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