The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutPermit L92-0054 - LOWE LEROY - SENSITIVE AREA INTERPRETATION APPEALl92-0054 south 160th street slade way leroy lowe ,"1" SECURITY MPACIFIC .-o BANK • July 25, 1990 Leroy C. Lowe, A.I.A. 410 Bellevue Way S.E. Bellevue, WA 98004 Dear Mr. Lowe, : Security Pacific Bank Washington NA Commercial Banking Bellevue 777 108th Avenue Northeast, Suite 270 Bellevue, Washington 98004 Thank you for the opportunity you have given us to provide financing for your Hillcrest developement in Tukwila. The project is well documented and very interesting, however I am unable to recommend approval of a financing package by Security Pacific at this time. It appears that, from your request, there are several administrative and zoning issues which need to be worked out before we can consider your request. Thank you again for your time. I hope you will allow us the opportunity to work on this project at a future date. aniel N. Fazi Assistant Vic- President LEROY C. LOWE A.I.A. ARCHITECT P,O. BOX 1241 SEATTLE. WASHINGTON 98111 CITY OF TUKWILA, WA. REQUEST WAIVER OF MORATORIUM HILLCREST PROJECT GENTLEMEN: JULY 25, 1990 WE HAVE REVIEWED YOUR DOCUMENT TITLED'.. "AGREEMENT. TO BE SUBJECT TO A CRITICAL AREA SENSITIVE AREAS ORDINANCE ", AND WISH TO COMMENT ON THE PROVISIONS WHICH ARE ENUMERATED TO MATCH THOSE OF YOUR DOCUMENT, I HOPE TO SORT OUT THE PROVISIONS OUTLINED IN THE ENCLOSED DOCUMENT AND THE GRANTING OF MY WAIVER REQUEST WITH THE RESPONSIBLE INDIVIDUAL AT AN EARLY DATE, THANK YOU FOR YOUR KIND ASSISTANCE IN THIS MATTER, VERY TRULY YOURS, LEROY C. LOWE A.I.A. COUNCIL AGENDA SYNOPSIS CAS NO. AGENDA ITEM TITLE LEROY LOWE PETITION FOR WAIVER FROM ORDINANCE NO.S 1544 and 1550 Original Agenda Date July 2, 1990 Original Sponsor: Council /Admin. X Apprvd. Timeline Purpose of Item and Objective of Sponsor: To consider waiving the moratorium so that the petitioner can apply for a short plat to all construction of single family homes at the S.W. corner of Slade Way and S. 160th. Sponsor's Recommended Action: Consider granting the waiver only if petitioner agrees to meet reporting, review and inspection requirements for Class 4 geologic /landslide /erosion /seismic hazards (per Geologic Hazards Evaluation Alternative Action: Report) (1) (2) Committee Recommendations: Administration Recommendations: CAS RECORD OF COUNCIL ACTION Date Action COST IMPACT (if known) FUND SOURCE (if known) APPENDICES A. Petition B. Staff Report APPENDIX A LEROY C. LOWE A.I.A. ARCHITECT P.O. QOX 1241 SEATTLE. WASHINGTON 08111 THE CITY OF TUKWILA ATTN: JANE CANTU CITY CLERK WAIVER REQUEST OF ORD. 11566 RE: HILLCREST PROJECT SINGLE FAMILY DEVELOPMENT DEAR MS. CANTU: Ctli JUNE 3, 1990 WE RESPECTFULLY REQUEST A WAIVER FOR THE PROCESSING OF THE PLATING FOR THE ABOVE CAPTIONED (SINGLE FAMILY) PROJECT AS PROVIDED FOR IN ORD. 11566 SECTION 13 SUB PARA- GRAPH "C ". THE UNFORSEEN EXTENSION OF MORITORIUM 11544 AND 11550 THAT WAS TO EXPIRE ON MAY 13, 1990 HAS CREATED UNCER- TAINTY FOR SECURING BANK FINANCING. THIS BANK FINANCING WAS TO SATISFY THE PURCHASE & SALE AGREEMENT REQUIRING A SUBSTANTIAL SUM OF MONEY BE PAYED ON JULY 14, 1990. WE REQUEST THAT BECAUSE OF FINANCIAL HARDSHIP A WAIVER BE GRANTED, AND FURTHER, THIS PROJECT EXCEEDS ALL. RE- QUIREMENTS AS SET FORTH IN THE TUKWILA HILLSIDE "DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT ST4NDARDS. VERY .TRULY YOURS, ' LEROY C . LOWE A.I.A. SEE ATTACHMENTS APPENDIX B STAFF REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL PETITIONER: Leroy C. Lowe, A.I.A. PROPERTY LOCATION: S.W. corner of Slade Way and So. 160th PROPOSAL DESCRIPTION: The petitioner proposes to plat a 5 -unit single - family development. EFFECT OF MORATORIUM: The moratorium Ordinance No. 1544 precludes filing of new development - related applications in sensitive areas, including sub - divisions or short sub - divisions, without a waiver. The applicant's property contains steep slopes. The applicant wishes a waiver from the Moratorium in order to divide one lot into two. He will also reorient three existing lots with a Boundary Line Adjustment. The applicant wishes the waiver in order to secure financing for a purchase and sale agreement which requires payment by July 14, 1990. IMPACT OF THE SENSITIVE AREAS ORDINANCE: The property is located in an area of steep slopes and high landslide and erosion potential. Any waiver granted and any future development should be conditioned on the applicant's meeting the reporting, review and inspection requirements for Class 4 geologic, landslide, erosion, seismic hazards. This is detailed in the "Geologic Hazards Evaluation" report prepared in 1990 by GeoEngineers for the City of Tukwila. Specific reporting, review and inspection requirements are detailed on pages 3 -6. (Attached) DECISION CRITERIA: Ordinance No. 1550 states that the City Council shall use the Lowe Waiver Page 2 following criteria to review waiver requests: 1. Intent of the moratorium; 2. Best interests of the City weighed against the interests of the individual; 3. Circumstances and hardship caused by the moratorium; 4. Damage that could result from strict adherence to the moratorium. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Vicinity and zoning map 2. Existing lot configuration 3. Existing property contours 4. Proposed short plat and boundary line adjustment 5. Pages 3 - 6, "Geologic Hazards Evaluation" report. ra. •3,r ur.s CUP SP 19-I3-53 lP S0022110dz9 r , PCl / SrI ? 2 PCL • iiA � a i S.163RO. PL. &LA D- Ca. •eel . . v r 2r /50. s! r... rJ 1.' 9 ' /0 // /5 irs. Of - Oro 110 to. ./? 414r . w,..- ..,,..-- .v.•.:.mua+wnsca•A atslem iK7•w w.. 1,7,;n; a EXISTING LOTc:ONFIGURATION a• 10411 ..,,te aR SITE PLAN Q demos s•.. • .,..et,.• .,.,:∎...;:.r..,as...nrr x u..,0.%0..:yrtir?7,31:: r:' -= EXISTING PROPERTY CONTOURS SITE PLAN `t ■ 30 (LARGE -SCALE MAP AVAILABLE AT MEETING) PROPOSEr SHORT PLAT ANDBOUNDARY LINE ADJUSTMENT(W /SITE PLAN SITE PLAN -Q • (,1 ft. "GEOLOGIC HAZARDS EVALUATION" REPORT PAGES 3 -6 REPORT GEOLOGIC HAZARDS EVALUATION TUKWILA, WASHINGTON FOR CITY OF TUKWILA Geoal Engineers 4. Class 4 areas include areas steeper than 15 percent with mappable zones of emergent ground water, and also include areas of known mappable landslide deposits regardless of slope. Landslide hazard is very high. EROSION HAZARDS Soil erosion, primarily by uncontrolled surface water runoff, can cause significant problems in areas undergoing development. The effects of soil erosion often extend into adjacent and downstream areas, where the eroded soil can degrade surface water quality and can cause sedimentation within wetlands, streams, storm drainage facilities, and developed properties. It is our experience that virtually all sloping areas in the Puget Sound lowland can be susceptible to erosion during site clearing and earthwork. Erosion control practices are so variable that significant erosion can occur even on gently sloping sites and almost regardless of the soil characteristics. Rather than developing separate erosion categories, erosion hazards in this report have been related to the categories developed for landslide hazard areas. Potential erosion hazard is generally low in Class 1 landslide hazard areas, and high in Class 2, Class 3 and Class 4 landslide hazard areas when these areas are devegetated. SEISMIC HAZARDS Ground shaking and related soil liquefaction are the primary seismic hazards within the Puget Sound lowland. The methodology used for seismic hazard mapping is based on the accepted criteria for regional studies in this area. Areas underlain by soft soils or by loose sand with a shallow ground water table are mapped as having seismic hazard. These areas are typically located along valley floors and are underlain by alluvium. REPORT REQUIREMENTS Geotechnical investigation and report requirements for any proposed development should be appropriate to both the site conditions and the proposed development. A geotechnical investigation should be required for development in areas identified as Class 2, Class 3 or Class 4 landslide hazard areas, and in any areas identified as seismic hazard areas. This requirement may be waived at the discretion of the reviewing official for 3 Geo oil Engineers sites in Class 2 landslide hazard areas that are at least 200 feet from the nearest adjacent Class 3 or Class 4 landslide hazard area. The investigation should identify the geologic, hydrologic, and topographic conditions at the site sufficiently to confirm or revise the site geologic hazards classification. The scope of the investigation should comply with the specific requirements presented below for the geologic hazard conditions existing at the site, as well as general requirements for geotechnical reports submitted to the City. LANDSLIDE HAZARDS Class 2: Geotechnical reports regarding proposed development within Class 2 landslide hazard areas should be based, at a minimum, on a review of available information regarding the site and a surface reconnaissance of the site and adjacent areas. Subsurface exploration of site conditions is optional and at the discretion of the geotechnical consultant. Class 3: Ceotechnical reports regarding proposed development within Class 3 landslide hazard areas should be based on a review of available information regarding the site, a surface reconnaissance of the site and adjacent areas, and a subsurface exploration program suitable to the site conditioicu and -- the -- proposed demote ^'�• -�,` Class 4: Ceotechnical reports regarding proposed development within Class 4.landslide hazard areas should be based on a review of available. , in#oromtionegarding the site, a surface reconnaissance of the,. site, aiyd, adjacent arpaa, and a , subsurfacs7 _ exploration program., ; "si,Sfpi!,.,,,to the site conditions,, and, the_ proposed, develogee t. ,, d.Aetailed slope 4•,::,•::)j, stability analysis should,be performed based on information b'•2; obtained during the field inveatigyatiou i EROSIAIL )- Claiww2; "Gass 3% sad - Clan -4 landslide kaiaiiists.e era alas potential erosion hazard areas. •Ceotechnical•reports ssgardimi- proposed development._ in these areas should. include erosion and sediment eontrolriecomendations �\ that are. appropriate to the site conditions and`the'psopesed development. 4 Geoe Engineers SEISMIC HAZARDS Geotechnical reports regarding proposed development within areas of significant seismic hazards should include an evaluation of site response and liquefaction potential relative to the proposed development. For one or two story single family dwellings, this evaluation may be based on the performance of similar structures under similar foundation conditions. For proposed developments including occupied structures other than one and two story single family dwellings, this evaluation should include sufficient subsurface exploration to provide a site coefficient (S) for use in the static lateral force procedure described in the Uniform Building Code. REVIEW REQUIREMENTS The City of Tukwila Public Works Director should review all geotechnical reports regarding proposed development within Class 3 and Class 4 landslide hazard areas or within seismic hazards areas to assure that the reports have been prepared in accordance with generally accepted geotechnical practices in this area. The Public Works Director may request an independent review of any such report and should request such a review of reports regarding proposed development in Class 4 landslide hazard areas. The independent review should be performed by a qualified geotechnical consultant selected by the City. The applicant for the proposed development should pay for the independent review. The requirement for the independent review should be clearly and explicitly stated in the permit requirements. INSPECTION REQUIREMENTS Special inspection requirements should be imposed on construction in Class 4 landslide hazard areas, and should include the following: 1. The developer should retain the original project geotechnical consultant, or another consultant approved by the City, to monitor geotechnical aspects of construction for compliance with the consultant recommendations and requirements imposed by the City. 2. The developer should submit geotechnical field reports by the project geotechnical consultant to the City on a weekly basis. 3. The developer should submit a final construction report to the City indicating the compliance of the project with the consultant recommendations and geotechnical requirements imposed by the City. 5 _+ «..:. Geo Engineers LIMITATIONS This report has been prepared for use by the City of Tukwila in identifying and preparing development standards for certain sensitive areas. Information in this report and the accompanying maps is appropriate for use in planning and permitting, but should not be construed as a warranty of the subsurface conditions. The information in this report and the accompanying maps is not to be considered as a substitute for site - specific geotechnical investigations. If you have any questions or comments regarding this report or require additional information, please call. DWT : JWK: wd Respectfully submitted, GeoEnginesrs, Inc. Donald W. Tubbs ciats t o . Koloski P incipal Dr 1011OC11py. 0 mim.co4 0 9G J K. Dr STEEL MC 221723 • fIILLC 6T artist ..+..e1 117 LEGAL DESC' ••.• ...I. r W .1.41..1 II • 1•••••••• 33 t•r.. ••••• • .4•t. •••••■•■• o• /.13•••• •••••••••• N 10 l.c 1 •■•••• 1••••11 1114 •1 N •.4ts.. 3 .4••4 .3.31.31- ti.4 ••• 1..41 3 lo .N t._ 114.1 of `1..1.11 Doom Ws) ••1.•17• t 1131.1 IN Doti Doom M•{. 1.14933 1•••• K So*a *41D. •••■•• toot. •••. •••• 141••911. loo. 141.1 11.11 7..1 a • •••• -- •1 Ir1.4 of 3...71.•1 Croon 1..41 1.1.1 N 1•••••••■ WON NOM r 3- U .4 ■ w1 -.- .4.1•1•1 113•1.• 1, .4111+3.1 10 1 ^.4 3-TT•.4 41111 11.3 1.4lla of w elwo .14.•d A a a 41••I of 1 ^ .141 .t t / .4CVT 341t 1aa1.4 %113.1/ raw 1. 11 •!a • wallow fret•• / / R l•YO CT w N 1. 1t141 140•.4/ 1. C13•f1. .Nl•I4 • •IlYMt of Oral •••••• 1 3-.U? ' 1.•1- 9wt14. 161••• 1• Cloom•. /• at t.1 Dot 6 •.tart .4.1 •30•••.4 ..••• 114. .4 l / 119.7191• .4.1 711..4 tot 4. 11 / ••1191• 11••• 144'foot; t.mt. 1N1. 11••••1 I. 1••• .4•71 1 N.. _t• 117 111.34 1114 M I / W 7T•• .••••••4 1.1.7••9• Y 7•a• • N1.t- •l 1130140•4•411 1 3•uc '?.111 -M(tI_ Donal / 01741 toe ••t•Dm, oNL .6 •••••• •t..1•.91 a.•Nrt- •••ales 11* ill 111,- •.4 )- tl•••t•t•atlwl•t DO ••17-••91•••1 1.•.. 16441, Mo. 4.14.17• // ..14• Nnl.••t& 11' lNt 1. 7.411•• I ______ ..tlavt•YI•'••n.. •W / Dots 17131.1• •••••1•• 413•641 N•/•47•••••t- .tat 7 • Dnur waft 1\ \ \` mott Our nit t \ \ it koZtoc 211. ova i •711.17 1.10.0. -3 • H4 10' SEWER EASEMENT • p.. w 0.rIt11 .00.0P 2726 Fa* 1/7 KW M rR. CDC KC al VC 10011.1.30 31440•0.01T•' DC C 4T7 art -TT11 'KM 1•4.- P 1/4: 10.14, T.W,46t. ••• 11701 • mums WHIT ftiv.Tgc• ru•.1wgt .0113 • 14•C0•141- 011140►1017'IK3•0lultt •CM LEGEND e• uci r •asr 0 CONFER • CATCH BASIN [� O ss MANNOLE (' • `�OECESUC •-• CULVERT �i+�J1' • REB•R SET L5. MU • RUM FOUND � L-412-- G1DG'i