Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPermit L96-0060 - PYRAMID POINTE APARTMENTS - DESIGN REVIEWL96 -0060 PYRAMID POINTE APARTMENTS 15304 57 AV S l,ity u$ i ukwila DEVELOPER'S PRTJECT WARRANTY REQUEST FORM ......:::. :'fifi.•'i:• ti:' �:nn•,.' �.' h%:}: ti;;: y4: �; ii::: ?F;.i;:*::i::ji�::Ji:;i:Ti:ii .�::::y <:�: .::..:.. .:..:::...:.................: :. ...:.:... ...:..:..::..' : NAME OF DEVELOPMENT: • On i cl I ,iA. S DATE: 62 S DEVELOPMENT ADDRESS: 5-7(1 S , (S Zit I- et • PERMIT NO.: t- - Caeq CASH ASSIGNMENT NAME DA 1,i,tt (1-13, at (1 TEL NO. -aLe _ 3,7,..y - 3-7 7,-_-) SHALL BY MAILI BED : ADDRESS: 3S 1 1--(4 `'L rrrnah. Alt(--- (please print) CITY/STATE/ZIP e,t -tt J / r (TA - 02- ) DESCRIPTION OF ITEMS TO BE COMPLETED (t FERENC }y, y I _( _ ' ..L -Mai 11 at. i1. ; I ,1� .: . : - • 11V 'fy' l.' "- LO 1 • 4 (0 ) • !` CAL YIGln3 i 4,, SC P I i.d, As the ov, ,er, ut rized agent of the owner, I hereby submit cash or cash equivalent in the amount of , $ i 5 ► 7 ($150% of value to complete work described above) and attach supporting documentation for v ip of work. I will have this work carried out and call for a final in • edion by this date: • / 'J / '7'/ J, or risk having the City use these f • • 7 to carry out the irk with their own contractor or . ( (J :� in -house manpower. If 1 fail to carry out the work, l hereby a, ' e the completion of the above deficiencies. 1 further agree to co • = w release of these funds. SIGNED: ity to go •y• to t : pr• • : to carry out liste• . • •ve • for to questing inspection and / G or TITLE: • THIS FUND IS AUTH !ZED TO BE ACCEPTED. SIGNED: A (tk e, ,a) AMOUNT: 4 (0 I O CASH DEPARTMENT HEAD: CASH EQUIVALENT DEPOSITED THIS DATE: J 1\1-, 31 1 �l trV CITY RECEIPT NO. 72 HOUR NOTIFICATION INSPECTION AND RELEAS DEVELOPERS REPRESENTATIVE: r ti � µ.. '�.. ~:•::•wed.• . CHECKED BY: RECEIVED BY: II work identified in Section 1 of this form has now been completed • retu 'f: d to department which authorized warrant . I hereby Q - uest 'spectior, release of my cash/ •sh • ui! alert WJ , / 1/1 DATE: l hav: reviewed the above ork and found it accep' -ble and he efo authorize the lease of e �t, • ve cash assignment. p G• I DEPARTMENT: Q� GO • (9 /Ah. a AUTHORIZED BY: :CT�rO!1!1.q:td oeaptetedty:: CASH EQUIVALENT— LETTER AUTHORIZING RELEASE AMOUNT: RELEASED THIS DATE: • CASH CITY CHECK NO. Upon completion through Section 2, Finance personnel shall send copies to: — Developer — Finance Department — Permit Coordinator, DCD RELEASED BY: , FINANCE DEPT. Upon completion of entire form, Finance personnel shall - Developer — Finance Department — Permit Coordinator, DCD JUN 0 3 1999 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Q ZH I- Z ce W UO No. Co J I=. W0 2 Q Z w1- W U� v7 0 I- 1 I- -- .. z. W U =; P 1- z Pyramid Pointe Apartments Developer's Project Warranty Request Form Remaining work. Concrete patio labor $788.00 material $300.00 Sub $4,329.00 Tot lot Landscape , $1,200.00 0t.lwA 00 material $2,800.00 t- iik 1L'•AiL1-1. Pool fence Sub $975.00 Subtotal $10,392.00 150% $15,588.00 ry • . ;U O: U 0l.: i ,NWT J H: 0;.. LL.Q N • ? N4. 'OH:.: w , �Ui . U • • !7 f RECEIVED JUN 0 3 1999 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT { SUBDIVISION BOND Bond No. 111000249 KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS, that we DALLY HOMES, INC. as Principal, and AMWEST SURETY INSURANCE COMPANY authorized to do business in the State of Nebraska , as Surety, are held and firmly bound unto CITY OF TUKWILA as Obligee, in the penal sum of Fifteen Thousand Five Hundred Eighty Eight and 00/100 ($ 15,588.00 ) DOLLARS, lawful money of the United States of America, for the payment of which well and truly to be made, we bind ourselves, our heirs, executors, administrators, successors and assigns, jointly and severally, firmly by these presents. WHEREAS, DALLY HOMES, INC. has agreed to construct in PYRAMID POINTE APARTMENTS the following improvements: CONCRETE PATIO, TOT LOT, LANDSCAPE, POOL FENCE NOW, THEREFORE, THE CONDITION OF THIS OBLIGATION IS SUCH, that if the said Principal shall construct, or have constructed, the improvements herein described and shall save the Obligee harmless from any loss, cost or damage by reason of its failure to complete said work, then this obligation shall be null and void; otherwise to remain in full force and effect. Signed, sealed and dated this 3RD day of June , 1999 . RECEIVED JUN 0 3 1999 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT S- 3689 /GEEF 2/97 z F ;r r± n ?an�ermttar�+M DA OMES• INC i Prin�i�,- AMWEST SURETY INSURANCE COMPANY BY,_�l� PAMELA NELSON Attorney -in -Fact etwmwra,m:;�x,�rr, • • LIMIT_ 1) POWER OF AT + )RNEY Amwest Surety Insurance Company Expiration Date: 10/07/00 POWER NUMBER 0000939137 This document is printed on white paper containing the artificial watermarked logo ( ) of Amwest Surety Insurance Company on the front and brown security paper on the back. Only unaltered originals of the Limited Power of Attorney ( "POA ") are valid. This POA may not be used in conjunction with any other POA. No representations or warranties regarding this POA may be made by any person. This POA is governed by the laws of the State of Nebraska and is only valid until the expiration date. Amwest Surety Insurance Company (the "Company") shall not be liable on any limited POA which is fraudulently produced, forged or otherwise distributed without the permission of the Company. Any party concerned about the validity of this POA or an accompanying Company bond should call your local Amwest branch office at (206) 522 -3111 KNOW ALL BY THESE PRESENT, that Amwest Surety Insurance Company, a Nebraska corporation, does hereby make, constitute and appoint: Pamela Nelson Deanna M. Meyer. Cynthia L. Jay Susan B. Larson Tim Church As Employees of Parker, Smith & Feek its true and lawful Attorney -in -fact, with limited power and authority for and on behalf of the Company as surety to execute, deliver and affix the seal of the company thereto if a seal is required on bonds, undertakings, recognizances, reinsurance agreement for a Miller Act or other performance bond or other written obligations in the nature thereof as follows: All Bonds up to $5,000,000.00 and to bind the company thereby. This appointment is made under and by authority of the By -Laws of the Company, which are now in full force and effect. I, the undersigned secretary of Amwest Surety Insurance Company, a Nebraska corporation, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that this Power of Attorney remains in full force and effect and has not been revoked and furthermore, that the resolutions of the Board of Directors of Amwest Surety Insurance Company set forth on this Power of Attorney, and that the relevant provisions of the By -Laws of each company, are now in full force and effect. Bond No. 111000249 Signed & sealed this 3rd day of JUNE 1999 ,t4P Karen G. Cohen, Secretary RESOLUTIONS OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * This POA is signed and sealed by facsimile under and by the authority of the following resolutions adopted by the Board of Directors of Amwest Surety Insurance Company at a meeting duly held on December 15, 1975: •RESOLVED, that the President or any Vice President, in conjunction with the Secretary or any Assistant Secretary, may appoint attorneys -in -fact or agents with authority as defined or limited in the instrument evidencing the appointment in each case, for and on behalf of the Company, to execute and deliver and affix the seal of the Company to bonds, undertakings, recognizances, and suretyship obligations of all kinds; and said officers may remove any such attorney -in -fact or agent and revoke any POA previously granted to such person. RESOLVED FURTHER, that any bond, undertaking, recognizance, or suretyship obligation shall be valid and bind upon the Company: (i) when signed by the President or any Vice President and attested and sealed (if a seal be required) by any Secretary or Assistant Secretary; or (ii) when signed by the President or any Vice President or Secretary or Assistant Secretary, and countersigned and sealed (if a seal be required) by a duly authorized attorney -in -fact or agent; or (iii) when duly executed and sealed (if a seal be required) by one or more attorneys -in -fact or agents pursuant to and within the limits of the authority evidenced by the power of attorney issued by the Company to such person or persons. RESOLVED FURTHER, that the signature of any authorized officer and the seal of the Company may be affixed by facsimile to any POA or certification thereof authorizing the execution and delivery of any bond, undertaking, recognizance, or other suretyship obligations of the Company; and such signature and seal when so used shall have the same force and effect as though manually affixed. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Amwest Surety Insurance Company has caused these present to be signed by its proper officers, and its corporate seals to be hereunto affixed this 25th day of September, 1998. John E. Savage, President Karen G. Cohen, Secretary State of California County of Los Angeles On September 25, 1998 before me, Peggy B. Lofton Notary Public, personally appeared John E. Savage and Karen G. Cohen, personally known to me (or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence) to be the person(s) whose name(s) is /are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me all that he /she /they executed the same in his/her /their authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/her /their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument. WITNESS my ld and official seal. Signature Peggy B. Loft° tery Public (Seal) PEGGY S. LORON Convnision #1061D611 Notary Public — Canaria _ Low Angola County 1. My Comm. Expires N46,19019 5230 Las Virgenes Road Calabasas, CA 91302 TEL 818 871 -2000 City of Tukwila John W. Rants, Mayor Department of Community Development Steve Lancaster, Director June 9, 1999 Charlie Laboda Vice President Daily Homes, Inc. 3316 Fuhrman Avenue E. Seattle, WA 98102 Re: Pyramid Point Apartments ;Landscape Bond— Building B Dear Charlie Laboda: The landscape bonds for remaining work to complete the tot lot, patio, fencing, and related landscaping has been approved. Attached is your copy of the warranty. The work must be carried out by June 30, 1999. An inspection of the completed work will need to be completed by this date. Please note that a request for an inspection must occur at least 72 hours prior to the date you are ready for the inspection to be held. If you have any further questions, I can be reached at (206) 431 -3673. Alexa Berlow Associate Planner Encl. Cc: Brenda Holt, Permit Coordinator City Reviewing Departments 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • (206) 431-3670 • Fax (206) 431-3665 6 • 1.) 0: co w; • Z. w;• z• z � c . • z 17, • aka:, ,M (3; o • • 3H� ,W . z∎• ui z MAY -2E -1999 14 27 FROM Daily Homes Inc s May 28, 1999 TO 4313655 P.01 TRIAD PROPERTIES LLC 3316 Fuhrman Ave E, #100 Seattle, WA 98102 (206) 328 -3770 fax (206) 328 -6909 City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Blvd Tukwila, WA 98188 -2599 ATTN: Alexa Delivered by Fax: 431 -3665 RE: PYRAMID POINTE APARTMENTS Dear Alexa, By this letter I personally guarantee that the tot -lot will be completed per the approved revised plans. Please call me on ext. 208 if you have any questions. Sincerely, Donald F. Daily Member RECEIVED JUN 01 1999 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 'co• w; WI ; LLI J Hi • a CD! =a - o; .z I-.. w w_ ID a O 01 ,off; w w. ILL. Or Z" ,w Ni off` z • ~ W cc 2 JU 0 u)0. • W J= • L WO J LL =• a I- w z1 F- �— O z►- w O • CI) O I- W w • U u" O. w Z U= O F` z June 1, 1999 City of Tukwila John W. Rants, Mayor Department of Community Development Steve Lancaster, Director Charlie Laboda Dally Homes, Inc. 3316 Fuhrman Avenue E., Suite 100 Seattle, WA 98102 RE: Pyramid Point — Landscape and Recreation Revision L96 -0060 Dear Charlie Laboda: This letter is to inform you that your request to modify landscaping and recreational equipment at Pyramid Point, Building B, has been approved. Attached is a copy of the approval that outlines the revision and subsequent work to be completed under this project. It is my understanding that you will be submitting a bond for the remaining work. The work under this bond will be separate from the bond filed for Building A. In addition to filling out the warranty form for work associated with Building B, please submit a budget (plus 150 %). The expiration date will determine the expiration time of the bond. You will need to contact me at least 72 hours prior to this date to request an inspection of the work under the bond and to finalize the inspection on the project. If you have any further questions about the remaining process, please contact me at (206) 431 -3673. Sincerely, Alexa Berlow Associate Planner Encl. 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • (206) 431-3670 • Fax (206) 431-3665 May 25, 1999 City of Tukwila John W. Rants, Mayor Department of Community Development Steve Lancaster, Director B.A.R. MINOR MODIFICATION TO: Jack Pace Planning Manager FR: Alexa Berlow Associate Planner RE: Pyramid Point Apartments Daily Homes, Inc. proposes to change the content and configuration of recreational facilities on the site since the redevelopment of Phase II work as a result of a fire last year. Current Plan The site plan approved by the Board of Architectural Review includes a spa, gazebo, pool, and children's play area, located between Buildings A and B. The applicant proposes to eliminate the spa and gazebo due to maintenance and safety concerns. Proposed Plan Revision A large patio will replace the recreational space of the spa and gazebo, and the children's play area (tot lot) will be moved closer to the patio to create more cohesion between the recreational activities and uses. The new arrangement would also keep recreation elements on the site in full view of the management office. The recreational space standard for the site is non - conforming. 400 square feet is required for each dwelling unit (TMC 18.52.060[1] and TMC 18.70.090 [B] -- Non - Conforming Landscaping). The revised plan meets minimum requirements under these standards. In addition, a gravel access road will be added along the perimeter of the Pyramid Point property, adjacent to Building B, to allow Tukwila maintenance vehicles access to the pond. In addition, a gravel path will be installed at the south end of property, on the south side of a locked gate (per the City of Tukwila Public Works Department). The path is intended to allow pedestrians access between Southcenter Boulevard and the apartments, via the 57 Avenue. The gate at the top of the path will be locked and access limited to apartment owners (per City of Tukwila Fire Department). The owners of the Pyramid Point Apartments, to manage modifications to the project, have retained the Con Am Management Company. Approved: Jac •" `. c-, ' Tanning Manager Plans Attached Date: AID O J )41,f e-9 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • (206) 431 -3670 • Fax (206) 431-3665 •z :• ~Z w LYE: • J U! .0 O; WUV • W O:. LL¢. •- d w Z Z• • .H O° • Z F-: gy p: O N' 0 ' W tU • O- : • •LU Z, z Date: CITY OF TUKWILA Department of Community Development Permit Center 6300 Southcenter Blvd, #100, Tukwila, WA 98188 (206)431 -3670 ❑ Response to Incomplete Letter ❑ Response to Correction Letter ❑ Revision after Permit Issued Project Name: Project Address: Contact Person: Plan Check/Permit Numbers 117— e7°(1 6:01( 6( (5-D1A- P Phone Number: -'77 o Summary of Revision: I a L'1 c,-(74-4 L° \ti b l i l.Jty( k--J C�. 'I, 14_ ( ✓ Sheet Number(s) "Cloud" or highlight all areas of revisions and date revisions. Submitted to City of Tukwila Permit Center ❑ Entered in Sierra on :rem my rr t !V, 3/4/99 w J U• U0 CO Ca W= CO W 0' Q. E— 0 zI 2 DI U 0, .0 H, = H _ Z. U N: z w1PR -28 -1999 14 36 FROM Daily Homes Inc April 28, 1999 City of Tukwila, Planning Dept. Alexa Burlo Via FAX: 431 -3665 DALLY HOMES 1 J U U R r U R A T E D • - L4'gil6»r( p•alin•TnRlra. Vdre- TO 4313665 P.02 RE: Pyramid Pointe Dear Alexa, This letter is written in response to your phone message today. I will address the three items below. • Public Works Access Road: Due to the existing grades at the Southern edge of the site adjacent to Building B and the new bio -swale pond, it was not feasible to install an access maintenance road from below. Greg Villanueva, Utilities Inspector for the City of Tukwila verbally instructed us to install a gravel access road adjacent to Building B to allow Tukwila maintenance vehicles access to the pond. This road has been installed. • Gravel path: At the south end of the new gravel access road is a locked gate. A City of Tukwila path is below the gate and runs along the perimeter of the Pyramid Pointe site. This path allows pedestrians to walk up the stairs West of Denny's and follow the path along the Pyramid Pointe property and climb stairs to 57th. As a result of the fire of April 27, 1998 which destroyed Building B, Lt. Don Tomaso of the City of Tukwila Fire Department allowed the owners of Pyramid Pointe to lock the gate and limit pedestrian access to the site. • Tot Iot/Spa: Con Am Management Company, Professional Property Management company has been retained by the owners of Pyramid Pointe Apartments to manage the project. It is their recommendation from past experience to eliminate the spa due to maintenance and safety concerns. The tot lot is proposed to be moved to create more privacy to the existing units and to get it closer to the other outdoor amenity, the pool. The new arrangement will keep the tot lot and the pool in full view of the management office. Please call me if you have any further questions regarding this project. ely, Homes nc: b i e President 3316 FUHRMAN AvK. E. - SUrTE 100 • SEArrtz. WA 93102 • (206) 328 -3770 • FAX 328 -6909 - #DALLYHI120L7 ` recycled paper TOTAL P.02 z F-w et co CI uo w• J H N � w0 u-a coal. �w Z F. �0: Z ta I-'. = U; F- _, u.0: O. — ui z' z City of Tukwila Department of Community Development HEARING DATE: NOTIFICATION: FILE NUMBER: APPLICANT: OWNER: REQUEST: ASSOCIATED PERMITS: LOCATION: LOT SIZE: COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: ZONING DISTRICT: John W. Rants, Mayor STAFF REPORT TO THE BOARD OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW PREPARED NOVEMBER 22,1996 December 3.1, 1996 Steve Lancaster, Director On November 4, 1996, staff mailed a Notice of Application and a Notice of Hearing to surrounding properties. The Notice of Hearing was published in the Seattle Times on November 27, 1996. On November 1, 1996, the applicant posted a notice board on the site. L96 -0060 - Design Review Dally Homes Donald Dally Design review approval to build a 20 unit, two and one -half story addition to an existing apartment complex consisting of two buildings, 10 units in each, with parking and recreational space. Building Permit Lot Consolidation Land Altering Permit Sign Permit 15304 57th Avenue South, Tukwila 4.6 acres High Density Residential High Density Residential (HDR) 6300 Southcenter Boulevard Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • (206) 41313670 • Fax. (206) 4313665 y. w re 6 m J U' 00 to �, u) w w =' Ill O. w¢: Na z 0 z W ■o1-!. 2.w' h; 0; w z. —I z Staff Report to the L96 -0060 Board of Architectural Review Pyramid Pointe Apts. SEPA ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: Mitigated Determination of Non - Significance (MDNS) May 24, 1995. Updated November 27, 1996 to reflect changes to new proposal. STAFF: Alexa Berlow, Associate Planner ATTACHMENTS: A. Set of Full -Size Plans B. Set of Reduced Plans C. SEPA Determination and Update Memorandum D. Applicants Design Review Checklist E. Minutes of June 15, 1995 Meeting F. Site Photographs and Photomontage* G. Color and Materials Board* Presentation Boards* * To be presented at the hearing. z moZ'; ,. 2 JU: to CE- =' J H: w O. . • 2 ga F—. W • Z� • I- O .;Z F- uji ION,.: s0 H 11•1111. • U� iu Z Uco • t= �' z :U::..�!u:�h1 Y.>. Rti3Yli'3Jiiili`.��i•�L CiuikS.Cl;t6titi''wik,u °.- £A'.`:ti iKlii.{47: Sirwi4$hnuol?iaa1.ihi4414ci 'LV: 4.eiY4=e4.CfAi1diuV5JAewf ... IIt�i1.i5Y:1v:GCu2"A Y:iFpi7: .... c .. .. 1M142a'YAI:l..:3tAid tiC?Kiaa`h::4 ^..is< Staff Report to the L96 -0060 Board of Architectural Revier. Pyramid Pointe Apts. FINDINGS Vicinity /Site Information Project Description The applicant proposes to construct a 20 unit addition to the existing Pyramid Pointe apartment complex. The proposal consists of two (2), two and one half story buildings with each building containing 10 units. Forty-two parking stalls will be added to the site. A new children's play area, outdoor spa, and improvements to the existing swimming pool are also proposed as recreational opportunities. Surrounding Land Uses Macadam Road, Southcenter Boulevard, Interstate - 5, and I-405 Roadways represent the dominant land uses south of the proposed development. High density residential facilities surround the rest of the site with the LaVista Apartments to the west, Hampton Heights and Heatherwood Apartments to the North, Sunwood Condominiums to the east, and North Hill Apartments to the Southeast. Existing Development The site has three (3) existing apartment buildings containing a total of 81 units and a manager's residence. There are 111 parking spaces to serve these units. Access is provided by 57th Avenue South which terminates at this site. A gravel maintenance road provides pedestrian access from the apartments to Macadam Road via a stairway leading down to the west below the site. A grasscrete turnaround provides access for fire trucks. Vegetation The site contains blackberries, grasses, and trees, including poplar and birch. Some may be significant. See Item 1B for further discussion. 3 z w -I C.) 00 CO o • cn w' w =- -J • w w O; w ?; 1-w _. I- o: z1 j o;. U OH. = U; z w o z Staff Report to the Board of Architectural RevieN,. Pyramid Pointe Apts. L96 -0060 BACKGROUND Since the last BAR hearing on June 15, 1995, the new Comprehensive Plan and zoning have precipitated the requirement for a new application to the Board of Architectural Review. The previous proposal submittal was approved as a Planned Residential Development (PRD) for a 28 unit apartment complex consisting of two (2) three - story buildings, 111 parking stalls, and recreational space. The current proposal has been reduced by eight (8) units and 14 parking stalls to meet High Density Residential (HDR) zoning. Due to a downsized proposal, the DCD Director has waived a Planned Residential Development (PRD) requirement. DECISION CRITERIA Design approval by the Board of Architectural Review is required for all multi- family structures pursuant to TMC 18.14.060, and should be reviewed in coordination with the guidelines, codes, and permits discussed below. Board of Architectural Review This project is subject to BAR review under TMC 18.14.060 for all multi- family structures in High- Density Residential (HDR) zones. Multi- Family Design Guidelines Multi- Family Design Review Guidelines have been addressed when evaluating the site plan, building design, and miscellaneous structures of this proposal. The applicant's response to criteria of these conditions is contained in Attachment D. (1) Site Planning (A) Building siting, architecture, and landscaping shall be integrated into a blend harmoniously with the neighborhood building scale, natural environment, and development characteristics as envisioned in the Comprehensive Plan. For instance, a multi-family development's design need not be harmoniously integrated with adjacent single family structures if that existing single family use is designated as "Commercial" or "High Density Residential" in the Comprehensive Plan. However, "Low Density Residential" (detached single family) designation would require such harmonious design integration. The proposed new project will be part of an existing multi- family apartment complex. The scale of the new project has been reduced from the previously approved Design Review plan. Designs vary between apartment complexes, however, the overall impact of mass and scale will be similar. z re z' 6 • J U• U.O. 0; W =, V_ wo• -J N a sv I- W • z� I- o z►-: • U� '0 -: 1.-; = w` U • Z: O it z 1 Staff Report to the Board of Architectural Revie, Pyramid Pointe Apts. L96 -0060 The nearest natural area is a vegetated steep slope at the Macadam Road right -of way located south of the site. (B) Natural features which contribute to desirable neighborhood character shall be preserved to the maximum extent possible. Natural features include, but are not limited to, existing significant trees and stands of trees, wetlands, streams, significant topographic features and SAO buffer and setback items. The site contains about seven (7) significant trees (4" minimum caliper). Pursuant to TMC 18.54.130 (3) a Tree Permit will be required for removal and replacement of any trees, in addition to possible modifications to the site plan to protect the existing trees. These issues will be addressed in detail at the time a Tree Permit is applied for. (C) The site plan shall use landscaping and building shapes to form an aesthetically pleasing and pedestrian scale streetscape. This shall include, but not be limited to facilitating pedestrian travel along the street, using architecture and landscaping to provide a desirable transition from streetscape to building, an providing an integrated linkage from pedestrian and vehicular facilities to building entries. The project has a limited street frontage. Along Macadam Road, the site is approximately 50 feet away from the roadway, separated from the street by a steep vegetated hillside. 57th Avenue South terminates at the northwest corner of the site. A network of paths will provide links between the new and existing buildings, parking, and to a stairway leading to Macadam Road. There is no pedestrian path proposed to link the sites to 57th Avenue South. (D) Pedestrian and vehicular entries shall provide a high quality visual focus using building siting, shapes, and landscaping. Such a feature establishes a physical transition between the project and public areas, and establishes the initial sense of high quality development. The existing apartments exhibit little architectural detailing. They have flat roofs, contain large planes, and lack modulation. For the new buildings, the project owner has made improvements to the exterior and interior of the buildings, as well as to landscaping and recreational space. These improvements include: (1) a new entry statement with improved landscaping, (2) the addition of a building, and (3) refinement of the southern recreational space, from an open area to one with a play area, spa, and deck. These features are intended to create a visual focus and establish an improved sense of quality in the development. (E) Vehicular circulation design shall minimize driveway intersections with the street. There is one existing driveway which connects the site to 57th Avenue South. The proposed new development will not create any additional driveways. z • w � n2 (..) -J C.) u) o• w= o g J' w _ a =w zF..: !- O Z w U �. 0 92 ww z -O. wz U 52 0 z Staff Report to the L96 -0060 Board of Architectural Revie .. Pyramid Pointe Apts. According to a survey prepared by Cramer Northwest, the entry driveway is partially on the adjacent lot to the north. The portion of the entry drive on the site does not meet the minimum 20 foot access aisle width of the zoning code (TMC 19.56, Table 3). This conflicts with sheet A2 which shows a 25 foot wide driveway. (F) Site perimeter design (i.e. landscaping, structures, and horizontal width) shall be coordinated with site development to ensure a harmonious transition between adjacent projects. The buildings are located at the top of a steep slope with a 10 -15 foot grade between sites. The proposed complex is also proposed to be located beyond the end of a dead end street. Therefore, the need for transitional features between adjacent sites is minimal. (G) Varying degrees of privacy for the individual residents shall be proved; increasing from the public right -of -way, to common areas, to individual residences. This can be accomplished through the use of symbolic and actual physical barriers to define the degrees of privacy appropriate to specific site area functions. The existing site already has a semi - private nature due to a lack of adjacent public roads, recreational space, and balconies. In addition, transitions from semi - private to private space is created by an enhanced entry feature with additional vegetation and wood walkway leading to individual apartments. Privacy is also created by recreational space, dispersed around the site. (H) Parking and service areas shall be located, designed, and screened to interrupt and reduce the visual impact of large paved areas. In general, parking spaces are dispersed around the complex. New parking areas are proposed for the entrance and in the center of the proposed complex. (1) The height, bulk, footprint, and scale of each building shall be in harmony with its site and adjacent long -term structures. Project density is proposed at 22.5 dwelling units per acre, compared to a maximum 29 units per acre that is generally allowed in high density areas. This development is less than that of an adjacent site (Sunshine Ridge) with 27 dwelling units per acre. Impervious surfaces on the site are proposed at 49.5 %. The floors of the new building are about five (5) to ten feet lower than the existing Pyramid Pointe buildings. Because of their siting and orientation, the existing apartments will still have substantial access to light and views. 6 z Wiz. tr w ug JU U0: w w; J H w0.. gQ — a n H= z HO z ►-. •U Off''. w W. � U I H, • — O: Z W.. 0 ~, z Staff Report to the L96 -0060 Board of Architectural Revieti. Pyramid Pointe Apts. (2) Building Design (A) Architectural style is not restricted, evaluation of project shall be based on the quality of its design and its ability to harmonize building texture, shape, lines and mass with the surrounding neighborhood. (B) Buildings shall be of appropriate height, scale, and design/shape to be in harmony with those existing permanent neighboring developments which are consistent with, or envisioned in, the Comprehensive Plan. This will be especially important for perimeter structures. Adjacent structures which are not in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan should be considered to be transitional. The degree of architectural harmony requires should be consistent with the non- conforming structure's anticipated permanence. No changes have been made to the building design since approval of the last design review proposal in June 1995. The nature of the built environment along South 152nd Street and 57th Avenue South has no particular style, color scheme, nor material. Although the neighborhood buildings are similar in height and mass, their age, detailing, roof lines, materials, and colors vary from project to project. The proposed new addition to the Pyramid Pointe project shares some design characteristics with the surrounding neighborhood, such as the use of green accent colors on the lattice gables, trellis, and shutters, a pitched roof and gables similar to the complex immediately to the north, and the use of vinyl siding similar to the complex immediately to the east. Board and batten siding reflects the vertical orientation of most plywood siding buildings in the area. Special features of the new complex include: (1) multiple siding materials for residential scale and character, (2) entrance pavillions at each stairway core, (3) daylighted buildings to reduce appearance of height, (4) shed dormers on building to reduce scale of end walls, and (5) a children's play area, gazebo with spa, and an enhanced swimming pool. The nearest off -site development is the LaVista Apartments to the west, approximately 100 feet from the site and approximately 130 feet from the proposed western building. The LaVista Building is about 15-20 feet lower than the proposed western building. Eight (8) trees are proposed to be planted in the west setback area to provide a transitional element from the LaVista site to the proposed west building. 7 z f- w U O' co w =:. w0` • lLQ; D: = w' H= z� I- O Z yi .0 H` w w� z wZ 0— O z Staff Report to the L96 -0060 Board of Architectural Revit. Pyramid Pointe Apts. (C) Building components, such as windows, doors, eaves, parapets, stairs and decks shall be integrated into the overall building design. Particular emphasis should be given to harmonious proportions of these components with those of adjacent developments. Building components and ancillary parts shall be consistent with the anticipated life of the structure. No changes have been made since approval of the last design review proposal in June 1995. The proposed gable and cross gable roof structure for upper building modulation are comparable to those of the Hampton Heights apartment building to the north. The use of multiple siding materials, mullioned windows with shutters, and individual apartment entries are intended to reduce the scale of the building and define an architectural character appropriate for residential use. (D) The overall color scheme shall work to reduce building prominence and shall blend in with the natural environment. No changes have been made to the color scheme since approval of the last design review proposal in June 1995. The color scheme proposed is Aspen Grey for the bottom third of the building and Beige for the upper two - thirds. Also proposed is white belly band and white windows, Song of Norway Green for accent, and a greyish -brown asphalt composition shingle for the roof. (E) Monotony of design in single or multiple building projects shall be avoided. Variety of detail, form, and siting shall be used to provide visual interest. Otherwise monotonous flat walls and uniform vertical planes of individual buildings shall be broken up with building modulation, stairs, decks, railings, and focal entries. Multiple building developments shall use siting and additional architectural variety to avoid inappropriate repetition of building designs and appearance to surrounding properties. No changes have been made since approval of the last design review proposal in June 1995. Horizontal and vertical modulation, decks, entry features, and gables are used to create variation in the design, mass, and scale of the proposed buildings and for the overall impact of the complex. While the overall impact of the proposed buildings is considerably less than previously proposed, the design quality of the new buildings represents a substantial upgrade to the site. 8 Staff Report to the Board of Architectural Revie.. (3) Landscaping and Site Treatment L96 -0060 Pyramid Pointe Apts. (A) Existing natural topographic patterns and significant vegetation shall be reflected in project design when they contribute to the natural beauty of the area or are important to defining neighborhood identity or a sense of place. Historically, the area was a wooded hillside. Most of the area has been cleared, graded, filled, and covered with lawn for multi- family housing. The new project proposes to add new trees, however, the number of trees to be added and their location is not known. (B) Landscape treatment shall enhance existing natural and architectural features, help separate public from private spaces, strengthen vistas and important views, provide shade to moderate the affects of large paved areas, and break up visual mass. The landscape plan breaks up the visual mass of the buildings and creates a sense of privacy around the recreational facilities. (C) Walkways, parking spaces, terraces, and other paved areas shall promote safety, and provide an inviting and stable appearance. Direct pedestrian linkages to the public street, to on -site recreation areas, and to adjacent public recreation areas shall be provided. Walkways are proposed to link the new apartments to parking, recreational space, trash enclosures, and to the stairway down to Macadam Road. New sidewalks will improve access from the existing western building to the proposed new addition. There are no pedestrian connections planned for 57th Avenue South. (D) Appropriate landscape transition to adjoining properties shall be provided. The buildings are located at the top of a steep slope with a 10 -15 foot grade between sites. The proposed complex is also proposed to be located beyond the end of a dead end street. Therefore, the need for transitional features between adjacent sites is minimal. Staff Report to the L96-0060 Board of Architectural Revie .. Pyramid Pointe Apts. (4) Miscellaneous Structures (A) Materials shall be compatible with buildings, scale shall be appropriate, color shall be in harmony with buildings and surroundings, and structural proportions shall be to scale. (B) Screening of service yards and other places which tend to be unsightly shall be accomplished Z by the use of walls, fencing, planting, berms, or a combination of these. Screening shall be effective = 1. Z in winter and summer. ,..., w (C) Mechanical equipment or other utility hardware on roof, ground, or buildings shall be U O: screened from view. Screening shall be designed as an integral part of the architecture. (i.e. raised co ca - parapets and fully enclosed under roof° and landscaping. co H co LL' (D) Exterior lighting standards and fixtures shall be of a design and size consistent with safety, w O building architecture and adjacent area. Lighting shall be shielded, and restrained in design with no 2 off -site glare spill over. Excessive brightness and brilliant colors shall not be used unless clearly g demonstrated to be integral to building architecture. N n =a A wood trellis and gazebo are proposed over the spa and additional wood trellises Z x are proposed over the trash enclosures. These will be painted green to match the z 0" color of the gables and shutters on the buildings. w w. D CI The spa /gazebo area and the pool are proposed to be enclosed by chain link fences. ;p A 42" wood fence is proposed above the rockery north of the children's play area. ° a w, H U: The carport design consists of a flat roof structure supported by columns located at u_ p the center of the roof. While different in design from the gabled apartment units, w z the contrast works to distinguish between private residences and parking. c� _. P P g 1- z CONCLUSIONS 1. Site Planning The revised buildings submittal is appropriate relative to the scale, orientation, slope, and existing landscaping of the site, and will impact the site less than the previously proposed project. Grade separations provide the primary transition between the site and adjacent properties. Landscaping and setbacks for the entry building provide an appropriate transition between the apartment projects to the north and west. Trees and rockery proposed along the north property line will serve to soften the hard surfaces of the parking lots on the adjacent properties. The site design provides a variety of public, semi - private, and private areas. 10 Staff Report to the L96 -0060 Board of Architectural Revie■. Pyramid Pointe Apts. New parking and service areas have been dispersed throughout the site and have been adequately landscaped. 2. Building Design Locating the new buildings closer to the entrance to the complex and the addition of landscaping at the building entries will provide an improved sense of quality to the development that currently exists. The proposed building design will provide an improved design, landscaping, parking ratio, recreational space, and site amenities. It will be in greater harmony with the mass, scale, shape, and texture of surrounding buildings as well as within the economic and architectural context of the overall neighborhood. 3. Landscaping and Site Treatment The infill character of the proposed new project will significantly moderate its visibility on the hillside. New trees will serve to protect the wooded character of the site. Improved pedestrian links to 57th Avenue South and Macadam Road will expand pedestrian circulation, especially within the site. 4. Miscellaneous Structures The trellis features proposed for the gazebo /spa and trash enclosures are compatible with the building design. The proposed fencing around the gazebo /spa and swimming pool is not in keeping with the architectural nor with the design of other miscellaneous structures. RECOMMENDATION The Department of Community Development recommends approval of the proposed project with the following conditions: Site Planning The main entry driveway must be at least 20 feet wide (currently 10') and located entirely on the property, unless a permanent easement is recorded allowing access over the property adjacent to the north. A sidewalk shall be provided from the site to 57th Avenue South. 11 - r}pacMwrms -rx^r ,ea n « �w raa:ms��,rr;*Fr1r ac4 Staff Report to the L96-0060 Board of Architectural Review Pyramid Pointe Apts. Landscaping An automatic irrigation system shall be provided for the new landscaped areas. The irrigation system shall include in-ground moisture sensors. A record of the number and location of new trees to be added must be confirmed. A grasscrete turnaround for fire truck access must be provided. Miscellaneous Structures The chain link fence around the gazebo/spa and swimming pool shall be vinyl covered. Exterior light levels shall be limited to one (1) foot candle lights at the property line. No direct illumination shall go beyond the property line. 12 41.4 • • ' m'S 4, • • • • s A F F I D A V I T • O F D I S T R I B U T I O N ,-/?--L,}7,c, hereby declare that: z z �z, f-: Ig Notice of Public; Hearing .: fl Determination of Non- w 2 significance 6 D J0 00. O Notice of Public Meeting ❑ Mitigated Determination of w o,- Nonsignificance w x N u_ Board of Adjustment Agenda 0Determination of Significance w 0, Packet and Scoping Notice 2 : J• 0 Board of Appeals Agenda ['Notice of Action u.< Packet N a I-w _, fPlanning Commission Agenda fl Official Notice Z 1-, Packet ~ 0 z F-, uw w'. Short Subdivision Agenda 0 Other n O, Packet p ,o LI Notice of Application for 0 Other w w u. 00, 0 Shoreline Management Permit w Z H 0 was mailed to each of the following addresses on z.._..:. Shoreline Management Permit Name of Project Pti INl 1`V) T Signature File Number (D() City of Tukwila John W. Rants, Mayor Department of Community Development PUBLIC NOTICE City of Tukwila Steve Lancaster, Director Notice is hereby given that the City of Tukwila Planning Commission and Board of Architectural Review will be holding a public hearing at 7:00 p.m., on December 11, 1996, in the City Hall Council Chambers located at 6200 Southcenter Blvd. to discuss the following: CASE NUMBER: APPLICANT: REQUEST: LOCATION: PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING L96 -0062 Sprint Spectrum Installation of a Personal Communication System (PCS) Base Station with a roof -top triangular mounting holding up to twelve antennae. 10825 E. Marginal Way S., Tukwila. BOARD OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW PUBLIC HEARING CASE NUMBER: APPLICANT: REQUEST: LOCATION: L96 -0060: Pyramid Pointe Donald Dally, Dally Homes Design review of a 20 -unit apartment complex, consisting of two buildings with ten units each, parking and recreational spaces. 15304 57 Ave S., Tukwila. Persons wishing to comment on the above cases may do so by written statement, or by appearing at the public hearing. Information on the above cases may be obtained at the Tukwila Planning Division at 431 -3670. The City encourages you to notify your neighbors and other persons you believe would be affected by the above items. Published: Seattle Times November 27, 1996 Distribution: Mayor, City Clerk, Property Owners /Applicants, Adjacent Property Owners, File. 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • (206) 431-3670 • Fax (206) 431-3665 CITY OF TUKWILA NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING A.. PP N cr\-i -•e-G DALLY HOMES, Has filed application to develop a 20 unit apartment complex consisting of one two -story and one three -story building, parking, and landscaping, to be located at 15304 57th Avenue South. Permits applied for include: • Design Review Other Known required permits include: • SEPA • Lot Consolidation • Building Permit • Land Altering Permit • Sign Permit Studies required with the application include: • Geotechnical Report • Traffic Impact Study An environmental checklist has been submitted with the studies identified above. An adendum to the file was prepared to reflect changes to the proposed project. • Iles Available for:.::a ubhc :Review The project files are available at the City of Tukwila. To view these files, you may request them at the permit counter of the Department of Community Development (DCD), located at 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite 100. Project files include: • L96 -0060 (Design Review) • E95 -0005 (SEPA) • L95 -0009 (Lot Consolidation) i:•':: iil +"'�::<:ii::ii:::..:: <i: ::' �:;:•,::' : ?i''L't:::ii:.:.::::i:: i:i: }::i :;:;? v: <3i ":i 1pportu.nittes fo.r Public C:omm:ent You are invited to comment on the project at the public hearing before the Board of Architectural Review, scheduled for December 11,. 1996 at 7:00 p.m. To confirm the time and date, call the Department of Community Development at 431 -3670. For further information, call Alexa Berlow at 431 -3673, or visit our offices at 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite 100, Monday through Friday, 3:30 -5:00 p.m. Application Filed: September 9, 1996 Notice of Completeness issued: September 23, 1996 Notice of Application issued: November 1, 1996 A F F I D A V I T _Or Notice of Public Hearing 1 -) Y12A L L/ C LAID O F D I S T R I B U T I O N dhereby declare that: J Notice of Public Meeting Board of Adjustment Agenda Packet []Board of Appeals Agenda Packet OPlanning Commission Agenda Packet f short Subdivision Agenda Packet [] Notice of Application for Shoreline Management Permit O Determination of Non - significance LI Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance Li Determination of Significance and Scoping Notice O Notice of Action ❑Official Notice • Other 1 ,�k. , „e.i._! l'Ar:it , O Other fl Shoreline Management Permit was mailed to each of the following addresses on / // 17 �, /5 LP 3 Name of Project? »l2ki Ja1 File Number L.96- -- / 6 — 6060 z moZ, re 2 J 0 UO; CO w= J I- w0 ga. CITY OF TUKWILA NOTICE OF APPLICATION PROJECT INFORMATION DONALD DALLY has filed applications for development of an apartment complex consisting of one two-story and one three -story building, parking, and landscaping to be located at 15304 57th Avenue South. Permits applied for include: • Design Review Other known required permits include: • SEPA • LOT Consolidation • Land Altering Permit • Building Permit • Sign Permit Studies required with the applications include: • Geotechnical Report • Traffic Impact Study ILES AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC.REVIE' The project files are available at the City of Tukwila. To view the files, you may request them at the counter at the Department of Community Development (DCD), located at 6300 Southcenter Boulevard #100. Project Files include: • #L96 -0060 (Design Review) • #E95 -0005 (SEPA) • #L95 -0009 (Lot Consolidation) RTUNITY FOR PUBLIC COMMEI Your written comments on the project are requested. They must be delivered to DCD at the address above or postmarked no later than 5:00 P.M., Friday, November 15, 1996. Opportunity for additional oral and written public comments will be provided at a public hearing before the Board of Architectural Review, scheduled for December 11, 1996. To confirm this date call the Department of Community Development at 431 -3670. You may request a copy of any decision, information on hearings, and your appeal rights by calling DCD at 431 -3670. Design Review - City Council SEPA - City Council Lot Consolidation - City Council For further information on this proposal, contact Alexa Berlowat 431 -3670 or visit our offices at 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100, Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Application Filed: September 9, 1996 Notice of Completeness Issued: September 23, 1996 Notice of Application Issued: November 1, 1996 z F=- Z. mow. UO CO w =. U) w O' u- j. wa w. z� F- a • z I-: U� O N; o 1-. ww H U wz U U); O z CITY OF TUKWILA NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING P. hi764, titcam. L >o cr . !ROJECT >INFORMATION' ............ ..... ............................... . DALLY HOMES, Has filed application to develop a 20 unit apartment complex consisting of one two -story and one three -story building, parking, and landscaping, to be located at 15304 57th Avenue South. Permits applied for include: • Design Review Other Known required permits include: • SEPA • Lot Consolidation • Building Permit • Land Altering Permit • Sign Permit Studies required with the application include: • Geotechnical Report • Traffic Impact Study An environmental checklist has been submitted with the studies identified above. An adendum to the file was prepared to reflect changes to the proposed project. • es'vala or bI ic;Rey.e The project files are available at the City of Tukwila. To view these files, you may request them at the permit counter of the Department of Community Development (DCD), located at 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite 100. Project files include: • L96 -0060 (Design Review) • E95 -0005 (SEPA) • L95 -0009 (Lot Consolidation) unities'for: ............................. . ............................... ............................... ............ ....................... oen ........................ ....................... ........................ ................ You are invited to comment on the project at the public hearing before the Board of Architectural Review, scheduled for December 11, 1996 at 7:00 p.m. To confirm the time and date, call the Department of Community Development at 431 -3670. For further information, call Alexa Berlow at 431 -3673, or visit our offices at 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite 100, Monday through Friday, 8:30 -5:00 p.m. Application Filed: September 9, 1996 Notice of Completeness issued: September 23, 1996 Notice of Application issued: November 1, 1996 z z' JU o • o: o;. ' CO W• wz N LL 'Li o u-a • = d: �. w, Z z 'I- o z UJ C) w w'. .s H U, LL F"; Z. ui N. H-I o�. z CITY OF TUKWILA DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Tukwila, WA 98188 Telephone: (206) 431 -3670 AFFIDAVIT OF INSTALLATION AND POSTING OF PUBLIC INFORMATION SIGNS) State of Washington County of King City of Tukwila RECEIVED NOV 0 5 1996 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT I J 1.4 wkp (Print Name) understand that Section 18.104.110 of the Tukwila Municipal Code requires me to post f he property no later than fourteen (14) days following the issuance of the Notice of Completeness. I certify that on n V / 096 the Public Notice Board(s) in accordance with Section 18 104.110 and other applicable guidelines were posted on the property located at f 520 1- 5"7 `44Ave Co so as to be clearly seen from each right -of -way providing primary vehicular access to the property for application file number 4- 9 6 — ©e`) 6. • ian (Applicant Sign SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this 1 day of ,." , 19 cl6 c tLIJ L SY& ZL NOTARY PUBLIC in and for the State of Washington residing at CPLrA.r- , My commission expires on c1" 12-61 9 KAPPLER THOMAS HARKEY ARCHITECTS 13400 Northup Way East, Suite 33 Bellevue, WA 98005 z Tel: (206) 641 -5320 112 Fax: (206) 641 -5318 W 6: JU U O, U) w w =: J I.-. w O: a: co = a. mow. . 2 z o z i--; w W; U o w w: U • 1.11 Z co — O November 18, 1996 Alexa Berlow c/o City of Tukwilla. 6300 Southcenter Blvd. Tukwilla, WA 98188 Re: Pyramid Pointe Apartments, (94103) Dear Ms. Berlow: RECEIVED NOV 20 1995 DEVELOPMENT Per you're request, 1 have developed an updated project description for the above mentioned proposed project. The previ'vs proposal included the addition of 28 apartment units in two 2 1 /2,story buildings and 56 new parking spaces. At the time of the previous approval, the site was split zoned with approximately . l /2 of the site being RMH and the other 1/2 of the site being R -3. The site is now (Zoned entirely HD.R. As a result of this city imposed zoning change, the project has been reduced to 20 units. These units are located in two 2 1/2 story buildings with 10 units in each building. The buildings are located in essentially the same locations as they were in the previous proposal. Below is a basic summary comparison between the previous and current submittals: Current submittal Previous Submittal No. of new bldgs No. of new units 20 28 No. of new prkng stalls 42 56 2 Based on these statistics, it is clear that the overall impact is considerably less than the previous proposal. Special features of this proposal include: 1. Gabled and cross gabled roofs for upper building modulation 2. Multiple siding materials for residential scalp and character a- 3. Entrance pavilions at each stairwayycore 4. Buildings are day lighted so as to ippear two story form the entry side 5. Building ends have shed dormers to reduce the scale of the end walls 6. A children's play area, gazebo with a spa and an enhanced swimming pool have been z Micro Com Systems Washington Ltd. 12608 -B INTERURBAN AVENUE SOUTH TUKWILA, WA 98168 TEL (206) 248 -3191 FAX (206) 248 -3313 ATTENTION The next image may be a duplicate of the previous image. Drc r www.microcomsys.com W; • Wes; J U; ••:UO" ;W _: CO u- W O;• • _�; • F- W'. Z Z i. . W'• •2 1_ (Wj` ;11_ 6`, Z= • IO f; .. z. • • TXAT iLER THOMAS HARKEY ARCHITECTS 13400 Northup Way East, Suite 33 Bellevue, WA 98005 Tel: (206) 641 -5320 Fax: (206) 641 -5318 November 18, 1996 Alexa Berlow c/o City of Tukwilla 6300 Southcenter Blvd, Tukwilla, WA 98188 Re: Pyramid Pointe Apartments, (94103) Dear Ms. Berlow: RECEIVED NOV 2 0 1996 CMTY DEVELOPMENT Per you're request, i have developed an updated project description for the above mentioned proposed project. The previ€s proposal included the addition of 28 apartment units in two 2 1 /2,story buildings and 56 new parking spaces. At the time of the previous approval, the site was split zoned with approximately_,1 /2 of the site being RMH and the other 1/2 of the site being R -3. The site is now ioned entirely HDR. As a result of this city imposed zoning change, the project has been reduced to 20 units. These units are located in two 2 1/2 story buildings with 10 units in each. building. The buildings are located in essentially the same locations as they were in the previous proposal. Below is a basic summary comparison between the previous and current submittals: No. of new bldgs No. of new units No. of new prkng stalls Current submittal Previous Submittal 2 20 42 2 28 56 Based on these statistics, it is clear that the overall impact is considerably less than the previous proposal. Special features of this proposal include: • 1. Gabled and cross gabled roofs for upper building modulation 2. Multiple siding materials for residential scale and character 3. Entrance pavilions at each stairwayycore 4. Buildings are day lighted so as to 4ppear two story form the entry side 5. Building ends have shed dormers to reduce the scale of the Cnd walls 6. A children's play area, gazebo with a spa and an enhanced swimming pool have been included to allow for greater recreational potential. 7. The overall site planning will enhance the entire project by creating a new entry statement with the addition of building one, and the refinement of the souffie—rn _ recreation spaces. r ,V I WM* & (4 I' , • G r •1:.....4 Cr e.O. 11. ott Please do not h- ) . te to call if you have any questions regarding this infomation. -■.41111 -040f IrA v_SPAY/V: E T Sincerely, Scott Harkey Principal RECEIVED NOV 2 0 1996 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 18.12.070 Basic development standards. Development within the Medium Density Residential district shall conform to the following listed _. and referenced standards: MDR BASIC DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS Lot area, minimum 8,000 sq. ft. Lot area per unit (multi - family) 3,000 sq. ft. Average lot width (min. 20 ft. street frontage width), minimum 60 feet Setbacks, minimum: • Front - 1st floor 15 feet • Front - 2nd floor 20 feet • Front - 3rd floor 30 feet • Second front - Ist floor 7.5 feet • Second front - 2nd floor 10 feet • Second front - 3rd floor 15 feet • Sides - 1st floor 10 feet • Sides - 2nd floor 20 feet • Sides - 3rd floor 20 feet (30 feet if adjacent to LDR) • Rear - 1st floor 10 feet • Rear - 2nd floor 20 feet • Rear - 3rd floor 20 feet (30 feet if adjacent to LDR) Height, maximum 30 feet Landscape requirements (minimum): See Landscape, Recreation, Recycling/ Solid Waste Space requirements chapter for further requirements • Front(s) 15 feet • Sides 10 feet • Rear 10 feet Development area coverage 50% maximum Recreation space 400 sq. ft. per dwelling unit (1,000 sq. ft. min.) Off - street parking: • Residential 2 per dwelling unit • Accessory dwelling unit See Accessory Use section of this chapter • Other uses See Off - street Parking & Loading Regulations chapter (Ord. 1758 §1(part), 1995) TITLE 18 — ZONING Chapter 18.14 HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (HDR) DISTRICT Sections: 18.14.010 18.14.020 18.14.030 18.14.040 18.14.050 18.14.060 18.14.070 Purpose. Permitted uses. Accessory uses. Conditional uses. Unclassified uses. Design review. Basic development standards. 18.14.010 Purpose. This district implements the High Density Residential Comprehensive Plan designation, which allows up to 22.0 dwelling units per net acre. It is intended to provide a high- density, multiple family district which is also compatible with commercial and office areas. (Ord. 1758 §1(part), 1995) 18.14.020 Permitted uses. The following uses are permitted outright within the High Density Residential district, subject to compli- ance with all other applicable requirements of the Tukwila Municipal Code. (1) Animal veterinary, including associated temporary indoor boarding; access to an arterial required. (2) Convalescent, nursing and retirement homes for not more than 12 patients. (3) Day care centers. (4) Manufactured /mobile home park, meeting the following requirements: (A) the development site shall comprise not less than two contiguous acres; (B) overall development density shall not exceed eight dwelling units per acre; (C) vehicular access to individual dwelling units shall be from the interior of the park; and (D) emergency access shall be subject to the approval of the Tukwila Fire Department. (5) Dwelling — One detached single - family unit per lot, (includes factory -built or modular home that meets UBC). (6) Dwelling — Apartment houses, town - houses, row houses and condominiums. (7) Dwelling — Multi- family duplex, triplex, or fourplex units. (8) Libraries, museums or art galleries (public). (9) Parks, trails, picnic areas and playgrounds (public) but not including amusement parks, golf courses, or commercial recreation. (Ord. 1758 §1(part), 1995) December 4, 1995 3R`tray a. 1. 3^ 8.! L.. M. W' AV- U:'F_CML49711V:^C•'.MVP.°'^- .u...^., Page 18-23 z w. 00 tn0- w= N LL. wO g Q. 03 a = I— W 2 1- O Z 1- w w; 0 H Li=O wz 0N. O z .. ..:VVILA MUNICIPAL CODE 18.14.030 Accessory uses. The following uses and structures customarily appurtenant to a permitted use, and clearly incidental to Such permitted use, are allowed within the High Density Residential district. (1) Adult day care and adult family homes. (2) Accessory dwelling unit, provided: (A) minimum lot of 7,200 square feet,; (B) accessory dwelling unit is no more than 33% of the square footage of the primary residence and a maximum of 1,000 square feet, whichever is less; (C) one of the residences is the primary residence of a person who owns at least 50% of the property, (D) dwelling unit is incorporated into the primary detached single - family residence, not a separate unit, so that both units appear to be of the same design as if constructed at the same time; (E) minimum of three parking spaces on the property with units less than 600 square feet, and a minimum of four spaces for units over 600 square feet; and (F) the units are not sold as condominiums. (3) Family child care homes. (4) Home occupations. (5) Greenhouses (noncommercial) and storage sheds not exceeding 1,000 square feet in floor area. (6) Parking areas. (7) Private stable, if located not less than 60 feet from front lot line nor less than 30 feet from a side or rear lot line. It shall provide capacity for not more than one horse, mule or pony for each 20,000 square feet of stable and pasture area, but not more than a total of two of the above - mentioned animals shall be allowed on the same lot. (Ord. 1758 §1(part), 1995) 18.14.040 Conditional uses. The following uses may be allowed within the High Density Residential district, subject to the requirements, procedures, and conditions established by the Conditional Use Permits chapter of this title. (1) Bed - and - Breakfast lodging. (2) Cemeteries and crematories. (3) Churches and community center buildings. (4) Electrical substations - distribution. (5) Fire and police stations. (6) Radio, television, microwave, cellular or observation stations and towers. (7) Recreation facilities (public) including, but not limited to, sports fields, community centers, and golf courses. (8) Schools, preschool, elementary, junior, or senior high schools (public), and equivalent private schools. (Ord. 1758 §1(part), 1995) 18.14.050 Unclassified uses. The following uses may be allowed within the High Density Residential district, subject to the requirements, procedures and conditions established by the Unclassified Use Permits chapter of this title. (1) Landfills and excavations which the responsible official, acting pursuant to the State Envi- ronmental Policy Act, determines are significant environmental actions. (2) Conversions of rental multi- family struc- tures to condominiums or owner - occupied multi- family housing, but excluding the construction of new condominium or owner - occupied multi - family hous- ing. (Ord. 1758 §1(part), 1995) 18.14.060 Design review. Design review is required for all multi - family structures and mobile or manufactured home parks. ' (See the Board of Architectural Review chapter of this title.) (Ord. 1758 §1(part), 1995) Page 18 -24 December 4, 1995 z 11— w -1 C.): • UO, No, CO =, . Jf': wO z O: z.►- LU 0' 'D : O �. .:0 H; w w' z. UN • z 18.14.070 Basic development standards. Development within the High Density Residential 9istrict shall conform to the following listed and referenced standards: HDR BASIC DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS Lot area, minimum 9,600 sq. ft. Lot area per unit (multi- family) 2,000 sq. ft. Average lot width (min. 20 ft. street frontage width), minimum 60 feet Setbacks (minimum): • Front - 1st Floor 15 feet • Front - 2nd Floor 20 feet • Front - 3rd Floor 30 feet • Front - 4th Floor 45 feet • Second Front - 1st Floor 7.5 feet • Second Front - 2nd Floor 10 feet • Second Front - 3rd Floor 15 feet • Second Front - 4th Floor 22.5 feet • Sides - 1st Floor 10 feet • Sides - 2nd Floor 20 feet • Sides - 3rd Floor 20 feet (30 feet if adjacent to LDR) • Sides - 4th Floor 30 feet • Rear - 1st Floor 10 feet • Rear - 2nd Floor 20 feet • Rear - 3rd Floor 20 feet (30 feet if adjacent to LDR) • Rear - 4th Floor 30 feet Height, maximum 45 feet Development area coverage 50% maximum Landscape requirements (minimum): See Landscape, Recreation, Recycling/ Solid Waste Space requirements chapter for further requirements • Front 15 feet • Sides 10 feet • Rear 10 feet Recreation space 400 sq. ft. per dwelling unit (1,000 sq. ft. min.) Off - street parking: • Residential 2 per dwelling unit •. Accessory dwelling unit See Accessory Use section of this chapter • Other uses See Off - street Parking & Loading Regulations chapter TITLE 18 — ZONING Chapter 18.16 MIXED USE OFFICE (MUO) DISTRICT Sections: 18.16.010 Purpose. 18.16.020 Permitted uses. 18.16.030 Accessory uses. 18.16.040 Conditional uses. 18.16.050 Unclassified uses. 18.16.060 On -site hazardous substances. 18.16.070 Design review. 18.16.080 Basic development standards. 18.16.010 Purpose. This district implements the Mixed -Use Office Comprehensive Plan designation which allows up to 14.5 dwelling units per net acre. It is intended to create and maintain areas characterized by professional and commercial office structures, mixed with certain complimentary retail and residential uses. (Ord. 1758 §1(part), .1995) 18.16.020 Permitted uses. The following uses are permitted outright within the Mixed -Use Office district, subject to compliance with all other applicable requirements of the Tukwila Municipal Code. (1) Animal veterinary, including associated temporary indoor boarding; access to an arterial required. (2) Beauty or barber shops. (3) Bicycle repair shops. (4) Billiard or pool rooms. (5) Computer software development and simi- lar uses. (6) Convalescent, nursing and retirement homes for not more than 12 patients. (7) Day care centers. (8) Dwelling - One detached single- family unit per lot (includes factory -built or modular home that meets UBC). (9) Dwelling Multi- family units above office and retail uses. (10) Financial, banking, mortgage, and other services. (11) Fraternal organizations. (12) High tech uses including research and development, light assembling, repair or storage of electronic equipment, instruments, or biotechnology with at least 35% office. (13) Laundries: (A) self service (B) dry cleaning (C) tailor, dyeing (14) Libraries, museums or art galleries (public). December 4, 1995 Page 18-25 CITY 0' TUKWILA Department of Community Development 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Tukwila, WA 98188 Telephone: (206) 431 -3670 DESIGN REVIEW (P -DR) APPLICATION FOR. STAFF USE ONLY Planner: File Numt Receipt Number: Project File 0 Application Complete`` SEPA File ❑ Application Incomplete `(Date:'' Shoreline File I. PROJECT BACKGROUND A. NAME OF PROJECT /DEVELOPMENT: Ty r4 } U 61 Ph i >n h2- l pa B. LOCATION OF PROJECT /DEVELOPMENT: (give street address or, if vacant, indicate lot(s), block and subdivision; or tax lot number, access street, and nearest intersection; if proposal applies to several properties, list the streets bounding the area.) 15-30 y- 5 7-44 VQ- S� Quarter: Section: Township: Range: Li-r- (This information may be found on your tax statement) C. CONTACT: (Primary contact regarding the application, and to whom all notices and reports shall be sent) NAME: O t1 ct (c4 q� �D r./ I (1 C / / l p ADDRESS: 3 4 E�' t J (il t' vii ve Fi . 1 , ! t 7'n O 5l�C.€ 1/1‘7, ' 1' /9 ?W )2 PHONE: i. / - c'-X • r 7 / SIGNATURE: �� /�_ DATE: 7 .�oC 3 yi' RECEIVED CITY OF TUKWILA SEP 0 9 1996 PERMIT CENTER z xW rr2 6 00 Wo, W= J F. w o. • J < = o: w. ZH F- O. ZH U • � O -, o� Iw U' _ z - o 1 z .. D. PROPERTY OWNER DECLARATION The undersigned makes the following statements based upon personal knowledge: 1. I am the current owner of the property which is the subject of this application. 2. All statements contained in the application are true and correct to the best of my knowledge. 3. The application is being submitted with my knowledge and consent. 4. I understand that conditions of approval, which the City and applicant have jointly agreed may not be completed prior to final approval of the construction (e.g., final building permit approval), will be incorporated into an agreement to be executed and recorded against the property prior to issuance of any construction permits. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Washington and the United States of America that the foregoing statement is true and correct. EXECUTED at 5 0 Cf le (city), —TO ( , 19942_. -7-1-1 PI, 1�� 1 L? r (state), on (Signature) (Print name) r- -D6( 7 Use additional sheets as needed for all property owner signatures. z Wiz; 6 mow` J0: 0O, N O W= J F-, N 0:. w g Q. = �...w z� �o z 1- ww 'O CO U o, z; UV Z ,BOARD OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW DESIGN REVIEW APPLIC-'TION Page 2 CRITERIA The following criteria will be used by the BAR in its decision - making on your proposed project. Please carefully review the criteria, respond to each criterion (if appropriate), and describe how your plans and elevations meet the criteria. If the space provided for response is insufficient, attach additional response to this form. 1. RELATIONSHIP OF STRUCTURE TO SITE A. The site should be planned to accomplish a desirable transition with the streetscape and to provide for adequate landscaping, and pedestrian movement. B. Parking and service areas should be located, designed, and screened to moderate the visual impact of large paved areas. C. The height and scale of each building should be considered in relation to it site. RESPONSE: • n�u�h of -he 441,0 pooh e ex1.51i 4n4vre. New pgrt ini Pnd reJa4 #16. i • A . mg 4.a: i ' fi ' I / 1 # tj i Air to Ard ' /I /_ ' �tt^� t. /i- -I builds one ivzir w ee hers 'ewe I - 1 - ,111IL 'c iii/_4 /L i 14 2. RELATIONSHIP OF STRUCTURE AND SITE TO ADJOINING AREA A. Harmony in texture, lines, and masses is encouraged. B. Appropriate landscape transition to adjoining properties should be provided. C. Public buildings and structures should be consistent with the established neighborhood character. D. Compatibility of vehicular pedestrian circulation patterns and loading facilities in terms of safety, efficiency and convenience should be encouraged.• E. Compatibility of on -site vehicular circulation with street circulation should be encouraged. RESPONSE: Typie41 y, - - etem se-ale .7111 psel-/- /4 616191ted * r� ►° GO /or p4Lcr-n ,,H.4 1e , -me byrwnd co-c.ylatttlin has been improffeel bl re4 jiffn' LA l- /.►4�_�:� 1144 -t ah . s�yrt filar c/ w o bald) 1ew1 - Ihelh� ..0/2 sib. dr /msa►�na,iv► y y flee • s F_.ra I /i •_44C" regsw. Riry�r+ c:} yam�ssnxn wyrSr. �. ryaw: ar? �rw�ar .!+x•�.vrtsa+�!nrar.�.mwrrrs. _.:.X;`+.rtn�S_n,?w.,.'oY+wn. tuv ro+rc .s-e vxw+h z �z re w QQ� JU UO cn w= J I- u. w O' g Q. =a _. Z I- O Z W uj 'O — wuj 2 ;- - O; Z w cn: — 0 z BOARD OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW DESIGN REVIEW APPLIC-` TION Page 3 3. LANDSCAPE AND SITE TREATMENT A. Where existing topographic patterns contribute to beauty and utility of a development, they should be recognized and preserved and enhanced. B. Grades of walks, parking spaces, terraces, and other paved areas should promote safety and provide an inviting and stable appearance. C. Landscape treatment should enhance architectural features, strengthen vistas and important axis, and provide shade. D. In locations where plants will be susceptible to injury by pedestrian or motor traffic, mitigating steps should be taken. E. Where building sites limit planting, the placement of trees or shrubs in paved areas is encour- aged. F. Screening of service yards, and other places which tend to be unsightly, should be accom- plished by use of walls, fencing, planting or combinations of these. Screening should be effective in winter and summer. G. In areas where general planting will not prosper, other materials such as fences, walls, and pavings of wood, brick, stone, or gravel may be used. H. Exterior lighting, when used, should enhance the building design and the adjoining land- scape. Lighting standards and fixtures should be of a design and size compatible with the building and adjacent area. Lighting should be shielded, and restrained in design. Excessive brightness and brilliant colors should be avoided. RESPONSE: • r arc 44 "f hU7�' grc- tai n . -% ° much rnDrr modvyled / Jr[_/_ /1 - • . 1 oive r/ �si wh h Aqre 11.44 14! '.4 ri. S ...g • ir 4 41, - In dl ,A4f- ��_' /5 . "R.r /4 f 4 e G i 5 4 : —/.• / t "n j . s Qrr -fa ii�na bom Arm �-tinr. it ) 51e. PMr s a , 56reep la 1 ' t .4% f lG i/ .,1 . 414 a / /: // , 4 Ala • /.. a 4 [i ' �i ! ' ha' AIL■ . / U. s dt` id !.. -.. /. s COV) 50d2rzed' So 4.4 477 jail" l lit - Zehr •- 4 114 -Mi 4. BUILDING DESIGN A. Architectural style is not restricted, evaluation of a project should be based on quality of its design and relationship to surroundings. B. Buildings should be to appropriate scale and be in harmony with permanent neighboring de- velopments. tJOAKU OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW 'DESIGN REVIEW APPLICATION Page 4 C. Building components - such as windows, doors, eaves, and parapets - should have good pro- portions and relationship to one another. Building components and ancillary parts shall be consistent with anticipated life of the structure. D. Colors should be harmonious, with bright or brilliant colors used only for accent. E. Mechanical equipment or other utility hardware on roof, ground or buildings should be screened from view. F. Exterior lighting should be part of the architectural concept. Fixtures, standards and all ex- posed accessories should be harmonious with building design. G. Monotony of design in single or multiple buildings projects should be avoided. Variety of detail, form, and siting should be used to provide visual interest. RESPONSE: -%h' p',o hi',/z!' �� a 4es colter !� tfh -fhe..�f-t jv41d itris h w & uihliz� -�v rnl r iv6 siZ...i c�' en si4e . he prb /7 5 d in9 thorn c J rh &tal i ti It [# Ll �.� " !/ r�L / . // i • IL., I:" . I Al 4teh gin -tril f �ci6k4 +elm arm c4rerill % loc O, je /. IOU' • .�: I �. , t /L _4/ ga. n s � 1�vi iir q� X11 eln/S �� .4609 11 //. �'4 _.- Si i .di4.i# ,d/ IL.R iL4 l�'*. L% 1 Z. .4 al O (,1 5. MISCELLANEOUS STRUCTURES AND STREET FURNITURE A. Miscellaneous structures and street furniture should be designed to be part of the architec- tural concept of design and landscape. Materials should be compatible with buildings, scale should be appropriate, colors should be in harmony with buildings and surroundings, and proportions should be to scale. B. Lighting in connection with miscellaneous structures and street furniture should meet the guidelines applicable to site, landscape and buildings. RESPONSE: r 3 • r z Z cew J U Uo W= J H W0 u.a co� = IT. z= F-0 z Lu U� 0 (-2` o W u J H U. LI o El U =; O~ Z cOndro AA 4 AZ/ add .-f-ethy6 Go&'5 w W c GAY ` of C. prf ! �M". �1! F.' S':@ !:!'+!t?�f!a4^SY.vr!.T'Mar;�r.n Dvt►nu yr un., u 1 m.; 1 UHAL HtVItW .DESIGN REVIEW APPLU"kTION Page 5 INTERURBAN ' PECIAL REVIEW DISTRICT The following six • teria are used in the special review of the Interurban area in order to manage the development o this area, to upgrade its general appearance, to provide incentives for compatible uses, to re ognize and to capitalize on the benefits to the area of the amenities including the Green River and n arby recreational facilities, to encourage development of more people - oriented use, and to pr vide for development incentives that will help to spur growth. Please describe how your proposed development relates to the goals for this District. Use additional response space, if necess 1. The proposed develop ent design should be sensitive to the natural amenities of the area. The proposed development rise should demonstrate due regard for the use and enjoyment of public recreational areas and facilities. 3. The proposed development should provide for safe and convenient on -site pedestrian circu- lation. 4. The proposed property use should be compatible with neighboring uses and complementary to the district in which it is located. \ 5. The proposed development should seek to minimze significant adverse environmental im- pacts. \ 6. The proposed development should demonstrate due regard for significant historical features in the area. z i- w' UO in I. -J (A LL,. wO 2 g Q. co id o. z U Oa 0 1-° .1 U: 1- H U- "; O' Z N1 O F-` z PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JUNE 15, 1995 (Approved 7/27/95) Mr. Neiss called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. All Commissioners were present. Representing the staff were Jack Pace, Diana Painter, John Jimerson, and Sylvia Schnug. Mr. Pace opened the meeting with the Director's Report. During the report, Diana Painter, and the applicant, Howard Turner, provided a status briefing on the Park Place project. Landscape details have been refined, the architectural detailing has been refined and the project has been monitored to comply with the Sensitive Area Ordinance. Staff feels the project is consistent with the original intent of the Board of Architectural Review conditions issued in December. One main change from the original proposal is that the retaining wall will not have ivy covering from the top of the wall. Instead, the vines will be growing from the bottom of the wall. Mr. Malina asked if bike racks could be added to the project. The applicant, Howard Turner, agreed to add those bicycle racks. Mr. Neiss opened the Planning Commission Board of Architectural Review public hearing at 8:00 p.m. There were no citizens' comments. MR. MALINA MOVED TO APPROVE THE MAY 25, 1995 MINUTES. MR. MERYHEW SECONDED THE MOTION AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED. L95 -0011 and L95 -0018: Pyramid Pointe Design Review and Planned Residential Development John Jimerson presented the staff report. The proposal is to construct an additional 28 units to an existing apartment complex, with 56 new parking spaces. The project also includes adding landscaping and recreational facilities. The surrounding properties are all zoned multi - family, and are improved with apartments. The site is non - conforming with respect to parking with 1.37 parking spaces per unit. The two new proposed buildings would have three- stories each. The parking for the new portion of the project is at a ratio of two spaces per unit, which would increase the ratio for the entire site to approximately 1.5 spaces per unit. Therefore, it would decrease the amount of non - conformity of the parking. The project would include an P T1 z • w. 2; J0 O 0. U)w W =. CO LL, J � w o,. a. N = a. � w z� moo. Z Uc O- w w' F- V. u_ 0 W U N, 0 Z • Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 June 15, 1995 upgrade to the existing swimming pool, a children's play area, a gazebo over an outdoor spa, and additional passive recreation located throughout the site. From the front of the proposed buildings, approximately 2 - 21 /2 stories will be visible. The proposed materials for the buildings are vinyl siding and a series of.gables are proposed with a plywood base and lattice work. An entry feature has been created for each building. Vinyl shutters are proposed for the windows on the fronts and the sides. The color scheme includes gray for the vinyl siding and beige for the upper two- thirds of the buildings. The accent color for the gable trellice and the and the shutters would be green. The roof material is asphalt composition in a grayish -brown color. Flat - roofed carports are also proposed, although they are not indicated on the 'drawings. The landscaping is being upgraded. They are providing approximately 106 new trees. The site has been largely cleared and is not a natural hillside. The project would be compatible with the adjacent buildings. The project has been designed within the constraints of having two zone districts on the site. The Comprehensive Plan designation for the site is for high- density residential. The applicant has complied with the requirements of the PRD, and has not made any requests for significant modifications of development standards as the PRD allows. A geotechnical engineer has determined that the site can be safely and adequately developed. The project also satisfies the BAR and Zoning Code requirements. Staff suggested modifications to the proposal include 1)modifying the fencing around the recreational areas, and the proposed carports to be architecturally integrated with the buildings; 2)ensure that the main entry driveway me at least twenty feet wide; 3) an additional sidewalk be provided from the site to 57th Avenue South; 4) clarification on the location of certain trees and the protection or replacement of those trees pursuant to the City's Tree Protection ordinance; 5) the applicant shall provide a view analysis prior to the City Council's public hearing, demonstrating that the required landscape coverage standards are achieved by on -site landscaping; 6) staff is requesting that the applicant provide a plan which shows the specific calculations and areas that were to be considered pervious, to ensure the standards are met; 7) there needs to be clarification that the recreation area is at a grade of 4% or less. Mr. Neiss asked if the addition of sidewalks will increase the amount of impervious surface area. Mr. Jimerson said that it does have the potential to do that. Mr. Malina asked if the clearing and grading on the property took place prior to the Sensitive Area Ordinance. Mr. Jimerson stated that this site was one of the first hillside properties to be developed in Tukwila, so yes, it has been around a long time. -•,, z z w 6 0 0 O, N o', w =' N W w °, 1. z z o, n p. o- o wW =U H z'. w O ~` z Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 June 15, 1995 Mr. Malina asked about the non - conforming parking situation. Mr. Jimerson stated the Police Department and the Zoning Code Enforcement Officer have not identified any problems with parking. Mr. Malina indicated he would like to see guest parking. Mr. Livermore asked how adding 28 -units will bring the whole facility into compliance with 400 square feet of recreational space per unit. Mr. Jimerson said that through grading they would meet the 4% slope requirement areas that do not already meet it. , Mr. Neiss asked if Public Works has looked at this project for traffic impacts. Mr. Jimerson said yes, a traffic study was prepared and the number of trips generated was rather small compared with the existing trips. Mr. Flesher asked if anyone has checked if a five -foot fence around the pool is safe and adequate. Mr. Jimerson stated it would have to comply with Code requirements. Ms. Stetson asked if carports are .re'''quired. Mr. Jimerson stated they were not a requirement. Mr. Marvin asked about handicapped access to the pool area from Building #1. Mr. Jimerson said there was no direct access. Charles Hawke, Representing the owners, 4460 Rockaway Beach, Bainbridge Island: Mr. Hawke provided a brief history of the Pyramid Pointe Apartments and how they have rehabilitated it, and improved the make -up of the tenants. The proposal has been reduced from 40 additional units, to the current 28 units. Scott Harkey, 2143 N. North Lake, Seattle, 98103: Mr. Harkey provided a brief slide presentation showing the complex prior to its rehabilitation by the current owners and the complex as it looks now. He indicated that the driveway width is adequate. Their intent was for the carports to have minimal impact, as opposed to making them a design feature. Their choice was to make them flat roofed. The owner feels strongly that if they have to go to a gable roof feature, it's going to be more of an intrusion to the architecture than it will be an addition to the site. z mo• Z: U: O 0 CO W =. J I.. W u. wo w< 0d �w s z o'. z U• 0 o ,0 H: w w. I- • U I F., 0. w Z U � H • Planning Commission Minutes Page 4 June 15, 1995 If the Planning Commission feels strongly about the gable, the owner will just delete the carports totally from the project. The height of sixty inches for fencing around pools is a King County Health standard. With regard to trees and screening, the bank where the trees are located is a stable area and it is not an area where any work should have to be done. To have to add additional trees on their property is an intrusion to the open space on the site currently. The trees on the hillside are a natural screening device for their site and they would rather not add additional trees into some of the areas they would rather keep open. There will be two handicapped units in the western end of the lower building so they will be close to the play area and the spa area, so there is direct barrier -free access to those areas. The access to the swimming pool is a more difficult issue due to the grades on the site. Mr. Malina asked why the carports were not indicated on the drawings. Mr. Harkey stated there was no intent to deceive. Their intention was that the carports would be a non - design issue, which is why they chose the flat roof. Mr. Flesher asked what the roof material is proposed to be. Mr. Harkey said it would be painted, corrugated metal with a wood facia and shadow trim that will be painted to match the building. Mr. Livermore said it was his experience that carports tend to be a detraction from the building. `l, Mr. Harkey said experience shows that tenants find them a real amenity. Mr. Malina asked if the trees are on their property or not. Mr. Harkey stated the majority of trees are down - slope, on City -owned property. Mr. Malina said the problem is that the screening that exists does not belong to Pyramid Pointe and they have no control over what happens to them. Mr. Harkey said he understands Mr. Malina's point. They feel that the site is adequately screened. During staff rebuttal, John Jimerson said that an option is to forward this issue on to the City Council with directions to the applicant to provide renderings and elevations that show the carports and to provide a clearer design of the carport structure itself. Another option is that design of the carports reflect other miscellaneous structures. For example, a flat roofed carport could echo the trellis design theme, incorporated elsewhere on the site. !..1..1.M. vc. ymeneene,ert. tWAVAi dor! 4'' aYB: W..W 112t's✓a�+;7.V,..'xf+'.rae,.1,1 .1..<17 -.WM Me.C:'#1+!,..�!xrcrteve....•rn n,,,,, :...1. -er r« swan..- rn.v.s,,.. ... n. - •z •• 1-Z uQl2: • 00 N0.. • = w w w0 ga :3. u. = w zF.. za o • oy • = U' o w z: 0 z• Planning Commission Minutes Page 5 June 15, 1995 Mr. Neiss closed the public hearing. Mr. Malina said a view analysis and impervious surface calculations will have to be completed. Mr. Meryhew said he felt a flat roofed carport, incorporating the pyramid design that's predominate throughout the project, might be adequate. Ms. Stetson indicated she did not have a problem with the proposed carports. Mr. Neiss said he would not like to have to make a requirement of the applicant to incorporate something they are not in favor of and then get nothing. Mr. Meryhew agreed with the applicant in putting a vinyl covering on the chain link fence around the swimming pool. Mr. Flesher said he would go along with staff's recommendation. He added he did not feel comfortable approving something he could not see. The carports will be very visible to tenants on the upper floors. He recommended that drawings of the carports shall be forwarded on for Council review. Mr. Livermore stated he did not have a problem with the vinyl- coated fencing. It should be left as open as possible,., He also thought the project would be adequately screened by the existing trees. He, reiterated that he did not like the carports and renderings need to be forwarded to the Council. He recommended that they be very careful that all the geotechnical recommendations are followed and that all the inspections and tests are completed so they can be assured the building would withstand an earthquake. MR. MALINA MOVED TO APPROVE L95 -0018, THE PRD, BASED UPON STAFF'S FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS. MS. STETSON SECONDED THE MOTION AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED. MR. MALINA MOVED TO APPROVE L95 -0011, DESIGN REVIEW, BASED UPON STAFF'S FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND THE FOLLOWING RECOMMENDATIONS: 1. THE MAIN DRIVEWAY MUST BE AT LEAST TWENTY FEET WIDE AND LOCATED ENTIRELY ON THE PROPERTY, UNLESS A PERMANENT EASEMENT IS RECORDED ALLOWING ACCESS OVER THE PROPERTY ADJACENT TO THE NORTH. 2. A SIDEWALK SHALL BE PROVIDED FROM THE SITE TO 57TH AVENUE SOUTH. z 11- ry Sr - U: UO No. w =, . wO • 2 ga •u) w. I- O: Z E-: moo: = • W; ▪ g6 a �i. z o 17 Planning Commission Minutes Page 6 June 15, 1995 3. THE APPLICANT SHALL CLARIFY THE LOCATION OF THE TREES NEAR THE SOUTH PROPERTY LINE. IF THE EXISTING TREES ARE ACCURATELY LOCATED ON THE LANDSCAPE PLAN, THE PROTECTION AND PRESERVATION OF THE TREES SHALL BE COORDINATED THROUGH THE TREE PERMIT PROCESS. 'THIS MAY REQUIRE RELOCATION OF THE ROCKERIES, OR IF NECESSARY FOR CREATING RECREATION AREA, REPLACING THE ROCKERIES WITH A RETAINING WALL THAT PROVIDES ADEQUATE CLEARANCE FROM THE TREES. THE CLARIFICATION OF THE TREES WILL BE REQUIRED PRIOR TO COUNCIL REVIEW. 4. AN AUTOMATIC IRRIGATION SYSTEM SHALL BE PROVIDED FOR THE NEW LANDSCAPED AREAS AND SHALL INCLUDE IN- GROUND MOISTURE SENSORS. 5. A VINYL CHAIN LINK FENCE SHALL BE PROVIDED AROUND THE SPA/GAZEBO AND THE SWIMMING POOL. 6. EXTERIOR LIGHT LEVELS SHOULD BE LIMITED TO ONE (1) FOOT - CANDLE AT THE PROPERTY LINE AND NO DIRECT ILLUMINATION . BEYOND THE PROPERTY LINE. 7. THE CARPORT DESIGN SHALL BE SUBMIT 1'ED FOR CITY COUNCIL REVIEW. MR. FLESHER SECONDED THE MOTION AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED. .1 Mr. Neiss adjourned the meeting. Prepared By, Sylvia Schnug z az JU 00 �o- .J � wr wO • • Q: to d: • • ?f-; 1-.Oi • .z • w w, • p ;o w w; • —O. .z; 0 1N? • • • z City of Tukwila John W. Rants, Mayor Department of Community Development Steve Lancaster, Director Memorandum to the SEPA file November 27, 1996 Project Name: Pyramid Point Apartments Address: 15304 57th Avenue South, Tukwila Contact: Charles Laboda File Number: E95 -0005 Parcel Number: 115720 -0360 The purpose of this memorandum is to update the SEPA pursuant to a revised design review proposal for Pyramid Point Apartments. The items of this memorandum do not in any way change the analysis of the SEPA but serve to update the SEPA for concurrence with minor revisions made to the proposed project. Planning The previous proposal submittal for review by the Board of Architectural review was approved June 15, 1995 as a Planned Residential Development (PRD) for a 28 unit apartment complex consisting of two (2) three -story buildings, 111 parking stalls, and recreational space. The current proposal has been reduced by eight (8) units and 14 parking stalls to meet High Density Residential (HDR) zoning criteria currently in place. Due to a downsized proposal, the DCD Director has waived a Planned Residential Development (PRD) requirement. The overall impact of the updated proposal will be less than the previous proposal. No building permit has been filed for this project since the last BAR hearing. Public Works Due to changes in the size and impact of the proposed new addition to the apartment complex, the following items will need to be addressed prior to approval of a building permit: 1. Replace existing sewer line and secure agreements with adjacent property owners for use. 2. Update sewer length in linear feet. 3. Address sewer and drainage impact. 4. If necessary, additional sewer test points at the lower end of the building can be dug. Certification by geoengineer will be necessary. Signature of Approval: Date: 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #1 0 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • (206) 431 -3670 • Fax (206) 431 -3665 �Z • w w• 6 —J C.): C.) 0' w 0' LU J I_ w O. g a. co ei =w z� z CY 2D. UU' O ' 2V' LLO ..z w U'=; o MITIGATED DETERMINATION OF NONSIGNIFICANCE (MDNS) DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: 28 UNIT APARTMENTS AND 59 PARKING SPACES ADDED TO AN EXISTING COMPLEX, PROJECT INCLUDES ADDITION OF RECREATION FACILITIES AND NEW LANDSCAPING. PROPONENT: CHARLES LABODA LOCATION OF PROPOSAL, INCLUDING STREET ADDRESS, IF ANY: ADDRESS: 15304 57 AV S PARCEL NO: 115720 -0360 SEC /TWN /RNG: 22/23/04 LEAD AGENCY: CITY OF TUKWILA FILE NO: E95 -0005 The City has determined that the .proposal does not have a probable significant adverse impact on the, environment. An environmental ..impact statement .(EIS) is not required under RCW 43.21c.030(2)(c). This decision was made after review of ;.a completed environmental checklist and other information on file with the lead agency. This information is available to the public on request. The conditions to this SEPA Determination are attached. This NS is issued under 197 -11- 340(2). Comments must be submitted by - 5' 5-- . The lead agency will not act on this proposal for 15 days from the date below. 2-(1-5— Steve Lancaster, Responsible Official' ' Date City of Tukwila, (206) 431 -3680 6300 Southcent.e,r Boulevard Tukwila, WA 98188 You may appeal this determination to the City Clerk at City Hall, 6200 Southcenter Boulevard, Tukwila, WA 98188 no later than 10 days from the above signature date by written appeal stating the basis of the appeal for specific factual objections. You may be required to bear some of the expenses for an appeal. Copies of the procedures for SEPA appeals are available with the City Clerk and Department of Community Development. z Z. et w. ate' J U0: 0 W J h- w0 LL¢ =a r- _: z f.., I— 0. Z U 0 H`. =0 0; lilt: UN l= _; 0 r- z MITIGATION MEASURES Project Name: Pyramid Pointe Apartments File Number: E95 -0005 A. Comply with the recommended mitigation measures on pages 7 and 8 of the traffic study of February 21, 1995 prepared by TRANSPORTATION PLANNING & ENGINEERING INC. These include: 1. The following improvements shall be made in the vicinity of the intersection of South 152nd Street and 57th Avenue South: (a) Remove landscaping obstructions in the southwest corner of the intersection down to the cur elevation. (b) Install a side road warning sigh (W2 -2) on the eastbound approach to the intersection. (c) Install an Advance Pedestrian Crossing warning sign (W11A -2) on the eastbound approach to the intersection. (d) Install a Pedestrian Crossing warning sign (W11A -2) on the southeast corner of the intersection. 2. Replace the street name sign located in the northeast corner of the S. 152nd Street /Macadam Road S. intersection to read "S. 152nd Street." B. Comply with the recommendations of the Geotechnical Engineering Study prepared by Geotech Consultants Inc. on March 20, 1995. Prior to occupancy of the buildings, a letter from Geotech Consultants which certifies the recommendations of the Engineering study have been implemented. Prior to issuance of a building permit, additional test pits are required to verify slope stability on the downhill extremes of the building. C. Surface water shall be detained and metered out at pre - development flow rates (25 year /24 hour per King County Surface Water Design Manual). Water shall flow to the City system in Macadam Road. Steve Lancaster Director Date z w' 6 00 , .co w', w J w0 2 u-Q = d. F w = z� I- 0. zf moo. 052 CI 1- ww z'. U N; H z 11 -21 -1996 12 :49PM FROM Geotech Consultants Inc TO 4313665 P.01 GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC. 13256 NE 20`h Street, Suite 16 Bellevue, WA 98005 (206) 747 -5618 FAX 747 -8561 Memo JN: 95062 To Charlie Laboda Rana Marc R. McGinnis Company. Dally Homes Dates November 21, 1996 Addrece` FAX: (206) 328 -6909 / Phone: (206) 328 -3770 RE: Addendum to Address SEPA Geotechnical Conditions Pyramid Pointe II Apartments File No. E95.0005 1 have had several discussions with Alexa Berlow of City of Tukwila regarding the SEPA requirement that additional test pits be excavated on the downslope side of the building.; It is my understanding that this requirement was brought up because of Tukwila's impression that we felt additional explorations were necessary to evaluate slope stability. It is our opinion that no additional test pits are needed to assess the site slope stability. The information obtained from the test pits excavated already and observation of the existing 'slopes is sufficient. The only reason that additional test pits would be beneficial would be for the contractor to better define the depth and extent of overexcavation in the building areas. This should not be required as a SEPA condition and would simply be for the contractor's estimating purposes' Please contact us if you have any questions regarding this memo. oc: City of Tukwila- Alpaca Bellow 431 -3665 (FAX) RECEIVED NOV 21 1996 DEVELOPMENT �'RES 10 / 25!97 TOTAL P.01 . , -a vmwasmcg a +nmmt.. a.+xa u• . _ _ eel* +' YWAM rcVv.,eu,.mw..nt:ss .owroft oyat.r» .,...m.....,Wm.tptyp,wart i z _• - z. c4 U O' CO 0 w =, w O. gJ' LL. < • a I--_: z� 1- 0 z r- 11.1 uj 0, 0 I -i. = ur H 0 uo ..z =. oI- z City of Tukwila John W. Rants, Mayor Department of Community Development Memorandum to the SEPA file November 27, 1996 Project Name: Pyramid Point Apartments Address: 15304 57th Avenue South, Tukwila Contact: Charles Laboda File Number: E95 -0005 Parcel Number: 115720 -0360 Steve Lancaster, Director The purpose of this memorandum is to update the SEPA pursuant to a revised design review proposal for Pyramid Point Apartments. The items of this memorandum do not in any way change the analysis of the SEPA but serve to update the SEPA for concurrence with minor revisions made to the proposed project. Planning The previous proposal submittal for review by the Board of Architectural review was approved June 15, 1995 as a Planned Residential Development (PRD) for a 28 unit apartment complex consisting of two (2) three -story buildings, 111 parking stalls, and recreational space. The current proposal has been reduced by eight (8) units and 14 parking stalls to meet High Density Residential (HDR) zoning criteria currently in place. Due to a downsized proposal, the DCD Director has waived a Planned Residential Development (PRD) requirement. The overall impact of the updated proposal will be less than the previous proposal. No building permit has been filed for this project since the last BAR hearing. Public Works Due to changes in the size and impact of the proposed new addition to the apartment complex, the following items will need to be addressed prior to approval of a building permit: 1. Replace existing sewer line and secure agreements with adjacent property owners for use. 2. Update sewer length in linear feet. 3. Address sewer and drainage impact. 4. If necessary, additional sewer test points at the lower end of the building can be dug. Certification by geoengineer will be necessary. Signature of Approval: "f L Date 3 luauga -eilv 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #1 0 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • (206) 431-3670 • Fax (206) 431-3665 z �w • J U -. UO v�o- u) w, W z. • LL: w o a` I- • al Z �. F- 0: Z r: • D 0. o �' .0 AL =U w z; o z .. c)` Pyramid Pointe Presentation Proposal...Construct 28 apartments in two buildings with a net increase of 56 parking spaces. Added landscaping and recreation facilities. The Project involves review under the PRD and BAR requirements of the code. Sensitive Areas are located on the site... Two Actions..One Staff report...combined public hearing... A Mitigated Determination of Non - Significance was issued on May 24. Mitigating conditions required minor roadway improvements for improved safety, compliance with the recommendations of the geotechnical engineer recommendation and surface water requirements. 15304 57 AVE S Located at the southern terminous of 57 av s, which provides sole access to the site... Surrounding Properties are zoned RMH...Land Uses Include: ...LaVista to the West ...Hampton Heights & Heatherwood Apts to North ...Sunwood Condominiums to the East ...North Hill to the southeast ...MacAdam Road to the south The site contains-4.79 acres and is zoned RMH and R -3 To Summarize Project_._._.. Existing Site Improvements Site slopes 15 to 25 %, Slopes up to 80% south of site Improved with three apt bldgs w /81 units and a detached managers residence... swimming pool with concrete deck, chain link fence... large grassy areas down to the top of ,slope, black berries and trees. There are 111 parking spaces dispersed throughout the site, which is non - conforming 1.37 spaces per unit (2.0 are required). z . • • �w J U; • 0O CO 0, W= w L Q; •F- dr- F- O' Z I-! ai ;O 92i. '0 F—. All in' LLB; Z, D` .O Z .: Proposed Improvements Site Plan 28 units in two buildings... Bldg. 1 contains 12 units and will replace the managers residence. Bldg 2 contains 16 units and will be located in a lawn area New Parking in Four Areas Increases the number of spaces 1b 1.53 per unit. New landscaping areas along north property line - reducing the non- conformity. o :1_1; �� Recreation Fac ' lities -- passive and active,,, ,o'- f 6.0/4" tx-v4 (v) TY0 t f vs % Ck tL Cc,thoh 4r'Ce.. --'� Circulation Patten dill not significantly change... just extended. A grasscrete turn around for fire trucks is provided. Pedestrian Improvements Include... Buildings Three story buildings - -- daylight. Would be the two smallest buildings on the site. Massing that is typical for the area - with 3 story stack flats. Building 2 has a 2 story element on the NW end. Vertical and horizontal modulation to meet the requirements. Modest ROOF LINE with a pitched roof, series of gables, a gable end and a hipped end. Entry Features Materials Shutters Mullions Colors Miscellaneous Structures Gazebo/ trellis Trash Enclosures Lei5 wj 44k4 (at& Carport 1014 ,4 �•J Fencing ►1-G GLirG 2" 4-) v; .61,E • (A `i �v J GENERAL COMMENTS: 1. The project is unique in that it is a site already improved with apaarrtments . TY e roject will upgrade the site: The Architecture.. The new buildings provide details, modulation, and an improved sense of quality that is lacking in the existing buildings. Landscaping. Non - conformance...addition of 106 trees plus shrubery Parking. Non - conforming + improved parking area at oval. (Better Defined). Recreation Facilities. Will bring to compliance in area and will improve rec facilities. Will combine four separate parcels into one, thus allowing for a coordinated development. z IZ J U� oO` coo'. w= 2. The project will not substantially-change the character of the z O; neighborhood, and will be compatible with the adjacent w w' properties. 2 D. Ucl 3. The project has been designed within the constraints of the R3 0 ~' zoning. The density is less than the comp.plan would allow, w w and the design had to respect the zoning line. x v 4. The applicant has complied with the requirements of the PRD iu z and has made no significant requests for variation of U r development standards as allowed in a PRD... i.e. there are no 1 1 density bonus or setback reductions proposed. z 5. The construction area, although identified as a sensitive area, has undergone significant modification and is not in a natural state...Vegetation has been removed and is now primarily lawn...Site was graded and filled some time ago. Even still, the project has been reviewed for sensitive areas issues and the geotechnical engineer has addressed issues for hillside area and determined the project can be safely constructed. 6. With some minor modifications, the project satisfies the PRD, BAR and Zoning requirements: Fencing :- Carport Designs/ Driveway Width ✓ Preservation of Trees-- Impervious Surface Area Landscape Screening Recreation Area (4 %) Ped connection to street. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JUNE 15, 1995 (Approved 7/27/95) Mr. Neiss called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. All Commissioners were present. Representing the staff were Jack Pace, Diana Painter, John Jimerson, and Sylvia Schnug. Mr. Pace opened the meeting with the Director's Report. During the report, Diana Painter, and the applicant, Howard Turner, provided a status briefing on the Park Place project. Landscape details have been refined, the architectural detailing has been refined and the project has been monitored to comply with the Sensitive Area Ordinance. Staff feels the project is consistent with the original intent of the Board of Architectural Review conditions issued in December. One main change from the original proposal is that the retaining wall will not have ivy covering from the top of the wall. Instead, the vines will be growing from the bottom of the wall. Mr. Malina asked if bike racks could be added to the project. The applicant, Howard Turner, agreed to add those bicycle racks. Mr. Neiss opened the Planning Commission /Board of Architectural Review public hearing at 8:00 p.m. There were no citizens' comments. MR. MALINA MOVED TO APPROVE THE MAY 25, 1995 MINUTES. MR. MERYHEW SECONDED THE MOTION AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED. L95 -0011 and L95 -0018: Pyramid Pointe Design Review and Planned Residential Development John Jimerson presented the staff report. The proposal is to construct an additional 28 units to an existing apartment complex, with 56 new parking spaces. The project also includes adding landscaping and recreational facilities. The surrounding properties are all zoned multi - family, and are improved with apartments. The site is non - conforming with respect to parking with 1.37 parking spaces per unit. The two new proposed buildings would have three- stories each. The parking for the new portion of the project is at a ratio of two spaces per unit, which would increase the ratio for the entire site to approximately 1.5 spaces per unit. Therefore, it would decrease the amount of non - conformity of the parking. The project would include an Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 June 15, 1995 upgrade to the existing swimming pool, a children's play area, a gazebo over an outdoor spa, and additional passive recreation located throughout the site. From the front of the proposed buildings, approximately 2 - 21 /2 stories will be visible. The proposed materials for the buildings are vinyl siding and a series of.gables are proposed with a plywood base and lattice work. An entry feature has been created for each building. Vinyl shutters are proposed for the windows on the fronts and the sides. The color scheme includes gray for the vinyl siding and beige for the upper two- thirds of the buildings. The accent color for the gable trellice and the and the shutters would be green. The roof material is asphalt composition in a grayish -brown color. Flat - roofed carports are also proposed, although they are not indicated on the drawings. The landscaping is being upgraded. They are providing approximately 106 new trees. The site has been largely cleared and is not a natural hillside. The project would be compatible with the adjacent buildings. The project has been designed within the constraints of having two zone districts on the site. The Comprehensive Plan designation for the site is for high - density residential. The applicant has complied with the requirements of the PRD, and has not made any requests for significant modifications of development standards as the PRD allows. A geotechnical engineer has determined that the site can be safely and adequately developed. The project also satisfies the BAR and Zoning Code requirements. Staff suggested modifications to the proposal include 1)modifying the fencing around the recreational areas, and the proposed carports to be architecturally integrated with the buildings; 2)ensure that the main entry driveway me at least twenty feet wide; 3) an additional sidewalk be provided from the site to 57th Avenue South; 4) clarification on the location of certain trees and the protection or replacement of those trees pursuant to the City's Tree Protection ordinance; 5) the applicant shall provide a view analysis prior to the City Council's public hearing, demonstrating that the required landscape coverage standards are achieved by on -site landscaping; 6) staff is requesting that the applicant provide a plan which shows the specific calculations and areas that were to be considered pervious, to ensure the standards are met; 7) there needs to be clarification that the recreation area is at a grade of 4% or less. Mr. Neiss asked if the addition of sidewalks will increase the amount of impervious surface area. Mr. Jimerson said that it does have the potential to do that. Mr. Malina asked if the clearing and grading on the property took place prior to the Sensitive Area Ordinance. Mr. Jimerson stated that this site was one of the first hillside properties to be developed in Tukwila, so yes, it has been around a long time. Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 June 15, 1995 Mr. Malina asked about the non - conforming parking situation. Mr. Jimerson stated the Police Department and the Zoning Code Enforcement Officer have not identified any problems with parking. z Mr. Malina indicated he would like to see guest parking. w. Mr. Livermore asked how adding 28 -units will bring the whole facility into compliance -J v with 400 square feet of recreational space per unit. N o:, • t co WI; Mr. Jimerson said that through grading they would meet the 4% slope re q uirement • J 1-' u) u. areas that do not already meet it. w o' Mr. Neiss asked if Public Works has looked at this project for traffic impacts. u a` z8 Mr. Jimerson said yes, a traffic study was prepared and the number of trips generated 1' - i was rather small compared with the existing trips. • 0: z 1- • n Mr. Flesher asked if anyone has checked if a five -foot fence around the pool is safe and '2 : D o. adequate. vo cn ,o I- Mr. Jimerson stated it would have to comply with Code requirements. i - v I• Ms. Stetson asked if carports are ..required. . z' •ii .P. H Mr. Jimerson stated they were not a requirement. .z Mr. Marvin asked about handicapped access to the pool area from Building #1. Mr. Jimerson said there was no direct access. Charles Hawke, Representing the owners, 4460 Rockaway Beach, Bainbridge Island: Mr. Hawke provided a brief history of the Pyramid Pointe Apartments and how they have rehabilitated it, and improved the make -up of the tenants. The proposal has been reduced from 40 additional units, to the current 28 units. Scott Harkey, 2143 N. North Lake, Seattle, 98103: Mr. Harkey provided a brief slide presentation showing the complex prior to its rehabilitation by the current owners and the complex as it looks now. He indicated that the driveway width is adequate. Their intent was for the carports to have minimal impact, as opposed to making them a design feature. Their choice was to make them flat roofed. The owner feels strongly that if they have to go to a gable roof feature, it's going to be more of an intrusion to the architecture than it will be an addition to the site. Planning Commission Minutes Page 4 June 15, 1995 If the Planning Commission feels strongly about the gable, the owner will just delete the carports totally from the project. The height of sixty inches for fencing around pools is a King County Health standard. With regard to trees and screening, the bank where the trees are located is a stable area and it is not an area where any work should have to be done. To have to add additional trees on their property is an intrusion to the open space on the site currently. The trees on the hillside are a natural screening device for their site and they would rather not add additional trees into some of the areas they would rather keep open. There will be two handicapped units in the western end of the lower building so they will be close to the play area and the spa area, so there is direct barrier -free access to those areas. The access to the swimming pool is a more difficult issue due to the grades on the site. Mr. Malina asked why the carports were not indicated on the drawings. Mr. Harkey stated there was no intent to deceive. Their intention was that the carports would be a non - design issue, which is why they chose the flat roof. Mr. Flesher asked what the roof material is proposed to be. Mr. Harkey said it would be painted, corrugated metal with a wood facia and shadow trim that will be painted to match the building. Mr. Livermore said it was his experience that carports tend to be a detraction from the building. Mr. Harkey said experience shows that tenants find them a real amenity. Mr. Malina asked if the trees are on their property or not. Mr. Harkey stated the majority of trees are down - slope, on City -owned property. Mr. Malina said the problem is that the screening that exists does not belong to Pyramid Pointe and they have no control over what happens to them. Mr. Harkey said he understands Mr. Malina's point. They feel that the site is adequately screened. During staff rebuttal, John Jimerson said that an option is to forward this issue on to the City Council with directions to the applicant to provide renderings and elevations that show the carports and to provide a clearer design of the carport structure itself. Another option is that design of the carports reflect other miscellaneous structures. For example, a flat roofed carport could echo the trellis design theme, incorporated elsewhere on the site. Planning Commission Minutes Page 5 June 15, 1995 Mr. Neiss closed the public hearing. Mr. Malina said a view analysis and impervious surface calculations will have to be completed. z Mr. Meryhew that's w M y ew said he felt a flat roofed carport, incorporating the pyramid design that s � �. predominate throughout the project, might be adequate. 6 0' 00 Ms. Stetson indicated she did not have a problem with the proposed carports. ' w , Mr. Neiss said he would not like to have to make a requirement of the applicant to w o incorporate something they are not in favor of and then get nothing. 2 g _, Mr. Meryhew agreed with the applicant in putting a vinyl covering on the chain link fence around the swimming pool. z Mr. Flesher said he would go along with staff's recommendation. He added he did not z o feel comfortable approving something he could not see. The carports will be very 2 uj visible to tenants on the upper floors. He recommended that drawings of the carports 0 if% shall be forwarded on for Council review. .01-- 2 0 Mr. Livermore stated he did not have a problem with the vinyl- coated fencing. It should be left as open as possible. He also thought the project would be adequately z screened by the existing trees. Ile, reiterated that he did not like the carports and 0._ renderings need to be forwarded to the Council. He recommended that they be very p t- careful that all the geotechnical recommendations are followed and that all the z • inspections and tests are completed so they can be assured the building would withstand an earthquake. MR. MALINA MOVED TO APPROVE L95 -0018, THE PRD, BASED UPON STAFF'S FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS. MS. STETSON SECONDED THE MOTION AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED. MR. MALINA MOVED TO APPROVE L95 -0011, DESIGN REVIEW, BASED UPON STAFF'S FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND THE FOLLOWING RECOMMENDATIONS: 1. THE MAIN DRIVEWAY MUST BE AT LEAST TWENTY FEET WIDE AND LOCATED ENTIRELY ON THE PROPERTY, UNLESS A PERMANENT EASEMENT IS RECORDED ALLOWING ACCESS OVER THE PROPERTY ADJACENT TO THE NORTH. 2. A SIDEWALK SHALL BE PROVIDED FROM THE SITE TO 57TH AVENUE SOUTH. • • Planning Commission Minutes Page 6 June 15, 1995 3. THE APPLICANT SHALL CLARIFY THE LOCATION OF THE TREES NEAR THE SOUTH PROPERTY LINE. IF THE EXISTING TREES ARE ACCURATELY LOCATED ON THE LANDSCAPE PLAN, THE PROTECTION AND PRESERVATION OF THE TREES SHALL BE COORDINATED THROUGH THE TREE PERMIT PROCESS. THIS MAY REQUIRE RELOCATION OF THE ROCKERIES, OR IF NECESSARY FOR CREATING RECREATION AREA, REPLACING THE ROCKERIES WITH A RETAINING WALL THAT PROVIDES ADEQUATE CLEARANCE FROM THE TREES. THE CLARIFICATION OF THE TREES WILL BE REQUIRED PRIOR TO COUNCIL REVIEW. 4. AN AUTOMATIC IRRIGATION SYSTEM SHALL BE PROVIDED FOR THE NEW LANDSCAPED AREAS AND SHALL INCLUDE IN- GROUND MOISTURE SENSORS. 5. A VINYL CHAIN LINK FENCE SHALL BE PROVIDED AROUND THE SPA/GAZEBO AND THE SWIMMING POOL. 6. EXTERIOR LIGHT LEVELS SHOULD BE LIMITED TO ONE (1) FOOT - CANDLE AT THE PROPERTY LINE AND NO DIRECT ILLUMINATION BEYOND THE PROPERTY LINE. 7. THE CARPORT DESIGN SHALL BE SUBMI1'1ED FOR CITY COUNCIL REVIEW. MR. FLESHER SECONDED TIDE MOTION AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.. 'i Mr. Neiss adjourned the meeting.}] Prepared By, Sylvia Schnug City of Tukwila John W. Rants, Mayor Department of Community Development Steve Lancaster, Director STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND TO THE BOARD OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW Prepared June 8, 1995 HEARING DATE: June 15, 1995 PROJECT NAME: Pyramid Pointe Apartments FILE NUMBER: �'j� 95 -0018: Planned Residential Development H"L95 -0011: Board or Architectural Review APPLICANT: Charlie Laboda, K.D. Associates REQUEST: 1) Design review for 28 apartment units; and 2) Planned Residential Development review for 28 apartment units. LOCATION: 15305 57th Avenue South, Tukwila, WA ACREAGE: 4.79 Acres COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: High Density Residential ZONING DISTRICT: RMH and R -3 SERA DETERMINATION: Mitigated Determination of Non - Significance Issued on May 24, 1995 STAFF: John Jimerson 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • (206) 431-3670 • Fax (206) 431-3665 F- w ' J U ., UO W 0: W ow; : J � w 00; wa- 1- w? H 0; • Z • w w� .0 Ui :o I-; u'O ui U -i I. .0 z,; Pyramid Pointe June 15, 1995 Page 2 ATTACID ENTS : *Materials to A B. C. D. E. F. G. Development Plans in 13 sheets labeled Al thru A8, L1 thru L4 and Ti. Applicant Response to Design Review Criteria. Mitgated DNS. Site Photographs and Photo - montage.* Colored Elevations.* Colors and Materials Board.* Colored Perspective of Entry.* be presented at the public meeting. z zi �ws 2 JU; U 0;. v� o w w w=' J F.: . W u. a co a = d; :z 0. 'z �. . w W. UU ■ O �i 0 w ,H V LL. 0;. ui z .0 .0 IH Pyramid Pointe June 15, 1995 Page 3 VZC�INITY /SITE INFORMATION /Project Description: FINDINGS 7.i "f r Jai,• The applicant proposes to add 28 apartment units and 56 parking spaces to the existing Pyramid Pointe apartment complex. The new apartments will be in two buildings, three stories each. One of the buildings will be located on an unimproved grassy area and the other will be where the manager's residence is currently located. New parking will be provided at the entrance and at a central location between the existing and new buildings. A new children's play area, outdoor spa and improvements to the existing swimming pool are proposed to provide recreational pportunities. tri 2. 3. 4. 5. /Existing Development: The site has three existing apartment buildings containing a total of 81 apartments and a manager's residence. There are 111 parking spaces to serve the 81 units (162 are required). This makes the existing parking non- conforming in the number of parking spaces. The site is located within two separate zone districts. The western portion is zoned "Multiple Residence High Density" (RMH) and the eastern portion is zoned "Three and Four Family Dwellings" (R -3). The new buildings will be constructed on the RMH portion of the site. The existing buildings in the R- 3 zoned area are non - conforming structures. /Surrounding Land Use: The Macadam Road /Southcenter Blvd. /I- 5/I -405 roadways represent the dominant land use to the south. High density residential facilities surround the rest of the site, with the LaVista Apartments to the west, Hampton Heights and Heatherwood Apartments to the north, Sunwood Condominiums to the east and North Hill Apartments to the southeast. The surrounding properties are zoned multi - family. Terrain: The site generally slopes down from north to south at an inclination of 15 to 25 percent. Near the western portion of the southern property line the slope increases to an inclination of about 50 percent. Slopes between the site and Macadam Road South are as steep as 80 %. Tukwila's Sensitive Areas Maps show Class II and Class III slopes. Access: Access is provided by 57th Avenue South, which terminates at this site. The site plan includes a grasscrete Pyramid Pointe June 15, 1995 Page 4 turnaround for fire trucks. 6.L / Public Facilities: 57th Avenue South is the only public road serving the site. Macadam Road right -of -way includes a gravel maintenance road that provides pedestrian access from the 1- z apartments to the west to the stairway leading down to Macadam e 2 Road below the site. v UO BACKGROUND (I) 0 : - J 1. Lu The project involves the rehabilitation and upgrade of an existing w w apartment complex. It includes adding 28 apartments for a total of w O 109. The additional apartments represent only 25% of the total, yet the project will result in upgrading non - conforming recreation 4a n areas to meet current standards. It will also result in decreasing the non - conformance of parking and landscaping for the entire site. co) a �w The multi - family project is located on slopes greater than 15 %, z therefore the project requires approval as a Planned Residential z 0 0 Development (TMC 18.45.060(2)). The City Council will make the LU w final decision on the PRD after considering the recommendation of m o the Planning Commission. o cn 0 I-' This report is organized to first review the PRD application and w w then the design review application. O PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT DECISION CRITERIA . o PRD review criteria are specified in TMC 18.46.060, 070, 080, 090, 0l- and 112. Relevant exerpts are shown below in bold, along with a Z staff discussion (TMC 18.46.112 is presented in full). z 18.46.060 Relationship of this chapter to other sections and other ordinances. (a)(3) Setbacks. Yard requirements as described in Chapter 18.50 shall be waived within the PRD; however, setbacks and design of the perimeter of the PRD shall be comparable to or compatible with the bulk and streetscape of the existing development of the adjacent properties or the type of development which may be permitted. Proposed building setbacks meet the standards contained in Chapter 18.50 TMC. They meet the minimum 30 feet for a front yard, fifteen feet for the second front yard and they exceed the 30 foot side yard setback. The building setbacks are generally comparable with the other buildings in the vicinity. .Because of the hillside topography, variety of designs and shape and orientation of the lots, there has been no strong bulk and setback pattern created. Pyramid Pointe June 15, 1995 Page 5 (b) Off- street Parking. The existing apartments are non - conforming with respect to parking requirements. For the existing 81 apartments, a minimum of 162 parking spaces are required. In actuality, there are only 111 spaces provided. Section 18.70.080 states for a non - conforming facility that "If...an addition is proposed, which requires an increase in the parking area by an increment less than 100 %, the requirements of Chapter 18.56 shall be complied with for the additional parking area." Because the proposal requires an increment of less than 100% increase in parking, only the increment to meet the demand of the new apartments is required. At 2 parking per unit multiplied by 28 units, a total of 56 new parking spaces are required. The applicant proposes 56 new spaces, thus meeting the requirement for the incremental use. Overall, the parking ratio will increase from 1.37 parking spaces per unit to 1.53 spaces per unit. (c) Platting Requirements. A lot consolidation application has been submitted to combine all of the lots on the site into one. The lot consolidation will be completed prior to the issuance of any building permits. (d) Impervious Surface. The maximum amount of impervious surface calculated for the total development allowed on sensitive areas sites will be fifty percent for each single family development and each multifamily development. The applicant has calculated impervious surface coverage at 49.5% of the lot area, thus meeting this standard. Plans documenting these calculations have not been submitted and should be submitted prior to City Council approval. (e) Recreation Space Requirements. The site is currently non - conforming with respect to the recreation space standards. Section 18.52.060(1) TMC requires 400 square feet of recreation area for each dwelling unit. With 81 existing units, there would need to be a minimum of 32,400 square feet of recreation space required. An estimate of the existing site indicates there is roughly 18,000- 22,000 square feet of recreation area that has a slope no greater than 4 %. At 22,000 square feet, the existing project is shy of meeting the ordinance requirement by 128 square feet for each dwelling unit. A total of 45,409 sq. ft. of recreation space is proposed, which exceeds the minimum necessary to satisfy the 400 sq. ft. per apartment (43,600 s.f.) standard for the entire development. The project will not only improve the area of recreational space, it will increase the variety of recreational facilities. The proposal z �w J0 U O co o L11 J f.. w • d z� Z0 U O CD- 0 W w. • U 0 17: WZ w • N O~ z Pyramid Pointe June 15, 1995 Page 6 includes a combination of facilities for active and passive recreation and for specified and general recreational use. In addition to lawn and path areas, the applicant proposes to enhance the existing swimming pool, install play equipment for children and a spa and gazebo with a wood deck and outdoor seating. As mentioned, the recreation space cannot exceed a 4% slope. Compliance with this standard will be verified with submittal of a grading plan at the time of a building permit. Some of the areas proposed for recreation area exceed the 4% at this time, but the 4% appears achievable through grading of the site. Landscape and Site Treatment for Sites with Class 2, Class 3, and Class 4 Geologic Hazard Areas. Downslope and Sideyard Buffers. Photomontage or computer - generated perspectives, taken from the nearest downslope off -site privately owned property, shall show minimum landscape coverage of twenty five percent of the structures at the time of project completion with anticipated forty percent coverage within fifteen years. This standard may supplement or be in lieu of the applicable landscape yard requirement. Two photomontages, taken from separate perspectives, have been provided. Photomontage "A" was taken from the south side of Southcenter Boulevard across from Denny's Restaurant. These photomontages show that when viewed from two locations along Southcenter Boulevard, that the project is substantially screened from view. It appears that most of the vegetative screening will be accomplished by trees located off the site. Since the applicant has no control over that vegetation, there is no guarantee that it will be maintained for screening purposes. The applicant should demonstrate that screening is achieved with vegetation located on- site. (g) Review guidelines contained in Section 18.60.050 (BAR criteria) shall apply to PRD's. The BAR guidelines are discussed below under a separate heading. 18.46.070 Multi- Family Density Standards The current zoning allows a maximum of 109 units, which is the amount that is proposed. The table below breaks out the density allowance by the two zone districts on the site: Zone Area Min. Area /Unit Allowed Units RMH 118,684 1,500 79 R3 90,090 3,000 30 Total Units Allowed 109 Total Units Proposed 109 z z` re 2 • UOf cno w =, NO W 0: 2 • u_ j: • Hw z I- O. z 1-- III Ill: •n p` O �! • 0 H_ :w w` U; wiz.; id z • z Pyramid Pointe June 15, 1995 Page 7 18.46.080 Open Space (a) Each planned residential development shall provide not less than 20% of the gross site area for common open space which shall: (1) Provide either passive or active recreation concentrated in large usable areas; (2) Network with the trail and open space system of the City and provide a connection and extension, if feasible; and (3) Be under one ownership—responsible for the maintenance of the common open space... The proposed recreation facilities were discussed in "e" above. The 208,774 sq. ft. site requires 41,755 sq. ft. of common recreation space to satisfy the 20% requirement. The applicant has identified 45,409 sq. ft. of common recreation space, thus exceeding this requirement by over 3,000 square feet. The proposal includes the construction of a pathway through the site to the path that leads down to Macadam Road. (b) Planned residential developments shall set aside sensitive areas and their buffers in a sensitive areas tract as required by Section 18.45.090, and will be exempted from other open space requirements of this section. 18.45.090 Sensitive Area Tracts. (a) In development proposals for planned residential or mixed area developments, ... applicants shall create sensitive areas tracts, in lieu of an open space tract, per the standards of Section 18.46.080. " 'Sensitive areas' means wetlands, watercourses, areas of geologic instability other than Class I areas, abandoned coal mine areas, and important geological or archaeological sites." (TMC 18.06.697) " 'Sensitive area buffer' means the area contiguous to a sensitive area that is required for the continued maintenance, function and structural stability of the sensitive area." (TMC 18.06.695) " 'Sensitive area tract' means a tract which is created to protect the sensitive area and its buffer, whose maintenance is assured, and which is recorded on all documents of title of record for all affected lots and subsequent owners." (TMC 18.06.698) One way to resolve these multiple criteria is to create a "sensitive area tract" which encompasses at least 20% of the site and establishing that the site continues to have active, passive or trail oriented recreational characteristics needed to satisfy TMC 18.46.080. On -site sensitive areas are geologically unstable areas. These sites may be altered based on TMC 18.45.080(e) (Uses and Standards for Areas of Potential Geologic Instability) which requires assurance of continued slope stability. The proposed project has demonstrated this ability based on geotechnical studies submitted Pyramid Pointe June 15, 1995 Page 8 during environmental review per TMC Checklist). The proposed action needs no sensitive area ordinance purpose of slope stability (TMC the geotechnical study. 21.04.140 (Environmental buffers to achieve the 18.45.040(3)) based on The 20 %-of site area "sensitive area tract" required of PRD's is 41,755 square feet (0.20 x 208,774). This may be satisfied by the The proposed recreation facilities were discussed in "e" above. The 208,774 sq. ft. site requires 41,755 sq. ft. of common recreation space to satisfy the 20% requirement. This may be satisfied by creating a sensitive areas tract that encompasses the setback area along the top of the slope, the natural areas that are too steep to be counted as recreation space and the designated recreation areas. 18.46.090 Relationship to adjacent areas. (a) The design and layout of a planned residential development shall take into account the integration and compatibility of the site to the surrounding areas. The perimeter of the PRD shall be so designed as to minimize any undesirable impact of the PRD on adjacent properties. (b) Setbacks from the property lines of the PRD shall be comparable to, or compatible with, those of the existing development of adjacent properties or, if adjacent properties are undeveloped, the type of development which may be permitted. Bulk and setback relationships to adjacent areas have been discussed above in TMC 18.46.060(a)(3). The nearest buildings to the new project include the LaVista apartments to the west and Hampton Heights to the south. The LaVista building is about 15 -20 feet lower that the proposed building, but is also about 130 feet distant from the building. Landscaping in the thirty foot setback will be provided for a transition from the LaVista site to the new building. Hampton Heights is 10 - 15 feet higher than the new building. Additional landscaping will be provided between Hampton Heights and Pyramid Point, thus providing an improved transition. 18.46.112 Review Criteria. (1) Requirements of the subdivision code for the proposed development have been met, if appropriate; No subdivision activity is proposed. The applicant has applied for a lot consolidation, which is necessary in order for the project to meet various zoning code standards. z I- w re -.I C.) 0 U)• = J � • u.; WO 2 J u_a. =a _' z_ �. HO z F- Lij UU O �: 0 LU'. LL H, O 111 Z U -t z Pyramid Pointe June 15, 1995 Page 9 (2) Reasons for density bonuses meet the criteria as listed in Section 18.46.070; No density bonus is requested. Adverse environmental impacts have been mitigated; (3) An environmental evaluation of the site has been completed and a mitigated determination of non - significance (MDNS) has been issued (L95- 0005). Mitigating measures are contained in Attachment C. (4) Compliance of the proposed PRD to the provisions of this chapter and Chapter 18.45 (Sensitive Areas Overlay Zone); PRD review is required because of the "Areas of Potential Geologic Instability" found on site. Consistency of the proposed action with this chapter and TMC 18.45 have been discussed herein. Coordination with TMC 18.45 is specifically reviewed in 18.46.090 above. Additional geotechnical analyses and construction monitoring will be required during the building permit and construction phase as required in the mitigated determination of non - significance. (5) Time limitations, if any, for the entire development and specified stages have been documented in the application; No time limitations or phasing have been specified. (6) Development in accordance with the Comprehensive Land Use Policy Plan and other relevant plans; The project is consistent with classification of the property on Policy Map, as implemented by the the High Density Residential the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Tukwila Zoning Map. Relevant Comprehensive Polices include the following: Natural Environment Obj. 3: Pol. 1: Discourage development on slopes in excess of 20% Pot. 2: Preserve the views of hillside residents. Pol. 3: Preserve and promote the quality of natural landform. The proposed development occurs on slopes ranging from 15 to 25% This is permitted pursuant to the provisions of the Sensitive Areas Ordinance (TMC 18.45), which allows such construction if it can be done safely. View preservation is not a development standard which can be implemented as it requires identification of view points and view sheds. The development will not significantly alter the natural . landform as the new buildings will be constructed on Z F- w 6 JU UO W2 J � W0 gQ I CI Z I.- .1-0 • Z 1-. W W` • UC) F- W W. • 111 • Z N„ .F=- H •Z Pyramid Pointe June 15, 1995 Page 10 relatively level portions of the site. The planting of over 100 trees will serve to reflect the once treed quality of the site. z (7) Compliance with the Board of Architectural Review guidelines (Section =F-• 18.60.050); and I- Z CC m W See "BAR Decision Criteria" below for a review and recommendations .J v. for project consistency with BAR guidelines. c.)0 . co c) w= Lu _II_ (8) Appropriate retention and preservation of existing trees and vegetation W u_: recommended by the Director of the Department of Community Development. w 0 2 There are few significant trees on site. Seven have been ga identified on the site plan, two of which are proposed to be u_< removed. The removal of these trees will require a tree permit and I a replacement per the tree ordinance. Additional trees are shown on 1_1i' the landscape plan but not shown on the survey. The recommended z'- BAR approval addresses the protection of these trees if they are on z 0 site. W ui D❑ BOARD OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW DECISION CRITERIA ;❑O ❑ 1-. This project is subject to Board review as a multi - family Low development (18.60.030(2) TMC). � u_ Board review criteria are shown below in bold, along with a staff discussion of relevant facts. Applicant responses to the design 021 criteria are presented in Attachment B. 0 1 18.60.053 Multi - family review guidelines. In reviewing any application, the following guidelines shall be used by the BAR in its decision making. The applicant shall bear the full burden of proof that the proposed development plans satisfy all of the review guidelines. The BAR may modify a literal interpretation of the review guidelines if, in their judgment, such modification(s) better implement the Comprehensive Plan goals, objectives and policies. (1) Site Planning. (A) Building siting, architecture, and landscaping shall be integrated into and blend harmoniously with the neighborhood building scale, natural environment, and development characteristics as envisioned in the Comprehensive Plan. For instance, a multi - family development's design need not be harmoniously integrated with adjacent single family structures if that existing single family use is designated as "Commercial" or "High Density Residential" in the Comprehensive Plan. However, a "Low Density Residential" (detached single family) designation would require such harmonious design integration. (B) Natural features which contribute to desirable neighborhood character shall be preserved to the maximum extent possible. Natural features include, but are not limited to, existing significant trees and stands of trees, wetlands, streams, and significant topographic features. (C) The site plan shall use landscaping and building shapes to form an aesthetically pleasing and pedestrian scale streetscape. This shall include, z Pyramid Pointe June 15, 1995 Page 11 but not be limited to facilitating pedestrian travel along the street, using architecture and landscaping to provide a desirable transition from streetscape to the building, and providing an integrated linkage from pedestrian and vehicular facilities to building entries. (D) Pedestrian and vehicular entries shall provide a high quality visual focus using building siting, shapes, and landscaping. Such a feature establishes a physical transition between the project and public areas, and establishes the initial sense of high quality development. (E) Vehicular circulation design shall minimize driveway intersections with the street. (F) Site perimeter design (i.e. landscaping, structures, and horizontal width) shall be coordinated with site development to ensure a harmonious transition between adjacent projects. (G) Varying degrees of privacy for the individual residents shall be provided; increasing from the public right of way, to common areas, to individual residences. This can be accomplished through the use of symbolic and actual physical barriers to define the degrees of privacy appropriate to specific site area functions. (H) Parking and service areas shall be located, designed, and screened to interrupt and reduce the visual impact of large paved areas; (I) The height, bulk, footprint, and scale of each building shall be in harmony with its site and adjacent long -term structures. (A) The properties along South 152nd Street and 57th Avenue South are near to being fully developed with multi - family residential projects. The various sites have been improved at different times which has resulted in a variety of designs. Although the design details vary from project to project, the massing of the projects are very similar, all of which are 2 or 3 story stack flat buildings. Sunshine Ridge, which was recently approved for construction, will go as high as six stories. The site is located one third of the way up the hill with apartments located above and below and on either side. Because this project is filling in an already developed area, it will have less visual impact from various points below than it would if the project was located on an undeveloped vegetated hillside. The site does not contain significant natural areas. The nearest natural area is Macadam Road right -of -way south of the site where a naturally vegetated steep slope is located. The natural vegetation (trees, blackberries and grasses) are located along the south border of the site. Disturbance of this vegetation will be minimal. (B) The site contains about seven significant trees (4" minimum caliper). These trees are dispersed throughout the site. A tree permit will be required for removal of any of these trees, and replacement shall be based upon 18.54.130(3) TMC. There is need 9 for clarification of the location of the several trees identified -xias poplar and birch trees on the landscape plan but are not shown ��1`� on the site survey. If these trees are in fact located on the /- \( t site, disturbance within a ten foot radius of their dripline should Z • CG Q W W D. U0. tAO- W W0 2 d' W Z= H 0. z p. O cA. .o Ww .H U W z U N' .0 'z • } Pyramid Pointe June 15, 1995 Page 12 be in conformance with 18.54.130(1)(B) TMC. Applying the standards of the tree permit process, modifications to the site plan may result in order to protect the existing trees. (C) The project has a limited street frontage. Along the Macadam Road frontage the site is about 50 feet above the roadway with a steep vegetated hillside separating the project from the street. The only other abutting street, 57th Avenue South, terminates at the northwest corner of the site. A network of paths will provide linkages between the new and existing buildings, parking areas and the stairway leading to Macadam Road. There is no pedestrian path proposed to link the site with 57th Avenue South. (D)i-The existing apartments are among the oldest on the hill, and `have limited design quality. They have flat roofs, lack modulation, contain large, undifferentiated planes and lack �,' architectural details. The project owner has worked to improve the •►,s image of the site by making interior and exterior improvements to the buildings and removing trash and non - operating vehicles. With `*the construction of the building and installation of new landscaping at the entry into the site, the project should create a visual focus and establish an improved sense of quality in the development. (E) There is one existing driveway, which connects the site to 57th Avenue South. The project will not create any additional driveways. According to the survey prepared by Cramer Northwest, the entry driveway is partially on the adjacent lot to the north. The portion on the site does not meet the minimum 20 foot access aisle width of the zoning code (18.56 TMC - Table 3). This survey conflicts with Sheet A2 which shows a 25 foot wide driveway. (F) With the buildings located beyond the end of a dead end street and on the top of a steep slope and with 10 -15 foot grade between sites,, the need for transitional features between the sites is minimal. Additional landscaping at the entrance of the site and along the north property line will upgrade the site to landscape requirements, thus complying with the 18.52.020 TMC. In addition, six trees are proposed along the north property line that are not required by the zoning code. (G) With the lack of adjacent public roads, most of the site is of a semi - private nature, including the recreation areas and balconies. A transition from semi - private to private space is made with the entry feature and the wood walkway that leads to the - individual apartments. The recreational areas are surrounded by the existing and proposed buildings, thus creating a degree of privacy. (H) The new parking areas are located at the entrance to the Pyramid Pointe June 15, 1995 Page 13 facility and in the center of the complex. In general, all spaces, old and new, are dispersed throughout the complex, thus avoiding the creation of large paved areas. (I) Project density is proposed to be 22.5 dwelling units per acre, compared to a maximum 29 units per acre that is generally allowed in high density areas. This development is less than the more intense Sunshine Ridge development (27 units per acre) approved for a location west of the site. Impervious surfaces on the site are proposed at 49.5 % The floor of the new buildings are about 5 to 10 feet lower than the existing Pyramid Pointe buildings. Because of their siting and orientation, the existing apartments will still have substantial access to light and views. (2) Building Design. (A) Architectural style is not restricted, evaluation of a project shall be based on the quality of its design and its ability to harmonize building texture, shape, lines and mass with the surrounding neighborhood; (B) Buildings shall be of appropriate height, scale, and design /shape to be in harmony with those existing permanent neighboring developments which are consistent with, or envisioned in, the Comprehensive Plan. This will be especially important for perimeter structures. Adjacent structures which are not in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan should be considered to be transitional. The degree of architectural harmony required should be consistent with the non - conforming structure•s anticipated permanence; (C) Building components, such as windows, doors, eaves, parapets, stairs and decks shall be integrated into the overall building design. Particular emphasis shall be given to harmonious proportions of these components with those of adjacent developments. Building components and ancillary parts shall be consistent with the anticipated life of the structure; (D) The overall color scheme shall work to reduce building prominence and shall blend in with the natural environment. (B) Monotony of design in single or multiple building projects shall be avoided. Variety of detail, form, and siting shall be used to provide visual interest. Otherwise monotonous flat walls and uniform vertical planes of individual buildings shall be broken up with building modulation, stairs, decks, railings, and focal entries. Multiple building developments shall use siting and additional architectural variety to avoid inappropriate repetition of building designs and appearance to surrounding properties. (A & B) The nature of the built environment along South 152nd Street and 57th Avenue has already been determined by the near complete development of all the properties with apartment buildings. The neighborhood buildings have similar height and mass, but their ages, detailing, roof lines, materials and colors vary from project to project. There is no particular style, color scheme, or material that predominates. Plywood is the most common siding material. The Pyramid Pointe project shares some design characteristics that can be found throughout the neighborhood. The use of green accent color on the latticed gables, trellis and shutters ties the buildings in with the existing Pyramid Point buildings. The pitched roofs and gables echo the use of gabled roofs on the. Pyramid Pointe June 15, 1995 Page 14 complex immediately to the north. The use of vinyl siding compares to the use of vinyl siding to the complex to the east. The board and batten style siding reflects the vertical orientation of various plywood sided buildings. The nearest off -site development is the LaVista Apartments to the west, which is about 100 feet from the site and 130 feet from the proposed western building. The LaVista building is about 15 -20 feet lower than the proposed western building. Eight trees are proposed to be planted in the west setback area to provide a transitional element from the LaVista site to the proposed west building. (C) The proposed gables have comparable proportions to the gables on the Hampton Heights apartment building to the north. The use of board and batten style siding, mullioned windows with shutters, building modulation and an entry door for each group of apartments provides appropriate detailing for a residential development. (D) The color scheme includes Aspen (Grey) for the bottom third of the building and Beige for the upper two thirds. Also proposed is white belly band and white windows. Song of Norway (Green) will be used for accent and a grayish brown asphalt composition shingle is proposed for the roof. (E) Monotony of design on the individual buildings are addressed through employment of horizontal and vertical modulation, decks, entry features and gables. Most of these elements are lacking on the existing apartment buildings on the site, meaning the design quality of the new buildings represents a substantial upgrade of the site. (3) Landscape and Site Treatment (A) Existing natural topographic patterns and significant vegetation shall be reflected in project design when they contribute to the natural beauty of the area or are important to defining neighborhood identity or a sense of place; (B) Landscape treatment shall enhance existing natural and architectural features, help separate public from private spaces, strengthen vistas and important views, provide shade to moderate the affects of large paved areas, and break up visual mass; (C) Walkways, parking spaces, terraces, and other paved areas shall promote safety and provide an inviting and stable appearance. Direct pedestrian linkages to the public street, to on -site recreation areas, and to adjacent public recreation areas shall be provided; (D) Appropriate landscape transition to adjoining properties shall be provided. (A) Historically, the vicinity was a wooded hillside. Most of the wooded areas have been replaced with multi- family developments. The site itself is no longer in a natural wooded state. It has been cleared, graded and filled and covered with lawn. Proposed on z �z • w dd� JU O 0 w= J F-: V) u_ w u- Q: co iI- _ z �. I-- 0 z F- LU u j 2 • o' U O P- O 1-, w w F— U u. — O. .z. w co O F-" z Pyramid Pointe June 15, 1995 Page 15 the site is the addition of about 105 trees. (B) The landscape plan breaks up the visual mass of the buildings and creates a sense of privacy around the recreational facilities. (C) Walkways are proposed to link the new apartments with the parking, recreation areas, trash enclosures and the stairway down the Macadam Road. The new sidewalks will improve access from the existing western building as well. There are no pedestrian connections planned for 57th Avenue South. (D) This was discussed in 1(f). (4) Miscellaneous structures shall be designed as an integral part of the architectural concept and landscape. (A) Materials shall be compatible with buildings, scale shall be appropriate, colors shall be in harmony with buildings and surroundings, and structure proportions shall be to scale; (B) Screening of service yards, and other places which tend to be unsightly, shall be accomplished by the use of walls, fencing, planting, berms, or combinations of these. Screening shall be effective in winter and summer; (C) Mechanical equipment or other utility hardware on roof, ground or buildings shall be screened from view. Screening shall be designed as an integral part of the architecture (i.e., raised parapets and fully enclosed under roof) and landscaping; (D) Exterior lighting standards and fixtures shall be of a design and size consistent with safety, building architecture and adjacent area. Lighting shall be shielded, and restrained in design with no off -site glare spill over. Excessive brightness and brilliant colors shall not be used unless clearly demonstrated to be integral to building architecture. (A) A wood trellis and gazebo are proposed over the spa and additional wood trellises are proposed over the trash enclosures. These will be painted green to match the color of the gables and shutters on the buildings. The spa /gazebo area and the pool are proposed to be enclosed by chain link fences. A 42" wood fence is proposed above the rockery north of the children play structure and gazebo areas. The carport design consists of a flat roof structure supported by columns located at the center of the roof. This element should be designed to better reflect the architecture of the building. CONCLUSIONS A. PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT 1. The project does involve subdivision of property, therefore review criteria No. 1 does not apply. z W, 6 00 No_ ILI CO 'Li 0 1Q =0. w. 2 z �. z Off, :O H: W W` 2 w z' U.- z Pyramid Pointe June 15, 1995 Page 16 2. There are no requests for density increases, therefore review criteria No. 2 does not apply. 3. Adverse environmental impacts have been mitigated (Mitigation z Measures contained in Attachment C). Slope stability has been F z' demonstrated during the environmental review process. w. Additional confirmation and monitoring will be conducted during the building permit review and construction processes. -J �' Nod, 4. The project is in compliance with the requirements of Chapters ' w in 18.46 (PRD) and 18.45 (Sensitive Areas). As conditioned, the -J1- project will upgrade the entire site into compliance for Nu. recreation areas, will contain less than 50% impervious w O surface area, will decrease the non - conformance of the number of parking spaces, will meet the downslope and sideyard buffer u_ and open space requirements and will be compatible with the I a' adjacent properties. Per the Sensitive Areas Ordinance, a i_ w "'geotechnical analysis has been completed which has determined zF=..' that the site can be developed. No specific buffers were 1-0 determined to be required. zi L'" u 5. There are no time limitations for the project, therefore, v o review criteria No. 6 does not apply. OT o1.-- ww 6. The proposal is in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan. The 3:0 use and density is in accord with the High Density Residential u. ~O classification of the Plan. The proposal is consistent with z the implementing regulations of the Plan for development on or 052 , near slopes. i z 7. The conclusions pertaining to compliance with the Board of Architectural Review guidelines are discussed below. 8. Preservation of existing trees, and replacement of existing trees that are removed will be accomplished through administration of the tree ordinance (Chapter 18.54 TMC). B. BOARD OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW Site Planning 1. The siting of the three story structures is appropriate relative to the scale, orientation, slope location and existing trees and landscaping. 2. Grade separation provides the primary transitional element between the site and the adjacent properties. The landscaping and setbacks for the entry building provides an appropriate transition between the apartment projects to the north and west. The trees proposed along the north property line will 1 Pyramid Pointe June 15, 1995 Page 17 soften the hard surfaces of the parking lots on the adjacent properties and rockery. 3. The site design provides a variety of public, semi - private and private areas. 4. New parking and service areas have been dispersed throughout the site and have been adequately landscaped. Building Design 5. The new building and landscaping at the entry will provide an improved sense of quality development than currently exists on the site. The existing buildings are lacking in appeal and architectural interest. Placing one of the new buildings at the entry improves the initial sense of the quality of development.- - 6. Building design has provided an adequate level of design quality and harmonized texture, shape, lines and mass with the surrounding neighborhood provided some of the site details discussed below are upgraded. 7. The project will fit within the economic and design context of the neighborhood and the site, and will result in a higher quality development with improved architecture, landscaping, parking ratios, recreational facilities and site amenities. Landscape and Site Treatment 8. Visibility of the project on this hillside significantly moderated by its infill character. 9. The addition of 106 trees to the site will historical wooded character of the site. location is reflect the 10. As conditioned, the project will result in improved internal pedestrian circulation and will improve pedestrian linkages to 57th Avenue South and the stairway leading to Macadam Road. Miscellaneous.Structures 11. The trellis features used for the gazebo /spa and the trash enclosures are similar to each other and are compatible with the building_ design. 12. The flat roof designs of the carports are not architecturally integrated with the buildings. A pitched roof with gabled ends matching the building gable colors and materials will provide that integration. z a 1-z re 2 U0 v)0- W I J H. U. wo gQ = a. w s Z �. �0 Z U • 0. 0 I• --:. w w —▪ O wz cu — O z Pyramid Pointe June 15, 1995 Page 18 13. The proposed fencing around the gazebo /spa and the swimming pool is not in keeping with design the architecture nor with the other miscellaneous structures. z 3:Z Ce 6 RECOMMENDATIONS U O WI H The Planning Division recommends that the project be forwarded to w0 the City Council, subject to the following conditions: A. Prior to the public hearing before the City Council, the d; applicant shall provide a revised view analysis that w demonstrates that the required landscape coverage standards as z!— contained in Section 18.46.060(f)(1) are achieved by on -site z O, landscaping. B. Prior to the public hearing before the City Council , the o O N;. applicant shall provide a plan which shows the areas that were 0 considered to be pervious to ensure the standard as contained w w` in Section 18.46.060(d) is met. v` BOARD OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW u•Z' w 0, The Planning Division recommends that the BAR grant design review 0 approval subject to the following conditions: z PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT Site Design 1. The main entry driveway must be at least twenty feet wide and located entirely on the property, unless a permanent easement is recorded allowing access over the property adjacent to the north. 2. A sidewalk shall be provided from the site to 57th Avenue South. Landscaping 3. The applicant shall clarify the location of the trees near the south property line. If the existing trees are accurately located on the landscape plan, the protection and preservation of the trees shall be coordinated through the Tree Permit process. This may require relocation of the rockeries, or if necessary for creating recreation area, replacing the rockeries with a retaining wall that provides adequate clearance from the trees. (Note: Since the applicant is Pyramid Pointe June 15, 1995 Page 19 required to revise the view analysis per condition "A" above, . the clarification of the trees will be required prior to Council review). If tree replacement is required pursuant to the Tree Ordinance (18.54.130(3) TMC, the replacement trees shall be in addition to those shown on the approved •landscape plan. The landscaping on the approved plan are considered to meet the BAR criteria, but not the tree permit requirements. 4. An automatic irrigation system shall be provided for the new landscaped areas and shall include in- ground moisture sensors. Miscellaneous Structures The chain link fences pool shall be t around the spa /gazebo and the swimming • h 6. Exterior light levels should be limited to one (1) foot - candle at the property line and no direct illumination beyond the property line. , The carports shall be designed to be architecturally integrated with the buildings with a pitched roof with gabled ends. The materials, colors and details shall be consistent ith the building and gables. The revised design shall be su• itted for City Council review. it_twoh,u" (4es,— - - -7 b5 ( „, ,o foir & 5v z re w' 0 0` w 0', u.) w W LL' wO CO u.a = a t- 2, Z� I-0' Z 1-: 0 04 'O N' = w H.V. w • Z: UN 0 F' PYRAMID POINTE APARTMENTS TU KW I LA, WA Protect Data: O...bp51 IL 0. M..aw. 7211P11..Ia%1IY 100 6r1.. WA 51102 MIS MK. .2112101 001 M.c 1MM•a.a1 1121141 *.L 172 O* 14P4114 . 10490 *erg, KM Tall 1144 • 29677. *.1. a 4.71 w* En10101 Mw IAAlionOf 112171*,, 11 aaw• LA1. In (3)■••21yb FqA MMOON 1w21ard .00111.21 Wes an wow., M NM pawn Eisen 1./00 E1114q UM.2114 EWAN UFOs a11M 2.•10.. W11 Total 402..00/ Poop. 0 AaLLb1 UM1111W Tali WM (OA papaw) • N214 ll/ p • R.41* 11l.Ai /11w7 Plat 71.211 karak11 Plat 721ay MA 3 Wag Mar.3 Wary 33 03.0K111700 7003 M 11.51411100 721 111 M 51 I•24 1140 Man; . .i bgM110121 Caw9....1a.. 104.03 51 L . 1071 1,90.4.. C.1' -.. PXpa•/ 10.210q L • c2/% 11.01•001000111.0.11.00.4 1011 WI • 4L0 PeemolcA OM Seim Paccred ire VAN AJ brpb.4410* P.IYrf EW6ywily 10030.3 Paean r.Pa1 homed MSflbrl 9•4410 Teal P.M,' PA01•41 *I In PXUq • • • .00161.11.21 .LNO s L 72.101.6 111 $2 71 107 11 L105.10en venal /Cb221eb1•Ob}12 r!212111..217M.Ale • WV. 143 moping /14053•14 ` Ns Tl / PA0er m Ir1/ 110...11500 1171• WW1 126 t.rya.ab Consultants: • AMA.* 5.4 3W. Tlvlr. AN./ N b ai�c 101 401*1VA SA. 4011 1011a.A 7110 NO37 OM 014700 M0 30 I 21171 N CaPMC Pala. lAndoso 217 PM Shot 7■•120 30*211%A 51101 W344110 A17.1b.. Power 1.4P 21* 420111.M Arc XL 11.100 1./a•w. 1151 51007 (201)111411 0112:11.012•11 0.ara 02121121.0 110 17211X120111..*Pa 111 11101.10 WA 51007 (751( 7474011 Awl Nae 11.01x1. TMb[ 11wc T• 2101 11211144. ME. /1.r 110 1.4.1121.7.0 *001 (7010 e2 114270 Ms M Amnon J Sheet Inder A•l M2 A4 A4 M 47 M 1.4 L.2 1.4 W • 2h••1 21. Ann 71. AI•. C21*4.1Xr LSM Pima UM Anne 114101.11,1•A P/aq 1.10.1* trv./a1 1••M & 12. Ws 11...11211 R▪ a'r Mon 1aM +AI T1Plea1 KAN 004 0 00 . 21 4 1 00 0 0 0 00 7.1 91. 121•.y a PYRAMID •.1 Al 00..00 Me. AMA. /1.u• VICINITY MAP ;c O UM PST 6R ENCLOSURE 0 r+a VA r.rw.... 000.0000 of r.. 100/000.0 ;no n:xis�°rO'r°i[ M41.1.1.3.1.1 nor ef►fr1 V/ 80.0,003100. 01. rear 11.0∎0 MHM m•rM Ctrl 4P0.07100e f =ENO ,M -- IM OCOMMA IM rffOr01[OCOffea01 1.:001110 POLURY • COIMAL.11YL fUL WI 11741 .f/ MAMA* $ PAL • wxmM MOM= MIL. t Am/ ffea a110 Mn,n1 o 1.xli.MtC0.11 .nx9R IPA IMMIA110. AMA 1H' MMf.2) w cYKiNb NMS/0111,C0.111 tw.e. rtfne MAFIA PAM Une \iiiiV-v...., .._,= , � � ere 10 w ` _ ._ —_ • . MAYOMEDIMM111711IRM - asnea.r.rrferAVw —1 • xrtu.0 M,t Z • _ I—. W J U: 0 0 (A 0:- .U) w t W 0:. � j. N d I-- O: Z I; LU 2 D. • Q O U)L! :CI r, . • H U` u-p° Z. H W N: Z fti 100 1--� lW.U.aOexA SITE SECTION - A Sean l -.1ot' 110 110 ® SITE PLAN SITE SECTION - B Sean1 -.>a w 1 1 O1104.O0D 1141 MILS *TM 11,0 STALLS R1.1V11177r•.L Peel .1u14,01141u *up srw • L.GENG 164 22212.6 CJ/pri 111 Mg10fiDOW WI •••••• •.MOfWPOOIP• r:::::.271 MOPPED C4M011T O COW.CT MAL • •.0.1 441:11 RILL •W ..11641 no mu. • 1ua1C 110a.120 /mace t a6111oMV11011[R/1 LG..222.M.Vt1LiM Silo Area Caloulatton.; • TOW La Now Fhe1+le• 1.1..Ilgi.l (COO./1.13 Taa111e alkoAmp rtopoor.2 MwS . Aw.. Ml. C • 1SWA.y A 21222 ow L swan, Taal - 11,41.4 0. CIC b1. SMI11CK.7Ib1YN1 , �•� Y[ II+S.TWI ma stow 2001A2 PA2 1CV41 .M.a1 fl1! W 6.•o$Yi Mawa..apm . Arm 601aw 121.317 Ns 1. TAW 6.0.1.102• MM pope.* 101010.7. 7' P.IwM.p. a l.pl.b.1 Y'Im..1A 1121E p1 ID • P001401140 4•4011011 1744. .•6fawR 01;701.11 ■;111,11.111111.11 ra 4 • J SITE PLAN • PYRAMID POIN TUKWILA, WA 77 U • RI A -3 P•1141.0 rt1•11E Unit A - 611 SF. Unit A (Barrier Free) - 611 SF. Unit 13 • 051 5F. J UNIT PLANS a PYRAMID !NEU A4 PrIWAD PONTE 4 • Unit C - 992 P. Decic • Master Bedroom UAW 11, Unit D - 992 9.F. UNIT PLANS 1 r a z ad %EU A5 PePAMO FCME ........ u . MIT • WIT A CARRIER FREE BARRIER FREE n . UNIT A u.r WIT A 7V.D• UNIT B , 1Y•�• UNIT C ilk ... W • == .03 IWI SA ti •6100_ •�• �rP�1GC J pa ll 'i r� �QEO :fir; ilea* 11oa.�l . ram fr- BLDG 2 BLDG 1 BUILDING PLANS a Z I- W ;W U 0O w o,- W =` :CO LC 0 g a. iZ H{ 'zI- w w` z a BEET A6 P 0.0 RIME • rata r.*t.i A..i'p nn II �n J_ a1111u - 1111111111 ' VI�I� I 111111 0,4'T = T 713 �� ■It a =:: u 11 —ii u1�r =�s,. Fitt N4rr = 7iQ.U•vuir 1.'nr'uwr TYPICAL EXTERIOR MATERIAL$ Cona»1m,00..13 V/1.11 Mod wod lama Actara G.aMC ponied 14 WO. ear G.mrr..'n11 1 l v..0 t..rrlod weep.. 2. km .i'A .b"0 0.10M. Ford and btNn M» Ma. Ana trroshol ..A, 4b WW1 p•W 111 ilidi =iiisl is FRONT ELEVATION L. Mil =-=� 11111 /It►i�• =..v1 nII 11111 a NI 11 =-6. BACK ELEVATION SIDE ELEVA'T'ION EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS - BUILDING_ I SIDE ELEVATION • a } 1113 .mtrole aw.utt twi r:trwi, h u AcMi ti Ma HIE 11 A7 E 1 FRONT ELEVATION SIDE ELEVATION BACK ELEVATION J EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS - BUILDING _2 SIDE ELEVATION a .cI -o A8 311. FRONT YARD LANOICAPI ) r Ds noah. lro 2C Do. Ibpbe Ir PaP,t1. Pewir I r fiphr\ IT Dia Pavi. •IM AMUR L.-61 PON PLANTLIICHIND NORTH SCALE 1-20' •L-1 PLANT SCHEDULE 7000. 101041.014014 C004:110110 04.i 1411 `flown MO 4 114.0 000 11001.41.110. man Ire r .00.1 000 A 1 14•A Wow. *wow ?.•001.404•.0 4 00040.0 0040.00 1< r r 010 04 00. • 11...400. am r•T••• 1 .1000 • 1•. • K4 la 410• +04..4 .� ^010.0. • 44 4.444 44 04.•..+4. 1► • 11••■•• w.r.w ifflo r. '0.44•11...44.0.0.1141 1* 00 J w ems Wet /V VC 00 00 100 .•.. 1 0•0.1.001.O. rd y. •4 104 04004044444 ti 110.040 C••�•.011..o. K Nt 0,440 N•., 70 •11.•.•4.40 a W r. A M • as O... M••.•0 Kr .a .,a .44• .0.44 • 4w .N 1010 r� . . � 0r.l ......., - .... 7000. loatm •-.d 00..!1./14 04.i • A 070M4 MO 1000.8. man Ire r 1...• te 4.4 rut 4 t..•...•.•.. W A : •0, 4 41 100 I444 444 .d.0. * 0N•40 am • 1444..44.4.. 110./ 1O...... as 40• ∎Kr 1.I 1•. • K4 744 • M4 ..r. 000011101400 MO 1440.•• 0,.4041•0 ..I.... al ha. M • LAM ifflo T•.o. 0•00000 •41 CO.4 0.011 a 01110114 •1 1 r••1..4. -y..Y 102.4.40.04 * •...w. .a W 41.0 a40 4A• 1404 . ..• bard CD 1 0 • ea.. . ..""` lt..... ....„ A .•..... 40 •• M • •••••••••• Oi• ~ ~ �� 7011.00 .. Co OM • 00..4 .40 04.0. • M.M.. rd y. .1... J• 1.a a. 4. F.• pm. �441.r .u... 404.0 0,440 N•., 04 7 11414 11010•1104.0.0 A 1001 w Nr 0004 .a 4 ..•...4 4..•04 ,1010..... ....I....... Si '1010.. MC •140.• 001 040001 0400 0.00.141 SO 1140400. 7014.0100.4.044 4. 1•� � awl � I. 110104. � N•, 40 1140..0000 NOR Imo .. 170 Ara 04 40 4 •• 4.4.040.0. 04? 11•./4441100•ad4 .9 011./•••• 4 400.•0 N.r.r 00 I••10011.400110004 .M...4./40.4 i 301.01 w 1.40_0.11 .. 0.• t` 11..• .40 ..dry CO 1••.04.0•.•••• caw beams Damara f. 110.4 1a ••r•.. 00 11044r.040.• 04W 2. qr.... 40440•044 1114 0..0x.1....... 14 *Be 44.44.0 01114.41101014 4. 111111.00.4 000 `' 140.0 40••10••04. 04.0 m 100 411110404 0000 dm* 4 010.4 .0 10 ..0.•. •.T 4 a1401. 0M•. 4400 IT 010 444..... 041.0.• 44.1. 00,4 x. 100.0 10+•• .4• 0000' caws ovum w•stro 0* 40!0/1 AD awe= Jt•OOf• Aran-Au:[[ ~wt. • • • • .cr Pak ■I 4 44 Ie•4 O N 0400 Ild.d. /4040141 MC, +rea. 01.4,1![ Liman/ 4W4 44 • I� 17NC/ UL.VATlDN. DTL. Fs _ • . tetrcar�sl 1100/ 0010 T•MU 11.AR/TVA 400TAL 4••.100 PLAPfTlp 0RTAIL CON/•01 P.AMTwo OXTAIL onourwoccnr.I. PLAT'R110 OITA*. • a brit L -2 Z HW• . 6 U 0 NO- W • =' J I W O 10 3 ,tea uJ H O{ Z 1-. W W p. 0 -. 0 I- •11 U. p, • Z U N' Z GAZEBO / SPA ELEVATION 1/4 ^.11.0" 1 t 4•_01 13..0. f 1 PPP SS 111101i11i0i6 ROCKERY /WALK /DECORATIVE WOOD FENCE SECTION • •••• GAZEBO /SPA PLAN VIEW 1/4 ".1' -0` . NOTE: TNS OASEIQAND SPA OMMYIOS A RR A.1 PER KW ARDITT CSS NAY AREA ]UVAa SNAIL It COMPOSED O/ a PEA AS I MATTEL SCIoHOO. ORMUCT STANDARDS. AT APPARATUS YOR S.13 YEAR OD CI REDO EN AC[OMI.00ATTS N •:S Z W, 6 JU' UO tno- W = • J �.. N LL W O gQ • ryry V ZF.. Z°. Lu U 0, O N OF-- W W. 0 2 u_O WZ U= O~ Z L -3 SITE SURVEY FOR PYRAMID APARTMENTS IN THE S.N. 1/4 OF SEC. 23, T23N., R4E., N.M., KING COUNTY, WA. LEGAL DESCRIPTION (111070 WARSAW DIED RECORDED UNDER R.C. ROC MO. 5510104) Att 1147 +04014 or 11( MO-o ammo NACU •A• IMO SOunl0[IR�1p,.D(nr or • AAWlO7r C �5 Am/0* IV Ka 001A01 8000505' *540 1 TC .tr(M OI 7R/AyR„ ]7AR n' "V MO. 1. 30VM 11904 ff. 70 00/04 IItM 5?. P00 •A-: 505Cf 3. Or 0004500 CM4npIOIO O r oCAOCM/71 ; 4 / ICR RAI ACC1040n11 IN MOW 10 NAfi iX •f0 Dl0J0aW0(0 IR *0 S1f IK 0/ NtOn 001 .507700 170 4:00100040 00 1 Of 70 N111L Af 01 NAf 9CCOg1 N MINK 10 40 RI.1� 0 0E ]0 011 00 Or ICON can(/ 44TOrpf 0( 010.01( 00 ME 10/ 4 0(.s Of MO 1110+ 30 7.ODUCm ALL MWR M 7I4 104E Or 5UN1A. COMP Or 11140. SUIT Or 14MMCI0/1. ®rd`r.;n:1;... OK • IV b r114.eR11• 1.40. 0 30 . 40 90 BASIS OF BEARINGS: K.C.A.S. T' d. 05 I 7/!':,701 10,.1 1 .101 1:1 ~., •' / - - -- .i0($ 1 „R1r� .. 0 �� -1 -- �� - - - -r� .P/GFlC.Y[{R J L42�Y1[RaA'tl/.S N , .lr 1mw.w O • lrlf- -AV--18 Liil....1‘ DATUM:U.S.C. & G.S. BENCHMARK: • TBM PER TRIAD SURVEY DATED FEBRUARY 18. 1993 TOP CENTER BOLT OF FIRE HYDRANT NEAR SW COR. OF PROPERTY. ELEV.-14/1.57' CONTOUR INTERVAL =2' . -. - -.r •:wr17•-•: . LEGEND Nwru rt soM ® A111(0 a O[Ot Air ▪ comrul OA701 14011 oCODUOVS 11 117017.00 41 OCSC011(0 • MC cV 4001 o OAS •tt0 — 1004.1 wE 0:40041.6 ROCktRf o SA4rAR/ 141 ftGw -011 O340I407 MCC 4•0([ OD nosy 0101 41.00( • 10(7.0( MLR 5.000 0((1 (010•4001 (nu Loa *5 .I r 4700 7401? 44003 0000 04 101400 MC Al 5011011* •-• E •-- MUM* 70001 0/0 • - -.� »041 U/0 —4 --741•10.4 0/0 05711 U/0 MLitt 001[ • "fry 7055 cur 540411 .41[11 40501104 101 7570 tom= 011p 4[111 01111 NIK R.1ER watt C.)0 Nr.eftirt m °0101 N. sio.c1 NORTHEAST BUILDING 2• ,ry too tt 40.71. A.oAn .AC ,014010 1•37�•LS U1I1l 11sf➢ NOTES: rtAR 70 40 oCOMI(5 55 1000 00• (551 O40 I(05 5W1 0.00100 0 40001 010 1*27101 11710117. won 707[421 10 40 SAW 101157■04 AS 9000. 0110(40[ 0511117 4004 1C 11101•0 0110101 L 00 Of ROAM. 9001 . 00C KM Cr 00(555 55* D1 SI De SAW 1LOG004 • • CA00■0051 5000 M RDO S 00 1 Or 101000E 0. /001 4CORy03 1/010(11 711 =110051 00 1111110411. AK 100 407041[[ 4•+ 100— ti�i•1 +01.•4,1 nu: N 30 Ip V • O.e,ne.w.. 1 •1.•01 ..Y ..w. M.•.- .. CA4 3 Z • Z' 6 JU O 0 CO LIJ J = H W O. 2 g -, 1L =. w Ci F=— W Z I- I— 0 Z U • 0Wi W' �i u_ ▪ Z� c.) Lo: Z 12 UNIT REAR ELEVATION Scu8.i/b - 10;,. , .,. 12 UNIT FRONT ELEVATION SCALE I/6 ".1 %4' NOI! ELEEATKE4DITICPADISCSPOr PROPOSED R? OP TOE ROA TM KAWRA71 ONAPRO MS. 6Slri1':+Eki.'t1Ati` 1 wti✓.r::u<.,�: 1 Z = Z, w U 0. Nw: w.=; w 0: q g Ji u. • I-.._, Z F. H- 0', Z F- :off: 2 U. LL Z•w + Z L -4 „ ••....••••... `.• •-■\• sA •• • • Vi 11"11.... t4-.iY • .DESIGN REVIEW APPLIC: TION CRITERIA Page 2 The following criteria will be used by the BAR in its decision- making on your proposed project. Please carefully review the criteria, respond to each criterion (if appropriate), and describe how your plans and elevations meet the criteria. If the space provided for response is insufficient, attach additional response to this form. 1.. RELATIONSHIP OF STRUCTURE TO SITE A. The site should be planned to accomplish a desirable transition with the streetscape and to provide for adequate landscaping, and pedestrian movement. B. Parking and service areas should be located, designed, and screened to moderate the visual impact of large paved areas. C. The height and scale of each building should be considered in relation to it site. 2. RELATIONSHIP OF STRUCTURE AND SITE TO ADJOINING AREA A. Harmony in texture, lines, and masses is encouraged. B. Appropriate landscape transition to adjoining properties should be provided. C. Public buildings and structures. should be consistent with the established neighborhood character. D. Compatibility of vehicular pedestrian circulation patterns and loading facilities in terms of safety, efficiency and convenience should be encouraged.. E. ' Compatibility of on -site vehicular circulation with street circulation should be encouraged. RESPONSE: . 7 yp 4/ y , -t►°_ �r-r' r-�-i q►-� o1 slm il�Y rl� 012.4 building ale . 1 pre - / 4 r1e71 'h� - t"3 ° / • %vet q� 6o /0p p /e f� -Me, sor-Wnel r -r' -dies . an s' . , re i,.d, i i'r 6 40. _ ., /04410 /. 1 /e...• Aida &AilerMinienSingir4y1 iMIA /. /. g 'l./I n / l cirG 14410 alto ATTACHMENT B z H z. re LI 6 J U. U 0: N 0 • W= w O, La cod Z W I... _ z� I- 0: zI ui w 2p O co O- O h-. W W` H V` - O z U .7 CO o~ z DESIGN REVIEW APPLIC" "'ION Page 3 • 3. LANDSCAPE AND SITE TREATMENT A. Where existing topographic patterns contribute to beauty and utility of a development, they should be recognized and preserved and enhanced. B. Grades of walks; parking spaces, terraces, and other paved areas should promote safety and provide an inviting and stable, appearance. C. Landscape treatment should enhance architectural features, strengthen vistas and important axis, and provide shade. D. In locations where plants will be susceptible to injury by pedestrian or motor traffic, mitigating steps should be taken. E. Where building sites limit planting, the placement of trees or shrubs in paved areas is encour- aged. F. Screening of service yards, and other places which tend to be unsightly, should be accom- plished by use of walls, fencing, planting or combinations of these. Screening should be effective in winter and summer. G. In areas where general planting will not prosper, other materials such as fences, walls, and pavings of wood, brick, stone, or gravel may be used. H. Exterior lighting, when used, should enhance the building design and the adjoining land- scape. Lighting standards and fixtures should be of a design and size compatible with the building and adjacent area. Lighting should be shielded, and restrained in design. Excessive brightness and brilliant colors should be avoided. RESPONSE: much more modol ...r I • / 4 .i '1 -.v i If .1 GU /h. 'Si . ve-41-4-, sM/ ztbn /Wn r4edh, .// _4!I' • 14 n' G 1 14 L?/ /i.4ah. s Qre plyvii fa ertkopee, barn & 4_n tmA1 `Itii' 5 WW1/ 14s ' - r�r� a„ arras, /49/i/ ink , has y �.4)- 41112 Co�1 s ido eA �a a.4 T<, j of- l l v t79j *Ainewil-c 4. BUILDING DESIGN ha" / '/. I/ /,._/L• / iI At_.. '. - G�..i_ --.L/ . .J. .J L4 It" r/ A. Architectural style is not restricted, evaluation of a project should be based on quality of its design and relationship to surroundings. B. Buildings should be to appropriate scale and be in harmony with permanent neighboring de- velopments. z w • 00 cDo- CDw w =: J • w o. ga • = w' z� I-0 Z I- w w •n oto oF- w W' 1-- -- ..z U N. z 1 ...,.4.4 .4 .4.. _ .4 .4_.4 a w... ..._. • DESIGN REVIEW APPLICrelON Page 4 C. Building components -.such as windows, doors, eaves, and parapets - should have good pro- portions and relationship to one another. Building components and ancillary parts shall be consistent with anticipated life of the structure. D. Colors should be harmonious, with bright or brilliant colors used only for accent. E. Mechanical equipment or other utility hardware on roof, ground or buildings should be screened from view. F. Exterior lighting should be part of the architectural concept. Fixtures, standards and all ex- posed accessories should be harmonious with building design. G. Monotony of design in single or multiple buildings projects should be avoided. Variety of detail, form/and siting should be used to provide visual interest. RESPONSE: /0' fig i I'4 Lei A . A • In 4 IA 044-4 dent r/ : // /'lG S i /i II ..444.4 % 4 U .LI . .d .I i dui .•. i,* 1 Is / ' e L' • • .flt 1 to' 4..I ag /, 1011- 1/4 Id /L, 14_,M U6 e 44 , �, Milled -66Ad y fir''I 42) I%ieW5 4a144444 , Or I /_,Liit44 :i_& IL _,I a rL' i bPU41_Atl, tI ow-4W I 1171,8 -71v , 41- 5. MISCELLANEOUS STRUCTURES AND STREET FURNITURE A. Miscellaneous structures and street furniture should be designed to be,part of the architec- tural concept of design 'and landscape. Materials should be compatible with buildings, scale should be appropriate, colors should be in harmony with buildings and surroundings, and proportions should be to scale. B. Lighting in connection with miscellaneous structures and street furniture should meet the guidelines applicable to site, landscape and buildings. RESPONSE: z z 6 w -J C.) U 0 U) 0 . W= N IL. W o. J u j =W Z F.. ►= o Z �- 0 o -. o 1, WW 2 - o. W Z: — =` o z • 0' MIllbAltU OtItHMINAlluN NUNSIGNIFilANLL tMUNS) DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: 28 UNIT APARTMENTS AND 59 PARKING SPACES ADDED TO AN EXISTING COMPLEX. PROJECT INCLUDES ADDITION OF RECREATION FACILITIES AND NEW LANDSCAPING. PROPONENT: CHARLES LABODA C i ty of Viikw.i.10 ( 206) 431-3680 ,1 le i' ),.1 'N,,, Tukwi la, \qbiAs, 981813 1; <7b \II YA ,.) •Zi t":-.-_,: il '''Thf. \ ni li- f 4\. "*--.N ;.b. ''i '‘. 6300 Southcenter Boufevard • ik,,:i ?,,,•,.. i,e,,,,,, ,,, ,,, You may appea:Vithi s 'determi nat i on: to tile,. City C1erki.4t`; Cl,ty);Hall, 6200 Southcenter Boulevard, Tukwi la, WA 98188 no later t ha,rv; ill° days from the above signature l'i:1,41t.e., by written ;,:app,ea;k,,se4t i ng the basjVoef the appeal for specific factili."o.b.jections,:;: 0.1!.,,y4Y6 iiieY4,,:be requitztj,;,...eo bear some of `II • -1J the expenses for an '4ip'e;a1..„.,, Copies of the procedures fiirS517*.i4,*/.0a..;:riltaivailable with the City Clerk and Department of Community rlopment. ATTACHMENT C MITIGATION MEASURES Project Name: Pyramid Pointe Apartments File Number: E95 -0005 z Q _ ~`. A. Comply with the recommended mitigation measures on pages 7 and w 8 of the traffic study of February 21, 1995 prepared by 6 D', TRANSPORTATION PLANNING & ENGINEERING INC. These include: v O, N0. 1. _ The following improvements shall be made in the vicinity 'co w Ill of the intersection of South 152nd Street and 57th Avenue F- South: co u. w (a) Remove landscaping obstructions in the southwest g n. corner of the intersection down to the curb a elevation. N a Iw (b) Install a .side road warning sign (W2 -2) on the z �. eastbound approach to the intersection. 1-0 w~ (c) Install an Advance Pedestrian Crossing warning sign 2 D (W11A -2) on the eastbound approach to the N v intersection. O - of w w (d) Install a Pedestrian Crossing warning sign (W11A -2) i v on the southeast corner of the intersection. u.r; z. 2. Replace the street name sign located in the northeast v m corner of the S. 152nd Street /Macadam Road S. P �' intersection to read "S. 152nd Street." 0 z B. Comply with the recommendations of the Geotechnical Engineering Study prepared by Geotech Consultants Inc. on March 20, 1995. Prior to occupancy of the buildings, a letter from Geotech Consultants which certifies the recommendations of the Engineering study have been implemented. Prior to issuance of a building permit, additional test pits are required to verify slope stability on the downhill extremes of the building. C. Surface water shall be detained and metered out at pre - development flow rates (25 year /24 hour per King County Surface Water Design Manual). Water shall flow to the City system in Macadam Road. Steve Lancaster Director Date Date: 28- Oct -96 09:52:53 From: JOHN -J (JOHN JIMERSON) To: ALEXA ..., Subject: RE: pyramid point;a Message -id: 7582743201000000 Application -name: MHS >Date: 25-Oct-96 16:47:28 >From: ALEXA (ALEXA BERLOW) >To: JOHN -J >Subject: pyramid point >Message -id: 20EF703201000000 >Application -name: MHS >hey john - regarding the pyramid point lot consolidation, can you tell >me what held up this application between march 95 and now. also, what >was the deal about the sewer bill from public works and do you know if >it has been resolved? thanks. alexa. Alexa They received BAR and PRD approval from BAR early in 95 (March). Before it was forwarded to the City Council for final approval, the applicant discovered the survey was wrong and there was less area on the site than they thought. Because this difference meant they would lose units, they chose to wait to see if the Council adopted the proposal to rezone the entire site to HDR (only half was HDR at the time) to recover those units. In Dec. 95, the Council did zone the entire site HDR, however, they also lowered the density of HDR. As a result, the number of units decreased even further. The applicant did not submit the required revisions that were needed to address the BARs comments and the changed density. I contacted them a few times during the first half of this year. My impression was that the owners were having a difficult time deciding what they wanted to do. Finally they did come in and indicated they were ready to resume the process. I met with acting attorney Jim Haney and he advised that the project was not vested under prevus zoning and that a new application must be filed and the project must comply with the new zoning the new 1724 ordinance. The old application was not sufficient because it did not meet the 1724 requirements. Finally, because of the reduction of the number of units, Steve waived the PRD requirement - you will find a memo in the file to that effect. I'm not sure what the sewer issue is. There were a couple of blowouts during the past year, maybe the bill has something to do with that. Pat Brodin, Joanna or Ron should know. John W 0; • 0.O; LLl' w =: Ili O' J = • • Xi 0: •Z 1-. • i0 �' H U; 0 •OF :Z City of Tukwila John W. Rants, Mayor Department of Community Development Steve Lancaster, Director NOTICE OF COMPLETE APPLICATION October 24, 1996 Donald Dally 3316 Fuhrman Avenue East #100 Seattle, WA 98102 RE: Pyramid Pointe Apts. - L96 -0060 Dear Mr. Daily: Your application for design review for the Pyramid Pointe apartment project has been found to be • complete on October 18, 1996 for the purposes of meeting state mandated time requirements. The project has been assigned to Alexa Berlow and tentatively scheduled for a public hearing before the Planning Commission on December 11, 1996. The next step is for you to install the notice board on the site within 14 days of the date of this letter. You received information on how to install the sign with your application packet. If you need another set of those instructions, you may obtain them at the Department of Community Development (DCD). Also, you must obtain a laminated copy of the Notice of Application to post on the board. This notice will be available at DCD by October 25, 1996. After installing the sign with the laminated notice, you need to return the signed Affidavit of Posting to the our office. This determination of complete application does not preclude the ability of the City to require that you submit additional plans or information, if in our estimation such information is necessary to ensure the project meets the substantive requirements of the City or to complete the review process. Alexa will be contacting you soon to discuss this project. If you wish to speak to her sooner, feel free to call her at 433 -3673. Sincerely, o" n Ji '-rson Associ e Planner cc: Public Works Fire Department AIexaBerlowI 0.1 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • (206) 431-3670 • Fax (206) 431-3665 z _ 1- �- z re 1112, 6 iJ 0, w 0' W =;' W w; w o: 2 g J: u. co a. ▪ w. z �. t- 0. z t- w 2 0; U O. ;O N' uiz U CO t= o1- z City of Tukwila John W. Rants, Mayor Department of Community Development Steve Lancaster, Director NOTICE OF INCOMPLETE APPLICATION AND PRD WAIVER September 23, 1996 Donald Daily 3316 Fuhrman Avenue East #100 Seattle, WA 98102 RE: Pyramid Pointe Apts. - L96 -0060 Dear Mr. Dally: This letter serves two purposes - to serve notice that the PRD requirement on the above referenced project has been waived and that the application for approval by the Board of Architectural Review has been found to be incomplete. Upon receipt of the application, the DCD Director reviewed the plans, and given the substantial reduction in the scope of the project since the original submittal of early 1995, granted the waiver to the PRD requirement. Your application for BAR approval has been found to be incomplete. In order to be a complete application, the following must be submitted to the permit center: a. The mailing labels you provided are for property owners only. The City requires that labels be provided for tenants within 500 feet as well, - both residential and commercial tenants. That includes all tenants of the apartments located within 500 feet (including Pyramid Pointe), tenants of non -owner occupied condominium units, as well as tenants of leased commercial buildings. You may provide mailing labels addressed to "occupant" for each of the relevant addresses. b. A tree replacement plan pursuant to the tree ordinance (Chapter 18.54 TMC). This plan shall identify the location, size and species of each tree to be removed at or below the top of the steep slope sensitive area and a plan showing the location, size and species of replacement trees to be provided as required by TMC 18.54.130(3). Note that prior to any development on the site, that a tree permit will be required for removal of vegetation at or below the top of the steep slope. Upon receipt of these items, the City will re- review them and will mail you written notification of completeness or incompleteness within 14 days. This determination is made for the purpose of meeting the time requirements of HB 1724 and shall not restrict us from requesting additional information in the future if such information is deemed necessary to ensure the project will meet all relevant City requirements. RECFI!IED CITY OF TUKWILA OCT 1 5 1996 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • (206) 431 -3670 • Fax (206) 0771717TRAN The BAR application will expire if we do not receive the additional information within ninety days of the date of this letter unless an extension is granted pursuant to Section 18.105.070(E). If you have any questions with this matter you may call me at 431 -3663. Sincerely, ohn Jim = son ssoci � Planner cc: G. Schulz J. Spencer M. Alderson RECEIVED CITY OF TUKWILA O CT 1 5 1996 PERMIT CENTER TO: FROM: SUBJECT: DATE: City of Tukwila Department of Community Development File (L96 -0059) Steve Lancaster PRD Waiver - Pyramid Pointe Apts. September 12, 1996 MEMORANDUM John W. Rants, Mayor Steve Lancaster, Director This is to document that a waiver from the requirement for a PRD (18.45.060(B) has been granted for the Pyramid Pointe project, based on the following points: • The development will not occur on the steep slope sensitive areas, rather on the relatively level (5% - 15 %) grassy areas at the top of the slope. • A Mitigated DNS has been issued which addresses slope stability and storm water runoff issues. • The size of the project has been reduced from 40 units to 20 units since the original submittal in 1995. New parking and circulation areas have also been reduced by a factor of about 50 %, being replaced with landscaping and recreational area. • The project will add to an existing development and will not substantially change the character of the site or the vicinity. • The project is subject to BAR criteria which contains similar open space and recreation area requirements as PRD. • The flexibility offered by the PRD ordinance is not needed for in order to protect the sensitive area. • The vegetation on the edge of the sensitive area will receive minimal disturbance. The areas to be developed on top of the slope have been previously disturbed and are mostly covered with lawn. • Existing trees on the sensitive area that will not be disturbed will provide substantial screening of the site. Steve Lancaster, DCD Director 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 •, (206) 431-3670 • Fax (206) 431-3665 z w re 6 oo � 0 w w =: w o: g co I- _. I--0 z� uj 2• o 0 '0 O H; w w; H U -z U ; O �• z CITY (IF TUKWILA Departm t of Community Development 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Tukwila, WA 98188 Telephone: (206) 431 -3670 DESIGN REVIEW APPLICATION CHECKLIST The materials listed below must be submitted with your application unless specifically waived in writing by the Department of Community Development. Please contact the Department if you feel certain items are not applicable to your project and should be waived. Application review will not begin until it is determined to be complete. The initial application materials allow starting project review and vesting the applicant's rights. However, they in no way limit the City's ability to require additional information as needed to establish consistency with development standards. RECEIVED p CITY OF TUKWILA Department staff are available to answer questions about application materials at 431 -3670. S EP 0 9 1996 APPLICATION FORMS: Application Checklist (1 copy), indicating items submitted with application Design Review Application (12 copies) Design Review Fee ($900) ,<(,4ZO3( 112 SEPA Environmental Checklist (12 copie §) SEPA Environmental Checklist Fee ($325) . m Erpd, 7 Shoreline Permit Application & Fee (if within Shoreline Overlay District) PLANS [Twelve (12) copies of the following]: 1J Vicinity map showing location of the site. Surrounding area map showing existing land uses within a 1000 -foot radius from the site's- property lines. - CA-41 q ` (1) �M 2 r- _ U e, . ❑ Site plan at 1". 30' or 1" = 20', with north arrow, graphic scale, and date; and the license stamp of the architect. The following information must be contained on the plan (details may be included on additional drawing sheets): 0 Property lines and dimensions, lot size(s), and names of adjacent roads Location and gross floor area of existing and proposed structure(s) with setbacks { Location of driveways, parking, loading, and outdoor service areas, with parking calculations and location and type of dumpster /recycling area screening Location and type of site lighting, including parking and pedestrian areas Location and type of site fumiture, such as benches, bike racks; location and type of any proposed public outdoor art Location of any trails, parks, plazas or other outdoor . open space provided for employees or the public; existing and proposed open space easements and dedications (if any) Location and classification of any watercourses or wetlands, and 200' limit of Shoreline Overlay District Existing and proposed grades at 2' contours, extending at least 5 feet beyond the site's boundaries, with a notation of the slope of areas in excess of 20% Noc PERMIT CENTER DESREV.DOC 7/3/96 90l 1FT4Fx` Wt{ tRi9�! f. 1'? f17.1 ?0:0."!"tc!fylpN'iilsf^'1R1�R�/ �. 1C. YA. e;{? t5i'!» �i' A ^�YNjIi+Y!!!!e'�i`:d- b�Ni -^'«°S i�7:�$!�'�7i?: %:J'�,T.: ^.:,1'.P•; •'�`!.. "��!' ?WT'.:H.�r - .. nw.jeY. r' z �w re 00 N 0 Lu J w0 gQ W d _, zF _ �o z r- U� O oi- w w'. H. O Iii z o~ z Location of closest existing fire hydrant; location and size of utility lines; location and size of utilities or s "Thidewalk easements or dedications — Description of water and sewer availability from provider of ..rility (note which utility district or City) 0 Other relevant structures or features, such as rockeries, fences. ❑ Landscape/planting plan at the same scale as site plan, with north arrow, graphic scale, and date; and the license stamp of the landscape architect. The following information must be contained on the plan: OProperty lines and names of adjacent roads Location of the following: proposed structure(s), vehicle and pedestrian circulation areas, dumpster /recycling area, site fumiture, any proposed public outdoor art Existing trees over 4" in diameter by size and species, and any trees to be saved Proposed landscaping, including size, species, location and spacing. ❑ Building elevations of all building facades at a scale of 1/8" = 1' or 1/4" = 1', with graphic scale and date. Each sheet shall have the license stamp of the architect. Include on the elevations: Dimensions of all building facades and major architectural elements, with notations of materials to be used Location and type of exterior building lighting Location of mechanical units and proposed screening where necessary. El Signage per Sign Code. z ~w O 0 e)0. w= w0 co �w z 1.., One (1) "PMT" (photomaterial transfer, or photostat) each of above plans, reduced to 8.5 x 11 z o, inches. - -U� I�/l) pwtP.' ? o o ▪ (1-) APPLICANT'S RESPONSE TO DESIGN REVIEW CRITERIA: 0' Written response to the Zoning Code Design Review Guidelines and Comprehensive Plan Design �- o Review Policies (see attached Design Review Application). tii z` 0 z Colors and materials sample board showing colors and materials to be used on all building exteriors. OTHER MATERIALS: Other documentation and graphics in support of the proposal may be included as appropriate, such as color renderings, perspective drawings, photographs or models. If other materials are to be considered, twelve (12) copies of each must be submitted (except models). Copies of full size color drawings or photos may be submitted as 8.5 x 11 -inch color photocopies. LIC NOTICE: ❑ ing County Assessor's map(s) which shows the location of each property within 500 feet of the s r bject property. ❑ T o (2) sets of mailing labels for all property owners and tenants (residents or businesses) within 51 • feet of the subject property. (Note: Each unit in multiple- family buildings - -e.g. apartments, c• ndos, trailer parks- -must be included.) See Attachment A. ❑ 4' x 4' public notice board will be required on site within 14 days of the Department determining that a complete application has been received. See Attachment B. DESREV.DOC 7/8/96 rw"X : JNeri^/ i°' 1MY�A,. hM+ s. 1'+ W+" JM! a�^:. �it*t titit^ tiirlM: �r�+: lFr!r+ WZwnT' rw'. �K .wrnxR.rvu..1�s��rR'rMw.w.y.r�. :.w.ra -mnn CITY O-, TUKWI LA •Departme:sc of Community Development 6300 Soufhcenter Boulevard, Tukwila, WA 98188 Telephone: (206) 431 -3670 DESIGN REVIEW (P -DR) APPLICATION FOR STAFF .USE .ONLY : Planner Receipt Numbe Project. File 0 Application Complete (Date: SEPA F ile #: Application Incomplete (Date: I. PROJECT BACKGROUND Shoreline. File A. NAME OF PROJECT /DEVELOPMENT: ?y r4 'MItd Ph i 1/1 fe-- i l a r -1- pd-/-5 B. LOCATION OF PROJECT /DEVELOPMENT: (give street address or, if vacant, indicate lot(s), block and subdivision; or tax lot number, access street, and nearest intersection; if proposal applies to several properties, list the streets bounding the area.) 1 530 LJ- 7--1 vo 54 Quarter: Section: Township: Range: (This information may be found on your tax statement) C. CONTACT: (Primary contact regarding the application, and to whom all notices and reports shall be sent) o Act [c� YDctl(/ a 3 e ) Ca 06 3 5 77 e-A-- r) NAME: ADDRESS: PHONE: SIGNATURE: DATE: '7-073 ._ ! 1' y IfYS7ft46mf4Ni'AUaerN,001W+ 1000.0 010 0 0 00 40.000000!.00..00,0 000020,00000m0au- .n,n.�r.. RECEIVED CITY OF TUKWILA SEP 0 9 1996 PERMIT CENTER .;wvy...y:0 D. PROPERTY OWNER DECLARATION The undersigned makes the following statements based upon personal knowledge: 1. I am the current owner of the property which is the subject of this application. 2. All statements contained in the application are true and correct to the best of my knowledge. 3. The application is being submitted with my knowledge and consent. 4. I understand that conditions of approval, which the City and applicant have jointly agreed may not be completed prior to final approval of the construction (e.g., final building permit approval), will be incorporated into an agreement to be executed and recorded against the property prior to issuance of any construction permits. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Washington and the United States of America that the foregoing statement is true and correct. EXECUTED at J 064 14 le (city), I , 1996? . J c( P1- ti) (state), on 'gbh (Signature) n (Q r "Oct (Print name) Y Use additional sheets as needed for all property owner signatures. z ▪ z re 21" 6� U O 0 W W =: J H'. CO LL w 0:. g ¢: ca Z �.. I- o Z In D. U m 0 1- w —o. • Z. U Wi Z BOARD OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW DESIGN REVIEW APPLY- P-',TION Page 2 CRITERIA mai The following criteria will be used by the BAR in its decision- making on your proposed project. Please carefully review the criteria, respond to each criterion (if appropriate), and describe how your plans and elevations meet the criteria. If the space provided for response is insufficient, attach additional response to this form. 1. RELATIONSHIP OF STRUCTURE TO SITE A. The site should be planned to accomplish a desirable transition with the streetscape and to provide for adequate landscaping, and pedestrian movement. B. Parking and service areas should be located, designed, and screened to moderate the visual impact of large paved areas. C. The height and scale of each building should be considered in relation to it site. 2. RELATIONSHIP OF STRUCTURE AND SITE TO ADJOINING AREA A. Harmony in texture, lines, and masses is encouraged. B. Appropriate landscape transition to adjoining properties should be provided. C. Public buildings and structures should be consistent with the established neighborhood character. D. Compatibility of vehicular pedestrian circulation patterns and loading facilities in terms of safety, efficiency and convenience should be encouraged. E. • Compatibility of on -site vehicular circulation with street circulation should be encouraged. RESPONSE: %•ypi 4/1 ,-111:0-- pr Terfl 4r-e. 6f 51111;1441P C! Rod bolebril B s ri s el level Go/or- p440rn q1e fD -?e SUrrtYlfd r p--vpfr� f l es . d17 Sile th6ylentity4 hog been we-04 hi re.I i' i , drives i zid4ln pars in, r iiG �. %t l i �!�r.: s ..�. f_:i■ ��. i�c' ller• S .,.;ear _►2 z =z re 2 w. 00 V) CI J =. Nu. wo g Q. =- W z� �o z �- w La o cn, 0 }— w • w. I- - - ~O .. z U= o z BOARD OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW DESIGN REVIEW APPLIC vTION Page 3 3. LANDSCAPE AND SITE TREATMENT A. Where existing topographic patterns contribute to beauty and utility of a development, they should be recognized and preserved and enhanced. B. Grades of walks, parking spaces, terraces, and other paved areas should promote safety and provide an inviting and stable appearance. C. Landscape treatment should enhance architectural features, strengthen vistas and important axis, and provide shade. D. In locations where plants will be susceptible to injury by pedestrian or motor traffic, mitigating steps should be taken. E. Where building sites limit planting, the placement of trees or shrubs in paved areas is encour- aged. F. Screening of service yards, and other places which tend to be unsightly, should be accom- plished by use of walls, fencing, planting or combinations of these. Screening should be effective in winter and summer. G. In areas where general planting will not prosper, other materials such as fences, walls, and pavings of wood, brick, stone, or gravel may be used. H. Exterior lighting, when used, should enhance the building design and the adjoining land- scape. Lighting standards and fixtures should be of a design and size compatible with the building and adjacent area. Lighting should be shielded, and restrained in design. Excessive brightness and brilliant colors should be avoided. RESPONSE: much more m ul i..,, 11.' • • •I It.' , 4 41 m dicer rtry 14. .1�1' • � fa4k 4/) , 4 Uarivus lawn Areas Thy r h r _ • s Q►e 121444 -to enksmee, both 7G1i Andrnt i � L ) 4 J t � � , � . P � • a v - o 4' reeve leme sgre4.61 ' dh Ys /. !' ' Ira- / 'i / # /.. _/ I U iI 1' Id !..-.1 .4 considakze.4 so 4s-fn Ylof" (A)S -itehr 9 i i-ffiler. kernel-7 4. BUILDING DESIGN A. Architectural style is not restricted, evaluation of a project should be based on quality of its design and relationship to surroundings. B. Buildings should be to appropriate scale and be in harmony with permanent neighboring de- velopments. Y�..�727a�r"tia -./?': is A? I: fi4SN'/ M} YTI: K�! ?t�' r".!+': If+• T.? Y'^_ t.^.'1r��ttrAYfsrNtsaR'.'TM'^.T- Mkt') Yw.' b. YfT�i^ rauY-0' ir•/nxM.tYltYwY:+Y!N ".T+i'1.f}` EMI' E;+ TN" Mrvrn. rM:. H.» i• ve;^. Y. rernrr.- ,+rve�....rY.— rrv..T'.+�.n.n t.+.w.rn^.w....s- ,... .fir., li z • ~w re _J 0 00 cno w= J W w. w 0. 2 L Q, cn =a I- III z�=. F- 0 Z~ n O N 1-. w w. 1—• U u.iz. • ±- z bOAKO OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW . DESIGN REVIEW APPLICATION Page 4 C. Building components - such as windows, doors, eaves, and parapets - should have good pro- portions and relationship to one another. Building components and ancillary parts shall be consistent with anticipated life of the structure. D. Colors should be harmonious, with bright or brilliant colors used only for accent. E. Mechanical equipment or other utility hardware on roof, ground or buildings should be screened from view. F. Exterior lighting should be part of the architectural concept. Fixtures, standards and all ex- posed accessories should be harmonious with building design. G. Monotony of design in single or multiple buildings projects should be avoided. Variety of detail, form, and siting should be used to provide visual interest. RESPONSE: • • 4 #14__4 / /,. In 'f eokr- w t h —,exst dt4 17Iktn3 S law o 1 Mi5e r p is 5k/in) thc# oSrin y ,f � .`7r� Je t)V ! bite 4 /L. /.I:" 401 2fC *r/4 d /tit - rirn arm careMl y 1nc d 2KileVe 1141 dar n ce10,S. Of , 1201141nd- efie /1 J 1 1 vkkd f pn v c• r/, la L .1114 # I eh/5 r Ami_.4 GL4 4.4 I L : . b ' j,,r • 4411 OA AI ri L �u ' r� r�L / // 4, - /.Il.igI4 i or t/ GI -er% 1 Iff _ /ma e -, -/12t4 4,e , '4- • 5. MISCELLANEOUS STRUCTURES AND STREET FURNITURE A. Miscellaneous structures and street furniture should be designed to be part of the architec- tural concept of design and landscape. Materials should be compatible with buildings, scale should be appropriate, colors should be in harmony with buildings and surroundings, and proportions should be to scale. B. Lighting in connection with miscellaneous structures and street furniture should meet the guidelines applicable to site, landscape and buildings. RESPONSE: � ' !4h, add - fe,rJyve -Pt& C-O r-;s ()VW Pc, ca-n4 kb, of p 0 l • �ttiWi22n7 47A' firFjt tIt l,* I;!aSW!FYE!!o!4`,?""yp,ky:'ar"1 F�+ nei• gd�tLS{ Y`,. i? R' T.' Y:,l l`TCCi "ernX? }x &•'A;Nes:K;•uSF;. ?f+6i�,�'1'Ciw^'rn'�'°.T'"v:'Y n':.1tr. .nnr.rtSr.,�t.y!,,.,nw.v. .e>. rm.�.......a -e; ..xw•••∎ r.� K9!St. 17.tr. — - t T y. z ~ w re f 6 JU 00 CO LLI J W O. IL• w w. H V. IL. (15 iii Z. F- O ovt -gnu yr Mil:1111 tL, 1 UHAL 1ILVILW .DESIGN REVIEW APPLIC'ATION INTERURBAN ' PECIAL REVIEW DISTRICT Page 5 The following six teria are used in the special review of the Interurban area in order to manage the development o this area, to upgrade its general appearance, to provide incentives for compatible uses, to re ognize and to capitalize on the benefits to the area of the amenities including the Green River and n arby recreational facilities, to encourage development of more people - oriented use, and to pr vide for development incentives that will help to spur growth. Please describe how your proposed development relates to the goals for this District. Use additional response space, if necess 1. The proposed develop ent design should be sensitive to the natural amenities of the area. The proposed development use should demonstrate due regard for the use and enjoyment of public recreational areas and facilities. 3. The proposed development should provide for safe and convenient on -site pedestrian circu- it. lation. The proposed property use should be compatible with neighboring uses and complementary to the district in which it is located. 5. The proposed development should seek to minimize significant adverse environmental im- pacts. \ 6. The proposed development should demonstrate due regard for significant historical features in the area. z �z w 6 UO co W= J • LL' w O gQ = d. �w z . 1- 0 z ILI U O N' 0E- ww F- V` !l•Z' U , Ii z