The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutSEPA EPIC-158-81 - PACIFIC TOWNHOUSE BUILDERS - SUNWOOD PHASE II REZONESUNWOOD PHASE III REZONE 62AVS@S 1545T EPIC - 158 -81 CITY OF TUKWILA OFFICE OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT FINAL DECLARATION OF NON- SIGNIFICANCE Description of proposal Proponent Sunwood Phase III Rezone Pacific Townhouse Builders Location of Proposal 62nd Avenue @ S. 154 St. Lead Agency City of Tukwila File No. EPIC - 158 -81. This proposal has been determined to (Wa /not have) a significant adverse impact upon the environment. An EIS (W is not) required under RCW 43.21C.030(2)(c). This decision was made after review by the lead agency of a completed environmental checklist and other information on file with the lead agency. Responsible Official Mark Caughey Position /Title Acting P l a n n i n g . Di ry(or Date 25 February 1981 Signature COMMENTS: This Declaration of Non - Significance pertains only to the Legislative Action of Rezoning the property from R -3 to R -4. The City shall reserve the option to require a separate environmental investigation of any project proposed on this site subsequent to the grant of rezone. City of Tukwii 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila Washington 98188 ,PLANNING DEPARTMENT TRANSMITTAL DATE OF TRANSMITTAL 29 / JP.t.I / 8t TO: PROJECT: LOCATION: JAt 3 0 1 ❑ BUILDING DEPT.' ❑ POLICE DEPT. ❑ FIRE DEPT. ❑ RECREATION DEPT. 52DUBLIC WORKS DEPT. ❑ VlD60.7 / 1-/� 62— PA: The above mentioned applicant has submitted the following plans or materials for the above reference project: vironmental Checklist DPreliminary Plat ❑ Environmental Impact State- OFinal Plat ment ❑ Site /Development Plans DRezone Request ❑Shoreline Permit Application❑ Variance Request ❑ Conditional Use Permit ['Other: Application The attached materials are sent to you for your review and comment. The Planning Dept. needs your comments to satisfy review procedures• and to complete the project file. Please use the space provided below for your comments or attach a separate sheet. Requested response date: 10 / FMCS ./ SI Revjew U partment comments: 1. 3 weeks prior to. submission -of building permit - application: Provide drainage routing and calculations indicating how drainage will be transmitted to retention facilities and public drainage. 2. 3 weeks prior to submission of building permit application: Provide soils study which indicates necessary structures surface /subsurface to provide adequate footings and proposed final,coutours in this hillside area. Although,. under,ENVIORNMENTAL IMPACTS Item #1 -c is marked "yes" there is no mention of what type of foundation structures will be provided (i.e. major rockeries) or what mitigating measures will be taken for impacts tothis - property or surrounding properties. 3. As part of the site plan development: A local traffic study to determine adequacy of the adjacent traffic corridor systems to the Phase. IV Development, including fire access. 2/ liftei City of Tukw• 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila Washington 98188 PLANNING DEPARTMENT TRANSMITTAL DATE OF TRANSMITTAL 'L, / , /i51 I TO: ❑ BUILDING DEPT. ❑ POLICE DEPT. ❑ FIRE DEPT. D:%KCREATION DEPT. ❑ PUBLIC WORKS DEPT. ❑ PROJECT: • 501- ID0t7/Y�o Zo}-9E LOCATION: 674? kv>✓ The above mentioned applicant has submitted the following plans or materials for the above reference project: Environmental Checklist ❑Preliminary Plat ❑ Environmental Impact State- ❑Final Plat ment ❑Site /Development Plans E Rezone Request ❑ Shoreline Permit Application Variance Request ❑Conditional Use Permit DOther: Application The attached materials are sent to you for your review and comment. The Planning Dept. needs your comments to satisfy review procedures and to complete the project file. Please use the space provided below for your comments or attach a separate sheet. Requested response date: 14=7 /F t. / 51 Re v iewwDepartmen//t j�commennt s: ,� i✓ /Y�./ �f q k.]C „od,// G dg.TG krki 7' X- 0.- a v'ev`i`� v./ Y¢. ft i f �% / �ro �f� ir- ®t.✓rL d'O Ge 4-c /i 4' L°J �Lal� !/ /2 -,�✓ -p SLeo Gam" ! sin vi G�i'�.a� / - - l !er •e• .-tea to fv: .X."? 9 "'re. v v u�•rP /74- /`r eL- l/ I P' ,- 6 ✓ r �,�-h" C1 ,i,G// ,� " :4 %:��,T, _e K•'r .H Y'y o�.6, .0 on, J`r la.c�Ct %A- yst µ d�Y O�c.� laYls, QyW By: ��li�� Date: 02 -- 1/ City of Tukvit 6200 Southcenter Boulevard PLANNING DEPARTMENT Tukwila Washington 98188 TRANSMITTAL DATE OF TRANSMITTAL 7,9 /JaN /81 TO: PROJECT: • ❑ BUILDING DEPT. ❑ POLICE DEPT. IRE DEPT. ❑ RECREATION DEPT. ❑ PUBLIC WORKS DEPT. ❑ 500W WP/ 1 &TV M150i4V LOCATION: (ZD /J The above mentioned applicant has submitted the following plans or materials for the above reference project: >4Environmental Checklist ❑Preliminary Plat ❑Environmental Impact State- ❑Final .Plat ment ❑Site /Development Plans DRezone Request ❑Shoreline Permit Applications Variance Request ❑ Conditional Use Permit ❑Other: Application The attached materials are sent to you for your review and comment. The Planning Dept. needs your comments to satisfy review procedures and to complete the project file. Please use the space provided below for your comments or attach a separate sheet. Requested response date: 10 /FED / 8t Review Department comments: By: Date: PLANNING DEPARTMENT TRANSMITTAL I DATE OF TRANSMITTAL g,y /Fey, / g► TO: UILDING DEPT. ❑ .POLICE DEPT. ❑ FIRE DEPT. ❑ RECREATION DEPT. ❑ PUBLIC WORKS DEPT. ❑ PROJECT: suNw P' 1 t= =b.T' Rffze) »z LOCATION: GZ Nn ,sV E The above mentioned applicant has submitted the following plans or materials for the above reference project: .Environmental Checklist ❑Preliminary Plat ❑ Environmental Impact State- ❑Final Plat ment ❑Site /Development Plans ❑Rezone Request ❑ Shoreline Permit Application Variance Request ❑ Conditional Use Permit . ❑Other: Application The attached materials are sent to you for your review and comment. The Planning Dept. needs your comments to satisfy review procedures and to complete the project file. Please use the space provided below for your comments or attach a separate sheet. Requested response date: kO /M5 /01 Review Department comments: RET M A/C- RocKz /JiS ,¢1.c,vc,-- ScvTHEJ'Ly EDG-L ,fit b S' - — ' -»7 E -/?T H /= /L L sNovzD Dss7c -ti ./3 i o ph'zv4&,,L,7- 41A/14A ro 0/4 _PRO Ier CAS at= F' /LU/P/ B c /4D(ti�S S11 1)1- C. if/d7- /3� o STRvc7EL) o.v F,LL6O ,¢R,¢t5 By: Date: CITY OF TUKWILA ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM This questionnaire must be completed and submitted with the application for permit. This questionnaire must be completed by all persons applying for a permit from the City of Tukwila, unless it is determined by the Responsible Official that the permit is exempt or unless the applicant and Responsible Official previously agree an Environmental Impact Statement needs to be completed. A fee of $50.00 must accompany the filling of the Environmental Questionnaire to cover costs of the threshold determination. I. BACKGROUND 1. Name of Proponent: Pacific Townhouse Builders 2. Address and Phone Number of Proponent: 1115 108th Ave. N.E. Bellevue, WA 98004 (206) 455 -1726 3. Date,Checklist Submitted: January 21, 1981 4. Agency Requiring Checklist: City of Tukwila 5. Name of Proposal, if applicable: Sunwood, Phase III 6. Nature and Brief Description of the Proposal (including but not limited to its size, general design elements, and other factors that will give an accurate understanding of its scope and nature): See attachment no. 1. 7. Location of Proposal (describe the physical setting of the proposal, as well as the extent of the land area affected by any environmental im- pacts, including any other information needed to give an accurate under- standing of the environmental setting of the proposal): See attachment no. I 8. Estimated Date for Completion of the Proposal: Late 1982. 9. List of all Permits, Licenses or Government Approvals Required for the Proposal (federal, state and local): (a) Rezone, conditional use', shoreline permit, etr YES X NO (b) King County Hydraulics Permit YES x NO (c) Building permit YES x "NO (d) Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Permit YES NOx (e) Sewer hook up permit YES x NO (f) Sign permit YES NOX (g) Water hook up permit YES x NO (h) Storm water system permit YES x NO (i) Curb cut permit YES NOx (j) Electrical permit (State of Washington) YES x NO (k) Plumbing permit (King County) YESX NO (1) Other: 10. Do you have any plans for future additions, expansion, or futher activity related to or connected with this proposal? If yes, explain: No. 11. Do you know of any plans by others which may affect the property covered by your proposal? If yes, explain: No. 12. Attach any other application form that has been completed regarding the pro- posal; if none has been completed, but is expected to be filed at some future date, describe the nature of such application form: Permits, licenses or approvals as checked in the affirmitive in item No. 9 above. II. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS (Explanations of all "yes" and "maybe" answers are required). 1. Earth. Will the proposal result in: (a) Unstable earth conditions or in changes in geologic substructures? (b) Disruptions, displacements, compaction or overcover- ing of the soil? (c) Change in topography or ground surface relief fea- tures? (d) The destruction, covering or modification of any unique geologic or physical features? -2- YES MAYBE NO x x X (e) Any increase in wind or water erosion of soils, either on or off the site? (f) Changes in deposition or erosion of beach sands, or changes in siltation, deposition or erosion which may modify the channel of.a river or stream'or the bed of the ocean or any bay, inlet or lake? Explanation: See attachment no. 2 2. Air. Will the proposal result in: (a) Air emissions or deterioration of ambient air quality? (b) The creation of objectionable odors? (c) Alteration of air movement, moisture or temperature, or any change in climate, either locally or regionally? Explanation: See atachment no. 2 3. Water. Will the proposal result in: (a) Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water movements, in either marine or fresh waters? (b) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface water runoff? (c) Alterations to the course or flow of flood waters? (d) Change in the amount of surface water in any water body? (e) Discharge into surface waters, or in any alteration of surface water quality, including but not limited to temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity? (f) Alteration of the direction or rate of flow of ground waters? (g) Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations? -3- YES MAYBE NO x x X x X x x X x • • (h) Deterioration in ground water quality, either through direct injection, or through the seepage of leachate, phosphates, detergents, waterborne virus or bacteria, or other substances into the ground waters? (i) Reduction in the amount of water otherwise avail - able for public water supplies? Explanation: See.attachment no. 2 4. Flora. Will the proposal result in: (a) Change in the diversity of species, or numbers of any species of flora (including trees, shrubs, grass, crops, microflora and aquatic plants).? (b) Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of flora? (c) Introduction of new species of flora into an area, or in a barrier to the normal replenishment of existing species? (d) Reduction in acreage of any agricultural crop? Explanation: See attachment no. 2 YES MAYBE NO x X x x x 5. Fauna. Will the proposal result in: (a) Changes in the diversity of species, or numbers of any species of fauna (birds, land animals including reptiles, fish and shellfish, benthic organisms, insects or microfauna)? x — (b) Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of fauna? X (c) Introduction of new species of fauna into an area, or result in a barrier to the migration or movement of fauna? X — (d) Deterioration to existing fish or wildlife habitat? x Explanation: See attachment no. 2 YES MAYBE NO 6. Noise. Will the proposal increase existing noise levels? x Explanation: See attachment no. 2 7. Light and Glare. Will the proposal produce new light or glare? Explanation: See attachment no. 2 8. Land Use. Will the proposal result in-the altera- tion of the present or planned land use of an area? Explanation: See attachment no. 2 9. Natural Resources. Will the proposal result in: (a) Increase in the rate of use of any natural resources? x (b) Depletion of any nonrenewable natural resource? x Explanation: 10. Risk of Upset. Does the proposal involve a risk of an explosion or the release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to, oil, pesticides, chemicals or radi- ation) in the event of an accident or upset conditions? Explanation: x 11. Population. Will the proposal alter the location, distribution, density, or growth rate of the human population of an area? Explanation: See attachment no. 2. YES MAYBE NO x 12. Housing. Will the proposal affect existing housing, or create a demand for additional housing? x Explanation: See attachment no. 2 13. Transportation /Circulation. Will the proposal result in: (a) Generation of additional vehicular movement? x (b) Effects on existing parking facilities, or demand for new parking? X (c) Impact upon existing transportation systems? (d) Alterations to present patterns of circulation or movement of people and /or goods? x x (e) Alterations to waterborne, rail or air traffic? X (f) Increase in traffic hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians? X Explanation: See attachment no. 2 14. Public Services. Will the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered governmental services in any of the following areas: (a) Fire protection? X (b) Police protection? X (c) Schools? X (d) Parks or other recreational facilities? x ,(e) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? X • YES MAYBE NO (f) Other governmental services? x Explanation: See attachment no. 2 15. Energy. Will the proposal result in: (a) Use of substantial amounts of fuel or energy? x (b) Demand upon existing sources of energy, or require the development of new sources of energy? X Explanation: See attachment no. 2 16. Utilities. Will the proposal result in a need for new systems, or alterations to the following utilities: (a) Power or natural gas? (b) Communications systems? (c) Water? (d) Sewer or septic tanks? (e) Storm water drainage? (f) Solid waste and disposal? Explanation: See attachment no. 2 17. Human Health. Will the proposal result in the crea- tion of any health hazard or potential health hazard (excluding mental health)? Explanation: • 18. Aesthetics. Will the proposal result in the obstruc- tion of any scenic vista or view open to the public, or will the proposal result in the creation of an aesthetically of- fensive site open to public view? Explanation: See attachment no. 2 19. Recreation. Will the proposal result in an impact upon the quality or quantity of exist- ing recreational opportunities? Explanation: See attachment no. 2 20. Archeological /Histroical. Will the proposal result in an alteration of a signifi- cant archeological or his- torical site, structure, object or building? Explanation: CERTIFICATION BY APPLICANT: YES MAYBE N x x I, the undersigned, state that to the best of my knowledge the above information is true and complete. It is understood that the lead agency may withdraw any declaration of non - significance that it might issue in reliance upon this checklist should there be any willful misrepresentation or willful lack of full disclosure on my part. -8- /4a 4/ j / Date • • ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM ATTACHMENT NO. 1 1 Background . 6. Nature and Brief Description of the Proposal This proposal, a zone reclassification to R -4, is the third phase of a total development which is called Sunwood. Phase I. of this project is already constructed immediately to the north of this proposal, and phase II will have construction commence as soon as a building permit can be obtained. (Anticipated early spring of 1981..) Phase I has a R -4 zone classification. Proposed for this site are 78 multifamily units in ten separate six -plex and nine -plex buildings. This type of building construction will provide three story, low -rise structures. This will facilitate the retention of major tree groupings, steep slope areas and buffer areas in their natural state. The major access to the Sunwood development is Sunwood Boulevard, which is off of 62nd Avenue South. As this road has already been constructed; site work and preparation should be limited to that required for each building type, and related parking and drives. As in the two earlier phases of this development-all units . will be for sale, there will be no rental units. Also, community facilities, for the use of the entire development, were constructed in phase I. 7. Location of Proposal The third phase of Sunwood is located on the south face of Tukwila Hill above Southcenter Boulevard and the Southcenter Mall. The project will be north and westerly of Tukwila City Hall. The site is located to the west of 62nd Ave. So., from which the access road is located. The proposal is on a sloping site which slopes from north to south and has a net elevation drop of: approximately 60 feet. There are some large speciman trees in the southern portion of the site, which will be retained. The overall site area is designated as a high density residential area in the City of Tukwila Comprehensive Land Use Plan Map. Areas to the east and west have a similar designation. To the north lies the first phase of Sunwood and is an area zoned R -4 (actually a rezone). To the south is a proposed "designation, commerical, presently zoned for neighborhood retail. . ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS ATTACHMENT NO. 2 1. EARTH - (b) (c) The site slopes from north to south and has a drop in elevation of approximately 60 feet. Therefore, there can be anti- cipated a certain amount of soils relocation on the site related to the topography. Some soils displacement and compaction will occur as a result of grading and excavation in readying the site for construction. This will have a slight effect on the topography at proposed building locations. The grading plan, attached in this application, shows the areas of out and fill.. The use of rockeries, rataining walls or earth berms will further reduce the extent of topographic alteration. (e) Soils observed on the site tend to be shallow glacial fill, downward into a glacial sand and gravel formation. The site appears , to be stable with no evidence of slides. However, till soils are erodable if exposed on a steep slope. The above mentioned rockeries retaining walls and /or berms should mitigate this problem. Exposure during construction could entail some risk of wind and /or water erosion. This hazard will be mitigated by proper construction techniques, as recommended by soils engineers and/or local ordinance. 2. AIR (a) (b) There may be increases in suspended particles during the course of construction, due to dust generation and the necessary use of earth moving equipment. Sprinklering during construction periods can greatly reduce such airborne dust. Depending on the type of building roofing selected there may be objectionable,odors during this phase of construction. Upon the completion of the project, an increase in vehicular traffic will cause related increases in air containmants. This project should add a negligible increase to the traffic along Southcenter Parkway Boulevard, between 62nd Ave. South and the Southcenter access overpass, and 1 -405. Unless an increase in congestion at intersections is cuased,.air pollutants generated as a result of this project should not have a significant effect on local air quality. Therefore, no significant increase in the probability of violations of local air quality standards are expected-as a result of this project. . 3. WATER (b) (e) The existing drainage patterns at the site will be essentially retained. There are no distinct drainage swales in this area and runoff travels essentially as a sheet flow, until it is intercepted by the storm drainage system at the access road to the site and south of the site by the 1-405 storm drainage system. Clearing and grading for construction purposes will probably produce a short term increase in the silt content of runoff. Buildings and pavement areas will alter the present absorbtion rates and will increase the amount of storm runoff. However, landscaping features such as berms, gardens and porous walkways as well as grassy and natural areas could detain runoff and decrease the velocity of overland flow. (h) Ground waters in the area of the site should not be signif- icantly affected by the proposal. Small amounts of roadway 'pollutants will inevitably leach into the soil but-not in quantities sufficient to affect ground water quality in the. area. _ _ The storm drainage system could_ be equipped with oil separating devices which, if properly maintained, would reduce the potential for petroleum residue to enter surface waters. 4. FLORA (a) There is a grouping of native decidious and coniferous trees at the southern portion of the site, including Douglas Fir, West- ern Cedar, Big Leaf Maple, Elm and Apple Trees. There are no known rare or unique species of vegetation located on the property. Construction will naturally require the removal of some small trees and ground cover all the large speciman trees on the property will remain. Selected thinning and cutting of existing ground cover vegetation will aid new landscaped areas. (c) New species of flora which are compatable with residential development will be introduced to the areas around buildings and walkways. 5. FAUNA (a) (c) No unique, threatened or'endangered wildlife are known to occur in the project area. Numbers and species of fauna will be reduced proportionally to the amount of flora disturbed, and the intensity of residential development. However, since present . development levels throughout the area have already reduced wild- life habitates. Therefore, adjacent areas can be considered unavailable for new wildlife imigration. The net result will be a reduction in species numbers and.diversity in the area. 6. NOISE The site currently does not contribute any measurable noise to the environment. A residential development will generate noise levels on and off the site due to traffic to and from the site. Construction on the site will create noise with the use of heavy equipment, pneumatic tools and such. This however, will be on a short term basis and will be restricted to normal working hours. 7. LIGHT AND GLARE The site is presently unlighted. New light will be produced by the addition to some yard and street lighting, as well as from the headlights of automobiles arriving and leaving the site. , 8. LAND USE As this proposal is for a zoning reclassification the proposal would result in the alteration of existing zoning boundries. This proposal does not, however, seek to change the specific use designated for the site, multifamily residential, but only the allowed density. The site is presently undeveloped and zoned R -3. This proposal requests R -4 zoning. This request fora zoning change is consistant with the proposed City of Tukwila" Comprehensive Land Use Policy Plan. The Comp- rehensive Land Use Plan Map designates this area as a high density residential area. 11. POPULATION This proposal will provide housing for new families as well as people presently residing within Tukwila city limits. The pro- posed 78 unit complex would add approximately 140 people to the population base. This assumes full occupancy of all units, an average of 1.8 persons per unit. This average figure is based on actual sales of the same unit types in Phase I, Sunwood. As this project is for condominium ownership it will increase the proportion of owner occupied dwellings, and therefore the tax base, in Tukwila. 12. HOUSING The approval of this proposal would meet the demands for multi- family benefits of home ownership to families who at present are unable to purchase conventional single family dwellings. 13. TRANSPORTATION /CIRCULATION (a) (c) (f) Access to the site is from 62nd Avenue South, the same is true for phases I and II of Sunwood, as outlined in the original Environmental Impact Study for this development. This proposal would result in a slight increase to the traffic on 62nd Avenue South. This would provide residents of the proposed development access to Southcenter Blvd., 1 -405, and 1 -5. Traffic in this corridor would therefore have a slight increase in volume. All parking requirements for this proposal would be on the site and would not result in any on street parking. 14. PUBLIC SERVICES The proposed project would require some attention by all public service departments. Service for the development is not expected . to have any adverse affect on existing fire department manpower or equipment. Residential uses have a moderate impact_on police protective services in the form of burglaries and emergencies. This proposed developme -t is not expected to directly result in the requirement for additional police personnel or equipment. However, the cumulative effects of increased development on this hillside may necessitate additional expenditures in the future. A proposal of multifamily development generally does not have many families'with school aged children. The number of new students generated by this proposal is unlikely to have any impact on facilities or personnel. This proposal can be expected to add new users to existing parks and recreation facilities in the city and in the Green River Valley. Recreational facilities are provided for in this project, Phase I specifically, and should initigate the impact on local parks and recreation areas. Some additional maintenance of public facilities may be anticipated. However, expansion of existing facilities for the benefit of this project, have been done by the developer of the site. For the two previous phases of this overall development. 15. ENERGY (b) There appear to be adaquet energy resources and equipment in the present service area, according to Puget Sound Power and Light. Pacific Northwest Bell can accomodate anticipated service to this development. 16. UTILITIES (a) (b) See above note related to Energy. (c) Construction of water mains through the site are existing, and increased demand for this proposal is not expected to have an adverse affect on the existing water supply system. (d) The increase in sewage flow from the project area is not expected to have an adverse impact on sanitary sewer in the vicinity according to the public works department. (e) Drainage within the proposed development would be collected in surface collection systems including retention areas and released at aslower rate into existing drainage channels or in improved storm drainage along 62nd Avenue South. 18. Aesthetics The site in its existing state, undeveloped, with trees and other vegetation cover profides a visual amenity to the Southcenter area. Retention of all large speciman trees will help initigate the impact of new construction in those areas of the site. In addition, supplemental landscaping, particularly around buildings and roadways, will help relieve the visual impact of new construction. 19. Recreation See comments regarding Public Services, Parks and Recreation. • I ; _P- F 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 - 9.6 MI MI IMO NM MI MO MN MI NI R - 4 52-N1211,51 -5;151 ST ST. IT__ R R - 3 1•■ R M I I% C- ■ r% -• /C- I 1 1 % lataxi k C-1 %•., 1■44 I I. 'ARCHITECTS - PLANNERS 1 -0:-.7_7100_11.. 250 Ill _._.5 HaElm[TR5 jjohummy @mk HiCommE9 -pDa 1 R M TUJcW_Ils _ZONING 11001 Nt 2N0, MELLE NAJE. WA. 00004. 2.0.00:40:::•07777: P$ToP05ED &RADE PHASE I /Bp 7 J TIN EfY FogriFA PIROPEATY I.INE- 5' DEDICATION TO CITY OF TUKINII.A. l75 ICD 6 PMTS). 4 (8 UNi rZa nvP Is r1D C Pio a �3a 25 EXI°JTIHG \\ GPADE , CARPORT R■SFl Et- 1GL051.1RE i0 Iz w • _ I-- 4. P -IG4iT OP,.. \,,y PARCEL A 125 LAN I .EXISTING 'neiES 141 65 PARCEL B "zs .9 71' ISO DDo APED LI' - " vs, FlSITE PLAN 0 e 10 o 90 70