Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Permit 79-38-W - CMB DEVELOPMENT CORP - CEDARWOOD HABITAT CONDOMINIUM WAIVER
79-38-W 79-17-W CEDARWOOD HABITAT CMB DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION 1908 MC/blk City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila Washington 98188 Frank Todd, Mayor MEMORANDUM TO: President and members of the City Council FROM: Mark Caughey, Acting Planning Director DATE: 12 March 1981 • SUBJECT: Campanella 92 .unit waiver As requested at your Committee -of- the -Whole meeting of 12 January 1981, I have assembled a set of materials tracing the evolution of the Companella proposal. I have tried to select those items which best express the various aspects of Council direction given during the numerous hearings which have taken place to date: 1) Completed waiver application 2) 23 July 1979 staff report by Planning Director -- Note stipulations restricting density to 85 units 3) 30 July 1979 City Council C.O.W. minutes - - Discussing merits of 92 unit proposal 4) 6 August 1979 City Council regular meeting minutes - - 92 unit proposal modified verbally at meeting to 85 units per staff report - - 85 unit proposal defeated 5) 19 February 1980 City Council regular meeting minutes -- Reconsideration of 92 units discussed -- Final vote approval of 76 units 6) 12 January 1981 transmittal of CMB Development Inc. - - Economic analysis of hardship represented by 76 unit approval City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila Washington 98188 1908 Frank Todd, Mayor MEETING TYPE COUNCIL ACTION DATE AGENDA ITEM ACTIN MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: President and Members of the City Council Mark Caughey, Acting Planning Director 16 December 1980 SUBJECT: Cedarwood Habitat; Reconsideration of Waiver 79 -38 -W The attached correspondence from CMB Development Corporation requests the Council to re -open waiver application file 79 -38 -W for purposes of increasing the density level authorized under the Council's February 19, 1980 decision. An excerpt from the minutes of that meeting is enclosed; note that Council approved a maximum of 76 -units arranged in a certain building configuration. Prior to your February decision, however, CMB had filed a building permit application for 92 -units on this site. The developer now believes that the 76 -unit project is no longer economically feasible, and requests the Council to revise the waiver approval to allow for a 92 -unit project as originally designed. Staff has suggested that CMB Development prepare a brief economic analysis substantiating the hardship represented by the 76 -unit limitation. We hope that this material will be available at Monday's meeting to assist your decision - making process. MC /jas AGENDA ITEM TITLE Cedarwood Habitat - Waiver Application (79- 38 -1V) Date Submitted 10 Dec 80 Date Placed on Agenda SPONSOR: TIMELINE Mayor Council SYNOPSIS OF INTENT Request for reconsideration of previous vaiver approval to increase dwelling unit yield from 76 to 92 units. What action is recommended? Staff has no recommendation -- this application requires a policy decision from Council regarding appropriate density levels adjacent to Interurban Avenue. RECORD OF COUNCIL ACTION Date Action 6 Aug 79 19 Jan 80 12 Jan 81 COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS /COMMENTS No Committee action Has Item appeared on a previous Council agenda? If yes, explain See record of Council action CONSIDERATION COST IMPACT FUND SOURCE COUNCIL AGENDA SYNOPSIS No. Staff Mark Caiighey - Acting Planning Dirertnr 85 unit proposal denied 76 unit proposal approved C.O.W. agrees to reconsider 92 unit proposal development corporation • real estate developers • consultants 10 December 1980 City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, Washington 98188 Sincerely, Pre panella FM : sd cc: Mr. Robert Short It • CITY OF 1,., :i1 A DEC 1 2 1980 cna Atten: Mr. Mark Caughey Assistant Planner Re : Cedarwood Habitat Condominium Property Dear Mr. Caughey: Thank you for taking time to meet with me at your office the other day. This letter will serve to notify the City of Tukwila of our request that a building permit be issued to construct a 92 unit condominium project on the above referenced property in accordance with plans filed with the City of Tukwila on 24 October 1979. It is our conclusion the 76 units proposed to us by the Tukwila City Council is not a feasible alternative. At your recommendation, we are agreeable to present our position to the City Council "Committe of the Whole" on 22 December 1980. We trust the council will recognize the practical aspect of our position and will auth- orize the issuance of the building permit without the need for further delays, costs and legal entanglements. Please confirm the date of 22 December 1980 with our office. Thank you for your cons'deration and attention to this matter. 2900 eastlake avenue east • suite 210 • seattle, wa 98102 (206) 325 -2210 CITY OF TUKWI WHEREAS, the purpose of Ordinance 1109 is to promote development consistent with the City's comprehensive plan prior to the adoption of a new zoning ordinance, and 1981, and WASHINGTON ORDINANCE NO. A /g% AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA, WASHINGTON, REPEALING ORDINANCE 1137 AND AMENDING SECTION 6 OF ORDINANCE 1109, BY EXTENDING THE TERMINATION DATE. WHEREAS, a new zoning ordinance is expected to be adopted in WHEREAS, Ordinance 1137, which extended the date set in Ordinance 1109, expires on second regular City Council meeting of January, 1981, and NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA, WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Sect. 1. Section 6 of Ordinance 1109 is amended to read as follows: This ordinance and the policy herein adopted shall remain in effect until ttie second regular City Council meeting of January, 1982 or until a new zoning ordinance and map is adopted, which- ever comes sooner. Sect. 2. Ordinance No. 1137 is hereby repealed. PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA, WASHINGTON, at a regular meeting thereof this /t day of , 1980. Aps oved as to Form E ATTEST: IV -4 i Ci y 'ttorney, awrence . Hard . or 'ro em Published Record Chronicle - December 5, 1980 COUNCIL ACTION 1 A4,� 1. . "au fel �j�yt • TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL COMMIT ' OF THE WHOLE MEETING January 12, 1981 Page 3 DISCUSSION - Contd. McAllister Condo Proj. Waiver re- quest to dev. 58 condos in 7 bldgs. ranging from 2 to 16 units ea. - 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. up. 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 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 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. 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. TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING January 12, 1981 P.d9e4 DISCUSSION - Contd. Cedarwood Habitat, between 56th Ave. S. & Interurban at approx. So. 137th, request for reconsidera- tion of waiver to increase dens- ity level author. by C. C. 2/19/80. - contd. Mr. Robert Short, site developer, said the site is zoned C -2 and this would accommodate 193 units. They are asking for 92 units. They are covering 48% of the ground and leaving 52% in open space. Councilman Harris said with 92 units the developer will have to crowd the buildings more, with 76 units there would be more open space. If they give the same amenities of storage and recreation to the 76 units there would be more open space and it would be a better - appearing development. Mr. Short said the more units they build the more economical it becomes. The risk factor on being able to sell at the higher price is too great. He said they want to give the community something they will be proud to have. Councilman Hill said in the past developers have come in and said they are going to build beautiful condominiums and that is the way the City got stuck with Canyon Estates. Mr. Short said all of their projects have been high quality and have enhanced the surrounding area. Councilman Hill said the location of the proposed development is next to a residential area and they are trying to keep the density down. The Council is trying to make this into steps whereby the apartments and condominiums do not eat up the R -1 area. With either the 76 or 92 units, when you drive by all you will see is what looks like one big building. Mr. Short said they want 16 units in the four lower buildings. The buildings will be buffered by a screen that will be put up along Interurban Avenue. Mr. Campanella said the property to the south is now C -2. They have a situation where there are housing units with a density higher than theirs, as proposed, and next to them is a commercial zone. If the intent is to create a residential tenor, it seems out of place. We are talking about having low density in one area and then having commercial ,right next to it. In the C -1 or C -2 zoning he thought the lot coverage would be less stringent. Councilman Phelps asked if four additional units are added to the four buildings, how would they be integrated - would the buildings be higher? Mr. 'Campanella replied they would not be higher, they would be added to the ends. Councilman Bohrer said the Council rejected the waiver for the 92 units. Must they now reconsider the waiver? Mr. Hard, City Attorney, said the original application for a waiver was for 92 units and the Council acted on that and said no. The Council approved the development of. 76 units. The applicant could file another waiver request. The Council said they would approve the 76 units and Council told the developer to go ahead and see what he could do with that density. The developer tried to develop with 76 units. In this case he thought the Council should reconsider the 92 units. If the Council had told the developer they would only consider 76 units then they would not have to reconsider the 92 units. MOVED BY PHELPS, SECONDED BY HILL, THAT THE REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION OF WAIVER TO INCREASE DENSITY BE ON THE AGENDA OF THE COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING ON JANUARY 26, 1981 AND IN THE MEANTIME STAFF FURNISH THE COUNCIL WITH A REPORT OF THE PREVIOUS INSTRUCTIONS ISSUED TO THE DEVELOPER. * Councilman Bohrer said he would reconsider if he felt there was cause to do so. He felt there is not cause to do so. At the time of the original waiver application the matter of economics came up. The . five pages of economic analysis that has been presented does not make the case. He said he felt there were errors in the figures for the two developments. He said he felt the Council has valid basis not to reconsider the waiver. TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL*COMMIT OF THE WHOLE MEETING January 12, 1981_ Pge 5,,;; DISCUSSION - Contd. • Cedarwood Habitat, between 56th Ave. S. & Interurban at approx. So. 137th, request for reconsidera- tion of waiver to increase dens- ity level author. by C. C. 2/19/80 - contd. RECESS 9:45 - 9:55 P.M. Application for rezone of site at S. 139th & Interurban (Lutes property). Draft No. 4 of revised Zoning Ordinance. Councilman Phelps said her consideration is not based on the economics, but the Comprehensive Plan of density on that site. If the Council decided to cascade she would like to see what the developer might come up with and not look at the site as a total. Mr. Campanella said the zoning is C -2. They filed for a building permit in October 1979 and fourteen or fifteen months is a long time to wait for a building permit. Every time they come to the Council they get a different answer. Everything in the ordinance is not cut and dried. They are trying to be reasonable. Councilman Harris said the Comprehensive Plan has changed the zoning to multiple high density. *MOTION CARRIED, WITH BOHRER VOTING NO. Councilman Bohrer said he thought the City should not spend any of Staff time going back and making a report on what has taken place. Councilman Van Dusen said if Mr. Campanella wants to submit additional information, it should be submitted by Thursday prior._to the Monday - night meeting on January 26, 1981. MOVED BY HILL, SECONDED BY PHELPS, THAT THE TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING RECESS FOR FIVE MINUTES. MOTION CARRIED. The Tukwila City Council Committee of the Whole Meeting was called back to order by Chairman Van Dusen, with Council Members present as previously listed. John Moody, applicant, said the site's frontage on Interurban Avenue is already zoned C -2; however, in order to develop the office complex they are planning, it is necessary to rezone the remainder of the site from R -1 to C -2. He said the Planning Commission has approved the project, predicated on substantial compliance with a conceptual development plan for the entire site. This will be an office complex of 2,400 to 3,000 square feet. They will be one story buildings. In the Comprehensive Plan it is zoned C -2. Councilman Bohrer asked for the location of the storm drain. Mr. Moody said they located it and he showed the location on a map. Councilman Bohrer said he noted the stipulations in Section 3 of the proposed ordinance which states the development of the subject rezone area shall conform to the concept depicted on Exhibit B attached to the ordinance and the existing toe of slope elevation as of this date is not to be disturbed for any development purpose (parking, building or landscaping). Councilman Harris asked if the entrance to all four buildings will be off Interurban Avenue; one entrance will serve all four buildings. Mr. Moody said that was correct. MOVED BY HARRIS, SECONDED BY PHELPS, THAT THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE BE ON THE AGENDA OF THE JANUARY 19, 1981 REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING. MOTION CARRIED. Mark Caughey, Acting Planning Director, said the Planning Department would present Draft No. 4 of the Zoning Ordinance to the Council at the Committee of the Whole Meeting on January 24, 1981. The Planning Commission has approved the ordinance. He suggested that the Council Members bring their copies of Draft No. 4 to the meeting with them. Foster golf Course Ted Uomoto, Director of Public Works, said he had met with representa- Bridge Report. tives regarding the repair of the birdge. He said he felt the temporary repair would not be prudent. TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL COMMI 7 E OF THE WHOLE MEETING January 12, 1981 Page 6 . .. a. Request for match- ing funds of $14,358 for the Southcenter Blvd. St. Improvement Project. Grady Way Bridge Design Report. DISCUSSION - Cont. Foster Golf Course Mr. Hard, City Attorney, said he had looked into the definition of an Bridge Report -cont. emergency, but it appears that because of the cost of repairing the bridge it will be necessary to have bids. He said the City might declare an emergency and not go to bid, but he felt it would be better to delcare an emergency and have bids submitted. By declaring it an emergency it would shorten the time on some of the permits that would be required. Mayor Todd said there is danger of the bridge collapsing. Time and money will be saved if we do not have to go to bid. 'Councilman Bohrer said previous discussions have indicated that the City could engineer the bridge and the City employees could make the repairs for about $15,000. This should last for about 5 years. Mr. Uomoto said that repair would only be a temporary thing to keep the course open. Further inspection has indicated the bridge would be unsafe even with the temporary repair. If the City employees perform the work overtime will have to be authorized or they will have to discontinue the maintenance work presently planned. Mr. Hard, City Attorney, said whatever the City does it is going to have the attention of the State auditor, perhaps competitive bridge builders and citizens who may feel that this is improper action with City funds. He said if the City spends more than $15,000 it would be better to go to bid, but declare an emergency in order to shorten the permit time. Mr. Uomoto, Public Works Director, said the bridge would not be safe even with the temporary repair for any period of time. He recommended that the Council declare an'emergency and go out to bid. With the temporary repair the golf course could be opened for the golf tourney. A new bridge could be built alongside the old one and then the old one would be torn down. . Mr. Hard, City Attorney, said he would prepare an ordinance for next Monday night meeting. He said the Could could call a special meeting for Thursday, January 15, and declare the bridge an emergency so they can;get started on the bid specifications. Ted Uomoto, Director of Public Works, said Tukwila's application for this project requested allocation of funds to make preliminary engin- eering studies to determine the final location of the Southcenter Boulevard extension from the S -Line to Interurban Avenue to connect with the new proposed Grady Way Bridge. The project is recommended to be studied in the following manner: Phase 1 is a design report; Phase 2 is right -of -way acquisition and contract plans and specifica- tions; Phase 3 is construction. Federal funds up to $70,000 is their portion of the 83% matching fund and Tukwila's share is $14,358 (17 %). The $14,358 was not budgeted. MOVED BY HARRIS, SECONDED BY PHELPS, THAT THE REQUEST BE PUT IN THE FINANCE AND PERSONNEL COMMITTEE AND BE ON THE AGENDA OF THE JANUARY 19, 1981 REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING. MOTION CARRIED. Ted Uomoto, Director of Public Works, said the Public Works Department and Public Works Committee has reviewed the design report prepared by URS for the City of Renton and they recommend approval be given to Renton. Renton will then have their consultant proceed to prepare contract plans and specifications. The City's 1981 budget includes funds for the City's contributing share for the preparation of plans and specifications. He said the design would take one year and construction two years. The cost will be over 6 million dollars. MOVED BY VAN DUSEN, SECONDED BY HILL, THAT THE PROPOSED RESOLUTION BE ON THE AGENDA OF THE JANUARY 19, 1981 REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING. MOTION CARRIED. December 22, 1980 7:00 P.M. CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL OF COUNCIL MEMBERS Foster Golf Course Bridge Rehabilita- tion. McAllister Condo Project Waiver Request. Cedarwood Habitat. Prop. Ord. amending Ord. #1141, establi- shing minimum require- ments for fire pro -- tection systems. (- TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL .' p i s City Hall COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETi'TIG 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. David Oak Condo Council President Saul stated this waiver would be considered Waiver_._ at the Committee of the Whole Meeting on January 12, 1981. Council President Saul stated this waiver request would be onsidered 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. The Meeting was discontinued at 7:45 P.M. due to lack of a quorum of Council Members. Daniel J. Saul, City Council President 62 4...0 , 0KA,) No a Booher, Recording Secretary TO: FROM: DATE: ;7909 ' MC /jas Frank Todd, Mayor City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila Washington 98188 M EMORANDUM President and Members of the City Council Mark Caughey, Acting Planning Director 16 December 1980 SUBJECT: Cedarwood Habitat; Reconsideration of Waiver 79 -38 -W The attached correspondence from CMB Development Corporation requests the Council to re -open waiver application file 79 -38 -W for purposes of increasing the density level authorized under the Council's February 19, 1980 decision. An excerpt from the minutes of that meeting is enclosed; note that Council approved a maximum of 76 -units arranged in a certain building configuration. Prior to your February decision, however, CMB had filed a building permit application for 92 -units on this site. The developer now believes that the 76 -unit project is no longer economically feasible, and requests the Council to revise the waiver approval to allow for a 92 -unit project as originally designed. Staff has suggested that CMB Development prepare a brief economic analysis substantiating the hardship represented by the 76 -unit limitation. We hope that this material will be available at Monday's meeting to assist your decision - making process. TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL, REGULAR MEETING February 19, 1980 Page 2 PETITIONS, COMMUNICATIONS, APPEALS, AND SIMILAR MATTERS - Cont. Presentation: MOVED BY SAUL, SECONDED BY VAN DUSEN, THAT THE AGENDA BE AMENDED Ex -Mayor Bauch TO ALLOW A PRESENTATION. MOTION CARRIED. Mayor Todd read, in its entirety, a resolution of the City of Tukwila, Washington, in appreciation to Edgar D. Bauch for his years of service to the City of Tukwila as Mayor from 1976 through 1979. Resolution #711- MOVED BY SAUL, SECONDED BY VAN DUSEN, THAT RESOLUTION NO. 711 BE Appreciation to ADOPTED AS READ. MOTION CARRIED. Edgar D. Bauch, Mayor Mayor Todd presented Ex -Mayor Bauch with a plaque in recognition of his outstanding service to the City of Tukwila. Mr. Bauch said he feels it is a privilege and duty of all to do public service. Serving with the City has prepared him for different things in life. He said he will always be proud to see his name in the lobby of the new City Hall. Waiver Request: Councilman Bohrer said he has some problems with the content of the C.M.B. Dev. Corp. material Council has for review. The plans filed with the waiver application are different than those filed for the building permit. And, some of the differences are significant and might affect the outcome of the waiver. Also, there are a number of incorrect facts in the data provided. He said he is confused by some of the state- ments that have been made and what the applicant really requests. He noted that one item that is missing is an analysis of the density and how to interpret the Comprehensive Plan. One of the confusions is that during the previous waiver the applicant asked for guidance on density. At that time Council gave him the information. When the present waiver was submitted that guidance was ignored. When asked about this, his Attorney said the Council could not interpret the Comprehensive Plan,yet he had previously asked for guidance. He asked the City Attorney if Council should proceed with the packet they have been given or should they ask for a revised package. Attorney Hard said Council should proceed with an application that is complete. If there are significant differences they should be clarified before Council considers the application. It is up to the applicant to make a complete application. If he has submitted a complete application you must consider it. Mr. John Strasburger, Attorney, commented that this is the first time anyone has indicated a problem. What they are applying for is represented by the building plans. Councilman Saul asked how the per unit cost was figured and was told $6,753 for cost of land, $28,000 for construction costs, $10,000 for site development and $5,500 for financing, making a $50,253 per unit cost. Mr. Strasburger reminded Council that a development has to be economically feasible. Councilman Bohrer noted that the land cost was computed on the basis of 66 units per acre. If it were computed on the basis of 92 units per acre, it would be approximately $2,200. ?rig #2 MOVED BY SAUL, SECONDED BY HARRIS, THAT COUNCIL APPROVE CRITERIA NO. 1. Does the proposed action represent a unique condition?* Councilman Bohrer noted that Sheet #3 of the application states that the proposed project is not unique. ROLL CALL VOTE: PHELPS - NO JOHANSON - NO, not a unique condition. HARRIS - NO, I don't think it does. BOHRER - NO, there are other similar types of property in the City. SAUL - NO VAN DUSEN - NO. HILL - NO. *MOTION FAILED. TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL, REGt}" 't MEETING February 19, 1980 Page 3 PETITIONS, COMMUNICATIONS, APPEALS, AND SIMILAR MATTERS - Cont. Waiver Request: C.M.B. Dev. Corp. (cont.) Criteria #2 Criteria #3 Criteria #4 MOVED BY SAUL, SECONDED BY PHELPS, THAT COUNCIL APPROVE CRITERIA #2. Is the proposed action significant in scale ?* Councilman Bohrer pointed out that Sheet #3 says the scale of the development is significant because it involves 4.55 acres. ROLL CALL VOTE: PHELPS - JOHANSON - HARRIS - BOHRER - SAUL - VAN DUSEN - HILL - *MOTION CARRIED. YES YES, it is significant in scale. YES YES, I agree with the applicant. YES YES YES MOVED BY SAUL, SECONDED BY HARRIS, THAT COUNCIL APPROVE CRITERIA #3. Has the applicant shown that no reasonable alternatives are available which would not require a waiver ?* Council Bohrer noted Sheet #4 of the application; it discusses no alternatives whatever. It says he has tried to design a project which would not need a waiver, but does not indicate he has considered other alternatives. ROLL CALL VOTE: HILL - NO VAN DUSEN - NO, I haven't seen any. SAUL - N/A BOHRER - NO, for the reasons I have previously stated. HARRIS - YES, I think he has shown some. JOHANSON - NO PHELPS - YES *MOTION FAILED. MOVED BY SAUL, SECONDED BY HARRIS, THAT COUNCIL APPROVE CRITERIA #4. If the request for waiver involves building, grading, clearing, excavation, or filling in a geographical area generally identified by the environmental base map as an area of high natural amenity or development constraint are sufficient mitigating measures provided ?* Councilman Bohrer noted Sheet #9 of the application, the elevation view of the site. If you look at the slopes that are indicated on this particular site, buildings, as they are sited, intrude upon some rather steep portions of the lot itself. The upper buildings are on a 20% slope. The lower are on a 32% slope. There is a policy in the Comprehensive Plan that says development on slopes greater than 20% should be discouraged. Councilman Johanson asked about units per acre which council has discussed many times. Councilman Harris said that in looking at the drawing, it seems that a very minimum of grading is needed for the way the buildings are arranged. ROLL CALL VOTE: VAN DUSEN - BOHRER - HARRIS JOHANSON PHELPS HILL { SAUL *MOTION CARRIED. YES, this refers to natural amenities and there isn't a great deal down there. It doesn't have a significant amount of trees to save. NO, there are some significant cuts to be made into some very steep slopes. YES, I think they are being constrained in the amount of excavating they will be doing. NO, significant constraints have not been shown. YES YES YES, I agree with the utilization of land; they are moving the least amount of dirt. TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL, REGU kR MEETING February 19, 1980 � Page 4 PETITIONS, COMMUNICATIONS, APPEALS, AND SIMILAR MATTERS - Cont. Waiver Request: C.M.B. Dev. Corp. (cont.) Criteria #5 Criteria #6 Criteria #7 MOVED BY SAUL, SECONDED BY VAN DUSEN, THAT COUNCIL APPROVE CRITERIA #5. Is the request for waiver consistent with the goals and policies of the comprehensive land use policy plan ?* Councilman Bohrer said Sheet #6 only addresses the policies that are supportive of the proposal. The question asked, is the waiver consistent with the goals and policies. He cited instances where he has concerns about this. ROLL CALL VOTE: SAUL - YES BOHRER - NO HARRIS - YES JOHANSON - NO PHELPS - YES HILL - NO VAN DUSEN - YES *MOTION CARRIED. MOVED BY SAUL, SECONDED BY HARRIS, THAT COUNCIL APPROVE CRITERIA #6. Do the requirements of this waiver ordinance impose a special hardship to this site ?* ROLL CALL VOTE: BOHRER - YES HARRIS - YES JOHANSON - YES PHELPS - YES HILL - NO VAN DUSEN - YES SAUL - YES *MOTION CARRIED. MOVED BY SAUL, SECONDED BY VAN DUSEN, THAT COUNCIL APPROVE CRITERIA #7. Would a grant of the waiver necessitate a major policy commitment prior to the adoption of the new zoning ordinance and map ?* Councilman Bohrer noted that the average density for the site, as proposed by the applicant, is 23 units per acre. The density on the upper 2 acre portion is 14 units per acre. The Comprehensive Plan guideline calls for 6 to 16 units per acre. This is on the high side, but appears to be consistent. On the lower 2 acre portion, there are a total of 64 units or 32 units per acre. The Comprehensive Plan designates this portion as high density and calls for 17 units per acre. The bottom portion of this site is going to be nothing but buildings and parking lots. ROLL CALL VOTE: ' HARRIS - JOHANSON - PHELPS - HILL - VAN DUSEN - SAUL - BOHRER *MOTION CARRIED. NO YES, the high densities have been a concern. NO YES YES, it is a major policy commitment. YES, because of the density. YES, because of the higher density. MOVED BY SAUL, SECONDED BY VAN DUSEN, THAT COUNCIL GRANT THE PRELIMINARY WAIVER SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: The density will be 18 units per acre for a total of 82 units.* Attorney Hard said when you use units as a measure of density it is meaningless. As an example, you could have a unit with five bedrooms or a unit with one bedroom. The measure of "units" TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL, REGUV MEETING February 19, 1980 ++�� Page 5 PETITIONS, COMMUNICATIONS, APPEALS AND SIMILAR MATTERS - Cont. Waiver Request: C.M.B. Dev. Corp. (Cont.) RECESS: 8:20 p.m.- 8:25 p.m. would be unenforeable. You have to clarify what you mean by unit. Mr. Strasburger said they are proposing 60 two bedroom units of 1,200 square feet each and 32 one bedroom units of 720 square feet. MOVED BY JOHANSON, SECONDED BY HARRIS, THAT COUNCIL RECESS FOR FIVE MINUTES TO CONSIDER THIS MATTER. MOTION CARRIED. Mayor Todd called the regular meeting of the Tukwila City Council back to order with members present as previously reported. *Councilman Van Dusen withdrew the second to the motion, Councilman Saul withdrew the motion. MOVED BY VAN DUSEN, SECONDED BY SAUL, THAT COUNCIL APPROVE THE PRELIMINARY WAIVER SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: No more than 82 individual dwelling units be built.* Councilman Bohrer said his concern is that we still don't know the size of the units. The density of units might go down, but the bulk of the buildings might remain the same. MOVED BY BOHRER, SECONDED BY SAUL, THAT THE MOTION BE AMENDED SO THE CONDITION READS THAT ONE OF THE BUILDINGS ON THE LOWER LEVEL BE DELETED AND THE REMAINDER OF THE BUILDINGS REMAIN ESSENTIALLY THE SAME AS THOSE PROPOSED. ** Councilman Harris said if just a few•units could be deleted from each building it would be more pleasing. Councilman Bohrer said this is compatible with his intent. Councilman Hill asked about the zoning and was told it is currently zoned C -2. He said it bothers him that we are treating the site as one instead of making the upper and lower compatible with the Comprehensive Plan. * *Councilman Saul withdrew his second to the motion; Councilman Bohrer withdrew his motion. MOVED BY BOHRER, SECONDED BY SAUL, THAT THE MOTION BE AMENDED TO HAVE THE CONDITION READ TO CONFIRM THE ARRANGEMENT ON THE UPPER PORTION OF THE SITE BUT RESTRICT THE DEVELOPMENT ON THE LOWER SITE TO A MAXIMUM OF 48 UNITS IN NO MORE THAN 4 BUILDINGS AND THE UNITS TO BE ESSENTIALLY THE SIZE AND CONFIGURATION OF THE ONES PROPOSED IN THE APPLICATION. MOTION CARRIED WITH HILL AND VAN DUSEN VOTING NO. *ROLL CALL VOTE ON THE ORIGINAL MOTION: BOHRER - YES HARRIS - YES HILL - NO JOHANSON - NO PHELPS - YES SAUL - YES VAN DUSEN - NO MOTION CARRIED. Mark Caughey, Planning Department, asked Council to state their findings as to the 76 unit figure. Councilman Bohrer said it is based on an interpretation of the Comprehensive Plan and what the Council intended by it. The portion of the site that was restricted was the lower portion which was indicated as high density on the Comprehensive Plan. High density is designated as 17 units plus. The original application provided for 32 units per acre on the lower portion. From past discussions and investigations of other units in the TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL, REGUU'' MEETING February 19, 1980 Page 6 PETITIONS, COMMUNICATIONS, APPEALS AND SIMILAR MATTERS - Cont. Waiver Request: C.M.B. Dev. Corp. (Cont.) Budget Transfer Motion #80 -4: Rockery Backfi l l Formal Motion No. 80 -2: Concerning acquisition of legal documents ORDINANCES Ordinance /1144 - Reduced water and sewer rates for senior citizens Ordinance #1145 - Establish revenue and appropriations for participation in a Community Alcohol Center Contract Proposed Ordinance - Approving & confirm- ing the assessment roll of LID #25 ( City, it was found not compatible with what Council felt the zoning structure should be. This is why he made the original motion to change the lower, usable portion to 24 units per acre. Councilman Bohrer said this was a compromise, in his own mind, because it leaves, unaddressed, some of the other problems. He hoped the applicant would do something with the other problems that have been identified. Councilman Harris said, after reviewing the Economic Analysis, by adding the additional 10 units the project should be economically feasible and make it a very nice project. Mr. Strasburger expressed his thanks for the time Council has spent on this project. They have shown much concern and knowledge of what was being discussed. Councilman Saul asked Attorney Hard if Council has completed voting on the preliminary waiver and was told yes. Councilman Bohrer commented that when Council was considering the criteria, it was based on 92 units. The final vote was the only one for 76 units. MOVED BY SAUL, SECONDED BY JOHANSON, THAT COUNCIL AUTHORIZE THE TRANSFER OF FUNDS FOR BUDGET TRANSFER MOTION NO. 80 -4. ($2,000 for rockery backfill) MOTION CARRIED. MOVED BY SAUL, SECONDED BY HARRIS, THAT COUNCIL APPROVE FORMAL MOTION NO. 80 -2 CONCERNING ACQUISITION OF LEGAL DOCUMENTS. MOTION CARRIED. MOVED BY SAUL, SECONDED BY JOHANSON, THAT THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE BE READ BY TITLE ONLY. MOTION CARRIED. City Attorney Hard read an ordinance of the City of Tukwila, Wash., amending Ordinance 914 and Tukwila Municipal Code 14.04.240 as well as ordinance 1007 and Tukwila Municipal Code 14.16.030 Item (1) in order to provide reduced water and sewer rates for senior citizens. MOVED BY SAUL, SECONDED BY JOHANSON, THAT ORDINANCE NO. 1144 BE ADOPTED AS READ. MOTION CARRIED. MOVED BY SAUL, SECONDED BY PHELPS, THAT THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE BE READ BY TITLE ONLY. MOTION CARRIED. City Attorney Hard read an ordinance amending the 1980 budget as adopted by ordinance number 1139 in order to establish revenue and appropriations for the city's participation in a community alcohol center contract. MOVED BY SAUL, SECONDED BY HILL, THAT ORDINANCE NO. 1145 BE ADOPTED AS READ. MOTION CARRIED. MOVED BY SAUL, SECONDED BY HARRIS, THAT THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE BE READ BY TITLE ONLY. MOTION CARRIED. City Attorney Hard read an ordinance approving and confirming the assessments and assessment roll of local improvement district No. 25 which has been created and established for the purpose of construction and installation of access street, sanitary sewer trunks, force mains and lift stations and water mains, all in accordance with city standards within an area lying east of Interurban Ave. and North of State Highway No. 405, all within the City of Tukwila as provided by Ord. No. 837, and levying & assessing the amount thereof against the several lots, tracts, parcels of land and other property shown on the roll, and amending Ordinance No. 1097. COUNCIL ACTION MEETING TYPE AGENDA ITEM, h GT 0•4 444s APPLICANT: MAILING ADDRESS: PRELIMINARY APPLICATION FORM CITY COUNCIL WAIVER CHECKLIST (Pursuant to Ordinance 1109) 1. Does the proposed action represent a unique condition? 2. Is the proposed action significant in Scale? 3. Has the applicant shown that no reasonable alternatives are available which would not require a waiver? PHONE: PROJECT LOCATION: DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: After having reviewed the application, and all other written materials in the City's files regarding this matter, and after having allowed the applicant to provide additional oral information concerning the application and after allow - ing for public comments at this regular meeting of the City Council, the City Council voted on the following criteria. CRITERIA TO BE VOTED ON: COUNCIL MOTION YES NO NA pass fai x fail) pass x. pass (fail) 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? ,k pass (fall) 5. Is the request for waiver consistent with the goals and policies of the comprehensive land use policy plan? pass ai 1„ Do the requirements of this waiver ordinance impose a special hardship to this site? 7. Would a grant of the waiver necessitate a major policy commitment prior to the adoption of the new zoning ordinance and map? X _ fail 1 pass T COUNCIL DECISION: After the review and vote on the above criteria, the Council makes the following determination: Preliminary waiver is approved as submitted. Preliminary waiver is approved subject to following conditions: Preliminary waiver is denied. Application for Preliminary Waiver incomplete. Refer back to applicant for additional information. Referred to Planning Commission for recommendation prior to granting or denying waiver request. DATED: COUNCIL PRESIDENT YES NO . NA pass fai COUNCIL ACTION MEEIIWG -TYPE DAIS AGEND, fl M mi n ¶ / Oh /cZ • • ' PRELIMINARY APPLICATION FORM CITY COUNCIL WAIVER CHECKLIST (Pursuant to Ordinance 1109) APPLICANT: CMB Development Corp. by Felix M. Campanella MAILING ADDRESS: 2900 Eastlake Avenue East, Suite 210, Seattle, Wa. 98102 PROJECT LOCATION: Fronting on Interurban Ave. between the extension of So. 139th DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: Construct condominium project of 92 units, 32 one - bedroom units and 60 two - bedroom units. After having reviewed the application, and all other written materials in the City's files regarding this matter, and after having allowed the applicant to provide additional oral information concerning the application and after allow- ing for public comments at this regular meeting of the City Council, the City Council voted on the following criteria. CRITERIA TO BE VOTED ON: 1. Does the proposed action represent a unique condition? 2. Is the proposed action significant in scale? 3. Has the applicant shown that no reasonable alternatives are available which would not require a waiver? 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? PHONE: 325 -2210 COUNCIL MOTION YES NO NA 7 pass (fail) fail} pass (pass) (fail) 5 2 (pass) (fail) 5. Is the request for waiver consistent with the goals and policies of the comprehensive land use policy plan? 4 3 pass (fail) • 7. Would a grant of the waiver necessitate a major policy commitment prior to the adoption of the new zoning ordinance and map? YES NO 6. Do the requirements of this waiver ordinance impose a special hardship to this site? • 6 1 (pass) (fail) 5 2 nail_ �passf COUNCIL DECISION: After the review and vote on the above criteria, the Council makes the following determination: Preliminary waiver is approved as submitted. x Preliminary waiver is approved subject to following conditions: Confirm the arrangement on the upper portion of the site but restrict the development on the lower site to a maximum of 48 units in no more than 4 buildings and the units to be essentially the size and configuration of the ones proposed in the application. Preliminary waiver is denied. Application for Preliminary Waiver incomplete. Refer back to applicant for additional information. Referred to Planning Commission for recommendation prior to granting or denying waiver request. CITY OF TUITILA APPLICATION FOR WAIVER FROM THE PROVISIONS OF ORDINANCE N0. 1109 (Please type or print) Permit applied for requiring a waiver: Building Permit for Construction Date of Application: .9 November 1979 Name of Applicant: CMB Development Corp., By Felix M. Campanella Mailing Address: 2900 - Eastlake Avenue East Suite 210 City: Seattle Zip: 98102 Phone: 325 - 2210 Ownership Interest in Property: owner Legal Description of Property Affected: See attached (Sheets, number 1, la, lb) General Location of Property: Fronting on Interurban Avenue between the extension of South 139th Street and South 137th Street and extending westerly to 56th Avenue South. (See Map) 1. State specifically the action in Ordinance No. 1109 to which you are request- ing a waiver: Development of the property in accordance with submitted . ro•osal for buildin•s and -rad' 2. Briefly and generally describe the action you are proposing, including demen- sional information about the development: See attached (Sheet number 2) 3. Does your proposal represent a unique condition which is insignificant in scale? If so, please explain: See attached (Sheet number 3) • 4. Are other reasonaV cvelopment alternatives avat He which would not require a waiver? If so wh c are these alternatives? • See attached (Sheet .Number 4) 5. 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, what mitigat- ing measures are provided? 6. What goals and policies canyouu identify which would support your request for waiver, if any? • 7. In your opinion, do the requirements of Ordinance #1109 impose a special hard- ship to a site which a waiver of the provisions would not necessitate a major policy commitment prior to the adoption of the Zoning Ordinance and Map? See attached (Sheet Number 7) OWNER'S SIGNATUR : See attached (Sheet Number 5) See attached (Sheet Number 6) Fel' . Campanella BELOW THIS LINE IS TO BE FILLED IN BY THE CITY: Date application is complete and accepted for filing: Date SEPA review complete: -2- SHEET NUMBER 2 The proposed action is to construct a condominium project of 92 units, containing 32 one - bedroom units and 60 two - bedroom units. Of the 60 two - bedroom units, 28 are in the four -plex configuration and situated on that portion of the property . fronting on 56th Avenue South. Each four -plex building has an overall dimension of 36 feet by 67 feet. (See plans and elevations) Each of the four buildings on the lower portion of the property fronting on Interurban Avenue has an overall dimension of 144 feet by 40 feet. The property extends approximately 958 feet along Interurban and 500 feet along 56th Avenue South. The depth of the property is approximately 280 feet. Total area of the property is 198,110 square feet. . Lot Coverage - see attached table PROJECT STATISTICS TABLE Area of Property 198,110 s.f. Number of Buildings 12 Number of Dwelling Units 92 Foot Print of Total 41,923 s.f. Building Area (21.09% of site) Paved Area (not including paved area directly under building) 54,526 s.f. (27.42% of site) Paved Area and Building 96,449 s.f. "Footprint" (48.51% of site) Open Space and 101,675 s.f. Recreational area (51.49% of site) SHEET NUMBER 3 The proposed project is not unique inasmuch as it is a multiple housing development permitted on this site. The scale of the development is significant because it involves 4.55 acres. The design of the project is extremely sensitive to scale and we believe we have significantly responded to this concern by dividing the project into four -plex types of buildings and buildings containing no more than 16 units each. This planning appnach makes it possible to place each structure at an optimum elevation and minimizing site grading. The project's design objectives is to relate each building to human dimension and the total project to the site and surrounding environment to achieve the best results for all. In order to better achieve this objective, the Developers retained a certified surveyor (Gardner Engineers) to stake the location of the lower buildings on the site. (See photos). The visibility of the building locations on the site supports the design criteria established for the project and the findings of the soils investigations. SHEET NUMBER4 Our design team has earnestly sought to design the project without the need for waiver. The Council was made aware of our desire to accomplish this at the council meeting of 18 June 1979. Subsequent to that meeting, we met with Mr. Satterstrom and Mr. Stoknes to discuss all the design options available to us. We studied and re- studied the position of the buildings on the site; we have staked out the building locations physically on the site and we have developed alternative site plans. The request for waiver herein submitted has reduced the . size of the project by 14 units in our effort to cooperate to the fullest with the planning objectives of the City of Tukwila. SHEET NUMBER 5 We believe that the following mitigating measures are provided with this design. 1. More than 60% of all required parking is covered by building structures. 2. All possible existing trees, significant and non - significant will be retained. New landscaping construction will supple- ment existing vegetation. 3. Lot coverage is below code requirements and the open space requirements exceeds the code by more than 100% 4. The building structure . reinforces the site topography rendering the entire building area more suitable. 5. Design of project follows contours of the terrain. 6. Project design consisting of smaller buildings retains low scale residential character. SHEET NUMBER 6 l • 6. Referring to the City of Tukwila Comprehensive Land Use Policy Plan, we believe the following goals and policies to be supportive of the building design for which a waiver is hereby applied. A. NATURAL ENVIRONMENT Objective #1 Policy 1. Project maintains existing natural vegetation. Policy 2. Project provides for construction and development of landscaping utilizing live vegetation. Policy 3. . - The project does not intend to disrupt any more of the natural vegetation than is absolutely necessary for the construction of the buildings. Objective #3 Policy 2. The project takes maximum care to provide and protect the view of hillside residents. Policy 3. Project takes care to preserve the quality of natural land forms. Policy 4. Earth moving will take place only in those areas absolutely required to facilitate construction of the project. Objective #6 Policy 1. Qualified earth engineering consultants will be retained throughout the design and construction of this project. B. OPEN SPACE Objective #1 2 Policy 1. Project site will be replanted as required in accordance with acceptable landscape plan. Policy 3. Recreation areas and open space will be provided on -site for use by the residents,in.amount equal to twice code requirements. Policy 4. Lot coverage of this project is 26% which allows open space for other passive recreation. SHEET NUMBER 6 C. RESIDENCE Objective #1 cont i ( d Policy 1. We believe that the design of the project does utilize the topography of the terrain to establish separation between land usages. We believe that the use of the hillside does serve as a buffer between the commercial usage to the east of Interurban to the residential usage to the hillside and plateaus west of Interurban. We also believe that the utilization of the hillside does provide for the maximum livability for each of the complex residents. Policy 4. More than 80% of the automobiles required for this project gain access to the site from Interurban Avenue. 18% of the vehicles to the site, gain access from 56th Avenue South. We believe it is important to bring'the major traffic flow to the project from a major established arterial. Objective #2 Policy 1. We believe this project does provide the transitional land use between commer- cial and residential usage. 'olicy 2. ' As stated above in Objective 1, Policy 4, we do not encourage traffic for this project to pass through single- family residential area. It should be noted here that the property immediately to the west of 56th Avenue South is likewise used for multi - family residences. -* Objective #3 Policy 1. Vegetation screens and earth berms between Interurban and the project site will be provided as a part of the landscape plan. Please see site section and elevation included in the accompanying drawings. Policy 3. All utilities for the project will be undergrounded. Policy 5. Parking will be provided as required by the City of Tukwila Building Code and Ordinances. Objective #4 Policy 1. This project encourages the feeling of unity and friendship among all of the residences by providing indoor and outdoor recreational area, open court area, other open spaces and community recreational facilities. Policy 3. Adequate lighting will be provided in all areas of the project including parking lots, walkways, courtyards and recreational areas. SHEET NUMBER 7 We believe the requirement of Ordinance No. 1109 does impose special hardship on this site due to the need to develop the . property in an economic and attractive manner. We believe the design of this project is sensitive to the needs and objectives of the City of Tukwila to create residential areas which are desirable, attractive, and most important of all, consistent with good living standards. The design team assigned to this project has tried very hard to accomplish exactly that. We believe the land utilization factor is extremely efficient and that the end result will be an attractive residential project articulated in such a manner as to create( good liveability, good efficiency and most important of all a product of which both the City of Tukwila and the Developers can well be proud of. Order No. 406280 - Sheet Number'.1 EXHIBIT "I" That portion of the Stephen Foster Donation Claim No. 38, Township 23 North, Range 4 East, W.M., in King County, Washington, described as follows: Beginning at the intersection of the Westerly line of the Puget Sound Electric Railway with the South line of said Donation Land Claim; thence along said Westerly line North 45 ° 00'00" West 561 feet, more or less, to a point 397 feet Southerly from its intersection with the Southerly line of an 18 foot lane (now known as South 137th Street); thence South 65 ° 00'00" West 211 feet, more or less, to a point which is 128 feet North 65 ° 00'00" East from the Easterly margin of Lemon Road (56th Avenue South) as established March 9, 1906; thence South 45 ° 49'00" East 85 feet; thence South 65 ° 00'00" West 128 feet to a point on said road margin which is South 45 ° 49'00" East 541.25 feet from the Southerly margin of said 18 foot roadway; thence along said Lemon Road (56th Avenue South) South 45 ° 49'00" East 273.53 feet, more or less, to the South line of said Donation Land Claim; thence East along the South line of said tract 444.50 feet, more or less, to the point of beginning; EXCEPT the Easterly 60 feet in width heretofore conveyed to King County for road. Order No. 411432 PARCEL A PARCEL B PARCEL C Sheet Number la EXHIBIT "I" A tract of land in that portion of the Stephen Foster Donation Claim No. 38, in Section 14, Township 23 North, Range 4 East, Willamette Meridian, in King County, Washington, described as follows: Beginning at the intersection of the southerly line of South 137th Street (formerly Lemon Road) produced north 74 ° 04' east and the north- easterly line of 56th Avenue South (formerly Lemon Road), which point is described as the point of beginning in that certain correction deed dated December 26, 1903, and recorded January 22, 1904, in Volume 362 of Deeds, page 625, records of the Auditor of King County, State of Washington; thence south 45 ° 49' east along said northeasterly line of 56th Avenue South 275 feet to the true point of beginning; thence north 74 ° 04' east 125 feet; thence south 45 ° 49' east 162.435 feet; thence south 65 ° 58'45" west 115.96 feet; thence north 45 ° 49' west 181.25 feet to the true point of beginning, in King County, Washington. A tract of land in that portion of the Stephen Foster Donation Claim No. 38, in Section 14, Township 23 North, Range 4 East, Willamette Meridian, in King County, Washington, described as follows: Beginning at the intersection of the southerly line of South 137th Street (formerly Lemon Road) produced north 74 ° 04' east and the north- easterly line of 56th Avenue South (formerly Lemon Road) which point is described as the point of beginning in that certain correction deed, dated December 26, 1903, and recorded January 22, 1904, in Volume 362 of Deeds, Page 625, records of the Auditor of King County, State of Washington; thence north 74 ° 04' east along said southerly line of South 137th Street (formerly Lemon Road) produced 125 feet to the true point of beginnining; thence continuing north 74 ° 04' east 180.204 feet, to the southwesterly line of Interurban Avenue South, a State Highway; thence south 44 ° 51' east along said southwesterly line 407.32 feet; thence south 65 ° 58'45" west 161.64 feet; thence north 45 ° 49' west 437.44 feet to the true point of beginning. An udivided one half interest in a private access or lane, 15.76 feet in width, bordering on the northerly side of said tract, and described as follows: (Continued) Order No. 411432 Exhibit "I" Continued Sheet number la continued Beginning at the intersection of the southerly line of South 137th Street (formerly Lemon Road (produced and the northeasterly line of 56th. Avenue South (formerly Lemon Road); thence north 74 ° 04' east along said southerly line produced, 305.204 feet, to the southwesterly line of Interurban Avenue South, a State Highway; thence north 44 ° 51' west, along said southwesterly line 18 feet; thence south 74 ° 04' west 305.56 feet to the northeasterly line of 56th Avenue South (formerly Lemon Road); thence south 45 ° 49' east along said northeasterly line 18.18 feet to the point of beginning. Order No. 411455 Sheet number lb EXHIBIT "I" That portion of the Donation Land Claim of Stephen Foster, designated as Claim No. 38, being parts of Sections 14 and 15 in Township 23 North, Range 4 East, W.M., in King County, Washington, described as follows; Beginning at the intersection of the South line of said Donation Claim No. 38 with the Easterly line of Lemon Road, which point is 926.45 feet South and 1,499.40 feet East of the West quarter corner of Section'14 of said Township and Range; thence Northwesterly along said road line, 365 feet, more or less, to a point which is South 45 ° 49' East 456.25 feet from the South line of an 18 foot lane known as East Avenue and the true point of beginning of the Tract herein described; thence South 45 ° 49' East, along the Easterly line of said Lemon Road, 85 . feet; thence North 65 East 128 feet; thence North 45 ° 49' West 85 feet; thence South 65 West 128 feet to the true point of beginning. T •X I CISOZZ. 7N1/111144Z11 IWNINVIYMItiktv 1.e/V3 '3/Y 9;nilleArg 261a, 1 0311,1 WI.LiY ;341) Ne2i91YAVY11/011. 44(11Nlwall 0.14.211 6COAVV430 • _ CR035 OCCTION 3ITG -13*—• i& p r4 ic G IzApe" 3 �t'ff1 1r� S1 N L4 • .1:4.x.. • = i• = • ,. .' -.4 wd• �aaY A•.1 ?N - 'S'!41 .JJ_ - IdOLL?.► 64011 .• - J - 59d.i - 'W717J 14OIJYA91T1Ma7 • r .r ` 1 +,� v � Oserio t a1M oft A1J aft ( L••,1'L'L'1 1149' • -i' IA f • C ON $,lv. 11) • S.'+X31.1-irod - 701d)1. — ,- vfi Lw3 Sl i!tir J ,r. • • Li H T LLLI rrn ■ani Slim Mint ( rill 1 UR Min MOM 1W LIJ 1 Mil 1 V IC - CjK1' G1.NATILT4 - pIJILOHG' /I - flfl AI- warn r.t.tvi - DUt.a-+3G u E..1 CI_J t uJ ©I 11 \ NORM q C�//1T10N��tJ�LQSR_`�'IZ ..._ ...� -.. 1 '! 11: