENT J (TYPICAL SOUTH ELE. ION)
1164 Lt 4U leaSPIALISMONTIS G prapor.,
IP oc.ofwerpor Nir •
11 ..........--. 11 1
Rig I I l i
1161•1111 es ''''''' —";""' if! IIIMITrl
iti*
• ••••• • as ii ii a • di.. 2 ti
Is
ligil; ...............................—
----......
7ifizz --- 4131s+
i 1 III rl N
- ....
Pi! II I li ;I 4 1 1 1 -1111
• e=: op vw1- A viewsz:.
• %-k-ts L% t4 IzdaFizests AL.PPRanxtiAtebqyze Lt DE-
cm- LJ-t-irtcort■i-rw ii.04.0LISVA■Mt. po..Y VS10014 4:::
ISO JESitg 4.4AV TR% 5 LAN Oft• S Wel:
1-1■1
CD 1J
U Lo'D 1 t■I c 1 1 —
is cm p•c)S. v ra..=e_.-r (OM C.C) t4t) c• NS /...r
01144942. so. u Nmt-• vAtte.,614z.
G S..1■1 CO?. it•% P T/ATS -ry Lotb- wobb. •
A.7.0=4 12.1,4 7..C:bl.3SSC) T c,:r q, — •"'
1. Case Number:
Applicant:
Request:
Location:
NOTE:
(21/NTC.9 -24)
City of Tukwila
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
6200 Southcenter Boulevard
Tukwila, Washington 98188
(206) 433 -1849
City of Tukwila
PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE
Notice is hereby given that the City of Tukwila Board of Architectural Review
will conduct a public hearing on September 24, 1987, at 8:00 p.m. in the City
Council Chambers at Tukwila City Hall, 6200 Southcenter Boulevard, to consider
the following:
Continued Public Hearing
87 -5 -DR: Gencor
Azaria Rousso - Architect
Design review of apartment complex containing
57 apartment units
5700 block of Southcenter Boulevard, generally located
above Denny's Restaurant
The public hearing was continued to allow the applicant
time to revise the design of the project.
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.
Published: Valley Daily News - September 13, 1987
Distribution: Mayor, City Clerk, Property Owners /Applicants,
Adjacent Property Owners, File
To the City of Tukwila Planning Commission
and Gencor Inc.
September 18, 1987
Re: Proposed Apartment Complex located directly south and west of Sunwood
Condominium Association Complex.
The Board of Directors of Sunwood Condominium Association have met with
several homeowners in the association and have discussed the proposal
of Gencor for choosing an easement program or a concrete wall to be
erected at the southwest corner just immediately south of the "A” Building
in Sunwood.
Rather than grant an easement to Gencor, the Sunwood Condominium Association
through its Board of Directors has decided to request that a wall be constructed
as a support barrier between the "A" Building in Sunwood and the proposed
parking lot to be constructed directly south and west of Sunwood.
Dated. 9 Signed:
L—/&tc.
EP 24 1987
CITY OF - I :�l.'v'r'i�A
PLANNING ViiPT,
Officiers of the Board of
Directors of the Sunwood.
Condominium Association
yJ.r.
� a llirl:jat?t`�Li� I +, X'y }}.i ai:•_�y."'S ",a'::S {�y. L'f.w. Mxc;�� +h ,x "' �v„p' .'�,`a lzki&r t-' ygilim . ti:.[ �S:S KS�'. w'i:�'Sr` � `s fin. y +q,
♦ 1yy�� Me.�q eY�n n {,�� �� yyy 4f.,y�q �!y�.�� -y{�� t�.�pu
7F' �2�af ii7. Y' it. v. 7 h.t ���C�s. �rf"''::. rl t. �w ' �.' �ixrliF�' ..`4�i::Ya:�.^ti�iNS:r_6.:YAi`' `a+:�`iF` �T �`S a +�J[utiSYW«vN .1.1.. la.�h4'l )12'1ViW/Yf !�:(tA.C+YM�ti.C17�1'y1�1. Y'.'���v�il�l�
•
Attachment
City of Tukwila
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
6200 Southcenter Boulevard
Tukwila, Washington 98188
(206) 433 -1849
M E M O R A N D U M
TO: BOARD OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW
FROM: PLANNING DEPARTMENT
DATE: SEPTEMBER 3, 1987
SUBJECT: CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING FOR 87 -5 -DR: GENCOR
At the August 27, 1987 hearing, the Board continued the hearing and requested
the applicant to provide additional drawings and propose ways in which the
design of the structure could be improved. Attached to this memo is one
additional drawing provided by the applicant. The drawing shows the landscape
area abutting Sunwood being increased in width from 10 feet to 20 feet.
The typical building side elevation and building floor elevation have been
revised to reflect staff recommended Condition #3. The design change reduces
the building's height approximately 4 feet. Due to the size and the use
of color, the other drawings requested will be submitted at the continued
public hearing.
IGi
....L` "tt. Y'�.�ti' .....�., i�•:iY: �, r.�..n �... .. .v, i rl;. r ., ..... ., ,.. » {.... ..'� '„k..,.... .. t.,s ..., n. s.,`. 1, �t':�.. �. Y::
MUM
N
ARCHITECT 7605 SOUTHEAST 27TH STREET, SUITE 215 • MERCER ISLA
August 28, 1987
Mr. Jack P. Pace, Senior Planner
City of Tukwila
6200 Southcenter Blvd.
Tukwila, Wa. 98188
Dear Mr. Pace:
After last night's B.A.R. meeting, I went back to the drawing board and,
after much preliminary sketching, I arrived at a new exterior appearance
for the Gencor Apartment buildings. I have enclosed a copy of the south
elevation for your perusal and comments. I would appreciate these com-
ments as soon as possible. I might mention the important criteria in
creating the new design and these are as follows:
1. A more residential appearance was required.
2. The building height should not be increased nore could floors be elim-
inated.
3. The building overall plan and unit plans could not be revised at this
late date.
4. A pallet of warm colors should be used. I am now planning to utilize
cedar siding with each building stained slightly different from one
another. The posts, railings, exterior plywood deck facings and trim
would be stained slightly darker than the main building color. The
shingles would be left natural.
I am also planning to revise the plot plan. If you will note the north-
east parking area has 30 feet wide driveways. These will be changed to
25 feet wide and the 10 feet of width gained shall be added to the north
planting strip. This means that this landscaped area will be 20 ft. wide.
By the 4th. of September. I hope to have in your hands the following:
1. Revised elevation drawings.
2. A drawing showing the building north elevation.
3. A south elevation showing the face of all five buildings, there spacing
and relative heights.
4. A revised plot plan drawing.
I shall look forward to hearing from you.
Yours very truly,
0
Azaria Rousso Architect
r',;4`;1�3��\'01i I
\iiG 1. 1987
C;VTY OF tJYVViLA
PLANNING DEPT.
98040 • (206) 232 -3505
MINUTES
City of Tukwila
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
6200 Southcenter Boulevard
Tukwila, Washington 98188
(206) 433 -1849
CITY OF TUKWILA
PLANNING COMMISSION
AUGUST 27, 1987
The meeting was called to order at 8:07 p.m. by Mr. Larson,
Chairman. Members present were Messrs. Knudson, Larson, Kirsop,
Sowinski, Coplen, and Haggerton.
Representing the staff were Jack Pace, Vernon Umetsu, Moira
Bradshaw and Joanne Johnson.
MR. HAGGERTON MOVED TO ADOPT THE MINUTES OF THE AUGUST 13, 1987
MEETING AS WRITTEN. MR. SOWINSKI SECONDED THE MOTION WHICH
PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.
87 -2 -CPA & 87 -3 -CA: , SIDEWALK PLAN COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT
AND CODE AMENDMENT Request to add policies on the design and
provision of sidewalks in the CBD to the Comprehensive Plan, and
amend TMC 18.70 (Non - Conforming Lots, Structures and Uses;
Tukwila Zoning Code) and TMC 11.64 (Sidewalk Construction).
Vernon Umetsu, staff representative, reviewed the request,
entering into the record the staff report (Exhibit I) and
recommending approval of the amendments as shown in Attachment A.
Ann Nichols, representing Segale Business Park at 18010 South -
center Parkway, distributed comments addressing the amendments
discussed in Attachment A which was entered into the record as
Exhibit II. Letters commenting on the CBD sidewalks were also
distributed to the Commission. These letters were entered into
the record as Exhibit III.
Discussion ensued on Policy 12 under Conformance to City Stand-
ards and agreement was reached that the word "may" be changed to
"shall be ".
Jack Link, 1411 Fourth Avenue Building, Suite 1120 expressed
concerns he had with the amendments to the sidewalk plan.
Ross Earnst, City Engineer for the City of Tukwila, answered
questions regarding the plan.
MR. HAGGERTON MOVED AND.MR. COPLEN SECONDED A MOTION TO CONTINUE
DISCUSSION AND ACTION ON THIS REQUEST UNTIL A LATER DATE, DUE TO
THE LENGTH OF THE AGENDA AND IN THE INTEREST OF TIME. MOTION
CARRIED, UNANIMOUSLY.
A date for action on this item was established for Thursday,
September 24, 1987.
'
� u r .. s " <d � , . ��,c rt;�i�u w':i"�":t::�dr',`.�;�i;t:a:''st a.. r S ... r ., . , c' •..,.�r.
Planning Commission
August 27, 1987
Page 2
87 -6 -DR: SOUTHCENTER GATEWAY Design review of an 84,000 square
foot office building.
Moira Bradshaw reviewed the staff report which recommended
approval subject to conditions, entering it into the record as
Exhibit A.
Bill Polk, 1201 Western Avenue, Seattle, represented the appli-
cant. He was in agreement with the staff's recommendations.
In response to a question posed by Mr. Larson as to the roof
composition, Mr. Fred Millet commented that no one can see the
roof.
MR. KIRSOP MOVED AND MR. KNUDSON SECONDED A MOTION TO ACCEPT THE
SITE PLAN FOR 87 -6 -DR SOUTHCENTER GATEWAY ON THE STAFF'S FINDINGS
AND CONCLUSIONS AND SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS WHICH READ AS FOLLOWS:
1. Revise site plan to show the following:
A. Designate loading zone compatible with pedestrian and
vehicular circulation.
B. Indicate compact stalls and typical dimensions.
C. Extend and connect the pedestrian sidewalk system to S.
178th Street.
D. Relocate light poles out of right -of -way.
E. Provide safe pedestrian access to and seating in the
plaza.
2. Revise Landscape Plan to show the following:
A. Save existing trees numbered 2, 8, 9, 11, 15 and 16 and
incorporate into planting plan.
B. Relocate front yard shrubbery to maintain safe vision
triangles at entrances.
C. Provide minimum 15 -foot front yard landscape area.
D. Modify plan to include ten 20 -foot evergreen trees at
corners and along structure, grouped in pairs or threes
to break up the horizontal mass on the northeast corner
and uninterrupted flat facade on the east side.
Planning Commission
August 27, 1987
Page 3
Discussion ensued on the proposal.
Mr. Kirsop excused himself at 11:20 p.m.
_ " ✓:} - Y.4• - •r {� < ; "C! ^l�il•: "al'.2. !1 �Xn yNr..'i it iA l'yy�' fC.N.'..f...r.;?r; '";..
,.."4'. 7c' '"- S: l :LCik,.l; °aa,..'.';:•..._...a.. :'� }: ;. �._..,'. a. ,,....,.,.n..w,�:....:.•�.5:..: �:: ?lkaz _uw 4�.,:x.t.ec,. :._.. ..
E. Provide additional landscaping at end of center entry
parking aisle and along center of lot as shown on
Exhibit E.
F. Provide a detailed plan indicating size and type of
landscaping.
A VOTE WAS TAKEN WITH KNUDSON, LARSON, KIRSOP, SOWINSKI AND
COPLEN VOTING YES AND HAGGERTON VOTING NO.
A short recess was taken and the meeting reconvened at 10:00 pm.
87 -5 -DR: GENCOR - Design Review of an apartment complex which
will have five buildings containing 57 apartment units.
Jack Pace, Senior Planner, reviewed the staff report which
recommended approval of the proposal subject to conditions. He
distributed the color scheme to be used for the outside of the
building.
Steven Friedman, 1633 72nd Avenue S.E., Mercer Island, and
representing the applicant, discussed the proposal.
Azaria Rousso, 7605 S.E. 27th, Mercer Island, and architect for
the proposal, discussed the design of the apartment complex.
Philip Verhalen, 15255 Sunwood Blvd., represented the Board of
Directors for Sunwood, expressed concerns regarding the impact
the development will have on Sunwood.
Leon Grundstein, 11801 N.E. 160th Street, Bothell, spoke in favor
of the proposal.
Christine Gordon, 15222 Sunwood Blvd., expressed a concern that
the site is not conducive to disabled people and if adequate
parking has been provided.
MR. KIRSOP MOVED AND MR. KNUDSON SECONDED A MOTION TO CONTINUE
APPLICATION 87 -5 -DR - GENCOR FOR TWO WEEKS TO GIVE THE ARCHITECT
ADEQUATE TIME TO ADDRESS THE CONCERNS EXPRESSED. (BUILDING COLOR,
SIDE ELEVATION OF THE BUILDING AND BUILDING PROFILE OF THE ENTIRE
COMPLEX). MOTION UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Planning Commission
August 27, 1987
Page 4
� =C�'^ '� "• ?'7 ?s ..';`.'' �". v°•; F; R':.`^" n "= '"- ',i'.,'',.,.�:�?;�• °"S'!,; ,? vr` v,,.. i;, w, tt; �. tci`;. �: �= ti ,ura'i` «t`' + >'`....�.:�3:r�,�"? tom' ?x4i�i:?z�t�'•'S&`�;c�`f.?'!
3. Provide color samples for BAR approval.
87 -8 -DR: KAISER GATEWAY CORPORATE CENTER, PHASE III - Design
review of Buildings 7, 8, 9 and 10, totaling 204,352 square feet
of office and research and development space.
.Moira Bradshaw reviewed the staff report, entering it into the
record as Exhibit I and noting that staff has recommended
approval with conditions.
Jerry Kirkpatrick, 4070 Nelson, Concord CA. represented the
applicant commented on the proposal.
Royce Berg, 1127 Pine Street #300 represented the architect for
the proposal.
MR. KNUDSON MOVED AND MR. HAGGERTON SECONDED A MOTION TO APPROVE
THE DESIGN FOR 87 -8 -DR KAISER GATEWAY CORPORATE CENTER, PHASE
III, BASED ON THE FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS OF THE STAFF REPORT
WITH THE STAFF'S RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS MODIFIED AS FOLLOWS:
1. Revise Landscape Plan to include the following items subject
to the final approval of the Planning Director:
A. Missing landscape island on southwest side.
B. Additional landscape fingerlings on west and northeast
edges of parking areas.
C. Addition of shrubs and deciduous trees along edge of
parking adjacent to river environment to achieve opaque
screening.
D. Shrubs around two dumpster enclosures adjacent to river
environment.
E. Ten evergreen trees adjacent to northeast elevations of
.Building 7 and 8, and double and vary shrubs shown.
2. Revise site plan to include the following items to be
approved by the Planning Director:
A. The staff work with the applicant regarding the
alignment of the sidewalk between buildings 7 and 9.
B. Show 30 -foot easement landward from 100 -year flood
elevation.
4. Staff be given the authority to work with the applicant on
screening the mechanical equipment on top of the buildings.
. `�iiki`t . �ivast :i'`.'�.h wv,.- Rgam- a.Y
Planning Commission
August 27, 1987
Page 5
tiBA'.STMi:
5. Provide several benches or picnic tables in landscape area
adjacent to river.
A VOTE WAS TAKEN WITH UNANIMOUS APPROVAL.
87 -9 -DR: U.S. SPRINT COMMUNICATIONS COMPANY - Design review and
approval of a buried fiber optic cable.
Moira Bradshaw reviewed the staff report, entering it into the .
record as Exhibit I and indicating staff's recommendation of
approval subject to coordination with METRO on location of
utility lines.
Mr. Mark Heidecke, 8181 Nebus Avenue, Beaverton, OR. spoke in
behalf of the applicant.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 12:06 AM.
Respectfully submitted,
Joanne Johnson
Secretary
Discussion ensued on the application.
MR. COPLEN MOVED AND MR. SOWINSKI SECONDED A MOTION TO APPROVE
87 -9 -DR: U.S. SPRINT COMMUNICATIONS COMPANY SUBJECT TO THE
COORDINATION WITH METRO ON LOCATION OF UTILITY LINES. UNANI-
MOUSLY APPROVED.
... r, c? c< .tat8r7uer: ivag.33tfacirg,:, c4. s; z:�;t,v;tus:xraus:HV.. Zr
n „ euaae<: i:+ uwzx; a: en .•1:icm;v ��ns�,rntm•eu v*n v : ✓rWnnmavttxss;sv+ rangy+ v101sr: r+: yttm9x ,2'J;!N<nN'w`?:k?S:1Y:!V'.'s}. X54:. b' �? k S dTcN .•L�l '111.., i: �':igt
City of Tukwila
6200 Southcenter Boulevard
Tukwila Washington 98188
(206) 433 -1800
Gary L. VanDusen, Mayor
REVISED STAFF REPORT
to the Board of Architectural Review
Prepared October 12, 1987
HEARING DATE: August 27, 1987 and September 24, 1987
FILE NUMBER: 87 -5 -DR: Gencor
APPLICANT: Azaria Rousso, Architect
REQUEST: Design review of a 57 -unit apartment project.
LOCATION: 5700 block of Southcenter Boulevard.
ACREAGE: 4 acres.
COMPREHENSIVE
PLAN DESIGNATION: Medium Density Residential
ZONING DISTRICT: Multiple Residence High Density (RMH)
SEPA
DETERMINATION: DNS dated August 13, 1987
ATTACHMENTS: (A) Landscape Plan
(B) Building Elevation
(C) Typical South Elevation
(D) Floor Plan
STAFF REPORT 87 -5 -DR: Gencor
Page 2
VICINITY /SITE INFORMATION
1. Project Description: A 54 -unit apartment complex containing five structures
which will be three stories in height.
2. Existing Development: There are no structures on the site.
3. Surrounding land Use: To the south, there is a Denny's restaurant and
convenience store /gas station. To the north and east, there are apartments
and Sunwood condominiums.
4. Terrain: The site is hilly with slopes as steep as 100 percent.
5. Vegetation: The vegetation consists of blackberry bushes and trees. At-
tachment A shows the existing trees that will remain on the site.
6. Access: Street access will be provided from Southcenter Boulevard. The
grades of the access road will not exceed 15% for fire truck access.
access.
DECISION CRITERIA
n; :wu�: .. —:.:, r.. vs: ,w.v:; °:_:,v�.,v.....o- ,:nmr•rer :u :,^.: � ..u,:,.o'ae.ec:: crr,_'cc::'.a� ", .s/7: m.., ._.ie�i`i '�ac �.Ski?;P'i f:':LC�7:',`1f ';'i''i ...
REVISED FINDINGS
The applicable Tukwila Municipal Code (TMC) design review criteria are listed
below in bold, followed by pertinent findings.
1. TMC 18.60.050(1) - Relationship of Structure to Site
As depicted by Attachment A, B and C, the structures will be located to the
south of the site to provide views for the residents and to provide greater
separation between structures uphill. The vertical and horizontal offsets
allow the structures to blend into the hillside versus a structure with no
offsets.
There will be a retaining wall for the parking lot south of Building "B ".
The wall will be approximately five feet in height. The parking lot to the
east will contain 60 parking spaces with a landscape island in the middle.
This landscape island is being provided to moderate the visual impact of the
large paved area.
2. TMC 18.60.050(2) - Relationship of Structure and Site to Adjoining Area
The applicant is proposing a separated trail system that will connect with
the existing City trail, as well as connect with Southcenter Boulevard. The
applicant's trail system will also provide a recreational amenity to the
site.
STAFF REPORT
Trails 1,560
Area for conditioning 900
Picnic area and general uses. 9,000
TOTAL AREA 1 square feet
87 -5 -DR: Gencor
Page 3
The southern buffer will be about 40 feet wide and retain some of the
existing vegetation due to the steep slopes. To the north, the landscape
buffer will vary from 10 to 30 feet. The landscape area abutting Sunwood is
20 feet wide, while the landscape area abutting Tukwila Apartments varies
from 10 to 60 feet.
As shown by Attachment B, the building lines and masses are of similar
quality to the structure above the site. (Tukwila Apartments, Sunwood
Condominiums).
3. TMC 18.60.050(3) - Landscaping and Site Treatment
The applicant has only provided general information concerning exterior
lighting. Additional information will be needed to ensure compatibility
with the building and adjacent property. The landscape plan (Attachment A)
provides a general plan for the proposed landscape treatment. The land-
scaping proposed between the parking lot and property to the north provides
shrubs or trees. The landscaping proposed around the building consists of a
lawn with a few trees and shrubs around the structure.
As shown on Attachment A, the sidewalk from Southcenter Boulevard does not
connect with the east half of the apartment complex. Sidewalk connection
would be possible by extending the sidewalk to the north.
As part of the landscape area, the applicant is required to provide
recreational area. Recreational area requirements for 54 units is 10,800
square feet. The applicant has provided recreational space in the following
areas:
4. TMC 18.60.050(4) - Building Design
The applicant is proposing an architectural style which is contemporary in
appearance. The building floor plan is modulated with projections for
egress balconies, stairways and decks. In addition, screen walls and a
short roof extension are provided at the bedroom windows. The building mass
is somewhat less obtrusive to uphill properties due to the flat roofs. The
proposed three -story structures are of similar size to the structures to the
north of this site.
The building siding will consist of cedar siding painted in a light tan.
The flashing, railings and entrance doors shall be painted a blue -grey. The
details for exterior lighting has not been developed at this time.
5. TMC 18.60.050(5) - Miscellaneous Structures and Street Furniture
Due to the shape and location of this site, no street furniture is contained
in this proposal. However, the applicant is proposing a picnic area and
bench on the hillside to take advantage of the views.
STAFF REPORT
REVISED CONCLUSIONS
87 -5 -DR: Gencor
Page 4
1. The height and scale of the five apartment structures is similar to the
other residential structures abutting the site. As shown by Attachment A,
parking areas are designed and screened to moderate the visual impact of
large paved areas.
2. The applicant has provided appropriate landscape transition to adjoining
properties due to the changes in grade and the varied width of landscaping
buffers. Uphill properties will see a structure which appears as a two -
story building due to the changes in grade. The grade changes also minimize
the impact to uphill properties views of Mt. Rainier
3. The applicant is proposing to use exterior lighting, but has not submitted
detail plans. The landscape plan needs to be modified to maintain vistas
for uphill properties. There is also a need to intensify the amount of
landscaping around the structures to break up the large blank walls and to
enhance the architectural features.
4. The proposed structures are of an appropriate scale and consistent with
neighboring residential developments. The structures have numerous vertical
and horizontal offsets which avoid the monotony of design. The proposed
architectural style is contemporary in design. The quality of the design is
similar to the surrounding residential structures.
5. No street furniture is proposed for this development. General information
has been provided to show the general location of picnic areas and workout
areas. Additional detail of the design needs to be submitted to know if
they will be compatible with the site plan and building design.
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
1. Revise the landscape plan prepared by a landscape architect to include the
following items subject to final approval of the Planning Director:
a. Additional trees and shrubs shall be planted to on the east side of
Building B to reduce the impact of a visible blank wall.
b. Additional trees and shrubs shall be planted around the structures to
enhance the architectural offsets and provide a Netter blend into the
hillside.
it0.4 i:a'Y X67.. R:f atotu ysitvateAkalvwiveminw+mwutetrwe araeac aouev sx.... ..,...«.. uma. an.. u. a. leNrrmKavabt.o... mnw..+ .MommIxnx<xAriettrmntymrmxrNOta,
STAFF REPORT
87 -5 -DR: Gencor
Page 5
c. Detailed plans shall be submitted for recreational areas.
d. Sidewalk connect be provided to the eastern portion of the project.
e. Revise the north landscape areas to provide view corridors.
2. A detailed exterior lighting plan shall be submitted showing lighting fix -
tures and a lighting luminaire plan to be approved by the Planning Director.
(22/87- 5 -DR.R)
•.i. 111W.Ie.P11.4GS ‘Al
TO 1PL0u4 P1i14.�
risz.tr. t
To
SVa•�a7 .ar.71J.^ /�o
^+
5 FOOT RETAINING WALL
20 FOOT FIRE ACCESS EASEMENT
pt-or PL A.N
j,.i•DSCAPINQ PL.► l .• • Teo' -...
s•••G. 1C444L • �O �d er
a•u
r0•
va.l T.Ttw+
TYPIC `` ING Sttst W..tVATI4N lie• •: °�•
40 Pr Dart
1•r: vt • w. +T.N�.s...
G7 •
2402. cuff /MOM. 4M..
• Nom •••••••1.r wad, i w1r
1 •••r a••P a• %1.0•.3 1c L•DI•••
"a• .1
3-:
GENCOR, APART //ENT5
T UKW 11.... , W••H lNfiT"O -
LANG .GAPE SCM 1;[7ULt
•
•or••Nicam war.
T•
CiMrai cosh,+.. w•c•.
F1Wr+ua vl<xN.ua
.LCD. P••_.•Tua
.f• •. ••.G ••••.INUw
aK•.i.al• P.0•
*yawn..a 17•9.
£j3*. 'KA3NF"O..
j13yFuil03 •d.Oosi••
VW09I•..•..J1f000..
Qm ja
GGINA,01.1 P■•••
pussr,A, •-••■ P.a..
49.1•••.s w..Rf
SIC • ••■-•
•O•••• .P•uta
TTe•ms
1.0.••PPe. AZ.�.•.
•.•0D0DO.7O•+••t
Su MIPQ
GfsOK ••••r1 t
slat
rep it
I.1'.L•`
.uta•.
LAND SCARIN 1 -
I.- 1FR1. •• lvire•/l •••.. p. q•oMPsiss • m IN3T4.
D.••.. K •••sovois M 41Y ••
Li.... 1105 1••0••4..•t wwln J3_.
1.4 es.s. Tyros 1p 4 FaaF•...W STsraw0. "__
!et •wv■D. 1 m.# toy..• stream. S•Ri+4•17.-••'4 0I141•R•••..f~
•••••• t V•Y- '-.--
1•i
18
ao
9
10
11
11
41
11
ARtP. FOR R. tG¢_tAT
N 9• ••M ee.•••. 1 Z i W1••N. w, .0o1..._
•L 1t�• �• .•••r:
T .... r112. • 3101J. 1%...1, 11 1.0
Mm .0.. T1000•3 X00.•
i rr -a•. t1•G• ••••••
DR►wlµG Le G1=1 -4
11,460°'
4. •••.• 11, Tom.. • .
T•.• IWD.urs • sway, TN..- .... CAW wo ilaaa T -• •
• le••IC31 CQ•R
a. r.w_
._
: • I•P.G.gsa S••w• ...
W P tG■.11I•m, wC+D000. Tns...
• I•D,c3T•a. ••a.► .,•.•T c.r/WY n•a .r••rovsq:-
[ I•O1abrIMit Eat Lal••• •• 'rsmar••.
: ° 11.1DIGATMIL Pei; NVDRAner....
7A INOIG•raIM aut3Tll+ O.•2164 f W+O.F►r1N4•.
I1 •-1•.• .•.••• y../ •33_ 40y•._
i
f,IVNb Mt CJ• uN ITS .. ^.rtsAS
tort •iF:••0•ssTV gm. -••a. .37 • ....
• •...0044. Yom. I.or • 044•••4.0. •
u.•.O•.•ay, k• ••90•r,.Tr•••
..4- LHLi••
1
•.1 1.13c. ••• lo.• ;•TL:
4: Y•. •4 •r 3.443.•
.a•1 1. 14.•• • ••• 1 + 4f.
sr •
t 44r• t•■••• 13. KM/ ma..1 -1 = It.IT
• Tora." •••.. v •u..d.+aa .. •u" .s Ian t" 3. wt.,
r'
I r • au.-D' -S3 •'.• .. 1 •r ..11..•
• 34.140"4 •1 ,.1 3 003(
.•u•.D1ua•C.. • sf�a�••Y * ••4 4. Lw'T • 1.9 ...
• 34.•,..01•..•. d... •tsaav 1. ••• ••••■T S. 4.u, .c1L••
• • • 0.4 o•NG•S+•1 •pan:4 •..•M ••
. war... AP.A. 0 1. 4.1-4. 34'-0.433 •• 1.11•
1019.0111•19 0. ••••••■••• t�a,a�
i •••••••••••••• f • i WO • O Z..0+++P•-• • MO. •1•110•0.I.
•ari Ir _AP ARTASINI CIAKPL JC
• a e7�-- •aa.1e,..� -•- �
.1 •.�1!♦ ..00350 • ARG 411�-8�.. ••S
.3 iTM• ../••••am. •• 9.04134
gp.rr 4 I.MJ06CrPI►1G PLANI T¢' %a.
Iv
IIIlI II i MHO
ATTACHMENT B (REVISED BUILDING ELEVATION)
Ila WIIIIM
111 Irll l.111' Ili
NEE III! i 0!
MMINNIII __II � .
RA IL I al _, 1111 :11111111111lO 1:1 Nu 11 IIIIIIIIIIII i
11 11411IIIIIIIIIIlIbI 11111I111M1111111I1111111 11111
I u u i un, i iiliiii
!
s
f lhIimmeliiii Immo imumwi _
C ' Nil nil
•i■ 0111 011
5! ;.1 I®I!I !!
:d
1
Q
J_
2
0
W
W
1
0
J
4
4
2
LI1
J
Q
01
0
z
. a •
ATTACHMENT C (TYPICAL SOUTH ELEVATION)
• "WM PaerlmailarveCtwri. mar"scra,
Ww,ADIDIEPLarY 1411C«•
J-D-1-ts . *PPRZDX1/A4 L NIL or-
rI? P P N/ as,s vtle.w.co•
IsourRcarts-rom. sowt..swoc.t, V514:714 *=).
CO‘LO' MS Ems Leow fl + t LAKIN oteisc.umimp
414 l..1 A .7-t■1 PLfr.
0u
13U tt.. 11%4
'Rowr:m. tom c.c) %%40 ' 4 ' T anitez. %L.° I %%MI6 St/M.4W.,..•
G s...1.4 C. c A.% -rvIcw t-A- witb-
A.:74k 12A,41. ce.oussin Att‘le.Gt-k mc:r - tie - Si
AO_ - N
n
ENc.LJP.cXYti
„ 5
'Aft '.TT.e
1
4
LAU An...M. - t
r1s4s.. - , y
�aa.41o_
' T1
•CAA PCT'
•
IV II.IG /D!N,14c.
Aso
I.Tz.
1
TAP. 2 gT=_DTZ /.
.
1 L _ P.EDa )C:I.•/'. '.)1.117^...
ATTACHMENT D FLOOR PLAN
U1.IIT ,/.r`t'- eu.,rf►... •
$YP. %Tuoty U1J IT....
rrP. VATU0(0.: UNIT FGR. Ti4
}•r/ 6YG/4.t1.1r µAN;a`l 1.4A
LV//\N1 ∎ A.1(..51
�LbGTRIGl4.L Nc7t
RL.r.ILOV101111 4. C.0w7•LirM L•\TfLL4(Tq.1
Pee. APPL144.La L'OOSi C�.DI/JAhlti \...
.i AU.. 64.\0e. ► 004.71EILIALAII W./ L GVAN44411R.
R %PLU4. S RI tITJaf\ t1414U.. ss .w5 stRt..sacTaa.
• P 1PROVIDa 5LUI M amYVIRaC a «W121.11
Sy. FOM11.Yf /FOUNDIApON v ►.is _
•MbAl U* 11a11P05iS1.4i TO
RW.D 30,..6 a W01.4 4 /M�la. raOVtD....17OVIOs
240 4 - n.40 iR ".404. � YRLAD Ot/r
v aoe ThlN A P..f Fear. Au Rit4U IRm Ps\xtrsn\.T 1.-
15.1.1.1.4T11011 L04.«- 'r a 1111cTVACA.. zNtr,►u.�TtaN
_ PR coosrs A CORD IN ANGa L... •
K ♦w u.\oe- 4 .w.Ta.u..s 5.4 1 Pins. Ot4•.\n•4Tts..,
uaN INSL P•' r'-ess SM4ML ova 4 savcTm. -.
!.4 4bMT1N6 CdwTY44 WOW.. TAIIIIR:241111114.41 �O
AMMO sol'- t.l.o:r * Cr<4.P f wcM 11-141lat afi11�IT3
Irk 1.040.32.14.0uNAD 'W L...
E.i. G3♦T•AIN ►AY Foe ALL. rttara'.■R PsvtTa /raid...
11. vuoslurROVNO Sam/was, 1/0.N ~Am.,
P►� Q. t LNDIVtDLAL. ~WKS PO! MCOJri 4. M UN*T
4. 6u► -rw04aa R.
.- Preov,ota auscro■c. looesa.o.+D ,JUITs 4
R*CJe•1101:2 WALL. 0111.4WbS Pa x44Dl o 4.a
tatautsaD Pole •eArp..G, 1<YJ fWNTf.Il .W DE51Dt
- erw+cs...TURa
Q. •7 .4 w14s14 rm. OVTatue T. s
;�•c. V.. LrvPOe..Arle.4 G+ uutTa P*QVm
arm. AP►RO. P*.. Ti0 ►'JRGI�•Ile...
PI MIL. 4 LIF . - r' Nc›T
Pd. PRov.os A Plea 1.L . ILYaTr/".4. AUK: LI4S1r.t4Ju><10N
DaY..:.4M1111 TO ILIUM •V.aa1.04. FOR. l.PP11041.t.....
Gs D.T es.d,
• uN:T w.•sea LeAD■C.4.T.D ».
%a- PRO, 011 L•..2A- 1019c. w.TaD F.tI..4 ihr.1..Asves.voce
a4lTeatea vwu_ 6 a4st. 5s r.4sow•f '2 A .,w
Gtaaa.. .
a .4. ALL Doom- OP\N14.4.5 Q_ UNITS S1V.LL. \E w MFM/T�
lRL`!'D *Lr LJ.1Yl.....
2. PfO.IC* ays>• ul►Mr'- To tLt..u. lM4. 'U Mgr MM
PW4..Utt.O'•i TD Oa. WWI.
JW\ae. Pac col{�et7l -..•-
WItSiNS wu2T S 1 MOVa F,1s P ll.A.4 b/ ISTP/a
141 W 44.', •a+ OF Pl s uN aooF Mi* K
au W.VLT D.IeT2 TO 145 vile pen1 .
s7. cLap.,RS 0e4C7LS Mtlr WW1. 1!xw4.1%T Ovgl. Ta SUM.
S NOTES
/i1444a 504.6 R4P0L1' PeaPAtea ItK 74.44 -1 .. Tt7w,R
0 .Tee 6 - t• - 117 Ar.b.44.5. se 07+etDisa7 A /AaT OP
2. 2.1.1G1.A%Va 6011. \i4al h462 2.0.00 Pt\.r•... CAW
;o Sato MW.wa... Pnov•a Av611t11D Car. P.Las
'1/11.aa /S.P eJ01c. b S 4 J* / pule
5. GDNCa\Cra: 5 44.Cx NtX F.c= 2.00D asz ». C 41
4. 1114.11 -1P., iT716_ : Dk4K U.4LD A.S.T M. •. 61 -_4. 4Si..�tJ1,
Gf + 40, 000 P.5.2.-.
-5. sTS - T: ' cwPSO.4 a ISGL. !O.1NeGjtONa W ty.1L
4904.7 P. MR...
•6. PLYHOOD iwtATMt..bt FU Cl- �'cD•,T'Ar., L.4DeL M/
WA =fL "G D., U1DeL y'•4... RtOOf _ 4' -O 9N0flt W M.
NN1N41 : MIA 1 4'0L.Q. ..•5 • 11' o.c.22NT, su►PO4T2.
PQIJY'D\. !tO[LI■6 a 04:'0410!. \UP►oa.T'•... •.
--1, Lum4505A..: sua.As +roars - 0.P. A. L, 1,4x1) F IC.D..tOb
\f.. Rtap arvDS 5025 % D•P.•
01'4.2. FRAn. •1 • KTrdL..-
S - a. 54000 PLJ..:t \Ot.• - 1Ha : Y4:43 ,[, :O A..C.404. ao
/AAA. t' -o P404. Pu.Ts 4 #40...Au- PLATw
0 a. .#000 4LFJLOar16 04 co. 'r4 T' v4 coN.ceJ: Ta
44.41.LL 6s TRaAT 0...
AUG tI till
1
1L+a G R... •
4i4.n .4o[>s
wet NM N04 efl - 41\
• LL.
;I;4 w• •/1. 1.4►lA.! 1A 1/0121130 • A,1/- C4iITINC -'T
,SO - 4.!7,,6.,1 /NAM& nacos f..r.a..
TM. UN t'r PLANS ♦ NOTT'4 ..••,6I••s . .
City of Tukwila
6200 Southcenter Boulevard
Tukwila Washington 98188
(206) 433 -1800
Gary L. VanDusen, Mayor
Notice is hereby given that the City of Tukwila Planning Commission and Board
of Architectural Review will conduct a public hearing on August 27, 1987, at
R :00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers at Tukwila City Hall, 6200 Southcenter
Boulevard, to consider the following:
Case Number: 87 -2 -CPA: Central Business District Sidewalk Policies
Applicant: Tukwila Public Works Department
Request: Add policies on the design and provision of sidewalks in
the CBD to the Comprehensive Plan, and amend TMC 18.70
(Non- Conforming Lots, Structures and Uses; Tukwila Zoning
Code) and TMC 11.64 (Sidewalk Construction)
Location: All City areas bounded by and including Southcenter Boulevard
on the north, I -5 on the west, and the City limits on the
east and south.
V 1. Case Number:
'Applicant:
Request:
Location:
2. Case Number:
Applicant:
Request:
Location:
3. Case Number:
Applicant:
Request:
Location:
4. Case Number:
Applicant:
Request:
Location:
(21 -2
City of Tukwila
PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE
Planning Commission Public Hearing
Board of Architectural Review Public Hearings
Published: Valley Daily News - August 16, 1987
Distribution: Mayor, City Clerk, Property Owners /Applicants,
Adjacent Property Owners, File
87 -5 -DR: Gencor
Azaria Rousso - Architect
Design review of apartment complex which will have five
buildings containing 57 apartment units
5700 block of Southcenter Boulevard, generally located
above Denny's Restaurant
87 -6 -DR: Southcenter Gateway
Centron Corporation
Design review of an 84,000 s.f. office building
Generally northeast of where 178th Street crosses I -5, NW *,
Sec 35, Twn 23, Rge 4.
87 -8 -DR: Kaiser Gateway Corporate Center, Phase III
Kaiser Gateway Associates
Design review of Buildings 7, 8, 9 and 10, totaling
204,352 s.f. of office and research and development space.
12700 - 12788 Gateway Drive
87 -9 -DR: US Sprint Communications
US Sprint / Mark Heidecke
Design review and approval for a buried fiber optic cable.
Along Union Pacific Railroad right -of -way within 200' of the
Green River, SE * of Sec 14 and SW } of Sec 14, Twn 23, Rge 4
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.
MNIa
lagg
o .
ARCHITECT 7605 SOUTHEAST 27TH STREET, SUITE 215 • MERCER ISLAND, WA 98040 • (206) 232 -3505
July 1, 1987
Mr. Jack Pace, Senior Planner
City of Tukwila
6200 Southcenter Blvd.
Tukwila, Wa. 98188
Re: Gencor 57 Unit Apartment Complex
Dear Mr. Pace:
In response to your concerns regarding the roof shape, I have chosen to
design the buildings with flat roofs for many reasons, some of which
follows:
1. I wish this to be contemporary in appearance insofar as the building
shapes and colors selected are concerned. I might mention that , in
the last two years, more than one half of the homes selected as Seattle
Times homes of the month have had flat roofs.
2. The building floor plan is modulated with projections for egress
balconies, stairways, decks and utility rooms. A sloped or gabled
roof would not be fitting to the varied occurances.
3. The building mass will be smalller and less obtrusive with a flat
roof than with a sloped roof.
2. T,_Vi Jl. } t L !`fit �. ~ �. >V J.C' ?'-1`�1) +t'1 '1:;: .• •'_'.
4. The use of sloped roof would mean that the buildings would be several
feet higher. This would have an adverse affect on the views from the
apartmeent buildings to the north.
In conclusion, I feel that flat roofs "fit" the building design. I have
seen several new buildings in the Burien area with blue -gray bevel siding,
white trim and shingled sloped roofs. I found the first of these buildings
"interesting" but I now consider the design monotonous and unimaginative.
If you have any further questions or comments regarding the roof design,
please advise.
Yours very truly,
q ;,,tzo
Azaria Rousso., Architect
ATTACHMENT C
Q
N
I I I lia ,
At\ \\
rallor �III�IMIII�i iii
•
/ / //
/// /� /i
I'' !Eli
111111!
11!111
i
3
1
1
Y
GENCOR A
•
I
r _
=.
. L
E 3
\
;,
GGA 101.1 MA
, '
itvit"..7-49
``;; fit—
t i
,.. . ,
.
. , ; � \
3' ,
1 \ it
0 . 6 i
1
\ � :. \ : :
TUKWILA 1 WA.
•
o
4 / !
f
$I g ®
1 1
t,14
...,.._
I
1
,
.
-,---
ZA
r
.
[:o.I
F *.v I NG z NCi )c
4.
!` 6 ii111
1 PIP
,! c
:.tl=
! ! -
2 1
• g
sit i
ii i
1 Pi!
i ! :•
s t.
_ i:
, •
If gng °s:Q1
I r ;s - i sz -s.
s .
: 2-ill -:g-
- 1• i
! j
ig
. - - isg1i
f !! s
i ° _ ! • " : '
_
t .t E "Iii.
" 1 : t ! I :`S!'
f 1 g i t _
: t ."! stf
'r t 'c. 'Ii
_ i..: Ili
, 4 .
II "? ; tt: 1O s
11.t =6A L_ D 5.0 - % tc., ha ....
filL111.01142a i. ♦'d P s.Jdra 4
IL JSw(to Ws...
LJJmo cra m..as !Ladd SacLi um 4-Normal
aowTnua. Purr_.
D.+r
iimmicousqlow
r t. 1
... i
I
srg ..__ e= -"117.".t _ ° -
t " -= - ..
■j1' I s •
? !i ff
1i 1_
. � stst
." Irg i l ! 1 1 ' s Ifs I i ' i ' ri e
r -:
-t a ..:: i I i. 1 1 i_
j =l 12 i : :t If - : !s: c i
t: . t o :r.
-i_ r - .tt. =t- . i
;i `II V 1 B il e ' " . 1 ::
fit F 1sf: t = a
t ' tt =xii
:c - 4; i ! : = -=it : ! iss!=t:
.f i
0 •• -' _ i
i . ; t . i s : :j
~
ri_ I. t-
i. '
i -
=1
"ar let- .i
: 1_ ?SF r _ - .x • : "
1: e t i - -. - t .
; c if _ i ii Ei _'; 4'.
.
"i .=i : i it 1.1 :-
/111 "s= i qi ii i gg_
:_. Ii _
a • cE= j�sd f 1
Wilt t
i hi =i!s ft ..
A
I A MAP 4. oa.. ° - 1E1
M+
�
so
fO
Ft �
S
r
i!
A •1l LJw+1 r IArwi 1 ........1 c.cs.y-L�..
....,o� O O GG.JCOt
„/ l...v.. TV C=. _ :.'. ..
MOj� Limn i...•4,- *'n aM
. oS A7 -ct
Y
aralmaa
fz) L.U PLAN t s
101.14 -/ S. 4.04' .O
V
N• Il = M' -O+. • 11.4..o
O W'n' I0 4 71 LOO
51 6 PL-P- i
GRIP• O d .b� 1Od
1d ,0 •o
a.
Il .•41.. H. • W 1L7• V.
•r -0 \ +1•.� 1I •d
••o,uurf LAWS
1 ' a•o•
Cir' 1•ualhis4112.. •11WSL 41.
s..ws. uT7•r11SS ••as
/N•1.•4L34 S. $T''- 1 -
S•SS. ice." Ga.V +R •••■ •••v _A-
PM0A FUIL.P0 Mr 0a I.1
o w COMaiT 2 a t
D E - 'd _c r /.'.E r - r 1
• /wp••uri, : a.. a. w•.. 1. I.►{: ULA1T •u .0w6D rat- 1.500: OF UM
• Pao F'- t - ( 5■24 pv - -•-' ..,,2,454._ 1•44.0 -VAS, PILOSIIC
• 141.1•e4.1.1_. ..n+ 1r•• e1 PS.pPOStD Vim. 1116 ••LLC•M D 1pN.Na..•
• ••••••.-1uG .r.. n: it1.....2 yr•-ui Pte. UM1T PIM2 •..40._.
1G
N•
UY.G1•R OP _ 6 x'• pOO. l•{3K MPIOI G•^"�`:
• W ►•n.. WI.SLL. TOM 3T2I' ►KJ� �U11iT10WS...
•au.a1•re,
• sU1.p1N4..'4: -. f ►•vclS 2. 2.422 - a 1.2944
ar►10.M••r4 t. l60 4 • LSO : (� •' a s /mYJ...
Y•a11A 1..1.co. +1a • 100 •' ('SSP 1 L...00aN...
i 'T US"-tl/ Wa.a SO •
PLpaZ Y•a
• QU1tC1•.ati w 5.++. •41 11,11,D0•21 a 1.00.1YJ4.44. 041O
iZr.Wr waQ.a £a14 a
• tU1L.PIM! -- 3 /tGOlua d 2.4056 J a• 1.444 •'
L ar..1a•Ian1 i.. . ' 1 20 .'
LKaa! saemeaulaw a 110: (14•1•'. L PLaO.S)....
f. arOr.m Vr1 1}Y WOW • SOD'
D�cw (ft.10d.4t f 1)
TflrwL ILOOS- M�•1• , 1l .'
.d1q.Q NO. • O ., ••••.2.14 111V1L.DIML .-
TOTh1- F1-OO •..ak f X741
• $UltDWdt ^'1 ►1- 001-521.416a • 4.4O&
F 'T' 1. Mao' a 110 l'
t mammas WLe]NS.S. 440 .' (1.10..4 1 iLOOf.13
LL ou.r uI}1Iues1 Mama 1O •'
..o.• RS L a0• ts 100:
rQT 4- .tdOF. MUSS. s S.14 e
• TOTAL. H germs OF_ U•4TL aK r[/t_ t a 010 ua r * .b...
Olto0 L.04 ' 4 1 S�•.OdI. V1.I ... V..�
rpm_ UNI
• F4. T.p�+•.•� I. : 11.0•411•1•L COWS /TIPULA. I. •' OFD -YSI►
ffa /V•.jl -, w7/ 1141 ...11.4LO. i YO...fs 9/t< -.W Mora....
O .lmis iaia+ C11
G1{Lall sa aaleaLSl.►u.ta
• 1i Oa Lila..
2. S1C -■ Su11.011• tN►W LawsrA1N LIMO r•'L 10 • O. lloTM. - .IDOL
1. ND /•.a•T of 41.'4 w.LO.Ma Y•.L.a- V U•21141142.24 2 T aalaJf Maw M.&
41222.G■61'
5. .11115 wenO∎ MT$ IOWA- S PlioVIDSO /EL. 0•4N0•1 /10 aSftulRl
1 r PwaWf+G *VMS. WITH 1O P1 YIDS. VUSM '/
OMS 1O.L+- 14
1 4.04 LAP P11La IMSM VIM �•
♦�!• Ui 1N�W a2 s,•1a0•0 1•fPi -.. I-44W a1.11Ja•SS -
iTLI WINO ' a4'PW IA U IM•+- r.f {MaLI��fG '•
{
:SPPhc.t/.L R. C- tlt/►j'tC U .L ARM".
Lt Plossaw •rj' CL10a 41.L* MIL WO 40.PT. ow RSGa
P �•.(10N
. Y 1R. IP••a-rao ar LM.a` I ^ -� l• vCauuD RS4/IY 11. 4
•0 1 No. •,T? AU-011‘60).11•1111.411 �
.. uaiL 1 %1. /00 alma 44•41.--f um
OS
VS 1� 2i wiOT 11. SO.FT �a1L T i
. /f�.tYi/wGtVrCS�/trl' D U�...=r La vim., TD O y � Oa WW1 (' • S% I... =I- l•
. a W,i. 10
OC 1. �A LIMb
• 1 O..a PLJJC 44 CL TTL1 oO � L1 UU aa iT al V-
INO.
•40a4. -- LN /.Da. ' J- - ••L awe i1 (
VwLYANG ♦.man- ... venom ais' moon trOIS P1..0.1•14131:3
x t-' /.MM•T -T SLUG. WIT r.aCt w IJ.MDfCJ.PfOD A•• MAO Vhf FMG
)n6W.. t•40 u..ors d!' Ills ,4.4.0-42 1FF -.•. TIMM [ 2..•L;ficosta CiLki soma P•b1•� L ‘204429.64,...:f • MSS
▪ WLL.d•/Si 1 amass iii 1 �� n • ewer D1M� -•r
aLODU as /L I..a 1
1010[a01i Ta a00 T+1(aaair 1 M a..o.-•
1.. UNIT I.p Lr con.PLSi•
•l dS: GCaIL...
o o O .-v. -
vy
ar. -117 SOS, .•.t.
..n •..• -al SOS •••:• On- 42_9 {
0.a4.•ala. t.0U5i0 • LSGI.1
71.05-4.S. 21 T1.. o Room U. 11040/u2 -nob
S ITE 4. mar BANS twa -, 5
1
1
9TJI
VI hill
•
• 1 1'11 '11111
kkk F
itg
f
z
E.k-'441
ail ....
.......
...1
_
. •
N
alli
.-..,,,..._,,,,,,,
erwa,,
:-,:
ft labor , s 'W.... •••••
..■••-•'
=
-•-••=a• wool. A.Lrlan - WOK, 1•••• 11,7
• 0 . w, Ale Irjr; eeNtete V -auacred :
100 ..." - a" 211 i'c•n• ". Zr-4% <1 r • - AOC,'" • -21 0 0 n
mr -2:41.1•rarD I ....‘""UN5c" Ne." j"'" V V.V4
•IMINNIIIO■IN. OM.
9 . ssisit
soot,: ~wit waurs/ ...d.u.ifc-cost.
trivie 4. • ensnens 'crew ivy
=mot •V, lbw LS-11-11
••••• ■••••1
L ••••••• CIMLON•
••-••••n-L • pr OOt
VarldrirCr) 1•11r//11 V:r1 1_97;
N•••rIci 'WO Cr"
-I I?* caicird.S.
•sv‘lett
Ann locel 'urns .6
•-•••l•••••
-v••••■ 9111101;7•Al.
0
r.
0
ir - ,141.1•111
• - + 1■••••• - 71C7C7 - 1
..111-4r1 ...roc 'T
•-.4111e'S •aelLit: ..1•0•41.1.• WV1U n od IICrle
;:ia..SCr1 •AErra
1104. •••••••11. a. "
•-•T`4'I nezi - 2/0C) - 1 *C11 . ..1:2PV61
',crica • N 01 VA anla
;tr„ • • 1-4c7L1.`Nerssr13 J.smQ
A.1 -"tin
.
vcras
..111•
slect
to-A•■••• of CM•Irs.••■■
dl: Td.11.41 03111..■••1‘ • ••InIew
11 ir o
dr-kr; Jawrar,
4 •
^•• • .1•••41c1 sr'. • r•i J. v -va
WO. 71•411
•■11•412•1•1 1 isiousto-•i• .11111hunselas mes.e•mbsimmo • mo •••••
0007 ••■••••• • 61••••
• ••••••••• • WiTiln
•D•-w•-• •-•11.3 •111.•• •-•"r•-••
1 P{-AN • L
I,UILOIN¢ •• OSP. ea. +.rm.. .
s
L C 0111. PL •••N • J,,.
•v
. FLU(' IZ • e JtL.01NG c
• ..VocimL 111441.0.■ Y/ mug.. 1•4 L g .t! rM•a. - --
hl. -OOR PLI.• L` LLVI►10C?N3 wV It, ° C'. -.
rt. •,w...... , M.n ...WA mss.
FLC>Of . PI ).4 • = - NQ. FLUOR.
,bUI LOINO . ..Q. a•Ua.....
▪ NJ . •.MlMG *CALM
-0 4 ay.
ri 1,• waa •Tip
GEDUfl -4 LeVATIUN • bUILc, NG G op.. - u'� rt�lc�� -
Mi l
Lft. I+TION • RUILpIP4 • G�
OtJ -4-4 aL It vI.T1C7N • bLPri.'n•...,
• :I� o• ••- rrrl4r.�. -.
1L..1G � ►'...T� p.p.�M. -1��
.11 II .1 JLIU1 naini
as ST a1- 4VI.TIV• • 6Lp4.. "C_....
t,<T p. LSVAtION • •...O0.. • G "...
BcAS� iI�.VATj42h1 • �LGQ�. "�'--
1d OR -TH EL.avATI • iLDV"! "..- LeAtP.TIG • 'SLAG- 'C....
31 uNITT A►I.∎T..aMIT ccvPLaot
Pew ..
4a nlGOC.
oo s,,,n.- a r.
ty
s.., �lop.o � La. • -•-�7 p. No: a7 - iL1
"1ARIA Rl]U330 •ARCM IT6C1•
74011 h p...p /sumac.. a.•44o/s +z -vrs,
15UILotN6s"C.'
IBAit5 0,6
gencor ostergaard and robinson
geodimensions
proposed revised site plan
south elevation
elevations
site plan landscape schedule
landscaping notes
drawing legends