Loading...
Res 91-063 RESOLUTION NO. 91-63 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FEDERAL WAY, WASHINGTON, APPROVING THE FINAL PLAT OF CAMPUS HIGHLANDS, DESIGNATED AS KING COUNTY BUILDING AND LAND DEVELOPMENT FILE NO. 1186-23, DIVISION NO.5 WHEREAS, the preliminary plat for Campus Highlands, designated Building and Land Development File No. 1186-23, was approved subject to conditions on April 6, 1987, by King county Ordinance No. 8013; and WHEREAS, the applicant has applied for final plat for Division 5 of the above-referenced preliminary plat; and WHEREAS, city of Federal Way community Development staff, having reviewed the proposed final plat for its conformance to the conditions (modified) of the preliminary plat and to the provisions of Federal Way Zoning Code Chapter 16¡ NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FEDERAL WAY DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: section 1. Findinqs of Fact. The Federal Way City Council makes the following Findings of Fact: 1. The final plat for Division 5 of the Campus Highlands, Building and Land Development File No. 1186-23, is in substantial conformance to the preliminary plat and is in conformance with applicable zoning ordinances or other land use controls in effect at the time of submittal of the substantially complete application. COpy 2. All conditions recommended by the Zoning and Subdivision Hearing Examiner for King County, Washington, contained in report and recommendation to King County Council dated December 31, 1986, have been satisfied, and/or satisfaction of the conditions have been sufficiently guaranteed by the applicant. 3. Sixty-one percent of all required improvements have been made and sufficient bond has been accepted by King County as financial guaranty for completion of all required plat improvements. 4. All taxes and assessments owing on the property being subdivided have been paid. Section 2. Approval. Based upon the above Findings of Fact and pursuant to Federal Way Zoning Code 16.410, the final plat of Campus Highlands, Division No.5, Building and Land Development File No. 1186-23, is approved, subject to satisfaction of those conditions as contained in the Report of Subdivision Hearing Examiner dated December 31, 1986, attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated by reference. section 3. Recordinq. The approved and signed final plat, together with all legal instruments pertaining thereto as required pursuant to Federal Way Zoning Code, shall be recorded by -2- the applicant in the King County Department of Elections and Records. All recording fees shall be paid by the applicant. RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FEDERAL WAY, WASHINGTON, this ~ day of June , 1991. CITY OF FEDERAL WAY WolA/L ~~ MAYOR, DEBRA ERT L , CMC FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK: June 12, 1991 PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL: June 18, 1991 RESOLUTION NO. 91-63 91L580 -3- ~ December 31, 1986 OPHCE OP THE ZONING AND SU8DIVISION EXAMINER KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION TO THE KING COUNTY COUNCIL. ~~ 8Uilding and Land Development pile No. ll86-23 Proposed Ordinance NO. 86-648 .Proposed plat of CAMPUS IIIGHLANDS Lying generally between S.W. campus Drive and S.W. 352nd Street (if extended) and between 2nd and 13th Avenues S.W. (if both were extended) SUHMARY OP RECOMMENDATIONS: . Division's Preliminary: Division's Final: Approve subject to conditions Approve subject to conditions (modified) Approve Subject to conditions (modified) Examiner: PRELl HI NARY REPORT: The Building and Land Development Division's Preliminary Report on Item NO. llB6-23 was received by the Examiner on November 14, 1986. PUBLIC HEARING: After reviewing the Building and Land Development Division's Report, examining available information 00 file with the application and visiting the property and surrounding Hea, the Examiner conducted a pUblic heHing on the subject as follows: The hearing on Item No. 1186-23 was opened by the Examiner at 9:00 a.m., December 4,1986, Room No. 431, King county Administration BUilding, 4th Avenue and James Street, Seattle, Washington, and closed at ll:45 a.m. participants at the public hearing and the exhibits offered and entered He listed in the attached minutes. A verbatim recording of the hearing is available in the office of the Zoning and subdivision Examiner. PINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS' RECOMMENDATION: Having reviewed the record in this matter, the Examiner now makes and enters the following: ~: 1. General Information: STR: Location: 19 -21- 4 Generally between S.W. campus Drive and S.W. 352nd street (if extended) and between 2nd and 13th Avenues S.W. (if both were extended) EXHIBIT ~- PAGE I OF~ øø<ð- Y n~ Zoning: Acreage: Number of Lots: Typical Lot size: Proposed Use: EXHIBrT lJ86_23PAGË S-R L .;f.agz) 13 - sewage Disposal: Water SUpply: Fire District: School DiStrict: 156+ 340 7,200 to 20,000 square feet oetached single-family reSidences Lakehaven 1124 139 Federal Way 1210 2. Approval of this application will constitute a 'major action. under the provisions of RCW 43.21c and WAC 197-10. The applicant submitted an environmental checkliSt with the-application. After reviewing the environmental checklist, the Manager of the BUilding and Land Development Division made a threshold determioation that approval of ~his application will not have a significant. adverse impact upon the quality of the environment and that an environmental impact statement is not required. The Building and Land Developmeot Division transmitted a proposed declaration of nonsignificance to other agencies with jurisdiction on November-4, 1986. After the elapse of fifteen days following the transmittal and after reviewing comments submitted by agencies with jurisdiction and by other parties, the Maoager of the Building and Land Development Division adopted the proposed declaration as a final declaration of nonsignificance. At the public hearing on this application a representative of the Building and Land Development Division r"eported that having considered the comments and testimony by agencies with jurisdiction and by other parties, having visited the subject property, and having evaluated the natural, physical and social systems related to this application, the Building and Land Development Division reaffirms its determination that approval of this application will not have a significant adverse impact on the quality of the environment and an environmental impact statement is not required. 3. This is a requeSt for a subdivision of approximately 156 acres into 340 single-family residential lots ranging from 7,200 to 20,000 square feet in size. The Division recommends preliminary approval of the proposed plat subject to numerous conditions relating to zoniog, SUrface water management, streets, fire protectioo, streets and traffic impacts, wetlands protection, steep slopes protection; open space requirements, and utilities. public hearing testimony on the proposal and the Division's recommendation focused on these issues: a. .South boundary access. See finding 4, below. b. Internal private streets v. County standard public Streets. See finding 5, below. c. Utility easements within native growth protection areas. See finding 6, below. d. Transportation management plan, inclUding a free one-month METRO bus pass to each lot purchaser. See finding 7, below. e. Pro-rata share payment of minor improvement costs to two interseCtions. See finding 8, below. f. Native growth protection easement (NGPE) temporary fencing. See finding 9, below. g. Surface Water management, particularly with respect to Hylebos Wetland No. 17. See finding 10, below. 4. EXH~Bn tL ll86-23 R .. jaiiT-r--'--- Exhibit no. 6, the applicant's revi~G~~.ofplatI3 proposal, depicts two 'stub streets' at the south boùñ<rã'iy-- of the property: 5th Place S.W. and 7th/8th Avenue S.W. A neighboring property owner opposes the 7th/8th Avenue S.W. extension (which Would connect with an existing undeveloped 8th Avenue S.W. right-of-way). This neighboring property owner, Mr. E.H, Savage, would prefer that 7th Avenue extend directly Southward in the vicinity of proposed lot 148. SUch an alternative extention of 7th Avenue s.W. would permit a much less severe street grade. The 7/8th Avenue S.W. street stub shown on exhibit 6, aligned to serve both Kenwood Addition and the Savage property, would necessitate a street grade of 20,--substantialJy exceeding county standards. The street stub (and later southward extention) could be regraded to achieve a 15' slope. Such regrading would necessitate seVere cuts in the Steep slopes, which the Planning Division iodicates would have 'severe erosioo potential'. The Department of Public \lorks and the Subdivision Technical Committee prefer the extension of 7th AVeoue S.W. curv.ing to the 8th AVenue s.w. right-of-way, as shown on exhibit 6, bec.ause such an extension will~ssure public access to the property lying immediately West of the Savage property (known as .Kenwood Addition to Tacoma',. The Kenwood Addition is presently landlocked. AS a standard neighborhood development and planning procedure, the County typically Seeks to assure future access to landiocked properties whenever possible, regardless of ownership. ML Savage recommends that future access to the Kenwood Addition be brought from the south (from S.W. 356th Street) northward within the 8th Avenue S.W. alignment (which is presently a private street created by short plat!. A 'county road improvement district 'no-protest' agreement' is not filed for this private Street. 5. Exhibit no. 6 depicts seVeral roads within the proposed preliminary plat of campus Highlands as 'private roads'. The Subdivision Technical Committee recommends against approval of Private roads, citing KCC 19.24.101, See finding 11, below. 6. Native growth prote.ction easements are recommended for those areas having 4°' or steeper slopes. Using presently knowo topography, it is assumed that all of the 4°' or steeper slopes probably are contained within the designated open space tracts. Post-preliminary surveys may slightly modify known steep slope boundaries. Native growth protection easements prohibit the disruption or remoVal of any vegetation within the eaSement aree. The applicant expresses concern that this may confound plans to extend a sewer line from S,W. 343rd Street (in the vicinity of prOposed lots 177/176) to S.W. campus Drive (the northernmost portion of the property). The Subdivision Technical Committee does not Oppose modification of recommeoded condition no. 17 in order to allow undergrOund utilities to cross protected steep slopes areas when properly controlled, 7. The mitigated determination of nonsignificance issued on November 4, 1986 required two tranSportation impact mitigation measures: payment of pro-rata. share for the costs for certain minor intersection improvements (see finding 8, below) and development of a .tranSportation management plan' addressing provision of bus route information and free one-month bus passes to lot Purchasers, These mitigating conditions are based on ordinance 7544 (see finding 12, below). The applicant objects.to the requirement to provide a free one-month bus ll86-23EXHIBlT Page 4 4- ~-- pass to each lot purchaser, contpþ1tT'¡ :g thaUt"sh,ouldnf3 be required if Someone doesn' t wa'nl\..Ah~ding that clear procedures regarding who should handle t~ METRO passes are not available, Others present also Opposed this requiremen.t, contending that it is not the applicant's responsibility to do marketing for METRO. The Technical Committee noted that these contested conditions of approval Were first imposed as MONS mitigation measures and that the MDNS was neither contested nor appealed. The conditions emanating from the SEPA threshold determination therefore should be considered binding unless a new and revised MONS is issued. 8. Recommended condition no. 12, also an MONS coodition, requires: Provide payment of pro-rata share of the costs of minor improv~ments to the intersections of So, J48th and 16th Avenue so., 23rd Avenue So. and So, J20th and SR 99 and So. 336th Street. Details to be Worked out with public Works. The applicant expresses concern regarding thlt condition, noting that there has been no calculation of the pro-rata share provided. The applicant also questioos the appropriateness of assessing this development for those intersections, contending that they are too remote to be significantly affected by this development. The applicant's traffic stUdy did not address these intersections. The Technical Committee observes that both the 320th/2Jrd intersection and the J48th/l6th intersection are on direct routes from the SUbject property to Interstate 5. The pro-rata share contributions for each of these intersections was recommeoded by both the Department of Public Works' Traffic and Planning section and by the Division of Planning's Transportation Section, These County traffic and transporation planners expect the proposed plat of Campus Highlands to have a .direct traffic impact' (more than 10 peak hour peak direction trips per day) on these low level-of-service (LOS) intersections. As a Standard ordinance 7544 implementation procedure, public Works typically calculates the pro-rata share before final plat approval rather than before preliminary plat approval. Channelization and widening is proposed for these critical intersections. 9. The Technical Committee recommends installation of a mesh fence (probably plastic) to demarcate the boundaries of the native growth protection easements Which abut or intrude within the proposed lots. The applicant opposes this requirement. However, the applicant's testimony suggests that the applicant believed that the proposed fence was intended for surface water management/sediment control purposes. For several months, the Technical Committee has roUtinely recommended fences to identify NGPE boundaries--similar to a Standard requirement imposed by the city of Bellevue. The County Council has consistently approved prOposed preliminary plats with this condition. 10. Hylebos Wetland no. 17 is located in the center of the sUbject property, south of proposed S.W, J46th Street and north of the South property boundaries. The proposed wetland tract is bounded by lots 46 through 47 on the east, by lots 154 through 157 and 6th Avenue S,W, on the West boUndary. The wetland is traversed by a 50 foot wide pOWer easement. The applicant queStions the Technical Committee's recommendation to eliminate any public street crossing of Hylebos Wetland No. 17 (as depicted io exhibit 6). This appears inconsistent to the applicant because the Technical Committee also recommends that 7/8th AVenue S.W. cross a drainage swale through tract E io order to achieve combined access to the .Kenwood Addition to Tacoma" and the Savage property. See also findiog 4, above. EXHi8i'r' tf llPAGE~OPge 5 /3 Analysis by the appl icant' s consultaot and also by King County Suggests that Wetland No. 17 drains Southward. An owner of neighboring property suggests that it drains northward, Prior to final approval subbasins will be delineated in more "detail. The West campus drainage plan designates appropdate flows to Panther Lake. See Surface Water Management Division memorandum dated November 14, 1986, recommendat'ion no, 8 (attachment 4 to the Building and Land Development Division staff report dated December 4,1986). FUrther aoalysis of the drainage patterns and subbasins will be required prior to final approval. If a portion of wetland does indeed flow north, the applicant and Surface Water Management Division agree ~at the final drainage plans will acknowledge that natural drainage flow pattern. ll. KCC 19.24.010: Conditions permitted--private Streets. Private streets shall not normally be permitted. However, if the department of planning and community development determines that the most logical development of land requires that the lots be served by private streets or easements, and that the land cannot be adequately served by streets dedicated to the public, private Streets or easements may be approved upon compliance with the provisions of this chapter. 12. Ordinance 7544, section 7, reads in part: General conditions established. proposed development which will have a direct traffic impact on a roadway or an intersection with a calculated LOS F shall not be approved unless: A. The applicant agrees to fund the improvements needed to attain LOS E or better¡ or B. The spplicant reduces his traffic impacts to achieve a desirable level of service by scaling his project down or by ~~~ranSportation system management techniques to reduce the numbeE. of peak hour trips generated by the project... (Emphasis added) 1 J . ordinance 7544, section 9B: 14. King County shail establish the specific amount of a pro-rata share payment upon preliminary approval of a proposed short subdivision, subdivision or PUD, and upon final approval for any other proposed development. Except as noted above, the facts, analysis and recommendation presented in the Divisioo of Building and Land Development Preliminary Report dated December 4, 1986 (published November 14, 1986) are Incorporated here by reference. A copy of the Division of Building and Land Development report will be attached to the copies of the examiner's report which are submitted to the King County Council. ll86-23 lÄf~m:;jn tj PAGE pa~ -~OF 13 -- CONCLUSIONS: 1. There Is no simple solution regardiog the south boundary access issue. Southward street extensions are necessary in the general vicinity of those depicted in exhibit 6, In order to assure future orderly neighborhood development patterns south of this property. Also, it is reasonable and. appropriate for the County to require Street alignments which wili relieve landlocked properties whenever Possible--regardless of the ownership of those properties. To ignore the access needs of landlocked properties (regardless of ownership of those properties) is to ignore the pqblic interest in assuring an orderly development of the emerging neighborhoOd. Extension of 5th Place S.W., stubbed to the School DiStrict No. 210 'property, lying south of tract D and lots 57 through 61, is necessary in order to assure adequate access from Campus Highlands to the school property. This is true whether the property is developed by the school ~~:~r i~t a ~~e:~m~ r ~~h ~~ e e:~; ~y i :o~ V:~~:b~ ~h ~~ ~~~P~~~~ol diStrict property, it remains nonetheless necessary to provide access from campus Highlands to the district's property via 5th Place S.~. Shifting 5th Place S.w. Westward in order to achieve access to the Savage property (as an alternative to the 7/8th AVenue S.W. alignment) would not assure access to Kenwood Addition and would unnecessarily encroach Upon slopes and swaies associated with Hylebos Wetland NO. 17. There is no compelling accomplishment which would be served by a shift of the 5th Place S.W. alignment from any other alignment than depicted in exhibit no. 6. The 7/8th Avenue S.W. street stub shown on exhibit 6, aligned to serve both Kenwood Addition and the savage property, would necessitate a street grade of 20\--substantially exceeding county staodards, The street Stub (and later southward extention) could be regraded to achieve a 15\ slope. such regrading would necessitate severe cuts in the steep slopes, which the Planning Division iodicates would have 'severe erosioo poteotial". This 7/8th Avenue alignment therefore could achieve at best only minimal acceptable street grade. As noted in finding no. 4, one of the property owners who would presumably be served by the proposed 7/8th Avenue alignment strongly opposes that location. AS an alternative, 7th AVenue S.W. could be extended directly southward, stubbed at the savage property line in the vicinity of lots 147/148. This alternative is appealing because it would avoid significant swales and would avoid severe slopes. The disadvantage. of this alternative is that it fails to gain access to the Kenwood Addition. Such access could be reqUired as a. condition of approval for whatever development could occur on the Savage property. However, there is no known schedule for improvement of the savage property. Therefore the timing of access to Kenwood Addition cannot be assured without additional measures.. One additional measure which would assure access to the Kenwood Addition would be to require a half-street along the south Campus Highlands boUndary to the 8th Avenue S.W. corridor. Such a half Street would extend westward from a direct north/south 7th Avenue S.W. alignment in the vicinity of lots 147/148. This alternative would encroach upon the same steep slopes which weigh againSt the 7/8th AVenue S,W. alignment. ll86-23EXHiBiT Page 7 4 Another measure which would assE¿\~.ia.e:n~ would be to obtain permission from the savage ownership which would grant access to the Kenwood Addition through the savage property at any time the Kenwood Addition property is developed. Such .an agreement would allow the development of the Kenwood Addition without waiting for an undetermined period for the savage property to develop fir st. Recommended Condition No. 25 reconciles the conflicts described in the preceding paragraphs of this conclusion. It assures access to both the Savage property and Kenwood Addition in the long term, while at the same time protecting sensltiv..e topographical features. 2, The proposed private roads conflict with KCC 19,24.010. There would be no. public interest or purpose served by permitting development of any streets within Campus Highlands as private streets, They should be developed as public streets, consistent with King County public Street standards. J. . With proper review and regulation, a narrow utility easement trenched crossing of the steep slopes in the vicinity of lots 177/176 may be achieved without undue environmental degradation. The Surface Water Management Division and the BUilding and Land Development Division's earth scientiSt are each capable of administering the appropriate review and regulation. Therefore, any permission to crOS8 the steep slopes with a utility trench should be conditioned upon compliance with Standards established by Surface Water Management Division and the 8Uilding and Land Development Division staff geologist/earth scientist. 4. In this case, the METRO pass condition of approval appears unpopular. In other caSes it has been quite popular. Nonetheless, It Is authorized by ordinance 7544, section 7,B (see finding 12, above). The requirement to provide one month HETRO passes to lot purchasers, in order to encourage traffic congeStion-reducing bus ridership, is a 'TSM' (transportation system management) meaSUre with which METRO is familiar, and which therefore may be expected to be administered competently. The lack of popularity of this proposal in this partlculor inStance does n.ot provide sufficient rationale to abandon thi8 ordinance 7544 based requirement. Further, the condition has already been established as a mitigating measure necessary to achieve a 'mitigated determination of nonsignlficance. (MONS). TO exempt the development from this requirement at this late date (after the MONS appeal period has expired) suggests that either an EIS should be prepared or that a new and revised determination of significance should be published (which would expose the project to new SEPA based appeals I. FUrther, the Washington adminiStrative code provides no mechanism to revise the MONS mitigating condition once the appeal period has expired, 5. Ordinance 7544, section 9.B, provides for pro-rata fair share calculation '~. preliminary approval of the proposed plat, In this usage context, 'O'.E~' can only mean 'following. preliminary approval. The pro-rata fair share as8essment for minor improvements can only be determined when the actual number of lots is finally determined. That will not be determined .until after preliminary approval is granted (but before finãï- approval). This has been the practice with every plat I ð(~ 1: -p"",- J~I -1/ t.';":i,J8IL.u - LL 1186-23 ~ have seen since the adoption of PhQÕce 75~,fìn must f"J therefore be regarded as the standard c~ð,{~d~ There is no compelling argument to modify that procedure. The applicant's curiousity regarding the amount of the pro-rata fair share is understandable. It is not, however, sufficient grounds to modify standard county procedures, nor are there sufficient grounds to waive the requirement, since it is mandated both by ordinance 7544 and by the MONS issued on November 4, 1986, See also the discussion of MONS authority in conclusion 4, above. 6. Plastic mesh fencing of NGPE areas abutting or intruding within developable lots has been a standard county requirement imposed on nUmerous subdivisions which have been approved by th,e County Council in the past seVeral months. As a requirement imposed both by King County and by the city of Bellevue, it has emerged as an .industry standard. for thi,s region. The fencing is necessary in order to communicate to the plat developer, to subsequent builders and to home purchasers the precise boundaries of the NGPE prõtected area, thereby increasiog public assurance that the NGPE restrictions will be observed and the public interest in NGPE preservation wil1fbe protected. There are no grounds to exempt this particular development from this common and ordinary requirement in this case. 7. Based upon the whole record, and according substantial weight to the determination of environmental significance made by the Divisi~n of Building and Land Development, it is concluded that approval of this subdivision as recommended below would not constitute a major action significantly affecting the quality of the environment. All evidence of environmental impact relating to the proposed action and reasonable alternatives to the proposed action have been included in the review and consideration of this action. 8. If approved subject to the conditions recommended below, the proposed subdivision will comply with the goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan, Subdivision and Zoning Codes, and other official land Use controls and policies of King County. 9. If approved subject to the conditions recommended below, this proposed subdivisioo will make appropriate provision for the public health, safety and general welfare and for drainage ways, streets, other public ways, water supply, and sanitary wastes, and it will serve the public use and interest. 10. The conditions recommended in the Division of Building and Land Development's preliminary Report as amended below are in the public interest and are reasonable requirements. RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the subject subdivision, revised and received October 30, 1986, be granted preliminary approval subject to the conditions for final plat approval listed below. Conditions of approval which are also MONS mitigating conditions are marked with an asterisk ('I. compliance with all platting regulations of Title 19 of the King County Code. 11- 17MIV' Or' 2 3-,-11 . 6 It- 0'" i'-- 3. )-/ -'1/ J' ~ J~ ~ '" ~ L"il;OIJ 11 '-f 1186-23 P~ PAGE "'f or:: I ~ All persons having an ownership interest~sUbj"'ct-_.. property shall sign on the face of the final plat a dedication which includes the language as set forth in King County Council Motion NO. 5952. The dimensions of all lots shall meet the mioimum requirements of the SR (7200) zooe classificatioo or shall be as shown on the face of the approved preÍiminHY plat, whichever is greater. (Minor lot-line revisions He permitted) . 4. Storm drainage plans shall be approved by the Department of Public Works, SU.rface Water Managemeot Divisioo. said drainage plans shall comply with the provisions of Cbapter 20,50 of the King County Code, a. Prior to recording of the final plat and/or before making any improvements on the property such as land clearing and/or other construction including landfills, bui).dings, pavement, sidewalks and driveways, the following is required (unless otherwise approved by the Surface Water Management eivision): Those portions of the total storm water retention/detention facilities necessary to accommodate the control of flows diScharging from the subject site as set forth in King County Ordinance No. 2281, as amended, must be constructed and in operation. b. Additionally, prior to recording of the final plat the balance of the facilities must be constructed unless /lff~ ~>T coVered by an appropriate construction bond. ".p.r._",,- 5. provide and maintain oil/sediment separation facilities to .. ~V:; insure such contaminants from the site do not enter the ß-p natural drainage system. k/!/.<Jt!<If) ì-:J./i'!:fJ RfD C/J)Isí 1M» 6-0 "I JJ9 ~J'J S":IL\ -90 7. OK.""..;.c..Jj\1i"èI- .'."\;f"t~¡þY~ Aff {.? vJ""~t""V \7""" 8. 0'" - ~I 'y I 7-1",-90 RÓ:J (P'dfI Af :( p¿,otb (,iW" ~"",Þ Provide and maintain temporary sedimentation collection facilities to insure sed¡'ment laden water does not enter the natural draioage system. These facilities must be in operation prior to clearing and building construction, and satisfactorily maintained until construction and landscaping are completed and the potential for on-site erosion has passed. A Temporary Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan (TESCP) shall be submitted to and reviewed by the King county soil "L---- Conservation District prior to submittal to the Department of PUblic Works, Division of SUrface Water Management. All retention/detention ponds required pursuant to Chapter 20.50 of the King County Code may be required to be located in separate tracts with a drainage easement for maintenance. If the pond is not adjacent to a roadway, a fifteen (15) foot crushed rock roadway within an easement for ingress and egress will be required between the pond and a roadway. The applicant must obtain approval of the King County Fire Marshal for the adequacy of the fire hydrant, water main, and fire flow standards of Chapter 17.08 of the King County Code. The development shall conform to Ordinance Nos, 4938, 5824 and 5940, ordinances relating to surface water runoff policies. ~ f~,t'>& 1186-23 iLl JUi¡:jyX~ l-;J(,-5J)l~:?~~C::~~ion and upgradin9 of ~~~~~Rf<"JJ FcP} shall be done in accordance to the standards established and adopted by ordinance No. 4463. ¡J~ 11. If an area-wide fire protection asSessment is authorized by King County ordinance prior to final recording of this plat, this plat sh.all be subject to any assessment O-"p provided by that ordinance. (}IY 'II {fV provide payment of pro-rata shaa of the cost of minor 3A' improvements to the intersections of So. HBth and 16th AVenue So., 2Jrd Avenue So. and So. 320th, and SR 99 and So. J36th Street. Details to be worked out with Public Wor k s. V"" \VB ()y..., '~I +13 The applicant shall work with METRO's ride sharing Î" coordinator regarding the provision of a bus route information center for buyers of lots in the project; and to provide a free one-month bus pass to each lot buyer. (Lot purchasers may refuse to accept the passes, of courSe. Such refusal should be documented by the purchase< 's signature. I The applicant shall"rovide a transpcrtation management plan that addresses these items. bl'-()r;..~ 1+«1 Ö A mitigation plan should be prepared to revegetate disturbed areas in the wetland and buffer, incorporating nesting and feeding opportunities for wildlife where appropriate. Areas to be revegetated would include the powerline easement, sewerline construction, DRY paths, etc. This shall be approved by BUilding and Land's wetland specialist priQF to apprqva,l of final draing,e pl.ans.. 1.I"Yu~..'."1'.""\ "'.'¡"'t'I,I( ('.,r('(',I...~II"t 11""lj'i"".'I",H .'/.. '() 1,-1""'.\ c,."."'. ".,.,,):. , "';) " "c"., , ;ì'\~I) ¡"AI, A..¡.\V, oj p,tX\^'^9iA._/h-, l-;;>c;.-9:JRiJ!. Drainage design must allow for continued pre-'áeve1opment - :",A hydrologic conditions allowing inflow into the wetland. c,qO'P'~Ot..rÞ Storm water should enter the wetland through grass-lined ~'\\ í' \ swales to enchance the bio-filtering capability of the UW" wetlaod. The drainage design for the wetland should be hoVe coordinated with Surface Water Management aod the Bu¡¡ding and Land Development Division's wetland specialist. '../ ¡ , ~ ê9 An interpretative display could be installed near the wetland to promote an undernä;,ding of the functions and values of wetlands and their associated wildlife, ~~ ,..~~(¡ th.is is not a condition of approval. ^~~;;CJ .A Provide field topography of the site prior to plan and \'ì.~ ej-rf D.') profile approval. If any slopes of 40, or greater are ~i1>l~oPt'j identified, provide a 50' building setback line (BSBL) . + (- O^ from them. This may be reduced to 25' upon county "wen ,0 C*'. " approval of a favorable soils engineer aport. In hlie addition, provide a native growth protection easement (NGPE) on all slopes 40' and greater. Disturbance of these areas shall be prohibited. fVl\ /.;7.8 \ utility trench may cross through the NGPE located Within \¡ /?pen space "tract A", provided that trenching, utility "-. installation, aod slope restoration is completed consistent with a plan approved by the Building and Land Development Division's staff geologist/earth scientist and by the SUrface Water Management Division. A performance bond assuring compliance with the plan may be required. ;:¡-""-9:) lB. """ RD? ~~~,.." c,dÝ~.f" r All lots adjoining an area or having area with a NGPE restriction shall be provided with a temporary construction fence (e.g. cyclone or plastic mesh type) between the lot or portions of the lot and the area restricted with the NGPE. Said fence shall be in place t";',üìii/Bff- ~ pJ!f'.. : pne H prior to any grading or clearing of li!~~Of:,d 13 ¿",,{,;(remain in place until a dwelling is constructed on the--n-t:--.... ,.....1/1> and ownership transferred to the firSt owner occupant. ~!JfN'CJR..J,9".. Demonstrate compliance with the King County slope-density r~Krn gu'del,nes poor to approval of plan and profile, Details to be worked out with the Technical Committee. ,4IfJ~ ~r /4;JV~ ðw", J-.;t1-W 20. Delete all private roads and "entrance" gates. ì -;;Jl:r9() Rr;:;,l. ðl'-~"'¡c:... 'F/~'¡ pV- [ì~q;;:, 3-,'1fV ll86-23 provide a letter from the applicable power companies concurring with the location of the roads crossing or entering the power easements. Demonstrate complia"ce with King County open space requirements (KCC 19.38). This includes providing either 5.25\ of open space, 50\ of which must be flat, dry and usable, or a fee-In-lieu of open space, ¡¡.tf/..Þvon> q.í'tJSr - .J/¡>-~)l\r)o,3. The comments in the Surface water Management Division , fj. ¡J" y¡..,..,p memorandum shall be addressed in the final road and he drainage plan review. ¡;¡MIV~'~ "1 . bit- 24 i Provide a homeowners association or other workable 3-1-'11./ organization to assure the continued maintenance of the open space and wetland tracts, or private roads, if any, f) ~~ MrF- r~¡nJ7 .{. £if" p,¡WV 7th AVenue S.W. need not be aligned with 8th Avenue S.W. as depicted in exhibit 6. It may extend generally southward in the vicinity of proposed lot 148 (or the boundary dividin9 lots 147/148). such an alignment does not guarantee immediate access to Kenwood Addition, unless the savage ownership is willing to grant such access. It does, however, assure access to Keowood Addition at such time as the savage property may be developed. That is enough for now, considering the severe cut through steep slopes which would be necessitated by a more westward extention of that street. At such time as the Savage property develops, the Savage ownership may fully expect to be required to provide access to Kenwood Addition (in the same manner as Campus Highlands is now required to provide access to the Savage property) unless, of course, the Savage ownership has .already granted access permission by that time. ~\\~~/2 6 . ,'\,rlJ" Q U~r ~~ø <, ¡}:_.jY \'J" ORDoRED this 31st day of December, 1986. King county Department of Public Works shall review 7th Avenue S.W" south of S.W. 349th street, in order to determine whether that street right-of-way should be expanded from the proposed 48-foot width (per exhibit 6) to 56 feet, in order to assure future access to the savage property and Kenwood Addition consistent with King county standards. The 5th place S.W. street stub and the 7th Avenue S.W. street stub shall each be clearly marked on the plat as a temporary terminus which will be extended southerly as the Southerly adjoining properties are developed. ~ ll86-23 :)~H~B~T.~l~-'f_- '- ~GE- J2., .il< I 3 --'> 1986, by certified .';;;11;-.- TRANSMITTED this Hst day of December, to the fOllowing parties of record: S'ip Holman/Quadrant san Tsa i Lyman Ketcham Edward savage Doug Rogers corp. Chan Chou/Stepan. Assoc. Edward Rase William Looney Richard Bunis TRANSMITTED this Hst day of December, 1986, to the following: King County BUilding and. Land Development Division--Lisa Pringle King County Department of Public Works. uansportation--irv Goddard, Tom Berte' and Gary samek King County Department .of Health Washington state Highway Department King County Surface Water Management Division--Cindy Baker and 80b Duffner King county Real PropertY--Jeny Leavitt Soil conservation District Pat Freitag . NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL In order to appeal the recommendation of the Examiner, written notice of appeal must be filed with the Clerk of the King County Council with a fee of $50,00 (check payable to King County Office of Pinance) on or before January 14, 1986. If a notice of appeal is fihd, the original and 6 copies of a written appeal statement specifying the basis for the appeal and argument in support of the appeal must be filed with the Clerk of the King County Council on or before January 21, 1986. If a written notice of appeal and filing fee are not f(led within 14 calendar days of the date of this report, or if a written appeal statement and argument are not filed withio 21 calendar days of the date of this report, the Clerk of the Council shall place a proposed ordinance which implements the Examiner's recommended action on the agenda of the next available Council meeting. Piling requires actual delivery to the Office of the Clerk of the council, Room 403, King County Courthouse, prior to the close of business (4:30 p.m.) on the date due. Prior mailing is not sufficient if actual receipt by the clerk does not occur within the applicable time period. The Examiner do.s not hOve authority to extend the time period unless the Office of the Clerk is not open on the specified closing date, in which event delivery prior to the close of business on the next business day is sufficient to meet the filing requirement. Action of the Council Final. The action of the Council approving or adopting a recommendation of the Examiner shall be final and conclusive unless within twenty (20) days from the date of the action an agrieved party or person applies for a writ of certiorari from the Superior Court in and for the county of King, State of Washington, for the purpose of review of the action taken. Minutes of the public hearing of campus Highlands, December 4, 1986; BALD file no. 1I86-23. Robert stanhy Titus was the hearing examiner for this matter. participating in the public hearing Were Lisa Pringh, representing the BUilding and Land Development Division; Bob Duffner, representing the Surface Water Management Division; llB 6 -2 3 L"dliSfr lj PAGE p,a"?; l~. - Skip H~fl.d4~c~_...- Chan Chou, Edward Savage, Edward Mage, Burris. The following exhibits were offered and entered into the record: Exhibit No.1 Exhibit No, 2 Exhibit No.3 Exhibit No.4 E xh i bit Exhibit Exhibit Exhibit Exhibit Exhibit Exhibit Exhibit Exhibit Exhibit Exhibit Exhibit Exhibit Exhibit Exhibit Exhibit Exhibit Exhibit Exhibit Exhibit No.5 No.6 No.7 No.8 No. 9-1 No. 9-2 110. 9-3 No.9 -4 110. 10 11O, II No. 12 110. 13 No. 14 No. 15 No. 16 No. 17 No.1 B No. 19 No. 20 No. 21 staff report 12-4-8' Application 9-2-B6 Environmental checklist 9-2-B6 Mitigated declaration of nonsignificance 11-4-86 . Affidavit of posting ll-2B-B6 Revised plat 10-30-B6 >letland studY--Raedeke ASsoc. 10-9-86 Traffic analysis Wm. Popp Assoc. 10-16-B6 Assessor's map NE 19-21-4 Assessor's map NW 19-21-4 Assessor's map SW 19-21-4 Assessor's map SE 19-21-4 Soil investigation rec, 10-2B-B6 Letter 10-30-B6 Edward Mase Memo ll-14-B6 Plaoning Division Letter ll-14-86 Dept. of FisheriJ's Letter ll-12-B6 Dept. of Transpð'rtation Letter 11-17-B6 HETRO Letter ll-lB-86 Washington State parks Letter 12-3-86 E. savage Memo 10-30-B6 Real property Division Memo 12-12-B6 Brynn Glynn Wetland survey Aerial photo topog 30-21-4 13. BALD staff changes to recommended conditions: .. .to each lot buyer. If a buyer does not desire a bus pass, one n.eed not be required. The applicant,.. 15. .. .coordinated with Surface Water Management aod Building and Land Development Division's wetland specialist, 17. '" Disturbance to these areas without prior apprvoal of BALD and SWM shall be prohibited except that disturbance shall only be considered for utility construction, 19360: cp