Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPermit 77-62-W - MORA ENRIQUE - TUKWILA ESTATES WAIVER77-62-W SOUTH 152ND STREET EAST OF MACADAM MORA ENRIQUE WAIVER TUKWILA ESTATES PLANNING PARKS 8 RECREATI011 BUILDING 23 February 1978 CITY of TUKWILA OFFICE of COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Enrique Mora S & M Investment 19800 Pacific Highway South Seattle, Washington 98138 RE: Waiver request to Ordinance #1035 for Tracts 37 and 38, Brookvale Garden Tracts. Dear Mr. Mora: This letter is to inform you that the City Council formally denied your waiver request under Ordinance #1035 at their last regular meeting of February 21, 1973. As you will also recall from the meeting, the Mayor declared a moritorium on any further building on that space until such time as the contract is let for the construction of a new street. His reason being to protect the health and safety of the present residencesin the area. This position was supported by the City Council. Very truly yours, 11 Stoknes, Director Office of Community Development KS /ch cc: Fre d Satterstrom 77 -62 -W. MF- 77 -63 -W 6230 Southcentor Boulevard ■ Tukwila, Washington 98188 ■ (206) 242 -2177 February 21, 1978 7:00 P.M. . FLAG SALUTE AND CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL OF• COUNCIL MEMBERS OFFICIALS IN ATTENDANCE MINUTE APPROVAL VOUCHER APPROVAL TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING Tukwila City Hall M I N U T E S Council Chambers Mayor Bauch, presiding, led the Pledge of Allegiance and called the Regular Meeting of the Tukwila City Council to order. LIONEL C. BOHRER, MABEL J. HARRIS, GEORGE D. HILL, J. REID JOHANSON, DANIEL J. SAUL, DWAYNE D. TRAYNOR, GARY L. VAN DUSEN, Council President. LAWRENCE HARD, Deputy City Attorney; TERENCE R. MONAGHAN, Public Works Director; KJELL STOKMES, OCD Director; MAXINE ANDERSON, City Clerk. MOVED BY VAN DUSEN, SECONDED BY TRAYNOR, THAT THE MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF FEBRUARY 6, 1978, BE APPROVED AS PUBLISHED. MOTION CARRIED. MOVED BY VAN DUSEN, SECONDED BY TRAYNOR, THAT THE VOUCHERS BE ACCEPTED AND WARRANTS BE DRAWN IN THEIR RESPECTIVE AMOUNTS. MOTION CARRIED. Current Fund Street Fund Fed. Shared Revenue City Hall Constr. Water Fund Sewer Fund Vouchers No. 5079 - 5203 5079 - 5168, 5171 5169 - 5181 5182 - 5183 5184 - 5188 5189 - 5195 5196 - 5203 PETITIONS, COMMUNICATIONS, APPEALS, AND SIMILAR MATTERS Letter from Mayor Bauch concerning Moratorium on issuance of Building Permits- LID #28 10// Waiver to Res. #1035 - E. Mora for 30 -unit and 90 unit condominums $ 24,997.68 3,250.25 689.32. 177,518.48 6,272.50 9,666.24 $222,394.47 Letter from Mayor Bauch to Mr. Kjell Stoknes, OCD Director, was read for the record. Mayor Bauch states that he is putting a moratorium on the issuance of building permits in the area to be served by LID #28. The moratorium is required to protect the health and safety of the residents of the present buildings that are served by the streets in this area. This moratorium will remain in effect until a contract is let to construct the improvements under LID #28. MOVED BY VAN DUSEN, SECONDED BY HILL, THAT COUNCIL ACCEPT THE MAYOR'S LETTER AND CONCUR WITH ITS CONTENT. * Councilman Hill asked Attorney Hard for a progress report on the court proceedings for LID #28. Attorney Hard reported that on February 8, 1978, the hearing was held before the.Court of Appeals and now, the Court has this case under advisement. They will decide whether the City has jurisdiction to proceed with the LID. This is important, if the City loses, there is no jurisdiction to proceed and the City will have to start over to form another LID. * MOTION CARRIED. MOVED BY VAN DUSEN, SECONDED BY HILL, THAT COUNCIL DENY THE REQUESTS FOR WAIVER FROM RESOLUTION #1035 BECAUSE THEY DO NOT FOLLOW THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION. * Councilman Hill explained that he seconded the motion because he feels there is nothing Council can do•until the legal issue on the LID is settled. The last development shouldn't have been allowed until there were adequate streets in the area. Mr. E. Mora, applicant, stated that the Mayor's move in imposing a moratorium should not be an issue for denial or approval of the - requested waiver. We are requesting a waiver to a resolution that has nothing to do with an LID. * MOTION CARRIED WITH SAUL VOTING NO. CITY of TUKWILA OFFICE of COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 1 February 197$ M E M O R A N D U M To: Ctt Council From: F N. Satterstrom, Associate Planner Subject: E. Mora Waiver (90 -unit Condominium Complex) - Planning Commission Recommendation of Density The Planning Commission considered the Ordinance # #1035 waiver application of E. Mora to construct a 90 -unit condominium complex at their regular January meeting. Based on the findings and conclusions of the attached staff report, the Planning Commission recommended that a maximum of 60 units be allowed on the site. Furthermore, it was recommended that the medium- density transition area be firmly established on the eastern one -half of the property by the construction of duplexes, triplexes, and fourplexes, bulk (and height) of structures diminishing as the east property line is approached. FNS(us) cc: MF- 77-62 -W File 4a-vt„;.(J Joy [c 6230 Southcenter Boulevard • Tukwila, Washington 98188 1111 (206)•242 -2177 Planning Commission Minutes Page 5 26 January 1978 6. Property owner agree to equitably participate in street improvement method as may be established by the City and agree to revise access and on -site improvements as may be necessary as a consequence of street improvement design. Such agreements shall be certified in writing to the satisfaction of the City Attorney prior to issuance,of the Building Permit. Chairman Kirsop declared a short recess at 10:10 P.M. Chairman Kirsop reconvened the meeting at 10:20 P.M. NEW BUSINESS: Recommendation of Density: 90 Condominiums @ South 152nd (Mora) Mr. Satterstrom read Staff Report and explained drawings. Mr. Enrique Mora, applicant, noted the location of the low, medium and high density residential areas on the Comprehensive Plan map are somewhat debatable and actual placement of those lines severely impact the density. Cost of land demands higher density. Compared the proposed density (30 /acre) to King County's RM -1800 in con- trast to Tukwila's R -4 zone (43 /acre) and King County's RM -900 (48 /acre). Commission discussed exterior treatment, cost of units and site design in general. Mr. Satterstrom noted the Staff Report depicts a very close estimate of the Compre- hensive Plan designations. Commission discussed building heights and relationship of views to other buildings in the vicinity. Mr. Mora suggested this proposal be granted but the 30 -unit proposal to the north could provide the transition in bulk and density. Motion by Mr. Richards and seconded by Mr. Bowen to recommend the City Council authorize a maximum of 60 units on the site; further, that the medium density • transition area be firmly established on the eastern one -half of the property by the construction of duplexes, triplexes and fourplexes, bulk and height diminishing as the east property line is approached. Motion carried with Mr. Sowinski voting NO. Mr. Mora asked if the development could be concentrated on the westerly portion of the site. Mr. Richards noted his intention was to reduce the number on the westerly portion to allow transition toward the east property line. 'OMMendation of Density: 30 Condominiums @ South 152nd (Mora) Mr. Satterstrom read the Staff Report and explained drawings of the proposed development. Motion by Mr. Richards, seconded by Mr. Sowinski and carried to recommend the City Council authorize a maximum of 20 units on the site and that the maximum . CITY COUNCIL CITY OF TUKWILA PLANNING DIVISION BRIEF ACTION: WAIVER from Ordinance 1035 (Section 3.1, 3.2) DATE: 27 December 1977 APPLICANT: Enrique Mora (S & M Investment) PROPOSAL: 90 -Unit Condominium Development LOCATION: Tracts 37 & 38, Brookvale Garden Tracts (Graydon Smith property) PROPERTY SIZE: 3.0 acres ZONING: R -4 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Low - density, Medium - density, High- density Residential REASON FOR WAIVER: The Comprehensive Land Use Plan Map designates the subject property for some low - density, medium - density, and high- density residential use, (SEE, Comprehensive Land Use Plan Map). The attached site map, Exhibit B, shows the generalized boundaries of the low, medium, and high- density areas as they cross the subject property. Because the proposed project represents a totally high- density resi- dential action, the project requires a waiver from Section 3.1 Ordinance 1035. In addition, the subject property also generally falls within an area designated on the Environmental Basemap as an area of high natural amenity and /or development constraint. Review of the Environmental Basemap overlays indicates that the factor . in this case is "wooded areas ", or an area of high natural amenity. Therefore, the proposed project requires a waiver from Section 3.2 of Ordinance 1035 as well. RECOMMENDATION: The City Council has several alternative courses of action in this case: 1. The City Council may analyze the waiver application at this time using the five review criteria outlined in Ordinance 1035 (SEE, Exhibit C) and either grant, deny, or condition the waiver application. 2. The City Council may refer the matter to the Planning Commission for a density determination, as in the case of the Schneider apartment application. 3. Or, the City Council may refer the matter back to the planning staff for a full staff report and recommendation. E. Mora (Condominit►:..e — 30 and 90 units) Waiver Applications /Ordinance 1035 Chronology of Events: 22 November 1977 Waiver applications submitted to PD for one 30- unit and one 90 -unit condominium complex. 23 November 1977 Planning Division notified applicant that waiver applications were not complete. Needed separate drawings for each waiver request. SEPA to be applicable on only 30 -unit proposal. Notified applicant that no building permit had been applied for on either project. 30 November 1977 Applicant resubmitted waiver applications (unsigned) as well as environmental questionnaire for 30 -unit project. Applied for building permits on this day. 1 December 1977 Acknowledgment sent from PD to applicant stating the understanding between City and applicant that two waivers be processed together. 6 December 1977 Letter from PD to applicant informing him that wai- vers were not signed and to drop by to sign them. 8 December 1977 Applicant dropped by with signed, original applica- tions. Waiver application considered complete on this day. 14 December 1977 Memo from Fred to Kjell asking for concurrence on exemption of total project from SEPA due to 1974 negative declaration. Kjell concurred. 16 December 1977 Applicant notified of SEPA exemption, and that waivers would be tentatively placed on 27 December 1977 Council agenda. 21 December 1977 Staff Brief forwarded to City Clerk's office for placement on 27 December 1977 agenda of Committee - of- the - Whole. CITY OF TUKWILA PLANNING DIVISION PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT 26 January 1978 8:00 P.M. AGENDA ITEM VIII A: Recommendation of Density: 90 Condominiums @ S. 152nd (Mora) , S & M Investments (E. Mora, applicant) applied for a building permit on 30 November 1977 to construct a 90 -unit condominium complex. It was determined by the Planning Division that the proposed condominium development required a waiver from Section 3.1 and 3.2 of Ordinance #1035. The Comprehensive Land Use Plan map designates the subject property for some low density, medium - density, and high- density residential use. The attached site plan map, Exhibit B, shows the generalized boundaries of the low, medium, and high - density areas as they cross the subject property. Because the proposed project represents an entirely high- density residential action, the project requires a waiver from Section 3.1 of Ordinance #1035. In addition, the subject property generally falls within an area designated on the Environmental Basemap as an area of high natural amenity and /or development constrain Review of the Environmental Basemap overlays indicates that the factor in this case is "wooded areas" (or, an area of high natural amenity). Therefore, the proposed project requires a waiver from Section 3.2 of Ordinance #1035. On 27 December 1977, the City Council referred this matter to the Planning Commis -' sion for a "density recommendation." FINDINGS: 1. The subject property is located in Block 37 of Brookvale Garden Tracts, (SEE, Exhibit A). This property is also known as the Graydon Smith property and is located at the end of South 152nd Street just east of the Hampton Heights Apartments. 2. The size of the site is approximately three (3) acres. 3. According to drawings submitted with the waiver application, South 152nd Street is proposed to be extended through the property with a cul -de -sac turn - around. 4. Presently, South 152nd Street is unimproved with a substandard right -of -way width .5. An L.I.D. has been formed for the improvement of South 152nd Street but legal problems have delayed the actual improvement of the street. 6. Zoning on the subject property is R -4, Low Apartments. 7. Ninety (90) condominium units are proposed in two 3 -story structures to be situated as shown in Exhibit B. 135 parking stalls are proposed. Planning Commission Page 2 Staff Report 26 January 1978 8. Physiographically, the site is comprised of a broad knoll which rises from the west (elevation approximately 185') and peaks on the east (elevation approximately 240'). 9. Average slope gradients on the site range from about 13 percent to 15 percent.. 10. Geologically, the site is underlain by bedrock, probably mostly basalt. This type of rock is stable in steep cuts. Overlying the bedrock is a layer of soil, probably composed of glacial till material and weathered basalt. 11. The site is covered primarily by brush with a few second - growth fir, willow, and cottonwood. 12. The proposed 90 -unit condominium complex was interpreted by the Planning Division staff to be within the scope of the 1974 environmental assessment for Hampton Heights for which a negative declaration was issued by the City. Therefore, the proposed development was exempted from further SEPA.review, (SEE, Exhibit C). 13. Boundaries of the low- density, medium - density, and high- density residential designations all cross the subject site, (SEE, Exhibit B for the generalized . pattern of these boundaries.) Low - density allows up to a maximum of 5 units per acre in single -unit structures. Medium - density allows up to a maximum of 16 units per acre in duplexes, triplexes, or fourplexes. High density allows 17+ units per acre in apartment -type structures. 14. According to the Comprehensive Land Use Plan map, approximately 1.0 acre is designated high - density, 1.5 acres medium - density, and 0.5 acre low-density, residential. 15. The subject site is located along the "transition area" between apartments and single - family residential development. This circumstance is borne out by the medium - density designation which splits the property. 16. Pertinent policies in the Comprehensive Land Use Policy Plan are as follows: RESIDENCE ELEMENT Objective 2, Policy 1 Objective 1, Policy 2 "Provide for medium - density 'transition' areas between high and low- density residential areas." "Encourage the development of owner - occupied multiple - family residential units." 17. Gross densities of surrounding apartment developments are as follows: La Vista Apartments — 35.6 units /acre; Tukwila Apartments — 26.8 units /acre; and Hampton Heights -- 22.4 units /acre. 18. The adjacent property to the east is undeveloped forestland. It is designated low- density residential on the Comprehensive Land Use Plan map. (1, . Planning Commission Page 3 Staff Report 26 January 1978 CONCLUSIONS: 1. The 90 -unit condominium proposal is consistent with the current R -4 zoning of the property. 2. The proposed action represents a.gross density of 30 units per acre (90 units on 3 acres). This gross density is somewhat higher than the Hampton Heights (22.4) and the Tukwila (26.8), the two closest apartment developments. The fact that the subject site is located along the "transition area" between the . low and high- density designated areas underscores the importance of limiting density on this site. 3. Based on Finding #14 above, the following formula for maximum allowable units applies: DESIGNATION A. MAXIMUM UNITS B. AREA C. TOTAL UNITS PER ALLOWED DESIGNATED DESIGNATION (A x B = C) Low - density Medium - density High- density 5 0.5 acre 2.5 16 1.5 acre 24 26* 1.0 acre 26 Total Units Allowed per Comp Plan Map: 52.5 *26 units maximum is used here for high- density residential on the basis that this is the approximate average density of apartment complexes in Tukwila. This figure was computed by dividing the total number of multiple- family units in the City.(1019 - 1975 datum) by the total number of acres used for multiple- family development (40.1 acres -- 1975 datum), SEE, "Data Inventory ". 4. The establishment of a transition in bulk and density on this site is crucial to the low- density (single - family) designation on adjacent lands to the east. The transition should be established on this site to prevent the "creep" of apartments into the adjoining area. 5. The 48 -unit structure located approximately in the area of the medium - density designation is inconsistent with that designation. It meets neither the den- sity nor the bulk limitations of the medium - density designation. 6. While the 42 -unit structure located in the designated high- density area meets . the bulk limitation of that designation, it seems to exceed the density limi- tation. RECOMMENDATION: Based on the findings and conclusions of this .report, staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council that a maximum of 53 units be allowed on the site. It is further recommended that the medium- density transition area be firmly established on the eastern one -half of the property by the construc- tion of duplexes, triplexes, and fourplexes, bulk diminishing as the east property line is approached. • 1 Mar 111 CITY OF TUKWILA EXHIBIT A SITE OF WAIVER APPLICATION E. MORA 90 —UNIT CONDOMINIUM t _J S 11 N fl 06 V 1 1 M m fl 1 • 0 1r YON • 1n01•1.7 YI[n• A O _ -- ct...•11• V �� •pIp• •Tlttv]C C$ 'AMN 31117V• 00861 + � � •�. '� S 1 N 3 W 1 S 3 A, N I W S �'i , to I z w 0 1 o h • cs . 11 City ofTukwila Fire Department Edgar D. Bauch Mayor Hubert H. Crawley Fire Chief Kjell Stoknes, Director Office of Community Development City of Tukwila Dear Kjell: January' -3;- ,:1978, 0.C.`�. C :r f CF 'JAS 3 1978 In regard to the proposed development by Mr.Mora concerning condominiums in the vicinity of 152nd. St. and 57th. Avenue South, the Planning Commission and Building Department should not allow any further building permits to be issued until at least a second means of egress is furnished to that locat'on. At the present time we have approximately one third of the entire population of the City living up a dead end street which could be totally closed off by heavy frost. This not only endangers safety and welfare of these people who live in this vicinity, but also any people who deliver any type of supplies emergency or otherwise to that area. The problem has been further compounded by two apartment complexes being built on both sides of South 152nd Street and Macadam Road. As mentioned before, I have requested . that parking require- ments be upgraded and so far no action has been taken to do this. I feel that parking that has been set aside in both these apartment complexes is totally inadequate for todays modern family with at least two cars, boat trailers, recreation vehicles, etc. This will mean that from past experience, people from these complexes will be parking on the right of way of South 152nd Street. I still have failed to see where the OCD has acted on the parking requirement within the City which helps this. It does not take somebody educated in methods of planning to see that the parking requirements applied to apartment buildings and independent complexes within the City of Tukwila is totally inadequate and unequally distributed. Again I would like to see that no further development be allowed in the vicinity of Hampton Heights, Tukwilas and the LaVista Apartments until at least a second means of egress from the areas has been provided. Yours very truly, T?' ret 11 HHC:vma Hubert H. Crawley • cc:TFD, Al PieperV Fire Chief . Mayor Bauf�h City of.Tukwila [ Fire Department, 444 Andover Park East, Tukwila, Washington 98188 (206) 575 -4404 olATIING RECFE.T'tOti ) 30ILDING Cc TUKW LA OFFICE of COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 14 December 1977 TO: Kje oknes, Responsible Official FROM: Fre . Satterstrom, Associate Planner SUBJECT: En ronmental Review: Proposed Condominiums (S M Investments) As you know, S & M Investments are currently proposing 120 condominium units (90 and 30 units) on the Graydon Smith property, specifically Tracts 37 & 38, Brookvale garden Tracts. The total size of the subject site is about five (5) acres. Pursuant to your suggestion, S & M Investments has broken its proposal into two parts: 1) a 90 -unit proposal on the south three acres, and 2) a 30 -unit complex on the north two acres. They have applied for building permits for both proposals. An investigation of the record shows that Graydon Smith completed an environmental review, pursuant to SEPA in 1974, and obtained a declaration of nonsignificance from the City. The contemplated development was for approximately 200 multiple - family units on the total 10 acres. Site plans included in the file (EPIC- ND =13) indicate that apartment development was proposed on the knoll portion of the lot as well. Graydon Smith has since developed 112 units on approximately one -half of the property. Now, S & M Investments proposes to construct an additional 120 units, which would bring the total number of units on the 10 -acre parcel to 232. This number does not substantially differ from that originally proposed in Mr. Smith's initial application. I would ask that you concur with my interpretation that the development anticipated in the City's environmental review of 1974 is substantially the same as that which is now pro- posed, and that no further environmental review is required based on the City's issuance of a declaration of nonsignifi- cance in February 1974. Date /2/j5/7 Signature 6230 Southeenter Boulevard n Tukwila, Washington 90188 h (206) 242 -2177 S &M INVESTMENTS 19800 Pacific Highway South Seattle, Washington 98188 Telephone: 824 -1120 June 7, 1977 Mr. Kjell Stoknes Planning Director City of Tukwila 6230 Southcenter Blvd. Tukwila, WA 98188 Re: S & M Investments Permit Application at South 152nd Street Dear Mr. Stoknes: This letter is to confirm our understandings about our attempts to commence a new project on South 152nd Street. Enclosed with this letter you will . find a site plan which reflects a 53 unit complex including fourplexes for this property. This is our proposed project. It is our understanding that no waiver from Ordinance No. 1035 will be necessary to construct this project since it is our understanding that to construct the project we simply have to file a building permit application which conforms to the applicable b } lying code provisions. It would also we" be our understanding that reiaobtain a short plat to divide this tract of land from the land lying to the north of South 152nd Street.-and that- there - would- be-no- problem- -imr- th -is- -regard•: • We are aware that there is a moratorium on construction in this area but are hopeful that that moratorium will be lifted soon and would like to go ahead with our planning so that we are ready to construct when the moratorium is lifted. We would appreciate your confirmation of our understandings. Thank you for your help in this matter. Very truly yours, Enrito"ra artner ACCEPTANCE: Ci y of uki ila c1141 )4.4.,4, -S. (//12-17s • 7— Nv-i,d S 11 Nn( vii tANni 0 20411 $ 05 504 d 511015,101 $ 9t5 S 3 W purivs A1114 31.513Vd 00511 3 A N • -..-•••••■•• (7 CITY OF 7UKI!ILA APPLICATION FOR WAIVER FROM THE PROVISIONS OF ORDINANCE NO. 1035 (Please type or print) IrXHI131T D Permit applied for requiring a waiver: 90 Unit Condominium Development Date of Application: November 22, 1977. Name of Applicant: S & M INVESTMENTS. Mailing Address: 19800 Pacific Hwy. South. City: Seattle Zip: 98188 Phone: 824 - 1120 Ownership Interest in Property: Purchase under Real Estate contract. Legal Description of Property Affected: ( See attached ) General Location of Property: S. 152nd. Street, approx. 1000 ft. east of Macadam Road. 1. State specifically the action in Ordinance No. 1035 to which you are request- ing a waiver: Section 3 (1) 2. Briefly and generally describe the action you are proposing, including demen= sional information about the development: to build two buildings with a total of 90 units and a swimming pool. Site presently zoned R -4 approx. 124 units. 3. Does your proposal represent a unique condition which is insignificant in scale? If so, please explain: The proposed buildings blend in with the surrounding •apartment developments. 4 . Are other reasonab(.development alternatives avail ( 4 le.which would not require a waiver? If so, what are these alternatives? None. Land values are. too expensive to make alternatives feasible. 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? Not applicable. 6. What goals and policies can you identify which would support your request for waiver, if any? The land is presently zoned.. R4 (1000 sq. feet per family) which will allow for 124 units and we are requesting only 90 units. 7. In your opinion, do the requirements of Ordinance 111035 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? Yes. We feel that the proposed project would not differ substan- tially from the comprehensive plan and is much less than the underlying present zoning. OWNER'S SIGNATURE: BELOW TIIIS LINE IS TO BE PILLED IN BY TILE CITY: Date application is complete and accepted for filing: Apr Mutt Mitit 8 Dec. 14T? Date SEPA review complete: -2- CITY of 'TUKWILA OFFICE of COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 16 December 1977 Enrique Mora S & M Investments 19800 Pacific Highway South Seattle, Washington 98188 RE: CONDOMINIUM DEVELOPMENT: ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW (TRACTS 37 and 38, BROOKVALE GARDEN TRACTS, SEC. 23, T. 23 N., R. 4 E.) Dear Mr. Mora: This is to inform you that your proposal to build 120 condominium units on the abovedescribed property has already complied with SEPA by virtue of a 1974 environmental assessment (File No. EPIC- ND -13). This assessment was completed by Graydon Smith for a proposal of approximately 200 multiple - family units on the 10 -acre subject property. A declaration of nonsignificance was issued by the City in February, 1974. Your proposal to construct 120 on the east five acres of the site, com- bined with the existing 112 units on the west five acres equals a total of 232 units on the entire parcel. This'total number of units was inter- preted to be substantially within the scope of the original environmental assessment, and therefore, no further environmental review is necessary. Hence, I am returning your environmental questionnaire on the proposed 30 -unit complex, as well as the $50 fee for same. In addition, I am tentatively placing your waiver applications from Ordinance #1035 on the City Council's 27 December 1977 Committee -of- the -Whole agenda. If you have any questions or desire further information, please feel free to contact me. . Respectfully,, atterstrom Planning Supervisor FNS /ch • cc: OCD Director Enclosures 6230 Southcenter Boulevard ■ Tukwila, Washington 99188 or (206) 242 -2177 PLANNING PARKS & RECREATION BUILDING CITY of TUKWILA OFFICE of COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 14 December 1977 TO: Kje oknes, Responsible Official FROM: Fr . Satterstrom, Associate Planner SUBJECT: En ronmental Review: Proposed Condominiums (S M Investments) As you know, S & M Investments are currently proposing 120 condominium units (90 and 30 units) on the Graydon Smith property, specifically Tracts 37 & 38, Brookvale garden Tracts. The total size of the subject site is about five (5) acres. Pursuant to your suggestion, S & M Investments has broken its proposal into two parts: 1) a 90 -unit proposal on the south three acres, and 2) a 30 -unit complex on the north two acres. They have applied for building permits for both proposals. An investigation of the record shows that Graydon Smith completed an environmental review, pursuant to SEPA in 1974, and obtained a declaration of nonsignificance from the City. The contemplated development was for. approximately 200 multiple - family units on the total 10 acres. Site plans included in the file (EPIC- ND -13) indicate that apartment development was proposed on the knoll portion of the lot as well. Graydon Smith has since developed 112 units on approximately one -half of the property. Now, S & M Investments proposes to construct an additional 120 units, which would bring the total number of units on the 10 -acre parcel to 232. This number does not substantially differ from that originally proposed in Mr. Smith's initial application. I would ask that you concur with my interpretation that the development anticipated in the City's environmental review of 1974 is substantially the same as that which is now pro- posed, and that no further environmental review is required based on the City's issuance of a declaration of nonsignifi- cance in February 1974. Date /Z //$/7 7 Signature /1u({ S 6230 Southcanter Boulevard • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • (206) 292 -2177 PLAUN 1116 PARK; RECREATION BUILDING CITY of TUKW1LA OFFICE of COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT • 6 December 1977 Rubin Salant S &•M Investments 19800 Pacific Highway South Seattle, Washington 98188 RE: WAIVER APPLICATIONS FROM ORDINANCE 1035 Dear Mr. Salant: I am writing to you instead of Mr. Mora because I understand that he is out of town at this time. In reviewing your waiver applications for a 30-unit apartment complex and a 90 -unit apartment complex located here in Tukwila, I find that all waiver applications and the environmental questionnaire are not signed. In addi- tion, a portion of each waiver application is not filled out. The waiver applications and environmental questionnaire must be signed in order to be considered for filing. All waiver application questions must be answered as well. Please drop by this office at your earliest convenience to take care of this matter. ectful l r' d' t N. N ers 'e NA .trom P ed Planning Supervisor FNS /ch 6230 Southconter Boulevard • Tukwila, Washington 98188 a ,(206) 242-2177 PLANNING PARKS RECREA(ION BUILDING CITY of T U KW LA OFFICE of COMIv1UNITY DEVELOPMENT 1 December 1977 Enrique P. Mora S & M Investments 19800 Pacific Highway South Seattle, Washington 98188 Dear Mr. Mora: This office is in receipt of your applications for building permit for the two apartment complexes located on portions of blocks 37 and 38, Brookvale Garden Tracts. Both require waivers from Ordinance 1035. As you know from our conversations, the 30 -unit complex must undergo SEPA review. This office already has your environmental checklist and fee on file and we will begin to process it immediately. From our conversation of 30 November 1977, I understand that if the SEPA review on the 30 -unit proposal should prevent this waiver from being placed on the Council's 12 December 1977 agenda, that you desire the 90 -unit pro- posal to be delayed as well in order that both waivers will be considered at.the same time. If you feel otherwise, please notify this office as soon as possible. R ectful f e atterstrom y, Tanning Supervisor FNS /ch 6230 Southcenter Boulevard a Tukwila, Washington 98188 n (2061:242,-2177 MTV ©f TUK :LrA OFFICE of COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 23 November 1977 Enrique Mora S F M Investments 19800 Pacific Highway South Seattle, Washington 98188 RE: WAIVER. APPLICATIONS. FROM ORDINANCE 1035 (G. SMITH PROPERTY) • Dear Mr. Mora:. With regard to your intentions to file for waiver from Ordinance 1035 on the abovementioned property, I submit the following for your information: • 1. In order to consider the 90 -unit and 30 -unit apartment com- plexes as separate, this office requires separate waiver applications. 2. In addition, in order to consider the two proposals as separate, this office requires that the drawings submitted for each waiver request not show the property or buildings proposed under the • other waiver request. (That is, -. the drawings submitted for the 90 -unit apartment complex should not depict the land or the buildings being proposed for -the 30 -unit complex, and vice versa. 3. If the above is complied with, no environmental review would be.required.for the 90 -unit complex. SEPA compliance, however, • would apply to the 30 -unit request and an environmental check- list would be required. 4. All original drawings submitted for the waiver requests should be accompanied by a 81/2" x 11" or 81" x 14" reduction for inclu- sion in the staff report to the City Council. S.' Bear in mind that the waiver application for the 30 -unit propo- sal on the northern half of the property cannot be forwarded to the City Council until the application is complete, (SEE, Section 4 of Ordinance 1035). To be considered complete, SEPA review must he completed. Therefore, either a negative declaration or a•draft EIS must be available in order to forward this waiver request to the City Council. 6230 Southcenter Boulevard to Tuhivila, Washington 98188 a (206) ,292 -2177 ...-... Enrique Mora S M Investments Page 2 '-, .;,,‘,,•inhcr 1977 This office presently has on file your waiver application for the 90 -unit condominium on the south lot of the subject property. However, after checking with the Building Division, we have no application for building permit. Therefore, we will hold this waiver application in abeyance until a building permit applica- tion has been made. We also have your waiver application and environmental questionnaire for the 30-unit condouminium on the north -lot. This application is not considered complete because no building permit has been applied for and, hence, environmental review has not been completed. We will hold this waiver application in abeyance until abuilding per- mit is applied for. This letter is sent to you as clarification of the status of the two waiver requests which we have discussed verbally. Please let me know what your intentions are regarding the above matters. 1 /71-ittabraVIA Reec illy, red'N. Satterstrom Planning Supervisor FNS /ch. CITY OF _rUKI•!ILA APPLICATION FOR WAIVER FROM THE PROVISIONS OF ORDINANCE NO. 1035 (Please type or print) Permit applied for requiring a waiver: 90 Unit Condominium Development Date of Application: November 22, 1977. Name of Applicant: S & M INVESTMENTS. Mailing Address: 19800 Pacific Hwy. South. City: Seattle Zip: 98188 Phone: 824 - 1120 Ownership Interest in Property: Purchase under Real Estate contract. Leal Description of Property Affected: ( See attached ) General Location of Property: S. 152nd. Street, approx. 1000 ft. east of Macadam Road. 1. State specifically the action in Ordinance No. 1035 to which you are request- ing a waiver: Section 3 (1) 2. Briefly and generally describe the. action you are proposing, including demen- sional information about the development: to build two buildings with a total of 90 units and a swimming pool. Site presently zoned R -4 approx. 124 units. 3. Does your proposal represent a unique condition which is insignificant in scale? If so, please explain: The proposed buildings blend in with the surrounding apartment developments. 4. Are other reason development alternatives av ;ble.whi.ch would not require a waiver? If so,_i,'hat are these alternatives? NO. 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 can you identify which would support your request for waiver, if any? 7. In your opinion, do the requirements of Ordinance #1035 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? YES OWNER'S SIGNATURE: BELOSV THIS LINE IS TO BE FILLED IN BY THE CITY: Date application is complete and accepted for filing: Date SEPA review complete: -2- LEGAL DESCRIPTION Parcel C: Tracts 37 and 38, except the West 390 Feet therof, Brookvale Garden Tracts, according to the plat recorded in Volume 10 of Plats, Page 47, in King County, Washington: Also that portion of Section 23, Township 23 North, Range 4 East, W.M., in. King County, Washington, described as follows: Beginning at the Southeast corner of Tract 37, thence East to the West line of Interurban Addition to Seattle, according to the Plat recorded in Volume 10 of Plats, Page 55, in King County, Washington: thence Northerly along said West . line to the Easterly projection of the North line of Tract 38; Thence West to the Northeast corner of said Tract 38; Thence South along the east line of, said Tract•38 and said Tract 37 to the point of beginning. NEW RIGHT OF WAY FOR SOUTH 152nd STREET That portion of the following described property: Tracts 37 and 38, Brookvale Garden Tracts, as recorded in Volume 10 of Plats, page 47, records of King County, Washington; TOGETHER WITH the unplatted strip adjoining on the east. lying within a 50 foot strip of land the centerline of said 50 foot strip being described as follows: Beginning at the intersection of the centerline of South 152nd Street with the centerline of 57th Avenue South, from which point the centerline of 57th Avenue South bears due North; thence N 87°20' 00" E, 445.00 feet to a point of curvature; thence easterly along a 200 foot radius curve to-the left an arc distance of 108.21 feet to a point of reverse curvature; thence easterly along a 200 foot radius curve to the right an arc distance of 108.21 feet to a point of tangency; thence N 870 20' 00" E, 103.90 feet to the west line of Interurban Addition to Seattle, as recorded in Volume 10 of Plats, page 55, records of King County, Washington, and the terminus of this description. TOGETHER WITH a turnaround area described as follows: Commencing at the terminius of the above described centerline thence N 00 37' 54".. E, along the west line of Interurban Addition to Seattle, 25.04 feet to the true point of beginning; thence N 00 37' 54" E, 15.02 feet:'thence S 87° 20" 00 ".W, 65.00 feet, thence S 00 37' 54" W, 15.02 feet; thence N 870 20' 00" E, 65.00 feet to the true point of beginning. ..r. NNW.......... _