The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutPermit 81-12-W - CAMPANELA - RESIDENTIAL/OFFICE BUILDING WAIVER81-12-W INTERURBAN AVE CAMPANELLA RESIDENTIAL/OFFICE BUILDING WAIVER April 20, 1981 Page 3 CONSENT AGENDA - Cont. B. Approval of Vouchers Claims Fund Vouchers #9737 - #9981 Resolution #787 N, OLD BUSINESS Campanella Waiver app. for residen- tial /office complex on Interurban across from Golf Course Criteria No. 1 Current Fund Golf Crse. Spec. Rev. Street Fund Federal Shared Rev. Land Acq, Bldg, Dev. Water Fund Sewer Fund Firemen's Pens. 9982 L.I.D. #18 $4,267.33 9737 -9884 9885 -9895 9896 -9928 9929 -9932 9933 -9934 9935 -9957 9958 -9978 9979 -9981 *MOTION FAILED: 3 - YES, 4 - NO. $125,412.07 50,370.45 17,758.38 3,579.50 55,000.00 14,929.39 38,785.47 185.07 $306,020.33 C. A resolution regarding clarification of lease with Golf Management, Inc. MOVED BY VAN DUSEN, SECONDED BY HILL, THAT THE CONSENT AGENDA BE APPROVED AS SUBMITTED. MOTION CARRIED. •_J / / L Mr. Joel Gordon, representing, Mr. Campanella, noted that this is the same proposal presented to Council at the Committee of the Whole Meeting. He displayed the model and drawings for the project. Mr. Campanella explained that they are proposing to construct 7 four -plex units on the upper bench with access only from 56th South. On the lower area would be three office buildings with a landscaped buffer area on the slope between. There will be parking both under the office buildings and in the open area. Access to the office complex will be only from Interurban Avenue. Councilman Van Dusen asked if provisions have been made for a sidewalk along Interurban. Mr. Campanella said they would be happy to put it on either side of the 15 foot berm. He felt, inside of the landscaped area, made more sense. There will be one covered parking stall provided for each apartment unit. The proposed office buildings will be 35 feet in height as provided by the code. The office complex will have parking on the lower level with access to an elevator to the upper floors. Tongue and groove cedar will be the exterior of the build- ings in both areas. Councilman Bohrer asked the overall dimensions of the second floor of the office buildings and was told 156' by 71'. MOVED BY VAN DUSEN, SECONDED BY HILL, THAT COUNCIL VOTE YES ON CRITERIA NO. 1. Does the proposed action represent a unique condition ?* Councilman Bohrer said this proposal does not represent a unique condition because there are a number of other properties in the same area which have similar problems with steep slope areas. ROLL CALL VOTE: SAUL - NO, it is not a unique condition. HILL - YES VAN DUSEN - YES BOHRER - NO JOHANSON - NO HARRIS - YES, this i s the first one we have had that is mixed business and residential. PHELPS NO Criteria No. 2 MOVED BY VAN DUSEN, SECONDED BY SAUL, THAT COUNCIL VOTE YES ON CRITERIA NO. 2. Is the proposed action significant in scale ?* TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL, REG"' "R MEETING April 20, 1981 Page 4 {(\ OLD BUSINESS - Cont. Campanella Waiver app. for residen- tial /office complex on Interurban across from Golf Course (cont.) Criteria No. 3 Criteria No. 4 Councilman Bohrer pointed out that staff. says it is significant in scale. ROLL CALL VOTE: SAUL - YES, HILL - NO VAN DUSEN - YES BOHRER - YES JOHANSON - YES, HARRIS - NO PHELPS - NO *MOTION CARRIED: 4 - it is. it is significant YES; 3 - NO. MOVED BY VAN DUSEN, SECONDED BY SAUL, THAT COUNCIL VOTE YES ON CRITERIA NO. 3. Has the applicant shown that no reasonable alternatives are available which would not require a waiver ?* ROLL CALL VOTE: HILL - YES VAN DUSEN -YES BOHRER - N /A, any project other than single family would be subject to a waiver application. JOHANSON - N/A HARRIS - N/A PHELPS - YES SAUL - N/A *MOTION FAILED: 3 - YES, 4 - N /A. MOVED BY VAN DUSEN, SECONDED BY SAUL, THAT COUNCIL VOTE YES ON CRITERIA NO. 4. If the request for waiver involves building, grading, clearing, excavation or filling in a geographical area generally identified by the environmental base map as an area of high natural amenity or development constraint are sufficient mitigating measures provided ?* Councilman Bohrer noted that staff draws attention to the develop- ment encroaching on the sloped area between the Interurban level and 56th Avenue. They note that much of the development will be on contours beyond 40 and a couple on contour 50. On property to the south, Council limited the development to elevation 25. I do not believe that sufficient mitigating measures have been pro- vided. Councilman Van Dusen said that Council is to the point of not being able to be consistent in some of the criteria. We are getting into the areas of development (slopes, fill, setbacks, etc.) where we have to look at each proposal very carefully. The cutting of slopes in some areas is not as significant as it is in others in the City. If they cut into this slope, it is not as significant as the 100 foot slopes into the valley. Councilman Harris said Council is going to have to take a good look at the slope areas and consider ways they can be developed. Councilman Bohrer said the extent that Council has been allowing development on the slopes should not be expanded from the preceding waiver application approved for this site. Councilman Van Dusen said it is getting more and more difficult to hold exactly to the same criteria for every building site in the City. The hill we live on is a problem. I'd like to say no development, but I can't, it is unrealistic. Mr. Gordon said that the 25 foot contour on another piece of property may not bear any relationship to what exists on the 25 foot contour on this particular piece of property. The buildings start about the 20 foot contour. They have had a soils analysis done and have found no instability problems. TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL, April 20, 1981 Page 5 OLD BUSINESS - Cont. Campanella Waiver app. for residen- tial /office complex on Interurban across from Golf Course (cont.) Criteria No. 5 Criteria No. 6 REG 4R MEETING Councilman Bohrer said Council needs to decide what the criteria are and then live with them. Councilman Hill noted that Councilman Van Dusen was saying each waiver should stand on its own. I feel, if the development is properly done, there should be no problem. Councilman Bohrer noted the two properties to the south have similar banks behind them. We applied the criteria restricting development below elevation 25 on the part that is down on Inter- urban. Councilman Johanson said he does not have many objections to this development as it is proposed. He expressed some concern about the slope, but felt it could be handled. He said it bothers him to hear talk about not following the set criteria. We need to continue to maintain some standards. Councilman Harris said they need different criteria for hillsides than that used on the flat land. We need more innovative methods. ROLL CALL VOTE: VAN DUSEN - BOHRER - JOHANSON - HARRIS - PHELPS - SAUL - HILL - *MOTION CARRIED: 6 - YES; 1 - NO. MOVED BY VAN DUSEN, SECONDED BY SAUL, THAT COUNCIL VOTE YES ON CRITERIA NO. 5. Is the request for waiver consistent with the goals and policies of the comprehensive land use policy plan ?* ROLL CALL VOTE: BOHRER - YES JOHANSON - YES HARRIS - YES PHELPS - YES, this project is an excellent example of multi- use in an area of transition between commercial and residential. SAUL - YES, same reason. HILL - YES VAN DUSEN - YES *MOTION CARRIED.. MOVED BY VAN DUSEN, SECONDED BY SAUL, THAT COUNCIL VOTE YES ON CRITERIA NO. 6. Do the requirements of this waiver ordinance impose a special hardship to this site ?* ROLL CALL VOTE: JOHANSON - YES HARRIS - YES, any process that requires a waiver imposes a special hardship. PHELPS - YES SAUL - YES HILL - YES VAN DUSEN - YES BOHRER - NO YES NO YES, because the primary cuts, in this particular instance will not be so objectionable. YES YES YES, the slope is not significant in scale. YES *MOTION CARRIED: 6 - YES; 1 - NO. 3/ IUKWILA CITY COUNCIL, REGU,J��R MEETING April 20, 1981 (` Page 6 OLD BUSINESS - Cont. Campanella Waiver (cont.) Criteria No. 7 NEW BUSINESS Ordinance #1210 - Reclassifying cer- tain lands from R -1 -7.2 to C -2 (Shimatsu) `J , / -' MOVED BY VAN DUSEN, SECONDED BY SAUL, THAT COUNCIL VOTE YES ON CRITERIA NO. 7. Would a grant of the waiver necessitiate a major policy commitment prior to the adoption of the new zoning ordinance and map ?* Councilman Bohrer noted that the applicant is asking for an office usage on Interurban Avenue. The Comprehensive Plan says the usage should be high density residential. By this, we are making a major policy commitment. ROLL CALL VOTE: HARRIS - NO, I don't think its major. PHELPS - NO SAUL - YES HILL '- NO VAN DUSEN - NO BOHRER - YES JOHANSON - NO *MOTION FAILED: 2 - YES; 5 - NO. MOVED BY VAN DUSEN, SECONDED BY SAUL, THAT THIS PRELIMINARY WAIVER BE APPROVED AS SUBMITTED.* Councilman Bohrer said he does not favor passage of this waiver because it expands the developable area beyond what the Council previously implied and what has generally been allowed on neigh- boring sites. *MOTION CARRIED WITH BOHRER VOTING NO. Councilman Van Dusen asked Council to discuss the two ordinances before them before making a decision on the Shimatsu rezone request. MOVED BY SAUL, SECONDED BY HILL, THAT THE RULES BE SUSPENDED TO ALLOW DISCUSSION TIME. MOTION CARRIED. Brad Collins, Planning Director, illustrated that the Planning Commission recommended the fill be allowed back to the 25 foot level but that the rezone be granted for an additional five feet. Staff recommended that the rezone and the fill area stop at the 25 foot level. Both recommended that no cutting be allowed on the slope. The applicant is requesting approval to fill to the 30 foot level. Council President Van Dusen - noted that there are a few trees on the back five feet. It seems that this area could be used without fill. Mrs. Shimatsu, owner, said that fill may help stabilize the slope. Mr. Symons said that this isn't going to require a great deal of fill. Councilman Van Dusen said, if the fill is allowed., the ground level will be higher than the property to the south. Mrs. Shimatsu said it would be about 22 inches difference. • Councilman Van Dusen explained-that Council has two ordinances in front of them. Both of them recommend that fill be allowed to the toe -of -slope (the 25 foot elevation). One of them further recommends that the rezone go to the 30 foot elevation per the Planning Commission recommendation, but the. fill not occur above the 25 foot level. Mr. Symons, attorney, representing Mrs. Shimatsu, said that their intent is not to cut the hillside, but to be able to do whatever fill is necessary in the rezone (the area that runs 250 feet). TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL COMM( 'EE OF THE WHOLE MEETING March 23, 1981 Page 5 OLD BUSINESS - Contd. Prop. Gambling Ord. - contd. RECESS 8:40 -8:55 P.M. Prop. Res. to designate Southcenter Blvd. into Forward Thrust Project. Zoning Meeting Schedule. NEW BUSINESS Campanella Waiver Application for a mixed -use residential/ office complex. Council President Van Dusen said the evening of April 20 could be devoted to a public hearing to get input from the public. If there is an ordinance it will be considered at a regular meetin (The date for the public hearing was later changed to April 27, 1981, Committee of the Whole Meeting.) The petitions that were made a record of this meeting are on file in the City Clerk's office. MOVED BY HILL, SECONDED BY SAUL, THAT THE COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING RECESS FOR TEN MINUTES. MOTION CARRIED. The Committee of the Whole Meeting was called back to order by Council President Van Dusen, with Council Members present as previously listed. Councilman Hill said the proposed resolution was discussed in the Public Works Committee. Ted Uomoto, Director of Public Works, said the purpose of the proposed resolution is to identify Southcenter Boulevard as part of the Street Improvement project to be eligible for Forward Thrust funds. We have approximately $25,000 of unexpended Forward Thrust funds and King County has $5,615 for use as undergrounding. Councilman Hill said $25,000 is for the study. Councilman Phelps said a study was performed by one consultant, can this be used? Mr. Uomoto said URS designed a certain portion of it, but he said he was not familiar with it. Councilman Hill said some of it can be used. MOVED BY HILL, SECONDED BY PHELPS, THAT THE PROPOSED RESOLUTION DESIGNATING SOUTHCENTER BOULEVARD INTO FORWARD THRUST PROJECT BE ON THE AGENDA OF THE APRIL 6, 1981 REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING. MOTION. CARRIED. Council President Van Dusen said the proposed zoning ordinance meeting schedule will be mailed out to those on the mailing list. Mark Caughey, Acting Planning Director, said Mr. Campanella was requesting a preliminary waiver approval for a mixed -use residential /office complex. The recommended action is to approve the request for waiver. Mr. Joel Gordon, Seattle, representing the developer, said this property has rather a long history in the attempts to develop it. In 1978 it was proposed to develop 62 units on 1/2 of the property. This request was denied. Then there was a request for 106 units on all of the property. This was denied. In July 1979 a request for 92 units was made. The City Council considered this and rejected it, but said they would approve 76 residence units. In January we again asked you to consider 92 units because it was not economically feasible to develop with less than that amount. He said they had now come up with a plan that would address all of the concerns. The new proposal is for seven 4- plexes of 28 units and three 16,000 square feet office buildings, with the bottom story being covered parking. In terms of circulation, the 4- plexes are served by 56th Avenue South. There is no access from Interurban. The office building access is on Interurban. When the City did a traffic study on 56th Avenue they said it had less than one -half its capacity in traffic. They have had soils studies done and it indicates there would be no problems. The 4- plexes would conform to the City desire to have residential on top and the commercial part would be on Interurban. This would TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL COMM OF THE WHOLE MEETING March 23, 1981 �. Page 6 NEW BUSINESS - Contd. Campanella Waiver Application for a mixed -use residential/ office complex - contd. take care of the previous problem regarding the lower shelf when Council expressed concern that it was not appropriate to have residential on a busy street. It is projected for office development such as they are proposing in their project. There is good freeway access, the lower shelf would be good for people who wanted to buy condominiums and live above the commercial area where they worked. This project has a good transition. The buildings on the lower shelf do not block the view. In terms of overall benefit this project provides good buffer for the zone. It is mixed use. It is providing a type of office thal is needed within the City. It is across the street from the golf course. He said they have tried to set the buildings into the slope to maximize the view and leave the trees. All of the parking is covered. This is a development where we will meet the City's goal in the Comprehensive Plan. There is a good buffer. He said he thought this was a project that the City would be proud of. Mr. Gordon showed charts of the overall project and the cross sections. The height of the office buildings will be 35 feet and wood and earth tones will be used on the exterior. Councilman Saul asked if the access on Interurban Avenue has changed? Mr. Campanella said not, there are two curb cuts on Interurban and two on 56th. Councilman Bohrer asked if the building area would be 16,000 square feet? Mr. Campanella said it would be 18,000 overall, 16,000 in net rentable area. Mr. Campanella said the third floor is set back a little, the net rentable area on the third floor is 7,800 square feet, second floor is 8,500 square feet and the ground floor is core, elevators, stairs, and some storage space, nothing rentable. The net rentable space will vary according to the needs of the tenants. Councilman Bohrer asked how many employees would be contained in one building? Mr. Campanella said it would depend on the occupancy of the suite. The Building Department code would establish that. Councilman Bohrer asked what the hard surface area would be on this project versus the 72 unit proposal the Council approved? March Caughey, Acting Planning Director, said the paved area is 72,750 square feet for the complete project. Councilman Bohrer said the elevation contours are not shown too clearly on the map. Councilman Hill asked if that is berm along Interurban? Mr. Campanella said it was. Several Council Members stated the new proposal was a good one. Councilman Bohrer said in other property that is being developed down the avenue a restriction has been placed that the toe -of- the -slope cannot be cut into more than 25 feet. This represents 45 feet. Mr. Campanella said in terms of the depth of the cut it is less than they previously proposed. Mr. Campanella said there would be landscaped cuts. Councilman Phelps asked where the sidewalks would be located? Mr. Campanella said there will be a continuous walk to tie in all of the buildings. Council President Van Dusen said the sidewalk will take a separate wiaver. Mr. Campanella said he was aware of that, the sidewalk will be outside the berm. MOVED BY SAUL, SECONDED BY PHELPS, THAT THE CAMPANELLA WAIVER APPLICATION BE ON THE AGENDA OF THE APRIL 20, 1981 REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING. MOTION CARRIED. AGENDA ITEM c INTRODUCTION After several attempt: at obtaining waiver approval for a condominium residen- tial project on this site, the applicant has revised the project to a mixed - use office /residential complex. In essence, the upper -level "shelf" will be developed as 4 -plex condominiums, in an iden- tical pattern to that approved in February, 1980. The lower portion of the site adjacent to Interur- ban Avenue: will now. be developed as an office complex consisting of 3, 2 -story 18,000 sqc: ft. buildings. Note per Exhibit "C" that the first story of each office structure is used for covered parking. CI T Y OF TUKWILA PLANNING DIVISION C T Y C O U N C I L STAFF REPORT • Campanella Waiver Application (81 -12 -W) We understand that although the site plan does not so indicate, a pedes- trian linkage will be provided between the residential and office use areas; no vehicle linkage is planned, however. The waiver action is necessary for the following reasons: A) Inconsistenc between the site's Co .rehensive Plan and zonin •esignations: e existing zone classi ication is -2 w is allows all office uses, as well as residential uses at the R -4 density level. The Comprehensive Plan designates the lower portion of the site as' "high density residential ", which allows limited office use as specified under R -4 zoning (single- tenant, limited public contact). Page -2 Staff Report B) Site is desi: ated area of s•ecial development consideration: The escarpment ividing t e upper an ower "s e ves" of t e site is sensitive to slope and stability considerations. • ANALYSIS Waiver Criterion #1 -- Doers the pnopoaae nepte ent a unique condition? The project is most certainly unique in that it represents the first effort by the private sector to introduce a mixed -use residential/ commercial project in this community. The Planning profession has along - advocated the mixed - useage concept in an effort to conserve diminishing urban land supplies, promote "round the - clock" evidence of human activity in otherwise moribund areas and to reduce commuting by encouraging employees to combine their work and home address. Staff is pleased to see this sensible approach to urban land use emer- ging in the Interurban Corridor area. Waiver Criterion #2 -- Is the proposed action s gnL .cant in seaee? The owners of the former Lutes family estate immediate south of the Campanella site have received approval to develop a four - building office park adjacent to Interurban Avenue at the same relative scale as that proposed in this waiver. They also intend to develop medium density residential units above the dividing escarpment. Thus, the Campanella project, though significant in scale, is consistent with the character of emerging development in the immediate vicinity. Waiver Criterion #3 -- Has the apptican.t4hown.ha,t no neasonab!e ae- tennat ves ate avaitab.2e which woad not nequi a wai,ven? The applicant has explored numberous development alternatives over the last two years, all of which require waiver action. In fact, we find this criterion is not applicable in the present case since the environ- mentally- sensitive designation of the property would subject any project other than a single - family home to waiver scrutiny. Waiver Criterion #4 -- the newest ion waLven invo.2veb bwUd.Lng, grading, ceean Lng, excavation, on bitting in a geognaphica2 area genenaLL.y .cdenti.bied by the envitonmen to e babe map ab an area o b high na tuta2 amenity on development constAaint, ate subb.ie.i.ent mitigating measures pnov.ided? The applicant has provided a listing of proposed mitigations measures implicit in the design concept. We suggest, however, that Council discuss the degree to which the escarpment will be "cut" in order to develop the office portion of the site. In comparing the "92- unit" e Page -3- Staff Report condominium site plan with the current. Exhibit "A ", we note that in the former case the cut did not extend above the 40' level. Now, however, it ,appears that the cuts will go above the 40' contour. Waiver Criterion #5 -- lz the nequeat ban waive& consistent with the goats and po! i c Leis ob the Compnehens.Lve Land U.se Pot icy P.Can? The applicants have identified certain policies of the Comp. Plan which are supported by their project. (See attached) Staff interprets the proposed project as generally consistent with the terms of the long -range community plan. As yet, the SEPA process has not begun, and we anticipate the need for environmental impact investigation of such topics as traffic management, drainage and utility adequacy and so forth. Thus, we cannot make a definitive statement of consistency in advance of completing the SEPA program, but we do anti- cipate that adequate mitigating solutions are available to assure Comprehensive Plan compliance. Waiver Criterion #6 -- Do the nequL' emevts ob this wa.ive,'. ond.Lnance .impose a spec i.a t harcdd h Lp to this. site? Staff finds that the waiver process represents a constraint upon the site's developability insofar as the Comp. Plan's residential desig- nation for this site restricts office useage flexibility as otherwise allowed by the underlying zoning district. Waiver Criterion #7 -- Woutd a gnanLt ob the waLve,t nece z Late a maf on pot icy commitment pAion to the adoption ob the new zoning ondinance and map? In our opinion, the project represents a positive step toward implem- entation of the new zoning ordinance, since the planned unit develop- ment approach to combining commercial and housing uses in a single project is encouraged by the provisions of Draft #4. p! Ny-d -- j - twa' • • isu -o• —wi td i - i p _. wog iiM sot* PLANNING DEPT EXHIBIT 1 MF el- 12 -bJ i i .■•w. Pop tr :! • eim _ .1.1._ Ifr *(M Moue *mg • • •- • IMP 40•11 ceau wrzv W►an►T 00141L ION. AMA M ut* I peI Torre.IMiDiNGARMA 4I10.3 ms 7 SL ouatw s r so soon 9Z UNIT 6 irAT10 MA' runic r64I Y✓O• eor-e• *tote FA! F -- t' M'.�• 1 fM1 I tlt.• l M1� & - .r �►I' fff wY - ♦ a' s; 1141 Flair puo :JEGOtib rwor. n AFJ OAK PLANNING DEPT EXHIBIT B M.F. 81—i2-h1 ✓•r 1 i PLANNING DEPT EXHIBIT G MF • b%- 12- w J i`i 111I1IIUIft 1[i %H 1 -- - - _ 1111111iI /I *Rlitl111lUl/I11URIIi1! b • • i = 4 r t .oaNwi w rsl 1 11 • 11 I 11 11 11 11 ifill h I1 • qr: st 1111111111111__ J A 1 1 -1 CCU 0u EEJ [1:37.1 44 LVA - PltA. Fam-rvex_-4 - (u;? t-40 5 • 4 LO-r4 4 ma. 1.1.5.G. • 7 311111..n3. ) __gt.f.14TION - T_YrKAL____Fart -PSZ.xL3 • Lb - I I PLANNING DEPT EXHIBIT M F 81- It • sign• - povnG{,1: -__ rh y N. PLANNING DEPT EXHIBIT M.F. BI 1i- \\\ w t 4 MASTER LAND DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION FORM SUPPLEMENTARY QUEST' OPAIR Schedule A WAIVER APPLICATION Conditions affecting this site which require waiver review: [2]Inconsistency In between zoning and comprehensive plan use designations Site located in area of special development consideration 1) Describe briefly the project you propose see attached - question 1, schedule A 2) Does your project represent a unique benefit to the Tukwila Community? Yes The proposed project will create a visual amenity as you enter the City of Tukwila. Its development will compliment the City's Foster (;nif Course, which parallels the total project site along Interurban Avenue. The develop - men stands. • .. - 3) Is your project significant in scale relative to its neighborhood setting? No. We believe the project as proposed is consistant in scale and scope to present and proposed projects of similar nature along the Interurban corridor. 4) Are reasonable alternative development approaches available to you which would not require waiver review? Yes 92 Unit Condominium Project 5) If the request for waiver involves building, grading, clearing, vegetation re- moval, excavation or filling in an environmentally sensitive area, what miti- gating solutions are proposed to offset the impact of such activity? see attached - question 5. schedule A. 6) lVhat goals and policies of the comprehensive plan can you identify which sup- port your request for waiver approval? (Attach seperate sheet) see attached 7) Do the requirements of the waiver process impose a hardship on the use and de- velopment of this site? see attached - question 7, schedule A Attachement to: C SCHEDULE A VERBAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED PROJECT Question 1: The proposed project is to construct a mixed use complex consisting of multi - family residential and office building usuage. The two proposed uses are seperated by a change in site topography and each relates compatibility to its nearest adjoining land use. The multi - family residential part of the project occupies the upper "shelf" of the property and avails itself of a commanding view towards the Foster Golf Course. This part of the development is made up of seven four plex buildings for a total of 28 dwelling units. Each unit has a total of approximately 1,180 square feet. Access to the residential development is from 56th Avenue South. Adjacent land use is multi - family residential (Terrace Apartments) and a combination of single, duplex and other multi - family housing. On the lower shelf of the property along Interurban Avenue, the pro- posed project calls for three office buildings of similar design, each containing approximately 16,000 square feet of rentable area. Each building has ground floor parking and two floors of office above which is served by an elevator. Access to this portion of the development is from Interurban Avenue. Architectural character of the total development in Northwest Contem- porary using natural woods and soft natural color tones; landscaping and open space. Improvements and land use in the clase proximity of the project is fully consistent with the proposal. Interurban Avenue is a commercial/ Business corridor and has attracted the construction of many newly contructed office building.' The City of Tukwila has recently rezoned • the adjoining property to the south for commercial use. It is our desire to develope the property to its highest and best use in a conforming manner to existing zoning and land use. Question 5: We believe that the following mitigating measures are provided with this design. 1. More than 60% of all required parking is covered by building structures. 2. All possible existing trees, significant and non - significant will be retained. New landscaping construction will supplement existing vegetation. 3. The building structure reinforces the site topography rendering the entire building area more suitable. 4. Design of project follows contours of the terrain. 5. Project design is consistent with similar office building projects in the vicinity as well as with related residential land use along 56th Avenue South. Attachment to SCHEDULE A Question 6: • Referring to the City of Tukwila Comprehensive Land Use Policy Plan, we believe the following goals and policies to be supportive of the building design for which a waiver is hereby applied. A. NATURAL ENVIRONMENT Objective #1 Policy 1. Project maintains existing natural vegetation. Policy 2. Project provides for construction and development of landscaping utilizing live vegetation. Policy 3. The project does not intend to distrupt any more of the natural vegetation than is absolutely necessary for the construction of the buildings. Objective #3 Policy 2. The project takes maximum care to provide and protect the view of hillside residents. Policy 3. Project takes care to preserve the quality of natural land forms. Policy 4. Earth moving will take place only in those areas absolutely required to facilitate construction of the project. Objective #6 Policy 1. Qualified earth engineering consultants will be retained throughout the design and construction of this project. B. OPEN SPACE Objective #1 Policy 1. Project site will be replanted as required in accordance with acceptable landscape plan. Policy 3. Recreation areas and open space will be provided on -site for use by residents in amount equal to twice code requirements. Policy 4. Lot coverage of this project is 26% which allows open space for other passive recreation. Question 6 - cone ued C. RESIDENCE • Objective #1 Policy 1. We believe that the design of the project does utilize the topography of the terrain to establish separation between land usages. We believe that the use of the hillside does serve as a buffer between the commercial usuage to the east of Interurban to the residential usage to the hillside and plateuas west of Interurban. We also believe that the utilization of the hillside does provide for the maximum livability for each of the complex residents. Policy 4. . More than 80% of the automobiles required for this project gain access to the site from Interurban Avenue. 18% of the vehicles to the site gain access from 56th Avenue South. We believe it is important to bring major traffic flow to the project from a major established arterial. Objective #2 Policy 1. We believe this project does provide the transitional land use between commercial and residential usage. Policy 2. As stated above in Objective 1, Policy 4, we do not encourage .traffice for this project to pass through single family residential area. It should be noted here that the property immediately to the west of 56th Avenue is likewise used for multi - family residences. Objective #3 Policy 1. Vegetation screens and earth berms between Interurban and the project site will be provided as part of the landscaping plan. Policy 3. , All utilities for the project will be underground. Policy 5. Parking will be provided as required by the City of Tukwila Building Code and Ordinances. Objective #4 Policy 1. This project encourages the feeling of unity and friendship among all of the residences by providing indoor and outdoor recreational area, open spaces and open court area. Policy 3. Adequate lighting will be provided in all areas of the project including parking lots, walkways, courtyards and recreational areas. Attachment to: SCHEDULE A • Question 7: We believe the requirement of Ordinance No. 1109 does impose special hardship on this site due to the need to develop the property in an economic and attractive manner. We believe the design of this project is sensitive to the needs and objectives of the City of Tukwila to create residential and commerical areas which are desirable, attractive and most important of all, consistant with good design standards. The design team assigned to this project has tried very hard to accomplish exactly that. We believe the land utilization factor is extremely efficient and that the end result will be an attractive residential and office building project articulated in such a manner as to create good liveability, efficiency, good working environment and most important of all a product of which both the City of Tukwila and the Developers can well be proud of. Supporting Material #3 Legal Description • That portion of the Stephen Foster Donation Claim No. 38, Township 23 North, Range 4 East, W.M., in King County, Washington, described as follows: Beginning at the intersection of the Westerly line of the Puget Sound Electric Railway with the South line of said Donation Land Claim; thence along said Westerly line North 45 ° 00'00" West 561 feet, more or less, to a point 397 feet Southerly from its intersection with the Southerly line of an 18 foot lane (now known as South 137th Street); thence South 65 °00'00" West 211 feet, more or less, to a point which is 128 feet North 65 ° 00'00" East from the Easterly margin of Lemon Road (56th Avenue South) as established March 9, 1906; thence South 45 ° 49'00" East 85 feet; thence South 65 ° 00'00" West 128 feet to a point on said road margin which is South 45 ° 49'00" East 541.25 feet from the Southerly margin of said 18 foot roadway; thence along said Lemon Road (56th Avenue South) South 45 ° 49'00" East 273.53 feet, more or less, to the South line of said Donation Land Claim; thence East along the South line of said tract 444.5 feet, more or less, to the point of beginning; EXCEPT the Easterly 60 feet in width heretofore conveyed to King County for road. Legal Descriptir - Continued PARCEL A Beginning at the intersection of the southerly line of South 137th Street (formerly Lemon Road) produced north 74 ° 04' east and the north- easterly line of 56th Avenue South (formerly Lemon Road), which point is described as the point of beginning in that certain correction deed dated December 26, 1903, and recorded January 22, 1904, in Volume 362 of Deeds, page 625, records of the Auditor of King County, State of Washington; thence south 45 ° 49' east along said northeasterly line of 56th Avenue South 275 feet to the true point of beginning; thence north 74 ° 04' east 125 feet; thence south 45 ° 49' east 162.435 feet; thence south 65 ° 58'45" west 115.96 feet; thence north 45 ° 49' west 181.25 feet to the true point of beginning, in King County, Washington. A tract of land in that portion of the Stephen Foster Donation Claim No. 38, in Section 14, Township 23 North, Range 4 East, Willamette Meridian, in King County, Washington, described as follows: PARCEL B A tract of land in that portion of the Stephen Foster Donation Claim No. 38, in Section 14, Township 23 North, Range 4 East, Willamette Meridian, in King County, Washington, described as follows: Beginning at the intersection of the southerly line of South 137th Street (formerly Lemon Road) produced north 74 ° 04' east and the north- easterly line of 56th Avenue South (formerly Lemon Road) which point is described as the point of beginning in that certain correction deed, dated December 26, 1903, and recorded January 22, 1904, in Volume 362 of Deeds, Page 625, records of the Auditor of King County, State of Washington; thence north 74 ° 04' east along said southerly line of South 137th Street (formerly Lemon Road) produced 125 feet to the true point of beginnining; thence continuing north 74 ° 04' east 180.204 feet, to the southwesterly line of Interurban Avenue South, a State Highway; thence south 44 ° 51' east along said southwesterly line 407.32 feet; thence south 65 ° 58'45" west 161.64 feet; thence north 45 ° 49' west 437.44 feet to the true point of beginning. PARCEL C An udivided one half interest in a private access or lane, 15.76 feet in width, bordering on the northerly side of said tract, and described as follows: Beginning at the intersection of the southerly line of South 137th Street (formerly Lemon Road (produced and the northeasterly line of 56th Avenue South (formerly Lemon Road); thence north 74 ° 04' east along said southerly line produced, 305.204 feet, to the southwesterly line of Interurban Avenue South, a State Highway; thence north 44 ° 51' west, along said southwesterly line 18 feet; thence south 74 ° 04' west 305.56 feet to the northeasterly line of 56th Avenue South (formerly Lemon Road); thence south 45 ° 49' east along said northeasterly line 18.18 feet to the point of beginning. Legal Description( mtinued That portion of the Donation Land Claim of Stephen Foster, designated as Claim No. 38, being parts of Sections 14 and 15 in Township 23 North, Range 4 East, W.M., in King County, Washington, described as follows; Beginning at the intersection of the South line of said Donation Claim No. 38 with the Easterly line of Lemon Road, which point is 926.45 feet South and 1,499.40 feet East of the West quarter corner of Section'14 of said Township and Range; thence Northwesterly along said road line, 365 feet, more or less, to a point which is South 45 ° 49' East 456.25 feet from the South line of an 18 foot lane known as East Avenue and the true point of beginning of the Tract herein described; thence South 45 ° 49' East, along the Easterly line of said Lemon Road, 85 feet; thence North 65° East 128 feet; thence North 45 ° 49' West 85 feet; thence South 65 West 128 feet to the true point of beginning. 1 ( MASTER LAND DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION FORM NOTE: Please write legibly or type all requested information -- incomplete applications will not be accepted for processing. ! SECTION I. GENERAL DATA CMB Development Corporation 1) APPLICANT'S NAMEF M. Campanella TELEPHONE :206 325 - 2210 2) APPLICANT'S ADDRESS 2900 Eastlake Ave. E ZIP: 98102 3) PROPERTY OWNER'S NAME same TELEPHONE:(SanT 4) PROPERTY OWNER'S ADDRESS same 5) LOCATION OF PROJECT: (geographic or le Fronting on Interurban Avenue be 139t a 56th Avenue South. (see map)] b. GROSS ACRES 4.54 8) DO YOU PROPOSSE DEVELOP THIS PROTECT IN PHASES? (posse i of aeve opg project in 9) PROJECT kg 1 001s:L.. GOa 'o. FEES: RCPT. M.F. EPIC. P ZIP: al descrip.) see attached legal. ween the extension of South • : s • . - O • 6) MAN OF PROJECT(OPTIONAL) Cedarwood Habitat - Multi - Residential Cedarwood Office Park - Commercial SECTION II: PROJECT INFORMATION 7) BRIEFLY DESCRIBE THE PROJECT YOU PROPOSE: 3 offiep buildings on lower shelf of property and seven four plex multi- family buildings on upper shelf of property that is reordered by 56th Avenue Suulh. a. NET ACRES 4.54 ± c. PARKING SPACES 192 d. FLCORS OF CONSTRUCTION OR III 3 NO ' �, e; • LOT AREA COVERAGE BLDG. 49, 040SQ.FT. LANDSCAPE 76,000 SQ. FT. PAVING72, 750 SQ. FT. "10) DOES THE AVERAGE SLOPE OF THE SITE EXCEED 10 %? 1:7_11 YES D NO . , 11) ,-'FASTING ZONING C - 2 12. EXISTING COMP :PLANN R - & R - /' i1' 13); IS THIS SITE DESIGNATED FOR SPECIAL CONSIDERATION BYES ONO • `;..,,:;..w`'ON THE CITY'S ENVIRON'MENT.AL BASE MAP? 14) IF YOU WISH TO HAVE COPIES OF CITY CORRESPONDENCE, STAFF REPORTS, OR OTHER DOCUMENTS SENT TO ADDRESSES OTHER THAN APPLICANT OR PROPERTY OWNER, PLEASE INDICATE BELOW. • a. NAME: P4dEre- ADDRESS: b. NAME: PMi L • (3uGK, P.' • . ADDRESS: 1 1 I I N ° AV . St U11.01/4)4 SEA. 9 %10I CITY OF lUKWILA CflY CLERKS OFFICE OVER P* SECTICN III: APPLICA'f'S AFFIDAVIT I, Felix M. Campanella , being duly sworn, declare that I am the contract purchaser or owner of the property involved in this application and that the foregoing statements and answers herein contained and the information ,herewith,submitted are in all respects true ..d correct to he best of my knawleaga and belief. Subscribed and sworn before me DATE 3 this 18th day of March , 1131 . ,44' Notary P lic in and for the State of Washin on residing at Seattle ontract Purchaser or owner) SECTION IV: SUPPORTING MATERIAL REQUIREMENTS TYPE OF APPLICATION FIREZONING CONDITIONAL USE VARIANCE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT n SHORELINE MCVT. PERMIT WAIVER SHORT SUBDIVISION SUBDIVISION !BINDING SITE IMPROVEPMENT PLAN ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW r• i LANDSCAPE REVIEW 11 * *SEE TABLE 1 FOR DESCRIPTION + OPTIONAL AT STAFF'S DIRECTION SUPPORTING MALERIAL ** SCHEDULE E, 1,2,3,4,5,9 SCHEDULE C, 2,3,5,9 SCHEDULE F, 3,5,9 SCHEDULE D, 2,3,4,5,9. SCHEDULE B, 2,3,4,5,8 SCHEDULE A, 3,9,10 3,4,7 2,3,4,5,9 + ,12 2,3,4,6,9 9,10 all