HomeMy WebLinkAboutPermit 77-63-W - MORA ENRIQUE - TUKWILA ESTATES WAIVER77-63-w
15110 MACADAM ROAD SOUTH
TUKWILA ESTATES MORA ENRIQUE
WAIVER
1908
City of Tukwila
6200 Southcenter Boulevard
Tukwila, Washington 98188
Police Department 433 -1808
May 1, 1980
Mr. Dan Saul, President
Tukwila City Council
Tukwila, Wa.
Dear Sir:
At their request I met with Mr. Rubin Salant and Mr.
Enrique P. Mora at my office today. They presented
me, with a Plot Plan entitled "Tukwila Estates
Condominiums" dated 4/4/78.
I have reviewed the plan and there appears to me,
no traffic problems on site.
Respectfully,
J.A. SHEETS,
Chief of Police
JAS:jst
cc: Mayor's Office
John A. Sheets,
Chief of Police
PLANNING
PARKS d
RECREATION
BUILDING
23 February 1978
CITY of TUKWILA
OFFICE of COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Enrique Mora.
S & M Investment
19800 Pacific Highway South
Seattle, Washington 98188
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 residence in the area. This position was supported by the City
Council.
Very truly yours,
11 Stoknes, Director
Of ice of Community Development
KS /ch
cc: Fred Satterstrom
MF;,7- 7 -62 -W •
- 77 -63 -W
6230 Southcenter 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
MINUTES
Tukwila City Hall
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 STOKNES, OCD Director; MAXINE ANDERSON, City Clerk.
MOVED BY VAN DUSEN, SECONDED BY TRAYNOR, THAT THE MINUTES OF THE REGULAf
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, COMJ`•MUNICATIONS, APPEALS, AND SIMILAR MATTERS
Letter from
Mayor Bauch
concerning
Moratorium on
issuance of
Building Permits -
LID #28
Waiver to
Res. #1035 -
E. Mora for
30 -unit and
0 -unit
condomi nums
$ 24,997.68
3,250.25
689.32
177,518.48
6,272.50
9,666.24
$222,394.47
Letter from Mayor Bauch to Mr. Kjell Stoknes, OCD Director, was read
for the record. Mayor Bauch states that he is putting a moratorium on
the issuance of building permits in the area to be served by LID #28.
The moratorium is required to protect the health and safety of the
residents of the present buildings that are served by the streets in
this area. This moratorium will remain in effect until a contract is
let to construct the improvements under LID #28.
MOVED BY VAN DUSEN, SECONDED BY. HILL, THAT COUNCIL ACCEPT THE MAYOR'S
LETTER AND CONCUR WITH ITS CONTENT. *
Councilman Hill asked Attorney Hard for a progress report on the court
proceedings for LID #28. Attorney Hard reported that on February 8,
1978, the hearing was held before the Court of Appeals and now, the
Court has this case under advisement. They will decide whether the
City has jurisdiction to proceed with the LID. This is important, if
the City loses, there is no jurisdiction to proceed and the City will
have to start over to form another LID.
* MOTION CARRIED.
MOVED BY VAN DUSEN, SECONDED BY HILL, THAT COUNCIL DENY THE REQUESTS
FOR WAIVER FROM RESOLUTION #1035 BECAUSE THEY DO NOT FOLLOW THE
RECOMMENDATION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION. *
Councilman Hill explained that he seconded the motion because he feels
there is nothing Council can do until the legal issue on the LID is
settled. The last development shouldn't have been allowed until therm
were adequate streets in the area.
Mr. E. Mora, applicant, stated that the Mayor's move in imposing a
moratorium should not be an issue for denial or approval of the
requested waiver. We are requesting a waiver to a resolution that hay
nothing to do with an LID.
* MOTION CARRIED WITH SAUL VOTING NO.
PLANNING
PARKS &
RECREATION
BUILDING
CITY of TUKWILA
OFFICE of COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
1 February 197$
M E M O R A N D U M
To:
From: F"r d N. Satterstrom, Associate Planner
Subject: E. Mora Waiver (30 -unit Condominium) - Planning
Co fission Recommendation of Density
City_
ouncil
The Planning Commission considered the. Ordinance #1035 waiver
application of E. Mora to construct a 30 -unit condominium at
their regular January meeting.
Based on the findings and conclusions of the attached
the Planning Commission recommended that a maximum of
be allowed on the site. It was also recommended that .
number of units in any single structure be limited to
duplex and triplex development on the eastern portion
staff report,
20 units
the maximum
four, with
of the site.
In addition, the Planning Commission recommended that any pro-
posed structures be built far enough "down" from the crest of the
knoll that they be mostly concealed when viewed from the single-
family area to the north.
FNS(us)
cc: MF- 77 -63 -W
File
6230 Southcenter Boulevard • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • (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 N0.
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.
.commendation 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
Planning Commission
Minutes
Page 6
26 January 1978
number of units in any single structure be limited to four, with duplex or triplex
development on the eastern portion of the site. Furthermore, it is recommended
that any proposed structures be built far enough "down" from the crest of the knoll
that they be mostly concealed if viewed from the single family residential area to
the north.
ANY OTHER BUSINESS:
FLOW CHART: Zoning Ordinance Revision
Mr. Satterstrom explained the proposed flow chart and asked for Commission's
response.
Chairman Kirsop stated it would be best to work with entire Commission rather than
committees and to review draft in phases in lieu of waiting 2 - 3 months for staff
preparation.
Commission generally agreed to review the revised ordinance in phases by special •
meetings of the Commission as a whole.
Motion by Mr. Bowen, seconded by Mrs. Avery and carried to adjourn the meeting.
Chairman Kirsop adjourned the regular January meeting at 11:40 P.M.
TUKWILA PLANN.ING; COMMISSION
Uwkl
Eileen Avery
Secretary
Minute prepared by:
Gar Crutchf i el d
Assistant Planner
CITY OF TUKWILA
PLANNING DIVISION
PLANNING COMMISSION
STAFF REPORT
26 January 1978 8 :00 P.M.
AGENDA ITEM VIII B: Recommendation of Density: 30 Condominiums @ S. 152nd (Mora)
S & M Investments (E. Mora, applicant) applied for a building permit on 30 November
1977 to construct a 30 -unit condominium. It was determined by the Planning Division
that the proposed condominium building required a waiver from Ordinance #1035, Sec-
tion 3.1 and 3.2.
The Comprehensive Land Use Plan Map designates the subject site for low- density
and medium - density residential use. The attached Site map, Exhibit B, shows the
generalized boundaries of the low and medium - density areas as they cross the sub-
ject property. Because the proposed project represents a totally 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 (wooded area). Hence,
the proposal requires 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 on Block 38 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 subject site is approximately 2 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
turnaround.
4. 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.
5. Presently, South 152nd Street is unimproved with a substandard right -of -way
width.
6. Zoning on the subject property is R -4, Low Apartments.
7. Thirty (30) condominium units are proposed in a single, 3 -story structure to
be situated as shown in Exhibit B. Forty -five (45) parking stalls are proposed.
Planning Commission Page 2
Staff Report 26 January 1978
8. Physiographically, the site is comprised of a knoll (elevation 268') with
southward - facing slopes which descend to about elevation 200'.
9. Average slope gradients on the site range from about 19 percent to 37 percent.
10. Geologically, the site is underlain by bedrock, probably basalt. This type
of rock is stable in steep cuts. Overlying the basalt is a thin layer of
glacial till soil which supports the'vegetative growth on the site.
11. The site is lightly forested. Species include cedar, fir, hemlock, and maple.
12. A pond is located at the southwest corner of the property. It is proposed
to be retained by the developer.
13. The proposed 30 -unit condominium development 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 ruled exempt from further SEPA review,
(SEE, Exhibit C).
14. According to the Comprehensive Land Use Plan map, approximately one -half (1
acre) of the site is designated medium - density residential, and one -half is
designated low- density residential.
15. Medium - density residential al -ows up to a maximum of 16 units per acre in
duplexes, tri- plexes, and four - plexes. Low - density residential allows up to
a maximum of 5 units per acre in single - family dwellings.
16. The subject property lies along the south crest of the Tukwila Hill and, as
such, is located in a transition zone between the apartments on the south •
slope and the single - family area on the plateau.
17. Pertinent policies in the Comprehensive Land Use Policy Plan are as follows:
NATURAL ENVIRONMENT ELEMENT
Objective 3, Policy 1
Objective 3, Policy 3
Objective 4, Policy 4
RESIDENCE ELEMENT
Objective 1, Policy 1
Objective 2, Policy 1
"Discourage development on slopes in excess of 20
percent."
"Preserve and promote the quality of natural landform."
"Encourage the retention of marshes and ponds for the
retention of storm water runoff."
"Utilize natural features, like topography, to
separate incompatible land uses from the residential
areas."
"Provide for medium - density transition areas between
high and low density residential areas."
Planning Commission Page 3
Staff Report 26 January 1978
Objective 1, Policy 2 "Encourage the development of owner - occupied
multiple - family residential units."
CONCLUSIONS:
1. The 30 -unit condominium proposal is consistent with the current R -4 zoning
of the property.
2. Based on the finding that the property is designatedapproximately one -half
medium- and one -half low- density - residential on the Comprehensive Land Use
Plan Map, the following formula for maximum allowable units applies:
A. MAXIMUM UNITS B. AREA C. TOTAL UNITS PER
DESIGNATION ALLOWED DESIGNATED DESIGNATION (Ax B = C)
Medium - density 16 1 acre 16
Low - density 5 1 acre 5
Total Units Allowed per Comp Plan Map 21
3. Because the north and east ends of the site are desginated low density resi-
dential (single-family), it is important that the density of units and the
size of structures be specifically limited in these areas.
4. By virtue of the site's location, it is important to create a "transition"
here between low and high - density residential districts.
5. Due to the steepness of slope on the property, the placement of multiple -unit
structures here will necessarily disrupt the natural landform.
6. The placement of the 30 -unit structure on the northerly portion of the site.
(near the low- density area) seems inconsistent with the purpose of the medium -
density "transition" area, i.e., to create a buffer between single - family and
apartment districts.
7. The physiography of the site affords an opportunity to enhance the establishment
of a "transition" area between low and high - density residential areas. This can
be accomplished by locating structures further down (or south) from the "crest ".
SUMMARY:
The proposed number of units (30) does not appear to be consistent with that generally
intended by the Comprehensive Land Use Plan Map (21). Situated at the crest of the
hill between the multiple - family and single - family districts, it is important that a
transition in density and bulk be established in order to protect existing residential
development and the future integrity of that area planned for single - family use. At
the same time, development on the site should be situated so as to take advantage of
the "buffer" opportunity of the knoll.
Planning Commission
Staff Report
Page 4
26 January 1978
RECOMMENDATION:,
Generally, the overall proposal does not seem to be consistent with the policies
of the Plan or the general density guidelines of. the Comprehensive Land Use Plan Map.
Based on the findings and conclusions of this report, staff recommends that the
Planning Commission recommend to the City Council that a maximum of 21 units be
allowed on the site. It is also recommended that the maximum number of units in
any single structure be limited to four, with duplex or triplex development on
the eastern portion of the site. Furthermore, it is recommended that any pro-
posed structures be built far enough "down" from the crest of the knoll that they
be mostly concealed if viewed from the single - family residential area to the north.
j�1'l /� � i- • 09174' i1.LY7/ .9' lV j. -
�._ _�. fe 't .Ce :SSA
C£ v' i IM)lfil t.' = N' A 1 S ;: ' 1
•
r
n
2
J
5
m
th
2
ft
Q
it
W
IU
Q
N
W
N
W
C7
_Z
iE
W
W
0
2
W
PUBLIC(- ..;NORK8 0IEPARTMElk ....,�
8230 6outho.ntor Boulevard
Tukwila, Washington 96067
telephone C208 3 242-2177
23 January 1978
To: Fred Satterstrom, Planning Supervisor /Associate Planner
From: Dick Williams, Acting Public Works Director
Subject: LID 28
A recent discussion with Mr. Larry Hard, Deputy City Attorney,
indicates that this project is still in litigation and Mr. Hard
seems to think that a ruling on the appeal by the City will come
within the next couple of months. After the ruling on the appeal,
providing it is favorable to the City, I would guess that about
six months would be required to acquire the needed right -of -way.
I would suggest that you contact Larry to confirm these time
frames.
Regarding additional development east of Smith's apartments, I
feel that any additional traffic on this roadway will compound
the problems that exist already and should be delayed until the
road is improved.
DW /ch •
�t Ell ED
JAN 2 31978
COY et WOW
F
u
F
1:
\Vy
\\.. 0 ty �
' c t.
...,. •
Tr � . 4".•
t
r
1
1f
•
•
It
R
•
r --
1
•
1
a
CITY OF TOKWILA
1
1731.111
11
Wd
r-
TU3ML■
CITY U 173
EXH1 BIT A .
SITE OF WAIVER APPLICATION
E. MORA
30 -UNIT CONDOMINIUM
1
.J
L)..: I :;■:'?: • 3:7, tfM1
:
o
L-• 16 '31-113; OS •■■•••• :•t ;7.1 :Cl4.
I N '3 VI 1 *, C: 1. •
ttA>Irti • t -
,..,..,, ...„,
v.-7----‘ 1: ( P I : , I .'.‘,;" • ' • ! •••.::''...N.
..,' • •,,
I t i
I
%
5 I
%
>I I
.......,.
•ja 11111_1 I
' NW
Ulli
I
_FT.'.
4...), 1 • , , I
I i
' • • -: 1111 k:',
.• •• §- .....,
- - 0
cS-4•—•••••
.- % -., - :. -- ..- ›... 7- - • • •
.. .s1 .... ••-.
•
. .---
•'" ,----- -.. -- ' %. `,... . - a is ...
. --:__-. • . . k : • • ..
......- " - - - W 1 ..-- • .
.. - - - - .• -
. • , 1 . s . .
--. ...,... • . .,, ., , E w . - . ............../. 1; s ,
.....
; ..
. :,
. ..._ .. .. . ... .
_ _ ,
3 0 7 r :.
...: ,,
-. •
11111 .-
...• .... -..--------
1 .----- . •
7;4
E
. 7.6
• ;-.
CITY of T UKVIIBL A
CFFICE 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 /7/f5/7
Signature
6230 Southcenter Boulevard a Tukwila, Washington 98186 a (206) 242 -2177
C � i of Tukwila(
T u
Fire Department
Edgar D. Bauch
Mayor
Hubert H. Crawley
Fire Chief
Kjell Stoknes, Director
Office of Community Development
City of Tukwila
Dear Kjell:
Januarye•:3:;;7,:197.8 - -.
O.C.D.
C•; i i OF i ��'.;' IL
'JAN 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 location.
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.
HHC:vma
cc:TFD, Al Pieper
Mayor Bau
City of Tukwila
Yours very truly,
Hubert H. Crawley
Fire Chief
h
Fire Department, 444 Andover Park East, Tukwila, Washington 98188 (206) 575 -4404
CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF TUKWILA
PLANNING DIVISION
BRIEF
ACTION: WAIVER from Ordinance 1035 (Section 3.1 and 3.2)
DATE: 27 December 1977
APPLICANT: Enrique Mora (S & M Investments)
PROPOSAL: 30 -Unit Condominium
LOCATION: Tract 38, Brookvale Garden Tracts
(Graydon Smith property)
SIZE: Approximately 2.0 acres
ZONING: R -4
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Low - density and Medium - density Residential
SUMMARY:
The proposed project is the construction of a 30 -unit condominium on that portion
of Tract 38,Brookvale Garden Tracts located north of the extension of South 152nd
Street. This property is part of what is commonly referred to as the "Graydon
Smith" property and is located east of the Hampton Heights Apartments. Current
zoning on the property is R -4.
REASON FOR WAIVER:
The Comprehensive Land Use Plan Map designates the subject property for low- density
and medium - density residential use, (SEE, Comprehensive Land Use Plan Map). The
attached site map, Exhibit B, shows the generalized boundaries of the low and
medium - density areas as they cross the subject property. Because the proposed
project represents a totally high- density residential action, the project requires
a waiver from Section 3.1 of 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 (wooded areas).
Thus, the proposed project requires a waiver from Section 3.2 of Ordinance 1035.
RECOMMENDATION:
The City Council has several alternative courses of action available to it in this
case:
1. The City Council may analyze the waiver application at this time using
the five review criteria outlined in Ordinance 1035 and either grant, deny,
or condition the waiver application.
E. Mora (Condominiur:s, — 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 Council
Brief
Page 2
21 December 1977
2. The City Council may refer the matter to the Planning Commission for a
density determination, as in the case of the Schneider apartment appli-
cation.
3. Or, the City Council may refer the matter back to the Planning Staff for
a full staff report and recommendation.
L
l�
C
•
•
}
M
•
•
•
.7
F-1
CITY OF TUWILA
APPLICATION FOR WAIVER
FROM THE PROVISIONS OF
ORDINANCE N0. 1035
VXHI EAT C.
(Please type or print)
Permit applied for requiring a waiver:30 Unit Condominium Development.
Date of Application: November 22, 1977.
Name of Applicant: S & M INVESTMENTS.
Mailing Address: 19800 Pacific Hwy. So.
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 one building with a
total of 30 units and a swimming pool. Site presently zoned R -4
approx. 79 units.
3. Does your proposal represent a unique condition which is insignificant in scale?
If so, please explain: The proposed building blends in with the
surrounding apartment developments.
•
<
4. Are other reasonab tevelopment alternatives avail ;..which would not require
a waiver? If so, what arc these alternatives? None. Land valruzA are
too expensive to make alternatives feacih1P
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? There is an existing muddy, wet area
which we intend to develop into a scenic pond to be created
and designed by our landscape architect ppr
Planning Dept_ approval.
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 79 units. We are proposing only
30 units.
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. We feel that the proposed .project .would .not . differ
.
substantially from the compr.ehensive...plans and is much less than
the underlying present zoning.
OWNER'S SIGNATURE:
BELOW THIS LINE IS TO BE FILLED IN BY THE CITY:
Date application is complete and accepted for filing: .labia 14'Kn 4
Ittalidwri4r44 J Pte. tql7
Date SEPA review complete:
-2-
PLANNING
PARKS b
RECREATION
BUILDING
CITY cif 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,
re atterstrom
Planning Supervisor
FNS /ch
cc: OCD Director
Enclosures
6230 Southcenter Boulevard • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • (206) 242-2177
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 /2/j,5/ ?7 Signature
6230 Southcenter Boulevard • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • (206) 242 -2177
PLANNING
P ,Rxs
RECREATION
BUILDING
CITY of TUKW ILA
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.
ectfull
ed .t erstrom
tanning Supervisor
FNS /ch
6230 Southcenter Boulevard a Tukwila, Washington 98188 n (206) 242 -2177
LAIIt1I fI6
FARKS
rncFa,, Iou
BUILDING
CITY of 'TUKWILA
OFFICE of COMMUNITY 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.
ectful
admAA
red' N.e`Satterstrom
Planning Supervisor
FNS /ch
6230 Southcenter Boulevard n Tukwila, Washington 98188 n (206) 242 -2177
S & M I N V E S T M E N T S
19800 Pacific Highway S.
Seattle, Washington 98188
Mr. Fred N. Satterstrom
Planning Supervisor
City of Tukwila
6230 Southcenter Boulevard
Tukwila, Washington 98188
RECEIVE
n
NOV 3 o �s
NOV301977
cn OF TUKWILA
November 30, 1977
Re: Proposed 90 and 30 Unit apartment complex on S. 152nd
Dear Fred,
Please find attached the plans for. the two proposed
apartment complexes as requested in your letter dated
November 23, 1977. I will be applying for the building
permits today.
You have now the waiver application, the EIA and
the required SEPA. I feel that the situation is now in
your hands and I hope that this is sufficient information
for the December 12 hearing.
I will be out of town from December 2 thru the 11.
If the information is not sufficient or if you have any
further questions please feel free to contact my partner,
Rubin Salant.
EM:ka
Resp�ctfully,
Enrique P Mora
CITY ®f TUKW8LA
OFFICE of COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
23 November. 1977
Enrique Mora
S & 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 81/2" x 14" reduction for inclu-
sion in the staff report to the City Council.
5. 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 be 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 in Tukwila, Washington 98188 in (206) 242 -2177
Enrique Mora
S $ M Investments
Page 2
•;,,vomber 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.
ReSect,f ally,
red.N. Satterstrom
Planning Supervisor
FNS /ch
CITY OF TUKI'!ILA
APPLICATION FOR WAIVER
FROM THE PROVISIONS OF
ORDINANCE N0, 1035
(Please type or print)
Permit applied for requiring a waiver:30 Unit Condominium Development.
Date of Application: November 22, 1977.
Name of Applicant: S & M INVESTMENTS.
Mailing Address: 19800 Pacific Hwy. So.
City: Seattle
Ownership Interest in Property:
Zip: 98188 Phone: 824 -1120
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 1'aiver: Section 3 (1)
2. Briefly and generally describe tlie•action you are proposing, including demen-
sional information about the development: To build one building with a
total of 30 units and a swimming pool. Site presently zoned R -4
approx. 79 units.
3. Does your proposal represent a unique condition which is insignificant in scale?
If so, please explain: The proposed building blends in with the
surrounding apartment developments.
4. Are other reasonable development alternatives avaj•1able•which would not require
a waiver? If so ( ,lat are these alternatives? e -.
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 :
BELOW THIS LINE IS TO BE FILLED IN BY THE CITY:
Date application is complete and accepted for filing:
Date SEPA review complete:
-2--
UteA.qiL.l� 3.O
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 33; Thence South along the east line of.
,said Tract 38 and said Tract 37 to the point of beginning.
FEW 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 87920' 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 103.21 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 0° 37' 54"
E, along the west line of Interurban Addition to Seattle, 25.04 feet to the true
point of beginning; thence N 0° 37' 54" E, 15.02 feet: thence S 870 20' 00" W,
65.00 feet, thence S 0° 37' 54" W, 15.02 feet; thence N 87° 20' 00" E, 65.00
feet to the true point of hnrinning.
Except._that portion south of 152nd Street
•. ... .'
;
WW0101 WY !'
z
•
• 4)
\v• 1.111 r;. 11I,F:. .t?..ii .!f5 4.1.4 A 7
(
r
.11 0
1- 0- .4 -81) • 2 J
a r-
i'& r7 A ('. - 1
11-• 4-- _,1
1 6 + :i" Z-) kj cs -ri tl;
• „ \)
■) ■) ‘,) V -. g 0:6:
a' h a
■./ . O
3. - 47 41 41 M a X 41 3 (1 r- 111 r-
3 41 43 43 43
,....? ...7 .4. ...7 .4. ...7 ..• in ••d• 4' •O•
• .0" ...1• • ....1• .1• .3• ....1• ....1• C4 CI .-- art
en • cri el VI vl c en cn en en in cn ki) 411
11
e8
'-4
- 0
00 ---i-
• 14 r- r ku
..t.‘ 0
VI 0.
.1.1 r V- * \\.
vo >
(4 ...... C• 10 ** ). i II
IT, 0.1
CI ▪ r • Lt
4-I
-, •R
R . "
NI
-.... • a • I d .0 0
03 4-1 CI
r-
..1
U3 • 0
0 41
0 •84
ta
0
c-
r.- 04 0 CO
0 Z .36
P 0
Cy;
7 tfl W
41 $4
P4
...
•r4 v..1
O I t)
Ct
14 0
• .4 to
c.
.0 .
,. 4,3
\.) . 0 0 . tx ......• $.1 to 0 0
• N 0 ..q co . 0
H 11 ow 0 14 0
. 1-4 › 1 .-1 1 rc '0 00 0 ) .A 434 0
H 0
U0 3
a 03 P4 1 r le 43 03 .0 In .8.4 i- 0
P.• %
14 P., 0 P.% 41 8 0 14 A 4-I 0 4.4 CO v0 r 0
,4 W to 4.1 41 0. 14 0 14 'sr
to 3
% . . d 0 41 0 •ttl.v A G J 1> r-1 0 4 m 4J 0. In
CO .0 d el
›,
4 14
4 1.1 ■CI i4 )4 0 14 14 • W tfl P4 9:1 0 171
GU 0 0 .34 1.1 0 c 0 td �,4 01 WI P.. Pr, tO 0
P4 '0 P4 14 03 Pa Pi 14 134 44 14 01 td 01 4) U3 .0 0 0
0 $4 4.1 0 '0 134 14 ii A c+ .4 "4
CU 0) 0 0 1 4) W 4.) 4) 0 44 44 1.4 p.c." td ▪ 4.1 $4 wi 01 0 cn. 0.
CO 4/ 0
14 0 14 V 1:14
• 44 0 • 0)$.4 1./ P. V1 4.1 1 il 0 01 0 0 v"a .0 up i CO
O 0 0 0 0 0 0 d 0 .P4 AP' 41 10 4' 41 4-4
0)01 • 41 VI r. P 0 0) 0) '0 1:4 0 41 P• A o •C/ P■ 4.4 04 ■0 U0.
N t.) 14 ' 140 0 0 W 0 t) 140 P4 0 0 1 .-1 ,-4.4 P4 144 0 r../ 01
034 O'W. 0 '0 0 .0 0 4 e0. o '0 «1H 0 0)14
,-14' 0. &I ; .0 0 Z 41 0 0 41 1 41 14 14 41 0 ° 46 "V, "03 43‘
04 0 4 CI . 0)4
O In 0 03 0 03 0%
O 4 .4 8 48 4 r.4 60 ■0
!fl C. 11. P4 0 4.1
il CO 0 90 114 CO
14.?
PN .U3 01 '4 1 0 14 en 14 0 ti) 0 I-I 0 g-i
of I-I •A in 0)..4 14 • u-, i4 i 1014 41 0 . 0
W .8.4 8-4 '0 0 1/0 3 0 01 • S J1
° v4 .0 4.1 trt
1 : 01 te1 141(1 b4 10 1 •r4 0 1 P• .0 •9"
,0 N 4.s . o
I-1 •08 tt1 01 1-1 0 1414 0)0 0 4.1 4
14 01 X 0 .0
01 1,. 0 0 0 r. P 0 • 0 r. co .-4
s+ m .0 o 0 ••1 0 r10. ...1 •1:3
0 0 0 WU I-4. 0 W CV
0 0 0 404 ail•
A4 4 14 t.3 U 0'-4 H4 CP o4 1..) U1 CZ 01 o4 Z 44 a . M :42'
Fel en to is)
r% 1•••
NP....
1•%
N r% N. 1%. 1.... 1•••• 1•48 1••■ 11•■ P... P... P...
r. r■ r% ' 1%. f".. N. re. r. P.. 1 1 1
1 1 1 ' 1 1 1 1 1 • 1 a 4-4 N VI
4r1 .....7 ul ■0 1,.. 00 a% r.4 0■11 9.4 w•
'▪ 1 I I .. I i 1 I I 1 I 1 •I I
g g g g c 4 i 4 c 414 r4 c4 •g C4 C4
a A A A sT A A n 100%0101
\ \ \ \ \ \
...--..,,
•
Q �
LL .
1" - 1 ► ,,11_
o. f�
W 3 W rW W L)1 W 3 LU W 3 3 3. ■n
O to 0 O 0 0 et el• 0 10 ▪ d' • • d 'F1
III d• LO tl) LC) 10 tf d' If) Cr d• CO d-
M M M M M M M M M m ') M M ,
J V
r- 010 a
1
v
7 .-.
0 � la v s
>1 N ca.
}• ' 1 4 o-
•'' r r r ' r
r I �' > A 6 •r. it r
in r o 10 tr . r L`
te
In el
ID
c 1 Ha% N sL u+vg `^ v
U
U I- r
4' m S d C C m �• �-. r r 4. z
Q) - r • 1) . S Q •r V Z) W 4) 4.)
• r7 0) A 1•- 4-) r t/) f 4-) 1-- 4.) N i•) .0 r- C >1 C N >>
o C 0) A I CI) r r r 7 C r- 4' r- ro .) fa ro 1U
S. C: > 1 >n Q1 !.. O. 1 o ro 7 7 1 9. 3 r- b
0. 01 R) •.- 4 S. Ul (0) to N N CL ',E 0 `) 4 i0 .) ro C ■ .3
0) .- L L) 41 •r• X N a. L N7 N v i..
C S. CL 0 r-•1 N V 0) 01 W 1 to ro to 10
O +> f N A 4d CO 7 CO 7 M r-•1 01 S. 0. 1 r♦ ') CL
▪ r N S. >> CC t0 L PL. era d C Lc) C C1 4) 0 A C 01
4.) 01 L 0 CO 0) C) C9 CO 01 CO (J) •r N M r. r. > to X .0 f.
CI S > 4+ tIU •r 4h • 4C > > .0 01 A 1 ' 'C7 0 j- 0) 01 4) 01 0)
5. 43 0 U1 4- 0 LC Q 4 0. 0) 3 r-1 r-- •0 •• f.) .-- 7 CO 1.1
O 0 -0 0 0 4.4) (0 +1 4.1 i. 4-) R1 > 4-) CO '•r C 1 C 13.0 V C
CLOD C b 0 r•• 0 7 0 01 0 0 L •.- ro >> U- 7 4 O- 0) E N 0 0)
1. r1 Q C C 01 C9 01 '0 0) 'O 01 •r C11 5.. N r- 0) CO 0 0 J 1.)
O •••+ 0 . ••7 •r'-) N •r) n7 •r7 O. 0 C] ro 01 •r1 01 • .0 CJ to .0
C.) . 1 •r• 0 S O • 0 c.1 0 € 43 r- +) 0 > r- CO 4-1 f� 0) +.
4.) to i-) f. +1 S- 1n S. 1/1 S. T 0 -AC 0. nt S. •r• Ai O 7 4.1 1n . 01 7
"Cl 7 r- CO 40 0. 7 0. d• 0. ro 0. '.- .0 0 E Ct. S. •r - N 0 C U1) S. 0
= 0 r 01 7 0 1.0 U 0 0. 0) >) • 0 d•) N 01 . i-) N
ro v) 0 C C N C t0 C C: S. ro X 01 C e0 0 E t . 01
..1 .. x 1 � 10 r-1 10 '-1 b 1t) 1rt r. _ 0 ~ 3 0 1r0 1l) •G r4 9.. 0 S. 1) .0 0
•r• t1'1 C to C 1..) 0 U 0 U N U d• 0) t0 L 0. 01.-•1 . 7 A ea A ea in ,= 11)
LN OO 0 0A 0 t 0 c u00 1-117 10 0. GI CO L0 AC CO 0.9--1 0t0
F- r•1 Cl CO CJ Z to E to i r-1 Z .-1 i'- Cr) Cl. 4 CO r-1 CS. r1 N - 4 tit 0 r-1 F
A A .V
A A A A A A A A A A, A A A A eft-
A 1 1 A A A A A• A A A A A A
1 Q m 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
et to to to A co al O 14 • N Cr) et to to
r•1 r•1 r--1 •-1 "4 r■l r-/ N N N N N IN N
' I M I
CC CC CC C CC CG CC CC OG CC CC CC CC , CC
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 • 0. 17 0 C3 C]
J
N t
tiN
t
r-
r
W W W W
qtr
r M • C)) M M re▪ )
U•
.Q r
N 1
*k 9J N .,
'1D . % v
CJ r r p.
c • rr
r
•te r` r
cr— c T `
r _ i- r N
an H _
to }
W N w >
'- m V . . d
O. d 1 n EO
0 SO.. 4.1 SO. r SS- V
fO to to 1, S. 0.. Cl
0 d 0 O S. 44 4. C
0'3 0. C ro en C CJ •r•
V) Y V) 'O W 'O • I- C 'CJ
CJ S. 4J p r- C 44 U 44 RS ? S.
IV 0.. a
15 • = ~
0 J =N 0..>
CO !0 44r. C CD
0. CiJ SAC • r•-•
S- > Sr tJ (U b S. = 0 b O
O O O •r■ 4-) ••• b O b CO
C-1 'CI 44 O .E 0 NCD V.S.
S. < f• O C) WS. 1.• S. CJ
N d .0 N O N W. l0..'O
44. CO 4 S i•1 Q > 4.1' 4.1 N.`C
Ct0 C N 0 0 C 0 N b
0 0 � 0 1:1 1:1 C tO.J 0 CC 4.)
4� C0 4- �0 EN
= LC) .0 I•-1 0 O O 0 b 0
V) L) N. C.) LC) n^ VO)t0 1-tt)
• 1 m J. N▪ . • n • n •
N. N CO IP
N 1 el tiff
CI o c a • • CO • c