HomeMy WebLinkAboutPermit PL16-0055 - SINGH RESIDENCE - SINGLE FAMILY DESIGN STANDARDS / SPECIAL PERMISSIONSINGH RESIDENCE
APN: 0780000070
PLI 6-0055
L16-0072
SPECIAL
PERMISSION -
DIRECTOR
City of Tukwila
Allan Eckberg, Mayor
Department of Community Development Jack Pace, Director
December 16, 2016
STAFF REPORT AND NOTICE OF DECISION
TO: Kam Singh, Applicant
Greenridge Land Co, LLC, Owner
King County Assessor, Accounting Division
This letter serves as a notice of decision and is issued pursuant to TMC 18.104.10 on the following project and
permit approval.
I. PROJECT INFORMATION
Protect File Number: L16-0072
Applicant: Kam Singh
Type of Permit Applied for: Special Permission- Director, Single Family Design Standard Exception to allow a
front door to face a side or rear yard
Request for Special Permission to allow the front door of a new single-family
home to face a side yard
Project Description:
Location:
Associated Files:
Comprehensive Plan
Designation/Zoning
District:
1111 50th Ave S. Tukwila, WA
Tax Parcel # 0780000070
D16-0268 Building permit
LDR- Low Density Residential
Vicinity/Site Information:
The subject property is located on the southwest corner of 50th Ave. S and S 111th Streets. Both streets are
unopened right-of-way; the applicant will improve S. 111th Street to the intersection of 50th Ave S. to serve the
development. The majority of the site and S. 111th Streets are classified as Class 2 slopesonthe City's Sensitive
Areas Map, and there are considerable sections of Class 3 slopes in the unopened right-of-way of 50th Ave S. The
presence of Class 3 slopes coupled with the low development potential of properties in the vicinity with
frontage on 50th makes it unlikely that 50th Ave S. will be developed by the City.
Other properties in the vicinity are developed with single-family homes or are vacant, and one apartment
complex is located across 50th Ave S. from the site. Significant topography and limited access due to topography
has left approximately half of the Tots undeveloped. The house immediately west of the subject property has
their front door oriented west off a driveway coming south off S. 111th St., as the project applicant proposes.
Decision Criteria:
The Tukwila Municipal Code (TMC) 18.50.050.6 requires new single family dwellings to have the front door
facing the front or second front yard, if the lot is at least 40 feet wide. Upon approval as a Type 2 decision,
according to TMC 18.50.055(A)2, a house with a front door that faces the side or rear yard may be permitted
when:
a) The topography of the lot is such that the pedestrian access is safer or more convenient from the side or
rear yard;
b) The house will be set back at least twice the minimum front yard setback;
c) The entrance is oriented to take advantage of a site condition such as a significant view; or
d) The entry feature is integral to a unique architectural design.
Since the proposed front door faces a side yard, this application qualifies for review as a Type 2 decision.
Conclusions:
1. The topography surrounding the lot limits safe pedestrian access to S. 111th St.
2. The entrance is oriented to take advantage of a significant view. With the house facing west, significant
views to the west exist as the site has slopes from west to east. Included with the application materials
are photos of the westward -facing view, and the view if special permission is not granted and the house
faces north.
The proposed site design meets the criteria to approve a front door facing a side or rear yard.
II. DECISION
SEPA Determination: The City's SEPA Responsible Official has previously determined that this application does
not require a SEPA threshold determination because it is categorically exempt.
Decision on Substantive Permit: The Community Development Director has determined that the application for
Special Permission- Type 2 Single Family Design Standards Exception does comply with applicable City and State
code requirements and has approved the application without conditions.
IV. YOUR APPEAL RIGHTS
The Decision on this Permit Application is a Type 2 decision pursuant to Tukwila Municipal Code §18.104.010.
No administrative appeal of a DNS or an EIS is permitted. One administrative appeal to the City Hearing Examiner of
the Decision on the Permit itself is permitted.
A party who is not satisfied with the outcome of the administrative appeal process may file an appeal with the City
of Tukwila of the Community Development Director decision.
Page 2 of 4
12/1/2016
V. PROCEDURES AND TIME FOR APPEALING
In order to appeal the Community Development Director's decision on the Permit Application, a written notice of
appeal must be filed with the Department of Community Development within 14 days of the issuance of this
Decision.
The requirements for such appeals are set forth in Tukwila Municipal Code 18.116. All appeal materials shall be
submitted to the Department of Community Development. Appeal materials MUST include:
1. The name of the appealing party.
2. The address and phone number of the appealing party; and if the appealing party is a corporation,
association or other group, the address and phone number of a contact person authorized to receive
notices on the appealing party's behalf.
3. A statement identifying the decision being appealed and the alleged errors in the decision, including any
specific challenge to an MDNS.
4. The Notice of Appeal shall identify (a) the specific errors of fact or errors in application of the law in the
decision being appealed; (b) the harm suffered or anticipated by the appellant, and (c) the relief sought.
The scope of an appeal shall be limited to matters or issues raised in the Notice of Appeal.
5. Appeal fee per the current fee schedule, additional hourly charges may apply. In addition all
hearing examiner costs will be passed through to the appellant.
VI. APPEAL HEARINGS PROCESS
Any administrative appeal regarding the Permit shall be conducted as an open record hearing before the
Hearing Examiner based on information presented to the Community Development Director, who made the
original decision. No new evidence or testimony will be permitted during the appeal hearing. Parties will be
allowed to present oral argument based on the information presented to the Community Development Director
before their decision was issued. The Hearing Examiner's decision on the appeal is the Cay's final decision.
Any party wishing to challenge the Hearing Examiner's decision on this application must file an appeal pursuant
to the procedures and time limitations set forth in RCW 36.70C. If no appeal of the Healing Examiner's decision
is properly filed in Superior Court within such time limit, the Decision on this permit will be final.
VII. INSPECTION OF INFORMATION ON THE APPLICATION
Project materials including the application, any staff reports, and other studies related to the permits are available
for inspection at the Tukwila Department of Community Development, 6300 Southcenter Blvd., Suite 100, Tukwila,
Washington 98188 from Monday through Friday between 8:30 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. The project planner is Lindsay
Brown, who may be contacted at 206-433-7166 for further information.
Property owners affected by this decision may request a change in valuation for their property tax purposes.
Contact the King County Assessor's Office for further information regarding property tax valuation changes.
Page 3 of 4
12/1/2016
Nora Gierloff, Deputy Dire
Department of Community Development
City of Tukwila
ENCL.
A: Revised Site Plan submitted with building permit D16-0268
B: Statement from applicant
B: Photos submitted by applicant of site looking north and west
Page 4 of 4
12/1/2016
Chit' of J almi&
Department Of Community Development
AFFIDAVIT OF DISTRIBUTION
I, Lindsay Brown , HEREBY DECLARE THAT:
Notice of Application
X
Notice of Decision
Notice of Public Hearing
Notice of Public Meeting
Determination of Non-
Significance
Mitigated Determination of Non -
Significance
Determination of
Significance & Scoping
Notice
Short Subdivision Agenda
Notice of Application for
Shoreline Mgmt Permit
Shoreline Mgmt Permit
Board of Appeals Agenda
Packet
Board of Adjustment Agenda Packet
Official Notice
Notice of Action
Other:
Was mailed to each of the addresses listed/attached: Assessor's Office,
Owner, Applicant
on this 22nd day of December, 2016
Project Name: Singh Special Permission
Project Number:L16-0072
Associated File Number (s): D16-0268
Mailing requested by: Lindsay Brown
Mailer's signature:
W:\USERS\LINDSAY\SPECIAL PERMISSION\L16-0072 SINGH SF DESIGN STND\AFFIDAVIT OF DISTRIBUTION.DOC
City of Tukwila
Project Planner:
Notice Of Application — Singh Special Permission: Single Family
Design Standards Exception
Project # L16-0072
Lindsay Brown, 206.433.7166, Lindsay.Browng,TukwilaWA.gov
Applicant: Kam Singh
Property Owner: Greenridge Land Co. LLC
Location: 1111 50th Ave S. Tukwila, WA APN#0780000070
File# L16-0072
Project Description: Request for an exception to the Single Family
Design Standards (Type 2 Special Permission— Director) to allow a front
door of a proposed single family home to face a side or rear yard.
Your written comments on the project are requested and can be deliv-
ered to DCD, 6300 Southcenter Blvd, Ste 100, Tukwila WA 98188.
Comments must be received by 5:00p.m. en December 15, 2016.
You may request a copy of any decision, comment on the project, and
learn your appeal rights by calling the project planner listed above, or by
visiting our offices Monday through Friday,
8:00am to 5:00 pm at DCD 6300 Southcenter Blvd, Ste 100.
City of Tukwila
Project Planner:
Notice Of Application — Singh Special Permission: Single Family
Design Standards Exception
Project # L16-0072
Lindsay Brown, 206.433.7166, Lindsay.Brown@TukwilaWA.gov
Applicant: Kam Singh
Property Owner: Greenridge Land Co. LLC
Location: 1111 50th Ave S. Tukwila, WA APN#0780000070
File# L16-0072
Project Description: Request for an exception to the Single Family
Design Standards (Type 2 Special Permission— Director) to allow a front
door of a proposed single family home to face a side or rear yard.
Your written comments on the project are requested and can be deliv-
ered to DCD, 6300 Southcenter Blvd, Ste 100, Tukwila WA 98188.
Comments must be received by 5:00p.m. an December 15, 2016.
You may request a copy of any decision, comment on the project, and
learn your appeal rights by calling the project planner listed above, or by
visiting our offices Monday through Friday,
8:00am to 5:00 pm at DCD 6300 Southcenter Blvd, Ste 100.
City of Tukwila
Allan Ekberg, Mayor
Department of Community Development - Jack Pace, Director
You are receiving this notice because you are a property owner or tenant within 500ft of this project
City of Tukwila
Allan Ekberg, Mayor
Department of Community Development - Jack Pace, Director
You are receiving this notice because you are a property owner or tenant within 500ft of this project
Ohl of J u:Fuuiea
Department Of Community Development
AFFIDAVIT OF DISTRIBUTION
I, 11/16(940,
HEREBY DECLARE THAT:
)(Notice
of Application
Notice of Decision
Notice of Public Hearing
Notice of Public Meeting
Determination of Non-
Significance
Mitigated Determination of Non -
Significance
Determination of
Significance & Scoping
Notice
Short Subdivision Agenda
Notice of Application for
Shoreline Mgmt Permit
Shoreline Mgmt Permit
Board of Appeals Agenda
Packet
Board of Adjustment Agenda Packet
Official Notice
Notice of Action
Other:
Was mailed each of the addresses listed/attached - (QQ(t tAllA
/ 00 tt
on this / day of
Project Name: S,, 5
/ y /,)
Project Number: /
O 0 77
Associated File Number (s):
Lle
Q 72'
Mailing requested by:
Mailer's signature:
C:\USERS\LINDSAY-B\DESKTOP\AFFIDAVIT OF DISTRIBUTION.DOC
AGENCY LABELS
( ) City Clerk Office — Christy 0' Flaherty PUBLIC HEARINGS/MEETINGS NEED TO GO TO CHRISTY
( R!:S Corps of Engineers
( ) Federal HWY Admin
( ) Federal Transit Admin, Region 10
( ) Dept of Fish & Wildlife
Section 1 FEDERAL AGENCIES
( ) US Environmental Protection Agency (E.P.A.)
( ) US Dept of HUD
( ) National Marine Fisheries Service
Section 2 WASHINGTON STATE AGENCIES
( ) Office of Archaeology
( ) Transportation Department (WSDOT NW)
( ) Dept of Natural Resources
( ) Office of the Governor
( ) WA State Department of Commerce (formerly Community Dev)
( ) WA Fisheries & Wildlife, MillCreek Office
( ) WA Fisheries & Wildlife, Larry Fisher,
1775 12th Ave NW Ste 201, Issaquah WA 98027
( ) Dept of Social & Health Services
( ) Dept of Ecology NW Regional Office, Shoreland Div.
SHORELINE NOD REQUIRES RETURN RECEIPT
( ) Dept of Ecology, SEPA **Send Electronically
( ) Office of Attorney General
( ) Office of Hearing Examiner
( ) KC Boundary Review Board
( ) Fire District # 11
( ) Fire District # 2
( ) KC Wastewater Treatment Div
( ) KC Dept of Parks & Recreation
(X) KC Assessor's Office
( ) KC Watershed Coordination WRIA 9
Section 3 KING COUNTY AGENCIES
( ) Health Department
( ) Port of Seattle
( ) KC Dev & Environmental Services-SEPA Info Center
( ) KC Metro Transit Div-SEPA Official, Environmental Planning
( ) KC Dept of Natural Resources
( ) KC Dept of Natural Resources, Andy Levesque
( ) KC Public Library System
( ) Foster Library
( ) Renton Library
( ) Kent Library
( ) Seattle Library
Section 4 SCHOOLS/LIBRARIES
( ) Westfield Mall Library
( ) Tukwila School District
( ) Highline School District
( ) Seattle School District
( ) Renton School District
( ) Century Link
( ) Seattle City Light
( ) Puget Sound Energy
( ) Highline Water District
( ) Seattle Planning &Dev/Water Dept
( ) Comcast
Section 5 UTILITIES
( ) BP Olympic Pipeline ( ) Seattle Public Utilities
( ) Val-Vue Sewer District
( ) Water District # 20
( ) Water District # 125
( ) City of Renton Public Works
( ) Bryn Mawr-Lakeridge Sewer/Water Dist
( ) Waste Management
( ) Cascade Water Alliance
( ) Tukwila City Departments
( ) Public Works ( ) Fire
( ) Police ( ) Finance
( ) Planning ( ) Building
( ) Parks & Rec ( ) Mayor
( ) City Clerk (PUBLIC HEARINGS/MEETINGS)
Section 6 CITY AGENCIES
( ) Kent Planning Dept
( ) Renton Planning Dept
( ) City of SeaTac
( ) City of Burien
( ) City of Seattle
( ) Strategic Planning *Notice of all Seattle Related Projects
Section 7 OTHER
* send notice of all applications on Green/Duwamish River
( ) Duwamish River Clean Up Coalition *
( ) Muckleshoot Indian Tribe *
( ) Cultural Resources
( ) Fisheries Program
( ) Wildlife Program
( ) Duwamish Indian Tribe *
( ) People for Puget Sound *
LOCAL AGENCIES
( ) Puget Sound Clean Air Agency
( ) Sound Transit/SEPA
( ) Puget Sound Regional Council
( ) Washington Environmental Council
( ) Futurewise
( ) Puget SoundKeeper
( ) SW KC Chamber of Commerce
( ) Tukwila Historical Society**
** send notices for all Tukwila projects which require public notice — via email to:
tukwilahistsociety(Ttukwilahistorv.org and rcwieser comcast.net
( ) Seattle Times ( ) Highline Times
Section 8 MEDIA
( ) South County Journal
( ) City of Tukwila Website
W:Admin\Admin Forms\Agency Checklist
Public Notice Mailings For Permits
.EPA MAILINGS
(Comment period starts on date of mailing)
Notice of Application mailed to: Department of Ecology (send checklist with Notice of Application), applicant, other agencies'as
necessary, property owners and tenants within 500 feet. It is also posted on site.
KC Transit Division — SEPA Official would like to receive information about all projects that might affect transit demand.
Tribes — For any application on the Green/Duwamish River, send the checklist and a full set of plans with the Notice of Application
SEPA Determination mailed to
Dept. of Ecology Environmental Review Section
*Applicant
*Other agencies as necessary (checked off on attached list)
*Any parties of record
* send only the staff report, site plan and the SEPA Determination
Send These Documents to DOE at the time of SEPA determination:
SEPA Determination
Staff report
SEPA Checklist (filled out by applicant)
Drawings/Plans of project (site plan, elevations, etc. from PMT's)
Affidavit of Distribution (notice was mailed or sent to newspaper)
SHORELINE MAILINGS:
Notice of Application for a Substantial Development Permit must be mailed to applicant, property owners and residents within 500
feet of subject property, agencies with jurisdiction. Comments are due 30 days after the notice of application is mailed/posted. The
Notice of Application for a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit must include a statement that any person desiring to submit
written comments on the application or desiring to receive notification of the final decision on the application may do so within 30 days
of the Notice of Application. If a hearing will be held on the application, the hearing notice must include the information that written
comments may be submitted, or oral presentation made at the hearing. Notice is sent to Ecology's NW Regional Office Shorelands &
Environmental Assistance Program.
Shoreline Permit Notice of Decision:
Minx (within 8 days of decision; 21-day appeal period begins date of filing with DOE) — Notice to DOE must be by
return receipt requested mail (this requirement included in SSB 5192, effective 7-22-11).
Department of Ecology Shorelands Section, NW Regional Office
State Attorney General
*Applicant
*Indian Tribes
*Other agencies as necessary (checked off on attached list).
*Any parties of record
* send only the notice of decision and staff report, site plan and the SEPA Determination
Send These Documents to DOE and Attorney General: One complete packet should also be sent to Muckleshoot Indian
Tribe if they commented on the project during comment period.
Permit Data Sheet
Shoreline Substantial Development Decision (Signed by Director)
Findings (staff report or memo)
Shoreline Permit Application Form (filled out by applicant)
Drawings/Plans of project (site plan, elevations, etc. from PMT's)
- Site plan, with mean high water mark & improvements
— Cross -sections of site with structures & shoreline
- Grading Plan
— Vicinity map
SEPA determination (Signed by Director)
Findings (staff report or memo)
SEPA Checklist (filled out by applicant)
Any background studies related to impacts on shoreline
Notice of Application
Affidavit of Distribution (notice was mailed)
W:Admin\Admin Forms\Agency Checklist
City of Tukwila
Allan Ekberg, Mayor
Department of Community Development - Jack Pace, Director
NOTICE OF COMPLETE APPLICATION
December 1, 2016
Kam Singh
10225 SE 24th St.
Kent, WA 98031
arcokam@hotmail.com
RE: Singh Special Permission- Single Family Design Standard Exception, City File L16-0072
Dear Mr. Singh,
Your application for Special Permission- Single Family Design Standard Exception is considered complete
on December 1, 2016 for the purposes of meeting state mandated time requirements.
This determination of complete application does not preclude the ability of the City to require that you
submit additional plans or information, if in our estimation such information is necessary to ensure the
project meets the substantive requirements of the City or to complete the review process.
This notice of complete application applies only to the permits identified above. It is your responsibility to
apply for and obtain all necessary permits issued by other agencies.
Please feel free to contact me with any questions.
Sincerely,
Lindsay Brown
Assistant Planner
Lindsay.brown(a,tukwilawa. gov
206.433.7166
Tukwila City Hall • 6200 Southcenter Boulevard • Tukwila, WA 98188 • 206-433-1800 • Website: TukwilaWA.gov
Cash Register Receipt
City of Tukwila
DESCRIPTIONS
ACCOUNT
QUANTITY PAID
ProjectTRAK
602.00
L16-0072 Address: 11111 50TH AVE S
n: 0780000070
SPECIAL PERMISSION
602.00
$602.00
SF DESIGN STANDARDS
TOTAL FEES PAID BY RECEIPT: R9916
R000.345.810.00.00
0.00
$602.00
$602.00
Date Paid: Wednesday, November 23, 2016
Paid By: CHARANJITSINGH
Pay Method: CREDIT CARD 023636
Printed: Wednesday, November 23, 2016 12:48 1 of 1
PM
Cdri°W.SYSTEMS
CITY OF TUKWILA
Department of Community Development
6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Tukwila, WA 98188
Telephone: (206) 431-3670
SPECIAL
PERMISSION -
DIRECTOR
APPLICATION
FOR STAFF USE ONLY Permits Plus Type: P-SP
Planner:
File Number: L i (_ O0111/-
Application Complete Date:
Project File Number: V' Lk (k. —00 S
Application Incomplete Date:
Other File Numbers:
NAME OF PROJECT/DEVELOPMENT: A)i=`) I�JC
BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: /j $ / A' 7 % �-- 144-, C i 1 P
LOCATION OF PROJECT/DEVELOPMENT: Give street address or, if vacant, indicate lot(s), block and
subdivision, access street, and near gJ'itersecti n.
////(,qv"
LIST ALL TAX LOT NUMBERS (this information may be found on your tax statement).
p7Ft7OOD.70
DEVELOPMENT COORDINATOR :
The individual who:
• has decision making authority on behalf of the owner/applicant in meetings with City staff,
• has full responsibility for identifying and satisfying all relevant and sometimes overlapping development standards,
and
• is the primary contact with the City to whom all notices and reports will be sent.
Name:
Address:
Phone:
E-mail:
1vt& s�
o2Z5 Zy/V. , 4, W,( 78U3/
006 . yJo . Imo
FAX:
Signature: Date:
Pcfcol6Ometib\-1,04A.cdt,t,,
RECEIVED
NOV 23 2016
COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT
W:\Applications-Handouts, Land Use\CURRENT LAND USE APPLICATIONS\Special Permission Director -March 2016.docx
EXECUTED at
CITY OF TUKWILA
Department of Community Development
6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Tukwila, WA 98188
Telephone: (206) 431-3670
AFFIDAVIT OF OWNERSHIP AND HOLD HARMLESS
PERMISSION TO ENTER PROPERTY
STATE OF WASHINGTON
ss
COUNTY OF KING
The undersigned being duly sworn and upon oath states as follows:
1. I am the current owner of the property which is the subject of this application.
2. All statements contained in the applications have been prepared by me or my agents and are true and correct to the best of my
knowledge.
3. The application is being submitted with my knowledge and consent.
4. Owner grants the City, its employees, a nts„ eer contractors or other representatives the right to enter upon Owner's real
property, located at //f/ / `0 for the purpose of application review,
for the limited time necessary to complete that purpose.
5. Owner agrees to hold the City harmless for any loss or damage to persons or property occurring on the private property during the
City's entry upon the property, unless the loss or damage is the result of the sole negligence of the City.
6. Non -responsiveness to a City information request for ninety (90) or more days, shall be cause to cancel the application(s) without
refund of fees., T1
(city), (state), on
,20
OD
(Print ame) 4-61140A14 / / r
(Address)
f�1--- CIO
Gi
(Pho
(Signature)
On this day personally appeared before me pen L c cL.19 h to me known to be the individual who
executed the foregoing instrument and acknowledged that he/she signed the same as his/her voluntary act and deed for the uses and
purposes mentioned. t8t 4H!NIII.
'►Ai
SUBSCRIBES G`� AXel 1'0, i 4FORE ME ON THIS / -`- DAY OF /id 0°c wi, )19-4.f , 20 1 C•
/•
: V 4•
•
� C4 v
�
// £ B `�0&z. 0
<'
7F WAV(��
NOTARY UBLIC in and for the. State of Washington
residing atrn o ,M s 1--
My Commission expires on
W:\Applications-Handouts, Land Use\CURRENT LAND USE APPLICATIONS \ Special Permission Director -March 2016.docx
REVIEW CRITERIA
Please consult the Zoning Code or Sign Code as to the appropriate criteria for your specific proposals. In addition all
approvals must be consistent with the Tukwila Comprehensive Plan (TMC 18.100.030). Tukwila Municipal Code Title 18.
Planning Division Staff are available to discuss the decision criteria you must respond to and necessary supporting materials.
PARKING DEVIATION
• Covenant Parking: where required parking is provided off -site (TMC 18.56.070(B));
• Complementary Parking: where up to 10% of a development's useable floor area is determined to be linked to
remaining area, such that it need not provide the normally required parking (TMC 18.56.070(D));
• Reduction of the minimum required parking of up to 10%, through an administrative variance (TMC 18.56.140).
A parking reduction may be allowed after:
1. All shared parking strategies are explored.
2. On -site park and ride opportunities are fully explored.
3. The site is in compliance with the City's commute trip reduction ordinance or, if not an affected employer as
defined by the City's ordinance, agrees to become affected.
4. The site is at least 300 feet away from a single-family residential zone.
5. A report is submitted providing a basis for less parking and mitigation necessary to offset any negative effects.
In addition to the above requirements, the Director may require specific measures not listed to ensure that all impacts with
reduced parking are mitigated. Any spillover parking that cannot be mitigated to the satisfaction of the Director will serve
as the basis for denial.
LANDSCAPE DEVIATIONS
• The landscape perimeter may be averaged if the total required square footage is achieved, unless the landscaping
requirement has been increased due to proximity to LDR, MDR or HDR. Landscape perimeter averaging may be
allowed as a Type 2 special permission decision if all of the following criteria are met:
1. PIant material can be clustered to more effectively screen parking areas and blank building walls.
2. Perimeter averaging enables significant trees or existing built features to be retained.
3. Perimeter averaging is used to reduce the number of driveways and curb cuts and allow joint use of parking
facilities between neighboring businesses.
4. Width of the perimeter landscaping is not reduced to the point that activities on the site become a nuisance to
neighbors.
5. Averaging does not diminish the quality of the site landscape as a whole.
• In the MDR and HDR zones up to 20% of the minimum required front yard landscaped area may be developed for
pedestrian and transit facilities.
• In the RCC and TUC zones required landscaping may include a mix of plant materials, pedestrian amenities and
features, outdoor cafe -type seating and similar features. Required plant materials will be reduced in proportion to the
amount of perimeter area devoted to pedestrian oriented space.
W:\Applications-Handouts, Land Use\CURRENT LAND USE APPLICATIONS\Special Permission Director -March 2016.docx
SENSITIVE AREA ORDINANCE — Deviations, Alterations or Uses Requiring Administrative Review and Approval
• Setbacks TMC 18.45.080(E) and TMC 18.45.100(D).
All commercial and industrial developments shall be set back 15 feet and all residential development shall be set back
ten feet, measured from the foundation to the buffer's edge. The Director may waive setback requirements when a site
plan demonstrates there will be no impacts to the buffer zone from construction or occasional maintenance activities.
• Buffer Reductions TMC 18.45.080(F) and TMC 18.45.100(E). (Please note, no buffer reduction is permitted where the
buffer consists of undisturbed, native vegetation.)
The Director may reduce the standard wetland/watercourse buffers on a case -by -case basis, provided the buffer does not
contain slopes 15% or greater. Under certain circumstances, a buffer reduction may be considered for property with
slopes less than 15% (see TMC 18.45.080(F) and 18.45.100(E)). The approved buffer width shall not result in greater
than a 50% reduction in width. Any buffer reduction proposal must demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Director that
it will not result in direct or indirect, short-term or long-term adverse impacts to wetlands or watercourses, and that:
1. Additional protection to wetlands will be provided through the implementation of a buffer enhancement plan;
2. The existing condition of the buffer is degraded;
3. Buffer enhancement includes, but is not limited to the following:
(a) Planting vegetation that would increase value for fish and wildlife habitat or improve water quality;
(b) Enhancement of wildlife habitat by incorporating structures that are likely to be used by wildlife, including
wood duck boxes, bat boxes, snags, root wads/stumps, birdhouses and heron nesting areas; or
(b) Removing non-native plant species and noxious weeds from the buffer area and replanting the area subject
to TMC 18.45.080(F)(2)(c)(1).
• Uses Requiring Administrative Review and Approval
The following uses may be permitted only after administrative review and approval by the Director — see TMC
18.45.070(B) or TMC 18.45.110(B) for additional guidance:
1. Maintenance & repair of existing uses/facilities where additional fill will be placed or heavy equipment used;
2. New surface water discharges to a sensitive area;
3. Placement of bioswales and dispersion outfalls in a wetland or watercourse buffer;
4. Enhancement or other mitigation including landscaping with native plants;
5. Construction of essential utilities;
6. Construction of new essential public streets, roads and rights of way;
7. Public or private use and access;
8. Dredging, digging or filling in a sensitive area or its buffer;
9. Removal of hazardous trees from a sensitive area;
10. Transfer of wetland mitigation to a wetland mitigation bank (TMC 18.45. 090(E)) or other off -site mitigation.
• Alterations Requiring Administrative Review and Approval by the Director (TMC 18.45.090(B), TMC 18.45.110(B)).
1. Piping, rerouting or diverting a watercourse
2. Any alteration to a sensitive area or its buffers, including vegetation removal, or alterations to wetlands less than
1,000 sq. ft. (see TMC 18.45.090(B)(5));
3. Approval of a Sensitive Area Master Plan or any alteration to an approved Sensitive Area Master Plan
W:\Aonlications-Handouts. Land Use\CURRENT LAND INF. APPT.TC ATRINS\Snerial PPrmiQ irm Tlircrtnr-Marrh 9f11 F rinry
CARGO CONTAINERS
Approval criteria for cargo containers to be installed in the LDR, MDR, and HDR zones for institutional uses and in the RC,
RCM, TUC or C/LI zones for permitted or conditional uses:
• Only two cargo containers will be allowed per lot, maximum length 40 feet.
• The container is located to minimize the visual impact to adjacent properties, parks, trails and rights -of -way as
determined by the Director.
• The cargo container is sufficiently screened from adjacent properties, parks, trails and rights -of -way, as determined by
the Director. Screening may be a combination of solid fencing, landscaping, or the placement of the cargo containers
behind, between or within buildings.
• If located adjacent to a building, the cargo container must be painted to match the building's color.
• Cargo containers may not occupy any required off-street parking spaces.
• Cargo containers shall meet all setback requirements for the zone.
• Outdoor cargo containers may not be refrigerated.
• Outdoor cargo containers may not be stacked.
SINGLE-FAMILY DESIGN STANDARD EXCEPTIONS
The design standards required at 18.50.050 (5) and (6) may be modified by the DCD Director.
• The criteria for approval of a roof pitch flatter than 5:12 are as follows:
1. The proposed roof pitch is consistent with the style of the house (for example modern, southwestern);
2. If a flat roof is proposed, the top of the parapet may not exceed 25 feet in height;
3. If a sloped roof is proposed, it must have at least 24-inch eaves; and
4. The house exhibits a high degree of design quality, including a mix of exterior materials, detailing, articulation and
modulation.
• The criteria for approval of a house with a front door that faces the side or rear yard are as follows:
1. The topography of the lot is such that pedestrian access is safer or more convenient from the side or rear yard;
6The house will be set back at least twice the minimum front yard setback;
The entrance is oriented to take advantage of a site condition such as a significant view; or
4. The entry feature is integral to a unique architectural design.
W:\Applications-Handouts, Land Use\CURRENT LAND USE APPLICATIONS\Special Permission Director -March 2016.docx
November 15, 2016
Mr. Max Baker, Planner
CITY OF TUKWILA
6300 Southcenter Blvd, Suite 100
Tukwila, WA 98188
RE: Special Permission Single Family Standards
Address 11111 50th Ave South
Dear Mr. Baker,
Per our conversation of today, we are requesting a change in the design
standards (TMC 18.50.050) as was presented to us on your list of items to
address regarding the requested building permit submitted to the City.
We are requesting that the front door face west as has been submitted per our
plans and not rotate to face the "street" S 111th per item #2 of your corrections
letter.
There are a variety of reasons for our request. S 111th Street is not a street but
an access road and will always remain as such due to the area and lack of sewer
to the area. Our layout is a prevailing lot pattern to how all the other houses in
the immediate area are oriented. Also, access to the lot is from 49th Ave South
and this is the only real access to the property. We are also trying to take
advantage of the view which is spectacular. Leaving the house orientation as
requested meets all minimum lot and setback requirements.
A completed application for this including the fee has been included with this
package. Also included are photos of the property to substantiate our request.
We hope you agree.
Thank yo o your considerations.
, and for Kam Singh
LOT COVERA (STRUCTURES
14,040 sr. TOTAL LOT AREA
2,4967 SF.
%
1,365 SF.
9.12 %
PROPOSED BUILDING
COVERED
PROPOSED DRIVEUJAY
4WALKWAY
3,861 SF. TOTAL IMPERVIOUS
2-1.5 % COVERED
245
250
m
14,040 S.F. LOT X 10% 1
OF APPROVED DURABLE UUNIF 1''1 DI
SURFACE ALLOWED. TREND
DEC 02 2(1 6C2.4
amity of Tukwila
LEGAL. DESCRIFTIORUBLIC Works
BEST'S REPLAT OF BLOCKS 11, 12, 131
14 4 15 POTTERY WORKS ADDIT E 25
HALF OF LOT 1 AND E HALF OF N
HALF OF LOT 2 BLK 12
PLat_ B:lock.. -.12_
Plat Lot: 1 4 2
SITE FLAN
SCALE: 11=20'-0"
BUILDING 1-1EIGI—IT PEA
POINT A:
POINT B:
POINT C:
POINT D:
2 55.5'
255.6'
255.8'
255.6'
A + +C + = 1,022.5 /4 =
IVKWI
016
CENTER
255.62'
AVERAGE BUILDING ELEVATION
UORRECTION
± T IR #
NALttaE'
PER4ION
PIR FI
RUCTION
NCE
SILT
FENCE
STOC ILE
EXISTING
COTTONWOOD
TREE TO aE
REMOVED
25' VEG.
FLOW PATH
B.s.B.L.
_ SS-1d.54'42 "W
(2) 2'x2'x20' DISP. TRENCH
w/25' VEG. FLOW
SITE PLAN bur Vx% V
S 111th ST
20'-0' as
COV'D DECK
BELOW
BUILDING_
OWNER INFORMATION:
KAM SINGH
FIRE -HYDRANT
APPROX. 119' NE
OF PROPERTY
Ov'D
ATIO
J
4
9
SERVICE,
OLYPIPE
SITE ADDRESS:
1 1 1 1 1 50Th AVE 5
TUKWILA, WA 981 78
PARCEL # 078000-0070
J
w
0
a
z�
1
w0_
DRAWN BY: 15
DATE ISSUED:
09-2G I E
PAGE:
IO'I
(,00.1
1 & Lilcf_tA) A- do 1,4
A-i
PSC
/ 1/ As pcioigo
et
City of Tukwila
Community Development &
Neighborhoods Committee
O Kate Kruller, Chair
o Kathy Hougardy
O Zak Idan
AGENDA
TUESDAY, APRIL 10, 2018 — 5:30 PM
HAZELNUT CONFERENCE Room
(At east entrance of City Hall)
Distribution:
K. Kruller
K. Hougardy
Z. Idan
V. Seal
D. Robertson
Mayor Ekberg
D. Cline
C. O'Flaherty
L. Humphrey
Item
Recommended Action
Page
1. PRESENTATION(S)
2. BUSINESS AGENDA
a. An update on the Ryan Hill neighborhood study.
a. Discussion only.
Pg.1
Moira Bradshaw, Senior Planner
b. A resolution increasing the Change Fund level for
b. Forward to 4/16 Consent
Pg.63
Foster Golf Course.
Agenda.
Robert Eaton, Parks & Recreation Manager
c. A grant agreement with the King Conservation District
c. Forward to 4/:L6 Consent
Pg.67
for Green Tukwila.
Agenda.
Robert Eaton, Parks & Recreation Manager
d. A grant agreement with the National Recreation and
d. Forward to 4/16 Consent
Pg.89
Park Association for the 10-Minute Walk.
Agenda.
Rick Still, Parks & Recreation Director
3. ANNOUNCEMENTS
4. MISCELLANEOUS
Next Scheduled Meeting: Tuesday, Apnl24, 2018
SThe City of Tukwila strives to accommodate individuals with disabilities.
Please contact the City Clerk's Office at 206-433-1800(TukwilaCityClerk0TukwilaWA.gov) for assistance.
To:
From:
City of Tukwila
Allan Ekberg, Mayor
INFORMATIONAL MEMORANDUM
Community Development and Neighborhoods C mmittee
Jack Pace, Director, Community Development •
Jay Wittwer, Chief, Fire Gr
By: Moira Bradshaw, Senior Planner
Copy: Mayor Ekberg
Date: April 3, 2018
Subject: Ryan Hill Neighborhood Study
ISSUE
Ryan Hill Neighborhood Update
BACKGROUND
A Comprehensive Plan/Zoning amendment request to change 15 acres in the neighborhood
from Low Density Residential to High Density Residential was received for 2017. Staff
recommended deferring consideration on that request until a study of the needs and future of
the whole neighborhood could be performed. The concern was that this one request could
trigger additional changes without a clear plan in place for the neighborhood.
The City hired a consultant to help prepare a neighborhood -wide study and a public involvement
process. A web page was created and a public open house was held in November 2017. An on-
line and paper survey for property owners and residents was used to gather input. Alternative
draft land use scenarios were prepared to generate discussion and opinion about the area's
future.
DISCUSSION
The property owners/residents (50:50 own and live or own and don't live; 50% have been
owners for 20 years or more followed by 25% of 5-9 years) liked the attention; they feel a certain
amount of neglect by the City although the emergency services have always been good.
Responses about quality of life are split between very good and fair. The neighborhood, which is
divided north to south by the Seattle City Light 200-foot-wide right of way, thinks differently
about the future. The north half of the neighborhood is slightly more interested in change while
the southern half prefers the neighborhood as is. The neighborhood is most in favor of sewer
improvements and would potentially be willing to consider self -assessment to fund them. There
are also some concerns about the safety of some intersections and the lack of sidewalks.
Two items are currently listed in the City's Capital Facilities Plan for the neighborhood — a
neighborhood park ($3 million) and a sewer system ($1.9 million) both of which are unfunded
and beyond the current 6-year CIP
Seattle Fire Station 33 is less than half as far as Tukwila Station 53 from the neighborhood
boundary. Negotiation have been underway to create mutual aid agreements with the City of
Seattle, which would in particular benefit this neighborhood.
Good operating practice is to have a looped water system, which does not exist in this
neighborhood. The addition to the Capital Facilities Plan of a metered intertie with the City of
Seattle Water system will be discussed with the Public Works Department.
1
INFORMATIONAL MEMO
Page 2
FINANCIAL IMPACT
The cost estimates in the study assume development driven infrastructure improvements.
SUMMARY
Community Input
The study revealed a number of things that were unknown. The residents and property owners
have differing opinions about the future of the neighborhood depending on where they live or
own property. Higher density is more desirable to property owners north of the Seattle City Light
right of way than south of the right of way.
Likely Development Scenarios
Except for the 15 acre Raisbeck property located along the west side of the neighborhood and
bordering MLKJR Way S., future development is likely to be small scale (short plats) and
incremental. Development of less than 4 lots does not require frontal improvements nor would
the through connection be financially feasible for most short plat developers. In addition, the City
is unable to require developers fix current deficiencies.
Transportation network
Enhancing and improving the circulation system is feasible from an engineering standpoint but
not likely from a financial standpoint. The 1,200-foot-long dead end (twice the length of the
City's maximum standard) can be eliminated by connecting between the 109th/48th and
110th/49th Avenue S intersections. The cost of mitigating environmentally sensitive area impacts
will be as expensive as the cost of the public and private infrastructure improvements because
mitigation will likely be off -site.
Boundary issues
The irregular City limit boundary, which has existed for dose to 30 years, will continue to cause
additional coordination for private individuals and the Cities of Seattle and Tukwila. The existing
boundary leaves the west half of the 51 Avenue S. as part of unincorporated King County and
the east half of the right of way in the City of Seattle and three private parcels are in Seattle and
Tukwila.
Based upon the study, the following administrative actions will be implemented.
o Coordination between Community Development and Public Works on the Study findings y
relative to infrastructure.
o Continue support for negotiations with area fire and emergency service providers for
automatic aid; especially with the City of Seattle.
o Continue processing the comp plan zoning/amendment requests.
RECOMMENDATION
Information only.
ATTACHMENT
Ryan Hill Neighborhood Study
2
City of Tukwila
Ry Hill Neighborhood Study
1
4 •
." •
4 •-
- ,• '
t - • . •
"x$
F-. --- • 5F.$, • it'••- •
t •.
•
' Tide
-. • a
• ;" ••
Surveying
Erineering
Planning
r
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF CONTENTS iii
INTRODUCTION 1
Background 1
Study Objectives 1
How Will the Study be Used? 2
Contents 2
NEIGHBORHOOD INPUT 3
EXISTING CONDITIONS 5
Existing Land Use 6
Critical Areas 8
Transportation 10
Utilities 12
DEVELOPMENT SCENARIOS 15
Overview 15
Assumptions 15
Baseline / No Change Scenario 16
Scenario One 18
Scenario Two 20
Scenario Three 22
Land Use Types 24
Scenario Comparison 25
CONCLUSIONS 26
Overview 26
Opportunities for Change 26
Medium Residential Zone 28
APPENDIX A: COST ESTIMATES 29
APPENDIX B: NEIGHBORHOOD SURVEY RESULTS 38
5
BOEING
S BANGOR ST
MTH ST
Neighborhood Map
Ryan Hill Study Area
Tukwila City Limits
Parcel Boundary
Utility
Right -of -Way
0 400 800 1,600
Feet
INTRODUCTION
Background
The Ryan Hill neighborhood is located on the northeastern edge of the City of Tukwila.
It is bordered by Interstate 5 on the west and by the City of Seattle on the north and
east. The Ryan Hill neighborhood was annexed into the City of Tukwila in 1989 as part
of the Fire District #1 annexation. Over the past 30 years, there have been small
additions to the neighborhood but, as a whole, the neighborhood has remained
relatively unchanged.
The neighborhood is located on the eastern wall of the Duwamish River basin and
contains extensive sensitive features such as wetlands, streams, and slopes. The
neighborhood also has limited sewer, water, and transportation infrastructure and is
dissected by a 200-foot wide Seattle Power & Light utility easement. The
neighborhood's existing character is predominantly single-family residential, with
residents describing portions of the neighborhood as a rural oasis within the greater
urban area.
Development interest within the Ryan Hill neighborhood has gradually been increasing.
The renewed interest in development has created the need for a comprehensive look at
what, if any, land use changes should be made and what types of infrastructure
improvements would be required to support potential redevelopment. The intentions of
this study are to ensure that any development decisions work collectively to achieve
neighborhood -driven goals and to ensure that development -driven infrastructure
improvements, such as sewer, water, and roadways, are coordinated and maximized.
Study Objectives
Change is inevitable and, with our roaring regional economy, is happening very quickly.
We may not be able to stop change, but we can certainly coordinate how and to what
extent it happens. There are many areas of the Ryan Hill neighborhood that will likely
remain the same, but there may be opportunities where development could support
neighborhood goals. The primary objective of this study is to engage the neighborhood
in an effort to determine what, if any, land use changes should be made and the types
of water, sewer, roadway, and public facility improvements that would be required to
support such changes, should they occur. This study is a proactive approach to
understanding the realities of the area and the desires of its property owners and
residents.
RYAN HILL NEIGHBORHOOD STUDY
Tukwila Comprehensive Plan
Neighborhood Goals:
• Land use patterns that
encourage a strong sense of
community
• Physical features that
preserve and strengthen
neighborhood character and
enhance neighborhood
quality
• Enhancement and
revitalization that
encourages long-term
residency and environmental
sustainability
• High quality pedestrian
character with a variety of
housing options for residents
in all stages of life
• Supportive neighborhood
commercial areas and
protections from noise
impacts
Goals from Element 7, Residential
Neighborhoods, in the City of
Tukwila Comprehensive Plan
1
9
How Will the Study be Used?
The Ryan Hill Neighborhood study provides information that can be used to assist with the coordination of development -
driven infrastructure improvements should any land use changes and development or redevelopment within the
neighborhood take place. To that end, this study is different than a traditional neighborhood study that would typically
examine design -related issues and would determine goals and objectives to guide future development and redevelopment.
This study was commissioned to determine what, if any, land use changes could be made based upon input from residents
and property owners and how infrastructure could be coordinated to ensure maximum benefit.
While this study assesses new land use scenarios, it should also be noted that the purpose of this study is not to implicitly
make any changes to the neighborhood — it is a "what if" assessment that analyzes existing conditions and constraints to
develop scenarios that can be used during discussions regarding the neighborhood's future. Making minimal or no change
to the neighborhood is reflected in the Baseline Scenario and is one of the future scenarios considered.
This study can be used by city staff and leaders as a basis for decision -making regarding land use changes, capital facility
planning, and quality of life enhancements. It is not, however, a stand-alone planning document intended to guide all
decisions related to the future of the neighborhood but should be supplementary to those discussions.
Contents
The Ryan Hill Neighborhood Study has been divided into five sections that include:
Neighborhood Input — A neighborhood input meeting and neighborhood survey were used to engage residents and
property owners on what the future of the neighborhood should be. The general themes from the neighborhood meeting
and survey are outlined in this section.
Existing Conditions — This is the baseline analysis that assessed many of the physical, environmental, and infrastructure
limitations to future development within the neighborhood. Maps and background information that served as the basis for
scenario development is located within this section.
Development Scenarios — This section outlines the various scenarios developed including opportunities, input received,
challenges, and planning -level cost estimates for infrastructure improvements.
Cost Estimate Matrix — This section provides a summary of the scenarios and an overview of the cost estimate breakdown
for each.
Conclusions — A summary of the opportunities and challenges for the neighborhood, property owners, and the City.
id
RYAN HILL NEIGHBORHOOD STUDY
NEIGHBORHOOD INPUT
On November 15, 2017, a neighborhood input meeting for the
Ryan Hill Neighborhood Study was held at the Tukwila Community
Center from 5 to 7 pm. Approximately 30 individuals attended
the meeting where input on the future of the neighborhood was
solicited. In addition to numerous existing conditions maps, three
future scenario maps, along with a summary on each, were
provided for input.
Overall themes from the neighborhood input meeting are
summarized on the following page, but generally the key
takeaways from the meeting include the following:
• The rural atmosphere is an asset that many want to
preserve and protect
• Many residents & property owners wanted to see
neighborhood change and new development
• Many residents also expressed a desire to preserve and
keep the neighborhood the same
• Generally, attendees from the northern half of the
neighborhood, near Ryan Hill Way, were more likely to
support some degree of change where residents in the
middle and southern portions of the neighborhood were
more likely to support keeping the neighborhood the
same, with a few exceptions
• New sewer infrastructure is needed
• New parks and recreation space is needed
• Improved bicycle and pedestrian facilities are needed
Major Change Scenario
"No Change" Scenario
VI Ryan Hill Neighborhood Study: Baseline Scenario
As part of neighborhood engagement, a mailer with a link to a survey was sent out to neighborhood residents and property
owners. Additionally, a project webpagel was developed to host the survey and provide updates on the project's progress.
Survey results depicted an even split in the neighborhood between those wanting to keep the neighborhood the same and
those wanting some degree of change. The following are some of the most notable responses to the survey:
• 50% of respondents lived in Ryan Hill and 50% of respondents owned property but did not live in Ryan Hill.
• 75% of respondents indicated that they intended to keep living or owning property in Ryan Hill.
• 43% of respondents want the neighborhood to remain the same, 14% would support minor changes, and 43%
supported neighborhood -wide changes.
• Generally speaking, respondents supported new single-family housing, were evenly divided on new townhomes,
and were apprehensive to multifamily.
• For those on septic, 57% indicated they were interested in connecting to public sewer, 29% indicated they were
not interested in connecting, and 14% indicated they might be interested in connecting to public sewer.
1 Project Website: http://www.tukwilawa.gov/departments/community-development/community-planning/rvan-hill-
neighborhood-study/.
RYAN HILL NEIGHBORHOOD STUDY
3
11
What the Neighborhood Said...
Ryan Hill's Assets
o Close to everything yet far enough away to be peaceful
o Wooded, nice neighbors, proximity to transit and airport
o Close proximity to the City
o Convenient access to Interstate 5, Interstate 405, and Highway 167
Opportunities
o More Retail
o Preserving the neighborhood as it exists today
o Safe bicycle & pedestrian access, especially to light rail and transit
o More parks & greenspace
o Sewer improvements & enhancements
o More development, new neighbors, and activity
Challenges
o Maintaining the neighborhood's character and feel
o Keeping areas of the neighborhood the same / no change
o Impacts of additional traffic should growth occur
rl
EXISTING CONDITIONS
Existing conditions within the Ryan Hill neighborhood are diverse.
They range from traditional single-family neighborhoods served by
public sewer to areas that remain largely untouched with large parcels
and homes served by private septic systems. One multifamily senior
living facility is located on 51' Avenue 5. and a few retail/service uses
are located on 51st Avenue S. at 107th Street. No significant public
facilities are present within the neighborhood and no public parks
currently exist; however, the City has identified a future park as part of
its Parks, Recreation, and Open Space Plan.
Most homes in the neighborhood were constructed prior to 1970,
with a few infill homes constructed over the past 20 years. Recently, a
new townhome development was completed on 515t Avenue S.
directly adjacent to the senior living facility. The new townhome
development represents the growing pressures for change.
The following section outlines in greater detail the existing conditions
that were evaluated as part of the neighborhood analysis, including
the existing land use framework, critical areas, transportation
network, and public utilities. The existing conditions analysis serves as
a baseline from which planning -level decisions can be made and is a
critical step in creating a framework for decision -making by neighbors
and City leaders.
RYAN HILL NEIGHBORHOOD STUDY
Townhome Development Along 51' Avenue S.
5. Ryan Hill Way at Beacon Avenue S.
Rural Characteristics along S. 109th Street
5
13
Existing Land Use
The Existing Land Use Map on the adjacent page provides a visual on how land use within the neighborhood is currently
being used. Land use is guided by the City's zoning ordinance and the current land use pattern generally coincides with
existing zoning. The most predominant land use in Ryan Hill is single-family residential, shown in yellow, which represents
traditional single-family detached homes. The area of high density residential along 51st Avenue S. represents the senior
housing facility. The medium density residential in orange represents new townhomes recently constructed along 51st
Avenue S. The largest commercial area in the neighborhood is the southeast corner of MLK R. Way S. at S. Ryan Way
where Raisbeck Engineering is currently located, with other small service establishments located along 51' Avenue S.
The figure below shows the existing land use breakdown for the neighborhood based on the Existing Land Use Map. Almost
half of neighborhood parcels are currently vacant, largely coinciding with areas where steep slopes, critical areas, and
limited infrastructure have hindered development potential. A total of 42 percent of the neighborhood land area contains
detached single-family homes. The 200-foot wide Seattle City Light easement that runs east -to -west through the
neighborhood accounts for approximately 7 percent of the total land area. High and medium density residential uses along
with commercial and public/semi-public uses account for the remaining 6 percent of the existing land use breakdown.
Ryan Hill Neighborhood Existing Land Use Breakdown
Commercial Public/Semi-Public
2% \ 1%
High Density
2%
Medium Density
1%
Low Density
42%
Vacant
45%
1L
RYAN HILL NEIGHBORHOOD STUDY
Existing Land Use
Ryan Hill Study Area
Tukwila City Limits
Low Density
Medium Density
High Density
Commercial
Public/Semi-Public
Vacant
Open Space
Utility
Right -of -Way
400 800
RYAN HILL NEIGHBORHOOD STUDY
15
Critical Areas
The Ryan Hill neighborhood is located on the eastern wall of the Duwamish River basin, which creates many limitations and
challenges for future development. There is a 300-foot elevation change between the western and eastern portions of the
study area as the terrain rapidly rises eastward from the Duwarnish River. While there are many mitigation efforts that can
be taken to facilitate development, should that be desired, encumbrances by streams, wetlands, and slopes will make any
future development difficult across most of the neighborhood area — many vacant parcels depicted on the previous page
directly coincide with areas where slopes, streams, or wetlands are present. Any future land use changes should seek to
balance growth with the preservation of sensitive areas per City goals and policies.
Wetlands
There are several wetland areas within the study area, the largest of which is located across the west central portions of the
neighborhood, near the southern end of 47th Avenue S. There are three additional wetland areas identified on iMAP, the
City's GIS data and mapping system, and would require additional reconnaissance should a property owner seek to develop
their property.
Streams
There are several identified streams located across the western half of the study area. These streams, and their buffers,
also present challenges and limitations for future development. Based on available data, it does not appear that the
identified streams within the Ryan Hill neighborhood are fish -bearing streams. Similar to wetlands, any development would
require additional analysis to verify type and exact location. Development near or within streams and buffers would be
required to mitigate development impacts in accordance with Washington State Department: of Ecology and City of Tukwila
standards. In many cases, these encumbrances limit future development.
Slopes
Steep slopes are the greatest development -related issue impacting the Ryan Hill neighborhood. The steep slopes present
attractive views, including views of downtown Seattle from portions of the study area — they also create barriers and
limitations. The Critical Areas Map on the adjacent page depicts pink and red areas where slopes over 15% are present.
Steep slopes identified in red are those with impermeable soils likely composed of Vashon Till or other hard soils. While the
impermeable surfaces would potentially be more conducive for structural development since the solid foundation reduces
the landslide hazard risk, impermeable soils do not allow infiltration meaning that sites on impermeable soils would likely
need to include detention facilities, an expensive addition.
Steep slopes depicted in pink are those with permeable soils where stormwater infiltration is more likely. Typically, flat,
permeable soils are the most attractive for development since they can infiltrate stormwater runoff. Infiltration is a cost
advantage because some of the rainwater is able to be immediately infiltrated into the soils and that infiltration ability
reduces the sizing of infiltration vaults which can preserve more buildable area. When infiltration is not feasible, all
stormwater must be detained on site and released at a pre -development rate. The detention vaults are often significantly
larger than infiltration vaults and the detention vaults can sometimes reduce the developable area of a site and are, at a
minimum, costly to build. As mentioned above, impermeable soils generally indicate a solid foundation which is good for a
structure but bad for infiltration. Permeable soils on slopes often lack this solid foundation and are therefore more prone
to landslides. When there is any landslide risk, infiltration is not feasible because infiltration can further saturate and
destabilize slopes that are already at risk. There is an interesting dichotomy between permeable soils on slopes being
better for infiltration but less conducive for development and impermeable soils generally being better for structures but
less conducive for infiltration. Different approaches to development would be required based upon the underlying soils of
a site.
16
RYAN HILL NEIGHBORHOOD STUDY
m
m
i�C)`' ire
�'
• :S V1CT < R4ST "s.a Z- d�
70
.ia! fr;
•
s
▪ I 'f, • s� L�PrC1
S 107T
Critical Areas
Tukwila City Limits
>15% Slope - Permeable
>15% Slope - Impermeable
Park
Stream '
Stream Buffer
Wetland I
Wetland Buffer
Right -of -Way
5 ft Contours
10 ft Contours
400 800
RYAN HILL NEIGHBORHOOD STUDY
Figure 2
CRESTON
BANGOR ST
9
17
Transportation
Existing Network
S. Ryan Way is the primary east/west arterial through the neighborhood and provides access to Interstate 5. 515t Avenue S.
is the primary north/south arterial through the neighborhood and also serves as the border between the City of Tukwila
and the City of Seattle. While the roadway serves as the City limit boundary between the two cities, the roadway from the
centerline eastward is within the City of Seattle's jurisdiction and the area from the centerline to the west property line is
under King County's jurisdiction leaving no portion of the 51st Avenue S. ROW within the City of Tukwila's control. This has
complicated efforts to make improvements to 51st Avenue S. 49th Avenue S. also provides an additional north/south
connection and was recently resurfaced. With the exception of S. Ryan Way and 515t Avenue S., most of the existing
roadways do not meet current City standards. They generally lack sufficient pavement widths, storm drainage
infrastructure, and have little to no pedestrian or bicycle infrastructure.
Gnps
The Transportation Network Map, Figure 3, contains numerous connectivity gaps. As platting occurred in the past, right-of-
way was provided, but much of the existing right-of-way set aside for future roadways has not been improved. The
Transportation Network map on the adjacent page shows this connectivity gap well. Grey areas depict where current right-
of-way exists. The grey areas form a great roadway grid, but steep slopes and critical areas significantly limit the ability for
this roadway network to be achieved. Yellow areas highlight existing roadway pavement and the limited connectivity that
has actually been realized. One outcome for scenario development is reviewing the existing roadway network and
determining where additional connectivity can be achieved.
In addition to roadways, connectivity and transportation also involves pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure. With the
exception of 515t Avenue S. and S. Ryan Way, no significant pedestrian or bicycle infrastructure exists. Neighborhood input
identified these improvements as needed, particularly if any additional development occurs.
Figure 3
S.CRESTON S+T
5�115TH. S.T
Transportation Network
Ryan Hill Study Area
Tukwila City Limits
Parcel Boundary
yffir• Link Light Rail
Ryan Hill Roads
Bus Stop
Utility
Right -of -Way
0 400 800 1.600
RYAN HILL NEIGHBORHOOD STUDY
11
19
Utilities
Sewer
Existing sewer service within the neighborhood is limited, as depicted on the Utility Map, Figure 4 on the adjacent page.
Public sewer is primarily confined to MLK JR. Boulevard, S. Ryan Way (west of 47th Avenue S.), 47th Ave 5. (north of 5. Ryan
Way), S. 114th Street, and along 51' Avenue S. Topography across the neighborhood has played a large part in limiting
public sewer extensions. Elevations decreases rapidly west of 51st Avenue S. which limits the service potential from the
existing sewer main at that location. All future sewer service will require additional sewer main extensions from mains
located on MLK Jr. Way S., S. 114' Street, and S. Ryan Way. The condition of existing sewer mains within the neighborhood
is unknown, but no capacity issues have been identified.
Water
The neighborhood water system is primarily served by the City of Seattle water main located along Beacon Avenue S. and a
12-inch City of Tukwila water main along portions of S. Ryan Way. Public water mains within the interior of the
neighborhood is extremely limited with several dead-end water mains (mains where no looping is available). The interior
network of 8-inch water mains serves several hydrants, primarily along 47th Avenue S., 48th Avenue S., and S. 107th Street.
Should any future development occur, a key infrastructure objective would be the looping of the 8-inch water main to
support water quality and increase fire flow capacities. Additionally, many homes in the neighborhood are served by
"spaghetti lines" which are private, two-inch service lines that extend from a water meter box placed off a public water
main to the individual home. Spaghetti lines are private service lines owned and maintained by the individual property
owner. As water mains are expanded and looped, many of the long private service lines will likely be reduced. Discussions
with City Staff indicate that future capacity is needed and could be accomplished through construction of a costly reservoir,
or through an agreement with the City of Seattle, in cooperation with the Cascade Water Alliance (Tukwila's water
provider) for an intertie and Master Meter, ideally at the northern border with the City of Seattle at MLK Jr. Way S.
Septic
Due to the limited sewer infrastructure, a large number of neighborhood residents are currently on private septic systems.
In most cases, septic systems can be designed and utilized without a significant impact to public health given percolating
soils and sufficient room to infiltrate within designated septic drainfields. The Septic/Sewer Map, Figure 5, provides an
overview of parcels that are either connected to sewer or are utilizing private septic systems. The map breaks down septic
systems into two categories — functional septic systems and problematic septic systems.
The Seattle/King County Department of Health data was analyzed to provide a high-level assessment of the current status
of existing septic systems. Those identified as functional septic systems in yellow are currently shown as being in good
condition by the Department of Health. The data indicates that an inspection has occurred and no issues were detected, or
could mean that the septic system obtained required permits from the Department of Health and no issues have since been
reported. Problematic septic systems in red are those where either no permit data for the system exists, potentially
because the system was installed prior to 1970, or where issues have been reported. It's important to note that properties
identified as problematic septic systems do not necessarily have failing septic systems.
Input received through the neighborhood meeting and the neighborhood survey indicates that the sewer/septic situation in
Ryan Hill is one of the most pressing needs. Many with septic systems expressed a desire to voluntarily connect to public
sewer in the future.
2d2
RYAN HILL NEIGHBORHOOD STUDY
10 TH
Nt1f .w
Utility Map
Ryan Hill Study Area
Tukwila City Limits
Sewer Main
Sewer Manhole
18" Water Main
12" Water Main
8" Water Main
6" Water Main
4" Water Main
Seattle Water Main
PRV
Hydrant
Valve
Parcel Boundary
Utility
Right -of -Way
400 800
RYAN HILL NEIGHBORHOOD STUDY
Figure 4
RUGGLIES
ORES ON
AN ORSI
•
HAZEL
S AVON
'A. r
21
- •
**.
.5113TH ST
Sr1:14TH S,T
S 115TH Sr .,. , ' ,,,,w I/ :
•
... . .,.. i ' " ,....f 44 , 1
s igi 61.
•
irdEING
ta'
v4aet.-
-
—• - •
"r:0'
4.1.11," •b•
e t
•,•
WO OR
,
T.
•
0001044 4
dram
Septic/Sewer Map
2t
01111
Ryan Hill Study Area
Tukwila City Limits
Sewer Connection
Functional Septic
umQuestionable Septic
Parcel Boundary
Right -of -Way
0 400 800
Feet
Pic
1,600
•
/A \
•
4
i,
a -
• ,
,, ANT' ql;"•12
; ' .., • ......
,a..
- 4 -
"4.
•
Figure 5
*AV;
- •j.
2‘1-:
r' 411rt
' r-• z .
gi7E14/S'T
77.
• t
41.0
• 411• 0
•
S •RESTON
BANGOR
. A
• ' • . • -
r •
FOUNTAIINST
i a — . . 1 • .. At. f ky ,Iyi S. # p ....,
;i1;' .4;0,
b, ,.44,,.....„,...0,-t........,
......, ▪ •-, ki ,1 , '.1214, , ri 0 e .., r:
.,•,.•,. 10, I
" - ' ' '''",,.,. . . 121 ,1 _
•
t6t, ',
''," t,..,.
-..6 • IZ
- 2 s.
- ';7•."70), -
• .•
0
it* &
- • - -
41r
HAZEL
VON S
•,,C157'
7 k
ep#11
414:111
p.
• ,.1a.;•e•-‘10c•
• a.: S7:
1
RYAN HILL NEIGHBORHOOD STUDY
DEVELOPMENT SCENARIOS
Overview
As part of the analysis, a total of four land use scenarios were developed. At the onset of the project, a baseline scenario
and two land use scenarios were developed to promote neighborhood input on the possible future scenarios for their
neighborhood. These initial scenarios were presented at the November 15' neighborhood input meeting and feedback on
the options was solicited. The three scenarios included:
• Baseline/No Change Scenario — Assumed no changes to the neighborhood's land use pattern and no significant
infrastructure improvements. Certain infill development would occur, but the neighborhood would likely remain
relatively unchanged.
• Minor Change Scenario — Assumed new medium density residential near Ryan Hill Way where existing access and
minor infrastructure improvements could support change, if desired. An expanded retail node was also shown
along 51st Avenue 5. at 107th Street.
• Major Change Scenario — Depicted pockets of medium density residential, an area of high density residential along
MLK Jr. Way S., and an area of new medium density residential along 49th Avenue S. served by a new roadway that
connects 47th Avenue S. to 49th Avenue S within the city's existing roadway design standards.
Neighborhood input on these three scenarios was received and was combined into the creation of a new scenario that
attempted to blend neighborhood input into a consolidated approach. This final scenario adjusted new medium density
residential to only be located north of the Seattle City Light utility easement, where residents were generally supportive of
change, and kept all land use to the south of the utility easement the same in response to feedback from residents
regarding the protection of the rural character in that portion of the neighborhood. A high -density area was depicted along
MLK Jr. Way 5. to facilitate the roadway connection between 47th Avenue S. and 49th Avenue S.
This section outlines in greater detail the specifics related to each of these development options.
Assumptions
At the onset of the process, meetings were conducted with various City of Tukwila departments to determine whether
infrastructure, planning, parks, police, and fire issues exist and what, if any, improvements are planned. Based upon those
discussions, the following assumptions were used during the drafting of land use scenarios:
• All water and sewer infrastructure improvements within the neighborhood would need to be development -driven.
• There is only one source of water through the City of Seattle intertie and the lack of water main looping is a
concern. Additional water storage/capacity would likely be needed with new development and this could be
achieved with an additional intertie and master meter with the City of Seattle.
• While right-of-way for future roadways exists, there is currently an overall lack of connectivity and nonmotorized
facilities such as sidewalks. Improved connectivity is desired and should be examined.
• There were no identified deficiencies or needs with police coverage, other than minor issues occasionally reported.
• Concerns have been expressed by the Tukwila Fire Chief about being able to provide adequate emergency medical
service for any increase in demand. Response times could be improved through a mutual aid agreement, which is
currently being negotiated with the City of Seattle. The primary challenge for fire relates to fire flow for fighting
fires and for sprinkler systems, upgrading hydrants as development occurs, and difficult access for fire trucks due
to the lack of street connectivity.
• The Parks, Open Space, and Recreation Plan identifies a future park for this neighborhood, but is not currently
budgeted.
RYAN HILL NEIGHBORHOOD STUDY
15
23
Baseline / No Change Scenario
Overview
The first scenario assessed outcomes should no land use change or infrastructure improvements take place. The No
Change/Baseline, Figure 6, on the adjacent page maintains the existing Future Land Use and Zoning designations and
proposes no changes to land use. Additionally, the scenario depicts existing water and sewer infrastructure and also
assumes no major changes or upgrades of public infrastructure. Given these assumptions, a parcel -by -parcel analysis was
conducted to determine whether infill development on vacant parcels could occur. This review did not account for
redevelopment on sites where existing homes are located — it only assessed vacant parcels for infill potential.
On the No Change/Baseline Map, parcels with blue dashed lines are those where infill development could potentially occur.
These are sites that have access to public sewer or are large enough to potentially support a private septic system and
drainfield. Additionally, these sites could support a new single-family home and are located in areas where driveway access
could reasonably be provided. All potential infill is assumed to be the type of development currently permitted by existing
zoning.
Parcels in the No change/Baseline Map with red dashed lines are those where infill development would be more
challenging and Tess likely to occur. These are sites that are encumbered by critical areas, located on steep slopes, and are
sites where new private septic systems would be challenging. It's important to note that a parcel identified as unlikely to
receive infill development does not necessarily mean that infill development is impossible — these are sites where infill
development would be considerably more challenging due to physical constraints and infrastructure limitations.
Analysis
Many residents have expressed a strong desire for the neighborhood to remain the same. The neighborhood is a rural oasis
within the surrounding urban environment and contains many sensitive environmental areas, scenic views, and rural
tranquility. Should no land use changes or infrastructure improvements be made, only limited development and
redevelopment would likely occur and the neighborhood's existing characteristics would likely be preserved during this
development cycle.
Facility Improvement Costs
This scenario assumes no major public facility improvements; therefore, no infrastructure improvements are depicted.
246
RYAN HILL NEIGHBORHOOD STUDY
Figure 6
RUGGL4ES
pf" _ r - S,CRESTON•ST:
S BANGDR'ST';
No Change/Baseline
2. r • Ryan Hill Study Area
r •
Tukwila City Limits
Low Density
High Density
Commercial
Office
Industrial
Infill Possible
Infill Unlikely
Existing Sewer Main
Sewer Manhole
Tukwila Water Main
Seattle Water Main
PRV
Hydrant
Pressure Valve
Parcel Boundary
Utility
Right -of -Way
400 800
RYAN HILL NEIGHBORHOOD STUDY
25
Scenario One
Overview
Scenario One, Figure 7, was presented at the Neighborhood Input Meeting as the "Minor Change Scenario." Scenario One
proposed land use changes between S. Ryan Way and the Seattle City Light utility easement. While improvements would
be needed, this portion of the neighborhood is generally more conducive for development and could be more directly
served by S. Ryan Way reducing traffic impacts to areas of the neighborhood where the lack of roadway infrastructure
would present traffic and cost challenges. An expanded area of commercial/retail was depicted along 51st Avenue S. at
107th Street where a node of neighborhood service retail could be situated to serve existing and future residents.
Given the location of the land use changes, infrastructure improvements would be relatively minimal. Extension of public
sewer eastward along S. Ryan Way and S. 107th Street would serve their respective surrounding areas. The most critical
infrastructure piece in this scenario would be the extension of sewer main from MLK Jr. Way S eastward to 47th Avenue S. A
ridge located to the south of S. Ryan Way limits the ability for areas along 47th Avenue S. to be served from S. Ryan Way
which makes a public extension to 47th Avenue S. from MLK Jr. Way south a critical element for future sewer service to the
entire center of the neighborhood. Without this extension in some capacity, the expansion of additional sewer service to
the central portions of the neighborhood will remain unlikely.
Many of the areas where medium density residential is shown are currently supported by existing water infrastructure.
Water main looping within the interior areas of the neighborhood would occur in conjunction with any new development,
particularly when internal looping might be required to obtain minimum fire flow requirements set by the fire marshal.
Finally, the additional storage/capacity intertie with the City of Seattle would likely be necessary to support the full
realization of this scenario.
Analysis
Scenario One proposes land use changes over approximately one third of the neighborhood area. Given the critical areas
and slopes, a land use change to medium density residential would provide an incentive for redevelopment to occur and
would help to drive the provision of infrastructure improvements. Input received on this scenario at the neighborhood
input meeting was generally positive, with a lot of positive feedback on an expanded commercial/retail node. As with other
scenarios, many also expressed a strong desire to keep the neighborhood the same. Neighborhood feedback on this
scenario also referenced the need for bicycle and pedestrian improvements, especially across the Boeing Access Road. The
majority of the neighborhood would remain unchanged in this scenario, but additional traffic would be generated.
Facility Improvement Costs
Due to most of the proposed improvements occurring near S. Ryan Way, facility improvement costs are limited. This cost
estimate only includes anticipated public extensions, which in this scenario are confined to sewer extensions, including the
wetland mitigation required with the proposed sewer extension. The details for cost estimates are included within
Appendix A.
Scenario One Cost Estimate
Sanitary Sewer Segment
MLK to 47th Ave. S.
S. Ryan Way & S. 107th Street Extension
Cost
$632,250
$593,500
Scenario One Total
$1,225,750
248
RYANV HILL NEIGHBORHOOD STUDY
SVICTOR ST�'
I°
Future Land Use
Scenario 1
Ryan Hill Study Area
Tukwila City Limits
Low Density
Existing Sewer Main
Proposed Sewer Main
Sewer Manhole
Tukwila Water Main
Proposed Water Main
Seattle Water Main
PRV
Hydrant
Pressure Valve
Parcel Boundary
RYAN HILL NEIGHBORHOOD STUDY
19
27
Scenario Two
Overview
Future Land Use Scenario 2, Figure 8, was drafted based on feedback received from the Neighborhood Input Meeting. The
primary themes at the meeting included keeping the neighborhood the same, supporting some neighborhood change,
and/or encouraging the commercial/retail node along 51st Avenue S. Attendees from the area north of the Seattle City
Light Utility Easement were generally more supportive of some degree of change where attendees from the central and
southern portions of the neighborhood generally indicated a desire to keep the neighborhood the same. In order to blend
this feedback, medium density land use changes are only shown north of the Seattle City Light easement and no land use
changes are proposed south of the easement. In order to address connectivity elements, an area of high density residential
has been shown along MLK Jr. Way 5. High -density construction at this location could facilitate the new roadway
connection between 47t' Avenue S. and 49th Avenue S. and the construction of a new traffic signal at 47th Avenue S. Any
development at the high -density location would need to extend sewer to 47th Avenue S. to support the higher density to
the east. This extension would serve the entire central portion of the neighborhood assuming the sewer line would
continue to be extended from this point in the future. Finally, a new roadway connection between S. 114th Street and S.
Wallace Street is depicted to help improve connectivity and could be constructed with any future single-family
development at that location, as currently allowed by zoning. An additional storage/capacity intertie with the City of
Seattle, which would directly increase the neighborhood's storage capacity, would likely be necessary to support the full
realization of this scenario.
Analysis
Sewer infrastructure expansions are incrementally proposed under this scenario, as depicted on the Scenario Two map.
The two most critical sewer main extensions in this scenario are the extension eastward along S. Ryan Way to serve the
area along Beacon Avenue S, and the extension through the high -density site which would bring sewer from MLK Jr. Way S.
to 47th Avenue S. Sewer could temporarily terminate at 47th Avenue S. with future extensions eastward as development
occurs.
Water infrastructure improvements and expansions are also proposed under this scenario, with water main looping being a
major priority. Water main looping along 49th Avenue S. is the most significant proposal in this scenario. Additionally,
water main looping between 48th Avenue S. to 49' Avenue S. will significantly improve fire flow and will allow for additional
hydrants to be placed throughout the central core of the neighborhood where deficiencies currently exist. As with sewer,
even if fire flow requirements at the high -density location are able to be achieved without looping, water main would
ideally be constructed in conjunction with the roadway improvement with some financial agreement likely required.
Facility Improvement Costs
Sanitary Sewer Segment
MLK to 49th Ave S.
S. Ryan Way & 107th Street Extension
49th Ave. S.
S. 114th Street to S. Wallace Street
Sanitary Sewer Total
Water Main Segment
49th & 112th
S. 114th Street to S. Wallace Street
48th Ave. S. to 49th Ave. S.
Water Main Total
New Roadways
Hazel - 48th - Fountain (47th to 49th Spine)
S. 114th Street to S. Wallace Street
New Roadways Total
Cost Estimate
$517,000
$593,500
$210,000
$84,250
$1,404,750
Cost Estimate
$773,200
$109,100
$80,000
$962,300
Cost Estimate
$2,567,900
$1,191,880
$3,759,780
Scenario Two Total i $6,126,830
2d°
RYAN HILL NEIGHBORHOOD STUDY
Future Land Use
Scenario 2
Ryan Hill Study Area
In Tukwila City Limits
Low Density
Medium Density
High Density
Commercial
Industrial
Existing Sewer Main
Proposed Sewer Main
Sewer Manhole
Tukwila Water Main
Proposed Water Main
Seattle Water Main
PRV
Hydrant
Pressure Valve
Parcel Boundary
Utility
Right -of -Way
New Roadway
0 400 800
Feet
1.600
Figure 8
S CRESTON ST
RYAN HILL NEIGHBORHOOD STUDY
21
29
Scenario Three
Overview
Scenario Three, Figure 9, was presented at the Neighborhood Input Meeting as the "Major Change Scenario. This option
was originally created to assess the option of extending public infrastructure through the central core of the neighborhood
by creating a new roadway connection between 47th Avenue S. and 49th Avenue S with water and sewer infrastructure. This
new infrastructure spine would dramatically increase sewer service potential, water main looping, and roadway
connectivity. In order to achieve those objectives, an area of medium density residential was depicted near the existing
high density zoned areas. Development -driven infrastructure improvements through the central core would be costly, and
higher density would likely be the mechanism to help justify such improvements financially. Additional areas of medium
density residential were added along S. Ryan Way and a high -density option was added along MLK Jr. Way S.to assist with
the completion of needed infrastructure improvements through development -driven means.
Analysis
The primary purpose of the "Major Change" scenario was to create an option that provides significant infrastructure
improvements within the neighborhood. As part of the objective of achieving development -driven improvements, this
scenario depicts much higher densities, particularly in the central core of the neighborhood, to offset the costs of new
infrastructure. Sewer infrastructure is extended into the central core at 47th Street through the high -density parcel which,
from this location, could be extended to serve the vast majority of areas currently not able to be connected to gravity sewer
due to ridges and topography. Additionally, significant water main looping is proposed, the most significant of which is
located along 49th Avenue S. and along the proposed new roadway.
The most significant issue with Scenario Three, and is also reflected in Scenario Two, is the wetland mitigation that would
be required as part of the new roadway between 47th Avenue S. and 49' Avenue S. There are many variabilities associated
with the wetland mitigation, but estimates put the wetland mitigation costs alone at approximately $1.25 million.
Neighborhood input received on this scenario expressed concern over how Major Changes could impact the rural feel of the
neighborhood and increase traffic congestion. In particular, several comments expressed concern over the medium density
residential depicted south of the Seattle City Light easement. Other comments related to the desire for more parks and
greenspace with higher densities and the desire for more pedestrian and bicycle connectivity, especially with linkages to
transit.
Facility Improvement Costs
Scenario Three Cost Estimate
Sanitary Sewer Segment
MLK to 49th Ave 5.
S. Ryan Way & 107th Street Extension
49th Ave. S.
Sanitary Sewer Subtotal
Water Main Segment
49th & 112th
48th Ave. S. to 49th Ave. S.
Water Main Subtotal
New Roadways
Hazel - 48th - Fountain (47th to 49th Spine)
New Roadways Subtotal
Cost Estimate
$517,000
$593,500
$210,000
$1,320,500
Cost Estimate
$773,200
$80,000
$853,200
Cost Estimate
$2,567,900
$2,567,900
Scenario Three Total
$4,741,600
3d2
RYAN HILL NEIGHBORHOOD STUDY
Figure 9
S CRESTON ST
sBttNGOR ST
Future Land Use
Scenario 3
Ryan Hill Study Area
Tukwila City Limits
Low Density
Medium Density
High Density
Commercial
Industrial
Existing Sewer Main
Proposed Sewer Main
Sewer Manhole
Tukwila Water Main
Proposed Water Main
Seattle Water Main
PRV
Hydrant
Pressure Valve
Parcel Boundary
Utility
Right -of -Way
New Roadway
0 400 800
RYAN HILL NEIGHBORHOOD STUDY
23
31
Land Use Types
The different scenarios developed used the land use
categories from the City of Tukwila Comprehensive Plan.
Should any changes occur, they would be required to be
consistent with the adopted Comprehensive Plan. The
following are illustrative examples of the types of
development depicted on the various land use scenarios.
Low Density
Low density represents single-family detached
neighborhoods and is the predominant land use across the
neighborhood. It includes more developed single-family
detached neighborhoods and large -lot parcels with a more
rural feel.
U Medium Density
Medium density reflects areas where cottages, townhomes
and similar products that generally have higher dwelling unit
per acre allowances than low density areas.
II High Density
High density reflects multifamily buildings such as
apartments, condominiums, and senior living facilities.
IICommercial
For purposes of this study, commercial areas are intended to
provide neighborhood services. Areas depicted as
commercial in the drafted scenarios are intended to provide a
walkable, cohesive node of services for current and future
residents.
II Industrial
Only one area within the neighborhood is currently
designated as Industrial. No additional industrial designates
are depicted or anticipated. Raisbeck Engineering occupies
the one industrial site within the study area.
Medium Density Residential
I
Commercial (Neighborhood Services)
RYAN HILL NEIGHBORHOOD STUDY
Scenario Comparison
Cost estimates prepared for each of the three scenarios were developed as planning -level estimates and are subject to a
variety of different factors. The numbers developed used most recent data pertaining to costs within the Seattle
metropolitan region. It is important to note that the primary purpose of cost estimate development is to weigh the
significance of each of the proposed land use scenarios in Tight of what major public infrastructure improvements would
likely be required for each of those scenarios to be realized. In some cases, no cost estimate is provided. In such cases, it is
not being suggested that no improvements would be required, but rather that no major public infrastructure improvements
were developed or identified as part of the scenario evaluation.
Water utilities are not as dependent on topography and gravity as sewer systems. Water main scenarios focused on
looping of water mains to improve fire flow pressure and alleviate water quality challenges. Public looping is depicted;
however, there may be opportunities to accomplish looping objectives at different areas if a new development project
presents such an opportunity.
Sewer mains are much more critical due to its reliance on gravity flow for optimal operation. All sewer mains depicted on
each of the scenarios accounted for topography and slope. The sewer system is conceptual and is intended for planning
purposes only. As with all infrastructure planning, other alternatives or routing of sewer main may prove beneficial and are
evaluated on a case -by -case basis. Sewer cost estimates accounted for the construction of new sewer mains but did not
account for situations where additional measures must be included, such as in cases where deep sewer must be provided.
New Roadway cost estimates assumed the construction of an entirely new roadway with curb and gutter, storm sewer, and
pedestrian facilities. The new spine roadway across the central part of the neighborhood is seen to be the most critical
should any new development occur. The scenario considered grades and proposed a route that can be constructed within
the City's current roadway design parameters, including maximum slope. As with all other cost estimates, unknown
circumstances may change the actual costs of construction, but these estimates provide an overview for planning decision -
making.
Utility
Ryan Hill Scenario
Baseline/No Change
Cost Estimate Summary*
Scenario One Scenario Two
Scenario Three
Water
$0
$0
$962,300
$853,200
Sewer
$0
$1,225,750
$1,404,750
$1,320,500
New Roadways
$0
$0
$3,759,780
$2,567,900
Total
$0
$1,225,750
$6,126,830
$4,741,600
*All numbers provided are planning -level estimates for public infrastructure only
RYAN HILL NEIGHBORHOOD STUDY
25
33
CONCLUSIONS
Overview
The scenarios drafted within this report are intended to portray a different array of change opportunities as well as the
major public infrastructure components that would likely be needed to support those changes. While the intent of this
project is to examine growth scenarios, a no -change scenario is entirely possible. Should a no -change path forward be
selected, information contained within this report can still be used to guide the provision of infrastructure through an
incremental, case -by -case evaluation of proposed projects.
Opportunities for Change
The greatest opportunity identified as part of this study pertains to the extension of public sewer mains. There are
opportunities to continue to extend sewer in the northern and southern portions of the neighborhood, areas where public
sewer already exists. The central portion of the neighborhood, however, currently lacks public sewer and, due to
topography, is not able to be served from the existing sewer on Ryan Way. The only way that sewer service can be
provided to the entire central portion of the neighborhood is through a sewer extension from MLK Jr. Blvd. Regardless of
what type of development occurs, it is critical to bring public sewer from MLK JR. Blvd. to 47th Avenue S. From this point,
sewer can be extended to serve the portion of the neighborhood not currently able to be served by gravity sewer.
The second biggest opportunity is the provision of a new roadway connection through the neighborhood. This new
roadway connection is depicted in Scenarios Two and Three. The vacant right-of-way within the neighborhood was
assessed to determine if an east -to -west roadway connection through the central portion of the neighborhood was viable,
especially considering the significant slopes. Of all the scenarios assessed, the roadway connection depicted in Scenarios
Two and Three is feasible from a buildable perspective. The roadway grading performed as part of the analysis indicated
that the roadway connection could be provided at grades less than 15 percent and with limited retaining walls. The
greatest challenge to construction of the roadway connection pertains to the required wetland mitigation. Planning -level
estimates for wetland mitigation are $1.25 million'. The specifics of mitigation require an in-depth assessment, but the
costs are significant compared to the overall roadway cost estimate.
Water main looping is another opportunity within the neighborhood area. The current system of water mains is extremely
disconnected leaving many dead-end water mains. Dead-end water often presents a maintenance hassle as they require
the use of blowoffs and fire hydrants to keep water from stagnating, unless a high-water user is located at the dead-end of
the main. Water main looping helps to keep water continuously moving within the water mains and also increases fire flow
pressure. In areas where no adjacent water main is present, "spaghetti lines" are being used by property owners to get
water to their homes. As described earlier, the spaghetti lines are private water lines that extend from the water main (and
water meter) to the actual home. Long spaghetti lines are often a maintenance problem for the property owner, especially
due to leaks. Water system improvements would help to limit water quality issues, increase fire flow pressures, and reduce
the water waste issues associated with spaghetti lines and blow -offs.
Finally, there is an opportunity to establish additional water ties with the City of Seattle to increase water supply and
capacity within the Ryan Hill area. Building a reservoir, as recommended by the State Department of Health to provide
back-up capacity, is an extremely expensive undertaking and is not likely to be feasible from a development -driven
perspective. A new reservoir is also not depicted within the City's capital facilities plan. Establishing additional interties
z Estimates are based upon a $30-$50 per square foot cost to buy wetland mitigation through King County's Wetland Mitigation Bank
(https://www.kingcounty.gov/about/policies/rules/utilities/put811pr.aspx ). Stream mitigation would likely be higher and, due to many variabilities, is
difficult to estimate and are not applicable to this roadway since only wetland disturbance would be required. The high end of $50 per square foot was
used for this mitigation estimate due to the many variabilities and unknowns.
26
34
RYAN HILL NEIGHBORHOOD STUDY
with the City of Seattle with a master meter would help to support additional capacity without the need for the building of
a capacity reservoir.
Challenges
There are many challenges to development within the study area. The most significant challenge to future development
within the study area is the prevalence of critical areas and steep slopes. While steep slopes are the most visible barrier,
portions of the neighborhood also contain wetlands, streams, and their respective buffers. Wetland and stream impact
with mitigation is permitted under certain circumstances; however, the mitigation of these areas will pose significant costs,
which might impede the realization of development -driven improvements through such areas. Specific mitigation costs and
approaches would need to be assessed in detail.
The area currently lacks service by a regional detention facility. This is a significant impediment to development because
without a regional detention facility stormwater would need to be retained on individual development sites. The building
of on -site storm facilities is a common practice in this region due to the focus on improving run-off flowing into streams,
wetlands, and Puget Sound. Many development sites incorporate storm facilities through detention or infiltration vaults,
which minimize visual appearance and are often able to be counted as on -site open space if designed for active or passive
use. Infiltration, in particular, would be complicated in many areas of the Ryan Hill neighborhood due to steep slopes.
Geotechnical assessments would be required to verify whether or not a site on a slope is suitable for development and to
what extent on -site infiltration is possible, although infiltration is not typically optimal in areas where steep slopes are
present. There are no plans for a regional detention facility in the Ryan Hill neighborhood.
As expressed throughout the report and analysis, the limited sewer infrastructure is a significant barrier for development.
Portions of Ryan Hill are served by public sewer or are able to be served by public sewer with an extension from an existing
sewer main. The entire central portion of the neighborhood, however, is not able to be served by public sewer without an
extension of sewer from the main along MLK Jr. Blvd. Any development that would occur in the central portion of the
neighborhood would be required to extend sewer from MLK Jr. Blvd in order to be served by gravity sewer. It is not likely
that any smaller development would be able to justify the costs of such an extension and the use of a latecomers
agreement for potential reimbursement is not a feasible option for a small development project as there is no guarantee
that the costs would be recouped — latecomers are generally used if the builder is able to pencil the project with the
infrastructure extension making any reimbursement received additional profit. A developer cannot rely on a
reimbursement through a latecomers since such a reimbursement is typically only good for a set time period and is not
guaranteed.
At the neighborhood meeting, residents expressed a desire to increase parks and open spaces within the neighborhood. If
new residents were added, there would likely be the need to add additional parks and open spaces. There are many
challenges with expanding parks and open spaces within the neighborhood as the City's financial obligations are spent
operating and maintaining existing facilities. The 200-foot wide Seattle City Light utility easement that extends east to west
through the neighborhood does present an opportunity. In the Seattle City Light easement to the north and east within the
City of Seattle, the Chief Sealth trail, a major recreational amenity and nonmotorized transportation facility, has been
developed. The biggest challenge to providing recreation or park facilities within the easement is the steep slopes and
attempting to make facilities ADA compliant.
Roadway, pedestrian, and bicycle infrastructure would need significant upgrades if additional residents were to be added to
the Ryan Hill area. The neighborhood is generally within one mile of the Rainier Beach light rail system. An additional light
rail station is planned in Tukwila to the west of Interstate 5 near E. Marginal Way S. In order to mitigate increased traffic,
new pedestrian and bicycle facilities would need to link the Ryan Hill area with these transit facilities. Within the
neighborhood itself, roadways would need to be widened as development occurs. These frontage improvements would
RYAN HILL NEIGHBORHOOD STUDY
27
35
need to incorporate sidewalks and certain roadways would need to provide bicycle facilities. Depending on the size of the
site, frontage improvements could be quite costly further complicating the ability for already tough sites to "pencil out"
from a development perspective.
The most significant development challenges pertain to infrastructure — water, sewer, roads, pedestrian, bicycle, and
stormwater. Without some investment in public infrastructure by the City, it is not likely that significant reinvestment in
Ryan Hill will likely occur. Development -driven improvements are a common practice and it is expected that development
should pay for the impacts that the development is imposing on the existing infrastructure system, but due to the
significant deficiencies within the neighborhood, it is highly likely that some public investment will likely be needed in some
capacity. The best approach for change, should that be desired, is to focus on key areas where incremental change can
start.
Medium Residential Zone
All development scenarios depict an expansion of Medium Density zoning which would fall under the requirements of
Chapter 18.12 - Medium Density Residential (MDR) District. Overall, the requirements specified within Chapter 18.12 are
relatively consistent with other jurisdictions in regards to townhome development. The one requirement that might impact
redevelopment within the Ryan Hill area in particular is the lot area calculations of 3,000 sq. ft. per unit as part of the
density calculations for townhomes. Many jurisdictions allow for medium density calculations of 2,000 sq. ft. per unit for
townhomes within medium density zoned areas, as is the standard within the City of Tukwila's High Density Residential
(HDR) District. Much of the recent townhome construction within the City has occurred within HDR areas. In regards to
townhomes, the MDR and HDR bulk regulations are very similar, but the HDR Zone allows for lot area/density calculations
of 2,000 sq. ft. where the MDR zone requires a lot area/density calculation of 3,000 sq. ft. Due to the similar requirements
between the two, developers are much more likely to build within the HDR zone due to the additional units they are able to
achieve within that zone.
Should zoning changes be made to the Ryan Hill area, developers will likely face many challenges, such as providing new
water, sewer, and storm infrastructure and assembling smaller lots to make development feasible. The topographical
constraints and new water, sewer, and stormwater infrastructure will be an added cost that might not be seen as
economically viable in areas where lots must be assembled in order to build enough units to justify costs. The 3,000 sq. ft.
lot area/density calculation within the MDR zone could be assessed to determine if a different standard might facilitate
change. Townhome developers will likely continue to favor HDR zones due to the immediate economic gains with MDR
areas being left to a later development cycle.
3d8
RYAN HILL NEIGHBORHOOD STUDY
APPENDIX A: COST ESTIMATES
Scenario One Cost Estimates
Sewer
Ryan Hill Neighborhood - Scenario 1
Engineer's Estimate
CDC
Tel: (425)MB-1869
Project Name:
Description:
Ryan NM Neighborhood
Engineer's Estimate
Project No.:
Date:
Catc. By:
17-149
2/19/2018
JCS
Sancta Sewer
MLK • East
Unit Price
Unit
Quantity
Coat
Clearing and Grubbing
$ 40,000.00
AC
0.8
$ 32,000.00
8" Sanitary Sewer
$ 85.00
LF
850
$ 72,250.00
Sanitary Manholes
$ 3,000.00
EA
4
$ 12,000.00
Wetland Mitigation
$ 50,00
SF
10000
$ 500,000.00
Restore Native
$ 20,000.00
AC
0.8
$ 16,000,00
Subtotal
$ 632,250.00
S. Ryan Way & 107th
Unit Price
Unit
Quantity
Cost
8" Sanitary Sewer
$ 85.00
LF
1700
$ 144,500.00
Sanitary Manholes
$ 3,000.00
EA
8
$ 24,000.00
Restore Existing Roadway
$ 250.00
LF
1700
$ 425,000.00
Subtotal
$ 593,500.00
Summary
MLK - 49th
S. Ryan Way & 107th
29
$ 632,250.00
$ 593,500.00
Total:, $1,225,750.00
Page 1 of 1
RYAN HILL NEIGHBORHOOD STUDY
37
Scenario Two Cost Estimates
Sewer
Ryan Hill Neighborhood - Scenario 2
Engineer's Estimate
LDC
Tel: (425) 806-1869
Project Name:
Description:
Ryan Hill Neighborhood
Engineer's Estimate
Project No.:
Date:
Calc. By:
17-149
1/19/2018
JCS
Sanita
Sewer
MLK - 49th
Unit Price
Unit
Quantity
Cost
Clearing and Grubbing
$ 40,000.00
AC
1
$ 40,000.00
8" Sanitary Sewer
$ 85.00
LF
2600
$ 221,000.00
Sanitary Manholes
$ 3,000.00
EA
12
$ 36,000.00
Restore Native
$ 20,000.00
AC
1
$ 20,000.00
Restore Existing Roadway
$ 250.00
LF
800
$ 200,000.00
Total
$ 517,000.00
S. Ryan Way & 107th
Unit Price
Unit
Quantity
Cost
8" Sanitary Sewer
$ 85.00
LF
1700
$ 144,500.00
Sanitary Manholes
$ 3,000.00
EA
8
$ 24,000.00
Restore Existing Roadway
$ 250.00
LF
1700
$ 425,000.00
Subtotal
$ 593,500.00
49th from 114th to 112th
Unit Price
Unit
Quantity
Cost
8" Sanitary Sewer
$ 85.00
LF
600
$ 51,000.00
Sanitary Manholes
$ 3,000.00
EA
3
$ 9,000.00
Restore Existing Roadway
$ 250.00
LF
600
$ 150,000.00
Subtotal
$ 210,000.00
Page 1 of 2
3go
RYAN HILL NEIGHBORHOOD STUDY
{
Ryan Hill Neighborhood - Scenario 2
Engineer's Estimate
LDC
Tel: (425) 806-1869
Project Name:
Description:
Ryan Hill Neighborhood
Engineer's Estimate
Project No.:
Date:
Catc. By:
17-149
1/19/2018
JCS
Unnamed - From 114th - Wallace
Unit Price
Unit
Quantity
Cost
8" Sanitary Sewer
$ 85.00
LF
850
$ 72,250.00
Sanitary Manholes
$ 3,000.00
EA
4
$ 12,000.00
Subtotal
$ 84,250.00
Summary,
MLK - 49th $ 517,000.00
S. Ryan Way & 107th $ 593,500.00
49th from 114th & 112th $210,000.00
Unnamed - From 114th - Wallace $84,250.00
Total: $1,404,750.00
RYAN HILL NEIGHBORHOOD STUDY
Page 2 of 2
31
39
Water
Ryan Hill Neighborhood - Scenario 2
Engineer's Estimate
LDC
Tel: (425) 806.1869
Project Name:
Description:
Ryan Hill Neighborhood
Engineer's Estimate
Project No.:
Date:
Calc. By:
17-149
1/21/2018
JCS
Water Main
49th & 112th
Unit Price
Unit
Quantity
Cost
8" D.I. Water Main
$ 70.00
LF
2600
$ 182,000.00
8" Gate Valve
$ 2,500.00
EA
10
$ 25,000.00
Fire Hydrant
$ 3,000.00
EA
10
$ 30,000.00
Blow Off
$ 600.00
EA
2
$ 1,200.00
Clear & Grub
$ 40,000.00
AC
1
$ 40,000.00
Restore Existing Roadway
$ 250.00
LF
1900
$ 475,000.00
Restore Native
$ 20,000.00
AC
1
$ 20,000.00
Total
$ 773,200.00
S. Wallace to S. 114th
Unit Price
Unit
Quantity
Cost
8" D.I. Water Main
$ 70.00
LF
1200
$ 84,000.00
8" Gate Valve
$ 2,500.00
EA
5
$ 12,500.00
Fire Hydrant
$ 3,000.00
EA
4
$ 12,000.00
Blow Off
$ 600.00
EA
1
$ 600.00
Subtotal
$ 109,100.00
Summary
49th & 112th $773,200.00
S. Wallace to S. 114th $109,100.00
Total: $882,300.00
Page 1 of 1
4d2
RYAN HILL NEIGHBORHOOD STUDY
New Roadways
Ryan Hill Neighborhood - Scenario 2
Engineer's Estimate
LDC
Tel: l4251805.1869
Project Name:
Description:
Ryan Hill Neighborhood
Engineers Estimate
Project No.:
Date:
Calc. By:
17-149
2/19/2018
JCS
New Road Construction
Hazes - 42th - Fountain
Unit price
Unit
Quantity
Cost
Asphalt Pavement
$ 14.00
SF
25000
$ 350,000.00
Concrete Curb & Gutter
$ 36.00
LF
2300
$ 82,800.00
5' Concrete Sidewalk
$ 110.00
LF
2000
$ 220,000.00
12" Storm Drain
$ 60,00
LF
1500
$ 90,000.00
Storm Structures
$ 2,100.00
EA
11
$ 23,100.00
imported Fill
$ 75.00
CY
1300
$ 97,500,00
Earth Moving
$ 45.00
CY
6100
$ 274,500.00
Clearing & Grubbing
$ 40,000.00
AC
3
$ 120,000,00
Wetland Mitigation
$ 50.00
SF
25000
S 1,250,000.40
Restore Native
$ 20,000.00
AC
3
$ 60,000.00
Total
$ 2,5G7,900.00
Page 1 of 2
RYAN HILL NEIGHBORHOOD STUDY
33
41
Ryan Hill Neighborhood - Scenario 2
Engineer's Estimate
LDC
Tat (425) 806•1869
Project Name:
Description_
Ryan Hi ii Neighborhood
Engineer's Estimate
Project No,:
Date:
Calc. 6y:
17-1 49
2 f 191201 8
JCS
114th • Wallace
Unit Price
Unit
Quantity
Cost
Asphalt Pavement
5 14.00
Sf
21250
5 297,500.00
Concrete Curb & Gutter
5 36.00
IF
1955
$ 70,380,00
5' Concrete Sidewalk
$ 110.00
IF
1700
$ 187,000,00
12" Storm Dram
$ 60.00
IF
850
$ 51,000.00
Storm Structures
$ 2,100.00
EA
8
$ 16,800.00
Imported Fill
$ 75.00
CY
1105
$ 82,875.00
Earth Moving
5 45.00
CY
5185
$ 233,325.00
Clearing & Grubbing
$ 40,000,00
AC
2,55
$ 102,000,00
Restore Native
$ 20,000.00
AC
2.55
$ 51,000,00
Rockery Retaining Wal)s
$ 25.00
Sf
4000
$ 100,000.00
Total
$ 1,191,880.00
5ummarv,
Hazel -48th - Fountain
114th - Wallace
5 2,567,900.00
$ 1,191,880.00
Total: S3,759,7E0.00
Page 2 of 2
414
RYAN HILL NEIGHBORHOOD STUDY
Scenario Three
Water
Ryan Hill Neighborhood s Scenario 3
Engineer's Estimate
LDC
Tel (4251806.1869
Project Name:
Description:
Ryan Hill Neighborhood
Engineer s Estimate
Project No,:
Date:
Caic, ay:
17.149
2/19/2018
JCS
New Road Construction
Hazel - 48th - Fountain
Unit Piece
Unit
Quantity
Cost
Asphalt Pavement
$ 14.00
SF
25000
$ 350,000.00
Concrete Curb & Gutter
$ 36,00
LF
2300
$ 82,800 00
5' Concrete Sidewalk
$ 110.00
LF
2000
$ 220,000.00
12` Storm Drain
$ 60,00
LF
1500
$ 90,000.00
Storm Structures
$ 2,100.00
EA
11
$ 23,100.00
Imported Fill
$ 75.00
CY
1300
$ 97,500.00
Earth Moving
$ 45.00
CY
6100
$ 274,500-00
Clearing & Grubbing
$ 40,000,00
AC
3
$ 120,000.00
Wetland Mitigation
$ 50.00
25000
$ 1,250,000.00
Restore Native
$ 20,000.00
AC
3
$ 60,000.00
Total
$ 2,567,900.00
Summary
Hazel -48th - Fountain
RYAN HILL NEIGHBORHOOD STUDY
$ 2,567,900,00
Total: $2,5€7,900,00
Page 1 of 1
35
43
Sewer
Ryan Hill Neighborhood - Scenario 3
Engineer's Estimate
LDC
Tel: (425) 806-1869
Project Name:
Description:
Ryan Hill Neighborhood
Engineer's Estimate
Project No.:
Date:
Catc. By:
17-149
1/19/2018
JCS
Sanitary Sewer
MLK - 49th
Unit Price
Unit
Quantity
Cost
Clearing and Grubbing
$ 40,000.00
AC
1
$ 40,000.00
8" Sanitary Sewer
$ 85.00
LF
2600
$ 221,000.00
Sanitary Manholes
$ 3,000.00
EA
12
$ 36,000.00
Restore Native
$ 20,000.00
AC
1
$ 20,000.00
Restore Existing Roadway
$ 250.00
IF
800
$ 200,000.00
Total
$ 517,000.00
5. Ryan Way & 107th
Unit Price
Unit
Quantity
Cost
8" Sanitary Sewer
$ 85.00
LF
1700
$ 144,500.00
Sanitary Manholes
$ 3,000.00
EA
8
$ 24,000.00
Restore Existing Roadway
$ 250.00
LF
1700
$ 425,000.00
Subtotal
$ 593,500.00
49th from 114th to 112th
Unit Price
Unit
Quantity
Cost
8" Sanitary Sewer
$ 85.00
IF
600
$ 51,000.00
Sanitary Manholes
$ 3,000.00
EA
3
$ 9,000.00
Restore Existing Roadway
$ 250.00
LF
600
$ 150,000.00
Subtotal
$ 210,000.00
Summary
MLK - 49th $ 517,000.00
S. Ryan Way & 107th $ 593,500.00
49th from 114th & 112th $210,000.00
Total: $1,320,500.00
Page l of l
446
RYAN HILL NEIGHBORHOOD STUDY
New Roadways
Ryan Hill Neighborhood - Scenario 3
Engineer's Estimate
LDC
Tel: (425) 806-1869
Project Name:
Description:
Ryan Hill Neighborhood
Engineer's Estimate
Project No.:
Date:
Ca(c. By:
17-149
1/19/2018
JCS
New Road Construction
Hazel - 48th Fountain -
Unit Price
Unit
Quantity
Cost
Asphalt Pavement
$ 14.00
SF
25000
$ 350,000.00
Concrete Curb & Gutter
$ 36.00
LF
2300
$ 82,800.00
5' Concrete Sidewalk
$ 110.00
LF
2000
$ 220,000.00
12" Storm Drain
$ 60.00
LF
1500
$ 90,000.00
Storm Structures
$ 2,100.00
EA
11
$ 23,100.00
Imported Fill
$ 75.00
CY
1300
$ 97,500.00
Earth Moving
$ 45.00
CY
6100
$ 274,500.00
Clearing & Grubbing
$ 40,000.00
AC
3
$ 120,000.00
Restore Native
$ 20,000.00
AC
3
$ 60,000.00
Total
S 1,317,900.00
Summary
Hazel -48th - Fountain
RYAN HILL NEIGHBORHOOD STUDY
$ 1,317,900.00
Total: $1,317,900.00
Page 1 of 1
37
45
Appendix B: Neighborhood Survey Results
38
46
RYAN HILL NEIGHBORHOOD STUDY
Ryan Hill Neighborhood Survey SurveyMonkey
Q1 Which of the following best describes you?
I own my
property and...
1 rent a home
in the Ryan...
I own property
in the Ryan...
I do not live
or own grope...
Answered: 8 Skipped: 0
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
ANSWER CHOICES
I own my property and live in the Ryan Hill neighborhood
I rent a home in the Ryan Hill neighborhood
I own property in the Ryan Hill neighborhood but do not live there
I do not live or own property in the Ryan Hill neighborhood
TOTAL
RESPONSES
50.00% 4
0.00% 0
50.00% 4
0.00% 0
8
1/15
47
Ryan Hill Neighborhood Survey SurveyMonkey
Q2 How long have you lived or owned property in the Ryan Hill
neighborhood?
Answered: 8 Skipped 0
Less Than 5
years
5 to 9 Years
10 to 14 Years
15 to 19 Years
Greater Than
20 Years
Not Applicable
-I do not l...
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
ANSWER CHOICES
Less Than 5 years
5 to 9 Years
10 to 14 Years
15 to 19 Years
Greater Than 20 Years
Not Applicable - I do not live or own property in the neighborhood
TOTAL
RESPONSES
12.50% 1
25.00% 2
0.00% 0
12.50% 1
50.00% 4
0.00% 0
8
48
2/15
Ryan Hill Neighborhood Survey SurveyMonkey
Q3 How would you rate the quality of life in the Ryan Hill Neighborhood?
Very Good
Good
Fair
Poor
Very Poor
Any veered 8 Skipped 0
0% 1 0 % 20% 30% 40% 50% 6 0 % 70% 80% 90% 100%
ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Very Good 37.50% 3
Good 12.50% 1
Fair 37.50% 3
Poor 12.50% 1
Very Poor 0.00% 0
TOTAL 8
# IF YOU'D LIKE, PROVIDE COMMENTS ON WHY DATE
1 Quiet 11/22/2017 3:56 PM
2 Nice and quiet neighborhood. No traffic, noise, or parking problems. 11/22/2017 2:53 PM
3 It's not safely walkable. There are not community parks...if there are I don't know where they are. 11/8/2017 2:00 PM
We have septic tanks.
3/15
49
Ryan Hill Neighborhood Survey SurveyMonkey
Q4 Overall, how safe do you feel in the neighborhood?
Extremely Safe
Very Safe
Somewhat Safe
Not Very Safe
Not Safe at
All
Not Applicable
ANSWER CHOICES
Extremely Safe
Very Safe
Somewhat Safe
Not Very Safe
Not Safe at All
Not Applicable
TOTAL
Answered 8 Skipped 0
O% 1O% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
RESPONSES
0.00% 0
37.50% 3
50.00% 4
12.50% 1
0.00% 0
0.00% 0
8
50
4/15
Ryan Hill Neighborhood Survey SurveyMonkey
Q5 Do you see yourself continuing to live in the neighborhood for the
foreseeable future?
Answ rf i 8 Skipped: 0
Yes
No
Not Applicable
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
ANSWER CHOICES
Yes
No
Not Applicable
TOTAL
# IF "NO," PLEASE TELL US WHY
1 just own property, don't actually live there
RESPONSES
75.00% 6
0.00% 0
25.00% 2
8
DATE
11/22/2017 3:56 PM
5/15
51
Ryan Hill Neighborhood Survey SurveyMonkey
Q6 What would you say is the neighborhood's greatest asset?
Answered: 7 Stipped:1
# RESPONSES DATE
1 Location 11/27/2017 2:20 PM
2 accessibility to Seattle 11/22/2017 3:56 PM
3 not crowded. No parking, traffic or noise problems. Great neighbors! 11/22/2017 2:53 PM
4 rural, country yet in the city. quiet not overcrowded close to freeway and shopping, etc 11/19/2017 1:49 PM
5 The reason we hope to retire there is the rural feeling so close in. We also love the economic 11/19/2017 11:00 AM
racial and cultural diversity.
6 Close to everything yet far enough away to feel like you have privacy 11/8/2017 2:00 PM
7 Proximity to Seattle 11/6/2017 1:18 PM
52
6/15
Ryan Hill Neighborhood Survey SurveyMonkey
Q7 What changes, if any, are needed in the neighborhood?
Answered: 7 Skipped: 1
# RESPONSES DATE
1 Higher density zoning 11 /27/2017 2:20 PM
2 NONE 11/22/2017 3:56 PM
3 None!!!! 11/22/2017 2:53 PM
4 too many vehicles parked onto the street and often times rental cars which take up neighborhood 11/19/2017 1:49 PM
parking
5 Increase walkability Increase parks 11/8/2017 2:00 PM
6 Sewer line installed 11/6/2017 5:16 PM
7 Sewer 11/6/2017 1:18 PM
7/15
53
Ryan Hill Neighborhood Survey SurveyMonkey
Q8 Which of the following best describes your view on the future of the
neighborhood?
AnswPred 7 skipped 1
1 do not
support any...
I support
minor change...
1 support
neighborhood...
Other (please
specify)
0% 10% 20% 30% 40°/o 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
ANSWER CHOICES
I do not support any changes - keep the neighborhood the same
I support minor changes in appropriate areas
I support neighborhood -wide changes
Other (please specify)
TOTAL
RESPONSES
42.86 % 3
14.29% 1
42.86 % 3
0.00% 0
7
OTHER (PLEASE SPECIFY) DATE
There are no responses.
54
8/15
Ryan Hill Neighborhood Survey SurveyMonkey
Q9 How appropriate would the inclusion of the following development
types be within the Ryan Hill neighborhood?
Ar :vere> I t? Skipped 0
Single -Family
Housing
Townhomes
Apartments/Mutt
ifamily
Neighborhood
Services...
No Additional
Development ...
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
VERY APPROPRIATE NEUTRAL NOT VERY TOTAL WEIGHTED
APPROPRIATE APPROPRIATE INAPPROPRIATE AVERAGE
Single -Family Housing 57.14% 0.00% 14.29% 0.00% 28.57%
4 0 1 0 2 7 2.4'
Townhomes 25.00% 12.50% 25.00% 12.50% 25.00%
2 1 2 1 2 8 3.0C
Apartments/Multifamily 25.00% 0.00% 12.50% 25.00% 37.50%
2 0 1 2 3 8 3.5C
Neighborhood Services 14.29% 28.57% 14.29% 14.29% 28.57%
(Restaurants, 1 2 1 1 2 7 3.14
Entertainment, and
Shopping)
No Additional
Development is
Needed
33.33%
2
16.67% 33.33%
0.00% 16.67%
1 2 0 1 6 2.5C
9/15
55
Ryan Hill Neighborhood Survey SurveyMonkey
Q10 Of the following city services, which would you consider to be the
greatest neighborhood need?
An s r d 8 Skipped !`)
Public Sewer
Public Water
Better First
Responder..,
Parks or
Traits
Better Street
or Sidewalk...
No Additional
Services Needed
Other (please
specify)
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
ANSWER CHOICES
Public Sewer
Public Water
Better First Responder Coverage (i.e., Police or Emergency Medical, Fire)
Parks or Trails
Better Street or Sidewalk Access
No Additional Services Needed
Other (please specify)
TOTAL
RESPONSES
50.00% 4
0.00% 0
0.00% 0
12.50% 1
0.00% 0
37.50% 3
0.00% 0
8
OTHER (PLEASE SPECIFY) DATE
There are no responses.
56
10 / 15
Ryan Hill Neighborhood Survey SurveyMonkey
Q11 How concerned are you about any of the following issues within the
neighborhood?
Answeed 8 Skipped O
Flooding/Runoff
from Rainfall
Septic System
Issues
Safety
Code
Compliance...
Police & Fire
Coverage
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
EXTREMELY SOMEWHAT CONCERNED NEUTRAL NOT TOTAL WEIGHTED
CONCERNED CONCERNED AVERAGE
/NOT AN
ISSUE
Flooding/Runoff from Rainfall 12.50% 12.50% 25.00% 50.00%
1 1 2 4 8 3.13
Septic System Issues 25.00% 12.50% 25.00% 37.50%
2 1 2 3 8 2.75
Safety 0.00% 50.00% 12.50% 37.50%
0 4 1 3 8 2.88
Code Compliance (i.e., 0.00% 37.50% 25.00% 37.50%
Weeds, Graffiti, Junked Cars, 0 3 2 3 8 3.00
Trash)
Police & Fire Coverage 0.00% 0.00% 50.00% 50.00%
0 0 4 4 8 3.50
OTHER (PLEASE SPECIFY) DATE
There are no responses.
11 / 15
57
Ryan Hill Neighborhood Survey SurveyMonkey
Q12 Should changes be made to increase the likelihood of development
within the neighborhood, such as rezones or incentives?
Yes
No
Maybe
ANSWER CHOICES
Yes
No
Maybe
TOTAL
Answ erer1 r, Skipped 0
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
RESPONSES
37.50% 3
50.00% 4
12.50% 1
8
58
12 / 15
Ryan Hill Neighborhood Survey SurveyMonkey
Q13 If you are currently served by a private septic system, is connecting
to a public sewer system something you would be interested in?
Yes
No
Maybe
ANSWER CHOICES
Yes
No
Maybe
TOTAL
Ans,Ae ed: 7 Skipped• 1
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
RESPONSES
57.14% 4
28.57% 2
14.29% 1
7
13 / 15
59
Ryan Hill Neighborhood Survey SurveyMonkey
Q14 Would you support a self -assessment on your property taxes to pay
for water, sewer, and/or roadway improvements within the neighborhood?
Arise:- 1 r Skipped 0
Yes
No
Maybe
ANSWER CHOICES
Yes
No
Maybe
TOTAL
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
RESPONSES
12.50% 1
37.50% 3
50.00% 4
8
60
14 / 15
•
40,
% Ryan Hill Neighborhood Survey SurveyMonkey
Q15 Do you have any additional comments regarding the future of the
Ryan Hill neighborhood?
Answered: 6 Skipped: 2
# RESPONSES DATE
1 No Changes! 11/22/2017 3:56 PM
2 No further development needed!!!! 11/22/2017 2:53 PM
3 i love the quiet rural neighborhood we have more traffic than the roads can adequately hold now 11/19/2017 1:49 PM
and am not interested in having more which would be generated by apartments
4 We hope any opportunity to connect the area for pedestrians and bicycles to the planned Boeing 11/19/2017 11:00 AM
Access Road lightrail station is pursued. Connecting the existing bike trail along the river to the
Chief Sealth trail or an eastward path would be a cause we would be happy to support financia ly.
Given proximity to the existing trails as well as the light rail, any further development of the area
would necessarily involve pursuing non auto dependent transportation to make sense. This is a
unique opportunity that should not be missed, and would continue to bolster the diversity and
sense of place for the neighborhood, as well as ease the dependence on Ryan Way and 1-5.
Anecdotally, my family (9 and 11 year olds) can currently bike to an evening at southcenter within
30 minutes, but we have to drive the section over the freeway and MLK. The light rail station will
never be able to build enough parking spaces if other modes of travel than the car are allowed. I
believe the benefits to the neighborhood's sense of safety, cohesion, and economic diversity, as
well as its residents' appreciation of its open spaces won't be fully realized without developing
ways of competing with the car. (True for Seattle generally, but even more so in Ryan Hill, as one
is forced to leave it for work and shopping, and as it is so close to light rail and excellent bike
routes.)
5 Thanks for the opportunity to weigh in 11/8/2017 2:00 PM
6 No 11/6/2017 1:18 PM
15 / 15
61