HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOW 2008-11-10 Item 4B - Public Hearing - Amend Comprehensive Plan Map from LDR to MDR i COUNCIL AGENDA SYNOPSIS
Initials ITEM NO.
-0 0 1 1 Meeting Date Prepared by I Mayor's review 1 Council review 1
1 07/14/08 RF n 1 1 ,b. 4
Jo\
„t 1 07/21/08 R Y 1 1
r so a 11/10/08 1 RF 1 1-, 1-- (,,,,,J 5, b iq
ITEM INFORMATION
1 CAS NUMBER: 08-137 I ORIGINAL AGENDA DATE: JULY 14, 2008
AGENDA ITEM TIME 2008 Comprehensive Plan amendments
C.vi'I•:GORY Discussion Motion Resolution Ordinance Bid Award Public Hearing Other
t\1tg Date 11/10/08 lftg Date Tftg Date lftg Date Mfg Date Mtg Date 11/10/08 lltg Date
SPONSOR Council n Mayor Adm Svcs DCD Finance Fire Legal P &R Police PIV
IC SPsc )R' s Briefing and public meeting on a 2008's Comprehensive Plan amendment rezone review
SUNINIARY process. The City of Tukwila has received a request to change the designation of 1.4 acres
in the eastern portion of a property located at 152xx 65th Avenue South from Low Density
Residential (LDR) to Medium Density Residential (MDR) The City Council forwarded the
matter to the Planning Commission, which held a public hearing on 10/30/08, and
recommended denial of the request. The City Council will hold a hearing on 11 /10/08.
11I ?\'11s.' 1) M' n COW Mtg. CA &P Cmte F&S Cmte Transportation Cmte
I Utilities Cmte n Arts Comm. Parks Comm. Planning Comm.
DATE: 6/9/08
RECOMMENDATIONS:
SPONSCnt /ADMiN. Consideration and Discussion
COMMITTEE Unanimous Approval; Forward to Committee of the Whole
COST IMPACT FUND SOURCE
EXPENDITURE R ;QUIRED AMOUNT BUDGETED APPROPRIATION REQUIRED
Fund Source:
Continents:
MTG. DATE I RECORD OF COUNCIL ACTION
7/ 14/08 Forward to next Regular Meeting
7/21/08 Forward to Planning Commission
MTG. DATE I ATTACHMENTS
7/14/08 Informational memorandum dated 7/8/08, with Attachments 1 9
Minutes from Community Affairs Parks Committee meeting of 6/9/08 are Attachment 1 of memo
7/21/08 No attachments
11/10/08 Informational memorandum dated 11/4/08 with Attachments 1 2
1
_41A j
City l t Jim Haggerton, Mayor
v�D r� 0 S
e Department of Community Development
i tt� p f Jack Pace, Director
1908
MEMORANDUM
November 4, 2008
TO: Tukwila City Council
FROM: Jack Pace, Tukwila Department of Community Developme
SUBJECT: ANNUAL COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENTS 907 -2008
This memo summarizes proposed non emergency changes to the Comprehensive Plan
and zoning map for 2007 -2008. A public hearing is scheduled for November 10, 2008 to
receive input. At that time, the City Council will be briefed on the proposal and the
Planning Commission's recommendation. After the public hearing, the City Council will
discuss the issue. On November 17, 2008, the City Council is scheduled to will make its
final decision whether or not to adopt the proposed amendment.
Process to date:
As part of its annual Comprehensive Plan amendment review, the City of Tukwila is
considering one, non emergency Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Map amendment in
2007 -2008. The Tukwila City Council reviewed the request at a public meeting on July
14, 2008, and forwarded it to the Planning Commission for review.
The Planning Commission held a public hearing on October 30, 2008. After the hearing,
the Planning Commission recommended denial of the request. The Staff Report and draft
minutes are attached. (Attachments 1 2)
At each stage in the process, staff has tried to encourage public involvement. All public
meetings, and hearings were advertised in the paper. Staff provided mailings to owners
and occupants within 500 feet of the proposed map change, and posted the site.
Application Summary:
Reauest Redesignate property from Low Density Residential (LDR) to Medium Densty
at S. 152xx 65 Avenue S.
Applicant: Raymond Carlstedt (Comprehensive Plan File #L07 -097 and Rezone File
#L07 -096)
Rf 1 11105 2008
H- \Cnmrl Plan 7007- 700R\Woodland View 1 1)7 O96 X I n' 1 g 7 '(Mt mn I 1 I0 OR dnr.
6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 Tukwila, Washington 98188 Phone: 206 431 -3670 Fax: 206 431 -3665
The applicant seeks to redesignate approximately 1.48 acres in the easternmost portion of
a 5.4 acre site from Low Density Residential (LDR) to Medium Density Residential
(MDR). The vacant, wooded property contains steep slopes, two wetlands and their
buffers. The request affects only the eastern portion of the property adjacent to 65
Avenue South, and excludes areas with wetlands and their buffers.
Recommendation: The staff and Planning Commission recommend denial of the
Comprehensive Plan map change and rezone from LDR to MDR at 152xx 65 Avenue
South based primarily on the lack of compelling need for additional land that is
designated for multi family use. Complete details are found in the attached staff report.
Council Consideration
After its public hearing on November 10, 2008, the City Council will make a final
decision on the proposed amendment at its November 17, 2008 meeting. The City
Council may:
Adopt a proposed amendment;
Adopt a modified version of a proposed amendment; or
Reject the proposed amendment.
Consideration of the site specific amendment is a quasi judicial action. Comprehensive
Plan amendment criteria and Rezone criteria are included in the attached Planning
Commission staff report.
Next steps:
After taking public comments at the hearing on November 10, 2008, the City Council
will discuss the issue, and give staff direction on whether they wish to approve or deny
the request. If the Council wishes to approve the request, staff will prepare an ordinance
with fmdings and conclusions.
At the regular meeting on November 17, 2008, the City Council will take final action on
whether to approve, deny or revise the request.
RI 2 11/05/2008
H: Comp Plan 2007 2008 \Woodland View L07 -096 L07- 097\CCMemo1 1.10.08.doc
ATTACHMENT 1
PLANNING COMIVIISSION
PUBLIC H FARING MINUTES
OCTOBER 30, 2008
The meeting was called to order by Chair Parrish at 7:00 PM
Present: Chair, Parrish; Vice -Chair George Malina; Commissioners, Allan Ekberg, and Lynn
Peterson
Absent: Commissioners Margaret Bratcher and Bill Arthur
Representing
City Staff: Minnie Dhaliwal, Rebecca Fox, Lisa Verner and Wynetta Bivens
PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING
Commissioner Parrish made a motion to amend the order of the case numbers on the agenda.
Commissioner Peterson seconded the motion. All were in favor.
Commissioner Parrish swore in those wishing to give testimony.
CASE NUMBER: L07 -097 Woodland View Comprehensive Plan Amendment —Map Change
APPLICANT: Raymond Carlstedt
REQUEST: Amend Comprehensive Land Use Plan Map from Low Density Residential (LDR)
to Medium Density Residential (MDR)
LOCATION: 152XX 65 Avenue South
Rebecca Fox, Senior Planner asked each of the Commissioners three Appearance of Fairness questions.
Commissioner Peterson disclosed that the corner of his property is approximately 115 ft. from the
applicant's property and approximately 500 ft. from the rezone area. He also disclosed an acquaintance
with a property owner who provided testimony to the City Council and lives adjacent to the site. Neither
the applicant nor anyone from the audience had any objections to any of the Commissioners hearing the
case.
Rebecca Fox gave the presentation for staff. She explained the process for amending the Comprehensive
Plan and the Zoning Map. The City Council will hold a public hearing on the case on November 11, 2008.
The Planning Commission and the City Council must consider specific criteria in making decisions regarding
the Comprehensive Plan change and Rezone.
Ms. Fox reviewed elements of the staff report. The applicant seeks to redesignate approximately 1.41
acres in the eastern third of a 5.8 acre site located at 152xx 65 Avenue South from Low Density
Residential (LDR) to Medium Density Residential (MDR). The rezone is requested only for the portion
of the property closest to 65 Avenue South, and excludes all wetlands and buffers. The rest of the lot
would remain LDR. Most of the site is in an environmentally sensitive area or buffer, including both
steep slopes and wetlands. Although not part of the rezone consideration, the applicant has offered to
donate to the City of Tukwila the portion of the lot that is not part of the rezone request.
Page 2 of 3
Planning Commission
October 30, 2008
The existing area zoning is a mixture of LDR along with MDR and HDR. LDR runs along the west side
th
of 65 Avenue S., including the subject property, with HDR and MDR to the east. When the current
Comprehensive Plan map and zoning map were developed in 1995, the Planning Commission
recommended rezoning from LDR to MDR the blocks immediately south of the property. The City
Council decided to rezone only the San Juan apai talents immediately south of the property, and retained
the rest of the area as LDR. There was no discussion of rezoning the subject property.
The property could be developed for housing under the current LDR zoning. At present, the. City of
Tukwila has a total of 4, 209 multi family homes and 3,365 single- family homes i.e. 20% more multi-
family addresses than single- family addresses. Additional opportunities for multi family development are
anticipated in the Tukwila Village development, as well as in the Tukwila Urban Center. Given existing
and anticipated opportunities to meet Growth Management requirements for denser housing and to
provide multi family housing choices in areas that have fewer environmental constraints, the
Comprehensive Plan provides no compelling reason to change from LDR to MDR.
Staff recommended denial of the request for Comprehensive Plan Amendment from Low Density Residential
(LDR) to Multi- Family Residential (MDR).
CASE NUMBER: L07 -096 Woodland View Zoning Code Amendment Map Change
APPLICANT: Raymond Carlstedt
REQUEST: Amend Zoning Map from Low Density Residential (LDR) to Medium Density
Residential (MDR)
LOCATION: 152XX 65 Avenue South
Rebecca Fox gave the presentation for staff. Rebecca reiterated that the Comprehensive Plan and the Zoning
Map are required to be consistent. Staff recommended denial of the rezone from Low Density Residental
(LDR) to Medium Density Residential (MDR).
A. J. Bradberg, Wetland Biology, for the applicant, testified that upping the density would allow them to
bring in affordable housing. He said that the property offers an opportunity to increase density to be in
alignment with the Growth Management Act mandate. He stated that the rezone made sense environmentally
by concentrating new development near 65 Avenue S.
There was lots of discussion pertaining to environment, including buffers, wetlands and steep slopes, etc.
David Yonguitsu, Geo Technical Engineer, for the applicant, addressed some issues that were raised during
the discussion. Mr. Yonguitsu stated it's a feasible project based off of stability.
Ray Carlstedt, applicant, says he can not do anything with the property ything p p rt5 as its zoned. He stated he has tried
repeatedly to sell the property and that is financially draining him. The applicant stated if the zoning was
changed to MDR he feels he would have a better chance.
Commissioner Parrish asked the applicant if he understood the criteria that the Commission must look at in
making their decision on the project. He also mentioned to the applicant he may have some development
options that have not been fully explored.
Commissioner Ekberg inquired of staff if they had discussed the potential of Planned Residential
Development with the applicant earlier on in the process.
Page 3 of 3
Planning Commission
October 30, 2008
Public Testimony:
StephenWheeler, resident, provided some comments on why he doesn't think the property is buildable. He
stated he would like to see the City place more emphasis on single family residences. He also stated that he is
worried about the value of his home. Mr. Wheeler is opposed to the proposed project.
Debra Tsuruda, resident, says her greatest concern is the traffic impacts. She also requested that check
points be addressed in the future.
Bruce Paquette, resident, said his issue is regarding increased traffic on 65th and prefers keeping the site
LDR.
Bonnie Wong, resident, said she is concerned with the proposal to change the zoning and traffic impacts.
There were no further comments.
The public hearing was closed.
The Planning Commission deliberated.
Commissioner Parrish expressed that he is saddened by the applicant's circumstances. He explained that
the Commission is given a requirement to go by the goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan with a
very specific criteria to follow. He denied the proposed project.
Commissioner Malina concurs with staff's conclusion for the proposal. He suggested that the proposal
should go before the City Council for their determination and staff determination regarding Planned
Residential Development (PRD). He denied the proposed project.
Commissioner Peterson concurs with Commissioner Parrish's comments and staff's recommendations. He
denied the proposed project.
Commissioner Ekberg stated that he found the applicant's testimony compelling to support the need.
However, he does not feel the Zoning Code or the Comprehensive Plan will allow the Commission to support
the proposal based on what's before them. He concurs with the other Commissioners to deny the proposed
project. He expressed that a concern that staff does not have a resolution to the question he raised concerning
creating a single land locked property if the western part of the property were to be donated to the City He
also expressed concern that the opportunity was not explored to look at the project as a Planned Residential
Development (PRD) and that it was not brought up with the applicant early in the process.
COMMISSIONER MALINA MADE A MOTION TO DENY CASE NUMBER L07 -097 BASED
ON STAFF'S FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS. HE
RECOMMENDED FORWARDING IT TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR REVIEW.
COMMISSIONER PETERSON SECONDED THE MOTION. ALL WERE IN FAVOR.
COMMISSIONER MALINA MADE A MOTION TO DENY CASE NUMBER L07 -096 BASED
ON STAFF'S FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS. HE
RECOMMENDED FORWARDING IT TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR REVIEW.
COMMISSIONER PETERSON SECONDED THE MOTION. ALL WERE IN FAVOR.
ATTACHMENT 2
4LA L
r/� Ci qf T U k iJI j Jim Haggerton, Mayor
`).1 tr> Department f Community Development jack Pace, Director
1908
STAFF REPORT
TO THE
PLANNING COMMISSION
HEARING DATE: October 30, 2008
NOTIFICATION: Notice mailed to surrounding properties, 9/25/08
Site posted, 9/26/08
Notice published in the Seattle Times, 10/16/08
Notice of site visit mailed, 10/16/08
FILE NUMBER: L07 -097 (Comprehensive Plan Amendment)
L07 -096 (Rezone)
APPLICANT: Raymond Carlstedt
REQUEST: Change Comprehensive Plan /Zoning Map from Low
Density Residential (LDR) to Medium Density
Residential (MDR)
LOCATION: 152xx 65 Avenue South (Tax Parcel 3597000360)
COMPREHENSIVE
PLAN DESIGNATION: Low Density Residential (LDR)
ZONE DESIGNATION: Low Density Residential (LDR)
SEPA DETERMINATION: Determination of Non significance (DNS), 10/16/08
STAFF: Rebecca Fox
ATTACHMENTS: A. Application (L07- 097 Comprehensive Plan
B. Application -L07- 096— Zoning Map Change)
C. Site Location with zoning
Rf 1 10/16/2008
(.\('omn Plan 2007- 20081Wondland ViJ Q7 -096 ,27-09_T+PS_ J STAFF RPT-- WooalandView- CarlstedtT.07- 0961.07- 097 -doe
6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 Tukwila, Washington 98188 Phone: 206- 431 -3670 e Fax: 206 431 -3665
D. Minutes Committee of the Whole (7/14/08)
E. Citizen letters from agenda packet (7/14/08)
F. Minutes Regular Meeting (7/21/08)
G. Steep Slopes and Wetlands
H. Geotechnical Report (R. Pride, 4/08)
I. Wetlands (Aerial View)
J. Wetland Delineation Report (J. Jennings, 5/08)
K. Multi family Development
L. 1995 Planning Commission Recommended
Zoning
M. Applicant's Preliminary Site Plan
BACKGROUND
FINDINGS
VICINITY /SITE INFORMATION
Background and Proiect Description
The applicant seeks to redesignate approximately 1.41 acres in the eastern third
of a 5.8 acre site located at 152xx 65 Avenue South from Low Density
Residential (LDR) to Medium Density Residential (MDR). (Attachments A
B).The area where MDR is requested extends west from 65 Avenue South to
the eastern edge of the 50' buffer on the eastern wetland. (Attachment C)
The Community Affairs and Parks Committee was briefed on June 9, 2008, and
the issue was forwarded to the City Council. After taking comments at a public
meeting on July 14, 2008,.the City Council deliberated on July 21, 2008, and
forwarded the issue to the Planning Commission for review. (Attachments D, E
F).
Vicinitv /Site Information
Site: The near rectangular property measures about 350 feet x 770 feet, and
extends east to west from 65 Avenue South to 62 Avenue South. The entire
5.8 acre site is undeveloped, and is covered with trees and shrubs. Its terrain
varies from a high elevation of 200 feet at the northeast corner to a low of about
140 feet on the west side. Two wetland areas and their associated buffers are
located in the west and central portions of the site. The rezone area, proposed
for MDR, consists of 1.41 acres; The proposed boundary line between the LDR
and MDR would begin in the approximate center of the eastern wetland and
follow the outside boundary of the buffer area. The applicant has asked to
rezone only the property east of this fine.
Rf 2 10/16/2008
Q: \Comp Plan 2007- 2008 \Woodland View L07 -096 L07- 097\PC STAFF RPT—WoodlandView-CarlstedtL07-096L07-
097.doc
Sensitive Areas:
With the exception of a portion of the lot's southeastern edge, almost all of the
site is an environmentally sensitive area or buffer, including both steep slopes,
and wetlands. (Attachment G)
Steep S lopes: The majority of the area that is proposed for MDR zoning lies
within a Class 3 area of potential geologic instability. Per Tukwila Municipal Code
18.45.120, Class 3 areas are those where "landslide potential is high, which
include areas sloping between 15 and 40 percent and which are underlain by
relatively impermeable soils or bedrock, and which also include areas sloping
more than 40 percent."
The applicant's geotechnical report (Attachment H) updates a report that was
prepared in 1989 for the Alpine Estates project. It states that the property is
suitable for development of residential structures, with the exclusion of the
wetland areas and associated buffers. Excavation and some filling will be
required to establish future building pads for future residential structures.
(Geotech Study, p.2).
Wetlands: The entire site includes two wetlands and their buffers. The western
wetland is outside the area that is being considered for rezone, and is not part of
the discussion. (Attachment 1)
A wetland and its buffer are in the eastern portion of the site, and just west of the
proposed rezone area. The applicant's wetland delineation report indicates that
this is a Type 3 wetland that requires 50' buffers. (Attachment J)The City of
Tukwila's Urban Environmentalist finds that the should be considered a Type 2
wetland with an 80' buffer area. Most of the wetland's buffer, whether it is the 50'
buffer area required by the Type 3 wetland, or the 80' buffer that the Type 2
wetland would require, lies in the steep slope area.
MDR is proposed only on 1.4 acres in the eastern part of the property closest to
65th Avenue South, and east of the easternmost wetland and its buffer. This
would leave the rest of the site zone LDR with the wetlands and their buffers
unaffected, and ensure that any future multi family residential development would
occur only on the eastern edge of the property closest to 65 Avenue South. Per
the Sensitive Areas Ordinance (TMC 18.45.080. C), development shall be set
back ten feet from the buffers. Under certain circumstances the Director of the
Community Development Department may waive buffer setback requirements.
The applicant has discussed possible donation to the City of Tukwila of the
remaining property that is not part of the rezone proposal (approximately 4.4
acres). Two separate tracts would be established. The tract to be donated would
retain its LDR zoning, and the other tract would be rezoned to MDR. With or
without the donation, the two wetlands and their buffers could not be developed,
Rf 3 10/16/2008
Q: \Comp Plan 2007 2008 \Woodland View L07 -096 L07- 097\PC STAFF RPT--WoodlandView-CarlstedtL07- 096L07-
097.doc
and would remain essentially as -is. Any possible donation is not part of the
Comprehensive Plan map change or rezone deliberation.
Vicinity: A mix of single- family and multi family dwelling units is in the vicinity.
14 single family homes are directly north in the Maple Tree subdivision.
Approximately 12 single family homes are located in the LDR zone to the south.
Additional single family homes are to the northwest of the site. An application is
pending for a 6 -lot short plat along 65 Avenue South, adjacent to the City Hall
parking lot.
Approximately 260 units of apartment and condominium units are east across
65 Avenue South (Maple Leaf, Canyon Estates, Park View) on land that is
zoned Medium Density Residential (MDR). Farther northeast across 65 the
land is zoned High Density Residential (HDR) The 48 unit San Juan apartments
are zoned MDR. Immediately south across S. 153rd, the Cottage Creek
apartments are zoned HDR. The Sunwood Condominiums are in the HDR zone
farther to the west. (Attachment K)
Tukwila Park is one -half block from the site along 65 Avenue South. Tukwila
City Hall is in an Office (0) zone two blocks south of the property.
The property has been the subject of several single family development
proposals in the past. In the late 1980s, the entire site, including both wetlands,
was considered for the Alpine Estates single family subdivision proposal that was
eventually dropped. The current proposal is the first request for multi family
zoning. It differs from earlier single family proposals and projects since it affects
only the eastern area along 65 Avenue South. As stated, wetlands and
associated buffer areas are excluded from the proposal, and would be retained.
DISCUSSION
ZONING MAP -The existing zoning in the area is a mixture of Low Density
Residential zones along with Medium Density Residential (MDR) and High
Density Residential (HDR). A review of the zoning map shows that the LDR
zoning runs along the west side of 65 Avenue South, with MDR and HDR
immediately east across from the site. 65 Avenue South divides the MDR and
HDR to the east, from the LDR to the west. Several blocks of LDR are to the
south of the subject property, but most LDR is north and northwest of the site.
When the current Comprehensive Plan map and zoning map were developed in
1995, the Planning Commission recommended rezoning to MDR the entire block
south of the subject property. This included the San Juan Apartments east along
S. 153 to 65 Avenue South, and south to the City Hall parking lot. This action
would have up -zoned a small neighborhood of approximately 12 single family
Rf 4 10;16/2008
Q: \Comp Plan 2007 2008 \Woodland View L07 -096 L07- 097\PC STAFF RPT—WoodlandView-CarlstedtL07-096L07-
097.doc
houses from LDR to MDR. (Attachment L) The City Council, however, decided
to rezone only the San Juan South apartments to MDR, and retain the rest of the
areas as LDR, There was no discussion of rezoning the subject property to MDR
in 1995 or at any point until the present application was filed.
The current applicant wants to rezone only the eastern portion of the property
along 65 Avenue South arterial. Extending the MDR zone west across 65
Avenue South to include the subject property would interrupt a solid line of LDR
to create a small zone of multi family land.
DEVELOPMENT CONSIDERATIONS-
Much of the site is encumbered with wetlands, buffers and slopes. Through
careful planning, the site could be developed as Low Density Residential, either
with traditional single family Tots, or perhaps with a Planned Residential
Development (PRD) to take advantage of the environmentally sensitive site
conditions. Under the current LDR zoning, it is likely that the site could be
developed somewhat farther west on the lot than the boundary the applicant
requests. This might permit a greater number of houses to be built. The exact
number of 6, 500 s.g. single- family lots that could be placed on the site depends
on the layout. The maximum would likely be no more than approximately seven
or eight. Under the Planned Residential Development (PRD), houses could be
clustered to minimize environmental impacts, and the lot size could be reduced
by 15
The proposed Medium Density Residential (MDR) zoning allows a maximum of
14.5 units /acre as duplex, triplex or fourplex buildings with a maximum height of
30 feet. The 1.41 acre rezone site could allow approximately 17 or 18 units to be
built if the rezone request is approved. This density is unlikely, given the site's
constraints. The applicant's preliminary site plan shows a total of 12 units in six
duplex buildings i.e. fewer than the maximum that the Zoning Code allows with ,a
single access onto 65 Avenue South. No development is proposed at this time.
(Attachment M)
Under the requested MDR zone, a multi- family development could be designed
to minimize environmental impacts through clustering and careful site planning.
Access to
points onto 65 Avenue South and the resulting loss of parking could
also be limited through careful site layout and design. Multi- family Planned
Residential Development (PRD) is permitted on sites with wetlands or
watercourses. Per the Sensitive Areas Ordinance (TMC 18.45.080. C),
development shall be set back ten feet from the wetland buffers. Under certain
circumstances the Director of the Community Development Department may
waive buffer setback requirements. Per TMC 18.45. 080. G. 1, the DCD director
may reduce standard wetland buffers on a case by case basis, provided the
reduced buffer area does not contain slopes 15% or greater.
Rf 5 10/16/2008
Q: \Comp Plan 2007- 2008 \Woodland View L07 -096 L07- 097\PC STAFF RPT—\VoodlandView-CarlstedtL07-096L07-
097.doc
The applicant's preliminary site plan has been discussed internally by Planning
and Public Works staff, but has not been formally reviewed for specific
development potential, density and configuration. Any future multi family project
Would need to meet all the development requirements of the zoning code. It
would require a separate application, and since it is in environmentally sensitive
land, would trigger design review.
Site conditions make it difficult to accommodate more intensive development.
Given the site's steep slopes and wetlands, both single family or multi family
would require careful planning to ensure adequate access for fire protection and
for private vehicles, utility service, storm drainage, parking, etc. In the vicinity of
the project, 65 Avenue South is heavily used for on- street parking.
Under either the existing LDR or the proposed MDR zoning, additional curb cuts
for site access /driveways onto 65 Avenue South would require review and
approval by the Public Works Department, and could be limited in number.
Access drives would be limited to less than 15% slope, requiring significant
grading and filling.
In both the existing LDR zone, and the requested MDR zone, two parking spaces
would be provided for each dwelling unit that contains up to three bedrooms.
One additional off street parking space shall be required for every two bedrooms
in excess of three bedrooms.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN REVIEW CRITERIA
Planning Commission review is required for Comprehensive Plan and Zoning
Code amendments. The Planning Commission may recommend approval,
recommend approval with conditions or recommend denial of the amendment
based on a clear compliance with the criteria that follow. The Planning
Commission's recommendation will be forwarded to the City Council, which will
make the final decision.
1) Describe how the issue is addressed in the Comprehensive Plan. If the
issue is not adequately addressed, is there a need for it?
Four broad reaching objectives are the basis for the elements, goals and policies
for Tukwila's Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan's primary objective
is preserving and enhancing Tukwila's neighborhoods. The Comprehensive Plan
states the following:
Comprehensive Plan Objective #1:
"To improve and sustain residential neighborhood quality and livability."
Under Low Density Residential (LDR) zoning and the Medium Density
Residential (MDR) zoning, both single family homes and multi family homes
provide opportunities for individuals and families to live in and contribute to the
Rf 6
1 0/16/2008
Q:\Comp Plan 2007 2008 \Woodland View L07 -096 L07- 097\PC STAFF RPT-- WoodlandView- CarlstedtL07- 096L07.
097.doc
community. Neighborhood residential quality and livability can be maintained
with the current LDR zoning. There is no compelling reason that supports the
change to MDR in order to promote "neighborhood quality and livability."
Housing Goal 3.1 states the following:
Continue to provide the City's fair share of regional housing.
Either the current LDR zoning or the requested MDR zoning would allow housing
to be built on the site.
Housing Policy 3.1.1. states the following:
Provide sufficient zoned housing potential to accommodate future single-
and multi family households.
This policy speaks to the need to provide adequate amounts of residentially
zoned land. Both the current Low Density Residential (LDR) zoning and the
requested Medium Density Residential (MDR) zoning would allow housing to be
built in the future. LDR provides for single- family detached homes, and MDR
allows buildings with two, three or four units. With either current LDR zoning or
the requested MDR zoning, some type of housing could be built, consistent with
this Comprehensive Plan policy.
The policy provides no special requirement or justification for changing existing
zoning from LDR to MDR in order to accommodate multi- family development.
Capacity for additional multi family housing will be provided in the Tukwila Urban
Center once the proposed Tukwila Urban Center Plan is adopted, and in the
anticipated Tukwila Village development along Tukwila International Boulevard.
Residential Neighborhoods Policy 7.3.1 demonstrates the community's
commitment to residential neighborhoods as follows:
7.3.1 Maintain a comprehensive land use map that supports the
preservation and enhancement of single family and stable multi family
neighborhoods; eliminates incompatible uses; and clearly establishes
applicable development requirements through recognizable boundaries.
65 Avenue South currently acts as a clear boundary between the stable multi-
family neighborhood to the east and the stable single family area to the north and
south of the subject property. Keeping the current Comprehensive Plan map and
zoning boundaries will maintain stability in the neighborhood.
2) Impacts
The requested map change to MDR could potentially add up to up to 18 housing
units to the site, increasing the overall housing stock in Tukwila. This would bring
multi family units west across 65 Avenue S. At present, Low Density
Rf 7 10/16/2008
Q: \Comp Plan 2007- 2008 \Woodland View L07 -096 L07- 097\PC STAFF RPT--WoodlandView-CarlstedtL07- 096L07-
097.doc
Residential (LDR) runs continuously along 65 Avenue South from S. 151 to the
City Hall driveway entrance on S. 154
Bbth single- family or multi family development on the site would add some traffic
and noise. Trees would be removed, although some would be replaced. In terms
of total new housing units, the impacts of future single family development on the
existing LDR are likely to be less than the impacts of future multi family housing.
MDR would probably require more impervious surface than LDR, but possibly
fewer curb cuts and access points from 65 Avenue South. Denser MDR
development would be more in keeping with the Growth Management Act's
preference for compact development.
Amending the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Maps to MDR would allow
expansion of multi family use across 65 Avenue South to a block that is
currently exclusively LDR.
3. Is the proposed change the best means for meeting the identified public
need? What other options are there for meeting the identified public need?
As Tukwila and King County grow, there is public need and a Growth
Management Act requirement for additional housing opportunities and choices.
Demand for new housing could be met either by developing single family
detached homes under the existing Low Density Development (LDR) zoning or
by building duplex, triplex or four -plex homes that the proposed Medium Density
Residential (MDR) zone would allow.
Tukwila presently has 21% more multi family addresses than single- family
addresses. 3, 476 apartment units and 733 condominium units total of 4, 209
multi family units, or 56% of all housing. There are 3,365 single family
addresses, that comprise 44% of all Tukwila housing units.
The Growth Management Act's call for greater housing density can be met by
developing multi family in other locations throughout Tukwila which have fewer
environmental concerns. Future capacity for multi family housing could be
provided through redevelopment in the Tukwila Urban Center, once the TUC
zoning is amended to allow additional residential use. Multi- family development
will also be part of the Tukwila Village project on Tukwila International Boulevard.
4) Will the proposed change result in a net benefit to the community? If
not, what result can be expected and why?
The proposed change from LDR to MDR could benefit the greater community
and the region by offering additional housing choice in the neighborhood.
However, since Tukwila already has more multi family homes than single family
homes, and since additional opportunities for multi- family development are
Rf 8 10/16/2008
Q: \Comp Plan 2007 2008 \Woodland View L07 -096 L07- 097\PC STAFF RPT—WoodlandView-CarlstedtL07-096L07-
097.doc
anticipated in other parts of the city, it is not clear that reducing the amount of
land available for single family housing would actually benefit the specific Tukwila
community.
A positive side -effect of the rezone could result from the applicant's interest in
possibly donating the western portion of the land that would remain LDR to the
City of Tukwila for trails and open space. This donation, if it occurs, would
benefit the community by ensuring that much of the property would remain
undeveloped. Permanent, publicly -owned open space would be provided, and
the wetlands would be protected. The possible donation should not be part of
the consideration of the rezone request.
It should be noted, however, that even under the existing LDR zoning, wetlands
and buffers cannot be developed under any circumstances. The difference is
that the undeveloped area would remain in private ownership, and would not be
accessible to the public.
CONCLUSIONS
In reviewing Comprehensive Plan criteria, staff concludes that:
1) Is the issue addressed in the Comprehensive Plan? Is it needed?
Comprehensive Plan objectives, goals and policies that acknowledge the
need for Tukwila to retain residential neighborhoods, to provide regional
need for housing, to retain adequate land zoned "residential and to
provide housing in a stable neighborhood are addressed under the current
Low Density Residential zoning.
The Comprehensive Plan does not preclude MDR. The policies discussed
above refer both to the existing LDR and the proposed MDR, but the
Plan's policies offer no compelling justification to change the zoning from
LDR to MDR.
2) Impacts?
The property's development potential for single family or multi family
residential use will be limited by site considerations including:
Steep slopes
Wetlands
Potential geological instability
Future development plans would undergo environmental, design review
and building permit review.
Rf 9 10/16/2008
Q: \Comp Plan 2007 2008 \Woodland View L07 -096 L07- 097\PC STAFF RPT--WoodlandView-CarlstedtL07-096L07-
097.doc
The requested map change to MDR could potentially add up to up to 17 or
18 housing units to the site, and increase the overall housing stock in
Tukwila. This would bring multi family units west across 65 Avenue S.
At present, Low Density Residential (LDR) runs continuously along 65
Avenue South from S. 151 to the City Hall driveway entrance on S. 154
3) Meeting identified public need? Other options?
At present, there are 21 more multi- family units than single family units
in Tukwila.
Other opportunities for multi family housing currently exist, with more
opportunities anticipated when the Tukwila Urban Center Plan is adopted
and Tukwila Village is developed on Tukwila International Boulevard.
With the current preponderance of multi- family homes to single family
homes in Tukwila, it is difficult to justify reducing the amount of Low
Density Residential land in order to provide additional capacity for multi-
family development.
4) Benefit to the community?
The applicant's possible donation of the western 4.4 acres of the site
would benefit the public by retaining the greatest possible amount of
undeveloped open space on the site, and making this available for public
use.
However, under the existing LDR zoning, much of the property is likely to
remain undeveloped due to wetlands and buffers, whether or not a
donation occurs.
It is not clear that reducing the amount of land available for single family
housing would benefit the community since Tukwila already has more
multi family homes than single family homes, and additional opportunities
for multi family development are anticipated in other parts of the city.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends denying the request for Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Map
P
changes from Low Density Residential (LDR) to Multi Family Residential (MDR).
FILE #L07 -096 ZONING MAP AMENDMENT /REZONE
REZONE CRITERIA:
1. The proposed amendment to the zoning map is consistent with the
goals, objectives and policies of the Comprehensive Plan
Rf 10 10/16/2008
Q: \Comp Plan 2007- 2008\Woodland View L07 -096 L07- 097\PC STAFF RPT—WoodlandView-CarlstedtL07- 096L07-
097.doc
Per the discussion of Comprehensive Plan Criteria (above), both the existing
LDR zoning and the proposed MDR zoning are consistent with the
gomprehensive Plan, as follows:
Plan Objective #1 —To improve and sustain residential
neighborhood quality and livability
Goal 3.1 Continue to provide the City's fair share of regional
housing
Policy 3.1.1 Provide sufficient zoned housing potential to
accommodate future single- and multi family households.
Policy 7.6.3 Allow Planned Residential Developments (PRDs) for
multi- and single family use on properties with wetlands or
watercourses, or within the Tukwila South Master Plan Area in
conjunction with the City Council's approval of a master plan.
2. The proposed amendment to the Zoning Map is consistent with the
scope and purpose of this title and the description and purpose of
the zone classification applied for.
Per TMC 18.10.010 Purpose, the existing Low Density Residential (LDR) district
is "intended to provide low density family residential areas together with a
range of urban infrastructure services in order to maintain stable residential
neighborhoods, and to prevent intrusions by incompatible land uses."
Single family homes are currently allowed.
Per TMC 18.12.010 Purpose, the proposed Medium Density Residential (MDR)
district is "intended to provide areas for family and group residential uses, and
serves as an alternative to lower density family residential housing, and more
intensively developed group residential housing and related uses..."
The proposed rezone from Low Density Residential (LDR) to Medium Density
Residential (MDR) would allow duplex, triplex or fourplex housing to be built.
3. There are changed conditions since the previous zoning became
effective to warrant the proposed amendment to the Zoning Map
In 1995, the land immediately south of the site was zoned Medium Density
Residential (MDR), in order to recognize the existing San Juan South
apartments. Conditions have not changed significantly since that time to warrant
the proposed amendment to the Zoning Map.
4. The proposed amendment to the Zoning Map will be in the interest of
furtherance of the public health, safety, comfort, convenience and
Rf 11 10/16/2008
Q: \Comp Plan 2007- 2008 \Woodland View L07 -096 L07- 097\PC STAFF RPT--WoodlandView-CarlstedtL07- 096L07-
097.doc
general welfare, and will not adversely affect the surrounding
neighborhoods, nor be injurious to other properties in the vicinity in
which the subject property is located
In a broad sense, allowing additional multi family housing to be built could benefit
the region and the community by providing additional housing choices. However,
more specific to the site, any housing that is built either single family or multi-
family-- would need to be planned carefully to accommodate environmental
conditions, as well as to limit the number of curb cuts onto 65 Avenue South.
Zoning should strike a balance between single family and multi- family and use
and zoning without jeopardizing current development of single family homes.
The rezone would allow higher density housing to be built. This future
development would be consistent with multi family development east across 65
Avenue South, as well as development to the south. It would, however, be
inconsistent with the other single- family development to the immediate north and
south of the property.
A specific traffic study has not been prepared. However, rezoning the property to
MDR would result in denser development and somewhat greater traffic impacts
than development under the existing LDR zoning.
Subsequent site development applications for SEPA and Design Review would
address specific impacts such as traffic, parking, environmentally sensitive areas
and impacts on abutting property. Environmental review, design review with a
Board of Architectural Review hearing and public involvement would provide
Tukwila a clear mechanism to evaluate any future proposed development, and to
mitigate potential negative impacts to the adjacent properties and the community.
ZONING MAP AMENDMENT CONCLUSIONS
1) Consistency with Comprehensive Plan:
The current Low Density Residential (LDR) zoning is consistent with
the Comprehensive Plan policies to that support housing.
The proposed Medium Density Residential (MDR) zoning, although
consistent with the Comprehensive Plan policies to that support
housing generally, is not needed to meet projected housing demands.
2) Consistency with Zone:
Single family homes can be built under the current Low Density
Residential (LDR) zoning.
If added density is desired at the site, the proposed Medium Density
Residential (MDR) would allow a range of smaller -scale multi family
structures, including duplex, triplex or fourplex structures, to be built.
3) Chanced conditions:
Rf 12 10/16/2008
Q:1Comp Plan 2007 2008 \Woodland View L07 -096 L07- 097\PC STAFF RPT--WoodlandView-CarlstedtL07-096L07-
097.doc
Conditions have not changed to justify the rezone.
4) Community interest:
e Single- family housing can be built under the existing zoning. There is
no compelling benefit to the rezone.
The rezone and resulting development would bring multi family across
65 Avenue South into a small, existing single family neighborhood.
ZONING RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends denial of the rezone from Low Density Residential (LDR) to
Medium Density Residential (MDR).
Rf 13 10/16/2008
Q: \Comp Plan 2007 2008 \Woodland View L07 -096 L07- 097\PC STAFF RPT—WoodlandView-CarlstedtL07- 096L07-
097.doc
ATTACHMENT A y
qs' C ITY OF' TUKWILA
O 5 N y Department of Community Development CONIPIZEIIENSI
t ii 10 6300 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, WA 9818 PLAN
.6 `t -to F p Telephone: (206) 431 -3670 FAX (206) 431 -3665
r
tp L k E -mail: tukplan@ALtukwira.-wa.us AMENDMENTS
S
1908
APPLICATION
FOR STAFF USE ONLY Permits Plus Type: P.-CPA
Planner: 2ege c.0 X 1 File Number: 1_017 0 (t1
Application. Complete (Date: 5 l /as) 'Project File Number: riy t b
Application Incomplete (Date: 1 Other File Numbers:
NAME OF PROJECT/DEVELOPMENT: \tk..1- l fatal \.l t 2,u)" Cety reillPv�sIAL 1) LW Incl. `t
7 e
r
LOCATION OF PROJECT/DEVELOPMENT: Give street address or, if vacant, indicate lot(s), block and
subdivision, access street, and nearest intersection.
2 y 6 Ave
LIST AL- L- TAXLG NUMBERS-(this information may be found an your tax statement).
700 CO T7
DEVELOPMENT COORDINATOR
The individual who:
has decision making authority on behalf of the owner /applicant in meetings with City staff,
has full responsibility for identifying and satisfying all relevant and sometimes overlapping
development standards, and
is the primary contact with the City, to whom all notices and reports will be sent.
Name: /2 i ohr'f� c r
Address: g 2 (>2_ r a de 1L4 9?iVC
Phone t -e %32, '25/6 FAX:
E -mail: /f
Signature: /e; r e r y z C�e.= f Date: 24 /4 7
Attachment A
A. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION:
Existing:
Proposed jO
611
B. ZONING DESIGNATION:
Existing: _Z /2_
Proposed: i ll'
C. LAND USE(S):
Existing: Pe.,, U c_ elect- /f.•/ I
Proposed: H A F4 p T
(for proposed changes in land use designations or rezones)
D. GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF SURROUNDING LAND USES:
Describe the existing uses located within 1,000 feet in all directions from the property or area for
which a change is proposed.
z s A
cle€ d 5 r IFt q l frk
01-/S ec e- 6;4-3 7! V-L.4 ‘i; e
C /6.c;.s h Az--
23 C4 i
P \Plannine Forms\ Applications \CompPlanChg- b- O6.doc December 4, Mb
RECEIVED
MAY 08 MO
COMMUNITY
AMENDMENT TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DEVELOPMENT
Wt WILL ATTEMPT TO EXPLAIN YOUR REASONS TO CHANGE THE ZONING
ON KING COUNTY PARCEL #3597000260.
CRITERIA QUESTIONS:
1. A DETAILED STATEMENT OF WHAT IS PROPOSED AND 'WHY;
THE PROPOSAL IS TO CHANGE TIRE ZONING TO MATCH THE
SURROUNDING DENSITY. WE PROPOSE TO REQUEST EITHER HIGH
DENSITY FOR APARTMENTS OR MEDIUM DENSITY FOR DUPLEXES.
2. A STATEMENT OF THE ANTICIPATED IMPACTS OF THE CHANGE,
INCLUDING THE GEOGGRAPHIC AREA AFFECTED AND ISSUES
PRESENTED BY THE PROPSED .CHANGE;
THIS PARCEL IS LOCATED AT THE HIGHEST POINT IN THE AREA..
A 35,000 S. F. WETLAND IS ON SITE. THE IMPACT OF THIS PROPOSAL
WILL BE MINAMUL WITH PROPER BUFFERS TO PROTECT THE
WETLAND.
3. AN EXPLANATION OF WHY THE CURRENT COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
OR DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS ARE DEFICIENT OR SHOULD NOT
CONTINUE IN EFFECT
THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND DEVELOPMENT REQULATIONS
NOT DEFICIENT. WE WANT TO CONFORM TO THE SURROUNDING
ZONING.
4. A STATEMENT OF HOW THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT COMPLIES
WITH THE AND PROMOTES THE GOALS AND SPECIFIC
REQUIREMENTS OF THE GROWTH MANAGEMENT ACT.
THE GROWTH MANAGEMENT ACT TAKES INTO ACCOUNT
ENVIROMENTAL GOALS AND REQUIREMENTS. IT IS OUR PLAN
DEDICAl'E THE MAJORITY OF THIS PROPERTY TO THE CITY
SO THAT THE INTAGRITY OF THE WETLANDS CAN BE PRESERVED.
5. A STATEMENT OF HOW THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT COMPLIES
WITH APPLICABLE COUNTYWIDE PLANNING POLICTRS.
PLANNING POLICS USALLY SUPPORT THE CREATION OF PARKS AND
PLACES THAT PROVIDE THE PUBLIC WHT RECREATIONAL
ACTIVITIES. THIS WETLAND WITH WALKING TRAILS AROUD THE
BUFFER IS SUCH AN ACTIVITY.
6. A STATEMENT OF WHAT CHANGES, IF ANY WOULD BE REQUIRED
IN FUNCTIONAL PLANS IF THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT IS ADOPTED.
THE SITE HAS ALL THE UTILITY SERVICES LOCATED IN THE STREET.
STORMWATER WILL HAVE TO BE CHANNELED AWAY FROM THE
WETLANDS. THIS WILL BE ENGINNERED BY A LICENSED CIVIL
ENGINER
7. A STATEMENT OF WHAT CAPITAL IlvIPROVEMENTS, IF ANY, WOULD
BE NEEDED TO SUPPORT THE PROPOSED CHANGE, AND HOW THE
PROPOSED CHANGE WILL AFFECT THE CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN.
NO CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS WILL BE NEEDED FORM THE CITY. THE
THE DEVELOPER OF THE SITE WILL INCUR AL THE COSTS. THE WILL
BENEFIT k ROM THE TAXATION ON THE FINISHED PROJECT.
8. A STATEMENT OF WHAT OTHER CHANGES, IF ANY ARE REQUIRED IN
IN THE CITY CODES, PLANS OR REGULATIONS TO IMPLEMENT THE
PROPOSED CHANGES.
THE CITY CODES WILL NOT HAVE TO BE CHANGED. THE PROJECT
WILL BE BUILT TO ALL CITY CODES.
D
,��tLa, r CITY OF TUKWILA
1� P s ue'. Department of Community Development
.4, i►� 0 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Tukwila, WA
diVIf)k 98188
{yI t �v�� O Telephone: (206) 431-3670
file lep 1 -3670 FAX (206) 431 -3665
d 4 `,r E -mail: tukvlan@citukwila.wa.us
1906
AFFIDAVIT OF OWNERSHIP AND HOLD HARMLESS
PERMISSION TO ENTER PROPERTY
STATE OF WASHINGTON
ss
COUNTY OF KING
The undersign being duly sworn and upon oath states as follows:
1. I'� he current owner of the property which is the subject of this application.
2. All statements contained in the applications have been prepared by me or my agents and are true and correct
to the best of my knowledge.
3. The application is being submitted with my knowledge and consent.
4. Owner grants the City, its employees, agents, engineers, contra tors or ther representatives the right to enter
upon Owner's real property, located at t 5 "2• StX (p Pr.: 1 c: icw c 4� \U 1
for the purpose of application review, for the limited time necessary to complete that purpose.
5. Owner agrees to hold the City harmless for any loss or damage to persons or property occurring on the private
property during the City's entry upon the property, unless the loss or damage is the result of the sole
negligence of the City.
6. Non responsiveness to a City information request for ninety (90) or more days, shall be cause to cancel the
application(s) without refund of fees.
EXETED at 'e,1
(city), N'�;'� (state), on �e� -1 20 07
V •S5zi.*t"
v c j rrt a n c" C-3 Sea- )Z Print Name de �r f c. r• l
S> 1
1? d e;.0K 5 `7 Z'.i Address Z 92 i l c.r. /42_ 79-fa Zi A '/6
L 2s Z5r�-r5C' Phone Number t� 2 2- o g 2 g
IA �L
Signature 4--- l ...1
On this day personally appeared before me Vvti' FK �c11.� i a
c., .0 t- to m e C kno w n to be the individual who
executed the foregoing instrument and ackno ■lodged that he/she signed the satr?e as his/her voluntary act and deed for the uses
and purposes mentioned therein.
.SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO BEFORE ME ON THIS (.9:7 C- D Y OF S e r 20
NOTARY PUBLIC in and for the State of Washington
t.. residing at P.e.eV Y1� t ��p tu /3,-
u My Commission expires on 3 Y 1 U
1
P:\ PlanningForm"s\ tilit3tions \CompPlanChg- 6- 06 -doc December 4, 2006
1
1 O
m
Y O O m 1 r
O gi 'i2 W Q N t N i
VC 5 m it m lu/ e N
N ti" :ONO c d e s o e (f'}
N N N a v 3
';I. gA lfs 1SlJ� r
N
a q
•E 5
o
*0 ----41 _t
1 5
4 i± 1
o
gam s ''S's 31 r'+`'
0
1-11 I•1 if c- 1
I, a
It
is Si o N t
Q
....".T......,,,./' S1' .Y,P 11 ux''-'
i At b 1' 11 a
Z c, off
tp
ui .,..,`Zri
v °Y _...1
d a3
0 t" t 1 1 `3.. .i:
p IWO
NI .40
SW) irl'
tai
1.--'
..-1 t MO
La
OC- z a
a
4
ggs
CI 3
O o-
Vi y
I
4 e t 1 r
i e., m
it° n N
ap O L 9 g "s
d.a Ac.4 1 n s
t 5 go ma y N °a4^m
g p'•= G bGb r ,Y1 v `-73 s r r n
4 g "cam.
i
a
i
I
ATTACHMENT IMENT B
CITY OF TUKWILA
Department of Community Development ZONING CODE
to r) 6300 SouthcenterBoulevarra Tukwila, WA 98188
t �l�i L1r1E1\ 1 Oil% t i t es Telephone: (206) 431 -3670 FAX (206) 431 -3 bbj
t Y e E -mail: tukplan@ci.tukwila.wa.us
J s./
190E
APPLICATION
FOR STAFF USE ONLY Permits Plus Type: P -ZCA
Planner: C-( p f File Number: t_ 1 v c 1
Application Complete (Date: a pk$) Project File Number:
Application Incomplete (Date: Other File Numbers: L. o 1- oe f
E01
PROJECT/DEVELOPMENT: Lt A d /1 ,rt /An-
NAME OF PR
LOCATION OF PROJECT/DEVELOPMENT: Give street address or, if vacant, indicate lot(s), block and
subdivision, access street, and nearest intersection.
fZ XX 4 AA- er.
LIST ALL TAX LOT NUMBERS (this information may be found on your tax statement).
g 4 7, zoo —(1)
DEVELOPMENT COORDINATOR
The individual who:
has decision making authority on behalf of the applicantin meetings with City staff,
e has full responsibility for identifying and satisfying all relevant and sometimes overlapping
development standards, and
o is the primary contact with the City, to whom all notices and reports will be sent.
C C
Name: Zet fiF7
Address: g 67- 7 2- J-2 -e i�W 1
Phone: 2L36 —42. 'C FAX:
E -mail:
Signature: rye I. Date: 2/ 7 7
Attachment B
'annine Forms \Aootica lions Zoned,ne- 6- 06.doc
December 28, 2007
Ray Carlsted i C
3921 SW 102 St.
Seattle, WA 98146
RE: Estate of Al White Property
65 Street, City of Tukwila
Dear Ray:
The above referenced site was evaluated for wetlands., The site contains
what appears to be two wetlands. A western Category 2 wetland that will
be far from any development and the eastern Category 3 wetland. The
eastern wetland determines the extent of development.
The eastern edge of the east wetlands was flagged and surveyed. The
wetland has been previously determined to be a Category 3 wetland with a
standard 50 foot buffer. This letter serves as a preliminary report to assist
the estate in marketing the property. A final report with all the necessary
information will be provided when needed.
The east edge of the eastern Category 3 wetland will have a 50 foot buffer,
The land between the edge of the buffer and the street is developable with
regards to wetlands. Buffer averaging my be used for a final lot layout.
If you have any questions please feel free to call me.
Sincerely „i
AJ Bredberg
PWS, CPSS, CPSC
43691_2
3303 43rd St. NW Gig Harbor, WA 98335, USA 253.858.7055 Fax: 253.858.2534 ajb @wa.net
A
t,
p 7 y cA, ID a c e_ in •7 7
ci• a r 1- tr e 0-1' co imp et): A t. e:00,
A/0 r A E-f- d--- S 0,...
2 X e-- i p.,,..A.0 0.€ 0 7y :--e pv) e e-C/ ,Z.2-11
71 A/3/ .er jells/7y
F 1'r
NO. P --e 4---- $01...1. A._ .5A7-
e.fy e.- /ci t, IS P•OVicit (5 cby I Sib h
Z e s
6 4)
7/ 6 -e 0 1,,,,,,. i-61 t-o /O
e .,3
0 F -4-h.t. C I-1 0 r 7 6- k Cti il, cAtc:/ iv, 14
ecp,h7 4,
•I
s 1
an
o
Y 0 0 m m
V
1.... N
N
ta
s' O Y 1
i n
y ,0.
1 S V n it `,x, 33 1
SA y.x G.
(J} fig Sty NI 1.
i
si e ve 0 1
1 ul~ it
i
a
4'n 'Ot (1 2
tv O o
a.
io
W X 1" tai
ei t —7
1 I ji tie I it c
4 10 1. u 'Z'
Ili t --..1.
1
Y
kil
-A z a
S 1 y
4 0. J
et 1Pes,_
L:i X
VA i
Y1 S SA S I
i
a o r.
v m
n
ill es e
4 ta
ta
i Q
t 4„,
q G Q �'Ob st i S 1
-,:::1"4 A
O 74 s
O n
N d m
o c n
9
1
i I H R Ifri si. I
a
1
1
7
i ,11%V\
f cp
I
I
:LDR► S 51
St
1
M 0
�S TA_
's
tI w� MDR
Subject Property
DR
HDR i D6
1
0 )11-1,
Woodland View
Ak Low Density Residential (LDR) to
Medium Density Residential (MDR)
NORTH L07 -096 L07 -097 city of
nsu ..I _1 steer Attachment C Tukwila
0 13 DO 300 450 600 9,1
ATTACHMENT D
City of Tukwila Page 4 of 10
City Council Committee of the Whole Minutes July 14- 2008
SPECIAL ISSUES
a. Interlocal agreement regarding the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) and Home
I estment Partnerships (HOME) programs.
Coun. ]member Hernandez indicated this item was discussed at the Comm. Affairs and Parks
Commi -e on June 23, 2008. The committee members were unanimou,7 recommending approval.
Staff is s king approval to enter into an interlocal agreement with Kin•` ounty, which would extend
through the 009, 2010 and 2011 program years. In order to comp- for CDBG funds, the City must
enter into this •rmalized agreement with King County.
At the request of •uncilmember Linder, Evelyn Boykan, Hu -n Services Manager, explained the CDBG
funds are from Hou g Urban Development and allow City to assist low- income and up to
moderate income rest' -nts. The HOME funds are fed funds used to preserve and develop
permanent housing for I.= income people. The City -r inor Home Repair program is dependent on our
participation in this conso m. The agreement al 0‘ s Tukwila to compete for funds.and operate our
programs, and to make reco''mendations for ou-s ommunity, our sub- region and region as far as capital
projects and public service pro'z cts. Ms. Boyle also clarified the agreement was recently approved by
King County Council so it is no to +er a dra
Councilmember Robertson questione.em IV.A.3, which mentions four cities that are not signing this
agreement. Ms. Boykan explained $fne \-'ties are large enough to deal directly with HUD and, therefore,
do not participate in the consort' f. Some jects, however, use HOME only funds, and in those cases
those cities would have an app. unity to vote il,those projects (but not on a project that takes place in a
city that belongs to the cons,! um). Depending o- -the type of funding and type of project, some
members of the Joint Re J mendations Committee. RC) can vote and sometimes they do not vote. A
"joint city" means a city's large enough to be their own':., titlement with HUD but they choose not to, and
thereby they still hav,.--.:n arrangement with the County as'-•art of the consortium. Federal Way and
Renton are cons' ed joint cities.
COUNCIL C f,' i,SENSUS EXISTED TO FORWARD THIS ITEM THE NEXT REGULAR MEETING.
b. The -cond amendment to the Development Agreement with WEA Southcenter, LLC, regarding
signa
A consensus was reached under item 3 to move this item forward with one amendment as discussed.
,Mn.n. raw.
c. 2008 Comprehensive Plan Amendments (to be conducted in a Public Meeting format).
Councilmember Hernandez indicated this item was discussed at the Community Affairs and Parks
Committee on June 9, 2008. The committee members were unanimous in recommending approval to
forward this item for discussion and public input.
Council President Duffle called for comments from the audience.
Rebecca Fox, Senior Planner, explained no action is needed tonight. She referenced the chart on page
92 of the agenda packet that outlines the various steps in the review process. The threshold decision to
be made at the next Regular Meeting would be whether or not to forward the item to the Planning
Commission for additional review.
This year's Comprehensive Plan amendment is site specific and, therefore, is a quasi judicial decision.
Any proposal that would go to the Planning Commission would then have environmental review. The
Planning Commission would hold a hearing and take public comment, and then make a recommendation
to the City Council_
The applicant would like to redesignate approximately 1.41 acres of a 5 -acre site from low density
residential to multi family residential (at approximately S. 152nd Street and 65th Avenue S.). There is a
mixture of single family and multi family homes in the vicinity. There are 14 single- family homes to the
Attachment D
City of Tukwila Page 5 of 10
Cily Council Committee of the Whole Minuit?s .July 14.2008
north in the Maple Tree subdivision. There are approximately 260 units of multi family apartments and
condominiums to the east. To the south are single family homes, the San Juan South apartments, City
Hall, Tukwila Park, and, to the west, Sunwood Condominiums. The entire site is wooded, with two
wetlands with buffers on the east and west. There is 15 to 40 percent slope on much of the land,
especially on the eastern two- thirds. The request for rezone is only on the eastern one- third. A wetland
delineation study and geotechnical study were prepared. Any future development would require a more
thorough wetland study. Ms. Fox noted that Attachment 6 (page 105 of the agenda packet) is a
preliminary site plan provided by the applicant. There are proposed park trails on the western portion that
the applicant has proposed to donate to the City; however, she stressed this portion is not part of the
rezone. She also noted the preliminary plan shows some off -site parking. She explained any
development that would occur would require parking on site. She reiterated the attachment is a
preliminary proposal provided by the applicant that has not been formally reviewed by staff and would not
necessarily be the type of development that would occur.
Under low density residential, this 1.4 -acre parcel could have a maximum of 6.7 units per acre. On this
site you could have a maximum of 9 lots under current zoning. Under the rezone proposal, you could
have 14 -1/2 units per acre, so this site could potentially have a maximum of 20 units per acre. The
maximum height under both zoning provisions is 30 feet. The site is constrained by slope and the
wetland buffer. A planned residential development is a way to allow greater flexibility to allow additional
open space and retain vegetation on the site.
In response to a request from Councilmember Linder, Ms. Fox reviewed the specific questions to be used
by Council in considering the proposed amendment Ms. Fox referenced the discussion criteria on pages
89 and 90 of the agenda packet, which includes four specific questions and related goals and policies.
Is the issue already adequately addressed in the Comprehensive Plan?
Is there a public need for the proposed change?
Is the proposed change the best means for meeting the identified public need?
Will the proposed change result in a net benefit to the community?
Councilmember Robertson asked for clarification on zoning around the site, which was confirmed as
follows:
Zoning to the north is all LDR.
Zoning to the west is half LDR and half HDR.
Zoning to the south is entirely LDR, but includes some apartment buildings (San Juan South).
Zoning to the east is entirely MDR.
Ms. Fox stated three letters have already been received from the public, which are included in the agenda
packet.
Councilmember Hernandez disclosed she lives within close proximity to the property, and stated she feels
she can be impartial and would like to sit on the Council for the issue unless there are objections.
Council President Duffle again called for public comment
Annette Gray repeated her earlier question (asked under "Citizen Comments Ms. Fox stated the trees
are in the buffer zone and —per Attachment 6 in the agenda packet —the buffer zone is not part of the
rezone. The buffer zone for the wetland identified as Class 3 on the east side has a 50 -foot buffer. On
the west side is a Class 2 wetland with an 80 -foot buffer.
Hugh Tobin, 15165 62nd Ave. S., Tukwila, stated there is an LDR subdivision immediately to the west of
the subject site. He stated the proposal calls for moving the zoning boundary on one small portion of the
lot from where it is now at 65th Ave. S., which is the eastern boundary of the site and the boundary
between the LDR and MDR, to the border of a wetland. He feels it is an unusual concept to "up zone" the
property immediately adjacent to a sensitive area to a zoning classification that is higher than what is
immediately north and south of it and not divide it from the site by a road or other boundary.
City of Tukwila Page 6 of 10
City Council Committee of the Whole Minutes lulu 14.2008
Deb Sorenson, 6221 S. 151st PI., Tukwila (which is Tract 5 on the map), stated 65th is already a very
busy street, and wonders why both sides of the street are always lined with cars if on -site parking is
required. She also noted the area to the north and south of the proposed tract is single family homes.
She is also concerned about the "protection" provided by the wetland buffer, as her property actually
contains wetland.
Rick Roberts, 10305 Canyon Rd., Puyallup, stated the property owner is his client. He stated three
quarters of the property is proposed to be given to the City as open space. The development would be
on the east side of the tract and would be developed as duplexes. The development would not bother the
wetlands or single family lots to the north. He stated many of the apartments on the east and south sides
are older buildings and do not have much storm drainage. This development will have proper storm
drainage because of new rules in effect. Water from houses and roads will be treated and not dumped
into the wetlands.
A. J. Bredberg, 3303 43rd St, Gig Harbor, stated he is the wetland scientist that did the preliminary work
on the wetlands. The property owners for half the site are represented by an attorney (for an estate), and
Mr. Ray Halstead and his son own the other half. Wetlands and buffer encumber the majority of the
property. There is developable land and there are options of working with a PRD (planned residential
development), which would result in a large number of houses. Changing the zoning of the eastern
portion would result in a better use. Because the property is on an arterial, the Growth Management Act
encourages directing housing density into the urban areas. He stated this project would only impact two
or three single family lots, and the majority of the trees would be left as is. If a traditional single- family
residential development were constructed here, there could be provisions for reasonable use exceptions,
which may not provide as much preservation of open space as the current proposal.
Ms. Fox clarified staff does not take a position on this project. Staff has prepared information for
Council's review, and worked with the applicant and the consultant to that end.
Andrea Sipe, 14961 62nd Ave. S., Tukwila, stated her parents built her current home over 50 years ago.
She is against making changes to the zoning. She feels adding more rental properties would be a
detriment, but acknowledged she might feel differently about a development where the residents would
be the owners of the property.
COUNCIL CONSENSUS EXISTED TO FORWARD THIS ITEM TO THE NEXT REGULAR MEETING.
d. Draft Walk and Roll Plan.
Councilmember Linder indicated this item was discussed at the Transportation Committee on
May 28, 2008 and June 10, 2008. The committee members were unanimous in recommending approval.
Ms. Linder complimented staff on gathering input from many sources and guiding the committee
members through the process.
Jaimie Reavis, Assistant Planner, explained Walk and Roll is a Citywide bicycle and pedestrian plan.
She stated no formal action is required this evening, and a Public Hearing has been scheduled for
July 21, 2008. The draft plan has been reviewed by the Transportation Committee, which provided a
list of recommendations for changes (items 1 -4 on page 111 of the agenda packet). The draft was
also presented to the Community Affairs and Parks Committee for information, and an intensive public
outreach effort and public input went into the draft plan. Comments from the public and Council will be
gathered through the end of the Public Hearing next week. A final version will be presented to the
Transportation Committee, including a response to the comments and an ordinance for adoption.
Among the major policy items to be addressed are whether to adopt a complete street resolution or
ordinance. Such an ordinance /resolution would state the City would consider all users of the roadways
(including non motorized users) and provide for each of the users in the roadway when street
improvements are made. Another policy item is prioritization, meaning which projects to build first. As
items are added to the GIP, the plan could provide criteria for prioritizing those projects.
ATTACIIMENT E CITIZEN LFTh
it ;:i -C -1 8 r 1 700 8
City of Tukwila
Department of Community Development
comm UNITY
6300 Southcenter Blvd. #100 DE ELOp E,
Tukwila, WA 98188
Re ?Zoning change requested at 152xx -65 Avenue So.
Dear Sirs:
As homeowners in Maple Tree Park (lot #10) for 12 years, we do not want to see two
story duplexes built 20 feet from our backyard. We, as well as the homeowners of lots
#5 -9, bought our homes because of the greenbelt backing the property. All of the Maple
Tree Park homes (valued at $500K or more) would prefer only single- family homes b�
in our neighborhood, or at least on our block. We have more than enough rentals on the
east side of 65 Avenue South from which we can hear so many parking lot
arguments, car alarms, loud sports fans yelling at their tv's, etc.
We therefore strongly urge you to keep Parcel #3597000360 zoned as Low Density
Residential.
Respectfully yours,
David Gloria Yoshino
6361 S.151 PL
dated June 17, 2008.
Attachment E
3.►I V�
/JUN I8
COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT
City of Tukwila
Department of Community Development
6300 Southcenter Blvd #100
Tukwila, WA 98188
16 June 2008
To whom it may concern,
Hello. I am writing to voice my opposition to the development proposed at the east end of the
property located at 152XX 65th Avenue South (Parcel #3597000360). That area along 65th
Avenue South is already one of the least attractive areas of Tukwila east of I -5, occupied on the
east side of the road by somewhat run -down apartment buildings. Additionally, and perhaps
more pertinent, is the fact that 65th Avenue South is lined by parked cars (some that appear
abandoned), presumably overflow from the people that live in the apartments. Adding more
people and more cars to the area would likely make the situation worse. Currently, the only
saving grace for that area is Tukwila Park on the east side of the street and the trees on the west
side, where this development is planned.
Whatever is done, please ensure that the area is improved, rather than making a bad situation
worse.
Thank you for your consideration.
Jeff Anderson
15115 Sunwood Blvd
Tukwila, WA 98188
jiN 2 6 2008
COMMUNpY
DEVELOPMENT
6/25/2008
City of Tukwila
Department of Community Development
6300 Southcenter Blvd #100
Tukwila, WA
Subject: Zoning, Parcel 3597000360
I want to express my objection to the change in zoning of the subject parcel from LDR to
MDR
This change is likely for the purpose of constructing condominiums or apartments in an
area where there is already an overabundance (east of 65th Ave S and on 62nd Ave S,
including Sunwood blvd).
The zoning classification MDR is not consistent with the housing west of 65th Ave S and
adjacent to S 151st and S 153rd Streets. The housing there is mostly separate, single
family residences with medium to large sized lots. I believe this area should be maintained
and set aside for separate, single family residences, and not the higher density residences
allowed with MDR zoning.
Sincerely,
I
Maria C Notch
1405 Harrington Ave S, Renton, WA 98058
(Owner, Crystal Ridge Condominiums Unit A -304)
108
ATTACffiRNT F
City of Tukwila
Page 3 of 7
City Council Regular Meetina Minutes July 21. 2008
Since completing the draft plan, comments have been received from the public, and the plan has been
reviewed by the Transportation and Community Affairs and Parks Committees, and at the Committee of
t Whole. The public comment period for the plan will end at the close of this public hearing.
2
Jim GI. er, 4008 South 158th Street, commented regarding the need for standardization of trail and road
signs. Glover indicated he uses the trails in the area, to include the Interurban and Green River trails.
He has note• --d a reduction in the signage he previously observed on the trails. He relayed the
importance o dequate and clear signage. People need to know where they are allowed to go, and
attention needs be drawn to the trails, so citizens know they are available.
Councilmember Her- -ndez indicated there used to be signs asking bicyclists to dismount in ain areas
of the trails. She inqu -d if those types of signs would be replaced or has that practice en
discontinued.
Ms. Reavis indicated it is stl the standard to have that type of signage on t rail. She relayed that the
issues of signage will be revie- ed before the final plan is compiled.
7:32 p.m. Mayor Haggerto. closed the public hearing.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
a. Continued discussion on Draft Walk d Roll P
The Councilmembers discussed elements of th= •raft Walk and Roll Plan and offered the following
remarks: the need to clearly identify changes t`-- plan based on public input; further prioritization of
capital funding issues based on the plan co. ponen the necessity to make a distinction between trails
traveled for recreation and those used fo setting from •oint A to point B" (trails near homes for point -to-
point travel are often used for crime ac ities); the need ..assure the "Safe Routes to Schools" element
of the plan is addressed; and assur- ce that information be'. ovided to the Council regarding other City
documents and budget issues th- ill be impacted by the pia
Ms. Reavis indicated next st- •s include staff review and incorporatio -•f public comments into the draft
plan. A final plan and ordi• -nce of adoption will be brought to the Trans: ation Committee and then to
the full Council in Septer •er 2008.
b. Authorize the ayor to sign an Interlocal Agreement with King County for ontinued
participation in e Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) and Home In stment
Partnership ME). programs.
MOVED B HERNANDEZ, SECONDED BY DUFFIE TO AUTHORIZE THE MAYOR TO SI AN
INTERL CAL AGREEMENT WITH KING COUNTY FOR CONTINUED PARTICIPATION IN T
COM i NITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT (CDBG) AND HOME INVESTMENT PARTNER IP
(HOME) PROGRAMS. MOTION CARRIED 7 -0.
c. 2008 Comprehensive Plan Amendments.
The City has received a request to change the designation of 1.4 acres in the eastern portion of a
property located at 152xx 65th Avenue South from Low Density Residential (LDR) to Medium Density
Residential (MDR).
Councilmember Hernandez indicated this item was discussed at the Community Affairs and Parks
Committee meeting on June 9, 2008. The Committee members forwarded this item to the full Council for
discussion. It was also discussed at the July 14, 2008 Committee of the Whole in Public Meeting format.
MOVED BY HERNANDEZ, SECONDED BY LINDER TO FORWARD THE 2008 COMPREHENSIVE
PLAN AMENDMENT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION FOR A RECOMMENDATION.*
Debra Tsuruda, 6220 South 153rd Street, spoke in opposition to the proposed Comprehensive Plan
amendment. Ms. Tsuruda submitted a letter to the Department of Community Development regarding
this issue that was distributed to the City Council. The letter states:
Attachment F
City of Tukwila Page 4 of 7
City Council Reaular Meetina Minutes July 21. 2008
"As long time tenants of the San Juan Apartments (25 years) we do not want to see two story duplexes in
the back of our property. We have enjoyed the green belt backing to the west side of the San Juan's for
many daytime walks. However, even that area has drawn police activity through the years. My
understanding is that there will be trails throughout the proposed property in this zone -which will
encourage even more illicit activity. The traffic on this hill has already become challenging because of the
high density to the east of 65th, to the north of 51st, and to our immediate west. Nothing has been
addressed concerning road changes or traffic. We already have cars speeding through 153rd, to which I
will be addressing the City Council shortly regarding speed bumps along this street. We would prefer
only single family homes built, as there are plenty of rentals already available on the hill. We therefore
strongly urge you to keep Parcel #3597000360 zoned as Low Density Residential."
Ms. Tsuruda commented that, in her view, the zoning designation map has mistakes in it based on her
comparisons through the use of Google. She urged the Council to be good guardians of the community.
Ray Carlstedt, 3921 SW 102nd Street, Seattle, is the half owner of the property that is the subject of this
rezone request. The property had belonged to his mother -in -law, and they have been trying to sell it for
the past 25 years. Mr. Carlstedt indicated he is not a developer, but a 40- hour -a -week machinist, and has
been unable to sell the property with the current LDR zoning designation. The taxes on the property are
prohibitive for him to continue paying. He relayed that the property is park -like, with trees, and he is
willing to donate the other 4.4 acres to the City for a park.
Rebecca Fox, Senior Planner, explained the Council is not being asked to approve the Comprehensive
Plan amendment and rezone request this evening. The motion would refer this issue to the Planning
Commission for their review and recommendation. If the Council chooses to refer this matter to the
Planning Commission, they will then conduct a public hearing, which will be noticed in the newspaper.
Property owners and residents within 500 feet of the subject property will also be notified. The item will
then come back to the City Council for a public hearing, which will be similarly noticed. After this
evening's Council meeting, if this item goes forward to the Planning Commission, there will be additional
opportunities for public comment.
The majority of the. Councilmembers expressed support regarding the importance of review and a
subsequent recommendation by the Planning Commission on this issue. It was conveyed that the
Planning Commission has the most experience regarding land use matters in the City. Due diligence in
making an informed decision involves a broad scope of information and a full perspective, best afforded
by a recommendation from the Planning Commission.
Councilmember Robertson, speaking against the motion, offered the following comments.
1. On page 95 of the July 14, 2008 agenda packet, the applicant gives the reason for changing the
zoning (from single family to medium density) as "conform to the surrounding zoning." A review of the
zoning in the area indicates that the surrounding zoning is "single family," making the information
provided by the applicant incorrect.
2. The applicant could choose to develop the front part of the property as single family if the
applicant chose to sell at single family prices. The area in the back of the property is not able to be
developed, regardless of the zoning designation, since it is a wetland.
3. To send this to the Planning Commission only makes sense if they can answer other questions
that are required, and in Mr. Robertson's view, those do not exist. Additionally, all comments from the
public, and in writing on this issue, have been in opposition to the proposal. To send this to the Planning
Commission equates to postponing the decision and also increases their workload at a very busy time.
*ROLL CALL VOTE:
HERNANDEZ YES
LINDER YES
DUFFIE YES
ROBERTSON NO
GRIFFIN YES
HOUGARDY YES
QUINN YES
MOTION CARRIED 6 -1 TO FORWARD THE 2008 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT TO THE
PLANNING COMMISSION FOR A RECOMMENDATION.
H R Attachment g
1 x!9!4
1'9S III :ham:
City of Tukwila
Woodland View
v UDR to MDR
u) L07 -096 L07 -097
a) co Wetlands Steep
cf Slopes
S 15I St 1 IIIIIIIik
r I
A t:.,:
1 s ue_ 4‘tilii
W
f t °gym
Subject Property J P rtY
H
®MEN!
HDR
L L
4414
DR
cp
2
s
A
1 �l.Jn..r M IfIET
O 75 150 300 450 600
Slope Classifications Wetland Legend
Landslide potential is moderate; slope is between 15% and 40%
2 and underlain byrelewely permeable soils. 1- =1 Type 2 Wetland
Landslide potential is high; slope is between 15% and 40 %and 1 I Buffer Type 2 Wetland -80ft
underlain by relatively impermeable soils or by bedrock; also includes yp
3 all areas sloping more than 40
Landslide potential is very high; includes sloping areas with mapp Ty 3 Wetland GIS
zones of groundwater seepage and existi ng mappable landslide deposits I
4 regardle of slope. I I Buffer Type 3 Wetland -50 feet Tukwila
RECEIVED
ATTACHMENT H t pV 0 8 200
Consult! H g
Robert M. Pride, LLB E P MEN T
April 21, 2008
Mr. Ray Carlstedt
3921 SW 102nd Street
Seattle, WA 98146
Re: Geotechnical Feasibility Report
Proposed Residential Development
to AlfiftemEntaties on 65th Avenue South
Tukwila, Washington
Dear Mr. Carlstedt,
This report presents the results of geotechnical evaluation of the property located on the
west side of 65th Avenue South in Tukwila. The property is situated on a moderately
steep slope above the west side of the Parkway and is directly above an existing
residence on Lot B. A previous site investigation was performed for the entire parcel in
1989 by GeoEngineers, and it is understood that only the easterly portion of this
property will be developed for towrihome or apartment use.
The purpose of this report is to update the original engineer's report, and to provide
recommendations for site development. Site development plans have not been prepared
for the easterly portion of this site that will be created for multi- residential use.
Available USGS geologic mapping along with the prior test pit date was used as
references for this study.
Site Conditions
The near- rectangular property measures about 350x770 feet extending from 65th
Avenue to 62nd Avenue. Natural undeveloped terrain varies from a high elevation of
200 feet at the northeast corner to a low of about 140 feet on the west side. Two wetland
areas are located on the west and south central portions of the property. A moderate
growth of trees and shrubs cover this site.
Subsurface soil conditions were determined by excavating six test pits on the east
section of this property. Except for the wetland area in the south central portion of the
site, all test pits encountered weathered dense bedrock. This bedrock consists of
sandstone and conglomerate that is typical to this area of Tukwila. Approximately one
foot of organic topsoil covers the property, except around the edge of the wetland where
thicker deposits of topsoil and loose organic soils have been deposited at the water's
edge. No groundwater was encountered in the five test pits away from the wetland that
were dug at elevations above 150 feet. Summary logs of the test pits are attached.
13203 Holmes Point Drive NE Kirkland, WA 98034
Phone: 425 814 -3970 Fax: 425 -814 -5672
Attachment H
April 21, 2008
Mr. Ray Carlstedt
Page 2
Seismic Hazards
Earthquakes occur in the Puget Sound area with great regularity. The majority of these
earthquakes are small and usually not noticeable. Large earthquakes do occur as
evidenced by the 1949 (M7.2) Olympia event, the 1965 (M6.5) Tacoma event, and the
2001 (M6.8) Nisqually event. Normally the epicenter of these larger earthquakes is
relatively deep below the ground surface.
Generally there are four types of potential geologic hazards associated with large seismic
events: 1) ground rupture, 2) landslides, 3) liquefaction, and 4) ground motion. The
nearest known fault system is the Seattle fault zone located about five miles to the north.
USGS continues to study this and other fault systems in the Puget Sound region, and it
has been determined that they are capable of generating large earthquakes. Return
periods for large earthquakes vary from 500 to more than 1000 years. The long
recurrence intervals for nearby fault systems usually results in a low potential for
ground rupture over the life of the proposed residential structures.
Based on the subsurface soil conditions existing on this property, the potential for
liquefaction is considered low outside of the wetland area. The medium dense sands
and the dense bedrock on this site will provide adequate protection against lateral slope
displacements during a seismic event. In accordance with the 2003 IBC Table
1615.1.1, the subject site is defined as Class C.
Geotechnical Conclusions
On the basis of the previous subsurface exploration and our recent geotechnical
evaluation, this property is suitable for development of residential structures. A buffer
setback of 5o feet from the mapped wetland area will be required, but the remainder of
the site can be successfully developed for residential building pads.
Site Excavation
Excavation and some filling will be required to establish future building pads for the
proposed residential structures. All of the excavated soils are suitable for reuse as
compacted structural fill, or for backfill around the structure foundation walls and
retaining walls. Some difficulty will be experienced in excavating the dense bedrock
depending on the depth of the cuts required. Large rock in excess of 6 to 8 inches in
diameter should not be used in any structural fills within the building pad areas.
Temporary slope cuts should be made no steeper that 1H:ZV where they expose the
upper sand and gravel soils. Near vertical cuts in the weathered bedrock will stand
without caving or sloughing.
13203 Holmes Point Drive NE Kirkland, WA 98034
Phone: 425 -814 -3970 Fax: 425 814 -5672
April 21, 2008
Mr. Ray Carlstedt
Page 3
Foundation Recommendations
Continuous bearing wall footings and isolated pads may be designed for an allowable
soil bearing value of 2000 and 4000 psf for foundations on compacted structural fill
and bedrock, respectively. Estimated settlements of footings placed on approved
bearing soils/bedrock will be negligible.
Resistance to lateral loads may be provided by passive earth pressure and by sliding
friction. We recommend a passive pressure of 250 pcf for footings and retaining walls
poured against native soils and supporting compacted backfill.
Retaining Walls
Proposed retaining walls should be designed for an active earth pressure of 3o pcf and a
passive value of 300 pcf. Subdrains should also be installed at the base of the retaining
walls to collect possible groundwater seepage from the adjacent planter areas.
Erosion Control and Drainage
Normal erosion control procedures should be in place during project construction
during the winter months. Silt fencing will be needed around the south and easterly
sides of the project site, and quarry spans should be placed for equipment access off of
65th Avenue. Site drainage improvements will include the installation of footing
subdrains, area drains and roof down drains. Discharge of these drains should be
directed to an approved discharge outlet.
Summary
We recommend that we be retained to review the final drawings for foundations and
earthwork to confirm that they are consistent with the recommendations of this report.
Construction monitoring and consultation services should also be provided to verify that
subsurface conditions are similar to those described in this report. Should conditions be
revealed during construction that vary from the anticipated subsurface profile, we will
evaluate those conditions and provide alternative recommendations where appropriate.
Field construction services should be considered an extension of this initial geotechnical
investigation, and are essential to the determination of compliance with the project
drawings and specifications. Such activities would include site and foundation
excavations, preparation of the building pad area, retaining wall excavations, subdrain
installations, and fill placement and compaction.
The conclusions and recommendations presented in this report are based on 1; our
13203 Holmes Point Drive NE Kirkland, WA 98034
Phone: 425 814 -3970 Fax: 425 814 -5672
April 21, 2008
Mr. Ray Carlstedt
Page 4
interpretation and evaluation of soil conditions on this site, 2) confirmation of the actual
subsurface conditions encountered during construction, and 3) the assumption that
sufficient observation and testing will be performed during construction.
Our findings and recommendations in this report were prepared in accordance with
generally accepted principles of geotechnical engineering as practiced in the Puget
Sound area at the time our work was performed. We make no warranty, either express
or implied.
Please call me if there are any questions regarding this report.
Respectfully,
5 .1\
Robert M. Prid P. y y x
Principal Geotechnical Engine £t-
dist: (2) addressee
1-6271
encl: Appendix A s ue
rmp: CarIstedtResi k .,nzs e" CA 1
13203 Holmes Point Drive NE Kirkland, WA' 98034
Phone: 425- 814 -3970 Fax: 425 814 -5672
LOG OF TEST PIT
DEPTH BELOW GROUP SOIL
GROUND SURFACE CLASSIFICATION
(FEET) SYMBOL DESCRIPTION
TEST PIT 1
APPROXIMATE ELEVATION: 162 F &ET
tt 0.5 SM DARK BROWN SILTY FINE SAND WITH ORGANICS (LOUSE.
WET)
0.5 1.0 SM BROWN SILTY FINE TO MEDIUM SAND WITH OCCASIONAL
GRAVEL AND SMALL ROOTS (MEDIUM DENSE, MOIST)
1.0 4.5 SM LIGHT BROWN SILTY.FLNE TO MEDIUM SAND WITH GRAVI-:1.
(MEDIUM DENSE TO DENSE, MOIST)
4.5 11 SM LICHT BROWN SILTY FINE TO MEDIUM SAND WITH GRAVEL
(DENSE TO VERY DENSE, MOIST)
1I.S 12.0 SM LIGHT BROWN SILTY FINE TO MEDIUM SAND WITH COBBLES
(VERY DENS MOIST) (WEATHERED ROCK)
TEST PIT COMPLETED AT BEDROCK AT 12.0 FEET ON
3/10/69
SAMPLES OBTAINED AT 0.7 AND 3.0 FEET
TEST.PIT 2
APPROXIMATE ELEVATION: 1.72 FEET
1.0 SM DARK BROWN SILTY FINE SAND WITH ORGANICS (LOOS.E,
.WET)
1.0 7.0 .Std LIGHT BROWN SILTY FINE TO MEDIUM SAND WITH
OCCASIONAL GRAVEL AND WITH ROOTS TO DEPTH OF
3.0 FEET (MEDIUM DENSE TO DENSE, MOIST)
7.0 9.0 SM LIGHT BROWN SILTY FINE TO MEDIUM SAND WITH GRAVEL
(VERY DENSE, MOIST) (WEATHERED ROCK)
TEST PIT COMPLETED AT 9.0 FEET AT BEDROCK AT
9.0 FEET ON 3/10/89
NO GROUNDWATER SEEPAGE OBSERVED
TEST ('IT.)
APPROXIMATE ELEVATION: 198 FEET
U 1.0 SM DARK BROWN SILTY FINE SAND WITH ORGANICS (LOUSE,
WET)
1.0 3.5 ROCK GRAY WEATHERED ROCK WITH NUMEROUS FRACTURES AND
WITH REDDISH -DROWN SAND
1 TEST PIT COMPLETED AT 3.5 FEET AT BEDROCK ON
3/9189
NO GROUND WATER SEEPAGE OBSERVED
THE DEPTHS ON THE TEST PIS LOGS, ALTHOUGH SHOWN TO 0.1 FEET, AKE BASED UN AN AVERAGE
uF MF:ASUKEM>;NTS ACROSS THE TEST PIT AND SHOULD BE CONSIDERED ACCURATE TO 0.5 FEE
to
w
0
LOG OF TEST PIT
l eo �P �;ngi Heel' FIGURE 3
LOG OF TEST PIT
DEPTH BELOW GROUP SOIL
GROUND SURFACE CLASSIFICATION
(FEET) SYMBOL DESCRIPTION
TEST PIT 4
APPROXIMATE ELEVATION: I61 FEET
1.0 SM DARK BROWN SILTY FINE SAND WITH ORGANICS (LOOSE,
MOIST)
1.0 3.0 SM LICHT BROWN SILTY FINE TO MEDIUM SAND WITII GRAVEL
(DENSE TO VERY DENSE, MOIST)
1.0 9.0 SM LICHT BROWN SILTY FINE TO MEDIUM SAND (VERY DENSE,
HOIST) (WEATHERED ROCK)
TEST PIT COMPLETED AT BEDROCK AT 9.0 FEET ON
3/10/89
NO GROUND WATER SEEPAGE OBSERVED
TEST PIT 5
APPROXIMATE ELEVATION: 150 FEET
u.l 5M DARK BROWN SILTY FINE SAND WITH ORGANICS (LOOSE,
WET)
'1.1 4.0 SH .LIGHT BROWN SILTY FINE TO MEDIUM SAND (VERY DENSE,
MOIST) (WEATHERED ROCK)
TEST PIT COMPLETED AT BEDROCK AT.4.0 FEET UN
3/10/89
NO CROUND WATER SEEPAGE OBSERVED
LOG OF TEST PLT
t t S EI igi nce1'� FIG E 4
LOG OF TEST PIT
1 DEPTH BELOW GROUP SOIL
GROUND SURFACE CLASSIFICATION
(FEET) SYMBOL DESCRIPTION
TEST PiT 6
APPROXIMATE ELEVATION: 146 FEET
o 0.4 SM DARK BROWN SILTY FINE SAND WITH ORGANICS (LOOSE,
WET)
.,u SM B,ROWNISII -CRAY_ SILTY FINE TO MEDIUM SAND WITH
OCCASIONAL GRAVEL (100SE, MOIST)
•.0 3.0 ML /SM CRAY FINE TO MEDIUH SANDY SILT TO SILTY FINE TO
MEDIUM SAND (MEDIUM STIFF TO LOUSE, MOIST To
WET)
1.11 ).S HL /OL DARK BROWN SILT WITH ORGANICS AND SAND (SOFT, WET)
).5 5.5 SP -SM BROWN FINE TO COARSE. SAND WITH GRAVEL AND SILT
(MEDIUM DENSE, WET)
5.5 7.0 SM CRAY VERY SILTY FINE TO COARSE SAND WITH COBBLES
(MEDIUM DENSE,.WET)
TEST PIT COMPLETED AT 7.0 FEET ON 3/10/89
TEST PIT ENDED DUE TO EXCESSIVE CAVING
RAPID GROUND WATER SEEPAGE. OBSERVED AT 1.5 FEET
"SAMPLES OBTAINED AT 1.2, 2.5, 3.2, 4.5 AND
6.0 FEET
TEST PIT 7
APPROXIMATE ELEVATION: 165 FEET
0.5 SM DARK BROWN SILTY FINE SAND WITH ORGANICS (LOOSE,
MOIST)
).0 SM LIGIIT BROWN SILTY FINE TO- MEDIUM SAND WITII
OCCASIONAL GRAVEL (LOOSE TO MEDIUM DENSE, MOIST)
1.81 5.0 SM LICHT BROWN SILTY FINE TO MEDIUM SAND WITH
OCCASIONAL GRAVEL (DENSE TO VERY DENSE, MOIST)
(WEATHERED ROCK)
TEST PIT COMPLETED AT 5.0 FEET ON 3/10/89
TEST PIT ENDED DUE TO LARGE BOULDER AND WEATHERED
ROCK
NO GROUND WATER SEEPAGE OBSERVED
SAMPLE OBTAINED AT 2.0 FEET
c
ia7
1,1
,/1 LOG OF TEST PIT
%�Eo
nricers FIGURE 5
ti�
i D CID 110
a SCALE I?J FEET
N
f 1
C.,
/r TP-
---i
t 1
N-,, j tX a s 4 1 t 7
cidial4 a ir 0a2 i
j t 1 1
\NN NP-A7 3 t
i
IA ,s
t/"3:44. is-9, I
1.
I I
N
EYP%ANATIOM:
TP -1-$— TEST PIT LOCATION
AND NUM8Eft
Ref: Baima Holmberg survey drawing for Alpine motes
I SITE PLAN
f
Proposed Multi- Residential Development Project No.
85 Avenue South C�rativ �J�.
Tukwila, Washington Coryulti�
En ear i
I bert M. Prick, LC
j:
o
J 4 N c o c
ce 1?-' -,..W.,-----,:-_..'„,--.----,,-,,-; :::".t-1
J m f r tom'
of
Of la
7
1 T ,cad :c S¢ 3 Aa. 3�
0 O sib r F f -.y,-----.-.-..,r i
3
1 00 O yy�! s P F jam' F z 4S tj i i f
al e
1 4. r te „!:41 __d.� j
f
a y +c s s' h= t= `A"
z
l
rf .gym €--f
f a cr +r
'y .-....:=1 x- i
-7- 41-_,. :-IT'l i!..r.--- ----.,,,t,.--5-13,-,:-;:kk------A_.[_-!_;--,w,T-_,:4,-:- A.,-_:: :.t.., RE f ;:t7--tI
'�Y- z -qt r z'
6 �3. fi j t-_ 'I- y
�s -rte £'"c
_t----, „..___==-,,77 1 t Fr i
--z r iT=- L am E s
s' •s ay
fe es,,
J ,-c '1 a b 4 -�C "te a
ATTACHMENT J z
NAY 0 7 L£}-
COMUiliTY
f
DEVELOPMENT
Title: Wetland Delineation and Documentation of Findings on Tax Parcel
Number 3597000260, King County, City of Tukwila, Washington
Prepared for: Ray Carlstedt, Applicant, 3921 SW 102nd St., Seattle, WA 98146
Phone: (206) 932 -8246
Report preparation date: 2 May 2008
For presentation to: City of Tukwila, Dept. of Community Development
6300 Southcenter Blvd., Suite 100
Tukwila, WA 98188, Phone: (206)431 -3670
Prepared by: John Wesley Jennings, Wetland Specialist
P. 0. Box 9635, Tacoma, WA 98490, (253)474 -5432
Attachment 3
INTRODUCTION
The applicant, Ray Carlstedt, has applied for a zoning change for tax parcel
num1er 3597000260. The City of Tukwila Department of Community Development
personnel (the Staff) have determined there are two wetlands on the above tax
parcel. Therefore, they have requested that a wetland sensitive area study
be conducted. The applicant talked the situation over with Rebecca Fox and
other personnel within your department. The Tukwila Department of Community
Development has a prepared handout that summarizes the requirements for a
wetland sensitive area study. However, this is a request for rezoning, and
not a development proposal. The Staff has reviewed the city coding
requirements and determined that only the technical requirements of item
6.a. would be required at this time. This basically is the data collection
phase of a wetland determination. A copy of this wetland sensitive area
study handout is attached to the Appendix of this report.
In verbal communication with Rebecca Fox I was told the required input
that must go into this wetland study. In addition to the requirement to
address only item 6.a. has noted above, I was told there is the need to
study only the eastern wetland. In a personal visit to your office, I
obtained a copy of the GIS resource mapping for the Carlstedt property.
This map is attached to the Appendix of this report and labeled as the
CityGIS Map. This GIS mapping layer indicates two wetland areas: the
western one designated as a Type 2 wetland, and the eastern one as a Type 3
wetland. My findings as described below are in close agreement with this
CityGIS mapping.
PROCEDURES and FINDINGS
1. The first steps taken were to review that project requirements and the
regulations that must be followed. Because of its importance, the
Introduction Section explains the rational why this report contains a
subset of the requirements for a full wetland report. This process is
abbreviated because at this time there is just a request for a zoning
change, and not a development proposal. The direction for wetland
procedures and requirements are taken from the Washington State Wetlands
Identification and Delineation Manual (Wetland Manual), Ecology
Publication #96 -94; the City of Tukwila Code, Chapter 18.45,
Environmentally Sensitive Areas; and the U. S. Department of Interior
Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States
(Cowardin Classification).
2. The study site can be easily segregated into two separate upland and
wetland areas. There is no need to make a gridded search to find
additional wetland areas. Wetland A, the critical eastern wetland for
making a rezoning decision, was traversed and the wetland delineation
boundary marked with pink flagging labeled as.WL -Al to WL -A25 and then
WL -A -Last. Land interior to the wetland delineation line meets all three
of the wetland criteria statements: wetland hydrology, hydric soils, and
hydrophytic vegetation. Lands exterior to this wetland delineation line
fail to meet one or more of the required wetland criteria statements.
These wetland delineation points were then surveyed by Pacific Northwest
Land Surveyors, LLC, of Puyallup, Washington. The acreage of Wetland A
is 35,435 square feet. Almost the entire Wetland A area is on the study
parcel except about square feet that extends offsite to the south.
3. Five plots were taken to characterize both upland and wetland conditions
within the study parcel. These plots are labeled as -UPL -1 -Plot,
UPL -2 -Plot, WL -A1 -Plot, WL -A2 -Plot, and WL -A3 -Plot. Information on the
vegetation, hydrology, and soils were recorded on DATA FORM 1 for a
routine wetland determination as described in the Wetland Manual. These
forms are attached to the Appendix of this report. The UPL -1 Plot
records resource conditions in a relatively normal upland area. The
UPL -2 Plot is taken very close to the wetland delineation boundary. The
three wetland plots, WL- A(1,2,3) -Plots represents typical resource
conditions found within the Wetland A area. These wetland plots
indicated that this wetland has vegetation dominated by the shrub layer
with small percentages of trees and scattered presence of an emergent
understory vegetation. Within the Cowardin Classification System,
Wetland A is a Shrub -Shrub Class, Palustrine System, and meets the
hydrophytic vegetation criteria. Hydrologically, the wetland plots are
seasonally inundated with waters during the winter, spring, and early
summer seasons, and meets the wetland hydrology criteria. The soils
within the wetland area are relatively close to the Pu, Puget silty clay
loam soil mapping unit as described in the Soil Survey, King County Area,
Washington, and meets the hydric soil criteria. Due to difficulty in
access the wetland plots the survey crew could not survey all plot
locations. This wetland specialist has marked and labeled the plot
locations on the Wetland Site Map.
4. A Wetland Site Map has been prepared by the combined efforts of the
surveyor and this wetland specialist. The underlying survey map defines
the property lines, road system, wetland delineation, and other
associated detail typically found on survey documents. This wetland
specialist has added the following detail to the survey map and
re- labeled it as the Wetland Site Map. Both the original survey map,
labeled as WETLAND EXHIBIT, and the Wetland Site Map are attached to the
Appendix of this report.
The added details to make the Wetland Site Map includes the following.
a. A new title to the map, labeling it as the Wetland Site Map.
b. The addition of the field wetland flag numbers that correlate with the
assigned survey numbers found on the survey map.
c. The location of the upland and wetland plot locations. Plots
WL -A1 -Plot and WL -A2 -Plot lack any survey data and are conceptual as
to their true location.
d. The 50 ft. standard wetland buffer width has been added around the
eastern wetland area.
e. A signature block is added to identify the Wetland Specialist that has
made these modifications to the original survey document.
5. The wetland was rated following Tukwila Code 18.45.080.(B) and (E). It
was determined that the conditions in the field did not meet the
conditions as outlined for a Type 1 or Type 2 wetland area, and by
default meets the description for a Type 3 wetland rating. The standard
wetland buffer width for a Type 3 wetland is 50 feet. This wetland
buffer is shown on the Wetland Site Map but has not been located in the
field.
6. It was stressed by Tukwila Department of Community Development personnel
that work needed to be done on the water courses in the area. There is a
water course that is shown on the Tukwila City GIS Map flowing in a
southeasterly direction from Wetland A. The legend indicates this is a
Type 4 water course. Additionally an unidentified water course was found
that drains from Wetland B. These two water courses both drain in a
southerly direction but angle off in slightly different directions. The
two water courses do not join together.
a. The water course off the southern tip of Wetland A flows a short
distance into a very small wetland area; then into a crudely
constructed ditch; then at S. 153rd St. goes into a buried culvert
system that appears to drain toward a dual infiltration /retention pond
about 250 feet west of the pagoda in Tukwila Park; and from there
waters likely infiltrate into the soil layers or tie into the local
road drainage systems. This water course has intermittent flow
periods and would not support any life phase of a salmonid species.
It is correctly classified as a Type 4 water course and should have a
50 feet water course buffer. This water course buffer is shown on the
Wetland Site Map and is totally interior to the the Wetland A and
Wetland A buffer areas.
b. The water course off the southern portion of Wetland B was found in
the field after searching for a water connection between Wetland A and
Wetland B. The water course off Wetland B flows in a
southerly southwesterly direction through sections of buried culvert
and stretches of a relatively natural stream channel. It was traced
laterally to a point just east of the junction of Southcenter
Blvd. and 62nd Ave. S. at the prominent Tukwila City Hall sign. From
there the water course flows into another culvert that heads toward
Interstate 405. It is questionable if this water course is
intermittent or perennial, but should not support any phase of a
salmonid species since they must pass through buried culverts sections
and debris traps. This water course would classify as a Type 3 or
Type 4 water course.
7. In summary, the application for a zoning change on the eastern portion of
this property hinges upon the wetland conditions found at the eastern
wetland area: Wetland A. This wetland has been delineated in the field
and the delineation boundary accurately tied into the property boundary
by a licensed surveyor. The size of this wetland has been determined to
be 35,435 square feet or 0.81 acres. Plots were taken to characterize
the wetland and upland resource conditions. Wetland A is a palustrine,
shrub -shrub class, wetland system. It classifies as a Type 3 wetland
area requiring a standard 50 ft. wetland buffer as provided for in
Tukwila City Code 18.45.080.(B and E). Field work was conducted to
determine if Wetland A and Wetland B are connected by surface waters. It
was established they are not. Both of these wetlands have outlets that
flow waters in a southerly direction. However, they are angling away
:from each other without a confluence of the water courses. The water
course associated with Wetland B is not shown on the CityGIS Map and this
may represent new data.
8. In the matter of professional experience, I would simply state that I
have been on the wetland specialist list of Pierce County from 1991 to
the present. During that time period I have conducted over 300 wetland
reports. Most of this wetland work has been done in Pierce County, with
some submissions to other counties and city jurisdictions as in this
case. From 1967 -1990 I was employed by the US Forest Service as a
forester, soil scientist, and watershed specialist. I have a BS degree
in Forest Science from the University of Washington, 1967, with graduate
studies in soil science at Oregon State University and Cornell
University.
Hopefully, the described and attached wetland and water course field studies
are helpful in reaching a determination concerning a rezoning application by
the applicant. In closing, one should recognize there is always a degree of
uncertainty in scientific endeavors. Other individuals may have more time
and discover new data that could lead to different conclusions. I would
simply state I have conducted this wetland investigation, reported my
findings, and made my conclusions and recommendations to the best of my
abilities. If I may be of any further assistance, I may be contacted at
253 474 -5432.
Wes Jennings, Soil Scientist Wetland Specialist
Puget Land Consultants
APPENDIX
A
r
Guidance for Preparation of Sensitive Areas Special Studies:
Wetlands and Watercourses
Who Should Prepare the Wetland or Watercourse Sensitive Area Study?
An applicant whose proposed action is on property that may contain a wetland or watercourse
must submit a Sensitive Area Special Study under Tukwila Sensitive Areas Ordinance (Municipal
Code 1 8.45.040). The study must be prepared by a qualifies experienced professional as
required under the code (i.e., for wetlands a Certified professional Wetland Scientist or a
professional with at least 2 years experience in wetland work; for watercourses, a professional
hydrologist or other scientist with experience in watercourse assessments).
What kind of information should be included In the Wetland or Watercourse
Sensitive Area Study?
The study must inelude the following information (as applicable), Note that the information in
the Sensitive Area Study may be combined with studies required by other agencies/ordinances.
1. Applicant's aneme and contact information.
2. Description of the proposed action and identification of the permit(s) required.
3. Copy of the site plan with north arrow, scale and property lines showing: development
proposal and dimensions, location of existing wetlands/watencourses, buffers and drainage
features, clearing limits, proposed stormwater management plan, proposed plan for mitigating
impacts, and topographical contours at two (2) footintervals. or-r
4. Names and qualifications attic professional(s) preparing the study. d
It ;44
S. Dates and description of the fieldwork carried out on the site. 10 f
6. Detailed characterization of the wetland/watercourse, and buffers, which will include: m e fel
a, Wetland delineation report that Includes methods used field indicators evaluated and
the results (wetland delineation must be performed in accordance with the Washington
State Wetlands Identification and Deletion Manual, Washington Department of
Ecology, March 1997): Field data forms are to be included in the report. Wetland
boundaries are to be marked in the field with numbered stakes or flagging. These
markers are to be shown on the site plan with their corresponding numbers indicated, i
After the City of Tukwila confirms the boundaries, they are to be professionally i
surveyed to the nearest square foot and the site plan modified as necessary. Exact
wetland calculated after the boundaries have been surveyed.
b. Co waT� c nassuica utari ar sac w�uiutts�n�
1 "Classification of Wetlands and Deepwaaa Habitats oldie United States Cowardin, L., Carter, V,,
Goleth, F.C., and LaRot, ES., US Fish and Wildlife Service, office of Biological Services. Washington,
D.C., 1979.
CI.
Page 1 of l Q8119120051213 PM
q:\Fosta .Sensitive Area Study GaidcUnes.dac
Sensitive Area Study Requirements
August, 2005
c. Hydrogeomorphic classification of the wetland(s). 2
d. Characterization ofthe watercourse on site: flow regime, streambed, banks,
dimensions, vegetation, habitat conditions, existing modifications.
e. Brief landscape assessment ofthe wetland/watercourse (identify hydrologic basin/sub-
basin, inlets, outlets, surrounding land use, habitat quality and connectivity, ultimate
point of discharge, presence of culverts or other constraints to flow, relationship to
other wetlands/watercourses adjacent to or potentially impacted by the proposed
project, flow regime, surrounding land uses).
f. Classification of thew under Tukwila's Sensitive Area Ordinance
Rating system (see TMC 18.45.080 for wetlands and TMC 18.45.100 for
watercourses).
g. Description of buffer size per TMC 18.45.080 E. and TMC 18.45.100 D., conditions
(topographic considerations, existing vegetation types and density, habitat features,
watercourse edges, presence of invasive species, etc.), and functions.
h. Functional assessment ofthe wetland(s). For proposed wetland filling the Washington
Functional Assessment Method (WAFAM) must be used For proposed projects that
will impact buffers, the Washington Wetland Classification System may be used as x
functional assessment.
i. Description of habitat conditions, wildlife/fish use of the sensitive area, including
sensitive, threatened or endangered species.
j. Citations of any literature or other resources utilized in preparation of the report.
k. Description of adjacent land uses and ownership.
7. A statement verifying the accuracy and limitations of the study and the assumptions used.
8. Assessment of hazards, risks and impacts. An assessment of likely impacts to the
wetland/watercourses must be performed and must include. an evaluation of short-term,
direct, indirect and cumulative impacts on the sensitive areas and their buffets and to
neighboring properties. A description of the wetlend/watercoutse functions that will be lost
as a result of implementing the project should be provided, as well as an evaluation of
impacts to wildlife/fish, if applicable.
9. Description of development alternatives considered and efforts made to avoid and minimize
adverse impacts (see TMC 18,45.090C regarding mitigation sequencing).
10. Description of proposed conceptual mitigation plan for offsetting impacts of the proposal.
For wetlands, the consultant shall use as a guide the Department of Ecology "Guidance on
Wetland Mitigation in Washington State, Part 2, Guidelines for Developing Wetland
Mitigation Plans and Proposals, April 2404*'. The conceptual mitigation plan shall include
the following:
a. Rationale, mitigation goals, expected functions of completed mitigation;
b. Amount of restoration/creation/enhancement proposed;
c. Location and dimensions of proposed mitigation;
d. Description of expected hydrology (and explanation of how this was determined);
2 "A Hydrogeomorphic Classification for Wetlands Brinson, MM., Wetlands Research Program
Technical Report WRP- DE- 4, 1J.S. Army Corps of Engineers Waterways Experiment Vicksburg,
Mississippi, 1993.
Page 2 of 3 OS/19/2OO5 12:13 PM
clFe truAStctsitive Area study Ouidelines.doc
1
Sensitive Area Study Requirements
August, 2005
e. Description of means to stabilize relocated watercourse channels, actions to improve
watercourse flirtations such as water quality, habitat, good control, etc.;
f. preliminary planting plan and invasive plant control plan; and
g. Timing and schedule.
h. Recomrnended maintenance, monitoring (short -term and long -te m) contingency
plans, bonding measures for mitigation, per TMC 18.45.210.
11. Any additional technical information as required by the Director to assist in determining
compliance with TMC Chapter 18.45.
The applicant is responsible for obtaining all necessary jurisdictional determinations and permits
from state and federal agencies and for providing this information to the City.
ct. Pegs 3 of 3 09!1912005 12.13 PM
q:Tarras‘Sertsitivo Arcs Study Guidelincs4oc
i i 'I f i'� 11e °F =8`i R:21 n °K
n a a P 1 1 "5 4 g R 1 y a m i` gr../
4 R1
°a p It 0 g A 'a
P o i C g x s a Pi €iii ii g Q2 1 N gg it
a
I I
E 4
62ND AVE. S_ to
QD
P! Ofl
"s fi p N 111 lll n-- o
2 1 111111iiiir m -x m \t /u+ S liiilRmnli 2
....m.....4.=-,-,,-... iiiiliriit i Z
to al 5
2
iq!IIlgi9Ni1 o It
/i ii ii
r m 19 ��1 2 �D
co t O f Q €an o m fort1
It m P i -.N V y A O
a A R �}�I ►II 1 Z� y
.1 y y t' ll�llllllllii tom
a o s v Al a 111111111111111, O' y Q
il liitiiiiiiiill� m y
s :Tit -z I n v @9i11i1I111ii1 D 'Q
g x 6 m uiIi Iim s to
a W o a -4 747;43X44 i-1
w a i CO
m F.
o a =y 1111 III m
8
P t■c i's. —c to 1 a p a J la O
T- I)
O 0 5 -G 9��
r1 �1
9 ,2;._ F
P
P p
e
'P,...7s I Prepared f..
A L a RAY CARLSTEDT PROPERTY .4..-74,... Paodic Northwest Land
E R a y Carlstadt
T WETLAND l= Xf11B"1T s urve y or s, LLa
12 II I n a 1605' East YCi,....- s.af:L sum
o A:... v....OFTiIE NW 1M E -1/40F P vY° -'�9.. N'ash5�9tm 98372
I s EcToN2a' TOWNSNIP2iN.. wwGE E. WJA. r °I Phenc j26J)84f -3953
I- 5 IQNG COUNTY. WASHINGTON s� rma cs- (253)541 -1259 -ar I -�i u a I 7----%
v 3m,1 10 ,1 1 t 1 '5 oy 1
ipri t15 41 t 1 IL 4
r7 0 l N a ZF„,.., 3 a °�S t% 6 Z u s
t V �r c) a Sri „s€ a ;z 1-t m
S. r 4 F 4 `fig' -S S"
g zit
to
j D
62ND AVE_ S. W o a
-t z
t4
1ll1 I p Tn=
!1. m
!l!!illlill m z
�ini�iree 1_. A
z p�
��m
WM=F h=am
K z c.
al r m --1 m t
f,- S� o
E. in Z >Q
F 0
Cri 1 inning 1 o m fl i.
6 r a It% 4 4 o x r j o
c m
liYl
ei ,J ¶tJ y 5= L m0 sa
s
22qq&& z ti
4
ill 73
�o s.
i.
I
1 1:
Al Im 'Z
t
m
a z
I d 01 99 g
y F t
t
Prepared for: i 4
4 paGifi� O W Land FLaY am
j Sur e3faf •�,MVe l'-''''''' -9 A.',-11 "rte 2aa £W
TPR r a"� {zsa snag 4", aF
RAY iE3 F (25.3}
RA Q E
?t t q WETt�-,xgsy
1 g g A P v WP w MGY° c 1
zi P SE .Mi0N MNG GOLNTY'
f
SAILS
Unit t ct L a C r ,D xPe, i'n
:lap Umtame tt� -t Drainage Class
(Series Phase) J
I F row K i Cc Field observations confirm Y N ,pt e o
Taxonomy (Subgroup) -V t tzk S mapped type? eri
Profile Description I
Depth Horizon Matrix color Mottle colors Mottle abundance Texture, concretions, Drawing of soil
(inches) Munsell (Munsell size contrast structure, etc. profile
moist) moist) (match description)
P wil koail
0 4 7 0 t
;1{ C 1 /kA0. S. Si V@.. j S
o Bt Io \JK lJ. S E -�a e.
Cc ass
sayk Ni
Hydric Soil Indicators: (check all that apply)
Histosol Concretions
Histic Epipedon High Organic Content in Surface Layer of Sandy Soils
Sulfidic Odor Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
Aquic Moisture Regime Listed on Local Hydric Soils List
Reducing Conditions Listed on National Hydric Soils List
Gleyed or Low Chroma Colors Other (explain in remarks)
Hydric soils present? (yes) no
Rationale for decision/Remarks:
Wetland Determination (circle)
Hydrophytic vegetation present? Wail no
Hydric soils present? no Is the sampling point yes rrr
Wetland hydrology present? no within a wetland?
Rationale/Remarks:
NOTES:
Loc�,
N o.,a P4k"
DATA FORM 1
Routine Wetland Determination
(WA State Wetland Delineation Manual or
1987 Corps Wetland Delineation Manual)
Project/Site: Date: 4 14 t
,t
Applicant/owner: S°v� County: t S cj "Ttc. �J t t,t..
State: W
Investigator(s): tt- ri S/T/R:
Do Normal Circumstances exist on the sit (211 no Community ID:
Is the site significantly disturbed (atypical situation)? yes MOP Transect ID:
Is the area a potential Problem Area? yes no Plot ID: L 3 Vlt
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species tuni Indicator
Sc`�� SVQ-t\Q 1# C- t R „S,k.s f at ra F tkzAL
S 'a.,\d` SPQ R S( Z F W
Ro,v\ kicns-v3v.S ri`..1)th CbletA4 FKW
e..Kavz\ Ve... (a) Ca v. -t-rk
o
HYDROPHYTIC VEGETATION INDICATORS:
of dominants OBL, FACW, FAC:
Check all indicators that apply explain below:
Regional knowledge of plant communities 10 Wetland plant list (nat'l or regional) \e
OTHER
Physiological or reproductive adaptations Morphological adaptations
Technical Literature Wetland Plant Data Base
Hydrophytic vegetation present? es no
Rationale for decision/Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
Is it the growing season? Citt no Water Marks: es no 1 Sediment-Deposits: yes no
Based .on_ TilQ.e Drift Lines: yes no 1 Drainage Patterns: es no
Dept. of inundation: .42_12.__ inches 4 4 Oxidized Root (live roots) Local Soil Survey: yes no
.1 Channels <12 in. yes no
Depth to free water in pit: inches FAC Neutral: no Water stained
Leaves: yes no
Depth to saturated soil: inches
Check all that apply explain below: Other:
Stream, Lake or gage data:
Aerial photographs: Other:
Wetland hydrology present? (l:/ no
Rationale for decision/Remarks:
Map Unit Nam tea; i c 4 y Class 00r v o .QA
eries Phase)
Fro F Field observations confirm Yes No
axonom'� (s bgroup) mapped type?
ProfIe Description
Depth Horizon Matrix color Mottle colors Mottle abundance Texture, concretions, Drawing of soil
(inches) Munsell (Munsell size contrast structure, etc. profile
moist) moist) (match descrintion?
1
..p.0 B. 5 ait c t4y,t,v‘\,),„
Hydric Soil Indicators: (check all that apply)
Histosol Concretions
Histic Epipedon High Organic Content in Surface Layer of Sandy Soils
Sulfidic Odor Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
Aquic Moisture Regime Listed on Local Hydric Soils List
Reducing Conditions Listed on National Hydric Soils List
ve"Gleyed or Low -Chmma Colors Other (explain in remarks)
Hydric soils present? yes no
Rationale for decision/Remarks:
Wetland Determination (circle)
Hydrophytic vegetation present? 021311 no
Hydric soils present? no is the sampling point rro
Wetland hydrology present? no within a wetland?
Rationale/Remarks:
NOTES:
.rzt•- t Y (•c)t roy,, i b c.a„ 0 n 0 v■ W a�. S
DATA FORM 1
Routine Wetland Determination
(WA State Wetland Delineation Manual or
1987 Corps Wetland Delineation Manual)
Project/Site: Date: 1 0 5 6 p
o
Applicant/owner: I \Gy� r County: 1(i'1 �Kw
1 State: W
Investigator(s): W 'Q-S arm `n9 S/T/R:
Do Normal Circumstances exist on the situ` yes no Community ID:
Is the site significantly disturbed (atypical situation)? yes CO Transect ID:
Is the area a potential Problem Area? yes no Plot ID: `,J v. 1
VEGETATION �d
C ®4t
Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
,Scr-\iX .SPegAec Fse'cQw
Stk, ix sperm \�s L F6cm
HYDROPHYTIC VEGETATION INDICATORS:
of dominants OBL, FACW, FAC: 00
4
Check all indicators that apply explain below:
Regional knowledge of plant communities Wetland plant list (nat'1 or regional) OTHER
Physiological or reproductive adaptations Morphological adaptations
Technical Literature Wetland Plant Data Base
Hydrophytic vegetation present? yes` no
Rationale for decision/Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
Is it the growing season? no II Water Marks: es no 1 Sediment-Deposifs: yes no
Based on: I Drift Lines: yes no I Drainage Patterns:(' e no
Dept. of inundation: -ta inches i Oxidized Root (live roots) Local Soil Survey: yes no
=1 Channels <12 in. yes no
Depth to free water in pit: inches FAC Neutral: es no Water stained
Leaves: yes no
Depth to saturated soil: inches
Check all that apply explain below: Other:
Stream Lake or gage data
Aerial photographs: Other:
Wetland hydrology present? ryes) no
Rationale for decision/Remarks:
SOILS )4 e- „e.
tom
Ma Unit Name tr,. S I C L O4
Map Drainage Class lrv, I KR,t
(Series 1?hase)
t t S Field observations confirm Yes No
Taxonomy (s bgroup) t c G �.M `S mapped type?
Profile Description J
Depth Horizon Matrix color Mottle colors Mottle abundance Texture, concretions, Drawing of soil
(inches) (Munsell (Munsell size contrast structure, etc. profile
moist) moist) (match description)
C C 4
(A r i
te-v. C t cl i kciroc
Hydric Soil Indicators: (check all that apply)
Histosol Concretions
Histic Epipedon High Organic Content in Surface Layer of Sandy Soils
Sulfidic Odor Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
ye Aquic Moisture Regime Listed on Local Hydric Soils List
\e' Reducing Conditions Listed on National Hydric Soils List
Gleyed or Low- Chroma Colors Other (explain in remarks)
Hydric soils present? yes no
Rationale for decision/Remarks:
Wetland Determination (circle)
Hydrophytic vegetation present? no
Hydric soils present? ill no Is the sampling point yes rro-`
Wetland hydrology_present? es no within a wetland?
Rationale/Remarks:
NOTES:
Ot 1 \s“ok (k- 4
DATA FORM I
Routine Wetland Determination
(WA State Wetland Delineation Manual or
1987 Corps Wetland Delineation Manual)
Project/Site: Date: k P91 1, .siesgg
Applicant/owner: Ck c County: K%h 9 7 u,
1 State:
Investigator(s): W 'Q,S fl�1t n C S/T/R:
Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? no Community 1D:
Is the site significantly disturbed (atypical situation)? yes 4rip Transect ID:
Is the area a potential Problem Area? yes no Plot ID: L P P[4.11-
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Specie turn Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
VA. t (7 L w FKW
CArey Ay\NJA 04) CB-vc)%k-vi- °et-
HYDROPHYTIC VEGETATION INDICATORS:
of dominants OBL, FACW, FAC: 3
�3 100 70
Check all indicators that apply explain below:
Regional knowledge of plant communities V Wetland plant list (nat'l or regional) OTHER
Physiological or reproductive adaptations Morphological adaptations
Technical Literature 1/ Wetland Plant Data Base
Hydrophytic vegetation present? es no
Rationale for decision/Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
Is it the growing season? yes no Water Marks: (yes no 1 Sediment-Deposits: yes no
Based on: Drift Lines: yes no 1 Drainage Patterns: OST no
Dept. of inundation: inches 6 Oxidized Root (live roots) Local Soil. Survey: yes no
Channels <12 in. yes no
Depth to free water in pit: inches FAC Neutral: yes no Water stained
Leaves: yes no
Depth to saturated soil: inches
Check all that apply explain below: Other:
Stream Lake or gage data:
Aerial photographs: Other.
Wetland hydrology present? yes no
Rationale for decision/Remarks:
soILS A PP kk.N.
Map Unit me yr it k 4 Pr Od Drainage Class c AA.
(Series Phase) For' 6 t ofctx r; s
k ∎k w t4., Field observations confirm Yes No
Taxonomy subgroup) Y kN It l `t`
mapped type?
Profile Description
Depth Horizon Matrix color Mottle colors Mottle abundance Texture, concretions, Drawing of soil
(inches) (Munsell (MunselI size contrast structure, etc. profile
moist) moist) (match description)
Go( so064
I t to Cd
8- ssk
Scikky Lo A A,k 13K
vv-kss 7 vt. S
Hydric Soil Indicators: (check all that apply)
Histosol Concretions
Histic Epipedon High Organic Content in Surface Layer of Sandy Soils
Sulfidic Odor Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
Aquic Moisture Regime Listed on Local Hydric Soils List
Reducing Conditions Listed on National Hydric Soils List
Gleyed orLow- Chroma Colors Other (explain in remarks)
Hydric soils present? yes telA
Rationale for decision/Remarks:
Wetland Determination (circle)
Hydrophytic vegetation present? yes n
Hydric soils present? yes- Cal Is the sampling point yes
Wetland hydrology present? yes within a wetland?
Rationale/Remarks:
NOTES:
F Rte; 4 L ffi ftS 3_0
DATA FORM 1
Routine Wetland Determination
(WA State Wetland Delineation Manual or
1987 Corps Wetland Delineation Manual)
Project/Site: Dare: f 0 -'p #E co es
Applicant/owner: RU, C. r 4 tk4".. County: i ∎w. t;
State:
Investigator(s): W vl Y1\ VAC S/T/R:
Do Normal Circumstances exist on the sife? no Community ID:
Is the site significantly disturbed (atypical situation)? yes m Transect ID:
Is the area a potential Problem Area? s yes no Plot ID: p `g- P 4
VEGETATION
ever
Dominant Plant Species tratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
PiS twirl ,mb t ti t t Tre, FfscQtA.
Pt-ce.tr w trip y c't ""Tvle, FA-
G 5PALe..c�S (ITT f -Q
w e.Lk.,k" F#rt 'ks,k
HYIiROPHYTIC VEGETATION INDICATORS:
%6 of dominants OBL, FACW, &FAC: I it:
Check all indicators that apply explain below:
Regional knowledge of plant communities Wetland plant list (nat'l or regional) V OTHER
Physiological or reproductive adaptations Morphological adaptations
Technical Literature Wetland Plant Data Base
Hydrophytic vegetation present? yes no
Rationale for decision/Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
Is it the growing season? yes no Water Marks yes r ci) Sediment-Deposits: yes�no
Based on: Drift Lines: yes no 1 1 Drainage Patterns: yes no
Dept. of inundation: inches Oxidized Root (live rots) Local Soil Survey: yes no
Aklere Channels <12 in. yes ropts)
Depth to free water inpit: 1) inches l''01304.1 FAC Neutral: yes no Water stained
Leaves: yes
Depth to saturated soil: inches
Check all that apply explain below: Other:
Stream Lake or gage data:
Aerial photographs: Other:
Wetland hydrology present? yes cra)
Rationale for decision/Remarks:
sans jiA Y b !_.ck+...
Map Urut Name Drainage Class
(Series Phase) k E V V k 4 r i k j
4A t i 4 NS C S i Field observations confirm Yes No
Taxonomy sub o u �i -T 1 Iv mapped type? Taxono PP tYP t\,) Pr Y P
Profile Description 1
Depth Horizon Matrix color Mottle colors Mottle abundance Texture, concretions, Drawing of soil
(inches) Munsell (Munsell size contrast structure, etc. profile
moist) moist) (match description
0 t\ Pt to\I SS ct TS ccits, A
ti sot
1 1 t Bw ►5�{ s -1
SS PS F.�6 k is,. ,703 +emu
A- $IQ.
1 tr\ /4. i lk. -fla, bC w \S
1 Hydric Soil Indicators: (check all that apply)
Histosol Concretions
Histic Epipedon High Organic Content in Surface Layer of Sandy Soil
Sulfidic Odor Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
Aquic Moisture Regime Listed on Local Hydric Soils List
Reducing Conditions Listed on National Hydric Soils List
Gleyed or Low- Chroma Colors Other (explain in remarks)
Hydric soils present? yes
Rationale for decision/Remarks:
Wetland Determination (circle)
Hydrophytic vegetation present? yes leb
Hydric soils present? yes Is the sampling point yes
Wetland hydrology present? yes n o within a wetland?
Rationale/Remarks:
NOTES:
F r 0 VW. \•3 -8-..kA CL 1 1 1
0 V\k 5°
55 1 S t‘') E; 4-0 LY? L., —A----?tok
DATA FORM 1
Routine Wetland Determination
(WA State Wetland Delineation Manual or
1987 Corps Wetland Delineation Manual)
Project/Site: Date: 0 Y t 1 D, O$
R CaC S
Applicant/owner: c► k� County: i h Q 1 v� k
.3-e_ State: \,,J IA
Investigator(s): VJ2S 1710 1 hq S S/T/R:
Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? es no Community ID:
Is the site significantly disturbed (atypical situation)? yes i no) Transect ID:
Is the area a potential Problem Areal yes no 1 Plot ID:,, VR L 1
VEGETATION
(Cazgl: Yo
Dominant Plant Species tratum Indicator Dominant PIant Species atum Indicator
1s-e ots 4 -Qa rn�eh fes 1 (,34) �.r ee F C. I e� gyp, Cs) sL�rwA t 1.
PrceY ivevzLe-r OW 1 \AAA (A T r tt- EftCki RAti,S- A 1 SCJAt r (SA 3\f\y.kilt FetZ1/411/4
P1w M rJ (5) "Tett. Fes f%el,tra.. spetks (54 %ye WI
I A 'Rcr�bS� 0.1\t" ti, (Ac Na..
6 Ct. t eraS VvevA) F":.f 6 $1 C.Vtuyes, to 6tilvv,41 Flic u1/4.
HYDROPHYTIC VEGETATION fl DICATORS: Z i 1 1_ 1
of dominants OBL, FACW, FAC: 1 1(0,7 7
Check all indicators that apply explain below:
Regional knowledge of plant communities v/- Wetland plant list (nat'l or regional) OTHER
Physiological.or reproductive adaptations Morphological adaptations
Technical Literature V' Wetland Plant Data Base
Hydrophytic vegetation present? yes
Rationale for decision/Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
Is it the growing, season? CO no •I Water Marks: yes no 1 Sediment•Deposits: yes no
Based on: e. 1 Drift Lines: yes CD Drainage Patterns: yeL no
Dept. of inundation: inches Oxidized Root (live roots) Lo al Soi,1 Survey: yes no
Channels <12 in. yes V ,oP Qm,c. N k
Depth to free water in pit: inches FAC Neutral: yes no Water stained
Leaves: y no
Depth to saturated soil: inches
Check all that apply explain below: Other:
Stream Lake or gage data:
Aerial photographs: Other:
Wetland hydrology present? yes t)
Rationale for decision/Remarks:
gi .,,,,,p r ..-a o�" y Y
1
ai
0 ....,,.,..„..,.,...,,,..-Eit il.„`; \-sz C to
I -t- yy•yy==���y�y�����ppgg
a o
I-
!g t C ';j�,:i.? t a 1
i n=--'- 1.-°^- Via'.-- .:rC,ola- .2° :1 1
0 S i sti k A� Lam
II 7 ti p °a C� rF�.'� 5
t t `mss .l. 5 1 V. N.C..:.•` L
c 0 t ti T
3 t._ �k� t "`{`L J t lt'!L"
-.-1^- t om tTt.
..ti:. r
a w i c 1 `v :y 1 .."^...E :is
O a..." s 1 y� d; i
i ti v7:: i rt iii lif 7 _�i 1 -»'te 5,
a
13 S u3°•L,m'" OC:iG�u',..=2.' i 1'_: t
6
-frf a P r.-". .iniiiiina.;;-iiikTi
s„. •r
x f yy r
r..,. a a r-
sus
rt D n
m o u
C -0 C D- 03 W CO W N to to to .P. A W W N N .5, X CI N
UH to co N -_i A W N 7 0t
n
n
Q
en D
a .cR-
-�j X5 1 3 1 r •t_
i p. -t o—
i ;la a f =tea''
r u R Z t i t T 'sue L 11 f
t -Cal *a- 4- "1� r fi fi
c: -II 1P- ��s te r 4c� r
h4
'Fd' r j ma
4
I 5
=1
t 6 f' :t om c,
R t 61:::„. r ear m tea 4 t E
tea €mss az r� r �,1
L4i c —P 4 �Y
3 s --ms -7* 4 f G-- 1 Y i L� i--
t f, °z t a r .cam f
s Y' li 4 c Y t „,.Lyon
of z
i 1
kr* .s r- Y-a '3�� -4
e W 15 eL$ Co
r K
i 3 r A- �i 3 I.g 4 Y
Sri a'L "f r` `y
te a_ F
4:7 -e�- Vii`+
_Y�' .'tom e`er L i _--,-1;.-_-:=1',
r te 4y -v..-.9. 3 I .u- ;Y- y
i� -4s..�
Woodland View
A. a'7
Low Density Residential (LDR) to m
NORTH
Medium Density Residential (MDR) Tukwila
Tukwila
City of
L07-096 L07 -097
1 i +FEET Multifamily Development
0 75 150 300 45 600 Attachment K GIS
A V'=
c
1 1
e ,1 3-, „-.,-5 \c ......_.,1
a yoy.4:.L._..3..D.1,1:::....:_. hi_
i- 4 ,V3 c-,,•1-- -ts.. 1 1
'A S 2S1ItO S 3 kl ,f 0140
N I e--..,>---
.1 i...,-
-I
et
1 r ---I TI
I. I c:, .:1;
tij Il• a
.pt.
a
1? r•.:d t .4 ,1
s. A 1
441a .11 i it ..t
1 k 1.. 0, 1
ii iii .t. 1 0-,, UM RN g ZVI" i is r
z --a, v „t.
9 9- I 7: CI .1 ;5.:
y' t
V ...X 1
Is 4 C.., i f S' 1 .lt
.7.7. r, <:0 :f .-1 Z- i.,i's,-=, iffi '01. -1- 11
:g i r Vim \Illi
4 ..k i
3:7 :4". .1 ilk
III 5
IIP i' cr 7_-•--
4/ LC 1 -/t 1 i.t 6
•!..s vo 1 1. 1 't I
li
4 ....k C 1 ,•-i
t, i t.-
s ,,c .0,. .743 t
1' 7. 1 i 1 N
C.' ''----.1.!- c
r v .s r i
4460, a
I-- c qct
i i
''i 'Ix f ti; N.
I k A' 6.,,
7/
V' L
1
1 r t V. tj: ..7..1
x., I i
a
1
L .61Z
o '.4r_ 3 frAlei 91 V 1 V r i
,k• 0
F. :53 ..-.1
it ......4,:-; .•c .0
_____tt_ti ryl 0 ilk ,f11: •f Illi A -A
.1 it- :5-1:- -1- 1 1-;-' E
:,-.,:z 0.`••• 3.7 s. _.1- I I
I
-.3 •‘,.i. 1 •-1 1
I-- -V II g 0 1
A
'Si 4 fi ..14 F -tl in ..i i ol
S.-- Mar
0 45 0,t;).•_1 7'.' ‘1_ ,...1 3.3 1 A.-...---- -ro-_-. a !1 1 4 i 1.!
c::_____ e E 1 )1, Al W -.,-4 5.".- Ili.
A E '1
1.../ ot o i _1.• Of irill '1 7 ,‘•N
,,,,,i -I 1 i! ci 09-N4
11 '4 C• I !III Ar:1 1..e.
,,,4 -3--- --taT- 1 ,1-; i!, ,s
0.- ido :3 ,..s,,, c e. -n.,. im i2 •:-.3 1',...,„ im......, -.0. i
LL,.. .5-_,.... 4., rt .1_ -4,---- i i 1 I 1.-■1 1---- 'Ina
f
-4 1- :L. i.- 4 6,10 v ip a.„
IA
0 f• ..14: 1
f a ,1 t.,- Li•-• 0
N r.., tts.._>.:
3ii..r.;39viio 1--
4 A.-.
V),9- Ili 3-1 klk -yr- i1- V- i
I t :•:0------ i
u t =_i -5 E r .A.- -e
i .i/4 t'
1: P:
4
i ett----1
:C: ..r le ft% tit
ll ----7L ic: i G- 1-,
il 7 T. 1 111;;. Lir .f..;.... e p r i f ...b„ a
ilir-• CI
411 CA, r:f ti i j --7-:.4.2 4
•cl r i ty ,fe• -.:1;.,;- .4., C X
k l e At't _At.. 1...K.' 0 c‘ On i c F. fl 0
1 1_ D 1 0
Q 0 ZZ.
eN k 0 Z -7 4
F t: CC I .C.C> n .1. 1 1
A
r) c I <J• Z•k2.1. r it
I
1
QS
0
0 0 c1 n ci i i
.,.1. _•13.--
u
1.06C4.
i 1
-,i.u.-...,/,. A
.7 I
;17rnicii b i smt,: P- ,r7 i
0 t..../ i:-
la Lf.
A
--r- inn frt. ci.
1 Cf 4. 1 l'Ill
1' l
%-i Allir ti.
I
\d-
7 '-::-:---1/
s
Ch 1 0 It. f I CD ULZ 7 I
q illiilt %Iv C $11f:0 7
A s ir- 1 l
I-5 F. 5 /4
^/.i t
1 PIZA '4---- ---4-----
_n I 7 1
..\-01:1;
1--s- iteM, ,CA 1 ,t. ;7 I 3.-1‘
Attachment 1.
:s..
di TR 2f VIC VI-. 11 F .•1 4
l n El' i 'e .4 CZ7 i g
1 ti i:'------'" 4
t1� it
D
m
el d 7 p 8 ,D -6 a
H uj O 'u+ N ,Il .1
0 6 O e u c V to
.--r---; f'' Y' U S n
p ASH' 11.. N
i W
41
PL
5• 9 14\1 t
0-5- IA 0 o
6
1 411 t k /it t
IX
NI
,Z- r.,
_:,-A-. ,,,,,,,,,,,,,..„......c........:„........,,:.:,_..„:„.,,,i,
ii 11 ....'*0.. il V
it 0
i st
�a 1 a v Cr.
y d�
AI
p ai a
Z 3 3
U rU o
4. �Y$ 1 q
r `w 1 t....:% 4 1.1" :a Q o60
le M1144 jz r 6Y
a
W y 1 A sa
I V off a <t 4
t
a t
b 1:1: Y i
a
.6 1 g 3 3
3
i Q 3s
.0 a
0 a a.
a
tie,
Vii
Q sit"
W
a ti
4.0
ia iz
la
W
a a
N N
y H
i a kaQ r G
le 0
S
s :3 6 :s
w
Ca YO b b- o i_ 1
a 2 1 1 s t o o a v i i 22W 9 3 i IS
W g o O W 6
li
n W rt i 4 t o g 4 5 4 t 1 g
4 o
tr 0 A.