Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPermit L07-097 - CARLSTEDT RAYMOND - WOODLAND VIEW COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENTWOODLAND VIEW COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT REZONE COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLAN AMENDMENT 15200 - 65Th AVE S L07 -097 0 4 To: Posterity From: Rebecca Fox Subj: Contents of File L07 -096 Date: 11/24/08 REFER TO FILE #L07 -096 (REZONE) FOR COMPLETE INFORMATION (I.E. AFFIDAVITS, CITY COUNCIL RECORD, ETC) PERTAINING TO THE WOODLAND VIEW/RAYMOND CARLSTEDT REQUST FOR LDR TO MDR. THIS FILE CONTAINS "HIGHLIGHTS" ONLY! • City of Tukwila TO: Raymond Carlstedt, Applicant All Parties of Record NOTICE OF DECISION I. PROJECT INFORMATION Project File Number: L07 -096 and L07 -097 Applicant: Raymond G. Carlstedt Type of Permit Applied for: COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLAN Comprehensive Plan Map Change and Rezone Location: 152XX 65 Avenue South, Tukwila (Tax ID # 3597000360) Associated Files: E08- 014— SEPA/Environmental Review Comprehensive Plan Low Density Residential (LDR)/Low Density Residential (LDR) Designation/Zoning District: II. DECISION Type 5 Permit Decision by City Council Initials Page 1 of 2 H: \Comp Plan 2007 - 2008 \Woodland View L07 -096 & L07- 097 \NOD -- CityCouncil.Decision.11.08.doc 12/02/2008 2:45:00 PM Jim Haggerton, Mayor Department of Community Development Jack Pace, Director December 3, 2008 This letter serves as a notice of decision and is issued pursuant to TMC 18.104.170 on the following project and permit approval. Project Description: Amend Comprehensive Plan Map and Zoning Map from Low Density Residential (LDR) to Medium Density Residential (MDR) on approximately 1.4 acres located in the eastern portion of a 5.8 acre site. SEPA Determination: The City SEPA Responsible Official has previously determined that the project, as proposed, does not create a probable significant environmental impact and issued a Determination of Non - Significance (DNS). Decision on Substantive Permit: The City Council has determined, following an open record hearing, that the application for a Comprehensive Plan map amendment and Rezone does not comply with applicable City and state code requirements and has denied that application based on findings and conclusions contained in the staff report. 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • Phone: 206 - 431 -3670 • Fax: 206 - 431 -3665 • • The Decision on this Application is a Type 5 decision pursuant to Tukwila Municipal Code § 18.104.010. III. YOUR APPEAL RIGHTS No administrative appeal of the City Council Decision is permitted. Any party wishing to challenge the City Council Decision must file an appeal in King County Superior Court pursuant to the procedures and time limitations set forth in RCW 36.70C. An appeal challenging a DNS, an MDNS or an EIS may be included in such an appeal. If no appeal of the City Council decision is properly filed in Superior Court within such time limit, the Decision on this permit will be final. IV. INSPECTION OF INFORMATION ON THE APPLICATION Project materials including the application, any staff reports, and other studies related to the permits are available for inspection at the Tukwila Department of Community Development, 6300 Southcenter Blvd., Suite 100, Tukwila, Washington 98188 from Monday through Friday between 8:30 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. The project planner is Rebecca Fox, who may be contacted at 206 - 431 -3683 for further information. Property owners affected by this decision may request a change in valuation for their property tax purposes. Contact the King County Assessor's Office for further information regarding property tax valuation changes. /2 0 e ! tz>C; Department of Community Development City of Tukwila Type 5 Permit Decision by City Council Initials Page 2 of 2 H:\Comp Plan 2007- 20081Woodland View L07 -096 & L07- 0971■OD — CityCouncil.Decision.11.08.doc 12/02/2008 2:45:00 PM DAVID & GLORIA YOSHINO 6361 S 151 PLACE TUKWILA, WA 98188 DEB SORENSON 6221 S 151 PLACE TUKWILA WA 98188 ANDREA SIPE 14961 62 AVE S TUKWILA WA 98188 RAYMOND CARLSTEDT 3732 SW SOUTHERN SEATTLE WA 98126 • • MARIA C NOTCH 1405 HARRINGTON AVE S RENTON WA 98058 RICK ROBERTS 10306 CANYON DRIVE PUYALLUP WA 98373 -1072 DEBRA TSURUDA 6220 S 153 ST TUKWILA WA 98188 ANNETTE GRAY 15232 62 AVE S TUKWILA WA 98188 HUGH TOBIN 15165 62 AVE S TUKWILA WA 98188 AI BREDBERG 3303 43 STREET GIG HARBOR WA 98335 -8290 JEFF ANDERSON 15115 SUNWOOD BLVD TUKWILA WA 98188 IP eitv of gaiwita, . Dept. Of Community Development AFFIDAVIT OF DISTRIBUTION , 0 ' HEREBY DECLARE THAT: . A ., Notice of Public Hearing Determination of Non - Significance Notice of Public Meeting 1�ud Mitigated Determination of Non - Significance Board of Adjustment Agenda Packet L -k Determination of Significance its Scoping Notice Board of Appeals Agenda Packet Notice of Action Planning Commission Agenda Packet Official Notice Short Subdivision Agenda Notice of Application Shoreline Mgmt Permit Notice of Application for Shoreline Mgmt Permit FAX To Seattle Times Classifieds Mail: Gail Muller Classifieds PO Box 70 - Seattle WA 98111 X Other: P: \USERS \TERI\AFFIDAVIT OF DISTRIBUTION.D Was mailed to each of the addresses listed/attached on this 3 day of e in the year 2Oj Project Name: / „„ _ / ., Project Number: r y 1�ud �p Mailing requested by: 6, (C ' L -k Mailer's signature: / 7/Y/( ,- P: \USERS \TERI\AFFIDAVIT OF DISTRIBUTION.D Was mailed to each of the addresses listed/attached on this 3 day of e in the year 2Oj HEARING DATE: NOTIFICATION: FILE NUMBER: APPLICANT: REQUEST: LOCATION: Rf • • Department of Community Development COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: ZONE DESIGNATION: SEPA DETERMINATION: STAFF: ATTACHMENTS: STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION October 30, 2008 Notice mailed to surrounding properties, 9/25/08 Site posted, 9/26/08 Notice published in the Seattle Times, 10/16/08 Notice of site visit mailed, 10/16/08 L07 -097 (Comprehensive Plan Amendment) L07 -096 (Rezone) Raymond Carlstedt Change Comprehensive Plan /Zoning Map from Low Density Residential (LDR) to Medium Density Residential (MDR) 152xx 65 Avenue South (Tax Parcel # 3597000360) Low Density Residential (LDR) Low Density Residential (LDR) Determination of Non - significance (DNS), 10/16/08 Rebecca Fox A. Application (L07- 097 — Comprehensive Plan B. Application -L07- 096— Zoning Map Change) C. Site Location with zoning •1 ' .i 11 - . •,. .1 Jim Haggerton, Mayor Jack Pace, Director 10/16/2008 BACKGROUND Vicinity /Site Information D. Minutes -- Committee of the Whole (7/14/08) E. Citizen letters from agenda packet (7/14/08) F. Minutes -- Regular Meeting (7/21/08) G. Steep Slopes and Wetlands H. Geotechnical Report (R. Pride, 4/08) I. Wetlands (Aerial View) J. Wetland Delineation Report (J. Jennings, 5/08) K. Multi- family Development L. 1995 Planning Commission Recommended Zoning M. Applicant's Preliminary Site Plan FINDINGS VICINITY /SITE INFORMATION Background and Proiect Description The applicant seeks to redesignate approximately 1.41 acres in the eastern third of a 5.8 acre site located at 152xx 65 Avenue South from Low Density Residential (LDR) to Medium Density Residential (MDR). (Attachments A & B).The area where MDR is requested extends west from 65 Avenue South to the eastern edge of the 50' buffer on the eastern wetland. (Attachment C) The Community Affairs and Parks Committee was briefed on June 9, 2008, and the issue was forwarded to the City Council. After taking comments at a public meeting on July 14, 2008, the City Council deliberated on July 21, 2008, and forwarded the issue to the Planning Commission for review. (Attachments D, E & F). Site: The near - rectangular property measures about 350 feet x 770 feet, and extends east to west from 65 Avenue South to 62 Avenue South. The entire 5.8 acre site is undeveloped, and is covered with trees and shrubs. Its terrain varies from a high elevation of 200 feet at the northeast corner to a low of about 140 feet on the west side. Two wetland areas and their associated buffers are located in the west and central portions of the site. The rezone area, proposed for MDR, consists of 1.41 acres. The proposed boundary line between the LDR and MDR would begin in the approximate center of the eastern wetland and follow the outside boundary of the buffer area. The applicant has asked to rezone only the property east of this line. Rf 2 10/16/2008 Q: \Comp Plan 2007 - 2008 \Woodland View L07 -096 & L07- 097 \PC STAFF RPT--WoodlandView-CarlstedtL07- 096L07- 097.doc Sensitive Areas: With the exception of a portion of the lot's southeastern edge, almost all of the site is an environmentally sensitive area or buffer, including both steep slopes, and wetlands. (Attachment G) Steep Slopes: The majority of the area that is proposed for MDR zoning lies within a Class 3 area of potential geologic instability. Per Tukwila Municipal Code 18.45.120, Class 3 areas are those where "landslide potential is high, which include areas sloping between 15 and 40 percent and which are underlain by relatively impermeable soils or bedrock, and which also include areas sloping more than 40 percent." The applicant's geotechnical report (Attachment H) updates a report that was prepared in 1989 for the Alpine Estates project. It states that the property is suitable for development of residential structures, with the exclusion of the wetland areas and associated buffers. Excavation and some filling will be required to establish future building pads for future residential structures. (Geotech Study, p.2). Wetlands: The entire site includes two wetlands and their buffers. The western wetland is outside the area that is being considered for rezone, and is not part of the discussion. (Attachment I) A wetland and its buffer are in the eastern portion of the site, and just west of the proposed rezone area. The applicant's wetland delineation report indicates that this is a Type 3 wetland that requires 50' buffers. (Attachment J)The City of Tukwila's Urban Environmentalist finds that the should be considered a Type 2 wetland with an 80' buffer area. Most of the wetland's buffer, whether it is the 50' buffer area required by the Type 3 wetland, or the 80' buffer that the Type 2 wetland would require, lies in the steep slope area. MDR is proposed only on 1.4 acres in the eastern part of the property closest to 65 Avenue South, and east of the easternmost wetland and its buffer. This would leave the rest of the site zone LDR with the wetlands and their buffers unaffected, and ensure that any future multi - family residential development would occur only on the eastern edge of the property closest to 65 Avenue South. Per the Sensitive Areas Ordinance (TMC 18.45.080. C), development shall be set back ten feet from the buffers. Under certain circumstances the Director of the Community Development Department may waive buffer setback requirements. The applicant has discussed possible donation to the City of Tukwila of the remaining property that is not part of the rezone proposal (approximately 4.4 acres). Two separate tracts would be established. The tract to be donated would retain its LDR zoning, and the other tract would be rezoned to MDR. With or without the donation, the two wetlands and their buffers could not be developed, Rf 3 10/16/2008 Q: \Comp Plan 2007 - 2008 \Woodland View L07 -096 & L07- 097 \PC STAFF RPT--WoodlandView-CarlstedtL07- 096L07- 097.doc • • and would remain essentially as -is. Any possible donation is not part of the Comprehensive Plan map change or rezone deliberation. Vicinity: A mix of single - family and multi - family dwelling units is in the vicinity. 14 single - family homes are directly north in the Maple Tree subdivision. Approximately 12 single family homes are located in the LDR zone to the south. Additional single - family homes are to the northwest of the site. An application is pending for a 6 -lot short plat along 65 Avenue South, adjacent to the City Hall parking lot. Approximately 260 units of apartment and condominium units are east across 65 Avenue South (Maple Leaf, Canyon Estates, Park View) on land that is zoned Medium Density Residential (MDR). Farther northeast across 65 the land is zoned High Density Residential (HDR) The 48 unit San Juan apartments are zoned MDR. Immediately south across S. 153rd, the Cottage Creek apartments are zoned HDR. The Sunwood Condominiums are in the HDR zone farther to the west. (Attachment K) Tukwila Park is one -half block from the site along 65 Avenue South. Tukwila City Hall is in an Office (0) zone two blocks south of the property. The property has been the subject of several single family development proposals in the past. In the late 1980s, the entire site, including both wetlands, was considered for the Alpine Estates single - family subdivision proposal that was eventually dropped. The current proposal is the first request for multi - family zoning. It.differs from earlier single - family proposals and projects since it affects only the eastern area along 65 Avenue South. As stated, wetlands and associated buffer areas are excluded from the proposal, and would be retained. DISCUSSION ZONING MAP - -The existing zoning in the area is a mixture of Low Density Residential zones along with Medium Density Residential (MDR) and High Density Residential (HDR). A review of the zoning map shows that the LDR zoning runs along the west side of 65 Avenue South, with MDR and HDR immediately east across from the site. 65 Avenue South divides the MDR and HDR to the east, from the LDR to the west. Several blocks of LDR are to the south of the subject property, but most LDR is north and northwest of the site. When the current Comprehensive Plan map and zoning map were developed in 1995, the Planning Commission recommended rezoning to MDR the entire block south of the subject property. This included the San Juan Apartments east along S. 153 to 65 Avenue South, and south to the City Hall parking lot. This action would have up -zoned a small neighborhood of approximately 12 single - family Rf 4 10/16/2008 Q: \Comp Plan 2007 - 2008 \Woodland View L07 -096 & L07- 097 \PC STAFF RPT--WoodlandView-CarlstedtL07- 096L07- 097.doc • • houses from LDR to MDR. (Attachment L) The City Council, however, decided to rezone only the San Juan South apartments to MDR, and retain the rest of the areas as LDR, There was no discussion of rezoning the subject property to MDR in 1995 or at any point until the present application was filed. The current applicant wants to rezone only the eastern portion of the property along 65 Avenue South arterial. Extending the MDR zone west across 65 Avenue South to include the subject property would interrupt a solid line of LDR to create a small zone of multi - family land. DEVELOPMENT CONSIDERATIONS -- Much of the site is encumbered with wetlands, buffers and slopes. Through careful planning, the site could be developed as Low Density Residential, either with traditional single- family lots, or perhaps with a Planned Residential Development (PRD) to take advantage of the environmentally sensitive site conditions. Under the current LDR zoning, it is likely that the site could be developed somewhat farther west on the lot than the boundary the applicant requests. This might permit a greater number of houses to be built. The exact number of 6, 500 s.g. single - family lots that could be placed on the site depends on the layout. The maximum would likely be no more than approximately seven or eight. Under the Planned Residential Development (PRD), houses could be clustered to minimize environmental impacts, and the lot size could be reduced by 15 %. The proposed Medium Density Residential (MDR) zoning allows a maximum of 14.5 units /acre as duplex, triplex or fourplex buildings with a maximum height of 30 feet. The 1.41 acre rezone site could allow approximately 17 or 18 units to be built if the rezone request is approved. This density is unlikely, given the site's constraints. The applicant's preliminary site plan shows a total of 12 units in six duplex buildings i.e. fewer than the maximum that the Zoning Code allows with a single access onto 65 Avenue South. No development is proposed at this time. (Attachment M) Under the requested MDR zone, a multi - family development could be designed to minimize environmental impacts through clustering and careful site planning. Access points onto 65 Avenue South and the resulting loss of parking could also be limited through careful site layout and design. Multi- family Planned Residential Development (PRD) is permitted on sites with wetlands or watercourses. Per'the Sensitive Areas Ordinance (TMC 18.45.080. C), development shall be set back ten feet from the wetland buffers. Under certain circumstances the Director of the Community Development Department may waive buffer setback requirements. Per TMC 18.45. 080. G. 1, the DCD director may reduce standard wetland buffers on a case by case basis, provided the reduced buffer area does not contain slopes 15% or greater. Rf 5 10/16/2008 Q:1Comp Plan 2007- 20081Woodland View L07 -096 & L07- 0971PC STAFF RPT--WoodlandView-CarlstedtL07- 096L07- 097.doc • • The applicant's preliminary site plan has been discussed internally by Planning and Public Works staff, but has not been formally reviewed for specific development potential, density and configuration. Any future multi - family project would need to meet all the development requirements of the zoning code. It would require a separate application, and since it is in environmentally sensitive land, would trigger design review. Site conditions make it difficult to accommodate more intensive development. Given the site's steep slopes and wetlands, both single - family or multi - family would require careful planning to ensure adequate access for fire protection and for private vehicles, utility service, storm drainage, parking, etc. In the vicinity of the project, 65 Avenue South is heavily used for on- street parking. Under either the existing LDR or the proposed MDR zoning, additional curb cuts for site access /driveways onto 65 Avenue South would require review and approval by the Public Works Department, and could be limited in number. Access drives would be limited to less than 15% slope, requiring significant grading and filling. In both the existing LDR zone, and the requested MDR zone, two parking spaces would be provided for each dwelling unit that contains up to three bedrooms. One additional off - street parking space shall be required for every two bedrooms in excess of three bedrooms. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN REVIEW CRITERIA Planning Commission review is required for Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Code amendments. The Planning Commission may recommend approval, recommend approval with conditions or recommend denial of the amendment based on a clear compliance with the criteria that follow. The Planning Commission's recommendation will be forwarded to the City Council, which will make the final decision. 1) Describe how the issue is addressed in the Comprehensive Plan. If the issue is not adequately addressed, is there a need for it? Four broad - reaching objectives are the basis for the elements, goals and policies for Tukwila's Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan's primary objective is preserving and enhancing Tukwila's neighborhoods. The Comprehensive Plan states the following: Comprehensive Plan Objective #1: • "To improve and sustain residential neighborhood quality and livability." Under Low Density Residential (LDR) zoning and the Medium Density Residential (MDR) zoning, both single - family homes and multi - family homes provide opportunities for individuals and families to live in and contribute to the Rf 6 10/16/2008 Q: \Comp Plan 2007-2008\ Woodland View L07 -096 & L07- 097 \PC STAFF RPT--WoodlandView-CarlstedtL07- 096L07- 097.doc • • community. Neighborhood residential quality and livability can be maintained with the current LDR zoning. There is no compelling reason that supports the change to MDR in order to promote "neighborhood quality and livability." Housing Goal 3.1 states the following: • Continue to provide the City's fair share of regional housing. Either the current LDR zoning or the requested MDR zoning would allow housing to be built on the site. Housing Policy 3.1.1. states the following: • Provide sufficient zoned housing potential to accommodate future single - and multi - family households. This policy speaks to the need to provide adequate amounts of residentially - zoned land. Both the current Low Density Residential (LDR) zoning and the requested Medium Density Residential (MDR) zoning would allow housing to be built in the future. LDR provides for single - family detached homes, and MDR allows buildings with two, three or four units. With either current LDR zoning or the requested MDR zoning, some type of housing could be built, consistent with this Comprehensive Plan policy. The policy provides no special requirement or justification for changing existing zoning from LDR to MDR in order to accommodate multi - family development. Capacity for additional multi - family housing will be provided in the Tukwila Urban Center once the proposed Tukwila Urban Center Plan is adopted, and in the anticipated Tukwila Village development along Tukwila International Boulevard. Residential Neighborhoods Policy 7.3.1 demonstrates the community's commitment to residential neighborhoods as follows: • 7.3.1 Maintain a comprehensive land use map that supports the preservation and enhancement of single - family and stable multi - family neighborhoods; eliminates incompatible uses; and clearly establishes applicable development requirements through recognizable boundaries. 65 Avenue South currently acts as a clear boundary between the stable multi- family neighborhood to the east and the stable single family area to the north and south of the subject property. Keeping the current Comprehensive Plan map and zoning boundaries will maintain stability in the neighborhood. 2) Impacts The requested map change to MDR could potentially add up to up to 18 housing units to the site, increasing the overall housing stock in Tukwila. This would bring multi - family units west across 65 Avenue S. At present, Low Density Rf 7 10/16/2008 Q:\Comp Plan 2007- 20081Woodland View L07 -096 & L07- 097 \PC STAFF RPT--WoodlandView-CarlstedtL07-096L07- 097.doc • • Residential (LDR) runs continuously along 65 Avenue South from S. 151 to the City Hall driveway entrance on S. 154 Both single - family or multi - family development on the site would add some traffic and noise. Trees would be removed, although some would be replaced. In terms of total new housing units, the impacts of future single - family development on the existing LDR are likely to be less than the impacts of future multi - family housing. MDR would probably require more impervious surface than LDR, but possibly fewer curb cuts and access points from 65 Avenue South. Denser MDR development would be more in keeping with the Growth Management Act's preference for compact development. Amending the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Maps to MDR would allow expansion of multi - family use across 65 Avenue South to a block that is currently exclusively LDR. 3. Is the proposed change the best means for meeting the identified public need? What other options are there for meeting the identified public need? As Tukwila and King County grow, there is public need and a Growth Management Act requirement for additional housing opportunities and choices. Demand for new housing could be met either by developing single - family detached homes under the existing Low Density Development (LDR) zoning or by building duplex, triplex or four -plex homes that the proposed Medium Density Residential (MDR) zone would allow. Tukwila presently has 21% more multi - family addresses than single - family addresses. 3, 476 apartment units and 733 condominium units total of 4, 209 multi - family units, or 56% of all housing. There are 3,365 single - family addresses, that comprise 44% of all Tukwila housing units. The Growth Management Act's call for greater housing density can be met by developing multi - family in other locations throughout Tukwila which have fewer environmental concerns. Future capacity for multi - family housing could be provided through redevelopment in the Tukwila Urban Center, once the TUC zoning is amended to allow additional residential use. Multi- family development will also be part of the Tukwila Village project on Tukwila International Boulevard. 4) Will the proposed change result in a net benefit to the community? If not, what result can be expected and why? The proposed change from LDR to MDR could benefit the greater community and the region by offering additional housing choice in the neighborhood. However, since Tukwila already has more multi - family homes than single - family homes, and since additional opportunities for multi - family development are Rf 8 10/16/2008 Q: \Comp Plan 2007 - 2008 \Woodland View L07 -096 & L07- 097\PC STAFF RPT--WoodlandView-CarlstedtL07- 096L07- 097.doc • • anticipated in other parts of the city, it is not clear that reducing the amount of land available for single - family housing would actually benefit the specific Tukwila community. A positive side -effect of the rezone could result from the applicant's interest in possibly donating the western portion of the land that would remain LDR to the City of Tukwila for trails and open space. This donation, if it occurs, would benefit the community by ensuring that much of the property would remain undeveloped. Permanent, publicly -owned open space would be provided, and the wetlands would be protected. The possible donation should not be part of the consideration of the rezone request. It should be noted, however, that even under the existing LDR zoning, wetlands and buffers cannot be developed under any circumstances. The difference is that the undeveloped area would remain in private ownership, and would not be accessible to the public. CONCLUSIONS In reviewing Comprehensive Plan criteria, staff concludes that: 1) Is the issue addressed in the Comprehensive Plan? Is it needed? • Comprehensive Plan objectives, goals and policies that acknowledge the need for Tukwila to retain residential neighborhoods, to provide regional need for housing, to retain adequate land zoned "residential ", and to provide housing in a stable neighborhood are addressed under the current Low Density Residential zoning. • The Comprehensive Plan does not preclude MDR. The policies discussed above refer both to the existing LDR and the proposed MDR, but the Plan's policies offer no compelling justification to change the zoning from LDR to MDR. 2) Impacts? • The property's development potential for single - family or multi - family residential use will be limited by site considerations including: • Steep slopes • Wetlands • Potential geological instability • Future development plans would undergo environmental, design review and building permit review. Rf 9 10/16/2008 Q: \Comp Plan 2007- 20081Woodland View L07 -096 & L07- 097\PC STAFF RPT--WoodlandView-CarlstedtL07-096L07- 097.doc • • • The requested map change to MDR could potentially add up to up to 17 or 18 housing units to the site, and increase the overall housing stock in Tukwila. This would bring multi - family units west across 65 Avenue S. • At present, Low Density Residential (LDR) runs continuously along 65 Avenue South from S. 151 to the City Hall driveway entrance on S. 154 3) Meeting identified public need? Other options? • At present, there are 21% more multi - family units than single - family units in Tukwila. • Other opportunities for multi - family housing currently exist, with more opportunities anticipated when the Tukwila Urban Center Plan is adopted and Tukwila Village is developed on Tukwila International Boulevard. • With the current preponderance of multi - family homes to single - family homes in Tukwila, it is difficult to justify reducing the amount of Low Density Residential land in order to provide additional capacity for multi- family development. 4) Benefit to the community? • The applicant's possible donation of the western 4.4 acres of the site would benefit the public by retaining the greatest possible amount of undeveloped open space on the site, and making this available for public use. • However, under the existing LDR zoning, much of the property is likely to remain undeveloped due to wetlands and buffers, whether or not a donation occurs. • It is not clear that reducing the amount of land available for single - family housing would benefit the community since Tukwila already has more multi - family homes than single - family homes, and additional opportunities for multi - family development are anticipated in other parts of the city. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN — RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends denying the request for Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Map changes from Low Density Residential (LDR) to Multi- Family Residential (MDR). FILE #L07 -096 -- ZONING MAP AMENDMENT /REZONE REZONE CRITERIA: 1. The proposed amendment to the zoning map is consistent with the goals, objectives and policies of the Comprehensive Plan Rf 10 10/16/2008 Q: \Comp Plan 2007 - 2008 \Woodland View L07 -096 & L07- 097 \PC STAFF RPT--WoodlandView-CarlstedtL07- 096L07- 097.doc • • Per the discussion of Comprehensive Plan Criteria (above), both the existing LDR zoning and the proposed MDR zoning are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, as follows: • Plan Objective #1 —To improve and sustain residential neighborhood quality and livability • Goal 3.1 Continue to provide the City's fair share of regional housing • Policy 3.1.1 Provide sufficient zoned housing potential to accommodate future single- and multi - family households. • Policy 7.6.3 Allow Planned Residential Developments (PRDs) for multi- and single - family use on properties with wetlands or watercourses, or within the Tukwila South Master Plan Area in conjunction with the City Council's approval of a master plan. 2. The proposed amendment to the Zoning Map is consistent with the scope and purpose of this title and the description and purpose of the zone classification applied for. Per TMC 18.10.010 Purpose, the existing Low Density Residential (LDR) district is ..."intended to provide low - density family residential areas together with a range of urban infrastructure services in order to maintain stable residential neighborhoods, and to prevent intrusions by incompatible land uses." Single- family homes are currently allowed. Per TMC 18.12.010 Purpose, the proposed Medium Density Residential (MDR) district is "intended to provide areas for family and group residential uses, and serves as an alternative to lower density family residential housing, and more intensively developed group residential housing and related uses..." The proposed rezone from Low Density Residential (LDR) to Medium Density Residential (MDR) would allow duplex, triplex or fourplex housing to be built. 3. There are changed conditions since the previous zoning became effective to warrant the proposed amendment to the Zoning Map In 1995, the land immediately south of the site was zoned Medium Density Residential (MDR), in order to recognize the existing San Juan South apartments. Conditions have not changed significantly since that time to warrant the proposed amendment to the Zoning Map. 4. The proposed amendment to the Zoning Map will be in the interest of furtherance of the public health, safety, comfort, convenience and Rf 11 10/16/2008 Q:lComp Plan 2007- 20081Woodland View L07 -096 & L07- 0971PC STAFF RPT--WoodlandView-CarlstedtL07- 096L07- 097.doc • • • Conditions have not changed to justify the rezone. 4) Community interest: • Single- family housing can be built under the existing zoning. There is no compelling benefit to the rezone. • The rezone and resulting development would bring multi - family across 65 Avenue South into a small, existing single - family neighborhood. ZONING — RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends denial of the rezone from Low Density Residential (LDR) to Medium Density Residential (MDR). Rf 13 10/16/2008 Q: \Comp Plan 2007-2008\ Woodland View L07 -096 & L07- 097 \PC STAFF RPT--WoodlandView-CarlstedtL07- 096L07- 097.doc • • general welfare, and will not adversely affect the surrounding neighborhoods, nor be injurious to other properties in the vicinity in which the subject property is located In a broad sense, allowing additional multi - family housing to be built could benefit the region and the community by providing additional housing choices. However, more specific to the site, any housing that is built - -- either single - family or multi- family-- would need to be planned carefully to accommodate environmental conditions, as well as to limit the number of curb cuts onto 65 Avenue South. Zoning should strike a balance between single - family and multi - family land use and zoning without jeopardizing current development of single - family homes. The rezone would allow higher density housing to be built. This future development would be consistent with multi - family development east across 65 Avenue South, as well as development to the south. It would, however, be inconsistent with the other single - family development to the immediate north and south of the property. A specific traffic study has not been prepared. However, rezoning the property to MDR would result in denser development and somewhat greater traffic impacts than development under the existing LDR zoning. Subsequent site development applications for SEPA and Design Review would address specific impacts such as traffic, parking, environmentally sensitive areas and impacts on abutting property. Environmental review, design review with a Board of Architectural Review hearing and public involvement would provide Tukwila a clear mechanism to evaluate any future proposed development, and to mitigate potential negative impacts to the adjacent properties and the community. ZONING MAP AMENDMENT CONCLUSIONS 1) Consistency with Comprehensive Plan: • The current Low Density Residential (LDR) zoning is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan policies to that support housing. • The proposed Medium Density Residential (MDR) zoning, although consistent with the Comprehensive Plan policies to that support housing generally, is not needed to meet projected housing demands. 2) Consistency with Zone: • Single- family homes can be built under the current Low Density Residential (LDR) zoning. • If added density is desired at the site, the proposed Medium Density Residential (MDR) would allow a range of smaller -scale multi - family structures, including duplex, triplex or fourplex structures, to be built. 3) Changed conditions: Rf 12 10/16/2008 Q:\Comp Plan 2007 -2008\ Woodland View L07 -096 & L07- 0971PC STAFF RPT--WoodlandView-CarlstedtL07- 096L07- 097.doc III TTACHMENT A CITY OF TUKWILA Department of Community Development 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Tukwila, WA 98188 Telephone: (206) 431 -3670 FAX (206) 431 -3665 E -mail: iukplan@ci.tulcwila.wa.us • COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENTS FOR STAFF USE ONLY Permits Plus Type: P -CPA Planner: ?g�? -C f x Application Complete (Date: 5 1/.41 09) Application Incomplete (Date: ) File Number: L.01 041 Project File Number: y 1 _ (62 Other File Numbers: L O'l — 0 NAME OF PROJECT/DEVELOPMENT: W Gb/.1 (04v1 V t eld 1tans t'u z 1 A2 it LOCATION OF PROJECT/DEVELOPMENT: Give street address or, if vacant, indicate lot(s), block and subdivision, access street, and nearest intersection. /Z g-'4 Ave S • LIST ALL-TAX LOT-NUMBERS-(this information may be found on your tax statement). '` ?7d0 ---19 DEVELOPMENT COORDINATOR : The individual who: • has decision making authority on behalf of the owner /applicant in meetings with City staff, • has full responsibility for identifying and satisfying all relevant and sometimes overlapping development standards, and • is the primary contact with the City, to whom all notices and reports will be sent. Name: /2- yn 50 . G' ttlA Address: - ZJ �•U', lc "- �`" T ' Phone: 2c 3 2 - 72 qC FAX: E -mail: Signature: cc• a.,LA Date: /2 3/ D Attachment A A. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Existing: r ED / /2. Proposed-' i) /C U 424 B. ZONING DESIGNATI Existing: 1) 2 Proposed: 04;40 12 C. LAND USE(S): Existing: U c 4» Proposed: 1)4,, e n • • /iD t'L itt it4 (for proposed changes in land use designations or rezones) D. GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF SURROUNDING LAND USES: Describe the existing uses located within 1,000 feet in all directions from the property or area for which a change is proposed. A Lot 4 .--- Soh i /en sl i'' A $4- M ..e 01 P5 i l i r •• C-7 Sr, i. A. /,. / S,11 L/ , r e t y / c'I se / L, 4 eli 410€ 7r to 5 J'pi s 14 . t M 4 X D4SeS /0 1-Z Z Iti 37- 114 ri E. C /.s 3 L.v_zi -/c h is eL, ,./.-4 c, 1S.. , December 4, 2D06 • • RECEIVED MAY 0 8 2000 AMENDMENT TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DEVELOPMENT WE WILL ATTEMPT TO EXPLAIN YOUR REASONS TO CHANGE THE ZONING ON KING COUNTY PARCEL #3597000260. CRITERIA QUESTIONS: 1. A DETAILED STATEMENT OF WHAT IS PROPOSED AND WHY; THE PROPOSAL IS TO CHANGE TIHE ZONING TO MATCH THE SURROUNDING DENSITY. WE PROPOSE TO REQUEST EITHER HIGH DENSITY FOR APARTMENTS OR MEDIUM DENSITY FOR DUPLEXES. 2. A STATEMENT OF THE ANTICIPATED IMPACTS OF THE CHANGE, INCLUDING THE GEOGGRAPHIC AREA AFFECTED AND ISSUES PRESENTED BY THE PROPSED CHANGE; THIS PARCEL IS LOCATED AT THE HIGHEST POINT IN THE AREA. A 35,000 S. F. WETLAND IS ON SITE. THE IMPACT OF THIS PROPOSAL WILL BE MINAMUL WITH PROPER BUFFERS TO PROTECT THE WETLAND. 3. AN EXPLANATION OF WHY THE CURRENT COMPREHENSIVE PLAN OR DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS ARE DEFICIENT OR SHOULD NOT CONTINUE IN EFFECT THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND DEVELOPMENT REQULATIONS NOT DEFICIENT. WE WANT TO CONFORM TO THE SURROUNDING ZONING. 4. A STATEMENT OF HOW THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT COMPLIES WITH THE AND PROMOTES THE GOALS AND SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS OF THE GROWTH MANAGEMENT ACT. THE GROWTH MANAGEMENT ACT TAKES INTO ACCOUNT ENVIROMENTAL GOALS AND REQUIREMENTS. IT IS OUR PLAN DEDICATE THE MAJORITY OF THIS PROPERTY TO THE CITY SO THAT THE INTAGRITY OF THE WETLANDS CAN BE PRESERVED. 5. A STATEMENT OF HOW THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT COMPLIES WITH APPLICABLE COUNTYWIDE PLANNING POLICIES. • • PLANNING POLICS USALLY SUPPORT THE CREATION OF PARKS AND PLACES THAT PROVIDE THE PUBLIC WHT RECREATIONAL ACTIVITIES. THIS WETLAND WITH WALKING TRAILS AROUD THE BUFFER IS SUCH AN ACTIVITY. 6. A STATEMENT OF WHAT CHANGES, IF ANY WOULD BE REQUIRED IN FUNCTIONAL PLANS IF THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT IS ADOPTED. THE SITE HAS ALL THE UTILITY SERVICES LOCATED IN THE STREET. STORMWATER WILL HAVE TO BE CHANNELED AWAY FROM THE WETLANDS. THIS WILL BE ENGINNERED BY A LICENSED CIVIL ENGINER. 7. A STATEMENT OF WHAT CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS, IF ANY, WOULD BE NEEDED TO SUPPORT THE PROPOSED CHANGE, AND HOW THE PROPOSED CHANGE WILL AFFECT THE CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN. NO CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS WILL BE NEEDED FORM THE CITY. THE THE DEVELOPER OF THE SITE WILL INCUR AL THE COSTS. THE WILL BENEFIT FROM THE TAXATION ON THE FINISHED PROJECT. 8. A STATEMENT OF WHAT OTHER CHANGES, IF ANY ARE REQUIRED IN IN THE CITY CODES, PLANS OR REGULATIONS TO IMPLEMENT THE PROPOSED CHANGES. THE CITY CODES WILL NOT HAVE TO BE CHANGED_ THE PROJECT WILL BE BUILT TO ALL CITY CODES. D STATE OF WASHINGTON COUNTY OF KING Win. XE j 4 e "Cie" rn.a .. 1 ;::' , , P:\ Planning Forid's \V(pp'1 Cations \Com pPlanChg- 6- 06.doc • • CITY OF TUKWILA Department of Community Development 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Tukwila, WA 98188 Telephone: (206) 431 -3670 FAX (206) 431 -3665 E- mail: tukplan @ci.tukwila.wa.us The undersigned being duly sworn and upon oath states as follows: Vie 1. I current owner of the property which is the subject of this application. 2. All statements contained in the applications have been prepared by me or my agents and are true and correct to the best of my knowledge. 3. The application is being submitted with my knowledge and consent. 4. Owner grants the City, its employees, agents, engineers, contractors or representatives the ri t to enter upon Owner's real property, located at 162 XX (obV e 1 J1Gw cCa, 9€ \ for the purpose of application review, for the limited time necessary to complete that purpose. 5. Owner agrees to hold the City harmless for any loss or damage to persons or property occurring on the private property during the City's entry upon the property, unless the loss or damage is the result of the sole negligence of the City. 6. Non - responsiveness to a City information request for ninety (90) or more days, shall be cause to cancel the application(s) without refund of fees. (city), NOA (state), on e 1 , 20 07 1 y r /a`tC / 1 .t `N/4 � � Ad d Address 2 � / Lt/. J() 2 , �G 7��, " Vc. / O� /6 9.6 r g oX � J9 / x+ L Lk-Ls - 2.cv5-c6104" - Phone Number / !J Z — 1 V4 Signature AFFIDAVIT OF OWNERSHIP AND HOLD HARMLESS PERMISSION TO ENTER PROPERTY ss Print Name On this day personally appeared before me in ^ S �G'�0,‘ to me known to be the individual who executed the foregoing instrument and ackno dged that he /she signed the sanie as his/her voluntary act and deed for the uses and purposes mentioned therein. ^y SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO BEFORE ME ON THIS c 1 1 ` DpY OF -'- "'r' , 20 0 7 NOTARY PUBLIC in and for the State of Washington residing at My Commission expires on t Co u 0 December 4, 2006 FOR STAFF USE ONLY Permits Plus Type: P -ZCA • Planner: 6 i✓ C.`A, •r o x• File Number: 1, O'l _ u q 6, Application Complete (Date: 0 Project File Number: Application Incomplete (Date: ) • Other File Numbers: L 01- 047 E01- 017 NAME OF PROJECT/DEVELOPMENT: "" LOCATION OF PROJECT/DEVELOPMENT: Give street address or, if vacant, indicate lot(s), block and subdivision, access street, and nearest intersection. LIST ALL TAX LOT NUMBERS (this information may be found on your tax statement). c` - 2 00 v 6o - 07 DEVELOPMENT COORDINATOR : The individual who: • has decision making authority on behalf of the applicantin meetings with City staff, • has full responsibility for identifying and satisfying all relevant and sometimes overlapping development standards, and • is the primary contact with the City, to whom all notic /s1-.€17( s and reports will be sent. Name: c'ti �» L he/ t _ '� r 3 5 L' , � >rN /9/.,. Cam. at C7 /VC FAX: Address: Phone: 266 —`1&)_.- 4'C E -mail: Signature: ATTACHMENT B ' CITY OF TUKWILA Z '• ; Department of Community Development Gf ; 6300 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, WA 98188 Telephone: (206) 431 -3670 FAX (206) 431 -3665 E -mail: tukplan@ci. tkwila wa. us 1<7 )x xA. • • ‘ 4c %,� l/1/ki/ Date: 2- 3 ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS Attachment B December 28, 2007 Ray Carlsted 3921 SW 102 St. Seattle, WA 98146 RE: Estate of Al White Property 65 Street, City of Tukwila Dear Ray: The above referenced site was evaluated for wetlands., The site contains what appears to be two wetlands. A western Category 2 wetland that will be far from any development and the eastern Category 3 wetland. The eastern wetland determines the extent of development. The eastern edge of the east wetlands was flagged and surveyed. The wetland has been previously determined to be a Category 3 wetland with a standard 50 foot buffer. This letter serves as a preliminary report to assist the estate in marketing the property. A final report with all the necessary information will be provided when needed. The east edge of the eastern Category 3 wetland will have a 50 foot buffer, The land between the edge of the buffer and the street is developable with regards to wetlands. Buffer averaging my be used for a final lot layout. If you have any questions please feel free to call me. Sincerely, l AJ Bredberg PWS, CPSS, CPSC 4369L2 3303 43rd St. NW • Gig Harbor, WA 98335, USA • 253.858.7055 • Fax: 253.858.2534 • ajb @wa.net Z c) IN .. p r 7' y /•,S* 1 C a ro- Tv 7 A , ec,-, ky .e.har,s;v e.. 7'O 0 r 41 Ec; SI- F 00.1, Et;$.7_ a 1 . cie IA 5' . ci • • A e rv. d. pi.r - 0 e 017 • 6L/-ef ciS 0 0 ers • S odi F T (A) r d-L • 5 n E 'e r -e cc-A m e . I 1 A . 4 ti Iiy kt. e EA 57 /wile 110 1 Sib '7'167 PA -e /DoiqAt-el 7 e Ch QF k cc., I- ict .45 1' = 100' 0 50 100 SITE INFO; PROPERTY OSWEIE ,RAY CARLSTEDT 3421 5.4E 103RD STREET SEATRE, WA. 46146 PARCEL N10R1ER 34 n760D.160 91E AIDRFn IDFONO IegT MOO= SETRAOL iRfM 2D' SIDES 26 REAR 25 LANDSCAPE SEWA0KS--FRONT 15 SIDES 15 REAR 10' SITE AREA _61,651 Safi (1.41 ACRES) 200 14.5 DU/PER ACRE • 1.11 - 254 DU (EAT.) 12 DU (PROPOSED) 502 NAY DDELOWDTO COVERAGE - 34D2$ S6 FT. PROPOSED DIPERATUS AREA - 24343 S0. FT. RED1EATION AREA - 400 91 FE. PER • 12 DU - 3400 SD. fT. TRACT 'A" (PUBLIC PAR14-._._._I75402 SO, FT. (IRS ACRES) ENSIMC BRIDGE EIDSIWO PARR 1RA5 RAY CARLSTEDT --- SITE PLAN ,,;AC, PROPbSA • Low DENOITy s I DEW 1 IAL C f.D1t) HAPLE TREE PARK .f.n MEp ON pEN cr ty J ti rte. (Al DR PROPOSED BR OX 58825'27( 70531' 021,1 I .1341, I I LEGAL DESCRIPTION; LOT 15 INTERURBAN AM MON TO SEATTLE. AC21RDN6 TO THE PLAT RECORDED 0J VOUDRE 10 OF PLATS, PACE SS, RECORDS OF MC COUNTY, WASHINGTON. BUONO 27 LANDSCAPE I SCRAM IDLE 26 T PROPOSED OFF - STREET PARRWC PROPOSED DW'EWAY 2Rt PROPOSED OFF - STREET PARRINC RECEIVED (MAY 0 8 2808 Cn6MIENifV DEVELOPMENT 24 24 26 2.5 Job it 326 Scale: 1 = 100' Date: 5/6/2008 Drawn by SR Checked by SB ma+deg nnme:siteplanlUDR Sheet 1 of 1 NORTH ouu u i feel 0 1) DO 300 4)0 000 • • Woodland View Low Density Residential (LDR) to Medium Density Residential (MDR) L07 -096 & L07 -097 Attachment C City of Tukwila GI S 7UkwIIq SPECIAL ISSUES • City of Tukwila City Council Committee of the Whole Minutes • ATTACHMENT D c. 2008 Comprehensive Plan Amendments (to be conducted in a Public Meeting format). Council President Duffie called for comments from the audience. Page 4 of 10 July 14, 2008 a. Interlocal agreement regarding the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) and Home I estment Partnerships (HOME) programs. Coun member Hernandez indicated this item was discussed at the Comm," Affairs and Parks Commi -e on June 23, 2008. The committee members were unanimou recommending approval. Staff is s- ing approval to enter into an interlocal agreement with Kin ounty, which would extend through the •009, 2010 and 2011 program years. In order to comp- for CDBG funds, the City must enter into this •rmalized agreement with King County. At the request of •uncilmember Linder, Evelyn Boykan, Hui -n Services Manager, explained the CDBG funds are from Hou g & Urban Development and allow � = City to assist low- income and up to moderate - income resit -nts. The HOME funds are fed funds used to preserve and develop permanent housing for I , - income people. The City; inor Home Repair program is dependent on our participation in this conso ' m. The agreement al s Tukwila to compete for funds.and operate our programs, and to make reco ' mendations for ou ommunity, our sub - region and region as far as capital projects and public service pro ts. Ms. Boy also clarified the agreement was recently approved by King County Council so it is no to , er a dra Councilmember Robertson questione . ''em IV.A.3, which mentions four cities that are not signing this agreement. Ms. Boykan explained 0 e':; ties are large enough to deal directly with HUD and, therefore, do not participate in the consorti � Some ► :• jects, however, use HOME only funds, and in those cases those cities would have an op 'unity to vote those projects (but not on a project that takes place in a city that belongs to the con lum). Depending o the type of funding and type of project, some members of the Joint Re mendations Committe -' .. RC) can vote and sometimes they do not vote. A "joint city" means a city;''" large enough to be their own ` titlement with HUD but they choose not to, and thereby they still hay . -n arrangement with the County as 'art of the consortium. Federal Way and Renton are consi•;� ed joint cities. COUNCIL C ' SENSUS EXISTED TO FORWARD THIS ITEM ! THE NEXT REGULAR MEETING. and amendment to the Development Agreement with WEA Southcenter, LLC, regarding A consensus was reached under item 3 to move this item forward with one amendment as discussed. Councilmember Hernandez indicated this item was discussed at the Community Affairs and Parks Committee on June 9, 2008. The committee members were unanimous in recommending approval to forward this item for discussion and public input. Rebecca Fox, Senior Planner, explained no action is needed tonight She referenced the chart on page 92 of the agenda packet that outlines the various steps in the review process. The threshold decision to be made at the next Regular Meeting would be whether or not to forward the item to the Planning Commission for additional review. This year's Comprehensive Plan amendment is site specific and, therefore, is a quasi - judicial decision. Any proposal that would go to the Planning Commission would then have environmental review. The Planning Commission would hold a hearing and take public comment, and then make a recommendation to the City Council. The applicant would like to redesignate approximately 1.41 acres of a 5 -acre site from low density residential to multi - family residential (at approximately S. 152nd Street and 65th Avenue S.). There is a mixture of single - family and multi - family homes in the vicinity. There are 14 single - family homes to the Attachment D City of Tukwila City Council Committee of the Whole Minutes • • north in the Maple Tree subdivision. There are approximately 260 units of multi - family apartments and condominiums to the east. To the south are single - family homes, the San Juan South apartments, City Hall, Tukwila Park, and, to the west, Sunwood Condominiums. The entire site is wooded, with two wetlands with buffers on the east and west. There is 15 to 40 percent slope on much of the land, especially on the eastern two- thirds. The request for rezone is only on the eastern one- third. A wetland delineation study and geotechnical study were prepared. Any future development would require a more thorough wetland study. Ms. Fox noted that Attachment 6 (page 105 of the agenda packet) is a preliminary site plan provided by the applicant. There are proposed park trails on the western portion that the applicant has proposed to donate to the City; however, she stressed this portion is not part of the rezone. She also noted the preliminary plan shows some off -site parking. She explained any development that would occur would require parking on site. She reiterated the attachment is a preliminary proposal provided by the applicant that has not been formally reviewed by staff and would not necessarily be the type of development that would occur. Under low density residential, this 1.4 -acre parcel could have a maximum of 6.7 units per acre. On this site you could have a maximum of 9 lots under current zoning. Under the rezone proposal, you could have 14 -1/2 units per acre, so this site could potentially have a maximum of 20 units per acre. The maximum height under both zoning provisions is 30 feet. The site is constrained by slope and the wetland buffer. A planned residential development is a way to allow greater flexibility to allow additional open space and retain vegetation on the site. In response to a request from Councilmember Linder, Ms. Fox reviewed the specific questions to be used by Council in considering the proposed amendment. Ms. Fox referenced the discussion criteria on pages 89 and 90 of the agenda packet, which includes four specific questions and related goals and policies. - Is the issue already adequately addressed in the Comprehensive Plan? - Is there a public need for the proposed change? - Is the proposed change the best means for meeting the identified public need? - Will the proposed change result in a net benefit to the community? Councilmember Robertson asked for clarification on zoning around the site, which was confirmed as follows: - Zoning to the north is all LDR. - Zoning to the west is half LDR and half HDR. - Zoning to the south is entirely LDR, but includes some apartment buildings (San Juan South). - Zoning to the east is entirely MDR. Page 5 of 10 July 14 2008 Ms. Fox stated three letters have already been received from the public, which are included in the agenda packet. Councilmember Hernandez disclosed she lives within close proximity to the property, and stated she feels she can be impartial and would like to sit on the Council for the issue unless there are objections. Council President Duffle again called for public comment. Annette Gray repeated her earlier question (asked under "Citizen Comments "). Ms. Fox stated the trees are in the buffer zone and —per Attachment 6 in the agenda packet —the buffer zone is not part of the rezone. The buffer zone for the wetland identified as Class 3 on the east side has a 50 -foot buffer. On the west side is a Class 2 wetland with an 80 -foot buffer. Hugh Tobin, 15165 62nd Ave. S., Tukwila, stated there is an LDR subdivision immediately to the west of the subject site. He stated the proposal calls for moving the zoning boundary on one small portion of the lot from where it is now at 65th Ave. S., which is the eastern boundary of the site and the boundary between the LDR and MDR, to the border of a wetland. He feels it is an unusual concept to "up zone" the property immediately adjacent to a sensitive area to a zoning classification that is higher than what is immediately north and south of it and not divide it from the site by a road or other boundary. City of Tukwila City Council Committee of the Whole Minutes • • Page 6 of 10 July 14, 2008 Deb Sorenson, 6221 S. 151st PI., Tukwila (which is Tract 5 on the map), stated 65th is already a very busy street, and wonders why both sides of the street are always lined with cars if on -site parking is required. She also noted the area to the north and south of the proposed tract is single - family homes. She is also concerned about the "protection" provided by the wetland buffer, as her property actually contains wetland. Rick Roberts, 10305 Canyon Rd., Puyallup, stated the property owner is his client. He stated three - quarters of the property is proposed to be given to the City as open space. The development would be on the east side of the tract and would be developed as duplexes. The development would not bother the wetlands or single - family lots to the north. He stated many of the apartments on the east and south sides are older buildings and do not have much storm drainage. This development will have proper storm drainage because of new rules in effect. Water from houses and roads will be treated and not dumped into the wetlands. A. J. Bredberg, 3303 43rd St., Gig Harbor, stated he is the wetland scientist that did the preliminary work on the wetlands. The property owners for half the site are represented by an attorney (for an estate), and Mr. Ray Halstead and his son own the other half. Wetlands and buffer encumber the majority of the property. There is developable land and there are options of working with a PRD (planned residential development), which would result in a large number of houses. Changing the zoning of the eastern portion would result in a better use. Because the property is on an arterial, the Growth Management Act encourages directing housing density into the urban areas. He stated this project would only impact two or three single - family lots, and the majority of the trees would be left as is. If a traditional single - family residential development were constructed here, there could be provisions for reasonable use exceptions. which may not provide as much preservation of open space as the current proposal. Ms. Fox clarified staff does not take a position on this project. Staff has prepared information for Council's review, and worked with the applicant and the consultant to that end. Andrea Sipe, 14961 62nd Ave. S., Tukwila, stated her parents built her current home over 50 years ago. She is against making changes to the zoning. She feels adding more rental properties would be a detriment, but acknowledged she might feel differently about a development where the residents would be the owners of the property. COUNCIL CONSENSUS EXISTED TO FORWARD THIS ITEM TO THE NEXT REGULAR MEETING. d. Draft Walk and Roll Plan. Councilmember Linder indicated this item was discussed at the Transportation Committee on May 28, 2008 and June 10, 2008. The committee members were unanimous in recommending approval. Ms. Linder complimented staff on gathering input from many sources and guiding the committee members through the process. Jaimie Reavis, Assistant Planner, explained Walk and Roll is a Citywide bicycle and pedestrian plan. She stated no formal action is required this evening, and a Public Hearing has been scheduled for July 21, 2008. The draft plan has been reviewed by the Transportation Committee, which provided a list of recommendations for changes (items 1-4 on page 111 of the agenda packet). The draft was also presented to the Community Affairs and Parks Committee for information, and an intensive public outreach effort and public input went into the draft plan. Comments from the public and Council will be gathered through the end of the Public Hearing next week. A final version will be presented to the Transportation Committee, including a response to the comments and an ordinance for adoption. Among the major policy items to be addressed are whether to adopt a complete street resolution or ordinance. Such an ordinance /resolution would state the City would consider all users of the roadways (including non - motorized users) and provide for each of the users in the roadway when street improvements are made. Another policy item is prioritization, meaning which projects to build first. As items are added to the CIP, the plan could provide criteria for prioritizing those projects. City of Tukwila Department of Community Development 6300 Southcenter Blvd. #100 Tukwila, WA 98188 Re: Zoning change requested at 152xx -65 Avenue So. Dear Sirs: As homeowners in Maple Tree Park (lot #10) for 12 years, we do not want to see two - story duplexes built 20 feet from our backyard. We, as well as the homeowners of lots #5 -9, bought our homes because of the greenbelt backing the property. All of the Maple Tree Park homes (valued at $500K or more) would prefer only single - family homes bull‘ in our neighborhood, or at least on our block. We have more than enough rentals on the . east side of 65 Avenue South from which we can hear so many parking lot arguments, car alarms, loud sports fans yelling at their tv's, etc. We therefore strongly urge you to keep Parcel #3597000360 zoned as Low Density Residential. Respectfully yours, David & Gloria Yoshino 6361 S.151 PL dated June 17, 2008. • ATTACHMENT E CITIZEN L • REC D /EO tJUN 1 2008 DEV E LO PME Attachment E 16 June 2008 ',11018 ?008 COMMUN{`(Y DEVELOPMENT City of Tukwila Department of Community Development 6300 Southcenter Blvd #100 Tukwila, WA 98188 To whom it may concern, Hello. I am writing to voice my opposition to the development proposed at the east end of the property located at 152XX 65th Avenue South (Parcel #3597000360). That area along 65th Avenue South is already, one of the least attractive areas of Tukwila east of I -5, occupied on the east side of the road by somewhat run -down apartment buildings. Additionally, and perhaps more pertinent, is the fact that 65th Avenue South is lined by parked cars (some that appear abandoned), presumably overflow from the people that live in the apartments. Adding more people and more cars to the area would likely make the situation worse. Currently, the only saving grace for that area is Tukwila Park on the east side of the street and the trees on the west side, where this development is planned. Whatever is done, please ensure that the area is improved, rather than making a bad situation worse. Thank you for your consideration. Jeff Anderson 15115 Sunwood Blvd Tukwila, WA 98188 JUN 2 fi 2000 QQMMQNP DEVELOPMENT 108 6/25/2008 • City of Tukwila Department of Community Development 6300 Southcenter Blvd #100 Tukwila, WA Subject: Zoning, Parcel 3597000360 I want to express my objection to the change in zoning of the subject parcel from LDR to MDR This change is likely for the purpose of constructing condominiums or apartments in an area where there is already an overabundance (east of 65th Ave S and on 62nd Ave S, including Sunwood blvd). The zoning classification MDR is not consistent with the housing west of 65th Ave S and adjacent to S 151st and S 153rd Streets. The housing there is mostly separate, single family residences with medium to large sized lots. I believe this area should be maintained and set aside for separate, single family residences, and not the higher density residences allowed with MDR zoning. Sincerely, 40V; Maria C Notch 1405 Harrington Ave S, Renton, WA 98058 (Owner, Crystal Ridge Condominiums Unit A-304) City of Tukwila City Council Regular Meeting Minutes 7:32 p.m. Mayor Haggerto , closed the public hearing. UNFINISHED BUSINESS a. Continued discussion on Draft Walk .. d Roll P Ms. Reavis indicated next plan. A final plan and ordi the full Council in Septe st c. 2008 Comprehensive Plan Amendments. ATTAI/JENT F Page 3 of 7 July 21. 2008 Since completing the draft plan, comments have been received from the public, and the plan has been reviewed by the Transportation and Community Affairs and Parks Committees, and at the Committee of Whole. The public comment period for the plan will end at the close of this public hearing. Jim GI er, 4008 South 158th Street, commented regarding the need for standardization of trail and road signs. Glover indicated he uses the trails in the area, to include the Interurban and Green River trails. He has not'. d a reduction in the signage he previously observed on the trails. He relayed the importance o dequate and clear signage. People need to know where they are allowed to go, and attention needs • be drawn to the trails, so citizens know they are available. Councilmember He -ndez indicated there used to be signs asking bicyclists to dismount in . -'ain areas of the trails. She inqu -d if those types of signs would be replaced or has that practice • -en discontinued. Ms. Reavis indicated it is sti the standard to have that type of signage on t - rail. She relayed that the issues of signage will be revie ed before the final plan is compiled. The Councilmembers discussed elements of th- .•raft Walk and Roll Plan and offered the following remarks: the need to clearly identify changes • t = plan based on public input; further prioritization of capital funding issues based on the plan co- ponen • the necessity to make a distinction between trails traveled for recreation and those used fo • etting from • oint A to point B" (trails near homes for point -to- point travel are often used for crime a ities); the need assure the "Safe Routes to Schools" element of the plan is addressed; and assu - ce that information be ovided to the Council regarding other City documents and budget issues th ill be impacted by the pla s include staff review and incorporatio f public comments into the draft nce of adoption will be brought to the Trans er 2008. ation Committee and then to b. Authorize the ayor to sign an Interlocal Agreement with King County for . ontinued participation in e Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) and Home In . stment Partnership ( . ME) programs. MOVED B HERNANDEZ, SECONDED BY DUFFIE TO AUTHORIZE THE MAYOR TO SI c AN INTERL ' AGREEMENT WITH KING COUNTY FOR CONTINUED PARTICIPATION IN T COM ■ NITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT (CDBG) AND HOME INVESTMENT PARTNER • IP (HOME) PROGRAMS. MOTION CARRIED 7 -0. The City has received a request to change the designation of 1.4 acres in the eastern portion of a property located at 152xx 65th Avenue South from Low Density Residential (LDR) to Medium Density Residential (MDR). Councilmember Hernandez indicated this item was discussed at the Community Affairs and Parks Committee meeting on June 9, 2008. The Committee members forwarded this item to the full Council for discussion. It was also discussed at the July 14, 2008 Committee of the Whole in Public Meeting format. MOVED BY HERNANDEZ, SECONDED BY LINDER TO FORWARD THE 2008 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION FOR A RECOMMENDATION.* Debra Tsuruda, 6220 South 153rd Street, spoke in opposition to the proposed Comprehensive Plan amendment. Ms. Tsuruda submitted a letter to the Department of Community Development regarding this issue that was distributed to the City Council. The letter states: Attachment F City of Tukwila City Council Regular Meeting Minutes • • Page 4 of 7 July 21 2008 "As long time tenants of the San Juan Apartments (25 years) we do not want to see two story duplexes in the back of our property. We have enjoyed the green belt backing to the west side of the San Juan's for many daytime walks. However, even that area has drawn police activity through the years. My understanding is that there will be trails throughout the proposed property in this zone - -which will encourage even more illicit activity. The traffic on this hill has already become challenging because of the high density to the east of 65th, to the north of 51st, and to our immediate west. Nothing has been addressed concerning road changes or traffic. We already have cars speeding through 153rd, to which I will be addressing the City Council shortly regarding speed bumps along this street. We would prefer only single family homes built, as there are plenty of rentals already available on the hill. We therefore strongly urge you to keep Parcel #3597000360 zoned as Low Density Residential." Ms. Tsuruda commented that, in her view, the zoning designation map has mistakes in it based on her comparisons through the use of Google. She urged the Council to be good guardians of the community. Ray Carlstedt, 3921 SW 102nd Street, Seattle, is the half owner of the property that is the subject of this rezone request. The property had belonged to his mother -in -law, and they have been trying to sell it for the past 25 years. Mr. Carlstedt indicated he is not a developer, but a 40- hour -a -week machinist, and has been unable to sell the property with the current LDR zoning designation. The taxes on the property are prohibitive for him to continue paying. He relayed that the property is park -like, with trees, and he is willing to donate the other 4.4 acres to the City for a park. Rebecca Fox, Senior Planner, explained the Council is not being asked to approve the Comprehensive Plan amendment and rezone request this evening. The motion would refer this issue to the Planning Commission for their review and recommendation. If the Council chooses to refer this matter to the Planning Commission, they will then conduct a public hearing, which will be noticed in the newspaper. Property owners and residents within 500 feet of the subject property will also be notified. The item will then come back to the City Council for a public hearing, which will be similarly noticed. After this evening's Council meeting, if this item goes forward to the Planning Commission, there will be additional opportunities for public comment. The majority of the Councilmembers expressed support regarding the importance of review and a subsequent recommendation by the Planning Commission on this issue. It was conveyed that the Planning Commission has the most experience regarding land use matters in the City. Due diligence in making an informed decision involves a broad scope of information and a full perspective, best afforded by a recommendation from the Planning Commission. Councilmember Robertson, speaking against the motion, offered the following comments. 1. On page 95 of the July 14, 2008 agenda packet, the applicant gives the reason for changing the zoning (from single family to medium density) as "conform to the surrounding zoning." A review of the zoning in the area indicates that the surrounding zoning is "single family," making the information provided by the incorrect. 2. The applicant could choose to develop the front part of the property as single family if the applicant chose to sell at single family prices. The area in the back of the property is not able to be developed, regardless of the zoning designation, since it is a wetland. 3. To send this to the Planning Commission only makes sense if they can answer other questions that are required, and in Mr. Robertson's view, those do not exist. Additionally, all comments from the public, and in writing on this issue, have been in opposition to the proposal. To send this to the Planning Commission equates to postponing the decision and also increases their workload at a very busy time. *ROLL CALL VOTE: HERNANDEZ YES LINDER YES DUFFIE YES ROBERTSON NO GRIFFIN YES HOUGARDY YES QUINN YES MOTION CARRIED 6 -1 TO FORWARD THE 2008 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION FOR A RECOMMENDATION. Attachment g City of Tukwila Woodland View LDR to MDR L07-096 & L07.097 Wetlands & Steep Slopes Slope Classifications Landslide potential is moderate; slope is between 15% and 40% 2 and underlain by reletively permeable soils. Landslide potential is high; slope is between 15% and 40% and underlain by relatively impermeable soils or by bedrock; also includes 3 all areas sloping more than 40 %. Landslide potential is very high; includes sloping areas with mappable zones of groundwater seepage and existing mappable landslide deposits 4 regardless of slope. Wetland Legend Type 2 Wetland Buffer Type 2 Wetland -80ft Type 3 Wetland Buffer Type 3 Wetland -50 feet • Robert M. Pride, LLC April 21, 2008 Mr. Ray Carlstedt 3921 SW 102nd Street Seattle, WA 98146 Re: Geotechnical Feasibility Report Proposed Residential Development AlpimegEstmes on 65th Avenue South i B Tukwila, Washington Dear Mr. Carlstedt, Site Conditions ATTACHMENT H RECEIVED Consul A MY 0 8 2008 • £OMMUNITY EnPT This report presents the results of geotechnical evaluation of the property located on the west side of 65th Avenue South in Tukwila. The property is situated on a moderately steep slope above the west side of the Parkway and is directly above an existing residence on Lot B. A previous site investigation was performed for the entire parcel in 1989 by GeoEngineers, and it is understood that only the easterly portion of this property will be developed for townhome or apartment use. The purpose of this report is to update the original engineer's report, and to provide recommendations for site development. Site development plans have not been prepared for the easterly portion of this site that will be created for multi- residential use. Available USGS geologic mapping along with the prior test pit date was used as references for this study. The near- rectangular property measures about 35ox7o feet extending from 6 Avenue to 62nd Avenue. Natural undeveloped terrain varies from a high elevation of 200 feet at the northeast corner to a low of about 140 feet on the west side. Two wetland areas are located on the west and south - central portions of the property. A moderate growth of trees and shrubs cover this site. Subsurface soil conditions were determined by excavating six test pits on the east section of this property. Except for the wetland area in the south - central portion of the site, all test pits encountered weathered dense bedrock. This bedrock consists of sandstone and conglomerate that is typical to this area of Tukwila. Approximately one foot of organic topsoil covers the property, except around the edge of the wetland where thicker deposits of topsoil and loose organic soils have been deposited at the water's edge. No groundwater was encountered in the five test pits away from the wetland that were dug at elevations above 150 feet. Summary logs of the test pits are attached. 13203 Holmes Point Drive NE Kirkland, WA 98034 Phone: 425 - 814 -3970 Fax: 425 - 814 -5672 April 21, 2008 Mr. Ray Catlstedt Page 2 Seismic Hazards Earthquakes occur in the Puget Sound area with great regularity. The majority of these earthquakes are small and usually not noticeable. Large earthquakes do occur as evidenced by the 1949 (M7.2) Olympia event, the 1965 (M6.5) Tacoma event, and the 2001 (M6.8) Nisqually event. Normally the epicenter of these larger earthquakes is relatively deep below the ground surface. Generally there are four types of potential geologic hazards associated with large seismic events: 1) ground rupture, 2) landslides, 3) liquefaction, and 4) ground motion. The nearest known fault system is the Seattle fault zone located about five miles to the north. USGS continues to study this and other fault systems in the Puget Sound region, and it has been determined that they are capable of generating large earthquakes. Return periods for large earthquakes vary from 500 to more than 1000 years. The long recurrence intervals for nearby fault systems usually results in a low potential for ground rupture over the life of the proposed residential structures. Based on the subsurface soil conditions existing on this property, the potential for liquefaction is considered low outside of the wetland area. The medium dense sands and the dense bedrock on this site will provide adequate protection against lateral slope displacements during a seismic event. In accordance with the 2003 IBC — Table 1615.1.1, the subject site is defined as Class C. Geotechnical Conclusions On the basis of the previous subsurface exploration and our recent geotechnical evaluation, this property is suitable for development of residential structures. A buffer setback of 5o feet from the mapped wetland area will be required, but the remainder of the site can be successfully developed for residential building pads. Site Excavation • • Excavation and some filling will be required to establish future building pads for the proposed residential structures. All of the excavated soils are suitable for reuse as compacted structural fill, or for backfill around the structure foundation walls and retaining walls. Some difficulty will be experienced in excavating the dense bedrock depending on the depth of the cuts required. Large rock in excess of 6 to 8 inches in diameter should not be used in any structural fills within the building pad areas. Temporary slope cuts should be made no steeper that 1H:iV where they expose the upper sand and gravel soils. Near vertical cuts in the weathered bedrock will stand without caving or sloughing. 13203 Holmes Point Drive NE Kirkland, WA 98034 Phone: 425 -814 -3970 Fax: 425 - 814-5672 April 21, 2008 Mr. Ray Carlstedt Page 3 Foundation Recommendations Continuous bearing wall footings and isolated pads may be designed for an allowable soil bearing value of 2000 and 4000 psf for foundations on compacted structural fill and bedrock, respectively. Estimated settlements of footings placed on approved bearing soils/bedrock will be negligible. Resistance to lateral loads may be provided by passive earth pressure and by sliding friction. We recommend a passive pressure of 250 pcf for footings and retaining walls poured against native soils and supporting compacted backfill. Retaining Walls Proposed retaining walls should be designed for an active earth pressure of 3o pcf and a passive value of 300 pcf. Subdrains should also be installed at the base of the retaining walls to collect possible groundwater seepage from the adjacent planter areas. Erosion Control and Drainage Normal erosion control procedures should be in place during project construction during the winter months. Silt fencing will be needed around the south and easterly sides of the project site, and quarry spalls should be placed for equipment access off of 65th Avenue. Site drainage improvements will include the installation of footing subdrains, area drains and roof down drains. Discharge of these drains should be directed to an approved discharge outlet. Summary • We recommend that we be retained to review the final drawings for foundations and earthwork to confirm that they are consistent with the recommendations of this report. Construction monitoring and consultation services should also be provided to verify that subsurface conditions are similar to those described in this report. Should conditions be revealed during construction that vary from the anticipated subsurface profile, we will evaluate those conditions and provide alternative recommendations where appropriate. Field construction services should be considered an extension of this initial geotechnical investigation, and are essential to the determination of compliance with the project drawings and specifications. Such activities would include site and foundation excavations, preparation of the building pad area, retaining wall excavations, subdrain installations, and fill placement and compaction. The conclusions and recommendations presented in this report are based on 1) our 13203 Holmes Point Drive NE Kirkland, WA 98034 Phone: 425 -814 -3970 Fax: 425 -814 -5672 April 21, 2008 Mr. Ray Carlstedt Page 4 interpretation and evaluation of soil conditions on this site, 2) confirmation of the actual subsurface conditions encountered during construction, and 3) the assumption that sufficient observation and testing will be performed during construction. Our findings and recommendations in this report were prepared in accordance with generally accepted principles of geotechnical engineering as practiced in the Puget Sound area at the time our work was performed. We make no warranty, either express or implied. Please call me if there are any questions regarding this report. Respectfully, Robert M. Pride, P. Principal Geotechnical Engine dist: (2) addressee end: Appendix A rmp: CarlstedtResi • • 13203 Holmes Point Drive NE Kirkland, WA' 98034 Phone: 425 -814 -3970 Fax: 425 - 814 -5672 • o m O w 0 DEPTH BELOW GROUP SOIL GROUND SURFACE CLASSIFICATION (FEET) SYMBOL APPROXIMATE ELEVATION: 162 FEET 11 0.5 SM DARK T) BROWN SILTY FINE SAND WITH ORGANICS (LOUSE. u.5 - I.0 1.11 - 3.5 (leo Ohnoineers • LOG OF TEST PIT i SM TEST PIT I DESCRIPTION SM BROWN SILTY FINE TO MEDIUM SAND WITH OCCASIONAL GRAVEL AND SMALL ROOTS (MEDIUM DENSE, MOIST) SM LIGHT BROWN SILTY.FINE TO MEDIUM SAND WITH GRAVEL. (MEDIUM DENSE TO DENSE, MOIST) 5M LICHT BROWN SILTY FINE TO MEDIUM SAND WITH CRAVE,. (DENSE TO.VERY DENSE, MOIST) • SM LIGHT BROWN SILTY FINE TO MEDIUM SAND WITH COBBLES (VERY DENSE, MOIST) (WEATHERED ROCK) TEST PIT COMPLETED AT BEDROCK AT 12.0 FEET ON 3/10/89 SAMPLES OBTAINRU AT 0.7 AND 3.0 FEET TEST PIT 2 APPROXIMATE ELEVATION: 1.72 FEET SM DARK BROWN SILTY FINE SAN!) WITH ORGANICS (LOOSE. WET) LIGHT BROWN SILTY FINE TO MEDIUM SAND WITH OCCASIONAL GRAVEL AND WITH ROUTS TO DEPTH OF 3.0 FEET (MEDIUM DENSE TO DENSE, MOIST) SM LIGHT BROWN SILTY FINE TO MEDIUM SAND WITH GRAVEL (VERY DENSE, MOIST) ( WEATHERED ROCK) TEST PIT COMPLETED AT 9.0 FEET AT BEDROCK AT 9.0 FEET ON 3/10/89' NO GROUND •WATER SEEPAGE OBSERVED TEST PIT.3 APPROXIMATE ELEVATION: 198 FEET 1.0 SM DARK BROWN SILTY FINE SAND WITH ORGANICS (LOOSE, WET) ROCK CRAY WEATHERED ROCK WITH NUMEROUS FRACTURES AND WITH REDDISH -BROWN SAND TEST PIT COMPLETED AT 3.5 FEET AT BEDROCK ON 3/9/89 NO GROUND WATER SEEPAGE OBSERVED THE DEPTHS ON THE TEST PIT LOGS, ALTHOUGH *SHOWN TO 0.1 FEET, ARE BASED UN AN AVERAGE (IF MEASUREMENTS ACROSS THE TEST PIT AND SHOULD BE CONSIDERED ACCURATE TO 0.5 FEET. LOG OF TEST PIT FIGURE 3 ■ ' Geo �„••• I' no i fCCrS LOG OF TEST PIT FIGURE 4 ■ DEPTH BELOW GROUND SURFACE (FEET) • GROUP SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYMBOL 1i l .0 SM 1.41 - 1.0 SM f.11 - 9.0 SM ►.f — D. 1 4.0 NO GROUND WATER SEEPAGE OBSERVED TEST PIT 5 APPROXIMATE ELEVATION: 150 FEET SM DARK BROWN SILTY FINE SAND WITH ORGANICS (1.0(1SE, WET) SM LOG OF TEST PIT TEST PIT 4 APPROXIMATE ELEVATION: 161 FEET DESCRIPTION DARK BROWN SILTY FINE SAND WITH ORGANICS (LOOSE, MOIST) LIGHT BROWN SILTY FINE TO MEDIUM SAND WITH GRAVEL (DENSE TO VERY DENSE, MOIST) LIGHT BROWN SILTY FINE TO MEDIUM SAND (VERY DENSE, MOIST) (WEATHERED ROCK) TEST PIT COMPLETED AT BEDROCK AT 9.0 FEL(' ON 3/10/89 LICHT BROWN SILTY FINE TO MEDIUM SAND (VERY DENSE, MOIST) (WEATHERED ROCK) TEST PIT COMPLETED AT BEDROCK AT 4.0 FEET uN 3/10/89 NO GROUND WATER SEEPAGE I)IISERVEI) DEPTH BELOW GROUND SURFACE (FEET) +.0 - 1.5 1• - 5.5 11 GROUP SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYMBOL SM ML /SM ML /UL SP -SM 5 - 7.0 SM SM SM SM S M (I co �.0 Engineers LOG OF TEST PIT ) TEST PIT 6 APPROXIMATE ELEVATION: 146 FEET DESCRIPTION DARK BROWN SILTY FINE SAND WITH ORGANICS (LOOSE, WET) B,ROWNISII -GRAY SILTY FINE TO MEDIUM SAND WITH OCCASIONAL GRAVEL (`LOUSE, MOIST) CRAY FINE TO MEDIUM SANDY SILT TO SILTY FINE. TO MEDIUM SANI) (MEDIUM STIFF T(1 LOUSE, MOIST To WET) DARK BROWN SILT WITH ORGANICS AND SAND (SOFT, WET) BROWN FINE TO COARSE SAND WITH GRAVEL AND SILT (MEDIUM DENSE, WET) CRAY VERY SILTY FINE TO COARSE SAND WITH COBBLES (MEDIUM DENSE, WET) TEST PIT COMPLETED AT 7.0 FEET ON 1 /IO /89 TEST PIT ENDED DUE TO EXCESSIVE CAVING RAPID GROUND WATER SEEPAGE OBSERVED AT 1.5 FEET SAMPLES OBTAINED AT 1.2, 2.5, 1.2, 4.5 AND 6.0 FEET TEST PIT 7 APPROXIMATE ELEVATION: 165 FEET DARK BROWN SILTY FINE SAND WITH ORGANICS (LOOSE, . MOIST) LIGHT BROWN SILTY FINE TO- MEDIUM SAND WITH OCCASIONAL GRAVEL (LOOSE TO MEDIUM DENSE, MOIST) LICHT BROWN SILTY FINE TO MEDIUM SAND WITH OCCASIONAL GRAVEL (DENSE TO VERY DENSE, MOIST) (WEATHERED ROCK) TEST PIT COMPLETED AT 5.0 FEET ON 3 /111 /89 TEST PIT ENDED DUE TO LARGE BOULDER AND WEATHERED ROCK NO GROUND WATER SEEPAGE. OBSERVED SAMPLE OBTAINED AT 2.0 FEET LOG OF TEST PIT FIGURE 5 Robert M. Pride LIB 0 GC 120 SCALE EXP LANAI loll : - 11TTE ST PIT LOCATION AND 1y41 I. 09 \ .-----' \� i / 1 1 '' c \ \ I\ - N, . ) \ \ IN FEET Ref: • t3aima & Holmberg survey drawing for Alpine Rs'utes SITE PLAN Proposed Multi- Residential development 65 Avenue South Tukwila, Washington ..116 •_ 01,1 Project No. Drawing No. ulti� En 'seer Cons g g Ma. WS ?®lei FEET 0 4080 160 240 320 Legend Q Type 2 Wetland NORTH F Buffer Type 2 Wetland -80ft n Type 3 Wetland I Buffer Type 3 Wetland -50 feet 10 Foot Contours Shown City of Tukwila Woodland View Low Density Residential (LDR) to Medium Density Residential (MDR) L07 -096 & L07 -097 Attachment I • • ATTACHMENT J Title: Wetland Delineation and Documentation of Findings on Tax Parcel Number 3597000260, King County, City of Tukwila, Washington Prepared for: Ray Carlstedt, Applicant, 3921 SW 102nd St., Seattle, WA 98146 Phone: (206)932 -8246 Report preparation date: 2 May 2008 For presentation to: City of Tukwila, Dept. of Community Development 6300 Southcenter Blvd., Suite 100 Tukwila, WA 98188, Phone: (206)431 -3670 Prepared by: John Wesley Jennings, Wetland Specialist P. 0. Box 9635, Tacoma, WA 98490, (253)474 -5432 RECE V k NW 0 8 200 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Attachment 3 INTRODUCTION The applicant, Ray Carlstedt, has applied for a zoning change for tax parcel number 3597000260. The City of Tukwila Department of Community Development personnel (the Staff) have determined there are two wetlands on the above tax parcel. Therefore, they have requested that a wetland sensitive area study be conducted. The applicant talked the situation over with Rebecca Fox and other personnel within your department. The Tukwila Department of Community Development has a prepared handout that summarizes the requirements for a wetland sensitive area study. However, this is a request for rezoning, and not a development proposal. The Staff has reviewed the city coding requirements and determined that only the technical requirements of item 6.a. would be required at this time. This basically is the data collection phase of a wetland determination. A copy of this wetland sensitive area study handout is attached to the Appendix of this report. In verbal communication with Rebecca Fox I was told the required input that must go into this wetland study. In addition to the requirement to address only item 6.a. has noted above, I was told there is the need to study only the eastern wetland. In a personal visit to your office, I obtained a copy of the GIS resource mapping for the Carlstedt property. This map is attached to the Appendix of this report and labeled as the CityGIS Map. This GIS mapping layer indicates two wetland areas: the western one designated as a Type 2 wetland, and the eastern one as a Type 3 wetland. My findings as described below are in close agreement with this CityGIS mapping. PROCEDURES and FINDINGS 1. The first steps taken were to review that project requirements and the regulations that must be followed. Because of its importance, the Introduction Section explains the rational why this report contains a subset of the requirements for a full wetland report. This process is abbreviated because at this time there is just a request for a zoning change, and not a development proposal. The direction for wetland procedures and requirements are taken from the Washington State Wetlands Identification and Delineation Manual (Wetland Manual), Ecology Publication #96 -94; the City of Tukwila Code, Chapter 18.45, Environmentally Sensitive Areas; and the U. S. Department of Interior Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States (Cowardin Classification). 2. The study site can be easily segregated into two separate upland and wetland areas. There is no need to make a gridded search to find additional wetland areas. Wetland A, the critical eastern wetland for making a rezoning decision, was traversed and the wetland delineation boundary marked with pink flagging labeled as WL -A1 to WL -A25 and then WL -A -Last. Land interior to the wetland delineation line meets all three of the wetland criteria statements: wetland hydrology, hydric soils, and hydrophytic vegetation. Lands exterior to this wetland delineation line fail to meet one or more of the required wetland criteria statements. These wetland delineation points were then surveyed by Pacific Northwest • Land Surveyors, LLC, of Puyallup, Washington. The acreage of Wetland A is 35,435 square feet. Almost the entire Wetland A area is on the study parcel except about 168 square feet that extends offsite to the south. 3. Five plots were taken to characterize both upland and wetland conditions within the study parcel. These plots are labeled as UPL -1 -Plot, UPL -2 -Plot, WL -A1 -Plot, WL -A2 -Plot, and WL -A3 -Plot. Information on the vegetation, hydrology, and soils were recorded on DATA FORM 1 for a routine wetland determination as described in the Wetland Manual. These forms are attached to the Appendix of this report. The UPL -1 Plot records resource conditions in a relatively normal upland area. The UPL -2 Plot is taken very close to the wetland delineation boundary. The three wetland plots, WL- A(1,2,3) -Plots represents typical resource conditions found within the Wetland A area. These wetland plots indicated that this wetland has vegetation dominated by the shrub layer with small percentages of trees and scattered presence of an emergent understory vegetation. Within the Cowardin Classification System, Wetland A is a Shrub -Shrub Class, Palustrine System, and meets the hydrophytic vegetation criteria. Hydrologically, the wetland plots are seasonally inundated with waters during the winter, spring, and early summer seasons, and meets the wetland hydrology criteria. The soils within the wetland area are relatively close to the Pu, Puget silty clay loam soil mapping unit as described in the Soil Survey, King County Area, Washington, and meets the hydric soil criteria. Due to difficulty in access the wetland plots the survey crew could not survey all plot locations. This wetland specialist has marked and labeled the plot locations on the Wetland Site Map. 4. A Wetland Site Map has been prepared by the combined efforts of the surveyor and this wetland specialist. The underlying survey map defines the property lines, road system, wetland delineation, and other associated detail typically found on survey documents. This wetland specialist has added the following detail to the survey map and re- labeled it as the Wetland Site Map. Both the original survey map, labeled as WETLAND EXHIBIT, and the Wetland Site Map are attached to the Appendix of this report. The added details to make the Wetland Site Map includes the following. a. A new title to the map, labeling it as the Wetland Site Map. b. The addition of the field wetland flag numbers that correlate with the assigned survey numbers found on the survey map.' c. The location of the upland and wetland plot locations. Plots WL -Al -Plot and WL -A2 -Plot lack any survey data and are conceptual as to their true location. d. The 50 ft. standard wetland buffer width has been added around the eastern wetland area. e. A signature block is added to identify the Wetland Specialist that has made these modifications to the original survey document. • 5. The wetland was rated following Tukwila Code 18.45.080.(B) and (E). It was determined that the conditions in the field did not meet the conditions as outlined for a Type 1 or Type 2 wetland area, and by default meets the description for a Type 3 wetland rating. The standard wetland buffer width for a Type 3 wetland is 50 feet. This wetland buffer is shown on the Wetland Site Map but has not been located in the field. 6. It was stressed by Tukwila Department of Community Development personnel that work needed to be done on the water courses in the area. There is a water course that is shown on the Tukwila City GIS Map flowing in a southeasterly direction from Wetland A. The legend indicates this is a Type 4 water course. Additionally an unidentified water course was found that drains from Wetland B. These two water courses both drain in a southerly direction but angle off in slightly different directions. The two water courses do not join together. a. The water course off the southern tip of Wetland A flows a short distance into a very small wetland area; then into a crudely constructed ditch; then at S. 153rd St. goes into a buried culvert system that appears to drain toward a dual infiltration /retention pond about 250 feet west of the pagoda in Tukwila Park; and from there waters likely infiltrate into the soil layers or tie into the local road drainage systems. This water course has intermittent flow periods and would not support any life phase of a salmonid species. It is correctly classified as a Type 4 water course and should have a 50 feet water course buffer. This water course buffer is shown on the Wetland Site Map and is totally interior to the the Wetland A and Wetland A buffer areas. b. The water course off the southern portion of Wetland B was found in the field after searching for a water connection between Wetland A and Wetland B. The water course off Wetland B flows in a southerly - southwesterly direction through sections of buried culvert and stretches of a relatively natural stream channel. It was traced laterally to a point just east of the junction of Southcenter Blvd. and 62nd Ave. S. at the prominent Tukwila City Hall sign. From there the water course flows into another culvert that heads toward Interstate 405. It is questionable if this water course is intermittent or perennial, but should not support any phase of a salmonid species since they must pass through buried culverts sections and debris traps. This water course would classify as a Type 3 or Type 4 water course. 7. In summary, the application for a zoning change on the eastern portion of this property hinges upon the wetland conditions found at the eastern wetland area: Wetland A. This wetland has been delineated in the field and the delineation boundary accurately tied into the property boundary by a licensed surveyor. The size of this wetland has been determined to be 35,435 square feet or 0.81 acres. Plots were taken to characterize the wetland and upland resource conditions. Wetland A is a palustrine, shrub -shrub class, wetland system. It classifies as a Type 3 wetland area requiring a standard 50 ft. wetland buffer as provided for in Tukwila City Code 18.45.080.(B and E). Field work was conducted to determine if Wetland A and Wetland B are connected by surface waters. It was established they are not. Both of these wetlands have outlets that flow waters in a southerly direction. However, they are angling away from each other without a confluence of the water courses. The water course associated with Wetland B is not shown on the CityGIS Map and this may represent new data. 8. In the matter of professional experience, I would simply state that I have been on the wetland specialist list of Pierce County from 1991 to the present. During that time period I have conducted over 300 wetland reports. Most of this wetland work has been done in Pierce County, with some submissions to other counties and city jurisdictions as in this case. From 1967 -1990 I was employed by the US Forest Service as a forester, soil scientist, and watershed specialist. I have a BS degree in Forest Science from the University of Washington, 1967, with graduate studies in soil science at Oregon State University and Cornell University. Hopefully, the described and attached wetland and water course field studies are helpful in reaching a determination concerning a rezoning application by the applicant. In closing, one should recognize there is always a degree of uncertainty in scientific endeavors. Other individuals may have more time and discover new data that could lead to different conclusions. I would simply state I have conducted this wetland investigation, reported my findings, and made my conclusions and recommendations to the best of my abilities. If I may be of any further assistance, I may be contacted at 253 - 474 -5432. Wes Jennings, Soil Scientist / Wetland Specialist Puget Land Consultants APPEND I X C. q:Worms\Sensltive Area Study Onidelines.doa Page l of 3 Guidance for Preparation of Sensitive Areas Special Studies: Wetlands and Watercourses Who Should Prepare the Weiland or Watercourse Sensitive Area whose Study? An applicant wh A n a submit a hose proposed action is on property that may contain a wetland or watercourse m Se Special Study under Tukwila Sensitive Areas Ordinance Cuse ub jt a e 18 umdea the code The story t r prepared by a q�if ed, experienced pmf l as unieipal reodquired under with at least .., ibr wetlands - a Certified Professional W Sci hydrologist or other scientist c in wet rd for prat ) ss cans watercourse utse as8egsmentsnts . What kind of information should be included in the Weiland or Watercourse Sensitive Area Study? The study must include the Mowing urination (as applicable ). Note that the the Sensitive Area Study may be combined with studies required by other agenclordordina 1. Applicant's name and contact intimation. 2. Description of the propo8ed action and identification of die permit(s) required. 3. Copy of the site plan with north wow, scale and proposal and'dunenalo� location of existing lines showing: development and drainage features, cleating limits, mss, and draina®e A • 491-- manageme impacts, and topographical contours at two (2) foot sp proposed plan for mttigatng OP 4. Names and qualifications of the prof+essional(s) PreParieS the study. . • 5. Dates and description of the fieldwork carried out on the site. r 6. Detailed characterization of the or acts. and bu$ets, which will include: t 1 / 0/ a. Wetland delineation that includes methods used, field indicators n e • thete results Identification delineation must be perocmed in accordance with the Washington and and Delineation Maimed, Washington Ecology, March 1997). Field data fauna are to be included in the report. n of boundaries are to be marked in the field with numbered stakes or . Wetland flagging. markers are to be shown on the she plant with their correspondhig numbers n ice After the City of Tukwila c onf>ms the buries, they are to be professionally surveyed to the nearest square• toot and the site plan modified as necessary. Exact - - will be calculated after the boundaries have . CM; 4.74 : 7 r-,;, been surveyed. I "Classification of Wetlands and Dee _ Doleth, F.C., and LaRoe, E.T., US Fish and Habitats Service, office of ologicalSeri Services, Washington, D.C., D.C., 1979. 0 8/19/200512:13 PM cc. gAPonnslSensitive Area Study Quideiines.doe gif Sensitive Area Study Requirements August, 2005 c. Hydrogeomorphic classification of the wetland(s). d. Characterization of the watercourse on site: flow regime, streambed, banks, dimensions, vegetation, habitat conditions, existing modifications. e. Brief landscape assessment of the wetland/watercourse (idea* hydrologic basin/sub- basin, inlets, outlets, surrounding land use, habitat quality and connectivity, ultimate point of discharge, presence of culverts or other constrains to flow, relationship to other wetlands /watercourses adjacent to or potentially impacted by the proposed project, flow regime, surrounding land uses). E Classification of the wetland under Tukwila's Senshi a Area Ordinance Rating system (see TMC I8.45.080 fbr wetlands and TMC I8.45.100 for watercourses). • g. Description of butler size per TMC 18.45.080 E. and TMC 18.45.100 D., conditions (topographic considerations, existing vegetation types and density, habitat features, watercorase edges, presence of invasive species, etc.), and functions. h. Functional assessment of the wetland(s). For proposed wetland filling the Washington Functional Assessment Method (WAFAM) must be used. For proposed projects that will impact buffers, the Washington Wetland Classification System may be used as u fiumctional assessment. i. Description of habitat conditions, wildlife/fish use of the sensitive area, including sensitive, threatened or endangered species. j. Citations of any literature or other resources utilized in preparation of the report. k. Description of adjacent land uses and ownership. 7. A statement verifying the accuracy and limitations of the study and the assumptions used. 8. Assessment of hazards, risks and impacts. An assessment of likely impacts to the wetland/watercourses must be pealbnned and must include an evaluation of short -tern,, direct, indirect and cumulative impacts on the sensitive areas and their buffers and to neighboring properties. A description of the wetland/watercourse functions that will be lost as a result of implementing the project should be provided, as well as an evaluation of impacts to wildliff/fish, if applicable. 9. Descriptioe, of development alternatives considered and effin is made to avoid and minimize adverse impacts (see TMC 18.45.0900 mending mitigation sequencing). 10. Description of proposed conceptual mitigation plan for ofletting impacts of the proposal. For wetlands, the consultant shall use as a guide the Department of Ecology'" Guidance on Wetland Mitigation in Washington State, Part 2, Guidelines for Developing Wetland Mitigation Plans and Proposals, April 2004". The conceptual mitigation plan shall include the following: a. Rationale, mitigation goals, expected functions of completed mitigation; b. Amount of restoratiookreation/enhancement proposed; C. Location and dimensions of proposed mitigation; d. Description of expected hydrology (and explanation of how this was determined); 2 "A Hydrogeomorphic Classification for Wetlands ", Brinson, M.M., Wetlands Research Program Technical Report WRP.DE.4, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi, t993. Page 2 of 3 08/19/2003 12:13 PM August, 2003 CL Sensitive Area Study Requirements e. Description of means to stabilize relocated watercourse channels, actions to improve watercourse unctions such as water quality, habitat, flood control, etc.; f. Preliminary pl plan and invasive plant control plan; and g. Timing and schedule. h. Recommended maintenance, monitoring (short-term and longterm), contingency plans, bonding measures for mitigation, per TMC I8.45.210. 11. Any additional technical information as required by the Director to assist in determining compliance with TMC Chapter 18.45. The applicant is responsible for obtaining all necessary jurisdioptnal determinations and from state and Wend agencies and for providing this information to the City. from q:1Forms\Sensitive Area Study Guidelines.doe Pogo 3of3 OS/ PM GRAPHIC SCALE — FRET BANS OF mom NEW N ootrirw.AL000 wow poppor rr Lor AS STIONT OV THE RAT Or NNW= PARK VOL 10. PA TT. • 50 0 • 50 .100. , 160. • • • • ...S • • S. • mommiscaimam SURVEYOR'S NOTES I. DATE 149IED SITE AND UONLoittim. 0ECEVEMX:E007. 2. SURKY INSTRUNDIT USE& moil ow-AA IOTA SWIM JUNIPER DATA COTBEMO L FIELD BETNOLi USE& FIELD TRAWDOE • 4. THIS WAVY mils co oxcEEDS Ream* ropiNktilika As' • SLT FORTH DI MAC 332-I30-0011 . • . 5. AIL UTILITIES AND SPOT ELEVATIONS SNOW OBTANABLE BY PHISICAL SAIRFACE EMDENCEVIt gUVEff;ROUNa SERVICE LOCATIONS AVAILABLE • • o. DOS 110 HAS WEN LIEWLOPED mom AND LLC NiXDS THE ORIGINAL NARD USING NS 26MMTION 111THOUT PRIOR coutuntommi #iv or-its& it000ro.Anori DNA WHO FILE IS AT THE USERS RISIC. 7. THE Boutower gait POSITIOONO AS HWW BY PALL.; U0J11111 RECCRO DATA AND. NOD= RAS SET DT PALS. LLC At?* • • la EXCEPT FOR FOUND imam AS NOTOR . - a mum) =winos, PREPARED or 1(0115(1(5 2007 FIELD LOCATED DEB Aux69 ,` 4; REFERENCE MAI • . . ..:„.:-. . . L ma cowry damson MAP 701 5561101 si. Oft-lott PROS 4E. WM a am CLAW DEM ammo work AX11 2oO2Q2oo1o7t. a =m oan:oils ARE RECOROS of THE 4ama &war once Fur Or AMPIATREE PARK va. 137, PARE 17 PLA Cr INTERURBAN ADD. M SEATTLE MC nt mot to VICINITY A#AP . ck..? A PORTION OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 23, TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH, RANGE 04 EAST OF THEWILLAMETTE MERIDIAN KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON • • • WETLAND TABLE MM. ffir=111111=M1=111.11111.1 •115ENWO 11111FIALUMIN em orn=c7r71 mr.Pai ago , n4Kung r,:. Nem I 71117LIMISIEN 15111UHENIMIIIIRITREI-BRI 9111E 1111E71=5:f7i7:1,M5110 MIEF;L:!1■1111111•EU=IARM 11111 Nom n711ri717: WINO STRIIIMIRM MI1311 EST7=1:7117.:klIOM 0115111 E7112L14/1 111171=1.17F:L0115011 10151U2IMIll 1,1111.1•11 1117:1i1LIAN •151711.774:7•172.91511:11• 111•11E■1101/0 •_,•:EILAIII NI= / r I I 11111111•1 11111:0721111= LUIS M1171=N17 111111,1q1A= NO a..-"1141111111MErThS0115 INET=1::_77171EMNIM In It El =I a.'11,L111 Lf.■,.•.ilias IIMMI-77711,.=12-1,1111M I "Li filE11111•::21-A11814 I I • ElFAJIM71111,17.11711.1111111111111 100:.i.W.W011 11111•.:!/L.=1111Willethil• 0•12;.'11115••=5:t1.117121L71111151 IM=EMIIMME=Ini=MIE MINUNI.11111111INTle nor!nlYri-oli 1057'..=/r11..11•MI 0011I•kliARINI IN111.77:.!! 11101i:KbE YIEM sern.7..7. rose OMNI, 11111:1•PNELAI ETILIEMII1115711.7T/rWAISINI /10•111/5/111EAT MK a:1KM mirvrr num= 11.11I.11. NM ME I.1. 110571 CHAIM 15111U2B=11111Mlit-iti.ili• 11111142:_i ;VD IRIT717.77T1rE 111111.1■:%.1=1•1111111.CIIILI If irr CLIME' 111110•IQJIIIII 51111.21 JIM 1111 •11171= CALMER 1111S.r±:2 MIELL OULK MCI rT.C.E1_ E.11:11111=1:1-f SIM WET !LIAM 1•171T..iTITY.Z.IMMI 0101.1 11151':4311/1m mar:11.7rraLeso 110V.TAIIIIMI:ik.U111111 IIMI=.51:10 111•71=l= MEI 1115.011=11 1111.1..tiM Urill.TISI 11•17117.1:4110= IIMITHAINIII MIS IT:TR= 0151 mann inAMMIIIII MINITITAMI •117117.11111011111111 . MAPLETREE PARK, VOL— 137, PG. 76-77 MAY - I 2008 I ' DATE Drama 2007 PNLS JOB TAMER or-asi-zae PNLS BRAWN° muff onsaataiavorasir.opc BASIS Di REARM too N 6 7.r, ALONQ NOpTI1 MOM ON THE PLAT OF YAPL57BEE PAR. VOL 1.17 P ' 77. ' LWE AS 50 0 50 100' 160 GRAPHIC SCALE - FEET SURVEYOR'S NOTES I. DATE NOTED SHE AND MWRMENTS OECEM 5TP -1007. 2 SUN (NY WSIRIDID T USED: NIXON OTM -521, TOTAL STANCH SRDPFR DATA COLLECTOR a FIELD METHOD USED FIELD /NAME a Dar SIMEY MEETS OR mans PRwsrok BEOLWHMEIITS AS SET MIDI W RAC 312- 130-09a 5 ALL UTILITIES AND SPOT ELEVATIONS SNOsH ARE OBTAMBIE BY PHYSICAL SURFACE MINCE L Y . NO UNDERGROUND SERVICE LOCATIONS AMILABLE • 6. TMS MAP HAS BEER ammo) FROM ELECTRONIC . . AND PILLS. LLC NOLOS THE COMMA HAARD • ECES ONAUTNO15ZED. RE L1 BON OR, - A• MAIM FILE IS AT THE USERS MSC d8.@1'ADTAT`ro THIS 7. TIE BOUNDARY UOIF POS • T[olmFC A DwH. W A BY PALS. LLC.TRDM RECORD DATA TA AND t NOTTING WAS SET BY PILLS. LLC AT THE acen FOR name ' d NOWy � LOCATED DEC 7 BY ASSbLTATES • • REFERENCE MATERIALS KING COUNTY ASSESSOR MAP FOR SEOTIo1 2; ffp, MOO 4E; MK OUT CIAO/ afro RECORDED WRIER A.F.N. 20 0200700797L - AUD1�S O4W31ENi5 ARE RECORDS or THE FmAO Worm PUT OF IN ADD 10 SEATO{ PACE I • TTL{ VOL TO: PACE 57 VICINITY MAP RA CAR LSTE CAT pROPE FR TV W 77 - i7 A PORTION OFT HE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 23, :TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH, RANGE 04 EAST OF THE. WILLAMETTE MERIDIAN KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON Pei+l. E 1 1..T1 MIN iF - iA:4 S MMr7_%F.1 AL1332i — .. f�i =1 :.y. rt_r.f2 AMQ:taIMO MIL•1,fI t� — .....;.tom far:: <���Itar_t�stIN stc a011 f11r ItP_- :t♦IME -e: 1 t+ MEAN MC1re' R 111121. S: 1 MAPLETREE PARK, VOL. 137, PG. 76-77 3597000346 LEGAL DESCRIPTION 3597000347 //;; (TAX PARCO. NO. 39970002+0) LO srAsperrerom Pi MUNE 10 OFR AT$ PACE DA % r r cowry. 6010 6011 3597000344 3597000340 S FORD MONUMENT • . ,� 0 BRAND LOCATION FLAGON* LEGEND Profile Description . Depth* (inches) Horizon • Matrix color ( Munsell moist) Mottle colors (Munsell moist) Mottle abundance size & contrast Texture, concretions, structure, etc. Drawing of soil profile mate description 0 .1 0 All pock ,M ko o SS■ Vt S i \ . S t 1 ve. S • ` 1 A ' o B3 10‘10-h. WANI Ck+ze Ma, Etz. 0 eob 0.Q,5 ►oyK /a s oA ci4 1 No Clot Hydric Soil Indicators: Histosol (check all that apply) Odor Moisture Regime Conditions or Low - Chroma Colors Concretions Content in Surface Layer of Sandy Soil Streaking in Sandy Soils Local Hydric Soils List National Hydric Soils List in remarks) V Histic Epipedon High Organic ,Sulfidic • Organic V Listed on ✓ Reducing _ Listed on ✓ Gleyed Other (explain Hydric soils present? no Rationale for decision/Remarks: • Wetland Determination (circle) no • no Is the sampling point no within a wetland? Hydrophytic vegetation present? Hydric soils present? Wetland hydrology present? no 4ap Unit ame 3 I F. (Series & Phase) rows K Cu i axonogMbgroup) FU444 onateixemartts: rb� l.a� t C cx hao/AN Drainage Class Po TOO h NOTES: LOCA.. tOh ; F tow.. v.* w ik1 . �o "P-I• N to -k-1) Ptik' Field observations confirm Y No mapped type? Project/Site: Applicant/owner: PP Rc�.Y �.A�r's�'�� ` Investigator(s): W lel Te.Y1 r1‘‘ "pi S Date: % Q pq ' --4 geftf it County: l� hA Tta. i vt7,.. y J State: W ck S/T/R: Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site' cra no Is the site significantly disturbed (atypical situation)? yes Is the area a potential Problem Area? yes Q7 Community ID: Transect ID: y ,,, Plot ID: W L - t 3 Pt a 1 VEGETATION Pp. C� Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species turn Indicator Dominant Plant Species ��� Ste, S ec\@ S (to " C "ze. FKA4 Quid ' i k (3) c 4 F P Q J J S awl 't S .t (o Scv.v.,. Fht ) s40( spQ, ,i ,.5 CT ,Gv-4Amsii FiK 14 • Rom kans u re th s ('?a Civil:m.4 FK.W 0 e.vvo" ei. Iv' wiktA4eLto. (.5 Czt vs 04." k. oet. HYDROPHYTIC VEGETATION INDICATORS: % of dominants OBL, FACW, & FAC: A ', 8 4 3 3 p d J Check all indicators that apply & explain Regional knowledge of plant communities Physiological or reproductive adaptations Technical Literature below: Uo Wetland plant list (nat'l or regional) Morphological adaptations Wetland Plant Data Base V ' OTHER • . Hydrophytic vegetation present? no Rationale for decision/Remarks: . HYDROLOGY • no • • Is it the growing season? Based on: ]�Q,' Water Marks: no Sediment Deposits: es ni Drainage Patterns:�Ye, nc Local Soil Survey: yes n< Drift Lines: yes no Dept. of inundation: .4 (per inches 4 ,,,,,6 1 Oxidized Root (live roots) Channels <12 in. es no Depth to free water in pit: inches FAC Neutral: € no Water - stained Leaves: yes no Depth to saturated soil: inches Check all that apply & explain below: Stream, Lake or gage data: Other: Other: Aerial photographs: Wetland hydrology present? ( y ) no Rationale for decision/Remarks: . • • • DATA FORM 1 Routine Wetland Determination (WA State Wetland Delineation Manual or 1987 Corps Wetland Delineation Manual) Profile Description Depth (inches) Horizon • Matrix color ( Munsell moist) Mottle colors (Munsell moist) Mottle abundance size & contrast Texture, concretions, structure, etc. Drawing of soil profile (match descriptior ?AAA *IN\ %,/ 0.1"■45, At./ like , wxx,ss i 4 C. 54 • It - `Ao 63 5y ail Cka4 - s; <. L. J z. n ,vy,.�N. ic Hydric Soil Indicators: Histosol —� Histic Epipedon (check all that apply) Odor Moisture Regime Conditions or Low - Chroma Colors Concretions Content in Surface Streaking in Sandy Soils Local Hydric Soils List National Hydric Soils in remarks) Layer of Sandy Soil List High Organic Sulfidic • Organic ✓ Aquic Listed on Reducing Listed on Gleyed Other (explain Hydric soils present? no Rationale for decision/Remarks: • • Wetland Determination (circle) no ('t no ..Is the sampling point " • es no within a wetland? Hydrophytic vegetation present? Hydric soils present? Wetland hydrology present? SOILS ► °pp \k`f - \o\ ‘.,qA Map Unit Na ks ` <e.. 1 Vv 4,150-i- Si '7 tq y LSE` Drainage Class (Series 4 y,hasel 1"`o Taxonom ► Field observations confirm Yes NIft mapped type? V oo r ` J 1rai � ,C Y No NOTES: L 0 C . o � k . \ o n; A-pr roll. b c-0,.1 ; 0 h O ■ JkAa.A S ‘A Project/Site: p Applicant/owner: Rc. C r` S4 y \ I w 'QC ar \\ 4 ` C C . E. no situation)? yes m yes no Date: I O fiv ; '5, `` - County: K∎ 43 j `ThKW 11 0` State: W f S/T/R: Community ID: Transect ID: Plot ID: W `." IN). 1)14 Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site Is the site significantly disturbed (atypical Is the area a potential Problem Ar a? VEGETATION . Yo Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Cc4t Dominant Plant Species &0N` S tc.\@.s► ( X P `C`�'Qt.. F w s J i X S c.\%s ( k 9 SL4 Fv pj HYDROPHYTIC VEGETATION INDICATORS: . % of dominants OBL, FACW, & FAC: P.. A..... ! oo A� i /0 Check all indicators that apply & explain Regional knowledge of plant communities Physiological or reproductive adaptations Technical Literature below: Wetland plant list (nat'1'or regional) Morphological adaptations Wetland Plant Data Base OTHER Hydrophytic vegetation present? Qs no Rationale for decision/Remarks: . HYDROLOGY no . . Is it the growing season? Based on: ' Water Marks: c_ no Sediment.Deposifs: yes nc Drainage Pattems: _ no Drift Lines: yes no Dept. of inundation: `_ inches .-1. I Oxidized Root (live roots) Channels <12 in. es no Local Soil Survey: yes nc _ Depth to free water in pit: inches FAC Neutral: es no Water - stained Leaves: yes no Depth to saturated soil: inches Check all that apply & explain below: Stream Lake or gage data: . Other: Other: Aerial photographs: Wetland hydrology present? yes no Rationale for decision/Remarks: . DATA FORM 1 Routine Wetland Determination (WA State Wetland Delineation Manual or 1987 Corps Wetland Delineation Manual Profile Description Depth (inches) Horizon Matrix color (Munsell moist) Mottle colors (Munsell moist) Mottle abundance size & contrast Texture, concretions, structure, etc. Drawing of soil profile match d scri tion © P .k c..0"w.wM• ®0 K. ASS i V'., i SkN . .e. i S v 3 1 , mil, /'\ UL : Ck� j asks 1 \ - Vitk- C 3 rbyK;f.. S c._L ,iav iN 0 tkcisAwc Hydric Soil Indicators: Histosol (ch all that apply) Odor Moisture Regime Conditions or Low - Chroma Colors Concretions Content in Surface Layer of Sandy Soil; Streaking in Sandy Soils Local Hydric Soils List National Hydric Soils List in remarks) Histic Epipedon High Organic Sulfidic ____:___ Organic Listed on V Aquic v'" Reducing Listed on utO Gleyed Other (explain Hydric soils present? yes no Rationale for decision/Remarks: - Wetland Determination (circle) no no Is the sampling point n� no within a wetland? Hydrophytic vegetation pjesent? Hydric soils present? Wetland hydrology present? 4'X des SOILS 1 4 ,, L i k + , k r t Allt . Co..A. A•c- a T 5 X14. CXa L Map Unit Name (Series &Phase) )1:10%. ' voi C:p Taxonomy bgroup) � k v 4 i t q, ' .q„ Rationale/Remarks: NOTES: so ' vk\lsi 4 -Vkat Drainage Class P4 4 t Field observations confirm mapped type? k Yes No PJ Project/Site: Applicant/owner: kcal C„.(4, f S,4,4"\b‘ Investigator(s): W 'tS Te.. fV\1 n t�l" S Date: ‘0 it\lc) f 11 �ps g County: 1 <\ n - T,,,,,�CA,J%1 G State.. S/T/R: Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? a no Is the site significantly disturbed (atypical situation)? yes Is the area a potential Problem Area? yes Dominant Plant Community ID: Transect ID: Plot ID: l L d P ' Pt pi Species Stratum Indicator VEGETATION , tum Indicator Dominant Plant Species *r extl X STte.1e,S c TQI. FV C,V4 >t),..Itx Setoas '1(t ..SCvestkk) . FK\A) CAT lex 0 lit hvw 04 C.v45•4"-k 0 6L. • HYDROPHYTIC VEGETATION INDICATORS: of dominants OBL, FACW, & FAC: 3) - i 3 ,,,, t o � j' Check all indicators that apply & explain Regional knowledge of plant communities Physiological or reproductive adaptations Technical Literature below: ✓ Wetland plant list (nat'l or regional) Morphological adaptations Wetland Plant Data Base ✓ OTHER -- 7' Hydrophytic vegetation present? C ) no • Rationale for decision/Remarks: • . HYDROLOGY yes no . . Is it the growing season? Based on: Water Marks: es no Sediment Deposits: yes n1 Drift Lines: yes no Drainage Patterns: ' nc Dept. of inundation: de inches Depth to free water in pit: inches 4, Oxidized Root (live roots) Channels <12 in. yes no Local Soil. Survey: yes n■ FAC Neutral: qiip no Water - stained Leaves: yes nc Depth to saturated soil: inches Check all that apply & explain below: Stream Lake or gage data: Other: Other: • Aerial photographs: Wetland hydrology present? yes no Rationale for decision/Remarks: DATA FORM 1 Routine Wetland Determination (WA State Wetland Delineation Manual or 1987 Corps Wetland Delineation Manual) Profile Description . Depth (inches) Horizon • Matrix color (Munsell moist) Mottle colors (Munsell moist) Mottle abundance size & contrast Texture, concretions, structure, etc. Drawing of soil profile (match description) 0 —7 A . I o ■1 k . ix . Grit Sk 1 hqU 'm= toK %4 S ( w-» � rrSa"ky Log" SS 4 fps F JRoo kikOM As , AAA pQ Ro* A S et . 7°°I3 Sw 101 / 3 / 1 4.. Il-�ie ?z' c asy a %um, -i � loy� / t4 .pkty. `a. 1Avv, sa.4 Cl j t o ko s s�iVt. S41 1 • Hydric Soil Indicators: Histosol (check all that apply) Odor Moisture Regime Conditions or•Low -Chroma Colors Concretions Content in Surface Layer of Sandy Soil; Streaking in Sandy Soils Local Hydric Soils List National Hydric Soils List in remarks) Histic Epipedon - High Organic Sulfidic - Organic Aquic Listed on Reducing ' Listed on Gleyed Other (explain Hydric soils present? yes d Rationale for decision/Remarks: • • • Wetland Determination (circle) . yes CCI yes oil Is the sampling point yes yes e • within a wetland? Hydrophytic vegetation present? Hydric soils present? Wetland hydrology present? Map U t t e t I Q G P 4J t3 64 O U i r 'A «� i Q. Drainage Class '"�` A) b (Series & Phase) For ��� �` ►tl ; � � 04, tiXt4 � Field observations confirm Yes No Y (subgroup) ou 0. � 1 v � " B� P) 1 Q '' mapped type? ationale/Remarks: NOTES: v,, per; /.. Fro t W L — t5 30 9 ' St* E +-o QP1. — . --Pt oj` • Project/Site: Applicant/owner: Raj QC), i e l's"' 1 .I / E Investigator(s): W �. %In\ waS Date: 10 44.1 i( cS 0 6 County: kih ° "��,� V� �`q„ State: S/T/R: Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? no Is the site significantly disturbed (atypical situation)? yes m Is the area a potential Problem ? yes n. Community ID: Transect ID: Plot ID: V P L~ 1.. - p (0+ VEGETATION ,10 C-4 •Je) Dominant Plant Species tratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Pi1 t t vi k. ,p+A kVit.. i %Sit \ 'Trts. F koLv m trophy M E v ( 1'e - Fhp.t. QA IX 1) eS C)Tb.Qt. Ft C, ' ii.k.s 4Asztlor (1Stve Fi Ak Polkis HYDROPHYTIC VEGETATION I of dominants OBL, FACW, & FAC: 1 /5' r-- Check all indicators that apply & explain below: • Regional knowledge of plant communities —1 0 ° ' Wetland plant list (nat'1 or regional) 11 OTHER Physiological or reproductive adaptations Morphological adaptations • Technical Literature 40 Wetland Plant Data Base Hydrophytic vegetation present? yes Rationale for decision/Remarks: • HYDROLOGY Is it the growing season? '- yes no - Based on: Water Marks: yes no Sediment Deposits: yes o Drift Lines: yes no Drainage Patterns: yes no Dept. of inundation: inches Oxidized Root (live r• •ts) Channels <12 in. yes o Local Soil Survey: yes do c t E Avg erTblil* Depth to free water in pit: .— I U inches 1'4 FAC Neutral: yes E' Water- stained Leaves: yes G Depth to saturated soil: inches Check all that apply & explain below: Stream, Lake or gage data: Other: Aerial photographs: Other: Wetland hydrology present? yes no onale for decision/Remarks: DATA FORM 1 Routine Wetland Determination (WA State Wetland Delineation Manual or 1987 Corps Wetland Delineation Manual SOILS jAckvoessk ULY 411Votort Lo,4, Map Unit None 04 p (Series & Ph e) h `« k , a�, 4 0 IA j NiQCS Taxonomy (subgroup) V rtiooN vniXtrcirs NOTES: 'Fro*, 4t O.b h 5 55' 6t9e 4- L- .— .I — tsi l� b ` Drainage Class (� �J \€ Q.! Field observations confirm Yes No mapped type? Profile Description Depth (inches) 0 -- t t Horizon B w Matrix color (Munsell moist) loyR31A 1,sy s/4k. as./ s-/A. Hydric Soil Indicators: (check all that apply) Histosol Histic Epipedon Sulfidic Odor Aquic Moisture Regime Reducing Conditions Gleyed or Low - Chroma Colors Hydric soils present? yes CRP Rationale for decision/Remarks: Wetland Determination (circle) Hydrophytic vegetation present? Mythic soils present? Wetland hydrology present? Rationale/Remarks: Mottle colors (Munsell moist) 104%-i./4 Yes Yes yes Mottle abundance size & contrast C.. too"".o Is the sampling within a wetlan Texture, concretions, structure, etc. LIZ Won i C tarot SS ct cr3.4togot scprAy Lust co a .55k Tao k Gr; ► l� FziAtedirs Drawing of soil profile (match descri tioi . s tbk4 �aa'ks rsc Ae.ti S oe ' 1 . 07 0(9 14 "' Acuslwer P,o Cbvels Concretions High Organic Content in Surface Layer of Sandy So Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils Listed on Local Hydric Soils List Listed on National Hydric Soils List Other (explain in remarks) point d? Ye es _ b e , • CS 'the . ' .fi 1 e IF et'CUL I e. _ lb E sLA) 01. p "0..cr�4 `uv., (ae) `fret FV CLt RvAus scfA (5) Shaw F# t Pt\KA5 rw�r . (.5) "True. FtC. ftck .ra.. S' y eAlms ( the'. NI C� a. S�e�t t' S ���� 11 S�rwb n�r�oS0. Cab) ." oh,o` t C9•M�A Na., ' Otwh ' �r�a Ce' iioY t S ��e �� V r ftCl. { P d ' , y 5{% C . v n w . ,° CI� G�rev` PlCt� HYDROPHYTIC VEGETATION ICATORS: 1-311p . Project/Site: Applicant/owner: Rck (cm Investigator(s): VJ2 r Y S 3 11 YLq s Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? Is the site significantly disturbed (atypical situation)? Is the area a potential Problem Arej VEGETATION 1 Dominant P S of dominants OBL, FACW, & FAC: 1 b (a Check all indicators that apply & explain below: Regional knowledge of plant communities ✓ Physiological or reproductive adaptations Technical Literature Hydrophytic vegetation present? Rationale for decision/Remarks: HYDROLOGY Is it the growing season? Based on: for. e. Dept. of inundation: Depth to free water in pit: Depth to saturated soil: Check all that apply & explain below: Stream, Lake or gage data: Aerial photographs: 1 0 \C.oJ ' tratum inches inches inches Wetland hydrology present? yes Rationale for decision/Remarks: DATA FORM 1 Routine Wetland Determination (WA State Wetland Delineation Manual or 1987 Corps Wetland Delineation Manual) Wetland plant list (nat'l or regional) Morphological adaptations Wetland Plant Data Base Other. Indicator no Other: Date: 10 N r 1 ( a ¢$8 County: Kt ►'cq J TvAC Ial, State: W S/T/R: Community ID: Transect ID: Plot ID: Vi - I •' Dominant Plant Sp ecies atum Water Marks: yes Drift Lines: Oxidized Root (live roots) Channels <12 in. yes FAC Neutral: yes Y MD Water - stained Leaves: OTHER Indicator Sediment Deposits: yes Drainage Patterns: yen Local So' Survey: yes no urt CAvey: W no A ('\ PARCEL #359700 -0360 c Copyright O 2006 All Rights Reserved. The information contained herein is the proprietary property of the contributor supplied under license and may not be approved except as licensed by Digital Map Products. t N City Annex Property ® City Annex Property Water Course 2 Li ❑ Buffer3 Buffer4 Wetlands ® 1 2 3 Bufferl Buffer2 Buffer3 n a CityGIS 2pipe 3 3pipe 4 4pipe Buffer2 Apartment Parcels AM Apartment Parcels Potential Wetlands ® Potential Wetlands Zit Contours 150ft A NORTH Woodland View Low Density Residential (LDR) to Medium Density Residential (MDR) L07-096 & L07-097 FEET Multifamily Development 0 75 150 300 450 600 Attachment K City of Tukwila ! ' '��➢ r rra fc` \ iotf %wort -0 057.::-_ tPt E *5t t E �. . t r C h o 0 g e 1 • T •. _ COMPMssion Reze-onwfuoiran wi 1 e D4 ( • of yea, rap .� Geri lot.S 1 . �.. K i•GI r.r.cr - r • a • W 0 1" 0 100' 0 50 100 200 SITE INFO; PROPERLY OVIDO._- ..._RAY CARLSTEDT 3921 SAX 10590 STREET SEATTLE, WA. 90146 PARCEL MOI&i1 3597000360 SITE ADDRES I0NW0 UDR BUE001G SETBACKS._ FRONT 20' SIDES 20' REAR 20' LANDSCAPE SEIRAO(S—._JINONT 15' SIDES 10' REAR 10' DIE AREA 61651 SOFT (1.41 ACRES) 14.5 DUPER ACRE • 1.41 • 20.4 DU (11A1L) 12 DU (PROPOSED) 505 IA2. OEVEIOPUDIT COVERAGE • 30.516 511 ET. PROPOSED O7PEANDUS AREA • 20,343 S0. FT. RECREATION AREA • 405 50. FL PER 12 DU • 3,600 SO. FT. TRACT 'A' (RIDUC PARN)_.,- __,.03,402 S0. FT. (3.95 ACRES) PROPOSAL Low oENrlTy RESIDENTIAL CLDA) 1'17 ME OH pEA3CtTy gEsi DEN 1tm Cm Dit) HAPLE_ TE :r.� PAii`. EIASTINO BRIDGE COSTING PARIS TRAIL RAY CARLSTEDT — SITE PLAN APPOIL ammo LOCATION CLASS /2 PROPOSED PARR TRAM, TRACT 5R875'271 706.31• —SO'� 4, BEIM CUSS U 4' sle (35,435 50. FL) PROPOSED BRIDGE ,1:341 I 0344 I I LEGAL DESCRIPTION; LOT 12, INTERURBAN .40011109 TO SEATTLE, ACCOR001C TO 1NE PLAT RECORDED IN VOLUME 10 OF PLA15, PACE 55. RECORDS OF 8076 Cg1NTY, WASF@DTO9. BINDING .11 (TYPICAL) 20' LANDSCAPE 2C SETBACK UNE (TOPICAL) (1J! „) 28 \ _ PROPOSED OFF- STREET PARKING , y—PROPOSED DRIVEWAY 2• PROPOSED OFF - STREET PARKING 51NG ROCKER'S `m 1N RECEIVED NAY. 0 8 NH COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 24 24 26 25 Job d: 326 Scale: 1” = 100' Date: 5/6/2008 Drown by. SB Checked by SB Dro•ing nomrsl(eplank4DR Sheet 1 of 1 IV. CASE NUMBER: APPLICANT: REQUEST: LOCATION: V. CASE NUMBER: APPLICANT: REQUEST: LOCATION: VI. CASE NUMBER: APPLICANT: REQUEST: LOCATION: VII. Director's Report VIII. Adjourn A Mrnmv r:PPinncvin 111 11$2 s � Cizj' of Tukwila Department of Community Development CHAIR, CHUCK PARRISH, VICE CHAIR, GEORGE MALINA, COMMISSIONERS, ALLAN EKBERG, MARGARET BRATCHER, BILL ARTHUR AND LYNN PETERSON PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AGENDA OCTOBER 30, 2008 SITE VISIT - 5:30 PM PUBLIC HEARING - 7:00 PM TUKWILA CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS I. SITE VISIT - 5:30 Please meet at the flagpole at Tukwila City Hall, 6200 Southcenter Blvd., for a walking visit of the requested rezone /comprehensive map change site and vicinity. We will proceed on foot from City Hall to the project site and will tour the project vicinity (approximately 10 blocks), including a City trail. After the site visit, a light meal will be served in the 6300 building conference room. II. CALL TO ORDER III. ATTENDANCE PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING - 7:00 PM L08 -049 City of Tukwila Amend the "Capital Facilities Element" of the Comprehensive Plan to add "Fire" to the list of uses funded by the General Fund, to reference the Fire and Parks Master Plans and to add Level of Service goals for Fire and Parks services. Citywide L07 -097 Woodland View Comprehensive Plan Amendment - Map Change Raymond Carlstedt Amend Comprehensive Land Use Plan Map from Low Density Residential (LDR) to Medium Density Residential (MDR) 152XX 65 Avenue South L07 -096 Woodland View Zoning Code Amendment —Map Change Raymond Carlstedt Amend Zoning Map from Low Density Residential (LDR) to Medium Density Residential (MDR) 152XX 65 Avenue South Jim Haggerton, Mayor Jack Pace, Director 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • Phone: 206 - 431 -3670 • Fax: 206 - 431 -3665 • Cizy of Tukwila Department of Community Development Jack Pace, Director INFORMATION MEMO To: Community Affairs and Parks Committee 0'61° € "- t f S From: Jack Pace, Department of Community Development Date: June 3, 2008 Subject: 2008 Comprehensive Plan Amendments ISSUE This memo will provide background information on the annual Comprehensive Plan amendments and the status of this year's review process. BACKGROUND The City of Tukwila received three applications for annual Comprehensive Plan amendments for consideration in 2008. One file was closed due to incompleteness, and the second was withdrawn. One application will be considered for review in 2008. REVIEW PROCESS The Comprehensive Plan amendment and rezone process has several steps. Applications that are received by the December 31 deadline are considered in the following year. The first step in Council's consideration is to evaluate the proposed amendment at a public meeting according to the following review criteria: • Is the issue already adequately addressed in the Comprehensive Plan? • If the issue is not addressed in the Comprehensive Plan, is there a public need for the proposed change? • Is the proposed change the best means for meeting the identified public need? • Will the proposed change result in a new benefit to the community? The Council will then make a "threshold decision" as follows: • Refer the proposal as is to the Planning Commission for further review; • Modify the proposal and refer the Planning Commission for further review; • Defer consideration until a later time; • Reject the proposal. The Planning Commission holds a public hearing on applications that are forwarded, and makes a recommendation back to the City Council. Finally, the City Council holds a hearing and makes a decision. At that point, the Council may: RF Q: \Comp Plan 2007 - 2008 \Woodland View L07 -096 & L07- 097 \CAPinfomemo6.9.08 #3.doc Jim Haggerton, Mayor 06/04/2008 6300 .Snuthcenter Rnulevard_ .Suite #Inn • Tukwila_ Washinntnn 0131RR • Phone! 206 -4.31 -.3670 • FAY- 20t5-411-1156S • • • Adopt a proposed amendment; • Adopt a modified version of a proposed amendment; or • Reject the amendment. DISCUSSION /ANALYSIS /ALTERNATIVES The application is as follows: • Redesignate property from Low Density Residential (LDR) to Medium Density Residential (MDR) at 152xx 65 Avenue South Applicant: Raymond Carlstedt (File #L07 -096 and L07 -097) The applicant seeks to redesignate approximately 1.41 acres acres of a 5.8 acre site from single - family residential (LDR) to Medium Density Residential (MDR) for the eastern portion of the property. The entire site is wooded and contains two separate wetlands and their associated buffers. MDR is proposed only for the eastern part of the property nearest to 65 Avenue South. The rest of the site would remain as LDR, leaving the wetlands and their buffers unaffected by the rezone. The applicant proposes to donate that portion of the property that is not part of the proposal (approximately 4.4 acres) to the City of Tukwila. Any future development would occur on the eastern edge of the property. A mix of single - family and multi - family dwelling units are in the vicinity. 14 single - family homes are directly north in the Maple Tree subdivision, while approximately 260 units of apartment and condominium units east across 65 Avenue South on land that is zoned Medium Density Residential (MDR). There are several single family homes to the south, as well as the 60+ unit San Juan South apartments. Single - family homes are to the west of the site. Tukwila Park is approximately one block from the site along 65 Avenue South. Medium Density Residential (MDR) allows 14.5 units /acre as duplex, triplex or fourplex buildings. The site is constrained by slopes, wetland and wetland buffer, and would lend itself to a Planned Residential Development in order to allow greater flexibility in zoning requirements to create additional open space, and retain vegetation. The property has been the object of several development proposals in the past. In the late 1980s, the entire site, including both wetlands, was considered for a subdivision proposal that was eventually dropped. The current rezone proposal is different from the earlier project since it affects only to the eastern area along 65 Avenue South. All wetlands and associated buffer areas are excluded from the rezone, and would be retained. RF 2 06/04/2008 Q: \Comp Plan 2007 - 2008 \Woodland View L07 -096 & L07- 097 \CAPinfomemo6.9.08 #3.doc Enc. A. Zoning Vicinity Map B. Aerial Map with 10' contours C. Proposed Site Plan D. Applications • • ACTION Staff requests that the CAP forward this issue to the COW for a briefing at its meeting on June 23, and to the Regular Meeting on July 7, 2008 for a public meeting. After receiving comments in the public meeting on July 7, the City Council will decide whether or not to forward the proposed amendment to the Planning Commission for further consideration. RF 3 06/05/2008 Q: \Comp Plan 2007 - 2008 \Woodland View L07 -096 & L07- 097 \CAPinfomemo6.9.08 #3.doc • 1" = 100' 0 50 100 200 SITE INFO: PROPERTY OY R ._._..RAY CARLSTEDT 3921 SW. 1O2N0 STREET SEATTLE, WA. 98146 PARCEL NIAEBFR..____..359700036O 91E ADDRESS..__ - BUXOM SETBACKS — __.FRONT 20' SIDES 2O REAR 20' LANDSCAPE SETBACKS_ .FRONT 15' 9DES 10' REAR 10' 91E AREA.. - _..__..._..61,651 SOFT. (1.41 ACRES) 14.5 CU/PER ACRE • 1.41 - 20.4 DU (MAX) 12 DU (PROPOSED) MAX DEVELOPMENT COVERAGE = 30,826 SO. FT. IMPERVIOUS AREA = 20,343 SO. FT. RECREATION AREA = 400 SO FT. PER • 12 DU = 3,600 SO FT. TRACT 'A (PUBLIC PARK). 173,402 S0. FT. (3.98 ACRES) firtoPoSAL.: Low 101 1y stDEN ►L. C•Dn) iv MEDIUM p MCItTr tslDEN (Al DR COSTING BRIDGE EXISTING PARK TRAIL 2 -STORY 2 -P1EO APPDX KRAKD LOCATE CLASS n PROPOSED BOUNDARY LINE -� RAY CARLSTEDT — SITE PLAN TREE / / I .. I 7 � a PROPOSED BRIDGE PROPOSED PARK TRAIL 588'25'27'E I 708.31' LEGAL DESCRIPTION: LOT 19, INTERURBAN ADDI11ON TO SEATTLE, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT RECORDED IN VOLUME 10 OF FLATS PAGE 55, RECORDS OF KEG COUNTY, WASHINGTON. BUXOM SETBACK LINE '" (TECAL) ( r" — 1.1 , LANDSCAPE SETBACK LINE (rTvIcAl) ..... : 26 \ PROPOSED OFF - STREET PARKING PROPOSED ORIVLWAY PROPOSED OFF - STREET PARKING EXISTING ROCKERY 26 25 `? RECEIVED [MAY 0 8 2008 \ N DE Job /E 326 Scale: 1" = 100' Dote: 5/6/2008 Drawn by: SB Checked by SB Drowing name: siteplonMDR 24 24 Sheet 1 of 1 Cit of J uNuwi€a Dept. Of Community Development AFFIDAVIT OF DISTRIBUTION I, lit& 4 HEREBY DECLARE THAT: Notice of Public Hearing Determination of Non - Significance Notice of Public Meeting Mitigated Determination of Non - Significance Board of Adjustment Agenda Packet Determination of Significance & Scoping Notice Board of Appeals Agenda Packet Notice of Action Planning Commission Agenda Packet Official Notice Short Subdivision Agenda Notice of Application Shoreline Mgmt Permit Notice of Application for Shoreline Mgmt Permit _ _ FAX To Seattle Times Classifieds Mail: Gail Muller Classifieds PO Box 70 - Seattle WA 98111 Other: on this Project Name: Was mailed to each of the addresses listed/attached day of t' 176p;v' in the year 20 t7 e .wke , - /WWoodic.4i1 iei'k/ t') Rct , - Project Number: � -� 1 a ( --Oqu Mailing requested by: 'R-a (Y �t Mailer's signature: C(2 /,-__ r_\DnrI JMR.NTS AND SR. TTTN (_C \TRRi_C\DRQ1[TnP\ twin A VITnC nreTortei rrirtiv Ting" October 23, 2008 Dear Party of Record: City of Tukwila Department of Community Development Jack Pace, Director Re: Carlstedt /Woodland View Request —Low Density Residential (LDR) to Medium Density Residential (MDR) at 152xx 65 Avenue S. (Tax ID #3597000360) (Files —L07 -097 Comprehensive Plan & L07 -096 Zoning Map) Enclosed is the Staff Report for the Planning Commission hearing on October 30, 2008. A copy of the complete report with attachments will be available for reference at the Planning Commission hearing. The hearing will be held at 7p.m. October 30, 2008 at the Tukwila City Council Chambers, located at 6200 Southcenter Boulevard, Tukwila, WA 98188. You are invited to participate in a walking tour of the site prior to the hearing. Please meet at the flagpople at Tukwila City Hall, 6200 Southcenter Boulevard at 5:30 p.m. We will proceed on foot from City Hall to the Project site and will tour the project vicinity (approximately 10 blocks), including a City trail. Please contact me at 206 - 431 -3683 or via email at rfox@ci.tukwila.wa.us if you have questions about this issue. Sincerely, Rebecca Fox Senior Planner Enc. Jim Haggerton, Mayor 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • Phone: 206 - 431 -3670 • Fax: 206 - 431 -3665 Was mailed to each of the addresses listed/attached on thi day of CC in the y ear 20 &hi of J ucftwita Dept. Of Community Development AFFIDAVIT OF DISTRIBUTION T HEREBY DECLARE THAT: Notice of Public Hearing Determination of Non - Significance Notice of Public Meeting Project Name: \A? L b (.: Mitigated Determination of Non - Significance W Board of Adjustment Agenda Packet Project Number: L0 ( O Y (0 ` Determination of Significance & Scoping Notice Mailing requested by: Lc-20 C._ c &. Board of Appeals Agenda Packet I Notice of Action Planning Commission Agenda Packet �/ ( Official Notice Short Subdivision Agenda Notice of Application Shoreline Mgmt Permit Notice of Application for Shoreline Mgmt Permit _ _ FAX To Seattle Times Classifieds Mail: Gail Muller Classifieds PO Box 70 - Seattle WA 9 Other _ N ( ` -1 C- Q .F S 1TE 1Th ( 4 1' U k7 L- ( C —f N(7- Was mailed to each of the addresses listed/attached on thi day of CC in the y ear 20 Project Name: \A? L b (.: `J V ‘ W ick lli °A id Cain i strA17 LC-7-097 Project Number: L0 ( O Y (0 ` Mailing requested by: Lc-20 C._ c &. " I Mailer s signature: �Y"� �/ ( Was mailed to each of the addresses listed/attached on thi day of CC in the y ear 20 Cu, alJu(Iwt Dept. Of Community Development AFFIDAVIT OF DISTRIBUTION I, )---11 4 " t vtI1&r11 e- HEREBY DECLARE THAT: S'EPA st Notice of Public Hearing Project Number: 1.--0 v l .- 'o C i CCU 1--0 - O c / el G t — toll Determination of Non - Significance 2,,x Notice of Public Meeting Mailer's signature: ) /141 , e.4 414‘ 1 "W ;" 1 ' . / k, , -/t-Q Mitigated Determination of Non - Significance Board of Adjustment Agenda Packet Determination of Significance & Scoping Notice Board of Appeals Agenda Packet Notice of Action Planning Commission Agenda Packet Official Notice Short Subdivision Agenda Notice of Application Shoreline Mgmt Permit Notice of Application for Shoreline Mgmt Permit _ _ FAX To Seattle Times Classifieds Mail: Gail Muller Classifieds PO Box 70 - Seattle WA 98111 Other: C:\DOCUMENTS AND SETTINGS \TF.RI_S \DER ICT(lP\AFFinAViTnF DTSTRIRnTinN nn[ Was mailed to each of the addresses listed/attached � on this day of �• ( in the year 20 S'EPA st Project Name: {11 tril 0( CIo? COTKip �( tAi 1 4(.7 --C � Project Number: 1.--0 v l .- 'o C i CCU 1--0 - O c / el G t — toll Mailing requested by: R e cc a 2,,x Mailer's signature: ) /141 , e.4 414‘ 1 "W ;" 1 ' . / k, , -/t-Q C:\DOCUMENTS AND SETTINGS \TF.RI_S \DER ICT(lP\AFFinAViTnF DTSTRIRnTinN nn[ Was mailed to each of the addresses listed/attached � on this day of �• ( in the year 20 Was mailed to each of the addresses listed/attached on this __ day of C:\DOCUMENTS AND SETTINGS \ TERI -S\ DESKTOP \AFFIDAVITOFDISTRIBUTION.DOC in the year 20 �� et of lus'wita Dept. Of Community Development AFFIDAVIT OF DISTRIBUTION r ^ - Le / C/ u HEREBY DECLARE THAT: l _ Notice of Public Hearing Determination of Non - Significance Notice of Public Meeting Project Name: Mitigated Determination of Non - Significance /ear _ 7 Board of Adjustment Agenda Packet Project Number: Determination of Significance & Scoping Notice L U 7— v Board of Appeals Agenda Packet Notice of Action Planning Commission Agenda Packet "" (/ ( 'CZ Official Notice Short Subdivision Agenda x Notice of Application Shoreline Mgmt Permit Notice of Application for Shoreline Mgmt Permit _ — FAX To Seattle Times Classifieds Mail: Gail Muller Classifieds PO Box 70 - Seattle WA 98111 Other: e� ,� 6 //1 � ,rie_./K / Was mailed to each of the addresses listed/attached on this __ day of C:\DOCUMENTS AND SETTINGS \ TERI -S\ DESKTOP \AFFIDAVITOFDISTRIBUTION.DOC in the year 20 �� Project Name: a /ear _ 7 " ii' ,' Project Number: ✓ L U 7— v Mailer's Signature: Mailing requested by: 7 "" (/ ( 'CZ 0 Was mailed to each of the addresses listed/attached on this __ day of C:\DOCUMENTS AND SETTINGS \ TERI -S\ DESKTOP \AFFIDAVITOFDISTRIBUTION.DOC in the year 20 �� -1/ - W elf* of ihthwita -IP Dept. Of Community Development AFFIDAVIT OF DISTRIBUTION DECLARE THAT: 1-(0 ,4' -/, /HEREBY otd,a144 , e--/ ,/,/.41, 6" Notice of Public Hearing Determination of Non - Significance _ -< ee Notice of Public Meeting Mitigated Determination of Non - Significance Board of Adjustment Agenda Packet :)/,� 5' i' Determination of Significance & Scoping Notice Board of Appeals Agenda Packet Project Number: Notice of Action Planning Commission Agenda Packet Official Notice � ' Short Subdivision Agenda k Notice of Application Mailing requested by: Shoreline Mgmt Permit Notice of Application for Shoreline Mgmt Permit _ _ FAX To Seattle Times Classifieds Mail: Gail Muller Classifieds PO Box 70 - Seattle WA 98111 Other: Was mailed to each of the addresses listed/attached on this 6 day of in the year 206 CADOCUMENTS AND SETTINGS\ TERI -S\ DESKTOP \AFFIDAVITOFDISTRIBUTION.DOC otd,a144 , e--/ ,/,/.41, 6" _ -< ee �6/Z .<. Project Name: :)/,� 5' i' - ' / Project Number: Mailer's Signature: '' � ' Mailing requested by: ii4 =-�" e C_ Was mailed to each of the addresses listed/attached on this 6 day of in the year 206 CADOCUMENTS AND SETTINGS\ TERI -S\ DESKTOP \AFFIDAVITOFDISTRIBUTION.DOC (10/30/2008) Rebecca Fox - Re: Rezone Ordinance From: Shelley Kerslake To: Rebecca @ci.tukwila.wa.us Date: 10/30/2008 2:26 PM Subject: Re: Rezone Ordinance CC: Asst- Atty @ci.tukwila.wa.us Rebecca - The ordinance looks fine. Should the Planning Commission want to grant the rezone, then they will have to make findings and conclusion of their own, demonstrating how the rezone complies with the criteria. Staff can draft those up and present them for adoption at their next meeting. Then those findings and conclusions are attached to the ordinance rather than the staff report. This will delay the ordinance getting to council. If this must go to council prior to the PC's next meeting, you can always take a recess and draft up some quick findings and conclusions and have them adopt them tonight. Please let me know if you have any other questions. Shelley Kerslake Kenyon Disend, PLLC 11 Front Street South Issaquah, WA 98027 425 - 392 -7090 »> Rebecca Fox 10/30/08 12:19 PM »> Shelley, Please take a look at this draft ordinance approving a rezone /comprehensive plan map change from Low Density Residential to Medium Density Residential. As we discussed yesterday, it's slightly modified from a rezone ordinance done last year. I've added a few mentions of the Comprehensive Plan map. The Planning Commission hearing is tonight. Staff has recommended against approval in its Staff Report. We don't know what the Planning Commission will do, but the ordinance will reflect their decision. This issue will go to the City Council for a hearing, and per Christy's request, the draft ordinance will be included with the agenda materials. She'd like this Monday, 11/4. Question: What to do if the Planning Commission denies the request? Do we still adopt staffs findings and conclusions in the ordinance? Other? Thanks! Rebecca Rebecca Page 1 Rebecca Fox - Provisional Commissioner Peterson comments for L07 -096 and L07 -097 From: To: Date: 10/29/2008 9:57 PM Subject: Provisional Commissioner Peterson comments for L07 -096 and L07 -097 CC: Rebecca, Page 1 of 1 In response to you 10/29/08 phone call request to possibly support the 10/30/08 meeting agenda items noted in the subject line of this email for the purposes of establishing a legal quorum to process this applicants request in a timely fashion, I have prepared the following question for DCD staff to research. In the event that my attendance /support is not required, I leave it to staff to determine the appropriate disposition for handling my comments (possibly discard, since I would not be part of the process and may be construed as indirectly influencing the outcome of deliberations). 1) Could you present a quick overview of the "Cottage Housing" option we have on the books and how / they may be applicable to this site, the number of units it would probably allow, and what zoning it _0, would require to implement at this site. h « 2) While the Park donation (western portion of subject lot) is not part of the decision, it is discussed in the report as a a potentially positive benefit to the city that may influence decision makers. Are there not also potentially negative impacts to the city taking ownership such as loss of property tax revenue, maintenance costs of the park, and limited access for construction/maintenance equipment? A balanced approach to the presentation of Pros /Cons of the park aspects should be considered. 3) Upon reading the staff report, it appears that preliminary estimates are that 8 LDR or 18 MDR units could be added to the housing stock in the city at this site, depending on the allowed zoning. If the LDR zoning is left to stand, it would seem that the difference would be 10 units (18- 8 =10), a relative small number of units to be absorbed by other areas. Is there a possible argument that the LDR zoning would not be economically viable so it wouldn't ever be built, so the actual units to be absorbed in other areas would be 18 (18- 0 =18)? If so, is there capacity available throughout the city to absorb this number of units and still meet our regional commitments to provide our fair share of housing? 1 4 r a .- 4) I'm not sure what "affordable housing" really means, but is there a appropriate level of it (whatever 4 _ .� that level may be) in the surrounding area to this property (unknown what distance would be required to be considered "surrounding ")? If there is a deficit of it, what zoning would be required of this lot to reduce the deficit? If it was MDR, is there available land elsewhere in the vicinity that could better absorb this "affordable housing ", such as vacant land or redevelopment of existing MDR and HDR zoned housing complexes? Could you kick this thought around the office and possibly bring the city's Human Services representative into your discussions. � /_' eix Lynn '(14- „� J f H 0-r c k �. �� . iS ,.Ts K-bnla't files• fir•\ 1 Prrm \YPI :rralnea \don QrlraAt„L_,,,o;1A2nn_,,(.1 1A c 1 1 4 1 G41 MILT nnnn 1 1 n /1nMnn0 r • Rebecca Fox - Details of Commissioner Peterson attendance of 10/30/08 meeting From: To: Date: 10/26/2008 10:41 PM Subject: Details of Commissioner Peterson attendance of 10/30/08 meeting CC: Wynetta, Page 1 of 2 I plan to attend to the 10/30/08 Planning Commission meeting at 7:00, but will only be supporting L08- 049. Per my previous email to J Pace, R Fox, and yourself, (see below), I will not be supporting L07- 097 & L07 -096 agenda items, which includes the associated 5:30 site visit. While I will not be supporting L07 -097 & L07 -096, I would like to point out a error in the staff report. Attachment K has a yellow outlined box titled "Sunwood Condos" that erroneously includes 4 single family residential homes /lots (one of which is mine) that are zoned LDR. If left uncorrected, this could confuse Planning Commisioners about the adjacent uses to the subject property. The only legal association of our short plat to Sunwood Condominiums is through King County recorded instrument 8301050687, which narrowly defines a storm water drainage easement across our property -and - reserves limited access for only emergency vehicles access through our property. Lynn Forwarded Message: From: "Peterson, Lynn E" <lynn.e.peterson @boeing.com> To: "Lynn Peterson" <lynnp4321 @comcast.net> Subject: FW: Commissioner Peterson notice of potential appearance of conflict of interest for L07 -096 and -097 Date: Mon, 23 Jun 2008 20:08:12 +0000 > > From: Peterson, Lynn E > Sent: Monday, June 02, 2008 9:49 AM > To: 'jpace @ci.tukwila.wa.us' > Cc: 'Wynetta Bivens'; 'rfox @ci.tukwila.wa.us' > Subject: Commissioner Peterson notice of potential appearance of > conflict of interest for L07 -096 and -097 > > Jack, > I noticed a DCD information board posted along 65th Ave for > L07 -096 and L07 -097 and stopped by the planning department to inquire > about what these were due to my close pr oximity to the lot in question > (approximately 122 feet from the corner of my lot). Assuming maximum > build out of the lot (HDR combined with offsite wetland mitigation), > this would have create a definate appearance of Conflict Of Interest file: / /C:\ temp\ XPGroWise\ 4904F22Dtuk- mail6300 -no 10013463351180451 \GW100001 ____ 10/27/200R i > (COI). After talking with Rebecca, it sounded like that the wetland > area was not under consideration for rezoning and thus the impacted > area would be farther away from my lot, although I suspect that it > would still be close enough to create the appearance of a conflict of > interest. In the event that these items make it to the Planning > Commission, I will probably excuse myself from participating on them > to avoid any appearance of a COI. > > Lynn Peterson Page 2 of 2 file: / /C: \temn\XPGrpW ise \4904F22Dtuk- mail6300 -no 10013463351180451 \GW I00001.... 10/27/2008 Raymond Carlstedt 3732 SW Southern Seattle, WA 98126 October 23, 2008 RE: Planning Commission Hearing and site visit, 10/30/08 Dear Mr. Carlstedt: Enclosed please find a copy of the Staff Report for the Planning Commission hearing at 7 p.m. on October 30, 2008. During the hearing, you will have an opportunity to speak directly to the Planning Commission about why your request should be approved. As referenced in the attached flyer which you were mailed, you are invited on a site visit with the Planning Commission prior to the hearing on October 30, 2008. Please meet at 5:30 p.m. at the flag pole at Tukwila City Hall on October 30, 2008. We will go on foot, and walk around your property and vicinity. The visit will last about 30 to 40 minutes. After the visit, there will be a break before the 7 p.m. hearing begins. Your issue will be the second item on the agenda. Please contact me at 206 - 431 -3683 if you have questions. Sincerely, Rebecca Fox Senior Planner Enc. Guy of Tukwila Department of Community Development Jack Pace, Director ) Jim Haggerton, Mayor Rf 1 10/23/2008 H: \Comn Plan 2007- 20081Woodland View 1.07 -096 & 1.07- 097\Ravmond Carlstedt -- transmit n.c.rennrt.dnc 6300 Southcenter Boulevard. Suite #100 o Tukwila. Washington 98188 o Phone. 206- 4. ?1 -. ?670 o Fay. 20h -4 11 -% , To: File Date: 10/1/08 NEW ADDRESS FOR RAYMOND CARLSTEDT Raymond Carlstedt 3732 SW Southern Seattle, WA 98126 • • City of Tukwila Endangered Species Act Screening Checklist Date: Applicant Name: Street Address: City, State, Zip: Telephone: Directions This Screening Checklist has been designed to evaluate the potential for your project to result in potential "take" of Chinook salmon, Coho salmon, or Cutthroat trout as defined by Section 9 of the Endangered Species Act. The checklist includes a series of "Yes" or "No" questions about your project, organized into four parts. Starting with Part A on Page 1, read each question carefully, circle "Yes" or "No," and proceed to the next question as directed by the checklist. To answer these questions, you may need to refer to site plans, grading and drainage plans, critical areas studies, or other documents you have prepared for your project. The City will evaluate your responses to determine if "take" is indicated. P: `,.Planning Forms\Applications\2007 Applications`ScpaPA- 12- 07.doc September 11, 2008 Rebecca Fox Senior Planner City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, Washington 98188 Dear Ms. Fox: • • STATE OF WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY, TRADE AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT 128 • i0"' Avenue SW • PO Box 42525 • Olympia, Washington 95504.2525 • (360) 725.4000 Thank you for sending the Washington State Department of Community, Trade and Economic Development (CTED) the following materials as required under RCW 36.70A.106. Please keep this letter as documentation that you have met this procedural requirement. City of Tukwila - Proposed amendments to the Comprehensive Plan Map from LDR to MDR on a 5.8 acre site and, amending the Capital Facilities element to add Fire to the list of uses funded by the General Fund and add Level of Service goals for Parks and for Fire services. These materials were received on 09/11/2008 and processed with the Material ID # 13431. We have forwarded a copy of this notice to other state agencies. If this is a draft amendment, adopted amendments should be sent to CTED within ten days of adoption and to any other state agencies who commented on the draft. If you have any questions, please call me at (360) 725 -3063. Sincerely, (fait 1 Rat Sam Wentz GIS Coordinator Growth Management Services Raymond E. Carlstedt 3921 S.W. 102 Seattle, WA 98146 September 8, 2008 RE: Request for Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Map amendments at 152xx 65 Avenue S., Tukwila Dear Mr. Carlstedt: This letter will update you on the next steps in the review process for your request for Comprehensive Plan and Zoning map amendments from Low Density Residential (LDR) to Medium Density Residential (MDR) at 152xx 65 Avenue South. Rf • City of Tukwila • Department of Community Development Jack Pace, Director 1. SEPA/Environmental Review due September 23, 2008: As I mentioned in my recent phone message to you, now that the City Council has referred to request to the Planning Commission, you will need to submit an application for SEPA/environmental review and complete an environmental checklist on your request. The completed application and checklist must be submitted to the Department of Community Development no later than September 23, 2008. An application form is included for your use. The fee is $615. The September 23, 2008 deadline must be met in order to keep your project scheduled for a hearing at the October 30, 2008 Planning Commission meeting (see #2 below.) Otherwise, the issue will be deferred until 2009. 2. Planning Commission Hearing on October 30, 2008: Your project is scheduled for a public hearing on October 30, 2008 at 7 p.m. in the Tukwila City Hall Council chambers, 6200 Southcenter Boulevard, Tukwila. At the hearing, the Planning Commission will take testimony from the public, the applicant and City Staff. You will have an opportunity to state your case to the Planning Commission at the hearing. It is your responsibility as the applicant to demonstrate to the Planning Commission the merits of your request, and why the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning 1 09/08/2008 Jim Haggerton, Mayor 6300 S o u t h c e n t e r D o i l d i e v a r d , ` u i i e " Yb' ' . ?ikk47a, ° asMing on ` tte ` `hone `206- 431 -3670 • Fax: 206 - 431 -3665 3. Comprehensive Plan Amendment Criteria: The Planning Commission will consider the following criteria as it makes its recommendation on the proposed Comprehensive Plan map amendment: • Describe how the issue is addressed in the Comprehensive Plan. • If the issue is not adequately addressed, is there a need for the proposed change? • Why is the proposed change the best means for 'meeting the identified public need? What other options are there for meeting the identified public need? • Why will the proposed change result in a net benefit to the community? 4. Zoning Map Amendment Criteria: The Planning Commission will consider the following criteria as it makes it recommendation on the proposed Zoning map change: • That the proposed amendment to the Zoning map is consistent with the goals, objectives and policies of the Comprehensive Plan; • That the proposed amendment to the Zoning map is consistent with the scope and purpose of this title and the description and purpose of the Zoning classification applied for; • That there are changed circumstances since the previous Zoning became effective to warrant the proposed amendment to the Zoning map; and, • That the proposed amendment to the Zoning map will be in the interest of the furtherance of the public health, safety, comfort, convenience and general welfare, and will not adversely affect the surrounding neighborhood, nor be injurious to other properties in the vicinity in which the subject property is located. 5. Planning Commission Recommendation and City Council Hearing: At the end of the hearing, the Planning Commission will deliberate and make a recommendation concerning your request. The recommendation will be forwarded to the Tukwila City Council for consideration. The Tukwila City Council will hold a public hearing, and make a final decision on whether or not to approve your request. 6. Comment letters: I am enclosing comment letters that were submitted for the July, 2008 City Council public meeting. You may contact me at 206 - 431 -3683 or via e-mail at rfoxci.tukwila.wa.us if you have questions about this letter. Sincerely, % o maps should be amended. In addition to speaking, you may submit a written statement in support of your position. Rf 2 09/08/2008 Q: \Comp Plan 2007 - 2008 \Woodland View L07 -096 & L07- 097 \SEPA &process.let9- 8- 08.doc Rebecca Fox Senior Planner Enc. go s Rf 3 09/08/2008 Q: \Comp Plan 2007 - 2008 \Woodland View L07 -096 & L07- 097 \SEPA &process.let9- 8- 08.doc ,4 Lr a- /;2 to W y C. 7 J( -,G ?.,7 f/ March 31, 2008 Raymond E. Carlstedt 3921 S.W. 102 St. Seattle, WA 98146 RE: Woodland View Incomplete Applications L07 -097 Comprehensive Plan amendment —LDR to MDR or HDR L0'i -096 Zoning Map —LDR to MDR or HDR Dear Mr. Carlstedt, Per your request for additional time, the City of Tuwkila will extend the deadline to submit complete applications for Comprehensive Plan amendment and zoning change until April 30, 2008. All required materials must be submitted by that time. We will not be able to give further extensions. For your reference, I am enclosing another copy of the letter and attachments that were sent to you on January 16, 2008. This details the information that is needed in order to complete your application. If you have questions, you may contact me at 206 - 431 -3683 or via email at rfox@ci.tukwila.wa.us. Sincerely, Rebecca Fox Senior Planner Enc. city of Tukwlla Jim Haggerton, Mayor Department of Community Development Jack Pace, Director Rf 1 04/01/2008 01Comn Plan 7nn7-9nnR\Wondland View 107 -096 R 1 07- n97 \Incmmnlete-- Fxtencinn 'i 30 OR dnr 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • Phone: 206 - 431 -3670 • Fax: 206- 431 -3665 December 28, 2007 Ray Carlsted 3921 SW 102 St. Seattle, WA 98146 RE: Estate of Al White Property 65 Street, City of Tukwila Dear Ray: s s The above referenced site was evaluated for wetlands. The site contains what appears to be two wetlands. A western Category 2 wetland that will be far from any development and the eastern Category 3 wetland. The eastern wetland determines the extent of development. The eastern edge of the east wetlands was flagged and surveyed. The wetland has been previously determined to be a Category 3 wetland with a standard 50 foot buffer. This letter serves as a preliminary report to assist the estate in marketing the property. A final report with all the necessary `q information will be provided when needed. The east edge of the eastern Category 3 wetland will have a 50 foot buffer, The land between the edge of the buffer and the street is developable with regards to wetlands. Buffer averaging my be used for a final lot layout. If you have any questions please feel free to call me. AJ Bredberg PWS, CPSS, CPSC 4369L2 3303 43rd St. NW • Gig Harbor, WA 98335, USA • 253.858.7055 • Fax: 253.858.2534 • ajb @wa.net I r■ January 23, 2008 Raymond E. Carlstedt 3921 S.W. 102 St. Seattle, WA 98146 RE: Woodland View L07 -097 Comprehensive Plan-- LDR to MDR or HDR L07- 096 — Zoning Map —LDR to MDR OR HDR Dear Mr. Carlstedt: On January 16, 2008, your applications for a Comprehensive Plan redesignation and zoning map changes located at 152xx 65 Avenue South have been found to be incomplete. To supplement the letter detailing the items that were required to complete your application and to assist you, I am also enclosing a map showing environmentally sensitive areas (wetlands, watercourses and steep slopes) that are located on the site. Upon receipt of the items that are required per the letter dated January 16, 2008, the City will re- review them for completeness and will mail you written notification of completeness or incompleteness within 14 days. Your applications for Comprehensive Plan map change, and rezone will expire if we do not receive the additional information within ninety days of the date of this letter unless an extension is granted pursuant to Section 18.104.070(E). If you have any questions about this matter, you may contact me at 206 - 431 -3683 or via e-mail at rfox @ci.tukwila.wa.us. Sincerely, 46ecest- re=>< Rebecca Fox Senior Planner • Cizy of Tukwila • Department of Community Development Jack Pace, Director NOTICE OF INCOMPLETE APPLICATION rf -1- Q: \Comp Plan 2007- 2008 \Woodland View L07 -096 & L07- 097 \Woodland View INCOMPLETE #2-- 1.23.08.DOC Jim Haggerton, Mayor 01/23/2008 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • Phone: 206 - 431 -3670 • Fax: 206 - 431 -3665 Slope Classifications 2 Landslide potential is moderate; slope is between 15% and 40% and underlain by relatively permeable soils. .. Landslide potential is high; slope is between 15% and 40% and EWAN 3 underlain by relatively impermeable soils or by bedrock; also includes all areas sloping more than 40 %. A Landslide potential is very high; includes sloping areas with mappable zones of groundwater seepage and existing mappable landslide deposits regardless of slope. :: Potential Wetlands Type 1 Wetland Type 2 Wetland Type 3 Wetland Type 1 Wetland Buffer (100) Type 2 Wetland Buffer (80) Type 3 Wetland Buffer (50) one inch equals approximately 150 feet 0 0 o Type 2 Stream r — Type 2 Stream in Pipe Type 3 Stream =Ex Type 3 Stream in Pipe Type 4 Stream mils Type 4 Stream in Pipe • 1 Type 2 Watercourse Buffer (1001 Type 3 Watercourse Buffer (80) Type 4 Watercourse Buffer (50) January 16, 2008 Raymond E. Carlstedt 3921 S.W. 102 St. Seattle, WA 98146 Dear Mr. Carlstedt: • Guy of Tukwila RE: Woodland View L07 -097 Comprehensive Plan -- LDR to MDR or HDR L07-096--Zoning Map —LDR to MDR OR HDR • Department of Community Development Jack Pace, Director NOTICE OF INCOMPLETE APPLICATION Your applications for a Comprehensive Plan redesignation and zoning map changes located at 152xx 65 Avenue South have been found to be incomplete. Please refer to the enclosed Complete Application Checklist; I have marked the items that were not included in your application and are required. In order to complete the applications, the following must be submitted to the permit center: 1. Public Notice Materials • Provide items 8, 9, and 10. I have enclosed handouts on Public Notice Sign specifications and Public Notice Mailing Label Specifications for your reference. 2. Project Description and Analysis • Provide item 12 to include two copies of both a complete wetland report and a geotechnical report. For your reference, I have enclosed guidelines for preparing a Wetland and Watercourse Study, and a Geotechnical Report. 3. Site Plan • Revise your existing site plan or prepare a new plan including all items 13 (a) through 13 (k). Your current plan omits required items 13(a), 13 (c), 13 (d) , 13(f), 13 (g), 13 (i), 13 (j) and 13 (k). rf -1- Q: \Comp Plan 2007 - 2008 \Woodland View L07 -096 & L07- 097 \Woodland View INCOMPLETE.1.16.08.DOC Jim Haggerton, Mayor 01/17/2008 6300 Southcenter Boulevard. Suite #100 • Tukwila. Washington 98188 • Phone: 206 - 431 -3670 • Fax: 206 - 431 -3665 These items were included as part of the application forms that you filled out Upon receipt of these items, the City will re- review them for completeness and will mail you written notification of completeness or incompleteness within 14 days. These applications will expire if we do not receive the additional information within ninety days of the date of this letter unless an extension is granted pursuant to Section 18.104.070(E). If you have any questions about this matter, you may contact me at 206 -431 -3683 or via e-mail at rfox @ci.tukwila.wa.us. Sincerely, �t�) 7 Rebecca Fox Senior Planner Enc. • rf - 2 - 01/17/2008 Q: \Comp Plan 2007 - 2008 \Woodland View L07 -096 & L07- 097 \Woodland View INCOMPLETE.1.16.08.DOC Check items with application Information Required. May be waived in unusual cases, upon approval of both Public Works and Planning i _e ■ yr4 yc .t. APPLICATION MATERIALS: ,�'' X 1. Application Checklist (1 copy) indicating ite!s.z.o ''z ;'. ed with application. 2. Completed Application Form and drawin:! (4 copies t applying for a Zoning Code Amendment do not duplicate materials). 3. Completed and notarized Affidavit of Ownership and Hold Harmless Permission to Enter Property (1 copy attached). 4. One set of all plans reduced to either 8 1/2" by 11" or 11" by 17 ". 5. Application Fee — $1,215. 6. Zoning Code Amendment with fee if requesting a map change, do not duplicate materials. 7. SEPA Environmental Checklist with fee once application is referred by the City Council to the Planning Commission for review. PUBLIC NOTICE MATERIALS: X 8. Payment of a $365 notice board fee to FastSigns Tukwila or Provide a 4' x 4' public notice board on site within 14 days of the Department determining that a complete application has been received (see Public Notice Sign Specifications Handout). a X 9. Payment of a $105 mailing label fee to the City of Tukwila or Provide two (2) sets of mailing labels for all property owners and tenants (residents or businesses) within 500 feet of the subject property. Note: Each unit in multiple - family buildings - -e.g. apartments, condos, trailer parks - -must be included (see Public Notice Mailing Label Handout). x 10. If providing own labels King County Assessor's map(s) which shows the location of each property within 500 ft. of the subject lot PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND ANALYSIS: 11. Provide a written response to the criteria listed at TMC 18.80.050 and 18.80.010 (included in packet). 12. Provide two copies of sensitive area studies such as wetland or geotechnical reports if needed per Tukwila's Sensitive Areas Ordinance (TMC 18.45). See Geotechnical Report Guidelines and Sensitive Area Special Study Guidelines (online at www.ci .tukwila.wa.us /dcd/dcdplan.htm) for additional information. SITE PLAN: I 13 (a) The site plan must include a graphic scale, north arrow and project name. Maximum size w V)eeieJ • P:\ Planning Forms\ Applications \2007 Applications \CompPlanChg- 12- 07.doc • COMPLETE APPLICATION CHECKLIST The materials listed below must be submitted with your application unless specifically waived in writing by the Public Works Department and the Department of Community Development. Please contact each Department if you feel that certain items are not applicable to your project and should be waived, or should be submitted at a later date for use at the public hearing (e.g. colored renderings). Application review will not begin until it is determined to be complete. ADDITIONAL MATERIALS MAY BE REQUIRED. The initial application materials allow starting project review and vesting the applicant's rights. However, they in no way limit the City's ability to require additional information as needed to establish consistency with development standards. City staff are available to answer questions about application materials at 206 - 431 -3670 (Department of Community Development) and 206 -433 -0179 (Department of Public Works). December 5, 2007 Checkitems r submitted i with application Information Required. May be waived in unusual cases, upon approval of both Public Works and Planning 24" x 36 ". (b) Existing and proposed building footprints. X (c) Vicinity Map with site location, does not have to be to scale. (d) Landscape areas sufficient to meet Zoning Code requirements, planting plan is not required. (e) Parking lots, driveways and access roads. (f) Loading and service areas. (g) Fences, rockeries and retaining walls (h) Proposed lot and tract lines if applicable. (i) Location of all tracts to be dedicated to any public or private purpose with notes stating their purpose X erg' (j) Plan showing the location of all sensitive areas (e.g. streams, wetlands, slopes over 15 %, coal mine areas and important geological and archaeological sites) and their buffers and setbacks. (k) Dash in setback distances required under proposed zoning from all parcel lot lines. OTHER: 14. Scalable building elevations of proposed structures with keyed colors and materials. Show mechanical equipment and/or any proposed screening. 15. A color and materials board representing the proposed project is optional. 16. A rendering is optional. If submitted it must accurately show the project and be from a realistic perspective (5 to 6 feet above the sidewalk). V► • P: \Planning Forms \Applications \2007 Applications \CompPlanChg- 12- 07.doc December 5, 2007 CITY OF TUKWILA Department of Community Development 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Tukwila, WA 98188 Telephone: (206) 431 -3670 FAX (206) 431 -3665 E -mail: tukplan @ci.tukwila.wa.us NAM(' NO "I ICE L,ABEI_. SPE_('IFI('ATIONs The City of Tukwila requires that neighboring residents, businesses and property owners be notified of certain types of development applications which are being considered by the City to facilitate timely and effective public participation in the review process. Applicants may opt to handle the research and creation of public notice mailing labels themselves or have the City provide them. The City charges a $105 fee at the time of permit application to create these labels. Alternately applicants who provide their own labels are required to submit the following materials: • Two sets of mailing labels listing the property owners of record, residents and businesses within 500 feet of the project property lines (not the property center). • One copy of a parcel map(s) showing the boundaries of the subject property and the 500 foot public notice area. • Property owner names and addresses can be obtained using the online King County Parcel Viewer tool at: http://www.metrokc.govigis/mapportal/PViewer mafii htm Use the Advanced Mode, navigate to your parcel, set the buffer distance to 500 feet, then use the select tool to click on the parcel. When the buffer map is displayed print a copy and click on "Download this list" to obtain the list of addresses. Alternately many title companies can provide property owner mailing labels. To obtain occupants/resident /business names and addresses, consult the Kroll maps located in the Tukwila Department of Community Development and do a field survey as directed. The information on the mailing labels may refer to "Resident" or "Tenant ", with the proper mailing address, if the specific names are unknown. P: \Planning Forms\ Applications \ MailL,abelliandout- 3 -07.aoc CITY OF TUKWILA Department of Community Development 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Tukwila, WA 98188 Telephone: (206) 431 -3670 FAX (206) 431 -3665 E- mail.: tulsplan(ivei.tukwila.wa.us PUBLIC NOTICE SIGN SPECIFICATIONS Public notice signs are intended to make the public aware of land use and development actions which are being considered by the City in order to facilitate timely and effective public participation in the review process. The notice board must remain on the site from the date of the Notice of Application until the expiration of the appeal period. City Coordination of Sign Process Applicants may opt to handle the creation, installation, posting and removal of public notice board signs themselves or have the City coordinate the process. When the City coordinates the notice sign process the applicant's responsibilities are to: • Once the application has been submitted to the City and a file number has been issued for the project contact FastSigns at (206)575 -2110, located in the Springbrook Business Park at 7825 S. 180 Street in Kent. • Provide the project site address and file number to FastSigns. • Pay a fee of $365 per notice sign required by the City directly to FastSigns. Generally only one sign is required, but large sites with multiple street frontages may require additional signs at an additional fee. • Pay FastSigns to repair, replace or reinstall any sign damaged due to weather conditions, vandalism etc. • The use of this option does not waive applicant's responsibility regarding public notice signs under City code. Once the application is declared complete the City will work directly with FastSigns to schedule the installation, posting and removal of the sign. If you have questions about the notification process please direct them to the project planner rather than FastSigns. Applicant Coordination of Sign Process Alternately, if the applicant wants to manage the process signs meeting the following criteria may be obtained from any professional sign company. Hand lettered signs are not acceptable. The applicant will be responsible for reinstalling the sign if it is made illegible, removed or otherwise destroyed prior to the date of the final Public Hearing or final action by the City of Tukwila. Failure to maintain the Notice Board in good condition is cause for the discontinuance of the review of the application until the Notice Board is replaced and remains in place for a specified time period. The applicant is also responsible for removing the sign at the end of the posting period. P: \Planning Forms\ Applications \SignSpecHandout- 12- 06.doc October 20, 2006 Sign Size and Placement Removal of Sign • • SIGN INSTALLATION AND SPECIFICATIONS Signs will be 1 -sided (single- faced) and made of 48" x 48" MDO, (paper- coated plywood) primed and painted with outdoor sign paint. Signs may be reused but they must be clean and show no evidence of former wording. The main body of the text and graphics will be screen printed or painted on the Sign, see Figure 1 for details. The changeable portion of the text (permit action, project name and file number) will be done in vinyl letters or silk screened on the sign. The posts will be 4" x 4" x 96" treated wood posts and the top of the sign will be 7 to 9 feet above grade. Sign will be mounted to the posts with galvanized brackets. Unless specifically directed by the City, applicant will locate each sign on the property parallel to and set back 5 feet from the public right of way or private road easement. The sign must be placed within the center two - thirds of the property frontage unless indicated otherwise by the City. The sign must be located to assure visibility from the public right of way or private road easement. The sign may not be located in the clear vision triangle, see Figure 2. The applicant must fabricate the sign, install it and return by fax or mail a notarized "Affidavit of Installation" to the City in order to start the public comment period. The sign must be removed within 7 calendar days of the end of the appeal period of the land use decision, unless an appeal is filed. If an appeal of the land use action is filed the sign must remain in place until after the appeal hearing, see Figure 4. P: \Planning Forms\ Applications \SignSpecHandout- 12- 06.doc October 20, 2006 State of Washington County of King City of Tukwila • • CITY OF TUKWILA Department of Community Development 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Tukwila, WA 98188 Telephone: (206) 431 -3670 FAX (206) 431 -3665 E -mail: tukplan @ci.tukwila.wa.us AFFIDAVIT OF INSTALLATION AND POSTING OF PUBLIC INFORMATION SIGN(S) I (PRINT NAME) understand that Section 18.104.110 of the Tukwila Municipal Code requires me to post the property no later than fourteen (14) days following the issuance of the Notice of Completeness. I certify that on the Public Notice Board(s) in accordance with Section 18.104.110 and the other applicable guidelines were posted on the property located at so as to be clearly seen from each right -of -way primary vehicular access to the property for application file number I herewith authorize the City of Tukwila or its representative to remove and immediately dispose of the sign at the property owner's expense, if not removed in a timely manner or within fourteen (14) days of a Notice letter. On this day personally appeared before me to me known to be the individual who executed the foregoing instrument and acknowledged that he /she signed the same as his /her voluntary act and deed for the uses and purposes mentioned therein. SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this day of , 20 P: \Planning Forms\ Applications \SignSpecHandout- 12- 06.doc October 20, 2006 Applicant or Project Manager's Signature NOTARY PUBLIC in and for the State of Washington residing at My commission expires on 8" Diameter 1.5" Lettering PROJECT NAME: FILE NUMBER: PERMIT ACTION: 3" Lettering, Red NOTICE OF LAND USE ACTION Leave 16" Clear for Posting Laminated Notices 1.5" Lettering TO SUBMIT COMMENTS OR OBTAIN ADDITIONAL INFORMATION, PLEASE CONTACT THE PROJECT PLANNER AT (206) 431 -3670 Tukwila Planning Division 6300 Southcenter Blvd. #100 Tukwila, WA 98188 1" Lettering FIGURE 1 REQUIRED CLEAR VISION AREA NO SIGNAGE ALLOWED _. . _ .1 _ Q 401 ♦1 � �e arty P: \Planning Forms \ Applications \ SignSpecHandout-12-06.doc October 20, 2006 FIGURE 2 Who Should Prepare the Wetland or Watercourse Sensitive Area Study? An applicant whose proposed action is on property that may contain a wetland or watercourse must submit a Sensitive Area Special Study under Tukwila Sensitive Areas Ordinance (Municipal Code 18.45.040). The study must be prepared by a qualified, experienced professional as required under the code (i.e., for wetlands - a Certified Professional Wetland Scientist or a professional with at least 2 years experience in wetland work; for watercourses, a professional hydrologist or other scientist with experience in watercourse assessments). What kind of information should be included in the Wetland or Watercourse Sensitive Area Study? The study must include the following information (as applicable). Note that the information in the Sensitive Area Study may be combined with studies required by other agencies /ordinances. 1. Applicant's name and contact information. 2. Description of the proposed action and identification of the permit(s) required. 3. Copy of the site plan with north arrow, scale and property lines showing: development proposal and dimensions, location of existing wetlands /watercourses, buffers and drainage features, clearing limits, proposed stormwater management plan, proposed plan for mitigating impacts, and topographical contours at two (2) foot intervals. 4. Names and qualifications of the professional(s) preparing the study. 5. Dates and description of the fieldwork carried out on the site. 6. Detailed characterization of the wetland/watercourse, and buffers, which will include: "Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States ", Cowardin, L., Carter, V., Goleth, F.C., and LaRoe, E.T., US Fish and Wildlife Service, office of Biological Services, Washington, D.C., 1979. CL q:\Forms\Sensitive Area Study Guidelines.doc Guidance for Preparation of Sensitive Areas Special Studies: Wetlands and Watercourses a. Wetland delineation report that includes methods used, field indicators evaluated and the results (wetland delineation must be performed in accordance with the Washington State Wetlands Identification and Delineation Manual, Washington Department of Ecology, March 1997). Field data forms are to be included in the report. Wetland boundaries are to be marked in the field with numbered stakes or flagging. These markers are to be shown on the site plan with their corresponding numbers indicated. After the City of Tukwila confirms the boundaries, they are to be professionally surveyed to the nearest square foot and the site plan modified as necessary. Exact wetland acreage will be calculated after the boundaries have been surveyed. b. Cowardin classification of the wetland(s).' Page 1 of 3 08/19/2005 12:13 PM Sensitive Area Study Requirements August, 2005 CL q:\Forms \Sensitive Area Study Guidelines.doc c. Hydrogeomorphic classification of the wetland(s). d. Characterization of the watercourse on site: flow regime, streambed, banks, dimensions, vegetation, habitat conditions, existing modifications. e. Brief landscape assessment of the wetland/watercourse (identify hydrologic basin/sub- basin, inlets, outlets, surrounding land use, habitat quality and connectivity, ultimate point of discharge, presence of culverts or other constraints to flow, relationship to other wetlands /watercourses adjacent to or potentially impacted by the proposed project, flow regime, surrounding land uses). f. Classification of the wetland/watercourse under Tukwila's Sensitive Area Ordinance Rating system (see TMC 18.45.080 for wetlands and TMC 18.45.100 for watercourses). g. Description of buffer size per TMC 18.45.080 E. and TMC 18.45.100 D., conditions (topographic considerations, existing vegetation types and density, habitat features, watercourse edges, presence of invasive species, etc.), and functions. h. Functional assessment of the wetland(s). For proposed wetland filling the Washington Functional Assessment Method (WAFAM) must be used. For proposed projects that will impact buffers, the Washington Wetland Classification System may be used as a functional assessment. i. Description of habitat conditions, wildlife /fish use of the sensitive area, including sensitive, threatened or endangered species. j. Citations of any literature or other resources utilized in preparation of the report. k. Description of adjacent land uses and ownership. 7. A statement verifying the accuracy and limitations of the study and the assumptions used. 8. Assessment of hazards, risks and impacts. An assessment of likely impacts to the wetland/watercourses must be performed and must include an evaluation of short-term, direct, indirect and cumulative impacts on the sensitive areas and their buffers and to neighboring properties. A description of the wetland/watercourse functions that will be lost as a result of implementing the project should be provided, as well as an evaluation of impacts to wildlife /fish, if applicable. 9. Description of development alternatives considered and efforts made to avoid and minimize adverse impacts (see TMC 18.45.090C regarding mitigation sequencing). 10. Description of proposed conceptual mitigation plan for offsetting impacts of the proposal. For wetlands, the consultant shall use as a guide the Department of Ecology "Guidance on Wetland Mitigation in Washington State, Part 2, Guidelines for Developing Wetland Mitigation Plans and Proposals, April 2004". The conceptual mitigation plan shall include the following: a. Rationale, mitigation goals, expected functions of completed mitigation; b. Amount of restoration/creation /enhancement proposed; c. Location and dimensions of proposed mitigation; d. Description of expected hydrology (and explanation of how this was determined); 2 "A Hydrogeomorphic Classification for Wetlands ", Brinson, M.M., Wetlands Research Program Technical Report WRP -DE-4, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi, 1993. Page 2 of 3 08/19/2005 12:13 PM Sensitive Area Study Requirements August, 2005 CL e. Description of means to stabilize relocated watercourse channels, actions to improve watercourse functions such as water quality, habitat, flood control, etc.; f. Preliminary planting plan and invasive plant control plan; and g. Timing and schedule. h. Recommended maintenance, monitoring (short-term and long - term), contingency plans, bonding measures for mitigation, per TMC 18.45.210. 11. Any additional technical information as required by the Director to assist in determining compliance with TMC Chapter 18.45. The applicant is responsible for obtaining all necessary jurisdictional determinations and permits from state and federal agencies and for providing this information to the City. q:\Forms \Sensitive Area Study Guidelines.doc Page 3 of 3 08/19/2005 12:13 PM Geotechnical Report Guidelines Approved 04.24.04 • • BULLETIN B4 GEOTECHNICAL REPORT GUIDELINES The City may require a geotechnical investigation and report based on the nature of the proposal. All of the following require a geotechnical investigation and report prepared by a Geotechnical Engineer'. 1. Unless waived by the Building Official: • All new buildings except a residential structure that falls under the International Residential Code • Any structure, including a rockery, that retains a surcharge • Any retaining structure, including a rockery, that is over four feet above existing grade • Grease interceptors that are 1000 gallons or larger • Surface water retention/detention structures 2. Unless waived by the Department of Community Development Director: • Any work on sites containing or adjacent to slopes that are 15% or steeper • Grading that requires environmental review under the State Environmental Policy Act 3. Unless waived by the Public Works Director • Surface water infiltration • Riverbank Stability (Ordinance 2038) • Hazardous Waste Facility Design The reporting requirements for single- family permits may be waived, if a report for the site meeting the City of Tukwila's criteria has been filed less than five years before the date of application and the Geotechnical Engineer who signed the report prepares a written letter stating the report is still applicable to the site and currently proposed project. Similarly, reporting requirements may be waived for single- family permits if the applicant can demonstrate, to the City's satisfaction, that soil or groundwater conditions at or near the site pose little or no risk for the project. The Geotechnical Engineer determines the actual scope of investigation, analysis, and reporting necessary to meet the Standard of Practice with respect to the project and its geotechnical requirements. The report must be stamped, signed and dated by the Geotechnical Engineer. This Bulletin should not be used as a substitute for codes and regulations. Your project will be reviewed for specific compliance to codes and regulations. • • BULLETIN B4 GEOTECHNICAL REPORT GUIDELINES The attached report outline describes the contents for elements in a geotechnical report. A report submitted to the City must contain each element in the outline. The actual content under each element will depend on the nature and complexity of the project and site conditions. For example, a single family residence on a glacial till site without groundwater issues warrants a short, simple report, while a high -rise structure with a deep excavation on an alluvial site warrants a longer, much more detailed report. The report should state "Not applicable" for each outline element that does not apply. For example, shoring and retaining walls would be "Not Applicable" if the project scope does not include these items. GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER means a practicing, professional civil engineer registered with the State of Washington, who has knowledge and practice of geotechnical engineering. GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING means the application of soil mechanics in the investigation, evaluation, and design of civil works involving the use of earth materials and the inspection or testing of the construction thereof. This Bulletin should not be used as a substitute for codes and regulations. Your project will be reviewed for specific compliance to codes and regulations. Geotechnical Report Guidelines Approved 0424.04 Geotechnical Report Guidelines Approved 04.24.04 • • GEOTECHNICAL REPORT CONTENTS CITY OF TUKWILA 1.0 SUMMARY The summary presents the major conclusions and their basis. This section should be included in all lengthy or complex reports. 2.0 INTRODUCTION The introduction sets the stage for the entire report and contains the following sections: 2.2 OVERVIEW • Introduce the formal project name, address and parcel numbers. • Describe briefly the current or previous work used to form the basis for the conclusions and recommendations contained in the report. 2.3 BACKGROUND • Describe the project's history when relevant to the reason for the investigation. • List other reports completed for the site or adjacent sites and note whether any environmental site assessments or other environmental work has been completed. • Describe the scope of work, including grading, retaining walls, structures, construction materials, and utilities. Include dimensions, quantities, proposed finish floor elevations, maximum depth of cut or fill, foundation and floor loads, etc. • Describe all assumptions that were relied upon to develop the conclusions and recommendations contained in the report. 2.4 PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF SERVICES • State succinctly the primary purpose for the geotechnical engineering services. . • Summarize the scope of geotechnical engineering services that form the basis for the • conclusions and recommendations contained in the report. • Indicate any limitations to the scope of geotechnical engineering services provided, particularly if the scope represents a departure from service typically provided on similar projects. 2.5 INVESTIGATIONS SUMMARY • Provide the dates, general nature, and extent of the geotechnical investigation. This section should include data research, borings, test pits, geophysics, physical laboratory testing, chemical testing, field instrumentation or testing, etc. • If the investigation was complex, present a complete and detailed explanation and results in the form of an appendix. 2.6 REPORT OVERVIEW • Introduce and describe other sections of the report, directing the reader to critical sections, if appropriate. , • Identify and describe all attachments and appendices. 1 • • GEOTECHNICAL REPORT CONTENTS CITY OF TUKWILA 3.0 SITE CONDITIONS Describe all site features relevant to the study and the geotechnical engineering conclusions and recommendations. Terminology should be clear and consistent, and continue to be consistent through the entire report. 3.1 LOCATION AND SURFACE CONDITIONS • Provide the cross streets, addresses and parcel numbers in order to locate the investigation. • Describe the site and adjoining properties, including surface elevation, topography and drainage. Clearly reference all elevations to the datum. • Provide current uses of the site and adjacent properties. • Identify all current structures, subsurface utilities, wells, manmade fills, and other surface features. • Describe vegetation, topsoil, paving, and other surface coverings. • Describe any indications of historic geological processes or hazards on or near the site (e.g., slope instability, landslides, liquefaction, flooding, etc.) • Describe any indications of surface releases or other contamination, or potential contamination sources. • Describe any planned changes to the surface conditions described above which will take place after the investigation. 3.2 GEOLOGIC SETTING • Provide an overview of regional geology, local stratigraphy, groundwater occurrence, etc. 3.3 SUBSURFACE SOIL CONDITIONS • Describe each soil or geologic unit encountered by their classification and group units with respect to the properties that are most relevant to the conclusions and recommendations. Give each unit group a unique, clear, common title and consistently refer to this unit by its given title throughout the report. • Provide important results of the laboratory physical property testing and its indications of soil behavior. • Provide design infiltration rate per the King County Surface Water Design Manual (EPA Falling Head procedure) • Avoid detailed descriptions of the sequence of units found in individual borings; rather, focus on variations in the units across the site, if appropriate. Refer the reader to the exploration logs for details. • Describe any expected changes in subsurface conditions that may occur with time after the investigation. Geotechnical Report Guidelines Approved 04.24.04 2 Geotechnical Report Guidelines Approved 04.24.04 3.4 GROUNDWATER CONDITIONS 3 GEOTECHNICAL REPORT CONTENTS CITY OF TUKWILA • Describe the nature and occurrence of groundwater. • Provide an opinion on likely seasonal variations in groundwater levels or flows, and the possibility for changes from those encountered at the time of exploration. • Show groundwater levels on soil logs. 33 SUBSURFACE CONTAMINATION • Describe the nature and extent of soil and/or groundwater contamination as revealed by the explorations. Reference any applicable Environmental Assessments if performed. • Provide important results of the analytical laboratory testing and indications about contamination distribution and concentration. • Indicate limitations of knowledge on the nature and extent of contamination. • Discuss possible changes that may occur in these conditions over time. 4.0 DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS The Discussion and Conclusions should set out major geotechnical issues and alternative for the project, along with the Geotechnical Engineer's conclusions, in a succinct and clear manner. This section shall clearly describe the logic and reasoning supporting the recommended approach, or alternative approaches. Specific recommendations shall be very limited in this section; they should be presented in a separate Recommendations section. Discussions and conclusions should: • Build on information described in the previous sections. • Describe project features, soils, and construction materials using consistent terminology. • Explain any apparent inconsistencies in the data or investigations. • Describe clearly any limitations or restrictions to the conclusions and recommendations. 4.1 SLOPE STABILITY • Summarize data and analysis used to evaluate slope stability. • Provide an opinion regarding the risk of instability on the site or adjacent properties currently, during construction, and after the project is completed. • Describe how design and construction recommendations will reduce or eliminate the risk of instability. • Discuss any construction or post - construction measures necessary to verify slope stability. 4.2 SEISMIC CONSIDERATIONS • Provide an opinion on the expected level of ground motion during a major earthquake. • Describe any seismic risks associated with an earthquake such as liquefaction, lateral spreading, landslides, or flooding. • Describe how design and construction recommendations will reduce or eliminate the impact of seismic risks. 4.3 SITE WORK • Describe proposed site grading and earthwork and provide an opinion on the proper sequence and approach to accomplish the site work. • Describe key issues which will impact earthwork, including short-term slope stability, on -site and import fill materials, groundwater and drainage, rainfall and moisture sensitive soils, and erosion. • Describe how these . key issues should be addressed during construction, including dewatering, temporary retaining structures, and erosion control. • Include specific recommendations for on: site erosion control based on soil erodability and the presence of groundwater, surface water, and slopes. • Include statements regarding the importance of construction monitoring by a geotechnical engineering firm. 4.4 RETAINING STRUCTURES • Recommend appropriate temporary retaining systems. • Recommend the most appropriate permanent retaining system or systems and describe their expected performance with respect to stability and deflection. • Summarize the data and analysis used to evaluate permanent retaining systems. • Clearly define all limitations on backfill materials, reinforcement, and drainage. For reinforced soil slopes and reinforced soil backfill. • Describe the limitations on describe the limitations on such systems. • Emphasize any aspects or site work, particularly with respect to native soil materials, backfill, and drainage, which could impact performance of the retaining structures. • Include statements regarding the importance of construction monitoring by a geotechnical engineering firm. 4.5 ROCKERIES • Emphasize that rockeries usually protect a slope face from erosion. Indicate which rockeries will protect the slope face by preventing soil erosion and sloughing. • Include the design criteria for rockeries that serve as retaining structures. Indicate which rockeries will function as retaining structures. • Recommend locations for rockeries such that a contractor can reach them for maintenance and repair. • Discuss what type of inspection and testing may be required during rock wall construction. Geotechnical Report Guidelines Approved 04.24.04 o • GEOTECHNICAL REPORT CONTENTS CITY OF TUKWILA 4 4.6 FOUNDATION SUPPORT • Summarize the data and analysis used to evaluate foundation systems. • Provide an opinion on the most appropriate foundation system and alternatives, along with the expected level of performance with respect to load capacity and settlement. • Emphasize any aspects of site work that could impact the performance of foundations. • Includes statements regarding the importance of construction monitoring by a geotechnical engineering firm. 5.0 RECOMMENDATIONS The Recommendations should present all detailed geotechnical engineering recommendations for design and construction in a clear and logical sequence. For each item covered in the recommendations sections, present the following: • Specific design recommendations along with their limitations, factors of safety, minimum dimensions, and effect of expected variations in actual conditions. • Specific construction recommendations including definitions, materials, execution, monitoring testing, or other quality control measures, and any other construction requirements to support the design recommendations. • Responsibility for seeing that each recommendation is met, such as owner, geotechnical engineer, other design consultants, or contractor. The owner of the project holds the ultimate responsibility; however, all design parties have shared responsibility. Construction responsibilities are directly related to the contractor. 5.1 SITE GRADING AND EARTHWORK • Provide specific design recommendations for 1) depth of stripping, 2) soil excavation limits and slopes, 3) depth and lateral limits of over - excavation to remove unsuitable materials, 4) preload fills, 5) location and thickness of particular fill material or compaction requirements, 6) maximum temporary and permanent slopes, 7) permanent surface and subsurface drainage systems, and 8) permanent erosion controls. • Provide specific construction recommendations for 1) clearing, 2) on -site and/or import fill materials, 3) excavation and compaction equipment, 4) fill material moisture conditioning, placement, and compaction, 5) proo €rolling, in -place density testing, and other quality control measures, 6) temporary seepage and drainage control measures, 7) permanent surface of subsurface drainage system installation (as appropriate), and 8) temporary slope protection and erosion control measures. • All design and construction methodologies should be specific and identifiable; no generalized or vague statements are acceptable. 5.2 TEMPORARY SHORING AND RETAINING WALLS • Provide specific design recommendations for 1) active and passive earth pressures, 2) surcharge pressures, 3) bearing capacity, 4) minimum or maximum dimensions and depth of Geotechnical Report Guidelines Approved 04.24.04 • • GEOTECHNICAL REPORT CONTENTS CITY OF TUKWILA 5 penetration, 5) lateral support, 6) wall or backfill drainage systems, and 7) any other appropriate structured details. • If appropriate, provide specific design recommendations for tie -back anchors including 1) anchor inclination, 2) no load zones, 3) minimum anchor length, 4) anchor bond zone, 5) anchor adhesions, and 6) corrosion protection. • Provide specific construction recommendations for 1) installation, 2) on-site and/or import backfill materials, 3) backfill material moisture conditioning, placement, and compaction, 4) in -place density testing or other control measures, and 5) seepage and drainage control. • If appropriate, provide construction recommendations for tie -back anchors including 1) anchor installation methods, 2) anchor testing, and 3) monitoring. 5.3 ROCKERIES • Provide recommendations as outlined in the Associated Rockery Contractors (ARC) Standard Rock Wall Construction Guidelines (December 1992). • The geotechnical engineer should provide direct input to the design of the rockeries and provide construction monitoring and testing as appropriate. Specific design parameters may include: Rock quality, density, frequency of testing, slopes, keyways, surcharges, drainage, rock sizes, face inclination, and surface drainage. 5.4 REINFORCED SOIL STRUCTURES • Geogrid or geotextile fabric may be used to reinforce a fill. Reinforcement results in a more stable slope and helps reduce the risk of significant long -term maintenance. If reinforced slopes are used, the geotechnical engineer should specify, at a minimum, the fill soil materials, vertical spacing of the reinforcement, the specific type of reinforcement and the distance to which it must extend into the fill, the amount of overlap at reinforcement joints, and the construction sequence. Additional design parameters will be required for each specific site. 5.5 STRUCTURE AND FOUNDATIONS • Provide seismic design recommendations for 1) Building Code soil type and Site Coefficients, and 2) any specific recommendations to reduce the risk of damage due to earthquakes. • Spread footing foundations — provide design recommendations for 1) bearing soils, 2) bearing capacity, 3) minimum footing depths and widths for both interior and exterior footings, 4) lateral load resistance, 5) foundation drainage systems, and 6) frost protection. • Mat foundations — provide design recommendations for 1) bearing soils, 2) bearing capacity, 3) modulus of subgrade reaction, 4) minimum dimensions, and 5) lateral load resistance. • Pile foundations — provide design recommendations for 1) type of pile, 2) means of support (end of friction), minimum dimensions and depths, 4) allowable vertical and uplift capacity, 5) allowable lateral loads and deflections, and 6) group effects and minimum spacing. Geotechnical Report Guidelines Approved 04.24.04 • GEOTECHNICAL REPORT CONTENTS CITY OF TUKWILA 6 • • GEOTECHNICAL REPORT CONTENTS CITY OF TUKWILA • Spread footing or mat foundations — provide construction recommendations for 1) foundation subgrade preparation and protection, 2) verification of bearing capacity, and 3) installation of foundation drainage system. • Pile foundations — provide construction recommendations for 1) pile driving equipment, 2) pile installation, 3) pile load tests or verification piles, and 4) monitoring and testing during pile installation. 5.6 FLOORS • Slab-on-Grade Floors — provide design recommendations for 1) slab base rock thickness, 2) capillary break, 3) vapor barrier, and 4) floor system drainage. • Supported Wood Floors — provide design recommendations for 1) vapor barrier and 2) crawl space drainage. • Slab-on-Grade Floors — provide construction recommendations for 1) subgrade preparation, 2) slab base rock placement and compaction, 3) capillary break and vapor barrier installation, and 4) floor drainage system installation (if appropriate). 5.7 PAVEMENTS • Provide design recommendations for 1) pavement design section, and 2) pavement drainage. • Provide construction recommendations for 1) pavement subgrade preparation and verification, and 2) pavement base and subbase materials, placement, and compaction. 5.8 UTILITIES • Provide construction recommendations for 1) utility excavation, 2) bedding material placement, and 3) backfill material, placement, and compaction. 5.9 DRAINAGE • Recommend provisions for subsurface drainage at walls, floors, and footings. • Evaluate permanent and temporary surface and subsurface drainage for both walls and floors if applicable. Provide approximate flow rates in gallons per minute and pipe sizes if required by design. • Provide design and recommendation for infiltration facilities, including setbacks from steep slopes per the King County Surface Water Design Manual, Chapter 5 5.10HAZARDS • Present additional information if natural or man -made hazards exist on the property. The City's Sensitive Areas maps and the Comprehensive Surface Water Management Plan delineate hazards such as wetlands, streams and flood hazard, erosion, landslide, and coal mine. Recommendations should be general and further studies may be required. Geotechnical Report Guidelines Approved 04.24.04 7 6.0 FIGURES AND ILLUSTRATIONS Geotechnical Report Guidelines Approved 04.24.04 • GEOTECIJNi ICAL REPORT CONTENTS CITY OF TUKWILA I. VICINITY MAP Include a Vicinity or Location Map that presents adequate street and/or other physical references to allow clear identification of the project location. This map may be an individual figure or may be included on the Site Plan. 2. SITE PLAN Show the project boundaries, property lines, existing features and the proposed development and structures. A north arrow and scale should be included along with all subsurface exploration locations. The accuracy of exploration locations should be indicated on the Site Plan or in the report. 3. EXPLORATION LOGS Include logs of all explorations describing soil units encountered, soil classification, density or stiffness, moisture conditions, groundwater levels, stratigraphic sequence, common geologic unit name, and other descriptive information. 4. LABORATORY TEST DATA Include figures or tables of laboratory test results if presentation of all the data, in the text, would require more than a simple paragraph to supplement the data provided in the exploration logs. 5. CROSS SECTIONS Include cross sections to visually pre ;ent all but the simplest subsurface conditions. 6. TYPICAL DETAILS Include figures, graphs, and other visual aids to clearly present detailed recommendations. Provide design details (stamped by a professional engineer) on drawings such as: rockeries, reinforced earth, interceptor trenches, wall and footing drains, utility backfill, and other details used for a particular design. 8 1 Geotechnical Report Guidelines Approved 04.24.04 GEOTECHNICAL REPORT CONTENTS CITY OF TUKWILA STANDARDS FOR SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSES 1. STUDY REQUIREMENTS a) The geotechnical engineer should review and evaluate the stability of natural, temporary, and permanently constructed slopes on or adjacent to the property to be developed. Such review should, at a minimum, include: • Review of published geologic data referencing or including the site. • Review of previous studies of the site performed by geotechnical engineers. • Reconnaissance of the site for signs of slope instability. b) Where such review indicates that the proposed development would reduce slope stability, or that the natural slopes may have a factor of safety of less than 2.0 (static case) or 1.5 (seismic case), then the geotechnical engineer shall perform additional, more detailed review and evaluation of the stability of the slope. Such additional review and evaluation should, at a minimum, include: • Drilling and sampling of test borings to a depth necessary for the evaluation of slip surfaces with factors of safety lower than the above criteria, or to at least 15 feet or 10 percent of the slope height (whichever is less) beyond the most critical slip surface for the design. • Laboratory shear testing of soil samples which are representative of all significant zones or layers of soil and/or rock through which the potential slip surfaces pass. • Performing a limit equilibrium analyses or other approved analyses of all significant critical slip surfaces associated with the slope. Approved analyses may be conducted by a computer program if the methodology and assumptions are clearly delineated and the name, version number, and solution methodology of the program are clearly presented in the report. All analyses should include a cross section of the slope(s) and critical slip surfaces. c) Other analyses as required by the City. 9 2. DESIGN REQUIREMENTS • GEOTECHNICAL REPORT CONTENTS CITY OF TUKWILA For a limit equilibrium analysis, design factors for safety of slopes will be no less than the following: The analysis should consider the impacts of groundwater in the modeling of soil strength and density parameters, and in other ways considered appropriate by the engineer. A conservative wet season analysis should be used for permanent slopes and those temporary slopes which will be constructed anytime between October 1 and May 31. Alternative analyses may be proposed by the geotechnical engineer and accepted by the City, if they are based upon accepted and published methodologies which evaluate static and dynamic loading cases, and the consequences of the type of slope failure under consideration. Other design requirements remain the same. 1 Permanent slopes termed "Low Threat Upon Failure" are those slopes whose failure will not impact buildings or other structures uninhabited by humans. 2 Permanent slopes termed "High Threat Upon Failure" are those slopes whose failure will impact or have a reasonable engineering probability or impacting buildings or other structures inhabited by humans. Geotechnical Report Guidelines Approved 0424.04 10 Temporary Slope Permanent Slope Low Threat Upon Failure i High Threat Upon Failure 2 Static 1.25 1.40 1.50 Seismic (dynamic) 1.05 1.10 1.15 2. DESIGN REQUIREMENTS • GEOTECHNICAL REPORT CONTENTS CITY OF TUKWILA For a limit equilibrium analysis, design factors for safety of slopes will be no less than the following: The analysis should consider the impacts of groundwater in the modeling of soil strength and density parameters, and in other ways considered appropriate by the engineer. A conservative wet season analysis should be used for permanent slopes and those temporary slopes which will be constructed anytime between October 1 and May 31. Alternative analyses may be proposed by the geotechnical engineer and accepted by the City, if they are based upon accepted and published methodologies which evaluate static and dynamic loading cases, and the consequences of the type of slope failure under consideration. Other design requirements remain the same. 1 Permanent slopes termed "Low Threat Upon Failure" are those slopes whose failure will not impact buildings or other structures uninhabited by humans. 2 Permanent slopes termed "High Threat Upon Failure" are those slopes whose failure will impact or have a reasonable engineering probability or impacting buildings or other structures inhabited by humans. Geotechnical Report Guidelines Approved 0424.04 10 • • V il%15) 0 o �I REPORT (?. 411° GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING SERVICES ALPINE ESTATES TUKWILA, WASHINGTON FOR LOURIE CONTRACTING, INC. AAA)) )‘-)6341 �0 1, t igt t ll't'I 1 Lourie Contracting, Inc. `;78 Industry Drive Seattle, Washington 98188 Attention: Mr. Dan Lourie Gentlemen: services for the project site is Plan, Figure 1. Mapletree Park to the north, apartment complex to the south. and is currently undeveloped. INTRODUCTION This report presents the results of our geotechnical engineering proposed Alpine Estates plat in Tukwila, Washington. The located west of 65th Avenue South, as shown in the Site Authorization for our services was confirmed by Mr. Dan Lourie of Lourie Contracting, Inc. by countersignature of our letter of March 8, 1989. The configuration and location of the proposed plat is shown on Fit,ure 1. The property is bordered by 62nd Avenue South to the west, 65th Avenue South to the The April 24, 1989 Report Geotechnical Engineering Services Alpine Estates Tukwila, Washington File No. 1559 -01 -7 Cun.ultinl; Grulechnic:d F:ngiucer.:uld ( :rulugi.ts east, and an parcel covers approximately 6 acres The access roadway is planned from 65th Avenue South. We understand that the preliminary plans include balancing cuLS and fills at approximately Elevation 158. This will require cut slopes approximately 40 feet high and fills of approximately 15 feet above existing grades. Sixteen lots are included in the preliminary plat. G l'(l 6 V, (; I1 g in e u s Lourie Contracting, Inc. April 24, 1989 Page 2 • • SCOPE The purpose of our services is to develop general geotechnical design criteria for site development. Separate studies may be appropriate for individual residences, depending upon the specific design requirements of each structure related to each lot. Specifically, the scope of our services includes: I. Exploring subsurface soil and ground water conditions with a series of backhoe excavated test pits. 2. Performing limited laboratory testing for evaluation of soil types. 3. Providing recommendations for grading and filling, including specifications for compaction. 4. Providing recommendations for roadway subgrade support. 5. Providing recommendations for drainage and erosion control. 6. Developing foundation design recommendations including allowable soil bearing pressures and settlement performance estimates. SITE CONDITIONS SURFACE CONDITIONS The ground surface generally slopes down to the south, as shown in Figure 1. Two large low lying areas are present on the site. One of these is located in the south central part of the site; the other is located at the west end of the site and contains a drainage course flowing northwest to southeast. Both areas contained standing water at the time of our field work. . The site is sparsely wooded, consisting generally of cedars, Douglas firs, and maples. Undergrowth includes blackberries, ferns and tall brush. We did not observe indications of soil movement on the site. FIELD EXPLORATIONS Subsurface conditions were explored by excavating 14 test pits at the locations shown in Figure 1. Test pit locations were determined by pacing from existing features. Elevations at the test pits were determined by Lourie Contracting, Inc. Apt . i 1 24, 1989 Page 3 o • interpolation between contours on the plan provided. Locations and elevations should be considered accurate only to the degree implied by the methods used. Test pits were excavated using a track — mounted backhoe. The test pits were logged in the field by an engineer from our firm who identified the various soil strata encountered, obtained representative samples from the test pits, observed ground water seepage conditions, and maintained a detailed log of each test pit. The soils were visually classified in general accordance with the system described in Figure 2. Logs of the test pits are presented in Figures 3 through 8. The two low lying areas were inaccessible with the track — mounted backhoe. These areas were explored by hand probing. The probe consists of threaded 3/8 —inch diameter steel rods with a 3/4 —inch diameter sampler attached to the tip. Samples from the test pits were examined in our laboratory to confirm field classifications. Moisture contents were measured on samples from the test pits to evaluate the general workability of the soils in their existing state. Results of these tests are presented in Figure 9. SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS The site is mantled, in most of the areas we were able to observe, with a layer of dark brown topsoil having a thickness ranging from 0.3 to 1.0 feet. In the upper, northerly portion of the site (above Elevation 150), a unit of medium dense to dense silty sand with occasional gravel was encountered underlying the topsoil. This unit varies from 2 to 6 feet thick in the test pits and is underlain by bedrock. The bedrock appears to be a sandstone and siltstone conglomerate. The explorations encountered a weathered zone up to 6 feet thick underlain by competent bedrock at depths of 3.5 to 12 feet. 1 it'i 1 40 411ICCFS Lowrie Contracting, Inc. April 24, 1989 Page 4 • • In the lower portion of the site, loose, wet silty sand and soft, we! , sandy silt was encountered to depths of 2.5 to 10 feet. Some of the explorations ended with refusal in bedrock, while others could not be deepened because of severe caving. In the lowlying areas, the hand probe explorations encountered between 2 and 12 feet of peat and organic silt overlying 2 to more than 10 feet of soft silt. The total depth of soft soils in the explorations varied from 2 to more than 16 feet. No ground water seepage was observed in the explorations located above approximately Elevation 150. Explorations in the lower portion of the site encountered ground water at depths of 0.5 to 4 feet. We expect that: the ground water levels will fluctuate seasonally. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS GENERAL Most of the site is suitable for construction of residences in our opinion, provided our recommendations are followed with regard to earthwork, drainage, and foundation support. We expect that conventional construction procedures will be satisfactory for dealing with these elements of the work. Based on site conditions, we recommend against deveLopment of the westerly low lying area in proposed Lots 8 and 9. A geotechnical engineering review of the design of individual residences is recommended. We recommend that a representative from GeoEngineers, Inc. b present during site preparation and earthwork to observe the work and to evaluate whether our recommendations are being implemented properly and to provide additional consultation as needed. SITE PREPARATION AND EARTHWORK We recommend that site preparation and earthwork be accomplished .during periods of prolonged dry weather. The on —site soils are moisture sensitive and will become very difficult to work during wet weather. If these activities must take place during wet weather, we recommend that measures be implemented to reduce disturbance and softening of the soils, Lourie Contracting, Inc. April 24, 1989 Pkge • for example from construction traffic and precipitation. These measures may include stabilizing the subgrade with filter fabric, covering; stockpiled fill with visqueen and placing gravel and crushed rock for temporary access roads. Building, driveway and access road areas should be cleared of vegetation and stripped of topsoil or disturbed silty soils prior to placing fill. We expect that the depth of stripping will generally be about 6 to 18 inches. A greater depth of stripping may be necessary during wet periods since it is probable that the subgrade soils will be disturbed. The stripped material may be reused for landscaping purposes. We recommend that the native soils exposed by stripping within building, driveway and access road areas be proofrolled with a loaded dump truck or heavy compaction equipment. The proofrolling should aid in detecting any soft areas which may require further excavation before fill placement. During wet weather, proofrolling and compaction of native soils will not be practical and identification of soft zones should be done by probing. We recommend that all fill in building and roadway areas be placed as structural fill. Structural fill may consist of on -site clean to silty sand and gravel and /or imported clean pit run sand and gravel. The fill should not contain material larger than 6- inches in size or deleterious materials such as debris, wood or organic matter. During placement in wet weather, fill soil should contain less than 5 percent fines (material passing No. 200 sieve) by weight relative to the fraction finer than the 3/4 -inch sieve. A higher percentage of fines (not exceeding 12 percent) in the soil may be practical for placement during periods of prolonged dry weather. Structural fill should be placed in loose lifts less than 10- inches in thickness. Each lift should be appropriately moisture conditioned and compacted to the specified density using heavy vibratory compaction equipment. The upper 5 feet of structural fill placed in building pad (Iti i I'.I II I It t'l :� Lourie Contracting, Inc. April 24, 1989 Page b • • areas should be compacted to 95 percent of the maximum dry density determined in general accordance with ASTM D -1557 test procedures. Deeper till should be compacted to at least 90 percent. The on -site soils contain a high percentage of fines and are well above the optimum moisture content for compaction. We recommend that on- site soils not be used as structural fill unless the material can be successfully dried during long periods of dry weather. Drying the soil may require spreading the soil into thin, loose lifts and allowing it to air riry. SLOPE CUTS Based on our observations and explorations, we recommend that all permanent slope cuts be no steeper than 2:1 (horizontal to vertical). However, it appears that much of the proposed cuts would be in rock. Steeper slopes may be appropriate below the weathered zone of the rock. This would require verification by additional explorations or by field examination as the cuts are made. The rock obtained from the cuts may be suitable for use onsite such as roadway foundation material. This will depend on the size and quality of the excavated material. Excavation of the rock to the depths anticipated is considered to be feasible using ripping techniques provided extra heavy equipment is used and there is opportunity to work towards a slope or face. We recommend that the sides of any temporary excavations other than shallow drainage ditches be sloped no steeper than 1 -1/2:1 (horizontal to vertical). Permanent cut slopes in structural fill should be made at 2:1 or flatter. All slopes, whether in rock or soil, should be hydroseeded as soon as possible after cutting to minimize erosion. SOU711 CENTRAL LOW AREA Prior to placing fill in the low lying area in the south central part of the site, we recommend removing part or all of the soft soils. Based on our explorations, the area below approximately elevation 142 is I • • t It'' ko l'.I i 1 It'l'C1 Lourie Contracting, Inc. April 24, 1989 Page 7 underlain by soft soils to depths ranging from 2 to over 16 feet; however, the actual limits of the excavation will have to be determined during the excavation. We recommend that this area be drained prior to excavating and replacing the soft soils. The explorations encountered two types of soft soils. The upper soil i layer consists of brown organic silt and peat and the lower soil layer t consists of gray soft silt. We recommend that either of the two options below be used in this area. I Option 1: Remove all of the peat and organic silt prior to placing fill. After removing the upper organic soils, a drainage blanket should I be installed over the remaining gray soft silt. The blanket should consist of a layer of non -woven geotextile filter fabric such as Mirafi I 160N or equivalent, 2 to 2 -1/2 feet of washed gravel, quarry spalls, or coarse sand, and another layer of filter fabric. The blanket is to allow water to escape from the soft silt during the consolidation process, and it should extend to the edges of the fill. The drainage blanket would also serve as a working surface for subsequent lifts of structural fill. As an alternative to the drainage blanket, prefabricated wick drains (such as Alidrain by Burcan Industries) may be installed after the fill is in place. If wick drains are selected, the initial lift of fill should be at least 2 feet thick and be static rolled to a nonyielding condition 1 prior to placing subsequent lifts of structural fill. We recommend that building areas overlying the soft silt be prepared as described in the 1 SURCHARGE and SITE PREPARATION AND EARTHWORK sections. Option 2: Remove the gray soft silt in addition to the peat and organic silt. After the soft silt is removed, structural fill may be ! placed to the desired grade. If all of the soft soils are removed, the surcharge would not be required. i i Lourie Contracting, Inc. April 24, 1989 Page 8 SURCHARGE If the soft silt is not excavated from the low lying area in the south central part of the site, we recommend that building areas overlying the soft silt (preliminary Lots 12, 13 and part of 14) be surcharged to accelerate the settlement that will occur due to the weight of the structural fill and the proposed buildings. This will reduce future settlements. If the same material used for structural fill is also used for the surcharge, the surcharge portion may be used as structural fill in the other areas. We recommend using at least 3 feet of surcharge above the antici- pated final grade. The crest of the surcharge should extend a minimum of 15 feet outside of the anticipated building lines. We expect up to 40- inches of settlement from the weight of the surcharge and the struc- tural fill. The surface elevation of the fill should be maintained during the surcharge period by adding additional fill as necessary. The surcharge should be monitored to evaluate the magnitude and rate of settlement. This data will be essential to evaluate whether con- solidation of the underlying soils has slowed sufficiently to allow removal of the surcharge. We will develop a settlement monitoring plan if this option is selected. We anticipate the surcharge to be in place from 8 to 12 weeks. ROADWAY SUPPORT Pavement subgrade areas should be prepared as described under SITE PREPARATION AND EARTHWORK. We recommend that part or all of the soft soils underlying the proposed roadway alignment be excavated as described under SITE PREPARATION AND EARTHWORK prior to placing the roadway fill. If the soft silt is not removed, we recommend that the roadway not be surfaced until after the settlement data described under SURCHARGE indicate that the majority of the settlement has occurred. If the roadway is surfaced too soon, there is a risk of damage to the pavement due to differential settlement. t<< `�E.E ltilll l't l I.ourie Contracting, Inc. April 24, 1989 Page 4 o • The pavement subgrade soil should be compacted such that the upper 2 feet of soil attains at least 95 percent of maximum dry density. Fill placed deeper than 2 feet below subgrade in roadway areas should be compacted to at least 90 percent. Access roads and paved areas should be underlain by a subbase of at least 6 inches of sand and gravel or crushed rock containing less than 5 percent fines by weight. DKA INAGE We recommend that surface runoff be tied into a storm drainage system. Concentrated runoff should be prevented from flowing over the top of slopes. Roof, pavement and foundation drains should be connected to a tightline disposal system. Roof and foundation drains should NOT be combined around the structures. A permanent subsurface drainage system should be installed around the building footings. The system should consist of perforated drains located at the outside base of the perimeter footings. These drains should consist of perforated PVC pipe surrounded by 6 inches of pea gravel wrapped in appropriate filter fabric and connected by a tightline t.o an appropriate disposal point. FOUNDATION SUPPORT Provided the lowlying area is treated as described in our report, shallow spread footings are recommended in all areas of the site. Spread footings should be founded on the medium dense to dense silty sand and weathered rock or on compacted structural fill. The footings should be founded at least 18- inches below the lowest adjacent grade. We recommend that basements not be constructed in the fill areas without additional evaluation by our firm. We recommend that continuous and isolated foundations be designed with minimum widths of 16 and 24-inches respec- tively. For foundations designed and constructed as described above, we recommend an allowable bearing pressure of 2000 pounds per square foot applicable to the total of all dead and real live loads, exclusive of the weight of the footing. For total loads, including wind or seismic, the allowable bearing pressure may be increased by one - third. Lourie Contracting, Inc. April 24, 1989 Pages 10 • • Settlement of the foundations from elastic compression should be less than 1/2 -inch for footings founded on the native soils. Total settlement for footings founded on structural fill is expected to be up to 2 inches with differential settlements of approximately 1.5 inches. We anticipate that exposed bearing surfaces in excavations will become softened or disturbed if not protected from exposure to moisture and construction activities. Therefore, we recommend that these excava- tions be made during periods of dry weather and the footings poured on the same day as excavated. If this is not practical, the excavations should be protected from moisture. If the bearing surface becomes softened, the disturbed soil should be excavated and replaced with structural fill and compacted to at least 95 percent of the maximum dry density. FLOOR SLAB SUPPORT The silty sand and weathered rock encountered in the upper areas will provide satisfactory support for on -grade slabs if the subgrade is not disturbed by construction activities. Disturbed areas should be repaired in the same manner as described for footing excavations. Slabs may also be supported on structural fill placed and compacted to 95 percent of maximum dry density. We recommend that a 4 to 6 -inch base course layer of imported granular fill or crushed rock, containing less than 5 percent fines by weight, of that fraction finer than 3/4 inches, be placed to form a capillary break beneath the slab. A positive hydraulic connection should be provided between the base course layer and the footing drains. This connection should be on the downhill side of the residences. A vapor barrier should also be installed to reduce the potential for migration of moisture through the slab. USE OF THIS REPORT We have prepared this report for use by Lourie Contracting, Inc. and their architects and engineers for their use in design of a portion of this project. The data and report should be provided to prospective l g Lowrie Contracting, Inc. April 24, 1989 Page 11 • contractors for their bidding or estimating purposes, but our report, conclusions and interpretations should not be construed as a warranty of the subsurface conditions. The design details are not known at the time of preparation of this report. As your design develops, we expect that additional consultation may be necessary to provide for modification or adaptation of our recommendations. When the design has been finalized, we recommend that the final design and specifications be reviewed by our firm to see that our recommendations have been interpreted and implemented as intended. The scope of our services does not include services related to construction safety precautions and our recommendations are not intended to direct the contractor's methods, techniques, sequences or procedures, except as specifically described in our report for consideration in design. There are possible variations in subsurface conditions between the explorations and also with time. A contingency for unanticipated conditions should be included in the budget and schedule. Sufficient monitoring, testing and consultation by our firm should be provided during construction to confirm that the conditions encountered are consistent with those indicated by the explorations, to provide recommendations for design changes should the conditions revealed during the work differ from those anticipated, and to evaluate whether or not earthwork and foundation installation activities comply with contract plans and specifications. Within the limitations of scope, schedule and budget, our services have been executed in accordance with generally accepted practices in this area at the time the report was prepared. No other conditions, express or implied, should be understood. t ��'� ��� �'.I ICI I il'l'I Lourie Contracting, Inc. April 24, 1989 Page 12 The conclusions and recommendations in this report should be applied in their entirety. We are available to review the final design and specifications to see that our recommendations are properly interpreted. If there are any questions concerning this report or if we can provide additional services, please call. DEA:WRC:cs 4 • Two copies submitted • • Douglas E. Argo • i. `„ Staff Engineer • o J ? J Yours very truly, GeoEngineers, Inc. kf Gordon M. Denby, P.E. Associate William R. Clevenger Associate COARSE GRAINED SOILS ' .'ORE THAN .C`* RETAINED ON NO, 200 SIEVE FINE GRAINED SOILS MORE THAN 50% PASSES NO. 200 SIEVE MAJOR DIVISIONS GRAVEL MORE THAN 50% OF COARSE FRACTION RETAINED ON NO. 4 SIEVE SAND MORE THAN 50% OF COARSE FRACTION PASSES NO. 4 SIEVE SILT AND CLAY LIQUID LIMIT LESS THAN 50 SILT AND CLAY LIOUID LIMIT 50 OR MORE HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS -� GeoEnglneers � Incorporated SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM CLEAN GRAVEL GRAVEL WITH FINES CLEAN SAND SAND WITH FINES INORGANIC ORGANIC INORGANIC ORGANIC GROUP SYMBOL GW GP GM GC SW SP SM SC ML CL OL WELL- GRADED GRAVEL. FINE TO COARSE GRAVEL POORLY- GRADED GRAVEL SILTY GRAVEL CLAYEY GRAVEL WELL - GRADED SAND, FINE TO COARSE SAND POORLY- GRADED SAND SILTY SAND CLAYEY SAND GROUP NAME SILT CLAY ORGANIC SILT, ORGANIC CLAY CH CLAY OF NIGH PLASTICITY, FAT CLAY MH SILT OF HIGH PLASTICITY. ELASTIC SILT OH ORGANIC CLAY, ORGANIC SILT PT PEAT NOTES: 1. Field classification is based on visual examination of soil in general accordance with ASTM D2488-83. 2. Soil classification using laboratory tests is based on ASTM D2487 -83. 3. Descriptions of soil density or consistency are based on interpretation of blowcount data, visual appearance of soils, and /or lest data. SOIL MOISTURE MODIFIERS: Dry - Absence of moisture, dusty, dry to the touch Moist - Damp, but no visible water Wet - Visible free water or saturated, usually soil Is obtained from below water table SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM FIGURE 2 • • ao 10 W (3 (k U �0 E11g11]('(.'1'ti LOG OF TEST PIT FIGURE 3 DEPTH BELOW GROUP SOIL GROUND SURFACE CLASSIFICATION (FEET) SYMBOL TEST PIT I APPROXIMATE ELEVATION: 162 FEET 0 - 11.5 SM DARK BROWN SILTY FINE SAND WITH ORGANICS (LOOSE, WET) 0.5 - 1.0 SM BROWN SILTY FINE TO MEDIUM SAND WITH OCCASIONAL GRAVEL AND SMALL ROOTS (MEDIUM DENSE, MOIST) 1.0 - 4.5 SM LIGHT BROWN SILTY -FINE TO MEDIUM SAND WITH GRAVEI. (MEDIUM DENSE TO DENSE, MOIST) 11.5 - 12.0 SM LIGHT BROWN SILTY FINE TO MEDIUM SAND WITH COBBLES (VERY DENSE, MOIST) (WEATHERED ROCK) 1.0 - 1.0 SM LIGHT BROWN SILTY FINE TO MEDIUM SAND WITH OCCASIONAL GRAVEL AND WITH ROUTS TO DEPTH OF 3.0 FEET (MEDIUM DENSE TO DENSE, MOIST) 1.0 - 9.0 SM LIGHT BROWN SILTY FINE TO MEDIUM SAND WITH GRAVEL (VERY DENSE, MOIST) (WEATHERED ROCK) - 1.0 • LOG OF TEST PIT • DESCRIPTION SM LIGHT BROWN SILTY FINE TO MEDIUM SAND WITH GRAVEI. (DENSE TO VERY DENSE, MOIST) TEST PIT COMPLETED AT BEDROCK AT 12.0 FEET ON 3/10/89 SAMPLES OBTAINED AT 0.7 AND 3.0 FEET TEST PIT 2 APPROXIMATE ELEVATION: 172 FEET SM DARK BROWN SILTY FINE SAND WITH ORGANICS (LOOSE, WET) TEST PIT COMPLETED AT 9.0 FEET AT BEDROCK AT 9.0 FEET ON 3/10/89 NO GROUND WATER SEEPAGE OBSERVED TEST PIT 3 APPROXIMATE ELEVATION: 198 FEET SM DARK BROWN SILTY FINE SAND WITH ORGANICS (LOOSE, WET) 1.0 - 3.5 ROCK CRAY WEATHERED ROCK WITH NUMEROUS FRACTURES AND WITH REDDISH -BROWN SAND TEST PIT COMPLETED AT 3.5 FEET AT BEDROCK ON 3/9/89 NO GROUND WATER SEEPAGE OBSERVED THE DEPTHS ON THE TEST PIT LOGS, ALTHOUGH SHOWN TO 0.1 FEET, ARE BASED UN AN AVERAGE OF MEASUREMENTS ACROSS THE TEST PIT AND SHOULD BE CONSIDERED ACCURATE TO 0.5 FEET. (leo r:n°ifCCI'S LOG OF TEST PIT FIGURE 4 DEPTH BELOW GROUP SOIL GROUND SURFACE CLASSIFICATION (FEET) SYMBOL . 1 - 4.0 LOG OF TEST PIT • TEST FIT 4 APPROXIMATE ELEVATION: 161 FEET DESCRIPTION SM DARK BROWN SILTY FINE SAND WITH ORGANICS (LOOSE, MOIST) SM LIGHT BROWN SILTY FINE TO MEDIUM SAND WITH GRAVEL (DENSE TO VERY DENSE, MOIST) SM LIGHT BROWN SILTY FINE TO MEDIUM SAND (VERY DENSE, MOIST) (WEATHERED ROCK) TEST PIT COMPLETED AT BEDROCK AT 9.0 FEET UN 3/10/89 NO GROUND WATER SEEPAGE OBSERVED TEST PIT 5 APPROXIMATE ELEVATION: 150 FEET SM DARK BROWN SILTY FINE SAND WITH ORGANICS (LOOSE, WET) SM LIGHT BROWN SILTY FINE TO MEDIUM SAND (VERY DENSE, MOIST) (WEATHERED ROCK) TEST PIT COMPLETED AT BEDROCK AT 4.0 FEET uN 3/10/89 NO GROUND WATER SEEPAGE OBSERVED DEPTH BELOW GROUP SOIL GROUND SURFACE CLASSIFICATION (FEET) SYMBOL - 0.4 SM - 2.0 S M 1.0 ML /SM 1.0 - 3.5 ML /OL 1.'. - 5.5 SP -SM - 1.0 • LOG OF TEST PIT • TEST PIT 6 APPROXIMATE ELEVATION: 146 FEET DESCRIPTION DARK BROWN SILTY FINE SAND WITH ORGANICS (LOOSE, WET) BROWNISH -GRAY SILTY FINE TO MEDIUM SAND WITH OCCASIONAL GRAVEL ('LOOSE, MOIST) CRAY FINE TO MEDIUM SANDY SILT TO SILTY FINE TO MEDIUM SAND (MEDIUM STIFF TO LOUSE:, MOIST TO WET) DARK BROWN SILT WITH ORGANICS AND SAND (SOFT, WET) BROWN FINE TO COARSE SAND WITH GRAVEL AND SILT (MEDIUM DENSE, WET) SM GRAY VERY SILTY FINE TO COARSE SAND WITH COBBLES (MEDIUM DENSE, WET) TEST PIT COMPLETED AT 7.0 FEET ON 3/10/89 TEST PIT ENDED DUE TO EXCESSIVE: CAVING RAPID GROUND WATER SEEPAGE OBSERVED AT 1.5 FEET SAMPLES OBTAINED AT 1.2, 2.5, 3.2, 4.5 AND 6.0 FEET TEST PIT 7 APPROXIMATE ELEVATION: 165 FEET i1 - U.5 SM DARK BROWN SILTY FINE SAND WITH ORGANICS (LOOSE, . MOIST) 1.0 SM LIGHT BROWN SILTY FINE TO MEDIUM SAND WITH OCCASIONAL GRAVEL (LOOSE TO MEDIUM DENSE, MOIST) 1.11 - 5.0 SM LIGHT BROWN SILTY FINE TO MEDIUM SAND WITH OCCASIONAL GRAVEL (DENSE TO VERY DENSE, MOIST) (WEATHERED ROCK) TEST PIT COMPLETED AT 5.0 FEET ON 3/101N9 TEST PIT ENDED DUE TO LARGE BOULDER AND WEATHERED ROCK NO GROUND WATER SEEPAGE OBSERVED SAMPLE OBTAINED AT 2.0 FEET I Il'O 4<i � II il�;l ll('('i'ti LOG OF TEST PIT FIGURE 5 DEPTH BELOW GROUP SOIL GROUND SURFACE CLASSIFICATION (FEET) SYMBOL (�eo � Engineers LOG OF TEST PIT TEST PIT R APPROXIMATE ELEVATION: 145 FEET DESCRIPTION DARK BROWN SILTY FINE SAND WITH ORGANICS (LOUSE, WET) O 1.0 SM 1.0 - 2.5 SM 2.5 - 4.0 UL /PT 4.0 - 10.0 SM CRAY VERY SILTY FINE TO COARSE SAND WITH COBBLES (LOOSE, WET) TEST PIT COMPLETED AT 10.11 FEET ON 3 /10 /89 RAPID GROUND WATER SEEPAGE OBSERVED AT 4.0 FEET SAMPLES OBTAINED AT 1.5 AND 3.5 FEET TEST PIT 9 APPROXIMATE ELEVATION: 171 FEET GRAYISH - BROWN SILTY FINE TO MEDIUM SAND WITH OCCASIONAL CRAVE). (LOOSE, WET) DARK BROWN SILT WITH PEAT (SOFT, WET) ,I - U.S SM DARK BROWN SILTY FINE SAND WITH ORGANICS (LOOSE, WET) 0.5 - 5.0 SM LIGHT BROWN SILTY FINE TO MEDIUM SAND WITH OCCASIONAL GRAVE1. (LOOSE TO MEDIUM DENSE, MOIST) 5.0 -. 8.0) SM LIGHT BROWN SILTY FINE TO MEDIUM SAND WIT)) OCCASIONAL GRAVEL (VERY DENSE, MOIST) (WEAT'Hl:RLO ROCK) TEST PIT COMPLETED AT BEDROCK AT B.0 FEET ON 3/10/89 NO GROUND WATER SEEPAGE OBSERVED LOG OF TEST PIT FIGURE 6 DEPTH BELOW GROUP SOIL GROUND SURFACE CLASSIFICATION (FEET) SYMBOL II - 0.5 SM 1.0 SM /O1. 1.0 - 5.0 OL /PT ,.0 - 7.0 SM • LOG OF TEST PIT SM ML SM TEST PIT 10 APPROXIMATE ELEVATION: 142 FEET DESCRIPTION DARK BROWN SILTY FINE SAND WITH ORGANICS (LOOSE, WET) BROWN VERY SILTY FINE TO MEDIUM SAND TO FINE SANDY SILT WITH ORGANICS AND GRAVEL (LOOSE, WET) DARK BROWN SILT WITH PEAT AND FINE SAND (SOFT, WET) CRAY SILTY FINE TO COARSE SAND WITH COBBLES (LOOSE TO MEDIUM DENSE, WET) TEST PIT COMPLETED AT 7.0 FEET ON 1 /IO /B9 TEST PIT ENDED DUE TO SEVERE CAVING BELOW ■.11 FEET GROUND WATER SEEPAGE OBSERVED AT 0.5 FEET SAMPLES OBTAINED AT 1.5, 3.5 AND 6.0 FEET TEST PIT 11 APPROXIMATE ELEVATION: 140 FEET DARK BROWN SILTY FINE SAND WITH ORGANICS (LOUSE, WET) BROWNISH -GRAY SANDY SILT (SOFT TO MEDIUM STIFF, WET) LICHT BROWN SILTY FINE TO MEDIUM SANI) (VERY DENSE, MOIST) (WEATHERED ROCK) TEST PIT COMPLETED AT BEDROCK AT 1.5 FI•:I:T UN 3/10/89 NO GROUND WATER SEEPAGE OBSERVED SAMPLE OBTAINED AT 2.0 FEET k W kip Engineers LOG OF TEST PIT FIGURE 7 Geo 41 Engineers LOG OF TEST PIT FIGURE 8 DEPTH BELOW GROUP SOIL GROUND SURFACE CLASSIFICATION (FEET) SYMBOL LOG OF TEST PIT • DESCRIPTION TEST PIT 12 APPROXIMATE ELEVATION: 150•FEET - 0.8 SM DARK BROWN SILTY FINE SAND WITH ORGANICS (LOOSE, WET) SM LIGHT BROWN SILTY FINE TO MEDIUM SAND (DENSE., MOIST) 4.0 - 4.0 SM LIGHT BROWN SILTY FINE TO MEDIUM SAND (VERY DENSE, MOIST) (WEATHERED ROCK) TEST PIT COMPLETED AT BEDROCK AT 4.0 FEET ON 3/10/89 NO GROUND WATER SEEPAGE OBSERVED TEST PIT 13 APPROXIMATE ELEVATION: 142 FEET - 1.0 SM DARK BROWN SILTY FINE SAND WITH ORGANICS (LOOSE, WET) I.0 - 1.5 SM /ML LIGHT BROWN SILTY FINE SAND TO FINE. SANDY SILT WITH COBBLES (LOOSE TO MEDIUM STIFF, WET) TEST PIT COMPLETED AT BEDROCK AT 3.5 FEET ON 3/10/89 GROUND WATER SEEPAGE OBSERVED AT 1.0 FEET SAMPLE OBTAINED AT 2.0 FEET TEST P[T 14 APPROXIMATE ELEVATION: 142 FEET 1.5 OL DARK BROWN FINE SANDY ORGANIC SILT (VERY SOFT, WET) I.5 - S.0 SM GRAY SILTY FINE SAND (LOOSE, WET) I.0 - 4.5 SM DARK BROWN VERY SILTY FINE TO COARSE SAND WITH ORGANICS AND GRAVEL (LOOSE, WET) 4.5 - 6.0 SM DARK GRAY SILTY FINE SAND WITH GRAVEL AND COBBLES (LOOSE TO MEDIUM DENSE, WET) TEST PIT COMPLETED AT 6.0 FEET ON 3/10/89 TEST PIT ENDED DUE TO SEVERE CAVING TEST PIT LOCATED IN AREA WITH APPROXIMATELY 0.5 FEET OF STANDING WATER SAMPLES OBTAINED AT 1.0, 2.5, 4.0 AND 5.0 FEET Exploration TP -1 TP -1 TP -6 TP -6 TP -6 TP -6 TP -6 TP -7 TP -8 TP -8 TP -10 TP -10 TP -10 TP -11 TP -13 P -3 P -3 P -3 P -3 P -20 P -20 P -22 P -22 FIELD MOISTURE CONTENT DATA Sample Depth (feet) Geo! Engineers 0.7 SM 3.0 SM 1.2 SM 2.5 ML /SM 3.2 ML /OL 4.5 SP -SM 6.0 SM 2.0 SM 1.5 SM 3.5 OL /PT 1.5 SM /OL 3.5 OL /PT 6.0 SM 2.0 ML 2.0 SM /ML 0 -6 PT 6 - 8 OL /PT 8 - 10 OL 10 - 16 SM /ML 0 -8 PT 8 - 12.5 ML 0 - 6 PT 6 - 9 ML /OL • Moisture Content Soil Type (percent) 20.4 20.6 12.5 20.3 64.1 11.6 28.3 16.5 17.3 168.7 58.0 107.6 24.7 42.9 46.2 346.6 110.7 75.9 52.2 263.9 63.7 223.6 62.1 FIELD MOISTURE CONTENT DATA FIGURE 9 • 2 oxilnat�oun Stagy t� ater p-15p 8 P--14 ( P-23A . P-2 Appr : r — Of 10 P-1 TP4 -f�2 P -11. 10 12 P-5 Approx P S \P 7 12 P - 3 P -2 et�ou g ary dh at r P-84 13 P- 1 1' 15 � f T \ i REFERENCE: 'F O p_4P P . = Property Line 12' Concrete Culvert • N 0 60 SCALE IN FEET 120 EXPLANATION: TP - 1 TEST PIT LOCATION AND NUMBER P - 1 p HAND PROBE LOCA rION AND NUMBER DRAWING ENTITLED "LOURIE CONTRACTING INC., ALPINE ESTATES, PRELIMINARY PLAT" DATED 2/7/89 BY BAIMA S HOLMBERG INC. SITE PLAN (• A P P E N D I X determine if Wetland A and Wetland B are connected by surface waters. It was established they are not. Both of these wetlands have outlets that flow waters in a southerly direction. However, they are angling away from each other without a confluence of the water courses. The water course associated with Wetland B is not shown on the CityGIS Map and this may represent new data. 8. In the matter of professional experience, I would simply state that I have been on the wetland specialist list of Pierce County from 1991 to the present. During that time period I have conducted over 300 wetland reports. Most of this wetland work has been done in Pierce County, with some submissions to other counties and city jurisdictions as in this case. From 1967 -1990 I was employed by the US Forest Service as a forester, soil scientist, and watershed specialist. I have a BS degree in Forest Science from the University of Washington, 1967, with graduate studies in soil science at Oregon State University and Cornell University. Hopefully, the described and attached wetland and water course field studies are helpful in reaching a determination concerning a rezoning application by the applicant. In closing, one should recognize there is always a degree of uncertainty in scientific endeavors. Other individuals may have more time and discover new data that could lead to different conclusions. I would simply state I have conducted this wetland investigation, reported my findings, and made my conclusions and recommendations to the best of my abilities. If I may be of any further assistance, I may be contacted at 253 - 474 -5432. Wes Jennings, Soil Scientist / Wetland Specialist Puget Land Consultants 5. The wetland was rated following Tukwila Code 18.45.080.(B) and (E). It was determined that the conditions in the field did not meet the conditions as outlined for a Type 1 or Type 2 wetland area, and by default meets the description for a Type 3 wetland rating. The standard wetland buffer width for a Type 3 wetland is 50 feet. This wetland buffer is shown on the Wetland Site Map but has not been located in the field. 6. It was stressed by Tukwila Department of Community Development personnel that work needed to be done on the water courses in the area. There is a water course that is shown on the Tukwila City GIS Map flowing in a southeasterly direction from Wetland A. The legend indicates this is a Type 4 water course. Additionally an unidentified water course was found that drains from Wetland B. These two water courses both drain in a southerly direction but angle off in slightly different directions. The two water courses do not join together. a. The water course off the southern tip of Wetland A flows a short distance into a very small wetland area; then into a crudely constructed ditch; then at S. 153rd St. goes into a buried culvert system that appears to drain toward a dual infiltration /retention pond about 250 feet west of the pagoda in Tukwila Park; and from there waters likely infiltrate into the soil layers or tie into the local road drainage systems. This water course has intermittent flow periods and would not support any life phase of a salmonid species. It is correctly classified as a Type 4 water course and should have a 50 feet water course buffer. This water course buffer is shown on the Wetland Site Map and is totally interior to the the Wetland A and Wetland A buffer areas. b. The water course off the southern portion of Wetland B was found in the field after searching for a water connection between Wetland A and Wetland B. The water course off Wetland B flows in a southerly - southwesterly direction through sections of buried culvert and stretches of a relatively natural stream channel. It was traced laterally to a point just east of the junction of Southcenter Blvd. and 62nd Ave. S. at the prominent Tukwila City Hall sign. From there the water course flows into another culvert that heads toward Interstate 405. It is questionable if this water course is intermittent or perennial, but should not support any phase of a salmonid species since they must pass through buried culverts sections and debris traps. This water course would classify as a Type 3 or Type 4 water course. 7. In summary, the application for a zoning change on the eastern portion of this property hinges upon the wetland conditions found at the eastern wetland area: Wetland A. This wetland has been delineated in the field and the delineation boundary accurately tied into the property boundary by a licensed surveyor. The size of this wetland has been determined to be 35,435 square feet or 0.81 acres. Plots were taken to characterize the wetland and upland resource conditions. Wetland A is a palustrine, shrub -shrub class, wetland system. It classifies as a Type 3 wetland area requiring a standard 50 ft. wetland buffer as provided for in Tukwila City Code 18.45.080.(B and E). Field work was conducted to Land Surveyors, LLC, of Puyallup, Washington. The acreage of Wetland A is 35,435 square feet. Almost the entire Wetland A area is on the study parcel except about 168 square feet that extends offsite to the south. 3. Five plots were taken to characterize both upland and wetland conditions within the study parcel. These plots are labeled as UPL -1 -Plot, UPL -2 -Plot, WL -Al -Plot, WI-A2 -Plot, and WL -A3 -Plot. Information on the vegetation, hydrology, and soils were recorded on DATA FORM 1 for a routine wetland determination as described in the Wetland Manual. These forms are attached to the Appendix of this report. The UPL -1 Plot records resource conditions in a relatively normal upland area. The UPL -2 Plot is taken very close to the wetland delineation boundary. The three wetland plots, WL- A(1,2,3) -Plots represents typical resource conditions found within the Wetland A area. These wetland plots indicated that this wetland has vegetation dominated by the shrub layer with small percentages of trees and scattered presence of an emergent understory vegetation. Within the Cowardin Classification System, Wetland A is a Shrub -Shrub Class, Palustrine System, and meets the hydrophytic vegetation criteria. Hydrologically, the wetland plots are seasonally inundated with waters during the winter, spring, and early summer seasons, and meets the wetland hydrology criteria. The soils within the wetland area are relatively close to the Pu, Puget silty clay loam soil mapping unit as described in the Soil Survey, King County Area, Washington, and meets the hydric soil criteria. Due to difficulty in access the wetland plots the survey crew could not survey all plot locations. This wetland specialist has marked and labeled the plot locations on the Wetland Site Map. 4. A Wetland Site Map has been prepared by the combined efforts of the surveyor and this wetland specialist. The underlying survey map defines the property lines, road system, wetland delineation, and other associated detail typically found on survey documents. This wetland specialist has added the following detail to the survey map and re- labeled it as the Wetland Site Map. Both the original survey map, labeled as WETLAND EXHIBIT, and the Wetland Site Map are attached to the Appendix of this report. The added details to make the Wetland Site Map includes the following. a. A new title to the map, labeling it as the Wetland Site Map. b. The addition of the field wetland flag numbers that correlate with the assigned survey numbers found on the survey map. c. The location of the upland and wetland plot locations. Plots WL -A1 -Plot and WL -A2 -Plot lack an surve data and are conceptual as to their rue location. -- d. The 50 ft. standard wetland buffer width has been added around the eastern wetland area. e. A signature block is added to identify the Wetland Specialist that has made these modifications to the original survey document. INTRODUCTION The applicant, Ray Carlstedt, has applied for a zoning change for tax parcel number 3597000260. The City of Tukwila Department of Community Development personnel (the Staff) have determined there are two wetlands on the above tax parcel. Therefore, they have requested that a wetland sensitive area study be conducted. The applicant talked the situation over with Rebecca Fox and other personnel within your department. The Tukwila Department of Community Development has a prepared handout that summarizes the requirements for a wetland sensitive area study. However, this is a request for rezoning, and not a development proposal. The Staff has reviewed the city coding requirements and determined that only the technical requirements of item 6.a. would be required at this time. This basically is the data collection phase of a wetland determination. A copy of this wetland sensitive area study handout is attached to the Appendix of this report. In verbal communication with Rebecca Fox I was told the required input that must go into this wetland study. In addition to the requirement to address only item 6.a. has noted above, I was told there is the need to study only the eastern wetland. In a personal visit to your office, I obtained a copy of the GIS resource mapping for the Carlstedt property. This map is attached to the Appendix of this report and labeled as the CityGIS Map. This GIS mapping layer indicates two wetland areas: the western one designated as a Type 2 wetland, and the eastern one as a Type 3 wetland. My findings as described below are in close agreement with this CityGIS mapping. PROCEDURES and FINDINGS 1. The first steps taken were to review that project requirements and the regulations that must be followed. Because of its importance, the Introduction Section explains the rational why this report contains a subset of the requirements for a full wetland report. This process is abbreviated because at this time there is just a request for a zoning change, and not a development proposal. The direction for wetland procedures and requirements are taken from the Washington State Wetlands Identification and Delineation Manual (Wetland Manual), Ecology Publication #96 -94; the City of Tukwila Code, Chapter 18.45, Environmentally Sensitive Areas; and the U. S. Department of Interior Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States (Cowardin Classification). 2. The study site can be easily segregated into two separate upland and wetland areas. There is no need to make a gridded search to find additional wetland areas. Wetland A, the critical eastern wetland for making a rezoning decision, was traversed and the wetland delineation boundary marked with pink flagging labeled as WL -A1 to WL -A25 and then WL -A -Last. Land interior to the wetland delineation line meets all three of the wetland criteria statements: wetland hydrology, hydric soils, and hydrophytic vegetation. Lands exterior to this wetland delineation line fail to meet one or more of the required wetland criteria statements. These wetland delineation points were then surveyed by Pacific Northwest Title: Wetland Delineation and Documentation of Findings on Tax Parcel Number 3597000260, King County, City of Tukwila, Washington Prepared for: Ray Carlstedt, Applicant, 3921 SW 102nd St., Seattle, WA 98146 Phone: (206) 932 -8246 Report preparation date: 2 May 2008 For presentation to: City of Tukwila, Dept. of Community Development 6300 Southcenter Blvd., Suite 100 Tukwila, WA 98188, Phone: (206)431 -3670 Prepared by: John Wesley Jennings, Wetland Specialist P. 0. Box 9635, Tacoma, WA 98490, (253)474 -5432 NAY 08203 cocIMuNmr [DEVELOPMENT CC. • Sensitive Area Study? qAParmelSensItive Study Gotdeanes.dott Guidance for Preparation of Sensitive Areas Special St Wetlands and Watercourses Who Should Prepare the Wetland or Watercourse Sensitive Area Study? An applicant whose proposed aeries is on must submit a Serrsftive Area Special S property under that may contain a wetland or watercourse Code 1 8.42.040). The study must be preppaat qualified, gensl eri Areas Ordinance Ordinance (b (Municipal required th code (i.e., for wetlands - a Certified Professional onal etla professions! as ced professional with at least 2 years experience in k; for watercourses, tr ot or a hydrologist or other scientist with experience in m ss, a Proibssional What kind of information should be included in the Wetland or Watercourse The study must include the Pollowtng information (as applicable). Note that the . the Sensitive Area Study may be combined with studies Edon in required by other agencies/ordinances. 1. Applicant's name and contact infbinration. 2. Description of the propoSed action and identification of the permit(s) required. 3 . Copy of the site plan with north arrow, scale and property lines proposal and dim , locatIeu of existing wedands/we showing: bu development M+es, clearing limits, proposed stoumwater m platunes, s and r mitigating impacts, and topographical contours at two (2) foot-intervals. tt, proposed plan for mitigating 4. Names and qualifications of the prottssional(s) preparing the study. 5. Dates and description of the fieldwork carried out on the site. 6. Detailed won of the wetland/wptemo utxe, and burs, which will include: a Wetland delineation report that includes methods used, field indicators evaluated and the results (wetland delineation must be perfb lined in accordance with the Washington State Wetlands Identification and Delineation Manual, Washington Ecology, March 1997). Field data buns are to be inccluded r p report. Weil t d boundaries are to be marked in the field with numbered stakes or flagging ag. Wetland These are to be shown on the site plan with their corresponding n After the City of Tukwila confirms the boundaries, they are to be' surveyed to the nearest square Pont and the site plan � an modified iSed as pmfe E y pxact and : - will be calculated after the boundaries have been surveyed. d„ :r 1I. • i rrIS ' "Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States ", Cowardie, L., Caner, V., Doleth, F.C., and LaRue, ES., US Fish and Wildlife Service, office of Biological Services, Washington, D.C., 1979. Page lot3 08/19/2005 1213 PM 6. t. O • . nc�� r� Sensitive Area Study Requirements August, 2005 c. Hydrogeomorphic classification of the wetland(s). d. Characterization of the watercourse on site: flow dimensions, vegetation, habitat conditions, exi regime, str tions. e. Brief , banks, slog modifications. b� landscape assessment of the wetiand/watercou se (identify hydrologic basin/sub- , inlets, outlets, surrounding land use, habitat quality and connectivity, ultimate p oint w of charg • presence of culverts or other constraints to flow, relationship to d9/watercourses adjacent to or potentially impacted by the proposed project, now regime, surrounding land uses). f Classification of the wetland/watercourse under Tukwila's Sensitive Area Ordinance Rat (see TMC 1 8.45.080 fbr wetlands and TMC 18.45.100 for g. Description of buffer size per TMC 18.45.080 E. and TMC 18.45.100 D., conditions (topographic considerations, existing vegetation types and dew' habitat , watercourse edges, presence of invasive h. Functional species, �•)> and func4ons. assessment of the wetland(s). For proposed wetland filling the Washington Functional Assessment Method (WAPAM) must be used. For proposed projects that will impact buffers, the Washington Wetland Classification System may be used as a assessment. i. Description of habitat conditions, wildlife/fish use of the sensitive area, including sensitive, threatened or endangered species. j. Citations of any literature or other resources utilized in preparation of the report. k. Description of adjacent land uses and ownership. 7. A statement verifying the accuracy and limitations of the study and the assumptions used. 8. Assessment of hazards, risks and impacts. An assessment of likely impacts to the wetland/wateraouases must be performed and must include an evaluation of short-ton, direct, indirect and cumulative impacts on the sensitive areas and their buffers and to neighboring properties. A description of the wetland/watercourse fine:dons that will be lost as a result of implementing the project should he provided, as well as an evaluation of impacts to wildlifesh, if applicable. 9. Description of development alternatives considered and efforts made to avoid and minimize adverse impacts (see TMC 18.45.090C regarding mitigation sequencing). 10. Description of proposed conceptual mitigation plan for ofiling impacts of the proposal. For wetlands, the consultant shall use as a guide the Department of Ecology "Guidance on Wetland Mitigation in Washington State, Part 2, Guidelines for Developing Wetland Mitigation Plans and Proposals, April 2004". The conceptual mitigation plan shall include the following: a. Rationale, mitigation goals, expected functions of completed mitigation; b. Amount of restoration/creation/enhancement proposed; c. Location and dimensions of proposed mitigation; d. Description of expected hydrology (and explanation of how this was determined); "A Hydrogeomorphio Classification for Wetlands ", Brinson, M.M., Wetlands Research Program Technical Report WRP D&4, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi, 1993. CL q:IFonnslSertsitive Arca Study Ouldeu,xs .doe Pagel of 3 08/19/2005 12:13 PM s CL Sensitive Area Study Requirements August, 2003 e. Description of means to stabilize relocated watercourse channels, watercourse functions such as water quality, habitat, flood control, etc.; to improve f. Preliminary planting plan and invasive plant control plan; and g. Timing and schedule. h. Recommended maintenance, monitoring (short -term and long - tent[), contingency plans, bonding measures for mitigation, per 7MC 18.43.210. 11. Any additional technical information as required by the Director to assist in determining compliance with TMC Chapter 18.43. The applicant is responsible for obtaining all necessary jurisdictional this information and permits state and federal agencies and for providing ulforntlation to the City. gMorralASenaldve Area Study Quidelina.doo Pugs 3 of 3 0 8 1 19/200312:13 PM FOR STAFF USE ONLY Permits Plus Type: P -CPA Planner: Fg f X File Number: Lon- o Q 1 Application Complete (Date: ) Project File Number: ?Di — t6-1 Application Incomplete (Date: ) Other File Numbers: Lori — 0 j Co I xx GC ,41,t s LIST ALL TAX LOT NUMBERS (this information may be found on your tax statement). c . t 7 760 — • CO 7 Address: 3 9 2" P: \Planning Forms \ Applications \CompPlanChg- 6- 06.doc CITY OF TUKWILA Department of Community Development 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Tukwila, WA 98188 Telephone: (206) 431 -3670 FAX (206) 431 -3665 E -mail: tukplan @ci.tukwila.wa.us COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENTS APPLICATION NAME OF PROJECT/DEVELOPMENT: W Gbd (atui V t 6,) Lonfrthevistim. e Ptah Atinat `t 2 7044€._ LOCATION OF PROJECT/DEVELOPMENT: Give street address or, if vacant, indicate lot(s), block and subdivision, access street, and nearest intersection. DEVELOPMENT COORDINATOR : The individual who: • has decision making authority on behalf of the owner /applicant in meetings with City staff, • has full responsibility for identifying and satisfying all relevant and sometimes overlapping development standards, and • is the primary contact with the City, to whom all notices and reports will be sent. Name: /4 r pn o etc/ � f' / o -e0 _ - ` 02- sr <Lei s- /, t/l 9 ?"lVC Phone: 2o6—,3 2 V ' FAX: E-mail: Signature: 2430±kfiki Date: /2 3/ O December 4, 2006 A. COMPREHENSIVE P AN DESIGNATION: Existing: Proposed: /_D2 1-/D 12 B. ZONING DESIGNATION: Existing: Proposed: L.4 2 Ala a C. LAND USE(S): Existing: UtALCM? Proposed: 1)e,. kit (for proposed changes in land use designations or rezones) D. GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF SURROUNDING LAND USES: Describe the existing uses located within 1,000 feet in all directions from the property or area for which a change is proposed. 4C' rti she A/01 J 15.2 cl a.� h -e PS - 1 ... C. V. -cc-7 Se-, 4 ,1 i- ix i / g/ -,"rx /l Aphse / 6 IL-- pit r cc''- AXeil ,' e0-f._ Are 2.- 4v 5 .5'h it / p,, 4 X ohs e5 4 /h 7 1-4 e S 7 ]Lht t e_ A r e. CILQS 3 Wt.1 hi A et f '1-4 ot Er7) 8 al Xr P: \Planning Forms \ Applications \CompPianChg- 6- 06.doc December 4, 2006 Check items with application Information Required. May be waived in unusual cases, upon approval of both Public Works and Planning ��� APPLICATION Fj MATERIALS: -•' 1. Application Checklist (1 copy) indicating i - ts.:- :.' : with application. 2. Completed Application Form and drawin (4 copies applying for a Zoning Code Amendment do not duplicate materials). 3. Completed and notarized Affidavit of Ownership and Hold Harmless Permission to Enter Property (1 copy attached). 4. One set of all plans reduced to either 8 1/2" by 11" or 11" by 17 ". 5. Application Fee — $1,215. 6. Zoning Code Amendment with fee if requesting a map change, do not duplicate materials. 7. SEPA Environmental Checklist with fee once application is referred by the City Council to the Planning Commission for review. PUBLIC NOTICE MATERIALS: X 8. Payment of a $365 notice board fee to FastSigns Tukwila or Provide a 4' x 4' public notice board on site within 14 days of the Department determining that a complete application has been received (see Public Notice Sign Specifications Handout). 9. Payment of a $105 mailing label fee to the City of Tukwila or Provide two (2) sets of mailing labels for all property owners and tenants (residents or businesses) within 500 feet of the subject property. Note: Each unit in multiple - family buildings --e.g. apartments, condos, trailer parks —must be included (see Public Notice Mailing Label Handout). 10. If providing own labels King County Assessor's map(s) which shows the location of each property within 500 ft. of the subject lot PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND ANALYSIS: 11. Provide a written response to the criteria listed at TMC 18.80.050 and 18.80.010 (included in packet). 12. Provide two copies of sensitive area studies such as wetland or geotechnical reports if needed per Tukwila's Sensitive Areas Ordinance (TMC 18.45). See Geotechnical Report Guidelines and Sensitive Area Special Study Guidelines (online at www. ci .tukwila.wa.us /dcd/dcdplan.htm) for additional information. x. SITE•PLAN: I 13 (a) The site elan must include a rrranhir craly ,,,,.+1•, .,,Y,,... ,,..,, _- .. :.._. ____ 1e e J P-) P: \Planning Forms \ Applications\ 2007 Applications \ComvPlanChe- 12- 07. IP-• RECEIVE 'MAY 0 8 2008 DEVELOPMENT COMPLETE APPLICATION CHECKLIST The materials listed below must be submitted with your application unless specifically waived in writing by the Public Works Department and the Department of Community Development. Please contact each Department if you feel that certain items are not applicable to your project and should be waived, or should be submitted at a later date for use at the public hearing (e.g. colored renderings). Application review will not begin until it is determined to be complete. ADDITIONAL MATERIALS MAY BE REQUIRED. The initial application materials allow starting project review and vesting the applicant's rights. However, they in no way limit the City's ability to require additional information as needed to establish consistency with development standards. City staff are available to answer questions about application materials at 206 - 431 -3670 (Department of Community Development) and 206 -433 -0179 (Department of Public Works). . Ma ximum size Checlyrtems - submitted with application Information Required. May be waived in unusual cases, upon approval of both Public Works and Planning 24" x 36 ". (b) Existing and proposed building footprints. (c) Vicinity Map with site location, does not have to be to scale. (d) Landscape areas sufficient to meet Zoning Code requirements, planting plan is not required. (e) Parking lots, driveways and access roads. (f) Loading and service areas. (g) Fences, rockeries and retaining walls (h) Proposed lot and tract lines if applicable. (i) Location of all tracts to be dedicated to any public or private purpose with notes stating their • lose X (j) Plan showing the location of all sensitive areas (e.g. streams, wetlands, slopes over 15 %, coa mine areas and important geological and archaeological sites) and their buffers and setbacks. (k) Dash in setback distances required under proposed zoning from all parcel lot lines. OTHER: 14. Scalable building elevations of proposed structures with keyed colors and materials. Show mechanical e i ui i ment and/or an . ro ' osed screenin = . 15. A color and materials board representing the proposed project is optional. 16. A rendering is optional. If submitted it must accurately show the project and be from a realistic perspective (5 to 6 feet above the sidewalk). 0-) P: \Planning Forms\ Applications\ 2007 Applications \CompPlanChg- 12- o7.doc December 5, 2007 RECEIVED MAY 0 8 2008 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT State of Washington County of King City of Tukwila CITY OF TUKWILA Department of Community Development 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Tukwila, WA 98188 Telephone: (206) 431 -3670 FAX (206) 431 -3665 E -mail: tu kplanc?i, - i.tukw ila.wa.uc AFFIDAVIT OF INSTALLATION AND POSTING OF PUBLIC INFORMATION SIGN(S) I rI itt `"(PRINT NAME) understand that Section 18.104.110 of the Tukwila Munici al Code requires me to post the property no later than fourteen (14) days following the issuance of the Notice of Completeness. I certify that on O8 the Public Notice Board(s) in accordance with Section 18.104.110 and the o ther a plic a uidelines were posted on the property located at /c XX 6/c4-/fur b r Sc 1 Jsso as to be clearly seen from each right -of -way primary vehicular access to the property for application file number GG7 -old LQ 7 - 097 I herewith authorize the City of Tukwila or its representative to remove and immediately dispose of the sign at the property owner's expense, if not removed in a timely manner or within fourteen (1 1) days of a Notice letter. Ap¢licant or Project Manager's Signature On this day personally appeared before me tivrAd E. C A2.'g+eC1t to me known to be the ' 'vidual who executed the foregoing instrument and acknowledged tha P she signed the same s hi her voluntary act and deed for the uses and purposes mentioned therein. SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to bef. e me this z v . of e`'` , 200 ���iritirl �\ P D O w� 'i/,� 0 \C'• — 4. -t.;• << NOTAR ' BLIC in and or i e State of Was ingto ti pTA R 9 . g .f ±E • • ▪ ° ® N • =residing to PUBLIC • _ = (� '\ % x . 9y 26 20 ° . • • k ° My commission expires on .J • • � • I v • ii / / p� r W A ,,,„.0 , -,, , , , \\ \ P: \Planning Forms \ Applications \SignSpecHandout - June 2006.doc June 19, 2006 -- C W t I ____ —k- 1 { A4 `5 • sue; -� e . • ire 35" 7 Q 0 - 6 0 0 7 . . 5 • 6 /6 5 5 - sue i 0- is a F rt S 2 -Plt)( L. 0y )0) • • L NW 29/29/04 V 26/23/04 Era Tukwi la City Limits 000 Type 2 Stream = Type 2 Stream in Pipe Type 3 Stream ® Type 3 Stream in Pipe Type 4 Stream 1==a T'ype 4 Stream in Pipe =1 Type 2 Watercourse Buffer (100 Type 3 Watercourse Buffer (80) Type 4 Watercourse Buffer (50) • !;•;•; NE 26123104 Potential Wetlands nye 1 Wetland Type 2 Wetland 7)pe 3 Wetland nve 1 Wetland Buffer (100 Type 2 Wetland Buffer (807 'T)pe 3 Wetland Buffer (507 The mapping of areas of potential geologic Instability is apptradmate. On site vetffication of topography if ;Ow is necessary. Wetland sizes & locations are approximate only & watercourses shown on this map have not been summed City of Tukwila Wetlan4 Watercourse & Buffer Maps Pitted July14 2008 SE Quarter 23/23/04 NW 26/23/04 NW 24123104 1 December 13, 2004 GIS City of Tukwila Woodland View LDR to MDR L07 -096 & L07-097 Wetlands & Steep Slopes Slope Classifications Landslide potential is moderate; slope is between 15% and 40% 2 and underlain by reletively permeable soils. Landslide potential is high; slope is between 15% and 40% and underlain by relatively impermeable soils or by bedrock; also includes 3 all areas sloping more than 40 %. Landslide potential is very high; includes sloping areas with mappable zones of groundwater seepage and existing mappable landslide deposits 4 regardless of slope. Wetland Legend Type 2 Wetland Buffer Type 2 Wetland -80ft Type 3 Wetland Buffer Type 3 Wetland -50 feet • Parcel #359700 -0360 L07 -096 &007 -097 Landslide 9 • CityGIS 300ft Copyright 02006 All Rights Reserved. The information contained herein is the proprietary property of the contributor supplied under license and may not be approved except as licensed by Digital Map Products. Page 1 of 1 httn•/ /mane diuitalmancentral cnm /nrndnctinn /r.itvGTR /v(17 n1 047 /indexA html nR /14/9(1OR • • 300ft N CityGIS Copyright 02006 All Rights Reserved. The information contained herein is the proprietary property of the contributor supplied under license and may not be approved except as licensed by Digital Map Products. Page 1 of 1 httn. // mans cliuitalmancentral cnm /nrnchictinn /CitvGTS /v07 01 016 /inrlexA html 01 /17 /20OR ' "ua.oes6 sx cazs� =+ ty4 s t . Wm ,n • l'W13,1 -4 • Slope Classifications 2 Landslide potential is moderate; slope is between 15% and 40% and underlain by relatively permeable soils. Landslide potential is high; slope is between 15% and 40% and 3 underlain by relatively impermeable soils or by bedrock also includes all areas sloping more than 40%. 4 Landslide potential is very high; indudes sloping areas with mappable zones of groundwater seepage and existing mappable landslide deposits regardless of slope. Potential Wetlands Type 1 Wetland Type 2 Wetland Type 3 Wetland Type 1 Wetland Buffer (100') Type 2 Wetland Buffer (80) Type 3 Wetland Buffer (501 one inch equals approximately 150 feet o o o Type 2 Stream t= Type 2 Stream in Pipe - Type 3 Stream Q Type 3 Stream in Pipe - Type 4 Stream 1Q Type 4 Stream in Pipe ® Type 2 Watercourse Buffer (1001 Type 3 Watercourse Buffer (80) Type 4 Watercourse Buffer (50) • S Landslide 2 3 4 Transportation 40 3Interstates Freeways I OjUS Highways .14,State-Local Highways Major Roads Local Roads Alleys / Dead Ends Other Roads Railroads ---� Railroads County •• Counties State ® States City — Cities PARCELS Parcels Parcel #359700 -0360 L07 -096 &007 -097 SteepSlopes N CityGIS 300ft Copyright O 2006 All Rights Reserved. The information contained herein is the proprietary property of the contributor supplied under license and may not be approved except as licensed by Digital Map Products. Page 1 of 1 httnd/ mans_ diuitalmancentral _enm /nrnductinn /CitverTR /v(17 (11 047 /indexA html OR/1 /7(1(18 92 Comprehensive Plan. Amendment Process Threshold Review Process Options for Council Review Reject Proposal AttaSnt 2 Refer to Planning Commission T Environmental Review Planning Commission Hearing/Recommendation WEI s r Defer Proposal City Council Review/Discussion TUKWILA MUNICIPAL CODE • Chapter 18.84 REQUESTS FOR CHANGES IN ZONING Sections: 18.84.010 Submission to City Council 18.84.030 Criteria for Granting Zoning Map Reclassifications 18.84.010 Submission to City Council Any request for a change in zoning of any district or area, or of any boundary lines thereof as shown on the zoning maps, shall be submitted to the Department. Said requests shall be made on such formal application forms as specified by the Department and filed with the Department, which shall transmit a copy to the City Clerk. All applications shall be accompanied by a filing fee as required in the Application Fees chapter of this title. All applications for a change of zoning or of any boundary lines shall be a Type 5 decision and shall be processed pursuant to TMC 18.108.050. (Ord. 1770 §56, 1996; Ord. 1758 §1(part), 1995) 18.84.030 Criteria for Granting Zoning Map Reclassifications The City Council shall be guided by the following criteria in granting reclassification requests to the zoning map of this title (Figure 18 - 10) : 1. The use or change in zoning requested shall be in conformity with the adopted Comprehen- sive Land Use Policy Plan, the provisions of this title, and the public interest; 2. The use or change in zoning requested in the zoning map or this title for the establishment of commercial, industrial, or residential use shall be supported by an architectural site plan showing the proposed development and its relationship to surrounding areas as set forth in the application form; (Ord. 1770 §58, 1996; Ord. 1758 §1(part), 1995) Page 18 -136 Sections: 18.88.010 Application fees Chapter 18.88 APPLICATION FEES 18.88.010 Application Fees Land use application fees and charges shall be paid at the time an application or request is filed with the City. All fees and charges shall be per the Land Use Fee Schedule most recently adopted by • the City Council. (Ord. 1994 §1, 2002; Ord. 1971 §20, 2001; Ord. 1834 §6, 1998; Ord. 1758 §1(part), 1995) Printed January 2006 Sections: 18.72.010 18.72.020 18.72.030 18.72.040 18.72.070 Chapter 18.72 VARIANCES Purpose Criteria for Granting Variance Permit Conditions for Granting - Extension Application Requirements Prohibited Variance 18.72.010 Purpose It is the purpose of this chapter to authorize upon appeal in specific cases such variances from the provi- sions of the zoning ordinance or other land use regula- tory ordinances as the City may adopt which will not be contrary to the public interest and only where, owing to special conditions, a literal enforcement of the provisions of such ordinance(s) would result in unnecessary hardship. (Ord. 1758 §1(part), 1995) 18.72.020 Criteria for Granting Variance Permit The Hearing Examiner shall consider all requests for variance from the Zoning Code; variance from the provisions of such ordinances shall not be granted by the Hearing Examiner unless the board finds that all of the following facts and conditions exist: 1. The variance shall not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitation upon uses of other properties in the vicinity and in the zone in which the property on behalf of which the application was filed is located; 2. The variance is necessary because of special circumstances relating to the size, shape, topography, location or surrounding of the subject property in order to provide it with use rights and privileges permitted to other properties in the vicinity and in the zone in which the subject property is located; 3. The granting of such variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in the vicinity and in the zone in which the subject property is situated; 4. The authorization of such variance will not adversely affect the implementation of the Comprehensive Land Use Policy Plan; 5. The granting of such variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant possessed by the owners of other properties in the same zone or vicinity. (Ord. 1796 §3(part), 1997; Ord. 1758 §1(part), 1995) Printed January 2006 TITLE 18 — ZONING 18.72.030 Conditions for Granting - Extension In authorizing the variance, the Hearing Examiner may attach thereto such conditions that it deems to be necessary or desirable in order to carry out the intent and purposes of this chapter and in the public interest. A variance so authorized shall become void after the expiration of one year or a longer period as specified at the time of the Hearing Examiner action, if no building permit has been issued in accordance with the plans for which such variance was authorized, except that the Hearing Examiner may extend the period of variance authorization without a public hearing for a period not to exceed twelve months upon a finding that there has been no basic change in pertinent conditions surrounding the property since the time of the original approval. (Ord. 1796 §3(part), .1997; Ord. 1758 §1(part), 1995) 18.72.040 Application Requirements An application to the Hearing Examiner for the issuance of a variance shall be made on forms prescribed by the DCD. All applications shall be accompanied by a filing fee as required in the Application Fees chapter of this title. All variances shall be processed as Type 3 decisions pursuant to TMC 18.108.030. (Ord. 1796 §3(part), 1997; Ord. 1770 §48, 1996; Ord. 1758 §1(part), 1995) 18.72.070 Prohibited Variance Under no circumstances shall the Hearing Examiner grant a variance to permit a use not generally or conditionally permitted in the zone involved, or any use expressly or by implication prohibited by the terms of this title in said zone. (Ord. 1796 §3(part), 1997; Ord. 1758 §1(part), 1995) Page 18 -133 • Woodland View LDR to MDR or HDR N L07 -097 & L07 -096 300ft CityGIS Copyright O 2006 All Rights Reserved. The information contained herein is the proprietary property of the contributor supplied under license and may not be approved except as licensed by Digital Map Products. httn•/ /mane rliaitalmanrPntral rnm /nrnrhirtinn /Cit,CTQ /vf17 f11 f11A /inrlavA html Page 1 of 1 111 /M /7f1f1Q 1 Pa at 401 d MD S HDR 1d9 S LDR a. S 151 St M1 D !C HDR MDR Subject Property Ilf LDR NORTH iuu u i feet 0 1) DO 300 430 600 Woodland View Proposed LDR to HDR L07 -096 & L07 -097 City of Tukwila C's BASS OF 8E400 HELD N 1352577 11/ ALONG NORTH PROPERTY WE AS SHENTI OI THE PUT OF MARA PARK VOL. 137, PAGE 77. 20 0 20 40 GRAPHIC SCALE - FEET • SURVEYOR'S NOTES 60 1. DATE M9TEO DIE AND MOIABIENTS DECEMBER 2007. 2 SURVEY INSTRUMENT USED NINON DTB -521, TOTAL STATION JUMPER DATA COLLECTOR • RED UET1I00 USED HELD TRAVERSE. 4. THIS SURVEY MEETS at EXCEEDS PBEO90N NEOmREMENTS AS SET FORTH IN W.A.C. 332 -ISO -090 S ALL UTYIIES AND SPOT ELEVATIONS 9401111 HEREON ARE DOSE OBTAINABLE BY PHYSICAL SURFACE EMDE CE ONLY. NO UNDERGROUND SERVICE LOCATIONS AVAILABLE S THIS MAP HAS BEE/ OE%ELSEED FROM EIECTROTC DATA FEES AND P.RLS. LLC NODS THE ORIGINAL HARD COPY ANY ONE U59D DOS INFOtIATICN WITHOUT PRIOI CONSENT; IS CONSEERED UNALUTHOOIED. ANY RE -USE MODIFICATION OR ADAPTATION TO DOS DRAING FEE IS AT 114E USERS INDL 7. THE BOUNDARY LUTE P09TDHfD AS 9401111 WAS CALCULATED BY PAILS. LLC FROM RECORD DATA AND FLED LOCATIONS NOTHING WAS SET BY P.H.LS. LLC AT THE BORDARY CORNERS EXCEPT FOR FOUND CORNERS AS NOTED. S REILWE DELINEATION ND7 1I SR 1007. RED LOCATED DEC DEC 2007 9 � G PALLS. REFERENCE MATERIALS 1. HAG COUNTY ASSESSOR MAP FOR SECTION 73 TOP 294. GORGE 4E KM 2 OUT CAIN DEED RECCE TIED OW AFJL 7002082700107. I THE FOLLOMNG DOCUMENTS ARE RECORDS OF THE RING COUNTY AUDITORS OFFICE: PUT OF MAPEIREE PARK TOL. 137, PAGE 77 FLAT OF MTERURBAN ADO TO SEATTLE 10_ IC PAGE 55 VICINITY MAP c ui 4 RAY CA. RLS IDY PRO WE TEA N C) 1E3 1 T A PORTION OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 23, TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH, RANGE 04 EAST OF THE WILLAMETTE MERIDIAN KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON 5 3597000346 WETLAND TABLE p 431 }ha7 RR's f Fii• rY % ^f" :TI.� IIt ?.5[�t�A' #L>• �[.0 <Zia�Ti :. ^f �, .Tl.lit1===.M. ^1rlii �jjst•P:t(�M7:��lr': i })► /.1f t %r^ ".l�N =,'7 MAPLETREE PARK, VOL. 1 37, PG. 76— 77 I I 6 I 7 I 8 1 9 I I I I I I I I I I gI li I 3597000260 LEGAL DESCRIPTION (TAX PARED Na 3597000760) LOT T9, MTERUFSAN AORIO, TD SEATTLE. AOCORONG TO THE PUT RECWDE0 M KRONE 10 CF PUTS PACE SS RECORDS OF ICING COUNTY. WA9MGT01L 801 6014 MOB I I 6010 I I 6011 I I 3597000341 I 3597000344 I I I 24295' 6003 6002 FIFO LOCATED FLAGGED DELUEA DEUNEADON 10 6001 S 309.39 3597000340 LEGEND FOUND MONUMENT REILAND LOCATION FLAGGING Z N Dull". OT _ o3 • m .-w W a I =oo P X �2 a W ▪ °Q Z csi T( W • LI Za Z zZ Ec' Q u. u U J ooz NY W o ° ¢W w DATE DEIEHBFR. 2007 PNLS JOB NUMBER 07 554 - 296 PNLS DRAWING NAME 0755411EDANOEOOOTONC SHEET ! OF 1 F7600 9✓DIS NOTE: S8 ORARN0 5 NOT TO GE OED FII COBITOI0 DE DUCT LLCM 6 ANT MUTT IIQ COCK STISTI C An NCTRKWII LAIN I01QAL 1161TT COPNIT RUST GE COMM FO 1057 CLOUT LOWING 6 LIES NO/01 CALL FOR WELTS L6A1E AT 1- 87D-424 -555 4 W W W 4 W W `Y `, W 4 4 4 4 W y W W W 4 4 4 y W W W W W W W W W W W 4 W 4 W y W W W W W W W W W W W II TRACT RSITOI PARKING QI 2 I NO 0600 PAR 7R/4 i. / I I / I - I I I / / I I PRIPOED 85W SITE INFO: PRNRTY OIER—JIAY CFMSTEDT A71 SL 1020 STREET sum M. 6146 PARCEL IRRB2 SITE /WM 2NIQ Iumm s aA06. —JA01f A SUS 217 45 20 LAIR/SOAK 4T130015._Amlt IS 5K6 ICE REM KO STE AREA-----41.1151 SOIL (L5 POF51 U OWNER AoE' LN • TI w Qom) ffi YAl EEELONE(T COMM • A® SG TT. P0.6R9D 44458 N6 AREA • 17.677 m FL ROEANN AREA • CO SQ FL PFD • R W • 7.700 SO. /T. DUCT 'A' (PDX PALI---_175407 SO R (238 ROM) HAPLE TREE PAR:: RAY CARLSTEDT - SITE PLAN _ 284./0 LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lm TI. IDRSIAI MIMI 10 TUTU 4I2660 TO DE RAT REDUCED I AGILE 0 6 RATS PAGE M. ERROR OF 010 mW1Y. RA9D0TOC TAMSCAPE SERA UNE PRO03D OT -STREET PARAINC MOM= 6T -STET PAM' COM MORN - 40' 0 20 40 LDR 80 RECEIVED MAY D B 2008 ot trAg rr , Lae R 326 Sees 1' - '0 Dots 5/7/2008 Oro. by S8 a,.Ck.a 4$ 58 DNn.1q none ptm116INOR Sheet 1 of 1 1" = 100' 0 50 100 200 EXISTING BRIDGE SITE INFO: Q o APPDX. WETLAND ° 0 F LOCATION PROPERTY OWNER RAY CARLSTEDT Z z CLASS #2 3921 S.W. 102ND STREET SEATTLE, WA. 98146 PARCEL NUMBER 3597000360 SITE ADDRESS ZONING HDR BUILDING SETBACKS FRONT 30' SIDES 20' REAR 20' LANDSCAPE SETBACKS FRONT 15' SIDES 10' REAR 10' SITE AREA 61,651 SQ.FT. (1.41 ACRES) 22 DUPER ACRE * 1.41 = 31.4 DU (MAX.) 18 DU (PROPOSED) 50% MAX. DEVELOPMENT COVERAGE = 30,826 SQ. FT. PROPOSED IMPERVIOUS AREA = 17,273 SQ. FT. RECREATION AREA = 400 SQ. FT. PER * 18 DU = 7,200 SQ. FT. TRACT ° A ° (PUBLIC PARK) 173,402 SQ. FT. (3.98 ACRES) EXISTING PARK TRAIL RAY CARLSTEDT — SITE PLAN Illllllrrrll PROPOSED BRIDGE es V I PROPOSED PARK TRAIL IVI 11 r• I r- I If r- r- r• /1 ff N 111 L- L- 111L_L_ 1 111 \1, • 11 S88'25'27 ° E I 708.31' PROPOSED BOUNDARY UNE 50' WETLAND BUFFER BUILDING I SETBACK UNE (TYPICAL) LA W 0' r•■ 50' VISITOR PARKING [ 20' 1 RECREATION AREA WETLAND CLASS #3 `L (35,435 SQ. FL) I LEGAL DESCRIPTION: LOT 19, INTERURBAN ADDITION TO SEATTLE, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT RECORDED IN VOLUME 10 OF PLATS, PAGE 55, RECORDS OF KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON. WETLAND BUFFER 50' REC- AREA I 20' LANDSCAPE / ;• SETBACK UNE (TYPICAL) 26 c^ PARKING PROPOSED ACCESS 30' 23 PROPOSED OFF - STREET S.R. PROPOSED OFF- STREET PARKING EXISTING ROCKERY 405 \7 024. RECEIVED 1MAY 0 8 2008 COMMUNI i m DEVELOPMENT 1(!1 Job #: 326 Scale: 1" = 100' Date: 5/7/2008 Drawn by. SB Checked by. SB Drawing name: siteplonHDR 24 Sheet 1 of 1 23 24 26 25 0 50 SITE ADDRESS ZONING MDR I 1" = 100' 100 SITE INFO: PROPERTY OWNER: RAY CARLSTEDT 3921 S.W. 102ND STREET SEATTLE, WA. 98146 PARCEL NUMBER 3597000360 BUILDING SETBACKS FRONT 20' SIDES 20' REAR 20' LANDSCAPE SETBACKS FRONT 15' SIDES 10' REAR 10' SITE AREA. 61,651 SQ.FT. (1.41 ACRES) 200 14.5 DUPER ACRE * 1.41 = 20.4 DU (MAX.) 12 DU (PROPOSED) 50% MAX. DEVELOPMENT COVERAGE = 30,826 SQ. FT. PROPOSED IMPERVIOUS AREA = 20,343 SQ. FT. RECREATION AREA = 400 SQ. FT. PER * 12 DU = 3,600 SQ. FT. TRACT ° A ° (PUBUC PARK) 173,402 SQ. FT. (3.98 ACRES) EXISTING BRIDGE • EXISTING PARK TRAIL RAY CARLSTEDT — SITE PLAN WI • r\ I r- T r♦ r- r- /, r I r- I H r - r- 1 I% ,I L - L - 1 1 t1. r% • r■ I i r 11 rr K 1 I - 1 ■ , I , PROPOSED PARK TRAIL APPDX. WETLAND LOCATION CLASS #2 50' WETLAND BUFFER REC- AREA REC- AREA 2 -STORY 2 -PLEX I PROPOSED BRIDGE r 1 E) 1; •; ry LA S88'25'27 ° E 1 708.31' I Ll 1 •••• LEGAL DESCRIPTION: LOT 19, INTERURBAN ADDITION TO SEATTLE, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT RECORDED IN VOLUME 10 OF PLATS, PAGE 55, RECORDS OF KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON. 1 II 1 • BUILDING SETBACK LINE (TYPICAL) F 20' o LANDSCAPE SETBACK LINE (TYPICAL) 20' - / , • •• • 1r :: 26 • SITE 23 S. 153RD SOUTH CENTER BLVD. S.R. ST 23 ■e■ PROPOSED OFF- STREET PARKING PROPOSED DRIVEWAY 20' C-JA \ PROPOSED OFF- STREET " EXISTING ROCKERY ,CD \_ I" \4.... \N RECEIVED MAY 0 8 2008 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ,lob #: 326 Scale: 1" = 100' Date: 5/6/2008 Drawn by. SB Checked by. SB 26 25 Drawing name: siteplanMDR 24 24 Sheet 1 of 1