HomeMy WebLinkAboutPermit L94-0072 - SHOWALTER MIDDLE SCHOOL - ADDITIONS CONDITIONAL USEL94 -0072
SHOWALTER
MIDDLE SCHOOL
(WITHDRAWN)
CONDITIONAL
USE
City of Tukwila
John W. Rants, Mayor
Department of Community Development Rick Beeler, Director
TO: Kim Hart, Finance
FROM: Sylvia a. Osby, Permit Center
DATE: October 24, 1994
SUBJECT: Refund
Please refund $1,243.05 to South Central School District. The
permits were not required for this project and the Director is
authorizing a refund of the permit fees. The original transaction
was September 9, 1994, Receipt #5485 for $4150.00.
Attached you will find a P.O. #34521 for $256.95. This amount was
offset from the total. There is no need to bill South Central
School District for this amount.
Thank You!
Senior Planner Date
6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • (206) 4313670.
Fax (206) 4313665
CONDITIONAL USE
APPLICATION CHECKLIST
CITY OF TUKWILA
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Tukwila, WA 98188
Telephone: (206) 431 -3680
The following materials must be submitted with your application. This checklist is to
assist you in submitting a complete application. Please do not turn in your application
until all items which apply to your proposal are attached to your application. If you
have any questions, contact the Department of Community Development at 431 -3680.
GENERAL
12
Application Form
Conditional Use Fee - $850.00
Environmental Checklist
Environmental Checklist Fee - $ 325.00
PLANS
RECEIVED
Me 1 8 1994
CUivilvtUwI 1(
DEVELOPMENT
2 Comes perkieVvol Otme1-so, 8/ "/91
1} Seven (7) copies of the site plan. The scale shall not exceed 1 " =30' maximum, with
�`� the- north - arrow, -- graphic -sc -ale- and - date -all- identified -on- the - plan.. Each-set -of
plans shall have the license stamps of the architect and landscape architect.
The following information should be contained within the plan:
A.
Vicinity map showing location of site and surrounding prominent landmarks.
B. Property dimensions and names of adjacent roads.
C. Lot size and lot coverage calculations.
D. Existing and finished grades at 2' contours with the precise slope of any area
in excess of 15 %.
IZE. Location and dimensions of existing and proposed structure(s), accessory
structures with appropriate setbacks, parking and loading area dimensions,
and driveways.
rK F. Existing (6" in diameter) trees by species and an indication of which will be
saved. Proposed landscaping: size, species, location and distance apart.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT APPLICATION CHECKLIST
Page 2
G. Location and size of proposed utility lines and a description of by whom and
how water and sewer is available.
H. Location, dimensions and nature of any proposed easements or dedications.
IZI. For commercial and industrial uses, gross floor area by use and parking
calculations.
J.
For multiple residential, location and dimensions of common open space
recreation requirements.
X K. Dimensioned elevations of building drawn at 1/8" = 1' or a comparable scale.
Elevations should show the type of exterior materials.
L. Location and elevations of exterior lighting for buildings and parking areas.
Location and elevations of dumpster screens.
N. Color and material sample board for buildings and accessory structures.
One (1) Photomaterial Transfer (PMT) of each plan reduced to 8.5" by 11" (most
printing companies can make PMT's).
M.
PUBLIC NOTICE
A mailing list with address labels for property owners and residents within 300 feet
of y ur olzerty. (See_.attachecl "Address T.ahel Requirements ")
A King County Assessor's Map which identifies the location of each property
ownership and residence listed. The maps may be ordered from the King County
Public Works Map Counter at 296 -6540.
OPTIONAL
Perspective drawings, photographs, color renderings or other graphics which may
be needed to adequately evaluate your application.
Other required information:
RECEIVE CONDITIONAL USE
AR 181994 APPLICATION
CITY OF TUKWILA DEVELOPMENT
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Tukwila, WA 98188
Telephone: (206) 431 -3680
1. BRIEFLY DESCRIBE YOUR PROPOSAL: Additions and Modernization to Showalter
Middle School
2. PROJECT LOCATION: (Give street address or, if vacant, indicate lot(s), block, and sub-
division; or tax lot number, access street, and nearest intersection)
4628 South 144th Street, Tukwila, WA
Quarter: SE Section: 15 Township: 23N Range: 4E
(This information may be found on your tax statement)
3. APPLICANT:* Name: NANCY KAYNOR BASSETTI ARCHITECT P.S.
Address. 1011 WESTERN AVENUE SUITE 701 SEATTLE WA 98104
Phone (206) 344=9500
Signature: /V f Date: g ° f 7- c/la.
* The applicant is the person whom the staff will contact regarding the application, and
to whom all notices and reports shall be sent, unless otherwise stipulated by applicant.
AFFIDAVIT OF OWNERSHIP
4. PROPERTY Name: SOUTH CENTRAL SCHOOL DISTRICT
OWNER
Address: 4640 SOUTH 144TH STREET, TUKWILA WA
Phone: (206) 244 -2100
I /WE,[signature(s)]
swear that I /we are the owner(s) or con act p aser(s) of the property involved
in this application and that the foregoing statements and answers contained in this
application are true and correct to the
best of my /our knowledge and belief. Date:
(79f
• CONDITIONAL USE APPLICATION
Page 2
5. PRESENT USE OF PROPERTY: Middle School
6. PROPOSED CONDITIONAL USE REQUESTED (from list in TMC 18.64.020):
Public School ( #15, Conditional Use listed in the specified use district)
7. ADJACENT North: Residential
LAND South: Residential
USES East: Residential
West: N ��►,.:.
8. DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED USE (for example, describe the manufactur-
ing processes used, wholesale /retail /warehouse functions, outside storage of goods or
equipment or other information which will facilitate understanding of the activities you
proposed to develop on this site):
Additions acid Modernization of an existing middle school
9. Will the conditional use be in operation and /or a building to house the use be started
within a year of issuance of the permit?
Yes
10. Describe the manner in which you believe that your request for a Conditional Use Permit
will satisfy each of the following criteria as specified in TMC 18.64.030 (attach additional
sheets, if necessary).
A. The proposed use will not.be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious
to the property or improvements in the vicinity of the proposed use or in the district in
which the subject property is situated.
RESPONSE:
The use is a school whose purpose is the public welfare.
B. The proposed use shall meet or exceed the performance standards that are required
in the district it will occupy.
RESPONSE:
The proposed is an existing use in the district it occupies. All aspects
of the modernization will meet current code.
• CONDITIONAL USE APPLATION �._. Page 3.
10. (continued)
C. The proposed development shall be compatible generally with the surrounding land uses in
terms of traffic and pedestrian circulation, building and site design.
RESPONSE:
The proposed development is an existing land use. A traffic study has been
prepared to help ensure adequate traffic and pedestrian circulation. The
present building will remain and be upgraded to present land use, building,
and safety codes. The new buildings are designed to match form and materials
of the existing buildings.
D. The proposed use shall be in keeping with the goals and policies of the Comprehensive
Land Use Policy Plan.
RESPONSE:
The school facility is an existing component of the Comprehensive Land Use
Policy Plan.
E. All measures have been taken to minimize the possible adverse impacts which the proposed
use may have on the area in which it is located.
RESPONSE:
The proposal is meant to improve adverse impacts that are existing_in the area now,
..�. .,. . .
L94 -0072
K.C. SOLID WASTE
DIV.
18700 ORILLIA RD.
(NO ACTIVITY)
LAND ALTERING
RESTORATION
FROM :KING COUNTY SOLID WA F TO:
King; County
Solid Waste Division
tirlsariment ni Public Works,
Vrsler Minding
400 Water Way, Room 600
Seattle, WA 98104.2637
(206) 296 -6542
206 433 1833 Ar- OCT 15, 1993 9 :34AM P.01
ENGINEERING SERVICES SECTION
FAX TRANSMITTAL COVER SHEET
FAX NO. 296 -8431
0.p N0. OF PAGES
DATE: 10 (5- 3 TIME: K • • 5 P: . INCLUDING COVER
TO: kC v CGA Fc,x FAX d 7 -3 / - 366..s-
FM: /UM Lair✓ . TEL. NO. Ze76- y4; 3
TEL. N0.
TRANSMITTED BY:
RE: 30a.) L/V.e `�/j��Sf C.�: ( ;[ F/ ' . /7r lv'/,f 7cR flAAJ
COMMENTS: is A (I'PY (1( 70 VQ- t,4vK�� 7Flc• ��ui .('
TS /yea b )/'c Y 1) rH /_S (d ir. c4sC j- 4! iw y
_ At.oul sc icNTs ICY rr ' i. ii , ,tilt. L 27: '1 TO GE 7 A AfW T 4 t (' IN
i';0 7!/C OED, i%o Aim {i { ('r /' )( 70 ylif /. QAIC i
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE
The information contained in this facsimile transmission may be privileged,
confidential, or otherwise exempt from discovery and in any event is intended
only for the use of the addressee listed above. If the reader of this message
is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering
this transmission to the intended recipient, you are notified that any use,
dissemination, distribution, or copying, or the taking of any action in reliance
of the contents, of this transmission is strictly prohibited. If you have
received this transmission in error, please notify the sender by telephone and
return the original and any copies by mail to the sender at the address stated
above.
faxiors,*ss
FROM :KING COUNTY SOLID Wit TO: 206 433 1833
King County
Department of Public Works
Solid Waste Division
. OCT 15, 1993 9:35AM P.02
REQUEST FOR QUALIFICATIONS for a FACILITY MASTER PLAN for each of the
following Transfer Stations:
Bow Lake Transfer Station - 18800 Orillia Road South, Tukwila
First NE Transfer Station - 2300 North 165th Street, Seattle
SECTION 1 - Purpose of Request for Qualifications (RFQ)
The purpose of this RFQ is to obtain a qualified consultant or consultants to
provide engineering services to develop a Facility Master Plan (FMP) for each
of two transfer stations, Bow Lake and First NE. The primary objectives of
these FMPs are to:
1. Analyze existing site facilities and assess their ability to meet
future needs
2. Plan for integration of a pre-load compaction system
3. Plan for integration of expanded recycling and yard waste collection
4. Create a plan from alternative development strategies that will
outline a schedule for future site development and can be used
for budget level planning. This should include descriptions of
future project work scopes and preliminary cost estimates.
A major focus of the work needs to be to recommend to.us feasible development
alternatives for these sites. What can and should we do there given the
physical and demographic constraints of each site.
SECTION II - Background Information
Bow Lake was constructed in 1977 as a push pit facility. The station is
situated on approximately 8 acres. The major structure on site is a 32,000
square foot transfer building, which consists of two separate tipping floors
60 feet and 70 feet in width separated by a surge pit 40 feet in width and 10
feet in.depth. The overall length of the pit is 145 feet and the overall
dimension of the tipping floors is 130 feet X 170 feet. The transfer building
is open -sided with a 180 feet x 180 feet roof canopy. Since one floor area is
wider than the other, the flexibility of utilizing both sides for commercial
vehicle tipping has in the past been restricted. This transfer station was
constructed on top of a portion of an old landfill and there have been
continuous settling problems. Major foundation work to part of the transfer
building was done in 1987. The tonnage capacity is rated at 750 tons per day
,(TPD) and the vehicle capacity 900 vehicles per day (VPD). The current
weekday average is 550 TPD with a peak of 750 TPD.
FROM:KING COUNTY SOLID WA5FF TO:
Request for Qualifications
June 3, 1993
Page Two
206 433 1833 rte' OCT 15, 1993 9:36AM P.03
First NE is one of five other County -owned transfer stations constructed in
the mid- 1960's which all incorporate the same basic plan. First NE is a
direct load facility and was not designed to accommodate the larger commercial
packer vehicles in use today. The floor is substandard in width and the
ceiling height too low to handle these vehicle types. This transfer station
was also constructed on top of a portion of an old landfill. The tonnage
capacity is rated at 350 TPD and the vehicle capacity 390 VPD. The current
weekday average is 285 TPD with a peak of 480 TPD.
Loads received at both of these sites are consolidated into transfer trailers
and hauled to the County's regional landfill at Cedar Hills for final
disposal. Useful life of these transfer stations depends on a number of
factors, which include the remaining capacity at Cedar Hills, success of
attaining waste reduction and recycling goals, .and the decision to implement
waste export (long haul to out -of- county disposal facilities).
The Draft 1992 Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan recommends that all
new and upgraded transfer stations collect primary recyclables (glass, paper,
cans) and yard waste. Secondary recyclables such as scrap metal, clean wood,
appliances, and SPI -coded plastics 3 -7 would also be collected as needed after
private sector options are evaluated.
Today's role of the transfer stations has changed from when they were
constructed. The basic function of receiving and transferring waste remains
the same but the need to modernize operations and implement new programs such
as expanded recyclables collection has necessitated that facility master plans
1992. Draft 1992 Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan.
CH2M Hill. March 1992. King County Preload Compaction Feasibility
Study. Prepared for King County Solid Waste Division, Seattle, WA
Seattle -King County Department of Public Health. January 1985.
Abandoned Landfill Study in King County.
Seattle -King County Department of Public Health. December, 1986.
Seattle -King County Abandoned Landfill Toxicity /Hazard Assessment
Project.
FROM:KING COUNTY SOLID U TO:
Request for Qualifications
June 3, 1993
Page Three
206 433 1833 OCT 15, 1993 9:36AM P.04
Existing facilities at the sites
Existing facilities include a transfer building, crew quarters, cashier booth,
scaling facilities, loaded and empty trailer parking, recycling area, site
roadways, and utilities. Both sites are open 7 days a week from 8:OOam to
5:30pm and are staffed by County employees.
The main function at both of these sites is to receive many smaller loads of
waste and consolidate them into fewer, larger transfer loads. At Bow Lake,
customers dump their loads into a, pit, where a dozer breaks down waste before
loading it into a transfer trailer. A stationary compactor then compacts
loads directly in the trailer. At First NE, customers dump directly into a
transfer trailer and a stationary compactor spreads and compacts the load in
the trailer. Known problems include not achieving maximum payloads, exceeding
allowable trailer axle weights, and rapid wear of transfer trailers due to
loading techniques.
At both sites, a designated parking area is set aside for the loaded and empty
transfer trailers. Site attendants operating a yard tractor pull full
trailers from under the transfer building and park them in the full trailer
parking area, where the trailers wait for a tractor to haul them to Cedar
Hills. Tractors from Cedar Hills bring empty trailers that are staged in the
empty trailer parking area, then haul full trailers back to Cedar Hills. The
yard tractor pulls an empty trailer from the empty trailer parking area and
returns it back under the transfer building. Known problems with this
operation include:
* insufficient turning radius for new, longer trailers.
* liquids leaking from full trailers in the parking area which must
then be collected and sent to the sanitary sewer system.
* double- handling of trailers at the transfer stations.
* dependence on empty trailers always being available to load at
the transfer stations.
* settlement in the parking areas.
Two scales are located next to the cashier's booth at both sites. Vehicles
are weighed entering and leaving the facility to determine how much waste was
deposited and amount of fee assessed. The access roads leading to and from
the scales also serve as queuing areas for customer vehicles. These scaling
systems are currently pit type scales, but the County has been modifying their
system to convert these to above grade platform scales.
There are recycling areas at both sites. These areas and their functions were
not in the original design of the transfer stations. Existing space and
FROM:KING COUNTY SOLID WAS TO: 206 433 1833
Request for Qualifications
June 3, 1993
Page Four
CT 15, 1993 9 :37AM P.05
design constraints limit the type and capacity of these recycling facilities.
These areas need to be enlarged if expanded recycling programs are to be
provided. Currently, the recycling areas have bins to collect glass bottles,
mixed waste paper, newspapers,, aluminum cans, tin cans, cardboard; and
PET /HDPE plastic bottles. Future recycling area design should be able to
accommodate both materials collected at no charge and materials (such as yard
waste) which will be collected for a fee.
SECTION III - Project Description
The purpose of the FMPs is to evaluate the optimal use of available and
potentially available space for future uses at each transfer station.
Analysis of each site should include:
Identification and classification of all applicable physical
characteristics at each site (such as areas of buried garbage,
adjacent land uses, existing homes, streams, wetlands, and slopes).
These characteristics shall to be mapped and detailed on as -built
condition drawings.
Evaluation of all present structures on each site (such as the
transfer building, cashier's booth, scales, and utilities). These
structures shall be evaluated, at a minimum, for seismic, snow load,
and wind load stability.
Identification of desired functions /uses of each facility, which
include current activities and future planned /desired uses.
Identification of constraints at each site, which include access and
physical constraints as well as any governmental regulatory requirements,
easements, and constraints imposed by the nature of the surrounding land
uses.
Work in support of development of the FMPs would include:
Evaluation of the safety of each site. This includes: customer and
worker safety; traffic movement; and windload, snowload, or seismic
effects on structural and foundation stability.
Assessment of how existing facilities operate with respect to the
functions performed in and around them
Analysis of what improvements can be made to existing facilities to
improve their operation and function
FROM :KING COUNTY SOLID wA TO:
Request for Qualifications
June 3, 1993
Page Five
206 433 1833
OCT 15, 1993 9:38RM P.06
Identification of Code and regulatory requirements applicable to the
various facilities for the purpose of developing design criteria and
constraints
Identification of location constraints including inter - relationships
among the various activities and to the existing utilities
Prioritize uses if,all cannot be fitted into the space available
Development of layout alternatives
Development of design recommendations for facilities including
preliminary cost estimates and project work scopes
"Development of final recommendation
Develop implementation schedule and costs for selected alternative
The feasibility of expanding onto adjacent properties shall also be evaluated
to meet program goals. A planning horizon of 25 years shall be used for the
two transfer stations.
Prod c s: The following reports will be required for submittal:
Short report of existing site constraints, expansion possibilities, and
mapping of current facilities.
Short report of existing facility analysis.
Draft report on site alternatives and recommended alternative.
Final report on selected alternative which includes site development
plan, implementation schedule, and budget level estimates.
Schedule:
Consultant Selection
Design Commission Interview
Scope Negotiation
Contract Approval
Plan of Study
Conceptual Alternatives
Submit Report of Existing Site Constraints
and Expansion Possibilities
Submit Report on Existing Facility Analysis
Submit Report on Site Alternatives
Refinement of Selected Alternative
6/16/93 - 6/30/93
6/30/93 - 8/12/93
8/12/93 - 9/2/93
9/2/93 - 10/15/93
10/15/93 - 10/29/93
10/29/93 - 12/15/93
11/12/93
11/29/93
12/15/93
12/15/93 - 3/15/94
FROM :KING COUNTY SOLID WA- TO:
Request for Qualifications
June 3, 1993
Page Six
206 433 1833 (CT 15, 1993 9 :38AM P.07
Submit Draft Report of Selected Alternative
Submit Final Report of Selected Alternative
Project Complete
2/11/94
3/]5/94
3/15/94
SECTION IV — ENGINEERING CONSULTANT SCOPE OF WORK
The scope of work for .each element of the project will be modified to the
specific requirements of the project but generally the consultants will be
required to provide engineering services in preparing the reports. These
engineering services will include, but not be limited to the following tasks
(coupled with the necessary field investigations to support such tasks):
a. compile existing data and documents
b. evaluate the design criteria originally used in the
development of each site and determine what changes are needed
to accommodate future uses of the facility
c. evaluate all applicable regulations, local ordinances; SEPA
requirements, and permit requirements for each site
d. prepare drawings /maps showing existing facilities
e. evaluate present and future uses and needs at each site
f. conduct preliminary studies related to upgrading each site
g. develop design recommendations
h. develop alternative layouts for each site
i. conduct in -depth analysis of recommended alternative
j. prepare drawings /maps showing facility upgrades
k. develop budget estimates for upgrading each facility
TL1 /mstrpten.fac
King County
Solid Waste Division
Department of Public Works
Yesler Building
400 Yesler Way, Room 600
Seattle, WA 98104 -2637
(206)2136-654M
Mr. John McFarland
City Manager
City of Tukwila
6200 Southcenter Boulevard
Tukwila, WA 98188
< /�(:.
September_10, 1993
! 1 r `
1993
Cat 1
The purpose of this letter is to inform you that the King County Solid Waste
Division will soon be starting with the development of a facility master plan
for the Bow Lake Transfer Station, located northeast of the South 188th
Street and Orillia Road South intersection. This master plan will identify
and prioritize future facility improvements that will accommodate customer
needs for the next 25 years, including potentially an expanded recyclables
collection capability and integration of a pre -load compaction system for
mixed municipal solid waste.
As this facility is located within Tukwila's municipal boundaries,
coordination between agencies will be occurring to properly address SEPA,
city planning and comprehensive solid waste planning issues. Our schedule
calls for completion of the master plan by mid - March, 1994.
It would be appreciated if the City could designate a contact person for
coordination on these various planning issues. Our assigned project manager
is Tom Lew, P.E. (Phone 296 - 4433). Tom will be responsible for day -to -day
project coordination and will be the primary contact person for your staff.
We look forward to a successful working relationship with the city on this
very important public work project.
Sincerely,
Kevin E. Kiernan, P.E.
Engineering Services Manager
KK:NSF:er
NF6/fcmstpin.blk •
cc: Ross Earnst, Director of Public Works,,City of Tukwila
Karl Hufnagel, Principal Engineer, R. W. Beck and Associates
Rodney G. Hansen, Manager, Solid Waste Division
ATTN: Cynthia Stewart, Assistant Manager
Dennis Trammell, Operations Manager
Neil Fujii, Supervising Engineer
Tom Lew, Senior Engineer
•
- ...ING COUNTY SOLID WASTE DIVISI-
Yesler Building
400 Yesler Way, Room 600
Seattle, Washington 98104 -2637
(206) 296 -4437
?_ LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL
TO: Cl77( of /1-41
0300 0v r-*&i7 *. a&Vb.
.-00 i� -, £ i4. /S0
ATTN: C✓t , J( DATE: //-/7-95-
iii JOB LOCATION: JOB NO.:
Hi
JOB TITLE: - L.41C -FS. r =4UU7/ A- 61-5'T Pc-exi
Hi
ii :I SUBJECT: /0 -02.1 - 13. 1-176- . f-tmvv&S --
No. of No. of No. of DESCRIPTION
Originals Sepias Prints
iii
0For Approval °For Your Use
El Other
REMARKS:
g Per Your Request
RECEIVED
?
t .[31VIiYli iF%Jl iNr
DEVELOPMENT
BY:
6
ltrtrans.EH
WW- 1640- HA1 -AA October 22, 1993
3107.2
Date: October 21, 1993
Place: City of Tukwila Offices
Initiate research into permit requirements relat',tq,'tlieacality
Master Plan
MEETING MINUT
Purpose:
Attending:
NEM
• OCT 2 5 19M
Tom Lew, King County Solid Waste
Neil Fujii, King County Solid Waste
Rebecca Fox, Department of Community Development, City of
Tukwila
Jean Garber
Karl Hufnagel, R. W. Beck and Associates
1. The purpose and scope of the Facility Master Plan was reviewed. The
possibility of expansion beyond the current site boundaries was discussed.
2. The majority of the site is located within the City's jurisdiction. The zoning
map indicates that most of the site is zoned M -1 (Light Manufacturing) which Ms.
Fox indicated would permit the transfer station outright. A review of the zoning
code following the meeting indicates that this is not correct and that a transfer
station is an unclassified use. Unless the existing use and proposed improvements
are somehow "grandfathered in ", an unclassified use permit appears to be needed.
3. Regarding the environmental review process that would be needed, it was
agreed that the Solid Waste Divison is the appropriate SEPA lead agency, and that
a checklist /DNS would be appropriate provided that there are no significant
unavoidable adverse impacts with the improvements proposed in the Plan. This
needs to be confirmed with the City's Director of Planning.
4. . The north end of the existing site is zoned R -A (Agricultural) and this could
be an issue. Jean Garber will draft a letter for the Solid Waste Division asking the
City for answers to questions related to size zoning and permitting.
•
5. The City is in the process of revising the Comprehensive Plan and the Zoning
Code. Adoption of the revised Plan is not likely before the end of 1994 and the
revision of the Zoning Code is to follow that. The County has the opportunity to
provide imput to the current revisions and requested that they be placed on the
mailing list for notification of meetings /call for comments.
6. It was not clear in which jurisdiction the southern end of the site might
reside. It appeared to be either in unicorporated King County or in the City of
Seatac. If it is in the County an unclassified use permit would have to be obtained
from the County for development in that area of the site. Following the meeting,
Jean Garber called the City of Kent and determined that the boundary of their
potential annexation area under the Growth Management Act would take their city
limits north to the City of Tukwila limits. If this annexation proceeds (it was
negotiated between Seatac, Tukwila and Kent and has not yet been approved by the
County) the south end of the site would be in the City of Kent. The GMA sets no
dealines for annexations to occur.
7. Follow -up contacts with the City on these issues will made by Jean Garber.
distribution: • attendees
Sue Byers
Wendy Butcher
Charles Conway
14 October 1993
Mr. Karl Hufnagel, P.E.
R.W. Beck and Associates
Suite 600
2101 Fourth Avenue
Seattle, Washington 98121
AD0LPSON
ASSOCIATES, INC.
RE: Wetlands reconnaissance for the Bow Lake Transfer Station Facility Master Plan,
King County Solid Waste Division, Project No. 9380.
Dear Karl:
Adolfson Associates Inc. was retained to conduct a site reconnaissance of approximately 8 acres
(western half) of the 12.5 -acre Bow Lake Transfer Station Facility for wetland habitat. Adjacent
property to the south reportedly owned by M.A. Segale Inc. was also included in this site
reconnaissance. The Bow Lake Transfer Station Facility is located south of South Center and
east of Interstate Route 5, on the crest of the valley wall overlooking the Kent Valley. The
eastern half of the transfer station property was not examined during this site visit due to steep
slopes (greater than 30 percent) and unsuitability for future development. As per your request, I
have prepared this letter outlining the results of our site walk - through and wetlands
reconnaissance conducted on 6 October 1993. Three small jurisdictional wetland areas were
identified during this reconnaissance (see Figure 1, attached). Each of these would be classified
according to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Cowardin et al. 1979) as palustrine, broad - leaved
forested wetlands (PFO1) with a. dominant overstory of red alder (Alnus rubra). No wetland
boundaries were delineated during the 6 October site visit, therefore, all areas illustrated in Figure
1 are approximate.
Methods
Jurisdictional wetlands are defined as "...those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or
groundwater at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal
circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil
conditions." (Federal Register, 1980, 1982). On -site wetlands were identified using both the
methodology outlined in the Federal Manual for Identifying and Delineating Jurisdictional
Wetlands ("1989 Manual "; Federal Interagency Committee for Wetland Delineation, 1989) and
the methodology outlined in the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual
("1987 Manual "; Environmental Laboratory, 1987). Both methods involve a triple parameter
approach; wetland hydrology, hydric soils and hydrophytic vegetation must all be present to
characterize an area as wetland. King County requires use of the 1989 Manual for identification
of wetlands within its jurisdiction. The Corps of Engineers requires use of the 1987 Manual for
deterimation of wetlands for permitting under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act.
Vegetative, soil and hydrologic characteristics were observed in four, 12 -foot radius circular plots
placed in typical upland and wetland community types on -site. Dominant vegetation was
recorded in each plot; plots with over 50 percent of the dominant plant species listed as
Environmental Analysis 5309 Shilshole Ave. NW, Seattle, WA 98107 Phone(206)789 -9658 Fax(206)789 -9684 iA
Hufnagel
14 October 1993
Page 2
"facultative" or wetter were considered to be plots containing hydrophytic vegetation (Reed
1988). (Facultative [FAC] wetland plants are identified as those plant species that have an
estimated 34 to 66 percent probability of occurring in a wetland habitat. Plants typically observed .
in "wetter" environments are termed "facultative wetland" [FACW] or "obligate" [OBL] and are
estimated to occur in wetlands more than 67 percent of the time). Soils were examined for hydric
characteristics including dark soil colors (low soil chroma), the presence of bright mottles or
gleying and high organic content. Wetland hydrology indicators (i.e., the presence of saturated
soils within 18 inches from the soil surface, inundated areas or flowing water) were also recorded.
Results
Two small wetland drainages were identified within the western half of the Bow Lake Transfer
Station Facility property. In addition, one larger wetland drainage was identified on the Segale
property to the south (see Figure 1). In each of these areas, vegetation, soils and hydrology
parameters met wetland criteria outlined in both the 1987 and 1989 Manuals. Each of the three
wetlands appears to be a result of surface water runoff which has been directed away from
Interstate 5 and the transfer station. Concrete culvert pipes (approximately 8 to 12 -inch diameter)
outfall into each of the three wetlands. Culverts draining to the two wetlands on the transfer
station property appear to have been placed during construction of the facility in 1977. Placement
of the culvert directing water to the larger wetland drainage to the south appears to predate the
transfer station. This culvert drains an undetermined area adjacent to. Interstate 5. Flowing water
and seepage was observed in each of the wetlands during the 6 October site visit (see Data Plots 2
and 4, sheets attached). Minor channelization and scouring were noted in each wetland area.
The three identified wetlands are forested, with red alder, big -leaf maple (Ater macrophyllum)
and an occasional black cottonwood (Populus balsamifera) providing most of the canopy cover.
Understory vegetation in the wetlands is primarily pig -a -back plant (Tolmeia mensiezii),
mannagrass (Glyceria sp.) and stinging nettle (Urtica diocia). Soils within each wetland were
typically saturated to the surface. Wetland soils on -site are gleyed silty sands of a dark greenish
gray color (5GY 4/1 in the Munsell Soil Color Chart). Pebbles and cobbles occur on the surface
from past flood events. Criteria for hydrophytic vegetation, hydric soils and wetland hydrology
are met in each wetland area.
Upland deciduous forest located between the three drainages does not meet wetland criteria for
vegetation, soils or hydrology (see Data Plots 1 and 3). Alder and big -leaf maple provide the
primary overstory cover. Trailing blackberry (Rubus vitifolius), red elderberry (Sambucus
racemosa) and stinging nettle are the dominant understory species. Soils tested in upland areas
within the transfer station site are typical Alderwood .gravelly loams (as mapped by the Soil
Conservation Service) intermixed with a non - native sandy fill. The sandy fill material appears to
have been used to cap the landfill upon which the Bow Lake Transfer Station was originally
constructed. Refuse (i.e., glass, plastic) was noted to be intermixed in the soils sampled •
throughout the transfer station property. Upland areas on the Segale property to the south were
typical Alderwood loams of a dark yellowish brown (1OYR 4/4). All soils sampled in upland
areas were dry and lacked mottling or gleying. No evidence of wetland hydrology (i.e., .
watermarks, driftlines, algal mats, inundation) was observed in these areas during the site visit.
Hofnagel
14 October 1993
Page 3
Summary & Recommendations
King County regulates wetlands within its jurisdiction that have been identified using the 1989
Manual. The Corps of Engineers regulates wetlands identified using the 1987 Manual. Three
forested wetland areas were determined and identified using both methods within the Bow Lake .
.Transfer Station project area and a portion of the Segale property extending approximately 300
feet to the south (Figure 1). Wetland habitat was not identified in any other area within the
transfer station facility, most 'ofwhich is developed or landscaped. The identified wetlands are
forested and appear to occupy a total acreage of less than one acre, although no formal wetland
delineation was conducted to determine exact wetland boundaries.
According to the King County Sensitive Areas Ordinance (SAO), wetlands equal to or less than
one acre in size that have a forested wetland class are rated "Class 2 ". Class 2 wetlands -are
typically afforded a 50 -foot buffer and 15 -foot building setback from development in King
County. Regulated Class 2 wetlands must be restored or replaced at an area -based ratio of 2:1, if
impacted during development. Mitigation is commonly required to be "in- kind" replacement and
must occur on -site.
The Corps of Engineers does not typically regulate proposed wetland fills less than one acre in
size. For fills greater.than one acre, a Nationwide Permit 26 may be required by the Corps. The
Nationwide Permit 26 regulates discharges of dredge or fill material into headwaters or isolated
waters, including headwater or isolated wetlands. Regional conditions on the Nationwide 26 state
that fill resulting in a loss of wetland area greater. than 2 acres is not authorized; an Individual
Permit under Section 404 would therefore be required. In addition, an Individual 401 •
y
Certification by the State (Department of Ecology) may required for fills more than one acre. •
If further investigation is desired, Adolfson Associates Inc. recommends a formal wetland
delineation be conducted within the preferred site for•proposed expansion of the Bow Lake
Transfer Station. Exact determinations of wetland boundaries are necessary for the design phase
of this project to accurately place wetlands in the landscape and to calculate actual wetland area.
A professional survey of flagged boundaries would also be recommended at that time.
Thank you for contacting us for environmental consulting services. Please call if we can be of
further assistance in the permitting process for this project.
Sincerely,'
.ADOLFSON ASSOCIATES INC.
Teresa H. Vanderburg
Senior Ecologist
cc: Andy Castelle, Adolfson •
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM
Date: to oc-- 1993
t :
Projec-76o v&) L_A- le-G. -5- t'; iJ Slo #:
Location: 4v -L 5 -• c S�-4 - .., A
Client:
}.
^ L1o'- ox_ S ' 6.4.Loc..3 4/'\
W/L
U/L
Photo #:, i JA
t i4
e w SEC
Do normal environmental conditions exist? Yes _o •
Has vegetation. soils, &./or hydrology been significantly disturbed? Yes No
YEGE TAT ION
n Species C dorm^ ^-) 7. Cove- WI5 Species
Ac--. h".ckcvo
F✓nbKS �ii5 �1
'4 Cover WIS
fib v o c �•�
80 FAc4A 1
10 EACH
5 rac I
Po. J.5 An.- T F4G1.1) 1
R-K br. V,' 1 i k 3S NT" 1
Percent of dominant species that arc PAC or wetter
solo
50IL5
Mapped Series 4-1 e ∎ woo t -1 Imydri c Soils List? Yes No ✓� '
Depth. Horizon • Color (' 4ir ca.u,tra 1 & =) Texture Hydric indicator
0-15" /4 /0 Yg 4/I
Ater 5'Ice
ro.h•;oH7es
Depth to Saturation %j°`'~� •
FlowrYes No • Cnanrei? • Sheet=
Other hydrologic features: r'
HYDROLOGY
Depth of inundation: IVA•
SUMMARY
Is the hydro fi tic vegetation criterion eriorr met? 1987 N.) 1989 h o
LS the hydric e.oils crit, -Ian met? 1887 no 1959 h o
Is the
wetland hydrolcay criterion met? 1987 no 1989 h U
Wetland Determination
1987 Manual: Yes No
1989 Manual: Yes No
Classification (FW5) • AM U PG.
WILDLIFE 065ERVATIONS AND NOTES
dhh
Date:
Project:
Location:
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM
W/L
U/L
act- /9 3 Piot #: ( ) Photo #•, °kJ/4
/3 o W F S Ter staff: Tf/ 1/
Arm_ / S - Zo i 642,9 c._) • • Client: Az, IA..), R3 e-c,-
— E df / —i- -e , 5 -01
Oo norif l environmental conditions exist'? ✓
Yes 0 o 5•� / � /� �%,
Has vegetation, soils, &or hydrology balm significantly disturred? Yes No %�`` P%- '
Species
(• dominant)
VEGETATION
7. Covey V.45 Soca:es
'/. Ccver W15
Pop «-1-+5 -i-r-; CA ocor
2 0
-A
FA
701
S'.1 4 X 6 o. `/
S
P? 1C)
.
,29- /r, Pi 5 r� b k-,0%---
75
Pi4-C
. lif e{-i c..L.- oil o G! R..
15
FA-C.
•
it l 4 G �•t) �,o.
/�
.(Ff4G �
,J 4
Percent oil dominant species that are FAC or wetter /C0 %
SOILS
Mapped Series ,'/4 t ucc'
OcFth Horizon
/s '4
Hydric Soils Lis°' Yes No' ✓ "
• Color (' :"s ^t) Texture Hydric Indicator
l> Id cp Sid 'S i+ (4. eYG ddo✓
p e h hies a• S IA .'
HYDROLOGY
Dcpth of inundation:
XII- Ii
Depth to Saturion +
Ficw7Yes No Crtanr& t°""--Sheatr
Other hydrologic features:
.4:fee s c
D6,55 :1, ohs red ?
r
SUMMARY
is the hydroghytic vaFt,.aticrt criit erica rnet 1987 yef 1989 Wetland Dete, ;,tinatio_ n
Is the hydric soils crit. �on met,`? 1987 98° 198? Manual: Yes Ivy
Is the wetland hydr okay criterion r: ter/ 1987 y1989 � 1989 Manual: Yes r/No
Classification (FNS) PFO/ 1
WILDLIFE OSSERYATIONS AND NOTES
Date:
Project:
Location.
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM
6 o - , 73
.Bo c.v L i AnJS P, X57 9-.
. Kati
riot L.
Staff:
CUert:
wiL
U/L
Photo /t,/4
Do normal environmental conditions exist ?. Yes ✓No
Has vegetation, soils, &Jor hydrology been significantly distur.ed ?Yes No
Sae : es (• dQ,in„re)
7. Cover
VEGETATION
WIS 5oecies
7. Cover W15
A-I elm .S 1-h 61,. -7 5
PA4 C-
A k. 6t.- mei c►-04 h 4 I l a Pn ZS
PAS -GG1
p0 It 4 .6 1Pn t.t h ► •it �.-, 10
t' i 0 1_,
,P-AA/6g4 6 Ui 71-i J i;14 /S
,v.z
.
/ a / r:--t e.4 "., yv, P.t • ; h! a -; r /0
' }•C.
sir ..,-, 61044 5 rote e.• -+-+ CS a. 25F-A C(4
.
Percent of dominant species that are FAG or wetter 7 S 170
SOILS
Mapped Series '/
Depth Horizon
Hydr'c Soils List? Yes No
• Color ( ("AeSUAt4 t i:) Texture Hydric Indicator
m RAC
- /g,,
'1- /0 y e 3/z.
6 /o Key- -3
.51 /4, J
!.._1y o Ih /e5
h o n, C 741° 5 '5-- ejk
v
HYDROLOGY
Depth to Saturation NQ''` -'Q� Depth oT inundation: A'4
Fow7Ycs __ No _1G"Cnanr.el? • Sheet?
Other hydrologic features:
SUMMARY
Is tke hydrophytic vegetation criterion me:11 1957 he 1959 ho
Is the hydric roils criterion mew 1957 1101959 h 0
Is the we and hydrnlcgy cr te:icn met 11.957 h 0 1959 PN 0
Wetland Determination
1957 Manual: Yes
1959 Manual: Yes
Classification (FN5)
WILDUFE 06SERYATIONS AND NOTES
No
No
' /PC-
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM
W/L
U/L
Date: , OG T /913 Plot #: Photo #: "-
Project: PO c, 1 Le 72A-fu T4. 5zasr: -
Location. P/ `� 1.: / 4 - �'-z-� Client: i2 , W . GEC.
•W't
�-1.1-1---•P A.- tom_:,,. < � one,
5-c--
, �c ,o ,.7 . 4.0 �e S
Do normal environmental conditions exist? Yes . v
�. -1�`j _,
Has vegetation, soils, &kr hydrology been signmcartiy disturred ?Yes No m J ;�c /g 77
VEGETATION
S Sec es C domfrwrel 7. Cove- MS S oecies
r4 m o�by //u
2-5 Gi9--eX I
4 A- /,L4 5 ,-h b--4 8o 1
7. Cover WIS
u -kca. al.'oc 6 (So PA-C
-- �-IIc ZA (s,o.
p`� v
D v154 GA u h.■ Mgt r; �tn +- _ IJPL • 1
1
Pe went of dominant species that are FAC or wetter 7G �b
SOILS
Mapped Series A4 wove
Hydric Soils List'. Yes No
Depth Horizon • Color Cireacaptcallehtl Texture
Hydric Indicator
D-12-" A /,.-3/2 s% / -w
/2 - /:8 " ,C3 .SGY g, s% / ,
HYDROLOGY oti 4 �= 1.
Depth to Satura 'on De h of inundation: �Z ' I/4
Fiow ?Yes No Channel? Sheets
Other hydrologic features: �'`^^ .e 2-07— n 'L`-Q4
cf.''cc -Li
Is the hydrol.hytic vcaeracion criterion the'`: 1987 1989 je S
Is the hydric soils crit.l -on rne:? 1987 1989 y
Is the wetand hydrology a iterron r: tcol-1957 T 1989. ")
Wetland• Dece. urination
1987 Manual: Yes Flo
1989 Manual: Yes
Classification (FvVS) P I �-�`)
WILDLIFE O55E,ZYATIONS AND NOTES
• • . • .•
)..
\\
•••••^T-". \\ \\••• Ir
c? \\ \ • )1
• I:
\'\\
t(2,4).:., L 1
tJ
i , . i i 1 •
. t (4,
., • -
rtr'I. ..: Si
i I ji :...!?.4.."./.)...?
i", - • \-- .....
'; II
1 I
'
. • •
• " .....4,..
o\\2
i 11 I 1 I
1 4
A 17
, , r . ..
.ts. ii j I i 1 -
.i
.1 Pitil
17). it li
la ii if
a: 1 I 1.7
•
4 R•A
t-- ji ,i,
il ii i 1 41
.,
•, ,i
ii• l
J• .i
ti
:t /ii 1
1, I
11 II
il il
I i
ti i
11 '
II. I
II ij
1 i II
• :sit lig •I
1
:
0 ST
• ,/ct
is •
t ST
QUI- "TO C.ALG._
LEGEND
Concrete monument
Data plot location
PFO1 Wetland area (estimated)
Concrete culvert outfall
Interceptor ditch
Direction of surface flow
Scale: 1 inch = approximately 115 feet
Dow Lake Transfer Station
Wetlands Recornnaissance
Figure 1
ADOLF3004
ASSOCIATES. INC.
4N11LA, LY,9 „
° `" City of Tukwila
John W Rants, Mayor
Department of Community Development
Mr. Kevin Kiernan, P.E.
Engineering Services Manager
King County Solid Waste Division
Department of Public Works
Yesler Building
400 Yesler Way, Room 600
Seattle, WA 98104 -2637
December 29, 1993
RE: Bow Lake Transfer Station -- Facility Master Plan
Dear Mr. Kiernan:
Rick Beeler, Director
This letter is in response to your letter of November 22, 1993 to
Rick Beeler in which you raise several issues regarding the Bow
Lake Transfer Station facility in Tukwila. I will address your
concerns by topic.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN:
The Comprehensive Plan update is scheduled to be completed in late
'1994 to mid -1995.
The area is currently designated "light industrial" by the existing
Comprehensive Plan. Prior to staff and Committee recommendation
and review in mid -1994, we cannot comment definitively whether or
not the designation will change.
ZONING CODE:
Portions of the area are zoned M- 1(light industrial) and portions
are R -A (agricultural). Zoning Code revisions are scheduled for
completion approximately one year after the Comprehensive Plan, in
late 1995 to mid -1996.
A transfer station is neither permitted outright, nor as a
conditional or accessory use under the R -A zoning. With the
current zoning, expansion of the transfer station will require a
rezone. An application is enclosed.
6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • (206) 431-3670 • Fax (206) 431-3665
_. Ki ernan Ltr.
12/29/93
Page 2
UNCLASSIFIED USE:
An unclassified use permit would be required to implement any
planned improvements. An application is enclosed.
VESTING:
The applicant is vested to existing codes and regulations once a
complete building permit application, including architectural
drawings sufficient to construct the project, is submitted.
SENSITIVE AREAS:
The site under discussion is subject to the Sensitive Areas
requirements.
Wetlands:
We encourage you to submit preliminary site and improvement plan
information through our Pre - application process at your earliest
convenience. At that point Gary Schulz, our staff Urban
Environmentalist, could review your plans and discuss appropriate
mitigation with you.
Geologic Instability:
We will need a preliminary plan to be able to make comments on this
issue.
TREE REGULATIONS:
Since development may occur within a sensitive area, the project is
subject to Tree Regulations (TMC 18.54).
POTENTIAL ISSUES:
We cannot comment on the possibility of Comprehensive Plan or
Zoning designation changes prior to the time that Committee review
occurs. Whether or not any changes actually occur, we do wish to
inform you of preliminary staff -level discussion about expanded
development regulations for hillside areas, such as the one in the
area which you've identified for potential expansion.
Clearly, there are several interrelated issues which pertain to
proposed improvements to the Bow Lake Transfer Station. Prior to
proceeding further, we strongly encourage you to complete the
rieriidn LLr.
-12/29/93
Page 3
enclosed form for a pre - application, and come in to meet with our
staff. In that way we can discuss all the issues in a coordinated
manner, as you begin the process of working with the City of
Tukwila.
Sincerely,
t/16
J ck Pace •
Senior Planner
c ,:c :...4 Rebecea;
Enc.
King County
Solid Waste Division
Department of Public Works
Yesler Building
400 Tesler Way, Room 600
Seattle, WA 98104 -2637
(206) 296-6542
November 22, 1993
Mr. Rick Beeler
Director
Department of Community Development
City of Tukwila
6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite 100
Tukwila, WA 98188
RE: Bow Lake Transfer Station - Facility Master Plan
Dear Mr. Beeler:
RECEIVED
DEC: 199,3
COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT
On October 21, 1993, staff of the King County Solid Waste Division (SWD) and
its engineering consultant met with Rebecca Fox of the City of Tukwila's
Department of Community Development to discuss the proposed Facility Master
Plan for the Bow Lake Transfer Station. We appreciated the opportunity to
explain our planning objectives, and to gain an understanding of City
policies and requirements relevant to the eventual permitting of facility
improvements.
The existing transfer station is located northeast of the South 188th Street
and Orillia Road South intersection (Figure 1). The purpose of the Facility
Master Plan project is to identify and prioritize facility improvements
required to accommodate service needs for the next 25 years. Potential
improvements include expanded capability for collecting recyclables, and a
pre -load compaction system for mixed municipal solid waste.
The Facility Master Plan will evaluate a number of different development
alternatives. These will include keeping all improvements within the
existing boundaries of the facility, and evaluating the alternatives of
acquiring property north of the existing site from the Washington Department
of Transportation to accommodate placement of the pre -load compaction system,
and acquiring land adjacent to, and south of, the site to expand the
recycling capability to meet minimum standards specified in the 1992 King
County Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan.
Since the existing site and most of the potential expansion areas lie within
the municipal boundaries of the City of Tukwila (Figure 1), it is important
that we have a correct and complete understanding of the City's policies and
requirements. The purpose of this letter is to review the topics discussed
at our meeting with Rebecca Fox; and to identify issues that need to be
resolved to allow us to complete our planning effort.
Mr. Rick Beeler
November 22, 1993
Page Two
Environmental Review
Environmental review will not take place until SWD is ready to implement
planned improvements. Nonetheless, an understanding of the environmental
review process is essential to allow us to project the cost and schedule for
plan implementation.
In accordance with the SEPA Rules (WAC 197 -11 -926), the King County Solid
Waste Division will be the lead agency for the environmental review.
However, we recognize that the environmental review would also have to
satisfy Tukwila's requirements to allow the City to issue necessary permits •
and approvals. Therefore, we will coordinate closely with City staff on the
form and content of the environmental review.
At this time, we believe that an expanded checklist /mitigated DNS may be the
appropriate form of environmental review. This is based on the fact that the
basic use of the site will not change, and there will be no need for
significantly increased transfer station capacity. Nonetheless, there may be
an expansion of the footprint of the transfer station, as well as an
expansion of the recycling area both on and off -site. We plan to conduct
studies to determine the potential significant adverse impacts of these
improvements, including studies of traffic, noise, odor, geologic stability,
and wetlands. These studies will recommend measures to mitigate identified
adverse impacts. Based on study results and consultation with the City and
others, the Division will reevaluate the appropriateness of an expanded
checklist /DNS.
Zoning /Permits
Rebecca Fox indicated that the existing facility and proposed expansion area
are almost entirely in the M -1 (Light Industry) zone, and that a
transfer /recycling station is permitted outright in that zone. She
concluded, therefore, that the planned facility improvements would require
only a design review and building permits.
Since our meeting, we have reviewed the Tukwila Zoning Code and Comprehensive
Land Use Policy Plan more thoroughly. Based on the zoning map, most of the
existing site is zoned R -A (Agriculture), although the developed portion of
the site is primarily in the M -1 zone. However, we question whether a
transfer /recycling station is permitted outright in any zone. In fact,
Section 18.66.020 of the Zoning Code indicates that "transfer stations
(refuse and garbage) when operated by a public agency" require an
unclassified use permit.
Mr. Rick Beeler
November 22, 1993
Page Three
Under the Comprehensive Land Use Policy Plan, most of the existing site and
potential expansion area is designated Public Facilities or Commercial, with
a small portion in the southeast corner of the existing site designated Light
Industrial. A transfer /recycling station appears to be consistent with the
objectives and policies associated with these designations. However, we
understand that a new Comprehensive Plan is currently being developed in
response to the Growth Management Act; and that once the new plan is adopted,
the Zoning Code will be revised accordingly.
•
To allow us to understand how site zoning and future comprehensive planning
may affect our plans, we would appreciate answers to the following questions:
1. Would the proposed facility improvements be "grandfathered in ",
since the basic use of the site would remain unchanged? If not,
would an unclassified use permit be required to implement any
planned improvements?
2. If an unclassified use permit is required, we would appreciate your
sending us a copy of the application form and indicating the
approximate time required from submittal of the application to
approval of the permit and completion of improvements.
3. What is the schedule for developing and adopting a new Comprehensive
Land Use Policy Plan, and revising the Zoning Code ?_ Are the plan
designations and zoning for the Bow Lake-Transfer Station site and
surrounding area likely to change+p'Wi 11 transfer stations remain an
unclassified use in all zonesT
4. At what point
applicant's ri
assured that t
existing regul.
Wetlands
The Division conducted
whether there are wetlai
station site (the wester
As shown in the figure
forested wetlands were i
been delineated, so the
appears to be the result
through concrete culvert
1210 L
iqq.5
ing process are the
rat point are we
emented under
nge?
of determining
n of the transfer
rea to the south.
, three small
nds have not yet
ach of the three
een directed
nsfer station.
Mr. Rick Beeler
November 22, 1993
Page Three
Under the Comprehensive Land Use Policy Plan, most of the existing site and
potential expansion area is designated Public Facilities or Commercial, with
a small portion in the southeast corner of the existing site designated Light
Industrial. A transfer /recycling station appears to be consistent with the
objectives and policies associated with these designations. However, we
understand that a new Comprehensive Plan is currently being developed in
response to the Growth Management Act; and that once the new plan is adopted,
the Zoning Code will be revised accordingly.
•
To allow us to understand how site zoning and future comprehensive planning
may affect our plans, we would appreciate answers to the following questions:
1. Would the proposed facility improvements be "grandfathered in ",
since the basic use of the site would remain unchanged? If not,
would an unclassified use permit be required to implement any
planned improvements?
2. If an unclassified use permit is required, we would appreciate your
sending us a copy of the application form and indicating the
approximate time required from submittal of the application to
approval of the permit and completion of improvements.
3. What is the schedule for developing and adopting a new Comprehensive
Land Use Policy Plan, and revising the Zoning Code? Are the plan
designations and zoning for the Bow Lake Transfer Station site and
surrounding area likely to changeJ/ Wi11 transfer stations remain an
unclassified use in all zones?''�
4. At what point in the environmental review /permitting process are the
applicant's rights vested -- in other words, at what point are we
assured that the proposed improvements can be implemented under
existing regulations even if those regulations change?
Wetlands
The Division conducted a site reconnaissance for the purpose of determining
whether there are wetlands present on the developable portion of the transfer
station site (the western half) or the potential expansion area to the south.
As shown in the figure in the enclosed reconnaissance report, three small
forested wetlands were identified in this area. These wetlands have not yet
been delineated, so the boundaries shown are approximate. Each of the three
appears to be the result of surface water runoff which has been directed
through concrete culverts away from Interstate 5 and the transfer station.
Mr. Rick Beeler
November 22, 1993
Page Four
Although the three wetlands are small, they would apparently be classified as
Type 2 wetlands under Section 18.45.020 of the City of Tukwila Zoning Code
because they are forested. The easternmost wetland would likely not be
impacted by planned facility improvements. However, the two southernmost
wetlands lie in the only area where topography would allow expansion of the
recycling capacity of the site. No reasonable use could be made of this area
unless the wetlands were filled.
It appears that the planned facility improvements do not fall within the uses
permitted within Type 2 wetlands or wetland buffers, as outlined in Section
18.45.080(a), (b), and (h) of the Zoning Code. However, SWD believes that a
reasonable use exception or variance would be appropriate in this case,
particularly since the proposed use is an essential public utility.
The Division's consultant engineer has indicated that drainage from the
concrete culverts, which is the source of water for the wetlands, could be
rerouted to the detention pond which may be constructed as part of the
planned facility improvements. Wetland mitigation could be incorporated into
the constructed drainage channels and /or the detention pond.
In your response to this letter, we would appreciate clarification of the
City's requirements for permitting filling of Type 2 wetlands, including what
might constitute an acceptable mitigation plan.
Areas of Potential Geologic Stability
As evident in Figure 1 of the wetland report, there are steep slopes in the
eastern half and along the western edge of the existing site. In addition,
an old landfill underlies the flat portions of the existing site and
potential expansion area.
As part of SWD's planning process, a geotechnical report will be prepared by
a qualified geotechnical consultant pursuant to the requirements of Sections
18.45.060 and 18.45.080(e)(4) of the Zoning Code. Pursuant to Section
18.45.040(d)(1), the geotechnical report will analyze and make
recommendations on the need for, and width of any buffers necessary to ensure
slope stability. The geotechnical report will also evaluate stability issues
associated with construction of facilities over an old landfill.
Please let us know if there are any other City requirements that we should
keep in mind regarding areas of potential geologic instability.
Again, the Division appreciated the opportunity to initiate coordination with
the City of Tukwila on the Facility Master Plan for the Bow Lake Transfer
Station. We also look forward to the opportunity to be involved in future
planning and zoning activities that would affect our facility. Your response
to this letter will assist us in proceeding with this important planning
effort.
Mr. Rick Beeler
November 22, 1993
Page Five
If you have any questions, please call me at 296 -4419 or. Tom Lew at 296 - 4433..
Sincerely,
1;74;4;/-
Kevin E. Kiernan, P.E.
Engineering Services Manager
KK:TL:er
TL1 /heeler.
Enclosures
cc: Rebecca Fox, City of Tukwila
Karl Hufnagel, R. W. Beck and Associates
Jean Garber, Consultant
Rodney G. Hansen, Manager, Solid Waste Division
Neil Fujii, Supervising Engineer
ATTN: Tom Lew, Senior Engineer
CONDITIONAL USE
APPLICATION
CITY OF TUKWILA
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Tukwila, WA 98188
Telephone: (206) 431 -3680
I. BRIEFLY DESCRIBE YOUR PROPOSAL: Additions and Modernization to Showalter
Middle School
2. PROJECT LOCATION: (Give street address or, if vacant, indicate lot(s), block, and sub-
division; or tax lot number, access street, and nearest intersection)
4628 South 144th Street, Tukwila, WA
Quarter: SE Section: 15 Township: 23N Range: 4E
(This information may be found on your tax statement)
3. APPLICANT:* Name: NANCY KAYNOR BASSETTI ARCHITECT P.S.
Address. 1011 WESTERN AVENUE SUITE 701 SEATTLE WA 98104
Phone (206) 340 =.9500
Signature: Ai � Date: g d 1 7. ?' f
* The applicant is the person whom the staff will contact regarding the application, and
to whom all notices and reports shall be sent, unless otherwise stipulated by applicant.
AFFIDAVIT OF OWNERSHIP
4. PROPERTY Name: SOUTH CENTRAL SCHOOL DISTRICT
OWNER
Address: 4640 SOUTH 144TH STREET, TUKWILA WA
Phone: (206) 244 -2100
I /WE,[signature(s)]
swear that I /we are the owner(s) or con act p aser(s) of the property involved
in this application and that the foregoing statements and answers contained in this
application are true and correct to the
best of my /our knowledge and belief. Date:
CONDITIONAL USE APPLICATION Page 2
5. PRESENT USE OF PROPERTY: Middle School
6. PROPOSED CONDITIONAL USE REQUESTED (from list in TMC 18.64.020):
Public School (i15, Conditional Use listed in the specified use district)
7. ADJACENT North: Residential
LAND South: Residential
USES East: Residential
West: N ■►, s :.
8. DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED USE (for example, describe the manufactur-
ing processes used, wholesale /retail /warehouse functions, outside storage of goods or
equipment or other information which will facilitate understanding of the activities you
proposed to develop on this site):
Additions add Modernization of an existing middle school
9. Will the conditional use be in operation and /or a building to house the use be started
within a year of issuance of the permit?
Yes
10. Describe the manner in which you believe that your request for a Conditional Use Permit
will satisfy each of the following criteria as specified in TMC 18.64.030 (attach additional
sheets, if necessary).
A. The proposed use will not.be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious
to the property or improvements in the vicinity of the proposed use or in the district in
which the subject property is situated.
RESPONSE:
The use is a school,whose purpose is the public welfare.
B. The proposed use shall meet or exceed the perforrnance standards that are required
in the district it will occupy.
RESPONSE:
The proposed is an existing use in the district it occupies. All aspects
of the.modernization will meet current code.
• ' CONDITIONAL USE APPLICATION
Page 3.
10. (continued) •
C. The proposed development shall be compatible generally with the surrounding land uses in
terms of traffic and pedestrian circulation, building and site design.
RESPONSE:
The proposed development is an existing land use. A traffic study has been
prepared to help ensure . adequate traffic and pedestrian circulation. The
present building will remain and be upgraded to present land use, building,
and safety codes. The new buildings are designed to match form and materials
of the existing buildings.
D. The proposed use shall be in keeping with the goals and policies of the Comprehensive
Land Use Policy Plan.
RESPONSE:
The school facility is an existing component of the Comprehensive Land Use
Policy Plan.
E. All measures have been taken to minimize the possible adverse impacts which the proposed
use may have on the area in which it is located.
RESPONSE:
The proposal is meant to improve adverse impacts that are existing_ in the area now.
F-"v -r ` e-o N6✓
s .. Moo w sawn__
:. ! •e..: _'. � :2, ��:i i : a : j •. •!i �• iti�•I i•.�..a:.�p . i�l�'.'.� �.- s.+/�. ��..?a.�1:�'�u .{i fj t;"
ARD:.OF4ARCHITECTURALiREVIEW
t:: fir• •::: ;a.`'�•••: ..' j? St.' t: r._. ti '%S'.e'•:v!:4� '::•;••}�• t' • e..i•
CITY OF TUKWILA
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
6300 Southcenler.Boulevard, Tukwila ;' WA':98188
Telephone: •(206) 431 -3680
The following materials must be submitted with your application: This checklist is to •
assist you in submitting a complete application. Please do not turn in your application
until all items which apply to your proposal are attached to your application. If you •
have any questions, contact the Department of Community Development' at 431 -3680.
TUIVI ;THIS :CHECKLIST:;Wl.
:...,:._....A:TI _ ..
•
GENERAL
Application Form
gi Design Review Fee — $900.00
EEnvironmental Checklist
Environmental Checklist Fee — $325.00
PLANS
2 copies, per Veroar) UMetsv, S /(l/ f
Seven (7) copies of the set of plans are required. The scale shall not exceed 1 " =30', with
the north arrow, graphic, scale and date all identified on the plans. Also, the license
stamps of the architect and landscape architect shall be on each appropriate plan.
The following information should be contained within the plan:
YJ A. Vicinity map showing location of site and surrounding prominent landmarks.
B. Property dimensions and names of adjacent roads.
C. Lot size and impervious (paved and building areas) surface calculations.
D. Existing and finished grades at 2' contours with the precise slope of any area
in excess of 15%.
ziE. Location and dimensions of existing and proposed structure(s), accessory
structures with appropriate setbacks/parking and loading area dimensions,
and driveways.
F. Existing (6" in diameter) trees by species and an indication of which will be
saved. Proposed landscaping: size, species, location and spacing.
a
C
BOARD OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW
DESIGN REVIEW APPLICATION CHECKLIST
Page
• G. Location and size of proposed utility lines and a description of by whom and
how water and sewer is available.
tx
H. Location, dimensions and nature of any proposed easements or dedications.
• I. For commercial and industrial uses, gross floor area by use and parking
calculations.
J. For multiple residential, location, dimensions and description of common
open space and recreation areas.
K. Dimensioned elevations of building drawn at 1/8" = 1' or a comparable scale.
Elevations should show the type of exterior materials.
21 L. Location and elevations of exterior lighting for buildings and parking areas.
IXM. Location and elevations of dumpster screens.
N. Color and material sample board for exterior building and accessory structure
colors and material.
KiO. Perspective drawings, photographs, color renderings or other graphics which
accurately represent your proposed project.
n P. One (1) Photomaterial Transfer (PMT) of each drawing reduced to 8.5" by 11"
(most printing companies can make PMI's).
PUBLIC NOTICE
ElA mailing list with address labels for property owners and residents within 300 feet
of your property. (See attached "Address Label Requirements ")
E A King County Assessor's Map which identifies the location of each property
ownership and residence listed. The maps may be ordered from the King County
Public Works Map Counter at 296 -6548.