Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPermit 89-08-DR - CITY OF TUKWILA - CRYSTAL SPRINGS PARK PHASE 2 PARKING DESIGN REVIEW89-8-dr 160th street 51st avenue Permit 89-08-DR - CITY OF TUKWILA - CRYSTAL SPRINGS PARK PHASE 2 PARKING DESIGN REVIEW PARKING PLAN City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila Washington 98188 (206) 433 -1800 Gary L. VanDusen, Mayor CITY OF TUKWILA PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 25, 1990 The meeting was called to order at 8:00 p.m. by Chairman Jim Haggerton. Members present were Messrs. Haggerton, Hamilton, Cagle, Flesher, Kirsop, Knudson and Gomez. Representing the staff were Jack Pace, Vernon Umetsu, Darren Wilson and Joanne Johnson. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - MR. HAMILTON MOVED AND MR. CAGLE SECONDED A MOTION TO APPROVE THE DECEMBER 14, 1990 MINUTES AS CORRECTED. MOTION UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED. 89 -8 -DR - CRYSTAL SPRINGS PARK PHASE II PARKING PLAN December 14, 1989 meeting. Request to approve revised parking plan which reflects additional parking to accommodate future park use, as well as citizen concerns regarding location of parking, as requested by the Planning Commission at their December meet- ing. Jack Pace, Senior Planner, reviewed the proposal noting that staff recommends approval of the revised off - street /on street parking plan. Don Williams, Tukwila Parks and Recreation Director further clarified the revisions to the parking configuration as well as the location of additional parking to be provided for future park use. Discussion ensued on the new proposal. MR. KIRSOP MOVED AND HAMILTON SECONDED A MOTION TO APPROVE 89-8 - DR - CRYSTAL SPRINGS PARK - PHASE II AS REVISED. MOTION PASSED WITH GOMEZ, KIRSOP, FLESHER, HAGGERTON, CAGLE AND HAMILTON VOTING YES; AND MR. KNUDSON VOTING NO. Planning Commission January 25, 1990 Page 2 Mr. Pace noted that two agenda items -- Homewood Suites and Becker Transfer would be rescheduled to the February 22, 1990 Planning Commission meeting. 89 -4 -R - MIRAMI REZONE - Request for approval of a rezone from R -1 -7.2 Single Family Residential to C -2 Regional Retail. Vernon Umetsu, Associate Planner, reviewed the proposal recom- mending approval of the request. There were no comments from the public, therefore the Public Hearing was closed at 8:36 p.m. MR. KNUDSON MOVED AND MR. GOMEZ SECONDED A MOTION TO APPROVE THE REZONE REQUEST FROM R -1 -7.2 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL TO C -2 REGIONAL RETAIL, FILE 89 -4 -R - MIKAMI REZONE, BASED UPON STAFF'S RECOMMENDATIONS, AS WELL AS THE FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS OF THE STAFF REPORT. MOTION UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED. 88 - 1 - SUB - BRIGADOON RIDGE /TUKWILA JUNCTION - Request for appro- val of a preliminary plat for a 17 -lot subdivision. Mr. Hamilton excused himself as he owns property near the location the subject property and felt that it could be construed as a conflict of interest if he sat in on the deliberations of this request. Mr. Knudson lives at 14925 - 58th Avenue S. stated that he has no financial interest to be gained by the approval of this request but wanted to disclose this information in case there was any objection. Chairman Haggerton asked if the applicant or anyone in the audience had any objection to Mr. Knudson setting in on the deliberations for this request. There being none, the meeting continued. Darren Wilson, Assistant Planner, reviewed the proposal recom- mending approval with recommendations and conditions. Mr. Brad Decker, applicant, was in general agreement with staff's recommendations except for the recommendation to increase the area proposed for open space. He expressed a concern that it would considerably reduce the back yard area of some residents in the subdivision. c Stixrood Associates Landscape Architecture /Planning 2525 Boyer Avenue East. Seattle, WA 98102 (206) 323 -1602 • FAX (206) 325 -0442 City of Tukwila Planning Department 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, WA 98188 Attn: Molly Headley January 12, 1990 RE: Crystal Springs Park, Design Review Application, revised Site /Landscape Plan. Dear Molly; The attached reductions and full size copies of the Site /Landscape Plans for Crystal Springs Park have been updated since my letter and review drawing submission of January 5 with the following: • Proposed contours are included. The extra overlay created printing difficulties, which resulted in reduced print clarity. I have therefore provided drawing prints with and without proposed contours. Since grading is minor, it seems that the drawing without proposed contours, which is easier to read may be the easiest to use for most purposes. • The cul de sac at the end of 51st. Avenue South has been outlined. • The Seattle water line right of way along South 160th St. is added. • Trees are shown along the street to help screen the proposed expansion of the existing on site parking area. • Notes have been adjusted and added to improve clarity. Please call me if you have questions, I will work on a colored version which highlights parking areas for the meeting. Sincere / '� / / /, Carl Stixro cc. Don Williams, Director, Department of Parks and Recreation attarhmantc Stixrood Associates Landscape Architecture /Planning 2525 Boyer Avenue East. Seattle, WA 98102 (206) 323 -1602 • FAX (206) 325 -0442 City of Tukwila Planning Department 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, WA 98188 Attn: Molly Headley January 5, 1990 RE: Crystal Springs Park, Design Review Application, revised Site /Landscape Plan. Dear Molly; The attached Site /Landscape Plan for Crystal Springs Park has been revised to address parking issues raised at the 12/14/89 Planning Commission meeting. Major changes include: • Expansion of the existing parking lot by five stalls. • Widening of South 158th St. to safely accomodate on street parking. • Addition of landscaping to visually enhance parking areas. We have also redrawn the plan to improve its readibility. The attached copy is a 90% complete drawing for review. I will check with you for changes and additions before making final reductions and full size copies next week. Sincerely, Carl Stixrood cc. Don Williams, Director, Department of Parks and Recreation attachments • City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila Washington 98188 (206) 433 -1800 Gary L. VanDusen, Mayor CITY OF TUKWILA PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 14, 1989 The meeting was called to order at 8:00 p.m. by Chairman Jim Haggerton. Members present were Messrs. Haggerton, Hamilton, Cagle, Flesher, Kirsop, Knudson and Gomez. Representing the staff were Moira Bradshaw, Molly Headley, Darren Wilson and Joanne Johnson. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - MR. HAMILTON MOVED AND MR. CAGLE SECONDED A MOTION TO APPROVE THE NOVEMBER 9 & 16, 1989 MINUTES AS PRESENTED. MOTION UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED. 89 -2 -CA - SENSITIVE AREA OVERLAY ZONE - Planning Commission deliberation on adoption of an ordinance for a Sensitive Areas Overlay Zone within the Zoning Code. Moira Bradshaw, Associate Planner, reviewed the status of the Sensitive Area Ordinance, thus far. She reported that the Council approved the moratorium ordinance and the establishment of a Citizen Advisory Committee for review of the SAO. Discussion ensued on the merits of a Citizen Advisory Committee at this stage of the SAO review and the role of the Planning Commission in this process. MR. HAMILTON MOVED AND MR. KIRSOP SECONDED A MOTION TO APPOINT JACK FLESHER AS THE PLANNING COMMISSION REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE CITIZEN ADVISORY COMMITTEE. MOTION UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED. Discussion ensued as to role of the Planning Commission in the SAO review process and the best way to communicate the concerns of Commission to the City Council. MR. HAMILTON MOVED AND MR. FLESHER SECONDED A MOTION THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION CHAIRMAN BE AUTHORIZED TO APPEAR BEFORE THE NEXT CITY COUNCIL MEETING AND EXPRESS THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S CONCERNS TO THE COUNCIL, AS DISCUSSED AT TONIGHT'S MEETING. MOTION UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED. Ms. Bradshaw introduced Bob Benedicto, DCD Plans Checker, to explain the use of consultants in the plans review process. Planning Commission December 14, 1989 Page 2 Mr. Benedicto explained the plans review process and when a consultant's expertise is required. Ms. Bradshaw explained another alternative which is a three party contract. She discussed the merits of this approach. More discussion ensued on the Sensitive Area Ordinance and how much time and effort the Commission should spend on it in its present form. Also discussed was the role of the SAO Citizen Advisory Committee and Commission's role. The Commission felt that a new SAO ordinance needs to be drafted using the Planning Staff and input from the SAO Citizen Advisory Committee, they would then forward this information on to the City Council. MR. HAMILTON MOVED MR. GOMEZ SECONDED A MOTION TO REJECT THE PROPOSED SAO IN ITS ENTIRETY BECAUSE HE FELT THE ORDINANCE WAS DRAFTED HASTILY, AND NOT A LOT OF THOUGHT WAS PUT INTO IT AT THE TIME OF ITS DRAFTING, HE FELT THAT THE IMPACTS THAT IT IS GOING TO HAVE ON THE PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN THE CITY OF TUKWILA ARE GREAT, AND AS BROUGHT UP AT THE PUBLIC HEARING, THERE ARE PEOPLE WHO HAVE PURCHASED PROPERTY YEARS AGO AND WHO HAVE COUNTED ON THE VALUE OF THAT PROPERTY TO BE THERE - -THEIR RETIREMENT STAKE, SO TO SPEAK, THEREFORE, HE FELT THEY DESERVE CONSIDERATION; HE FELT THE AMERICAN WAY IS THAT THE PROPERTY OWNER HAS A RIGHT TO DEVELOP HIS PROPERTY AND THIS IS NOT COVERED IN THE ORDINANCE ADEQUATELY; HE FELT ALSO THAT THE ORDINANCE DOES NOT COVER THAT IF THE CITY WANTS THE PROPERTY TO BE A SENSITIVE AREA IN TERMS OF FOLIAGE OR IN TERMS OF WETLAND, THEY HAVE GOT TO BE PREPARED, IN HIS JUDGE- MENT, TO COME FORWARD WITH A PLAN FOR THE PEOPLE AS TO HOW THAT IS GOING TO BE HANDLED SPECIFICALLY, SO PEOPLE ARE NOT LEFT HANGING; HE FELT, AS ALSO BROUGHT UP IN THE PUBLIC HEARING, THAT EACH AREA THAT WOULD BE DESIGNATED THAT COULD POSSIBLY BE A SENSITIVE AREA WOULD HAVE TO BE LOOKED AT ON ITS OWN INDIVIDUAL MERIT, AND HE FELT THE SAO SHOULD STATE THAT - -YOU CAN'T COME UP WITH A PANACEA AND SAY THAT ITS GOING TO COVER ALL WETLANDS AND ALL GREENBELTS AND ALL HILLSIDES - -IT'S GOT TO BE A SPECIFIC SITE BY SITE EVALUATION; AND, AS ALSO BROUGHT UP IN THE PUBLIC HEAR- ING, HE FIRMLY BELIEVED THAT THERE SHOULD BE AN APPEALS PROCESS, FOR THOSE WHOSE LAND IS DESIGNATED AS A SENSITIVE AREA, AS THEY OUGHT TO HAVE A RIGHT AND PROCESS WHEREBY THEY CAN COME TO THE GOVERNING BODY OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA AND HAVE THEIR PSEUDO DAY IN COURT WITHOUT HAVING TO ACTUALLY HIRE LAWYERS AND GO TO COURT. FOR THOSE REASONS, HE WOULD AGAIN MOVE THAT WE REJECT THE PRO- POSED ORDINANCE IN ITS ENTIRETY AND SEND IT INTO THE HANDS OF THE COMMITTEE - -OF WHICH THE PLANNING COMMISSION WILL HAVE A MEMBER; AND WHEN THIS COMMITTEE HAS GOTTEN THROUGH WITH THEIR EVALUATION AND IS PREPARED TO MAKE THEIR RECOMMENDATIONS AND OFFER THEIR PROPOSAL, THAT PROPOSAL WOULD BE OFFERED TO THE PLANNING COMMIS- SION FIRST, BEFORE IT IS GIVEN TO THE COUNCIL IN A FASHION THAT AS WE ALL KNOW IS THE NORMAL WAY OF DOING BUSINESS. Planning Commission December 14, 1989 Page 3 THE MOTION PASSED WITH CAGLE, GOMEZ, KIRSOP, HAGGERTON, HAMILTON AND KNUDSON VOTED YES; AND MR. FLESHER VOTING NO. It was determined after further discussion that the Planning Commission will next evaluate the SAO when the SAO Citizen Advisory Committee comes to them with a report. It was the consensus of the Commission to meet two nights per month to meet the work program needs of 1990. 89 - 8 - DR - CRYSTAL SPRINGS PARK - PHASE II A request for a determination on parking requirements for Phase II of Crystal Springs Park. Molly Headley, Assistant Planner, reviewed the staff report, recommending approval of the proposal without requiring addi- tional parking spaces. Don Williams, Tukwila Parks and Recreation Department Director, further explained the project, pointing out that the existing parking for Phase I is not fully utilized, therefore he does not see a need for additional parking for Phase II. Carl Stixrud, architect for the project, discussed the elevations in the area of the project. John Barnes, 15828 51st Avenue S. has a difficult time getting home due to the congestion on the street next to the basketball court due to the narrow width of the street at that point. He was concerned with parking in front of his property which would be created as a result of the addition of Phase II. Discussion ensued on the proposal. MR. HAMILTON MOVED AND KNUDSON SECONDED A MOTION TO REJECT THE APPLICATION BASED ON THE FACT THAT THE PARKING PLAN IS INADEQUATE AND FURTHER RECOMMENDS THAT A PLAN BE BROUGHT BACK TO THE COMMIS- SION THAT REFLECTS ADEQUATE PARKING FOR FIVE OR TEN YEARS IN THE FUTURE, BASED ON REASONABLE GROWTH (USAGE) FOR THE PARK. MOTION PASSED WITH GOMEZ, KIRSOP, FLESHER, HAGGERTON, HAMILTON AND KNUDSON VOTING YES. MR. CAGLE VOTED NO. 89 -10 -DR 6 89 -3 -CDP - BECKER TRANSFER - Request for permission to build a parking facility for employee parking and semi -truck trailer parking. Planning Commission December 14, 1989 Page 4 Ms. Molly Headley, staff representative, reviewed the design review portion of the request, recommending approval with two conditions which include deletion of the site's entry point off East Marginal Way and the placement of wheel stops in parking spaces adjacent to landscape areas. Mr. Jeff Mann, Pac -Tech Engineering, Inc. represented the ap- plicant, reviewed the history of the operation. He pointed out on a site plan the relocation of the driveway which will reflect a distance of 80 -foot from the neighbor's house to the south. This site plan was entered into the record as Exhibit "A ". He asked that the Commission approve the entry on East Marginal Way. He further described a catch basin and street improvements planned for the site. Mr. Edwin Becker, owner of the operation also asked that access onto East Marginal Way be approved. Ms. Shirley Robinson, 13422 - 40th Avenue S. explained that King County allowed for spot zoning for this operation to go in. She asked the Commission to postpone the hearing on this proposal so other neighbors in the area would have an opportunity to testify. She also felt that his operation was an eyesore. She further stated that King County's requirements for his operation have been ignored and no amount of landscaping would improve the situation because it is lower than surrounding neighbors. Mr. Bill Scheffler, 4033 S. 128th spoke in opposition to the proposal. He felt that insufficient public notification was given which resulted in only a few given the opportunity to voice their objections to this request. He felt that this request would result in the expansion of this business to a truck leasing and sale business. He read from a report, entered into the record as Exhibit "B ", of prior King County action, and reported that the conditions of approval were never met. A letter in opposition to the request from Beverly A. Nicholson was entered into the record as Exhibit "C ". He also read into the record a letter of objection from Paul and Betty Gully, entered as Exhibit "D ". A letter from Janice Scheffler was entered as Exhibit "E" with an attached photo as Exhibit "F ". Allan Ekberg, 4123 S. 130th also wanted the hearing postponed so others could speak, as there was lack of proper notification of the hearing. He felt the proposed landscaping was not adequate due to the 13.5 foot height of the truck /trailers. He suggested landscaping be placed on a berm to increase the height of the landscaping and screening effect. He mentioned the noise and traffic impacts this operation would have. Planning Commission December 14, 1989 Page 5 Barbara Davidsion, 4020 S. 128th, felt Mr. Becker kept his operation up and felt the neighbors were being unfair in their criticism of Mr. Becker. Mr. Gary Evans, 4020 S. 128th felt the noise of the Becker operation did not compare to the airplane noise. He also felt that there are not that many trucks parked there. Kathy Stetson, 13258 - 40th Avenue S. felt that this request constituted an expansion of his operation. She further stated that storm drainage was not adequately addressed, and expressed concern with traffic impacts on East Marginal Way. She felt there was not much confidence in him to abide by the Commissions wishes due to his past record in ignoring King County's condi- tions. Jeff Mann, Pac -Tech Engineering explained that the request would not result in expansion to a truck sales and leasing. It was for his business only that trucks needed to be purchased and sold. The sign, he stated, is located on the original location - -not the property currently in the review process for design review and conditional use permit. He assured the Commission that Mr. Becker would comply with all City standards. Mr. Pat Becker, Becker Trucking, stated that people top their trees used for landscaping for Christmas trees. Regarding noise, he felt their trucks made less noise the Detroit Diesels trucks. Mr. Mann reiterated the landscaping buffer will be adequate and tractors on the property will only be used to take trailers off the property. The Public Hearing was closed on the design review portion of the request. Molly Headley reviewed the request for a Conditional Use Permit and the criteria used in granting the permit and how this ap- plication addresses these criteria. She stated staff recommends approval for the Conditional Use Permit with the condition that the applicant agree to a Cash Assignment of 150% of the cost of landscaping to include materials, labor and maintenance, to be installed per the BAR plan, and to be installed in six months. Jeff Mann, Pac -Tech Engineering, explained the street improve- ments and storm water drainage facility planned for East Marginal Way. He felt this request is a lower density use compared to other allowed uses. He stated the applicant concurs with all conditions imposed by the City. Planning Commission December 14, 1989 Page 6 Allan Ekberg, stated that no permit was obtained for the sign for truck leasing and sales, and if they are allowed to park trucks on the proposed property, it will free up room to park more trucks on the original site - -thus potentially increasing their operation. It will provide a more intense use of their operation. He felt conditions should be placed by the City to prohibit expansion of his operation, truck leasing and sales should not be allowed. Wants the City to establish a baseline for the amount of trucks in their operation to ensure compliance. Jeff Mann assured the Commission Mr. Becker will accept whatever conditions the City wishes to place on their operation. The public hearing was closed and a short recess was called. The meeting reconvened at 10:30 p.m. Discussion on the proposal ensued. MR. CAGLE MOVED AND KIRSOP SECONDED A MOTION TO APPROVE 89 -3 -CUP BECKER TRANSFER AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF. MR. CAGLE AMENDED THE MOTION TO INCLUDED THE BUYING AND SELLING OF VEHICLES IS PROHIBITED. MOTION UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED. MR. CAGLE AMENDED THE MOTION TO ALSO INCLUDE THE CONDITION THAT THE APPLICANT AGREE TO A CASH ASSIGNMENT OF 150% OF THE COST OF LANDSCAPING TO INCLUDE MATERIALS, LABOR AND MAINTENANCE, TO BE INSTALLED PER THE BAR PLAN, AND TO BE INSTALLED IN SIX MONTHS. AMENDMENT SECONDED BY KIRSOP AND UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED. KIRSOP MOVED AND FLESHER SECONDED A MOTION TO APPROVE THE DESIGN REVIEW 89 -10 -DR - BECKER TRANSFER SUBJECT TO STAFF CONDITIONS. Conditions read as follows: 1. Prior to issuance of Building Permit, the applicant shall submit for review a revised site plan indicating the follow- ing: a. Deletion of entry point shown on plan off East Marginal Way. b. Placement of wheel stops in parking spaces adjacent to landscape areas. • KIRSOP AMENDED THE MOTION TO INCLUDE THE EFFECTIVE HEIGHT OF THE LANDSCAPING SCREENING WILL BE AT LEAST 10 FEET, TO BE ACHIEVED BY INCREASED TREE HEIGHT OR BERMING. FLESHER SECONDED THE AMENDMENT. MOTION UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED. Planning Commission December 14,1989 Page 7 89 - - SPE - MEYER SIGN CO - Request for special permission for a permanent wall sign of 20 square feet for A House of Clocks. Darren Wilson, Assistant Planner, reviewed the staff report for this request, recommending approval. Paul Ramquist, Meyer Sign Co. further described details of the sign. MR. KNUDSON MOVED AND CAGLE SECONDED A MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF 89- 6-SPE MEYER SIGN CO FOR SPECIAL PERMISSION FOR A PERMANENT WALL SIGN OF 20 SQUARE FEET, BASED UPON STAFF'S FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS. MOTION UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED. ELECTION OF OFFICERS - MR. KNUDSON MOVED AND MR. HAMILTON SECONDED A MOTION TO RE -ELECT FOR 1990 THE SAME SLATE OF OFFICERS AS THIS YEAR (MR. HAGGERTON AS CHAIRMAN AND MR. CAGLE AS VICE - CHAIRMAN). MOTION UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED. DIRECTOR'S REPORT Ms. Bradshaw advised that the Council is considering amending the moratorium ordinance to allow continuation of some of the exist- ing applications. The next Planning Commission meeting is scheduled for January 25, 1990. ADJOURNMENT - The meeting was adjourned at 11:10 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, Joanne Johnson, Secretary HEARING DATE: FILE NUMBER: APPLICANT: REQUEST: LOCATION: ACREAGE: City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila Washington 98188 (206) 433 -1800 Gary L. VanDusen, Mayor COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: ZONING DISTRICT: SEPA DETERMINATION: ATTACHMENTS: STAFF REPORT BOARD OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW PREPARED DECEMBER 7, 1989 December 14, 1989 89 -8-DR / Epic 17 -89 City of Tukwila Develop Phase Two of existing park to provide additional recreation space and restroom facilities North of 160th And West of 51st Ave. South SE 1/4 of Section 22, Township 23N, Range 4E 8 Acres Parks /Open Space R-1-12.0 Residential Determination of Nonsignificance dated July 17, 1989 A. Landscape /Site Plan for Overall Park B. Landscape /Site Plan for Phase Two C. Detail of Restroom Facility STAFF REPORT to the B.A.R. BACKGROUND VICINITY /SITE INFORMATION 89 -8-DR Crystal Springs Park Phase II Page 2 FINDINGS 1 1. Project description: Site to be developed as a passive park for walking, play and picnics. Phase 2 of Pre- existing park. 2. Existing development: Used informally as a running, walking park. 3. Surrounding Land Use: North - undeveloped land; South and East- single- family residential and undeveloped land; west - single - family residential. 4. Terrain: Rolling topography with a steep slope running from the SE corner to the NW corner. Steepest slope on the site is 1:1 (100 %). 5. Vegetation: Deciduous and evergreen trees and shrubs as well as wet soil plants are found on the site. 6. Soils: The upper four acres is free draining gravely, sandy outwash. The area with a steep slope is composed of fine sand. The lower four acres is fine sand and muck underlain by impervious clay. 7. Access: Pedestrian entrances are located off 51st Avenue South and South 160th Street. 8. Public Facilities: Park and restroom facilities are for public use. The site plan for Crystal Springs Park was originally developed in 1978 and this proposal is an expansion of the original. It will provide additional recreation space and public restroom facilities. The site is designated for Parks /Open Space in the Comprehensive Plan and has been used as a park historically. The environmental factors have been addressed through the SEPA process. The City has issued a Determination of Nonsignificance. The purpose of this review is to determine the amount of parking required for the second phase of development for CRYstal Springs Park. A park is considered a public facility and TMC 18.56.05 states that "parking for public facilities must be determined by the Planning Commission." At the present time there are no set criteria by which to evaluate the number and amount of parking spaces in park facilities in Tukwila. STAFF REPORT 89 -8-DR( .rystal Springs Park Phase II to the B.A.R. Page 3 DECISION CRITERIA The proposal is to develop an eight acre site as Phase Two of a pre - existing park. The anticipated activity of the site is passive as the design includes areas for walking, running, picnicking and a children's play area, all considered passive activities. As shown by Attachment B, no parking is proposed on site. The adjacent phase one part of the park which includes a basketball and tennis court has a parking area for 12 automobiles. The restroom facility will be located in the phase one area, in a location which is central to both areas, and will provide a much needed amenity for the overall park. Park policies concerning parking requirements for adjacent cities including Renton, Kent and Auburn were polled and the following information was obtained: 1. Neighborhood parks in general are not required to have on -site parking. A neighborhood park is generally characterized by the following: a. small size b. not having recreation features which would attract a large population. c. planned around walking, running and biking trails and children's play equipment. d. uses are intended to be served by walk or bike access only 2. Rationale for not requiring parking included the following: a. concerns about safety in response to complaints about objectionable activities in park parking lots after dark b. neighboring residents concerns over traffic congestion and aesthetics c. anticipated low levels of use by users outside neighborhood area 3. Alternatives to parking which were acceptable in certain circumstances included on- street parking and utilization of existing parking lots. If activities were scheduled at the site, parking was required. CONCLUSIONS 1 A sample survey of the site during peak use indicates a lack of heavy use of the existing parking lot. In view of the low level of use anticipated as a result of the passive recreation elements provided by the park it is unlikely that additional parking will be required. A street widening improvement project will be done in conjunction with this park project. This will result in the widening of 51st Avenue South to include a parking lane which could safely accommodate up to 14 cars on the west side of the street. STAFF. REPORT to the B.A.R. 89 -8-DR: Crystal Springs Park Phase II Page 4 RECOMMENDATIONS The Planning Division recommends the proposal be accepted without requiring additional parking spaces. 1 n f I cg i I. LLJ • (5. utrun.lew ,5 rutt-tt N T.KY !Li Krt. 1 • _ 0 • , - 0 j ; Krji . I ., _ • ao . - t . 114 • • •.ktrikwe " cr-L "lq 1).• —11 Q1211 . • r Tt --t f -aumme.ik woos . r 1 CRESTVIEW NEIGHBORHOOD CALE • CIrrcr 1UKWILA • 014c. c.ommuNtry tyvr.LOPMEJ,JT • DE.C.E./119P-fi , 1114. • C. S SITE COM' . N 1.01. C .-••••-••••:„ 01\ \ ,\, r. • ' ' 4-.4.4„, :............. • -:, • . 1 0. . , • ,,,, .. .r.,..... - . t; • • t..- • CRYSTAL SPRINGS PARK ATTACHMENT A h NOTE: e • • • • SOUTH 160TH STREET c • i NAT ✓.1_ Flaw .. 911411 C. J4 ,L LI tug. • P ATHS Aa�OVE fA1L AY : PG..LGW nDSU �T TG' FIT • ?ATLAS nom_ AFB W LT - ' hAAx. .srss IS %% C. tiNJ17tJ.' ' f - PATHS Age. GL•J yt.LD 7..."i�K- •••-■ . _ t• - . - : - ' ' .. •• 5' t✓A1..1.$ Al•E TO t NM 17% WAt Atf, 45. �i11.pTN •t De. GAF CIl1I.TG0 W� GIRC1 - I.ZC CEi iMPFT1VrJI.LwfT 1JLCK Aoar G7 11 VEV- IG 241••4 ; ant. 1> }t'�UFIGAL -`T 1- 1.:T^C_ 'P. AL:.... -1-2ELS --c pt'1A` .'r. L..00rt 1144' L /... `NOrz..K. t' Awn. ALL'• I.,-r, •Z. ' - ,Z- TAjV 4 G7L I�.LT"i k3['LDE7 1 -..T11 '•otDr'. Or= TRt =GT. f- .IISTIrJ �. iAJC KSN� � 1.vGe'J :/� _L•vEUD flwcK • e GOVC¢.x7 Th�LL w `,�STzL.M CEx1STIM� " � f'ATti ( ?KOPOSED� OJEL 10' OG14%4Lor. OVU.. IP: LI A. a Pf:rv. LtbNT CA • •�-•. - -- -- NEW i�ZAi1J a Lar PItF - PaL�L f'A>`KI t !!� - J E5T SITE 1H GACS Pti`vMT..- RESTzZo� M ir_ i +1 �.-' -T ' 'moo: .1't o LAw� - \ • ...r. rq,�yy._ ] de..: wa — - o "--•� l. I1:i./ • ExTi. �iT.V C> / � - OV E. eHE.eD Ycw Z. LI I.UES rO 1>E. :Jfi ✓= 2(�j+�'v A. ?hlr OF �= r °T GL?.YT'fr:_ Si'7_11.14S PA1 PKA 'E 11 G-ITY ✓F T•J14- %.l1i...Pc Dt?t e P7.1 =K' .. 4 Rg.c..Z.r.J.T1c14 LAN •wI:.1-1/..Mb • I I^$LTOK 56,HE.MAT16 PLP.1.1 'V-_ /•ti 1.10.7 H ...- .∎.i..E.: 1`= W0■6 r w • \z . a.. • A C;, • s Ght.:.owr, G./04 . ' ^e1l�F� TL• F T'r 1 U T•T Cf G 7 - � CL \ lc(/' t ., • r . CRYSTAL SPRINGS PARK ATTACHMENT B 3 10 7. em4c4zerr-. 6.1 o1 33 34 /// CULVF I ts.le_v/ w co\ CA L-%LI a y./F.ST SOUTH 160TH STREET 1.10T e" w rks:r /\VE. ....3C FO ,- Y I - r•v_.A1 - T' fATRS Nze.- Ne=11-Vm... - r•AAx.. c-t:A.Pr• t S I }ke- e.--r-t.).-kr...47 7 • •• r • •, • - 5' 4.1.4.1-t-S GONG-7E4:M. 4:1C.A.PE. 101.4.4. <-___TVeY.:1.7 • t'-A%. l7X r WALK. A.3.24-44. "r 72:1 c.,--x NAV v IX eIr3.-V:T NAP1 WOCL.K., AL-t- r•d\ATI.-r-.• A ■-kr Ic7" t A. A=A.-• T V-1. /.\ L) J 1C- CA t C••/■4-t- 1- A. L.- L. / Al 1 t 1"?..1" 1 \a/1 V-- 1)4 AL-1... Wog-K. wir e.PF- et 5 l'Avr."=• 13" w , . s 1Z K - MAI Li 4 •••••A."- mart% •ts7r.-_.. ar- 14E.11-1 A. t•-1 l'INV P&T. t=i 4.c •P 1 Ex 1 ST i•-4 ■.3.) 64/■I'L-r- ArEtt. ic pt 601_1(*E.c. ews.r... 1 0: 'I a PAT LI&KT E-W rn..kstia 11-AL-ST To • 14 c..".g..s T rfrc•-■(.‘qc, . • ' \-" \ • I ---,e. • ` 414 I 1- N4F---■&-I A1- \ F TANK- ri 64 le- avcc-AkE-. r0v4P-Z- tt 1 U -19 A. rhliCT c2v. I r r. 1. 1.1 • • . • s • \ , • . . • • • \\\ t I • 10 3 CRYS1 11.1` \Z 4 G)ht /JT T-rJt � ,, tar- or AE �rrt:•y -; J t 1J t. t Ii/ K tAC-N i (\ — / - J. 5- H ccvicet r7.13L-t ( ExITIt4(1) — Pf.7 t4 (i' a oPOS� D� ' ' P'tV trt: U/6K. Imo Al h. 601-11 *Er- Gv CAL lO pi • P /:Tii Ll( T (AP? 7 -47 , -. - -- �.iGW 3�PJ.11.1 11-1,1-ST • _._ w1t7e-1-1 To • l.r_e-et.Aol p. PAR -ALL f%\T�KI N(� - W EST SIDE_ I GnF�i • 4 11—D EtJS ? A•( hR rl Gi4\ iJ tJt=t V•t` o t' \ TAW le-- \ •; • .v L ?' - F.. -K1N G • \ C.. OV C e11F =AD ri,v lt' - -Q- L-1 tugs -T Uti•1Ge.5 e7f�• -'oWn AS Twicr O� t ��"'t• F 1A3� 11 LITY �F TOY—Wit—At i1V t.1 \/.l 11-1-1 A N1�✓ I71 e-F�T0g. 5C; 1-1E- 1�'�ATIC_ FL-P.1 .1 a /z-/ + i 1..1otZTH ' ,%aLE: 1"..: yd R.1 " . /z ;' . Isgt \A - •-N. b i- '_ -.:tom -•.. •� \ CTYt, •., ti ` 7'. • �J • • G. At.t_014 c,„/„.1.,% • :i '1 o LA vi 1_I ,' ' / .1 i r \'-, r_‘,----z---.7: ." . , -5 l fl/ MiN: .. .. t 5 � 1 '' \ /\ \ / �,� % r: t l \ ` G. ' , 14- 1 1J r : • T � v E a�T 1 ' - %1 e f TVKW%LA , •\ L r-_IV • • A �ril S yiJ.Y ') 1 I / t 'Vr4 tav^ �I awe /•� / / , •r:4 5 • F 4� w_—, ^ I 1 • .. J- -• : , , ...!-L \ —_, , - 1 ' ' 1 1 'O 1-1 - t:GT Tc- . 1= .T ti , S ,15„.., 'J__ w11.1e. , ) i / 7 { J r.,. F.''' Ps ■ 0 8R--z-DR CRYSTAL SPRINGS PARK ATTACHMENT B 3 a r 1. ft 160TH STREET L 1\ ;1;1 .•. 1 ` NEW CEer NEW G NN.N (..FWU LII4K RTN WESS ' I / „r. rATHS AG.P/6 •WAICWAY TRAILS- ADSUST TO Vrr fArHS Aea ASPHALT - AAAa. VeAPR e= 15% C HAA)r lu.P ALGESSIM.E.) �• •ATIW A¢E GLIJSMW 4;.K MAR. L T,TT*G 1.7 20% nve .a✓ $' WA-V- -S ARE CoNcieT . SIDEUAL3L't (yAOE TO TOLWV STRE(:T • ?M*. 17% SL 'rr WALK A�1•I(. S16p TH Ta R. GcrsW1IJ..TGV W/ GVIIMEMT IMrarOVLNEI41 WORK ALL pAAPLGS AWE GOI.11PE GVLL. IG' V1. AL.-_ re, £.EM n....f UNLE •a•s RiMOJA• IS SPED % ' C.ALt -Y I - 1Q1 ALA- ALPER. T" -ELS A r. 're - 1}E C_.1-C ARP.v IU >rAl.l 12' STOCK PLA14 + CAMAS Y31.LTS 31GLDCG COIN P4 W. FEU' T 1 1�� PP4,r-we,4r •vc.d LE(sCUD g v Tr eat ��J[LTJ.M (ExISTll.761) _l. PA'r (PRor1 sw) MArLE over. wept... a PArN ucI t (Ar'rROA. um.) MEW vLA04 4.1,1.117 WNGd "J' T .Lt is Pcr- GWOvAra rAccAL L tAa cs Nb - wr.r slot 1H GALS 6H%L171Z.FJ.15 PLAY MUM ►.1ew �rRt�n Gkh/,1NtL FLOM TANK t'IGIJIG SHELrE& (ad* R6'STtcanM OVEr_imAp Z LILIES TP 6E R..►.ED (.JA19E -Ir- ILO✓Atc ,& - PArt - 'P - Te=RT M rLdv Ernc u T TI" sa & C- X ThL SPiall.l IS r4 P1ASt- 11 CITY of TUKwtt...h Reim •4=41. rArirs IMI101,1 SCHEMATIC rLf.14 yfyb. - Lyrari ga6AL&: r:w' -ar :. Marsala ea am& asarry 1 • Ix _5 • • •; itj Q • ij • " n 1 FLOOR PLAN 41'. I O L- IODF O■CII•^NG SECT THP-0UW4 TA44K I j l9YALf a weRMS BEAT. •ww FwT $Tw•�I��w•MM •MlKpNS- NORTH ELEVATION SOUTH ELEVATION , 14' • I' 0' EAST ELEVATION 111 • I ._ O . I II i ll li I,; :I .. f! i.l Ili WEST ELEVATION 114' •1._O. RESTROOM -PLAN d ELEVATIONS LIGHTS ♦ TANI iG A Z ;4"c".:12"..4 WALKWAY POLE LUMINAIRE ..olo«.I. rr.0 I r.. g, ! �lxa vcwru+aa..) h'- -la -a r Wo 1011 kld Yrrrial 4.0 M]0. oa•r..C.K11/. N1 .O,(a I POLE •332.1.0e3 D[S.OMD N ry }/a. An0GoLas :NA mom.* morACIVOORI. Mar rfLoCar woo 2 ow■C.11 *IRIDryQ 5yMt)tl. a a It. w WAY*" ._. xr ran0Aryl DC* c ROAD WAY POLE ¢ LU M I NAl .E - ' II ,,.,,' CRYSTAL SPRINGS PARK PHASE 2 1:. .x I` - ' ' A . ' � _ ` /,�Q ALPHA ENGINEERS INC. I rr. . PRINTED Si. 25 rib . * 4A Ed'lll IEERS. INC F. i i 4 k: - - • 4r 1 n, o., .— . Molly Headley, Planning Don Williams, Parks and November 30, 1989 Crystal Springs Park information. MEMO TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: City of Tukwila Tukwila Community Center 4101 South 131st Street Tukwila, Washington 98168 Parks & Recreation Department 243 -5198 Intern Recreation Director Phase II - Supplemental During discussions at a recent pre - application meeting, opinions were expressed about parking for the park. I believe it may be helpful to explain our position concerning this item and provide some additional information. The eleven acre park is bisected by 51st Ave. South, creating a three acre site to the east and an eight acre site on the west. In our Environmental Checklist submission for Phase I, we indicated this second phase would develop the eight acre section in a limited way, trying to keep most of this area in a natural condition. The first phase area contains a lighted tennis court, basketball court, temporary restrooms and picnic tables. The Parks and Recreation Department recommended eight parking stalls be built. The Planning staff recommended 12, which is what was built. A formula was used to determine the need for 12 stalls, however, the formula is based only on estimates for what is needed to service Phase I facilities. Since the park's cons- truction, planners and parks staff have observed low use of the parking lot and never seen it full even on the best days. The addition of a covered picnic area and small play area will generate additional park use, however, we do not feel additional on site parking stalls are needed. One difference between Phase I and II is the fact that a street widening improvement project will be done in conjunction with the park project. The west side of 51st Ave. South will include a parking lane to safely accommodate 14 cars. I know these can not be counted as "on site" parking, but it will provide safe usable parking space if needed. Also, 51st Ave. South in this location is a dead end road, adding to the roadway safety for this area. Looking at the entire site plan one can see the existing parking area is centrally located, requiring users to walk less than 300 feet to the most popular area of the park. From this parking area handicap access is available to the major areas. We did investigate adding some stalls to the east side of Phase II, however without need and the desire to not impact the sensitive areas no parking construction is planned. �- Iii iN�r PARK -ro PRav! P& AOC) 16.14 RScizF�rc J PA ,Q 112 RAT & pct fAct L 1 - rt�5 Ut- PPCt 51 N I N CI, C94/{J AU/2r po`rE('A [ i AIA:r, of" PA'QK4 P ► u I c. �I����G z- aft w g � ,� 9 1 , 4y 6-� e 614 v 9i m P E C AK,150 c le tJ 5 ( , uar RG-z , N G C� b 6441am tm & /W,ee, eao ,cu 07` rhopeda-e--. Lv /6 viacte4 4• ' Our consultant, Carl Stixwood, made several phone calls to nearby park developments. Kent provides parking for athletic parks, but not for neighborhood parks. Renton has a requirement for on site parking, but for this type of park they ask for a waiver and are usually granted the requests. Auburn tries to limit the number of stalls, (none for parks under 4 acres) they have received objections from neighbors that feel parking areas add to problems rather than eliminate them. It is my request, taking in all considerations that we not be required to add additional parking stalls. I believe the 12 stalls that were developed on site in Phase I will adequately serve the entire park. DW /rr csp STIXR 11/21/89 Carl TEL No.206- 325 -0442 Nov.21,89 10:45 P.01 Stixrood Associates Landscape Architecture /Environmental Planning 2525 Boyer Avenue East Seattle, WA 98102 (206) 323 -1602, Fax (206) 325 -0442 To: Don Williams RE: Adding more information on Phase I of Crystal Springs Park to our present drawing, I have reviewed the drawing materials I have on hand related to Crystal Springs Park Phase 1 and suggest the following approach to provide Phase I informat to to supplement our design review submittal. The simplest and clearest direction will be to add to the site plan recently submitted. This will require cutting the left margin off the existing original and splicing it to the right hand side to provide room for illustrating the west 300 feet of the Phase 1 site. I assume the information required is for land use analysis rather than construction documents so the quantity and general location of facilities is more Important than exact layout, size and elevations. To make this addition in a cost effective manner, I propose to trace Information from the previous design review submittal onto the new map, moving present text as required. I will also add information from drawings on file and from memory regarding picnic tables, play areas and paths to aid in evaluating circulation and parking issues for the park. Our original, which is already showing signs of wear may show more signs of wear after this next revision, however I will try to clean it up as best I can. A revised drawing will cost far less than a redrawn version so I feel it is best to work with what we have so far. I suggest a minor adjustment be made in the stream outlet from the tank by moving it to the north side of the tank at this time to slightly improve the layout. I estimate that the drawing will take one half day or less. Reprinting of ten copies and an 11 x 17 inch PMT reduction should cost less than 50 dollars. I plan to go ahead and do this work on Wednesday. Please let me know if something has changed and I should revise my direction. To: Don Williams 11/20/89 Re: Parking policies for Neighborhood parks, Renton, Kent, Auburn Don, Stixrood Associates Landscape Architecture /Environmental Planning 2525 Boyer Avenue East Seattle, WA 98102 (206) 323-1602, Fax (206) 325-0442 I called parks staff in Cities adjacent to Tukwila regarding their policies related to parking for neighborhood parks and received the following comments. City of Renton, John Webly, 235-2568 ' The City has a requirement for on site parking for all parks, however, the Parks Department obtains a waiver of the requirement In cases of some small neighborhood parks where uses are intended to be served by walk or bike in access only. City of Auburn, Dick Deal, 931-3043 City of Auburn neighborhood parks generally have no parking. They are usually less than four acres in size and planned for walking and bike access only. The policy of limited parking for neighborhood facilities is in response to complaints about objectionable activities In park parking lots after dark. Dick said the City of Auburn began providing picnic shelters about four years ago and has found them to be extremely popular for family gatherings. If use is reserved and scheduled for specific groups, parking Is provided nearby. City of Kent, Barney Wilson, 859 -3992 The City of Kent doesn't provide parking for neighborhood parks which are small (under five acres) and contain children's play areas and similar facilities primarily designed to serve nearby residents who will walk or bike to the site. Barney Wilson indicated that the main criteria they use for determining if parking is needed is if uses proposed include organized sports or scheduled activities. In these cases the park department looks for ways to use nearby parking facilities such as park and ride lots where shared use is a STIXR Meeting Notes Crystal Springs Park City of Tukwila, City Hall November 16, 1989 Prepared by Carl Stixrood TEL No.206- 325 -0442 Nov.17,89 11 10 P.01 St ixrood Associates Landscape Architecture /Planning Subjects discussed and possible action options: Present Rick Beeler Molly Headley Jack Pace Phil Fraser Becky Davis Duane Griffin 1. The major concern expressed was from Rick Beeler with regard to parking. He felt that it was too far between the 12 car on site parking lot and the picnic shelter /play area for people to walk carrying picnic supplies. He indicated that people would probably use adjacent on street parking by choice over parking in the existing on site lot. His reason for concern over this was that approval might imply a consideration of the proposed on street parking in the determination of parking supply. He felt this could set a precedent for Planning Commission decisions which could negatively affect regulation of private project on site parking provisions. Staff suggestions for resolution were to move the picnic and play areas to the phase 1 site near existing parking and play areas and the proposed restroom. Arguments advanced on behalf of the proposed design include: This is a public project for public benefit. The project purpose is to provide opportunity for family recreation in proximity to site water features and natural areas. Moving the picnic and play areas to the phase 1 site would substantially reduce the family recreation benefit created by the placement of picnic and play facilities adjacent to streams and natural areas. Development of parking on the lower part of the phase 2 site would negatively affect'the natural site attractions and undermine project objectives, Most private commercial and multifamily proposals in the City might occur in areas where on street parking is not available. The park location is somewhat unique in that on street parking will be available. 2525 Boyer Avenue East Seattle, WA 98102 (206) 323-1602 1:› al %t-Uht 1'0r\ C-A 1, . `;1.14';ir STIXR TEL No.206 -325 -0442 Nov.17,89 11 11 P.02 Stixrood Associates Landscape Architecture /Planning We may wish to document these special project circumstances for inclusion in the Planning Commission decision to illustrate the narrow range of projects for which approval can be used as precedent. ie. This is a public park project Intended to provide access to natural features where on street parking is available that is unlikely to be used for other uses and where development of on site parking would negatively affect the environment. 2. Molly Headley was concerned about the location of the location of the picnic /play areas because of their effect on the environmentally sensitive features of the site. She felt that a site reconnaisance by a wetlands biologist might be desirable. I explained that the location of paths and picnic /play areas had been selected to minimize site disturbance. 1 have tentatively scheduled a site visit with her on Monday at 9:00 AM to explain the relation between the proposal and site features. Other design related issues which were discussed included lower light standards, use of the existing tank and the possibility of strengthening the environmental education aspects of the park through the provision of nature trails. 3. Phil Fraser was supportive of the street and drainage Improvements. He stressed the importance of coordination between street and park design work. Phil indicated that Ross Earnst should decide whether the sidewalk should extend around the cut de sac. He also indicated that a water main extension might be desirable. The fire department had not commented on this. 4, Security was discussed, with the concern expressed that path lighting would attract users into wooded areas after dark. 5. Finally, the project's relation to the possible development moratorium was discussed. Staff was uncertain at this point whether "vesting" would occur with submittal of a design review application or if submittal of a permit application would be necessary, it was suggested that we consider submitting a grading permit application by Monday. I have prepared a rough draft of such an application which can be quickly finalized. 2525 Boyer Avenue East Seattle, WA 98102 (206) 323 -1602 m.o. 1/ I nan cr,v Tr3G_nA/17 STIXR TEL No.206- 325 -0442 C C Stixrood Associates Landscape Architecture /Planning Nov.17,89 11 :12 P.03 Jack Pace indicated that additional information we may want to develop in support of our application should be resolved with Molly Headley by Monday and submitted by Wednesday November 22. One item Molly mentioned was a discussion of changes between our first and second submittal. She also indicated that a meeting was planned between herself Don Williams and Ron Cameron was planned to discuss the parking Issue. A possible submittal of additional information could include: The September 7, 1989 letter from Reid Middleton regarding parking lot location recommendations. Text regarding design changes from our original submittal, possibly similar to the draft cover letter I sent you on November 6. I still have a copy and could generate a memo fairly quickly. Further support for our parking provisions along the lines discussed above. A revised design if moving the picnic /play areas is proposed. 2525 Boyer Avenue East Seattle, WA 98 (206) 323 -1602 November 17, 1989 Fax 325 -0442 3 Stixrood Associates Landscape Architecture /Environmental Planning 2525 Boyer Avenue East. Seattle, WA 98102 (206) 323 -1602; (206) 325 -0442 (FAX) City of Tukwila Planning Department 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, WA 98188 Attn: Molly Headley November 9, 1989 Dear Molly; Sincere] , Carl tixroo attachments cc. Don Williams, Director, Department of Parks and Recreation RE: Crystal Springs Park, Design Review Application Changes to Application Form and Environmental Checklist to reflect grading and parking revisions to the masterplan. We are resubmitting our Design Review Application for Crystal Springs Park with minor revisions. The attached pages provide wording changes by item for the Design Review Application form and the Environmental Checklist. We would like to be included on the January Planning Commission agenda and hope you are able to complete staff review of our revisions for that meeting. Please call me or check with Don Williams if there are any questions about our application. Crystal Springs Park Phase 2 Amendments to Design Review Application November 6, 1989 Items 1 -4 No change. Items 8 and 9. No change. Item 5. Disregard Sentence one. Clarify sentences two and three: Lawns are planned to slope gently up from the sidewalk to the proposed picnic shelter and restroom structures along 51st Avenue South. This will reduce the visual prominance of these structures from vantage points on the street and sidewalks. These low structures will be set back from the curbline by over 35 feet. The restroom structure will be set in front of and close to an existing wooded knoll with native shrub plantings developed to visually relate the structure landscaping to existing vegetation. The natural wood materials used for the restroom will visually relate to the vegetation behind it. The picnic structure will be of open sided design so it will not obstruct views of natural site features. Item 6. The one hundred foot site lines now apply to the crosswalk. Item 7. Second sentence refers to 6' walks only. Some narrower walks will be developed which will be more trail -like in character and will have grades of up to 20% for distances of up to 100 lineal feet. This is proposed to minimize site grading. th71 %RI.: Cr stai Springs, Park, Design Review Application 4 Change, to Application Form and Fnvlronmental Checklist to reflect .J x gradinn and parking revisions to the masterplan. ..,,....,),,„,. 04,_.p. r- Nove 6 , 19 830 0 TEL -C� =142 Hoy.27 ?? 1�1•i1F p,�:�1 Hoy f. o the Cryotal Springs Park r Design Review. The attached approach while retaining the 1lei otter docurnent5 (..hanue:, we have read phase esign since our June Application pia, t•ef le i. n minimum site disturbanc major f ac i l i t prnponed in June. This revised submit was prepar d following detailed cost studies of June 1989 submittal. T e stun es indicated that the dewatering and gr acting taisociated with de - 1;.ment of on site parking would result in Torts for parking facilities h were higher than usual for public TO' ,. 8'.71 1'r fNrilijtioC; 10 accomodate parkir planned for 51st A fourteen parallel to the park. in car parking 1 rc�:�ident1 that the Fe, u demand, a thirty nue South as part of th ark ing spaces on the west s dit Inn, a crosswalk is proposed In phase 1 with the phase 2 area. SInc area with limited demand for on street park parking measures will be adequate to serve the n itho'.a C,f"rbs' ant tat negative impacts to the use of adja 1(zS 1 roc• rx1.ent of grading and clearing has been reduced with a corresponding edac t eor, In site disturbance. Grading quantities have been lowered from y61 of cut aitd 1111 to about 500 cubic yards, including gi f«;' tiee street and paths. Clearing has been reduced from three to 1es , than two acres. Changes to the watercourses on site have been rn nrf117ed, stre&n5 will primarily remain In their existing c �f + igu at ion w�tn new inlet structures where required t wide street section Is roject. This will provide of the street, adjacent ch will connect the 12 he park is In a we believe ds of park t WAC 197 -11 -970 DETERMINATION OF NONSIGNIFICANCE CITY OF TUKWILA, WA 98188 Description of Proposal EIGHT ACRE SITE TO BE DEVELOPED AS PHASE II OF AN EXISTING PARK DEVELOPMENT. MAJOR FEATURES INCLUDE PATHS, LIGHTED PARKING AND PICNIC AREAS, CHILDREN•'S PLAY AREAS AND WATER FEATURES. Proponent TUKWILA PARKS AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT Location of Proposal, including street address, if any NORTH OF S. MOTH STRFFT. WEST OF 51ST AVENUE S., EAST OF PRIVATE ROADWAY, SOUTH OF GILMOUR STREET, SE 1 OF THE SOUTHEAST 1/2 OF SECTION 22, TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH, RANGE 4 EAST. Lead Agency: City of Tukwila File No. EPIC -17 -89 The lead agency for this proposal has determined that it 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. El There is no comment period for this DNS This DNS is issued under 197 -11- 340(2). Comments must be submitted by . The lead agency will not act on this proposal for 15 days from the date below. Responsible Official Rick Beeler Position /Title Plannin• Director Phone 433 -1846 Address 6200 Southcenter Boulevard, Tuykwi'Ya,'WA •:188 Date /? / /9u4j? Signature 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 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 Planning Department. FM.DNS CATS C_UU OF L vaCONOT17 Q!diP J la ' �3 CO U U ®trll"OCIiWLS wgzas HOL [INDEX T® DNANOOHOS t }Z S L �-i-n /La(0.ttT` -P/TA F- ELEvATI NS TITLE SHEET 1. LANDSCAPE PLAN 2. SITE LAYOUT PLAN 3. GRADING AND UTILITIES PLAN 4. IRRIGATION PLAN 5. ELECTRICAL PLAN 6. PAVING, CURBS, AND STRIPING DETAILS 7. WATER, SEWER. DRAINAGE UTILITIES DETAILS 8. ELECTRICAL DETAILS 9. LANDSCAPE DETAILS 10. CHILDREN'S PLAY AREA DETAILS 11. PICNIC AREA DETAILS 12. WATER FEATURE AREA DETAILS 13. IRRIGATION DETAILS 14. RESTROOM PLANS AND DETAILS ATrA f ED ' R1- .Ta I- / r' k± DONE FJL- LAW(1}6.. t7ES1f44 �E.VICW MAYOR -GARY L. VAN DUSEN DIRECTOR OF PARKS AND RECREATION -DON WIWAMS DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS -ROSS EARNST PROJECT MANAGER PUBLIC WORKS -PAT BRODIN NOV 9 1989 1 HOS Pi-\i-DAM. n Ga� }_ s 1umN ST O • „ N , � yi�v � NRMdA pKwy s MTh ST PROJECT LOCATION s a r sT11A140O1 109 Qy : s 16CT1 ST k ISSN SS LOCATION NAP 011mw,r 0cr•wt lnbt pp.. • uM•volpp.d Intl 0 4 • 0 6 0 way Rlyhc of W.y cr � 2T0 2 PROPOSED LAWPSr_.••F1 FIG 3 A CRY' l . L SP Gr ,EJ PARK: PHASE 2 0 SGRLaf OA,c ZY GK. Cr) K scsus vorsa •6.AI_. o-u Woe. Glom Al.t. ARG. W.eta Wtrute.- 6 acaTAT1oM 19 1111.140v2.0 PP SSDS0 •••tpi tt•oat A.aJO Wv a.aD PV R.P. awAt, �,Wfl ex .P. fen Nb A •tt oWA+ na cuA.aa AK. NOM raasao PT PLOP. Taro WTn A u.Twc 5.e.115 uu Di mNORY• X atttttYfj TRaa TO PP PP MOVed TAT.p e. Tool t. • -- 50 +p t•.ya • M<t Tool ��r�y�A lo' 15141.5 M- pe GG:✓ SALA, j &At.- CAM rp' O.C. V�. covered .•; Tore • - -_ - - Cloy, • ■ of ar LO �... Wve L. _ -� pouch _ 60t /cr••t _ _ __— o 1 o �= o S is= - — D_, —o=o —, — S m 4 • mss^- o h a i ° n a n n n n n�•• \ 4 4 m a 4 m n m • .Ingle family r••ld•ne« WALKWAY L14HTS untl••Npp•tl lone ne 9 MASTERPLAN: TUKWILA PARKS DEPARTMENT, STLXROCI) ASSOCIATES Existing Conditions Cur •f.rb..w etc Porno 0 0 rmach 0 bv.r 10 c.up•r; h. /•r, coder ewe.- 10 cM•p.r; •pl., medronsa 0 0 0 ofilifLX r 'tr- d 30 • m u a As %61 C C.0•4 k t FLOOR PLAN I/4 • 13 .Y1r7 4 D'o" n. 1 - 191.11116fe WISIMIRS REMIT. .111.11111111•1111111MIWINTIIIIIIITWIIIMT11111111•Walt •MUILOINIS. NORTH ELEVATION SOUTH ELEVATION , 14-• e.o• EAST ELEVATION I/4 WEST ELEVATION All ALPHA ENGINEERS INC. 81J=k CRYSTAL SPRINGS PARK PHASE 2 RESTROOM- PLAN a ELEVATIONS RECET CITY OF JUN BUILDING es. PRINTED SE. ES EN ALPHA ENGINEERS. ff 3 liALKWAY POLE 4 LUMINAIRE L l .. .116C.47ermeDrilile #1 =1/ 3,ITTSkOure 0,111 INN) ions: 1 / L = o , A.04101.13 sva M. sorarry7SOINft 10■1-711wizin, moo. 116 *maw, rAP•ous supnrme. • WOWS" 07 rs WNW! 7 00 MAIM 7,1771XaM7OV 017Ary. IROADWANUDLE. 4USM1MATE. -st vs. -- m070�1 tyre / :se& Yeco,...nour) 5F-CTION LIGHTING STANDAICPS T I?'.ROOP ASSOCI ATES SEG-TIC:41 - At fAR-144146 AX.GA HOILIZONITAt- I. CRYSTAL SPRINGS PARK. - PHASE- II RECETVFn CITY' OF rui• JUN 2 G 8011 asut C IT Y,„Of 1 LIKM ILA JUME. rI61 tf; .:,.• • 010 3.20 a a S0 a undaY•42s0.• Ione, 0 Glitmour eltr•et ine•eneni. 1110sh mimeo •snely residence* G. 6 • a ▪ • a -4 • • : Vr2.82.1 Freese, Riche of Wan .230 3 • • .020 PROPOSED LAAJP5(....An WC HCRYSTAL SPRINIES PARK • P ABE 0 StA.0.-Itr 010, Cm- C.: ft 7004 008.1 &1O,t frO.. A00,0 *dele-IL ••■••000.0.4 Wn fa SUMS 1.70-•ST so*. isa.SS GOVILPLZS Sy ownfl cm. •fteveN 1 SOL C....S.V•01, ARS 6.10.1 CaVfla O. asfla TS 1.srlYS. vestill• UN 01 itAys•s., Smsrluty - MSC. re Pa se.eves fArire 0.8 a 1.41.0.1•4 T IS .1101.“1..... f0.11- 8 • 6.o •inple fornity re•r r•rel• 0 0 0 \-::.... ....`re‘r t . .. Coverrd ........ - ..,. .....—A labLe n . r ...e -....4. V.- a , ..t i....42 ...../.:-----\ "‘‘,..\, 1 , i . '... • p • ■ ,.... . 1 . \ \ 080 • -. L .-- ` ...Z! .:1 SIne. 1... "r IT • ' . • , t • I L I t 1 r s i \ . l '-'4' '' A'` VA ' - - .7., '...- . - i ' . '1' I 1-1 ' 1 .. I I 0 N I ) 370 L of • i Lae. Wm.- Lino -I-• o 0 a 1969 KASTERPLAN: TUKWILA PAWS DEPARTMENT, STDMOCO ASSCCLATE5 Existing Conditions any•eam troom iste,10 Seaseds. Oh, sods- Doelesso• crass over YeesIlps, rnsIde. - - SY rs•rnS — undeveloped tend 6/3/0 8 191611 INTE weQRS !MIST: •5N0INSStle1NO•STm•STS• WATSA•SSW WW WA..KS•SUILOINO• Crystal Sprint Site/Land SOUTH 160TH STREET Scale In Feet 0 20 40 60 80 1 .10 a 132 4lj ) t 2 12 " CUL•EkT Legs d'Proposed Ele f Proposed Contour w o Path Light ... Street Light New 6 toot nigh chin Sinai along the north and wet property line. n7 Bench ® Covered Table o Grill o Liter Recanted, 1:111 Cr Wheel Chair Ramp Bollards Fropaot t.bet \ sit s Driveway Bridge or CuMn Concrete Crossing New perking Ness: AI exletlng rrNr and afreSire over /Q nlwret r we to new& unless mrnoal is 4patiltelly noted. Al cutler trees w Si be removed wean areas At be dewed Irgrroremsee along South 16010 Street may be dfsn0sd to amtmfe to street imgovemem pits currently ben wowed. 8" w New Paths -4 H- IF wide: asphalt surface. nests handicap regrets 5' sus: comets sidewalk, wows NNW grade -.11.4' wide: crushed rock surface, seating pelh I / • 2223 . LIERT I1M Avenue South knp. ,.ens • Mete/ a curb along the east 1 of the existing pavement • install urderpornd storm dr along the west aide of the eb • Wien pavement to Use wee to creels • 30' total penmen and allow 13 on street Perkin • Provide underground poor. • beta/ new street lights. Visual Screen trip • Add S evergreen • Add slats to fens Existing Perla • Expend este • ItodIty walks landscaping \ \- -_242 N. 24C ,\ \\ \ 1,11 " o _ 22 2! 1•gert - -�to's - Exytlm f CD Oregon Grape. S canon eern S0' on ecru Maple Q Sint John'. Wort. 1 Oren cum 116"1: ,cgMer I ' 1 V.1'7 ei 1 ., . ,v a -`// ----- ,,---/, ■ - ! I. 1„, / I : I ' - irt 7:: ,, .. p _ p / I li , t i - -1,ti 1 • .. .. . . g 1: 7''' T i 1 ''`"T -,,,:_ -Ili —• / :. • - . 1 • III' ' . ,.. .. i pi III 1. i -1. -, _ l.....—:— •.• • .4 • A- t— 4•//• iJ I: • ." / . • "..; • ki0 Una :XII A!..0:11 bra 5:1r0 Avenue ti 1 ETTRP TIIIMM•61" t , _ __ ........ 00 _... ,..,_ • i . i 1 i i g 1 ;, DESU3N REVIEW APPL CATION JUN t G 1989 1. BRIEFLY DESCRIBE YOUR PROPOSAL: Crystal Springs Park Phase 2 2. PROJECT LOCATION: (Give street address or, if vacant, indicate lot(s), block, and subdivision; or tax lot number, access street, and nearest intersection) North of 160th and East 51st Street SE 1/4 of SE 1/4,0f SE 1/4 Quarter: S ection: 22 Township: 23N Range: 4E (This information may be found on your tax statement.) 3. APPLICANT :* Name: Tukwila Parks and Recreation Department Signature: Address: 6200 Southcenter Boulevard, Tukwila (206) 433 -1843 Phone: Phone: (206) 433 - 1843 AFFIDAVIT OF OWNERSHIP 4. PROPERTY Name: City of Tukwila OWNER Address: 6200 Southcenter Boulevard, Tukwila Date: M/e, * The applicant is the person whom the staff will contact regarding the application, and to whom all notices and reports shall be sent, unless otherwise stipulated by applicant. • I /WE,[signature(s)] Dc>,, ,C -H.. -� swear that I /we are the owners) or contract purchaser(s) of the property involved in this application and that the foregoing statements and answers contained in this application are true and correct to the best of my /our knowledge and belief. Date: K hr %' RESPONSE: 5. RELATIONSHIP OF STRUCTURE TO SITE 6. RELATIONSHIP OF STRUCTURE AND SITE TO ADJOINING AREA at the entrance and egress to the parking areas. CESIGN REVIEW APPLICATION 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 cri- terion (if appropriate), and describe how your plans and elevations meet the criteria. If the space provided for response is insufficient, use extra space on last page or use blank paper to complete response and attach to this form. 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. Parking will be screened from the street by groundcover and trees. Lawns are generally planned to slope up from the sidewalk. The low structures are set back from the curbline by over 40'. 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 estab- lished 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: Buffers of Natural Veqitation will be maintained between the site and residences to the West. One hundred foot site lines are maintained 7. LANDSCAPE AND SITE TREATMENT ^DESIGN REVIEW APPLICATION Page 3 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 shou d enhance architectural features, strengthen vistas and important axis, and provide shade. D. In locations where plant will be susceptible to injury by pedestrian or motor traffic, mitiga ing steps should be taken. E. Where building sites lim't planting, the placement of trees or shrubs in paved areas is encour.ged. F. Screening of service yards, and other places which tend to be un- sightly, should be accom.lished by use of walls, fencing, planting or combinations of these. Screening should be effective in winter and summer. G. In areas where _general p anting 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 landscape. 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: Most of the site will installed on 20' poles of wocd material. be retained in a Natural Condition. The maximum grade of walks on site is 8 %. Sidewalk grades follow road slope and are as steep as 17% for short distances. Street lighting will be standard City of Tukwila Design. Path lighting will be focused downward and 8. BUILDING DESIGN CESIGN REVIEW APPLICATION Page 4 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 per- manent neighboring developments. C. Building components - such as windows, doors, eaves, and parapets - should have good proportions 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. Fix- tures, standards and all exposed 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: Restroom design is compatible in character to wood sided residences. It will be stained a dark color. Exterior mechanical equipment is not proposed. 9. MISCELLANEOUS STRUCTURES AND STREET FURNITURE A. Miscellaneous structures and street furniture should be designed to be part of the architectural 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 pro- portions should be to scale. B. Lighting in connection with miscellaneous structures and street furni- ture should meet the guidelines applicable to site, landscape and buildings. RESPONSE: Miscellaneous structures will be similar designs used in phase I with black metal structure and dark wood surfaces. INTERURBAN SPECIAL REVIEW DISTRICT LESIGN REVIEW APPLICATION Page 5 The following six criteria are used in the special review of the Interurban area in order to manage the development of this area, to upgrade its general appear- ance, to provide incentives for compatible uses, to recognize and to capitalize on the benefits to the area of the amenities including the Green River and nearby recreational facilities, to encourage development of more people- oriented use, and to provide 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 necessary. 10. The proposed development design should be sensitive to the natural amenities of the area. 11. The proposed development use should demonstrate due regard for the use and enjoyment of public recreational areas and facilities. \ OESIGN REVIEW APPLICATION Page 6 12. The proposed development should provide for safe and convenient on -site pedestrian circulation. 13. The proposed property use should be compatible with neighboring uses and complementary to the district in which it is located. 14. The proposed development should seek to minimize significant adverse environmental impacts. 15. The proposed development should demonstrate due regard for significant historical features in the area. (29 /DSGN.APP1 -3)