Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPermit 76-28A-W - BENAROYA COMPANY - PARKWAY PLAZA GRADING WAIVERmf 76-28a-w southcenter parkway parkway plaza west grading permit waiver City of Tukwila Resolution No. 489 Interim Land Use Council Directive: August 18, 1975 Notice to Applicants for a Rezone, Comprehensive Plan Amendment, Actions with significant negative environmental impacts, or development in areas of natural hazards. Summary: Resolution No. 489 of the City of Tukwila directs that no applications for a rezone or comprehensive plan amendment shall be accepted or processed by the City until a new Land Use Policy Plan is completed and adopted. This also applies to certain actions which are precedent setting, have signi- ficant negative environmental effects or in areas of natural limitations. Section 4 of the attached resolution specifies which actions' are affected. Duration: This resolution will be effective until the first regular council meeting in July, 1976, after which the City Council will consider the extension or repeal of its provisions. Should a new comprehensive plan be adopted prior to this date, the resolution will automatically be void. Waiver: Provisions are included in Section 5 of the resolution for an.applicant to request a waiver upon the showing of facts and other evidence as specified in forms available from the City. Procedure: Attached is an application form to request a waiver of the provisions of this resolution. The City Council will review your request pursuant to Section 5 of Resolution No. 489. Prior to being presented to the City Council, the Planning Department will prepare a staff report with a recommendation based on an analysis of the following type of criteria: 1. Is the proposed action consistent with the presently emerging Land Use Policy Plan? 2. Does the proposed action represent a unique condition . which is insignificant in scale and to which no other apparent alternatives are reasonable? 3. If the request for waiver involves grading, excavation, filling or development in geographical areas identified as having. potential natural limitations for development, are mitigating measures provided? 4. Do the requirements contained in Resolution No. 489 impose a special hardship to a site for which a waiver of the provisions would not necessitate a major.policy committment prior to the adoption of the Land Use. Policy Plan? CITY OF TUKWILA APPLICATION FOR WAIVER From the Provisions of Resolution Number 489 (Please type or print) Date of Application: T L4Y /6 / I °J760 Name of Applicant: IJMZ PA Mailing Address: 950 — 500Tf4 City: SA - rr - .E Zip: 98/08 Ownership Interest in Property: OLLM Q-1 ' Legal' Description of Property Affected: cP EX 4/ 77not) Phone: 762 '`7/750 General Location of Property: W p-" OF 0 -1c5 A r 2.1 a eJabo ( `• £4 IVA o As • a • 1. State specifically the action in Resolution No. 489, Section 4 to which you are requesting a waiver: 2. Describe specifically the action you are proposing, including dimensional infor- mation about the development, site maps, etc., if available: 3. What is your justification for your request: (Please refer to items 1 -4 on the cover sheet and respond to them.) ir ) 0) ?SIv • U Tue.. 01)GI64 /6A I/04d /5 1911/20 I- 14 s` e ?6vdtD i Ai ' 3 no ©7ges- aee 0 /e at <;�,�, a� C M49 &)n 7'2e&SUf es /aioz•� mac Ai t J ? r di (4) 5047 /M �� _ ,:e 4 h4/7154) da 2 ■ 4 07ges,-.4/71Ze p%6.s7 /e..7tg M1VD/eAneet. (attach additional sheet, if necessarfl_ 4. What other factual evidence is relevant to your request for waiver (such as exist- ing development in the vicinity of your property, soils and geologic investiga- Date of City Council Action: Sec..› a cIed /n t, 7d7 Dti (for office use only) Date Received.: Received by: Date scheduled before City Council: Action of City Council: (Attach any. other information available which substantiates your request) \l -e .,A 41.islJ 904 ce=44PAR' . kA100APV c SU3STITUTE RtSOLUTIOii ITO. A RESOLUTION of the City Council of the City of Tukwila acknowledging that the Comprehensive Plan for the City of Tukwila no longer reflects currently held values of the community in regard to planning and land use development; recognizing the necessity of establishing a new land use policy plan or comprehensive plan; and declaring a proposed interim policy. 'WHEREAS, , the comprehensive plan still in existence for the City of Tukwila was adopted prior to the enactment of the Washington State Environmental Policy Act and City of Tukwila Ordinance No. 759 relating to environmental policy, and; Z•iu±REAS, it is clear that the comprehensive plan for the City of Tukwila no longer entirely reflects currently held values of the community, its legislative body or the currently recognized state of the art of planning and community development, and; WgER ^AS, it is necessary, as well as required, by the State Environmental Policy Act to :review the land use plans and planning processes of the City of Tukwila to assure that the land use plan, its goals and policies are consistent with the mandate of the Environmental Policy Act and the currently held values of the total community; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Tukwila City Council as follows: Section 1: The City Council finds that the present comprehensive plan which indicates public land use policy is no longer adequate to provide guidance for future decision making and land use management. Section 2: The City Council further finds that such plan is not related to clearly established goals and objectives for community development, nor is there • present consensus or understanding about the consequences of development actions • based on such plan. Section 3: The City Council directs that all segments of the city, includ— ing the City Council, its advisory bodies and the administration work together toward the identification and establishment of goals and policies consistent with the environ- mental mandate contained in the Environmental Policy Act, and with the currently held values of the community in order that a new land use plan may be prepared and adopted for the City of Tukwila. Section 4: The City Council further declares that until such time as a new land use policy plan can be prepared and adopted, the following actions are found to be those which current land use plans do not adequately address with standards and criteria. There is not sufficient understanding and consensus of the consequences of such actions upon present community values and future goals and resources. Therefore, the City Council directs that no application requesting my of the following g actions shall be accepted or processed by the City unt$1 completion and adoption of a new land use policy plan: A. Any rezone application, except a rezone from one single family residential classification to another single family residential classification. B. Comprehensive Land'Use Plan amendments. C. Those land use actions which, subsequent to the preparation of an Environmental Assessment or Environmental Impact Statement pursuant to the State Environmental Policy Act are found by the City Council to: 1 . Be recedent setting. 2. Contain significant environmental impacts which will not be mitigated. Section 5: Any proponent sponsor for an action identified in Section 4 above may appeal the provisions of this policy to the City Council and present evidence or other materials or findings to request a waiver of the provisions of this policy. Upon appeal, the city Planning Department shall recommend, and the City Council shall decide whether to permit an application to be filed and processed with the appropriate city department or departments. The City Council will at such time consider only the question of whether or not there should be a waiver of the policy herein adopted. Such action by the City Council shall in no way prejudge the substantive merits of the proposed action. If it is determined necessary or advisable, the City Council may conduct a public hearing prior to reaching a decision on any waiver request as to the provisions of this resolution. Notice for a public hearing shall be given at the applicant's expense in a manner prescribed by Chapter 18.92 of the Tukwila Municipal Code, Ordinance 251, as amended. /Section 6: The City Clerk is directed to file a copy of the resolution with every department and advisory or administrative board for the City of Tukwila. Section 7e This resolution and the policy herein adopted shall be brought before the City Council for its review and reconsideration at the first regular council maatinz in July, 1976. Section 8e This resolution becomes effective thirty (30) days after passage, Any application for a building permit on file with the City 30 days subsequent to passage of this resolution is exempt from the provisions of this policy.. PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA, WASHINGTON, at a regular meeting thereof, this 1). Proposal, - for ;lading, clearing, excav s 'ron or filling which axe: 1. Located in an area with average slopes in excess of 25%. 9 'City/Clerk 2. Located in a geographical area identified by governmental or quasi—governmental agencies as having: (a) Naturally unstable, unstable when modified, or in areas of known. landslides. 3. Served by inadequate water, sewer, storm drainage or trans — portation systems unless such action proposes the improve— ment of any deficient system to minimum city standards and at the expense of the private. sponsor. (b) Areas which serve to naturally detain significant amounts of storm water run —off. day of Cf.�l �,' . 1975. J 2 Mayor (Not approved by the Mayor) Date Approved If There s even s expected to today will be Ds. Chance of dy along the f showers but be in' the mid Page's B9 -13 ` A4 A10 '... A11 -13 r Al0 A6 t A8 If. A2 • �� • vy r: i�'_'r la-Riverton- McMicken Heiat , Edition Wednesday, August 4, 1976 ukwila grudgingly s hillside cut Benaroya Business. Park received a go -ahead boost from Tukwila City Council Monday night in the company's plan to cut 110 feet from the natural hillside'overlook- ing Southcenter Parkway.' The council, assured•by' Jack Benaroya the hillside would be, reseeded and landscaped when the cut was complete, allowed the firm to apply for a necessary grade permit. Resolution 489 was waived for the company. • -I : • The resolution , prevents any such alterations of the city" ' iafural; slopes without council approvals In effect, the council's decision "paves the way" for the grade permit. "Staff still has the right to deny the application," said Gary' Crutchfield of the community development.'department. "But from the information we've received so far, .I feel pretty com- fortable the permit will be granted. The cut in the Interstate 5 hill will be made to allow the business park to move its railroad spur north from the present location. The spur 9d Palmer coal men renews' mini landfill at council action they still oppose the five -year renewal of the permit. "I don't think any of us will ever feel it (the landfill operation) is acceptable," said Mrs. Charles Smith, a nearby resident at 14429 SE 55th St., Bellevue. Mrs. Smith, a spokeswoman for a group of Hilltop residents which was in the council chamber for the final act of the lengthy neighbor- hood drama, said that despite the lengthy list of conditions regulating the landfill, "we have very little • crosses Southcenter Parkway then makes a sharp turn to run with the hill. The cut is necessary to allow acceptable angle for the turn, - Benaroya representatives said. ' There had been some dis= agreement whether Benroya has changed its position since request -". ing permission to move the railroad: tracks several' months' ago: Several • council members and Mayor Bauch claim Benroya assured theta :'• no cut or a Very minimal cut woulaa•' be necessary. - Director :or'Public; Works' Steve Hall and'Community Development Director Kjell Stoknes agreed Benaroya representatives told' them no more than five feet would be cut from the hill.. Several weeks ago the'company began cutting away the hill but work was brought to a halt when it was learned the permit didn't allow such a cut. Since work had already begun and the company had already made preparations for the new track, the council grudgingly gave approval: for the project.., . sense of personal assurance they will be complied with. The whole thing, we think, is incompatible with the character of the area." The five -year permit extension will permit continuation of a landfill of an abandoned Newcastle Coal Mine that started in 1970. The fill is all nonprutrusible material wood, brick, mortar, tree stumps and building demolition rubble. The permit will allow dumping of 40,000 cubic yards annually. The north Renton area landfill is • LINE 1VCII!C GS 4: ISPO5 LSI E '\.: Uvrn iu.. «kR+ ' CISP05.U.,S1iE A Boeing sales representative is transformed it go- lucky, anything - for -a -laugh clown. The fai the change is reflected in Jim Williams' eyes. " ) situated 1,000 feet south of the Newcastle -Coal Creek Road, on bdth sides of 148th Avenue Southeast, if extended. This is approximately one mile east of Lake Boren. Among the 26 operating con- ditions for the 1andfill'set'down by the county council, three were high- lighted among those hammered out in more than 10 hours of hearings and reviews over the past six months. One condition added by the •Si�lirMC' +'y Newc council at before the was appr member c landfill at violations - Council chairwon Corn muni mittee . favorable two mem would rep. ty, Inc., a resent Pal property o • The col powered tc landfill an REQUEST: PETITIONER: PROPERTY LOCATION: C CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT CITY OF TUKWILA 2 August 1976 PLANNING DIVISION Waiver from Resolution 489 for grading permit (MF #76- 23 -GFP) Jack A. Benaroya Company Hillside west of Southcenter Parkway at approximate extension of Minkler Boulevard The applicant has requested a waiver from Resolution #489 to allow the grading of a portion of the hillside near the Parkway Plaza West development (proposed) in order to accomodate realignment of the Milwaukee Railroad spur line in this vicinity. The following is a short chronology of events leading up to the waiver request. February 25, 1976 Public Works Department receives a site plan from Benaroya. Company indicating the proposed rail relocation and excavation. (Proposed excavation much larger in scale than present proposal.) Benaroya Company requests a review by the Public Works Department and general acceptance of the proposal. March 8, 1976 Public Works Director responds to Benaroya Company enumerating several problems which must be resolved, (SEE, Attachment A for a copy of letter). Letter informed Benaroya of possible EIS requirement on large -scale excavation. In addition, letter notified Benaroya of provisions of Resolution #489. May 17, 1976 Benaroya Company petitions City Council to relocate the Milwaukee rail spur across Southcenter Parkway within the extension of the 60 -foot easement of Minkler Boulevard to the west line of Southcenter Parkway. City Council authorizes such by adoption of Ordinance #972. (In adopting Ordinance • #972, the Council was aware that only insignificant altera- tions would be made to the hillside.) July 14, 1976 Street Use Permit #28 -76 granted to Boulevard Excavating by Public Works Department authorizing the crossing of Southcenter Parkway by trucks moving surcharge dirt from Parkway Plaza 'North to Parkway Plaza West. July 14 or 15 Boulevard Excavating proceeds to excavate approximately 20 1976 vertical feet of earth from the toe of the hillside. After notification by Building Division, work is stopped and grading permit applied for by Benaroya Company. City Council Page 2 Staff Report 2 August 1976 July 16, 1976 July 22, 1976 July 26, 1976 Fill Permit #974 issued to Benaroya authorizing fill of valley portion of Geovenelli property only. Benaroya Company is notified of provisions of Resolution #489 by Office of Community Development. Benaroya Company applies for a waiver from provisions of Resolution #489. The procedures of Resolution #489 require Planning Division analysis of four criteria. That analysis is provided below. 1. Is the proposed action consistent with the presently emerging Land Use Policy Plan? STAFF COMMENTS: The goals and policies which directly address grading steep hillsides generally discourage such activity. Nevertheless, this should not be construed to mean that all grading activities be prohibited. Instead, the policies seem to suggest that when grading is . absolutely necessary in areas where the chance of environmental hazard is minimal it should be allowed if the integrity of the slope is restored. General Goal #5 promotes "striking a balance between economy and environ- ment." In this instance, the trade -offs are the vegetative, aesthetic, and natural amenities of the hillside versus the transport and economic advantages of rail service with the proposed alignment. In addition to General Goal #5, two Natural Environment Element Goals apply. Element Goal #1 promotes development which is in harmony with the natural envir- onment, #3 urges the protection and enhancement of natural amenities. Analysis of related policies includes: Natural Environment Element Objective 1, Policy 1: This policy encourages the maintenance of the steep hillside's wooded character due to the natural control of erosion and surface runoff provided by the presence of trees and groundcover. Objective 2, Policy 1: This policy promotes the retention of the steep, wooded hillsides for wildlife habitat. Objective 3, Policy 3: The gauging and design of development to the natural lay of the land is the intent of this policy. Objective 3, Policy 4: This policy is intended to discourage excavations of land when not in conjunction with actual development of the land. :• Objective 6, Policy 1: In an effort to avoid the creation of unstable . slopes and landsliding, this policy restricts development in areas of steep or unstable slopes and promotes the use of qualified professionals to determine stability of modified slopes. City Council Staff Report Page 3 2 August 1976 Open Space Element Objective 1, Policy 1: The preservation of steep hillsides and their wooded character is promoted through this policy. 2 Does the proposed action represent a unique condition which is insigni- ficant in scale and to which no other apparent alternatives are reasonable? STAFF COMMENTS: The proposed grading plan contemplates disturbing the hillside between elevation 25 and 110 feet in a wedge- shaped configuration, (SEE, Attachment B for grading plan). This single cut into the hillside may or may not be significant, but it will doubtless serve as an example for other grading requests on undeveloped properties along this slope to the north.. Alternatives to the proposal appear to be limited. One alternative is to maintain the existing rail crossing to Levitz in its present alignment. A second alternative is to begin the curve of the rail spur east of Southcenter Parkway instead of beginning it at the centerline. If such an alternative is feasible, it would eliminate the need for or reduce the magnitude of the cut of the slope. (The Public Works Director will present his findings on this alternative at tonight's meeting.) 3. If the request for waiver involves grading, excavation, filling or development in geographical areas identified as having potential natural limitations for development, are mitigating measures provided? STAFF COMMENTS: According to the "Data Inventory: Tukwila Planning Area ", the slopes on the subject site may become unstable due to man's activities (e.g., grading). In addition, most of the slopes on the site are mapped as 15 - 25 %, with some areas over 25 %. The proposed action involves the excavation of the lower portion of a steep ridge. In conjunction, a much larger area above the cut must be graded to attain slope stability. The grading action will denude the graded area leaving it exposed to erosion. Mitigating measures have been proposed by the applicant to handle storm water runoff and to restore groundcover on the graded area. 4. Do the requirements contained in Resolution #489 impose a special hardship to a site for which a waiver of the provisions would not necessitate a major policy commitment prior to the adoption of the Land Use Policy Plan? If it is borne out by the Public Works Director that the alternatives to the proposed railroad alignment (which necessitate the cutting of the.hill- side) are not feasible or desirable, then a special hardship may exist on this site. Without the presence of'a special hardship, it is likely that a cut in the hillside such as the one proposed would constitute a major policy commitment. City Council Staff Report Page 4 2 August 1976 RECOMMENDATION If it can be demonstrated that there are no feasible alternatives to the proposed rail spur alignment (which necessitates the hillside cut), Staff recommends that the waiver be granted to allow Staff to process the application and attach miti- gating measures to the granting of a grading permit. By establishing the existence of a special hardship in this case, Staff feels the granting of a waiver for this action will neither be precedent- setting nor will it constitute a major policy commitment prior to adoption of the Comprehensive Plan. C JACK A. BENAROYA COMPANY • `' 5950 SIXTH AVENUE SOUTH • SEATTLE. WASHINGTON 98108 • (206) 762 -4750 February 20, 1976 Kenneth D. Long, A.I.A. Chief Architect ECEIVE FEB 2 5 1976 alY OF4UKWiL4 AM- )43 Steven M. Hall, P.E. Public Works Director 6230 Southcenter Blvd. Tukwila, Washington 98188 SUBJECT: Proposed Rail Relocation and Excavation of Property West of Southcenter Parkway Enclosed is a site plan indicating the proposed rail relocation and excavation as was discussed with you and Mr. Dick Williams on Feb - ruary 11, 1976. Also enclosed is a "Report of Preliminary. Soils In- vestigation" for the Giovanelli site by Dames and Moore, dated January 11, 1967. I would appreciate a preliminary review from you at your earliest con- venience indicating general acceptance to the proposal. GENERAL CONTRACTORS • DEVELOPERS OF COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL BUILDINGS FOR SALE OR LEASE 2 Y IP1.921. - W 3F1X3 113EPA!TiVi- 8230 !L..utho +nter i3ouleverx . r b+1 TkwIls Washington SE3ria7 telephone C 2C36 3 242 — 2177 March 8, 1976 Jack A. Benaroya Company 5950 - 6th Ave. South Seattle, Washington 98108 5 Attention: Mr. Kenneth D. Long, A.I.A. Chief Architect Aft axAmm v►*- f� Re: Proposed Rail Location /Excavation 4( Dear Mr. Long: a • As per our telephone conversation of last week, I am responding • to your letter of 20 February 1976. W Your proposal has several problems which have to be resolved prior to consideration of your application by the City of Tukwila. CO When we met in person, I stated that I saw no problems with the relocation of the railroad spur as proposed if the line did not require extensive excavation into the existing bank located k' between Southcenter Parkway and Interstate Highway #5. However, in reviewing your detailed proposal as presented this does not 25 meet that criteria of minimal excavation. On 19 July 1974 Mr. McCrary of the Evans Company applied to the City of Tukwila for a grading permit for the subject property LI which has been named the Giovanelli Property. For your information Li I am enclosing that letter which has several stipulations which still have to be complied with. U3 In addition, the City of Tukwila is undergoing a complete review 6) and updating of the City's Comprehensive Plan. In accordance with this the City Council enacted Resolution #489 on 4 August 1975. For your information a copy of this Resolution is attached with E the City Planning Department's application for waiver of same. �� Prior to the Staff even considering the excavation as indicated this step must be obtained. Also enclosed for your information is a copy of Chapter 70 of the E5 Uniform Building Code and an attendant drawing indicating the method of excavation required. Please note stair stepping or �" staging process for minimizing erosion on excavations of this type. Jack A. Benaroya Company In addition the City of Tukwila has currently under design Local Improvement District #27 which will intertie the two canyons located north of Levitz with a 48" pressure storm main. Grades and alignment have been established for this system and easements have been procured from the then owners of the property. The discrepancy in grades between the storm drainage system and the proposed railroad spur at the southerly boundary of the Giovanelli Property, are near to being insurmountable at this time. However, this could be considered within the design of the City of Tukwila for said system. For example, you indicate the railroad spur running at a contour of elevation twenty five (25). At the intersection of the southerly property line of the Giovanelli Property, the invert elevation of said 48" storm drain is approximately 35. The City of Tukwila is currently contemplating going to bid for this project within the next sixty days and any changes or revisions would have to be made quite rapidly. The City of Tukwila Public Works and Planning Staff would.need sub- stantially more information to evaluate your proposal and give recom- mendations to the Tukwila City Council. These details would be covering such items as existing cross sections versus final cross sections, slope stabilization, proposed land development, slope rehabilitation details (i.e. landscaping etc.) and other items of similar significance. If you wish to discuss this in further detail, please contact me or Mr. Kjell Stoknes, Planning Director and arrangements will be made for a future meeting. SMH /ma • Sincerely yours, Enclosure: Letter 19 July 1974 Resolution X489 /Attachment Vicinity Map UBC Chapter 70 Steven M. Hall, F' E. ' Public Works Director cc: Mayor Bauch Mr. Kjell Stoknes, Planning Director . Page 2 GC /cw ' MEMORANDUM CITY of TUKWILA DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT TO: CITY COUNCIL • FROM: Planning Division SUBJECT: WAIVER from Resolution #489 for Grading Permit (Benaroya) DATE: 23 July 1976 The City Council recently authorized the relocation of the rail-crossing near Jafco to the vicinity of Minkler Boulevard across Southcenter Boulevard. Benaroya Company is now beginning that relocation project. A fill. permit for the level portion of the site has been issued subsequent to a Negative Declaration by this office. The excavation of a portion of the hillside requires a grading permit. Additional information has been requested from Benaroya Company regarding the . proposed excavation of a portion of the hillside to accomodate the realignment of the rail spur. That information is deemed necessary to allow a determination by this office as to the environmental impact of the proposal and has been assured by Benaroya Company to be supplied as soon as possible. This office has, however, determined this project to require a waiver from Resolution #489 under Section 4.D. (1) and (2) of that Resolution. The waiver application and Staff Report will be supplied to the Council Monday evening, 26 July 1976. Kjell Stokeness Planning Director City of Tukwila Tukwila, WA 98188 Re: Application for permit to grade for railroad right -of -way This letter is intended to support our application for permit to cut and grade a portion of a ridge west of Southcenter Parkway and to support our request for a waiver by the City Council of the provisions of Resolution No. 489. The requested grading permit is required in connection with the relocation of the railroad crossing and trackage across Southcenter Parkway which relocation was presented to the City Council at the Committee of the Whole meeting on May 10, 1976 and the authorizing ordinance adopted by the Tukwila City Council at its regular meeting on May 17, 1976. At the meeting on May 10, 1976, Mr. Robert Fehnel of the Benaroya Company presented the railroad's plan showing the existing rail and crossing and the proposed location and crossing as it cut across the edge of thn ridge. A copy of this plan is attached hereto as Exhibit A. While we believe that the presentation to the Council and the adoption of the crossing was a recognition that the relocation necessarily required a cut in the corner of the southerly slope and was in fact a waiver of Resolution 489, we also believe that an analysis of the criteria established by the City Council for waivers under Resolution 489 have been satisfied, as follows: (1) Is the proposed action consistent with presently merging Land Use Policy Plan? Yes. The natural environment element of the City's Land Use Policy Plan considered by the City Council with motion of intent to adopt on February 2, 1976, establishes certain recommended objectives and policies, which are generally to promote the maintenance of natural vegetation on slopes and specifically . to discourage develop- ment on slopes in excess of 20% and in areas where the stability of slopes may be questionable only after a qualified professional can demonstrate that slopes will be stable even after site modification. These and the other guidelines being considered for the Tukwila Land Use Policy Plan to be adopted by the City recognizes that while the maintenance of natural vegetation and land form is desirable there will in fact be instances where cuts in slopes are required, specifically, that in areas where there is question as to the stability of slopes that development will be allowed if a qualified professional can demonstrate that the slopes will be stable after site modification. The action which the Benaroya Company intends to take is not strictly a development and is required only as the result of the relocation of a public utility, the relocation of which will maintain the railroad right -of -way in an area which will be more effectively screened from public view and more aesthetically pleasing. (2) Does the proposed action represent a unique condition which is insignificant in scale and to which no other apparent alternatives are reasonable? Yes. The proposed action is a unique condition in that it is required as the result of relocating an existing industrial railroad track and crossing over Southcenter Parkway to its originally intended location. It is generally agreed that the existing location of the track and crossing is objectionable both with respect to pedestrian and vehicular traffic and its aesthetic aspects. It is further unique in that it does not involve the cutting of a major slope, but rather the cutting and grading of the "nose" of a steep ridge. The proposed action is relic vely insignificant in scale w' placed in context -with the entire hillside a ong I -505. The area of cut and grading will not be - visible from the north. A vehicle driving south along Southcenter Parkway will :observe the cut only as it draws parallel to it. The cut will be screened in part by vegetation already in place as well as the landscaping which will be - ..accomplished as part of the proposed work. The cut and grading will be visible - only along South 180th and Southcenter Parkway south of the proposed work. Any - visual impact as noted above will be reduced by the reseeding of the slope and - the planting of trees. A site plan of the area and a sketch of the proposed cut facing it on Southcenter Parkway are attached hereto as Exhibits B and C. The location of the track and the necessity for the cut have been established , by the minimum radius required by the railroad in order to safely move large . rail cars on the track. In order to minimize the impact of the cut and grading, the elevation of the railroad bed has been established at the highest possible elevation acceptable to the railroad for operation of the track. .A number of alternatives to the proposed work have been considered. Among those alternatives have been a slope cut similar to the proposed action but at a ratio of 1:1 rather than 1:1 -1/4. Dames & Moore in their investigation did not believe - that a slope cut on a 1:1 ratio was appropriate in this instance. Further, the overall area of a 1:1 cut would be substantially greater than the 1:1 -1/4 which is shown on our application. Another alternative which has been considered is the building of a retaining wall or tiered retaining walls. A single retaining --wall would extend between 60 and 70 feet in elevation and require a thickness of at least 48 ".. The additional engineering, substantial increase in cost and the unsightliness as well as the hazards of a wall of such height render..this alte rna- . tive unfeasible. The other alternative involving retaining walls involves two tiers of walls, each of which would extend at least 30' in height. While from an , engineering standpoint such tiered retaining walls would be more acceptable than ::a single wall, the hazard, the unsightliness and cost makes such an alternative -unfeasible. A further alternative which has been suggested is that the curvature of the rail begin its curvature at a point easterly of Southcenter Parkway.. .Such an alternative is substantially different from the right -of -way configuration - approved by railroads and the City Council. The area of Southcenter . Parkway to be crossed was designed for a crossing at the site, previously approved -with proper bedding in place and is not designed for crossing at a more:southerly location. Relocating the point of curvature would also place the track west of Southcenter Parkway in an area of worse soil condition. In addition to substantial. -impact on the useability of property both west and east of Southcenter Parkway, such - alternative would further involve expenditure of substantial sums to change the configuration of the building already under construction east of Southcenter Parkway. (3) If the request for waiver involves grading or excavation in areas identified as having potential and natural limitations for development, are mitigating measures .:provided? Yes. In order to minimize the impact and assure.the stability of the final configuration of the slope, the Jack A. Benaroya Company engaged Dames & 'l''loore, a recognized and respected soils engineering firm, which has confirmed that . - the soil of the slope is relatively intact glacially consolidated soil and exhibits - - -good engineering properties. Copies of the reports by Dames.& Moore on the proposed slope cut are attached hereto as Exhibits D and In order to assure that'the slope cut is in fact undertaken as shown on our application and to provide adjust - .•-cents as may be required during slope cut operations, the Jack A. Benaroya Company is engaging, at its expense, the services of Dames & Moore to maintain a constant onsite inspection of the. work and who will be available to City staff. (4) Do Resolution No. 489 requirements impose a special hardship to the site for which a waiver of the provisions would not necessitate a major policy commitment prior to the adoption of the Land Use Policy Plan? Yes. The granting of a waiver for the Jack A. Benaroya Company's application for grading is not a major precedent which would constitute a policy commitment by the City of Tukwila or impair the objectives and policies to be adopted by the City Council. The proposed action as noted above represents a unique condition and can be.distinguished from the de- velopment of the site requiring major significant slope excavation. The particular slope here involved is . a narrow ridge extending out toward Southcenter Parkway and will be limited in visual impact. The denial of a waiver of this application would constitute a special hardship to the applicant in that it has proceeded based on prior approval of the relocation of the railroad and the work undertaken under foundation permit upon a building within the existing railroad right -of -way. The applicant has incurred substantial cost-and has entered into agreements and commitments which, if the waiver is denied, would cause substantial and irreversible economic loss. The Jack A. Benaroya Company would not undertake the realignment of the slope unless it were considered necessary and is concerned with respect to the aesthetic impact of such a cut. The work to be. performed on the slope includes a substantial allowance for landscaping, including immediate netting and reseeding and planting of trees at the.earliest possible date. The substantial investment of the Jack A. Benaroya Company along Southcenter Parkway necessarily requires that the Benaroya Company assure that the cut area will blend into the natural vegetation as quickly as possible. The City has been provided with a bond in the amount of $26,000.00 to assure that the Benaroya Company will accomplish the work and the required landscaping. Favorable action by the City upon our application and request for waiver is urged. The Jack A. Benaroya Company has no objection to waiver conditioned upon the presence on site during the work of a soils engineer acceptable to the staff at Benaroya's cost together with a bond for a period of one year to assure the landscaping phase. OMB 1• . • tr/ 1 •4 * . . ;- • vs • ,a V j •■■ ANN. • A 4:s ....••••••••• .te ./ •• • •■• i — N <.• ••■ • -• ••••■ C.C.' re.. 5, . „ ' ..;\..\ ... ' • I , . ca76 .• a.R.s4) liaZIG ',...----,zEt.ocarfe . I 1 . 1 I . . : i 7 • , 1 1 Ar s•- • . • r • fttri---• • •••• • • A" MN:. • • - . 4 3 • . • :T 11 4 ". • 1: . C )es• r Ca ••••••••- JAF40 wt.'s E 4.073 • • ri • 4 .: lo-3G c49 1 I • r • - ;1 - • I • I:1 3• r •- ••••• 1 1 1 • • 1 ;■ • '• . • 1: • W ant., cc , 7 -5.." L—IFA•m W .I..- . 3 , • ;.e•• ■•••• • r•... a»n iw f • f ' "'Armed Amity JGVe4 PAR .y u1Nc � N riR w - -;,,. S4 SOLE /" - /00 EASf41 NY • . • • v ��_ \ Y • \ ' OJ � �. . " s . % \ s N ,.,,.er6'• j . ,z7. 2.0 g , - l y; Fi d... t /Ic4 a' -t/.! 2 Ei NJ a CO Attention: Mr. Kenneth D. Long, A.I.A. Chief Architect Re: Proposed Rail Location /Excavation Dear Mr. Long: As per our telephone conversation of last week, I am responding to your letter of 20 February 1976. Your proposal has several problems which have to be resolved prior to consideration of your application by the City of Tukwila. When we met in person, I stated that I saw no problems with the relocation of the railroad spur as proposed if the line did not require extensive excavation into the existing bank located between Southcenter Parkway and Interstate Highway #5. However, in reviewing your detailed proposal as presented this does not meet that criteria of minimal excavation. O Q a W W co W e �) On 19 July 1974 Mr. McCrary of the Evans Company applied to the City of Tukwila for a grading permit for the subject property LU which has been named the Giovanelli Property. For your information U I am enclosing that letter which has several stipulations which (C still have to be complied with. I- (0 0 O Li V3 2 2 iii PUBLIC NORKB DEPARTME(_;-T 6830 Bouthcenter Boulevard Tukwila, Washington 98087 telephone [ 208 3 242 - 2177 March 8, 1976 Jack A. Benaroya Company 5950 - 6th Ave. South Seattle, Washington 98108 In addition, the City of Tukwila is undergoing a complete review and updating of the City's Comprehensive Plan. In accordance with this the City Council enacted Resolution #489 on 4 August 1975. For your information a copy of this Resolution is attached with the City Planning Department's application for waiver of same. Prior to the Staff even considering the excavation as indicated this step must be obtained. Also enclosed for your information is a copy of Chapter 70 of the Uniform Building Code and an attendant drawing indicating the method of excavation required. Please note stair stepping or staging process for minimizing erosion on excavations of this type. IL Jack A. Benaroya Company In addition the City of Tukwila has currently under design Local Improvement District #27 which will intertie the two canyons located north of Levitz with a 48" pressure storm main. Grades and alignment have been established for this system and easements have been procured from the then owners of the property. The discrepancy in grades between the storm drainage system and the proposed railroad spur at the southerly boundary of the Giovanelli Property are near to being insurmountable at this time. However, this could be considered within the design of the City of Tukwila for said system. For example, you indicate the railroad spur running at a contour of elevation twenty five (25). At the intersection of the southerly property line of the Giovanelli Property, the invert elevation of said 48" storm drain is approximately 35. The City of Tukwila is currently contemplating going to bid for this project within the next sixty days and any changes or revisions would have to be made quite rapidly. The City of Tukwila Public Works and Planning Staff would need sub- stantially more information to evaluate your proposal and give recom- mendations to the Tukwila City Council. These details would be covering such items as existing cross sections versus final cross sections, slope stabilization, proposed land development, slope rehabilitation details (i.e. landscaping etc.) and other items of similar significance. If you wish to discuss this in further detail, please contact me or Mr. Kjell Stoknes, Planning Director and arrangements will be made for a future meeting. SMI I /ma c Sincerely yours, Stbven M. Hall, P.E. Public Works Director cc: Mayor Bauch well Stoknes, Planning Director Enclosure: Letter 19 July 1974 Resolution #489 /Attachment Vicinity Map UBC Chapter 70 Page 2 ,,.r. ..... _.�,,...