HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOW 2007-05-14 COMPLETE AGENDA PACKET wqs Tukwila City Council Agenda
;44./.• COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE
0, 19
r vaf i o Steven M. Mullet, Mayor Councilmembers: Joe Duffie Joan Hernandez
Rhonda Berry, City Administrator Jim Haggerton
r Pam Carter im Ha
i"„ 19a8 Verna Griffin, Council President Pamela Linder Dennis Robertson
Monday, May 14, 2007; 7 :00 PM Tukwila City Hall; Council Chambers
1. CALL TO ORDER PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
2. SPECIAL a. Introduction of new employee, Kim Gilman, Personnel Assistant.
PRESENTATIONS b. A proclamation designating May 15, 2007 as "Peace Officers' Pg. 1
Memorial Day."
c. Community Pride Award presented to Tom and Martha Loftus.
3. CITIZEN At this time, you are invited to comment on items not included
COMMENT on this agenda (please limit your comments to five minutes per
citizen). To comment on an item listed on this agenda, please
save your comments until the issue is presented for discussion.
4. SPECIAL ISSUES a. Authorize acceptance of printing quote for 200,000 new Seattle Pg. 3
Southside Vacation Planners in the amount of $62,448.00.
b. 57th Avenue Mini Park Extension. Pg.13
c. Single Family Building Height and /or Setback Standards. Pg.21
d. Code amendment for SEPA process (State Environmental Policy Act). Pg•33
e. SAO (Sensitive Areas Ordinance) Mitigation Ratio for Wetland Banks. Pg.39
f. Code amendment regarding townhouse development. Pg.53
g. Resolution supporting the Integrated Roads and Transit Plan. Pg.75
h. Bid award for 2007 Overlay and Repair Program. Pg.81
i. Emergency Management issues. Pg.89
5. REPORTS a. Mayor c. Staff e. Intergovernmental
b. City Council d. City Attorney
6. MISCELLANEOUS
7. EXECUTIVE
SESSION
8. ADJOURNMENT
Tukwila City Hall is wheelchair accessible.
Reasonable accommodations are available at public hearings with advance notice
to the City Clerk's Office 206 433- 1800/TDD 206 -248 -2933. This notice is available at
www.ci.tukwila.wa.us, and in alternate formats with advance notice for those with disabilities.
Tukwila Council meetings are audio taped.
k_ `,I, 'ir` G A( ,l �t,l rt i n1 v 'I nil �i rA 4'� r 1� -P t
r ,p S' a :gy ate(' a i i` G t e s -ems 4 R
0, Office o the May ji
i,„„ `A`� ‘41t,''''. i' ,o,
T Washington
�.t, 1903
:..W"
PROCLAMATION --7v
r �3 WHER EAS, th C ongress of the United States has designated the week of
May 13 through May 19 "National Police Week" and Tuesday, May 15 as
Officers' Memorial Day;' and
�a
WHEREAS, the law enforcement officer is our guardian of life and
property; defender of the right to be free; leader in the war against crime; and _4
dedicated to the preservation of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness; and
WHER our community joins with other cities and towns to honor all
peace officers everywhere; and
WHEREAS, the Tukwila Police Department will remember and honor their E
fallen brother and sister officers by wearing a black band over their badges on
Ma 15 and
WHEREAS, the citizens of Tukwila designate May 15 as "Peace Officers
Memorial Day," when the flag at Tukwila City Hall shall be flown at half mast;,,
-1 NOW, THEREFORE, I, STEVEN M. MULLET, MAYOR of the City o f
Tukwila d hereby proclaim Tuesday, May 15, 2007:
Y p Y Y �e
Peace Officers' Memorial Day
ate. ""="t-,
in Tukwila and urge all citizens to remember those officers who gave their lives V
i
serving the public.
v
V
Signed this 1.----' day of C `''a 2007.
a� x
tip tr\ �VV1 v t sa
a
Steven M. Mullet, Mayor of Tukwila
C- f F o
-10 NE 4-iroc fi r- 'fir 43-' a- IF 3 E 434 t44 &taw
.Jsf ,.l it 17 "'1:` Fr' 4 'i I t 1 r U/ `0_ SH r j
r d� JIB k 4, J. 4 ,,o, �J J tt ��{,A.- ''s 1
COUNCIL AGENDA SvNoPsIs
q
J am
yts
�y
ITEM No.
„c; g Meeting Date Prepared by 1 Mayor's review 1 Cog cil review 1
w' z, 05/14/07 1 KK I ,vuw y
i 05/21/07 1 1 1 1 6Z
7908
ITEM. INFORMATION
CAS NUMBER: f Q I ORIGINAL-, AGENDA DATE: 05/14/07
AGENDA IIEM TITLE Journal Graphics printing quote for Seattle Southside Vacation Planner
CATEGORY Discussion Motion Resolution Ordinance ['Bid Award Public Hearing Other
Mtg Date 05/14/07 Mtg Date 05/21/07 Mtg Date Mtg Date Mtg Date Mtg Date Mig Date
I SPONSOR Council Mayor Adra Svcs DCD Finance Fire Legal P&R Police PW
SPONSOR'S Authorize Mayor to sign an acceptance of printing quote with Journal Graphics for 200,000
SUMMARY new Seattle Southside Vacation Planners. The publication is a 4- color, 8 3/8 x 10 3/4" 48
page plus 4 page cover for the amount of $62,448.00. Journal Graphic printed the
Vacation Planner previously in June 2005 and again provided the lowest bid out of five.
REVIEWED BY COW Mtg. CA &P Cmte F &S Cmte Transportation Cmte
Utilities Cmte Arts Comm. Parks Comm. Planning Comm.
DATE: 05/07/07
RECOMMENDATIONS:
SPONSOR /ADMI\I. Accept Journal Graphics printing quote. Authorize Mayor's signature.
COMi iITTEE Unanimous Approval; Forward to Committee of the Whole
OOST= MPACT FUND SCARCE=
EXPENDITURE REQUIRED AMOUNT BUDGETED APPROPRIATION REQUIRED
$62,448 $70,000
Fund Source: 101.00.557.301.44.15
Comments:
MTG..DATE RECORD OF COUNCIL ACTION
05/14/07 I 1
1 I
MTG DATE ATTACHMENTS
05/14/07 Information Memo to Finance Safety Committee dated 4/27/07
Five Print Quotes
Copy of the Vacation Planner (to be distributed at the meeting)
Finance and Safety Committee minutes of 5/7/07
1
1
TO: Mayor
Finance and Safety Committee
FROM: Tourism Program Manager t t
DATE: April 27, 2007
SUBJECT: Journal Graphics printing quote for Seattle Southside Vacation Planner
ISSUE
Authorize Mayor to sign an acceptance of printing quote with Journal Graphics for 200,000 new Seattle
Southside Vacation Planners. The publication is a 4- color, 8 3/8 x 10 3/4" 48 page plus 4 page cover for the
amount of $62,448.00.
BACKGROUND
Seattle Southside Vacation Planner is the official visitor guide produced in cooperation with the Cities of
SeaTac, Kent and Des Moines through Seattle Southside Visitor Services. It continues to be one of Seattle
Southside Visitor Services most successful resources for reliable visitor infoimation; with a circulation of
100,000 annually for a total cost of .31 cents per guide.
DISCUSSION
Success is evidenced by the number of Vacation Planner requests received through the
SeattleSouthside.com website, toll -free line, convention and groups, hotel concierge and walk -ins generated
and tracked through the Visitor Center. Additionally, the publication offers excellent visibility for Seattle
Southside Visitor Services within the local community and tourism industry.
Reprinting the Seattle Southside Vacation Planner was approved collectively by the Tukwila, SeaTac, Kent
and Des Moines Lodging Tax Advisory Committees and included additional dollars appropriated this year
to cover the expense of reprinting.
Journal Graphic printed the Vacation Planner previously in June 2005 and again provided the lowest bid
out of five. See attached quotes. This publication is most cost effectively produced on a web press and
there's only a hand full of printers regionally with this capacity. To insure quality it's also important to
select a printer within driving distance so staff may be present for a "press check" at time of printing.
Budget impacts: There is no additional budget request for this item. The cost for printing this publication is
budgeted within the Council approved 2007 Tourism Program budget; however, because the proposed
contract amount is over $25,000, it requires Council approval.
RECOMMENDATION
Authorize Mayor to sign an acceptance of printing quote with Journal Graphics for 200,000 new Seattle
Southside Vacation Planners in the amount of $62,448.00
52 3Le5
'28 10 ourna_. Graphics )111; i!iilil -10)I 1 ;otii ("umnmrcin(
February 23, 2007
Karla Lindula
SEATTLE SOUTHSIDE VISITORS SERVICE
14220 INTERURBAN AVE SUITE 130
TUKWILA WA 98168
Quote Number: 15779 Salesperson: John Murray
Quote Date: 2/22/2007 Estimated By: STEVE
Seattle Southside Vacation Planner 8 3/8 x 10 3/4" 48pg plus 4pg Cover. Cover prints 4cp/ 4cp on 100# Capistrano gloss
book, Text prints 4cp/ 4cp on 60# Capistrano gloss book. PDF files supplied to JG guidelines for CTP output Imposition
Contract color proofs for approval. Saddlestitch on the 10 3/4" edge. Bulk pack in junior cartons FOB JG Dock.
Approximate cost for one dock -high delivery to Kent WA 98032 estimated separately.
*Note: packed approximately 102 books per carton.
Additional cost for FGV on outside cover, $257 for 150m, $280 for $175m, $303 for $200m.
Quote Totals
Quantity: 150,000 175,000 200,000
Note: Because of variations in manufacturing, quantities may vary by the following percentages:
0 -10m -5% 10m -50m -3% 50m -100m -2.5% 100m -2% Final invoice price will reflect quantity shipped.
Price: 47,346.00 54,498.00 61,199.00
Per Al: 315.64 311.42 306.00
Shipping: 1,172.00 1,172.00 1,249.00
Total: 848,518.00 855,670.00 862,448.00
Add'. ]VI's: 286.24 286.00 283.75
Thank you for the opportunity to submit this quote.
Shipping costs are approximate, for estimating purposes only. Actual price will be based on carrier rate at time of shipment.
Shipping costs are the sole responsibility of customer. Title to the products identified in this Quote transfers to customer FOB
Journal Graphics offices in Portland, Oregon, and will be separately set forth on the Invoice.
Paper price based on current market price at the time paper is ordered.
Final pricing is subject to review upon receipt of actual job.
Our quote is based on the above specifications and is subject to the terms and conditions on the attached page. Quoted prices
reflect current cost of labor and materials and are subject to change. Quotes are valid for 30 days from quote date.
We accept the above quote an attached terms. We au �o iz ournai Graphics to proce �Siith th r identified in this Quote.
Accepted by 69 A•Li
-7 /2. /0-7
Quantity Page count ;LV i 0 g1w I p1j1 trn� files in date: /(1 I Requested delivery date:
aver)
Visit our website at www.journalgraphics.com
480 Andover Park East
Seattle, WA 98188
206 575 -3500
206 575 -3575 fax
3 T- kevin.graves @cenveo.com
Karla Lindula March 15, 2007
Seattle Southside 206 -575 -2489
14220 Interurban Ave. South Suite 130 206 -575 -2529: F
Seattle, WA 98168 Karla @SeattleSouthside.com
Estimate No. 58235
Job Title 07 -08 Visitors Guide
Description 48pg 4pg Cover
Final Size (WxH) 8.375" x 10.75"
Bleeds All Sides
Cover 100# Gloss Book
4/4 4C Process (medium coverage)
Text 60# Gloss Book
4/4 4C Process (medium coverage)
Furnished Postscript plate -ready (PDF) files to our specifications, along with Native Files on Disk.
Files to be supplied as Single page hi -res PDF's, with bleeds.
Proofs Imposed inkjet; color digital imposition proof (DIP)
Finishing Saddlestitched.
Packaging /Freight Carton packed Bulk FOB Factory
Notes
Any Mailing/ Distribution /Fulfillment/Inventory Services to be quoted separately.
+/-2 Quantity 150,000 175,000 200,000 250,000
Price $57,329 $65,493 $73,652 $89,865
Each $0.3822 $0.3742 $0.3683 $0.3595
Thank you,
Accepted by: Karla Lindula for Seattle Southside X Date
Terms of sale: Net, cash, 30 days from date of invoice on approved credit The attached terms conditions are a material part of
this quotation, include a limited warranty, disclaimers of warranties, and a limitation of customer's damages and remedies.
Kevin Graves Acceptance of this offer includes acceptance of all terms conditions. All applicable federal, state and local taxes will be added
to the prices herein. Prices are subj. to change based on availability of materials, press time and current paper price. Failure to
Cenveo Seattle adhere to agreed -upon schedules may result in add'I charges. Quotes over 30 days old are subject to review.
TELDtN
PRINT MEDIA Quotation letter
March 19, 2007
Attn: Karla
We are pleased to submit a quotation for the following project:
Our Quotation No: 45260
Project Name: Visitor Guide
Format 52 page self cover
Page Sire: 8 3/3 10 7/8
Stock: Sonoma Gloss Text 80 lb
Ink: 4 color process throughout
Finishing: Saddle Stitch
Packaging: Carton Pack
Delivery: FOB Certified Folder Display Service, SeaTac, WA 98198
Supplied by client: Digital Files
Supplied byTeldon: Color Proof and Blueline
Quantity: 150.000 200,000
Price: 64,641 US 83,393 US
Freight:
All prices are given in US dollars. Thank you for the opportunity to present this quotation. Should you
require any further information or assistance, please do not hesitate to call.
Yours sincerely,
107 2940 Jutland Road
Chris Mills
Senior Account Manager Victoria, BC
Canada V8T 5K6
Phone: 1.866.478.2445
Fax: 1.866.478.2435
www.teldonprintmedia.com
TIMES LITHO Adi Mb.
1 829 PACIFIC AVENUE L 1
FOREST GROVE, OR 97116 r .•i
800- 233 8429/503- 359 -0300
FAX: 503 357 -3754 TIMES LITHO
Customer: Seattle Southside Visitors Services Quote 3:6612
Karla Lindula Date: April 4, 2007
Georgi Komraus is pleased to submit this quote for your review:
Description: Vacation Planner
Quantity: 150,000, 175,000 and 200,000
Size: 8 3/8" x 10 7/8"
Page Count: 48 -Pages 4 -Page Cover
Pre- Press: Files supplied to printers specifications. Digital low -res proofs and
Hi -res contract color proofs included.
Paper: Cover: 100# no. 2 gloss book. Text: 60# no. 3 gloss book
Ink: Four color process on all pages.
Bindery: Saddlestitch along the 10 7/8" spine.
Packing: Packaged 100 per carton and packed on pallets.
Delivery: FOB Kent, WA.
Terms: Standard terms net 30 days from date of shipment, upon approved credit.
Price: 150.000 175.000 200.000 Add'l 1.000
$53,329 $60,859 $68,307 $299.60
If you provide PDF files to specifications deduct $8.00 per process color page (52 -Pages $416 off the print price).
Prices quoted DO NOT INCLUDE any Federal, State, Local or other applicable taxes. All prices are based on the current cost of labor and materials and
are good for 30 -days from the date of this quote excluding paper. PAPER PRICES WILL PREVAIL AT TIME OF MILL SHIPMENT. In the event that,
after signed, this agreement is canceled or postponed Northwest Web Times Litho will invoice customer for paper that has been ordered, labor
incurred and /or other materials that have been purchased. Acceptance of this quote is subject to the standard terms and conditions of all Northwest
Web Times Litho agreements (See Attached). Customer's signature on this quote letter, along with the signed approval of Northwest Web Times
Litho management, shall constitute the agreement between us.
Accepting for the Client Northwest Web Management Approval
Date Date
Press Check: I will be present at the press check at the scheduled time Initial.
•I will not be present at the press check, therefore I authorize Northwest Web /Times Litho to approve and direct
production on my behalf. I will abide by their decisions as though they were my own Initial
SSVS -07 -08 Planner- 48 +c.xls
Effective Solutions
in Print
consolidcitedpress Price Quotation
Acct No.
For: Karla Lindula April 17, 2007
Seattle Southside Visitor Service
14220 Interurban Ave. S., #130 Seattle Southside Vacation Planner
Seattle, WA 98168 48 pages cover
Client Phone: (206) 575 -2489
Client email: Karla@Seattle southside.com
Job Name: Seattle Southside Vacation Planner 48 pages cover, 8 -3/8 x 10 -3/4.
Customer: Customer to supply plate ready digital file and color Iasers for all pages.
Paper: Sheet Press Cover 100# Gloss Book 35.5"
Heatset Text 60# House Gloss 35.5"
Specifications:
Prepress: Impose, postscript, make plates.
Proofing: Position proof digital color proof on process color.
Sheet Press: Cover prints 4CP both sides as 4up on 35.5x23.5 bleed trim.
Heatset Web: Text 3 -16's print 4CP all pages bleed trim.
Bindery: Saddle stitch, trim and pack on skids.
Other: None
Shipping: Hold for shipping instructions; F.O.B. Consolidated Press in Seattle.
100M conies 150M conies 200M conies Add'l M's
Price: $35,598 $50,676 $65,755 $301.58
Cost /book 0.3560 0.3378 0.3288
Additional: Quotations are based on the specifications above. CPI can re -quote job when it is submitted if it does not
conform to the original information on which the quote was based.
Terms: -Terms are 50% down and balance COD unless prior arrangements are made with our accounting department.
-Past due invoices will be charged interest at 1.5% per month.
Overruns or underruns will not exceed the order quantity by more than 3
-Since paper prices change frequently, after 30 days quote may require repricing.
Thank you for allowing us to provide you with this quotation. If you have questions please feel free to call us.
Wesley Stone ext 311 Gary Stone
Account Manager General Manager ak X
api,pdi,ppi
n nu 114,1117 r r a a n- cnn c CO3+4-10 IV A OR? 4d 9nA 4.47 -9A59 Fax 2f)( 447 -9477
J ILA, -qS
o VS.% City of Tukwila
3,..s- tr. I
¢�%r�± o Finance Safety Committee
1908
FINANCE AND SAFETY COMMITTEE
Meeting Minutes
May 7, 2007 5:00 p.m.
PRESENT
Councilmembers: Jim Haggerton, Chair; Joan Hernandez and Dennis Robertson
Staff: Chief Haynes, Chief Olivas, Derek Speck, Katherine Kertzman, Rhonda Berry and
Kimberly Matej
CALL TO ORDER: Committee Chair Haggerton called the meeting to order at 5:05 p.m.
I. PRESENTATIONS
No presentations.
II. BUSINESS AGENDA
A. Authorize Printing Ouote for Seattle Southside Vacation Planners
Katherine Kertzman has requested the Committee recommend approval of a printing quote in the
4 amount of $62,448 for the printing of 200,000 Seattle Southside Vacation Planners by Journal
Graphics. Journal Graphics has been the lowest bidder for two consecutive printings, and printed
the last vacation planner. Katherine conveyed that it is most cost effective to update a vacation
planner every 18 -24 months. The most significant changes in the planner include revised maps
with accompanying itineraries and a larger section highlighting Des Moines. UNANIMOUS
APPROVAL. FORWARD TO MAY 14 COW.
B. 2007 First Ouarter Reports
General discussion ensued regarding the status of the 2007 First Quarter Reports.
Several questions were asked regarding the status of the Tukwila Village project. Derek Speck
stated the Ron Sher will be making a presentation to the City Council on June 4. His presentation
will include an overall concept for the area and his best recommendations for this site. As a
developer, Ron has a proven track record of creative financing and lease options that encourage
best growth. The point of the presentation will be to determine if the full Council is interested in
continuing to move forward with investigating the opportunities offered by the development of
Tukwila Village.
Rhonda Berry reported that the Office of the City Clerk has processed an average of 40 passport
applications per day over the last several weeks (note: passport applications are only processed
on Monday). Additionally, City Clerk staff has responded to a substantial increase in public
records requests.
Chief Olivas provided an update under Budget Program Goals, Administration, #6 An
application has been submitted for the Fire Act Grant for approximately $150,000. This year's
contribution is a 95/5 share, leaving the City responsible for a $7,500 financial contribution if
awarded funding. Chief Olivas also stated that last week Salmon River Fire Department picked
COUNCIL AGENDA SYNOPSIS
ITEM No.
p l c i i2 -----------Initials
f
5 Q 1� v Meeting Date Prepared by 1 11 Mayor's review Cori! review
+N/
05/14/07 BF L 4
1
I I I r r
ITEM INFORMATION
NUMBER: NUBER: 0 0 y I ORIGINAL AGENDA DA I'L: 05/14/07
AGENDA ITEM TITLE 57 Park Extension Acquisition
CA I"hGORY Discussion Motion Resolution Ordinance Bid Award Public Hearing Other
Mtg Date 5/14/07 Mtg Date 05/21/07 Mtg Date Mtg Date Mtg Date Mtg Date Mtg Date
SPONSOR Council Mayor
Adm Svcs DCD Finance Fire Legal P&R El Police PIT
SPONSOR'S The 2007 CIP project includes the acquisition of the 57 mini -park extension. The
SUMMARY land value has increased over time and has a new sewer system. The Parks
Recreation Director recommends this purchase but is under funded by $117,500.
REVIEWED BY COW Mtg. CA &P Cmte F &S Cmte Transportation Cmte
Utilities Cmte Arts Comm. Parks Comm. Planning Comm.
DAVIT;: 04/24/07
RECOMMENDATIONS:
SPONSOR /ADMIN. Recommends the purchase if funds can be located.
COMM1l rhE Forward to Committee of the Whole for consideration
COST IMPACT FUND SOURCE
EXPENDITURE REQUIRED AMOUNT BUDGETED APPROPRIATION REQUIRED
$192,500 $75,000 $117,500
Fund Source: 301/00.594.760. .72
Comments: Finance Director has identified a possible funding source from the real estate transfer
tax (the first 1 /4 cent from the tax is dedicated to park land acquisition).
MTG. DATE RECORD OF COUNCIL ACTION
5/14/07
MTG. DATE ATTACHMENTS
05/14/07 Information Memo from Bruce Fletcher dated 5/8/07
Summary Appraisal Report
Community Affairs and Parks Committee minutes of 4/24/07
�11tA
(a/ l City of t Steven M. Mullet, Mayor
?A' Parks Recreation Department Bruce Fletcher, Director
190S MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor Mullet
Tukwila City Council
FROM: Bruce Fletcher, Director of Parks Recreation 1
DATE: May 8, 2007
SUBJECT: 57 Park Extension Acquisition
The 2007 CIP project includes the 57 Mini -Park expansion acquisition in the budgeted
amount of $150,000. Back in March of 2004, land owner Todd Hiestuman offered to
donate Y2 of the land value of two riverfront lots to expand the mini -park. It was directed
by the 2004 City Council to investigate possible grants to obtain the matching funds for
the acquisition. The Parks and Recreation Department was successful with a grant award
of $75,000 from the King County Conservation Futures Grant.
Since there was a sewer project in the CIP manual, Mr. Hiestuman wanted to proceed
with the mini -park sale once the project was complete. The land value back in 2004
(without sewer) was estimated at $150,000.
With the sewer project near completion, the Parks and Recreation Department ordered an
appraisal summary report from Campos Appraisals, Inc. Based on the investigation and
analysis, Campos Appraisal has valued the market opinion at $385,000 land value for the
riverfront lots #7 and #8. The land value has increased significantly since 2004 and with
the increased value of an available sewer system.
Mr. Hiestuman has extended his offer of %2 the land value as a donation to the city. With
the current appraised land value, the city's CIP budget will be $117,500 under funded.
Finance Director Kevin Fuhrer, has identified a possible funding source from the real
estate transfer tax (the first cent from the tax is dedicated to park land acquisitions).
It is still the opinion of the Parks and Recreation Director that this riverfront purchase
would be a valuable asset to the surrounding community and the City of Tukwila. The
57 park extension acquisition will be forwarded to the Community of the Whole for
further discussion.
Cc: Rhonda Berry, City Administrator
Kevin Fuhrer, Finance Director
"Creating Community through People, Parks and Programs"
12424 42nd Ave. S. Tukwila, Washington 98168 Phone: 206-768-2822 Fax: 206- 768 -0524
CAMPOS APPRAISALS, INC.
INDEPENDENT REAL ESTATE APPRAISALS
RESIDENTIAL, MULTIFAMILY AND COMMERCIAL
3425 228th St SW, Brier, WA 98036 OFFICE: (425) 775-1 750
Mailing Address: P. O. Box 267 FAX: (425) 670 -2553
Mountlake Terrace, WA 98043 -026 7 www.camposabb.com
March 14, 2007
Bruce Fletcher
Director of Parks and Recreation
City of Tukwila
12424 42nd Avenue South
Tukwila, WA 98168
RE: Two future residential lots at 56xx S 133rd St, Tukwila, WA 98178, File No. C7 -0205,
Thomas Brothers Map 655 -G2, Census Tract #262.00, Section 14, Township 23 N,
Range 04 E, W. M.
Dear Bruce Fletcher,
Per our discussion I have completed the attached appraisal in summary report format of the
above referenced property. The objective of this appraisal is to provide an opinion of the Market
Value of the subject property under two scenarios: As Is individual lot values and bulk sale
value. These values are estimated as if owned in Fee Simple Estate for financing purposes.
The City of Tukwila is considering purchasing the two proposed residential lots to be used as a
future park. The 2 lots are part of an 8 lot short plat that is near completion. The two lots are
noted as Lot 7 and Lot 8 on the Todd Heistuman preliminary short plat map dated December
2003. They have lot sizes noted on this map of 6,563 and 6,500 sf respectively.
The appraisal is prepared in conformance with the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal
Practice (USPAP), typical banking appraisal standards, as well as requirements from the
Appraisal Institute.
The property is legally and physically described in the text of the attached report. Legal
description noted elsewhere in this report is from one of the last recorded deeds; it is for the
original entire tract of land that will become this short plat. No title report was reviewed. I have
no personal interest in the subject property. The appraisal report is intended to be an unbiased
document.
i;
14 Campus Appraisals. Inc. C7 -0205
The subject two single family building sites have all public utilities available. They are accessed
from S 133rd St. Both of the subject sites have river frontage on the Duwamish River and also
have views of the Foster Golf course. There is currently a 1917 house located approximately
where proposed lot 4 is. This house will be removed as part of constructing the short plat. I
viewed the property on March 14, 2007 which included a walk on site. Todd Heistuman was on
site at the time and I spoke with him about the subject lots and plat.
The following pages provide the necessary items to comply with the USPAP requirements for
this report type. In the addendum there are additional photographs of the subject property and
land comparables, and my qualifications.
Based upon my investigation and analysis, as detailed in this report, I have formed the following
Market Value opinions as of March 14, 2007:
AS IS
L 7 ONE HUNDRED NINETY THOUSAND DOLLARS $190,000 March 14, 2007
Lot 8 TWO HUNDRED FIFTEEN THOUSAND DOLLARS $215,000 March 14, 2007
AS IS BULK VALUE
H REE HUNDRED EIGHTY FIVE THOUSAND DOLLARS
$385,000
March 14, 2007
If you have any questions or require further investigation, please call Marc Campos at
425- 775 -1750.
Respectfully submitted,
9 Cevneea-
Marcos E. Campos, MAI, SRA
State Certified- General Real Estate Appraiser
1100850
Campos Appraisals. Inc. C7 -0205 15
Appraisal Summary Report
pRE
LIMINAR SHORT PLAT MAP
Subject is Lots 7 and 8
vs
g g tzi ti r
8 ....ti jf_ °-Ls., 23...9j.
_I t ss b O
�8° t _£'S rr`r£ 9 G 3 X 07
.1i R La 1 0 S A O 2
i c—''
i I -Y `f r`ry ao
v eh. V'
Y'e /A: 0. r of At/ f 1"
Y 1 'r,6 n I •'d d..-� r a e' L f n f i= o
�r y F f x+/ 0. a a LA
Z r I r r ,h x o c i f
Z m r f t o/ y a
9 la Cf� .1.. B• -c::, f
:rte, m J j� ,',,,,,,:-,..-.1../....'
'a oou$ 3 "C /vj
T OE t8A$$Su 'Pi v e 1 f 1
V
b a°
9
g1 Z V}n ?o 's'a+1 l
_tea '4' ,i
j v i e a v g r 0 Je
u zs 'S N 3c OT a pp s sY+ o, A f
n Q a s as Q1 a 2t;, i n� s t, I
a a 8 „A+ N>
N N y N
u
s
T� .F fl
C7
3
e pos Appisals, Inc.
16
Community Affairs Parks Committee Minutes April 24. 2007 Pape 3
Questions were raised about flexibility on ratio calculation; providing dev to er e p s with some level
of predictability; holding the City to a higher standard than the State in reference to acreage
verses quality /functionality; and buying credits rather than measuring acreage and DCD
determining those credits
Committee members recommended that staff clarify some of the proposed amendment language
regarding regulatory agencies in addition to discussing this with the full Council.
FORWARD TO MAY 14 COW FOR DISCUSSION.
C. Mini Park Acquisition at 56XX S. 133rd
Bruce provided a brief overview of the history of the property acquisition in question which has
previously come before the Community Affairs and Parks Committee as well as the COW.
In 2004, Todd Heistuman and Eric Reinhardt, property owners of said land, offered to donate
one -half of the purchase price of the property, which was then valued at $150,000. Staff secured
$75,000 in funding from the King County Conservation Futures Grant allowing the City to
purchase the land.
Due to delays, the land was not purchased. Since 2004, the market value of the property has
increased substantially, and is currently valued at $385,000. Todd and Eric are now ready to sell,
and have expressed continued interest in donating one -half of the purchase price of the property.
Unfortunately, the City only has $75,000 of grant funds budgeted for the purchase, leaving an
additional $117,500 of the price unfunded. The City would need to appropriate a total of
$117,500 in order to acquire the land. Staff is seeking an appropriation recommendation from the
Committee to purchase the property.
The Committee believes that this is a policy decision that requires discussion among the entire
Council. Todd and Eric may bring additional information regarding purchase options to the
COW. FORWARD TO MAY 14 COW FOR DISCUSSION.
D. Update on Comp Plan Amendments
Due to DCD director transitioning, Jack Pace, Acting DCD Director will provide an update on Comp
Plan Amendments within two months.
INFORMATION ONLY.
E. 2007 First Ouarter Report
The Committee did not have comments regarding the 2007 First Quarter Reports. Bruce stated that the
scope of work has been released for the Parks Plan, and he will be bringing it to the next Community
Affairs and Parks Committee meeting. Jack shared that DCD is working with Parks and Recreation on
the Walk and Roll program, and that they are preparing for a very busy summer. INFORMATION
ONLY.
III. ANNOUNCEMENTS
IV. MISCELLANEOUS
Meeting adjourned at 6:32p.m.
Next meeting: Tuesday, May 15, 2007 5:00 p.m. Conference Room 3
Committee Chair Approval
Minutes by KAM.
r COUNCIL AGENDA SIWOPSIS
J 0tLA iY9
ITEMNO.
-I! I Meetin Date Prep d Mayor's review Cojr sFil review c__
0e, .m i 05/14/ I J I ti I el2
1 908 1 1 I 1
1 I 1
ITEM=INFORMATION CAS NUMBER: 04 6 5 I ORIGINAL AGENDA DATE: 5/14/07
AGENDA ITEM TITLE Single Family Building Height and /or Setback Standards
CATEGORY Discussion Motion Resolution Ordinance Bid Award Public Hearing Other
Mtg Date 5 -14-07 Mtg Date Mtg Date Mtg Date Mtg Date Mtg Date Mtg Date
SPONSOR Council Mayor Adm Svcs DCD Finance ['Fire Legal P&R Police PW
SPONSOR'S The proposal is an exploration of options to increase the compatibility of infill development
SuMMIARY in the LDR Zone with existing neighborhood patterns.
REVIEWED BY COW Mtg. CA &P Cmte F &S Cmte Transportation Cmte
Utilities Cmte Arts Comm. Parks Comm. Planning Comm.
DAIF;: 4 -24 -07
RECOMMENDATIONS:
SPONSOR /ADMIN. Forward Council decision to the Planning Commission
CONDETTEE Forward to full Council for consideration
CuST 1MPACTTFUND SOURCE
EXPENDITURE REQUIRED AMOUNT BUDGETED APPROPRIATION REQUIRED
Fund Source: N/A
Comments:
=MTG. DATE RECORD=OF COUNCU ACTI-ON
5 -14 -07 1 I
I
1
1
MMIDATE ATTACHMENTS
5 -14 -07 Information Memo dated 5/7/07 with Attachments
Community Affairs and Parks Committee minutes of 4/24/07
1
INFORMATION MEMORANDUM
To: Mayor Mullet
Community Affairs and Park ommittee
FROM: Jack Pace, Acting DCD Direc:
DATE: May 7, 2007
SUBJECT: Code Amendment LDR Buildin: Standards
ISSUE
Should the City change residential standards such as height or setbacks to reduce the impact on
adjacent houses?
BACKGROUND
The Council asked staff to review the way building height was calculated after receiving
complaints about a new house that the neighbors felt was out of scale with the surrounding
development. Currently the LDR zone allows buildings up to 30 feet in height measured
according to the method in the Washington State Building Code (IBC 2003) from the average
ground surface to the midpoint of a pitched roof. At their March 15 meeting the CAP reviewed
a diagram showing how various jurisdictions calculated building height and how that affected the
building envelope, see Attachment A.
There was some support for following Kent's approach which is a 35' height limit from "the
lowest point within five feet of the foundation." Some codes specify that the point of
measurement must be from "undisturbed ground The Kent approach would have the effect of
reducing the allowable height of buildings on slopes by a few feet depending on the steepness of
the slope and whether retaining walls were used to alter the surrounding grades but raising the
height of buildings on flat ground if the height limit was changed to 35'.
CAP reviewed the issue again at the April 24 meeting and wanted to bring three options to the
COW:
Increasing rear yard setbacks from 10 to 15 feet;
Increasing rear yard setbacks from 10 to 15 feet for up to two stories and further
increasing the rear yard setback to 25 feet if the house has a third story;
No action.
NG Page 1 05/09/2007 9:44:00 AM
Q:\ CODEAMND \5- 14BuildHeightCOW.DOC
ALTERNATIVES/DISCUSSION /ANALYSIS
Building height is only one element of the zoning regulations that control the bulk or building
envelope of a structure. The others are lot coverage, setbacks and in some jurisdictions floor area
ratio (FAR). Simply lowering building height or changing the way it is calculated may not result
in new buildings that are significantly more compatible with existing development patterns. In
the case of the house that sparked this discussion changing the building height measuring point
from average grade plane to lowest elevation within 5' would only have lowered the house by
about 5 feet and not reduced the bulk. Other ideas would be to control the bulk of houses
through a FAR or use tiered setbacks such as those in the multi family zones.
Building Envelope
Pry �i
r
1 i I
MA.V I ""-3 y' I
NOCH7 l q ,e e I a_
I 7
P4,
1
t
448 g
Below is a table listing single family development standards in nearby jurisdictions:
Jurisdiction
Standard Tukwila Kent Renton SeaTac Burien
2.5
Height 30' stry/35' 2 stry/35' 2 stry/30' 30' 35'
5,000 to
Lot Area 6,500 7,600 8,000 4,500 15,000 7,200
60', 70' 50', 60'
Lot Width 50' 50' Corner Corner 50'
Greater Greater
Lot 35% at of 2,500sf of 2,500sf
Coverage 6,500 sf 45% or 35% or 35% 35% 35%
Setbacks: 15', 20'
Front 20' 10' 30' garage 20' 20'
Second 15', 20'
Front 10' 10' 20' garage 20'
15' Total,
Side 5' 5' 5' min. 5' 5' 5'
Rear 10' 5' 25' 20' 15' 5'
Impervious
Surface 60% 70%
Q: \CODEAM D\5- 14BuildHeightCOW.DOC 2 05/09/2007
NG
Lot Coverage
The LDR zone currently limits the lot coverage (footprint) of all of the structures on a site to
roughly 35% (the percentage decreases as the lot size increases) TMC 18.10.057. This
percentage is common among jurisdictions that use this regulation, see table above. However the
building size can be maximized by building that footprint straight up three stories.
Floor Area Ratio
FAR is expressed as the total square footage of the building(s) divided by the square footage of
the lot. This links the size of the building to the size of the lot regardless of the number of
stories. Common single family residential FARs range from .45 to .65 which would limit a
house on a 6,500 sf lot to between 2,925 and 4,225 sf. Tukwila's Comprehensive Plan suggests a
maximum FAR of .5 not including the basement area (CP 7.6.4) The house that triggered this
discussion was on a 13,500 sf lot and had a FAR of .34.
Floor Area Ratio (FAR)
1:1 Ratio
t story 2 stories 4 stores
(100% lot cr ver3g) (50% lot co ra e) s% lot coverasei
Setbacks
Increasing the side and rear setback distance for the second and third stories of a house would be
another way to reduce the impact of a house on the adjacent properties. The current LDR
setbacks are 20' in the front, 10' on the second front, 5' on the sides and 10' in the rear. Tiered
side and rear setbacks that increased by 5' per story for lots that are at least 50' wide would
modulate the side elevations of the houses and reduce their bulk. The increases could have the
effect of limiting the development potential of smaller or oddly shaped lots and preclude the use
of stock plans by developers. The house that triggered this discussion is set back 5 to 7' from
one side, 8' from the other and 65' in the back.
The complaint arose from a neighbor whose back yard faced the new house's side yard. This was
due to the corner location, but is a common occurrence with infill development. See Attachment
B for an example of how the front, side and rear yard are commonly assigned to a new lot in a
short plat. In interior lots accessed off of a private road the rear yard often faces the neighboring
property's side yard and vice versa.
Q:\ CODEAMND \5- I4BuildHeightCOW.DOC 3 05/09/2007
NG
OPTIONS
The CAP suggested the following options for the Council's discussion:
1) Change the rear yard setback in LDR from 10 to 15 feet;
2) Increase the rear yard setback in LDR for all houses to 15 feet and to 25 feet if the house
has a third story (with a possible exception for alley accessed garages or accessory
structures);
3) No Action.
RECOMMENDATION
Tukwila's single family house regulations are similar to those of nearby, similarly situated
communities as seen in the table above. None of the changes to building standards suggested
by the CAP would have made a significant difference in the bulk of the house that was the source
of the neighborhood complaint. However if the Council wished to continue to pursue this issue
staff could develop design standards that would require more site sensitive designs.
Attachment A: Comparison of Maximum Building Height Standards
Attachment B: Yard Location Diagram
Attachment C: Seattle Code for Structures and Setbacks
Q:\ CODEANEND \5- 14BuildHeightCO`V.DOC 4 05/09/2007
NG
t u
■t ■0
s••• -0■■ t
0 j■ ■w o lu■ 1 r■ t3 r■ .r ■C ■o
�oeor■■ ■rev■
.0 ■1 ■vino ►r/ r
**swig** 0 0 01■001w e eetwiwil
5 so cf) 011.0000060700,1 /r ■1011 e
solatiussusitiga ■vd ■■■t cn �■r■ /o/ ►e ■■t/ y n
T. s ■r ■t
AB
c ■■r rl■ ■■sw' .0 e s■ta r 1 t■■■ t
0 0 cl a Ott/
0 0 010 01
c- ,),9; -il o v�■ *too*. c: p p N N r WA tw s■■ $11
s II 5e.). i 11 To i
010400000 t■
■t ■■rte i ■ttossl r
0 ,rnitir0 0 410114 oo■■■
0■ **Sisslistositios
r ■■■■■■111
I i ViS
/'.o ■lir n igl■
i e 0_,, t i Q /►■■►A t■
4,1 i Ts c,A,1), t„ 1.52 c-:-, tts 1110.0 v. rill 1 1110 t■ ■110110 ea al110110
OtAlli■■ er■■ r
010Vklie*I V`
1 O 10 ■e r■ reg1011W r'00$‘01000*
0 i i i S, WW
in ‘0., r)
vakeios
(,._i s_ •:i bim
APR 05 2007 07:07 AM APPLE -RF P] V1LLHlat rc._- ,o- ..I..-,,,
m_._._,_. ,r...._ Attachment B
U
g S. 117th STREET
N 89'02'30" W 323.634 (MEAS) 339.81
Ifi a 116.10'(MEAS) 114.8
U O
i N i a
N 89'02 30 W 91.00'
2 0.00' t� 71.00'
PRIVATE DRAINAGE I I p
T. ALONG 117TH ROW
--6-- -EAS'
f 1 Existing RIVE
Driveway .N RIVE
VOL.
1 f --j o ul
I
113
o N 10
iri H 1 I-,- I 1 W
I jM Existing House 1 t p
so EEEWO Future I h Z---
111111. I I LOT 1 i Garage 0
6,539 SQ. FT. L L... 2
NEW 10' PVT SIDE SEWER
Vi
I OP'
/1\
rn I 06• �fi .N89 ,02'30 "W
5890 '32 "E 4 7.58` 2.00
W 1 HUI:
so r 20 10
r■ I NEW LOT UNE
o I N
z 2 L
5 I I I
N Proposed House
W
LOT 2 -1
6, 501 SQ.FT. Q
z 0
.t___ ____1 _T_____ J
N89 02 3 o W 89.00' RECEIVED
COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT
Attachment C
Seattle Zoning Code for Structures and Setbacks in Single Family Zones
SMC 23.44.014 Yards.
Yards are required for every lot in a single family residential zone. A yard which is
larger than the minimum size may be provided.
B. Rear Yards. The rear yard shall be twenty -five (25) feet.
The minimum required rear yard for a lot having a depth of less than one hundred
twenty -five (125) feet shall be twenty (20) percent of the lot depth and in no case less
than ten (10) feet.
When the required rear yard abuts upon an alley along a lot line, the centerline of the
alley between the side lot lines extended shall be assumed to be a lot line for purposes of
the provision of rear yard and the determination of lot depth; provided, that at no point
shall the principal structure be closer than five (5) feet to the alley.
When a lot in any single family zone abuts at the rear lot line upon a public park,
playground or open water, not less than fifty (50) feet in width, the rear yard need not
exceed the depth of twenty (20) feet.
D. Exceptions from Standard Yard Requirements. No structure shall be placed in a
required yard except pursuant to the following subsections:
1. Certain Accessory Structures. Any accessory structure may be constructed in a side
yard which abuts the rear or side yard of another lot, or in that portion of the rear yard
of a reversed corner lot within five (5) feet of the key lot and not abutting the front yard
of the key lot, upon recording with the King County Department of Records and
Elections an agreement to this effect between the owners of record of the abutting
properties. Any accessory structure which is a private garage may be located in that
portion of a side yard which is either within thirty -five (35) feet of the centerline of an
alley or within twenty -five (25) feet of any rear lot line which is not an alley lot line,
without providing an agreement as provided in Section 23.44.0161
6. Private Garages, Covered Unenclosed Decks, Roofs Over Patios and Other Accessory
Structures in Rear Yards.
a. Any attached private garages or covered, unenclosed decks or roofs over patios are
portions of principal structures. They may extend into the required rear yard, but shall
not be within twelve (12) feet of the centerline of any alley, nor within twelve (12) feet of
any rear lot line which is not an alley lot line, nor closer than five (5) feet to any
accessory structure. The height of private garages shall meet the provisions of Section
23.44.016= D2 and the height of the roof over unenclosed decks and patios may not
exceed twelve (12) feet. The roof over these decks, patios and garages shall not be used
as a deck. Any detached private garage meeting the requirements of Section
23.44.016=, Parking location and access, or detached permitted accessory structure
meeting the requirements of Section 23.44.04012%1 General provisions, may be located
in a rear yard. If a private garage has its vehicular access facing the alley, the private
garage shall not be within twelve (12) feet of the centerline of the alley.
b. Garages meeting the standards of Section 23.44.016= and other accessory structures
meeting the standards of Sections 23.44.040= or 23.44.041 shall be permitted in
required rear yards, subject to a maximum combined coverage of forty (40) percent of
the required rear yard. In the case of a rear yard abutting an alley, rear yard coverage
shall be calculated from the centerline of the alley.
7. Private Garages in Front Yards of Through Lots. On through lots less than one
hundred twenty -five (125) feet in depth, either an accessory garage structure or a
portion of the principal structure containing a garage shall be permitted to locate in one
(1) of the front yards. Private garages, either as accessory structures or as a portion of the
principal structure, shall be limited as set forth in Section 23.44.016=. The front yard
in which the garage may be located shall be determined by the Director based on the
location of other accessory garages on the block. If no pattern of garage location can be
determined, the Director shall determine in which yard the accessory garage shall be
located based on the prevailing character and setback patterns of the block.
o `z City of Tukwila
ti :mod
`.w: so Community Affairs Parks Committee
"h ikiii
COMMUNITY AFFAIRS AND PARKS COMMITTEE
Meeting Minutes
April 24, 2007- 5:00 p.m.
PRESENT
Councilmembers: Pam Linder, Chair; Pam Carter and Dennis Robertson
Staff: Jim Morrow; Bruce Fletcher; Jack Pace; Nora Gierloff and Kimberly Matej
Guests: Eric Reinhardt; Todd Heistuman and Mikel Hanson
CALL TO ORDER: Committee Chair Linder called the meeting to order at 5:02 p.m.
I. PRESENTATIONS
No presentations.
II. BUSINESS AGENDA
A. Building Height Issue
DCD staff has previously come to the Community Affairs and Parks Committee to discuss
J building height issues. Most recently, the Committee asked staff to review the building height
regulations utilized by the City. Nora Gierloff and Jack Pace presented their findings to the
Committee as well as their recommended changes.
Based on previous complaints surrounding building height issues, it appears as the issue also
includes bulk. In comparison to neighboring cities, Tukwila is average to lower intensity.
Tukwila calculates height restrictions following the International Building Code. After a brief
discussion, Nora urged the Committee not to change the way in which the City calculates
building height. She outlined other possible alternatives, including:
Reduce the allowable building height
Reduce the lot coverage standard
Limit the floor area ratio (FAR)
Increase or tier rear and side setbacks
Discussion took place among Committee members and staff as to the possible alternatives and
concerns regarding the need to avoid focusing on one issue and in turn, limiting residents. Dennis
Robertson expressed the desire to identify a general change that will be applicable to most cases.
He feels that rather than telling residents how to design their house, the City should consider
increasing setbacks. Pam Carter articulated her concern of unintended consequences resulting
from a change in setbacks (i.e.: residents with detached garages since anything over 30 inches tall
is subject to the setback regulations).
Todd Heistuman, a local developer, commented that almost all new houses in Tukwila will be
built on re- platted land area. He stated that Seattle allows accessory structures in the backyard
with constraints and that the purpose of setbacks is to provide quality of life and visual impacts.
Todd believes that Tukwila has a very minimal lot standard in comparison to other cities. He
thinks that the City should study cause and effect prior to making any decisions on regulations.
Community Affairs Parks Committee Minutes Aoril 24, 2007 Pace 2
The Committee agreed that there is not a "quick fix" to fit this problem. They agree that Council
does not desire to revamp the entire code, but rather identify a possible area of regulation in order
to avoid future concerns such as the complaint brought forth at the March 27 and April 9
Community Affairs and Parks meetings (also see Council minutes of April 10, 2007).
Additionally, the Committee was in consensus of the desire expressed by full Council for this
issue not to consume an inordinate amount of staff time.
Dennis commented that he believes that the simplest solution to this issue is to increase the rear
setback to 15', 25' for a three -story and then consider accessory buildings. Dennis requested that
Jack secure a copy of the Seattle Code regarding garages and accessory structures and how they
pertain to allies, etc. and submit this information to the agenda packet for full Council review at
the May 14 COW.
The Committee feels strongly that this issue needs to be discussed with full Council. The
following three proposals will be taken to Council for discussion and consideration:
1. Leave the Building Height Code as is, with no changes
2. Increase rear setback to 15' for every residence
3. Increase rear setback to 15' feet for two -story, and 25' for three -story
The Building Height limitation would cover any structure in the LDR Zone that requires a
building permit.
In addition to bringing these proposals to full Council, staff will also submit a cursory review of
existing permits as impacted by each proposal, and the Seattle Code as requested above. DCD
staff recommends that no changes be made to the City's current code. FORWARD TO MAY 14
COW FOR DISCUSSION.
B. SAO Mitigation Ratio Amendment
DCD staff brought forth a proposal to modify the existing Sensitive Areas Ordinance (SAO) to
allow the DCD Director to make case by case waiver of strict compliance with the City's current
mitigation ratios if off -site mitigation is proposed in a wetland mitigation bank that has been
approved by certain regulatory agencies.
After discussion, Dennis Robertson expressed his opposition to this request as it appears that the
ordinance is being changed for one specific example in this situation, the exception is WSDOT.
He stated that off -site mitigation should be here in Tukwila, and although he is sympathetic that
the current regulations will cost the government more money, he does not feel that the
government should exclude itself from environmental impacts. Additionally, he is concerned
with leaving complete decision- making authority on each case to the discretion of the director
rather than having specifications set forth in the ordinance.
Jack Pace clarified that the idea of utilizing the administrator /director decision is not new to the
SAO, and that the proposed amendment is not in violation of the spirit of the SAO. Additionally,
the director would utilize an established chart, based on wetland type at which we are mitigating
loss, to arrive at his/her decision. This is not a decision that the director would make at his/her
own discretion without predetermined regulations. Jack stated that it is the intent of the City to
ensure a cumulative impact verses small wetland areas, and the amendment would aIIow for this
type of decision making following a best available science approach.
COUNCIL AGENDA SYNOPSIS
ITEM NO.
i 1, 1 A Mayor's I 1
0/ i
t 0 05/14/07 7
Me etin Date Pr ar k Ma ar's review rncil review
1 P\ 1 1 t 1
(1,
ITEM- =INFORMATION
CAS NUMBER: I ORIGINAL AGENDA DATE: 5/14/07
AGENDA ITEM TITLE SEPA Code Amendment
CATEGORY Discussion Motion Resolution Ordinance Bid Award Public Hearing Other
Mtg Date 5 -14 -07 Mtg Date Mtg Date Mtg Date ilrtg Date Mbrtg Date Mtg Date
1SPONSOR Council Mayor Adm Svcs EXI DCD Finance Fire El Legal P&R Police PW
SPONSOR'S The proposal is to raise certain SEPA (State Environmental Policy Act) review thresholds
SU1LVARY and streamline the review process by combining comment periods.
REVIEWED BY COW Mtg. CA &P Cmte F &S Cmte Transportation Cmte
Utilities Cmte El Arts Comm. Parks Comm. Planning Comm.
DATE: 4 -10 -07
RECOMMENDATIONS:
SPONSOR /ADMIN. Forward Council decision to the Planning Commission
CON MITTEE Approve proposal except for the threshold for single family construction
COST IMPACT I =FUND SOURCE
EXPENDITURE REQUIRED AMOUNT BUDGETED APPROPRIATION REQUIRED
$0
Fund Source: N/A
Comments:
L MTG DATE RECORD OF COUNCIL ACTION
I 5 -14 -07 1 1
�UITG. DATE ATTACHMENTS-
5 -14 -07 Information Memo dated 5/9/07
Community Affairs and Parks Committee minutes of 4/10/07
I
INFORMATION MEMORANDUM
To: Mayor Mullet
Committee of the Whole
FROM: Jack Pace, Acting DCD Direct
DATE: May 9, 2007
SUBJECT: Code Amendment SEPA
ISSUE
Should the SEPA process and thresholds be streamlined to eliminate review or shorten
timelines for smaller projects when environmental impacts are unlikely?
BACKGROUND
The State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) requires that a standard checklist be filled
out by a project proponent to identify the environmental impacts of certain actions.
Actions include grading, dredging, paving, construction or demolition of buildings, and
adoption or revision of most plans, policies or regulations by a government agency. The
intent is to identify environmental impacts that would otherwise "fall through the cracks"
and provide a mechanism for public review and mitigation.
Jurisdictions have flexibility in setting the thresholds that trigger SEPA review up to the
maximum level allowed by the State.
Type of Action Tukwila's Maximum Proposed
Threshold Threshold Thresholds
Residential 4 dwelling units 20 dwelling units 9 dwelling units
Construction
Commercial/Industrial 4,000 sf and 20 12,000 sf and 40 12,000 sf and 40
Construction parking spaces parking spaces parking spaces
1 Parking Lots 40 parking spaces 1 40 parking spaces 1 No Change
Landfills or 500 cubic yards 500 cubic yards No Change
Excavations
Jurisdictions can also take advantage of an optional SEPA process that allows them to
identify projects where significant adverse environmental impacts are unlikely and
combine the comment period on that determination with the notice of application
comment period for the underlying permit.
NG Page 1 05/09/2007 9:54:00 AM
Q: \CODEAMND\5 -14CO W_SEPA. D OC
The CAP reviewed this proposal on April 10, 2007 and unanimously recommended
approval of all changes except there was no consensus on raising the threshold for single
family construction.
AN ALYSIS
Tukwila and other agencies with permitting authority have a comprehensive set of
regulations to control negative impacts in the following areas that are subject to SEPA
review:
1. Grading, filling, unstable soil and erosion
2. Air emissions (Puget Sound Clean Air Agency)
3. Surface water (wetlands and watercourses), groundwater, and storm water
4. Vegetation and landscaping
5. Animals, endangered species, wildlife habitat
6. Energy and natural resources
7. Environmental health, hazardous waste and noise,
8. Land and shoreline use
9. Housing
10. Aesthetics, design review
11. Light and glare
12. Recreation
13. Historic and cultural preservation
14. Transportation, traffic and parking
15. Public services
16. Utilities, sewer and water concurrency
Because these standards are already in place we do not often have to rely on SEPA to
impose mitigation conditions. Raising the threshold for number of new dwelling units to
9 would match the threshold for subdivision review. Raising the threshold for new
buildings in commercial/industrial zones to 12,000 sf and 40 parking spaces would
streamline review of smaller projects. As an example the Claim Jumper restaurant is
approximately 12,000 sf.
Because SEPA triggers notice requirements some smaller projects that do not require
other approvals such as design review would no longer require public notice if the
threshold were changed. Short plats for 5 or more lots are required to provide public
notice and raising the SEPA threshold would not change that.
18.104.090 Notice of Application Procedure
Notice of Application shall be provided as follows:
1. For all Type 2, 3, 4 and 5 decisions, and Type 1 decisions which require SEPA
review, the Notice of Application shall be mailed by first class mail to the applicant
and to departments and agencies with jurisdiction, except that a Notice of Application
is not required in the case of a Code Interpretation pursuant to TMC 18.96.010 or a
Sign Permit Denial pursuant to TMC Chapter 19.12.
NG Page 2 05/09/2007 9:54:00 AM
Q:\CODEAMND\5-14COW_SEPA.DOC
2. For Type 1 decisions and Type 2 decisions which require SEPA review, the Notice
of Application shall be provided by posting pursuant to TMC 18.104.110, provided
that the Notice of Application for a Type 1 decision involving a single- family
residence need not be posted but shall be published one time in a newspaper of
general circulation in the City.
3. For short plats of 5 through 91ots and Type 3, 4 and 5 applications, the Notice of
Application shall be posted pursuant to TMC 18.104.110 and mailed pursuant to
TMC 18.104.120. Notice requirements for secure community transition facilities shall
be in accordance with RCW 71.09.315 as amended.
Very few development proposals require a full environmental impact statement (EIS) to
analyze impacts and develop mitigation measures. For the vast majority of development
in Tukwila the City issues either a determination of non significance (DNS) or a
mitigated determination of non significance (MDNS) after review of the SEPA checklist.
The City is authorized under WAC 197 -11 -355 to make this determination early in the
review process and combine the SEPA comment period with that of the underlying
permit, saving about two weeks of processing time.
PROPOSAL
Raise the flexible thresholds for residential, commercial and industrial new construction
as shown on the table above. Take advantage of the optional DNS process that allows for
concurrent SEPA and project comment periods.
RECOMMENDATION
Both staff and the CAP recommend adopting the above changes though there was not
consensus on the threshold for single family development.
If the City Council chooses to amend the SEPA regulations the next step would be to
send this change to the Planning Commission for its review and a recommendation. The
City Council will then hold its own public hearing prior to adoption of any changes.
NG Page 3 05/09/2007 9:54:00 AM
Q:\CODEAMND\5-14COW_SEPA.DOC
Community Affairs and Parks Committee Meeting Minutes April 10. 2007 Page 2
should not limit itself only to low -cost or "in- pond "solutions. He asked if we have looked at other potential
problems besides phosphorous. Ms. Whiting said she has examined bacteria loads but has not found a
problem. Also, she believes that the consultant will be looking at the best technical options for improving
the pond water quality. Councilmember Carter expressed support for the study and the concept of the pond
being a habitat rather than a place for people to swim. Mr. Pace offered to share the preliminary analysis in
September before all of the analysis is completed. UNANIMOUS APPROVAL. FORWARD TO COW.
As a related issue, the committee discussed the consultant selection for the Tukwila Pond Park design
Phase I that was discussed at the April 9, 2007 Council meeting. UNANIMOUS APPROVAL.
c) Code Amendments
SEPA
Nora Gierloff introduced this item. It would streamline the SEPA process and thresholds to eliminate
review or shorten timelines for smaller projects when environmental impacts are unlikely. Ms. Gierloff
referred to the table in the agenda report that compared Tukwila's thresholds to the State maximum and the
proposed. Mr. Pace noted that most buildings would go through a design review process. Mr. Lancaster
mentioned that with traffic concurrency and impact fee systems, we no longer rely on SEPA for mitigating
traffic impacts like we once did. Councilmember Robertson asked if these changes would reduce our ability
to control small infill developments on hillsides. Mr. Pace indicated that our sensitive areas ordinance
addresses steep slope sites and tree permits and other regulations still apply. Councilmember Carter asked
what would catch environmental issues like underground storage tanks? Mr. Pace and Ms. Whiting
explained that owners have a responsibility to disclose and often the lenders require the analysis. Mr.
Lancaster said that if an owner didn't disclose it, SEPA wouldn't have caught it anyway. Councilmember
Robertson asked how these changes would have affected the City's process on a previous Fosterview
development. Mr. Lancaster indicated that it would have had no effect on Fosterview, since that
development included more than 9 dwelling units. He acknowledged it might eliminate a source of
information that citizens are used to receiving on smaller residential developments (those between 4 and 9
units). He also noted that if any of the thresholds in the table are exceeded, SEPA is triggered, even if the
proposed development is below any of the other thresholds.. Councilmember Robertson expressed support
for the changes but also a desire to keep tools for the City to ensure the right kind of development.
UNANIMOUS APPROVAL ON ALL CHANGES BUT KEEPING THE RESIDENTIAL
CONSTRUCTION THRESHOLD AT FOUR DWELLING UNITS INSTEAD OF THE PROPOSED
NINE. FORWARD TO COW.
TOWNHOUSES
Nora Gierloff introduced this item. It would change the Zoning Code to allow for development of fee
simple townhomes. Some changes, such as minimum lot area, average lot width, setbacks and landscaping,
would be necessary to allow fee simple townhouses since our development standards are based on a multi-
family garden apartment style. Other changes would be necessary to enable a development pattern and
density closer to the style of townhouses being built in other cities. One question is how prescriptive does
Tukwila want to be on open space, such as requiring decks or onsite playgrounds, etc. Another issue is how
to treat setbacks. The City's current tiered set -back standards may make development of fee simple
economically infeasible. Councilmember Robertson expressed concern about the effects of eliminating the
tiered set -back standards. Councilmember Carter emphasized that the design review process must address
all sides of a building, not just the front. Ms. Gierloff discussed the current 50% development coverage
limitation. Councilmember Robertson mentioned that using pervious surfaces (such as grasscrete) may be
needed to ensure the development's environmental impact is not greater than development under today's
standards. Councilmember Carter indicated this issue can be dealt with as the townhouse proposal goes
through the approval process. She also expressed an interest in fence height being included in the design
review process to minimize the amount of blank, high and solid walls facing the streets. FORWARD TO
COW FOR DISCUSSION AND DIRECTION.
HOUSEKEEPING
Nora Gierloff introduced this item on four amendments to the Zoning Code related to: permit processing,
limitation on additions to homes that do not meet setbacks, retaining wall setbacks, and administrative
variance for lot size. FORWARD TO PLANNING COMMISSION.
COUNCIL AGENDA SIWOPSIS
y
I ITEM O.
i iG t 1 Meeting Date 1 Preparejl Mayors review Cp Hied review
10 05/14/07 1 JP* 1 6N^^
1908 I 1
1 1 1
1TEM4INFORMATlON
CAS NUMBER: 01— r 4-' I ORIGINAL AGENDA DATE: 5/14/07
AGENDA ITEM TITLE SAO Mitigation Ratio for Wetland Banks
CATEGORY E Discussion Motion Resolution Ordinance Bid Award Public Hearing Other
Mtg Date 5 -14-07 Mtg Date Mtg Date Mtg Date Mtg Date Mtg Date Mtg Date
SPONSOR El Council Mayor Adm Svcs E DCD Finance Fire Legal P&R Police Pl'
SPONSOR'S The proposal is to amend the Sensitive Areas Ordinance (SAO) to allow the Director to
SUMMARY establish a mitigation ratio that meets the intent of the SAO for specific wetland
mitigation banks.
REVIEWED BY COW Mtg. E CA &P Cmte F &S Cmte Transportation Cmte
Utilities Cmte Arts Comm. Parks Comm. Planning Comm.
DA I B: 4 -24 -07
RECOMMENDATIONS:
SPONSOR /ADMIN. Forward Council decision to the Planning Commission
Coi�II�IIrrhE Forward to full Council for consideration
COST IMPACT [FUND-SOURCE
EXPENDITURE REQUIRED AMOUNT BUDGETED APPROPRIATION REQUIRED
$0 $0 $0
Fund Source: N/A
Comments:
MTG. DATE I RECORD OF- COUNCIL ACTION
5-14-07 I 1
-MTG= DATE= =ATTACHMENTS
5 -14 -07 1 Information Memo dated 5/8/07 with Attachments
1 Community Affairs and Parks Committee Minutes of 4/24/07
1 1
I I
I I 1
I I 1
INFORMATION MEMO
To: Mayor Mullet
Community Affairs and Parks Committee
From: Jack Pace, Acting Community Development Dire•
Date: May 8, 2007
Subject: Code Amendment Sensitive Areas Ordinance
ISSUE
Should the Sensitive Areas Ordinance (SAO) be amended to allow the Director to establish
a mitigation ratio that meets the intent of the SAO for specific wetland mitigation banks?
BACKGROUND
Wetland mitigation banking as a tool for off setting unavoidable impacts to wetlands is
increasingly becoming more important, and the City is starting to see proposals for off -site
mitigation at banks. A wetland mitigation bank is the consolidation of small, fragmented
wetland mitigation projects into a large contiguous site where creation, restoration and
enhancement is carried out in advance of the impacts. Banks are established under a
formal and rigorous permitting process.
The City's current ordinance permits off -site mitigation, and even mitigation outside the
city limits of Tukwila, as long as the mitigation site is within the same river basin. The
mitigation ratios established in the SAO apply to both on -site and off -site mitigation. The
SAO does not address transferring mitigation to a mitigation bank, which uses "credits" as
opposed to acreage in determining the amount of mitigation needed. Determining if the
amount of mitigation bank credits meets the City's mitigation ratios is not straightforward.
Mitigation ratios applied to projects that are carrying out wetland mitigation in conjunction
with a development project are typically higher than those ratios in a mitigation bank,
because they factor in the element of risk that the wetland mitigation might fail. In
wetland mitigation banks, however, the theory is that the wetland will already be mitigated
well in advance of any development proposal thus reducing the risk of mitigation failure
(if the bank fails, credits cannot be released). Wetland mitigation banks typically take into
account the type of mitigation (restoration, creation, rehabilitation, enhancement) as our
code does, but in addition, the credits are also based on the type (class) of wetland that has
been created, rehabilitated or enhanced, see Attachment A for the relationship between the
CL Page 1 of 3 05/08/2007 4:06:00 PM
Q:\2007 SAO Amendment \CAP Memo.doc
Proposed Code Amendment to Sensitive Areas Ordinance
acreage of mitigation, ratio applied and resulting credit value at the Springbrook Creek
Bank in Renton.
The City recently processed two land use applications submitted by the Washington State
Department of Transportation (WSDOT) that provide examples of the problem presented
by transferring wetland mitigation to a wetland mitigation bank. WSDOT sought
approval to transfer mitigation for impacts to wetlands along Hwy 518 and I -405 to the
Springbrook Wetland Mitigation Bank, a mitigation bank area of over 125 acres located in
Renton. The location of the highway construction on both Hwy 518 and I -405 and the
sensitive areas made it difficult to fmd room to adequately mitigate for wetland impacts in
the remaining right -of -way. In addition, the size of the remaining sensitive areas available
in the right -of -way would limit the effectiveness of any mitigation implemented. Thus off
site mitigation makes sense in these two cases. WSDOT proposed withdrawal of a certain
number of credits from the bank as the proposed wetland mitigation.
Credits in a mitigation bank are based on the net ecological benefit provided and are
determined on the basis of Department of Ecology mitigation ratios, the kinds of
mitigation carried out at the bank (wetland creation, restoration, and/or enhancement) and
the total acreage for each type of mitigation. The number of credits needed for mitigation
is based on the type (classification) of the wetland being impacted. The amount of
mitigation built into the value of a credit does not directly equate to Tukwila's SAO
mitigation ratios, which are based on acreage impacted and do not distinguish between
types of wetlands in applying the mitigation ratios.
This issue will arise again when applications are submitted for the Strander Blvd.
extension, which will disturb Type 1 wetlands. The City of Renton will be requesting
permission to carry out wetland mitigation in the Springbrook Wetland Mitigation Bank.
WSDOT will also likely want to use the bank for future highway construction in Tukwila.
Unless our SAO is amended to permit a determination of the equivalency of a specific
bank's credits to the mitigation area required per our SAO requirements we will not be
able to ensure that the net ecological benefits at the mitigation bank compensate for the
wetland impacts.
The CAP discussed this at their April 24 meeting. They had some suggested changes to
the code language which have been incorporated into the proposal but did not have a
consensus recommendation.
DISCUSSION /ANALYSIS /ALTERNATIVES.
The argument for carrying out the mitigation at a Mitigation Bank is that mitigation is
completed in advance of impacts and generally results in improved hydrologic, water
quality and habitat functions in a consolidated location. Studies of wetland mitigation
banks have shown this to be true as long as the mitigation bank is maintained and
monitored.
NG Page 2 of 3 05/08/2007 4:06:00 PM
Q:\2007 SAO Amendment \CAP Memo.doc
Proposed Code Amendment to Sensitive Areas Ordinance
The mitigation bank established by the City of Renton and WSDOT was reviewed and
approved by the State Depattment of Ecology, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the
Environmental Protection Agency, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and the Federal
Highway Administration and underwent rigorous review for compliance with both State
and Federal requirements for wetland and stream protection and restoration. This review
process is required for the establishment of any mitigation bank.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff proposes to amend the SAO as identified in Attachment B to permit the DCD
Director to establish a ratio of mitigation acreage to wetland bank credit for off -site
mitigation proposed in wetland mitigation banks that have been approved by appropriate
agencies including the Department of Ecology, Corps of Engineers, EPA and other
regulatory agencies. Other options would be to take no action or to give staff direction to
amend the SAO in a different way.
If the City Council chooses to amend the SAO the next step would be to send this change
to the Planning Commission for its review and a recommendation. The City Council will
then hold its own public hearing prior to adoption of any changes.
Attachment A: Springbrook Creek Mitigation Credit Table
Attachment B: Draft Amendment to TMC 18.45.090 Wetland Uses, Alterations and
Mitigation
NG Page 3 of 3 05/08/2007 4:06:00 PM
Q:\2007 SAO Amendment \CAP Memo.doe
FINAL
f.
Springbrook Creek Wetland and Habitat Mitigation Bank Instrument
III 4.0 BANK OPERATION Attachment A
ii
4.1 CREDIT DETERMINATION
mitigation
Credits are the "currency" of a mitigation bank. The value of credits that a miti
g
bank generates equals its net ecological benefit. The 129.37 -acre Springbrook Bank
Il includes 116.82 acres that qualify for bank credit. The remaining 12.55 non credit acres
have been designated for protection setback and the Trail Zone to minimize disturbances
from adjacent roads, development, and the trail through Unit A. Units D and E each have
an existing 20 -foot utility easement inside the parcel boundary that will not generate
mitigation credit (see Figures 2 -4 and 2 -3). The 45.12 credits expected to be generated at
I Springbrook Bank represents the number of acres of impacts to Category II wetlands
(Hruby 2004) for which the bank could be used as compensation (Table 4 -1). These
mitigation credits will become available as performance standards and other measures are
I achieved (see Tables 3 -1 through 3 -4 and Table 4 -3). The precise number of credits
actually generated by the Springbrook Bank cannot be determined until the project is
constructed and the success of restoration and enhancement activities is assessed by the
I BOC. The final number of credits will be deteituined by the BOC and will be based on
achievement of the performance standards.
II Table 4.1. Credit Potential
Mitigation Treatment Acreage Ratios* Mitigation Credits 1
I Unit A Unit B Unit C Unit D Unit E Total 0.05 0.12 9.27 8.35 17.79
Wetland Rehabilitation 52.14 3:1 6.64 10.39 I 0.35 17.38
I Wetland Enhancement Type I 4.69 4:1 I 1.17 I 1.17
Wetland Enhancement -Type II 2.63 5:1 1 0.53 I 0.53 I
ii Forested Wetland Enhancement 25.22 5:1 I 4.65 0.40 5.05
Riparian Upland Enhancement 6.56 4:1 0.16 0.37 1.11 1.64 I
l Upland Habitat Enhancement 7.80 5:1 1.56 I 1.56
Buffer Enhancement 9.89 I I
I Trail Zone 2.66 I I I I
Totals 129.37 6.85 I 10.88 17.00 0.93 9.46 I 45.12 I
I The ratio of acreage to credits is the number of credits established per acre of mitigation activity in first column.
The number of mitigation credits that Springbrook Bank will generate for each mitigation treatment. Each credit can
compensate for the toss of a typical acre of Category II wetland.
1 4.2 APPROVING PERFORMANCE STANDARDS FOR CREDIT RELEASE
Springbrook Bank is expected to generate 45.12 credits that will be eligible for release as
I the associated performance standards are met and approved by the BOC (Tables 3 -1
through 3 -4), with the exception that no credits may be released until a BOC- approved
Memorandum of Agreement and Instrument are signed by the Sponsors, Ecology, and the
mil
Corps, and until a BOC- approved conservation easement is placed on the property title
Chapter 4 August 2006
111 Bank Operation Page 4 -1
ATTACHMENT B
PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO SENSITIVE AREAS ORDINANCE
18.45.090 Wetlands Uses, Alterations and Mitigation
A. No use or development may occur in a Type 1, Type 2 or Type 3 wetland
or its buffer except as specifically allowed by TMC Chapter 18.45. Any use or
development allowed is subject to review and approval by the Director. Where
required, a mitigation or enhancement plan must be developed and must comply
with the standards of mitigation required in TMC Chapter 18.45.
B. Alterations
1. Alterations to wetlands are discouraged and are limited to the
minimum necessary for project feasibility. Requests for alterations must be
accompanied by a mitigation plan, are subject to Director approval, and may be
approved only if the following findings are made:
a. The alteration will not adversely affect water quality;
b. The alteration will not adversely affect fish, wildlife, or their
habitat;
c. The alteration will not have an adverse effect on drainage and /or
storm water detention capabilities;
d. The alteration will not lead to unstable earth conditions or create an
erosion hazard or contribute to scouring actions;
e. The alteration will not be materially detrimental to any other
property; and
f. The alteration will not have adverse effects on any other sensitive
areas.
2. Alterations are not permitted to Type 1 wetlands unless specifically
exempted under the provisions of TMC Chapter 18.45.
3. Alterations to Type 2 wetlands are prohibited except where the
location or configuration of the wetland provides practical difficulties that can be
resolved by modifying up to .10 (one- tenth) of an acre of wetland. Mitigation for
any alteration to a Type 2 wetland must be provided at a ratio of 1.5:1 for
creation or restoration and 3:1 for enhancement and must be located contiguous
to the altered wetland.
4. Isolated Type 3 wetlands may be altered or relocated only with the
permission of the Director. A mitigation or enhancement plan must be
developed and must comply with the standards of mitigation required in TMC
Chapter 18.45.
CL Page 1 of 5 05/08/2007 10:11:00 AM
Q:`\2007 SAO Amendment\Draft Amendment.doc
Proposed Amendment to TMC 18.45.090
5. Mitigation plans shall be completed for any proposals for dredging,
filling, alterations and relocation of wetland habitat allowed in TMC Chapter
18.45.
6. Isolated wetlands formed on fill material in highly disturbed
environmental conditions and assessed as having low overall wetland functions
may be altered and /or relocated under TMC Chapter 18.45. These wetlands may
include artificial hydrology or wetlands unintentionally created as the result of
construction activities. The determination that a wetland is isolated is made
through the Type 2 permit process. A mitigation or enhancement plan must be
developed and must comply with the standards of mitigation required in TMC
Chapter 18.45.
C. Mitigation Sequencing. Applicants shall demonstrate that reasonable
efforts have been examined with the intent to avoid and minimize impacts to
wetlands and wetland buffers. When an alteration to a wetland or its required
buffer is proposed, such alteration shall be avoided, minimized or compensated
for in the following order of preference:
1. Avoidance of wetland and wetland buffer impacts, whether by finding
another site or changing the location of the proposed activity on -site;
2. Minimizing wetland and wetland buffer impacts by limiting the
degree of impact on site;
3. Mitigation actions that require compensation by replacing, enhancing,
or substitution shall occur in the following order of preference:
a. restoring wetlands on upland sites that were formerly wetlands;
b. enhancing significantly degraded wetlands;
c. creating wetlands on disturbed upland sites such as those with
vegetative cover consisting primarily of exotic introduced species or noxious
weeds.
D. Mitigation Plans.
1. The mitigation plan shall be developed as part of a sensitive area study
by a specialist approved by the Director. Wetland and /or buffer alteration or
relocation may be allowed only when a mitigation plan clearly demonstrates that
the changes would be an improvement of wetland and buffer quantitative and
qualitative functions. The plan shall follow the performance standards of TMC
Chapter 18.45 and show how water quality, wildlife and fish habitat, and general
wetland quality would be improved.
2. In order to achieve the City's goal of no net loss of wetland functions
and acreage, alteration of wetlands will require the applicant to provide a
restoration or creation plan to compensate for the impacts to the wetland and
will compensate at a ratio of 1.5 to 1.
3. Impacts to wetlands may be mitigated by enhancement of existing
significantly degraded wetlands, however, in order to achieve the City's goal of
CL Page 2 of 5 05/08/2007 10:11:00 AM
Q:\2007 SAO Amendment\Draft Amendment.doc
Proposed Amendment to TMC 18.45.090
no net loss of wetland functions and acreage, mitigation through enhancement
must be compensated at a ratio of 3:1. Applicants proposing to enhance wetlands
must produce a sensitive area study that identifies how enhancement will
increase the functions of the degraded wetland and how this increase will
adequately mitigate for the loss of wetland area and function at the impact site.
An enhancement proposal must also show whether existing wetland functions
will be reduced by the enhancement actions.
4. The DCD Director may determine the number of wetland mitigation
bank credits required to meet the mitigation ratios established in this Chan ter
through a Type 2 decision if:
a) off -site mitigation is proposed in a Wetland Mitigation Bank that has
been approved by all the appropriate agencies including the
Department of Ecology, Corp s of Engineers, EPA or other regulatory
agencies; and
bl the applicant provides a justification for the number of credits
proposed; and
c) the mitigation achieved through the number of credits rea aired meets
the intent of this Chapter.
E. Mitigation Location.
1. On -site mitigation shall be provided, except where the applicant can
demonstrate that:
(a) On -site mitigation is not scientifically feasible due to problems with
hydrology, soils, waves or other factors; or
(b) Mitigation is not practical due to potentially adverse impact from
surrounding land uses; or
(c) Existing functional values created at the site of the proposed
restoration are significantly greater than lost wetland functional values; or
(d) That established regional goals for flood storage, flood conveyance,
habitat or other wetland functions have been established and strongly justify
location of mitigation at another site.
2. Off -site mitigation shall occur within the same watershed where the
wetland loss occurred.
3. Mitigation sites located within the Tukwila city limits are preferred.
However, the Director may approve mitigation sites outside the city upon
finding that:
(a) Adequate measures have been taken to ensure the non
development and long -term viability of the mitigation site; and
(b) Adequate coordination with the other affected local jurisdiction has
occurred.
CL Page 3 of 5 05/08/2007 10:11:00 AM
Q:\2007 SAO Amendment\Draft Amendment.doc
Proposed Amendment to TMC 18.45.090
4. In selecting mitigation sites, applicants shall pursue siting in the
following order of preference:
(a) Upland sites that were formerly wetlands;
(b) Idled upland sites generally having bare ground or vegetative
cover consisting primarily of exotic introduced species, weeds or emergent
vegetation;
(c) Other disturbed upland;
(d) Existing degraded wetland.
F. Mitigation Standards. The scope and content of a mitigation plan shall be
decided on a case -by -case basis. As the impacts to the sensitive area increase, the
mitigation measures to offset these impacts will increase in number and
complexity. The components of a complete wetlands mitigation plan are as
follows:
1. Baseline information of quantitative data collection or a review and
synthesis of existing data for both the project impact zone and the proposed
mitigation site;
2. Environmental goals and objectives that describe the purposes of the
mitigation measures. This should include a description of site selection criteria,
identification of target evaluation species and resource functions;
3. Performance standards of the specific criteria for fulfilling
environmental goals, and for beginning remedial action or contingency
measures. They may include water quality standards, species richness and
diversity targets, habitat diversity indices, or other ecological, geological or
hydrological criteria;
4. A detailed construction plan of the written specifications and
descriptions of mitigation techniques. This plan should include the proposed
construction sequence and construction management, and be accompanied by
detailed site diagrams and blueprints that are an integral requirement of any
development proposal;
5. Monitoring and or evaluation program that outlines the approach for
assessing a completed project. An outline shall be included that spells out how
the monitoring data will be evaluated by agencies that are tracking the
mitigation project's progress;
6. Contingency plan identifying potential courses of action, and any
corrective measures to be taken when monitoring or evaluation indicates project
performance standards have not been met; and
7. Performance security or other assurance devices as described in TMC
18.45.210.
G. Mitigation Timing. Mitigation projects shall be completed prior to
activities that will permanently disturb wetlands and either prior to or
CL Page 4 of 5 05/08/2007 10:11:00 AM
Q:\2007 SAO Amendment\Draft Amendment.doc
Proposed Amendment to TMC 18.45.090
immediately after activities that will temporarily disturb wetlands. Construction
of mitigation projects shall be timed to reduce impacts to existing wildlife, flora
and water quality, and shall be completed prior to use or occupancy of the
activity or development. The Director may allow activities that permanently
disturb wetlands prior to implementation of the mitigation plan under the
following circumstances:
1. To allow planting or re- vegetation to occur during optimal weather
conditions;
2. To avoid disturbance during critical wildlife periods; or
3. To account for unique site constraints that dictate construction timing
or phasing.
H. Permitted Uses Subject to Exception Approval. Other uses may be
permitted upon receiving a reasonable use exception pursuant to TMC 18.45.180.
A use permitted through a reasonable use exception shall conform to the
procedures of TMC Chapter 18.45 and be consistent with the underlying zoning.
CL Page 5 of 5 05/08/2007 10:11:00 AM
Q:\2007 SAO Amendment\Draft Amendment.doc
Community Affairs Parks Committee Minutes Aoril 24. 2007 Paae 2
The Committee agreed that there is not a "quick fix" to fit this problem. They agree that Council
does not desire to revamp the entire code, but rather identify a possible area of regulation in order
to avoid future concerns such as the complaint brought forth at the March 27 and April 9
Community Affairs and Parks meetings (also see Council minutes of April 10, 2007).
Additionally, the Committee was in consensus of the desire expressed by full Council for this
issue not to consume an inordinate amount of staff time.
Dennis commented that he believes that the simplest solution to this issue is to increase the rear
setback to 15', 25' for a three -story and then consider accessory buildings. Dennis requested that
Jack secure a copy of the Seattle Code regarding garages and accessory structures and how they
pertain to allies, etc. and submit this information to the agenda packet for full Council review at
the May 14 COW.
The Committee feels strongly that this issue needs to be discussed with full Council. The
following three proposals will be taken to Council for discussion and consideration:
1. Leave the Building Height Code as is, with no changes
2. Increase rear setback to 15' for every residence
3. Increase rear setback to 15' feet for two -story, and 25' for three -story
The Building Height limitation would cover any structure in the LDR Zone that requires a
building permit.
In addition to bringing these proposals to full Council, staff will also submit a cursory review of
existing permits as impacted by each proposal, and the Seattle Code as requested above. DCD
staff recommends that no changes be made to the City's current code. FORWARD TO MAY 14
COW FOR DISCUSSION.
B. SAO Mitigation Ratio Amendment
DCD staff brought forth a proposal to modify the existing Sensitive Areas Ordinance (SAO) to
allow the DCD Director to make case by case waiver of strict compliance with the City's current
mitigation ratios if off -site mitigation is proposed in a wetland mitigation bank that has been
approved by certain regulatory agencies.
After discussion, Dennis Robertson expressed his opposition to this request as it appears that the
ordinance is being changed for one specific example in this situation, the exception is WSDOT.
He stated that off -site mitigation should be here in Tukwila, and although he is sympathetic that
the current regulations will cost the government more money, he does not feel that the
government should exclude itself from environmental impacts. Additionally, he is concerned
with leaving complete decision making authority on each case to the discretion of the director
rather than having specifications set forth in the ordinance.
Jack Pace clarified that the idea of utilizing the administrator /director decision is not new to the
SAO, and that the proposed amendment is not in violation of the spirit of the SAO. Additionally,
the director would utilize an established chart, based on wetland type at which we are mitigating
loss, to arrive at his/her decision. This is not a decision that the director would make at his/her
own discretion without predetermined regulations. Jack stated that it is the intent of the City to
ensure a cumulative impact verses small wetland areas, and the amendment would allow for this
type of decision making following a best available science approach.
Community Affairs Parks Committee Minutes April 24. 2007 Pape 3
Questions were raised about flexibility on ratio calculation; providing developers with some level
of predictability; holding the City to a higher standard than the State in reference to acreage
verses quality /functionality; and buying credits rather than measuring acreage and DCD
determining those credits
Committee members recommended that staff clarify some of the proposed amendment language
regarding regulatory agencies in addition to discussing this with the full Council.
FORWARD TO MAY 14 COW FOR DISCUSSION.
C. Mini Park Acquisition at 56XX S. 133rd
Bruce provided a brief overview of the history of the property acquisition in question which has
previously come before the Community Affairs and Parks Committee as well as the COW.
In 2004, Todd Heistuman and Eric Reinhardt, property owners of said land, offered to donate
one -half of the purchase price of the property, which was then valued at $150,000. Staff secured
$75,000 in funding from the King County Conservation Futures Grant allowing the City to
purchase the land.
Due to delays, the land was not purchased. Since 2004, the market value of the property has
increased substantially, and is currently valued at $385,000. Todd and Eric are now ready to sell,
and have expressed continued interest in donating one -half of the purchase price of the property.
Unfortunately, the City only has $75,000 of grant funds budgeted for the purchase, leaving an
additional $117,500 of the price unfunded. The City would need to appropriate a total of
$117,500 in order to acquire the land. Staff is seeking an appropriation recommendation from the
Committee to purchase the property.
The Committee believes that this is a policy decision that requires discussion among the entire
Council. Todd and Eric may bring additional information regarding purchase options to the
COW. FORWARD TO MAY 14 COW FOR DISCUSSION.
D. Update on Comn Plan Amendments
Due to DCD director transitioning, Jack Pace, Acting DCD Director will provide an update on Comp
Plan Amendments within two months.
INFORiMATION ONLY.
E. 2007 First Ouarter Report
The Committee did not have comments regarding the 2007 First Quarter Reports. Bruce stated that the
scope of work has been released for the Parks Plan, and he will be bringing it to the next Community
Affairs and Parks Committee meeting. Jack shared that DCD is working with Parks and Recreation on
the Walk and Roll program, and that they are preparing for a very busy summer. INFORMMATION
ONLY.
III. ANNOUNCEMENTS
IV. MISCELLANEOUS
Meeting adjourned at 6:32p.m.
Next meeting: Tuesday, May 15, 2007 5:00 p.m. Conference Room 3
Committee Chair Approval
Minutes by KAM.
::"s COUNCIL AGENDA SvNoPsIs
s" <C P ti Initials ITEM ND,
t -q t 4 Meeting Date 1 Preparz b) 1 Ma yor's review 1 �C usgcil review
a 0- 05/14/07 1 JP 1 1 171!1
q
1965
I
IT EM ENFORMATION
CAS NUMBER: 01 0 `J z I ORIGII; AL AGENDA DATE: 5/14/07
AGENDA ITEM TITLE Townhouse Code Amendments
CA I EGORY Discussion Motion Resolution Ordinance Bid Award Public Hearing Other
Aftg Date 5 -14-07 Mtg Date Mtg Date Mtg Date Mtg Date Mtg Date Mtg Date
SPONSOR Council Mayor Adm Svcs DCD Finance Fire Legal P&R Police PIS
SPONSOR'S The proposal is to revise the Subdivision and Zoning Codes to encourage townhouse
SUMMARY development in multi family zones.
REVIEWED BY COW Mtg. CA &P Cmte F &S Cmte Transportation Cmte
Utilities Cmte Arts Comm. Parks Comm. Planning Comm.
DA 1'E: 4 -10 -07
RECOMMENDATIONS:
SPoNsoR /ADMIN. Forward Council decision to the Planning Commission 1
COMMIfiEE Forward to full Council for consideration I
CO ST IMP ADT FUND
EXPENDITURE REQUIRED AMOUNT BUDGETED APPROPRIATION REQUIRED
S So $0
Fund Source: N/A
Comments:
I MTG. DATE I= -Ti. RECORD OPCO UNCIL ACTION
I 5 -14 -07 1
I
I
I
_VITG DATE -ATTACHMENTS I
5 -14 -07 1 Information Memo dated 5/4/07 with Attachments
I 1 Community Affairs and Parks Committee minutes of 4/10/07 1
1
I
I 1
INFORMATION MEMORANDUM
To: Mayor Mullet
Committee of the Whole
FROM: Jack Pace, Acting DCD Director
DATE: May 4, 2007
SUBJECT: Townhouse Code Amendments
ISSUES
Should the Zoning and Subdivision Codes be changed to allow for development of
townhomes on individual lots? Due to Zoning Code development standards such as side
yard setback requirements only condominiums or apartments are allowed in our multi-
family zones, though they could be built in townhouse foiui.
In addition to the technical changes needed to create individual townhouse lots changes to
Tukwila's bulk and coverage limitations may encourage the market to provide townhouses.
Townhouses are typically significantly larger than stacked apartments or condominiums
and under the current code fewer townhouse units could be built on a given site making
them a less attractive development option.
BACKGROUND
DCD has periodically been approached by developers interested in building townhomes.
However, they think that there is a stronger market for this type of housing on individually
owned lots rather than as condominiums and the insurance requirements for condominiums
make many small projects unfeasible. Providing an additional type of housing ownership
(townhouses on individual lots) will expand the housing options of Tukwila's residents and
provide multi- family property owners an alternative to apartment development.
The CAP discussed the proposal on April 10 and moved it to the COW without a
recommendation. They discussed a range of issues from the necessity for common
children's play areas, concern about blank walls and the environmental impacts of dense
development.
ANALYSIS
Due to Tukwila's prevailing pattern of narrow, deep lots in most inf ll situations
townhouses would be perpendicular to the street, rather than the traditional row house with
stoops along the street and alley access behind. See Attachment A for examples of some
under developed multi- family zoned lots in Tukwila that might attract townhouse
development. While there are some larger sites, most have their street frontage at the
narrow end of the lot. Below is an example of a typical market driven design for an
80'x240' infill lot showing the individual parcel lines through the buildings.
NG Page 1 05/08/2007 8:42:00 PM
E: \5 -14COW Townhouse.DOC
E ;II: 1 f 1 t 1 ;.-1. 1 :_l_ i
I. 1 1 1 t- 1 1 1 1
i !.1 i 1 I -1 1 1 -1 f 1 n1=
f 1 i t -i 1._ 1 1, i
I f i i -1 1 J. 1. 1 1 1r
1
b--- i C j 1 i L' j
1
3
i
1
Below are some recently developed townhouses in nearby cities.
h 6
fu.,
�m .4
Ar
The following areas of the Zoning Code would require amendments in order to allow for
construction of townhouses on individual platted lots.
Minimum Lot Area
Though the Medium Density Residential (MDR) Zone allows for one unit per 3,000
sf of lot area there is a minimum lot size of 8,000 sf. Similarly in High Density
Residential (HDR) one unit is allowed for every 2,000 sf of lot area but the
minimum lot size is 9,600 sf. Townhomes can be developed at these densities, but
the minimum lot size requirements would need to be applied to the project as a
whole rather than the individual townhouse lots.
Average Lot Width
The minimum lot width of 60 feet required in the MDR and HDR zones would
need to be applied to the project as a whole. Most townhouse lots are between 15
and 25 feet in width and 80 to 100 feet in depth.
Setbacks
The side setbacks would need to be eliminated for interior units (because they are
attached) and replaced by a minimum separation between townhouse buildings.
NG Page 2 05/08/2007 8:42:00 PM
E:\5 -14COW Townhouse.DOC
Landscape
The side yard landscape requirement would need to be eliminated for interior units
though there should be some landscape requirement between buildings.
In addition to the above code modifications which are necessary in order to create
individual lots, optional changes to the following areas of the code would allow for a
development pattern and density closer to what is being built elsewhere. If we did not
change these bulk and coverage requirements the market might continue to favor apartment
development.
Setbacks
The front, second front, side and rear setbacks in MDR and HDR all increase for
second and third floors. Since townhomes are almost always two to four stories in
height these tiered setbacks may make development difficult on small lots even if
they were applied to the project as a whole. Unlike an apartment building where a
smaller unit could be substituted to create a larger setback on the second or third
floor, a townhouse may only be 20 feet wide so an additional 10' of setback would
compromise the usability of that floor.
Landscape
There would need to be some flexibility with the front, second front, side and rear
landscape requirements even if they were applied to the site as a whole, rather than
each individual lot.
Development Coverage
The development coverage limitation of 50% in MDR and HDR requires that half
of the property be kept as landscape, pedestrian or recreation area. That would be
difficult to meet at zoned densities with the typical townhouse development pattern
given the size of the units, parking and fire access requirements. A building
footprint limitation, similar that in the LDR zone, would be workable.
Recreation Space
The development standards in Tukwila's multi family zones are based on a garden
apartment model with communal open space. Many of these standards would be in
conflict with the townhouse building type where recreation space is usually
provided in private yards or balconies. Since townhomes function more like single
family residences than apartment or condominium complexes it may make sense to
waive the requirement for communal children's play areas in favor of providing
that space as private yards.
Other city's codes require between 200 and 300 square feet of recreation space per
unit with some granting 2 for 1 credit for balconies and patios and some requiring
smaller amounts of common space in addition to the private space. Tukwila's
MDR and HDR zones require 400 square feet of recreation space per unit with a
1,000 sq foot minimum. The space per unit may be feasible as a combination of
yards and balconies, however the restriction that setback areas may not count
toward this total (TMC 18.52.060) would not, so long as the yard had a minimum
dimension of 10' in all directions.
NG Page 3 05/08/2007 8:42:00 PM
E:\5 -14COW Townhouse.DOC
1
ier
-1
Private yard that includes side yard setback area
PROPOSAL
Staff has grouped the proposed changes by subject area below. These include both the
minimum changes necessary to allow platting of townhouse lots as well as additional
changes that would bring Tukwila's standards closer to prevailing market driven
development patterns.
Subdivision Code
One approach for how to handle this type of development is to treat townhouse and cottage
projects similarly to a binding site plan. This would apply lot size, lot width, setback and
landscape standards to the original "parent" parcel rather than the "unit" lots that contain
the individual townhomes, see the Seattle code at Attachment B for an example. This
would result in the same treatment adjacent to the neighboring properties while allowing a
different ownership pattern.
Other than that change both the short plat and subdivision platting process could follow the
standard procedure with preliminary approval, infrastructure construction, final approval
and then building permit. Some cities allow the building foundations to be constructed
prior to fmal approval along with the rest of the site improvements so that the lot lines can
be drawn accurately through the existing common walls, see the Olympia regulations at
Attachment C for an example. If the buildings are constructed after the plat sometimes
field conditions require boundary line adjustments to meet the as built conditions.
Design Review
The multi family Design Review Criteria in the Zoning Code will work for townhouse
development. The optional Multi Family Design Guidelines booklet has some sections
that may not be applicable, such as the child play area guidelines.
Staff proposes that projects following the short subdivision process (up to 9 lots) be subject
to administrative design review and projects requiring a subdivision be subject to public
hearing design review.
NG Page 4 05/08/2007 8:42:00 PM
E: \5 -14COW Townhouse.DOC
MDR/HDR Zoning Standards
In addition modifications to the following bulk and coverage requirements would allow for
a more market driven development pattern and density closer to what is achievable for
stacked apartment/condominiums.
Setbacks
Setback requirements should be applied to the parent lot rather than the unit lots
since their purpose is to protect neighboring properties. The tiered setbacks in the
MDR and HDR should only apply where there is an adjacency to LDR.
Development Coverage
It is not possible to achieve zoned density with a typical townhouse product under
the 50% development coverage limitation. Townhouses are typically twice as large
as an average apartment usually with 2 to 3 bedrooms and a garage. A 50 -70%
building footprint limitation is common in other jurisdictions.
Recreation Space
Setback areas that are part of a private yard for an individual unit should be allowed
to count toward the 400 sf recreation space requirement. All of the recreation
space should be allowed to be private, rather than in required common play areas.
Common space could still be provided for a portion of the requirement. Since the
small private yards are generally fenced some thought should be given to limiting
the height of fences, especially along street frontages.
The Council has four choices:
1) Take no action on the proposal;
2) Make only those changes to the Subdivision Code necessary to allow the platting of
individual townhouse lots;
3) Make additional changes to the tiered setbacks, development coverage and common
open space requirements; and/or
4) Allow townhouse developments of up to 9 lots to go through administrative rather
than public hearing design review.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends making all of the above changes. If the Council chooses to pursue the
townhouse code amendments they should forward the proposal to the Planning
Commission for a public hearing and development of specific code language. The
proposal would then come back to the Council for a public hearing before adoption.
Attachment A: Potential Multi Family Redevelopment Sites
Attachment B: Seattle Townhouse Regulations
Attachment C: Olympia Townhouse Regulations
Attachment D: SeaTac Townhouse Standards
NG Page 5 05/08/2007 8:42:00 PM
E:\5 -14COW Townhouse.DOC
Attachment A
Examples o Potential Multi Family Redevelopmen Sites
Hatching indicates MDR and HDR Zoning 7._
3 cir� yrrx� r r f- O a FS a
_i
4 C -1---- 3 a s
r +r rte z
/.A 'a te a f "4-1-e--17-
+tt mss:
4
,..v i___1.,..,„ -;:_=,_-..z-,..7„,4::_f:,.1i;...___:_c•lw.,.._-__,,,__ it_
'Jeri f _F� j� ,:.,1:;___„._.,,_,_._,__ A,,,__7_. .„.„2....: c,...,,,......,:,__„.....(,, I _7:-.:-_---.._', r s a r e. '-',--41- r T -"^s y x 3Z. t .;tti......i„
3= f x :ms t-..- F" I T r y d i s
-4 t f 4 r
-Y3 s F i i I t --..,.-47. fi
r., r ri /_;-==t-'-./- f rte s
t r r rC i a' z c rs sue -3
k Q 4 -zx f h r.�# F� o r b
s 1 S
...b.........--,-_---*------.ZOZ--e__=2--,_,-i_Esz:--;:_;-:_:,----r-4T-Z-7--_t_-, Tiff .-514=I5s,-_—'5114.I:-1=--' -.:-I---.-71--=-1-k-1.--W ?1---=-14=-,=="1;:121--1-7_--1N,..-.
_-.,-,---,..--0.,,,,,.. --,--_-_,...,,,,7:-_-:_-_-_-.T-_-,=.-±,- 1-_-,.._, rf ..i_z,:-=_--,--..----_,E.v.:_-----::, f. :---:7 1. =--z ,7 .1..,t,-----..--:,= ,ffil 44 -54
r
,I,t_t_-,40---t.-.-_,,___=-_ -,.,.,_--,==:,7--tz---- ;E-7,-t-------7--,,--_:.,„=-=i,i==-=--.--;_:..,?:-,-...-,-5z-__-.--"—_,„:ui-J:_,•_"..-:---.Lf.,,,-5.;i
it
";C-- ,I,..7c.‘,..„1„:„ 4 r _t, .__,L-,_ 1:.,-±f__-_ T.,-_,--„,--,-- --,-..--1., -'-_--X`--F--Yil---=L-T:---
's- -t -1 fr f..- 71.--.:-=-,-.4.,-.--1,-:-:-,--,---.---.L. A i -.J= si r_-
I I
j y
a te
y s
3 c g` 1- C an 1 -1
Attachment A
...„-.0-x,---i-_-_ ,...-:,-,:..--..zg-::.,,7,-* fl-:.-:_.A.---"7 =•..-c--f.-- ,„-*_-o..-
........??7.-=.:-=--M- -,-,1,-.
-111 6. .*A 1- :,-',7 Z=2.= '•7-; -'''''''--•-='----7A7:..---" "r7-:--- _-------,A
..s= 6 i- .7 -=:::-..-----m--.---------,=--____-`
iT.--- ---7 11 'AV
"ar" Vi ',F.
'W '''-1. -11- Wt-r0:42-7_a=4-- r 1;-- -'-W- -A. I a_;
'-,---'.1_,_. V -i..7-., ---__---ir .47--.___,i___.._27„.1-_,,:t.k,_.51;_,,,=-2_,:i._,-„-_,._____2„1_:____,--___.,..z___
..:74.,,, ,-_--3,_-_,,-,...,F,-,;:se-e ___.,.r..._ --5,,..--7., ;f, oil
z i i. XiaTi.1: W-i-..' 0 _1 s ----t-'- '7===':-",'"------; r 7L 'V
,.-2, -2=.---=_, ..,..,-„,1.,,,,,374,-.;41f.
-,--f-_ .-'7,,,j--.' -r- ,--i- ---k
-.TT'. --=---:-S-1.-.6.--=-45-4_-..5
,-Rf 'N .M._,__ 4 4.ri- l ..1. Zi ..;*-t ...'.-2----.L.4,-,--•?2Iggif,...11.algc1P4--5.-1::--"-I.g -p,.:.....=7---.;11-„,"" 4 .„11-,:-:if,--i=,_-_;'-"--c.-_,.
,-?-•-‘---"-:,-„,---.---7:&-V.'7':-. -,---t- :477.7-tit...- -4--11..:47.:A.s.:14-_,.._.,..77-1-vY-Vz,4,-,7-t=:..4-*)...-- .4
1
A I
-4. y...-.4 •"_-_,,i,.4 t, _,--z--r-,.; A-14f/- .,.?`_7,/' 1-4 5 ',`'f :•.,„,....PP--ec.:, V-- ..,_-_14.----crii-.1.7-t-.1--- V i•
:a -t";- k i' -`...‘Zt--'' '''S-,--A.'-. '0 i a ,-7 .-s... '-77'."
.i.- ,_-_----i-_, A -6 -._.--,?-..-----,-;----,-:=1:-/),w4..1_-„-- -..-__-1.-
AI-
;7 .1`,:.-.":-_- -.:1''',--f;,-.- '7;' 41-- "1--_---:;----/,--:-.-**-glEr *1,-- irw ,C-T-r-=
j. fi- I___:.1:z- t ,-:::-.:,---=4.Ft2:. 4/-*--,i-,;-:-..:-1.
f ;:,Y ;KO- kg--.4'S%4>:'---4
e_:-,---_:--4-4,;-?.--,,-, k-_---,,-= --.--F.,:-_-F4-1-,--ftg-r:__,:.-4y,-,:,-,4,:-_,_---
:_,..E"';', g.'' 1=134 4,-- x. 1,.....a a... g
x-.-,::i-,---...4.7v =-7---1=-1 's= 5 1- f_7 i 1- .--1-„--, -4 -7--v ie 5- -/-',1 -0---- I t L.-- i ,........--.1 I
'1 4 IVI "--.---Y Li cr.....y-7,-_,_, It
--v-4.-7-T:- ,7 1- .AnT.-:--, :1 1.-,-,-, k.4-,:v.,. ;---:,--.47--7,-2,-A-,--_-,...--vW---- ,4 W -Z.
451- 'jfa 4
T
,.i.w._.:4_4-- ,_z_ .p.s.4;.!__..,I,-- r:
4,•p_it m,,_t_;1,_._mi,__,.:_.zt:,o_v_zx_.ozrw;;_-,rn_=_i_-=;_. „__,:_-.;:_=.,i,_::::,..,,;_.;:im.4.:_
i____:.,„.„,14-'77--_,C,:tif.,---1-,-i;-,-- --"f-V2<-T-i-1--.---;='.-_-i,-A,-:-------..{:"---Z-1 4
4------f-t;--ff1-44,=:5.-.1;-=.--if..:::.....:.--.- .-.3-_-=----2:---17-7W-Z.V-- --;:f .---ifAi '---±0--.5;f.;4--J-i.:,.7K-----Arl f., -,.;s e
=A.;;: .'-:;.-,c-iir-esvitigigirat,i-I-.,-,
_R=t; -±-4.--2-1,2-_-_-_,P-1- fril 4,4 -_,--m&-ir,,;',-,---/-f:'--------.=:----_ .4L- 5 `1- /-z -4 U1. -;-f A0= k
--_,...-7„.....,-,1:4-----.--.:-:-.2-----,i,.----=-,
J-_---4.p--,-, -„,-5„._.
A-- :*1. -.5; .,_-?------1----2-L,,-,-5-4,..,v_v_r. -ft -,:,v----
4
4-V 7 -ff=.7 -1 1-74
-7---, /7 14 --7-
-e ,-72-.7- -...-iv .1 n..-.--__,.__,_.4,-„,,-----„,,--,-- 0,4
.,:r?.=',.WZ f'a 2 ,..Z, V ...ir.'
--x .6.:.? ._a---;--=----.= 27 r- --j;li_ At, ..„.1
117 :_..:4: ,_--.2- 7-__ _-_---,...p 3-------,___,
et ie- 1 -.,--,--':-:-;--,if---,t-----=.--.-- -r -r.d.. .-w
4 -',.....-_-.,---.----:_.,.r.--f--2--,-----,...7-f
le---tt--- i.:::-'- -I. sei_-,-=' :-.1-. i• -r.inT'I--: 1--E',-,----X--:5-/-1)//-- (1,-'1.1- Z
"4-4" 7-:
7.- ‘"g' r 1 -..-1---- ..,.--J-- t ,.-77,-,......- -..-=-31,--_,--PX-i.1---,--%?:-./7--:-.--.--- 27,_,.
2.-z---i- t ----.7 A
4.:: ..---f2.----., .-7-
7.
AV f----- t -=-7---;-1- __,...„......—,_.-7''-? ----*4-----------'c'i.s-.-,.- 4.t.---
_.,t-,-;-__-.„:-..,..ri--W<*-'-`.4-- ---,-.„-,7..---X--,,-- •---.--•--,--2--.--,,..--:
--;:--r--- -'''------=--i--,--;;4:=":':.-'------,--;r&-=±=.=----- -L-'''-:ST-ZtAXI*-•=3,-,--;.., =-:,1 7- -.7'; 2
....._7--
r_V
,7- _V--- F-4-1:-._ ,1----ih-,--i----1,----- -,--4-im-_-•
27,-. ri-4----. --,-771-;--a---Aik-,-I-M±--_:.--,,
7----7-„Ei---10-A.,:- __7----,--:,.-f-;p1--Z7,-:i,-------_-;-,i.0--5,_,V4--W:_----__--;-7-,-------;-wii
--.3__5 _f--437:4t-i4S-7:,-,..--:,_-S--'7;;Igt.NZ--4/3--
5-,
:-_?-g_=-4_701:7==4--- i- "S tii 0 -i 7. L 7 _Zti- -411-=;-_f_a:t-4-1=t-
V .---ii,..,-
X =A,-t--1-.-
1 ,r .-',■-f --f:
.,:--,=:F., ..--.;::„-.---.:_*---..-----!----L-_-....--?-.-.----,-...:---,
7'1
i...-4_-,,,,,-_,-_-_t., _f.4
i=7-'-'=e-:_;,-,,,. q-1 ft--;*-k-74-f''' _v z., RiPlz--.47*-0----,
=45..,Y/---- -,--.-ci-;i-if _,T--!- if r=-4 -=1:-=-,k--.435KN.--
-_,*-c-- .-_-Giv,=----„,..-_,4--
,,-4 /-1- -7
1 .4_
7 -4
Attachment B
Seattle Townhouse Regulations
"Lot, parent" means the initial lot from which unit lots are subdivided for the exclusive use of
townhouses, cottage housing, clustered housing in Single- family, Residential Small Lot and
Lowrise zones, single- family residences in Lowrise zones, or any combination of the above
types of residential development.
"Lot, unit" means one (1) of the individual lots created from the subdivision of a parent lot for
the exclusive use of townhouses, cottage housing, clustered housing in Single family,
Residential Small Lot and Lowrise zones, single family residences in Lowrise zones, or any
combination of the above types of residential development.
"Short subdivision" means the division or redivision of land into nine (9) or fewer lots, tracts,
parcels, sites or divisions for the purpose of sale, lease, development or financing, and shall
include all resubdivision of previously platted land and properties divided for
the purpose of sale or lease of townhouse units.
"Townhouse" means a form of ground related housing in which individual dwelling units are
attached along at least one (1) common wall to at least one (1) other dwelling unit. Each
dwelling unit occupies space from the ground to the roof and has direct access to private open
space. No portion of a unit may occupy space above or below another unit, except that
townhouse units may be constructed over a common shared parking garage, provided the
garage is underground.
SMC 23.22.062 Unit lot subdivisions Preliminary Plat.
A. The provisions of this section apply exclusively to the unit subdivision of land for
townhouses, cottage housing developments, residential cluster developments, and single
family dwelling units in zones where such uses are permitted.
B. Except for any site for which a permit has been issued pursuant to Section 23.44.041= for a
detached accessory dwelling unit, sites developed or proposed to be developed with dwelling
units listed in subsection A above may be subdivided into individual unit lots. The
development as a whole shall meet development standards applicable at the time the permit
application is vested. As a result of the subdivision, development on individual unit lots may be
nonconforming as to some or all of the development standards based on analysis of the
individual unit lot, except that any private, usable open space for each dwelling unit shall be
provided on the same lot as the dwelling unit it serves.
C. Subsequent platting actions, additions or modifications to the structure(s) may not create or
increase any nonconformity of the parent lot.
D. Access easements and joint use and maintenance agreements shall be executed for use of
common garage or parking areas, common open space (such as common courtyard open spaces
for cottage housing), and other similar features, as recorded with the Director of the King
County Department of Records and Elections.
E. Within the parent lot, required parking for a dwelling unit may be provided on a different
unit lot than the lot with the dwelling unit, as long as the right to use that parking is formalized
by an easement on the plat, as recorded with the Director of the King County Department of
Records and Elections.
F. The fact that the unit lot is not a separate buildable lot and that additional development of the
individual unit lots may be limited as a result of the application of development standards to
the parent lot shall be noted on the plat, as recorded with the King County Department of
Records and Elections.
SMC 23.24.045 Unit lot subdivisions Short Plats.
A. The provisions of this section apply exclusively to the unit subdivision of land for
townhouses, cottage housing developments, residential cluster developments, and single family
dwelling units in zones where such uses are permitted.
B. Except for any site for which a permit has been issued pursuant to Section 23.44.041= for a
detached accessory dwelling unit, sites developed or proposed to be developed with dwelling
units listed in subsection A above may be subdivided into individual unit lots. The
development as a whole shall meet development standards applicable at the time the permit
application is vested. As a result of the subdivision, development on individual unit lots may be
nonconforming as to some or all of the development standards based on analysis of the
individual unit lot, except that any private, usable open space for each dwelling unit shall be
provided on the same lot as the dwelling unit it serves.
C. Subsequent platting actions, additions or modifications to the structure(s) may not create or
increase any nonconformity of the parent lot.
D. Access easements and joint use and maintenance agreements shall be executed for use of
common garage or parking areas, common open space (such as common courtyard open space
for cottage housing), and other similar features, as recorded with the Director of the King
County Department of Records and Elections.
E. Within the parent lot, required parking for a dwelling unit may be provided on a different
unit lot than the lot with the dwelling unit, as long as the right to use that parking is formalized
by an easement on the plat, as recorded with the Director of the King County Department of
Records and Elections.
F. The facts that the unit lot is not a separate buildable lot, and that additional development of
the individual unit lots may be limited as a result of the application of development standards
to the parent lot shall be noted on the plat, as recorded with the Director of the King County
Department of Records and Elections.
SMC 23.45.010 Lot coverage Lowrise zones.
A. Except as provided in subsection C of this section, the maximum lot coverage permitted for
principal and accessory structures shall not exceed the following limits:
1. For townhouses, the following lot coverage limits shall apply:
Lowrise duplex/Triplex Forty -five (45) percent.
Lowrise 1- 4 Fifty (50) percent.
SMC 23.45.012 Modulation requirements Lowrise zones.
A. Front Facades.
1. Modulation shall be required if the front facade width exceeds thirty (30) feet with no
principal entrance facing the street, or forty (40) feet with a principal entrance facing the street.
2. For terraced housing, only the portion of the front facade closest to the street is required to be
modulated. (See Exhibit 23.45.012 AV
B. Side Facades. On corner lots, side facades which face the street shall be modulated if greater
than forty (40) feet in width for ground- related housing, and thirty (30) feet in width for
apartments. Modulation shall not be required for the side facades of terraced
housing.
C. Interior Facades. Within a cluster development all interior facades wider than forty (40) feet
shall be modulated according to the standards of subsection D of Section 23.45.012, provided
that the maximum modulation width shall be forty (40) feet. Perimeter facades shall follow
standard development requirements.
D. Modulation Standards.
1. Lowrise Duplex/Triplex and Lowrise 1 Zones.
a. Minimum Depth of Modulation.
(1) The minimum depth of modulation shall be four (4) feet. (See Exhibit 23.45.012 BI
(2) When balconies are part of the modulation and have a minimum dimension of at least six (6)
feet and a minimum area of at least sixty (60) square feet, the minimum depth of modulation
shall be two (2) feet. (See Exhibit 23.45.012 Cal
b. The minimum width of modulation shall be five (5) feet. (See Exhibit 23.45.012 B
c. Maximum Width of Modulation. The modulation width shall emphasize the identity of
individual units, but shall not be greater than thirty (30) feet. For units located one (1) above the
other, the individuality of the units shall be emphasized through the location of driveways,
entrances, walkways and open spaces.
2. Lowrise 2, Lowrise 3 and Lowrise 4 Zones.
a. Minimum Depth of Modulation.
(1) The minimum depth of modulation shall be four (4) feet (see Exhibit 23.45.012 B'ai in
Lowrise 2 and Lowrise 3 zones and for townhouses in Lowrise 4 zones, and eight (8) feet for
apartments in Lowrise 4 zones.
(2) When balconies are part of the modulation and have a minimum dimension of at least six (6)
feet and a minimum area of at least sixty (60) square feet, the minimum depth of modulation
shall be two (2) feet. (See Exhibit 23.45.012 CA
b. The minimum width of modulation shall be five (5) feet. (See Exhibit 23.45.012 Bil
c. Maximum Width of Modulation.
(1) The maximum width of modulation shall be thirty (30) feet.
(2) Exceptions to Maximum Width of Modulation in Lowrise 2, Lowrise 3 and Lowrise 4 Zones.
i. When facades provide greater depth of modulation than required by subsection D1 of this
section, then for every additional full foot of modulation depth, the width of modulation may
be increased by two and one -half (2 1/2) feet, to a maximum width of forty (40) feet in Lowrise 2
zones and forty -five (45) feet in Lowrise 3 and Lowrise 4 zones. Subsection B of Section
23.86.0021, measurements, shall not apply.
ii. The maximum width of modulation may be increased when facades are set back from the lot
line further than the required setback, according to the following guideline: The width of
modulation of such a facade shall be permitted to exceed thirty (30) feet by one (1) foot for every
foot of facade setback beyond the required setback. This provision shall not be combined with
the provisions of subsection D2c(2)i, nor shall it permit facades to exceed forty -five (45) feet in
width without modulation.
3. In Lowrise 1, Lowrise 2, Lowrise 3 and Lowrise 4 zones required modulation may start a
maximum of ten (10) feet above existing grade, and shall be continued up to the roof. In
Lowrise Duplex/Triplex zones modulation shall extend from the ground to the roof except for
weather protection coverings such as awnings.
SMC 23.45.014 Setback requirements Lowrise zones.
A. Front Setback.
1. The required front setback shall be the average of the setbacks of the first principal structures
on either side, except for cottage housing developments, subject to the following:
Lowrise 1, Lowrise 2 and Lowrise 3 In no case shall the setback be less than five (5)
feet and it shall not be required to exceed fifteen (15) feet.
Lowrise 4 In no case shall the setback be less than five (5) feet and it shall not be required
to exceed twenty (20) feet.
3. Townhouses.
a. Portions of a structure may project into the required front setback, as long as the average
distance from the front property line to the structure satisfies the minimum front setback
requirement.
b. No portion of a structure shall be closer to the front property line than five (5) feet.
TABLE 23.45.014 A Side Setbacks Lowrise Zones
Height of Side Facade at Highest Point in Feet
0 -25 26 -30 31 -37
Structure Minimum
Depth Average Side Setback Side
in Feet in Feet Setback
65 or less 5 6 7 5
66 to 80 6 6 8 5
81 to 100 8 9 11 6
101 to 120 11 12 14 7
121 to 140 14 15 17 7
141 to 160 17 18 20 8
161 to 180 19 21 23 8
Greater than 1 in addition to 8
180 for every 50 in depth
B. Rear Setbacks. Rear setbacks shall be provided as follows:
1. Zones. Lowrise Duplex/Triplex and Lowrise 1- Twenty (20) feet or
twenty (20) percent of lot depth, whichever is less, but in no case less than fifteen (15) feet,
except for cottage housing developments, which shall provide a minimum ten (10) foot rear
setback.
Lowrise 2 Twenty -five (25) feet or twenty (20) percent of lot depth, whichever is less, but in
no case less than fifteen (15) feet.
Lowrise 3 and Lowrise 4 Twenty -five (25) feet or fifteen (15) percent of lot depth, whichever
is less, but in no case less than fifteen (15) feet.
Table 23.45.014 C
Required Setback Between Facing Facades in Lowrise Zones
Average
Length of Facing Setback Between Minimum
Facades, in Feet Facing Facades Setback
(in Feet) (in Feet)
40 or less 10 10
41 to 60 15 10
61 to 80 20 10
81 to 100 25 10
101 to 150 30 10
151 or more 40 10
Attachment C
Olympia Townhouse Regulations
18.64.020 Purpose
The purpose of this Chapter is to:
A. Permit within Residential and Commercial Districts the development of townhouses which
may be sold as individual lots and residences;
B. Permit townhouse structures built to standards which are designed to include amenities
usually associated with conventional single family detached housing to ensure compatibility with
the surrounding neighborhood;
C. Promote affordable housing, efficient use of land and energy, and the availability of a variety
of housing types in different locations;
D. Promote infill development on physically suitable lands in residential areas, without adversely
affecting adjacent development.
18.64.040 Applications, review authority and use districts
A. Applications. For all townhouse developments, applications for preliminary plat or short plat
approval and any design review and land use approval shall be submitted simultaneously on
forms provided by the City. Issuance of building and other permits shall be subject to
conformance to the approved plans. In addition to standard submittal requirements for
subdivision, design review and site plan review, townhouse applications shall contain that
additional infoluiation specified by the Application Content Lists. (See OMC 18.77.010)
B. Review Authority.
1. Nine (9) or fewer Townhouses. Site Plan Review Committee (SPRC) may approve
creation of nine (9) or fewer townhouse lots, subject to appeal provisions contained in the
Olympia Municipal Code, Chapter 18.75 and the public notice requirements contained in
Chapter 18.78.
2. Ten (10) or more Townhouses. The Hearing Examiner may approve creation of ten
(10) or more Townhouse lots subject to Appeal requirements contained in the Olympia
Municipal Code, Chapter 18.75 and the public notice requirements contained in Chapter
18.78.
18.64.060 Platting requirements
A. In R -4, R 4 -8, and R 6 -12 Districts a subdivision or short plat is required for all townhouse
developments so that individual dwelling units are divided onto lots with the structural walls
located on the lot lines. In other Districts the platting of each individual dwelling unit is optional.
B. When a townhouse development is platted, construction of townhouse dwellings may
commence prior to fmal plat approval, provided:
1. The proposed subdivision has received preliminary plat approval, and the necessary
financial sureties have been filed as required in the Olympia Municipal Code Chapter
17.24, Olympia Platting and Subdivision Ordinance, to assure construction of required
public improvements;
2. Partial or complete construction of structures shall not relieve the subdivider from, nor
impair City enforcement of conditions of subdivision approval;
3. Construction shall not proceed beyond foundations, and units shall not be rented or
sold, nor occupancy permits issued until fmal plat or final short plat approval is granted.
C. No subdivision or short subdivision of a site containing previously constructed dwellings shall
be allowed unless all common walls meet or are reconstructed to current building code and fire
code requirements for separately owned subdivided townhouse units, and all other standards of
this Chapter are met.
D. Undersized lots may be used for individual townhouse dwelling units without meeting the
density and lot area requirements of this Section, and without resubdividing, provided such lots
were of record prior to the effective date of this Chapter; and provided, they also have the
minimum lot width for townhouses.
18.64.080 Development standards
A. Maximum Site Area. The maximum site area for solely townhouse development in the R4, R
4 -8 or R 6 -12 District shall be four (4) acres. There is no maximum site area in other districts
where townhouses are permitted.
B. Units per Structure.
1. In R4, R 4 -8 and R 6 -12 Districts, each townhouse structure shall contain no more than
four (4) individual dwelling units, and there shall be no more than one (1) builder per
townhouse structure.
2. In all Districts except the R4, R 4 -8 and R 6 -12, requirements of the underlying district
shall apply with regard to number of units per structure.
C. Density and Lot Area.
1. Density. Each townhouse development shall be subject to density provisions contained
in the underlying District.
2. Lot Size. See Table 4.04, Residential Development Standards.
D. Building Coverage. Building coverage for a townhouse lot shall not exceed the following
standards:
1. R4 and R 4 -8 Districts: Sixty (60) percent building coverage;
2. R 6 -12 District: Seventy (70) percent building coverage;
3. All other Districts: Same as the underlying district.
E. Minimum Lot Width. Each individual townhouse lot shall have a minimum width as
follows:
1. R4 and R 4 -8 Districts: Eighteen (18) feet;
2. R 6 -12 Districts: Sixteen (16) feet;
3. All other Districts: See Tables 4.04 and 5.05.
F. Setback Requirements. Setback requirements for front yards and for side yards of end
dwelling units of townhouse structures shall be the same as the underlying district, except as
follows: For townhouse projects within property zoned R4, R 4 -8 and R 6 -12 the side yard of
each building shall be no less than ten (10) feet for buildings with three (3) or four (4) units and
five (5) feet for those with two (2) units.
G. Height. Same as the underlying district.
H. Parking. Townhouse developments shall provide off street parking pursuant to Chapter
18.38.
I. Residential Design Review Criteria and Garage Width. Townhouse developments shall
meet the Residential Design Criteria Section Chapter 18.175 and, if applicable, shall comply
with garage placement and width provisions of 18.04.060(EE), provided that such standards shall
be applied to the entirety of each building, and not to each dwelling unit.
Attachment D
SeaTac Townhouse Standards
15.19.710 Townhouse Standards
Intent: The townhouse zone serves to buffer low- density residential
neighborhoods from adjacent high- density residential or commercial
developments. Height, setback, and massing standards promote development
that fits well architecturally near existing single family houses, while allowing
densities that promote transit use, shared open space amenities, and a pedestrian
orientation in a vibrant urban environment.
The following design standards shall be applied to townhouse development in
conjunction with all other applicable multi- family standards identified in this
chapter.
A. Bulk and Dimensional Standards (see also SMC 15.13.010 Standards Chart).
MINIM MIN FRONT MIN MIN
UM YARD SETBACK SIDE REAR BUILDING MAX MIN
ZONE LOT (13) YARD YARD LOT STRUCTUR LOT
AREA SETBACK SETBAC COVERAGE E HEIGHT WIDTH
(SQ. (13) K (13)
FT.)
12 -24
d.u. /acre in 0710' in City 180'
City Center
(14) Center (16) 0'/5' (16) 0'/10'
55% frontage
35' (15) along
T d. /acre 15' outside of (16) primary
outside City
City Center street
Center (14)
(14) Up to thirty percent (30 increase in base density allowed with the
incentives identified in SMC 15.35.730.
(15) Up to forty (40) feet as specified in SMC 15.35.730.
(16) May be zero (0) lot line with approved design providing property is not
immediately adjacent to a UL zone.
1. Height. Townhouses shall have a maximum height of thirty -five (35) feet. An
additional five (5) feet of height may be allowed if sub -grade or underground
parking is provided for at least fifty percent (50 of the units.
2. Setbacks. The setbacks identified in SMC 15.13.010 shall apply to all
townhouse development.
3. Density.
a. Outside the City Center, townhouse density shall be a minimum of twelve
(12) dwelling units per acre up to a maximum of sixteen (16) dwelling p p g units
per acre. Increased density may be allowed per SMC 15.19.600.
b. Within the City Center, townhouse density shall be a maximum of twenty
four (24) units per acre. Increased density may be allowed per SMC 15.19.600.
B. Design Standards.
1. Roof Line Variation.
a. Roof pitch of at least six (6) feet of height for each twelve (12) linear feet of
roof shall be required for all townhouse development.
b. Additionally, at least two (2) of the following types of roof line variation shall
be required for all townhouse development:
i. Vertical offset in ridge line;
ii. Gables;
False facades;
iv. Exaggerated cornices;
v. Dormers;
vi. Vegetated terraces;
vii. Other architectural features such as trellises, cornices, portals or porches.
c. The maximum roof line length without variation shall not exceed thirty (30)
feet.
d. The minimum roof line variation length shall be four (4) feet for dormers and
eight (8) feet for all other types of variations.
C. Open Space. Open space shall be provided in townhouse development
according to the following standards:
1. Two hundred (200) square feet of private open space shall be provided for
each townhouse unit. Additionally, seventy -five (75) square feet of common
open space shall be provided for developments of three (3) or more units.
2. For developments within the City Center, open space may be as specified
above, or may be reduced to one hundred twenty (120) square feet of
common open space per unit.
D. Off street parking shall be provided in the rear of each unit via an alleyway
or drive separate from the street.
E. Front facades shall feature one -half (1/2) flight -up entries and front porches a
minimum of sixty (60) square feet in size.
F. Townhouse development shall be no less than one hundred and eighty (180)
lineal feet as measured along the primary street frontage. (Ord. 01 -1031 1;
Ord. 00 -1002 2)
15.19.400 Design of Surface and Structured Parking
Purpose: These standards are intended to provide for safety and aesthetic
considerations in surface and under building parking within multi- family
developments. (Ord. 01 -1031 1; Ord. 00 -1002 2)
15.19.700 Townhouse Zone
Purpose: This zone allows for townhouses, row houses or other common wall
residential buildings for more than two (2) families. Townhouses offer several
advantages over single- family detached houses: lower costs for land
development, conservation of the land by using less land for a given number of
houses and preserving open space, lower long -terms maintenance costs, energy
efficiency, and increased security for both the house and the neighborhood.
Townhouses, also known as row houses, are single- family attached units with
common (or "party walls. Townhouses generally have narrow lots, ranging
from twenty -two (22) to thirty -two (32) feet. Each unit has its own front door
opening to the outdoors (usually to the street), and typically each house is a
complete entity with its own utility connections. Although most townhouses
have no side yards, they can have front and rear yards. In most instances, the
land on which the townhouse is built, and any front and rear yard, is owned in
fee by the resident; however, townhouses can also be structured as
condominiums. (Ord. 01 -1031 1; Ord. 00 -1002 2)
Community Affairs and Parks Committee Meeting Minutes April 10. 2007 Pape 2
should not limit itself only to low -cost or "in- pond "solutions. He asked if we have looked at other potential
problems besides phosphorous. Ms. Whiting said she has examined bacteria loads but has not found a
problem. Also, she believes that the consultant will be looking at the best technical options for improving
the pond water quality. Councilmember Carter expressed support for the study and the concept of the pond
being a habitat rather than a place for people to swim. Mr. Pace offered to share the preliminary analysis in
September before all of the analysis is completed. UNANIMOUS APPROVAL. FORWARD TO COW.
As a related issue, the committee discussed the consultant selection for the Tukwila Pond Park design
Phase I that was discussed at the April 9, 2007 Council meeting. UNANIMOUS APPROVAL.
c) Code Amendments
SEPA
Nora Gierloff introduced this item. It would streamline the SEPA process and thresholds to eliminate
review or shorten timelines for smaller projects when environmental impacts are unlikely. Ms. Gierloff
referred to the table in the agenda report that compared Tukwila's thresholds to the State maximum and the
proposed. Mr. Pace noted that most buildings would go through a design review process. Mr. Lancaster
mentioned that with traffic concurrency and impact fee systems, we no longer rely on SEPA for mitigating
traffic impacts like we once did. Councilmember Robertson asked if these changes would reduce our ability
to control small infill developments on hillsides. Mr. Pace indicated that our sensitive areas ordinance
addresses steep slope sites and tree permits and other regulations still apply. Councilmember Carter asked
what would catch environmental issues like underground storage tanks? Mr. Pace and Ms. Whiting
explained that owners have a responsibility to disclose and often the lenders require the analysis. Mr.
Lancaster said that if an owner didn't disclose it, SEPA wouldn't have caught it anyway. Councilmember
Robertson asked how these changes would have affected the City's process on a previous Fosterview
development. Mr. Lancaster indicated that it would have had no effect on Fosterview,v, since that
development included more than 9 dwelling units. He acknowledged it might eliminate a source of
information that citizens are used to receiving on smaller residential developments (those between 4 and 9
units). He also noted that if any of the thresholds in the table are exceeded, SEPA is triggered, even if the
proposed development is below any of the other thresholds.. Councilmember Robertson expressed support
for the changes but also a desire to keep tools for the City to ensure the right kind of development.
UNANNIMOUS APPROVAL ON ALL CHANGES BUT KEEPING THE RESIDENTIAL
CONSTRUCTION THRESHOLD AT FOUR DWELLING UNITS INSTEAD OF THE PROPOSED
NINE. FORWARD TO COW.
TOWNHOUSES
Nora Gierloff introduced this item. It would change the Zoning Code to allow for development of fee
simple townhomes. Some changes, such as minimum lot area, average lot width, setbacks and landscaping,
would be necessary to allow fee simple townhouses since our development standards are based on a multi-
family garden apartment style. Other changes would be necessary to enable a development pattern and
density closer to the style of townhouses being built in other cities. One question is how prescriptive does
Tukwila want to be on open space, such as requiring decks or onsite playgrounds, etc. Another issue is how
to treat setbacks. The City's current tiered set -back standards may make development of fee simple
economically infeasible. Councilmember Robertson expressed concern about the effects of eliminating the
tiered set -back standards. Councilmember Carter emphasized that the design review process must address
all sides of a building, not just the front. Ms. Gierloff discussed the current 50% development coverage
limitation. Councilmember Robertson mentioned that using pervious surfaces (such as grasscrete) may be
needed to ensure the development's environmental impact is not greater than development under today's
standards. Councilmember Carter indicated this issue can be dealt with as the townhouse proposal goes
through the approval process. She also expressed an interest in fence height being included in the design
review process to minimize the amount of blank, high and solid walls facing the streets. FORWARD TO
COW FOR DISCUSSION AND DIRECTION.
HOUSEKEEPING
Nora Gierloff introduced this item on four amendments to the Zoning Code related to: permit processing,
limitation on additions to homes that do not meet setbacks, retaining wall setbacks, and administrative
variance for lot size. FORWARD TO PLANNING CONL IISSION.
COUNCIL AGENDA SYNOPSIS
A sti Initialr ITEM No.
1, I Meeting Date 1 Prepared by 1 Mayor's review 1 council review 1
,./1
+I'': t 5/14/07 7M I �1
Q1
s t *:1► f S/21/07 c
L
I 1 I 1
ITEM INFORMATION
CAS NUMBER: 0 I 0 r k, (ORIGLNAL AGENDA DATE: MAY 14, 2007
AGENDA ITEM TITLE Resolution in support of Integrated Roads Transit Plan.
CATEGORY Discussion Motion Resolution Ordinance Bid Award Public Hearing Other
Mtg Date 5/14/07 Mtg Date Mtg Date 5/21/07 Mtg Date Mtg Date Mtg Date Mtg Date:
SPONSOR Council Mayor Adm Svcs DCD Finance Fire Legal P &.R Police PIV
SPONSOR'S This Resolution will support the Integrated Roads Transit Plan which combines two plans,
SUMMARY the Sound Transit 2 plan, which would extend light rail to more than 60 miles and the RTID
(Regional Transportation Investment District's) "Blueprint for Progress" plan which proposes
investments in state highways, bridges, and local roads in the three county area. Tukwila will
directly benefit by the upgrading of the Sounder station, I -405 and SR -509 improvements.
REVIEWED BY COW Mtg. CA &P Cmte F &S Cmte Transportation Cmte
Utilities Cmte Arts Comm. Parks Comm. Planning Comm.
DALE: 4/23/07
RECOMMENDATIONS:
SPONSOR /ADMIN. Approve resolution.
CONLMITIEE Unanimous approval; forward to COW.
COST IMPACT FUND SOURCE
EXPENDITURE REQUIRED AMOUNT BUDGETED APPROPRIATION REQUIRED
$0.00 $0.00
Fund Source:
Comments:
1 MTG. DATE RECORD OF COUNCIL ACTION
5/14/07
5/21/07
MTG. DATE ATTACHMENTS
5/14/07 Information Memo dated April 18, 2007
Resolution
Transportation Committee Meeting Minutes from April 23, 2007
5/21/07
INFORMATION MEMO
To: Mayor Mullet
From: Public Works Director
Date: April 18, 2007
Subject: Integrated Roads Transit Plan
ISSUE
Formally support the Integrated Roads Transit Plan and pass the attached resolution.
BACKGROUND
The Integrated Roads Transit Plan will combine two plans:
The Sound Transit 2 plan, which would extend the region's light rail system to
more than 60 miles, create thousands of new Park and Ride slots, and expand bus
and commuter rail service; and
The RTID's (Regional Transportation Investment District's) "Blueprint for
Progress," which proposes investments in state highways, bridges, and local roads
in the three county area. The proposed projects will reduce congestion, ease
chokepoints, and improve safety.
At the March 20, 2007, SCATBd (South County Area Transportation Board) meeting,
Councilmember Patterson provided SCATBd with a summary of the Integrated Roads Transit
Plan, including justification for this package:
Highways are severely congested and aging.
Project costs keep increasing.
Goods must get delivered and people must get to work and home.
Population is growing at more than 50,000 per year for the next 20 years.
The joint plan provides roads and transit improvements in all major corridors of all three subareas
in King County, as well as throughout the three- county district. Tukwila would directly benefit
because the plans include improving the I- 405 /SR -167 Interchange, connecting SR -509 with I -5,
and upgrading the Sounder Station. More information can be found at www.rtid.org and
www.soundtransit.org (ST 2).
RECOMMENDATION
Formally support the Integrated Roads Transit Plan by passing the attached resolution.
attachment
(P:alice\TC 042307 Integrated Roads Transit Plan)
DRAFT
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TUKWILA, WASHINGTON, SUPPORTING THE ADOPTION OF
THE INTEGRATED ROADS AND TRANSIT PLAN DEVELOPED
BY THE REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION INVESTMENT
DISTRICT AND SOUND TRANSIT.
WHEREAS, Sound Transit is the designated provider of high capacity transit
infrastructure and services addressing regional public transportation needs in the Puget
Sound area; and
WHEREAS, the Regional Transportation Investment District is charged with
developing a transportation investment plan for improving highways and bridges with
significant traffic levels in the Puget Sound area; and
WHEREAS, the City of Tukwila will directly benefit from the proposed
improvement of the SR -167/I -405 interchange and the proposed improvements to the
Tukwila Station on Longacres Way; and
WHEREAS, the City Council believes an integrated, regional approach that invests
in both highway and transit improvement projects is essential for relieving congested
corridors, improving and maintaining the region's road system, and providing fast,
reliable mass transit that connects regional population and employment centers; and
WHEREAS, Sound Transit and the Regional Transportation Investment District
have worked jointly over the past year, developing the first -ever integrated set of
highway and transit improvements for the Puget Sound region;
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA,
WASHINGTON, HEREBY RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS:
The City Council declares its support of the adoption of the Integrated Roads and
Transit Plan developed by the Regional Transportation Investment District and Sound
Transit.
PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA, WASHINGTON,
at a Regular Meeting thereof this day of 2007.
ATTEST /AUTHENTICATED:
Verna Griffin, Council President
Jane E. Cantu, CMC, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORiV1 BY:
Filed with the City Clerk:
Passed by the City Council:
Office of the City Attorney Resolution Number:
C: \Documents and Settings \All Users Desktop Kelly \MSDATA Resolutions \Integrated Roads and Transit Plan.doc
GL:ksn 5/1/2007 Page 1 of 1
o`` City of Tukwila
Transportation Committee
1908
TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE
Meeting Minutes
April 23, 2007- 5:00 p.m.
PRESENT
Councilmembers: Pam Carter, Chair; Pam Linder and Verna Griffin (sitting in for Joe Duffie)
Absent: Joe Duffie (excused)
Staff: Jim Morrow; Frank Iriarte; Bob Giberson; Pat Brodin; Robyn Tischmak and
Kimberly Matej
CALL TO ORDER: Committee Chair Carter called the meeting to order at 5:05 p.m.
I. PRESENTATIONS
No presentations.
II. BUSINESS AGENDA
A. Resolution Supporting the Integrated Roads and Transit Plan
Jim Morrow presented the Committee with a resolution establishing the City's general support of
5ALII the adoption of the Integrated Roads and Transit Plan. This Plan was developed through the
collaborative efforts of the Regional Transportation District and Sound Transit. The Plan
provides an integrated set of highway and transit improvements for the Puget Sound region.
UNANLMOUS APPROVAL. FORWARD TO COW FOR DISCUSSION.
B. Tukwila International Blvd Phases 2 3 Road Improvements Right-of-Way/Condemnation
Ordinance
In order to move forward on Tukwila International Boulevard Phase 2 and 3 Road Improvements
certain properties /parcels in the area require right -of -way or easements.
Although it is highly unlikely that any parcel will require condemnation, due to time constraints,
the establishment of this ordinance will prepare the City to begin the condemnation proceedings
for any parcel which is not acquired through the negotiation process.
This process was utilized in Phase 1 of the same project and the City did not need to condemn
any property. If the City were to wait to establish this ordinance until after negotiations with
property owners, the time consuming condemnation proceedings could cause a delay in the
project. Another advantage of establishing this process beforehand is that is assists the City in
negotiations with the property owners. UNANIMOUS APPROVAL. FORWARD TO COW
FOR DISCUSSION.
C. 2007 First Ouarter Report
2007 First Quarter Reports were reviewed for the Public Works Department.
Committee Chair Carter complimented Public Works for completion of Budget Program Goals,
Equipment Rental, Performance, No. 1, almost three months in advance of the originally stated
date. LNFORMATION ONLY.
w COUNCIL AGENDA SYNOPSIS
LA
90 ti'', Initials ITEM NO.
�1� 1 e Meeting Date 1 Prepared by I Mayor's review Co Y review
i �i' f t I 5/14/07 I RT n cso"^^A 4) 1
1 EN
5/21/07 I u I 1 44s
ITEM INFORMATION
CAS NUMBER: 01.. 0 0 I ORIGINAL AGENDA DATE: MAY 14, 2007
AGENDA ITEM TITLE Bid Award for 2007 Annual Overlay Repair Program
CATEGORY Discussion 1tilotion Resolution Ordinance Bid Award Public Hearing Other
Mtg Date 5/14/07 Mtg Date Mtg Date Mtg Date Aftg Date 5/21/07 Altg Date Mtg Date:
SPONSOR Council Mayor Adm Svcs DCD Finance Fire Legal P &R Police PW
SPONSOR'S This project will provide roadway repairs and overlays on city street segments. The
SUMMARY project was advertised on April 19 and 26, 2007 and five bids were opened on May 4.
The low bid of $406,048.25 was from Lakeridge Paving Company. All references
contacted provided positive recommendations for Lakeridge's work.
REVIEWED BY COW Mtg. CA &P Cmte F &S Cmte Transportation Cmte
Utilities Cmte Arts Comm. Parks Comm. Planning Comm.
DAZE: 5/14/07
RECOMMENDATIONS:
SPONSOR /ADMIN. Award contract to the lowest bidder, Lakeridge Paving Company.
COMMITTEE presented to TC on 5/14/07.
COST IMPACT/ FUND SOURCE
EXPENDITURE REQUIRED AMOUNT BUDGETED APPROPRIATION REQUIRED
$406,048.25 $750,000.00
Fund Source: 104 Commercial Streets (page 42, 2007 CIP)
Comments:
MTG. DATE RECORD OF COUNCIL ACTION
5/14/07
5/21/07
MTG. DATE ATTACHMENTS
5/14/07 Information Memo dated May 8, 2007
Map
Bid Tabulation
Recommendation letter from KPG
(Presented to Transportation Committee same night 5/14/07)
5/21/07
1
INFORMATION MEMO
To: Mayor Mullet
From: Public Works Director
Date: May 8, 2007
Subject: 2007 Annual Overlay Repair Program
Project No. 07 -RWO1
Bid Award
ISSUE
Award the bid for construction of the 2007 Annual Overlay Repair Program.
BACKGROUND
This project will provide roadway repairs and overlays on the following street segments:
Site 1 S 158 St, 44 Ave S, S 156 St, 47 Ave S (The Loop east of 42n Ave S)
Site 2 48 Ave S, S 136 St, 48 P1 S (Triangle) (East of Macadam Road)
Site 3 34 P1 S, S 141' St, 33 P1 S (S 140 St to 34 Ave S)
The project was advertised for bids on April 19 and 26 and bids were opened May 4, 2007. Five bids were
received with the low bid of $406,048.25 from Lakeridge Paving Company. The engineer's estimate was
$426,197.00.
ANALYSIS
The bids were reviewed and no errors or irregularities were found in the lowest bid. Lakeridge has successfully
worked for the City on past projects.
BUDGET AND BID SUMMARY
Bid Results Estimate Budget
Construction (2007 Overlay) 406,048.25 426,197.00 750,000.00
Contingency (10 40.605.00 42.620.00 0.00
Total 446.6.53.25 X468.817.00 $750.000.00.
Note: The Boeing Access Road East Marginal Way Intersection Paving project will open bids on May 11,
2007. If awarded, that project will utilize the remaining funds shown above.
RECOMMENDATION
Award the construction bid for the 2007 Overlay Program to Lakeridge Paving Company in the amount of
$406,048.25.
attachment: Vicinity Map, Bid Tabulation, and Award Recommendation Letter
(P.Proj c& A- RW RS Pr jea.' Overlay Award Info Memo)
o 0 a r
v
al 1 i o-
ii 4 Q S 124 St �j
q
`O �q g� mss: S 126 St N D� 0� 4 �/a 4
v, j__ S 127 St S 128 St \e o� 6�
4 I Q r
w S 128 St599 V e �J
s D 13 Std Q.* �a
Mine 5 131 St 1 V°
Nig
m Specialty icc,...3 )11h6.1 2 Q D C S� t.,, S 3.
m v.``32 N o St J' 5 h b
v, I P S q X) t.? a e,
S133St 5 QS
-o ro
C`3,-,13<> N b cil C r N CO 2 a/
k D< r 3 o 4.-) N F'oste e t t `n ro S 1 36St -c, S
S 135 St I N` N y Got
D 5 St '.1110 ,q7 q C
IS 1'36 v N A— 7 St y
t S1137 St N 0 D D S 1 3 �g 5 139 St P S
S ti
o N w S 138 St v) N _s_•.
St a S'� I IS 144. Vi
N D 4.
I g CV N S t
:S1 44 S t
et) f0 ft) n) s fS 141 St A q 3 w S
V) -�tt� D N N 9 UI
40 St ti °'G 1 S 142 St I N D Lrl
.0 v)
1� v1
S 142 St D V.' ro S `n 21 Pt
1D D
5X142 14 144 S t 3 ro
I v, RPl II:v.)
S 144 St
n
Q ro .v S146St row 3 N
T S
1 i N�� D
ro ro
S 146St v v S148St ,N D 5 S149St1
S1148 St
S150St
�S 150 St,
-n {v o S 151 St
S 150 St I
8 S 151 St Lo S 152
S 1 St
I S ?St g
v, 44. w
co
154 St s a N� o S18 it
1 cwnm J .n A
St ---1 w w� y v' -o
.c w t w
i a
C ll rp
S V) G N V �S 158St
1 I' av D 160
3
:s: .A S 161 t� St
:39.29'39 S -...1 S 160 St i D D S 162 -fQ
f' 1 t P S v v's 163 y
e t c n ry
o_ tZt CO o f
S 164 St -°s"
Z D
2007 OVERLAY PROJECTS
k^�2Za Vicinity
9 s C o
4 r
Janua 17 1 2 00 7 M a
d
1 190 mss' 4
V 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 0 0 0 0 88 O O O O O O N
D D D o o 0 u j N O N Op N c N O 0 0 0 0 6 0 0° 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 M 0 0 1 61
Al :a 0 0i O O O O O t(1 l O N Q uO c0 c� 0 7 7 EA fA to to O yj o 0 N o p ,i O h 69 f U N 7 N N N N N A c. 6 V) n C Ti N n o O 0
O 0 3 O a 6 Hi
2 O 0 O o O O O
1
U 0 OO O O O O O O O° a a 0 O O p
N O O
69 0 69 69 i
qO O
o r I 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 o 0 0 o 0 0 0 0 o O 0 0 0 o 8 0 0 0 0 0 o O o O o O 0
Z p .O O O O O N O N o IN„, N N O N N 0 u N Q cV o N: O O N 8 U°) c 0° 0 N O 8 O 8 8 6 o 7 03
:3 U N uj o W b! E 9 P M U 3 f fA M o O 0 69 t9 ^M b9 F9 J
0 69 69 69
s o A i.
m o o 6 n °o
co u, °m c°7 c o °p 000 o o 0 0
o o 0 0 0 8 0 0 o 0 0 o
o o° o 0 0 o N 6 o 0 0 0 00 6
U' O O O N co 0° 6 N Q CO N co O N N o o n CO N 0 0 7 Q) m N N O O O N c O 1`
N N. t0 64 a 0 N9 N 0 N N G i c0 n N a 69 6 0 9 69 0 0 o N 7, 69 69 0
t9 a• W i1
:7-....,_ U3 0 4i 6 F9 c9 c9 U3
p« :.y 0 0 0 0 (9 6 0 0 8 ni n c9 o a 0 0 O. O v8.889 O 000.0 O
c 0 0 0 o N o 0 n 0 O N m 0 0 cp O N O° m Q O H3 M 0 0
D :0 p o 0
w t0 H Ui di c0 c9 t9 o t9 o V 0 0 0 9 0 0 0 69 0 0
X00 0 1
o o° 8 0 0 0 0 0 o o° o° o 88 o O o I i of
0o. 0°0000000o 0 O °O o 0 00800 0 0
0 0 c) o N o o O O o O
a o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0. c'- o 0 p o 0 0 0 0 0
1 3 O O _U� oo 0 0 o N 2 o oo o c m o 0 0 t o o o cl p O .6 •u• in Q m o or 6 0
a 1 1
'a
0 0 0 o d o p o o d o 0 0 o° 0 0 0 o o o o 00 0 00
N o 0 0 o o 0 p p o O p O o o, O° O O o
o
g
J U O N O 0 O 0 N M 0 o 0 0 0 Cr o N 0 6 O N f9 o O V O c0 N fA N O P N m M 6 0
O c9 f9 0 f9 0 0 Vi 0 Yi W N 0
I
R y
J 1 0 0 0 o 0 c°0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0.. 0 0 0 O o 0
1J H 0 0 0 x 0 0 0 0 IO o o N 0 0 O 0 O O G i O O.:O� O O m O 0 o m 6) o O N c7 0 :0 O N N O C O N O O N N O O 0 0 O
U OO co o 0 om a i9 N m O m c l o i 01 CO 'O c
l
0 N w 0 w N 6 v bc
7 v) w 6 i9 m M en H 6 0 0 0 0 w 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 w w
0 9
o O o o 00060066. o 1
a °o 0 O 0 0 0 o o p o 8 0 0 0 0 0 p p p p
0 0 c0 O o Q° O O o P) n O O O O 0 0 0 O N O O o0 0
O p° O o N,- O c0 O c V 6 N O u> 0 u) N 6 0 NpON 0 N O N O N 0 0 0 p p 0
j o O t n N N 0 0 0 0 K N 0 0 0 o O N 0 f9 p O
1 0000000066006600000000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O O 0000, O O a a CV O O o 06906- C 0 N m c9 [9 CO 0 N (0 0 0 0 0) P 69 m u 0 N 0 O
E q -W N 0 6 N 0 0 7 c0 0 N 6 0 6- 0 0 6- c0 0 0 N N m 0 0 or p:0 ui
F 8
w 0 V) 0 0 0 0 c9 0 69 0 0 0 to 0 0 0 e9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 e9 69 o O O n m c0 n 0 O n n N O O O 8 N N 0 w "w v9 0 t9 o 0 0 0 0 w 69 <9 ea e9 CV
iii
F4 0 CI c0 LL' c9 LL LL 0 Y} 2 2 2 2 2 LL a a J W J III W W J U W W W 0 J J LL 01
0 a a LL LL 2 J c9 0 J J J J 0 c9 'r 'r U H H 1- J 69 LL ID I W I i
0.1
0
o m 6 O o o m
:-.Z o `n6 oo o `N m'D8°o oc om oNc0'- 0 c o n cc o n 0 .1i
Q m m N
0
F
S 5
c C o> C
C m
0 0 0 8
i 2 c a 0- y m 0 N E L o a 0 o
o o _c o m o a
nl E U o d u.- E- x a U U N h N o m 6
co o 0 o m o co o c° m o u v c v o oa 697 x
c p V 1- fl U U c U U 0 m I- <o co u o a c c
O u r°° BBB o z o m c E m c a o c W a w a w o r V o Q n .n r0 o c c_ g
o N a 5 `o 699 n v n a P, 'o u° ca N N c c y u E a (-0 -.5 m e 2 061 669 c m J
J C o E c¢ 0 a o U W 0 co a n t 0 n m r 3 2 3 `0 2 5 w u o` o n n G o o
S i c O 0 9 69 C w o.2 0 41 cu U o u il C n 9 E 1x
o m- .N o c j o o o E o U m@ m G 3 c m o c -LL u o o O
a Q '0 >09 o f m w n 5 0 2 o f
LL m °w o o E E E E E o y c m m u o c° y 0 n
O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 2 2 2 o o a C) 2 0 a s o
3 f. o w 2wc cc cc cccc m ooa.i�__a_ aoa c000<ccco3 a a,,, ceaaaamwa In
w q a °I 0 G I T o o. o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 7' V. 0 0 0 0 o 0 o N N c;+ o o
F 2 r a C I 0 Z N. 0 N N N N N N N cN N V Q n u) u7 N 10 c0 n m m O n n n n N c n V co co 0 co 6 9 of c0 I 1
F W p C a Z 0 N N P m c0 n 0 l7i O 7 N c•) P N 0 n cp W O 7 c9 P C y N N N N 2 (0 <7,222228 O c',3 2 'I
U O N 0 m C 0) 0 F Ce
MPG 7539th Avenue North
Seattle, WA 98109
Fax 1 206.286.1639
SEATTLE TACOMA phone 1 206.286.16-10
ENGINEERS
ARCHITECTS
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS
SURVEYORS
May 9, 2007
RECEIVED
Mr. Robin Tischmak, P.E. MAY 9 2007
Project Manager TUKWILA
City of Tukwila Public Works PUBLIC WORKS
Tukwila, WA 98188
Re: 2007 Overlay Program
Project No. 07 -RW01
Recommendation for Contract Award
Dear Robin:
We have reviewed the projects and references submitted by Lakeridge
Paving Company, LLC for the referenced project. All references checked
indicated that Lakeridge Paving Company has done a good job on roadway
overlay and repair projects.
We are therefore recommending that the City award Project No 07 -RWO1
entitled 2007 Overlay Program to Lakeridge Paving Company. Please call
me at (206) 267 -1052 if you should have any questions or require further
information.
Sinc -rely
Nelson Davis, PE
Principal
COUNCIL AGENDA SYNOPSIS
s ITEM No.
O tit
k ti C+� Meeting Date Prepared by I Mayor's review 1 Council review 1
a. so= 04/23/07 1 J W-Vri 1- 1
05/07/07 1 3 lin svvv 1 Al 1
05/14/07 1 c vvvv 1 W
v r
ITEM INFORMATION
1CAS NUMBER: 07-051 I ORIGINAL AGENDA DATE: APRIL 23, 2007
AGENDA ITEM TITLE Emergency Management Issues
CATEGORY Discussion Motion Resolution Ordinance Bid Award Public Hearing Other
illtg Date 05/14/07 Mtg Date 05/21/07 Mtg Date Mtg Date Mtg Date Mtg Date Mtg Date:
SPONSOR Council Mayor Adm Svcs DCD Finance Fire Legal P&R Police PW/
SPONSOR'S A status update that addresses identified emergency management deficiencies which
SUMMARY includes a brief description of the deficiency, the proposed corrective action, and the cost
to implement over a four -year period. Deficiencies include standby generators for City
facilities, DERT trailers for First Responders and a public shelter, a full -time staff position,
improved public information, a permanent EOC, and traffic signal backups.
REVIEWED BY COW ivltg. CA &P Cmte F &S Cmte Transportation Cmte
Utilities Cmte Arts Comm. Parks Comm. Planning Comm.
DATE: 04/16/07
RECOMMENDATIONS:
SPONSOR /ADMIN.
Ca-ND/In-FEE Unanimous approval; forward to COW for discussion.
COST IMPACT FUND SOURCE
EXPENDITURE REQUIRED AMOUNT BUDGETED APPROPRIATION REQUIRED
$6,209,000.00 $0.00 $0.00
Fund Source:
Comments:
MTG. DATE 1 RECORD OF COUNCIL ACTION
04/23/07 1 Requested a presentation at the 5/7/07 Council meeting.
1
05/07/07 Forward to 5/14/07 Committee of the Whole Meeting 1
MTG. DATE ATTACHMENTS
05/07/07 Information Memo dated 5/1/07 from Director of Emergency Management
Information Memo dated 4/11/07 from Finance Director
05/14/07 Revised Information Memo dated 5/8/07 to correct figures on Pg 6 from Director of Emergency Mgmt
Information Memo dated 5/9/07 from Public Works Director and Finance Director
INFORMATIONAL MEMORANDUM
To: Mayor Mullet
From: Director of Emergency Management
Date: May 8, 2007
Subject: Emergency Preparedness Are We Ready?
ISSUE:
Prepare a prioritized list of emergency preparedness needs.
BACKGROUND:
In today's world, emergencies and disasters take many forms, including natural disasters,
technological and infrastructure failures, terrorist attacks, and health emergencies such as
pandemic disease outbreaks. A well planned and implemented response is vital to the safety and
well -being of Tukwila's citizens; an ineffective response, on the other hand, threatens our First
Responder Team, our citizens and their property, and can exacerbate damages to the City and its
economy.
Over the past three years, the City has had to respond to a variety of events: four flooding events,
typical winter storms, and a severe windstorm. Overall the City has done an excellent job in
planning, responding, and recovering from these events. The City has been lucky because the
events have been relatively short- termed and the First Responder Team (Police, Fire and Public
Works) has been able to handle the incidents. However, the City is unprepared for a sustained,
major disaster that would require full mobilization of its emergency management organization.
DISCUSSION:
Since the official establishment of Tukwila's Emergency Management Program in May 2003,
after action reports and end -of -year program status reports have consistently identified a number
of issues that should be addressed if the City is to be better prepared. What follows is a status
update that addresses identified needs to include a brief description of the need, the proposed
corrective action, and the cost (personnel and dollars) to implement.
Corrective Actions Completed To Date
1. Designated an Emergency Management Director
2. All Hazards Emergency Management Plan has been written (Before NIMS).
3. Created an Emergency Operations Center Golf Maintenance Facility.
4. EOC Operations Manual written (Before NIMS)
5. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has recertified Tukwila's 205 Levee System.
6. Authorized a CERT Training Position.
7. Increased the Emergency Management Budget from 50,000 to 100,000.
8. Draft Emergency Communication Plan prepared.
Emergency Preparedness Are We Ready? Page 2 of 2
Existing Issues
Traffic Signal Backup:
The City has been installing battery backup capability at key intersections. The batteries will
last approximately 2 -hours when the signals are in a full- operational mode and up to 10-
hours when placed in a flashing mode. During sustained power outages, these batteries must
be replaced and recharged on a regular basis.
Issue: Having sufficient battery backup capability for operating traffic signals at major
intersections.
Corrective Action: Additional batteries and a separate charging system.
Cost: $10,000
Public Shelter Capability:
It is the responsibility of local government to provide emergency shelter and temporary
housing for disaster victims within its own capabilities, and to request and facilitate the
implementation of shelter assistance provided by private relief agencies and other state and
federal programs. Emergency shelters should have the capability to address the needs of the
general population and the high -risk population. Six sites within the City have been
identified as potential shelter areas 5 schools and the Tukwila Community Center.
Issue: Having sufficient resources to open a 100 person, City- sponsored shelter. Sixteen
(16) trained personnel needed for each 8 -hour operational shift. (Does not include
security personnel).
Corrective Action: Purchase a self contained Disaster Emergency Response Trailer
(DERT). Have a pool of trained personnel need approximately 200 trained people
(City employees and volunteers) in order to get the 48 people needed for each 24 -hour
period.
Cost: DERT costs $100,000. Supplies must be rotated on an annual basis annual
maintenance costs are approximately $10,000 $15,000.
First Responder Support:
It is the responsibility of the City to provide medical assistance, shelter, food, water, and
commodities for emergency response personnel throughout the duration of the incident.
Also, if the First Responders are to be able to concentrate on their jobs, they need to know
that their families are safe Safe Home is a program that relieves that worry.
Issue: Having sufficient resources to care for, shelter and feed 100 response and recovery
personnel over a sustained period. Shelter operations will need ten trained people for
each 8 -hour operational shift. In addition the Safe Home Program needs to be
implemented.
Emergency Preparedness Are We Ready? Page 3 of 3
Corrective Action: Purchase a self contained DERT for First Responders (which would
be separate from the Public Shelter DERT). Implement Safe Home.
Cost: DERT costs $100,000. Supplies must be rotated on an annual basis annual
maintenance costs are approximately $10,000- $15,000.
Improved Public Information:
Successfully preparing for and responding to a disaster relies heavily upon keeping the public
informed. The first responsibility in an emergency is to minimize injury to people and
damage to property. The second responsibility is the general day -to -day public information
as to what is being done to protect their welfare, training offered, and their responsibility in
times of an emergency.
Issue: Communicating with the public and keeping the public informed.
Corrective Action: Electronic reader boards permanently installed at every City facility.
Establish an information center. Consistent messages /updates provided to the radio
stations used by the School District. Establish an employee call -in line (Done). Establish
a citizen call -in line to inform the public if City facilities are open. Establish a phone
bank for residents /citizens to call seeking information and to report problems. Capability
to go door -to -door to deliver emergency public health messages messages must be
translated into many languages.
Cost: $150,000 for reader boards. Costs and staffing requirements are unknown for the
other improvement suggestions. Requires a pool of personnel (employees and
volunteers) to man the telephones and deliver the messages.
Adeauacv of Citv Facilities:
Restoring City services will depend upon City facilities being able to function during an
emergency event.
1. Standby Power:
Issue: City's capability to provide essential services is strained. Nine key facilities have
limited or no power backup systems.
Corrective Action: Install backup generators at all key City facilities.
Cost: City Hall: 380,000 Fire Sta 51: 180,000
6300 Bldg: 280,000 Fire Sta 52: 145,000
TCC: 370,000 Fire Sta 53: 123,000
Minkler Shop: 255,000 Fire Sta 54: 116,000
George Long: $150,000
Emergency Preparedness Are We Ready? Page 4 of 4
Earthquake Resistance:
a. City Facilities
Issue: A number of key City facilities are unable to withstand an earthquake.
Corrective Action: Study underway to ascertain capability and what is needed to bring
key facilities up to code.
Cost: TBD
b. Bridges
Issue: Of the 21 city owned bridges, 11 are seismically deficient and 7 should be either
retrofitted or replaced.
Corrective Action: Note: a prioritized list has been established. Number 1 priority is
Boeing Access Rd Bridge (over UPRR BNSF railroads). Concentrate resources on
retrofitting/replacing the deficient bridges.
Cost: Fixing the No. 1 priority City cost estimated at 3,000,000; Federal share is
12,000,000.
Full -time Staffing for Emergencv Management Program:
Since 9/11 and the creation of the Department of Homeland Security, preparing for an
emergency has been a top priority within the United States. The federal government has
mandated that local governments create and implement long lasting emergency management
programs that have the capability to meet and respond to any situation. This directive has
created a tremendous workload upon City staff.
1. Staffing
Issue: City does not have any full -time, dedicated emergency management staff.
Corrective Action: Hire a full -time Emergency Management Coordinator
Cost: Annual expense is 80,000.
2. Plan Preparation
Issue: Existing plans need to be updated for NIMS compliance Comprehensive
Emergency Management Plan; EOC Operations Manual. Need to perform the federally
mandated Hazard Identification, Vulnerability, and Risk Assessment; and Hazard
Mitigation Plan.
Emergency Preparedness Are We Ready? Page 5 of 5
Corrective Action: Staff time is the limiting factor. Hire a full -time Emergency
Management Coordinator that will report to the Director of Emergency Management.
Cost: None. Previously identified staff position needed.
Ememencv Operations Center (EOC):
Coordination of emergency response and recovery operations, and development of plans and
strategies should occur in a location that is large enough for the organization to come
together during the incident. The City has identified over 40 individual functions /positions
that will be needed. An effective, safe workspace that includes interoperable
communications and telecommunications capability is just as important as clear operating
procedures, staff roles, and responsibilities.
1. Permanent EOC
Issue: Inadequate sized EOC located at the Golf Maintenance Shop. Cannot
accommodate all of the anticipated personnel needed to manage a disaster event.
Corrective Action: Build a permanent EOC behind the 6300 Building.
Cost: Design and Construction 750,000.
2. EOC Communications
Issue: VRM capability for the Police and Fire Departments.
Corrective Action: Install two (2) VRM's in the EOC
Cost: $20,000
RECOMMENDATION:
The First Responder Team and the Finance Safety Committee recommend addressing the
identified issues in the following prioritized /phased approach:
Year 1 Estimated Cost
Standby Generator for Fire Station 53 123,000
Standby Generator for Fire Station 52 145,000
Standby Generator for City Hall 380,000
First Responder Support 100,000
Standby Generator for Fire Station 54 116,000
Finance and Safety Committee recommends the following additions:
Full -time Staff Position 80,000
Emergency Preparedness Are We Ready? Page 6 of 6
Improved Public Information (partial) 50.000
Total: S 994.000
Year 2 Estimated Cost
Standby Generator for George Long Bldg. 150,000
Standby Generator for Community Center 370,000
*Permanent Staff Position $80,000
Standby Generator for 6300 Building 280.000
Finance and Safety Committee recommends that the Permanent Staff Position be
accelerated to Year 1.
Cost of permanent staff position not included in total
Total: S 800.000
Year 3 Estimated Cost
Standby Generator for Minkler Shop 255,000
Standby Generator for Fire Station 51 180,000
*Improved Public Information 100,000
City- Sponsored Public Shelter Capability 100,000
Permanent EOC with communications 770,000
Traffic Signal Backup 10,000
Finance and Safety Committee recommends accelerating a portion ($50,000) of the
Improved Public Information initiative.
*Total cost for Year 3 does not include the full cost of the improved public information
initiative.
Total: $1.415.000
Year 4 Estimated Cost
Replace Boeing Access Rd Bridge 53.000.000
Recurrinn Annual Costs
Full -time Staff Position $80,000
Replenish supplies for First Responder Support $15,000
Replenish supplies for City- Sponsored Public Shelter $15,000
INFORMATION MEMO
To: Mayor Mullet
City Council members
tf
From: Jim Morrow, Public Works Director
Kevin A. Fuhrer, Finance Director
Date: May 9, 2007
Subject: Emergency Management Year 1 Initiatives
Following the direction received from Mayor Mullet at the May 7, 2007 regular
council meeting, we have met to review and discuss in greater detail the anticipated
Year 1 implementation issues from an operational and financial perspective. The
standby generators, first responder support, full -time staff position and improved
public information components are each discussed separately below.
Standby Generators
We will need to retain the services of a consultant for the design work. It is
anticipated that a period of two (2) months will elapse from the point at which a
Request for Proposal (RFP) is prepared to awarding a contract.
The estimated cost of design for the four (4) city facilities is $125,000 and it
should be noted that the costs of generator installation previously discussed did
not include design costs.
Upon letting the consultant contract, the design work should be reasonably
completed within a 4 -month timeframe. A call for construction bids will likely
be advertised in November/December 2007 with a construction contract award
expected in January/February 2008. Final installation for the four (4) facilities
should be completed in July /August 2008.
First Responder Support
The self contained Disaster Emergency Response Trailer (DERT) will likely be
purchased from the same manufacturer that the American Red Cross utilizes. It
is anticipated that the $100,000 DERT will be fully placed into service by year-
end 2007. This may require Council approval for a sole- source purchase.
Full -Time Staff Position
As noted at the May 7, 2007 council meeting, budget capacity is available in the
2007 adopted budget for a .5 Full -Time Equivalent (FTE) Emergency
Management Coordinator. In consultation with the Administrative Services
Director, the soonest a final hiring can be completed is January 2008.
Improved Public Information (Partial)
As a start, electronic reader boards will be installed along with back -up
generators at the three (3) fire stations. It is estimated that the $50,000 identified
should be sufficient and will be included in the standby generator project in 2008.
ANALYSIS
The total Year 1 estimated costs identified in our May 7 review amounted to
$994,000. Given the work plan discussed above, we anticipate 2007 expenditures
in the order of $225,000 to $275,000.
Potential funding options have been narrowed to issuing bonds, utilizing annual
excess resources, or a combination thereof. Considering the type and size of
expenditures anticipated in 2007, we recommend utilization of excess resources.
Furthermore future implementation costs for 2008 and beyond should be allocated
within the 2008 -2013 Financial Planning Model and Capital Improvement Program
with funding decisions determined in conjunction with development of the 2008
Annual Budget.
As a follow -up to the question of non -voted debt capacity, a total of $34,646,060
remains as of December 31, 2006. Applying the 75% policy limit, the amount is
reduced to $25,984,545.
In closing we look forward to further discussion of this topic on May 14, 2007.
Tentative Agenda Schedule
MONTH MEETING 1- MEETING 2 MEETING 3 MEETING 4
REGULAR C.O.W. REGULAR C.O.W.
May 7 14 21 29 (Tuesday)
28th Special Presentation Special Issues:
Memorial Day See agenda packet Foster High School Tukwila Int'I. Blvd.
(City offices closed) cover sheet for this Experience Academy Phases 2 3
week's agenda recycling project Improvements
(May 14, 2007 Proclamation: right -of -way/
Committee of the Whole condemnation
meeting). Designatin ordinance
May 20-26, 2007
as National
Public Works Week
Bid Award:
2007 Overlay Project
Unfinished Business:
Authorize
acceptance of
printing quote
for 200,000 new
Seattle Southside
Vacation Planners
Mini park acqui-
sition (S. 133rd St)
Resolution
supporting the
Integrated Roads
Transit Plan
Emergency
management issues
June 4 11 18 25
Unfinished Business:
Tukwila Int'L Blvd.
Phases2 &3
Improvements
right -of -way/
condemnation
ordinance
Tukwila Village
update (Ron Sher,
Metrovation)
July 2 9 16 23
4"
Independence Day
(City offices closed)
30th COMLMIITTEE OF THE
Fifth Monday of the WHOLE NI=ING TO BE
month —no Council FOLLOWED BY A
meeting scheduled
SPECIAL MEELING
Upcoming Meetings Events
MAY 2007
14th (Monday) 15th (Tuesday) 16th (Wednesday) 17th (Thursday) 18th (Friday) 19th (Saturday)
Transportation National Police Crime Hot Spots Domestic Special Residential
Cmte, Officers Memorial Task Force Mtg., Violenc Recycling Event
5:00 PM Day Ceremony 10:00 AM Task Force, 9:00 Am 3:00 PM
(CR 01) 10 :00 t u (CR 05) 12:00 NOON Tukwila Village site at
To be held at (CR the comer of S. 144th
>CivilService the flag pole at Parks St. 41st Ave. S.
Commission, City Hall Commission, (one block west of
5:00 PM 5:30 PM Foster High School)
(CR #3) (Community
1, Center) Tukwila Library
9 City Council Open Forum
Committee of the r Library Advisory Community Meeting
Whole Mtg., Board, 6:00 PM
7 :00 PM 7:00 PM (Tukwila Library)
(Council Community (Foster Library) Come share your ideas!
Chambers) Affairs Parks
Cmte, 111' (t €fIF �iFEt�
5:OO 1 'ae
i
II
(CR 03)
MA l�IIFI,
li ELLS >�d
SUNDAY, MAY 20
Rainier Symphony
Pops!
"A Tribute to
John Williams"
plus Gershwin's
"American in Paris"
3:00 PM
Foster Performing
Arts Center
Sponsored in part by the
Tukwila Arts Commission
21st (Monday) 22nd (Tuesday) 23rd (Wednesday) 24th (Thursday) 25th (Friday) 26th (Saturday)
Finance Safety Utilities Cmte, COPCAB, Planning Highway 99
Cmte, 5:00 PM 6:30 PM Commission, Trash Pickup Day
5:00 PM (CR #1) (CR #5) 7:00 PM
(CR #3) (Council 9:00 10:00 AM
Chambers) For location call
Donna at
City Council 206 -242 -5556
Regular Mtg.,
7:00 PM
to (Council S l
Chambers)
May 14 through 25: Free disposal passes for Tukwila residents available for pickup at City Hall.
F Passes will be valid for use at Bow Lake Transfer Station May 18 through 28 ONLY.
Arts Commission: 1st Tues., 5:00 PM, Tukwila Community Center. Contact Bruce Fletcher a 206 -767 -2343.
City Council Committee of Whole (C.O.W.) Meeting: 2nd 4th Mon., 7:00 PM, Council Chambers at City Hall.
City Council Regular Meeting: 1st 3rd Mon., 7:00 PM, Council Chambers at City Hall.
Civil Service Commission: 2nd Mon., 5:00 PM, Conf. Room 0'3. Contact Bev Willison at 206 433 -1844.
i Community Affairs Parks Committee: 2nd 4th Tues., 5:00 PM, Conf. Room 03. Agenda items for 5/15/07 meeting:
(A) 2008 application for Minor Home Repair. (B) Park and Open Space Plan agreement. (C) Macadam Winter Garden bid award
(D) Foster Golf Course concession agreement. (E) Parks Division staff reorganization.
COPCAB (Community Oriented Policing Citizens Adv. Board): 4th Wed., 6:30 PM, Conf. Rm #5. Police Dept. at 206 433 -7175
Crime Hot Spots Task Force: 3rd Wed., 10:00 AM, Conf. Room 05. Contact Police Department at 206- 433 -7175.
Domestic Violence Task Force: 3rd Thurs., 12:00 Noon, Conf. Room 05. Contact Evie Boykan or Stacy Hansen at 206 -433 -7180.
Finance Safety Committee: 1st 3rd Mon., 5:00 PM, Conf. Room 03.
>Highway 99 Action Committee: 2nd Tues., 7:00 PM, Tukwila Community Center. Contact Chief Dave Haynes at 206 -433 -1812.
Library Advisory Board: 3rd Wed., 7:00 PM, Foster Library. Contact Bruce Fletcher at 206 767 -2343
Parks Commission: 3rd Wed., 5:30 PM, Senior Game Room at Community Center. Contact Bruce Fletcher at 206 767 -2343.
Planning Commission/Board of Architectural Review: 4th Thurs., except 2nd Thursday in Nov. Dec., 7:00 PM,
Council Chambers at City Hall. Contact Wynetta Bivens at 206-431-3670
Sister City Committee: 1st Wed., 5:30 PM, Conf. Room #3. Contact Bev Willison at 206- 433 -1844
Transportation Committee: 2nd 4th Mon., 5:00 PM, Conf. Room #1. Agenda items for 5/14/07 meeting: (A) Tukwila Urban Center
Signal Interconnect ITS Project consultant supplemental agreement No. 2. (B) 2007 Annual Overlay Repair Program bid award
(C) Boeing Access Road/E. Marginal Way Intersection Paving bid award (D) Street vacations for the Link Light Rail Project.
Utilities Committee: 1st 3rd Tues., 5:00 PM, Conf. Room 01.