The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutSEPA EPIC-249-84 - BROWN THELMA ET AL - HIGH DENSITY MULTIPLE DWELLINGTHELVIA BROWN WESTERLY SIDE OF 40' AVE S, 200FT SOUTH OF S 154 ST EPIC - 249 -84 Citf Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila Washington 98188 Gary L VanDusen, Mayor September 13, 1984 Gerald Marbett Responsible Official Department of Planning and Community Development 450 King County Administration Building 500 Fourth Ave. Seattle, WA 98104 RE: Proposed Determination - 227 -84 -R Dear Mr. Marbett: Thank you for the notice to comment on this application. Our comments relate to air quality and noise impacts. The checklist does not adequately address, explain, or include background information on these issues. Placement of 80 dwelling units directly adjacent to Highway 518 warrants . consideration of this information prior to making a final threshold determination. If you have any questions contact Brad Collins, Responsible Official, at 433 -1846. Sincerely Rick Beeler Associate Planner RB /blk cc: Responsible Official 1 PS2e-6-7.4_ _61,0 -17 -8 j 7,7 O�- DATE CORRECTED NOTICE CORREC -ED NOTICE • King County Executive Randy Revelle Department of Planning and Community Develop Holly Miller, Director SEPTEMBER 5, 1984 PROPOSED /FINAL DETERMINATION OF SIGNIGICANCE /NON- SIGNIFICANCE SUBJECT FILE NO. (s): 119 -84 -R and 227 -84 -R ent E 1 SEP 6 1984 CSTY OF TU as LP PLANNING DEP i. In accordance with WAC 197 -10 -340 this Division as lead agency transmits to you its determination of 1sApoif*wxae /non - Signi- ficance for those proposals filed and to be acted upon by the Zoning and Subdivision Examiner, copies of each are attached and made a part thereof. Apart from any request for redetermination of the proposed determination(s) attached, any information or recommendations you may have concerning disposition of these proposals should be forwarded to this Division within three weeks of the date of this. transmittal. Information provided by you may be uti- lized to evaluate the merits of the proposals and /or their environmental impact. If we do not received comments, we will assume you have no interest in these proposals. GM:rjh DATE OF PUBLIC HEARING: OCTOBER 11, 1984 COMMENTS DUE: SEPTEMBER 17, 1984 Sincerely, GERALD MARBETT Supervisor DEVELOPMENT CONTROLS D.... ,5. _r-,, SEP 1 0 1984 C1T F TUKWILA NING DEPT. ATTACHMENTS: Copy det. Sig /non -sig - - Environmental Checklist to A/J Vicinity Map (when part of proposal) Plan /Plot Plan(s) (when part of proposal) cc: Copy of Transmittal Letter w /det. to: SEPA INFORMATION CENTER Applicant /Authorized Agent Building & Land Development Division 450 King County .Administration Building 500 Fourth Avenue Seattle. lVashington 98104 (306) 344•7000 • • 1-6.) rip, fp fF VI/ ft' rr) AU 8 2 8 1984 CITY '(j- i PLANNING DLPT. King County Executive R: ndv Revelle Department of Planning and Community Development Holly Miller, Director DATE August 27, 1984 PROPOSED /FINAL DETERMINATION OF SIGNIGICANCE /NON- SIGNIFICANCE SUBJECT FILE NO. (s): 119 -84 -R and 227 -84 -R In accordance with WAC 197 -10 -340 this Division as lead agency transmits to you its determination of x9:kgnix iveace /non- Signi- ficance for those proposals filed and to be acted upon by the Zoning and Subdivision Examiner, copies of each are attached and made a part thereof. Apart from any request for•redetermination of the proposed determination(s) attached, any information or recommendations you may have concerning disposition of these proposals should be forwarded to this Division within three weeks of the date of this transmittal. Information provided by you may be uti- lized to evaluate the merits of the proposals and /or their environmental impact. If we do not received comments, we will assume you have no interest in these proposals. DATE OF PUBLIC HEARING: AUGUST 27, 1984 COMMENTS DUE: Sincerely, GM:rjh SEPTEMBER 27, 1984 GERALD MARBETT Supervisor DEVELOPMENT CONTROLS ATTACHMENTS: Copy det. Sig /non -sig Environmental Checklist to A/J Vicinity Map (when part of proposal) Plan /Plot Plan(s) (when part of proposal) cc: Copy of Transmittal Letter w /det. to: SEPA INFORMATION CENTER Applicant /Authorized Agent Building & Land Development Division 450 King County .Administration Building 500 Fourth Avenue Seattle. Washington 98104 (206) 344•.7900 DATE KIng County Executive Randy Revelle Department of Planning and Community Development Holly Miller, Director AUGUST 27, 1984 DETERMINATION OF NON- SIGNIFICANCE WAC 1.97 -10 -340 FILE NO. 227 -84 -R THELMA D. BROWN, ET AL Description of proposal RS -7200 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (POTENTIAL RM -1800 • HIGH DENSITY MULTIPLE DWELLING) TO RM -1800 HIGH DENSITY MULTIPLE DWELLING. Proponent: Thelma D. Brown, Et al Location of proposal : Westerly side of 40th Avenue South 200' south of South 154th Street. Lead Agency: KING COUNTY BUILDING AND LAND DEVELOPMENT DIVISION DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT This proposal has been determined to not have a significant adverse impact upon the environment. As EIS is not required under KCC 20.44.050 and WAC 10 -11 -300. This decision was made after review by the lead agency of a completed environmental checklist and other information on file with the lead agency. The negative threshold determination shall become our final determination at the time of the issuance of our preliminary report to the Zoning and Subdivision Examiner 14 days before the public hearing unless a specific written request for a redetermination has been received on or before this date WAC 197 - 10-340 (5), (6) and (7). RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL: GERALD MARBETT, SUPERVISOR POSITION /TITLE: SIGNATURE: GM:rjh cc: Applicant /Authorized Agent DEVELOPMENT CONTROLS Aei; LIWA /L I Building & Land Development Division 450 King County Administration Building 500 Fourth Avenue Seattle. Washington 98104 1'2061344.7900 APPLICANT: REQUEST: STR: 0 0 N C- cr RM -900 RS- 7,200 RICP 2,400. FILE 227 -84 -R APPENDIX B THELMA D. BROWN, ET AL RS -7200 (Potential RM -1800) to RM -1800 SW 22 -23 -4 Proposed Reclassification �22 RS -7,200 RM -� 1 2,400) �, • B-C M !too R1,1'1110 ls B -C J B-C v C- G s. 156 * «St. C-G 2 27 ri B-C B-C 0 TN 0' i RS -7,200 B -C RM -1,800 sT RS -7,200 4 010' RS -7,200 (-151 " Si. II ii 152ND RM -900 B -C S 154th ST. RS -7200 RS -7,200 / RM -� RS - 7,200 1, 800 ) RM -1,800 B -C C-G —S. RP 9•G RS.7200 1 1615T ST. RS -7,200 B -C 5/8 RM- 1,800 t -7 200 /RM-\ '1,800/ RM -1,800 00 158TH ST. RS -7,200 RS -72 �'- RS- 7,2001 1 - -C 1 IRM- A 1 �— 0,800 RM -1,800 Ps-7,2c7., ( y,_ \R5- 7.:00. `ri_— ‘1`15) RS -7,200 3 N RS -7,200 RS -7,200 -- - -• - -- 160— •----- ST.-- - - -■■-- -- - �¢�•— •— •-- - - - -•— r o; cn !�•1 "" -.2" RM -900 ?' ').- 4 50A RS -7,200 .•.9,n 1 \ RS.,2oo \\ 1 RS -7,200 \ �^ 1 \ l RS-7,200 • • REZONE AGENDA ZONING AND SUBDIVISION EXAMINER FOR THE KING COUNTY COUNCIL OCTOBER 11, 1984 - PUBLIC HEARING AGENDA FOR AMENDMENTS TO OFFICIAL CONTROLS ROOM 402 KING COUNTY COURTHOUSE, COUNCIL CHAMBERS 9:00 a.m., or as soon thereafter as possible, FILE NO. 119 -84 -R U -HAUL COMPANY OF WESTERN WASHINGTON - REZONE Owner: Ronald J. C. Belec/David M. Diven, 6401 Martin Luther King Way South, Seattle, WA 98118, Phone No. 721 -2900 STR: NE 11 -26 -4 Location: North side of N.E. Bothell Way (SR 522), 100' east of 67th Avenue N.E. PROPOSAL IS: Rezoning of the property described, from B -C -P COMMUNITY BUSINESS "P" SUFFIX SITE PLAN APPROVAL TO C -G GENERAL COMMERCIAL. TO PERMIT: The use of property for household moving truck and trailer rental center. 10:30 a.m., or as soon thereafter as possible, FILE NO 227 -84 -R Owner: Agent: STR: Location: PROPOSAL IS: TO PERMIT: THELMA D. BROWN, ET AL - REZONE Thelma D. Brown, 15427 40th Avenue South, Seattle, WA 98188, Phone No. 242 -7172 E. R. Bathelomew, c/o Tarbuck Realty, 15401 1st Avenue South, Seattle, WA 98148, Phone No. 244 -8550 SW 22 -23 -4 Westerly side of 40th Avenue South 200' south of South 154th Street Rezoning of the property described, from, RS -7200 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (POTENTIAL RM -1800 HIGH DENSITY MULTIPLE DWELLING) to RM -1800 HIGH DENSITY MULTIPLE DWELLING. The use of property for apartments. ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST IRM Introduction: The State Environmental Policy Act of 1971, Chapter 43.21C, RCW, requires all state and local governmental agencies to consider environmental values both for their own actions and when licensing private proposals. The Act also requires that an EIS be prepared for all major actions significantly affecting the quality of the environment. The purpose of this checklist is to help the agencies involved to determine whether or not a proposal is such a major action. Please answer the following questions as completely as you can with the information presently available to you. Where explanations of your answers are required, or where you believe an explanation would be helpful to government decision makers, include your explanation in the space provided, or use additional pages if necessary. You should include references to any reports.or studies of which you are aware and which are relevant to the answers you provide. Com- plete answers to those questions now will help all agencies involved with your proposal to undertake the required environmental review without unnecessary delay. The following questions apply to your total proposal, not just to the permit for which you are currently applying or the proposal for which approval is sought. Your answers should include the impacts which will be caused by your proposal when it is completed, even though completion may not occur until sometime in the future. This will allow all of the agencies which will be involved to complete their environmental review now, without duplicating paperwork in the future. NOTE: This is a standard form being used by all states and local agencies in the State of Washington for various types of proposals. Many of the questions may not apply to your proposal. If a question does not apply, just answer it "not applicable" (n /a) and continue on to the next questions. A. BACKGROUND 1. Name of Proponent E. R. Bartholomew 2. Address and Phone Number of Proponent c/o Tarbuck Realty, 15401 1st Ave. So. Seattle, Washington 98148 Phone # 244 -8550 3. Date Checklist Submitted 4/24/84 4. Agency Requiring Checklist King County Rezone 5. Name of Proposal, if applicable: Not Applicable 6. Nature and Brief Description of the Proposal (including but not limited to its size, general design elements, and other factors that will give an accurate understanding of its scope and nature: Request for Re -zone from RS - 7200 (Potential RM -1800) to RM -1800 to build approximately 80 apartments for rent 7. Location of Proposal (describe the physical setting of the proposal, as well as the extent of the' land area affected by any environmental impacts, including any other information needed to give an accurate understanding of the environmental setting of the proposal): The property is west of 40th Ave. So. between So. 154th and State Highway 518. The properties on the North, the West and the East are zoned RM -1800. On the South it is bounded by State Highway 518. RECEIVED BLDG. & LAS'^ nFvr' "0 APR 2 5 1984 AM '7 BALD F -199 7 pages -1- • • 8. Estimated Date for Completion of the Proposal: The project should be completed in 1985 9. List of all Permits, Licenses or Government Approvals Required for all Proposal (federal, state and local- - including rezones): King County Building Permit, water retention permit, plumbing and wiring permits 10. Do you have any plans for future additions, expansions, or further activity related to or connected with this proposal? If yes, explain: No 11. Do you know of any plans by others which may affect the property covered by your proposal? If yes, explain: No 12. Attach any other application form that has been com- pleted regarding the proposal; if none has been com- pleted, but is expected to be filed at some future date, describe the nature of such application form: B. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS (Explanations of all "yes" and "maybe" answers are required). YES MAYBE NO 1. Earth. Will the proposal result in: a. Unstable earth conditions or in changes in geologic substructures: X b. Disruptions, displacements, com- paction or overcovering of the soil? c. Change in topography or ground surface relief features? d. The destruction, covering or modification of any unique geologic or physical features? e. Any increase in wind or water erosion of soils, either on or off the site? f. Changes in deposition or ero- sion of beach sands, or changes in siltation, deposition or erosion which may modify the channel of a river or stream or the bed of the ocean or any bay, inlet or lake? X X X Explanation: There will be dozing, For foundations . Grading will be done for roads and final grade and landscaping. Air. Will the proposal result in: Yes Maybe No a. Air emissions or deterioration of ambient air quality? X b. The creation of objectionable odors? X c. Alteration of air movement, moisture or temperature, or any change in climate, either locally or regionally? Explanation: X 3. Water. Will the proposal result in: a. Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water move- ments, in either marine or fresh waters? b. Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface water runoff? c. Alterations to the course or flow of flood waters? d. Change in the amount of sur- face water in any water body? e. Discharge into surface waters, or in any alteration of surface water quality, including but not limited to temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity? f. Alteration of the direction of rate of flow of ground waters? g. Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or withdrawls, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations? h. Deterioration in ground water quality, either through direct in- jection, or through the seepage of leachate, phosphates, detergents, waterborne virus or bacteria, or other substances into the ground waters? i. Reduction in the amount of water otherwise available for public water supplies? X X X X X X X X X Explanation: Buildings, roads and parking . Areas will change surface water movements. Hydraulics will be figured by an engineer. • • 4. Flora. Will the proposal result in: a. Change in the diversity of specifies, or numbers of any species of flora (including trees, shrubs, grass, crops, microflora and aquatic plants)? b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of flora? c. Introduction of new species of flora into an area, or in a barrier to the normal replenish- ment of existing species? d. Reduction in acreage of any agricultural crop? Explanation: Yes Maybe No X X X X 5. Fauna. Will the proposal result in: a. Changes in the diversity of species, or numbers of any species of fauna (birds, land animals including reptiles, fish and shell- fish, benthic organisms, insects or microfauna) ? b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of fauna? c. Introduction of new species of fauna into an area, or result in a barrier to the migration or movement of fauna? d. Deterioration to existing fish or wildlife habitat? Explanation: X X X X Noise. Will the proposal increase existing noise levels? X Explanation: More people and more cars will increase noise level slightly. 7. Light and Glare. Will the pro- posal produce new light or glare? Explanation: X • 8. Land Use. Will the proposal result in the alteration of-the present or planned land use of an area? Explanation: Yes Maybe No X 9. Natural Resources. Will the pro- posal result in: a. Increase in the rate of use of any natural resources? b. Depletion.of any nonrenewable natural resource? Explanation: 10. Risk of Upset. Does the proposal involve a risk of an explosion or release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to, oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation) in the event of an accident or upset conditions? Explanation: X 11. Population. Will the proposal alter the location, distribution, density, or growth rate of the human population of an area? X Explanation: It should increase the population on the property by about 80 families 12. Housing. Will the proposal affect existing housing, or create a demand for additional housing? Explanation: X 13. Transportation /Circulation. Will the proposal result in: a. Generation of Additional vehicular movement? X b. Effects on existing parking facilities, or demand for new parking? C. Impact upon existing trans- portation systems? X d. Alterations to present patterns of circulation or move- ment of people and /or goods? -5- X X • • e. Alterations to waterborne, rail or air traffic? f. Increase in traffic hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians? Explanation: Yes Maybe No X X 14. Public Services. Will the pro- posal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered governmental services in any of the following areas? a. Fire protection? X b. Police protection? x c. Schools? X d. Parks or other recreational facilities? X e. Maintenance of public facili- ties, including roads? x f. Other governmental services? x Explanation: With more people (80 families) there will be the normal increase. 15. Energy. Will the proposal result in: a. Use of substantial amounts of fuel or energy? x b. Demand upon existing sources of energy, or require the develop- x ment of new sources of energy? Explanation: The apartments to be built will be energy efficient and should conserve energy. 16. Utilities. Will the proposal result in a need for new systems or alterations to the following utilities: a. Power or natural gas? x b. Communications systems? x c. Water? x d. Sewer or septic tanks? x e. Storm water drainage? x f. Solid waste and disposal? x Explanation: • • Human Health. Will the proposal result in the creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard (excluding mental health)? Explanation: Yes Maybe , No 18. Aesthetics. Will the proposal result in the obstruction of any scenic vista or view open to the public, or will the proposal re- sult in the creation of an aesthetically offensive site open to public view? X Explanation • The property will be landscaped in the required manner or better. 19. Recreation. Will the proposal result in an impact upon the quality of quantity of existing recreational opportunities? X Explanation• More people in the area will increase demands for recreation slightly. 20. Archeological /Historical. Will the proposal result in an alteration of a significant archeological or his- torical site, structure, object or building? Explanation: X f". SIGNATURE I, the undersigned, state that to the best of my knowledge the above information is true and complete. It is understood that the lead agency may withdraw any declaration of non - significance that it might issue in reliance upon this checklist should there be any willful misrepresentation or willful lack of full disclosure on my part. Proponent: i7 E. R. Bartholomew Associate Realtor for TARBUCK REALTY, REALTORS