The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutPermit 91-03-APRD - LESCHI TRADING COMPANY - HAWKINS PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT / SHORT PLATPermit 91-03-APRD - LESCHI TRADING COMPANY - HAWKINS PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT / SHORT PLAT 91-3-APRD EPIC-14-91 S 144TH ST / MACADAM RD S November 30, 1993 Mr. Harold Chesnin Court in the Square 401 Second Avenue South Seattle, WA 98104 RE: Short Plat 90 -8 -SS / 91- 3 -APRD Dear Mr. Chesnin: City of Tukwila Department of Community Development John W. Rants, Mayor Rick Beeler, Director Since our telephone conversation on September 16, 1993; I have not heard from you as to future action regarding the short plat. In review of the current status, after staff has granted you several extensions to complete the project, your application for Short Plat and Administrative Planned Residential Development is null and void. Attached to this letter are the application forms for Short Plat and Administrative Planned Residential Development. When we first met, you were given a copy of the Sensitive Area Ordnance, contained within the ordinance are provisions for Mitigation on and off -site, Reasonable Use Exception, and Appeals. In response to your client's position that the requirements being placed upon the property and short plat are incorrect. You and your client met with me on December 16, 1992, and agreed to the conditions in the letter dated May 21, 1992. If you had concerns or issues with the conditions, you should have expressed your concerns before the application became null and void. The June 18, 1993 wetland assessment report and wetland field delineation was performed by your wetland consultant, Michael P. Williams Consulting, Inc. This study was submitted to the City on July 16, 1993 as part of the Short Plat/PRD process identified in our May 21, 1992 letter. The City's August 12, 1993 letter approved the required wetland study as a project submittal. Your September 9, 1993 letter states that based on the "incorrect designation of wetland "... "the requirements being placed upon the property and short plat are incorrect ". Your consultant determined the designation of wetland and your engineer professionally surveyed the wetland boundary. 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • (206) 431-3670 • Fax (206) 431-3665 Chesnin 11/24/1993 Page 2 Sincerely yours, ack. Pace Senior Planner cc: David Hawkins Gary Schulz As noted in the May 21, 1992 letter, conditions were modified in response to some development occurring without permits. Based upon the land alteration, staff required a wetland study to assess whether the site contained a wetland. If you wish to short plat the property, you need to submit a new application. If you should have any further questions regard this project, please feel free to call or write. May 14, 1993 City of Tukwila Department of Community Development Rick Beeler, Director Mr. David Hawkins - Leschi Trading Co. c/o Mr. Harold Chesnin Mathews Garlington- Mathews & Chesnin 500 Court in the Square 401 Second Avenue South Seattle, WA 98104 Dear Mr. Hawkins: John W. Rants, Mayor Re: Wetland Study for Hawkins Short Plat #90-8-SS, Administrative PRD #91 -3 -APRD. I am responding to the wetland letter report provided, on your behalf, by Janet R. Bean of Bennett PS &E Inc., Surveyors and Engineers. As the City's wetland expert and sensitive areas' planner, I am submitting the following comments and requirements: 1) Using the City of Tukwila - Wetland and Watercourse Special Studies Report Criteria (attached), a professional qualification statement needs to be submitted by Bennett PS &E's wetland biologist. 2) In order to adequately assess wetland impacts, the wetland study must include a field delineated and professionally surveyed wetland boundary. 3) Sensitive area impacts have not yet been quantified; however, the City addressed site alterations in a letter to David Hawkins dated May 21, 1992 (attached). Under the Land Alteration Permit section, required information included identifying the potential on -site wetland, the extent of wetland, and mitigation measures. In addition, a restoration (landscape) plan will be required for the disturbed watercourse buffer and any affected wetland area. According to the Sensitive Areas Ordinance (TMC 18.45.040 C.4.), if site alterations removed existing vegetation from wetland or watercourse buffers, the applicant must replace it with comparable species to reproduce the value within 5 years. Similarly, TMC 18.45.080 C.2. requires a restoration, enhancement, or creation plan to compensate for the impacts resulting from any alteration of wetlands. 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • (206431 -3670 • Fax (206) 431-3665 Mr. David Hawkins - Leschi Trading Co. May 14, 1993 Page 2 To summarize this letter and relate my experience with this project site, the majority of the disturbed wetland area had a forest cover and the wetland seepage is not confined to the existing "cistern" well. It appears that there are wetland conditions from seepage on both north and south sides of the small watercourse. It also appears the restoration of the watercourse can be accomplished with a landscape plan associated with the development lots. Mitigation for the affected wetland area cannot be planned until there is a verified . delineation of the extent of wetland area on the property and a reasonable assessment of the impact. Since this has been an on -going project, I can offer some assistance after a wetland delineation is conducted. If you have related questions please contact me or Jack Pace, Senior Planner at 431 - 3670. Sincerely, C, C. Gary hulz Urban Environmentalist cc: Rick Beeler, DCD Director Jack Pace, Senior Planner Ron Cameron, City Engineer September 14, 1992 . David Hawkins Leschi Trading Company 3601 East Terrace Seattle, WA 98122 . C City of Tukwila Department of Community Development Subject: Short Plat 90- 8- SS/91 -3 -APRD Dear Mr. Hawkins: J'ck Pace Senior Planner cc: Phil Fraser Duane Griffin If you should need further information, please feel free to call or write. Sincerely, 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 . • (206) 41313670 John W. Rants, Mayor Rick Beeler, Director This letter is in response to your letter dated September 11, 1992 withdrawing you application for a short plat. Since you no longer wish to proceed with the short plat application, the cash assignment can be released. Fax (206) 431-3665 June 19, 1992 David Hawkins Leschi Trading Company 3601 East Terrace Seattle, WA. 98122 Subject: Short Plat 90-8-SS/91-3-APRD. Dear Mr. Hawkins: write. Sincerely, JdJk Pace Senior Planner City of Tukvvila 6200 Southcenter Boulevard • Tukwila, Washington 98188 Phone: (206) 433 • City Hall Fan (206) 433-1833 • John:W.Rants, Mayor • • • As noted in the May letter, to assist you with this difficult site, I will coordinate •the various departments review and responses. You have until October 21, 1992 to complete the short plat, after , that date, the application will be null and void. If you should have any questions, please feel free to call or In May you were sent a letter which explained the status of various department issues with your project. Since then, I have left two phone messages with no response. May 21, 1992 David Hawkins, Leschi Trading Company 3601 E. Terrace Seattle, WA 98122 Dear Mr. Hawkins: Building Permit for Lot A City of Tukwila John W. Rants, Mayor Department of Community Development Rick Beeler, Director Subject: Short Plat 90 -8 -SS, Administrative Planned Residential Development 91 -3 -APRD In January and February of this year, you were sent two letters which addressed the short plat and administrative planned residential development approval conditions (see attached letters). Since then some development has occurred on the site which has created additional issues needing to be addressed. The following is a review of the various issues not only affecting the Planning Division, but other City departments: The comments are grouped under the Building Permit for Lot A, Land Alteration Permit, and Short Plat Approval. Public Works needs an updated site plan addressing the 1 and 7 ft. vertical cut next to S. 144th St. (SE corner of Lot A). Wherever a retaining wall or rockery is proposed below an embankment with a sidewalk above, a safety handrail is also required. Attached for your information is a Standard hand rail design. You needs to maintain the temporary erosion control facilities; desiltation pond filled in; rock check dam displaced; portions of silt fence no longer embedded. Public Works needs you to restore and maintain the pond, check dam and silt fence. The Building Division will require a separate building permit for the construction of any retaining wall which supports a surcharge. The permit application must include the design of the structural retaining wall with the seal and signature of a professional engineer. 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • (206) 431-3670 • Fax (206) 431-3665 Page 2 Land Alteration Permit Due to the land clearing activities performed in Lot C -1, staff has identified "potential' wetlands on this lot. Before the short plat can be approved and recorded, a wetland study is required to assess whether the lot contains a wetland, the extent of the wetland, and mitigation measures. A written report needs to be submitted to the Planning Division and address hydrology influencing the identified watercourse and the associated wetland seep areas. Please see attached report criteria handout. Depending upon the results of the study, Lot C -1 may need to be consolidated or modified due to wetland regulations. As noted on the approved Administrative Planned Residential Development (APRD), there is a 15 foot wide landscape buffer next to the watercourse. Further land alteration activity on site for Lots A, B, and C -1 must not impact the watercourse buffer. A restoration (landscape) plan for the disturbed watercourse buffer and any affected wetland area is needed. Short Plat Approval For completion of the Short Plat, the Planning Division needs the following items completed: * Declaration sheet needs to be signed * Affidavit of Ownership needs to be signed * Wetland study needs to be done prior to completion of the short plat. * Legal Description for Lot C -1 needs to note the boundaries for Native Growth Protection Easement. * Survey Plan should be revised to reflect the approved setbacks for the various lots, or record letter dated February 21, 1992. After or before the Short Plat is completed, you need to submit construction site plans for approval to Public Works as noted in the Short Plat approval conditions. The Construction Plan will need to meet Public Works Standards. Also, the plan will need to include the private drive/ access in accordance with approved APRD. The plan will also include sewer, storm, domestic water and fire systems. Page 3 As you know, this is a difficult site due to the sensitive areas and lot shape. If you should have questions regarding this letter, please feel free to contact me and I will coordinate with the various departments to answer any questions you may have. Sincerely, ack Pace Senior Planner cc: Rick Beeler John. McFarland Phil Fraser Nick Olivas February 21, 1992 Leschi Trading Company David Hawkins 3601 E. Terrace Seattle, WA 98122 Dear Mr. Hawkins: City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Boulevard • Tukwila, Washington 98188 John W. Rants, Mayor Based upon our meeting on February 14, 1992, you have requested some minor modifications of the Administrative Planned Residential Development setback conditions. This letter is an addendum to the letter dated January 21, 1992. The revised setback standards are listed below. In addition, as we have discussed, the setback standards are to be measured from the foundation wall. Lot B: South min. 10 -feet w /average of 15 feet East min. 20 -feet West min. 13 -feet North min. 10 -feet Lot C: South min. 10 -feet w /average of 13 feet East min. 10 -feet West min. 31 feet North min 7 -feet and 6- inches 2 Lot C -1: South min. 10 -feet w /average of 15 feet East min. 11 -feet West min. 31 -feet North in. 10 -feet If you should have any other questions, please feel free to . call or write. Sincerely, ck Pace Senior Planner Phone: (206) 433 - 1800 • City Hall Fax (206) 433 - 1833 Note: Setbacks for lot B, C, and C -1 are to be measured from foundation wall. January 21, 1992 Leschi Trading Company David Hawkins 3601 E. Terrace Seattle, WA 98122 Dear Mr. Hawkins: City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Boulevard • Tukwila, Washington 98188 John W Rants, Mayor Re: Short Plat 90 -8 -SS Administrative Planned Residential Development 91 -3 -APRD This letter is an update of the December 30, 1991 letter which contained conditions of approval. Since the, you have provided additional information regarding some of the conditions of approval. The revised conditions are divided into requirements under the Short Plat, Sensitive Area Ordinance, and Administrative Planned Residential Development. SHORT PLAT CONDITION: SENSITIVE AREAS ORDINANCE: 1. All required improvements must be constructed by the applicant and accepted by the City of Tukwila, or a bond may be posted by the applicant for construction of same, prior to the short plat being filed. Said bond assignment shall be in an amount equal to one hundred fifty percent'of the estimated cost of complete construction of such improvements as determined by the Director of Public Works. (Refer to TMC Section 17.08.080). Based upon your design detail, Public Works has determined the bond shall be $15,000. The construction plans shall be approved by the Director of Public Works. 2. For lots B, C -1, and C, the maximum amout of impervious surface calculated for the total development allowed on each lot will be 50 %. Phone: (206) 433 -1800 • City Hall Fax (206) 433 -1833 Page 2 Sincerely, 3. For lots B, C -1, and C, further geotechnical review needs to be done at the time of building permit submittal. The technical data developed and presented in Cascade Geotechnical Report (Job # 9112 -04G) along with 1 -9 -92 and 1 -16 -92 letters of Sprout Engineers should be used in the planning and design of the footings, stem walls, foundation walls, and physical improvements to the individual lots. 4. For lots B, C -1, And C, will submit a landscape plan in conjunction with building permit submittal, additional trees shall be planted on the south and east sides of the houses to provide screening. ADMINISTRATIVE PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT: 5. The following are the modified setback standards for lots B, C -1, and C. Lot B: South min. 10 -feet w/ average of 15 feet East min. 20 -feet West min. 12 -feet North min 10 -feet Lot C: South min. 10 -feet w /average of 15 -feet East min. 10 -feet West min. 31 -feet North min. 7 -feet and 6- inches Lot C -1: South Min. 10 -feet w/ average of 15 -feet East min. 35 -feet West min. 25 -feet North min 7 -feet and 6- inches If the short plat is not filed within six months of date of approval, the short plat shall be null and void. Upon written request by the subdivider, the Short Subdivision Committee may grant one extension of not more than six months. If you object to the conditions and requirements stated in this letter, you have ten days from the date of this letter to submit a written appeal. If you should have any further questions regarding the various requests, please feel free to call or write. ck Pace Senior Planner leschi Trading Company, Inc. P.O Box 22701 Seattle, WA 98122 FAX (206) 329-7554 (206) 720-7140 Estimate for road constrution: $10,000 RP1E11 U 10: li.t...I IR •. Salto 2 ' s•»•...;. WA .010114 a (100)411-11014 4 . 4 743 ' s 20 R.O. (712AC TE (12"x 12"x 4" O a -WEe coNc. Di..oc ) 2" Gl.l- 1 L5' A ri-14L-T Co NC. Co" c1-1.1-1E7. hJRFAuN(y 12" c.+-A 1 1 134NK RUN AVEI, CAS REQu tr - ) 2o' Ac c- 4 ENT. X — •EGTION 1 " = G,' I- 1WKIN 1-101T M--AT 'PSotxT 40f3 1Jo I OO - O°15 oVio /°12 °1,134 oI . Mt,N wloTu = °1 &. G2' - 7, 200 LI M �,4N W1 1-q= 82.8' — Iviap on File in Vault Direction: Scale: I = 4o' Stamp: Page 1 of (2 .- 7; 200 a' Land Surveyor's Certificate: This Short Plat correctly represents a survey made by me or under my direction in conformance with the requirements of ap- propriate State statute and has been pro•erly st. , ed. Name: E tic ;ENa Q. SPRoc.rr Date: Jet. Z? I e)9 Certificate No. P L S 9G c) Short Plat Number . prourF Enos i n o o rs, .1 n \l 1\I ., , 100`') FND. C oNC. MON. w/L -e4P 24141 RIp CPO,vr?. • 4 MAIN \ ` //; G : , 1.102 °10 "e 11.00' F. I-I YDIP-ANT Nt9vALVE - 7, 2.00 M 44 jVj f J: i w 9 Ts," EXPIRES 8/17193 • o'er„ � Gi6• -3' 0 N 0 N • tot. 33' 0 43. GO' t 0 0 m 3 0 IL 0 z cD 4' Max. Height 2- Steel Pip. Ramng with Welded Joints Galvanized. Ornamental Iron Handrail may also be permitted per City Engineer Approval. 1 6 4' Max Height 6 1' Min. 1 Undisturbed soil Undisturbed son Min. 16' Meg .0f Taltrud.tlllcz No roadways or parking lots in this area. SEE ABOVE DETAILS. 2(or flatter NOTES: Place pipe between rocks to avoid weight. • ROCKERY & SIDEWALK WITH 'SAFETY RAIL No footings of structures (including other rockeries) may boar In stippled area. •• —��-- Free—draining backfflf; min.12' •, %�' / wide layer of 2' -4 quarry spoils adjacent to rockery. Stable cut fan In native material /ft f 1 1' diameter washed gravel; min. 6' cover over pipe; min. Y gravel under pip.. 12' wide. Min. C dia. PVC. SDR 35 pip. /MStiTO M276 /ASTM 3034; min. i% continuous slops to outlet; pips 'groped in filter fobric(MIrafl or equiv.) R -5 1. Rock shall be sound and have minimum density of 160 pounds per cubic foot. 2. The long dimension of all rocks shall be placed perpendicular to the wall. Each rock should bear on two rocks In the tier below. 3. Rockeries are erosion — control structures, • not retaining walls. Derive material must be stable and free— standing In cut face. 4. Improved walking surfaces above and adjacent to rockeries over 30' In height shall be protected by a roil conforming to UDC 17111 Mar 1, 1991 CITY OF TUKWILA 6200 SOUTHCENTER BOULEVARD, TUKWILA, WASHINGTON 98188 December 30, 1991 Leschi Trading Company David Hawkins 3601 E. Terrace Seattle, Wa. 98122 RE: APRD /SHORT PLAT CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL This letter is a summary of the conditions of approval for the Administrative Planned Residential Development (91 -3 -APRD) and short plat (90- 8 -SS). The conditions are divided into requirements that need to be met prior to final approval of the short plat and requirements which will need to be met at the time of issuance of a building permit. CONDITIONS THAT NEED TO BE MET PRIOR TO SHORT PLAT APPROVAL 1. Provide a landscape plan according to Tukwila Municipal Code Section 18.46.060 (F -1) of Sensitive Areas Overlay Zone for Lots C,C -1, and B. The requirements of this section may effect the setbacks for the building pads (See Attachment). 2. Your plan must show compliance with a 50 percent impervious surface limitation. PHONE H (2061433.1800 Gary L. VanDusen, Mayor The triangular study for access onto Lot C shall be approved by the Public Works Department. Four additional copies of this study are needed. 4. Provide a letter from Stephen Hagen of Seattle City Light approving the easement locations. 5. All required improvements must be constructed by the applicant and accepted by the City of Tukwila, or a bond maybe posted by the applicant for construction of same, prior to the short plat being filed. Said bond assignment shall be in an amount equal to one hundred fifty percent of the estimated cost of complete construction of such improvements as determined by the Director of Public Works. (Refer to TMC Section 17.08.080); The required improvements are as follows: A. Provide a 20 -foot access for Lots A, B, &C -1; 10- feet shall be of impervious surface with 4 -feet of grasscrete on both sides leaving 2 -feet for additional improvements if necessary; B. Provide adequate turnaround (Contact Nick Olivas of Fire Department for standards); C. The short plat approval is conditioned upon improvements to site i.e. roadway up to Lots B & C- 1. 6. Based on the Geotechnical Report dated December 19, 1991, by Cascade Geothechnical Inc., extensive drainage will be needed to dewater the entire site prior to any construction starts on Lots B and C -1. The Geotech needs to make a recommendation on the dewatering issue, if this shall occur prior to final short plat approval with improvements or on a lot by lot basics. If this occurs, a plan shall be submitted and approved by the City before construction begins. 7. Based on the Geotechnical Report dated December 19, 1991, by Cascade Geotechnical Inc., each building permit shall have phase II recommendations for both the hillside and structures completed and approved by the City. CONDITIONS FOR BUILDING PERMITS 1. APRD Setbacks Lot B South Min. 10 -feet w /average of 15 -feet East Min. 20 -feet West Min. 12 -feet North Min. 10 -feet Lot C South Min. 10 -feet w /average of 15 -feet East Min. 35 -feet West Min. 25 -feet North Min. 10 -feet In addition the owner of Lot B; shall remove the underground storage tank and shall acquire a permit from the City of Tukwila Fire Department and the D.O.E. (Department of Ecology) 30 days prior to work being done. Lot C -1 South Min. 10 -feet w /average of 15 -feet East Min. 10 -feet West Min. 31 -feet North Min. 10 -feet The above setbacks for B, C, & C -1 may change based on the information provided by the Landscape Architect as required by above condition 1 for short plat approval. The setbacks for Lot A were approved under building permit no. 6786. Those setbacks are as follows: Lot A Macadam & S.144th South Min. 15 -feet East Min. 30 -feet West Min. 8 -feet North Min. 10 -feet excluding easement area The APRD setback distances shall not be used for Lot A because you chose to apply for a building permit for Lot A prior to short plat and APRD Application. Therefore, no changes may be allowed on this approved plan and permit. 2. Implement approved landscape plans for each individual building permit. The APRD and Short Plat Application shall be consistent with setbacks and the location of vegetation. Currently both plans are inconsistent with setbacks and location of landscaping. If the short plat is not filed within six months of date of approval, the short plat shall be null and void. Upon written request by the subdivider, the Short Subdivision Committee may grant one extension of not more than six months. The delay in producing this letter was due to Jack Pace illness. Should you have any questions regarding these matters, please contact our office at 431 -3670. Assistant Planner cc: J. McFarland, City Administrator J. Pace, Senior Planner P. Fraser, City Engineer CASCADE GEOTECHNICAL TEL:206- 820 -6953 PHASE I - SLOPE STABILITY REPORT BRUMMICE HILL COTTAGE PROJECT SOUTH 144TH STREET TUKWILA, WASHINGTON JOB NO. 9112 -04G Dec 1991 16 :01 No.Q05 P ;02 KOHn [DEC 1.9 1991 CITY OP TUKWILA PLANNING DEPT. 1 TABLE OP CONTENTS Purpose Scope Project Description Site Description Subsurface Conditions Slope Stability Preliminary Conclusions and Recommendations General Appendix A Appendix B Appendix C Page 1 Page 1 Page 2 Page 3 Page 5 Page 6 Page 8 Page 10 Test Pit. Location Map Test Pit Logs Unified Soils Classification System CASCADE GEOTECHNICAL TEL CASCADE GEC� TECHNICA L I NC . 6:7 AA 12016115TH AVENUE N.E„ BLDG, H (206) 821.5080 KIRKLAND, WASHINGTON 96034 FAX: (206) 820.6953 December 19, 1991 Job No. 9112 -04G Leschi Trading Company, Inc. P. O. Box 22701 Seattle, Washington 98122 Attention: David Hawkins Reference: Phase I - Slope Stability Report Brummice Hill Cottage Project South 144th Street Tukwila, Washington Dear Mr. Hawkins: Dec 19 ►91 16:02 No.005 P.04 As you requested, we have completed Phase I of our subsurface soils and ground water investigation for the steep section of the east - facing slope, located in the western part of Lot #C -1, at the above referenced property. The following report summarizes our findings and presents our preliminary conclusions and recommendations. PURPOSE The purpose of our study was to investigate the subsurface soil and ground water conditions of the steep section of the east - facing slope located in the western part of Lot #C -1, to address the stability of this steep slope, and to provide preliminary conclusions and recommendations for slope stability. We understand that this information has been requested by the City of Tukwila for the processing of your application for short platting the above mentioned site. SCOPE The scope of our work consisted of a visual surface reconnaissance CASCADE GEOTECHNICAL TEL December 19, 1991 Leschi Trading Company, Inc. Job No. 9112 -04G Page 2 CASCADE GEOTECHNICAL INC. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Dec 19b91 16:03 No.005 P.05 of the steep section of the east - facing slope located on the proposed Lots #C and #C -1, the drilling of one (1) approximately fifty (50) foot deep test boring (to investigate the subsurface soil and ground water conditions of the steep section of the east - facing slope located in the western portion of the Lot #C -1), reviewing the existing geologic maps for the area and the information on the site in our files and library, conducting a slope stability analysis, and preparing a preliminary geotechnical report. The following report provides our preliminary conclusions and recommendations. At the time of our site visit, we were provided with a topographic map of the site prepared by Sprout Engineers, Inc., dated September 13, 1990. We were also provided with an undated, unreferenced set of preliminary architectural drawings prepared by Dennis Mortenson Architects, showing the unfinished elevations and plans for the proposed residences. From these preliminary plans and conversations with you, we understand that the proposed project will consist of the construction of two - story, wood - frame, single - family residences, with daylight basements on Lots #B, #C and #C -1. We also understand that these structures will be supported by spread footing foundations. The daylight basement area will utilize a slab -on -grade floor, while the rest of each structure will utilize a crawl space. No building loads have been provided to us at this time. The site plan prepared by Sprout Engineers, Inc., dated September 1 , 1990, showed the property boundaries, existing structures, foot print of the proposed structures, proposed roads, and erosion control details. No information was provided to us regarding building loads, finished floor elevations, proposed grades, etc. mmommummomimmilw CASCrIDE G TEL Lot #A. Dec 19 CASCADE GEOTECHNICAL INC. December 19, 1991 Leschi Trading Company, Inc. Job No. 9112 -04G Page 3 16:03 No .005 P . b6 Elevations referenced in this report are referenced from the above mentioned topographic site plan. We understand that Phase X of our investigation deals only with the stability of the steep section of the east- facing slope, and does not include the stability of the entire property. The stability of the entire property will be addressed in Phase II report along with recommendations for the development... of the entire sitej, excluding The site is located just north of and adjacent to South 144th Street, in Tukwila, Washington. The site is bounded to the west by a single- family residence and to the south and east by South 144th Street and Macadam Road South respectively. The site is bounded by undeveloped property to the north. The site is generally characterized by a gentle, east - facing slope, with a steep section occupying the western part of Lot #C -1. The steep section of the east - facing slope was at a grade of 2(H):1(V) and was approximately twenty -five (25) feet in height. No evidence of surficial creep or slope failure was observed on the face of this steep slope. At the time of our site visit, we observed that the contractor /owner had already regraded the area for the proposed residence on Lot #C. Vertical cuts up to seven (7) feet in height had been excavated into the existing topography prior to our involvement with the project. A silt fence was observed at the top of the slope on Lot #C along with two (2) approximately two (2) foot high berms. One of these berms was located at the entrance to SITE DESCRIPTION ., _ , �.,.,�..,a .., •.•.r 4-$10 caagtprn edge CASCADE GEOTECHNICAL SAL TEL :206- 820 -6953 December 19, 1991 Leschi Trading Company, Inc. Job No. 9112 -04G Page 4 Dec 19 91 CASCADE GEOTECHNICAL INF. 16 :04 No.005 P.07 of the building excavations. We understand that the silt fence and the berms had been constructed at the request of the City of Tukwila to provide temporary erosion and sedimentation control. We understand that some fill was pushed out over the top of the steep section of the slope during the regrading activity on Lot #C to create a level pad for construction equipment. We also noted a cut approximately one (1) foot high and approximately thirty -five (35) feet long along the toe of the steep slope on Lot #C -1. At the time of our site visit, the surficial soils on the eastern part of Lot #C -1 east of the toe of the steep slope were saturated and soft. Most of the vegetation had been removed from this part of the lot by the owners during recent clearing activity on the lot. However, the vegetation was not disturbed on the face of the step, east - facing slope. The slope face was vegetated with several deciduous trees, low -lying brush, ferns, and grass. Wa understand from the site plans and conversations with you that r •.here are a number of artesian springs located north of Lot #C -1. the presence of these springs and saturated heaving sands encountered in our test boring suggest the presence of ground water under high hydrostatic pressure. Although no springs or ground water seepage was noted along the toe of the steep section of the east - facing slope on Lot #C -1, we believe that extensive drainage will be needed to dewater the entire site before any construction starts on Lots #B and #C -1. Specific recommendations for the dewatering of the site will be presented after the completion of Phase II site investigation for this project. At the time of our site visit, we observed the remains of a concrete water tank in the east- central part of Lot #C -1. We understand from conversations with you, that this tank was connected to the artesian springs by means of one and one -half (1 C 3CADE GEOTECHNICA INC. December 19, 1991 Leschi Trading Company, Inc. Job No. 9112 -04G Page 6 sand layer became cleaner (trace silt) from forty (40) to fifty (50) feet below the existing ground surface. Ground water was encountered in the test boring at approximately thirty -five (35) feet below the existing ground surface. Heaving sand was noted from thirty -six (36) feet to the test boring termination depth of fifty (50) feet. Some mottling was noted within the upper five (5) feet of the glacial till (dense silty sand). The glacial till was damp at the time of our investigation. The area of our investigation has been mapped as ground moraine deposits within the Vashon Drift.' The geologic time scale noted that glaciolacustrine deposits of silt and clay of the Vashon Drift could be found underlying the glacial till and can be found outcropping to the south of the site. The clayey silt /silty clay we observed underlying the glacial till during our subsurface investigation is consistent with this classification. The sand noted below the glaciolacustrine deposits in the test boring appears to be equivalent to the Esperance Sand. Slops Stability we preformed a visual reconnaissance of the existing steep section of the east - facing slope in addition to the subsurface investigation. We did not observe any evidence of surface creep on the slope face, nor did we find any evidence of shallow seated failures in the area of the steep slope. We performed a slope stability analysis using the Simplified Bishop method of analysis on the east - facing steep section of the slope 1 Waldron, H.S., 1962, Geology of the Des Moines Quadrangle, Washington: U.S.G.S. Map GQ -159, Scale 1:24,000. CASCADE GEOTECHNICAL TEL CASCADE GEOTECHNICAL INC. Stability Analysis Results Minimum Factor of Safety Static 6.16 Pseudostatic 4.51 ( .. Dec 19,91 16:07 No.005 P.10 December 19, 1991 Leschi Trading Company, Inc. Job No. 9112 -04G Page 7 located in the western half of Lot #C -1. The analysis was done in accordance with requirements outlined in the King County "Sensitive Area Geotechnical Report Requirements" leaflet. The analysis yielded minimum factors of safety for static and pseudostatic conditions. A minimum pseudostatic horizontal inertial force equal to 0.15 times the total weight of the potential sliding mass bras used in the pseudostatic analysis. our fieldwork indicates that the site is locally underlain by dense to very dense native glacial and glacially preconsolidated soils except for some localized areas along the road and the top of the slope where uncontrolled fill was placed previously. We used conservatively chosen soil unit weights and strength parameters based on our previous experience and our findings from the site investigation. The soil parameters we used and the results of our analysis are summarized below. Native Native Native Native Assumed Soil Parameters Silty Sand Clayey ,and Sand Silt/ with ,Silty Silt Clav Density (lbs /ft 132.0 136.0 132.0 130.0 Cohesion (lbs /ft 1500.0 2500.0 0.0 0.0 Angle of Internal Friction 30.0 32.0 32.0 38.0 (degrees) CJC�CADE GEOTECHNICALC •INC. December 19, 1991 Leschi Trading Company, Inc. Job No. 9112 -04G Page 8 We conclude that the existing slope in the western part of Lot #C -1 is presently stable against shallow surficial and deep seated failures, and will not be adversely affected by construction if our recommendations are carefully followed. However, the small quantity of the uncontrolled fill placed at the top of 'this slope is unstable and should be removed immediately. PRELIMINARY CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS The conclusions and recommendations presented in this report'are preliminary, and are based upon the preliminary plans that were provided to us, and our current understanding of the proposed project. Based on the stratigraphic positioning, engineering characteristics of the soils found on site, subsurface information, and subsequent slope stability analysis performed in our office, we conclude that the portion of the slope which consists of native soil is presently stable. The small quantity of the uncontrolled fill placed at the top of this slope is unstable and should be removed immediately. It is our preliminary opinion that the slope will not be adversely affected by the proposed construction if our recommendations are carefully followed. We understand that you propose to construct single- family residences at the top and along the toe of the steep section of the east- facing slope. From the preliminary plans that we were provided with, it appears that the residence located on Lot #C will be set back approximately forty (40) feet west of the top of this steep slope, with the proposed driveway set back approximately fifteen (15) feet. It is our preliminary onclusion that the proposed construction on Lot #C wig. no adversely effect this stability of the slope. However, we have not been provided with C ADE GEOTECHNICAL TEL:206- 820 -6953 CASCADE GEOTECHNICAL INC, Dec 19,91 16 :07 No.005 P.12 December 19, 1991 Leschi Trading Company, Inc. Job No. 9112 -04G Page 9 finished building plans at this time. ' We recommend that we be engaged to work with your other design professionals in developing the final building plans for this project, which may also involve the augmentation and /or alteration of our preliminary conclusions and recommendations. The plans that have been provided to us show a single - family residence located in the northeastern section of Lot #C -1, along the toe of the steep section of the east - facing slope. No finished floor elevation or regrading information has been provided to us at this time for the proposed residence. We understand that cuts five (5) feet or greater may be required along the toe of the steep slope. With proper drainage and engineered retaining structures, the proposed cuts and structure should not adversely effect the stability of this steep slope. We recommend that we be engaged to provide you with a detailed drainage plan for the site, which may consist of a combination of horizontal wells drilled into the slope to decrease the hydrostatic pressure behind the slope face, and perimeter french drains to r b catch the surface runoff from the west and south, and divert it away from the site to a suitable drainage outlet. We recommend that we proceed with Phase II of our investigation for the site so that we can provide you with detailed recommendations for slope stability of the entire site, drainage, grading, foundation design parameters, lateral forces and erosion control. We also recommend that we be engaged to work with your other design professionals in developing the building plans. We recommend that we should be engaged to review all final building plans, so that we can provide more specific and detailed recommendations for the CASCADE GEOTECHNICAL TEL December 19, 1991 Leschi Trading Company, Inc. Job No. 9112 -04G Page 10 CASCADE GEOTECHNICAL INC. Dec 19,91 16 :09 No.005 P.13 All conclusions and recommendations presented in this report are preliminary, and may be augmented and /or altered after further subsurface investigation (Phase II investigation) and review of the final building plans. We recommend that we be engaged to perform a Phase ti site investigation before any construction work is initiated.' We recommend that we be engaged to review the final plans prior to initiating construction to see that our recommendations are properly interpreted and to provide additional or alternate recommendations as necessary. We expect the on -site soil conditions to reflect our findings; however, some variations may occur. Should soil conditions be encountered that cause concern and /or are not discussed herein, Cascade Geotechnical, Inc., should be contacted immediately to determine if additional or alternate recommendations are required. This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of Leschi Trading Co., Inc., for specific application to the Brummice Hill Cottage site, at South 144th Street and Mcadam Road South, in Tukwila, Washington, in accordance with generally accepted soils and foundation engineering practices. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made. L sLHUt CILUI ECHNiCAL TEL:206 -820 -6953 Dec 19,91 CASCADE GEOTECHNICAL INC. December 19, 1991 Leschi Trading Company, Inc. Job No. 9112 -04G Page 11 Thank you for this opportunity to be of service to you. Should you have any questions, please feel free to contact us at any time. Sincerely, W)12\ Amjad I. Khan Engineering Geologist AIK:pg 16:10 No.005 P.14 BRUMMI CE HILL COTTAGE PROJECT TEST BORING LOCATION MAP S. 144TH STREET A FROM SURVEYED PLAN BY SPROUT ENGINEERS .lob No. ' seal. 1' = 50' 9112 -04G CASCADE GEOTECHNICAL- INC. 12016115THAVENUEN.E.,BLDG.H (206)821.5080 LOCATIONS ARE APPROXIMATE KIRI(AND, WASHINGTON 98034 FM: (206) 820 -6953 Oyu Own. By E Gsd 12/05/91 f HLA Project BRUMMI CE HILL COTTAGE \ Job No. 9112.04G Date 12/06191 goring No. 1 Dwn.By HLA Driller HOLT DRILLING Drill Type TRUCK MOUNTED Geo /Eng A. KHAN Hole Dia. 4" Fluid NONE _ .r___ y I I I . • 1I H H }..111 F•• t Sample Interval Penetration Soil Description & Classification Notes — - — — 5 20_ 2 5 _ 3 1► I T l► I I►, I► I I I► I► I 1 I► i I►► i ' I I r VZdBQ a 1 r 0 N 1e) _ a 0 M 0 a'i5 4 50 9 36 50 33 50 20 30 50 - ' / - 50 - 44 - - - 70 5 9i 74 5 k 59 5 9 60 r13� , 04: .. SILTY SAND: with some gravel, red•brown to brown, mottled, dense, trace to minor gravel & sand, tan to -CL) very hard. (ML -CL) very hard. (ML -CL) very hard. (ML -CL) to minor gravel, red -brown to (SM) 12/05/91 j damp, (SM) (glacial till) S / / ; k;;r No sample recovery 1 }.j "{ CLAYEY SILT /SILTY CLAY; with gray, hard to very hard, damp. (ML CLAYEY SILT /SILTY CLAY; as above, CLAYEY SILT /SILTY CLAY: as above, O CLAyFY SILT /SILTY CLAY; as above, 1 ' ' SANpz with some clay & silt, trace . , ' gray, very dense, wet to saturated. Noes: LH . L TEL:206 -820 -6953 Dec 19,91 16 :11 No.005 P.16 Condition shown repre,ent our observation it IM time and location of the field work, modification based on lob lets, enslysls, and oeeloptcel o d sr*neerino jtdpement. Thee condition) may not exist et other times and location', even In Clow proximity, This Information was pothered es psi of our kwestioatIon, end we Me not responsible for any use or Interpretation of the Information by otMn, C)1 CASCADE GEOTECHNICAL, INC. TEST BORING LOG Pape 1 Project BRUMMICE HILL COTTAGE Job No. 9112.04G Date 12/05/91 goring No. 1 p.2 Dwn.By HLA 'Driller HOLT DRILLING Drill Type TRUCK MOUNTED Geo /Eng A. KHAN Hole Dia. 4' j Fluid NONE 1 I !mewl aldweS Penetration 1 Soil Description & Classification Notes y 1 I I _ - 40 _. — 45 — 50 .- 55 60 : 65 21 60 20 26 - 60 69i - - 619 59( 50 r, s {1 r� r* f � ' ; i n : ,111 e ° ,, •a * 4 OM ' # ; 3 '1 r p` with trace to minor silt, trace gravel, . medium- to coarse - grained, pray, very dense, saturated. (SP) SAND: medium- to coarse - grained, gray, very dense, wet to saturated. (SP) SAND; with trace gravel, medium- to coarse - grained, gray, very dense, wet to saturated. ISM T.D. = 60.0' Notes:hEAVING SAND NOTED FROM 36- TO 60'. CASCPDE •GEGTE,'. NICAL TEL :206-820 Dec 19,91 16:12 No.005 P.17 Condition shown reprswnt out ebsarvatlon *t the lima and leoatlen of the field work, modifications baud en lab bate, analysts, and poalaplcel end anpkwrinp ludgamant. Thom anal* may not exist at other times and Iodation, *van In close proximity. Thai information was pothered as pat of our lrwastI ellen, and wa era not neepenelbla for any use or Ineorpretatlon of N Information by otters. 1 n/1niKlr 1 r1r . ivision %:� _--- A ...SIL VER:`LNG /NEER /N G ;1�$ERV IC $ �� 4•' 1 '�Z' ` •: •>.', ..ob. O. N 009 -095 • ' J ► ; ` .December 4, '1991 fir `. { • , r , -' ` � � ' -�' ^:� .' /- P h • W • N • 0 ' 0 N j,• !� Sincerely, .•. - 5, t SPROUT ENGINEERS • • • L.S. "ECS:bnt • _ cc: - David Hawkins - Owner ' .: • , Mr. Amiad -. .Cascade Geotechnical, Inc.' • r _ j 1 - -A • - er 1 • + : W ' Mr. Jack. -P. Pace, Senior Planner' s' / . .Department of Community Development City of Tukwila . • 6300 Southcenter Boulevard - ;Tukwila, Washington 98188 Re: Hawkins Short Plat (Brunner Hill 144th & Mac Adams Road Dear Mr. Pace: I • i 1� :.'i•L ' !' ✓'E.c 1 1 1.991...). Cottage Project) located - at in .accordance with your departments recent requests and our recent , 4c °'meetings relative to this pproposed 'Short .plat, Cascade Geotechnical, Inc . , _12016 115th Avenue Northeast,' Building H,r Kirkland, Washington ; - ,! (206-821-5080) ' has been retained to 'perform a: geotechnical study; and ,prepare ' a ,.' r' - report' on this proposed short, plat. - "l r, ' Amiad .,o€ Cascade ' : ' ': -( ` • - Geotechnical has been-asked 'to` perform his' geotechinical . study •and prepare rf r . "<*;., r report in accordance with -the City' :of : Tukwila "Draft--,Codified ' ,SAO � ' - to er' • r .': < • ;a Mr.'-Amiad proposed to start "test boring"- at: the' site, on :December" 5, • 1991, weather permitting, ' will_ address the "areas of potential ,geologic• instability", first, The at#aYr. ►ed otos show''the middle - section November 27, 1991 TO: FROM: • RE: JOHN McFARLAND DARREN WILSO M E M O R A N D U M LESCHI TRADING COMPANY • This memo is a summary of our meeting with David Hawkins of Leschi Trading Company on Wednesday, November 27, 1991 concerning all outstanding issues. The applicant was confused by waiver approval for building on lot A and this did not include a waiver from SAO for the short plat. Staff could not approve the short plat application (attachment of City Council minutes) until the SAO was adopted. We could accept the short plat application but not finalize the application. In addition, the applicant has revised his proposal to add one additional lot. Staff mentioned that a Geo- Technical report was required. Until this information has been submitted, staff cannot make any decisions on the new proposal. The applicant indicated that staff continued to give me incorrect information concerning the SAO: Staff gave the applicant current information pertaining to the SAO as changes occurred before the SAO adoption. Leschi Trading Company, Inc. • P.O. Box 22701; • Seattle ; ,WA 98122 • • FAX 329-7554 •.(206)' • To: Jack Pace Senior Planner City. of Tukwila From David: Hawkins Date: 11-25-'91 Subject: Our concerns about the delays :on:`. The Brummer's Hill Cottage : Projec .. Land .altering mi sreperesentations the owners by the city CiTY ":QF..TUKW,ILA :.:. ::PLANNiNG: DEPT:::; -.Attached to this list of ' points is ` our ;view . of what has stopped, this 'project this :.past :sivweek's::or, s:o, compo'unding s }. many months of :delays already: The fir. st, cause •i r vo-lves misinterpretations: and misinformation provide'd property owners. like us, on land altering authority..'; Just as our original clea'ri.ng established that this: property 'is practically :level :at :Lot, A, and steps ; :up';and 'lev.elsoff again _: for Lot B; • it also now; can be seen .•that.:t_he;.:bank the east edge. of Lot • C, falls of,f`,.sharpl to' "the .'west,..:,Teaving ,at least ha;l:f':o.f Lot C -1 to the . east -and' north�.east, "-p'erf_ectly bui l;dabie without,'. any affect on the.. bank:: itself. 'F"urther `excaivat .ons and observations at : that .location have establ i sherd flint` the soi 1 I like ..pit, `run, very :sal id and firm, and' there i s 'no hi to'ry o f • slide.o'r land' .movement on the slope. • On this site, th e . complained when :we.w `s;imply surveying the site .last , Furl her,., it:` f.'a'lsely:..tol.d us .we could not clear. the blackberry • bushes;s'and "other; :: brush necess`ar..y.; obtain'. accurate surveys. The .land a.lter;i.ng al't:ernance clearly allows brush to be clea'red on : land'. as long •a the brush is " "not: cut to the ground.' The .city .falsely told. u s .we had right to clear brush. under any circumstances.. Because the city information was so patently si l l.y, we ignored those claims about 'cleari'ng what.:.is n.ow .lot A.: And based on what we found to be . a practi cal ly l ev:el > .l ot, we were pro.vided a waiver from sensitity concerns by the city . :council - to '.build this lot and file our short when the city claimed';we coul`d:.n "ot`: the fi ll dirt for . our water , retention system: on • Lot ?A from lot' C, with a permit. to move, 300 y ards', we -then worked ',on portion, and cleared ' "at" area,. establishing snot he'.r 'buildable site. In other .words, .misinformation,•from the ` :ciay ;on'. clearing,,, brush' on this property 'almost .cost:-us. 'an entire buildab:le ,site,.; and caused the city to misapply slope concerns`, about sensitive ,; areas to ,thi s property with'. very :c,om.pressed, limited :and ' unnaffected slope, on 'a small .per:centage..of. the`. :.p,roperty. We have also "been .misinformed :that di involving : . than :50 - yards, excavations of less than 5 ;feet: "and of less : than 3 feet, c'ould not be perf.ormed.`.:.Someone:': in` the city. needs to. read .this ordinance' and :stop m'i s inform'i ng property owners about . what can and cannot.' be .do'ne.' 'Changing the" game As I discuss further . .in the - ,attached. note, changing : this game has made it impossible time after to' ",put`.:,an , end .: demands„ and work with. :any certainty that-- more unca-l:led.' clai,ms . by the city are not` going "'to' be- It is• now; c.lear: . after our most recenty , meeti ng, that PR;D standards -haVe.'bearr imposed on the f i l i n g .. Of our short; pl a:t, specifically , excluded from those' sensitivity : concerns `by the; waiver. :'gra'nte'd us by the city council. We have not the slightest qualm about meeting::thee.PRD `' requirements.:' However, this is a st;i' example ::of city has fouled us up , for over a year and :half :now. We-had :" been told by .Mr.. Wilson that as soon as °the notice ":to:the ne:i ghbors was completed, the short plat would 'be recorded• ' .Th'at:'should'•have premitted dispersal of . funds to - bu'i:ld'. on Lot . A . , . Wilson,: . ; About 6 wee4 o, .Mr .sated' that ,lie now needed l ansdscape plans on the short plt' About two weeks ; ago, we were :told'. we 'needed excavation contours-on these same'p'lans .; " after the sites were :completed. , As: .a: resu>lt,' • monies t0 :build. Lot A have been held up, and a. portion; of %; the monies has' withdrawn from 'this project in disgust. • What the' city, fails` to: understand, i,s that,:ev,eryt ime : impose new standards, install `'a ' :new., program, or make. new deman that entails literally thousands of 'dol".l :a,rs ;:from e`ngioeer ; to prove no. problem exists' i.n the first place; and "weeks of time t get scheduled into the engineering ,.se,quence of In this specific .case, 'this . short.p>lat;;wa:sf.suppoted ,;to recorded months ago. The PR.D., and any f urther: new standards requirements ate:-to.' be .imposed on dev;ea:o'pement._of. the specify sites o.n.Lots B, C ;and 'C= 1,` "as requests:.for building perm" - on those' sites, are provided: , centre And for: .now,'" .we agai:n; request 'th :at° the , short :recorded immedi ately, .with: no ,f:urther .deman:ds from `imposed on this project improperly and prematurely our. •wa'iver. was provided by•?the city cou;ncal as ;l,on, :February, 1991. We a re.,more` ".t han happy to • fi.andl,e' • next `phase" But: under;' no' cir"cums,tances: does th;e city k....• piny autho.r.i,t •ove.r'r'ide the city; co un;cil'.s. wa,i; from'.non= existant' sensit,ivi;,t c'oncer'ns `,.for the mere 'f'i 1 ing' of t'hi's' "shor ;p,lat °and cons'truc.ti'o of.';L'ot A; ,. ,to delay this project`.: any further. ,We:`.'w l l ' mosa certainly: comply, >as` o.ur last y" ea "r and a half of;. suffering with the city estab we.l:l, and .meet any rand all PRD require meets on:t:he plan 'submittal for; ~the~ lots rem Of :course, as I.;h' d,i s.cuss.ed' over and ove,r: - th' r'o.ug.h ,thi s d m and destruc.t,i've history of. false starts, w a�re f rom department to.;department "and r equa, r ed . t o submit application a :. and' meet' . - d:emand aft e demand, sand: still : the 'city h . as ; :not r.ecor'ded•,our ;short'; plat. T he singles nst iance of c;oordi nat:i.on, , occure'd . when ; the-- permit for ; L.ot AA was `grante g hat was. short' lived sand in:iffective` because: the; short plat was not ,.r.ecord'ed. in short,' we ' request tha the ;city' the land alterin o :and properly; inform property.owner'st,l,i:ke ourselves;:af our right's and /or supply us with copies: we ,can 'read,ou:rselves `f : defense; stop changing"•the' operations when so c:a.l.l'ed ff.043 cri teria ,have . bz'en,:met .'and have a A`central authority that can, terminate these these.: endless- circles ;'" i CITY OF TUKWILA 6200 SOUTHCENTER BOULEVARD, TUKWILA, WASHINGTON 98188 PHONE q (206) 433.1800 Gary L. VanDusen, Mayor November 18, 1991 Leschi Trading Company David Hawkins 3601 East Terrace Seattle, Wa. 98122 SHORT SUBDIVISION ADDITIONAL INFORMATION RE: Leschi Trading Company PRD /Short Plat Applications & Land Altering Violation This letter is a summary of our last meeting November 6, 1991 concerning the PRD /Short Subdivision Application for Leschi Trading Company. We met with David Hawkins of Leschi Trading Company to resolve outstanding issues with regards to the PRD /Short Subdivision Application for Leschi Trading Company. Currently, there is a Short Subdivision Application being process. In order to complete this project several items are still needed. You are required to submit a PRD Application. The items needed for completion are broken down by the Short Subdivision and PRD Application and Land Altering Violation: 1. The existing site plan is not accurate. The developer's land surveyor shall review this information and revise the site plan with the current and final configurations accordingly, for Lots B & C. 2. Provide a maintenance agreement for the joint access road 3. Lot C shall be segregated from the open space easement. 4. Identify the boundary of the open space easement for lot C. 5. Place surveyor marks where existing foundation and driveway location relative to the property lines on the map page for Lot A. This information is relative to the setback requirements provided under the original building permit. PAGE TWO LESCHI TRADING COMPANY PRD ADDITIONAL INFORMATION 1. Provide additional landscaping with a combination of Evergreen /Delicious Trees for all 3 (three) lots. 2. This plan shall be stamped by a Washington State Landscape Architect. 3. The setbacks for lot C; front 20 -feet garage; 15 -feet house; 8 -feet side yard; 10 -feet rear yard. 4. You proposed to add one additional lot. A Geo- Technical Report shall be provided to support this proposal. 5. There is a possibility with the change to add one additional lot that the SEPA Checklist may need to be revised and the determination issued in September 1991 be rescind to MDNS (Migitated Determination Of Non - Significant). LAND ALTERING VIOLATION /PUBLIC WORKS CONCERNS Accordingly, to the Public Works Department there were some land altering violations. The corrections shall be submitted into the Public Works Office immediately. The corrective measures for this unauthorized land altering activity shall include the following: A. Provide a temporary erosion control plan developed and transmitted to Public Works for review and approval by Friday, November 15, 1991. A temporary erosion control devices shall be inserted on the site immediately. B. Provide a schedule for either restoring the site to the original conditions or provide a permanent erosion control to Public Works along with the revised site C. The present and future plan submittal shall include a triangulation study by your engineer for any access on to South 144th Street to demonstrate adequate stopping sight distance will be required. D. Failure to comply with the Land Altering Ordinance and measures for remedy immediately, shall be subject to penalties outlined in Section 6.6 of the Land Altering Ordinance. PAGE THREE Thank You Darren WiTson Assistant Planner cc: R. Beeler, DCD Director M.<;;Kenyon; 7City_„ Attorney D. Hawkins, Property Owner LESCHI TRADING COMPANY This information is based on the three lot short plat proposal. Additional changes may occur with any new proposals. Should you have any additional questions regarding this matter, please contact our office at 431 -3670. Leschi Trading` Company, Inc: • . P.O.Box 22701 •Seattle, WA 98122 • FAX (206) 329-15 (206) 720-7140 ., 'Dear Mr. Frazer and Mr.- Wilson, • CC: 'Mayor 'Gary : ; . Eugene Spr out,. :engi Phi'•1 Frazer' Darren Wilson. City of Tukwila ,Re:- Meeting today on the Brummer` K•i,l n ce 'ay r 9 i e c • G 1 f � i �' l :111.! . ;1: �� a � • (f 1 0V'0: 1..1991 ... .: LAi\jN,NG DePT, ovemb.er • We,:appreci ated • the;'attenti on; : you • devoted •to... o;ur ypro ject`= ,today As. we;'stated, "we have. alw'aysr.e;stricted :nur cite- work'to,th "e ` c�nstruction, •and drainage and sewer installations.':on lot A'':• As . soon as we We're. - informed "that ll: dirt we 'removed from the • west end of our site on what .will•:be' lot C for drain'aie.Y'gr.ad'e work on Lot 'A, was not covered under the perm,it°'to Tmove `30.0. yard • of dirt for lot A,i we turned _. to •"th.e. other :g ro,und work related. to` completing the drafn and : sewer: ' i n:sta.l lati on; located .:on .Lot A';and, what 'will . be." Lo.t B. - As we confirmed at ". our . discus ,today ,for. the second time,- that is in conf,orman;ce with 'ou °r " •permits. We are sorry that , moving our fill : di'r "t from what wi 1 i 6.e the ■ basement on Lot 'C' was interpreted as •work on what will b.e: Lot • C. As we stated, we :thought, that :w;as.cove:red:',u:n"der . o,ur..•land alteration "permit for' lot':'A. And: we simply fel' "t it. wou be more:, efficient to obtain our fill dirt : : f rom': an-_area ; :everyone k was going to be excavated eventual -1y. We' have :.complete`d your two correcti.on'measures:, :1, to''install' a•dirt ridge ,at the 'ent•ry to lot .0 to counter any potential :`sil:tation, :and 2, to' install' .. siltation fencing around; the northeast perirnater of that addition to the fencing:: al ready i nstal l ed at 'th.e nor -th 1-rne --,of .101 • Be that as i;t may, at . ..we we are: conain to .complete' our Work .,for our underground in'sta We ; were:. very grateful for' your suggestion, Mr.' Fra "er,. for nco.r'p'or,ation of "gras,s- crete" to : 1 imi t: the amo'una`- of asphalt on " our entry'r'o:ad off Macadams. Fire Chief Nick O1 iv. as ;agreed:.wi'th that •sugges- tion. And we: send,i pg.' a. letter : hi;m ,i n accordance w,i th` : ,hi s request. • '.As we. . a Tso.'discussed', 20. feet of ?,asphalt : ,through one's. : ,front yard, might. not look like.' much on pape'r. :But :the ,peop,le' who' .A4111 be'',l ivi:ng , in these houses`: over many Y,earsiw ,, ll; benefit from° your m;uch mor.e considerate approach. `Thankson.ce agaan ,i9 ..0'i% . / .. ; . 1 9,91 CITY OF TUKWILA 6200 SOUTHCENTER 11OULEl•ARD, TUIi H'ILA, WASHINGTON 9S18S TO: Jack Pace FROM: Phil Fraser DATE: November 7, 1991 M S M O R A N D I M PHONE # (2061433.1800 Cary L. l'onDnscn. Mayor SUBJECT: Leschi Trading Issues - Notification for Land Altering Violation Included in the letter to the Leschi Trading Co. the following land altering and other concerns should be described: 1. Public Works approval letter dated August 29, 1991 for Leschi Trading Co. was for utilities, access and land altering for Lot A only and so stated on the approval letter. We are in agreement that land altering on Lot B, associated with the drainage for erosion control and continuation of drainage through Lot B to Lot A is also necessary as part of this site plan approval. 2. The developer received a stop work order dated 10/28/91 for land altering activities which occurred on Lots B and C unrelated to the development of Lot A. Corrective measures for this unauthorized land altering activity will include the following: a. A temporary erosion control plan developed and transmitted to Public Works for review and approval Immediately. Temporary erosion control devices shall be provided immediately. b. The curb cut for Lot C and grading activity on Lots B & C, . revealed your survey and actual site topography do not match. The developer's land surveyor shall review his information and revise the site plan accordingly. c. Included in the information on the site plan shall be the original grades revised to actual original condition, the current configuration and final configuration. d. Provide schedule for either restoring to the original condition or providing a permanent erosion control to Public Works along with the revised site plan. Items a - d shall be provided to the City within the next 5 working days to assure timely compliance is provided. The penalties for failure to come into compliance with items a through .d by this notice of violation of the Land Altering Ordinance is noted in Section 6.6. Failure to comply with the Land Altering Ordinance and measures for remedy within the time frame specified above can subject you to penalties outlined in Section 6.6 of the enclosed Land Altering Ordinance. For Lot A we request the surveyor mark where the existing foundation and existing driveway have been located relative to the property line so we can review this information relative to setback requirements provided under original building permit process for WTA. In present and future plan submittals a triangulation study by your engineer for any access on to South 144th to demonstrate adequate stopping sight distance is required. Per my phone conversation on 11/4/91 Mr. Hawkins made a request to set up a meeting with Public Works to review the developer's revised short plat. I requested Mr. Hawkins be in touch immediately with Darren Wilson, as he was on point. Darren was contacted and Jack Pace, Darren Wilson and myself were presht for the 9:30 meeting per the Leschi Trading Co. request, however they did not show for that meeting. PF /amc:9:leschi INFORMATION SHEET DEPARTMENT: PUBLIC WORKS DATE: 11/4/91 INITIATOR: PUBLIC WORKS DESCRIPTION OF ISSUE /INCIDENT: Public Works issued a site plan approval letter dated August 29, 1991 for Lot A for the Leschi Trading Development at Macadam Rd. /S. 144th (attached). Per our plan review with the developer's representatives it was understood that even though the 3 lot short plat was not completed, in order to accomodate their time frame to have Lot A go ahead with development, Public Works would approve a site plan limited to the development of Lot A. Also, Public Works would allow Land Altering for both Lot A and only that land altering needed to accomodate for drainage on Lot A. Public Works received a complaint that Leschi Trading Company developer was working off of S. 144th Street and regrading lot C. ACTION TAKEN: Phil Fraser requested Greg Villenueva to review the approval letter, investigate the matter and if land altering activity was occurring beyond Lot A (or associated with Lot A), a Stop Work order informing the developer he must be posted to stop his activities. Greg Villanueva made a phone call to the developer and left a message regarding the concern of unathorized land clearing. At that time a Stop Work order was posted and the contractor was very pleasent and accomodating. Greg Villanueva discovered the developer was grading out Lot C and posted a Stop Work Order (copy attached). Greg informed the contractor he must limit his Land Altering activity work to Lot A. At that time I informed the contractor that further violations could resort to police action and possibly a fine. No threatening words were used nor intended. Again the contractor was pleasent and accomodating. The developer called requesting the removal of the stop work notice since it was an embarrassment to his development. Greg Villanueva responded that since the developer was aware of the purpose of the stop work notice that the relocating of the stop work notice to le:,•s conspicuous location would be acceptable. Please note at this time the developer was pleasent and accomodating. The developer requested a meeting with Phil Fraser. Phil met with the developer on 10/30/91. Phil informed the developer his site plan approval was limited to the work for one single family dwelling only Page 2 ACTION ANTICIPATED: associated with the construction of a single family dwelling or controlling of drainage for Lot A only. That he can not be grading and preparing for the foundation and access for Lots B & C [the short plat process is not accomplished to date]. It appeared to Phil Fraser and he so stated that the developer was trying to get the grading done for unapproved lot C since he had his contractor up at the site [even though Phil made it clear at the plan submittal time the developer was to limit the site plan development to Lot A only]. Phil stated that for future lots B and C, Phil expected the developer to come in with specific site plans identifying existing and final contours. Included in the site plan for Lot C will be a triangulation study by their engineer to assure safe stopping sight distance for Lot C will be accomplished by the final contouring. Phil indicated that the grading activities to date indicate that more grading may be needed to accomplish a safe and adequate access for lot C. 11/1/91 Public Works was in receipt of the October 30, 1991 letter from Leschi Trading Company (attached). Per Phil Fraser's 11/4/91 telephone conversation with David Hawkins, Mr. Hawkins was trying to make a case for the fact he was'under the 50 cubic yards for his activities on Lot C. (Phil has a problem with this interpretation). Finally, Phil told the representatives per their request to cut black berry bushes, that the cutting of black berry bushes was O.K. and not covered by Land Altering as long as the bushes were cut above the ground line and the land was not denudified. They agreed to comply. The developer will come in with final short plat plans at Public Works Department's next Tuesday meeting. I requested that the developer coordinate this with Darren Wilson as Department of Community Development is on point for the Short Plat process. The developer said he will do so. The City's Public Works inspector will continue to monitor the site. Attachments (2) •'•A•f,'te•r nevi e.vii.n'g t'he :'cop.' •'of T.u•kwi 1.a' 0.r nance • numb.er,, 1 591 • - you "•pr.ovided 'u s:, we • unable,. to understand. :what your reference"t.o •a.'•.: "cut "::means.. .(4e also ha•ve.'oifficulty. • • • :• ;your: :irresponsible threats to .our contra.cter you•would. ; contact•'police• if he :failed to stop work on lot' .B•.) • • :'As..:we: di.s•cussed' :with• : we • are• i n •'a couple of fr..ench °.dr'ains related to',the' :.co•ntrol of water .seeping from the storage tank.to•o•ur.'•drainage system .on.. :lot. B, s'o that portion. of the :.•can return :to .it's :'•ori:ginal.•..dr•y :s . And of course, . we are • . •diverting that,. as well as the water from that storage tank to our control drainage system. • This galls into exemption A, B and C of that ordinance, and was. included in our original permit to complete the drainage system for Lot A. • ..As Mr. :Frazer explained to •us, our permi i; to move 300.1ards • of d irt: on. our undivided prooer.ty,,• even though it is •being used. •as .landscape •on what will be lot A,• did not cover• moving • the • • dirt from what will' be lot C. Rather• :than contest that position, we will wait• for the next 'stage of permits to complete that work.. •..Our engineers are attempting to submit..their ninth set of •revisions in this past eighteen month period of review by your offices, . in time for.. your regular meeting next Tuesday. . However,' as your 'work. stoppage on .1 of B was entirely uncalled' for,: we will continue to do our drainage work and .topographi cal. surveyi.ng there. • •: -- ; . . O '30`,• 1991 . ..;.);. a .. I...'1 -l:eschi Trading Company, x Inc.'' P.0• Bo 22701.• Seattle,. WA 98 •. FAX (206)329: 7554.•.(206) 720.7140 'Greg .Vi.;l,l ..• •. • ";Uti l :i't'i es :'Depa:r•tme'nt j•.:. ;T,ukwi'l a' Wa'sh'ington r� -": e a:r M r •: ; i 1:1'•a'n.li e'v a, A's we :disc'us'sed th'is' . after. David and I met' with . M.r. •• Frazer, Mr.' .Frazer ; confirmed•:th•at on lot B, we have the right as " •property owners• .to •.c1 ear 'bru'sh on our ''l a•nd : to obtain accura.te . • :.topogr:aphi' cal "'in , forrmation .for'','our engineers,, 'and to'•construct: the ::= '. drainage' d'.i•�t.ch• - and•.:related ponds :on lots :A and' B. CC: Mayor Gary .L Van Dusen Eugene Sprout.,.. Engineers Sincerely, • David Hawkins ....,,:::age curing gracing operations. The permittec shall restore to the standards in effect at '`,e time of the issuance of the permit, Sensitive Areas, their Buffers, an, - ,ablic improvements damaged by the permittee's operations. 2.8 AMENDMENT Application for amendment to a permit shall be in written and/or graphic form and may be made at any time through the same process as the original application. Until such rime as an amendment is approved by the City, the land - altering activity shall not proceed except in accordance with the Land - Altering Permit as originally approved. 2.9 EXEMPTIONS The following activities are exempt from the application of this Ordinance and do not require a Land - Altering Permit; provided they do not occur in a Sensitive Areas Overlay Zone as defined by the Ciry in the Sensidve Areas Ordinance: A. Excavations less than five feet in vertical depth or fills less than three feet in vertical depth and involving the removal, deposit or displacement of not more than a total of 50 cubic yards of material for the duration of the entire project. B. The stockpiling of less than 50 cubic yards of topsoil, peat, sawdust, mulch, bark, chips or solid nutrients on a site. C. The creation of impervious surfaces OR clearing a cumulative surface area of less than 6,000 square feet. D. Emergency and temporary sandbagging, diking, ditching, filling or similar work during or after periods of extreme weather conditions when done to protect life or property; provided that work undertaken after the period of immediate threat, unless undertaken within a reasonable time and for the purpose of restoring the property to its pre extreme weather conditions state, shall not be exempt. E. Public Works Improvement Projects and Maintenance Programs shall be exempt from obtaining permits in accordance with this Ordinance but shall conform in all practices with the intent of this Ordinance. F. Agriculture. G. Commercial Stockpiling Operations which are in existence at the time this Ordinance is enacted and which involve the stockpiling of materials as a normal part of daily operations shall be exempt from obtaining a Land - Altering Permit; provided that the propeny owner has obtained written approval from the Public Works Director. 2.10 PERMIT FEE A non - refundable permit fee will be collected at the time of the issuance of a Land - Altering Permit. The permit fee will provide for the cost of: plan review; adminisu ation and management of the permirthng process; inspections; and, variance and appeals processing pursuant to this Ordinance. A permit fee schedule shall be established by the City Council based upon the relative complexities of land - altering projects, and may be amended from time to time. 2.11 PERMIT ENFORCEMENT If, through inspection, or other means, it is determined that a person engaged in land - altering activity has failed to comply with the approved Land - Altering Plan and/or other pen conditions, any or all of the enforcement actions prescribed in this Ordinance may be initiated. When permit violations are identified a notice of vinlatinn chall L.. . stop work • AIL PERSONS .. HEREBY ORDERED TO AT ONCE POSTED: ' : The failure tii work: the resurri.tng of work wittiout permission from ;; ' the Public Works Department. or the removal, r.zut.flation or tioncealment • of this notice is punishable by fine and imprislinnent CITY OF TUKWILA 6200 SOUTHCENTER BOULEVARD, TUKWILA, WASHINGTON 98188 August 29, 1991 David Hawkins 3601 East Terrace Seattle, WA 98122 PHONE,' (206) 433.1800 Gary L. VonDum:. Moor RE: Single Family Residence - Tukwila Cottage S_te at Leschi Trading Property (1426X Macadam Road Site Plan Approval for Single Family Residence, Lot A Only Dear Sir: Please call Denise Millard, Permit Coordinato the following permits prepared for pickup: 1. Fire Loop /Hydrant Permit - 1 - 8" Fire Hydrant - JPermit Fee = $25.00) 2. Sanitary Side Sewer - The applicant is re District for their approvals and permitti latecomers fees, etc., for the constructi sewers on this plan. No permit required The Public Works Department has reviewed and approves the site plan for single family residence (finished floor elevation of 166.0 on attached plan) for the unreplatted total property. This approval is for Public Works Department site plan review purposes only. You are referred to the Tukwila Fire Department, Department of Community Development, Water District No. 125 and Val Vue Sewer District for their separate approvals. All utilities serving this site, including po er and phone, must be installed underground per Tukwila Municipal Coe 13.08. at 431 -3672 to have As a requirement of the construction of this single family . residence, the fire hydrant identified on plan as "new hydrant assembly" on South 144th shall be constructed per the City's standards. As this hydrant is serviced by Water District No. 125, permits and approvals to have the hydrant and domestic water meter /service constructed and inspected shall be applied for through Water District No. 125. At the completion of the construction of this hydrant, the develo er will be required to formally turn over the hydrant to Water District No. 125. The applicant is referred to Water Distri t No. 125 for their requirements, charges and latecomer's ee. (Refer to Water District No.25 availability letter on fil ). erred to Val Vue Sewer g process including any n of the sanitary side rom Tukwila. 5. Storm Drain permit (Permit Fee = $25.00) Sincerely, Phil Fraser Senior Engineer Public Works Department Enclosures: Application, Plan, Metro Form xc: Greg Villanueva, City Inspector Permit Coordinator Finance Department Ginger Winn METRO Read File Development File: Leschi Trading 3. Water Meter Permit - The applicant is referred to Water District No. 125 for their approvals, permits and requirements for the installation of the water meter and service line. The City of Tukwila's standards for water service and meter shall also be met. 4. Curb Cut /Access /Sidewalk (Permit Fee = $25.00) Requirement of the City's Fire Department shall also be met with regards to the hammerhead and internal driveway system. The concrete apron and curb and gutter shall be per the City's standard plans and field inspection. Requested is the property owner provide the SSWM bill . for parcel no. 152304 - 9040 -05 so the City may adjust this for a single family residence billing and change it to Rate .07 for your parcel. This will adjust your account to a flat rate of $30.00 per year after your construction is completed, in our next surface water cycle of billing. 6. Land Altering. Permit - 300 Cu. Yds. (Permit Fee = $68.501 This permit is for the earth work portion of the project. Erosion and sedimentation control will comply with the plans. City may require additional measures if erosion and subsequent siltation are not completely contained on site. Please complete the attached Residential Use Certification and forward a copy to METRO. If you have any questions do not hesitate to call me at 433 -0179. CITY OF TUKWILA DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ADMINI . 'RATIVE PLANNED RESIDEN I IAL DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION 1. TOTAL NUMBER OF PROPOSED DWELLING UNIT LOTS: feu 2. ZONING OF SUBJECT SITE: I1.,,1.. Ga. r„ t 3. PROJECT LOCATION: (Give street address or, if vacant, indicate lot(s), block, and sub- division; or tax lot number, access street, and nearest intersection) /lig" Quarter. Section: Township: Range. (This information may be found on your tax statement) 4. APPLICANT:* Name: L GS c.c.; Tr 1."J c CibtJkINs ShoR Address. P.19.1364, Z'z.7ai So4,. w... r zz. Phone. 7 Z o- 71 Signature: Date: /i /s iv / * The applicant is the person whom the staff will contact regarding the application, and to whom all notices and reports shall be sent, unless otherwise stipulated by applicant. AFFIDAVIT OF OWNERSHIP 5. PROPERTY Name: L. c .s c,t., - ►•,,,1,.. e. , OWNER Address: A. o Do - - i sw c.+a . yPi z Phone: 7zo - 7/40 Date: /. /5 /1 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Tukwila, WA 98188 Telephone: (206) 431 -3680 I /WE,[signature(s)]� swear that I /we are the owner(s) or contract purchaser(s) of the property involved in this application and that the foregoing statements and answers contained in this application are true and correct to the best of my /our knowledge and belief. A. BACKGROUND ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 1. Name of proposed project, if applicable: Hawkins Short Plat 2. Name of applicant: David Hawkins tcpeoth Ei064t3k. Seattle, WA 98122 323 -0372, David Hawkins Cc( 1 No. Epi File No. — iiV �/ Fee - 4C3.O9 Receipt No. r /e); 4 22S ,vo 3. Address and phone number of applicant and contact person: 3601 E. Terrace, 4. Date checklist prepared: 2/22/91 (Revised 11121/911 5. Agency requesting Checklist: City of Tukwila 6. Proposed timing or schedule (including phasing, if applicable): Do not know at this time. 7. Do you have any plans for future additions, expansion, or further activity related to or connected with this proposal? If yes, explain. Yes. To build (d) sin famil resi on the lots. 8. List any environmental information you know about that has been prepared, or will be prepared, directly related to this proposal. None. 9. Do you know whether applications are pending for governmental approvals of other proposals directly affecting the property covered by your proposal? If yes, explain. Yes. Waiting for approval of a Short Plat on this property. ECL Revised Nov. 21, 199W -2- OMER "BAR E : . 9 J! J 91 CilY OF TUK'vVILp, PLANNING DEPT. 10. List any government approvals or permits that will be needed for your proposal. Short Plat approval. Building permits reauired to build the fi „r_ houses. 11. Give brief, complete description of your proposal, including the proposed uses and the size of the project and site. There are several questions later in this checklist that ask you to describe certain aspects of your proposal. You do not need to repeat those answers on this page. Section E requires a complete description of the objectives and alternatives of your proposal and should not be summarized 'Here. To take a single _rcel of land and divide it nto f9nr..hui.l.ding lots to build four_ single family restdences, __ „Tbe size of the existing parcel is 30,835 square feet. 12. Location of the proposal. Give sufficient information for a person to understand the precise location of your proposed project, including a street address, if any, and section, township, and range, if known. If a proposal would occur over a range of area, provide the range or boundaries of the site(s). Provide a legal description, site plan, vicinity map, and topographic map, if reasonably available. While you should submit any plans required by the agency, you are not required to duplicate maps or detailed plans submitted with any permit applica- tions related to this checklist. , SE, SEC 15, Tj 23N, RGE 4E, 4i.M, the r r rthwesf r-rnrn.r rd_ South 144th_ Street anti Snitt.I . J4-8th Alt - ) 13. Does the proposal lie within an area designated on the City's Comprehensive Land Use Policy Plan Map as environmentally sensitive? Yes.„ 1p es in ssme areas__gxeater than_15% 1• TO BE COMPLETED BY APP( ,T ( ; Evaluation for Agency Use Only B. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS 1. Earth a. General de cri tion of the site (circle one): Flat, rolling, ill 'ileep slopes, mountainous, other Bldg site area range lrrom 12% to 6% (average) . b. What is the steepest slope on the site (approximate percent slope)? 20% c. What general types of soils are found on the site (for example, clay, sand, gravel, peat, muck)? If you know the classification of agricultural soils, specify them and note any prime farmland. Urban Land (Ur). d. Are there surface indications or history of unstable soils in the immediate vicinity? If so, describe. No. e. .Describe the purpose, type, and approximate quanti- ties of any filling or grading proposed. Indicate source of fill. Some grading for foundation of proposed homes. Do not know quantities at this time. f. Could erosion occur as a result of clearing, construction, or use? If so, generally describe. Yes, during construction. g. About what percent of the site will be covered with impervious surfaces after project construction (for example, asphalt or buildings)? Do not know at this time. Approximately 14 %. 2. Air 3. Water a. Surface: h. Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion, or other impacts to the earth, if any: During construction - use straw bails nr silt fPnnPs to con rol erosion_ a. What types of emissions to the air would result from the proposal (i.e., dust, automobile odors, industrial wood smoke) during construction and when the project is completed? If any, generally describe and give approximate quantities if known. Exhause fumes from construction equipment during time of grading for foundation(sj b. Are there any off -site sources of emissions or odor that may affect your proposal? If so, generally describe. No. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control emissions or other impacts to air, if any: None. 1) Is there any surface water body on or in the immediate vicinity of the site (including year - round and seasonal streams, saltwater, lakes, ponds,' wetlands)? If yes, describe type and provide names. If appropriate, state what stream or river it flows into. No. (A drainage ditch on north side of property.) Evaluation for Agency Use Only 2) Will the project require any work over, in, or adjacent to (within 200 feet) the described waters? If yes please describe and attach available plans. 1 O. 3) Estimate the amount of fill and dredge material that would be placed in or removed from surface water or wetlands and indicate the area of the site that would be affected. Indicate the source of fill material. None, 4) Will the proposal require surface water withdrawals or diversions? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quan- tities, if known. No: 5) Does the proposal lie within a 100 -year floodplain? If so, note location on the site plan. No. 6) Does the proposal involve any discharges of waste materials to surface waters? If so, describe the type of waste and anticipated volume of discharge. No. ' Evaluation for Agency Use Only b. Ground: 1) Will ground water be withdrawn, or will water be discharged to ground water? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quan- tities, if known. No. 2) Describe waste materials that will be discharged into the ground from septic tanks or other sour- ces, if any (for example: Domestic sewage; industrial, containing the following chemicals...; agricultural; etc.) Describe the general size of the system, the number of such systems, the number of houses to be served (if applicable), or the number of animals or humans the system(s) are expected to serve. None. c. Water Runoff (including storm water): 1) Describe the source of runoff (including storm water) and method of collection and disposal, if any (include quantities, if known). Where will this water flow? Will this water flow into other waters? If so, describe. Tight -line downspouts to storm system. Quantities unknown. Evaluation for Agency Use Only 2) Could waste materials enter ground or surface waters? If so, generally describe. No. d. Proposed measures to reduce or control surface, ground, and runoff water impacts, if any: ..Tight -1 i ne cl own spauts _tn tarm_..s_yts _ Channel other water$_tQward stern,._ 4. Plants a. Check or circle types of vegetation found on the site: f deciduous tree: alder, maple, aspen, other evergreen tree: fir, cedar, pine, other 1/shrubs grass pasture crop or grain _ wet soil plants: cattail, buttercup, bullrush, skunk cabbage, other water plants: water lily, eelgrass, milfoil, other other types of vegetation b. What kind and amount of vegetation will be removed or altered? _Jao not know at th time c. List threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. None known. Evaluation for Agency Use Only d. Proposed landscaping, use of native plants, or other measures to preserve or enhance vegetation on the site, if any: 5. _Animals __Do nn} know at this time_ a. Circle any birds and animals which have been observed on or near the site or are known to be on or near the site: birds: hawk, heron, eagle, songbird other: mammals: deer, bear, elk, beaver, other: other: fish: bass, salmon, trout, herring, shellfish, b. List any threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. NnnP knrZwn_ c. Is the site part of a migration route? If so, explain. No. d. Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife, if any: None . Evaluation for Agency Use Only 6. Energy and Natural Resources a. What kinds of energy (electric, natural gas, oil, wood stove, solor) will be used to meet the completed project's energy needs? Describe whether it will be used for heating, manufacturing, etc. Electricity — for home heating. b. Would your project affect the potential use of solar energy by adjacent properties? If so, generally describe. No. c. What kinds of energy conservation features are included in the plans of this proposal? List other proposed measures to reduce or control energy impacts, if any: None. 'The four homes to be built will adher to current energy codes. 7. Environmental Health a. Are there any environmental health hazards, including exposure to toxic chemicals, risk of fire and explosion, spill, or hazardous waste, that could occur as a result of this proposal? If so, describe. No. 1) Describe special emergency services that might be required. None. 2) Proposed measures to reduce or control environ- mental health hazards, if any: N /A. Evaluation for Agency Use Only Evaluation for Agency Use Only b. Noise 1) What types of noise exist in the area which may affect your project (for example: traffic, equipment, operation, other)? None. 2) What types and levels of,noise would be created by or associated with the project on a short - term or a long -term basis (for example: traf- fic, construction, operation, other)? Indicate what hours noise would come from the site. Short term — construction equipment. Long term — four single family homes (typical noise from vehicles). 3) Proposed measures to reduce or control noise impacts, if any: None. 8. Land and Shoreline Use a. What is the current use of the site and adjacent properties? Site is currently_vicant. Adjacent proQerties include single family residences as well as ::commerical building across the street. b. Has the site been used for agriculture? If so, describe. No. c. Describe any structures on the site. onP storage tank. g. d. Will any structures be demolished? If so, what? Storage tanko be removed. e. What is the current zoning classification of the site? R -1 — 7200 f. What is the current comprehensive plan designation of the site? Tukwila If applicable, what is the current shoreline master program designation of the site? N /A. h. Has any part of the site been classified as an "environmentally sensitive" area? If so, specify. Yes. Slopes (some) greater than 15 %. i. Approximately how many people would reside or work in the completed project? single family residences. j. Approximately how many people would the completed project displace? None. k. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement impacts, if any: N /A. 1. Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is com- patible with existing and projected land uses and plans, if any: Adhere to current'.zoning. Evaluation for Agency Use Only Agency Use Only 9. Housing a. Approximately how many units would be provided, if. any? Indicate whether high, middle, or low- income housing? Four single family residences middle income. b. Approximately how many units, if any, would be eli- minated? Indicate whether high, middle, or low - income housing. None. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control housing impacts, if any: None. 10. Aesthetics a. What is the tallest height of any proposed structure(s), not including antennas; what is the principal exterior building material(s) proposed? Do not know at this time. A single floor residences is currentl planned for one of the lots. The tallest possible structure would be a two level home.. b. What views in the immediate vicinity would be altered or obstructed? None. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic impacts, if any: Provide landscaping. Evaluation for 11. Light and Glare a. What type of light or glare will the proposal produce? What time of day would it mainly occur? Typical single family residpnrpc lighting would occur during evening hour b. Could light or glare from the finished project be a safety hazard or interfere with views? No. c. What existing off -site sources of light or glare may affect your proposal? None. d. Proposed measures to reduce or control light and glare impacts, if any: None 12. Recreation a. What designed and informal recreational oppor- tunities are in the immediate vicinity? -- Do not know. b. Would the proposed project displace any existing recreational uses? If so, describe. No. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts on recreation, including recreation opportunities to be provided by the project or applicant, if any: N /A. Evaluation for Agency Use Only 13. Historic and Cultural Preservation a. Are there any places or objects listed on, or pro- posed for, national, state, or local preservation registers known to be on or next to the site? If so, generally describe. Do not know. b. Generally describe any landmarks or evidence of historic, archaeological, scientific, or cultural importance known to be on or next to the site. • None known. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts, if any: k. % 14. Transportation a. Identify public streets and highways serving the site, and describe proposed accss to the existing street system. Show on site plans, if any. South 144th•Street & Macadam Road South. Ingress /Egress will be by both Macadam Rd. and South 144th Street as shown on the site plan. b. Is the site currently served by public transit? If not, what is the approximate distance to the nearest transit stop? Do not know. c. How many parking spaces would the completed project have? How many would the project eliminate? Typical parking for singULIBMIIILJnaaidemmes. No space_ to be e1 ia,il teed Evaluation for Agency Use Only IMM 15. Public Services d. Will the proposal require any new roads or streets, or improvements to existing roads or streets, not including driveways? If so, generally describe (indicate whether public or private). No. e. Will the project use (or occur in the immediate vicinity of) water, rail, or air transportation? If so, generally describe. No. f. How many vehicular trips per day would be generated by the completed project? If known, indicate when peak volumes would occur. Do not know. g. Proposed measures to reduce or control transpor- tation impacts, if any: None. a. Would. the project result in an increased need for public services (for example: fire protection, police protection, health care, schools, other)? If so, generally describe. No. b. Proposed measures to reduce or control direct impacts on public services, if any. None. Evaluation for Agency Use Only 16. Utilities a. Circle utilities currently available at the site: <electricit natural gas, a er Muse service el hone septic system, other. b. Describe the utilities that are proposed for the project, the utility providing the service, and the general construction activities on the site or in the immediate vicinity which might be needed. Puget Power ` gacific_ 11 C. Signature The above answers are true and complete to the best of my knowledge. I understand that the lead agency is relying on them to :, its decision Signature: Date Submitted: February 25, 1991 PLEASE CONTINUE TO THE NEXT PAGE. "A.> Revised November 21, 1991, (1) Evaluation for Agency Use Only TO BE COMPLETED BY APPL( ..T � ;% Evaluation for Agency Use Only 0. SUPPLEMENTAL SHEET FOR NONPROJECT ACTIONS 0 (do not use this sheet for project actions) Because these questions are very general, it may be helpful to read them in conjunction with the list of the elements of the environment. When answering these questions, be aware of the extent the proposal, or the types of activities likely to result from the proposal, would affect the item at a greater intensity or at a faster rate than if the proposal were not imple- mented. Respond briefly and in general terms. 1. How would the proposal be likely to increase discharge to water; emissions to air; production, storage, or release of toxic or hazardous substances; or production of noise? Proposed measures to avoid or reduce such increases are: 2. How would the proposal be likely to affect plants, ani- - --- mals, - - fish, -or- marine life? Proposed measures to protect or conserve plants, .ani- mals, fish, or marine life are: 3. How would the proposal be likely to deplete energy or natural resources? Proposed measures to protect or conserve energy and natural resourses are: 4. How would the proposal be likely to use or affect environmentally sensitive areas or areas designated (or eligible or under study) for governmental protection; such as parks, wilderness, wild and scenic rivers, threatened or endangered species habitat, historic or cultural sites, wetlands, floodplains, or prime farmlands? Proposed measures to protect such resources or to avoid or reduce impacts are: 5. How would the proposal be likely to affect land and shoreline use,, inclduing whether it would allow or encourage land or shoreline uses incompatible with existing plans? Evaluation for Agency Use Only , Evaluation for 14/1 Agency Use Only • Proposed measures to avoid or reduce shoreline and land use impacts area: How does the proposal conform to the Tukwila Shoreline Master Plan? 6. How would the proposal be likely to increase demands on transportation or public services and utilities? Proposed measures to reduce or respond to such demand(s) are: . 7. Identify, if possible, whether the proposal may conflict with local, state, or federal laws or requirements for the protection of the environment. N/fr 8. Does the proposal conflict with policies of the Tukwila Comprehensive Land Use Policy Plan? If so, what poli- cies of the Plan? Proposed measures to avoid or reduce the conflict(s) are: Evaluation for Agency Use Only TO BE COMPLETED BY APPL( IT () Evaluation for Agency Use Only E. SUPPLEMENTAL SHEET FOR ALL PROJECT AND NON PROJECT PROPOSALS The objectives and the alternative means of reaching the objectives for a proposal will be helpful in reviewing the aforegoing items of the Environmental Checklist. This information provides a general overall perspective of the proposed action in the context of the environmental infor- mation provided and the submitted plans, documents, suppor- tive information, studies, etc. 1. What are the objective(s) of the proposal? To short plat a parcel of land into four single family lots; to put four homes on the parcels of land. 2. What are the alternative means of accomplishing these objectives? None. 3. Please compare the alternative means and indicate the preferred course of action: To have the Short Plat approved. -23- 4. Does the proposal conflict with policies of the Tukwila Comprehensive Land Use Policy Plan? If so, what poli- cies of the Plan? No. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce the conflict(s) are: N/A Evaluation for Agency Use Only CITY OF TUKWILA Wetland and Watercourse Special Studies Report Criteria A development proposal that is within 50 feet of a sensitive area will submit appropriate studies to adequately identify and evaluate the sensitive area and it's buffer. Projects proposing sensitive area impacts will require specific studies to assess the impacts and propose mitigating measures. Professional Qualifications Wetland and stream specialists performing work for City review will, upon request, submit professional qualification statements. A project list with references should be included to verify work history and performance. Wetland and Watercourse Analysis The exact location of wetland and watercourse boundaries will be determined by the applicant's consultant. Wetland delineations, performed by wetland specialists, will apply the wetland definition in TMC 18.06.938 and the methodology in the "Federal Manual for Identifying and Delineating Jurisdictional Wetlands" (1989). Watercourse analysis will be performed by qualified stream or wetland specialists to characterize and classify the. watercourse according to the watercourse definition in TMC 18.06.395 and the City's Water Resource study (1990). All buffers will be measured from the ordinary high water mark (OHWM), if field delineation is possible, or from the top of bank. Wetland and watercourse reports submitted to the City should contain the following: 1. A plant species list or description with scientific names (nomenclature), relative abundance and distribution of species, and the major habitat types of vegetation. 2. Data plot forms, according to the Federal Manual method, to substantiate wetland study findings. 3. Report site maps should include: a. Vicinity map b. Public resource document maps including City's Sensitive Area inventory mapping, if applicable. c. Accurate topographic mapping, if required, showing contours at the smallest available interval. d. Field delineated and professionally surveyed wetland and /or watercourse boundary mapping. 4. The written report should discuss the following: a. Site description and general observations of habitat value related to wildlife use. b. Study methodology. c. Soil types mapped on the site including on -site verification and analysis. d. Vegetation description according to the classification system outlined in "Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States ", Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Department of the Interior, 1979 (FWS /OBS- 79/31). e. Wetland or watercourse rating and associated buffer width according to the Sensitive Areas Ordinance of the Zoning Code. Mitigation Proposals A mitigation proposal of wetland or watercourse relocation and /or buffer reduction should include the standard report format plus the following: 1. Conceptual mitigation or enhancement plan to describe and illustrate what impacts and compensatory actions are proposed. a. Include hydrology aspects, vegetation composition, and wildlife habitat details. b. Describe how water quality and flood storage potential would be improved. 2. Upon approval of conceptual plan, a final mitigation or enhancement plan will be required to include the following components: a. Detailed planting and grading plan including species to be used for revegetation. b. Performance standards. c. Construction management. d. Monitoring program to ensure success of the plan. e. Contingency plan to correct performance standards or unanticipated impacts.' f. Performance security in the form of a monetary bond or other means to guarantee the successful completion of the plan. CITY OF TUKWILA Areas of Potential Geologic Instability Development and Report Criteria All development applications on property having slopes greater than or equal to 15% are subject to the Zoning Code - Sensitive Areas Ordinance. Three primary factors that influence slope stability were incorporated into the geologic classification system. Important characteristics of the site are topographic relief, stratigraphy of subsurface soils, and local ground or surface water environment related to potential slippage and massive soil movement. Areas of Potential Geologic Instability are considered sensitive areas and classified as follows: - Class 2 areas, where landslide potential is moderate, which slope between 15 and 40 percent and which are underlain by relatively permeable soils. - Class 3 areas, where landslide potential is high, which include areas sloping between 15 to 40 percent and which are underlain by relatively impermeable soils or bedrock, and which also include areas sloping more than 40 percent. - Class 4 areas, where landslide potential is very high, which include sloping areas with mappable zones of ground water seepage, and which also include existing mappable landslide deposits regardless of slope. Areas of potential seismic instability, with soft soils, loose sand and a shallow groundwater table. - Areas of potential coal mine hazard, ie. subsidence from subsurface excavation and tunneling. In order to identify the extent of sensitive slopes, the applicant must submit a survey of existing topography, drawn in two -foot contour intervals accurate to within one foot of elevation. The topographic survey must be stamped by a professional,land surveyor licensed in the State of Washington. Mapped slope areas exceeding 15 percent should be designated on the site plan for potential geotechnical site review. Professional Qualifications The applicant is required to submit a geotechnical report appropriate to both the site conditions and the proposed development. A geotechnical investigation will generally not be required for development of Class 2 slopes when: 1) any portion of the site is a minimum of 200 feet from a Class 3 or.4 area and 2) the proposed alteration remains outside the sloping area. Development of Class 3 and 4 areas and any identified seismic or coal mine hazard areas requires a geotechnical investigation and associated report. All geotechnical studies must be conducted by a geotechnical engineer. TMC 18.06.323 defines this individual as a professional civil engineer licensed with the State of Washington who has at least four years of professional employment as a geotechnical engineer with experience in landslide evaluation. Geotechnical engineers performing work within the City must submit professional qualification statements in addition to work history and references. Geotechnical Analysis The geotechnical report analyzes the site for overall stability and makes recommendations on the need for and width of buffer setbacks necessary to protect post - development site stability. The investigated geologic, hydrologic, and topographic conditions of the site will be used to confirm or revise the City's geologic classification. The scope of the investigation should comply with the specific requirements presented below. 1. Landslide Hazards Class 2: Geotechnical reports for Class 2 areas are required to have, at a minimum, a review of available geologic site data and a surface reconnaissance of the site and adjacent areas. Subsurface exploration of the site is at the discretion of the geotechnical consultant and the City. Class 3: Geotechnical reports for Class 3 areas are required to have a review of the available geologic site data, a surface reconnaissance of the site and adjacent areas, and a subsurface exploration program suitable to the site conditions and the proposed development. Class 4: Geotechnical reports for Class 4 areas are required to perform the tasks listed for Class 3 areas. In addition, detailed slope stability analysis should be performed based on the information obtained during the field investigation. 2. Erosion Hazards Class 2, 3, and 4 landslide hazard areas are also potential erosion hazard areas. Geotechnical reports regarding proposed development in these areas will include erosion and sediment control recommendations that are appropriate to the site conditions and the proposed development. 3. Seismic Hazards Proposed development within areas of significant seismic hazards should include an evaluation of site response and liquefaction potential relative to the proposed development. For one or two story single - family dwellings, this evaluation may be based on the performance of similar structures under similar foundation conditions. For proposed developments of other occupied structures, this evaluation should include sufficient subsurface exploration to provide a site coefficient (S) for use in the static lateral force procedure described in the Uniform Building Code. 4. Coal Mine Hazards Proposed development within areas of historical coal mine activities or mapped subsurface coal formations will require a detailed site reconnaissance by a geologist or a geotechnical engineer. Site specific information regarding the presence of mine entrances or workings is needed prior to permitting new construction in these areas. Permittinct Requirements Prior to permitting any development of an area of •,potential geologic instability, the applicant must demonstrate one of the following: 1. There is no past or present evidence of slope instability and quantitative analysis indicates no significant risk to the proposed development or surrounding properties. OR 2. The potentially instable area can be modified or the project can be designed so that proposed impacts to the site and surrounding properties are eliminated, slope stability is not decreased, and the increase in surface water discharge or sedimentation will not affect slope stability. r'.'! f 1113 wr fs n• ro.vfa ...1..• • 11 ,_ .11101 / I • 110. I .n ..• 1 • • ypl 11 a •t. 1 14 '0 rl •L K . • 1 x • Y .f:f .1ir IC..f nag. ,a.. . . 11.3 •• •••• 1014.71•4 f M1.1Mrti V 301.1 • . • .t w o.. n 1�� - ..• YJryif 'I•1";".1 I\t s.rlu.11 rrew. ura + �20 n l new 1000 rm [/ 1 w�vnler_ d j v 0.1.011 0.1.011 1, M. w ••.. .M'• a•r. u.6 ro.• 3.tt. • M C.. •O f ^ tom • •••••S C.1 M•• 4w. ■ 13.1011 l• Q•1.. 0 .1111 tl.•• WI • C .•Ar. M q ■ eel •. ••.••q M — ...YO, I •... ...t.• c_ '. C. -. M. 'alPwft N.T. h. 210► 230► 220 ► 210 • 200► I'10■ 180 ■ 110► 160► I60■ _tr m PARCEL G 0290 re) PARGGI. P'�P��•7l IT r ri- P.INi= r.Fl?` —1 - N.ta c Girt r DevJ I .,rr1- be 1. 1 r�.M� 1 4YL • ( M,.. ! l?f'C • u'i oW A u re R •. vr.l ^^ 1f1/w h.r� to 64. W"II.r M.q n ` ` to ' Me er e. C P 4 }o ba .11lal ^ Piie.te,c » ►4r. r o n Meter iw.r y , u•.4 3 /4'0 f '/C. • — 4414) L. prig, G 11 %;ga = '` • am o (1.01Y1'. 46°01 P4RGE . B (i2000.) PIARIGGL A (-1.13309 M•CWIY .....'�..,. CIYSIAUIW7 ...•. • 1 iit 3l ! • I l 1 •t. rT ' t 1 UN :MI /lei: :ii :: :: :: liefCe AIM ::: 4_ kll • /i9l1 UMW-8M krrl I loo �� y�ai 1 �tw id '°P • 4t��yr+.r.�g_- ._ cr( ow ruo de N - rtl6_ e vitcl? – . ..9, -.0 ^ a �T " T -WO N 4 C z C All W4.r h.-n. to lee 'a'4' From Wnt•r NLi n e Motu e 4' erFp . ' .,IL .4 r , J r — PI -4r,cr u I rorn Motor it - 11.14 y1 u... D4 C. G -1 c-moo o•) \ �_ • • ,• • 144T ." I.r v" Ir. 4Sn.r—re ity' l • Nets± c. I7sv_.I.P..f4.It !?t•1411 wk,-,► - Lba 17111L I:nl . sr 1 1:�:rty K • 1 4 • E G C \TfTALI1N•• w s��er re► Llem o el 1L PARCEL B erz000•) Fl eRGeL A 0.03509 • Flovi' 44'rm mil. ° M-5C-7 hee I C, ty KIELConh-Atoc.ro > —tiro l 'o a �ir� e�r to -1.te.-T, r tw+'iib+'4ty ��/s.�,� nrY4 Tr,gt t i.{.•,.nik 4 mt. 14 I'nJ once men. 4 1 •ttl.n Lerner 4..�m I M - 3Ce f t+ylr•nt /,,.,ter .r1vc tea, =•�– P4RGCL 13 NOTlfi t (FA2'h. ■ 20' e. from M.n) paprzet. A loo' vktic.,I Curve 1. hewer -WI V{.e GJ.vv.r R..tr,c.t (hi Fr Gaze -V.I Vie ree0,4,) 2. W-11•r • W ter R..tr,ct u 17 \Arilyt V A 1 5 ti-4-1 Iwrtiarf. w /W, }u• 4.41) wor r City of TJ wll'1 Pevelojrnent ri.Rlor 4•w2- a to be 4V/in..) to G.Oee,.n. or P e b AS 13 4-411 oI t1, I y ,acre n lrf v F .w •, ry a w ^ f r ine ., •Ir -Iir e �,fi.rn e,.rn utilitie'. wittfin The ro edition 4 on l oci ror 4. E1 I Al G4 1 /4 =1' -0 TNIS 15 STANDAR TOP OP RCGE TOP TOP Of TOP Of TOP Of rl 1415 '5 STAN. q A4 1/4 .1' -0 i C E 0 8 M L K J 1 1 I 3 4 1 ` 1 6 I 2 3 TOP OP WOE WOO TOP Of KAY TOP OP PUTS TO► OP PLATE TOP OP PLATE - TEXT MADE ROAR° OP KAY PLATE RATE OOR PLAIT I I Y • L -'L -JL 1 NORTH ELEVATION SOUTH ELEVATION i i 3 4 1 5 1 6 1 7 7- ■r. ►1 9 8 9 111 INS •■ v !r. 10 1 11 I 1 2 it NM IN o 4 9 1 10 1 11 1 12 • '4 • JL 4 4 444 4 44 . (t C. Q. fit. rt r5 4'. ct •�� •r^ 9 . I 4 11 d i 1 i I J J ii I 10 I 11 I 1 2 1 13 1 14 11 \ \ I) \ JL - -_ 11► Ir I �I 11 V I ! r -i 9 1 10 1 11 1 12 1 13 1 14 MATERIAL KEYING LEGEND No. 1 q i-3-6ecv REVISIONS/SUENSSPONS MOPTENSEN /RCHITECTS CQ 6LLTNG A D4FTECT lJC P f N�79 100 SOUTH IOW'. STREET SUITE 200 SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 881o4 -211a5 VOICE 20...25.1..5 MOW= 208.82..5a.2 • COM.. 11 u 0.20 r. •u au•vort• • an swam r n• mr...aw. • MIMI= ra..1r7 LESCHI TRADING COMPANY 7801 TR VA 1at22 208.123.0772 BRUMMERS HILL PROJECT 143XX MACADAM RD TUKWILA WA 95165 °i'"° COTTAGE #1 NORTH AND SOUTH ELEVATIONS Seal 0.••.1 M!a N•. Dote CAD 11. N•. Ck WIN t3. V. ICI A700 09N7/11 MJ$ L K H G F E C On••11y N► 4200 A J1 E1 Al H G E 0 C 9 M L K J 1 2 2 3 4 o- o- b io N 5 ti b • C 6 IIWV11IPJVIJlte BATH /DRESSING I - • 6• -0' A4 t FIRST FLOOR PLAN j1119VWII1IR O e • ca 7 7 ( ,••_,.• a 8 9 *70 r_,o , r - ,o ,/c , s/ c. c. t T. 6J' -E 6 (5 7Y -g ,7' -? 10 1 0 t 1 ti _t 1 3.- la' 5• -5 I/.• '-+ 3' -5• I J' "5 • Y - VO Y -, ]/ • -L! • s' -J v.• 6• -Ir w Io' - 5 J1e FS 11 KITCHEN 11 1 •GI _ 0.r. 1 rr T 1a 12 0 1 Vn CARRIAGE HOUSE 0 I t Fs • 12 Wi , 7• -0' 17' - 0 - ID 1 .• 1 e• - lo 1!4' -! 1 .• COMIFRSATION 1 �,• — — -4 r- -s 1!r m 10 1 11 1 12 1 13 1 14 4 •_ 1 3l.i 4 G- LAUND � 27C } 1 ti 4 3 I /.• 3' -5 I 3.- S. Y -S I !.• 3 1�.• 6' -1C ID -7 3/e �7• -�. Fc? eoa 10 1 11 1 12 c. 10 -1t M.M. CARRIAGE HOUSE I I �S 5 r - - t i. al 77* 4. - -1C. G3 - 1 WORKSHOP �^I 13 1 1 MATERIAL KEYING LEGEND 6114-fregv E NZ I510I6S /SUa..SSI0NS ORTENSEN N2CHITECTS C aEL.L M TF Af76IITECTS AhO FLAMERS 1 00 S0W14 KNG STREET Sum 200 SEATTLE. WASHINGTON 1116104 -2M WCL 20..4201..5 GM.CS 70..7..x..2 • 1N1 .0 07.10.6 r .0 ....+.e . I.. a.30 r ". 0..•03 Nl.rI . e.qn .'awrn BRUMMERS HILL PROJECT 143XX MACADAM RD TUKWILA WA 98168 T1W LESCHI TRADING COMPANY LOCLOPERS AND 3•01E RO SEATTLE IN 1111122 2024210372 COTTAGE #1 FIRST FLOOR PLAN 0.1. SEP7 1,01 Seale AS WIT Wsisol D I..My Nw 0.1. CAD 7E. mt. O 111113014 TIMM 011/01/9I 30 .. A101 A _Z of 4 L K J G F C J1 • E1 Al A4 1/4".1 H 0 F E D c a A M L K J 1 t 1 2 2 3 3 4 4 5 c 1L LOFT LEVEL 6 6 1 7 BEDROOM 11• .8' - 9 BEDROOM 7 E I III 1 1 1 1 I ON 1 1101; 8 8 I 9 10 I 11 I 12 C eat sew, 0 61wd1Ia I®i lei I I I L J L J INTERACTION r , I I Q i 12. -CY I E E I Q Q q 3' -Er 1 p_rr' g i 1 J•_a' 12 -tf f 2' -1' i S -5 1 /a i S• -! t/4 r -. /t jr -v.� 11 6' -' ; J' -11' i 6' -.Y • !' -! 1 /a' I 6' -1' 1 0' -7 3•4° • • �5 t t 5 rk. C. c_ FS (5 6 c)1 6 6 • 75 _9 t 63'-6' 171 i I I LJ 0 4'- 1 1 UNFINISHED 8O,4US ROOM 0 I r � I I ICI 15. -1 1•P 10 1 11 I 12 21'_I' • t SOCIAL :MNT :RACTMON 6 63' -6 S• -S 1/0 1 0• -7 3/4 4' — 1 1" ( I 7, -0• / LJ / co UNFINISHED BONUS ROOM O r — 1 — \ I I IQI \\ 15.1 I /,• 6' -6 3/. FS 25' -7 2I• -l0 / • MATERIAL KEYING LEGEND ci 1-',-Mw Ne. IRNSIONS /SUWISSIONS Dot. MOR?ENSEN /42CHITECTS Cot6�LTMC Al 4TECT CFO R.En 100 ATTLE SS . S * W4TON 11111104-25E6 2M5 MCI 70..22.1143 GROWS 204.1124.5042 •OTIIIII , MI .e c.sr, r Y .W.I■l IN .e =WOW 4t wt 1721.~ 1e ON c 4•10/1• .O..CI LESCHI TRADING COMPANY EIEVELOMS AND MUM 3101 EE MINCE SEATTLE WA M122 2011.323.0372 BRUMMERS HILL PROJECT 143XX MACADAM RD TUKWILA WA 98168 Swag 110. COTTAGE }/ 1 LOFT LEVEL Dn•II ...w lee. DINNIS C11..•.d CAD I% 11.. Dl . 4TS .101.103 06/02/91 20 33 Deeming Ns. A102 _a_ of 9 10 I 11 I 12 1 13 1 14 9 1 10 1 11 1 12 1 13 1 14 L J H G F E 0 C 9 A brummers hill Illth0110 !WWII PN ry. . I) .wT immi nommimmuiuii.. ia■R ■.R RSEMPwbamORRNr... ;2 I ■'•••R'I /Emm! em_. EN RY PECK r. MN. ROIL IOU 1! • ■ ''lei. • 7 " v TAM S 1 1& H1R ■ ERMINE '_!9V II • IRCR =' . • PP' jEi..ip u .=isiumamir,. ■uI..lR ■.I .N. • NEM Y f 4 . 411• ••111111 .•••••• TYPICAL OVERHANG R25•-0" i%. a or dMF t i l l iWII" a 0 L) 0 dolii 11h. 80 .-11 1 /2' N C oO CO N N c0 ID 9079.43 SQUARE FEE i 4 65' -6" cG • 29' -6' / (\f-) kot #()„, . 4 ) 4 0 jot rad /1111% MI SO IliNUE "UM"' VOMI! ISMS I '■EE E, ■110421 SOMMM■■I a; SEROUS dORMRAISMS ■i MUS O51 MMEKEMMOM EIJAJWSSRAI MINISMIMESI ■\\■I11\■ ■I MEIMEEME S IESPOLIEW MAM ■' MEMSEW OOMMOSI M1147., ma ► ii1SY. 2O9 N CO CO r r r 7230.26 SQUARE FEET O m QO r` f- 25'-4" N. 7 AI //; •Y 4 " rl.. •r 1 J .otea■■ w■■r:►. Ism i w ■ rY�■ ` ■■■AU ammisr,am\ammosi■■■ Ile WMOS■■■ ■ ■MOMMI M 3i� ■■ ■ \A■SI■ ,� i \■ ■ ■■ ■Aipltm° ■ ■a\■ ■ mamm Z oZZ ZZZ tZZ 9ZZ RCV BY:Kinko's ph*206 3287445;11 22 1 :42PM ; 205 584i.; 7 FROM : JSA PHONE NO. : 206 624 5842 9 Ott ZC Z SOZ OLZ ZLZ V ZZ - azz 9ZZ OCT. Q a Vol= • 11 • 91 • • • • RV ... 119114 1 L •/ • u .r• .1 — .9 fi MIN 7 1 1 1 1 1 ••t 1 1 1 Al —.9 1 1 1 ZC I C OiC JC/O 8 ote .r /c 1t -At IN I f . +/c 9-21 .*/c 11 -.9 .1 -.9 .1 r Y -A 1 .1- i . r .t -,9 b . . i f .0,..., O 1 O Y i 4 N { { } .01 VI 8 -.9 f c 1 _ - - — —_� / D _ ■ -- .... { / �Rc ■ ■ ■ ■ D 1. �.Lf■ �.I.�I.U. — — — } 40, 1 a � ► � . :..... I I � MIMI -- Ih __-_ � I i' R I L e 1 1 — lIh ... IN IN ■ }: l at ♦ MMINMAMI =Is 9 -.rc zc 9 it-at a c r -.z l 1 11 a= all0 0j RI s acll -A • _ .WC 9-.S .l -.9 ' .l -A X41 1 s a= a 'R { = i { s 1 i = I { Al III j 1 OR I {/ era- I i { { F.--7–Ell-u- 1100 AMI:!1!i I 11 'I { r� s : i . = ji I - C Illn iiiiiiii 111 . _ Air:Ill . .._ ■ . ,. � Nils , , _. ._, -- -- =M IM bbbb .01-4 11-4 4 6 + 6 6 + .0-411 r ti ltt lEillog wolon t1FR ilimul 1=-1-API.1==q1 1 t 1 1 0 T -.9 1 -Lt A -.f A - s A AI -.9 5 fi 1 b A-J1 x 1 a -.t I 0„ .Ve „— .1—.9 .1 f 9—.9 III .i.-.9 • .4-.9 . 11 1 P 1 41-.9 ............ 0 14 102 n. i ili 1 i . I 11 ,4 1 I ; ; me; i 1 1 i 1 1 1' jell o I . 111.11 I i .: I _ ! i 7. 011 I 101 11 ki 1 111111 I 8 : 71 1 L .1 1 if) 7 ct li • • 6 6 + 6 6 6 ji-.0 1 1A-.0 0-.111 1St CO N (0 0 0 N 47'-6 7201.87 SOJARE FEET 44' -6 Ldrci lb. it