Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPermit L92-0064 - FOSTERVIEW ESTATES - BOUNDARY LINE ADJUSTMENTl92-0064 13400 42nd avenue south fosterview boundary line adjustment July 18, 1994 City of Tukwila John W. Rants, Mayor Department of Community Development Rick Beeler, Director Mr. Bill Fowler Dujardin Development Company P.O. Box 5308 • Everett, WA 98206 Subject: Boundary Line Adjustment Dear Bill: Please find enclosed two copies of the boundary line adjustment information required by King County for recording purposes. This information must be provided by you to the County. At the time of recording, King County will provide a recording number to you and to the City. Please notify me if you have any questions. I can be reached at 431 -3663. Thank you. Sincerely, Denni Shefrin Associate Planner enclosure. M1 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • (206) 41313670 • Fax (206) 431-3665 9408080706 ;` Tom Keefe, Assistant Fire Chief FROM: Denni Shefrin, Associate Planner Q� rm DATE: June 16, 1994 SUBJECT: Boundary Line Adjustment Approval for Fosterview Estates City of Tukwila Department of Community Development MEMORANDUM Ross Earnst, Director, Public Works, and r »..,.., .. .:: r.e... ^sp.r.�:....,.,, Nr .. John W Rants, Mayor 4ti Rick Beeler, Director �.. RECEIVE AUG 151994 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT The Boundary Line Adjustment for Fosterview Estates is ready for final approval. In order to record with the County, signatures must be obtained from the Director of Public Works and the Fire Chief. I have attached a copy of the proposed boundary line adjustment. This memo is routed first to the Department of Public Works. After Ross signs both this N memo and the last page of the attached, this memo must be routed by Public Works directly to Tom Keefe via Mike Alderson at the Fire Department for signature. Signatures are due back to me by June 22nd. My extension is 1663 if there are questions. Thank you! Ross Earnst, Director, Department of Public Works Tom Keefe, Fire Cblief DEPARTMENT OF ASSESSMENTS Examined and approv`ed �thi i' %�v6� enclosure. •" 0r 1 Assessor day of A #G« <719.11. 7L. 15 z30q - 9075' a q z 422 5E I s - z3 -'-I 13.v e_ r.1 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • (206) 431-3670 • Fax (206) 4313665 .• , • • • • • '• • :' ..;. BOUNDARY LINE ADJUSTMENT OR LOT CO31.1DATION APPLICATION CITY OP TUKWILA DEpoioirmeNr oF 041i4MUMTY DEVELOPMENT • 1.14 AIPM■••••1 6.300 Southoenter Boulevard, Tukwila, WA S8188 Telephone: (206) 431-3680 0 ex:49 '"71•""'"^"' 4:*1' '?1,1•;',;• .•.! • • ... ..• . . . . • 4 . • APPLICANT • Dujardin Development Company ------- P. 0• Box 5308, Everett, WA 98206 Address: city: Everett Zip: Signature: LOCATION CD r% Street Address: GO CAO, Tr cr) , nearest intersection. 9820_6 ••••■■••■•■11.• •••••• Phone; IALL-5318 Date;.Au us t 11 , 1992 Approximately 10 acres between 41nd Ave. S. & 44th An..5 ' and 137th St. If vacant indicate lot(), block and subdivision; or tax lot number, access street, and • T LSE 7 PARCELS Zoning District Existing Use Proposed Use Proposed Lot Size QUARTER A R-1 7.2 L15 SECTION 33.4.TE OP LAST PLAT: ■■•••111. residential residential R-1 7.2 vacant vacant 23N . . 04E TowNSHIP RANCE ■••■■••••■,••■0 13,299 sq/ft approx. 10 acres subdiv'd d various sizes We••■•■•■•■••■■■•■•••■.•■■•0••■■•■•••• R AuG 1 3 1992 ditS1 WTI T TWTZ Mir rearXtrUhrTIT rrr.fletxte AT Tr% Fri MMUITY ,,,,W.vE.LOPMEN I 1 e 0 ,• :;•l, ,. r,,t:; 1 ` ^ow ':r.';txY::'a.- .fit. } „f ��..�.�,,�r..� /7t,%'...�_w.��...;:"�G.aS't_ �.t ".%'�. ..... >. aM 1, w.id:_ ,.,.��.I�.i41•w... .�1...f�..�...1'eY,�ih.1J. ..:wF...: ,... i ._ v[ 's pV u I)kt1t i L1Nr LU)J U511V1r.N 1 /LOT CUNSULIUA•I1UN CITY OF TUKWILA, WASHINC„7N FILE NO. L9a -0.�� .. LEGAL DESCRIPTIONS BEFORE THE ADJUSTMENT: 9408080706 AFTER THE ADJUSTMENT: APPROVA • Department of Community Development: Examined and a..roved this Z da •f /� Director, Dept. of Community Development Filed for record at the request of: NAME Dept. of Public Works: Examined and apprj ved this day of ,199 II Director, Dept. of Public Works Return to: Dept. of Community Development Planning Division City of Tukwila 6300 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, Washington 98188 Page of 9408080706 dujardin development company william fowler DECLARATION: AFFIDAVIT OF OWNERSHIP Know all men by these preSenfs that we, the undersigned, owner(s) in fee simple and /or contract purchaser(s) of the land herein described do hereby make an application for a boundary line ad- justment/lot consolidation thereof. The undersigned further declare that the attached map is the graphic representation of said boundary line adjustment /lot consolidation and the same is made with the free consent and in accordance with the desire of the owner(s). In witness whereof we have set our hands and seals. Name:_ %�l� g %-, I� p �f�� c Name: i Name: ..••■•■• Peso ° Name: Name: Name: Name: Name: • -- STATE OF WASHINGTON County of lecti �S!'1ornlst! On this day personally appeared before me b1 /�. / /h �o v,< to me known to be the individual described in and who executed the within and foregoing in- strum - Iniiiitiwledge that signed the same as /is free and voluntary act and urposes therein mentioned. lc • PUBOG .,; (:) tit hlr official seal this 1/ day of JUG as,— 199' Notary✓P iccan.►�' • ate f Washington, residing at iii fiTAT 4WASf= TON County of iung'�`� �. On this day personally appeared before me to me known to be the individual described in and who executed the within and foregoing in- strument, and acknowledge that signed the same as free and voluntary act and deed, for the uses and purposes therein mentioned. GIVEN under my hand and official seal this day of ,19 Notary Public in and for the State of Washington, residing at /ie g.u)-4/ 9,/ 3-7 — Page of 9408080706 C I T Y O F T U X W I L A BOUNDARY LINE ADJUSTMENT DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PORT ON OF GOVERNMENT LQT 2, C, iT1ON 15, TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH, RANGE 4 ::AST, 0 10 20 30 amp, 60 90 S C A L E 1" = 30' n — S.8./1/00.0 ^FENCE) S r3.2'gi 6ECORNE.P 87' 48' 28� W, FOR COMPLETE MAP OF PARCEL B SEE. HEBRANK AND ASSOCIATES DRAWING ENTITLED "DUJARDIN DEVELOPMENT COMPANY'. DATED APRIL 6 1990 AND REVISED AUGUST 3 1992. PARCEL B re"PUC ILTCR fLOMLINt /�. °� e j—Er —\ s \ —L!' CORCRfT1'Rlft 140.03' '2.' T GARRGE 1 #01/SE FIRST ftOOR zosr iir El., 206.1 I r� 'MPLC CL!/MP /°ARCEL A AW,,sfRr SO!/TW/ IfNE G. Z. 2 1 N87' 48 28 W 140.03 0'100DffACE C O M M E N T S 5136.69' Easements, if aay, are not snows hereon as ao title report was prodded. For survey control and moaumentation see survey recorded In Book 73 of Surveys at pages 114 and 114A. records of fang CoYaty, Washiagtca. Field data for this survey was obtalaed ►y direct field measureileat. Angular relatioashlps and db/aaces was meas red with a Topton GTS -2 amid suppkaeated with • 100' steel tape both last calibrated 23 March 1992 at the Sand roast baseline. The area of PARCEL A prior to adjustment v 12,041 square feet and after adjustment is 13,091 aquare feet The area of PARCEL B prior to adjustment Is 428,560 square feet and after adjustment is 427.510 square feet Land Surveyor's Certificate: This boundary line adjustment correctly represents a survey mode by me or under my direction to conformance with the requirements of appropriate state and county statute and ordinance. 4 /SSZ. Date Certificate No. Signature 7589 3 4vftusf /972 Page _ of _ 9408080706 DUJARDIN - OLSON BOUNDARY LINE ADJUSTMENT DESCRIPTIONS Parcel A prior to adjustment The east 140.02 feet of the west 586.69 feet of the north 86 feet of the south 684 feet of Government Lot 2, Section 15, Township 23 North, Range 4 East, W.M. in the City of Tukwila, County of King, State of Washington. Parcel A after adjustment The east 140.02 feet of the west 586.69 feet of the north 93.50 feet of the south 691.50 feet of Government Lot 2, Section 15, Township 23 North, Range 4 East, W.M., in the City of Tukwila, County of King, State of Washington. Parcel B prior to adjustment That portion of Government Lot 2, Section 15, Township 23 North, Range 4 East, W.M., in King County, Washington, described as follows: Beginning at the northwest corner of said Government Lot; thence easterly along the north line thereof 586.69 feet; thence southerly parallel with the west line of said Government Lot a distance of 594.05 feet, more or less, to the north line of the south 684.00 feet of said Government Lot; thence westerly along said north line 283.34 feet, more or less, to the northwest corner of a tract of land deeded to Ralph A. Olson and Reatha Olson by deed recorded under Recording No. 5089251; thence south along the west line of said deeded tract a distance of 20.00 feet to the north line of the south 664.00 feet of said Government Lot; thence westerly along said north line 303.34 feet, more or less, to the west line of said Government Lot; thence northerly along said west line 606.50 feet, more or less, to the Point of Beginning; EXCEPT that portion thereof condemned for F. J. Folkendahl Road in King County Superior Court Cause No. 21426; AND EXCEPT those portions thereof deeded to King County for Charles E. Adams Road (42nd Avenue South) by deeds recorded under Recording Numbers 472354 and 5558464; T cts, according to the plat thereof recorded in Volume 10 of Plats, page 74, in King County, Washington, lying nort -asterly of nd Avenue South as deeded to King County by dee• recorded under ecording Number 5655246; EXCEPT he east 20 feet thereof deeded to King ..unty by deed recorded ender Recording No. 1207877; AND EXCEPT he north 350.00 feet thereof; TOGETHER WIT Lot 3, Sectio Range 4 East, Washington, lying Avenue South as de deed recorded under EXCEPT County Roads; that portion of Govern 15, Township 23 .M., in King northeasterl ed to K cord' TOGETHER WITH tha Fostoria Garden plat thereof Plats, p Washingt Folke con g t •rth, ounty, .'', - of 42nd g County by s:i No. 5655246; orti• of Tract 19, racts, according to the recorded in Volume 9 of 95, in Kin:. County, lying southwesterl of F. J. hl Road (43rd Avenue •uth) as mned in King County Superio Court Cause No. 241626. HEBRANK & ASSOCIATES File 92046 3 August 1992 9408080706 DUJARDIN - OLSON BOUNDARY LINE ADJUSTMENT DESCRIPTIONS (continued) Parcel B after ad.iustment That portion of Government Lot 2, Section 15, Township 23 North, Range 4 East, W.M., in King County, Washington, described as follows: Beginning at the northwest corner of said Government Lot; thence easterly along the north line thereof 586.69 feet; thence southerly parallel with the west line of said .-f)(0 , Government Lot a distance of 50'4.05 feet, more or less, to the north line of the south 691. • feet of said Government Lot; thence westerly along said north line 140.03 feet to the east line of the west 446.67 feet of said Government Lot; thence southerly along said east line 7.50 feet to the north line of the south 684 feet of said Government Lot; thence westerly along said north line 143.34 feet to the northwest corner of a tract of land deeded to Ralph A. Olson and Reatha Olson by deed recorded under Recording No. 5089251; thence south along the west line of said deeded tract a distance of 20.00 feet to the north line of the south 664.00 feet of said Government Lot; thence westerly along said north line 303.34 feet, more or less, to the west line of said Government Lot; thence northerly along said west line 606.50 feet, more or less, to the Point of Beginning; EXCEPT that portion thereof condemned for F. J. Folkendahl Road in King County Superior Court Cause No. 21426; AND EXCEPT those portions thereof deeded to King County for Charles E. Adams Road (42nd Avenue South) by deeds recorded under Recording Numbers 472354 and 5558464; TOG'ETH Plat of under reco AND ts, according to the plat thereof recorded in Volume Plats, page 74, in King County, Washington, lying nort 42n venue South as deeded to King County by de r Recor g Number 5655246; EXCEPT the ea 20 feet thereof deeded to Kin: recorded under Reco ing No. 1207877; EXCEPT the north .00 feet thereof G• J INP TOGETHER WITH that portion Township 23 North, Range Washington, lying northeast - y of King County by deed reco .ed under Recor EXCEPT County Roads; 1 • of sterly recorded ounty by deed ernment Lot 3, Section 15, st, W.M., in King County, J'4d Avenue South as deeded to ng No. 5655246; TOGETHER WITH at portion of Tract 19, Fostoria according t• he plat thereof recorded in Volume 9 o 95, in ing County, Washington, lying southwesterly o Folk - -:ahl Road (43rd Avenue South) as condemned in King S .erior Court Cause No. 241626. rden Tracts, ats, page F. J. ty • 2 August 1992 HEBRANK AND ASSOCIATES File 92046 FOSTERVIEW ESTATES The following items are contained in the Preliminary Plat File, No. L93 -0014. This file should be referenced for the BOUNDARY LINE ADJUSTMENT, NO. L92 -0064, and the PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT, NO. L93 -0065: 1. City Council Minutes dated 7 December 1993 2. City Council Minutes dated 6 December 1993 3. Packet to the Council for 6 December 1993 hearing (includes Planning Commission minutes dated 26 Aug. 1993, 14 Sept. 1993, 23 Sept. 1993, 14 Oct. 1993. City of Tukwila John W. Rants, Mayor Department of Community Development Rick Beeler, Director MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Commission FROM: Jack Pace, Senior Planners . DATE: September 9, 1993 SUBJECT: Continuation of a Public Hearing for Fosterview Estates At the August 26 Planning Commission hearing, both staff and the applicant presented the project. Once the public hearing was open, seven of fifteen residents signed up to speak provided testimony prior to adjoumment. The public hearing has been continued to September 14 and surrounding residents within 300 feet and attendees at previous meetings were re-notified by mail. The next person noted on the sign - up sheet is Ron Lamb. Because the hearing is continued, a sign -up sheet will be provided the night of the 14th. Based upon comments made by Pam Reiss (the last person to speak), the City has requested the applicant to prepare a cross - section drawing to show the trail relative to the Reiss residence (immediately north of the site). The drawing is enclosed. Also enclosed are letters received from residents the night of the meeting. Enclosures 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • (206) 431-3670 • Fax (206) 431-3665 August 26, 1993 TO: City of Tukwila Planning Commission RE: .Fosterview Estates Since submitting our letter to the Planning Commission. we have been contacted by Denni Shefrin of the Department of Community Development. Denni described more fully the.plan for the sidewalk and crushed -rock access road to run adjacent to our property. Because the access land is upslope from us, a rock retaining wall will be built to support the public road and sidewalk. Depending on the degree of grade, the retaining wall could be as high, but not higher than 4 ft. This, Denni pointed out, could help curb trespassers. However, for us this worsens the problem of privacy, lifting passersby even higher. Should we try to build a 6 ft. fence, it would raise no higher than 2 ft. above the retaining wall in places. Also, it still will not define the difference between public access vs. our pastoral property to the north. Denni raised another point, that of public safety. Retaining walls and trees will be to the south of the sidewalk portion. Should a 6 ft. fence be built .on the north side,. it would create a "tunnel affect ". However, I must admit I am a little dubious about the severity of such an affect. We would like to point .out another possible threat to public safety. Young children or others walking close the the edge of the north retaining wall could "trip and fall as much as four feet down to our property. Should injury occur the city would be liable. I would like to propose that a fence be built to a minimum of 3 1/2 feet, at adult handrail height. This could prevent accidental falling, define the space between public and private properties, and lessen the "tunnel affect" that would occur with our previous proposal. We would still like to see a 6 ft. fence along the area bordering our house and garage. The spirit of the Tukwila zoning code suggests this is not out of line, as we explained in the letter included in your packet. Please give these suggestions your consideration. DEVELOPt, /;'. Sincerely, Pam Riess LJ Lee Loyd 17,531 - 43rd Ave. S. August 23, 1993 RESPONSE TO AMENDED MITIGATED DETERMINATION OF NON- SIGNIFICANCE. The ordinances relative to Foster View development are listed but that appears to he the extent of compliance with them. The sensitive areas have been reduced to strips (one is 6' wide) which cannot maintain wildlife, especially wildlife surrounded by wall to wall housing. The plans indicate clear cutting of the area except for the small wetland areas. As little as L"ee proposed there will he no fullaccomodation of the existing wildlife. ( "sufficient wildlife habitat will he provided in the proposed sensitive areas and their buffers to accommodate Most of the existing wildlife. ") No wildlife can exist on such tiny & isolated strips. Apparently much of the wildlife is nocturnal. Last winter an opposum came into my patio at night in search of food. A wetland has been under discussion in Skyway and the county has reduced building on 11 acres to two houses! 41 houses do not signify compliance with the various ordinances much less consideration of the environment. It was my understanding that there was to he no clearing and grading within the wet- land /buffer areas. that they were to be left in their natural state. Not so with this Mitigation Plan. Tukwila Planning did not at first recognise the closure of 43rd South but the geo- history of this closure indicates constant movement. The 43rd S. section of the road has slipped and been repaired 3 timesin the past. Those repairs took place prior to '68. After the 3rd repair ahe county said they had done all they could and if 43rd slipped again they would close it and they did. Anplied Geotechnology, Inc. indicates "these slopes have potential for l'¢aridslides due to the extensive site grading planned for the proposed development. The City Engineer reports "the impact of underground•springsrs....can only he dcLermined when construction of the proposed roads occur." TfIS IS TOO LATE. Obviously the beginning mf impact is now and is .1.71r- . •'c? i.r.s; iAth time. Cutting through the water table and the watercourse will create havoc on the hill. There is NO MITIGATION for this devastation. This reminds me of the people on Alki bluff who wanted to build, build. build. Finally the city gave in under prescribed circumstances sand when their houses started to slide they blamed the city for letting them build and wanted to sue, sue, sue. AUG 2 61991 Page 2...Response to Amended Mitigated Determination of lion- significance. Due to the lack of time, I have been unable to read LOS, Safety & Livability Impacts on 137th "Through Street." however a visual consideration of 42nd and the impact of a street crossing gives rise to the possibility of accidents on such a well used thorofare especially with the cars entering at such a dangerous curve. The mitigation of traffic impact by a guardrail raises the question of the cost of the street and the cost of the guardrail and its maintenance by the city. Until the pedestrians and particularly the children walking . to school have adequate walkways and not the foot soaking reed paths, no tax money should be spent to enhAte a investment. Furthermore the geotechnical descriptions hardly lend 'themselves to "Non- significance." As near as can be determined the property will be clear cut or nearly so. This is not an enhancement of our community. It is time that Tukwila should immediately retract this statement of non - significance and begin planning FOR the enhancement of our community which we so highly prize. 7, j /33 j RECEIVED AUG 2 61993 COMMurvi'l`Y DEVELOPMENT Marjorie Cargo 13723 42nd Ave. So. Seattle, WA 98168 August 26, 1993 City of Tukwila Planning Commission 6300 Southcenter Blvd. Tukwila, WA 98188 Subject: :Fosterview Estates, proposed residential development, Dujardin Development Company. Dear Sirs, In regards to this proposed project, to squeeze 41 houses on small area, only 9.7 acres, is much too crowded to blend in the rest of the surrounding community! I am against proposal. I want you to dissapprove the plans as wriiten! I feel the minimum lot size requirements should not be changed for this project. Keep the minimum 7200 sq. ft. requirement. have the developer rearrange his plans for 16 to possibly 20 house maximum! Keep the wet lands with trees as planned. The larger minimum size lots will fit better with the community and traffic will be easier to handle. that with this I have lived here at this address for 43 years. I like the small town atmosphere of the area as is. Please do what is best for the citizens of Tukwila!! Downsize this project!! Bring it into line with our wishes, and also sound reasoning! MC Best regards 611 Marjorie Cargo f-/- -ea('eFf4- t J J AeIh'tQ Y L /3745 - 2,.J 4-0-c. . fosterview estates comments arlee miracle mary miracle NORTH ... I / 4t,ef.00. XV • ,a1...r,EGYPIKr• :Tf:Attr ........ .... . . .4,51:Arti jue: 1 ........ ......... • New rtvinct. " • ...... • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • , . • • • • • 140 • • . . . . 11:74EAVEctiTti • 1 (MADE. EC'TION A-A • • •,c,AL.f..t.r..r.ror:r..x.• • • • • • • • • •"- ........ .. .7 . ... 100 ... • ..... • • • • EtrfAIN.-•.\ FT.DJECT 0.1,3 I 4, q-•AnmUf.• .... • • • • -NEW PEP/D TE.411.. • • • ....... • (. • ACtfht," -771b6`. . • - • .... • • fir4i5HEP. GAP. " FZKERIE7 WIII Df.:MAX 4'.1416H. KA:tERIE0 NEP. • : ZY:H16H:WILL IIAVE • RANPF-411,. • . . . . NEW 1r. PEP/DiKE 4KAIL. •Actf.tr.,,- 1b0 u..ac.At; . .1'.1-114H:F.OcKELY " • • • • • 1,531 • • • • • • • • f.CTION. D-D • tx.4C4va. Date: September 14, 1993 To: Tukwila Planning Commission From: Nancy Sandine Lamb, resident, 4251 S. 139th St. Re: Foster View Estates Unfortunately, and unexpectedly, I can't be at tonight's hearing. However, like many residents of the area around the proposed development, I have a number of comments which I hope you'll consider when you make your decision. I'll start with a concern that on the landscaping plan, Hypericum (or St. John's wort) is to be planted along the lot lines and that ivy is also being introduced. These are two quite invasive species which should be kept far away from the sensitive area tracts. The Hypericum is great for hillsides, but it isn't a native plant and obviously isn't going to stop at the sensitive area boundary - it'll start encroaching on the native vegetation. In the areas adjacent to the park and Tracts A and B, please consider a native compatible with the existing plants and one that'll benefit the wildlife who live there; salal is a suggestion. The hydroseeded lawns are also of concern, not only because they don't make sense (how do you maintain grass on those slopes? how well does grass maintain the slopes ?), but because homeowners will use pesticides and herbicides and fertilizers. They'll not only affect the woodlands but the stream that is being enhanced further down, so I think the covenants need to address the issue of chemical use. Secondly, I promised our daughter, a 5th grader at Cascade View, that I'd pass along her comments. She asks that you think hard about the many hawks, owls, woodpeckers, frogs, squirrels, and other animals that live in the area, and about how they need lots of room. She's worried that many of them will die when their homes and food sources are cut down and bulldozed. Now, we can all chuckle quietly at a child's innocent request, but I do think that we owe it to the future citizens of our community to try to minimize the Toss of wildlife and their habitats. It's part of Tukwila's charm that we have some woods left to enjoy, and they have aesthetic as well as practical purposes, such as hillside stabilization, noise reduction, and air quality benefits. We expect our children to do more than the minimum amount of work in school: what will Tukwila's children learn if the . developer does the bare minimum? That quality of life is outweighed by profits? Third, on the drawings they submit, the developer continues to use a misleading vicinity map that shows Southgate Park double its actual size. Anyone studying the drawings could be fooled by the inaccuracy, because it looks like the park is at least as big as Dujardin's 10 acres. The park is really only 5 acres, and it's L- shaped, and it doesn't extend all the way over to 44th Avenue. I hope Dujardin isn't trying to perpetuate a myth that there's Tots of trees and open space already, so a little clearing uphill won't matter. Next, the density and lot size issue. On Martin Luther King Jr. Way at Cloverdale Street there are a number of newly built houses for sale by John L. Scott. The lot sizes are in the 5000 -5200 square foot range, comparable to many - and larger than many - of the Dujardin lots. The houses are from 1300 to 2000 square feet, also comparable. Until you see it, you won't believe how crowded together those houses look. Is cramped - together housing the right vision for Tukwila? Is that how we want others to view our city? In some early document the developer stated that the property would be compatible with the existing neighborhood, but small lots and densely sited houses aren't very compatible, to my mind. I'm glad the proposal is for nice single family homes, but please look carefully at the density issue, because it can become a liability for Tukwila, I feel. A definite liability is the surface water collection system. Dujardin will turn their system over to Tukwila when they're done, and then it'll be our headache. Yet, they haven't addressed the springs situation adequately. Our own property includes a slightly sloping field a block south of the site, and no springs are normally seen. However, after a heavy rainstorm a number of springs pop up and flow with water apparently from uphill. The whole hillside is that way, just like Mr. Haggerton described on August 26. But, because the Foster View consultants declare there to be no springs, just seepage in the wetlands area, they haven't planned for water coming out of the ground from off -site flows after a heavy rain. We'II all have to pay for taking care of the problem. And the more bulldozing and clearing for this development, the more problems are likely to, pardon the pun, spring up. None of us should pay for bad planning, and the city should hold the developer to high enough standards that runoff from springs off- and on -site can be contained. Yet another liability for this city is a very steep sidewalk parallel to 44th Avenue. Take a look at the portion next to the entry of house #41 on drawing #2, the grading plan. Since this sidewalk will be deeded to the city, Tukwila is going to get sued when somebody falls trying to negotiate it, because the slope of the pavement itself and the drop -off between the sidewalk and roadway are dangerous. And who's going to maintain the sidewalk, particularly when the maple leaves are all over it? Do you really want to put the city in this position? I'm very worried about through- traffic on 40th /42nd plowing into a car coming or going from the 137th extension; at minimum there should be warning lights south and north around the curve to alert drivers of driveways and possible turning vehicles. Despite double yellow lines, people have passed our car on that hillside; the liability for the city is too great without better safety measures for traffic. The three driveways coming onto 42nd offer problems, too: I picture what's going to happen when the mail truck parks next to the boxes; I picture the city having to maintain these private driveways for proper fire department access. Speaking of the fire department - -how on earth are they supposed to negotiate the little alley -type street when cars are likely to be parked there? Do you honestly believe that the people in all those houses are never going to need more than their two garage stalls and two more spots in their driveways? The 137th Place side street is inadequate, and I think it was done to try and squeeze in more houses. I feel that Lots 1, 2 and 3 are excessive. Please take a close look at them and try to analyze the amount of usable, unencumbered yard those buyers will have. It amounts to maybe less than half their entire lot size. They all have a 35 foot utility easement on the north, and they have a staggering amount of roof and driveway compared to yard. A PRD requirement is that up to 50% of the acreage can be impervious, but these lots are pushing the limits. Naturally, the Fire Department requires a good turn - around there. The grading and the guardrail up on 42nd are bound to cost a mint. But does it make good economic sense - is it a good plan - to put so much money into the infrastructure for three extra houses? I also ask you to think about Southgate Park to the north of their driveway: is the city going to be able to develop access to it with another driveway so close by, or are we not going to have the park developed at all because of the traffic and parking situation as a result of this development? If these lots and #4 were eliminated, the lot lines for #5 through #10 could be re -drawn so larger lot sizes could be created which would be more compatible with existing neighbors. With good planning and cooperation, access to Southgate Park could also be improved without having a pathway overshadowing the existing house east of the park, north of the development. The developer's consultants have been using averages to improve the looks of things and have changed figures on us frequently. The lot size average has gone up from 5000 range to the 6500 range as a result of incorporating a 35 -foot utility easement into the gross area of each affected lot. Some documents cite an average 25% slope, where others state that some slopes are 65 %. Traffic "average daily" flow carries more weight than what we know to be high, fast rush -hour afternoon traffic on 42nd. In other words, we citizens don't have a lot of trust in the developer at this point. We hope vou, as officials of our city, keep us citizens in mind as you weigh the proposal. Thank you for your time. This is a complex development, and there are many issues to resolve. Your thoughtful deliberation is appreciated. Nancy Sandine Lamb City of Tukwila Planning Commission 6300 Southcenter Blvd. Tukwila, WA 98188 Subject: Dear Sirs, Fred Sherman 13715 42nd Ave So. 'Tukwila, WA 98168 September 14, 1993 Fosterview Estates, proposed residential development, Dujard.in Development Company. This proposed project is too many homes in too small of an area! 41 homes is way out of character with the surrounding community! Those of you on the City of Tukwila Planning Commission have a duty and responsibility to look out for the best interests of the • City and especially the citizens who currently live in homes all around this proposed project! I want the project, as proposed, denied!!! Reasons as follows:• 1. Current zoning requires a minimum lot size of 7200 Sq. Ft.. This proposal, amazingly, has only 9 lots out of a total of 41 that meet this requ.irementll It has 4 lots underli40GO Sq. Ft., another 12 lots under 5000 Sq. Ft., and another! 9 lots under 6000 Sq. Ft.l Our zoning requires 7200 minimum!!!! Stick to this requirement now Require the developer to rework the project. Dowrsize, for example, by combining lots to meet minimum lot size, such as combihing 4 &5, 6 &7, 8 &9, 16 &17, 20 &21, 24 &23, 25 &26, 27 &28, 32 &33, 34 &35, 36 &37, 38 &39, and:40 &41. Careful downsizing of the. number lots would still leave the project-with around 27 - 30 lots or so. 2. Regarding sensitive areas, the land (26 %) set aside for this purpose with 45% of the existing tree canopy meets our City requirements. This I approve. The developer is required to meet these requirements: however, no matter how many homes are involved! In being reasonable with set asides for sensitive areas by the developer, the City may, the key word is "may" allow downsizing of some of the lots below the standard minimum of 7200 Sq. Ft.. This was allowed by our Dept. of Community Development to an unusual extreme!!! Why allow 32 out of a total of 41 lots to be so far under the minimum ? ?? This is totally wrong! I want this wrong corrected now! f 3;:4,.!;,1 , Page 2 3. It is an insult to all the citizens of Tukwila who live around this proposed project that we were not consulted by The Dept. of Community Developement until July 1993. With our views, comments, and suggestions known early 'on, say back in 1991, The Dept. of Community Developement could have provided better direction and guidelines for the . Dujardin Development Company. Guidelines acceptable to the citizens around this project. This would have made it easier for the developer as well. 4. This project was not handled properly from day one. I asked you on The Planning Commission to send this project back to the developer not approved!! And also, direct the Dept. of Community. Developement to work with the developer and the citizens to make the necessary changes. These views are shared by my next door neighbor Marjorie Cargo of 13723 42nd Ave South. Please do what is right, require these changes. Thank you. Best regards, Fred Sherman .September 14, 1993 To: City of Tukwila, Planning Commission From: Janelle Scarber - 13716 - 41st Avenue So - Tukwila 98168 I came here tonite to tell you our feelings on the proposed Fosterview Estates PRD. After hearing the Developer and his associates each speak and give different facts and figures from what they have said at several Community Center Informa- tional Meetings and submitted documents of record and avoiding answering specific Commission members questions I want to add a few remarks. 1. They have stated at several community informational meetings that they would clear cut the entire site except for the desig- nated sensitive area. Tonite they used figures of leaving a 45% canopy. Quite a discrepancy. 2. They stated the smallest lot size would be 3949 sq ft but 3804 (lot 8) and 3814 sq ft (lot 7) are shown on their drawings. This is only 52% of Tukwilas smallest lot designation of 7200 sq ft (R1) . 3. The issue of when the test sites were done was evaded as to time of year and number of times done. Their letter of May 5, 1992 states the only time they did the tests was August 1990. That was a particularily hot, dry period. Not a very good indication of underground water sources. 4. They stated they had worked with both the water and sewer departments regarding their proposed plot design. They have never contacted either department. 5. Some of their proposed retaining walls show up to a 30% discrepancy between submitted maps. These are but a few of the discrepancies between their verbal testimony tonite and paperwork they've submitted during the last 2+ years. The site in question is a very large part of the Riverton/ Foster Annexation area. Most of us chose to live here because of the rural setting, with no tract houses and their flip - flopped design with everyone setting back the same distance from the street. If we had wanted to live in or next to a tract ,� �,: u: J,Y.(: 7a: �Cfm:: �r' Ss1. rf• .'iii:'3y�:,L:�;an.u..na,nA.... Page 2 letter tosPiLnning Commission from Jan` le Scarber 5IT . housing ith.bc we would not have bought here. When we annexed to Tukwila we were promised a lot of things. These were not all on paper but the employees of the City and the then Council Members and various Commissioners were very eager to promise life would not change, we would be allowed to stay rural, we would keep a minimum lot size of 7200 sq feet with no exceptions. Some of us were on the task forces set up to iron out the differences between King Countys zoning designations and Tukwilas. Allowing a "trade off" of 3804 sq ft lots makes fool of all of us who trusted the initial zoning of Tukwila and the officials who said this would not happen. Since the annexation in 1988 there has been little done by the City and its employees, Council and Commissioners to promote the undying loyalty of the Riverton /Foster area. This is a chance for the City to show good faith and back up their empty promises to the citizens by requiring the area in question to remain open space for all of us and future generations to enjoy. The get rich now, forget the future mentality has no place in todays environmentally conscious world. This valuable resource cannot be replicated in this community ever?! Thank you. 'Bob Scarber 13716 41st Avenue South, Tukwila, Washington 98168 e In my opinion the proposed Fosterview Estates property -- The entire 9.7 acres of hillside, should be assigned a SENSITIVE AREA designation. • If the development is allowed it will displace the last major vestiges of any sizeable wildlife habitat in the Tukwila area. It IS a wet hillside and arguably.. a very poor building site. • King County Planning and Council have rejected several building proposals in the past. The property has not changed... only the apparent ownership has changed. o The concerns of record - regarding the very real dangers of 42nd Avenue traffic need to be weighed very carefully. Locally it is known as a hazardous stretch from 139th north•to beyond Southgate Park. ® It is FAST - DOWNHILL- CURVING AND CAMBERED to the point of becoming treacherous in any inclement weather. Snow,end ice can make it a virtual "toboggan run ". a Along with the other concerns, I personally do not care to pay taxes to provide this development with their own personal and private Southgate Park. With the additional impact on city services and utilities) will very probably relegate other community upgrades to fall in line behind Fosterview Estates. Allentown coming first to mind. • Downsizing of minimum R -1 - 7200 square foot lot size to "WHATEVER CAN BE FIT IN - Due to "SPECIAL STANDARDS" does not serve the citizens of Tukwila well. Many modern suburban homes have move living space than some of the proposed lot sizes in this proposal. • Clearcutting has been found to greatly degrade the quality of any given watershed. This is especially a concern to anyone who cares about our local environment. Severe'and sudden rainfall will very probably overun the propsed hydologic engineering structures imp •P ki9T1A( Y4a•ARr0)P WAr �d s c ii cNCie. ? 11145'!1'N‘>ori "7A CZ4 .4A) wAnz AC believe the ANNEXED areas should take first priority over any and all PRDs. This development is of major concern to northwest Tukwila esidents... We ask that the applicant and development be denied... Thank you for your consideration... To: City of Tukwila Planning Commission • From: Lee Micah Loyd 13531 43rd Ave S~ Tukwila 981 Re: Proposed "Fosterview Estates" I am joint owner, along with Pamela Riess, of the residence immediately to the north of the PRD under discussion. We have, of course, many serious concerns about the overall negative impact of the projects. Currently this area is a very pleasant neighborhood with an almost rural feel despite the nearby glut of freeways. One of our concerns is the enclosed drainage system which gathers all the water into a line aimed directly at the center of'our property line, where it must make a right angle turn to go around our property and connect with the drain pipe down 43rd Ave. 1 wonder what sort of provision will be made by the city of lukwila to deal with the damage to our property when that system fails. Also of serious concern to us is the removal of existing vegetation along our southern and eastern boUndary to be replaced by a wide, open public walkway. According to the Tukwila Zoning Code.18.46.090, paragraph a)"...The perimeter of the PRD shall be so designed as to minimize any undesirable impact of the PRD on adjacent properties." This is a very straight-forward statement. There is nothing to argue about. The impact on our adjacent property would be nothing but undesirable. Pam Riess made clear in her earlier statements to you the. relevant issues of 1) security, 2) liability, and 3) privacy. The project is proposing to wrap our front yard in a 12 foot wide public walkway. The very least the planners and builders can do is include in their plan a fence between their project and our property. In whatever way it must be dealt with on their side of the fence, I am certain that any competent designer and builder can handle it. The proposal at the last meeting, which was not acceptable to us because it did not include any kind of fence, was a 4' high rock retaining wall with the path 2' below tha top of the rocks. In the most recent elevation view produced by the applicant this has dwindled to a 1' high "rockery"...! One foot does not a rockery make. The result would be a rock-lined path, extremely tacky by any landscape design standards. The Zoning Code is very clear on the issue of undesirable impact of PRDs on adjacent properties. We would like to know the Code is valid. City of Tukwila John W Rants, Mayor Department of Community Development Rick Beeler, Director MEMORANDUM TO: Bill Fowler FROM: Denni Shefrin DATE: November 25, 1992 SUBJECT: • Fosterview Estates Meeting Summary (Nov. 20, 1992) and Comments. SEPA The City has determined that an EIS will not be required for this project, however, the SEPA checklist has been extended. The following must be provided: 1. Based upon staff's review of the PRD plan submittal, the Department of Public Works has requested site - specific geotechnical information to be provided for the closed portion of 44th Ave. South to determine the feasibility of re- opening the road. Although Terra Associates's letter dated 5/5/92 evaluates the stability of the road, there were no site- specific investigations of subsurface conditions. Terra proposed conceptual measures to improve the stability of the road. Subsurface information is therefore needed to determine the feasibility of improving and restoring the road. In their study, Terra had requested notice for any change to the site plan. The original study does not address the revised site plan, specifically for the steep slope areas adjacent to 44th Ave. S. and immediately south of Southgate Park. Supplementary analysis and recommendations to the study are necessary to determine the suitability of these areas for development as shown on the revised site plan. 2. Because access driveways are proposed off 42nd Avenue South, a guardrail study was requested. Access drive profiles should be included. PRD 1. Street system. a. Change to street location: 1 -way loop road vs. proposed; b. Right -of -way widths can incorporate sidewalk and utility easements; c. Sidewalks should be installed on each side of S. 137th St. extension; d. Eliminate southern bulb and ensure fire access can be accommodated; e. Some impact to wetlands /buffers may be permitted for roadway reconfiguration. It is strongly recommended that any conceptual redesign should be provided to DCD as soon as possible for review and comment. 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • (206) 431 -3670 • Fax (206) 431-3665 1....:i.iv.S.`.•L"a�x,x!Y�' :'c °Z�S:LI�:�E:-��'.�tii�J {�). F'L$SL%i*.IMYAx.�THCXw.rn.iwi rvsr.axa..,w.RN 2. PRD /Site Plan. a. All comments contained in the letter to you dated Nov. 8, 1992 apply; b. Promote shared driveways combined with avoiding access onto 42nd Ave. for northern lots; c. Homes should be designed so that garages are behind the front entries, specifically for the flatter lots; d. Utility equipment must be screened with vegetation and should be located away from view corridors and areas which are highly visible to vehicles and pedestrians; e. The Z -lot line concept involves detached dwellings with one side located along a property line (see attached example); f. Site drainage /detention and biofiltration swale design and location questions should be addressed to John Pierog. The additional materials identified above should be provided related to environmental review by December 18. Conceptual design revisions can be provided at any time. cc: Ron Cameron John Pierog Gary Shulz Don Williams Erich Tietz Terre Harris Jean Bates attachment. 9. iAruq•o .eL N6 . duty ... 'r ltiget( L1nNE i1 /88 form design team with/gdal developing . new . concept for 8 units /aci 1.4 travel to Calif a concept v '`ALL z.K l -IU- I IJ .S S.A... - -- • • -WI kir70.N 61a- I.NEIGr -. VJ L_ CREATE ' FR4VA Y MAIJ::...- LA►ZG1Ep LOTS." IN1- iYi?IU,,L..:�:lFli I .-. IVA- ; .AT.1►nn(..I"IY�., EASILY ...... F T-1 7F&Hia 5.);( .CGU:If✓fiIJ5_. [ • - .til� .GAF- s,�rnKl- iii ♦;e=rr . • �L1_VI.fJc __ O , ics� -penmi Ian types • •8 preliminary discussior about the concept / plat and hou 7/89 apply. for preliminary 1 1 /89 receive Klahanie archit committee approval for • concept !. : I A A City of Tukwila Department of Public Works John W. Rants, Mayor M E M O R A N D U M TO: DENNI SHEFRIN, ASSOCIATE PLANNER FROM: RON CAMERON, CITY ENGINEER DATE: OCTOBER 16, 1992 SUBJECT: FOSTERVIEW ESTATES, SEPA - PRD AND (L92 -0066, 65 & 64) Ross A. Earnst, P. E., Director BLA REVIEWS RECEIVED OCT 1 9 1992 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT These comments on the subject development are a consolidation of all Public Works comments received. A summary of mitigations required is presented immediately after these specific comments. Due to the magnitude of this development and the amount of material to be reviewed, comments address various features of the development rather than the three specific documents and plans submitted for review. Comments may have applicability to one or more of the documents submitted. 1. R /W, Streets and Sidewalks A. Plan Sheet No. 1 indicates a strip of land south of South 137th Street along 44th Avenue South to be dedicated to the City. Assessor's maps show that this strip is already owned by the City. In fact, they show that R/W width in this area is a total of 60'. This needs to be checked. B. On the certified BLA plat, 44th Avenue South is incorrectly identified as 43rd Avenue South. C. South and North 43rd Places should be changed to 43rd Place South. D. There is a desire by the City to reopen 44th Avenue South. This issue is not addressed in this development submittal although engineering information has been verbally presented that it's unstable. Geotechnical evaluation and subsequent identification of any factors that preclude a reasonable economic improvement of 44th Avenue South need to be presented. The effect of not having 44th Avenue South open to circulatory /neighborhood traffic needs to be looked at and discussed. If geotechnical factors and non - significant impact on 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • Phone: (206) 433 -0179 • Fax (206) 431-3665 Fosterview Estates Memo October 16, 1992 Page 2 circulation result in a recommendation not to improve 44th Avenue South for vehicle access, it should still be developed as a trail for pedestrian and bicycle traffic. A waiver to the Sidewalk Ordinance will be necessary if sidewalks are not planned to be provided. E. The South 137th Street extension will be classified as an access street. R/W requirements for this classification are a 50' minimum. Only 30' is shown on the plans. Sidewalks are required on both sides of dedicated streets and with no tapered ends as shown. The 50' width will allow two 10 -foot traveled lanes, an eight foot parking lane, five foot sidewalks, two six -inch curbs plus 11 feet for utilities. South 137th Street between 44th Avenue South and Macadam will have increased pedestrian and vehicle traffic. The 20' width will not provide safe travel for the increased vehicle traffic accessing the site from Macadam or pedestrian traffic accessing the site from Macadam. Therefore, the development should not be approved without pedestrian safety improvement such as a paved ped path connecting the development 820 feet +/- to the Macadam Road ped path. This can be a developer /City pro rata improvement. F. According to the Subdivision Code, R/W requirements for cul -de -sac roadways are 40'. Only 30' is shown on the plans. R/W for the turnarounds is adequate. Sidewalks should be required on one side of the cul -de -sac roads and should extend along the turnaround area to provide service to all residences. G. The 43rd Avenue South 20' R/W needs to connect to the R/W for the northern turnaround area on 43rd Place South. This should be developed as ped access to Southgate Park. The 9.73' gap precludes the connection and provides no practical use. H. The 20' alley between South 137th Street and 43rd Place South should have driveway, and not intersection, radii at its ends. I. The driveway profiles need to be shown and considered for safe stopping sight distances on Lots 1, 2 and 3 on 42nd Avenue South. Identified grades could result in the driver's eye height being substantially less than 3.75' relative to the place of pedestrian or vehicular traffic Fosterview Estates Memo October 16, 1992 Page 3 on 42nd Avenue South. In addition, stopping distance assumes a 7% grade. Measurements should be made to verify for final design. A traffic engineer should review and comment on the final design. J. Lots 2 and 3 are indicated to have joint access in the traffic report. The plan shows them to have separate accesses. K. A guardrail evaluation for northbound traffic on 42nd Avenue South is needed. L. Provide frontal improvements along 42nd Avenue South as is currently proposed and being designed by the City, and also along 44th Avenue South. M. Standard street lighting should be provided. It appears that some light poles are missing, such as at the end of the southern turnaround area. N. Combined driveways on many internal accesses should be considered to maximize use of the space on these lots, many of which are relatively small. 0. Appropriate street signing will need to be included in the final design plans. P. Lots 32 -35 are located on 42nd Avenue South in the Traffic Report. The plans show Lots 31 -34. 2. Water System A. The existing 6" water main shown on the Utilities Plan is not shown on City maps as an existing facility. In fact, on the plan the reference is directed at an 8" sewer line. B. To achieve adequate flows for this development, it is recommended that the 6" water main along 42nd Avenue South be upgraded to 8" from South 140th Street to the development take -off point at South 137th Street. This will meet the requirements of the City Comprehensive Plan and Water District No. 125. C. No horizontal or vertical curves are permitted in water mains. Deflection shall be achieved by utilizing manufactured bends. 1 Fosterview Estates Memo October 16, 1992 Page 4 D. The water main shall be looped through the alley and the cul -de -sac. E. The new water main should not dead end in the turnaround area on the northern cul -de -sac. F. Water meter taps and boxes shall be provided for each lot. 3. Sewer System A. Responsibility for the maintenance of the sewer system outside of R/W needs to be addressed. If the franchise utility (Val Vue) will maintain those portions of the system, adequate access needs to be provided. B. The 90 °bends in the proposed sewer main at the southwest corner of the development need to be eliminated. The main should pass on the east side of the proposed house on Lot 35, proceed to the turnaround area and then northwest back to the alley alignment. C. Sewer stub -outs to each of the lots need to be provided in the final design. 4. Storm Drainage A. The creek on the east side of this subdivision has major flooding problems during heavy rain events. The storm drainage system for the site needs to be developed with this in mind and should be addressed as an item in the report. On -site roof downspout infiltration systems should be used wherever possible to minimize the run -off that will eventually be conveyed to the creek. B. The storm drainage design is incomplete (i.e., no outfall shown, etc.) and needs to be further studied and developed. There appear to be too many detention facilities scattered about. Maintenance is a prime consideration. The City will maintain those within public R /W. Those portions of the system on private property should be privately maintained and provision for access needs to be included. 5. Miscellaneous A. The Fosterview Estates soils reports do not include soils investigations of the steep ravine as previously requested, nor indicate whether the lower hillside, which Fosterview Estates Memo October 16, 1992 Page 5 this development affects, will be stable for the life of the project. A soils investigation of the stability of the hillside related to the project, and any neede mitigation measures to stabilize the hill for th development, need to be provided by a soils engineer. B. It should be kept in mind that the maximum height o rockeries permitted is four feet. Structural retainin walls are otherwise required. C. Developer should identify who will care for and maintai wetland and buffer areas. There needs to be a lega description recorded and an agreement drafted an executed. The following summarizes mitigations necessary in the variou features of the development: 1. R /W, Streets and Sidewalks Increased vehicular and pedestrian traffic in the area wil necessitate actions to distribute and accommodate both Specifically, the following actions should be undertaken: A. Investigate the possibility of reopening 44th Avenu South to provide for vehicular and pedestrian traffic If not feasible from the standpoint of geotechnica considerations or if the action would not hav significant positive impact on vehicle circulation, i should still be developed as a trail for pedestrian an bicycle traffic to provide access from South 137th Stree northward. B. 50' of R/W dedication will be necessary along the Sout 137th Street extension to provide for construction of tw travel lanes, a parking lane and sidewalks and utilit corridors. C. 40' of R/W dedication will be necessary along cul -de -sa roads to provide for the construction of two trave lanes, utility corridors and one sidewalk, which shoul continue along the turnaround area so that it fronts al parcels. D. Provide the additional 9.73' of R/W to connect the 43r Avenue South 20' R/W with the northern turnaround area s that pedestrian access can be provided to Southgate Park. Fosterview Estates Memo October 16, 1992 Page 6 E. Provide frontal improvements along 42nd and 44th Avenues South and perform a guardrail evaluation for northbound traffic on 42nd Avenue South. F. A paved ped path should be provided along South 137th Street to the Macadam Road ped path. This can be shared with the City providing the design, administration, construction inspection and developer providing the construction cost. For this location that is about a 50/50 split with survey and drainage. G. Provide standard street lighting and signing. 2. Water System Due to the increased demand on a substandard system, it will be necessary to upgrade the 6" water main along 42nd Avenue South to 8" from South 140th Street to the development take- off point at South 137th Street. Loop the new system as described in the above comments. 3. Sewer System Provide adequate access as necessary to maintain any portions of the system on private property. 4. Storm Drainage This development will create a substantial area of new impervious surface. To minimize surface runoff and prevent downstream damage, the following actions should be undertaken: A. Evaluate the use of on -site infiltration systems, for roof downspouts and other impervious surface runoff, to minimize runoff that will eventually be conveyed to the creek on the east side of the subdivision. B. For water that cannot be infiltrated, properly designed detention facilities shall be constructed. C. Biofilters and oil /water separators shall be provided to minimize the possibility of the conveyance of pollutants off -site. D. Easements and access roads shall be provided as necessary to properly maintain the storm drainage system. 5. Miscellaneous Fosterview Estates Memo October 16, 1992 Page 7 A. Additional soil sampling and testing is necessary in the area of the steep ravine to assure proper measures are taken to avoid possible slope failure. B. An agreement for the maintenance and care of wetlands and buffer areas needs to be prepared and executed. RMC:JAP:cd cf: John A. Pierog Development file CD.D18.fostrvu2.mem -J. TO: FROM: DATE: City of Tukwila Department of Public Works RON CAMERON JOHN A. PIERO SEPTEMBER 17, 1992 M E M O R A N D U M Ross A. Earnst, P. E., Director RECEIVED SEP 1 71992 z COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT SUBJECT: FOSTERVIEW ESTATES, SEPA = PRD AND BLA REVIEWS (L92 -0066, 65 & 64) These comments on the subject development are a consolidation of my own comments and those received from Pat Brodin, Greg Villanueva and Ted's shop. Phil Fraser's comments were previously transmitted directly to you via memo, dated 9/2/92. I assume Ross Heller has also commented to you directly. Due to the magnitude of this development and the amount of material to be reviewed, comments address various. features of the development rather than the three specific documents and plans submitted for review. These comments may be relevant to one or more of the documents. 1. R /W, Streets and Sidewalks NN A. Plan Sheet No. 1 indicates a strip of land south of South 137th Street along 44th Avenue South to be dedicated to the City. Assessor's maps show that this strip is already owned by the City. In fact, they show that R/W width in this area is a total of 60'. B. On the certified BLA plat, 44th Avenue South is incorrectly identified as 43rd Avenue South. c. South and North 43rd Places should be changed. to 43rd Place South. D. There is a desire by the City to reopen 43rd Avenue .South. This issue is not addressed by this development. E. 1The South 137th Street extension will be classified as an access street. R/W requirements for this classification are a 50' minimum. Only 30' is shown on the plans. Sidewalks should be required on both sides of dedicated - •ls .'o:-' w/ iv ELC(�C:• <;1- ° John W. Rants, Mayor streets with no tapered ends C' 'vie, 4,:acuaati 2,vd e) c a 6: t CL 1141/1471 pAIW4I'2' llid ALtii) ilrx ic9u L -� r v=im' d oeu -, t b, .&) a,tSJh pal&pe 6 maid Az. 28' —2-c1,1,3.> 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • Phone: (206) 433-0179 • Fax (206) 431-3665 Fosterview Estates Memo September 17, 1992 Page 2 • '.::•u., z.0 r- *vJe•• �y xtwttxa:5.'. F. According to the Subdivision Code, R/W requirements for cul -de -sac roadways are 40'. Only 30' is shown on the plans. R/W for the turnarounds is adequate. Sidewalks should be required on both sides of the cul -de -sac roads with no tapered ends. G. The need for the alley for access to lots 22 through 28 versus access off South 137th Street for lots 22 through 24 and two combined driveways on 42nd Avenue South for lots 25 through 28 should be evaluated. Sight distances along 42nd Avenue South need to be looked at. H. Standard street lighting should be prodded. It appears that some light poles are missing.-7414 I. Combined driveways on many internal accesses should be considered to maximize use of the space on these lots, many of which are relatively small. r! J. Appropriate street signing will need to be included in the final design plans. 5-614A t1 , 1 1 2. Water System A. Water mains shall be sized in accordance with the City Comprehensive Plan. B. No horizontal or vertical curves are permitted in water mains. Deflection shall be achieved by utilizing manufactured bends. C. If the alley is included in the final design, the water main shall be looped through the alley and the cul -de- sac . D. The new water main should not dead end in the turnaround area on the northern cul -de -sac. E. Water meter taps and boxes shall be provided for each lot. 3. Sewer System A. Sewer mains shall be sized in accordance with the City Comprehensive Plan. B. Responsibility for the maintenance of the sewer system needs to be addressed. If the franchise utility (Val ,•mss:. � Fosterview Estates Memo September 17, 1992 Page 3 Vue) will maintain the system, adequate access needs to be provided. C. The 90 °bends in the proposed sewer main at the southwest' corner of the development need to be eliminated. The main should pass on the east side of the proposed house on lot 35, proceed to the turnaround area and then northwest back to the alley alignment. D. Sewer stub -outs to each of the lots need to be provided in the final design. 4. Storm Drainage A. The creek on the east side of this subdivision has major flooding problems during heavy rain events. The storm drainage system for the site needs to be developed with this in mind. On -site roof downspout infiltration systems should be used wherever possible to minimize the run -off that will be conveyed to the creek. B. The storm drainage design is incomplete (i.e., no outfall shown, etc.) and needs to be further studied and developed. There appear to be too many detention facilities scattered about. Maintenance is a prime consideration. The City will maintain those within public R /W. Those portions of the system on private property should be privately maintained. 5. Miscellaneous A. It should be kept in mind that the maximum height of rockeries permitted is four feet. Structural retaining walls are otherwise required. B. Developer should identify who will care for and maintain wetland and buffer areas. At this point in time, some of the above comments are specific to development and may not have applicability to the three specific review processes being conducted at this time. JAP /cd cf: Development file Pat Brodin Ted Freemire Greg Villanueva CD.D18.fostervw.mem City of Tukwila HEARING DATE: FILE NUMBERS: APPLICANT: John W. Rants, Mayor Department of Community Development Rick Beeler, Director REQUEST: LOCATION: COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: ZONING DISTRICT: SEPA DETERMINATION: RECOMMENDATIONS: ATTACHMENTS: STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION Prepared August 19, 1993 August 26, 1993 STAFF CONTACT: Denni Shefrin 431 -3663 L92 -0064 - Boundary Line Adjustment L92 -0065 - Planned Residential Development (PRD) L93 -0014 - Subdivision - Preliminary Plat Dujardin Development Company To subdivide a 9.7 acre parcel into 41 residential lots to include two sensitive area tracts and a pedestrian trail to connect with Southgate Park. Immediately south of Southgate Park between 42nd Ave. S. and 43rd /44th Ave. South. Single - Family Residential R1 -7.2 Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance (Amended) - L92 -0066 A. Approval with Conditions Preliminary Plat /Subdivision 1. Site Plan 2. Grading and Street Plan 3. Landscape Plan 4. Utilities Plan 5. Tree Survey B. Planned Residential Development 1. Site Plan 2. Grading and Street Plan 3. Landscape Plan 4. Cross Sections 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • (206) 431-3670 • Fax (206) 431-3665 • • 5. Eight Architectural Drawings - C. Wetlands Buffer Enhancement Plan Narrative D. Basic Content of Proposed. Conditions, Covenants and Restrictions E. SEPA Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance as mended MDNS. F. Comment Letters Received from Residents G. Preliminary Plat/Subdivision, Boundary Line Adjustment and PRD Applications H. Recommended Modifications to Landscape Plan I. Ordinances: 1. SAO 2. TPO 3. PRD 4. Detailed Procedures for Subdivisions i • 1 t Planning Commission Report August 26, 1993 Fosterview Estates FINDINGS VICINITY AND SITE INFORMATION Project Description: Page 3 Fosterview Estates is a proposed 41 -lot residential development on a 9.7 -acre parcel. The project includes the extension of South 137th Street from the intersection of 44th Avenue S. west across the site to connect with 42nd Ave. S. Forty-third Avenue South abuts a portion of the site to the east and has been barricaded and closed to vehicular use due to evidence of land movement. The lot layout is described below: A total of 21 single - family Tots (Lots 1 through 21) and a cul -de -sac (South 137th Place) are planned for the north side of South 137th Street. Another 14 single - family residential Tots (Lots 22 through 35) and a small north -south residential street (43rd Place South) are planned for the west portion of the site on the south side of South 137th Street. A watercourse and wetland have been identified on the site. The PRD requires delineation of these areas is required as discussed below. Six lots (Lots 36-41) would be situated immediately south of South 137 Street on the east side of the site. These lots are bounded on the west and south by a designated wetland area (Tract A). The watercourse area (Tract B) lies to the north of 137th Ave. S. opposite Lots 36-41. The average lot size would be approximately 6,400 square feet in area (see Site Plan Attachment la, 2a). As indicated above, the site contains environmentally sensitive areas (SA's). City regulations require that SA's be set aside in sensitive area tracts, (Tracts A and B), which will be discussed later in this report. The project also triggers SEPA review and several City- adopted regulations to ensure the project is designed in a manner sensitive to the natural conditions of the site. A street vacation, land dedication, and a boundary line adjustment are also part of this proposal. The 1,954 sq.ft. area proposed to be vacated lies immediately north of the cul -de -sac bulb. The total area proposed for dedication is 12,943 sq.ft. and includes a triangular- shaped parcel located on the northeast edge of the site, and a 20ft. x 291ft. strip on the west side of 44th Ave. S. for road Right -of -Way. The existing property line at the southeast corner would be adjusted 7.5 feet to remedy the building encroachment (garage) from the adjacent lot to the south. Site Description: The site's topography is variable including moderate to steeply sloping areas. The north and northeast portions of the site excluding proposed Tract B are sloped moderately to steeply downward ranging between 15% to 65% in grade. The west portion of the site slopes gently to moderately north and northeasterly with grades of approximately 15% to 25 %. The site also contains environmentally sensitive areas as defined by the City's Sensitive Areas Ordinance (SAO) discussed further in this report. These areas include a wetland and a watercourse. 1 Planning Commission Report August 26, 1993 Fosterview Estates Surrounding Land Uses: Page 4 The northwest portion of the site is bounded by Southgate Park (zoned R1 -7.2). All other sides are bounded by single - family development zoned R1 -7.2. Access and Circulation: Forty- second Ave. S. runs along the western edge of the property and 43rd /44th Ayes. S. are located along the east side. South 137th St. intersects 143rd /144th Ave. S. on the east side. A portion of 43rd Av. S. north of S. 137th St. has been barricaded to motorized vehicles. A majority of the lots would be accessed from S. 137th St. extension and interior loop and cul -de -sac except for three driveways proposed on 42nd Ave. S.. These driveways would be shared by seven residences. Vegetation and Landscaping: A tree survey has been conducted for the site (Attachment A5) as required by the PRD and Sensitive Areas Ordinance (SAO). The Interim Tree Preservation Ordinance requires a certain percentage of trees to be retained for new development. The SAO and PRD requirements also provide parameters for tree preservation. This will be described in the Background section. Proposed landscaping would be in addition to preserving existing vegetation. The proposal calls for trees uniformly spaced along each of the street frontages and new trees on each lot. Where slopes exist, vegetation is proposed along each side property line. Tree types would be a mixture of conifers and deciduous as shown the landscape plan (Attachment A3 & B3). New vegetation would be added to the buffer areas to mitigate for encroachment of the road and lots. BACKGROUND The City has adopted special ordinances which regulate development in environmentally sensitive areas. Regulations contained in these ordinances work in consort to attain design flexibility and respect for sites eligible for development which contain environmentally sensitive areas: 1. The Sensitive Areas Ordinance 2. Subdivision Ordinance 3. Planned Residential Development (allows for unit clustering to avoid sensitive areas); 4. The Tree Preservation Ordinance 5. Land Altering Ordinance 6. Building Permits (includes geotechnical review) The Sensitive Areas Ordinance (SAO): The SAO was established to regulate development for the purpose of protecting areas defined as environmentally sensitive. Creation of the SAO occurred in conjunction with inventories of natural systems within the City to include wetlands, watercourses and steep slopes. The City recognized a balance between the built and natural environment was necessary to better manage urban growth inevitable within the City. The SAO works in consort with the PRD and TPO to achieve this balance. Planning Commission Report August 26, 1993 Fosterview Estates Page 5 The SAO requires that sensitive areas be identified and delineated. A rating system based upon the type, size and value of wetlands, watercourses and steep slopes was developed. Based upon the rating and to preserve or strictly limit development on or near the SA's, a corresponding buffer requirement was created (see SAO attached). In accordance with the SAO delineation methods, the wetland has been rated Class 2 requiring a 50 -foot wide buffer. The watercourse has been rated Class 2 requiring a 35 -foot wide buffer. The SAO and PRD also requires increased setbacks and areas to be set aside in separate tracts which further protects SA'S. While disturbance to sensitive areas is discouraged, the SAO allows for essential roads and utilities provided SA's are either restored or enhanced. Normally, this is accomplished with new plantings which is diverse and compatible with the existing vegetation. The site also contains Class 3 slopes defined by the SAO as having 'high landslide potential and include areas sloping between fifteen and forty percent or more, and areas which are underlain by relatively impermeable soils or by bedrock'. As mentioned above, the project proposes some encroachment into the SA buffers for the road crossing (S. 137th St. /S. 137th PI. intersection) and at the edges of specific lots (lots 21, 37, 39, 40). The road encroachment would occur at the intersection. These encroachments would be within the buffer areas only. For the roadway, the impact would be minimized due to the 90- degree -angle design. Utilities including drainage improvements, would be installed within the road right -of -way. The lot encroachment occurs in order to reduce the amount of excavation and need for high retaining walls. As indicated, two sensitive areas tracts (Tracts A and B) are proposed. The combined tract size is 5,138 sq. ft. less than the total amount of sensitive area (109,385 square feet). Enhancement and restoration is therefore required. A conceptual wetlands buffer enhancement plan has been conceptually approved by the City's Urban Environmentalist. A final wetlands buffer enhancement plan will be prepared and approved prior to Final Plat approval. Because the internal street system proposes to cross the watercourse, a Hydraulics Permit (issued by the Department of Fisheries) is also required with this project. Interim Tree Preservation Ordinance (TPO): The TPO was adopted to promote building and site planning practices that are responsive to the community's natural environment, without preventing reasonable development of land. The TPO regulates the clearing of trees and understory vegetation. The TPO requires that a vegetation canopy dominated by trees covers 20- percent of the site at minimum after construction for sites whose existing canopy cover is 20- percent. Preservation priority is given to stands of trees which in turn, must be protected during construction. The project complies with TPO requirements. Planned Residential Development (PRD): The SAO stipulates that new subdivisions comply with the PRD provisions of the zoning code. This requirement is intended to provide for the greatest level of design flexibility in order to preserve SA's. In other words, blanket application of the R1 -7.2 zoning regulations for minimum lot sizes and setbacks may not afford sensitive site design and may conflict with SAO buffer requirements, or preclude development entirely. The PRD process pulls all of the ordinances together. It provides design flexibility while allowing relief to Planning Commission Report August 26, 1993 Fosterview Estates Page 6 zoning standards such as setbacks and lot sizes. Therefore, SA's are more easily preserved. PRD provisions also require that SA's and their associated buffers be set aside in SA tracts. These tracts will remain undeveloped. Covenants and restrictions recorded with the subdivision plat will specify how these areas would be maintained. The PRD requires that either the tracts be held under a single ownership or held in common. Passive or active recreational areas are required by a PRD and can be and are included sensitive areas /buffers held in SA tracts. SUBDIVISION /PRELIMINARY PLAT: Goals for the subdivision of land are summarized below: 1. Provide for the protection of valuable, irreplaceable environmental amenities and to make urban development as compatible as possible with the ecological balance of the area; 2. Preserve drainage patterns, protect ground water supply, prevent erosion and preserve trees and provide vegetation. 3. The proposal shall conform with existing plans for streets. Trails should be reserved in right -of- way easements to the City. 4. The subdivision shall respond to and complement City of Tukwila Ordinances, Resolutions, and Comprehensive Plans. Application of all ordinances discussed in this report which affect this proposal work together to satisfy the Subdivision goals: 1. The PRD and TPO serve to protect and preserve vegetation and valuable sensitive areas while new vegetation is proposed throughout the project; 2. Water and sewer availability has been determined to be adequate; the Department of Public Works has approved the conceptual drainage plan; SEPA has set out mitigation measures to ensure storm water is appropriated collected and both treated or carried to an improved drainage system; an erosion control plan is required prior to issuing Land Altering Permits; 3. The extension of S. 137th St. results in a better distribution of vehicle trips rather than limiting access to either 42nd Ave. S. or 43rd /44th Ayes. S.; the proposed trail would be on a dedicated access easement; 4. The project complies with the City of Tukwila Comprehensive Land Use Policy Plan for housing. SEPA: The City issued a Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance on July 22, 1993 and an Amended MDNS on August 13, 1993 (see Attachment 5). As part of the environmental review, geotechnical reports, hydrology and drainage studies and supporting documentation were reviewed by the City and by independent engineers (as required by SAO). The reports include specific recommendations for the type of construction, drainage system, erosion control and project phasing. Recommendations were based on factors such as soil conditions, hydrology and percent and direction of slope. These recommendations are considered part of the project and compliance to these recommendations are mandatory and enforced through the land altering/construction phase. The MDNS was amended in order to respond to issues raised at two separate neighborhood informational meetings held July 27 and August 10, 1993. The MDNS has been appealed and will be heard by the City Council concurrent with its public hearing for this project. Issues raised in the appeal will not be Planning Commission Report August 26, 1993 Fosterview Estates Page 7 discussed in this report because the City Council, not the Planning Commission must act on the appeal. PROCESS: Briefly, the public hearing and permitting process occurs in the following order: 1. Planning Commission Hearing a. Subdivision /Preliminary Plat b. PRD • c. Boundary Line Adjustment 2. City Council Hearing a SEPA Appeal b. Subdivision /Preliminary Plat c. PRD d. Boundary Line Adjustment e. Street Vacation 3. Land Altering Permits for infrastructure (administrative): a. streets, curb, gutter, sidewalk • b. utilities: sewer, water, street lights, and additional appurtenances. Installation of these items must be completed prior to Final Plat approval. 4. Planning Commission a. Final Plat 5. City Council a. Final Plat PRD REVIEW CRITERIA: 1. 'Requirements of the subdivision code for the proposed development have been met if appropriate'. Basic provisions of the Subdivision Code have been met, however, certain exceptions as allowed under the PRD have been incorporated to preserve and protect sensitive areas and are described below. The melding of the SAO with PRD provisions allows for deviations under the R1 -7.2 zone provisions. While the zoning code restricts the land use to single - family residential, the PRD makes it possible for single - family development to accommodate the number of units allowed while preserving SA's at the same time (see discussion on density transfer below). The design strategies employed by the project include unit clustering (to avoid sensitive areas). This is achieved by smaller lots and reduced setbacks. While many of the Tots exceed 7,200 square feet in area, most Tots are smaller. The overall average lot size is 6,400 square feet. Normally, homes must be setback 30 -feet from the front property line. A majority of the proposed front - yard setbacks are 22 feet to keep the homes further from sensitive area buffers while maintaining a reasonable lot size. s, 1 Planning Commission Report August 26, 1993 Fosterview Estates Page 8 The average size home would be 1,690 sq. ft. in area. Most of the dwellings are two story and many with day -light basements. The anticipated cost for the homes would range from $175,000 to $200,000. In most cases, a potential homeowner could select from eight different models, while several of the homes are designed for specific sites due to the site's topography. Attachment B5 includes typical architectural drawings of the individual homes. Additional design options available to the consumer include roof design, exterior treatments (brick wainscot or siding) and color. Colors and materials will be provided at the hearing, but are typical of single - family residential construction. 2. "Reasons for density bonuses meet the bonus criteria ". The applicant is not seeking approval for a density bonus. Because of the presence of SA's, the density transfer formula was used to calculate the maximum number of units permitted. A total of 41 units is permitted and are proposed. Normally, density is based upon the amount of net buildable area divided by the zone classification, i.e. 7200 (for R1 -7.2). But, because development cannot occur on sensitive areas /buffers, the amount of density must be reduced in order for a site to reasonably sustain the development, reasonably preserve SA's and be consistent with all objectives contained in the applicable ordinances. The PRD allows for what is termed density transfer. The density transfer formula considers the percent of undevelopable area (SA's) to calculate the maximum number of dwellings permitted. The formula follows: {(DU /acre) (buildable acres)} + {(DU /acre) (sensitive areas /buffers) (density transfer)} = max. DU for site. Total Site Area (less area to be dedicated) = 420,701 sq.ft. (9.66 acres) Buildable acres = gross area minus areas to be dedicated minus sensitive areas and buffers. (7.15) Roads = 12% Du /acre = (43,560 - (43,560)(percent of roads)) /7200. Du /acre = 5.32 Sensitive Areas = 109,385 sq.ft. (2.51 acres or 26% of total site area) Density Transfer = 24% where percentage of site in SA and buffer is between 21 -30. The density transfer equation reads as follows: (5.32) (7.15) + (5.32) (2.51) (.24) = 41.24 Total number of units permitted is 41. 3. "Adverse environmental impacts have been mitigated ". As indicated above, a MDNS was issued which identified potential impacts to four issue areas: drainage, traffic, slope stability and the on -site wetland. The MDNS (Attachment 5) lists all technical studies provided to and reviewed by the City. Based upon information contained in these studies, it was determined that required mitigation measures would make impacts not significant enough to require an Environmental Impact Statement.. The MDNS was subsequently amended to include the following condition and acknowledgements: Condition: That the drainage design must accommodate underground springs; Planning Commission Report August 26, 1993 Fosterview Estates Page 9 Acknowledgements: 1. That the sensitive areas and associate buffers should accommodate existing wildlife; 2. Improvements on 42nd Ave. S. will be completed by the City beyond the property frontage; 3. That the site distance for motorists on 42nd Ave. s. and proposed S. 137th St. meets engineering safety standards. The PRD requires SA's to be delineated and set aside in sensitive area tracts. The project also delineates four separate areas as "SLOPES TO BE LEFT UNGRADED'. The four areas include: (1) north and east of Tots 16 -20; (2) north of lots 14 & 15; (3) north of lots 1 -10; (4) east of Tots 33 -35. In order to retain existing vegetation, maintain reasonable lot sizes, restrict development and reduce the potential for erosion, areas 1-4 shall be set aside in open space easements. All easements will be recorded with the Final Plat. The PRD requires the applicant provide the basic content of proposed Conditions, Covenants and Restrictions (CC &R's, Attachment D). The CC &R's define tract areas, describe how the SA tracts and open space easements would be used and maintained and include language that the open space easements and SA tracts run with the land. 4. `Compliance of the proposal to PRD and sensitive area requirements'. See the PRD and SAO discussions above. While the SAO does not restrict development on steep slopes (defined by 15% or greater), or require buffers, the proponent has agreed to set aside sloped areas which would remain undeveloped as discussed above (see Attachment A2,B2). Developed slopes were subjected to the required geotechnical documentation of suitability for development. 5. "Time limitations, If any, for the entire development and specified stages have been documented in the application ". One of the mitigation measures required as part of the SEPA review is submittal of a phasing and sequencing plan to include erosion control measures both during and after construction. This plan will be provided prior to the issuance of Land Altering Permits. Construction would be limited to the dryer months. 6. 'Development in accordance with the comprehensive land use policy plan and other relevant plans ". The project satisfies applicable objectives and policies contained RESIDENCE and HOUSING section of the Comprehensive Land Use Policy Plan as described below: RESIDENCE /HOUSING Objective 1. Policy 1. Objective 2. Assure a diversified supply of housing in the planning area; Encourage housing developments which provide a diversity of housing types; Maintain a suitable, livable housing supply in the planning area; In addition to the existing comprehensive plan, the State's Growth Management Act requires cities to accommodate additional housing into the next century. The project would provide 41 additional homes Planning Commission Report August 26, 1993 Fosterview Estates Page 10 to Tukwila's housing stock. This project fulfills goals expressed by the community such as preserving residential neighborhoods, and encouraging owner - occupied housing. Additionally, SA's are also preserved. Objective 4. Policy 1. Encourage housing designs in which building forms.and spaces allow residents to adopt proprietary attitudes beyond their normal living spaces. Discourage housing designs which cause anonymity among residents and foster feelings of helpless isolation. The project design clusters homes in order to preserve sensitive areas. Strength in a sense of community can be gained by placing homes in closer proximity. Additionally, eight different architectural designs are available to buyers dependent upon the lot location. Diverse exterior treatments would help to avoid a monotonous streetscape. Policy 2. Encourage housing designs which provide for the visual surveillance of public spaces both from the dwelling units and the street. By placing .homes closer to streets, the ability to survey activity on the street is easier. The nature of residential projects means more activity by owners in their respective yards and.along the streets which is a proven deterrent to crime. Policy 3. Encourage the adequate lighting of residential streets and parking lots. Street lighting is proposed throughout the project site. Streetlights should be designed to be harmonious with the residential style of the development. 7. "Compliance with BAR review guidelines (TMC 18.60.050)'. Single- family development is exempt from the Design Review process. 8. 'Appropriate retention and preservation of existing trees and vegetation as recommended by the Director of Community Development". A tree inventory was conducted as required by the PRD regulations. The TPO requires: that for sites with an existing canopy cover of twenty percent (20%) or greater of the site area, final canopy cover shall be a minimum of twenty percent (20%) of the site area' and to meet the requirements for final canopy cover, or to otherwise mitigate the effects of vegetation removal, final canopy cover amy consist of any combination existing trees and replacement trees'. The project would result in retention of trees within the sensitive areas, their associated buffers and within proposed open space easements. There is a discrepancy between the Landscape Plan and Grading and Street Plan regarding the delineation of boundaries for the open space easements. This will be corrected prior to Final Plat approval. Landscape and TPO information is contained on the Landscape Plan as follows: There is approximately 191,000 sq.ft. of existing canopy coverage. The project would removed 103,523 sq.ft. of canopy leaving 87,485 sq.ft. of canopy coverage. The landscape plan proposes to add 17,400 Planning Commission Report August 26, 1993 Fosterview Estates Page 11 sq.ft. of new tree canopy (at 10 -year growth and excluding proposed trees within the public right -of -way). Forty-five percent of the existing tree canopy will remain after development (87,485/191,008). The subdivision code also requires one tree per residence located within the front setback. The PRD requires landscaping along sloped side property lines. The project proposes both. Landscaping in addition to a single tree would be installed in the front yards of all lots. Also, to maintain uniformity for the 42nd Ave. streetscape, Maple trees would be planted along the entire street frontage. Sweet Gum and Western Hemlock trees are also proposed at the rear of Tots 22 -24 (see Attachment A3,B3). Additional trees will be required along streets to further enhance the aesthetics of the overall streetscape (see Attachment G). SUBDIVISION Access /Roads. As discussed above, access is limited onto 42nd Ave. S. A single driveway would serve three residences (Lots 1-3) on the northwest corner, and two shared driveways would serve four residences at the southwest corner (Lots 32 -35). The City Engineer has also required the installation of a guardrail north of the 42nd Ave. S. /S. 137th St. intersection to give better definition to the road curvature to protect the homes below. The utilities plan reflects shared locations for utilities and streets. A hammerhead turn will be provided between Lots 2 and 3 for fire access. As stated earlier, essential roads and utilities can encroach into sensitive area buffers. The buffer on the south edge of Tract B will be reduced to accommodate the roadway. While .the proposed right -of -way width is 40- feet., the actual width of pavement will be 28 -feet plus 5 feet of sidewalk. This width would accommodate parking on the south side only to prevent intrusion into the Tract B buffer. A retaining wall will separate the road from the sensitive area buffer. Additionally, 43rd PI. S. would be 20 -feet wide. The purpose of this is to reduce the amount of impervious surface area and to in effect, cause traffic to move slowly which is desirable in a residential neighborhood. Lot Pattern. The average lot size is 6,400 square feet. The smallest lot (Lot 28) is 3,949 square feet and the largest (Lot 14) is 11,530 square feet. The PRD provides for reductions to lot areas to allow the greatest amount of design flexibility to protect sensitive areas. Pedestrian Access. To link the residential development to Southgate Park, a pedestrian walkway is proposed at the north edge of the cul -de -sac bulb which extends northwest to connect with the park. Sidewalks are also proposed throughout the subdivision and along 44th Ave. S. Pedestrians could also gain access northeast of the site (opposite the proposed vacated right -of -way). The developer has also agreed to provide funds to the City for the construction of a walkway along S. 137th St. to Macadam Rd. The sidewalk is to be constructed along the 44th Ave. S. frontage. In order to avoid impacting existing, mature trees, the sidewalk has been designed to meander rather than extend in a straight line. Planning Commission Report August 26, 1993 Fosterview Estates Other Features. Page 12 In order maintain the topographic features of portions of the site, rockeries are proposed on individual Tots. A retaining wall is also proposed on the north side of S. 137th St. which would separate the street from the SA buffer. The wall height will range from three to eleven feet (at the road crossing). The wall design would be of 'Keystone` (a masonry material) which will include plantings to lessen the contrast between the wall and the retained vegetation behind. Street lighting is proposed throughout the subdivision (Attachment A1,B1). The site plan shows the typical street light. No identification sign is proposed at this time. CONCLUSION Fosterview Estates represents the culmination of several regulations working together to regulate residential development while preserving ecologically sensitive areas. This is the last vestige of a large, undeveloped residentially -zoned area within the City of Tukwila. While the site may appear to be part of Southgate Park, the parcel is privately owned and eligible for residential development. By exercising flexibility in the zoning standards including reduced lot sizes and setbacks, the proposed plan preserves approximately 103,572 square -feet of sensitive area, retains sloped areas and vegetation, and provides owner - occupied housing with a mix of architectural styles. The SAO requires the proposed subdivision comply with provisions set forth in the PRD section of the Zoning Code. The SAO in conjunction with the flexible design standards allowed under the PRD section, combined with the TPO, serve to provide a certain amount of residential density while preserving ecologically sensitive areas. The community has also expressed a strong interest in providing owner - occupied homes and preserving existing neighborhoods. The project fulfills many of the planning goals contained the Growth Management Act related to housing. Three key goals include the following: 1. Development should be encouraged in urban areas where adequate public facilities and services exist or can be efficiently provided; 2. Reduce the inappropriate conversion of undeveloped land into sprawling, low- density development; 3. Encourage the availability of affordable housing to all economic segments of the population; promote a variety of residential densities and housing types; encourage preservation of existing housing stock. Additionally, the CC &R's provide assurance that the SA tracts and sloped areas would retain the existing vegetation, and be maintained for the enjoyment of the project's residents as well as help mitigate the visual impact of the development to the neighborhood. The proposed pedestrian trail leading to Southgate Park is not for the exclusive use of the project residents, but provides public access to the neighborhood. Planning Commission Report August 26, 1993 Fosterview Estates Page 13 Because of the residential nature of the project, staff recommends the street light to be redesigned to reflect the residential character of the project. Based upon the above, staff believes the Fosterview Estates project complies with the following ordinances, policies and regulations: 1. Subdivision 2. PRD 3. SAO 4. TPO 5. Comprehensive Land Use Policy Plan 6. GMA RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends the Planning Commission approve the PRD, Preliminary Plat and Boundary Line Adjustment with the following conditions: CONDITIONS: 1. Landscaping: Street trees shall vary between conifers and deciduous. Minimum sizes shall be 2 -1/2' cal.; or 8 -10 ft. high. 2. Additional trees shall be provided as shown on Attachment G. 3. The Final Wetlands Mitigation /Enhancement Plan is for the roadway crossing and buffer reduction. The Plan must be provided to and approved by DCD prior to issuance of Land Altering Permits. Recommended vegetation must include a diversity of trees compatible with existing vegetation. The Final Wetlands Mitigation Plan shall contain the following: a. The amount of clearing and grading proposed for the roadway crossing at the watercourse and any grading within the associated wetland /buffer areas including cross - sections showing areas of disturbance; b. Report which describes: 1. the purpose of the enhancement/restoration 2. areas to be enhanced /restored 3. how areas would be enhanced /restored; 4. selected plantings for roadway crossing and buffer reductions; 5. when enhancement would occur; 6. 2 -year maintenance /monitoring program. 4. Should a sign be proposed at some future date, the design shall be reviewed by DCD to ensure it is in keeping with the overall design of the project and that it is sited so as not to obstruct visibility to vehicles. 5. Street lighting shall be redesigned to be more in keeping with the residential character of the Planning Commission Report August 26, 1993 Fosterview Estates area. The final design shall be administratively approved by DCD. Page 14 6. The discrepancy between the Landscape Plan and Grading and Street Plan related to areas to be held in open space easements shall be corrected. The correction shall accurately delineate the boundaries of these areas. The revised Landscape Plan and Grading and Street Plan must be consistent and provided prior to issuance of Land Altering Permits. 7. The developer shall erect a permanent three -foot high split -rail wood fence along the boundaries of all open space easement locations prior to any grading. 8. The final Conditions, Covenants and Restrictions shall be submitted with the Final Plat application and shall include a revised legal description which specifically describes open space easement areas. : 001044 1401V ft I I 1,-11.1i11111 JUL y 8 19'-.J3 110 140 •••111:1 of Wm.,. el IV 140 WY IN 030 110 1.10 117 j 00 W11011 Pt wwl•sr..).71•11 ▪ Mgt? 41.41 100 • • :Mt 110 10v7-71— 140 Ottflal P. ww1•411,...• -11. RO too isy 1 11 ;Loll 0- "UV 100 741.4114•1 110 iro 140 ■ 140 IIM - 9. Its el:6A - risMisioqop.„t„,u, Ak! CROSS SECTIONS PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT FOSTEItVIEW ESTATES DUJARDIN DEVELOPMENT COMPANY ERicit 0. TH E AND ASSOCIAI IS, INC. Mr..* 10 10 40... rea* • • ma 04,14111 1...■••••IN •0' 5/5 • 1 a ri a 160 ISO JUL ? 8 13 GUMP:AT I Y DE :L il . ; •—■71 .4 MI • .• ,ft • 1,11111. I ' "0 CROSS SECTIONS PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT FOSTEUVIEW ESTATES DUJAROIU TT DEVELOPMENT COMPANY -•••". ericii0.1,, ILE AND ASSOCIA1 ES, so• •••■•11,1 ■••■••121 1,2 tiN • •ar-• '4/5 ft- ;T C.:, 5 ri t... ••,i I • ! • -. *** -*** --****-**** T, t ■-• "1 ;;2; ■•••• .1111.:.■:.;••-•A;;;;!;14.7.-11. -tar .1:: •L - . . ''' • • .....!..:.....: ‘4.Z..:::••• - ...;. •:: • ' • ...:.. '. - • • :,.........:' ..::;.:.............;.:* N.. I ...N.:- ............ ........,..... : ....................; ....... . ' . . . _ • • oz-411,15.- ..- i..il..; ,:i..i ..,,I1,-....,..-.......,-,..- ...,.. .k... . , ... 11 41 1 • 1 —7 :. ,..... ,V ... --r.,F21,....F., . • 1 -- "- I. -• :4-.....:%F.-74- ; ..-=:_•,....=-:-.• ,ni-31-•• • .Lit pet,,,,,, I 22,,taat LA, ft..*:Ivio 4 'Wog, Gylif CU, TreEE: ..X33 334. tlaaal 1.• •110,•, • • 1 • ,.••,• • I.,- -V Pan :A Cr I t a KAT: • AtrElt • car... • c•me.11 404 • 41,14.4,.....17 CI,•• CY•••5, P • V( • v.-Low ••••• 1101113 : • I3,• ta r. 043.. 4 .r. •••■ • Us•••■.‘1.•(..a t•I tI 11.1/30“1 0. LsD &OWL.. fl.., LANDSCAPING PLAN P.B.1:W2ILIMINARY KAI/SUBDIVISION rosition KW ESTATES DUJMW4 U DIVCIOPMENI COMPANY ===r: rl aee 4..44 OPY OITA : N./ ..nre 1.1.•,,,,•••••■Ane.., 1.6 •■••■ • 414,1414 IP — tr. rEt•ete...!ft. Gr.!! 'CB! P!^!!..f!P41 — • -?! 0.2OStVit 130 "93 t-!:Itt.:t 33 3 t!!P -- 4 3..tt3 •—at...34' 33. 14 42•,..o 6.911 LANC!...,CAPE PLAN • 1.• SO. r • 111 I .1 ,-1 2 .4 ILO I 4 113 5 • SOUTHGATE PARK O.I• 0,0 6.4., Volo Vt W IWOP06 Mit04. 441"1 nif#10,V.91 • PARK BOUNDARY .1.1.4.1. LVOV V • OV • OW la AMMO.* V Is“ v. AZ. r: IV•01. Val 00. =tr. 00.fir LORES TO SE LEFT )ED-TYP. \ IL\ \s\ts IVA •J•■•■•••1...' WV. • 00.0.0,0‘ 01 A'7. :•••", • \ /16 $1.- .-c•• • • -,■••• . GRADING & STREET PLAN P 1) SUBDIVISION Votinitv t ESTATIN twootoui ZS IsiVILOPPEsil COuPP111 : 44,1111(.11 a NW ANS/ASV/OASIS, INC. sip.. Pp.• •••-tatps. ;.; • 000 40.5.;...7.11.0.0.10? 00. • 2/5 • SOUTI MATE PARK 2. MIAS Won ool • „,•7, 13. 0.11 WM./ Is• non c 444141,140.64. • •••-•; 50.12 um -2r.ers • -- 1 .."'",„• '"''e --, \ new sew 30o6t . \ \ 90.56 1401. 7..ers•A ,Nt •..i.. ••/ r-•-• "' , -•.\ a ' 4,8:41 sm. .1 • 15.051 on fl 5.5/f a, III I8 ! 111.94. 1101.21.. 11,530 .qll 77. \ - 1,954 f111. Or 070 • 1135.47 Of • 084 9000 1 • 46C4740 R.. 2 4.170 99 74 16 4,146 44 • 4.207 404 70 ••••- 40 MOWED 70 CA, 47 4131942. 5 (.11111 1. 11 0., .1.1 ..qIt I '-•-• I MI / 6.752 4611 20 2.3.14.6 17 ,010 It 44731156e .1 7! 1 7.211 411 , 18 ISI r , 111,11 VICINITY MAP 04111179 D6C46.01006 non onto • •••••• nom no. na V:4 ral.%"...1.1.17/...."17.=•t■ am.... • orns n• • own. took nool n•••1 ••• •••••• ono •••31 alt• • 10 NV ••• /11..01 • •• ••• •••• NOM •Al.• • 00 ••• ••••• •• • ••••• tow • ••••••■• •••■• •••••• ■••• lab ••• 1141 .4.01 ••••• • .11..0 ••• • fl• • 0/.01 1•••••1 •••111 • •• • 10.1 • V II ••••1 ••• • 1.44* • 1.16.1161644 • 44 ••••1 • /Waft.. ••10.•• •••••■•, • •• On SITE 41191 •1l1- Oki nk,15, • 11101 044 •,00 . k4'.1•01, - 401 /.614 .1 - 0,1.1 • ontoon•k00 1n• 10, 1 1 11‘1 40.,0 oi 'I • SIMMS (.15) 740 kV, lor •••• 0 - 11•1 • 1/.6.11..411 • 101.. •9:14.41.4 4.1,41 (i• •t) on...• •l)_l(14 no,./ 3111 (7341 SITE PLAN 1- PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT 192-0065 FOSTER VI EW ESTATES DUJARDIN DEVELOPMENT COMPANY / 20 9.574 4.49., '•')49 TRACT "Er 11,11 ••• Is J.11411 f b.6 6 sy ' - : to 31 WATER COURSE ((0 4444i 01.. 127 144/1, .4.61 66 36 1371h ST .614 40041 (01 170 4116.4 4,4 MI 4041.79 64 4,415 • oCitIonnG 0.• 40 on 017401)0 10 MT 149 441*9014.14115 646 64415 D,0040 no10 41 non, IMACI • •■•• . 1041./ no 11 (118 0.014) 35% •X MI LH • LIU 4,1. us 044 974 tO1 • 11/6 Cr) S4641111 101 11 101 /16 • 1.4,1 •••,, l• 1 CHARLES MORGAN & ASSOCIATES • RCIIITECIS *ono 000n...• no no ton vi ; < I C 1, 33 6.101 1410 L__ _ 6.710 soft , • r 34 Ll 35-1 ,/ 151(5111If 131.. 111,11' :4 KO o 4 77397 IMP 1676..6 TRACT "A" /11.1 *In cal, 36 40 ••• .171 14' 41 NI 1, r • • S. 137th ST. I 9,,)6 140 10 ' • 41 oso.r.ess, II: C.I4 01 1.1..44 4 I, 1 .• I§ ....1 xi ui P . rrram 1,wwww...;... 'PIP- l: i z 1.0 1 : , > 1 .72.7_ j. ..._.- tIFniv We oz , < 7 141 14114// .$:%•-• C . ..„ .. et ill3 Jr 501 46 77* \ WETLANDS 1 DATE 6 '6 I? \-7000 .4012717T 1=1 ; 0 so. •045,11 0110101 44 1/5 SOUTHGATE PAPA "FOSTERVIEW ESTATES" TUKWILA, WASH. DUJARDIN DEVELOPMENT CO. JAI.•••■••••••••1 trrits1.: • •..94?.., Ar/.5 f‘, • ,•-••••*7 0 (I) 0 LEGEND 11•0•C•114 1111104 Mr A001,•11 11411 1..0M11 Of 11•11 10 VI 01110000 Mite. MT 0111 • 1001f0 *WPC 11.1.0.101,1111141/110 110- 1101■11100 111.1 10 *1111•01 TREE SURVEY LtejrA/WL A - L • CADA: OS • Conaer , co•Lefaaratmo• Or • CWW•1.1 016, • Pe•■■•4•• • ;Z. - ant? L - LAutn LA, • LII■101, LO • LocIAJ - AlAPt • • FEAR h.e • &MIL., APALI PRELIMINARY PLAT / SUBDIVISION FOSTERVIEW ESTATES DUJARDIII DEVELOPMENT COMPANY CHARLES MORCAN & ASSOCIATES AR CHIT' CT S ••••■•10• .1•1 Mr*. loo 101 SW •.•-• • 4 amarnmeAlny. A' .rAi.A I • .1../ el °LI ; . ,,•••••• - • tg••11411•10.,t. 0:011413 411: PAnk PAI;k li(N.1!It3Alt matt • 4:"-`:, • MIA \ • • . .O.PES TO BE LEFT 3RADED—TYP. w IN3WH3V11V W0.11, 6.0.111... P•-• UTILITIES PLAN 1411.11.1tIART PLAT / SUBD,V151011 Fostlinvi F:11' ESTATES 011JAND111 fl DIMOrldllf COUPON 7.7.; O. ill1/1 ANI1 AWN iNe. • I. . • . • S. 1,3 7 lit S • ....... . ..... . t 1 "?1,‘, • • " • ,"ilizatzg;'44==z-m- L-oort.e...rs* •••-•-••• • `z`-a4, • • •■••,.' I LAN t.• li S.:4•77............ ........... . • • s•:...:ii ." • '•"• * •••••• "••••••1 is, ••• t,s1.:;•i.;....:-..., ..........i..••:,;7'; ' : i. • •, . • - - - ,, “..... „,;;;•..,, • • • ... : • -: : N... 1••••••.; " ;••••■•• ••••••••• if., . • • j"...-....,.. •••••••••••••••• 40.• • -,;-,7.- - ...L. ,....... • z....4,... ,......z...... I,• - • .. -.--• - 'J.; ...;,..i..."44 .;.:,....:' —.. r.... t • - •-.• 1 :.;,-.;.....7,...... •••••••ft.:••••••ftrt .1... ft . 6 .. , • , , . I ......• .. i.6. .. ..... . •••••...••••••• a ft.. • 1 . 16. oft.ftrft......••••••■• 1 ftft.6ft ;•• . -. r '' . . 1 - 1! If*:.,.::.::: ' ;.;.-t...,, ..,.. - r:-.1-,-:-:- --. ----- - 1,1, 4.,...,._ ..... : ,..,..;,..„.. 'or"; :r • : ._ 7:—..-. • • . ' 1 . . 1 ;,.' ..-,—. .:-::•.-.74:-.' ••■■■■•;* " " • ••••• • "..- .:F•••••-7°.•• ":"•••• ••''..`"" .„, ..... — ---------- ,:,•,•••,:::•• • ••••-— • • • — r. r, T I K1 Cr TI2E •,' i :, . „1.1, }..,:i.:-..... ::::::::::•,.••• ' A, ij..4ir i ;4- ':-7, 2:::: — ;i■ 1.131Vit!P•xL,T4.■,JIN,:,..t_ 4.111,541.2pv0 c. catirtiaa 160,4f ...‘•••'.. ft', ftr.,116•Lerr I? • sc...., ••■• ns tnt*..1U 04••••• 14511,•44 Ca• LAW' LANDSCAPING PLAN r.R.DLy.ortwupitt_tkalstinotvisiolt FOSTEIRVI Et' ESTATES ou,00s. n oLvttormtra COMPANY ......•.k., 4 •- --.1. ••:.4 -:;;;;;;.• •.: .... ...........,...,.. 7;cr, rr. tr.ftftft,, yft•aft wn .••••••6. rIft6.66.• •••■• i.• ,C••441 • 4••••• 4 ••••••••• TUE r0EC,115 0gY 4 • ALIX11. C. • ••.,,••• GI. • ••••••••IVI G41 • .11,1•60.00 Cf•• 4.■•••5, 1• • 1,4. 44 • "...MI r • r••••• •• • 11.00. CANOPY PATA 'sat 4.4. 44 .4.4.4444 ■••■•4.44441 fic. ••••• • 414.4.41 st 11,41.,14-!-1...--",4.41-111••••■•••••••■••4,41._______.._110.r4•4 44. tt■v•••_,rpe r. L!:11:9A214......!...:1,-1.9.1••••••••..1•••••• "•••:•■•7 _a, .0..st •! A Mr.. 14 %yr 4... (.2.4.4..•44.t...._.....444...14!;.) 111 01 •1• 1• • ttj 2 r i• ,. I In -1 er Ifl U III 2 Sac; YM LAN s of■ p p LAN • 1.. ZO. N3/5 SOUTIIOATE PARK a b. ,11•06•Sel rAnK BOUNDARY ow • MIR Y.0. OM RA art tf.t:41Ir'""" • LOS TO BE LEFT GR ED7TYP. • \\‘‘ \\ \\ - Mo. on. Wo.. also 1•1.0.•.,..••••••. •••00. et. ittft 4•&„1_9_1.1 9 . 1 • • • •••■. • r • ...WI ••■•■••• .1:1•.1;4,11.4 1: i ji,..... .11. A io . . j . •0.1 11 ,...... ..., ri— ...... • ' • ar‘s -.• • " ... VITAL 0.11 I oil r. t • . • • .• • la.o. 1.0 PlIAH. t./ GRADING 8 STREET PLAN lir P.O....11/2[1...1!V/ILl!ILLAILAppolyisio,/ NISI Eli V I E If ES1 AT ES DUJAPDPI U DI1ILOPKIlt COuraNv (1) PIP11,0. III I/I ANIIMCIN:1411%. WAD NO. WWI I. ek. ■• -• 6.1 N....0.1...■•• • , tir ore, M6.'1441414. woe et- •2/5 W IN3WH3VIIV SOUTHGATE PARK ,1.11■:. .1. , 111 St 1 . 1.1 • n o .111 ay.,> I. as tan. 7c•!,,,••1 • n 0 r1) .1 e� •. ? 4• .1 / ��d *1 r - w• 410. 0.1./ 1 J "1 / r.�}_•.. I .. ,. 111• .nc rr7w 11,001.1...•• / • 1 1 I 1 I1 I5.1)31 41 II 13.349 4 HI II 3,.:05141 7 �3.11e 1)=l 9 i 0 I 6,7M .011 3 ` .1.5,,11 I 10 I tit„ \ 1,134 411.11 CII'/ 00.17 1+01.77.3r( I I40*1(0 w.r r0 M I'llf\ v.74rz0 e\ \i 70.00 501.7096•E 1 1I. 1757 1101. 77'.7"[• 1. artll. 16 S,S46 41'1 / 11.737 43 11 7000 •1 11 4.4 17 11111•..17.41 w 3.11111 411 7.r `•' \t 73. 4 3.7 181.1" ,%S; \ •mot; rIs \ o, •' IY 4.701 411 70 M 1M074)10 10 / 7113 a •1111u i /•0 3.310 .10 12 5,048 s.411 rea( 11 ''�. ....� 4444 .1.7. .. ... . .., °. ... .1+ -r•. •« «044-1. •. y 13 4.1311 411. 7..4.. '" «.. ".,,..,, 1' «. 1 r7.. .....y •_ 44 4 4 -4 4 444... 4 , ,4,444 4444. _;c I7.' 4444 >a «c ., - � •w , w.... , 1344 , 74 4. ••....4 4..4 • 08 SITE PLAN •- - SITE \ \1•.1.3 .111 X. 26' 19 01491.0. \I i J\,• �t V 20,/4.111 \z. 000 4.. 1/ • t TRACT " B 74.11 WATER COURSE 11,111 "' 30 4, 4,.0 % 7,404 3311 . , (,4 . 36 /a 709 •011 /J ,709 4.434 4111 , Ct. 38 • 7.3.'2,411. 33 6.1111 GPOSS Lr7I API?: 433,1114 19,11. (900 ACRI5) 111 101 SI,E 490,701 1911.'• 9FG ACRLS -- 1.ACL110111G APIA 01C'1r0 '0 Crr' el 1111:051,3 '. 17,143 51 11. 9(F ACRIS P::m9O 17110 11 1015 'PAC( 'A' 11* 9• • 1118,147 1.1 R. (7 31 4C10 S) •i.011107 901 15 101 770. 3,919 39 11. A•.1 71119! 101 SI71 : 0,497 13 0I. 131.01,111 101 541 • 5.070 11 11 PRELIMINARY PLAT- SUODIVISION 1.93 -0014 Fos'rERVIEW ESTATES OUJARDIII SS DEVELOPMENT COMPANY CIIARIY. MORCAN k ASSOCIATES 1!1. RCII0ECTS 1 35 TRACT "A" 4,301 411 5. 137th_ST. I I 0.136 .19. 10 81 rc0¢4I(o 1p I i 7111 0' 711'11. i . �1R .111 4'•4140 1 40 , 1. 11• .;11 0 iv; I N I! all i E a A I WETLANDS 1.1•.,09-- Z V- o. 067E 4i'• 38 39 f A \ 6.040 i__, .41 1/01.7/1;1 ___ 110 Iro••`7e•. iU 37 IUII .n•77T,r��� ne7'E7f7EY'. I:^^ 1o'4 wnv: W 71337 1117.411.7110 \.•7000 7MI• } /'3 /'1 DRAWN 7.11 1/5 FOSTERVIEW ESTATES HOUSE "A' LOTS 36 -41 LEFT SIDE ELEVATION RIGHT SIDE ELEVATION ENTRY ELEVATION REAR ELEVATION TYPICAL ELEVATION — OTHER ROOF ELEVATIONS AVAILABLE — BRICK WAINSCOTE AVAILABLE 2nd FLOOR PLAN 1,924 sq.ft. (APPROXIMATE) —s • 2 cm GMA*E 1st FLOOR PLAN BASEMENT PLAN FOS:ERVIEVV ES1 ATES HOUSE LOT 24 LEFT SIDE ELEVATION ENTRY ELEVATION RIGHT SIDE ELEVATION REAR ELEVATION TYPICAL ELEVATION — OTHER ROOF ELEVATIONS AVAILABLE — BRICK WAINSCOTE AVAILABLE L BASEMENT PLAN J 2,085 sq.ft. (APPROXIMATE) 1 st FLOOR PLAN L 2nd FLOOR PLAN 'ATTACHMENT B5 FOSTERVIEW ESTATES HOUSE 'C' LOTS 6 -10 LEFT SIDE ELEVATION ENTRY ELEVATION RIGHT SIDE ELEVATION REAR ELEVATION TYPICAL ELEVATION — OTHER ROOF ELEVATIONS AVAILABLE — BRICK WAINSCOTE AVAILABLE —L_J 2nd FLOOR PLAN 1,838 sq.ft. (APPROXIMATE) 1st FLOOR • PLAN UNFIPISHED SFICE BASEMENT PLAN -i • JUL 2 8 1993 CO;V1MU N ITY 0 EVE- LOP: r1Eti. .�.. -a i+r ra army rT nr FC3STERVIEW ESTATES HOUSE 'D' LOTS 4,5,11,12,14 - 17,22,23 & 32 LEFT SIDE ELEVATION BEDROOM 2 BEDROOM ENTRY ELEVATION RIGHT SIDE ELEVATION REAR ELEVATION TYPICAL ELEVATION — OTHER ROOF ELEVATIONS AVAILABLE — BRICK WAINSCOTE AVAILABLE • 1,390 sq.ft.(APPROXIMATE) WSIER BEDROOM BASEMENT PLAN JUL 2 81993 /1 +•• Oct; ='_Or ,BEN 1st FLOOR PLAN ATTACHMENT B5 FOST6RVIEW ESTAy(ES HOUSE •E• LOT 1 ENTRY ELEVATION _J RIGHT SIDE ELEVATION J REAR ELEVATION N 1 I LEFT SIDE ELEVATION TYPICAL ELEVATION — OTHER ROOF ELEVATIONS AVAILABLE — BRICK WAINSCOTE AVAILABLE 1,503 sq.ft. (APPROXIMATE) 1st FLOOR PLAN 2nd FLOOR PLAN' �- - FO§TERVIEW ESTATES • HOUSE "F* LOTS 20 & 35 LEFT SIDE ELEVATION ....•••■•■■••.■••• • ammo.. algoas Animmrommlow•■• ENTRY ELEVATION RIGHT SIDE ELEVATION REAR ELEVATION TYPICAL ELEVATION — OTHER ROOF ELEVATIONS AVAILABLE — BRICK WAINSCOTE AVAILABLE 1,449 sq.ft. (APPROXIMATE) DEDR001.1 BEDROOM /3 2nd FLOOR PLAN st FLOOR PLAN JUL 2 8 1993 CC7.,1muNIT-y ATTACHMENT B5 FOSTERVIEW ESTATES HOUSE "G" LOTS 18,19,21,33 & 34 LEFT SIDE ELEVATION ENTRY ELEVATION RIGHT SIDE ELEVATION REAR ELEVATION TYPICAL ELEVATION — OTHER ROOF ELEVATIONS AVAILABLE — BRICK WAINSCOTE AVAILABLE 1,365 sq.ft. (APPROXIMATE) BEDROOM ;2 OPEN 10 BELOW J 2nd FLOOR PLAN JUL 'z 3 1993 1st FLOOR PLAN ATTACHMENT B5 FOS') ERVIEW ESTATES HOUSE "H" LOTS 2,3,13,25-31 LEFT SIDE ELEVATION L =C.= --= 1E===L._3 .DL_.3=L_:J- L_==E"T.i1-:-_.1 ENTRY ELEVATION —L - I I RIGHT SIDE ELEVATION REAR ELEVATION TYPICAL ELEVATION -- OTHER ROOF ELEVATIONS AVAILABLE - aRicK WAINSCOTE AVAILABLE OPEN TO BELOW 111 BEDROOM # L BEDROOM 93 2nd FLOOR PLAN 1,970 sq.ft. (APPROXIMATE) 1st FLOOR PLAN JUL 2. 8 199'• cc .-• 2 COR GARAGE L__ . BASEMENT PLAN ATTACHMENT B5 JERALD K. BELL Landscape Architect 2127 NORTH 148TH STREET • SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98133 • PHONE 362.9137 WETLANDS BUFFER ENHANCEMENT PLAN for Fosterview Estates, Tukwila, Washington RECEIVED CITY OF TUKWILA AUG 1 9 1993 PERMIT CENTER A. 1. Areas of Buffer Enhancement are shown on the Landscape Plan and include three small areas where proposed grading will encroach on the edge of the Wetlands Buffer area. 2. Additional Wetlands and Buffer Enhancement will be required to mitigate encroachment of the roadway for S. 137th Street, where it crosses the Wetlands and Buffers. The City has indicated that sizes and locations of this Enhancement are to be determined at a later date when additional information and details are available. B. Enhancement Plantings: 1. Proposed Enhancement Plantings will include a diversity of shrub and tree species planted within the wetland /watercourse buffer area. 'These species will be chosen for compatibility with the conditions of the site, with existing tree and shrub cover, and as habitat for wildlife. If necessary, it may include removing any existing non - native plants and replacing them with hardy native species. 2. Trees and shrubs to be planted in the enhancement areas could include some of the following species: Trees: Douglas Fir Western Hemlock Western Red Cedar possibly Sitka Spruce in wetter areas along the watercourse. also, Oregon Ash and Scouler Willow Shrubs: Oceanspray Vine Maple Indian Plum Salmonberry Red -osier Dogwood Pacific Ninebark Twinflower•along the wet edges of the buffer C. Plant Maintenance: The Enhancement Plantings will be watered, fertilized and otherwise cared for, as necessary to keep them healthy and vigorously growing through their establishment period of one year. D. Guarantee: During the first year, or one full growing season, any plants which die or fail to become established and are not vigorously growing will be removed and replaced with the same size and species as originally planted. ATTACHMENT C BUCK & GORDON RECEIVE 902 WAI1:1(1NUN": ('CALL • 1:.1 WL'9I4N.N AMINE SEATTLE, WASP.:Nc'1ov 981:1.1097 JU ? 7 I 6) 3$3.954.7 • FAL'YLM1Lt (206) 626.0675 ATTORNEYS AT LAW 1:ETER 1.. RUCK • IIRC T C:ARSC?N LAY P. DERR )0EL M. c. oIu.,c :)N t.4HELLEY E. KNF.Ir AMY L. KOSTF.RL:TZ KEr7H E. 1.10XO:d COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT July 27, 1993 Ms. Denni Shcfrin City of Tukwila Department of Community Development 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite 100 Tukwila, WA 98188 Or CcL+jn. ALISC'N A. fi:RMINC* .i MAf)F.I.HINIi A.I: URI .tiNL1t PI0)LGT 1v1r.N,. fl KATHRYN A DARDOu: P.E. Re: Fosterview Estates PRD and Plat; Conditions, Covenants and Restrictions Information Dear Denni: You have asked for information about the Conditions, Covenants and Restrictions (CC 8: R's) that will be adopted for Fosterview Estates, in accordance with your PRD ordinance, Section 18.46.110 (4) of the Tukwila Municipal code. That section requires submittal of "basic content of any restrictive covenants." We construe this to require, at this time, a basic outline of what the CC & R's will cover, rather than specific language provisions addressing all of the details. We believe our interpretation of what is required in terms of "basic content" is correct because your PRD ordinance later requires, in Section 18,46.115, that the specific content of the restrictive covenants intended to be used in a PRD be approved by the City Council and the City Attorney before issuance of a building permit. Your process thus contemplates that the detailed provisions of the CC & R's would be reviewed and approved not prior to PRD approval, but prior to building permit issuance. In this case, where a subdivision is involved, the logical time for City Attorney and City Council review of detailed CC & R provisions would be at the time of the City Council's approval of the final plat. The approach of giving basic information at this time will allow you to make it a condition of final plat approval and /or of building permit issuance, that detailed CC & R's, covering certain basic areas, be drafted and approved by the City Attorney and City Council. In addition, as your PRD ordinance recognizes, detailed drafting of the CC & R's at this stage is not possible because we still do not have approval of our design through the PRD and preliminary plat. ATTACHMENT D July 27, 1993 Accordingly, the basic content of CC & R's for the development will include: (1) A definition of common areas or sensitive area tracts and how these are to be utilized, maintained or preserved; (2) The creation of a Homeowner's Association to which the common areas or sensitive area tracts will be conveyed, with responsibilities and restrictions on how these areas will be utilized, maintained or preserved Rights retained by the Declarant regarding administration of the property, with transition provisions to the Association (3) (4) Restrictions on use of the property for residential purposes, with design restrictions regarding fences, landscaping, signs, keeping of animals, disposal of trash, quality of exterior finish of buildings, etc., in order that the development present a uniform and aesthetically pleasing appearance, and the Association's responsibilities regarding enforcement of these restrictions, including the establishment of an Architectural Control Committee (5) Regulations for establishment of the Association and conduct of its business, including voting rights therein, bylaws, meetings, etc. (6) Provisions for monetary assessments by the Association to fulfill its duties of maintenance of common areas and its other responsibilities (7) Provisions to make these requirements covenants running with the land and dealing with enforceability We hope that this is satisfactory. Please give me a call if you have any questions. Very truly yours, ((st01 cc: Bill Fowler D ijardrnw)r r3.alt Amy L. K4terlitz .CITY OF TUKWILA MITIGATED DETERMINATION OF NONSIGNIF'':ANCE (MDN' ) DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: FO'STER'JIEW ESTATES IS A PROPOSED 41 -LOT RESIDEN- T IAL DEVELOPMENT ON A 10 -ACRE PARCEL. THE SITE IS. BOUNDED BY SOUTH►3ATE PARK TO THE NORTH, '43RD AV. S. AND 44TH AV. S. TO THE EP.ST AND 42ND A'J. S. TO THE WEST. MITIGATION CONDITIONS AND EXHIBIT'S A, B, & C ARE ATTACHED. PROPONENT: DUJARDIN DE'VEL0PMENT. COMPANY LOCATION OF PROPOSAL, INCLUDING STREET ADDRESS, IF ANY: r DD. E S : PARCEL NO: 15'7304 -9073 SEC /TWN /RNG'' SE. 15 23N O4E LEAD AGENCY:: CITY .OF TUKWILA FiLE NO: L92 -0066 The City..has ,determined that the proposal. does not have a. probable significant adve.rse impacrron the environment. An environmental impact statement LEIS"), riot required urder RCW 43.21c.030(2) (c) . This deec sio'n' was made .after- review :of a completed environmental checklist and other' i nfor,mat i o►: on file with the • lead agency. This information is available -tc ttie .publ.ic on •equest.. The_.condit.ons to this SEPA Dete.r•mination ..are attached_ Thts DNS i`; issued under, 197-11-'140(2). Comments must be submitted by 051.fj3 • i 4�'•. Beeler, Pespcncible Official t/ of Tukwila, la, (205) 431-3630 63CC ' c thIcenter Boulevard Tukwila, WA 93288 Date may appeal this determination to the City C ierk at City Ha i l , 6200 Souzlicenter Boulevard, d, Tukwi 1a, WA 92.133 no later than 10 days from the abcv_. signature date by• written appeal stating the basis of the appeal for specific factual obiections. You :ilay be required to bear some of `.iir - .pe _.s for an appeal. .l'.__ of the prooedures for SEPA appeals are available with the City Clerk and Department of Community De•.: e i cpn en t . ATTACHMENT E City of Tukwila John W. Rants, Mayor Department of Community Development Rick Beeler, Director AMENDED SEPA MITIGATED DETERMINATION OF NONSIGNIFICANCE FOSTERVIEW ESTATES L92 -0066 Project Description. Fosterview Estates is a proposed 41 -lot residential development on a 10 -acre parcel in the urban City of Tukwila. The project includes the westerly extension of South 137th Street from the intersection of 44th Avenue South west across the site to connect with 42nd Avenue South. A total of 21 single - family lots (Lots 1 through 21) and a cul -de -sac (South 137th Place) are planned for the north side of South 137th Street. Another 14 single -family residential lots (Lots 22 through 35) and a small north -south residential street (43rd Place South) are planned for the west portion of the site on the south side of South 137th Street. There would be six lots (Lots 36 -41 situated immediately south of South 137 Street on the east side 'of the site. These lots are bounded on the west and south by a designated wetland area (Tract B). A watercourse area (Tract A) lies to the north of 137th Ave. S. opposite Lots 36 -41. The average lot size would be approximately 5,000 square feet in area (see Vicinity Map - Exhibit A attached). Several technical studies have been submitted as part of this project and are referred to later is this report. SEPA conditions as specified below are in addition to conclusions and recommendations contained in these technical studies. The property is not on the State registry of historic significant archeological sites. Community meetings were held on July 30 and August 3 and 10, 1993, to review the proposal and the SEPA process. Additional reports regarding traffic and storm drainage impacts were submitted which are referenced below. The public comment period was extended to August 13. As a result of this additional information this MDNS is hereby amended to read as follows: Site Conditions: The topography is variable. The north and northeast portions of the site excluding proposed Tract B are sloped moderately to steeply downward ranging between 15% to 65% in grade. The west portion of the site slopes gently to moderately north and northeasterly with grades of approximately 15% to 25 %. Lots 36 -41 would be located on moderately to steeply sloping areas of approximately 20% 6300 Southcenter Boulevard. Suite #100 • Tukwila. Washfrzton 98188 • 1206) 431 -3670 • Fax (2061 431-3665 Fosterview Estates Page 2 SEPA - L92 -0066 to 35% grades. Lots 40 and 41 are proposed to be t rraced. In addition to slopes in excess of 15% grade, the site also contains a wetland and a watercourse. Forty -fourth Avenue South extends north from S. 139 this point, the roadway becomes 43rd Ave. S. Both 4 site to the east. Due to land movement evidenced by been barricaded and closed to vehicular use. This ab west side of a narrow, steeply sloping ravine that dra St. to approximately S. 137th St. At rd Ave. S. and 44th Ave. S. abut the isplaced pavement, 43rd Ave. S. has ndoned roadway is located along the s to the north. The City has adopted special ordinances which re i ate development in environmentally sensitive areas. These ordinances include the follo g: 1: The Sensitive Areas Ordinance 2. Planned Residential Development (allows for nit clustering to avoid sensitive areas); 3. The Tree Preservation Ordinance 4. Land Altering Ordinance 5. Building Permits (includes geotechnical revie ) Under the City's Sensitive Areas Ordinance (S • 0), encroachment into designated environmentally sensitive areas as defined by the SA S is permitted for essential roads and utilities provided the impact to these areas is minimi ed. The proposed subdivision street system would encroach onto the wetland area at the s reet intersection, however, the impact would be minimized due to the 90- degree -angle des'gn. The roadway would share other utilities including sewer and water. Under the SAO, the impacted area will be restore provided to and approved by the City prior to the Pr Commission. Sufficient wildlife habitat will be provi their buffers to accommodate most of the existing the following: . A wetlands mitigation plan will be ary Plat approval by the Planning ed in the proposed sensitive areas and dlife. The mitigation plan will include a. The approximate amount of clearing nd grading proposed for the roadway crossing at the watercourse and any grading within the associated wetland/buffer areas; b. Proposed vegetation including trees t. maintain or improve the value of the impacted area as recommended by th City's Urban Environmentalist; c. Proposed maintenance plan to assure u tigation success, which could include dedication of sensitive areas and thei buffers to the City. Fosterview Estates Page 3 SEPA - L92 -0066 Because the internal street system proposes to cross the watercourse, a Hydraulics Permit (issued by the Department of Fisheries) is also required with this project. Potential impacts to the following have been identified: 1. DRAINAGE; 2. TRAFFIC: vehicular and pedestrian; 3. SLOPE STABILITY; 4. ON -SITE WETLAND. DRAINAGE. The following technical studies prepared by Erich O. Tietze and Associates, Inc. Engineers and Consultants were reviewed by the City: 1. Drainage Analysis Received March 15, 1993 2. Criteria to Be Used in Drainage Design for May 12, 1993 Fosterview Estates 3. Off -Site Drainage Analysis for May 12, 1993 Fosterview Estates 4. Drainage Basins Maps Received August 10, 1993 of Existing and Future Drainage At the City's request, an independent review of the adequacy of the drainage system as proposed, has been conducted by Hammond, Collier & Wade - Livingstone Associates, Inc. (HCW -L). In their memo to the City dated June 28, 1993 (hereto, made part of this record), HCW -L was requested to evaluate whether there would be increased runoff on the property to the north; to provide recommendations for sequencing and phasing for project construction; relocation of the north property swa]e, and to recommend erosion control measures to control clearing and erosion potential. Recommendations of the June 28, 1993 HCW -L review shall be adhered to in the design and construction of the project unless otherwise agreed to and approved by the Departments of Public Works and Community0 Development. On August 13, 1993 the City Engineer reported that the impact of underground springs on the property can only be determined when construction of the proposed roads occurs. This will require updating the storm drainage system design for 43rd Ave. S. at the time of grading the roads. Fosterview Estates Page 4 . SEPA - L92 -0066 Mitigation Conditions: 1.. Wet vaults in addition to a biofiltration swale shall be constructed. The bioswale assists in the removal of conventional pollutants while wet vaults provide for some filtering and settlement prior to discharge into the proposed drainage system. The biofiltration swale shall be located within the 43rd Avenue S. right -of -way. Shade - tolerant plant species shall be used to ensure plant survival and function of the biofiltration swale. Wet vaults shall be easily accessible by maintenance vehicles and designed in accordance with the King County Surface Water Design Manual. 2. All runoff and drainage from the on -site drainage system shall be discharged directly to the proposed storm drainage improvements proposed on 43rd /44th Ave. S. right - of -way. The spreaders shown on conceptual plans shall be omitted. The final design of the system will be updated to accommodate underground springs volumes uncovered during construction of the roadways. TRAFFIC - VEHICULAR. The following technical studies have been prepared by Gibson Traffic Consultants and submitted with this project: 1. Traffic Study 2. Resolution of Traffic /Access Issues (includes guardrail analysis) 3. LOS, Safety & Livability Impacts of 137th "Through" Street April 27, 1992 December 10, 1992 August 9, 1993 The conceptual site plan proposes three lots to be accessed by a single driveway onto 42nd Avenue South on the northwest corner of the subject property. Forty- second Avenue South curves left and descends along the side of a hill. The City will be improving 42nd Ave. S. to include curb, gutter and sidewalks beyond the project. The sight distance for motorists on 42nd Ave. S. and proposed S. 137th St. meets engineering safety standards. A guardrail analysis for 42nd Avenue S. has been provided at the request of the City Engineer. The analysis concluded that a guardrail would not be required and referenced the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) standards including presence of curb, gutter and sidewalks. However, the City Engineer has concluded that a guard rail is required (per memo from Ron Cameron dated, July 1, 1993). The City Engineer has determined that AASHTO standards are superseded based upon the following factors: a. The need for the guardrail is based upon the geometric evaluation of the relationship between the project design and 42nd Ave. S.. ti Fosterview Estates Page 5 SEPA - L92 -0066 b. There is high potential for errant vehicles to cross the sidewalk, jump the bank and hit yards and /or homes below; c. Other examples of homes being hit where adjacent to road curvatures have occurred both in Tukwila (139th Ave. S.) and in Everett, WA. Mitigation Condition: 1. A guardrail shall be installed along 42nd Avenue South immediately north of the S. 137th Street access point into the subdivision as shown on drawings received April 26, 1993. TRAFFIC - PEDESTRIAN. The project proposes the extension of S. 137th St. westward from 43rd Ave. South to 42nd Ave. South. The existing neighborhood consists of 40 homes. The 41 -lot subdivision will generate additional pedestrian traffic along S. 137th St. for both transit and school bus access. The 137th roadway in its current condition is narrow, approximately 18 -20 feet wide, with no provision for pedestrians. Pedestrians use this street to access bus service available on Macadam Road. The increased pedestrian traffic and vehicular traffic along 137th related to the development proposal would result in decreased safety for pedestrian and vehicular traffic Because S. 137th St. does not currently provide adequate pedestrian access for the 40 homes, the City agrees to pay 1/2 the total amount of construction costs for walkway improvements. Because the additional trip distribution is relatively equal (41 homes) to what is existing (40 homes), the developer will be required to pay a fair share contribution as specified below under Mitigation Condition: Mitigation Condition: 1. A pedestrian walkway shall be installed along S. 137th Street from 44th Avenue South to Macadam Road. The City shall be responsible for the design and installation of the walkway and drainage improvements. The applicant shall reimburse the City for 1/2 of the total amount of construction and inspections costs. Based on pedestrian path costs of the last two years, the anticipated cost would be a total of $60,000. The total amount to be paid by the developer shall be $30,000. Improvements include 750 lineal feet of walkway with drainage (covering the ditch for the pedestrian path) needed for about 2/3 the length. The pedestrian path unit costs have averaged $18 /foot and drainage costs have averaged $33 /foot at 500 feet. Fosterview Estates Page 6 SEPA - L92 -0066 SLOPE STABILITY. The following technical studies were prepared by Terra and Associates, Inc. (Geotechnical Consultants) and submitted as part of this project proposal: 1. Geotechnical Report 2. Geotechnical Report Update 3. Geotechnical Report Update 4. Geotechnical Conditions 5. Provisions for Erosion Control August 11, 1990 May 5, 1992 December 22, 1992 February 23, 1993 June 30, 1993 A site reconnaissance, subsurface exploration and slope stability evaluations regarding the site, and in particular, the existing land movement on 44th Avenue South, and stability issues have been addressed by the applicant's geotechnical engineer in an initial report and subsequent analysis. Due to the sensitive nature of the site and evidence of previous land movement adjacent to and off -site, a peer review of the geotechnical analysis was conducted by Applied Geotechnology, Inc. (AGI). While the original report provided by the applicant indicated the site slopes in their present condition appeared to be generally stable, AGI concluded that these slopes have potential . for landslides due to the extensive site grading planned for the proposed development. Mitigation Conditions: Prior to Issuance of Land Altering Permits 1. To avoid future slope instability both during and after site development and to ensure proper construction of cuts and fills, the applicant shall provide a slope stability analysis which demonstrates that the proposed fills on slopes, to be designed, are stable. The analysis shall accompany applications for land altering permits and shall be evaluated by peer review prior to permit issuance. Should the results of the stability analysis require significant design changes to the Preliminary Plat, the Preliminary Plat must be revised and new hearings shall be required. 2. A geotechnical engineer of record shall be retained throughout the construction Fosterview Estates Page 7 SEPA - L92 -0066 phase(s) of the project and shall monitor earthwork and review the final design and building specifications for all lots to assure conformance to the recommendations contained in the geotechnical reports prepared by Terra and Associates as listed on the previous page. 3. The developer's engineer shall prepare for review by Terra and Associates, and the City, detailed cross sections in all planned fill areas indicating how the fill will be keyed, benched, and drained as recommended in the Terra geotechnical report. A typical detail shall be prepared illustrating the geotechnical engineer's recommended key at the toe of all proposed fills on slope. Calculations supporting adequate safety factors against slope instability shall be provided for review by the City. 4. The developer's engineer in conjunction with the geotechnical engineer shall prepare detailed design cross - sections addressing subdrainage provisions for fills placed on slopes and underlain by lacustrine deposits. 5. The developer's geotechnical engineer shall review the foundation details and comment on the need for connecting individual footings or supporting the houses on post- tensioned slabs as a possible means of reducing potential for differential settlement of the structures. 6. Construction monitoring by the geotechnical engineer shall be provided, with written confirmation provided to the City that all work has been performed in accordance with the geotechnical recommendations. 7. The proposed earth cuts and rockery along the existing road right -of -way for 42nd Ave. S. (behind Lots #1, 2 & 3) shall also be reviewed by the geotechnical engineer to assure lateral stability of the existing roadway and the new road and utility improvements. During Construction 8. Boundaries of Tracts A and B (as shown on Exhibit C) shall be flagged and fenced to prevent intrusion during construction. Sloped areas (Exhibit. C) shall also be delineated and a barrier fence erected prior to clearing and grading. Fencing locations shall be inspected by the City prior to land clearing. All fencing damaged due to construction shall be immediately replaced during the construction phase. 9. Grading activity shall be outside of the dripline of preserved trees as shown on the approved landscape plan. 10. Vegetation to be retained per the approved landscape plan shall be replaced at a 2:1 Fosterview Estates SEPA - L92 -0066 ratio if disturbed during any phase of construction. Following Construction Page 8 11. Permanent visible markers shall be placed to delineate the boundaries of Tracts A and B where adjacent to single - family lots and rights -of -way. EXHIBITS: A. Vicinity Map B. Preliminary Plat Map C. Sensitive Areas Delineation Map ... Planning Commission City of Tukwila. An 1 c... Aug. 19, 1993 • We would like to bring into consideration a matter which has not yet be addressed and is of concern to us as the property owners immediately adjacen to the northern boudary of the proposed Fosterview Estates. The Riess -Loyd property line runs 277 ft. east to west. from 43rd Ave. S. to the eastern eds of Southgate Park', and then north along the park for 150 ft. On the propose plan a crushed -rock access road, leading to an open concrete walkway are placed immediately next to our property, an area which ie currently densely covered with mixed trees and other natural vegetation. In accordance with the Tukwila Zoning Code 18.46.090 Relationship to adiacent area: "...The perimeter of the PRD shall be so designed as to minimize any undesirable impact of the PRD on adjacent properties ", we would like to see included in this plan a permanent fence between the path /road an our property. According to the proposed design, up to 7 residences could be located adjacent to our property. The concrete path angles through several of the sites from the cul -de -sac to the approximate mid -point of our property, the latter.which'slopes downhill from the sidewalk. (see attached map) This ie hot a neutral yard -to -yard boundary, but one in which pedestrian and bicycle traffic will be led along our perimeter. The western part of our property Provides a natural setting; there is nothing to distinguish it from park property. Indeed, some maps of the proposed development label the northern off -site area a generic "Southgate Park", which is not the case. We do not want our property to be treated as an extension of the park. The crushed -rock access road that runs along our property line from the sidewalk eastward to 43rd Ave. S. will be covering the main storm drain pipe This will be. approximately 30 ft.. upslope from our house. It will also sery as an extension of the path and could provide access to the park for those w: park on 43rd Ave. S. The points listed about the sidewalk are especially applicable here. Overall, we are concerned about security, liability, privacy and noise. Introducing the element of public access for 277 ft. of our property length and 150 ft. bordering Southgate Park, increases the likelihood of trespass, especially when our land is so visible and inviting, being downslope. We wi. have to worry more about casual and planned theft and vandalism. Even the seemingly mundane issues of trampling of vegetation and picking up litter wi: affect us. Our property contains outbuildings, some small garden Poole and hot tub. We do not wish to assume liability for errant trespassers... We currently enjoy a good deal of privacy. Frankly, it is hard enough think of 7 houses overlooking our home, but to guide people along our proper is overwhelming... • The negative impact of this on our home would be substantial. In order to provide some amount of security and privacy, we request that a fence be included in the final plan, built to the maximum height allowed, and borderi: our property the full length along which our properties meet. Thank you for your consideration of our concerns. -: / Sir)cerely, Pam B'ies TARP. Loyd • • • cJ 0 LiJ a a. 9*4313665 FROM KING CO LIBRARY • SOUTIICATE PARK se 4t 3411.4W:411 - .7•:.u.. ,. . \ .'' .., 44..y.,„ • N ■ • .ey, -, . ... .,,..... -4.,..i..., i . • t....;:f r•.“ • -4'- 4:4- . 1 Jill/ • .k -,. `,. •-:-.(.1.4. / ., . • . ifr-e.--., tzt,A.-..z.,. ..., , ..- --.....,:s. 1.411 •01- a ??.• ...... -S:s..:,.....\ .. •"s■<\ , N , \• ••• valeswi 38.$31 %)1•444411 1-0761 prOr tet7 —1:7:01 i,41 '''''''' I • •7417. \ is Ss. vis. (.• • • 11▪ al .1 • • •••••••••• I •• 1•st .). • • • •1.- rid .. I ...SW.. M■4 s,. 4 NO Ws .1-1 1:4:1 ■.sle I0 i • E0 g. .1 ( • VICINITY MAP • LS. SITE C •••• • - I . • --"'" rt. 14,4.1114 • \ ;%.• 24 ‘itoss?1,••\ .;•-•!••••• • • • ---1 \ • 22 \ "5...1 .1. 444* S 1 \ '< .-....4.1..... 4111 ........ `... A". .. t ....4..!'..2j \ \'% " ... ▪ .1, 1 . k K 5 ,...•—•-tx ....._ I / y ..7.• , L.:: :, ......: • -- 4.,... TRACT "13" -,/(. • ,...1.4.6 .•■ Mt' a \ Sy • . . • ••••=.1.1././.1.. • 16 — V 19 • '•,%;.;,....-%•4 vs..%) .0, II 00 7 qr.1"—...'.. ... .). .e. • fly)} .4 1 feOltscsi 4;1 sal “:1.4116 • 0,23 73.M *1 • - 410.C...v1 - 7.4 1411 - Csnl847 11 •4*414111,3 i011 2•) • WI •W* •*4 • ..11.1 1 I% • (14:1) 211.444 ••11. 1),.) sitAt* sot - 10141 1•tki.4.11 - 41111) SITE PLAN 111111 • 144 tisrms•nol 101 341.. 414.)) *1 10 44 .441$ Is 11CkES 1170 44 1013 S11.•.10.1 407 4 07 Is - 3.03• 1.4.11 PLANNED RES100111AL DEVELOPMENT FOSTERVIEW ES'I'ATES OUTARDIN 41 ocvciopuntr COMPANY err, •••• WO • •./.1•1111•,•••• eve •• 6.• E1UPIEt MORGAN & ASSOCIATES 114141UCIS ••••••••••• : ••••■ •••••• m.ola 33 r • 11 • ; ; I r• .34 Lily 1,11 ( • • • ites•L■74 41.1 11.11' 1•.0, . 7411, orte• 4..4r*. • ••■■••••••••••• ; • • — TRACT "t:' 91••• .01 *WATER COURSE .•:•_• • -S. .1,331 SI . • I .38 [9: . • .. 39 , ; ..: 2... 1 1 i k:..li 4. 1 , !..!.., ili 4, N1-1 _1\ L., ov _h. k r -. -) • .....Z.............. IN 4:: — — .0,71..1,711...4%e; --- .1' eittritTilhY,i7i:-R?:-. ,_-:: . 47C i 1.; '10:a171D......S.: . .. - - ........... . 11.'7 ld AU,: 1 9 iC93 C . . Y From Ellen C. Ryan 13937 Macadam Rd C T u k w i l a , WA = E 1 To Plsnnina C.ommi.s_•i.c•n /Ci.ty Council Re: Fosterview Estates Date: August 18th, 1093 I am concerned with the impact the Fostervie'w Project will ha.. _ an my neighborhood, and with how the city will address the following issues. It iF not my desire to see the Fctstervie'v,' Project defeated. However, E5 a Foster area resident, living or Macadam road, it is my duty to help ensure the safety and quality of life for all who .use this street. No development this site can help but impact the neighborhoods surrounding it. The Traffic consultant hired by the developers is not realistic about the utilization of Macadam road. To be sure the residents of Foster View will .find the shortest wEy to the freeway which, from their development, will be to =o east on 137th St., north on Macadam, east on 136th St. and then directly c:ntc the South - bound I5/4c5 entrance or proceed to the northbound I -5 or.I- 599 entrances via Interurban Ave. You should be aware that there is a school bus step on Macadam road at 137th, and a Metro bus route with a psssencer loading are. et 136th. There is no , _ lestri an path, no cross-walk and ;very limited line of site for vehicle operators trs.elin= st thi_ multi. - street intersection. we frequently observe automobiles trying to ric_c.tic.te the s1',e.I'p curves nesr this intersection Ft approximately•double the legal speed l imi . It is my hope that; the Plar;r.i^.a L.epartm:ent will be pro - active with the ch llenaes that the icsterview Proje ct will create tc those cf us living near iI :i5 very dEncieroue intersection uitl, the s._fet; :f my neighbors it midi. my sugge°_tic'ns include: 1) Fed path or sidewalk should be installed on east side of I•iazada.m running from 136th St. to 137th Et. 2) Sidewalk or ped path should line 137th Ft. from Fostervi.ew to Macadam road. 3) Fed orossinc should be marked Et 137th, cros.e•.irc Kacadam. 4 • Fed path or siciewc11: :hcul.d be ir;-t :I led on .', - 1h, e==t of Macsddi road `) All bus str_:p:° (NEtr7 :n:' school) should be well .masked :ith clear lines and safe .._nc for p__..en :ler. , to st.rd 6) Fi ^:r.2?. s: :cul•: identify up iming ped cr s_!ri_= and bus stops \ , ' i, FOR STAFF USE ONLY Planner: 0, -;U 1N) PRELIMII 4ARY PLAT APPLICATION Cross - Reference Files: Pi Z.-- 001?) File Number: L0 g • 00 (41\ Receipt No.: L9 z . 00(.6 Lea- ooln (r 1. Name of Preliminary Plat: Fosterview Estates 2. Date of preliminary plat approval: 3. Describe arty proposed deviations from preliminary plat: N/A 4. APPLICANT:* Name: Signature• Dujardin Development Company Address: P.O.Box 5308 Everett, WA 98206 Phone: (206) 334 -5018 / Date: 3/12/93 The applicant is the person whom the staff will contact regarding the application, and to whom all notices and reports shall be sent, unless otherwise stipulated by applicant. AFFIDAVIT OF OWNERSHIP 5. PROPERTY Name: Dujardin Development Comapny OWNER: Address: P.O. Box 5308 Everett, WA 98206 Address: Phone: (206) 334 -5018 1 /We [Signature(s)) swear that 1 /we are the owner(s) or contract purchaser(s) of the property involved in this application and that the foregoing statements and answers contained in this application are true and correct to the best of my /our knowledge and belief. - i^ . f R 1 r rL h ATTACHMENT G PRELIMINARY PLAT APPLICATION Page 2 r r 6. SIZE OF LAND TO BE SUBDIVIDED: Approximately 10 acres 7. ZONING: R -1 7200 8. NUMBER OF PROPOSED LOTS: 41 lots 9. IS ANY OF THE PROPERTY IN FLOOD ZONE "A "? No 10. ARE THERE ANY EXISTING STREAMS, WATER BODIES, MARSHES OR BOGS ON OR WITHIN 100 FEET OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY? Yes, there is a creek that flows from the middle 6 ;the south property line, to the northeast a distance of about 340' then turns to the east and flows off the property. 11. ADJACENT LAND USES: NORTH: R -1 (7200) - Southgate park & single family residences SOUTH: RS 7200 - Single family residences EAST: R -1 (7200) & RS 7200 - Single family residences WEST: R -1 (7200) - Single family residences 12. DO NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES HAVE SUITABLE ACCESS? Yes 77. • ." PLANNED RESIC ..4TIAL DEVELOPMEN` APPLICATION CITY OF TUKWILA DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Tukwila, WA 98188 Telephone: (206) 431 -3680 1. NAME OF THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT: Fosterview Estates 2. NUMBER OF DWELLING UNITS: 41 single family lots 3. ZONING OF SUBJECT SITE: Single family 4. PROJECT LOCATION: (Give street address or, if vacant, indicate lot(s), block, and sub- division; or tax lot number, access street, and nearest intersection) Approximately 10 acres between 42 Ave. S. & 44th Ave. S. and 137th St.. Quarter: SE Section: 15 Township: 23N Range: 04E (This information may be found on your tax statement) 5. APPLICANT:* Name: Duiardin Development Company Address: P. 0. Box 5308, Everett, WA 98206 Phone (206)334 -5018 Signature: �� ��? 1< Date: May 6, 1992 * The applicant is the person whom the staff will contact regarding the application, and to whom all notices and reports shall be sent, unless otherwise stipulated by applicant. AFFIDAVIT OF OWNERSHIP 6. PROPERTY Name: Dujardin Development Company OWNER Address: P. 0. Box 5308, Everett, WA 98206 Phone: ('fro 334 -5018 I /WE,[signature(s)] RECEIVEE swear that I /we are the owners) or contract purchaser(s) of the property involved,I 31999 in this application and that the foregoing statements and answers contained its application are true and correct to the best of my /our knowledge and belief. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Date: May 6, 1992 A- fl ACHMFNT r= PRD APPLICATION Page 2 7. IF REQUESTED, PLEASE EXPLAIN HOW THE REQUESTED DENSITY BONUS FOR THE SUBJECT PROPOSAL MEETS THE FOLLOWING CRITERIA. A. At least fifteen percent of the natural vegetation is retained (in cases where significant stands exist). RESPONSE: All of the wetlands except that portion where the new street crosses the stream and the required buffers shall remain in its natural x'pgpratinn This consists of 26% of the site. B. Advantage is taken of unusual or significant site features such as views, streams, or other natural characteristics. RESPONSE: The wetlands and required bu':grs shall be left in their natural state. A nature trail could be put in along the stream. A large portion of the lots are so located that they will have a good view to the east. The development will allow easier access to Southgate Park for residences to the east of 44th Ave. C. Separation of auto and pedestrian movement, especially in or near areas of recreation. RESPONSE: Sidewalks will be provided to give access by pedestrians from the adjacent residential property to the east to Southgate Park. PRD APPLICATION Page 3 D. Development aspects of the PRD complement the land use policies of the Comprehensive Plan. RESPONSE: The development is prndnring hn„ai + aimi1ar to that axictin;, in the adjacent areas. It will give a traffic and pedestrian outlet or inlet to 42nd Ave. South from the area on 137th that lies east of 44th Street and it will assure that the existing wetlands will be retained and made available to the general public as determined adequate by the city. E. Some extraordinary public benefit is derived in exchange for the reduced minimum lot size in the planned residential development. RESPONSE: By the use of smaller lot sizes, it does make it possible to retain the .existing wetlands and buffers, yet allows the developer to have enough lots to be able to make the project financially feasible and still keep-the land sales price comparable with existing lots in the area. IN ADDITION, FOR MULTIPLE- FAMILY DENSITY BONUS REQUESTS: F. A variety of housing types are offered. RESPONSE: Not appl irabl e PRD APPLICATION Page 4. „ 8. WILL THE PROJECT BE COMPLETED IN PHASES? ❑ Yes © No If yes, please describe proposed phases and time frames. Tea 9. PLEASE DESCRIBE THE OWNERSHIP PATTERN FOR THE PROJECT. 41 single family homes will be constructed and sold to individuals. 10. PLEASE DESCRIBE THE DETAILS OR LIST ANY RESTRICTIVE COVENANTS PRO- POSED FOR THB.PROJECT. (This must be incorporated into your proposal and may only be recorded after review and approval by the City Attorney and City Council.) None anticipated 11. HOW WILL THE COMMON OPEN AREAS AND RECREATION AREAS BE MAIN- TAINED? rre-4 91=v tTen c�acu n- at-cv- z-- i�zc - 1-t A, CtTY OP TUKWILA DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOUNDARY LINE ADJUSTMENT OR LOT CO$ OLJDATION APPLICATION 6300 3outhcentet Boulevard, Tukwila, WA 58188 Telephone: (206) 431.3680 -R—STAFF USE OM • fr���[' /'qj•.1: .t y4Y .1•L.. w1. �.w • +�"•' ♦ • :! ^.: �i':•s:�rk'! <v':b ,.'y,. •.. ,1..q�.. t•.. '�.�' •^•{y .. M . i.i' .4�' 'l �•YY f .t 1• t •' .,t 1. ••��i SS, fir' : fi �/y'•;'!;: n 'T►:':�.tiJ.••r� .l •' Name; • Dujardin Development Company P. 0. Box 5308, Everett, WA 98206 Address: City: Everett Zip: 98206 Phone; a -44_-4o1R Signature: LOCATION Street Address: L Date; August. 11, .1992 Approximately 10 acres between 41nd Ave. S. & 44th Ave. .S and 137th St. If vacant, indicate lot(S), bloat and subdivision; or: tax lot number, access street, and • nearest intersection, SF PARCELS Zoning District • Existing Use • Proposed Use Proposed Lot Size 1 '15 QUARTER SrCTION A 1 I. 23N TOWNS 1' B 1 04E RANGE D R -1 7.2 I R -1 7.2 residential vacant residential 1 ... D A'I OF LAST PEAT: T .a vacant 13,299 sq /ft) approx. 10 acres subdivided iptio RE various sizes • r. 3 1992 r�iT1�7T1Ai7V i TT+'R QT'tiTitG'T`1„���^T -!t n-r.rnl.tQht tr. "r'Y COMMUNITY .z. ct =•�1 KAATTASE LO MENT AFFIDAVIT OF OWNERSHIP DECLARATION: , Know all men by these presenfs. tliat we, the undersigned, owner(s) in fee simple and /or contract purchaser(s) of the land herein described do hereby make art application for a boundary line ad- . justment/lot consolidation thereof. The undersigned further declare that the attached map is the graphic representation of said boundary line adjustment /lot consolidation and the same is made with the free consent and in accordance with the desire of the owner(s). In witness whereof we have set our hands and seals. Name: 'Name: L.-7v Name: Name:— Name: Name: Name: STATE OF WASHINGTON County of I S7o /yhrnis1-1 • On this day personally appeared before me / /) /L, Z. /f/ /h 11 . FOUJ.Z to me known to be the individual described in and who executed the within and foregoing in- struren t wledge that Ag. signed the same as //is free and voluntary act and d urposes therein mentioned. ,.., er v m -�'i_ •r . � .• official seal this /1 day of A(//, U s;r ",, 19 � 2. s r �6 ��� .atefof�V�ashington, tit ' ""' ° Notary-Pia is in ana o the PUBL�G ,O % residing at .2 r; '� . '9$� 3''15 ..c�`,c� STATP8 Q91N'. Sf= TON County of K'ng'� < • On this day personally appeared before me to me known to be the individual described in and who executed the within and foregoing in- strument, and acknowledge that signed the same as free and voluntary act and deed, for the uses and purposes therein mentioned. GIVEN under my hand and official seal this day of ,19 Notary Public in and for the State of Washington, residing at • DEPARTMFNT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PORTION OF GOVERNMENT LOT 2, CCTION 15, TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH. RANGE 4 EAST. ' 0 10 20 30 60 90 S C A L E 1" = 30' N I I GARAGE OVA' LBW lithrer-* FOR COMPLETE MAP OF PARCEL B SEE HEBRANK AND ASSOCIATES DRAWING ENTITLED "DUJARDIN DEVELOPMENT COMPANY'. DATED APRIL 6 1990 AND REVISED AUGUST 3 1992. CO Z ' �o PARCEL B ` s hi j'C P!/C i a' —S. 8' /MOOD! -rNlLj l Azrtr Aror'rrr --* 1 i II S rd z• Jo.;(F (O.PNfi' / -l- 5 \ —12- e rtetrt .r" '�'� t I 87' 48 28 W, 140.03' \ �z.'I \. ∎' ,,-.r,r • B�PZA'K SCAIE 99t.tr —J I /f0. G3' t pSP,f/F:7 D/4.rtrfNgY�n — ' NDUSE "reir r1aaR ll.rr/•.) I•ttnivr L1. • r01. t MAW �.. Z'N • - lJi 1 �; i4 4fr'CEl A /40.03 -.1„ N 87' 48' 28 W 140.03' f •AGOD /FATE LSGr/TN llil'L G. L. z C O M M E N T S 566.69' 0.2• Easements. Lr any. are not shown hereon as no title report was provided. Tor survey control and moaumeatat oa see survey recorded is Book 73 of Surreys at pages 114 and 134A. records of Xing County, Washington. TIe1/ data for this survey was obtained by direct reeld measurement Angular relationships •ad dIntances were measured with a Topcon CTS -2 and supplemented with • 100' steel tape both last calibrated 23 March 1992 at the Sand Point baseline. The area of PARCEL A prior to adjustment Ls 12,041 square feet and after adjustment le 13.091 aquare feet. The area of PARCEL B prior to ad)ustrnent is 428,560 square feet and after adjustment is 427.510 square feet Lend Surveyor's Certificate: This boundary line adjustment correctly represents e survey made by me or under my direction In conformance with the requirements of appropriate state and county stctute and ordinance. • Dote Signature Certificate No. 7599 Zoo. 3 A•��ris� /977 Page_ of DUJARDIN - OLSON BOUNDARY LINE ADJUSTMENT DESCRIPTIONS Parcel A prior to ad.iu4tment The east 140.02 feet of the west 586.69 feet of the north 86 feet of the south 684 feet of Government Lot 2, Section 15, Township 23 North, Range 4 East, W.M. in the City of Tukwila, County of King, State of Washington. parcel A aftP' adiustmerit The east 140.02 feet of the west 586.69 feet of the north 93.50 feet of the south 691.50 feet of Government Lot 2, Section 15, Township 23 North, Range 4 East, W.M., in the City of Tukwila, County of King, State of Washington. Parcel B prior to adjustment That portion of Government Lot 2, Section 15, Township 23 North, Range 4 East, W.M., in King County -, Washington, described as follows: Beginning at the northwest corner of said Government Lot; thence easterly along the' north line thereof 586.69 feet; thence southerly parallel with the west line of said Government Lot a distance of 594.05 feet, more or less, to the north line of the south 684.00 feet of said Government Lot; thence westerly along said north line 283.34 feet, more or less, to the northwest corner of a tract of land deeded to Ralph A. Olson and Reatha Olson by deed recorded under Recording.No. 5089251; .thence south along the west line of said deeded tract a distance of 20.00 feet to the north line of the south 664.00 feet of said Government Lot; thence westerly along said north line 303.34 feet, more or less, to the west line of said Government Lot; thence northerly along said west line 606.50 feet, more or less, to the Point of Beginning; EXCEPT that portion thereof condemned for F. J. Folkendahl Road in King County Superior Court Cause No. 21426; AND EXCEPT those portions thereof 'deeded to King County for Charles E. Adams Road (42nd Avenue South) by deeds recorded under Recording Numbers 472354 and 5558464; TOGETHER WITH that portion of Tract 67, Riverside Interurban Tracts, according to the plat thereof recorded in Volume 10 of Plats, page 74, in King County, Washington, lying northeasterly of 42nd Avenue South as deeded to King County by deed recorded under Recording Number 5655246; EXCEPT the east 20 feet thereof deeded to King County by deed recorded under Recording No. 1207877; AND EXCEPT the north 350.00 feet thereof; TOGETHER WITH that portion of Government Lot 3, Section 15, Township 23 'North, Range 4 East, W.M., in King County, Washington, lying northeasterly of 42nd Avenue South as deeded to King County by deed recorded under Recording No. 5655246; EXCEPT County Roads; TOGETHER WITH that portion of '.Tract 19. Fostoria Garden Tracts, according to the plat thereof recorded in Volume 9 of Plats, page 95, in King County, Washington, lying southwesterly of F. J. Folkendahl Road (43rd Avenue South) as condemned in King County Superior Court Cause No. 241626. HEBRANK & ASSOCIATES File 92046 3 August 1992 �' DUJARDIN — OLSON BOUNDARY LINE ADJUSTMENT DESCRIPTIONS (contin u .dl Parcel_ B after ad.iustment That portion of Government Lot 2, Section 15, Township 23 North, Range 4 East, W.M., in King County, Washington, described as follows: Beginning at the northwest corner of said Government Lot; thence easterly along the north line thereof 586.69 feet; thence southerly parallel with the west line of said Government Lot a distance of 594.05 feet, more or less, to the north line of the south 691.50 feet of said Government Lot; thence westerly along said north line 140.03 feet to the east line of the west 446.67 feet of said Government Lot; thence southerly along said east line 7.50 feet to the north line of the south 684 feet of said Government Lot; thence westerly along said north line 143.34 feet to the northwest corner of a tract of land deeded to Ralph A. Olson and Reatha Olson by deed recorded under Recording No. 5089251; thence south along the west line of said deeded tract a distance of 20.00 feet to the north line of the south 664.00 feet of said Government Lot; thence westerly along said north line 303.34 feet, more or less, to the west line of said Government Lot; thence northerly along said west line 606.50 feet, more or less, to the Point of Beginning; EXCEPT that portion thereof condemned for F. J. Folkendahl Road in King County Superior Court Cause No. 21426; AND EXCEPT those portions thereof deeded to King County for Charles E. Adams Road (42nd Avenue South) by deeds recorded under Recording Numbers 472354 and 5558464; TOGETHER WITH that portion of Tract 67, Riverside Interurban Tracts, according to the plat thereof recorded in Volume 10 of Plats, page 74, in King County, Washington, lying northeasterly of 42nd Avenue South as deeded to King County by deed recorded under Recording Number 5655246; EXCEPT the east 20 feet thereof deeded to King County by deed recorded under Recording No. 1207877; AND EXCEPT the north 350.00 feet thereof; TOGETHER WITH that portion of Government Lot 3, Section 15, Township 23 North, Range 4 East, W.M., in King County, Washington, lying northeasterly of 42nd Avenue South as deeded to King County by deed recorded under Recording No. 5655246; EXCEPT County Roads; TOGETHER WITH that portion of Tract 19, Fostoria Garden Tracts, according to the plat thereof recorded in Volume 9 of Plats, page 95, in King County, Washington, lying southwesterly of F. J. Folkendahl Road (43rd Avenue South) as condemned in King County Superior Court Cause No. 241626. 1. 1L: a , 1?7 E.X1a:71. c•22 2 August 1992 HEBRANK AND ASSOCIATES File 92046 .1 •Url4GATG PAPI PLANT LcGEND .4... my.. .w••• �, , . ...... ••••• • •• ��.. • It I ,T..�u•.r li %nw ti �1. -yDO mil ∎-- .•'lii , .r•w•u. _.___.___n-.rn-wMr -..� 1 =17:.' :.- ,:vt`iz' . m%ISTI NS .. ... .... TREE L=C -EN rgE.11vr.n._•�•.r, ttu+�y.... ow l ar}.U.1G cc>Ial175 ND.e I: • C••■.,t• .♦ . NOT TO I•(...., 4 .r. ♦ t, t+.n.•C* w...rswt••r m $4 .vw.••• ns•.,r. LANDSCAPING PLAN P.R.D. / PRELIMINARY PLAT / SUBDIVISION FOSTERVIEII ESTATES OUJARDIN 4 DEVILOPYENT COMPANY nr. uu•• 4 a•tot• VEY or[CI[9 KAY: A • AVER C• car.. • 4•.F3Y 4N• mrroNl.4Ca WO• C4141175 M 0. • F P • ,l.l • W.u-o• 117.a6 CA..OP' CATA rrnre•t. n.. .4 et • wto 1.1.117 >. LT1.0 C-- .••-,,. Al,.P.'..•.'.. n•) V • 11••pr! .•... r.N l•••••1 ( .•. 4 •••••) • •■ .y •. •44 u.•rr ..0 U. 14 4744 •..7. C.•ww.0 ...,•••• >�nl • it N 010 1r rN Arn Az. 115eS 1CKAL= 1 $ LANDSCAPE PLAN • 1•• so' • 0 113/5 HEBRANK AND ASSOCIATES Albert J. Hebrank, PLS Professional Surveyors ❑ Central Building, Suite 402, 810 -3rd Avenue ❑ Seattle, WA 98104 ❑ (206) 447 -1729 3 August 1992 File 92046 CITY OF TUKWILA Department of Community Development 6300 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, WA 98188 Re: Boundary Line Adjustment map for Dujardin -Olson boundary Ladies and Gentlemen Due to the large size of the Dujardin site (9.8 acres) we are unable to develop a readable map of the two properties on the required 8 1/2" x 14" paper specified in your checklist which shows all of the information required by that same list. We have in our possession a 30 scale drawing of the Dujardin site which we prepared in 1990. We discussed this situation with a lady in your Planning Division a week or two ago and she suggested we prepare a drawing showing the area of change of boundary and the Olson property (parcel A) on an 8 1/2" x 14" sheet to the same scale as the large map of the Dujardin property (parcel B) and submit that drawing along with the large drawing of parcel B as an exhibit to the application. That is what we have done. She further suggested that we include a letter explaining why we have proceeded in this manner, which you now have before you. Thank you for your consideration. Yours truly HEBRANK AND ASSOCIATES Albert J. Hebrank, PLS RECENED AUG 1 31992 ccrvMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Members of Land Surveyors Association of Washington, National Society of Professional Surveyors, American Congress on Surveying and Mapping DUJARDIN - OLSON BOUNDARY LINE ADJUSTMENT DESCRIPTIONS Parcel A prior to adjustment The east 140.02 feet of the west 586.69 feet of the north 86 feet of the south 684 feet of Government Lot 2, Section 15, Township 23 North, Range 4 East, W.M. in the City of Tukwila, County of King, State of Washington. Parcel A after adjustment The east 140.02 feet of the west 586.69 feet of the north 93.50 feet of the south 691.50 feet of Government Lot 2, Section 15, Township 23 North, Range 4 East, W.M., in the City of Tukwila, County of King, State of Washington. Parcel B prior to adjustment That portion of Government Lot 2, Section 15, Township 23 North, Range 4 East, W.M., in King County, Washington, described as follows: Beginning at the northwest corner of said Government Lot; thence easterly along the north line thereof 586.69 feet; thence southerly parallel with the west line of said Government Lot a distance of 594.05 feet, more or less, to the north line of the south 684.00 feet of said Government Lot; thence westerly along said north line 283.34 feet, more or less, to the northwest corner of a tract of land deeded to Ralph A. Olson and Reatha Olson by deed recorded under Recording No. 5089251; thence south along the west line of said deeded tract a distance of 20.00 feet to the north line of the south 664.00 feet of said Government Lot; thence westerly along said north line 303.34 feet, more or less, to the west line of said Government Lot; thence northerly along said west line 606.50 feet, more or less, to the Point of Beginning; EXCEPT that portion thereof condemned for F. J. Folkendahl Road in King County Superior Court Cause No. 21426; AND EXCEPT those portions thereof deeded to King County for Charles E. Adams Road (42nd Avenue South) by deeds recorded under Recording Numbers 472354 and 5558464; TOGETHER WITH that portion of Tract 67, Riverside Interurban Tracts, according to the plat thereof recorded in Volume 10 of Plats, page 74, in King County, Washington, lying northeasterly of 42nd Avenue South as deeded to King County by deed recorded under Recording Number 5655246; EXCEPT the east 20 feet thereof deeded to King County by deed recorded under Recording No. 1207877; AND EXCEPT the north 350.00 feet thereof; TOGETHER WITH that portion of Government Lot 3, Section 15, Township 23 North, Range 4 East, W.M., in King County, Washington, lying northeasterly of 42nd Avenue South as deeded to King County by deed recorded under Recording No. 5655246; EXCEPT County Roads; TOGETHER WITH that portion of Tract 19, Fostoria Garden Tracts, according to the plat thereof recorded in Volume 9 of Plats, page 95, in King County, Washington, lying southwesterly of F. J. Folkendahl Road (43rd Avenue South) as condemned in King County Superior Court Cause No. 241626. HEBRANK & ASSOCIATES File 92046 3 August 1992 DUJARDIN - OLSON BOUNDAR LINE ADJUSTMENT Parcel B after adiustment That portion of Government Lot 2, Sec ion 15, Township 23 North, Washington, described as Range 4 East, W.M., in King County, follows: Beginning at the northwest cor thence easterly along the nort thence southerly parallel wit Government Lot a distance of 5 the north line of the south 691 Lot; thence westerly along sa' the east line of the west 446. Lot; thence southerly along sa north line of the south 684 feet of said Government Lot; thence westerly along said no th line 143.34 feet to the northwest corner of a tract of land deeded to Ralph A. Olson er of said Government Lot; line thereof 586.69 feet; the west line of said 4.05 feet, more or less, to .50 feet of said Government d north line 140.03 feet to 67 feet of said Government d east line 7.50 feet to the and Reatha Olson by deed re 5089251; thence south along t tract a distance of 20.00 fee .south 664.00 feet of said Gove along said north line 303.34 fe line of said Government Lot; west line 606.50 feet, more Beginning; EXCEPT that portion thereof condemn in King County Superior Court Cause AND EXCEPT those portions thereof Charles E. Adams Road (42nd Avenue S Recording Numbers 472354 and 5558464 TOGETHER WITH that portion of Trac Tracts, according to the plat there Plats, page 74, in King County, Was of 42nd Avenue South as deeded to K under Recording Number 5655246; EXCEPT the east 20 feet thereof de recorded under Recording No. 1207877 AND EXCEPT the north 350.00 feet the TOGETHER WITH that portion of Gov Township 23 North, Range 4 Eas Washington, lying northeasterly of 4 King County by deed recorded under R EXCEPT County Roads; TOGETHER WITH that portion of Tract according to the plat thereof record 95, in King County, Washington, ly Folkendahl Road (43rd Avenue South) Superior Court Cause No. 241626. t i' _'•; >`: • orded under Recording No. e west line of said deeded to the north line of the nment Lot; thence westerly t, more or less, to the west hence northerly along said or less, to the Point of d for F. J. Folkendahl Road o. 21426; deeded to King County for uth) by deeds recorded under 67, Riverside Interurban d recorded in Volume 10 of ington, lying northeasterly ng County by deed recorded ded to King County by deed eof; rnment Lot 3, Section 15, , W.M., in King County, nd Avenue South as deeded to cording No. 5655246; 19, Fostoria Garden Tracts, d in Volume 9 of Plats, page ng southwesterly of F. J. as condemned in King County .+•..+•rid rr^"'h"..!''�. 2 August 192 HEBRANK AND ASSOCIAT S File 92046 1 . HEBRA K AND ASSOCIATES, PROFESSI\ AL SURVEYORS CLOSURE CHECK AND AREA (CLOSURE BY LATS Q DEPS, AREA BY DMD, NO COORDS) FILE NUMBER:92046 DUJARDIN -OLSON BOUNDARY ADJUSTMENT 3 AUGUST 1992 AJH CLOSURE NUMBER:PARCEL A BEFORE ADJUSTMENT NORTH 1 DEG 27 MIN 36.99 SEC EAST SOUTH 87 DEG 48 MIN 28.02 SEC EAST SOUTH 1 DEG 27 MIN 36.99 SEC WEST NORTH 87 DEG 48 MIN 28.02 SEC WEST CLOSURE = 0.000 FEET AREA = 12041 SQUARE FEET, OR .2764 ACRES 86 FEET 140.03 FEET 86 FEET 140.03 FEET CLOSURE NUMBER:PARCEL A AFTER ADJUSTMENT NORTH 1 DEG 27 MIN 36.99 SEC EAST SOUTH 87 DEG 48 MIN 28.02 SEC EAST SOUTH 1 DEG 27 MIN 36.99 SEC WEST NORTH 87 DEG 48 MIN 28.02 SEC WEST CLOSURE = 0.000 FEET AREA = 13091 SQUARE FEET, OR .3005 ACRES 93.5 FEET 140.03 FEET 93.5 FEET 140.03 FEET HEBRG ' AND ASSOCIATES, PROFESSI 'AL SURVEYORS CLOSURE CHECK AND AREA (CLOSURE BY LATS ® DEPS, AREA BY DMD, NO COORDS) FILE NUMBER:92046 DUJARDIN -OLSON BOUNDARY ADJUSTMENT 3 AUGUST 1992 AJH CLOSURE NUMBER:PARCEL B AFTER ADJUSTMENT NORTH 1 DEG 27 MIN 36.99 SEC EAST NORTH 13 DEG 24 MIN 28.99 SEC WEST NORTH 17 DEG 6 MIN 23.99 SEC WEST SOUTH 72 DEG 53 MIN 35.99 SEC WEST DELTA = 44 DEG 29 MIN 4 SEC RADIUS = 388.1 CHORD = 293.809 NORTH 28 DEG 24 MIN 31.98 SEC EAST NORTH 61 DEG 35 MIN 27.99 SEC WEST NORTH 28 DEG 24 MIN 31.99 SEC EAST DELTA = 12 DEG 56 MIN 24 SEC RADIUS = 379.26 CHORD = 85.472 SOUTH 41 DEG 20 MIN 56 SEC WEST SOUTH 89 DEG 20 MIN 55.98 SEC EAST SOUTH 1 DEG 27 MIN 36.99 SEC WEST SOUTH 88 DEG 32 MIN 48.99 SEC EAST NORTH 1 DEG 27 MIN 36.99 SEC EAST NORTH 70 DEG 58 MIN 55.01 SEC EAST 143.23 FEET 116.91 FEET 102.96 FEET 388.1 FEET ARC = 301.32 TAN = 158.714 388.1 FEET 156.49 FEET 379.26 FEET ARC = 85.654 TAN = 43.01 379.26 FEET 714.48 FEET 97.56 FEET 20 FEET 177.98 FEET 316.48 FEET DELTA = 22 DEG 49 MIN 17.99 SEC RADIUS = 316.48 ARC = 126.058 CHORD = 125.226 TAN = 63.875 SOUTH 48 DEG 9 MIN 37.01 SEC WEST SOUTH 41 DEG 50 MIN 23 SEC EAST SOUTH 48 DEG 9 MIN 37 SEC WEST DELTA = 43 DEG 18 MIN 0 SEC RADIUS = 410.97 CHORD = 303.243 SOUTH 88 DEG 32 MIN 22.99 SEC EAST SOUTH 88 DEG 32 MIN 22.99 SEC EAST SOUTH 1 DEG 27 MIN 36.99 SEC WEST NORTH 87 DEG 48 MIN 28.02 SEC WEST SOUTH 1 DEG 27 MIN 36.99 SEC WEST NORTH 87 DEG 48 MIN 28.02 SEC WEST SOUTH 1 DEG 27 MIN 36.99 SEC WEST NORTH 87 DEG 48 MIN 28.02 SEC WEST CLOSURE = 0.007 FEET AREA = 427510 SQUARE FEET, OR 9.814201 ACRES 316.48 FEET 116.48 FEET 410.97 FEET ARC = 310.581 TAN = 163.129 410.97 FEET 30 FEET 291.38 FEET 140.03 FEET 7.5 FEET 143.34 FEET 20 FEET 273.37 FEET HEBRAIIK AND ASSOCIATES, PROFESSIONAL SURVEYORS CLOSURE CHECK AND AREA (CLOSURE BY LATS Q DEPS, AREA BY DMD, NO COORDS) FILE NUMBER:92046 DUJARDIN -OLSON BOUNDARY ADJUSTMENT 3 AUGUST 1992 AJH CLOSURE NUMBER:PARCEL B BEFORE ADJUSTMENT NORTH 1 DEG 27 MIN 36.99 SEC EAST NORTH 13 DEG 24 MIN 28.99 SEC WEST NORTH 17 DEG 6 MIN 23.99 SEC WEST SOUTH 72 DEG 53 MIN 35.99 SEC WEST DELTA = 44 DEG 29 MIN 4 SEC RADIUS = 388.1 CHORD = 293.809 NORTH 28 DEG 24 MIN 31.98 SEC EAST NORTH 61 DEG 35 MIN 27.99 SEC WEST NORTH 28 DEG 24 MIN 31.99 SEC EAST DELTA = 12 DEG 56 MIN 24 SEC RADIUS = 379.26 CHORD = 85.472 SOUTH 41 DEG 20 MIN 56 SEC WEST SOUTH 89 DEG 20 MIN 55.98 SEC EAST SOUTH 1 DEG 27 MIN 36.99 SEC WEST SOUTH 88 DEG 32 MIN 48.99 SEC EAST NORTH 1 DEG 27 MIN 36.99 SEC EAST NORTH 70 DEG 58 MIN 55.01 SEC EAST 143.23 FEET 116.91 FEET 102.96 FEET 388.1 FEET ARC = 301.32 TAN = 158.714 388.1 FEET 156.49 FEET 379.26 FEET ARC = 85.654 TAN = 43.01 379.26 FEET 714.48 FEET 97.56 FEET 20 FEET 177.98 FEET 316.48 FEET DELTA = 22 DEG 49 MIN 17.99 SEC RADIUS = 316.48 ARC = 126.058 CHORD = 125.226 TAN = 63.875 SOUTH 48 DEG 9 MIN 37.01 SEC WEST SOUTH 41 DEG 50 MIN 23 SEC EAST SOUTH 48 DEG 9 MIN 37 SEC WEST DELTA = 43 DEG 18 MIN 0 SEC RADIUS = 410.97 CHORD = 303.243 SOUTH 88 DEG 32 MIN 22.99 SEC EAST SOUTH 88 DEG 32 MIN 22.99 SEC EAST SOUTH 1 DEG 27 MIN 36.99 SEC WEST NORTH 87 DEG 48 MIN 28.02 SEC WEST SOUTH 1 DEG 27 MIN 36.99 SEC WEST NORTH 87 DEG 48 MIN 28.02 SEC WEST CLOSURE = 0.007 FEET AREA = 428560 SQUARE FEET, OR 9.8384 ACRES 316.48 FEET 116.48 FEET 410.97 FEET ARC = 310.581 TAN = 163.129 410.97 FEET 30 FEET 298.88 FEET 283.37 FEET 20 FEET 273.37 FEET t , HEBRA4K AND ASSOCIATES, PROFESSIONAL SURVEYORS CLOSURE CHECK AND AREA (CLOSURE BY LATS Q DEPS, AREA BY DMD, NO COORDS) FILE NUMBER:92046 DUJARDIN -OLSON BOUNDARY ADJUSTMENT 3 AUGUST 1992 AJH CLOSURE NUMBER:PARCEL A BEFORE ADJUSTMENT NORTH 1 DEG 27 MIN 36.99 SEC EAST SOUTH 87 DEG 48 MIN 28.02 SEC EAST SOUTH 1 DEG 27 MIN 36.99 SEC WEST NORTH 87 DEG 48 MIN 28.02 SEC WEST CLOSURE = 0.000 FEET AREA = 12041 SQUARE FEET, OR .2764 ACRES 86 FEET 140.03 FEET 86 FEET 140.03 FEET CLOSURE NUMBER:PARCEL A AFTER ADJUSTMENT NORTH 1 DEG 27 MIN 36.99 SEC EAST SOUTH 87 DEG 48 MIN 28.02 SEC EAST SOUTH 1 DEG 27 MIN 36.99 SEC WEST NORTH 87 DEG 48 MIN 28.02 SEC WEST CLOSURE = 0.000 FEET AREA = 13091 SQUARE FEET, OR .3005 ACRES 93.5 FEET 140.03 FEET 93.5 FEET 140.03 FEET HEBRK, AND ASSOCIATES, PROFESSI; 1L SURVEYORS CLOSURE CHECK AND AREA (CLOSURE BY LATS Q DEPS, AREA BY DMD, NO COORDS) FILE NUMBER:92046 DUJARDIN -OLSON BOUNDARY ADJUSTMENT 3 AUGUST 1992 AJH CLOSURE NUMBER:PARCEL B AFTER ADJUSTMENT NORTH 1 DEG 27 MIN 36.99 SEC EAST NORTH 13 DEG 24 MIN 28.99 SEC WEST NORTH 17 DEG 6 MIN 23.99 SEC WEST SOUTH 72 DEG 53 MIN 35.99 SEC WEST DELTA = 44 DEG 29 MIN 4 SEC RADIUS = 388.1 CHORD = 293.809 NORTH 28 DEG 24 MIN 31.98 SEC EAST NORTH 61 DEG 35 MIN 27.99 SEC WEST NORTH 28 DEG 24 MIN 31.99 SEC EAST DELTA = 12 DEG 56 MIN 24 SEC RADIUS = 379.26 CHORD = 85.472 SOUTH 41 DEG 20 MIN 56 SEC WEST SOUTH 89 DEG 20 MIN 55.98 SEC EAST SOUTH 1 DEG 27 MIN 36.99 SEC WEST SOUTH 88 DEG 32 MIN 48.99 SEC EAST NORTH 1 DEG 27 MIN 36.99 SEC EAST NORTH 70 DEG 58 MIN 55.01 SEC EAST 143.23 FEET 116.91 FEET 102.96 FEET 388.1 FEET ARC = 301.32 TAN = 158.714 388.1 FEET 156.49 FEET 379.26 FEET ARC = 85.654 TAN = 43.01 379.26 FEET 714.48 FEET 97.56 FEET 20 FEET 177.98 FEET 316.48 FEET DELTA = 22 DEG 49 MIN 17.99 SEC RADIUS = 316.48 ARC = 126.058 CHORD = 125.226 TAN = 63.875 SOUTH 48 DEG 9 MIN 37.01 SEC WEST SOUTH 41 DEG 50 MIN 23 SEC EAST SOUTH 48 DEG 9 MIN 37 SEC WEST DELTA = 43 DEG 18 MIN 0 SEC RADIUS = 410.97 CHORD = 303.243 SOUTH 88 DEG 32 MIN 22.99 SEC EAST SOUTH 88 DEG 32 MIN 22.99 SEC EAST SOUTH 1 DEG 27 MIN 36.99 SEC WEST NORTH 87 DEG 48 MIN 28.02 SEC WEST SOUTH 1 DEG 27 MIN 36.99 SEC WEST NORTH 87 DEG 48 MIN 28.02 SEC WEST SOUTH 1 DEG 27 MIN 36.99 SEC WEST NORTH 87 DEG 48 MIN 28.02 SEC WEST CLOSURE = 0.007 FEET AREA = 427510 SQUARE FEET, OR 9.814201 ACRES 316.48 FEET 116.48 FEET 410.97 FEET ARC = 310.581 TAN = 163.129 410.97 FEET 30 FEET 291.38 FEET 140.03 FEET 7.5 FEET 143.34 FEET 20 FEET 273.37 FEET HEBRANK AND ASSOCIATES, PROFESSIONAL SURVEYORS CLOSURE CHECK AND AREA (CLOSURE BY LATS Q DEPS, AREA BY DMD, NO COORDS) FILE NUMBER:92046 DUJARDIN -OLSON BOUNDARY ADJUSTMENT 3 AUGUST 1992 AJH CLOSURE NUMBER :PARCEL B BEFORE ADJUSTMENT NORTH 1 DEG 27 MIN 36.99 SEC EAST NORTH 13 DEG 24 MIN 28.99 SEC WEST NORTH 17 DEG 6 MIN 23.99 SEC WEST SOUTH 72 DEG 53 MIN 35.99 SEC WEST DELTA = 44 DEG 29 MIN 4 SEC RADIUS = 388.1 CHORD = 293.809 NORTH 28 DEG 24 MIN 31.98 SEC EAST NORTH 61 DEG 35 MIN 27.99 SEC WEST NORTH 28 DEG 24 MIN 31.99 SEC EAST DELTA = 12 DEG 56 MIN 24 SEC RADIUS = 379.26 CHORD = 85.472 SOUTH 41 DEG 20 MIN 56 SEC WEST SOUTH 89 DEG 20 MIN 55.98 SEC EAST SOUTH 1 DEG 27 MIN 36.99 SEC WEST SOUTH 88 DEG 32 MIN 48.99 SEC EAST NORTH 1 DEG 27 MIN 36.99 SEC EAST NORTH 70 DEG 58 MIN 55.01 SEC EAST 143.23 FEET 116.91 FEET 102.96 FEET 388.1 FEET ARC = 301.32 TAN = 158.714 388.1 FEET 156.49 FEET 379.26 FEET ARC = 85.654 TAN = 43.01 379.26 FEET 714.48 FEET 97.56 FEET 20 FEET 177.98 FEET 316.48 FEET DELTA = 22 DEG 49 MIN 17.99 SEC RADIUS = 316.48 ARC = 126.058 CHORD = 125.226 TAN = 63.875 SOUTH 48 DEG 9 MIN 37.01 SEC WEST SOUTH 41 DEG 50 MIN 23 SEC EAST SOUTH 48 DEG 9 MIN 37 SEC WEST DELTA = 43 DEG 18 MIN 0 SEC RADIUS = 410.97 CHORD = 303.243 SOUTH 88 DEG 32 MIN 22.99 SEC EAST SOUTH 88 DEG 32 MIN 22.99 SEC EAST SOUTH 1 DEG 27 MIN 36.99 SEC WEST NORTH 87 DEG 48 MIN 28.02 SEC WEST SOUTH 1 DEG 27 MIN 36.99 SEC WEST NORTH 87 DEG 48 MIN 28.02 SEC WEST CLOSURE = 0.007 FEET AREA = 428560 SQUARE FEET, OR 9.8384 ACRES 316.48 FEET 116.48 FEET 410.97 FEET ARC = 310.581 TAN = 163.129 410.97 FEET 30 FEET 298.88 FEET 283.37 FEET 20 FEET 273.37 FEET C I T Y O F T U K W I L A BOUNDARY LINE ADJUSTMENT DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PORTION OF GOVERNMENT LOT 2, IN SECTION 15, TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH, RANGE 4 LAST, W.M. NORTH 0 10 20 30 60 90 �0 2' S C A L E 4%0 1" = 30' FOR COMPLETE MAP OF PARCEL B SEE HEBRANK AND ASSOCIATES DRAWING ENTITLED "DUJARDIN DEVELOPMENT COMPANY", DATED APRIL 6 1990 AND REVISED AUGUST 3 1992. PARCEL B \ \\ Jrr6 "PUC S. B'jf'OOfexIEJ 027[\11 f[0 NE —) 3.2:_/6414:- COA'A -,q'/ 6 s \o /2" `Oh'CRerze PIKE \.- i 7' 48' 28" W, 140.03` l 4 12'-- Aroe, C41NlZNK NOUSE FIRST FLOOR CL. =211.3 BASEn5NT EL.: 206.1 RoCKERy x 50///7/ LINE G c. z N87' 48 28" W 140.034 'wavy TEAT C O M M E N T S 586.67' Easements. if any. are not shown hereon as so title report was prodded. For surrey coatrol and aionumnentation see survey recorded in Book 73 of Surveys at pages 114 and 114A, records of King County, Washington. Field data for this survey was obtained by direct field aieasrreEeat. Angular reiatioaships and diataaces were measured with a Topeon GTS-2 and supplemented with a 100' steel tape both last calibrated 23 March 1992 at the Sand oat baseline. The area of PARCEL A prior to adjustment Is 12.041 square feet and after adjustmeat is 13,091 square feet. The area of PARCEL B prior to adjust neat is 428,560 square feet and after adjustment is 427.510 square feet. Land Surveyor's Certificate: This boundary line adjustment correctly represents a survey made by me or under my direction in conformance with the requirements of appropriate state and county statute and ordinance. - .a4asL /992 Date Certificate No. Signature 7589 0.2' RECEIVED AUG 1 31992 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 3 ff' vsr` /972 Pape of PLANNED RESIDrITIAL DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION CITY OF TUKWILA DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ;STAFF >`USE 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Tukwila, WA 98188 Telephone: (206) 431 -3680 .:...............: erence oo 1. NAME OF THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT: Fosterview Estates 2. NUMBER OF DWELLING UNITS. 41 single family lots 3. ZONING OF SUBJECT SITE: Single family 4. PROJECT LOCATION: (Give street address or, if vacant, indicate lot(s), block, and sub- division; or tax lot number, access street, and nearest intersection) Approximately 10 acres between 42 Ave. S. & 44th Ave. S. and 137th St. Quarter: SE Section: 15 Township: 23N Range: 04E (This information may be found on your tax statement) 5. APPLICANT:* Name: Duiardin Development Company Address: P. 0. Box 5308, Everett, WA 98206 Phone: (206)334 -5018 Signature: �r/—'�� r!' 1 Date: May 6, 1992 * The applicant is the person whom the staff will contact regarding the application, and to whom all notices and reports shall be sent, unless otherwise stipulated by applicant. AFFIDAVIT OF OWNERSHIP 6. PROPERTY Name: Dujardin Development Company OWNER Address: F. 0. Box 5308, Everett, WA 98206 Phone: (906) 134-4018 I /WE,[signature(s)] swear that I /we are the owner(s) or contract purchaser(s) of the property involved, , ion in this application and that the foregoing statements and answers contained Mils' application are true and correct to the best of my /our knowledge and belief. COMMUNITY Date: May 6, 1992 DEVELOPMENT RECEIVED PRD APPLICATION Page 2 7. IF REQUESTED, PLEASE EXPLAIN HOW THE REQUESTED DENSITY BONUS FOR THE SUBJECT PROPOSAL MEETS THE FOLLOWING CRITERIA. A. At least fifteen percent of the natural vegetation is retained (in cases where significant stands exist). RESPONSE: All of the wetlands except that portion where the new street crosses the stream and the required buffers shall remain in its natural . p&ezaty.pn This consists of 26% of the site. B. Advantage is taken of unusual or significant site features such as views, streams, or other natural characteristics. RESPONSE: The wetlands and required bu' •ers shall be left in their natural state. A nature trail could be put in along the stream. A large portion of the lots are so located that they will have a good view to the east. The development will allow easier access to Southgate Park for residences to the east of 44th Ave. C. Separation of auto and pedestrian movement, especially in or near areas of recreation. RESPONSE: Sidewalks will be provided to give access by pedestrians from the adjacent residential property to the east to Southgate Park. PRD APPLICATION Page 3 D. Development aspects of the PRD complement the land use policies of the Comprehensive Plan. RESPONSE: The development is 7rnduc^ing hn„Ging similar to that exicting in the adjacent areas. It will give a traffic and pedestrian outlet or inlet to 42nd Ave. South from the area on 137th that lies east of 44th Street and it will assure that the existing wetlands will be retained and made available to the general public as determined adequate by the city. E. Some extraordinary public benefit is derived in exchange for the reduced minimum lot size in the planned residential development. RESPONSE: By the use of smaller lot sizes, it does make it possible to retain the existing wetlands and buffers, yet allows the developer to have enough lots to be able to make the project financially feasible and still keep the land sales price comparable with existing lots in the area. IN ADDITION, FOR MULTIPLE- FAMILY DENSITY BONUS REQUESTS: F. A variety of housing types are offered. RESPONSE: Not npplirablP PRD APPLICATION L . . , • Page 4 8. WILL THE PROJECT BE COMPLETED IN PHASES? Yes 1 No If yes, please describe proposed phases and time frames. 9. PLEASE DESCRIBE THE OWNERSHIP PATTERN FOR THE PROJECT. 41 single family homes will be constructed and sold to individuals. 10. PLEASE DESCRIBE THE DETAILS OR LIST ANY RESTRICTIVE COVENANTS PRO- POSED FOR TFIEPROJECT. (This must be incorporated into your proposal and may only be recorded after review and approval by the City Attorney and City Council.) None anticipated 11. HOW WILL THE COMMON OPEN AREAS AND RECREATION AREAS BE MAIN- TAINED? vre-tn-d--1—r)peyi–a-re- - A) 6 on'? /77,7)1, CITY OF TUKWILA DEPARTMENT OF DOMMUN17Y DEVELOPMENT BOUNDARY LINE ADJUSTMENT OR LOT ct» "LlDATION APPLICATION 6300 $outhcenter Boulevard, Tukwila, WA $8188 Telephone: (206) 431.3680 APPLICANT Name; Dujardin Development Company P. 0. Box 5308, Everett, WA 98206 Address: _._.. _ City: Everett Zip; 98206 Phone: 1 .14 -saLg Signature: LOCATION Date;, August 11, 1992 Street Address: Approximately 10 acres between 41nd Ave. S. & 44th ■Ave. S and 137th St. If vacant, indicate 1ot(e), block and subdivision; or, tax lot number, access street, and nearest intersection, PARCELS Zoning District Existing Use • Proposed Use Proposed Lot Size SE QUARTER 15 23N 04E_ SECTION 'ioWNsi -IIr RANGE B C D R-1 7.2 R -1 7.2 . • ... residential .-- ` vacant {( . residential vacant 13,299 sq /ft approx. 10 acres subdivided ,j.ntio 4 1 nrq raw; ,_,_, R5,, . i,I various sizes ..,..nA.TE aP LAST PLAT: . P&iG 31992 tnrmw,4 T 4 V T TW a T1Trt�•r�,r��rrrr n-r.rni.tcnY. T. R •T+t VELOPME - `I' N � j "= a ` -• -x � =L � a , ��V ELOPIJIENT T AFFIDAVIT OF OWNERSHIP DECLARATION: Know all men by these preSents.thiit we, the undersigned, owner(s) in fee simple and /or contract purchaser(s) of the land herein described do hereby make an application for a boundary line ad- justment/lot consolidation thereof. The undersigned further declare that the attached map is the graphic representation of said boundary line adjustor mt /lot consolidation and the same is made with the free consent and in accordance with the desire of the owner(s). In Witness. whereof we have set our hands and seals. Name: Name: Name: I��amc: Name: STATE OF WASHINGTON County of I 5/76/ rn /sh' On this day personally appeared before me //1/,(..? /A m /9 . a it' to me known to be the individual described in and who executed the within and foregoing in- st-umentioNsimmiwwledge that lig. signed the same as As free and voluntary act and deedjer0 �� icurposes therein mentioned. • Gri- l�er m✓ 1 official seal this // day of #U/aSr 19 ? -2. qt. \01-AR Y - r ,► Notary -P is i i ana 9. the ate of Washington, Si y to PUBUG :- % ' y�, a tt /1 STATE( Q `1WA.SI TON County of IZ'n`g`� • On this day personally appeared before me to me known to be the individual described in and who executed the within and foregoing in- strument, and acknowledge that signed the same as free and voluntary act and deed, for the uses and purposes therein mentioned. GIVEN under my hand and official seal this day of , 19 Notary Public in and for the State of Washington, residing at Page of BOUNDARY LINE ADJUSTMENT DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PORTION OF GOVERNMENT LOT 2, IN -^.TI0N 15. TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH, RANGE 4 EAST, W.M FOR COMPLETE MAP OF PARCEL B SEE HEBRANK AND ASSOCIATES DRAWING ENTITLED "DUJARDIN DEVELOPMENT COMPANY', DATED APRIL 6 1990 AND REVISED AUGUST 3 1992. 0 10 20 30 60 • W 90 � ' ✓ r �1 PARCEL B 1 1i �t'e'C 1 . 1 �1 -S. B' /,YOODF.r.YIEJ � DITCH ftON[INL ■ � �' �.oe \ e i 11 -j1:5 87. 48' 28 1H, 140.03' \ viz' mo— 7 ...._r:r 16103' \ ASP/YA[T DAjXIrEATY -- , ~ ..... • r S C A L E 1" = 30' n s f//1 /A'LZ 4 17/YeE -� \ 97.S'. • to cn or jT- GARAGE G. �t 4. W *' 2r N; CO - O V M04 Z rt;-- 15• I �� 'V f�[6UREC l'At f - • BPA/t'SCAlE__ .t't /PN8 8 2B I. 67......"4-44/ r ' /, 20D f14'CE 4f6.67 = —� [----J #. , �SU�Pr HOUSE ,IRSr fIaOR £L.'.'4.3 eu£RLNr et., tat.a un■ RarR•R y o - /R\L£ aunr /DARCEC A Y % • -1 1 • \ o, /F0.03 -sfr` W 50//71 LINE G. L. ,2 • C O M M E NT S "r` i 0 Easements. if arty are not shown hereon as no title report was prodded. For survey control and moaumentation see survey recorded In Book 73 of Surveys at pages 114 and 114A. records of ling County, Washington. Field data for this survey was obtained by direct field measureiaeat Angular relationships and distances were measured with a Topcon GTS -2 and suppiemeated with a 100' steel tape both last calibrated 23 March 1992 at the Said Point baseline. The area of PARCEL A prior to adjustment is 12,041 square feet and after adjustment is 13.091 aquare feet. The area of PARCEL B prior to adjustment is 428,580 square feet and after adjustment is 427.510 square feet. Land Surveyor's Certificate: This boundary line adjustment correctly represents a survey made by me or under my direction in conformance with the requirements of appropriate state and county statute and ordinance. 34 /”.2. /7 jz Dote Signature Certificate No. 7589 ;.1 3 Aa7usi' /972 Pape of _ TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT B. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS TS 1. EARTH a. General description of the site (circle one): flat, rolling, hilly, steep slopes, mountainous, other combination of rolling, hilly & steep slopes . b. What is the steepest slope on the site (approxi- mate percent slope)? Some of the slopes along the creek are about 30% c. What general types of soils are found on the site (for example, clay, sand, gravel, peat., muck)? If you know the classification of agricultural soil, specify them and note any prime farmland. See Geotechnical Report - Top soil over silty sand over glacial consolidate silts and till like soil. d. Are there surface indications or history of unstable soils in the immediate vicinity? If so, describe. Yes - on the northeast corner of the site there has been movement and the street has been abandoned. There is no plan to do anything in the vicinity of the abandoned street. e. Describe the purpose, type and approximate quantities of any filling or grading proposed. Indicate source of fill. Because of the nature of the site, grading will be required to obtain level sites for the residential development and install the new roadway through from 42nd to 44th. All cutting and filling will be as outlined in the Geotechnical Report prepared by Terra and Associates. f. Could erosion occur as a result of clearing, construction, or use? If so, generally describe. Yes. Potential for erosion of exposed soils during clearing, construction of utilities and road as well as during construction of the residences. r EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY ladAct- ) ---�0 : �: u: ef' teiS .SSxi'i�;'i:if�:{t�:.T,`.:2`.:: .,,✓.��.ycx: 10. List any government approvals or permits that will be needed for your proposal, if known. Planned Residential Development Boundary Line Adjustment Subdivision 11. Give brief, complete description of your proposal, including the proposed uses and the size of the project and site. There are several questions later in this checklist that ask you to describe certain aspects of your proposal. You do not need to repeat those answers on this page. (Lead agencies may modify this form to include additional specific information on project description.) To developc41r:`.:single family housing lots, 5 of which would be considered "0" lot line site. The site of approximately 10 acres in size. 12. Location of the proposal. Give sufficient information for a person to understand the precise location of your proposed project, including a street address, if any, and section, township, and range if known. If a proposal would occur over a range of area, provide the range or boundaries of the site(s). Provide a legal description, site plan, vicinity nap, and topographic map, if reasonably available. While you should submit any plans required by the agency, you are not required to duplicate naps or detailed plans submitted with any permit applications related to this checklist. Between 42nd and 43rd on South 137th, adjacent to the southern edge of South Gate Park. SE 15 23N 04E. 13. Does the proposal lie within an area designated on the City's Comprehensive Land Use Policy Plan Map as environmentally sensitive? Yes t TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY g. About what percent of the site will be covered with impervious surfaces after project construction (for example, asphalt or buildings)? 22.6% h. Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion or other impacts to the earth, if any. A temporary erosion control plan will be implemented during construction. 2. AIR a. What types of emission to the air would result from the proposal (i.e.,) dust, automobile, odors, industrial wood smoke) during construction and when the project is completed? If any generally describe and give approximate quantities, if known. Dust and vehicle emissions during construction. There will be the normal amounts of household and automobile emissions from a housing development when the project is completed. b. Are there any off -site sources of emissions or odor that may affect your proposal? If so, generally describe. None c. Proposed measures to reduce or control emissions or other impacts to air, if any: None 3. WATER a. Surface 1) Is there any surface water body on or in the immediate vicinity of the site (including year - round . and season streams, saltwater, lakes, ponds, wetlands)? If yes, describe the type and provide names. If appropriate, state what stream or rive it flows into. Yes there is a wetland area with a creek that goes through the site. See the wetland report and the wetlands plan. TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY 2) Will the project require any work over, in, or adjacent to (within 200 feet) of the described �,� �� waters? If yes, please describe and attach available cA ms'µ' plans. w Yes, the new roadway will cross the wetl- d. A11 other development will occur outside of t - ea designated and approved as a wetland buffer. The buffer is 35' on the stream and 50' on the wetland. 3) Estimate the amount of fill and dredge material that would be placed in or removed from surface water or wetland and indicate the area of the site that would be affected. Indicate the source of fill material. There will be some dredge and fill in the wetland area where the new roadway is to be built. We estimate the amount of fill to be 175 cu /yds. 4) Will the proposal require surface water withdrawals or diversion? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities, if known. No 5) Does the proposal lie within a 100 -year- floodplain? If so, note location on the site plan. No 6) Does the proposal involve any discharges or waste materials to surface waters? If so, describe the type of waste and anticipated volume of discharge. No b. Ground 1) Will ground water be withdrawn, or will water be discharged to ground water? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities, if known. C ° ll ,� 47 VP 4-4 Ytt7 TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY 2) Describe waste material that will be discharged' into the ground from septic tanks or other sources, if any (for example: Domestic sewage; industrial, containing the following chemicals: agricultural, etc.). Describe the general size of the system, the number of such systems, the number of houses to be served (if applicable), or the number of animals or humans the system(s) is (are) expected to serve. A sewer system for the 41 house lots will be put in and connected to the existing sewer system. c Water Runoff (including storm water): 1) Describe the source of runoff (including storm water) and method of collection and disposal, if any (include quantities, if known). Where will this water flow? Will this water flow into other waters? If so, describe. Storm water will be generated from roofs, driveways and roadways and will be handled in a controlled approved drainage plan. Storm water will be retained, filtered through a grass lined swale and returned to the'creek. 2) Could waste materials enter ground or surfaces waters? If so, generally describe. See plans for detention vault and swal d. Proposed measures to reduce or control surface, ground and runoff water impacts, if any: An approved storm water retention system will be installed so as to eliminate impacts. (See Utilities Plan) cl-Q-ddr .r. a.rn,nr•.�.am Nw1NWwa r TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY 4. PLANTS a. Check or circle type of vegetation found on the site: x deciduous tree: alder, maple, aspen, other x evergreen tree: fir, cedar, pine, other shrubs grass pasture crop or grain x wet soil plants; cattail, buttercup, bulrush, skunk cabbage, other x water plants: water lily, eelgrass, milfoil, other other types of vegetation b. What kind and amount of vegetation will be removed or altered? All vegetation will be removed from the areas that will be used for streets and house site. Nothing will be touched in the wetland or buffer area (except where the new roadway located). An effort will be made to retain as many of the existing trees as is safely possible. c. List threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. Unknown d. Proposed landscaping, use of native plants, or other measures to preserve or enhance vegetation on the site, if any. The wetland and buffer areas will be left in their natural state. The areas affected by construction of the roadway will be redone by a wetlands professional. The individual house sites will be landscaped by the owner of the lot as they desire. 7 voi\c,. 1, \ TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE.ONLY 5. ANIMALS a. Circle any birds and animal which have been observed on or near the site or are known to be on or near the site: birds: Hawk, heron, eagle, songbirds, other robins, crows, starling, sparrows mammals: deer, bear, elk, beaver none observed, probably the usual types, such as squirrel, mice, raccoons, etc, as normally found on vacant land. fish: bass, salmon, trout, herring, shellfish, unkown b. List any threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. None c. Is the site part of a migration route? if so, explain. Unknown d. Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife, if any: Buffer areas around wetland should preserve most of the existing wildlife and give refuge to those displaced by the construction of homes. 6. ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES a. What kinds of energy (electric, natural gas, oil, wood stove, solar) will be used to meet the completed project's energy needs? Describe whether it will be used for heating, manufacturing, etc. Natural gas for heating - electric for other domestic needs. b. Would your project affect the potential use of solar energy by adjacent properties? If so, generally describe. No 8 TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT c. What kinds of energy conservation features are included in the plans of this proposal? List other proposed measures to reduce or control energy impacts, if any: The homes will be built to meet the latest Washington State Energy Code. 7. ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH a. Are there any environmental health hazards, including exposure to toxic chemicals, risk of fire and explosion, spill, or hazardous waste, that could occur as a result of this proposal? If so, describe. None 1) Describe special emergency services that might be required. None 2) Proposed measures to reduce or control environmental health hazards, if any: None b. Noise 1) What types of noise exist in the area which may affect your project (for example: Traffic, equipment, operation, aircraft, other)? Traffic on 42nd 2) What types and levels of noise would be created by or associated with the project on a short -term or a long -term basis (for example: traffic, construction, operation, other). Indicate what hour noise would come from the site. Short term - vehicle and construction noise during construction of roads, utilities, houses during normal work hours. Long term - vehicle and other residential noises after residents move into completed houses. 3) Proposed measures to reduce or control noise impact, if any: None • EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY B. LAND AND SHORELINE USE a. What is the current use of the site and adjacent properties? The site is vacant. There are some houses to the south, east and west and one home to the north. Most of the area to the north is a city park. b. Has the site been used for agriculture? If so, describe. No c. Describe any structures on the site. None d. Will any structures be demolished? If so, what? None e. What is the current zoning classification of the site? R -1 7.2 f. What is the current comprehensive plan designation of the site? Residential g. If applicable, what is the current shoreline master designation of the site. N/A h. Has any part of the site been classified as an "environmentally sensitive" area? If so, specify. Yes, wetland and steep slopes i. Approximately how many people would reside or work in the completed project? Approximately 103 - based on 41 house sites with an average 2.5 perople per site. TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY j. Approximately how many people would the completed project displace. None k. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement impacts, if any: None 1. Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is compatible with existing and projected land used and plans, if any: Houses will be of similar value to surrounding homes. 9. HOUSING a. Approximately how many units would be provided, if any? Indicate whether high, middle, or low income housing. 41 house lots of middle income. b. Approximately how many units, if any, would be eliminated? Indicate whether high, middle, or low income housing. None c. Proposed measure to reduce or control housing impacts, if any Positive impact in meeting demand for middle income single family homes. 10. AESTHETICS a. What is the tallest height of any proposed structure(s), not including antennas; what is the principal exterior building material(s) proposed? (Thas'6,1) 3S 33 feet - exterior materials will be wood siding as is normally found in residential home design. b. What views in the immediate vicinity would be altered or obstructed? None TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT 13. HISTORIC AND CULTURAL PRESERVATION a. Are there any places or objects listed on, or proposed, for, national, state, or local preservation registers known to be on or next to the site? If so, generally describe. Unknown b. Generally describe any landmarks or evidence of historic, archaeological, scientific, or cultural importance known to be on or next to the site. None c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts, if any: None 14. TRANSPORTATION a. Identify public streets and highways serving the site, and describe proposed access to the existing street system. Show on the site plans, if any: The main street is 42nd Ave. S with secondary access from S. 137th and 44th Ave. S. b. Is site currently served by public transit? If not, what is the approximate distance to the nearest transit stop? Unkown c. How many parking spaces would the completed project have? How many would the project eliminate? None eliminated - all homes to have 2 car garages d. Will the proposal require any new roads or streets, or improvements to existing roads or streets, not including driveways? If so, generally describe (indicate whether public or private). Yes, a new public street through the project with two short cul de sacs and an alley. Also completion of curbs and sidewalks on the existing streets - 13 - UATION FOR. USE ONLY TO BE COMPLhihD BY APPLICANT EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY c. Proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic impacts, if any: None 11. LIGHT AND GLARE a. What type of light or glare will the proposal produce? What time of day would it mainly occur? Light from street lights at night b. Could light or glare from finish project be a safety hazard or interfere with views? No c. What existing off -site sources of light or glare may affect your proposal? None d. Proposed measures to reduce or control light and . glare impacts, if any: None 12. RECREATION a What designated and informal recreational opportunities are in the immediate vicinity? Southgate Park immediately to the north. b. Would the proposed project displace any existing recreational uses? If so, describe. No c. Pr posed measures to reduce or control impacts on recreation, including recreation opportunities to be provided by the project or applicant, if any: The project will provide pedestrian walkways from the area to the east and south to have easy access to Southgate Park. A nature trail can be put along the stream TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY e. Will the project use (or occur in the immediate vicinity of) water, rail, or air transportation? If so, generally describe. No f. How many vehicular trips per day would be generated by the completed project? If known, indicate when peak volumes would occur. See traffic study attached g. Proposed measures to reduce or control transportation impacts, if any: None 15. PUBLIC SERVICES a. Would the project result in an increased need for public services (for example: Fire protection, police protection, health care, schools, other)? If so, generally describe. Increased demand for all public services as normally occur with influx of more residents b. Proposed measures to reduce or control direct impacts on public services, if any: None 16 UTILITIES a. Circle utilities currently available at the site: electricity, natural gas, refuse service, telephone, sanitary sewer. b. Describe the utilities that are proposed for the project, the utility providing the service, and the general construction activities on the site or in the immediate vicinity which might be needed. The site will provide electricity, sewer, water, telephone and storm drainage TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT C. SIGNATURE The above answers are true and complete to the best of my knowledge. I understand that the lead agency is relying on them to make its decision. EVALUATION FOR' AGENCY USE ONLY Signature (-) Date Submitted t 10, 1992 PLEASE CONTINUE TO THE NEXT PAGE -'15- TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY D. SUPPLEMENTAL SHEET FOR NONPROJECT ACTIONS (do not use this sheet for project actions) Because these questions are very general, it may be helpful to read them in conjunction with the list of the elements of the environment. When answering these questions, be aware of the extent the proposal, or the types of activities likely to result from the proposal, would affect the item at a greater intensity or at a faster rate than if the proposal were not implemented. Respond briefly and in general terms. 1. How would the proposal be likely to increase discharge to water; emissions to air; production, storage or release of toxic or hazardous substances; or production of noise? There may be some more water run off that after filtration will enter the creek. It will be controlled so there should be no problem with erosion.There will be more emissions to air and noises as normally found with development of housing on vacant ground Proposed measures to avoid or reduce such increase are: By filtering and retention /detention of the storm water there should be little impact on the creek 2. How would the proposal be likely to affect plants, animals, fish, or marine life? Some affect on plants and animal life as vacant ground is developed Proposed measures to protect or conserve plants, animals, fish or marine life are: Preserve wetland area and provide a buffer for the wetlands, which will help retain native plants and provide refuge for animals �.. il::.:. ,..�.;rh:..b:2.v....:id �'fA:yt_.: w�a:_r�,,o,.•.,,�rr�..,aa._ ..r, ....��...� _„ e..,:.-........,, µ,.... .....,..,..,..,_......._..,..._ ._.._......._.... �._..._._.y_�_....._. TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY 3. How would the proposal be likely to deplete energy or natural resources? Some depletion of energy as with additional housing. Proposed treasures to protect or conserve energy and natural resources are: Homes will be designed to meet the latest Washington State Energy Code. 4. How could the proposal be likely to use or affect environmentally sensitive areas or areas designated (or eligible or under study) for governmental protection; such as parks, wilderness, wild and scenic rivers, threatened or endangered species habitat, historic or cultural sites, wetlands, floodplains, or prime farmlands? The project will have some affect on the wetland area. 5. How would the proposal be likely to affect land and shoreline use, including whether it would allow or encourage land or shoreline uses incompatible with existing plans? The area is zoned for single family homes and that is what we are proposing for the site Proposed measures to avoid or reduce shoreline and land use impacts are: None How does the proposal conform to the Tukwila Shoreline Master Plan? N/A TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY 6. How would the proposal be likely to increase demands on transportation or public services and utilities? By building new homes on vacant ground there will be an increased demand for all public services and utilities Proposed treasures to reduce or respond to such demand(s) are: None 7. Identify, if possible, whether the proposal may conflict with local, state, or federal laws or requirements for the protection of the environment. No conflict expected as we are providing the required buffer areas for the creek and the wetland 8. Does the proposal conflict with policies of the Tukwila Comprehensive Land Use Policy Plan? If so, what policies of the Plan? No Proposed treasures to avoid or reduce the conflict(s) are: Not applicable rl: t�ta. uou. a:: w.. ,,.,,::a..,,.m..,.nt.... •• TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY E. SUPPLEMENTAL SHEET FOR ALL PROJECT AND NON PROJECT PROPOSALS The objectives and the alternative means of reaching the objectives for a proposal will be helpful in reviewing the aforegoing items of the Environmental Checklist. This information provides a general overall perspective of the proposed action in the context of the environmental information provided and the submitted plans, documents, supportive information, studies, etc. 1. What are the objective(s) of the proposal? To create 41 new housing lots on vacant property 2. What are the alternative means of accomplishing these objectives? None 3. Please compare the alternative means and indicate the preferred course of action: Not applicable 4. Does the proposal conflich with policies of the Tukwila Comprehensive Land Use Policy Plan? if so, what policies of the Plan? No 5. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce the conflict(s) are: None - 19 -