Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPermit 80-42-W - MCALLISTER - CONDOMINIUMS SENSITIVE AREA WAIVER80-42-w south 153rd street MCALLISTER CONDOMINIUMS WAIVER MCALLISTER CONDOMINIUMS WAIVER Z 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila Washington 98188 • 1908 Frank Todd, Mayor Roy Kelly 597 Industry Drive, Building 5 Tukwila, WA 98188 SUBJECT: "Oldright" Property 4 February 1982 Regarding your inqury about potential use of the Oldright property east of Tukwila Park, please note that the City Council, on 21 July 1981, approved a grant of preliminary waiver for 48 condo- minium residential units to be built on this site. As described in the attached letter, certain additional steps must be taken . to complete the construction permit approval process. If you have further questions about this property, please call me or Mark Caughey, Associate Planner, at 433 -1849. BC:nb Enclosure xc: Mayor Todd TUKWILA PLANNING DEPARTMENT firta Brad Collins Director 0 u � • A 19 08 ; City of Tukwila Z 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila Washington 98188 Frank Todd, Mayor Loveland, Stapper F Hyatt 1110 Harvard Seattle, WA 98122 Attn: Jim Stapper Subject: McAllister Condominium Proposal 27 July 1981 At the 21 July 1981 meeting of the City Council, waiver approval for the McAllister Development was granted. To continue processing this project, we ask that you now complete the following steps: 1) File a revised SEPA checklist based on the approved 48 -unit con- figuration. As part of your SEPA transmittal, we request that you include: - A foundation engineering study substantiating your ability to achieve adequate building foundation support without excavation of bedrock or significant modification of the approved building site layout. A comprehensive tree inventory locating and identifying all trees on the site with a trunk caliper dimension exceeding 3 ". A comprehensive, detailed grading plan including cross - sectional views through areas of natural contour disturbance. This material is an essential part of the public record and will enable us to address adequately. the City Council's concerns regarding tree preservation and minimization of grading impacts as expressed during preliminary waiver review. 2) File revised building permit drawings reflecting modification of the project to 48- units. Please coordinate re- submittal of building permit drawings and specifications with Mr. Pieper in the Building Division, 433 -1849. If we can assist you in meeting these requirements, or if you have ques- tions about the remaining steps to be followed in the approval process, please contact Mark Caughey in the Planning Division at 433 -1848. MC/blk Tukwi],a�l Department Caughey Associate Planner • TUJKWILA CITY COUNCIL, REGULAMEET ING July 21, 1981 Page 3 PUBLIC HEARING - Cont. Street Vacation requested by Hoffner & Davis (South 168th E. of 53rd St.) (cont.) RECESS: 7:25 p.m. 7:30 p.m. • McAllister Condo. Waiver (East of Tukwila Park) Councilman Harris agreed this should go to the Public Works Com- mittee for study &.brought back to the next possible Committee of the Whole Meeting. Councilman Bohrer said the question of utilities located in the right -of -way needs to be addressed. The letter from the applicants says there is a 180,000 volt underground transmission line down in the right -of -way. Can a garage be built on the property if that line is there. Mr. Davis said he is not going to build on the right -of -way; he needs it for the set back. Councilman Bohrer said once South 168th is vacated, will Council then have to vacate 54th Avenue. Mr. Davis said it has cost him $296 to apply for.this vacation. It is not fair to try to put other properties in unless they have to go through the same process. *MOTION FAILED. MOVED BY HILL, SECONDED BY HARRIS, THAT THIS STREET VACATION BE PLACED IN THE PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE FOR MORE INVESTIGATION AS TO WHERE THE UTILITIES ARE AND SEE IF A DECISION CAN BE ARRIVED AT TO BRING BACK TO COUNCIL. MOTION CARRIED. Councilman Hill said the Committee will meet one week from Wednesday at 4:30 p.m. at City Hall. MOVED BY BOHRER, SECONDED BY HARRIS, THAT COUNCIL RECESS FOR 5 MINUTES. MOTION CARRIED. Mayor Todd called the Regular Meeting of the Tukwila City Council back to order with Council Members present as previously reported. Mr. McAllister has requested a waiver to the Comprehensive Plan to allow the development of 48 multiple family units on a 4.68 acre site located east of Tukwila Park. Mr. Collins explained there were several questions raised at the last meeting to be answered. Public Works is in the process of examining the grade analysis. Concern had been expressed over finished grade versus existing grade. Precedent setting of developing builders on steeper sites was questioned. The street number on the Kroll Map is wrong; it should read South 153rd. Attorney Hard said Council is obligated to proceed and go through the waiver process. Mr. Lee Loveland, architect for.the project, said they have been involved in the project for two years. The concept for the develop- ment has changed based on input from staff and Council. The plan is a responsible effort to address all of the concerns that have been voiced. The project is a viable one and a proper one for the topography. The concerns were to fire access, density, road, slope, etc. They have addressed these concerns. They now have proposed a fire access with turn around to the east of the buildings as well as one at the south end of the site. The buildings are spaced apart for ready access. The density was originally 60 -61 units, that was reduced to 58 and now they are at 48. They have meshed the fire access with recreation facilities and propose a trail system linking the buildings. The slope at the entrance has been modified. Material from the cutting on the north will be used as fill on the south part of the slope making an average contour of l21%. Vegetation that would be retained is indicated on the map. The project will have 53% of the site developed. The very large maple trees on the east will be retained. The plateau, proposed for the turn around, is relatively vegetation free. Councilman Bohrer asked.if the ten foot discrepancy in the fence location had been clarified. Mr. Loveland said it had and the acreage of the property has not changed. • TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL, REGUL( MEETING July 21, 1981 Page 4 OLD BUSINESS - Cont. McAllister Condo. Waiver (East of Tukwila Park) (cont.) Criteria No. 1 Criteria No. 2 Councilman Bohrer noted the steep drop -off to the east of the site. Mr. Loveland explained where the units.are located and the density reduced to provide road access and slopes that were required. They have a completed soils report and the drawing will be prepared to correspond to the engineering study. Councilman Bohrer stated that there are two areas on the site that are too steep to develop. They make up about one -third of the site. Mr. Loveland said they are greenbelt areas that will be retained. They are terracing the units and developing a profile that hugs the terrain. Councilman Harris asked if the units are condominiums or apart- ments. Mr. Loveland said condominiums. Councilman Bohrer dis- played a map he had used to investigate the grades. The grading that is anticipated is quite dramatic. In the northwest corner of the site there will be a rockery about 20 feet tall. The soil that will be taken out of here will be moved to the south. The f i l l will be from 15 to 20 feet. There is another cut of about 20 feet in this area. The rock outcropping is here and will make it difficult to make a 20 foot cut. He questioned if the plan is developable on the site. All vegetation on west portion of the site will be removed for fill and building construction. Mr. Loveland said they feel the proposed plan can be completed. Once the project is completed, they will landscape the site and they are not going to create a condition that is dangerous for children. Councilman Van Dusen asked if they hit bedrock what their alternate plan is. Mr. Loveland said they have either a pile foundation or a shallow spread footing foundation. This will be addressed when they get to the working drawings. Councilman Johanson said he is concerned about the site because of the access and egress. When we have snow, the people all park on 65th. MOVED BY VAN DUSEN, SECONDED BY PHELPS, THAT COUNCIL VOTE YES ON CRITIERIA NO. 1. Does the proposed action represent a unique condition ?* Councilman Bohrer said the site is not unique. Council processed a waiver on a similar piece of property. ROLL CALL VOTE: SAUL - YES, it is unique. HILL - YES VAN DUSEN - YES BOHRER - NO JOHANSON, - YES HARRIS - YES PHELPS - YES *MOTION CARRIED: 6 - YES, 1 - NO. MOVED BY VAN DUSEN, SECONDED BY HILL, THAT COUNCIL VOTE YES ON CRITERIA NO. 2. Is the proposed action significant in scale ?* Councilman Bohrer said the area of the property is 4.7 acres. It is the largest piece of undeveloped property in the neighbor- hood and it is significant. ROLL CALL VOTE: HILL - VAN DUSEN - BOHRER JOHANSON - HARRIS - PHELPS - SAUL - NO YES, it is significant YES YES, it is significant YES, I agree YES YES, because of the number of units TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL, REGUL•MEETING July 21, 1981 Page 5 OLD BUSINESS - Cont. McAllister Condo. Waiver (East of Tukwila Park) (cont.) Criteria No. 3 Criteria No. 4 Criteria No. 5 Criteria No. 6 Criteria No. 7 *MOTION CARRIED: 6 - YES, 1 - NO. MOVED BY VAN DUSEN, SECONDED BY SAUL, THAT COUNCIL VOTE YES ON CRITERIA NO. 3. Has the applicant shown that no reasonable al- ternatives are available which would not require a waiver ?* ROLL CALL VOTE: VAN DUSEN - N/A BOHRER - NO JOHANSON - NO HARRIS - NO PHELPS - N/A SAUL - N/A HILL - N/A *MOTION FAILED: 3 - NO, 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 ?* ROLL CALL VOTE: BOHRER - NO JOHANSON - YES HARRIS - YES PHELPS - YES SAUL - NO HILL - YES VAN DUSEN - YES *MOTION CARRIED: 5 - YES, 2 - 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: JOHANSON - NO HARRIS - NO PHELPS - YES SAUL - YES HILL - YES VAN DUSEN - YES BOHRER - NO *MOTION CARRIED: 4 - YES, 3- NO. MOVED BY VAN DUSEN, SECONDED BY HILL, THAT COUNCIL VOTE YES ON CRITERIA NO. 6. Do the requirements of this waiver ordinance im- pose a special hardship to this site ?* ROLL CALL VOTE: HARRIS - YES, the waiver process is always a hardship PHELPS - YES SAUL - N/A HILL - YES VAN DUSEN - N/A BOHRER - NO JOHANSON - NO *MOTION FAILED: 3 - YES, 2 - NO, 2 N/A MOVED BY VAN DUSEN, SECONDED BY SAUL, THAT COUNCIL VOTE YES ON CRITERIA NO. 7. Would a grant of the waiver necessitate a major policy commitment prior to the adoption of the new zoning ordi- nance and map ?* TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL, REGUI(' MEETING July 21, 1981 Page 6 OLD BUSINESS - Cont. McAllister Condo. Councilman Bohrer said all of the discusison has been on density Waiver (East of and environmental impact so there is no major commitment involved Tukwila Park) here. (cont.) ROLL CALL VOTE: PHELPS - NO, there is not a major commitment here SAUL - NO HILL - NO VAN DUSEN - NO BOHRER - NO JOHANSON - NO HARRIS - NO *MOTION FAILED: 7 - NO. MOVED BY VAN DUSEN, SECONDED BY SAUL, THAT THE PRELIMINARY WAIVER IS APPROVED AS SUBMITTED.* Mr. Collins explained that if this passes the applicant will proceed with their application for a building permit. Staff would be required to do an environmental assessment analysis of this site. • ROLL CALL VOTE: SAUL - NO HILL - YES VAN DUSEN - YES BOHRER - NO JOHANSON - NO HARRIS - NO PHELPS - YES *MOTION FAILED: 4 - NO, 3 - YES. Councilman Bohrer said there are too many pieces of data that are unresolved about the site and some severe environmental impacts. There are a number of alternatives but Council will not propose designs for developers. Further consideration and engineering are required. RECESS: 8:55 p.m.- MOVED BY VAN DUSEN, SECONDED BY HILL, THAT COUNCIL RECESS FOR 9:00 p.m. FIVE MINUTES. MOTION CARRIED. Mayor Todd called the regular meeting of the Tukwila City Council back to order with all council members present as previously reported. EXECUTIVE SESSION MOVED BY VAN DUSEN, SECONDED BY SAUL, THAT COUNCIL GO INTO EXECU- TIVE SESSION TO DISCUSS A LEGAL MATTER ON THE PROPOSAL BEFORE US.* Bill Seil, Record Chronicle, asked if this matter involves ligi- gation. Attorney Hard said it involves pending litigation. He needs to talk to Council as their lawyer. *MOTION CARRIED. 9:03 P.M. Mayor Todd, Council Members, Attorney Hard and'Mr. Collins ad- journed to the Council Work Room. 9:35 P.M. Mayor Todd again called the meeting back to order with all Council Members present. Councilman Van Dusen suggested that the preliminary waiver is approved subject to the following conditions: 1. An engineering report be provided that sufficient buildable area for building foundations be.demon strated before a need for excavating bedrock or changing building sites. TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL, REGULt MEETING July 21, 1981 ll Page 7 OLD BUSINESS - Cont. McAllister Condo. Waiver (East of Tukwila Park) (cont.) ROLL CALL VOTE: SAUL - NO HILL NO VAN DUSEN - NO BOHRER - YES JOHANSON - YES HARRIS - YES PHELPS - NO * *MOTION FAILED. Councilman Van Dusen explained that an engineering report will demonstrate if there is a need to change.building sites because of large excavating of bedrock. Council wants to know how much bedrock will be excavated before its done. 2. There will be no disturbance, whatsoever, in the green area on map submitted by applicant for Council review. 3. There will be submitted an overlay of tree inventory and an indication of those that will be retained. Councilman Bohrer said this covers most of his concerns. One of the items identified was the use of explosives in the area. He suggested that a limitation be added that there will be no blasting. Councilman Van Dusen said he wants to see the engineering report before they start bulldozing. MOVED BY VAN DUSEN, SECONDED BY HILL, THAT THE PRELIMINARY WAIVER BE APPROVED SUBJECT TO THE THREE CONDITIONS JUST DISCUSSED.* Councilman Bohrer said he is concerned about the slope area on the north part of the site and that portion on the southeast referred to as "top of the bank." Number three should be for trees that are going to be saved on the bulk of the site. He is also concerned about: (1) What are the slopes that are going to be developed? (2) How deep are the cuts going to be? The King County Development Plan says that slopes exceeding 40% ought to remain undeveloped. A substantial portion of this site exceeds 40 %. MOVED BY BOHRER, SECONDED BY JOHANSON, TO ADD "NO SLOPES GREATER THAN 40% CAN BE DEVELOPED. " ** Mr. Loveland suggested that Councilman Bohrer's motion be amended to read "every effort shall be made to." Councilman Bohrer said the southern portion of the site is probably lower than 40 %; the road area along the western side is entirely less than 40% and a large portion of the north part of the site just south of the slope is generally less. Mr. Loveland said that every effort will be made to not develop areas in excess of 40 %. Those that are proposed for 40 or above are to receive special re- view by the Building Department for soils and structural integrity. This gives the City the opportunity for review. * *COUNCILMAN BOHRER WITHDREW HIS MOTION WITH CONCURRENCE OF COUNCILMAN JOHANSON. MOVED BY BOHRER,'SECONDED BY HARRIS, THAT COUNCIL ACCEPT THAT EVERY EFFORT BE MADE TO EXCLUDE DEVELOPMENT ON PORTIONS OF THE SITE IN EXCESS OF 40 %. MOTION CARRIED. MOVED BY BOHRER, SECONDED BY HARRIS, THAT ALL EFFORT BE MADE TO LIMIT CUTS AND FILLS. TO HEIGHTS LESS THAN 10 FEET SUBJECT TO RE- VIEW BY STAFF. ** Councilman Bohrer cautioned that the developer make every effort ..: on cuts also. TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL, REGUL( MEETING July 21, 1981 Page 8 OLD BUSINESS - Cont. McAllister Condo. Waiver (East of Tukwila Park) (cont.) MOVED BY BOHRER, SECONDED BY SAUL, THAT NO EXPRESSED APPROVAL OF 48 UNITS ON THIS SITE IS APPLIED BY THIS'ACTION. ** Councilman Bohrer said he is saying that Council, by this action, is not approving 48 units on this site. ROLL CALL VOTE: SAUL - NO HILL - NO VAN DUSEN - NO BOHRER - YES JOHANSON - YES HARRIS - NO PHELPS NO * *MOTION FAILED. *MOTION CARRIED ON THE ORIGINAL MOTION AS AMENDED WITH BOHRER VOTING NO. TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING July 14, 1981 Page 11 NEW BUSINESS - Contd. McAllister Condo Waiver to build 48 units on property lying east of Tukwila Park - contd. project looked a little high. In taking staff guidance and trying to explore some other approaches to the site they looked at what would happen if they reduced the density. They reduced the density of the site by 10 units, which is significant. In doing that there is a bench area,which you may recall when you walked the site earlier in the which works along the mid -level of the site. Our efforts were to achieve a fire access lane that would somehow get access to the lower units. This was discussed with the Fire Department and they felt that would be a valid approach to that problem. We have proposed a gravel road which would also start to work a bit into the recreational aspect of the development, trying to develop a road that will serve the requirements of the Fire Department access and yet may gently work around the existing trees or terrain as much as possible. At the base of that we would create a 70' turn - around which would allow the Fire Department to get out. There are two means of turn - around for the Fire Department; there is one at the base of the last units and if they have to achieve access through the fire line there is a 70' turn - around.at the other end. This concept has been reviewed by the Fire Department and they have given their indication it is a workable solution. The buildings remain completely sprinklered and we continue to have fire hydrants at the appropriate intervals. Mr. Loveland said another comment on the original plan, they had some fairly long units put together and there was concern about getting access between those units. They have endeavored, in reducing the density, to group the buildings in smaller units to help mitigate that problem. Mr. Loveland said basically the three things that they saw that were the concerns that Council had were the slopes of the roadway grades which have been reduced; the Fire Department access that has been addressed adequately; and the density that has been reduced approximately 20 %. Another item that was not specifically addressed but which they felt was important to resolve at this time was the recreation provided on the site. It had not been addressed in specific terms. They met with the Recreation Director and, in conjunction with them, developed this approach for this particular site, recognizing it a steep slope and trying to develop recreation within the constraints of the site that would be adequate. They have basically given their concur- rence with this approach. Councilman Bohrer asked if there is a grading plan that goes with the plan? Mr. Loveland said the grades that have been developed are shown on the plan. Councilman Bohrer asked if there is anything that indicates their cut? Mr. Loveland said it could be derived from the plan. With the new configuration . there is less cut and fill than on the original drawings. They have pulled the main roadway back toward the park side and by doing that they were able to work around a fairly large rock out- cropping rather than cutting right through the middle as the original plan had done. Council President Van Dusen asked if the parking will be under the units? Mr. Loveland said yes, for each unit there is one covered stall and one open stall. Councilman Bohrer said when you look at where the buildings on the old plan were sited, and he did not think the new ones were in a significantly different location, what you found was the slopes under those buildings range from 40 to 60% down the hill. One of the policies of the King County Development Guide says you should leave slopes over 40% undeveloped. We have not done that here, but the thing that will happen in this development is that you will absolutely clear it of any vegetation and there wil be not a single foot of ungraded area on the entire site. You will clear it all and then reconstruct it. TIIKWI n CITY COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING July 14, 1981 Page 12 NEW BUSINESS - Contd. 1lcallister Condo Waiver to build 48 units on property lying east of Tukwila Park - contd. Mr. Loveland said that was not totally true. He said they will be grading a substantial portion. They have endeavored in developing this piece of property t6 hold the units as far up the hill as possible so they can keep as much vegetation as possible on the lower portion of the property, which is what is going to screen those units from the highway. He said he thought there would be a fairly good screen on that level. He said he did not concur that the entire property would be stripped of vegetation. Councilman Bohrer said he was not very hopeful that they would be able to do better than was done on the property behind the City Hall, when their slopes are four or five times as great. as that site. Mr. Loveland said the buildings set into the hillside to minimize the gradings. As much as possible will be left in its native stagy Councilman Bohrer said he thought by the time the buildings were located they will grade at least 80% of the site. Mr. Loveland said he thought there were ways to achieve their design without clearing the hillside. Councilman Bohrer said he would like to hear how they are going to do it because no one else has been able to achieve it. Mr. Loveland said this is a different situation than behind the City Hall. Councilman Bohrer said he would like to see a discussion on the percentage of the site to be graded and how they propose to save more than one tree on the site. Council President Van Dusen asked that fir. Loveland be prepared to discuss this subject next week. Mr. Loveland said he would be prepared. Councilman Phelps said we do have a diferent designation for zoni under Draft 4 and she was not sure how the development fits into the draft recommendation of the Planning Commission. She felt the R -4 designation is more appropriate than the R -3. Brad Collins, Director of Planning, said this question was raised in the staff report and because of the designation in effect on the northeast part is R -1 and the designation on the southwest part is R -3 and trying to determine that line and running it through the property and calculating space, as near as they could figure it may end up a few units short as far as the designation of those units at this point. This was brought to the attention of the applicant. The other things that gets sticky is in the draft ordinance it talks about a nonconforming structure and it talks about existing structures. His presumption is that the ordinance will probably be passed before the structures are existing, or at least completed. He felt it was his responsibili to point out to the applicant that there is a potential of ending up with some sort of nonconforming density.or structure. It could not be calculated what that was very easily. Councilman Phelps said there are about 10 development units per gross acres on the site with 48 units, but how do you determine net acres? Now that they have been redesigned what would be the number of development units per net acre? Mr. Collins said the net acreage figure for the development is 4.68 as he recalled. In trying to make a calculation as to how much is R -3 and how muc is R -1 we determined there was a possiblity of coming up with somewhere between 42 and 46 units. That is using a PRD type of bonus clustering concept as well. The other notion is that the R -1 area is zoned R -1- 20,000. As you calculate that into the area you lose another unit or two because of the lot size in that area being consistent. The other question we have is the the area to the north and west is proposed for R -3 also and it i5 his understanding that those units are at R -4 or greater densil The question that staff intended to raise under unresolvw issues sometime this month was is that the appropriate designatic for those areas. What is the purpose that is served by making all of those units nonconforming. Councilman Bohrer asked how many acres are on the portion of the site that you plan to develop and how many are on the site that you plan to leave untouched? Mr. Loveland said he had not.calcu- lated that exactly at this time. Councilman Bohrer asked that TU::WIL.A CITY COUNCIL COMM TEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING July 14, 1981 ?age 13 ':EW BUSINESS - Contd. McAllister Condo Waiver to build 48 units on property lying east of Tukwila Park - contd. P &L Co. Comprehensive Plan Amendment request to redesignate 3.1 ac. no. of & adjacent to Xerox bldg. on South - center Blvd. from medium density resi- dential" and "low den - sity residential" to "office" use. Prop. Ord. amending the 1931 Budget to approp. unanticipated revenue. Report on Public Mtg. on East Side Green River 'atershed Project held July 8, 1981. this be addressed at the next meeting. .5 ,.)« -/ Councilman Phelps asked if with the recreation spaces that are provided for in the revised plan would they serve as a mitigating factor to the extra units on the site or could it? Mr. Collins said he would assume that is part of the notion.of doing it that way. Councilman Bohrer asked Staff to tell him if there is any site in the City where there is multi- family that is steeper than this slope. He asked that this information be supplied at the next regular meeting. Councilman Phelps said the Terrace Apart- ments are on a steep slope, they might be a similar comparison Councilman Johanson asked about the water system. Mr. Loveland said they had not determined how they are going to handle. all of the utilities, they have been busy with density and slope. Mr. Collins said the Fire Department has determined the water flow and they are aware of it. Mr. Loveland said it is their feeling in looking at the present zoning that the owner of the property is being penalized by the designation of R -1 on a portion of the property which he is unable to develop in the R- 1- 20,000 because of the steepness. It was mentioned by the Council that multi - family was the proper usage for that site. The Council has put a zoning on that property that makes it undevelopable. MOVED BY HILL, SECONDED BY PHELPS, THAT THE MCALLISTER CONDOMINIUP WAIVER TO BUILD 48 UNITS ON PROPERTY LYING EAST OF TUKWILA PARK BE ON THE AGENDA OF THE JULY 21, 1981 REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING. MOTION CARRIED. Brad Collins, Directof of Planning, said the applicant would like to continue the discussion on the P &L Co..Comprehensive Plar Amendment to the Committee of the Whole Meeting on July 28, 1981. MOVED BY HILL, SECONDED BY JOHANSON, THAT THE P &L CO. C0•9PREHENSIt PLAN AMENDMENT REQUEST BE ON THE AGENDA OF THE JULY 28, 1981 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING. MOTION CARRIED. Councilman Phelps said the purpose of the proposed ordinance is to place into the 1981 . budget Block Grant Funds that are available but not included in the budget. MOVED BY BOHRER, SECONDED BY HILL, THAT THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE BE ON THE AGENDA OF THE JULY 21, 1981 REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING. MOTION CARRIED. Ted Uomoto, Director of Public Works, reported there were 200 to 250 people in attendance at the meeting. There were comments by the local residents. The comments were pros and cons and he felt there were more people not favoring the various aspects of the program, including the method of assessment. The only major land owner who attended and made comment was The Boeing Company. They made reference to their concern about the 18 million dollars they would be assessed. They must have made their own calculatio Many of the local people were not too clear as to what the project was about. and how it would serve the area. The people seemed to be confusing Howard Hanson Dam control in the Green River.and what the East Side Green River Watershed Project provided. Before Howard Hanson Dam was built the river was,uncontrolled and flows exceeded 12,000 on a regular 12,000 CFS basis. The existin levees were not capable of containing the flow so consequently th water overflowed its bank. After Howard Hanson Dam was built, one of the requirements was to control the flows at Auburn at 12,000 which was supposed to contain the water within the levee. TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING July 14, 1981 Page 14 NEW BUSINESS - Contd. Report on Public Mtg. on East Side Green River Watershed Project held July 8, 1981 contd. MISCELLANEOUS Checking of Fire Hyd- rants - F. D. or PWD Once this was achieved there was a secondary problem of local inflow that could not flow into the Green River. The East Side Green River Watershed Project would then pump the water into the Green River. After Howard Hanson Dam was built the development continued which increased the local inflows in that area. Soil Conservation Services design allows for a local inflow that will receive a 100 year possibility. This is the reason they have to have a large holding pond to store that 100 year flow that is possible. Questions were raised and King County is giving a little more thought to it at this time. Boeing statement is that maybe a little more water around might not cause that much damage. -- 18 million dollars of damage. Some of the things there were no answers to.questions of this naturE Studies were not that far into the project. Mr. Uomoto said he attended the meeting last night in the Renton City City Council. In hearing the Renton City Council comments they were divided in their opinion. Some felt that the project was an oversize project. Others felt perhaps they should go to the local people and con- struct an LID drainage program. Others felt a building moratorium should be imposed until they have a better idea as to what to do. Renton City Council deferred decision until there could be further discussion in the next Committee of the Whole Meeting. In talking to one of the attendees at the Kent meeting, they came to about the same decision as Renton. In talking with King County, they sense the project may not fly so they are trying to look at another alternative. This other alternative is what would happen, what area would actually flood if the pumping plant was not constructed. What would be the actual damages to the many property owner; around this area with the new development in this basin? King County has recently received the valley topography plan from the Corps of Engineers. Their topo draing of the valley is a scale of 1" for 50' which is one of the most detailed drawings he has seen of the valley. This is the best information that is available that shows the ground contour lines existing features. King County is anticipating further delay to the project. They may possibly recommend that if they can obtain these holding pond areas at no cost, which they believe they will be able to get through donations, this may keep the project alive. This is what they are working towards. Councilman Phelps said one of the holding ponds was about 70. acres in the northeast corner of the Renton valley along the freeway. It is marshy and cattails. That was identifi as an area that could serve as storage. Two political impressions.that she came away with was that one of the major property owners protested on the basis tha the assessments as proposed in the preliminary would show on the basis of a per acre factor that he would be paying about two million dollars over the term of the project in assessments. He was not sure that he would sustain two million dollars worth of damage to his property should it flood and no project were built. That was tought to answE Councilman Bohrer said he was frustrated or amused, without understanding the magnitude of some of the assessments. The whole project will cost about 40 million dollars and Boeing says they are going to pay 18 million dollars. Another says he is going to pay 5% of the cost. Does he .have 5 % of the property? Councilman Phelps said these were public audience comments and were made without explar ation. People were allowed comment. Council_ President Van Dusen said there is a question as to TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING July 14, 1981 Page NEW BUSINESS - Contd. Approve call for bids for consultant's propo- sals.for engineering services to establish final profile grade & alignment of Interurban. - contd. show discrepancy. By doing it that way and having it recorded they would be in a better position in a court decision. Mayor Todd said McDuffy established a lot of the monuments in Tukwila. Councilman Bohrer said he would like to see it broken down so we have something to bid on. He said this seems a lower level of study than what we are looking for. Ted Uomoto, Director of Public Works, said for $20,000 you cannot get a final design. He said he felt the City engineering Depart- ment will have to do some more work to establish elevation. It is likely the work will have to be done on the City's own time. This proposal will give the City information to work on. We are not trying to tell the consultant how to do the work. We will receive quite a number of proposals. Councilman Hill asked if it would be better to have all of the information needed, including right -of -way, so we can go and find where the right -of -way is if it is staked. Would it be better to get three - fourths of the street complete the way we want it or would it be better to get the whole thing done and get about two - thirds of what we need. P1r. Uomoto said he would prefer the latter because the City can ask a developer to provide sidewalk elevation. We could tell them where the monuments are located. The burden of increased inspection would be up to the developer. The benchmark could last for years. Councilman Bohrer referred to the third paragraph of "Study Considerations," fifth line, where it says, "consideration can be given to waiver for Council decision. He said he would like to delete "to waiver." There is another alternative. An alterna- tive would be to consider acquiring the land. He said he would prefer saying we are going to have information for Council decision rather than implying we are going to have a waiver. MOVED BY BOHRER, SECONDED BY HILL, THAT THE CALL FOR BIDS FOR CONSULTANT'S PROPOSAL FOR ENGINEERING SERVICES TO ESTABLISH FINAL PROFILE GRADE AND ALIGNMENT OF INTERURBAN AVENUE BE ON THE AGENDA OF THE JULY 21, 1981 REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING, WITH THE CHANGE SUGGESTED BY COUNCILMAN BOHRER IN THE THIRD PARAGRAPH OF THE "STUDY CONSIDERATIONS." MOTION CARRIED. (1) Deletion of the oil Ted Uomoto, Director of Public Works, said the oil rejuvenation Rejuvenation Program for program for the streets last year was evaluated and, based on City Streets. the evaluation, it was conclued that the program is not as effec- (2) Ditch cleaning tive as anticipated. Placement of oil requires ideal conditions along Interurban. which are difficult to meet, such as hot weather at the time of application and restricted traffic for at least one day. Also, the remaining streets not oiled are in a deteriorated condition that indicates it is too late for this type of treatment. The rejuvenation program was budgeted for $15,000. Mr. Uomoto said the Public Works Committee has recommended Council approval to delete the oil rejuvenation program and divert the budgeted funds toward the high - priority ditch cleaning along Interurban Avenue. Debris build -up in ditches covers the outlet of the storm drain pipes which receive run -off from Interurban Avenue. The ditch work could be accomplished by Public Works staff with rental equipment. The cost impact would be $10,000. He said a budget transfer is not necessary as funds are within the City Street Maintenance budget. MOVED BY HILL, SECONDED BY JOHANSON, THAT COUNCIL ACCEPT THE DELETION OF THIS BUDGET ITEM AND IT BE ON THE AGENDA OF THE JULY 21, 1981 REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING. MOTION CARRIED. Councilman Phelps said it will be a narrative change in the budget. TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL C01.1M' "TEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING July 14, 1931 Page 10 NEW BUSINESS Contd. McAllister Condo Waiver to build 48 units on property lying east of Tukwila Park. 3.7 Brad Collins, Director of Planning, said the McAllister applicatio was reviewed by the Council in January and was found to be incom- plete. The Council requested the applicant to revise the layout to address the following topics of concern: adequacy of fire access, built -form intensity, adequacy of on -site recreation space The applicant has responded to the concerns and they have worked with Planning, Fire, and Recreation Department staff members. Staff feels that plan represents a substantial improvement of the previous design concept and appears to resolve Council's concerns about the original proposal. Councilman Phelps said there had been a dispute on the property line between the City Park and the developer's property. Mr. Collins said this has been resolved. Councilman Bohrer asked if the road slopes have been reviewed and if they are feasible. Mr. Collins said this had been a concern and they had worked with Jim Hoel of the Fire Department on this matter. Lee Loveland, architect representing McAllister, said there was a 141/2% slope throughout the property. During the course of the redesign they met with the Fire Department and others and reques- ted of them a criteria. They indicated in writing that they would be satisfied with the plan where the slopes exceed 122 %. Originally, all of the buildings were located on the steep slopes, In the new plan we have a fair portion of the building sites located on relatively gentle slopes, some less than 5 %. The maximum slope of roadways on the side is 121/2%. He said it is his understanding that will meet the Fire Department requirements This was one of their prime efforts. The redesign was to reduce the slopes from what they had. Councilman Bohrer said he did not understand how they could do that from what the slopes were orignally. From a 142% slope you have gone all of the way down a long hill. Now you say you have made that 121 %. Mr. Loveland said they are now entering the site from a different location from the original plan. Originally they were coming right off the entry road onto the site and they have now moved the entry location down. We were being penalized in the design just by the configuration we were working with. By coming in at the new location it allows them to access the units to the north at a much lower elevation than they were before. This works to their advantage all of the way down. Councilman Bohrer said it would have to be explained better than that. Starting with the old plan it said the slopes from the entry road to the end is 14' %. Moving the entry way is not going to change getting to the end of the street which is 153rd. Mr. Loveland said if you study the contours on the site there hav been a lot of revising in locating the roads. They are not coming down as much as they were in the original plan. If you were to scale these off you would find they were 121%. He said they are looking at a different plan now than the original one. They are not coming down to 140th as they were in the other plan. The effort was to try to keep the level up. They are taking adva tage.of a portion of the slope to get into the site. In order to make the units fit on the site they had to keep a road up. Councilman Phelps said in looking at the map that the new roadway configuration is more westerly than the original driveway access to the property where the contour lines on the map show it a little wider than where the roadway was originally placed. They are narrower in the original proposal. This is the south er Mr. Loveland said one of the big concerns expressed was the Fire Department access to the structures and particularly to the downhill slope. They met on several occasions with Fire DepartmE personnel and their effort to do that combined with another one of the comments which was the thought that the density of the TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL, REGUTAR MEETING January 19, 1981 Page 2 PETITIONS, COMMUNICATIONS, APPEALS AND SIMILAR MATTERS - Cont. Southcenter Blvd. - Request for appro- val to appropriate matching funds (cont.) McAllister Condo- minium Waiver Criteria #1 Criteria #2 307P MOVED BY PHELPS, SECONDED BY HARRIS,. THAT COUNCIL APPROVE THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT TO PROCURE THE APPROVAL FROM KING COUNTY TO USE $14,358 FROM FORWARD THRUST FUNDS.* Councilman Phelps said Council is only authorizing the Public Works Department to procure the approval from King County. *MOTION CARRIED. William McAllister has applied for a waiver to develop 58 condo- minium homes in 7 buildings from 2 to 16 units each. The property is owned by Robert Oldright. Councilman Bohrer noted that when Council was working on the Comp- rehensive Plan, Mayor Todd appeared before Council as the owner of this property. He asked the Mayor if he has sold the interest he had in this property. Mayor Todd said he sold the property 8 years ago. He has no financial interest in this property or the project. Councilman Bohrer asked the Mayor if he is still a partner of Mr. Oldright's on other business ventures. Mayor Todd said, no I am not. Mayor Todd expalined that he and Mr. Oldright jointly owned a piece of property which they sold about 3 years ago. Their con- tracts are separate and they own nothing jointly. MOVED BY VAN DUSEN, SECONDED BY PHELPS, THAT COUNCIL VOTE YES ON CRITERIA NO. 1: Does the proposed action represent a unique condition ?' Councilman Bohrer said it is not unique in terms of the surrounding area. There is another waiver before the Council on a contiguous piece of property. There are other properties that have come before Council for the same reason. The applicant's response is that the proposed site is unique because of its steepness and because of the current zoning problem. ROLL CALL VOTE: HILL - VAN DUSEN - SAUL - BOHRER - HARRIS - PHELPS *MOTION CARRIED: 6 - YES. YES YES, I do have problems with the steepness and the excavation. YES, the steepness is a problem; also, the access to the property is not wide enough. NO NO, staff report indicates the project is not uniquely suited. YES, property has been identified on the environ- mental base map for special development consideration *MOTIONCARRI 4 - YES; 2 - NO. MOVED BY VAN DUSEN, SECONDED BY HILL, THAT COUNCIL VOTE YES ON CRITERIA NO. 2: Is the proposed action significant in scale ?* Councilman Bohrer noted the application states the site is 4.7 acres. It is the largest piece of undeveloped land in that neighborhood, . so it is significant in scale. ROLL CALL VOTE: VAN DUSEN - YES, I feel if this was a flat piece of property I would probably vote no. With the amount of environmental considerations, I will vote yes. SAUL - YES, because of the destruction of vegetation. BOHRER - YES HARRIS - YES, due to the size of the project and the extensive environmental modification necessary. PHELPS - YES HILL - YES,I agree with staff. TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL, REGUI MEETING January 19, 1981 Page 3 PETITIONS, COMMUNICATIONS, APPEALS AND SIMILAR MATTERS - Cont. McAllister Condo- minium Waiver (cont.) Criteria #3 Criteria #4 3679 MOVED BY VAN DUSEN, SECONDED BY HARRIS, THAT COUNCIL VOTE YES ON CRITERIA #3: Has the applicant shown that no reasonable alternatives are available which would not require a waiver ?* ROLL CALL VOTE: SAUL - N/A BOHRER - NO, there are the alternatives of lower density that he has not really given adequate information to. HARRIS - N/A PHELPS - N/A HILL - N/A VAN DUSEN - N/A *MOTION FAILED. 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 miti- gating measures provided ?* Councilman Bohrer said that he feels adequate mitigating measures have not been provided. He noted that Council inspected the site. Since there have been previousYtWYWInalysis, he had done his own. The bulk of the buildings to the front of the site are located in areas that range from 40% to 60% slope. It is quite clear the buildings are being located on the steepest part of the entire site. He referred to the artist's rendition and noted that the view of the development will be buildings with a small amount of vegetation at the bottom. In terms of the grading involved, it is obviously going to be expensive. At an estimate of $450,000 for excavation there is an enormous amount of excavation to go on. It seems there are other alternatives in which the buildings might be arranged. One might be to take the buildings off the steep slope. Councilman Phelps said she doesn't believe any property in the Puget Sound area can be developed without some site disturbance. This developer has indicated he is willing to abide by the policies set forth by the City. The soils investigations and other attempts they have made indicate an effort toward good development. Mr. Loveland, representing the developer, said the $450,000 estimate for excavation does not necessarily represent the amount, but the type of excavation because there is a lot of rock there. Also, the artist's perspective is not from ground level. It is an aerial view. Councilman Harris said that from staff's comments and from their visit to the site, it looks like they are trying to get as many units as possible on the site and all the usable ground will be covered, leaving very little open space. There should be more active recreation space left. The site is too densily covered. . Mr. Loveland commented that in developing, you have to meet a " certain economic balance. Their preference would be to have more units. Councilman Hill said it looks like they were going to put the apartments on the steep slope and save the flat area. This makes sense. Councilman Bohrer commented, that based on 4.7 acres and 58 units, the site would have a density of 12 units per acre. However, if you look at the density of just the area being developed, it is 25 units per acre. TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL, REGUC MEETING ` January 19, 1981 Page 4 PETITIONS, COMMUNICATIONS, APPEALS AND SIMILAR MATTERS - Cont. McAllister Condo- minium Waiver (cont.) Criteria #5 Criteria #6 Criteria #7 ROLL CALL VOTE: BOHRER - NO HARRIS - NO PHELPS - YES HILL - YES VAN DUSEN - NO SAUL - NO *MOTION CARRIED. 6 - YES. *MOTION FAILED: 4 - NO; 2 - YES. MOVED BY VAN DUSEN, SECONDED BY SAUL, THAT COUNCIL VOTE YES ON CRITERIA #5: Is the request for waiver consistent with the goals and policies of the comprehensive land use policy plan ?* Councilman Bohrer noted that the average slope of the road from the entrance to the southeast corner is 14.6 %. There are areas on it with a `slope of 30 %. The loop road has areas of 20% slope. The applicant says the roads are 15% or less. The applicant also says no building on the property will be located on slopes over 20 %. The problem is visualizing what the development will look like. Council loses control after this process and the view of the development at this point is not very clear. Councilman Phelps said the way it was explained was that the buildings would fit the hillside. The access is from the back and goes both up to the upper units and down to the lower units. Mr. Loveland said all the access is mid level and from the west side. ROLL CALL VOTE: HARRIS - YES PHELPS - YES HILL - YES VAN DUSEN - YES, they made a good attempt. SAUL - YES BOHRER - YES, they seem to understand the policies. MOVED BY VAN DUSEN, SECONDED BY PHELPS, THAT COUNCIL VOTE YES ON CRITERIA #6: Do the requirements of this waiver ordinance impose a special hardship to this site ?* ROLL CALL VOTE: PHELPS - YES, this applies to every property. HILL - N/A VAN DUSEN - YES SAUL - N/A BOHRER - NO HARRIS - N/A *MOTION FAILED. 2 - YES, 3 - N /A, 1 - NO. MOVED BY VAN DUSEN, SECONDED BY SAUL, THAT COUNCI VOTE YES ON CRITERIA #7: Would a grant of the waiver necessitate a major policy commitment prior to the adoption of the new zoning ordi- nance and map ?* 30 Yo Mayor Todd asked if Council was aware that the land was zoned by contract. The zoning goes with the land. RECESS: 8:00 P.M.- MOVED BY VAN DUSEN, SECONDED BY SAUL, THAT COUNCIL TAKE FIVE MINUTES • 8:05 P.M. FOR RESEARCH. MOTION CARRIED. TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL, REGUR MEETING January 19, 1981 Page 5 PETITIONS, COMMUNICATIONS, APPEALS AND SIMILAR MATTERS - Cont. McAllister Condo- Mayor Todd called the regular meeting back to order with Council minium Waiver Members present as previously reported. (Cont.) Attorney Hard explained that the property, as it is now zoned, is very close to the way the Comprehensive Plan shows it so this is not really an issue. The primary reason this matter is before Council is not a zoning question, rather, it is an environmentally critical area sensitive area. ROLL CALL VOTE: HILL - VAN DUSEN - SAUL - BOHRER - HARRIS - PHELPS - c NO, I don't feel it does. NO N/A NO N /A, I don't think we are addressing that here. NO *MOTION FAILED. 4 - NO, 2 - N/A MOVED BY VAN DUSEN, SECONDED BY SAUL, THAT COUNCIL APPROVE THE PRELIMINARY WAIVER AS SUBMITTED.* Councilman Bohrer reviewed the results on the criteria votes, 2 - N /A, 2 - FAILED, and 3 - CARRIED. The site is being shown for a much too intense development considering the slope. Access to the site and fire protection need to be discussed. The site can- not be reached from Southcenter Blvd., making fire protection diffi- cult. During the winter, getting in and out could be a problem. I am not in favor of the proposal as submitted. Councilman Phelps said Council has the responsibility of enforcing the City's laws as they apply to developments and., at the same time, I think we are going to have to start becoming a little more innovative on how to handle development on certain pieces of property.and look at other methods of construction and see other things that make the building applicable to the site specifically more than to general codes. Councilman Harris agreed that we do have to look at the particular site because we have very few that are flat. If they are going to be developed, we will have to look at innovative methods. This one, however, is being too intensely developed. There are too many units being planned, and I think the waiver should be denied as it now stands. Councilman Hill noted this development is using the flat area around the buildings rather than putting the buildings on the flat area, so it would be possible to get fire equipment around them. Mr. Jim Stapper, with the development, said they have talked to the Fire Department and have agreed to install fire sprinkler systems in the buildings. Councilman Bohrer noted that is not Council's prerogative to design a project. We have all made suggestions. The waiver process also addresses the policy in terms of developing the City. In some respects, it is Council's interpretation of the policies of the Comprehensive Plan. Councilman Van Dusen said he feels the medium density will go on the site. It is not a site for single family homes. Engineers can do almost anything. The site development is a little too intense. With a little creativity on the developer's part, we can get an appropriate building placement. Councilman Bohrer noted there is a problem with the location of the west property line that is still to be resolved. Councilman Harris said multi - dwellings are a good use for the site, but their proposal has too many units in one row to make it safe. ROLL CALL VOTE: HILL - NO VAN DUSEN - NO SAUL - NO BOHRER - NO HARRIS - NO PHELPS - YES, my concerns will be handled through the building permit process. 30 21 TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL, REGUIC MEETING January 19, 1981 Page 6 PETITIONS, COMMUNICATIONS, APPEALS AND SIMILAR McAllister Condo- minium Waiver (cont.) *MOTION FAILED. Williams McAllister, own this property from Rober property. Under this zo torney Hard what this me of the contract zoning? hat any owner of property in the City who t must conform to the zoning code and the r process in this case is triggered, not `ication, but because the property is located in an environmentally sensitive area. Mr. McAllister asked why the City would enter into a contract that specifically states 120 nits could be built. I understood we could go directly to the building permit process. I feel I have a contract with the City and I am telling the City.Council right now that I intend to hold the City to this contract. We have been all through a waiver pro ess and, to me, it is meaningless. Councilman Bohrer asked f the contract specifically says 120 units. Mr. McAllister said it m•ntions the two zoning classifications. Mayor Todd clarified tha at the time the contract was signed, the zoning would allow 120 u its on the site. Attorney Hard explained is proposing a developme building code. The waiv because of zoning classi Councilman Hill said, in to specific conditions. be made. Councilman Van the projects. We have 1 I think Mr. McAllister c creative change. Counci right now is who belongs Councilman Hill noted th MOVED BY HILL, SECONDED :Y PHELPS, THAT THE PRELIMINARY WAIVER IS APPROVED SUBJECT TO THE SPLITTING OF THE TWO LONG BUILDINGS MAKING NINE BUILDINGS INSTEAD OF SEVEN.* Councilman Hill clarified that he means unobstructed access be made through the buildings. Mr. Oldright said the City put the fence up so they wouldn't have to cut down any trees. They were informed at the time that they were on my property. W haven't asked to have the fence moved because it hasn't bothe ed us. Councilman Bohrer said necessarily get the bes to redesign that would number of trees that ge might be better coming have Council reduce the MOVED BY PHELPS, SECOND LIMINARY WAIVER IS INCO BACK TO THE APPLICANT F WITH HILL AND BOHRER VO *MOTION FAILED WITH HIL VOTING YES. MATTERS - Cont. - 3 0 8c)- r /applicant, explained that he purchased Oldright with contract zoning on the ing, 120 units are allowed. He asked At- ns to the City? What are the obligations the past, we have approved waivers subject I think there are a few changes that should Dusen said Council does not want to design id out the things we have problems with. uld get this off and going with a little man Harris said one of the prime things to the ten feet along the west boundary. t their surveyor says there is 4.6 acres. educing the number of units does not development. There are some approaches e better. It could substantially reduce the cut, rocks that get moved, etc. The developer ack with a different.approach rather than to number of units. Mr. McAllister said the would be happy to do that. They have spent a lot of time and money on this. D BY HARRIS, THAT THE APPLICATION FOR PRE - PLETE AND THAT COUNCIL REFER THE APPLICATION R ADDITIONAL INFORMATION. MOTION CARRIED ING NO. RECESS: 9:05 P.M.- MOVED BY BOHRER, SECOND D BY HILL, THAT COUNCIL RECESS FOR FIVE 9:10 P.M. MINUTES. MOTION CARRIEI. Mayor Todd called the r-gular meeting back to order with Council Members present as prev'ously reported. G • January 12, 1981 7:00 P.M. CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL OF COUNCIL MEMBERS DISCUSSION Prop. Ord. reclas- sifying certain lands from R -1 -12 to R -3 & R -4 with in City (Wynn). TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL City Hall COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE PIES( 'VG ' , Council. Chambers MINUTES MOVED BY HILL, SECONDED BY BOHRER, THAT COUNCILMAN VAN DUSEN ACT AS CHAIRMAN OF THE MEETING IN THE ABSENCE OF COUNCIL PRESIDENT SAUL. MOTION CARRIED. Councilman Van Dusen called the Tukwila City Council Committee of the Whole Meeting to order at 7:15 P.M. L. C. BOHRER, GEORGE D. HILL, DORIS E. PHELPS, GARY L. VAN DUSEN. Robert W. Thorpe, applicant for the rezone, said he and the architect had gone over the slope area in detail. He explained the project with an illustrated wall map. He asked how they could comply with the rules and goals of the City. They have shown compabibility with about 95% of the requirements. Mr. Thorpe showed the Council how they determined the slope of the property. Councilman Bohrer said the City staff did a slope analysis using another technique. Mark Caughey, Acting Planning Director, explained the technique used by City staff in determining the slope analysis, stating the results correlated very closely. Councilman Phelps said it is obvious that the City Council no longer deals with projects that are easily handled. The developer has tried to put together a project that will meet the criteria of the City. She said she did not know at what point we would be able to do a site development plan. If the slope is critical is the Council concerned because there will be grading and filling? Councilman Bohrer said there will be substantial cuts on the site, vegetation will go away, there will be parking lots with steep rockeries to keep the area in place. He said he could see only two buildings that are not on the slope. Councilman Van Dusen asked if any driveways are planned for over 15% slope. Mr. Thorpe answered no. Councilman Bohrer said the site is steep. His argument at the time this project was presented before was that the slopes were twice as steep as they have been shown. Mr. Thorpe said he had said the bulk of the development was not less than 25% slope. The guidelines do not say no development" in 25% slope, it says "minimum development." Councilman Bohrer said he sees some development in parts that are in the 40% slope. Mr. Thorpe said he felt Mr. Caughey's technique in determining the slope is incorrect. He said the method used by his engineer is more accurate. This is just one goal out of 120. Councilman Bohrer said it has been said that all of the 120 points are of equal value. That is not necessarily so. The surrounding sites are not as steep and they have similar density. He said he thought the slopes were steep, but Mr. Thorpe has tried to make the project as compatible as possible. It is a candidate for a planned unit development approach. The Council, in making a decision on zoning, must think there is a reasonable project that can be designed on the site. The site is going to be developed. If it is not zoned properly, the Council will have to look at it. This project went through the Planning Commission and they did not have the benefit of the slope review. Maybe it should be sent back to the Planning Commission for further review. TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL COMMIE E OF THE WHOLE MEETING January 12, 1981 Page 2 . DISCUSSION - Contd. Prop. Ord. reclas- Councilman Hill asked Mr. Thorpe if he agreed to the conditions sifying certain recommended by the Planning Commission when this rezone request lands from R -1 -12 was considered on October 16, 1980. They were: to R -3 & R -4 within City (Wynn) - contd. 1) Prior to transmittal of the Commission's recommendation on this zoning reclassification to the City Council, the applicant shall prepare and submit for Staff approval precise legal descriptions for the R -3 and R -4 sub -areas of the site. McAllister Condo Proj. Waiver re- quest to dev. 58 condos in 7 bldgs. ranging from 2 to 16 units ea. 2) The building /parking /circulation and related development details appearing on Exhibit C are conceptual only and are not approved. Any project proposed on this site subsequent to City Council approval of the subject rezone shall require BAR approval of site, architectural and landscaping details prior to issuance of building permits. 3) Maximum residential density for overall development of this site shall not exceed 18 D.U. /gross acre. 4) Structured enclosed parking shall be provided for any project developed on this site subsequent to City Council approval of the rezone recommendation at a ratio of not less than one (1) stall per dwelling unit. Unstructured parking shall be provided at the minimum ratio of one -half stall per unit. 5) The applicant shall agree to equitably participate in City's LID #30. 6) Fencing shall be provided on north and east property lines of the Wynn property. The property is comprised of 5 acres. MOVED BY HILL, SECONDED BY PHELPS, THAT THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE BE ON THE AGENDA OF THE JANUARY 19, 1981 REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING. MOTION CARRIED.' Councilman Harris arrived at the Committee of the Whole Meeting at 7:55 P.M. Lee Loveland, architect, said they have submitted additional plans to the City and a soils report in accordance with the City request. He said the site is presently zoned for 120 units and the zoning is C -1 and R -4. Under the Comprehensive Plan 62 units are planned. They are proposing 58 units, which is less than the present zoning and Compre- hensive Plan zoning. He said they are proposing to maintain the green as much as possible. They are considering the planned unit development on the pieces that are less steep. He said they had attempted to reduce the density. The access roads are less than 15% maximum. To assure fire protection they intend to sprinkle the buildings. Councilman Van Dusen asked when the soils report was done? Mr. Loveland said it was done the early part of 1980 or the latter part of 1979. He said 80% of their development is under 25% slope. Councilman Bohrer asked what sort of grading would have to be done? Mr. Loveland said the buildings will tend to site themselves rather well, by taking them into the bank with retaining walls, trying to minimize the grading that would have to be done. Councilman Bohrer asked for the percentage area of the site that will be covered by buildings and parking lots. Mr. Loveland said they have indicated 39,150 square feet building coverage, 40,700 square feet of paving, and remaining would be 117,650 square feet. Councilman Phelps said buildings would constitute 19.5% of the total development, 20% would be in paving, and 40% in natural. That conforms with the criteria set forth in the zoning ordinance for. planned unit developments. Councilman Van Dusen said the Fire Department has problems with the access. Mr. Loveland said the Fire Department has indicated that if the roads are icy they will have difficulty bringing in fire fighting • • TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING January, 12,. 1981 •t• DISCUSSION - Contd: RECESS 8:25 - 8:35 P.M. David Oak Condo Waiver request to dev. 14 unit condo proj. on .38 ac. Cedarwood Habitat, between 56th Ave. . S. & Interurban at approx. So. 137th, request for reconsider- ation of waiver to increase density level author. by C.C. 2/19/80. McAllister Condo equipment: They have offset this difficulty by installing sprinklers. Proj. Waiver re- ''There will be no problem of access if the weather is not inclement. quest to dev. 58 If there is a steep slope access is from the back side of the building. condos in 7 bldgs. ranging from 2 to 16 units ea. - contd. Councilman Van Dusen said he thought the City Council should look over the site and see what it is like. He asked Mr. Loveland if they have noted where they might run into solid rock when they lay the utilities. Mr. Loveland said it is hard with the soils report to identify every bit of the basalt. There may be areas they will have to reconsider. Mr. Loveland said if the Council or a committee would like to go over the site they would have someone from their office there, also the soils analyst, to answer any questions that might come up. Mr. Loveland said when they first started planning the development there was not a planned unit development ordinance. He said that is the general approach they have taken. Councilman Hill suggested that the Council meet Monday, January 19, 1981 at 4:00 p.m. at the site. MOVED BY PHELPS, SECONDED BY HILL, THAT THE MCALLISTER CONDOMINIUM PROJECT WAIVER REQUEST TO DEVELOP 58 CONDOMINIUM HOMES IN SEVEN BUILDINGS BE ON THE AGENDA OF THE JANUARY 19, 1981 REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING. MOTION CARRIED. MOVED BY HILL, SECONDED BY PHELPS, THAT THE TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING RECESS FOR FIVE MINUTES. MOTION CARRIED. The Committee of the Whole Meeting was called back to order by Chairman Van Dusen, in the absence of Council President Saul, with Council Members present as previously listed. Mr. David Oak called January 9, 1981 and asked to have the waiver discussion delayed until the Committee of the Whole Meeting of January 26, 1981. Felix Campanella, CMB Development Corporation, said they applied for a building permit for 92 units in October 1979. In February 1980 it was recommended by City Council that they attempt to develop with 76 units. He said they are here to tell the Council they are not able to make the project work with 76 units. He said they have a financial analysis from John L. Scott, Inc. comparing the margin of profit on the 76 units and the 92 units. If they build the 92 unit site the average price of the condominiums will be $55,000. Purchasers would have to make nearly $28,898 per year to qualify. If they build the 76 unit site the average price will be $70,000. Purchasers would have to make nearly $36,500 per year to qualify. The market for condominiums is under $60,000. They advised that unless they are able to obtain the 92 units on the site they recommend that they not build. He said they are asking the Council to let them build the 92 units. He said the 92 units provide more amenities and would attract buyers. Councilman Bohrer asked Mr. Hard, City Attorney, if the Council is compelled to asure Mr. Campanella a high rate of profit on his invest- ment? Mr. Hard, City Attorney, said there is no obligation on the part of the Council to assure a developer a high return.gn his investment. The Council cannot take action that denies the buyer any use of his property. Council members asked Mr. Campanella various questions about the computation of building costs in comparing the 92 unit development with the 76 unit development. .ilr. Campacella.explained he had the financial analysis prepared. There will be storage and recreation amenities that will have to be built. There will be covered parking, and the back portion of the parking will be storage area. AGENDA ITEM ' CITY OF TUKWILA PLANNING DIVISION CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT INTRODUCTION At the City Council's regular meeting of January, 1981, the McAllister application was reviewed according to the seven waiver criteria, and was found to be incomplete. The Council requested the applicant to revise the project layout to address the following topics of concern: - Adequacy of fire access - Built -form intensity - Adequacy of on -site recreation space 80 -42 -W: McAllister Condominium Waiver Exhibit A - 1st revision is the appli- cant's response to your previously - stated concerns. It has been prepared following lengthy and repeated consul- tation with Recreation, Fire and Plan- ning Department staff members. We believe that it represents a substan- tial imrpovement of the previous design concept, and that it appears to resolve your previous misgivings about the proposal. DISCUSSION A) Adequacy of fire access Your concerns in this area about the previous site plan were: 1) Inability to situate fire apparatus near the rear of the buildings 2) Inadequate space for turning and backing fire apparatus during an emergency incident. To resolve both of these problems, the applicants have developed a fire lane with turn - around on a relatively -level "shelf" at the easterly edge of the property. Using this approach, it is now possible to route fire fighting personnel and equipment directly to the rear of most of the living units. While it is not feasible literally to drive a fire engine directly to each and every back door, it is now possible to execute at least a partial approach from that direction, and to use the fire lane or grass play areas near the rear of the buildings for equipment staging, rescue operations and salvage. While specific engineering or grades and radii remain to be finalized at the buidling permit stage, the fire prevention officer has expressed agreement with the designer's indicated approach. Page -2- 80-42-W B) Reduce built -form intensity C) Adequacy of recreation opportunity During your previous waiver review, it seemed to be a consensus of the Council that the 58 -unit density level as proposed was too intensive to be accomodated on this site, given its steepness and limited public access. You will note that the revised site plan shows both the scale and density of the project reduced. 48 total units are planned, and the buildings them- selves are arranged in smaller combinations of two -unit modules than before. Also, the buildings and roadway have been placed closer to the west property line, leaving greater distance between active living areas and the stability - sensitive top of bank. By reducing the proposed density 20% and reconfiguring the project on a modular basis, the designer has preserved the essential character of the project, while responding more carefully to the site's design constraints. The previous plot plan, while preserving open -space at the extreme north end of the site and providing some decorative landscaping near the struc- tures, did not provide active play areas. The revised 48 -unit concept in- cludes two small but well placed lawn areas for organized activity, and a pedestrian trail system now links the four buildings in the project to- gether. Recreation opportunity is now greatly enhanced, and should help relieve some potential use pressure on Tukwila Park. D) Other considerations It appears that some portions of the site which exceed 20% slope will be developed under the proposed plan, and extensive grading /excavation will be necessary to implement the project. We believe, though, that a trade -off of reduced density and more effective site utilization mitigates somewhat the inescable disturbance of the site's contour. During building permit review, staff will work closely with the applicant to reduce slope gradients as much as possible, and to identify and retain significant specimen trees. Based on the proposed zoning classification map accompanying Draft #4 of the revised zoning ordinance, this westerly portion of this site will be zoned R -3 and the easterly portion R -1. Based on staff's interpretation of the non - conforming use chapter of the new code (18.70.050(5)), it appears that the project could become non - conforming based on permitted density and size of structure (R -3 restricts construction to a maximum 4 -plex size). While the draft zoning code is unofficial at this time, and while the pro- ject as proposed conforms to existing zoning requirements, the potential for future difficulties under modified zoning should be taken into account in the Council's deliberations on this waiver request. • SITE PLAN ig PLANr" G DEPT EXHIBIT A -_i Sr REV M.F. _ _80 4z.- v-1 Et 11 0 Qa W IZ CL `Q� I Z cin W a U a Q 1 4 City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila Washington 98188 1908 Frank Todd, Mayor L.S.W. Architects 1110 Harvard St. Seattle, WA 98122 Attn: Jim Stapper, A.I.A. Subject: (80-42 -W) - McAllister Project 14 May 1981 We have completed the preliminary review of the revised 48 -unit condo- minium project which was submitted on 8 May 1981. The following comments are provided by the Tukwila Fire Department and the Recreation Depart- ment: Fire Department 1. Provide required Fire -Flow of not less than 3000 GPM. 2. All buidlings to be fully sprinklered. 3. Maintain maximum grades at 126. 4. Maintain hydrant coverage per City Ordinance #729. 5. Designation of and identification of Fire -Lanes will be made upon submission of complete final plot plans. 6. All driving areas to have nraxianum of 35 ft. turning radius. Recreation Department 1. Three trails to to play areas have switch -backs and look O.K. - no scale on drawing so I'm not sure of degree of slope. Paths should be at least 4' wide. 2. Size of gravel turn- around I assume it is minimum of 70' which is O.K. for play area size, but I believe the circle areas should be paved. Use it as a multi court play area with basketball hoop and /or hard surface wall for tennis court practice area etc. Gravel* road, leading to it is O.K. *Note - Gravel paths are difficult to maintain, but are a natural material. This is the owner's concern (maintenance). 3. I assume the play areas are grassed areas - not noted on plans what it is. Would be great if it is grass and flat area at least 80' x 40'. 4. The two play areas should be fenced on the lower sides if there is a dangerous situation because of drop -offs. I hope that this information will constitute sufficient direction to reactivate the McAllister Waiver proposal; we appreciate your willingness to consult with us. Please let me know if I can assist you in any way. MC /blk Thkwila Planning Dept. Mark Caughey Associate Planner AGENDA ITEM PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT • • INTRODUCTION Sheet A -1 describes the neigh- borhood setting of the 4.7 ± acre McAllister property. The applicants propose to develop 58 condominium homes in 7 buildings ranging from 2 to 16 units each. The project would be built in a single phase. The applicants are requesting preliminary waiver approval for the following reasons: CIT OF TUKWILA PLANNING DIVISION McAllister Condominium Project Waiver (80 -42 -W) - Inconsistency Between Comprehensive Land Use Plan Category and Exis- ting Zoning Classifica- tion: The present zoning c assification was esta- blished in 1971 by Ordinance 683. The westerly 125' of the site is designated ./ R -4, the remainder adjoining Interurban Avenue being C -1. By contrast, the Comprehensive Plan contains three designations; single - family on the north, medium - density residential in the center, and office on the south. - Project Site is Identified as an Area of Environmental Sensitivity: The Comprehensive Plan Environmental base map indicates that this site warrants special analysis of the following factors: a) Vegetation Cover - The site is identified in the data inventory as a major wooded area and contains many large, healthy specimens and groves of alder and maple. Page 2 b) Geologic Conditions - The underlying geologic structure of the site is bedrock, covered with glacial outwash' soils, according to the data inventory. A more refined soils investigation has been provided by a professional consultant at the applicant's expense. The report seems to conclude that while the upper- surface soils mantle may be unstable in its native conditions, proper compaction and foundation design,along with restricted fill activity can enable the site to support the proposed development. Vegetation presentation is a key factor in soil stabili- zation. Some members of the council may recall denying an application in 1975 to rezone this site to C -2 for purposes of developing a restaurant. The record indicates that the denial was based on the project's incon- sistency with the Comprehensive Plan. ANALYSIS Waiver Criterium #1 -- Does the proposal represent a unique condition? Applicant's Response: The proposed development represents a unique condition for several reasons. First, the site is unique. It's steepness in some areas and limited access require zoning that can allow maximum flexibility in design. The cur- rent zoning does allow that flexibility; however, the proposed land use of the Comprehensive Plan is not proper for this particular site, as further discussed in Section 7. The proposal as planned meets many of the goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan, and is situated in an area that is currently multi - family. Because the pro- ject consists only of 58 units, it's effect on traffic, utilities, and public resources will be minor. Staff Response: We agree that the site is unique, as are all slopes which make up the phisiography of the valley wall. The project does not appear uniquely suited to the particulars of the site topography, however. The cross - section diagrams indi- cate extensive disturbance of natural contour and vegetation. The limit of disturbance line indicated on sheet A -1 seems a bit optimistic, particularly on the east and south edges of the site. Waiver Criterium #2 -- Applicant's Response: Staff Response: Is the proposed action significant in scale? (From Schedule "A ", Question 4) "No." Due to the number of units proposed and the extensive environmental modification of the site implied in the conceptual design layout, the project is significant in scale. Page 3 Waiver Criterium #3 - Applicant's Response: - Has the applicant shown that no reasonable alternatives are available which would not require a waiver? The proposed land uses of the City of Tukwila Comprehen- sive Land Use Plan renders the site virtually impossible for development from a practical and financial standpoint. The current residential zoning would only allow about 30 units maximum. Because of site development costs for this property, this will cause residential unit prices to be higher than existing market rates, unless costs can be averaged by a larger but still appropriate number of units. The existing site of 4.68 acres is divided into three dif- ferent land uses. Almost 50% of the property, or 2.33 acres, is designated as single family residential at 1 -5 units /acre. This portion is the steepest portion of the site and not well suited for single family development. 0.7 acres is designated as office, and while this is consis- tant with other office developments along Southcenter Blvd., it would require access from Southcenter Blvd., which would be very difficult due to the steep grade, and would be a visual detriment due to the removal of natural existing vegetation, and would increase traffic on South - center Blvd. The remaining 1.65 acres is designated as medium density (6 -16 units per acre). A close study of the site will show that conventional lot by lot development is not suited to this site. Dedicated roadways, rear yard setbacks, and maximum lot sizes all serve to severely limit the planner's flexibility in util- izing the site to best advantage.. It our belief that the only reasonable type development for this property is multi - family residental, designed on the principle of a PUD. This would allow greater flexibilty and compatability with the site. Because of the high development costs associated with the construction of the roadway and other site improvements, the proposed number of units is considered a minimum to allow a financially feasible project. Staff Response: As the applicants indicate, other development intensity options are available, in theory. However, any develop- ment on this site would undoubtedly affect sensitive environmental factors, thus necessitating waiver review. We conclude, therefore, that the criterium is not appli- cable to the present case. Waiver Criterium #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? Page 4 (The applicants have provided an extensive discussion of the design philosophy which they have followed in creating this project; their narrative follows:) Applicant's Response: The planning principle of the project is that of a planned unit development. A planned unit development concept is desirable in order to take best advantage of the site characteristics by allowing higher densities in certain areas, and allowing the steeper portions of the site to remain undeveloped. Furthermore, a larger portion of the site may be designated as common open space. Access to the site has been provided from South 153rd to avoid disruption to the natural vegetation barrier along Southcenter Blvd. The units have been clustered and positioned as close as possible to the access road, thus reducing the amount of grading required, and maintaining the maximum amount of common open space which will serve as a natural landscape barrier. By clustering the units, additional landscape areas can be retained between the units. Staff Response: The project is located in an area that can be considered an area of high natural amenity and development constraint. The natural amenity of this site is the appearance of Tukwila Hill as seen from the freeway and the city below. Certainly, there are other portions of Tukwila Hill which have been developed differently for multi - family develop- ment. This project endeavors to maintain the natural appearance of Tukwila Hill by locating all structures on the upper portion of the property, and designating the lower portions of the property, and the steeper slopes as common open space. This common open space will retain all existing trees and vegetation and will provide a visual barrier that will allow this portion of Tukwila Hill to remain visually much the way it is in it's undeve- loped state. The other major concern in regards to this property is it's steep slopes. The soils engineering firm of Hart Crowser and Associates has been a member of the design team throughout the preliminary design phase, and will continue through the duration of the project to ensure that all slopes on the property or adjacent to the pro- perty are maintained in a stable condition. If slope instability is encountered, approved engineering tech- niques will be used to stabilize that slope. Accompanying this waiver request is a soils report. Findings to this date indicate that the proposed building can be constructed on this site without problems with slope stability. While we agree that the planned unit development concept of clustering dwellings in a sub -area of the total site can help to conserve naturalamenities, such approach does not necessarily guarantee the visual result desired (Viz - a -Viz "Sunwood "). As mentioned earlier, we feel that the extent of slope and vegetation disturbance could be much Page 5 Staff Response: greater than that indicated on the conceptual site plan. Nonetheless, the applicant's response certainly indicates an understanding of the City's intent for visual quality of resulting development of the site. We anticipate that exhaustive investigation of grading, utility routing and tree reservation will take place during S.E.P.A. review of the project, if your council approves the waiver request. The soils investigation prepared by the applicant's con- sultant references the desirability of "pile" foundations, as opposed to. spread- footings, to counteract slope insta- bility potential in certain areas of the site. Staff intends to investigate alternatives to conventional con- struction techniques during environmental review as a means of further reducing earth - disturbance impacts. Other areas of impact investigation will need to be studied during the environmental process. For example, technical strategies to control noise within the structures themselves as a function of proximity to Interurban Avenue should be developed. Also, there appears to be little or no "active" recreational open space provided on the site. Since the adjoining Tukwila Park site is already subject to intensive usage, the Recreation Department feels that the development should assume at least a portion of its own responsibility to provide on -site active play space. Waiver Criterium #5 -- Is the request for waiver consistent with the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Land Use Policy Plan? The applicant has prepared an extensive review of the project's relationship to existing comprehensive plan policies -- see attachment. We find that the project conforms to the comprehensive plan policies which encourage development of diversified housing opportunity in the community and owner - occupied multi - family units. Relative to the Comprehensive Plan's policies of retaining natural vegetation and restricting development of steep slopes, the applicant's policy analysis certainly indicates their awareness of the importance which your council attaches to these concepts. We still remain uncertain, however that the project as proposed will meet the objectives of environmental sensitivity once the actual realities of grading, slope stabilization and utility routing begins. Waiver Criterium #6 -- Do the requirements of this waiver ordinance impose a special hardship to this site? In Staff's opinion, the criteria is not applicable. The waiver process, even Page 6 c though exempt from SEPA, is a valuable tool for identi- fying aspects of the project worthy of intensive environ- mental investigation and for focusing attention on areas of public policy concern. Ultimately, the waiver process may expedite review by serving to isolate "early -on" sig- nificant problem areas and strengths in the project pro- posal. Waiver Criterium #7 -- Would a :•grant of the waiver necessitate a major policy commitment prior to the adoption of the new zoning ordi- nance map? The diagram at right is an unoffical excerpt from the Planning Commission's forth- coming recommended zoning map. The intent of their recommendations is to reduce the confusing array of land use categorizations appearing on this site's Comprehensive Plan designation. If implemented, the Commission's proposal would significantly reduce overall use intensity on the site. Also, density levels, and their accom- panying built -form are intended to diminish at the easterly and southerly vicinity of the site. As the proposed site plan diverges significantly from the Planning Commission recom- mendation; we suggest that approval of this waiver request would result in a major policy commitment. in advance of formal transmittal of the zoning map and text. RECOMMENDATION As we see it, three alternative decisions may be made by Council on this matter: A) Deny the waiver application as presented B) Approve the waiver application with the stipulation that such approval is only an authorization to proceed with environmental analysis and Board of Architectural Review; no endorsement of the project layout or proposed density is implied by such approval action. C) Table the application pending forthcoming review of the New Zoning Ordi- nance text ( map as recommended by the P•4 ing Commission. Page 7 .We believe that the Planning Commission's two year effort to complete a recom- mended new zoning ordinance text and map will be completed and transmitted for- mally to your council before January 1, 1981. Therefore, we favor alternative "C" above. We encourage the Council to withold a decision on this application until you have the opportunity to study the new zoning documents. You will then be in a better position to judge the matter of establishing land use intensity for this area in light of land use controls suggested for the commun- ity as a whole. If you wish to take action at this time, alternative "B" above will allow the applicants to undertake a detailed environmental impact investigation, but . without any assurance that the project will ultimately be endorsed. Final decision on the design, density and impact mitigation aspects of the project would be left to Council at the final waiver stage of the approval process, and could possibly result in denial of development permits. o n 7 s 0 E m c E 0 a cn rri :a ;Ater- yaeet PARK TERRACE CONDOMINIUMS TUKWILLA, WASH. 1 1 F 4 iTe ft/4 4FtK NDOMINIUMS TERRACE I KWILLA,WASH. V p • PP... ••"•■••• • • wr. -s )11111 STAPP 11 1 1 1 C14.51 ELEViMICOrf PARK TERRACE CONDOMINIUMS TUKWILLA, WASH. 1 ;21 , 11 LOVELAND .WYArraji 11111 1111111111iinftli 5 A 4 f-4.•, Pre 4. ^1 . ' 141 4 1 c 417 - orrafvF &r PARK TERRACE CONDOMINIUMS TUKWILLA,WASH. • C III LOVELAND LFI 1111M.1111.VVYA-MI • . . -• • • • • • • *ILA • 1909 c TO: Brad FROM: Al a DATE: July 21, 1981 SUBJECT: McAllister site slopes AP /blk City of Tukwila • 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila Washington 98188 Frank Todd, Mayor MEMORANDUM The results of sample test measurements in the area proposed for buildings indicate the average slope to be approximately 1 vertical to 3 horizontal, or a 1 to 3 slope. The nearest comparison is the Hill Crest Apartments located on S. 149th and 64th S.. The major differences between the two sites are, the Hillcrest has several natural benches or flat areas whereas the McAllister site is sloped over the entire site. Also, the McAllister site is sloped both ways which has a compounding effect relative to driveways, parking, etc. CALL TO ORDER. ROLL CALL OF COUNCIL MEMBERS Foster Golf Course Bridge Rehabilita- tion. McAllister Condo Project Waiver Request. David Oak Condo Waiver. Cedarwood Habitat. Prop. Ord. amending Ord. #1141, establi shing minimum requi ments for fire pro- tection systems. TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL City Hall COMMITTEE QF THE WHOLE MEE .:ilG c) Council Chambers MINUTES The Tukwila City Council Committee of the Whole Meeting was called to order by Council President Dan Saul. DORIS E. PHELPS, Council President Daniel J. Saul, GARY L. VAN DUSEN. Council President Saul stated there was less than a Quorum of Council Members present, therefore the members present would sit as an Ad Hoc Committee and briefly discuss certain items on the agenda. Official action could not be taken due to lack of a quorum. Phil Fraser, Office Engineer, reported on the Foster Golf Course Bridge. He said there were four alternatives, one would be a minimal project at a cost of $50,000 to $60,000 which could be done in- house. The expected life of the bridge would be five years. The fourth alternative would be a total new bridge with a life expectancy of fifty years. The cost is estimated at $200,000. Council President Saul said this item would be discussed at the next meeting. Council President Saul said the Council would like to have a soils report on this project. Mr. McAllister presented a copy of the soils report to Mr. Saul. Council President Saul stated this project would be discussed at the Committee of the Whole Meeting on January 12, 1981. Council President Saul stated this waiver would be considered at the Committee of the Whole Meeting on January 12, 1981. Council President Saul stated this waiver request would be considered at the Committee of the Whole Meeting on January 12, 1981. Council President Saul said this proposed ordinance would be considered at the Regular Meeting on January 5, 1981. re- , The Meeting was discontinued at 7:45 P.M. due to lack of a quorum of Council Members. Daniel J. Saul, City Council President G 4.0-4e-J No a Booher, Recording Secretary TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL COMMIT( OF THE WHOLE MEETING December 8, 1980 ` .. ) Page 4 Prop. Ord. reclassify- .Council President Saul said the proposed ordinance would be discussed ing certain lands from at the next Committee of the Whole Meeting on December 22, 1980. R -1 -12 to R -3 & R -4 within City as descri- bed in Planning Dept. Master File #80 -38 -R. McAllister Condo Proj. Waiver: Dev. 58 condos in 7 bldgs. ranging from 2 to 16 units each. Council President Saul said since the discussion on this matter could be quite lengthy, he suggested that a meeting be held on December 29, 1980 where just this one item could be discussed. He said since the applicant is present at the meeting, a preliminary discussion could be held at this time. William McAllister, applicant, said they would like to have the Council reponsive to their proposed project. He said they have something to present to the Council and it might take some time. Councilman Hill said he felt in all fairness to the applicant the Council should have a meeting just for the purpose of the discussion. Mr. McAllister said he had been working on the project for two years. Council President Saul said the applicant could present a preliminary overview of the project so the Council can be thinking about it prior to the meeting on December 29, 1980. Lee Loveland, architect, presented a drawing of the proposed project. The present zoning classification was established in 1971; the westerly portion is R -4 and the remainder is C -1. On the basis of that zoning they would be allowed 120 units on the land. There is a comprehensive plan not yet approved. That plan shows this prop- erty to be divided into 3 zones: commercial, single family, and medium density. He said they have done significant research on this and their conclusion is that single family zoning makes no sense because of the topography and sub -soil conditions; the commercial zone poses some problems with ingress and egress. Their proposal is for 58 units of multi- family housing in 12 buildings. In Chapter 18.46 of the new land use ordinance there is a special section identified as Special Unit Developments which states it is the "purpose of the chapter to encourage imaginative site and build- ing design and to create open space in residential developments by permitting greater flexibility in zoning requirements than is permitted by other sections of this code." He said their office has been involved in other cities where they have specific planned use development. They have tried to handle the design of the proposed project in a creative way. According to the zoning they could develop up to 120 units, their plan is for 58 units. Their project proposal is less intensive; there is a clustering of buildings and a green belt maintained all of the way down to the road Mr. Loveland said they had some difficulties with the Staff Report with regard to the action recommended which is to table the application pending the review of the new zoning ordinance text and map as recommended by the Planning Commission. He said they have spent time and money on the proposed project. A tree count has not been made. They cannot continue the project analysis unless approval of the project is indicated. He said they would like to work with Staff and Council and mitigate any difficulties the City might have. Councilman Bohrer asked if there has been a site survey? Mr. Love- land said they have completed a soils investigation of the site. Their engineers feel they can design the project on the site. Some parts that are steep will be left in the green state. There would not be commercial plans for the area. Councilman Bohrer said it appears that parking lots and buildings cover about 75% of the area. Mr. Loveland said the acreage is 4.68; the buildings cover 39,150 square feet, the landscaping 117,650 square feet and paving 40,700 square feet. Mr. Loveland said they did not survey the steep part as it was not practical to build on it. He said if Council would like to visit the site they would be glad to meet and point out the project. ' . A y TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL COMMIT 7 OF THE WHOLE MEETING December 8, 1980 Page 3 Prop. Ord. amending 1980 Budget & approp funds for Municipal Court Recording Sys. - contd. C Councilman Bohrer said then because of Lanier's desire not to take that risk, and he said he understood that, the City is a Cposed to higher mandated costs from the State than it might otherwise be. By selecting Lanier and putting them in a monopoly position the State is not only mandating costs on the City, but it is establishing that those costs are higher than they might otherwise be./ Mr. Schwanke said the contract was basically for the purpose of the court use. What the Council is doing is trying to'/use it for double duty, to get the most out of the system. The contract was written for the court room use. Councilman Bohrer said the City has a number of'`recorders, would it not be possible under this system to take one,;of those and plug it directly into the amplifier so the output goes directly to the recorder. Mr. Schwake said that was possible. Councilman Bohrer then asked if there was a way of uncoupling7that amplifier from the microphone in a fashion, that lets the City use the Lanier recorder without the possibility that Mr. Schwanke/has talked about? The mere fact that the City has microphones that they want to use puts the City in a situation that Lanier cannot accept the risk? Mr. Schwanke said all possibilities can never be eliminated. With an interface device there would be a,fvery low probability of the P. A. system causing any damage to the Lanier equipment. In other words, you would not have a direct connection. For Council meetings all of the microphones could be run into the P. A. amplifier, mix them as is being done now, and there is an output, a mixed output available out of the amplifier,, ; Which Lanier could take and run into the recorder. There would'be no direct connection from the microphone into the recorder. f Councilman Van Dusen said welare changing the contract that Lanier 9 9 has established with the State and we have to establish a separate service contract. After on'e year we would have to go to a service contract. We would be starting one year early. Councilman Bohrer said he would like to see a comparison of what the items are, what the circuit diagrams are, what the system that is being proposed would provide under the contract with the State, what we are asking to /be done here and what the costs would be. He said until he see% that comparison he cannot tell whether the City is saving money or not. Councilman Van Dusen said Lanier has been asked to provide this information for the next meeting. Councilman Bohrer'said because the State has passed a law early in December saying,* have to have something by the first of January, it does not commit him to jump through that hoop. Mr. Schwankeaid what the City wants is a one track recording. Thet is no need for the purpose of the Council meetings to separate the microphon es different tracks. Councilman Bohrer said it was his understanding that even if the City used thelLanier recorder we were not going to do that, they were mixingall of them. Mr. Schwanke said that was the simple way to do iti Councilman Bohrer said he was interested in the comparison, one,,the system that was discussed with Councilman Van Dusen, and two/the system that Lanier is providing to all of the people that thp'State calls for. He said he would also like to see a listing of'" the costs. N Maxine Anderson, City Clerk, said the system has to be in by January 1, 1981.and ready for court on January 2, 1981. Councilman Bohrer said if he has not gone into the details yet how . can they say it will harm their recorder? Mr. Schwanke said h had not said it would, and they have said it to all of the coOrts across the State, but it could. Due to the fact that Lanier has a $350,000 performance bond with the State Lanier has chosen not to take the chance, not to expose themselves, because under the con they are not required to. Mr. Trzaska said the equipment is in stock. TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL COMMITTFFF OF THE WHOLE MEETING December 8, 1980 Page 5 DISCUSSION - Contd. McAllister Condo Proj. Waiver: Dev. 58 condos in 7 bldgs. ranging from 2 to 16 units each - contd. Sconzo Associates, Appeal of BAR decision. �. Council President Saul stated perhaps one reason they have planned only 58 units is because it is so expensive to build and another reason is probably the steepness of the hill. Mr. Loveland said the cost of excavating the property might be in excess of $450,000, they have not received a bid on it. Councilman Phelps asked if there is a project they have built that the Council might look at. Mr. Loveland said he would provide that information to the Planning Department. Councilman Bohrer asked if they would consider building on pilings rather than excavating. Mr. Loveland said they would, as they get into the site that would be a consideration. Mark Caughey, Acting Planning Director, said in December 1979 repre- sentatives of LDR and Normed, Inc. petitioned the City Council to vacate 44th Place South (former public street, dividing the adjacent sites of the two industrial concerns). The petitioners, in requesting the street vacation, asserted that private use of 44th Place as a joint driveway serving the two sites would reduce the number of individual curb breaks opening on South 134th Street and would facilitate a coordinated approach to design and development of the two sites. The two projects were reviewed jointly by the Planning Commission, sitting as the Board of Architectural Review, in September 1980. As a means of reinforcing the concept of a coordinated appearance to two projects, LDR was required to provide a 5' wide planter strip on their common boundary with the non - vacated 44th Place South. To provide this planter setback will require reducing the width of the planned LDR building by 5' as no side yard setback on either the north or south edge of the building is proposed. The applicants are appealing the BAR's decision to the Council in hopes that the side yard requirement will be overturned. Mr. Caughey said before vacating 44th Place South, the Public Works Committee negotiated a Developer's Agreement with both LDR and Normed, the property to the north, the terms of which governed use of the vacated 40' right -of -way. Provision 2 required a 5' sidewalk and a 5' wide landscape berm on the north edge of the vacated area adjacent to Normed. During the review the BAR determined that visual coordination of the two adjoining sites could be enhanced by providing a 5' wide planter area on both sides of the driveway, serving the two sites. The LDR building was designed in 1978 and included parking and other private land uses within 44th Place South. They contend that further modifications of their design concept, beyond what has already been done to comply with terms of the street vacation developer's agreement, is an unwarranted hardship. Mr. Caughey said it is the staff recommendation to uphold the BAR decision and require a 5' wide planter area setback on the north edge of the LDR site adjoining 44th Place South. The M -1 zone in which this property is located, does not require any side yard setback They believe that the Board has acted in the public interest in requiring a 5' side setback in order to preserve the coordinated development concept, establish development standards for the area, and to be consistent with the new zoning ordinance. Chris Anderson, Sconzo Associates, said their engineering and architectural plans were issued in 1978. In May they were asked for additional landscaping and setback beyond that required in Resolution 729. He said he and Mr. Aden expressed their concerns about the landscaping. He said they feel that the additional land- scaping along the side would mean they would have to redesign the building. This would be a hardship. Resolution 729 asked for land- scaping and sidewalk on the north side after vacation of the street. Access to the building was by the vacation of the street. TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING December 8, 1980 k, Page 6 RECESS 8:30 - 8:38 P.M. Foster Golf Course Foot Bridge Report. *MOTION CARRIED. DISCUSSION - Contd. Sconzo Associates, Councilman Van Dusen said he recalled sidewalks and landscaping Appeal of BAR decision would have been required but some particular reason was given - contd. and we agreed to it as long as there was a sidewalk and land- scaping on the other side. Mr. Anderson said the landscaping and sidewalks were discussed and the type of foot traffic there would be on the site. At the time the people from Normed had 10' landscaping strip and turned it into a 5' sidewalk that would be sufficient. He said their building had been done based on that decision. Larry Shaw, Normed, said they originally contacted the City in 1979 and felt they had a good project and could work with the City and Planning Department if they agreed to certain setbacks. He said he thought the important point was that when the building was designed by LDR the street was not vacated. At that time it was his understanding that the setback was required. The building was developed and planned in 1978 and at that time the street was a City street. The reason they would like to see the landscaping is that the street was vacated and they have to go down the road to their building and they would be looking at the bleak walls of the building. This was discussed with the Planning Commission and they agreed there should be some kind of landscaping We will have a concrete wall looking at us. There could be safety problems also. We have agreed to move the building back to have landscaping. They would like to have it also on the other side of the street. The City codes require setbacks. It was Normed who requested the street vacation. A 5' setback would not destroy their project. He said they could not get a site plan from Sconzo.. Mr. Anderson said the site plans were available and were developed before Mr. Shaw bought the property. Councilman Bohrer said the street was a public street in 1978 and if there was not a 5' setback it was not according to code. MOVED BY BOHRER, SECONDED BY HILL, THAT THE SCONZO ASSOCIATES APPEAL OF BAR DECISION BE ON THE AGENDA OF THE DECEMBER 15, 1980 REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING. * Councilman Harris asked if both of these buildings are in the formative state? Mr. Anderson said neither have been built yet. He said they have agreed to modify the offices and put on a lot of wood to make the building more attractive. They have no intention of putting up an unsightly building. It is difficult to camouflage a warehouse. Mark Caughey, Planning Department, said the developers have agreed on most aspects, LDR has agreed to change the surface of the building, they are trying to cooperate. We are down to the landscaping. The Council is the appeal authority for the BAR. Council President Saul said the Council would like to know the effect of reducing the 5' setback from the street. Mark Caughey, Planning Department, said he would have a building report from the Fire Department for the next meeting. MOVED BY HILL, SECONDED BY VAN DUSEN, THAT THE COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING RECESS FOR FIVE MINUTES. MOTION CARRIED. The Committee of the Whole Meeting was called back to order by Council President Saul, with Council Members present as previously listed. Ted Uomoto, Director of Public Works, stated on November 28, 1980 the golf course manager observed the loosening of one of the suspension cables, which caused the sagging of the suspended MASTER LAID DE ELONENT APPLICATION FORM 1. State specifically the action in Ordinance No. 1137 to which you are requesting a waiver: Revise the land use map designations for the property to show high density residential, so as to permit • rlevelr,pment in accordance with the site plan submitted herewith. 2. Briefly and generally describe the project you are proposing: SEE ATTACHED 3. Is your project unique in terms of design, land use or benefit to the Tukwila community? SEE ATTACHED 4. Is yo= project'sigrificant in scale? NO 3. If the request for waiver involves building, grading, clearing, excava- tion., or'filling in an environmentally-sensitive area, what mitigating solutions do you propose to offset the impact of such activities? SEE ATTACHED 6. What goals and policies can you identify which support your request for waiver, if any? SEE ATTACHED SUPPLEMENTAR , UESTIOUAIRE Schedule A WAIVER APPLICATION 7. In your opinion, do the requirements of waiver ordinance 1137 impose a hardship on the use and development of.this site? SEE ATTACHED. Waiver Application Attachment • 2. The proposed project is to construct 58 two bedroom townhouse condominium units, together with 58 covered parking stalls, 58 open parking stalls, and all associated roadways, utilities, sidewalks, paths, passive recreation areas and landscaping. The project consists of 7 separate buildings with a total area of 70,300 sq.ft. and a lot coverage of 39, 150 sq. ft. The total lot area is 197,500 sq.ft., which calculates to a lot coverage of 19.8 %. The building configurations are shown on the accompany- ing plans. The planning principle of the project is that of a planned unit development. A planned unit develop- ment concept is desirable in order to take best advantage of the site characteristics by allowing higher densities in certain areas, and allowing the steeper portions of the site to remain undeveloped. Further- more, a larger portion of the site may be designated as common open space. Access to the site has been provided from South 153rd to avoid disruption to the natural vegetation barrier along Southcenter Blvd. The units have been clustered and positioned as close cis possible to the access road, thus reducing the amount of grading required, and maintaining the maximum amount of common open space which will serve as a natural landscape barrier. By clustering the units, additional landscape areas can be retained between the units. 3. The proposed development represents a unique condition for several reasons. First, the site is unique. It's steepness in some areas and limited access require zoning that can allow maximum flexibility in design. The current zoning does allow that flexibility; however, the proposed land use of the comprehen- sive plan is not proper for this particular site, as further discussed in Section 7. The proposal as planned meets many of the goals and objectives of the comprehensive plan, and is situated in an area that is currently multi - family. Because the project consists only of 58 units, it's effect on traffic, utilities, and public resources will be minor. 5. The project is located in an area that can be considered an area of high natural amenity and development constraint. The natural amenity of this site is the appearance of Tukwila Hill as seen from the freeway and the city below. Certainly, there are other portions of Tukwila Hill which have been developed differently for multi - family development. This project endeavors to maintain the natural appearance of Tukwila Hill by locating all structures on the upper portion of the property, and designating the lower portions of the property, and the steeper slopes as common open space. This common open space will retain all existing trees and vegetation and will provide a visual barrier that will allow this portion of Tukwila Hill to remain visually much the way it is in it's undeveloped state. The other major concern in regards to this property is it's steep slopes. The soils engineering firm of Hart Crowser and Associates has been a member of the design team throughout the preliminary design phase, and will continue through the duration of the project to ensure that all slopes on the property or adjacent to the property are maintained in a stable condition. If slope instability is encountered, approved engineering techniques will be used to stabilize that slope. Accompanying this waiver request is a soils report. Findings to this date indicate that the proposed building can be constructed on this site without problems with slope stability. Waiver Application Attachment - • 7. The proposed land uses of the City of Tukwila comprehensive land use plan renders the site virtually impossible for development from a practical and financial standpoint. The current residential zoning would only allow about 30 units maximum. Because of site development costs for this property, this will cause residential unit prices to be higher than existing market rates, unless costs can be averaged by a larger but still appropriate number of units. The existing site of 4.68 acres is divided into three different land uses. Almost 50% of the property, or 2.33 acres, is designated as single family residential at 1 -5 units /acre. This portion is the steepest portion of the site and not well suited for sing le family development. 0.7 acres is designated as office, and while this is consistant with other office developments along Southcenter Blvd., it would require access from Southcenter Blvd., which would be very difficult due to the steep grade, and would be a visual detriment due to the removal of natural existing vegetation, and would increase traffic on Southcenter Blvd. The remaining 1.65 acres is designated as medium density (6 -I6 units per acre). A close study of the site will show that conventional lot by lot development is not suited to this site. Dedicated roadways, rear yard setbacks, and maximum lot sizes all serve to severely limit the planner's flexibility in utilizing the site to best advantage. It is our belief that the only reasonable type development for this property is multi- family residential, designed on the principle of a PUD. This would allow greater flexibility and compatability with the site. Because of the high development costs associated with the construction of the roadway and other site improvements, the proposed number of units is considered a minimum to allow a financially feasible project. Waiver Application Attachment 6. The following goals and policies support the proposed project. NATURAL ENVIRONMENT Objective 1 Policy A wide Landscape buffer ranging in width from 15 feet to 80 feet will be provided on all slopes extend- ing fom the front of the buildings to the property line below. Sight lines are such that from the freeway most buildings will not be visible above the tops of the trees. During the foliage months the existing tree cover will provide a dense screening of the project, and during the non - foliage months the build- ings will be partially shielded by conifers. Policy 2 Where possible, existing vegetation will be retained, including the areas between buildings. Where natural terrain features are disturbed, natural landscaping will be provided for erosion control and slope stability. Policy 3 No portion of the property will be cleared prior to final approvals. Grading, even in the areas of the buildings, will be kept to a minimum. Objective 2 Policy 1 T i s project will strive to retain the wooded hillsides to the greatest extent possible. Approximately 40% of the site will remain in it's natural state. Objective 3 Policy I All roads within the project have slope of 15% or less. It is recognized that great care must be exercised when buildirg on slopes in excess of 20 %, with the primary concerns being slope stability and erosion control. No buildings in this project will be located on slopes over 20% without careful geological and structural analysis and design by the applicant and review with the City of Tukwila. Policy 2 The buildings in this project are located such that no views from existing residential units will be • affected. The only portion of the property that has the potential for view obstruction is retained as natural open space. Policy 3 T e project will require no new fill to be imported. A certain amount of cut will be required for the roadway construction at the southwestern portion of the property in order to maintain the roadway grade at less than 15 %. This cut material will satisfy some minor fill requirements at the northeast end of the property. Minimum grading will be required at the actual building sites. A majority of the cut material w i l l be removed from the site. Waiver Application Attachment (6 - continued) Policy 4 No grading, filling or excavation will be commenced prior to full approval of the project. During construction careful supervision and planning during grading will avoid unnecessary disruption of land forms. Objective 4 Policy 1 T iii s project has no negative impact on existing stream environments. There are no existing streams on the site. Policy 3 T ih s project has no negative impact on the water quality of the area's waterways. Sedimentation control methods will be employed during the construction period until permanent erosion control measures can be installed. Objective 5 Policy I This project will have only minor affect on air pollution. This will be caused by certain equipment during construction, and by increased vehicular traffic once the project is occupied. Objective 6 Policy I TT e project design team recognizes the problems associated with steep slope development. Preliminary soil studies have been conducted by Hart, Crowser Associates and these results have been reviewed with structural engineers. Preliminary data indicates that the project as presently conceived can be safely constructed on the site, with no deterioration of slope stability. This will be monitored closely throughout design and construction. Policy 2 The south slope of Tukwila Hill is most certainly a feature of geologic interest to the City of Tukwila. By limiting development to the upper portion of the property and maintaining a natural vegetation barrier on the lower portions of the slope, this project serves to retain the natural characteristics of the site to the maximum extent possible. 2. OPEN SPACE Objective I Policy I This project preserves the hillside in a scenic condition. The landscape buffer of existing trees and vege- tation that will be left in it's natural state at the lower portion of the site will buffer the residential area from the freeway, and will provide a visual barrier from the freeway. During the foliage seasons the buildings will be almost totally obscured from view from the freeway, and will be partially screened during the non - foliage season. Policy 2 is project has no adverse effect on the preservation of marshes, ponds, and water courses. There are no marshes, ponds, or water courses on the property. Waiver Application Attachment Policy 3 3. RESIDENCE Active recreation will be provided by Tukwila Park that is adjacent to the site. Policy 4 Passive recreational facilities will be provided as required by the City of Tukwila. Natural open space will constitute 40% of the site. Objective 2 Policy 3 Location of the site does not allow convenient pathway links directly to. retail activity. All retail activity is beyond reasonable walking distance from the site with the majority located on the other side of the freeway. Objective 3 Policy 2 This policy is a key factor in the design and development of this project. The building units are clustered at the upper portion of the property, to allow for the maximum amount of open space with which to creat a visual barrier. Objective I Policy Tie project is compatible with the other properties in the immediate vicinity which are predominantly multi - family residential. The primary potential incompatibility of the site exists with Southcenter Blvd. to the east. It is generally not desirable to locate a residential use immediately adjacent to a heavily traveled roadway. As a solution to this problem, all units will be separated physically from Southcenter Blvd. by a steep slope, and visually by an extensive natural landscape buffer. Policy 2 Tukwila Park borders the majority of the western property line, providing an effective barrier from other residential projects. Policy 3 T edevelopment density of this project is compatible with existing and adjacent land uses. Policy 5 TTie project is compatible with the residential land use already in the area. • Policy 5 Waiver Ap ication Attachment Objective 2 Policy I The project does not border on single family residential areas. The only residential projects are multi- family developments to the northwest which, in effect, serve as the transition areas between single family residential to the north, and the proposed project. Policy 2 Vehicular access to the project is on 153rd St. which serves only multiple family residential. 153rd St. i s approximately one mile long, and intersects with 65th Ave. So., which serves as an arterial to residential areas on Tukwila Hill. All traffic is routed to freeways and shopping via Southcenter Blvd. without passing through residential areas. Policy 3 Sing a family residential areas are not located adjacent to the project. . Objective 3 Policy I An extensive natural landscape buffer will be provided as a visual screen alorg Southcenter Blvd. See site plan. The slope of the terrain along Southcenter Blvd. will help screen noise, and the height of the units above the road will be helpful as a noise barrier. Policy 2 All units will experience exceptional views to the southeast of the valley and Mt. Rainier. During foliage months the trees that form the visual barrier will dominate the view, while in the winter months the valley view will be filtered through the trees. Policy 3 All utilities to the project will be underground. Policy 4 The natural open space will be selectively cleared to leave only those species of vegetation that enhance the environment of that open space. A maintenance program will be encouraged to maintain the initial level of landscaping. Policy 5 The project will provide parking as required by the City of Tukwila Building Codes and Ordinances. Policy 6 An internal circulation system will be provided to allow access by all units to the common open space and to the park. See site plan. • Policy 7 Passive recreation facilities, including a playground area will be provided in the common open space. Additional access will be provided to the adjacent Tukwila Park. Waiver Application Attachment HOUSING OBJECTIVES AND POLICIES Objective I Policy 2 All 60 units will be sold as condominiums. Objective 2 Policy 2 This project will meet or exceed all building code requirements. Policy 3 Measures will be taken to adequately insulate the units from traffic noise. Objective 4 The project will incorporate certain crime reducing elements, such as area lighting, and hardware. Additionally, the design of the units is such that there is only limited access to each unit, and very little opportunity to view the interiors of the units. Because one entrance court serves four units, an interaction between neighbors will be encouraged, which will enhance security. 5. TRANSPORTATION /UTILITIES SECTION 1 - Transportation Objective I Policy 2 All parking and maneuvering by ri.sidents of and visitors to the project site will be done on the site proper. Policy 7 TTie on -site vehicular circulation will comply with requirements for fire department access of emergency vehicles. The project site will have low intensity security /safety lighting throughout the parking /circulation areas. The access to this project will be by improving So. 153rd St. from the end of the existing improvements to the project site, some 180 feet. It should be noted that 67th Ave. So. 30 foot right -of -way lying adjacent to and west of this.project site cannot be developed because: I. The Tukwila Park, some 130 feet south of So. 153rd Street has been developed to the centerline of 67th Ave. So. 2. 100 feet north of So. 153rd Street the existing ground falls to Interurban Ave. So. at a slope too steep to allow vehicular traffic. VW/aiver Application Attachment SECTION 2 - Utilities WATER SYSTEM Objective 2 Policy 4 The water lines in the subject site will be sized to provide the required fire flow, as determined by Insurance Services Office paper. This water line will connect the existing 6 inch water line in So. 153rd Street, through the subject site, to the existing 12 inch water line in Southcenter Blvd. to ensure adequate water supply. The water supply line shall be in an easement to the City of Tukwila, with water meters to each unit at the water line. The buildings will be constructed with sprinkler systems. Fire hydrants will be installed on -site at approximately 300 foot spacing to provide adequate fire protection. SANITARY SEWER SYSTEM Objective 3 A back -lot sewer collection line will be constructed on the down -hill side of the residential units, draining by gravity to an existing sanitary sewer line in Southcenter Blvd. STORM DRAINAGE Objective 6 Policy 4 The building roofs facing the on -site roads shall drain into the road storm drainage system, which drains to the south property line. The storm run -off from the building roofs away from the on -site road will be collected in a tight line and will drain to the existing catch basin and pipe crossing Southcenter Blvd., approximately 400 feet north of the project's south boundary. Policy 5 Storm retention basins will be provided as required by the City of Tukwila. Objective 7 The storm run -off quantity and any required retention will be calculated using King County Division of Hydraulics manual and design guides as required by Tukwila City. UNDERGROUND UTILITIES Objective 8 • Policy I Tie utility services to this project will be extended underground from the existing underground Puget Power and Pacific Northwest Bell vaults in South 153rd St., some 180 feet west of the project site. EXHIBIT # I LEGAL DESCRIPTION Block 28 - Interurban Addition to Seattle 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 1) APPLICANT'S NAME Wiljjam McAllister TELEPHONE:( ) 725-8725-8679.'"''''",,„ 2) APPLICANT'S ADDRESS 3724 Cascadia Sc). Seattle . ZIP: 98144, `' tl' :,-.:' . 3) PROPERTY OWNER'S NAME Robert C►Idright TELEPHONE ( ) 575 -J 8 . ,, , , 4) PROPERTY OWNER'S ADDRESS 331 Andov °r Park East ZIP: : ~ '= �_ �� t 5) LOCATION OF PROJECT: (geographic or legal descrip.) :.,4'4 . Block 28 Int"'rur1an Addi+jnn in SPnttIP 6) NAME OF PRQJECT(OPTIONAL) KROLL PAGE: 58 Unit Condominium SECTION II: PROJECT INFORMATION 7) BRIEFLY DESCRIBE THE PROJECT YOU PROPOSE: 5R }von hPrirnnm annc{ominium units with associated parking and utilities 8) DO YOU PROPOSE TO DEVELOP THIS PROJECT IN PHASES? YES 9) PROJECT DATE Completion Dec. 1981 a. NET ACRES ± c. PARKING SPACES 116 NO b. GROSS ACRES 4.68 ± d. FLOORS OF CONSTRUCTION 3 e. LOT AREA COVERAGE BLDG39, SQ.FT. LANDSCAPE 117,650 SQ. FT. PAVING 40,700 SQ. FT. 10) DOES THE AVERAGE SLOPE OF THE SITE EXCEED 1051.? 0 YES D NO 11) EXISTING ZONING C —1 / R -4 12. EXISTING COMP. PLAN s ingle family 13) IS THIS SITE DESIGuNATED FOR SPECIAL CONSIDERATION OYES DNO ON THE CITY'S ENVIRONMENTAL. 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. AIA a. NAME: L n.,e , Stapper .Wyatt ADDRESS: b. NAME: ADDRESS: 1110 Harvard, Seattle, 98122 ali I PPLICANT'S AFFIDAVIT � t I , / L• iWGN: /� ZOW _T_4. 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 and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. DATE a/. 31, Subscribed and sworn before me this '.° l day of 0/i , 19 State of Washington : !u tic in and for residing•at or owner) SECTION IV: SUPPORTING MATERIAL REQUIRE4ENTS NOTE: All applications require certain supporting documents and information which are described in the following table: TYPE OF APPLICATION (CHECK BOX(ES)) REZONING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT VARIANCE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDIENT SHORELINE MGT. PERMIT SHORELINE MGMT PERMIT REVISION WAIVER ' SHORT PLAT BINDING SITE IMPROVEMENT PLAN ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW LANDSCAPE REVIEW SUBDIVISION SIGN VARIANCE • * *See TABLE 1 for detailed description SUPPORTING INFORMATION REQUIRED 3, 4,5, 1C, 3, 4, 5, 7, 11 1F, 4, 7, 11 or 17 1D, 3, 4, 5, 7; 11, 12, 1B, 3, 4, 5, 7, 10; 11, 13 . 4, 10, 16 : 1A, 3, 4, 11, 12, 13 4, 5, 9 4, 5, 8 11, 12, 13 14 4, 5, 6, 15 4, 6, 16, 17 WHEREAS, Frank and Joan Todd have petitioned to rezone property within the City of Tukwila from R -1 to C -1, and WHEREAS, the hearings required by law were held before the Planning Commission and the City Council, and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission and the City Council recommended R -4 and C -1 zoning providing a concomitant zoning agreement was executed to control the development of said property for the health, safety and welfare of the residents of the City of Tukwila and whereas said agreement has been executed. NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Tukwila do ordain as follows: Sec. 1. The property described on Exhibit "A" is hereby rezoned from land classification R -1 to R -4 and C -1 as indicated on the exhibit. Sec. 2. This new zoning classification is expressly con- ditioned on the full and complete performance by Todd of the Con- comitant Zoning Agreement. . PASSED this 7th day of September, 1971. ATTEST: CITY OF TUKWILA CITY CLERK APPROVED AS TO FORM: ,•..1./, ./"..' ., , , ,..,. „/ / • , CITY ATTORN pjI3LISHED RECORD CHRONICLE WASHINGTON ORDINANCE NO.. 43 �.\ MAYOR AN ORDINANCE rezoning certain property within the City•of Tukwila from R -1 to R -4 and C -1. ........... FROM R-1 to R-4 the West 125 feet of Block 28, Interurban Addition to Seattle • AND FROM R-1 to C -1 Block 28, Interurban Addition to Seattle less the West 125 feet. EXIBIT "A" day of. TUKWILA -TODD CONCOMITANT ZONING AGREEMENT THIS is a Concomitant Zoning Agreement executed this , 1971, between the City of Tukwila, a municipal Property"; and corporation of the Third Class within the State of Washington (herein- after called TUKWILA) and Frank Todd and Joan Todd, His Wife, (herein- after referred to as TODD). ' RECITALS: TODD is the owner in fee simple of property within the City of Tukwila, described in Exhibit "A" attached hereto, and by this reference incorporated herein, and hereinafter referred to as "The -1- WHEREAS, Todd has filed a Petition to Rezone the property from R1 zoning designation to R-4 and C -1 pursuant to the provisions of the Tukwila Municipal Code, and The City Planning Commission pursuant to public hearing has recommended to the City Council that the property be rezoned.upon the execution of a property use and development agreement, and WHEREAS, the Tukwila City Council, after public hearing, has recory :2ndz•d tha'.: tic propz:rt1 lie zor.3d pursuant to certain agrea::ants relative to the property use and development of the property, and The establishment of R -1 and C -1 zoning on the property will effect the flow of traffic in the vicinity; effect the storm drainage, sanitary drainage, and other utilities within the area and certain conditions ar.. r2qu ireci to control the development of said props;- *_y for the health, safety and welfare of the residents of the City of Tukwila, • NOW, THEREFORE, in the event the.City Council of the City of . Tukwila reclassifies the property from Rol to R -4 and C -1 as indicated on the attached map marked Exhibit "B" and incorporated herein by ref- ' • •erence, and in consideration of the City Council changing the classi- fication'of the property to R -4 and C -1 and for so long as the prop- erty °remains so classified, TODD hereby covenants and agrees to the • following covenants and conditions on behalf of themselves and their . successors and assigns: 1. That 67th Avenue i' 1 ` L corner of 67th Avenue South L r,✓l • Standards and there shall be South shall be improved to minimum City a suitable public turn around near the and South 153rd. The standards shall • • be set forth in writing and attached to this agreement. The ques- tion of the suitability of the public turn around shall be in the discretion of the City Supervisor in consultation with the Fire and Police Department. '' -," ( C itt CI" 1 F'!` 1 1-0 ' ' 41/4J /S° ) 2. That sufficient service be provided for fire protection with hydrants installed with mains as required by City Standards witi.c :1:•:.111 bo .loc%t :r.:1 in an eancmant with loop connecting the prop- erty from Soul :icentr_ Boulevard to South 153rd. This service shall be in writing and in the discretion of the Fire Chief 3. That adequate storm drains be designed to -2- sewer /CSC:, 710 AO e• f meet the specific approval of the City of Tukwila Building and Street Depart- 4. That a decorative fence be erected at the South end of the C -1 and R -4 zoning to prevent access from existing public street and that there be a landsca a strip adjacent to the park boundary . M.i�r' _ t� 71 t' T �' 1�� i 47 i�. ;� ,4:4� 11 7 c C't 'Ix S.. That the building which is; erected near the South • • boundary shall be located at least 40 feet North of the South boundary. 6. All aspects of signing, including construction, materials, lighting, size and location relative to this devel- opment shall be and require the approval in the sole discretion of the Planning Commission. 7.. That the plans for development including all con- ditions required herein relative to construction shall be approved by the Planning Commission prior to issuance of a Building Per- mit; the landscaping and signing details shall also be included in the design drawing submitted for review. All design and construction shall be without cost to the City. 8. That TODD shall design, construct'and pay for the f a %/ If= 014'6( c' `'rP4•4 ;g: sanitary sewer facilities which will be required t in accordance with the applicable ordinances of the City of Tukwila. 9. No excavation shall occur without the applicant, TODD, securing an Excavation Permit pursuant to the Ordinances of the City of Tukwila, .'.'tf "' t/ '-c if/ 4/0" Gf' eer LAY r / //fc• e/ 10. No construction shall be commenced before the City has notified TODD in writing that the plans.and specifications have been approved by the Planning Commission and the City Superintendent. The City shall have the right to inspect said facilities, and no facility shall be covered up prior to inspection. TODD agrees to comply with all of the City's reasonable inspection requirement. 11. Upon completion of construction and upon certification from the City Engineer, that said facilities meet the'standards of the City of Tukwila, TODD shalL assign and convey all public fac- ilities, together with any necessary easements, to the City for acceptance by the City. Said easemen s shall be for general utility p e , e. (t e. 6 t tl'e c t ',Jt.ed'0 k, purposes %(,Said easement shall he escrowe in advance of the Building Permit being issued. 12. The Ring County Cause No. 695378 shall be dismissed with prejudice. 13. TODD agrees to indemnify and hold the City harmless from any and all claims which may be asserted against the City as a result of the construction, or maintenance of said facilities prior to acceptance by • the City. 14. TODD agrees in carrying out the terms of this para- graph, TODD shall'be acting as an independent contractor and in no respect shall be doomed an agent of the City. 15. That partial waiver or waiver by acquiescence by the City of any provisions or conditions of this agreement shall not be a waivrr of any other provisions or conditions of this Ag1 oemunt. -4- 16. any facility upon the property and cessors and assigns, • When notified to make changes or corrections in ta described herein/by the City Supervisor, TODD agrees to make such changes or corrections, providiin they are in accord- 0 � 4 , ance with this Agreement, within ire �t img set7- o t . in-- said- -•Notf ce•. In the event of failure to make' said changes /,or corrections all -t 4_( .L•LY� . (4 ,.latest p �e�L1 t / .6.64Z - Lt rights of Todd uade — this= agreement- shall• teriinate: •an4 a Stop Work Order issued by the City pn-all phases- of-coastruction -of to d= ,�a 4.lities 17. This agreement shall be recorded in the Records of the King County Auditor and the covenants, duties and obligations of TODD under this Agreement shall constitute an easement and servitude and a covenant attached hereto and running with land shall be binding upon TODD and their suc- ,. 0. All Building, Occupancy and Use Permits here- after applied for or issued shall be subject to the terms, condi- tions and limitations of this agreement. 18. Amendments to this Agreement may be made only after approval by the City Council of the City of Tukwila. 19. This agreement is specifically enforceable by •the •City j and & ,lc: Ci. y tha' institute and prosecute any proceeding at law or r �..: in equity to enforce the provisions of this agreement.. T L agrees to pay reasonable .Attorney fees expended tgmt �e C for such en forcement proceeding:. W �' - .L 20. All provisions of applicable zoning, building, or other Ordinances of the City of Tukwila shall.control this project except az modified h. -rein. -5 - • ...... .• •••• ............. ••••• • 21. It is further expressly agreed by TODD that in the event any covenant or condition or restriction hereinabove con- tained or any portion thereof is invalid or void, such invalidity or voidness shall in no way affect any other covenant, condition or restriction hereinabove contained. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Agreement is executed this day of , 1971, at Tukwila, Washington. 1 TODD BY: Joan Todd CITY OF TUKWILA BY BY Frank Todd' -6- Mayor • Clerk • I/ SITE PLAN loveland stapper wyatt park terrace condominiums REVISIONS