Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPermit 80-43-W - DAVID OAK CONDOMINIUMS - CANYON ESTATES WAIVER80-43-w south 153rd street david oak condominiums TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL, REGU ' MEETING February 2, 1981 Page 2 PETITIONS, COMMUNICATIONS, APPEALS AND SIMILAR MATTERS - Cont. Golf Course Ir- rigation Project (cont.) Van Woerden De- veloper's Agree- ment (Tecton Prop.) 7:30 P.M. David Oak Condo- minium Waiver (SE corner of Canyon Estates property) Criteria #1 Councilman Bohrer noted that such agreements, in the past, have required a Resolution. Councilman Hill asked if a budget trans- fer is necessary to allow the expenditure of the additional funds. Mr. Williams offered that a Resolution and Budget Transfer would be prepared for the next meeting. MOVED BY BOHRER, SECONDED BY VAN DUSEN, THAT THIS ITEM BE TABLED UNTIL THE NEXT COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING. MOTION CARRIED. When the short plat subdivision on the Van Woerden (Tecton) property was approved, the developer was required to execute a developer's agreement to improve Christensen Road. In November, 1979, Council accepted the improvements. The developer's title company has asked that the developer's agreement be removed as a title encum- brance. Staff recommended that an appropriate resolution be pre- pared removing developer's agreement 7811080694 from the title record. MOVED BY VAN DUSEN, SECONDED BY PHELPS, THAT COUNCIL APPROVE THE REMOVAL OF THE DEVELOPER'S AGREEMENT AS A TITLE ENCUMBRANCE AS REQUESTED BY THE TITLE COMPANY.* Councilman Bohrer asked what the appropriate document would be to accomplish this. Staff has suggested a resolution. Attorney Carl- son.said he felt it could be done by simple motion; however, he would check with the Auditor's office to find out what they require. *MOVED BY VAN DUSEN, SECONDED BY HARRIS, THAT THIS ITEM BE TABLED TO THE NEXT REGULAR MEETING AND HAVE A RESOLUTION PREPARED. ** Attorney Carlson explained that when a title company is asked to insure the quality of the title for a particular piece of property, they have to look at all past legal documents. A lengthy developer's agreement, like this, that has a bunch of provisions puts the burden on the title company to be sure they have all been satisfied. If some remain, it could cause a problem with the title. Councilman Bohrer recommended that future resolutions accepting improvements state that all the conditions of the developer's agree- ment are satisfied if that is the case. Councilman Saul arrived at the meeting. * *MOTION CARRIED. Mayor Todd explained that the waiver request filed by David Oak would permit him to develop a 3- story, 14 -unit condominium project on .38 acres of property located at the southeast corner of the existing Canyon Estates site. The site is currently zoned "RMH." However, the Comprehensive Plan calls for a "medium- density" de= velopment limit. MOVED BY VAN DUSEN, SECONDED BY HILL, THAT COUNCIL VOTE YES ON CRITERIA NO. 1; Does the proposed action represent a unique condition ?* Councilman Bohrer stated that there is a neighboring site that has requested a waiver, therefore, this site is not unique. ROLL CALL VOTE: HILL - NO SAUL - NO VAN DUSEN - NO BOHRER - NO HARRIS - NO JOHANSON - NO PHELPS - NO *MOTION FAILED. 7 - NO. 3093 TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL, REGUI.. MEETING February 2, 1981 Page 3 PETITIONS, COMMUNICATIONS, APPEALS AND SIMILAR MATTERS - Cont. David Oak Condo- minium Waiver (SE corner of Canyon Estates property) (Cont.) Criteria #2 Criteria #3 Criteria #4 Criteria #5 MOVED BY VAN DUSEN, SECONDED BY PHELPS, THAT COUNCIL VOTE YES ON CRITERIA NO. 2: Is the proposed action significant in scale ?* Councilman Bohrer noted that staff has some reservations about the project because of lot coverage and vertical height of the buildings. The size of the lot is .4 of an acre, therefore, it is not significant in scale. ROLL CALL VOTE: SAUL - VAN DUSEN - BOHRER - HARRIS - JOHANSON - HILL - *MOTION CARRIED, 5 - YES, 2 - NO. MOVED BY VAN DUSEN, SECONDED BY SAUL, THAT COUNCIL VOTE YES ON CRITERIA NO. 3. Has the applicant shown that no reasonable alternatives are available which would not require a waiver ?* ROLL CALL VOTE: VAN DUSEN - BOHRER - HARRIS - JOHANSON - PHELPS - HILL - SAUL - YES, too big of a building for the size of the property. YES, I have problems with the space development vs. the height. NO. YES, because of the lot coverage. YES, building is significant to the lot size. YES. NO, one street width does not separate four - plexes from 14 units. NO, there was an interim density that could have been discussed. NO, he has given no alternate proposal. NO, he has not shown alternatives. NO. NO. N /A. *MOTION FAILED: 6 - NO, 1 - 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 basemap as an area of high natural amenity or development constraint are sufficient mitigating measures provided ?* ROLL CALL VOTE: BOHRER - N /A, agree with staff. This site is not in- dicated as environmentally sensitive. HARRIS - N /A. JOHANSON - N /A. PHELPS N /A. HILL - N /A. SAUL - N /A. VAN DUSEN - N /A. *MOTION FAILED: 7 - N /A. MOVED BY VAN DUSEN, SECONDED BY HILL, 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 ?* 3bqq ROLL CALL VOTE: HARRIS - YES, it does conform to the goals of the Compre- . hensive Plan. JOHANSON - NO. PHELPS - YES. HILL - NO. SAUL - NO, because there are too many units for the property. VAN DUSEN - YES. BOHRER - YES. *MOTION CARRIED: 4 - YES, 3 - NO. TUKRILA CITY COUNCIL, REGUI( MEETING February 2, 1981 Page 4 David Oak Condo- minium Waiver (SE corner of Canyon Estates property) (Cont.) Criteria #6 Criteria #7 ROLL CALL VOTE: JOHANSON - PHELPS - HILL - SAUL - VAN DUSEN - BOHRER - HARRIS - *MOTION FAILED: 6 - NO, 1 - YES. *MOTION FAILED. PETITIONS, COMMUNICATIONS, APPEALS AND SIMILAR MATTERS - Cont. MOVED BY VAN DUSEN, SECONDED BY. SAUL, . THAT COUNCIL VOTE YES ON CRITERIA NO. 6. Do the requirements of this waiver ordinance impose a special hardship to this site ?* NO, I agree with staff; the waiver a hardship. YES. NO. NO. NO. NO. NO. *MOTION FAILED: 6 - NO, 1 - YES. 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 ?* ROLL CALL VOTE: PHELPS - NO, don't believe this would necessitate a major policy change or commitment. HILL - NO. SAUL - NO. VAN DUSEN - NO. BOHRER - NO. HARRIS - NO. JOHANSON - YES, not necessarily a major policy commitment but I am still bothered by the density level. 3095 process is not MOVED BY VAN DUSEN, SECONDED BY SAUL, THAT THE PRELIMINARY WAIVER IS APPROVED AS SUBMITTED.* Councilman Van Dusen read, for the record, a letter Council had received from Wendy Morgan, 15144 65th Ave. So. Ms. Morgan ex- pressed concern with any possible construction on adjoining property which can impact the already crowded parking situation and with the traffic on South 154th St. which is quite busy now. Ms. Eloise Schumacher, 15144 65th Ave. So., W418, said she is a member of the Board of Directors at Canyon Estates. She ex- pressed concern about the proposed development for the same reasons stated in Ms. Morgan's letter. The traffic on South 153rd, the parking problem and also, there is a problem on the hillside with the bank sluffing off. A development, such as this, could contribute to the problems. They are not in favor of such a high density development on the site. MOVED BY VAN DUSEN, SECONDED BY HARRIS, THAT THE PRELIMINARY WAIVER BE APPROVED SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: THE BUILDING BE LIMITED TO 25 UNITS PER ACRE.* Mr. David Oak, applicant, said that their proposal does meet the requirements. The property is now zoned RMH which would allow 33 units. The Comprehensive Plan shows it as an R -3, but their pro- posal still meets the lot coverage requirement. They meet all the requirements for recreation space and parking requirements with the 14 unit proposal. Mayor Todd asked Mr. Oak if he said, at the prior meeting, that 10 units was the alternative. TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL, REGUL( MEETING February 2, 1981 Page 5 PETITIONS, COMMUNICATIONS, APPEALS AND SIMILAR MATTERS - Cont. David Oak Condo- minium Waiver (SE corner of Canyon Estates property) (Cont.) ORDINANCES Proposed Ordinance To add Council confirmation Proposed Ordinance Transferring funds to allow for the purchase of a defibrillator Mr. Oak. explained that staff has recommended 10 units. It works out to 9.62 units. This proposal eliminates one of the bays on the building which, in turn, eliminates the covered recreation area and also the end garages. Councilman Bohrer asked if the land option has lapsed and Mr. Oak. said they have negotiated an extension. Councilman Phelps ex- plained that the motion does not allow 25 units on the site. It allows 25 units on a whole acre. This would mean 9 or 10 units. Councilman Bohrer noted the recommendations and findings in the staff report. It recommends 24.9 units per acre and notes height, yard, and bulk standards. MOVED BY BOHRER, SECONDED BY SAUL, THAT THE MOTION BE AMENDED TO SAY THAT THE PROJECT IS APPROVED SUBJECT TO THE FINDINGS AND RECOM- MENDATIONS OF THE STAFF REPORT. MOTION CARRIED WITH VAN DUSEN VOTING NO. Recommendation: 1. Maximum residential density shall not exceed 24.9 units /gross acre. •2. .Height, yard and bulk standards contained in Chapter 18.16 of of the Tukwila Municipal Code shall govern the design and construction of the project. Findings: 1. It is the intent of the City Council to limit the density level for this 0.38 ± acre site to the same level as that existing on the adjacent "Canyon Estates" project (24.9 D.U. /AC), since this site is closely aligned in use and geographic location with "Canyon Estates." 2. To accomplish the intent of the Comprehensive Plan which seeks to limit the visual character of this site and its surroundings to that of "medium- density" development, and since "R -3" is that most permissive zoning standard under which multiple - family projects can be built in "medium- density" use areas, the height, setback, bulk and area standards of the "R -3 zone" (TMC 18.16) are judged to be the maximum development criteria allowable for this site. *MOTION CARRIED TO ADOPT MOTION AS AMENDED. Mr. Oak asked for a clarification if this meant 9 or 10 units. Councilman Bohrer noted the recommendation reads "the density shall not exceed 24.9 units." When you calculate this, 10 exceeds the density. MOVED BY SAUL, SECONDED BY VAN DUSEN, THAT 10 UNITS BE ALLOWED. MOTION CARRIED WITH BOHRER VOTING NO. MOVED BY VAN DUSEN, SECONDED BY SAUL, THAT ITEM 7A BE TABLED AT THE REQUEST OF THE CITY ATTORNEY.* Council President Van Dusen said the ordinance might create some procedural problems. This may need to be discussed in executive session. *MOTION CARRIED. MOVED BY VAN DUSEN, SECONDED BY HILL, THAT THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE BE READ BY TITLE ONLY. MOTION CARRIED. Atty. Carlson read: An ordinance of the City of Tukwila, Wash., transferring funds to allow for the purchase of a defibrillator and amending Ord. No. 1197. J TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL COMMITTFE OF THE WHOLE MEETING January 26, 1981 Page 4, DISCUSSION - Contd. Prop. projects for potential King County Bond Issue - contd. David Oak Condo Waiver: Applicant proposes to dev. 3- story 14 unit condo project at SE cor- ner of existing Canyon Estate site. Don Williams said it is likely we are going to have to fight with Seattle and King County in order to use Fort Dent park. Councilman Hill said the Police Department has always said that a lighted place is better than having a man added to the Police Department in terms of safety. Don Williams said some of these projects are a ten year program. MOVED BY HARRIS, SECONDED BY PHELPS, THAT THE MAYOR WRITE A LETTER SETTING FORTH THE COMMUNITY AFFAIRS COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE JOINT CITIZENS' COMMITTEE FOR THE STUDY OF PARKS, RECREATION AND OPEN SPACE. MOTION CARRIED, WITH BOHRER VOTING NO. Mr. David Oak, applicant, stated at the southeast corner of the Canyon Estates project is a small, rectangular parcel of .38 acres upon which he would like to develop a 3 story 14 unit condominium. The site is currently zoned RMH, permitting a density of 40 units per acre. The Comprehensive Plan calls for medium density development limit of a maximum density of 16 units per acre. The waiver is necessary because of the conflict which exists between permitted building intensity levels of the site's current zoning classification and Comprehensive Plan use designation. Mr. Oak said he intended to provide a recreation area; one half would be open and the other half would be covered. Councilman Bohrer said he noted there are two pieces of property and the waiver request is for the one. Mr. Oak said that was correct, they have plans to build a similar appearing 4 unit project on the south. It is consistent with both the existing zoning and the Comprehensive Plan. The waiver pertains to the northerly 14 unit project. Councilman Bohrer asked if most of Canyon Estate is zoned RMH? Mr. Oak said it is in R -4 density and their project is about R -4 and on the same scale. Some of the units will be one bedroom and some two bedroom. Council President Van Dusen noted that staff recommendation was that the waiver be approved with stipulations that: maximum residential density shall not exceed 24.9 units per acre and height, yard and bulk standards contained in Chapter 18.16 of the T.M.C. govern the design and construction of the project. MOVED BY BOHRER, SECONDED BY SAUL, THAT THE PROPOSED WAIVER REQUEST BE ON THE AGENDA OF THE FEBRUARY 2, 1981 REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING. MOTION CARRIED. COUNCILMAN SAUL LEFT THE MEETING AT 8:55 P.M. Van Woerden Dev. Mayor Todd said it is proposed to remove the title encumbrance since Agreement: Request the terms of the agreement have been satisfied. to have Dev. Agree- ment removed as a MOVED BY HARRIS, SECONDED BY PHELPS, THAT THE VAN WOERDEN REQUEST title encumbrance BE ON THE AGENDA OF THE FEBRUARY 2, 1981 REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING. * since the terms have been satisfied.Councilman Bohrer said he would like a copy of the Mayor's Policy Directive dated January 6, 1981 and it be included in the agenda package for next week's meeting. This building is the one on the far northeast corner of the site and it appears to be constructed on some of the City easement. He suggested the developer be at the meeting when this is discussed. Council President Van Dusen said someone would be at the meeting to discuss this. City Attorney Carlsen said the title encumbrance makes it look like there is an obligation. He said it would appear next time there was a title search. Mayor Todd said the property has a different owner now. TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING January 26, 19 _ ::Page 3 : - DISCUS Contd. Golf Course Irriga tion Project, Budget Review, - contd. Prop. projects for potential King County Bond Issue. � Councilman Saul said no one bid on the pumps that were to run the thing. All of the requirements were not looked at. The bid specifi- cations were not complete. Councilman Hill said the City hires a consultant to give us a workable water system for the golf course. It looks like it was not taken into consideration that we would need bigger pumps to run the system. There are so many changes it makes a person wonder why the City hires consultants. Don Williams, Parks and Recreation Director, said we have not had a lot of change orders. The consultants were told to design the system they thought they could.get for $150,000. He said he had indicated that he thought the City had not done their home work. We did not have experts in this line in the City and he felt it was proper to go to consultants. He said Change Orders #1 and #2 were in the amount of $8,719. This was to reduce the watering cycle. There will be a one year warranty which will begin after the 30 day operational period when the system is accepted by the City. Councilman Bohrer said as he recalls at first the system was to be manually operated and then it turned out to be automatic. Somewhere along the line the direction was changed. As the change took place the cost went up. Don Williams, said when the City talked about manual control as opposed to automatic control, most golf courses are in- between. They have to set the clocks, how much water is to be dispensed and this is done by hand. We have not changed the concept. It is not fully automatic. It was always to be an automatic system with manual controls. During the hot weather the times are set; it can be for a daily, weekly, or semi - weekly period of time as the weather changes. MOVED BY PHELPS, SECONDED BY HILL, THAT THE FORMAT OF THE SUPPLEMENTAL CONTRACT AND CHANGE ORDER #3 BE ON THE AGENDA OF THE FEBRUARY 2, 1981 REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING. MOTION CARRIED. Councilman Bohrer said at the Community Affairs Committee meeting the Committee investigated a list of potential parks projects they were considering and made a number of changes and recommendations. There were some differences in the recommendations of the Community Affairs Committee and the Park Commission. The recommendation from the Park Commission was to construct a softball park and running track at the elementary school. There were recommendations to have a handball /racket- ball court at the community center. There was the problem of a park at the old City Hall. The Committee would support the removal of the old police building at the old City Hall site. It seems we never quite get rid of it, action is delayed. With respect to the Open Space recommendation, it was not intended that the City purchase this property. Councilman Hill said getting grants is fine, but the letter stated it will be 50% grants. There are approximately 2 million dollars in projects and that would mean the City's share would be 1 million dollars. Don Williams, Parks and Recreation Director, said the projects would be a bond issue and there would be no matching of funds. It would likely be a Forward Thrust project. Mayor Todd said if the bond issue passes, we will all have to pay for it as citizens. Councilman Bohrer said the letter from the Committee for the Study of Parks, Recreation and Open Space requests an informal, tentative list of the types of projects which the City thinks are important to serve the service area, as well as any which the City thinks would serve a larger area or the whole county. The "service area" is a large area. It would be something like the planning area. He said he thought the amounts of money needed to accomplish the projects should be looked at carefully. The $75,000 to light Christensen Trail is not a necessary expenditure, in his opinion. TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL,COMMITTEE.OF.THE WHOLE MEETING January, 12 5� ..,. .i«.. ,twwA.. r � itr M . • . �{:. .� ......7.s t .t . DISCUSSION - Contd t ; McAllister Condo Proj . Waiver re- quest to dev. 58 condos in 7 bldgs. ranging from 2 to 16 units ea. - contd. -.. David Oak Condo Waiver request to dev. 14 unit condo proj. on .38 ac. RECESS 8:25 - 8:35 P.M. equipment. They have offset this difficulty by installing sprinklers. There will be no problem of access if the weather is not inclement. If there is a steep slope access is from the back side of the building. 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 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. 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 till 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 on 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. ..Mr. Campaoella.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. CALL TO ORDER. ROLL CALL OF COUNCIL MEMBERS Foster Golf Course Bridge Rehabilita- tion. TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL ( , . o�) City Hall c;a COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEt:ING 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. McAllister Condo Council President Saul said the Council would like to have a Project Waiver soils report on this project. Mr. McAllister presented a copy Request. 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. David Oak Condo Council President Saul stated this waiver would be considered Waiver. at the Committee of the Whole Meeting on January 12, 1981. abitat. Council President Saul stated this waiver request would be considered at the Committee of the Whole Meeting on January 12, 1981. Prop. Ord. amending Council President Saul said this proposed ordinance would be Ord. #1141, establi — considered at the Regular Meeting on January 5, 1981. skiing minimum require- ments for fire pro tection systems. The Meeting was discontinued at 7:45 P.M. due to lack of a quorum of Council Members. Daniel J. Saul, City Council President No a Booher, Recording Secretary AGENDA ITEM INTRODUCTION CITY OF TUKWILA PLANNING DIVISION PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT David Oak Condominium Waiver - (80 -43 -W) At the southeast corner of the existing "Canyon Estates" condominium project is a small rectangular parcel of 0.38 acres upon which the applicant proposes to develop at a 3- story, 14 -unit condominium j project. The site is currently zoned "RMH" (permitting densit in excess of 40 -units per acre; However, the Comprehensive Plan calls for a "medium - density" development limit (maximum density of 16- units/ acre). Thus, the waiver action is necessitated by the confli t which exists between petmitted building intensity levels of the site's current zoning classification and Comprehensive Plan use ,. Note that site plan Exhibit � "B" depicts development on ,,,, • %;��` • / both sides of S. 153rd St. " The applicant proposes a 14 -unit project on the ) OM M-I north side, and a similar- I appearing 4 -unit project on 0M the south. The 4 -plex is consistent with both existing zoning and the Comprehensive Plan; thus, the subject waiver application pertains only to the northerly 14 - unit project. Information relative to the 4 - plex is provided as a courtesy only. COUNCIL ACTION! MEETING TYPE Dm I AGO:DA I ITEM ACTID. I Vta /4/4A 6 ANALYSIS Waiver Criterium #1 -- Does the proposal represent a unique condition? Applicant's Response: "The project will provide medium - priced owner - occupied 1 Page 2 Staff Response: condominiums near an existing city park." (From Schedule "A ", Question 3) We do not find the proposal to be unique in its neighborhood setting, nor do we judge the site's topography, shape or geographic location in the community to be especially significant. Waiver Criterium #2 - -- Is the proposed action significant in scale? Applicant's Response: "No; the neighborhood contains both two- and three - story apartments and condominiums containing between 4 and 16 living units per building. There are no single residences within the immediate vicinity of the project." Staff Response: Staff has some reservations about the scale intensity of the proposed 14 -unit project. Lot coverage of about 40 %, with an overall vertical height of 44 feet, seems to create a significantly more intensive visual impression than that of the surrounding development pattern. The Canyon Estates project, and the proposed "McAllister" condominium development to the east restrict total lot coverage to the 20 -30% range. Thus, the greater proportion of open ground softens the apparent magnitude of 45',building heights existing or contemplated on these surrounding projects. We have suggested a mitigating approach to control potential development scale problems associated with the subject proposal in the "recom- mendation" section of the report. Waiver Criterium #3 -- Has the applicant shown that no reasonable alternatives are available which would not require a waiver? "Reasonable" is the key -word in defining the intent of this criteria. Certainly it is possible to create a project on this site which fits into the Comprehen- sive Plan's range for medium density development. However, the Comprehensive Plan would allow no nore than 6 -7 units without waiver action. The applicants contend that such a restricted yield is economically unreasonable. Therefore, they have not provided an alternative proposal within the 6 -16 unit density range. 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 con- straint, are sufficient mitigating measures provided? This criteria is "not applicable ", as the site is not designated as an area of environmental sensitivity on the Comprehensive Plan Environmental Base Map. Page 3 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 a brief review of the project's relationship to existing comprehensive plan policies -- see attachment. Staff Response: Waiver Criterium #6 -- Do the requirements of this waiver ordinance impose a special hardship to this site? Applicant's Response: The waiver process imposes a hardship to this site because: Staff Response: 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. The only question of policy which must be resolved by council is that of allowable dwel- ling unit density. 1. Proposed zoning would reduce the number of units possible on site from 33 to 6 which significantly reduced economic viability of project. The pro- posed project is consistent with R -4 zoning which is more in keeping with surrounding environment. 2. If the waiver process goes beyond December 29, 1980, the current land option would lapse and future development might not occur in consistent' manner. We do not agree that the waiver process is a hardship to development of this site, any more so than is any other step in the permit review sequence. In fact, we find that the waiver process may expedite review by serving to isolate "early -on" significant problem areas and strengths in the project proposal. 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? In staff's opinion, this site is an "urban infilling" condition which, due its relatively small size, development of which does not represent a signi- ficant land use policy- setting opportunity. Rather, the council's decision on the pending McAllister project will be most significant in terms of affirming an overall development intensity level for this sub -area of the community. We believe, however, that the density -level allowed on this site should be controlled within the general limits established on surrounding properties; our staff recommendation is intended to accomplish that purpose. RECOMMENDATION We are aware that "RMH" zoning has been in existence for some time on this site, and that the applicants are attempting to develop a high - quality Page 4 project generally consistent with the emerging character of the neighborhood. To recognize these equities, therefore, staff recommends that a grant of preliminary waiver be approved with stipulations intended to synthesize the high density potential of existing zoning with the medium - density built - form controls envisioned by the Comprehensive Plan: 1) Maximum residential density shall not exceed 24.9 units /gross acre. 2) Height, yard and bulk standards contained in Chapter 18.16 of the Tukwila Municipal Code shall govern the design and construction of the project. Findings: 1) It is the intent of the City Council to limit the density level for this 0.38 ± acre site to the same level as that existing on the adjacent "Canyon Estates" project (24.9 D.U. /AC), since this site is closely-aligned in use and geographic location with "Canyon Estates." 2) To accomplish the intent of the Comprehensive Plan which seeks to limit the visual character of this site and its surroundings to that of "medium- density" development, and since "R -3" is that most permissive zoning standard under which multiple - family projects can be built in "medium- density" use areas, the height, setback, bulk and area standards of the "R -3 zone" (TMC 18.16) are judged to be the maximum development criteria allowable for this site. Thus, the staff recommendation intends to allow a "high density" dwelling unit yield (though less than would be authorized under RMH zoning), but to restrict the configuration of the actual buildings to a "medium - density" height and setback standard. / 6 -Y f42 lG /NAL SNORE \ 10 ...., „.,...... i f. i .,... : 1„ . „ ,.. _ ,-.-=- 5 , ., ,. . , , a.. , / , , , / / v .{1 E )I I . Gam•% w t I N 1 • 0 %,. 1, O -- • - t1 �_� O VtI VE R G • r) 'c ao N ea cL co N ■ 1 1:217-1 / /*/.. 4/ • 60 /sew moroz 46=7e .41 V WM V2 - one Attns • '' W.OtgX. SNIP pa. R&M? 10.1 em. ANIWOSO c.. I • i t y 11- ...tomewcwir •,. A f• . Y /P f if r. 4-ri-Anas ,ss ri awe MOM 107 1 • . .: ( `,. 4 f 7 i •• r. \ tibia`► rs i � ). •' ".' • 1 - • 1 • . • . # .. eellJJ ff- I c t.;.., . ':-� • i + •14 `.. ` .� 1 .. • . ------- - --- v c if e t: 11E1 , }) �': j 9 � e r a ` : 4X� , �'�Xi 19 , 1%/fri I , i'�: rs■••=lanwr :dirt•► - c1.w.1 csr : t�ss ■61=1=1..=1 a1 //ay - /N7/161 T•? �fl/tx� , . : : ASTER LAND DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION FORM NOTE: Please write legibly or type all requested information -- incomplete applications will not be accepted for processing. r SECTION I. GENERAL DATA 1) APPLICANT'S NAME DAVID OAK TELEPHONE:( 206) 842 - 3056 2) , APPLICANT'S ADDRESS 10257 Ronald Ct. NE ZIP: 98110 Bainbridge Island, Wa. 3) 'PROPERTY OWNER'S NAME TELEPHONE:( ) SECTION 11 PROJECT INFORMATION 7) 3RIEFLY DESCRIBE THE PROJECT YOU PROPOSE: 14 — Unit Condaani.nium, 3- story TAT/basement parking; 21 parking spaces 4}}''PROPERTY OWNER'S ADDRESS ZIP: r 5),, LOCATION OF PROJECT: (geographic or legal descrip.) Lots 17, 18, 19, & 20 .;V.cated Block 2 of Gundakers Interurban Addition to City of .Seattle 6) VANE OF PROJECT(OPTIONAL) 67 Place Condominiums 8) DO YOU PROPOSE TO DEVELOP THIS PROJECT IN PHASES? OYES 9) PROJECT DATE a. NET ACRES + c. PARKING SPACES 21 b. GROSS ACRES •38 d. FLOORS OF CONSTRUCTION 3 stories e. LOT .AREA COVERAGE BLDG. 6,540 SQ.FT. LANDSCAPE 5,481 SQ. FT. PAVING 4,479 SQ. FT. 10) DOES THE AVERAGE SLOPE OF THE SITE EXCEED 10%? [ITS ONO 11) EXISTING =ONING RNlfi 12. EXISTING CCMP.PLAN R - 13) IS THIS SITE DESIGNATED FOR SPECIAL CONSIDERATION NO CN THE CITY'S ENA� IRONN ENTAL 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 :NDIC.ATE BELOW. a. NAME: b. NAME: FEES: RCPT. M.F. EPIC. KROLL PAGE: ADDRESS: ADDRESS: NO e • O\ . SECTION III: APPLICANT'S AFFIDAVIT 1, 4 4 , being duly sworn, declare that I am the contra purc aser or t e 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. Subscribed and sworn before me this c2I/, 7', day of DATE// /7 y/ v State of Washington residing at 62,j1,,yf0 SECTION IV: SUPPORTING MATERIAL REQUIREMENTS NOTE:, All applications require certain supporting documents and information which are described in the following table: TYPE OF APPLICATION (CHECK BOX(ES)) SUPPORTING INFORMATION REQUIRED REZONING 1E, 2, 3, 4, S, 7, 11 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 1C, 3, 4, S, 7, 11 VARIANCE 1F, 4, 7, 11 or 17 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN NTND 1ENT 1D, 3, 4, 5, 7, 11, 12 SHORELINE MG•1T. PERMIT 1B, 3, 4, 5, 7, 10, 11, 13 SHORELINE MGMT PERMIT REVISION 4, 10, 16 WAIVER LA, 3, 4, 11•, 12, 13 ) SHORT PLAT 4, 5, 9 BINDING SITE IMPROVEMENT PLAN 4, 5, 8 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW 11, 12, 13 LANDSCAPE REVIEW 14 SUBDIVISION 4, 5, 6, 15 SIGN VARIANCE 4, 6, 16, 17 * *See TABLE 1 for detailed description Co tra • rc aser or owner) • M •T. 7 MASTER LAND DEVELOR Eff APPLICATION FORM SUPPLEMENTARY QUESTIONAIRE Schedule A WAIVER APPLICATION 1. State specifically the action in Ordinance No. 1137 to which you are requesting a waiver: Comprehensive plan calls for downzone from RMH to R -3 designation. The proposed project is one half the allowed density of RMH and fits the R -4 zoning designation. 2. Briefly and generally describe the project you are proposing: 14 condominiums with 3 stories and basement (21 parking spaces) -14 covered and 7 partially covered; 2800 square feet of recreation space - 1400 covered and 14UU open. 3. Is your project unique in terms of design, land use or benefit to the Tukwila community? Providing medium priced owner occupied condominiums near existing city park. 4. Is your project significant in scale? No; the neighborhood contains both two and three story apartments and condominiums containing between 4 and 16 living units per building. There are no single residences within the ediate vicinity of the project. S. I the request or 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? Not a sensitive area - site has been cleared and the majority of trees etc. removed. Slope of site is only 8% - no surrounding streams etc. 6. What goals and policies can you identify which support your request for waiver, if any? �� Ott a�hPr3 7. In your opinion, do the requirements of waiver ordinance 1137 impose a hardship on the use and development of this site? Yes 1. Proposed zoning would reduce the number of units possible on site from 33 to 6 which significantly reaucea economic viability or project. me proposed project is consistent with R -4 zoning which is more in keeping with surrounding environ- ment. 2. If the waiver process goes beyond December 29, 1980, the current land option would lapse and future develop- ment might not occur in consistent manner. Goals & Policies that support waiver: Residence: Section 1, Objective 1 & Objective 2: The proposed'project is compatible with all surrounding uses as to density, height and living units per building. Objective 2, Policy 2 & Policy 5: Parking & Screening - proposed development would have parking areas screened by landscaping and 14 of 21 stalls would be covered garage parking and 7 partially covered. Policy 7 - Encourage recreational space: The proposed pro- jects would have 2800 square feet of recreation space in addition to being adjacent to a city park. Section 2, Objective 1: Assure diversified supply of housing in the planning area. Policy 2 - Encourage development of multiple family residential units. The project would be owner occupied condominiun units. If the proposed density cannot be obtained, the price of the housing built on this site unrPr proposed zoning would need to be increased by 10% to 15% to offset higher per unit land costs. Natural Environment: Objective 3: Recognize the advantages and opportunities afforded by the topography and plan its use accordingly. Since the site has only an 8% slope and is currently cleared of trees it should be used as higher density living which would allow preservation of those areas of Tukwilia still undeveloped. The proposed development completes the develop- ment of the surrounding area in a consistent manner. No significant land form change would be necessary in order to achieve the proposed density. Open Space Objective 1, Policy 5: Locate public recreational facilities where they are easily accessible to the resident population. The pro- posed development is located adjacent to a city park.