Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Permit L95-0001 - LACY RODGER - SPECIAL PERMISSION
L95 -0001 LACY SENSITIVE AREA EXCEPTION SPECIAL PERMISSION City of Tukwila John W. Rants, Mayor Department of Community Development Steve Lancaster, Director STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO MODIFY AN EXISTING "REASONABLE USE EXCEPTION" Prepared April 18,1996 HEARING DATE: FILE NUMBER: APPLICANT: REQUEST: LOCATION: ACREAGE: COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: ZONING DISTRICT: SEPA DETERMINATION: STAFF: ATTACHMENTS: April 25, 1996 L95 -0001: Lacy Reasonable Use Exception Rodger Lacy Modify Condition No. 4 of a previously granted reasonable use exception for construction of a single family house in a wetland area. Southwest corner of the 51st Avenue S./158th Street intersection, immediately north of Crystal Springs Park.; in the SE 1/4 of Section 22, Township 23N, Range 4E. Assessor Tax Lot No. 810860 -0420. The parcel is about 1.5 acres. Low Density Residential R -1 -7.2 This is an exempt action. Vernon Umetsu A. B. C. D. E. Notice of Decision of Sensitive Area Exception /Special Permission (with Conditions of Approval) #L95 -0001. Proposed Site Plan of Development Area Identified Wetland Areas on Site City Estimate of Wetland Impacts Western Parcel Half Plant Survey 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • (206) 431-3670 • Fax (206) 431-3665 Staff Report to the Planning Commission Page 2 L95 -0001: Modification of Lacy Condition of Approval FINDINGS 1. Mr. Lacy was granted a Sensitive Area Exception by the Planning Commission per TMC 18.45.115(c), on April 27, 1995. This approval included a condition that enhancement be provided at 1.5 s.f. for each 1 s.f. of wetland area disturbed (Condition No. 4, Attachment A). 2. The currently proposed improvements are summarized in the development area site plan (Attachment B). Applicant's consultant had previously identified almost the entire site as being wetland in a letter report dated November 4,1994 (previously submitted Attachment 1 summarized in current Attachment C). Modification of the Enhancement Area 4. Subsequent analysis indicates that about 29,700 s.f. of wetland area would be dewatered and /or built upon (Attachment D). This results in a need for about 44,550 s.f. to satisfy a 1.5:1 enhancement area ratio. This mitigation requirement exceeds the site's 31,000 s.f. potential enhancement area, which lies to the west of the development, by 13,550 square feet. The proposed enhancement area is generally the western half of the parcel. 5. A geotechnical engineer determined that areas of development should be dewatered to maximize site stability. The eastern portion of the site is therefore unsuitable as mitigation area. 6. Without reducing the building site or modifying the Commission's 1.5:1 mitigation requirement, the applicant would need to find an off -site area for enhancement. A reduction from the 1.5:1 mitigation requirement is authorized, based on the "reasonable use" exception criteria (TMC 18.45.115(c)). 7. Clearly designating the final enhancement and mitigation area would help to support its long -term survival. Enhancement Actions 8. The applicant's design consultant for enhancement has surveyed plants in the western (proposed enhancement) parcel area. A tree survey and textual description of this area's understory as largely salmonberry and elderberry thickets has been provided (Attachment E). Staff Report to the Planning Commission Page 3 L95 -0001: Modification of Lacy Condition of Approval 9. The consultant's description of the steps to plant new shrubs indicates a need for extensive removal of existing shrubs from the planting area and a high level of on -going maintenance. 10. An alternative to additional shrubs would be additional conifers to supplement the alder /maple dominated site. Additional confers, with a diversity of species and size, would enhance site's visual perception as part of a year -round wooded hillside as desired in Comprehensive Plan policies. 1-�' C' U O w; w=. J H CONCLUSIONS w O . The 1.5:1 existing enhancement requirement for the current development u- proposal, cannot be achieved on -site. IQ v; 1- a W ' ul moo. U N. 0 w w' O .'ui Z.... U r 0 .. B. Reduction of the 1.5:1 enhancement requirement under the "reasonable use exception" provisions is an appropriate action by the Commission and implements the intent of this section (TMC 18.45.115(C)) in this case. C. In lieu of the 1.5:1 requirement, it is reasonable to require that the western half of the property be used as a mitigation /enhancement area, and that enhancing actions be oriented toward improving the site as a visually varied, treed hillside. This enhancement area represents about a 1 :1 relationship with the wetland being developedl. Mitigation /enhancement would not mean that additional plants would be installed throughout the entire area. However, it does mean that the area would be selectively planted to achieve a visually varied, fully treed hillside. D. Enhancement would be based on a plan prepared by a qualified wetland consultant. 1(31,000 s.f. of western parcel area) /(29,700 s.f: of lost wetland area) = 1.04:1. Staff Report to the Planning Commission L95-0001: Modification of Lacy Condition of Approval RECOMMENDATIONS Page 4 The Planning Division recommends the following modification to existing Condition No. 4 and adopting further conditions to implement the modification. Existing Condition No. 4 shall be modified as follows: The applicant shall submit for review and approval to the Department of Community Development (DCD), a final wetland enhancement plan at-a ratio-of-1754 which optimizes the establishment of a visually varied, treed hillside environment on the western half of the property; and shall install all required enhancement, as approved by DCD, prior to issuance of the building permit. The following additional condition to the original approval (Attachment A) is recommended to implement the modified Condition No. 4: 5. Enhancement would be based on a plan prepared by a qualified wetland consultant, using as a guideline: Additional conifers with a diversity of species and size, planted at a density to visually present a fully treed hillside site, subject to approval by the DCD Director). ' May 4, 1995 City of Tukwila A John W. Rants, Mayor Department of Community Development Steve Lancaster, Director Mr. Rodger E. Lacy Sr. 3125 S. Dakota Street Seattle, WA 98108 RE: NOTICE OF DECISION OF SENSITIVE AREA EXCEPTION /SPECIAL PERMISSION #L95 -0001 Dear Mr. Lacy: On April 27, 1995, the Tukwila Planning Commission granted conditional approval of your request for • exception from the Sensitive Areas Overlay. The conditions are as follows: 1. The applicant shall revise the site plan to reduce the area of development impact through interceptor pipes, fill material, and toe walls, as recommended by the geotechnical engineer. 2. The following site development measures shall be followed, as recommended in the geotechnical report (Gall Group, March 15, 1995): a. All grading and site preparation work shall be conducted during the dry season. b. All cut slopes shall be protected from erosion during construction and shall be re- vegetated immediately after completion of grading activities. c. Geotechnical observations and testing, by a Washington State licensed geotechnical engineer, shall be conducted during site preparation and grading to insure that proposed slope stability measures are effective. 3. All land altering shall be limited to the area defined by the approved site plan and geotechnical study. ,.. 4. The applicant shall submit for review and approval to the Department of Community Development (DCD), a final wetland enhancement plan at a ratio of 1.5:1; and shall install all required wetland enhancement, as approved by DCD, prior to the issuance of the building permit. The Planning Commission's decision may be appealed to the City Council within ten days of the decision. If you have any questions regarding the Planning Commissions action, please contact me at 431 -3670. Sincerely, Libby H%, son 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • (2, 4, 431367 fyg,42 'REICE6VED MAR 0 4 .1996 COMMUFliTY DEVELO ?MENT N — • roposed Int ceptor.Trench • / ■ • 'p12.'C PoSgA i S1(•L' Daylight Interceptor Trenches to Drainage &wales .PGAkc oF- %� t aeM 7T A-R / 6q�C IVED RECEIVED CITY OF TUKWILA 241996 JAN 2 Li 1996 •' 3 UC La f', PERMIT CENTER Proposed Segmental Retaining Wall / , / 1 • 11Prnotnm4TE so ,� ■ ''"It%ISTI/44 tea/ ' • .9RM‹ l/ ,�\ \ N / / • i \ I Top of Cut \ \ t\ 1 \ . \ \.\ \ V aAs \jrCed\ \ \ A=• vvuu. • Building Pad = 236' 'by \ / \ nr•Tode.e.„•••.---., ,,,,,,, tp\: 10Pr. *if • \. A -40/4r lam • UP, ' 'OW iVL - -1 \ 1 Proposed Interceptor Trench -y Query Spans or Conc. Charnel Alternative Property uro Shirubs)30 \ \ \ \ \ \ • \ � ! \ \ at Rr55I • .I 4 EVIS1I Exieti Drainage Path I: "cum IitT i%1LTINC. • • 12" Cu rt • �� =�.IR•55' 1 • fir 75I I' U W.S.P•0T. Quarry • 'P' `P vide row12`i ails. Reroute Existing Drill Ditch 44 r� \� 2jy • II III • • s•, Property Line HOPE Culvert �\ ..\ • tang Dm) - • Path \(or/) • 1 : .. • • • PeTeNTION fbNP.stiP OUTLET WORKS B./ OTK<Q. lase vaAWlw.. ) N I I \ \ \ \ Frovid `n now 12" die. HOPE GMvat i \ .-• \� „s • \ \ \ \\ I t•-' 1151_ i \ \ UNI�1PRoVdai \ \ • -I i -h 1 t \ L \ 1:5K X915 Sg 1� FENCELINE ---► DRAINAGE #I 4 —460' 4— '--PHOPERTY BOUNDARY — x134'4 DRAINAGES / ##2 #3 #4 SPIA 37r )1)i, \ y , SP2A , iSP3A t. }SP4A,•`,►t.i 1 • {r I ) ' '611 `' ' ..P1, 1J ,fir' �. '' �•) litil SP.., : '' , I ,ors ;,7A. ,' : „� ' 300' ' B /. •r , • GI ' w' , 41.1. I SP9A ' •, ';P6� a f , • I 1 t i 1 • —... As. •'' .,1 96 ' I , . 4 :, '► '�• I. • 200' ,I. 09) •' 'I' 1 SPIIA' I , ) y`� v9P101k. • • • ,} 9 • , • ' / el,EXISTING • '.i 1 .I '' •1 CULVERT �ti .1 �' .'� ''', //1 FLAG A8 , i, t. '1 ' / / / • {. ?iSP12A / SP88A !00 0. .(, .. 1 0° i .,%,...40 FLAG AID : 4 THIS AREA NOT EVALUATED i NOT A SURVEYED MAP ..r1 EXISTING ROAD ., CORRIDOR /TRAIL CABLE GATE 5IST AVE SE ii,EXISTING CULVERT IDENTIFIED WETLAND AREA APPROX. CENTERLINE OF DRAINAGE s= APPROX. SAMPLE PLOT LOCATION LACY PROJECT SITE WATERSHED DYNAMICS' 1421 17TH STREET S.E. AUBURN. MA 90002 (206) 733 -4200 �.. ...a■ •J • J•a .. 'L• L ■••■• ..VJ JU II /L.liL \JL1L'U Li114IL1LLli L.41 . • Dear. Nir: •Lacy: _ . • ' . :.. ••I • •• Thank you: for • involving. Watersheds Dynamics; • • plans for the property located;in;the Crystal' Spring •, ' '.Park area:. .. •, i - "i :t ompletec( a'rev ew,on •November 3rd of•the specife:areas .of •ttie •site•which you r• ▪ requested be.. evaluated�for .the'presence`of:wetlands. and watercourses• • As :you requested, I;have not prepared a Wetland Delineation Report',buityhaye;. instead, prepared`�this: brief' letter report to••summarize: myievaluatiort. 'This report ` includes information :on °the degree to• which:wetlands'are present :Witiiin�.the;site;,'; the apparent' .City. of Tukwila ••classifcatioti of the identified wetland,' "arid the • :< 'specific:docuinerited ons'jte.wetland indil ators. • ' • ' • Watershed Dyrla'mics;.nc: would:be.happy.to:assist you subsequent pr•,oje'c. s3'' eleimerits such: as itie- 'completiiions;of •a'delineation report: and the .'preparatioh of`' wetland mitigation. and, enhancement: designs, as 'mak tikre4uifed. may the: Oity.:of Tukwila.. • • _ - • • LJO.viieta ,'1 ":: • • FISHERIES; HYDROLOGY, WATER•GUAUTY & WETLANDS •• • •• • • 1421. 176 4 a4•E• ! IRuburrt, WA 98002 1 ,(206) 735-42$ , 1=AX•(206) ,1145 •42$9 • t \ t \ •, Proposed Interceptorlrench L FROUlAUa_ at 44 A-rr.icy �D C 1 T Y S77A4A i a"' O F W TLs}oaD 1 n-t PA- c`tS JAN 241996 ILA KS a• so' � PayrIght Interceptor Trenches to Drainage Swalea \ .� Proposed Segmental Retairlfng Wall RECENED CRY OF TucwILA JAN 2 4 1996 PERMIT CENTER tI eeacK 5r.K8 r. 2.O •i�3/rchc c • z W . UO • to W W = • J u. NLL � W o. • z • z �. 61;;AeCf12-ti- 0 co ;G] H: .LL o. Z vD`. :0 F. z ` Top of Cut N N c#1"\ • \ \ \ •2A5 W.S.p•OT. 29, 7.0051, Property y Line PeTENTION TND MAD Ou1LET WCRKS SY OTTtR . ear PgAW.►wi. ) • vide new 12" Lrgl Propoeal InterceptoiRfronch ,.......... t DOTAL \ a� Property Line Nrubs Quarter `S' palls or Conc. ChairWittornotivo • ArrAc#f r GJer c- -fu P /2c ff -c-F � 1rn7' Svg.vey ( Fovel, ? //s /G) If•-� \`1 J WA �1. '` . J �y�1 ` I.( M.0 • • \ ,1 / _ • �_ . % in. \\ 1 ci- s. i. 1 i !/ 1 / ( I I. 1. I .I j !I 1 I 1 -i 1 1 i 1, • t 1 g. 1. 1 1 1 ,' 1 � . 1 , .. ■ r \ 1 \•. 1 \ 1 ,1. 1 • •1 12•\ =•M \ICI •1. 1 1 ' '1 • 1 \ ■ t �\`\ /\ � \ `. \\ \ t • • \ 1 , ' \1. \ , 1 '/. , i 1 i 1 . • • i 1 ,l, • ' • / 1' . • K 4 e CO) 5154 60 co) • . • 1 t; —1� • \ • sm 4 ev -c o) . \ . f:•:'. '' . - i 30CD) PI • • /_-_-_- /IA - 1 x, f•• �I ,dry. I_ EA• l •• Co) \ N_ \ t:Xg ,711ACz YEf7Eranc -i L.e[aet -117 1 3 4i1"' 1. \ i O` J 4.14• P2.apo "SEv ?Lb PAD NORTH I M ' OIac.GA4 MAPLE A ■ ALDOK 4 • N6MLGY•K EL ■ ENLMI4 4AUeEL 5T = SfUMP 6!•1 a •SI -16/4 Li) = FOe1C& IG ` 1-EA141NC2 = P4 E.Ri = 6Ay.AON�ECP,.Y E0 • C1.CCEAZLL e CO) 1 DENSE TN1feCET .=.•';`, ;. City of Tukwila John W. Rants, Mayor Department of Community Development PUBLIC NOTICE City of Tukwila Steve Lancaster, Director Notice is hereby given that the City of Tukwila Planning Commission will be holding a public hearing at 7:00 p.m. on April 25, 1996, in the City Hall Council Chambers, located at 6200 Southcenter Blvd. to discuss the following: PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING CASE NUMBER: L95 -0001: Lacy Reasonable Use Exception APPLICANT: Rodger Lacy REQUEST: Reduce a "reasonable use exception" condition of approval for single family house, to less than a mitigation to wetland disturbance area ratio of 1.5:1.0. The staff estimated disturbance area is 29,700 s.f. on a 65,862 s.f. lot. LOCATION: Intersection of the S. 158th Street and 51st Ave. S. right of ways, at tax lot no. 810860 -0420. Persons wishing to comment on the above case may do so by written statement or by appearing at the public hearing. Information on the above case may be obtained at the Tukwila Planning Division. The City encourages you to notify your neighbors and other persons you believe would be affected by the above item. Published: Seattle Times April 12, 1996 Distribution: Mayor, City Clerk, Property Owners /Applicants, Adjacent Property Owners, File. 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • (206) 431-3670 • Fax (206) 431-3665 May 4, 1995 City of Tukwila John W Rants, Mayor Department of Community Development Steve Lancaster, Director Mr. Rodger E. Lacy Sr. 3125 S. Dakota Street Seattle, WA 98108 RE: NOTICE OF DECISION OF SENSITIVE AREA EXCEPTION /SPECIAL PERMISSION #L95 -0001 Dear Mr. Lacy: On April 27, 1995, the Tukwila Planning Commission granted conditional approval of your request for exception from the Sensitive Areas Overlay. The conditions are as follows: 1. The applicant shall revise the site plan to reduce the area of development impact through interceptor pipes, fill material, and toe walls, as recommended by the geotechnical engineer. 2. The following site development measures shall be followed, as recommended in the geotechnical report (Gall Group, March 15, 1995): a All grading and site preparation work shall be conducted during the dry season. b. All cut slopes shall be protected from erosion during construction and shall be re- vegetated immediately after completion of grading activities. c. Geotechnical observations and testing, by a Washington State licensed geotechnical engineer, shall be conducted during site preparation and grading to insure that proposed slope stability measures are effective. 3. All land altering shall be limited to the area defined by the approved site plan and geotechnical study. 4. The applicant shall submit for review and approval to the Department of Community Development (DCD), a final wetland enhancement plan at a ratio of 1.5:1; and shall install all required wetland enhancement, as approved by DCD, prior to the issuance of the building permit. The Planning Commission's decision may be appealed to the City Council within ten days of the decision. If you have any questions regarding the Planning Commissions action, please contact me at 431 -3670. Sincerely, 4i706 Libby H son 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • (206) 4313670 • Fax (206) 431-3665 00. cow, 9 j'. rn:w w 0,` g LL = v` . z p', 1 z1 w w, 2 i0 N ww = Vt O. w z, U N: O.H'. City of Tukwila John W. Rants, Mayor Department of Community Development Steve Lancaster, Director HEARING DATE: FILE NUMBER: APPLICANT: REQUEST: LOCATION:' STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION Prepared April 17, 1995 April 27, 1995 L95 -0001 Rodger Lacy Sensitive Areas Overlay Zone Exception (TUKWILA MUNICIPAL CODE 18.45.115) SPECIAL PERMISSION TO CONSTRUCT A SINGLE FAMILY. RESIDENCE The site is located at the northwest corner of 51st Avenue S. ` t.' terminus and unimproved 158th Street, north of Crystal Springs Park; in the southeast 1/4 if Section 22, Township 23N, Range 4E, in' the City of Tukwila. ACREAGE: The site is approximately 1.6 acres. w COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Low Density Residential `ZONING IiISTRICT: R1 -7.2, Single Family Residential, 7,200 Square Foot lot LQ,d o -0\A-A 1.(L (fi/C..eiNftv10--7z---- \SLUCA,--- • c/N) ssArciA04. eitAI\ ap.cote4,./- 1-71 Or-e. to/ kr-1 6300 Southcenter BoulPi/ard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98118 • (206),431;.36i0,• Fax ('206 431, 36 • Staff Report to the Planning: Commission ATTACHMENTS: A. Vicinity Map B. Site Plan C. Proposed Grading Plan D. Slope Cross Sections E. Sensitive Areas Map -Site F. Wetland Mitigation Concept Plan G. Staff Proposed Revised Site Plan and Wetland Plan H. Application for Special Permission Sensitive Areas Overlay Zone Exception I. Wetland Analysis Report, Watershed Dynamics, Inc J. Geotechnical Report, Gall Group L95- 0001:. Rodger Lacy Page 2 • coot • • ,w 0.: • wQ;▪ :.. `_- w;: w . •• 11J W . • ;w H' ;o' Staff Report to the L95 -0001: Rodger Lacy Planning Commission Page 3 FINDINGS VICINITY /SITE INFORMATION 1. Project Description: The applicant is requesting• an exception from TMC 18.45, to construct within a designated sensitive area a 3,500 square foot single family home with an attached garage, and paved access drive of approximately 1,500 square feet, having a total developed area of approximately 5,000 square feet. See Attachment B. and C. Existing Development: An existing dirt road and former building site with existing fill material is located near the east end of the property, otherwise the site is undeveloped. Surrounding Land Use: Property to the east and north of the subject site is undeveloped., Single family residences are located to the west and Crystal Springs Park is located south of the subject site. Terrain: The property is located on a northeastern facing slope with grades between 10-25%. The western portion of the site has slopes of 25% . and is designated on the Tukwila Sensitive Areas Map as an area with potential. geologicinstability, :Class,-4. This classification includes slopes with areas of groundwater seepage and landslide deposits. A portion of the property near the east end has been disturbed, by grading and importing fill material for a road and building site Vegetation: The property is vegetated with mature second growth fir and cedar trees, in addition to a mixture of ; alder and : maple trees. The understory vegetation includes a variety of native shrubs, blackberry vines, wet soil plants and naturalized grasses. The disturbed area of the site is primarily vegetated with grasses. Soils: A geotechnical report, submitted by the applicant, indicates that the soils are stratified drift deposits of stiff silt, medium dense to dense sand, and some gravel. Accesl: The subject property has direct access to an unimproved: right-of- way for S. '158th Street and also access from the improved cul -de -sac of 51st Avenue S., which terminates approximately 100 feet east of the property. 8. Utilities: Public sanitary sewer and potable water services must be extended to the subject property for development of a single family residence. Storm water requirements will be reviewed and finalized prior to issuance of any building permits. Staff Report to the L95 -0001: Rodger Lacy Planning Commission Page 4 BACKGROUND The Sensitive Areas Overlay Zone regulates development within designated sensitive areas of the City of Tukwila. The entire subject property lies within a areas designated as sensitive .. on the City of Tukwila Sensitive Areas Map. The w' site includes either Class 2 watercourses, Class 2 wetlands, and required buffer rt 2 areas, or areas designated Class 4 slopes, for potential geologic instability due to _ 0 o O groundwater seepage and landslide deposits. Only the existin g dirt road and small co 0: existing fill area are outside of a sensitive area, but still within the required buffer w w areas. See 'attachment E. -' 1-' w0 The zoning code restricts development within designated sensitive areas. Under 2 the Sensitive Areas Overlay Zone, TMC 18.45 regulations, no development can a u. occur within this property. Provisions to permit reasonable use of property within a. sensitive areas are included in the regulations, if criteria can be met. _ z 1- z �' SAO 2 5 0 U.N.. application process and procedures. o - ww 2 tl wz ON _` The applicant has submitted a wetland study, geotechnical report and has conducted a survey of the property in preparation for presenting this exception request. Staff has met often with the applicant and discussed the If the Planning Commissions grants approval to develop a single family residence on this property, then the project will be required to proceed as follows: A. Environmental review must be completed and a SEPA determination must be made and published with the required comment period. z Final wetland enhancement measures must be reviewed, approved and installed prior to development. C. All other required building and land altering permits must be obtained. DECISION CRITERIA The-Sensitive : Areas: ;Overlay Zone. ,(SAO) permits reasonable, exceptions from the requirements of the SAO if the applicant demonstrates to the Planning Commission that application . of :the provisions of the SAO would. deny' all .., .. : reasonable use of the .property. The Planning Commission may grant development approval, which is consistent with the general .purposes of the ordinance and the public` interest. Eight: criteria established in the Sensitive Areas Overlay Zone section of the Zoning Code guide the Planning Commission in their decision making [TMC 18.45.115(c)(4)]. • Staff Report to the L95 -0001: Rodger Lacy Planning Commission Page 5 Exception review criteria are shown below in bold, along with a staff discussion of relevant facts. The applicants response to each of the criteria is in Attachment H. � ,;?A.: r No reasonable use with less impact on the sensitive area and its buffer is possible. The property is zoned R1 -7.2 and a single family residence is the least impacting development allowed in this zoning district. The site has sensitive areas covering almost the entire property. Springs, seeps and watercourses lace the property, creating wetlands. These are designated as Class 2 wetlands and Type 2 watercourses through a wetland report submitted by the applicant. See attachment I. In addition, the western end of the site has slopes of 20 - 25% and are designated Class 4 slopes for geologic instability. These designations are shown on the City of Tukwila Sensitive Areas map. See attachment E. .z i� z: U0 co cn =I J F- w 0' u. ia xw z H; According to the geotechnical report submitted by the applicant, this upper area is z o. the site of a "prehistoric slide ". The sloped area presently appears to be stable, w w according to the study. Do o -; 1 CI B. There is no feasible on -site alternative to the proposed activities, including reduction in size or ~ t.._. 'ww 1- U- _'. o 1.-' z density, phasing of project implementation, change in timing activities, revision of road and lot layout, and /or related site planning activities that would allow a reasonable economic use with fewer adverse impacts to the sensitive area and its btf'er. The density being proposed is the lowest possible, that of a single family residence. The size of the house is approximately 3,500 square feet in .area; -with an attached 3 car garage. This size house is similar to new single family residences being constructed in the city, but larger than the standard single family residence existing in the neighboring area. The area being developed within the subject property is approximately 16,000 ;. square feet, which is larger than the standard lot size in the R1 -7:2 zoning district.:: Reduction of the development area is possible while allowing a reasonable economic use. The applicant has not proposed phasing for the project, nor timing of construction. Due to the nature of the sensitive areas and as recommended in the geotechnical report, construction should take place during the dry season to lessen erosion impacts to the watercourses, wetlands, and sensitive slopes. The ,applicant has presented only .. one site .planning alternative for the location of the building pad and access driveway. - Development of the proposed single family residence, access,, driveway, and proposed surface water interceptor drains will impact the: wetlands. The land area proposed for development can be reduced, causing a lesser impact to the existing wetland while also providing: reasonable: use of the property. Staff Report to the Planning Commission / The existing groundwater seepage and watercourses on the site produces surface � f water which currently runs off the site, down slope to the Washington State { tPN Department of Transportation's (WSDOT) right -of -way for Interstate 5. This right -of -way area has a history of drainage problems and is sensitive to any disturbance. Any development of the upslope property, including the subject site, must insure that no adverse impact to the drainage downslope occur. L95 -0001: Rodger Lacy Page 6 The geotechnical study analyzed one proposed building pad location and recommends one means to insure the integrity of the proposed structure. An alternative building pad location, as proposed by staff, would have less of an impact to the existing sensitive areas on the subject property, while also providing reasonable use of the property.. As proposed by staff in Attachment G, by moving the building pad to the east approximately 40 feet, several impacts to the site will be reduced. First, the total impervious .surface_ will be reduced potentially allowing site development without requiring on -site stormwater detention. Single family residential development, ;exceeding 5,000 square feet in impervious surfaces, is required to retain the on -site storm water run -off on the property and release the water at the same rate as the pre- development rate. If the applicant can keep the impervious surfaces below 5,000 square feet, the impact to stormwater run -off will be reduced. Secondly, If the driveway can be reduced to less than 150 feet in length the- requirement for a fire truck hammer-head turn-around or cul-de-sac will be eliminated. This would also reduce the amount of impervious surfaces. c f 1, ; ¶ i p s- uvv q` ?4 Third, by moving the building pad to the east, where the existing slopes are `° flatter, c,:t ;'S the recommended interceptor drains and slope: cut for the drains will be less `severe: Fourth, moving the building pad to the area where there is existing fill material,, will lessen: the impacts to . the existing wetland, by. utilizing an already disturbed area As a result of the proposed development there will be no increased or unreasonable threat of damage to off-site public or private property and no threat to the public health, sa ety or werare on or off the development proposal site. According to the Geotechnical report, development of the subject site will not cause adverse impact to down slope properties if the recommendations in the report are followed. However, the report recommends that two interceptor drains, collecting surface and subsurface drainage, be placed upslope from the proposed building and that the interceptor drains be discharged directly to either the public stormwater conveyance system in 51st Avenue S. or an existing system located within the WSDOT right -of -way. Removing this water from the site will z • z; oc � 6 � 00 CO o` vow; w CO LLi w o: 2 ga =a f.. w z�: z� w O co o —: O I- w w U. to iz. • .(2 ! o� Z Staff Report to the L95 -0001: Rodger Lacy Planning Commission Page 7 alter the site characteristics contributing to the existing on -site wetlands and may adversely impact the drainage system located on the WSDOT property. t.1 Altering the natural drainage by collecting this surface and sub - surface water and conveying it to the public stormwater system may have an adverse impact on the rt existing public system. A storm drainage study, required at the time of development permit review, will be needed to determine impacts. An alternative to removing this on -site water and directing it to the public storm system, would be to collect the water in the interceptor drains, then direct at least a portion of the water to the proposed wetland ponds (which are part of the proposed wetland enhancement plan) and allow a off -site release of the water at the same rate that currently occurs. This alternative; should be explored as part of the final geotechnical recommendations for developing this site with the least impact to the existing • wetlands and slope stability. The Washington State Department of Transportation will also need to be contacted and consulted regarding any stormwater that will be directed to the storm drainage system located on the state property. Alterations permitted shall be the minimum necessary to allow for reasonable use of the properly. As discussed under Criteria B, a reduction in the driveway length and moving the building pad east 40 feet will reduce the impacts to the wetlands. In addition, because the slope is flatter in the staffs recommended location, the proposed interceptor drains could be located within an area requiring less of a cut into the existing slope, resulting in less impact to the slopes stability. This alternative should be explored in the final geotechnical study. i addition;.-an alternative which does not' disturb the existing. slope.• should be_ : = explored: An alternative which includes excavating the existing fill material and subsurface soils, and importing structural fill material for the building foundations. This alternative may eliminate the need to cut into the undisturbed western slope. The final geotechnical study should analyze this type of development alternative. The proposed development Ls compatible in design, scale and use with other development with similar site constraints in the immediate vicinity of the subject property. The proposed single family residence is similar to the . existing single family residences in the neighboring area. No other single family residence in the area has similar. site ,.constraints as this property. However, site evidence indicates that the property has been previously developed with at least one single family residence. q) z re uJ - L. U 0 N• w. w = J H uj o' ( D �w • z� 0 z D ;0 F-: w W- • tit Z U N` 17_x; 0 z Staff Report to the •• L95-0001: Rodger Lacy Planning Commission Page 8 F. Disturbance of sensitive areas has been minimized by locating the necessary alterations in the buffers to the greatest extent possible. The entire site is covered by sensitive areas, with the exception of the portion of existing fill material, so locating development within buffer areas only is not possible. Locating the development within the existing fill area would have the least impact on the existing sensitive area. As discussed earlier, moving the proposed building pad to the east approximately 40 feet would utilize this existing disturbed area and lessen the impact to the sites sensitive area. 6: The inability to derive reasonabk use of the property is not the result of actions by the applicant in segregating or dividing the property and creating the undevelopable condition after the effective date of the ordinance from which this chapter derives (1991). The subject property, with the existing wetland and steep slopes, was purchased after the adoption of the Sensitive Areas Ordinance. The property has not been subdivided. The applicant requests reasonable use of the property under this exceptfon without having created an inability to derive reasonable use of the property. A74 Any approved alterations of a sensitive area under this section shall be subject to conditions as established by this chapter and will require mitigation under an approved mitigation plan. Jfa development is approved as a reasonabk use, the Board of Architectural Review's process, review and standards shall be applied. e- The applicant has proposed a wetland enhancement, concept plan to mitigate • impacts to the wetland. If the requested exception is granted, then the mitigation plan must be further developed by the applicant to meet the specific standards of the sensitive areas overlay zone, and the enhancement plan must also be implemented prior to final to uilding permit approval by the Department of Community Development. The standards of the Board of Architectural Review are primarily tailored to commercial development Single family residences are exempt from the standards • and review requirements of the Board, of Architectural Review. • CONCLUSIONS 1:; CriteriaA. A single family residence is the least impacting use allowed in the R1-7.2 zoning District. 2. Criteria B., C.and • Reduction of the development area of 16,000 square feet is possible while allowing a reasonable economic use. ' z s Z CC 2 -J 0 00 CO ° COW: W i LL , ..J CO U. u 0 g :3 < m I— la Z 0 Z 1—• u j z 2 D D CO ui — co 0 — '7- o Staff Report to the L95 -0001: Rodger Lacy Planning Commission Page 9 Although the applicant has not proposed a specific construction time, limiting the construction to the dry season would have a lesser impact to the existing sensitive slopes, wetlands and watercourses by reducing the potential for erosion. Development of one single family residence with attached garage and access driveway can be obtained on this site with less impact to on and off site sensitive areas then is proposed in this application. Alternative building pad location, construction methods, and site drainage management, as suggested previously, should be addressed prior to development of this property. These : alternatives, should minimize' the disturbance to the sensitive areas . and lessen the impacts to the exiting wetlands, slopes, and on- and off- -site drainage, while ,permitting:., reasonable use of the property . A supplemental geotechnical report should be submitted which addresses these issues. Drainage studies will be required prior to issuance of any building permits which addresses any on- and off -site stormwater management issues. Criteria'E � No other single family residence in the area has similar site constraints. However, the proposed structure is similar in design and scale as other new single family . homes being constructed within Tukwila. Criteria F. Development cannot be located in buffer areas as the entire site is designated as sensitive areas, with the exception of the dirt road and former house site, previously filled. The applicant has proposed that the driveway be located within the previously disturbed areas. However, these disturbed areas could be better utilized for development by moving the proposed building : pad 40 feet east,within the pre- existing filled area as shown in attachment G. Criteria G. The property was purchased with existing sensitive : areas : and ; the:, applicant ,did not ,create the undevelopable condition of the. property.:: � Loo ,.� Q.7 ' 6. Criteria H. e /�� � Cave �`�......� - The wetland enhancement concept plan must be further developed by the applicant to meet the specific standards of the sensitive.areas. overlay .zone to = , mitigate development within the sensitive area The applicant must also implement the enhancement plan prior to final building permit approval by the Department of Community Development. Ca,r, w�- clfiAgir4 ?L)PQ a �-- ci-Atilvm cowQA- . ' ~uzi C4 J.0• 00 wz w O, co = ci; z 1..; 1- 01 w W z,. z 3 • Staff Report to the L95 -0001: Rodger Lacy Planning Commission Page 10 SUMMARY The provisions of the Sensitive Areas Overlay Zone (TMC 18.45) deny the applicant all reasonable use of the property. No development can occur within the subject property without the Planning Commission granting approval for an exception from TMC 18.45. The exception provisions are intended to balance the right of a property owner to obtain reasonable use of the property, while protecting valued natural resources, preventing wetland loss and controlling inappropriate site development on hazardous sloped areas. Development of a single family residence can be obtained which is consistent with the general purposes of the Sensitive Areas Overlay Zone and the public interest and with a minimum impact to the existing sensitive areas if the building location and development methods are controlled. So aios Based on the findings of this report, staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve the request for an exception from the Sensitive Areas Overlay Zone with the following conditions: RECOMMENDATIONS r � \I has 4, The applicant shall r = = ' - • • • : building pad approximat , thus utilizing the already disturbed fill area and reducing the impact to the existing wetland. The geotechnical report shall be revised to include alternative means of development which will have a lesser impact to the existing wetlands. This supplemental report shall be submitted for review and approval by the Department of Community Development and Department of Public Works prior to issuance of any development permits. 3. The following site development measures shall be followed, as recommended in the geotechnical report (Gali Group, March 15, 1995): a. All grading and site preparation work shall be conducted during the dry season. b. All cut slopes shall be protected from erosion during construction and shall be re- vegetated immediately after completion of grading activities. c. Geotechnical observations and testing, by a Washington State licensed geotechnical engineer, shall be conducted during site preparation and grading to insure that proposed slope stability measures are effective. 4. All land altering shall be limited to the area defined by the approved site plan and geotechnical study. Coreci z: rtw 00 coo cow' w= CO LC wo 2 g J. =d w, • _: Z ~: I-o z� w uj o ww o. Z U O Staff Report to the L95 -0001: Rodger Lacy Planning Commission Page 11 5. The applicant shall submit for review and approval to the Department of Community Development (DCD), a final wetland enhancement plan which -meets cc • and shall install all required wetland enhancement, as approved by DCD, prior to the issuance of the building permit. .i •;.- . .. _.. _ INFORMATION ITEM In addition to the above conditions, the applicant needs to address a number of other permit issues as noted in the Background section of this report. These include the following: Resolving location of the access for the residence; Providing adequate storm water management which does not adversely impact the on -site wetlands, downslope properties, and public stormwater drainage systems; Obtain land altering permit, utility permit, building permits and any other permits required for development of this property. 11M, .,■• I .e 8• 1•4111 ST ......./■•••••••••• . 34TH • • va 111/III4I 1/11y1.11.111rIll.111111111 8 1 • lllllll irn llllllll yot ttttttttttt L.; I4 ult ".. st lotetwiptinit liL TUKW I I. A 111111.1111 it I I I I,. 1111111111111 1 S ist)t•• • I • i • :*" I ! • . s 157 'JO S 1 r 7-17r Jr- I !. • t . • 1 8- • • 1 IStIth ST 001.1.1.100004.• 4. 5: 156th ST. • • • t•T s 4 ac 0 u W D. 35 iI- -z. re LI O 0: ,co 0, W ILI —I I- C* 0 g :71 • < 9— a w,• z z 1-- W. 2 n rs° • • CI : s. • W uj • .% • • I— I.. R = METRO SANITARY SEWER — % • Z 'eor (j) • Crys+41 5pruvos PtirK • • - • '••-% Ate Ar A •811• ST NO ST S.162nd SI • • • rk ST 1. ; . . • . : : 1 • . • • ••••••• • • CIC • e_ommomelltelMOMMOMOOMWOOMMIINOMOMOMMOM 17- • op S. 166111 S. 6 Hs ST s• A ACH,.„/17.7.77c . . • B-208 TRACT 47 449.00. c.rine.0,„,„.„„,,,„,,,..04irclus is ismwmile, ...t.... 4 S891702t •\ ‘ 4......... -......, • %. -''. .‘\■*".% I - 1- . r -4: kr 1--f: . 10)1 \ r• ‘74.92... ‘.. s i N •\ \, s‘ \., N., ‘, ...\ -1,-"• _ -- -.:•,....1.913r,•,----•===-'214v----:-"--44-*T-.... -1;-• r‘,- -• , N .-im......,,,r- :.....‘,7••••-\- •cr• •-•.‘ --.‘ \ '•\ s .■ ...Z.:. ., \,`, ' '6. 0 ‘71.2.4.3 . % c3t \ 1 1 . \ \ ‘ \ ylcit. i ., Aiz E.rit.213411 ; \ \ ‘ \ 1 ‘ \ ■ .... .... , -........ \ \ .6, \ To , ,,,,, k - - - -- ----■ •_, elo \ \ ■• \ ■ '0 ' `i ■ ',,‘ t 93.1.7::: Ant % 1 . Am rkcipos4 bulkIrtg locaVen \ \ ‘ •••, _-f• -- -- -- -.. N s'. ) N .0 •„‘ \ \ \ \ 11_ _ _‘ „. ‘ ... ..„ .0 \ 1,, tar 11 I / fill ' .........4: ..,•....c-,.+;,•., • 0... \ \ , \ . ‘ \ \ •,:, ‘ ...1„, ‘ ... c... il . , ....... ‘. `• \I-12% A--■XO i // i / I ‘ \ TRAGT4.8 . \ • ...I CV 6).'- r I" 7 I Yi............ , / , I /I i c) / ••• 1 . • 0 i \ 1 ‘t1,%. 17.43, I / / i vffrot„re4r060 rip•bclit 4)•,/ TP2 zpri_lta4 I a' "- i I I ri Ns, \ i i i • / I I II ' 7,-; % 1 1 ..■ \''nt % 1 I \ SNs / 1 • .41••::., 2.... ; \ • \ ' • . VI::::; / 0 I 1 r•-• •-. ■ .d AA tit( (41■2••• , \AIM, // w 4 • ‘‘ II% 1N BENCH MARK-E RIM STORM MH CUL-DE-SAC EL. 209.20 Scale I"= 50• 117::1161111- -.1"ctiseA l!Siwriff"IrTATE R/V FENCE \ \ ••■ .74.- 1 • ... 1.0\* jfirj. eAr., ‘10\ \ \ • - K1915'331/ ..., •%. rgi \ 2) \ ' ‘ \ 81 \ ,..1., % cv....-.031 '..., , \ .. , f'� r• . ...,. _...,---:'. 0 ' 1 k \‘,E). '1.99, .,■ S • . \ 100. --.‘, - --1.- -'1-4---,----,--- ,E127 - .... .. - -.--.....—..............,,,....---T.:. ,--, \‘‘ ‘,‘\\ \\\ \‘‘‘‘:‘. : \ \ ‘ ' ‘ ' ' \ \ . .11 ". s ...... \ •t • \\‘‘ \\ \ 1 \ 1 • \ \ ‘ \ I r`13915.30A1 \ \ , r,.,‘i 1 1 , \ Ns.-,, .- \.,... 0A3 ..... , \ ''‘ ••-• ' "'' -7— \ \ " \ \ \ \ \ 1 ' I • \ 1 1 1 I ' 1 ‘ \ • 1 1 526A4k..... • -,,, „,i,, \ 1 1 ■ - .. \ , s ,\ .„,. , _ _ _ , ‘`...."\ :7.7..._-:-."-: ... ...... .... 14121,t1).1-1-1-•-\,—.. 1 I I . • I - ‘ .1..4. _.1..-..1 ..t..... ...‘..1 _IL 4....17..itli L2-..' IA\ s:0 \ \ , ''• : ‘.....s.--1.-....:745.'z2-: ---.-.---'7.-..2.--....*_...%-\ .."*::-- . CUI:.CIE ItZ " , ..•; , • Sol CITY PAR Al . . K • LEGEND 4. Approxireate Test P11 location • • Borings perforrned by others .;••••••••••• Proposed Interceptor Drains Based upon Boundary and Contotr Survey kr Rodger E. Lacy Sr., by Lund and Assodates. Surveyors, 2-28-95 * gem,' 3/24'/95- Site Plan Rodger E. Lacy Residence The Gall Group. Inc. 13500 Lake CNy Way NE. duke 202 Seattle, WA 011125 (205) 31134440 Figure 4 . '' • ''' ' , TRACT 47 449.00. 587433 027E .7.111 .4lt1 %;. :.. y =3tLN.i$, tC4POW Ittd.1N 1q S'rnaM •bYSTMK Scab: V2 •\ } rir `' `3' 1 \ 1 .. \ 1 \ A \ `-41 1.1, \ 'O d N 1 1 1 •; • \ \ •p \ 1 1 \ \ . \ rem► as..e.`m •• i,d•: • G' 1 ?: r \ \ \ \ \ VO\ • " �F . \ . • fr a. awe.�i a e.a4a.a 1 \ •\ \ `\ dR��wL) \ E \ 4u. u,. 1 c,, Tin 6, 1 x• ,/ r \ \� \ \ )•' • 1 1 1 1 1 N ' 1'4P 1 1 ` \� • `s\ N`s. . .7zbeA cm' nn4) \ . • . '. \ �•' \ T •' \ ;.. �� 1 1� i~ O 1 ! /t' zf /,� • \ \\ \`• `\ I .10 .1 1 �c ..7 _• , ■ _r 1 1 / \s , „A ; • . O \ , \.we:acou4s€ .\\ `\\ \`` \ \� • •166 131 `c�',�\ \ ∎ \-\ ' :■5,7.99, \ \ \\ 35 • ,� O \ \ I \ \ \ �� \ \\ • i 152644 \' .61\ I N�\ \ \ \� \\ \\ \ \∎ 1. Dosed upon Oautfry and Contour Survey fcrRodgerE Lacy*... byLurdend Aeeoctates 5wveyore, 2-28-95 2. See d ets/Mca hwee• Option Rod}+rE. Lary Sr. Rssldenra, Slat Avenue South Tubule. Washington 3. 15.95. by Gas Group for recommendations on cut, fill, and • drainage. 3. Interceptor trench at top of proposed cut should be Metaled prior to ref-Mind of elePeer • 4. Water course approaching buary footprint from the wet and the south should be rerouted es part of the 4rdscap4ry and wetland nitlgatln plane. Interceptor trsah alma south side of budded footprint may road to drain kmto rerouted watercourse. Proposed Grading Plan KJ. p.,0. I..••e.•.M, " 3•tm•9% w•r n R` MAYO 44C Rodger E Lay 5r. Reeldalcs TJ+*I14 WooNnaton atmovr TYO atkor.M. • t3 eooWG,M411iemie2Ot wwrrr• e•esW MeeMtew DIU r (tee) 3413 -e44e I OMAN 1 of 3 W: rt 6 ' —1 C.) 'c.) 0• w =: CO W LL a'. W Z Z� 'gyp;. 0 :0 s.r.. off. = ll,l is 11 0: tii u): 0 . 1 4 zed' tea'; Ye' 'Ramsey 4rtnas es'', ti therfsw •Y 4e.►va� i may' Cross Section A - A' Scala raw Hortzonw r• a vaswl I1 •V401%549 dilt■tal,. ' Cross Section B- B' .,t Sulk r.10'1laaartal r. a Vortical Cross SectIons A -A' and B -B' w u, i mo, aw.sur. n, D AM 1.21•3Pf Rodger E Lacy Sr. Residence T,bY� Waolingtan •Iw..w A.A wr.s.((l7 TrAM amp rr•=00kb Ow My rf. sr. tot rww....o 11.0061Vailylso N 11 r (tN)toi1114 Dra4112ef3 • . 25 R 7 a •J•C ;a ---1. • a... ao . $ • 11 • •- 1.. .• 1 •a e — - •••-r. •• -7.2 - I —1-7•,. ---. ) 11 . 40 -.'. ... 4! • ,Y. ea r . . .. , .. — . 0 to° •,:, ,„, :-...- • .1 it c• ; . , .1 1 '''. r.1•',... • ... ▪ C'. . • 1 ii .... • • ... i . t ::: • • . ''... ''',!,...r •,,. c. ,, . ,,‘ ,... • • . 94 404 ■ ,•• •• lt • 7901 09 LOT 3 •-• : .._,..1Z.,`.'.:......,. ' • .....:7;;i::::-- 1 ..., c.: i,':'• -',•. ‘‘‘.,.. .,...:..,,: ;•-•:,,...,::, •,• , ... :.•-•....:::.:,.-Is: ;.::::.:•7 :.. ..,..:',.;:!.;.:•::•.,,:::;:l..''::::;',.'H '. 1.5.,...,37,..7.:::..,-;— 7 :"...;‘,...i -.,:.!•,...:,..:.,„' ...-.. .- -1: ..- ... ..:' :: I :-11* + :■..•• : I% 'V.:' ' , .". • ...! 'I.N.: •.x. : • : • ; . • •.. . ,•• . . • • N 88.42.41 W •"•;: • -.:•• • • ,.. 5 • .. • 160TH ,...V.Wr4ektr.:;Q,S11.1XiigrAt•r4Piaidt34ftroVagkeoin34.191.fral "TAIP,P,IS,V41440,14*.4.63iINSPiggegg,M.,:X.; i„orzw.qtam. CLASS 4 AREAS, WHERE LANDSLIDE POTENTIAL IS VERY HIGH, WHICH 71,1 INCLUDE SLOPING AREAS WITH MAPPABLE ZONES OF GROUND WATER CCCrlarnr.7 toot • .•••••• ••%. ATTACHMENT E z 1• 1- z re 6 = —J0 • 0 CO ° W —I 0 2 g u_ < a I- III z 1._ o ZI- LUUJ 0 O 1- W w I 0 I- ;- wz U.. O CI) rz. 0 1"" n Rodger E. Lacy Sr. 3125 S. Dakota St. Seattle, WA. 98108 April 3, 1995 Mr. Gary Schulz City of Tukwila Dept. of Community Development Tukwila, WA. 98168 SUBJECT: Conceptual Mitigation Plan • Dear Garr Transmitted with this letter is a drawing showing the approximate area of the class II wetlands being impacted by my building site and the proposed areas on the same site to be used to mitigate the intrusion with a brief description of the conceptual mitigation plan proposal. • - The area marked "A"on the map represent the area of intrusion by my building site which is approximately a 16,000 sqft area. ' • The area marked "8" on the map is a proposed area of mitigation which will be accomplished by enhancements with the planting of trees and wetland shrubs. The area set aside as "B" is ....._ approximately 16,750 sqft. • • The area marked "C" on th. e map is a proposed pond or series of ponds with the appropriate native plantings in or about it The pond will be lined as not to cause instability problems off site The pond(s) will act as part of the site storm drain detention system. The area of "C" is approximately 8,000 sqft - • The area marked "D" on the map is an alternate site for area "E" in the event that S. 158th street isn't approved for vacating. The area of "D" is approximately 4,125 sqft. The area marked "E" on the map is located in the S. 158th St. right of way and is contingent upon my request for the vacating of S. 158th St. The area of "E" is approximately 4,500 sqft. I have retained the services of "PEG FERM DESIGN, which is a wetland architectural and design company located in Monroe WA.". Mrs. Peg Fenn will be working with your office in assisting me in the formulation of a City of Tukwila approved wetland mitigation plan. Thank you. 4 Sincerely, Rodger E. Lacy Sr. . . • ILQ o°-.0 • • •-•-";':,P.3?). icr) _ 44 Vic D An-Ref-MEW r ` TRACT 47449,00' S89'33'02" E c._-_S-----S.. a : au_��1� 1111111ff 1 1 1.. \ b\ , sP���� I \ , il , 1I , ,►! \ . j OI1Ipi ti • \''dQ+ \� 1 . � \\\ \\ ..\\ ` �' �1 • \ \\ N. • L I � ��� aTw1 \ 11 ' 1 81.__ r �■ �t -1--- \ 1 .\ \ � \ II�\ \ ‘'' n \ 1 \ \ \ \ t N89'35'90 "1"R— \\ o \ \! .�" l\ \ \ \ 1 I t \\ \ I 520.44\ \\ S \\ 4\8 �'` � �� �Il,,�>sj,42,- •+- �•i-.-\-• \?—t ., •L.- -�.M—. - -r \ •L } i a I J— a�r —.� .'. iAs \-X. I�t• • —%■- CITY PARK Scale 1• -50FT MUM iii 1U• 589'33'02"E 178.68 STATE R/W FENCE • N89'3jo1.27 LEGEND • WETLAND INTRUSION MITIGATION BY ENHANCEMENT WITH TREES AND SHRUBS POND OR SERIES OF PONDS WITH APPROPRIATE NATIVE PLANTINGS ADDITIONAL POND IN THE EVENT OF S.158th. ST. VACATION : ••• • CUL-DE SIC Q CONCEPTUAL WETLAND MITIGATION PLANI Rodger E. Lacy Residence 'figure 1 BENCH MARK -E RIM STORM MH CUL-OE-SAC EL. 209.28 i• italecebilan c bue%Wv5. ?,.A . ;TRACT .'47 449.00,,, ; honchos b•t«.t. 208 TRACT 113 -- :— -`-.\ - - -26 \ ‘ A -‘ 1 ,\ ..1 \ \ TP-1 /0!4r 1 ?. \ \ \ \ ■ \ o s `` \,1\ % �l j j \1 \•T GT \A \ \�\ `./.160 . \ .1 1 \ 1 • / / / . I IApRro>llmer�e IOe of r ridn�. lP -2 1 � 1 r♦ .: 11.1 111'11.1 / '1 I • 1 a_ \ 1♦ 1 -�\ Q` \1 .I �,A • ..1:1 //rl/ /1 ' ` 1 r. 1 0' �Lcs `'` '' lo\ • . ..:1111 1 //1 / / � 1 . 1 <i1 <� \ O\ \ •o v m a / \ 1 I I 1 111 1 I / 1 \ • l J \ \ d �eqi* . ■ . i .NTa \N. i\ . I I11 \11I \ 1 \ \ \.. N. \ . \ \�� \ \ ���� \,'aZw _Z \ \ \ \ll \ \ \ \ \1. \ \\ \ \� \ M \ ' \\ \r:��ir7a =�_ %,L \ I \ 1 \� \\ \11 \� 168.41 \ ' \♦ \ \ 1 812 \ 4 \) 1�'•....itre.81 \. \\ \ ;Q1 C‘:\ \\\\:\''‘‘‘\\\‘\‘‘\\\\\\\ ` \ \\ \. \\ i mo, \.t' ;,\ \ ,� �,\ \♦ ♦ `yr \ \ \ \ . . • \ • \ \ t I N139'35.30•V .♦ \ .o \ b„ •\ • � � % 1 \ \ \� � \ \.. \\ i 1 \ \ I i 52611.1\ `\ - /�Y'/i'Yrf \.--" -- - _`! ---.--• . i • ∎ •r —a - ..—_L.. • 1 _�. -,s! ..1—_.. `.a a]. ...14 -- .`1111 \ \1 // I 1 1 V 1 se9•33'02:L_ Iie.6e • .• LEGEND Approximate Test Pit location Borings performed by others Proposed Interceptor Drains'. Based upon Boundary and Contour Survey for Rodger E. Lacy Sr., by Lund and Associates, Surveyors, 2- 25.95 CITY PARK 1\PASTP' STATE R/V FENCE N89'35'3O1V • � •67.99— \ \� 100c0 y, \ \ 1 \ — •4( Revnro 3/24/95- t • C1. -DE SAC C4 1 CIRB Site Plan • Rodger E. Lacy Residence The G.111 Group, Inc. 13500 Lake City Way NE, 8u11. 202 Seattle, WA 98125 (206) 363-6449 Figure 4 • • Pcolueatel 1‘..6cok■on ! TRACT 47449.00' .,\,.,.‘,0; VoVAa1� •� ��� 989'33'02 "E ` \ , r , ' 1 S89'33'02"E _ 1 ���07 r ��j� ��'}�s tI/jlii�nll '��� �79.9�� i��p■p ■r n�•, y �n7A,�a •� ' � • 178,68 z. �l'� `' 11�\ •� \ 11 lfi� \F ',yL.� ■. a'� d.l�m••$6.�• -.. -, %As 1 t SPA, iiiir, r tie.,1;,,,,/,'•.:/,,F,0 - '\ �� :`I , 1 j' \, / / �■/� \BSI* , iiiiiiNokelo'10 � ,d Ir' ,,1l+ #/e+� 1/ ,I'' y't�• \ s is / 1 Q' +� \ m 01 h �7 + /°I 1' / ry i \ 1111 1. // /. \ \ o �7 ��Is- . 1 ♦ �t STATE R/W FENCE I . \ III I I 1 / \ ��' [� �`I�p'li {'; '1'��i►�` ``. ti \ ‘1\‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘. \ �� �: �� �� � " ��i �vt.:, tip \. „,IC"� �.. N89'35'30"W \ \\‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘ \. TY+8,�13 aa ! 1 \ l 0,.27 `\ \ \`1\,\` \\ \ \ \ \ \\ \ `\ \\ i \ \ \ \ l N \ \;' I \' \ .I 1 \ I I 1 \ \ . \ II _ ■L it ■N■i1121g: -�•: \ l� 7- di'•�17�s -r 1 ', r r_i— w.- r- �'___.— -.—. A ►, i ' i �, ., __�L , �• • �-�+— �1 Y 'SP1 v a ($ At 1 - i `• CURB E . •. I I- V) • .o, .3I • 0 10,7 CITY PARK 1 MIN 0 WETLAND INTRUSION i' MITIGATION BY ENHANCEMENT WITH TREES AND SHRUBS POND OR SERIES OF PONDS WITH APPROPRIATE NATIVE PLANTINGS ADDITIONAL POND IN THE EVENT OF S.158th. ST. VACATION CONCEPTUAL WETLAND MITIGATION PL/1. Rodger E. Lacy Residence 'Figure 1 I- N 0! co W WF• � } } }� g IL Q (• 3; 1W; z fi- W 0: o I ,. u. o; • z;, z.. • PROCEDURE State Environmental Policy Act or SEPA environmental review is required. An environmental checklist must be submitted with the application, and a 'Determination' by the City's SEPA Responsible Official must be made on the proposed use prior to any public hearing. This application requires a public hearing before the Planning Commission. During the public hearing the applicant, other proponents, and opponents are allowed to testify regarding the proposal. After the hearing and a review of the criteria, the Commission may deny, approve, or approve with conditions the proposed request. The Planning Commission meets every fourth Thursday of the month at 8:00 p.m. APPEAL PROCEDURE Any party by the decision of the Planning Commission may appeal the decision to the City Council within 10 days from the Commission's approval date. � •::.*'. '� SPECIAL PERMISSION SENSITIVE AREAS OVERLAY ZONE REASONABLE EXCEPTION INFORMATION CITY OF TUKWILA 63000 Southcenter Boulevard, Tukwila, WA 98188 DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Telephone: (206) 431 -3680 The Sensitive Areas Overlay Zone (SAO) permits reasonable exceptions from the requirements of the SAO if the applicant demonstrates to the Planning Commission that application of the provisions of the SAO would deny all reasonable use of the property. The Planning Commission may grant development approval, which is consistent with the general purposes of the ordinance and the public interest. S.A.O. REASONABLE USE EXCEPTION CRITERIA Eight criteria established in the Sensitive Areas Overlay Zone section of the Zoning Code guide the Planning Commission in their decision making [TMC 18.45.115(c)(4)]. Each applicant, as part of the application, is requested to respond to each of these criteria as they relate to their project. 1. No reasonable use with less impact on the sensitive area and its buffer is possible; 2. There is no feasible on -site alternative to the proposed activities, including reduction in size or density, phasing of project implementation, change in timing activities, revision of road and lot layout, and /or related site planning activities that would allow a reasonable economic use with fewer adverse impacts to the sensitive area and its buffer; 3. As a result of the proposed development there will be no increased or unreasonable threat of damage to off -site public or private property and no threat to the public health, safety or welfare on or off the development proposal site; 4. Alterations permitted shall be the minimum necessary to allow for reasonable use of the property; The proposed development is compatible in design, scale and use with other development with similar site constraints in the immediate vicinity of the subject property; 6. Disturbance of sensitive areas has been minimized by locating the necessary alterations in the buffers to the greatest extent possible; The inability to derive.reasonable use of the property is not the result of actions by the applicant in segregating or dividing the property and creating the undevelopable condition after the effective date of the ordinance from which this chapter derives (1991); and 8. Any approved alterations of a sensitive area under this section shall be subject to conditions as established by this chapter and will require mitigation under an approved mitigation plan. If a development is approved as a reasonable use, the Board of Architectural Review's process, review and standards shall be applied. Liouia�i r�-,tt:+++✓C: ?»vt sai:cas:e�r�1.sa�x'Mo.'a rw...oc : �.:t d A 1'x14m�Jv7- F - .1— Ce D J U' oO; to 0'. vo w: W =: J I w� Lt. <C. z_� F- 0'. ZF MI 0 'Do iO N, ;Dui �. :Z 0�. O H; SPECIAL' ERMfSSIo.N-- ^.____� S.A.O. REASONABLE EXCEPTION APPLICATION CHECKLIST CITY OF TUKWILA DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Tukwila, WA 98188 Telephone: (206) 431 -3680 The following materials must be submitted with your application. This checklist is to assist you in submitting a complete application. Please do not turn in your application until all items which apply to your proposal are attached to your application. If you have any questions, contact the Department of Community Development at 431 -3680. .S. GENERAL VI Application Form Special Permission Fee - $200.00 IN Environmental Checklist Environmental Checklist Fee — $.325.00 PLANS . t7 Seven sets of site plan and elevations The scale shall not exceed 1 "=30' maximum, with the north arrow, graphic, scale and date, all identified on the site plan. Each set of plans shall have license stamps by the architect and landscape architect. The following information should be contained within the set of plans: Vicinity map showing location of site and surrounding prominent landmarks. Property dimensions and names of adjacent roads. Lot size and lot coverage calculations Existing and finished grades at 2' contours with the precise slope of any area in excess of 15 %. Location and dimensions of existing and proposed structure(s), accessory structures with appropriate setbacks, parking and loading area dimensions, and driveways. _.r UNCLASSIFIED USE PE - r APPLICATION CHECKLIST Page 2 , F. Existing trees (6" in diameter) by species and an indication of, which will be saved. Proposed landscaping: size, species, location and distance apart. G. Location and size of proposed utility lines and a description of by whom and how water and sewer is available. H. Location, dimensions and nature of any proposed easements or dedications. For commercial and industrial uses, gross floor area by use and parking calculations. j Dimensioned elevations of building drawn. at 1/8" =1' or a comparable scale. Elevations should show the type of exterior materials. K Location and elevations of dumpster screens. L. Location and elevations of mechanical screens. 0 M. Color and material sample board for buildings and accessory structures. w O' J LL a td w Z �.. zo 0 co ;o One (1) Photomaterial Transfer (PMT) of each plan reduced to 8.5" by 11" (most _ 0; printing companies can make PMI's). o ,�► •Det,hta tact arias �-yp t. 44- wd 4 lo� z. puBLI.Whcemek we -lb 14 bOd t q,ari 6 Jamr yeas • A l50 5ko cA) o �> S 'Y CI44Vv aTeAWU Orr s 4?e6 ?. gA mailing•list of property owners and residents within 300 feet of your property. (See attached "Address Label Requirements ") A King County Assessor's Map which identifies the location of each property ownership and residence listed. The maps may be ordered from the King County Public Works Map Counter at 296-6548. OPTIONAL El Perspective drawings, photographs, color renderings or other graphics which may be needed to adequately evaluate your application. gi Other required information: 1141-1tvAA DtVult-Ifk‘ -RIE/for-1— as cecw‘'rkl btA -T'M6 I�• 45 S.A.O. REASONABLE EXCEPTION APPLICATION CITY OF TUKWILA DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 6300 Southcentor Boulevard, Tukwila, WA 98188 Telephone: (206) 431 -3680 1. BRIEFLY DESCRIBE YOUR REQUEST:) E Y/'/ 155/0)U .*Z 19X11 )4 SI iu i l e2,p -ea /14 1 1 y we.-1-164 \iGI Avect �I 2. PROJECT LOCATION: (Give street address or, if vacant, indicate lot(s), block, and sub - division; or tax lot number, access street, and nearest intersection) Quarter: S E Section: A a Township: 23 g Range: I. g (This information may be found on your tax statement) 3. APPLICANT:* Name: A Oc Ge cy 5 l Address: 3 / .. eik04- -t. j ,��ci ilJei LUA- Phone• C o eo b?9,---.0'7 74 Signature: J Date: .Su n1 U , l �' * The applicant n{ is the person whom the staff will contact regarding the application, and PP P to whom all notices and reports shall be sent, unless otherwise stipulated by applicant. AFFIDAVIT OF OWNERSHIP 4. PROPERTY Name: �o d0 Cd r 41 clit(rky L cz C OWNER Address:.' i.: 5 50, D4Jo /cr 5* 9uf%kt' Lion G 'to y Phone: C 0 b) 7 2 —C) 7 7`1 I /WE [si gn ature(s)) •V swear that I /we are the owner(s) o 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: ..)cl iu `D. 1 /9 iS zmw•r m^-wc...a r....,. -x-, - w,.Y:.yaw....,.�,. semr.......U....>.. ,,eAp ...,n,r na.rn7. r�Cc�a SPECIAL PERMISSION - S.A.O. REASONABLE EXCEPTION APPLICATION 5. PRESENT USE OF PROPERTY? V C- 6. PROPOSED S.A.O. EXCEPTION (from TMC 18.45.115): // C 7. WHAT IS THE TIME FRAME FOR CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF THE PROPOSED USE? M a V t i i `I 95 8. DESCRIBE THE MANNER IN WHICH YOU BELIEVE THAT YOUR REQUEST FOR A REASONABLE EXCEPTION WILL SATISFY EACH OF THE FOLLOWING CRITERIA AS SPECIFIED IN TMC 18.45.115(c)(4) (ATTACH ADDITIONAL SHEETS IF NECESSARY). A. No reasonable use with less impact on the sensitive area and its buffer is possible. RESPONSE: T118. 1), A 5 opec. 'h . r4 , a, - - 1l1 Lit Q Y` 4 , r: . v! . JE A nY tf 6-Pe- ✓'S area 15 B. There is no feasible on -site alternative to the proposed activities, including reduction in size or density, phasing of project implementation, change in timing activities, revision of road and lot layout, and/or related site planning activities that would allow a reasonable economic use with fewer adverse impacts to the sensitive area and its buffer. f r RESPONSE: 'Tile o $ 5lej -e cJ rH e e :i" NA.r trese.. L»i d Furuvv, ,neee . Thew_ 7s ' z <w tr 2 0; W to 11J, U? wO J u. j. _ °. E- zF- Z 0: LL, uj Do o(1) o� 11Jw X U, LL- z 0 z SPECIAL PERMISSION - S.A.O. REASONABLE EXCEPTION APPLICATION C. As a result of the proposed development there will be no increased or unreasonable threat of damage to off -site public or private property and no threat to the public health, safety or welfare on or off the development proposal site. RESPONSE: A A /. - / it r ' /.� �• �. ' 1PreleP 4-1o5 Si1-e- u Alterations permitted shall be the minimum necessary to allow for reasonable use of the property. 1 RESPONSE: E. The proposed development is compatible in design, scale and use with other development with similar site constraints in the immediate vicinity of the subject properly. RESPONSE: 7"he, -" pe- fig ?n% -ham aviiat Slnvllur• '3J - Cci)) mint& be- Cau5-0-, #1,01 WeVe- burlcl raor. % 114;6 rec./ uhrh-fan/. SPECIAL PERMISSION - S.A.O. REASONABLE EXCEPTION APPLICATION F. Disturbance of sensitive areas has been minimized by locating the necessary alterations in the buffers to the greatest extent possible. Cr-il0r..) u1hie•11 Caro- -il,) Sv/vi a t`J1 / J G. The inability to derive reasonable use of the property is not the result of actions by the applicant in segregating or dividing the property and creating the undevelopable condition after the effective date of the ordinance from which this chapter derives (1991). RESPONSE: -nig. 54b. ;led a of d OW lo-etr5 Any approved alterations of a sensitive area under this section shall be subject to conditions as established by this chapter and will require mitigation under an approved mitigation plan. If a development is approved as a reasonable use, the Board of Architectural Review's process, review and standards shall be applied. RESP • NSE:_ • . mod = '= ter:,... 'u • / 'n e M I -i cr7" rl� ,o, )U W i iii "�±iffr. ' / t■ 1 L• aw f i 1 &)J16Alcitvri CA ' a s en r/tv LL i • r� at 1hPs ) ry']� (J411 p pia iivui'! tvi+jct ,.Q , ye•,e_c: Curl �►cc P� 4vry Wit - c Ifeloped 1e f pu+ ,ewr O1 P5, s v 147. LiJ, z 1-• • try. UO. CO t]:. cow. • W= J I.. N.LL: WO • LL 4t. F.. w Z. Z O' UJ gyp: ff' • :w W! LL H; z: • N: , • • O • •z • 1.completed a'rev ew .orir Noyember 3td of 'the speific&areas of the site which you .; r• equested b..evaluated•for.the' presence 'of :wetlands••and•:watercourses. • : • • • As ;you requested, 1:have not. prepared:a. Wetland' Delineation.: Report • .buts have, - • instead, :prepared this: brief fetter repor :fo summarize: my evaluation?. This report include`s information:on the degree to which wetlands 'are present;wittiiri fhe site;:. '`' the' apparent .City. of Tukwila: ••classifications of the Identified: wetland,; :arid the , • •specificd"ocuirierited onslte,wetland.iiidicators.. • • • .,. ;. • Watershed Dynamies;:[nc: would:be.happy to:assist you with subsequent project • e• lements.such •as ihe=completion::of:.a delineation'report• and wefisrid mitigaL.u', ..arid erihancernerA designs, as` may •be''requir:ed •by the: City.:of Post-It" brand fax transmittal memo 7671 `i�;3:'�r'..: ; :�'.L�ju�,�;.•�d�:,,•'.' &.;: <.n .'�rr.�a;evirv:waNu��c-x;:: ' Noverrmber• :4; :1994't: Mr;• Rodger. Lacy • • • • •. ' 3125: South. Dakofa • • ' •• . • • . 'Seattle, Washington 98108 • :' - ••• LACY:PROJECT SITE - WETLAND: EVALUATION: AND'D.ELIIIEATION ' ' " ' •.A • STUDY SUMMARY •• ' . • ' • • A review was•.compieted.ori.November 3rd :.1994 of the' propertylocated'adjacent • to the cul-de=sac.`at. the. 'northern •end of .51st: 'Avenue :SE:, wittiirr. ttie City: of • Tukwila, Washington: The;purpose'.of.' this review was to ascertain the.'pr'esence:.' ' and : approximte' a••location of :wetland anii .watercourses within a ,portion; -of :the'' property :. The.p'ortion'ofthe sitewhich'was reviewed was an'a�ea:app�oxiniately;. '371:feet in lengths and• 194'; feet' in widtli, asshown•on the..'attached site map. ...; : ;: •• ••This evaluation resulted in the characterization :of th0.., majority'of the: study area: ; ,: ' : as.wetland.: An assessment. of theonsite :wetland: was•. .compl'eted::follow'ing•• €he : . . • • definitions provided in the • City of :Tukwila Sensitive' Areas .Ordinance (S 40) ' (Ordinarice:; #1599): T;iis assessinenf resulted, in' the :•preliminary classification •of'. • • . :the" onsite.wetland•''as • Type 2 :Wetland:: 'The 'specif c,de'finitions used to- define • • the wetland as a Type 2 were: • .. ' • 1 8.45.020 'C '2a -• "Wetiands:greatei- than one .acre in 'size "; and • ' • 18.45.020':C 2c - ' Wetlands.�equal•'to''or: less than one acre that••hav-e forested wetland•:ctass..•com'prised of :at least '20 percent •o•erage. of :surface. area." ' • •' • The:••City.: Of. •Tukwila•'requires •that - a'•:56•foot.protective buffet, be established ;; • a round: Type'2 Wetlands: • •'. : . • The wetland delineation an.d •evaluation:.was ac'coriiplistied thresu9h. an: :analysis,. of vegetation,`' soils., `and. hydrologic. characteristics,: at. fourteen.' Sample: Plots • • • :Iocatedin•a- grid..p'atterri%V ithin:the study area :. • • ' `TYie'November 3rd review also identified•'four•drainage corridors :withini.thie;•study,.• • area: : These corridors'w, ••ere•: observed. •to originate •offsite south:` and:' • • southwest.• :Two '!Of .the' four corridors• (Drainage : #2 nd :.#4.) ; :appeared. :to• have.•• ...• ' .z .. • cu J U I.) 0'; ID 0 ,mow Jas • •, •N U.; w� .1 J AL. a, a 1-.w • =r • • ••z Alt • D n: 'O k • ;o • •w WE. • • — o• UCO; : z 1' • . .. . . • . • " .. • • . . • , • .. . • ..... . . • . - •-• - ... . . . . • • . . '. . . .. ... • • .. .. • . . • • • • ... • • . . • . . .. • • • • - .. • . • • • • • • ' • ..: • • . • , e • .• . . . . • . ... .. .. . . . . .: ..% been created through ..historic • excavation. • activitieS.....as eviden•Ced:. bY:2the% ...'..;........ • •••••:. .• • ....• maintained Vertical Channel-Wall fbrrn of the corridor.' •••;DrainectjeS. #1 and #3*.clicil*. .... :;.. .."... ..: • ..: -...not. exhibit .similar : created characteristics and', .as'.sUch;.'appea4d;to.fneet•.the', ;...... ' • ........ . '.I ••.. City •of TUkwiia•definitiOn of a "WatercOurSe"; • • An*.:•evaluati"On of-WaterdoirSe'...:'•:‘, '. • ••• :: . .. . •Type -.was not completed due to the extent .of the.identified:ohilfe:wetland• and '.. •••• .. •• . •••• . • . • • . • :• • the :fact 'that: the asiociated ..watland'.buffer:...rnakes... moot: any assOCiated: ,•............ ..... . • . . • .. •• . • . • •VVaterdairse..buffer'ieuirernenti.:•' . .• ...•• ..•• • •••• • • ' • • •••• '...••• :-.• • • , •• .• •••• • • • , ..: 6 : .: ..:. ..;.• •• ..: • • • • .. • •• . The City of Tukwila •re'quireS•that:a:•1$: foot • setback be established in • . additiori to any•aPPlicabie Wetland bufferreiquirerrents:•:... • • • .• • . • '''•••••• ••• ,...• • . • . .• . • • • • . • • . • . • . . • • • • • . . • . . • ' ••• • . • . . .' • .• . . . . . . • • • . .• . . • • ..• ••• Weilantl:SurVev•lifiethbds • .... •-• • . • . . . • . . ..• . .....•. .. • : . • • •• • .. . . • . . . . . Boundaries between Weiland and non-wetland •• areas were :established. bi••••••••..• • , . . • exarnining. the transitional . gradietit..tiefikeOri wetland :criteria. .06site...atil■fities Were completed in accordance •With..*Criterid:and procedures :established in ihe. ..,••••• ••• • . Federal Manual for kien*thci.ahii *Deline6tiritt.jUriidictionl Wetlands (1.959 ...:•••:'• . • Manual). Delineation.. was utilizing the Flydrid. 'Soil .6 AssistssmOnt.•-: . •• proceduria 'As- detailed in the. Roptine DeternatctyethOd: • . . . • • ..• • • • • .. •• • • . • • • . . • . . . • Field Observations • • ..• • • • . • • • • • • • .. • • . • . • • • • • , •• .• • • SOils • • i• • . . .• - • •• .... • • - '. • ' . • ...''• .1 •:. ..' • • :*. • .. .• •:, 7 . . , .. :,. ....,.. 1 . .....-.1•Site, specific analySiS2identified...both .hydric:.•and.;non,hydric...Soils*••Within...the. .,. :•:•• • • • • • . i • •.'•i,.- project :site:. Hydric soils are :tipiCally..: defined:0S..SOils which • are...saturated:1.. %....-.. ......'....::: . ...' ...: :....flooded, ." or .ponded' long.i•senoiigh .during'. the •:.grOWind. season .t•o•• deVelop.:..' ..:•••• ...... • ::•*-: • . '. • 1 '.: - anaerobic conditions within the upper sbils..hOriZons: . •• ' • • . ••• .• - •:'.• • :::"• • ' ,•••••••.'-.4 •-.. ': • • •. . . • . • • .• ...• •. • • . . • ... .:. -• • • . . . . ...• • Sample Plot6. 8P#1., Sp.#2-, sF-1 A -. p.-0■, and SOPP,:: 7*.OPI 24 were within ‘..the........".••• .• '.,:. - ,.. *..7 . areasi•identified:as•Wetland:and 'exhibited.Mdrphological ;traits indicative Of hydrip. ••J'..1•'. ••:•.. • :. • • ...,-: soils.: The .soils observed:•at.these.twO ;sites were blacic.to very dark-brown and .•. ••••• '.,•,,• .; .. '• demonstrated other hydric. sOil.:indicatort:'SuCh• as strOngiy..sOlfidiC SOH' od.orSr,••:`• ' ••:, • '.. . .. . . .... ..., . - ••• -Mottles and concretions. :Soil teXture.at.these: plots yarled•frorn'es Siliy. lOams.'t..-' •:.:. .:.' '........:MuCkYsilty*JoaMS:••• - • • .. ' • . . .. . ... . • • • . . • . •• • •- ...• • • -• ••• • • . . .. • • • • • : .. . . . .. . • Sample Plot SP.8A 'facked indicators •.: of . bYdric. Soil Conditions •• and .••was.... :.: ..• ..., .... • characterized as uPland. This.Sari-016 plot was locatedWithin:en area ofrbad:011:;.: ::......: ...-.:..• ... - .• . • • •: .: .... . .: .'..i-Thii soil had..a::matrik. dolor. of • 2.5Y 4/3 and ekhibitpd. .--gravelly.: sAriOy. loOm. • .... „..,.. .. i :•• ctextdre. .• • •• • : • ...: •..:-.... • ..• • • . • • .,, - •• . ..•. •• ,. i •• ' - .• - .• . . • ' . . • ' • • . •• : . •• . . . • • • . • . ' . • . • .. • .. • • . • . . . . . • • • - • : • . .L4C`iINET.doc 2 • • • . • .• • . .• . . . ... • •-. • • , •-• • .• • • • •• • . . • . • . ' ••e Ist.twato • • •Hydrology: • • •Hydrology :within:the. site appeared•to be *provided by stormwater•runoff from�the' ' . surrounding .higher 'elevation.':areas 'to the west and . southwest. This .runoff ` , ''''. • '• contributed' to .onsite hydrology. through the :identif ed' drainage. channels :and-• • ' •' . . through seeps scattered 'throu:ghout •the.: study site., Our.• •onsite ' evaluation, : ' . ; .' • • • followed• •a' series''of 'area•. stormevents :which' likely' contributed• :greatly to the • presence • of onsitd . •hydrology.' i•' Neither, the.' degree' to 'which stormwater. is;: • • ' retained onsite nor the' degree' 'of'• hydrological' support • (i ..e.. .intermittent 'or:' ' .perennial flow) provided can be stated with •any, 'certainty; based up n:•this initial _' • evaluation. . . ' • • The 'primary •Indicators:f .o . hydrology •••.observed • onsite• were :the• presence of• • flowing'' and. standing :. water,• the 'presence' of. hydric : soil : characteristics `:(low•; matrix chrome and mottles), oxidized •root channels,. water •stained .leaves, -and • . strongly buttressed,tree trunks. - .• ..'. ` :. • : " • ' • ••' :Vegetation ' , The •dominant vegetative• community • observed. within . the study •.'site.' was• a .deciduous • dominated' tree •and . sapling: forested : community which included "big- . . leaf'maple' (Acer macrophy lum),'red.•alder:'(Alnue. zebra);: and black cottonwood • ,(Populus trichocarpus). The shrub :community was dominated b iy dense:thckets• , of 'salmonbeny '(Rufus spectabilis) •and Himalayan blackberry (Rubus 'procera): •Ttie invasive blackberry. communityiwas.well established along the riorthem = and • eastern' site. boundaries.% The herbaceous, layer was : sparse; •presumably as• a• • • - result of the degree of •shading.provided` by'the••shrub and tree'canopies•. The ' : • herbaceous plant.' community in 'the wetland: areas... included • skunk cabbage; :. ' (Lysichiton. arbericancirn), giant horsetail : (Equisetum telmatiea), and lady, fem . ` .(Athyriuni felix- femina): Vegetation :within the• area. identified as' upland.:was • dominated: by •Himalayan, blackberry• and • included an' herbaceous community '• which.• included.english ,plantain (Plantago 'la'nceolata),, creeping•ibuttercup'...• ,;(Ranunculus. repens), clover (Trifoliuin 'sp.), and an erosion' control,.grass . :mix : • • 'which included• fescue- (Festuca sp :). and bentgrass :(Agrostis sp.).species: . z re 2 0 o:. Co w: w =. • LL wo g J: w a� = O. 11w z z 0, III ill n 0. ;o ~ w w' w6 z, o� z • I • - This. evaluation resulted in the .majority of the site •being identified as' meeting the • - criteria: of a• City :of Tukwila :Type' 2' )./yetland. ''It is ...our. recommendation that•;you':: • ' meet with' City. • of : Tukwila ;.staff to .present . our findings and discuss :their , • .ramifications for your' preferred site design:: ! . • . : • • • LACYWET.doc 4. '.HERIES, HYDROLOGY, WATER QUALM' • WETLl i•-'- . . 142; llsl &. S.E,• Auburn. WA 98002 • (206) 735:4268'..F4 t 5:4289' FENCELINE -- i, DRAINAGE #1 • 30 200' 140' ,`-- PROPERTY BOUNDARY --*134'4 #/. RAINA ES #2 • st3 #4 • sP`tA • 1 `, SPiA\ ISP3A %SP4A,•'• ►�•�'; • 4‘111 t►. '•�II,'49'1,�' -� i %•t,$'3+?' 1 S 'i PSA ' • .� +SP74 • • t, I'l • • •} .►\& t t • k, • .1T • •. / SP9A ' 'SP2t,f •i •11,T 11 T THIS AREA NOT EVALUATED 1 I ►..•y►/ •$P104 • ► •• ■9 • • - /.EXISTING s4•' CULVERT ' / NOT A SURVEYED MAP • • •' -FLAG A8 y • • • ; •;, 2A.. / SP8A ..•..,1* ,iii.7.-7-497"-- ... . i / sf ,,, � ‘c":0° C4 • FLAG Ai��/4t- EXISTING ROAD. . • CABLE GATE / I CORRIDOR /TRAIL 5ISTAVESE EXISTING CULVERT •,:•4;c';i IDENTIFIED !•'f',{ " WETLAND AREA = APPROX. CENTERLINE • OF DRAINAGE = APPROX: SAMPLE PLOT LOCATION LACY PROJECT SITE WATERSHED DYNAMICS` 1411 17TH STREET S.C. • �tt1(x�Rx• w. I1t�oz (206) 7 u- 42U • . Z fr w; vO' w = w 0, g J. N a' I- al Z �. Z I- LL! ui p UO N` I- - uj H V. Z 0- I-1- Z ..`: Geotechnical Investigation Rodger E. Lacy Sr. Residence 51st Avenue South Tukwila, Washington Prepared for: Rodger E. Lacy Sr. 3125 S. Dakota Street Seattle, Washington 89108 I- r-ril-o f-t 'T _J GG Tll GAI GROUP Geotechnical Consulting Rodger E. Lacy Sr. 3125 S. Dakota Street Seattle, Washington 98108 Subject: Geotechnical Investigation 51st Avenue South Tukwila, Washington Dear Mr. Lacy: March 15, 1995 The following report summarizes the results of our research, geologic reconnaissance, geotechnical investigation and engineering analyses of the above property. The report provides recommendations for development of the proposed single family residence. Based upon our investigation it is our opinion that the site may be safely developed provided the recommendations of this report are followed. The site is located on the down thrown side of an ancient (following the last glaciation) regional landslide. A succession of smaller shallow slides associated with excavation of the toe of lower slopes northerly approximately 500 feet, have been remediated during construction of the Tukwila Interchange. The factor of safety with these remediations is estimated to be from 1.9 to 2.4. Details are included in the report. The site is traversed by several springs and drainage paths which appear to have been rerouted during previous site development. We recommend that upslope and toe of slope interceptor trenches be constructed to provide a suitable building site. Surface and near surface water collected in these swales and trenches should be diverted to a stormwater . collection system which will not add water to the hillside soils. In order to prevent compromising stability of the lower slopes of the hillside we recommend that stormwater retention and wetland mitigation measures not include surface ponding. Failure of these elements could result in increased water discharge to the lower slopes creating erosion and potential instability problems. The location you identified for the proposed building site appears to consist of previously altered land including fill. Siting the house in this location appears to have the least impact 13500 Lake City Way, Suite 202, Seattle, Washington 98125 • (206) 363-6449 • Fax (206) 367 -5611 Wo u. a, i0; z i o D moo. o Ili W' Or Z,. ua F' z., on the natural wet areas of the site. However, some rerouting of surface drainage paths will likely be necessary with the proposed improvements. Foundation recommendations include either constructing a building pad from imported material, or excavation to suitable bearing soils and placing widened spread footings with extended stem walls. Details for these alternatives are provided in the report. Recommendations within this report will influence other aspects of the project design. This report should be provided to members of your design team. In addition, this report must be included in the contract documents provided to the contractor. This should help you avoid costly changes later in the process. We appreciate the opportunity to work with you on this project. If we can be of further assistance please do not hesitate to call. Sincerely, THE GALLI GROUP EXPIRES .,, /L'4.96 ,. Paul L Stoltenberg, P.E. Project Geotechnical Engineer .. �.,,f�,.,,. r..v++i`: iv�l+;�•,n �'�il'3:�:J,e�u..... n�!.i.`'.'Ltil:. +Ka r. Table of Contents SECTION Page No. 1 DESCRIPTION 1 2 CONDITIONS 2 STORY 3 CONDITIONS 4 CONDITIONS 5 EXPLORATION 5 SUBSURFACE SOIL CONDITIONS 6 S AND RECOMMENDATIONS 7 STABILITY CONSIDERATIONS 7 GRADING AND EARTHWORK 8 Construction considerations 8 Site Preparation 9 Drainage 9 Cut and Fill Operations 10 Compaction Considerations 11 Trenching and Bacicfill 11 FOUNDATION RECOMMENDATIONS 12 Foundation Elements 12 Lateral Earth Pressures 13 CONSIDERATIONS 14 15 16 1.0 INTRODUCTION 2.0 PROJECT DES 3.0 SITE FEATURES 3.1 GEOLOGIC 3.2 SITE HI 3.3 SURFACE 4.0 SUBSURFACE 4.1 FIELD E 4.2 SUBS 5.0 CONCLUSION 5.1 SLOPE 5.2 GRAD 5.2.1 5.2.2 5.2.3 5.2.3 5.2.4 5.2.5 5.3 FOUND 5.3.1 5.3.2 5.4 MITIGATION 6.0 LIMITATIONS 7:0 REFERENCES LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1 Figure 2 Figure 3 Figure 3A Figure 3B Figure 4 Figure 5 Vicinity Map Geologic Map Site Features WSDOT Remediation, Section D WSDOT Remediation, Section E Site Plan Cut Slope and Interceptor Drains APPENDIX A Test Pit and Boring Logs i ' . yc.. ;�l �.�';i: `.'(7t" -',_ _R-h ;lsAii; '. iSc:Yi :�,::r• Geotechnical Investigation Rodger E. Lacy Sr. 51st Avenue South Tukwila, Washington z 1.0 INTRODUCTION C.) 0 At the request of Rodger E. Lacy Sr., the Galli Group performed a geotechnical 0: investigation for Tract 48, of the plat of Sunnydale Gardens, Division 1. The purpose of our investigation was to assess the feasibility of constructing a single family residence on Lu 0, the .1.5-acre parcel, and to provide foundation and earthwork recommendations for the proposed residence. Details of the scope of work for the investigation were outlined in a u. proposal dated February 1, 1995. The focus of our effort was concentrated on the D. a proposed location for the residence. We understand that others will be addressing the wetland issues related to the proposed development. Therefore, the near-surface and z groundwater issues were not addressed in the scope of work for this investigation except 1-• cp. as they affect site stability concerns. Authorization to proceed with the work was received LIJ! 2 from Rodger E. Lacy Sr., in a contract dated February 15, 1995. D D. (0, 0 Z1 The following geotechnical report summarizes observations from our research, geologic 'LL1 'us reconnaissance, subsurface investigation, and engineering analyses performed for the 0 above referenced property. w (1) c.) — rz 2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION 0 1-1 The proposed site is located immediately north of Crystal Springs Park and west of the cul-de-sac for 51st Avenue South, in the southeast quadrant of Section 22, Township 23 North, Range 4 East of the Willamette Meridian, in the City of Tukwila. The parcel is located within larger geographic and geologic features found in the southwest quadrant of the Tukwila Interchange of Interstate 5 and State Route 518. A vicinity map showing the site is provided on Figure 1. • The owner proposes to build a single family residence on the parcel with access provided from the 51st Avenue South cul-de-sac. We understand the structure is planned to be two-story, wood-framed construction. We anticipate that site preparation will require cuts on the orderof 5 to 10 feet at the western limit of the building footprint and imported fill material to bring the building pad up to grade. Site work will also include trenching to provide sewer, water, and utilities to the building. The proposed building site previously supported structures and access. Man-made ditches and drainage routes have previously been constructed on the site to channel surface water off-site. We anticipate that rerouting some surface and subsurface drainage will be necessary in order to provide a suitable building pad. "t° 3.0 SITE FEATURES 3.1 GEOLOGIC CONDITIONS The project area is located within the Puget Sound Lowland, an elongated structural and topographic depression bounded by the Olympic Mountains to the west and the Cascade Range to the east. Tertiary bedrock consisting of shale, sandstone, and volcanic rocks outcrop along the outside margins of the trough in the mountain foothills. The Puget Sound Lowland has been repeatedly occupied by a lobe of the Cordilleran Ice Sheet, one of the two continental glaciers which developed during the recent ice ages of the Quaternary period. The Cordilleran Ice Sheet was centered over the coast ranges of British Columbia. A portion of the ice sheet, termed the Puget Lobe, advanced south from British Columbia to occupy the lowlands of western Washington. The ice covered the Puget Lowland between the Olympic Mountains and the Cascade Range, achieving thicknesses of 3,000 to 4,000 feet. At least four such advances occurred. The southern termini of the glacial advances were generally in the area of the Black Hills, south of Olympia. Each incursion of the glacier into the area is characterized by a complex sequence of lacustrine deposits, advance outwash, glacial drift, till, and recessional outwash, further modified by succeeding glacial and nonglacial intervals. The repeated glaciations resulted in a series of north - trending elongated ridges, or drift uplands, separated by deep troughs. These troughs are now occupied by marine waters, fresh -water lakes, and streams. The most recent glacial advance, which immediately affects the surficial soils of the Puget Lowland, is called the Fraser Glaciation. This glacial period has left mappable units of lacustrine deposits, advance outwash, lodgment till, and recessional deposits. A .portion of the Geologic Map of the Des Moines Quadrangle, mapped by Howard H. Waldron, which contains the project site is provided in Figure 2, following the text of the report. This maps the project geology as recessional outwash or undifferentiated stratified drift: These glaciofluvial sand and gravel units are thought to have been deposited in small temporary ice - marginal lakes or channels. In other places the unit partly fills depressions or channels previously overridden by the glacier. The highly variable consistency of the site soil observed in our test pits indicate that the site is underlain predominantly by stratified drift deposits. , The majority of the project site is located within the down thrown side of a prehistoric or ancient landslide. Research of available information indicates that this slide may have occurred soon after the last glaciation. The ancient slide scarp is approximately 3% -mile long, trending northwest from Interstate 5 toward SR 518. The approximate location of . the ancient slide scarp is shown on Figure 3, Site Features. 1041RPT.DOC 2 The GaIIi Group 4 3.2 SITE HISTORY Between 1964 and 1968, extensive slope stability investigations and analyses were undertaken by Shannon and Wilson, Inc., in conjunction with the construction of the Tukwila Interchange. These investigations provided a thorough assessment of the underlying soil conditions and slope stability of the area. Although some areas of the hillside then appeared relatively stable, anticipated regrading of the lower reaches of the slope for construction of the eastbound SR -518 off -ramp, Klickitat Drive, and other features of the interchange, presented several challenges to maintaining or increasing the slope stability. Areas south and east of 53rd Avenue South required extensive deep dewatering wells and horizontal drains, along with cylinder -pile walls. Areas north and west of 53rd required less extensive slope stability remediation measures, consisting primarily of rock buttresses and slope regrading. Due to differences in groundwater conditions and structural geology, the slope below the Lacy property appeared generally more stable than other areas and required less remediation when the interchange was constructed. Details of the slope stability analyses and remediation efforts can be found in Slope Stability Investigation, Tukwila Interchange, for the Washington State Highway Commission, April 30, 1966, by Shannon and Wilson, Inc. A map showing installed remediation features is provided on Figure 3. The results of the stability investigation of the slope below the Lacy property are briefly presented below. The Shannon and Wilson report classified the various types of potential slide movement into 4broad categories: ' • Structure Control -- relatively shallow slides characterized by successive graben blocks at the head as the earth below migrates downslope along natural bedding planes, • Block Flow -- again relatively shallow slides characterized by water -laden sandy silts moving downslope over hardened silt units. After initial movement these tend to "flow" rather than slide as a block. (A slide of this nature occurred on the slope approximately 300 feet northwest of the Lacy property during regrading of the highway interchange) Artesian Control -- deeper slides characterized by artesian uplift pressures within underlying sand units below the relatively less permeable dense silt unit. This is the mechanism characteristic of the area east of 53rd Avenue South toward Slade Way. • Combination -- potentially unstable conditions characterized by a combination of the above mechanisms. The area between 53rd Avenue South and Klickitat is thought to contain conditions representative of these characteristics. 1041RPT.DOC 3 The GaIIi Group It should be noted that the Shannon and Wilson report also identified areas of stability, one of which was the area northeast and below the Lacy property. This was considered stable in part due to the adverse dip of the underlying bedding planes (i.e. the laminated deposits sloped into the hill instead of down the hill. See . z Boring Log for BH -206, Appendix A, Plate A -5). moZ: As a result of the analyses, Shannon and Wilson recommended several remediation D measures which have since been constructed by the Washington State Department of o Transportation. For the purposes of this report we have described only those which I N uj would likely impact the Lacy property. 11.1 CO u. w o: The slope below the Lacy property was regraded to a 4H:1V (horizontal:vertical) slope 2 and blanketed with rock rip rap. This required purchase of additional right-of-way, which ga resulted in the destruction of the homes west of the "old" 51st Avenue cul -de -sac. In N �. addition an asphalt lined drainage ditch and 15 -foot deep interceptor drain was w constructed along the upper reaches of the slope near the present WSDOT right -of -way z �` and maintenance road. These features are shown on Figure 3. z o 2 During the investigation and construction of the interchange relatively shallow slides were °: observed near the toe of the slope in several areas. One of these was located due north of ;o N the western boundary of the Lacy oe The cause of these slides was primarily ° uj arY cYP property. P Y w associated with geologic structure and increased weight of overlying soils due to 0 saturation. The relatively unstable conditions were aggravated by excavation at the toe of - p the slope during highway construction. Remedial action in these areas consisted of w w' construction of a rock buttress with steel shear key at the toe and installation of horizontal F•• 1';. drains to remove some of the water in the soil. Remediation measures for the area o downslope of the Lacy property are shown in Figures 3A and 3B. Several analyses were conducted on the stability of the slope following these remediation efforts. A factor of safety of 1.0 means the slope is stable. A factor of safety of 1:2 is desired for highway cut slopes; this is increased to 1.5 when risk of structural damage or dwellings are located upslope from the area With the constructed remediation efforts, the factor of safety for the slope below the Lacy property was calculated to be 2.0 below the proposed building site and 2.4 for the slope approximately 200 feet northwest of the building site. If all drainage facilities failed, the factors of safety were calculated as 1.9 and 1.3 for the two areas respectively. 33 SURFACE CONDITIONS The property is situated on the south side of a small tributary east -west valley which ascends from the wider valley of the Green River situated to the east. SR 518 currently traverses this valley from I -5 toward Pacific Highway and Seatac International Airport. The site is located on the northeastern facing slope of an upland drift plain which generally trends north - south. As mentioned above, the site is located within the downthrown side 1041RPT.DOC 4 The GaIIi Group f of an ancient landslide, the scarp of which meanders across the southwestern corner of the property. The site is covered with blackberries and numerous alder with a few maple trees. The eastern portion of the tract contains an access road and an area where the trees are significantly smaller in diameter, indicating the area may have previously been cleared. We also found old cedar stumps indicating that the area may have been logged. One of the dominant site features is the presence of several "watercourses" which appear as shallow silt and gravel -filled swales meandering down the hillside. These drainageways appear to have been altered by excavation in the past. Some of the water appears from sand or gravel seams in the hillside and some may be the result of near surface or surface runoff from off - site. There are several areas where the upper foot of soil appears wet much of the year. The springs, seeps or watercourses trend downslope northeasterly toward a previously constructed shallow ditch adjacent to the north property line, where they flow easterly toward the asphalt lined ditch constructed by WSDOT. Figure 3 shows topography and site features from mapping prepared for construction of the Tukwila Interchange in the mid- 1960's. This map along with anecdotal evidence indicates that the site was previously occupied by at least one residence and an outbuilding. A roadway provided access to several other structures immediately north of the Lacy property. We believe the majority of the fill encountered during our site investigation and the alteration of water courses within the property occurred during development of the property for these homes. As a result of the regrading and rip rap blanketing the slopes northeast of the Lacy property, the demolition of the previous structures on the slopes and the Lacy property, and the previous excavation for control of drainage, much of the eastern portion of the lot and the slope down toward the northeast is now altered land, making identification of original near surface and surface conditions difficult to assess. 4.0 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS 4.1 FIELD EXPLORATION Because of the readily available subsurface information and previous geotechnical explorations conducted in the general area, emphasis in our field exploration was placed on the soil conditions in the vicinity of the proposed building site, along with a geologic reconnaissance and extensive review of existing subsurface information. On March 1, 1995, the Galli Group performed a subsurface investigation and geological reconnaissance of the site. A total of 5 exploratory test pits were excavated at selected locations using a Case 580 E back hoe. The soil samples were examined, classified and logged in the field by a Galli Group geotechnical engineer in general accordance with ASTM D 2488. In -situ strength and attributes of the materials encountered were evaluated in the field based 1041RPT.DOC 5 The Galli Group _. ,..t.e.ee+++��twma.!«��..ewr�r wx�. xp.* o-ur ro+. rw .�.,�a..«�a.- .r�.....,....._,._ ...............,........ .....,.- ........mevmarn�r.�+��+ ern+ xn. n[ hmras .nrrvnrv�w�..roxarn*+.r..inwe m. m.++++ rMna r.wn!.�Y�•mtraX.wr'St�Y`'Ki'45 . z w U. U o0; co W= H 0 LL wo g -J z d; w. _. z �.. �o z 1-. 3 CV C) co — QI ww U? u. 0 UN 01—: z .... upon experience with similar soils, the difficulty incurred during excavation and other factors. Representative soil samples were retrieved from the exploration pits, and will be kept for a maximum of 30 days following the date of this report. The logs representing our interpretation of the subsurface materials are included in Appendix A. Legends of the symbols used on the logs are also included. The approximate locations of the test pits are shown on the Site Plan, Figure 4. 4.2 SUBSURFACE SOIL CONDITIONS The site soils generally appear as stratified drift deposits of stiff silt, medium dense to dense sand, and some gravel. The braided appearance of soil units within the test pits, variation in density and grain size, and other observed characteristics, indicate that the site soils may have been deposited in glaciofluvial environments. The soil consistency varied significantly from test pit to test pit, however the following generalized soil units were found on the site. Fill Fill was encountered in TP -3 and TP -5. The unit consisted of loose, brown, silty fine to medium sand, with decayed or blackened wood fragments. The unit appeared relatively well- drained, and was underlain by a blackened layer of organic topsoil, thought to be original ground. We anticipate that most of the fill was placed in association with previous building sites, access, and alteration of drainage paths. The unit was 3 feet thick in TP -5 and approximately 4 -7 feet thick in TP -3 (TP -3 may contain successive units of fill). Toosoil In TP -1, TP -2, and TP-4, we encountered a unit of loose, dark brown, silty fine sand with organics, rootlets, and sometimes forest duff. The unit varied in thickness from approximately 1 foot in TP -1 and TP -2, to 2 feet in TP-4. The topsoil at the western edge of the building envelope was much wetter than in other locations, appearing saturated, and giving off a decayed organic odor characteristic of anaerobic decomposition. Silty SAND or SAND with silt The predominant soil unit encountered on the site was described as silty sand or sand with silt. This unit was encountered in all test pits except TP-4. It was approximately 6 feet thick in TP -1 and TP -2, and was at least 6 feet thick in TP -3 and 3 feet thick in TP -5, but not penetrated in either TP -3 or TP -5. In general terms, the upper portion of the unit appeared loose to medium dense, wet and mottled with orange streaks. With increasing depth the unit appears dense, gray, and contained coarser sand with some gravel. The unit seems relatively impermeable at depths approaching 4 to 5 feet from grade, and appears to act as a barrier to downward migration 1041RPT.DOC 6 The GaIIi Group z t-- w c4 2 00 co cnw UJ CO U- w 0` gQ =• d Fw _, z� �— o ww UU N. 0E- 'w I- ' F- o. ui Z` U N' 1 0 . z .. of surface water. The upper portion of the unit was typically wet and weathered while the lower portion of the unit was gray and moist. Poorly graded SAND Underlying the dense silty sand unit described above, we encountered a unit characterized by dense, brown, poorly graded sand. We observed this unit in TP -1, and TP -2, at depths of approximately 8 and 7 feet respectively. The unit appeared as coarse sand with gravel, underlain by brown, poorly graded sand in TP -1. Brown poorly graded sand was observed in TP -2. In both locations the unit was wet and water seeped into the trench near the bottom of the excavation. Weathering characteristics of the unit indicate that there may be fluctuations of the water table within the unit, creating a weathered zone. SILT In TP-4, we encountered a massive, stiff, gray, silt deposit, at least 10 feet in thickness. The unit contained a small sand lens at approximately 11 feet depth. Slight seepage was observed in this sand lens. The silt unit was not penetrated in the 12 -foot depth of the test pit. 5.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Based upon our research of available subsurface information and geotechnical reports, our geologic reconnaissance, site investigation, and engineering analyses, it is our opinion that construction of a single family residence may proceed as planned provided the following recommendations are followed. 5.1 SLOPE STABILITY CONSIDERATIONS M mentioned above, extensive slope stability analyses were conducted concurrent with the construction of the Tukwila Interchange in 1964. Very thorough analyses of the conditions of the hillside in the southwest quadrant of the interchange were undertaken by Shannon and Wilson, Inc., in order to provide necessary slope stability of the roadway improvements near the toe of the slope. Much of our assessment of the slope stability issues are based upon work performed by Shannon and Wilson and include analyses of their borings and data. The slope below the Lacy property is contained in segments D and E as shown in Figure 3. This area was considered more stable than the areas to the south and east as well as areas to the north and west due to the inclination of the bedding planes along the critical failure surface. Remedial measures implemented during construction of the highway and interchange included horizontal drains, rock buttresses, regrading of the upper slopes to 4H:1 V, and construction of an interceptor trench and asphalt -lined surface ditch to 1041RPT.DOC 7 The Galli Group w.��rur.+uryr�N remove surface and near surface flows from the hillside. Figures 3A amd 3B provide schematics showing the remedial sections D and E of the slope below the Lacy property. If the remedial measures installed function as designed, the factor of safety of the slope below the Lacy property is estimated to be 2.4 to 2.5. A factor of safety of 1.5 is generally considered prudent for slopes which support dwellings or structures. If all of the drainage systems were to cease functioning, the estimated factor of safety decreases to 1.9 downslope from the building footprint and 1.3 for the slope situated approximately 200 feet northwest of the building footprint. The method of arriving at the above factors of safety were based on progressive failure hypotheses, which represented more critical conditions than did conventional analyses based upon soil strength parameters, and more closely resembled insitu field tests, and monitoring of slope movement devices. Shannon and Wilson, Inc., did not consider seismic loading considerations to be a significant factor because of the dense soil conditions and because conventional analyses based upon soil strength parameters would result in increased factors of safety under seismic loading. In summary, it is our opinion that the most probable mode of shallow and progressive failure for the lower slopes has been effectively stabilized. The proposed location of the Lacy single family residence is sufficiently distant from the lower slope such that gross stability of the hillside will not be compromised provided storm water runoff is not routed onto the hillside. Local stability concerns are addressed in the following section. 5.2 GRADING AND EARTHWORK 5.2.1 Construction considerations We suggest the following sequence of construction operations for site preparation: 1. Construction of equipment access, and temporary erosion and sedimentation control measures. 2.. Excavation and installation of surface swales and interceptor trench upslope from the building pad and proposed cut areas. Clearing and stripping of unsuitable soils from building footprint. 4. Cutting of slopes behind the building footprint and installation of interceptor trenches at toe of slope, installation of erosion control measures on cut slopes. 5. Excavation of building footprint to suitable bearing soil for placement of compacted fill. 6. Placement and compaction of imported fill material for building pad. 7. Excavation for utilities and stormwater retention facilities. 1041RPT.DOC 8 The Galli Group 8. Excavation, forming, and pouring footings. Installation of footing drains. The construction of the interceptor drains and rerouting the surface drainage prior to extensive site clearing and grading is of primary importance in maintaining workable site condtioins. 5.2.2 Site Preparation Preparation of the building footprint should begin with removal of debris, deleterious matter and vegetation. All debris and organic matter should be disposed of properly, and is not permitted as fill material. Loose surficial materials such as topsoil and uncontrolled fill with organic matter should be removed and replaced with properly compacted fill where necessary. Based upon our field exploration we anticipate removal depths on the order of 1 to 2 feet in most locations except near TP -3, where depth may approach 4 to 5 feet due to uncontrolled fill placed over organic topsoil. The native silty sand is very moisture sensitive. We recommend installing the perimeter site drains described below prior to extensive site grading and preparation. If possible, clearing and grading should be conducted during the drier spring and summer months. If pumping of the soil from equipment access occurs during site preparation, we recommend construction of a working surface at least 12 inches in thickness consisting of imported granular fill with less than 5 percent passing the No. 200 sieve. The temporary access to the property may be covered with quarry spalls. 5.2.3 Drainage Drainage issues present a critical factor in the preparation of the site. The presence of several springs and drainage ditches on the site contribute to potential localized stability problems, difficult working conditions on the property, and potential foundation concerns. Our field exploration indicates that the site contains both surface flows originating from off -site and flows from sand seams that surface as springs on the slope. These contribute to the saturated so cf onditions within the upper 1 to 2 feet of portions of the property. We recommend that site preparation begin with construction of a combination surface and subsurface lnterce •tor drain alon • the u . • er rea hes • the . _ r- aded. The mterceptor drain should consist of a trench excavated a minimum of 4 feet into the soil, with a 6 -inch diameter perforated pipe placed in the bottom of the trench, and backfilledL`' with free - draining granular material, which is wrapped in filter fabric. The cap should be constructed from impermeable material and shaped to catch and redirect the surface runoff from upslope toward a stormwater collection system. The approximate location of the proposed interceptor drain is shown on the Site Plan, Figure 4. A schematic of the drain is provided in Figure 5. The perforated pipe should discharge directly into a stormwater conveyance system such as the existing asphalt -lined swale north of the property or the existing stormwater system in the cul -de -sac at 51st Avenue South. The interceptor drain must not be tied into any drains at the toe of cut slopes, nor shall it be connected to any footing drains. 1041RPT.DOC 9 The Galli Group . a- M: �•+ �+.. .ay....wv..n+�»r.,rxrmHSrwx+�n. �v: mrawaan; mf�l rousb^ idw? i' �PYf Kl R? ��' 4!. �,` Dt�va .�{Y..".�.'•}�,�`f.`�'�.,'�•�i ,".{,."r'.4•!"3`�"ts�yawtee+e� 1 Z' U 0 U w= J N LL w0 • a. En-a w z�. 1- 0� z I - 111 uj, U 0 0- w Lu H U; lL ~! • z' co _; 0�' z In addition to the upslope interceptor drain, we recommend the installation of an interceptor drain at the toe of slopes created by cutting into the existing slope or between the house and any location where near - surface flows break onto the face of an exposed slope. These should be constructed similar to the interceptor drain described above, with the additional requirement that the elevation of the trench bottom should extend a minimum of 1 foot below the elevation of building footings in the vicinity. The interceptor drains should be constructed in sections beginning at the lower reaches of the drain and working upslope. Trench excavations should be backfilled immediately following pipe placement in order to prevent caving of trench sidewalls. We also recommend that standard footing drains be installed around the perimeter footings. These should not be tied to the interceptor drains. Downspouts from roof drainage should not tie into footing drains and should be carried by separate tightline pipes to the retention and discharge point. The stormwater retention and detention system should be a closed system. We recommend against surface retention or ponding, since this increases the likelihood of cataclysmic discharge or adding water to the hillside. Previous reports suggest that slope stability near the toe of the hillside may have been compromised in part by water collected in unlined ditches upslope. Wherever possible, lining of ditches, tightlining of stormwater discharge, and prevention of ponded water will help increase local and global stability of the hillside. An existing culvert was found beneath the old access road. It appears partially blocked creating a small siltation pond in the recess behind it This pond could be enhanced with rock check dams for use as a temporary erosion and sedimentation measure during site work. If long term use of the pond is planned we recommend that improvements include an impermeable liner when it is improved to prevent addition of water to the downhill slope.: If water on the site must be ponded as part of wetland mitigation requirements, we recommend that the pond(s) be Lined with either a compacted clay liner (CCL) or geosynthetic clay liner (GCL) covered with a minimum of 12 inches of soil, to act as a barrier toward downward migration of water into the hillside. 5.2.3 Cut and Fill Operations The proposed building envelope slopes from west toward the east and contains an elevation differential of approximately 10 to 12 feet. We anticipate that preparation of the building footprint will require cuts in the uphill side of the envelope and moderate filling in the lower portions. We recommend that cut areas be graded to a maximum slope of 3H:1 V (Horizontal:Vertical) in order to decrease the likelihood of isolated slump failures on the slope. However, due to the soil stratigraphy of the site, periodic maintenance of cut slopes may be necessary. As mentioned above the installation of interceptor trenches should also help to improve the stability of cut slopes. The uphill interceptor trenches • 1041RPT.DOC 10 The GaIIi Group Z Z : V; U O; N 0 'co =. LL; w o }F' J w _: --a. z w w. UD,. I0 lL F' O.. Z; • w co U =', vz z ~. must be installed prior to excavation of the cut slopes. A schematic showing the cut slopes and interceptor trenches is provided in Figure 5. Where fill is necessary to bring the site up to grade we recommend the use of imported granular material. Imported granular fill material should be less than 2' inches in maximum dimension, with the additional requirement that not more than 5 percent shall pass the U.S. Standard No. 200 sieve. Fill soils underlying structural site features shall be properly compacted in accordance with the requirements set forth below. Site soils are likely to be too moisture sensitive to achieve proper compaction. We recommend that excavated site soils be stockpiled and utilized for landscaping purposes. Cut and fill areas should be protected against erosion. During wet weather they should be protected with plastic sheeting. Following grading they should permanent protective measure should be installed. Along with redirection of surface water away from the slopes, we recommend either hydro- seeding the cut and fill areas or placing vegetative mats. The method of control is up to the contractor, but we suggest a hydro - seeding with a material similar to Aerobond, by Briar Green. Other permanent vegetation maybe planted once the erosion protective vegetative cover is established. 5.2.4 Compaction Considerations Imported fill soils should be moisture conditioned to within 3 percent of optimum moisture content, placed in loose, horizontal lifts less than 8 inches in thickness, and compacted to at least 95 percent of the maximum dry density, as determined using ASTM D1557 (Modified Proctor). The 95 percent compaction criteria should apply to any material intended to support pavement or structures. If possible, fill placement and compaction should take place immediately after preparation of the subgrade and the newly prepared areas should be protected against soil saturation from precipitation or surface flows. Where fill is placed on a slope we recommend that the slope be terraced such that the fill may be compacted on horizontal underlying surfaces. Excavation for utilities or footings should take place following fill placement in order to provide consistent compaction. 5.2.5 Trenching and Backfill Due to the nature of the site soils, care must be taken during construction to maintain stability of open excavations. During our field exploration, we observed sloughing of the wet, poorly graded sand unit into the trench. This often was followed by shearing of the overlying silty sand sidewalls when underlying trench sidewall support was removed. The contractor should be aware that the on -site soils may not support vertical excavations without additional lateral support, especially in areas where perimeter site interceptor drains have not been installed. Maintenance of safe working conditions, including temporary excavation stability, is the responsibility of the contractor and all excavations must comply with current federal, state, and local requirements. For planning purposes, it is recommended that excavations deeper 1041RPT.DOC 11 The Galli Group z w. 00 u)° wz J H'. w0 J. tL Q: d' w z� F- o,. z 1- w w' °1- w ur 1-- 11 0 w z UN. O z than 4 feet either be sloped no steeper than 2H:1 V (horizontal:vertical) or shored. This recommendation is applicable to excavations above the water table only; flatter side slopes will be required for excavations below the water table. In some areas trench shoring may be necessary. The following recommendations are Z provided as guidelines for the shoring of utility trenches. w n: • ; Trench boxes, if used, should be adequately reinforced to withstand the e lateral forces to which they will be subjected. p co • Trench boxes should be of sufficient size, both vertically and laterally, to support the excavation without excessive deformation of the natural soils. co w w o` The open excavation behind the trench box should be backfilled as soon as g; practical after the trench box has been moved. u. a; I w. During wet weather, surface water runoff should be prevented from entering excavations. z Also, heavy construction equipment, construction materials, excavated soil, and vehicular F- 0' z ri traffic should not be allowed within a distance, measured from the edge of the excavation, w w equal to 1/2 the depth of the excavation. D ocn Utility trench (including culvert) backfill should meet the material requirements for fill ° described above. In areas outside roadways, on -site sandy soils may be used as backfill. However, we recommend that contingency costs be provided for importing granular fill o material, in the event the native material is too wet to adequately compact. w z'. In areas where subsequent backfill settlement must be minimized, it is recommended that z' the trench backfill be placed in 8- to 12 -inch, loose lifts and compacted using mechanical equipment to at least 90 percent of the maximum dry density as determined by ASTM D1557 (Modified Proctor). In areas beneath the roadway pavement and shoulders, the upper 2 feet of backfill should be compacted to at least 95 percent to provide an adequate subgrade for the pavement and traffic loads. In areas where some backfill 'settlement can be tolerated, such as landscaped areas, it is recommended that the backfill material be placed in loose lifts not exceeding 2 feet and that each lift be compacted to at least 80 percent, with the upper 2 feet compacted to at least 85 percent. 5.3 FOUNDATION RECOMMENDATIONS 5.3.1. Foundation Elements We understand the proposed single family residence will consist of a two -story dwelling built using conventional wood -framed construction. The building footprint will require regrading or preparation prior to construction of foundation elements. Foundation elements should not be supported on uncontrolled fill. Therefore the unsuitable fill must be replaced where found. In addition, site soils are anticipated to be too moisture. 1041RPT.DOC 12 The Galli Group sensitive to achieve adequate compaction, so imported fill material beneath the footings will be required. Two alternatives are recommended for building foundations. �\ The first alternative consists of removing unsuitable material, terracing the site in preparation to receive imported sand and gravel compacted as structural fill. This would \ likely result in a uniform building pad suitable for conventional spread footings provided the fill placement and compaction was carefully monitored. Costs associated with this alternative include disposal costs of unsuitable material (or finding an acceptable location on site) plus costs of importing and placing suitable fill material. The advantages include relative uniformity of the building pad material and compaction. The second alternative combines cutting the upslope portion of the building pad, and either excavating portions of the building footprint containing unsuitable material and replacing with structural fill, or excavating beneath the footings to suitable bearing material and bringing the footing stem wall to grade. Costs associated with this alternative include added concrete costs to beef up the footings and footing stem walls, plus the possibility of needing structural design of footing elements. The advantages include less material necessary to waste on site or off site, and less costs associated with importing material. If a structural fill pad is constructed we recommend following the material and compaction requirements discussed in section 5.2 above. Footings should be excavated after the fill has been placed and compacted. We recommend 1,500 psf as an allowable bearing capacity for footings placed on structural fill. If footings are placed on native medium dense or dense silty sand, we recommend an allowable bearing capacity of 1,500 psf, with a minimum width of 24 inches for the footing. All footings shall be embedded a minimum of 18 inches into either the fill or native soil. We recommend that the interiorr footings be constructed as continuous footings rather . than pads, and tied to the external footings. This should help alleviate some differential settlement and provide for variations in site soil strength characteristics. We also recommend that The Galli Group monitor the placement of the structural fill and evaluate the footing excavation to verify that recommended bearing capacities may be achieved. 5.3.2 Lateral Earth Pressures Where foundation walls are not supported by compacted earth on both sides, or where retaining walls are required, we recommend the following parameters for design purposes: • If the backslope behind the wall is level, the wall should be designed to resist an active lateral earth pressure of 35 pounds per cubic foot (pcf) calculated in terms of equivalent fluid unit weight. 1041RPT.DOC 13 The Galli Group ,i...w ...v.�.cw.w..wuu.+ • If the wall is braced as a "non- yielding" wall we recommend 55 pcf, calculated in terms of equivalent fluid unit weight for the "at rest" condition. • Where a backslope exists, an equivalent fluid pressure of 55 pcf should be used for the design of the wall. The backslope should be graded to no steeper than 3:1 (horiz. Dntal:vertical), and should be protected from erosion. • . A frictional coefficient of 0.35 is estimated for the footing/soil interface. All organic or soft soils should be removed from below the bottom of the foundation. A blanket of compacted sand and gravel conforming to WSDOT Specification 9- 03.10 for Gravel Base may be used for a working platform. • An allowable bearing capacity of 1,500 psf may be used in design, for native undisturbed glacial soils beneath the wall. If a sand and gravel blanket is used for the working surface, an allowable bearing capacity of 1,500 psf should be assumed. Passive pressure for embedded structures should be ignored in the uppermost foot below the native ground surface. We recommend that an allowable equivalent fluid unit weight of 350 pcf be used for design of passive resistance. All walls should have a longitudinal backwall drainage system that directs groundwater through a drain pipe to daylight. In addition, weep holes should be provided to prevent the development of hydrostatic pressure. The above assume drained conditions behind the wall, and no surcharge from building or traffic loads. 5.4 MITIGATION CONSIDERATIONS The site has two significant characteristics which require mitigation efforts. We understand most of the site has been classified as wetland. Proposed use should minimize adverse impacts upon significant wetlands. In addition, the site is considered to lie within a geologic hazard area due to slopes containing springs and the history of local failures in areas of the toe of the slope. Unfortunately in this case, attempts to mitigate one area of concern appear to oppose attempts to mitigate the other. Slope stability is compromised by the presence of water upslope saturating the upper soil unit. However removing the water from the slope alters the site characteristics contributing toward the wetland. The site currently appears stable and seems to have been for many years. The primary concern from the geotechnical perspective with respect to slope stability is to protect the slopes below the site from becoming saturated with water. Preventing local slumps from occurring due to excavating and site preparation activities is an additional concern. We understand that preservation of wetland areas is a high value, but recommend that wetland mitigation activities not take place without consideration of slope stability impacts. We 1041RPT.DOC 14 The Galli Group recommend that The Galli Group review the proposed wetland mitigation efforts to verify that local slope stability as well as regional slope stability (the lower slopes within the WSDOT right -of -way) are not compromised by such efforts. The owner has made efforts to site his house in an area which appears altered by previous development, an area which contains fill material underlain by native dense soils. It is our opinion that this site provides the most suitable building site and minimizes the adverse impacts upon the wetland and water quality. 6.0 LIMITATIONS This geotechnical investigation was planned and conducted in accordance with generally accepted engineering standards practiced presently within this geographic area. Geotechnical investigations performed by these standards reveal with reasonable regularity soils that are representative of subsurface conditions throughout the site under consideration. As noted in the text of the report, we have utilized subsurface exploration data and additional information gathered by our firm as well as others in evaluating the site and formulating our recommendations. Recommendations contained in this report are based upon the assumption that soil conditions encountered in explorations are representative of actual conditions throughout the building site. However, inconsistent conditions can occur between exploratory borings or test pits and not be detected by a geotechnical study. If, during construction or subsequent exploration, subsurface conditions are encountered which differ from those anticipated based upon results of this investigation, The Galli Group should be notified so that we can review and revise our recommendations where necessary. This report is prepared for the exclusive use of the owner or the owner's consultants for specific application on this project at this particular site. Copies of this report should be made available to the design team, and should be included with the contract drawings issued to the contractor. Our report, conclusions, and interpretations should not be construed as a warranty of the subsurface conditions on the site and should not be applied to neighboring sites. No warranty, expressed or implied is made. We recommend that geotechnical observation and testing be provided during the construction phases to verify that the recommendations provided in this report are incorporated into the actual construction. 1041RPT.DOC 15 The Galli Group • 7.0 REFERENCES Shannon and Wilson, Inc., April 30, 1966, Slope Stability. Investigation, Tukwila Interchange, for Washington State Highway Commission. Shannon and Wilson Inc., February. 13, 1968, Letter to WSDOT, Re: Tukwila Interchange Field Observations and Special Recommendations. Shannon and Wilson Inc., June 21, 1968, Summary Report Soil Conditions and Earth Movements Vicinity of Tukwila Interchange, for Washington State Highway Commission District 1. GeoEngineers Inc., : April 25, 1985, ; Report, . Geotechnical and Hydrological Studies, Proposed Valley View Estates, Slade Way and 53rd Avenue South, Tukwila, Washington. WSDOT Intra- departmental Communication. to R. E. Bockstruck/P. M. Briglia from J. R. Strada/S.. M. Lowell, April 19, 1989, Subject: Valley View Estates WSDOT Memorandum to Larry Fauquet/MS 68 from Allen E. Stiles/Chris J. Johnson, November. 29, :1994, Subject: Tukwila Hillside I /C: Slope Stability in Well Fielc4.XL- 0323.. Shannon and Wilson, Inc.,July 13, 1964, Report on Foundation Investigation North of Existing Slide Area, Tukwila Interchange,. PSH -1. (SRS), Agreement Y -713, Supplement. Howard H. Waldron, USGS Map GQ -159, 1962, Geology of the Des Moines Quadrangle, Washington: 1041RPT.DOC 16 The GaIIi Group ..':1�C.'�Y �"' +a � u._.�ai�`s, ^'.er. >.��" L:�tf,'ti+L"iia�::i�"Y••,;. <,:- .ws.:e:;irS�°u`'1Lw.k"' -ZidLk',r "lt%: :LStix*k4L}fi .'t'1L" 1 t • 101,4 S PENTON LLAGE Pt Ref: The Thomas Guide, Thomas Bros. Maps, 1991 Vicinity Map Rodger E. Lacy Residence Tukwila, Washington The Galli Group, Inc. 13500 Lake City Way NE, Suite 202 Figure 1 Seattle, WA 98125 (206) 363.6449 ,S.O.,V.f9;t1IMISS":11SIIKAPOSIrjeg`,11:51"AVESAV sr1;1.. el • • • --4 • e‘• Legend: Qsr af Ole Olt Qgt Recessional outwash, undifferentiated stratified drift Artificial fill Lacustrine silts and clays Kame-terrace deposits, glaciofiuvial sand and gravel Ground Moraine deposits, till Foster Golf Course • •• • • • • ••••! v.' • • 1. . • •••• . Project Site • • • • • • • • Qa, • . - ---..., ....) . ..... . • . - , er .-...:='- —---. Ref: USGS Map GQ-158, Geology of the Des Moines Quadrangle, Washington, Howard H. Waldron, 1962. •. • • 1-.4 Geologic Map Rodger E. Lacy Residence Tukwila, Washington The Galli Group, Inc. 13500 Lake City Way NE, Suite 202 Seattle, WA 98125 (206) 363-6449 Figure 2 z a • z re 2 6 = ..., 0 O 0 co 0 co ILI W -.I F. CO U. uj 0 2 • < -± Z I— 0 Z uj 0 0 I— W tu 0 1— LI 0 . z co o z 0 100 200 300 SCALE: FEET 400 TUKWILA INTERCHANGE AGREEMENT Y, -713, SUPPLEMENT 6 500 T b Toe of rock buttress _. ✓ FIR or altered land 'mot., • i , r• 11111111111 /MNANIN Approx. to Ion of Intercep r Drain o-- r■.r■WruWr LEGEND Horizontal Drain' Existing test drains Recommended drain (Grades 8-I0%) Recommended drain (Grades 1- 3 %) Other Featurey Cylinder pile wall Rock buttress Proposed Intercepter drain a ditch Existing or proposed Right of Way Additional vertical drains (6 to 9 in. dia.) ,� •' :� 001111111 ,, `0 I 1 111 I I Ancient Slide Sc 4 go/ piesp- ,fi) ��- -'•, 'j. REF: Shannon and Wilson, Inc., Slope < •� •-• Stability Investigation, Tukwila interchange, April 30, 1966 a . • -. • sEf.1'.SiAU :LitlitCk 4ai '•teal•. • • 4A • to• ' an t.. Toe of rock buttre 1;aa111121.4 irica.&Wi Existing cylinder .1411L.N.Nalli ss i pile wall .:..:;*: . ._.t .,■ 1.:5;-j. -• -""iLl-■••••;!,, '",. —,...... • Toe orrock buttress t) .• ■•■11 1. 1. I 1. • &„ V10.6rif LAS 2'hat:4 ....... . ..... 1• - 0,006stulfilinn pm• • nem si~•m•ww••.....omor 01.1 47000 •••1-110... • ............ ... ...... .•. noq• 4 • . tbitif - . -.34,41A0, o'""4rvipi%11-477 X 1‘>0\ •4 e t4 •oy 400teelr • 1V"' . )4IL N % IIIIIIImunat•- • Approx. to ion of Intercop r Drain IIIutflf •••••• \\ Project Site .0043 • • Ancient Slide Scarp REF: Shannon and Wilson, Inc., Slope Stability Investigation, Tukwila Interchange, April 30, 1966 • 47\ tc 4e).. 9,01040.rp. ki11616%ftimuip, • •• ■•••=11.,. Site Features Rodger E. Lacy Residence The Galli Group, Inc. 13500 Lake City Way NE, Suite 202 Seattle, WA 98125 (206) 363-6449 Figure 3 07.■-;/44'..iiazt104,401.‘11Vaitiriagritt10410.*:i.' .1/44^aAtOr �-- Proposed Lacy Building Site 1. 1001 Upper Slave Detail A 0 Herisontol Dro`` c nee Cul•ds -toe /- Pressed ground surface 1 1 Note: These drawings are from Shannon and Wilson Report dated 3-31 -1966. They represent recommended remed(stion measures which have since been implemented. Features such as the "Cubic -sac' and "present ground surface' represent conditions at that time. W Line underdrain Lower Slops IL/ Line Cull Excavate slidsdsbril Present ground surface Rock Bullets, = =__�� — -_ crow �lar.r` \ Count • 01011 15 C Toe of existing cylinder pile roll -- = == IHaisonlol Oren 01 F Shea key REMEDIAL SECTION D (NOT TO SCALE) • SUMMARY OF REMEDIAL MEASURES REMEDIAL SECTION STATIONS PRESENT SLOPE REMEDIAL MEASURES • REMARKS RE -SLOPE lAl RETAINING WALL SHEAR KEY ROCK BUTTRESS ROCK BLANKET INTERCEPTER DRAIN MIN. DEPTH (E) HORIZONTAL. GRAINS TIP OFFSET (F) N0. e SPACING GRADE (0.) NO. a SPACING GRADE. (Gs) HEIGHT IB) LENGTHIL) SHEARIR) THICKNESS lC) SLOP) THICKNESS (D) D (UPPER SLOPE) W 117.30 to 0 192.20 2:, 4:1 None - None See Note 1 15' 200' f o 300' 2 41 100' 1 to3% D ILOWER SLOPE) 0194 +00 to Ls 192.00 • -2:1 See Note 4 No additional rolls rsq. La 60' R•30K/Iirt See Note 3 -10' SssNote4 • See Note l None See Note S SeeNdsS Rock buttress 9.45. Pend ditch Surface seal (12'1 Filter material Palmated drain pipe DETAIL A Sheet key DETAIL B .21Li 9 C • 0 (across dip) I • 125 p.c.f. ajmas)• 5.0 I.s.f. Sea Nole 6 kh •2001bs /cu.ln.(conelenl) WSDOT Remdiation Rodger E. Lacy Residence Tukwila, Washington The Galli Group, Inc. 13500 Lake City Way NE, Suite 202 Figure 3A Seattle, WA 96125 (206) 3636449 Lacy Property t 2 Paved ditch Surface seal (1241. Of ;Orpl • Filler malarial Perforated drain pipe DETAIL A REMEDAL SECTION STATIONS PRESENT SLOPE RE• La 192 +00 to Lt 169 +90 2:1 Ls 169 +BO to La 166 • 30. 2.5:I ' Note: These drawings are from Shannon Inc dated 3-31 -1966. They represent recotnmenl measures which have sine been Implements as the "Cul-de -sac" and "present ground surf • conditions at that time: • Wilson Report ed remedistion 1: Features such ice" represent �o1I REMARKS radiation Residence hington 22', Figure 3A 1449 Detail A Lacy Property 3' ZOO' Rock Blanket Gr(Olp. Clay. ;SILT Rock Buttress Present ground surface C 1\ 1 \\ • Cul clap,• " (Detail 8) Horizontal Drain ' Grade Go F .eM s ase sm.. a h• 1s Line Paved Ditch • REMEDIAL SECTION E (NOT TO SCALE) Paved ditch Surface seal (124) Filler material Perforated drain pipe DETAIL A 0 • 45• Rock but 11150 pal. R • shear on key (Kips per lin.fool) Shear key DETAIL B 5 LT 0 • 25•(ocrose dip) C•0 5 • 125 p.c.f. %Imo& 5.0►.s.f. See Note 3 kh • 200 Ibs /cu.ln. (constant) REMEDIAL SECTION STATIONS PRESENT SLOPE SUMMARY OF REMEDIAL MEASURES REMEDIAL MEASURES RE-SLOPE (A) ROCK BUTTRESS SHEAR KEY ROCK INTERCEPTER HEIGHT SLOPE KIPS PER BLANKET DRAIN LIN.FT. THICKNESS MIN. (8) (C) (R) (D) DEPTH (P) HORIZONTAL DRAINS TIP OFFSET (F) NO. SPACING GRADE (Gt) E Ls 192.00 to Ls 189.90 2:1 4:1 None None None See Note 2 I5' -550' 36100' Ito 3% NQ 8 SPACING GRADE (Gs) None REMARKS See Note 1 Ls 189.80 to Ls 186.30. 2.5:1 4:1 6:1 35 K /lIn.ft See NN4„2 15' -550' 7050' 11o3% None Note: These draw ile are from Shannon and Wilson Report dated 3-31 -1966. They represent recommended remedtation measures which have since been Implemented. Features such as the "Cul-de-sac" and "present ground surface" represent conditions at that time. WSDOT Remdiation Rodger E. Lacy Residence Tukwila, Washington The Galli Group, Inc. 13500 Lake City Way NE, Suite 202 Seattle, WA 98125 (206) 363-6449 Figure 3B ' HW. U O'. U) u)W to 0 g se a. W t— 0': Z H; ill V i O co 01—' W.W:. -. u. D;. . Z; to H Z TRACT 113 0 z ;c Drain Interceptor trenches to tstormwrater 4:. ;il l. TRACT 47 ; conveyancenystem .: E a49.CO' . �� t i ! ti, S89'33'C2'E ` t _ \\ \ \?66 p\ \ \\ 0 1\ 1 \ 1 1 \I \ TPA \ : 1\ , \ \ \ �\: #\ \\ . -.: .cvio . ', \ \ s 1 I \ :. \ .r .k • 213(.- ; \ ti p buildi bca�t: n ■ \N. r \ \ \ \ \ \ • Koposc�i hg: cLA � \ 1 \ • / // / / 1 \\ T �nl� T\ \ \ c296 0 / ° / J 1 F 1 • a�.e it�a a r��rading �� i P -2 4 I. F.4 ' ' _ _1 ;\ O( I \ 1 1111 / IApproAim .1 1 1 / I 1 ;s., SP6� � --• � — — "� �': . v� ,. Drain 1 1 \ • 11 11- •.•. corns I I 1 1 1 1 ! I I 1 a• \ • `se,. � _ � \ .:� i l \ . � _ �`�� - � - -1- - ��� •.;.•••` I I / / / / , I 0 1 1 I p � � Ls, ;� t \ / / /` � ♦ :1 , \ A6 :. \ Ill / I ♦ � \ a' ♦ •`sc.)0. . ? °. \ � l c • v� \ t ' \ 1 •: •c� ` �. . 4 \ 1 III / / / I —1 \ \ \ \ • �'•A.•�,... \ ' �, ' .,,I�t• , \ tt, ; j;;?0� • 1\1‘1\ / / \ \ \ o � �<a \ \ . 7 \\ l.r �• \ � �� 1 i■ \ 111 i \ 111 11 \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \�ppk • z �_ atcTocaticin of�prPqoedltat\ Poor dra n\ N. \ : 1 1 8.41 \ \ • \ 81.23\ t 1 108.81 \ . , `67.99 \ \ \ 1\ \ \ \ \ 1 \ ' \ \ \t N89'35'30''1 \ \1 1 i ,\ .' ,' : �' :,. •'. \ \\\\\\\,\\\\,\ \\ . \ 1 1 I :..I 526ta'•. �158't�ii $T:� \, 1 11\\ 1 \\ \\ \, ► ! i \ I i i • \\ \ •1`.. • • i' - . • y .r ...L . •t..�i,. t -_,,.. -,� ` . .,.- - ...a_ L ��- _— 1 4 • • s�i CITY PARK LEGEND Approximate Test Pit location Borings performed by others Proposed Interceptor Drains Based upon Boundary and Contour Survey for . Rodger E. Lacy Sr., by Lund and Associates, Surveyors, 2-28-95 t A. " 1:1V4 N1:!irr' .t.°.'"lIA++GttiY.al iii +W': W43.6';∎ i fi's'ri :i'L"elivi1144∎4 r• T.a`"',"eh'ekR` ;t PW S:, 4rk" v !:SAiii6:!eak'Ziti'iEalP 14 i:1 184; yrili ota:::a`1"'ikxvx_554v --/ ail^-:"" r !v't4r41:1:P!t1firu.v+„riied -`: 7 449.00' • S89'33'C2•E r , \ \ TP-1 . \ '1 .• 7. I .: Z: Ups lope Interceptor Trench Schematic for Cut Slopes with Interceptor Drains ,i Building Footing House Floor Grade in ±236' Toe of Slope Interceptor Trench Upslope asphalt- or concrete -lined swale Drain to stormwater conveyance system Mirafi 140N Filter Fabric Compacted Drain Rock, WSDOT Sec. 9 -03.12(4) 6" dia. slotted pipe, smooth wall Upslope Interceptor Trench Impermeable cap with surface swale Drain to stormwater conveyance system Mirafi 140N Filter Fabric Compacted Drain Rock, WSDOT Sec. 9-03.12(4) Slotted Pipe, smooth wall Toe of Slope Interceptor Trench Figure 5 r MAL • Appendix A Test Pit and Boring Logs Explanation of Test Pit Logs Test Pit No. 3 Description of Graphic Symbol Topsoil, may contain roots, sod, or other organic matter Symbols V' Observed water level at time of exploration FILL, described by soil classification with other minor constituents and fill indicators Silty SAND, description may include minor constituents such as gravel. Poorly. graded SAND, description may include minor constituents such as gravel or silt. SILT or sandy SILT, description may include minor constituents such as gravel or sand. Well- graded SAND, may contain minor constituents such as gravel Bottom of Test Pit Plate A -1 Test Pit No. 1 Test Pit No ..2 Approximate Elev. TP -1 = ±242' Loose, brown, silty fine SAND; wet with organics. Loose, gray, silty fine SAND, wet; mottled orange streaks throughout, contains blackened organic vessicies: Approximate Elev. TP -2 = ±245' Loose, brown, silty fine SAND, wet. Contains organics, forest duff, and roots. Medium dense to dense, gray, medium SAND, wet. Medium dense, gray, silty SAND with trace gravel, wet with weathered streaks. Dense, gray, fine to medium SAND with vessicles. Appears braided with med. & coarse SAND deposits. Medium dense to dense, gray, fine to medium SAND with silt, wet. Some blackened vessicles. Very dense, fine silty SAND or very stiff SILT with trace gravel, moist. Becomes weathered at 6.5'. Dense; gray and brown, medium to coarse SAND with gravel, moist to wet. Dense, brown, fine SAND, wet. Becomes wetter with depth. As above but weathered brown and gray. Bottom of Test Pit Dense, light brown, medium SAND, wet. Poorly graded, water seeps at 10.5' depth. Bottom of Test Pit Plate A -2 Approximate Elev. TP -3 = ±230' Loose, brown, silty fine to medium SAND, wet. Contains decayed wood fragments, weathered. (FILL) Approximate Elev. TP-4 = ±233' Loose, brown, silty fine SAND, moist. Top soil. Stiff to very stiff, gray, SILT, moist. Grades to sandy SILT with increasing depth, massive. Loose to medium dense, brown, medium SAND, wet. Contains some decayed organics. (probable original ground) Medium dense to dense; gray, fine to medium SAND, wet. Found 2 boulders approx. 24" diameter. Slight seepage In silty SAND Tense at 11' depth. Test Pit No. 5 Approximate Elev. TP -5 = t228' Loose, brown, silty SAND, moist. Contains decayed wood fragments (FILL) /.;'/°10 Loose, dark brown, silty SAND, with organics, moist. (Original ground, topsoil) Medium stiff, gray, sandy SILT with mottled orange streaks, wet. Seepage zone. becomes stiff, gray, sandy SILT or dense, silty fine SAND with blackened vessicles. Bottom of Test Pit Plate A-4 ' SAMPLE STRUCTURE W N SOIL DESCRIPTION SAMPLES 1 DEPTH,it. • WATER • CONTENT,% • 4. . • • WATER LEVELS JAN. FES. MAR. Loose to medium dense, gray- 10 20 10 20 10 2 0 brown,silty,fine to coarse 1 • SAND w /grovel 21 • N • 30 blow /foot I0 Hord, gray, clayey SILT (ML) 31[ • )---t 13' w /occ. sight gray silt pedde s ���� opprox.l /16 "thick, interbedded 41 , • fine sand lenses a some slickensides. 20 30 7 (/2" sand seam 7 ][ • >: 40 1 • -:::::1` 1050 - -� • .....1.1.5•1-::: II l[ • .--12:::.:0•= 14 60 • .i2`0• = 13j[ • 5.10......4i= 4 • + 2•.0'= 70 151 • *.-Iii---4--2•--= 16 e0 • Vie• 171[ • . -., t8][90 • N. P 2011 • N.P. 100 211 • 221 •= 110 23][ �--c 241 •. 120 • lope _ Bottom of S Dense, arov. fine SAND ,25][ • Indicator casing Bottom of boring 130 March 31, 1966 W-64 -46$8 Cu 11UUl1 \I O WII C11W TUKWILA INTERCHANGE AGREEMENT Y- 713 SUPPLEMENT 6 SUMMARY OF FIELD a LABORATORY DATA ' BORING NO. 206 S10.0192.90 Offset 560'Rt Elev. El. 220.5 DI •sees A _G F -Z QW U 0 NO' W o g CO D F=-W Z' W t-; uj N O O ILI- 0 W W W Z: F= Z OG TII GAIJII GROUP Geotechnical Consulting Comments on Staff Report to the Planning Commission L95-0001 - Rodger Lacy Property 1. Page 4, Item B, "Final wetland enhancement measures must be reviewed, approved and installed prior to development" Enhancement measures should be installed after initial site preparation, since much of the area will be disturbed during site preparation. Enhancement itself will likely require disturbance of much of the wetland area as well. 2. Page 6, Item B, paragraph 2, Reduction of impacts by moving pad eastward Original Proposal ❑ • 16,000 sq. ft. of developed area (see page 5) ❑ Cuts wetland slopes, eliminating wetland area on slope ❑ Preserves wetland pond near culvert ❑ Preserves existing drainage paths ❑ Proposes detention/retention underground ❑ Improves local stability ❑ Maintains global stability of hillside ❑ Near surface hydrology altered ❑ Downslope hydrology remains similar ❑ Hammerhead turn around required Possible Compromise Staff Proposal 13 13,500 sq. ft. of developed area (incl. fill slopes) ❑ Avoids cut of slope, maintains wetland on slope ❑ Eliminates existing wet pond ❑ Requires altering two significant drainage paths ❑ Proposes surface retention, potential stability risks ❑ Local stability remains about the same ❑ Global stability of hillside potentially compromised ❑ Near surface hydrology altered (enhanced ?) ❑ Downslope hydrology altered. ❑ Hammerhead turn around postponed to future ❑ Maintain original location and size of building pad ❑ Elevate floor elevation and provide single row of gabions at base of cut (this would result in sparing additional 2,800 square feet or more of wetland slope) 13500 Lake City Way, Suite 202, Seattle, Washington 98125 • (206) 363 -6449 • Fax (206) 367 -5611 �v i::.i: (.±IiSSY.liiSf[� se+:!: t'; �'' 1�.' vl✓ n?.'.'.: v�ti. iw:. u .1:.:'w:art::^�.v:L':.J:.idunwi W>1mv.w+.. U 0; W w;. CO IL:. w O` gm! v _ ,Z ~0' ;z ,off1, {0 1-i. MI I=-U.4 u. • Z; U N 3. Page 6, Item C, last paragraph on page, Impacts on WSDOT drainage system Proposed interceptors would not significantly alter WSDOT drainage system. They will discharge to existing drainage paths or be directed toward controlled release retention detention system. No increase due to interceptor trenches. It simply intercepts the near surface flows which eventually migrate toward WSDOT interceptor trench. Page 7, third paragraph "alternative to removing the on -site water..." This is my understanding of Mr. Lacy's intent in the original proposal. Some form of wetland enhancement may be possible if carefully designed. WSDOT may not approve of the addition of ponds on the hillside. Liability concerns begin to emerge. . Page 7, Item D, moving pad 40 feet east and slope stability issues Global stability of either site appears satisfactory. Staff proposal would increase risk of downslope failure by adding additional weight of fill and water to "driving wedge" of potential failure. If no cut of western slope is permitted, fill heights may reach 10 feet, and driveway sideslopes will cover additional wetland area. Best proposal would combine cuts and fill. Functions of interceptor drains are to dry out the building pad, enabling proper compaction and fill placement, and to preserve stability of any cut slopes. Both alternatives will require interceptor drains. 6. Page 8, Item F, "least impact to existing sensitive area" Concentrating development on existing fill areas may have least impact on wetland areas, but we must evaluate the total picture which also includes slope stability issues, and foundation issues. These were discussed above. 7. Conclusion: The staff report concludes that "development of one single family residence with attached garage and access driveway can be obtained on this site with less impact to on and.offsite sensitive areas then is proposed in this application" (page 9, paragraph 2). The primary concern of the staff report appears to be preservation of wetland areas outside of existing fill areas. We remind the planning commission that geotechnical issues are also of concern here. In general, two things can be said to increase the risk of slope failures in sensitive areas: 1) additional fill or weight added to the failure surface, and 2) additional water added to the hillside. The staff proposal increases both of these over that of the original proposal. L95 -0001: Rodger Lacy 2 04/26/95 The staff proposal appears to prioritize wetland concerns over stability and other concerns. The best overall solution should require limiting loss of wetland where reasonable, while preserving slope stability of the area. Mr. Lacy has sited the house in a location which preserves the majority of the existing drainage paths, utilizes the existing fill areas, preserves the only existing wetland pond, and intends to provide some enhancement of wetland areas. In light of the discussion subsequent to submitting our geotechnical report we recommend the commission consider a compromise consisting of decreasing the cut slopes by elevating the finish floor elevation of the original building pad to 238 feet and/or adding one row of 3' high gabions at the base of the cut. This could save an additional 3,000 to 6,000 square feet of wetland area within the 1.5 -acre parcel. Submitted by The Galli Group Paul L. Stoltenberg Geotechnical Engineer L95 -0001: Rodger Lacy 3 04/26/95 A F F I D A V I T Notice of Public Hearing 0 Notice of Public Meeting []Board of Adjustment Agenda Packet O Board of Appeals Agenda Packet ['Planning Commission Agenda Packet Q Short Subdivision Agenda Packet 'OF D I S T R I B U T I O N hereby declare that: fl Notice of Application for Shoreline Management Permit Q Shoreline Management. Permit O Determination of Non - significance 0 Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance []Determination of Significance and Scoping Notice ❑ Notice of Action 0 Official Notice Other 0 Other to each of the following addresses on SC(/)_,k/UL 4144./6-"RP-: 4/4 4-(1,-?,-/ (e • Name of Project File Number �`1S - 151Yn City of Tukwila John W. Rants, Mayor Department of Community Development Steve Lancaster, Director PUBLIC NOTICE City of Tukwila Notice is hereby given that the City of Tukwila Planning Commission will be holding a public hearing at 7:00 p.m. on April 25, 1996, in the City Hall Council Chambers, located at 6200 Southcenter Blvd. to discuss the following: PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING CASE NUMBER: L95 -0001: Lacy Reasonable Use Exception APPLICANT: Rodger Lacy REQUEST: Reduce a "reasonable use exception" condition of approval for single family house, to less than a mitigation to wetland disturbance area ratio of 1.5:1.0. The staff estimated disturbance area is 29,700 s.f. on a 65,862 s.f. lot. LOCATION: Intersection of the S. 158th Street and 51st Ave. S. right of ways, at tax lot no. 810860 -0420. Persons wishing to comment on the above case may do so by written statement or by appearing at the public hearing. Information on the above case may be obtained at the Tukwila Planning Division. The City encourages you to notify your neighbors and other persons you believe would be affected by the above item. Published: Seattle Times April 12, 1996 Distribution: Mayor, City Clerk, Property Owners /Applicants, Adjacent Property Owners, File. 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • (206) 431-3670 • Fax (206) 431-3665 D in la 10 11J F W 0; Lt. AC ;N = a ur 2 Di o. 0 col � w W I-: x u. - fu co; Zr 0 City of Tukwila John W. Rants, Mayor Department of Community Development Steve Lancaster, Director PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA APRIL 27, 1995 6:00 - 7:00 P.M. WORK SESSION 8:00 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS I. CALL TO ORDER II. ATTENDANCE III. WORK SESSION: v. The Commission will begin discussions on the Development Regulations. PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING CITIZENS' COMMENTS: At this time you are invited to comment on items which are NOT on the agenda. VI. CASE NUMBER: L95-0001 - APPLICANT: REQUEST: LOCATION: CASE NUMBER: APPLICANT: REQUEST: LOCATION: Roger Lacy Sensitive Area Ordinance exception and special permission to build a single-family residence within a wetland area, per Section 18.45.115(c) of the Tukwila Municipal Code. Terminus of 51st Ave. S. at 158th Street, Tukwila. OL95-0014: Puetz Golf Tube Art Special permission to increase sign area based upon doubling of the building setback. 402 Strander Blvd., Tukwila. VII. DIRECTOR'S REPORT: Comprehensive Plan implementation strategy. VIII. ADJOURNMENT 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • (206) 431-3670 • Fax (206) 431-3665 AFFIDAVIT Notice of ONotice of OBoard of Packet OBoard of Packet Public Hearing Public Meeting Adjustment Agenda Appeals Agenda OF DISTRIBUTION hereby declare that: OPlanning Commission Agenda Packet 0Short Subdivision Agenda Packet ONotice of Application for Shoreline Management Permit 0 Shoreline Management Permit LI Determination of Non- significance ElMitigated Determination of Nonsignificance ODetermination of Significance. and Scoping Notice fl Notice of Action 0Official Notice 0Other 0Other •• was mailed to each of the following.•addresses on jL AtIL. •-1-11(yts, 4- 147Ls7' • • • JPZF chil,w4-11 .-)1/Q474-/ti • ()TUAt. (\Am' tot • tan Akc( am/k- OARA40/1/- Name of Project 1-0 File Number t_05-0ao TRACT \:cam\ x`107. ,.,°p ,.lam 1 1\ 1 \ IIIIII /// \ 10100(/ '♦ , \\` \'‘\ \l \ \ \ \1 \ \ \ \� \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \\ \\ ♦ \\ I \ N. \. A N 5 2 3 4 7 ' \ O \\ 1 _V/It i12)r�:o1•\ Ia-aLx r ! �L 1 TRACT 4779.00' 589'33'02"E r'_ — ;' \•-• �� ' .\ •\\ . \ S89'33'02" E 178.68 in • O b 1 13z STATE R/W FENCE III LEGEND ;WETLAND INTRUSION j MMITIGATION BY ENHANCEMENT WITH TREES AND SHRUBS n ::1 ■r■ POND OR SERIES OF PONDS WITH APPROPRIATE NATIVE PLANTINGS ADDITIONAL POND IN THE EVENT OF S.158th. ST. VACATION CITY PARI< S� • x \ _ ` i N89 0310" 2 W 7 �� = - \ r . • ir arrl 11 C� 7i .�a3�-�ti � \ \ Fly SP i Al CONCEPTUAL WETLAND MITIGATION PLAN Rodger E. Lacy Residence 1Figure 1 BENCH NARK -E RBI STtIRH MH CUL- DE-SAC EL. 209.28 TRACT47 449.00' • Drain Interceptor h. ,..rostorr„wst., � S89'33'02'E corny/once aysrem \ �' ' " + •' ` \• \ ` \ \ \ \ •� �1 \i9.92__�— °'J ^�J.\.:� ..:r,..,YR- �6.9<,(_ _'�G 6 , . 5 I 1 \ TPA, 1 \ \ \ \ n \ m l I 1 \ ? .I \ \ \ \ \ \•0 \ \ \ \ \\ \ \ \ \\ �sD\ •''r 1 I PKripooeclbull rlgloca'tipn \ \ i:::\: \ 7AI / I 1 / I \ I / j j l / v'�� 7� 1 / / . ! I IApRro>Ymae knits of r{rbrig> j. ZP -2I N t l` —\ ;1 • / / 1 1 v S `t \ 1 1 11 1 111 / I I 1 1 I I 1 \ \I 1 1 rs Ei.A \` V r p /r / 1 1 Q , \ \ \ . T Z^� r ..< V Ora►i o-.ncn.a ro etarrnMer rPr NJ1 / I / O 1 � / I c^ )Ii�t/ 1 1 l\ \\ \ \7n`1� \ \�\�)��� \ \, \.�x\) I���\\1\ � � \\n6 ��\ t I. \ 11//11111 \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ '\'.11;.":11 •, \ \�� I l��.\'• \� \\ r" \ -y`— N89'35'30'V \ \111 \1 \t \ \\� 168.41 \ \ \\ \ \ 812\ j' \',....Uii.81\. \ \\ I \� \; b799� r \ \\p �1 ICO. 0 r — ,x=27 \\\\\\\\1\\\\\\\\\\\\ \11 \t \\ \ \ \,. \ +\ \. \ I \\I \ \\\ I• ,\ \` \ cs• \ \ \�iy\ \I \ �\ \ \ 1 I 889'35 "30'J ` I \ j\ \\ \ \\1 � i \\ I II i 1526 (\:'.\y \\�S.•1J`�Q�'i:• \ \ \, \ \.` �``• '••.•. \`'" cG�irZ'l`\ —��— .` \ \�`\� =�- j 'I /;,y (�ilr�. r.. i. ._ f —+—. - .'- , —1 \ .. �! -\�_� • \ a \ + pa-CE SAC SPI Al 1\ CITY PARK• ■ 8.208 • Scale 1" = 50' S89•33'02•E 178.68 LEGEND Approximate Test Pit location Borings performed by others Proposed Interceptor Drains Based upon Boundary end Contour Survey for Rodger E. Lacy Sr., by Lund and Associates, Surveyors, 2-28-95 '* Reviser, 3/2,//95- 41 ' Site Plan 46 Rodger E. Lacy Residence The Galli Group, Inc. 13500 lake City Way NE, Butte 202 Seattle, WA 98125 (206) 363 -6449 Figure 4 Ya:l7Lri+.+ • %kW,. d�L?.$rn�a'eYaY,va6ri:us'3'ti•'. . ` �•• � r : s .• City of Tukwila John W. Rants, Mayor Department of Community Development Steve Lancaster, Director City of Tukwila PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE Notice is hereby given that the City of Tukwila Planning Commission will be holding a public hearing at 7:00 p.m. on April 27, 1995, in the City Hall Council Chambers, located at 6200 Southcenter Blvd. to discuss the following: I. CASE NUMBER: APPLICANT: REQUEST: LOCATION: CASE NUMBER: APPLICANT: REQUEST: LOCATION: PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING L95 -0001 Roger Lacy Sensitive Area Ordinance exception and special permission to build a single - family residence within a wetland area, per Section 18.45.115(c) of the Tukwila Municipal Code. Terminus of 51st Ave. S. at 158th Street, Tukwila. L95 -0014: Puetz Golf Tube Art Special permission to increase sign area based upon doubling of the building setback. 402 Strander Blvd., Tukwila. Persons wishing to comment on the above cases may do so by written statement or by appearing at the public hearing. Information on the above cases may be obtained at the Tukwila Planning Division. The City encourages you to notify your neighbors and other persons you believe would be affected by the above items. Published: Seattle Times April 14, 1995 Distribution: Mayor, City Clerk, Property Owners /Applicants, Adjacent Property Owners, File. 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • (206) 431-3670 • Fax (206) 431-3665 SPECIAL PERMISSION SENSITIVE AREAS OVERLAY ZONE REASONABLE EXCEPTION INFORMATION CITY OF TUKWILA 63000 Southcenter Boulevard, Tukwila, WA 98188 DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Telephone: (206) 431 -3680 The Sensitive Areas Overlay Zone (SAO) permits reasonable exceptions from the requirements of the SAO if the applicant demonstrates to the Planning Commission that application of the provisions of the SAO would deny all reasonable use of the property. The Planning Commission may grant development approval, which is consistent with the general purposes of the ordinance and the public interest. S.A.O. REASONABLE USE EXCEPTION CRITERIA Eight criteria established in the Sensitive Areas Overlay Zone section of the Zoning Code guide the Planning Commission in their decision making [TMC 18.45.115(c)(4)]. Each applicant, as part of the application, is requested to respond to each of these criteria as they relate to their project. 1. No reasonable use with less impact on the sensitive area and its buffer is possible; 2. There is no feasible on -site alternative to the proposed activities, including reduction in size or density, phasing of project implementation, change in timing activities, revision of road and lot layout, andior related site planning activities that would allow a reasonable economic use with fewer adverse impacts to the sensitive area and its buffer; As a result of the proposed development there will be no increased or unreasonable threat of damage to off -site public or private property and no threat to the public health, safety or welfare on or off the development proposal site; 4. Alterations permitted shall be the minimum necessary to allow for reasonable use of the property; 5. The proposed development is compatible in design, scale and use with other development with similar site constraints in the immediate vicinity of the subject properly; Disturbance of sensitive areas has been minimized by locating the necessary alterations in the buffers to the greatest extent possible; 7. The inability to derive.reasonable use of the property is not the result of actions by the applicant in segregating or dividing the property and creating the undevelopable condition after the effective date of the ordinance from which this chapter derives (1991); and 8. Any approved alterations of a sensitive area under this section shall be subject to conditions as established by this chapter and will require mitigation under an approved mitigation plan. If a development is approved as a reasonable use, the Board of Architectural Review's process, review and standards shall be applied. PROCEDURE State Environmental Policy Act or SEPA environmental review is required. An environmental checklist must be submitted with the application, and a 'Determination' by the City's SEPA Responsible Official must be made on the proposed use prior to any public hearing. This application requires a public hearing before the Planning Commission. During the public hearing the applicant, other proponents, and opponents are allowed to testify regarding the proposal. After the hearing and a review of the criteria, the Commission may deny, approve, or approve with conditions the proposed request. The Planning Commission meets every fourth Thursday of the month at 8:00 p.m. APPEAL PROCEDURE Any party aggrieved by, the decision of the Planning Commission may be appeal the decision to the City Council within 10 days from the Commission's approval date. .. yn.. r... uwiu���u:::. ni' a" F�. t rvuw 'aiw.tt:�.:x:uv..e�:.c�.x..ar • Ky,..�.�n aLc:::••anai:l.•i;d�.u�i4a. isr�;i.'Gi..:::is�:•. ADDFiES LABEL REQUIREMENTS CITY OF TUKWILA 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Tukwila, WA 98188 DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Telephone: (206) 431 -3680 Notification of persons of certain types of pending applications is required in order to encourage citizen participation in the land use process. Applicants are required to submit a mailing matrix and one photocopied set of labels which show: 1. The name and address of all owners of property lying within 300 feet of the boundaries of the property for which a permit is sought; and 2. The address of all residents of property within 300 feet of the boundaries of property. Property owner names and addresses can be obtained from the King County Department of Assessments located on the 7th floor of the King County Administration Building, Room 700, 500 Fourth Avenue, Seattle. To compile the it Qrm atinn: 1. Obtain the assessor's map(s), which contains your property and all uttin operty within 300 feet. (See diagram.) You may use the maps on file in the Assesso s ffice or they can be purchased from the King County Department of Public Works Map Counter on the , 9th floor of the Administration Building. It is suggested that assessor's maps be ordered several hours in advance of the time you would like to pick them up. 2. Then, obtain a computer batch order form from the Department of Assessments, list on the batch order form the property tax account numbers shown on the assessor's map(s) and submit the batch order form to the Department of Assessments together with the required fee for a printout of the information. Assistance with the tax account numbers may be obtained through the Assessor's Office or the City of Tukwila Department of Community Development (DCD). King County labels are not acceptable because they cannot be duplicated. Resident names and addresses are researched by the applicant. Kroll maps located in the DCD have buildings and street names and addresses. The information on the mailing matrix may refer to "Resident" or "Tenant ", with the proper mailing address, if the specific name is unknown. '~w: et 2 6 UO LO ui Ems. u10 u- d. LU z� 1=0 2 1-; UJ o: 0 H; 'W w:. 1- • Z UN Z` O ~' z.. 5 TITLE 18 — ZONING Chapter 18.45 SENSITIVE AREAS OVERLAY ZONE Sections: 18.45.010 Purpose. 18.45.020 Sensitive area designation, rating methodologies, classifications and applicability. 18.45.030 Interpretation. 18.45.040 Sensitive area buffers. 18.45.060 Procedures. 18.45.080 Uses and standards. 18.45.090 Sensitive areas tracts. 18.45.115 Exceptions. 18.45.120 Variances. 18.45.125 Appeals. 18.45.130 Recording required. 18.45.135 Assurance device. 18.45.140 Assessment relief. 18.45.010 Purpose. (a) The purpose of the Sensitive Areas Overlay Zone is to establish special standards for the use and development of lands based on the existence of natural conditions thereon in order to protect environmentally sensitive areas, including the natural character of Tukwila's wooded hillsides. (b) Standards are hereby established to meet the following goals of protecting environmentally sensitive areas: (1) Minimize developmental impacts on the natural functions and values of these areas. (2) Protect quantity and quality of water resources. (3) Minimize turbidity and pollution of wetlands and fish - bearing waters and maintain wildlife habitat. (4) Prevent erosion .and the loss of slope and soil stability caused by the removal of trees, shrubs, and root systems of vegetative cover. (5) Protect the public against avoidable losses, public emergency rescue and relief operations cost, and subsidy cost of public mitigation from landslide, subsidence, erosion and flooding. (6) Protect . the community's aesthetic resources and distinctive features of natural lands and wooded hillsides. (7) Prevent unlawful disturbance of archaeologic or geologic sites with historic or prehistoric artifacts. (8) Balance the private rights of individual propert hers; with the t' f envi- ronmentally. sensitive areas. (9) Prevent the loss of wetland: and watercourse function and acreage, and strive for a gain over present conditions. 18.45.020 Sensitive area designation — rating methodologies — classifications and applicability. (a) Applicability — This chapter applies to any use or development proposed on any legal lot of record, any portion of which is a sensitive area or a sensitive area buffer as defined in Sections 18.06.695 and 18.06.697, and specifically including one or more of the following and their buffers: (1) Abandoned coal mines; (2) Areas of potential geologic instability: Class 2, 3, 4 and seismic instability areas (Section 18.06.050 and subsection (e) of this section); (3) Wetlands (18.06.939); (4) Watercourses (18.06.935); (5) Areas that contain archaeological remnants of value to the archaeological research community, which includes but is not limited to colleges, universities or societies of professional archaeologists, or which is designated as important to save as a record of the area's past by the State Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation. (b) Sensitive Areas Maps and Inventories (1) The distribution of many sensitive areas in Tukwila is displayed on the Sensitive Areas Maps, dated 1990, and on file with the Department of Community Development (DCD). (2) Studies, preliminary inventories and ratings of potential sensitive areas are on file with the DCD in the Sensitive Areas Notebook, dated May 1990. (3) The maps and preliminary inventories and ratings are hereby adopted by reference. The actual presence or absence of sensitive areas as defined by or otherwise referred to in this chapter and as determined by the City will govern. The actual ratings and buffers for any sensitive area will be determined by the City using the methodologies and procedures provided in this chapter for each type of sensitive area. (4) All revisions, updates and reprinting of sensitive areas maps, inventories, ratings and buffers shall conform to this chapter. (c) Wetlands — For the purposes of this chapter, "wetlands" is defined in Section 18.06.939. A wetland. boundary is the line delineating the outer • edge of a wetland established by using the "Federal Manual for Identifying and Delineating Jurisdictional Wetlands," dated January 10, 1989, as revised or updated, and jointly published by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and the U.S. Soil Conservation Service. Wetland types and rating criteria are listed below: (1) Type 1 wetlands, those wetlands which preservation o envi- .. meet any of the following criteria: (A) The presence of species listed by the federal government or State as endangered or threat- ened, or the presence of critical or outstanding actual habitat for those species, Printed December 12, 1994 (Ord 1599 §3(part) 1991) Page 18-39 z ,_Z mow. aa� JU 00: CO 0. wi. J H 0) w w0 LLQ = a. I-w ?� I-o Z w U 0- 0 H w w: F- U • wz U =. ot-- z CITY OF TUKWILA • WASHINGTON o ORDINANCE NO. �.7 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA, WASHINGTON, REGULATING DEVELOPMENT ON SENSITIVE AREAS AND BUFFERS; AMENDING ORDINANCE NOS 1247 AND 1289 AND TUKWI.LA MUNICIPAL CODE (TMC) TITLE 18; AMENDING ORDINANCE N.OS. 1331 AND 1334 AND TMC TITLE 21.04; AMENDING ORDINANCE NO 1014 AND TMC TITLE 17; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, the City Council considered regulation of development on sensitive areas within the City of Tukwila and referred the issue to the Planning Commission; and WHEREAS, the State of Washington has subsequently through RCW 36.70A mandated that local jurisdictions pass legislation protecting sensitive areas; and WHEREAS, the SEPA Responsible' Official made a determination of non-significance on October 25, 1989; and WHEREAS, the City Council upheld the determination of non-significance at an appeal heard on December 18, 1989; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held public hearings on November 9, 1989, November 16, 1989, August 30, 1990, and September 6, 1990; and WHEREAS, the City Council President and the Mayor appointed a citizens' committee on November 27, 1989 to study the issue; and WHEREAS, the City Council authorized certain consultants' reports as follows: 1. Wetlands Inventory by Jones & Stokes Associates, Inc., dated September 1989; superseded by Water Resource Rating and Buffer Recommendations dated May 1990. 2. Abandoned Underground Coal Mine Hazard Assessment by Hatt Crowser, Inc., dated May 3, 1990. 3. Geologic Hazards Evaluation by GeoEngineers dated May 9, 1990. 4. Dija Hillsides — Design and Development Standards by Johnson Architecture /Planning dated March 6, 1990 5. W i rcourse Rating Data Sheets by Jones & Stokes,. Inc., dated October 1990; and WHEREAS, After considering the testimony at public hearings, the recommendations of the citizens' committee and the consultants' reports, the Planning Commission made Findings and recommended a draft Sensitive Areas Ordinance to the City Council on October 25, 1990; and WHEREAS, public hearings were held before the City Council .on,April 22, 1991 and April 24, 1991; and. WHEREAS, after considering the recommendations of the Planning Commission and the citizens' committee, the consultants' reports and the testimony at the public lzearlrlgs and after numerous public meetings of the City Council, the City Council has determined that it Is necessary and desireable and in the interest of the public health, safety and welfare to regulate development on sensitive areas and their buffers; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCI L OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA, WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1, FINDINGS. The City Council finds as follows: 1. The environmental features identified as sensitive areas which require +regulation by Tukwila .are: coal mine hazard areas, areas of .potential geologic instability, watercourses, Wetlands and important geologic and archaeologic resources. • • The Sensitive Areas Ordinance will implement goals and policies of the 1978 Tukwila Comprehensive Land Use Policy Plan and the Puget Sound Water Quality Management Plan. The 1990 Washington State Legislature approved ESHB 2929 (1990 Wash, Laws 17) .(RCW 36.7.0A) which mandates that certain counties, and cities within those counties, address the:.proteetlonAbt;dritical. Tue Jan 26 1993 16:45 CITY of TUKWILA •z w. bra 2, oO :. 00. cn w w =. wo u a • _.. Z V 0. ;0 1— .1 U' • • LL ~0 ,z. UN o . z s Sensitive Areas Ordinance Page 2 areas. Critical areas as defined in ESHB 2929 correlate generally with the Tukwila definitions and categories of sensitive areas. This Sensitive Areas Ordinance is designed to meet the challenges and satisfy the requirements of this act with regard to all critical areas except aquifer recharge areas and flood plains which will require a different regulatory approach or are regulated in an existing title of the Tukwila Municipal Code. 4. Regulation of the use of sensitive areas benefits property owners by preventing and avoiding activities which would .have adverse impacts on property. 5. Development In wetlands, watercourses and erosion hazard areas results in: 1) increased soil erosion and sedimentation of downstream water bodies, including navigable channels; 2) increased shoreline erosion; 3) degraded water quality due to increased turbidity and loss of pollutant removal processes; 4) elimination or degradation of wildlife and fisheries habitat; 5) loss of fishery resources from water quality degradation, increased peak flow rates, decreased summer low flows, and changes in the stream flow regimen; 6) loss of stormwater retention capacity and slow - release detention resulting in flooding, degraded water quality, and changes in the stream flow regimen of watersheds. 6. Development in areas of geologic instability present a danger to the development on the site as well as neighboring sites and natural resources, and require. special design, construction and site development measures to minimize risks from these hazards. 7. Tukwila is in an earthquake prone region subject to ground shaking, subsidence, landslide and liquefaction. Special building design and construction measures are necessary to minimize risk from this hazard. 8. In their natural state, wetlands and watercourses provide many valuable social and ecological services, which are critical and cannot adequately be replicated or replaced, including: a. controlling flooding and stormwater runoff by storing or regulating natural flows; b. protecting water resources by filtering out water pollutants, processing biological and chemical oxygen demand, recycling and storing nutrients, and serving as settling basins for naturally occurring sedimentation; c. providing areas for groundwater recharge; d. providing habitat areas for many species of fish, wildlife, and vegetation, many of which are dependent on these water resources . for their survival; e. providing open space and visual relief from intense development in urbanized area; f. providing recreation opportunities; and g. serving as areas for scientific study and natural resource education. Tukwila in enacting this ordinance has relied on extensive scientific documentation and testimony concerning these sensitive areas and the appropriate methods and mechanisms for their protection. This . documentation is available in -the Department of Community Development in file 89 -2 -CA: Sensitive Areas Ordinance. SECTION 2. ORDINANCE NO. 1.247 AND TMC 18.06 AMENDED. TMC 18.06 is hereby amended to add the following sections: 18.06.045 Applicant "Applicant" means any person or business entity which applies for a development proposal, permit or approval subject to review under the Sensitive Areas Chapter. 18.06.049 Areas of Potential Geologic Instability. "Area of Potential Geologic Instability" means those areas subject to potential landslides and/or potential seismic instabilities: • 18.06:17.5 Compensatory Mitigation "Compensatory :mitigation" means replacing project- induced wetland :and buffer losses or impacts, and includes, but is not limited to, the following: 1. Restoration Actions performed to reestablish wetland and :its buffer functional char- acteristics and processes which have been lost by :alterations, activities, or catastrophic events within an area which no longer meets the definition ,d a wetland. 2. Creation — .Actions performed to intentionally establish a wetland .and :its .btiffer .at :a •site where it did not formerly exist. 3. Enhancement — Actions performed to Improve the condition .of an existing degraded wetland or its buffer so that the functions they provide :are of .higher•:quality. Tue Jan 26 1993 16:45 CITY of TUKWILA W u-2; 00 N0: wi J I-. WO g� -(12 a F. w F.. z o: 11J uj U ff': w w'. 1--a 1-o U U)' ■ pM. City of Tukwila John W. Rants, Mayor Department of Community Development Steve Lancaster, Director August 26, 1997 Mr. Rodger E. Lacy Sr. 4133 46th Avenue South Seattle, WA 98108 Re: Development Permit Application No. MI97 -0003 FOLLOW -UP TO CORRECTION LETTER #1 (DATED 02- 11 -97) Dear Mr. Lacy: By letter dated February 11, 1997 (Attachment A) you were informed of corrections and additional information required to allow the approval of your requested land altering permit (Number MI97- 0003). You have subsequently requested additional clarification concerning certain aspects of that letter, and confirmation concerning the acceptability of your intended response. I hope the following will provide the clarification you need. 1). Requirement to record wetland mitigation plan. On August 14, 1997 you provided me a photocopy of a document recorded with King County under recording number 9704291555 (Attachment B). This two -page document is acceptable as meeting the recording requirement stated in our February 11 letter. Please submit a copy of this document with your resubmittal for MI97 -0003. 2). Letter of credit or other security guaranteeing proper monitoring and survival of wetland mitigation plantings. On August 18, 1997 you provided a proposed form for an assignment of funds in the amount of $1,443.36 (Attachment C), for the purpose of guaranteeing the required monitoring and plant survival. You also submitted a "Security Bond Worksheet" (Attachment D) and a "Mitigation Contract" with the D. Mace Company (Attachment E). The form and the amount are satisfactory. Please submit a completed and signed assignment of funds, together with a copy of the security bond worksheet and mitigation contract, with your resubmittal. 3). Identification of wetland mitigation area on grading and stormwater plans. It is my understanding you have confirmed that you will include this information on your resubmittal. 4). Survey of interceptor trench location. We have agreed that locating a construction fence along the eastern limit of the wetland mitigation area, subject to city inspection and approval 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • (206) 431-3670 • Fax (206) 431-3665 Roger E. Lacy, Sr. August 26, 1997 Page 2 of 2 prior to issuance of your land altering permit, is an acceptable alternative to surveying the interceptor trench. 5). Revegetation plan for S. 158th Street right -of -way. On August 19, 1997 you provided a letter describing your incomplete plans for revegetation of the disturbed right -of -way for S. 158th Street (Attachment F). Considered together with the list of materials included in a price quotation from D. Mace and Company dated July 17, 1996 (Attachment G), which you provided to Mr. McFarland, this information is sufficient for the purposes of processing your land altering permit. Please submit a copy of your August 19 letter, together with a list of materials, with your land altering permit application resubmittal (the July, 1996 price quotation will suffice for the list of materials if it still meets your needs). Since your current plans are incomplete in terms of tree species and location, we reserve the right to review and approve these aspects of the restoration plan prior to installation. We look forward to receiving your resubmittal as described by our February 11 Correction Letter and as clarified herein. Sincerely, Steve Lancaster, Director Department of Community Development ATTACHMENTS: A. Correction Letter #1, dated February 11, 1997, with attached memo dated February 7, 1997. B. "Wetland Mitigation Area," Washington State Recorder's cover sheet with attached drawing. C. "Assignment of Funds." D. "Security Bond Worksheet." E. "Construction Contract," D. Mace Company (dated March 3, 1997). F. Letter from Roger Lacy dated August 19, 1997. G. "Price Quotation" from D. Mace Company, dated July 17, 1996. cc: John McFarland Kelcie Peterson S I4LTOS00 11 U O! `U 0; muE CO 'Li w J�j.. w 0, g Q: Nom; H O z Ili O N; :01_. ''W Ili ;F V' . 0:. lii Z i CO! E2 City of Tukwila John W Rants, Mayor Department of Community Development Steve Lancaster, Director February 11, 1997 Mr. Rodger Lacy 4133 46th Avenue South Seattle, Washington 98118 Dear Mr. Lacy: SUBJECT: CORRECTION LETTER #1 Development Permit Application Number MI97 -0003 Lacy,, Rodger S158St &SR518 This letter is to inform you of corrections that must be addressed before your application for development permit can be approved. All correction requests from each department must be addressed at the same time and reflected on your drawings. I have enclosed review comments from the Public Works Department. At this time the Fire Department, Building Division and the Planning Division have no comments regarding your application for permit. The City requires that four (4) complete sets of revised plans be resubmitted with the appropriate revision block. In order to better expedite your resubmittal a Revision Sheet must accompany every resubmittal. I have enclosed one for your convenience. Corrections /revisions must be made in person and will not be accepted through the mail or by a messenger service. If you have any questions please contact me at the City of Tukwila Permit Center at (206) 431 -3672. Sincerely, Kelcie J. Peterson Permit Coordinator Enclosures File: MI97 -0003 ATTACHMENT A 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite 11100 a Tu i• PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT COMMENTS • DATE: February 7, 1997 PROJECT NAME: LACY LAND ALTERING/UTILITIES PERMIT •PLAN CHECK NO.: MI97-0003 (P96-0010, L95-0001) •,• , • • Plan Reviewer: Contact Joanna Spencer at (206)433-0179, if you have any questions regarding the following comments. Before your application for land altering/utility permit can be approved the following conditions shall be met: ,1. Per the DCD Director's 10/17/96 letter applicant shall record the revised wetland Mitigation Plan dated12/12/96 with King County and submit a recorded copy to the Permit Center; 2. Per the DCD Director's 10/17/96 letter, a letterof credit or other security acceptable to the city must be subinitted.to the Permit Center. The purpose of this security is to guarantee the proper installation, monitoring, and survival of the plantings per the Mitigation/Monitoring and Evaluaation plans. Please have the landscape designer or other qualified person submit an estimate of this cost. 3. Grading and Stormwater plans do not identify "wetland area" and • "mitigation area". The protected wetland area/mitigation site needs to be labeled on all construction plan sheets to avoid unnecessary intrusion in the western portion.of the site. A construction note can be added to the site plan drawings that identifies the protected wetland area. 4. Per the DCD Director's letter of 5/22/96, please provide a professional land survey of interceptor trench location to be installed on the western portion of site development. This will serve to establish the clearing limits when construction begins on the homesite to prevent physical disturbance in wetland area as referenced in the. above Comment 3. 5. • Applicant needs to provide a revegetation plan for clearing and grading in the S. 158th Street ROW. This planting plan is a ., ." condition of the Sewer Main Extention /Street Use Permit for developing the driveway. .• 'Please note that prior to any land altering /utility trenching activity a letter from • the geotechnical engineer assuring suitable dry season construction conditions shall be submitted to PW. Steven Lancaster, DCD Director Ross Earnst, PW Director Ron Cameron, City Engineer Vernon Umetsu, A,ssocaited Planner Gary Schulz, Urban Environmentalist Development File 9704291555 9704281642 Please print or type laformatIon WASHENGTON STATE RECORDER'S v Document Title(s) (or transactions contained therein): (all areas applicable to your document must be filled ism . , 1. We+L.CINCit M it(citi.ort) Areet ..,. 1. . . .1. ' Reference Numbers) of Documents assigned or released: Additional reference #'s on page of document • Grantorts) (Last name first. then first name and inidals) I. ).. ca c yi,p0 cle3 le v., ..-• . 1 ' .. . • .7 • 4. • . • 0 Additional dames 011 page of document. . Grantee(S) (Last name first, then Ii..rst name and initials) .: I. Cil•/ OC TIA 1<Lek 3 . . 4. Additional document. names on oage of Legal description (abbreviated:. Le. lot, block. plat or section. township, range) Mat* S E liii of The sa lAt we SFC To twv5k ip Q 3) (amee, , Lof 14. 4-167 IT .Additional legal is on page of document. H 1.= .. Assessor's Property Tax Parcel/Account Number '310 geo0 °Liao nAssessor Tax # not yet assimaed • The Auditor/Recorder will rely on the information provided on the form. The staff will not read the document to verify the accuracy or completeness of the indexing information provided herein. ATTACHMENT B .01••■•••0 F3 • • • • • u. g ,1-70 :• • 449.00 Se:3'33'0 E r 1 41 TRACT 48 THE PROVISIONS OF CHAPTER: 18.45 OF Tit TUKWILA MUJNICIPAL CODE SHALL CONTROL USE AND DEVELOPMEN OF THIS PROPERTY.. 81.23 Ecis 'e} 'J wofL4 ck . • M� f tggfiory eB9L4/ tr y 108.8! 67.99 ea N89'35'30V ^ 52644' s—� r•• � - r— +---�- ---•a _ -• r --fir - -4 ._ -s —s. _ S 151311.1 • - ST. a.-■ a ■ r LAh!e M1 t• e6citi dto Area.CITY PARK ,C ou,vary for $ J? arnie 3E. *ofScAa,r23,RLI & • 7/a J Nit t t1 (3G a ry } r2ct, /9)-5-.50 VfNo7'e - All McbSur,r1tivt5 co-_ made, From Poilvfs PtdjAci e Q1 To Property l:iry e3_ N_ E_ 8 o u ry of a ry - 1 c to . c11 Fe er Frown.:; • The N.E. Pr'perf)' Corruev`. - • a.E Vouiveledisy - 3O' - $O Fe.et AMA, e S. E- Properfts Coeive v� N: A). autudavy - tq,5'.13 Due Lv oF The '• E Boutvclet y, SW /qS -13 + Y ,v�,ui..ii1.Y..Li.a';, 7�t, aY E3:v1d1�iiJ" i '; s!,_ ` :'�,' -.a ' ` -z nL,i+5a:•'a�1td:.:ai+'rita•.:+ ..>::z.. �✓'. :. dt ma;laVI' • uY.P6a"SAdi 4111 � "a? •' -S'3 :Y1F:�!'✓F? RUG 18 '97 01:24PM POS SUPPLY2064397722 ASSIGNMENT OF FUNDS P. 2/4 This assignment is for the purpose of fulfilling the requirement of the City of Tukwila concerning the replacement and monitoring of the Lacy wetland mitigation area, which is 125% of 30% of the installation cost, and monitoring. The undersigned does hereby assign, transfer, and set over unto the City of Tukwila all right, title, and interest in and to One Thousand Four Hundred and Forty Three Dollars and Thirty Six Cents ($1,443.36) uj of savings account number 5558 in the Port of Seattle Federal Credit Union, Sea -Tac a D International Airport Office for the Lacy Project located at Tract 48 of Sunnydale v o' Gardens of Division No. 1, Tukwila Washington, with full power and authority to • ,w w' demand, collect and receive said deposit and to give receipt and acquittance therefore. It -� is understood and agreed that the Port of Seattle Federal CreditUnion, Sea -Tac .N p International Airport Office holds the said account in its possession and agrees to hold • 2 $1,443.36 until the Assignment is terminated pursuant to the terms herein. . g .: IL ¢: M. If the plant loss within the two year. period exceed 20% and the deficiency is not i w corrected within.a reasonable period of time after written notice from the City of z fi.. Tukwila, the deposit shall be released to the City of Tukwila on demand. :z o Ww If after the final inspection by the City of Tukwila or its designated agent and the plant D c:. loss is in compliance with the less than 20% loss requirement of the City, this assignment p it shall.terminate and the City of Tukwila shall have no further rights or interest in said ° F- ;w w account. ;II (-)_. IL Signed and dated at Sea -Tac, Washington, this day of August, 1997 w z UN O f"`:: By Residing at 4133 46th Ave. S., Seattle, WA, 98118 APPROVED AND ACCEPTED: Phone: (206) 722 -0774 The Port of Seattle Federal Credit Union accepts the foregoing assignment and agrees to hold said account pursuant to the terms thereof until a written release of this assignment from the city of Tukwila is received or until the City of Tukwila exercises it's power and authority to demand or call the deposit. Account No. 5558 Bank: Port of Seattle Federal Credit Union Address: P.O. Box 1209, Seattle, WA, 98111 Phone No, (206) 433 -5282 Signature Title Date: August , 1997 ATTACHMENT C RUG 18 '97 01:24PM POS SUPPLY2064397722 • Security Bond Worksheet Total cost of mitigation $3,548.96 Cost of projected 30% loss $1,064.69 Monitoring (3 times a year) $90,00 *See note Subtotal $1,154,69 125° of Subtotal $1,443.36 Total amount to be secured $1,443.36 This is the method used to calulate the security bound amount for the Lacy property. See the attached billing statement from the D. Mace Company. Note: The monitoring is for 6 visits ( Three per year) at $15.00 per visit by Ms. Dabble Mace of D. Mace Company. The Monitoring report will be addressed to the DCD or his desinate and contain the exact number of plants that have survived of each species, the percentage of loss of each species, and the total Toss for the.whole mitigation site if any. ATTACHMENT D • 68/1RUG 18 f8-7 25511-1=6§-nfUPPLY22164397722 1444t.' . • (444\ CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT This agreement is between: litirlACE COMPANY 10009 Waters Avenue South Seattle, WA 98178 (206) 725-5515 As& Name; Address: City, State, ZIP: Date: Project name: Address: City, State, ZIP: Roger Lacy 4 33 4611MW07------1-- Seatde, WA. 99119 Contractor to complete : . Planting of 39 Trees: 4 Cascara, 12 Grand Fs, 7 Paper 9ire tV---stotri Red Cedes. Planting of 123 %nubs: Ninebadd Osier 3 , hirniebeny 39. Twiriberry 34. Maich 3.1997 Laey-Flesidence S. 159th St. R/str F. 4/4 Owner agrees to pay Contractor the total sum *3'548'96 Total with sales tu 3548'96 Installments to be made as follows: Work shall commence: andshall be complete within the foilawin : OWNER: OWNER: D. MACE COMPANY: e"...D. 1 down Balance upon completion of work. Winters (10) days al carbact approval 'Maps; cc as matte permits Datetu&13/#01.1 Date: Date: 11. • Shl Miliet•Wer01- MWSK01043FQ811184 PD. Box 714574 / Seattle. %Abington 9817$ 1 (206)725-5515 / Pogo (206) 916-0565 .11.nm ma.m. ATTACHMENT E •••10=1. , . • RUG 19 '97 12 :33PM P0S SUPPPPLY2064397722 August 19, 1997 P.2 /2 City. of .Tukwila Director of Community Development 6300 Southcenter Blvd. Tukwila, WA 98188 Dear Mr. Lancaster: I am writing this letter at the City of Tukwila's request,to explain the revegitation plan for the South 158th .Street Right of Way South slope. The primary covering of the south slope will be vinca minor plants and six trees. The species of the trees hasn't been selected yet because they should be picked to augment the lot's landscaping. Another issue that must be resolved in selecting trees is their root system. Since the trees are to be planted on the slope adjacent the driveway and utilities trench, it is important to select trees whose roots .would not cause them damage. As soon as the landscaping for the lot is completed I will be in a better position to select the proper trees. Sincerely, lJZ a/ Z1 Lacy Y Sr. ATTACHMENT F To: Roger Lacy S. 4511th St, R/W Price Quotation D. MACE COMPANY P.O. BOX 78574 Quotation number. 701 SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98178 (206) 725 =5515 Project name: Lac FAX (206) 725 -5515 Date:. July 17,1996 Tukwila, Wa. Residence Proposed Date Terms __Quantity • Description Price Amount 200 ft. Erosion control Geotextile (if needed) 100 ft. long $ 50.00 ea $ 100.00 20 bags Fertilizer for Ground cover $ 10.00 ea $ 200.00 1 bag Fertilizer for Trees $ 15.00 ea $ 15.00 6 Trees ( this price does not include delivery) $ 18.50 ea S 111.00 10 yd. Top soil S 16.00yd S 160.00 50 yd. Bark mulch $ 15.00yd $ 150.00 132 plants Ground Cover (this price does not include delivery ) S 3.75ea $ 495.00 200 ft Berlap erosion control to plant ground cover in $ 3.00 ft $ 600.00 200 ft Washed rock for 3 foot deep x 1 foot wide trench next _ to drive way $5.00 ft $ 100.00 Applicable Sales Tax (8.2 %) Total S 1931.00 We are pleased to submit the above quotation for your consideration. This quotation is valid for 30 days. Thereafter it is subject to change without notice. By Accepted Date • Thank You VI i,vOr - coven 7-r e e `s - To be de-/-eirwi based o N ATTACHMENT G May 22, 1996 City of Tukwila John W. Rants, Mayor Department of Community Development Steve Lancaster, Director Mr. Rodger E. Lacy Sr. 4133 46th Avenue S. Seattle, WA 98108 Re: Lacy Project, E95 -0010 Review for Environmental and Land Altering. Dear Mr. Lacy: I am writing you concerning the meeting between Gary Schulz and your landscape design consultant, Peg Ferm. This meeting took place on your property in order to give guidance to Peg Ferm in developing the wetland enhancement mitigation plan. The meeting's focus was to evaluate the existing conditions in the area you have identified for mitigation and to meet reasonable use exception conditions established by the Planning Commission. Gary has reported to me that the meeting was productive and there were specific agreements about the approach to providing functional enhancement of the western mitigation area. The following list includes the field discussions and necessary steps to insure the mitigation is a success. It is more appropriate to plant trees and shrubs in the areas that have been disturbed by past clearing and grading. Peg Ferm Design will propose appropriate plantings to enhance and restore wetland and upland areas. 2) A very disturbed wetland area exists west of the building site and possibly close to the proposed interceptor trench. An existing drainage flowing to the north property boundary has been mapped in an approximate location just west of the trench location. This wetland drainage needs to be enhanced with plantings. 3) There are potential planting areas on the upper, western portion of the mitigation site. These upland areas are shaded but have mostly groundcover dominated by nettles. A conifer planting scheme would be particularly appropriate throughout this area. Any open spaces that are not dominated by dense, native shrub cover will be planted with trees with an emphasis on re- establishing a conifer component. 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • (206) 431-3670 • Fax (206) 431-3665 U: '00' w w: w 0'. a' = a: H O' z� off'' ww. t• • z • Mr. Rodger Lacy May 22, 1996 Page 2 Per the conditions of the reasonable use exception, the approved mitigation/enhancement plan will be installed prior to the issuance of the building permit. Due to this condition, it is very important to identify the enhanced areas prior to construction activities. A temporary construction fence will be installed along the east side of the mitigation area to protect the enhancement plantings. • The items above are the basic elements and. goals of the plan. Additionally, there is a need to provide a maintenance and monitoring program or statement to insure the success of the plan. Your current site plan shows the necessary drainage structures; however, the on -site locations relative to the mitigation plantings will need to be field- located for developing the plan. The exact location of the upper drainage interceptor trench is critical. Per the construction drawings, please provide a professional survey of the interceptor trench location across the site. This will also serve to establish the clearing limits when construction begins on the home site. Perhaps this survey work can be combined with the access roadway plan to establish the limits of clearing and grading in the right -of -way. Our goal in being consistent with the intent of the Sensitive Areas Ordinance is to encourage reasonable and appropriate enhancement of this site. Please ask Peg Ferm to contact Gary Schulz if there are any questions about this letter. Sincerely, Steven Lancaster Community Development Director cc: Vernon Umetsu, Associate Planner Ron Cameron, City Engineer Gary Schulz, Urban Environmentalist Peg Ferm, Peg Ferm Design Rodger E. Lacy Sr. 4133 46th Ave. S. Seattle, WA. 98118 (206) 433 -5248 March 31, 1996 City of Tukwila Mr. Steve Lancaster Director of DCD 6300 Southcenter Blvd. Tukwila, WA. 98188 RECEIVED ED APR 0 3 1996 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Lacy Project, L95 -0001 Reasonable Use Exception Acceptance of being placed on the April 25, 1996 Planning Comission's agenda; Dear Mr. Lancaster: This letter is to confirm that I agree that there is a need to resolve the wetland impact assement and mitigation requirements, So I am formally.requesting to be placed on the.Planning Commission's April 25, 1996 agenda. I believe that the only way to resolve this issue may be to go before.the planning commission again and. let them resolve this matter. Another point .I would like to bring out is that if the Planning Commission ask's me if I'agree with Mr. Shultz's wetland impact assement, I will respond with. "No" and be prepared to argue my position. Also, Mrs Peg Ferro from "PEG FERM DESIGN" had sent Mr. Gary Shultz some infor- mation a few weeks ago and I need to know if he has received it Thank you. Sincerely, r eeed41, Rodger Lacy Sr. City of Tukwila John W. Rants, Mayor Department of Community Development Steve Lancaster, Director March 22, 1996 Mr. Rodger E. Lacy Sr. 4133 46th Avenue South Seattle, WA 98108 Re: Lacy Project, L95 -0001 Reasonable Use Exception Request to modify mitigation ratio requirement Dear Mr. Lacy: This letter will confirm our telephone conversation of March 20, 1996. I agreed to place on the Planning Commission's April 25 agenda, a request to reduce the mitigation ratio requirement for your project from 1.5:1.0 to 1.0:1.0. You indicated that if the Commission goes beyond consideration of this request by considering any additional condition about the size of your house, you would be prepared to argue that our determination of wetland area impact is incorrect. You certainly have the right to raise such arguments, and the Commission can consider whatever you present in making its decision. I can assure you that the Department of Community Development has no intention of suggesting to the Commission that your home should be reduced in size. Please provide written confirmation of your desire to have the Planning Commission reconsider the. mitigation requirement for your house. I will need this confirmation no later than Friday, April 12, 1996. Thank you. Sincerely, Steve Lancaster, Director Department of Community Development cc: Vernon Umetsu Gary Schulz File;# 1:950001 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • (206) 431-3670 • Fax (206) 431-3665 CLAUDIA A. GOWAN ATTORNEY AT LAW 1601 Second Avenue, Suite 707 Seattle, Washington 98101 (206) 443 -0800 March 22, 1996 Steve Lancaster Director of Community Development City of Tukwila 6300 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, Washington 98188 Re: Application for Exemption to Tree Ordinance Dear Mr. Lancaster: I am writing this letter Lacey. It is my understanding an exemption to the Tukwila remove and plant trees related he is building. The City appropriate exemption. as a courtesy to Mr. Roger that Mr. Lacey has requested tree ordinance in order to to accessing the home which of Tukwila has denied the I am somewhat confused given that Mr. Lacey stated that there is no formal application procedure for an exemption. It is his understanding that he has completed the proper procedures by contacting you and writing to you seeking an exemption. He is, at this time, considering the pursuit of a Writ of Mandamus to secure an exemption. This letter shall serve as a request that your offices provide to Mr. Lacey any requisite application which he needs to submit to the City of Tukwila seeking the exemption, if such application procedure is applicable. In the event that his written request to you for the exemption fulfilled the necessary application procedures, please notify him that he has properly complied with the application procedures at the address listed below. Please provide Mr. Lacey the requested information or materials within 10 days. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Please direct any inquiries or questions you may have to Mr. Lacey at the address listed below. CAG:mk cc: Roger Lacey 4133 - 46th Ave S. Seattle, WA 98118 Ve ;y truly you RECENED MAR 2 5 1996 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT peg farm P.O. BOX 1031 MONROE. WA 98272 delign 360 -794 -8418 City of Tukwila Planning Dept. 6300 Southcenter Blvd. Suite 100 Tukwila, WA 98188 Attn: Gary Schultz Re: Rodger E. Lacy, Sr. Residence March 14, 1996 Dear Gary, Rodger Lacy has asked me to go ahead on the mitigation plan for his property, and has specified the area in which I am to work. I have the information you sent me on the City's requirements, but I have a question specific to the site that I would like answered before I proceed. As you see from the enclosed drawing, there are large areas of dense salmonberry thickets, with some elderberry. The question is whether or not to try to interplant in the salmonberry thicket. .If this is to be done, it will mean removing some of the plants, to get physical space for the new plants, and to get the salmonberry roots out of the planting area. Salmonberry roots produce a substance that makes it difficult for the roots of other plants to compete, so the survival of any plants we might want introduce into this thicket must be. considered. Mr. Lacy has asked me to keep my communication with you in written form, so could you please write me a note about this? I apologize for any inconvenience. Peg Ferm cc:. Rodger E. Lacy, Sr. RECEIVED MAR 15 1996 COMMUNITY DE \JE? OPMENT r?. City of Tukwila Department of Public Works • - Mr. Roger Lacey 4133 46th Ave. S. '...'Seattle WA 98188 1. - September 26, .1995 Re: S. 158 St. Vacation (Project Number:. E95-0010) Dear Mr. Lacey: John W. Rants, Mayor Ross A. Eamst, P. E., Director RECEIVED SEP 2 8 1995 colviivium IY DEVELOPMENT A copy of the Shannon & Wilson Report dated September 11, 1995 is enclosed for your reference. The S. 158 St. WSDOT tumback deed is also enclosed. It has been sent to the WSDOT. for - • Mr. Sid Morrison's signature. The routing process for this is 1. The City requests that WSDOT review and give it's staffs approval; • 2. The City Council authorizes it acceptance and; 3. The Secretary of Transportation signs off. Thus, it may be summarized that it is essentially complete. The S. 158 St. vacation application fees will be waived although one half of the assessed valuation payment cannot. A vacation application is enclosed. Sincerely, Ron Cameron, P.E. City Engineer RMC/mv enc. Shannon & Wilson Report S. 158th Street Turnback Copy Street Vacation Application q:\mike\laceyl.doc V€, Ihrefs.0 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • Phone: (206) 433-0179 • Fax- (206) 431-3665 ..mtwavawalw.vavesvepowpmen.m.mvs.ewmorprem.votwArritarnme**3104MIKMMOSIRM.M. City of TukWila Mr. Steve Lancaster City of Tukwila Director of DCD 6300 Southcenter Blvd. Tukwila, WA. 98188 Rodger E. Lacy Sr. 4133 46th Ave. S. Seattle, WA. 98118 September 19, 1995 RECEIVED DEVELOPMENT., Dear Mr. Lancaster: I am writing in regards to the letter written by Mr. Gary Schulz dated August 24, 1995 in response to my August 18, 1995 letter, concerning determining the wetland impact area of my building site. There appears to be a communication problem between Mr. Shultz and myself and I hope this letter will resolve . it before it become unmanageable. First of all, there was an error in my August 18, 1995 . letter to you which stated that the wetland impact from my project is 12,900 square feet; what it should have stated was that the projects impervious surfaces are 12,900 square feet and if drainage and rockery were included it is 14,115 square feet(see enclosure 1). To accurately assess the wetland impact, we must also take into consideration the exclusions of manmade stormwater drainage ditches under the provisions of RCW 36.70A.030 and it's TMC counterpart and we (Paul L. Stoltenberg P.E. and I) estimate that 9,400 to 11,800 square feet of wetland area was lost due to proposed improvements(see enclosures 2 through 6). These are the figures that I. will be using in computing the size of the wetland mitigation area. Second, the conceptual wetland mitigation plan that I submitted at the Planning Commission hearing is no longer valid for the following reasons: 1 .n...•,.. uwr1. u A; itult��4n: :a5a:iw::1 {elih:ntiLii..rw+��Sc' :'t641••;ira ' t 1) The wetland impact amount and area must be determined before a wetland mitigation plan can be conceived. 2) The plan exposes me to possible legal liabilities which my lawyer pointed out at the hearing and I stated as a mater of public record, at the hearing that all of my mitigation will be done west of my building pad. 3) The TMC has stated that wetlands used must be mitigated, the mitigation amount is 1:1.5, and what mitigation options were available, but it did not state that the DCD had the authority to force the homeowner to mitigate in a specific area on his /her properties. 4). It is no longer practical, thereby I do not wish to use it! I am currently working on two projects connected with my property Lot# 48, E95 -0010 and The sewer extension project which is not an official project with the City of Tukwila at this time, because it is in the planning stages and involve other homeowners. The sewer extension project (SEP) consists of putting in approximately a 700 foot private eight inch sewer main from the intersection of 53rd Ave. S. and Klickatat rd. to S. 158th St. right of way adjacent to the south east corner of lot# 48. The permits for the development of the S.158th St. right of way, will allow access to lot# 48, and since there isn't any wetland in that particular area, wetland mitigation is a mute point. If there were any wetland impacts to the S. 158th St. right of way it would be mitigated in the S. 158th St. right of way area. The SEP permits will also bring water, power, sewer, and storm drain to the SE corner of lot #48. The applications for permits for the SEP project will be submitted before or at the same time of my application for a building permit for project E95 -0010 which is still pending. Now regarding E95 -0010 let me please clarify some things. Mr. Schulz was aware that Watershed dynamics did not find or ignored the filled area of a previous building site and the old well that is on my property, and classified the man made drainage fQQ-w: J V VO co wW W O u- a; co 0 LU I— 1—/ o C'i w U` ui z' U ,0 ditches as wetland water courses contrary to RCW 36.70A.030 and Tukwilla's own TMC's. The April 3, 1995 letter was the site plan prior to the Planning Commission's public hearing, and Mr. Schulz know good and well that one of the conditions of the hearing was to install a toe wall to reduce the size of the wetland impact from 16,000 sqft to it's present size because of alleged wetland impact areas on my property, near the building pad, which I now call into question. In regards to Mr. Schulz recommendation that the mitigation plan should wait until the application for a building permit, I strongly disagree! Any mitigation plan should be and will be entering into the design stage as soon as an agreement is reached between the City of Tukwila and myself and the plan should be submitted as soon as completed to the City for approval. Also, all utilities,(sewer, storm drain, water, etc...) will be ran and buried under the driveway of Lot# 48 so as not to increase the wetland impacts if any. I also have a serious concern with the provision of my having the wetland mitigation completed in order to be issued a building permit. The monies for doing the wetland mitigation will come from my construction loan, and the construction loan will not be approved unless I have a building permit. Do you see the. problem? Why not tie the completion of the wetland mitigat- ion as an item of the final building inspection? At our last meeting I' challenged the wetland classification of the man made storm water run off ditches on my property and requested that a decision be rendered as to whether the City of Tukwila would comply with RCW 36.70A.030 and it's own TMC's definition for wetlands. My property was inspected by my geotechnical.Engineer, Mr. Paul Stoltenberg, P.E. and he concluded that the ditches east of the building pad and along the north property line are man made storm water run off ditches. Therefore the part of the wet areas within the ditches, were created by the ditches. My under- standing of RCW 36.70A.030 and the TMC's is that storm water ditches and the area that they affect are excluded from the classification of wetlands and since that is what I believe is the case, part of my building pad and most of driveway is not located in a true wetland area. Wet land in the State of Washington does not constitute "wetlands" and people, including myself, have been misled concerning what the "LAW" has to say 3 what is and is not wetlands. There are wetlands on my property, but mostly west of my building pad. I have enclosed a copy of RCW 36.70A.030 (see enclosure 7) with the definition of wetland highlighted and I request an opinion from your office concerning their application to the wetland impact issue(s) with my property, and I would like to meet again with you and your staff to establish the amount of wetlands to mitigate and show you the area on my property where mitigation. will be done Thank you for your time. Sincerely, Rodger E. Lacy S Cc: Mr.. Paul.Stoltenberg, P.E. Enclosures: 7 4 :,.04:141 Ati: 43551 .74 . ESTIMATION OF IMPERVIOUS AREAS Ref: Lacy Project, E95 -0010: Impervious surfaces calculations. The following information is submitted: AREA CALC (ft) 61x78 15x24 10x16 17x30 7x34 20x60 1/2x40x12 55'x22' 1 /2x80x23 1/2x32x11 144x20 20x70 SQFT. 4,758 360 160 -510 238 1200 240 1210 920 176 2880 1500 DESCRIPTION SQ. FT. IMPERVIOUS House (A + C) -B -C1 Total House Road = (C1 +K) -L 4,048 Total Road (Lot#48) 8,774. 131x3 393 Retaining Wall 393 Drainage 75x12 900 Storm Water Runoff 900 Total Area of Impervious surfaces on Lot# 48. 14,115 This is an estimate of impervious surfaces as calculated by Paul Stoltenberg, P.E. c) J. THE GALLIGROUP Geotechnical Consulting September 20, 1995 Project 1041 -02 Mr. Rodger E. Lacy Sr. 4133 - 46th Avenue S. Seattle, WA 98118 Subject: Wetland Area Impacts Rodger E. Lacy Residence 51st Avenue South Tukwila, Washington Dear Rodger, In response to your phone call, we have roughly delineated the "upland" and "wetland" areas on the attached figures. We understand that manmade stormwater ditches may be excluded from areas normally subject to wetland mitigation requirements. In addition you asked us to identify areas which may have been impacted or become "wet" as a result of the manmade stormwater ditches. Figure 1 shows the area requiring mitigation. It includes the slope north and east of proposed slope interceptor trenches, and portions of the pad and lot which were not designated "upland" in your wetland biologist's report. It excludes the manmade stormwater drainage ditch. The upland area was delineated based upon test pit observations during our subsurface exploration. Figure 2 shows areas which may possibly have been impacted by the drainage ditch constructed upslope and south of your property line. It is difficult to assess precisely what impacts the drainage ditches have had in creating wet areas within your property, but this area lies downslope from a manmade ditch which channels water both onto and away from your property. A ridge comprises a portion of this area and may be an isolated "upland" within the surrounding wet areas. In computing the "2,170 sq: ft. additional exclusion" the portions not included in Figure 1 wetland area were not figured in. No attempt was made to classify the soils within this area beyond the logs of the test pit shown and described in our previous report. Figure 3 illustrates the net area subject to wetland mitigation if exclusions for stormwater ditches and areas possibly impacted by ditches are not included. Thus, depending upon the interpretation 13500 Lake City Way, Suite 202, Seattle, Washington 98125 • (206) 363-6449 • Fax (206) 367 -5611 Mr. Rodger Lacy Sr. September 20, 1995 of the exclusion and the code, we estimate that 9,400 to 11,800 square feet of wetland area was lost due to proposed improvements. These figures may be used in computing the size of the wetland mitigation area. We hope this helps to clarify the wetland mitigation issue. Please contact us if we can be of further assistance. Sincerely, Paul L. Stoltenberg, P.E. Geotechnical Engineer Attachments: Figure 1: Wetland Area Impacts, (excludes drainage ditch) Figure 2: Wetland Area Impacts, (shows possible exclusion) Figure 3: Wetland Area Impacts, (shows net wetland are if exclusions apply) • ♦ w-• �cymefl al Rezanng wall '114'44... . ��` ~�� �' Eras Drainage Path 14 \ \_• 1 — , -re- li , 0 FN 1 Proposed Interceptor Trench - AP ' \ \ �� \4 N •G \ , \� i / � ` \ E �� tea, 41 . w.s.p T 1 , aP OYinuis g • . 0, c ,�`' scoP UPLAND AREA �a �Truk �•/ \ yl.,•\, 1 \ Ic v , / \ ss' _ (see Watershed Dynamics report 11 -4 -94 ` �' j o .. _ • , tie and Galli Group report 3- 15 -95) '- Prop. / ji r U I. / ng 236 ti \ ! _ _ _ P \i• / -.' / fj' - \ i) li ts..1. ` J 12�� cult' ks �'' \ ` \ \ ti 1 , - ng iz "culvert `' WETLAND AREA \ 4 i \ Top of Cut r to be mitigated �.r _ ..__ ti� \; N - (excluding drainage ditch) - - N �• ' • \ ±11,800 sq. ft. r' _ : -? . ` \:15t N N , f,' b L-0 .: • 4 . • tv C... i . \ P Tal.1- 14% \I 1 0.- ' IP't \ \ i_c< , ,,, :,_-_,,—,.,,,.„ . . o \ ,.." . \ . a ; h \ ....__ I * Al . 44i\,,. \ C%k. \ "N. .0 \ V \ 0 ki711 • \ \ , • Y 1 i� 1 Provide new 1• • - - 01 I 2 "dial HDPE Culvert N,,4► \ 1 uir k(' WA e a fill ��� `�' Quarry ails s \ \ \N, \ - ' \ N S. r - ........ ■ \ ,-\ \ bAlk -.. \..... N,. • .A.s., v\--_27.6,... ■s. \ _ ` ■ ` _ r NrCie_., :Sting Drai th \(ogy) `� w • Reroute Existing Drai - , _ Ditch \ \ % A % \ - -.,.‘7401- '...cer \ Pro Interceptor Trench - \` _ Proposed jeep Qua Sp . u.. a c. \ \ t 1 of Cc G rrtiel Alternative y� 0 Zt c, ea , . ` �\ o \ . 7' \ \ \ Property Line \ ` E....wt \ I \ \ "� ` 1y cy Residence Provide new 12 die HDPE CulverThe Galli Group Inc. \ \ \ \ \ \ rea Impacts 13500 Lake City Way N.E. Suite 202 l Seattle, WA 98125 PH: 206 -363 -6449 \ \ \ i 1 \ • , 5 \ lure 1 1 i 1 i 1 \ \■ \ r .. \ . _ _ OEM / ..,■1111■1 / / / / / / / / 4.04 vi‘leaaskut 2449-7. c Q‘V 7`• • --i 1 -.4 44 • , • IV I, -4 .8 -s • / • 441/44444 A •••• Nt, I• , typ 2 /,■ / Propooed Toe Wall - WPC •••••• ••••••• 4 .0 `--;• ziP ...•••■•• Of 11. .4•NI 4 • / ".?•3 tutFS° 411 04 • • "la 0 -T1 ' Micro Com Systems Washington Ltd. AT 12608-B INTERURBAN AVENUE SOUTH TUKWILA, WA 98168 TEL (206) 248-3191 FAX (206) 248-3313 The next image may be a duplicate of the previous Image. Other: r(* Lot • th rca )--)A(LS www.microcomsys.com • w .._ ais.•::: :�. ��.^ �..:..:. ��: �, i�.: ra: �. �,•.,: �..`. �e:•:. ���':-_,^ �,,. t:.._ i�< t�in�'_:. �:..... �: �... r..;.•'.:.: r,_:...,...>.,....• :...........:.:.., 1..... _._......:__....�,�..y_:ru..c�� ..... �,..�,,.n,..x�i.:s�s,.u�.::�,e: e e / / / / / // a / / / / ,,•••••• 7-/3 0 ••••••• • ft. • , ,s cv / / , / / / 4.2 %X. I Pm`'N .14 E /1 ;-115‘e a in l• g '1 • A / l 4.4.444444 49—'"? / 1 ••••".. ••■••• •■■•••■• e00 .4 • • / 4 44 4 /4 •t .%) . .1 • (ut . , • 0 p fl :fl „ . . . , , .• , ! " . • u • ', o Growth Management — Planning by Selected Counties and Cities not limited to building permits, subdivisions, binding site plans, planned unit developments, conditional uses or other applications pertaining to land uses, but shall not include rezones, proposed amendments to comprehensive plans or the adoption or amendment of development regulations. (8) "Development regulations" means any controls placed on development or land use activities by a county or city, including, but not limited to, zoning ordinances, official controls, planned unit development ordinances, subdivision ordinances, and binding site plan ordinances. (9) "Forest land" means land primarily devoted to growing trees for long -term commercial timber production on land that can be economically and practically managed for such production, including Christmas trees subject to the excise tax imposed under RCW 84.33.100 through 84.33.140, and that has long -term commercial significance. In determining whether forest land is primarily devoted to growing trees for long -term commercial timber production on land that can be economically and practically managed for such production, the following factors shall be consid- ered: (a) The proximity of the and to urban, suburban, and rural settlements; (b) surrounding parcel size and the compatibility and intensity of adjacent and nearby and uses; (c) long -term local economic conditions that affect the ability to manage for timber production; and (d) the availability of public facilities and services conducive to conversion of forest land to other uses. (10) "Geologically hazardous areas" means areas that because of their susceptibility to erosion, sliding, earthquake, or other geological events, are not suited to the siting of commercial, residential, or industrial development consistent with public health or safety concerns. (11) "Long -term commercial significance" includes the growing capacity, productivity, and soil composition of the land for long -term commercial production, in consideration with the land's proximity to population areas, and the possibility of more intense uses of the land. (12) "Minerals" include gravel, sand, and valuable metallic substances. (13) "Public facilities" include streets, roads, highways, sidewalks, street and road lighting systems, traffic signals, domestic water systems, storm and sanitary sewer systems, parks and recreational facilities, and schools. (14) "Public services" include fire protection and suppression, law enforcement, public health, education, recreation, environmental protection, and other governmental services. (15) "Urban growth" refers to growth that makes 'intensive use of land for the location of buildings, structures, and impermeable surfaces to such a degree as to be incom- • patible with the primary use of such land for the production of food, other agricultural products, or fiber, or the extrac -1 tion of mineral resources. When allowed to spread over wide areas, urban growth typically requires urban govern- mental services. "Characterized by urban growth" refers to and having urban growth located on it, or to land located in relationship to an area with urban growth on it as to be appropriate for urban growth. (16) "Urban growth areas" means those areas designated by a county pursuant to RCW 36.70A.110. (17) "Urban governmental services" include those governmental services historically and typically delivered by (1994 Ed.) 36.70A.030 cities, and include storm and sanitary sewer systems, domestic water systems, street cleaning services, fire and police protection services, public transit services, and other public utilities associated with urban areas and normally not associated with nonurban areas. (18) "Wetland" or "wetlands" means areas that are . inundated or saturated by surface water or ground water at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions. Wetlands generally include swamps, marshes, bogs, and similar areas. Wetlands do not include those artificial wetlands intentionally created from nonwetland sites, including, but not limited to, irrigation and drainage ditches, grass -lined swales, canals, detention facilities, wastewater treatment facilities, farm ponds, and landscape amenities. However, wetlands may include those artificial wetlands intentionally created from nonwetland areas created to mitigate conversion of wetlands, if permitted by the county or city. [1994 c 307 § 2; 1994 c 257 § 5; 1990 1st ex.s. c 17 § 3.] Reviser's note: This section was amended by 1994 c 257 § 5 and by 1994 c 307 § 2, each without reference to the other. Both amendments are incorporated in the publication of this section pursuant to RCW 1.12.025(2). For rule of construction, see RCW 1.12.025(1). Finding— Intent -1994 c 307: "The legislature finds that it is in the public interest to identify and provide long-term conservation of those productive natural resource lands that are critical to and can be managed economically and practically for long -term commercial production of food, fiber, and minerals. Successful achievement of the natural resource industries' goal set forth in RCW 36.70A.020 requires the conservation of a land base sufficient in size and quality to maintain and enhance those industries and the development and use of land use techniques that discourage uses incompatible to the management of designated lands. The 1994 amendment to RCW 36.70A.030(8) (section 2(8), chapter 307, Laws of 1994) is intended to clarify legislative intent regarding the designation of forest lands and is not intended to require every county that has already complied with the interim forest land designation requirement of RCW 36.70A.170 to review its actions until the adoption of its comprehensive plans and development regulations as provided in RCW 36.70A.060(3).' [ 1994 c 307 § 1.1 Effective date -1994 c 257 ¢ 5: "Section 5 of this act shall take effect July 1, 1994." [1994 c 257 § 25.] Severability -1994 c 257: See note following RCW 36.70A.270. 36.70A.040 Who must plan. (1) Each county that has both a population of fifty thousand or more and has had its population increase by more than ten percent in the previous ten years, and the cities located within such county, and any other county regardless of its population that has had its population increase by more than twenty percent in the previous ten years, and the cities located within such county, shall conform with all of the requirements of this chapter. However, the county legislative authority of such a county with a population of less than fifty thousand population may adopt a resolution removing the county, and the cities located within the county, from the requirements of adopting comprehensive land use plans and development regulations under this chapter if this resolution is adopted and filed with the department by December 31, 1990, for counties initially meeting this set of criteria, or within sixty days of the date the office of financial management certifies that a county meets this set of criteria under subsection (5) of this section. [Title 36 RCW —page 157] • •n',e..i"::ii.4.4.1l• :nr.h�,afa'SW �'� +•� ^: ^•. °.4 ,•*:. piani 'n�„vlr�:r�s }:ri:����.�.k�:3 Ni�! u;r:�,�x,,..-0,�_..,.,u,.r,:i�u . : c:;. tni:' i��.: fiS: i. 7a: ri��7"..;: :.J'_vG;:h�a'."v`xCr.;:5:T�[.4a III SHANNONWILSON 6.ILNCs September 11, 1995 City of Tukwila Department of Public Works 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite 100 Tukwila, Washington 98188 SEATTLE HANFORD FAIRBANKS ANCHORAGE SAINT LOUIS BOSTON RECEIVED SEP 13 1995 TUKWILA PUBLIC WORKS Attn: Mr. Ron Cameron, City Engineer RE: SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSIS REVIEW OF PROPOSED SINGLE - FAMILY RESIDENCE DEVELOPMENT, 51ST AVENUE SOUTH, TUKWILA, WASHINGTON At your request, we have reviewed the Supplemental Slope Stability Data Report, dated August 9, 1995, by the Galli Group, Inc., for the proposed Roger E. Lacy, Sr. residence. That data report was prepared in partial response to written comments that we submitted to the City of Tukwila on the slope stability evaluation presented in the Geotechnical Investigation Report for the property. We understand that our comments pertaining to groundwater and surface water discharge at the site will be addressed in a separate document. Our review of the Supplemental Slope Stability Data Report consisted of an evaluation of appropriateness and applicability of the supporting data, assumptions, and calculations that were used in deriving factors of safety for static and dynamic (earthquake) conditions at the site. No attempt was made to perform independent slope stability analyses. Information that was available for this review included the initial Geotechnical Investigation and Supplemental Slope Stability Data Reports prepared by the Galli Group, and geotechnical investigations of the hillside performed in 1964 and 1966 by Shannon & Wilson for the Washington State Department of Transportation. The Lacy property is located immediately north of Crystal Springs Park and west of the cul- de -sac at the end of 51st Avenue South, Tukwila, Washington. It is identified as Tract 48 of Sunnydale Gardens, Division 1, Tukwila. The property is situated approximately half way up the moderately steep northeast- facing slope of the Duwamish Valley to the south of 400 NORTH 34TH STREET • SUITE 100 P.O. BOX 300303 SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98103 206.632.8020 FAX 206.633.6777 TDD: 1.800.833.6388 ■ W- 7039 -02 City of Tukwila Attn: Mr. Ron Cameron September 11, 1995 Page 2 SHANNON &WILSON, INC. the Tukwila freeway interchange. This area lies within an extensive ancient landslide mass, and subsequent, relatively small slope movements have occurred downslope from the proposed development. Remedial measures to stabilize the area were implemented in the late 1960s in conjunction with construction of I -5 and the interchange. These measures included regrading of the upper slopes to 4 Horizontal to 1 Vertical (411:1V) and constructing rock buttresses, horizontal drains, an interceptor trench, and an asphalt -lined surface ditch to redirect surface water from the slope. Because of the property's location within both a seismically active area and a sensitive area with respect to slope stability, we recommended in our initial review that the slope be reviewed for static and dynamic earthquake loading, and that the data, assumptions, evaluations, and calculations used in these analyses be provided to the City for their review before issuing a construction permit for the property. The Supplemental Stability Analysis Data Report provides the assumptions, data, evaluations, and calculations used in developing slope stability analyses for the site. The report also addresses the slope stability issues that we raised in our review of the Geotechnical Investigation Report. Generally, the soil parameters and the assumptions for failure planes used in the stability analyses appear reasonable and appropriate. Applying these soil parameters and assumptions, the Galli Group estimated a factor of safety under static conditions of 1.8 for the lower slope below the site. For their dynamic (pseudostatic) stability analysis, they assumed a magnitude 6.5 earthquake resulting in a lateral ground acceleration 0.17g and applied this acceleration as a pseudostatic coefficient. Under these conditions, the Galli Group estimated that the factor of safety for the lower slope is less than unity, indicating that the lower slope would be unstable under earthquake loading conditions. However, they also suggested that the slope would most likely fail progressively, beginning near the bottom of the slope, with each successive failure plane further upslope having a higher factor of safety, increasing to 1.6 for a failure that would directly affect the proposed Lacy residence. We concur with the Galli Group that factor of safety of 1.5 is generally considered adequate for static conditions, and a factor of safety of 1.2 under earthquake loading is generally considered adequate. However, the calculated factor of safety for their dynamic analysis is highly dependent on the break point used to a W- 7039 -02 City of Tukwila Attn: Mr. Ron Cameron September 11, 1995 Page 3 SHANNON F./WILSON. INC. distinguish between the lower strength bedding clays and higher strength, cross - bedded silts. If this boundary is located higher upslope, the factor of safety will be lower. In conclusion, we are in agreement with the soil properties and parameters used in the slope stability evaluation. These parameters provide a static and dynamic factor of safety of 1.8 and 1.6, respectively, for a failure surface that directly underlies the proposed residential site. In our opinion, these factors of safety are reasonable and exceed commonly used criteria for stability evaluations. Therefore, these observations and conclusions provide a basis to proceed with the development plans assuming the owner is willing to accept the risk that a future earthquake could result in slope movement on the lower portion of the property and that a progressive failure mechanism could possibly . affect the slope further uphill. It should also be recognized that a stability analysis at its best can only create a model of the site based on assumptions and simplifications of ground conditions. Therefore, regardless of the results of a stability analysis, there are inherent risks in building on any hillside property in an area where landslides have occurred. This review has been prepared for specific application to the project at this site, as related to the geotechnical aspects discussed herein. Within the limitations of scope, schedule, and budget, our review was conducted in accordance with generally accepted professional engineering principles and practices in this area at this time. We make no other warranty, either expressed or implied. W- 7039 -02 City of Tukwila Attn: Mr. Ron Cameron September 11, 1995 Page 4 SHANNON &WILSON, INC. We appreciate the opportunity to be of service and trust this letter meets your needs. Sincerely, SHANNON & WILSON, INC. 9 /ir9.s Daniel N. Clayton, C.E.G., R.G. Gregory R. Fischer, P.E. Senior Associate Principal Engineer DNC: WPG: GRF /grf W7039 -02.LTR/W7039- 1kd/Ikd W- 7039 -02 t.'`arri:aizcdutW.�sslar Washington State Department of Transportation Sid Morrison Secretary of Transportation RECEIVED SEP 13 1995 TUKWILA PUBLIC WORKS August 8, 1995 MR RON. CAMERON DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS CITY OF TUKWILA 6200 SOUTHCENTER BOULEVARD TUKWILA WA 98188 Dear Mr. Cameron: RECEIVED Transportation Building AUG 101995 P.O. Box 47300 Olympia, WA 98504- 7300TU KW 1 LA PUBLIC WORKS Turnback Deed City of Tukwila SR 5, So. 178th St. to So. 126th St. Agreement GM -1005 RECEIVED: SEP 2 8 1995 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT The enclosed Quitclaim Deed from the State of Washington is sent for your . review and approval. This instrument has not been executed, and therefore does not yet convey any title. Your approval should be indicated by signing your name on the line provided. Do not have your signature acknowledged. After you have signed the instrument as requested, please return it and a check for the $12.00 recording fee payable to the King County Auditor and a check for the Excise Affidavit processing fee in the amount of $ 2.00 payable to the King County Treasurer. We will then have the instrument executed and recorded. It will be returned to you. Please contact me if you have any questions regarding this matter. My telephone number is (360) 705- 7333. TP:tsp Enclosure Sincerely, TED PLOCKI Property Agent AFTER RECORDING RETURN TO: ATTN: REAL ESTATE SERVICES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION P. O. BOX 4 7338 OLYMPIA, WA 98504 -7338 QUITCLAIM° DEED F .F,cF IV ED SEP 2 6 1995 COlvccvcucNac CY. OEVELOPME.:1 �.. IN THE MATTER OF SR 5 South 178th St. to South 126th St. and SR 518, Riverton Heights: SR 509 to SR 5; KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS, that the STATE OF WASHINGTON, for and in accordance with that Agreement of the parties entitled Agreement GM 1005, dated the 6th day of July 1979, hereby conveys and quitclaims unto the City of Tukwila, a municipal corporation in the State of Washington, all right, title, and interest under the jurisdiction of the Department of Transportation, in and to the following described real property situated in King County, State of Washington: All that part of 51st Avenue South in the City of Tukwila, lying between the southerly right of way line of SR 518 and the southerly margin of South 158th Street (vacated), all in the southeast quarter of the southeast quarter of Section 22, Township 23 North, Range 4 East, W.M., shown hachured on Exhibit "A" attached hereto and made a part hereof. The specific details concerning all of which may be found on: Sheet 5 of that certain plan entitled SR 5 South 178th St. to South 126th St., now of record and on file in the office of the. Secretary of Transportation at Olympia,. Washington, bearing date of approval January 30, 1962; revised to July 14, 1994 and sheet 8 of that certain plan entitled SR 518, Riverton Heights: SR 509 to SR 5, now of record and on file in the office of the Secretary of Transportation at Olympia, Washington, bearing date of approval March 6, 1969, revised to May 10, 1982. It is understood and agreed that the above referenced property is transferred for road /street purposes only, and no other use shall be made of said property. Revenues resulting from any vacation, sale, or rental of this property, or any portion thereof, shall be placed in the grantee's road /street fund and used exclusively for road /street purposes, except that the grantee may deduct the documented direct costs of any such vacation, sale, or rental. • The Grantee accepts said deed subject to all matters of record. The grantee herein, its successors or assigns, shall have no right of ingress. and egress to, from, and between said SR 5 or SR 518, and the lands herein conveyed, as indicated by the prohibition of access symbol appearing on said Exhibit "A "; nor shall the Grantee herein, its successors or assigns, be entitled to compensation for any loss of light, view and air occasioned by the location, construction, maintenance or operation of said Highway. EXCEPT that said Grantee, its successors or assigns, shall have reasonable ingress and egress to, from and between lands herein conveyed and said Page 1 of 2 pages I.C. #1 -17 -05621 • Highways via on and off ramps thereto or as otherwise noted or shown on said Exhibit "A ". The grantee as part consideration herein does hereby agree to comply with all civil rights and anti- discrimination requirements of RCW Chapter 49.60, as to the lands herein described. The lands herein described are not required for State highway purposes and are conveyed pursuant to the provisions of RCW 47.12.080. Dated at Olympia, Washington, this day of , 19 APPROVED AS TO FORM: By: \a- rr,,.�:� Assistant Attorney Gene REVIEWED AS TO FORM: . By , STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ): ss ) County of Thurston STATE OF WASHINGTON SID MORRISON Secretary of Transportation 'Sign Here ❑ Initial Here ❑ Notarize Here 0:Retum 0 Post-It' signature request pad 7669 On this day of , 19 , before me personally appeared SID . MORRISON, known to me as the Secretary of Transportation, Washington State Department. of Transportation, and executed the foregoing instrument, acknowledging said instrument to be the free and voluntary act and deed of the State of Washington, for the uses and purposes therein mentioned, and on oath stated that he was authorized to execute said instrument. Given under my hand and official seal the day and year last above written. Notary Public in and for the State of Washington, residing at Olympia My Commission Expires Page 2 of,2 pages • I.C. #1 -17 -05621 • Transportation Committee August 28, 1995 Present: Steve Mullet, Joe Duffle, Pam Carter Ross Earnst, Ron Cameron, Brian Shelton, Robin Tischmak, Ted Freemire, Lucy Lauterbach; George Reynolds and Steve Kitterman -- Gardner Consultants Agenda items: 1. 32nd Ave. S. Design Staff was looking for guidance on how much parking and what kinds of sidewalks and street plantings the committee wanted at the Cascade School street, 32nd Ave. S. In conjunction with the school work going on there the City will improve the street, partly . using school mitigation funds. Street work will lower the street grade on 32nd at 136th street. The three alternatives varied the driving lane widths, parking widths, sidewalks, and street trees. They recommended and the committee concurred with the recommendation alternate 2, with 2 -11 foot lanes, 7 foot parking lanes both sides of the street, sidewalks both sides and removing fewer trees than the other two alternatives. Steve said his wife and her coworker who both work at the school, both liked alternative 2. Pam noted the disadvantage of having reduced pedestrian visibility with alternative 2: During a lengthy discussion about how the parking for the school would work, Joe said he had observed at his school there is never enough parking for parents who drop off and pick up their kids at school. The committee asked if the planter strip would run the length of 135th. to 137th, and was told it would, though discussion followed about the efficiency of streetside plantings and whether they'd hold up to the foot traffic generated by kids who get dropped off and picked up there. Staff said they don't really have money to plant trees along the street, though they could maybe move a couple of big trees they have to remove. They will take the design to school staff and the neighbors before they finalize it. Bring back contract for PS & E. 2.WSDOT 1 -5 Projects WSDOT is putting in carpool lanes on I -5 from Lucille Street to Tukwila over the next two years. The first stage which closes the Seattle Albro exit and routes people down Airport Way and Boeing Access, will be done between now and next summer. From Boeing Access Road to Interurban is planned for from Sept. 1996 to spring of 1997. Interurban to the Southcenter exchange will be finished September, 1997, though Klickitat may be temporarily closed April of 1996. The truck climbing lane on I -5 southbound from the Southcenter Blvd entrance is not currently funded Steve had a problem with metering the on ramp to 1 -5 from Interurban, since a lot of trucks use that entrance and it would be a safety problem to get them started on an uphill from a metered stop. Staff will write WSDOT with that concern.. Update only. 3. 51st Ave. South WSDOT got a small piece of property they needed for staging when they improved SR 518. Since they no longer need the piece they are ready to turn it back to the City. Recommend acceptance of quitclaim deed at Regular Council meeting. { N W %4 SE Y4 Sec.22 PI 114.19.6 T. 2 3 4 . R.4 E.W.M. N E 1/4 SE '/4 Sec 22 -t_ -_ — /--- _ Pow anhlnl /srrt� ^�I , h' ' � Tf r •. �y Z , t / t / '�t ,'t - -i - I 0 -'4 Aev •.r •e.lt .n nt•T \ 18 0 H 5.32'31'30'1r. SR sla \\ O O 0 O \1Q s W.1.4•4,4 / I 0 / \ 1 0 :n r D ONe WHO Z4. Q 0. \.t!" OOt 00.69 49/ 0 r� \ LEGEND Access to be Prohibited Shown Thus Arta / / //// Propariy Lines ACCESS APPROACH SCHEDULE St•eCi ; ■ED USER I STATION ON ROADWAY TYPE Kitt' County 161 +45 on 14.- Permi} 10361 Z1 CURVE DATA SPIRALS BK.%At1O R1. STATION A CA. D R T L t1 DE LI 174.19.6 22'1T'30R1T0•08'3O' 4'30' 1273.3' 1249.3 1558,7' P/3 11.04.34 2,70 1- Aee 4t" v. O • O'• ACCESS NOTES: 'TRAFFIC MOVEMENT WILL DE PERMITTED OVER THE HtaHWAY STRUc- uRE AT STA. 190 +B6 - S1sT AvE. So. No.7.1. THE PRlV1LEGE oP ACCEES To AREAS WITHIN THE RIGHT of WAY 15 PERMITTED FROM oUTS%OG THE RIGHT of WAY To THE USER OESIGIIATED,SoLELY For USC AUThoRIZEO BY APO 5Ub ce - ro-tnE Couo111bN5 OF T11'a FRANCHISE, PERMIT oR A6REEMGRT spe' 1F1ED. NO Access WILL 0E ALLOWED To THE TRAVELED •1GHWAY 1.ANE5 OR RAMPS SEY4 SE' /4 See. 22 LtHtr t•tT•ett S•lo•6L It 11rr B• /1•TT1C.1.1•eo•TB tlrtd•sltlir•U /Z;jO•Tl .edit yp iiiiii 1.4 •PProach 6to.Ib144SLt- Ptr*n+ lb RN.s.u.yEJNottd property conveyed 4o t.olhtt b, Pyrite., R/w jj4N In.,.d tnufit /w.. as map toots/IS ,, dil. .F ro *d] /4.nR /, rit. W,,s,sof, OLine •GTnnen. AUTPoRITY DATE : a: a�:. ifi�: 1. 'i�sai;:•x: <,;i+:3:e.�r.7ixtijlS ..�:ii'��rrz::.C�'+�t «w+?ni�.'' 'yri:�l7'. !•�.- %JLU:v �' `Y[•eii#1:. irilk3i "f r �L$ti tt- n ",.` 7kar: k', X: i= ksiJ,m. 4n: k,`, r'.: iv+ YY. I''` ?> i' iN'' vi` It;A". sWAC a`eaPMVIiltdank'MA;r i3tK=ai :4*": <r::A.'.W.er, 1;r:14. ';rlF�>; • SUBSEQuENT -API 172 -3N. R. 4 E..W M. NE %4 SE' /.t Sec. 22 = 777/1 1NT77 + +�r�.... 18 O N Una 5.52'31'30'1r. • ^\ \\e/ jade r )(-1 .S.' 7 SR sio L•idinei. Unducroatin9a. (1i 0-452. g`30'E.0A.1 017ni • 5- 3047.E. Ahd. \ � \ \\ L Line • \ d � moo_, \AMA\ b END OF PLAN 5totion 190 4.86.0 M.P.3.10 MOTE: Far RL of W47 and LNniied A Eaat •aa • SR 5 So. 178" St.Io Se. 12f.'" SS.. S1,1 S .t 2.1 VOA. EttobtStn si by Camrn•Rt%.Na. 1202, F.S1.z0, 111.Z, .ppravad Jan. 50,19!.2. • inlCI ..a ID WASH. F-5181) WILL te PERMITTED OVER 'THE AT STA. I9O4B6 -51$ AVE. 5o. :GE or ',mess TO AREAS INttHIN IS PERMITTED FROM OUtSIDG THE ftlE USER De51GNAiE Ds SoLlLY FnP' : WI) suDIDCT •To"TSIE Co1•o1T16NS , PERMIT OR A69.fEMENT SPECIFIED.. A-Lo•ED To THE TRAVELED L of .MPS. 5E3/4 SE' /4 5¢e.22 •50 0 o d / TIRHEACK LINE F' LIN UISH4lNT 1. TO CITY OP TUKWILA. • 0 I. / N This Pion eonforml to Ma • Ratolulion No.711,Auyutt 20, 1950, G E,CEIVED rc No. 1- 17- -05621 AUG 10 1995 5R 519 MP 0.39 TO MP 3.10 TUKWILA RIVERTON HEIGHTS: SR 509 TO SR 5 PUBLIC WORKS KING COUNTY RIGHT OF WAY AND LIMITED ACCESS FULLY CONTROLLED 51a11on 16740010 Siouan 190• E6.0 GM-1005 Let-Hr t•ti•et15•10•42. 1. nor 0•1.111061.1•1.0•113 10134 10071 1110.77 t6dedi.49 TS approach S112.161445 11- Per alit 1O3CB Rt.•B•72.1BlNoted property y d 4o Lashar by deed 6•9•78 Rrvi..d a/n• a,N ln.leol t+auta /W.•RGSro.Ieafaare Nf. et, RAN fyAt anb.d AA? 10 (14 OrTyr.11 /e a$ NY vie.WllSr5ot, 0 tine a /linen? ' HV 6. cR tine frelinpotAment As AUTHAR/TY • OAT! SUBSEQUENT APPItovAL 0't WAIMWOION 11A11 IIIGMMAY COWAIINON D11AITMIHT Of HIGHWAYS 0tYM/1A, WASHINGTON Neer d of 169 SHUTS. D...yn..I.� 1*..l.-.r.a A....a C..r... nr C. ....�..n •.u.I..t,.n N..tS, Culp &1.1.111 4la:T.e3;s T,i;tsz,{?ii`�Yfi$ ` 7kr,,,vaL3+ goi4A::AY:„.4:iiIake.il^.Gi^ 1iI.Sr?iH5Y,t:aL. •iP.d 4 r,�:,i'ti .'4:iJY• 7:23 N.R.4E..\/\/.M. 4oA13 AP•nokty% ScHCC•Olf_ 1/115Vita SI0.18.1 1 TIIE D 1144 I 001/1.1 01-1. 14 Lt• • Atreerecct LEAst t cosmic( 1 1 LAC A.11p..1 O51lbA1.0311/3o1.0. 11A 1.03 II! •t••••••••J 14.11 V P I 1 _UAL .! e.le; 1.!0:T.N1 .NOC, 177- ;Era Zia t Mt OF Tur..1 0.7.(1...) l`b 0 b j■ Ce 011.1-11 \ 43° " rcr 5_51_ •-,Gume.E./..-ri.Lim LEGEND Ace••s-r. Be Prohlb 0 % 1 4 Show re 'Then Willi LIU Property owTharelnip Number Props r13 Lin c. For oweecrose■po Sat (.235c) A/CA REIMOUSI WEN T 0 I T • luce-70. C 1-233 L sw1/4 FOR 61E1114 UISIIMENT To CITY OF UbWJl LAN c...c4cd s cit 11Z14 tl..X.-'or roe 46). ; .24p • 'AJ!" _ [...In Pt p■ 0-2340 NW4 tivvY4.3te.lis.4' J lat3 rd w : J i • iq 'I< 1- • . • . , _ rii.. : ti . I • i 1S , %as.• it, ± ii • 161 2 0-noi) it '1A3 < "-...' • •g 0 . • ow tifr.: 1441..4 -1 . •p•ii4.? • ,? i VIE i3 i*.c44 0- "")- .• 44 StAlSgrgi .'4i71; 1 0-15.30 •:! NE Y+ • -*W1/4 •.. ecvtol 19 .94:1+. • ....T.e111% ?..• :.4. I 1' WORMLi E G.440( M•TIA.Set COto Al.$P82:1151-7. ;" -_-.17surticril.4"errpt• • 14'; Al +two. NOICej Line SHERI- • ,,F-Ac‘A Vckl- . AccEss NoTE 01...1I. Th. 1114.414st • strvicion 01.1 A 12,10151;11 •Ii.c. n PA. t4145150 Y ■ 1 1,losneso et I.O4G,zgr.tt 0 6.41..0.101E.L111C. O111111 letalal will■In 01 tlihf of V101 will be. peemil led to the slilet I 'erect! led subject io lite couerelebees T 71.T1' 4 vtAn-11"15 Fn4"1 .1 40,0 Fr•mhAi.Pft, 11 se Coul4Ty e1catE5 me..,..,,, .e.061.r. li 100.0• • 1. 164.04' . • • 4.ritotuoi;-, waso.u4-44:trkwgwt kuot49.earv.44-xlvasun Ir To , TUKYn LA • P. o t (1-) M01,- 9 .00 UK. S.(LV \_ 90°• 5.O AWi CC). 0..01\_0 +e •0P °-bra etc sl _ .19 /.s.... i6 a 71. 011111 =L1E 748LI1-11‘ ..li ", r� 1,101.87.4E �sl:L. 1 ;d( + / :if, I Io 1.5.3( ) NOTE: Ter RI \M,ot W.7 end U.A.,:t s4. as% Wa.4 •• • I Rira rfen Hn,hf♦ SR SO1 1. SR S, Sh1.8 .4 If. S t 11 � . 1.• T.b: zo,I,G,, E.1a1.li.Md by Comm. Kea. )1. 111, A. l71 E.44 SE VA, .2L -t �E.I STIIJG UNDER 4ROS ret {V ENT )�zJ EASE, '7UKWILA. CORP. LIMITS ed. env cc/ Eseve by dead, 1•I11-74 ■ ohed I .' {w.•CiIt.1 lrlt.te,4 ita lb; duo 11.1)•74 FOR RELINQuISIIMF.NT I TO CITY OF •YUKVO.'iLA I �, O g I . 1 Conve ed4oMo + �' Y101bf 4Iv i,i -2 • de W� i-a.Ir - "1 4 ; ° Ellimearsji di .11 rd to Cil r-.e r-.... `d L •2355 14 31 % 6•1)T. R� q 7. Id{T!•Z.t aar 0.2165 if 1.236 (. ) 1•2350 t5 0.1351) )415W4 5tC.23 fl.•. P /7. 1 L/A •t a• 1. S.I Sla pt1 /hLt.la G . 1 • • ... •LJo•7/•s.11d•f/ iahl_ ire rn.nl..nl.slac3G.5O.11.r11.1 /.7 •1E •11 d/y1wn N.a line(m /Me.01....•n /t CFr.f T.•1 +J. Abtai W$011.17rht«de. 1o41.77 41.1/0/ oa. / 1-10 . or /ar. /edIA wt;..e■ afiy.^•^l, 7•73•76 71app..h 0 530 DO I. oSN'13U.•A +weir IHUAA 7.05127 1.1.75 S7.iliJ NN(1/A •.Nh. Le 1$11,70: 6.1125.74.W, adia 4P l lint 71.:i Z7:1;/ n74 :7.cT :, P7T V. pll :-raar ii;Pr•i=11_,r .F_ }PL/1 i ... u_, e•!d we7...a 1. e1o.L1n Z... .. q :li.d AL•tamp llnii \t]{�%. L.: t. I:, 1jQA iLY3.177;;i1i6S- d til 22 741.141P. .!nR o�lid °c.•I.II1••i•• SA•.. ,9 , �. .. 1e1'i.131[t,•r.'(�_'�rL!•11T� ♦et. du'" p tSIt ►PIIOVAL u . ACCESS NOTE. W71. Tha ptivill }a .f •n1 the ulililY 1.caHJ w116in Ike rI,hf of PIPE LINE vol Will b• pandlled 1• the uRli11 P.1.1.474 54 SO Y111,10•1*. k 1,444, t11 SI " t�a )S apeCitled subject 10 the eandilians A 11.40'64-131 .. DEAIe11l4K Fnl3N O /•11'Y`u Coullly NnrES •} {1,a Fr.,..hiea %Pu m11 er R 100.0' Altla...anf t>peclflad, T TT.Tf' L 114.54' .46,vitirui a.Lw -t r fi Tdiai'k •'. tiai itia, Ski'!,3$i5 �%ii i Fla }T,µW�:aSii ksl6 i ,1,11 L ovw (PRIMARY-STA1 E-N1U 11W A7>✓ SOUTH 1711TH ST. TO SOUTH is SING COLOR/ - `- &J UT OF WAY 5Io.1534400 t• 5I0.25G5100 (ruku. AUG 1 Af11yaN,7 QQof II A11 MICMwAr Lo.•un UG 1 U 1LJJ,k1j 11MW1 Or XICMNAII M14, WA1h0.1110.1 TUKW, . • • ••..a LIC WO s ;ref. w 11. I44111 5 OP •e }12 r/11t1 E)Iobaehcci by Cornm.Res.Uo.1202, /3 /4h..-14'5"/ (,q5OoO( z, ~ rX J U; U 0 co 0 W =,. N LL: w 0' g JI' Q� 1- _; z� 1- 0 Z 1-' w w D; 0 Ill a,' 0 Z' Lu co OF: z MEMORANDUM TO: File - Lacy Exception FROM: Gary Schulz, Urban Environmentalist DATE: June 12, 1995 RE: Non - permitted clearing of wetland - potential land altering. On Friday, 6/9/95, a truck and trailer were observed in the culdesac at Crystal Springs Park just east of the Lacy property. It was apparent that a dozer or some machinery had been unloaded and was being used on the Lacy property. After returning to the office to check on a Stop Work Order, Darren Wilson and I returned to the site to investigate the potential violation. Mr. Lloyd Livingston of Soos Creek Excavating was present operating a bulldozer. He explained that Mr. Lacy had contracted with him to remove blackberries and told him the City had granted permission. I clearly stated that this activity was not permitted yet. Lloyd told us he was finished. Darren took a few pictures of the site. It appeared that the surface had been graded and disturbed beyond the amount required for the geotechnical investigation. A large pile of debris was present. Additional intrusion with the dozer has occurred in the western wetland area and City ROW to the south. Public Works has expressed an interest in verifying a full 60 -foot width of ROW along the south side of Mr. Lacy's property. Currently, Mr. Lacy's survey shows only 30 feet of ROW between him and the Park. In summary, permission was not granted to clear in a wetland area particularly with a bulldozer. I spoke with the applicant's landscape architect about 2 weeks ago on this subject and told her it was not appropriate to start clearing before other issues were resolved. Mr. Lacy's current review is a SEPA checklist and no application has been made for a Land Altering Permit or Building Permit. In addition, the sensitive areas mitigation has not been finalized due to geotechnical design peer review. cc: Steve Lancaster, DCD Director Ross Earnst, PW Director MEMORANDUM DATE: May 24, 1995 • TO: Steve Lancaster FROM yLitibipHudson RE: Lacy environmental review, File #E95 -0010 Attached is a revised plan of the Lacy project. Mr. Lacy has added a fire truck turn around as required by the fire department. I would like to express my dismay in this requirement. Here we are asking Mr. Lacy to reduce the impact to the existing sensitive lands, while on the other hand requiring a significant - impact in order for a large emergency vehicles to leave the site after an emergency. The requirement for one single family residence within a sensitive area seems excessive. The size of the turn around seems excess. In addition, the access roadway has been moved from the historic roadbed where the fill area already exists, so that the new configuration can be accommodated. This change results in more impact to the site. I heard rumor at the Planning Commission meeting for Lacy, that the fire department requirements for tum around was going to be reduced or more flexible. I talked to Mike Alderson regarding his requirement several weeks ago and he was reluctant to reduce it for this or any property. Perhaps you would have more of an effect on Fire Department Policy by talking to them. I'm not sure if you want to pursue this. I did talk to Jack about it and he said let it go (as far as the fire department requirement for tum around goes). But as you can see I haven't let go yet. This project is a perfect example where this type of requirement should not be implemented. If we don't reduce the requirement for this single family residence, when will we do it? Gary and I will be looking at this plan in regards to all the other issues of the site. Mr. Lacy is under some misconceptions regarding what we have agreed on, as I mentioned to you. so we will discuss these and plan to meet with Mr. Lacy if not in person, at least on a conference call. . Thanks for your time. C: Jack Pace Gary Schulz DRAFT May 1,0, 1995 Mr. Rodger E. Lacy Sr. 3125 S. Dakota Street Seattle, WA 98108 RE: SEPA review, E95 -0010 Dear Mr. Lacy: The purpose of this letter is two-fold. First, to outline what are the outstanding concerns the City has regarding this proposed development and secondly, to request additional information to complete the SEPA (State Environmental Policy Act) review process. Your project has been granted conditional approval of an exception from the Sensitive Areas Overlay Zone to develop a single family residence. The four conditions attached to the approval are intended to lessen the impacts of development to the existing sensitive areas on the property. You have been granted permission to proceed with proposal for development. We are currently doing an environmental review of the proposal through the SEPA process. As part of this process, the following concerns need to be addressed prior to issuing a SEPA determination. 1. Geotechnical Report Peer review of the geotechnical report will be conducted for this project. The City has contracted with a geotechnical engineering firm and needs all revisions to the proposal (including building pad location, revised preliminary drainage plans, etc.) to be submitted as ssible so they may be included in the peer review.. Please submit any revisions by e. The drainage plan needs to meet the City standards (King County Storm Drainage Manual), by maintaining pre - development stormwater runoff levels. Mr. Paul Stoltenberg has discussed the site drainage with PhD Frazer, of Tulkwila Public Works. The proposal is to retain drainage on -site and release the water to the public system at the pre - development rate. According to Mr. Frazer, Mr. Stoltenberg stated that there will be no increase in stormwater and no adverse impact to the off -site storm drainage system. This needs to be stated in the proposed drainage plan as part of SEPA review. There is remaining concern that the interceptor drains will adversely impact the downslope wetlands intended for enhancement. The on -site drainage management plan needs to consider the impact to wetlands, and propose means to lessen impacts to pre- existing wetlands as part of the SEPA review. 3. Access Please provide the intended location of access to the property so that we can assess the potential impacts of development. (07c (Attl Once I have received the requested information and peer review has been completed and discussed with your geotechnical engineer, I will be able to complete the environmental review and the SEPA can make the SEPA determination. Please provide the requested information at your earliest convenience so that the review process can continue. If you have any questions I can be reached at 431 -3670. Sincerely, Libby Hudson Associate Planner cc: Steve Lancaster Jack Pace Gary Schulz Ron Cameron Phil Frazer Joanna Spencer MoPr PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES APRIL 27,1995 Mr. Neiss called the work session to order at 6:00 p.m. Members present were Messrs. Neiss, Marvin, Flesher, Meryhew, Malina and Ms. Stetson. Representing the staff were Steve Lancaster, Rick Beeler, Jack Pace, and Sylvia Schnug. There was consensus by the Commission to have their letter for. the Draft Comp Plan handed out to the public, as well as the Council. The Commission discussed their attendance at Council meeting briefings regarding the Comp Plan. Two Commissioners expressed concern with their work schedules in being able to attend those meetings. Steve Lancaster briefed the Commission on an overall implementation strategy for the Comp Plan policies. Staff is proposing a phased approach to implementing the Plan. The first phase is represented by the draft of the Development Regulations. Those regulations are going to be addressing the first priority issues; which is making sure our regulations are consistent with the Growth Management Act. Second priority implementation measures will make sure we're taking appropriate measures to fulfill all of the things that are mentioned in the Comp Plan. Later phases will deal with regulatory reform, efficiency of our development regulations, cleaning up some of the situations in the Development Regulations which may be conflicting. A lot of things that we want to achieve in the Comp Plan aren't achievable through Development Regulations, but there are other programs that might be looked at such as Historic Preservation programs, and housing assistance. Mr. Neiss asked what would happen if a developer comes in with a situation that hasn't been focused on. Mr. Lancaster noted that SEPA regulations cite Comprehensive Plan policies as guidelines under which projects would be reviewed. He then reviewed the status of filling the current vacancy on the Commission. Rick Beeler provided a briefing regarding the Draft Development Regulations. This is a working draft and not meant to be the final recommendation. The Shoreline regulations, SAO, and Tree Ordinance chapters are not included in the Regulations. Mr. Neiss requested that they receive any material a week in advance for the Development Regulations work sessions. rrayi<k,e• '41 C . ) 0 C.) : uj J uJ O; g ca a. �_ z�. Oi z V �s O N' UH'. U. o w z' 0 ~.. Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 April 27, 1995 Mr. Beeler agreed to have material available approximately one week ahead of time, except for possibly the minutes. He added that the public hearing is scheduled for June 29th and the final recommendation adopted on August 3rd, and forwarded to the Council on August 11th. The document consists of three parts. The first part is a general section which is to implement the part of the State law that requires us to specify what constitutes a completed application for a development permit, and the permit processing time. Part two is amending the Zoning Code. The RA and CP zones have been deleted. Four new zones have been added; two for the Urban Center and two for the • Manufacturing /Industrial Center, as specified in the Draft Comp Plan. The R-1 7.2 zone has been amended to now be an R-1 6.5 zone, which requires a minimum 6,500 sq. ft. lot. Some of the setback provisions and minimum lot width requirements have been changed. Accessory dwelling units in single - family zones have been added. Mobile home parks have been added to the R -3, R-4 and RMH zones only. A mobile home park chapter has been added which would supersede the old mobile home park ordinance (Trailer Park Ordinance). The C -1 zone has been changed to Community Retail zone, reflecting neighborhood and pedestrian orientation. Adult entertainment has been extended from just the M -2 zone to now include the Urban Center, as well as the Manufacturing /Industrial Center. The allowable multi- family density has been increased to 40 units per acre in the Urban Center. There are no residential uses allowed in the manufacturing /industrial center, and retail uses are limited to 30,000 sq. ft. per building. Part three is the concurrency chapter of the environmental regulations that is for transportation at this point. The Commission agreed to tentatively meet from 6:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. on Thursdays which are not regular Planning Commission meeting nights. Mr. Neiss called the public hearing to order at 7:10 p.m. There were no citizens' comments. L95 -0001: Rodger Lacy Libby Hudson presented the staff report. The proposal is to develop a single family residence within a sensitive area through a request for an exception from the Sensitive Area Ordinance. The proposal includes an attached garage and access driveway on a 1.6 acre site, in a R-1 7.2 Single Family Zoning District. The site is affected with Type II watercourses, Class II wetlands, and Class IV slopes. There are eight criteria that the applicant has to meet before the exception to the SAO can be granted. The project is proposing the least impact that can occur in this zoned area, which is a single- family residence. He is proposing to lessen the impact by locating the house within an already altered area, which has been partially filled. With some alterations from his proposal, it appears that he can meet all eight criteria. Ms. Hudson then reviewed the eight criteria in the staff report. :z . Imo. w 6 •• Uo: CO 0. WI . W o g a. • • • z • moo+ U �o 0F 'wuj •H • wz •z Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 April 27,1995 In summary, the property is significantly impacted by the sensitive area ordinance regulations, and development cannot occur without an exception to the ordinance. The property owner has made great attempts to lessen the impact on the sensitive areas, however, further exploration of different locations that lessen the impact to the existing wetlands and hydrology needs to be completed. Staff recommends approval of the exception with the following conditions: 1. revise the building pad location and move it further to the east; 2. the geotechnical report be supplemented with an alternative looking specifically at construction methods and protection of the single family residence; 3. development shall follow the specific recommended construction requirements as recommended in the geotechnical report, including doing the site work during dry seasons, ensuring that the slope is protected during construction, and a geotechnical engineer be on site during construction; 4. all land altering be limited to the area defined by the approved site plan and geotechnical study; 5. the applicant submit, for review and approval, to the Department of Community Development, the final wetland enhancement plan which meets specific standards of the sensitive area ordinance and shall also install the wetland enhancement mitigation prior to issuance of the building permit. Mr. Malina expressed concerns regarding driveway access and the location of the house in relation to the pond. Mr. Flesher noted that he had a problem with the fact that staff is approving this project if the house is moved over 30-40 feet and then recommending this to have less impact on the property and the applicant has the responsibility to come back with a geotechnical report indicating that staff is correct. The applicant shouldn't bare that responsibility. Gary. Schulz, City of Tukwila Urban Environmentalist: Staff's intent was to seek alternatives that would be less of an impact to the site, because as proposed now, the site would be drained from its total width, because it is recommended that intercepted ground and surface water be kept in a closed pipe system. Without detailed information, it's hard to say if that is the only way to do it or not. Staff's intent was not to require a number of other studies, but to see if the amount of hydrology alteration could be lessened. Mr. Malina said that he sees more impact by relocating the home by 30-40 feet. Mr. Neiss said that his concern is that they provide a stable foundation for this home, as opposed to going on to more fill area. The priority seems to be over wetlands versus stability. . z a re w 6 J0 00: co co a w; J= w 0; I. a; i-- z z�: z0 U0 0 -. 1- w uj tL 1-. - 0' wz =:. 0 t-: z.. Planning Commission Minutes Page 4 April 27, 1995 Ms. Hudson said that according to the geotech report, the slope is fairly stable if the cuts are at 3 to 1 slope, they are protected during construction, and if it's done during the dry season, etc. The site will need to be excavated to bring in structural fill in any portion where the construction of the building takes place. Mr. Schulz said the geotechnical engineer is assuming that staff has asked for the ponding of water. Staff has not asked for that in writing; it has been talked about as conceptual ideas. He added that what he was concerned about was the increase in run- off from the site by putting water into pipes. Rodger Lacy, 3125 S. Dakota Street, Seattle: He stated that he has hired civil engineers to design run -off based upon the King County Design Manual. The proposal consists of a single family dwelling, designed to conserve energy. The home is for his family and is designed to handle future growth. His intention was to build a home with the least amount of impacts, and still provide for his family's needs, and maintain the rest of the property in its current state, except for the removal of blackberry bushes. He planned to enhance the wetland portion of the property by replacing the trees previously cut down. He hired a qualified engineer, Paul Stoltenberg, as his project engineer and asked him to locate the best building site, which would have the least impact to the property, off -site properties and to the wetlands. There are three other properties north of this site which are land - locked. One lot belongs to him, which he has an option to sell, one lot belongs to WSDOT, and the third lot belongs to Kathy Polzer. By law, he must provide them easements if needed. The only natural pond on the property is approximately 35 feet from the southeast comer of the building pad, and he had planned to leave it in place, and not disturb it. Moving the house 30 feet to the east would eliminate this pond. Part of the driveway would be used as an access easement, and he wanted the access easement to be as far from the children's play area as possible to avoid accidents. He added that his property is an isolated wetland, and the watercourses are caused by storm water run -off and underground springs, and most of the watercourses are man- made drainage ditches, constructed by previous owners to channel the water off the hill and to the storm drain system. The City of Tukwila needs to recognize that this is his property, and he has the constitutional right to build a house upon it, as long as the house meets the City building and zoning codes. The City of Tukwila does not have a legal right, nor a valid reason to arbitrarily reduce the size of the house, without knowing the needs or requirements of his family. The City needs to over -haul its wetland policies so they will reflect the spirit of care and concern towards the rights and needs of property owners. rt w u6D �o N 0 :vow; u_ (.0 w. w o. gQ; i a. _. z �. 1-o z�. O co o —: oI 1--- - u_ 0' z: LU on 0'' Planning Commission Minutes April 27, 1995 Page 5 Mr. Flesher asked if moving the house 30-40 feet to the east would place it inside an existing pond? Mr. Lacy said yes, and the corner of his house has been cut off to fit. Paul Stoltenberg (Geotechnical Engineer), 13500 Lake City Way N.E., Suite 202, Seattle, 98125: He started by saying that he likes the City's Sensitive Area Ordinance. There's two issues about slope stability here; there's one local and the other is global stability (Tukwila Interchange). A single family residence would not compromise the global stability if water isn't added to the hillside. With regard to local stability, anytime there are springs that come out from a hillside, it can be cut very shallow and still have slump failures. That's why there are interceptor drains. He stated that he did not include any walls and the most conservative thing to do is to get rid of all the water that is intercepted, put it in a closed detention system, and have controlled release. WSDOT has a 15 foot french drain 30-40 feet north of the property, that was installed to maintain the global stability of the hillside. That's where all the surface and near- surface hydrology ends up that isn't caught by a ditch. The net effect of the interceptor trench does not increase the flow, unless there is not a controlled discharge. The hillside can be cut off and then wetland would be taken from there, or fill could be added and the wetland would be destroyed. Adding fill and water are the two classic things that geotechnical engineers don't like to see on a potentially unstable hillside. He stated that the problems can probably be dealt with, but the hydrology is going to be messed up no matter what happens. He suggested that the wetlands and the enhancement take place after the site development. He added that his recommendation is that on -site detention be required and that it be a closed detention system. Something can be placed at the toe, such as a gabion. Either site would require interceptor trenches. Mr. Marvin asked by leaving the pond there, where is the water going? Mr. Stoltenberg said that usually in any drainage plan, wherever water is currently being discharged, that point of discharge be maintained. Mr. Marvin asked if their proposal to move the house down is to preserve more sensitive area that hasn't been tampered with? Mr. Stoltenberg said yes. That is not the applicant's preference because by moving it that way, an area on the north side of the driveway would not be usable for wetland, the existing pond would be lost, and two drainage courses would have to be redirected. Mr. Schulz said that moving the house to the east would allow more of the area that's not as disturbed to remain and not have to make the cuts so deep. z .w UO: N 0. �W J CO U.: W a;. - v' --W ZIa! o Z U a. 13 W W, • CY cAl .z. .O :z Planning Commission Minutes April 27, 1995 Page 6 Mr. Lacy said that after speaking with his attorney, he found that it is not a good idea for him to do man -made ponds due to liability issues. But, he was going to mitigate the rest of the property. Miriam Miller, (Mr. Lacy's attorney) 1001 4th Ave., Suite 3200, Seattle, 98154: Ms. Miller said that Mr. Lacy has, in good faith, responded to all of the staffs concerns, and he has provided alternatives. The concerns are between the rights of a private land owner versus environmental concerns. Initiative 164 invokes the protection of the 5th and 14th amendments and gives much favor over the intrusion of the government or any of its entities with respect to the use by a private landowner. (Ms. Miller then read Section 4, Section 7). Unless Mr. Lacy has the right to build as he has proposed, the governmental agency must make full compensation, meaning the reduction of the fair market value of the portion or parcel of property taken for general public use. Not only does Mr. Lacy invoke the protections of Initiative 164, but he also proposes that some of the uses proposed by the Planning Commission may result in the following causes of action: for instance, he believes that there is a likelihood that increasing the water retention on the site could add to the instability of the hillside and possibly cause instabilities resulting to properties down hill and expose Mr. Lacy and perhaps the City of Tukwila to litigation. Secondly, Mr. Lacy has a minor child, and if he has to build or create new ponds, they may become attractive nuisances to children. Thirdly, the 30 or 40 foot movement east of the original location as recommended by the City of Tukwila would totally eliminate or decrease the play area of Mr. Lacy's child, thereby forcing children to play in the driveway easement. This would be another area of potential liability. The recommendations by the City of Tukwila that Mr. Lacy build his house alternatively to the compacted fill at its present location would increase the average slope of his driveway from 9.3% to 11.4 %, thereby making accessibility more treacherous. The Planning Commission has recommended that Mr. Lacy move his house because the current placement would impact the wetland. But, Mr. Lacy contends that the Planning staff has failed to articulate with specificity just how the wetlands would be impacted. Mr. Lacy contends that it is his understanding that the wetlands are there for habitats, or for fish spawning, or more complicated things than just the fact of it. He's raising the distinction between a function versus a label, so his house is to meet the needs of preserving the wetlands, but also a reasonable use with respect to how the land can be used. Initiative 164 indicates that if Mr. Lacy cannot build as he would like, he may find relief in Superior Court and he hopes that he will not have to pursue his relief there. Mr. Malina indicated that he was despondent with the fact that Ms. Miller has brought up Initiative 164 since it is not a law yet and using that as a tool. Ms. Miller said this is three- pronged and threshold decisions have to made, and then this is going to be subject to peer review about the compromises Mr. Stoltenberg Planning Commission Minutes Page 7 April 27, 1995 articulated. Mr. Lacy is amenable to these compromises, so Mr. Lacy wanted this invoked for the complete record. She stated that she understands that this has not been enacted and that it will be subject to changes, and she prefaced her remarks with respect to the balancing of equities. Mr. Lacy wanted her to speak from a tort framework. There were no citizens' comments. Staff Rebuttal: Libby Hudson said that staff would like to revise conditions #1 and #2 in the staff report and combine them. The new wording would be: "The applicant shall revise the site plan to reduce the area of development impact through interceptor pipes and fill material with a toe wall as recommended by the geotechnical engineer." The Plan would be massaged during the peer review process if there are any other necessary requirements to reduce the impacts to wetlands. Mr. Schulz said there is nothing special . about the pond in question. He stated that he told Mr. Lacy it would be nice to just leave it as it is. The whole property is wetland, except for the road fill. Throughout this reasonable use process, he had recommended 1.5 to 1.0 enhancement of wetland, instead of a replacement requirement. Instead of making the applicant go off -site and do wetland replacement, he told the applicant he would support enhancement. The reason for moving the pad was to leave more area to do enhancement, and the issue of how much the site is going to be dried out. If an exception to the Ordinance is granted, there needs to be good reasons for it. 1.5 to 1.0 enhancement of degraded wetland areas would be his recommendation. Mr. Meryhew said that it sounded like staff, the applicant, and the geotechnical engineer could work something out. Mr. Flesher said that we don't know whether the applicant is amenable to enhancement at a rate of 1.5 to 1.0. Mr. Lacy said that he was aware of the 1.5 to 1.0 mitigation enhancement and is prepared to do it. Mr. Meryhew asked the geotechnical engineer how he felt about adding the wall without raising the pad? Mr. Stoltenberg stated it would probably be fine. Approximately 1200 square feet of wet area could be saved by raising the pad. Mr. Neiss closed the public hearing. MR. MALINA MOVED TO APPROVE THE SPECIAL PERMISSION FOR FILE L95 -0001 BASED ON STAFF'S FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS WITH THE FOLLOWING AMENDMENTS TO THE RECOMMENDATIONS: LIF 6D -U; U O: o. w w. w O` IL Q; =. di I- _; Z la IL/ 0 tu u. U N` z .. Planning Commission Minutes Page 8 April 27, 1995 RECOMMENDATIONS #1 AND #2 SHALL BE COMBINED AND REVISED TO READ, "THE APPLICANT SHALL REVISE THE SITE PLAN TO REDUCE THE AREA OF DEVELOPMENT IMPACT THROUGH INTERCEPTOR PIPES, FILL MATERIAL, AND TOE WALLS, AS RECOMMENDED BY THE GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER:' re 2 RECOMMENDATION #5 (NOW #4) SHALL BE REVISED TO READ: 'THE v p' APPLICANT SHALL SUBMIT FOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL TO THE co co w DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT (DCD), A FINAL WETLAND u1 i'; ENHANCEMENT PLAN AT A RATE OF 1.5:1.0; AND SHALL INSTALL ALL co u.; REQUIRED WETLAND ENHANCEMENT, AS APPROVED BY DCD, PRIOR TO w 0_. THE ISSUANCE OF THE BUILDING PERMIT. g a LL Q; co MR. MERYHEW SECONDED THE MOTION AND THE MOTION WAS •F- w UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED. z ; 1-0: zi-7: ul V 0: Libby Hudson presented the staff report. The proposal is for an increase from 10 - . 72.8 sq. ft. to 104.8 sq. ft. The building is setback 140 feet from the property line and '= W under the Sign Code, the applicant can request an increase of 50% for each doubling of 1- F the setback area. Since they meet all of the criteria for an increase in sign area, staff 11-- .0: z recommends approval. IL N t=_ Pam Combs, Tube Art, P.O. Box 34333, Seattle, 98124 -1333: �z The word, "Puetz" is a channel look a -like, with red background and white copy. The. word "Golf' is in a green face. The word "Discount" will have a red background with white letters. The golf club is non - illuminated, it's cut out of aluminum with black tape. L95 -0014: Puetz Golf Mr. Neiss closed the public hearing. MR. MERYHEW MOVED TO APPROVE L95 -0014 AS PROPOSED. MR. MALINA SECONDED THE MOTION AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED. Mr. Lancaster briefly discussed Initiative 164. Mr. Neiss adjourned the meeting. Prepared By, Sylvia Schnug MEMORANDUM TO: Libby, Associate Planner Jack Pace, Senior Planner FROM: Gary Schulz, Urban Environmentalist DATE: April 19, 1995 RE: Lacy - Reasonable Use Exception Mitigation Concept. I have reviewed the conceptual mitigation plan dated 4/3/95 for the Lacy property. I would like to comment on two aspects of this project proposal as it relates to the SAO Reasonable Use process and criteria. The fast aspect of this development is impact assessment and the necessary use of wetland. The actual size of the residence is probably compatible with surrounding homes and this may need to be evaluated by the Planning Commission. However, the developed lot size being proposed is 16,000 sq. ft. and may be considered larger than most residential lots in the area. There are some geotechnical questions as to how much distance is needed between the interceptor drains and the house foundation that pertains to the area that will need to be drained. If suitable fill material is imported to raise the building pad area, it seems that some of the recommended draining features may not be necessary and wetland impacts reduced. As we discussed, the building location could be shifted to the east and this may reduce drainage modifications and the amount of slope grading. As stated in the Exceptions section, TMC 18.45.115, (D) Alterations permitted shall be the minimum necessary to allow for reasonable use of the property and (H) ...subject to conditions as established by this chapter and will require mitigation under an approved mitigation plan. On this site the second aspect for reasonable use is wetland mitigation. Because the applicant cannot meet the standard of 1.5:1.0 on -site replacement, it is recommended the project provide the same area of enhancement. The submitted concept plan shows the enhancement area is feasible. However, the enhancement area depicted as E is within City ROW and should not be considered for mitigation. Enhancement area B is not entirely wetland but includes a forested buffer area and may be planted with conifer trees. The most significant technical point for the wetland mitigation is maintaining the hydrology to the areas that need enhancement. The drainage plan will need to be refined by the . geotechnical engineer to determine the area of enhanced wetlands after site development. The City may require a performance bond to ensure the enhancement is successful. In addition, the plan may need to be completed prior to the issuance of a building permit. If you have questions about my comments or the proposal we should meet as soon as we can. cc: Steve Lancaster, DCD Director worms. :.:. �k1ii..SS':..7;sa't.°tJi.it: i42EattittSithriunra44Q J0 00 N 0 co w w w o, J' w a; �_ z�.: o z� w W. ILL o - z MEMORANDUM TO: File - Lacy Exception FROM: Gary Schulz C, DATE: April 4, 1995 RE: April 3 Meeting Summary Attendance: Rodger Lacy, Gary Schulz, Brian Shelton, Ron Cameron. Purpose of the meeting was to discuss potential ROW Vacation for S. 158th Street Stormwater /Geotech. issues and coordination with WADOT. 1) ROW Vacation cannot be scheduled until 5/8/95. Half of ROW (30') is south of Crystal Springs Park fence. According to TMC, if County tax assessment values the ROW land as greater than $10,000 a real estate appraisal is required before vacation. Rodger would have to purchase the property and a resolution would need to be adopted... This would take some time to complete. To use the existing gravel road for access, Mr. Lacy would need to seek agreement with WADOT. WADOT owns this area outside their fence and may grant use of the property.? At this point in the discussion Ron suggested that a Street Use Permit would be easier way to allow a driveway in the ROW. Ron felt like it may not be a good idea to give up ROW because a sewer extension to residences above the site may be needed in the future. The Street Use Permit is mostly an administrative procedure. Stormwater plan was not discussed - Phil Fraser will review Geotech. report will be reviewed by Public Works and possibly WADOT _ Brian Shelton to contact WADOT for their concerns of the development and storm runoff Rodger Lacy to contact WADOT regarding his access across their property By end of meeting Ron Cameron was not in favor of vacating the ROW Rodger E. Lacy Sr. 3125 S. Dakota St. Seattle, WA. 98108 April 3, 1995 Mr. Gary Schulz City of Tukwila Dept. of Community Development Tukwila, WA. 98168 SUBJECT: Conceptual Mitigation Plan Dear Gary: Transmitted with this letter is a drawing showing the approximate area of the class II wetlands being impacted by my building site and the proposed areas on the same site to be used to mitigate the intrusion with a brief description of the conceptual,mitigation plan proposal. • The area marked "A "on the map represent the area of intrusion by my building site which is approximately a 16,000 sqft area. • The area marked `B" on the map is a proposed area of mitigation which will be accomplished by enhancements with the planting of trees and wetland shrubs. The area set aside as "B" is approximately 16,750 sqft. ♦ . The area marked "C" on the map is a proposed pond or series of ponds with the appropriate native plantings in or about it. The pond will be lined as not to cause instability problems off site. The pond(s) will act as part of the site storm drain detention system. The area of "C" is approximately 8,000 sqft ♦ The area marked "D" on the map is an alternate site for area "E" in the event that S. 158th street isn't approved for vacating: The area of "D" is approximately 4,125 sqft. ♦ The area marked "E" on the map is located in the S. 158th St. right of way and is contingent upon' my request for the vacating of S. 158th St. The area of "E" is approximately 4,500 sqft. I have retained the services of "PEG PERM DESIGN, which is a wetland architectural and design company located in Monroe WA. ". Mrs. Peg Perm will be working with your office in assisting me in the formulation of a City of Tukwila approved wetland mitigation plan. Thank you. Sincerely, Rodger E. Lacy Sr. w O ZO 0 •o TRACT 1 13z iii 4 TRACT 47449.00' S89'33'02" E \ \\ • k \ \\\ \\ \ \\ \\ \ \\ +) j 1 1\ \\ \ \\ \ \ \ �) LEGEND v-- IVILIOt.alu�� .SEMKIecM\ NilliallffilliElaraNillir UV '41:111111111M1111111M1 ME 1• ■11■■L�..'\ JIM '111 \� \i1��\_ A I■ Zi \ \\ \1 N89'35'3d t o \ �1 \ \ 1 I 152f.44' \- \ I .1 x I ri) \ M \X" X \ X CITY PARK Sro-rt-0,7 Co- S 7O00 ro- i res cAn WETLAND INTRUSION MITIGATION BY ENHANCEMENT WITH TREES AND SHRUBS POND OR SERIES OF PONDS WITH APPROPRIATE NATIVE PLANTINGS ADDITIONAL POND IN THE EVENT OF S.158th. ST. VACATION tiousz • ..r�'�t ?.Y.C:''S" -,:. «�i:n'rt: SZ : - K4,iik:i.d,V..1'ilabLiltEa: tike 'C47,,Si'y"fS>,'f�.:i:'i�'^•'' d\•2-" .111111•Mla IN 21111.1001111, "• W,.` Cv; icMC.. I?' f;:. lrx?+.< cii. Z+`," m' S, t", dK.$. �t 'idti4.Pv'7rrv4i'�s.'_;,•.+1v +. 914:' iz3f 'tdi5�'t7.72..:;::= a »',"�PA'r1; `Fsve� %i+^,:%' SP 1 L9; 47 449.00' S89'33'02" E + ' ip1-610:11 AI LI Ili 11111111 Oqiiiii III ii0 . int I 4 ilAik1111! !Eill , 141m l'p topitoi; qr1 ,zreilitil ii J 41•11 110A.M.M111; 61Aesr1 .• file Ilk AIM\ Scale 1" =5OFT S89'33'02" E 178.68 a1. r•..• IIIMITIMINa l>.1!'_'R MINIIII IIPA►&=- NMIVMN■\r\x7�M�/ 7rIVIIR 111MMM■ -��MMiAMIiI'!■IM 1MIIMrMMrr •w•■t - �I\ ∎ ■ \A�•�. AIIMMIllelIMIIIP:M• '411111-111111411111111_ ..0111111111116111•111W. ' L . \ '1 N89'35'3d W . \, o \ \1 I526.44• .\'i\5\$t x ad I \ x CITY PARK STATE R/W FENCE + — N89'35'30 "W j01.27 CURS E SAC x� x -. x �� N • 1-6\r% f co, ces. 7000 MI) e--d ©c�;w� SP1 cAn she 2L100 1-oo trt Al sdi rr & N (so' ) (o x2o) L q-.000/ CONCEPTUAL WETLAND MITIGATION PLAN Rodger E. Lacy Residence Fi• ure 1 a`�niwr. > ,rt •y e :r s«+vs, six' e � 5 '� r t R l + ZF.•:Wf'<, k.+i.31 vaLCr "rr.!etit�• ^.k.�� ; �5;. �; �; F' �, �; �6r�; �s�v�ax9u� :r+- r�;a;,��h.•�.��M:izvs�� �t� m.,:�.,.?,�.7at�.�•� Wec C ' JU; ' On v3p uj g JI tea, co d• mow; I- 0 Z w W: =p 10 -4 :0 H1. z Geotechnical Investigation Rodger E. Lacy Sr. Residence 51st Avenue South Tukwila, Washington Prepared for: Rodger E. Lacy Sr. 3125 S. Dakota Street Seattle, Washington 89108 THE CALLIGROUP Geotechnical Consulting March 15, 1995 z Rodger E. Lacy Sr. 3125 S. Dakota Street Seattle, Washington 98108 Subject: Geotechnical Investigation Slst Avenue South Tukwila, Washington Dear Mr. Lacy: The following report summarizes the results of our research, geologic reconnaissance, geotechnical investigation and engineering analyses of the above property. The report provides recommendations for development of the proposed single family residence. Based upon our investigation it is our opinion that the site may be safely developed provided the recommendations of this report are followed. The site is located on the down thrown side of an ancient (following the last glaciation) regional landslide. A succession of smaller shallow slides associated with excavation of the toe of lower slopes northerly approximately 500 feet, have been remediated during construction of the Tukwila Interchange. The factor of safety with these remediations is estimated to be from 1.9 to 2.4. Details are included in the report. The site is traversed by several springs and drainage paths which appear to have been rerouted during previous site development. We recommend that upslope and toe of slope interceptor trenches be constructed to provide a suitable building site. Surface and near surface water collected in these swales and trenches should be diverted to a stormwater collection system which will not add water to the hillside soils. In order to prevent compromising stability of the lower slopes of the hillside we recommend that stormwater retention and wetland mitigation measures not include surface ponding. Failure of these elements could result in increased water discharge to the lower slopes creating erosion and potential instability problems. The location you identified for the proposed building site appears to consist of previously altered land including fill. Siting the house in this location appears to have the least impact 13500 Lake City Way, Suite 202, Seattle, Washington 98125 • (206) 363-6449 • Fax (206) 367-5611 ID on the natural wet areas of the site. However, some rerouting of surface drainage paths will likely be necessary with the proposed improvements. Foundation recommendations include either constructing a building pad from imported material, or excavation to suitable bearing soils and placing widened spread footings with extended stem walls. Details for these alternatives are provided in the report. Recommendations within this report will influence other aspects of the project design. This report should be provided to members of your design team. In addition, this report must be included in the contract documents provided to the contractor. This should help you avoid costly changes later in the process. We appreciate the opportunity to work with you on this project. If we can be of further assistance please do not hesitate to call. Sincerely, THE GALLI GROUP 0 29339 vta EXPIRES /Z- /G 5? Paul L. Stoltenberg, P.E. Project Geotechnical Engineer Table of Contents SECTION Page No. 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1 2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION 1 3.0 SITE FEATURES 2 3.1 GEOLOGIC CONDITIONS 2 3.2 SITE HISTORY 3 3.3 SURFACE CONDITIONS 4 4.0 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS 5 4.1 FIELD EXPLORATION 5 4.2 SUBSURFACE SOIL CONDITIONS 6 5.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 7 5.1 SLOPE STABILITY CONSIDERATIONS 7 5.2 GRADING AND EARTHWORK 8 5.2.1 Construction considerations 8 5.2:2 Site Preparation 9 5.2.3 Drainage 9 5.2.3 Cut and Fill Operations 10 5.2.4 Compaction Considerations 11 5.2.5 Trenching and Backfill 11 5.3 FOUNDATION RECOMMENDATIONS 12 5.3.1 Foundation Elements 12 5.3.2 Lateral Earth Pressures 13 5.4 MITIGATION CONSIDERATIONS 14 6.0 LIMITATIONS 15 7.0 REFERENCES 16 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1 Figure 2 Figure 3 Figure 3A Figure 3B Figure 4 Figure 5 APPENDIX A Vicinity Map Geologic Map Site Features WSDOT Remediation, Section D WSDOT Remediation, Section E Site Plan Cut Slope and Interceptor Drains Test Pit and Boring Logs i .a,n.L+��i�< �. a.. xw» Heinftmt<:L'ra,sa..a3.cioYa'- n Geotechnical Investigation Rodger E. Lacy Sr. 51st Avenue South Tukwila, Washington 1.0 INTRODUCTION At the request of Rodger E. Lacy Sr., the Galli Group performed a geotechnical investigation for Tract 48, of the plat of Sunnydale Gardens, Division 1. The purpose of our investigation was to assess the feasibility of constructing a single family residence on the 1.5 -acre parcel, and to provide foundation and earthwork recommendations for the proposed residence. Details of the scope of work for the investigation were outlined in a proposal dated February 1, 1995. The focus of our effort was concentrated on the proposed location for the residence. We understand that others will be addressing the wetland issues related to the proposed development. Therefore, the near- surface and groundwater issues were not addressed in the scope of work for this investigation except as they affect site stability concerns. Authorization to proceed with the work was received from Rodger E. Lacy Sr., in a contract dated February 15, 1995. The following geotechnical report summarizes observations from our research, geologic reconnaissance, subsurface investigation, and engineering analyses performed for the above referenced property. 2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION The proposed site is located immediately north of Crystal Springs Park and west of the cul -de -sac for 51st Avenue South, in the southeast quadrant of Section 22, Township 23 North, Range 4 East of the Willamette Meridian, in the City of Tukwila. The parcel is located within larger geographic and geologic features found in the southwest quadrant of the Tukwila Interchange of Interstate 5 and State Route 518. A vicinity map showing the site is provided on Figure 1. The owner proposes to build a single family residence on the parcel with access provided from the 51st Avenue South cul -de -sac. We understand the structure is planned to be two -story, wood -framed construction. We anticipate that site preparation will require cuts on the order of 5 to 10 feet at the western limit of the building footprint and imported fill material to bring the building pad up to grade. Site work will also include trenching to provide sewer, water, and utilities to the building. The proposed building site previously supported structures and access. Man -made ditches and drainage routes have previously been constructed on the site to channel surface water off -site. We anticipate that rerouting some surface and subsurface drainage will be necessary in order to provide a suitable building pad. U U O'. co 0 • Ww u. w0 i a Fis 0 F- w w U • Zi w V yi O Micro Com Systems Washington Ltd. 12608 -B INTERURBAN AVENUE SOUTH TUKWILA, WA 98168 TEL (206) 248 -3191 FAX (206) 248 -3313 121113L 489:261 ATTENTION The next image may be a duplicate of the previous image. Other: "De \ www.microcomsys.com Geotechnical Investigation Rodger E. Lacy Sr. 51st Avenue South Tukwila, Washington 1.0 INTRODUCTION At the request of Rodger E. Lacy Sr., the Galli Group performed a geotechnical investigation for Tract 48, of the plat of Sunnydale Gardens, Division 1. The purpose of our investigation was to assess the feasibility of constructing a single family residence on the 1.5 -acre parcel, and to provide foundation and earthwork recommendations for the proposed residence. Details of the scope of work for the investigation were outlined in a proposal dated February 1, 1995. The focus of our effort was concentrated on the proposed location for the residence. We understand that others will be addressing the wetland issues related to the proposed development. Therefore, the near - surface and groundwater issues were not addressed in the scope of work for this investigation except as they affect site stability concerns. Authorization to proceed with the work was received from Rodger E. Lacy Sr., in a contract dated February 15, 1995. The following geotechnical report summarizes observations from our research, geologic reconnaissance, subsurface investigation, and engineering analyses performed for the above referenced property. 2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION The proposed site is located immediately north of Crystal Springs Park and west of the cul -de -sac for 51st Avenue South, in the southeast quadrant of Section 22, Township 23 North, Range 4 East of the Willamette Meridian, in the City of Tukwila. The parcel is located within larger geographic and geologic features found in the southwest quadrant of the Tukwila Interchange of Interstate 5 and State Route 518. A vicinity map showing the site is provided on Figure 1. The owner proposes to build a single family residence on the parcel with access provided from the 51st Avenue South cul -de -sac. We understand the structure is planned to be two -story, wood -framed construction. We anticipate that site preparation will require cuts on the order of 5 to 10 feet at the western limit of the building footprint and imported fill material to bring the building pad up to grade. Site work will also include trenching to provide sewer, water, and utilities to the building. The proposed building site previously supported structures and access. Man -made ditches and drainage routes have previously been constructed on the site to channel surface water off -site. We anticipate that rerouting some surface and subsurface drainage will be necessary in order to provide a suitable building pad. 3.0 SITE FEATURES 3.1 GEOLOGIC CONDITIONS The project area is located within the Puget Sound Lowland, an elongated structural and topographic depression bounded by the Olympic Mountains to the west and the Cascade Range to the east. Tertiary bedrock consisting of shale, sandstone, and volcanic rocks outcrop along the outside margins of the trough in the mountain foothills. The Puget Sound Lowland has been repeatedly occupied by a lobe of the Cordilleran Ice Sheet, one of the two continental glaciers which developed during the recent ice ages of the Quaternary period. The Cordilleran Ice Sheet was centered over the coast ranges of British Columbia. A portion of the ice sheet, termed the Puget Lobe, advanced south from British Columbia to occupy the lowlands of western Washington. The ice covered the Puget Lowland between the Olympic Mountains and the Cascade Range, achieving thicknesses of 3,000 to 4,000 feet. At least four such advances occurred. The southern termini of the glacial advances were generally in the area of the Black Hills, south of Olympia. Each incursion of the glacier into the area is characterized by a complex sequence of lacustrine deposits, advance outwash, glacial drift, till, and recessional outwash, further modified by succeeding glacial and nonglacial intervals. The repeated glaciations resulted in a series of north- trending elongated ridges, or drift uplands, separated by deep troughs. These troughs are now occupied by marine waters, fresh -water lakes, and streams. The most recent glacial advance, which immediately affects the surficial soils of the Puget Lowland, is called the Fraser Glaciation. This glacial period has left mappable units of lacustrine deposits, advance outwash, lodgment till, and recessional deposits. A portion of the Geologic Map of the Des Moines Quadrangle, mapped by Howard H. Waldron, which contains the project site is provided in Figure 2, following the text of the report. This maps the project geology as recessional outwash or undifferentiated stratified drift. These glaciofluvial sand and gravel units are thought to have been deposited in small temporary ice - marginal lakes or channels. In other places the unit partly fills depressions or channels previously overridden by the glacier. The highly variable consistency of the site soil observed in our test pits indicate that the site is underlain predominantly by stratified drift deposits. The majority of the project site is located within the down thrown side of a prehistoric or ancient landslide. Research of available information indicates that this slide may have occurred soon after the last glaciation. The ancient slide scarp is approximately 3/4 -mile long, trending northwest from Interstate 5 toward SR 518. The approximate location of the ancient slide scarp is shown on Figure 3, Site Features. 1041RPT.DOC 2 The Galli Group • Z O:W` • • .N .W W: u• LL Q; • • z �. F- O'. • W Wi � o :V ui .;WW. z r~- .o: U y. o z r fl 3.2 SITE HISTORY Between 1964 and 1968, extensive slope stability investigations and analyses were undertaken by Shannon and Wilson, Inc., in conjunction with the construction of the Tukwila Interchange. These investigations provided a thorough assessment of the underlying soil conditions and slope stability of the area. Although some areas of the hillside then appeared relatively stable, anticipated regrading of the lower reaches of the slope for construction of the eastbound SR -518 off -ramp, Klickitat Drive, and other features of the interchange, presented several challenges to maintaining or increasing the slope stability. Areas south and east of 53rd Avenue South required extensive deep dewatering wells and horizontal drains, along with cylinder -pile walls. Areas north and west of 53rd required less extensive slope stability remediation measures, consisting primarily of rock buttresses and slope regrading. Due to differences in groundwater conditions and structural geology, the slope below the Lacy property appeared generally more stable than other areas and required less remediation when the interchange was constructed. Details of the slope stability analyses and remediation efforts can be found in Slope Stability. Investigation, Tukwila Interchange, for the Washington State Highway `J Commission, April 30, 1966, by Shannon and Wilson, Inc. A map showing installed remediation features is provided on Figure 3. The results of the stability investigation of the slope below the Lacy property are briefly presented below. The Shannon and Wilson report classified the various types of potential slide movement into 4 broad categories: • Structure Control -- relatively shallow slides characterized by successive graben blocks at the head as the earth below migrates downslope along natural bedding planes, • Block Flow -- again relatively shallow slides characterized by water -laden sandy silts moving downslope over hardened silt units. After initial movement these tend to "flow" rather than slide as a block. (A slide of this nature occurred on the slope approximately 300 feet northwest of the Lacy property during regrading of the highway interchange) • Artesian Control -- deeper slides characterized by artesian uplift pressures within underlying sand units below the relatively less permeable dense silt unit. This is the mechanism characteristic of the area east of 53rd Avenue South toward Slade Way. • Combination -- potentially unstable conditions characterized by a combination of the above mechanisms. The area between 53rd Avenue South and Klickitat is thought to contain conditions representative of these characteristics. 1041RPT.DOC 3 The GaIIi Group ••z • ice: • Z rt U, .o O: 0. w w. LUM!. - H, w 0' LL _.d _' z� w w: . U 0; W W; H V; ,W O. • w z n It should be noted that the Shannon and Wilson report also identified areas of stability, one of which was the area northeast and below the Lacy property. This was considered stable in part due to the adverse dip of the underlying bedding planes (i.e. the laminated deposits sloped into the hill instead of down the hill. See Boring Log for BH -206, Appendix A, Plate A -5). As a result of the analyses, Shannon and Wilson recommended several remediation measures which have since been constructed by the Washington State Department of Transportation. For the purposes of this report we have described only those which would likely impact the Lacy property. The slope below the Lacy property was regraded to a 4H:1V (horizontal:vertical) slope and blanketed with rock rip rap. This required purchase of additional right -of -way, which resulted in the destruction of the homes west of the "old" 51st Avenue cul -de -sac. In addition an asphalt lined drainage ditch and 15 -foot deep interceptor drain was constructed along the upper reaches of the slope near the present WSDOT right -of -way and maintenance road. These features are shown on Figure 3. During the investigation and construction of the interchange relatively shallow slides were observed near the toe of the slope in several areas. One of these was located due north of the western boundary of the Lacy property. The cause of these slides was primarily associated with geologic structure and increased weight of overlying soils due to saturation. The relatively unstable conditions were aggravated by excavation at the toe of the slope during highway construction. Remedial action in these areas consisted of construction of a rock buttress with steel shear key at the toe and installation of horizontal drains to remove some of the water in the soil. Remediation measures for the area downslope of the Lacy property are shown in Figures 3A and 3B. Several analyses were conducted on the stability of the slope following these remediation efforts. A factor of safety of 1.0 means the slope is stable. A factor of safety of 1.2 is desired for highway cut slopes; this is increased to 1.5 when risk of structural damage or dwellings are located upslope from the area. With the constructed remediation efforts, the factor of safety for the slope below the Lacy property was calculated to be 2.0 below the proposed building site and 2.4 for the slope approximately 200 feet northwest of the building site. If all drainage facilities failed, the factors of safety were calculated as 1.9 and 1.3 for the two areas respectively. 3.3 SURFACE CONDITIONS The property is situated on the south side of a small tributary east -west valley which ascends from the wider valley of the Green River situated to the east. SR 518 currently traverses this valley from I -5 toward Pacific Highway and Seatac International Airport. The site is located on the northeastern facing slope of an upland drift plain which generally trends north - south. As mentioned above, the site is located within the downthrown side 1041RPT.DOC 4 The Galli Group • of an ancient landslide, the scarp of which meanders across the southwestern corner of the property. The site is covered with blackberries and numerous alder with a few maple trees. The eastern portion of the tract contains an access road and an area where the trees are significantly smaller in diameter, indicating the area may have previously been cleared. We also found old cedar stumps indicating that the area may have been logged. One of the dominant site features is the presence of several "watercourses" which appear as shallow silt and gravel -filled swales meandering down the hillside. These drainageways appear to have been altered by excavation in the past. Some of the water appears from sand or gravel seams in the hillside and some may be the result of near surface or surface runoff from off -site. There are several areas where the upper foot of soil appears wet much of the year. The springs, seeps or watercourses trend downslope northeasterly toward a previously constructed shallow ditch adjacent to the north property line, where they flow easterly toward the asphalt lined ditch constructed by WSDOT. Figure 3 shows topography and site features from mapping prepared for construction of the Tukwila Interchange in the mid- 1960's. This map along with anecdotal evidence indicates that the site was previously occupied by at least one residence and an outbuilding. A roadway provided access to several other structures immediately north of the Lacy property. We believe the majority of the fill encountered during our site investigation and the alteration of water courses within the property occurred during development of the property for these homes. As a result of the regrading and rip rap blanketing the slopes northeast of the Lacy property, the demolition of the previous structures on the slopes and the Lacy property, and the previous excavation for control of drainage, much of the eastern portion of the lot and the slope down toward the northeast is now altered land, making identification of original near surface and surface conditions difficult to assess. 4.0 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS 4.1 FIELD EXPLORATION Because of the readily available subsurface information and previous geotechnical explorations conducted in the general area, emphasis in our field exploration was placed on the soil conditions in the vicinity of the proposed building site, along with a geologic reconnaissance and extensive review of existing subsurface information. On March 1, 1995, the Galli Group performed a subsurface investigation and geological reconnaissance of the site. A total of 5 exploratory test pits were excavated at selected locations using a Case 580 E back hoe. The soil samples were examined, classified and logged in the field by a Galli Group geotechnical engineer in general accordance with ASTM D 2488. In -situ strength and attributes of the materials encountered were evaluated in the field based 1041RPT.DOC 5 The Galli Group upon experience with similar soils, the difficulty incurred during excavation and other factors. Representative soil samples were retrieved from the exploration pits, and will be kept for a maximum of 30 days following the date of this report. The logs representing our interpretation of the subsurface materials are included in Appendix A. Legends of the symbols used on the logs are also included. The approximate locations of the test pits are shown on the Site Plan, Figure 4. 4.2 SUBSURFACE SOIL CONDITIONS The site soils generally appear as stratified drift deposits of stiff silt, medium dense to dense sand, and some gravel. The braided appearance of soil units within the test pits, variation in density and grain size, and other observed characteristics, indicate that the site soils may have been deposited in glaciofluvial environments. The soil consistency varied significantly from test pit to test pit, however the following generalized soil units were found on the site. Fill Fill was encountered in TP -3 and TP -5. The unit consisted of loose, brown, silty fine to medium sand, with decayed or blackened wood fragments. The unit appeared relatively well - drained, and was underlain by a blackened layer of organic topsoil, thought to be original ground. We anticipate that most of the fill was placed in association with previous building sites, access, and alteration of drainage paths. The unit was 3 feet thick in TP -5 and approximately 4 -7 feet thick in TP -3 (TP -3 may contain successive units of fill). Topsoil In TP -1, TP -2, and TP -4, we encountered a unit of loose, dark brown, silty fine sand with organics, rootlets, and sometimes forest duff. The unit varied in thickness from approximately 1 foot in TP -1 and TP -2, to 2 feet in TP -4. The topsoil at the western edge of the building envelope was much wetter than in other locations, appearing saturated, and giving off a decayed organic odor characteristic of anaerobic decomposition. Siltv SAND or SAND with silt The predominant soil unit encountered on the site was described as silty sand or sand with silt. This unit was encountered in all test pits except TP-4. It was approximately 6 feet thick in TP -1 and TP -2, and was at least 6 feet thick in TP -3 and 3 feet thick in TP -5, but J not penetrated in either TP -3 or TP -5. In general terms, the upper portion of the unit appeared loose to medium dense, wet and J mottled with orange streaks. With increasing depth the unit appears dense, gray, and contained coarser sand with some gravel. The unit seems relatively impermeable at depths approaching 4 to 5 feet from grade, and appears to act as a barrier to downward migration } 1041RPT.DOC 6 The Galli Group of surface water. The upper portion of the unit was typically wet and weathered while the lower portion of the unit was gray and moist. Poorly graded SAND Underlying the dense silty sand unit described above, we encountered a unit characterized by dense, brown, poorly graded sand. We observed this unit in TP -1, and TP -2, at depths of approximately 8 and 7 feet respectively. The unit appeared as coarse sand with gravel, underlain by brown, poorly graded sand in TP -1. Brown poorly graded sand was observed in TP -2. In both locations the unit was wet and water seeped into the trench near the bottom of the excavation. Weathering characteristics of the unit indicate that there may be fluctuations of the water table within the unit, creating a weathered zone. SILT In TP -4, we encountered a massive, stiff, gray, silt deposit, at least 10 feet in thickness. The unit contained a small sand lens at approximately 11 feet depth. Slight seepage was observed in this sand lens. The silt unit was not penetrated in the 12 -foot depth of the test pit. 5.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Based upon our research of available subsurface information and geotechnical reports, our geologic reconnaissance, site investigation, and engineering analyses, it is our opinion that construction of a single family residence may proceed as planned provided the following recommendations are followed. 5.1 SLOPE STABILITY CONSIDERATIONS As mentioned above, extensive slope stability analyses were conducted concurrent with the construction of the Tukwila Interchange in 1964. Very thorough analyses of the conditions of the hillside in the southwest quadrant of the interchange were undertaken by Shannon and Wilson, Inc., in order to provide necessary slope stability of the roadway improvements near the toe of the slope. Much of our assessment of the slope stability issues are based upon work performed by Shannon and Wilson and include analyses of their borings and data. The slope below the Lacy property is contained in segments D and E as shown in Figure 3. This area was considered more stable than the areas to the south and east as well as areas to the north and west due to the inclination of the bedding planes along the critical failure surface. Remedial measures implemented during construction of the highway and interchange included horizontal drains, rock buttresses, regrading of the upper slopes to 4H:1 V, and construction of an interceptor trench and asphalt -lined surface ditch to 1041RPT.DOC 7 The GaIIi Group CZ JO. :CD w W =i J 1- CO IL` w0 J: w LLJ U0 O N' 0 1- W uJ` H U. -O Z1 L U _CO. o z remove surface and near surface flows from the hillside. Figures 3A amd 3B provide schematics showing the remedial sections D and E of the slope below the Lacy property. If the remedial measures installed function as designed, the factor of safety of the slope below the Lacy property is estimated to be 2.4 to 2.5. A factor of safety of 1.5 is generally considered prudent for slopes which support dwellings or structures. If all of the drainage systems were to cease functioning, the estimated factor of safety decreases to 1.9 downslope from the building footprint and 1.3 for the slope situated approximately 200 feet northwest of the building footprint. The method of arriving at the above factors of safety were based on progressive failure hypotheses, which represented more critical conditions than did conventional analyses based upon soil strength parameters, and more closely resembled insitu field tests, and monitoring of slope movement devices. Shannon and Wilson, Inc., did not consider seismic loading considerations to be a significant factor because of the dense soil conditions and because conventional analyses based upon soil strength parameters would result in increased factors of safety under seismic loading. In summary, it is our opinion that the most probable mode of shallow and progressive failure for the lower slopes has been effectively stabilized. The proposed location of the Lacy single family residence is sufficiently distant from the lower slope such that gross stability of the hillside will not be compromised provided storm water runoff is not routed onto the hillside. Local stability concerns are addressed in the following section. 5.2 GRADING AND EARTHWORK 5.2.1 Construction considerations We suggest the following sequence of construction operations for site preparation: 1. Construction of equipment access, and temporary erosion and sedimentation control measures. 2. Excavation and installation of surface swales and interceptor trench upslope from the building pad and proposed cut areas. 3. Clearing and stripping of unsuitable soils from building footprint. 4. Cutting of slopes behind the building footprint and installation of interceptor trenches at toe of slope, installation of erosion control measures on cut slopes. 5. Excavation of building footprint to suitable bearing soil for placement of compacted fill. 6. Placement and compaction of imported fill material for building pad. 7. Excavation for utilities and stormwater retention facilities. 1041RPT.DOC 8 The GaIIi Group 8. Excavation, forming, and pouring footings. Installation of footing drains. The construction of the interceptor drains and rerouting the surface drainage prior to extensive site clearing and grading is of primary importance in maintaining workable site condtioins. 5.2.2 Site Preparation Preparation of the building footprint should begin with removal of debris, deleterious matter and vegetation. All debris and organic matter should be disposed of properly, and is not permitted as fill material. Loose surficial materials such as topsoil and uncontrolled fill with organic matter should be removed and replaced with properly compacted fill where necessary. Based upon our field exploration we anticipate removal depths on the order of 1 to 2 feet in most locations except near TP -3, where depth may approach 4 to 5 feet due to uncontrolled fill placed over organic topsoil. t...i 1n The native silty sand is very moisture sensitive. We recommend installing the perimeter site drains described below prior to extensive site grading and preparation. If possible, clearing and grading should be conducted during the drier spring and summer months. If pumping of the soil from equipment access occurs during site preparation, we recommend construction of a working surface at least 12 inches in thickness consisting of imported granular fill with less than 5 percent passing the No. 200 sieve. The temporary access to the property may be covered with quarry spalls. 5.2.3 Drainage Drainage issues present a critical factor in the preparation of the site. The presence of several springs and drainage ditches on the site contribute to potential localized stability problems, difficult working conditions on the property, and potential foundation concerns. Our field exploration indicates that the site contains both surface flows originating from off -site and flows from sand seams that surface as springs on the slope. These contribute to the saturated soil conditions within the upper 1 to 2 feet of portions of the property. We recommend that site preparation begin with construction of a combination surface and subsurface interceptor drain along the upper reaches of the area to be regraded. The interceptor drain should consist of a trench excavated a minimum of 4 feet into the soil, with a 6 -inch diameter perforated pipe placed in the bottom of the trench, and backfilled with free - draining granular material, which is wrapped in filter fabric. The cap should be constructed from impermeable material and shaped to catch and redirect the surface runoff from upslope toward a stormwater collection system. The approximate location of the proposed interceptor drain is shown on the Site Plan, Figure 4. A schematic of the drain is provided in igure 5. The perforated pipe should discharge directly into a stormwater conveyance system such as the existing asphalt -lined swale north of the property or the existing stormwater system in the cul -de -sac at 51st Avenue South. The interceptor drain must not be tied into any drains at the toe of cut slopes, nor shall it be connected to any footing drains. 1041RPT.DOC 9 The Galli Group W � U U O; N 0 wW w• 0 J: _ .d. I- ILI Z H0 Z UJ Oi U ff', o.- wW H O: •Z'. U z • In addition to the upslope interceptor drain, we recommend the installation of an interceptor drain at the toe of slopes created by cutting into the existing slope or between the house and any location where near - surface flows break onto the face of an exposed slope. These should be constructed similar to the interceptor drain described above, with the additional requirement that the elevation of the trench bottom should extend a minimum of 1 foot below the elevation of building footings in the vicinity. The interceptor drains should be constructed in sections beginning at the lower reaches of the drain and working upslope. Trench excavations should be backfilled immediately following pipe placement in order to prevent caving of trench sidewalls. We also recommend that standard footing drains be installed around the perimeter footings. These should not be tied to the interceptor drains. Downspouts from roof drainage should not tie into footing drains and should be carried by separate tightline pipes to the retention and discharge point. The stormwater retention and detention system should be a closed system. We recommend against surface retention or ponding, since this increases the likelihood of cataclysmic discharge or adding water to the hillside. Previous reports suggest that slope stability near the toe of the hillside may have been compromised in part by water collected in unlined ditches upslope. Wherever possible, lining of ditches, tightlining of stormwater discharge, and prevention of ponded water will help increase local and global stability of the hillside. An existing culvert was found beneath the old access road. It appears partially blocked creating a small siltation pond in the recess behind it. This pond could be enhanced with rock check dams for use as a temporary erosion and sedimentation measure during site work. If long term use of the pond is planned we recommend that improvements include an impermeable liner when it is improved to prevent addition of water to the downhill slope. If water on the site must be ponded as part of wetland mitigation requirements, we recommend that the pond(s) be lined with either a compacted clay liner (CCL) or geosynthetic clay liner (GCL) covered with a minimum of 12 inches of soil, to act as a barrier toward downward migration of water into the hillside. 5.2.3 Cut and Fill Operations The proposed building envelope slopes from west toward the east and contains an elevation differential of approximately 10 to 12 feet. We anticipate that preparation of the building footprint will require cuts in the uphill side of the envelope and moderate filling in the lower portions. We recommend that cut areas be graded to a maximum slope of 3H:1V (Horizontal: Vertical) in order to decrease the likelihood of isolated slump failures on the slope. However, due to the soil stratigraphy of the site, periodic maintenance of cut slopes may be necessary. As mentioned above the installation of interceptor trenches should also help to improve the stability of cut slopes. The uphill interceptor trenches 1041RPT.DOC 10 The Galli Group LJ must be installed prior to excavation of the cut slopes. A schematic showing the cut slopes and interceptor trenches is provided in Figure 5. Where fill is necessary to bring the site up to grade we recommend the use of imported granular material. Imported granular fill material should be less than 21/2 inches in maximum dimension, with the additional requirement that not more than 5 percent shall pass the U.S. Standard No. 200 sieve. Fill soils underlying structural site features shall be w properly compacted in accordance with the requirements set forth below. Site soils are ! 6 D likely to be too moisture sensitive to achieve proper compaction. We recommend that \ c.) excavated site soils be stockpiled and utilized for landscaping purposes. Cut and fill areas should be protected against erosion. During wet weather they should be u-' w o; P rotected with plastic sheeting. Followin g grading they should permanent protective measure should be installed. Along with redirection of surface water away from the 'g slopes, we recommend either hydro- seeding the cut and fill areas or placing vegetative N D'` mats. The method of control is up to the contractor, but we suggest a hydro- seeding with w a material similar to Aerobond, by Briar Green. Other permanent vegetation may be • Z planted once the erosion protective vegetative cover is established. z o wuj 5.2.4 Compaction Considerations D o+ Imported fill soils should be moisture conditioned to within 3 percent of optimum p w. moisture content, placed in loose, horizontal lifts less than 8 inches in thickness, and 'w compacted to at least 95 percent of the maximum dry density, as determined using ASTM x D1557 (Modified Proctor ) . The 95 percent compaction criteria should apply to any LL ; material intended to support pavement or structures. - . z' If possible, fill placement and compaction should take place immediately after preparation 217 f of the subgrade and the newly prepared areas should be protected against soil saturation from precipitation or surface flows. Where fill is placed on a slope we recommend that the slope be terraced such that the fill may be compacted on horizontal underlying surfaces. Excavation for utilities or footings should take place following fill placement in order to provide consistent compaction. 5.2.5 Trenching and Backfill Due to the nature of the site soils, care must be taken during construction to maintain stability of open excavations. During our field exploration, we observed sloughing of the wet, poorly graded sand unit into the trench. This often was followed by shearing of the overlying silty sand sidewalls when underlying trench sidewall support was removed. The contractor should be aware that the on -site soils may not support vertical excavations without additional lateral support, especially in areas where perimeter site interceptor drains have not been installed. Maintenance of safe working conditions, including temporary excavation stability, is the responsibility of the contractor and all excavations must comply with current federal, state, and local requirements. For planning purposes, it is recommended that excavations deeper 1041RPT.DOC 11 The Galli Group • fl V than 4 feet either be sloped no steeper than 2H:11/ (horizontal:vertical) or shored. This recommendation is applicable to excavations above the water table only; flatter side slopes will be required for excavations below the water table. In some areas trench shoring may be necessary. The following recommendations are provided as guidelines for the shoring of utility trenches. • Trench boxes, if used, should be adequately reinforced to withstand the lateral forces to which they will be subjected. • Trench boxes should be of sufficient size, both vertically and laterally, to support the excavation without excessive deformation of the natural soils. • The open excavation behind the trench box should be backfilled as soon as practical after the trench box has been moved. During wet weather, surface water runoff should be prevented from entering excavations. Also, heavy construction equipment, construction materials, excavated soil, and vehicular traffic should not be allowed within a distance, measured from the edge of the excavation, equal to 1/2 the depth of the excavation. Utility trench (including culvert) backfill should meet the material requirements for fill described above. In areas outside roadways, on -site sandy soils may be used as backfill. However, we recommend that contingency costs be provided for importing granular fill material, in the event the native material is too wet to adequately compact. In areas where subsequent backfill settlement must be minimized, it is recommended that the trench backfill be placed in 8- to 12 -inch, loose lifts and compacted using mechanical equipment to at least 90 percent of the maximum dry density as determined by ASTM D1557 (Modified Proctor). In areas beneath the roadway pavement and shoulders, the upper 2 feet of backfill should be compacted to at least 95 percent to provide an adequate subgrade for the pavement and traffic loads. In areas where some backfill settlement can be tolerated, such as landscaped areas, it is recommended that the backfill material be placed in loose lifts not exceeding 2 feet and that each lift be compacted to at least 80 percent, with the upper 2 feet compacted to at least 85 percent. 5.3 FOUNDATION RECOMMENDATIONS 5.3.1 Foundation Elements We understand the proposed single family residence will consist of a two -story dwelling built using conventional wood -framed construction. The building footprint will require regrading or preparation prior to construction of foundation elements. Foundation elements should not be supported on uncontrolled fill. Therefore the unsuitable fill must be replaced where found. In addition, site soils are anticipated to be too moisture 1041RPT.DOC 12 The Galli Group sensitive to achieve adequate compaction, so imported fill material beneath the footings will be required. Two alternatives are recommended for building foundations. The first alternative consists of removing unsuitable material, terracing the site in preparation to receive imported sand and gravel compacted as structural fill. This would likely result in a uniform building pad suitable for conventional spread footings provided the fill placement and compaction was carefully monitored. Costs associated with this alternative include disposal costs of unsuitable material (or finding an acceptable location on site) plus costs of importing and placing suitable fill material. The advantages include relative uniformity of the building pad material and compaction. The second alternative combines cutting the upslope portion of the building pad, and either excavating portions of the building footprint containing unsuitable material and replacing with structural fill, or excavating beneath the footings to suitable bearing material and bringing the footing stem wall to grade. Costs associated with this alternative include added concrete costs to beef up the footings and footing stem walls, plus the possibility of needing structural design of footing elements. The advantages include less material necessary to waste on site or off site, and less costs associated with importing material. If a structural fill pad is constructed we recommend following the material and compaction requirements discussed in section 5.2 above. Footings should be excavated after the fill has been placed and compacted. We recommend 1,500 psf as an allowable bearing capacity for footings placed on structural fill. If footings are placed on native medium dense or dense silty sand, we recommend an allowable bearing capacity of 1,500 psf, with a minimum width of 24 inches for the footing. All footings shall be embedded a minimum of 18 inches into either the fill or native soil. We recommend that the interior footings be constructed as continuous footings rather than pads, and tied to the external footings. This should help alleviate some differential settlement and provide for variations in site soil strength characteristics. We also recommend that The Galli Group monitor the placement of the structural fill and evaluate the footing excavation to verify that recommended bearing capacities may be achieved. 5.3.2 Lateral Earth Pressures Where foundation walls are not supported by compacted earth on both sides, or where retaining walls are required, we recommend the following parameters for design purposes: • If the backslope behind the wall is level, the wall should be designed to resist an active lateral earth pressure of 35 pounds per cubic foot (pct) calculated in terms of equivalent fluid unit weight. 1041RPT.DOC .:y.�;i-<;nusL'•• —__ ., Ci:: asi: 1si' a:;:,,. C: er._ wYCC' s. c: irtu�ES11- +' +L= ; ^= tr'3irv?s'�L•:1dIiL 13 The Galli Group • If the wall is braced as a "non- yielding" wall we recommend 55 pcf, calculated in terms of equivalent fluid unit weight for the "at rest" condition. • Where a backslope exists, an equivalent fluid pressure of 55 pcf should be used for the design of the wall. The backslope should be graded to no steeper than 3:1 (horizontal:vertical), and should be protected from erosion. • A frictional coefficient of 0.35 is estimated for the footing/soil interface. All organic or soft soils should be removed from below the bottom of the foundation. A blanket of compacted sand and gravel conforming to WSDOT Specification 9- 03.10 for Gravel Base may be used for a working platform. • An allowable bearing capacity of 1,500 psf may be used in design, for native undisturbed glacial soils beneath the wall. If a sand and gravel blanket is used for the working surface, an allowable bearing capacity of 1,500 psf should be assumed. • Passive pressure for embedded structures should be ignored in the uppermost foot below the native ground surface. We recommend that an allowable equivalent fluid unit weight of 350 pcf be used for design of passive resistance. • All walls should have a longitudinal backwall drainage system that directs groundwater through a drain pipe to daylight. In addition, weep holes should be provided to prevent the development of hydrostatic pressure. The above assume drained conditions behind the wall, and no surcharge from building or traffic loads. 5.4 MITIGATION CONSIDERATIONS The site has two significant characteristics which require mitigation efforts. We understand most of the site has been classified as wetland. Proposed use should minimize adverse impacts upon significant wetlands. In addition, the site is considered to lie within a geologic hazard area due to slopes containing springs and the history of local failures in areas of the toe of the slope. Unfortunately in this case, attempts to mitigate one area of concern appear to oppose attempts to mitigate the other. Slope stability is compromised by the presence of water upslope saturating the upper soil unit. However removing the water from the slope alters the site characteristics contributing toward the wetland. The site currently appears stable and seems.to have been for many years. The primary concern from the geotechnical perspective with respect to slope stability is to protect the slopes below the site from becoming saturated with water. Preventing local slumps from occurring due to excavating and site preparation activities is an additional concern. We understand that preservation of wetland areas is a high value, but recommend that wetland mitigation activities not take place without consideration of slope stability impacts. We 1041RPT.DOC 14 The Galli Group Z w r w0 0 0; CO o; W W' W0 D. d 2 1-,. z D o. o W W; wN U .1= z recommend that The Galli Group review the proposed wetland mitigation efforts to verify that local slope stability as well as regional slope stability (the lower slopes within the WSDOT right -of -way) are not compromised by such efforts. The owner has made efforts to site his house in an area which appears altered by previous development, an area which contains fill material underlain by native dense soils. It is our opinion that this site provides the most suitable building site and minimizes the adverse impacts upon the wetland and water quality. 6.0 LIMITATIONS This geotechnical investigation was planned and conducted in accordance with generally accepted engineering standards practiced presently within this geographic area. Geotechnical investigations performed by these standards reveal with reasonable regularity soils that are representative of subsurface conditions throughout the site under consideration. As noted in the text of the report, we have utilized subsurface exploration data and additional information gathered by our firm as well as others in evaluating the site and formulating our recommendations. Recommendations contained in this report are based upon the assumption that soil conditions encountered in explorations are representative of actual conditions throughout the building site. However, inconsistent conditions can occur between exploratory borings or test pits and not be detected by a geotechnical study. If, during construction or subsequent exploration, subsurface conditions are encountered which differ from those anticipated based upon results of this investigation, The Galli Group should be notified so that we can review and revise our recommendations where necessary. This report is prepared for the exclusive use of the owner or the owner's consultants for specific application on this project at this particular site. Copies of this report should be made available to the design team, and should be included with the contract drawings issued to the contractor. Our report, conclusions, and interpretations should not be construed as a warranty of the subsurface conditions on the site and should not be applied to neighboring sites. No warranty, expressed or implied is made. We recommend that geotechnical observation and testing be provided during the construction phases to verify that the recommendations provided in this report are incorporated into the actual construction. 1041RPT.DOC 15 The Galli Group it, •.1' 7.0 REFERENCES Shannon and Wilson, Inc., April 30, 1966, Slope Stability Investigation, Tukwila Interchange, for Washington State Highway Commission. Shannon and Wilson Inc., February 13, 1968, Letter to WSDOT, Re: Tukwila Interchange Field Observations and Special Recommendations. Shannon and Wilson Inc., June 21, 1968, Summary Report Soil Conditions and Earth Movements Vicinity of Tukwila Interchange, for Washington State Highway Commission District 1. GeoEngineers Inc., April 25, 1985, Report, Geotechnical and Hydrological Studies, Proposed Valley View Estates, Slade Way and 53rd Avenue South, Tukwila, Washington. WSDOT Intra - departmental Communication to R. E. Bockstruck/P. M. Briglia from J. R. Strada/S. M. Lowell, April 19, 1989, Subject: Valley View Estates WSDOT Memorandum to Larry Fauquet/MS 68 from Allen E. Stiles/Chris J. Johnson, November 29, 1994, Subject: Tukwila Hillside I /C- Slope Stability in Well Field, XL- 0323 Shannon and Wilson, Inc., July 13, 1964, Report on Foundation Investigation North of Existing Slide Area, Tukwila Interchange, PSH -1 (SRS), Agreement Y -713, Supplement No. 2. Howard H. Waldron, USGS Map GQ -159, 1962, Geology of the Des Moines Quadrangle, Washington. 1041RPT.DOC ,.,.s,.: ..r. •. �.' u: Niti: iwf' eol:tki+i.�.i:r:�'���i:,{a.�.z: t£.•,. ::Y:- �f::�. vC ?__.... �.�.�s,�;s�'i:.ir • ' 16 The Galli Group Q 0 CO w; } w Q' • { u. •,N w. k z 4 O` 11.1.w ;moo: ui: .C.) Project Site iI 1 S 117ND ST �< ._ S 111TH ST —4 s],etNfi ! g s 'i= ]]. TN J �T Ref: The Thomas Guide, Thomas Bros. Maps, 1991 Vicinity Map Rodger E. Lacy Residence Tukwila, Washington The Galli Group, Inc. 13500 Lake City Way NE, Suite 202 Seattle, WA 98125 (206) 363 -6449 Figure 1 Ma�A+4.�•�'S�NI_ lN��^RIf.MSM V V W< w�rww�. rr. n. �r..+., r.......,..++ y...-•+ �..`^ «.«n.wNeNC�W�v�vaN�kYIVY�O«15�! Q 6 z w. JU U 0 CO w; J u. u 0 • J: a. I- w z _.. 0 z LU ci ° —L co ° r! wW,. V —z u) am'. O z 7 H i•• •1 • i •-•1 \ •‘‘'. \ • • ...v. . ••■•'.4. •• • . • •• • - !•.• •af 45>;;.":"•:1— BS Legend: Qsr Recessional outwash, undifferentiated stratified drift af Artificial fill Qic Lacustrine silts and clays Qit Kame-terrace deposits, glaciofluvial sand and gravel Qgt Ground Moraine deposits, till mc- 5. ••:..._ • • • . •• • • 1.• • • ,?.N. • NORTH Foster Golt Course • • • • • • • t M • el • '44\5 iu c• i• I • • : •• ••• • • ut /. Q ' •31,5- Mt • • 'or • .• Project Site • ": . • • ••.. 5 • ••• , • • , afm I •i • • Qgt , • • •-..-'..„ CIA ; Merronaf la '_&;: . I 1 , -,,I.• q -„_. ! SEATT.LE • McVan: • • ••• Qa TACOMA - Al RF6O-RT Ref: USGS Map GQ-158, Geology of the Des Moines Quadrangle, Washington, Howard H. Waldron, 1962. 5,0 -,---- - Geologic Map Rodger E. Lacy Residence Tukwila, Washington The Galli Group, Inc. 13500 Lake City Way NE, Suite 202 Figure 2 Seattle, WA 98125 (206) 363-6449 r. .J 1 3 TUKWILA INTERCHANGE AGREEMENT Y-713, SUPPLEMENT 6 wwwk• Menanal Masswems•""'woog wws0. 11.111.■NR■••• lififfrffurN ""40111110" Approx. lo ion of Intercep •r Drain LEGEND Horizontal Drains Existing test drains 9-- — Recommended drain (Grades 8-10%) o— Recommended drain (Grade: 1-3%) Qther Features ===n Cylinder pile wall TiFccrcgf Rock buttress Proposed intercepter drain 13 ditch giwwwww.u.wa Existing or proposed Right of Way • Additional vertical drains (6 to 9 in. dia.) REF: Shannon and Wilson, Inc., Slope Stability Investigation, Tukwila Interchange, April 30, 1966 ' • — — 11.1 ' " 4E•to, tv12i.liM geArigLogrekttl ' ‘4.timt• L.. ------ Litt_ .111 ----- --- • • • •••• L of Way SIt Cul-de-So too' attets0 \ Project Site • N. ninon Approx. To larolnit Intercep r Drain " 4411 - t/h44$ • 4.411014 " 11‘. „se4Y}It #4•;00'°*r Orr \.\.-2\t)N • " - 1 _00111111 Ancient Slide Scarp REF: Shannon and Wilson, Inc., Slope Stability Investigation, Tukwila Interchange, April 30, 1966 • .) Site Features Rodger E. Lacy Residence The Galli Group, Inc. 13500 Lake City Way NE, Suite 202 Seattle, WA 98125 (206) 363-6449 Figure 3 ,Y.i.:;..Pil;,:r4vAest',;.ftgzkiligkoolkAlgailoi=4.4442ormiim -Aack.xlioxivm2:6.'Iri.a. 'AiodkriRS,x... • 'Ataigolixxxo, ' - • Ilx2eleaoiew‘e, 44, ■ } •a--- Proposed Lacy Building Site 4 lob' Upper Slope Note: These drawings are from Shannon and Wilson Report dated 3-31 -1966. They represent recommended remediabon measures which have since been implemented. Features such as the "Cul -de -sac" and "present ground surface" represent conditions at that time. Detail A Cul -de -sac [Present ground surface Rack B/on4q f-- � Horizontal Drain 0, _. Y,CI°Y`h � Cro StLr``� Exist. underdrain W Line Lower Slope its Line Cut) Excavate slide debris Present ground surface Rock Buttress Detail 6 C 1 Horizontal Drom G. F 1 L'Line Toe of existing cylinder pd• wall Lipson. 1 , Shear key REMEDIAL SECTION D (NOT TO SCALE) SUMMARY OF REMEDIAL MEASURES REMEDIAL SECTION STATIONS PRESENT SLOPE REMEDIAL MEASURES REMARKS RE -SLOPE (A) RETAINING WALL SHEAR KEY ROCK BUTTRESS ROCK BLANKET INTERCEPTER DRAIN MIN DEPTH (E) HORIZONTAL DRAINS TIP OFFSET (F) NO. a SPACING GRADE (G,) NO. I3 SPACING GRADE, (GO HEIGHT (B) LENGTH(L) SHEAR(R) THICKNESS (C) SLOPE (Si THICKNESS (DI D (UPPER PPE) w 117+30 10 0 192 +20 2 :1 4:1 None - None Sae Natal 15' 200' to 300' 2 tp 100' 1 to 3% D (LOWER SLOPE) Ls 194 +00 to Ls 192+00 -2:1 Sae Note 4 No additional walls req. Lo 60' R•30K /lin. It. See Note 3 ,.la See Note 4 SeeNot.1 None SeeNo1e5 SaeNote5 Paved ditch Surface seat 112") Filter material Perforated drain pips DETAIL A Rock buttress 0.45• S •I50pcf Shear key DETAIL B ;t1LI • C • 205' (across dip) ■ I25 p.c.f. 4,lmaa)• 5.0 t.s.f. See Note 6 kb ■200lbs /cu.ln.(constant) WSDOT Remdia #ion Rodger E. Lacy Residence Tukwila, Washington The Gall( Group, Inc. 13500 Lake City Way NE, Suite 202 Figure 3A Seattle, WA 98125 (208) 3638449 Ci± l;>: '<;5.ior�:�;�,.vb:r,.r".',:4 %v" ell').'" rail% is�Sh ".`'r;�.iaW.�i4''i'.Llia.ittt� 3x4„ ';i:`akti tc I$;ia h 7,c sV., awg,41r.:JS+Wzi=ags:41,,klaY: •: ,.• .C.41`. -,h+a' x,:%* �Y Property Detail A Paved ditch Surface seal (124) Gray, croy 1 =2 Filter material Perforated drain pipe DETAIL A REMEDIAL SECTION STATIONS PRESENT SLOPE Ls 192.00 to Ls 189+90 2:1 L= 189+80 to Ls 186+30 2.5:1 Note: These drawings are from Shaman dated 3-314966. They represent reamer measures which haw since been impleme as the "Cul-de-sac" and "present ground 1 conditions at that time. lannon and Wilson Report 'ecomme ded remediation rnplemented. Features such round surface" represent Cylinder pile Mall IRS. u • .1 OR AIRS 10 NO.. 8 SPACING GRADE. IGe) REMARKS 'r. le 5 Remdiation Lacy Residence I:wila, Washington ay NE, Suite 202 i (20e) 308449 Figure 3A Lacy Property ± 200' Detail A Rock Blanket Gr(DIP, 10.7 SiLT A Rock Buttress Present ground surface CU) c ` 100. =ms =Or�•UM= Horizontal Drain Grade GI F (Detail B) Ls Line Paved Ditch • REMEDIAL SECTION E (NOT TO SCALE) Paved ditch Surface seal (12 ") Filter material Perforated drain pipe DETAIL A 0 • 45• Rock buttress it • 150 p.c.f. R • shear on key (Kips per lin.foot) Shear key DETAIL B • SILT 0 • 25•(across dip) C • 0 r • 125 p.c.f. q•Imas)• 5.0t.s.f. See Note 3 kh • 200 lbs /cu.in. (constant) SUMMARY OF REMEDIAL MEASURES REMEDIAL SECTION STATIONS STATIONS PRESENT SLOPE REMEDIAL MEASURES REMARKS RE -SLOPE (A) BUTTRESS SHEAR KEY KIPS PER LIN,FT. (R) ROCK BLANKET THICKNESS (D) INTERCEPTER DRAIN MIN. DEPTH (E) HORIZONTAL DRAINS HEIGHT (BI SLOPE (C) TIP OFFSET (F) NO. 8 SPACING GRADE (Gr) Na 8 SPACING GRADE IGo) E 1.2 192.00 to Ls 169+90 2:1 4:1 None None None See Note2 15' -550' . 30100' Ito 3% None See Note 1 Ls 189.80 to Ls 186.30 2.5:1 4:1 -15' 6:1 35 K /lln.ft See Note 2 15' -'550' 7050' I to 3% None Note: These drawings are from Shannon and Wilson Report dated 3-31-1966. They represent rsconlrnended remediation measures which have since been implemented. Features such as the "Cul -de- sac" and "present ground surface _ represent conditions at that time. WSDOT Remdiation Rodger E. Lacy Residence Tukwila, Washington The Galli Group, Inc. 13500 Lake City Way NE, Suite 202 Figure 3B Seattle, WA 98125 (206) 363-6449 ..::fit•, .,�it�s %'i:i .1..a.,�.. "l:;i:;saSl' ��Si *�ist�.rl 4r)if��rSi�l'.�r u' alazZ 'iwhli:<�st'cais.�:d'wiiuwJ3. h• ,t. ail..7 _ ��•.�a ! rT5l+i'. Y•'.i�'�.1 ih'O t'N`Y l,.�lY�'M iN..l 1,l.. '(i, F! } r�' "m ( iA�' cn{ u�: Clyr��1: s'. ��i'JFi"'i.`S'.f4��J.Yiv�ri.lr. �«'l N! l��f!. .l�f'� ./••w� • 1 ry TRACT 113 LO r` ro NN \\ r • r TRACT 47 \ r N N N 449.00' S89'33'02'E Drain interceptor trenches to storrnwater conveyance system \ 11 -- '266 —c''ess TP-1 • 1 / / / 1 \\ \\ \\\1 / / 1 •0\ \ \ N \ \ \ 1 \ \ \ \ • o \ 1 I 1 1 — — — _ > \ j \9:0N 0, \ \ \\ \\ \\ \ \'o \ o \\ �s 1\ SP)\\ �`: �� 11 1 p \�opoee�l build rig Ioc 07, \\T*T\ IAppro>dimape bribe of r' riding` I \ 1 1 \ 1 •;,••c is \ 1 Y o — \ �- is V-` 71 �..,P-20 1 1' C') 1 _\ '\ I / N4... N pI ' SP6' cv l l i \ p / \11 \ \ �•��`� j...�- \ 1 \ `'- - - -1 -- 4_,,..,...c �,..;. \ 1 1 1 1 1 I I 1 47. I ':_l_ < .• \ \ I 1 / / I (( o I I I . = 0160 \ \ ( ( I �,:.�••,.. 1 1 \ \III( / / / /// I I /� \ 0\ \ o \\ •‘) �T.�\ \ cu�� \\ \ I • ��'9 \ I I I I I I 1 1 1 / / I N I ! \ \, \ \ \ •\ \ sR. ••�..�,....... �. . N�•.•ti��' \ \TP►''> ) \ ∎ _ \ \ \ ?71‘P)C: x�_ateoation\gf`prlO ..o.\�d 1p cep.c�.c Pr \ \ \ \ \ \1 \ \,1\\. \,\\ 1,\, \. \� \ \. \ \. \\ \ \. \ . \.�\ 108.81 \ , \ \ 1 1 \ \ '` ' •67.99 \. \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \\ \ \ \• \ \ \ \\ \\\ \ \ \ LEGEND \ 1 \\ \\ \ \! N89'35 301a •• ' \\ \I I i \,.\\ i 1 1 \ \ 1 526\44 i\\ \ i 1� I I \ wl k I • r...l -[L._a `—n-`_ - mac— Lam. _� -+c_ A s k , .. Approximate Test Pit location Borings performed by others Proposed Interceptor Drains i _mot w Based upon Boundary and Contour Survey for Rodger E. Lacy Sr., by Lund and Associates, Surveyors, 2 -28 -95 CITY PARK C2. .1,4i 38,...*. a.., n• a; k` vfk: R7,'•r::, �•:! ::'7.',:,;�. ?w"Y:fb:;Gei * -;ry��� 47 449.00• S89'33'02'E r N N ■ \ \ \ N \ '\ \ \ ; \ 1 SP \ N : \\ F'I'E * 21'36 i\ 1 \ \\ \� ,sue \ :'F' i \' \ 1 PNcIposel building ` ��• L� I "�'P;'A� ( is \ I f 1 Drain Interceptor trenches to stormwater conveyance system \ 8 -206 • P915 \ I % o �-. I c4- FltL2f 20 1 1, M i _\ 1\ I ! ����` \ IL? o� \ \ \ \ Iocatc''�gn 1 \ \ 6 I \ SP6 0' Drain Interceptor trenches to stormwater \ ,f, rya y� .0 \ `��°'o \ \`sod ° \\ \ �cu � `\ 1 1 % a • >'''` Iii , \ I \ 'ec, `A6 — \ a N. \ \ \ \ S "' .4,.•..\ . ... ∎?`l'•I \ \\ `TP 4 \ O� \4, Tp-g:9l''` . \ \\ \\ \ \ \ \\ \ Fpk \ a elbcation\of�prlo o\.\\ `Ircert;or Drain\ \ s S \± _ 81.2\ \ \ \ ` I I \ \ \\ ` \ I 108.81 = \ r,, , �b7.99�, \ \ \ \\ I00.00 \ , \, \ BENCH MARK -E RIM STORM MH CUL -DE -SAC EL. 209.28 Scale 1" = 50' S89'33'02'E 178.68 STATE R /14 FENCE --""-°— 1\189'35'30'V —-- - i r — 101.27 \ \ i N89'35'3014 . 1 I i \ \ \ \ ■ 1 1. \ \ \ ' 526 44'` O - I , IA' C. L_1 • • — —A— — — L ' SPt CAI CITY PARK i a 4 —I. • • — CUL-DE SAC CURB Site Plan Rodger E. Lacy Residence The Galli Group, Inc. 13500 Lake City Way NE, Suite 202 Seattle, WA 98125 (206) 363 -6449 Figure 4 .: i; J,'; 1t.; S° iisS'.• 1.,,. �r,- 4h:?. tw' i5:>: i.':: o:': l: krNU. y,:." t :�iLSieie•;.'�cfsr4;Y�::`r'a` �yfi.""C:_ ,J., .,tr'�.� n✓ S�` �; Yor• �k....'. E- .rL.'�.44;.�?''..ki?4.7aiA :V?Yfi'�S,J.:vi1::t.:ni:�* ins'. C';• 5' 7�iiv�':: ir? 2wi� :.ii'iay = °:[:�5��5oi`;SI.'%.. ^vu:al�E'�?Y.: rY:':iCril: 4,1(1 \,_P o f f I 2 Schematic for Cut Slopes with Interceptor Drains ,■ Building Footing Upslope Interceptor Trench House Floor Grade - ±236' Toe of Slope Interceptor Trench Upslope asphalt or concrete -lined swale CDrain to stormwater conveyance system Impermeable cap with surface swale Drain to stormwater conveyance system Mirafi 140N Filter Fabric Compacted Drain Rock, WSDOT Sec. 9- 03.12(4) Mirafi 140N Filter Fabric Compacted Drain Rock, WSDOT Sec. 9- 03.12(4) 6" dia. slotted pipe, smooth wall Slotted Pipe, smooth wall Upslope. Interceptor Trench Toe of Slope Interceptor Trench Figure 5 Test Pit and Boring Logs Test Pit No. 3 9.0' 10.0'' Explanation of Test Pit Logs Description of Graphic Symbol Topsoil, may contain roots, sod, or other organic matter FILL, described by soil classification with other minor constituents and fill indicators Silty SAND, description may include minor constituents such as gravel. Poorly graded SAND, description may include minor . constituents such as gravel or silt. SILT or sandy SILT, description may include minor constituents such as gravel or sand. Well - graded SAND, may contain minor constituents such as gravel Bottom of Test Pit Symbols Observed water level at time of exploration Plate A -1 Test 'Pit No. 1 Test Pit No. 2 Approximate Elev. TP -1 = ±242' 0.0' Loose, brown, silty fine SAND; wet with organics. Loose, gray, silty fine SAND, wet; mottled orange streaks throughout, contains blackened organic vessicles. Approximate Elev. TP -2 = ±245' Loose, brown, silty fine SAND, wet. Contains organics, forest duff, and roots. Medium dense to dense, gray, medium SAND, wet. Medium dense, gray, silty SAND with trace gravel, wet with weathered streaks. Dense, gray, fine to medium SAND with vessicles. Appears braided with med. & coarse SAND deposits. Medium dense to dense, gray, fine to medium SAND with silt, wet. Some blackened vessicles. Very dense, fine silty SAND or very stiff SILT with trace gravel, moist. Becomes weathered at 6.5'. Dense, gray and brown, medium to coarse SAND with gravel, moist to wet. Dense, brown, fine SAND, wet. Becomes wetter with depth. As above but weathered brown and gray. Bottom of Test Pit Dense, light brown, medium SAND, wet. Poorly graded, water seeps at 10.5' depth. Bottom of Test Pit Plate A -2 Approximate Elev. TP -3 = ±230' Loose, brown, silty fine to medium SAND, wet. Contains decayed wood fragments, weathered. (FILL) Approximate Elev. TP-4 = ±233' Loose, brown, silty fine SAND, moist. Top soil. Stiff to very stiff, gray, SILT, moist. Grades to sandy SILT with increasing depth, massive. Loose to medium dense, brown, medium SAND, wet. Contains some decayed organics. (probable original ground) Medium dense to dense, gray, fine to medium SAND, wet. Found 2 boulders approx. 24" diameter. :; :;;:;•,;:;:;:;:; :;•;:; Cobbles and boulders make digging ❖. ❖.• +•. ❖. ❖.• + ❖ +� difficult. Found SILT interbeds. Seepage Slight seepage in silty SAND tense at 11' depth. Test Pit No. 5 Approximate Elev. TP -5 = ±228' Loose, brown, i y SAND, gContains deca y ed wood fragments ( FILL ) Loose, dark brown, silty SAND, with organics, moist. (Original ground, topsoil) Medium stiff, gray, sandy SILT with mottled orange streaks, wet. Seepage zone. becomes stiff, gray, sandy SILT or dense, silty fine SAND with blackened vessicles. SAMPLE STRUCTURE E N SOIL DESCRIPTION r Q N • WATER CONTENT,% • 4• . • • WATER LEVELS JAN. FEB. MAR. Loose to medium dense, gray- 10 20 10 20 10 2 0 brown, silty, fine to coarse I �[ • SAND w /grovel 21 • N ■ 30 blow /foot 10 Hard, gray, clayey SILT (ML) 3][ • s--4 23• 13' w /occ. light gray silt partings ��--: = approx.I /I6 "thick, interbedded 4][ • fine sand lenses a some 20 slickensides. + 51[ • 1 30 35• I/2 "sand seam 7 I • xr: 40 91 • ~��--b 101[50 I y • 1- ="'S°= 111[. • ....12:.." 0•= 12[60 • .t20' = 13][ • �R•∎ 14170 • 1 2•.0•= 151 • 1680 ..il 2° • 1 O• 4.- 17I • —. -. 1811 • N. P — 90 1911 • 20100 • N.P. 21II • °= 2211 • Ito —2 23][ •--i 2411 • 120 — Bottom of Slope Dense.aray.fine SAND 25)1 • Indicator casing Bottom of boring 130 March 31, 1966 W -64 -4688 SHANNON & WILSON TUKWILA INTERCHANGE AGREEMENT Y- 713 SUPPLEMENT 6 SUMMARY OF FIELD a LABORATORY DATA BORING NO. 206 Ste. L2192+90 Offset 560' Rt Elev. El. 220.5 Plate A -5 Memo TO: File Lacy Exception FROM: Libby Hudson RE: Meeting - March 8, 1995 Attendance: Rodger Lacy, Gary Schulz, & Libby Hudson We discussed Mr. Lacy's new survey and the proposed building site. He is proposing a building with a foundation - crawl space. His engineer says he can build on the existing fill area without adding additional fill material. According to the geotechnical studies there is no indication of wet soil until 12 feet down in this area The engineer will back this up with data according to Mr. Lacy. Gary discussed the wetland delineation. He and I made a site visit yesterday and noted that the flagging does not follow wetland boundary. Gary has been in contact with the wetland consultant to determine if the data sheets are available and what the flags reflect. The map provided to the City is not adequate to determine the wetlands boundary. We explained to Mr. Lacy for the application we need the wetland delineation to 1.) indicate the wetland boundary by flagging on -site and mapping the flagging - providing a map of the wetland boundary. 2.) show the fill areas that do not meet wetland criteria Mr. Lacy agreed to provide this and will contact his wetland biologist. We discussed the wetland mitigation proposals. Gary suggested that a series of pools would be a nice feature if the pond alternative is out. This would be in addition to planting wetland vegetation. Gary and I stressed that the off -site properties could not be impacted by the mitigation measures. No additional water can go onto the neighboring properties as a result of the mitigation measures. In addition, Gary said that the wetlands cannot adversely be impacted. Mr. Lacy talked about diverting some water uphill from the building site and that the diversion would dry up the wetland down hill from the building site. Geotechnical report will be complete March 13th. Civil engineer is working on the storm water collection system. Phil Frazer should be contacted regarding stormwater issues. King County stormdrainage manual requires detention because the development will be over the 5,000 sq. ft. of impervious surfaces. Proposed to be piped to city system. Gary noted that Mr. Lacy may need to coordinate with WASDOT regarding the stormwater issues? I agreed to talk to Phil Frazer regarding the storm water issues out there and get back to Mr. Lacy. Mr.n Lacy plans to extend an 8' sewer line 1,000' to his property. This line will cross private property and also serve two other properties currently on septic. 1 went over the draft SEPA and Application_ for the Special Exception and gave my revisions, to Mr. Lacy for his use. He is still shooting for the March 23rd deadline. I gave him an application for land altering and a utility review and we concluded our meeting. I met with Jack briefly and we determined that criteria H. of the Special Exception, referring to the BAR process should be answered _ in this manner: 1. BAR exempts single family 2. BAR standards are not applicable to review of single family. This eliminates the SEPA dilemma The staff report however, should stress that the issue before the Planning Commission is similar to a variance and does not require SEPA. SEPA will be processed prior to any permits being issued, because the proposal will be to develop within wetland or wetland buffer areas. City of Tukwila John W Rants, Mayor Department of Community Development Steve Lancaster Director • February 16, 1995 Mr. Rodger E Lacy Sr. 3125 S. Dakota Street Seattle, WA 98108 RE: Sensitive Area Exception/ Special Permission #L95 -0001 Dear Mr. Lacy: I have moved the public hearing date for your Sensitive Area Exception/Special Permission Request to the April 27, 1995 Planning Commission meeting as you requested. Please note that this is the third time we have rescheduled the hearing date at your request. Please submit the application material by March 23, 1995 at the latest. Earlier submittal will be to your . benefit by allowing us more review time for your project. If you are having difficulty with compiling the requested information, please call me at 431 -3673. Sincerely, Libby .H son Associ a Planner enclosure Gary Schultz 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • (206) 431-3670 • Fax (206) 431-3665 ;h. /2,6(eis--- Lacy Exception/ Special Permission, #L95 -0001 Time line File SEPA environmental checklist. File SAO exception/ Special Permission $325.00 $200.00 Public Hearing March 23, 1995 Exception Request with the Planning Commission Criteria 8, detailed mitigation for wetland development with BAR SEPA determination PRD application Building Permit $800.00, + $100.00 per acre $ fee based on value of construction ?11 ;r- 514124 W.((L. Por. umdd bar hyzlu -- O.nhWcw+iht)' T(a.41 G. jj M/,/ n�lwE s y'e6Lc yzut 4,11111 attat 1 R: P, • •t rit\:;1,30 for the most part, obscure this cut. • This action comes under tlitp."rutii4litticiit 'o''$fthe `?ifi f'i`g ensitive Areas ►. AOrdtn iiUrgoverning -steep slopes (TMC ` :18.45), and its tree regulations '` * *(Ordinance #1715). Accordingly, the applicant has agreed to abide by city codes and recommendations regarding work in the hillside, and will be developing a Tree Replacement Plan to mitigate the impact of trees that are removed in conjunctio1n with this project. Much of the tree replacement, which campensa'tes for 50 mature trees removed in conjunction with clearing for soil boring, will take place in an approximately 12;5'00'sq. ft. Olatead in the southwest corner of the site. This, is a relatively 'bare' area on the forested hillside that the applicant is proposing for reforestation. ■P`•l- (1 �4'• - A Type Ilwetland` iUi.l n- elpfinea pcl at the southern corner of the site. In accordance with the Sensitive Areas ''Ordinance (TMC 18.45) and City -491.5'112 t;i'• Q1itl.t,k},i, o men n i foot ve ated buffer will be provided to separate this •1 wetlaxid from p oject NW Delineation of this area and ► development of an appropriate planting plan will be developed in accordance '• ) with-City s°t . co enda;i qs.. • • A rated watercourse exists at the northwest corner of the site. This will not be impacted by the project. B. •z w' • U0' • co o. w. F: w o: .0 D. • � . z Z 0'. w w:. v° o N: o ww H o w z.' N. • Grades on the developed portion of the site are relatively flat and should not o cause safety problems. Raised and striped crosswalks should cgntribute to pedestrian safety on the site. _ r-, r r• �:; C. • The landscaped entry drive creates a strong axis running east to west in the center of the site. Rather than focusing on the middle A94, ostr si cant entrance portico, however, it leads to an blank spot in the"buildulg faiddet (Iii' order to provide a visual terminus at this point, the applicant has proposed a landscaped area 25 feet by 40 feet planted with Alaska yellow cedar, weeping birch, bamboo and rhododendron. This planter is located within the sidewalk area south of the main entry to the building. A similar planter is provided to the north of the entry for symmetry. Altogether there are four of these planting areas, approximately 1,300 square foot each, located along the facade of the main building. Two of these flank the primary entrance portico, as mentioned, and the other two are placed at either end of the facade. There are much smaller, but otherwise similar areas MEMO To: File L95 -001, Lacy Exception From: Libby Hudson Date: January 24, 1995 I phoned Mr. Lacy and scheduled a meeting for this Thursday, January 26, at 2:00, to explain the process and the application. I said that we would take in the SEPA checklist Thursday and that we could get started on that to meet the February 23 hearing date. SEPA needs to be published by February 7th to allow 15 day comment prior to the hearing. The determination needs to be ready on Thursday, February 2nd, sent to the paper on Friday the 3rd (at the latest) to be published on Tuesday, Feb. 7. This will allow 15 day comment to end on February 22, 1995. That gives only 5 working days to review the SEPA. He will then get all the other information to us as soon as he can. I'II need to give him a deadline for the other info at the Thursday meeting. Gary Schultz will be at the meeting and possibly Jack Pace. January 18, 1995 City of Tukwila Department of Community Development Mr. Rodger E Lacy Sr. 3125 S. Dakota Street Seattle, WA 98108 RE: Sensitive Area Exception/ Special Permission #L95-0001 Dear Mr. Lacy: John W. Rants, Mayor Rick Beeler, Director • I have received your letter requesting a reasonable use exception from the Sensitive Areas Overlay Zone (TMC 18.45.115). In order to process the request I need the attached applications completed and the fees paid to the City of Tukwila I have tentatively scheduled your request for the Planning Commission hearing of February 23, 1995, pending a complete application. Your request requires that a State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) environmental checklist be filed and reviewed. This must be filed as soon as possible to meet the public hearing notification requirements. SEPA review requires approximately 4-6 weeks to complete. There is a fee of $325.00 for processing the SEPA checklist. The attached Special Permission application needs to completed in detail. There is a processing fee of $200.00. It is important that you include all the information requested on the application and respond to all the criteria questions in detail. The staff report to the Planning Commission and the Commission's decision will be based on the eight criteria. I will be working closely with our Urban Environmentalist, Gary Schultz. If I may be of any assistance to you or you have any question regarding the application package, please call me at 431-3670. is1a7 /i44� Libby H dson Associate Planner enclosure 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • (206) 431-3670 • Fax (206) 431-3665 • JAN 05 '95 10: 56AM POS SUPPLY2064397722 Mgr it Port of Seattle ): COMPANY: ADDRESS: ATTENTION: OM : NAME: AOORESS: FAX OPERATOR: ANY PAGES ARE NOT LEGIELE - OR THERE 15 A PROBLEM WITH TRANSMISSION: CALL THE FAX OPERATOR LISTED ABOVE. ilVER: PLEASE ROUTE cc's OF THIS FAX TO <Lo DATE; 5-6,5" TIME: 1::c 122:±a_ 10TAL # PAGES: DEPT/ SECTION: (INCLUDING COVER SHEET) 411=11V FAX NO.: 41 3 36 CITY/ COUNTRY: TELEPHONE: TELEPHONE: 313L:Saal FAX NO.: AINIMENEMINII OFFICE NO.: cc's MADE BY: cc/FAX RELAY DATE: MESSAGE: •••••••■■■•••■■■•••••■0 .1010••■■•■•■•••■•••■■ j4 17 0 r; In. • •■• C 0 k DEVQ•. • , J HIY d5 3 116 : bkr1 1'05 bUh'h'LYCbb4. '((GC 1 Rodger E. Lacy Sr. 3125 So. Dakota St. Seattle, WA. 98108 January 4, 1995 City of Tukwila Planning Division 6300 Southcenter Blvd. Tukwila, WA. 98188 P.2 /2 Dear Mr. Jack Pace: I just purchased a parcel of land located in the city of Tukwila from "Seattle Area Seventh Day Baptist Church ". The size of the parcel which consists of two tax lots #48 & #47 (810860 0420 and 810860 0400) is approx.'2.1 acres. The only . possible building site is located on lot #48 and out of concerns for wetlands I had an environmentalist from . a company called (Watershed Dynamics) check the proposed building sight for wetlands and flag those that are f und. Watershed Dynamics did find wetlands in the proposed building sight and .I request a reasonable use exception pursuant to TMC 18.45.115 C'. Under this ordinance I am requesting to be scheduled for a Public hearing. I have attached as enclosures the report by Watershed Dynamics, and a plat map of property. Thank you for your time and I. will be looking forward to hearing from you. • • • • • • • • .„••NbverYitier•4, .1.994 • • 'Mr. : Rodger Lacy... .• • " • ••3125'South Dakota: • . . . •:Seattle ,Washingtoh 981.08: :•.,••••••• • Weiland. Analysis: and•Delineatior ;Lette�.Repo • rt. • Thank you for involving Watershed: Dynamics, inc. •(1ND.1)::in • your sits design •• . •• • • 'plans for the property located; in. the Crystal' Springs', Park area: ••` : . t .'1.completed a'review.on Nover ber 3rd of the specific:areas of the site which you • requested b e. evaluated: for. the'presence`of :wetlands• and•. watercourses.: , • • • • As: :you`requested, s=have not: prepared :a• Wetland' Delineation: Report • .butt have ;: • • : • : instead, .pi epared this: brief• lever report ;to- summarize: my evaluation. This reporf' • • includes inforrriation:on the degree to• which: wetlands are present'wittiin fhe site;_; ;'''' the' - apparent City. of Tukwila: -•classification of ••the' identified' wetland,': and •specific :docutnetited orrsite.w ietlandndicators.•• • • • : ••`Watershed Djirlamics, Inc . would.: be. happy, to; assist youswith subsequent project.•: _ : • eleinents•such ::as the completion :•of:.a: delineation report and the.' preparation 'of•:•.. • • • Wetland- mitiga;itir s..and. enhancement: designs, as' Cray t e_:requlred•:by the: City. :of -• . •Tukwila. . • • • • • , • • • : :ors: this" : Please 'contac.•me••at• :206 735 =4288 with' any :questionsocommerits • • : information: .• _ • • • •• Respectfully;. • . �av d •.• t e° brand fax transmittal memo 7871 • `P'r.'gject- Biologist -` ''• �' ' • pO6 - F� • :- • i .1)71;) •4\ • i•••• • • • FISHERIES; HYDROLOGY, WA;rER•QUAUTY £ Wen ANDS' • ••,:• :• • • 142} . 176 Si. S.E• ! Auburn, WA 98002 ! (206) 73674286: FtAX,(206) 738 -42$9 11/04/a4 14:Z.0 t'AA ZUU tso 4L8lf 11'A•1'r.KMILLI. IIN /11(: IJJUUL • 'November, :4;:1994':•' • • • • • Mr•. • Rodger. Lacy . •• •• ••• .. ; 'I • •-•••••• '''3125: South Dakofa. • •• '• • '• . • • • :, • • • •Seattle, WasFiitigtori 98108 • - • • • •, • • • - • LACY:PROJECT;SITE - WETLAND :EVALUATION AND DELINEATION •' • STUDY SUMMARY •• ' • •• A review was -'•com • leted ort:November 3rd, .1994 of the • property located: adjacent • to the cul=d -sac at tile: northern ••end of • 51st. • Avenue : SE: 'within`.:the Cit • •of Tukwila, Wash ngton: , The:purpose :of:this•reviewwas'to: ascertain the••preserice ' '° ••• . arid: approximate'•.location of-•wetl'and :and :watercourses:with;'in a. portion: -of the • • property:: The.portion'of'the sitewhich`was reviewed was• :an .aria :approximately::••. -:: • • • 371 feet in lengths and: 194: feet' in width, as shown•on the:•attached site maP..f • '•••• • -.This evaluation resulted in the characterizatioC'1 :of• tile.. :majority'of •the: study' ' are : • • ,,‘ a • as wetland An assessn entof the'onsite wetland wacompleted..foliowng•.the' •:? : : definitions .provided in the • City .6f :Tukwila Sensitive• Afeas,'Ordinance ••(SAO), - (Ordinance:• #1599):• This assessment' resulted • in•'the:•prehtninary •classification •of': :the" onsite.wetland'as a Type 2 :Weal .and:: The' specific:defnitions used to�define. . • the wetland as •a Type 2 were:.' . •• • • • . • • • • '• .. 'C 18.4 5.020 2a - "Wetlands:greater than one • acre in size "; and • • • • • •.. •• 18 :45.020 •C 2c = "Wetlands : equal 'to 'or : less than one acre. ;that ••have: a: forested wetland :class. comprised of :at least 20percent coverage • of 'total :: . Surface area :: • • - • • • •• r• • • • • The:••City.: of Tukwila ' requires': that •‘a.50'•foot .protective t i.ffe� be established ::: • - • around: Type'2• Wetlands: • '. • ' { ,The :wetland delineation'and .evaluation :was accomplished. through• an::analy,.:sis:, • • of 'vegetation, ' soils, 'arid: hydrologic characteristics:;, at: fourteen • • Sample • I?dots • :located in• a.gr•id'.pattem•within':the study area :. _ • ; ' • - •'Tkie•Novembef 3rd' review. also :identified• four drainage corridors within the study','. area , These corridors' were., observed •to originate •offsite: to: the south`: ands': . • • 'southwest.. ';Two :'•of the•four corridors• ( Drainage' #2 :and :#4)'•appeared.:to• • 11/ Val /Jy 14::! rAA ;WO Ida 4.0U ;. ..� • WSJ. 111(S11111) 1.) C.0 0 3 .• been- created .through •historic • excavation• 'activities:: ,as ..evidenced . by :• the '• • .maintained vertical channel wall form of the corridor: Draiiriages #1 and: #3• did' not, exhibit.similar created characteristics and; ••as :such, appeared to: meet' :thee: ...City: of Tukwila • definition of a "Watercourse ".• • • An :evaluation of: Watercourse. `° : : 1', ' '.Type "'was not completed due to the extent' •of• the. identif ed: onsite:'wetland and ` . : the :fact `that the associated ..wetland .buffer :...makes.: moot: any associated ; •• •• Watercourse .buffer•i eauirernents.; •- •• •. . , The. City:.of Tukwila • requires= that: a :•15; foot.. building. setback: be established :• • addition to any :applicable wetland buffer,requiremenrs..:: • : • " • • •• • Wetland.Survev •Meth_ods . :. Boundaries between wetland •• and non - wetland' • areas .'were : established :. by • :. • examining • the ` transitional. gradient• •between wetland :Criteria. 'Onsite ,'activities were completed in accordance •with •cnteha....and, procedures :established in the" . . Federal Manual for identifying . and Delineating . Jurisdictional Wetlands (1.9'89 •.. . Manual). .: Delineation', was performed .utiliizirig• the' Hydric soil Assessment.•': . • ,•sampling procedure as• detailed• in the. Routine Determinatio'M n•ethod: • :: ' • • • Field Observations Soils Site specific analysis' identified'.•both.. hydric. and.: non-hydnc sods within.•:the• .. project site Hydric soils are :typically.•. defined as soils which • are saturated :1. • flooded,.' or .ponded' long..••' enough during'. the ': growing season •to develop:; : •• • • .anaerobic.conditions within the upper soils horizons: . •' . : •• •• • ' . • arnple Plots SP # .. , SP #2; SP 1 A - • SPA and. SP9A - • SP 12A were within 'the.. Sareasidentified' as wetland and exhibited, morphological: traits indicative of'hydric.: : . • • , soils.: The .soils observed at. these.. two sites were black •to - very. dark- brown. and •, -. : • demonstrated other; hydric soil, indicators: such' as • strongly.sulfidic Spit odors, ::, •. - ••• -mottles and concretions. .:Soil texture. at. these. plots varied :from••as •silty. loameto• ••' :•:: • mucky silty'loams. • • . • ' ••••• : • •••• . : • : . : Sample Plot. SPBA lacked indicators .. :of , hydric• 'soil conditions -'.and.••was. . • characterized as upland. This Sample Plot was located within an area of road :fill:; .. `This soil had •a: matrix.color of, 2.5Y :4/3 :and exhibited. a• gravelly,: sandy; loam' • ••• :'texture. w 2. N 11.1. W= w o. ga • w Z ~• • �z g 111 Z' U- z ....A. / U .. . I ..• ••■• ........: • ... kJ, • LI .14 A. 0.• Lo V 1, • a..,...11 \ L.••...A.I.L.I lo, 1...■ It •41.0. \ . . • • • „ . .. • • . . .• .. ... . • • • • • . • • .. • • • • • . . • • . • • . • . . • ; . • • . . . • • • . • • . • • . • ' • . . • . • • • . . • . • • • . .. • • • . • . • • . . ...Hydrology • • ,c • •"•••• ".• • • . • • • • • • • . •••• • .•• • • • . . `C.:1,••• ••• • . • .• • • .. . . • . . •• • • • • • . .. • . . • • . .• : • :z • -', : Hydrology within the site appeared to be provided by stOrmWater runoff frorit;the : : , .. •• : .'11 .:. . airrounding _higher eleiliation. :areas to the west and ..SOOthWeSt.. This .runoff ',.. ':.••••••••••:... ., ..! :,,.1--.6,' . • • .. contributed ", to .onsite hydrology through the :identified .diainage. channels arid :. ::::. • : ... . '... :r42'- : • • 6 D .. . . . through seeps scattered thrOUghOut-•tbe...stildy site.. • Our...:oritite: elialuatiOn. • ...• ..'..;...:.. : • : • _.1 c.x followed. -a series of area StOrmeyents • Which • likely bohtributed. greatly'. to the : ... '..:: •-• • ', -,u) PI .0 0' .. presence • of &mite' :hydrology. • : • Neither the 'degree- to 'Which Stormwatei.. is '•: ; •,, • :' ' :. . • u) ILJ: • LU•I .: . retained onsite nor the degree Of ..hydrological : support ..(14...InterMitferit..:or...::: :... • *- : ..'..:*1 . :--11.-i • •• lierennial flow) provided can be stated with any certainty, based up'on:.thiS initial.- • ..:- • .:, . :• . ut 0! evaluation. ; • . ••• • . • . • • . - . • . .• • .••••• • • . • • • • • , .' . • • • • . • , • . • •• 1 •• • • • . • ••• • .• , • g ,...li • 0 • • • ••• • ' • • S • • 4 • : . IIL CC' . • • • • • • • • • • • • • .• • • • . • •• • • • .• The **primary •Indicators • of hydrology observed ..Onsite. were the presence of • • • • • 7 ••• • ' . :CO - ' a •, • • • i• , • • • ::"± a•.• . • , .floWing and standing:. water,...the :Presence: of hydric . soil :characteristiCi':(loW•S• ••:.. • ..... . •••• : • ., ; .1._ 111; • , I, .- • • matrix 'chrome and mottles), oiddized root Channels,. water stained .lea■ieS'i .and • • .:. • - . : i :,,,_•,_;. .- • . strongly bOttressedietetrUnks. •;• ... • ..: :. ••:. ::' • • • • • " - • i---a.. ... . • • • •zi--!• • • • .. • ; • . •LIJ La •• • • ; ., . '...' • . • • 'M Di • "• • • • . . • ••• .... . • : :•• ' :D ••• . • :C.) • • • .• • • • • ••:..leafmaple• (Acer maciophylum),'red;ald'erlAinue. k.ubra)i: and black doiiiir*Od,. • ..:.: • ' .... : ;. • .:..decidubas.dorninated• tree and .sapling: forested community which included •big-.• :: 'I ••••::: ' . ': . The • dominant , vegetati■te. community .obServed. within the study site was 0. .:• • .. . 1 .... • • • Vegetation ' . • • •. • .• • . , . . • . . • .. . :. • . . • • - — a ..0 l'• • " .i;',.!,.. ..• Z: . • ' . • .. • •. - . • i0 'CI .. , • • .(Popirnis trichdcarpus). The shrub :community was dominated by dense thickets • ' . ' . .' ..• : '!„ •.1•7•I'' of 'salinOnbetry :VW/kis Spectabiiis)..and Himalayan blackberry (Rubus.'protera). ... '7 *;. • --..... ',. Z : ,,.. The invasive blackberry•comMUnityvai.well established along the northeniaha .....,.....• • .:.....• • eaStem• Site. boundaries .: The herbaCeOuS. 'layer was • sparse, !presumably as a.. • • . ••• '• . .. • • • result of the degree Of -shading...provided:by the shrub and tree canopies The ... : .. • • : •herbaceous . Plant. community in •the Wetland' areas included • skunk cabimge::. • * ' • -: •. .• • • ... • .. • . • ..• • • . • . .. . .: . :‘ (Lyildhiton. ativricantith), giant horsetail :(Fquisetyri, telniitiea); and lady . ••• • .. - • : :,, •• • • •• • • • .. • • • • • . • . • .• • •••. .. -.. '. Vithyriuin feibc-feriiina). . Vegetation Within the- area identified as • upland •was,.., . •:•.. .. ,• • ... .- • :dominated' by .Himalayan blackberry and • included an herbaceous .ComMUnitY.: .... ,•,. • ,.•••:.:''..., •• . . which.. included .ehglish .plantain (Planfogo laribeolata),. cieePing..,.butteraub•• ... -....... •.::...., *:(Ranuficulds. repens), Clciver. (Tlifcliuin •Sp.);and.:an•••erosibh CohtrOl,:grasi.:mix : '-';':.: -.... ... :.:••• -;. : • 'which included feSoUe"(Feku.Ca spll and bentgrass :(AgrOstie sp.).Species.... ; . : .• . •::.." .:.. : :•• , = • • • ..".•••• •••••• ••• • • •• • . . •••• • • • • • . , • • • CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS . • '• ... • • •, • . • .. .• • . . . • . . . • • - This evaluation resulted in the.rnajontyof the site being identified as meeting the "..••• . • . • :criteria: of a City of TukWila:Type:2•Wetlind. ':It ts our recommendation that.yciaz:- • : Theo with City • of. • Tukwila ... staff. to .present our findings and discuss :. • ':". : • . . ramifications for your preferred site design •• - . • .• •. r. • •• • • • . •• • • . . . . . . • • . • • , • • • • • , • . : . ' •••' ,•• • . •• tAdvws-r., oc 4 • : . • • • • • .„„. c c • • ..• .• • , CITY OF TUKWILA 6300 SOUTHCENTER BOULEVARD TUKWILA, WA 98188 * * REVISION SUBMITTAL * * DATE C9C.- t / cPS PROJECT NAME Ac y se E 5--e / 0 Cvy5-1-etik 5tr 111,9 3 7L CONTACT PERSON d9av- E.. 1_4_e y .513,-. PHONE 3 $-2 ARCHITECT OR ENGINEER /,1G1 57411e n) L PLAN CHECK/PERMIT NUMBER Esq 5 -00 6 TYPE OF REVISION: 5rile.. (14AJ tip C/Ct 71 ADDRESS SHEET NUMBER(S) "Cloud" or highlight all areas of revisions and date revisions. SUBMITIED TO: 6161 r y Lh, 1:2+1,• • • VEfrvi 1,(`Mri-5.14 RECEIVED :3i.7,T 0 1'1995 comiviuNtire DEVELOPMENT Loi,D SPECIAL °4ERM ISSION S.A.O. REASONABLE EXCEPTION APPLICATION CHECKLIST CITY OF TUKWILA DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Tukwila, WA 98188 Telephone: (206) 431 -3680 The following materials must be submitted with your application. This checklist is to assist you in submitting a complete application. Please do not turn in your application until all items which apply to your proposal are attached to your application. If you have any questions, contact the Department of Community Development at 431 -3680. GENERAL Application Form Special Permission Fee - $200.00 Environmental Checklist Environmental Checklist Fee — $.325.00 PLANS Seven sets of site plan and elevations The scale shall not exceed 1=30 maximum, with the north arrow, graphic, scale and date, all identified on the site plan. Each set of plans shall have license stamps by the architect and landscape architect. The following information should be contained within the set of plans: A. Vicinity map showing location of site and surrounding prominent landmarks. B. Property dimensions and names of adjacent roads. C. Lot size and lot coverage calculations IZ D. Existing and finished grades at 2' contours with the precise slope of any area in excess of 15 %. 71 E. Location and dimensions of existing and proposed structure(s), accessory structures with appropriate setbacks, parking and loading area dimensions, and driveways. 1--Z; ft OO, w= J F_; N LL: w0. J El a. z�: tz 0: ww w? (3i 0E-`. Z. w I 0. UNCLASSIFIED USE PE\ SIT APPLICATION CHECKLIST Page 2 F. Existing trees (6" in diameter) by species and an indication of which will be saved. Proposed landscaping: size, species, location and distance apart. Location and size of proposed utility lines and a description of by whom and how water and sewer is available. H. Location, dimensions and nature of any proposed easements or dedications. n 1. For commercial and industrial uses, gross floor area by use and parking calculations. Dimensioned elevations of building drawn at 1/8" =1' or a comparable scale. Elevations should show the type of exterior materials. Fl K. Location and elevations of dumpster screens. L. Location and elevations of mechanical screens. 0 M. Color and material sample board for buildings and accessory structures. One (1) Photomaterial Transfer (PMT) of each plan reduced to 8.5" by 11" (most printirn companies can make PMT's). Tit �n�s d Wt. I arias 1- pt e- WLgan4 tootack om stet, . Wt} iw � � r VF c1XttS • A `� situ vi PUBLIC i � l S�v1Stf -GYP c1lAW 4ev S 616 A mailing•list of property owners and residents within 300 feet of your property. (See attached "Address Label Requirements ") CC J U: O O fa 0 ww" • u. w ` J. u. Q; -a o` w w` v N ‘0 `w w` Z U CO' Viz. EX1A King County Assessor's Map which identifies the location of each property ownership and residence listed. The maps may be ordered from the King County Public Works Map Counter at 296 -6548. OPTIONAL Perspective drawings, photographs, color renderings or other graphics which may be needed to adequately evaluate your application. 1!4 Other required information: w � TM �45 as .art:. 37Cti `'ii�i+.'[v"wndt °T:xe:iss.�: SPECIAL ,.4ER IISSION S.A.O. REASONABLE EXCEPTION APPLICATION CITY OF T IKWILA DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Tukwila, WA 98188 Telephone: (206) 431 -3680 1. BRIEFLY DESCRIBE YOUR REQUEST: err" ! l 55 /0 b u. t ld ek 3 /./u& D el G. Class /4" we.- )a Aver 2. PROJECT LOCATION: (Give street address or, if vacant, indicate lot(s), block, and sub- division; or tax lot number, access street, and nearest intersection) . 15e) 54 Ave, So j 7Ukw>l4 Quarter: 6g Section: Township: 23 Af Range: 'I if (This information may be found on your tax statement) APPLICANT:* Name: 'Rodfieir 1 Sr., Address: 3 / 2 90, 1)gk,46t. S1 $ea 7 'W - gglo? Phone: C' o to a'lag— 07 74 Signature: i x � i } • Date: .So at o � l g * The applican is the person whom the staff will contact regarding the application, and to whom all notices and reports shall be sent, unless otherwise stipulated by applicant. . PROPERTY OWNER AFFIDAVIT OF OWNERSHIP Name: od 9 , 4 S ),, i `r icy Lacy Address: 3 L- 5' 50, V er�olcr 5+, Seu Je ) l/Uf c?$(6 y Phone: Cad 6D O7 7'1 I /WE,[signature(s)) swear that I /we are the owners) o1' 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: T nJ I / 9 9 ' SPECIAL PERMISSION - S.A.O. REASONABLE EXCEPTION APPLICATION 5. PRESENT USE OF PROPERTY? V4C -4,0+ 6. PROPOSED S.A.O. EXCEPTION (from TMC 18.45.115): TMC 7. WHAT IS THE TIME FRAME FOR CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF THE PROPOSED USE? May 1 19 R',S DESCRIBE THE MANNER IN WHICH YOU BELIEVE THAT YOUR REQUEST FOR A REASONABLE EXCEPTION WILL SATISFY EACH OF THE FOLLOWING CRITERIA AS SPECIFIED IN TMC 18.45.115(c)(4) (ATTACH ADDITIONAL SHEETS IF NECESSARY). A. No reasonable use with less impact on the sensitive area and its buffer is possible. RESPONSE: The.. w a,1t � a s°etc. Obi sie.r Or if 'S bit-P evs area rS There is no feasible on -site alternative to the proposed activities, including reduction in size or density, phasing of project implementation, change in timing activities, revision of road and lot layout, and /or related site planning activities that would allow a reasonable economic use with fewer adverse impacts to the sensitive area and its buffer. RESPONSE: T t P crn1 p1 Wet Ckg /909 -QG1 ?Fe r'i Cd u r f?tre S a o[ Futu ,e, ,ti92C� •..s .. Me m_ Fs .'TaRMMINETEM Vie- .i:J:,_..., ntG..r.....Y.N .�Ci.s^a�+:tifa�l:�«�!ti_ rya' VirinL'. �cf1' W" f�l YS irSY'iL}YCNI+s:ir�,nd..4.l:ul�' ., z irk g. U0. .u) 0 :(0w J IL' w0 N a = d' w z t- 11J uji, :w w` F=- Vi. w 0; w z: 0'' . z SPECIAL PERMISSION - S.A.O. REASONABLE EXCEPTION APPLICATION C. As a result of the proposed development there will be no increased or unreasonable threat of damage to off -site public or private property and no threat to the public health, safety or welfare on or off the development proposal site. RESPONSE: tiue, Z.. U,? 1-i 415 tl fke "roe r4-t05 - D. Alterations permitted shall be the minimum necessary to allow for reasonable use of the property. RESPONSE: /. J. tit • v i . a • _ [� 4 # u�`1 •� -Apr V'2corr,y, a A.0( r 44 veal_ 1-14a Mil' aevtrchtoca L.. Jnjo, r P'► -Fou loci 7 c,o a,va a S ma l ! .Y a • • • av E. The proposed development is compatible in design, scale and use with other development with similar site constraints in the immediate vicinity of the subject property. RESPONSE: The. 4, Pe-- a4' ) e I % n) 't v C1 vect - ,� t , -, tie .o 01- gonna e-` ' H-e Coy -i a„vtls becaus -e, -f1101 were_ .1-61c1 pkiar. lb •i'Zt i s ve ycr larharU SPECIAL PERMISSION - S.A.O. REASONABLE EXCEPTION APPLICATION F. Disturbance of sensitive areas has been minimized by locating the necessary alterations in the buffers to the greatest extent possible. R SP NSE: ,exeep-ho.i 1-1,1& build i>v� whte.k &o ui -alto 5'o 1 oferV , by i - et/lavls owrv.[vs G. The inability to derive reasonable use of the property is not the result of actions by the applicant in segregating or dividing the property and creating the undevelopable condition after the effective date of the ordinance from which this chapter derives (1991). RESPONSE: The.. fto ei- 1 S OlJc+ c'tdZded a •i d the Le- etAi '12440/1,,vel w eve Ca 14s-ect 19y pye u10-us Ott) 11)-ers H. Any approved alterations of a sensitive area under this section shall be subject to conditions as established by this chapter and will require mitigation under an approved mitigation plan. If a development is approved as a reasonable use, the Board of Architectural Review's process, review and standards shall be applied. RESP • �� T_ = she. Ala ate= '' ivi NSE._ w1�� - - - -��N_ - / % �' • L' 11111MIN £ r . �G L • 1 '. O■Jel 10Z+Iun 1Q ' *'e.S aid WI ' • • • •e 7/- • • .. t," - r' e5, v! Z FA. w 2 6 U U 0� CO CV ' u) W u2 a • uJ_ WQQ O' H z 1- a Z ww Do oN ;o wW U`. - 0` Z: fa u . Ham: 0. Z • + .. N\ .r - +--' r • r .► 1 ♦� ♦ • + ♦ TRACT \\ 1 47 449.00' S89'33'02" E musitimin, II rill !.'IIrn1n. 11;asmoil i 10411111k ! Pi OW WI J 1Ploatimid + LEGEND D INTRUSION ION BY ENHANCEMENT WITH TREES AND SHRUBS )R SERIES OF PONDS WIT APPROPRIATE NATIVE PLANTINGS >NALI POtc1D 'H T F S.158th. ST. VACATION Ita 7eViVIS \\\\ \ I \ \ < \ 4)11 1 \\ \ \ I 1 I 1 immita. o m■ N89 35 36 •o �. 'rl1s■ M I 52 .44` 894 ®w, �.\ ie8 �.00� .1 X - -o 1 '!a X♦ x '. �\ \7. CITY PARK • z i;4,r�i:F- +2.si:; :•`.E;Ti '^w }tti3 v`fi 41V.•%(4,1,4••• 3,ii£:cZliM 's`' ^'"=A' ge.f.:i:i de'i$ , r rt x a �.,: �ltFP.�'axi{99':b�...nwsf%% r= �.k"viken }k�`;7(�tfY�fL:�v _ .S.Sf,Y"mir:+5, aet 7449.00' S89'33'02" E N \ • 79.9 4111111 141111 sP�A. N P liP15i -4$ 81.3 r Scale 1" =5OFT S89'33'02" E 178.68 N89'S5'36'W \ \, o \\. 52.44'N \ '`�\ . 1\u _____ S ' Novi munI ■mu...i. m C t� 1 4',■ .111■ ►_ ii�a.1�1amULi" ._ ,. �11AI�I�o1111.11111 CITY PARK STATE R/W FENCE • N89'35'30" W < .- j 01.2 7 \ �• ` % \\�\\ \\ \� - SP1 Al 5 OD/ REC APR Co» DEVEI CONCEPTUAL WETLAN[ Rodger E. La iii2G'.1v'+trei. E1i+ oYSt: ir': sM" aww kAW.i: 4`: Siri. 16.. u.. :410u"•^^2• U`' ta' 3�iG5. i�ti :�1:++ "t- "�t�G�'in�k'= +s..... 6_ JU; U O: c o' �w w. wO LLQ!.. = a. p' O: z� LIJ Dot. off'' o1 i w` LL 0! U 2: ;O z ;. Notice of Petition for Vacation of Street REVIEW REQUFAT D OF: ❑ May Office ❑ ,Planning Dept. Public Works Dept. ❑ Parks /Recreation Dept. O Fire Department O Police Department ❑ Puget Power ❑ Seattle City Light ❑ WA Natural Gas ❑ U.S. West ❑ Water District ❑ Sewer District ❑ Metro ❑ TCI Street name • or number S. 158th' Street Description of A portion of S 158th Street' from 51st Avenue South to approximately . property to be vacated 620 feet west/ • Kroll Map 333E Page # Qtr: Sec: Twn: Rge: Name of Rodger E. Lacy, Sr. Petitioner: Please respond by: October 27.',• :1995 • Public Hearing date: November 6, 1995 RESPONSE Your comments may be limited to the following, if applicable: ❑ We have no objection to the vacation. ❑ We have utilities in the right -of -way. ❑ We require easement prior to vacation. Stgna ture Title: • • • RECEIVED :4£A u, YcC YC t 3 J 40" .►, 1731 `. al. N.10... RECEIV OCT 2 3 1995 DEVELOPMENT • 7 .J: -' "113N:L s �tr ap ,i • N. • i .PR b - . 0. • •L1LN L. Alit 111.1 ••11. Kt Mr N. MOltlwt(M 1/ ?k?'' 5p65 •... •1•;- • UA'PL.trTCOi tL. 1, rP.1cr c •••40 /•Ilt /w1 r j Mg . I • •••• It•• I/ • • ••1. Y11, tttWM M, .•OI %IM(LR S= t5arx_sr = :� '{=1nl • • •-9•11 L'. :1 jiJ.to ,1 Z Q • re H O 0 W = J H w O: u- < D. 0 i•- _; Z �. i— O Z� ui D o off' • H wW 1—• w Z U =. o� File: 95 -0 mm Drawing# :i.:,i� +.:,:i:.osy:��i_iii::'u' bil: ii::_::; iU.]l:; c' u:: emi: �iuii: Su: ��. iicii�'• U:: �: r,: ��1• � ,s•,:pi "��'iT.ti1.c_i;1.ftiA�:: wk:vzzr:�tir��:k•::�:H: a?ku.it'l:itli� «�.t:•.;;:;i,_ .'iLi:;re.;saui_ <ziVa'a".aLr ::i.E:,.a..:. mm:Dt.AW.10:g#:' . , �. HEfiIEs HYDROLOGY.' WATER'GUAU Y k•VVIETL! 142,+ :1•. 6t. S.E• Aublirrt. WA 88002 •u (206) 735-4268 ;,FA ( LAC:YwETAlciC:l, FENCELINE ----1 —360' 4--- j— PROPERTY BOUNDARY ----4134' 4 DRAINAGES #2 #3 \ #4 371' 19 Sr, ZA119.\8 s. ASP3A ■ tSP4A% :. : }.• }'• • 1��•• 1 ' •6 i ✓•• • i '1 1 1 ' )1�'.; t ?`6 1 }.k1.. lr �'t I.∎ i'1 SPSA ' ' .fit3P.741 t •" ell 300' SP: y ' . , • • }• * •+.. •8 ' }% i t1/ ,+ •i ,1 1 . • ►f, } • .4 • it • 1' .8%7 ••► 1 ''.G'•'`. • SP11A'•1•`' 1' • / I .. .4404 • 8 •• s.. /. XISTING ' ! 8 • j } �1 w CULVERT sm ' SO '' ', 14 0* 7 FLAG Ae • SPSA DRAINAGE #1. 4 , gov FLAG AI,B3tt 3P9A • TH13 AREA NOT EVALUATED N NOT A SURVEYED MAP CABLE • GATE / EXISTING ROAD CORRIDOR /TRAIL 5IST AVE SE EXISTING CULVERT • 1 3 21 ,'ii }_;';► IDENTIFIED - "4.41)1 ' WETLAND AREA = APPROX. CENTERLINE OF DRAINAGE 6)= APPROX. SAMPLE PLOT LOCATION LACY PROJECT SITE WATERSHED DYNAMICS' 1421 I7TF[ STREET S.E. # µmuu(• ascot (206) 73S- -IZall • • • , (-6e 6 +(-2,7/9s- .w��.�...._..�n _rtaaCl9oiCit9hII^Y`' ��•!L eLilUiriii.'+.Ei4R���`j�is'�•�� C W 0 (n O O TRACT 1132 4 TRACT 47�49.00' S89'33'02" E . .79.92. r` r 1 \ �\ 1 \ 1 \ 4Ilt ! \ S P'2A. Aso \ f- l ���r _ '7N ��,� y; , ►` \ \\ 1HP \ \` fliL'I1';i 81 ate. \ \ \ \ •1 N89'S5'36 \ o \ \\ \ ; I 152R.4R.' \\' ' 1 \ I 1 1 I\ \\ \ • .\ 107. / t LEGEND WETLAND INTRUSION \ \ \\ \ \1 \ \\ \ \ \ \ \\ \ \\\\\\\\\ \ \ �•1\ \ \ \\\ \ \\ \ \\ N •MiIIGATION BY ENHANCEMENT WITH TREES AND SHRUBS POND OR SERIES OF PONDS WITH APPROPRIATE NATIVE PLANTINGS MOM MIN ADDITIONAL POND IN THE EVENT OF S.15Oth. ST. VACATION 1t£R?2A�k,75?cU'L`!S'�ciaiitk' dpi! 1ti'. i+ �: 13�• f6J�i�if +U;.�3't��u+i%it3i��+�'`��'• — CITY PARK 3 ' Oft torsvzivT:. �. NM11 ■M ■■■7\ ■■1 '1111111111111111111110111 1 ��■7�■ \A■ ■�l d S SP1 et°(i.-121.1 I0j2- J/C(Li'k ,2 nefpa\el d,4_ miY;) : .�,. :.,,, t, .^i;'• 71 .'r'.tt,:12 5:SS I1d,oi:Q��.}:'G %'�:@}. {?,.+e;%vs Ykr'. x,1d'.�. iii% �w.. �ilua%' 1+ ri;.:" tri' r` �G) stW, d. rnSk..,�'?.?it"rt�!SGX`#2d?..1fi .r,.�.�,• �k 7449.00' S89'33'02" E 16; AM Sca!e 1" =5OFT S89'33'02" E 178.68 STATE R/W FENCE \ 1 N89'35'36 VY- + \ � 1 `ii�0111 ■61■■i \ 1 1 52R.44.' \ `\ ,Ste,\ ea, I '��i;i� ■iii►`�.�ii��►SeiCii �,, • SP1 A od ZD O M b cn N89'35'30 "W �•j01.27 � CITY PARK _' + +c/') CURB CUL—DE SAC LA 1— 10 et 4,42[1 'Will /11,61/./,b-iL, J jet. i1/ !. 9. RECEIVED APR 0 31995 CONiMUNif Y DEVELOPMENT -Door CONCEPTUAL WETLAND MITIGATION PLAN Rodger E. Lacy Residence siix�i, �` �r "..•�.'w.Y:n:siYSSi.`iFRi� tiafl are" s{': ei .�i3r'u.4r,'+'�i:iia ^,�^.ci$i UyovGa'nsw�i;s:,'� Y,i.�+lCa4-1 EnEU�2'e.`,tl,ia"Y <GG'pi' 81LttF..iir2�7,s; >r'2'^•: _` • CC 2 U 0 O. ,A vl w; Nom, w 0 IL Q! w;. _i_ o ZF-, 1.1J tu Dp .O F-' w Ltj wZ 0' ' z.. File: 5mm Drawing# :z. • ryd.:.:...: nmi:. w .c..r:Ya.a:;S:6Y:.ra,.:,.t:.•,: a.;u...rc:�i:�3.lit:t:] Lds✓.Uwt.�i.::u4a:.i File: L95 -0� 5mm Drawing# _. .:.. nwrxa..= a: rgmNiY .Va. ^.iN�c7!N:t»mrnw.- nNmYJ,r, •_••_ f.�ih+'73'ui,'.r... ...._....' M.,.,. rro-, �xxacn�; z���axiwr. �vrnxn -s..ris.%: ?:�;kz'::s!,d".G3C4 File: mm Drawing# :., '•��-- 'uno:c:Lt�5:3.'r •,,..•ti.. ;.a " �e��• s.::. H.;:.: v�u: aas:.; eeva. rsM�: i.: ced •= ';sr•�<::�.:a.:GJr�syssn.:. ,.�. c: �;r�<,.., wr_..: eeb. �aS. Ma. slsai�n..;;:. w::•. w�sai:';:a:>u.iJ:�:a:`�M��.'r.' acs::: 3. S�:. t}ni::tt3:_is:,..':•��L•:::.:.: ■ \\ - \ \\ _ \� \ \∎ t—+ ,r r' TRACT 47449.00' ■ S89 °33'02" E ■ .w. LEGEND Ili 'i Alibi Aiiiiii! Oli0/1 \ N89,302:v,(-\ii„. D INTRUSION ON BY ENHANCEMENT WITH TREES AND SHR 1 )R SERIES OF PONDS WITH APPROPRIATE NATIVE PLANTINGS ANAL POND IN THE EVENT OF S. 1 58th. ST. VACATION CI ► PARK ami ��■1► v�':�►1�1��00:a SP 1 Y;, X,Via' tV;s ^+fz:?'+'c.'<itiawweimrozgdNi '.l 4,- ,P+SJI?4+aS1 ; 4"?%12av!R .' 'LK%3?IEX:r%- +ii.':";"ms.,44E4u 4-0-'- s∎ for 9.00' 9'33'02" E ■ +\ • + \ } k 1 r Scale 1" =5OFT S89'33'02" E 178.68 STATE R/W FENCE rl 1. .. mi„... ----,. iimui_Jui„.. MI MEIN @ Nur lusum.,..qinumm) `lira UMW ` M11�s11Am�►„�!I �' ::raiio�i��iialn -P" Ift e; i �, SP1 Al pt Zo 0 N89'35'30 "W .- j 01.27 ��� �� �� ..4. ��.- +\ \ \ \�' � ,r.. ■ �\ \ .\, � 000 REC Go»a, DEVE i. CONCEPTUAL WETLANC. Rodger E. La ANS. 011147W01,11111111001.1....•••••11110■000. .,. .li.- c:ta'M.'x is�Wr.' %!+aL�'.«:.i {i�ti �:: ��6`.. +<I^:nj! <.f.1a4tFU�vh�elM"'••ty A4'AID:KS'f::Lk's4i1vav,: l �9+ 'i Ti 7�i J♦ �:iiai'f v:axrJulY'rt�.ism+a'iY;{ki.'h .t'klc'i'I).H' :47.0: ..4•••■ \\ *.`■ \\ ■ 1 r TRACT 47449Q S89'33'02" E • "s • + • • 4 ,.,,.1.07. !ie —. -■ .--. -■ --. ..., sb ass ........, .. __, . .... tn – C ) 4.-- - i I / ro- 1 ..... ‘ ‘ / 7, ,..„ 4r.,,,avope--- Jr' . N, .79.92__-__ QC' \ 101117 ing .411 PO it 1 i 0 kl. 4.. tips 4•01. in. Ill 414 1 )11t, 11 . v 9' 4 _, \ – --.. \ ‘ \ \ 1, ._. . , \ , 1 1 L. Tiliiii 111,,/ ., 11,1H, / ; \ h‘11111/ • e , 0.\\\.,\, 16/"81>43 . \ +\(Si . \\ \ ,, ellimswo . "IP 40 =mg lammiot int q A tl , k F. d "4reE ;ill Figlo- &Olt Igl _ PI 1 ' LEGEND , \ ■ ■ " \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ 1 \ ID INTRUSION :-ION BY ENHANCEMENT WITH TREES AND SHRUBS OR SERIES OF PONDS WITH APPROPRIATE NATIVE PLANTINGS JNAL POND IN THE EVENT OF S.158th. ST. VACATION ,\ 1 .I I NI 8592'36541-eV-\ „ 1 : 3'x\ . F\9 1 .! —x` • 1\ 41 WallimmOmmummw- NINOMEIBMWCOMI '410111111111011MMW `ICIIMMWWWWW. '41111 MIN Mb- aim alimOk CITY PARK ■ • A SP1 ' i4'1Vtikr.44.424tr'VaVAIIS444":',K6letAle41=4WerrgViaViref.a.a.N.',10'..VAtAnYtt:4' 4.9.00' 39'33'02"E c ■*r: FAIIP .9a ,0011 11r, I INIiii;a1Mito \ S \ 7 1 N8V 51304(--- \ 12 \\ I \\ \ I 4481 Scale 1*=5OFT S89'33'02" E 178.68 STATE R/W FENCE -A111101WWW.AMML • -‘_libtAsump,mum.. ■Numummammor imormv..maim -mmammorimmw morammem '4101MMIMIMMOIL AMMMOOMMIC,.TY AOMMROMMOMIRw CITY PARK "44111111 • 3 1, SP1 -•■•. •■ ••■ s \ CUL—DE S. CURB At A--r-r-AQf (geALGeb) 34J j01.27 REC C01v DEVEL CONCEPTUAL WETLANC Rodger E. La( ;■;,;.1,74 .4;441,,t,,d,i4i-;;;;;:44,4,■;5:3Laij,Va411Wihit, ,"04.,4411.041.401L14:-..49R4*.`434f,Mil4tIE.A.1•43,:s.6iigaiit'ar,;•:.,4 4.e.o...iermatcmcv' • Proposed Interceptor Trench -.11•� Daylight interceptor Trenches to Drainage Swale. Proposed Segmental Re airing Wall `! /. . 4Pwe:YinniME. rex15s1*tle flR4t►an/!E \ \ \ \ \ Top of Cut - \ //" / J1 %Lil%\ CA' k\N:\ . \ \ Proposed Interceptor Trench \ \ �• \ \ t ! i Building Pad = 236' c /04 106 Y 1 t —1 1 zyz . \ Querry Spans` or Conc. Memel Altert1 ties 1 Y a I \ Property Line .\ \ �� \) I \ \ Provide rely 12" die. FDPE Culvert 1 \NC 15 .1:1.4 \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \\ \, ' ' ` UNIAPROVatol \ \. \ \ \ 11 \\ \ \ •� - ---�„' -.4.....;. —1 .1 ii irt 12" C • Existing Drainage Path � IZ "euLYelk . \ EKILSINC, P, E N • fs� 4b N • 4 _ Quarry palls s,., .0, "7 \ Reroute Existing Drainages Ditch \ •\ \� ez e\ \ \ \-i1- a y- -D 49 a 231, �. •� yJ'�- Replace existing 12" Culvert Q•55 \ \ \qr�5' f` Property line Provide new 12 "die FDPE Culvert 226 \ otingDrainage?ath �(oa�t) 1 Nets*: 1. Based upon soundatyarrd'Contour Survey for Rodger E. LacySr., by Lund and Associates Surveyors, 2- 28 -95. 2. See Geo techaicaI Investigation Rodger E. Lacy 5r. Residence, 51st Avenue South, Tukwila, Washington, 3- 15 -95, By Gall Group for recommendations on cut, fill, and drainage. 3. Interceptor trench at top of cut should be installed prior to regrading of slopes. Interceptor trench at toe of cut should be installed pHor to placing fill 4. Water course approaching the building pad from the south should be temporarily rerouted during site work and channel enhancements. 5. Appropriate Temporary Erosion and Sedimentation Control measures shall be in place prior to site work. OWNER: RODGER E. LACY SR. 3125 S. DAKOTA STREET SEATTLE, WA 98108 ENGINEER: THE GALU GROUP, INC. 13500 LAKE CITY WAY #202 SEATTLE, WA 98125 PHONE: 206 - 363 -6449 I QWO DRAWINGS ✓l ELT 1 SiTE AND GRADING PLAN SfGET 2 TESC PLAN SHEET 3 SHEET 4 SHEET 5 SIHET 6 SKIT 7 TESC DETAILS ROCKERY AND CUT SLOPE ROCKERY AND SRW NOTES SEGMENTAL RETAINING WALLS MiSC. DETAILS e✓ R•15' 0)(tSTIMe • tte-C e5,5 ? -tb Gut.-Of -51,4 -+ a) 1v s4 ov€ = I % a- t pit W '. WAy SECT ION h. 2$21t) •/J•W SITE AND GRADING PLAN I "= 20' DATE: 6- I -95 AMDVEO Er: louvN r APL S. �l-- EevKEO -• Rodger E. Lacy 5r. Residence Tukwila, Washington 'II 11 III 111111T11 L II1r11.I111L1L1.1I1 I I_ LITI. i.1iip- iFF ILIIIIII(IT�IiI1iIIlf II lli(III1 4,.I i I I 11 i ... . 1 21 3 t I 61 olEitliolznliist1.1 1rL1:ll�llllllIIi�IIII IIII�IIII�IIII�IIII�IIII�IIIIiiIII�UIIIIIii i IIIIIIIIIII�U� The GIN Group. Yic. -13500 Like City Wm NE, Suite 202 Seattle, Waeli ston 98125 Phony (206) 363 -6449 0 -1 i_..�IV u.6' aCT .1n95 COM1v1UNIT•Y OEVELOPlvlENT rIAWINGI wIMEEE or ' ,rl Vta,�'LAIME>�' ILG•TION5 of FROPSQ.r/ LINr'q LW a X4K69, rENce', aotNoo, 4 cowro eo Aee A5 eMo•N oN CLIENT'S *Clews,/ eby LUNG 4 AbOC,CIATES, C.IIZVEYOP , OF FEOFr^. W4Y. t.c..41iO C)F TL•EEg ANC other- YECaer ioN' tP-e APPKc (tMATL, 4WD RAVE Her 13flEl4 GETEKM INeD 6Y A Peore - .IOI-1AL L-AND eLIEVE.YOE. (i'.• ; ! ! _.I. ;y$')r ,) % \!: i . (- �•J \ (;)_ • \ �, • .. _ .. ". "..v... • • --,..; dol C l. pMI .66..-- 1 ' /tit. �� �:. . �) \(,, •,,....-,..• 4 i 1 \ \ ,� ,_, \ 7. • .1 \ \ 1\ / ' / Ii t % . \ �' N. T _ \ \ 5! �K.i1ti< 16h*.1kM' 1.� / r\ ` \_, .. ','ALD It ;`, �\ A \ ` \ I \ 11 r\ le`Hv ` i� / 4,.... �\ 1 IOWA ) r/ ivy 1 \ i II ,, ! \\ ', 11:14 cl1 }� xA .yvn ),l ) I\ t ;/ u. / %•, •\I /� x 1 j� Wit)\ \A N-.� `.` i \ i/ ,1 . .r CP) ) •' •1 • I)a =ie/A • I I. , / ' / / \f 1 11 1 I , , 11 / \ r 3c4.• , i ? I l 1 I I • 1• 1 "' 1' ' ' 1 A.- .. / , \ 1 , ` _ ! \ \ \ ' \ •\ \. � \ \ . i\\ 2-{L�M ' Pita PO'SEO v* PAt' • •\ • • • S9 4 ES Ale. 4 ee+co) s ea. 4 E9 CD) \ ._ 'se CD) • • • • • sss ss NORTH . hanL E: It' =2o exionNr YE6ei -CMOs; L£L-IEHt7 M ` 6IU1.6Ap MARX 'A • AI OPP H ' 146•tAK. EL • ENCASH LAURC:L Jr • eTUMP •6N . sNAA LI•) = PoCIL6D ,C %•' • L6(34411-14 Tees IC.• • DDH • bp 6Ay•OH06F.GV 6 , • CLobe FleLCV co) • 176Hse THIUGer '.8D 4 60 CO) \ .\ ' \a,• \ \!!'\ \\1 \ �\, • \'.\ \\ \ c''. \ \• \i '\ • \\ \ \ J ■ • /; • • i i , , , , \ `CeauiNr> l l 111 I 11I I 11i 1111 (1.1 i II. I ii 111 I iii I 111I'I 3 I 111 I 111I 'I1 I1I1 4 IIr! .1 I•' '' 1I I1 111I 111 6 • Of: 07 -8Z' L 07.. 9Z Z E7. 7.7 l7. OZ' 61 81 LI 9I �uu�mduu�uulmi�uuhiii miliiu�mdmi�uulmiluulmi�uulmi�mduu�uuhm�uuluu�uuhm�uulml�miluu�mdui MITIGATION TUKWILA, WA CC RECEIVED , MAR 15 1996 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT• • W • W i• Q U -J ❑ ',W • tL SHEET •NO' 7 it J .a • • • W cN ol z a i o ?-, j cow I ooi N ! No !' ¢ o i co I • `.z I i S89'24'52" 656.73 \ CALC COR MON GONE CONC I FND DN � .. S. 158TH CONC MIC '_.. _.I_...._.._._._._.._._._.._._ FND 6/93 / i ! N � ") S1/4 SEC 22 E 589'24'20" S89'24'20" a1••_ 823.14 93.17 t STN -COP T MON /PIN FND 2‘95 2/95 -1' DN -1.5' 3 Ton o N E • � •zt ;, TRACT 47 449.00' r • .\ \ .�.. #— r •,��II_ r � 5. • � ` � \ * � \ \ \ % \ \\ \ x.., * �� �� \\ 1 k I- ' ( r c c ,) \ ) �\ �`�..�; • t2 i , Scale 1 " =4OFT GRAPHIC SCALE 0 40 • ± ....., - + E SAC ; it • • .. i I I I I I l i l I 1 I l i j i I I I i j i I t• I I I I lj`i I I I 1 1 1 i l l i i i I IN1111111'1 • 1i1. rill .I I T T �' I `' "I 121 I. I 131 I I 1 4 I :r "� I 16 ,n t OIf. 6IZ 817, L�L 817. 9IZ YIZ EIZ 7.IZ 1IZ OIZ 611 814t LIT 811 1111 miluu mdmi milmluiiluu uuluu 11uluu mdmi 11uluu 111111111 imlim mihm uulmi uidmi uuluu 1111hi1 ATr' PG - WL714s . . ' .. • I°n'tr°ai n b z TRACT 1 1 3 • .c, • '• TRACT 4744s oo -- - S89'33 02",E • . 1 \ a \\ \�� r•-• 1-'' r-' •? ra '.=- I fa s •..a ■ i\ .\ ` ,. \ \ 1 \ \` \ A :` . i 5883 'Q� El.� W= z La Ev o o oY et cell. g ?o re o� a • 001 = O �� In 7- r,o co <� x . E ,'", , • • < • _ - - -07 �� __,,-,-.-_-a,__..,-....... � �� ���.�.9 �• =�. ' t 78 6$ .21......:-.....-.........:...--....2,...,.:-....• \ `� {; p. ' - \ : '• _- __��`� ��� ..16670-..:4-'24,,--z7 •.+ \ 1 \ 1 \ ` i \PAD \' 7.\ --- \1 \90 ♦♦A. `� \\ \. \i \\ \\ \i ° \\ ��� � � \ \_ \I � \ i� \ \� I 1 J+a _( \ ``�i1\ t' -- I 1 \- - ♦1! / / 1'.\l‘ y��o♦� .� .11. �� \1.� K\ ♦1is �♦ \ 1\ / % % '/ / \ I � �f K7\ �� ' I \ 1 -^ .\ \111\ ! / / 1 .. 'i' \ 1' 1.\ • \ i\ .,. \\ \ 111 1\ ■ / / • I.' I .1 4e 1 1 it ®P Jo S''.f� \\ 1 / 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I ' . I 1 1\ \ : • \ .; \ / / /II 1•' I I °, ? �\ I !// 1 I .��,`.. \0 \ \ \0��. °. •.o.\ \ \ / 4 1`. o0 -,, ��7 _, \ •, \ �I�. \\\5�, A��1�T\ 1 \ • I I • '. ' 1 s •� 1 0• // i . • \\ 1:.1� 06i: bl � .. <� \ / `' t^ �1-1�� ♦ �.�>� \\ • \ 1..� \A6 `\ \; �\\ N) ' ♦1jj11.lj \. 1 \ STATE R/W FENCE ■ II Ill // / N I' L \ i' l \ `♦ �1;,\ .. .T T ..2,‘ �- 0 " \♦ 111111/1 / 1 \ f, • • ♦♦ ♦ \\ •• \ \ • \ \ \t • �, \ \' ` o `�*AS ♦ .' \ (1111\ \ \IC \ \ � \\ ♦ ♦. \ ♦♦ ♦\ � joy l L .. -\\ \. ?A L • ••,‘01\0\,\\‘' i\) \ \ • ♦∎ _ • \ \ aF�Tw1 \ ; \'1• \ \J I:!\i \\; \�♦� O \ 1 "''"N89350127. \ \ \ \ \i \ 68.41.{ \\ \ m i \;.'� 8 . • ,,.1.},, 111 •••••.10811r \\'. II. . ,..;,..,":0;6/.99. \' `% '100.00 1 i'� ...>• \ , \ \ .' . 1 \ 1 `11 \ \ \ I \\ \ \\\1 \ \ \ \\ \ \ \ \\ \\ s\ . ♦ . \ .. 1 \- \ \ i .' 1 N89'IS'Melt \ • i.e. \\! l I \ : \ \ \• � \. �� : \` ��. ®A3 '. \ - . •I\ -r \\ \ \i � stoic 1 .40PT'.. oiuPmes�wr �\ \\\\ \ \�, \ \ \ \\ \i \\' I I 1 \ 'I .:152fj:4t\ \.. S\ 6` II \ 1\ \\ • \\\ • \ \ \\� fb1i2- - -:• \ \O' = '- =-..�j 2 0 8 \ . /,.,,,4111 l,,.t. -_ L y�I _, _ I I . \ I 1 I 11- \ ♦ . .\ '' -\--1-'- ' pes; • 1 .\_ \ \,T -5 ■ _i♦ -N�- 4F.� SPl Al • , .' • .. CITY.' PARK': 1. • ¢ DN t11 ! .. I. in • . , TRACT 48. SUNNYDALE GARDENS. DIMS RECORDED IN VOLUME 25 OF PLATS. EXCEPT THAT PORTION CONDEMNED IN 539691 FOR STATE HIGHWAY. SITUATE IN THE COUNTY OF KING. STA • • wi` • • • • ' ltNP011.00Y tR09a$ CON160L : • I. Contractor 0.4 Inite7 41 Im`• la molds lanpar.Y w.51ee 001451 pim w Y ■ter 0a1WC1bI. M=. C 1 01 �: agile^ naWn •IO.OIIM ca wM01 010 qIa1Ia can W. ] A We pom.1Y mN .mml 4 come of cone ms• YbOan smbe Wit. out ZZA to d. Nun amOMb IIIOtbn ealra4 1Nw110r1 OA" q1 coax./ cmYrve(blan. (( .0.40.11? q• rr«pmwmr .. :: gN:Xf Mi mh r.NY.mMI, ec Tar0• 14:74 4M Nbl .0.1nVRUw.I d..: rNa .4. -KKl. 1 Tm ..1 ... ae a. 011 Y l.Vma1 YIYbn 01.78,1:::3541411•0 M orhoY lo ..4=orY pmella. • U N[ Ills..Il 4110:1 .0/ Wc/la M cm427 .1 N 10. 1n,,: ---I a0 q1 ' .. pelaf eNM when M. Oa.6 CaVd1 .el M cMan10 v rlPlawC a hX,N �M. ,'1't1 PwMiin YeY • meYAeY1 . N.ar 0lml. (]6 --0071) Ia .n.amcY rl.eY. b m1YIlo41 � nper mgvllY wlNen oq .. .. I •rt p �aNelre1l�zrr.:.. -: O'aria, twYr4nl m 0)0) f a m Lis of 4011 *o,"t1era".. iy le r,..*,IN. • ,•,.. i .. I 5.411rt r•6.T'A a 2.7. . ,t1C. M a1 Pa�11�'Fr 43 1. P4I5715r0u TI X= 1"4.11Ix • .. 11emKOm• 11'L"0Ka0 Om 005 yIM U. t 11 M Yp IY WroaO foot Into U• • tam .44co r11n1 m •INa II121n. grj l,TrN: 301 'si:18.°I...1:5414 . ' .. REWIRED WALL THICKNESS, DEPTH OF NE? FOR VARIING HDGHIS. AND ANGLES OF OLT SITE PLAN Rodger E. Lacy • Residence Tukwila, Washington 9 _s 1-...,,, a� - OM =b i- q-s -ii- a^ -ro =12=7 0 0 0 I 10 e• QC1 a I 20 dTTh 11 T I ,10 00 QO . .. 1 20 1.0 00 84 z0 10 0.0 ] 211 10 I,, 00 2 261 10 tl OA . 1. 2 I Lo 10 0o n I 30 I. OA 2 1792 I 20 IU• no 2 . ra I zo 4 00 4 10 I.0 on U6 z0 1.2 01 1 116 .:1, • IA 00 3 I61 ' 10 10 00 65 .0 .. I a! T 0 211 712 106 6 1I 14 0I ]]071 10 I1 ] 1141 z0 1.0 3 1n'I' YO IA 00 1711 ..Y1 m=,pd =.... R11f•NFRY NOTT.Rt➢11MPl1CH of ROCKERY /]/57l 12 Y /. / V� • .... .. I • % / AV • j/ %,,/ /��... {i'r- %1 ` /,, ,,s, ��/ , : 3>• - -. .. .. r . %/\ �•\ p A K.]pSAVE AMA AM V A IA V.A. roar v1.11..Im110 P.N. 0/644/001 • Amt Immo . tY r" • rY.Ar w ' n w : ".Y"�. A � :=.:"..7.........____...".7 moms. " __. L LcIY I'°'a realm, =al.o1�.._'. lNIO .M4115170ml: m ulhl.I14V.IIOA "�'' r.IC 014.1.4 Yw1 IM O67 /A7.ey(4'[6 ®6L 4/6 3 -27 -95 , 2OA7Atg2.m IfEVCEff • M UNO VaRN % ,MTetii11 II[ \ .�. FR L MALL IMp Wvir., SS .Mwe Wooly A ' -_-� ��'(.L 5 ' ///.//\ =a mIN .4oa u'0i'wlni a••gri v >K loopr16. > • /\ /\ , .. ... /\ \� 1111 10''71 1i �Il.w, m..11mnma umrrl=ln=.K ""m.a eroows . . • .. ' ` fo'0°01rlul x'�°"ro Yr*tm BUILNG AND PA O = = 5000 S0. FT R 8A17 /LD, CM TIL SPECIALTY MI107111 , TOTAL IMPERVIOUS AREA = 8200 S0. FT. ErSET uNE STAKE kr BET 101L/I.0.TAG . . .. • ®80N /CASE . i D4 CONC 110N • BENCH MARK -E RIM STORM NH O FJ ImNC REBM /LO. CPA CUL -DE -SAC EL 209.28 - N-rENCE 4VV FAOS TI ` / • .. i I I I I I l i l I 1 I l i j i I I I i j i I t• I I I I lj`i I I I 1 1 1 i l l i i i I IN1111111'1 • 1i1. rill .I I T T �' I `' "I 121 I. I 131 I I 1 4 I :r "� I 16 ,n t OIf. 6IZ 817, L�L 817. 9IZ YIZ EIZ 7.IZ 1IZ OIZ 611 814t LIT 811 1111 miluu mdmi milmluiiluu uuluu 11uluu mdmi 11uluu 111111111 imlim mihm uulmi uidmi uuluu 1111hi1 ATr' PG - WL714s 250' — Z45' Via Z30' WiCIVrIN(R GtiA1? 4sitho r. 7 Cross Sect ioii A - A' . Scab: 1" = 10' Horizontal • 1" = 5' Vertical -D4IL1Yiwh.Y 4R VI? 240' ais' r •fl '9140115SG17 G112A�' Cross Section 13-.i3' Scale: 1" = 10' Horizontal 1" = 5' Vertical • _ 250' L40' 239' • 25' 255' L5o' L'•i5' Zgo' 235' 230' 251 412ths--- Cross Sections A- and B -B' SCALE: 5 SOWN t JAppRovEoeY: DATE: A'Z �' 9:J • Rodger E. Lacy Sr. Residence Tukwila, Washington Th. O 111 Group, Inc. - 13500 L. City Way NE, suit. 202 5.attl., Washington 90125 nom (200) 565.6449 111 Y f• M WTFO OM ,10 1ir10N CIAAUp V • 111I111I111IT I I I [I 2 IIIIlII IIII1131IIIIIIIIIII1114 -1.1 .I.I_I. _I_I.1 111 i 11 i 1 111 1 111 111 x I .5 6 t. . 111111 IIIIIIIIIII11111111E111111111 I111�111 6 110£ 11 II1111111 8Z •L 9Z• Z. VIZ £Z ZZ I IIIIIIIIII11111.1111 ILlilli!i ilIIIIiii 111111111 IIIIIIIII 111111111 IIIIIIIII 111111111 DRAWING NUMBER Drawing 2 of 3 256' — Zu5' 255' 230' 225' 2551 2501 24(0' Z3o' zze •WSIbTIN4 (at ma.-- \ `/J • r ► ..,.,, rrcxlsff1N4 digs" Cross 5ection'A- A' Scab: 1" =10' Horizontal 1"= 5' Vertical • •. . • Cross Section 13- 13'• Scab: 1" =10' Horizontal • 1"= 5' Vertical • 250' 240' 2140' 235' Zia' 225' es5' 250' 2416' Z4(o' t35' Z3o' 225' Cross Sections A -A' and B -B' SCALE: 61.6 WN DATE: 1-2i- 05" U X 24 WNW) ON 110 Im(W G1ARMIN►• ililili ililili ilililili�ilI r�Ti�1 Iil"r�i z 4 ,.51 6 ols 16IZ 18IZ •I LI 'Ii "9IZ 19IZ 1 lIZ 1 BIZ I ZIZ I TIZ I OI 16IT 118ITIII..L t ,l 91T. l j IIII IIII IIII IIII IIII IIII IIII IIII lilt 1111 IIII IIII IIII IIII 1111 IIII IIII IIII IIII IIII IIII IIII IIII IIII I APPROVED MY: Rodger E. Lacy Sr. Residence • Tukwila, Washington The G.UI Group, Inc. - 13500 Laka city Way PE, Suits 202 5aattla, Waakkytaa 99125 now (208) 303 -8449 DRAWN BY REVISED DRAWING NUMBER Drawing 2 of 3 TRACT 47 44900' S89'33'027E: ' • Wit; jl l . lR-reaceptdK �Tg • ?- STORM' :54"�T�°M Scale: 1"x20' :: •' \ 0iMIL •. NA • u_ `� �- . 1 \•.' . •Ssy~ \ •• 1..\. 'r— - -INc- :. \ 1 \ `\ \ A a..1•C,s— '• .o \ ri 1 1 N 1 . \ 712p OF .r k\ \ ‘ \ \ "....7\\ q . \ izi\dilitli - s„,44% ... \ pe 1 1 ‘ 1 \ \ \ • \ .)kk N 1:, . it • s 1 N 1 1 .1 • �\ _�r1 '5 is ..x gym). \``j• • cs` \• 1 0 \• \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ si . • ∎`.. • ■ \ • PiEo10� UPStoPC • . • 0crettccraat Tarr* 1 • 35'30' 1 5216M.1\ N 1 \ \ Notes: 1. Based upon eoundaryand Contour Survey for Rodger E. Lacy 5r.. by Lund and Associates Surveyors, 2- 28 -95. . 2. See Geotechnical Investigation Rodger E. Lacy .5r. Residence, 51st Avenue South, Tukwila, Washington, 3- 15 -95, by Galli Group for recommendations on cut, fill, and drainage. • ' 3. Interceptor trench at top of proposed cut should be Installed prior to regrading of . slopes. 4. . Water course approaching building footprint from the west and the south should be • rerouted me part of the landscaping and wetland mitigation plans. Interceptor . trench along south side of building footprint may need to drain into rerouted watercourse. ' Ac Tr Proposed Grading Plan SCALE: 11 w t0' DATE: 3 -tI•9 • APPROVED SY: DRAWN SY REVISED WrM Rodger E. Lacy Sr. Reoldence Tukwila, Washington .3/s,ayes- 'The 05111 Group. Inc. - 15500 Lake city Way NE. Solt. 202 Seattle. Washington 95125 Flom (206) 505 -0449 DRAVANO NUMBER Drawing 1 of 3 1 11.11 Tit it �,rl r iTri-rl r� TITTl-r11 r'.•: 21 3 I1II1 II•I�IIII 4 IIIJ11IIIIIIIII •rI 5 6 o 16IZ 18IZ I i.�ZI..9IZ.. Z i iiIZ i ElZ IIII 111 IIII IIII IIII IIII IIIIIIIII IIII I1111111 IIII IIII nii in IIIIIII1III111IIII�111" 1111. 111111! 11-1111I11111I( I111111FI1111111I11111III111IYIIIi1111I1ll1I111� 1441 z a a .:a1 5 5 L I o : t3IZ 817.' L�l . _ 8 Z - 917.- ' I'I7, EIZ ZIZ LIZ oIZ' 6h 8 i LII 011 l 1111 IIIIIIIII uullmluuhuUmlhulluulml uuluu uuluu mduu uullill uulull uuluu uiduu uuluu mlhul ullhll .� ia.F><Ma 13.r Lti c," Y • I • TRACT 4'7449,00. I 4C��\ `� '.:•.\\ ` 589'33'02"E 1 \ \ ^" A . .\ \w•�,�J I I I ^' (' ( ° i \ .1 .! 1 , 'S8�'33'Q2 "E z LL 1- oz ri b Z_^ TRACT 1 13 _ -- ��� 107".E134-'_"=_- z �Zl+, , +,_ m�� J9.92��� �"�•8Z ,?66,0 \`lie ?o 1\ 1, , 1 1 \ ____`_.. \\ \ :00,-.�,•� �V f� r. ..\��` 4._ar 'j 178,68 \• \PeDvl I \\ \ \ �\ t\ ISION NO. 1, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEN , PAGE 50, RECORDS OF KING COUNTY. WAS IN KING COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT CAUSE NI TATE OF WASHINGTON. • ��� 2 111 \ I 1 -\ s' 3I. • ,r, - •(1111 \. \. \y\ \•. \ \�`�O\\ •' u * \' \ \9 ' 1 �, ►� I \ I / I \ss r� o� • 40 r 1 0 / r. 1 ,t O olt =� \ 11 I / / ! f .\ 111 \1 / / / , 111 \ / / 1 \ij111 \1„ !. r 1 . \II I I ( / /// / i // �°�t r :\ \I II, 1111 //, a. 1 4\ \ ��1 \11110 \ \ \\ 1\ \ \ \ \ 1 \\ \\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \\ 166.41 \\ \ \ �' C\ �� • \ 1 .. , 1 1 \ \ \ \\ • \: , 1 , N , I s 1 �� ..........1,_‘, to 0 7 l • _i�••`� \.� \ \{^o ��. O ° \ \ \. `\ \\ \ \ \ �\ \\ • 'r' \ \ \ \ \' \ \\ \\ \ ■ \ \ 1_ ;• \ . - \ a T W181.[\T 1 \1. \• ...108.61. ah4�'. .�.. \\ \ \�f, SA R �. •...`,...'"1,• p� �� ��. \1'A6 \ \\ '.l rn AP�1 �T \\ ? 1 �d� \\ \�\ . STATE R/W FENCE • -4" \ `?�: °‘ 4- .1 t I !\‘:\,..'. \ \ \•\ .�� \ '"-y• N89'35'30"W \1 \ \ \ \\ I 1 \"\699."' \• • 100.00 \ .��J�01.27 M � • Seale 1 "a40FP \ \ \\ \ \ \ \ \ 3P \1 I \ \ \ \ ®A3' �� ���. -�-.0 oluamcxwc \1\ \\ \\ \I \\ \ _'_ _ .� 2 ' 0 40 \� \\ 1 I N 62� 3 \ •o'�\aa 1s\ \1 \ \�' \ \; \; \ \\ \ \\ • \ \ 1 \ \ t- _ \\ \`\ \ � 1j11 \�0l 11 \ \ \I , I I \\ I' 1 1 I�\ \\ \\ t\ NaB 1 \ \ \\ \\ \ \ \ \\_� � �� ; \\ a \ \;_ .• aE -DE51C L. .. *--. ■ II 1 • l a `-' a-\ \ ■ t ! • gA -+ -•a ... 1.--N.; ' qNB (w rail • ' / M ,•-.ik+J • 0' 1 �-Y A , I -It- .l�� "F P t 1 -4--' -> • CITY. PARK K: .w • in /t . TRACT 48, SUNNYDALE GARDENS, DIV RECORDED IN VOLUME 25 OF PLATS EXCEPT THAT PORTION CONDEMNED 539691 FOR STATE HIGHWAY. SITUATE IN THE COUNTY OF KING, S •, ryas ■ . .. `n.l,, *1Y EROSO, COMM 1. Contraftw Mao lnf101'1M' 1e,ce to brake tfmoaw y Walt etMnl PMMa'to ad otw ct.WC1k.1. " 511w. . wOnm nclnM p 5= 1,4 VI : Z &t. na i ni nn: N elb" .00 bc1U n ray M nn.....1 t. m 4.... f .n leta5011 11Rue ten. Ne mate of b. It owl 8 N0009.101 010 re.50.0017 oermpw tl o m6. .r o- amuaaa 74 mn r l ecM 01 e Y «un „a tw pm4f• 40ma 01. 0 • 1 tmorar ftalbn pats .0 01, lmr owwY fltatn 010 woolen cce tr01 Mal maFlalnN In wN 1act py ca0 l015 . ntl f.♦x a Nat fIMMO aMlw rgu .V b fox13le t" petmmml 1010. 111111", at elWtl. ant Ne maintain lw whet m 130.MP 164-33 Oro. n r,tn w 1",101", ue thcl� 0Y N V a Pwmllln Md b1 t 24 het Nxnar and f= 7:141. 1 I..n.0.nry reg0n.e b maMw1 u1a .414., r act Yl. enit a1q ..3 • EA lNr " * w t CtI Gi d, t r wrS1e wt S MU 017 ilr'l, ' O4 ll aw Nr .' n "A'. '0t 1M 40011 Mm a «1313", m101 13 5,1004 .N .Oa. 0 m1 or IV NA to 51013110 bl. Tem ew clan. . .1 A•.4 d b1• A lmw w nlnlln a J a . et ab.11 po ° aa aia" a OpWmW ai w °l t w ga f op S Mw It llwl 001.1 p-. n Newnlc., Ne pem.m.11 ft 1 1 Mtll a ��etee a ,--"0"-i S1w Ne .iwm Orillap:e0.1/'in� w aNer milxn n a.....a .j"11.t'{twlfi o% wTnirlwf Ywl. Vllltn : . ' REQUIRED WALL' THICKNESS, OEP1H OF KEY FOR VARYING HEIGHTS AND ANGLES OF 11LT SITE PLAN Rodger E. Lacy Residence Tukwila, Washington aL2QS -3,- � ; . _ I - o a0 =te0 = o - I a o Oaf' o I 7 a 0.ai -• I is a q- o - 1 l0 IA 60 244 20 .11 PO 2 154 10 1.1 OA a 28 ' 20 1.1 30 2 214 t 2 20 1.0 PO 52e .10'.I.1 00 2 fie 10 1.2 PO 2 021' 20 1.3 a0 2 020 I3 120 1.0 n0 78 I. 101; 1.1 00 1 n2I 20 1.] PO .2'•1021 10 14 Pa 3 713 . ,.I 4 20 1,0' Pe ' 1100 ; 20 1.2 O! 2 100 10 1.4 Po 2 1000 20 1.0 PO 3 1000 1 3 1433 I 3 I I 4 1e 14 00 2307 20;11) 1.0 3 111e 20 1.0 PO 0 1� 10 IA al 1711 • .. ••' .. • 13.110C2 BBFKFRY NOIFSIDESCRN7DN OF RDIYIERE Jog sea L955312 / /� / �.AF %� / /�/ • % \ �`�� • i �I %� .. .. ._ .. -. �\ \ \Y.. \ \�•. .,{ n 01,01 nt •:A. 011011.10011 Mal m 0 n I. It 'w- "'a "cma e.w .� 0001° �-• IA KT • I •.e..0.. - 1001.11 /.t�O7'LW[6 ®QOLS 1 DATE • �� MOMS Ai 1s�..• 113It • 3 -27 -95 / \ lot OZ. 101 0:01 a CTI ft`. a.a, WM aw.n moo `f1°v`TOivnc'm Axon ru UM. WOG m ,aa a NUM. ..wR 1. wxx \\ / NO 1(1 00 "MI ' 1u.r x..c +l wA,ea u.xary m ' A1wn %/ / /if / %/ /� /i. / / /4/ n • /e,/ Item " w "&n n" 1Slwwoal< mi ;t l.t u, meal 001..1 w.em .1x`xm.w,e :, 14 1",%11511 AM LAY Mt aNa W. ` • . • BUILDING AND PATIO'. _;; 3200 Y1. FT. LEGEND DRNEWAY :;_ 5000 50. FT. p'sET RE&R /LD. CAP �SI�CGD�JLL1r7 QESQ�CT�/ ,�Dd �,�r2 o6tlfVY ❑ SEr uNE sTAxE 3T SET NAUI.D.TAG . . ® ... rs NON /CASE DQ CONC NON • • ::::: • 09.28 ';� -K- -FENCE • WE'NAND FLAGS >` SHEET V i Q-7r4cff 1x1 IIIIIII1III111IIII�111" 1111. 111111! 11-1111I11111I( I111111FI1111111I11111III111IYIIIi1111I1ll1I111� 1441 z a a .:a1 5 5 L I o : t3IZ 817.' L�l . _ 8 Z - 917.- ' I'I7, EIZ ZIZ LIZ oIZ' 6h 8 i LII 011 l 1111 IIIIIIIII uullmluuhuUmlhulluulml uuluu uuluu mduu uullill uulull uuluu uiduu uuluu mlhul ullhll .� ia.F><Ma 13.r Lti c," Y 'TRACT 47 449.00' 6. al No 1 11-114, N MP--; . r — • billanlaIhaa dam*. ••••••• • 0 \ as) 1 Az. " 1 p •P ' 0) 3% \ \ 1 \ \ \\ \ \, ‘„ ■ . - • t L ' • • \ oF •1 1 •/ *■... I • . I t 1C s . fr SI:39'33'02E ' •• el. .11 am -2.121tLit4 .1t01.1gCEPOK 2]_gtJ# 1. SWAM'. sviiit N • T ■ ? \ ■,,' 1 • ' .\ \ \, 1 \ 1 1 \I \ • & 1 . cis, •I 1 \ 1 1 t 40. •1 ef' \ c \ \ , .. , :. ,1 7 je.,„'?.--LcI6O z.) 4 \ \ ... ------.. *--. , \ ' v \ . \*. ‘‘ ... \ . . ' . \ lii:k? Rs e \ \ \ \ . 0 • \ • • s. . , Si -0, 37....167-Asktt/H) \ \ N \ \ PitaIttlity U.Psialte • • • %* s..% .... • N N \ N , N 111.a.a.aalts*.1111.11.114..•41114:11.A (IOW ,WAY "4 Ni4P*.i2.•1. ket./ WALL. \ 0 • ../ jir .1 .....-., ...•:, is% • "..1 t--.2 1 , _ ...„. % • 1 e l ' \ % • • • \ • • \ T .01 \ea \ \ 1 1 1 1 %. .. '.o \Ac• 7.9 A6 \\ .M. \\ \ .1.9-iirjerRoNsgs. • 35'301 ' •1 1526‘44'\ 1 1 406 Notes: 1. Dosed upon Soundary and Contour Survey for Rodger E. Lacy Sr.. by Lund.and Associates Surveyors, 2-28-95 • • 2. See Geotechrical InveetlgatIon Rodger E. Larcy.5r. Residence, 51st Avenue South, Tubsil.a, Washington. 3-15-95, by Galli Group for recommendations on cut, fill, and ' drainage. 3. Interceptor trench at top of proposed cut should be Installed prior to regrading of . elopes. • 4. Water course approaching building footprint from the west and the south should be rerouted as part of the landscaping and wetland mitigation plans. Interceptor trench along south side of building footprint may need to drain Into rerouted watercouree, \ \ • \ \ 1 \. • Proposed Grading Plan SCALE: 0 r. col DATE: APINIOVID IT: 3- V- 95 1 .1 DRAWN SY ' Rodger E. Lac'Sr. Residence Tukwila, Washington REVISED:, MC:44 3/zo145— .1 11111.11 1111111 'III'H ' 1 f -2 • 3 5 6 611 .1 411 I 911 i The 08111 Group. k,c. - 15600 Wu City Way 14112, Suite 202 Seattle. Washington 96125 rhos*: (206)565-6449 DRAWW0 NUMBER DrawIngl of 3