Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPermit 80-22-W - WYNN - SENSITIVE AREA WAIVER80-22-w south 152nd street rezone WYNN REZONE WAIVER ZONE CODE AMENDMENT COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLAN /4 sti City of Tukwila 0 1 - 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila Washington 98188 Dear Mr. Yoshida: Frank Todd, Mayor Mr. Ken Yoshida Horton Dennis & Associates 6133 Sixth Avenue South Seattle, WA 98108 August 12, 1980 Re: LID 30 - Phase II Preliminary Engineering O.C.D. CITY OF'it..; :lLA 'AUG 1' 5 1980 At the August 11, 1980 City Council Meeting, approval was given to proceed and prepare plans and specifications for advertisement for the above referenced project. The alternative plan selected was Plan I (copy attached), identified as "fast -track plan ". Plan I is to complete the project in 1980. You are hereby authorized to proceed and complete the plans and specifications in accordance with your proposal of April 30, 1980 which should complete the Phase II portion of your firm's effort. The total agreed cost of Phase.I and II was determined at that time to be $15,900 and was based on your firm proceeding to final design with no interruption in schedule. Subsequently, the City chose to delay the final design effort due to the uncertainty of the property owner's participation in the LID until the protest period was over. Your review of the attached schedule for Plan I concluded that some of your staff may need to work overtime to meet the schedule shown. The City is agreeable in paying for the additional cost over and above the $15,900 amount on the condition the established schedule is met. If at anytime, the City imposes a constraint . or causes delay to your effort, you are to notify the City in an appropriate manner so that the additional overtime charges can be reviewed and appropriately reassessed. We have shown on the network an activity for construction survey which is not a part of your original proposal. We, therefore, request your Mr. Ken Yoshida Horton Dennis & Associates August 12, 1980 page 2 proposal and cost to accomplish this feature of services during construction. At this time, the City is planning to administer the contract and provide our own staff for inspection. FT /jm Attachment Sincerely, ayor Frank Todd cc: Dan Saul, Council President Ted Uomoto, Public Works Director Maxine Anderson, City Clerk Shirley Kristofferson, Finance Dlfe5„tor Mark Caughey, Planning Director Ted Freemire, Public Works Superintendent Reid Johanson, Chairman Public Works Committee lid 30 plan i ANALYSIS CI T Y OF TUKWILA PLANNING DIVISION CITY COUNCIL . STAFF REPORT AGENDA ITEM APPLICATION 80 -22 -W: WYNN REZONE WAIVER INTRODUCTION Exhibit "A "describes the neighborhood setting of the 5.0 ± acre "Wynn" property. The applicants are proposing to construct a multi - family con- dominium housing project, to be built within a single phase. Due to its slope and extensive vegetation cover,the site was designated as an area of special development consideration on the Comprehensive Plan, thus necessitating the waiver action. Two alternative development schemes are depicted on Exhibit "B ". Note that the Comprehiensive Plan "splits" the property diagonally between "medium density" (16 D.U. /AC Max) and "high density" (17+ 4U. /AC) land use designations. The applicants have prepared two alternative site lay- outs, one maximizing the "high density" use concept at 20 D.U. /AC, the other adhering to the "medium density" concept at 16 D.U. /AC.. In both cases, there appears to be a significant degree of encroachment upon sloped areas over 20 %, and up to 65% or more of the existing vegetation cover may be removed. (Compare Exhibit "B" with "Site and Slope Analy- sis", Exhibit "C".) Waiver Criteria #1: Does the proposed action represent a unique con - dition? The applicants assert in their response to Question 3, Schedule A that both proposed site plans conform to City development policy with respect to preservation of vegetation and steeper slopes. Staff agrees that the applicants are conscious of these objectives; howeier the degree to which the two site plans demonstrate that consciousness seems inadequate. Alter- native layouts, such as• "clustering" the units in a°small, relatively- inten- sive portion of the lower elevation of the total property, and /or reduc- tion in the total number of units proposed in order to minimize surface parking demand should be investigated. Waiver Criteria #2: Is the proposed action significant in scale? Relative to the density levels and project - buildout intensity which characterize existing development in *the immediate vicinity of the Wynn property, neither project proposal is out -of -scale to the neighborhood context. COUNCIL ACTION DATE AGENDA ITEM ACT ION A :F ETING TYPE _ Ma MOM • City Council, Staff Report Page 2 Waiver Criteria #3: Has the applicant shown that no reasonable alter- natives are available which would not require a waiver? In Staff's opinion, this criteria is not applicable. Since the waiver is mandated for environmental reasons, any alternative development scheme except construction of one single - family home on the entire five acres, would require waiver approval. Waiver Criteria #4: If the request for waiver involves building, grading, clearing, excavation, or filling in a geographical area generally identified by the environmental base map as an area of high natural amenity or development constraint are sufficient mitigating measures provided? This criteria is the key area of inquiry. While the applicants have voluntarily provided generalized information regarding the environmental sensitivity of the site, the fact that our waiver application process is not subject to SEPA review limits the amount of such material available to council in analyzing the proposal. The following general impressions may serve to focus future attention on environmental details needing more intensive study: A) Topography The general downward slope of the site is from northeast to southwest, the lower portion in close proximity to the S & M "Tukwila Heights" project. The applicant has noted in his preliminary site study that a disparity seems to exist between the City's own contour maps and empirical observation in the field. It is possible to conclude, therefore, that an accurate, site - specific topography study depicting existing conditions, and a Comprehensive Preliminary Grading Plan showing the resulting degree of slope disturbance will be needed before adequate miti- gation solutions can be identified. This material should be presented to the City SEPA Official before the rezone: hearing. B) Tree Preservation The entire site is wooded with the center portion being less densely wooded and partially open with Salal, Oregon Grape, ferns, and vines occurring in the understory of Cedars, Firs, Maple; in two areas smaller Willow and Alder trees also exist. There are some major Maples and other large trees within six to ten feet of 152nd along the entire property line. These trees would provide an important buffer to the site if they could be retained, both during the site development and during the development of improvements along 152nd Street as part of the LID 30. 7 City Council, Staff Report Page 4 As noted previously, the Comprehensive splits the Wynn property between high- density residential uses on the southerly half and medium - density on the northerly half. The reasoning of the Comprehensive Plan is to provide a transition in bulk and built form between the intensive multi- family areas south of 152nd, and the single- family area north of the Wynn property. Neither of the two alternative site plans provide for a definite "stepping down" of density or building size as one moves south to north across the site. Thus, Council guidance relative to density mitigation impacts should include adherence to the general guidelines of the Comprehensive Plan as regards absolute density levels and transition of building bulk. Waiver Criteria #5: Is the request for waiver consistent with the goals and policies of the comprehensive land use policy plan? Please see the applicant's attachment #1 for a thorough analysis of this project's merits relative to the Comprehensive Plan. Waiver Criteria #6: Do the requirements of this waiver ordinance impose a special hardship to this site? In Staff's opinion, the criteria is not applicable. The waiver process, even though exempt from SEPA, is a valuable tool for identifying aspects of the project worthy of intensive environmental investigation and for focusing attention on areas of public policy concern. Ultimately, the waiver process may • expedite rezone review by serving to isolate "early -on" significant problem areas and strengths in the project pro- posal. Waiver Criteria #7: Would a grant of the waiver necessitate a major policy commitment prior to the adoption of the new zoning ordinance map? In Staff's view, granting a waiver in this case will not be a preceden- tial policy commitment. During its review of the proposed zoning ordin- ance and map, the Planning Commission was asked to recommend high- density zoning for the Wynn property. The Commission declined to do so, leaving the present R -1 designation in force. However, the Commission stated in their findings that higher density zoning should be considered upon appli- cation by the private sector, due to the existing character of development on properties surrounding the Wynn site. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that a preliminary waiver be approved for this project, subject to the following stipulations: 1) The Grant of Waiver is approved only for authorization to proceed with application for SEPA review and rezoning. By this action, City Council makes no expressed or implied approval of a site development layout concept. or dwelling unit /acre density level. 2) Determination of a site sensitive development pattern and appropri- i • fi City Council, Staff Report Page 3 The applicants have suggested that.a tree inventory be prepared in conjunction with a precise grading /topography study. We agree, and proposed that the inventory should include the following at a minimum: 1) all conifers with trunk caliper 3" or greater 2) all broadleaf varieties with trunk caliper 6'.' or greater 3) all significant clusters or groves of trees regardless of individual specimen trunk diameter C) Access The Public Works and Fire Departments must be consulted in the early design stages of the project to insure adequate public safety consideration. D) Hydraulics /Utilities The applicants indicate that the amount of site disturbance due to construction and paving will require on -site storm water retention..Acco.rdingly, a quantitative hydraulic study indicating the total amount of on -site storm run -off storage capacity needed should be prepared prior to the rezone hearing. Our recent experience with the "Sunwood" condominium project indi- cates that early planning for location of utility lines can greatly assist the City's efforts to conserve valuable trees and vegetation. Accordingly, we suggest that subsequent site deve- lopment studies include a conceptual layout of water, sewer, tele- phone and gas lines, and that such utility corridors be positioned to minimize distrubance of significant trees or groves of trees. identified in the previously- discussed tree inventory. E) Residential Density Since the applicants have not decided upon a density level or deve- lopment format which fits their needs, but are requesting Council guidance on the alternatives presented, apecific mitigation solu- tions in the areas'of transportation, air quality, public services and the like cannot be presented until_ljoint city /developer con- sensus on built form and density is reached. In Staff's view, density should not become in itself the guiding principal for development of this site. Rather, City Council, the Planning Commission and Staff should strive to maximize development "performance" in terms of shapes, materials, open space, preservation of existing amenities, and so forth. There- fore, the ultimate number of units should become subordinate to some degree to the overall visual and functional quality of the project as a human activity space. • j - { �.. • • • WYNN REZONE R.W. Thorpe & Associates Planning • Environmental Analysis • Economics APPLICANT'S ATTACHMENT 1 Tukwila Comprehensive Land Use Policy Plan Analysis of Relationship of the Proposed Rezone to Existing Comprehensive Land Use Plan and Zoning Regulations The recently- adopted Comprehensive Plan contains several elements, including a Goals and Policies section and a map that serve as .:a land use guideline to assist the City's review bodies and staff in evaluating zoning applications and land use matters. As depicted, the Conceptual Site Plan provides for more dense use and parking in the south and west portions of the site, depicted as High Density Residential. The "ridge line" is used as a natural demarca- tion between medium density, some less dense areas, and open space in cyder to buffer single family uses in the. northeast corner of the site. The proposed site plan and proposed development have been designed to be as consistent as possible with the map, and the directions given to the property owners in the vicinity by previous Comprehensive Plan, Rezone, and Site Plan approval. The plans also reflect the Goals and Policies section of the Plan as summarized below. Residential Element: Section 1: Neighborhood Objectives and Policies Objective 1, Policy 1: Interior site transition and open space areas are based on topographic features. Objective 2, Policy 1: Site plan provides for transition with site by declining densities and open space from dense (20 -35 DU /Ac) development on west, south, and east. Objective 2, Policy 2: Vacant areas to north of site in medium density areas can provide for further transition. Objective 3, Policy 1: Retention of significant vegetation along west and south site perimeters along with other noise reduction techniques will reduce impact of freeway noise. Maintenance of buffer areas on the north and east, particularly the steep slope area, will provide compatibility with this objective. In addition, the following items as incorporated into the proposal are responsive to policies in this section: Policy 1: Screening of adjacent uses. Policy 3: Undergrounding of all utilities. Policy 4: Maintenance of natural open space areas. Policy 5: Provision of guest and recreational vehicle parking. Policy 6: Provision of trails to link activity nodes in the area. Policy 7: Encouragement of recreational open space within multi - family development. Seattle: 815 Seattle Tower • 3rd & University • Seattle. WA 96101 • (208) 624 -6239 Anchorage: Suite 503 • 1110 West Sixth Avenue • Anchorage. AK 99503 • (907) 276.6848 Associates: Len Zickler Deborah Krouse City Council, Staff Report Page 5 ate.density level shall be made by recommendation of the Planning Commission at the rezone hearing stage after all pertinent SEPA information is available. The Planning Commission recommendation shall be subject to final approval, modification or rejection by the City Council J - • Transportation 4 • Section 2: Housing Objective 1, Policy 1: Site plan calls for clustering various densitites and building types with variable setbacks and open space areas. Objective 1, Policy 2: Units are designed and anticipated to be marketed as condominiums. Objective 2, Policy 3: Building can be heavily insulated for noise and energy controls. Insulation, insulated glass, and buidling siting will be used to reduce freeway and overall noise. Objective 4, Policy 1: Site plan provides for grouping of units around court- yards and open space areas. Objective 4, Policies 2, 3, and 4: Can be observed in formal site plan approval. The following goals and objectives are relevant and the proposal is generally consistent with each one. Element Goals Objective General Goals 2, 5, 6, 8 Natural Elements 1, 2, 3 Open Space 1, 2 Residence 1, 2, 3 Transportation /Utilities 3, 4 Natural Environment 1 1, 2, 3 3 1, 2, 3, 4 4 1, 3, 4 5 1 6 1 8 Open Space 1 1, 2, 3, 4, 6 2 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7. 3 2 Residence (See Previous Text) Utilities Sanitary Sewer Storm Water Systems Underground Utilities • 815 Seattle Tower • 3rd & University • Seattle. WA 98101 • (208] 524.8239 nw • • 1 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7 9, 10, 11, 12 3 1, 2 6 3, 7, 8 2 2, 4, 5, 6 5 4, 5 6 1, 2, 4 7 1, 2 8 1, 4, 5, 7 • . • Goals General Goals: None Natural Environment: None Residence: None Transportation: None Objectives /Policies Objective /Policy Natural Environment Open Space Residence Transportation Zoning Code Building /Fire Code • i i• The following goals may be partially inconsistent with the application ap presently proposed. Other policies and objectives not listed were considered not applicable. Open Space: 3, provide recreational opportunities for all people of Tukwila 2 -1 Retain wooded hillsides for wildlife (partially compatible) . 3 -1 Some limited development may occur in areas of 20% to 25% slope, however in excess of 25 %. 8 Some on -site studies (i.e., slope analysis) have provided environmental data that may be different than that of the City's environmental data bank. 2 -4 Some areas of existing trails may be rerouted to perimeter of development.. 3 -3 No trail easements for public access are proposed at present. 3 -1 No low income housing is proposed. 6 -4 Trails, walkways may not be planned for handicapped. The proposed uses will comply with the appropriate sections of the Zoning Code (Title 18, TMC) for the R -4 classification. All density, bulk requirements, site coverage, parking, and other requirements have been reviewed and incor- porated in the plans. Provisions of the UBC and Fire Codes will be observed and changes made if necessary in order to comply. • 815 Seattle Tower • 3rd S. University • Seattle, WA 98101 • (206) B24 -8239 is • • • • • • '•••• 141.MP ibTICeeT Armed. WHVAt..A •4 JJ1a - 10 011111KIL 143 f1 .5G1-01.. S o utop. - 14, amomitg. MO YAM* £4 O 44 SOWN ttJ 0 ce to 7, • wo -41/ !.. go . . . • . .• • ' • • • ; . »4 NUQ SECTION THROUGH SITE 1.W REZONE _ R.W.TRoiePt ANr7 KJ:rcIA • SIS 21 T. eW'..Ips.ot I-- 4 OlG Sot y 7AO e,K1.1VNV 7115 - • 4141•- OW - a s eiR Z41 }UPC t . •rfw isinprow 1 . 1 1 4 1 9 0 2 4 ' zhnns • • • on law van": • • • • • • • N % -. - S ON - t d`dW J.11 N I7IP WYOY' OCIP4 y--Mr DATE Ii 0 itt 11 e °WI -Ot 43aols tot N2,02 F S*1:1'114V 11.1S - ACINTILL5 I 1 On. a CO7 OCO OS 0 4, Cat Si 1 1 ' NY St."-tZt: ■■• • T— rino Istwo IO11,1 0 " t • • • • • • • .1% dr) WO V3M2.3.7 • CTOCIteli • • • s. I • 1 • • 1 • % '• „.. 01114 WOW CRO • - nyx, t2I CliONGCCOGIY Ar_ • • • • • • • •‘, • • • • MKS:XS:LI -I • Woo 111.114151l10:ob . Yi11611L r134" ;;PJS July 28, 1980 TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL City Hall 7:00 P.M. COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETIN( Council Chambers MINUTES CALL TO ORDER Council President Saul called the Tukwila City Council Committee of the Whole Meeting to order. L. C. BOHRER, GEORGE D. HILL, REID JOHANSON, DORIS PHELPS, Council President DAN SAUL, GARY L. VAN DUSEN. APPROVAL OF MINUTES MOVED BY VAN DUSEN, SECONDED BY HILL, THAT THE MINUTES OF THE JULY 14, 1980 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING BE APPROVED AS PUBLISHED. MOTION CARRIED. ROLL CALL OF COUNCIL MEMBERS PUBLIC HEARING Prop. Annexation - 4526 So. 135th DISCUSSION Request for Waiver - Harold Wynn property located on north side of S. 152nd between Macadam Rd. & 57th Ave. So. - Request for rezone of 5 ac. site to R -4. Mark Caughey, Planning Department, stated the property owner who had requested the annexation, has sold the property. Future consideration of the annexation should be at the request and discretion of the subsequent property owner. MOVED BY HILL, SECONDED BY JOHANSON, THAT THE PUBLIC HEARING ON THE PROPOSED ANNEXATION BE TABLED. MOTION CARRIED, WITH VAN DUSEN VOTING NO. Kathy Figon, representing R. W. Thorpe and Associates, said they have a conceptual site plan for the property. They feel an environmental analysis should be done before specific conditions can be determined. The City topography map is not accurate and a better map is necessary. Councilman Van Dusen asked if the environmental analysis would include a test hole bore? Kathy Figgon said it would, they wish to do a complete environmental analysis. Councilman Bohrer said the site maps show four buildings in the north east corner of the site. He asked about access to these buildings. Kathy Figon said it would be pedestrian access, vehicular access would be the parking lot. She said the site plan presented is just a conceptual plan. Councilman Van Dusen said he felt there was a problem with the buildings in the northeast corner, too. That area is a hill, it is steep and wooded. It has been the City's experience, from similar developments, that the corner will be devastated. There are some nice trees there that should be preserved. Kathy Figgon said the dimensions of the area are 330 feet by 660 feet, approximately 5 acres. MOVED BY PHELPS, SECONDED BY HILL, THAT THE WYNN REQUEST BE ON THE AGENDA OF THE AUGUST 4, 1980 REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING. * Councilman Bohrer said the map indicates that another corner on the south boundary might cause concern. Kathy Figon said she walked the site and it did not seem very steep. The topography is not the same as shown on the map. Councilman Bohrer said that fact points out the need for more detailed information. John Potter, R. W. Thorpe and Associates, said they are proposing to provide a complete environmental analysis before the rezone. It will address steepness, soils, and other concerns. They are asking to be allowed to go ahead and present studies conditioned on the environmental analysis. He said they were offering to provide the environmental analysis. The rezone will be contingent upon the analysis. Councilman Bohrer asked if they would accept Staff recommendations. Mr. Potter said they have discussed the matter with Mr. Caughey, Planning Department, and they are willing to accept Staff conditions. They are willing to work with Staff. *MOTION CARRIED. 77,_77 TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL, REGULAR MEETING August 4, 1980 Page 2 Ir BID OPENINGS AND AWARDS Bid Opening Date MOVED BY VAN DUSEN, SECONDED BY JOHANSON, THAT COUNCIL APPROVE for signal project THE CALL FOR BIDS FOR A TRAFFIC SIGNAL ON TUKWILA PARKWAY WITH (cont.) THE BID OPENING ON AUGUST 26, 1980.* Councilman Bohrer asked about the possibility of a freeway off or on ramp at that location and wondered if the signalization would be compatible. Mr. Uomoto assured him it would be compatible with any redesign. Waiver Request: Harold Wynn -for property on north side of South 152nd *MOTION CARRIED. PETITIONS, COMMUNICATIONS, APPEALS AND SIMILAR MATTERS d'YC Mark Caughey, Acting Planning Director, noted that Harold Wynn has requested a waiver for property located on the north side of south 152nd street between Macadam Road South and 57th Avenue South. The property consists of 5 acres and is proposed for a multi - family housing development. They have presented two plans. One alternative is at a density of 16 units per acre, the other is about 20 units per acre. The waiver application is on the agenda because the applicant indicates the intent to have the development encroach upon an area which exceeds 25% in average slope. The department probably has enough information at this time to enable Council to authorize the applicant to pursue the rezone process. The property is currently zoned single family. The Comprehensive Plan provides for medium and high density. Prior to the rezone, staff will complete a very extensive environmental analysis which will address the questions of topography, drainage, soil stability, etc. and determine what is a reasonable density figure for the development of this property. The waiver is triggered by environmental concerns. Councilman Van Dusen clarified that the waiver is required because of encroachment on the slope. Mr. Caughey said Council has the opportunity to address the question of slope and give the applicant any other guidance which will help in the approval process. In addition to the northeast corner, there are other areas that have been identified as excessive in slope or have unstable soil conditions. Councilman Van Dusen asked if Council should address the whole site now and Mr. Caughey recommended they do. Councilman Bohrer asked about the density indicated on the Comprehensive Plan map. Mr. Caughey said the southerly half is designated high density; to the north it drops to a medium density. Councilman Harris asked if the slope is a slide area or if the soil is unstable. Mr. Caughey said primarily because it is a slope and covered with heavy vegetation. The pre- liminary soils investigation indicates the soil stability probably won't be a problem. Mr. Bob Thorpe, representing Harold Wynn, said they are attempting to show conceptual things at this stage. Once they get the waiver they will have the topography and trees surveyed. They believe the areas that are shown 25% are not actually that steep. He noted the surrounding average density is almost 30 units per acre. They are attempting to tier their units up the site and use structured parking. They are set back 100 feet from the corner. After they have a better slope analysis they can do a better job of locating the units. They feel there is less area than is shown that is over 20 %. The majority is in the corner and they have protected most of that. They are working closely with staff and are getting prepared to go to the Planning Commission. TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL, REGUir MEETING August 4, 1980 Page 3 PETITIONS, COMMUNICATIONS, APPEALS AND SIMILAR MATTERS Waiver Request: Harold Wynn -for property on north side of South 152nd (cont.) Criteria #1 Criteria #2 Criteria #3 ROLL CALL VOTE: BOHRER - NO HARRIS - YES HILL - NO JOHANSON - NO PHELPS - NO VAN DUSEN - YES *MOTION FAILED: 4 - NO; 2 - YES. *MOTION FAILED: 5 - NO, 1 - YES. Councilman Van Dusen asked if now is the time to address the problems. Unless the concerns are "set in concrete," two or three years down the road they are forgotten. Attorney Hard said the sooner the property owner understands the Council's concerns, the better off everyone is. Councilman Van Dusen said you can walk the site and identify green areas but during the actual construction, most of the trees will be taken down. His concern are the hilly areas. When you start cutting into the hillside, there is a problem. He said he would like to see the northeast 200 foot elevation left undeveloped. Councilman Phelps said she would like to see the transition from high to medium density preserved on the site as you move up the hillside. Councilman Bohrer said it has been noted that the site survey data is of dubious quality. There are probably a number of places on the site where the gradient is 25% or greater. There is one portion indicated to be a slope of 40% to 50 %. Council does need an updated topography of this site. MOVED BY VAN DUSEN, SECONDED BY HARRIS, THAT COUNCIL VOTE YES ON CRITERIA #1- -Does the proposed action represent a unique condition ?* Councilman Bohrer said there is an adjacent piece of property immediately to the north which has the same designation; there are other pieces to the east and south that are still undeveloped and have similar topography. From this, it is not a unique condition. MOVED BY VAN DUSEN, SECONDED BY BOHRER, THAT COUNCIL VOTE YES ON CRITERIA #2 - -Is the proposed action significant in scale ?* Councilman Harris noted that the staff report says "relative to the density levels and project -- buildout intensity which characterize existing development in the immediate vicinity of the Wynn property, neither project proposal is out -of -scale to the neighborhood context." ROLL CALL VOTE: HARRIS - NO JOHANSON - NO PHELPS - NO HILL - NO VAN DUSEN - NO BOHRER - YES, this project is as large as most of the ones in the surrounding neighborhood. MOVED BY VAN DUSEN, SECONDED BY JOHANSON, THAT COUNCIL VOTE YES ON CRITERIA #3- -Has the applicant shown that no reasonable . alternatives are available which would not require a waiver ?* TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL, REGUt MEETING August 4, 1980 Page 4 PETITIONS, COMMUNICATIONS, APPEALS AND SIMILAR MATTERS Waiver Request: Harold Wynn -for property on north side of So. 152nd (cont.) Criteria #3 Criteria #4 Criteria #5 Criteria #6 Councilman Harris noted that staff's opinion is that this criteria is not applicable. ROLL CALL VOTE: JOHANSON - N/A PHELPS - N/A HILL - N/A VAN DUSEN - N/A BOHRER - NO HARRIS - N/A *MOTION FAILED: 5 - Not Applicable, 1 - No. MOVED BY VAN DUSEN, SECONDED BY HARRIS, THAT COUNCIL VOTE YES ON CRITERIA #4 - -If the request for waiver involves building, grading, clearing, excavation, or filling in a geographical area generally identified by the environmental base map as an area of high natural amenity or development constraint are sufficient mitigating measures provided ?* Councilman Johanson said that at this point, where no site plans have been furnished, it is hard to respond to this one. Councilman Van Dusen agreed, since they have not been addressed at this time, he would have to vote "NO." Councilman Bohrer agreed that this is very difficult to address because there is no specific site proposal. Councilman Harris noted that staff says this criteria is the key to the waiver request because of the topography. ROLL CALL VOTE: PHELPS - NO HILL - NO VAN DUSEN - NO BOHRER - NO HARRIS - NO JOHANSON - NO *MOTION FAILED: 6 - NO. MOVED BY VAN DUSEN, SECONDED BY PHELPS, THAT COUNCIL VOTE YES ON CRITERIA #5 - -Is the request for waiver consistent with the goals and policies of the comprehensive land use policy plan ?* Councilman Bohrer said his interpretation is that the applicant is familiar with all the considerations and has generally made an attempt to comply with them. ROLL CALL VOTE: HILL - YES VAN DUSEN - YES BOHRER - YES HARRIS - YES JOHANSON - YES PHELPS - YES *MOTION CARRIED: 6 - YES. MOVED BY VAN DUSEN, SECONDED BY HARRIS, THAT COUNCIL VOTE YES ON CRITERIA #6 - -Do the requirements of this waiver ordinance impose a special hardship to this site ?* Councilman Harris read the staff's opinion that the criteria is not applicable. The waiver process, even though exempt from SEPA, is a valuable tool for identifying aspects of the project worthy of intensive environmental investigation and for focusing attention on areas of public policy concern. Councilman Bohrer said he agrees with the staff's analysis, but is not sure about the conclusion. It does bring out some important TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL, REGUL R MEETING August 4, 198^. Page 5 PETITIONS, COMMUNICATIONS, APPEALS AND SIMILAR MATTERS Waiver Request: Harold Wynn -for property on north side of So. 152nd (cont.) Criteria #6 Criteria #7 things. If you consider it as "one extra loop for the applicant to jump through " - -yes, it's a special hardship. Councilman Johanson said he doesn't like to consider it a hardship. ROLL CALL VOTE: VAN DUSEN - NO BOHRER - NO HARRIS - YES JOHANSON - YES PHELPS - YES HILL - YES *MOTION CARRIED: 4 - YES; 2 - NO. ROLL CALL VOTE: BOHRER - NO HARRIS - NO JOHANSON - NO PHELPS - NO HILL - NO VAN DUSEN - NO *MOTION FAILED. 6 - NO. MOVED BY VAN DUSEN, SECONDED BY HARRIS, THAT COUNCIL VOTE YES ON CRITERIA #7- -Would a grant of the waiver necessitate a major policy commitment prior to the adoption of the new zoning ordinance and map ?* Councilman Bohrer noted that this property, in terms of the land use, is in the middle of a high density /medium density zone. It is not at the border of the zone. It is an environmentally critical area sensitive area, however, the City has said they would attempt to control development there and regulate it, but not prohibit it. In light of this, there is no major commitment of policy here that is consistent with the policies that have previously been laid down. MOVED BY VAN DUSEN, SECONDED BY HARRIS, THAT COUNCIL GRANT THE PRELIMINARY WAIVER WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: THAT AN INTENSIVE STUDY AND CONSIDERATION BE DONE ON TOPOGRAPHY, TREE PRESERVATION, ACCESS, HYDRAULICS /UTILITIES, AND RESIDENTIAL DENSITY.* Mr. Caughey said this covers all the concerns except the concept of stepping -down the density as you move northward across the site. Councilman Van Dusen said this should be part of the density consideration. Councilman Phelps said if the developer were to cluster buildings and save part of the site for the natural environment, it would be a trade off for stepping the density up the hill. Councilman Bohrer said the motion is consistent with the recommendation of staff. Mr. Caughey said he would prefer Council use the more specific language used in the staff report. The main thing they want the applicants to understand is that the Council is not making any commitments, at this point, on these particular sites development plans. When it goes to the Planning Commission the "table is wide open." Councilman Johanson said without a plan, Council cannot discuss specifics or details. He said he would like to see the density graduated toward the top. The developer could use some type of a buffer effect to separate it from the residential area. Council- man Harris, referring to Exhibit D, said she finds it very pleasing, and it looks like it would be very little excavation. Councilman Van Dusen noted that it is no good to try to save just the large trees without preserving some of the smaller ones around to protect the larger ones -- especially if they are firs. TUKWILA CITY 9 UNCIL, REGU" MEETING August 4, 19& Page 6 PETITIONS, COMMUNICATIONS, APPEALS AND SIMILAR MATTERS Waiver Request: Harold Wynn -for property on north side of So. 152nd (cont.) Final Acceptance: Street Widening Southcenter Pkwy. Budget Transfer Motion #80 -23: Funding of Project Planner & Graphic Intern Budget Transfer Motion =`80 -24: Repay interfund Loan -LID #28 Budget Transfer Motion #80 -25: Shelving for Library Councilman Bohrer referred to the staff recommendation, and there are a couple of points in it that reflect Council's intent; one is, the grant of the waiver is approved only for authorization to proceed with application for SEPA review and rezoning. The second part says that Council makes no expressed or implied approval of the site or specific layout. MOVED BY BOHRER, SECONDED BY HARRIS, THAT THE MOTION BE AMENDED TO ADD CONDITIONS 1 AND 2 THAT ARE IN THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION. (1) The grant of waiver is approved only for authorization to proceed with application for SEPA review and rezoning. By this action, City Council makes no expressed or implied approval of a site development layout concept or dwelling unit /acre density level. (2) Determination of a site sensitive development pattern and appropriate density level shall be made by recom- mendation of the Planning Commission at the rezone hearing stage after all pertinent SEPA information is available. The Planning Commission recommendation shall be subject to final approval, modification or rejection by the City Council. MOTION CARRIED. *MOTION CARRIED TO GRANT THE WAIVER WITH CONDITIONS. Mr. Caughey noted that there is a moratorium in effect in this area that effects this property. What is Council's intent toward lifting the moratorium. Attorney Hard said the ordinance approving the creation of LID #30 provides that if insufficient protests are filed within the 30 day protest period, Council will take action to repeal the moratorium. Mr. Uomoto said the street widening project along Southcenter Pkwy. was constructed by Moss Construction and administered and inspected by city staff. The total project will run slightly over $80,000. The contract was awarded for $68,923.50, and there were two change orders amounting to $5,500. The project was under the control of the Public Works staff. Wes Jorgenson, Junior Engineer, did an outstanding job. MOVED BY VAN DUSEN, SECONDED BY JOHANSON, THAT COUNCIL ACCEPT THE STREET WIDENING PROJECT ALONG SOUTHCENTER PKWY. MOTION CARRIED. Budget Transfer Motion No. 80 -23 provides funding for the Project Planner and Graphic Intern through December 31, 1980 to enable completion of revised zoning ordinance text, map material and environmental impact statement. ($5,825.00) MOVED BY PHELPS, SECONDED BY VAN DUSEN, THAT COUNCIL APPROVE BUDGET TRANSFER MOTION NO. 80 -23. MOTION CARRIED. Budget Transfer Motion No. 80 -24 is to provide funds to repay interfund loan and all costs incurred on LID „28. ($78,676.00) Councilman Phelps noted that there was a voucher, approved earlier this evening for this amount. MOVED BY HARRIS, SECONDED BY VAN DUSEN, THAT COUNCIL APPROVE BUDGET TRANSFER MOTION NO. 80 -24. MOTION CARRIED. Budget Transfer Motion No. 80 -25 is to provide funds for additional shelving for the Tukwila Library to complete the book display areas. ($1,125.00) MOVED BY VAN DUSEN, SECONDED BY JOHANSON, THAT COUNCIL APPROVE BUDGET TRANSFER MOTION NO. 80 -25. MOTION CARRIED. 1... Mr. R. W. Thorpe R. W. Thorpe & Associates 815 Seattle Tower 3rd and University Seattle, WA 98101 Dear Mr. Thorpe: '� L G 7 `. j 2 i j t • r . `.I • t s K t1 \J li �. �. ✓u ~�\ 6200 Souihcenier Boulevard 1uk'-rla Washington 98188 • 12 00 Frank Todd, Mayor July 11, 1980 Per our meeting on Ju].y 10, 1980 in which we discussed an agreement by Mr. Wynn to participate in LID 30, I hope that the several questions you may have had were clarified by the Mayor and staff. To briefly go over our discussion and subsequent input from the Public .Works Department and Planning Department, let me make the following comments. Per the consultant's preliminary assessment roll, Mr. Wynn's participation in the LID is 17.29%. By excluding non - benefiting properties, the consultant informs me that '1r. Wyn 's Participation is 18.7%. The consultant informed me that this is based on° $25i,433.i10 which excludes the $13,900 which would have been against the Wynn property if he so elects to include the sanitary sewer in front of his property. The changed percentage indicates a potential $3,677.00 increase to the basic street assessment fron $44,847.24 to $48,524.32. If Mr. Wynn provides an early commitment to the LID by agreement, the City may elect to proceed immediately into the final design phase for the project and allow construction to begin in August 1980. If the LID lacks the 60% protest, the contract documents can be finalized and advertised in a timely fashion and necessary right -of -ways can be obtained before letting the contract. this project can proceed in August ].980 and be completed this year. It is anticipated that under the above circumstance::, the consultant's overall project estimate is good, which is the basis for the preliminary assessment roll. As e.s mentioned in our meeting, the current project represents a scaled -clown version of LID 28. The consultant design group has already cut all the "fat" out of the project at this Point in time. The Mayor takes personal charge of "change orders" to the Project and, through the approval process of change orders, determines the most cost- effective solutions. The Council may he involved also and apprised of any significant project costs. I•ir. R. W. Thorpe R. W. Thorpe & Associates Dace 2 As ,mentioned in our meeting, the Public Works Department welcomes the opportunity to coordinate the development of the final street plans in conjunction with the site planning for the Wynn property. With regards to right -of -way, the City will acquire the necessary right - of -ways for the stree and a straight sidewalk along the northerly boundary of S. 152nd Street. - 1' ,`.: :eam, If the City and Mr. Wynn come to agreement on a :meandering sidewalk to preserve trees fronting the property, the property owner will dedicate the necessary easements to construct and /or maintain such a walkway as deemed necessary by the City. We look forward to Mr. Wynn' s review of the agreement sent to him earlier to participate in the LID at this time. Final wording for this agreement and its execution can be worked out with Air. Larry Hard, City Attorney, by contacting him at 624- 1040. If you have any further questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact myself or the Mayor. e / i { F Concurrence: / ,f; `vC r Mayor Frank Todd cc: Larry Hard, City Attorney Ted Uoinoto, Public Works Director Iia.rk Cau;hey, Acting Planning Director PRF /jm Mark Caughey's input resulting from our meeting is as follows: "The comprehensive plan provides for high- density and medium - density residential uses on this site. This site, due to its extensive vegetation cover and severe scope in several places, is designated 'environmentally - sensitive' on the comprehensive Plan environmental base map. The City staff has indicated that multiple- family uses are appropriate for this site; no assurance can be given the applicants at this point, though, as to the ultimate build -out density which will he approved since an environmental investigation has yet to be made. It is anticipated that extensive environmental research will be needed to establish an appropriate density level for the Wynn development, irrespective of the existing residential density levels found on nearby properties." Sincerely,. r1 t„-„, Phillip R. Fraser Senior Engineer ...T '.J:.. ,.... r Y = iii }4 ";:.f.; .rCit? "L .:1. i;.i5.'u• -- 'horpe & AssDc9 , tes Planning • Environmental Analysis • Economics July 10, 1980 MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor Frank Todd Ted Uomoto, Public Works Director Phil Frazier, City Engineer Mark Caughey, Acting Planning Director Re: Items for discussion at 3:30 meeting, July 10, 1980 My Wynn's participation and preliminary agreement to participate in LID 30 Associates: Len Zickler Deborah Krouse Pursuant to recent conversations with the City concerning the potential for Mr. Wynn to sign an agreement that he will participate in LID 30 along with other adjacent property owners, including S & M, and pursuant to conversations with the City's consultant on this project and the City Public Works and Planning staffs, we offer the following observations, concerns, and points for discussion. These can potentially be reduced to a letter from the City outlining our general points of understanding, to be done prior to Mr. Wynn's signing the agreement to participate in LID 30 and not oppose it within the 30 -day review period. Our understanding is that engineering and construction costs would be signifi- cantly less if this project can proceed in this calendar year. It is Mr. Wynn's and his consultant's understanding that there is the potential for cooperation between the design of the LID, while controlling its costs, and the ongoing site planning being conducted on his property, in order to provide benefits to both the City and himself: The following points are, therefore, set forth for discussion in order to clarify some of Mr. Wynn's concerns and provide for a response by the City in writing prior to Mr. Wynn's signing the agreement. 1. The change in inclusion of people to be assessed has in turn changed Mr. Wynn's participation from 17.4% to 18.7% and increased costs from $44,000 to $51,400, for a net increase of over $7,000. When viewed in light of the significant cost runs (in excess of 30 %) on the 62nd Street LID, this provides some potential for concern as to the ultimate cost of this project. Mr. Wynn would like some cost assurances, either in the agreement as to the City's intent to limit the cost of the project to the estimated $273,000 or in a letter of understanding stating that, should the project encounter some unknown and /or unanticipated costs, consideration will be given to reducing the scale of the project rather than completing the project as designed. 2. In approving the LID the Council should give consideration to reducing the road width on 152nd from 28 to 24 feet in order to bring the costs down to an approximation of the original estimate of costs given to Mr. Wynn. Seattle: 815 Seattle Tower • 3rd & University • Seattle, WA 98101 • (206) 624-6239 Anchorage: Suite 503 • 1110 West Sixth Avenue • Anchorage, AK 99503 • (907) 276.6846 Memorandum July 10, 1980 Re: Wynn Property Page 2 3. Mr. Wynn and his consultant, R. W. Thorpe and Associates, should be provided the opportunity to coordinate site planning in the consultant's design process for Mr. Wynn's five -acre site, the only major undeveloped and uncleared piece of property among the properties benefiting from the LID. That is, input from Mr. Wynn and R. W. Thorpe and Associates concerning vegetation removal and the location-of the sidewalk and driveway would be part .1.of the design process. This is not to be interpreted as meaning that either Mr. Wynn's or Mr. Thorpe's input must be followed, but rather that they will be given access to provide suggestions and that their suggestions will be incorporated wherever feasible. 4. We concur in the moving of the road along 152nd to the extreme south perimeter of the right -of -way and allowing the sidewalk to meander though the trees on the Wynn property. The acquisition of additional right -of -way for the road and sidewalk can be done either through fee acquisition for both or through fee acquisition for the road area and easements for the sidewalk. All costs in arriving at appraisal for those properties should be a part of the costs of the LID and appraisal. However, should a major disagreement occur, Mr. Wynn shall have the option of providing his own appraisal for negotiation purposes. 5. We concur in Council's motion to rescind. Ordinance , which provides for a moratorium on building in this area, at the time the LID is approved. 6. Although not a part of the LID process, Mr. Wynn has a parallel application with the City for a conceptual site plan and a change in zoning, as well as a waiver to allow him to proceed with the rezone and conceptual site plan processes. - Mr. Wynn, through his consultant, has had assurances from the City that the Comprehensive Plan provides for uses similar to other properties in the vicinity, particularly on the northwest, west, southwest, south, and east. Therefore, given a showing of compliance with the Comprehensive Plan goals and map, the use of this area is generally understood to be similar to those properties surrounding it. • 1315 Seattle Tower • 3rd & University • Seattle, WA 98101 • (206) 624.6239 MASTER LAND DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION FORM etc. SUPPLEMENTARY QUESTIOUAIRE Schedule A WAIVER APPLICATION 1. ; State specifically the action in Ordinance No. 1137 to which you are requesting a waiver: Rezone in area that ua have portions of site with environmentally critical area sensitive designation: • 2. Briefly and generally describe the project you are proposing: Rezone (contract) and Conceptual Site Plan for 5 -acre site at S. 152nd St. and 57th Ave. S. Pronrsa1 is for 9(± units in an R -4 zone. 3. Is your project unique in terms of design, land use or benefit to the Tukwila community? for City's preservation of vegetation, drainage areas. • - .• - • • slopes over 25 %, 4. Is your project significant in scale? Consistent with or less dense than surrounding properties. 5. If the request for waiver involves building, grading, clearing, excava- tion, or filling in an environmentally - sensitive area, what mitigating solutions do you propose to offset the impact of such activities? Question as to environmentally sensitive designation; re- zone would set stage for permits to clear, grade, build, 6. What goals and policies can you identify which support your request for waiver, if any? See Rezone Application, Site Plan, Con- ditions, and Consultant Planners' analysis of Comprehen- sive Plan Goals and Policies. 7. In your opinion, do the requirements of waiver ordinance 1137 impose a hardship on the use and development of this site? Possibly - Waiver doesn't require environmental analysis that has been developed to accompany rezrnP. proposed conditions, and Conceptual Site Plan.. Timing of rezone request is important to provide site planning at the same time LID 30 improvements are designed. S3 t i June 23, 1980 Dear Mark: R.W. Thorpe & Associates Planning • Environmental Analysis • Economics City of Tukwila Department of Community Development City Hall Tukwila, Washington 98188 Attri: Mark Caughey, Assistant Planner Re: Rezone Application, Conceptual Site Plan, and Environmental Checklist for Wynn Rezone - Lot 21, Brookvale Garden Tracts Attached herewith are the various items required for the application for Mr. Wynn's rezone on his five -acre site, located at South 152nd Street and 57th Avenue South. These items include those required in the Master Land Development Application form and those that we feel will supplement the application to explain the details of those items which we have been dis- cussing in our meetings with the Planning and Public Works staff. Before listing those items, we feel we need a clarification as to the re- quirement for a waiver. A review by yourself, and also by Fred Satterstrom, leaves some question as to whether or not a waiver is. necessary. Only a small tip of any of the sensitive lands categories touches the site, and our site analysis (see enclosed) may leave some reason to believe that the only major site constraint is the steepness in the northeast corner which can be handled through site planning conditions and leaving this area in open space. There- fore, in response to Fred's and your recommendation, we are asking for a formal reading of the requirement for a waiver on this property. We would prefer to proceed with the rezone, expanded environmental checklist, with appropriate areas detailed, and a conceptual site plan, conditioning any action by the Planning Commission and the Council in significant detail prior to site planning efforts. As you are aware, the density contract that will be established on the property will have significant importance as to the site planning effort. Therefore, we are attempting to provide as much information as possible and proceed with a review by the Planning Commission. The items we have provided are as follows: 1. Request for clarification of waiver 2. Rezone application 3. Environmental checklist with the following subpoints covered in detail: a. Topography b. Soils and Geology c. Hydrology d. Vegetation e. Site Inventory f. Traffic g. Utilities Seattle: 615 Seattle Tower • 3rd 6 University • Seattle, WA 96101 • (206) 624.6239 Anchorage: Suite 503 • 1110 West Sixth Avenue • Anchorage, AK 99503 • (907) 276.6646 Associates: Len Zickler Deborah Krouse City of Tukwila Attn: Mark Caughey June 23, 1980 Page 2 4. Vicinity map 5. Three site alternatives, including site inventory and slope analysis 6. Topography and slope analysis 7. The fees required as follows: .$200 for rezone and $50 for environ- mental checklist. Total by check. from Mr. Harold Wynn: $250. The graphics presented herein are on a size for your review and will be repro- duced either by Xerox or Super K process when you feel they are ready for presentation. We have provided six copies of the application for your review and distribution to other departments. We would be happy to provide additional copies and to provide reduced copies of the graphics, if you feel they are appro- priate for full application. Please contact us if there is any additional information required for this application at this time. In that we are going to be reviewing the LID 30 in the next 30 days, following the hearing by the City Council on Monday evening, June 23, we would appreciate a written response by both your department and Public Works within that 30 -day period regarding your concerns or additional requirements that rezone and site development might require as related to LID 30. Thank you for your assistance and guidance in this matter to date. We look forward to working closely with the City in developing site plans and . conditions that will insure.a quality development on this piece of property. RWT /wk enclosures Sincerely, R. W. E AND ASSOCIATES Ro•ert W. Thorp-, AICP • 815 Seattle Tower • 3rd & University • Seattle. WA 98101 • (206) 624.6239 R w Thome 6 A..oG.C.. MASTER LAND DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION FORM PROPOSED REZONE SITE IS WITHIN TUW#ilIA CITY LIMITS ZONE NW: RMH mum NE: R -1 -12.0 sanH RMH EASE R -4 & RMH WEST RM EXISTING ZONING R -1 -12.0 REQUESTED ZONING EXISTING ZONING CLASSIFICATION AND USE OF SURROUNDING PARCELS: SU " c,MENTARY QUESTIOUAIRE Schedule . E REZONE APPLICATION RM' [DYES ONO USE Stardust(41 DU /Ac) & Southcenter (26 DU /Ac) Apts. Partially undeveloped; 2 SF houses. La Vista Apts - dense apartment complexes nu/A0) Gradin South Apartments &M Development units ( DU /Ac) S out cente view condos. USES PROPOSED TO BE DEVELOPED ON PROPOSED REZONE SITE Multi- family housing (condominiums) @ 18 -20 DU /Ac, or 90 -98 DU for 4.98 -Acre site; with recreational h»ilding and facilities; with 1.5 ears /DU. ACCESS TO THE PROPOSED REZONE SITE IS FROM A DEDICATED, IMPROVED PUBLIC RIGHT -OF- WAY ® YES ❑NO. (If "Mr, please describe had the site is accessed Note: LID 30 Pending; access is from South 152nd Street. PROVISIONS TO BE MADE FOR ADEQUATE SEWER AND WATER SERVICES Sewer and water available to site at southwest corner in 152nd Street right-of-way. CITY OF TUKWILA ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM This questionnaire must be completed and submitted with the application for permit. This questionnaire must be completed by all persons applying for a permit from the City of Tukwila, unless it is determined by the Responsible Official that the permit is exempt or unless the applicant and Responsible Official previously agree an Environmental Impact Statement needs to be completed. 1. Name of Proponent: Harold Wynn (R. W. Thorpe & Assoc. - Urban Planners, Agents) 2. Address and Phone Number of Proponent: 14607 Pacific Hwy. S., Seattle 98168; 243 - 1200 (815 Seattle Tower, Seattle 98101; 624 - 6239) 3. Date Checklist Submitted: June ' 1980 4. Agency Requiring Checklist: City Planning Department 5. Name of Proposal, if applicable: Wynn Rezone and Conceptual Site Plan 6. Nature and Brief Description of the Proposal (including but not limited to its size, general design elements, and other factors that will give an accurate understanding of its scope and nature): Rezone - from R -1 -12.0 (Single family) to R -4 (Low density multi - family) - for a 5 ac. (4.98 ac) site at South 152nd between 56th and 57th Avenues South in order to permit development of a proposed 98+ unit, condominium c'nmplpy. 7. Location of Proposal (describe the physical setting of the proposal, as well as the extent of the land area affected by any environmental im- pacts, including any other information needed to give an accurate under- standing of the environmental setting of the proposal): Lot 21 - Brookvale Garden Tracts; an undeveloped, wooded site lying northerly of 152nd Street between 56th and 57th Ave. South. Tracts to west, south, and north are developed; sites to the east above top of 'slope are partially de- veloped as single family residential or undeveloped. City trail adjclins on east property line. (See attached site analysis and site plan.) 8. Estimated Date for Completion of the Proposal: Variable - 1981 9. List of all Permits, Licenses or Government Approvals Required for the. Proposal (federal, state and local): (a) Rezone, eart444eea1 use, sliefe44e- f .e#.c -. YES X NO__ (b) King County Hydraulics Permit YES NO x (c) Building permit YES X NO (d) Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Permit YES NO x (e) Sewer hook up permit YES x NO (f) Sign permit YES ? NO (g) Water hook up permit YES x NO (h) Storm water system permit YES NO x (i) Curb cut permit YES NO x (j) Electrical permit (State of Washington) YES ? NO (k) Plumbing permit (King County) YES ? NO (1) Other: . 10. Do you have any plans for future additions, expansion, or futher activity related to or connected with this proposal? If yes, explain: No - entire proposal indicated, although project may be phased to respond to market analysis. 11. Do you know of any plans by others which may affect the property covered by your proposal? If yes, explain: LID 30; Future use of property at southwest corner of site- for access. land use, and buffering. 12. Attach any other application form that has been completed regarding the pro- posal; if none has been completed, but is expected to be filed at some future date, describe the nature of such application form: Waiver, rezone. II. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS (Explanations of all "yes" and "maybe" answers are required) . YES MAYBE NO 1. Earth. Will the proposal result in: (a) Unstable earth conditions or in changes in geologic substructures? (The first is unlikely.) X (b) Disruptions, displacements, compaction or overcover- ing of the soil? x — (c) Change in topography or ground surface relief fea- tures? (Limited by site design.) X (d) The destruction, covering or modification of any unique geologic or physical features? (Very unlikely - X _ see soils report Park Place FIS and USGS /USDA soils conservation data.) (e) Any increase in v+i-R4 or water erosion of soils, either on or off the site? (f) Changes in deposition or erosion of beach sands, or changes in siltation, deposition or erosion which may modify the channel of a river or stream or the bed of the ocean or any bay, inlet or lake? Explanation: 2. Air. Will the proposal result in: (a) Air emissions or deterioration of ambient air quality? YES MAYBE NO x (See note) x (b) The creation of objectionable odors? x (c) Alteration of air movement, moisture or temperature, or any change in climate, either locally or regionally? x Explanation: (a) Auto emissions from 480 to 784 ADT No detioration in ambient air quality 3. Water. Will the proposal result in: (a) Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water movements, in either marine or fresh waters? (b) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface water runoff? (c) Alterations to the course orflow of flood waters? (d) Change in the amount of surface water in any water body? (e) Discharge into surface waters, or in any alteration of surface water quality, including but not limited to temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity? (f) Alteration of the direction or rate of flow of ground waters? (g) Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations? -3- x x YES MAYBE NO (h) Deterioration in ground water quality, either through direct injection, or through the seepage of leachate, phosphates, detergents, waterborne virus or bacteria, or other substances into the ground waters? x (i) Reduction in the amount of water otherwise avail- able for public water supplies? Explanation: (b) Yes, surface increased, detention ponds proposed in site plan. (e), (f), (g), (h) Highly improbable. 4. Flora. Will the proposal result in: (a) Change in the diversity of species, or numbers of any species of flora (including trees, shrubs, grass, crops, microflora and aquatic plants)? X _ (b) Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of flora? (c) Introduction of new species of flora into an area, or in a barrier to the normal replenishment of existing species? x (d) Reduction in acreage of any agricultural crop? x Explanation: Approximately 58% to 65% of site will have vegetation removal for buildings and parking. 5. Fauna. Will the proposal result in: (a) Changes in the diversity of species, or numbers of any species of fauna (birds, land animals including reptiles, fish and shellfish, benthic organisms, insects or microfauna)? (b) Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of fauna? (c) Introduction of new species of fauna into an area, or result in a barrier to the migration or movement of fauna? (d) Deterioration to existing fish or wildlife habitat? x Explanation: (d) Loss of vegetation - reduce bird and small rodent habitat. -4- 6. Noise. Will the proposal increase existing noise levels? Explanation: Only traffic and human outdoor recreation related noise. 7. Light and Glare. Will the proposal produce new light or glare? Explanation: ' From outside and parking lots; low wash lighting fixture can mitigate glare. 8. Land Use. Will the proposal result in the altera- tion of the present or planned land use of an area? Explanation: Consistent with comprehensive plan and less dense than 80±% of neighborhood. 9. Natural Resources. Will the proposal result in: (a) Increase in the rate of use of any natural resources? (b) Depletion of any nonrenewable natural resource? Explanation: Building and petroleum products. 10. Risk of Upset. Does the proposal involve a risk an explosion or the release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to, oil, pesticides, chemicals or radi- ation) in the event of an accident or upset conditions? Explanation: YES MAYBE NO x x x 1 x 11. Population. Will the proposal alter the location, distribution, density, or growth rate of the human population of an area? Explanation: Increase of 72 to 108 people. 12. Housing. Will the proposal affect existing housing, or create a demand for additional housing? x Explanation: Will provide up to 98 new housing units, proposed to be owner- occupied. 13. Transportation /Circulation. Will the proposal result in: (a) Generation of additional vehicular movement? (b) Effects on existing parking facilities, or demand for new parking? (c) Impact upon existing transportation systems? (d) Alterations to present patterns of circulation or movement of people and /or goods? (e) Alterations to waterborne, rail or air traffic? (f) Increase in traffic hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians? Explanation: See attached traffic and circulation analysis. (a) 480 to 784 ADT's. YES MAYBE NO x x 14. Public Services. Will the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new_or altered governmental services in any of the following areas: (a) Fire protection? x (b) Police protection? (c) Schools? (d) Parks or other recreational facilities? (e) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? x X c < (f) Other governmental services? Explanation: (a) and (b) Normal to new housing units. (e) South 152nd Street (f) Planning, building during construction. (a) Use of substantial amounts of fuel or energy? (b) Demand upon existing sources of energy, or require the development of new sources of energy? Explanation: 16. Utilities. Will the proposal result in a need for new systems, or alterations to the following utilities: (a) Power or natural gas? (b) Communications systems? (c) Water ?. (d) Sewer or septic tanks? (e) Storm water drainage? (f) Solid waste and disposal? Explanation: 17. Human Health. Will the proposal result in the crea- tion of any health hazard or potential health hazard (excluding mental health)? Explanation: YES MAYBE NO x 18. Aesthetics. Will the proposal result in the obstruc- tion of any scenic vista or view open to the public, or will the proposal result in the creation of an aesthetically of- fensive site open to public view? Explanation: See view analysis, site and inventory data. 19. Recreation. Will the proposal result in an impact upon the quality or quantity of exist- ing recreational opportunities? Explanation: YES MAYBE NO x x Additional 72 to 108 people utilizing both on -site recreational faciltiies and City and regional facilities. 20. Archeological /Histroical. Will the proposal result in an alteration of a signifi- cant archeological or his- torical site, structure, object or building? Explanation: CERTIFICATION BY APPLICANT: I, the undersigned, state that . to the best of my knowledge the above information is true and complete. It is understood that the lead agency may withdraw any declaration of non - significance that it might issue in reliance upon this checklist should there be any willful misrepresentation or willful lack of full disclosure on my part. Signature and Title R. . Thorpe & Associates Consulting Planners -8- 1/6/ °/7/61 Date SUPPORTING ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS FOR THE WYNN REZONE Natural Systems Review Topography The five -acre site slopes from the northeast to the southwest corner, or from the adjacent single family areas to the existing multi - family area, from an elevation of approximately 260 feet to approximately 120 feet. This provides for an 18% overall slope, with 30% slope in the first 200 feet of run from the northeast to the southwest corner. The last 550 feet of run averages 14 %, with much of the area being around 10% slope with some inermediate steeper areas. This compares with City data in the Data Inven- tory, Tukwila Planning Area of 5% to 15 %, and the northeast corner being 15% to 25 %. Utilizing topography available to the City, and comparing it by walking the site using slope and elevation calculators, it appears that the topography is a little more steep in the northeast corner than shown on the City's topography and more gentle in slope on the remaining three - quarters of the site. That is, about 80% of the site ranges from 5% to 15% slope; about 5% ranges from 0% to 5% slope; 10% ranges from 15% to 25 %; and less than 5% of the site is over 25% slope, all located in the northeast corner. This slope would lend itself to the proposed site plan alternatives which provide for a combination of structured and covered satellite parking, and the terracing of the units in the hill to capture views and sun angles to the south and southwest. Mitigation of potential impacts. The preservation of the northeast corner of the site, a buffer strip along the 57th Avenue trail and along the east property line would preserve important steep areas and associated vegetation, while buffering to adjacent land uses. Geology and Soils A review and extrapolation:- of three area studies on adjacent sites, USGS information, U.S. Department of Agriculture Soil Conservation Service data, and the City's Data Inventory shows general consistency with the exception of USDA which shows the site as urban soils. This is, however, incorrect, in that urban soils are generally those which have been mixed through the urbanization process. Adjacent studies done for apartment and condominium projects on the hillside indicate a consistency with the data in the City report. The City report indicates that the site is largely Vashon till with a small amount of bed- rock. Extensive site visits and shallow probes did not indicate the presence of surface bedrock; however, excavations of similar elevations on other sites have shown the existence of bedrock. The site has shallow glacial till weathered on the upper two or three feet and graded downward into glacial sand and gravel form foundation. This is consistent with both reports on adjacent sites and the City's information. The soils are well drained due to the slope of over 5% in most areas, except in two areas which are impounded by road and parking lot construction on adjacent lands. Both bedrock and till, however, provide excellent foundation strength, and the till appears to be stable with no evidence of sliding on the site. Activities during • 815 Seattle Tower • 3rd & University • Seattle. WA 96101 • (206) 624.6239 raw Thorpe r: A..a:.,i.s Hydrology Vegetation construction would require construction techniques to minimize erosion due to the slope, settling ponds during construction, and detention facilities following construction for stormwater. A detailed site analysis shows no springs, even after heavy rainfall. However, along the southern property line, there is some minor seepage from other sites and runoff coming into the site and being impounded by 152nd and pro- perty development to the west. There is a small, wet area on the southerly property line near the center of the property that has developed over the years, due to a road being cut through the center section of the property from south to north. In that eventual development of the site might consume anywhere from 45% to 60% in improvements and impervious surfaces for drive- ways, parking, etc., the additional amount of runoff would require some miti- gation. The site planning efforts to date envision one or two detention facilities that will release additional stormwater runoff at a controlled rate into stormwater improvements which are proposed as a part of the 152nd LID. No streams•or water running through the site will be affected by development. The entire site is wooded with the center portion being less densely wooded and partially open with salal, Oregon Grape ferns, and vines occurring in the understory of Cedars, Firs, and Maple; in two areas smaller Willow and Alter trees also exist. There are some major Maples and other large trees within six to ten feet of 152nd along the entire property line. These trees have been generally inventoried during site visits and would provide an important buffer to the site if they could be retained, both during the site development and during the development of improvements along 152nd Street as a part of the LID 30. It is, therefore, important to limit the new construction along the north side of 152nd to six feet north of the existing pavement area, except those areas where two driveways will access the site and also provide turnouts for stacking of cars in emergency situations. Much of the vegetation of significance occurs in areas designated for green- belts along the north and east property lines and in the steep slope area in the northeast corner. As a mitigating measure, trees 6" or larger could be inventoried at the time a detailed topography map is developed in order to provide data for a site plan that would be based upon a given density from the rezone application approval with conditions. Miscellaneous Climate, Sun Angle, View Corridors. Site exposure is to the south and west and provides views in those directions across Southcenter to the Green River Valley and Mt. Rainier. Sun angles would provide for opportunities for use of solar heating, both passive and active, and the siting of buildings to capture sun and view angles. In terms of view, it is important to retain some vegetation along the south property line in order to soften and screen extensive parking areas that exist along the entire south and west perimeters of the property. • B15 Seattle Tower • 3rd & University • Seattle, WA 9B 1 01 • (20S) 624 -6239 w rna.p. r. A.. «,.c.; HAROLD WYNN REZONE 4.98 Acre Site SUGGESTED CONDITIONS FOR REVIEW OF REZONE APPLICATION Lot 21 - Brookvale Garden Tracts South 152nd Street and 57th Avenue South 1. That densitites be limited to those shown in the Conceptual Site Plans and analyzed in the Environmental Checklist with the total number of units not to exceed 98. 2. That the site plan for the five -acre parcel maintain over 40% of the area in open space, landscaping and natural areas. 3. That buffer zones of natural vegetation of a.minimum of 40 feet be preserved on the north and east boundaries (along trail) of the property; in addition, the steep (over 25 %) area of the northeast corner be preserved. 4. That the applicant participate in improved area access to serve the site as provided for in LID 30, with the provision that the design of LID limit the impact on the subject site to no more than six additional feet on the south side of South 152nd Street. 5. That circulation for emergency vehicles be provided through two access points to the site; the driveways being also capable of turnouts for vehicle stacking to allow passage of emergency vehicles. 6. That groupings of major trees, drainage swales and other natural features be inventoried futther and the details provided for revisions in the site plans where feasible. 7. That the rezone be based on a condition that the Planing Commission review specific site, elevation, floor, and : plans prior to site development and issuance of building permits. 8. That appropriate mitigating measures of the expanded Environmental Checklist and any required reports (i.e., soils, traffic, topography, etc.) be accepted as conditions of zoning approval. 9. That South 152nd Street be signed by the City for No Parking. 10. That all conditions set forth and agreements between the City of Tukwila and the applicants be attached to the fee title and be binding on all heirs, successors, or assigns. • 815 Seattle Tower • 3rd & University • Seattle. WA 98101 • (206) 624-6239 RN, Thorp° G A..00.t..