Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPermit L92-0098 - SUNWOOD CONDOMINIUM - TREE REPLACEMENT SPECIAL PERMISSION City of Tukwila John W. Rants, Mayor Department of Community Development Rick Beeler, Director December 7, 1992 Sunwood Condominium Association Ms. Sandra Ault Vice President - Board of Directors 15119 Sunwood Blvd. Tukwila, WA 98188 Re: Proposed Tree Replacement Plan on the Sunwood Condominium Property Dear Ms. Ault: Thank you for submitting a re -vised tree replacement plan for Sunwood. At the time I made recommendations for tree replacement, I. assumed the eastern open space forest was owned by Sunwood. After further review it appears this area is off -site and associated with the residential development east of Sunwood. Therefore, the only comment I have regarding tree replacement is that the open space- Douglas fir plantings be planted around the perimeter of the site. I believe there is adequate room to place these trees adjacent to the open space forest. In summary, this letter is provided to confirm your tree removal was approved on December 2, 1992. The only condition for tree replacement is healthy tree saplings be planted on the Sunwood Condominium property. Sincerely, C. Gary chulz Urban Environmentalist cc: John McFarland, City Administrator Rick Beeler, Director - Community Development Mike Kenyon, City Attorney 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • (206) 431-3670 • Fax (206) 431-3665 DEPT. OF ASSESSMENTS PROPERTY AND IS NC TO SHOW ACCURATE t • cn 5 • E . . - LF/. c .5ROOkVALE GAROF/✓ T.PS. O 1.5.02 N N O O 74 p W' to (25 40.04 SEE NW a3. 23 -4 UNPLATTED ST --x %030.04• •• ,/ z- oB:2I E 0 • O 2, i3 - Ow 4.G3 • c / . 32.'5 42 6,05.17 Ar O H G .SO. Q9ti al ° • N Lil o % Co >a V 3;.• .... I. ( LI -. °; o pip 4a • c.,, c• . 4 S-So u/ al , `' ,` i, ,s r ' 57 1V------77779 ,' ?> ` ` J So -----7--'-?...4> Q — — ss 0 1,./. LA/. o,C. pt 17-52 -AP N !J/ /I✓TS.PUR3.4r/ .too S. c. C.4uSE No.' /37c A • la- %S.• .A \A \u. -^-L.- 39.5.8 it N I-21-40 E W. LA/. of Z %L • • ro 0 (n A/0/.3014-44m. J•, /as: se .e . ' rn, ■'4 k ° % „,L Vs o -.3;- '• ► -•o v. m N N o•h yI — ° `n .3e. ,✓O /•e/ of \\O N./1i- 2!• 4o G ias I gq.o7 3.6 \ ▪ r 7Z- 1- 7 -394'V US 7 /-5- /a -43CO 62ND AVE. S. $ ( sO/ ✓ /sloN sr) o ze ° 7l -S -/0 -425, (S•P)- 1 I.--L r'+:r. • .50 /3U•64 N /- Z!- 40 e c. 4 c .- 6 s sr c N • ov 0 w N w • A r /O/ 322. B4 (/?J N H '33 /23.04 5o S' .Zu.. 7/ -3- /o - 433 /23 December 1, 1992 Mr. Gary Schulz Urban Environmentalist Department of Community Development City of Tukwila 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 Tukwila, WA 98188 Dear Mr. Schulz: RECEIVED DEC 0 21992 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT We are responding to your letter of November 30, 1992, requesting further information regarding proposed tree removal and replanting on Sunwood property. As we have stated before, the danger that these trees present due to root rot and decay as well as other problems as outlined by Certified Arborist Ken Kuefler, demands their immediate removal. We have already had a large branch from one of these trees come down this fall and we have been lucky that we have not had a really severe windstorm. We have already put the City of Tukwila on notice that we will hold you responsible for any physical or property damage created by any falling tree or branches. Enclosed is the Davey Tree list of trees that are to be taken out and, as you requested our schedule for tree removal we wish to advise that this will be done Thursday, December 3rd. The scheduling takes weeks and if the removal is not accomplished on that date it will be well into next year before it can be rescheduled. We, as Sunwood directors cannot assume the responsibility for this kind of delay. At this time we feel that the replacement planting of one for one should be accomplished by June 30, 1993. Enclosed is the schedule for removal and the replacement trees. Sincerely, SUNWOOD CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION Sandra Ault Vice President Board of Directors 15119 Sunwood Blvd. Tukwila, WA 98188 cc: John McFarland, City Administrator Rick Beeler, Director - Community Development Mike Kenyon, City Attorney Attachment to City of Tukwila December 1, 1992 No. Tree Type TREE REMOVAL AND REPLACEMENT Location Replacement Tree /Location 3 Douglas Fir East of Building B Douglas Firs in open space Phase 1 2 Big Leaf Maple West of Building C Flowering Cherries in same Phase 1 location 1 Douglas Fir East of Building H Douglas Fir in open space Phase 1 1 Big Leaf Maple West of Building B Flowering Cherry same location Phase 2 2 Douglas Fir West of Building B Douglas Firs in open space Phase 2 1 Douglas Fir West of Building B Pine in same location Phase 2 1 Black Cottonwood Southwest of Douglas Fir in open space (2nd tree not being Building H, Phase 2 removed) 1 Douglas Fir East of Building I Douglas Fir in open space Phase 2 2 Douglas Fir West of Building J Spruce and 2 flowering cherries Phase 2 1 Douglas Fir Southeast of Pine in same location Building A, Phase 2 We will be planting rhododendrons, azaleas and/or decorative trees to fill in for the those removed but replanted in open space areas. -, TREE REMOVAL AND REPLACEMENT No. 'meant 3 Douglas Fir 2 Big Leaf Maple 1 Douglas Fir 1 Big Leaf Maple 2 Douglas Fir 1 Douglas Fir 1 Black Cottonwood (2nd tree not being removed) 1 Douglas Fir • 2 Douglas Fir 1 Douglas Fir Location East of Building B Phase 1 West of Building C Phase 1 East of Building H Phase 1 West of Building B Phase 2 West of Building B Phase 2 West of Building B Phase 2 Southwest of Building H, Phase 2 East of Building I Phase 2 West of Building J Phase 2 Southeast of Building A, Phase 2 Replacement Tree /Location Douglas Firs in ope pace lLe- Flowering Cherries in same location Douglas Fir in open pace -i' 02-1't Flowering Cherry same location Douglas Firs in ope -sp ca - i » Jr- Pine in same location Douglas Fir in oppac r l 7h -Ll /V Douglas Fir in ope J Spruce and 2 flowering cherries Pine in same location We will be planting rhododendrons, azaleas and /or decorative trees to fill in for the those removed but replanted in open space areas. City of Tukwila John W. Rants, Mayor Department of Community Development Rick Beeler, Director November 30, 1992 Sunwood Condominium Association Ms. Sandra Ault Vice President - Board of Directors 15119 Sunwood Blvd. Tukwila, WA 98188 Re: Proposed Tree Replacement Plan on the Sunwood Condominium Property Dear Ms. Ault: After reviewing your letter of October 29, 1992, I cannot accept my own handwritten draft as Sunwood's tree replacement plan. This draft was simply a suggested format to assist you. As previously discussed, my November 12, 1992 letter requested specific information for the plan to be considered adequate. The following criteria are required for the plan. 1) Please submit an original plan that may be similar to the format that The Davey Tree Expert Company used for the tree assessment. 2 I also requested "a discussion of proposed planting locations, and the time schedules for tree removal and replacement planting ". I cannot approve the proposed tree removal without an appropriate plan prepared by Sunwood Condominium Association or their consultant. I hope you understand these requests are minimal criteria for a landscape plan. If you have questions please call me at 431 -3662. Respectfully, c C. Gary(,Schulz Urban Environmentalist cc: John McFarland, City Administrator Rick Beeler, Director - Community Development Mike Kenyon, City Attorney 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • (206) 4313670 • Fax (206) 431-3665 City of Tukwila John W. Rants, Mayor Department of Community Development Rick Beeler, Director November 12, 1992 Sunwood Condominium Association Ms. Sandra Ault 15119 Sunwood Blvd. Tukwila, WA 98188 Re: Proposed Tree Removal on the Sunwood Condominium Property Dear Ms. Ault: This letter is written as a brief update on the status of this proposal. Your letter of October 5, 1992 expressed a liability concern for certain on -site trees - 11 Douglas fir, 3 big -leaf maple, and 1 cottonwood. Sunwood's tree consultant, The Davey Tree Co., has submitted two assessment letters (9/29/92 & 10/16/92) to support your requested tree removal. The 15 trees, referenced above, are discussed in the 9/29/92 letter report. Per the City's request, Sunwood has provided the information needed to approve tree removal with an appropriate tree replacement plan. During October, I met with your site manager to assist with the required tree replacement plan. A draft plan was produced that will allow Sunwood to proceed with eliminating certain tree hazards on the site. As we discussed a week ago, a formal proposal letter with the tree replacement plan needs to be submitted. I just wanted to remind you that the tree replacement planning was completed as a draft on October 26, 1992. All that is needed for approval is your formal submittal. Please include a discussion of proposed planting locations, and the time schedules for tree removal and replacement planting. Please call me at 431 -3662 if additional assistance is needed for this project. Respectfully,; / /1 /�, / �/ � c �h . 4 O ( tc/ .5 / •5c5FiiA_� C. Gary Schulz Urban Environmentalist cc: John McFarland, City Administrator Rick Beeler, Director - Community Development Mike Kenyon, City Attorney 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • (206) 431 -3670 • Fax (206) 431-3665 October 29, 1992 Mr. Gary Schulz Urban Environmentalist Department of Community Development City of Tukwila 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 Tukwila, WA 98188 Dear Mr. Schulz: As requested by you in our telephone conversation of October 27, 1992, enclosed is a list of the trees that the City of Tukwila has agreed to let us remove, indicating in each instance the type of tree that Sunwood agrees to plant as a replacement. We wish to thank you for your help on our behalf with this problem and thank you for taking your time to personally inspect the trees in question. Sincerely, OOD CONDOMINIUM ) SSOCIATXON Sandra Ault Vice President Board of Directors 15119 Sunwood Blvd. Tukwila, WA 98188 RECEIVED NOV 1 91992 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Gard `'"ulz Urban Env\ icnfalisl Department of Community Development (206) 431 -3662 -\61171sy /0/0z6/m c9-1 tr r l/e4 df / vN 52 i /4-71 (.57c1 io 140 y/X1-7/ Ovix Big Leaf Maple, 16" D.B.H., GC, LNB, LND Phase 1, West of Bldg. C RD, WC =UBC- UBC 6?1,0/IN_U_ke4 Recommendations �! Remove to grade T" level Remove to grade level Remove to grade level Remove to grade level 0 Removel to grade level Douglas Fir, 20" D.B.H., Phase 1, East of Bldg. H1 Big Leaf Maple, 26" D.B.H., Phase 2, West of Bldg. B Douglas Fir, 18" D.B.H., Phase 2, West of Bldg. B Douglas Fir, 18" D.B.H., Phase 2, West of Bldg. B DB, LNB, LND, LNP tD F Cry. UBC DB, H, LND, LNP RD, UBC, WC ITT, LNB, LND LNP,t.RD,;RGR, UBC ITT, LNB, LND LNP,1RD, RGR, UBC Remove to grade Vt..- 1 level Remove to grade level /` Remove to grade ,Of level Douglas Fir, 18" D.B.H., Phase 2, West of Bldg. B ITT, LNB, LND LNP,)RD, RGR,;UBC Remove to gra9. level ,SLIP AQ Ar Remove to grade level Black Cottonwood, (8" Dia. Spar) Phase 2, Southwest of Bldg. H LNB, LNP, L, WC Remove to main trunk Douglas Fir, 24" D.B.H., Phase 2, East of B As I Douglas Fir, 30" D.B.H., Phase 2, West of Bldg J1 Douglas Fir, 14" D.B.H., Phase 2, West of Bldg. J1 GC, .;I;, LNB, LND ;RD, RGR, UBC LNB, LND, RD., GC RGR, UBC, :RD GC, ITT, LNB, LND •RGR, ; UBC 1 RD • ,FA1776535T: Remove to grade D j}�, level Remove to .fade / level m Remove to grade level Douglas, Fir, 14" D.B.H., Phase 2, Southeast of Bldg. A 6o GC, ITT, LNB, LND LNP, RD, RGR,,UBC Remove to grade A2/74;)k level (f-44- DAVEY TREE AND LAWN BEAUTY P.O. BOX 4252 BE[aEVUE, WA 98009 (206) 462 -8829 October 16, 1992 Mr. Gary Schulz Urban Environmentalist City of Tukwila Dear Mr. Schulz: Regarding our conversation on 10/15/92 pertaining to the Hazard Tree Assessment at the Sunwood Condominiums; I've enclosed additional information supporting the discussion we had with respect to current insect and disease observations. It is my opinion that many of the trees identified for removal at Sunwood Condominiums have so severely declined that efforts to reverse their present state of decline (i.e., fertilization, pest management treatments, pruning, soil drenches, etc.) would be marginally effective, if at all. Furthermore, the costs involved in long -term care would exceed the economic and aesthetic values these trees provide. Therefore, in my professional opinion, any expenses allocated towards these trees should be utilized towards their removal and replacement. Moreover, the recommendation for tree removal accomplishes both the reduction of liability by eliminating dangerous situations and the minimization of long -term economic concerns relative to the maintenance of these hazard trees. If I may be of further assistance regarding this matter, please contact our office at 462 -8829. Sincerely, THE DAVEY TREE SURGERY COMPANY --eo/v•- ""ki Ken Kuefler Certified Arborist KK:hs Printed on recycled paper. The Davey Tree Expert Company, Kent, Ohio 44240 CERTIFIED MAIL RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED REG OCT 00 DEVE October 5, 1992 Mr. Gary Schulz Urban Environmentalist Department of Community Development City of Tukwila 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 Tukwila, WA 98188 Dear Mr. Schulz: Enclosed is a letter from Mr. Ken Kuefler, Certified Arborist, giving hi recommendations for the 11 fir, 3 maple and 1 cottonwood that we hay permission remove. These are easily identifiable from the blueprint pre to you on July 20th by Glenita Aarhus. They are the only very tall basic trees in those locations. These are the same 15 trees that we consider dangerous to residents an are the only ones we have been concerned with at this time. They are t Glenita Aarhus and Burnadette Wilson referred to in their telephone co you as requiring immediate attention. The two areas that were circled on the blueprint and noted for thinning considered later, due to the fact that the arborist stated that these conif, together they cannot grow properly. The lone maple referred to in the shown as it is raising the sidewalk. Both of these concerns can be take As stated many times, we as a board, are concerned with the liability of standing trees as we have residents who come to board meetings to re the removal of these trees they perceive as a danger to them. Also, va members have been threatened by residents as to the consequences sho trees or branches fall. There is a lack of understanding by those who fe when we reply that we just do not have the permission from the City of accomplish this task. 'NED 071992 DpMtN requested ously submitted lly lone standing or property and e only ones both versations with ere only to be rs are so close lueprint was only up at a later date. he 15 lone free uest our status on ous board Id one of these 1 endangered Tukwila to Mr. Gary Schulz October 5, 1992 Page 2 As previously stated, we agree to replace these trees, but the immediate concern of the Board of Directors of Sunwood Condominium Association is to take care of the danger that now exists. We cannot understand why this is not also the feeling of the City of Tukwila and ask for a prompt reply on this matter. Sincerely, SUNWOOD CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION Sandra Ault Vice President Board of Directors 15119 Sunwood Blvd. Tukwila, WA 98188 Enclosure cc: Mayor John W. Rants ,,. -Rick Beeler, Director - Community Development Glenita Aarhus - Sunwood Board of Directors ..� Per your request, the property of Sunwood Condominiums has been inspected with respect to hazardous trees. Moreover, trees that present potential hazard to pedestrians, buildings, parking areas, driveways, walkways, etc., are identified in this assessment. The trees identified in this hazard assessment are referenced by specie, approximate diameter at breast height, and their location relative to specific condominiums. Specific Observations and Recommendations: The objective of this part of the hazard assessment is to establish justification for recommendations based on specific observations made at the time of inspecting each tree. KEY - SPECIFIC OBSERVATION DATA DB - Die Back Present GC - Soil Grade Change H - Hanging Branches ITT - Inadequate Trunk Taper L - Leaning Trunk LNB - Located Near Building LND - Located Near Driveway LNP - Located Near Parking Area RD - Root Disturbance RGR - Reduced Growth Rates UBC - Unbalanced Crown WC - Weak Crotch Formations Printed on recycled paper. The Davey Tree Expert Company, Kent, Ohio 44240 Mrs. Glenita Aarhus September 29, 1992 Page 2 Tree Specie, D.B.H. and location Douglas Fir, 28" D.B.H., Phase 1, East of Bldg. B Douglas Fir, 20" D.B.H., Phase 1, East of Bldg. B Douglas Fir, 22" D.B.H., Phase 1, East of Bldg. B Big Leaf Maple, 16" D.B.H., Phase 1, West of Bldg. C Big Leaf Maple, 16" D.B.H., Phase 1, West of Bldg. C Douglas Fir, 20" D.B.H., Phase 1, East of Bldg. H1 Big Leaf Maple, 26" D.B.H., Phase 2, West of Bldg. B Douglas Fir, 18" D.B.H., Phase 2, West of Bldg. B Douglas Fir, 18" D.B.H., Phase 2, West of Bldg. B Douglas Fir, 18" D.B.H., Phase 2, West of Bldg. B Black Cottonwood, (8" Dia. Spar) Phase 2, Southwest of Bldg. H Douglas Fir, 24" D.B.H., Phase 2, East of Bldg. I Douglas Fir, 30" D.B.H., Phase 2, West of Bldg J1 Douglas Fir, 14" D.B.H., Phase 2, West of Bldg. J1 Douglas, Fir, 14" D.B.H., Phase 2, Southeast of Bldg. A Specific Observations DB, GC, LNB, LND, 'RD., : RGR, UBC, . •DB, ITT, LNB, LND, RD, RGR, UBC DB, ITT, LNB LND, RD,:RGR, UBC GC, LNB, LND RD, WC GC, LNB, LND RD, WC DB, LNB, LND, LNP RD,::.RGR, UBC DB, H, LND, LNP RD, UBC, WC ITT, LNB, LND LNP, .RD, : RGR, UBC ITT, LNB, LND LNP,-•D, RGR, UBC ITT, LNB, LND LNP, RD; RGR, UBC LNB, LNP, L, WC GC, L, LNB, LND :RD RGR, UBC LNB, LND, RD, GC RGR, UBC, RD GC, ITT, LNB, LND RGR,.UBC, RD GC, ITT, LNB, LND LNP, RD, RGR, UBC Recommendations Remove to grade level Remove to grade level Remove to grade level Remove to grade level Removel to grade level Remove to grade level Remove to grade level Remove to grade level Remove to grade level Remove to grade level Remove to main trunk Remove to grade level Remove to grade level Remove to grade level Remove to grade level Mrs. Glenita Aarhus September 29, 1992 Page 2 Tree Specie, D.B.H. and location Douglas Fir, 28" D.B.H., Phase 1, East of Bldg. B Douglas Fir, 20" D.B.H:, Phase 1, East of Bldg. B Douglas Fir, 22" D.B.H., Phase 1, East of Bldg. B Big Leaf Maple, 16" D.B.H., Phase 1, West of Bldg. C Big Leaf Maple, 16" D.B.H., Phase 1, West of Bldg. C Douglas Fir, 20" D.B.H., Phase 1, East of Bldg. H1 Big Leaf Maple, 26" D.B.H., Phase 2, West of Bldg. B Douglas Fir, 18" D.B.H., Phase 2, West of Bldg. B Douglas Fir, 18" D.B.H., Phase 2, West of Bldg. B Douglas Fir, 18" D.B.H., Phase 2, West of Bldg. B Black Cottonwood, (8" Dia. Spar) Phase 2, Southwest of Bldg. H Douglas Fir, 24" D.B.H., Phase 2, East of Bldg. I Douglas Fir, 30" D.B.H., Phase 2, West of Bldg J1 Douglas Fir, 14" D.B.H., Phase 2, West of Bldg. J1 Douglas, Fir, 14" D.B.H., Phase 2, Southeast of Bldg. A Specific Observations DB, GC, LNB, LND, RD, RGR, UBC DB, ITT, LNB, LND, RD, RGR, UBC DB, ITT, LNB LND, RD, RGR, UBC GC, LNB, LND RD, WC GC, LNB, LND RD, WC DB, LNB, LND, LNP RD, RGR, UBC DB, H, LND, LNP RD, UBC, WC ITT, LNB, LND LNP, RD, RGR, UBC ITT, LNB, LND LNP, RD, RGR, UBC ITT, LNB, LND LNP, RD, RGR, UBC LNB, LNP, L, WC GC, L, LNB, LND RD, RGR, UBC LNB, LND, RD, GC RGR, UBC, RD GC, ITT, LNB, LND RGR, UBC, RD GC, ITT, LNB, LND LNP, RD, RGR, UBC Recommendations Remove to grade level COQ . Remove to grade level Remove to grad level Remove to grade \ n n , , level U� Removel to grade/ level Remove to grade level Remove to level grade Remove to grade level Remove to grad level 00/1--4(„2 Remove to grade level Remove to main trunk Remove to grade level Remove to grade level (11:30_. I%( Remove to grade level Remove to grade level Mrs. Glenita Aarhus September 29, 1992 Page 3 General Observations: Although all of the trees identified in this assessment are native trees which normally thrive in their natural environment, several primary factors have contributed to their gradual decline and increased potential for structural failure. These primary factors are construction disturbance, removal of neighboring trees and changes in soil grade, drainage, sun and wind patterns. These unnatural changes combined with the stressful event of the drought have predisposed many of these trees to attack from secondary insect And disease' problems, as well as increasing their risk of structural failure in severe wind storms. Summary: =All trees: possess inherent risks and the potential to fail under extreme conditions. This evaluation assesses individual trees in areas of greatest risk with respect to their potential for failure, resulting in damage to person or property. By preventing or eliminating dangerous situations, hazard tree management creates a safer environment. The National Arborists Association and the Davey Tree Surgery Company encourage that when a tree must be removed, replacement trees be planted at an equal D.B.H. for D.B.H. value. (Example, 20" D.B.H. removal = 4 @ 5" D.B.H. replacement.) Selecting; „native.,tree;:species is also advised to ensure a low mortality rate for replacement trees. The Davey Tree Surgery Company is thankful for the opportunity to be of assistance with your tree care concerns. Should you have any questions, or if I may be of further assistance, please do not hesitate to phone my office at 462 -8829. Sincerely, THE DAVEY ,TRREE Y COMPANY Ken Kuefler Certified Arborist KK:hs City of Tukwila Department of Community Development September 8, 1992 Sunwood Condominium Association Ms. Burnadette Wilson 15235 Sunwood Blvd. Tukwila, WA 98188 John W. Rants, Mayor Rick Beeler, Director Re: Proposed Tree Removal on the Sunwood Condominium Property Dear Ms. Wilson: In response to your August 18, 1992 letter, I will summarize my conversations with Glenita Aarhus concerning tree removal. Glenita contacted me near the end of May, 1992 to request assistance for the proposed tree removal. Within a week's time I responded with at least two phone conversations. I explained to her I could not assist Sunwood without some kind of submittal, and preferably a complete tree removal plan. Glenita said the Sunwood Condo Association would comply and possibly do the work in the fall. My phone records indicate that I informed her of the review process again on June 30, 1992. The need for a review and approval process is based on the original development review and required landscaping. Therefore, some tree replacement is warranted to maintain the site's approved landscape plan. On July 20, 1992, Glenita informed me she would submit a plan showing the location of trees to be removed so I could visit the property and make some recommendations. I also mentioned the possibility of needing an arborist's opinion and that a detailed tree replacement plan would be required. On July 20, 1992, Glenita submitted a blueprint map /sketch showing the entire Sunwood site with general locations of approximately twenty -five trees proposed for removal. I have reviewed the subject map /sketch and the letter from Paul Bunyan Forest Co. (Dean Johnson - 6/16/92). I completed the site review on August 18, 1992. Most of the potentially hazardous trees are the taller Douglas fir growing close to buildings and parking areas. Many of these trees exhibit poor health conditions and could have root disease. However, some of the other trees proposed for removal do not appear to present a hazard relative to health, size and stability, or location. Your request includes thinning trees in areas that may not need any removal. The "thinning" areas shown on the map present a question as to the individual trees that need to be removed. 6300 Sou.hcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • (206) 431 -3670 • Fax (206) 431 -3665 Ms. Burnadette Wilson September 8, 1992 Page 2 This response letter has been prepared after careful review of the files for the permitted development phases (I & II) at Sunwood. The landscape plans show an attempt was made to save as much of the trees and other natural vegetation. Both phases included landscape standards for the preservation and removal of existing trees and vegetation. The building permits established certain conditions such as 1:1 replacement for the existing trees. Post - development tree removal should be limited to hazardous and diseased trees. Per the Concomittant Zoning Agreement, conifer tree replacement specifically requires installation of trees that are at least ten feet in height. Tukwila re- zoning ordinances (Ord. 1071 & 1181) specifically support the approved landscape plans and provide enforcement for vegetation removal violations. Your submitted plan proposes to remove twenty to twenty -five trees. This is a significant number of trees and I have looked at each one that I could identify and locate from your map. The stability and overall health of those Douglas fir trees need to be determined on an individual basis. As part of the requested hazard tree assessment, the professional tree expert(s) must submit appropriate credentials or qualifications. A tree replacement plan must also be prepared before Sunwood can remove all the trees shown on the submitted map. As the City's Urban Environmentalist, I am not allowed to perform environmental assessments on private projects. You may get copies of approved landscape plans or other documentation by coordinating with me. In order to reduce the time needed for review and approval, I will gladly meet with you to address those on -site trees that have been assessed as an immediate hazard to people and property. A more detailed assessment must be completed before we can permit any tree removal. Please feel free to call me at 431- 3662. Respectful) C. Gary `Schulz Urban Environmentalist cc: Mayor Rants Rick Beeler, Director - Community Development Glenita Aarhus, Sunwood Condominium Association CERTIFIED MAIL RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED August 18, 1992 Mr. Gary Schulz Urban Environmentalist City of Tukwila 6300 Southcenter Blvd. Tukwila, WA 98188 Dear Mr. Schulz: RECEIVED AUG 201992 DEVELOPMENT As of this date, we have not received permission from the City of Tukwila to remove the very tall basically lone standing trees that are scattered throughout Sunwood Condominium property. Through Glenita Aarhus, who is a member of the Board of Directors as well as a member of the Buildings and Grounds Committee, we have requested permission for this tree removal and the Board of Directors voted the money to hire a company to accomplish this task. We feel it is necessary to forward this letter to you as we, as a board, are con- cerned as to our liability should one of these trees or a large limb from one of them fall and injure any of our residents or damage a building and /or personal property. Last May we were told by you that the City of Tukwila had no concern with what was done by Sunwood Condominium Association on its own property. Later we were advised that you would have to approve any tree removal done by us. After many phone calls for assistance and then your decision that a drawing needed to be submitted, Glenita Aarhus on July 20, 1992 took to you at your office a blueprint of the Sunwood Condominium complex indicating the location and kind of each tree we were requesting permission to remove, as well as a statement that we were willing to plant replacement trees. Also sub- mitted at this same time was a copy of a letter from Paul Bunyan Forest Co. stating reasons why these tall trees should be removed. In a follow -up phone call with you August 10, 1992 Glenita Aarhus was advised that Sunwood Condominium Association was very low on your priority list and that you would be doing us a favor to visit our location. After further conversation and again advising you of the concern of the board from the liability standpoint, you did say that you might be able to find some time that week of August 10th to look at our problem. As it will take us some lead time to acquire a tree company to come in and remove these trees and as fall is approaching when we can . expect storms and winds, we feel a decision should be made on this subject. By this letter to you with a copy to Mayor Rants, we are going on record that the decision and responsibility for these trees in question on the Sunwood Condominium property now rests with the City of Tukwila. Sincerely, SUNW9OD CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION C cL JiLD Burnadette Wilson President Board of Directors 15255 Sunwood Blvd., Bldg. A -55 Tukwila, WA 98188 cc: Mayor John W. Rants City of Tukwila - �..�.� ;.., :�:, 7/2.0/a (-8 RECEIVED JUL 2 01992 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CP/),I -Z4e re94)W-ifyz,L, deb Ct- /271 (ori /CM.'bA tb,.,a.d.6-z - / - t 71e J 1016- Aev%-) -;"t'L) "?4; ‘14-:vt, / r . A x n/7-1 ;4 il4P au-r✓\--) d)I ,r Ay-vim.) vV ct d' . ge-LL 723, ct,04- cl ,7L , 0 cow .4e PAUL BUNYAN FOREST CO., INC. 19852 47TH AVENUE N.E. SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98155 (206) 362.6006 06/16/92 SUNWOOD CONDOMINIUM 15235 SUNWOOD BLVD. TUKWILA 98188 GLENITA AARHUS 242 -9326. LENNIE AUTIO 246 -8090. RE: TREE REMOVAL. DEAR BILL DAVIES; EACH OF THE TREES BEING CONSIDERED FOR REMOVAL ARE HAZAROUS TO SOME EXTENT. THE FIR TREES FOR EXAMPLE ARE EXTREMELY VULNERABLE TO THE WIND BECAUSE OF THEIR HEIGHT, THE GEOGRAPHIC SITUATION THERE AT SUNWOOD AND THE FACT THAT NONE OF THEM ARE VERY HEALTHY. �,OMI: OF I'I 10,>E. FIR HAVE SUFFERED WOUNDS TO THE TRUNK PROBABLY DURING THE EXCAVATION PART OF CONSTRUCTION. THIS CAN CAUSE ROT IN THE .TRUNKS OF THOSE TREES WHICH MAY BE ONE OF THE CAUSES OF THEIR DECLINING HEALTH. THE STABILITY OF THE ROOT SYSTEMS IS ANOTHER AREA OF CONCERN. GENERALLY THIS ROOT SYSTEMS ARE AS HEALTHY AS THE GROWTH ABOVE GROUND. I WOULD SUSPECT THAT SINCE NONE OF THE LARGE NATIVE SPECIES ARE DOING WELL, THESE ROOTS ARE .IN POOR SOIL. (EXCAVATION ON LARGE CONSTRUCTION SITES VERY OFTEN SCRAPES AWAY OR BURIES THE TOPSOIL) THE SAME PROBLEMS EXIST WITH THE MAPLE TREES EXCEPT THAT MAPLE ..DEVELOPES:TRUNK ROT FASTER THAN FIR. EVERY TIME A LIMB BREAKS OFF THERE IS DAMAGE DONE TO THE TREE CAUSING ROT Mo.? WOOQT DrIN� DIFFERENCE . FROM IR IS THAT EASIERHANHC FIR. WE HAVE ALL SEEN A TREMENDOUS AMOUNT OF DAMAGE DONE TO THE TREES THERE ALREADY AND AS THE TREES GET LARGER. THEY WILL BE EVEN MORE .SUSCEPTIBLE TO THE WIND AND YOUR BUILDINGS WILL PROBABLY SUFFER DAMAGE FROM THESE TREES. DEAN JOHNSON, GENERAL MANAGER RECEIVED JUL 2 01992 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT .`::TECHNICAL BULLETIN DAVEY# Prepared By The Davey Human And Technical Resources Center TREE AND LAWN BEAUTY WESTERN CONIFER BARK BEETLES Ips spp. & Dendroctonus spp. There are over 600 species of bark beetles which attack confers throughout North America. Trees associated with recreational areas and housing developments within forested lands are commonly attacked by these destructive pests. Conifers and spruce in the South and West are especially affected. A common symptom of bark beetle activity is reddish -brown dust that is pushed out of the small holes made by the adult beetles as they tunnel into the tree. Depen- ding on the species, there will be little to no pitch at the site of attack or substantial pitch build -up. The needles of affected trees turn yellow then red, and finally fall off. LIFE HISTORY: Beetles in the genera Ips and Dendroctonus (turpentine beetle) are important pests of large overmature conifers. These beetles are also attracted to wounded trees and those trees weakened by other factors. Adult Ips beetles first emerge in the spring of the year and fly -off in search of suitable host trees. Adults tunnel through the bark and excavate an egg chamber, primarily in the phloem tissue. Mating occurs there and eggs are laid along the sides of the chamber. The first set of beetles to invade a tree emit pheromones which attract more adults. After hatching, the larvae move off from the egg chamber in individual feeding galleries. These feeding galleries, made primarily in phloem tissue, interferes with sap flow, destroys the cambium, and scars the face of the sapwood. In addition to this direct injury, adult beetles serve as vectors of disease by introducing pathogenic fungi into the tree. Ips beetles overwinter as larvae, pupae, or adults, usually under the bark of host trees. There may be from 1 to 6 generations per year, depending on species and climatic conditions. Although similar in appearance, Dendroctonus beetles can be distinguished from Ips beetles by the shape of their "tail ". Ips beetles have one or more spines (depending on species) while Dendroctonus beetles have smooth tails. Prominent pitch tubes are associated with attack by Dendroctonus beetles. These pitch tubes, found from ground level up to six feet, are white to reddish and covered by red -brown dust. While the egg galleries made by Ips beetles are clean and radiate out from the central chamber in species - specific patterns, galleries of Dendroctonus beetles are more or less random in pattern. TREATMENT: Environmental conditions (often caused by humans) can promote beetle attack. In general, bark beetles attack trees that are dying or in decline due to other stress factors. Drought, mechanical injury, soil compaction, air pollution, grade changes, etc., can all decrease the vigor of trees. Some species can attack healthy trees, especially if they are located near unhealthy trees already under attack by the beetles. The chemicals Sevin and Dursban may be effective in controlling the adult beetles if applied at the proper time. As stated above, trees which are stressed are more susceptible to attack and injury. The best treatment, as with most in- sect and disease problems, is to keep trees healthy with proper care to prevent the problem from occurring. Proper fer- tilization, irrigation, mulching, and pruning will maintain the vigor of the trees and support their natural defenses against insect and disease pests. DTSC•T200 TECHNICAL BULLETIN DAVEY Prepared By The Davey Human And Technical Resources Center TREE AND LAWN BEAUTY Ips Pine Bark Beetles There are several species of Ips bark beetles, also called engraver beetles, which primarily attack pine and spruce. These beetles are classified as borers because both the adults and the larvae tunnel or engrave into the nutrient - conducting vascular tissue (called phloem) located just under the bark. These beetles are about the size of a dull pencil point, and adults vary in color from brown to black. SYMPTOMS: Evergreens may not show symp- toms, such as dull or faded foliage, drooping needles, or needle drop, until it is too late. All stressed trees are vulnerable to attack and should be examined for signs of beetle activity. Sawdust being expelled from various points on the trunk is a sure indication that beetles are active. CAUSE: Male beetles initiate the tunnel into the bark phloem and release biochemical substances called aggregation pheromones to attract females. Eggs are deposited, and both larvae and adults destroy the vascular tissue. These beetles are normally not a problem in healthy trees which produce a strong sap or resin flow that interferes with the tunneling attempts of the beetles. However, if trees are weakened by drought, construction damage, lightning, or soil disturbances, the beetles can gain a foothold. Vigorous trees in the vicinity of intense beetle activity may be killed due to repeated attacks. The beetles can destroy a tree within a few months, depending on the severity of the stress and the number of beetles. SOLUTION: The key here is PREVENTION. Water, fertilize, and mulch to keep trees at maximum vigor. If possible, remove weakened or infested trees to keep bark beetles and other borer populations minimized. If beetles are still a threat, two to three applications of an appropriate insecticide may be needed to prevent beetle attacks. The pine engraver has 3 generations per year and is active all season long. Because numerous borer species are also a threat, season -long protection is required until the trees have weathered the stressful condi- tions and are once again vigorous. Printed in U.S.A. T84 -92 -2M TECHNICAL BULLETIN DAVEY t' Prepared By The Davey Human And Technical Resources Center TREE AND LAWN BEAUTY PHYTOPHTHORA DISEASE SYMPTOMS: When the below ground portions of the root system are invaded by this fungus it causes root decline. Root decline leads to the symptoms of a sparse crown, smaller, discolored leaves, wilting of the foliage, . and die -back. Collar rot, crown canker, basal canker, and foot rot are all terms used to describe large lesions that develop at the base or major roots of plants. The inner bark, cambium, and sapwood associated with cankers may be a discolored reddish - brown. Some of the common plant genera which may be affected include: maple, azalea, rhododendron, dogwood, madrone, oak, avocado, eucalyptus, pine, bottle brush, holly, yew, juniper, boxwood, chamaecyparis, cedar, cypress, and juniper. CAUSE: There are approximately 40 species of Phytophthora fungi which cause blights, wilts, cankers, root rots, and dieback on many plant species throughout the world. The name Phytophthora means "plant destroyer". Unfortunately, Phytophthora produces no fruiting bodies and the reproductive structures are microscopic. Arborists must rely on plant symptoms to identify this problem. Specific diagnosis requires microscopic examination of affected plant material. Phytophthora exists as spores in soil or in dead plant material. Spores can be dispersed in soil, diseased plants, infected plant debris, and splashing /running water. Spores require free water for germination. These spores are attracted by amino acids and other chemicals that exude from roots or other plant parts. Wounds and other tender, succulent plant parts are susceptible infection sites. TREATMENT: The best treatment, as with most insect and disease problems, is to keep trees healthy with proper care to prevent the problem from occurring. Proper fertilization, irrigation, mulching, and pruning will maintain the vigor of the plant and support its natural defenses against insect and disease pests. Infec- tion by Phytophthora is promoted by soil conditions which lower the vigor of plants. Excessive moisture, improper pH, and poor nutrient levels all lead to plant stress. Surgical tactics and heat treatments on valuable landscape plants affected by basal cankers are possible but require excavation to expose lesions below the soil line. Chemical control measures include the fungicides Subdue (soil drench, preventative) and Alliete (foliar, follow -up). DTSC-T208 CITY OF TUKWILA PLANNING DIVISION PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT AGENDA ITEM SUNWOOD CONDOMINIUM HOMES - PHASE II INTRODUCTION Stipulation 2(f) of Ordinance 1071 requires B.A.R. review for each separate phase of development within the total "Sunwood" project. The appli- cants are requesting B.A.R. approval of the site, archi- tectural and landscaping con- cept for Phase II of the " Sunwood" project. DISCUSSION Site: A) Stipulation 2(a) of Ordinance 1071 requires that each phase of the project retain similar proportions of open space. Phase I retains approximately 53% open space, Phase II, approxi- mately 57% as . noted on Exhibit "A ". The stipu- lation appears to be satisfied. 11 fr . _ \, ` '' ;'!✓ _ .: 3:1 ••"CH- -)\ I � = ._. , , ,.�. <` i 7„::,,-,;.. , - ^ T_ � _ ,r, ;-ate '!a 1 , a �� =, Y-;' I Ra N YI PFr 1 \fir .l :::: ."!L i ` -� I i Mri � PF ^ F4\ , \ • LW '71:; 1 • —� R -1-120 �\ �'• C.2 a w. . R -3 • Rd I - Z. I • • M-I . 1 • .. ••...ry ` 4 \--"....1-,32... �. "i- .+' 1 (; i it • ' ,i. ._______ .7.1 ,,,._,C1' 1=41 9- ,,,,....c1 7....:' :......A.::.\\::::„.\,-'—. c+ ; ; R- t -S/� j ss ! I i y IL t•� GPn ! 1r ll %i/ B) Stipulation 2(b) of Ordinance 1071 requires close matching of overall density levels between the project's multi - family phases. Phase II's proposed 86 units equal a density level of 16 D.U. /AC. compares favorably with Phase I's 92 units or 17.5 D.U. /AC density. The City Council author - ized 180 units total for the multi - family portion of the Sunwood site; the applicants now propose to reduce that figure to 178 units. C) Driveway length in front of garage doors for duplex units 14,17, 18 and 19 appear to be shorter than 20' in some cases. Since some residents may prefer not to garage their vehicles, the potential to overhang into the 24' wide main roadway exists. The applicants may wish to study this Page 2 relationship once again and increase the length of the driveways serving these units. D) Alignment of the secondary fire access lane to correspond with the north edge of the R -1 District should be viewed as conceptual only, and should be subject to approval fa -the final plat for the R -1 District. Architecture: A) Scale & Style Concept - The proposed structures are similar in exterior appearance to those constructed in Phase I. Although the elevation draw- ings on Exhibits B through D lack specific material specifications as required by stipulation 2(f) of Ordinance 1071, Staff suggests that B.A.R. approval of Phase II require compliance with stipulation 4 of the "Concomit- tant Zoning Agreement" pursuant to City Ordinance 1071, which states as follows: "Exterior finish of all buildings is to be consistent with the following: a. Four - plexes and smaller: Exterior finish is to be six or eight inch channel siding or comparable material. b. Structures larger than four- plexes: Exterior finish to be combination of stucco and cedar or stucco and brick, depend- ing on building and fire code requirements. c. Carports to be of wood or comparable materials. d. T -1 -11 or comparable materials are not to be used in the ex- terior of any structures." B) In addition to the foregoing, we suggest that a similar condition be imposed requiring the use of shake roofing material on Phase II units, as was used on Phase I structures. C) Architectural treatment for freestanding carports has not been provided on Exhibits B through D. We suggest that these units be constructed a manner closely - resembling those of Phase I. Landscape: A) Staff finds the "formal" planting aspects of the landscape proposal adequate and similar in character to that already approved for Phase I. B) Exhibit "C" of Ordinance 1071 contains standards for the preservation and removal of existing trees and other vegetation on the site. Stipu- lation 6 thereof provides as follows: "At the time each phase of the project is submitted to the Planning Commission for review, the developer shall stake all proposed building sites in that phase. The sites shall be inspected by an official from the Department of Community Development. After inspection, the deve- loper shall make minor adjustments where feasible in the building lo- cations in order to preserve as many trees as possible on the site..." City of Tukwila Planning Division 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, Washington 98188 433 -1845 Office of Community Development 26 March 1981 Pacific Townhouse Builders 1115 108th Ave. N.E. Bellevue, i9A 98004 Attn: Dick Gilroy Subject: Sunwood Phase II Building Permit review Our office has reviewed the plan set submitted to the Building division on 6 March 1981; the following concerns are noted: A) "Snow Fencing" - Per Ordinance 1181, Section 4, snow fencing or comparable material must be installed at the boundary of the growth - preservation zone at the east edge of phase II before construction begins. The purpose of this temporary barrier is to prevent accidental accumulation of debris and encroachment by construction equipment within the open -space area. B) "Growth Preservation Zone, North Prop. Line" - Ordinance 1171, Concomittant Zoning Agreement, item 2 requires as follows: "To preserve the visual landscape buffer in the R -2 zone at the north edge of the property, the developer shall re- tain all flora within 20 to 25 feet south of the north edge of the property in the R -2 zone in a natural growth preser- vation zone, as designated on the site plan." We note that sheet A -1 provides a 25' wide setback from the north boundary of Phase II. Vegetation .removal in this area is res- tricted to those materials which.must be cleared to provide a fire -break adjacent to the buildings, and to those materials which are dead or irreversibly deseased. CO Landscape Restoration Plan - The .:Concsnnittant Zoning Agreement of Ordinance 1171, Section 6'requires staff approval of a landscape /vegetation restoration plan for each project phase, simultaneously with building permit approval. A conceptual ... , ,, nsK,w +,a,a.�vt.::'r::::.n.: ttnar.? 5 ?:'. >.:F :Y_x:.`.'•. !�5i 7,?F_:4';i.'ta; F'•... Page -Z- Pacific Townhouse Builders 26 March 1981 landscape plan was approved by the Board of Architectural Review on 28 August 1980; we should have a copy of that approved diagram for inclusion in the building permit plan set. To serve its function as a restoration plan as well, the diagram should • reflect the following: - Location of all trees replacing removed indigenous speci- mens per the vegetation removal plan approved by the City Council on 16 March 1981. - Notation that all replacement conifer specimens will have an initial height at time of installation of not less than ten feet, per the Concomittant Zoning Agreement. D) Shingle - Siding, Buildings K,L,M,N,O - Stipulation 2 of the Board of Architectural Review's approval of 28 August 1980 re- quires 6-8"wide cedar channel siding or comparable material and the exterior finish of all buildings in Phase II. We have interpreted the use of shingle siding on buildings K -0 as consis- tent with the Board's stipulation. E) Single- Family Area Utility Improvements - A matter of record, we wish to reminn you that prior to occupancy of Phase II con- struction, all stipulations of short plat approval 80 -44 -SS must be met. These stipulations include: - Documentation of an on -going maintenance funding procedure for private utility lines installed according to the plat. - Recording of a.public access easement on the north property line, and restoration of vegetation removed by the abortive fire lane. Please submit the above - described landscape plan so that we may expedite release of your permit plan set; the other comments contained in this letter are for your information as a matter of record. cc: Bldg. Official Tukwila, nning Dept. MayK Caughey. Acting Director March 16, 1981 7:0O P.M. CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL OF COUNCIL MEMBERS OLD BUSINESS Cedarwood Habitat - Waiver Application. Sunwood Project. Inquiry on .the status of Sign Code. ' TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL City Hall .OMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING Council Chambers MINUTES Council President Van Dusen called the Committee of the Whole Meeting to order at 8:40 p.m. LIONEL C. BOHRER, MABEL J. HARRIS, GEORGE D. HILL, DORIS E. PHELPS, DANIEL J. SAUL, Council President GARY L. VAN DUSEN. Council President Van Dusen said the applicant, Mr. Campanella,_, has requested his waiver application not be considered at this time. In place of that discussion, the Sunwood project will be discussed. Council President Van Dusen said Don Dally, developer of Sunwood, has met all of the conditions of Phase II as requested by Council. Mark Caughey, Acting Planning Director, said the Council had requested Mr. Dally to prepare an inventory of trees on Phase II site, showing which trees would be saved and which would be removed. Mr. Dally has complied with the request. The inventory is introduced and made a matter of record at this meeting. It was submitted in a timely manner. The City Council members looked at the inventory chart. Councilman Bohrer said the development we are going to see will take all of the trees off the top of the hill. It will be bare. This will happen because the buildings are being sited where the trees were. The time to consider this was when the Council approved the project four years ago. We need to plan ahead or we get what we bargain for. Councilman Phelps asked if the developers were required to submit landscaping plans? Mark Caughey, Acting Planning Director., said it is a requirement for restoration. Councilman Harris asked if the plans have been through the Planning Commission? Mr. Dally said they have been approved by the Planning Commission. Council President Van Dusen asked what the Council would like to do with the sign code. Several letters have been received requesting some action. It has been requested that we extend the present sign code to take into account the economical effect it would have on businesses that are concerned. There are threats of law suits. The general request is to review the present ordinance and make it more palatable to business. Councilman Phelps asked about the scope of authority? She said Mr. Dick Goe had requested a citizen's committee address the matter of the sign ordinance with a projected meeting date of April 16, 1981. Council President Van Dusen said the citizen's committee is going to look at the present sign ordinance. As a member of the Board of Adjustment, he gets most of the letters about the present sign code. Mayor Todd said the City needs either a new sign code or an extension of the present. There are:many concerns about what will happen when the enforcement date begins. Jan Wiesner, Chamber of Commerce, said it might be a good idea to extend the date and then review the sign code with both the City and the business people offering input. Councilman Phelps said at one time consideration was given to the possibility of an ad hoc committee composed of staff, businesses, etc.. Maybe there are industry standards that should be known. Mayor Todd suggested extending the present sign ordinance until such time as a Planning Director is hired so his input can be considered. Al Pieper, Building Official, asked that the Council repeal Ordinance No. 1175 (present sign ordinance). L t,' Icr.cur�t CITY OF TUK W I WASHINGTON '-r:l• , cRc:p1,4 ED ta.i I') j'/ ORDINANCE NO. / D ! l COUNCIL ACTIO tllNfi AGINII6 ►,► IIlM MOM MO 7bME wi rd= FM AViral Willi A(IdIN 810 ' 7) P AN ORDII1ANCE RECL",SSIFYING CERTAIN PROPERTY FROM R -1 -12.0 AND R -3 TO R- 1 -9.6, R -2, R -3, and f; -4 WITHIN THE CITY OF TUKWILA AS CONTAINJED IN THE PLAIvdI O DIVISION MASTER FILE NO. 7u -06 -R. WHEREAS, A draft environmental impact statement has been distributed to all affected parties and agencies; WHEREAS, Comments have been received on the draft environmental impact statement and a hearing on the draft EIS held at the Planning Commis- sion on 27 April 1978; WHEREAS, A final environmental impact statement has been issued on 7 June 197B which responds to issues raised during the comment period; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission at their 25 May 197n regular meeting and after holding a public hearinn has recommended approval of the rezone condi- tioned upon fulfillment of eight (';) stipulations; WHEREAS, The City Council has th,•ty considered the environmental impact of the proposed action and the reconmiendation of the Planning Commission. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA, WASHINJGTON, DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section.l.. That the property described in the attached leoal,descrip- tion (Exhibit "A") and as shown on the attached site man (Exhibit "t1'I) is hereby reclassified to R- 1 -9.6, R -2, R -3, and R -4 as depicted on the map in Exhibit "D ". Section 2. The rezoning to R- 1 -9.6, R -2, R -3, and R -4 is subject to the following stipulations: a. Each phase of development shall provide the same proportion oc open space identifiers for the overall develornnent, exclusive of the R -1 district. b. Each phase of development shall not exceed the densit►r identified for the overall development, exclusive of the R -1 district, c. Full application for Preliminary Plat of the entire R -1 district shall be made prior to issuance of any building permits for structures within the remainder of the 12 -acre site. A final Plat of said R -1 district must be properly recorded prior to issuance of any occupancy Hermit for any structures'on;the remainder of the 12 -acre site. Thu Sep 03 1992 15:31 CITY of TUKWILA ordinance No. 1071' - Page 2 7808230748 d. Within the R -1 district, the layout of lots and alignment and width of street(s) shall be determined at the time of subdivision review, irrespective of the general layout depicted in the FEIS; provided, however, any street or roadway within the R -1 district shal not provide for vehicular movement from any multiple- family structure through the R -1 district. e. All mitigating measures identified by the Final EIS and as required by the Responsible Official shall be assigned to each phase of development. f. Planning Commission review of detailed site, elevation and land- scape plans, to include building and landscape materials, prior to issuance of respective building permit. The express purpose of such review is to ensure each phase or portion of development is in general conformance with the overall development plans in Planning Division File No. MF 78 -06 -R and that each phase or portion of development is complementary to the other phases or portions of development. g. In the event that construction of any proposed structure has not begun within 24 months of the effective date of this reclassification then said reclassification shall revert to the present designations (R -1 -12.0 and R -3) on that portion not platted for single - family residential; provided, however, the City Council may grant a single, 12 -month extension to the time period expressed hereinabove. h. All provisions, conditions and stipulations enumerated herein shall be recorded in the records of the King County Department of Records and all such provisions, conditions and stipulations shall be deemed to be attached to and run with the land and shall be binding upon all heirs, successors and assigns. i. Satisfactory preformance by the applicant of terms and conditions substi tially similar to the concomitant zoning agreement, a copy of which is attached (as Exhibit C) hereto and by reference incorporated herein. Section 3. The report of the Planning Commission is adopted by reference as though fully set forth herein. Section 4. The zoning map adopted by reference by Ordinance No. 251 is hereby amended to reflect the changes by the rezoning action taken in this ordinance. Section 5. The City Clerk is directed to record a copy of this ordinance and attachments with the King County Department of Records and Elections. PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA, WASHINGTON, at a regular meeting thereof this 7 & day of ,.4'- q U t , 1978. , /41Sea App •ved as to Form: 2:1 pu y ty ttorney ATTEST t er cry ard"L49.-(--) Published: Record- Chronicle, August 20, 1978 Thu Sep 03 1992 15:33 CITY of TUKWILA CITY of TUKWILA WASHINGTON ORDINANCE NO. /4/8 1 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA, WASHINGTON, REPEALING SECTION 2(C) AND AMENDING SECTION 2(G) OF ORDINANCE 1071 (PARK PLACE /SUNWOOD) WHEREAS, Ordinance 1071 provided for reclassification of certain property from R -1 -12.0 and R -3 to R- 1 -9.6, R -2, R -3 and R -4 within the City of Tukwila as contained in Planning Division Master File 78 -06 -R, and WHEREAS, said Ordinance 1071 was passed and adopted by the City Council on August 7, 1978, and WHEREAS, a public hearing was held before the City Planning Com- mission on August 28, 1980 and certain modifications to Ordinance 1071 were recommended by that body. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA, WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1: Section 2(c) of Ordinance 1071 is repealed in its entirety and new Section 2(c) shall be as follows: "Prior to issuance of building permits for Phase II of the development, a subdivision for 4 lots shall be approved for the R -1 district. Said short subdivision application shall detail all improvements described in Section 17.08.070 of the Tukwila Municipal Code. All required improvements shall be installed by the applicants prior to recording of the short subdivision; bonding for construction of said improve- ments as provided in the 17.08.080 (1) shall not be allowed. The short subdivision, as approved by the short subdivision committee, shall be recorded prior to certification of Phase II occupancy." Section 2: Section 2(g) of Ordinance 1071 is hereby amended to read as follows: In the event that construction of any proposed structure has not begun within 36 months of the effective date of this reclassification, then said reclassification shall revert to the present designations (R -1 -12.0 and R -3) on that portion not platted for single - family residential." Section 3: There shall be added to Ordinance 1071, Section 6 which shall shaliTrTiidi as follows: "Section 6: If, subsequent to the adoption of these amendments, the owner in constructing any phase of development substantially or materially violates any of the conditions specified and adopted in Ordinance 1071 and all exhibits, concomitant agreements and agreements pursuant to, and all amendments thereto, the City may recover damages for such a violation according to the following procedures. (a) Written notice of the breach or violation of the condition shall be given to the owner. Such notice shall specify the condition violated and the action necessary to cure such violation. The owner shall have ninety (90) days from the receipt of such notice to cure or remedy the violation in the manner prescribed. Thu Sep 03 1992 15:34 CITY of TUKWILA (b) If the owner fails to cure or remedy the violation in the manner specified, the City shall be entitled to five thousand dollars ($5,000.00) as liquidated damages for each material or substantial breach or violation up to a maximum total of fifty thousand dollars ($50,000.00). Any amount collected by the City pursuant to this Section shall be applied, as soon as reasonably possible, in completing the cure or remedy as specified by the City in its notice. Any amount remaining after completion of such action, less the expenses incurred by the City, shall be returned to the owner. (c) Upon receipt of the Notice of Violation the owner may, within ten (10)days of receipt of said notice, submit to arbitration the question of whether it has, either through its action or through its inaction, caused a material breach to occur. This question shall be resolved in accordance with the then existing rules of the American Arbitration Association and judg- ment upon any award rendered may be entered in any court of comp- etent jurisdiction. Such award may include the costs and ex- penses, including but not limited to attorneys' fees, incurred by the prevailing party in obtaining the award. (d) As used herein, the word "owner" shall mean the person or other legal entity in title to the real property that is the subject of this reclassification and any employee., agent or independent contractor under the control of owner, as well as the heirs, successors and assigns of owner." Section 4: The owner shall, at his own expense, remove all construction debris from Phase I construction from the open space zone. A temporary barrier such as "snow fencing" shall be installed at the boundary between the open space zone and the neighboring residential zone during later phases of the project to prevent damage to the open space zone from construction equipment and accumulated debris. Section 5: No other modification of Ordinance 1071 is expressed or implied by the provisions of this ordinance. PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA, WASHINGTON, at a regular meeting thereof this a 7 oday of , 1980. Ma .1 1 ATTEST: 1 Approved as to Form ./ C1(ty Attorney, Lawrence E. Hard Published Record Chronicle - November 9, 1980 Thu Sep 03 1992 15:36 CITY of TUKWILA DF' 1 �vWI Albin.,, ewraai,rn,m, Tv enLA 'ft. RECEIVED JUL 2 0 ?992 DEVELOPMENT N LoE T k4 01-'OJr %CRAtIJJpoN FIeON Tyr nny .F AcGb,y /J/, ATA T o Fet Lev /.vy: /I1 .. �cAp TA.. ..ua sr:44lmo TWO" ..t.Pl c / f./•T.,.W.re C�u.. p fie" .14/we Two 7A-L: , FA. •, 7rc9ty ltnyrSD e TX.e.r 0 re Aes f%' E WITH DI r&eG,07 KIwD .F 7eE6 • REM eJc .F14 FRe.1 BETwea.1/ TWO JrTT •i—.." $AMGG Abe RT Wt t.tt.t. Ra.'t Ott, n/c ?RC e$ I? M0✓G 0. We wow to l.[•11. Gut Alyea 41' To 4/NIRa. pis fa Jk. u.D AL L.f ATGD. \ ✓4lx QRd T.w.:.. -. Grti giiLr at' a -?JaC IAV .w TIG 0.00D 0P PoRreroRJ J uc Weep OuNb/n,N;uM bfI•a• AJ• mlr8c• . ►'Nc ottva Awl Ot(.u00 C.A,A1177[c (.4\ it 3SVH_\ SVHd ®_ t/yIT &,7., .L 4p WA;..t Qa7e Fh ,ty 0 /rxizEE /ZEE ` • ., r m • L. 0 w cr Q •,r •I 10••• • I3SVHC