HomeMy WebLinkAboutSEPA E97-0022 - BERGSTROM MICHAEL - SUBDIVISIONBERGSTROM SUBDIVISION
LOT SUBDIVISION & STREET
IMPROVEMENTS
14921 57T" AVE. S0.
E97-0022
AFFIDAVIT
OF DISTRIBUTION
I, ( A l� c�6,uPY-;J t C -k. hereby declare that:
Notice of Public Hearing
O Notice of Public Meeting
O Board of
Packet
0 Board of
Packet
Planning
Packet
Adjustment Agenda
Appeals Agenda
Commission Agenda
0 Short Subdivision Agenda
Packet
O Notice of Application for
Shoreline Management Permit
0 Shoreline Management Permit
Ell/Determination of Non-
significance
0 Mitigated Determination of
Nonsignificance
Determination of Significance
and Scoping Notice
O Notice of Action
Official Notice
Other
Other
was mailed to each of the following addresses on atILAN, ftfl .
E_Q, A t.ci,J,,,20iL
Name of Project :692.10 l� ,UL Signature
File Number i -N9 "0(31-1L1
(?)a.nctiA,-k
City of Tukwila
Notice of Public Hearing
PROJECT INFORMATION
Michael Bergstrom, acting for Carl H. Bergstrom, has filed an application for development of a 20 lot
subdivision at 14921 57 Av. S. The subdivision will extend and connect S. 150 St. to S. 150 PI.,
include a new street 55 PI. S, and include sidewalks, sanitary and storm sewers, water, cable,
electric, telephone and gas utilities, as well as a pedestrian path to 57 AV. S.
Approval requested:
• Preliminary Plat approval
Other known required permits include:
• Land Altering permit
• State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) Determination
• Utility Permit
OPPORTUNITY FOR PUBLIC COMMENT
You are invited to comment on the project at the public hearing before the Tukwila City
Council, scheduled for Monday, November 17, 1997 at 7:00 p.m. The hearing will be held in
the City Council Chambers at City Hall.
The hearing is subject to change, to confirm this date call Moira Carr Bradshaw at 431-3670 or check
the City's web site at: http://www.ci.tukwila.wa.us/
FILES AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC REVIEW
The files are available at the City of Tukwila. To view the files, come to the Department of Community
Development at the address at the bottom of this page.
Files Numbers include:
• L97-0044 (Preliminary Plat)
• E97-0022 (SEPA)
Department of Community Development
6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100,
Tukwila, WA 98188
Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.
Application Filed: July 11, 1997
Notice of Completeness Issued: September 12, 1997
Notice of Application Issued: September 12, 1997
Notice of Hearing Issued: October 31, 1997
•
CITY OF TUKWILA
DETERMINATION OF NONSIGNIFICANCE (DNS)
•
DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL:
•SUBDIVISION OF ONE 4.2 ACRE LOT INTO 20 LOTS
RANGING IN SIZE FROM 6,500 TO 8,800 SQUARE FEET,
AND INCLUDING THE IMPROVEMENT AND DEDICATION OF
STREETS, SIDEWALKS, UTILITIES-.- AND A PATHWAY.
PROPONENT: MICHAEL BER-GST140M
LOCATION OF PROPOSAL.,..;-INCLUDINGI STREET ADDRESS', IF AN
. ‘.
ADDRESS 14921 57 AT,S'
PARCEL NO 115720-0190
SEC/TWN/RNG:1 )-23-23-4
LEAD AGEN6:-:, ;CITY OF'TUKWri.*:•'
. -
FILENO E97-7002
The City ha determined that the'*oposal does not have a probable
significant adverse impact -on thei-environment. An environmental' \
impact statement (EIS). is not—raquired,under RCW 43.21c.030(2)(c
This decision Was,made.alter,-reView of a coMpleted environmental
checklist'and other with the lead agency. This
information is available..to the 'public 6n:request.
•
*111k************************'**4144**41**Cklit**44******4*44*4******11*********1(***
• .1
• f '
This det,erm-rnation,is final -and signed.thjsC40\e
,29't1 day of , /-
• , •
0.
199-7 .
Steve Lancaster, Responsible Official
City of Tukwila, (206) 431-3670
6300 Southcertar, Boulevard
Tukwila, WA 981'88
•
Copies of the procadures4or SEPA'appeals are available with the
Department of CommunitY-Dekialrop,ment.
File No. E97-0022 Bergstrom Preliminary Plat
Project Description: Preliminary plat of a 4.2 acre parcel into 20 lots with public streets
and utilities and a private/public pathway and driveway.
Other agencies with Jurisdiction: None
Comments to SEPA Checklist:
Tukwila Fire Department requests that the landscape island in cul-de-sac on S. 150 St. be
eliminated or reduced in order to facilitate fire truck turn around.
Applicant's Response: Island cul-de-sac will be reduced to diameter and radius of
existing islands within the City.
Tukwila Parks and Recreation Department is concerned about the budgetary impact from
maintaining the proposed pedestrian pathway.
Applicant's Response: Plantings will be reduced from current proposal and a
homeowner's association will be created through CC&Rs to assume responsibility for
landscape material. Pathway itself will be a material acceptable to City to be maintained
by City.
Tukwila Public Works Department requests that street trees be placed behind sidewalks;
that the island in the cul-de-sac be eliminated; that each lot have a water tap end; that
footprints of homes and finished floor elevations be shown, that curb cuts and wheel chair
ramps at the street intersections be shown; that there be a cost estimate for the
construction of infrastructure (utility lines, curb, gutters, sidewalks and road) if the
applicant chooses to post a bond; and that the geotechnical report be expanded to address
site stability.
Applicant's Response: See above response regarding plant materials, other comments to
be completed.
Tukwila Building Division has no comments at this time. i
Public Comments at public meeting September 30, 1997
The subdivision should be redesigned to eliminate the connection of S. 150 Pl., which
creates a through street between 57 Av. S. and Macadam Rd. S. The connection will
increase traffic, speeding, crime and potential accidents on 57 Av. S. A resident on
Macadam does not feel it is appropriate to open the street to Macadam.
Construction techniques and supervision need to be improved because construction
related activities from previous subdivision caused excessive dirt and trucks on local
access street - 57 Av. S.
The extension of 55 Av. S. is inappropriate as connection to S. 144 St. is technically
unfeasible due to topography and wetland to north. Extension would violate previous
assurances that S. 149 St. would remain a dead-end.
Response: The Tukwila Police and Fire Departments were asked to respond to the
proposed connection of Macadam with 57 Av. S in 1990 when the Brigadoon subdivision
was reviewed. The Departments opinion was that it would be a benefit for the area and
not a negative. Emergency access would be improved.
Construction access could possibly be routed to the site via S. 150 St.; regardless,
construction on and off-site maintenance procedures will be enforced.
Summary of Primary Impacts:
Earth/Soil
A June 3, 1997 geotechnical assessment by AGI Technologies concluded that the site can
be safely developed from a geotechnical perspective provided certain recommendations
are followed.
1. More detailed geotechnical engineering prior to completion of construction including
the utility drawings
2. Construction should occur during drier months and special precautions should be
taken if construction proceeds into the wetter months.
3. Special procedures should be followed regarding excavating and filling of site soils.
4. A detailed slope stability analysis should be conducted once the conceptual grading
plan is completed.
5. Conventional shallow foundation systems, such as spread footing will be satisfactory.
6. Geotechnical review should occur of all retaining walls over 4 feet in height.
7. Specific short and long term drainage measures should be followed; including
permanent footing and wall drains connected to a permanent discharge point away
from structures.
Staff Response
The City's Sensitive Areas Chapter of the Zoning Code and the Land Altering Chapter
regulate the time frames and methods of construction that may occur on sensitive slopes.
Additional detailed geotechnical review will occur at the time of a land altering
application.
Traffic
Forecasting of new daily vehicular trips and their distribution were estimated for the
project. They were allocated to a.m.(14 total,) noon (16 total,) and p.m. (19 total) peak
trips. Figure 2 (attached) shows the distribution as being 45% down 57 Av. S. and 55%
down S. 150 St. to Macadam.
"The plat has been designed such that the connection between Macadam Rd. and 57 Av.
S is not viably obvious nor a time effective driving route. Existing residents who decide
to use this new route will simply be diverting an existing trip from a similar
neighborhood street and relocating it onto S. 150 St./Place." (Excerpt from Traffic Study)
Overall trips (except 49 new trips) n neighborhood will be the same just routed onto
different streets.
Housing
Lynden Lea Lodge, which houses approximately 54 adults, is a state licensed boarding
house located at the end of S. 150 St. It has facilities on both sides of the street and there
is frequent pedestrian activity on the sidewalks and in the street. Comments have been
•
made by the applicant that the State may not continue to license the facility if the street
becomes a through street. The consultant traffic engineer has suggested that the City may
want to consider a mid -block crosswalk with advance warning signs to alert motorists of
the situation. A conversation on October 20 with David Mesher, of the Department of
Social and Human Services, said that there are no state standards that address location of
facilities in relation to streets and circulation.
Signage on S. 150 Street alerting motorist to the pedestrians in the area may be helpful
and can be discussed and signed by the City's Department of Public Works, Streets
Division.
Recommended Threshold Determination: Determination of Nonsignificance
Michael Bergstrom, AICP
P.O. Box 19614 • Seattle, WA 98109-6614 • TEL (206) 286-8944 • FAX (206) 281-8244
August 27, 1997
Ms. Moira Bradshaw, Associate Planner
Department of Community Development
City of Tukwila
Suite 100
6300 Southcenter Blvd
Tukwila, WA 98188
RE: Bergstrom Preliminary Subdivision, File Nos. L97-0044 & E97-0022
Completeness, Issues, and Public Notice Signs
Dear Ms. Bradshaw:
As requested by your letter dated July 30, 1997, my consultant, OTAK, Inc. is preparing
revisions to our application so that it may be determined to be complete. Those revisions
will be submitted to you this week.
Please be aware that these revisions are intended to respond only to your comments
contained in the July 30 letter. We have not forgotten the other issues discussed in our
August 13 meeting with you. I intend to address those additional issues in a separate
response, hopefully within the next few weeks, and hopefully in a comprehensive manner.
Some issues we discussed on August 13 have, I believe, been resolved. They include:
• Hydrants: The Fire Department was concerned about hydrant spacing. On August 14,
I spoke with Nick Olivas, and pointed out the proposed hydrant at the end of the cul-
de-sac. Based on that information, Mr. Olivas stated that the spacing was acceptable.
• Large Bird: The "eagle or hawk" some neighbors reported using a particular tree on the
site apparently is a raven. On August 11, Steve Nagro (sp?) of the Washington State
Department of Fish and Wildlife informed me that the nearest eagle nest is 2 miles
away. On August 18, Gary Schulz called to say a raven nest exists in the tree.
• Geotech Evaluation: On August 21, you informed me that additional geotechnical
analysis (i.e., subsurface exploration and analysis) is not needed at this stage in the
process, but will be required prior to construction permit application.
• Significant Tree Identification: Gary Schulz's August 7 memo to you identifies
inaccuracies in our tree survey. He recommends that our tree removal information be
accepted but not considered final, and that it be refined or amended at the time of the
Land Altering Permit. I am agreeable to Mr. Schulz's recommendation.
Ms. Moira Bradshaw
File Nos. L97-0044 & E97-0022
August 27, 1997
Page 2
Assuming that you agree the above issues have been resolved to the extent needed at this
time, I do not intend to address them in future revisions or submittals. On the other hand,
if you disagree and need additional information concerning any of these items, please let me
know soon so that I may respond as necessary.
Regarding public notice signs, any information you can give me in response to my August
14 memo would be appreciated. I understand that we are required to have the signs
installed within 14 days of the date you issue a notice of completeness letter. I will be out
of town or in all -day meetings from Sept 1 - Sept 9, which could (depending on how
quickly things progress) consume much of that 14 -day period. Therefore, I need to be as
ready to go as possible.
Thank you for your assistance.
Sincerely,
ae E-rgstr
City of Tukwila
John W. Rants, Mayor
Department of Community Development Steve Lancaster, Director
MEMORANDUM
TO: Moira Bradshaw, Associate''Planner
FROM: Gary Schulz, Urban Environmentalist
DATE: August 15, 1997
RE: Bergstrom Plat E97-0022, site visit for raptor nest and sitings.
I visited the site again and was directed to look at big leaf maple trees at or about proposed Lots
5 and 6. Reportedly, eagles or hawks have a nest in these trees. Nests of raptors suchs as these
birds are protected areas or have protective measures relative to new development. These
measures vary according to Federal or State wildlife regulations. However, eagles require large
trees big enough to support a huge nest.
The subject big leaf maple trees do not appear large enough for eagles to nest. A couple of large
firs located on the northeast portion of the property may be large enough. However, I did not
observe hawk or eagle nests on the site. Because the hunting and feeding territory is so large for
raptors, it is possible for these birds to roost or hunt on this site. This is generally not a regulated
issue even for eagles.
Please let me know if this situation needs more assistance from me.
cc: Steve Lancaster, DCD Director
Kelcie Peterson, Permit Coordinator
Wel GEauk.vb
6300 Southcenter Boulevar4 Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • (206) 431-3670 • Fax (206) 431-3665
•
City of Tukwila
John W. Rants, Mayor
Department of Community Development Steve Lancaster, Director
MEMORANDUM
TO: Moira Bradshaw, Associate Planner
FROM: Gary Schulz, Urban Environmentalist
DATE: August 7, 1997
RE: Application Completeness Review for Bergstrom Plat
E97-0022, Tree Permit & Geotechnical requirements.
I re -visited the site and also had a telephone conversation with the applicant regarding tree
removal. I have the following comments and recommendations.
Tree Permit:
It appears to me that some of the trees growing on the site are not shown on the tree
survey. Trees that are at least 4" in diameter at breast height (DBH) need to be mapped
if growing on the slopes. I mainly focused on the western steep area and found
unsurveyed trees on proposed Lots 19 and 18. Blackberry cover is dense now s� I did
not mark these trees. Also, some of the surveyed trees are not accurately measured for
diameters as specified in the Tree Regulations (TMC 18.54.130).
All regulated trees that are removed as part of this proposal should be shown on the plan.
These are only trees removed from sensitive area slopes (20% or more gradient).
However, additional professional land survey work will not be necessary if these trees can
be mapped and measured in the field using known locations. As I understand, the City
can recommend approval of the subdivision without having tree replacement determined
for newly created lots.
The submitted Tree Permit material (July 11, 1997) will not be considered a final plan.
Tree retention and tree protection measures are also not addressed or included in this
submittal. Due to the site's dense blackberry cover, I recommend that we accept the Tree
Permit material for the waiver of the PRD but condition it for the Land Altering Permit
related to utility and road construction. The actual surveyed and installed
6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • (206) 431-3670 • Fax (206) 431-3665
• •
Bergstrom Memo
August 7, 1997
Page 2
clearing limits will be the best way to determine tree removal and tree protection
measures. At that time we can also get more accurate tree diameters and revise the tree
permit portion of the landscape plan. The tree permit landscaping can be shown as a
separate plan if this complicates the required subdivision landscaping.
Geotechnical:
The geotechnical investigation by AGI Technologies is recognized as preliminary and will
be need to be supplemented with site-specific work. However, it indicates the site can
be developed as proposed.
In summary, Tree Regulation permit materials are not final in the July 11, 1997 plan submittal.
On past projects we determined that landscaping requirements for a subdivision or other required
landscaping cannot be substituted for tree permit requirements. Please have the applicant contact
me if there are questions concerning this memo.
cc: Steve Lancaster, DCD Director
Kelcie Peterson, Permit Coordinator
Memorandum
DATE: July 21, 1997
TO: Bill Van de Bogert
FROM: Moira Carr Bradshaw
RE: Bergstrom 20 Lot Subdivision
The City of Tukwila has received an application that proposes subdividing one 4.2 acre
lot into 20 lots on Tukwila Hill and connecting S.150 Street with 150 Lane. Please
review the enclosed information and respond with your comments by 29 July. If you
have any questions please call me at 431-3651. Thank you.
Michael Bergstrom, AICP
P.O. Box 19614 • Seattle, WA 98109-6614 • TEL (206) 286-8944 • FAX (206) 281-8244
BERGSTROM PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION
LIST OF ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTS
The following environmental documents are included with this application:
Environmental Checklist, dated July 8, 1997, prepared by applicant
• Traffic Impact Analysis, dated May, 1997, prepared by David I. Hamlin &
Associates
• Preliminary Geotechnical Evaluation, dated June 3, 1997, prepared by AGI
Technologies
LIST OF PRIOR OR PENDING PERMITS/DECISIONS
A Planned Residential Development (PRD) waiver was granted by the Tukwila
Planning Director for this proposal on June 16, 1997.
A Boundary Line Adjustment involving the subject property was approved March
5th, 1992 (City of Tukwila File No. L92-0001).
• Other than this Preliminary Subdivision application, no permits or decisions
affecting the subject property are pending.
RECEIVED
CITY OF TUKWILA
JUL 1 1 1997
PERMIT CENTER
Michael Bergstrom, AICP
P.O. Box 19614 • Seattle, WA 98109-6614 • TEL (206) 286-8944 • FAX (206) 281-8244
BERGSTROM PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION
TMC 18.54.130(3) COMPLIANCE
Chapter 18.54 of the Zoning Code requires the replacement of significant trees which will
be removed from the site. For this subdivision, this requirement applies only to significant
trees removed from areas containing Class 2 slopes.
The following trees will be removed from Class 2 slope areas to accommodate road
construction:
On/Near Lot # Tree to be Removed Replacement Requirement
17 8" dedicuous 1 tree
15" alder 4 trees
15" alder 4 trees
18 6" deciduous 1 tree
19 10" alder 2 trees
10" deciduous 2 trees
18" alder 4 trees
18 total replacement trees required
The subdivision ordinance requires the planting of one tree in the front yard of each lot.
Given the proposed subdivision into 20 lots, 20 such trees would be required. The
proposal actually shows the planting of 42 trees (27 street trees*, 3 cul-de-sac island trees,
and 12 trees along the pedestrian corridor), or 22 more than required by the subdivision
ordinance. We propose the planting of these 22 trees to satisfy the requirements of Chapter
18.54.
It is possible that additional significant trees lying within Class 2 slopes areas will need to
be removed to accommodate house construction. However, until the subdivision is
approved and house designs and locations are determined, it is not possible to accurately
predict which trees will be removed. Therefore, it is proposed that each lot be required to
fulfill its tree replacement requirement for tree removal not anticipated by the enclosed
plans.
This number is likely to increase; we expect to provide street trees at 30' spacings, rather than 40' RECEIVED
spacings as shown on the landscape plan. CITY OF TUKVIIILA
JUL 1 1 1997
PERMIT CENTER
CITY OF TUKWILA
DepartmenW Community Development
6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Tukwila, WA 98188
Telephone: (206) 431-3670
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW (SEPA) APPLICATION
SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS
To submit for SEPA review, provide the items listed above to the Planning Division at 6300
Southcenter Boulevard, Room 100.
11
8 copies of the completed and signed environmental checklist.
You may use the City's pre-printed form or you may re -type the questions on your
computer. If you choose to re -type the form into your computer, be sure to do so
accurately. Mistakes or omissions will increase the review time.
8 sets of the full size plans needed to clearly describe the proposed action. RECEIVED
CITY OF TUKWILA
® One PMT set of plans reduced to 8.5" x 11". AP, , t 1997
Four copies of supporting studies.
El One copy of the checklist application.
PERMIT CENTER
One set of mailing labels for all properties 500' from the subject property. (See address
label worksheet.)
0 $325 filing fee.
COMPLETING THECHECKLIST
The checklist contains several pages of questions which you are asked to answer. It covers a
comprehensive set of topics. As a result, several of the questions may not apply to your project.
If a particular question does not apply, simply write N/A undemeath. HOWEVER, be aware that
many questions apply despite appearing not to. Care needs to be taken in reading and
answering the questions to ensure the appropriate response is provided.
It is important that accurate and clear information be provided. You may not know all of the
answers. Answer each question to the best of your ability. If we find an answer to be
insufficient, the City may contact you to ask for more information.
Sometimes, after reviewing the checklist, the City will ask you provide additional studies or
information. Commonly requested information includes traffic analysis, site topography, soils
studies and tree surveys.
SF
SF
SF
SF
A
h
V
Church
SF
SF
S. 149th St
V
S. 150th St
L. Lea
Lodge
SF
Site
S
SF
SF
Oth P1
SF
Water
Rsvr
MF
S. 152nd St
•
SF
S. 147th St
V)
SF
SF
SF
A
_ Y
i
Fire
Stn!
Lib.
A SF
V
SF
S. 149th St
Tukwila
Elementary School
MF
MF
V = Vacant
SF = Single -Family Residential
MF = Multi -Family Residential
0 = Office
NTS
RECEIVED
CITY OF TUKWILA
Existing Land Uses Within 1000' JUL 1 1 1997
PERMIT CENTER
CITY OFT KWILA
Department . -Community Development 41
6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Tukwila, WA 98188
Telephone: (206) 431-3670
SEPA APPLICATION CHECKLIST
FOR STAFF USE ONLY
Planner:
File Number: q 1 - dd a)a
Receipt, Number:
Cross-reference files: PRe q7-
Applicant notified of incomplete application:
Applicantnotified of complete application:
Notice ofapplication; issued:
7-oa 3 c f
A. NAME OF PROJECT/DEVELOPMENT:
BERGSTROM RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION
B. LOCATION OF PROJECT/DEVELOPMENT: (address and accessors parcel number(s))
14921 57th Avenue South
Tax Lot # 115720-0190
Quarter: NW Section: 23 Township: 23 Range: 04
(This information may be found on your tax statement)
C. PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
Subdivision of 4.2 -acre parcel into 20residential lots.
D. APPLICANT:
RECEIVED
NAME: Michael Bergstrom CITYOFTUKWILA
J U L 1 1 1997
ADDRESS: P.O. Box 19614, Seattle, WA 98109
PERMIT CENTER
PHONE: k206) 286-8944 (tel); (206) 281-8244 (fax)
SIGNATURE:
DATE: July 9, 1997
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
Purpose of Checklist:
The State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), chapter 43.21C RCW, requires all governmental
agencies to consider the environmental impacts of a proposal before making decisions. An
environmental impact statement (EIS) must be prepared for all proposals with probable significant
adverse impacts on the quality of the environment. The purpose of this checklist is to provide
information to help you and the agency identify impacts from your proposal (and to reduce or
avoid impacts from the proposal, if it can be done) and to help the agency decide whether an EIS is
required.
Instructions for Applicants:
This environmental checklist asks you to describe some basic information about your proposal.
The City uses this checklist to determine whether the environmental impacts of your proposal are
significant, requiring preparation of an EIS. Answer the questions briefly, with the most precise
information known, or give the best description you can.
You must answer each question accurately and carefully, to the best of your knowledge. In most
cases, you should be able to answer the questions from your own observations or project plans
without the need to hire experts. If you really do not know the answer, or if a questions does not
apply to your proposal, write "do not know" or "does not apply". Complete answers to the
questions now may avoid unnecessary delays later.
Some questions ask about governmental regulations, such as zoning, shoreline, and landmark
designations. Answer these questions if you can. If you have problems, the City staff can assist
you.
The checklist questions apply to all parts of your proposal, even if you plan to do them over a
period of time or on different parcels of land. Attach any additional information that will
help describe your proposal or its environmental effects. The City may ask you to
explain your answers or provide additional information reasonably related to determining if there
may be significant adverse impact.
Use of checklist for nonproject proposals:
Nonproject proposals refer to actions which are different or broader than a single site specific
development project, such as plans, policies and programs.
Complete this checklist for nonproject proposals, even though questions may be answered "does
not apply." In addition, complete the supplemental sheet for nonproject actions (part
D).
For nonproject actions, the references in the checklist to the words "project," "applicant," and
"property or site" should be read as "proposal," "proposer," and "affected geographic area,"
respectively.
1
• •
Control No.
Epic File No.
Fee $325 Receipt No.
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
A. BACKGROUND
1. Name of proposed project, if applicable: Bergstrom Residential Subdivision.
2. Name of applicant: Michael Bergstrom.
3. Address and phone number of applicant and contact person: Michael Bergstrom, P.O. Box
19614, Seattle, WA 98109 (206) 286-8944
4. Date checklist prepared: July 8, 1997
5. Agency requesting checklist: City of Tukwila
6. Proposed timing or schedule (including phasing, if applicable): Preliminary plat
approval in fall of 1997. Final plat approval and construction to follow as soon thereafter
as possible.
7. Do you have any plans for future additions, expansion, or further activity related to or
connected with this proposal? If yes, explain. Construction of homes, infracture, and
amenities.
8. List any environmental information you know about that has been prepared, or will be
prepared, directly related to this proposal. Preliminary geotechnical evaluation, dated
May 15 1997, prepared by AGI Technologies: Traffic Impact Analysis, dated May 1997,
prepared by David I. Hamlin & Associates.
9. Do you know whether applications are pending for governmental approvals of other
proposals directly affecting the property covered by your proposal? If yes, explain.
None known.
10. List any government approvals or permits that will be needed for your proposal, if known.
Preliminary and final plat approval: demolition permits: construction permits: utility
connection permits: clearing and grading approval: tree clearing permit per TMC 18.54.
PRD waiver per TMC18.45.060 approved on June 16, 1997.
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.)
2
• •
Subdivision of a 4.2 -acre parcel into 20 single-family residential lots in the LDR zone.
Access will be provided from 57th Ave S, S. 150th St, and S. 150th Pl.
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 map,
and topographic map, if reasonably available. While you should submit any plans required
by the agency, you are not required to duplicate maps or detailed plans submitted with any
permit applications related to this checklist.
14921 57th Avenue South, Tukwila, WA. Site includes most of Tract 19, Brookvale
Garden Tracts, Volume 10-47, King County records. SE 1/4 NW 1/4 23-23-04. King
County tax account number 115720-0190.
13. Does the proposal lie within an area designated on the City's Comprehensive Land Use
Policy Plan Map as environmentally sensitive?
The City's Sensitive Area Maps show Class 2 slopes on the western portion of the site.
TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT
B. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS
1. EARTH
EVALUATION FOR
AGENCY USE
ONLY
a. General description of the site (underline one):
Flat, rolling, hilly, steep slopes, mountainous,
other: Westward -facing slope.
Site falls from east to west at an overall slope of 11.6%.
Highest elevation of 246' is located in the northeast corner:
lowest elevation of 168' is located in the southwest corner.
Localized topography ranges from nearly level to 33% for a
limited run (see 1.b below).
b. What is the steepest slope on the site (approximate percent
slope)? A small (6'V:18'H) 33% slope is in the SW comer.
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 soils, specify them and note any
prime farmland.
Vashon Till, consisting of a mixture of sand, silt, clay, and
gravel. See AGI Technologies preliminary geotechnical
evaluation for further detail.
d. Are there surface indications or history of unstable soils in
the immediate vicinity? If so, describe.
-3
•
No. The geotechnical engineer has concluded that the
proposed development should not adversely impact existing
slope stability conditions on the site or on neighboring
properties.
e. Describe the purpose, type, and approximate quantities of
any filling or grading proposed. Indicate source of fill.
Cuts will be necessary to accommodate road construction
and achieve prescribed road grades. Cut quantities have not
yet been determined, Localized cut and fill will occur with
construction of new homes, and should be close to balanced.
f. Could erosion occur as a result of clearing, construction, or
use? If so, generally describe.
g.
If left uncontrolled, clearing and grading activities could
result in localized erosion of soils onto adjoining properties.
About what percent of the site will be covered with
impervious surfaces after project construction (for example,
asphalt or buildings)?
50-60%.
h. Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion, or other
impacts to the earth, if any:
Appropriate temporary erosion control measures will be
provided during construction to minimize erosion during the
construction phase. Recommended erosion control
measures presented in AGI Technologies preliminary
geotechnical evaluation will be implemented. Revegetation
and landscaping of right-of-way edges and yards will control
erosion over the long-term.
2. AIR
a. What types of emissions 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.
During construction, dust due to soil disturbance during dry
conditions may result, and exhaust from construction
equipment can be expected. Over the long-term, vehicles
used by residents, guests, and service providers will be the
primary source of emissions. Residential vents and
chimneys will also produce emissions.
b. Are there any off-site sources of emissions or odor that may
affect your proposal? If so, generally describe.
4
• •
No
c. Proposed measures to reduce or control emissions or other
impacts to air, if any:
If dust becomes problematic during construction, disturbed
areas can be sprinklered to contain dust.
3. WATER
a. Surface:
1) Is there any surface water body on or in the
immediate vicinity of the site (including year-round
and seasonal streams, saltwater, lakes, ponds,
wetlands)? If yes, describe type and provide names.
If appropriate, state what stream or river it flows
into.
No
2) Will the project require any work over, in, or
adjacent to (within 200 feet) the described waters? If
yes, please describe and attach available plans.
Not applicable.
3) Estimate the amount of fill and dredge material that
would be placed in or removed from surface water or
wetlands and indicate the area of the site that would
be affected. Indicate the source of fill material.
Not applicable.
4) Will the proposal require surface water withdrawals
or diversions? 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 of waste
materials to surface waters? If so, describe the type
of waste and anticipated volume of discharge.
No.
5
• •
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.
No
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) are expected to serve.
None proposed. Existing unused septic system will
be abandoned according to King County Health
Department regulations.
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 runoff from the site will be increased by
the introduction of new impervious surfaces (roads,
buildings, driveways, etc). Storm water runoff
generated by the proposal will be collected on site
and conveyed to the City system on the west end of
the site.
2) Could waste materials enter ground or surface
waters? If so, generally describe.
No.
d. Proposed measures to reduce or control surface, ground,
and runoff water impacts, if any:
Storni water runoff will be collected on site and conveyed to
the City system on the west end of the site. Runoff control
will comply with the applicable requirements of City of
Tukwila Ordinance No. 1755.
6
• •
4. PLANTS
a. Check or underline types of vegetation found on the site:
X deciduous tree: alder, maple, aspen, other: poplar,
pear, peach, plum, walnut, apple. cottonwood
X evergreen tree: fir, cedar, pine, spruce, other
X shrubs
X grass
X pasture
crop or grain
wet soil plants: cattail, buttercup, bullrush, skunk
cabbage, other
water plants: water lily, eelgrass, milfoil, other
X other types of vegetation: blackberry
b. What kind and amount of vegetation will be removed or
altered?
Trees, shrubs, and groundcover will be removed as
necessary to accommodate proposed improvements.
However, attempts will be made to preserve the healthier,
more mature trees throughout the site, and particularly on its
east end.
c. List threatened or endangered species known to be on or
near the site.
None known.
d. Proposed landscaping, use of native plants, or other
measures to preserve or enhance vegetation on the site, if
any:
Attempts will be made to preserve the existing healthier,
more mature trees. Where trees can be saved. appropriate
tree protection techniques will be utilized. New lawns and
landscaping common to residential development will be
provided. Street trees will be provided. Landscaped cul-de-
sac island is proposed.
5. ANIMALS
a. Underline any birds and animals 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:
mammals: deer, bear, elk, beaver, other: Squirrels and
various domestic animals, including one resident cat
fish: bass, salmon, trout, herring, shellfish, other:
• •
b. List any threatened or endangered species known to be on or
near the site.
None known.
c. Is the site part of a migration route? If so, explain.
No
d. Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife, if any:
None proposed.
6. ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES
a. What kinds of energy (electric, natural gas, oil, wood
stoves, solar) will be used to meet the completed project's
energy needs? Describe whether it will be used for heating,
manufacturing, etc.
Electricity and natural gas will be used to provide heat,
lighting, and general energy needs of the completed project.
b. Would your project affect the potential use of solar energy
by adjacent properties? If so, generally describe.
No.
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:
Structures will comply with applicable energy codes.
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.
1) Describe special emergency services that might be
required.
None anticipated.
2) Proposed measures to reduce or control
environmental health hazards, if any:
None proposed.
8
b. NOISE
1) What types of noise exist in the area which may
affect your project (for example: traffic, equipment,
operation, other)?
Primary sources of area noise are vehicles and
general human activity (speech, music, etc.)
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 hours noise would
come from the site.
During construction, construction equipment will
generate noise. After construction, noise will be
enerated from resident and • uest vehicles and
general human activity.
3) Proposed measures to reduce or control noise
impacts, if any:
Construction activities will be limited to daylight
hours.
8. LAND AND SHORELINE USE
a. What is the current use of the site and adjacent properties?
The site contains a single-family dwelling and two
outbuildings on its east end. The western two-thirds of the
site is undeveloped. Surrounding uses include single-family
residences to the north, south, and east, and single-family
residences and a small congregate care facility to the west.
b. Has the site been used for agriculture? If so, describe.
At one time, possibly, but not within the last 50 years.
c. Describe any structures on the site.
An older two-story wood frame house and two outbuildings
occupy the east end of the site.
d. Will any structures be demolished? If so, what?
All existing structures will be demolished.
e. What is the current zoning classification of the site?
LDR - Low Density Residential.
• •
f. What is the current comprehensive plan designation of the
site?
g.
LDR - Low Density Residential.
If applicable, what is the current shoreline master program
designation of the site?
Not applicable.
h. Has any part of the site been classified as an
"environmentally sensitive" area? If so, specify.
The City's Sensitive Areas Maps show Class 2 slopes on the
western portion of the site.
Approximately how many people would reside or work in
the completed project?
Approximately 40 to 50 people.
j. Approximately how many people would the completed
project displace?
One.
k. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement impacts,
if any:
None proposed.
1. Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is compatible with
existing and projected land use plans, if any:
Applicant has examined applicable City regulations and plans
and has attempted to develop a proposal which is
compatible. City will conduct own review to determine
compatibility. Pre -application and public meetings or
hearings will ensure proper review and compliance.
9. HOUSING
a. Approximately how many units would be provided, if any?
Indicate whether high, middle, or low-income housing.
Twenty middle income units.
b. Approximately how many units, if any, would be
eliminated? Indicate whether high, middle, or low-income
housing.
One middle-income unit will be eliminated.
- 10 -
c. Proposed measures to reduce or control housing impacts, if
any:
None proposed.
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?
Buildings have not yet been designed. However, they will
be required to comply with the maximum height allowance
of the LDR zone, which is currently 30 feet. Principal
exterior material will likely be wood siding and composition
or cedar shingle roofing.
b. What views in the immediate vicinity would be altered or
obstructed?
Views into the site will change. The character of the site will
change from open to developed.
c. Proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic impacts, if
any:
The plat has been designed in a manner which fits in with
surrounding development patterns. Most of the lots will
contain more than the 6,500 sq. ft. minimum required by the
LDR zone. Lots along 57th Ave S are proposed to be larger
than the others to complement the established development
pattern along that street. Although three side-by-side lots
could technically fit along 57th Ave S (the site has 164' of
frontage), such lots would be out of character with
surrounding parcel widths. Therefore, only 2 lots are
proposed along 57th Ave S.
In addition, existing trees, particularly on the eastern portion
of the site, will be preserved where possible. New
landscaping will be added. Streetscape is designed to reduce
the visual impact of hard surfaces. Street trees will be
planted, at quantities greater than required by the City. Cul-
de-sac landscaping will add aesthetic value by breaking up
the expanse of asphalt.
11. LIGHT AND GLARE
a. What type of light or glare will the proposal produce? What
time of day would it mainly occur?
Light and glare from vehicle headlights, street lighting, and
residences will be produced, mostly during evening and
early morning hours.
- 11 -
•
b. Could light or glare from the finished 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 proposed.
12. RECREATION
a. What designated and informal recreational opportunities are
in the immediate vicinity?
A pedestrian trail connects the south end of 57th Ave S to S.
152nd St and to Southcenter Boulevard through a right-of-
way which is otherwise only partially opened. A large City -
owned parcel is located south of S. 144th St, between
Macadam Road and 55th Ave S, affording informal
recreational use. The Tukwila Elementary School property
is located less than 500' to the east of the site.
b. Would the proposed project displace any existing
recreational uses? If so, describe.
No.
c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts on
recreation, including recreation opportunities to be provided
by the project or applicant, if any:
Private yards will provide recreation space for individual
homes. A pedestrian path is proposed to connect the east
end of the internal cul-de-sac to 57th Ave S, allowing access
to the pedestrian system which extends to S. 152nd St. and
Southcenter Boulevard.
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.
None known.
b. Generally describe any landmarks or evidence of historic,
archaeological, scientific, or cultural importance known to be
on or next to the site.
- 12-
• •
None observed or known.
c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts, if any:
None proposed.
14. TRANSPORTATION
a. Identify public streets and highways serving the site, and
describe proposed access to the existing street system.
Show on site plans, if any.
The site has 164' of frontage on 57th Ave S. S. 150th P1
loops westward and then northward from 57th Ave S, and
terminates at the south property line of the site, near the
site's southwest corner. S. 150th St extends 400' from
Macadam Road to the west property line of the site. Access
to I-5 is afforded by Macadam Road. The subdivision will
be accessed by all abutting streets.
b. Is site currently served by public transit? If not, what is the
approximate distance to the nearest transit stop?
Tukwila is served by METRO transit routes 34, 39, 124,
150, 154, 160, 163, 280, 340, and 941. Route 124
provides the closest service to the site, with stops along
Macadam Road, just over 400' west of the site. Route 124
includes a stop at 52nd Ave S and Interurban Avenue, which
is a METRO transfer point for connections to other routes.
c. How many parking spaces would be the completed project
have? How many would the project eliminate?
Each residence will be provided with parking for at least two
vehicles, as required by the Zoning Code. On -street parking
will also be available within the plat. An existing dirt
driveway, which provides access and vehicle parking for the
existing residence, and a detached garage, will be removed.
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).
A new public road system will be extended into the site to
provide access to the new lots. The two easternmost lots
will gain direct access to 57th Ave S. S. 150th St and S.
150th P1, which currently dead-end into the west and south
edges of the property will be connected. Right-of-way will
be dedicated along the property's west boundary to
accommodate City plans for future circulation
improvements. See proposal drawings.
- 13-
• •
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.
g.
181 new average daily trips are expected to be generated. Of
those, 14 new AM peak trips, 16 Noon peak, and 19 PM
peak trips are estimated. See accompanying May 1997
traffic impact analysis by David I. Hamlin & Associates.
Proposed measures to reduce or control transportation
impacts, if any:
None proposed. Impacts have been determined by the traffic
engineer to be minimal.
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.
Public and private services typically required by residential
development will be required to meet the needs of this
project, resulting in an incremental increase in demand for
these services. Roads have been designed to accommodate
necessary clearances and turning radii for public service
providers.
b. Proposed measures to reduce or control direct impacts on
public services, if any.
None proposed.
16. UTILITIES
a. Underline utilities currently available at the site:
Electricity, natural gas, water, refuse service,
telephone, sanitary sewer, septic system, other:
An old septic system, no longer used, is located on the site.
This system will be properly abandoned with plat
development.
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.
- 14-
• •
Water, sanitary sewer, storm sewer, electricity, natural gas,
refuse collection, television, and telecommunication services
and utilities will need to be extended into and through the
site in accordance with the standards and requirements of
the service providers.
C. SIGNATURE
The above answers are true and complete to the best of my
knowledge. If understand that the lead agency is relying on them to
make its decision.
Signature:
Date Submitted:
- 15-
• •
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?
Not applicable - proposal constitutes a project action.
Proposed measures to avoid or reduce such increases are:
Not applicable - proposal constitutes a project action.
2. How would the proposal be likely to affect plants, animals, fish, or
marine life?
Not applicable - proposal constitutes a project action.
Proposed measures to protect or conserve plants, animals, fish, or
marine life are:
Not applicable - proposal constitutes a project action.
3. How would the proposal be likely to deplete energy or natural
resources?
Not applicable - proposal constitutes a project action.
Proposed measures to protect or conserve energy and natural
resources are:
Not applicable - proposal constitutes a project action.
4. How would the proposal be likely to use of 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?
Not applicable - proposal constitutes a project action.
Proposed measures to protect such resources or to avoid or reduce
impacts are:
Not applicable - proposal constitutes a project action.
- 16-
•
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?
Not applicable - proposal constitutes a project action.
Proposed measures to avoid or reduce shoreline and land use
impacts are:
Not applicable - proposal constitutes a project action.
6. How would the proposal be likely to increase demands on
transportation or public services and utilities?
Not applicable - proposal constitutes a project action.
Proposed measures to reduce or respond to such demand(s) are:
Not applicable - proposal constitutes a project action.
7. Identify, if possible, whether the proposal may conflict with local,
state, or federal laws or requirements for the protection of the
environment.
Not applicable - proposal constitutes a project action.
8. Does the proposal conflict with policies of the Tukwila
Comprehensive Land Use Policy Plan? If so, what polices of the
Plan?
Not applicable - proposal constitutes a project action.
Proposed measures to avoid or reduce the conflict(s) are:
Not applicable - proposal constitutes a project action.
•
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 foregoing 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?
The objective of the proposal is to develop the subject property into
20 single-family parcels, per the standards of the LDR zone.
2. What are the alternative means of accomplishing these objectives?
The zoning code is clear in how development can occur in this zone:
alternatives consist primarily of minor changes to lot configuration
and access. Many different plat and access configurations were
examined on a conceptual basis. The proposed layout is being
pursued because it best balances the desire for orderly plat layout,
usable lot sizes and shapes, and traffic circulation on- and off-site.
The most significant alternative the applicant considered was a plat
layout which would not include a through connection from S. 150th
St to S. 150th P1. Instead, S. 150th P1 would be extended north and
then east into the site interior, terminating in a cul-de-sac. This
would allow a yield of 21 lots (see Attachment A).
Another alternative included creating three lots along 57th Ave S.
That alternative was discarded because those lots would not be in
character with surrounding lots along 57th Ave S. That alternative,
combined with the alternative described above, would yield 22 lots.
3. Please compare the alternative means and indicate the preferred
course of action:
The proposed plat would contain 20 lots, as opposed to the 21-22
lot alternatives discussed above. Those alternatives would have less
impact on the westernmost slope, since they would not involve a
connection to S. 150th St. However, they are not being pursued
because they are inconsistent with the desire of the City to have S.
150th P1 connect with S. 150th St.
4. Does the proposal conflict with policies of the Tukwila
Comprehensive Land Use Policy Plan? If so, what policies of the
Plan?
No conflicts have been identified.
Proposed measures to avoid or reduce the conflict(s) are:
None proposed.
- 18-
S'.unL17y oJmr ,sr'
\'8C)
r
4`beLD
1,
11_
I
zo' urriL/ry Esn+r(Erisr)
0 0
0
ea
0
0
,
�C.
mow
44, _, _ _ 5,......., k.r-
4
41 01. i.lk p_� r :ai _m#Iw�, %;
OD fri _
bid ri
111 C 11
Pi Ill 13 I
191 ► 1
pi No 1 i
feel fil 1 , , 1
il 0 1 J I
0 0 • —,--
ISA
i
1
0
0
1
I
11
111
—5;'7
0
/iTr4000EN7—
5$' 1
0
N
1
\•f
1
1
�o0
N
0r0
2- 0 a
I
1_ I I .
I � r 1
North
Nr5
_A Tree_
.6647 9 Dec/ I. Tree Id0rgrtvTR
Exi;Psi (ons f. Tree q"Or•yrmrrer
Fire Department
Access Road With
Cul -de -Sac
Turn -A -Round
U.F.C. Division 11 Sec. 10.201-10.206
City Ord. #1632
SCALE: 1/16" = 1'
50' WN.
40' 141N.
GLAND
(IF REQUIRED)
1.1.1
0
THICKENED EDGE
50' INN.
40' 141N.
32' MIN.
22' LW.
8'
4 .
l
PtP
&AND
REOUER)
RURAL SHOULDER & DITCH 1'2
50' 1.11N.
40*
30' MIN.
0.02 Fiji -T.
VERTICAL CURB Sc GUTTER
50' MIN.
ROLLED CURB
600' MAX. 5
NOTES:
1. SEE SEC. 2.08.
2. EXTRUDED CURB IS ALSO ACCEPTABLE FOR OUTER EDGE AS ALTERNATIVE
TO SHOULDER AND DITCH. SEE DWG. NO. 1-006.
3. ISLAND AT CENTER OF BULB SHALL HAVE VERTICAL CURB.
SEE DWG. NO. 3-002.
4. ISLAND IS MANDATORY WHEN RADIUS OF PAVED AREA EXCEEDS 40'.
5. SEE SEC 2.08 FOR CUL—DE—SAC LENGTH EXCEPTION.
) SEE SECS. 2.03. 2.08. AND 2.09 FOR RIGHT—OF—WAY REDUCTION
REQUIREMENTS
KING COUNTY PUBLIC WORKS
KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON
CUL-DE-SACS
DWG.
1-007
NO.
leJ
A411C6tW°t.
COALCCSNCLATE.0.
SUDAN, BB"... 14)
c21212e0 OBE7
WORM:
S. 159. St.
" --- ; --
•
•
CONNECT TO
8.2182114 CATCH
BASIN
, Surma
1
17
16
18
-
S. 149 St. •
; . I
; •
814326E 7
15
el (Tad.)
14 13
(18R.)
12
11
t +PO
doadre
r1=4411114entilallnillilli~11041411 IMP 11
M'ER 'ERV'E M."
i '1 20 I 1
180 7(113) 11 19
3
;
4
_ 464267
6814523881
8066(81 10
(0187811 618051018
S. 150P1. S.
ona.)
5
-
I ,
i
i • ' 7
i1.
9
6808 so.n.3
7
8
49.32.
7.45•22tE
<2260
c !TY
E3ERVL'11
rLk
012 1
!
r
1
•
_
NORTH
BO• 807
177.407
•
›.>
0
P•1
14
5
14
P.
0
1-4
CI)
0
140
0
z
7I7/97
not.
RED
De!tigned
JLF
CIAO. By 002 .
•
Incoryora led
d20 Beclead fay .1 MO
111.had.
038
Moo (201) 422-4.A.
(40) 1127-0517
K8082-103
Project No.
1
Sndet No.
•
AGI
TECHNOLOGIES
June 3, 1997
16,142.001
Mr. Michael Bergstrom
P.O. Box 19614
Seattle, Washington 98109-6614
Dear Mike:
Preliminary Geotechnical Evaluation
Proposed Residential Development
Bergstrom Property - 14921 57th Avenue South
Tukwila, Washington
INTRODUCTION
RECEIVED
CITY OF TUKWILA
J U L 1 1 1997
PERMIT CENTER
AGI Technologies (AGI) is pleased to present this preliminary geotechnical engineering evaluation for
a proposed residential development on your property located at 14921 57th Avenue South in Tukwila,
Washington. Our understanding of the project and general site conditions is based on a site visit, review
of an site survey performed by OTAK, and review of the Tukwila Municipal Codes (TMC) chapter 18.45
regarding Sensitive Areas that you provided. We received your authorization to proceed with the
evaluation on May 7, 1997.
SITE AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The site is a 4.2 acre lot bounded by 57th Avenue South to the east, residential property borders on the
other sides, but access is provided by 150th place on the south and South 150th Street on the west. The
parcel is on a western facing slope that the City of Tukwila has identified as "Class 2." We understand
that slopes with 20 percent grade and steeper exist on the site. The City considers theses slopes to have
a moderate landslide potential and requires a geologic review of the site prior to any development.
Development will most likely include roads, utilities, and single family buildings
SCOPE OF SERVICES
The purpose of our preliminary geotechnical evaluation was to identify geotechnical and geologic issues
that may affect the proposed development and provide recommendations that will assist the design team
in developing a conceptual plan. The site was reviewed for potential geotechnical and geologic issues
including landsliding, stability of surrounding properties due to site excavation, appropriate foundation
systems, lateral earth support, general site preparation and grading requirements, settlement potential,
11811 N.E. 1st Street, Suite 201 • Bellevue, Washington 98005 • P.O. Box 3885 (Zip 98009) • Phone (206) 453-8383 • FAX (206) 646-9523
WASHINGTON OREGON
JAPAN
• •
Mr. Michael Bergstrom
June 3, 1997
Page 2
AGI
TECHNOLOGIES
effects of groundwater on construction, and liquefaction. Subsurface exploration was not a part of our
preliminary study, but we would recommend that test pits or borings be performed at certain locations
to better assess site conditions prior to design or construction. Specifically, our scope included the
following elements:
• Review of pertinent published geologic literature available in our files to identify slope stability
problems and other geologic conditions that may affect siting of structures and roadways on the
property.
• Field reconnaissance to review the site. We observed surface features such as slopes, drainage, and
adjacent properties for signs of instability, heavy seepage, potential impacts at neighboring
properties during construction.
• Preparation of this preliminary geotechnical letter report presenting our findings, conclusions, and
preliminary recommendations.
SITE CONDITIONS
Surface
The property is bounded by recent developments along South 150th Place and by a few older homes at
the top of the hill to the east on 57th Avenue South. Fencing surrounds most of the property. The site
slopes generally to the west. A majority of the site is covered by field grass and briar patches. Mostly
deciduous and a few evergreen trees are growing on site along the property lines and range in size from
4 to 40 inches in size. During our site visit, after a period of sustained rainfall, standing water was
observed in low lying, poorly drained depressions and will most likely dry during the summer months.
A small, overgrown drainage swale, trending east to west near the west and central portion of the site
flows into a catch basin near the terminus of South 150th Street and the west property line.
Subsurface
Subsurface conditions are based on information gathered from projects completed in the area, geologic
maps (United States Geological Survey), soils maps (United States Soil Conservation Service), and
observations of soil exposures during recent roadway excavation at the Interstate 5 / 405 interchange.
We reference The Preliminary Geologic Map of Seattle and Vicinity, Washington (Waldron, et. al., 1962). This
map suggests that the site is predominantly underlain by Quaternary gladal sediments at the surface and
by Tertiary bedrock at some depth.
The geologic map shows a north -south trending contact between glacial till and a gravel unit that
typically overlies the glacial till. The gladal till, locally known as the Vashon Till consists of a mixture
of sand, silt, day, and gravel. In some areas the till can be thin and consists of loose silty sand and gravel.
In other locations, the till is thick and, where cemented, can be very difficult to excavate with normal
earthwork equipment. The till is glacially consolidated and, therefore dense, strong, and relatively
incompressible. The gravel unit is generally well sorted, poorly graded gravel with sand and where it
overlies the till unit, seeping groundwater is generally encountered. Erosion and subsequent surface
Mr. Michael Bergstom
June 3, 1997
Page 3
AGI
TECHNOLOGIES
sliding can become an issue in the sands and gravels. The gravel unit is not glacially overridden but is
characterized by moderate foundation bearing and moderate compressibility.
Subsurface information must be regarded as preliminary until further subsurface exploration is
performed to confirm soil conditions.
Groundwater
We suspect that groundwater is likely to be encountered at shallow depths and probably fluctuates
seasonally. Groundwater may be perched at a shallow depth in the upper deposits of the permeable
gravel unit that overlie less permeable till soils. Once a more detailed subsurface investigation is
performed, groundwater conditions can be better defined.
DISCUSSIONS AND CONCLUSIONS
In general, we believe that the site can be safely developed from a geotechnical perspective provided that
the recommendations below are utilized. We recommend that completion of a more detailed
geotechnical engineering study be part of your development plans.
Earthwork
Depending on grades and layout for site development, we assume earthwork will include clearing site
vegetation, debris, and topsoil, followed by minor (less than 6 feet) cuts and fills to create level building
areas. In general, the gravel unit is not very moisture sensitive whereas the glacial till is very moisture
sensitive. However, segregating these units will be difficult and mixing these soils will create moisture
sensitive soils during reworking/grading. Therefore, we recommend that you plan for earthwork to take
place during the drier summer months. Special precautions must be taken if earthwork progresses
during the generally wetter winter months.
The gravel unit can be used as structural fill without special handling if it is not mixed with the till soils.
Till soils will require special care such as moisture conditioning before compacting if they are to be used
for structural fill.
Following stripping and excavation of unsuitable soils (old fills, other organic soils, and debris), the site
should be proof rolled to identify any soft areas. Soft areas should be overexcavated and replaced with
suitable onsite soils or import structural fill. Once an acceptable subgrade is achieved, additional
structural fill can be placed to raise grades to design elevations. Raising site grades may be desirable for.
areas of poor drainage such as in lower -lying portions of the site.
Slope Stability
We reviewed the King County Sensitive Areas Map Folio (1990). Based on information from the map,
the site is not within either an erosion or landslide hazard area. No data were provided by the maps in
regard to seismic hazard. During our field reconnaissance, we did not note any evidence of slope
• •
Mr. Michael Bergstom
June 3, 1997
Page 4
AGI
TECHNOLOGIES
instability such as slides, tension cracks, or hummocky terrain. A few slopes, especially near the western
property line, may be considered a steep slope, however, no apparent signs of instability were noted.
Provided site design, construction, and preparation are carefully performed and monitored, it is our
opinion that development should not adversely impact existing slope stability conditions on this or
neighboring properties.
We recommend that a detailed slope stability analysis be performed once a conceptual grading plan is
assembled. Permanent slopes over a 2:1 (horizontal:vertical) should also be analyzed in detail.
Temporary slopes required for construction can be cut at steeper inclinations depending on several
factors including soil type and total height of cut. A future soils investigation can determine a safe
inclination for temporary construction slopes.
Foundations
Based on preliminary information, we judge a conventional shallow foundation system, such as spread
footings, will provide satisfactory support for residential -type buildings. Acceptable foundation soils
are dense, undisturbed gravel or till, or structural fill placed on either or these native soils after stripping
or excavation.
Retaining Structures
If the site can not be developed using cut or fill slopes within the acceptable range of permanent slope
angles, then retaining structures will most likely need to be incorporated into the site design. Several
options are available for lateral earth support from conventional cast -in-place, concrete retaining walls
to modular, reinforced earth or modular block walls. All retaining structures will require a stability
analysis and should be designed to accommodate both surface and groundwater seepage. Other factors
to consider when selecting and designing retaining structures include surcharge pressures. A
geotechnical review is typically required on all retaining walls over 4 to 5 feet in height.
Site Drainage
Drainage and erosion control will be very important for site design and development. If the geology of
the site is as we suspect, more permeable gravel overlies the relatively impermeable till unit and
groundwater seepage could be encountered in excavations at shallow depths below the surface. Site
design and development should include both short -and long-term drainage control measures.
Over the short term, we believe site and construction drainage can be reasonably well controlled by
careful excavation practices. Typically, these include, but are not limited to, shallow upgrade perimeter
ditches or low earthened berms, and temporary sumps in excavations to collect seepage and prevent
water from damaging exposed subgrades. Straw bale check dams and silt fences should be installed to
surround the construction site.
Drains should be included at the bottom of all temporary slopes to collect surface water flow from the
slope and prevent it from flowing onto exposed building subgrades. All collected water should be
directed under control to a positive and permanent discharge system, such as a storm sewer.
1
Mr. Michael Bergstom
June 3, 1997
Page 5
AGI
TECHNOLOGIES
Over the long term, more permanent measures such as installation of footing and wall drains should be
included. All permanent drains should be directed to a positive and permanent discharge point well
away from the structures.
Utilities
A conceptual utility plan has not been developed at this time. Key design/construction issues for utility
installation will be impacts to groundwater, seepage control, excavation methods, and backfilling. Tie-
ins to existing utilities may require shoring and bracing. If detention ponds or biofiltration swales are
required, then stability and seepage should be evaluated. We recommend that AGI review the utility
plan once it is developed to address design and construction issues.
CLOSING
The recommendations discussed in this report cover topics typically required by the City of Tukwila
Department of Community Development guidelines for geotechnical reporting. The topics are only
briefly addressed. Other topics will require subsurface exploration, laboratory testing, analysis, and
design recommendations. Test pits or borings will be recommended depending on the extent of planned
cuts and fills.
We trust this preliminary geotechnical evaluation will assist you in continuing development plans on
your property. We appreciate the opportunity to work with you on this project and look forward to the
design and construction stages. If you have any questions or require further information, please call us
at (206) 453-8383.
Sincerely,
AGI Technologies
Peter J. Sajer, P.E.
Project Engineer
jan M. While, P.E.
A sociate Engineer
!EXPIRES 740--q7
�\ \ 2t�r1 ri Lam\ t
• P A1219
N -E97 -C)iy
1) The site has some slope area that exceeds 20 percent in
gradient. This area is located on the extreme western_portion
of the _propert.y. Undevelop`ed— 's`lopes that exceed 20 percent
are treated as sensitive areas, and if present 'on-site the
project will be subject to the Sensitive Areas Ordinance (TMC
18.45). Areas of Potential Geologic Instability are addressed
in the Ordinance which is Section 18.45.080 E. of the Tukwila
Municipal Code (TMC).
2) As part of project review a•geotechnical investigation(taybe
required to demonstrate the feasibility of the project and—Eo
determine adequate building .design. The geotechnical
investigation will. depend.on„t.he_.degree.of.development related
to sensitive slope arleas. This requirement is directly
related” to alteration of sensitive slopes. .However, the
extent..of on-site grading associated with this project could
require geotechnical review of slope areas less than 20
percent gradient.
3) Sensitive area slopes that are cleared for development will be
subject to the Tree Ordinance (Tree Regulations - TMC Chapter
18.54). A required landscape plan will consist of tree
retention and tree planting per the standards of the
Ordinance. Only trees present on sensitive area slopes are
subject to the Tree Regulations.
4) A Planned Residential Permit (PRD) may be required per the
Sensitive Areas Ordinance (18.45).
5) The short drainage swale adjacent to the west property
boundary appears to be within a City of Tukwila utility
easement. Any alteration of this area will likely need
approval from the Department of Public Works.
Pre -1 •_pplication Che . klist
CITY OF TUKWILA
Department of Community Development
Building Division -Permit Center
6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Tukwila, WA 98188
Telephone: (206) 431-3670
PRE-APPL'ICATION;FIL'E
MEETING DATE/TIME:;'3141/97:11!2:3° r xV
OJECT: '•BERcsTRt n•' SUBDIVISION I..'
,SITE`ADDRESS t 1.442is� T41/ 6.,
• The following comments are based on a preliminary review.
Additional information may be needed. Other requirements/regulations may need to be met.
PLANNING DIVISION - Land Use Information
1. Comply with Tukwila Municipal Code (zoning, land use, sign regulations, etc.)
2. Obtain the following land use permits/approvals:
O Boundary Line Adjustment/Lot Consolidation
O Binding Site Improvement Plan
O Comprehensive Plan Amendment
O Conditional Use Permit
O Design Review
O Design Review -Interurban
Environmental (SEPA)
O Planned Mixed Use Development
A. Planned Residential Development
Zoning designation: WO—
,
/-, (3c0 iF. rUnl (cp
Minimum setback requirements: Front: 7.r.“ Side: 5' Side:
eA,,rem / I b._ DE: -"c;
Hei
3.
4.
5.
6.
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
Rezone
Shoreline Management Permit
Tree Permit
Short Subdivision
Sign(s)
Subdivision
Unclassified Use
Variance
Other:
Site located in sensitive area?
O Yes O No
Rear: ) C'
O Yes (3' No
Maximum Building Height: 3C eight exception area?
Minimum parking stalls required: 7 --"/PW . vN tT Handicap stalls required: NO
7. No more than 30% of required parking stalls may be compact. No landscape overhangs into compact
stalls are permitted, although no wheel stops prior to hitting the curb will be required.
8. Minimum landscaping required: Front: Side: Side: Rear:
9. Landscape plans must be stamped by a Washington State licensed landscape architect. All landscape
areas require a landscape irrigation system (Utility Permit Required).
10. Roof -top mechanical units, satellite dishes and similar structures must be properly screened. Provide
elevations and construction details as part of building permit application submittal.
11. Trash enclosures and storage areas must be screened to a minimum of 8' in height. Provide elevations
and construction details as part of building permit application submittal.
12. Building permit plans which deviate from that already approved by the Board of Architectural Review may
require re-application for design review approval.
13. .re -12
14. I AN04/AP P 1' QL=fiP nO P -P- IN-L-LDFD
15. \NC1 Ti? 6Ci )71� i IJIT
16. Prh)</ILlct 16, tar fit:L.r 0/17,-v t1+71-7,1 rev— ttviPc4T
17. R -dT pit✓ C. N- LTLY> vvtfirh+'-1 S E�tt?s
18. G, LT; Y>l l'14rt ml (c) n G A -fl .I )Yf 1 LTI 1; 171 c. -T1-) Tv rr)
19. Pe-avl-'`9 P)Y THS Sun n ll2 14� ) .
20.
Checklist prepared by (staff): ( 1)- 1,.c. 4\4
Date:
TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS
BERGSTROM PLAT
TUKWILA., WASHINGTON
May 1997
Prepared for:
Michael Bergstrom, AICP
DAVID L HAMLIN AND ASSOCIATES
1319 DEXTER AVENUE NORTH - SUITE 270
SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98109
(206) 285-9035
TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS
BERGSTROM PLAT
TUKWILA, WASHINGTON
May 1997
Prepared for:
Michael Bergstrom, AICP
RE JVE
CITY OW 11,11 IA
U 1 di 1997
PSRMiT CENTER
DAVID I. HAMLIN AND ASSOCIATES
1319 DEXTER AVENUE NORTH - SUITE 270
SEATTLE WASHINGTON 98109
(206) 285-9035
TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS
BERGSTROM PLAT
TUKWILA, WASHINGTON
A) INTRODUCTION
The information which follows is intended to summarize the
anticipated transportation impacts resulting from the
development of a single-family residential plat. The
proposed plat is located on the west side of 57th Avenue
South at S. 150th Street, if extended, in the City of
Tukwila.
The purpose of this report is to summarize the trip
generation and distribution associated with the plat for the
AM, noon, and PM peak hours, and to discuss pedestrian access
and safety issues. Discussions between the project proponent
and the City Staff indicated that no specific intersection
analysis would be required for this project.
B) PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The proposed project is for the development of a 20 lot plat
on roughly 4.2 acres within the City of Tukwila. The plat is
located on the west side of 57th Avenue S. at S. 150th
Street, if extended. The site is currently a primarily
undeveloped parcel sloping downward from east to west and
vegetated with a mix of brush and trees. A single-family
residence is located on the parcel along its 57th Avenue
South frontage. The existing zoning of the site is LDR (Low
Density Residential) and no change in zoning is proposed.
Access to the plat is proposed from S. 150th Place and S. 150
Street which currently dead-end at the south and west
property lines respectively. A vicinity map is shown on
Figure 1 and a reduced copy of the site plan has been
attached.
The remainder of this report will summarize the trip
generation and distribution and discuss the traffic -related
impacts which can be expected from the development of the
parcel.
C) EXISTING STREET CONDITIONS
The following describe the streets in the vicinity of the
proposed plat.
57th Avenue S. is a local access street on the east side of
the plat. The roadway is approximately 22 feet in width
between S. 144th Street and S. 147th Street with some areas
widened out on the west side of the street to allow
1
NORTH
125TH STI
2700 ml RI •, •
l-_
\2811'` CS
S 5T
H16YLINE-
"RIVERTON.
CGI4JNITY
IPSP
I_ lA.17 0)\,.
z
\S!124M_
s t2sn
s sr
ST _ J-ry M t • ' .•rsr.
ji SKYWAY
e
� �---- ,o�� S PARKS
fgCay 9�
S.
5 26 ' .S
Ct 5 17777
c:'
9 1.
$a1575 5 :It I OOSTON i^ pip128
li-
\ -moi.- .o
�17ry
TTeiTz_•u�
133RD
;S 135IH_
5 133.E
14
6,4reN
6C.K °R
vYlj,
I Y
JUfi� �IUfi�,,.
IU
S 15015 ST
DY I� ;2No
64ZELNOT
PARK
TS
5T 6p:
5 149171 5
.
g, 1
11117 ,p S
3 iLV•"h� '.. u� ��. 17 1
'23 NIST ST
5"-;152N0' -' ST: 1141
_I-.1 • "
1:
m5.:152ND Pt l
2 S 153
\1.4
158Th 44
daT0TA
TI/Kw
SOUTHCENTER
5 1615
S ST 162ND ST
PKWY
Lrurs
BAKER BL
41
5 167TH ST
ST
HE LOTS
172ND
Ya.
164771 S1,
—016604 ST
STRANDER
SOUMCENTER PLA
26
TRECK
DR
CORPORA
.• DR N
CORPORA
' OR
ST
s
ST
S . -:8 1•l
':,,PK478Th
3100
SEATAC
MA0171017 el
DAVID I. HAMLIN d ASSOCIATES
4300
10 711 51
V
179111 55
r
3.
TRH NU___
PROJECT VICINITY MAP
E I&URE I
BERGSTROM PLAT
PAGE
2
3
at S. 144th Street and a traffic signal has been installed
at the Macadam Road/Southcenter Blvd. intersection. METRO
route #124 travels along Macadam Road/53rd Avenue South
between Southcenter and the Boeing/Georgetown areas.
58th Avenue S./60th Avenue S./8. 151st Street/65th Avenue
8. is a meandering arterial roadway through the
neighborhood which provides a connection to Southcenter
Boulevard from Interurban Avenue. The roadway is
approximately 36-40 feet in width with curb, gutter, and
sidewalk. The roadway is characterized by both horizontal
and vertical curves. The posted speed is 25 mph.
D) PROPOSED ACTION
1. Trip Generation
The development of the site will generate additional
traffic onto the adjacent transportation system. The ITE
Trip Generation Manual (published by the Institute of
Transportation Engineers, 5th Edition, 1991) has been used
to estimate the number of trips which can theoretically be
expected to be generated by a development of this type.
ITE Land Use Code 210, Single Family Detached Housing, was
chosen as the appropriate trip rate to be used for this
development. The following table shows the number of trips
expected to be generated by the development based on the
average trip rates. The table shows both the total trips
and the net new trips associated with the plat. As stated
earlier, the property is currently occupied by a single-
family residence which is generating traffic, so the net
traffic impact to the street system will not be from 20
lots, but from 19 new lots.
4
TABLE 1
TRIP GENERATION
BERGSTROM PLAT
(20 LOTS)
TOTAL LESS EXISTING NEW
TIME PERIOD TRIPS TRIPS TRIPS
Daily 191 10 181
AM Peak Enter 4 0 4
Exit 11 1 10
Total 15 1 14
Noon Peak Enter* 7 0 7
Exit* 9 0 9
Total* 16 0 16
PM Peak Enter 13 1 12
Exit 7 0 7
Total 20 1 19
* - Trip generation values for noon peak hour estimated;
not available from ITE Trip Generation Manual.
A review of the table indicates that the development of the
site as single family dwellings will generate a very small
amount of traffic.
2. Trip Distribution/Assignment
The traffic generated by the development of the site will
be distributed onto the adjacent roadway system. It is
reasonable to assume that most of the trips during the peak
hours will be work-related and thus destined towards the
regional transportation systems such as I-5 or I-405 via
the adjacent local streets.
Figure 2 shows the estimated trip distribution by percent
and daily volume for the subject site. It should be noted
that these values are approximate and may vary from day to
day depending on the needs and desires of the residents of
the plat. It is expected that trips associated with the
site will initially be distributed to the east or west to
57th Avenue South or Macadam Road S. to reach the major
arterials and access the regional transportation systems.
Figures 3, 4 and 5 show the trip assignment on the adjacent
street system during the AM, noon, and PM peak hours. It
can be seen from these figures that a small number of trips
will impact any given roadway as a result of the traffic
5
NORTH
ESTIMATED TRIP DISTRIBUTION
SY PERCENT AND DAILY VOLUME
(NET NEW TRIPS)
FIGURE 2
DAVID I. HAMLIN 4 ASSOCIATES
BERGSTROM PLAT
PAGE
b
A
NORTH
ESTIMATED A M PEAK HOUR TRIP ASSIGNMENT
(NET NEW TRIPS)
FIGURE 3
DAVID I. HAMLIN 4 ASSOCIATES
BER&STROM PLAT
PAGE
l
4
NORTH
SR .,141
5. 144TH ST.
PROJECT SITE
ESTIMATED NOON PEAK HOUR TRIP ASSIGNMENT
(NET NEIN TRIPS)
FIGURE 4 -
DAVID I. HAMLIN d ASSOCIATES
BERGSTROM PLAT
PAGE
8
NORTH
ESTIMATED FM PEAK HOUR TRIP ASSIGNMENT
(NET NEIN TRIPS)
FIGURE 5
DAVID I. HAMLIN d ASSOCIATES
BERGSTROM PLAT
PAGE
9
expected to be generated by the plat. Note that the trip
values shown on Figures 2 through 5 show the net new trips
on the streets.
E) TRAFFIC VOLUMES
A limited number of daily traffic counts in the vicinity of
the proposed project were available from the City of Tukwila.
The traffic volumes are for the years 1990, 1991, or 1994 and
were the most current values available at the writing of this
report. Those volumes are shown on Figure 6. Discussions
with Staff indicated that volumes have not been increasing
much in the area. Figure 7 shows the estimated year 2000
volumes at these same locations, with and without the
proposed plat. A nominal 1% annual growth rate has been
added into the volumes shown on Figure 6 to account for
miscellaneous background traffic growth which may have
occurred at these locations over the past years and the next
few years. Overall, the volumes within the neighborhood are
light when compared to volumes on the major arterials in the
City.
F) PEDESTRIAN CONCERNS
Pedestrian facilities (sidewalks) will be installed along
both sides of the new streets within the proposed plat. A
pedestrian connection will also be provided from the east end
of the cul-de-sac to 57th Avenue South. This connection will
provide a shorter walking route for children destined to the
elementary school located to the northeast. The new plat
sidewalks will connect to the sidewalks along S. 150th Place
(which has sidewalks on both sides, and on S. 150th Street
which has sidewalks on the south side only. Crosswalks have
been marked at several intersections in the area including S.
147th Street/57th Avenue South and at the intersections near
the elementary school.
Another pedestrian related concern which has been raised is
the pedestrian activity associated with the Lynden Lea Lodge.
This facility is licensed as a congregate care facility and
has its main operations on the south side of S. 150th Street,
near the dead-end, although there are some living quarters on
the north side of the street. Meal service is provided at
the main building on the south side of the street which
requires residents living on the north side to cross the
street at an uncontrolled location. Currently, the crossing
of S. 150th Street does not pose much of a danger since the
street dead -ends just past the lodge. However, the
construction of the Bergstrom plat would extend S. 150th
Street into the plat and also provide a connection to the
south to S. 150th Place. These connections would open up the
street to traffic traveling past the Lodge.
10
NORTH
SR-
SR-qq
5. 144TH 5T.
4,0
-9
2568
(I1'O)
11062
PROJECT SITE
1550
(Igg4)
XXXX - DAILY TRAFFIC COUNT
(XXXX) - YEAR OF COUNT
/1-5
DAILY TRAFFIC VOUMES IN PROJECT VICINITY
FIGURE l
DAVID I. HAMLIN 4 ASSOCIATES
DER&STROM PLAT
PAGE
NORTH
XXXX - YEAR 2000 DAILY VOLUME ►N/OUT PROJECT
(XXXX) - YEAR 2000 DAILY VOLUME WITH PROJECT
YEAR 2000 ESTIMATED DAILY VOLUMES IN PROJECT VICINITY
FIGURE T
DAVID L HAMLIN 6 ASSOCIATES
EER6STROM PLAT
PAGE
12
The amount of traffic generated by the Bergstrom plat will be
very small and not all of it will use S. 150th Street.
Existing residents in the surrounding neighborhood may chose
to use the new connection between Macadam Road and 57th
Avenue South for convenience, although the S. 150th Street/S.
150th Place connection will be rather circuitous and only a
time -saving route for a relatively small number of residents.
The major periods of concern would be during meal times at
the lodge when residents are crossing the street. A field
inspection of the neighborhood during lunch time noted very
little vehicle activity in general. Also noted was that some
of the residents going to the lodge for lunch were rather
nonchalant when crossing the street since there is no worry
of vehicular traffic on the street.
Although it is not expected that there will be a significant
volume of traffic on S. 150th Street once the connection is
made, the operators of the lodge may need to consider
assisting residents in crossing the street once the
connection is made, and/or the City may want to consider the
installation of a mid -block cross -walk with advance warning
signs to better alert motorists of the situation. Normally a
mid -block crossing along a local access street would not be
installed, however, this specific situation is rather unique,
and the marking of a cross -walk would alert both motorists
and pedestrians of the condition. If a marked crosswalk and
pedestrian crossing signs are installed, they should only be
retained as long as the lodge operates under its current
status.
G) LEVEL OF SERVICE
The City of Tukwila Staff contact has indicated to the
project proponent that no existing intersections will require
a level of service analysis for this project.
H) PLAT ACCESS
As noted in previous sections, the construction of the plat
will provide for the connection of two existing dead-end
streets, i.e., S. 150th Street and S. 150th Place. The plat
streets have been designed such that if a motorist is looking
down S. 150th Street to the east, a cul-de-sac turn -around
will be visible, rather than a through connection directly to
57th Avenue South. S. 150th Place will "T" into S. 150th
Street from the south. In order to access 57th Avenue from
Macadam Road, a motorist will be required to turn south at
the "T" intersection and travel a circuitous street (S. 150th
Place) in order to access 57th Avenue South. In other words,
the plat has been designed such that the connection between
Macadam Road and 57th Avenue South is not visibly obvious,
nor a time -effective driving route. This type of design will
13
limit the potential for cut-through traffic by current
residents of the neighborhood.
' It should be noted that existing residents who decide to use
this new route will simply be diverting an existing trip from
' a similar neighborhood street and relocating it onto S.
150th Street/Place. Overall, the amount of traffic in the
neighborhood will be the same, but some of it may be routed
onto another street. This new connection will provide better
neighborhood circulation and emergency services access and
overall be a benefit to the community.
I) CONCLUSIONS/RECOMMENDATION
The proposed Bergstrom Plat will generate a small amount of
' traffic on both a daily and peak hour basis. The small
number of trips generated by the plat will create a limited
impact on the adjacent neighborhood streets.. The roadways
and intersections in the neighborhood have sufficient
' capacity to accommodate the proposed plat.
The proposed plat will be providing connections to both S.
' 150th Street and S. 150th Place. These connections are being
provided per the direction of the City in order to provide
better circulation through the neighborhood. The positive
aspects of these connections include better emergency
' services access, more direct access to arterials, and better
motorized and pedestrian circulation for the neighborhood in
general. The negative aspects are the potential for "cut-
through" traffic on the existing dead-end streets and the
potential for conflicts between vehicles and pedestrians at
locations where currently this potential is close to non-
14
•
00
���oa✓b wo � �� l `}�
,o�rwb�o t, •r;,ag lxg" =,
0
d
1
\
N
0
0
/ S ±S
/
II II
1 I 1 0 1I9
.I1 1 1 I\
L '
\ \
I I i
\\, \\. - -y( - _ I 1 1
- I_ - -
nnokomma_ \ / ��.
ie ,T44 �rN® ro Cir iii` ii e
GO> 'Mil.' 'MEP"
41041
-1
N
0
0
f'
(1)
Arte
0
0
/I
Oo J
0 0
if
Pi oZ1 l;•
_1WS3
11,I,traun
oz
bl
_s-_lo-
��r.ii►irt�
w 5� /
'kJti MA= =WA"
MMIIIIMMENEMENNIMIKELNINI
/
/
/
/
/
/
N
0
/ •
reMmiliVEMZEMOTAINILWADILESEIMEMMYWIR
/1 I /
IEW
0
ZI
,09
-A-1
I`
I
bi
-L
,os
0
,05
0
I\ I
63
/ I ',0g1
0
0
,oE,
(W115I » 441•V AV7,1n 5 -i
00
0
•
DESIGN MEMORANDUM
AND
VICINITY ACCESS STUDY
FOR
SOUTH 150TH STREET
Macadam Road South to East End of Right -of -Way
February, 1991
Prepared for:
CITY OF TUKWILA
Department of Public Works
6200 Southcenter Boulevard
Tukwila, Washington 98188
PROJECT NO. 87-RS01
Prepared by:
Perteet Engineering
2924 Colby Avenue
Everett, Washington 98201
(206) 252-7233
Project No. 90237
FEBRFCEMED
0 7 191
TUKWILA
PUBLIC LVORKS
DESIGN MEMORANDUM
FOR IMPROVEMENTS TO SOUTH 150TH STREET
MACADAM ROAD SOUTH TO EAST END OF RIGHT-OF-WAY
Prepared for:
CITY OF TUKWILA
Department of Public Works
6200 Southcenter Boulevard
Tukwila, Washington 98188
Prepared by:
Perteet Engineering, Inc.
2924 Colby Avenue
Everett, Washington 98201
(206) 252-7233
February, 1991
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Topic Page
Summary 1
Roadway Features 1
Existing Conditions 2
Alternatives Studied 3
Drainage 4
Utilities 4
Landscaping 5
Right -of -Way 5
Illumination 5
Appendix A - Vicinity Access Study 6
Introduction 7
Design Criteria 7
Description of Road Extensions 8
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure Follows
Number Page
1 Vicinity Map 1
2 Typical Roadway Section 2
3 Plan and Profile 5
4 Access Map 9
SUMMARY
This design memorandum is the result of preliminary engineering studies conducted to
determine the extent of improvements to be made to 0.10 miles of S. 150th Street,
between Macadam Road S. and the end of right-of-way (See Figure 1). This
memorandum presents the basic design criteria and specific project features.
The final design recommendations are based on studies performed by Perteet
Engineering and Rittenhouse -Zeman and Associates (geotechnical), input from City
staff and discussions with adjacent property owners.
The proposed project is necessary to provide a safe riding surface and provide proper
pedestrian facilities. The existing roadway is in poor condition, and has deteriorated
significantly during construction of the water tank due to construction traffic and
installation of a new storm drain line.
The project includes construction of a 24 foot wide street with concrete curb and gutter,
asphalt pavement, five foot concrete sidewalk, enclosed storm drains together with a
drainage Swale, illumination, undergrounding of overhead utilities, and rockeries. A
minor amount of right-of-way will be acquired to enable construction of the south curb
return at Macadam Road, and a "no net change" right-of-way swap will be made with
Lynden Lee Lodge, a group home facility that owns property on both sides of the
street.
The proposed "Brigadoon" subdivision lies east of the project site and will gain initial
access from 57th Avenue S. It is proposed that S. 150th Street will eventually connect
to this subdivision and become a part of an improved circulation system for the area.
Physical constraints along the edge of the street are major controlling design factors for
this project. Concerns center on the need to minimize impacts on a Lynden Lee Lodge
building at the east end of the project which was constructed very close to the existing
right-of-way, and a steep driveway at the west end of the street where encroachment
into the bank will create extreme adverse grade problems.
The estimated construction cost for the project is approximately $90,000, this includes
construction of street improvements, a new lighting system, and the construction of the
civil portion of undergrounding the overhead power. Seattle City Light's preliminary
estimate to remove existing poles and to install the electrical portion of the underground
distribution is an additional $16,600 for a total estimated construction cost of $106,600.
ROADWAY FEATURES
All geometric design will be in accordance with the American Association of State
Highway Official (AASHTO) and the Washington State Department of Transportation
(WSDOT) guidelines. Posted speed limit is 20 MPH.
Table 1 lists the design criteria for the S. 150th Street project. Items not noted will be
in accordance with City of Tukwila policies and design procedures:
S. 150th Street Reconstruction
Design Memorandum and Vicinity Access Study
Page 1
•
Perteet Engineering
Civil and Transportation Consultants
Vicinity Map
South 150th Street
Figure l
TABLE 1
S. 150th Street Design Criteria
Posted Speed
Design Speed
Grade
Right -of -Way
Roadway Width
Sidewalk Width
Curb Return Radius
Parking
Illumination
20 MPH
25 MPH
15% maximum
40 feet
24 feet
5 feet one side
25 feet
No parking allowed on street
Continuous
The recommended roadway section is shown on Figure 2.
The pavement section will use four inches of asphalt concrete on top of four inches of
crushed rock. Six inches of bank run gravel will be used under the pavement section to
promote subgrade drainage.
EXISTING CONDITIONS
This is currently a residential dead end street. There is a proposed subdivision east of
the project that will access from 57th Avenue S. At some point in the future, S. 150th
Street will connect to this subdivision and become a through street. The recommended
alignment for this connection and other future circulation elements is shown in
Appendix A of this report.
The existing road surface is a combination of asphalt concrete and gravel. The surface
is in very poor condition with no sidewalks on the street.
The roadway profile continually increases from zero percent near the intersection of
Macadam Road S. to approximately 13 % at the east end of right-of-way.
The existing storm sewer is a 21" concrete pipe enclosed system that runs the length of
the project. A shallow drainage swale runs along the north side of road, and enters the
enclosed system at about the mid -point of the project. Storm runoff from the
undeveloped property at the east end of the project sheet flows across the street during
the fall and winter months, however, it appears that much of this problem has been
alleviated by the regrading performed by the property owner.
The existing soils are moisture sensitive. It is recommended that work occur during the
drier months of the year to make as much use of the existing subgrade. Should work
occur in wet weather conditions, it is recommended that overexcavation occur at least
one foot below the paving section and replace with free -draining select imported fill.
S. 150th Street Reconstruction
Design Memorandum and Vicinity Access Study
Page 2
•
•
E CONSTRUCTION
20'
1.0' MIN.
OS'
/2'
ASPHALT CONCRETE
PAVEMENT,CLASS B
2.0' MINIMUM COMPACTED
DEPTH FOR WEARING
COURSE
2.0%
RIGHT of WAY
20'
"*- VAR/ES 1'-6'
1.0' MIN.
/2'
ASPHALT CONCRETE
PAVEMENT.CLASS B
2.0' MINIMUM COMPACTED
DEPTH FOR LEVELING
COURSE —
2.0i
O5'
�k
5'
COMPACTED
SUBGRADE
TYPICAL
6'. BANK RUN GRAVEL
CEMENT CONC.CURB —
AND GUTTER.TYPE A
TYPICAL
CRUSHED SURFACING TOP COURSE
4 -INCH COMPACTED DEPTH.TYPICAL
TYPICAL ROADWAY SECTION
SOUTH 150th ST.
NTS
2)00.
4 -INCH CEMENT
CONC. SIDEWALK
CEMENT CONC.CURB
AND GUTTER.TYPE A
TYPICAL
Perteet Engineering
Civil and Transportatlon Consultants
Typical Roadway Section
South 150th Street
Figure 2
The existing illumination system consists of luminaires mounted on Seattle City Light
power poles along the north side of the street.
DESIGN ALTERNATIVES
Two basic alternates were studied to establish the alignment of the improved street.
Basically, the differences between the two alignments was the location of the sidewalk
(north or south side), although there are significant technical differences between the
alternates. Both alternates followed the design criteria outlined in Table 1.
Recommended Alternate:
The new sidewalk will be located along the south side of the street. The construction
centerline is shifted one foot to the north of the right-of-way centerline at the
intersection with Macadam Road and continues east to where it is shifted six feet to the
north of the right-of-way centerline at the east end of the project. Along the Lynden
Lee Lodge frontage, existing right-of-way along the south side of the street will be
vacated in exchange for an equal area of new right-of-way along the north side of the
street (see Figure 3).
This configuration minimizes the impact to the Lynden Lee Lodge group home at Sta.
13+50 (right) by matching the back of new sidewalk into the asphalt sitting area in
front of the group home. This area is frequently used by residents of the group home
and is within the existing street right-of-way. The owners of the Lynden Lee Lodge
group home are concerned with keeping this area intact.
This alignment would use several of the existing storm drain structures along the new
south side curb line. A short drainage swale will be constructed along the north side of
street at the east end of the project.
The new sidewalk will transition into the existing eight foot sidewalk that lies along the
east side of Macadam Road S.
Alternate Two:
The total roadway section for Alternate 2 lies within the right-of-way in the same
manner as the recommended alternate. With this option, however, the new five foot
wide sidewalk would be located along the north side of the street. This configuration
would not tie into any existing sidewalk on Macadam Road, but transition into the
shoulder area.
The Lynden Lee Lodge group home facility consists of several buildings located on
both sides of the street. There are two buildings that house and provide dining services
for the patients of the group home that are located on the south side of the street. The
main office is housed in a building located on the north side of the street. There is
pedestrian activity in and around the office, however, the main focus of pedestrian
activity occurs along the south side of the street where the patients are housed.
Alternate Two's configuration would favor pedestrian activity in and around the office.
S. 150th Street Reconstruction
Design Memorandum and Vicinity Access Study
Page 3
• •
However, the recommended alternate would better address the main focus of pedestrian
activity of the patients by locating the sidewalk along the south side.
It is not recommended practice to locate drainage swales adjacent to sidewalks. As the
drainage swale can only be located along the north side of S. 150th Street, this north -
side sidewalk configuration is in conflict with standard practice. The recommended
alternate locates the sidewalk along the south side of the street and therefore away from
the drainage swale.
Alternate Two's configuration would have the south curb line not match the existing
storm drain structures and therefore curb inlets would have to be installed to tie into the
existing structures. The recommended alternate will provide a cost savings in using
many of the existing storm structures along the new curb line.
DRAINAGE
Existing private improvements and topography limit the opportunity to provide a
roadside drainage swale for treatment of paved surface run-off. However, there is the
opportunity to provide a grass -lined swale on the north side of the street. The proposed
right-of-way "swap" will allow the swale to be constructed within the street rights-of-
way.
The existing enclosed 21" concrete pipe storm system running the length of S. 150th
Street was built as part of the recent water tank/reservoir project. This system was
designed to accommodate the demand for an emergency draining of the water tank.
Barring this event, this system can handle at least a 25 -year storm for the area upstream
and uphill of the road improvement. This system will not need to be upgraded and will
serve as the trunk line for the new storm drains required because of the construction of
curb and gutter.
An open ditch running north -south enters the storm system on the north side of road at
about the mid -point of the project. At the east end of the project there is storm water
run-off that is only noticeable during the fall and winter months. Both drainages will
be collected by the new and existing storm drains.
UTILITIES
The overhead power, cable television, and telephone mainline and services will be
undergrounded as part of this project. The City, as part of the road improvements, will
install the underground system (vaults and conduit) subject to the design and layout by
Seattle City Light. City Light will remove four of their power poles and pull wire
through the underground system. The estimated cost for City Light's portion of work
is $16,400.
The existing eight inch cast iron water main is in good condition and no modification is
necessary. An eight inch sanitary sewer system that runs the full length was built in
1965 in conjunction with L.I.D. #5. All properties abutting this street are adequately
served with stub -outs.
S. 150th Street Reconstruction
Design Memorandum and Vicinity Access Study
Page 4
• •
LANDSCAPING
Landscaping for this project will be confined to restoring existing landscaping adjacent
to the curb and gutter and sidewalk.
RIGHT-OF-WAY
While the new road section lies within existing right-of-way, additional room will be
needed to accommodate the improvements. Additional room for a rockery will be
needed for slope embankment from Sta. 14+10 to 14+50 on the north side, however
the right-of-way "swap" will allow room for this. Additional right-of-way will be
needed at the southeast corner of S. 150th Street and Macadam Road S. to provide
room for a radius return for curb, gutter and sidewalk.
A section of additional right-of-way averaging 4.5 feet in width will be needed to
accommodate a drainage swale to be used for paved surface water treatment. As the
property on both sides of the street are under one ownership in the area of the proposed
drainage swale, a right-of-way "swap" may be negotiated to provide the room needed
for the drainage swale. This section lies from Sta. 12+08 to Sta. 14+50 along the
north side. The drainage swale can be built only with this additional rights-of-way.
This "swap" would involve the City exchanging a section also averaging 4.5 feet in
width along the south side of S. 150th Street for the above mentioned section along the
north side from Sta. 12+08 to Sta. 14+50. This exchange would be a benefit to the
property owner as the sitting area adjacent to the group home would no longer be
within the right-of-way.
ILLUMINATION
The existing illumination consists of two luminaires mounted on existing power poles
owned by Seattle City Light located along the north side of the street. With the
undergrounding of the overhead power system, it will be necessary be to install a new
lighting system that consists of luminaire poles. This system will also be located along
the north side of the street. Two luminaires will be located along S. 150th Street with
the third to be located at the intersection of S. 150th Street.
S. 150th Street Reconstruction
Design Memorandum and Vicinity Access Study
Page 5
-rE-rr�F--S
Y
a I•
1
.•
ii fI
.1•.1111, w ..
o
.-K7
..-
o
•t'
o
I
1
a
M
1n
N
G
'1
CITY of TUKWILA
SOUTH 150th
PLAN & PROFILE
. I
-� r
+
•
y�
1:
1
,1 ..
1
10! .
-5 .. r
ti
• `•N
I
--.
I
0)
111
I
1
LL
'
'
Iis
. Ira
• ;
I t::
ai
.
1
il - III
A
1 qq
.1• I
1
ti....,.
sus
s
.,.
/
•
/
II
I
'1
� i
1
i1
'
0: :
a.'
•
• ,
1
'
1 1
% • ,
.1
i
Ij
is
...
11
1....::
.�
,.
•
1 i
.. J 1 1 �
.__......
1
'i:lB
I
11,1'
/i
p 1.4
'..•
°ti
7I ;VI
il
9
1
1
.•
I
to
(.13
i
I
411
1
I
r'
.
1
�
;
1
1
10
II
�.. ......
ii
i i
1
rr
D
S.
........
. 0: .
1
4
V.
.
.....
` jr......
M
.1',
t�1
WI°.
• Ai
.
r.'•
�F
3/
I
.`1`
i
�.
1 ..
$
a
;
l
' ..--'*j•;Il`:+�
'. ..
• ^L
•l h L�('IL.' i
. .
I
.....
1
Incp
N
oa
1
()
M
'c
'
I
1
0
uD
1n
a
• Ir)1
r !
01
�
1n
rt)-
,
1 o
f
r
•
APPENDIX A
VICINITY ACCESS STUDY
INTRODUCTION
This study examines the options available to improve traffic circulation in the area
encompassing S. 144th Street south to S. 152nd.Street and from Macadam Road South
east to 57th Avenue S. The existing roads and proposed extensions are essential to
providing access toresidential properties.
There are three road extension alignments that are reviewed in this report. Several
alignments were studied_ before determining that these three alignments would be the
most feasible.
No traffic counts were performed but the nature of current traffic volumes are
relatively low. If and when these proposed road extensions are installed, traffic
volumes are sure to increase. J Ae) emealf
This study is based upon topographic mapping produced from aerial photos and from a
current King County assessor's map. This study does not take into account cost
analysis nor were any geotechnical studies performed.
Major portions of the proposed road extensions are located on private parcels and will
require dedication of right-of-way. For more information, please refer to Figure 1.
This report assumes that the "South 150th Street Improvements" to be built by the City
of Tukwila this year is considered part of the existing road system.
DESIGN CRITERIA
Design criteria were established for the roadway alignments which are consistent with
classification, existing traffic, and the City of Tukwila's Public Works street
construction and development standards.
Table 1 lists the design criteria used for road extensions. Items not noted will be in
accordance with City of Tukwila policies and standard roadway design practices.
TABLE 1
ROAD RELOCATION DESIGN CRITERIA
Design Speed 25 MPH
Grade 15% maximum
Right -of -Way 60 feet
Roadway width 30 feet minimum
S. 150th Street Reconstruction
Design Memorandum and Vicinity Access Study
Page 7
'
DESCRIPTION OF ROAD EXTENSIONS
South 150th Place (Figure 1)
This road section is a part of a proposed "Brigadoon" subdivision that is currently
under City review.
Maximum road grade is 12 % with total length of new road of 760 feet. This alignment
will tie into existing roadway of 57th Avenue S. and make a "T" intersection at the east
end. At west end of proposed development S. 150th Place will end at property line and
transition into a gravel road that provides access to a recently constructed water tank.
At some point in the future this road extension will be tied into the east end of S. 150th
Street. This, in effect, will provide a east -west connection from 57th Avenue S. to
Macadam Road S. This will enhance circulation as there is no other east -west
connection in the area.
South 150th Street
This roadway would tie into proposed "South 150th Street Improvements" to be built
by City of Tukwila at the west end. This proposed extension would then continue east
at an uphill grade, maximum grade of 15%, for approximately. 320 feet to a dead-end
that could be built as a cul-de-sac or hammerhead.
This configuration would attempt to maximize access to as many sub -dividable lots in
this unplatted area, as indicated on the current King County assessor's map. This
configuration would require the right-of-way to be dedicated. This extension would be
built as part of a sub -division and would be paid for by developer.
c55t-h-Avenue South (Figure 1)
(This_extension_would-significantly-enhance=traffic_circulation_in_both-the-north=south
hand-eas st`directions:—The leiehh-of-total-extension-is-approximately 2-1007fee0
The south section that lies between S. 150th Street and S. 147th Street requires
dedication of right-of-way. There is an S-curve alignment just north of S. 150th Street
to avoid existing buildings as shown on the topography map. Just north of this
alignment, this extension will tie into the west end of South 149th Street. The south
end of the extension will tie into the east end of S. 150th Street.
As the extension continues north, there is another S-curve configuration near the S.
147th Street rights-of-way. This configuration is meant to follow the topography to
allow acceptable road grade.
From S. 147th Street to S. 144th Street the proposed alignment runs due north and
follows the centerline of 55th Avenue S. right-of-way. Along this section the existing
right-of-way is either 20 feet or 40 feet in width, therefore additional right-of-way
dedication will be required to obtain a full 60 feet width. The north end of this
S. 150th Street Reconstruction
Design Memorandum and Vicinity Access Study
Page 8
•
extension will tie into S. 144th Street and create a four-way intersection as there is an
existing open 55th Avenue S. north of this intersection.
The south half of this extension would access currently unplatted parcels of land. The
north half of the extension would access platted, but undeveloped, parcels. Adjacent to
this road extension lies a 100 -year flood plain that is considered a wetland and therefore
cannot be developed.
S. 150th Street Reconstruction
Design Memorandum and Vicinity Access Study
Page 9
DMZ: 07/11/97 1201pm ..
090 Nom: 11:\PR0.c01\9000\8092\090\0082s001A90
2.0
S01'34'34 V
._ TH'. Ayr .so. e26.0r(RQSv.
----
Not for . Construction Preliminary Only.
5 0 BERGSTROM PLAT'
coa
w. lit 9 0 , Tukwila , • Woshington
Preliminary Grading Plan
MICHAEL BERGSTROM
P.O. Box 19614
Seattle, Washington 98109-6614
(206)286-8944/FAX(206)281-8244
• CYC. fTIC.•0 ]I- BR.64A
1Yaw
2. POL. RUN: -
3 MAH AQU
2 ACE CTR'
DOCKT:
18"FRUIT
9 .RAH MU
ism) HG
10 -POL RUN
4'M1M AOU
16 POI MUNE.
--W;45%/� -c, si 'm�. .i'��Y •��4 '"ULT
'.,740 ,r;
3 -�4 a �-'mo iire
Checked By Date
4. BER 111U
3 RTW 8"FIR
14 POL MUN
\. 8"PINE -
4 MAH AOU
RHO
POL MUN ,.
6 AZAHEX-
An& AB le
,v in ane -.-.
Effragermeismaguselasviersktiatriirmiiiit
LS09.15,
ESTABU91 AT 0.15 GF, 1' BELOW
ADJACENT PAVING SURFACES
• Y Di'CROMI HT.
PER UREA. FE. OF
HtsL DISTANCE 10
C(OF BED
MALA 4t�AVA ='COA
I��T
if&Va
NOTE:
1) Toasts TO DE FREE OF ALL ROCK, OkPitlS AND OTHER FOR1001 NATTER
0,101 1. IN DIAMETER AND NEEDS - 2) RIP AND TILL 9)BCRADE TO 8" DEEP (n.0) PRIOR TO WSTMLNC TOPSOIL
AND AMENDMENTS AND 10L 8IERFAC OF ADE AND TOPSOIL
3) 801- TOPSOIL AND 500. AMENDMENTS 10 A MDL 12" DEPTH'.
4) SUBMR SAMPLE OF BARK MUL01 & TOPSOIL
FOR ACCEPTANCE PRIOR TO PLACEMENT.
T'OPSOO• - T1PE ANO MIN. DEP1N
• A5 SPECIFIED ..
MAWTA04 ARUM
1' 8EL03 TOP OF
-.CURB OR PAVING .
5 - SPACING AS SHOWN ON PLANS --:.
TO CALCULATE PLANTS PER SQUARE FOOT- F SPACING (3)-
EO)ALS 111.41IPLY SF. AREA 801' TO EDW. TOTAL'
.PLANTS PER SF.
PLANTING BED PREP. DETAIL
NOT:10 20.11.
(R00NC 6 TYPICAL -FOR FLAT_ OR NEARLY FLAT PLANING BEDS
MOL•OEPTN3 FOR TOPSOIL SOIL AMENDMENTS AND MULCH MU.
BE MEASURED AT 111E OUTSIDE EDGES AND LEITER CIF PLANTING BEDS
PLANT BED GRADING
0.313
0.288
PLANT SPACING
BLDG..
I.
o' 10' . 20''
L
Plant List and Legend .:
- s'M . sa. i COM510 l NAMES ' 'SIZE COI�DI710N SPACING
TREES
L02 1LL
ACE.CIR'
. -
LIRICDE DRO N 1UJPIFERA :.. .
TREE-... 'TULIP T ,...
'ACER CRCP)AVJAO .
VINE MARE
- 2.5' CAL'
-_.
.6' Hf.
-
B® . .
.. ._.
BEB
-
. AS
A5 3-IOWN
AZA Imo)(' .
-
BER,�0
OWNS
M AH
PIN MU6: �'
PCL M,N'-
.
R143 ROC- .-
RHD
ROS RUG
AZALEA }EX":
KARUN.E AZALEA
T
BERE52IS LABERGII 'ROSE GLOW
_ ROSE GLOW JAPANESE BARBER(ZY
MA4gMA ACU.IAFOLLM G gwd4IoM(
OREGON GRAPE enci..
PIJ.F/UiFNLIGO NLIGFVVARI 7.,
POLYSTICI-ALM t/LNUTUA ..
SWORD FERN -
0-c0e.IXZON'ROCt04T - -
2 GAL -.
GAL .. -.
- loa4ffi.r
I GAL . ''
-
2 GAL
1 GAL - .. .
5 GAL .
. 5 GAL -:' ..:.
- 5 GAL :.
CONTAINER
CONTAINER
CONTAINER
CONTAINER
CONTAT132
..
CCNTAIN30 -
CONTAINER `'
CONTA082
- 7.0/C
4' 0/C
- . 3' 0/C .
.. .
4' 0/C
. I8 0/0
5 0/C_:.
.. V. OIC
- . 5' 0/0
MED. )RT. R1-I000/PUoK FLON16 S
. 1:54CD0'DRON.
_ RUGOSA
ROSE -
6ROUDCOVHi j
ARC UVA - '
GAU SNA; .'
jr16.3-'
. KARCTOSTAPMYLOS UVA4iRSI II
` GAIJLI)$RA ON - (�7�.y$a''
-
I GAL
CONTAINER
'• CONTAINER "
18' 0/C . .
- 3' O/C
LAWN 9114•'/Md
I-IYDROSEED
MIX
.
PROTUA:E s710 PDX PLUS'
-
Sim SIPPIJE Z - -
WOWS E HOPKINS LTD.
1-8TLMD. O9EGONI .
I-8000-345-3295
OR. APPROVED EQUAL
APPLY PE12 S7PPLIER'S -
SPECIFICATIONS
APPLICATION RATE..
,. 2.BA0005F.
Am mew Est
II�1=I11�1
2'1.2' HEM/ FIR STAKES
SETSTM 0UT9DE R0018A1 .
(Remove oltr.
Pr.):
SET ROOT =IAN NO -MORE 114AN 4'
NOR USS 11011.2" ABOVE. FINK GRADE
MULCH AS SPECIFIED .
(Coq mulch dear of baht Now)
TREE WILL *ROIAID TREE 4' DEEP.
MINIMUM 48' 51101ER'
CUT AND REMOVE TUNE AND BURLAPFROM '..
(Rrno.. as Mr* AND 1ete.)OF R���L
8010
1 TOPs01s.10 BE FREE TN ALL ROCK, DEBRIS AND OTHER FOREIGN MATTER
OVER I IN DIAMETER AND WEEDS.
2) RIP' AND 11LL 9JBGRADE PRIOR TO INSTALLING .10P5010 AND
AMENOMENIS AND TILL INTERFACE OF 9JBGRAOE AMD TOPSOIL
3)•11.1. 10PSOL AND SOL AMENDMENTS 10 A MIN., 3'.0EP1M, •
• 4).5EED' TYPES AS SPECIFIED N PUNT UST..' ..
• 5) TOPSOIL FOR $011 AND HYDROS® AREAS'T0 8E MIN 3" WIH Y ..
AM0ID08013 (e' TOTAL) FULLY TILLED.
LAWN AREA PREP. DETAIL
SHRUB PLANTING DETAIL
I. PRE -STAN' ALL .MOOD STAIN ALL ROD OJT& .. - ...
2. IN LAWN AREAS OJT TREE CIRCLE AT 2' RADIUS FROM TAU811.
3. ROOT DEFLECTORS ONLY NECESSARY IN PLANTER eons. 7.
\ TREE. 'PLANTING DETAIL
NOTES:
1. LOCATE. PROTECT AND AVOID DISRUPTION. OF ALL ABOVE AND BELOW
GRADE UTIUTIES AND SITE FEATURES PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION.
CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR ANY RESULTING DAMAGES DURING
CONSTRUCTION. VERIFY ANY DISCREPANCIES BETWEEN CONDITIONS
. SHOWN IN PLAN AND CONDITIONS IN FIELD WITH THE OWNER AND/OR
OWNER'S REPRESENTATIVE
2. VERIFY. ALL TREE SHRUB. GROUNDCOVER AND LAWN SQUARE -FOOTAGE
QUANTITIES WITH LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT PRIOR TO SUBMITTAL OF BIOS'
3. ALL PLANT' MATERIAL TO 8E SPECIMEN QUALITY `1104 SYMMETRICALLY
TRUNKED AND FULLY BRANCHED SHAPE. AND FULL HEALTHY FOUAGE..
IAEETING OR EXCEEDING- *AN STANDARDS FOR SIZE AND CONDITION.- ..
4. LANDSCAPEAAWN AREAS TO BE FUAL1 IRRIGATED WITH A temparoy -
IRRIGATION STs1EM or hand watering unci plants are established."
& REFER TO DETAILS FOR SOIL PREPARATION REQUIREMENTS AND.
ADDITIONAL PLANTING INSTRUCTIONS - -
6. LANDSCAPE TO UNITS' OF WORK UNE AS INDICATED ON PUN..
.7. -COORDINATE GRADING' AND CONSTRUCTOR WITH 01HER5.'-
8.•GP.OUNDCOVERAND 'SEED ARE NOT SHOWN UNDER TREES FOR GRAPHIC
CLARITY. THESE AREAS ARE TO BE PLANTED UP TO A' .3' DIAMETER
AROUND. TREE TRUNK. heal=, ..
9.- ALL PLANT 3MAA}TscctIAcLoS SSHALLBEAKWRE EPT IN A 10 MAINTSUFP1CIENT WATER CONDITION
N THE WETLAND OR TO PROVIDE ADEQUA1E IRRIGATION TO. LANDSCAPE PLANTS '
TO MAINTAIN HEALTHY PLANT GROWTH SHALL RESULT IN A REQUIREMENT FOR 111E
CONTRACTOR :TO REPLANT TO ORIGINAL- CONDITIONS '
10. see engeerin9 plans for utility Information.- RECEIVEDD
11. A' -DENOTES COSTING TREES 00 8E REMOVED.
NOT TO SCALE
coy OFTU
JUL 11 1997
PERMIT CENTER
G_9 1- nnzz
K8082.K03 ''
Project No.
Pt.q 1. - tt14
Checked By Date
1082G2 -TO
W82r130
S.• 149TH ST.
usE4 .
CONC NCN-
122.6:
= 7.45'23'E •• LS
I N8r45'23'V
• S
F
•.I PRNOT FHOI� Rag
•OVNO
NOTES:
FIELD TOPOGRAPHY PREPARED
BY OTAK, INC., GATED: MARCH,1997
BENCHMARK: TOP OF MONUMENT IN
AT THE INTERSECTION OF S. 147TH
ST. AND 57TH AVE S. ELEV.=238.98 FEET
VERTICAL. DATUM: ASSUMED
MERIDIAN: K.CAS. AS RELATED TO
RECORD OF SURVEY BY NORTON DENNIS
AND ASSOCIATES,. INC. IN 1981.
EFERENCE IS HEREBY MADE TO THE RECORD
OF SURVEYS RECORDED AS FOLLOWS IN
RECORDS OF KING' COUNTY. WASHINGTON:
VOLUME 28 OF SURVEYS AT PAGE 67
JNDER A.F. NO. 8106239007, VOLUME 27
3F SURVEYS AT PAGE 152 UNDER A.F.
40. 8104229002., .
Project No: •
Fila No.
PP1 ISheet No.